Page 75 of 75 FirstFirst ... 2565737475
Results 741 to 744 of 744

Thread: Broushaki et al. "Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent"

  1. #741
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,136
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    J2a-Z2227
    mtDNA
    U5b2c2

    Canada Italy Finland Northern Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    When we get yDNA from this "phantom" population, it will be very interesting indeed!
    Some Y-DNA J2a and J1 will likely be present in that population.
    Y-DNA: J2a-Z2227

    mtDNA: U5b2c2

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to J Man For This Useful Post:

     Observer (05-23-2017)

  3. #742
    Registered Users
    Posts
    141
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravetto-Danubian View Post

    Right. So a 'north Caucasian group' between 4000-3000 BC, but it's not Majkop (despite its obvious expansion into the steppe). So we're thinking one of the peripheral & sedentary "North Caucasian Dolmenic" groups ? That would be a surprise.
    We're most likely talking about the ancestors of modern NEC speakers. Whether they lived in Majkop or not is a question but given Y-DNA and MTDNA profiles they are the most likely candidates

  4. #743
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Even if there is paleolithic West Eurasian ancestry in India--which I'm pleased to say, after looking at what you've marshalled, is more probable that not, you've at least convinced me of this--it explains very little about the recent introgression of NE European ancestry in India, the tendency for its distribution to respect caste and linguistic boundaries, the very recently-expanded z93 haplogroup in India, the tendency for upper caste groups to favour N Europeans, the presence of NE European segments in India but not the reverse, and so on.
    Could you please provide me an outline as to the nature of this paleolithic West Eurasian (non-Indo-European surely) ancestry in India that you have in mind? Did this hypothetical paleolithic West Eurasian ancestry significantly contribute to the modern Indians genetically? Or was it only in quite marginal amounts to contribute anything significant?

    My aim in general is to gain a somewhat better understanding of the currently ultra-mysterious origins of the Dravidian languages in the light of the ANI ancestry (Zagros Neolithic-like) in all modern day non-Brahmin South Indians, because if we were all purely ASI, the languages that we speak must have been decidedly of Indian origin. Now we have the choices of ANI, ASI, a mixture of ANI+ASI for the original speakers of Proto-Dravidian language.

    But, even under the assumption that the Dravidian languages could not have spread without some sort of a farming element and under the second assumption that this farming signal should have been more likely to reach some sort of an ANI-like or an ANI+ASI population (ANI being either the physical Zagros people or a hypothetical paleolithic people of West Eurasian ancestry provided they stayed originally in more northerly parts of the subcontinent (perhaps like Rajasthan or Gujarat) and provided they were a paleolithic-Iran-related people but not other West Eurasians like the WHGs, EHGs, etc. (of Indo-European fame) that I read about in these forums) before an ASI-like population (under my third assumption that ASIs may have been located more southerly compared to these hypothetical paleolithic West Eurasian-like people), purely owing to geographical reasons (of course, please challenge my assumptions and reasoning anywhere), the origins of the Dravidian languages stay very unclear with at least the Mature Harappan Civilisation having a language and culture that is largely discordant with the Dravidian languages and the Dravidian culture observed in the Iron Age of South India (which can very likely be associated with the Dravidian languages) and then there being no much archaeological evidence for the large scale physical migration of people of a collapsing IVC into South India (also South India having no bronze age which IVC had).

    So, under the consideration that it is the South Indian Neolithic of southern Deccan that could be connected with Dravidian languages and not the Mature Indus Valley Civilisation (who spoke the most likely non-Dravidian language that contributed the substratum to Vedic Sanskrit and used in their seals), it is possible that the ANI element of the speakers of these languages was due to one of the following:

    1. The paleolithic subcontinental people of paleolithic-Iran-related ancestry that we now see in non-Brahmin South Indians who got their very primitive (limited to zebu cattle, sheep and goat pastoralism but not the West Asian neolithic crop package) neolithic signals at a relatively recent point (likely near the end of the Pre-Harappan phase) (again, how not earlier is a major problem with this idea) from the earliest Indus Valley Neolithic and started migrating off into southerly areas from regions like Gujarat perhaps, not having anything significant to do with Indus Valley neolithic and the Indus Valley Civilisation later on (except for the occasional inputs from Indus Valley much later like wheat, barley, cotton, etc. to South Indian neolithic likely through the Northern Deccan Chalcolithic cultures who followed Indus Valley Civilisation culture).

    2. The physical people of the Zagros Neolithic a section of whom physically played an important role in the starting of the Indus Valley Neolithic and it is another section of these physical Zagros descendants that continued into South India via Gujarat and Maharashtra into South India, their languages contributing something to Proto-Dravidian. But this is problematic because the South Indian Neolithic starts very late at 2800 BC. A scenario can be imagined wherein the established Zagros descendants of the Indus Valley Neolithic were disrupted by the arrival of a new people into their region who would eventually become the highly urban Harappan Civilisation people who of course must have spoken a now-lost non-Dravidian language of cotton, bronze, flush toilets and forts vocabulary and this is what prompted the original Zagros people of the Indus Valley to migrate off into South India but I don't know if I can entertain this as I don't know if any discontinuities are seen at that time period of the beginnings of the urban phases from the archaeological record. But still, the absence of established Indus Valley crops in the South Indian Neolithic remains problematic.

    Of course under the happier consideration that the assumption of ANI presence a must in language spread may be false, it can be easily thought of as illustrating one case of an ASI "victory" over the ANI groups in terms of the language shift to Dravidian by these ANI groups. But this might definitely have its own problems of course, perhaps like non-Brahmin South Indian high castes showing significantly more non-Indo-European ANI than low castes. (also, castes not referring to the traditional Indo-Aryan caste structure, but something pre-Aryan the nature of which I'm also not aware of)(Could anyone please confirm if this is true?) (Also, the high ASI of Dravidian-speaking-tribes I personally speculate to have been a result of a recent Dravidianisation event of a second, pure group of ASIs in the deep south by the iron-age linguistically well-differentiated Dravidian speakers of the ANI+first ASI variety.)

    Also, all my considerations above generally revolve around one of the focal points (the other one being no cultural and likely no linguistic similarities between the Mature IVC and the Dravidian Iron Age and South Indian Neolithic) that the typical West Asian neolithic package crops were absent in the earliest stages of the South Indian Neolithic. This could be explained in a variety of other ways than the incomplete-neolithicisation-of-a-paleolithic-Indian-ANI idea that I talked about above, they are:

    1. West Asian winter crops of wheat and barley do not grow in South India and thus may have been absent from the archaeological record of the Southern Neolithic. In this case, I'm almost back to square one though I still consider it likely the Dravidian-speaking-ANI who carried the neolithic signals could not have spoken a language related to the Mature IVC.

    2. At least the earliest stages of the South Indian Neolithic were in fact completely native ASI-created, into which the ANI people in question joined later on, either bringing the Dravidian languages and completely managing to overpower the ASI neolithics without being much advanced (even the wheat and barley which did arrive in the phase II of the South Indian Neolithic did not have any drastic impact on it) or adopting the Dravidian languages of the ASI and continuing to thrive (again, the exact nature of these ANI people will be a mystery.)

    3. Dravidian languages simply arrived with iron and megaliths into South India and their expansion exactly matches the expansion of Indo-Aryan languages that came with iron into the weaker post-Harappan North India. In this case, at least the entire picture becomes somewhat clear though ultimately the origins of these recent Iranian iron bearers remains a mystery (at least to me, as it is clear that these Dravidian people who migrated with iron and megaliths from Iran did so without leaving a linguistic trace there.)

    4. According to the Elamite connection proposed by Southworth and McAlpin who make Dravidian languages enter the subcontinent in the 3rd millennium BC into the highly-developed Indus Valley Neolithic and having undergone some massive transformations there, and not continuing staying there, migrating off into South India where, again, the wheat of the Dravidian-speakers would not have grown. This is a nice explanation but the Elamite connection is what is unproven according to linguistics and Dravidian is to be considered a linguistic isolate for now. This sort of explanation definitely holds good for the case of Dravidian being a recent West Asian isolate too, but again, has zero evidence to support it (I know the paleolithic idea does not hold much water either lol, having no argument to back it up except for Dravidian being an isolate and such), and I'm back to my square one.

    It appears I have to keep getting back to my square one for eternity regarding this question anyway. In this regard, I actually am a bit jealous of the speakers of the Indo-Aryan languages because one single broad theory exists in the linguistics mainstream that most likely explains the origins of these languages correctly, and that too detailedly. In an ideal world, they need only worry about their lost Indus substratum languages. So being connected to a larger Indo-European linguistically is quite good, people. Being a speaker of a language from an isolate family is not that good in this regard lol, if you want to inquire into the origins of the languages that you now, and perhaps from late prehistoric periods, speak natively.
    Last edited by anthroin; 08-30-2017 at 02:48 AM.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to anthroin For This Useful Post:

     A Norfolk L-M20 (08-30-2017)

  6. #744
    Registered Users
    Posts
    513
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by anthroin View Post
    Could you please provide me an outline as to the nature of this paleolithic West Eurasian (non-Indo-European surely) ancestry in India that you have in mind? Did this hypothetical paleolithic West Eurasian ancestry significantly contribute to the modern Indians genetically? Or was it only in quite marginal amounts to contribute anything significant?

    My aim in general is to gain a somewhat better understanding of the currently ultra-mysterious origins of the Dravidian languages in the light of the ANI ancestry (Zagros Neolithic-like) in all modern day non-Brahmin South Indians, because if we were all purely ASI, the languages that we speak must have been decidedly of Indian origin. Now we have the choices of ANI, ASI, a mixture of ANI+ASI for the original speakers of Proto-Dravidian language.

    But, even under the assumption that the Dravidian languages could not have spread without some sort of a farming element and under the second assumption that this farming signal should have been more likely to reach some sort of an ANI-like or an ANI+ASI population (ANI being either the physical Zagros people or a hypothetical paleolithic people of West Eurasian ancestry provided they stayed originally in more northerly parts of the subcontinent (perhaps like Rajasthan or Gujarat) and provided they were a paleolithic-Iran-related people but not other West Eurasians like the WHGs, EHGs, etc. (of Indo-European fame) that I read about in these forums) before an ASI-like population (under my third assumption that ASIs may have been located more southerly compared to these hypothetical paleolithic West Eurasian-like people), purely owing to geographical reasons (of course, please challenge my assumptions and reasoning anywhere), the origins of the Dravidian languages stay very unclear with at least the Mature Harappan Civilisation having a language and culture that is largely discordant with the Dravidian languages and the Dravidian culture observed in the Iron Age of South India (which can very likely be associated with the Dravidian languages) and then there being no much archaeological evidence for the large scale physical migration of people of a collapsing IVC into South India (also South India having no bronze age which IVC had).

    So, under the consideration that it is the South Indian Neolithic of southern Deccan that could be connected with Dravidian languages and not the Mature Indus Valley Civilisation (who spoke the most likely non-Dravidian language that contributed the substratum to Vedic Sanskrit and used in their seals), it is possible that the ANI element of the speakers of these languages was due to one of the following:

    1. The paleolithic subcontinental people of paleolithic-Iran-related ancestry that we now see in non-Brahmin South Indians who got their very primitive (limited to zebu cattle, sheep and goat pastoralism but not the West Asian neolithic crop package) neolithic signals at a relatively recent point (likely near the end of the Pre-Harappan phase) (again, how not earlier is a major problem with this idea) from the earliest Indus Valley Neolithic and started migrating off into southerly areas from regions like Gujarat perhaps, not having anything significant to do with Indus Valley neolithic and the Indus Valley Civilisation later on (except for the occasional inputs from Indus Valley much later like wheat, barley, cotton, etc. to South Indian neolithic likely through the Northern Deccan Chalcolithic cultures who followed Indus Valley Civilisation culture).

    2. The physical people of the Zagros Neolithic a section of whom physically played an important role in the starting of the Indus Valley Neolithic and it is another section of these physical Zagros descendants that continued into South India via Gujarat and Maharashtra into South India, their languages contributing something to Proto-Dravidian. But this is problematic because the South Indian Neolithic starts very late at 2800 BC. A scenario can be imagined wherein the established Zagros descendants of the Indus Valley Neolithic were disrupted by the arrival of a new people into their region who would eventually become the highly urban Harappan Civilisation people who of course must have spoken a now-lost non-Dravidian language of cotton, bronze, flush toilets and forts vocabulary and this is what prompted the original Zagros people of the Indus Valley to migrate off into South India but I don't know if I can entertain this as I don't know if any discontinuities are seen at that time period of the beginnings of the urban phases from the archaeological record. But still, the absence of established Indus Valley crops in the South Indian Neolithic remains problematic.

    Of course under the happier consideration that the assumption of ANI presence a must in language spread may be false, it can be easily thought of as illustrating one case of an ASI "victory" over the ANI groups in terms of the language shift to Dravidian by these ANI groups. But this might definitely have its own problems of course, perhaps like non-Brahmin South Indian high castes showing significantly more non-Indo-European ANI than low castes. (also, castes not referring to the traditional Indo-Aryan caste structure, but something pre-Aryan the nature of which I'm also not aware of)(Could anyone please confirm if this is true?) (Also, the high ASI of Dravidian-speaking-tribes I personally speculate to have been a result of a recent Dravidianisation event of a second, pure group of ASIs in the deep south by the iron-age linguistically well-differentiated Dravidian speakers of the ANI+first ASI variety.)

