Just how old is the connection of Sumeria to Tamil language? How U7 Haplogroup debunks the Aryan Europe B.S.

Here we report 267 new U7 mitogenomes that – analysed alongside 100 published ones – enable us to discern at least two distinct temporal phases of dispersal, both of which most likely emanated from the Near East. The earlier one began prior to the Holocene (~11.5 thousand years ago) towards South Asia, while the later dispersal took place more recently towards Mediterranean Europe during the Neolithic (~8 thousand years ago). These findings imply that the carriers of haplogroup U7 spread to South Asia and Europe before the suggested Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region.

So the Sumerians were considered to be the ancestors of today's Marsh Arabs in Iraq.

 Almost all the main U sub-haplogroups and the nested K branch were found in the Iraqi sample, but only a sub-set of them (K1, U3, U4, U5, in addition to the South West Asian U7) were observed in the Marsh Arabs.

In search of the genetic footprints of Sumerians: a survey of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in the Marsh Arabs of Iraq

So linguists consider it "absurd" that the Tamil Language would be derived from Sumerian - but I just demonstrated the genetically the Sumerian genes did go into South Asia via the Haplogroup U7.

  Asko Parpola identifies Proto-Dravidians with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and the Meluhha people mentioned in Sumerian records. According to him, the word "Meluhha" derives from the Dravidian words mel-akam ("highland country"). It is possible that the IVC people exported sesame oil to Mesopotamia, where it was known as ilu in Sumerian and ellu in Akkadian. One theory is that these words derive from the Dravidian name for sesame (el or ellu).

 

This has led to the identification of two autochthonous subhaplogroups—HV14a1 and U1a1a4, which are likely to have originated in the Dravidian-speaking populations approximately 10.5–17.9 thousand years ago (kya). The carriers of these maternal lineages might have settled in South India during the time of the spread of the Dravidian language.

Sure enough.

 And amazingly the Australian aborigines actually migrated from African through Central Asia!!

However, using the same molecular tools, a northern route across central Asia has been invoked as an alternative that is more conciliatory with the fossil record of East Asia.

Ancient East Asians were definitely Africans

  The Tianyuan sample lived about ~40,000 years ago in China, and it does not seem to have been the direct ancestor of modern East Eurasians. It also seems to have had some relationship to the Australo-Melanesian affiliated population which contributed ancestry to the indigenous peoples of South America. Additionally, it also shares ancestry above what you’d expect with a 35,000 year old Paleolithic European, the GoyetQ116-1 sample, which is found in an Aurignacian context.

So the study of the Marsh Arabs says it proves that Sumerians could not be related to Tamils. But the Tamils think otherwise and the U7 Haplogroup is in South Asia.

The fact is the linguistic connection of Tamil to Sumerian and even cultural connections is considered very strong.

So Dravidian is considered to have spread with the early farmers, and the origin of farming is probably older than we realize.

Ancient Human Migrations to and through Jammu Kashmir- India were not of Males Exclusively 

Previous literature has reported that 60% of the maternal lineages are from the ancient macrohaplogroup M in the Indian subcontinent²¹. Further, some of the sub-HGs of M are in-situ and deep rooted in India²². These basal branches of macrohaplogroup M, which are old and highly diverse, suggest the initial settlement of India was likely during the earliest waves of modern human from Africa²³.

a gradual population growth over 35,000 YBP but an expansion episode can be detected around 15,000–8000 YBP, which could be attributed to an expansion after the Last Glacial Maximum (Fig. 1) that could be insitu differentiation or associated with agriculture and language dispersal also indicated by some of the archeological evidences from the region.

So we have direct genetic evidence that Dravidian is from the agricultural expansion (which included Sumerian)....

So I don't understand why linguists freak out about the connection between Tamil and Sumerian?

Further, HG U7 which has been known to be differentiated in south Asia with the age of 15600 YBP³³, showed the coalescence age estimate of 13060.5 with 95% HPD of (10014.2–17556.7), in the present study.

