Recent Posts
Aryan Invasion Megathread
leYUAh
No.2507
post resources for and against
leYUAh
No.2508
>>2507(OP)
and don't post amateur geneticists like Razib Khan etc
here are some videos for the basics by Prof. David Reich of Harvard University for beginners
pqh9zz
No.2534
>>2507(OP)
you got invaded lol
Ufe0P0
No.2536
>>2507(OP)
How about I invadr your mom's pussy?
uJu7Za
No.2538
>>2507(OP)
It's well established at this point. Why this ho halla abt aryan invasion? I don't hear the same about iranian farmer invasion?
6IciMW
No.2629
oLPBQN
No.2739
no invasion never happened
12r+lx
No.2751
>>2538
iranian farmers didn't replace native exclusively through male lines.
Aryan invaders genocided almost every single native male in northern India and produced kids by raping their women
E1plbm
No.2752
Can anyone explain the Keeladi excavation and what are implications of it ?
Also what is the political consequences of it ?
UUXzLg
No.2753
>>2751
Not really true. We have very little paternal male line from aasi ppl atleast in the north, and this is true even prior to aryan migration. Plus we also have maternal dna tht goes back to the steppe
E1plbm
No.2754
>>2751
It doesn't matter, what matters is that they are outsiders just like aryans so no point in trying to frame native vs foreign discourse.
12r+lx
No.2755
>>2753
We have very little paternal male line from pre-aryan males in the north
>Plus we also have maternal dna tht goes back to the steppe
that is not from the times when aryans inhabited steppe
12r+lx
No.2757
Bxa77Y
No.2758
12r+lx
No.2759
E1plbm
No.2761
>>2757
Well it does matter
Commies and dravidians want to prove this so badly and claim that Hinduism is also from outside India, all this so that they can counter the "izlam and Christianity is from outside India" by hindu right wing
pQOsxr
No.2813
>>2507(OP)
I am a genetics expert AND AIT/AMT BOTH ARE THE MOST FALSE THOERY EVER THE ONLY TRUE THING IS OIT AND NOT ONLY HUMANS(except Aztecs , African blacks, East Asians, aboriginals) and all mammals migrated OUT OF INDIA
this will be proven in coming years and I can bet any amount of money on it .
QMdVNw
No.2815
>>2751
found the ntr cuck
QMdVNw
No.2816
>>2814
you have opinion on everything pajeet, why dont you enter college first, self loathing bimarpoo?
NvMTLH
No.2924
L6qMgv
No.2926
>>2507(OP)
Found something interesting in हिंदू-संस्कृति-अंक
HD6kNp
No.4007
>>2507(OP)
Given that Anatolian branch is pretty much settled to have been came from Steppe, as Harvard withdrew from Southern Arc hypothesis and archaeogenetically made clear cut case of Hittites having Steppe ancestry.
What basis is there to deny that Anatolian (most ancient IE branch) comes from Steppe? And since this is not anymore an ambiguous question, logically Indo-Iranian should also come from Steppe.
Ofcourse the idea of a South Caucasus homeland can be entertained given lack of total absolute certainty for Anatolian and Indo-Iranian branches. But for now the Steppe hypothesis is even stronger than it was let's say 2 years ago, and the SC hypothesis has likewise become weaker.
I don't understand how can neo OITists still pretend that the whole IVC Indo-Aryan idea is likely?
kJ1/tn
No.4008
By the way, Indian Government has officially changed the school textbooks to claim the Aryan migration did NOT happen.
I think it’s fair to say the current Indian government blatantly has a political interest in disproving AMT. They are openly changing history to push propaganda. Remember this is the same
Government that’s funding Niraj Rai and all the IVC burial dna analyses. It probably explains why Rai openly claims steppe migrated into India after 500 bce but never releases a peer reviewed paper saying so ( he’s been promising it for 5 years now).
tPZoaX
No.4009
>>4008
interesting
wEr4WP
No.4010
>>4008
>large scale immigration of so-called aryans
they are right.