    Also, all my considerations above generally revolve around one of the focal points (the other one being no cultural and likely no linguistic similarities between the Mature IVC and the Dravidian Iron Age and South Indian Neolithic) that the typical West Asian neolithic package crops were absent in the earliest stages of the South Indian Neolithic. This could be explained in a variety of other ways than the incomplete-neolithicisation-of-a-paleolithic-Indian-ANI idea that I talked about above, they are:

    1. West Asian winter crops of wheat and barley do not grow in South India and thus may have been absent from the archaeological record of the Southern Neolithic. In this case, I'm almost back to square one though I still consider it likely the Dravidian-speaking-ANI who carried the neolithic signals could not have spoken a language related to the Mature IVC.

    2. At least the earliest stages of the South Indian Neolithic were in fact completely native ASI-created, into which the ANI people in question joined later on, either bringing the Dravidian languages and completely managing to overpower the ASI neolithics without being much advanced (even the wheat and barley which did arrive in the phase II of the South Indian Neolithic did not have any drastic impact on it) or adopting the Dravidian languages of the ASI and continuing to thrive (again, the exact nature of these ANI people will be a mystery.)

    3. Dravidian languages simply arrived with iron and megaliths into South India and their expansion exactly matches the expansion of Indo-Aryan languages that came with iron into the weaker post-Harappan North India. In this case, at least the entire picture becomes somewhat clear though ultimately the origins of these recent Iranian iron bearers remains a mystery (at least to me, as it is clear that these Dravidian people who migrated with iron and megaliths from Iran did so without leaving a linguistic trace there.)

    4. According to the Elamite connection proposed by Southworth and McAlpin who make Dravidian languages enter the subcontinent in the 3rd millennium BC into the highly-developed Indus Valley Neolithic and having undergone some massive transformations there, and not continuing staying there, migrating off into South India where, again, the wheat of the Dravidian-speakers would not have grown. This is a nice explanation but the Elamite connection is what is unproven according to linguistics and Dravidian is to be considered a linguistic isolate for now. This sort of explanation definitely holds good for the case of Dravidian being a recent West Asian isolate too, but again, has zero evidence to support it (I know the paleolithic idea does not hold much water either lol, having no argument to back it up except for Dravidian being an isolate and such), and I'm back to my square one.

    It appears I have to keep getting back to my square one for eternity regarding this question anyway. In this regard, I actually am a bit jealous of the speakers of the Indo-Aryan languages because one single broad theory exists in the linguistics mainstream that most likely explains the origins of these languages correctly, and that too detailedly. In an ideal world, they need only worry about their lost Indus substratum languages. So being connected to a larger Indo-European linguistically is quite good, people. Being a speaker of a language from an isolate family is not that good in this regard lol, if you want to inquire into the origins of the languages that you now, and perhaps from late prehistoric periods, speak natively.
    Its extremely difficult to answer any of these questions at this point. All arguments will rely on extremely circumstantial evidence. Yep, that Dravidian is an "ASI" language is also a possibility considering what happened on the farmer-HG frontier in the Steppes. Others ("Nostraticists") may point in the other direction, but this is all very weak pointing.

    For the "Mesolithic West Asian" phenomenon I am referring to the preneolithic coalescence of some West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in India, plus haplotype diversity of the "West Asian" component in the Indus Valley in Metspalu et al. Probably the influence was inconsequential as this was all HG stuff and HG-type cultural elements don't seem to contribute much culturally to any major group in Eurasia without pastoralisation or neolithicisation processes intervening.

    We should probably wait for the genomes from Indus Valley, hopefully they will have some Mesolithic samples.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     A Norfolk L-M20 (08-30-2017), anthroin (08-30-2017)

Page 75 of 75 FirstFirst ... 2565737475

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 172
    Last Post: 07-21-2017, 09:57 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-11-2016, 12:57 AM
  3. Replies: 110
    Last Post: 07-03-2015, 09:36 PM
  4. Early Fertile Crescent Neolithic Y-DNA
    By J Man in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-26-2015, 11:38 PM
  5. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-15-2014, 09:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •