The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
From Cattle Herders to Tax Farmers
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

61LXo6U7a4L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ Reading Strange Parallels, Southeast Asia in a Global Context, I have begun to think about the differences between the eruption of Inner Asian nomads in the early modern period, and in prehistory. The author points out that the arrival of Mughals, and even to a greater extent the Manchu, to the ancient and dense civilizations of South and East Asia did not change the cultural substrate in the main. Yes, Turco-Persian Islamic (“Islamicate”) culture became both prestigious and relatively popular in South Asia. But it was, and still is, a minority tradition set against the indigenous religious system, bracketed under the term Hindu today. In Ching China the Manchu had an even less obvious effect. Arguably they assimilated to the Neo-Confucian mores of the Han elite far more than the Mughals did in India in relation to indigenous South Asian gentry.

The dynamics in this context always need to take into account the numbers of the conquerors in relation to the conquered. The Manchus were less than 1 percent of the population of their domain. The foreign Muslim elites (Turk, Afghan, and Persian, with some Arabs in South India) and their scions were never more than a few percent, at most, of the population of South Asia. These alien elites rested atop an extractive system which predated them (in some cases by thousands of years). It was an institutional arrangement that was useful in terms of subsidizing their lifestyles. China and India were attractive to the nomadic populations beyond the frontier because they were rich with people, and therefore resources which could be deployed in consumption as well as marshaled for war (the Mughals milked India to finance wars in Afghanistan).

There are other cases which are similar in terms of numbers. Both the Magyar and Bulgar incursions into Europe seem to have resulted in an Inner Asian elite acclimating itself on top of a broad mass of peasants, from which it extracted rents. Though the Magyars imparted their name and language upon the populace of Roman Pannonia, genetically their impact has been fairly marginal, if detectable. The Bulgars, who exist only as they contributed to the appellation Bulgaria and Bulgarians, lost their language, and to my knowledge their genetic impact was even fainter.

But there are other cases. Both the Turks and Arabs seem to have more substantial genetic contributions, even if on the peripheries it was very marginal. Vast eras of Central Asia once inhabited by Persian and related Indo-European peoples has become a hybrid zone of sorts between West and East Eurasian peoples thanks to the Turkic migrations. Differences between Muslim and non-Muslim populations in the Fertile Crescent are evident.

Which brings me back to the Indo-Europeans. Even if they were not nomads of a classical sort which emerged later on in history, they seem to have been agro-pastoralists. There is now circumstantial evidence for their impact all across Europe, especially the north and east. There is also likely evidence for substantial Indo-European admixture in India. Herodotus reported 2,500 years ago that India was the most inhabited land on the face of the earth. But was it so 4,000 years ago, during the later stages of the Indus Valley civilization?

I will admit I was not primed to accept the idea of mass replacement of indigenous populations in what would later become the Ecumene by populations form the steppe because of the later record of conquest, which was more a matter of elite replacement, than social turnover. But if the genetic data is correct we need to update our models. If the first farmers of Europe were marginalized by invading Indo-Europeans, could not the same have happened to some extent to the agriculturalists of South Asia, who descended from the people of Mehrgarh? The tension between the interior and littoral in Eurasia is an old one, but it seems to have evolved over time, from one of inter-group competition and meta-population dynamics (read: extinction), to exploitation by Inner Asian steppes of the human resources of the littoral. Social complexity and institutional robustness were the best long term investments for farmer populations against nomads, who always outmatched them in individual skill, and often in terms of the tanks of the ancient world, horses.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Indo-Europeans 
Hide 41 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. RE: Turkic Migrations and East-Asian ancestry –maybe not–

    see:

    1.) “Genetic landscape of populations along the Silk Road: admixture and migration patterns, Mezzavilla et al, 2014” : “The contribution from Asia dates back to ~25 generations and is limited to the Eastern Silk Road.”

    2.)”Ancient Admixture in Human History, Patterson et al, 2012″ Regarding Asian admixture among the Turkic Uygurs estimates “a date of 790 ± 60 YBP….in accordance with the rise of the Mongols under Genghis Khan (1206–1368)…”

    3.)”The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia”
    Yunusbayev et al, 2014 –> “Most of the Turkic peoples studied, except those in Central Asia, genetically resembled their geographic neighbors, in agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion. However [with] long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia…inferred admixture dates (~9th–17th centuries...”

    4.) Sarmatian elements in pagan necropolis from Northeastern Bulgaria and Northern Dobrogea {Summary}, Elena Angelova (Archaeology, 1995, 2, 5-17, Sofia) ; The Proto-Bulgarians north and west of the Black Sea. Dimitar Dimitrov. Varna, 1987 and others : Skeletal remains relating to Bulgars are described as “brachycranic europoids with small Mongoloid admixtures”

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    maybe not what? anyone who has analyzed turkish (anatolian) populations sees low, but detectable, levels of east asian admixture (you can find it it non-turks in the mid east too, but lower %). quoting a few papers isn't too relevant to me when i've seen and played with the raw data. you also also be careful of admixture estimates like the one in nick's paper, because they often give the average date assuming a single pulse....
    , @CaoMengDe
    Here is a graphic description by Classical Armenian historian Movses Kagankatvatsi of Sack of Derbent by Turks when they first bursted out of steppe into West Asia:

    Like waves in the sea, the Turks fell on the town of Chora (Derbent) and destroyed it completely. Seeing the terrible threat posed by this vile, ugly horde of attackers, with their slanting and lidless eyes, and their flowing hair like that of women, the inhabitants were seized by terror.


    Seeing is believing, checkout the depiction of Turks in unearthed Samarkand Afrasiab murals:

    http://www.orientarch.uni-halle.de/ca/afras/img/supp/rec4.gif

    The difference between Iranian Sogdian King (left large figure) and the Turk Khagan (large right figure) could not be more stark. The braids of Turks rather remind me of Manchu queue.


    For more, here is the mural of a Uyghur Khagan :

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Uighur_Prince.jpg/220px-Uighur_Prince.jpg


    you can't get more East Asian look than that!

  2. For there to have been a large-scale genetic replacement/admixture of the Indus Valley Civilization, you would have to presume that the Proto-Indo Europeans, during their sojourn in Central Asia, became pretty heavily admixed themselves with populations with ANI, and possibly even some ASI, components. This is not that implausible on the face of it. There seem to be genetic links to South Asia in the West Eurasian component of modern Uighurs, and Tajiks clearly show some “Indian” affinities. Indeed, all of the arable portion of Central Asia was likely originally settled by whatever group of First Farmers settled the Indus Valley regardless.

    Still, I would presume that the level of admixture was probably more similar to that in Southern Europe, rather than Northern Europe. Even though the IVC was arguably in decline before the Aryan invasions due to climate change, population density was undoubtedly more similar to Southern Europe.

    This is a question we could likely answer. Given the combination of high altitude, extreme dryness, and coldness, I would not be surprised if we could obtain actionable DNA samples from remains in the uplands of Central Asia. Of course the political situation in these countries is not ideal for archaeological digs, but that will likely change to some degree eventually.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    1) people are trying

    2) one thing about indian links to central asia: LOTS of slaves from india went to the islamic countries during the period between 1000 and 1800.
  3. So have you become open to the idea that the ANIs were, or were mainly, Indo-Europeans? I remember a few years ago in one of your bloggingheads conversations that you said you didn’t believe ANI was likely to be a signature of the IEs. Fascinating if so. I highly suspect the Reich team will continue to publish on the Indo-European expansion phenomenon and a lot of this will be clarified in a few years–which would be amazing, since people have been discussing this for centuries. Truly, we live in interesting times.

    • Replies: @Vijay
    I dont think he (or for that matter anybody) said ANI were not Indo-Europeans. Looking at a series of admixture timing events, it appears that ANI is a composite of several invasions of India all the way from the original expansion of Indo-Aryans to invasions as late as Indo-Scythians. If the dominant component of ANI is Indo-Europeans, it may simply have been accumulated through multiple admixture events. Razib, is this interpretation correct?
    , @Razib Khan
    SOME of the ANI became IE probably.
  4. @Yudi
    So have you become open to the idea that the ANIs were, or were mainly, Indo-Europeans? I remember a few years ago in one of your bloggingheads conversations that you said you didn't believe ANI was likely to be a signature of the IEs. Fascinating if so. I highly suspect the Reich team will continue to publish on the Indo-European expansion phenomenon and a lot of this will be clarified in a few years--which would be amazing, since people have been discussing this for centuries. Truly, we live in interesting times.

    I dont think he (or for that matter anybody) said ANI were not Indo-Europeans. Looking at a series of admixture timing events, it appears that ANI is a composite of several invasions of India all the way from the original expansion of Indo-Aryans to invasions as late as Indo-Scythians. If the dominant component of ANI is Indo-Europeans, it may simply have been accumulated through multiple admixture events. Razib, is this interpretation correct?

  5. @Sgt
    RE: Turkic Migrations and East-Asian ancestry --maybe not--

    see:

    1.) "Genetic landscape of populations along the Silk Road: admixture and migration patterns, Mezzavilla et al, 2014" : "The contribution from Asia dates back to ~25 generations and is limited to the Eastern Silk Road."

    2.)"Ancient Admixture in Human History, Patterson et al, 2012" Regarding Asian admixture among the Turkic Uygurs estimates "a date of 790 ± 60 YBP....in accordance with the rise of the Mongols under Genghis Khan (1206–1368)..."

    3.)"The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia"
    Yunusbayev et al, 2014 --> "Most of the Turkic peoples studied, except those in Central Asia, genetically resembled their geographic neighbors, in agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion. However [with] long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia...inferred admixture dates (~9th–17th centuries..."

    4.) Sarmatian elements in pagan necropolis from Northeastern Bulgaria and Northern Dobrogea {Summary}, Elena Angelova (Archaeology, 1995, 2, 5-17, Sofia) ; The Proto-Bulgarians north and west of the Black Sea. Dimitar Dimitrov. Varna, 1987 and others : Skeletal remains relating to Bulgars are described as "brachycranic europoids with small Mongoloid admixtures"

    maybe not what? anyone who has analyzed turkish (anatolian) populations sees low, but detectable, levels of east asian admixture (you can find it it non-turks in the mid east too, but lower %). quoting a few papers isn’t too relevant to me when i’ve seen and played with the raw data. you also also be careful of admixture estimates like the one in nick’s paper, because they often give the average date assuming a single pulse….

    • Replies: @Sgt
    Maybe all the East-West dating is wrong, including Hellenthal ... still uncertain about the ethnology of the Bulgars, Magyars {and Khazars}.
  6. @Karl Zimmerman
    For there to have been a large-scale genetic replacement/admixture of the Indus Valley Civilization, you would have to presume that the Proto-Indo Europeans, during their sojourn in Central Asia, became pretty heavily admixed themselves with populations with ANI, and possibly even some ASI, components. This is not that implausible on the face of it. There seem to be genetic links to South Asia in the West Eurasian component of modern Uighurs, and Tajiks clearly show some "Indian" affinities. Indeed, all of the arable portion of Central Asia was likely originally settled by whatever group of First Farmers settled the Indus Valley regardless.

    Still, I would presume that the level of admixture was probably more similar to that in Southern Europe, rather than Northern Europe. Even though the IVC was arguably in decline before the Aryan invasions due to climate change, population density was undoubtedly more similar to Southern Europe.

    This is a question we could likely answer. Given the combination of high altitude, extreme dryness, and coldness, I would not be surprised if we could obtain actionable DNA samples from remains in the uplands of Central Asia. Of course the political situation in these countries is not ideal for archaeological digs, but that will likely change to some degree eventually.

    1) people are trying

    2) one thing about indian links to central asia: LOTS of slaves from india went to the islamic countries during the period between 1000 and 1800.

  7. @Yudi
    So have you become open to the idea that the ANIs were, or were mainly, Indo-Europeans? I remember a few years ago in one of your bloggingheads conversations that you said you didn't believe ANI was likely to be a signature of the IEs. Fascinating if so. I highly suspect the Reich team will continue to publish on the Indo-European expansion phenomenon and a lot of this will be clarified in a few years--which would be amazing, since people have been discussing this for centuries. Truly, we live in interesting times.

    SOME of the ANI became IE probably.

  8. @Razib Khan
    maybe not what? anyone who has analyzed turkish (anatolian) populations sees low, but detectable, levels of east asian admixture (you can find it it non-turks in the mid east too, but lower %). quoting a few papers isn't too relevant to me when i've seen and played with the raw data. you also also be careful of admixture estimates like the one in nick's paper, because they often give the average date assuming a single pulse....

    Maybe all the East-West dating is wrong, including Hellenthal … still uncertain about the ethnology of the Bulgars, Magyars {and Khazars}.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    look at the supplements of the indo-european paper on biorxiv. there is a reference to hungarians. a low level of admixture an asian element is detected with D statistics. also, national geographic's geno project has detected central asian mtDNA at low fractions. their ethnology genetically as a volga pop seems clear.
  9. @Sgt
    Maybe all the East-West dating is wrong, including Hellenthal ... still uncertain about the ethnology of the Bulgars, Magyars {and Khazars}.

    look at the supplements of the indo-european paper on biorxiv. there is a reference to hungarians. a low level of admixture an asian element is detected with D statistics. also, national geographic’s geno project has detected central asian mtDNA at low fractions. their ethnology genetically as a volga pop seems clear.

    • Replies: @Shaikorth
    Interesting thing is that aDNA shows East-Central Asian elements seem to have arrived in Hungary over a thousand years before Magyars and even Huns. The IR1 sample from pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture in the study below is from 900 BC and has mtDNA G2a1, and easternish autosomals too, more so than modern Hungarians, Romanians etc.

    He also has Y-DNA N, though not the L1034 which connects a few modern Hungarians and Ob-Ugrians but Y6503, a very early and rare (less than ten known modern samples, all in Balkans or Central Europe) branch that is less related to every other European and Asian N branch than they are to each other.

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html
  10. Hi Razib,

    Would you please educate/interpert form what is ANI. I’m not up to par in my knowledge as compared to most of the intelligent readers of this site. ANI is fascinating. But when they say composite population, are they just saying we labeling all these ancestries as ANI (meaning a indo aryan, middle eastern arab, an armenian, would all be consider apart of the composition of ANI?) How much of ANI is also related to Dravidians (I read you mentioned them also coming in at some point from the outside, not being indigenous).

    Forgive my making you repeat anything you’ve already said, I just wanted to get a clearer picture of what ANI is.

    Thank you!

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    "ANI" brackets a population with wide, though somewhat indeterminate, range across eursaia. my point is that it seems naive to assume that a group with deep divergence and wide geographic distribution would be speaking one singular language. many east asians for example are genetically very close (e.g., han, koreans, japanese), but they speak VERY DIFFERENT languages. perhaps some segment of the ANI spoke proto-indo-european after a fashion, but there may have been many language families associated with this population, broadly construed.

    i suspect that there were two waves of migration into south asia via the NW. one consisted of agriculturalists, brought the dravidian languages, and had little ANI. a second wave brought the indo-european languages, and brought a lot of ANI.

    i know for a fact that the populations of pakistan have A LOT of ANI. as much or more as european populations. perhaps the indo-europeans coming to south asia were much more ANI than those moving into europe? that's a hypothesis we can't dismiss. we know the two groups are connected though, they share the same lactase persistence allele....
  11. @mahaloeveryone
    Hi Razib,

    Would you please educate/interpert form what is ANI. I'm not up to par in my knowledge as compared to most of the intelligent readers of this site. ANI is fascinating. But when they say composite population, are they just saying we labeling all these ancestries as ANI (meaning a indo aryan, middle eastern arab, an armenian, would all be consider apart of the composition of ANI?) How much of ANI is also related to Dravidians (I read you mentioned them also coming in at some point from the outside, not being indigenous).

    Forgive my making you repeat anything you've already said, I just wanted to get a clearer picture of what ANI is.

    Thank you!