>continuity of harappans so on
true
>push propaganda
rofl, you say that in a thread filled with drones who repeat literal propaganda related to AIT
>>4007
>Harvard withdrew from Southern Arc hypothesis and archaeogenetically made clear cut case of Hittites having Steppe ancestry.
>saaar harvard saaar
absolute state lmao
Childish argument.
Genetics, archeological data all point to the fact that so called memes like second post in this thread are meme.
kJ1/tn
No.4011
>>4010
The southern arc hypothesis was first posted by Reich lab via Havard, Harvard (Reich Lab) withdrew from the Southern Arc hypothesis as proposed in Lazaridis 2022. The new paper - Lazaridis 2025 is based on larger data, more robust, and overturns the conclusions adopted in Lazaridis 2022. It is now accepted that the PIE homeland was north of Caucasus sea. By the way, I would appreciate if you do not use meme terminologies in this discussion since it makes the discourse seem non-serious.
wEr4WP
No.4012
>>4008
>It probably explains why Rai openly claims steppe migrated into India after 500 bce but never releases a peer reviewed paper saying so ( he’s been promising it for 5 years now).
Why go by his record, there's narsimha et al where the indian relaetd haplogroups are from around 500bce rest are not related to the ones found among indians. other than being of women.
The most recent paper which extensively combined various archeological, linguistic data was heggarty et al which extensively showcases that the tracer die for IE Languages were neolithic iranians.
[Blocked URL: https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2023/07/hybrid-model.html]
A genetics is anything but OITist. In fact the so called western authors/propagandist use the OIT as a scapegoat to put down any questions.
Amount of mental wizzardly put into by likes of witzel, narsimha et al would result in things being termed as comic if not propaganda but here we are.
[Blocked URL: https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2023/07/hybrid-model.html] anyway agentics has explained the recent papers.
He has another articles where he discusses about the genetics data, including follies related to narsimha et al.
kJ1/tn
No.4013
>>4010
>they are right.
They say there is no cultural break within the last 10k years, which is false. The language and religion changed obviously. They also just say aryan immigration didn’t happen.
>rofl, you say that in a thread filled with drones who repeat literal propaganda related to AIT
Are you really equating some online discourse with literal governmental stances?
tPZoaX
No.4014
kJ1/tn
No.4015
>>4012
Heggarty 2023 is already contradicted by genetics. Reich’s group itself overturned the “Southern Arc” framing from Lazaridis 2022 with the new Lazaridis 2025 paper , which identifies the Caucasus-Lower Volga (CLV) steppe cline as the Indo-Anatolian source around 4400–4000 BCE. That makes the “Neolithic Iranian homeland” interpretation obsolete, you can’t ignore the clear CLV/steppe ancestry in Yamnaya, in Indo-Iranians, and even trace amounts in Bronze Age Anatolians.
So the state of play now is:
Anatolian = early split from CLV/steppe ancestry.
Indo-Iranian = direct steppe ancestry, unambiguous.
South Asia = admixture of older IVC (Iran-related farmer) + incoming steppe c. 2000 BCE.
wEr4WP
No.4016
>>4013
>They say there is no cultural break within the last 10k years, which is false. The language and religion changed obviously. They also just say aryan immigration didn’t happen.
You seem to be passing the judgement on the language, religion and 'aryans' even the so called experts are not doing and have been doing summersaults around it. There's a difference in cultural continuity and cultural break - fine grained difference and they are right about it.
>language
There's enough paper which state that tracer dye for IE Languages are Iran_N/CHG. Read the previous post.
>genetics
Indian haplogroup is non existing outside indian sub continent. the most cited so called narsimha et al had one or so samples which is related to indian haplogroup and it was dated from 500bce - way too late.
Despite the evidence of the contrary it was ruled out as 'ait'.
The discussion starts when the AITcels will actually understand that they have been duped.
Government stance is in fact way more practical and closer to reality than whatever you shill. Just because the delusions you have been fed don't match it doesn't make it propaganda.
>>4011
Heggarty et al rejected the steppe nomenclature used for PIE in steppe in southern arc paper
>The authors make clear that Proto-Indo-European should include the stage before the Anatolian and Tocharian split, ie. they reject the nomenclature which places PIE in the steppe (which excludes at least the Anatolian branch) used, for e.g in Lazaridis et al 2022 (Southern Arc paper).
>Similarly, recasting the question as if a search for the homeland of ‘Late Proto-Indo-European’ serves the same effect, by excluding the same two branches taken to have already diverged by the ‘Late’ stage, as if Anatolian and Tocharian were not relevant to the homeland question. There is in fact considerable inconsistency in linguistic nomenclature about different stages in the family’s diversification. Strictly, ‘proto-’ in any case refers by definition to the last stage of the common ancestor language of a family, immediately before any branches diverged. Proto-Indo-European should thus include Anatolian and Tocharian, since their relatedness with the other branches of Indo-European, in the same family, is not in doubt.
Lazardis had a paper where they provided literally from their own papers about the migration from zegros to lower volga, exchange of farming techniques etc. so on. I think i have quoted it in the past regarding iran_n/chg relationship.
Since we are talking about IE languages, quoting something which i have quoted in the past from the paper
>The authors overall approve of the Iran Neolithic ancestry as a 'tracer-dye' for IE languages, including Indo-Iranian. In the supplement, they write
>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.
>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 “find[s] it 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.
>In particular, in this hypothesis, Indo-Iranic, the major eastern branch of Indo-European,was one of the last two main branches to emerge, out of a final major clade with Balto-Slavic. Our results contradict this in both chronology and tree topology. Indo-Iranic branches off early, ~6980 yr B.P. (5650 to 8400 yr B.P.), and support for a common clade with Balto- Slavic is minimal, with a posterior probability of only 12.3%. Recent aDNA data from Central and South Asia have sought to trace movements of people into Western and South Asia by migrations southward from the steppe. However, for the period 4300–3700 yr B.P., samples from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) do not yet attest to any such southward migration (49). Steppe ancestry is not found until ~3500 yr B.P., in the Gandhara Grave Culture in northern Pakistan, and only at limited proportions (49). The interpretation that this ancestry can be identified with the first Indo-Iranic dispersal into South Asia (49) is not straightforwardly compatible with our earlier date for the separation of Indo-Iranic from the rest of Indo-European (~6980 yr B.P.). We also find that Indic and Iranic had diverged from each other already by ~5520 yr B.P. (4540 to 6800 yr B.P.). To reconcile this with a steppe origin would require an alternative scenario in which Indic and Iranic split from each other approximately two millennia before entering South Asia and Western Asia.
>Our hybrid hypothesis posits that out of this homeland south of the Caucasus, from ~8120 yr B.P., PIE began to diverge as early migrations split it into multiple early branches. One of these branches could have taken Indo-Iranic eastward far earlier than the Steppe hypothesis presumes, but in line with the linguistic chronology in Fig. 3, in which Indo-Iranic emerged as a distinct branch in the early phases of Indo-European divergence. Another main branch reached the steppe directly northward through the Caucasus ~7000 to 6500 yr B.P., compatible with one current interpretation of the aDNA record.
There's nothing more to add to this convo.
kJ1/tn
No.4017
>>4016
This is going to be a longer and more in-depth reply so I am going to split this into 3 parts.
(1/3)
You are essentially recycling arguments from Lazaridis 2022 and Heggarty 2023, which have largely been superseded by more recent research. The 2025 Lazaridis et al. paper significantly updates the genetic understanding of the Indo-European homeland, especially regarding the Anatolian branch, and provides a robust framework that overturns the Southern Arc/Neolithic Iranian PIE hypothesis. According to Lazaridis 2025, Proto-Indo-Anatolian emerges among populations of the Caucasus–Lower Volga (CLV) steppe cline around 4400–4000 BCE. This cline represents a combination of CHG/Caucasus-related ancestry with Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) ancestry, forming the steppe pastoralist genetic signature associated with Yamnaya and related groups.
The paper clarifies that the Anatolian branch diverged early from the main PIE lineage but still carries traceable steppe-related ancestry, meaning that the steppe connection is unavoidable even if Anatolian shows some unique features or minimal admixture compared to later branches like Indo-Iranian. Any argument suggesting Anatolian PIE is purely southern or pre-steppe is now untenable in light of these findings. Heggarty 2023, which you cited, is a linguistic model using Bayesian phylogenetics to estimate divergence times and trace PIE roots, but it is not supported by genetic data. That paper pushed for an early PIE split in a Neolithic Iranian or southern arc context, claiming that Indo-Iranian divergence occurred far earlier than steppe migrations, but genomic evidence now contradicts this, demonstrating that Indo-Iranian and other non-Anatolian branches are genetically steppe-derived.
Furthermore, your framing conflates linguistic divergence with material evidence or demic migration. Linguistic trees and “tracer dye” models are not sufficient to dismiss steppe ancestry. For example, Indo-Iranian and other PIE branches carry a clear steppe genetic signature that can be identified in ancient DNA across Central and South Asia, and in steppe populations themselves. The steppe ancestry in Anatolia, although smaller in proportion compared to Indo-Iranian populations, is still detectable, confirming that the branch did not develop in isolation south of the Caucasus. The earlier models often relied on selective archaeological interpretation and low sample sizes, leading to overestimation of southern influence. Lazaridis 2025, using an expanded dataset including CLV populations and more ancient Anatolian samples, has made a definitive case for a northern homeland for PIE, with Anatolian as an early offshoot.
Finally, To summarize: PIE-Anatolian is not purely southern, nor can it be explained without acknowledging steppe ancestry from the CLV cline. The notion that PIE emerged fully in Neolithic Iran or the southern arc is no longer supported. Your reliance on outdated models, selective linguistic interpretations, and misrepresentation of genetic findings obscures the true consensus, Anatolian is a steppe-rooted early branch, diverging before the main expansion of other PIE branches, but still genetically tied to the CLV steppe. Heggarty 2023 does not overturn this, it simply models linguistic divergence in a way incompatible with the genetic record.
huQ6Wv
No.4018
Genetics is astrology for incels.
J0Qjf7
No.4019
>>4018
If you hate the thread then don't shit it up fagggot just ignore that shit. Fucking retard.
wEr4WP
No.4021
>>4017
Heggarty wrote a bit about the latest paper.
For reference, the CLV had majority of its ancestry from CHG/Iran_N. CLV is major contributor to Yamnya too as per your own words.
>The new coverage brings refinements on the key role of this particular ancestry component, taken slightly more broadly in much other recent work as ‘CHG/Iranian’.
>The new data reconfirm that it is essentially this component, from this region, that expands. One movement heads northwards to become the main ancestry component of core Yamna. The paper blurs this direction over time by its presentation of a ‘cline’ that it calls “Caucasus–lower Volga” (CLV), but the key population movement is spreading from the Caucasus end and heading northwards, not from the lower Volga southwards. The CLV cline itself is questionable: it has very few samples in the middle. Most importantly for interpretations with respect to Indo-European languages, the dotted lines that delineate this cline in Figure 1 are arbitrary in including one CHG sample but not the other, and thus also excluding the Neolithic Iran samples, even though they are just next to it (see figure reproduced and annotated below). The paper also makes it all the clearer that core Yamna was essentially an incoming population: 80% of its ancestry originated further south, and most of that ultimately from the Caucasus/Zagros region
Also just for posterity i am also adding link to the thread by lazaridis detailing his paper,
I will rollback few of my words since i feel it can be decent thread.
First Pic - Few additions by Heggarty
Second Pic - Kinda summary explanation of the lazaridis 2025
Funnily enough, it's more about nomenclature than anything, we already knew about the migration of the chg/iran_n northerward, the ultimate mixing, the exchange of knowledge related to farming etc.
PIE term at this point is just playing with terminologies.
For the record, IVC or Indians today have highest CHG like ancestry.
kJ1/tn
No.4022
>>4016
(2/3)
You have misrepresented the timing and scale of steppe ancestry in South Asia, the claim that steppe-related haplogroups and ancestry appear only around 500 BCE. This is inconsistent with multiple peer-reviewed studies, most notably Narasimhan et al. 2019. Narasimhan et al. sequenced hundreds of ancient South and Central Asian individuals, revealing that steppe ancestry entered South Asia during the Bronze Age, around 2000 to 1500 BCE, well before 500 BCE. Notably, Y-chromosome haplogroups such as R1a-Z93, characteristic of steppe populations, appear in South Asian contexts by this time, particularly in northern Pakistan and Gandhara Grave Culture sites. This aligns perfectly with Indo-Iranian linguistic and archaeological chronology and contradicts any claim of a late arrival.
Material culture can indicate migration but genes and languages do not always require full material culture transmission. Steppe pastoralist groups could spread Indo-Iranian languages and ancestry into South Asia through demic diffusion or elite dominance without leaving a recognizable archaeological footprint identical to Central Asian steppe cultures. The genetic evidence itself is direct and unambiguous, showing steppe admixture across northern South Asia by the second millennium BCE, even if associated artifacts are missing or minimal.
Additionally, you have also misinterpreted the “southern tracer” hypothesis from Heggarty 2023 and claimed that Iran Neolithic ancestry explains IE languages. The Iran-farmer/CHG component does exist as a part of the Indus Valley Civilization substrate but it cannot account for the spread of Indo-Iranian languages without steppe admixture. The “southern substrate” in this context refers to pre-existing populations in the region, Indus Valley or Iran Neolithic-related populations, that contributed local ancestry, vocabulary, or phonetic features but were not responsible for introducing Indo-Iranian languages themselves. Steppe ancestry brought both the linguistic superstrate and male-line haplogroups that mark Indo-Iranian expansions.
You have also conflated linguistic tree divergence times with demographic events, suggesting that Indo-Iranian branches must have split far earlier than steppe migrations. This is inconsistent with genetic evidence, steppe ancestry arrives precisely during the period expected for Indo-Iranian dispersal. Claims of divergence at 6980 BP (~5000 BCE) without corresponding steppe input are incompatible with both aDNA data and known Bronze Age migrations. Even if linguistic divergence may predate migrations slightly, the actual demographic and genetic spread occurs with steppe ancestry, which aligns with Bronze Age Central Asian archaeological cultures such as Sintashta and Andronovo, even if direct artifacts do not reach South Asia. Furthermore, There is plenty of archeological evidence, you just refuse to believe it or think it’s convincing. The answer is that Pakistan/Kashmir/Afghanistan are not exactly the easiest places at the moment to do archeological studies. Most of the recent IE excavations have been in the last 30 years. Since the Taliban took over, archeology has been nigh impossible in the area, the fact that they actively destroy pre Islamic monuments also don’t help. Also, the area in Pakistan is very hot and humid, hence not much stuff will be left. There is a reason we pretty much only have burials as archeological evidence.
huQ6Wv
No.4023
>>4019
just try and stop me namefaggot
wEr4WP
No.4024
>>4022
>You have misrepresented the timing and scale of steppe ancestry in South Asia, the claim that steppe-related haplogroups and ancestry appear only around 500 BCE. This is inconsistent with multiple peer-reviewed studies, most notably Narasimhan et al. 2019. Narasimhan et al. sequenced hundreds of ancient South and Central Asian individuals, revealing that steppe ancestry entered South Asia during the Bronze Age, around 2000 to 1500 BCE, well before 500 BCE
Wrong about this, i literally said that the samples retrieved had only few samples related to indian haplogroup but they were dated back from 500bce, rest were r1b whatever haplogroups - ignoring women here.
The fact that despite such evidence narsimha went out to conclude that shows the insincerity at their end. Imagine not calling out that.
kJ1/tn
No.4025
>>4016
(3/3)
To put everything in perspective, The modern consensus, supported by Lazaridis 2025, Narasimhan 2019, and complementary aDNA studies, is as follows:
1. Anatolian Branch: Early split from CLV/steppe populations, carrying minor steppe admixture but clearly derived from the northern steppe source. Heggarty 2023’s southern PIE model is incompatible with the genetic record.
