Indo-European Urheimat Mystery

[Hetware]

I was greatly disappointed with ethnoancestry's web site. Seems to me to be a lot of repeated pseudoscience which has now been at least partially discredited.

Can you be more specific? I'll grant that the site is not well maintained, but I have seen nothing to indicate "pseudoscience".

In an unrelated note, is that R1b figure for the Maori correct? Can't be.

A few ships full of young men land on an island full of promiscuous people, and it really isn't hard to explain. There are, of course, uglier scenarios, such as what happend in some parts of Central America.

[Mikey]

Well, they pass along as gospel truth the neat, cut and dry notions of, for example, the Cohen Modal Haplotype - which has been thoroughly discredited by other geneticists. Please refer to Dienekes blog for the science.

They talk about their "percentage of genetic testing" as if it is gospel science. I should tell you I have a friend who was born in the mountains of Switzerland, took such a test, and they told her she was significantly Native American. That science (the exact percentages of your ethnic ancestry) is not quite ready for prime time, and no one should advertise it as such.

I could go on, but you get the drift.

[Hetware]

Well, they pass along as gospel truth the neat, cut and dry notions of, for example, the Cohen Modal Haplotype - which has been thoroughly discredited by other geneticists. Please refer to Dienekes blog for the science.

I'm not sure what they say about the CMH is technically inccorect. Google only returns one result on site:.ethnoancestry.com for Cohanim Modal Haplotype. All it says is that it was one of the more significan discoveries which popularized the business/science of DNA geneology. They make no great proclomations about CMH being related to Aaron, Moses, Tutmoses, or any other biblical association. Hammer was certainly more cautious than the mainstream press regarding the significance of CMH. I'm not really sure what it signifies to match CMH an be J1, but a kosher (if you'll forgive me) CMH is also J1. That all seems correct.

They talk about their "percentage of genetic testing" as if it is gospel science. I should tell you I have a friend who was born in the mountains of Switzerland, took such a test, and they told her she was significantly Native American. That science (the exact percentages of your ethnic ancestry) is not quite ready for prime time, and no one should advertise it as such.

I could go on, but you get the drift.

I don't know the details of the situation. I do believe there is a need for cross validation and quality control in this field. That would be to everybody's benefit. One anecdotal example does not prove a pattern.

Regarding the R1b numbers, it they simply took test data and plugged it into a number cruncher then published the number, that is not pseudoscience. That is just providing you with exactly what they say it is. I could take the same numbers and plug them into a spreadsheet or Mathematica, and arrive a the same results. That was the initial point from which your criticism arose. There is a good deal of literature using designations such as P*(xR1a) which leaves R1b, R(x173), Q, P1 and a residual P*. Or even .R1*(xR1a)-M173. I'm not even sure what that means, but it looks like R1b plush a residual. That makes assessing the scientific evidence rather difficult. I see in my onw REO and Haplogroup matches people from India, but I am told there is virtually no R1b in India.

I've never been a big fan of the battle axe, skull krusing AIT. My reasons for wanting to know the connection between my ancestry and India are far more sublime. I have the sense people are trying to avoid references to R1b in certain literature. You'll have to forgive me for being a bit cynical, but I have been lied to extensively regarding what was known about the ancient East-West connections. I saw what Ethnoancestry presented, and I am told without supporting evidence that their materials are pseudoscientific. That is not persuasive. It is merely irritating.

[Hetware]

PNAS Indian Y chromosomes Paper 2006

I purchased access to the recent paper A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios by Sanghamitra Sahoo, et al. According to the map shown in the paper, of 936 samples there were 0 from the Punjab, 0 from Rajastan, 0 from Kashmir, 0 from Haryana, 15 from Himachal Pardesh(all Rajput), 9 from Gujarat(all Patel, a recently created caste).

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/india_pol01.jpg

The traditional model of Aryan influx into India posits that the Aryans invaded the Punjab, Rajastan, Kashmir, and Haryana.

[Mikey]

Here's an example of what I mean (don't know why Google didn't find it, Hetware):

http://www.ethnoancestry.com/ancestrytests.html

You can't make any more broad statements than that.

