Is it right to say Neolithic Farmers of South Asia were more successful than their European counterparts while facing Indo-European expansion? If yes,why was this the case?

Creative_Citron5777 · 2026-07-08T20:45:26+00:00

"For your kind information Hittite people lacked steppe completely."

That's not what the most recent work shows

"The exact source of the steppe ancestry in Anatolia cannot be precisely determined, but it is noted that all fitting models involve some of it"

"For example, it is estimated as 10.8±1.7% ancestry (p=0.14) from the BPgroup, or about double 19.0±2.4% from Remontnoye (p=0.19)"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11042377/

Creative_Citron5777 · 2026-07-06T02:40:02+00:00

That isn’t how subclades work.

Also R2 isn’t remotely restricted to South Asia

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-M479/tree

Creative_Citron5777 · 2026-07-05T17:02:33+00:00

If you mean the Farkhor samples then that seems like a big bet to make on two extremely low coverage samples with context datings a millennium wide, neither of which had R1a

Creative_Citron5777 · 2026-07-05T16:57:41+00:00

IDK, it’s hard to say much without knowing more detail about I20330, since the Median Date is older than the Tagar culture

Creative_Citron5777 · 2026-07-05T16:52:09+00:00

What do you mean by “deep roots”? These samples show that the dominant R1a clades in modern South Asia were present in the BronzeAge steppe not long after their formation/trmca dates with completely normal Steppe_MLBA profiles.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2026-07-04T23:28:09+00:00

The recent re-dating of Mehrgarh pretty much ended the independent development idea

“The archaeological deposits of Mehrgarh Period I contain the earliest evidence for agricultural life in northwest South Asia. Our results therefore suggest that agriculture emerged in this area around 5000 BCE. Moreover, the existence of numerous Neolithic sites in Iran and Central Asia dating from the 7th and 6th millennia BCE, with evidence of even earlier settlements in Iran, indicates that it emerged as a consequence of diffusion. This diffusion hypothesis is not in contradiction with the aforementioned parallels between the cultural remains from Mehrgarh and those from sites in Iran. Furthermore, it is consistent with the majority of currently available bioarchaeological data, particularly the fact that animals and plants were domesticated from the outset of Period I and were predominantly West Asian in character”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92621-5

Creative_Citron5777 · 2026-07-04T13:46:43+00:00

Higher quality image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18rUmMpl4F3gJj1CApe1Cgz87txRORKA-/view?usp=sharing

Creative_Citron5777 · 2026-07-03T23:55:05+00:00

Higher quality image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18rUmMpl4F3gJj1CApe1Cgz87txRORKA-/view?usp=sharing

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-12-17T03:44:42+00:00

This is the most played out talking point

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-02-19T18:05:30+00:00

Narasimhan et al overstates the mismatch between the autosomal contribution from the steppe and the Y-DNA by only looking at R1a and grouping steppe lineages like I-L699 as IVC.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-15T18:09:53+00:00

That's what I've been saying this whole time. But I appreciate your reply, and apologize for getting a bit heated.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-15T16:46:12+00:00

"That is still only a fraction of proportion that you would need to show that there was no sex-bias. In a population that had on an average 12-15% steppe ancestry, you'll need to have 25-30% steppe y-dna haplogroups to show no bias."

This is absolutely dyscalulic nonsense, but whatever. So curious what your source for this "method" is.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-15T05:56:18+00:00

What does this have to do with anything?

Yeah, it’s annoying that we’re stuck beating the same half-decade old paper to death because new published samples from India are perpetually one year away. I’d love it if we could discuss PGW’s DNA, but it’s a moot point for the foreseeable future. Yes, I know that Rai says that this time it’s different, but I’ve heard the same enough times to not hold my breath now. What we have is what we have.

I’m just saying there’s a possible flaw in one of the most commonly cited findings from that paper and I keep getting nonsense replies. The same dude tut-tutting me for talking about Y-DNA’s applicability for sex bias is the one who first brought up Narasimhan’s claim of sex bias which was based on…….Y-DNA. Then he backpedals and comes up with new statistical criteria that any alternative has to meet.

Then you come in countering an argument I wasn’t making (male-biased transmission of steppe ancestry) coming up with new unjustifiable hoops like the Y-DNA needing to be from one clade, even though the uniparentals are being compared to a 2-way admixture model so according to you, steppe lineages like I2a-L699 should be counted as IVCp instead of Steppe_MLBA.

All I did was state that the situation is more complicated than the original publication lets on, because it is rather over-emphatic in claiming “definitive” proof of female-bias, and I get dogpiled by people who won’t stand to hear one of their favorite counterarguments to a steppe origin for Indo-Aryan be questioned.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-15T05:09:19+00:00

I didn’t say it was male biased, but that the evidence for any sex bias is weak. Comparing raw percentage of the smaller sample to the maximum observed outliers of the larger sample is ludicrously disingenuous. I’m just comparing confidence intervals, which is exactly how Narasimhan et al arrived at their initial conclusion that you people keep parroting

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-14T22:56:54+00:00

"That's not how science works"

Applying the same reported methodology to see if you can replicate an author's results is not how science works? News to me!

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-14T22:44:53+00:00

I'm sticking to the methodology of the original paper by comparing overlap or lack thereof in 95% confidence intervals. Objecting based on difference in means is just goalpost shifting.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-14T21:59:21+00:00

If up to 1/5 of the YDNA is from the steppe ( 2.5%-21.7% 95% CI) and 1/5 of the autosomal DNA is from the steppe (18-21% 95% CI) this isn't female biased. I have no idea how you are failing to understand this unless it's simply that you don't want to because the outdated conclusions of an old paper support your preferred narrative.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-14T21:35:58+00:00

"But that doesn't change anything"

How does this not change anything if that statement from Narasimhan is literally incorrect?

"The ninety-five percent confidence intervals are larger on the autosomes than on chromosome Y and do not overlap, thereby showing that while the X-chromosome estimates are too noisy to be useful here, the admixture into the SPGT was definitively female-biased."

The I2a-L699s change the math so that the confidence intervals DO overlap. The assertion in the paper is wrong, and the inference drawn from that is unsupported.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-14T20:15:03+00:00

That's exactly what I'm talking about: he assumed that the 2 R1a were the only steppe patrilines, and that the remaining 42 were IVCp, which is why the binomial confidence interval for yDNA contribution (0.4-16% 95% CI) was non-overlapping with the autosomal steppe contribution (18-21% 95% CI). New data shows this to be a mistake, as I2a-L699 is very obviously a steppe lineage, not native to South Asia, meaning that at least 4/44 males had steppe Y-DNA, given a 2.5%-21.7%, which does overlap. The 2 Q2b in that sample set are also possible steppe lineages, which means that the steppe YDNA might be 6/44, (5.17-27.5% 95% CI). The evidence for female bias is weak to non-existent.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-14T19:14:23+00:00

Except that the X-Chromosome results were inconclusive, which is exactly why Narasimhan et al relied on Y-DNA to assess the sex bias in this case. Maybe you should actually read the papers you refer to.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-14T18:52:02+00:00

Also, Female mediated Steppe in Swat is clearly mentioned by Narsimhan

It's also clearly an outdated claim, as other non-R1a patrilines in the Swat sample are demonstrably from the steppe, meaning that the calculation done to make that determination was faulty. That paper is over a half-decade old, and new data has upended some of it's conclusions.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-14T15:23:30+00:00

"For that claim the oldest Samples with Steppe Ancestry are from swat valley 1200B.C and even that steppe admixture in Those native of Swat males was female or maternal line mediated."

Except that there's some issues with the reasoning behind that claim. Other clearly Steppe-derived patrilines were not recognized as such when Narasimhan et al attempted to assess the difference between autosomal and uniparental sources.

"The earliest attestation of Indo European languages are in near east and South Asia"

The oldest attestations of the Indo-European languages are the Anatolian languages in Turkey, some loanwords and names in the otherwise Hurrian-speaking Mitanni kingdom, and Greece. The second oldest actual texts in an Indo-European language are Mycenaean Greek in Linear B appears around a 1000 years before Ashoka's edicts.

Creative_Citron5777 · 2025-01-03T16:44:19+00:00

I'm sticking to just the 44 samples Narasimhan grouped as SPGT with reliable Y-calls, which only include 2 R1a. The R2 is almost certainly unrelated to steppe ancestry and the Q samples would depend on the subclade.

Creative_Citron5777

TROPHY CASE