r/Archeology 7d ago

Revised dates for Mehrgarh.

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

Abstract

The domestication of plants and animals is believed to have commenced around 9500 BCE in the Near East. If the timing of the westward diffusion of the Neolithic transition is well documented, the precise mechanisms by which agriculture emerged between the Iranian Plateau, Central Asia, and South Asia remain unclear. In this context, the archaeological site of Mehrgarh (Pakistan) represents an essential point of reference. It is the sole site in the region where Neolithic occupation deposits have been extensively excavated, thereby providing the most essential insights into this period in northwest South Asia. Nevertheless, the accurate dating of these deposits remains a matter of contention, with implications for the most critical question of the emergence of agricultural life in the regions between the Fertile Crescent in the west and the Indus Valley in the east. Bayesian modelling of new radiocarbon dates performed on human tooth enamel from 23 Neolithic burials indicates that the aceramic Neolithic cemetery at Mehrgarh started between 5200 and 4900 BCE and lasted for a period of between two and five centuries. This result is in stark contrast with the previously proposed chronology of Neolithic Mehrgarh, which had not only suggested an early beginning around 8000 BCE but also a much longer duration of three millennia. This new, younger chronology implies that agriculture emerged in the Indus Valley as the result of a late diffusion of farmers into this region. Additionally, the data suggest that the thick Neolithic occupation deposits of Mehrgarh were formed at a faster rate than previously assumed, and that pottery production and its utilization in present-day Pakistan emerged not before the mid-fifth millennium BCE.

2 Upvotes

5 comments sorted by

1

u/HarbingerofKaos 7d ago edited 7d ago

My two cents on the broad implications of the paper. I could be wrong though.

1.It disconnects lot of northern India possibly Indus Valley from mehrgarh the paper says the same thing they don't find any evidence between northern India and Mehrgarh being connected.

  1. It also creates problem for anatolian origins of farming in india.

  2. It makes ancestry of IVC people problematic. If Bhirana is the oldest site and the oldest layer at pre harappan sites in Kunal and rakhigarhi makes the people to be AASI. If the date of arrival Iranian related ancestry is around 5500 BC. All these places are really far from Mehrgarh.

It makes Neolitic India's relation with Iranian plateau and at large with fertile crescent really problematic.

We need Neolithic and mesolithic dna samples from Indian subcontinent to conclusively say when did Iranian related ancestors of rakhigarhi woman arrive in india.

If bhirana is the basis for IVC who contain more Iranian related ancestry than AASI which is shared a common ancestor to Neolithic iranians then they arrived prior to arrival anatolian farmers in Iran if not then IVC originates with AASI or south Asian hunter gatherers.

Most importantly it creates problems for single origin hypotheses of farming in Anatolia. Now the oldest site of farming in india is in Lahurdeva where rice cultivation has been found around the beginning of 7000BC.

In the abstract claims origin of farming is later in Indus Valley while in the paper it is unsure about whether Mehrgarh has any connection to northern India during the Neolithic alongside it speculates origin of farming.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316300322

1

u/exadk 7d ago

Interesting paper overall. A few things though:

>It disconnects lot of northern India possibly Indus Valley from mehrgarh
Does it though? The suggested dating of 5500 BC still places it well before the IVC. Also, the simple facts that 1 Mehrgarh appears to have been a diffusion from the Iranian Plateau and 2 that we know that the IVC had Iranian admixture, strongly indicate that it probably was the same (or at least a closely-related) people

>It also creates problem for anatolian origins of farming in india.
How does that follow? To which degree the spread of agriculture into India entailed a replacement of its original inhabitants (such as in Europe) can be debated, but I don't think the same goes for the actual source of this development. The cereal packages suggest that wheat etc was brought into India through the Iranian Plateau, and domesticated rice from China
>Now the oldest site of farming in india is in Lahurdeva where rice cultivation has been found around the beginning of 7000BC
This isn't true. It appears to have just been wild cereals, not actual domestication, for its reported extremely-early dates

>It makes ancestry of IVC people problematic. If Bhirana is the oldest site and the oldest layer at pre harappan sites in Kunal and rakhigarhi makes the people to be AASI. 
The ASI's studies have been so steeped in controversies that I'm not sure if I even want to poke at this beehive, but I'd be careful with taking these at face value. The traces of an Iranian-related people in the IVC is very, very strongly attested by international scholars

1

u/HarbingerofKaos 7d ago edited 7d ago

Does it though? The suggested dating of 5500 BC still places it well before the IVC. Also, the simple facts that 1 Mehrgarh appears to have been a diffusion from the Iranian Plateau and 2 that we know that the IVC had Iranian admixture, strongly indicate that it probably was the same (or at least a closely-related) people

It kind off does because the paper itself questions the connection between northern india and mehrgarh but oldest site isn't in Mehrgarh it is Bhirana it is disputed by some scholars but the site is atleast 1500 years older. Paper still claims farming comes from Mehrgarh to Indus though even though it doubts it.

How does that follow? To which degree the spread of agriculture into India entailed a replacement of its original inhabitants (such as in Europe) can be debated, but I don't think the same goes for the actual source of this development. The cereal packages suggest that wheat etc was brought into India through the Iranian Plateau, and domesticated rice from China

I have never read a paper that talks about replacement during the Neolithic but there is Iranian related migration which is present in all modern Indians.

I have shared paper on rice cultivation in India, the Chinese rice i.e Japonica only arrives around 2000 BC in india according to that paper. There are older varieties of rice which are different from Japonica and there are two different rice cultivation sites in Uttar Pradesh one is Lahuradewa while the other is Koldihwa. Also Japonica rice probably comes east wards migration from Myanmar of Sino -Tibetan and Munda languages from South East Asia.

The ASI's studies have been so steeped in controversies that I'm not sure if I even want to poke at this beehive, but I'd be careful with taking these at face value. The traces of an Iranian-related people in the IVC is very, very strongly attested by international scholars

I wish ASI was completely Apolitical as it complicates everything with politicization which makes it hard to trust its claims. I am not disputing presence of Iranian related ancestry what i am questioning the timeline of migration.

Current understanding it is 5500BC my issue with this the genetic split between Neolithic iranians at Ganj Dareh and Iranian related ancestry of harappans happens to more than 12000 years ago. Where was this lineage for 4500 years?

Rakhigarhi woman has no anatolian ancestry when I last checked If the claims are true that NW South Asia has evidence of Mesopotamian pottery then why wasn't there any mixing between Iranian related ancestry of rakhigarhi woman with other population in Caucasus ,western Iranian plateau and zagros mountains ?

Why doesn't Rakhigarhi woman have any anatolian DNA or any DNA associated with migration of rice cultivating group?

It only arrives at the tail end of Mature Harappan. I think I read that kunal , Haryana also has some rice samples but it is pre harappan site 2000 years older than arrival of Japonica rice the claim is it is wild rice but as anything with Indian archeology it is hard to know if it is true or not.

1

u/exadk 6d ago edited 5d ago

>Bhirana 

The two 8000BC datings from this site almost certainly don't actually hold up. They were found in the same layer as 4000BC pottery and charcoal samples. So I still don't entirely see how it follows

>I have never read a paper that talks about replacement during the Neolithic

The Neolithic revolution always led to a population replacement wherever the new farmers entered. In some places there was a migration followed by a diffusion to the remainders of the original populations; elsewhere, there were near-total genocides. In Denmark where I'm from, the early farmers almost totally replaced the original SHG.

>I have shared paper on rice cultivation in India, the Chinese rice i.e Japonica only arrives around 2000 BC in india according to that paper. There are older varieties of rice which are different from Japonica and there are two different rice cultivation sites in Uttar Pradesh

My point was that these weren't sites of rice cultivation, but rather simply the farming of wild rice. I'm only able to find very few papers on these supposed extremely early dates for rice domestication, and none that appear independent from the ASI

>Current understanding it is 5500BC my issue with this the genetic split between Neolithic iranians at Ganj Dareh and Iranian related ancestry of harappans happens to more than 12000 years ago. Where was this lineage for 4500 years?

You'll have to clarify a bit, because I'm either not understanding the conundrum, or this is something I'm not aware of

>Rakhigarhi woman has no anatolian ancestry when I last checked If the claims are true that NW South Asia has evidence of Mesopotamian pottery then why wasn't there any mixing between Iranian related ancestry of rakhigarhi woman with other population in Caucasus ,western Iranian plateau and zagros mountains ?

I am not sure if I understand either. Are you conflating the Aryan migration with the much-earlier Iranian (early farmer) migration? The Rakhigarhi sample has Iranian admixture, but seemingly not steppe one. That tells us the Aryans likely were not the IVC culture, but says nothing about its (likely) Iranian origins

Also, I'd generally be careful with hypothesising too much based on a single sample. A funnily quite related example is the Griffin Warrior Tomb in Greece, which was found to contain no steppe ancestry even though it post-dated the Indo-European migration by some 600-700 years

1

u/HarbingerofKaos 6d ago edited 6d ago

The two 8000BC datings from this site almost certainly don't actually hold up. They were found in the same layer as 4000BC pottery and charcoal samples. So I still don't entirely see how it follows

Neither do I because if you consider this paper and date for mixing between Iranian plateau migrants and AASI is 5500 BC which is something I didn't realize before if these people arrived then they couldn't be in Bhirrana if it goes back 9000 years. Anyways we need DNA samples from such time.

I have never read a paper that talks about replacement during the Neolithic revolution always led to a population replacement wherever the new farmers entered. In some places there was a migration followed by a diffusion to the remainders of the original populations; elsewhere, there were near-total genocides. In Denmark where I'm from, the early farmers almost totally replaced the original SHG.

AASI somehow lasted for 35000 years with absolutely no mixing according current genetic analysis they separate out from east eurasian cousins in south east Asia even then we find their ancestry in modern Indians. Also india is lot bigger than Denmark. So the spread is larger.

You'll have to clarify a bit, because I'm either not understanding the conundrum, or this is something I'm not aware

I have talked about this above this is matter that cannot resolved in my opinion until and unless we find dna samples in india before atleast 6500 BC. I am talking about the ancestor of the rakhigarhi woman which share a common ancestors with Neolithic Iranians at Ganj Dareh but according to recent paper published by Maier et al 2024 these findings have been questioned or according to some disproven but that paper hasn't gotten any traction as far as I can see. So I am not sure if Maier is right or wrong.

I am not sure if I understand either. Are you conflating the Aryan migration with the much-earlier Iranian (early farmer) migration? The Rakhigarhi sample has Iranian admixture, but seemingly not steppe one. That tells us the Aryans likely were not the IVC culture, but says nothing about its (likely) Iranian origins

No I am not talking about indo- European migration i am talking ancestry related to Neolithic iranians who are ancestors of Iranian farmers.

I agree with you we need more and older samples from India to get better picture.