2. Indo-Iranian Branch: Clearly steppe-derived, with Bronze Age migrations introducing steppe ancestry to northern South Asia (~2000–1500 BCE). This aligns with R1a-Z93 haplogroups, Gandhara Grave Culture samples, and linguistic patterns. Archaeological gaps do not negate this migration; genetic evidence is definitive.
3. South Asian Substrate: Indigenous populations of the Indus Valley / Iran-farmer-related groups contributed local ancestry and linguistic influence, forming the “southern substrate.” This explains some vocabulary and phonetic features in early Indo-Aryan languages, but cannot replace steppe ancestry as the driver of Indo-Iranian language and migration.
4. Obsolete Models: Claims that PIE emerged south of the Caucasus, that steppe ancestry arrived post-500 BCE, or that Indo-Iranian languages spread without steppe input are all contradicted by Lazaridis 2025 and Narasimhan 2019. Using Heggarty 2023 or selective archaeological arguments as evidence ignores the overwhelming genetic record.
Southern substrate here imply refers to pre-existing populations, like Indus Valley, whose genes, culture, and language influence incoming Indo-European populations without being the main source of PIE itself. Modern scholarship accepts the influence of southern substrates, but steppe ancestry remains the decisive factor in the spread of PIE, particularly for Indo-Iranian languages.
In conclusion, The current consensus is strong and data-driven, Anatolian PIE has early steppe roots, Indo-Iranian is clearly steppe-derived, South Asia represents a mix of local substrate and incoming steppe populations, and southern PIE hypotheses are no longer tenable. Continuing to cite Lazaridis 2022, Heggarty 2023, or selective archaeological points ignores the overwhelming evidence from 2025 onward. At that point, the intention is no longer academically oriented; after which point we're past genuine ignorance.
wEr4WP
No.4026
>>4025
>Indo-Iranian Branch: Clearly steppe-derived, with Bronze Age migrations introducing steppe ancestry to northern South Asia (~2000–1500 BCE). This aligns with R1a-Z93 haplogroups, Gandhara Grave Culture samples, and linguistic patterns. Archaeological gaps do not negate this migration; genetic evidence is definitive.
The fact that AITcels still repeat this lie many a times should be noted how they are drones who have nothing to add but repeating same things again and again.
R1a-L657 haplogroup which is majority r1a among indians is not found in steppe at all. The findings and the conclusions by the narasimhan et al have been called out still they are eye candys of the AITcels.
[Blocked URL: https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/10/r1a-explained.html] there's good writeup explainign the haplogroup among indians if someone wants to read.
So this is just about the genetics.
Based on this, the fact that origin of the indian related haplogroup is mostly local to indians and the people, cause of founder effect, date back way before the so called swat valley derived dates. - neither the numbers nor the genetics data add up to cause 'major language or cultural transformation'.
Both point to assimilated individuals who were already part of the existing ivc civilization.
Coming to so called 'lazardis 2025' paper, literally playing around with terminologies at this point nothing else. I will not repeat but do point out how the chg/iran_n is major ancestry in CLV and clv to yamnya...further details by actual expert which is worth the read below,
So conclusion
>IE Languages - not even rehashed paper from lazaridis shows yamnya was the source of every IE language in fact it only disassociates steppe from the IE languages further as pointed out by heggarty while writing about it.
>The R1a haplogroup among indians, upto 70% people, is local R1a-L657 origin, the ancestors related to which migrated way back and were way fewer to neither corroborate either linguistic or cultural change.
Long back AITcels claimed sudden disappearance and discontinuation of the IVC when in fact likes of PGW only showcased the culture was existing side by side at the same region as the peak IVC.
Resources once again
[Blocked URL: https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/12/steppe-source-in-indians.html] true source of steppe among indians
[Blocked URL: https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2022/10/r1a-explained.html] r1a explained
https://paulheggarty.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Commentary-on-Lazaridis-et-al-2025-on-Indo-European.pdf paul heggarty commentary on the new lazaridis paper.