    “ANI” brackets a population with wide, though somewhat indeterminate, range across eursaia. my point is that it seems naive to assume that a group with deep divergence and wide geographic distribution would be speaking one singular language. many east asians for example are genetically very close (e.g., han, koreans, japanese), but they speak VERY DIFFERENT languages. perhaps some segment of the ANI spoke proto-indo-european after a fashion, but there may have been many language families associated with this population, broadly construed.

    i suspect that there were two waves of migration into south asia via the NW. one consisted of agriculturalists, brought the dravidian languages, and had little ANI. a second wave brought the indo-european languages, and brought a lot of ANI.

    i know for a fact that the populations of pakistan have A LOT of ANI. as much or more as european populations. perhaps the indo-europeans coming to south asia were much more ANI than those moving into europe? that’s a hypothesis we can’t dismiss. we know the two groups are connected though, they share the same lactase persistence allele….

  12. The interesting thing about all this is that these were not primarily genetic events, or even linguistic events, although they did leave traces in both.. No, they were primarily economic events all about risk management strategies. Conflicts of interest, at border areas, where extension of control from early states disrupted food and revenue trade between herders and farmers, appear to have set these events in motion. These conflicts of interest lead to increasingly negative ethnic stereotyping detrimental to smaller minorities of herders. The invasive take-over of elite roles, by the herder elites, in these larger agricultural states, were reactions to this situation. they were, in fact, were strategies deployed by a relatively small minority culture in each case. This might have pre-empted a potential danger of suppression and even genocide against these minorities. That is risk management, level: geopolitical masterclass.

    It tends to develop with a rationalizing mythology; usually some tripe about superior genes, master races, or manifest destiny… or even, “spreading freedom and democracy”…or.. “ the revolution”. In any event, it echoes back on a certain relier discussion “Why Race as a Social Construct Matters”.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    the issue i have with reduction to economics is economics is often methodologically individualist. i wonder if this could better be understood as a group level phenomenon in some cases.
    , @iffen
    I enjoy reading your comments.

    However, it seems to me that from the beginning of the 1st paragraph to the 2nd, you skipped a few thousand years.
  13. @Helga Vierich
    The interesting thing about all this is that these were not primarily genetic events, or even linguistic events, although they did leave traces in both.. No, they were primarily economic events all about risk management strategies. Conflicts of interest, at border areas, where extension of control from early states disrupted food and revenue trade between herders and farmers, appear to have set these events in motion. These conflicts of interest lead to increasingly negative ethnic stereotyping detrimental to smaller minorities of herders. The invasive take-over of elite roles, by the herder elites, in these larger agricultural states, were reactions to this situation. they were, in fact, were strategies deployed by a relatively small minority culture in each case. This might have pre-empted a potential danger of suppression and even genocide against these minorities. That is risk management, level: geopolitical masterclass.

    It tends to develop with a rationalizing mythology; usually some tripe about superior genes, master races, or manifest destiny... or even, “spreading freedom and democracy”...or.. “ the revolution”. In any event, it echoes back on a certain relier discussion “Why Race as a Social Construct Matters”.

    the issue i have with reduction to economics is economics is often methodologically individualist. i wonder if this could better be understood as a group level phenomenon in some cases.

  14. @Razib Khan
    look at the supplements of the indo-european paper on biorxiv. there is a reference to hungarians. a low level of admixture an asian element is detected with D statistics. also, national geographic's geno project has detected central asian mtDNA at low fractions. their ethnology genetically as a volga pop seems clear.

    Interesting thing is that aDNA shows East-Central Asian elements seem to have arrived in Hungary over a thousand years before Magyars and even Huns. The IR1 sample from pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture in the study below is from 900 BC and has mtDNA G2a1, and easternish autosomals too, more so than modern Hungarians, Romanians etc.

    He also has Y-DNA N, though not the L1034 which connects a few modern Hungarians and Ob-Ugrians but Y6503, a very early and rare (less than ten known modern samples, all in Balkans or Central Europe) branch that is less related to every other European and Asian N branch than they are to each other.

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html

  15. The movement from Inner Eurasia to the civilized rimlands was a long process that took many stages. I don’t think that the stages were necessarily very similar. Tokharians (and Shang China), Indo-Aryans, Indo-Europeans were the first stages and were not properly nomads and the latter two replaced local populations. The Kushans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, early Turks, and Hungarians were originally mostly nomads, but several of these peoples eventually formed sedentary states with cavalry armies. According to my understanding, something new arose in N-NW-NE China ca. 900-1200 culminating in the Mongols (via the Khitans, Jurchens, Xixia, and Qaraqitiai). The difference was the Mongol politico-military organization and as I understand it, the Mongols ca. 1300 were a politic0-military governing elite more than a nation, though the nation still existed to retreat to. Then after that, came what Barnfield called the “gunpowder empires”, which were fully modern states with efficient professional cavalry / artillery armies.

    That isn’t very clear, but I mean to distinguish four stages. One, the original Indo-European / Indo Aryan / Tokharian expansion through Inner Asia to the rimlands which contributed to the Shang transformation of China and resettled India, part of the Middle East, and Europe. This was not really nomadic. Second, the nomad armies that swept Eurasia 900 BC — 900 AD, in some cases settling down to form sedentary states (Kushana, the agricultural Scythians, the Hungarians, etc.) and in some cases establishing trade centers (Kushana, Bugar, Khazaria). Third, whatever it was that happened 900-1200 in Mongolia-Manchuria-Xinjiang, producing a hybrid nomad-sedentary strongly centralized state with unlimited ambitions and capacities. And finally, the Manchu, Mughals, and Ottomans, who were heirs of the Mongols and really just early modern states.

    In that context I have thought of Genghis Khan’s Mongols, whether they knew it at the beginning or not, as a society whose economy was specialized for war and government. The Mongol pastoral economy was a support for the military economy. A Mongol nation peacefully living off its herds would represent idle capacity and would be, by Mongol standards, an impoverished and unsuccessful nation.

    • Replies: @Caomengde
    Tokharian is a language spoken from 6th to 8th century on the Northern edge of Tarim basin before the region was conquered by Turks and language shifted to that of the Turkic conquerors.

    We do NOT know what language people of Tarim mummies spoke.

    There is 2000 years gap! A lot of things could've happened including language displacement.

    There is no evidence that Tarim mummies people's material culture significantly impacted Shang. No linguistic, archaeological or genetic evidence. None.

    At the time of Tarim mummies, there is already a fully fledged bronze culture much to the east:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qijia_culture

    Steppe Nomad horse culture didn't change significantly from Huns to Turks to Mongols.

    What really made Mongol different was the organizational genius of Temujin.
  16. @Sgt
    RE: Turkic Migrations and East-Asian ancestry --maybe not--

    see:

    1.) "Genetic landscape of populations along the Silk Road: admixture and migration patterns, Mezzavilla et al, 2014" : "The contribution from Asia dates back to ~25 generations and is limited to the Eastern Silk Road."

    2.)"Ancient Admixture in Human History, Patterson et al, 2012" Regarding Asian admixture among the Turkic Uygurs estimates "a date of 790 ± 60 YBP....in accordance with the rise of the Mongols under Genghis Khan (1206–1368)..."

    3.)"The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia"
    Yunusbayev et al, 2014 --> "Most of the Turkic peoples studied, except those in Central Asia, genetically resembled their geographic neighbors, in agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion. However [with] long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia...inferred admixture dates (~9th–17th centuries..."

    4.) Sarmatian elements in pagan necropolis from Northeastern Bulgaria and Northern Dobrogea {Summary}, Elena Angelova (Archaeology, 1995, 2, 5-17, Sofia) ; The Proto-Bulgarians north and west of the Black Sea. Dimitar Dimitrov. Varna, 1987 and others : Skeletal remains relating to Bulgars are described as "brachycranic europoids with small Mongoloid admixtures"

    Here is a graphic description by Classical Armenian historian Movses Kagankatvatsi of Sack of Derbent by Turks when they first bursted out of steppe into West Asia:

    Like waves in the sea, the Turks fell on the town of Chora (Derbent) and destroyed it completely. Seeing the terrible threat posed by this vile, ugly horde of attackers, with their slanting and lidless eyes, and their flowing hair like that of women, the inhabitants were seized by terror.

    Seeing is believing, checkout the depiction of Turks in unearthed Samarkand Afrasiab murals:

    The difference between Iranian Sogdian King (left large figure) and the Turk Khagan (large right figure) could not be more stark. The braids of Turks rather remind me of Manchu queue.

    For more, here is the mural of a Uyghur Khagan :

    you can’t get more East Asian look than that!

  17. @John Emerson
    The movement from Inner Eurasia to the civilized rimlands was a long process that took many stages. I don't think that the stages were necessarily very similar. Tokharians (and Shang China), Indo-Aryans, Indo-Europeans were the first stages and were not properly nomads and the latter two replaced local populations. The Kushans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, early Turks, and Hungarians were originally mostly nomads, but several of these peoples eventually formed sedentary states with cavalry armies. According to my understanding, something new arose in N-NW-NE China ca. 900-1200 culminating in the Mongols (via the Khitans, Jurchens, Xixia, and Qaraqitiai). The difference was the Mongol politico-military organization and as I understand it, the Mongols ca. 1300 were a politic0-military governing elite more than a nation, though the nation still existed to retreat to. Then after that, came what Barnfield called the "gunpowder empires", which were fully modern states with efficient professional cavalry / artillery armies.

    That isn't very clear, but I mean to distinguish four stages. One, the original Indo-European / Indo Aryan / Tokharian expansion through Inner Asia to the rimlands which contributed to the Shang transformation of China and resettled India, part of the Middle East, and Europe. This was not really nomadic. Second, the nomad armies that swept Eurasia 900 BC -- 900 AD, in some cases settling down to form sedentary states (Kushana, the agricultural Scythians, the Hungarians, etc.) and in some cases establishing trade centers (Kushana, Bugar, Khazaria). Third, whatever it was that happened 900-1200 in Mongolia-Manchuria-Xinjiang, producing a hybrid nomad-sedentary strongly centralized state with unlimited ambitions and capacities. And finally, the Manchu, Mughals, and Ottomans, who were heirs of the Mongols and really just early modern states.

    In that context I have thought of Genghis Khan's Mongols, whether they knew it at the beginning or not, as a society whose economy was specialized for war and government. The Mongol pastoral economy was a support for the military economy. A Mongol nation peacefully living off its herds would represent idle capacity and would be, by Mongol standards, an impoverished and unsuccessful nation.

    Tokharian is a language spoken from 6th to 8th century on the Northern edge of Tarim basin before the region was conquered by Turks and language shifted to that of the Turkic conquerors.

    We do NOT know what language people of Tarim mummies spoke.

    There is 2000 years gap! A lot of things could’ve happened including language displacement.

    There is no evidence that Tarim mummies people’s material culture significantly impacted Shang. No linguistic, archaeological or genetic evidence. None.

    At the time of Tarim mummies, there is already a fully fledged bronze culture much to the east:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qijia_culture

    Steppe Nomad horse culture didn’t change significantly from Huns to Turks to Mongols.

    What really made Mongol different was the organizational genius of Temujin.

  18. Like Razib I have a hunch that Dravidian is also an ANI group. My reason for this is the substantial ANI found in South India despite the South not being Aryanized .

    Even Dravidians from the deep South (Tamil Nadu) have substantial ANI ; the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that Dravidian itself was an ANI group.

    IVC would have also had a small community of Sumerians and possibly other West Asians (populations with affinity to ANI). IVC merchants did live in Sumer, so the opposite is likely as well.

    IVC must have already had ANI+ASI admixed populations prior to the Indo-Aryan intrusions.

    I wonder if ASI is also a mix of different ancient populations, because other than Dravidians, you have the Vedda and the Munda people who preceded the Indo-Aryans. We also don’t know the relationship between the Vedda and the common ancestor to the Onge and ASI .

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    fwiw, not sure that munda precede indo-aryans. they might be contemporaneous. i'm 95% sure they're exogenous though. they have east asian Y chromosome and EDAR.
  19. @greysquirrell
    @Yudi

    Like Razib I have a hunch that Dravidian is also an ANI group. My reason for this is the substantial ANI found in South India despite the South not being Aryanized .

    Even Dravidians from the deep South (Tamil Nadu) have substantial ANI ; the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that Dravidian itself was an ANI group.

    IVC would have also had a small community of Sumerians and possibly other West Asians (populations with affinity to ANI). IVC merchants did live in Sumer, so the opposite is likely as well.

    IVC must have already had ANI+ASI admixed populations prior to the Indo-Aryan intrusions.

    I wonder if ASI is also a mix of different ancient populations, because other than Dravidians, you have the Vedda and the Munda people who preceded the Indo-Aryans. We also don't know the relationship between the Vedda and the common ancestor to the Onge and ASI .

    fwiw, not sure that munda precede indo-aryans. they might be contemporaneous. i’m 95% sure they’re exogenous though. they have east asian Y chromosome and EDAR.

    • Replies: @CaoMengDe
    The Munda Y chromosome looks like recent intrusions from the East but mtDNA seemed to be deeply rooted in South India.

    Considering EDAR component is such small percentage among Munda. Most likely scenario is that group of O2a carrying men conquered local ANI-ASI, forming top elite tier. Due to their higher social status, sons of elite propagated O2a Y chromosome thru the population thru the generations.

    But because this happened before recorded times , and more importantly limitation on accuracy of coalescence times, it's to anybody's guess when the Eastern intrusion actually happened.
  20. Razib, Nathan:

    I misspoke above. I clearly implied that I thought Razib thought the IEs were the sole contributors to ANI in India, but what I meant to ask is whether he now believed they brought a substantially greater portion of it than he had previously assumed. I know there has been a lot of migration into India from its northeast, both before and after the IEs came, which must have brought ANI into India. I never meant to say only the IEs brought it.

  21. This paper dates the ANI-ASI admixture 1900-4200ya.

    http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(13)00324-8?cc=y

    That postdates the collapse of the Indus Valley civilization. Not sure what else than Indo-Aryans could fit the bill.

    • Replies: @Megalophias
    4200 years ago is during the Mature period of the Harappan Civilization. The obvious source of ANI would *be* the Harappan Civilization, and other Neolithic people of NW South Asia, who had ancient connections to West Asia. Indo-Aryans would bring their own ANI-type ancestry, but also spread NW South Asian ancestry they picked up.

    Pastoralists moving down from the north and triggering the South Indian Neolithic, bringing cattle and adopting local crops, would be the source of the early ANI admixture into South India. (Possibly the original Dravidian speakers - in any case the spread of Dravidian is plausibly connected to the South Indian Neolithic.) The migration of Late Harappans east of the Ganges would also spread ANI.

    Remember, the method used in that paper tends to find the *latest* admixture, and they determined that most of the groups involved had probably experienced multiple episodes of admixture. The farmers of Andhra Pradesh that had the *earliest* admixture were also one of the few exceptions who appeared to have experienced only one admixture pulse.

    Of course the confidence intervals on the dates are wide, and the admixture need not have actually occurred in the place where the groups tested presently reside, which complicates matters.

    , @Vijay
    Harappa did not end 4200 BP; it grew the most rapid between 2200 BC and 1900 BC as in "Disease, and Biosocial Processes at the End of the Indus Civilization", http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084814. The IVC tottered on after 1900 BC all the way to 1000 BC.

    You are probably thinking about 4.2 kya climate event, but the impact on IVC is not the same as the impact on Egypt and Mesopotamia.

    In the Moorjani et al paper, only five groups, namely, Kallar, Madiga, Vysya, Chamar, and Dushadh are noted to be admixed prior to 3100 BP. They all have 32-40% ANI. Megalophias also notes that this admixture was before considerable Indo-European penetration ( 50% ANI and later than 3000 BP admixture is an indicator of Indo-European admixture.

    Indo-Aryans contributed to ANI; but not sure if all ANI is indo-Aryan.
  22. @toto
    This paper dates the ANI-ASI admixture 1900-4200ya.

    http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(13)00324-8?cc=y

    That postdates the collapse of the Indus Valley civilization. Not sure what else than Indo-Aryans could fit the bill.

