The Balto-Slavic & Indo-Iranian Connection


         A Confirmation of the Vedic Tradition


I had made a partial review of the recent paper on Indus Valley populations last time around where I tried to argue that the genetic evidence brought out by the paper confirms the Vedic tradition. As per the Vedic tradition the region of Haryana and Western UP was the Vedic homeland from where the Vedic culture, religion and language spread across the entire subcontinent. It is conceivable that this was accompanied by migration of people from the Vedic heartland into regions further inland spreading their genetic signature in the process. It is also conceivable that this genetic signature was present in higher proportion among the Upper Castes like the Brahmins & Rajputs than the lower castes in those regions. Such a signature,  found in higher proportions among the Upper Caste Brahmins and Rajputs, has been claimed to be identified by the geneticists but its source is said to come from the Pontic Caspian Steppe. Its entry into South Asia supposedly formed a group termed as ANI that then became the source population for the Indo-Aryan spread & expansion across South Asia and that the genetic signature on this Indo-Aryan expansion in the recipient groups further inland was in terms of their relative share of this ANI ancestry. In short, the Indo-Aryan and Vedic civilization spread across South Asia was accompanied by admixture with this ANI group by the recipient populations.

It has also been argued that the greater presence of ‘steppe’ ancestry among the Upper Castes is an implicit confirmation of this ancestry having brought Indo-Aryans and the Vedic culture into South Asia.

The present study under review shows quite clearly that a group presently living in the region of the ancient Vedic heartland, Rors (but also the much more numerous Jats), have the highest ‘steppe’ ancestry among South Asians and than they can be considered as that hypothetical  ANI source population. Since this puts the ANI source population squarely in Haryana & Western UP (places inhabited by the Haryanvi Jats) it suggests that Haryana is the genetic ground zero from where the genetic signature of ancient Vedic people spread across the subcontinent.

This inference is therefore clearly in support and confirmation of the Vedic tradition which revers the land of Haryana & Western UP as the ancient Vedic heartland from where the Vedic culture disseminated across the wider South Asian region.


There is also some linguistic support for Haryana & Western UP being the Vedic homeland/heartland.

The above map is from one of the papers from the linguist Claus Peter Zoller, according to whom “It does not claim to display a specific moment in the history from OIA to NIA but endeavors to convey the underlying idea of the relationship between Outer and Inner Languages.”

Zoller classifies the distribution of Indo-Aryan languages in terms of Outer IA & Inner IA, where Outer IA are those languages which do not share the innovations of Vedic Sanskrit and are also not descended from it but from its sister languages while Inner IA are Vedic Sanskrit and those IA languages which derive from it or share innovations with it. As can see be seen from the map, the locus of Inner IA i.e. Vedic Sanskrit & its descendents also centers around the purported Vedic heartland in Haryana & Western UP.

These findings have 2 important implications :-

  1. It confirms the reliability of historical information contained in ancient Vedic texts and strongly argues in favour of using early Vedic texts and other ancient Indian literature to glean historical information that can aid in a reconstruction of early Vedic & Indian history.
  2. It also suggests that populations such as Jats who number around 60 -120 million across India-Pakistan, can be a very important source of genetic information to trace and understand the dynamics of Indo-Aryan spread across the subcontinent. Therefore, this group needs to be sampled much more and genetic studies on this population group, with high coverage data and intensive data analysis, should be carried out.

Is ANI also the source population of the Indo-Iranians ?

 

It was also my contention that Jats and Rors are part of a larger group – This group consists of Rors, Jats, Kalash, Pashtun, Pathan, Tajik & Pamiri. They have broadly similar levels of Iran_N (15 to 30 %), Steppe_EMBA (49 to 67 %) & Onge (15 to 25 %) as per the qpAdm modelling in table S11. Fst distances also indicate that they are quite closely related. For example, the Fst distance between Rors and Pamiris (0.0069), Pashtuns (0.0057) & Tajiks (0.0058) is similar to Fst distances of Rors with neighbouring groups like Kamboj (0.0088), Gujjar (0.0064), Khatri (0.0056), Brahmins (0.0052) & Kshatriyas (0.0062). 

Here is the mtDNA & Y-dna of Kalash, mtDNA & y-dna of Pamiris, y-dna of Jats & y-dna of Afghani Pashtuns & Tajiks. A comparison of these with one another and with that of Rors given in our present paper (Tables S3 & S4), suggest significant overlaps in terms of y-dna & mDNA further supporting our contention of them being a closely related group.

Y- DNA 

Pamiri – E1b, G2a, G2a1, G2b1, J2a1, L1c, Q1b1, R1a, R1b-                     Z2103, R2a.

Kalash – L1c, H1*, R1a, G, J2, R*, R1*, L*

Pashtuns – C3, G2c, H*, H1a, J2a, L1c, Q*, Q1a3, R1a,                                R2a

Tajiks – C3, G1, G2a*, H*, H1a, I2b1, J1c3, J2a*, J2a2,                         J2b2, L1a, L1b, L1c, N1, O, Q*, R*, R1a, R1b, R2a,                   T1

Jats – Major Lineages L, R, Q, J , Minor E, G, H, I, T

Rors – C, H, R2, L, J2, R1a, P, Q

Curiously, the Pamiris have y-dna R1b-Z2103 which it likely shares with Pashtuns & Tajiks, which also suggests a possible link to the Bronze Age Steppe (Yamnaya).

The authors of our present paper also argue that Kalash & Pathans are quite close to Rors. The fact that Narasimhan et al found Kalash as an ideal candidate for ANI while our present authors found the Rors, further cements the close relationship of this group.

Outgroup f3 analysis in the form of (PNWI, X; Yoruba)
showed that the Ror (and Jat) have distinct, high genetic similarity to modern Europeans (Figures 1C, 1D, and S5), far higher than the similarity observed in other NWI populations, such as the Gujjar (Figures 1D and S5). Among an extended set of South Asians, this pattern was repeated only in the Pathan population from Pakistan (Figure S5). This observation was further confirmed by D statistics, wherein the Pathan and Kalash share a higher proportion of alleles with the Ror than with any other group from NWI and NI_IE (Tables S7 and S8). TreeMix results (Figure S11) also indicate that the Kalash and Ror share the same branch.

...Among South Asian populations, we detected consistently lower FST values between NWI and Pakistani groups (compared to all groups, the Ror are closer to the Pathan, and the Khatri are closer to the Sindhi) than between NWI and their North Indian neighbors.

I am tempted to suggest that this entire group (consisting of Jats, Rors, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Pamiris, Kalash) may descend from an ancestral ANI like population as Fst wise, mtdna & y-dna and autosomally as per qpAdm & allele sharing as per Dstats, they appear quite similar. It is instructive that populations in this grouping include Eastern Iranians like Pashtuns, Tajiks & Pamiris as well as the Kalash who speak a Nuristani language, sometimes considered as a separate 3rd branch of Indo-Iranian or mostly a very archaic Indo-Aryan branch. In other words, the populations that suit or mimic the ANI genetic profile are quite clearly Indo-Iranian and not just Indo-Aryan. This could have important implications in terms of Indo-Iranian history. Could an ANI like population have been responsible for the spread of the Iranian languages as well in addition to having spread the Indo-Aryan ? Maybe, the ANI population was not just the source of Indo-Aryan but of Indo-Iranian ?

Here are a few random pics of Pamiri people I could get from google –


Compare these with a few pics of Himachalis and one can see the similarities

It may also be highlighted here, that since we are talking about the veracity of the Vedic texts being confirmed by genetic evidence, the ANI related common Indo-Iranian heritage I am alluding to, is also supported by the combined Vedic & Avestan evidence. According to Vedic & Puranic testimony, the Panchajana or Five Tribes inhabited the ancient Vedic heartland of which the Druhyus, Anus and Purus (Indo-Aryans) were relatively closely related. The Druhyus are said to have been forced to migrate northwestwards into North Pakistan/Afghanistan where they established Gandhara. In course of time, they are said to eventually migrate further North, into ‘mleccha’ lands and establish many kingdoms there.

The Anus are more prominently featured in the Vedic texts, in comparison to the Druhyus, and a comparison of this evidence combined with Avestan testimony  strongly identifies the Anus with Iranians. The Vedic evidence therefore suggests a shared origin of the Iranians with the Indo-Aryans in the Vedic heartland before their likely migration westwards. The genetic evidence I am alluding to may suggest, that the Pashtuns, Tajiks & Pamiris are the remnants of those Anus or early Iranians who migrated westwards. This would help explain their closeness to the Jats & Rors who are possibly the remnants of the Vedic or Puru people who spread Indo-Aryan across the subcontinent.

Archaeologically, the ethnogenesis of this ANI Indo-Iranian group should be placed in the wider Indo-Iranian cultural zone that fully blossomed during the Bronze Age and which I have discussed earlier. While Bronze Age Central Asia appears to have received a significant & continuous inflow of South Asian migrants stretching many centuries and with BMAC population itself having 5 % AASI admixture on average, the links with NW subcontinent and the Pamir/Tajik region appear to have been especially strong and date to as early as 3500 BC at the site of Sarazm whose aDNA samples at that date already have significant AASI levels. It may also be noted that Haryana, the homeland of Jats & Rors, has the highest concentration of the earliest pre-Harappan & early Harappan sites such as Kunal, Bhiranna, Girawad, Farmana, Rakhigarhi etc. with Rakhigarhi now officially the largest Harappan site known so far. That populations originating in this region (Jats & Rors) have close genetic affinities with people of the Pamirs, a region in close cultural & genetic contact with the IVC since atleast 3500 BC is surely not just a co-incidence.


The ANI Indo-Iranian link to Balto-Slavic NE Europeans

If what I have suggested is true, then this would also mean that, in a IE steppe hypothesis, the Indo-Iranians should have come to SC Asia as a single ethnic group to form the ANI Indo-Iranian before dispersing into Iran & India respectively.

Though this would create several problems for the linguists it would also be argued that the genetic evidence still favours the Steppe Origin hypothesis of Indo-Iranian and other IE languages.

On the other hand, if the Vedic evidence is to be taken in its entirety, then even the other IE language groups, other than Indo-Iranian should be shown to have some plausible signs of migrating from the Vedic homeland in Haryana & Western UP or at any rate to show some signals of admixture coming from the ANI Indo-Iranian group we have identified.

At the outset, there are a few interesting stats from our paper which creates grave problems for the Steppe- IE hypothesis.

Here is the Supplementary Data from the paper.