Every time someone cites Narasimhan one should understand that you are talking to a drone.
wEr4WP
No.4027
Now me back to codejeeting.
One can even remove all my 'remarks' and just read the quoted articles - the fact that Indian AIT/AMT cels can't even call out likes of Narasimhan is hilarious.
Most of these are heavily driven by in fact inferiority of needing to be not called out from their western counterparts. They yearn for their validation and refuse to tell or learn to tell their own stories.
kJ1/tn
No.4028
>>4021
>Heggatry's commentary
The Lazaridis 2025 paper presents a “Caucasus-lower Volga cline,” , the visual placement of some CHG samples is just a modeling choice. But that doesn’t undermine the key result: core Yamnaya formed from ~80% ancestry originating south of the Caucasus, primarily from CHG/Iran_N populations. The northward movement is genetically unambiguous. Heggarty’s quibbles over dotted lines or cline edges are just technical.
Heggarty’s focus on what counts as “PIE” or whether Anatolian belongs is largely semantic. Genetics isn’t changed by nomenclature. Even if Anatolian received only ~10% steppe ancestry, the broader pattern still shows steppe-related migrations shaping the rest of the Indo-European family, especially Indo-Iranian.
Also, Heggarty repeatedly points to no evidence of steppe influence in South Asia, yet ignores recent findings: steppe-like pottery, mortuary practices, and burials in eastern Iran and BMAC sites show connections with steppe groups. Claiming “no evidence” is selective and misleading. It’s also absolutely hilarious to see him say there is no archeological evidence for andronovo in South Asia while simultaneously his paper literally provides no archeological evidence of IE coming to South Asia via Iran around 3500 bce.
>For the record, IVC or Indians today have highest CHG like ancestry.
That’s fully compatible with a Bronze Age steppe migration introducing Indo-Iranian languages. The steppe contribution doesn’t need to dominate the genome to have been linguistically transformative.
ecuIGL
No.4030
>>4024
You’re conflating two different things here, haplogroups and ancestry. Firstly, Narasimhan et al. 2019 didn’t base their conclusions on just one R1a sample from ~500 BCE. They sequenced hundreds of ancient individuals across Central and South Asia and used autosomal DNA, which provides a much fuller picture of ancestry than Y-chromosomes alone. That data showed steppe ancestry entering South Asia during the Bronze Age (around 2000–1500 BCE), well before the 500 BCE example.
The fact that the earliest direct R1a hit in the region is later doesn’t mean the ancestry wasn’t already present, Y-DNA is subject to drift and sampling bias. Autosomal DNA makes clear that steppe-related ancestry was already mixing in during the 2nd millennium BCE, which is why Narasimhan and later studies (e.g Lazaridis 2025, Ghalichi 2024) reached that conclusion.
So it’s not insincerity on their part, the broader genetic signal is there whether you focus on haplogroups or not. In fact, Narasimhan explicitly concludes with:
>Steppe ancestry entered South Asia after 2000 BCE and is evident by the late 2nd millennium BCE, well before 500 BCE.
ecuIGL
No.4031
>>4026
>R1a-L657 haplogroup which is majority r1a among indians is not found in steppe at all. The findings and the conclusions by the narasimhan et al have been called out still they are eye candys of the AITcels.
The fact that R1a-L657 hasn’t been observed in steppe samples so far doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. Ancient DNA sampling is still extremely limited, especially for Bronze Age populations in Central Asia and the eastern steppe. We’ve seen the same pattern with R1b-L51, it was virtually absent in early Yamnaya samples, yet later became widespread in Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Europe.
Y-DNA lineages often appear in small numbers initially, then expand due to founder effects and demographic shifts. L657’s absence in sampled individuals simply reflects sampling gaps, not a refutation of steppe origins. Even so, the parent clade, R1a-Z93, is widely documented in Sintashta and Andronovo cultures, which aligns perfectly with the steppe hypothesis.
This is a classic classic case of “absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.”
