D
Deleted member 23558
God make my neurotransmitters great inc
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2022
- Posts
- 64,844
- Reputation
- 91,191
Steppe ancestry entered india at around 1500 BC probably through Sakas and mostly female mediated (as aDNA proportion is much higher than the Y haplogroup and R1- Z93 is distinct from the Indian R1- even tribals in the deep south have R1) .
Cant believe huwhit women crossed the Hindu Kush just for Brahmin cock.
In the context of the Iran Neolithic ancestry, they write
For the steppe hypothesis for Indo-Iranian, they correctly point out the abysmal archaeological evidence (ie 0 steppe artefacts in India and Iran)
To this, I add these golden words from CC Lamberg-Karlovsky (2004)
Cant believe huwhit women crossed the Hindu Kush just for Brahmin cock.
From Iran to India, Steppe ancestry is present only in low proportions, and only from a relatively late date, c. 3500 BP (49). This is significantly later than standard expositions of the Steppe hypothesis have proposed, associating Indo-Iranic with the earlier Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) culture. Dates for first incursions southwards from Central Asia as late as 3500 BP also leave little scope for the Indo-Iranic superstrate assumed to be present as far south and west as northern Syria and southeast Anatolia, already by the time of the Mitanni kingdom there.
Unlike the major and relatively sudden incursion of (Forest?) Steppe ancestry into Central Europe with Corded Ware c. 5000 BP, or Yamnaya into the Carpathian Basin around the same time, the weaker and much later signal in south-central Asia does not represent a strong prima facie explanation for the origins and first expansion of Indo-European languages here.
In the context of the Iran Neolithic ancestry, they write
It is found in eastern Iran, and in the Indus Valley (roughly the dividing line between the Iranic and Indic branches today), at the approximate time-depth when the two branches separate from each other in our analysis. This separation could correspond with an eastward expansion along the Ganges valley of what would become the Indic branch, picking up some of its distinctive linguistic characteristics from contact with local populations. This makes for a more straightforward scenario for the chronology, distribution and dominance of Indo-Iranic languages right across this region than a much later and genetically much less significant contribution from Central Asia.
For the steppe hypothesis for Indo-Iranian, they correctly point out the abysmal archaeological evidence (ie 0 steppe artefacts in India and Iran)
It has long remained a recognized weakness of the Steppe hypothesis (pp. 177-181 in (80); pp. 212-217 in (59); (90)) that the archaeological record lacks any obvious impacts out of the Steppe in a time-frame early enough to fit well with the scale of linguistic divergence within Indo-Iranic. Advocates of the Steppe hypothesis have widely assumed that the Andronovo culture ‘must have’ been Indo-Iranic-speaking, but even Mallory “findit extraordinarily difficult to make a case for expansions from this northern region to northern India”, and more generally finds no obvious connection to “the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo- Aryans” (pp. 191-192 in (90)). The urban culture of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) was originally widely taken to offer the least bad candidate (7, 89, 90). Samples of aDNA from BMAC contexts, however, lack the expected Steppe ancestry, found only later.
There is absolutely NO archaeological evidence for any variant of the Andronovo culture either reaching or influencing the cultures of Iran or northern India in the second millennium. Not a single artifact of identifiable Andronovo type has been recovered from the Iranian Plateau, northern India, or Pakistan.
Last edited: