Genetics of South Asia, Andamanese peoples, Indus Valley Civilization, Peopling of India, Dravidian languages, and the Paliyan/Pulliyar Dravidian tribal people

Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia

“The peopling of India refers to the migration of Homo sapiens into the Indian subcontinent. Anatomically modern humans settled India in multiple waves of early migrations, over tens of millennia. The first migrants came with the Coastal Migration/Southern Dispersal 65,000 years ago, whereafter complex migrations within South and Southeast Asia took place. West Asian (Iranian) hunter-gatherers migrated to South Asia after the Last Glacial Period but before the onset of farming. Together with ancient South Asian hunter-gatherers they formed the population of the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC).” ref

“With the decline of the IVC, and the migration of Indo-Europeans, the IVC-people contributed to the formation of both the Ancestral North Indians (“ANI”), who were closer to contemporary West Eurasians, and the Ancestral South Indians (“ASI”), who were descended predominantly from the Southeastern Indian hunter gatherers (known as “AASI”, who were distantly related to East Eurasians such as Aboriginal Australians, Andamanese, and also to East Asians), but also from West Eurasian hunter-gatherers from the Iranian Plateau. These two ancestral populations (ASI and ANI) mixed extensively between 1,900-4,200 years ago, after the fall of the IVC and their respective southward migration, and affected both modern Indo-European populations as well as the Dravidian populations in the subcontinent, while the migrations of the Munda people and the Sino-Tibetan-speaking people from East Asia also added new elements.” ref

“Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia is the study of the genetics and archaeogenetics of the ethnic groups of South Asia. It aims at uncovering these groups’ genetic histories. The geographic position of the Indian subcontinent makes its biodiversity important for the study of the early dispersal of anatomically modern humans across Asia. The people of South Asia are broadly of a mixture of Western Steppe Herder (WSH) and native South Asian heritage, the latter of which combines IVC-related ancestry with Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI) hunter-gatherer ancestry.” ref

“Based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variations, genetic unity across various South Asian subpopulations have shown that most of the ancestral nodes of the phylogenetic tree of all the mtDNA types originated in the subcontinent. Conclusions of studies based on Y chromosome variation and autosomal DNA variation have been varied.” ref

“Previous studies that pooled Indian populations from a wide variety of geographical locations, have obtained contradictory conclusions about the processes of the establishment of the Varna caste system and its genetic impact on the origins and demographic histories of Indian populations. To further investigate these questions we took advantage that both Y chromosome and caste designation are paternally inherited, and genotyped 1,680 Y chromosomes representing 12 tribal and 19 non-tribal (caste) endogamous populations from the predominantly Dravidian-speaking Tamil Nadu state in the southernmost part of India. Tribes and castes were both characterized by an overwhelming proportion of putatively Indian autochthonous Y-chromosomal haplogroups (H-M69, F-M89, R1a1-M17, L1-M27, R2-M124, and C5-M356; 81% combined) with a shared genetic heritage dating back to the late Pleistocene (10,000–30,000 years ago), suggesting that more recent Holocene migrations from western Eurasia contributed <20% of the male lineages.” ref

“Reserchers found strong evidence for genetic structure, associated primarily with the current mode of subsistence. Coalescence analysis suggested that the social stratification was established 4,000–6,000 years ago and there was little admixture during the last 3,000 years ago, implying a minimal genetic impact of the Varna (caste) system from the historically-documented Brahmin migrations into the area. In contrast, the overall Y-chromosomal patterns, the time depth of population diversifications and the period of differentiation were best explained by the emergence of agricultural technology in South Asia. These results highlight the utility of detailed local genetic studies within India, without prior assumptions about the importance of Varna rank status for population grouping, to obtain new insights into the relative influences of past demographic events for the population structure of the whole of modern India.” ref

“The proposed AASI type ancestry is closest to the non-West Eurasian part, termed S-component, extracted from South Asian samples, especially those from the Irula tribe, and is generally found throughout all South Asian ethnic groups in varying degrees. The West Eurasian ancestry, which is closely related to Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers who lived on the Iranian Plateau (who are also closely related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers), forms the major source of the South Asian genetic makeup, and combined with varying degrees of AASI ancestry, formed the Indus Periphery Cline around ~5400–3700 BCE or around 7,400 to 5,700 years ago, which constitutes the main ancestral heritage of most modern South Asian groups.” ref

“The Indus Periphery ancestry, around the 2nd millennium BCE or around 4,000 years ago, mixed with another West Eurasian wave, the incoming mostly male-mediated Yamnaya-Steppe component (archaeogenetically dubbed the Western Steppe Herders) to form the Ancestral North Indians (ANI), while at the same time it contributed to the formation of Ancestral South Indians (ASI) by admixture with hunter-gatherers having higher proportions of AASI-related ancestry.” ref

Admixture_graph_model_Narsimhan_et_al._2019

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“Graph model showing various admixture proportions in ancient and modern populations of South Asia (Narasimhan 2019).” ref

“Contemporary Indian populations exhibit a high cultural, morphological, and linguistic diversity, as well as some of the highest genetic diversities among continental populations after Africa. Indian populations are broadly classified into two categories: ‘tribal’ and ‘non-tribal’ groups. Tribal groups, constituting 8% of the Indian population, are characterized by traditional modes of subsistence such as hunting and gathering, foraging and seasonal agriculture of various kinds. In contrast, most other Indians fall into non-tribal categories, many of them classified as castes under the Hindu Varna (Color caste) system which groups caste populations, primarily on occupation, into Brahmin (priestly class), Kshatriya (warrior and artisan), Vyasa (merchant), Shudra (unskilled labor) and the most recently added fifth class, Panchama, the scheduled castes of India. Generally, both non-tribal and tribal populations employ a patrilineal caste endogamy. This practice, together with the male-specific genetic transmission of the non-recombining portion of the Y-chromosome (NRY), provides a unique opportunity to study the impact of historical demographic processes and the social structure on the gene pool of India.” ref

“First, demic diffusion models propose an expansion of Indo-European (IE) speakers 3,000 years ago from Central Asia . Alternatively, other models propose the origin of caste as the result of cultural diffusion and/or autochthonous demographic processes without any major genetic influx from outside India. Overall, the genetic impact and mode of establishment of the caste system, the extent of a common indigenous Pleistocene (10,000 to 30,000 years ago) genetic heritage and the degree of admixture from West Eurasian Holocene (10,000 years ago) migrations and their level of impact on the tribal and non-tribal groups from India, remain unresolved. The lack of consensus among previous studies may reflect difficulties associated with the conflicting relationships between genetics and the socio-cultural factors used to pool truly endogamous groups into broader categories, sometimes grouping Indian populations sampled from a wide variety of geographical locations together, such as a tribe-caste dichotomy or caste-rank hierarchy.” ref

“One goal of pooling data from multiple populations has been to smooth individual drift effects in an effort to reconstruct putative ancestry and thereby potentially infer the past demographic processes shaping genetic diversity. However, the success of this approach relies on whether the classification employed indeed reflects the true historical relationships among these endogamous groups. Methods seeking to identify the best grouping from an exploration of alternative possible classifications, based on seeking maximal between-population differences and minimal within-population variation, would be of special relevance for studies on Indian populations classified based on Varna status. This is the case because several castes have suffered from historically fluid definitions of their rank status, and both the origins and the scope of the genetic impact of the Varna system on these populations are still unclear.” ref

“Further, since the implementation of the Varna system throughout India was not a uniform process, broad classifications of multiple Indian samples from all over the subcontinent based on Varna status, or tribe-caste dichotomy, may not reflect true endogamous populations and could also obscure genetic signals and the finer details of Indian demographic histories. For this reason, a genetic study using a careful and extensive sampling of well-defined non-tribal and tribal endogamous populations from a restricted area designed to reduce the confounding relationships among socio-cultural factors, without presuming Varna rank status, to find empirically the best approach of population grouping, could be a successful model to obtain new insights of past Indian demographic processes.

Here, we attempted to apply this strategy to unravel the population structure and genetic history of the southernmost state of India, Tamil Nadu (TN), which is well known for its rigid caste system, and to relate the resulting genetic data to the paleoclimatic, archaeological, and historical evidence from this region. The paleoclimatic and archaeological records show post-LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) wet period expansions of foragers into the region, whose interactions with later aridification-driven migrations of agriculturists have been traced. Archaeology also reveals the establishment of metallurgy and river settlements, just several centuries prior to the creation of the earliest written records of the Sangam literature (300 BCE “2,300 years ago” to 300 CE). These historical records named several populations including some in the present study (e.g., Paliyan, Pulayar, Valayar) reflecting the existence of these now endogamous groups at that time.” ref

“More recent reports dated to the 6^th century CE, under the reign of the Sarabhapuriyas, illustrate the local implementation of the Varna system around 1,000 years ago, following the arrival of Brahmins into the region. The Tamil epics of this period, such as the Purananuru anthology and Silapathikaram, describe a society with a well-defined occupational class structure based on subsistence practices. Earlier genetic studies of TN populations identified clear differentiations of endogamous ethnic groups classified into Major Population Groups (MPG) based on socio-cultural characteristics reflecting subsistence, traditional occupation, and native language (mother tongue). Although some studies have identified hill tribes as the earliest settlers, and others suggested a common genetic signature among distantly ranked-caste populations, the main evolutionary and demographic processes shaping the observed genetic differences among populations from TN are still unresolved in the literature.” ref

“In the present study, we examined the Y-chromosomal lineages of 1,680 individuals sampled from 12 tribal and 19 non-tribal well-defined endogamous populations. We first investigated whether tribal and non-tribal groups shared a common genetic heritage and characterized the proportion of putatively autochthonous and non-autochthonous Indian Y-chromosomal haplogroups. It is important to note that the total sample size used here is higher than those in other studies covering the entire Indian subcontinent. Further, the detailed anthropological annotation of endogamous populations sampled from a restricted region within India, together with the paleoclimatic, archeological and historical regional-background were all important aspects needed to reduce the confounding relationships among socio-cultural factors. This general approach allowed us to infer important genetic signals and the finer details of the population demographic histories.” ref

“Therefore, we sought to determine which of the classifications based either on the Varna system (rank status, tribe-caste dichotomy), or social-cultural factors (reflecting subsistence, traditional customs and native language), or geography better indicated true endogamous groups by exhibiting higher between-population differences and lower within-population variation. Since both Y chromosome and caste designation are paternally inherited, we further explored whether any of these genetic differences could be attributed to the historical evidences of the establishment of the Hindu Varna system. In contrast, we found the overall Y-chromosomal patterns, the time depth of population diversifications and the period of differentiation correlated better with archeological evidences and the demographic processes of Neolithic agricultural expansions into the region.” ref

Paliyan/Pulliyar People

“The Paliyan, or Pulliyar, Palaiyar or Pazhaiyarare are a group of around 9,500 formerly nomadic Dravidian tribals living in the South Western Ghats montane rain forests in South India, especially in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. They are traditional nomadic hunter-gatherers, honey hunters and foragers. Yams are their major food source. In the early part of the 20th century the Paliyans dressed scantily and lived in rock crevices and caves. Most have now transformed to traders of forest products, food cultivators and beekeepers. Some work intermittently as wage laborers, mostly on plantations. They are a Scheduled Tribe. They speak a Dravidian language, Paliyan, closely related to Tamil.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“There are two geographically plausible routes that have been proposed for humans to emerge from Africa: through the current Egypt and Sinai (Northern Route), or through Ethiopia, the Bab el Mandeb strait, and the Arabian Peninsula (Southern Route).” ref

“Although there is a general consensus on the African origin of early modern humans, there is disagreement about how and when they dispersed to Eurasia. This paper reviews genetic and Middle Stone Age/Middle Paleolithic archaeological literature from northeast Africa, Arabia, and the Levant to assess the timing and geographic backgrounds of Upper Pleistocene human colonization of Eurasia. At the center of the discussion lies the question of whether eastern Africa alone was the source of Upper Pleistocene human dispersals into Eurasia or were there other loci of human expansions outside of Africa? The reviewed literature hints at two modes of early modern human colonization of Eurasia in the Upper Pleistocene: (i) from multiple Homo sapiens source populations that had entered Arabia, South Asia, and the Levant prior to and soon after the onset of the Last Interglacial (MIS-5), (ii) from a rapid dispersal out of East Africa via the Southern Route (across the Red Sea basin), dating to ~74,000-60,000 years ago.” ref

“Within Africa, Homo sapiens dispersed around the time of its speciation, roughly 300,000 years ago. The so-called “recent dispersal” of modern humans took place about 70–50,000 years ago. It is this migration wave that led to the lasting spread of modern humans throughout the world. The coastal migration between roughly 70,000 and 50,000 years ago is associated with mitochondrial haplogroups M and N, both derivative of L3. Europe was populated by an early offshoot that settled the Near East and Europe less than 55,000 years ago. Modern humans spread across Europe about 40,000 years ago, possibly as early as 43,000 years ago, rapidly replacing the Neanderthal population.” ref, ref

Out of Africa: “the evolution of religion seems tied to the movement of people”

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

“When researchers completed the final analysis of the Human Genome Project in April 2003, they confirmed that the 3 billion base pairs of genetic letters in humans were 99.9 percent identical in every person. It also meant that individuals are, on average, 0.1 percent different genetically from every other person on the planet. And in that 0.1 percent lies the mystery of why some people are more susceptible to a particular illness or more likely to be healthy than their neighbor – or even another family member.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

This is my thoughts/speculations on the origins of Totemism

Totemism as seen in Europe: 50,000 years ago, mainly the Aurignacian culture

Pre-Aurignacian “Châtelperronian” (Western Europe, mainly Spain and France, possible transitional/cultural diffusion between Neanderthals and humans around 50,000-40,000 years ago)
Archaic–Aurignacian/Proto-Aurignacian (Europe around 46,000-35,000)
Aurignacian “classical/early to late” (Europe and other areas around 38,000 – 26,000 years ago)

“In the realm of culture, the archeological evidence also supports a Neandertal contribution to Europe’s earliest modern human societies, which feature personal ornaments completely unknown before immigration and are characteristic of such Neandertal-associated archeological entities as the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian.” – (PDF) Neandertals and Moderns Mixed, and It Matters: Link

Totemism as seen in Europe: 50,000 years ago, mainly the Aurignacian culture

Totemism as seen in Europe: 50,000 years ago, mainly the Aurignacian culture

https://damienmarieathope.com/2023/09/totemism-as-seen-in-europe-50000-years-ago-mainly-the-aurignacian-culture/

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

ref

Haplogroup D

“D1 and D2 are found primarily in East Asia, at low frequency in Central Asia and Southeast Asia, and at very low frequency in Western Africa and Western Asia.” ref

Andamanese People

“The Great Andamanese are an indigenous people of the Great Andaman archipelago in the Andaman Islands. Historically, the Great Andamanese lived throughout the archipelago, and were divided into ten major tribes. Their distinct but closely related languages comprised the Great Andamanese languages, one of the two identified Andamanese language families. The Great Andamanese were clearly related to the other Andamanese peoples, but were well separated from them by culture, language, and geography. The languages of those other four groups were only distantly related to those of the Great Andamanese and mutually unintelligible; they are classified in a separate family, the Ongan languages.” ref

“They were once the most numerous of the five major groups in the Andaman Islands, with an estimated population between 2,000 and 6,600, before they were killed or died out due to diseases, alcohol, colonial warfare, and loss of hunting territory. Only 52 remained as of February 2010; by August 2020, there were 59. The tribal and linguistic distinctions have largely disappeared, so they may now be considered a single Great Andamanese ethnic group with mixed Burmese, Hindi, and aboriginal descent. The Great Andamanese are classified by anthropologists as one of the Negrito peoples, which also include the other four aboriginal groups of the Andaman islands (Onge, Jarawa, Jangil, and Sentinelese) and five other isolated populations of Southeast Asia. The Andaman Negritos are thought to be the first inhabitants of the islands, having emigrated from the mainland tens of thousands of years ago.” ref

“The Andamanese are the various indigenous peoples of the Andaman Islands, part of India‘s Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the union territory in the southeastern part of the Bay of Bengal. The Andamanese are a designated Scheduled Tribe in India’s constitution. The Andamanese peoples are among the various groups considered Negrito, owing to their dark skin and diminutive stature. All Andamanese traditionally lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and appear to have lived in substantial isolation for thousands of years. It is suggested that the Andamanese settled in the Andaman Islands around the latest glacial maximum, around 26,000 years ago.” ref

“The Andamanese peoples included the Great Andamanese and Jarawas of the Great Andaman archipelago, the Jangil of Rutland Island, the Onge of Little Andaman, and the Sentinelese of North Sentinel Island. Among the Andamanese, a division of two groups can be made. One is more open to contact with civilization, and the other is hostile and resistant to communicating with the outer world. At the end of the 18th century, when they first came into sustained contact with outsiders, an estimated 7,000 Andamanese remained. In the next century, they experienced a massive population decline due to epidemics of outside diseases and loss of territory. Today, only roughly over 500 Andamanese remain, with the Jangil being extinct. Only the Jarawa and the Sentinelese maintain a steadfast independence, refusing most attempts at contact by outsiders.” ref

“The oldest archaeological evidence for the habitation of the islands dates to the 1st millennium BCE. Genetic evidence suggests that the indigenous Andamanese peoples share a common origin, and that the islands were settled sometime after 26,000 years ago, possibly at the end of the Last Glacial Period, when sea levels were much lower reducing the distance between the Andaman Islands and the Asian mainland, with genetic estimates suggesting that the two main linguistic groups (Great Andamanese and Onge/Jarawa) diverged around 16,000 years ago. It was previously assumed that the Andaman ancestors were part of the initial Great Coastal Migration (South-Eurasians or Australasians) that was the first expansion of humanity out of Africa, via the Arabian peninsula, along the coastal regions of the South Asia towards Insular Southeast Asia, and Oceania.” ref

“The Andamanese were considered to be a pristine example of a hypothesized Negrito population, which showed similar physical characteristics, and was supposed to have existed throughout southeast Asia. The existence of a specific Negrito-population is nowadays doubted. Their commonalities could be the result of evolutionary convergence and/or a shared history. Recent genetic studies conclusively demonstrate Negrito groups do not share a common origin to the exclusion of other Asians. The four major groups of Andamanese. By the end of the eighteenth century, there were an estimated 5,000 Great Andamanese living on Great Andaman. Altogether they comprised ten distinct tribes with different languages. The population quickly dwindled to 600 in 1901 and to 19 by 1961. It has increased slowly after that, following their move to a reservation on Strait Island. As of 2010, the population was 52, representing a mix of the former tribes.” ref

“The Jarawa originally inhabited southeastern Jarawa Island and have migrated to the west coast of Great Andaman in the wake of the Great Andamanese. The Onge once lived throughout Little Andaman and now are confined to two reservations on the island. The Jangil, who originally inhabited Rutland Island, were extinct by 1931: the last individual was sighted in 1907. Only the Sentinelese are still living in their original homeland on North Sentinel Island, largely undisturbed, and have fiercely resisted all attempts at contact. The Andamanese languages are considered to be the fifth language family of India, following the Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic, and Sino-Tibetan.While some connections have been tentatively proposed with other language families, such as Austronesian, or the controversial Indo-Pacific family, the consensus view is currently that Andamanese languages form a separate language family – or rather, two unrelated linguistic families: Greater Andamanese and Ongan.” ref

Until contact, the Andamanese were strict hunter-gatherers. They did not practice cultivation, and lived off hunting indigenous pigs, fishing, and gathering. Their only weapons were the bow, adzes, and wooden harpoons. The Andamanese knew of no method for making fire in the nineteenth century. They instead carefully preserved embers in hollowed-out trees from fires caused by lightning strikes. The men wore girdles made of hibiscus fiber which carried useful tools and weapons for when they went hunting. The women on the other hand wore a tribal dress containing leaves that were held by a belt. A majority of them had painted bodies as well. They usually slept on leaves or mats and had either permanent or temporary habitation among the tribes. All habitations were man made.” ref

“Some of the tribe members were credited with having supernatural powers. They were called oko-pai-ad, which meant dreamer. They were thought to have an influence on the members of the tribe and would bring misfortune to those who did not believe in their abilities. Traditional knowledge practitioners were the ones who helped with healthcare. The medicine that was used to cure illnesses were herbal most of the time. Various types of medicinal plants were used by the islanders. 77 total traditional knowledge practitioners were identified and 132 medicinal plants were used. The members of the tribes found various ways to use leaves in their everyday lives including clothing, medicine, and to sleep on.” ref

“Anthropologist A.R. Radcliffe Brown argued that the Andamanese had no government and made decisions by group consensus. The native Andamanese religion and belief system is a form of animism. Ancestor worship is an important element in the religious traditions of the Andaman islands. Andamanese Mythology held that humans emerged from split bamboo, whereas the women were fashioned from clay. One version found by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown held that the first man died and went to heaven, a pleasurable world, but this blissful period ended due to breaking a food taboo, specifically eating the forbidden vegetables in the Puluga‘s garden. Thus Catastrophe ensued, and eventually the people grew overpopulated and didn’t follow Puluga‘s laws, and hence there was a Great Flood that left four survivors, who lost their fire.” ref

“Negritos, specifically Andamanese, are grouped together by phenotype and anthropological features. Three physical features that distinguish the Andaman islanders include: skin color, hair, and stature. Those of the Andaman islands have dark skin, are short in stature, and have “frizzy” hair, while displaying “Asiatic facial features”.Dental characteristics also group the Andamanese between Negrito and East-Asian samples. When comparing dental morphology the focus is on overall size and tooth shape. To measure the size and shape, Penrose’s size and shape statistic is used. To calculate tooth size, the sum of the tooth area is taken. Factor analysis is applied to tooth size to achieve tooth shape. Results have shown that the dental morphology of Andaman Islanders resembles that of tribal populations of South Asia (Adivasi) the most, followed by Philippine Negrito groups, contemporary Southeast Asians, and East Asians. The tooth size of the Andamanese was found to be most similar to that of Han Chinese and Japanese.” ref

“Genetic analysis, both of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA provide information about the origins of the Andamanese. Genetic studies agree that Great Andamanese as well as Onge and Jawara, share a common origin to the exclusion of other Asians, and that they are highly genetically divergent from other Asian populations. The Andamanese show a very small genetic variation, which is indicative of populations that have experienced a population bottleneck and then developed in isolation for a long period.” ref

“An allele has been discovered among the Jarawas that is found nowhere else in the world. Blood samples of 116 Jarawas were collected and tested for Duffy blood group and malarial parasite infectivity. Results showed a total absence of both Fya and Fyb antigens in two areas (Kadamtala and R.K Nallah) and low prevalence of both Fya antigen in another two areas (Jirkatang and Tirur). There was an absence of malarial parasite Plasmodium vivax infection though Plasmodium falciparum infection was present in 27·59% of cases. A very high frequency of Fy (a–b–) in the Jarawa tribe from all the four jungle areas of Andaman Islands along with total absence of P. vivax infections suggests the selective advantage offered to Fy (a–b–) individuals against P. vivax infection.” ref

“Genetic studies have revealed that the Andamanese people display affinity to the indigenous South Asian hunter-gatherers, often termed “Ancient Ancestral South Indians” (AASI), as well as to Australasian populations (AA), such as Melanesians, and contemporary East/Southeast Asian peoples (ESEA). While the Andamanese are occasionally used as an imperfect proxy for the AASI component, they are genetically closer to the ‘Basal East Asian’ Tianyuan man.” ref

“Phylogenetic data suggests that an early initial eastern lineage trifurcated, and gave rise to Australasians (Oceanians), the AASI, Andamanese, as well as East/Southeast Asians, although Papuans may have also received some geneflow from an earlier group (xOoA), around 2%, next to additional archaic admixture in the Sahul region. Concerning the use of Andamanese as proxy for AASI ancestry, Yelmen et al. (2019) deduced that the non West Eurasian component, termed S-component, extracted from South Asian samples would serve as a much better proxy for AASI ancestry, especially those extracted from Irula samples, than the Andamanese. Overall, the Malaysian Negritos (Semang), such as the Maniq people, Jahai people, and Batek people, are the closest modern living relatives of the Andamanese people.” ref

When compared with ancient DNA samples, Andamanese peoples are closest to the pre-Neolithic Hoabinhians in Mainland Southeast Asia (covered by two samples from Malaysia and Laos), and display high genetic affinity to the Tianyuan man in Northern China, with both being basal to contemporary East Asians, forming a “deep Asian” ancestral lineage. Deep Asian ancestry (Tianyuan/Onge) contributed to the Peopling of Southeast Asia. The male Y-chromosome in humans is inherited exclusively through paternal descent. All sampled males of Onges (23/23) and Jarawas (4/4) belong to a sublineage of D-M174(D1a3). However, male Great Andamanese do not appear to carry these clades. A low resolution study suggests that they belong to haplogroups K, L, O, and P1 (P-M45).” ref

“A 2017 study by Mondal et al. finds that the Y-chromosome of the Riang people (a Tibeto-Burmese population), sublineage D1a3 (D-M174*) and the Andamanese D1a3 (*D-Y34637) have their nearest related lineages in East Asia, splitting about 23,000 years ago from an East Asian-related population. The Jarawa and Onge shared this D1a3 lineage with each other within the last ~7,000 years, suggesting a bottleneck event. They further suggest that: “This strongly suggests that haplogroup D does not indicate a separate ancestry for Andamanese populations. Rather, haplogroup D was part of the standing variation carried by the OOA expansion, and later lost from most of the populations except in Andaman and partially in Japan and Tibet”. Other haplogroups found among Andamanese include haplogroup P, and L-M20.” ref

“Several studies (Hammer et al. 2006, Shinoda 2008, Matsumoto 2009, Cabrera et al. 2018) suggest that the paternal haplogroup D-M174 originated somewhere in Central Asia. According to Hammer et al., haplogroup D-M174 originated between Tibet and the Altai mountains. He suggests that there were multiple waves into Eastern Eurasia. In a 2019 study by Haber et al. showed that Haplogroup D-M174 originated in Central Asia and evolved as it migrated to different directions of the continent. One group of population migrated to Siberia, others to Japan and Tibet, and another group migrated to the Andaman islands.” ref

“Bulbeck (2013) shows the Andamanese maternal mtDNA is entirely mitochondrial Haplogroup M. Haplogroup M (mtDNA) is a descendant of haplogroup L3, typically found in Eurasia and parts of Africa. The mtDNA M is found in all Onge and most of the Great Andamanese samples. Analysis of mtDNA, which is inherited exclusively by maternal descent, confirms the above results. Haplogroup M is, however, also the single most common mtDNA haplogroup in Asia, where it represents 60% of all maternal lineages. Haplogroup M is also relatively common in Northeast Africa of Somalis, Oromo at over 20%. Also in the Tuareg in Mali and Burkina Faso at 18.42%.” ref

“Unlike some Negrito populations of Southeast Asia, Andaman Islanders have not been found to have Denisovan ancestry. However, they are estimated, like all other non-African populations, to possess approximately 1-2% Neanderthal ancestry. A 2019 study concluded that all Asian and Australo-Papuan populations, including Andaman Islanders, also share between 2.6 and 3.4% of the genetic profile of a previously unknown hominin that was genetically roughly equidistant to Denisovans and Neanderthals.” ref

Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of South Asia

“South Asia, located on the crossroads of Western Eurasia and Eastern Eurasia, accounts for about 39.49% of Asia‘s population, and over 24% of the world’s population. It is home to a vast array of people who belong to diverse ethnic groups, who migrated to the region during different periods of time. The presence of Himalayas in northern and eastern borders of South Asia have limited migrations from Eastern Eurasia into Indian subcontinent in the past. Hence most of the male-mediated migrations into South Asia occurred from Western Eurasia into the region, as seen in the Y-chromosome DNA Haplogroup variations of populations in the region.” ref

“The major paternal lineages of South Asian populations, represented by Y chromosomes, are haplogroups R1a1, R2, H, L, and J2, as well as O-M175 in some parts (northeastern region) of the Indian subcontinent. Haplogroup R is the most observed Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup among the populations of South Asia, followed by H, L, and J, in the listed order. These four haplogroups together constitute nearly 80% of all male Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups found in various populations of the region. The Y-chromosome DNA Haplogroups R1a1, R2, L, and J2, which are found in higher frequencies among various populations of the Indian subcontinent, are also observed among various populations of Europe, Central Asia, and Middle East.” ref

“Some researchers have argued that Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a1 (M17) is of autochthonous South Asian origin. However, proposals for a Eurasian Steppe origin for R1a1 are also quite common and supported by several more recent studies. The spread of R1a1 in Indian subcontinent is associated with Indo-Aryan migrations into the region from South Central Asia that occurred around 3,500-4,000 years before present. The R1a-Z93 paternal genetic in Romani people was also discovered. Indian-Brahmin origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1*. The Haplogroup R2 is mainly restricted to various populations of South Asia, in addition to some populations of South Central Asia, Middle East, Asia Minor and the Caucasus where it is observed in low frequencies. R2 has higher frequency among the speakers of the Indo-Aryan languages as compared to Dravidian speakers of South India.” ref

“The Haplogroup H (also known as the “Indian marker”), which is a direct descendant of the Upper Paleolithic Eurasian Haplogroup HIJK, is mostly restricted to South Asian populations of the Indian subcontinent, in addition to some populations of South Central Asia and eastern Iranian Plateau, where it is found in low frequencies. It originated somewhere in the Middle East or South Central Asia and traveled to South Asia and adjoining areas of the eastern Iranian Plateau around 40,000-50,000 years before present.” ref

“The Haplogroup L, which is thought to have originated near Pamir Mountains of present-day Tajikistan in South Central Asia, traveled throughout Indian subcontinent during the Neolithic period, and it is associated with the spread of the Bronze Age Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) in South Asia, which existed around 3,300-5,300 years before present. It is also observed among many populations of the Iranian Plateau. The spread of the Haplogroup J2 from Iranian Plateau into Indian subcontinent also occurred during the Neolithic period, alongside L.” ref

“The Haplogroup O-M175, which is a major haplogroup observed among the populations of East and Southeast Asia, is found largely restricted among the Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic speakers of the Himalayan and northeastern regions of South Asia. Listed below are some notable groups and populations from South Asia by human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups based on various relevant studies. The samples are taken from individuals identified with specific linguistic designations (IE=Indo-European, Dr=Dravidian, AA=Austro-Asiatic, ST=Sino-Tibetan) and individual linguistic groups, the third column (n) gives the sample size studied, and the other columns give the percentage of the respective haplogroups.” ref

“Majority of the Indo-European (IE) speakers of South Asia speak Indo-Aryan languages, followed by Iranian languages, both of which belong to Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. They form around 75% of the South Asian populations. The Dravidian (Dr) speakers of South Asia are mostly clustered in South India and Balochistan, as well as parts of Central India. They form around 20% of the South Asian populations. The Sino-Tibetan (ST) speakers in the Himalayas and northeastern parts of the South Asia speak various languages belonging to Tibeto-Burman branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. The Austroasiatic (AA) speakers of South Asia are scattered in parts of Central, Eastern and Northeastern India as well in parts of Nepal and Bangladesh.” ref

“Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia is the study of the genetics and archaeogenetics of the ethnic groups of South Asia. It aims at uncovering these groups’ genetic histories. The geographic position of the Indian subcontinent makes its biodiversity important for the study of the early dispersal of anatomically modern humans across Asia. Based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variations, genetic unity across various South Asian subpopulations have shown that most of the ancestral nodes of the phylogenetic tree of all the mtDNA types originated in the subcontinent. Conclusions of studies based on Y chromosome variation and autosomal DNA variation have been varied.” ref

“The genetic makeup of modern South Asians can be described at the deepest level as a combination of West Eurasian (related to ancient and modern people in Europe and West Asia) ancestries with divergent East Eurasian ancestries. The latter primarily include a proposed indigenous South Asian component (termed Ancient Ancestral South Indians, short “AASI”) that is distantly related to the Andamanese peoples, as well as to East Asians and Aboriginal Australians, and further include additional, regionally variable East/Southeast Asians components. The proposed AASI type ancestry is closest to the non-West Eurasian part, termed S-component, extracted from South Asian samples, especially those from the Irula tribe, and is generally found throughout all South Asian ethnic groups in varying degrees.” ref

“The West Eurasian ancestry, which is closely related to Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers who lived on the Iranian Plateau (who are also closely related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers), forms the major source of the South Asian genetic makeup, and combined with varying degrees of AASI ancestry, formed the Indus Periphery Cline around ~5400–3700 BCE, which constitutes the main ancestral heritage of most modern South Asian groups. The Indus Periphery ancestry, around the 2nd millennium BCE, mixed with another West Eurasian wave, the incoming mostly male-mediated Yamnaya-Steppe component (archaeogenetically dubbed the Western Steppe Herders) to form the Ancestral North Indians (ANI), while at the same time it contributed to the formation of Ancestral South Indians (ASI) by admixture with hunter-gatherers having higher proportions of AASI-related ancestry.” ref

“The ANI-ASI gradient, as demonstrated by the higher proportion of ANI in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers, that resulted because of the admixture between the ANI and the ASI after 2000 BCE at various proportions is termed as the Indian Cline. The East Asian ancestry component forms the major ancestry among Tibeto-Burmese and Khasian speakers, and is generally restricted to the Himalayan foothills and Northeast India, with substantial presence also in Munda-speaking groups, as well as in some populations of northern, central and eastern South Asia. Modern South Asians are descendants of a combination of Western Eurasian ancestries (notably “Iran Neolithic Farmers” and “Western Steppe Herder” components) with an indigenous South Asian component (termed Ancient Ancestral South Indians, short “AASI”) closest to the non–West Eurasian part extracted from South Asian samples; distantly related to the Andamanese peoples, as well as to East Asians and Aboriginal Australians, as well as regional variable additional East/Southeast Asian components respectively.” ref

“The proposed AASI lineage, which is hypothesized to represent the ancestry of the very first hunter-gatherers and peoples of the Indian subcontinent, formed around ~40,000 years BCE. It was found that the AASI are distinct from Western Eurasian groups and have a closer genetic affinity with Ancient East Eurasians (such as Andamanese Onge or East Asian peoples). Based on this, it has been inferred that the AASI lineage diverged from other Eastern Eurasian lineages, such as ‘Australasians’ and ‘East/Southeast Asian people‘, during their dispersal using a Southern route. The Andamanese people are among the relatively most closely related modern populations to the AASI component and henceforth used as an (imperfect) proxy for it, but others (Yelmen et al. 2019) note that both are deeply diverged from each other, and propose the Southern Indian tribal groups, such as Paniya and Irula as better proxies for indigenous South Asian (AASI) ancestry, although noting that these tribal groups also carry varying degrees of Ancient Iranian admixture. Shinde et al. 2019 noted that both Andamanese Onge or East Siberian groups can be used as proxy for the non-West Eurasian-related component in the “qpAdm” admixture-modelling of an IVC-related individual (labelled “I6113”) because both populations “have the same phylogenetic relationship to the non-West Eurasian-related of I6113 likely due to shared ancestry deeply in time.” ref

“According to Yang (2022):

This distinct South Asian ancestry, denoted as the Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI) lineage, was only found in a small percentage of ancient and present-day South Asians. Present-day Onge from the Andamanese Islands are the best reference population to date, but Narasimhan et al. used qpGraph to show that the divergence between the AASI lineage and the ancestry found in present-day Onge was very deep. Ancestry associated with the AASI lineage was found at low levels in almost all present-day Indian populations.” ref

“Genetic data shows that the main West Eurasian geneflow event happened during the Neolithic period, or already during the Holocene (pre-Neolithic period). There is also evidence that some West Eurasian like ancestry reached South Asia earlier, during the Upper Paleolithic (around 40,000–30,000 years BCe).” The Neolithic or Pre-Neolithic Iranian lineage, which may be associated with the spread of Dravidian languages, forms the major source of the South Asian gene pool, and contributed foundational to all modern South Asians. Paired with varying degrees of AASI admixture, the Ancient Iranian lineage gave rise to the Indus Periphery Cline, which is characteristic for modern South Asians and central in the South Asian genetic heritage. Genetic data suggests that the specific Ancient Iranian-related lineage, diverged from Neolithic Iranian plateau lineages more than 10,000 years ago. According to an international research team led by palaeogeneticists of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU), the main ancestry component of South Asians is derived from a population related to Neolithic farmers from the eastern Fertile Crescent and Iran.” ref

“In the 2nd millennium BCE, the Indus Periphery-related ancestry mixed with the arriving Yamnaya-Steppe component forming the Ancestral North Indians (ANI), while at the same time it contributed to the formation of Ancestral South Indians (ASI) by admixture with hunter-gatherers further South having higher proportions of AASI-related ancestry. The proximity to West Eurasian populations is based on the ANI-ASI gradient, also termed the Indian Cline, with the groups harboring higher ANI-ancestry being closer to West Eurasians as compared to populations harboring higher ASI-ancestry. Tribal groups from southern India harbor mostly ASI ancestry and sits farthest from West Eurasian groups on the PCA compared to other South Asians. The Yamnaya or Western Steppe pastoralist component is found in higher frequency among Indo-Aryan speakers, and is distributed throughout the Indian subcontinent at lower frequency. Certain communities and caste groups from the northern Indian subcontinent display a peak of Western Steppe Herders ancestry at similar amounts as Northern Europeans.” ref

“An East Asian-related ancestry component forms the major ancestry among Tibeto-Burmese and Khasi an speakers in the Himalayan foothills and Northeast India, and is also found in substantial presence in Mundari-speaking groups. According to Zhang et al., Austroasiatic migrations from Southeast Asia into India took place after the last Glacial maximum, circa 10,000 years ago. Arunkumar et al. suggest Austroasiatic migrations from Southeast Asia occurred into Northeast India 5,200 years ago and into East India 4,300 years ago. Tätte et al. 2019 estimated that the Austroasiatic language speaking people admixed with Indian population about 2000–3800 years ago, which may suggest arrival of Southeast Asian genetic component in the area.” ref

“It has been found that the ancestral node of the phylogenetic tree of all the mtDNA types (mitochondrial DNA haplogroups) typically found in Central Asia, the West Asia and Europe are also to be found in South Asia at relatively high frequencies. The inferred divergence of this common ancestral node is estimated to have occurred slightly less than 50,000 years ago. In India, the major maternal lineages are various M subclades, followed by R and U sublineages. These mitochondrial haplogroups’ coalescence times have been approximated to date to 50,000 years ago.” ref

“The major paternal lineages of South Asians are represented by the West Eurasian-affiliated haplogroups R1a1, R2, H, L and J2. A minority belongs to the East Eurasian-affiliated Haplogroup O-M175. O-M175 is mainly restricted to Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burmese speakers, and also common among East and Southeast Asians, while H is largely restricted to South Asians, and R1a1, J2, and L as well as a subclade of H (H2) are commonly found among European and Middle Eastern populations. Some researchers have argued that Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a1 (M17) is of autochthonous South Asian origin. However, proposals for a Central Asian/Eurasian steppe origin for R1a1 are also quite common and supported by several more recent studies. Other minor haplogroups include subclades of Q-M242, G-M201, R1b, as well as Haplogroup C-M130.” ref

“Genetic studies comparing eight X chromosome based STR markers using a multidimensional scaling plot (MDS plot), revealed that modern-day South Asians like Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sinhalese people cluster close to each other, but also closer to Europeans. In contrast, Southeast Asians, East Asians, and Africans were placed at a distant positions, outside the main cluster.” ref

mtDNA

“The most frequent mtDNA haplogroups in South Asia are M, R, and U (where U is a descendant of R). Arguing for the longer term “rival Y-Chromosome model”, Stephen Oppenheimer believes that it is highly suggestive that India is the origin of the Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups which he calls the “Eurasian Eves”. According to Oppenheimer it is highly probable that nearly all human maternal lineages in Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe descended from only four mtDNA lines that originated in South Asia 50,000–100,000 years ago.” ref

Y-DNA_haplogroup_migration_in_East_Asia_map

ref

“Proposed migration routes of East Asian paternal lineages” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“The Ancient Indus Valley Civilisation” ref

Mehrgarh 7000 BCE to 2600 BCE in Pakistan

Damb Sadat 3500 BCE in Pakistan

Harappa 3500 BCE to 1400 BCE in in Punjab (Pakistan)

Pathani Damb 2600-2500 BCE in Pakistan

Mohenjo-daro 2600–2500 BCE to 1900 BCE in Pakistan

Indus Valley Civilization: “Pre-Harappan era: Mehrgarh”

“Mehrgarh is a Neolithic (7000 BCE to c. 2500 BCE) mountain site in the Balochistan province of Pakistan, which gave new insights on the emergence of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Mehrgarh is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming and herding in South Asia. Mehrgarh was influenced by the Near Eastern Neolithic, with similarities between “domesticated wheat varieties, early phases of farming, pottery, other archaeological artefacts, some domesticated plants and herd animals.” ref

“Jean-Francois Jarrige argues for an independent origin of Mehrgarh. Jarrige notes “the assumption that farming economy was introduced full-fledged from Near-East to South Asia,” and the similarities between Neolithic sites from eastern Mesopotamia and the western Indus valley, which are evidence of a “cultural continuum” between those sites. But given the originality of Mehrgarh, Jarrige concludes that Mehrgarh has an earlier local background, and is not a “‘backwater’ of the Neolithic culture of the Near East.” ref

“Lukacs and Hemphill suggest an initial local development of Mehrgarh, with a continuity in cultural development but a change in population. According to Lukacs and Hemphill, while there is a strong continuity between the neolithic and chalcolithic (Copper Age) cultures of Mehrgarh, dental evidence shows that the chalcolithic population did not descend from the neolithic population of Mehrgarh, which “suggests moderate levels of gene flow.” Mascarenhas et al. (2015) note that “new, possibly West Asian, body types are reported from the graves of Mehrgarh beginning in the Togau phase (3800 BCE).” ref

“Gallego Romero et al. (2011) state that their research on lactose tolerance in India suggests that “the west Eurasian genetic contribution identified by Reich et al. (2009) principally reflects gene flow from Iran and the Middle East.” They further note that “[t]he earliest evidence of cattle herding in South Asia comes from the Indus River Valley site of Mehrgarh and is dated to 7,000 years ago.” ref

ref, ref

Mehrgarh

“Mehrgarh is a Neolithic archaeological site (dated c. 7000 BCE – c. 2500/2000 BCE) situated on the Kacchi Plain of Balochistan in modern-day Pakistan. It is located near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River, and between the modern-day Pakistani cities of Quetta, Kalat, and Sibi. The site was discovered in 1974 by the French Archaeological Mission led by the French archaeologists Jean-François Jarrige and Catherine Jarrige. Mehrgarh was excavated continuously between 1974 and 1986, and again from 1997 to 2000. Archaeological material has been found in six mounds, and about 32,000 artifacts have been collected from the site. The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh, located in the northeast corner of the 495-acre (2.00 km²) site, was a small farming village dated between 7000 BCE and 5500 BCE.” ref

“Mehrgarh is one of the earliest known sites in South Asia showing evidence of farming and herding. It was influenced by the Neolithic culture of the Near East, with similarities between “domesticated wheat varieties, early phases of farming, pottery, other archaeological artefacts, some domesticated plants and herd animals.” According to Asko Parpola, the culture migrated into the Indus Valley and became the Indus Valley Civilisation of the Bronze Age. Jean-Francois Jarrige argues for an independent origin of Mehrgarh. Jarrige notes “the assumption that farming economy was introduced full-fledged from Near-East to South Asia,” and the similarities between Neolithic sites from eastern Mesopotamia and the western Indus Valley, which are evidence of a “cultural continuum” between those sites. However, given the originality of Mehrgarh, Jarrige concludes that Mehrgarh has an earlier local background,” and is not a “‘backwater’ of the Neolithic culture of the Near East.” ref

“Lukacs and Hemphill suggest an initial local development of Mehrgarh, with continuity in cultural development but a population change. According to Lukacs and Hemphill, while there is a strong continuity between the Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures of Mehrgarh, dental evidence shows that the Chalcolithic population did not descend from the Neolithic population of Mehrgarh, which “suggests moderate levels of gene flow.” They wrote that “the direct lineal descendants of the Neolithic inhabitants of Mehrgarh are to be found to the south and the east of Mehrgarh, Pakistan in northwestern India and the western edge of the Deccan Plateau,” with Neolithic Mehrgarh showing greater affinity with Chalcolithic Inamgaon, south of Mehrgarh, than with Chalcolithic Mehrgarh.” ref

“Gallego Romero et al. (2011) state that their research on lactose tolerance in India suggests that “the west Eurasian genetic contribution identified by Reich et al. (2009) principally reflects gene flow from Pakistan, Iran, and the Middle East.” Gallego Romero notes that Indians who are lactose-tolerant show a genetic pattern regarding this tolerance which is “characteristic of the common European mutation.” According to Romero, this suggests that “the most common lactose tolerance mutation made a two-way migration out of the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago. While the mutation spread across Europe, another explorer must have brought the mutation eastward to India – likely traveling along the coast of the Persian Gulf where other pockets of the same mutation have been found.” They further note that “[t]he earliest evidence of cattle herding in south Asia comes from the Indus River Valley site of Mehrgarh and is dated to 7,000 years ago.” ref

Mehrgarh Period I (pre-7000–5500 BCE)

“The Mehrgarh Period I (pre-7000–5500 BCE) was Neolithic and aceramic (without the use of pottery). The earliest farming in the area was developed by semi-nomadic people using plants such as wheat and barley and animals such as sheep, goats, and cattle. The settlement was established with unbaked mud-brick buildings, and most of them had four internal subdivisions. Numerous burials have been found, many with elaborate goods such as baskets, stone and bone tools, beads, bangles, pendants, and occasionally animal sacrifices, with more goods left with burials of males. Ornaments of sea shell, limestone, turquoise, lapis lazuli, and sandstone have been found, along with simple figurines of women and animals. Seashells from far seashores, and lapis lazuli from as far away as present-day Badakshan, show good contact with those areas. One ground stone axe was discovered in a burial, and several more were obtained from the surface. These ground stone axes are the earliest to come from a stratified context in South Asia.” ref

“Periods I, II, and III are considered contemporaneous with another site called Kili Gul Mohammad. The aceramic Neolithic phase in the region had originally been called the Kili Gul Muhammad phase. While the Kili Gul Muhammad site itself probably started c. 5500 BCE, subsequent discoveries allowed the date range of 7000–5000 BCE to be defined for this aceramic Neolithic phase. In 2001, archaeologists studying the remains of nine men from Mehrgarh discovered that the people of this civilization knew proto-dentistry. In April 2006, it was announced in the scientific journal Nature that the oldest (and first early Neolithic) evidence for the drilling of human teeth in vivo (i.e. in a living person) was found in Mehrgarh. According to the authors, their discoveries point to a tradition of proto-dentistry in the early farming cultures of that region. “Here we describe eleven drilled molar crowns from nine adults discovered in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan that dates from 7,500 to 9,000 years ago. These findings provide evidence for a long tradition of a type of proto-dentistry in early farming culture.” ref

Mehrgarh Period II (5500–4800 BCE) and Period III (4800–3500 BCE)

“The Mehrgarh Period II (5500 BCE–4800 BCE) and Merhgarh Period III (4800 BCE–3500 BCE) were ceramic Neolithic, using pottery, and later chalcolithic. Period II is at site MR4 and Period III is at MR2. Much evidence of manufacturing activity has been found and more advanced techniques were used. Glazed faience beads were produced, and terracotta figurines became more detailed. Figurines of females were decorated with paint and had diverse hairstyles and ornaments. Two flexed burials were found in Period II with a red ochre cover on the body. The number of burial goods decreased over time, becoming limited to ornaments and with more goods left with burials of females. The first button seals were produced from terracotta and bone and had geometric designs. Technologies included stone and copper drills, updraft kilns, large pit kilns, and copper melting crucibles. There is further evidence of long-distance trade in Period II: important as an indication of this is the discovery of several beads of lapis lazuli, once again from Badakshan. Mehrgarh Periods II and III are also contemporaneous with an expansion of the settled populations of the borderlands at the western edge of South Asia, including the establishment of settlements like Rana Ghundai, Sheri Khan Tarakai, Sarai Kala, Jalilpur, and Ghaligai.” ref

“Period III was not much explored, but it was found that Togau phase (c. 4000–3500 BCE) was part of this level, covering around 100 hectares in the areas MR.2, MR.4, MR.5 and MR.6, encompassing ruins, burial and dumping grounds, but archaeologist Jean-François Jarrige concluded that “such wide extension was not due to contemporaneous occupation, but rather due to the shift and partial superimposition in time of several villages or settlement clusters across a span of several centuries.” ref

Togau Ceramics Phase appeared at Mehrgarh III

“At the beginning of Mehrgarh III, Togau ceramics appeared at the site. Togau ware was first defined by Beatrice de Cardi in 1948. Togau is a large mound in the Chhappar Valley of Sarawan, 12 kilometers northwest of Kalat in Balochistan. This type of pottery is found widely in Balochistan and eastern Afghanistan, at sites such as Mundigak, Sheri Khan Tarakai, and Periano Ghundai. According to Possehl it is attested at 84 sites up to date. Anjira is a contemporary ancient site near Togau. Togau ceramics are decorated with geometric designs and were already being made with a potter’s wheel. Mehrgarh Period III, during the second half of the 4th millennium BCE, is characterized by important new developments. There is a big increase in the number of settlements in the Quetta Valley, the Surab Region, the Kachhi Plain and elsewhere in the area. Kili Ghul Mohammad (II−III) pottery is similar to Togau Ware.” ref

Mehrgarh Periods IV, V and VI (3500–3000 BCE)

“Period IV was 3500–3250 BCE, Period V from 3250–3000 BCE, and Period VI was around 3000 BCE. The site containing Periods IV to VII is designated as MR1.” ref

Mehrgarh Period VII (2600–2000 BCE)

“Sometime between 2600 BCE and 2000 BCE, the city seems to have been largely abandoned in favor of the larger fortified town Nausharo five miles away, when the Indus Valley civilisation was in its middle stages of development. Historian Michael Wood suggests this took place around 2500 BCE. Archaeologist Massimo Vidale considers a series of semi-columns found in a structure at Mehrgarh, dated around 2500 BCE by the French mission there, to be very similar to semi-columns found in Period IV at Shahr-e Sukhteh.” ref

Mehrgarh Period VIII

“The last period is found at the Sibri cemetery, about 8 kilometers from Mehrgarh. Early Mehrgarh residents lived in mud brick houses, stored their grain in granaries, fashioned tools with local copper ore, and lined their large basket containers with bitumen. They cultivated six-row barley, einkorn and emmer wheat, jujubes, and dates, and herded sheep, goats and cattle. Residents of the later period (5500 BCE to 2600 BCE) put much effort into crafts, including flint knapping, tanning, bead production, and metal working. Mehrgarh is probably the earliest known center of agriculture in South Asia. The oldest known example of the lost-wax technique comes from a 6,000-year-old wheel-shaped copper amulet found at Mehrgarh. The amulet was made from unalloyed copper, an unusual innovation that was later abandoned.” ref

“The oldest ceramic figurines in South Asia were also found at Mehrgarh. They occur in all phases of the settlement and were prevalent even before pottery appears. The earliest figurines are quite simple and do not show intricate features. However, they grow in sophistication with time, and by 4000 BCE begins to show their characteristic hairstyles and typical prominent breasts. All the figurines up to this period were female. Male figurines appear only from period VII and gradually become more numerous. Many of the female figurines are holding babies, and were interpreted as depictions of a mother goddess. However, due to some difficulties in conclusively identifying these figurines with a mother goddess, some scholars prefer using the term “female figurines with likely cultic significance.” ref

“Evidence of pottery begins from Period II. In Period III, the finds become much more abundant as the potter’s wheel is introduced, and they show more intricate designs and also animal motifs. The characteristic female figurines appear beginning in Period IV and the finds show more intricate designs and sophistication. Pipal leaf designs are used in decoration from Period VI. Some sophisticated firing techniques were used from Periods VI and VII and an area reserved for the pottery industry has been found at mound MR1. However, by Period VIII, the quality and intricacy of designs seem to have suffered due to mass production, and a growing interest in bronze and copper vessels.” ref

Mehrgarh Burials

“There are two types of burials in the Mehrgarh site. There were individual burials where a single individual was enclosed in narrow mud walls and collective burials with thin mud-brick walls within which skeletons of six different individuals were discovered. The bodies in the collective burials were kept in a flexed position and were laid east to west. Child bones were found in large jars or urn burials (4000–3300 BCE).” ref

Mehrgarh Metallurgy

“Metal findings have been dated as early as Period IIB, with a few copper items.” ref

ref

The Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC derives from a lineage leading to early Iranian farmers, herders, and hunter-gatherers before their ancestors separated, contradicting the hypothesis that the shared ancestry between early Iranians and South Asians reflects a large-scale spread of western Iranian farmers east. Instead, sampled ancient genomes from the Iranian plateau and IVC descend from different groups of hunter-gatherers who began farming without being connected by substantial movement of people.” ref

“The only fitting two-way models were mixtures of a group related to herders from the western Zagros mountains of Iran and also to either Andamanese hunter-gatherers (73% ± 6% Iranian-related ancestry; p = 0.103 for overall model fit) or East Siberian hunter-gatherers (63% ± 6% Iranian-related ancestry; p = 0.24) (the fact that the latter two populations both fit reflects that they have the same phylogenetic relationship to the non-West Eurasian-related component of I6113 likely due to shared ancestry deeply in time). This is the same class of models previously shown to fit the 11 outliers that form the Indus Periphery Cline (Narasimhan et al., 2019), and indeed, I6113 fits as a genetic clade with the pool of Indus Periphery Cline individuals in qpAdm (p = 0.42). Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the genetic similarity of I6113 to the Indus Periphery Cline individuals is due to gene flow from South Asia rather than in the reverse direction.” ref

“First, of the 44 individuals with good-quality data we have from Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta, only 11 (25%) have this ancestry profile; it would be surprising to see this ancestry profile in the one individual we analyzed from Rakhigarhi if it was a migrant from regions where this ancestry profile was rare. Second, of the three individuals at Shahr-i-Sokhta who have material culture linkages to Baluchistan in South Asia, all are IVC Cline outliers, specifically pointing to movement out of South Asia (Narasimhan et al., 2019).” ref

“Third, both the IVC Cline individuals and the Rakhigarhi individual have admixture from people related to present-day South Asians (ancestry deeply related to Andamanese hunter-gatherers) that is absent in the non-outlier Shahr-i-Sokhta samples and is also absent in Copper Age Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (Narasimhan et al., 2019), implying gene flow from South Asia into Shahr-i-Sokhta and Gonur, whereas our modeling does not necessitate reverse gene flow. Based on these multiple lines of evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that individual I6113’s ancestry profile was widespread among people of the IVC at sites like Rakhigarhi, and it supports the conjecture (Narasimhan et al., 2019) that the 11 outlier individuals in the Indus Periphery Cline are migrants from the IVC living in non-IVC towns. We rename the genetic gradient represented in the combined set of 12 individuals the “IVC Cline” and then use higher-coverage individuals from this cline in lieu of I6113 to carry out fine-scale modeling of this ancestry profile.” ref

“Modeling the individuals on the IVC Cline using the two-way models previously fit for diverse present-day South Asians (Narasimhan et al., 2019), we find that, as expected from the PCA, it does not fit the two-way mixture that drives variation in modern South Asians as it is significantly depleted in Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry adjusting for its proportion of Iranian-related ancestry (p = 0.018 from a two-sided Z test). Modeling the IVC Cline using the simpler two-way admixture model without Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry previously shown to fit the 11 outliers (Narasimhan et al., 2019), I6113 falls on the more Iranian-related end of the gradient, revealing that Iranian-related ancestry extended to the eastern geographic extreme of the IVC and was not restricted to individuals at its Iranian and Central Asian periphery.” ref

“The estimated proportion of ancestry related to tribal groups in southern India in I6113 is smaller than in present-day groups, suggesting that since the time of the IVC there has been gene flow into the part of South Asia where Rakhigarhi lies from both the northwest (bringing more Steppe ancestry) and southeast (bringing more ancestry related to tribal groups in southern India). The genetic profile that we document in this individual, with large proportions of Iranian-related ancestry but no evidence of Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry, is no longer found in modern populations of South Asia or Iran, providing further validation that the data we obtained from this individual reflects authentic ancient DNA.” ref

“To obtain insight into the origin of the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline, we co-modeled the highest-coverage individual from the IVC Cline, Indus_Periphery_West (who also happens to have one of the highest proportions of Iranian-related ancestry) with other ancient individuals from across the Iranian plateau representing early hunter-gatherer and food-producing groups: a ∼10,000 BCE individual from Belt Cave in the Alborsz Mountains, a pool of ∼8000 BCE early goat herders from Ganj Dareh in the Zagros Mountains, a pool of ∼6000 BCE farmers from Hajji Firuz in the Zagros Mountains, and a pool of ∼4000 BCE farmers from Tepe Hissar in Central Iran. Using qpGraph (Patterson et al., 2012), we tested all possible simple trees relating the Iranian-related ancestry component of these groups, accounting for known admixtures (Anatolian farmer-related admixture into Hajji Firuz and Tepe Hissar and Andamanese hunter-gatherer-related admixture in the IVC Cline) (Figure S3), using an acceptance criterion for the model fitting that the maximum |Z| scores between observed and expected f-statistics was <3 or that the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was within 4 of the best-fit (Burnham and Anderson, 2004).” ref

“The only consistently fitting models specified that the Iranian-related lineage contributing to the IVC Cline split from the Iranian-related lineages sampled from ancient genomes of the Iranian plateau before the latter separated from each other (Figure 3 represents one such model consistent with our data). We confirmed this result by using symmetry tests that we applied first to stimulated data (Figure S4) and then evaluated the relationships among the Iranian-related lineages, correcting for the effects of Anatolian farmer-related, Andamanese hunter-gatherer-related, and West Siberian hunter-gatherer-related admixture (STAR Methods). We find that 94% of the resulting trees supported the Iranian-related lineage in the IVC Cline being the first to separate from the other lineages, consistent with our modeling results.” ref

“Our evidence that the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline diverged from lineages leading to ancient Iranian hunter-gatherers, herders, and farmers prior to their ancestors’ separation places constraints on the spread of Iranian-related ancestry across the combined region of the Iranian plateau and South Asia, where it is represented in all ancient and modern genomic data sampled to date. The Belt Cave individual dates to ∼10,000 BCE, definitively before the advent of farming anywhere in Iran, which implies that the split leading to the Iranian-related component in the IVC Cline predates the advent of farming there as well (Figure 3). Even if we do not consider the results from the low-coverage Belt Cave individual, our analysis shows that the Iranian-related lineage present in the IVC Cline individuals split before the date of the ∼8000 BCE Ganj Dareh individuals, who lived in the Zagros mountains of the Iranian plateau before crop farming began there around ∼7000–6000 BCE. Thus, the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline descends from a different group of hunter-gatherers from the ancestors of the earliest known farmers or herders in the western Iranian plateau.” ref

“Researchers also highlight a second line of evidence against the hypothesis that eastward migrations of descendants of western Iranian farmers or herders were the source of the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline. An independent study has shown that all ancient genomes from Neolithic and Copper Age crop farmers of the Iranian plateau harbored Anatolian farmer-related ancestry not present in the earlier herders of the western Zagros (Narasimhan et al., 2019). This includes western Zagros farmers (∼59% Anatolian farmer-related ancestry at ∼6000 BCE at Hajji Firuz) and eastern Alborsz farmers (∼30% Anatolian farmer-related ancestry at ∼4000 BCE at Tepe Hissar). That the 12 sampled individuals from the IVC Cline harbored negligible Anatolian farmer-related ancestry thus provides an independent line of evidence (in addition to their deep-splitting Iranian-related lineage that has not been found in any sampled ancient Iranian genomes to date) that they did not descend from groups with ancestry profiles characteristic of all sampled Iranian crop-farmers (Narasimhan et al., 2019). While there is a small proportion of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry in South Asians today, it is consistent with being entirely derived from Steppe pastoralists who carried it in mixed form and who spread into South Asia from ∼2000–1500 BCE (Narasimhan et al., 2019).” ref

“These findings suggest that in South Asia as in Europe, the advent of farming was not mediated directly by descendants of the world’s first farmers who lived in the fertile crescent. Instead, populations of hunter-gatherers—in Eastern Anatolia in the case of Europe (Feldman et al., 2019) and in a yet-unsampled location in the case of South Asia—began farming without large-scale movement of people into these regions. This does not mean that movements of people were unimportant in the introduction of farming economies at a later date; for example, ancient DNA studies have documented that the introduction of farming to Europe after ∼6500 BCE was mediated by a large-scale expansion of Western Anatolian farmers who descended largely from early hunter-gatherers of Western Anatolia (Feldman et al., 2019). It is possible that in an analogous way, an early farming population expanded dramatically within South Asia, causing large-scale population turnovers that helped to spread this economy within the region. Whether this occurred is still unverified and could be determined through ancient DNA studies from just before and after the farming transitions in South Asia.” ref

“Our results also have linguistic implications. One theory for the origins of the now-widespread Indo-European languages in South Asia is the “Anatolian hypothesis,” which posits that the spread of these languages was propelled by movements of people from Anatolia across the Iranian plateau and into South Asia associated with the spread of farming. However, we have shown that the ancient South Asian farmers represented in the IVC Cline had negligible ancestry related to ancient Anatolian farmers as well as an Iranian-related ancestry component distinct from sampled ancient farmers and herders in Iran. Since language proxy spreads in pre-state societies are often accompanied by large-scale movements of people (Bellwood, 2013), these results argue against the model (Heggarty, 2019) of a trans-Iranian-plateau route for Indo-European language spread into South Asia.” ref

“However, a natural route for Indo-European languages to have spread into South Asia is from Eastern Europe via Central Asia in the first half of the 2^nd millennium BCE, a chain of transmission that did occur as has been documented in detail with ancient DNA. The fact that the Steppe pastoralist ancestry in South Asia matches that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe (but not Western Europe [de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018; Narasimhan et al., 2019]) provides additional evidence for this theory, as it elegantly explains the shared distinctive features of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages (Ringe et al., 2002).” ref

“Our analysis of data from one individual from the IVC, in conjunction with 11 previously reported individuals from sites in cultural contact with the IVC, demonstrates the existence of an ancestry gradient that was widespread in farmers to the northwest of peninsular India at the height of the IVC, that had little if any genetic contribution from Steppe pastoralists or western Iranian farmers or herders, and that had a primary impact on the ancestry of later South Asians. While our study is sufficient to demonstrate that this ancestry profile was a common feature of the IVC, a single sample—or even the gradient of 12 likely IVC samples we have identified—cannot fully characterize a cosmopolitan ancient civilization. An important direction for future work will be to carry out ancient DNA analysis of additional individuals across the IVC range to obtain a quantitative understanding of how the ancestry of IVC people was distributed and to characterize other features of its population structure.” ref

Indus Valley Civilisation

“The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC), also known as the Indus Civilisation, was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE. Together with ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was one of three early civilizations of North Africa, Southwest Asia, and South Asia, and of the three, the most widespread, its sites spanning an area including much of modern-day Pakistan, northwestern India, and northeast Afghanistan. The civilization flourished both in the alluvial plain of the Indus River, which flows through the length of Pakistan, and along a system of perennial monsoon-fed rivers that once coursed in the vicinity of the Ghaggar-Hakra, a seasonal river in northwest India and eastern Pakistan.” ref

“The term Harappan is sometimes applied to the Indus Civilisation after its type site Harappa, the first to be excavated early in the 20th century in what was then the Punjab province of British India and is now Punjab, Pakistan. The discovery of Harappa and soon afterwards Mohenjo-daro was the culmination of work that had begun after the founding of the Archaeological Survey of India in the British Raj in 1861. There were earlier and later cultures called Early Harappan and Late Harappan in the same area. The early Harappan cultures were populated from Neolithic cultures, the earliest and best-known of which is named after Mehrgarh, in Balochistan, Pakistan. Harappan civilization is sometimes called Mature Harappan to distinguish it from the earlier cultures.” ref

“The cities of the ancient Indus were noted for their urban planning, baked brick houses, elaborate drainage systems, water supply systems, clusters of large non-residential buildings, and techniques of handicraft and metallurgy. Mohenjo-daro and Harappa very likely grew to contain between 30,000 and 60,000 individuals, and the civilization may have contained between one and five million individuals during its fluorescence. A gradual drying of the region during the 3rd millennium BCE may have been the initial stimulus for its urbanization. Eventually, it also reduced the water supply enough to cause the civilization’s demise and to disperse its population to the east.” ref

“Although over a thousand Mature Harappan sites have been reported and nearly a hundred excavated, there are five major urban centers: Mohenjo-daro in the lower Indus Valley (declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1980 as “Archaeological Ruins at Moenjodaro“), Harappa in the western Punjab region, Ganeriwala in the Cholistan Desert, Dholavira in western Gujarat (declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2021 as “Dholavira: A Harappan City“), and Rakhigarhi in Haryana. The Harappan language is not directly attested, and its affiliations are uncertain, as the Indus script has remained undeciphered. A relationship with the Dravidian or Elamo-Dravidian language family is favored by a section of scholars.” ref

“The term “Ghaggar-Hakra” figures prominently in modern labels applied to the Indus civilization on account of a good number of sites having been found along the Ghaggar-Hakra River in northwest India and eastern Pakistan. The terms “Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation” and “Sindhu-Saraswati Civilisation” have also been employed in the literature by supporters of Indigenous Aryanism, after a posited identification of the Ghaggar-Hakra with the river Sarasvati described in the early chapters of the Rigveda, a collection of hymns in archaic Sanskrit composed in the second-millennium BCE, which are unrelated to the mature phase of the Indus Valley Civilization. Recent geophysical research suggests that unlike the Sarasvati, described in the Rigveda as a snow-fed river, the Ghaggar-Hakra was a system of perennial monsoon-fed rivers, which became seasonal around the time that the civilization diminished, approximately 4,000 years ago.” ref

“The Indus Valley Civilisation was roughly contemporary with the other riverine civilizations of the ancient world: Ancient Egypt along the Nile, Mesopotamia in the lands watered by the Euphrates and the Tigris, and China in the drainage basin of the Yellow River and the Yangtze. By the time of its mature phase, the civilization had spread over an area larger than the others, which included a core of 1,500 kilometers (900 mi) up the alluvial plain of the Indus and its tributaries. In addition, there was a region with disparate flora, fauna, and habitats, up to ten times as large, which had been shaped culturally and economically by the Indus.” ref

“Around 6500 BCE, agriculture emerged in Balochistan, on the margins of the Indus alluvium. In the following millennia, settled life made inroads into the Indus plains, setting the stage for the growth of rural and urban settlements. The more organized sedentary life, in turn, led to a net increase in the birth rate. The large urban centres of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa very likely grew to containing between 30,000 and 60,000 individuals, and during the civilisation’s florescence, the population of the subcontinent grew to between 4–6 million people. During this period the death rate increased, as the close living conditions of humans and domesticated animals led to an increase in contagious diseases. According to one estimate, the population of the Indus civilisation at its peak may have been between one and five million.” ref

“During its height, the civilization extended from Balochistan in the west to western Uttar Pradesh in the east, from northeastern Afghanistan in the north to Gujarat state in the south. The largest number of sites are in the Punjab region, Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir states, Sindh, and Balochistan. Coastal settlements extended from Sutkagan Dor in Western Baluchistan to Lothal in Gujarat. An Indus Valley site has been found on the Oxus River at Shortugai in Afghanistan which is the northernmost site of the Indus Valley Civilisation, in the Gomal River valley in northwestern Pakistan, at Manda, Jammu on the Beas River near Jammu, and at Alamgirpur on the Hindon River, only 28 km (17 mi) from Delhi. The southernmost site of the Indus Valley Civilisation is Daimabad in Maharashtra. Indus Valley sites have been found most often on rivers, but also on the ancient seacoast, for example, Balakot (Kot Bala), and on islands, for example, Dholavira.” ref

Harappa

“Harappa (Punjabi pronunciation: [ɦəɽəˈpaː]) is an archaeological site in Punjab, Pakistan, about 24 kilometres (15 miles) west of Sahiwal. The Bronze Age Harappan civilization, now more often called the Indus Valley Civilization, is named after the site, which takes its name from a modern village near the former course of the Ravi River, which now runs eight kilometres (five miles) to the north. The core of the Harappan civilization extended over a large area, from Gujarat in the south, across Sindh and Rajasthan, and extending into Punjab and Haryana. Numerous sites have been found outside the core area, including some as far east as Uttar Pradesh and as far west as Sutkagen-dor on the Makran coast of Balochistan, not far from Iran.” ref

“The site of the ancient city contains the ruins of a Bronze Age fortified city, which was part of the Harappan civilization centered in Sindh and the Punjab, and then the Cemetery H culture. The city is believed to have had as many as 23,500 residents and occupied about 150 hectares (370 acres) with clay brick houses at its greatest extent during the Mature Harappan phase (2600 BCE – 1900 BCE), which is considered large for its time. Per the archaeological convention of naming a previously unknown civilization by its first excavated site, the Indus Valley Civilisation is also called the Harappan Civilisation.” ref

“The ancient city of Harappa was heavily damaged under British and French rule, when bricks from the ruins were used as track ballast in the construction of the Lahore–Multan Railway. The current village of Harappa is less than one kilometer (5⁄8 mi) from the ancient site. Although modern Harappa has a legacy railway station from the British Raj period, it is a small crossroads town of 15,000 people today. In 2005, a controversial amusement park scheme at the site was abandoned when builders unearthed many archaeological artifacts during the early stages of building work.” ref

“The Early Harappan Ravi Phase, named after the nearby Ravi River, lasted from c. 3300 BCE until 2800 BCE. It started when farmers from the mountains gradually moved between their mountain homes and the lowland river valleys, and is related to the Hakra Phase, identified in the Ghaggar-Hakra River Valley to the west, and predates the Kot Diji Phase (2800–2600 BCE, Harappan 2), named after a site in northern Sindh, Pakistan, near Mohenjo-daro. The earliest examples of the Indus script date to the 3rd millennium BCE. The mature phase of earlier village cultures is represented by Rehman Dheri and Amri in Pakistan. Kot Diji represents the phase leading up to Mature Harappan, with the citadel representing centralised authority and an increasingly urban quality of life. Another town of this stage was found at Kalibangan in India on the Hakra River.” ref

“Trade networks linked this culture with related regional cultures and distant sources of raw materials, including lapis lazuli and other materials for bead-making. By this time, villagers had domesticated numerous crops, including peas, sesame seeds, dates, and cotton, as well as animals, including the water buffalo. Early Harappan communities turned to large urban centers by 2600 BCE, from where the mature Harappan phase started. The latest research shows that Indus Valley people migrated from villages to cities. The final stages of the Early Harappan period are characterized by the building of large walled settlements, the expansion of trade networks, and the increasing integration of regional communities into a “relatively uniform” material culture in terms of pottery styles, ornaments, and stamp seals with Indus script, leading into the transition to the Mature Harappan phase.” ref

“According to Giosan et al. (2012), the slow southward migration of the monsoons across Asia initially allowed the Indus Valley villages to develop by taming the floods of the Indus and its tributaries. Flood-supported farming led to large agricultural surpluses, which in turn supported the development of cities. The IVC residents did not develop irrigation capabilities, relying mainly on the seasonal monsoons leading to summer floods. Brooke further notes that the development of advanced cities coincides with a reduction in rainfall, which may have triggered a reorganization into larger urban centers.” ref

“According to J.G. Shaffer and D.A. Lichtenstein, the Mature Harappan civilization was “a fusion of the Bagor, Hakra, and Kot Diji traditions or ‘ethnic groups’ in the Ghaggar-Hakra valley on the borders of India and Pakistan.” Also, according to a more recent summary by Maisels (2003), “The Harappan oecumene formed from a Kot Dijian/Amri-Nal synthesis.” He also says that, in the development of complexity, the site of Mohenjo-daro has priority, along with the Hakra-Ghaggar cluster of sites, “where Hakra wares actually precede the Kot Diji related material.” ref

“He sees these areas as “catalytic in producing the fusion from Hakra, Kot Dijian, and Amri-Nal cultural elements that resulted in the gestalt we recognize as Early Harappan (Early Indus).” By 2600 BCE, the Early Harappan communities turned into large urban centers. Such urban centers include Harappa, Ganeriwala, Mohenjo-daro in modern-day Pakistan, and Dholavira, Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, Rupar, and Lothal in modern-day India. In total, more than 1,000 settlements have been found, mainly in the general region of the Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra Rivers and their tributaries.” ref

Cities

“A sophisticated and technologically advanced urban culture is evident in the Indus Valley Civilisation, making them the first urban center in the region. The quality of municipal town planning suggests the knowledge of urban planning and efficient municipal governments which placed a high priority on hygiene, or, alternatively, accessibility to the means of religious ritual. As seen in Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, and the recently partially excavated Rakhigarhi, this urban plan included the world’s first known urban sanitation systems. Within the city, individual homes or groups of homes obtained water from wells. From a room that appears to have been set aside for bathing, waste water was directed to covered drains, which lined the major streets. Houses opened only to inner courtyards and smaller lanes. The housebuilding in some villages in the region still resembles in some respects the housebuilding of the Harappans.” ref

The ancient Indus systems of sewerage and drainage that were developed and used in cities throughout the Indus region were far more advanced than any found in contemporary urban sites in the Middle East and even more efficient than those in many areas of Pakistan and India today. The advanced architecture of the Harappans is shown by their dockyards, granaries, warehouses, brick platforms, and protective walls. The massive walls of Indus cities most likely protected the Harappans from floods and may have dissuaded military conflicts. The purpose of the citadel remains debated. In sharp contrast to this civilisation’s contemporaries, Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, no large monumental structures were built. There is no conclusive evidence of palaces or temples.” ref

“Some structures are thought to have been granaries. Found at one city is an enormous well-built bath (the “Great Bath“), which may have been a public bath. Although the citadels were walled, it is far from clear that these structures were defensive. Most city dwellers appear to have been traders or artisans who lived with others pursuing the same occupation in well-defined neighborhoods. Materials from distant regions were used in the cities for constructing seals, beads and other objects. Among the artefacts discovered were beautiful glazed faïence beads.” ref

“Steatite seals have images of animals, people (perhaps gods), and other types of inscriptions, including the yet un-deciphered writing system of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Some of the seals were used to stamp clay on trade goods. Although some houses were larger than others, Indus civilisation cities were remarkable for their apparent, if relative, egalitarianism. All the houses had access to water and drainage facilities. This gives the impression of a society with relatively low wealth concentration.” ref

Authority and governance

“Archaeological records provide no immediate answers for a center of power or for depictions of people in power in Harappan society. But, there are indications of complex decisions being taken and implemented. For instance, the majority of the cities were constructed in a highly uniform and well-planned grid pattern, suggesting they were planned by a central authority; extraordinary uniformity of Harappan artifacts as evident in pottery, seals, weights, and bricks; presence of public facilities and monumental architecture; heterogeneity in the mortuary symbolism and in grave goods (items included in burials).” ref

“These are some major theories:

There was a single state, given the similarity in artefacts, the evidence for planned settlements, the standardised ratio of brick size, and the establishment of settlements near sources of raw material.
There was no single ruler, but several cities like Mohenjo-daro had a separate ruler, Harappa another, and so forth.” ref

Metallurgy

“Harappans evolved some new techniques in metallurgy and produced copper, bronze, lead, and tin. A touchstone bearing gold streaks was found in Banawali, which was probably used for testing the purity of gold (such a technique is still used in some parts of India).” ref

Metrology

“The people of the Indus civilization achieved great accuracy in measuring length, mass, and time. They were among the first to develop a system of uniform weights and measures. A comparison of available objects indicates large-scale variation across the Indus territories. Their smallest division, which is marked on an ivory scale found in Lothal in Gujarat, was approximately 1.704 mm, the smallest division ever recorded on a scale of the Bronze Age. Harappan engineers followed the decimal division of measurement for all practical purposes, including the measurement of mass as revealed by their hexahedron weights.” ref

“These chert weights were in a ratio of 5:2:1 with weights of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, and 500 units, with each unit weighing approximately 28 grams, similar to the English Imperial ounce or Greek uncia, and smaller objects were weighed in similar ratios with the units of 0.871 . However, as in other cultures, actual weights were not uniform throughout the area. The weights and measures later used in Kautilya‘s Arthashastra (4th century BCE) are the same as those used in Lothal.” ref

Arts and crafts

“Many Indus Valley seals and items in pottery and terracotta have been found, along with a very few stone sculptures and some gold jewellery and bronze vessels. Some anatomically detailed figurines in terracotta, bronze, and steatite have been found at excavation sites, the former probably mostly toys. The Harappans also made various toys and games, among them cubical dice (with one to six holes on the faces), which were found in sites like Mohenjo-daro.” ref

“The terracotta figurines included cows, bears, monkeys, and dogs. The animal depicted on a majority of seals at sites of the mature period has not been clearly identified. Part bull, part zebra, with a majestic horn, it has been a source of speculation. As yet, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate claims that the image had religious or cultic significance, but the prevalence of the image raises the question of whether or not the animals in images of the IVC are religious symbols.” ref

“Many crafts, including, “shell working, ceramics, and agate and glazed steatite bead making” were practiced, and the pieces were used in the making of necklaces, bangles, and other ornaments from all phases of Harappan culture. Some of these crafts are still practiced in the subcontinent today. Some make-up and toiletry items (a special kind of combs (kakai), the use of collyrium, and a special three-in-one toiletry gadget) that were found in Harappan contexts still have similar counterparts in modern India. Terracotta female figurines were found (c. 2800–2600 BCE), which had red color applied to the “manga” (line of partition of the hair). Archeological remains from 2000 to 3000 BC have been found from the city of Lothal of pieces on a board that resembles chess.” ref

“The finds from Mohenjo-daro were initially deposited in the Lahore Museum, but later moved to the ASI headquarters at New Delhi, where a new “Central Imperial Museum” was being planned for the new capital of the British Raj, in which at least a selection would be displayed. It became apparent that Indian independence was approaching, but the Partition of India was not anticipated until late in the process. The new Pakistani authorities requested the return of the Mohenjo-daro pieces excavated on their territory, but the Indian authorities refused. Eventually, an agreement was reached, whereby the finds, totalling some 12,000 objects (most sherds of pottery), were split equally between the countries; in some cases, this was taken very literally, with some necklaces and girdles having their beads separated into two piles. In the case of the “two most celebrated sculpted figures,” Pakistan asked for and received the so-called Priest-King figure, while India retained the much smaller Dancing Girl.” ref

“Though written considerably later, the arts treatise Natya Shastra (c. 200 BCE – 200 CE) classifies musical instruments into four groups based on their means of acoustical production—strings, membranes, solid materials and air—and it is probable that such instruments had existed since the IVC. Archeological evidence indicates the use of simple rattles and vessel flutes, while iconographical evidence suggests early harps and drums were also used. An ideogram in the IVC contains the earliest known depiction of an arched harp, dated sometime before 1800 BCE.” ref

Human statuettes

“A handful of realistic statuettes have been found at IVC sites, of which much the most famous is the lost-wax casting bronze statuette of a slender-limbed Dancing Girl adorned with bangles, found in Mohenjo-daro. Two other realistic incomplete statuettes have been found in Harappa in proper stratified excavations, which display near-Classical treatment of the human shape: the statuette of a dancer who seems to be male, and the Harappa Torso, a red jasper male torso, both now in the Delhi National Museum. Sir John Marshall reacted with surprise when he saw these two statuettes from Harappa:

When I first saw them I found it difficult to believe that they were prehistoric; they seemed to completely upset all established ideas about early art, and culture. Modelling such as this was unknown in the ancient world up to the Hellenistic age of Greece, and I thought, therefore, that some mistake must surely have been made; that these figures had found their way into levels some 3000 years older than those to which they properly belonged … Now, in these statuettes, it is just this anatomical truth which is so startling; that makes us wonder whether, in this all-important matter, Greek artistry could possibly have been anticipated by the sculptors of a far-off age on the banks of the Indus.” ref

“These statuettes remain controversial, due to their advanced style in representing the human body. Regarding the red jasper torso, the discoverer, Vats, claims a Harappan date, but Marshall considered this statuette is probably historical, dating to the Gupta period, comparing it to the much later Lohanipur torso. A second rather similar grey stone torso of a dancing male was also found about 150 meters away in a secure Mature Harappan stratum. Overall, anthropologist Gregory Possehl tends to consider that these statuettes probably form the pinnacle of Indus art during the Mature Harappan period.” ref

Seals

“Thousands of steatite seals have been recovered, and their physical character is fairly consistent. In size they range from squares of side 2 to 4 cm (3⁄4 to 1+1⁄2 in). In most cases they have a pierced boss at the back to accommodate a cord for handling or for use as personal adornment. In addition, a large number of sealings have survived, of which only a few can be matched to the seals. The great majority of examples of the Indus script are short groups of signs on seals. Seals have been found at Mohenjo-daro depicting a figure standing on its head, and another, on the Pashupati seal, sitting cross-legged in what some call a yoga-like pose (see image, the so-called Pashupati, below). This figure has been variously identified. Sir John Marshall identified a resemblance to the Hindu god, Shiva. A human deity with the horns, hooves and tail of a bull also appears in the seals, in particular in a fighting scene with a horned tiger-like beast. This deity has been compared to the Mesopotamian bull-man Enkidu. Several seals also show a man fighting two lions or tigers, a “Master of Animals” motif common to civilizations in Western and South Asia.” ref

Trade and transportation

“The Indus Valley civilisation may have had bullock carts identical to those seen throughout South Asia today, as well as boats. Most of these boats were probably small, flat-bottomed craft, perhaps driven by sail, similar to those one can see on the Indus River today;. An extensive canal network used for irrigation has, however, also been discovered by H.-P. Francfort. During 4300–3200 BCE of the chalcolithic period (copper age), the Indus Valley Civilisation area shows ceramic similarities with southern Turkmenistan and northern Iran which suggest considerable mobility and trade. During the Early Harappan period (about 3200–2600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments, etc. document intensive caravan trade with Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.” ref

“Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilization artifacts, the trade networks economically integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia connected by the Gulf of Oman from the Arabian Sea, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia, leading to the development of Indus-Mesopotamia relations. Studies of tooth enamel from individuals buried at Harappa suggest that some residents had migrated to the city from beyond the Indus Valley. Ancient DNA studies of graves at Bronze Age sites at Gonur Depe, Turkmenistan, and Shahr-e Sukhteh, Iran, have identified 11 individuals of South Asian descent, who are presumed to be of mature Indus Valley origin.” ref

“There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilisations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by “middlemen merchants from Dilmun” (modern Bahrain, Eastern Arabia, and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf). Such long-distance sea trade became feasible with the development of plank-built watercraft, equipped with a single central mast supporting a sail of woven rushes or cloth.” ref

“However, the evidence of sea-borne trade involving the Harappan civilization is not firm. In their book Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan, archaeologists Bridget Allchin and Raymond Allchin write:

… (p. 173) the settlement at Lothal … along the east side was a brick basin. It is claimed by its excavator to have been a dockyard, connected by channels to a neighbouring estuary. … On its edge the excavator discovered several heavily-pierced stones, similar to modern anchor stones employed by traditional seafaring communities of Western India. This interpretation, however, has been challenged, and indeed the published levels of the basin and its entrance relative to the modern sea level seem to argue against it. Leshnik has cogently suggested that it was a tank for the reception of sweet water, channelled from higher ground inland to an area where the local water supplies were anciently, as still today, saline. We regard either interpretation as still unproven, but favour the latter. … (p. 188–189) The discussion of trade focuses attention upon methods of transport. Several representations of ships are found on seals and graffiti at Harappa, Mohenjo-daro (Figs. 7.15–7.16], etc, and a terracotta model of a ship, with a stick impressed socket for the mast and eyeholes for fixing rigging comes from Lothal. We have already seen above that the great brick tank, interpreted by Rao as a dock at Lothal, cannot yet be certainly identified. The evidence of sea trade and contact during the Harappan period is largely circumstantial, or derived from inferences from the Mesopotamian texts, as detailed above. (Figure 7. 15 had caption: Mohenjo-daro: representation of ship on a stone seal (length 4.3 cm) (after Mackay). Figure 7.16 Mohenjo-daro: representation of ship on terracotta amulet (length 4.5 cm) after Dales)” ref

“Daniel T. Potts writes:

It is generally assumed that most trade between the Indus Valley (ancient Meluhha?) and western neighbors proceeded up the Persian Gulf rather than overland. Although there is no incontrovertible proof that this was indeed the case, the distribution of Indus-type artifacts on the Oman peninsula, on Bahrain and in southern Mesopotamia makes it plausible that a series of maritime stages linked the Indus Valley and the Gulf region. If this is accepted, then the presence of etched carnelian beads, a Harappan-style cubical stone weight, and a Harappan-style cylinder seal at Susa (Amiet 1986a, Figs. 92-94) may be evidence of maritime trade between Susa and the Indus Valley in the late 3rd millennium BCE. On the other hand, given that similar finds, particularly etched carnelian beads, are attested at landlocked sites including Tepe Hissar (Tappe Heṣār), Shah Tepe (Šāh-Tappe), Kalleh Nisar (Kalla Nisār), Jalalabad (Jalālābād), Marlik (Mārlik) and Tepe Yahya (Tappe Yaḥyā) (Possehl 1996, pp. 153-54), other mechanisms, including overland traffic by peddlers or caravans, may account for their presence at Susa.” ref

“In the 1980s, important archaeological discoveries were made at Ras al-Jinz (Oman), demonstrating maritime Indus Valley connections with the Arabian Peninsula.” ref

“Dennys Frenez recently regards that:

Indus-type and Indus-related artifacts were found over a large and differentiated ecumene, encompassing Central Asia, the Iranian Plateau, Mesopotamia and the northern Levant, the Persian Gulf, and the Oman Peninsula. The discovery of Indus trade tools (seals, weights, and containers) across the entire Middle Asia, complemented by information from Mesopotamian cuneiform texts, shows that entrepreneurs from the Indus Valley regularly ventured into these regions to transact with the local socioeconomic and political entities. However, Indus artifacts were also exchanged beyond this core region, eventually reaching as far [as] the Nile River valley, Anatolia, and the Caucasus. On the contrary, only a handful of exotic trade tools and commodities have been found at sites in the Greater Indus Valley. The success of Indus trade in Central and Western Asia did not only rely on the dynamic entrepreneurialism of Indus merchants and the exotic commodities they offered. Specific products were proactively designed and manufactured in the Indus Valley to fulfill the particular needs of foreign markets, and Indus craftspeople moved beyond their native cultural sphere adapting their distinctive productions to the taste of foreign elites or reworking indigenous models. The adoption of specific seals and iconographies to regulate external trade activities suggests a conscious attempt at implementing a coordinated supraregional marketing strategy[…]” ref

Agriculture

“According to Gangal et al. (2014), there is strong archeological and geographical evidence that neolithic farming spread from the Near East into north-west India, but there is also “good evidence for the local domestication of barley and the zebu cattle at Mehrgarh.” ref

“According to Jean-Francois Jarrige, farming had an independent local origin at Mehrgarh, which he argues is not merely a “‘backwater’ of the Neolithic culture of the Near East”, despite similarities between Neolithic sites from eastern Mesopotamia and the western Indus valley which are evidence of a “cultural continuum” between those sites. Archaeologist Jim G. Shaffer writes that the Mehrgarh site “demonstrates that food production was an indigenous South Asian phenomenon” and that the data support interpretation of “the prehistoric urbanization and complex social organization in South Asia as based on indigenous, but not isolated, cultural developments.” ref

“Jarrige notes that the people of Mehrgarh used domesticated wheats and barley, while Shaffer and Liechtenstein note that the major cultivated cereal crop was naked six-row barley, a crop derived from two-row barley. Gangal agrees that “Neolithic domesticated crops in Mehrgarh include more than 90% barley,” noting that “there is good evidence for the local domestication of barley.” Yet, Gangal also notes that the crop also included “a small amount of wheat,” which “are suggested to be of Near-Eastern origin, as the modern distribution of wild varieties of wheat is limited to Northern Levant and Southern Turkey.” ref

“The cattle that are often portrayed on Indus seals are humped Indian aurochs (Bos primigenius namadicus), which are similar to Zebu cattle. Zebu cattle are still common in India, and in Africa. They are different from European cattle (Bos primigenius taurus), and are believed to have been independently domesticated on the Indian subcontinent, probably in the Baluchistan region of Pakistan.” ref

“Research by J. Bates et al. (2016) confirms that Indus populations were the earliest people to use complex multi-cropping strategies across both seasons, growing foods during summer (rice, millets, and beans) and winter (wheat, barley, and pulses), which required different watering regimes. Bates et al. (2016) also found evidence for an entirely separate domestication process of rice in ancient South Asia, based around the wild species Oryza nivara. This led to the local development of a mix of “wetland” and “dryland” agriculture of local Oryza sativa indica rice agriculture, before the truly “wetland” rice Oryza sativa japonica arrived around 2000 BCE.” ref

Food

“According to archeological finds, the Indus Valley civilization had a diet dominated by meats of animals such as cattle, buffalo, goat, pig, and chicken. Remnants of dairy products were also discovered. According to Akshyeta Suryanarayan et al., available evidence indicates culinary practices to be common over the region; food-constituents were dairy products (in low proportion), ruminant carcass meat, and either non-ruminant adipose fats, plants, or mixtures of these products. The dietary pattern remained same throughout the decline. Seven food-balls (“laddus“) were found in intact form, along with two figurines of bulls and a hand-held copper adze, during excavations in 2017 from western Rajasthan. Dated to about 2600 BCE, they were likely composed of legumes, primarily mung, and cereals. The authors speculated the food-balls to be of a ritualistic significance, given the finds of bull figurines, adze, and a seal in immediate vicinity.” ref

Language

“It has often been suggested that the bearers of the IVC corresponded to proto-Dravidians linguistically, the break-up of proto-Dravidian corresponding to the break-up of the Late Harappan culture. Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people. Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern and eastern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory.” ref

“According to Heggarty and Renfrew, Dravidian languages may have spread into the Indian subcontinent with the spread of farming. According to David McAlpin, the Dravidian languages were brought to India by immigration into India from Elam. In earlier publications, Renfrew also stated that proto-Dravidian was brought to India by farmers from the Iranian part of the Fertile Crescent, but more recently Heggarty and Renfrew note that “a great deal remains to be done in elucidating the prehistory of Dravidian.” They also note that “McAlpin’s analysis of the language data, and thus his claims, remain far from orthodoxy.” Heggarty and Renfrew conclude that several scenarios are compatible with the data, and that “the linguistic jury is still very much out.” In a 2021 study, Bahata Ansumali Mukhopadhyay presented a linguistic analysis to posit a Proto-Dravidian presence in the ancient Indus area, using Dravidian root words for tooth, toothbrush, and elephant in various contemporary ancient civilizations.” ref

Possible writing system

“Between 400 and as many as 600 distinct Indus symbols have been found on stamp seals, small tablets, ceramic pots, and more than a dozen other materials, including a “signboard” that apparently once hung over the gate of the inner citadel of the Indus city of Dholavira. Typical Indus inscriptions are around five characters in length, most of which (aside from the Dholavira “signboard”) are tiny; the longest on any single object (inscribed on a copper plate) has a length of 34 symbols.” ref

While the Indus Valley Civilisation is generally characterized as a literate society on the evidence of these inscriptions, this description has been challenged by Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004) who argue that the Indus system did not encode language, but was instead similar to a variety of non-linguistic sign systems used extensively in the Near East and other societies, to symbolize families, clans, gods, and religious concepts. Others have claimed on occasion that the symbols were exclusively used for economic transactions, but this claim leaves unexplained the appearance of Indus symbols on many ritual objects, many of which were mass-produced in moulds. No parallels to these mass-produced inscriptions are known in any other early ancient civilizations.” ref

“In a 2009 study by P.N. Rao et al. published in Science, computer scientists, comparing the pattern of symbols to various linguistic scripts and non-linguistic systems, including DNA and a computer programming language, found that the Indus script’s pattern is closer to that of spoken words, supporting the hypothesis that it codes for an as-yet-unknown language. Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel have disputed this finding, pointing out that Rao et al. did not actually compare the Indus signs with “real-world non-linguistic systems” but rather with “two wholly artificial systems invented by the authors, one consisting of 200,000 randomly ordered signs and another of 200,000 fully ordered signs, that they spuriously claim represent the structures of all real-world non-linguistic sign systems”. Farmer et al. have also demonstrated that a comparison of a non-linguistic system like medieval heraldic signs with natural languages yields results similar to those that Rao et al. obtained with Indus signs. They conclude that the method used by Rao et al. cannot distinguish linguistic systems from non-linguistic ones.” ref

“The messages on the seals have proved to be too short to be decoded by a computer. Each seal has a distinctive combination of symbols, and there are too few examples of each sequence to provide a sufficient context. The symbols that accompany the images vary from seal to seal, making it impossible to derive a meaning for the symbols from the images. There have, nonetheless, been a number of interpretations offered for the meaning of the seals. These interpretations have been marked by ambiguity and subjectivity. Photos of many of the thousands of extant inscriptions are published in the Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions (1987, 1991, 2010), edited by Asko Parpola and his colleagues. The most recent volume republished photos taken in the 1920s and 1930s of hundreds of lost or stolen inscriptions, along with many discovered in the last few decades; formerly, researchers had to supplement the materials in the Corpus by study of the tiny photos in the excavation reports of Marshall (1931), MacKay (1938, 1943), Wheeler (1947), or reproductions in more recent scattered sources.” ref

Religion

“The religion and belief system of the Indus Valley people has received considerable attention, especially from the view of identifying precursors to deities and religious practices of Indian religions that later developed in the area. However, due to the sparsity of evidence, which is open to varying interpretations, and the fact that the Indus script remains undeciphered, the conclusions are partly speculative and largely based on a retrospective view from a much later Hindu perspective. Early and influential work in the area that set the trend for Hindu interpretations of archaeological evidence from the Harappan sites was that of John Marshall, who in 1931 identified the following as prominent features of the Indus religion: a Great Male God and a Mother Goddess; deification or veneration of animals and plants; a symbolic representation of the phallus (linga) and vulva (yoni); and, use of baths and water in religious practice. Marshall’s interpretations have been much debated, and sometimes disputed over the following decades.” ref

^“One Indus Valley seal shows a seated figure with a horned headdress, possibly tricephalic and possibly ithyphallic, surrounded by animals. Marshall identified the figure as an early form of the Hindu god Shiva (or Rudra), who is associated with asceticism, yoga, and linga; regarded as a lord of animals, and often depicted as having three eyes. The seal has hence come to be known as the Pashupati Seal, after Pashupati (lord of all animals), an epithet of Shiva. While Marshall’s work has earned some support, many critics and even supporters have raised several objections. Doris Srinivasan has argued that the figure does not have three faces or yogic posture and that in Vedic literature Rudra was not a protector of wild animals. Herbert Sullivan and Alf Hiltebeitel also rejected Marshall’s conclusions, with the former claiming that the figure was female, while the latter associated the figure with Mahisha, the Buffalo God, and the surrounding animals with vahanas (vehicles) of deities for the four cardinal directions. Writing in 2002, Gregory L. Possehl concluded that while it would be appropriate to recognize the figure as a deity, its association with the water buffalo, and its posture as one of ritual discipline, regarding it as a proto-Shiva would be going too far. Despite the criticisms of Marshall’s association of the seal with a proto-Shiva icon, it has been interpreted as the Tirthankara Rishabhanatha by some scholars of Jainism like Vilas Sangave. Historians such as Heinrich Zimmer and Thomas McEvilley believe that there is a connection between first Jain Tirthankara Rishabhanatha and the Indus Valley Civilisation.” ref

“Marshall hypothesized the existence of a cult of Mother Goddess worship based upon the excavation of several female figurines and thought that this was a precursor of the Hindu sect of Shaktism. However, the function of the female figurines in the life of Indus Valley people remains unclear, and Possehl does not regard the evidence for Marshall’s hypothesis to be “terribly robust.” Some of the baetyls interpreted by Marshall to be sacred phallic representations are now thought to have been used as pestles or game counters instead, while the ring stones that were thought to symbolize yoni were determined to be architectural features used to stand pillars, although the possibility of their religious symbolism cannot be eliminated. Many Indus Valley seals show animals, with some depicting them being carried in processions, while others show chimeric creations. One seal from Mohenjo-daro shows a half-human, a half-buffalo monster attacking a tiger, which may be a reference to the Sumerian myth of such a monster created by goddess Aruru to fight Gilgamesh.” ref

“In contrast to contemporary Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations, the Indus Valley lacks any monumental palaces, even though excavated cities indicate that the society possessed the requisite engineering knowledge. This may suggest that religious ceremonies, if any, may have been largely confined to individual homes, small temples, or the open air. Several sites have been proposed by Marshall and later scholars as possibly devoted to religious purposes, but at present, only the Great Bath at Mohenjo-daro is widely thought to have been so used, as a place for ritual purification. The funerary practices of the Harappan civilization are marked by fractional burial (in which the body is reduced to skeletal remains by exposure to the elements before final interment) and even cremation.” ref

Late Harappan

“Around 1900 BCE, signs of a gradual decline began to emerge, and by around 1700 BCE, most of the cities had been abandoned. Examination of human skeletons from the site of Harappa in the 2010s demonstrated that the end of the Indus civilization saw an increase in inter-personal violence and in infectious diseases like leprosy and tuberculosis. According to historian Upinder Singh, “the general picture presented by the late Harappan phase is one of a breakdown of urban networks and an expansion of rural ones. During the period of approximately 1900 to 1700 BCE, multiple regional cultures emerged within the area of the Indus civilization. The Cemetery H culture was in Punjab, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh, the Jhukar culture was in Sindh, and the Rangpur culture (characterized by Lustrous Red Ware pottery) was in Gujarat.” ref

“Other sites associated with the Late phase of the Harappan culture are Pirak in Balochistan, Pakistan, and Daimabad in Maharashtra, India. The largest Late Harappan sites are Kudwala in Cholistan in Punjab, Bet Dwarka in Gujarat, and Daimabad in Maharashtra, which can be considered as urban, but they are smaller and few in number compared with the Mature Harappan cities. Bet Dwarka was fortified and continued to have contacts with the Persian Gulf region, but there was a general decrease of long-distance trade. On the other hand, the period also saw a diversification of the agricultural base, with a diversity of crops and the advent of double-cropping, as well as a shift of rural settlement towards the east and the south.” ref

“The pottery of the Late Harappan period is described as “showing some continuity with mature Harappan pottery traditions,” but also distinctive differences. Many sites continued to be occupied for some centuries, although their urban features declined and disappeared. Formerly typical artifacts such as stone weights and female figurines became rare. There are some circular stamp seals with geometric designs, but lacking the Indus script which characterized the mature phase of the civilization. Script is rare and confined to potsherd inscriptions. There was also a decline in long-distance trade, although the local cultures show new innovations in faience and glass making, and carving of stone beads. Urban amenities such as drains and the public bath were no longer maintained, and newer buildings were “poorly constructed”. Stone sculptures were deliberately vandalized, valuables were sometimes concealed in hoards, suggesting unrest, and the corpses of animals and even humans were left unburied in the streets and in abandoned buildings.” ref

“During the later half of the 2nd millennium BCE, most of the post-urban Late Harappan settlements were abandoned altogether. Subsequent material culture was typically characterised by temporary occupation, “the campsites of a population which was nomadic and mainly pastoralist” and which used “crude handmade pottery”. However, there is greater continuity and overlap between Late Harappan and subsequent cultural phases at sites in Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh, primarily small rural settlements.” ref

Post-Harappan

“Previously, scholars believed that the decline of the Harappan civilization led to an interruption of urban life in the Indian subcontinent. However, the Indus Valley Civilisation did not disappear suddenly, and many elements of the Indus civilization appeared in later cultures. The Cemetery H culture may be the manifestation of the Late Harappan over a large area in the region of Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, and the Ochre Coloured Pottery culture its successor. David Gordon White cites three other mainstream scholars who “have emphatically demonstrated” that Vedic religion derives partially from the Indus Valley Civilisations. As of 2016, archaeological data suggests that the material culture classified as Late Harappan may have persisted until at least c. 1000–900 BCE and was partially contemporaneous with the Painted Grey Ware culture.” ref

“Harvard archaeologist Richard Meadow points to the late Harappan settlement of Pirak, which thrived continuously from 1800 BCE to the time of the invasion of Alexander the Great in 325 BCE. In the aftermath of the Indus civilisation’s localisation, regional cultures emerged, to varying degrees showing the influence of the Indus civilisation. In the formerly great city of Harappa, burials have been found that correspond to a regional culture called the Cemetery H culture. At the same time, the Ochre Coloured Pottery culture expanded from Rajasthan into the Gangetic Plain. The Cemetery H culture has the earliest evidence for cremation; a practice dominant in Hinduism today. The inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilisation migrated from the river valleys of Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra, towards the Himalayan foothills of the Ganga-Yamuna basin.” ref

Genetics

“In 2019, a study of the genome sequence of a Harappan individual from a cemetery near Rakhigarhi dating to around 2,800-2,300 BCE was published. Analysis suggested that the majority of the genome was related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers and Iranian Neolithic Farmers. The remaining portion of the genome was from a South Asian source, termed Ancient Ancestral South Indians, that is distantly related to the Andamanese peoples. The genome completely lacked the Western Steppe Herder-related ancestry that is found in modern (particularly in northern) South Asians. The genetic profile of IVC-related individuals is similar to the majority of the ancestry found in modern South Asians.” ref

ref

“The split-up of paternal lineage K into the haplogroups L (M20), M (M106), NO (M214), P (M45), Q (M242), R (M207), S (M230) and T (M272)” ref

Where did Indian people originate from? (lots of extra info in this link)

L is linked to the Dravidian people and the Elamite as well as Indus Valley culture. L is common in Indians, Iranians, some West Asians, and some Europeans. L corresponds directly to the expansion of the Dravidian people and the IVC.” ref

Haplogroup L-M20

“L-M20 is a descendant of Haplogroup LT, which is a descendant of haplogroup K-M9. According to Dr. Spencer Wells, L-M20 originated in the Eurasian K-M9 clan that migrated eastwards from the Middle East, and later southwards from the Pamir Knot into present-day Pakistan and India. These people arrived in India approximately 30,000 years ago. Hence, it is hypothesized that the first bearer of M20 marker was born either in India or the Middle East. Other studies have proposed either a West Asian or South Asian origin for L-M20 and associated its expansion in the Indus valley to Neolithic farmers.” ref

“Genetic studies suggest that L-M20 may be one of the haplogroups of the original creators of the Indus Valley Civilisation. McElreavy and Quintana-Murci, writing on the Indus Valley Civilisation, state that One Y-chromosome haplogroup (L-M20) has a high mean frequency of 14% in Pakistan and so differs from all other haplogroups in its frequency distribution. L-M20 is also observed, although at lower frequencies, in neighbouring countries, such as India, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Russia. Both the frequency distribution and estimated expansion time (~7,000 years ago) of this lineage suggest that its spread in the Indus Valley may be associated with the expansion of local farming groups during the Neolithic period.” ref

“Sengupta et al. (2006) observed three subbranches of haplogroup L: L1-M76 (L1a1), L2-M317 (L1b) and L3-M357 (L1a2), with distinctive geographic affiliations. Almost all Indian members of haplogroup L are L1 derived, with L3-M357 occurring only sporadically (0.4%). Conversely in Pakistan, L3-M357 subclade account for 86% of L-M20 chromosomes and reaches an intermediate frequency of 6.8%, overall. L1-M76 occurs at a frequency of 7.5% in India and 5.1% in Pakistan, exhibiting peak variance distribution in the Maharashtra region in coastal western India. In India, L-M20 has a higher frequency among Dravidian castes, but is somewhat rarer in Indo-Aryan castes. In Pakistan, it has a frequency of about 28% in the southern regions including southern Baluchistan, from where the agricultural creators of the Indus valley civilization emerged.” ref

“Preliminary evidence gleaned from non-scientific sources, such as individuals who have had their Y-chromosomes tested by commercial labs, suggests that most European examples of Haplogroup L-M20 might belong to the subclade L2-M317, which is, among South Asian populations, generally the rarest of the subclades of Haplogroup L. It has higher frequency among Dravidian castes (ca. 17-19%) but is somewhat rarer in Indo-Aryan castes (ca. 5-6%). The presence of haplogroup L-M20 is quite rare among tribal groups (ca. 5,6-7%) (Cordaux 2004, Sengupta 2006, and Thamseem 2006). However, the Korova tribe of Uttara Kannada in which L-M11 occurs at 68% is an exception.” ref

“L2a2 is around 62.7% among Brokpa of Ladakh. L-M20 was found at 38% in the Bharwad caste and 21% in Charan caste from Junagarh district in Gujarat.(Shah 2011) It has also been reported at 17% in the Kare Vokkal tribe from Uttara Kannada in Karnataka.(Shah 2011) It is also found at low frequencies in other populations from Junagarh district and Uttara Kannada. L-M20 is the single largest male lineage (36.8%) among the Jat people of Northern India and is found at 16.33% among the Gujar’s of Jammu and Kashmir. It also occurs at 18.6% among the Konkanastha Brahmins of the Konkan region and at 15% among the Maratha’s of Maharashtra. L-M20 is also found at 32.35% in the Vokkaligas and at 17.82% in the Lingayats of Karnataka.” ref

“And available data shows that among Tamils, L-M20 is found at 48% among Kallar, 20.56% among Tamil yadavas, 28.57% among Vanniyars, 28.81% among Nadar, and 26% among the Saurashtra people, 20.7% among the Ambalakarar, 16.7% among the Iyengar and 17.2% among the Iyer castes of Tamil Nadu. L-M11 is found in frequencies of 8-16% among Indian Jews. L-M20 has an overall frequency of 12% in Punjab. 2% of Siddis have also been reported with L-M11.(Shah 2011) Haplogroup L-M20 is currently present in the Indian population at an overall frequency of ca. 7-15%.” ref

“The greatest concentration of Haplogroup L-M20 is along the Indus River in Pakistan where the Indus Valley civilization flourished during 3300–1300 BC with its mature period between 2600 and 1900 BCE. L-M357’s highest frequency and diversity is found in the Balochistan province at 28% with a moderate distribution among the general Pakistani population at 11.6% (Firasat et al. 2007)). It is also found in Afghanistan ethnic counterparts as well, such as with the Pashtuns and Balochis. L-M357 is found frequently among Burusho (approx. 12% (Firasat et al. 2007)) and Pashtuns (approx. 7% (Firasat et al. 2007)).” ref

“L1a and L1c-M357 are found at 24% among Balochis, L1a and L1c are found at 8% among the Dravidian-speaking Brahui, L1c is found at 25% among Kalash, L1c is found at 15% among Burusho, L1a-M76 and L1b-M317 are found at 2% among the Makranis and L1c is found at 3.6% of Sindhis according to Julie di Cristofaro et al. 2013. L-M20 is found at 17.78% among the Parsis. L3a is found at 23% among the Nuristanis in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. L-PK3 is found in approximately 23% of Kalash in northwest Pakistan (Firasat et al. 2007). In one study, the haplogroup L was found also observed among the Gujars at a frequency of (20.97%) in northwest Pakistan.” ref

“L-M20 was found in 51% of Syrians from Raqqa, a northern Syrian city whose previous inhabitants were wiped out by Mongol genocides and repopulated in recent times by local Bedouin populations and Chechen war refugees from Russia (El-Sibai 2009). In a small sample of Israeli Druze haplogroup L-M20 was found in 7 out of 20 (35%). However, studies done on bigger samples showed that L-M20 averages 5% in Israeli Druze, 8% in Lebanese Druze, and it was not found in a sample of 59 Syrian Druze. Haplogroup L-M20 has been found in 2.0% (1/50) (Wells 2001) to 5.25% (48/914) of Lebanese (Zalloua 2008).” ref

“A study on the Pashtun male lineages in Afghanistan, found that Haplogroup L-M20, with an overall frequency of 9.5%, is the second most abundant male lineage among them. It exhibits substantial disparity in its distribution on either side of the Hindu Kush range, with 25% of the northern Afghan Pashtuns belonging to this lineage, compared with only 4.8% of males from the south. Specifically, paragroup L3*-M357 accounts for the majority of the L-M20 chromosomes among Afghan Pashtuns in both the north (20.5%) and south (4.1%). An earlier study involving a lesser number of samples had reported that L1c comprises 12.24% of the Afghan Pashtun male lineages. L1c is also found at 7.69% among the Balochs of Afghanistan. However L1a-M76 occurs in a much more higher frequency among the Balochs (20 to 61.54%), and is found at lower levels in Kyrgyz, Tajik, Uzbek, and Turkmen populations. Haplogroup L have been tested and detected in samples of Balinese (13/641 = 2.0% L-M20), Han Chinese (1/57 = 1.8%), Dolgans from Sakha and Taymyr (1/67 = 1.5% L-M20) and Koreans (3/506 = 0.6% L-M20). Haplogroup L, in approximately 1% to 3% of samples from Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Calabria (Italy), and Andalusia (Spain).” ref

L1 (M295)

“L-M295 is found from Western Europe to South Asia. The L1 subclade is also found at low frequencies on the Comoros Islands.” ref

L1a1 (M27)

“L-M27 is found in 14.5% of Indians and 15% of Sri Lankans, with a moderate distribution in other populations of Pakistan, southern Iran, and Europe, but slightly higher Middle East Arab populations. There is a very minor presence among Siddi’s (2%), as well.” ref

L1a2 (M357)

“L-M357 is found frequently among Burushos, Kalashas, Brokpa, Jats, Pashtuns, with a moderate distribution among other populations in Pakistan, Georgia, Chechens, Ingushes, northern Iran, India, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Brokpa of Ladakh carry Y haplogroup L2a2 around 62.7% according to generetic study of 2019. A Chinese study published in 2018 found L-M357/L1307 in 7.8% (5/64) of a sample of Loplik Uyghurs from Qarchugha Village, Lopnur County, Xinjiang.” ref

L-PK3

“L-PK3, which is downstream of L-M357, is found frequently among Kalash.^{” ref}

L1b (M317)

“L-M317 is found at low frequency in Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and Europe. In Europe, L-M317 has been found in Northeast Italians (3/67 = 4.5%) and Greeks (1/92 = 1.1%). In Caucasia, L-M317 has been found in Mountain Jews (2/10 = 20%), Avars (4/42 = 9.5%, 3%), Balkarians (2/38 = 5.3%), Abkhaz (8/162 = 4.9%, 2/58 = 3.4%), Chamalals (1/27 = 3.7%), Abazins (2/88 = 2.3%), Adyghes (3/154 = 1.9%), Chechens (3/165 = 1.8%), Armenians (1/57 = 1.8%), Lezgins (1/81 = 1.2%), and Ossetes (1/132 = 0.76% North Ossetians, 2/230 = 0.9% Iron). L-M317 has been found in Makranis (2/20 = 10%) in Pakistan, Iranians (3/186 = 1.6%), Pashtuns in Afghanistan (1/87 = 1.1%), and Uzbeks in Afghanistan (1/127 = 0.79%).” ref

L1b1 (M349)

“L-M349 is found in some Crimean Karaites who are Levites. Some of L-M349’s branches are found in West Asia, including L-Y31183 in Lebanon, L-Y31184 in Armenia, and L-Y130640 in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and South Africa. Others are found in Europe, such as L-PAGE116 in Italy, L-FT304386 in Slovenia, and L-FGC36841 in Moldova. 13.8% of Lemba males carry L-M349 under the clade L-Y130640. This percentage is most likely due to a founder effect in their population making them the only group on the African continent with any substantial proportion of L-M20.” ref

L2 (L595)

“L2-L595 is extremely rare, and has been identified by private testing in individuals from Europe and Western Asia. Two confirmed L2-L595 individuals from Iran were reported in a 2020 study supplementary. Possible but unconfirmed cases of L2 include 4% (1/25) L-M11(xM76, M27, M317, M357) in a sample of Iranians in Kordestan and 2% (2/100) L-M20(xM27, M317, M357) in a sample of Shapsugs, among other rare reported cases of L which don’t fall into the common branches.” ref

Ancient DNA

Three individuals from Maykop culture c. 3200 BCE were found to belong to haplogroup L2-L595.
Three individuals who lived in the Chalcolithic era (c. 5700–6250 years ago), found in the Areni-1 (“Bird’s Eye”) cave in the South Caucasus mountains (present-day Vayots Dzor Province, Armenia), were also identified as belonging to haplogroup L1a. One individual’s genome indicated that he had red hair and blue eyes. Their genetic data is listed in the table below.
Narasimhan et al. (2018) analyzed skeletons from the BMAC sites in Uzbekistan and identified 2 individuals as belonging to haplogroup L1a. One of these specimens was found in Bustan and the other in Sappali Tepe; both ascertained to be Bronze Age sites.
Skourtanioti et al. (2020) analyzed skeletons from Alalakh and identified one individual (ALA084) c. 2006-1777 BCE as belonging to haplogroup L-L595 (L2). Ingman et al. (2021) analyzed more skeletons from Alalakh and identified another individual belonging to haplogroup L-M349 (L1b).
One Iron Age individual from Batman in Upper Mesopotamia (present-day Southeastern Turkey) belonged to haplogroup L2-L595.
An ancient Viking individual that lived in Öland, Sweden circa 847 ± 65 CE was determined to belong to L-L595.” ref

Brokpa L2a2 at 62.7%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokpa

Tamils L-M20 at 48%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamils

Bharwad L-M20 at 38%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharwad

Jat people L-M20 at 36.8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jats

Vokkaliga L-M20 at 32.35%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vokkaliga

Nadar (caste) L-M20 at 28.81%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadar_(caste)

Vanniyar L-M20 at 28.57%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanniyar

ref

ref

Human Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22 traces Neolithic expansion in West Asia and supports the Elamite and Dravidian connection

“West and South Asian populations profoundly influenced Eurasian genetic and cultural diversity. We investigate the genetic history of the Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22, which, while prevalent in these regions, lacks in-depth study. Robust Bayesian analyses of 165 high-coverage Y chromosomes favor a West Asian origin for L1-M22 ∼20,600 years ago. Moreover, this haplogroup parallels the genome-wide genetic ancestry of hunter-gatherers from the Iranian Plateau and the Caucasus. We characterized two L1-M22 harboring population groups during the Early Holocene. One expanded with the West Asian Neolithic transition. The other moved to South Asia ∼8,000-6,000 years ago but showed no expansion. This group likely participated in the spread of Dravidian languages. These South Asian L1-M22 lineages expanded ∼4,000-3,000 years ago, coinciding with the Steppe ancestry introduction. Our findings advance the current understanding of Eurasian historical dynamics, emphasizing L1-M22’s West Asian origin, associated population movements, and possible linguistic impacts.” ref

“Today’s world bears profound imprints of past human communities in West and South Asia. After the major out-of-Africa migration, modern humans first appeared in West Asia, then shortly after, in South Asia. The Y chromosome haplogroups J-M304 and G-M201 inform us about the genetic legacy of these early migrations in West Asia, while the H-M69 in South Asia. Similarly, mitochondrial DNA haplogroups U, J, and T echo the early exodus in West Asia, while many haplogroups within the macro-haplogroups M, N, and R represent South Asia. The genome-wide variation also shows distinct spatiotemporal patterns in these regions. After these early events, the regions underwent the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), a challenging period around 26,500 to 19,000 years ago. The LGM appears to have had a more pronounced impact on West Asian human populations. Unfortunately, no ancient DNA (aDNA) study has been conducted with samples originating from such a deep time of the regions.” ref

“The Neolithic demographic transition, a crucial shift in human history, involved the domestication of plants and animals, leading to increased sedentism, population growth, and the development of complex social structures. This transition started in the Fertile Crescent in West Asia at ∼12,000 years ago, representing the earliest known instance globally. By this time, hunter-gatherer populations from present-day Iran and the Caucasus, Anatolia, and the southern Levant accumulated substantial genetic differences and adopted the new lifestyle probably independently. Populations from present-day Iran and the Caucasus started mixing with Anatolian populations earlier during the Neolithic period, while gene flows with Levantine populations occurred later. Agricultural practices were gradually reaching other regions.” ref

“In Europe and Central Asia, the transmission was driven by population expansions from West Asia. In South Asia, the nature of the Neolithic transition remains elusive. Uncertainties persist regarding whether it transpired through population expansion from neighboring regions or proceeded through cultural adoption or local developments without substantial population movement. The Neolithic started later in South Asia than in West Asia. The earliest Neolithic site in South Asia, Mehrgarh, dating to ∼9,000 years ago, exhibits similarities to West Asian Neolithic cultures and is located near West Asia, specifically in Balochistan, present-day southwestern Pakistan.” ref

“This region later hosted the beginnings of the sophisticated Indus Valley civilization (IVC). In other South Asian regions, the Neolithic transition unfolded even later, yet featuring distinctive developments indicative of alternative pathways of independent evolution. It is noteworthy, however, that despite the importance of understanding the South Asian Neolithic, there is a notable lack of aDNA studies. Reconstructions with younger ones find no shared ancestry with Anatolian Neolithic (AN) farmers but rather the presence of ancestry shared with Caucasus/Iranian hunter-gatherers (CIHG). The South Asian Neolithic is primarily studied in conjunction with the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age periods and in the context of language spread, a topic explored further in the next paragraph.” ref

In the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages, West and South Asia underwent large-scale population movements, coinciding with the time when the large language families were spread. In West Eurasia, these were Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European, among others. Currently, South Asians predominantly speak Indo-European or Dravidian languages and adhere to the hierarchical caste system and Hinduism. Indo-European languages, prevalently spoken in northern regions, likely arrived from West/Central Asia during the Middle-Late Bronze Age and have been associated with the origin of the caste system. On the contrary, Dravidian languages are predominant in southern India and Sri Lanka. Some isolated groups of speakers also live in southwestern Pakistan (Brahui) and northern India. The origin of Dravidian languages remains highly debated.” ref

“They have been argued to have either an indigenous origin or linked to the Neolithic dispersals from West Asia, as summarized in the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. The hypothesis postulates linguistic and cultural connections between the extinct Elamite language spoken in ancient Elam (present-day southwestern Iran) and Dravidian languages. Frequently, the Indus Valley or Harappan civilization is suggested as an essential step for the spread of Dravidian languages, meaning that the language of this civilization was a related one. Certain linguistic studies have scrutinized the proposed connection, acknowledging Elamite as a language isolate.” ref

“A recent aDNA study suggests that the Iranian ancestral component in the IVC people came from individuals related to, but distinct from, Iranian farmers. The contributing group lacked AN-related ancestry, common in Iranian farmers after ∼8,000 years ago. These CIHG-related individuals may have arrived in the Indus Valley before the advent of farming there and at ∼7,400–5,700 years ago, before the mature IVC mixed with people related to Indian hunter-gatherers (AASI), making a population called the “Indus Periphery Cline” (IPC). A population from IPC later mixed once more with AASI, giving birth to the ancient South Indian (ASI) ancestry, which is currently widespread in southern Indian populations. However, a question remains: Which population of the two (CIHG-related or AASI) initially spoke a Dravidian language? Another aDNA study directly analyzed a Harappan genome, pushing the split between Iranian farmers and the CIHG-related group back to ∼12,000 years ago. Unfortunately, these conclusions are based on a single individual, and direct dating was impossible. Moreover, the study was criticized for improperly modeling population history.” ref

“The human Y chromosome haplogroup L-M20 holds significant potential as an avenue for unraveling the complex dynamics of ancient population interactions. M20, M11, M61, and other bi-allelic markers define this haplogroup. It occurs more in South Asia but also in West Asia, Central Asia, and Europe (Figure 1). The haplogroup splits from its sister branch T ∼45,000 years ago. Commercial Y chromosome whole sequencing efforts, as documented by phylogenetic trees of the Y Full (YFull) (v12.00.00, https://www.yfull.com/tree/L) and Family Tree DNA Discover (FTDNA) (accessed on 20-03-2024, https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/L-M20/tree), found that at ∼23,500 years ago, the haplogroup L-M20 diverged into haplogroups L1 and L2 defined by M22 and L595 markers, respectively. The L1-M22 is the major branch so far, while L2-L595 is rare.” ref

“Whole high-coverage Y chromosome studies included a small number of L1-M22 samples. They have estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of L1-M22 to be around the LGM. Nevertheless, limited attention has been given to this haplogroup’s origin, population dynamics, and migration patterns. Genotyping studies found three main branches defined by M317, M27 or M76, and M357 bi-allelic markers. All these branches fall within the L1-M22. A small number of individuals fall within paragroup L∗. Studies conclude that the haplogroup L-M20 may represent early modern human populations in South Asia. Others suggest its later migration to South Asia from West Asia with the Neolithic demographic expansion. The earliest ancient individuals affiliated with this haplogroup substantially postdate its age. They are found in the late-Neolithic/Chalcolithic (∼6,600 years ago) in present-day Turkmenistan in a site bordering present-day Iran and in the Chalcolithic (∼6,100 years ago) in present-day Armenia within the Caucasus region. Other individuals living before the common era (BCE) are found in the North Caucasus, present-day Iran, Greece, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Israel, and Pakistan.” ref

“The L1a1-M27/M76 splits starting at ∼8,900 years ago, giving rise to three sub-branches (Figures 2 and S1). The L1a1-Y31961 is strictly West Asian and coalesces at ∼7,400 years ago, including individuals from the Armenian Highland, the Levant, and the Arabian Peninsula. The L1a1-L1320 sub-branch is widespread in southern (more) and northern (less) India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, with a small number of samples also present in West Asia. The L1a1-BY12364 sub-branch is minor, represented by only two individuals from Kuwait and two from Pakistan. Genotyping analyses confirm that L1a1-M27/M76 occurs widely in South and West Asia. As mentioned above, South Asian populations exhibit higher frequencies than West Asian ones (Figure 1 and Table S1).” ref

“The L1a2-M357/L1307 splits starting at ∼8,600 years ago, similar to the L1a1-M27/M76 (Figures 2 and S1). It yields two singleton lineages and two sub-branches. The singleton lineages originate from West and South Asia. The L1a2-Y6288 sub-branch is strictly West Asian and coalesces at ∼8,100 years ago. It includes individuals from the Arabian Peninsula, the Armenian Highland, and Anatolia. It also contains a recently diversified lineage (L1a2-Y6266, ∼1,600 years ago) with members from the Russian Federation. We need population information on many of these individuals, but we know three are Chechens from the Northeast Caucasus. Genotyping studies have shown that L1a2-M357/L1307 is found mainly among Chechens and Ingushes from the Northeast Caucasian populations and is rather frequent there.” ref

“Furthermore, in the YFull, the L1a2-Y6266 lineage predominantly comprises individuals from the Chechen and Ingush populations. It corresponds to the L-Y6248 in the FTDNA and includes individuals from the same populations. Therefore, the L1a2-Y6266 lineage is specific to these Nakh-Dagestanian-speaking populations. Importantly, this lineage coalesces in the West Asian part of the L1a2-M357/L1307, contradicting its migration from South Asia. Unfortunately, it is hard to say anything conclusive about the more specific origin of this lineage as it splits at ∼4,000 years ago from other lineages. The L1a2-M2398 sub-branch coalesces at ∼8,200 years ago and occurs mainly in South Asia. It includes many individuals from southern and northern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.” ref

“This sub-branch also encompasses all four sequenced Central Asian individuals of haplogroup L1-M22 in our study, as well as the most from a recent study about Central Asia. Their lineages are scattered in South Asian ones, indicating a probable origin. Genotyping analyses found that L1a2-M357/L1307 more frequently occurs among South Asian populations than in West Asian ones (Figure 1 and Table S1). Within South Asia, it is more frequent among populations from Pakistan and northern and northwestern India than in southern ones. The L1a2-Y215410 is a minor recent (∼1,300 years ago) sub-branch consisting of an Armenian, a Kurdish, and an individual from Turkey. In addition, the YFull and FTDNA include one or two individuals each from Iraq, Syria, and Kazakhstan.” ref

“It is crucial to highlight that the L1a1-M27/M76 and L1a2-M357/L1307 branches exhibit strikingly similar temporal and spatial patterns. Both display sub-branches in both West Asia and South Asia, and notably, they share a coalescence time frame in the Early Holocene (Figures 2 and S1). This significant observation suggests a shared historical context or demographic events that impacted populations across these regions during this critical period. The L1b-M317/PH982 branch presents a notable contrast (Figures 2 and S1). It is primarily distributed in West Asia (27 out of 34), more in its northern latitudes (23 out of 34). Coalescing at ∼14,200 years ago, this is the oldest region-specific branch of the L1-M22.” ref

“Non-West Asian members in this branch are two Makranis from Pakistan, two individuals with unknown ancestry, a Tatar from Russia, one from Poland, and one from Greece. Notably, no one from 32 L1-M22 individuals from India and Sri Lanka belongs to this branch. Genotyping analyses largely corroborate the northern West Asian concentration of this branch, adding Iranian populations to delineate the core distribution area (Figure 1 and Table S1). With few populations having L1b-M317/PH982 individuals, Pakistan, northwestern India, and Central Asia represent the periphery of the distribution. The distinct concentration of this early branch in West Asia and its age add credence to the hypothesis of L1-M22’s potential origin in this region. We conducted a robust statistical framework to infer the place of origin of the haplogroup L1-M22 and its spread explicitly using Bayesian continuous phylogeographic analysis (Figure 3). The credible (80% HPD) area of the L1-M22 locations includes southeastern Anatolia, the Armenian Highland, the South Caucasus, the Iranian Plateau, Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern and eastern Arabian Peninsula, southwestern Pakistan, western Afghanistan, and southern Turkmenistan.

“At ∼10,000 years ago, the overall area extends west toward central Anatolia and Cyprus, north to the North Caucasus, and slightly east, more in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while also covering a tiny pinch of western Gujarat in India. Importantly, more intensive diversification was occurring in and around the Fertile Crescent. At ∼8,000 years ago, the extension continues toward Anatolia, covering almost all of it, and toward India, covering slightly more in the western region. While the earlier diversification was still ongoing in and around the Fertile Crescent, at this time, two new ones appeared in the junction area of West and South Asia. These events correspond to the L1a1-M27/M76 and L1a2-M357/L1307 branches. Both branches direct two opposing vectors to West and East. At ∼3,500 years ago, the overall haplogroup L1-M22 area extends to northern, western, central, and southern India and covers Pakistan and Afghanistan almost wholly. In the west, it extends to southeastern Europe. In the south, it diffuses more in the Arabian Peninsula and covers the northeastern Sinai Peninsula.” ref

“In other regions, the diffusion extended after ∼3,500 years ago. To summarize, our Bayesian continuous phylogeographic analysis provides essential insights into the origin of the haplogroup L1-M22 and its diversification, which initially occurred in West Asia and then in South Asia. Our results show distinct population trajectories for the two regions, with marked differences emerging ∼10,000 years ago. In West Asia, Ne of the haplogroup L1-M22 increases starting around this time and continuing until ∼7 kya. This pattern reproduces the pattern seen during this time in the whole L1-M22 haplogroup’s Bayesian skyline analysis. It is also consistent with the intensive diversification in and around the Fertile Crescent revealed by the Bayesian continuous phylogeographic analysis described above. After ∼7,000 years ago, Ne continues to increase, but only slightly as the HPD bounds overlap before and after this epoch.” ref

“In contrast, Ne of South Asian L1-M22 shows only a slight fluctuation between ∼10 and ∼7 kya and remains relatively stable from the beginning until ∼4,000 years ago. Interestingly, at ∼4,000 years ago, Ne of South Asian L1-M22 undergoes a rapid expansion within only ∼1,000 years ago, a trend also observed in the entire haplogroup analysis and Bayesian phylogeographic analysis. Earlier research also detected an expansion of haplogroup L1-M22 in South Asia ∼4,400 years ago, which coincided with that of haplogroup R1a-Z93. However, they consider this expansion weak, a conclusion likely owing to the small sample size of their study.” ref

“Ancient DNA studies extend our knowledge about the human past. However, we want to draw attention to two critical limitations that, together with low DNA preservation, affect the utility of aDNA for the haplogroup L-M20’s research. Firstly, the earliest known ancient individuals who belong to this haplogroup lived ∼6,600 and ∼6,100 years ago (Figure S3), a time frame much later than the haplogroup’s age (>20,600 years ago). Consequently, while aDNA samples offer valuable insights into more recent periods, they have limited power to inform about this haplogroup’s origin and early diversification. Secondly, our analysis of the ancient genomic data is constrained to the available haplogroup L-M20 SNPs in the “1240k capture” technology, as all the ancient genomes (Table S5), except for one, were genotyped using this approach.” ref

“The earliest so far found ancient (∼6,600 years ago) individual of haplogroup L1-M22 lived in present-day Turkmenistan, close to the present-day border with Iran⁷⁴ (Figure S3). He belongs to the L1a2-M357 branch and shares most of his autosomal ancestry with CIHG-related individuals while sharing no ancestry with AN individuals. Almost the same-age (∼6,100 years ago) individuals lived in the Areni-1 cave in the South Caucasus. Interestingly, two of three individuals belong to the L1a1-Y31961 branch (Figure S2), the West Asian sub-branch of L1a1-M27/M76 in our phylogeny (Figures 2 and S1). The other individual belongs to the L1a1-M27/M76 branch and lacks reads covering SNPs that define the known downstream branches, including the L1a1-Y31961. These individuals represent a Chalcolithic population of the South Caucasus who share ancestry with CIHG (∼50%), AN (∼30%), East European hunter-gatherer (EHG) (∼10%), and LN (∼9%) populations.” ref

“The next earliest (∼4,900 years ago) individual of the haplogroup L1-M22 is found in the Shahr-i-Sokhta site in present-day southeastern Iran. This Bronze Age individual belongs to the L1a2-M357/L1307 (Figure S2) branch and shares all his ancestry with CIHG populations, although others in the cluster share on average ∼19% of ancestry with AN, ∼4% with Andamanese hunter-gatherer (AHG), and ∼12% with West Siberian hunter-gatherer (WSHG) populations. In this population, there are some individuals who, compared to the so-called main cluster, share more ancestry with AHG populations and lack a detectable AN-related ancestry. Similar composition is also found in some individuals from Gonur, the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) site in Central Asia.” ref

“These individuals from Shahr-i-Sokhta and Gonur represent the IPC formed between ∼5400 and 3700 BCE or around 7,400 to 5,700 years ago. Current South Asian populations descend from admixture between a yet unsampled population from this cline and a population from the Central Steppe Middle Bronze Age (CSMBA). Two younger (∼3,800 years ago) individuals of the haplogroup L1-M22 lived in Central Asia (Uzbekistan). Both belong to the L1a2-M357/L1307 branch. One has the derived allele for a downstream L1a2-M2398 lineage-defining SNP, the lineage to which all four present-day individuals from Central Asia affiliate. The other genome lacks reads for positions defining the downstream lineages. Although postdating, these individuals resemble individuals from the majority group of the BMAC mentioned above. That is, they share ∼59% ancestry with CIHG, ∼26% with AN, ∼2% with AHG, and ∼12% with WSHG populations. The haplogroup L1-M22 is also found among 14 ancient (∼3,000–2,300 years ago) individuals from present-day Swat Valley, Pakistan. They all belong to the L1a2-M357/L1307 branch. Three were further assigned to the L1a2-Y6288, L1a2-Y17951, and Balti_YPGB066 lineages. These individuals are those that originate from admixture between IPC-related and CSMBA-related populations.” ref

“An ancient (∼2,800 years ago) individual from Hassanlu, present-day Iran, and another one (∼2.3 kya) from present-day Armenia share derived alleles of three and two SNPs, respectively, with a Qatari individual (SRR2098209) down to the L1a2-Y6288 lineage. They look similar in autosomal variation and share ∼56% of their ancestry with CIHG, ∼24% with LN, ∼16% with AN, and ∼3% with EHG populations. Interestingly, another ancient individual (∼1,900 years ago) from present-day Armenia also belongs to the L1a2-Y6288 lineage. However, he is in a distinct sub-lineage, which includes currently living individuals from Armenia and Turkey. A Hunnic individual (∼1,700 years ago) from the Tian Shan region of present-day Kyrgyzstan belongs to the L1a1-Y31961 branch. Another Central Asian individual of the same age is found in present-day Kazakhstan. He belongs to the L1a2-M357/L1307 branch, and shares derived alleles for five SNPs with a Telugu individual (HG03790) from India. The earliest L1-M22 individual from Europe lived in the Medieval time (∼0.850 years ago) in present-day Italy. He belongs to the L1a1-Z5926 branch.” ref

“The earliest representatives (∼5,200 years ago) of the L2-L595 lineage were uncovered in the Late Maykop culture from both the Northwest and Northeast Caucasus (Figure S3). Their ancestral profile resembles that of Chalcolithic populations from present-day Armenia and Iran, as well as Kura-Araxes individuals from present-day Armenia and the Northeast Caucasus. A possible Iranian Chalcolithic representative (∼4,800 years ago) is found in Tepe Hissar, a Copper Age-to-Bronze Age urban settlement in the central Iranian Plateau. However, the assignment to L2-L595 is based on only 3 C-to-T and 2 A-to-G transitions, which can also result from postmortem damage. The genetic makeup of Chalcolithic populations from present-day Armenia and Iran suggests a mixture of ancestries shared with CIHG, AN, and LN populations and a minor amount of ancestry shared with EHG/WHG population, likely inherited alongside the AN-related ancestry.” ref

“Another ancient (∼3,900 years ago) member of the L2-L595 lineage is found in the Alalakh population from the Middle-Late Bronze Age northern Levant. This population combines ancestries shared with AN, CIHG, and LN populations. Another ancient (∼3,200 years ago) member is found in the Iron Age southern Levant. He shares the same three ancestry components. One more ancient (∼2,500 years ago) member is from present-day Turkey’s Batman region. This individual shares ancestry overwhelmingly with CIHG and LN populations. This lineage’s most recent ancient individual is found among Vikings (∼1,100 years ago) from Sweden. For two ancient L-M20 individuals, owing to low data quality, it was impossible to assign them to the downstream branches (Figure S3).” ref

“One (∼4,700 years ago) is from the Early Bronze Age time of present-day Greece. This population displays excessive allele sharing with earlier and contemporaneous West Eurasian groups from present-day Iran and the Caucasus. Another ancient individual (∼2,400 years ago) is from the Aegean of present-day Turkey. While aware of the inherent limitations in sample ages and data availability, our analysis of ancient DNA reveals a striking consistency: the sole genetic component universally shared among all individuals within haplogroup L-M20 related to CIHG. This finding underscores a strong genetic affinity between haplogroup L-M20 and these ancient populations, at least since ∼6.6 kya.” ref

“This study presents extensive research on human Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22 – the major branch of the haplogroup L-M20. Our research draws from an analysis of 165 high-coverage whole Y chromosome sequences. It employs a robust statistical framework, shedding more light on this haplogroup’s origin, distribution, and diversification. Consistent with the previously suggested estimates, it coalesces ∼20,600 years ago, shortly after the L-M20 (the YFull and FTDNA). Many West Asian Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages display a pattern similar to the haplogroup L-M20: an extended bottleneck before and diversification during or shortly after the LGM. Other examples are Y chromosome haplogroups G2a-P15, J1-M267, J2a-M410, J2b-M12, and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups U7 and J1, among others. The reduced genetic diversity can be attributed to the harsh glacial conditions, which may have markedly restricted the number of founding individuals. Nevertheless, the divergence began right during the LGM, which, although surprising, aligns with growing archaeological evidence regarding the habitation of northern West Asia during the same period.” ref

“Our Bayesian continuous phylogeographic analysis supports the Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22’s origin in West Asia more than in South Asia (Figure 3). The 80% HPD area overwhelmingly encompasses West Asian regions such as the Iranian Plateau, Mesopotamia, the Armenian Highland, the Caucasus, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Levant. Although some overlap of the 80% HPD area with northwestern South Asia may suggest the origin there, two additional lines of evidence add more weight to the origin of the haplogroup L1-M22 in West Asia. Firstly, the sister branch of L1-M22, L2-L595, is found exclusively in West Asia and Europe (the YFull, FTDNA, Table S5, and Figures S2 and S3). Second, as detailed in the previous paragraph, the distinct pattern of a long bottleneck in the haplogroup L-M20 after splitting from haplogroup T at ∼45 kya resembles what is observed in other West Asian lineages and differs from the earlier divergence seen in South Asian lineages like the Y chromosome haplogroup H and mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U2, as well as others native to South Asia.” ref

“Our results indicate that the haplogroup L1-M22 population in West Asia began to expand ∼10,000 years ago (Figure 4). This coincides with the Neolithic demographic transition, a crucial period of human history when the world’s population started transitioning from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a more settled way of life based on agriculture and animal husbandry. This transition occurred earliest in the Fertile Crescent region of West Asia ∼12,000 years ago. Centers with at least three genetically distinct population groups were revealed. Intriguingly, our Bayesian continuous phylogeographic analysis infers that starting at ∼10,000 years ago, L1-M22 expands, more intensively, around the northern Fertile Crescent region (Figure 3), probably inhabited by populations with the CIHG autosomal heritage.” ref

“Therefore, we propose that these populations may have contributed to the dissemination of the haplogroup L1-M22 in West Asia. This conclusion finds further support in aDNA studies, which reveal that the genome-wide ancestral component universally shared among all individuals within the haplogroup L-M20 corresponds to that shared with the CIHG populations. This observation may initially seem counterintuitive given the absence of haplogroup L-M20 in Bronze Age Pontic-Caspian steppe populations, despite these groups having half of their genetic heritage originating from a West Asian population. Additionally, contemporary populations with a prominent steppe ancestry, like those in northeastern Europe, exhibit only minimal, if any, the presence of haplogroup L-M20. This inconsistency can be elucidated by considering that, unlike the autosomal ancestry, the predominant paternal lineages in Bronze Age Pontic-Caspian steppe populations were inherited from earlier local populations. This marked scarcity of representation also extends to other West Asian Y chromosome haplogroups.” ref

“We did not observe an expansion in South Asian L1-M22 Y chromosomes during the Neolithic time (Figure 4). This suggests that while the West Asian L1-M22 population was expanding, likely linked to the changes during the Neolithic demographic transition, the ancestral population of the present-day South Asian L1-M22 lineages was already distinct from their West Asian Neolithic fellows. Thus, at least two populations genetically connected to the CIHG have probably emerged in West Asia around the Holocene. Groups of one population then remained in or close to the center of the Neolithic demographic transition with a lack of expansion to South Asia. Groups of another one migrated to South Asia.” ref

“These non-Neolithic CIHG-related groups probably also involve the ancestors of the South Asian L1a1-L1320 and L1a2-M2398 branches. Individuals representing these branches migrated to South Asia starting at ∼8,000 to ∼6,000 years ago. Notably, no aDNA individuals from West Asia belong to these branches, further supporting their association with South Asia. Concurrently, the L1a1-Y31961 and L1a2-Y6288 branches remained in West Asia with the L1b-M317/PH982. Interestingly, ancient individuals from the L1a1-Y31961 branch lived already at the Chalcolithic time (∼6.1 kya) in present-day Armenia. It is also interesting that an individual from the Early Bronze Age (∼4,900 years ago) Shahr-i-Sokhta site in present-day southeastern Iran belongs to the L1a2-M357/L1307 branch and shares 100% autosomal ancestry with CIHG-related populations. Collectively, these findings provide further evidence supporting the association of haplogroup L1-M22 with autosomal CIHG-related ancestry, potentially indicating their role in spreading the haplogroup not only in West Asia but also into South Asia. In the latter case, though, the population had not been mixed with AN ones and shows no sign of expansion. It is important to note that the precise geographic locations of the CIHG-related populations may not align with current state borders due to historical factors.” ref

“The finding of a distinct ancient group likely closely related to CIHG during the Holocene is a crucial discovery, potentially shedding light on the origins of contemporary South Asian L1-M22 lineages. This finding corroborates the previously proposed hypothesis of a unique CIHG-related population in the eastern regions of present-day Iran and bordering regions of Central Asia. The recent discovery of a ∼6.6 kya individual with an L1-M22 lineage in present-day Turkmenistan provides additional evidence for the association of this haplogroup with a CIHG-related ancestral group to that region, which served as a junction between West and South Asia. The IPC population originated due to the admixture of this kind of population and an AHG-related population at around 5400 to 3700 BCE, a time frame overlapping closely with our age estimates of South Asian L1-M22 branches. L1-M22 lineages in a subset of ancient individuals from the IPC and later individuals from the Swat Valley reinforce this hypothesis. Our results also align with the formal modeling of that study, demonstrating that the substantial shared ancestry between present-day South Asians and early Holocene populations in present-day Iran arose as a result of a genetic influx from IPC people into later South Asians rather than a substantial westward gene flow of South Asian ancestry onto the Iranian Plateau.” ref

“Such an ancient group closely related to the IPC holds profound implications for understanding the origin and dissemination of the Dravidian family of languages, the second-largest language family in South Asia. Studies suggest that the migration of agriculture and herding from West to South Asia may have led to the introduction of proto-forms of Dravidian languages with the Neolithic migration. However, the absence of AN ancestry in the IPC narrows down the origin of such movement to a population from West Asia lacking AN ancestry. A recent study found notable AN ancestry in a few contemporary populations of northern India. Nevertheless, this can be linked with a more recent event: the Steppe migration. Our finding about the lack of expansion of South Asian L1-M22 lineages before ∼4 kya is consistent with the absence of a large-scale Neolithic population movement from West to South Asia. Instead, it is plausible that a population bearing only CIHG-related ancestry and L1-M22 lineages moved from West to South Asia, potentially also during the Neolithic time, but without a substantial expansion.” ref

“Within South Asia, the dispersals of Dravidian languages were most probably conducted by people with ASI ancestry, which was likely formed after the collapse of IVC when its people migrated eastward and southward and mixed with populations carrying higher AASI ancestry. Hence, one of the two ancestral population groups, i) the IPC or ii) the ancient eastern and southern South Asian populations with higher AASI ancestry, might be the speakers of Dravidian languages. Linguistic studies show that already IVC people may have spoken a Dravidian language.” ref

“The potential Elamo-Dravidian linguistic connection is critically important in unraveling the origins of the Dravidian language family and its possible association with the IPC. If substantiated, a population with a CIHG-related genetic heritage would be the best candidate for disseminating both Elamite and Dravidian languages. Our study supports this hypothesis by suggesting a connection between the roots of all L1-M22 lineages and CIHG-related genetic ancestry while also delineating temporal boundaries with the reconstructed Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22 tree. Arguably, West Asian L1a lineages likely contributed to the development of the Elamite language. In contrast, South Asian L1a lineages after ∼8 kya probably migrated from the Iranian plateau, potentially contributing to the spread of Dravidian languages to South Asia. Our results do not support the suggestion that the geographical expansion started from ancient Elam, present-day southwestern Iran. Instead, both these regions could be the final areas of migration started from yet another region inhabited by a population of CIHG-related ancestry.” ref

“The expansion of Dravidian languages into southern India aligns with the population expansion that began ∼4 kya, as observed in our Bayesian analysis of South Asian lineages of the haplogroup L1-M22. The expansion coincided with the arrival of Steppe ancestry in South Asia during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Notably, Steppe ancestry-rich individuals in Central Asia belong to paternal haplogroups other than L1-M22. Consequently, local South Asian populations bearing haplogroup L1-M22 underwent population expansion simultaneously with incoming Steppe individuals as Middle and Late Bronze Age Steppe-related paternal haplogroup R1a also expanded during this time in South Asia. A similar pattern is seen also with South Asian maternal lineages. Interestingly, the beginning of population expansions followed the megadrought event that transformed several complex societies of the Bronze Age, including the IVC.” ref

“This study illuminates the genetic history of Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22. Our research emphasizes West Asia’s pivotal role in this haplogroup’s emergence and its possible association with CIHG-related genome-wide ancestry. We characterized at least two distinct population groups bearing this ancestry during the Early Holocene. One was expanding in West Asia during the Neolithic demographic transition, and the other migrated without expansion to South Asia (∼8-6 kya), possibly contributing to the spread of Dravidian languages. Importantly, our findings support the connection of Dravidian languages with ancient Elamite language spoken in present-day southwestern Iran, possibly linked to migration from West to South Asia.” ref

“Nevertheless, our inferences challenge earlier claims about the dispersal of Dravidian languages in connection to the expansive spread of farming and align with the recent study about the lack of AN legacy in the ancestors of South Asians. The local South Asian L1-M22 lineages expanded between ∼4,000 and ∼3,000 years ago, coinciding with the introduction of the Steppe ancestry. Hence, our research offers valuable insights into the confluence of genetic and linguistic developments during this pivotal period in South Asian history. Further interdisciplinary research is needed to fully understand these intricate patterns of the human past, integrating genetics, linguistics, and archaeology to provide a more comprehensive narrative of our shared heritage.” ref

After looking at the info, I think Afroasiatic is likely the related origin of Dravidian languages, so an Afro-Dravidian Hypothesis. That still fits with my main Proto-North Eurasian Hypothesis, which I think links Afroasiatic. I think it was the likely language in Iran hunter-gatherer/proto-farmers R1b, L, and J, possibly even R1a, and thus, to me, would likely speak Afroasiatic or some version of it as they share a lot of cultural aspects with Turkey and the wider Fertal Cresent that spoke Afroasiatic. It is their cultural ideas and haplogroup L1-M22 that relate to Mehrgarh (7000 BCE to 2600 BCE) and Iran.

Here is a link, not mine, addressing it, but this is not how I came to think about this possibility of an Afro-Dravidian Hypothesis: Afroasiatic Origins and the Afro-Dravidian Hypothesis:

“The Afro-Dravidian hypothesis argues that the Dravidian language is a derivative of an African language from the Niger-Congo family of languages, and that much of the cultural and technological packet associated with Dravidian culture has African origins. Frenchman Bernard Sargent is one of its principle advocates. I’m not entirely convinced of this hypotheis, but there is enough data to back it up to warrant giving the idea serious consideration, so I don’t dismiss it out of hand either, as many do.” ref

“The linguistic evidence from within the Dravidian languages points to an origin of the Dravidian language of India around the time of the South Asian Neolithic ca. 2500 BCE. A few linguists have noted similarities between some Niger-Congo languages (particularly those on the Afro-Asiatic/Niger-Congo boundary area) and the proto-Dravidian language.
The crops used in early Dravidian agriculture were domesticated in and had their origins the African Sahel. There are no meaningful African mtDNA traces in Dravidian South Asia that can’t be attributed to events in the historic era, however, and the strongest outside Y-DNA signal, which coincides quite well with the locations of the proto-Dravidan society are rich in Y-DNA haplogroup T.” ref

“Given the fact that ancient peoples rich in Y-DNA haplogroup T were sailing the Red Sea and Indian Ocean from the Horn of Africa at the time, it makes sense that a male dominated group of people from the Horn of Africa might arrived on the east coast of India and bring new crops and technologies around 2500 BCE. Recent genetic profiles of tribal populations in India also support the inferrence that some of these populations may have genetic origins outside India in a time frame similar to that of the arrival of Indo-European and Austroasiatic food production and archeological cultures to India, rather than with the hunter-gatherers of India’s deep indigeneous past. So, the fact that some of the high frequency Y-DNA haplogroup T populations in Indian are tribal populations doesn’t necessarily contradict an Afro-Dravidian hypothesis.” ref

“The crops, technologies and potential linguistic links seem like a better fit to a Sahel agriculture, Niger-Congo language speaking people, however, than to a society that one might expect to be a Cushitic language speaking people then and there in what might have been the Kingdom of Punt or the Kingdom of Cush, which Y-DNA haplogroup T is currently common, and haplogroup T arguably looks like it has Egyptian or Mesopotamian origins, not Sahel African origins. Why would people with overwhelming Egyptian/Mesopotamian patrilines speak a Niger-Congo language or be familiar with Sahel agriculture? Was Cushitic limited to areas further north at the time, and were Niger-Congo languages (driven by the expansion of Sahel agriculture) a layer present before Afro-Asiatic languages were in the Horn of Africa? Did ethnic Egyptians precede the Cushitic language in the sea trade of the Horn of Africa?” ref

“The “substrate” genetics of East Africa after one removes markers that look like Eurasian back migrations and also removes markers strongly associated with one or another Afro-Asiatic linguistic family, in uniparental and autosomal genetics, are distinctly East African and do not suggest prior genetic unity with West African populations prior to a very remote date (ca. 30,000+ years). Another way to think about that fact is that East Africa has experienced at least two wave of Eurasian back migration. Sometime in the early Holocene (a period that bridges the Epipaleolithic and the Neolithic eras) associated with mtDNA haplogroups like M1 and U6. The other with the arrival of the Ethiosemitic languages. One plausible way to understand the spread of the Afro-Asiatic languages is to guess that it occured at the time of the early Holocene event.” ref

“But, East Africa has a distinct genetic identity that predates either of these events, and this identity is distinct from West Africa. West African sourced African genetics don’t appear in East Africa until around the time of Bantu expansion into East Africa, contradicting the plausible thought that West Africans could have had notable demic influences on East Africa starting when the West Africans developed Sahel agriculture. (As Jared Diamond explains in “Guns, Germs and Steel”, neither Sahel crops nor Fertile Crescent crops do well in the other’s climate due to their differing seasonal patterns, although Sahel crops can do well in the monsoon climate of Southern India, which has a seasonal pattern similar to the African Sahel.)” ref

“One possibility is that Horn of Africa people who could have brought the cultural package of Sahel agriculture to India may have themselves been recent recipients of that cultural package and experienced language shift in an early wave of Bantu, or pre-Bantu, expansion from West Africa, that was limited to a cultural/political elite and that the Niger-Congo language may have experienced similar linguistic trends to other languages on the Niger-Congo/Afro-Asiatic linguistic border like Swahili and some of the Niger-Congo languages spoken in the general vicinity of Senegal.” ref

Population Differentiation of Southern Indian Male Lineages Correlates with Agricultural Expansions Predating the Caste System

“Abstract: Previous studies that pooled Indian populations from a wide variety of geographical locations, have obtained contradictory conclusions about the processes of the establishment of the Varna caste system and its genetic impact on the origins and demographic histories of Indian populations. To further investigate these questions we took advantage that both Y chromosome and caste designation are paternally inherited, and genotyped 1,680 Y chromosomes representing 12 tribal and 19 non-tribal (caste) endogamous populations from the predominantly Dravidian-speaking Tamil Nadu state in the southernmost part of India. Tribes and castes were both characterized by an overwhelming proportion of putatively Indian autochthonous Y-chromosomal haplogroups (H-M69, F-M89, R1a1-M17, L1-M27, R2-M124, and C5-M356; 81% combined) with a shared genetic heritage dating back to the late Pleistocene (10,000–30,000 years ago), suggesting that more recent Holocene migrations from western Eurasia contributed <20% of the male lineages. We found strong evidence for genetic structure, associated primarily with the current mode of subsistence. Coalescence analysis suggested that the social stratification was established 4,000–6,000 years ago and there was little admixture during the last 3,000 years ago, implying a minimal genetic impact of the Varna (caste) system from the historically-documented Brahmin migrations into the area. In contrast, the overall Y-chromosomal patterns, the time depth of population diversification, and the period of differentiation were best explained by the emergence of agricultural technology in South Asia. These results highlight the utility of detailed local genetic studies within India, without prior assumptions about the importance of Varna rank status for population grouping, to obtain new insights into the relative influences of past demographic events for the population structure of the whole of modern India.” ref

“Contemporary Indian populations exhibit a high cultural, morphological, and linguistic diversity, as well as some of the highest genetic diversities among continental populations after Africa. Indian populations are broadly classified into two categories: ‘tribal’ and ‘non-tribal’ groups. Tribal groups, constituting 8% of the Indian population, are characterized by traditional modes of subsistence such as hunting and gathering, foraging, and seasonal agriculture of various kinds. In contrast, most other Indians fall into non-tribal categories, many of them classified as castes under the Hindu Varna (Color caste) system which groups caste populations, primarily on occupation, into Brahmin (priestly class), Kshatriya (warrior and artisan), Vyasa (merchant), Shudra (unskilled labor) and the most recently added fifth class, Panchama, the scheduled castes of India. Generally, both non-tribal and tribal populations employ a patrilineal caste endogamy. This practice, together with the male-specific genetic transmission of the non-recombining portion of the Y-chromosome (NRY), provides a unique opportunity to study the impact of historical demographic processes and the social structure on the gene pool of India.” ref

“The distribution of deep-rooted Indian-specific Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial lineages suggests an initial settlement of modern humans in the subcontinent from the early out-of-Africa migration. The greater genetic isolation of many tribal groups and their differences in Y-chromosomal haplogroup (HG) lineages compared to non-tribal groups, have generally been interpreted as evidence of tribes being direct descendants of the earliest Indian settlers. Moreover, these tribe-caste genetic differences have been attributed to the establishment of the Hindu Varna system that has been maintained for millennia since both Y chromosome and caste designation are paternally inherited. However, the origin of the caste system in India is still a controversial subject, and there are two main schools of thought about it. First, demic diffusion models propose an expansion of Indo-European (IE) speakers 3,000 years ago from Central Asia. Alternatively, other models propose the origin of caste as the result of cultural diffusion and/or autochthonous demographic processes without any major genetic influx from outside India. Overall, the genetic impact and mode of establishment of the caste system, the extent of a common indigenous Pleistocene (10,000 to 30,000 years ago) genetic heritage, and the degree of admixture from West Eurasian Holocene (10,000 years ago) migrations and their level of impact on the tribal and non-tribal groups from India, remain unresolved.” ref

“The lack of consensus among previous studies may reflect difficulties associated with the conflicting relationships between genetics and the socio-cultural factors used to pool truly endogamous groups into broader categories, sometimes grouping Indian populations sampled from a wide variety of geographical locations together, such as a tribe-caste dichotomy or caste-rank hierarchy. One goal of pooling data from multiple populations has been to smooth individual drift effects in an effort to reconstruct putative ancestry and thereby potentially infer the past demographic processes shaping genetic diversity. However, the success of this approach relies on whether the classification employed indeed reflects the true historical relationships among these endogamous groups. Methods seeking to identify the best grouping from an exploration of alternative possible classifications, based on seeking maximal between-population differences and minimal within-population variation, would be of special relevance for studies on Indian populations classified based on Varna status.” ref

“This is the case because several castes have suffered from historically fluid definitions of their rank status, and both the origins and the scope of the genetic impact of the Varna system on these populations are still unclear. Further, since the implementation of the Varna system throughout India was not a uniform process, broad classifications of multiple Indian samples from all over the subcontinent based on Varna status, or tribe-caste dichotomy, may not reflect true endogamous populations and could also obscure genetic signals and the finer details of Indian demographic histories. For this reason, a genetic study using a careful and extensive sampling of well-defined non-tribal and tribal endogamous populations from a restricted area designed to reduce the confounding relationships among socio-cultural factors, without presuming Varna rank status, to find empirically the best approach of population grouping, could be a successful model to obtain new insights of past Indian demographic processes.” ref

“Here, we attempted to apply this strategy to unravel the population structure and genetic history of the southernmost state of India, Tamil Nadu (TN), which is well known for its rigid caste system, and to relate the resulting genetic data to the paleoclimatic, archaeological, and historical evidence from this region. The paleoclimatic and archaeological records show post-LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) wet period expansions of foragers into the region, whose interactions with later aridification-driven migrations of agriculturists have been traced. Archaeology also reveals the establishment of metallurgy and river settlements, just several centuries prior to the creation of the earliest written records of the Sangam literature (300 BCE to 300 CE).” ref

“These historical records named several populations including some in the present study (e.g., Paliyan, Pulayar, Valayar) reflecting the existence of these now endogamous groups at that time. More recent reports dated to the 6^th century CE, under the reign of the Sarabhapuriyas, illustrate the local implementation of the Varna system around 1,000 years ago, following the arrival of Brahmins into the region. The Tamil epics of this period, such as the Purananuru anthology and Silapathikaram, describe a society with a well-defined occupational class structure based on subsistence practices. Earlier genetic studies of TN populations identified clear differentiations of endogamous ethnic groups classified into Major Population Groups (MPG) based on socio-cultural characteristics reflecting subsistence, traditional occupation, and native language (mother tongue). Although some studies have identified hill tribes as the earliest settlers, and others suggested a common genetic signature among distantly ranked-caste populations, the main evolutionary and demographic processes shaping the observed genetic differences among populations from TN are still unresolved in the literature.” ref

“In the present study, we examined the Y-chromosomal lineages of 1,680 individuals sampled from 12 tribal and 19 non-tribal well-defined endogamous populations. We first investigated whether tribal and non-tribal groups shared a common genetic heritage and characterized the proportion of putatively autochthonous and non-autochthonous Indian Y-chromosomal haplogroups. It is important to note that the total sample size used here is higher than those in other studies covering the entire Indian subcontinent. Further, the detailed anthropological annotation of endogamous populations sampled from a restricted region within India, together with the paleoclimatic, archeological, and historical regional background were all important aspects needed to reduce the confounding relationships among socio-cultural factors.” ref

“This general approach allowed us to infer important genetic signals and the finer details of the population demographic histories. Therefore, we sought to determine which of the classifications based either on the Varna system (rank status, tribe-caste dichotomy), or social-cultural factors (reflecting subsistence, traditional customs, and native language), or geography better indicated true endogamous groups by exhibiting higher between-population differences and lower within-population variation. Since both Y chromosome and caste designation are paternally inherited, we further explored whether any of these genetic differences could be attributed to the historical evidences of the establishment of the Hindu Varna system. In contrast, we found the overall Y-chromosomal patterns, the time depth of population diversification, and the period of differentiation correlated better with archeological evidences and the demographic processes of Neolithic agricultural expansions into the region.” ref

Pottery in the Indian subcontinent

Mesolithic pottery

“Mesolithic, also called Middle Stone Age, is an intermediate cultural stage between the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age) which had chipped stone tools, and Neolithic (New Stone Age) with polished stone tools. The Mesolithic hunter gatherers had better efficiency than Paleolithic with ability to more diverse range of animal and vegetable food sources. Cord-Impressed style pottery belongs to ‘Mesolithic’ ceramic tradition that developed among Vindhya hunter-gatherers during the Mesolithic period. This ceramic style is also found in later Proto-Neolithic phase in nearby regions. This early type of pottery, found at the site of Lahuradewa and Chopanimando, is currently the oldest known pottery tradition in South Asia, dating back to 7,000-6,000 BCE.” ref

Neolithic cultures

Neolithic, also called New Stone Age, is “final stage of cultural evolution or technological development among prehistoric humans. It was characterized by stone tools shaped by polishing or grinding, dependence on domesticated plants or animals, settlement in permanent villages, and the appearance of such crafts as pottery and weaving.” ref

Ahar-Banas culture (3000 – 1500 BCE) in Rajasthan

“Ahar–Banas culture is a Chalcolithic archaeological culture on the banks of Ahar River of southeastern Rajasthan state in India, lasting from c. 3000 to 1500 BC, contemporary and adjacent to the Indus Valley civilization. Situated along the Banas and Berach Rivers, as well as the Ahar River, the Ahar-Banas people were exploiting the copper ores of the Aravalli Range to make axes and other artefacts. They were sustained on a number of crops, including wheat and barley. The design motifs of the seals are generally quite simple, with wide-ranging parallels from various Indus Civilization sites.” ref

Amri-Nal culture (6000 – 1300 BCE) in Sindh and Balochistan

“Amri-Nal culture: Dated to 4th and 3rd millennia BC the dual typesites are Amri in Sindh and Nal in Balochistan in Pakistan. Amri, also has non-Harappan phases during 6000 BCE to 4000 BCE, and later Harappan Phases till 1300 BCE.” ref

Bhirrana Culture (7570 – 1900 BCE) along paleo Saraswati in Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan

“Bhirrana culture is likely the oldest pre-Harappan neolithic site dating back to 7570–6200 BCE. The pottery repertoire is very rich, and the diagnostic wares of this period included Mud Applique Wares, Incised (Deep and Light), Tan/Chocolate Slipped Wares, Brown-on-Buff Wares, Bichrome Wares (Paintings on the exterior with black and white pigments), Black-on-Red Ware and plain red wares.” ref

Kunal culture (4000 BCE) along in Haryana, Rajasthan, Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

“Kunal culture is in Hisar district of Haryana in India, has distinct i.e. local pottery and house styles. Hoard, which is a pot containing gold-leaf, silver ornaments, and beads of semi-precious stones indicate contact and trade with Harappan culture. Earliest phase is dated to 4000 BCE, it is older than Early-Harappan site of Rehman Dheri which was dated to 3300 BCE. The earliest site of this culture is Kunal (4000 BCE) in Haryana which is older than Rehman Dheri (3300 BCE). The type site, the first excavated site of this type of culture is Kot Diji. Rehman Dheri, which was considered oldest example of this culture, is now the second oldest example of this culture after Kunal was excavated and found to be older than Rehman Dher with similar older cultural artifacts then the Rehman Dheri.” ref

“Kot Diji and Amri are close to each other in Sindh, they earlier developed indigenous culture which had common elements, later they came in contact with Harappan culture and fully developed into Harappan culture. Earliest examples of artifacts belonging to this culture were found at Rehman Dheri, however, later excavations found the oldest example of this culture at Kunal. These are cultural ancestor to site at Harappa. These sites have pre-Harappan indigenous cultural levels, distinct from the culture of Harappa, these are at Banawali (level I), Kot Diji (level 3A), Amri (level II). Rehman Dheri also has a pre Kot Diji phase (RHD1 3300-28 BCE) which are not part of IVC culture. Kot Diji has two later phases that continue into and alongside Mature Harappan Phase (RHDII and RHDII 2500-2100 BCE). Fortified towns found here are dated as follows.

Kunal (5000/4000 BCE–), in Hisar district of Haryana in India is the earliest site found with layers in phase I dating back to 5000 BCE and 4000 BCE, site’s culture is an older ancestry of the Pre-Harappan site of Rehman Dheri which was dated to 3300 BC. A button seal was discovered at Kunal during 1998-99 excavations by Archaeological Survey of India. The seal is similar to the Rehman Dheri examples. It contained a picture of two deer on one side, and geometrical pattern on other side. The similar specimen from Rehman-Dheri is datable to c. 4000 BCE, which makes Kunal site an older ancestor of Rehman Dheri. The second phase of Kunal corresponds to post-neolithic phase of Hakra culture (also called Early Harappan Phase, c.3300-2800 BCE or c.5000-2800 BCE) was also found.
Kot Diji (3300 BCE), is the type site, located in Sindh in Pakistan.
Amri (3600–3300 BCE), also has non-Harappan phases during 6000 BCE to 4000 BCE, and later Harappan Phases till 1300 BCE.
Kalibangan (3500 BCE – 2500 BCE), in northwest Rajasthan in India on Ghaggar River.
Rehman Dheri, 3300 BCE, near Dera Ismail Khan and close to River Zhob Valleyin Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan.” ref

Mehrgarh culture (7000 – 2500/2000 BCE) in Balochistan

Main article: Mehrgarh

“There is no pottery in Mehrgarh Period I but evidence of pottery begins from Period II. In period III, the finds become much more abundant as the potter’s wheel is introduced, and they show more intricate designs and also animal motifs. The characteristic female figurines appear beginning in Period IV, and the finds show more intricate designs and sophistication. Pipal leaf designs are used in decoration from Period VI. Some sophisticated firing techniques were used from Periods VI and VII and an area reserved for the pottery industry has been found at mound MR1. However, by Period VIII, the quality and intricacy of designs seem to have suffered due to mass production, and a growing interest in bronze and copper vessels.” ref

Sothi-Siswal culture (4600 – 3200 BCE) along paleo Sarasvati in Haryana and Northwestern Rajasthan

Main article: Sothi-Siswal culture

Sothi–Siswal is the site of a Pre-Indus Valley Civilisation settlement dating to as early as 4600 BCE. Sothi culture may be as early as 4600 BCE, while the earliest Siswal A layer is dated 3800-3200 BCE, and is equivalent to the Middle and Upper layers of Sothi. Sothi culture precedes Siswal culture considerably, and should be seen as the earlier tradition. Sothi-Siswal culture is named after these two sites, located 70 km apart. As many as 165 sites of this culture have been reported. There are also broad similarities between Sothi-Siswal and Kot Diji ceramics. Kot Diji culture area is located just to the northwest of the Sothi-Siswal area. Type sites are Siswal in Hisar district of haryana and Sothi in Rajasthan along the Ghaggar–Chautang rivers (identified with paleo Sarasvati–Drishadvati in Vedic texts) in the Ganga–Yamuna doab, with least 165 Sothi-Siswal sites identified with this culture including Nawabans, 2 sites are bigger than 20 hectares. Sothi-Siswal ceramics are found as far south as the Ahar-Banas culture area in southeastern Rajasthan.” ref

Rangpur culture (3000 – 800 BCE) in Gujarat

“Rangpur culture, near Vanala on Saurashtra peninsula in Gujarat, lies on the tip between the Gulf of Khambhat and Gulf of Kutch, it belongs to the period of the Indus valley civilization, and lies to the northwest of the larger site of Lothal. Trail Diggings were conducted by Archeological Survey of India (ASI) during 1931 led by M.S.Vats(madho svarup vats). Later, Ghurye (1939), Dikshit (1947) and S.R.Rao (1953–56) excavated the site under ASI projects. S.R.Rao has classified the deposits into four periods with three sub periods in Harappan Culture, Period II with an earlier Period, Microlithic and a Middle Paleolithic State (River sections) with points, scrapers and blades of jasper. The dates given by S.R.Rao are:

Period I – Microliths unassociated with Pottery: 3000 BCE
Period II – Harappan : 2000–1500 BCE
- Period II B – Late Harappan : 1500–1100 BCE
- Period II C – Transition Phase of Harappa: 1100–1000 BCE
Period III – Lustrous Red Ware Period: 1000–800 BCE.

Culture overlap with Indus Valley Civilization

“These cultures developed separately from IVC. All of these cultures have distinct cultural traits, such as artifacts, pottery design, and patterns, which are different from the typical 3 IVC Phases. These cultures have some overlap with Indus Valley Civilization. These are either sites older than IVC in and around core zone of IVC where IVC cultural phases were also found; or the sites contemporaneous to IVC, usually found around the periphery of IVC core zone, which exhibit distinct cultural characteristics with some cultural overlap with IVC. Some of these had cultural contact and trade with IVC, hence the pottery found on these sites has some cultural overlap with IVC. In many cases, where these sites are within IVC core zone, pottery belonging to IVC culture has been found in the higher layers of the mound. These cultures are usually classified in the following 3 ways:

Separate older cultures before IVC period: These pre-date the IVC and originated in a period before the Early-Harappan Phase, though in some cases there may eb overlap with Early-Harappan Phase.
Contemporaneous to IVC with distinct cultural characteristics’: With trade and cultural links to IVC, found in and around the core IVC site zone.
Subtypes of 3 IVC phases: These cultural are classified as part of IVC but with distinct characteristics. These are classified as subtypes of 3 IVC phases by stretching the scope of IVC wider in terms of geographical range, time span, the diversity of characteristics of artifacts. For example, some of these could be classified as subtype of Early-Harappan Phase by stretching the nomenclature of this phase to “Proto-Harappan Phase” or “Pre-Harappan Phase” by widening the time span of this phase. Depending on the contemporaneous period, some of these cultures are also classified as subtypes of Mature-Harappan or Late-Harappan Phase.” ref

“Cultures which were contemporaneous with the “Early Harappan Phase” (3200-2600 BCE) were the Ahar–Banas, Amri-Nal, Damb-Sadat, Kot Diji, and Sothi-Siswal cultures. Harappa is its type site of this phase of IVC, which also had an early phase dating to 3500 BCE. IVC sites of this phase were village communities engaged in agriculture and domestication of animals and specialized crafts. It late evolved into urbanised Mature Harappan Phase. Cultures which were contemporaneous with the “Mature Harappan Phase” (2600-1900 BCE) are Bara, Kunal, Rangpur cultures some of these pre-date IVC (Early-Harappan) culture.” ref

Indus Valley Civilisation (3300 – 1300 BCE)

“Indus Valley Civilisation has an ancient tradition of pottery making. Though the origin of pottery in India can be traced back to the much earlier Mesolithic age, with coarse handmade pottery – bowls, jars, vessels – in various colors such as red, orange, brown, black, and cream. During the Indus Valley Civilization, there is proof of pottery being constructed in two ways, handmade and wheel-made.” ref

Early Harappan Phase (3300 – 1900 BCE)

Damb-Sadat culture (3500 BCE) in Iranian and Pakistani Balochistan

“Damb-Sadat culture: Based on the pottery found here, it is classified as a separate archaeological culture/subculture of Indus Valley Civilization.” ref

Kot Diji (3300 BCE) in Sindh

“Kot Diji: Site in Sindh is dated to 3300 BCE.” ref

Mature Harappan Phase (1900 – 1300 BCE)

“The type site is Harappa. This phase has been found at numerous other sites, all of which have earlier much older indigenous cultural phases, example of those sites include Birrana, Rakhigarhi, Kunal,Siswal in Haryana in India; Sothi in Rajasthan in India; Mehrgarh and Amri in Pakistan.” ref

Late Harappan Phase (1900 – 1300 BCE)

“Cemetery H culture in Punjab and Jhukar and Jhangar culture in Sindh flourished during this phase. Rangpur culture in Gujarat, India was also contemporaneous with this phase of IVC, which had distinct cultural characteristics, and traded with IVC cultures.” ref

Bara culture (2000 BCE) in Shivalik foothills of Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh

“Bara culture: Dated to 2000 BCE in doab between Yamuna and Sutlej rivers near Shivalik ranges of lower Himalayas, this cultures area corresponds to modern-day Punjab, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh in North India.” ref

Cemetery H culture (1900 – 1300 BCE)

“Cemetery H culture was a Bronze Age cultural, regional form in the Punjab region and north-western India, from about 1900 BCE until about 1300 BCE, of the late phase of the Harappan (Indus Valley) civilization (alongside the Jhukar culture of Sindh and Rangpur culture of Gujarat), and it has also been connected with the early stages of the Indo-Aryan migrations. It was named after a cemetery found in “area H” at Harappa. According to Kenoyer, the Cemetery H culture “may only reflect a change in the focus of settlement organization from that which was the pattern of the earlier Harappan phase and not cultural discontinuity, urban decay, invading aliens, or site abandonment, all of which have been suggested in the past.” ref

Jhukar and Jhangar culture (1900 – 1300 BCE)

“Jhukar Phase was a Late Bronze Age culture that existed in the lower Indus Valley, i.e. Sindh, during the 2nd millennium BC. Named after the archaeological type site Jhukar in Sindh, it was a regional form of the Late Harappan culture, following the mature, urban phase of the civilization. Jhukar phase was followed by the Jhangar Phase, which is a non-urban culture, characterized by “crude handmade pottery” and “campsites of a population which was nomadic and mainly pastoralist,” and is dated to approximately the late second millennium BCE and early first millennium BCE. In Sindh, urban growth began again after approximately 500 BCE.” ref

Peopling of India

“The peopling of India refers to the migration of Homo sapiens into the Indian subcontinent. Anatomically modern humans settled India in multiple waves of early migrations, over tens of millennia. The first migrants came with the Coastal Migration/Southern Dispersal 65,000 years ago, whereafter complex migrations within South and Southeast Asia took place. West Asian (Iranian) hunter-gatherers migrated to South Asia after the Last Glacial Period but before the onset of farming. Together with ancient South Asian hunter-gatherers they formed the population of the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC).” ref

AASI

“Narasimhan et al. (2018) introduced the term AASI, “Ancient Ancestral South Indian” (AASI) for these oldest human inhabitants, which were possibly distantly related to the common ancestors of East-Eurasians such as Andaman Islanders (such as the Onge), East Asians, and Australian Aboriginals. According to Narasimhan et al. (2019), “essentially all the ancestry of present-day eastern and southern Asians (prior to West Eurasian-related admixture in southern Asians) derives from a hypothetical single eastward spread, which gave rise in a short span of time to the lineages leading to AASI, East Asians, Onge, and Australians.”, a lineage often referred to as “East-Eurasians.” ref

Relation to Andaman Islanders

“Several genetic studies have found evidence of a distant common ancestry between native Andaman Islanders and the AASI/ASI ancestral component found in South Asians. Modern South Asians have not been found to carry the paternal lineages common in the Andamanese, which has been suggested to indicate that certain paternal lineages may have become extinct in India, or that they may be very rare and have not yet been sampled. Chaubey and Endicott (2013) further noted that “Overall, the Andamanese are more closely related to Southeast Asian Negritos than they are to present-day South Asians.” ref

“Shinde et al. 2019 found either Andamanese or East Siberian hunter-gatherers fit as proxy for AASI “due to shared ancestry deeply in time.” According to Yelmen et al. (2019) the native South Asian genetic component (AASI) is distinct from the Andamanese and not closely related, and that the Andamanese are thus an imperfect and imprecise proxy for AASI. According to Yelmen et al, the Andamanese component (represented by the Andamanese Onge) was not detected in the northern Indian Gujarati, and thus it is suggested that the South Indian tribal Paniya people (who are believed to be of largely AASI ancestry) would serve as a better proxy than the Andamanese (Onge) for the “native South Asian” component in modern South Asians.” ref

“According to Narasimhan et al. (2019), the “AASI” component in South Asians shares a common root with the Andamanese (as exemplified by the Onge) and is distantly related to the Onge (Andamanese), as well as to East Asians, and Aboriginal Australians (with those groups and the AASI sharing a deep ancestral split around the same time), which would place them in the East-Eurasian lineage.” ref

Relation to “Negritos”

See also: Negrito, Andaman Islands, and Andamanese people

“The present-day Andamese are considered to be part of the “Negritos“, several diverse ethnic groups who inhabit isolated parts of southeast Asia. Based on their physical similarities, Negritos were once considered a single population of related people, but the appropriateness of using the label ‘Negrito’ to bundle together peoples of different ethnicity based on similarities in stature and complexion has been challenged. Recent research suggests that the Negritos include several separate groups, as well as demonstrating that they are not closely related to the Pygmies of Africa.” ref

“According to Vishwanathan et al. (2004), the typical “negrito” features could also have been developed by convergent evolution. According to Gyaneshwer Chaubey and Endicott (2013), “At the current level of genetic resolution, however, there is no evidence of a single ancestral population for the different groups traditionally defined as ‘negritos’.” Basu et al. 2016 concluded that the Andamanese have a distinct ancestry and are not closely related to other South Asians, but are closer to Southeast Asian Negritos, indicating that South Asian peoples do not descend directly from “Negritos” as such.” ref

Sri Lankan Vedda

See also: Caucasus hunter-gatherer

“Narasimhan et al. (2019) and Shinde et al. (2019) conclude that west Eurasian ancestry was already present before the advent of farming in South Asia. Metspalu et al. (2011) detected a genetic component in India, k5, which “distributed across the Indus Valley, Central Asia, and the Caucasus”. According to Metspalu et al. (2011), k5 “might represent the genetic vestige of the ANI”, though they also note that the geographic cline of this component within India “is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model”, explaining that the ASI-ANI model implies an ANI contribution which decreases toward southern India. According to Metspalu et al. (2011), “regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years.” ref

“Speaking to Fountain Ink, Metspalu said, “the West Eurasian component in Indians appears to come from a population that diverged genetically from people actually living in Eurasia, and this separation happened at least 12,500 years ago.” Moorjani et al. (2013) refer to Metspalu (2011) as “fail[ing] to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years”. CCMB researcher Thangaraj believes that “it was much longer ago”, and that “the ANI came to India in a second wave of migration that happened perhaps 40,000 years ago.” ref

Possible migration of Iranian Neolithic farmers

“According to Gallego Romero et al. (2011), their research on lactose tolerance in India suggests that “the west Eurasian genetic contribution identified by Reich et al. (2009) principally reflects gene flow from Iran and the Middle East.” Gallego Romero notes that Indians who are lactose-tolerant show a genetic pattern regarding this tolerance which is “characteristic of the common European mutation.” According to Romero, this suggests that “the most common lactose tolerance mutation made a two-way migration out of the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago. While the mutation spread across Europe, another explorer must have brought the mutation eastward to India – likely traveling along the coast of the Persian Gulf where other pockets of the same mutation have been found.” ref

According to Broushaki et al. (2016), evidence indicates that the Neolithic farmer component forms the main ancestry of many modern South Asians. These Neolithic farmers migrated from the fertile crescent, most likely from a region near the Zagros Mountains in modern day Iran, to South Asia some 10,000 years ago. Mehrgarh (7000 BCE to c. 2500 BCE), to the west of the Indus River valley, is a precursor of the Indus Valley Civilisation, whose inhabitants migrated into the Indus Valley and became the Indus Valley Civilisation. It is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming and herding in South Asia. According to Lukacs and Hemphill, while there is a strong continuity between the neolithic and chalcolithic (Copper Age) cultures of Mehrgarh, dental evidence shows that the chalcolithic population did not descend from the neolithic population of Mehrgarh, which “suggests moderate levels of gene flow.” They further noted that “the direct lineal descendents of the Neolithic inhabitants of Mehrgarh are to be found to the south and the east of Mehrgarh, in northwestern India and the western edge of the Deccan Plateau“, with neolithic Mehrgarh showing greater affinity with chalcolithic Inamgaon, south of Mehrgarh, than with chalcolithic Mehrgarh.” ref

Elamite-Dravidian hypothesis

Main article: Elamo-Dravidian languages

“While the IVC has been linked to the early Dravidian peoples, some scholars have suggested that their Neolithic farmer predecessors may have migrated from the Zagros Mountains to northern South Asia some 10,000 years ago. According to David McAlpin, the Dravidian languages were brought to India by immigration into India from Elam. Franklin Southworth also states that the Dravidian Languages originated in western Iran and that publications and research are “further evidence of [the relationship between Dravidian languages and Elamite] viability.” According to Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza, proto-Dravidian was brought to India by farmers from the Iranian part of the Fertile Crescent, but more recently Heggerty and Renfrew (2014) noted that “McAlpin’s analysis of the language data, and thus his claims, remain far from orthodoxy”, adding that Fuller finds no relation of Dravidian language with other languages, and thus assumes it to be native to India. Renfrew and Bahn conclude that several scenarios are compatible with the data, and that “the linguistic jury is still very much out.” ref

Indus Valley Civilisation

Main article: Indus Valley Civilisation

“Shinde et al. (2019) and Narasimhan et al. (2019), analyzing remains from the Indus Valley civilization (of parts of Bronze Age Northwest India and East Pakistan) and “outliers” from surrounding cultures, conclude that the IVC-population was a mixture people related to Iranian herders and AASI:

The only fitting two-way models were mixtures of a group related to herders from the western Zagros mountains of Iran and also to either Andamanese hunter-gatherers or East Siberian hunter-gatherers (the fact that the latter two populations both fit reflects that they have the same phylogenetic relationship to the non-West Eurasian-related component likely due to shared ancestry deeply in time)” ref

“According to Shinde et al. (2019) about 50–98% of the IVC-genome came from people related to early Iranian farmers, and from 2–50% of the IVC-genome came from native South Asian hunter-gatherers sharing a common ancestry with the Andamanese. Narasimhan et al. (2019) found the IVC-genome to consist of 45–82% Iranian farmer-related ancestry and 11–50% AASI (Andamanese-related hunter-gatherer) ancestry. Narasimhan et al. (2019) conclude that the Iranian farmer-related ancestry is related to but distinct from Iranian agri-culturalists, lacking the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry which was common in Iranian farmers after 6000 BCE.” ref

“Those Iranian farmers-related people may have arrived in India before the advent of farming in northern India, and mixed with people related to Indian hunter-gatherers c. 5400 to 3700 BCE, before the advent of the mature IVC. The analyzed samples of both studies have little to none of the “Steppe ancestry” component associated with later Indo-European migrations into India. The authors found that the respective amounts of those ancestries varied significantly between individuals, and concluded that more samples are needed to get the full picture of Indian population history.” ref

Indo-Aryans

Main articles: Indo-Aryan peoples and Indo-Aryan migration theory § genetics

“The Proto-Indo-Iranians, from which the Indo-Aryans developed, are identified with the Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BCE), and the Andronovo culture, which flourished c. 1800–1400 BCE in the steppes around the Aral sea, present-day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. The proto-Indo-Iranians were influenced by the Bactria-Margiana culture, south of the Andronovo culture, from which they borrowed their distinctive religious beliefs and practices. The Indo-Aryans split off around 1800–1600 BCE from the Iranians, whereafter the Indo-Aryans migrated into the Levant and north-western India and possibly Inner Asia. Lazaridis et al. (2016) notes that the demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial and forms a major component in northern India. Lazaridis et al.’s 2016 study estimates 6.5–50.2% steppe related admixture in all modern South Asians with higher caste and Indo-Aryan speaking groups having more steppe admixture than others.” ref

Indo-Iranian languages

“The Indo-Iranian peoples, also known as Ā́rya or Aryans from their self-designation, were a group of Indo-European speaking peoples who brought the Indo-Iranian languages to major parts of Eurasia in waves from the first part of the 2nd millennium BCE onwards. They eventually branched out into the Iranian peoples and Indo-Aryan peoples. The term Aryan has long been used to denote the Indo-Iranians, because Ā́rya was the self-designation of the ancient speakers of the Indo-Iranian languages, specifically the Iranian and the Indo-Aryan peoples, collectively known as the Indo-Iranians.” ref

“The Indo-Iranian languages (also known as Indo-Iranic languages or collectively the Aryan languages) constitute the largest and southeasternmost extant branch of the Indo-European language family. They include over 300 languages, spoken by around 1.5 billion speakers, predominantly in South Asia, West Asia and parts of Central Asia. The areas with Indo-Iranian languages stretch from Europe (Romani) and the Caucasus (Ossetian, Tat and Talysh), down to Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia (Kurdish languages, Gorani, Kurmanji Dialect continuum, Zaza), the Levant (Domari) and Iran (Persian), eastward to Xinjiang (Sarikoli) and Assam (Assamese), and south to Sri Lanka (Sinhala) and the Maldives (Maldivian), with branches stretching as far out as Oceania and the Caribbean for Fiji Hindi and Caribbean Hindustani respectively.” ref

“The term Indo-Iranian languages refers to the spectrum of Indo-European languages spoken in the Southern Asian region of Eurasia, spanning from the Indian subcontinent (where the Indic branch is spoken, also called Indo-Aryan) up to the Iranian Plateau (where the Iranic branch is spoken). This branch is also known as Aryan languages, referring to the languages spoken by Aryan peoples, where the term Aryan is the ethnocultural self-designation of ancient Indo-Iranians. But in modern-day, Western scholars avoid the term Aryan since World War II, owing to the perceived negative connotation associated with Aryanism. ” ref

“Historically, the Indo-Iranian speakers, both Iranians and Indo-Aryans, originally referred to themselves as the Aryans. The Proto-Indo-Iranian-speakers are generally associated with the Sintashta culture, which is thought to represent an eastward migration of peoples from the Corded Ware culture, which, in turn, is believed to represent the westward migration of Yamnaya-related people from the Pontic–Caspian steppe zone into the territory of late Neolithic European cultures. However, the exact genetic relationship between the Yamnaya culture, Corded Ware culture and Sinthasta culture remains unclear. ” ref

“The earliest known chariots have been found in Sintashta burials, and the culture is considered a strong candidate for the origin of the technology, which spread throughout the Old World and played an important role in ancient warfare. There is almost a general consensus among scholars that the Andronovo culture, the successor of Sintasha culture, was an Indo-Iranian culture. Currently, only two sub-cultures are considered as part of Andronovo culture: Alakul and Fëdorovo cultures. The Andronovo culture is considered as an “Indo-Iranic dialect continuum”, with a later split between Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages. ” ref

“However, according to Hiebert, an expansion of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) into Iran and the margin of the Indus Valley is “the best candidate for an archaeological correlate of the introduction of Indo-Iranian speakers to Iran and South Asia”, despite the absence of the characteristic timber graves of the steppe in the Near East, or south of the region between Kopet Dag and Pamir–Karakorum. J. P. Mallory acknowledges the difficulties of making a case for expansions from Andronovo to northern India, and that attempts to link the Indo-Aryans to such sites as the Beshkent and Vakhsh cultures “only gets the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans”. He has developed the Kulturkugel (lit. ’the culture bullet’) model that has the Indo-Iranians taking over cultural traits of BMAC, but preserving their language and religion while moving into Iran and India.” ref

“The Proto-Indo-Iranians are commonly identified with the descendants of the Indo-Europeans known as the Sintashta culture and the subsequent Andronovo culture within the broader Andronovo horizon, and their homeland with an area of the Eurasian steppe that borders the Ural River on the west, the Tian Shan on the east (where the Indo-Iranians took over the area occupied by the earlier Afanasevo culture), and Transoxiana and the Hindu Kush on the south.” ref