Given that so many newbies and innocent, genealogy-testing schoolmarm types constantly post things like:

1) "I am Hg I, which means my ancestors were Vikings."

or

2) "My first ancestor was a woman named Xenia who lived in ..."

or

3) "I am J2, so I am a converted Jew."

I have developed a sensitivity to broad statements by genetics testing companies, because (a) people trust scientists; (b) I've seen a tendency of the broader the statement (or a reductio ad absurdem) tends to heighten the likelihood that members of the public will be misled.

[Hetware]

I missed something, were you talking about mtDNA when you posted those pictures? I definitely dont think Greeks could have contributed to the mtDNA pool. I thought you were trying to strengthen the theory of Indo-European migration by posting those pictures

In response all I wanted to say is that those pictures were the wrong ones to post as an example, because the Kalash were definitely not part of the migrating Vedic crowds, they are more recent arrivals. They could be part Greeks as they claim or a mix of something else.

That was before Mr Mikey jumped on it.

According to this paper:

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11898125

the Kalash may represent recent arrivals, or they may represent original Indo-Europeans. Linguistically they are Indo-Aryan. As I understand the evidence their mtDNA is closer to that of Northern Europe than to any other. Using haplotype prediction, they are about 10% R1b. By the same method it is predicted that about 6% of the whole population shample is R1b. This is consistent with the Kashyap findings - even though their data sampling was obviouly biased to avoid such a result. Of those samples which fall into the Haplogroup H1, R1b is the only haplogroup that is found in all the sampled populations. It is quite diverse in these samples, and the haplotypes I've tested don't match anything in the YHRD database.

The Sengupta paper claims no support was found for the Greek origins of the various South Asian populations who claim descent from Alexander's army. That reinforces the suggestion that R1b was part of the original Indo-Aryan genepool. The presence of an mtDNA genepool which consists exclusively of types found predominantly in Europe at the headwaters of the Indus in an isolated Indo-Aryan-speaking population which has a high frequency of R1b1c (predicted), and R1a, suggests strongly that these people represent a population similar to the original Indo-Aryans.

I'm hoping the Sengupta research was based on more meaningful samples than the Kashyap research used. It was suggested to me that some of these researchers have been drawing from the same sample data. Kashyap may have demonstrated that the vast majority of the people in modern India are not descendents of the Indo-Aryan immigrants who crossed the Kyber Pass some 3200 years ago. It does not, however, demonstrate that Vedic Aryans did not arrive in South Asia via that route. To some extent this is comparing apples and oranges. The original ideas about the Vedic Aryans dealt with the Indus Valley and places such as Kashmir, Rajastan and Haryana. The very places Kashyap, et al avoided in their study.

[Hetware]

Ancient Asian mtDNA was European?

This paper corroborates the findings of other such studies I have seen. One thing I've been trying to determine for many years now, is to what degree people of recent Western European origin represent emigrés from the East of the first millennium BCE.

http://www.upf.es/cexs/recerca/bioevo/2003BioEvo/BE2003-Lalueza_Fox-PROCB.pdf

The distribution of east and west Eurasian lineages through time in
the region is concordant with the available archaeological
information: prior to the thirteenth– seventh century BC, all Kazakh
samples belong to European lineages; while later an arrival of east
Eurasian sequences, that coexisted with the previous west Eurasian
genetic substratum, can be detected. The presence of an ancient
genetic substratum of European origin in West Asia may be related to
the discovery of ancient mummies with European features in Xinjiang
and to the existence of an extinct Indo-European language, the
Tocharian. This study demonstrates the usefulness of the ancient DNA
in unravelling com- plex patterns of past human migrations so as to
help decipher the origin of present-day admixed populations.

...

The sequences from populations from Central Asia from this study
display a marked temporal pattern that is concordant with the
available archaeological information (table 5). Before the seventh
century BC there is a conspicuous absence of haplogroups in East Asia
(although it can be estimated that haplogroups from East Asia could be
present up to a frequency of 20.6% and not been detected with the
analysis of only 13 individuals, p 0.05); after that period, samples
consist of a mixture of east and west Eurasian sequences, with almost
half of them belonging to East Asian haplogroups (six out of 14
individuals; 43%). The first detection of east Eurasian haplogroups
varies between geographical areas. No east Eurasian lineages appear in
east Kazakhstan samples that date to the eighth–seventh century BC or
earlier. In south Kazakhstan, the first Asian lineages appear in the
seventh–fifth century BC In central Kazakhstan, east Eurasian lineages
are present in samples from the eighth–third century BC, and in
seventh century BC. In west Kazakhstan, even samples dating to the
most recent period examined do not contain any east Eurasian
sequences.

...

Haplogroups present in modern Kazakhs, such as B, F, C, Z, D, R, J and
Y, were not observed in the prehistoric Kazakhs. By contrast, two
haplogroups observed among the ancient samples, W and I, have not yet
been found among modern Kazakhs. The results also indicate that there
is an excess of west Eurasian haplogroups in comparison with those
currently found (notably haplogroups H and U). However, this may be
attributed to the overrepresentation of the earlier temporal period
with only west Eurasian haplogroups. The observed absence of east
Eurasian sequences prior to the eighth–seventh century BC, suggests an
earlier prehistoric expansion of peoples containing west Eurasian
sequences into Asia, that probably went further east, into present-day
China. This expansion may be related to the discovery of mummies that
contain European features and west Eurasian mtDNA sequences in the
Tarin basin, China, as well as the relict Indo-European Tocharian. An
intriguing finding is the occurrence in the ancient sample of
sequences from Central Asia that are mainly distributed far into the
West, such as the Caucasus and central Mediterranean areas.

If there was a human substratum of west Eurasian origin far into East
Asia in prehistoric times, what happened to it? Analyses of
present-day Han mtDNA sequences from different regions in China,
detect a very residual presence (less than 5%) of European haplotypes
in a few regions. These include Qinghai (east to Xinjiang and Tibet)
and Yunnan (north of India and Burma), as well as some coas- tal
regions (Yao et al. 2002). Moreover, in a sample from the region
adjacent to Kazakhstan, Xinjiang, no European lineages have been found
among the 47 individuals sampled so far (Yao et al. 2002).

In contrast to the methodological pitfalls of several previous ancient
DNA studies in Asia, we have followed the same haplogroup designation
guidelines proposed by Yao et al. (2003). Therefore, the results are
fully comparable, and it is interesting that the only two west
Eurasian lineages found in modern Chinese correspond to T1 and HV
haplogroups (Yao et al. 2003), are also found among the prehistoric
Kazakhs. This suggests that the genetic legacy of the prehistoric
European eastward movement was erased by later Asian expansions, and
thus had almost no genetic contribution to the present-day
Asians. Such extinction may be related to the demographic processes
that also lead to the disappearance of the Tocharian language.

[R1a_M17_India]

According to this paper:

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11898125

the Kalash may represent recent arrivals, or they may represent original Indo-Europeans. Linguistically they are Indo-Aryan. As I understand the evidence their mtDNA is closer to that of Northern Europe than to any other. Using haplotype prediction, they are about 10% R1b. By the same method it is predicted that about 6% of the whole population shample is R1b.

I am not sure about mtDNA, but try this for the Kalash's Y chromosome for understanding their recency in South Asia
Investigation of the Greek ancestry of northern Pakistani ethnic groups using Y chromosomal DNA variation

http://hgm2002.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPosters/WorkshopPoster11/hgm0533.htm

Based upon haplogroup frequencies, 65-88% Greek admixture was estimated for the Kalash, consistent with a Greek origin for a significant proportion of Kalash Y chomosomes. However, the Kalash lack haplogroup 21 chromosomes and appeared distinct from the Greeks based upon principal components analysis of haplogroup frequencies and weighted population pairwise FST values based on STR variation within Y Haplogroups. They clearly contain a substantial proportion of Pakistani Y chromosomes, illustrated by their high frequency of hg 28, and the true Greek contribution remains uncertain. Estimates of Greek Y admixture for the Pathans were about 10%, and for the Burusho were close to zero. Median-joining networks of STR haplotypes revealed considerable sub-structuring of Y variation within the Kalash and Burusho, and in particular the haplogroup 21 network showed that the Pathan chromosomes were closely related to the central Greek cluster. Thus a small Greek contribution to the Pathans seems likely, the contribution to the Kalash is unclear and no contribution to the Burusho could be detected.

[R1a_M17_India]

The Sengupta paper claims no support was found for the Greek origins of the various South Asian populations who claim descent from Alexander's army.

As shown in the other paper, there seems to be some definite evidence of Greek impact on Pathans, and some inconclusive data about impact on the Kalash. Keeping genetics aside, every Indian school kid knows that the Gandhara school of Buddhist art of Afghanistan ( if you recall the Bamiyan Buddhists which were destroyed by the Taliban using tanks) is nothing but the congruence of Indo-Greek art, religion and culture. Difficult to imagine that happening without mixing of genes. Hence we need to take sweeping conclusive statements as well as random samples with a pinch of salt.

I'm hoping the Sengupta research was based on more meaningful samples than the Kashyap research used

I doubt that now

The original ideas about the Vedic Aryans dealt with the Indus Valley and places such as Kashmir, Rajastan and Haryana. The very places Kashyap, et al avoided in their study.

I agree only partly with the Kashyap findings. There was never an 'invasion' but only a 'migration'. It is a misconception that most of north India was populated by Vedic Aryans. However there is correlation for some castes with Central Asian / East European genes, and these castes are also present in South India. Others may disagree with this saying that there is a high variation in R1a in India, but that was because of the various migrations and not a single invasion.

To your question, while the Indus was the cradle, the vedic civilization moved to the Gangetic plains by the time of the 2nd Veda. The Brahmins in particular moved to Uttar Pradesh and from there to bengal and Central and South India. The north west would be a complete mix of other recent arrivals like Jats (scythians), Rajputs (White Huns), Gujjars (Kazhars? controversy!) etc. Hence I would prefer a caste based study for better sampling given the fact that Indians marry mostly within caste. They also marry within a region, but regions were crossed many times before the modern age.

And sampling doesnt seem to work in India where you cannot find anything homogeneous enough to be sampled. We would have to wait for a huge database to build up for Indian Y and mtDNA.

[Paleo_Indian]

And sampling doesnt seem to work in India where you cannot find anything homogeneous enough to be sampled. We would have to wait for a huge database to build up for Indian Y and mtDNA.

Interestingly, present studies show North Indian Y-Haplogroup diversity is subset of Pakistani(Could be South Iranian too) Y-haplogroup diversity and South Indian diversity is the subset of North Indian/Pakistani Y-Haplogroup diversity.

Others may disagree with this saying that there is a high variation in R1a in India, but that was because of the various migrations and not a single invasion.

Others are not disagreeing because there is a high variation in India. They are disagreeing because that diversity is in certain castes and tribes.

In my opinion, it doesn't refute Aryan invasion theory. There were migrations and there was an invasion. The problem is trying to asscoiating genes exclusively with culture and language. Population changes its colour over time; population changes its skull shape over time. Culture and language could be changed in single generation.

[Hetware]

I am not sure about mtDNA, but try this for the Kalash's Y chromosome for understanding their recency in South Asia
Investigation of the Greek ancestry of northern Pakistani ethnic groups using Y chromosomal DNA variation

http://hgm2002.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPosters/WorkshopPoster11/hgm0533.htm

However, the Kalash lack haplogroup 21 chromosomes and appeared distinct from the Greeks based upon principal components analysis of haplogroup frequencies and weighted population pairwise FST values based on STR variation within Y Haplogroups. They clearly contain a substantial proportion of Pakistani Y chromosomes, illustrated by their high frequency of hg 28, and the true Greek contribution remains uncertain. Estimates of Greek Y admixture for the Pathans were about 10%, and for the Burusho were close to zero. Median-joining networks of STR haplotypes revealed considerable sub-structuring of Y variation within the Kalash and Burusho, and in particular the haplogroup 21 network showed that the Pathan chromosomes were closely related to the central Greek cluster. Thus a small Greek contribution to the Pathans seems likely, the contribution to the Kalash is unclear and no contribution to the Burusho could be detected.

I will point out that the Burusho are the ones with, the highest freqency of R1b3.

EIGHTH KHANDA

1. There were once three men, well-versed in udgîtha 1, Silaka Sâlâvatya, Kaikitâyana, Dâlbhya, and Pravâhana Gaivali. They said: 'We are well-versed in udgîtha. Let us have a discussion on udgîtha.'

2. They all agreed and sat down. Then Pravâhana Gaivali 2 said: 'Sirs, do you both speak first,

p. 16

for I wish to hear what two Brâhmanas 1 have to say.

3. Then Silaka Sâlâvatya said to Kaikitâyana Dâlbhya: 'Let me ask you.'

'Ask,' he replied.

4. 'What is the origin of the Sâman?' 'Tone (svara),' he replied.

'What is the origin of tone?' 'Breath,' he replied.

'What is the origin of breath?' 'Food,' he replied.

'What is the origin of food?' 'Water,' he replied.

5. 'What is the origin of water?' 'That world (heaven),' he replied.

'And what is the origin of that world?'--

He replied: 'Let no man carry the Sâman beyond the world of svarga (heaven). We place (recognise) the Sâman in the world of svarga, for the Sâman is extolled as svarga (heaven).'

6. Then said Silaka Sâlâvatya to Kaikitâyana Dâlbhya: 'O Dâlbhya, thy Sâman is not firmly established. And if any one were to say, Your head shall fall off (if you be wrong), surely your head would now fall.'

7. 'Well then, let me know this from you, Sir,' said Dâlbhya.

'Know it,' replied Silaka Sâlâvatya.

'What is the origin of that world (heaven)?' 'This world,' he replied.

'And what is the origin of this world?'--

He replied: 'Let no man carry the Sâman beyond this world as its rest. We place the Sâman

p. 17

in this world as its rest, for the Sâman is extolled as rest.'

8. Then said Pravâhana Gaivali to Silaka Sâlâvatya: 'Your Sâman (the earth), O Sâlâvatya, has an end. And if any one were to say, Your head shall fall off (if you be wrong), surely your head would now fall.'

'Well then, let me know this from you, Sir,' said Sâlâvatya.

'Know it,' replied Gaivali.

15:1 Cognisant of the deeper meanings of udgîtha, i. e. Om.

15:2 He, though not being a Brâhmana, turns out to be the only one who knows the true meaning of udgîtha, i. e. the Highest Brahman.

16:1 In V, 3, 5, Pravâhana Gaivali is distinctly called a râganyabandhu.

NINTH KHANDA.

1. 'What is the origin of this world?' 'Ether 1, 'he replied. For all these beings take their rise from the ether, and return into the ether. Ether is older than these, ether is their rest.

2. He is indeed the udgîtha (Om = Brahman), greater than great (parovarîyas), he is without end.

He who knowing this meditates on the udgîtha, the greater than great, obtains what is greater than great, he conquers the worlds which are greater than great.

3. Atidhanvan Saunaka, having taught this udgîtha to Udara-sândilya, said: 'As long as they will know in your family this udgîtha, their life in this world will be greater than great.

4. 'And thus also will be their state in the other world.' He who thus knows the udgîtha, and meditates on it thus, his life in this world will be greater than great, and also his state in the other world, yea, in the other world.

[R1a_M17_India]

I will point out that the Burusho are the ones with, the highest freqency of R1b3.

I am not saying that R1b in that region is from the Greeks. My post was only pointing out, on a different note, that there seems to be some genetic impact on atleast 1 tribe.

What could be the origins of the Burusho, is a different story.

[Hetware]

I am not saying that R1b in that region is from the Greeks. My post was only pointing out, on a different note, that there seems to be some genetic impact on atleast 1 tribe.

What could be the origins of the Burusho, is a different story.

I would be truly stunned if it were demnostrated that there is no trace of the Greeks (or perhaps we should say Macedonians) in the populations descended from ancient Gandehar. The Greeks were part of the mix. One problem with trying to sort out the Greek contribution is the potential that the Greeks and Indo-Aryans had some significant amount of shared ancestry in the not-too-distant past.

Can you point me to any paper which shows the distribution of R1b in India, especially Andhra Pradesh?
a) My initial guess would be that this is the Anglo-Indian community (British-Indian population...

I can't say that either paper specifically discusses the distribution of R1b1c(M269) in India, but both the Kashyap and Sengupta papers describe its presence in India. Kashyap et al did not take any samples from Haryana, Rajastan, Jammu-Kashmir, nor the Punjab. Among the 15 Rajput samples taken from Himachal, one did trun out to be R1b. Since the traditional AIT deals with the Indus Valley, and the aforementioned regions, Kashyap et al really didn't address the matter. I don't know the geographic details of the Sengupta samples.

One thing I'm not clear on regarding the caste system is its relationship to the Rig Vedic period. I have not read the entire Rig Veda, but the parts I have read do not indicate to me there was a clearly defined caste system in that milieu.

[R1a_M17_India]

Interestingly, present studies show North Indian Y-Haplogroup diversity is subset of Pakistani(Could be South Iranian too) Y-haplogroup diversity and South Indian diversity is the subset of North Indian/Pakistani Y-Haplogroup diversity.

Interesting, that can be interpreted in many ways, including that Pakistan points the direction from which most ancestors of Indians entered India. Its just a question of when.

Others are not disagreeing because there is a high variation in India. They are disagreeing because that diversity is in certain castes and tribes.

In my opinion, it doesn't refute Aryan invasion theory. There were migrations and there was an invasion.

You agree that there were recent arrivals (Aryan invasion and/or migration). Let me ask you this, where do you think the genes of the recent arrivals went? Do you seriously believe that the recent arrivals would have been absorbed across the board and not into some specific castes?

Population changes its colour over time; population changes its skull shape over time. Culture and language could be changed in single generation.

Hmm...good thoughts. I agree on this, and can use it to further my point actually. However, not on this forum.

[Hetware]

Interesting, that can be interpreted in many ways, including that Pakistan points the direction from which most ancestors of Indians entered India. Its just a question of when.

The Sengupta papare seems to be suggesting that the ancient Indus Valley population was not closely related to the ancient Dravidians.

You agree that there were recent arrivals (Aryan invasion and/or migration). Let me ask you this, where do you think the genes of the recent arrivals went? Do you seriously believe that the recent arrivals would have been absorbed across the board and not into some specific castes?

The evidence may indicate that the R1a was present in both invader and invadee. I'm not sure how strong the evidence is for a significant Vedic era invasion. There seems to be some question as to where the center of gravity for the Vedic civilization was. Some people would like to put it close to, or in Gandahar. Others favor the upper Indus Basin. I suspect it might be similar to trying to pin down the center of gravity of Greek civilization. What we typically view as Greek achievements came from many different geographic locations. The same is likely true of Vedic civilization.

Regarding where new arrivals ended up within the population, there have been several invasions of India. It's hard to say how large the invading populations were in comparison to the existing population. Take, for example, the British. One could argue that the British invaded and conquered India. The impression I have is they screwed a lot of things up while they were running the show, but their lasting genetic impact was rather insignificant.

I would guess the various Scythian conquests left a more significant genetic legacy. They may have resulted in some level of caste-specific replacement. Conquerors have a tendency to either eradicate the original ruling classes, or to subordinate them and use them as proxies.

By way of comparison, the genetic impact of the European conquest of the Americas had a profound impact on the genetic makeup of the various populations. In some places there was virtually 100% replacement. In other places the European male contribution was huge in comparison to the European female contribution.

One ironic observation is that the "racial" constitution of my area has changed dramatically in the past three decades, and continues to change. The frequency of "European" Y-chromosome haplotypes has not changed quite as significantly. This is because many of the new arrivals, be they African-American or Hispanic, are the descendents of European men. This is especially true of the latter.

Hmm...good thoughts. I agree on this, and can use it to further my point actually. However, not on this forum.

FWIW, which may not be much, the craniometric comparisons between various ancient specimens showed the earliest Tarim mummies to be morphologically closer to Harappan specimens from the same period. Both of those groups were more similar to their contemporary "proto-European" specimens than to other populations of the region, past or present. OTOH, the authors reporting these findings suggested it would be overstating things to claim these three populations were morphologically identical.