    4200 years ago is during the Mature period of the Harappan Civilization. The obvious source of ANI would *be* the Harappan Civilization, and other Neolithic people of NW South Asia, who had ancient connections to West Asia. Indo-Aryans would bring their own ANI-type ancestry, but also spread NW South Asian ancestry they picked up.

    Pastoralists moving down from the north and triggering the South Indian Neolithic, bringing cattle and adopting local crops, would be the source of the early ANI admixture into South India. (Possibly the original Dravidian speakers – in any case the spread of Dravidian is plausibly connected to the South Indian Neolithic.) The migration of Late Harappans east of the Ganges would also spread ANI.

    Remember, the method used in that paper tends to find the *latest* admixture, and they determined that most of the groups involved had probably experienced multiple episodes of admixture. The farmers of Andhra Pradesh that had the *earliest* admixture were also one of the few exceptions who appeared to have experienced only one admixture pulse.

    Of course the confidence intervals on the dates are wide, and the admixture need not have actually occurred in the place where the groups tested presently reside, which complicates matters.

  23. @Razib Khan
    fwiw, not sure that munda precede indo-aryans. they might be contemporaneous. i'm 95% sure they're exogenous though. they have east asian Y chromosome and EDAR.

    The Munda Y chromosome looks like recent intrusions from the East but mtDNA seemed to be deeply rooted in South India.

    Considering EDAR component is such small percentage among Munda. Most likely scenario is that group of O2a carrying men conquered local ANI-ASI, forming top elite tier. Due to their higher social status, sons of elite propagated O2a Y chromosome thru the population thru the generations.

    But because this happened before recorded times , and more importantly limitation on accuracy of coalescence times, it’s to anybody’s guess when the Eastern intrusion actually happened.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    But because this happened before recorded times , and more importantly limitation on accuracy of coalescence times, it’s to anybody’s guess when the Eastern intrusion actually happened.


    the EDAR sweep in east asia is recent. on the order of 5 K years. so that starts to peg a upper and lower bound.
  24. @toto
    This paper dates the ANI-ASI admixture 1900-4200ya.

    http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(13)00324-8?cc=y

    That postdates the collapse of the Indus Valley civilization. Not sure what else than Indo-Aryans could fit the bill.

    Harappa did not end 4200 BP; it grew the most rapid between 2200 BC and 1900 BC as in “Disease, and Biosocial Processes at the End of the Indus Civilization”, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084814. The IVC tottered on after 1900 BC all the way to 1000 BC.

    You are probably thinking about 4.2 kya climate event, but the impact on IVC is not the same as the impact on Egypt and Mesopotamia.

    In the Moorjani et al paper, only five groups, namely, Kallar, Madiga, Vysya, Chamar, and Dushadh are noted to be admixed prior to 3100 BP. They all have 32-40% ANI. Megalophias also notes that this admixture was before considerable Indo-European penetration ( 50% ANI and later than 3000 BP admixture is an indicator of Indo-European admixture.

    Indo-Aryans contributed to ANI; but not sure if all ANI is indo-Aryan.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    i think toto assumes that the admixture occurred in the mid-point of the interval of admixture. that would post-date indus.
  25. “There is no evidence that Tarim mummies people’s material culture significantly impacted Shang. No linguistic, archaeological or genetic evidence. None.”

    You are far, far overstating whatever case you have. Mair has done a lot of work on this. You have to reference it rather than just assert opposition. Somehow or another a Caucasian-area chariot made it to Shang China. And somehow the Tokharian language reached Central Asia from the Middle East before the Indo-Iranian languages reached India.

    The case I have made may or may not be true, but it requires more serious consideration than you have given it.

    http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9782503524290-1

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Tarim-Mummies-J-Mallory/dp/0500283729

    “Steppe Nomad horse culture didn’t change significantly from Huns to Turks to Mongols.
    What really made Mongol different was the organizational genius of Temujin.”

    That’s fairly meaningless. Political organization changed greatly, and in the north of China the Khitan, Jurchen, and Xixia developed hybrid societies combining the logistic strengths of sedentary societies and their capacities for siege warfare with the attacking power of nomadic society. The Mongols had tough fights against the Xixia, the Jin, and the Song, but as soon as they went west they cut through the opposing armies like butter. Something had changed, but it wasn’t just the genius of Genghis Khan but a centuries long transition.

    The Khwarizmian society was somewhat similar to the societies to the east, with a nomadic military elite and agricultural and commercial common people, but its integration was weak. Before the Mongol attack Khwarizm was the strongest Islamic state, threatening Baghdad and making a foothold on the Arabian Peninsula, but it was really just a loose assemblage of city-states. The Khwarizmian Sha was continually having to subjugate rebels, including his own mother and brother, and could not rely on anyone to stay subjugated.

    I still would propose a staged history: Before the nomads, the nomads 900 BC– 900 AD, the Qitan-Jin-Mongol transition in the NW, the Mongol Empire, and the gunpowder empires (Tamerlane, Moghuls, Manchus, Ottomans).

    • Replies: @CaoMengDe
    Yuezhi migration was well documented by the Grand Historian Sima Qian in his Record of history. Yuezhi under pressure of Xiongnu, move from their homeland in the East (area around Gansu) went West to Conquer eventually Bactria.

    The Yuezhi originally lived in the area between the Qilian or Heavenly Mountains and Dunhuang, but after they were defeated by the Xiongnu they moved far away to the west, beyond Dayuan, where they attacked and conquered the people of Daxia and set up the court of their king on the northern bank of the Gui River. A small number of their people who were unable to make the journey west sought refuge among the Qiang barbarians in the Southern Mountains, where they are known as the Lesser Yuezhi.
    — "The Account of Dayuan", Shiji

    Yuezhi was defeated by Xiongnu leader Modu who became leader of Xiongnu around 209 BC.

    That's fully 1000 years before Tokharian and 1000 years after the earliest Tarim mummies.

    Tarim mummies were in Xinjiang before Yuezhi east to west migration.

    We know about Tokharian language because the surviving script from 6th and 8th century.

    It's also because of Tokharian text with Old Uyghur script translation survived, we are able to interpret Tokharian language.

    Today Tarim people speak Turkic Uyghur because Uyghur swept down from Mongolia after Uyghur empire was destroyed there. Uyhur conqueror imposed their language on the local Tokharian speakers. This is langauge displacement in recorded times.

    We simply do NOT know how many times the language have shifted prior in the region.

    Before the Turkic conquest, on the SOUTHERN Rim of Tarim basin, in Khotan, an Eastern Iranian language was spoken. Khotanese is a Saka language, NOT Tokharian.

    We do NOT know what lanuage was spoken by Tarim mummies. We also do not know whether when Yuezhi migrated from East to West, they brought new language into the region.

    I have read Mair, let's just say I am not impressed. Too much speculation, short on facts.

    Regarding Mongol during the time of Temujin's birth, they are a pure steppe people. Very different from Siniziced Khitan and Jurchen empire in the South.

    What made Khitan Liao, Jurchen Jin and Tangut Xixia different is that they conquered Chinese land and are partly Sinicized. You are correct that Liao, Jin and Xixia are hybrid societies.

    In fact, Mongols call the land and people south of them Hitad (Khitan). This became Kitai and Cathay when transmit to Europe.

    Today, Russian and Central Asians still call Chinese Kitai and Mongols still call Chinese Hitad.

    Mongols just had a harder time conquer Chinese kingdoms in general.

    China already were using gun poweder weapons in warfare on the eve of Mongol invasion.

    Southern Song resisted Mongol for 45 years!

    Siege of Xiangyang lasted 6 years!

    Why Mongols cut their Western foes like knife thru butter?

    I will paraphrase Dan Carlin's Hardcore History: "Wrath of the Khans"

    Because Mongols perfected their art of war in the Eastern galaxy, galaxy of China where the general level of warfare is practise at a much higher level. It's like the team from major league suddenly descended upon the minor league.

  26. A little OT– Just read Bryan Sykes’ ” Saxons, Vikings and Celts.” If his contention that the majority of people from the British Isles are descended from the original post ice age hunter gatherer populations is correct, how did most of us become lactose tolerant?

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    natural selection. but in any case, he's wrong. but still, natural selection.
  27. @SF
    A little OT-- Just read Bryan Sykes' " Saxons, Vikings and Celts." If his contention that the majority of people from the British Isles are descended from the original post ice age hunter gatherer populations is correct, how did most of us become lactose tolerant?

    natural selection. but in any case, he’s wrong. but still, natural selection.

  28. @CaoMengDe
    The Munda Y chromosome looks like recent intrusions from the East but mtDNA seemed to be deeply rooted in South India.

    Considering EDAR component is such small percentage among Munda. Most likely scenario is that group of O2a carrying men conquered local ANI-ASI, forming top elite tier. Due to their higher social status, sons of elite propagated O2a Y chromosome thru the population thru the generations.

    But because this happened before recorded times , and more importantly limitation on accuracy of coalescence times, it's to anybody's guess when the Eastern intrusion actually happened.

    But because this happened before recorded times , and more importantly limitation on accuracy of coalescence times, it’s to anybody’s guess when the Eastern intrusion actually happened.

    the EDAR sweep in east asia is recent. on the order of 5 K years. so that starts to peg a upper and lower bound.

    • Replies: @CaoMengDe
    5 K years! Wow! that's really recent.

    But how does that explain EDAR in Native American? I thought EDAR is just as prevalent among Native American population.
  29. @Vijay
    Harappa did not end 4200 BP; it grew the most rapid between 2200 BC and 1900 BC as in "Disease, and Biosocial Processes at the End of the Indus Civilization", http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084814. The IVC tottered on after 1900 BC all the way to 1000 BC.

    You are probably thinking about 4.2 kya climate event, but the impact on IVC is not the same as the impact on Egypt and Mesopotamia.

    In the Moorjani et al paper, only five groups, namely, Kallar, Madiga, Vysya, Chamar, and Dushadh are noted to be admixed prior to 3100 BP. They all have 32-40% ANI. Megalophias also notes that this admixture was before considerable Indo-European penetration ( 50% ANI and later than 3000 BP admixture is an indicator of Indo-European admixture.

    Indo-Aryans contributed to ANI; but not sure if all ANI is indo-Aryan.

    i think toto assumes that the admixture occurred in the mid-point of the interval of admixture. that would post-date indus.

  30. @John emerson
    "There is no evidence that Tarim mummies people’s material culture significantly impacted Shang. No linguistic, archaeological or genetic evidence. None."

    You are far, far overstating whatever case you have. Mair has done a lot of work on this. You have to reference it rather than just assert opposition. Somehow or another a Caucasian-area chariot made it to Shang China. And somehow the Tokharian language reached Central Asia from the Middle East before the Indo-Iranian languages reached India.

    The case I have made may or may not be true, but it requires more serious consideration than you have given it.

    http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9782503524290-1

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Tarim-Mummies-J-Mallory/dp/0500283729

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Horse-Wheel-Language-Bronze-Age/dp/069114818X

    "Steppe Nomad horse culture didn’t change significantly from Huns to Turks to Mongols.
    What really made Mongol different was the organizational genius of Temujin."

    That's fairly meaningless. Political organization changed greatly, and in the north of China the Khitan, Jurchen, and Xixia developed hybrid societies combining the logistic strengths of sedentary societies and their capacities for siege warfare with the attacking power of nomadic society. The Mongols had tough fights against the Xixia, the Jin, and the Song, but as soon as they went west they cut through the opposing armies like butter. Something had changed, but it wasn't just the genius of Genghis Khan but a centuries long transition.

    The Khwarizmian society was somewhat similar to the societies to the east, with a nomadic military elite and agricultural and commercial common people, but its integration was weak. Before the Mongol attack Khwarizm was the strongest Islamic state, threatening Baghdad and making a foothold on the Arabian Peninsula, but it was really just a loose assemblage of city-states. The Khwarizmian Sha was continually having to subjugate rebels, including his own mother and brother, and could not rely on anyone to stay subjugated.

    I still would propose a staged history: Before the nomads, the nomads 900 BC-- 900 AD, the Qitan-Jin-Mongol transition in the NW, the Mongol Empire, and the gunpowder empires (Tamerlane, Moghuls, Manchus, Ottomans).

    Yuezhi migration was well documented by the Grand Historian Sima Qian in his Record of history. Yuezhi under pressure of Xiongnu, move from their homeland in the East (area around Gansu) went West to Conquer eventually Bactria.

    The Yuezhi originally lived in the area between the Qilian or Heavenly Mountains and Dunhuang, but after they were defeated by the Xiongnu they moved far away to the west, beyond Dayuan, where they attacked and conquered the people of Daxia and set up the court of their king on the northern bank of the Gui River. A small number of their people who were unable to make the journey west sought refuge among the Qiang barbarians in the Southern Mountains, where they are known as the Lesser Yuezhi.
    — “The Account of Dayuan”, Shiji

    Yuezhi was defeated by Xiongnu leader Modu who became leader of Xiongnu around 209 BC.

    That’s fully 1000 years before Tokharian and 1000 years after the earliest Tarim mummies.

    Tarim mummies were in Xinjiang before Yuezhi east to west migration.

    We know about Tokharian language because the surviving script from 6th and 8th century.

    It’s also because of Tokharian text with Old Uyghur script translation survived, we are able to interpret Tokharian language.

    Today Tarim people speak Turkic Uyghur because Uyghur swept down from Mongolia after Uyghur empire was destroyed there. Uyhur conqueror imposed their language on the local Tokharian speakers. This is langauge displacement in recorded times.

    We simply do NOT know how many times the language have shifted prior in the region.

    Before the Turkic conquest, on the SOUTHERN Rim of Tarim basin, in Khotan, an Eastern Iranian language was spoken. Khotanese is a Saka language, NOT Tokharian.

    We do NOT know what lanuage was spoken by Tarim mummies. We also do not know whether when Yuezhi migrated from East to West, they brought new language into the region.

    I have read Mair, let’s just say I am not impressed. Too much speculation, short on facts.

    Regarding Mongol during the time of Temujin’s birth, they are a pure steppe people. Very different from Siniziced Khitan and Jurchen empire in the South.

    What made Khitan Liao, Jurchen Jin and Tangut Xixia different is that they conquered Chinese land and are partly Sinicized. You are correct that Liao, Jin and Xixia are hybrid societies.

    In fact, Mongols call the land and people south of them Hitad (Khitan). This became Kitai and Cathay when transmit to Europe.

    Today, Russian and Central Asians still call Chinese Kitai and Mongols still call Chinese Hitad.

    Mongols just had a harder time conquer Chinese kingdoms in general.

    China already were using gun poweder weapons in warfare on the eve of Mongol invasion.

    Southern Song resisted Mongol for 45 years!

    Siege of Xiangyang lasted 6 years!

    Why Mongols cut their Western foes like knife thru butter?

    I will paraphrase Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History: “Wrath of the Khans”

    Because Mongols perfected their art of war in the Eastern galaxy, galaxy of China where the general level of warfare is practise at a much higher level. It’s like the team from major league suddenly descended upon the minor league.

  31. @Razib Khan
    But because this happened before recorded times , and more importantly limitation on accuracy of coalescence times, it’s to anybody’s guess when the Eastern intrusion actually happened.


    the EDAR sweep in east asia is recent. on the order of 5 K years. so that starts to peg a upper and lower bound.

    5 K years! Wow! that’s really recent.

    But how does that explain EDAR in Native American? I thought EDAR is just as prevalent among Native American population.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    might be separate sweeps, or, could be na dene post 10 K migration introduced. i'll have to look closer, but this really does seem to be a recent sweep.
  32. Hi, I don’t know if you’ve had a look at Richard Bulliet’s Cotton, Climate, ad Camels in Early Islamic Iran and its sort of sequel Ronnie Ellenblum’s The Collapse of the Eastern Mediterranean, I think you’d like these.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    thanks
  33. @Helga Vierich
    The interesting thing about all this is that these were not primarily genetic events, or even linguistic events, although they did leave traces in both.. No, they were primarily economic events all about risk management strategies. Conflicts of interest, at border areas, where extension of control from early states disrupted food and revenue trade between herders and farmers, appear to have set these events in motion. These conflicts of interest lead to increasingly negative ethnic stereotyping detrimental to smaller minorities of herders. The invasive take-over of elite roles, by the herder elites, in these larger agricultural states, were reactions to this situation. they were, in fact, were strategies deployed by a relatively small minority culture in each case. This might have pre-empted a potential danger of suppression and even genocide against these minorities. That is risk management, level: geopolitical masterclass.

    It tends to develop with a rationalizing mythology; usually some tripe about superior genes, master races, or manifest destiny... or even, “spreading freedom and democracy”...or.. “ the revolution”. In any event, it echoes back on a certain relier discussion “Why Race as a Social Construct Matters”.

    I enjoy reading your comments.

    However, it seems to me that from the beginning of the 1st paragraph to the 2nd, you skipped a few thousand years.

  34. The Mongols were not a pure steppe people. Mongol refugees continually took service in the militaries of the Jin, the Xixia, the Qaraqitai, etc. The Khitans were not purely a sedentary people either; they were of Mongol origin and when defeated by the Jurchen many returned to the steppe. Frontiers of this type are permeable, and serve to produce hybrid border peoples of mixed loyalties (see Lattimore). Ratchensky, following the reports of the Song ambassadors, believed that Genghis Khan spent a considerable period in the service of the Jin, but that this service was minimized in the Secret History and other records. It is on records that Ong Khan and Temujin were in Jin service against the Tatar in 1196 AD; from this time on the Jin had poor relations with their border auxiliaries, many of whom switched to Mongol service.

    What I said about the Tokharians is based on both Benjamin and Mair. Benjamin goes through the Chinese records and the archaeology very thoroughly. His theory involves joining four bodies of knowledge: the Chinese records of the Yuehzhi and later records of the Kushans; the discovery of Tokharian writings from the late first millenium in Xinjiang; the history of the Indo-European languages and the early separation of Tokharian; and archeology of the early period (including but not only the Tarim mummies). It’s possible to treat these four topics independently, but this leaves several loose ends: how did the medieval Tokharians get were they were, who were the Tarim mummies, who were the Yuezhi, who were the Kushans? Benjamin’s theory is certainly a bold one, but it strikes me as very well argued and one that can’t just be dismissed, as you do. (The Tokharian question was big a century or so ago, but it proved intractable and fell silent. I find benjamin’s revival quite convincing. The Tokharians had to come from somewhere). The same is true about Mair’s speculations about a possible western influence on the mid-Shang.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    The Mongols were not a pure steppe people

    yes. i was going to chime in here. clearly they shifted between being residents of the forest zone and steppe zone, depending on what was advantageous and possible. a slur against them by other nomads as that they were "rat eaters." that is, hunters from the forest. the oirat mongols persisted in this state for longer than the eastern mongols.
    , @Caomengde
    I have read Song Ambassador 's report in original Classical Chinese. Note this is from Song Ambassador to Jin. Therefore the information about Mongols is second hand, not like Secret History which came straight from Mongol court historian.

    Song Ambassador reported that Temujin is a slave of Jin. This cannot be interpreted literally. As for Temujin and his patron Ong Khan were vassals of Jin, there is no dispute. Jin empire is playing the classical divide and conquer strategy of "using barbarians against barbarians". That's why first Jin supported Tartar to fight Mongols, then after Tatars became too powerful, switch support to Keriat and Mongols to fight Tartar. But Temujin and Ong Khan still reside in the steppe and living as steppe nomads do.

    Of course not all Khitan settled down in Beijing. Khitans who remain nomadic were classified as Mongols after Mongol conquest whereas Sinicized Khitan and Jurchen along with all native Chinese of Nothern China were classified as Hitad (Han).

    Unlike Jurchen Jin empire, Khitan Liao empire had firm grip on the steppe, it build fortress cities all the way in central Mongolia where it maintained large garrison force. This why after the defeat by Jurchens, Yelu Dashi were able to retreat to Mongolia,gather the garrison forces and eventually marched West and conquer Central Asia and established Karakhitan empire in the west. Yet even so far removed from China proper, the Sinic Influence in Karakhitan court is quite apparent.

    It's because Jin destroyed Liao power that resulted in the power vacuum in Mongolia that allowed Mongols to rise.

    About Yuezhi, I will say this: they conquer Bactria. They are believed to be the same people that Greeks referred to as Tókharoi. When ancient scripts were discovered in Tarim basin, because in the Turkic Uyghur translation it was referred to as Toxri, Muller believed that this is the language of classical Tókharoi. Therefore he named them Tocharian language . We now know that this is sort of a misnomer.

    Because we now know that Bactrian language spoken by People who conquered Greco-Bactria Kingdom is a Eastern Iranian language, quite distinct from Tocharian language spoken in the Northern Tarim Basin.

    As for Tarim mummies and Shang. Of all the Tarim mummies of Xiaohe ruin that have been tested for DNA, males are of R1a Y haplogroup.

    I'm not aware any such Y chromosome turning up in Shang Anyang ruin.

    Like I said there is no concrete evidence to support what Mair is claiming.

  35. @CaoMengDe
    5 K years! Wow! that's really recent.

    But how does that explain EDAR in Native American? I thought EDAR is just as prevalent among Native American population.

    might be separate sweeps, or, could be na dene post 10 K migration introduced. i’ll have to look closer, but this really does seem to be a recent sweep.

  36. @maharbbal
    Hi, I don't know if you've had a look at Richard Bulliet's Cotton, Climate, ad Camels in Early Islamic Iran and its sort of sequel Ronnie Ellenblum's The Collapse of the Eastern Mediterranean, I think you'd like these.

    thanks

  37. @John Emerson
    The Mongols were not a pure steppe people. Mongol refugees continually took service in the militaries of the Jin, the Xixia, the Qaraqitai, etc. The Khitans were not purely a sedentary people either; they were of Mongol origin and when defeated by the Jurchen many returned to the steppe. Frontiers of this type are permeable, and serve to produce hybrid border peoples of mixed loyalties (see Lattimore). Ratchensky, following the reports of the Song ambassadors, believed that Genghis Khan spent a considerable period in the service of the Jin, but that this service was minimized in the Secret History and other records. It is on records that Ong Khan and Temujin were in Jin service against the Tatar in 1196 AD; from this time on the Jin had poor relations with their border auxiliaries, many of whom switched to Mongol service.


    What I said about the Tokharians is based on both Benjamin and Mair. Benjamin goes through the Chinese records and the archaeology very thoroughly. His theory involves joining four bodies of knowledge: the Chinese records of the Yuehzhi and later records of the Kushans; the discovery of Tokharian writings from the late first millenium in Xinjiang; the history of the Indo-European languages and the early separation of Tokharian; and archeology of the early period (including but not only the Tarim mummies). It's possible to treat these four topics independently, but this leaves several loose ends: how did the medieval Tokharians get were they were, who were the Tarim mummies, who were the Yuezhi, who were the Kushans? Benjamin's theory is certainly a bold one, but it strikes me as very well argued and one that can't just be dismissed, as you do. (The Tokharian question was big a century or so ago, but it proved intractable and fell silent. I find benjamin's revival quite convincing. The Tokharians had to come from somewhere). The same is true about Mair's speculations about a possible western influence on the mid-Shang.

    The Mongols were not a pure steppe people

    yes. i was going to chime in here. clearly they shifted between being residents of the forest zone and steppe zone, depending on what was advantageous and possible. a slur against them by other nomads as that they were “rat eaters.” that is, hunters from the forest. the oirat mongols persisted in this state for longer than the eastern mongols.

    • Replies: @CaoMengDe
    Well Oriat in Secret History of Mongol was referred to as Urianghai, which meant people of the forest.

    It's clear from the Secret History, at the times of Temujin, Oriat is not considered part of Khamag Mongol or original Mongol confederation.

    Mongol themselves were believed to have migrated from Khingan Mountains on the borders of Manchuria and Mongolia into the Mongolia proper after Uyghur Khanate was destroyed there. They retained many cultural aspects of their forest dwelling forebears. Turkic Khazaks whose ancestors spend more time on the steppe use skin to hold milk whereas Mongols use wooden bucket.

    But by the time of Mongol conquest, compare to Jurchen Jin empire to south, Mongol is definitely a more "pure" steppe people living a pure nomadic pastoralists lifestyle.
  38. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Hi Razib,
    I run a A-DNA project called Khmer Cousins DNA Project at FTDNA. I started this project because I have 2 adopted sons who were born in Cambodia and we wanted to know if they might be related in anyway to other 2300 adopted Cambodian children in the US. According to gedmatch my sons are 4th cousins to each other. The project started in 2012 and we have 130 members now. Most the members are adoptees, but we also have several who live in Cambodia who were being tested as possible birth parents to our adoptee members. We also have some new members who are 2nd generation from the US refugee population.

    When FTDNA changed the way their heritage results were displayed last year they hurt our project because they deleted what population groups that were displayed before. So I have been adding our results slowly to gedmatch. I normally use the Happraworld to look at heritage results for our members. In your opinion Happraworld the best DB to use for our project for heritage.

    I am wondering if you might be interesting in looking at our results and doing an analysis of some kind. I enjoy reading your posts here and first found you when you were with Discover. Please contact me if this project interests you in any way.

  39. @Razib Khan
    The Mongols were not a pure steppe people

    yes. i was going to chime in here. clearly they shifted between being residents of the forest zone and steppe zone, depending on what was advantageous and possible. a slur against them by other nomads as that they were "rat eaters." that is, hunters from the forest. the oirat mongols persisted in this state for longer than the eastern mongols.

    Well Oriat in Secret History of Mongol was referred to as Urianghai, which meant people of the forest.

    It’s clear from the Secret History, at the times of Temujin, Oriat is not considered part of Khamag Mongol or original Mongol confederation.

    Mongol themselves were believed to have migrated from Khingan Mountains on the borders of Manchuria and Mongolia into the Mongolia proper after Uyghur Khanate was destroyed there. They retained many cultural aspects of their forest dwelling forebears. Turkic Khazaks whose ancestors spend more time on the steppe use skin to hold milk whereas Mongols use wooden bucket.

    But by the time of Mongol conquest, compare to Jurchen Jin empire to south, Mongol is definitely a more “pure” steppe people living a pure nomadic pastoralists lifestyle.

  40. @John Emerson
    The Mongols were not a pure steppe people. Mongol refugees continually took service in the militaries of the Jin, the Xixia, the Qaraqitai, etc. The Khitans were not purely a sedentary people either; they were of Mongol origin and when defeated by the Jurchen many returned to the steppe. Frontiers of this type are permeable, and serve to produce hybrid border peoples of mixed loyalties (see Lattimore). Ratchensky, following the reports of the Song ambassadors, believed that Genghis Khan spent a considerable period in the service of the Jin, but that this service was minimized in the Secret History and other records. It is on records that Ong Khan and Temujin were in Jin service against the Tatar in 1196 AD; from this time on the Jin had poor relations with their border auxiliaries, many of whom switched to Mongol service.


    What I said about the Tokharians is based on both Benjamin and Mair. Benjamin goes through the Chinese records and the archaeology very thoroughly. His theory involves joining four bodies of knowledge: the Chinese records of the Yuehzhi and later records of the Kushans; the discovery of Tokharian writings from the late first millenium in Xinjiang; the history of the Indo-European languages and the early separation of Tokharian; and archeology of the early period (including but not only the Tarim mummies). It's possible to treat these four topics independently, but this leaves several loose ends: how did the medieval Tokharians get were they were, who were the Tarim mummies, who were the Yuezhi, who were the Kushans? Benjamin's theory is certainly a bold one, but it strikes me as very well argued and one that can't just be dismissed, as you do. (The Tokharian question was big a century or so ago, but it proved intractable and fell silent. I find benjamin's revival quite convincing. The Tokharians had to come from somewhere). The same is true about Mair's speculations about a possible western influence on the mid-Shang.

    I have read Song Ambassador ‘s report in original Classical Chinese. Note this is from Song Ambassador to Jin. Therefore the information about Mongols is second hand, not like Secret History which came straight from Mongol court historian.

    Song Ambassador reported that Temujin is a slave of Jin. This cannot be interpreted literally. As for Temujin and his patron Ong Khan were vassals of Jin, there is no dispute. Jin empire is playing the classical divide and conquer strategy of “using barbarians against barbarians”. That’s why first Jin supported Tartar to fight Mongols, then after Tatars became too powerful, switch support to Keriat and Mongols to fight Tartar. But Temujin and Ong Khan still reside in the steppe and living as steppe nomads do.

    Of course not all Khitan settled down in Beijing. Khitans who remain nomadic were classified as Mongols after Mongol conquest whereas Sinicized Khitan and Jurchen along with all native Chinese of Nothern China were classified as Hitad (Han).

    Unlike Jurchen Jin empire, Khitan Liao empire had firm grip on the steppe, it build fortress cities all the way in central Mongolia where it maintained large garrison force. This why after the defeat by Jurchens, Yelu Dashi were able to retreat to Mongolia,gather the garrison forces and eventually marched West and conquer Central Asia and established Karakhitan empire in the west. Yet even so far removed from China proper, the Sinic Influence in Karakhitan court is quite apparent.

    It’s because Jin destroyed Liao power that resulted in the power vacuum in Mongolia that allowed Mongols to rise.

    About Yuezhi, I will say this: they conquer Bactria. They are believed to be the same people that Greeks referred to as Tókharoi. When ancient scripts were discovered in Tarim basin, because in the Turkic Uyghur translation it was referred to as Toxri, Muller believed that this is the language of classical Tókharoi. Therefore he named them Tocharian language . We now know that this is sort of a misnomer.

    Because we now know that Bactrian language spoken by People who conquered Greco-Bactria Kingdom is a Eastern Iranian language, quite distinct from Tocharian language spoken in the Northern Tarim Basin.

    As for Tarim mummies and Shang. Of all the Tarim mummies of Xiaohe ruin that have been tested for DNA, males are of R1a Y haplogroup.

    I’m not aware any such Y chromosome turning up in Shang Anyang ruin.

    Like I said there is no concrete evidence to support what Mair is claiming.

  41. First of all, you should read Benjamin.

    Second, the Tocharian language was one of the first to split from the main Indo-European body near the Black Sea, roughly around 3700 BC, and it ended up in Xinjiang ca 700 AD. It’s reasonable to speculate where it was between times, and that’s what Mair and Benjamin have done.

    Second, contact between two peoples can be genetic, linguistic, or merely cultural. There didn’t need to be any significant genetic exchange between the Tokharians and the Shang for there to have been substantial cultural exchange at the Shang-Yin intersection, which is what is claimed. As far as the language of the Kushans goes, they were presumably multilingual.

    I will agree that the identification of the Xinjiang manuscripts with the Tokharai was conjectural and unsupported.

    If the Jin reported to the Song Ambassador that Temuljin had been a “slave” of Jin that is information that cannot be dismissed, and the interpretation of the word “slave” is uncertain. Chinese rulers often classified their highest ministers as “slaves”, as an indication of the absolute power of the monarch. In that sense Temujin would have only to have been in the Jin service for a period to be called a slave. This is would not have been unusual — Ong Qan, his brother Gur Qan, the Naiman refugees, all served in the Xixia or Qaraqitai militaries. And it would not be unusual for the Secret History and SWQZL to have left that fact out.

    Lattimore’s argument was that neither the tame Mongols (Tatar, Onggut) nor the “wild” or “raw” Mongols (in the NW) would have been the ones to overthrow Jin, but the ones in between who had learned a few things from the Jin. But his main argument always was that there never were many “pure” Mongols, and the the steppe was always in some kind of military, trade, and political relationship with the sedentary world. Lattimore’s work was primarily to redefine the way we thing of borders and especially the frontier between the “civilized” and the “barbarian” worlds.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS