I’m not sure if you’re talking about my comment, but I didn’t make that claim. I simply asserted that Rigveda might be not a good source of data if we’re looking for evidence of a migration.

No, I was talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43005206, the ancestral comment containing the phrases I quoted from it, between quote marks.

The Rig Veda does provide important evidence of a migration, but not by narrating it. Rather, the vocabulary, grammar, and mythological content are so similar to the Avestan texts that a common linguistic origin seems inescapable. That of course doesn't demonstrate population replacement on its own, but lacking Starlink or even homing pigeons, some kind of migration was clearly involved.

Ah ok. I agree with you.

The prevalence of Steppe Ancestry in all modern day Indians should be enough to conclude that some form of migration happened.

All this politically tinged talk about supposed purity of DNA is utter nonsense.

Do we know it's steppe ancestry because of DNA comparisons with Kurgan grave DNA, or from some other evidence? To me it seems a priori difficult to know where a gene hails from originally.

That’s a great question but I don’t know how this gene flow worked. I’m not an expert in genetics but genetic research shows that one component of Indian DNA matches with Steppe Pastorals.

Here’s an article that goes deeper into this:

https://eruditus.substack.com/p/sons-of-the-indus-the-indian...

Thank you, this is fantastic!

If in earlier periods a specific haplogroup is concentrated in specific relatively small area but after a couple of centuries it can be found across the entire continent that seems like a good indicator.

That's why I was asking if this conclusion is based on grave DNA data. How else do you know where haplogroups were in earlier periods, other than by already knowing the information about historical migrations and population replacements that we're trying to derive in the first place?

> we can conclude, "migration or invasion (...) was a gradual process that wouldn't have been particularly noticeable in any one life time.

Recent genetic research points to the complete opposite (at least to some extent). It might have taken just a generation or two for some individuals to get from the steppe to e.g. Britain.

I don't think that's different from what I said. Surely there was a lot of migration. I think the evidence is that wasn't a big bang migration, but rather a series of smaller, disconnected migrations.

Well I specifically disagreed with “wouldn't have been particularly noticeable in any one life time”. So it would seem it’s quite different from what you said. If you happen to live in the Pontic Steppe for most of your life yet your e.g. grandchildren are born in Britain that’s quite noticeable.

What about centaurs? One theory about the centaur myth is that it originated from the confused perceptions of a culture that had never seen men on horseback being suddenly invaded by steppe nomads.

It's widely believed, but the only sources we have for these confused perceptions within written history are possibly-unreliable accounts of how the Aztecs perceived the Spaniards. In particular, I think the Mycenaean Greeks from which we get the best-known versions of the centaur myth were descendants of the Proto-Indo-European horseback-riding steppe nomads we're talking about here.

As I understand it, the Bronze-Age Minoan civilization spoke an unrelated language (as evidenced by Linear A) and has a material culture relatively continuous with Neolithic Crete, not imported from the Kurgan culture. They would have been the ones experiencing the steppe-nomad-descendant invasion, the steppe nomad descendants in question being the Mycenaeans around 01450 BCE, who were at that point millennia removed from both the steppes and nomadism but presumably still rode horses at least sometimes.