iam good boy
Fucking hate everything I'm deformed
- Joined
- May 30, 2023
- Posts
- 8,959
- Reputation
- 6,290
NW Indian samples possibly has had multiple genetic introgressions which could muddle the signals (I have modelled Kalash with qpAdm before and the results do not differ much from what I will show below). Such is likely not the case for east and south India where the steppe ancestry would have arrived from one or a maximum of two sources
The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
[IMG alt="RabidRosaries"]https://data.neets.net/avatars/m/1/1638.jpg?1721322675[/IMG]
The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
'kanthA' - 'city' is a Śāka suffix whereas 'Kanda'- 'city' is a Sogdian suffix, as is informed to us by Kharoshthi inscriptions. SC Asia still abounds in 'kanthA' ending place names, as Agarwala informs us - Samar-kand, Panj-Kand, Tash-kent, etc. This is indicative of Śāka presence in Punjab long before Pāṇini's time and long before the later Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
The Connection made by Petrie and Magee between Bannu ware (900-600BCE) and Yaz culture is probably an answer to Agarwala's quandary. It would seem that Śāka were present in Punjab, not just in the Oxus in the pre-Achaemenid times.
It is possible that these Śāka comingled with the Hindu upper classes and mediated steppe ancestry in the ancestors of modern Indians. However, no other information about this period exists to confirm this.
Achaemenid empire under Cyrus and his successor Darius I (530BCE onwards) had parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as its satrapies. This is clear in the Behistun, Persepolis and Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions. The satrapies were - Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydia. These satrapies were also mentioned by Strabo and Herodotus.
Indian soldiers were part of the Achaemenid army as well, and the 331 BCE battle between Alexander and Darius III is said to have included soldiers from India as well as Bactria and Sogdiana. This suggests that at least some Indian territories were under the rule of Achaemenids between 530 and 330 BCE.
What genetic changes occurred during this rule cannot be estimated, but some mixing between the Hindu elites and the Achaemenid elites is possible. Śāka were also part of the armies and administrators commanded by the Achaemenids.
Another route through which some foreign genetic material could have entered Indians is by incorporating non-Aryans into the Aryan fold. Agarwala cites Pāṇini's work which talks about Vrātyas [non-Aryans or Aryans who have lost the Aryan way] and the Vrātya-stoma rituals to bring them back to the Aryan fold. The simplified rituals are meant for 4 kinds of people - the young, the elderly, ones who are violent, and cultural leaders in the Vrātya society.
Agarwala writes "It is possible that the converted Vrātya who had been admitted to the Brahmana or Kshatriya fold were spoken of as ब्राह्मण-कृताः and क्षत्रिय-कृताः ."
Whether Śāka were converted into the Aryan fold through such rituals remains a matter of debate, it is not very clear who exactly were the subjects of this ritual.
[IMG alt="RabidRosaries"]https://data.neets.net/avatars/m/1/1638.jpg?1721322675[/IMG]
The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
'kanthA' - 'city' is a Śāka suffix whereas 'Kanda'- 'city' is a Sogdian suffix, as is informed to us by Kharoshthi inscriptions. SC Asia still abounds in 'kanthA' ending place names, as Agarwala informs us - Samar-kand, Panj-Kand, Tash-kent, etc. This is indicative of Śāka presence in Punjab long before Pāṇini's time and long before the later Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
The Connection made by Petrie and Magee between Bannu ware (900-600BCE) and Yaz culture is probably an answer to Agarwala's quandary. It would seem that Śāka were present in Punjab, not just in the Oxus in the pre-Achaemenid times.
It is possible that these Śāka comingled with the Hindu upper classes and mediated steppe ancestry in the ancestors of modern Indians. However, no other information about this period exists to confirm this.
Achaemenid empire under Cyrus and his successor Darius I (530BCE onwards) had parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as its satrapies. This is clear in the Behistun, Persepolis and Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions. The satrapies were - Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydia. These satrapies were also mentioned by Strabo and Herodotus.
Indian soldiers were part of the Achaemenid army as well, and the 331 BCE battle between Alexander and Darius III is said to have included soldiers from India as well as Bactria and Sogdiana. This suggests that at least some Indian territories were under the rule of Achaemenids between 530 and 330 BCE.
What genetic changes occurred during this rule cannot be estimated, but some mixing between the Hindu elites and the Achaemenid elites is possible. Śāka were also part of the armies and administrators commanded by the Achaemenids.
Another route through which some foreign genetic material could have entered Indians is by incorporating non-Aryans into the Aryan fold. Agarwala cites Pāṇini's work which talks about Vrātyas [non-Aryans or Aryans who have lost the Aryan way] and the Vrātya-stoma rituals to bring them back to the Aryan fold. The simplified rituals are meant for 4 kinds of people - the young, the elderly, ones who are violent, and cultural leaders in the Vrātya society.
Agarwala writes "It is possible that the converted Vrātya who had been admitted to the Brahmana or Kshatriya fold were spoken of as ब्राह्मण-कृताः and क्षत्रिय-कृताः ."
Whether Śāka were converted into the Aryan fold through such rituals remains a matter of debate, it is not very clear who exactly were the subjects of this ritual.
His achievements in the east (Battle vs Porus?) lasted only a few decades and by 317BCE the Greek satraps left behind were driven out by the Mauryan empire of Chandragupta Maurya. The 305 BCE battle by Seleucus to take back control resulted in a Greek defeat and a peace treaty was signed. As part of this diplomacy, Seleceus' daughter (?) married Chandragupta Maurya. Perhaps this also signifies the lack of aversion of Indian elites marrying foreigners, or perhaps this was just due to political expediency. The treaty resulted in mutually beneficial diplomatic relations between the Greeks and Mauryas. Perso-Hellenistic art inspired some of the Magadhan architecture (presumably along with the import of Iranian craftsmen). Terracotta figures excavated from Mauryan era Mathura and Sarnath also reveal the presence of foreigners (if not just depictions of foreigners).
a. Persian Nobleman Clad in Coat Dupatta Trouser and Turban - Circa 2nd Century BCE. From wiki
b. Foreigner with Śāka conical hat at Sarnath. From wiki
Ashoka's reign saw the Mauryan empire expand into the south of India. Perhaps it was during this rule that the steppe ancestry from the NW was mediated into the other parts of India?
After the death of Ashoka, the Maurya empire fell around 180 BCE, and the NW part of India was taken hold of by Graeco-Bactrians under Śāka administrators.
The Greek-born but Buddhist convert Milinda ruled between 160-130 BCE and had his capital at Sakala (Sialkot in Punjab). He campaigned as far as Mathura and Pataliputra against the Shungas (successors of Mauryas in Magadha). It is expected that there would be Śāka soldiers in the Indo-Greek army.
Post 100 BCE, a Śāka administrator of the Indo-Greeks named Maues became the king after marrying the widow - Greek Queen Machene. From the numismatic evidence, we see that Maues reversed the Hellenic ban of representing Hindu icons on the Indo-Greek coinage by the predecessors - presumably to appease his Hindu citizens and elites. The Indo-Śāka ruled with the help of Satraps and Maha-Satraps.
Rudradaman I, the Indo-Śāka king who ruled as a Maha-Kshatrapa from 150 CE waged various wars against the Andhra Satavahana dynasty but ended up giving his daughter's hand in marriage to the Brahmin Andhra king Vashishtiputra Satakarni (from Junagadh inscription).
The period saw the rise of the Kushana empire under Kanishka I. Kushanas had control over Northern India till around 370 CE when they were pushed out by the Gupta kings. Samudragupta's Prayagraj Pillar mentions that the last of the Kushanas offered their daughters' hand in marriage in an attempt to keep control over their territories.
