search this blog

Monday, July 24, 2017

The Crisis


Correct me if I'm straying from the facts, but the 4300–3800 YBP date mentioned in this new paper at Eurasian Soil Science, on the "catastrophic aridization" of the steppes in the Lower Volga region, is roughly the time when big, tall, round headed folks rich in Yamnaya-related ancestry basically hijack the Beaker phenomenon, and just before the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization and, according to most sane people, the arrival of Indo-Europeans in South Asia. Coincidence?

Abstract: Diagnostic features of a catastrophic aridization of climate, desertification, and paleoecological crisis in steppes of the Lower Volga region have been identified on the basis of data on the morphological, chemical, and microbiological properties of paleosols under archeological monuments (burial mounds) of the Middle Bronze Age. These processes resulted in a certain convergence of the soil cover with transformation of zonal chestnut (Kastanozems) paleosols and paleosolonetzes (Solonetz Humic) into specific chestnut-like eroded saline calcareous paleosols analogous to the modern brown desert-steppe soils (Calcisols Haplic) that predominated in this region 4300–3800 years ago. [1] In the second millennium BC, humidization of the climate led to the divergence of the soil cover with secondary formation of the complexes of chestnut soils and solonetzes. This paleoecological crisis had a significant effect on the economy of the tribes in the Late Catacomb and Post-Catacomb time stipulating their higher mobility and transition to the nomadic cattle breeding.


Demkina et al., Paleoecological crisis in the steppes of the Lower Volga region in the Middle of the Bronze Age (III–II centuries BC), July 2017, Volume 50, Issue 7, pp 791–804

See also...

Swat Valley "early Indo-Aryans" at the lab

The Bell Beaker Behemoth (Olalde et al. 2017 preprint)

Corded Ware origin of a big chunk of Finnish mtDNA (Oversti et al. 2017)


Over at Scientific Reports at this link. Emphasis is mine. Corded Ware people were in all likelihood early Indo-European speakers and belonged, perhaps almost exclusively, to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, while present-day Finns obviously speak a Uralic language and mostly belong to Y-chromosome haplogroups N1c and I1. But Finns do show a lot of Corded Ware- or Yamnaya-related genome-wide ancestry, so it shouldn't be surprising that a large part of their maternal ancestry is derived from the Corded Ware population.

Abstract: In Europe, modern mitochondrial diversity is relatively homogeneous and suggests an ubiquitous rapid population growth since the Neolithic revolution. Similar patterns also have been observed in mitochondrial control region data in Finland, which contrasts with the distinctive autosomal and Y-chromosomal diversity among Finns. A different picture emerges from the 843 whole mitochondrial genomes from modern Finns analyzed here. Up to one third of the subhaplogroups can be considered as Finn-characteristic, i.e. rather common in Finland but virtually absent or rare elsewhere in Europe. Bayesian phylogenetic analyses suggest that most of these attributed Finnish lineages date back to around 3,000–5,000 years, coinciding with the arrival of Corded Ware culture and agriculture into Finland. Bayesian estimation of past effective population sizes reveals two differing demographic histories: 1) the ‘local’ Finnish mtDNA haplotypes yielding small and dwindling size estimates for most of the past; and 2) the ‘immigrant’ haplotypes showing growth typical of most European populations. The results based on the local diversity are more in line with that known about Finns from other studies, e.g., Y-chromosome analyses and archaeology findings. The mitochondrial gene pool thus may contain signals of local population history that cannot be readily deduced from the total diversity.

Oversti et al., Identification and analysis of mtDNA genomes attributed to Finns reveal long-stagnant demographic trends obscured in the total diversity, Scientific Reports, Published online: 21 July 2017, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05673-7

See also...

Baltic Corded Ware: rich in R1a-Z645

Neolithic transition in the Baltic

The genetic history of Northern Europe (or rather the South Baltic)

Thursday, July 20, 2017

The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once?


Recent weeks have seen a rash of activity from OIT proponents defending their "truth", largely as a response to a news feature in The Hindu on new genetic evidence backing the Aryan Invasion or Migration Theory (AIT/AMT). A few examples:

Genetics Might Be Settling The Aryan Migration Debate, But Not How Left-Liberals Believe

Genetics and the Aryan invasion debate

Propagandizing the Aryan Invasion Debate: A Rebuttal to Tony Joseph

Here We Go Again: Why They Are Wrong About The Aryan Migration Debate This Time As Well

The problematics of genetics and the Aryan issue

Too early to settle the Aryan migration debate?

The people who wrote these articles are able to string sentences together in a reasonable way, but apart from that, their efforts are clumsy at best. Not only do they not appear to completely understand what they're attempting to debunk, but they also fail to offer an OIT that realistically incorporates new findings from ancient and modern-day DNA.

AIT/AMT is now firmly backed by ancient DNA from Eastern Europe and high resolution modern-day DNA from South Asia. To quote myself from a week ago:

During the past couple of years ancient DNA has revealed the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a in Eastern European remains dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Moreover, the Bronze Age remains, packed in ancestry derived from Eastern European hunter-gatherers (or EHG) and totally lacking any sort of South Asian admixture, belong to R1a-Z645, which is the ancestral clade of by far the most common types of R1a in Europe and South Asia today: R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93, respectively. And on top of that, South Asians, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, show significant admixture derived from EHG.

The conclusion from this data is self-evident: during the Bronze Age R1a-Z645 became a very important Y-chromosome lineage in Europe and quickly moved to South Asia, in all likelihood on the back of the Indo-European expansion.

Pre-Indo-European Eastern Europe and South Asia were not the same world; they were world's apart. Thus, you will never read anything like this, no matter how much ancient DNA from South Asia is sequenced:

During the past couple of years ancient DNA has revealed the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a in South Asian remains dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Moreover, the Bronze Age remains, packed in ancestry derived from South Asian hunter-gatherers, and totally lacking any sort of European admixture, belong to R1a-Z645, which is the ancestral clade of by far the most common types of R1a in Europe and South Asia today: R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93, respectively. And on top of that, Europeans, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, show significant admixture derived from South Asian hunter-gatherers.

So, OIT proponents, what counter-arguments can you offer? And can you come up with a new vision for OIT that coherently takes into account ancient DNA from Eastern Europe?

However, to ensure that the debate is a fruitful one not derailed regularly by anti-AIT/pro-OIT red herrings, let's take care of the most obvious of these red herrings now. I reserve the right to delete any comments that attempt to go down these tired, irrelevant avenues without a very good excuse for doing so.

You: So and so found Y-haplogroup P* and other basal clades upstream of R1a in Papuans, therefore R1a and Indo-Europeans are from South Asia. Me: Nonsense. R1 and R1a are found in the remains of Eastern European Mesolithic foragers. Were these individuals recently arrived Indo-European-speakers from South Asia? Try harder.

You: It doesn't matter that Eastern European Mesolithic foragers belonged to R1a, because the most common form of R1a in the world is R1a-M417, and if it originated in India then OIT is a reality. Me: But what are the chances realistically that R1a-M417 is from India or South Asia, considering that prehistoric European samples, with absolutely no signals of ancestry from South Asia, belong to both M417+ and M417- lineages? In fact, Europe is the most likely homeland of R1a-M417.

You: India has incredible diversity in R1a, therefore it's the R1a and Indo-European homeland. Me: No it doesn't. India, and indeed, South Asia as a whole are dominated by one fairly young subclade: R1a-Z93. Europe is home to three different subclades that show up at perceptible frequencies: R1a-Z282, found throughout much of the continent; R1a-L664, mostly confined to Northwestern Europe; and R1a-Z93, mostly confined to far Eastern Europe.

You: Many unique Indian ethnic groups are yet to be tested genetically. They may show surprising results, including new subclades of R1a. Me: If you dig hard enough, you'll always find some exceptions to the rule. But how do you know where the ancestral lineages of such exceptions in South Asia were during, say, the Neolithic? What makes you think they were in South Asia? To prove that South Asia is the homeland of its by far most dominant R1a subclade, R1a-Z93, then at the very least you need to show that other, closely and distantly related subclades, are also found at perceptible frequencies in whole regions of South Asia, and therefore that they have some sort of history there. Otherwise we can safely assume that R1a-Z93 and the few exceptions to the R1a-Z93 rule in South Asia are relative latecomers from somewhere else.

You: But we have no ancient DNA from South Asia yet, and it may produce a huge shock. Me: For you yes, but not for me. What are the chances realistically that R1a was present among both European and South Asian foragers? I'd say practically zero. Feel free to raise it to a few per cent to make yourself feel better, but we both know the hard reality.

You: Ancient DNA from South Asia might show that Northern India was home to a population very similar to Yamnaya, and if so, then the Yamnaya-related ancestry in modern-day Indians is native to India. Me: There's no logic behind this. Yamnaya and other closely related Bronze Age groups were very specific mixtures of Mesolithic foragers and Neolithic farmers living in Eastern Europe and surrounds. There's absolutely no reason to assume that such unique mixtures would also form independently in South Asia, or even outside of Europe's generally accepted borders.

You: Bronze Age Europeans who belonged to R1a also carried southern admixture from Iran, or maybe even India. Me: In prehistoric samples, R1a is always highly correlated with Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) ancestry, so positing that it also arrived in Europe with a southern population makes no sense. And why would this southern ancestry be from Iran or India? Why not the Caucasus? We know from ancient DNA that the type of southern ancestry that these ancient Europeans carried has been sitting in the Caucasus since the Upper Paleolithic. Moreover, they lack South Caspian- and South Asian-specific markers such as mtDNA haplogroup U7. How were such markers purged from their gene pool if they or their recent ancestors arrived in Europe from Iran or India?

You: Chickens and mice came from South Asia, therefore Indo-Europeans came from South Asia too. Me: Bullshit. Do better or go away.

Does anyone want to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about? Or perhaps that I'm just putting out Eurocentric propaganda? If you don't understand my arguments, and that they're indeed very solid arguments, then there's no hope for you. Go and find a new hobby or profession, because you're not cut out for this.

OK, now what we have the formalities out of the way, who wants to have a go at salvaging OIT in the comments? Don't be shy.

See also...

Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

Monday, July 17, 2017

On the Mesolithic colonization of Scandinavia (Günther et al. 2017 preprint)


Over at bioRxiv at this link. The main takeaway point from this preprint is that Scandinavia was a more happening place than most of the rest of Europe during the Mesolithic, because at the time it was the meeting place between two relatively divergent forager groups, West European hunter-gatherers (WHG) and East European hunter-gatherers (EHG), that entered the peninsula from different directions, the southwest and northeast, respectively, and mixed to form Scandinavian hunter-gatherers (SHG). Other key points:

- EHG probably dispersed across Scandinavia in a counter-clockwise direction via an ice-free route along the Atlantic coast in what is now Norway, because SHG samples from northern and western Scandinavia show more EHG ancestry than those from southern and eastern Scandinavia

- at least 17% of the SNPs that are common in SHG are not found in present-day Europeans, suggesting that a large part of European variation has been lost since the Mesolithic

- although it's unlikely that SHG made a significant contribution to the present-day Northern European gene pool, some gene-variants common in SHG that appear to be associated with metabolic, cardiovascular, developmental and psychological traits are carried at high frequencies by present-day Northern Europeans, especially compared to present-day Southern Europeans, probably due to strong selective pressures specific to northern latitudes in Europe

- SHG is inferred to have had fair skin and varied blue to light-brown eye color, which makes sense considering that it was a mixture of apparently fair-skinned/brown-eyed EHG and dark-skinned/blue-eyed WHG, except that the frequencies of blue-eyed variants and one fair-skinned variant in SHG are much higher than expected from its EHG/WHG mixture ratios, again pointing to strong selective pressures specific to northern latitudes in Europe acting upon certain gene-variants

- a 3D computer generated facial reconstruction of an SHG female based on data from a very high (57x) coverage genome sequence looks, at least to me, like a fairly typical present-day Northern European woman (see Figure S9.1 in the supp info here), though I suspect that the result might be biased in some way, simply because it's impossible to know whether variants associated with specific facial traits in present-day Northern Europeans were also associated with the same facial traits in SHG.

Citation...

Günther et al., Genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia reveal colonization routes and high-latitude adaptation, bioRxiv, Posted July 17, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/164400

Sunday, July 16, 2017

North European admixture in the Han Chinese (Charleston et al. 2017 preprint)


Over at bioRxiv at this link. Emphasis is mine. The estimated date of the North European-related admixture signal is probably much too late. These sorts of estimates always look way off. And I doubt that it's largely the result of the Silk Road, which linked China to the Near East and Mediterranean rather than to Northern Europe. More likely it reflects gene flow from the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe during the Bronze and Iron ages, via the Afanasievo, Andronovo, and other closely related steppe peoples (see here).

Abstract: As are most non-European populations around the globe, the Han Chinese are relatively understudied in population and medical genetics studies. From low-coverage whole-genome sequencing of 11,670 Han Chinese women we present a catalog of 25,057,223 variants, including 548,401 novel variants that are seen at least 10 times in our dataset. Individuals from our study come from 19 out of 22 provinces across China, allowing us to study population structure, genetic ancestry, and local adaptation in Han Chinese. We identify previously unrecognized population structure along the East-West axis of China and report unique signals of admixture across geographical space, such as European influences among the Northwestern provinces of China. Finally, we identified a number of highly differentiated loci, indicative of local adaptation in the Han Chinese. In particular, we detected extreme differentiation among the Han Chinese at MTHFR, ADH7, and FADS loci, suggesting that these loci may not be specifically selected in Tibetan and Inuit populations as previously suggested. On the other hand, we find that Neandertal ancestry does not vary significantly across the provinces, consistent with admixture prior to the dispersal of modern Han Chinese. Furthermore, contrary to a previous report, Neandertal ancestry does not explain a significant amount of heritability in depression. Our findings provide the largest genetic data set so far made available for Han Chinese and provide insights into the history and population structure of the world's largest ethnic group.

...

One finding from our analysis of admixture signals that most likely fit a one-pulse admixture model is our observation of admixture from Northern European populations to the Northwestern provinces of China (Gansu, Shaanxi, Shanxi), but not other parts of China. Previous analysis of the HGDP data, based on patterns of haplotype sharing among 10 Han Chinese from Northern China, estimated a single pulse of ~6% West Eurasian ancestry among the Northern Han Chinese. The estimated date of admixture was around 1200 CE. This signal is also observed among the Tu people, an ethnic minority also from Northwestern China; the authors attributed this signal to contact through the Silk Road (Hellenthal et al. 2014). We estimate a lower bound of admixture proportion due to Northern Europeans at approximately 2%-5%, with an admixture date of about 26 +/-3 generations for Gansu, and 47 +/-3 generations for Shaanxi [Table S8]. Using a generation time of about 26-30 years (Moorjani et al. 2016), these estimates correspond to admixture events occurring at around 700 CE and 1300 CE, respectively, corresponding roughly to the Tang and Yuan dynasty in China. However, these estimated dates should be interpreted with caution, as both the violation of a single pulse admixture model and the additional noise in inter-­marker LD estimates due to low coverage data could bias the estimates.

Charleston et al.,A comprehensive map of genetic variation in the world's largest ethnic group - Han Chinese, bioRxiv, Posted July 13, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/162982

See also...

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

Saturday, July 15, 2017

ASHG 2017 crowdfunding drive


The annual American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) meeting is being held in Orlando, FL, on October 17-21 (see here). The talk abstracts aren't online yet, but it's likely to be a big event for those of us interested in ancient DNA, so we'd like to get Chad Rohlfsen down there to run live reports from some of the talks.

But we'll need about $2000 to make it happen. Donations can be sent via PayPal to c_rohlfsen [at] hotmail [dot] com.

We'll try to organize the press pass for Chad next week. If, for whatever reason, Chad doesn't make it to the meeting, he'll promptly refund the donations. It's the same deal as back in 2015 when Chad went to St. Louis to cover the AAPA 2015 conference (see here). But I have a strong feeling that this is going to be much bigger. Let's make it happen.


Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Indian confirmation bias


In a largely fact free but obfuscation rich comment piece at The Hindu, Indian scientists Gyaneshwer Chaubey and Kumarasamy Thangaraj ask whether it's too early to settle the Aryan migration debate. See here.

No, it's not too early. It's game over chaps, and has been for a while.

During the past couple of years ancient DNA has revealed the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a in Eastern European remains dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Moreover, the Bronze Age remains, packed in ancestry derived from Eastern European hunter-gatherers (or EHG) and totally lacking any sort of South Asian admixture, belong to R1a-Z645, which is the ancestral clade of by far the most common types of R1a in Europe and South Asia today: R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93, respectively. And on top of that, South Asians, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, show significant admixture derived from EHG.

The conclusion from this data is self-evident: during the Bronze Age R1a-Z645 became a very important Y-chromosome lineage in Europe and quickly moved to South Asia, in all likelihood on the back of the Indo-European expansion. Yet, in spite of this, Gyaneshwer and Kumarasamy make the following claim in their article.

Moreover, there is evidence which is consistent with the early presence of several R1a branches in India (our unpublished data).

Potentially powerful stuff, you might say. But hang on, what are Gyaneshwer and Kumarasamy seeing in their data that could possibly reverse the current reality about R1a? Did they find R1a in South Asian remains from the Mesolithic and Neolithic? Or perhaps they've uncovered South Asian Bronze Age remains that belong to R1a-Z645 and lack any signals of ancestry from Eastern Europe?

This is impossible. The ancient DNA from Eastern Europe says so. That's because pre-Indo-European Eastern Europe and South Asia were not the same world; they were world's apart. Thus, you will never read anything like this, no matter how much ancient DNA from South Asia is sequenced:

During the past couple of years ancient DNA has revealed the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a in South Asian remains dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Moreover, the Bronze Age remains, packed in ancestry derived from South Asian hunter-gatherers, and totally lacking any sort of European admixture, belong to R1a-Z645, which is the ancestral clade of by far the most common types of R1a in Europe and South Asia today: R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93, respectively. And on top of that, Europeans, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, show significant admixture derived from South Asian hunter-gatherers.

See also...

Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once?

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Working topology for Eurasian population structure


Here's my new "basic" qpGraph topology that I'll be using to test phylogenetic and mixture models for Eurasians. I think it reconciles a few key findings from recent scientific literature. Please note that since my main interest is post-Neolithic prehistory of West Eurasia, and in particular the early Indo-European expansions, I don't want to make this model unnecessarily complex by adding "dead end" Upper Paleolithic genomes.


But I welcome ideas on how to improve and make use of this topology, so if, say, adding Ust_Ishim helps, then let's do it. The ancient samples featured in the above graph are listed here and the graph file is available here. Feel free to post your own versions of the graph file in the comments and I'll run them as soon as possible. But please remember to label the samples correctly at all times.

Update 13/07/2017: Thanks to Matt in the comments, here's a neater version of the same model, with a lower (highest) Z score and slightly different mixture coefficients. It includes a couple of zero edges, which are generally undesirable, but these might disappear when more populations are added to the topology. The graph file is available here.


Monday, July 10, 2017

Armenian confirmation bias


Current Biology recently published a paper by Margaryan and Derenko et al. titled Eight Millennia of Matrilineal Genetic Continuity in the South Caucasus. I wasn't going to bother calling out the authors on their, unfortunately I have to say, rather dubious claim, but then I saw this ScienceNordic article enthusiastically attempting to drive home their misguided point, so a few words are now in order.

“It’s basically the same female population in the region over the past 8,000 years. It’s very surprising considering the many waves of migration and cultural shifts,” says lead-author Ashot Margaryan from the Centre for GeoGenetics at the National History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen.

Genetics have remained constant for 8,000 years in world’s melting pot

I'm at a loss as to why Ashot Margaryan is very surprised. I'm not even mildly surprised. Why? Let's take a closer look at what we're dealing with here:

- the authors sequenced just 52 full mitogenomes to represent 8,000 years of prehistory and early history in the South Caucasus

- they lumped all of these sequences together into an "Ancient" sample set as if they were from a single time slice (I know, pretty crazy)

- they then ran a few complex models on this neither here nor there sample set, and concluded that it resembled the maternal gene pool of present-day Armenians.

Well, duh, present-day Armenians are more or less the end product of the population history of the last eight thousand years in what is now Armenia and surrounds. Is anyone still as surprised about this as Ashot? Surely not.

Obviously, the problem here is that the authors have mistaken their none too surprising outcome to mean that the South Caucasus has not experienced any major upheavals in its maternal gene pool over the past 8,000 years, which, if actually true, would indeed be very surprising, and even shocking.

But the haplogroup assignments of the 52 mitogenomes are reported in the spreadsheet here, and just by eyeballing these results, I can tell that they suggest an influx of foreign ancestry, probably from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, to the South Caucasus after the Early Bronze Age (EBA). Note, for instance, the presence of what appear to be typically steppe haplogroups U4a, U2e1e and U5a1b in the samples dated to the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), Late Bronze Age (LBA) and Early Iron Age (EIA), respectively.

Citation...

Margaryan and Derenko et al., Eight Millennia of Matrilineal Genetic Continuity in the South Caucasus, Current Biology 27, 1–6 July 10, 2017, DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.087

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Out-of-India chickens coming home to roost


Razib has posted a spacious but none-too-technical review of the ongoing Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) controversy, along with some personal anecdotes and predictions about how ancient DNA from South Asia might shape the debate in the near future (see here).

It should be a useful guide to the topic for those of you who aren't quite as excited about reading about my latest adventures with qpGraph as many of the regulars in the comments here.

One thing that I'd perhaps add to Razib's post is that the ancient DNA record now boasts Late Neolithic Yamnaya-like Corded Ware Culture individuals from the East Baltic region that belong to Y-haplogroup R1a-Z645. And that's usually as far as their lineages go (see here).

This is important, because the Z645 mutation is directly and recently ancestral to the pair of likely post-Neolithic mutations that define the two R1a subclades most common in Europe and South Asia today: Z282 and Z93, respectively.

So not only are the "European" R1a-Z282 and "South Asian" R1a-Z93 relatively young sister clades, but their ancestral clade has now been found in ancient samples from Northeastern Europe that probably predate their appearance by only a few generations, if that. Of course, the upshot of all of this is that R1a-Z93 could not have originated very far from the East Baltic, which makes South Asia look about as likely as the homeland of this subclade as the goddamn moon. Conversely, it makes AIT look very plausible indeed.

However, granted, this might seem very confusing to anyone who hasn't been studying the R1a topology for years, and perhaps better left out of the more mainstream debates on AIT for the sake of simplicity. By the way, I found this part of Razib's post especially intriguing:

One scientist who holds to the position that most South Asian ancestry dates to the Pleistocene argued to me that we don’t know if ancient Indian samples from the northwest won’t share even more ancestry than the Iranian Neolithic and Pontic steppe samples. In other words, ANI was part of some genetic continuum that extended to the west and north. This is possible, but I do not find it plausible.

I suspect that this scientist's rather fanciful suggestion (which really flies in the face of very solid models based on ancient genomic data from Europe and surrounds) is a hint of the direction that the debate will take right after the publication of ancient genomes from South Asia. Because when that happens, obfuscators like this guy (usually hopeless Out-of-India proponents) will either have to concede defeat and quit the debate, or ramp up their obfuscations to spectacular new highs.

And please don't mistake my confidence on this issue for bluff and bluster. It's not exactly the best kept secret out there that ancient samples from India and Pakistan are now ready, and...oops I probably can't say more than that for now. Pity.

See also...

Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

Indian confirmation bias