The data presented in the paper seems to confirm

  • Some deep ancient ancestry sharing between South Asians and the steppe populations since no South Asian population share more alleles with Steppe_EMBA over EHG. On the contrary, tribals like Ho and Paniya show a slight but significant preference for EHG (Table S9).
  • Yet as per table S17, all South Asian groups including Rors, Jats, Pathan & Kalash ,and except Ho & Paniya, clearly share more alleles with Steppe_EMBA over Steppe_MLBA. If this stat is correct, than it is difficult to sustain an argument that Steppe_MLBA brought the Steppe ancestry and with it the Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia, since in that case, the South Asian groups should have shown preference for Steppe_MLBA in allele sharing over Steppe_EMBA.

Here it is worthwhile paying attention to those extant European populations with whom ANI Indo-Iranians seem to share the most ancestry.

From the IBD average segment sharing & derived allele sharing Outgroup f3 data respectively given above, the European populations that show the highest ancestry sharing with our ANI Indo-Iranians are :-

Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Swedes, Russians, Belarusians & Ukranians. The position of these NE European populations can be located on the map here.

These are mostly Balto-Slavic groups with Swedes and Estonians being Finno-Ugrics who most likely were also part of the Balto-Slavic group who later on received some marginal Siberian admixture and changed their language. All these groups inhabit the North East European Baltic region. The important aspect from our perspective is the fact that as revealed from Figures S7a & S7d, these are also the groups with the highest allele sharing with Steppe_EMBA & EHG among modern European populations.

Yet, as discussed on this thread, these Baltic NE European populations are not the populations whohave  the highest allele sharing with Steppe_MLBA. Rather those are the North-west European groups such as Germans, Dutch, English etc.

This data also flies in the face of Steppe_MLBA bringing the IE Steppe ancestry into modern South Asians. Quite simply, if Steppe_MLBA was the source of IE steppe ancestry in South Asians, our core ANI group should have had highest shared ancestry with Northwestern Europeans like Germans, Dutch, English, French etc who happen to have the highest shared ancestry with Steppe_MLBA. Yet we find that the highest shared ancestry of our ANI Indo-Iranian group is with NE Europeans like Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Swedes, Russians etc. who have the highest shared ancestry with Steppe_EMBA among all extant Europeans. This fact strongly supports the data in our paper according to which South Asians populations are closer to Steppe_EMBA than to Steppe_MLBA.

We may also see the y-dna of mtdna of these NE Europeans for a comparison. Unfortunately, just like our ANI Indo-Iranians, there are no great studies that offer high resolution data of y-dna & mtdna of these NE Europeans. I was able to find it only for the Latvians, who also happen to share the maximum drift.

Y-DNA

E1b1b1a, G, H, J2, I1, I2a, I2b, Q, R1a, R1b, N1c1a

I am not sure if the call for y-dna H is correct and if true whether it is H2 or the more Indian specific H0, H1, H3 subclades. However G, J2, R1a, Q, R1b are perhaps related to clades of these haplogroups found among ANI Indo-Iranians. E1b is probably shared with the Pamiris. I2b1 has been identified in the Tajiks and I in Jats. So maybe there are even signs of bi-directional gene flow. But we desperately need higher resolution of the subclades to make a more meaningful comparison.

The mtdna can be accessed here for comparison.


This data also establishes the fact that the ANI Indo-Iranians in SC Asia have the highest ancestry sharing among Europeans with the NE Europeans who are people of Balto-Slavic descent. Among these, Latvian & Lithuanian languages are the only extant Baltic languages and are also some of the most conservative IE languages with Lithuanian considered to be so archaic that it is regularly used to reconstruct PIE. The Balto-Slavic languages and Indo-Iranian are also Satemized IE languages who also share the Ruki law and are said to quite possibly be the last IE languages to have left the PIE homeland. There is another very interesting feature of the Lithuanian language which it shares with Sanskrit

Essentially it is read as it is written, one just has to know the sound of each letter. In this respect, Lithuanian is much more modern than for instance English or French. The strange signs on some of the Latin letters are not just simply for decoration: the letters ą, ę, į, ų, ū, č, š, ž stand for totally different sounds than the letters a, e, i, u, c, s, z.

Now where exactly could Lithuanian and Sanskrit come to share this aspect ? On the steppe ?

In recent times, there have been a few aDNA studies on the Baltic region such as this & this.

They have clearly established that unlike in other parts of Europe, the Anatolian_N/European_Farmer ancestry had not reached the Baltic region during the Neolithic and that the region transitioned to the Neolithic/Chalcolithic directly with the intrusion of Steppe_EMBA ancestry. The data from modern NE Euro groups suggests that there has not been a major population turnover after the appearance of Steppe_EMBA ancestry into this region. This suggests that the Steppe_EMBA or a closely related group was most likely responsible for bringing the IE languages into NE Europe. Yet unlike the NW Europeans, these NE Europeans made little contact with EEF farmers which may also be the reason for the more archaic features of Baltic languages.

As can be observed in the above graph, the dark blue component that can be associated with European Farmer (EEF) ancestry is negligible or absent in our NE Euro populations that share the highest drift with the ANI Indo-Iranians.

Summarising it –

  • it was a Steppe_EMBA like group or a group with (CHG/Iran_N + EHG) ancestral structure which most likely brought the IE languages into Europe from where they must have picked up EEF ancestry to form the Steppe_MLBA. The Balto-Slavs seem to have managed to keep admixture with this EEF to a minimum.
  • that the Indo-Iranian ANI group must have split from the European IE languages before the European IE groups picked up the EEF ancestry since the ANI Indo-Iranians not only show a preference for Steppe_EMBA over Steppe_MLBA but also share the highest drift with those European populations (NE Euro Balto-Slavs) who have the highest shared drift with Steppe_EMBA but not with Steppe_MLBA.
  • In other words, the role of Steppe_MLBA in spreading Indo-Iranian languages into South Central Asia looks very unlikely and improbable. On the other hand, the high shared ancestry of the NE Balto-Slavs and the ANI Indo-Iranians is a very revealing stat. The genetic links between the two populations should be studied more intensively as this can help find common genetic inheritance of the ancestral Balto-Slavic Indo-Iranian population and also of the greater Indo-European world.

It is also worth noting that Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs are often considered the last group of IE languages to have split off from one another and the fact that present day Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians are united by Steppe_EMBA like rather than Steppe_MLBA ancestry indicates that up until their split, the Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians must have been living in a region with reduced or non-significant levels of EEF/Anatolia_N ancestry.

In Europe, such a region can perhaps only be found in the Baltic area.However may it be, it is also true that so far no archaeological evidence, that can show a migration of either a Steppe_EMBA or Steppe_MLBA group into South Asia is forthcoming. On the other hand, a migration out of South Asia into the steppe cannot be ruled out considering

  • the clear signal of Iran_N/CHG like admixture into the Steppe from the EN & EBA period, which was ubiquitous in SC Asia
  • and the data shown in one of my earlier post, which shows evidence for a potential pathway for migration from SC Asia into the Steppe via the Caucasus.

It maybe however be asked as to how would one explain the migration of Anatolian & Greek IE languages into the Near East from South Asia.

There is some evidence which pursued further can lead to greater evidence for such a pathway. The 3 samples of Armenia_Chl have been shown through qpAdm to be a good fit as ancestral sources for Anatolian Chalcolithic & Bronze Age groups which are potentially Anatolian IE speakers. Armenia_Chl has also been shown to be a good ancestral source for Mycenaeans.

Recently a friend shared some fits, which show that Armenia_Chl is also a potential ancestral source for some Steppe_EN & Steppe_EMBA samples,

Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 
Samara_Eneolithic:I0122 57.8%
Ukraine_N_o:I3719 25.9%
Armenia_ChL 15.2%
Iron_Gates_HG 1.1%
d 3.9

&

Yamnaya_Ukraine_o 
Armenia_ChL 63.2%
Samara_Eneolithic:I0122 35.9%

Yamnaya_Ukraine_o 
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 51.4%
Armenia_ChL 46.1%
d3.1

On the other hand the idea that Armenia_Chl has admixture from Central Asia is also increasingly finding more support on the blogosphere. Here is what Chad, who runs his own blog and has a good grip on how various dstats work has to say on this matter (in one of his comments at Eurogenes)

The plain truth to the modeling is that there is no need for Eneolithic Steppe over West Siberia N in qpAdm or qpGraph. You would have to really tweak your outgroups to make it work. It looks like a movement of a West Siberia N heavy pop from Central Asia into the South Caucasus. Not everything needs to be from the steppes. Some fisher-gatherers in Europe, completely dependent on Balkan and Caucasus trade, are not dominating the advanced mega-city having cultures at this time. Central Asia was way more advanced and they have links with the South Caucasus, culturally (Ivanova, 2012). One should look to make sure to rule out anything else with regards to their hypothesis. The Central Asian movement looks better, statistically speaking. Archeologically it makes more sense too.

The archaeological evidence Chad alludes to has already been discussed here previously in an earlier post.


        A Possible BMAC – Steppe_MLBA Link ?


It is also observable that as per qpAdm (tables S11-S15), Steppe_EMBA gives a better fit as the ‘steppe’ ancestry source in South Asians.

However, when Steppe_EMBA & Steppe_MLBA are both taken as possible sources along with Onge & Iran_N, all NW groups including Rors give better or similar fits (higher p values) with Steppe_MLBA as an additional source instead of just Steppe_EMBA being the steppe source.

This preference for taking of Steppe_MLBA in addition to Steppe_EMBA as a source population, is absent in other South Asian groups as well as in ancient populations such as Namazga_CA & Indus_Periphery.

It is however present in bronze age Central Asian groups like BMAC & Turkmenistan_IA who have a greater preference of Steppe_MLBA over Steppe_EMBA.

It is also observed that, NW groups like Rors, Jats, Kalash, Pathans share more alleles with Steppe_MLBA than with Indus_Periphery, while groups like Gujaratis, Chamars, Paniya & Ho have a greater preference for Indus_Periphery and still others like Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Sindhis, Gujjar, Kamboj & Khatri do not show a preference for one population over the other.(Table S17A), again indicating some Steppe_MLBA affinity in NW South Asians including ANI Indo-Iranians which is missing in other South Asians.

Apparently, there is a Steppe_MLBA cline from Central Asia to NW South Asia which disappears in the other subcontinental populations including even the Baloch, Makrani & Sindhis who otherwise have significant Anatolian_N ancestry. Among ancient groups only BMAC & Turkmenistan_IA get a better fit with the steppe source being Steppe_MLBA (Tables S11-S13). However, all other ancient groups such as Namazga_CA, IranTuran_BA, Indus_Periphery prefer only Steppe_EMBA as the source for their ‘steppe’ ancestry. Infact, even SPGT & SouthAsia_H prefer only Steppe_EMBA as the ‘steppe’ source as per stats given in our paper.

This anamolous preference for Steppe_MLBA over Steppe_EMBA in the BMAC population which is otherwise not shown by any other Bronze Age or Chalcolithic Central Asian samples and which is only shown by extant NW South Asians in our study, needs some investigation. Clearly, while Chalcolithic Central Asians have an affinity towards Steppe_EMBA, in Bronze Age Central Asia, this preference changes to Steppe_MLBA. This is a very interesting dynamic especially since, BMAC is an older contemporary of Steppe_MLBA. This affinity of BMAC is further re-inforced when one looks at figure S9a. While Steppe_MLBA clearly shares more alleles with NW groups and especially Rors among South Asian populations, it shows equal allele sharing with BMAC & groups like Rors and Kalash.

Had there been no ancestry sharing between Steppe_MLBA and BMAC, this stat would be very surprising.


Another interesting detail is that Indus_Periphery & Namazga_CA samples show significant levels (~35 %) of  Steppe_EMBA ancestry in qpAdm. Whether, the steppe-related ancestry in these groups is from Western Siberian HGs as suggested by Narasimhan et al or whether there is some real ancestry sharing between these groups and Steppe_EMBA should be good topic for further research.


                      Some Possible Objections

It may be argued that Narasimhan et al preprint has already proven a Steppe_MLBA migration into South Asia. To which I would state that it really hasn’t.

  • Firstly, it was not able to demonstrate whether the modern Steppe-rich South Asians were closer to Steppe_MLBA over Steppe_EMBA.
  • As per fig S3.39, in the Supplementary Section of Narasimhan et al preprint, the SPGT and SouthAsia_H samples do not have an excess of Anatolia_N ancestry compared to BMAC.
  • The preprint offers proximal qpAdm models for SPGT & SouthAsia_H in figures S3.79 & S3.81. The best model (with highest p or probability) for SPGT is one with a Corded Ware sample from Czech Republic rather than the Steppe_MLBA. Similarly, the best model for SouthAsia_H is one with SPGT + Onge + Tripolye while models with Steppe_MLBA offer worse fits. Tripolye is far removed from Iron Age South Asia geographically and temporally, being a East European Neolithic/Chalcolithic culture while CWC_Czech is also quite afar and has no archaeological link with South Asia.
  • Lastly, fixing Indus_Peripery samples as the ancestral native source for SPGT (table S3.83), the Narasimhan preprint assumes that SPGT has a source of ancestry lacking in Indus_Periphery which must have come only from the steppe as SPGT has more ‘steppe’ related ancestry than Indus_Periphery. But they totally disregard that there could have been more ‘steppe’-rich South Asians besides the Indus_Periphery ones, already in the Bronze Age, especially since Indus_Periphery are only a set of 3 samples who were migrants outside of IVC core area.
  • Having fixed that this extra ‘steppe’-related ancestry in SPGT could only be possible through a migration from the steppe, they then arrive at the conclusion that it is only Steppe_MLBA which comes across as a suitable steppe source (fig S3.83). Yet even in this, it is Steppe_MLBA_West (much closer to Europe than to South Asia) and not the geographically much closer Steppe_MLBA_East which offers a good fit as the steppe source of ancestry in SPGT. This again is geographically & archaeologically unfeasible.
  • Lastly, in section S4, they try to model 4 groups of South Asians (SPGT, SouthAsia_H, Punjabi & Mala) as admixed with 3 sources of ancestry – Steppe, Indus_Periphery/any CHG-Iran_N related ancient source & Onge. Onge is ofcourse a poor choice since in several of their qpAdm models, even the East Asian Han give us better fits as the supposedly native Indian source. Be that as it may, they offer the p values of this exercise with 2 different set of outgroups. While the highest p value across both sets of outgroups for Mala is with Tepe_Hissar_C + Okunevo.SG, for the Punjabis it is Khvalynsk_EN + BMAC with 1st set of outgroups & Khvalynsk_EN + Indus_Periphery for the 2nd set. So Steppe_MLBA is not the best fit either for the Punjabis or the Mala.

When taking these inconsistencies along with the lack of archaeological evidence and the data we have presented, it is wishful thinking to assume that a Steppe_MLBA migration into South Asia is already proven.


Another point that can be raised in support of Steppe_MLBA migration into South Asia is that there is clear evidence of shared ancestry of South Asians with Steppe_MLBA groups to the exclusion of Steppe_EMBA, especially with groups such as Srubnaya as reflected in the lengths of genome wide IBD segments shared between them.

Be that as it may, but recent shared ancestry does not prove a Steppe_MLBA migration into South Asia. It could also mean a migration in the opposite direction. We have shown evidence that makes it difficult to prove a Steppe_MLBA admixture into South Asians. But a admixture from South or Central Asians into Steppe_MLBA cannot be discounted. A Steppe_MLBA could have been formed by migrating groups from Central Asia (BMAC ?) into the Steppe where they admixed with groups with high European Farmer ancestry and never came back. They could even haven Indo-Iranians or Iranians migrating from Central Asia and mixing with EEF ancestry up north. This would explain the high IBD sharing of Srubnaya with South Asians at the same time explaining why Steppe_MLBA appear unlikely to have contributed to South Asian ancestry. The curious case of BMAC affinity with Steppe_MLBA may also have something to do here.

I may end this by pointing out again what a recent aDNA paper on European Scythians brought out.

As can be seen, there is clearly a small South Asian related (ASI-like) component in the Srubnaya which is in addition to the CHG component. An admixture from a ANI Indo-Iranian like group could potentially result in this as our ANI Indo-Iranians have low AASI, as low as 15 % in some groups.


All said and done, I think that there appears to have been a complex and longstanding interaction between Steppe groups and SC Asians beginning as early as the Chalcolithic and continuing into the Iron Age. To reduce it all in terms of one-way Steppe_MLBA admixture into South Asians is simply going to fail. The geneticists should not allow themselves to be solely influenced by the linguistic theories but also recognise that the archaeological evidence is meager for Central Asia and non-existent for South Asia.

 

 

2+

60 Replies to “The Balto-Slavic & Indo-Iranian Connection”

  1. I am a bit stunned that someone who knows apparently nothing about how genetics works, was able to muster up the gumption to write so much about it anyway.

    5+
  2. Dont think there is a valid ‘Vedic Tradition’ that makes any statement about the origin of the Vedic peoples. Haryana and Western UP maybe the origin point of IAs in India, but I doubt IAs in Pakistan and Indian Gujarat are derived from Haryana and UP. Haryana is the just most NWern region of current India, but that genotype is much more widespread in Pakistan.

    Attempting to derive IAs from Haryana and UP just look India-centric or Hindu-centric revision. These were the weakest points of Talegeris work. The family Mandalas are based around the whole of the Punjab, not just the Eastern Fringe of SaptaSindhu.

    2+
    1. Agreed mzp1. Since Vedic Tradition is cyclical with many different Jatis. Each Jati (pattern of DNA gene haploid admixture or race) has its own origin. Some of the Jatis of the ancient narrative mythological historical record come from the far east, far north or far west. Others come from SaptaSindhu.

      1+
    2. Well it is not being Hindu-centric. Vedic geography is definitely centred around Haryana & Western UP. The Purus and Bharatas are considered the central people of the Rigveda by Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist and Indologist. Kurukshetra is a holy land even in Rigveda and is referred to as Vara Prthivya (the center of the world). Talageri has been the only sincere effort in recent times in my knowledge to ascertain and dilineate the Rigvedic geography. I am happy to be corrected.

      1+
      1. I have only heard Talegeri make that claim and there is little in the Rigveda to support him. The hymns mention Sapta Sindhu or Sapta Sindhawa as their setting, but little emphasis on the Eastern part of that specifically. There is no reason why this culture would be confined to that region only.

        Genetically the Jats and Rors cluster with Indus Valley people don’t they? And then you also have the IVC and Vedic Hymns based on the same region.

        The Vedic people did not talk about geography in a way that would allow you to identify the location of ‘Vara Prthvya’.

        Hinduism developed from the Vedic Religion in Haryana and West UP, but the Vedic Religion was based in the whole of SaptaSindhu. The Rigveda may be a compilation by Purus and Bharatas, but there were others who also practiced the same religion and culture.

        Its the same thing with the language classification. Jats and Rors are Punjabi speaking, just like people to their West. Punjabi is huge and important language. Hindi became big due to the Mughals, but it seems to me Khariboli was an eastern dialect of Punjabi. I am saying in many ways this region is an extension of the Indus Valley to its West.

        0
      2. JR, let me throw out a hypothesis. No idea if this is true or not. Is it possible that the Rig Veda Samhitas (because I think you are not referring to Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads) were revealed over many thousands of years? In which case different Rig Veda samhitas might have been revealed in different parts of the world? For example maybe the Rig Veda samhitas were revealed in Xinjiang, Tibet, Turin, Iran, Afghanistan, Sapta Sindhu, along the Saraswati, along the Yamuna, along the Ganga, along the Narmada, along the Godavari, along the Kaveri, south India, even parts of South East Asia. Maybe (hat trip Milan) some Rig Veda samhitas were even composed in Serbia (although that is harder to find evidence for).

        If some of the Rig Veda Samhitas were composed before the great global flood and ice age (before 9700 BC) and some were composed circa 3300 BC, this might explain many different things. Rivers looked very different before the last ice age. We also might have had significant human migration. There was a big gap in history between the Ramayana and the advent of Budha/Illa, Pururavas/Urvashi, Ayu(s), Nahusha, Yayati, Puru, (many generations), Dushyanta, Bharata . . .

        Could this large gap be the caused by the last ice age? Or do you think the ice age is before the Ramayana?

        Some Samhitas in the Rig Veda might have been revealed only a small time before the Mahabharata. How else to explain the war of 10 kings? If different parts of the Rig Veda samhitas were revealed (or composed) over many thousands of years, this would help make sense of geographies referenced in the Vedas.

        Another question if I might. Why the focus on Rig Veda over Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda?

        3+
        1. Your hypothesis is interesting and requires a deep thinking. I have Serbian toponyms from all these regions (should double check for south India). I really need to reread old epics which I read in my high school. The following could be related to Rig Veda content:

          The ancient Serbs once covered large parts of Europe, into the British Isles and also throughout Russia and beyond. Like the rest of the world before the appearance of Semitic religions, the ancient Serbs worshipped a variety of Gods. As well as a Supreme source from which everything comes, like the Vedas, the ancient Serbs recognised a cosmic administration within this universe, powerful beings, gods with a small g, whose sincere worship could bestow elevation and earthly benedictions. In the Vedas we have Indra, the God of thunder, the administrator in charge of the higher planetary system known as heaven. The Serbs worshipped Yndra, the supreme God of thunder who battles to defend his heavenly realm known as Svarga Log. These two personalities, Indra and Yndra, are obviously one and the same and the Serbian Svarog is simply the Vedic Svarga Loka, the heavenly abode of Lord Indra.

          The ancient Serbs inherited from Vedic – Arievic culture the concept of a three tiered universe, heaven, earth and the underworld. The Trimurti of the Vedas is also there in the form of the creator, the maintainer and the destroyer. In Slovenia the pre-eminent symbol of the nation is Mount Triglav, a mountain possessing three peaks and named in honour of the God Triglav. Triglav means three heads and similar to the Vedic Trimurti it depicts the three Gods of creation, maintenance and destruction. The names of these Serbian Gods are Visnji, Ziva and Brajanj. Compare this with Visnu, Siva and Brahma, the Trimurti of the Vedas and we can conclude that both these cultures are intimately related. We also have Mount Troglav which is the highest peak of the Dinara mountain range and once again named in honour of the Serbian God Triglav. Throughout the rich Serbian culture, the folk songs, ceremonial prayers and the book of Veles, Triglav is frequently mentioned and in one verse it says the following “May our cattle be healthy, all the cows and sheep. All the kids, the lambs and the great big horses which carry our heroes. Dear soldiers of the God Triglav, Triglav the holy trinity, Visnji the creator, strong Ziva the destroyer and Branjanj the protector “.

          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 “.

          Dazbog is one of the major Serbian Gods. His name has two Sanskrit words, Da which is Sanskrit for giving and Bog which is ultimately from Sanskrit Bhaga meaning God – the giving God. The father of Dazbog is Svarog, the God of celestial fire. In Sanskrit Svar means heaven, Sun. Svarog creates the blue Svarga, a heavenly realm similar to the Svarga Loka of the Vedas. Svarog is very much associated with fire, as is Dazbog, which leads one to consider the ancient Serbs as fire worshippers, especially when one considers their intimate relationship with the fire worshipping Zoroastrians of Persia. Mater Sva is a solar Goddess, the mother of Svarog and the mother of heaven. Mater is from the Sanskrit Matr meaning mother and Sva is from the Sanskrit Svar meaning Sun or heaven – mother of heaven.

          Ognebog is the Serbian God of fire which is simply Agni, the Vedic God of fire. Baba Yoga was a great Serbian personality, known also as Baba Yaga and Mother Yogini. Baba was a mystic yogini who sheltered homeless children in the forest and taught them the sacred lore….

          3+
    1. Thanks for the appreciation. Since you have an interest in the linguistic aspects I would like you to comment on the shared archaisms between Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavic.

      According to Frederik Kortlandt, these archaisms are more a left-over or early stages of IE and that there are relatively few shared innovations between Indo-Iranian & Balto-Slavic

      https://www.academia.edu/37930177/Balto-Slavic_and_Indo-Iranian

      If this is correct, this also means that the shared ancestry of the Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians which I point to in my OP was likely the shared PIE ancestry.

      0
  3. i think readers can see why i put a word-limit on JR comments on my blog.

    also, good for him for digging into the stats. otoh, there are LOTS of stats…so it isn’t hard to find a particular affinity here or there (high shared affinity btwn munda & EHG probably gene flow into e. asia from ANE, which is more than half of EHG).

    Yet unlike the NW Europeans, these NE Europeans made little contact with EEF farmers which may also be the reason for the more archaic features of Baltic languages.

    i have heard and read that the archaic aspect of lithuanian and latvian is due to the fact that these are folk languages which did not have an elite corpus until very recently. as part of the process of elevating them to national languages and generating some level of prestige, standard lithuanian in particular was ‘archaised’ (kind of like how hindi is created out of hindustani).

    1+
    1. Hey Sorry for the long post but I did not wish to publish a 3rd post on this topic.

      The high shared ANE affinity is not just with Ho, probably a Munda community, but also with Paniya which has nothing to do with the Austro-asiatics.

      Regarding the archaic nature of Lithuanian, the major reason is obviously some sort of isolation. Not being an elite language is also a sort of isolation. But it is not just limited to Lithuanian. Apparently Old Prussian, an extinct Baltic language was even more archaic than Lithuanian. These NE Euros also have less EEF and probably more EHG. So it could also be that the reason why they managed to preserve their archaism was because of their IE ancestors mixing with local HGs instead of EEF rich groups and then managing to keep some relative isolation. The fact that this archaism keeps it closer to Sanskrit and also to PIE correlates quite well with the higher shared ancestry with the Rors or Kalash. One aspect of it is that there is apparently in Lithuanian a stress on correct pronunciation, so a word is read as it is written unlike in English and much like Sanskrit. So maybe there was also an effort among these Balto-Slavs to preserve the language to as close as possible to its original form, akin to Sanskrit.

      1+
    2. Hello Dr. Razib Khan,

      I don’t know anything significant about Proto-Baltic and it is not my intention at all to dispute what you wrote above, but does not the fact that the most archaic of known Lithuanian forms only date from a relatively recent period (16th-17th centuries according to Wikipedia) compared to the other European languages but still show, apparently, retentions of several Proto-Indo-European archaisms, actually indicate that Old Lithuanian and its ancestor Pre-Old Lithuanian were kind of continuously conservative (without having any knowledge of it likely) in history and prehistory, irrespective of the archaic aspects of modern Standard Lithuanian of the 20th-21st centuries which I think could have been taken only* from the earliest Old Lithuanian and not any deeper (because of the lack of preservation of speech forms from Pre-Old Lithuanian)?

      (*-Unless the archaisation of Modern Standard Lithuanian was done using Proto-Baltic or Proto-Indo-European reconstructions as opposed to Old Lithuanian texts, which I think is quite weird as a possibility.)

      (I have also become curious about the above thing because I can sort of see a parallel to the above situation in the history of Tamil. The current Tamil register used in official spheres, education, literature, etc. is called “High Tamil” and a major part of its forms broadly date back to the 13th century or so, when Tamil was at the Middle Tamil linguistic stage. Tamil had lost the memory (at least the memory was not so strong, one can say) of significant parts of its literary heritage from before the AZvAr and nAyanmAr of the 7th century onwards or so later, until quite recently when the Sangam literature (dating back to 1st century BC-3rd century AD or so) composed in Old Tamil was rediscovered, during the 20th or 19th century. Now if Old Tamil literature had not resurfaced, Tamil’s situation would be quite similar to that of Lithuanian in that both their modern standards are archaising and look upto memories of older stages from similar time periods. But Old Tamil literature did resurface and we know that it was, somewhat importantly, quite conservative too, speaking with respect to the reconstructed Proto-Dravidian. So I am inclined to argue on the basis of the above that it is not possible to comment on the conservativeness of a linguistic stage beyond what is known of the oldenmost attested stages of the Old stage of the languages. That is to say, Pre-Old Lithuanian could have been conservative or innovative irrespective of the later decisions on the part of Lithuanian speakers to archaise their standards (again my implicit assumption here is that Standard Lithuanian was not archaised based on Proto-Baltic or Proto-Indo-European reconstructions but based on the oldest attestations of the Lithuanians’ textual memory, i.e. Old Lithuanian). I think that the nature of Pre-Old Lithuanian can be majorly conjectured only on the basis of internal reconstruction from Old Lithuanian and also by using comparative method on all the Indo-European languages and reconstructing a Proto-Indo-European, and the later development of the attested Lithuanian speech form beginning from Old Lithuanian down to Modern Lithuanian does not have much bearing on it – if anything it can perhaps be wondered if the tendency of linguistic conservatism seen in current/recent-past Lithuanian society had its roots already in the older stages themselves, both historical and prehistorical, and the Tamil parallel definitely does not hurt this more stronger claim immediately above with respect to Lithuanian, but it is indeed a very strong claim to make and thus needs lots and lots of evidence to support it. (I am not competent enough to know how to go about it.))

      0
  4. btw, when i see ‘vedic’ i think analogous to ‘biblical.’

    the bible is a useful history book in some ways. depending book you are talking about in particular. but it needs to be interpreted cautiously….

    2+
    1. Would “Quoranic” be the muslim equivalent or is there something else? Also what would be the Buddhism equivalent?

      0
      1. the koran is a much shorter and less informative book. a lot of it is clearly derivative from jewish tradition and work. when i say ‘biblical’ i’m talking about the hebrew bible. the old testament.

        1+
        1. Saurav, is it safe to openly discuss the holy Koran?

          The Buddhists have many great teachings. Many great Smrithis which are deeply revered and respected across much of Sanathana Dharma, including many astika streams.

          Do Buddhist scriptures interest you? Which branch interests you more? Mahayana or Theravada? Note that the Mahayana texts have a deeper influence on the other nine Darshanas. And they in turn and more closely tied to the other nine Darshanas. With some Mahayana Maha Siddhas being dual hatted and regarded as masters in multiple Darshanas. Mahayana Buddhists have been part of large Hindu bodies going back thousands of years. Including Playing a large role in Kumbha Melas and the Cambodian Ankar Wat Hindu temple (much later the temple became more Buddhist in orientation).

          You can directly read tales of Buddha. But I think reading Nagarjuna’s books would be a good place to start because of their organization. [I am not being sectarian against Theravada!]

          Many of my friends love the Yogachara of Mahayana Buddhism. This text is deeply revered by many Jain, Chaarvaaka and Astika schools.

          All Buddhist texts are relatively recent. JR estimates that Buddha might have been born 1800 BC versus the western indologist estimate of 600 BC. Whatever the case, Buddhist scriptures are relatively recent.

          For more ancient are some Jain scriptures. They are comparable to the Vedas and Astika Agamas. In fact the Jain Agamas and Jain Sutras are revered by other Darshanas too. Some say they are older than the oldest Vedas Samhitas. Since no one knows how old the Vedic Samhitas are, who is to say?

          1+
        2. Something interesting and related to the question you asked about the Vedas on the podcast – the Vedas are considered as a revelation much like the Quran among Muslims. The reason for keeping such stress on the correct pronunciation may also has something to do with this belief.