[IMG alt="RabidRosaries"]https://data.neets.net/avatars/m/1/1638.jpg?1721322675[/IMG]
The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
'kanthA' - 'city' is a Śāka suffix whereas 'Kanda'- 'city' is a Sogdian suffix, as is informed to us by Kharoshthi inscriptions. SC Asia still abounds in 'kanthA' ending place names, as Agarwala informs us - Samar-kand, Panj-Kand, Tash-kent, etc. This is indicative of Śāka presence in Punjab long before Pāṇini's time and long before the later Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
The Connection made by Petrie and Magee between Bannu ware (900-600BCE) and Yaz culture is probably an answer to Agarwala's quandary. It would seem that Śāka were present in Punjab, not just in the Oxus in the pre-Achaemenid times.
It is possible that these Śāka comingled with the Hindu upper classes and mediated steppe ancestry in the ancestors of modern Indians. However, no other information about this period exists to confirm this.
Achaemenid empire under Cyrus and his successor Darius I (530BCE onwards) had parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as its satrapies. This is clear in the Behistun, Persepolis and Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions. The satrapies were - Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydia. These satrapies were also mentioned by Strabo and Herodotus.
Indian soldiers were part of the Achaemenid army as well, and the 331 BCE battle between Alexander and Darius III is said to have included soldiers from India as well as Bactria and Sogdiana. This suggests that at least some Indian territories were under the rule of Achaemenids between 530 and 330 BCE.
What genetic changes occurred during this rule cannot be estimated, but some mixing between the Hindu elites and the Achaemenid elites is possible. Śāka were also part of the armies and administrators commanded by the Achaemenids.
Another route through which some foreign genetic material could have entered Indians is by incorporating non-Aryans into the Aryan fold. Agarwala cites Pāṇini's work which talks about Vrātyas [non-Aryans or Aryans who have lost the Aryan way] and the Vrātya-stoma rituals to bring them back to the Aryan fold. The simplified rituals are meant for 4 kinds of people - the young, the elderly, ones who are violent, and cultural leaders in the Vrātya society.
Agarwala writes "It is possible that the converted Vrātya who had been admitted to the Brahmana or Kshatriya fold were spoken of as ब्राह्मण-कृताः and क्षत्रिय-कृताः ."
Whether Śāka were converted into the Aryan fold through such rituals remains a matter of debate, it is not very clear who exactly were the subjects of this ritual.
His achievements in the east (Battle vs Porus?) lasted only a few decades and by 317BCE the Greek satraps left behind were driven out by the Mauryan empire of Chandragupta Maurya. The 305 BCE battle by Seleucus to take back control resulted in a Greek defeat and a peace treaty was signed. As part of this diplomacy, Seleceus' daughter (?) married Chandragupta Maurya. Perhaps this also signifies the lack of aversion of Indian elites marrying foreigners, or perhaps this was just due to political expediency. The treaty resulted in mutually beneficial diplomatic relations between the Greeks and Mauryas. Perso-Hellenistic art inspired some of the Magadhan architecture (presumably along with the import of Iranian craftsmen). Terracotta figures excavated from Mauryan era Mathura and Sarnath also reveal the presence of foreigners (if not just depictions of foreigners).
a. Persian Nobleman Clad in Coat Dupatta Trouser and Turban - Circa 2nd Century BCE. From wiki
b. Foreigner with Śāka conical hat at Sarnath. From wiki
Ashoka's reign saw the Mauryan empire expand into the south of India. Perhaps it was during this rule that the steppe ancestry from the NW was mediated into the other parts of India?
After the death of Ashoka, the Maurya empire fell around 180 BCE, and the NW part of India was taken hold of by Graeco-Bactrians under Śāka administrators.
The Greek-born but Buddhist convert Milinda ruled between 160-130 BCE and had his capital at Sakala (Sialkot in Punjab). He campaigned as far as Mathura and Pataliputra against the Shungas (successors of Mauryas in Magadha). It is expected that there would be Śāka soldiers in the Indo-Greek army.
Post 100 BCE, a Śāka administrator of the Indo-Greeks named Maues became the king after marrying the widow - Greek Queen Machene. From the numismatic evidence, we see that Maues reversed the Hellenic ban of representing Hindu icons on the Indo-Greek coinage by the predecessors - presumably to appease his Hindu citizens and elites. The Indo-Śāka ruled with the help of Satraps and Maha-Satraps.
Rudradaman I, the Indo-Śāka king who ruled as a Maha-Kshatrapa from 150 CE waged various wars against the Andhra Satavahana dynasty but ended up giving his daughter's hand in marriage to the Brahmin Andhra king Vashishtiputra Satakarni (from Junagadh inscription).
The period saw the rise of the Kushana empire under Kanishka I. Kushanas had control over Northern India till around 370 CE when they were pushed out by the Gupta kings. Samudragupta's Prayagraj Pillar mentions that the last of the Kushanas offered their daughters' hand in marriage in an attempt to keep control over their territories.
Johannes Bronkhorst writes this in his 2015 book:
Bronkhorst believes that the Magi came to India during the Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
However, KC Srivastava (1968) believes that the Magi may have entered Indian society along with the Achaemenid invasion of 500 BCE.
It is not far-fetched to assume that a lot of the steppe ancestry in Brahmins came from intermarriage with the Maga Brahmins before caste endogamy set in.
There is a curious passage in the Mahābhārata 6.12.33–37 which goes thus (translated by Bronkhorst 2015)
Strabo also distinguishes four groups of Massagétai - living on the islands, the marshes, the mountains, and the plains (Schmitt 2018), similar to 'four meritorious countries' in MBh. Herodotus notes that they worship only the Sun God and sacrifice horses to him (Schmitt 2018)
1. "People of the BMAC were not a major source of ancestry for South Asians"
This can now be said to be untrue. Turkmenistan_IA is derived from BMAC and Steppe_MLBA populations, and the analysis above showed that it is the best steppe source in Indians. So either both are major sources of ancestry in South Asians, or none are.
2. "Steppe ancestry in modern South Asians is primarily from males and disproportionately high in Brahmin and Bhumihar groups."
I have rebutted both of these claims in previous posts. Simply put, R1a-L657 (which makes up 70% of modern Indian R1a) is not from the steppe and is local to the Indian subcontinent. It is found in exactly 0 bronze age samples from the steppe and is absent in any meaningful way from modern steppe populations. The paper avoids this nuance and concludes wrongly after omitting this relevant data. The rebuttal can be read here.
Steppe ancestry is not disproportionately high in Brahmin groups. UP Rajput groups have similar ancestry as Brahmins, and the highest steppe groups in India are from NW India (Jats). This is covered here.
3. "By the end of the second millennium BCE, these people were joined by numerous outlier individuals with East Asian–related admixture that became ubiquitous in the region by the Iron Age. This East Asian–related admixture is also seen in later groups with known cultural impacts on South Asia, including Huns, Kushans, and Śāka, and is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia, suggesting that the Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from pre–Iron Age Central Asians."
The authors of the paper wanted to sell us the idea that steppe ancestry entered Indians before the late bronze age (roughly 1300 BCE) because of the presence of 'ubiquitous east Asian ancestry' in steppe regions post-LBA. This timing best fits their idea of the 'Aryan Invasion'.
This was already proven false by the data of their own paper. There was no east Asian ancestry in the 1100 BCE Kashkarchi samples from Uzbekistan. And there is no east Asian ancestry in the 850 BCE Turkmenistan_IA sample. What's more, Kangju (from 200 CE, which has minor east Asian ancestry) was a good fit as a source in their own models. East Asian ancestry is clearly not ubiquitous in the regions to the west and south of Kyrgyzstan in the iron age either (Kumar et al 2021; Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021).
From Narasimhan et al supplement pg 287 (emphasis mine)
[IMG alt="RabidRosaries"]https://data.neets.net/avatars/m/1/1638.jpg?1721322675[/IMG]
The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
'kanthA' - 'city' is a Śāka suffix whereas 'Kanda'- 'city' is a Sogdian suffix, as is informed to us by Kharoshthi inscriptions. SC Asia still abounds in 'kanthA' ending place names, as Agarwala informs us - Samar-kand, Panj-Kand, Tash-kent, etc. This is indicative of Śāka presence in Punjab long before Pāṇini's time and long before the later Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
The Connection made by Petrie and Magee between Bannu ware (900-600BCE) and Yaz culture is probably an answer to Agarwala's quandary. It would seem that Śāka were present in Punjab, not just in the Oxus in the pre-Achaemenid times.
It is possible that these Śāka comingled with the Hindu upper classes and mediated steppe ancestry in the ancestors of modern Indians. However, no other information about this period exists to confirm this.
Achaemenid empire under Cyrus and his successor Darius I (530BCE onwards) had parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as its satrapies. This is clear in the Behistun, Persepolis and Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions. The satrapies were - Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydia. These satrapies were also mentioned by Strabo and Herodotus.
Indian soldiers were part of the Achaemenid army as well, and the 331 BCE battle between Alexander and Darius III is said to have included soldiers from India as well as Bactria and Sogdiana. This suggests that at least some Indian territories were under the rule of Achaemenids between 530 and 330 BCE.
What genetic changes occurred during this rule cannot be estimated, but some mixing between the Hindu elites and the Achaemenid elites is possible. Śāka were also part of the armies and administrators commanded by the Achaemenids.
Another route through which some foreign genetic material could have entered Indians is by incorporating non-Aryans into the Aryan fold. Agarwala cites Pāṇini's work which talks about Vrātyas [non-Aryans or Aryans who have lost the Aryan way] and the Vrātya-stoma rituals to bring them back to the Aryan fold. The simplified rituals are meant for 4 kinds of people - the young, the elderly, ones who are violent, and cultural leaders in the Vrātya society.
Agarwala writes "It is possible that the converted Vrātya who had been admitted to the Brahmana or Kshatriya fold were spoken of as ब्राह्मण-कृताः and क्षत्रिय-कृताः ."
Whether Śāka were converted into the Aryan fold through such rituals remains a matter of debate, it is not very clear who exactly were the subjects of this ritual.
His achievements in the east (Battle vs Porus?) lasted only a few decades and by 317BCE the Greek satraps left behind were driven out by the Mauryan empire of Chandragupta Maurya. The 305 BCE battle by Seleucus to take back control resulted in a Greek defeat and a peace treaty was signed. As part of this diplomacy, Seleceus' daughter (?) married Chandragupta Maurya. Perhaps this also signifies the lack of aversion of Indian elites marrying foreigners, or perhaps this was just due to political expediency. The treaty resulted in mutually beneficial diplomatic relations between the Greeks and Mauryas. Perso-Hellenistic art inspired some of the Magadhan architecture (presumably along with the import of Iranian craftsmen). Terracotta figures excavated from Mauryan era Mathura and Sarnath also reveal the presence of foreigners (if not just depictions of foreigners).
a. Persian Nobleman Clad in Coat Dupatta Trouser and Turban - Circa 2nd Century BCE. From wiki
b. Foreigner with Śāka conical hat at Sarnath. From wiki
Ashoka's reign saw the Mauryan empire expand into the south of India. Perhaps it was during this rule that the steppe ancestry from the NW was mediated into the other parts of India?
After the death of Ashoka, the Maurya empire fell around 180 BCE, and the NW part of India was taken hold of by Graeco-Bactrians under Śāka administrators.
The Greek-born but Buddhist convert Milinda ruled between 160-130 BCE and had his capital at Sakala (Sialkot in Punjab). He campaigned as far as Mathura and Pataliputra against the Shungas (successors of Mauryas in Magadha). It is expected that there would be Śāka soldiers in the Indo-Greek army.
Post 100 BCE, a Śāka administrator of the Indo-Greeks named Maues became the king after marrying the widow - Greek Queen Machene. From the numismatic evidence, we see that Maues reversed the Hellenic ban of representing Hindu icons on the Indo-Greek coinage by the predecessors - presumably to appease his Hindu citizens and elites. The Indo-Śāka ruled with the help of Satraps and Maha-Satraps.
Rudradaman I, the Indo-Śāka king who ruled as a Maha-Kshatrapa from 150 CE waged various wars against the Andhra Satavahana dynasty but ended up giving his daughter's hand in marriage to the Brahmin Andhra king Vashishtiputra Satakarni (from Junagadh inscription).
The period saw the rise of the Kushana empire under Kanishka I. Kushanas had control over Northern India till around 370 CE when they were pushed out by the Gupta kings. Samudragupta's Prayagraj Pillar mentions that the last of the Kushanas offered their daughters' hand in marriage in an attempt to keep control over their territories.
Johannes Bronkhorst writes this in his 2015 book:
Bronkhorst believes that the Magi came to India during the Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
However, KC Srivastava (1968) believes that the Magi may have entered Indian society along with the Achaemenid invasion of 500 BCE.
It is not far-fetched to assume that a lot of the steppe ancestry in Brahmins came from intermarriage with the Maga Brahmins before caste endogamy set in.
There is a curious passage in the Mahābhārata 6.12.33–37 which goes thus (translated by Bronkhorst 2015)
Strabo also distinguishes four groups of Massagétai - living on the islands, the marshes, the mountains, and the plains (Schmitt 2018), similar to 'four meritorious countries' in MBh. Herodotus notes that they worship only the Sun God and sacrifice horses to him (Schmitt 2018)
1. "People of the BMAC were not a major source of ancestry for South Asians"
This can now be said to be untrue. Turkmenistan_IA is derived from BMAC and Steppe_MLBA populations, and the analysis above showed that it is the best steppe source in Indians. So either both are major sources of ancestry in South Asians, or none are.
2. "Steppe ancestry in modern South Asians is primarily from males and disproportionately high in Brahmin and Bhumihar groups."
I have rebutted both of these claims in previous posts. Simply put, R1a-L657 (which makes up 70% of modern Indian R1a) is not from the steppe and is local to the Indian subcontinent. It is found in exactly 0 bronze age samples from the steppe and is absent in any meaningful way from modern steppe populations. The paper avoids this nuance and concludes wrongly after omitting this relevant data. The rebuttal can be read here.
Steppe ancestry is not disproportionately high in Brahmin groups. UP Rajput groups have similar ancestry as Brahmins, and the highest steppe groups in India are from NW India (Jats). This is covered here.
3. "By the end of the second millennium BCE, these people were joined by numerous outlier individuals with East Asian–related admixture that became ubiquitous in the region by the Iron Age. This East Asian–related admixture is also seen in later groups with known cultural impacts on South Asia, including Huns, Kushans, and Śāka, and is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia, suggesting that the Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from pre–Iron Age Central Asians."
The authors of the paper wanted to sell us the idea that steppe ancestry entered Indians before the late bronze age (roughly 1300 BCE) because of the presence of 'ubiquitous east Asian ancestry' in steppe regions post-LBA. This timing best fits their idea of the 'Aryan Invasion'.
This was already proven false by the data of their own paper. There was no east Asian ancestry in the 1100 BCE Kashkarchi samples from Uzbekistan. And there is no east Asian ancestry in the 850 BCE Turkmenistan_IA sample. What's more, Kangju (from 200 CE, which has minor east Asian ancestry) was a good fit as a source in their own models. East Asian ancestry is clearly not ubiquitous in the regions to the west and south of Kyrgyzstan in the iron age either (Kumar et al 2021; Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021).
From Narasimhan et al supplement pg 287 (emphasis mine)
Their own dates of admixture in modern Indians do not show 2nd millennium BCE mixing. The error bars are wide and also support a post-1000BCE mixing date for most groups. (Graphed from Narasimhan et al 2019 supplement excel Table S5)
4. In Shinde et al 2019, coauthored with Harvard geneticists, they conclude "First farmers of the Fertile Crescent contributed little to no ancestry to later South Asians"
This point specifically seems to have been emphasized to deny a western origin of the Indo-European languages in India, so that only a central Asia route via the steppe remains plausible.
This is a false claim. Not only do the Indus Periphery samples need Anatolian Farmer or Levant PPN-related ancestry (Maier et al, 2022; my previous work), but so do the South Indian tribals like Irula and steppe-free samples such as RoopkundA_PallanLike.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest contact between the Eastern Iranian Śāka and NW India, starting from 900 BCE till 350 CE. This contact seems to have been the most likely source of steppe ancestry in modern Indians.
North Indian mixed mutts:
South Indian Brahmins:
South Indian Brahmins were also the quickest to take advantage of the Raj:
Cummmmm
The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
I am inclined to accept this proposal. In the next section, I will propose some routes through which this ancestry could have come into the ancestors of modern Indians.
Serious North Indians are mixed mutts, South Indian Brahmins are the least admixed Aryans
- Thread starterRabidRosaries
- Start dateYesterday at 10:50 PM
[IMG alt="RabidRosaries"]https://data.neets.net/avatars/m/1/1638.jpg?1721322675[/IMG]
RabidRosaries
Brown
NW Indian samples possibly has had multiple genetic introgressions which could muddle the signals (I have modelled Kalash with qpAdm before and the results do not differ much from what I will show below). Such is likely not the case for east and south India where the steppe ancestry would have arrived from one or a maximum of two sources.The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
I am inclined to accept this proposal. In the next section, I will propose some routes through which this ancestry could have come into the ancestors of modern Indians.
1. Śāka presence in Punjab in the Pre-Achaemenid Period
I discovered something most interesting in VS Agarwala's 1953 book on Pāṇini. Pāṇini was a Gandharan Brahmin, expert philologist and Sanskrit grammarian who lived in the period between 600-400BCE. Since his era coincides with that of the Achaemenid rule, his works can shed light on the NW Indian region during his era. Panini gives interesting information regarding a place name suffix that was in use in Uslnara and VarNu (Bannu) during his time. He names various places names ending with 'kanthA' in the region of Punjab and Bannu.'kanthA' - 'city' is a Śāka suffix whereas 'Kanda'- 'city' is a Sogdian suffix, as is informed to us by Kharoshthi inscriptions. SC Asia still abounds in 'kanthA' ending place names, as Agarwala informs us - Samar-kand, Panj-Kand, Tash-kent, etc. This is indicative of Śāka presence in Punjab long before Pāṇini's time and long before the later Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
The Connection made by Petrie and Magee between Bannu ware (900-600BCE) and Yaz culture is probably an answer to Agarwala's quandary. It would seem that Śāka were present in Punjab, not just in the Oxus in the pre-Achaemenid times.
It is possible that these Śāka comingled with the Hindu upper classes and mediated steppe ancestry in the ancestors of modern Indians. However, no other information about this period exists to confirm this.
2. During Achaemenid Rule
It is accepted that the Yaz III period (700-400BCE) saw the region come under the rule of the Achaemenid empire (Lhuillier et al, 2013; Basafa & Davari, 2021). From the Behistun inscription, it is known that the Achaemenid King Darius I ordered his Bactrian satrap to crush the Margiana revolt, aka 'Revolt of Frāda' in 522 BCE. 55,243 of Frāda’s followers were killed and 6,972 were captured (Encyclopædia Iranica).Achaemenid empire under Cyrus and his successor Darius I (530BCE onwards) had parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as its satrapies. This is clear in the Behistun, Persepolis and Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions. The satrapies were - Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydia. These satrapies were also mentioned by Strabo and Herodotus.
Indian soldiers were part of the Achaemenid army as well, and the 331 BCE battle between Alexander and Darius III is said to have included soldiers from India as well as Bactria and Sogdiana. This suggests that at least some Indian territories were under the rule of Achaemenids between 530 and 330 BCE.
What genetic changes occurred during this rule cannot be estimated, but some mixing between the Hindu elites and the Achaemenid elites is possible. Śāka were also part of the armies and administrators commanded by the Achaemenids.
Another route through which some foreign genetic material could have entered Indians is by incorporating non-Aryans into the Aryan fold. Agarwala cites Pāṇini's work which talks about Vrātyas [non-Aryans or Aryans who have lost the Aryan way] and the Vrātya-stoma rituals to bring them back to the Aryan fold. The simplified rituals are meant for 4 kinds of people - the young, the elderly, ones who are violent, and cultural leaders in the Vrātya society.
Agarwala writes "It is possible that the converted Vrātya who had been admitted to the Brahmana or Kshatriya fold were spoken of as ब्राह्मण-कृताः and क्षत्रिय-कृताः ."
Whether Śāka were converted into the Aryan fold through such rituals remains a matter of debate, it is not very clear who exactly were the subjects of this ritual.
Serious North Indians are mixed mutts, South Indian Brahmins are the least admixed Aryans
- Thread starterRabidRosaries
- Start dateYesterday at 10:50 PM
[IMG alt="RabidRosaries"]https://data.neets.net/avatars/m/1/1638.jpg?1721322675[/IMG]
RabidRosaries
Brown
NW Indian samples possibly has had multiple genetic introgressions which could muddle the signals (I have modelled Kalash with qpAdm before and the results do not differ much from what I will show below). Such is likely not the case for east and south India where the steppe ancestry would have arrived from one or a maximum of two sources.The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
I am inclined to accept this proposal. In the next section, I will propose some routes through which this ancestry could have come into the ancestors of modern Indians.
1. Śāka presence in Punjab in the Pre-Achaemenid Period
I discovered something most interesting in VS Agarwala's 1953 book on Pāṇini. Pāṇini was a Gandharan Brahmin, expert philologist and Sanskrit grammarian who lived in the period between 600-400BCE. Since his era coincides with that of the Achaemenid rule, his works can shed light on the NW Indian region during his era. Panini gives interesting information regarding a place name suffix that was in use in Uslnara and VarNu (Bannu) during his time. He names various places names ending with 'kanthA' in the region of Punjab and Bannu.'kanthA' - 'city' is a Śāka suffix whereas 'Kanda'- 'city' is a Sogdian suffix, as is informed to us by Kharoshthi inscriptions. SC Asia still abounds in 'kanthA' ending place names, as Agarwala informs us - Samar-kand, Panj-Kand, Tash-kent, etc. This is indicative of Śāka presence in Punjab long before Pāṇini's time and long before the later Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
The Connection made by Petrie and Magee between Bannu ware (900-600BCE) and Yaz culture is probably an answer to Agarwala's quandary. It would seem that Śāka were present in Punjab, not just in the Oxus in the pre-Achaemenid times.
It is possible that these Śāka comingled with the Hindu upper classes and mediated steppe ancestry in the ancestors of modern Indians. However, no other information about this period exists to confirm this.
2. During Achaemenid Rule
It is accepted that the Yaz III period (700-400BCE) saw the region come under the rule of the Achaemenid empire (Lhuillier et al, 2013; Basafa & Davari, 2021). From the Behistun inscription, it is known that the Achaemenid King Darius I ordered his Bactrian satrap to crush the Margiana revolt, aka 'Revolt of Frāda' in 522 BCE. 55,243 of Frāda’s followers were killed and 6,972 were captured (Encyclopædia Iranica).Achaemenid empire under Cyrus and his successor Darius I (530BCE onwards) had parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as its satrapies. This is clear in the Behistun, Persepolis and Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions. The satrapies were - Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydia. These satrapies were also mentioned by Strabo and Herodotus.
Indian soldiers were part of the Achaemenid army as well, and the 331 BCE battle between Alexander and Darius III is said to have included soldiers from India as well as Bactria and Sogdiana. This suggests that at least some Indian territories were under the rule of Achaemenids between 530 and 330 BCE.
What genetic changes occurred during this rule cannot be estimated, but some mixing between the Hindu elites and the Achaemenid elites is possible. Śāka were also part of the armies and administrators commanded by the Achaemenids.
Another route through which some foreign genetic material could have entered Indians is by incorporating non-Aryans into the Aryan fold. Agarwala cites Pāṇini's work which talks about Vrātyas [non-Aryans or Aryans who have lost the Aryan way] and the Vrātya-stoma rituals to bring them back to the Aryan fold. The simplified rituals are meant for 4 kinds of people - the young, the elderly, ones who are violent, and cultural leaders in the Vrātya society.
Agarwala writes "It is possible that the converted Vrātya who had been admitted to the Brahmana or Kshatriya fold were spoken of as ब्राह्मण-कृताः and क्षत्रिय-कृताः ."
Whether Śāka were converted into the Aryan fold through such rituals remains a matter of debate, it is not very clear who exactly were the subjects of this ritual.
3. Greek and Mauryan period
After Alexander won the 331 BCE war with the Achaemenids, he ventured east into the Indus river territory. Strabo notes that one of Alexander's companions (Aristobulus) saw Taxila's dead being fed to vultures - this indicates the presence of Zoroastrianism at Taxila (Vivero, 2020)His achievements in the east (Battle vs Porus?) lasted only a few decades and by 317BCE the Greek satraps left behind were driven out by the Mauryan empire of Chandragupta Maurya. The 305 BCE battle by Seleucus to take back control resulted in a Greek defeat and a peace treaty was signed. As part of this diplomacy, Seleceus' daughter (?) married Chandragupta Maurya. Perhaps this also signifies the lack of aversion of Indian elites marrying foreigners, or perhaps this was just due to political expediency. The treaty resulted in mutually beneficial diplomatic relations between the Greeks and Mauryas. Perso-Hellenistic art inspired some of the Magadhan architecture (presumably along with the import of Iranian craftsmen). Terracotta figures excavated from Mauryan era Mathura and Sarnath also reveal the presence of foreigners (if not just depictions of foreigners).
a. Persian Nobleman Clad in Coat Dupatta Trouser and Turban - Circa 2nd Century BCE. From wiki
b. Foreigner with Śāka conical hat at Sarnath. From wiki
Ashoka's reign saw the Mauryan empire expand into the south of India. Perhaps it was during this rule that the steppe ancestry from the NW was mediated into the other parts of India?
After the death of Ashoka, the Maurya empire fell around 180 BCE, and the NW part of India was taken hold of by Graeco-Bactrians under Śāka administrators.
4. Indo-Greek and Indo-Śāka rule
The Greek-born but Buddhist convert Milinda ruled between 160-130 BCE and had his capital at Sakala (Sialkot in Punjab). He campaigned as far as Mathura and Pataliputra against the Shungas (successors of Mauryas in Magadha). It is expected that there would be Śāka soldiers in the Indo-Greek army.
Post 100 BCE, a Śāka administrator of the Indo-Greeks named Maues became the king after marrying the widow - Greek Queen Machene. From the numismatic evidence, we see that Maues reversed the Hellenic ban of representing Hindu icons on the Indo-Greek coinage by the predecessors - presumably to appease his Hindu citizens and elites. The Indo-Śāka ruled with the help of Satraps and Maha-Satraps.
Rudradaman I, the Indo-Śāka king who ruled as a Maha-Kshatrapa from 150 CE waged various wars against the Andhra Satavahana dynasty but ended up giving his daughter's hand in marriage to the Brahmin Andhra king Vashishtiputra Satakarni (from Junagadh inscription).
The period saw the rise of the Kushana empire under Kanishka I. Kushanas had control over Northern India till around 370 CE when they were pushed out by the Gupta kings. Samudragupta's Prayagraj Pillar mentions that the last of the Kushanas offered their daughters' hand in marriage in an attempt to keep control over their territories.
Serious North Indians are mixed mutts, South Indian Brahmins are the least admixed Aryans
- Thread starterRabidRosaries
- Start dateYesterday at 10:50 PM
[IMG alt="RabidRosaries"]https://data.neets.net/avatars/m/1/1638.jpg?1721322675[/IMG]
RabidRosaries
Brown
NW Indian samples possibly has had multiple genetic introgressions which could muddle the signals (I have modelled Kalash with qpAdm before and the results do not differ much from what I will show below). Such is likely not the case for east and south India where the steppe ancestry would have arrived from one or a maximum of two sources.The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
I am inclined to accept this proposal. In the next section, I will propose some routes through which this ancestry could have come into the ancestors of modern Indians.
1. Śāka presence in Punjab in the Pre-Achaemenid Period
I discovered something most interesting in VS Agarwala's 1953 book on Pāṇini. Pāṇini was a Gandharan Brahmin, expert philologist and Sanskrit grammarian who lived in the period between 600-400BCE. Since his era coincides with that of the Achaemenid rule, his works can shed light on the NW Indian region during his era. Panini gives interesting information regarding a place name suffix that was in use in Uslnara and VarNu (Bannu) during his time. He names various places names ending with 'kanthA' in the region of Punjab and Bannu.'kanthA' - 'city' is a Śāka suffix whereas 'Kanda'- 'city' is a Sogdian suffix, as is informed to us by Kharoshthi inscriptions. SC Asia still abounds in 'kanthA' ending place names, as Agarwala informs us - Samar-kand, Panj-Kand, Tash-kent, etc. This is indicative of Śāka presence in Punjab long before Pāṇini's time and long before the later Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
The Connection made by Petrie and Magee between Bannu ware (900-600BCE) and Yaz culture is probably an answer to Agarwala's quandary. It would seem that Śāka were present in Punjab, not just in the Oxus in the pre-Achaemenid times.
It is possible that these Śāka comingled with the Hindu upper classes and mediated steppe ancestry in the ancestors of modern Indians. However, no other information about this period exists to confirm this.
2. During Achaemenid Rule
It is accepted that the Yaz III period (700-400BCE) saw the region come under the rule of the Achaemenid empire (Lhuillier et al, 2013; Basafa & Davari, 2021). From the Behistun inscription, it is known that the Achaemenid King Darius I ordered his Bactrian satrap to crush the Margiana revolt, aka 'Revolt of Frāda' in 522 BCE. 55,243 of Frāda’s followers were killed and 6,972 were captured (Encyclopædia Iranica).Achaemenid empire under Cyrus and his successor Darius I (530BCE onwards) had parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as its satrapies. This is clear in the Behistun, Persepolis and Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions. The satrapies were - Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydia. These satrapies were also mentioned by Strabo and Herodotus.
Indian soldiers were part of the Achaemenid army as well, and the 331 BCE battle between Alexander and Darius III is said to have included soldiers from India as well as Bactria and Sogdiana. This suggests that at least some Indian territories were under the rule of Achaemenids between 530 and 330 BCE.
What genetic changes occurred during this rule cannot be estimated, but some mixing between the Hindu elites and the Achaemenid elites is possible. Śāka were also part of the armies and administrators commanded by the Achaemenids.
Another route through which some foreign genetic material could have entered Indians is by incorporating non-Aryans into the Aryan fold. Agarwala cites Pāṇini's work which talks about Vrātyas [non-Aryans or Aryans who have lost the Aryan way] and the Vrātya-stoma rituals to bring them back to the Aryan fold. The simplified rituals are meant for 4 kinds of people - the young, the elderly, ones who are violent, and cultural leaders in the Vrātya society.
Agarwala writes "It is possible that the converted Vrātya who had been admitted to the Brahmana or Kshatriya fold were spoken of as ब्राह्मण-कृताः and क्षत्रिय-कृताः ."
Whether Śāka were converted into the Aryan fold through such rituals remains a matter of debate, it is not very clear who exactly were the subjects of this ritual.
3. Greek and Mauryan period
After Alexander won the 331 BCE war with the Achaemenids, he ventured east into the Indus river territory. Strabo notes that one of Alexander's companions (Aristobulus) saw Taxila's dead being fed to vultures - this indicates the presence of Zoroastrianism at Taxila (Vivero, 2020)His achievements in the east (Battle vs Porus?) lasted only a few decades and by 317BCE the Greek satraps left behind were driven out by the Mauryan empire of Chandragupta Maurya. The 305 BCE battle by Seleucus to take back control resulted in a Greek defeat and a peace treaty was signed. As part of this diplomacy, Seleceus' daughter (?) married Chandragupta Maurya. Perhaps this also signifies the lack of aversion of Indian elites marrying foreigners, or perhaps this was just due to political expediency. The treaty resulted in mutually beneficial diplomatic relations between the Greeks and Mauryas. Perso-Hellenistic art inspired some of the Magadhan architecture (presumably along with the import of Iranian craftsmen). Terracotta figures excavated from Mauryan era Mathura and Sarnath also reveal the presence of foreigners (if not just depictions of foreigners).
a. Persian Nobleman Clad in Coat Dupatta Trouser and Turban - Circa 2nd Century BCE. From wiki
b. Foreigner with Śāka conical hat at Sarnath. From wiki
Ashoka's reign saw the Mauryan empire expand into the south of India. Perhaps it was during this rule that the steppe ancestry from the NW was mediated into the other parts of India?
After the death of Ashoka, the Maurya empire fell around 180 BCE, and the NW part of India was taken hold of by Graeco-Bactrians under Śāka administrators.
4. Indo-Greek and Indo-Śāka rule
The Greek-born but Buddhist convert Milinda ruled between 160-130 BCE and had his capital at Sakala (Sialkot in Punjab). He campaigned as far as Mathura and Pataliputra against the Shungas (successors of Mauryas in Magadha). It is expected that there would be Śāka soldiers in the Indo-Greek army.
Post 100 BCE, a Śāka administrator of the Indo-Greeks named Maues became the king after marrying the widow - Greek Queen Machene. From the numismatic evidence, we see that Maues reversed the Hellenic ban of representing Hindu icons on the Indo-Greek coinage by the predecessors - presumably to appease his Hindu citizens and elites. The Indo-Śāka ruled with the help of Satraps and Maha-Satraps.
Rudradaman I, the Indo-Śāka king who ruled as a Maha-Kshatrapa from 150 CE waged various wars against the Andhra Satavahana dynasty but ended up giving his daughter's hand in marriage to the Brahmin Andhra king Vashishtiputra Satakarni (from Junagadh inscription).
The period saw the rise of the Kushana empire under Kanishka I. Kushanas had control over Northern India till around 370 CE when they were pushed out by the Gupta kings. Samudragupta's Prayagraj Pillar mentions that the last of the Kushanas offered their daughters' hand in marriage in an attempt to keep control over their territories.
5. Maga Brahmins
We have one confirmed instance of foreign priests (Iranian Mages in particular) being slowly accepted into the Hindu Brahmin fold. Maga Brahmins also known as Śākadvipiya Brahmins or Bhojaka Brahmins are thought to have instituted Solar deity worship (as vigraha/mUrti). They are mentioned in Buddhist sources (mostly negatively due to their foreign customs, especially relating to incestuous marriages) as well as some Purāṇas (Bronkhorst 2015). With the centuries of rule by the Achaemenids, Indo-Śāka and Graeco Bactrians; these foreign priests may have gained full Brahmin status in a society wherein Mlecchas (foreigners) were looked down upon.Johannes Bronkhorst writes this in his 2015 book:
Bronkhorst believes that the Magi came to India during the Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
However, KC Srivastava (1968) believes that the Magi may have entered Indian society along with the Achaemenid invasion of 500 BCE.
It is not far-fetched to assume that a lot of the steppe ancestry in Brahmins came from intermarriage with the Maga Brahmins before caste endogamy set in.
There is a curious passage in the Mahābhārata 6.12.33–37 which goes thus (translated by Bronkhorst 2015)
Later Greek sources mention a tribe called Massagétai, who probably lived around the Oxus region, somewhere to the east of the Caspian Sea (Schmitt 2018). Schmitt (2018) writes:
Masi̯a-ka- sounds like the same Maśaka from the Mahābhārata verse above.
Strabo also distinguishes four groups of Massagétai - living on the islands, the marshes, the mountains, and the plains (Schmitt 2018), similar to 'four meritorious countries' in MBh. Herodotus notes that they worship only the Sun God and sacrifice horses to him (Schmitt 2018)
False claims made by Narasimhan et al 2019
This article is not complete without me reminding everyone how this paper has set the Indian population genetics research field back by a decade. Apart from getting very generic ancestry proportions of Indians right, it gets almost everything else wrong.1. "People of the BMAC were not a major source of ancestry for South Asians"
This can now be said to be untrue. Turkmenistan_IA is derived from BMAC and Steppe_MLBA populations, and the analysis above showed that it is the best steppe source in Indians. So either both are major sources of ancestry in South Asians, or none are.
2. "Steppe ancestry in modern South Asians is primarily from males and disproportionately high in Brahmin and Bhumihar groups."
I have rebutted both of these claims in previous posts. Simply put, R1a-L657 (which makes up 70% of modern Indian R1a) is not from the steppe and is local to the Indian subcontinent. It is found in exactly 0 bronze age samples from the steppe and is absent in any meaningful way from modern steppe populations. The paper avoids this nuance and concludes wrongly after omitting this relevant data. The rebuttal can be read here.
Steppe ancestry is not disproportionately high in Brahmin groups. UP Rajput groups have similar ancestry as Brahmins, and the highest steppe groups in India are from NW India (Jats). This is covered here.
3. "By the end of the second millennium BCE, these people were joined by numerous outlier individuals with East Asian–related admixture that became ubiquitous in the region by the Iron Age. This East Asian–related admixture is also seen in later groups with known cultural impacts on South Asia, including Huns, Kushans, and Śāka, and is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia, suggesting that the Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from pre–Iron Age Central Asians."
The authors of the paper wanted to sell us the idea that steppe ancestry entered Indians before the late bronze age (roughly 1300 BCE) because of the presence of 'ubiquitous east Asian ancestry' in steppe regions post-LBA. This timing best fits their idea of the 'Aryan Invasion'.
This was already proven false by the data of their own paper. There was no east Asian ancestry in the 1100 BCE Kashkarchi samples from Uzbekistan. And there is no east Asian ancestry in the 850 BCE Turkmenistan_IA sample. What's more, Kangju (from 200 CE, which has minor east Asian ancestry) was a good fit as a source in their own models. East Asian ancestry is clearly not ubiquitous in the regions to the west and south of Kyrgyzstan in the iron age either (Kumar et al 2021; Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021).
From Narasimhan et al supplement pg 287 (emphasis mine)
Serious North Indians are mixed mutts, South Indian Brahmins are the least admixed Aryans
- Thread starterRabidRosaries
- Start dateYesterday at 10:50 PM
[IMG alt="RabidRosaries"]https://data.neets.net/avatars/m/1/1638.jpg?1721322675[/IMG]
RabidRosaries
Brown
NW Indian samples possibly has had multiple genetic introgressions which could muddle the signals (I have modelled Kalash with qpAdm before and the results do not differ much from what I will show below). Such is likely not the case for east and south India where the steppe ancestry would have arrived from one or a maximum of two sources.The results solve a dilemma which I have been facing since the Narasimhan et al paper from 2019. They claimed that Indians received steppe ancestry in the bronze age but not BMAC-related ancestry. Did they somehow skip mixing with BMAC ancestry which was ubiquitous on the path from Steppe to India? If unmixed steppe people were present near NW India in the bronze age, why are there no archaeological settlements with Andronovo materials and Kurgans?
It turns out that the common sense logic was true, and scepticism was warranted. From the passing models of the above 11 targets, it appears that Turkmenistan_IA from 850 BCE is the best source of steppe ancestry for modern Indians. This sample is from the Yaz II culture and can be modelled as BMAC + Steppe_MLBA in a 43/57 ratio. No east Asian ancestry is detected in this sample. (Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021)
Steppe ancestry is first seen at Swat valley around 1200 BCE (15-20%), but the ancestry probably trickled in post-1700 BCE (Narasimhan et al, 2019). However, as seen from the above models, Swat samples are not a good source of ancestry for modern Indians. Furthermore, there is no archaeological, literary or genetic evidence to suggest that steppe ancestry reached deeper into India in that period. The crude theory that 'Steppe Aryans' ransacked IVC settlements causing their downfall is not supported anymore. As per the latest research - the drying up of the Saraswati, drought and a shift in monsoonal patterns are said to be the main catalysts (Malik, 2020; Sengupta et al, 2019; Chatterjee et al, 2019). Despite the lack of evidence, Dr David Reich from Harvard in his 2019 book maintains:
This is a very flippant statement, but it does give me a peek into the worldview of these scholars. Visigoths and Vandals had no noticeable linguistic impact on the Romans, and their Germanic language is extinct today. This is in stark contrast to Reich's claim that the invisible steppe men who invaded IVC changed the whole linguistic landscape of Northern India, so much so that all native languages became extinct without leaving records. How is that even possible? On the other hand, invasions in India by Achaemenids, Śāka, Greeks, Kushans, and Turko-Mongols are well attested - none of them was able to impose their languages.
Leaving fantasy behind, let us look at some hard data.
Hemphill et al (1991) concluded a biological discontinuity between 800 BCE and 200 BCE at Harappan sites. It would seem that the steppe ancestry introgression into Indus valley sites post 800 BCE is supported by anthropometric data.
I am inclined to accept this proposal. In the next section, I will propose some routes through which this ancestry could have come into the ancestors of modern Indians.
1. Śāka presence in Punjab in the Pre-Achaemenid Period
I discovered something most interesting in VS Agarwala's 1953 book on Pāṇini. Pāṇini was a Gandharan Brahmin, expert philologist and Sanskrit grammarian who lived in the period between 600-400BCE. Since his era coincides with that of the Achaemenid rule, his works can shed light on the NW Indian region during his era. Panini gives interesting information regarding a place name suffix that was in use in Uslnara and VarNu (Bannu) during his time. He names various places names ending with 'kanthA' in the region of Punjab and Bannu.'kanthA' - 'city' is a Śāka suffix whereas 'Kanda'- 'city' is a Sogdian suffix, as is informed to us by Kharoshthi inscriptions. SC Asia still abounds in 'kanthA' ending place names, as Agarwala informs us - Samar-kand, Panj-Kand, Tash-kent, etc. This is indicative of Śāka presence in Punjab long before Pāṇini's time and long before the later Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
The Connection made by Petrie and Magee between Bannu ware (900-600BCE) and Yaz culture is probably an answer to Agarwala's quandary. It would seem that Śāka were present in Punjab, not just in the Oxus in the pre-Achaemenid times.
It is possible that these Śāka comingled with the Hindu upper classes and mediated steppe ancestry in the ancestors of modern Indians. However, no other information about this period exists to confirm this.
2. During Achaemenid Rule
It is accepted that the Yaz III period (700-400BCE) saw the region come under the rule of the Achaemenid empire (Lhuillier et al, 2013; Basafa & Davari, 2021). From the Behistun inscription, it is known that the Achaemenid King Darius I ordered his Bactrian satrap to crush the Margiana revolt, aka 'Revolt of Frāda' in 522 BCE. 55,243 of Frāda’s followers were killed and 6,972 were captured (Encyclopædia Iranica).Achaemenid empire under Cyrus and his successor Darius I (530BCE onwards) had parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as its satrapies. This is clear in the Behistun, Persepolis and Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions. The satrapies were - Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydia. These satrapies were also mentioned by Strabo and Herodotus.
Indian soldiers were part of the Achaemenid army as well, and the 331 BCE battle between Alexander and Darius III is said to have included soldiers from India as well as Bactria and Sogdiana. This suggests that at least some Indian territories were under the rule of Achaemenids between 530 and 330 BCE.
What genetic changes occurred during this rule cannot be estimated, but some mixing between the Hindu elites and the Achaemenid elites is possible. Śāka were also part of the armies and administrators commanded by the Achaemenids.
Another route through which some foreign genetic material could have entered Indians is by incorporating non-Aryans into the Aryan fold. Agarwala cites Pāṇini's work which talks about Vrātyas [non-Aryans or Aryans who have lost the Aryan way] and the Vrātya-stoma rituals to bring them back to the Aryan fold. The simplified rituals are meant for 4 kinds of people - the young, the elderly, ones who are violent, and cultural leaders in the Vrātya society.
Agarwala writes "It is possible that the converted Vrātya who had been admitted to the Brahmana or Kshatriya fold were spoken of as ब्राह्मण-कृताः and क्षत्रिय-कृताः ."
Whether Śāka were converted into the Aryan fold through such rituals remains a matter of debate, it is not very clear who exactly were the subjects of this ritual.
3. Greek and Mauryan period
After Alexander won the 331 BCE war with the Achaemenids, he ventured east into the Indus river territory. Strabo notes that one of Alexander's companions (Aristobulus) saw Taxila's dead being fed to vultures - this indicates the presence of Zoroastrianism at Taxila (Vivero, 2020)His achievements in the east (Battle vs Porus?) lasted only a few decades and by 317BCE the Greek satraps left behind were driven out by the Mauryan empire of Chandragupta Maurya. The 305 BCE battle by Seleucus to take back control resulted in a Greek defeat and a peace treaty was signed. As part of this diplomacy, Seleceus' daughter (?) married Chandragupta Maurya. Perhaps this also signifies the lack of aversion of Indian elites marrying foreigners, or perhaps this was just due to political expediency. The treaty resulted in mutually beneficial diplomatic relations between the Greeks and Mauryas. Perso-Hellenistic art inspired some of the Magadhan architecture (presumably along with the import of Iranian craftsmen). Terracotta figures excavated from Mauryan era Mathura and Sarnath also reveal the presence of foreigners (if not just depictions of foreigners).
a. Persian Nobleman Clad in Coat Dupatta Trouser and Turban - Circa 2nd Century BCE. From wiki
b. Foreigner with Śāka conical hat at Sarnath. From wiki
Ashoka's reign saw the Mauryan empire expand into the south of India. Perhaps it was during this rule that the steppe ancestry from the NW was mediated into the other parts of India?
After the death of Ashoka, the Maurya empire fell around 180 BCE, and the NW part of India was taken hold of by Graeco-Bactrians under Śāka administrators.
4. Indo-Greek and Indo-Śāka rule
The Greek-born but Buddhist convert Milinda ruled between 160-130 BCE and had his capital at Sakala (Sialkot in Punjab). He campaigned as far as Mathura and Pataliputra against the Shungas (successors of Mauryas in Magadha). It is expected that there would be Śāka soldiers in the Indo-Greek army.
Post 100 BCE, a Śāka administrator of the Indo-Greeks named Maues became the king after marrying the widow - Greek Queen Machene. From the numismatic evidence, we see that Maues reversed the Hellenic ban of representing Hindu icons on the Indo-Greek coinage by the predecessors - presumably to appease his Hindu citizens and elites. The Indo-Śāka ruled with the help of Satraps and Maha-Satraps.
Rudradaman I, the Indo-Śāka king who ruled as a Maha-Kshatrapa from 150 CE waged various wars against the Andhra Satavahana dynasty but ended up giving his daughter's hand in marriage to the Brahmin Andhra king Vashishtiputra Satakarni (from Junagadh inscription).
The period saw the rise of the Kushana empire under Kanishka I. Kushanas had control over Northern India till around 370 CE when they were pushed out by the Gupta kings. Samudragupta's Prayagraj Pillar mentions that the last of the Kushanas offered their daughters' hand in marriage in an attempt to keep control over their territories.
5. Maga Brahmins
We have one confirmed instance of foreign priests (Iranian Mages in particular) being slowly accepted into the Hindu Brahmin fold. Maga Brahmins also known as Śākadvipiya Brahmins or Bhojaka Brahmins are thought to have instituted Solar deity worship (as vigraha/mUrti). They are mentioned in Buddhist sources (mostly negatively due to their foreign customs, especially relating to incestuous marriages) as well as some Purāṇas (Bronkhorst 2015). With the centuries of rule by the Achaemenids, Indo-Śāka and Graeco Bactrians; these foreign priests may have gained full Brahmin status in a society wherein Mlecchas (foreigners) were looked down upon.Johannes Bronkhorst writes this in his 2015 book:
Bronkhorst believes that the Magi came to India during the Indo-Śāka or Kushana rule.
However, KC Srivastava (1968) believes that the Magi may have entered Indian society along with the Achaemenid invasion of 500 BCE.
It is not far-fetched to assume that a lot of the steppe ancestry in Brahmins came from intermarriage with the Maga Brahmins before caste endogamy set in.
There is a curious passage in the Mahābhārata 6.12.33–37 which goes thus (translated by Bronkhorst 2015)
Later Greek sources mention a tribe called Massagétai, who probably lived around the Oxus region, somewhere to the east of the Caspian Sea (Schmitt 2018). Schmitt (2018) writes:
Masi̯a-ka- sounds like the same Maśaka from the Mahābhārata verse above.
Strabo also distinguishes four groups of Massagétai - living on the islands, the marshes, the mountains, and the plains (Schmitt 2018), similar to 'four meritorious countries' in MBh. Herodotus notes that they worship only the Sun God and sacrifice horses to him (Schmitt 2018)
False claims made by Narasimhan et al 2019
This article is not complete without me reminding everyone how this paper has set the Indian population genetics research field back by a decade. Apart from getting very generic ancestry proportions of Indians right, it gets almost everything else wrong.1. "People of the BMAC were not a major source of ancestry for South Asians"
This can now be said to be untrue. Turkmenistan_IA is derived from BMAC and Steppe_MLBA populations, and the analysis above showed that it is the best steppe source in Indians. So either both are major sources of ancestry in South Asians, or none are.
2. "Steppe ancestry in modern South Asians is primarily from males and disproportionately high in Brahmin and Bhumihar groups."
I have rebutted both of these claims in previous posts. Simply put, R1a-L657 (which makes up 70% of modern Indian R1a) is not from the steppe and is local to the Indian subcontinent. It is found in exactly 0 bronze age samples from the steppe and is absent in any meaningful way from modern steppe populations. The paper avoids this nuance and concludes wrongly after omitting this relevant data. The rebuttal can be read here.
Steppe ancestry is not disproportionately high in Brahmin groups. UP Rajput groups have similar ancestry as Brahmins, and the highest steppe groups in India are from NW India (Jats). This is covered here.
3. "By the end of the second millennium BCE, these people were joined by numerous outlier individuals with East Asian–related admixture that became ubiquitous in the region by the Iron Age. This East Asian–related admixture is also seen in later groups with known cultural impacts on South Asia, including Huns, Kushans, and Śāka, and is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia, suggesting that the Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from pre–Iron Age Central Asians."
The authors of the paper wanted to sell us the idea that steppe ancestry entered Indians before the late bronze age (roughly 1300 BCE) because of the presence of 'ubiquitous east Asian ancestry' in steppe regions post-LBA. This timing best fits their idea of the 'Aryan Invasion'.
This was already proven false by the data of their own paper. There was no east Asian ancestry in the 1100 BCE Kashkarchi samples from Uzbekistan. And there is no east Asian ancestry in the 850 BCE Turkmenistan_IA sample. What's more, Kangju (from 200 CE, which has minor east Asian ancestry) was a good fit as a source in their own models. East Asian ancestry is clearly not ubiquitous in the regions to the west and south of Kyrgyzstan in the iron age either (Kumar et al 2021; Guarino-Vignon et al, 2021).
From Narasimhan et al supplement pg 287 (emphasis mine)
The presence of steppe ancestry in Swat is not proof that the ancestry spread further into India in the same burst. Swat iron age populations do not form a good source for Indians.
Their own dates of admixture in modern Indians do not show 2nd millennium BCE mixing. The error bars are wide and also support a post-1000BCE mixing date for most groups. (Graphed from Narasimhan et al 2019 supplement excel Table S5)
 |
| Error Bars represent a 95% confidence level around the Admixture date |
4. In Shinde et al 2019, coauthored with Harvard geneticists, they conclude "First farmers of the Fertile Crescent contributed little to no ancestry to later South Asians"
This point specifically seems to have been emphasized to deny a western origin of the Indo-European languages in India, so that only a central Asia route via the steppe remains plausible.
This is a false claim. Not only do the Indus Periphery samples need Anatolian Farmer or Levant PPN-related ancestry (Maier et al, 2022; my previous work), but so do the South Indian tribals like Irula and steppe-free samples such as RoopkundA_PallanLike.
CONCLUSION
All the available evidence tells us that the steppe ancestry in modern Indians is from an iron age South Central Asian source like Turkmenistan_IA. This also agrees with the archaeological and literary evidence. Since the probable source was already Iranian by language, it cannot explain the introduction of Indo-Aryan languages into the Indian subcontinent. Furthermore, a post-1000 BCE date for the entry of Indo-Aryans into North India is not supported by the Rig Veda and neither by common sense.There is a lot of evidence to suggest contact between the Eastern Iranian Śāka and NW India, starting from 900 BCE till 350 CE. This contact seems to have been the most likely source of steppe ancestry in modern Indians.
North Indian mixed mutts:
South Indian Brahmins:
South Indian Brahmins were also the quickest to take advantage of the Raj:
Cummmmm