And so the U7 Haplogroup is the definitive connection:

This is surely a major problem for those positing that ancient populations from the South Caspian, in other words what is now mostly Iran, made a significant contribution to the formation of Early Bronze Age steppe pastoralist groups, including Yamnaya.

 In other words the chariot dairy farmers aka the  Yamnaya into Europe WERE NOT ARYAN!! Hilarious.

the comparatively recent coalescence time of the extant variation of haplogroup U7 (~16–19 thousand years ago) suggests that its current distribution is the consequence of more recent dispersal events, despite its wide geographical range across Europe, the Near East and South Asia.

 So again the claim that Arabs could not be tied to Tamils - is not valid.

Our time estimates for the expansion and differentiation of hg U7 in the Near East, Central Asia, South Asia, and Europe, however, predate these putative late Neolithic-early Bronze Age migrations and thereby rule them out as a major vehicle for the spread of U7 to Europe and South Asia. In this respect, it is also noteworthy that Yamnaya herders of the Steppe so far analysed (n = 43) show no traces of U7 [3,55,72,73] – and U7 is rarely found in this region today (Fig. 2).

 Recently, it has been detected in skeletal remains from Southwest Iran [my note: that was U7a] dated ~six thousand years ago (kya) [34] as well as in remains from the Tarim Basin in Northwest China (3.5–4.0 kya) [35].

And the comments:

 But in one paper U7 was linked with Etruscans.

Here there are some Etruscans adna mtdna.

 there is a proportion of their mtDNA pool that could be traced to somewhere in the Middle East, thus testifying to an ancient connection between both regions.

This is just fantastic! So we really do have an ancient Afro-Asian Tamil-Dravidian-Etruscan connection.

  Since that reciprocal gene flow seems to have occurred at least 2,000 years before the Tanzanian pastoralist’s time, it suggests that this West Eurasian element was in Africa for thousands of years....

My working assumption, therefore, is that early Afroasiatic languages spread from the Levant into Africa between 7000 and 12,000 years ago, probably in more than one movement......Quoting archaeologist Peter Bellwood

 This paper again reiterates that the West Eurasian ancestry in South Asia split up from its West Asian counterpart at the end of LGM, likely around 15 kya.

This early split was first indicated by Metspalu et al in 2011 when they said that the the Caucasus group and the South Asian group (West Eurasian) had not admixed atleast since 12.5 kya.

Then last year we saw a paper by Sakshi Singh et al which argued that the ydna J2 in South Asia has its own unique history and cannot be associated with the Neolithic expansion from West Asia, since it appeared that the J2 presence in South Asia was older.

We also had Q3 paper by Balanovsky et al this year, which argued that the earliest split in Q3, Q3a'd & Q3e happened around 15 kya between South & West Asia.

Just a week or so ago, we had the Silva et al paper on Indian mtdna expansions, which argued for several pre-Neolithic expansions of Indian specific WE mtDNAs.

Now, we have this present paper which argues for the earliest split of U7 around 18 kya, also between West Asia & South Asia. In their own words,

"The expansion time of hg U7 in the Near East, Central Asia and South Asia is more consistent with autosomal multi-locus estimates for the genetic separation of these regions during the Terminal Pleistocene, suggesting a common demographic process, whose origin was unclear previously."

Rhazib Khan chimes in:

The Sumerians, and their neighbors the Elamites, as well as groups like the Hatti and Hurrians & Urartian, pose problems for this thesis. None of these groups seem to be Indo-European or Semitic, the two dominant language families of Near East by ~1,000 B.C. You have in the ancient Near East then a situation where the light of history reveals before us not the diversification of Indo-European and Semitic speaking farmers, but rather a host of unique and disparate peoples, all simultaneously lurching toward literate civilization, one after another.

I believe that a prehistoric expansion of Sumerian civilization mediated the merging of eastern and western farmers,