          1+
    2. I don’t think someone can understand the Vedas without meditating and understanding their brain and nervous system. Mystical experience (or as Sam Harris might call it subjective consciousness experienced through the brain and nervous system) unlocks many layers of meaning. The Vedas are many things at once. Including brain sound therapy. Including a codex for interpreting mystical experience. Including methods for purifying the brain and nervous system to facilitate mystical experience. Neuroscience is closely linked with the Vedas. The Vedas hide many of their greatest secrets in code. A type of intellectual property protection should they fall into the “wrong hands” so to speak.

      The ancient Hebrew scriptures have sections like that. For example the secret fires, the “word” at the beginning. The narrow crooked door. But few understand their meaning.

      The Vedas mostly deal with art, music, sound, subtle wisdom, esoteric perspectives, technology, science, philosophy, questions to promote inquiry and curiosity on the part of the listener etc. The Vedas mostly don’t deal with history as modern people generally understand it. That is the domain of the Smritis, Purana Itihasas, and other Itihasas.

      The Bible is closer to the Smritis and Purana Itihasas than to the Vedas. With a few ancient passages similar to the Vedas mixed in. I wonder how many of these ancient sections of the Hebrew scripture draw from ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and other ancient civilizations? Perhaps they had their own Veda equivalents in the ancient past that are now lost?

      2+
      1. I wonder how many of these ancient sections of the Hebrew scripture draw from ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and other ancient civilizations? P

        there are allusions to poems and folk tales don’t make sense to us.

        3+
        1. Completely agree. I have studied this and heard all sorts of things from Jewish scholars. However this is very technical stuff. It would have to be greatly simplified to turn into a readable BP article. Plus I don’t understand ancient Hebrew grammar, which is a huge obstacle to my understanding some of the very dense articles Jewish scholars have sent me.

          I will be on the look-out for articles on the older scriptures referenced by the most ancient Jewish religious texts that don’t require a PhD in ancient Hebrew grammar and the entire corpus of ancient literature to understand.

          I don’t want to elaborate here, but only a small fraction of the ancient Jewish texts are part of the Torah. However just because they are not part of the Torah doesn’t mean that they are not useful to understand ancient Judaism and the many streams of modern Judaism.

          Not to mention the biggest obstacle of all. “ALL” the Jewish scholars who I have interacted with are several orders of magnitude smarter than me. :LOL: Too bad I don’t have Zachary Latif’s brain!!!

          0
  5. This was a good post building upon the Pathak et al paper, except for the phenotype pictures 🙂

    The way I looked at the stats was the Core-IA group (IN-IE and Dravidians as well as Tribes) ONLY prefer EMBA, which points to a different dynamic for that component and also hints that it is older, where as the PNWI group (NW India and Pakistan) needs both EMBA and MLBA which points to them as the catalyst or the interaction zone between Core-IA and Central Asian.
    Why I say only Central Asia and not steppe is because BMAC- (IranTuran already has only MLBA like component which was before any steppe like burials were found near it).

    Refer to table S13 for the above observation.

    Also here is a very interesting depiction of : Top Haplotype Donation by Ancient Specimens – From Eske Willerslev’s lab. (“The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene”)

    https://imgur.com/a/w8tMlhy

    If you see the figure above, Ust-Ishim who is the oldest specimen for whom there is DNA donates the most haplotypes to Modern South Asia, SE-Asia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Russian Forest Steppe. This clearly shows that the DNA what we have in India and its sharing with others is really OLD.

    Another interesting thing is from a haplogroup perspective Ust-Ishim is basal to Yana-RHS line, and Yana-RHS is the father of ANE and father of haplogroup- P, Q, R.

    Also in supervised admixture of ancients , Ust-Ishim would get split into AASI, ANE, WHG, Anatolian_N, CHG/Iran_N.

    Hence until we find chronological Ancient DNA from South Asia, we would be unable to claw back all of the real South Asian components which are lost into other Ancient specimens and we are only left with the alleles which do not match outside South Asia , which have been labelled as AASI and termed as the only South Asian component.

    3+
    1. Mostly agree with you on Steppe_EMBA and Steppe_MLBA affinities of modern South Asians. Infact I have stated the same thing in the paper.

      About Ust-Ishim, yes I have seen that figure from the Yana paper. Ust -Ishim also has ydna K2a* and the closest living modern human to Ust-Ishim in terms of y-DNA is a Telugu man with K2a1* (Poznick et al 2016).

      So there is clearly an affinity with South and SE Asia. Infact, Ust-Ishim is very good as an AASI in modeling modern South Asians.

      The connection with the steppe and South Asians is indeed quite old. Unfortunately, we have only few aDNA samples from South Asia and that too nothing before 5000 YBP while the samples from Siberia are as old as 45,000 and also plentiful when it comes to the Holocene period. It is a very unfair situation which is fully capitalised to argue a migration from the North into South Asia. Similar is the situation with the so-called Iran_N migration into South Asia.

      Having said so, what do you think of my two arguments in the above article that :-

      1. The ANI ancestry is not only Indo-Aryan and putative ANI groups are spread across Indo-Iranians which makes it likely that ANI is ancestral to Indo-Iranians

      2. The relatively high shared ancestry of this ANI group with the Balto-Slavic groups is an indication of real PIE heritage.

      1+

      1. Having said so, what do you think of my two arguments in the above article that :-

        1. The ANI ancestry is not only Indo-Aryan and putative ANI groups are spread across Indo-Iranians which makes it likely that ANI is ancestral to Indo-Iranians

        2. The relatively high shared ancestry of this ANI group with the Balto-Slavic groups is an indication of real PIE heritage.

        1). ANI is defined as MLBA+ASI+Iran_N and ASI limits it to South Asia alone. However trace ASI with EMBA in place of MLBA does make your point 1 true.

        2. The relatively high shared ancestry is still relative. Which just tells us those groups are closer but unfortunately not any direction.

        As a matter of fact with the current data we can only push back or refute the MLBA intrusion at the moment.

        Also any input from Levant_N will as well create pseudo MLBA type component.
        And surprisingly we do see E1b1b (which is linked with Levant ) and its branches in BMAC and SPGT.
        So really there is no need for any kind of steppe as far as India goes everything is there in between India to Mesopotamia.

        For OIT to be backed up with genetics, solid evidence from Neolithic and Chalcolithic would be needed from India, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
        Personally I think the Gangetic Plain (Mahadaha and Damdama) Mesolithic specimens might throw a big surprise if they are in good shape for extraction,
        which also happens to be the Vedic Heartland.

        https://imgur.com/a/UodcVTK

        Regarding those haps of other Balto Slavic groups, this below doc has them. H indeed was absent in Latvia.
        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2Fahg.12130&file=ahg12130-sup-0001-Sup_Tab_1.docx

        I always enjoy your posts here and elsewhere, and a big fan of your historical, archaeological and linguistic knowledge.

        Is this going to be your last post till fresh data arrives?

        1+
      2. For OIT to be backed up with genetics, solid evidence from Neolithic and Chalcolithic would be needed from India, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
        Personally I think the Gangetic Plain (Mahadaha and Damdama) Mesolithic specimens might throw a big surprise if they are in good shape for extraction,
        which also happens to be the Vedic Heartland.

        https://imgur.com/a/UodcVTK

        Regarding those haps of other Balto Slavic groups, this below doc has them. H indeed was absent in Latvia.
        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2Fahg.12130&file=ahg12130-sup-0001-Sup_Tab_1. docx

        I really enjoy your posts here and elsewhere, and appreciate your knowledge in archeology, linguisitics and history. Is this going to be your last post till more data arrives?

        0
      3. For OIT to be backed up with genetics, solid evidence from Neolithic and Chalcolithic would be needed from India, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
        Personally I think the Gangetic Plain (Mahadaha and Damdama) Mesolithic specimens might throw a big surprise if they are in good shape for extraction,
        which also happens to be the Vedic Heartland.

        https://imgur.com/a/UodcVTK

        Regarding those haps of other Balto Slavic groups, this below doc has them. H indeed was absent in Latvia.
        https://www.scribd.com/document/398188591/ahg12130-sup-0001-sup-tab-1

        I really enjoy your posts here and elsewhere, and appreciate your knowledge in archeology, linguisitics and history. Is this going to be your last post till more data arrives?

        0
      4. For OIT to be backed up with genetics, solid evidence from Neolithic and Chalcolithic would be needed from India, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
        Personally I think the Gangetic Plain (Mahadaha and Damdama) Mesolithic specimens might throw a big surprise if they are in good shape for extraction,
        which also happens to be the Vedic Heartland.

        https://imgur.com/a/UodcVTK

        The Latvian Y hap paper you referenced, its supplementary materials has Y hap distribution for other Balto Slav countries as well I am unable to link it here.
        H indeed was absent in Latvia.

        I really enjoy your posts here and elsewhere, and more so appreciate your knowledge in archeology, linguisitics and history. Is this going to be your last post till more data arrives?

        0
  6. I’ll be brief but I may make another comment. I simply cannot believe some things – archaic Lithuanian, extinct Old Prussian, etc. Someone (rightly) mentioned that this ‘archaism’ dates from 16-17 c.AC. Latin and Sanskrit? How, when, what was the link? Even English, Dutch and Germans found the place in this genetic snowballing without any conclusion, timeline, without causes and consequences. Diagram shows genetics of Bulgarian? (Bulgars from Asia mixed with indigenous Serbs from the 10th cAC after their conversion to Christianity). French? (artificial nation consists from several entities). Germans (there are almost 70% of Serbian origin, even Hitler wrote this in his book). Ukrainian? (they are Russians), etc. Where are Polish who are genetically close to Gujarati from one of previous stories? Latvian language? When it originated and where? Balto-Slavic? What does it mean, one or two entities? Who is/are Slavic and which period of time we are talking?

    Who of the previous mentioned creatures existed in the period for e.g. between 2000-1000 BC? None. What about Serbs which alphabet (with swastika) is 6-7000 years old? Where are they, where is their language? What about Vinca? Without referring to Vinca any linguistic, migration even genetic discussion is invalid. Is it irrelevant that 1/3 of modern (!) Serbian is identical or very similar to Sanskrit? What about thousands of Serbian toponyms in India and SA? Anyone? Anything? Many of them are easily checkable on old British colonial maps.

    I have a book (several hundreds of years old, preserved in a monastery) of ritual songs from Serbs who returned from SA to old homeland after almost a thousand of years fighting Chinese and Mongolians (anyone heard of this?). This book is known to the author of this text and his OHT/OUPT supporter MMK who firstly mentioned this on BP pages. Any Latvian ritual songs, or archaic Lithuanian?

    1+
  7. Congratulations to Jaydeep on a well researched article!

    “I (Jaydeep) am tempted to suggest that this entire group (consisting of Jats, Rors, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Pamiris, Kalash) may descend from an ancestral ANI like population as Fst wise, mtdna & y-dna and autosomally as per qpAdm & allele sharing as per Dstats, they appear quite similar. It is instructive that populations in this grouping include Eastern Iranians like Pashtuns, Tajiks & Pamiris as well as the Kalash who speak a Nuristani language, sometimes considered as a separate 3rd branch of Indo-Iranian or mostly a very archaic Indo-Aryan branch. In other words, the populations that suit or mimic the ANI genetic profile are quite clearly Indo-Iranian and not just Indo-Aryan. This could have important implications in terms of Indo-Iranian history. Could an ANI like population have been responsible for the spread of the Iranian languages as well in addition to having spread the Indo-Aryan ? Maybe, the ANI population was not just the source of Indo-Aryan but of Indo-Iranian “?

    YOU ARE ON TO SOMETHING IMPORTANT HERE. Nuristani could be the linchpin of the whole matter linking the Asian and European languages of this IE family, IF one were to accept it as such. They are not sufficiently South Asian giving plenty of fodder to traditional AITwalas.

    If the genetic data cited by Jaydeep holds, Igor Tonayen Belayev has filled the linguistic picture already.

    https://www.academia.edu/35493286/A_brief_note_on_the_two_older_Indo-European_words_for_earth_and_man_as_compared_to_Tibetan_-_2017

    Refer to the para starting (copy paste doesn’t seem to be working with the article.)

    “Our proposal itself is based on….please note that this is only a primary sketch.”

    Nuristani became aryanized after Igor’s third wave had left South Asia giving the impression that AIT is the stronger of the two alternative theories. Here the geneticist have a chance to make a real contribution to the debate by proving that Pamir/Tajiks are people going out of South Asia rather than coming in. Archaeology is saying that already.

    1+
    1. Thanks. The fact that ANI ancestry is highest across a group of Indo-Iranian groups and not just Indo-Aryans is quite exciting along with the fact one ANI group are the Jats & Rors who live bang into the Vedic heartland of the Purus and Bharatas.

      Also exciting is the fact that this ANI Indo-Iranian group shares the highest ancestry among all South Asians with the Europeans and among them more specifically the Balto-Slavic groups who are said to share several features like Satemization and the Ruki rule with Indo-Iranians to the exclusion of other IE groups but also share several archaisms that are a PIE heritage and not later shared innovations.

      I am eager to read and understand Belyayev’s arguments but I will do so once I put out a couple of more posts on this site.

      0
      1. This is what I have gathered from Igor’s various papers:

        1. The homeland itself kept shifting westward from the Vedic heartland for the European branches of the family and eastward for the Indic branches of the family. This could tie into Zoller’s intricate work on the inner and outer Indo Aryan languages .

        2. There were no European languages to have a homeland of during the peak of the Vedic culture. Rig Veda 4500 BCE, Dasharajanya 3000 BCE

        3. The drying up of the river and the Dashrajanya War (War of 10 kings) must have set things in motion.

        4. Anatolian was the first to move out through the western route as the language is so badly mutilated, only two genders and much of the case endings lost.
        5. The European branches did not all take a nice and neat westward ho route out of South Asia.

        6. The Italo Celtic Greek, Armenian and Albanian took a western route through Iran/Turkey etc and the Balto Slavic and Germanic took a northern route.

        7. The Iranians took BOTH routes during what Igor calls the equestrian phase fame that allowed them the fast transportation and control of large territories.

        8. In the northern route the Iranians completely Satemized the Balto Slavic but failed to do so for Germanic who had moved on too far already. Igor uses loandwards from Tibeto Burman into Germanic to make his case.

        9. In their western route the Iranians completely statemized the Armenians but gave ad stratum effects to the Greek but did not satemize them. completely.

        10. While all this was happening Nuristani and Dardic were staying put in their present locations. getting Indo Aryanized giving the impression of an aryan invasion into South Asia.

        This is all makes sense except that why did Tocharian not get satemized but Balto Slavic did? The answer could lie in chronology and geography or both. Tocharians were moving too far northeast at the same time Italo Celtic were going west. So the Balto Slavic zoomed right past them?

        1+
        1. OIT (I respect their proponents although I think their theory is wrong and counterproductive) will lose any credibility with such nonsense . You cannot hide behind any Igor. Europe was uninhabited in 3000BC?

          0
          1. Milan Todorovic wrote:

            “Europe was uninhabited in 3000BC?”

            Was Indus Valley uninhabited in 3000 BCE?

            Check this out for more Slavic and Indic connections

            https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451

            “Georgiev says the most stable – or longstanding – names are that of rivers. “But in order to preserve the names it is necessary to maintain the continuity of the population, transmitting these names from generation to generation. Otherwise, new people may come and give it their own name,” he says.

            “Luckily, many other words remain unchanged. Russian scientist and academician AI Sobolewski provides a list of Russian water bodies with Sanskrit names. In his article ‘The Names of the Rivers and Lakes of the Russian North’, he gives the names of the following rivers and lakes: Vaja (from vaja – strength), Valga (from Valgu – simple), Ira (a refreshing drink), Karak (karaka – water jar), Cala (black), Lala (lal – play), Padma (lotus), Punk (silt), Sagara (ocean), Sarah (sara – juice), Sukhona (suhana – easy) and Harina (goose).”

            I am afraid the Slavic>Indic borrowing situation is impossible. It HAS to be the other way round. For starters Sanskrit has both pur and agni type words for fire where as BS has only the agni type (ogon in Russian as listed above).

            See also:

            https://www.reddit.com/r/etymologymaps/comments/1sskyi/fire_in_various_european_languages_oc_1750950/

            1+
        2. Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar, if the Saraswati river dried up circa 6 thousand BC, then does that allow for the possibility that the Vedic Samhitas (including Sama, Yajur and Atharva) precede 6,000 BC?

          How long before the Mahabharata war do you place the Dasharajanya war?

          A question for everyone. Could Yayati be a coded reference to R1 DNA gene haploid admixture? Could his various children be a reference to different strands of R1 DNA gene haploid admixture?

          What nations or regions do you think were formed by Yayati’s sons?:
          —Turvasu’s Yavana (Are these the ancient Serbs? Ancient Greeks? Perhaps they are not the ancient Africans since they might have been called Kala-Yavana or dark Yavana. Honestly I have no idea)
          —Yadu’s Yadavas? [I don’t mean during the time of the Mahabharata but immediately after the lifetime of Yadu.]
          —The four nations founded by Madhavi (daughter of Yayati)
          —Druhyu’s Vaibhoja Vansha or Twipra Kingdom. Were they just Bangladesh and Assam? Or did they extend further east and/or further north. Be curious about what genetics tells us about this.
          —Anu’s Tushara. The Tushara have always confused me. I seriously doubt they are Tibetan. Are they Xinjiang? Or are they east of Xinjian? Could they be actual Han Chinese? The last option is difficult to defend with logical argument because I don’t think the Han have R1 genes. Can any geneticists speak up? Of course Anu’s descendents could have just settled there and represented a minuscule fraction of their people’s DNA? In which case the main influence of Anu would have been cultural. Could Tushara be a reference to Siberia and the people with R1 gene who settled in Siberia.
          —Puru’s people. Where geographically does everyone think the Kurus settled?

          I wanted to bring another issue to the attention of the ever wise sbarrkum . . . whose comments I always love to listen to.

          Yayati’s daughter Madhavi married four different husbands and had one son with each of them who founded their own nations. Draupadi comes from a long tradition of hyper powerful influential woman.

          Could the Iranian farmer from 4 1/2 K years ago be a reference to the DNA haploid admixture of Abhimanyu, Parakshit, Janamajaya? The Puranas and Itihasas describe a signficant shift in genes that occurred with the birth of Abhimanyu. His grandfather is Indra–king of Adityas or Devas. His mother is Subhadra, sister of Krishna. Balarama, Krishna and Subhadra are not described to be normal homo sapiens and not the natural children of their nominal parents. But rather a type of specially modified (possibly genetically modified?) super powered being that appeared to be human from the outside. Therefore the son of Arjuna (who himself is the son of Indra who clearly isn’t hominid) and Subhadra represent a genetic break. Could this be the Iranian farmer from 4 1/2 K years ago? The kings of Persia such as Cyrus I have been told claimed lineage from the line of Indra, Subhadra & Arjuna, Abhimanyu, Parakshit, Janamajaya. It would make sense that they were Iranian.

          3+
          1. Yavan (i.e. Jovan), mentioned in The Bible (The Genesis) is a territory between Carpathians (north), Alps (west), Adriatic Sea (south), Black Sea (east). It was considered as the most important land in the known world at that time. Non-Aryan people from the East called Aryans and all people who were coming from Europe and Asia Minor – Yavans. If you talk in extended terms about Jovan and his four sons (referring the people who descended or mixed with people from the Yavan land) we have: Italy, Macedonia, Greece and Rodania (today’s France) as explained by Samuelis Bocharti: Geographia Sacra: I Pheleg, II Canaan, Cornelium Boutesteyn & Jordanum Luchtmans, Lugdunum, 1707 (I.I.III).

            It means, Yavan (Jovan) land is the central part of Balkan and Jovan people are ancient Serbs.

            0
        3. Wow, looks like Igor and I came to the same conclusion. However, I am not sure we can be certain about points 1-3.

          I talk about it in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=966dAKcpoT8. You dont need to watch the video but there is some linguistic, historical mythological stuff in there.

          This is the Linguistic tree I got to: https://ibb.co/D5GBJ2f
          This is the IE Dispersal map: map https://ibb.co/KxZYmcF

          This is a simplification,
          IA>South Caucuses (Centumization Occurs) > Greek, Italo-Celtic and others
          IA>Iranian (Oxus Area) > BS + German

          Centumization occurs at the South Caucuses because the Caucusian language family utilises Labiovelars (certain sounds made by rounding the lips) which is where the Centum languages likely got that from.

          Point 8. I didnt think of it like that. It seemed to me that the German peoples would have spoken a language closer to Celtic until fairly recent Iranian speaking Scythians added a superstrate to it (this explains the similarities between Germanic and Iranian in terms of Myths), but the earlier language, as a substrate, maintained the Centum form.

          Point 9. I dont think Iranian particularly influenced Greek, unless we are speaking of very early influence, when the ancestors of the Greeks were still in West Asia.

          In my view, PIE = Vedic Sanskrit or very close to it. I dont know what Igor thinks is PIE, maybe he accepts the mainstream version of it K>S, O>A. He seems to be saying he beleives in the mainstream version of PIE. But that means this whole language would have been Centum, then became Satemized for the Iranians and Indo Aryans. But where and when this happen. It looks to me any OIT type position still needs Iranian outside of South Asia very early.

          In my view PIE was Satem, Centumization occurs around West Asia, Labiovelars come from the Caucasian family. Tocharian would have come from a movement from South to North Caucuses, and then for some reason West, while the Celts moved West.

          BS territory may never have been Centumized, it may have been dominated by Iranian speakers, causing the Celts to move West. There is very strong Iranian influence in that region, so it looks to me BS was mostly Iranian that diverged away.

          0
          1. mzp1

            “In my view PIE was Satem, Centumization occurs around West Asia”

            Perhaps you are aware of the Bangani issue

            http://www.himalayanlanguages.org/language_studies/bangani

            A kentum language in South Asia has puzzled everyone. Can you cite a linguist that agrees that the reverse transformation from Satem to Centum is possible?

            “It looks to me any OIT type position still needs Iranian outside of South Asia very early.”

            That I totally agree with.

            0
  8. Jaipdeep. I find an anomaly is this analysis. If Jats are really the purest specimen of Vedic Aryans, why are they so low in caste hierarchy? Ancient Hindu texts pretty much relegated them to Shudra status. It is only in modern times they have been able to raise their profile. In an electoral democracy they have used their weight of numbers shrewdly to gain political power, but in days bygone they were pretty much the riff-raffs. Why should Brahmins and Kshtriyas, who have supposedly less ANI component than Jats should achieve a higher social status?

    0
    1. Hi Snake Charmer,

      Rors are actually called ‘Ror Raja’ (mentioned in Punjab castes among ‘other dominant tribes’ by Denzil Ibbetson) in Haryana and ‘Ror Rajput’ in Western UP. So, at least a part of this complex Jaydeep has talked about maintained a high social position in post-Vedic era till recent times.

      Plus, if I also bring in another data point from the paper Jaydeep has been referring to, the RoH (Runs of homozygosity) of the Ror population suggest that it wasn’t numerically small historically.

      They might have had a similar size as the Jats mostly and only in the last 1000 years shrunk in size in comparison to the Jats. This mostly had to do with their suffering at the hands of early slave dynasty rulers such as Aibak and later Alluddin Khilji.

      Regarding the Jats, I think the lower status you are talking about only finds support in Punjab (where people refer to a high court decision in British era, although its debatable) and Rajasthan to an extent but not in Haryana or Western UP

      0
  9. “Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar, if the Saraswati river dried up circa 6 thousand BC, then does that allow for the possibility that the Vedic Samhitas (including Sama, Yajur and Atharva) precede 6,000 BC?”

    Don’t think so.
    Rig Veda: 4500 BCE : Tilak and Jacobi’s dating based on Orion looks quite secure to me. Parts of it may be older. )
    Dashrajanya: 3000 BCE
    Saraswati drying up 1900 BCE
    Mahabharata around 1500 BCE based on Puranic tradition disregarding Aryabhatta / Narhari Achar around 3000 BCE

    There are people who want to push everything back by 5000 or even 10000 years. That would make South Asia REALLY unique compared to Egypt and Mesopotamia which seems unlikely considering that archaeology has established firm connections between Indus and the Middle East so it is very difficult to accept that one knew of agriculture and the other didn’t.

    https://www.harappa.com/content/changing-perspectives-indus-civilization-new-discoveries-and-challenges
    The civilizational developments must have been contemporaneous. The recent chariot findings in Sinauli (Bhagyaprasta) Bagpat are similar to contemporary middle eastern ones.

    Now the question is can these events be tied to Belayev’s five waves model?
    He himself offers some dates without referring to any of the above events.

    Scroll to section 6

    https://www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_

    His fifth wave could be equated to the drying up of the river. The Dasharajanya could have launched Belayev’s second and third waves which he puts around 3300 -2800 BCE. Shatpatha Brahmana has been dated to 3000 BCE based on Krittikas (Pleiads). This also happened in 13000 BCE which folks like Nilesh Oak prefer.

    How long does it to take to get to Ireland from Afghanistan?

    1+
  10. Very interesting comment Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar.

    My own view and the view of many others is that Egypt and Java both had large technologically advanced civilizations before 9700 BC. If they had it, shouldn’t we be open to the possibility that SAARC also had an advanced civilization pre global flood too?

    To clarify. I think that the Vedic Samhitas were revealed or composed over a period of many thousands of years. At the very least Vedic Samhitas were being added to the corpus until perhaps 100 years after Dasharajanya . This is a working hypothesis and I look forward to changing my mind based on additional evidence.

    If you are right that Dasharajanya happened circa 3000 BC (again I think it might have happened before 3000 BC) then the Vedic Samhitas stopped forming circa 2900 BC. For my hypothesis that “SOME” (not all) Samhitas were composed or revealed pre 9700 BC to be true; the length of time over which the Vedic Samhitas were compiled would be more than 7,000 years. Maybe more than 8,000 years if we assume the Vedic Samhitas were composed for more than 1,100 years pre global flood/ice age.

    Is a viable hypothesis? I think so. Many aspects of the Vedic Samhitas that I have read since I was a child is much easier to make sense of if this is true. Many rivers and land marks in the ancient scriptures (including Tamilian ones) don’t seem to match post 9700 BC geology.

    If indeed the Arya (if someone wants to call it Vedic, Dharmic, AASI, Dravidian, Munda or whatever . . . I don’t care) civilization endured a major global ice age and global flood, when does it fit into the traditional ancient mythological historical record?

    Some possibilities:
    —post Treta (Surya Vamsha) until the birth of Illa (our favorite multi gendered gender fluid Chandra Vamsha hero) some time in Dwapara Yuga?
    —early Treta Yuga (the pre Parashurama catastrophe)
    —the great global flood of Krita Yuga or Sathya Yuga where Vaivatsa Manu and the sapta rishis were rescued by matsya avataara
    —the gap between this chatur yuga and the prior chatur yuga

    Scientists speculate that we have had many different global ice ages/global floods. Of which 9700 BC is only the most recent.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Many of my relatives and friends have asked me which civilization is most ancient between ancient Egypt, ancient Sumeria, ancient Java or ancient Arya varsha [I think AASI and ancient Java perhaps “ARE” the Arya civilization’s Surya Vamsha]. I honestly say that I don’t know. I don’t think it matters much. Especially if many great global civilizations precede 9700 BC. For all we know many great homo sapien civilizations have risen and fallen over the last 400 K years. And many non homo sapien hominid civilizations have risen and fallen over the past 4 million years. Ordinally ranking ancient civilizations by date might not matter all that much.

    0
    1. AnAn wrote:

      “My own view and the view of many others is that Egypt and Java both had large technologically advanced civilizations before 9700 BC. If they had it, shouldn’t we be open to the possibility that SAARC also had an advanced civilization pre global flood too?”

      Only if the others had it too. South Asia could not have had it alone. Your mention of Java reminded me about Oppenheimer’s Eden In the East and the theory about the drowned continent of Sundaland (12000 BCE) quoting from memory. Oppenheimer is no crackpot and is a serious geneticist who has contributed much to the Out of Africa theory (The Real Eve)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ca1AC5hVtE

      “For my hypothesis that “SOME” (not all) Samhitas were composed or revealed pre 9700 BC to be true; the length of time over which the Vedic Samhitas were compiled would be more than 7,000 years”

      When you say “SOME” which particular books are you referring to? The internal chronology of the book has been worked out well by Talageri as reviewed by Elst here.

      http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/01/great-book-about-great-book.html

      “Talageri compares the contents of the oldest layer, largely coinciding with books 6, 3 and 7; of the middle layer, books 2 and 4; and the youngest layer, comprising books 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10.”

      The youngest books can be dated fairly certainly to the 2000-1700 BCE based on the Avestan and the Mittani evidence. Right now scholars are so focussed on refuting the AIT that the absolute chronology hasn’t been discussed much. The dates you propose would require large gaps between the books. Nilesh Nilkanth Oak has been pressing on with such early dates despite opposition from the OIT camp also.

      “Is a viable hypothesis? ”

      Large gaps are hard explain in an oral tradition. Now there are people like T. P Verma who go as far back as 120 million years ago!

      http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2014/05/central-asia-thesis-of-vedic.html

      Verma’s ideas about the three Sapta Sindhus

      1. The real one
      2. In the Oxus region
      3. In Central Asia stretching all the way up to Russia (this one is really going to infuriate Milan Todorovic)

      The much maligned “Hindutva” camp is definitely not looking for such trouble right now!

      0
      1. Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar, can we touch base offline. I would like your input on these subjects.

        The Java pyramid (Gunung Padang) has been carbon dated between 13,000 to 28,000 years ago depending on where in the temple the carbon sample was taken. We also have growing evidence placing part of the construction of the pyramids and sphinx in Egypt before 9700 BC. Note that there were several large renovations of the pyramids and sphinx. Perhaps the last big one was circa 2500 BC.

        If we got a scholar historian to discuss these issues for Brown Cast, I would love your input for questions they could be asked.

        “When you say “SOME” which particular books are you referring to? The internal chronology of the book has been worked out well by Talageri as reviewed by Elst here.

        http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/01/great-book-about-great-book.html

        “Talageri compares the contents of the oldest layer, largely coinciding with books 6, 3 and 7; of the middle layer, books 2 and 4; and the youngest layer, comprising books 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10.””

        I have no idea to be honest. I think many Samhitas have been misunderstood. I don’t think they can be understood without mystical experience. If they were understood better would that affect estimates of the ordinal sequence of their composition?

        “The youngest books can be dated fairly certainly to the 2000-1700 BCE based on the Avestan and the Mittani evidence.”
        What is the youngest book? I find it hard to believe that any Samhitas were composed that recently. [Not to say a much older one couldn’t have been modified.] Are you discussing Brahmanas, Aranyakas or Upanishads which might have been composed more recently?

        I think that Iranian history is also much older than we currently think. For example what if Buddha really was born circa 1800 BC? Could Cyrus the Great have been born a century or two earlier than Indologists believe? Could Avestan and Mittani evidence be pushed back much further into the past?

        There are scholars who are also trying to push back the dates of Sumeria by several thousand years. The Sumerian mythological historical annuls go back over 100,000 years:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
        What if these dates are remotely accurate. With each king being a kind of dynasty rather than the life time of one homo sapien modern? [Some of these kings appear to be subtle angel type species. Which would then make them similar to Yugas with certain meta-physical properties.]

        “Your mention of Java reminded me about Oppenheimer’s Eden In the East and the theory about the drowned continent of Sundaland (12000 BCE) quoting from memory.”
        I can say a lot more about this. Wouldn’t the date be pre 9700 BC? Sundaland, Lumeria, and Kumari Kandam (with her seven ancient Tamil rivers) all might refer to the same place. A land mass that got shattered circa 9700 BC. Of which Java is a remnant. Perhaps Gunung Padang can teach us about this land mass and what Sanathana Dharma looked like circa 13 K to 28 K years ago. Hope it is studied.

        0
        1. AnAn:
          “What is the youngest book? I find it hard to believe that any Samhitas were composed that recently. [Not to say a much older one couldn’t have been modified.]”

          Talageri’s work is based on the Anurkamani that accompany the Vedas

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anukrama%E1%B9%87%C4%AB

          “The most important Anukramani of the Rigveda is Katyayana’s Sarvanukramani (ca. 2nd century BCE), recording the first word, the number of verses, name and family of poets (rshis), names of deities and metres for each of the 1,028 hymns of the Rigveda. The Vedarthadipika, written by Shadgurushishya (12th century) is a significant commentary of this work.”

          One may disregard the absolute chronology of the dates mentioned above from standard Wikipedia source which is of course based on the AIT, but the internal chronology of the composition of the 1028 hymns can be worked out with a great deal of certainty.

          I have heard of the Sphinx rainfall damage controversy.

          “Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar, can we touch base offline.”

          mayureshkelkar at verizon dot net for whatever its worth.

          0
  11. PS: just a couple side observations:

    “Balto-Slavic” >>> again, what is this? when and where it originated?

    “Italo-Celtic” >>> pretty clumsy term for Serbian language spoken by tribes who lived in today’s Italy and founded the city of Rome (giving it the Serbian name – Ruma)

    “Italo-Celtic Greek” >>> ???
    “Albanian” >>> ??? someone must be kidding
    “Anatolian & Greek IE languages” >>> ??? which languages, ‘especially which Greek IE languages???

    “Lithuanian is the oldest surviving Indo-European language (!!!), which has preserved the most phonetical and morphological aspects of the proto-language which many other European languages come from.”
    >>> also, the referred article said that Lit language was influenced by ancient Greek and Latin. It means it is younger than them (not ancient). When and how it established links with Sanskrit (in last 2000 years)? The article cited only 5 Lit words: ”vyras (man), šuo (dog), avis (sheep), dūmas (smoke), pirštas (finger) which cognates in Sanskrit”.

    “PIE = Vedic Sanskrit” (mzp1) >>> the best conclusion under this topic. Just missing the extended equality ‘= old Serbian language’.

    The most humorous statement under this topic (credit to MMK):

    “While all this was happening Nuristani and Dardic were staying put in their present locations, getting Indo Aryanized giving the impression of an aryan invasion into South Asia.”

    In conclusion – I cannot see any attempt to answer any of my questions and comments. No drama.

    0
    1. “The most humorous statement under this topic (credit to MMK):

      “While all this was happening Nuristani and Dardic were staying put in their present locations, getting Indo Aryanized giving the impression of an aryan invasion into South Asia.”

      In conclusion – I cannot see any attempt to answer any of my questions and comments. No drama.

      Don’t know what your question is. But a Lithuanian scholar has found more words than the five you listed.

      “Priesistoririe Lietuva, by a Lithuanian archaeologist Pulk Tarasenka, which uncovered the following records from ancient Lithuania.

      River names :

      Nemuna (Yamuna), Tapti (Tapti), Narbudey (Narmada), Srobati (Saraswati)

      Tribal or Clan names of the Lithuanians :

      Kuru, Puru, Yadav, Sudav

      Gods or Deities

      Indra, Varuna, Purakanya (Vedic Parjanya)”

      I also found some more from internet chatter

      “Lithuanian, it’s SAPNAS. In Hindi: SAPNA.”

      “Nanga (Pakistan) = Nuogas / Nuoga (Lithuanian) = Naked (English)”

      0
  12. mzp1,

    In my humble opinion, Talageri gives quite convincing evidence to support Haryana & Western UP as the ancestral Vedic homeland. If you think that his data is not sufficient and that the greater Punjab region is the proper Vedic homeland please share your sources I am willing to reconsider my position if there is good reason to do so.

    Here is a transcript of email communication between Talageri & the Greek linguist Kazanas who is also an OIT proponent.

    http://omilosmeleton.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Correspondence_Archive.pdf

    I think you’ll get a good glimpse of Talageri’s arguments.

    Regarding the Indus civilization and PIE, I think the roots of the Indus civilization go much deeper than the roots of PIE. Before 7000 BC, we already have a Neolithic economy at Mehrgarh in Baluchistan and Bhiranna in Haryana, which was based on barley and wheat, with use of Zebu cattle and of goats and sheep. At the same time, in the Gangetic plains close to Ayodhya, at the site of
    Lahuradewa and quite possibly at the site of Jhusi as well, there is very early evidence of rice cultivation most likely predating 7000 BC.

    While the PIE stage cannot be pushed further back beyond 4500 BC. i.e. a 3000 year gap between the widespread appearance of the Neolithic across South Asia and the PIE period. So in an OIT scenario, PIE can only emerge within a community among many communities of the Indus civilization. That community likes emerges within the Haryana & Western UP region of the wider Indus Saraswati world.

    The genetic evidence does suggest that the populations on either side of the Indus River are close to each other. However they are differentially related to the Indo-Europeans of Europe. And it is the Rors, Jats, Pashtuns, Kalash, Pamiris etc who are most closely related to IE populations of Europe while the other populations of the Indus Valley are more distant. This is because, in my view, the Rors, Jats, Pashtuns, Kalash etc are descended of the ancestral group among whom PIE emerged. Groups genetically ancestral to Sindhi, Baluchi, Gujarati etc were likely already separated before that.

    The Punjabis being also consisting of a large portion of Jats are also part of that group. However the Punjabi Jats share slightly less ancestry with the Balto-Slavic NE Euros than the Haryanvi Jats. I am not quite sure of the reason. It maybe that they may have more admixture from inner South Asia in later periods, which Haryanvi Jats had less of.

    0
  13. Anan,

    Whenever we seek to establish the veracity of something we cannot do so by overstepping the bounds of what constitutes as proof. Speculating is acceptable only when you back up your speculations by a considerable body of evidence that points in the direction of such speculation.

    We cannot make speculations like Rigveda may have been revealed all across Eurasia, from Xinjiang, to Serbia, and other places as you suggest, unless we have even a sliver of evidence to back it up. Otherwise one’s credibility is lost. Nor can we suggest that the Vedas were revealed around 10000 BC without providing good reason for why one believes as such.

    Rigveda is considered the oldest of the 4 Vedas since it has verses which are more archaic, the Rsis of Rigveda are of an earlier period, the situation of Vedic religion & culture it exhibits is also of an earlier period and so on. For example, the latter portion of Rigveda and along with the other Vedas and post Vedic literature represents a situation which is congruent with the situation as represented by the early Avesta. The older portions of Rigveda however, clearly represent an earlier epoch.

    0
  14. CallingBS,

    I am planning to put out a couple of more posts before taking a little break and collecting some linguistic data on OIT, God willing. Let us see how it works out.

    It is indeed pertinent that we get some Neolithic or Mesolithic DNA from India as that will change the whole game. Many ancient specimen which are now considered to derive a part of their ancestry from Iran_N or CHG will then be replaced by that Indian_N sample. I am quite hopeful.

    The Levantine admixture should have come along with the Anatolia_N admixture that was already present in Chalcolithic Central Asia. Anatolia_N already has Levant_N related ancestry which over time increases as we reach Anatolia_Chl.

    0
  15. Mayuresh Kelkarji,

    Igor has put in a great effort to create the linguistic groundwork for an OIT scenario. With the passage of time, I am quite sure that a few incongruencies here and there can be answered. The reason why Tocharian was not satemised could be that Iranians in the Iron Age never could get close to the Tocharians who perhaps had moved too Far East into northern Xinjiang.

    0
    1. Hi Rathodji:

      “The reason why Tocharian was not satemised could be that Iranians in the Iron Age never could get close to the Tocharians who perhaps had moved too Far East into northern Xinjiang.”

      And then there is the tantalizing connection between Himalayan kentum Bangani and Tocharian. I know that Narsimhan and Igor have been talking or more like bickering.

      Here is my dream team for OIT:

      Talageri+Kenoyer+Belayev+Priyardarshi (supported by capable geneticist such as yourself).

      Let the games begin!

      0
  16. Snake Charmer,

    The anamoly can be explained by the enormous passage of time that has elapsed from the time when the Vedic people migrated out from the homeland in Haryana & Western UP to semis with locals of other regions, which has led to a loss of memory of the true origins of the Jats. As late as a little after the beginning of the common era, we see that the region around Delhi Haryana is referred to by the geography Ptolemy as the Kuru land. But in the intervening period, I think the Hindus have lost a lot of their historical memory.

    0
  17. Hi Jaydeep

    Very astute observation about BMAC showing MLBA like characteristics earlier. This is important because we know BMAC can be related to the Rors, who are the group showing the most MLBA affinity out of our meta-group comprising all the different IA and II populations you mentioned such as Pamiri, Pashtun, Ror and Jat etc

    The main points the AIT or AMT proponents would like to attribute to MLBA are related to two characteristics,
    1) lactase persistence allele 13910T
    2) light skin pigmentation allele SLC24A5

    Now, on the second of these points, Cheng et al have published an extensive study showing a most probable Indo-Iranian origin of the light skin allele’s Indo European version. Here is the report
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815065/

    On the lactase persistence issue, we can do similar studies in the future by studying that portion of the genome where that location (13910T) exists with higher resolution techniques

    I won’t be surprised if the results are similar to the skin pigmentation results of Cheng et al and show an Indo-Iranian or even an Indus Valley origin perhaps

    Coming now to Bactria and its Ror connection, in Iran there is a tribe called Lor (a form of Ror as its got that R to L transform when we go from India to Iran) and they have two divisions

    The first division is called Bakhtiyari Lor and the second one Laki

    These Bakhtiyari (Bactrian) Lors is who I was referring to when I said Bactria has a Ror connection.

    There are no such divisions in India as there is no memory of people having returned backwards. Hence, we see the direction clearly as Indus-Saraswati Ror to Bactria to Iran as Bactrian (Bakhtiyari) Lor

    5+

Comments are closed.