“Based on its use by Indo-Aryans in Mitanni and Vedic India, its prior absence in the Near East and Harappan India, and its 19th–20th century BCE attestation at the Andronovo site of Sintashta, Kuzmina (1994) argues that the chariot corroborates the identification of Andronovo as Indo-Iranian. Anthony & Vinogradov (1995) dated a chariot burial at Krivoye Lake to about 2000 BC, and a Bactria-Margiana burial that also contains a foal has recently been found, indicating further links with the steppes.” ref

“Historical linguists broadly estimate that a continuum of Indo-Iranian languages probably began to diverge by 2000 BCE, preceding both the Vedic and Iranian cultures which emerged later. The earliest recorded forms of these languages, Vedic Sanskrit and Gathic Avestan, are remarkably similar, descended from the common Proto-Indo-Iranian language. The origin and earliest relationship between the Nuristani languages and that of the Iranian and Indo-Aryan groups is not completely clear.” ref

“Two-wave models of Indo-Iranian expansion have been proposed by Burrow (1973) and Parpola (1999). The Indo-Iranians and their expansion are strongly associated with the Proto-Indo-European invention of the chariot. It is assumed that this expansion spread from the Proto-Indo-European homeland north of the Caspian Sea south to the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Iranian plateau, and the Indian subcontinent.” ref

“The Mitanni, a people known in eastern Anatolia from about 1500 BCE, were of possibly of mixed origins: An indigenous non Indo-European Hurrian-speaking majority was supposedly dominated by a non-Anatolian, Indo-Aryan elite. There is linguistic evidence for such a superstrate, in the form of:

a horse training manual written by a Mitanni man named Kikkuli, which was translated into the Hittite language
the names of Mitanni rulers and;
the names of gods invoked by these rulers in treaties.” ref

“In particular, Kikkuli’s text includes words such as aika “one” (i.e. a cognate of the Indo-Aryan eka), tera “three” (tri), panza “five” (pancha), satta “seven”, (sapta), na “nine” (nava), and vartana “turn around”, in the context of a horse race (Indo-Aryan vartana). In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, the Ashvin deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya are invoked. These loanwords tend to connect the Mitanni superstrate to Indo-Aryan rather than Iranian languages – i.e. the early Iranian word for “one” was aiva.” ref

Indian subcontinent – Vedic culture

“The standard model for the entry of the Indo-European languages into the Indian subcontinent is that this first wave went over the Hindu Kush, either into the headwaters of the Indus and later the Ganges. The earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit, preserved only in the Rigveda, is assigned to roughly 1500 BCE. From the Indus, the Indo-Aryan languages spread from c. 1500 BCE – c. 500 BCE, over the northern and central parts of the subcontinent, sparing the extreme south. The Indo-Aryans in these areas established several powerful kingdoms and principalities in the region, from south eastern Afghanistan to the doorstep of Bengal. The most powerful of these kingdoms were the post-Rigvedic Kuru (in Kurukshetra and the Delhi area) and their allies the Pañcālas further east, as well as Gandhara and later on, about the time of the Buddha, the kingdom of Kosala and the quickly expanding realm of Magadha.” ref

“The latter lasted until the 4th century BCE, when it was conquered by Chandragupta Maurya and formed the center of the Maurya Empire. In eastern Afghanistan and some western regions of Pakistan, Indo-Aryan languages were eventually replaced by Eastern Iranian languages. Most Indo-Aryan languages, however, were and still are prominent in the rest of the Indian subcontinent. Today, Indo-Aryan languages are spoken in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Suriname and the Maldives.” ref

Second wave – Iranians

See also: Arya (Iran)

“The second wave is interpreted as the Iranian wave. The first Iranians to reach the Black Sea ‘may’ have been the Cimmerians in the 8th century BC, although their linguistic affiliation to Iranians is uncertain. They were followed by the Scythians, who are considered a western branch of the Central Asian Sakas. Sarmatian tribes, of whom the best known are the Roxolani (Rhoxolani), Iazyges (Jazyges) and the Alani (Alans), followed the Scythians westwards into Europe in the late centuries BC and the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (The Age of Migrations). The populous Sarmatian tribe of the Massagetae, dwelling near the Caspian Sea, were known to the early rulers of Persia in the Achaemenid Period. At their greatest reported extent, around 1st century AD, the Sarmatian tribes ranged from the Vistula River to the mouth of the Danube and eastward to the Volga, bordering the shores of the Black and Caspian seas as well as the Caucasus to the south. In the east, the Saka occupied several areas in Xinjiang, from Khotan to Tumshuq.” ref

“The Medians, Persians and Parthians begin to appear on the Iranian plateau from c. 800 BCE, and the Achaemenids replaced the language isolate speaking Elamites rule over the region from 559 BCE, although the Iranic peoples were largely subject to the Semitic speaking Assyrian Empire until the 6th century BCE. Around the first millennium CE, Iranian groups began to settle on the eastern edge of the Iranian plateau, on the mountainous frontier of northwestern and western Indian subcontinent, displacing the earlier Indo-Aryans from the area.” ref

“In Eastern Europe, the Iranians were eventually decisively assimilated (e.g. Slavicisation) and absorbed by the Proto-Slavic population of the region, while in Central Asia, the Turkic languages marginalized the Iranian languages as a result of the Turkic expansion of the early centuries AD. Extant major Iranian languages are Persian, Pashto, Kurdish, and Balochi besides numerous smaller ones. Ossetian, primarily spoken in North Ossetia and South Ossetia, is a direct descendant of Alanic, and by that the only surviving Sarmatian language of the once wide-ranging East Iranian dialect continuum that stretched from Eastern Europe to the eastern parts of Central Asia.” ref

“Archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranian expansion include:

Europe

Poltavka culture (2500–2100 BCE)
Abashevo culture (2300–1850 BCE)
Srubna culture (1850–1450 BCE)

Central Asia

Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim (2050–1750 BCE)
Andronovo horizon (2000–1450 BCE)

Alakul (2100–1400 BCE)
Fedorovo (1400–1200 BCE)
Alekseyevka (1200–1000 BCE)

Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (2200–1700 BCE)
Yaz culture (1500–1100 BCE)

Indian subcontinent

Ochre Coloured Pottery culture (2000–1500 BCE)
Cemetery H culture (1900–1300 BCE)
Swat culture (1400–800 BCE)
Painted Gray Ware culture (1200–600 BCE)

Iranian Plateau

Early West Iranian Grey Ware (1500–1000 BCE)
Late West Iranian Buff Ware (900–700 BCE).” ref

“Despite the introduction of later Vedic and Zoroastrian scriptures, Indo-Iranians shared a common inheritance of concepts including the universal force *Hṛta- (Sanskrit rta, Avestan asha), the sacred plant and drink *sawHma- (Sanskrit Soma, Avestan Haoma) and gods of social order such as *mitra– (Sanskrit Mitra, Avestan and Old Persian Mithra, Miθra) and *bʰaga- (Sanskrit Bhaga, Avestan and Old Persian Baga). Proto-Indo-Iranian religion is an archaic offshoot of Indo-European religion. From the various and dispersed Indo-Iranian cultures, a set of common ideas may be reconstructed from which a common, unattested proto-Indo-Iranian source may be deduced.” ref

“The pre-Islamic religion of the Nuristani people and extant religion of the Kalash people is significantly influenced by the original religion of the Indo-Iranians, infused with accretions developed locally. Michael Witzel theorises that these religions might share some elements with Shinto, one of the national religions of Japan, which according to him may contain some Indo-Iranian influence owing to contact presumably in the steppes of Central Asia at around 2000 BCE. In Shinto, traces of these can be seen in the myth of the storm god Susanoo slaying a serpent Yamata-no-Orochi and in the myth of the dawn goddess Ame-no-Uzume. Most Indo-Iranians today follow Abrahamic and Indian religions.” ref

“Some beliefs developed in different ways as cultures separated and evolved. For example, the word ‘daeva,’ which appears in the Avesta, also bears a linguistic relationship to the Sanskrit word ‘deva,’ referring to one of the principal classes of gods, as well as other related words throughout the Indo-European traditions. Indeed, Indra, the greatest of the devas from Vedic literature, is often listed in Zoroastrian texts as one of the greatest of the evil forces, sometimes second only to Angra Mainyu himself. In the traditional Zoroastrian confession of faith as recorded in the Avesta, the rejection of the daevas is one of the most significant qualifiers for a follower of the tradition, alongside worshipping Ahura Mazda and following the teachings of Zarathustra.” ref

“Similarly, the parallels between the malevolent Vedic Asuras and benevolent Zoroastrian Ahuras are particularly obvious and striking.Varuna, the most powerful of the Asuras, does not directly correspond to Ahura Mazda but shares several traits in common with him, particularly in terms of his role as king among the lesser gods and arbiter of law and morality among mortals. Even as Ahura Mazda rules by and upholds asha, the cosmic moral order, in the Avesta, so too do Varuna and the Asuras uphold the analogous concept of rta in the Vedas.” ref

“The Rig-Vedic Sarasvati is linguistically and functionally cognate with Avestan *Haraxvaitī Ārəduuī Sūrā Anāhitā. Both are described as world rivers. Vedic Saraswati is described as “Best of Mothers, Best of Rivers, Best of Goddesses”. Similarly, in early portions of the Avesta, Iranian *Harahvati is the world-river that flows down from the mythical central Mount Hara. She is blocked by an obstacle (Avestan for obstacle: vərəθra) placed there by Angra Mainyu.” ref

Genetics

“R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) is the sub-clade most commonly associated with Indo-European populations. Most discussions purportedly of R1a origins are actually about the origins of the dominant R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) sub-clade. R1a1a is found in two major variations: Z93 and Z282. R-Z93 appears to encompass most of the R1a1a found in Asia, being related to Indo-Iranians. On the other hand, R-Z282 is the main European branch of R1a1a predominantly related to Balts and Slavs in Eastern Europe. Data so far collected indicates high frequency of R-Z93 in the northern Indian Subcontinent, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan: Bengali Brahmins carry up to 72% R1a1a, Mohana tribe up to 71%, Nepal Hindus up to 69.20%,and Tajiks up to 68%. In the western part of Iran, Iranians show low R1a1a levels, while males of eastern parts of Iran carry up to 35% R1a1a. The historical and prehistoric possible reasons for this are the subject of on-going discussion and attention amongst population geneticists and genetic genealogists, and are considered to be of potential interest to linguists and archaeologists also.” ref

“Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one C-M130 haplogroup (xC3). mtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b. A 2004 study also established that during the Bronze Age/Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during the Bronze Age), was of west Eurasian maternal lineages (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the 13th–7th century BCE, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages.” ref

“A 2022 study found that modern individuals from Southern Central Asia, especially Tajiks and Yaghnobis, display strong genetic continuity towards Iron Age Indo-Iranians, and were only marginally affected by outside geneflow, while modern Turkic peoples derive significant amounts of ancestry from a ‘Baikal hunter-gatherer’ source (mean average ~50%), with the remainder being ancestry maximized in Tajik people. Historical Indo-Iranians showed high genetic affinity towards European hunter-gatherers and Iranian Neolithic farmers.” ref

Post-IVC: ANI and ASI ancestral components in the Indian population

“A series of studies from 2009 to 2019 have shown that the Indian subcontinent harbors two major ancestral components, formed in the 2nd millennium BCE, namely the Ancestral North Indians (ANI), which is closely related to contemporary West-Eurasians, and the Ancestral South Indians (ASI) which is distinct from any outside population. ANI formed out of a mixture of IVC-people and migrants from the steppe, while ASI was formed out of IVC-people who moved south and mixed further with local hunter-gatherers.” ref

“These IVC-people did not carry steppe admixture and were instead a mixture of mostly Neolithic Iran-related ancestry and minor AASI (native South Asian hunter-gatherer) ancestry. According to Narasimhan et al. 2019, the genetic makeup of the ASI population consisted of about 73% AASI and about 27% from Iranian-related peoples. This estimate is similar to that of Reich et al., who in 2018 note that the ASI have a West-Eurasian ancestry component (derived from Iranian-related farmers) which Reich estimates at about 25% of their ancestry (not detected in his initial 2009 analysis), with the remaining 75% of the ancestry of the ASI deriving from native South Asian hunter-gatherers.” ref

“ANI formed out of a mixture of IVC-people and migrants from Bronze age steppe. Lazaridis et al. (2016) notes that the demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial. According to the results, the Mala, a south Indian Dalit population with minimal Ancestral North Indian (ANI) along the ‘Indian Cline’ have nevertheless c. 18% steppe-related ancestry, showing the strong influence of ANI ancestry in all populations of India. The Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have c. 50% steppe-related ancestry, with the rest being of Iranian farmers ancestry. Reich et al. stated that “ANI ancestry ranges from 39–71% in India, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-Aryan speakers.” ref

Austroasiatic

“According to Ness, there are three broad theories on the origins of the Austroasiatic speakers, namely northeastern India, central or southern China, or southeast Asia. Multiple researches indicate that the Austroasiatic populations in Central India are derived from (mostly male dominated) migrations from southeast Asia during the Holocene. According to Van Driem (2007),

the mitochondrial picture indicates that the Munda maternal lineage derives from the earliest human settlers on the Subcontinent, whilst the predominant Y chromosome haplogroup argues for a Southeast Asian paternal homeland for Austroasiatic language communities in India.” ref

“According to Chaubey et al. (2011), “AA speakers in India today are derived from dispersal from Southeast Asia, followed by extensive sex-specific admixture with local Indian populations.” According to Zhang et al. (2015), Austroasiatic (male) migrations from southeast Asia into India took place after the latest Glacial maximum, circa 4000 years ago. According to Arunkumar et al. (2015), Y-chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95, which is typical for Austroasiatic speaking peoples, clearly decreases from Laos to east India, with “a serial decrease in expansion time from east to west”, namely “5.7 ± 0.3 Kya in Laos, 5.2 ± 0.6 in Northeast India, and 4.3 ± 0.2 in East India”. This suggests “a late Neolithic east to west spread of the lineage O2a1-M95 from Laos.” ref

According to Riccio et al. (2011), the Munda people are likely descended from Austroasiatic migrants from southeast Asia. According to Ness, the Khasi probably migrated into India in the first millennium BCE. According to a genetic research (2015) including linguistic analyses, suggests an East Asian origin for proto-Austroasiatic groups, which first migrated to Southeast Asia and later into India.” ref

Sino-Tibetan

Main article: Sino-Tibetan

“According to Cordaux et al. (2004), the Sino-Tibetan possibly came from the Himalayan and north-eastern borders of the subcontinent within the past 4,200 years. The ancient people, who lived in the upper-middle Yellow River basin about 10,000 years ago and developed one of the earliest Neolithic cultures in East Asia, were the ancestors of modern Sino-Tibetan populations. Haplogroup O2-M122 is primarily found among males of Sino-Tibetan ancestry in the Himalayas and Northeast India and which is generally absent among other linguistic families other than Northeast India. O-M134, a subclade of O-M122, has a high percentage, 86.6%, among Tamangs of Nepal, with similar frequencies, ~85%, among the northeastern Indian Tibeto-Burman groups, including Adi, Naga, Apatani, and Nyishi. In Assam, Tibeto-Burman expansion throughout Brahmaputra Valley associated with the patrilinial lineage of O-M134 which occurs at a high frequency of 85% in Kachari (Boro Kachari) peoples and 76.5% in Rabha peoples.” ref

“It has a significant presence among the Khasis (29%), despite being generally absent in other Austroasiatics of India, and it shows up at 55% among the neighbouring Garos, a Tibeto-Burmun group. A wide variety of Sino-Tibetan languages are spoken on the southern slopes of the Himalayas. Sizable groups that have been identified are the West Himalayish languages of Himachal Pradesh and western Nepal, the Tamangic languages of western Nepal, including Tamang with one million speakers, and the Kiranti languages of eastern Nepal. The remaining groups are small, with several isolates.” ref

“The Newar language (Nepal Bhasa) of central Nepal has a million speakers and a literature dating from the 12th century, and nearly a million people speak Magaric languages, but the rest have small speech communities. Other isolates and small groups in Nepal are Dura, Raji–Raute, Chepangic, and Dhimalish. Lepcha is spoken in an area from eastern Nepal to western Bhutan. Most of the languages of Bhutan are Bodish, but it also has three small isolates, ‘Ole (“Black Mountain Monpa”), Lhokpu and Gongduk, and a larger community of speakers of Tshangla.” ref

“In the politically sensitive study, India looks to DNA to track ancient migrations. Hindu nationalists have resisted findings that migrants from the European Steppe played a key role in the nation’s history. A century ago, archaeologists uncovered a sophisticated Bronze Age civilization that thrived some 5000 to 3500 years ago along the Indus River in what is today India and Pakistan. The finds, including extensive fortified cities and stunning artifacts, helped rewrite the region’s history.” ref

“Now, geneticists in India are hoping to use DNA extracted from more than 300 human bones and bone fragments found during those digs to shed new light on the origins of India’s people. The project, first reported by Indian media last month, has “enormous value and potential” to provide more insight into ancient ancestries and migrations in the region, says geneticist Partha Majumder, founder of India’s National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, who is not involved in the study. But the project could also fuel—or possibly settle—a politically sensitive debate. For years, Hindu nationalists aligned with India’s current government have been reluctant to accept research findings that indicate ancient migrants from the Eurasian Steppe, which stretches from China to central Europe, played a key role in the development of Indian society.” ref

“The DNA study is being undertaken by the Anthropological Survey of India (ASI), a 70-year-old institute under the Ministry of Culture, which holds custody of biological remains from the colonial-era digs. ASI is collaborating with the government-funded Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences, one of two labs in India equipped to isolate ancient DNA (aDNA) from bones and other tissues.” ref

“Most of the skeletal remains come from digs carried out from the 1920s to the late 1950s at Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, and other ancient settlements of the Indus Valley, according to ASI Director BV Sharma. By comparing aDNA extracted from the bones with DNA sequences from modern people, “we hope to generate more insights on history of Indian populations as well as information on diets, living environment, and disease,” he told Science. Although researchers already know much about the origins of India’s populations, “there are gaps in the timeline that need to be filled,” says Gyaneshwer Chaubey, a population geneticist at Banaras Hindu University who is involved in the project. For instance, he says, scientists know little about the people who cultivated rice along the Ganges River thousands of years ago.” ref

“Researchers hope to complete their analyses by the end of 2025, but extracting aDNA from the bones could prove a challenge. DNA degrades faster in tropical climates, Sharma noted, and past practices for excavating and handling bones may have worsened the problem. “But with today’s advanced technology, we might be able to get something more out of it,” he says. “Even if 10% or 20% of the old DNA samples can be isolated and analyzed, it will be useful,” says K Thangaraj, a senior scientist at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology who is not involved in the study.” ref

“Other researchers welcome the effort. They note that South Asia has one of the world’s most diverse populations but is underrepresented in genomic studies. Much of the current understanding of the structure and ancestry of India’s population comes from studying DNA taken from living people, Majumder says, and if those modern data “can be corroborated or validated by older DNA samples, that will be valuable.” The aDNA could be especially important for understanding the evolution of human diseases in the region, Thangaraj says. For instance, he notes Indian populations are prone to recessive or rare diseases because of high levels of endogamy (the practice of marrying within clans) and ancient genomics could shed light on the origin of those diseases.” ref

“What the DNA says about the origins of the Indian people, however, could be politically loaded. Some of the bones may date to a period 3800 to 3500 years ago, around the time that Yamnaya pastoralists from the steppes, once called Aryans, are thought to have migrated to India. Historians believe Sanskrit, a classical language of the region, originated with these immigrants. Many Hindu nationalists, however, downplay or reject this scenario, in part because of its lingering association with colonial narratives about a race of fair-skinned Aryans conquering the region. (In fact, the Yamnaya were nomadic herders who likely arrived in small waves, experts say.) Instead, they argue for a reverse sequence: that Aryans were indigenous to India, and eventually carried their language and culture to Central Asia and Europe.” ref

“Most academics don’t support this view, but it remains popular among some Hindu nationalist supporters of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party as well some Indian media. In 2019, for example, many Indian journalists reported that a study of aDNA from a 4500-year-old skeleton of a woman who lived in the Indus Valley proved there had been no “Aryan migration,” because she carried no steppe ancestry. In fact, the study only supported other evidence that the steppe migration occurred later. In April, however, India’s government tweaked a widely used grade 12 history textbook to present the study as undermining the steppe migration scenario. It is likely that the new study will only “refine” the mainstream scientific understanding, not overthrow it, Chaubey says. And he doubts any genetic findings will end the political claims. “Scientists are not confused,” he says. “Politicians are.” ref

Dravidian Peoples

“The Dravidian peoples, Dravidian-speakers or Dravidians, are a collection of ethnolinguistic groups native to South Asia who speak Dravidian languages. There are around 250 million native speakers of Dravidian languages. Dravidian speakers form the majority of the population of South India and are natively found in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka. Dravidian peoples are also present in Singapore, Mauritius, Malaysia, France, South Africa, Myanmar, East Africa, the Caribbean, and the United Arab Emirates through recent migration.” ref

“Proto-Dravidian may have been spoken in the Indus civilization, suggesting a “tentative date of Proto-Dravidian around the early part of the third millennium BCE,” after which it branched into various Dravidian languages. South Dravidian I (including pre-Tamil) and South Dravidian II (including pre-Telugu) split around the eleventh century BCE, with the other major branches splitting off at around the same time. The third century BCE onwards saw the development of many great empires in South India like Pandya, Chola, Chera, Pallava, Satavahana, Chalukya, Kakatiya and Rashtrakuta.” ref

“Medieval South Indian guilds and trading organizations like the “Ayyavole of Karnataka and Manigramam” played an important role in the Southeast Asia trade, and the cultural Indianisation of the region. Dravidian visual art is dominated by stylized temple architecture in major centers, and the production of images on stone and bronze sculptures. The sculpture dating from the Chola period has become notable as a symbol of Hinduism. The Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple located in Indian state of Tamil Nadu is often considered as the largest functioning Hindu temple in the world. The temple is built in Dravidian style and occupies an area of 156 acres (631,000 m²).” ref

“The origin of the Sanskrit word drāviḍa is Tamil. In Prakrit, words such as “Damela”, “Dameda”, “Dhamila” and “Damila”, which later evolved from “Tamila”, could have been used to denote an ethnic identity. In the Sanskrit tradition, the word drāviḍa was also used to denote the geographical region of South India. Epigraphic evidence of an ethnic group termed as such is found in ancient India and Sri Lanka where a number of inscriptions have come to light datable from the 2nd century BCE mentioning Damela or Dameda persons. The Hathigumpha inscription of the Kalinga ruler Kharavela refers to a T(ra)mira samghata (Confederacy of Tamil rulers) dated to 150 BCE. It also mentions that the league of Tamil kingdoms had been in existence for 113 years by that time.” ref

“In Amaravati in present-day Andhra Pradesh there is an inscription referring to a Dhamila-vaniya (Tamil trader) datable to the 3rd century CE. Another inscription of about the same time in Nagarjunakonda seems to refer to a Damila. A third inscription in Kanheri Caves refers to a Dhamila-gharini (Tamil house-holder). In the Buddhist Jataka story known as Akiti Jataka there is a mention to Damila-rattha (Tamil dynasty). While the English word Dravidian was first employed by Robert Caldwell in his book of comparative Dravidian grammar based on the usage of the Sanskrit word drāviḍa in the work Tantravārttika by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, the word drāviḍa in Sanskrit has been historically used to denote geographical regions of southern India as whole. Some theories concern the direction of derivation between tamiḻ and drāviḍa; such linguists as Zvelebil assert that the direction is from tamiḻ to drāviḍa.” ref

Ethnic groups

“The largest Dravidian ethnic groups are the Telugus from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the Tamils from Tamil Nadu, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Singapore, the Kannadigas from Karnataka, the Malayalis from Kerala, and the Tulu people from Karnataka.” ref

“The Dravidian language family is one of the oldest in the world. Six languages are currently recognized by India as Classical languages and four of them are Dravidian languages Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam. The most commonly spoken Dravidian languages are Telugu (తెలుగు), Tamil (தமிழ்), Kannada (ಕನ್ನಡ), Malayalam (മലയാളം), Brahui (براہوئی), Tulu (തുളു), Gondi and Coorg. There are three subgroups within the Dravidian language family: North Dravidian, Central Dravidian, and South Dravidian, matching for the most part the corresponding regions in the Indian subcontinent.” ref

“Dravidian grammatical impact on the structure and syntax of Indo-Aryan languages is considered far greater than the Indo-Aryan grammatical impact on Dravidian. Some linguists explain this anomaly by arguing that Middle Indo-Aryan and New Indo-Aryan were built on a Dravidian substratum. There are also hundreds of Dravidian loanwords in Indo-Aryan languages, and vice versa. According to David McAlpin and his Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, the Dravidian languages were brought to India by immigration into India from Elam (not to be confused with Eelam), located in present-day southwestern Iran.” ref

“In the 1990s, Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza have also argued that Proto-Dravidian was brought to India by farmers from the Iranian part of the Fertile Crescent, but more recently Heggerty and Renfrew noted that “McAlpin’s analysis of the language data, and thus his claims, remain far from orthodoxy”, adding that Fuller finds no relation of Dravidian language with other languages, and thus assumes it to be native to India. Renfrew and Bahn conclude that several scenarios are compatible with the data, and that “the linguistic jury is still very much out.” ref

“As a proto-language, the Proto-Dravidian language is not itself attested in the historical record. Its modern conception is based solely on reconstruction. It is suggested that the language was spoken in the 4th millennium BCE, and started disintegrating into various branches around 3rd millennium BCE. According to Krishnamurti, Proto-Dravidian may have been spoken in the Indus civilisation, suggesting a “tentative date of Proto-Dravidian around the early part of the third millennium.” Krishnamurti further states that South Dravidian I (including pre-Tamil) and South Dravidian II (including pre-Telugu) split around the eleventh century BCE, with the other major branches splitting off at around the same time.” ref

“The origins of the Dravidians are a “very complex subject of research and debate.” They are regarded as indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, but may have deeper pre-Neolithic roots from Western Asia, specifically from the Iranian plateau. Their origins are often viewed as being connected with the Indus Valley civilisation, hence people and language spread east and southwards after the demise of the Indus Valley Civilisation in the early second millennium BCE, some propose not long before the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers, with whom they intensively interacted. Though some scholars have argued that the Dravidian languages may have been brought to India by migrations from the Iranian plateau in the fourth or third millennium BCE or even earlier, reconstructed proto-Dravidian vocabulary suggests that the family is indigenous to India.

“Genetically, the ancient Indus Valley people were composed of a primarily Iranian hunter-gatherers (or farmers) ancestry, with varying degrees of ancestry from local hunter-gatherer groups. The modern-day Dravidian-speakers display a similar genetic makeup, but also carry a small portion of Western Steppe Herder ancestry and may also have additional contributions from local hunter-gatherer groups. Although in modern times speakers of various Dravidian languages have mainly occupied the southern portion of India, Dravidian speakers must have been widespread throughout the Indian subcontinent before the Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent.” ref

“According to Horen Tudu, “many academic researchers have attempted to connect the Dravidians with the remnants of the great Indus Valley civilisation, located in Northwestern India… but [i]t is mere speculation that the Dravidians are the ensuing post–Indus Valley settlement of refugees into South and Central India.” The most noteworthy scholar making such claims is Asko Parpola, who did extensive research on the IVC-scripts. The Brahui population of Balochistan in Pakistan has been taken by some as the linguistic equivalent of a relict population, perhaps indicating that Dravidian languages were formerly much more widespread and were supplanted by the incoming Indo-Aryan languages.” ref

“Asko Parpola, who regards the Harappans to have been Dravidian, notes that Mehrgarh (7000–2500 BCE), to the west of the Indus River valley, is a precursor of the Indus Valley Civilisation, whose inhabitants migrated into the Indus Valley and became the Indus Valley Civilisation. It is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming and herding in South Asia. According to Lukacs and Hemphill, while there is a strong continuity between the neolithic and chalcolithic (Copper Age) cultures of Mehrgarh, dental evidence shows that the chalcolithic population did not descend from the neolithic population of Mehrgarh, which “suggests moderate levels of gene flow.” They further noted that “the direct lineal descendants of the Neolithic inhabitants of Mehrgarh are to be found to the south and the east of Mehrgarh, in northwestern India and the western edge of the Deccan plateau,” with neolithic Mehrgarh showing greater affinity with chalocolithic Inamgaon, south of Mehrgarh, than with chalcolithic Mehrgarh.” ref

Dravidian languages

“The Dravidian languages (sometimes called Dravidic) are a family of languages spoken by 250 million people, mainly in South India, north-east Sri Lanka, and south-west Pakistan, with pockets elsewhere in South Asia. Dravidian is first attested in the 2nd century BCE, as inscriptions in Tamil-Brahmi script on cave walls in the Madurai and Tirunelveli districts of Tamil Nadu. The Dravidian languages with the most speakers are (in descending order of number of speakers) Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and Malayalam, all of which have long literary traditions. Smaller literary languages are Tulu and Kodava.” ref

“Together with several smaller languages such as Gondi, these languages cover the southern part of India and the northeast of Sri Lanka, and account for the overwhelming majority of speakers of Dravidian languages. Malto and Kurukh are spoken in isolated pockets in eastern India. Kurukh is also spoken in parts of Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. Brahui is mostly spoken in the Balochistan region of Pakistan, Iranian Balochistan, Afghanistan, and around the Marw oasis in Turkmenistan. During the colonial period in India, Dravidian speakers were exploited by the colonial empires and sent as indentured servants to Southeast Asia, Mauritius, South Africa, Fiji, and the Caribbean to work on plantations, and to East Africa to work on British railroads. There are more-recent Dravidian-speaking diaspora communities in the Middle East, Europe, North America, and Oceania.” ref

The reconstructed proto-language of the family is known as proto-Dravidian. Dravidian place names along the Arabian Sea coast and clear signs of Dravidian phonological and grammatical influence (e.g. retroflex consonants and clusivity) in the Indo-Aryan languages suggest that Dravidian languages were spoken more widely across the Indian subcontinent before the spread of the Indo-Aryan languages. Though some scholars have argued that the Dravidian languages may have been brought to India by migrations from the Iranian plateau in the fourth or third millennium BCE, or even earlier, the reconstructed vocabulary of proto-Dravidian suggests that the family is indigenous to India. Despite many attempts, the family has not been shown to be related to any other.” ref

“Dravidian languages are mostly located in the southern and central parts of south Asia with two main outliers, Brahui having speakers in Balochistan and as far north are Merv, Turkmenistan, and Kurukh to the east in Jharkhand and as far northeast as Bhutan, Nepal, and Assam. Historically, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Sindh also had Dravidian-speaking populations from the evidence of place names (like -v(a)li, -koṭ from Dravidian paḷḷi, kōṭṭai), grammatical features in Marathi, Gujarati, and Sindhi and Dravidian like kinship systems in southern Indo–Aryan languages. Proto-Dravidian could have been spoken in a wider area, perhaps into Central India or the western Deccan which may have had other forms of early Dravidian/pre-Proto-Dravidian or other branches of Dravidian which are currently unknown.” ref

“Since 1981, the Census of India has reported only languages with more than 10,000 speakers, including 17 Dravidian languages. In 1981, these accounted for approximately 24% of India’s population. In the 2001 census, they included 214 million people, about 21% of India’s total population of 1.02 billion. In addition, the largest Dravidian-speaking group outside India, Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka, number around 4.7 million. The total number of speakers of Dravidian languages is around 227 million people, around 13% of the population of the Indian subcontinent.” ref

“The largest group of the Dravidian languages is South Dravidian, with almost 150 million speakers. Tamil, Kannada, and Malayalam make up around 98% of the speakers, with 75 million, 44 million, and 37 million native speakers, respectively. The next-largest is the South-Central branch, which has 78 million native speakers, the vast majority of whom speak Telugu. The total number of speakers of Telugu, including those whose first language is not Telugu, is around 85 million people. This branch also includes the tribal language Gondi spoken in central India. The second-smallest branch is the Northern branch, with around 6.3 million speakers. This is the only sub-group to have a language spoken in Pakistan – Brahui. The smallest branch is the Central branch, which has only around 200,000 speakers. These languages are mostly tribal, and spoken in central India.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

24,000 Years Old Proto-North Eurasian Language (Ancient North Eurasian) migrations? Became: Proto-Afroasiatic, Proto-Sino-Tibetan, Proto-Transeurasian, Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Yeniseian, Proto-Na-Dene, Proto-Caucasian, Sumerian, Proto-Austronesian, and the Basque language

This art above explains my thinking from my life of investigation

I am an anarchist (Social anarchism, Left-wing anarchism, or Socialist anarchism) trying to explain prehistory as I see it after studying it on my own starting 2006. Anarchists are for truth and believe in teaching the plain truth; misinformation is against this, and we would and should fight misinformation and disinformation.

I see anarchism as a social justice issue not limited to some political issue or monetary persuasion. People own themselves, have self/human rights, and deserve freedoms. All humanity is owed respect for its dignity; we are all born equal in dignity and human rights, and no plot of dirt we currently reside on changes this.

I fully enjoy the value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence from fact or artifacts at a site) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past, adding to our anthropology (evidence from cultures both the present and past) intellectual (rational) assumptions of the likely reality of actual events from time past.

I am an Axiological Atheist, Philosopher & Autodidact Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Anarcho Humanist, LGBTQI, Race, & Class equality. I am not an academic, I am a revolutionary sharing education and reason to inspire more deep thinking. I do value and appreciate Academics, Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and Historians as they provide us with great knowledge, informing us about our shared humanity.

I am a servant leader, as I serve the people, not myself, not my ego, and not some desire for money, but rather a caring teacher’s heart to help all I can with all I am. From such thoughtfulness may we all see the need for humanism and secularism, respecting all as helpful servant leaders assisting others as often as we can to navigate truth and the beauty of reality.

‘Reality’ ie. real/external world things, facts/evidence such as that confirmed by science, or events taken as a whole documented understanding of what occurred/is likely to have occurred; the accurate state of affairs. “Reason” is not from a mind devoid of “unreason” but rather demonstrates the potential ability to overcome bad thinking. An honest mind, enjoys just correction. Nothing is a justified true belief without valid or reliable reason and evidence; just as everything believed must be open to question, leaving nothing above challenge.

I don’t believe in gods or ghosts, and nor souls either. I don’t believe in heavens or hells, nor any supernatural anything. I don’t believe in Aliens, Bigfoot, nor Atlantis. I strive to follow reason and be a rationalist. Reason is my only master and may we all master reason. Thinking can be random, but reason is organized and sound in its Thinking. Right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, and right logic can be used in math and other scientific methods. I don’t see religious terms Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, or Paganism as primitive but original or core elements that are different parts of world views and their supernatural/non-natural beliefs or thinking.

I am inspired by philosophy, enlightened by archaeology, and grounded by science that religion claims, on the whole, along with their magical gods, are but dogmatic propaganda, myths, and lies. To me, religions can be summed up as conspiracy theories about reality, a reality mind you is only natural and devoid of magic anything. And to me, when people talk as if Atlantis is anything real, I stop taking them seriously. Like asking about the reality of Superman or Batman just because they seem to involve metropolitan cities in their stores. Or if Mother Goose actually lived in a shoe? You got to be kidding.

We are made great in our many acts of kindness, because we rise by helping each other.

NE = Proto-North Eurasian/Ancient North Eurasian/Mal’ta–Buret’ culture/Mal’ta Boy “MA-1” 24,000 years old burial

A = Proto-Afroasiatic/Afroasiatic

Y= Proto-Yeniseian/Yeniseian

S = Samara culture

ST = Proto-Sino-Tibetan/Sino-Tibetan

T = Proto-Transeurasian/Altaic

C = Proto-Northwest Caucasus language/Northwest Caucasian/Languages of the Caucasus

I = Proto-Indo-European/Indo-European

IB = Iberomaurusian Culture/Capsian culture

Natufian culture (15,000–11,500 years ago, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Negev desert)

Proto-Uralic/Uralic languages

Nganasan people/Nganasan language

Na-Dene languages/Dené–Yeniseian, Dené–Caucasian

Tlingit language

Proto-Semitic/Semitic languages

Sumerian language

Proto-Basque/Basque language

24,000 years ago, Proto-North Eurasian Language (Ancient North Eurasian) migrations?

My thoughts:

Proto-North Eurasian Language (Ancient North Eurasian) With related Y-DNA R1a, R1b, R2a, and Q Haplogroups.

R1b 22,0000-15,000 years ago in the Middle east creates Proto-Afroasiatic languages moving into Africa around 15,000-10,000 years ago connecting with the Iberomaurusian Culture/Taforalt near the coasts of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

R2a 10,000 years ago in Iran brings/creates Proto-Indo-European language and also a possibility is R1a in Russia around 9,000 years ago may have had a version of Proto-Indo-European language.

Around 14,000-10,000 years ago??? Proto-North Eurasian Language goes to the Yellow River basin (eventually relating with the Yangshao culture) in China creates Proto-Sino-Tibetan language.

Proto-Sino-Tibetan language then moves to the West Liao River valley (eventually relating with the Hongshan culture) in China creating Proto-Transeurasian (Altaic) language around 9,000 years ago.

N Haplogroups 9,000 years ago with Proto-Transeurasian language possibly moves north to Lake Baikal. Then after living with Proto-North Eurasian Language 24,000-9,000 years ago?/Pre-Proto-Yeniseian language 9,000-7,000 years ago Q Haplogroups (eventually relating with the Ket language and the Ket people) until around 5,500 years ago, then N Haplogroups move north to the Taymyr Peninsula in North Siberia (Nganasan homeland) brings/creates the Proto-Uralic language.

Q Haplogroups with Proto-Yeniseian language /Proto-Na-Dene language likely emerge 8,000/7,000 years ago or so and migrates to the Middle East (either following R2a to Iraq or R1a to Russia (Samara culture) then south to Iraq creates the Sumerian language. It may have also created the Proto-Caucasian languages along the way. And Q Haplogroups with Proto-Yeniseian language to a migration to North America that relates to Na-Dené (and maybe including Haida) languages, of which the first branch was Proto-Tlingit language 5,000 years ago, in the Pacific Northwest.

Sino-Tibetan language then moves more east in China to the Hemudu culture pre-Austronesian culture, next moved to Taiwan creating the Proto-Austronesian language around 6,000-5,500 years ago.

R1b comes to Russia from the Middle East around 7,500 years ago, bringing a version of Proto-Indo-European languages to the (Samara culture), then Q Y-DNA with Proto-Yeniseian language moves south from the (Samara culture) and may have been the language that created the Proto-Caucasian language. And R1b from the (Samara culture) becomes the 4,200 years or so R1b associated with the Basques and Basque language it was taken with R1b, but language similarities with the Proto-Caucasian language implies language ties to Proto-Yeniseian language.

“Austronesians from Taiwan, circa 3000 to 1500 BCE, are now a large group of peoples in Taiwan, Maritime Southeast Asia, parts of Mainland Southeast Asia, Micronesia, coastal New Guinea, Island Melanesia, Polynesia, Madagascar, and then New Zealand by 1250 CE.” ref

Genetic history of East Asians

“The genetic makeup and population history of East Asian peoples and their connection to genetically related populations such as Southeast Asians and North Asians, as well as Oceanians, and partly, Central Asians, South Asians, and Native Americans. They are collectively referred to as “East Eurasians” in population genomics.” ref

“Population genomic research has studied the origin and formation of modern East Asians. The ancestors of East Asians (Ancient East Eurasians) split from other human populations possibly as early as 70,000 to 50,000 years ago. Possible routes into East Asia include a northern route model from Central Asia, beginning north of the Himalayas, and a southern route model, beginning south of the Himalayas and moving through Southeast Asia.Seguin-Orlando et al. (2014) stated that East Asians diverged from West Eurasians, which occurred more than 36, 200 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic. This divergence most likely occurred in the Persian Plateau.” ref

“Phylogenetic data suggests that an early Initial Upper Paleolithic wave (>45,000 years ago) “ascribed to a population movement with uniform genetic features and material culture” (Ancient East Eurasians) used a Southern dispersal route through South Asia, where they subsequently diverged rapidly, and gave rise to Australasians (Oceanians), the Ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI), as well as Andamanese and East/Southeast Asians, although Papuans may have also received some geneflow from an earlier group (xOoA), around 2%, next to additional archaic admixture in the Sahul region.” ref

“The southern route model for East Asians has been corroborated in multiple recent studies, showing that most of the ancestry of Eastern Asians arrived from the southern route in to Southeast Asia at a very early period, starting perhaps as early as 70,000 years ago, and dispersed northward across Eastern Asia. However, genetic evidence also supports more recent migrations to East Asia from Central Asia and West Eurasia along the northern route, as shown by the presence of haplogroups Q and R, as well as Ancient North Eurasian ancestry. The southern migration wave likely diversified after settling within East Asia, while the northern wave, which probably arrived from the Eurasian steppe, mixed with the southern wave, probably in Siberia.” ref

“A review paper by Melinda A. Yang (in 2022) described the East- and Southeast Asian lineage (ESEA); which is ancestral to modern East Asians, Southeast Asians, Polynesians, and Siberians, originated in Mainland Southeast Asia at c. 50,000 BCE, and expanded through multiple migration waves southwards and northwards, respectively. The ESEA lineage is also ancestral to the “basal Asian” Hoabinhian hunter-gatherers of Southeast Asia and the c. 40,000-year-old Tianyuan lineage found in Northern China, which can already be differentiated from the deeply related Ancestral Ancient South Indians (AASI) and Australasian (AA) lineages.” ref

“There are currently eight detected, closely related, sub-ancestries in the ESEA lineage:

Amur ancestry (ANA) – Associated with populations in the Amur River region, Mongolia, and Siberia, as well as parts of Central Asia.
Fujian ancestry – Associated with ancient samples in the Fujian region of Southern China, and modern Austronesian-speaking populations.
Guangxi ancestry – Associated with a 10,500-year-old individual from Longlin, Guangxi. This ancestry was not observed in either historical samples from Guangxi or contemporary East and Southeast Asians, suggesting that the lineage is extinct in the modern day.
Jōmon ancestry – Ancestry associated with 8,000–3,000-year-old individuals in the Japanese archipelago.
Hoabinhian ancestry – Ancestry on the ESEA lineage associated with 8,000–4,000-year-old hunter-gatherers in Laos and Malaysia.
Tianyuan ancestry – Ancestry on the ESEA lineage associated with an Upper Paleolithic individual dating to 40,000 years ago in northern China.
Tibetan ancestry – Associated with 3,000-year-old individuals in the Himalayan region of the Tibetan Plateau.
Yellow River ancestry – Associated with populations in the Yellow River region and common among Sino-Tibetan-speakers.” ref

“The genetic makeup of East Asians is primarily characterized by “Yellow River” (East Asian) ancestry which formed from a major Ancient Northern East Asian (ANEA) component and a minor Ancient Southern East Asian (ASEA) one. The two lineages diverged from each other at least 19,000 years ago, after the divergence of the Jōmon, Guangxi (Longlin), Hoabinhian and Tianyuan lineages.” ref

“Contemporary East Asians (notably Sino-Tibetan speakers) mostly have Yellow River ancestry, which is associated with millet and rice cultivation. “East Asian Highlanders” (Tibetans) carry both Tibetan ancestry and Yellow River ancestry. Japanese people were found to have a tripartite origin; consisting of Jōmon ancestry, Amur ancestry, and Yellow River ancestry. East Asians carry a variation of the MFSD12 gene, which is responsible for lighter skin color. Huang et al. (2021) found evidence for light skin being selected among the ancestral populations of West Eurasians and East Eurasians, prior to their divergence.” ref

“Northeast Asians such as Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic peoples derive most of their ancestry from the “Amur” (Ancient Northeast Asian) subgroup of the Ancient Northern East Asians, which expanded massively with millet cultivation and pastoralism. Tungusic peoples display the highest genetic affinity to Ancient Northeast Asians, represented by c. 7,000 and 13,000 year old specimens, whereas Turkic peoples have significant West Eurasian admixture.” ref

“East Asian populations exhibit some European-related admixture, originating from Silk Road traders and interactions with Mongolians, who were well-acquainted with European-like populations. This is more common among northern Han Chinese (2.8%) than southern Han Chinese (1.7%), Japanese (2.2%), and Koreans (1.6%). However, East Asians have less European-related admixture than Northeast Asians like Mongolians (10.9%), Oroqen (9.6%), Daur (8.0%), and Hezhen (6.8%).” ref

A 2020 genetic study about Southeast Asian populations, found that mostly all Southeast Asians are closely related to East Asians and have mostly “East Asian-related” ancestry.” ref

“Ancient remains of hunter-gatherers in Maritime Southeast Asia, such as one Holocene hunter-gatherer from South Sulawesi, had ancestry from both, an Australasian lineage (represented by Papuans and Aboriginal Australasians) and an “Ancient Asian” lineage (represented by East Asians or Andamanese Onge). The hunter-gatherer individual had approximately c. 50% “Basal-East Asian” ancestry and c. 50% Australasian/Papuan ancestry, and was positioned in between modern East Asians and Papuans of Oceania. The authors concluded that East Asian-related ancestry expanded from Mainland Southeast Asia into Maritime Southeast Asia much earlier than previously suggested, as early as 25,000 BCE, long before the expansion of Austroasiatic and Austronesian groups.” ref

“A 2022 genetic study confirmed the close link between East Asians and Southeast Asians, which the authors term “East/Southeast Asian” (ESEA) populations, and also found a low but consistent proportion of South Asian-associated “SAS ancestry” (best samplified by modern Bengalis from Dhaka, Bangladesh) among specific Mainland Southeast Asian (MESA) ethnic groups (~2–16% as inferred by qpAdm), likely as a result of cultural diffision; mainly of South Asian merchants spreading Hinduism and Buddhism among the Indianized kingdoms of Southeast Asia. The authors however caution that Bengali samples harbor detechtable East Asian ancestry, which may affect the estimation of shared haplotypes. Overall, the geneflow event is estimated to have happened between 500 and 1000 years ago.” ref

“The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people. We report genome-wide data from 166 East Asians dating to 6000 BCE – 1000 CE and 46 present-day groups. Hunter-gatherers from Japan, the Amur River Basin, and people of Neolithic and Iron Age Taiwan and the Tibetan plateau are linked by a deeply-splitting lineage likely reflecting a Late Pleistocene coastal migration. We follow Holocene expansions from four regions. First, hunter-gatherers of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin have ancestry shared by Mongolic and Tungusic language speakers but do not carry West Liao River farmer ancestry contradicting theories that their expansion spread these proto-languages.” ref

But is Atlantis real?

No. Atlantis (an allegory: “face story” interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning) can’t be found any more than one can locate the Jolly Green Giant that is said to watch over frozen vegetables. Lol

ref

May Reason Set You Free

There are a lot of truly great things said by anarchists in history, and also some deeply vile things, too, from not supporting Women’s rights to Anti-Semitism. There are those who also reject those supporting women’s rights as well as fight anti-Semitism. This is why I push reason as my only master, not anarchist thinking, though anarchism, to me, should see all humans everywhere as equal in dignity and rights.

We—Cory and Damien—are following the greatness that can be found in anarchist thinking.

As an Anarchist Educator, Damien strives to teach the plain truth. Damien does not support violence as my method to change. Rather, I choose education that builds Enlightenment and Empowerment. I champion Dignity and Equality. We rise by helping each other. What is the price of a tear? What is the cost of a smile? How can we see clearly when others pay the cost of our indifference and fear? We should help people in need. Why is that so hard for some people? Rich Ghouls must End. Damien wants “billionaires” to stop being a thing. Tax then into equality. To Damien, there is no debate, Capitalism is unethical. Moreover, as an Anarchist Educator, Damien knows violence is not the way to inspire lasting positive change. But we are not limited to violence, we have education, one of the most lasting and powerful ways to improve the world. We empower the world by championing Truth and its supporters.

Anarchism and Education

“Various alternatives to education and their problems have been proposed by anarchists which have gone from alternative education systems and environments, self-education, advocacy of youth and children rights, and freethought activism.” ref

“Historical accounts of anarchist educational experiments to explore how their pedagogical practices, organization, and content constituted a radical alternative to mainstream forms of educational provision in different historical periods.” ref

“The Ferrer school was an early 20th century libertarian school inspired by the anarchist pedagogy of Francisco Ferrer. He was a proponent of rationalist, secular education that emphasized reason, dignity, self-reliance, and scientific observation. The Ferrer movement’s philosophy had two distinct tendencies: non-didactic freedom from dogma and the more didactic fostering of counter-hegemonic beliefs. Towards non-didactic freedom from dogma, and fulfilled the child-centered tradition.” ref

Teach Real History: all our lives depend on it.

#SupportRealArchaeology

#RejectPseudoarchaeology

Damien sees lies about history as crimes against humanity. And we all must help humanity by addressing “any and all” who make harmful lies about history.

Anarchists Cory Johnston (in Saskatchewan) and Damien Marie AtHope (in Florida) seek to learn more about the indigenous peoples of the Americas (First Nations/Native Americans) where they both live.

“The First Nations of Saskatchewan are: Nêhiyawak (Plains Cree), Nahkawininiwak (Saulteaux), Nakota (Assiniboine), Dakota and Lakota (Sioux), and Denesuline (Dene/Chipewyan).” ref

“Native Americans in Florida are: Ais, Apalachee, Calusa, Creek, Miccosukee, Seminole, Timucua, and Yemassee.” ref

Investigating and Visiting Several Prehistoric Indian Mounds in Florida; Culture, Religion, and Power

Colonization and Colonialism of Canada: learning about Indigenous Peoples of Canada and Saskatchewan (VIDEO)

Colonization and Colonialism of the USA: learning about Indigenous Peoples of America and Florida (VIDEO)

Colonization and Colonialism of Florida, its Indigenous Peoples, and a little on Masculinity (VIDEO)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref

My favorite “Graham Hancock” Quote?

“In what archaeologists have studied, yes, we can say there is NO Evidence of an advanced civilization.” – (Time 1:27) Joe Rogan Experience #2136 – Graham Hancock & Flint Dibble

Help the Valentine fight against pseudoarchaeology!!!

In a world of “Hancocks” supporting evidence lacking claims, be a “John Hoopes” supporting what evidence explains.

#SupportEvidenceNotWishfullThinking

Graham Hancock: @Graham__Hancock

John Hoopes: @KUHoopes

Addressing Graham Hancock the Pseudoarchaeological Theorist, as well as Flaws in his Ancient Apocalypse, Great flood, and Seafaring R1b (BLOG POST)

Addressing Graham Hancock, the Pseudoarchaeological Theorist, AND Flaws in his Ancient Apocalypse (VIDEO)

My best Video talking about My thoughts on “Religion and Deity Evolution” with Questions and Answers

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Do you truly think “Religious Belief” is only a matter of some personal choice?

Do you not see how coercive one’s world of choice is limited to the obvious hereditary belief, in most religious choices available to the child of religious parents or caregivers? Religion is more commonly like a family, culture, society, etc. available belief that limits the belief choices of the child and that is when “Religious Belief” is not only a matter of some personal choice and when it becomes hereditary faith, not because of the quality of its alleged facts or proposed truths but because everyone else important to the child believes similarly so they do as well simply mimicking authority beliefs handed to them. Because children are raised in religion rather than being presented all possible choices but rather one limited dogmatic brand of “Religious Belief” where children only have a choice of following the belief as instructed, and then personally claim the faith hereditary belief seen in the confirming to the belief they have held themselves all their lives. This is obvious in statements asked and answered by children claiming a faith they barely understand but they do understand that their family believes “this or that” faith, so they feel obligated to believe it too. While I do agree that “Religious Belief” should only be a matter of some personal choice, it rarely is… End Hereditary Religion!

Opposition to Imposed Hereditary Religion

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

19488647_1862983437362257_8462055973712447109_o-1-1024x685-LAPTOP-KIB0FGT7

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which allows us to achieve new positive thinking and accurate outcomes.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

My thoughts on Religion Evolution with external links for more info:

(Pre-Animism Africa mainly, but also Europe, and Asia at least 300,000 years ago), (Pre-Animism – Oxford Dictionaries)
(Animism Africa around 100,000 years ago), (Animism – Britannica.com)
(Totemism Europe around 50,000 years ago), (Totemism – Anthropology)
(Shamanism Siberia around 30,000 years ago), (Shamanism – Britannica.com)
(Paganism Turkey around 12,000 years ago), (Paganism – BBC Religion)
(Progressed Organized Religion “Institutional Religion” Egypt around 5,000 years ago), (Ancient Egyptian Religion – Britannica.com)
(CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS after 4,000 years ago) (Origin of Major Religions – Sacred Texts)
(Early Atheistic Doubting at least by 2,600 years ago) (History of Atheism – Wikipedia)

“Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure, or a firefighter talks about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victims of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions.

“Understanding Religion Evolution: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion”

Understanding Religion Evolution:

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago)
Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago)
Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago)
Shamanism (Siberia: 30,000 years ago)
Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago)
Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago), (Egypt, the First Dynasty 5,150 years ago)
CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago)
Early Atheistic Doubting (at least by 2,600 years ago)

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred.

Quick Evolution of Religion?

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago) pre-religion is a beginning that evolves into later Animism. So, Religion as we think of it, to me, all starts in a general way with Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (Siberia/Russia: 30,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago) (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago) with CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago).

Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of “religion” as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.

Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.

I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values. Every amount spent on war is theft to children in need of food or the homeless kept from shelter.

Here are several of my blog posts on history:

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

religion-evolution-Copy-7-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-Copy-1024x553

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

To me, Animism starts in Southern Africa, then to West Europe, and becomes Totemism. Another split goes near the Russia and Siberia border becoming Shamanism, which heads into Central Europe meeting up with Totemism, which also had moved there, mixing the two which then heads to Lake Baikal in Siberia. From there this Shamanism-Totemism heads to Turkey where it becomes Paganism.

My thoughts on the Evolution of Religion: from Animism to Paganism

Philosophy to the Rescue: explaining Reason, Logic, Evidence, Truth, Certainty, Reality, and Science

Talking about “Religion and Deity Evolution” on Twitter (X) Questions and Answers

You can’t change people, by reason and evidence. WRONG, I do it all the time.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

10478231_563991313709259_1355822719308044717_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Not all “Religions” or “Religious Persuasions” have a god(s) but

All can be said to believe in some imaginary beings or imaginary things like spirits, afterlives, etc.

Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Paganism? Siberian Shamanism migrated to Turkey and then emerged as Paganism because of Agriculture.

Paganism 12,000-4,000 years old

12,000-7,000 years old: related to (Pre-Capitalism)

7,000-5,000 years old: related to (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

5,000 years old: related to (Kings and the Rise of the State)

4,000 years old: related to (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
Domovoy (Slavic)
Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

I am still researching the “god‘s origins” all over the world. So you know, it is very complicated but I am smart and willing to look, DEEP, if necessary, which going very deep does seem to be needed here, when trying to actually understand the evolution of gods and goddesses. I am sure of a few things and less sure of others, but even in stuff I am not fully grasping I still am slowly figuring it out, to explain it to others. But as I research more I am understanding things a little better, though I am still working on understanding it all or something close and thus always figuring out more.

Sky Father/Sky God?

“Egyptian: (Nut) Sky Mother and (Geb) Earth Father” (Egypt is different but similar)

Turkic/Mongolic: (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) Sky Father and (Eje/Gazar Eej) Earth Mother *Transeurasian*

Hawaiian: (Wākea) Sky Father and (Papahānaumoku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

New Zealand/ Māori: (Ranginui) Sky Father and (Papatūānuku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

Proto-Indo-European: (Dyḗus/Dyḗus ph₂tḗr) Sky Father and (Dʰéǵʰōm/Pleth₂wih₁) Earth Mother

Indo-Aryan: (Dyaus Pita) Sky Father and (Prithvi Mata) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Italic: (Jupiter) Sky Father and (Juno) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Etruscan: (Tinia) Sky Father and (Uni) Sky Mother *Tyrsenian/Italy Pre–Indo-European*

Hellenic/Greek: (Zeus) Sky Father and (Hera) Sky Mother who started as an “Earth Goddess” *Indo-European*

Nordic: (Dagr) Sky Father and (Nótt) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Slavic: (Perun) Sky Father and (Mokosh) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Illyrian: (Deipaturos) Sky Father and (Messapic Damatura’s “earth-mother” maybe) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Albanian: (Zojz) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Baltic: (Perkūnas) Sky Father and (Saulė) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Germanic: (Týr) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Colombian-Muisca: (Bochica) Sky Father and (Huythaca) Sky Mother *Chibchan*

Aztec: (Quetzalcoatl) Sky Father and (Xochiquetzal) Sky Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Incan: (Viracocha) Sky Father and (Mama Runtucaya) Sky Mother *Quechuan*

China: (Tian/Shangdi) Sky Father and (Dì) Earth Mother *Sino-Tibetan*

Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian: (An/Anu) Sky Father and (Ki) Earth Mother

Finnish: (Ukko) Sky Father and (Akka) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Sami: (Horagalles) Sky Father and (Ravdna) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Puebloan-Zuni: (Ápoyan Ta’chu) Sky Father and (Áwitelin Tsíta) Earth Mother

Puebloan-Hopi: (Tawa) Sky Father and (Kokyangwuti/Spider Woman/Grandmother) Earth Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Puebloan-Navajo: (Tsohanoai) Sky Father and (Estsanatlehi) Earth Mother *Na-Dene*

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Sky Father/Sky Mother “High Gods” or similar gods/goddesses of the sky more loosely connected, seeming arcane mythology across the earth seen in Siberia, China, Europe, Native Americans/First Nations People and Mesopotamia, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

10351831_556859917755732_4316427804670144270_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Knowledge to Ponder:

Stars/Astrology:

Possibly, around 30,000 years ago (in simpler form) to 6,000 years ago, Stars/Astrology are connected to Ancestors, Spirit Animals, and Deities.
The star also seems to be a possible proto-star for Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna, or Star of Venus.
Around 7,000 to 6,000 years ago, Star Constellations/Astrology have connections to the “Kurgan phenomenon” of below-ground “mound” stone/wood burial structures and “Dolmen phenomenon” of above-ground stone burial structures.
Around 6,500–5,800 years ago, The Northern Levant migrations into Jordon and Israel in the Southern Levant brought new cultural and religious transfer from Turkey and Iran.
“The Ghassulian Star,” a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan may have connections to the European paganstic kurgan/dolmens phenomenon.

“Astrology is a range of divinatory practices, recognized as pseudoscientific since the 18th century, that claim to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the apparent positions of celestial objects. Different cultures have employed forms of astrology since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, these practices having originated in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. Most, if not all, cultures have attached importance to what they observed in the sky, and some—such as the Hindus, Chinese, and the Maya—developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Western astrology, one of the oldest astrological systems still in use, can trace its roots to 19th–17th century BCE Mesopotamia, from where it spread to Ancient Greece, Rome, the Islamicate world and eventually Central and Western Europe. Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a person’s personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems.” ref

Around 5,500 years ago, Science evolves, The first evidence of science was 5,500 years ago and was demonstrated by a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. ref

Around 5,000 years ago, Origin of Logics is a Naturalistic Observation (principles of valid reasoning, inference, & demonstration) ref

Around 4,150 to 4,000 years ago: The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which was originally titled “He who Saw the Deep” (Sha naqba īmuru) or “Surpassing All Other Kings” (Shūtur eli sharrī) were written. ref

Hinduism:

3,700 years ago or so, the oldest of the Hindu Vedas (scriptures), the Rig Veda was composed.
3,500 years ago or so, the Vedic Age began in India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization.

Judaism:

around 3,000 years ago, the first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew”
around 2,500 years ago, many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed

Myths: The bible inspired religion is not just one religion or one myth but a grouping of several religions and myths

Around 3,450 or 3,250 years ago, according to legend, is the traditionally accepted period in which the Israelite lawgiver, Moses, provided the Ten Commandments.
Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, a collection of ancient religious writings by the Israelites based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh, or Old Testament is the first part of Christianity’s bible.
Around 2,400 years ago, the most accepted hypothesis is that the canon was formed in stages, first the Pentateuch (Torah).
Around 2,140 to 2,116 years ago, the Prophets was written during the Hasmonean dynasty, and finally the remaining books.
Christians traditionally divide the Old Testament into four sections:
The first five books or Pentateuch (Torah).
The proposed history books telling the history of the Israelites from their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon.
The poetic and proposed “Wisdom books” dealing, in various forms, with questions of good and evil in the world.
The books of the biblical prophets, warning of the consequences of turning away from God:
Henotheism:
Exodus 20:23 “You shall not make other gods besides Me (not saying there are no other gods just not to worship them); gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.”
Polytheism:
Judges 10:6 “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the sons of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines; thus they forsook the LORD and did not serve Him.”
1 Corinthians 8:5 “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords.”
Monotheism:
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Around 2,570 to 2,270 Years Ago, there is a confirmation of atheistic doubting as well as atheistic thinking, mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods and should destroy the thinking that belief in god(s) is the “default belief”. The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”), thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by a god(s) claim. Short Definition: unbelieving, unbeliever, or unbelief.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”

Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.

How do they even know if there was nothing as a start outside our universe, could there not be other universes outside our own?

For all, we know there may have always been something past the supposed Big Bang we can’t see beyond, like our universe as one part of a mega system.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism, Mutualism, Cooperationism, Empowermentism, etc.

50626195_2231791236887767_8408273929398910976_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago.

To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.

Gods?

“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.

“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.

“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.

Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

11406234_754565204651868_2328529661034816546_o-LAPTOP-KIB0FGT7

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com

Genetics of South Asia, Andamanese peoples, Indus Valley Civilization, Peopling of India, Dravidian languages, and the Paliyan/Pulliyar Dravidian tribal people

Paganism 12,000-4,000 years old

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest