N-L1026 is the Y-chromosome haplogroup most closely associated with the speakers of Uralic languages. Thus far, the oldest published instances of N-L1026 are in two Siberian-like samples dating to 1473±87 calBCE from the site of Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov (BOO), located within the Arctic Circle in the Kola Peninsula, northern Russia.
So does this mean that the BOO people were Uralic speakers? I'm now thinking that it probably does, even though, as the scientists who published the BOO samples a year ago pointed out, they predate most estimates of the spread of extant Uralic languages into the Kola Peninsula (see Lamnidis et al.
here).
Hundreds of ancient human samples from across Eurasia have been sequenced since last year. In fact, thousands if we count unpublished data. But only a handful of them belong to N-L1026.
Indeed, as far as I know, the next oldest instance of N-L1026 from Europe after those at BOO is still in an Iron Age sample from what is now Estonia published earlier this year as 0LS10. Of course, this individual was in all likelihood an early west Uralic (Finnic) speaker (see Saag et al.
here).
Moreover, consider these comments by Murashkin et al. in regards to the BOO site (referred to as KOG in their paper, available
here):
Most of the bodies had been buried in wooden, boat-shaped, lidded caskets, which looked like small boats or traditional Sámi sledges (Ru. kerezhka).
...
The morphological characteristics of the skull series of the KOG are not like those of any other ancient or modern series from the Kola Peninsula, including the Sámi people. Instead, the series shows closer biological affinities with ancient Altai Neolithic and modern, Ugric-speaking Siberian groups (Moiseyev & Khartanovich 2012). It has earlier been suggested that modern Ugric-speaking Siberians, together with Samoyeds and Volga Finnic populations, share some common morphological characteristics that indicate their common origin (Alekseyev 1974; Bunak 1956; Gokhman 1992).
...
Based on the materials from the grave field, we can argue that there were direct or indirect contacts between the inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula and southern and western Scandinavia (Murashkin & Tarasov 2013).
Thus, the BOO people may have spoken an early west Uralic language related to Sami languages. It's also possible that they are in part ancestral to the N-L1026-rich Sami people.
Another intriguing thing about these mysterious ancients is that individual BOO003 belongs to the rare mitochondrial haplogroup T2d1b1. Now, this clearly is not a lineage native to Europe or indeed any part of North Eurasia. Its ultimate source is probably West or Central Asia. So how did this pioneer polar explorer end up with such an unusual and exotic mtDNA marker, and might the answer be an important clue about the origins of the BOO people?
The most plausible explanation is that the ancestors of BOO003 were associated with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, which stretched from the taiga zone to the oases of what is now western China along the Ob-Irtysh river system, and probably facilitated cultural, linguistic and genetic exchanges between the populations of North Eurasia and Central Asia.
In other words, considering all of the clues, it would seem that the BOO people came from some part of the Ob-Irtysh basin, which might thus be the best place to look for the population with the oldest and phylogenetically most basal N-L1026 lineages. And if we find that, then we've probably found the proto-Uralians and their homeland.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on
Global25 data featuring the earliest likely Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record. It was produced with an online PCA runner freely available
here. EST_IA includes the above mentioned 0LS10, while FIN_Levanluhta_IA is largely made up of Saami-related samples from western Finland. See anything interesting? Feel free to let me know about it in the comments below.
See also...
Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions
It was always going to be this way
More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
A couple of things:
ReplyDelete- Saami is a West Uralic language too, just like Bsltic Finnic
- Proto Uralic in Ob-Irtysh? Really?
That being said, it may be that BOO spoke for instance Para Uralic, related to Pre Proto Uralic. We'll never know.
@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteYes I know Saami is west Uralic. But I've now edited the post to make that clear.
In regards to the proto-Uralic homeland, the traditional theories that it was located just west of the Urals aren't looking too good now considering the lack of N-L1026 in a lot of unpublished data from around the Urals, and especially west of the Urals.
The Ob-Irtysh basin is just a guess, but it's a guess that's as good as any right now, and at least it's based on the latest and even a lot of unpublished data plus sound reasoning IMO.
@ D: we may very well assume that the origin of "Uralic" N1c is in Ob-Irtysh etc., but in order to place the expansion point of Uralic language in Ob-Irtysh you really should be able to rely on a hard linguistic (!) evidence. That being said, some kind of a mixture may very well have taken place in Volga-Kama, including both say Seyma Turbino related N1c immigrants from Siberia and local (Pre) Proto Uralic speakers. We simply don't know.
ReplyDelete@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteBut what sort of linguistic evidence precludes the origin of proto-Uralic east of the Urals?
If you're referring to exchanges between early Uralic and Indo-Iranian languages, I'm pretty sure that the steppes around the southern Urals, and even much of West Siberia, were swarming with all sorts of Indo-Europeans for thousands of years.
According to for example Jaakko Häkkinen, the oldest IE layer in Proto-Uralic is related to Northeast European language and Indo-Iranian comes second.
ReplyDelete@Kristiina
ReplyDeleteWhich Northeast European language? Does anyone still speak it?
@Huck Finn "we may very well assume that the origin of "Uralic" N1c is in Ob-Irtysh etc., but in order to place the expansion point of Uralic language in Ob-Irtysh you really should be able to rely on a hard linguistic (!) evidence."
ReplyDeleteLinguists have long hard proved this.
" local (Pre) Proto Uralic speakers."
Without Pre and Proto. In Siberia there lived the simple Uralic speakers with already different languages (Proto-Finno-Permic, Proto-Ugric, Proto-Samoyedian).
------------
The problem is that there is no archaeological connection with the Seima-Turbino, these sites do not even know the metal, and the Seima-Turbino were masters of metal, but there are links with wafel ceramics and Ymyyakhtat culture.
These samples cannot be the southern ones that are contagious to the Andronovo culture, because they do not have a Yamnaya component.
On account of the mito: near T2d2 was found in Tuva in Sagsai culture.
Proto-Uralics will be from East of the Ural ultimately, no doubt about that.
ReplyDeleteI would even speculate that the N-rich groups in and around Mongolia-Northern China are directly related.
Proto-Uralics were just the branch which moved up and became even more cold adapted. BOO would from my point of view fit Proto-Sami before their further mixture with local foragers and Indo-Europeans.
I'd emphasize those pre-, proto - etc. Aryan loans which have been identified, related to Proto Uralic stage around 2000 BCE. Also locationwise very useful, I'd guess. Did early Aryans really reside in Ob-Irtysh area?
ReplyDelete@ Archi and re:
ReplyDelete"Without Pre and Proto. In Siberia there lived the simple Uralic speakers with already different languages (Proto-Finno-Permic, Proto-Ugric, Proto-Samoyedian)."
Photo or it did not happen. I assume that you don't have a scientific source either.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThese samples cannot be the southern ones that are contagious to the Andronovo culture, because they do not have a Yamnaya component.
LOL
They obviously have some steppe and even farmer ancestry.
@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteDid early Aryans really reside in Ob-Irtysh area?
They probably did. Andronovo had a big presence in the Baraba steppe.
@ D: Very well then, as long as you take all Aryan loan layers into account. I'm not able to say too much of say timingwise Pre Aryan level releted migrations of early Aryans.
ReplyDelete@D
ReplyDeleteNot LOL.
https://i.ibb.co/Qn9km2T/aaa04691923c-1.png
@Archi
ReplyDeleteHaha...
Here's a decent model for the N-L1026 samples.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FNUtwihXTb21Q1BkirEUKem5bboSgkb7/view?usp=sharing
@ Huck Finn "I assume that you don't have a scientific source either."
ReplyDeleteI have all the scientific sources, but the problem is you will not be able to understand them. They are large and written in a language you do not understand.
@zardos "I would even speculate that the N-rich groups in and around Mongolia-Northern China are directly related."
Absolutely groundless assumption. In these groups there are absolutely no Chinese components, but there are Karitiana component, and Y is not Chinese.
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Lokomotiv, Irkutsk, Grave 16 [DA359, LOK_1980.016] 6680 ±60 BP M N1c-M2087.1
Neolithic Isakovo Russia Ust'-Ida, Grave 56-1 [DA345, UID_1995.056.01] 4730 ± 70 BP M N1c1-M46-M2080
@Davidski
Your models are incomplete, they do not contain a Yamnaya component, WHG and Neolithic European. You always just take one highlighted combination and test only one, the models are not tested that way. Baltic_BA can be drawn to because of the WHG, LBK, EHG in it. And it was about Yamnaya component and Andronovo culture.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteYeah, you're right, they've got LBK ancestry, not Baltic_BA or Andronovo.
Because LBK was all over the forest steppe and in western Siberia.
LOL
@ Archi: so you don't have a source, as expected, just a personal view. I don't know what language you're referring to, but if's not me then sure some other will be able to check facts, provided the facts are there, despite the language.
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteNot LOL. LBK component is in the PWC.
Most likely Archi refers to some Napolskih work in Russian. I do respect Napolskih, and if he claimed PU in West Siberia I am not gonna argue against that.
ReplyDeleteStill if Archi could put a link to that work here, it would be helpful.
Btw Napolskih believed ST to be Tocharian speakers for the record. Gonna be fun to check that out vs genetics. But if I recall correct, he(?) also wrote about dual character of ST in forests with IE looking steppe guys and local FU hunters cooperating further North. But maybe I am just making up, was some time since I last read that.
@Everyone
ReplyDeleteBtw, I've been arguing Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov was Uralic before Davidski did. I've been saying this since the ancient DNA was published last year.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/siberian-ancestry-and-y-haplogroup-n1c.html
I was harassed by a Korean jerk named Ryu for saying this because it didn't fit decades of lingustic evidence. You don't have to be an expert in lingustics to connect the DNA dots.
It seems that Russian concensus at least still supports Volga-Kama area in regards to prarodina of Uralic language. Also, Napol'skih doesn't seem to have anything against that (link to his 2002 study can be found in the wiki-page).
ReplyDeletehttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8C%D0%B8
So, I wonder on which sources Archi is relying? Or actually, I don't.
The problem is that even if BOO spoke a Uralic language it is still not a good proxy for PU becasue it's mixed with something else.
ReplyDeleteI really think this Ob-Irtysh model makes the most sense for N-L1026. Even if PU was originally spoken west of the Urals. Although, I don't necessarily see a problem with it being spoken in the Ob-Irtysh basin either, China/Mongolia is ridiculous.
https://www.academia.edu/36191998/Parpola_Asko_2017._Finnish_vatsa_Skt_vats%C3%A1-_and_the_formation_of_Indo-Iranian_and_Uralic_languages._Journal_de_la_Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Finno-Ougrienne_96_245-286
Check out Figure 4. and 8. for some possible explanations of N-L1026 being in BOO and keep in mind that Netted-Ware was a result of Seima-Turbino elites over Fatyanovo-Balanovo/Abashevo peoples. Not sure then that Netted-Ware makes sense due to its likely high steppe admixture.
@Archi: Didnt say they were Chinese, rather they were geographically close and influenced with different branches the Mongolian-Northern Chinese and Uralic people respectively. ST is from that region too, just like haplogroup N, its not from the forests or Urals. ST might have affected Tocharians, one way or another, but the best candidate group is just Proto-Uralic.
ReplyDeleteIn Mongolia-Northern China the respective branch was just assimilated by later groups like Turkic, Mongol and Sino-Tibetans.
In his “Введение в историческую уралистику” actually Napolskih wrote about Ob and Irtysh coasts as Proto-Uralic, based on flora and fauna reconstructions.
ReplyDeleteHowever he mentioned more South-West (Volga Kama direction) homeland for Proto-FU in the same book. That book however is kind of old, so I guess we should ask him what is his current position.
In Russia, no one will have the hands to comprehensively connect a number of disparate facts into a single logical chain. It is now known that in the Eastern Ural monuments Seimino - Turbino side by side with the monuments of the Samus culture. Samus culture itself is a syncretic culture of the monuments of Krotovo culture and Andronovo culture. In the Western Urals monuments Seimino-Tutbino the turbine side by side with monuments Chirkovo culture. The monuments of Chirkovo culture smoothly turn into the monuments of Mesh ceramics culture. Lacking only the will to draw a logical sequence. East of the Urals: Krotovo culture + Andronovo culture = Samus culture she Seimino-Turbino culture. West of the Urals: Seimino - Turbino culture = Chirkovo culture + Volovo culture = Culture of the reticulated ceramic. Judging by the fact that the culture Seimino-Turbino does not have settlement monuments, and culture Chirkova has only settler monuments, Seimino- Tubino they were warriors, and Chirkovo culture is their family.
ReplyDeleteSame book he wrote that all FU groups had separately borrowed loanwords from Proto-Tocharian. Cultural loanwords - metal, bronze, iron, man, salt, honey, name, horse.
ReplyDeleteWhich he could only link to Seima Turbino. ST guys introduced those things to FU tribes of forest zone, and they (FU) afterwards set up their own metallurgy area (Malaren axes and what not).
It is not surprising that in Siberia the future uralians interacted with the Tocharians of the Afanasiev culture
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of metals. Both Samus culture and Chirkovo culture were bronze cultures as well as Seimino. Here is Garino-Boron Yes, knew only copper. This only says that they crossed the Urals in several streams. The first apparently have gone Y9022. As I understood not all tribes are prepared were to cooperate with Andronovo, and they were leaving on North as M2019 or through Ural as Y9022. And L1026 apparently with Andronovo culture densely contacted, until such extent, that subclades Y16323 so with Scythians and remained, and Z1936 and CTS10760 are gone from steppes in forest zone, where assimilated Volosovo culture and all the rest culture the forest zone.
ReplyDeleteSo, is this the end of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis? To the best of my knowledge IU is supported by a minority among linguists, but a majority claims PU and PIE have been in intimate contact for a long period.
ReplyDeleteObviously PU had contacts to IE, just look at the geographical proximity when IE expanded to the East, directly to the proposed PU homeland and they might even have had earlier contacts to related people. But Indo-Uralic as a reality is pure speculation.
ReplyDelete@Huck Finn
ReplyDelete"It seems that Russian concensus at least still supports Volga-Kama area in regards to prarodina of Uralic language. Also, Napol'skih doesn't seem to have anything against that (link to his 2002 study can be found in the wiki-page)."
You see, you don't understand foreign-language sources very well. It just says that Napol'skikh's criticized him sharply, that is, he is sharply against it.
In Wikipedia, however, someone simply add self fictional opinion to the fantasy itself.
@Parastais "However he mentioned more South-West (Volga Kama direction) homeland for Proto-FU in the same book."
Napol'skikh does not find European realities (animals, trees, fish) in Ugric languages, but finds there those West Siberian realities which unite them with East Europe/Urals. For the Pra-Fino-Ugric, it excludes the Volga basin. NapNapol'skikh denies any contacts of Ugric languages with such languages of the Ural Mountains as Udmurt. That is, for Ugrian remains the southwest of the Western Siberia, can together with east Middle Ural Mountains. In any case, it specifies that even innovations in vocabulary of PFU specify Western Siberia, with possible inclusion in it of the east Middle Ural hypothetically up to Kama.
area 4 https://i.ibb.co/ncbRwPZ/image.png
The Finnish-Perm languages are already European.
@epoch "So, is this the end of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis?"
ReplyDeleteWhy? The Indo-Uralic hypothesis says that the Indo-Uralic macrofamily split in the Final Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic into two families: the Indo-European and the Uralic, after which the two families were not in contact, Napol'skikh believes that until the early Indo-Iranian period.
Udmurts are either Y9022, then they will not have an Indo-Iranian layer, but will have a tokhar layer, or they are like Komi-Perm, then they are P43, relatives of ngasans and Nenets
ReplyDeleten other words, considering all of the clues, it would seem that the BOO people came from some part of the Ob-Irtysh basin, which might thus be the best place to look for the population with the oldest and phylogenetically most basal N-L1026 lineages. And if we find that, then we've probably found the proto-Uralians and their homeland.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with this, and would suggest that the headwaters of the Irtysh would be the more probable spot if we wanted to be more specific. It would fit with the Altai Neolithic connection and the deeper phylogeny of non-Uralic N.
@ Archi:
ReplyDelete"...скорее всего – в южной и западной её частях следует локализовать уральскую ифинно-угорскую прародину."
So, even Napol'skih seems to support the south-western part, "от устья Камы" i.e. mouth of Kama etc., of his theoretical greater zone, as the prarodina i.e he's leaning towards concensus. No need to say that this concensus is based on a work of very many scientists over a century.
Among younger Russian scientist for instance Normanskaja seems to support approximately the same area "...localizing the Finno-Ugric ancestral home in the North Ural and northern part of South Cis-Ural region"
http://illa.tsu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/FU-home-corrected.pdf
https://iling-ran.ru/web/en/scholars/normanskaya
I BTW have to say that this approach of yours, "my sources are in a foreign language", "my sources are difficult, people don't understand them" etc., is quite pathethic.
@Huck Finn "
ReplyDelete"...скорее всего – в южной и западной её частях следует локализовать уральскую ифинно-угорскую прародину."
So, even Napol'skih seems to support the south-western part, "от устья Камы" i.e. mouth of Kama etc., of his theoretical greater zone, as the prarodina i.e he's leaning towards concensus. No need to say that this concensus is based on a work of very many scientists over a century."
Don't imagine it. A typical example of deception is to pull out quotes without a context and change its meaning 100%. Napol'skikh did not write about any European homeland, he strongly disagrees with it. Here he describes the aggregate area of archeolohical formation connected to the Uralic and Finno-Ugric languages from Yenisei to Kama, i.e. their joint and multi-temporal area.
I'm not pathetic, I just saw at once that you are unable to read foreign language texts, and not understanding them just pull out the phrase that will be misunderstood by you without understanding the rest of the text.
Therefore, you have written a complete lie that contradicts the text and the results of the researcher. Therefore, people who do not understand the language of the text, without reading the hole text, should not draw conclusions on it. I authoritatively state to you that you are absolutely wrong.
Full cites
"Данный вывод не означает, что все носители культур урало-западносибирской традиции говорили на уральских языках, но с высокой степенью вероятности следует считать, что именно в пределах ареала распространения этой традиции, то есть – на территории лесной зоны от устья Камы на западе до Енисея на востоке, скорее всего – в южной и западной её частях следует локализовать уральскую и финно-угорскую прародину."
This conclusion does not mean that all the bearers cultures of the Ural-Western Siberian tradition spoke Uralic languages, but with a high degree of probability it is necessary to consider that it is within the limits of the spread of this tradition, i.e. on the territory of the forest zone from the mouth of the Kama River in the west to the Yenisei River in the east, most likely - in its southern and western parts it is necessary to localize the Uralic and Finno-Ugric homelands.
Normanskaya is not authoritative in this question - I've read Normanskaya, she's just verbiage, she can't give any arguments in support of her point of view, she has only doubts and mistakes. And don't, she doesn't support any version of the ancestral home - she only doubts everything, thinks up invalid doubts against the Siberian ancestral home that readily are denied at once and she can't take sides.
Here is the opinion of Russian archeologists about the spread of the Uralians.
ReplyDeleteНикольских В. В. О методах реконструкции этнической истории
(на примере народов уральской языковой семьи)
Archaeological retrospective of the Ural history in the II millennium BC.
http://www.garshin.ru/linguistics/languages/nostratic/uralic/proto-uralic/_images/uralians-history.jpg
I don't think the Indo-Uralic idea holds water; Uralic borrowed extensively from proto-Indo-Aryan and that is the most likely source for any Indo-European/Uralic commonalities. Ural-Altaic would make more sense; I could see a scenario where a western Macro-Altaic dialect, spoken by N-L1026 early clades among others, was deformed and partially remade due to extensive contact with Indo-European dialects, either early Tocharian, proto-Indo-Aryan, or both. A similar scenario is what happened to English in the late medieval period when the Norman French-speaking nobility started speaking English.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHere is view of Chikisheva (authoritative)
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/vol_vlad/84228922/15676/15676_original.png
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/vol_vlad/84228922/16040/16040_original.png
description in https://vol-vlad.livejournal.com/2244.html
Shortly by Napol'skikh https://vol-vlad.livejournal.com/1803.html
@ Archi: "not authoritative, ...thinks up invalid doubts against the Siberian ancestral home that readily are denied at once".
ReplyDeleteYes Archi, pathetic indeed.
P.S. it's beyond my imagination what kind of a role anthropological maps should have in a serious linguistic discussion.
ReplyDelete@ Daviski
ReplyDelete“Which Northeast European language? Does anyone still speak it?”
Proto-Tocharian, moving out 2000 BC
@Archi
ReplyDeleteYou're taking the model from the paper too literally. It's too simple to properly explain the complex ancestry of BOO, which shouldn't be treated as a homogeneous group.
I can't be bothered trying to figure this out now, since we probably don't have the right reference samples available yet, but the two N-L1026 males do have minor steppe ancestry of some sort. My guess is that it's from West Siberia.
BOO002_&_BOO004
NOR_N_HG 0.247±0.081
RUS_Karelia_HG 0.173±0.097
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 0.467±0.019
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.113±0.046
chisq 9.657
tail prob 0.471054
Full output
BOO002_&_BOO004
KAZ_Mereke_MBA 0.184±0.048
NOR_N_HG 0.366±0.040
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 0.450±0.020
chisq 7.928
tail prob 0.719733
Full output
@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about the map in Figure 1 here...
https://www.academia.edu/34105930/RADIOCARBON_CHRONOLOGY_OF_COMPLEXES_WITH_SEIMA-TURBINO_TYPE_2_OBJECTS_BRONZE_AGE_IN_SOUTHWESTERN_SIBERIA
@ David ”Which Northeast European language? Does anyone still speak it?”
ReplyDeleteI copy here a link to a picture from Jaakko Häkkinen's article on Proto-Uralic: https://ibb.co/fQ6wdsL
The picture shows that there are two kinds of Indo-European loanwords: Archaic Indo-European loanwords (second column) and pre-Aryan/ Indo-Iranian loanwords (third column). Often people only pay attention to the Indo-Iranian layer. The earlier Indo-Iranian layer, i.e. Aryan words, enter Proto-Uralic from 2300 BC. The later Iranian words with a narrower distribution are dated to 1800 BC and onwards.
However, there are words that cannot be reconstructed from an Indo-Iranian root and these words are called Archaic Indo-European words. These words are widely distributed in Uralic languages and follow regular sound changes and must be reconstructed to Proto-Uralic. These words are also divided in several categories. The oldest are dated to 2800 BC and onwards and younger to 2300 BC and onwards, and the words with only a Western Uralic distribution are dated to 1800 and onwards. I skip the Pre-Aryan category, because the example U *juxi ’to drink’ is problematic.
Häkkinen connects these archaic Indo-European words with Fatyanovo and Corded Ware cultures of northeastern Europe because many words in the Archaic category are found in Baltic and Germanic languages.
Häkkinen’s article is available here: https://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf
It is in Finnish.
To sum up, if we want to have Proto-Uralic in Western Siberia, it is not easy to fit all these different layers in that environment and also the early date of 2800 BC poses problems.
@Davidski I think all the data does indicate that BOO did not have a Yamnaya component. Y and mtDNA do not show any connection with Andronovians. If they were in contact with Andronovians, there would be both Yamnaya and CWC components. All other data on archeology and anthropology also do not show any connection with Andronovians. All those who had contacts with them show a clear Yamnaya signal received by different methods.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, something like Iran-like component to have these guys from other influences that shown here
10 https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/vol_vlad/84228922/13793/13793_original.png
or https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/vol_vlad/84228922/15676/15676_original.png
@Kristiina
ReplyDeleteThis theory is based on certain assumptions, like, for instance, that these hypothetical ancient European languages weren't spoken in Siberia. But if they were then we can shift the location of proto-Uralic east.
Have a look at all of the published and unpublished aDNA data from around the Urals. The steppes there, including in West Siberia, are swarming with people rich in European uniparental markers.
Take a look at the map here as well...
https://www.academia.edu/34105930/RADIOCARBON_CHRONOLOGY_OF_COMPLEXES_WITH_SEIMA-TURBINO_TYPE_2_OBJECTS_BRONZE_AGE_IN_SOUTHWESTERN_SIBERIA
I do not disagree on the plurality of the picture.
ReplyDeleteWhen the data from different cultures in Volga and western Siberia is published, we can start drawing conclusions on the implications, e.g. from where different groups came and when they came, and who is more autochthonous in different areas. It will be highly interesting.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThe PWC theory was interesting, and it might be true to some extent, but...
BOO002_&_BOO004
NOR_N_HG 0.320±0.085
RUS_Priobrazhenka_LBA 0.302±0.142
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 0.438±0.038
SWE_TRB -0.060±0.057
chisq 10.342
tail prob 0.411045
Full output
@ D: yes, ST related groups were indeed living next to and even among IE speaking groups, at least on the European side of Ural mountains. However, even if ST artifacts have for instance been found in Finland, our N1c lineages are way too young to be explained by some ST related immigration. Also, at least Uralic Proper as a language and including Saami apparently did not come here that early. So, some of those ST artefacts may belong to Uralic speakers, but probably not all.
ReplyDeleteI think Seima-Turbino was initially an Indo-European network. Finno-Ugric groups joined it later.
ReplyDeleteThe only people who pretend to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon from known cultures are Afanasievians, if based on that the Seima-Turbino appeared in Altai.
ReplyDelete@Huck Finn
ReplyDelete"ST artifacts have for instance been found in Finland, our N1c lineages are way too young to be explained by some ST related immigration".
I think if Seima-Turbino did bring N-L1026 to Finland initially around 2000-1500BC they are now almost certainly dead lineages.
It makes more sense that N-L1026 spread with S-T in to the Netted-Ware culture. Modern Balto-Finnic N branches then spread from those Netted-Ware decended iron age Upper and Middle Volga cultures where the Estonian Tarands can be traced to.
@Davidski. By the way, in this work, figure object 4, the first time I see that Peplinski mound related to Seima-Turbino. In all works before Peplinski mound was related to Chirkovo culture. This place is epic Abashevo culture, just the mound is the burial place of Abashevo. It should be understood that the Volga region by 2000 was already densely populated. There were remnants of Ymnaiy culture (Poltava culture) subclades R1b-Z2103 and Abashevo (Srubnaiy culture) subclades R1a-Z2124, and remnants of Fatyanovo culture and Balanovo culture (R1a-?) and Volosovo culture subclades I, likely I1, and still mass cultures, culture Lola with North Caucasian tribes, Pozdnyakovskaya culture, the remnants of Repino culture, the remnants of culture pit-comb ceramics (R1b-M73 and still perhaps that the). Only a very strong aggressive and well-armed community could break through this shield. In fact, all these cultures were replaced by the culture of Chirkovo, which later became the culture of mesh ceramics, and their fist, apparently, was Seima-Turbino.
ReplyDelete@Archi
ReplyDeleteYou'll eventually see that the Seima-Turbino phenomenon involved Andronovo-related groups, local Siberian communities, and mixtures of both.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteThere's no I1 in Volosovo or any related samples. I2 yes, but it's not their most common marker. These people were mostly R1b.
@Davidski. In General, Volosovo is a syncretic culture that arose through the imposition of the culture of pit-comb ceramics on the Neolithic upper Volga culture. In Mesolithic on this place was several different cultures such as Butovo culture, Ienevo culture and still what the. All Neolithic cultures apparently haplogroup I. in some modern populations of the Volga peoples haplogroup I1 reaches 20%, I2, too, incidentally there is, that says, that these subclades there from any the quite ancient strata.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the modern haplotypes of the Volga peoples, they reflect the entire history of the region for several thousand years:
ReplyDeleteBashkirs: R1a-CTS1211-2%, R1a-Z2124- 32%, R1b-L51-2%, R1b-Z2103-35%, R1b-M73-6%, J2a-4%, N-TAT-12%, N-P43-7%.
Mari: R1a-CTS1211-18%, R1a-Z2124-3%, R1b-L51-3%, N-TAT-43%, N-P43-33%.
Mordovians: R1a-CTS1211-35%, R1a-Z2124-8%, R1a-M458-2%, R1b-Z2103-7%, R1b-L51-3%, I1-3%, I2-3%, J1-3%, J2a-10%, G-P303-4%, E-M78-10%, N-TAT-10%, C-M130-2%.
Tatars of Kazan: R1a-CTS1211-10%, R1a-M458-7%, R1a-Z2124- 4%, R1b-M73- 3%, I1-12%, I2- 2%, G-M485-2%, G-P16-5%, J2a-9%, J2b-6%, E-M35-5%, N-TAT-22%, N-P43-5%, C-M130-6%, O-M175-2%.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteModern DNA can be deceiving because you don't know where the ancestral lines of these lineages were 5,000 years ago or even 2,000 years ago.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteYou'll eventually see that the Seima-Turbino phenomenon involved Andronovo-related groups, local Siberian communities, and mixtures of both.
If you call them local, they were there before Andronovo-related groups. In such case they were in this place also at the time, when Yamnaya was expanding east. Do you think that they came into contact?
KAZ_Mereke, where Y-DNA N was found, is located just 300 km south of Samara... and even slightly to the west of it (50.46 49.2).
Russia_Andronovo.SG
1746-1626 calBCE (3391±27 BP, OxA-31216)
1727-1511 calBCE (3328±38 BP, OxA-31445)
1446-1298 calBCE (3119±27 BP, OxA-31217)
Kazakhstan_Andronovo.SG
1611-1425 calBCE (3225±43 BP, UBA-33602)
Mereke_MBA
2462-2299 calBCE (3885±20 BP, PSUAMS-4901)
2195-2032 calBCE (3710±20 BP, PSUAMS-4902)
Y-DNA N was west of Urals before Andronovo even existed.
Maybe it was Yamnaya that have pulled them to the other side of the Urals? And thus maybe Yamnaya is at least partly responsible for the spread of Uralic languages? What do you think?
@Arza
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Mereke Poltavka group was Uralic. Its not East Asian enough and has the wrong N subclade.
It probably spoke a language from some extinct language family, which may or may not have been related to Uralic.
But hey, if N-L1026 turns up in a Poltavka or Yamnaya sample around that area then I'll change my mind.
Before Andronovo there was Abashevo. Just pepkin mound is the place of collision Sima/Turbino (Chirkovo) with Abashevo. And Abashevo have been going with Dnepr (where the from post Sredniy Stog and post Trypillya. The uralians came from the East of the Urals. And those and others were included into the territory of post Ymnaiy (catacomb culture, Poltavka culture). IDNO-Iranians Abashevo and Volsk-Lbishchevo fought fierce battles first with the catacomb culture, and then with Seima-Turbino. In the end cacambo culture are marginalized and their territory divided among themselves. The forest went to Seima-Turbino (Chirkovo, mesh ceramics), and the steppe Abashevo (Srubnaiy culture, future Scythians).
ReplyDelete@ Anthony: yes, modern Baltic Finnic N1c coming from Textile Ceramics makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDelete@ D: In regards to ST you're to some extent reinventing the wheel, I'm afraid. ST vs. Abashevo contact is not anything new, but maybe there indeed was a contact area in Siberia too. It however seems to me that you're effectively saying that Ob-Irtysh is first Pre Proto Uralic -> then Para Uralic, because of local ST. Nothing wrong with that, as Volga-Kama based Proto Uralic may very well have been coming from Siberia. This kind of a model is much easier to present, as you don't have to fight the existing scientific results. Besides, contacts between two related groups over Ural mountains are of course natural.
BOO, then, is still a case of it's own. I'd personally say that it is based on a mixture of at least very different groups and if the mixture took place in Ob-Irtysh, it was by Arctic Sea. If that was the case, BOO was Pre Proto Uralic/Para Uralic, if it did not then spoke some eastern siberian language.
@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what Para Uralic means, but BOO has N-L1026 and shows a close relationship to modern Uralic speakers, so I think it was just Uralic with various minor admixtures, including from the Arctic.
Honestly, I can't see the theory that the proto-Uralic population was from Europe and largely West Eurasian surviving the revelations from ancient DNA that are coming.
@ D: Para Uralic is a language based on the same ancestral language i.e. Pre Proto Uralic, as Proto Uralic. Kristiina will kindly correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteBOO is very eastern so you're effectively saying that a very eastern group, something getting close to Evenki, did really reside in Volga-Kama. Maybe it did. However, because of that what I know of unpublished Finnish results, I don't buy it yet. Proto Uralic speakers were probably not from East Siberia, but possibly Pre Proto Uralic speakers were WSHG biased West Siberians. If they were, they had some BHG too, but they were not coming from a BHG only population.
@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteBOO is about as eastern as modern Khanty and Mansi, and probably has some recent Arctic admixture that pulls it east (especially BOO006). You can see how it compares to other North Eurasian populations in the three North Eurasian PCA here.
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#
So I certainly don't think that an Evenki-like population ever resided in the Volga-Kama area.
Western Siberia was genetically very heterogeneous at around 2,000 BCE, but I don't think that even here there were any groups as eastern as the Evenki.
The Proto-Uralic population, perhaps similar to BOO, might have formed here at around this time and expanded along the Seima-Turbino networks before more East Asian-related ancestry moved in and eventually rose to its current levels.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"You'll eventually see that the Seima-Turbino phenomenon involved Andronovo-related groups, local Siberian communities, and mixtures of both."
We're not gonna see that. Does the Seima-Turbino have nothing to do with Andronovo, did he even appear a little earlier than Sintashta, or do you claim that they are Abashevans? It has clear early connections with Altai. The burials of the Seima-Turbino are mostly cenotaphs, and those burials are burials of local cultures that simply contain things of the Seima-Turbinian. In fact, we do not have any remains of the Seima-Turbinian about which we could say that it is not local really, but belongs to the Seima-Turbinian. You see, all burials with Seima-Turbino things are made in cemeteries where the locals are buried and according to local rites as I understand, or it is not clear what kind of burials they are.
It is the same as with Turkish. First Indo-Europeans coming in as the new dominant force and pushed the locals oftentimes even on a fringe position.
ReplyDeleteBut if these locals survived intact, started trade and contacts, they learned from the newcomers. And some renegades, mixed people and even some locals led by the steppe elite turned into fierce steppe warriors themselves. More hungry than the first.
And this happened not just once, but in a row, usually with more Eastern, ever more Mongoloid, originally hunters, turning into steppe warriors themselves. And the next hungry steppe group always pushed to the West and/or South, to get their share of power and luxury. Those in the West and South were oftentimes becoming settled down, were no such hard trained steppe people any more. With a smaller group of elite riders, like later knights.
In Europe we see this with the successive appearance of Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Avar etc.
The next group was always more Eastern.
The Uralics were just the first which were Eastern Asian dominated and made it to the West after being taught by Eastern IE. But they were not strong enough to conquer their former masters in their core territories, but strong enough for the borderzone which was a too cold fringe area for Indo-Europeans. There they could establish a new Uralic ethnicity and mixed with local foragers and Indo-Europeans.
But its the same as with Turkic basically. An East Asian group coming under the influence of Indo-Europeans, mixture and cultural transfer takes place and the upgraded group becomes a serious competitor and even more specialised steppe warrior.
The final step of this Eastern shift and cultural specialisation are obviously the Mongols. The Uralics were just the first and they were just heavily mixed. Because migrating along the cold fringe of the Eurasian habitat, they mixed with locals and even adapted new subsistence strategies while moving up. Especially when the next waves from the steppe pushed them up even further. BOO show traits and a position which makes them a fringe group from the start. But they are part of the phenomenon nevertheless.
That the modern European Finno-Ugrians are definitely European by culture and descent doesnt change the original source of the movements leading to the spread of the languages and lineages.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteCurrently the oldest R1a from Central Asia is from an Andronovo culture grave dated to 2132-1940 calBCE from near the Altai f*****g Mountains. Sample I3770, geographic coordinates 50.2249 81.83678333.
Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health
That's when the Seima-Turbino phenomenon was still active, and maybe even at its peak.
What does this mean? It means that unless I3770 was the very first person of his kind in the area, then we can expect Andronovo-related ancestry in samples associated with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon.
I am quite sure that the gap between Levanluhta and 0LS10 could be filled by IA samples from Southern Finland. But there is something we need to take into account; the western admixture which started to increase in Finland and Estonia during the early Iron Age. This addition complicates things and I have not yet seen studies understanding the full picture. This is why it is difficult to create a complete picture. Some Finnish linguists have seen necessary to move early German speakers (proto and pre-proto Germanics) to Russia near the Volga river to complete the intuition of loan word and western affinity of Baltic Finns. They try to bring together their mission of the home land of Finnic languages and subjugate other histories to serve it. We have a saying "try to push a snake to a gun barrel". This is what now happens as to the origin of Baltic Finns.
ReplyDeleteBell beaker culture was also once considered a tradition. When the will studied and Seima-Turbino. The burial of Rostovka in Siberia is undoubtedly considered to belong to the Seima-Turbino culture. It remains only to investigate the ancient DNA.
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteI repeat, Seima-Turbino appeared earlier than Sintashta, and in general, did not intersect with Sintashta. It contacted mainly with Abashevo.
Therefore, it is not necessary to expect Andronovo in it. The only thing they can be is either Abashevo-related or CWC-related. But there is no evidence for that. No, of course, they could have been those who left the Tarim mummies, but Afanasievo is still closer to Altai and Seima-Turbino.
Most importantly, we are unlikely to find out soon, as all the burials we know with Seima-Turbino things are likely to have just received them as a result of the trade, all the data speaks only of this.
Thanks for this Davidski. Ob-Irtysh basin area as Uralic sounds promising.
ReplyDeleteNow consider this:
1. This area falls in close proximity of Sintashta-Andronovo region. However no uralic loanword is present in indo iranian. Only 1 way loanword exchange in such proximal cultures is very very strange.
2. Indo iranian loanwords into Ob Irtysh region can be explained by the Steppe_MLBA_obmc outliers, northernmost one being from Taldysay with Y haplo J2a1h2, dated 1500bce. bmac mixed outliers start appearing in central steppe.
in eastern steppe, (Dali eba) turan mixture is seen at 2600bce.
thoughts @kristiina?
@ D: very good, now based on that what we know after reading Wong et al 2015, you just have to decide whether Proto Uralics were:
ReplyDelete- ANE/EHG/WSHG-like, i.e. something which does not exist any more
- BHG like i.e. something like Evenki
- already a mixture of both above, already during the Proto Uralic stage
This, because we know that Mansi is that kind of a mixture.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't even work if you ignore Balto-Slavs and other northern Indo-European-speaking Europeans, but especially Balto-Slavs.
There's no way you can explain the layers of Indo-European influence in Uralic, and the close relationship between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan, with a few outliers who barely made it onto the steppe.
On the other hand, Andronovo people were all over the steppes of west Siberia like a rash. No wonder they spread their influence around.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you got your dates for Seima-Turbino from, but OK, let's wait and see, because lots of Bronze Age samples are coming from western Siberia.
The western farmer ancestry in BOO is intriguing. I'd imagine it is from a pitted ware derived population perhaps responsible for megalithic constructions around Northern Fennoscandia and even the White Sea in/before BA. The related more southern IA Pre-Germanic influences that probably extend east beyond the bottom of Gulf of Finland may also be responsible for the I1 lineages, and the mtDNA haplos in eastern Finland as observed in the recent study. Therefore, I do not quite see why to invoke a mysterious eastern source for them as the authors did. The BOO individuals, the Sámi and some Finns are partly surprisingly high in western farmer ancestry and low in CHG ancestry, which sets them apart from other uralics.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to explain the absence of Uralic vocabulary in Indo-Iranian only by the fact that uralians N-L1026 interacted not with future Indo-Iranians (R1a-Y3), but with future Scythians (R1a-Z2124).
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteYou've heard about them, you saw them or you have them?
@Nomic Belief
ReplyDeleteIt's not certain that BOO actually has any western farmer ancestry. The model in the paper which shows some LBK-related ancestry in BOO is a distal, basic model and the statistical fit is poor.
I'm getting minor Baltic_BA, Andronovo and other steppe signals in BOO instead of anything closely related to LBK or Scandinavian TRB.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete„There's no way you can explain the layers of Indo-European influence in Uralic, and the close relationship between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan, with a few outliers who barely made it onto the steppe.”
People don’t understand even basic things about linguistics. This is the result of false PIE propaganda. Look closely at this false PIE language tree:
https://i.postimg.cc/W4rBgD6v/dwa.jpg
Many numerals in Sanskrit and Slavic are not only similar or derived from the same root. They are identical. And so are hundreds or maybe thousands of other words. How did it happen that Sanskrit preserved many Slavic numerals and other words intact?
I think genetics points us in the right direction.
@Arza
ReplyDeleteI know some things about them.
Judging by Estonian samples, discussed in previous topic, nothing German there in principle there is no nor in bronze nor in iron age, until, apparently until 11 century AD.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete"It's not certain that BOO actually has any western farmer ancestry. The model in the paper which shows some LBK-related ancestry in BOO is a distal, basic model and the statistical fit is poor.
I'm getting minor Baltic_BA, Andronovo and other steppe signals in BOO instead of anything closely related to LBK or Scandinavian TRB."
OK, thanks for the pinch of salt.
Davidski said
ReplyDelete"There's no way you can explain the layers of Indo-European influence in Uralic, and the close relationship between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan, with a few outliers who barely made it onto the steppe.
On the other hand, Andronovo people were all over the steppes of west Siberia like a rash. No wonder they spread their influence around."
There no way you can explain the presence of late vedic cremation rites of the 3fires In BMAC bustan 1600bce but 0 presence of any steppe aDNA there. all your steppe theorists - anthony, kuzmina, mallory and others pushed heavily for andronovo/steppe provenance of these rites. too bad for them.
From the eastern pontic steppe paper
"The Bronze Age Srubnaya-Alakulskaya individuals from Kazburun 1/Muradym 8 presented genetic similarities to the previously published Srubnaya individuals. However, in f4 statistics, they shared more drift with representatives of the Andronovo and Afanasievo populations compared to the published Srubnaya individuals. Those apparently West Eurasian people lacked significant Siberian components (NEA and SEA) in ADMIXTURE analyses but carried traces of the SA component that could represent an earlier connection to ancient Bactria. The presence of an SA component (as well as finding of metals imported from Tien Shan Mountains in Muradym 8) could therefore reflect a connection to the complex networks of the nomadic transmigration patterns characteristic of seasonal steppe population movements [see (2), figure 6.1, p. 205]."
Balto slavic has had huge contact with pre scythian scythian cimmerian, sarmatian people in 1st mill bce and later.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDelete“Balto slavic has had huge contact with pre scythian scythian cimmerian, sarmatian people in 1st mill bce and later.”
No, it was the opposite direction of influence. Indo-Aryans and Iranians had huge contact with Andronovo.
Steppe populations in later times were Turkish speaking, not Sanskrit.
I'd say for the past few years it's become increasingly obvious that the Uralic languages are ultimately Siberian in origin.
ReplyDeleteThe remaining question is linguisic. Did the surviving Uralic languages spread from the Ob Irtysh basin, or was the zone of expansion from a descendant population that was west of the Urals?
My main point of hesitation on the eastern spread is the lack of evidence for early Uralic splits in that area. So it becomes a technical issue of where all of the Uralic languages known today originated, vs other Uralic and closely related languages that are now lost that may have lied further east.
@eastpole
ReplyDelete"According to Matasović (2008), "solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology, is one of the most important tasks of modern Slavic studies".[3] Slavs in the era of the Proto-Slavic language came into contact with various Iranian tribes, namely Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans, which were present in vast regions of eastern and southeastern Europe in the first centuries CE. The names of two large rivers in the centre of Slavic expansion, Dnieper and Dniester, are of Iranian origin, and Iranian toponyms are found as far west as modern day Romania."
@vAsiSTha "owever no uralic loanword is present in indo iranian. Only 1 way loanword exchange in such proximal cultures is very very strange."
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely normal, the contact zone between Andronovo and Siberian cultures ended in Siberia. Siberian cultures did not influence Andronovo in any way, but in Siberia Andronoid cultures were formed, through which Andronovo's influence on Siberia took place.
"There no way you can explain the presence of late vedic cremation rites of the 3fires In BMAC bustan 1600bce"
Do not shred nonsense, in BMAC there is no cremation and no Vedic cremation rites. In 1600BC the BMAC was already destroyed by the invasion of shepherds from the north, whose northern things were already found in the BMAC at that time, but they are not members of the BMAC.
BMAC is not Indo-Iranian culture at all, other is a delusional lie.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDelete"According to Matasović (2008), "solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic”
It is BS. Read T. Burrow “The Sanskrit Language”
https://goo.gl/mBeFD8
and this:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html?showComment=1523740548383#c6191530895381495941
Slavic words present in Sanskrit or Avestan have Slavic etymology.
And now it is all confirmed by genetics:
https://i.postimg.cc/05Cnpw1Z/CWC-BS-II.jpg
@archi why you come here to puke nonsense and be humiliated is unknown to me.
ReplyDeleteanyway, from Kuzmina & mallory, origin of indo iranians pg 268
"Of considerable interest is the discovery in Bustan of three fires and in their vicinity three cists—one rectangular and two trapeziform. They are formed from bricks with the help of a clay solution and show signs of repeated fires that were then put out by water and oil. Fire was made three times in the ritual and the burnt layers were covered over with sand and white gravel. In the boxes there were found calcined bones of a man and ovicaprid, the leg of a Molalli type wheel-made vase, a fragment of an Andronovo vessel, a cylindrical urn with a conical lid and a bronze earring with a hook. N. Avanesova (1995: 33-35, fig. 3, 4) interprets these constructions as a crematorium. The Andronovo provenance of the fire-cult and the cremation rite is beyond dispute."
From Avanesova: Buston VI - the necropolis of fire worshippers of pre urban bactria (a 634 page report on Bustan)
"The bonfires’ structure and their position relative to the boxes correspond
completely with the Vedas’ prescription concerning human cremations [the
Rigveda, 1972, Х-16, 18; the Atharvaveda, 1977, XVIII-2, 7]. All of the
boxes contained fragments of cremated human bones."
"Signs of the fire cult were present in all B VI rituals. Special
ceremonial grounds were organised for rites associated with the fire ritual.
Their function was to receive purificatory bloodless (milk and so on) and
bloody (animals) sacrifices."
"Signs of the Srubna and Andronovo culture were diagnosed in the material
culture and funeral ritual."
@EastPole. The Scythians Srubnay culture was obviously of Indo-Iranians, Herodotus called them Scythians - cultivators. But the Scythians Andronovo culture obviously mixed with the Turks-Oguz culture Okunevo haplogroup Q and formed a syncretic Karasuk culture, passed into the Tagar culture. These Scythians were nomads and probably already spoke some language between Turkic and Indo-Iranian.
ReplyDeletefvAsiSTha "why you come here to puke nonsense and be humiliated is unknown to me"
ReplyDeleteLOL. You're the one who came here to lie.
Learn how to read, you're completely unable to read!
"a fragment of an Andronovo vessel, a cylindrical urn with a conical lid and a bronze earring with a hook. N. Avanesova (1995: 33-35, fig. 3, 4) interprets these constructions as a crematorium. The Andronovo provenance of the fire-cult and the cremation rite is beyond dispute."
"Signs of the Srubna and Andronovo culture were diagnosed in the material
culture and funeral ritual."
The Bustan layers belong to the final stage of the Sapalli culture. They are all already combined with the Andronovo culture, the cities are still inhabited by the ancient population, and the steppe is already the entire Andronovo culture.
You're a complete shame, as always.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"The Scythians Srubnay culture"
LOL
"Srubnay culture was obviously of Indo-Iranians, Herodotus called them Scythians - cultivators."
Full LOL. Time of Srubnaya culture and time of Herodotus - full LOL.
"Turks-Oguz culture Okunevo haplogroup Q"
LOL.
"syncretic Karasuk culture"
syncretic syncretic syncretic syncretic syncretic - you don't even know what that word means, you push it anywhere.
"These Scythians probably already spoke some language between Turkic"
Turkic!? between?! LOL
@ archi. In fact, as I understand it, you have nothing to say.
ReplyDeleteLmao @archi. Not a single Adna sample of steppe/andronovo/Sintashta whatever else has been found from bustan VI. All main samples have IVCa
ReplyDeleteThere is one outlier 77pc IVC + 23% steppe_lba.
One big evidence of steppe theorists has fallen, sarianidi called out these lies much earlier when he said andronovo pottery culture in BMAC is overstated.
Theories have been discarded based on DNA for much lesser
fvAsiSTha You're not friends with your head at all, don't be ashamed. What steppe DNA in towns if the steppes did not live in towns, but lived in the steppes? What steppe DNA if the steppes were cremated at that time? But not BMAC. The time of Bustan IV is when BMAC is already being destroyed! Everything that has been described to you is not BMAC culture, but post-BMAC inclusions.
ReplyDeleteBMAC is completely excluded from IE/II according to the steppe theory, therefore, only a complete liar can claim that the steppe theory has fallen.
So all your inadequate squealing goes in the trash can, as always. Treat yourself!
@Archi. If you show me your Nobel prize in history, archaeology or genetics, I will agree that your word is a fact, and if not, your opinion is only an opinion, one of millions.
ReplyDelete@archi
ReplyDelete"What steppe DNA if the steppes were cremated at that time? But not BMAC. The time of Bustan IV is when BMAC is already being destroyed!""
i seriously dont understand why you wish to humiliate yourself. Pottery attributed to andronovo by steppe theorists by these steppe theorists has been found in graves as well, whose radiocarbon dating and DNA sampling of those buried in those graves has been done in Narsimhan paper. Enough of your lies, deceit and stupidity.
@Vladimir You just shame yourself without knowing the elementary facts, I thought you'd be crazy not to insist on your obvious mistakes, but you'll have to paint you elementary things as a small child.
ReplyDeleteSrubnaya couldn't have been Scythians, Scythians in Europe appeared later than the Cimmerians in the 7th century BC, and Srubnaya culture is a culture a thousand years older, and by that time it had long since disappeared.
The Srubnians could not be Scythians in any way, since this is a young tribe that could not be formed in 2100BC to be both in Srubnaya and in the Andronovo culture. Scythians proven are from east Andronovo (Tuva-region/Karasuk/Tagar).
Herodotus couldn't name any Srubnians in any way, because Srubnaya culture had already disappeared more than 700 years after it disappeared. Herodotus generally called very different cultures farmers.
To attribute the Okunevo culture to Oguzes is generally the top of anti-scientific friction, anyone can tell you that.
Nobody can speak a certain language "between", especially since the Karasuk and Tagar cultures are definitely Iranians, otherwise it is delusional. Tagar culture is Scythian.
etc.
A quick off-topic question here for folks who might know (sorry). Does anyone have experience with the big Y testing on Family Tree DNA? I'm a bit confused interpreting results. FTDNA has my terminal SNP as R-FGC7929, but my best match is R-FGC40093 - a different branch of M222. Anyone know which is more reliable?
ReplyDeletefvAsiSTha misnomer Enough of your lies, deceit and stupidity. You need to see a doctor, you're lying everywhere. You are deceiving everyone in every message, you have got all your inadequate lies contradicting the all sources.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhy don't I think the ST has anything to do with the Uralians? The fact is that the Uralians do not show any continuity with the ST at all. After the disappearance of the ST, all local "Uralic" cultures do not change, they do not borrow anything from the ST.
ST have nothing "Uralic" in origin, the entire bone industry, arrows, bone armor, they have from the Glazkovo culture, the jade industry from East Asia, metallurgy from the western Altai, and has the same type as in the Okunevo culture, sculpture goes back to Altai, horse breeding to the west (of) Altai. ST already knew how to harness a horse, but they did not use chariots, instead they harnessed the horse into sleds and skis.
Interestingly, both Glazkovians and Okunevians were Q.
@Ryan
ReplyDelete"A quick off-topic question here for folks who might know (sorry). Does anyone have experience with the big Y testing on Family Tree DNA? I'm a bit confused interpreting results. FTDNA has my terminal SNP as R-FGC7929, but my best match is R-FGC40093 - a different branch of M222. Anyone know which is more reliable?"
In the only error of labeling I've seen in FTDNA, the member was tested positive for certain "basal" branch but was labeled as belonging to a different one just because he casually tested positive for a non-related SNP lower in the tree. Anyway, it must be something rare.
That said, you should define "best match". Are you referring to a STR match? If so, it must be just STR convergence. What matters the most is the set of SNPs which you're positive for. So, if you tested FGC7929+, FGC4113+, FGC7928+ etc. etc., then you're R-FGC7929, not R-FGC40093, never mind STR matches.
It says I match 649,512/666,613 variants for my best match. I believe that must be SNPs, no? My top 15 matches are all FGC4113 negative. I'm FGC7929+ and FGC4113+. My closest match that is FGC4113 and FGC7929 positive only matches for 578,633/666,613. Hence my confusion.
ReplyDeleteHere, Archie, you can, if you like, communicate with arguments, not with pathos. For all you have said, I advise you to read the fundamental work of M. I. Artamonov, Director of the State Hermitage Museum, Director of the Leningrad Institute of material culture "Cimmerian and Scythians (from the appearance in the historical arena to the IV century BC)." Quote from it:
ReplyDelete"Summarizing the above, we can recognize that the historical Scythians are descended from the people of log culture, in the last third of the II Millennium BC. e. ousted from the Northern black sea most of the people identified with the Cimmerian»
Source: https://historylib.org/historybooks/M--I--Artamonov_Kimmeriytsy-i-skify--ot-poyavleniya-na-istoricheskoy-arene-do-kontsa-IV-v--do-n--e--/2
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteI see. It's then clear you're R-FGC7929, and not R-FGC40093. You even tested FGC4113+, and likely positive for other directly upstream close SNPs.
As for the culture of Okunevo and the Oguz Turks, Yes, it is impossible to refer to the authorites here. But I would advise you to compare halotypes of Okunevo culture and haplotypes of modern Turmenistan by 50% corresponding to Okunevo. And then draw a mental line of migration of Oguz Turks from Siberia to modern Turkey and you will find that Okunevo is the most suitable option for Oguz Turks, best preserved in modern Turkmenistan
ReplyDelete@Vladimir Nobody cares about the outdated popular-science book of old man Artamonov of 1974, everybody has forgotten about it long ago. His marginal amateur opinion has long been sent to waste by all. He has not given any proof of his opinion at all, but only says that he recognizes the greatest antiquity of Asian finds, their originality, but still does not agree with them. Simply ridiculous completely, he writes that everything Scythian happened in Asia, but still it is not an evidence that the Scythians are from Asia, and the moaning is only.
ReplyDeleteIn the literature, a lot of erroneous opinions are given and rejected. So, what, to recollect all erroneous opinions of the 19th century or something? Archaeology, culturology, anthropology, genetics clearly proved that old men Artamonov was wrong.
Vladimir said...
ReplyDelete" As for the culture of Okunevo and the Oguz Turks, Yes, it is impossible to refer to the authorites here. But I would advise you to compare halotypes of Okunevo culture and haplotypes of modern Turmenistan by 50% corresponding to Okunevo. And then draw a mental line of migration of Oguz Turks from Siberia to modern Turkey and you will find that Okunevo is the most suitable option for Oguz Turks, best preserved in modern Turkmenistan"
Well, delusional reasoning, compare the Turkic haplogroups from Turkey, and also say that the Turks are from Neolithic there!
Linguistics has clearly proved that the Turks are divided at the turn of Eras. The Turkic languages are all very close to each other. And in the times of the Okunevo culture no Oguzes could be even in the craziest hypotheses.
@All
ReplyDeleteThoughts?
The deviant typological profile of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European may be due to Uralic substrate influence
From the paper...
If the Afanas’evo Culture is not to be identified with early speakers of Tocharian, then obviously alternative scenarios are needed, though none is currently more widely supported. The most likely alternative would be that early Tocharians had not yet reached the Tarim Basin when Iranian spread over the Central Asian steppe, and, when the Iranians extended further and further east, they encountered the early Tocharians, who either went with them or were forced to move even further east, ending up in the Tarim Basin.
Nice map...
ReplyDeleteFigure 2: Possible prehistoric neighbours of Tocharian
https://doi.org/10.1163/22125892-00701007
@Davidski "Thoughts?"
ReplyDeleteI didn't read the whole paper, but before his own linguistic researches the author gives quite a standard opinion of linguists. In this sense, he does not contradict anyone.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteFear not, eventually we'll see some really obvious evidence of contacts between Uralians and Indo-Iranians. Even you won't be able to explain it away.
The Indo-Aryans who went to South Asia from the steppe never met any Uralians, but their brethren who moved north into Siberia did, except their languages are now extinct.
There are Aryan (Indic) words in Uralic languages? So that means Aryan & Iranian languages split on the Eurasian Steppe not in southern Asia. It also, means the Aryans who invaded India were apart of a big family who inhabited much of Central Asia.
ReplyDeleteBy, the time the first historical records of Central Asia exist, it was Iranian-speaking. But, Iranian languages may have expanded in the Iron age. While, in the Bronze age, I guess many could have spoken Aryan or other languages related to Iranian.
Archie, with all due respect, the opinion of a respected expert is far more authoritative than yours. And then, where did you get the figure 2100 BC? At least look at Wikipedia. Disappearance of log culture-800 BC. The emergence of Scythian culture-800 BC. Do you seriously believe that the srubnay kulturv people, who lived, as you correctly write, from 2000 to 1000 BC, have evaporated? First, this is absurd in itself, and secondly, it contradicts the ancient DNA of the Scythians. If there is an Asian component, still 79-80% Scythians Europeans
ReplyDeleteArchie, if you look at the history of the Turkish invasion of Asia Minor, you will find that this process took them more than a Millennium. First they got to Central Asia then the Iranian highlands and only then to Asia minor. So if you look girlography of modern Turkey, and there you will see the full fruit compote. There is no haplogroup greater than 10%. And here is on pereferii, in Turkmenistan, persisted real turkity haplogroup Q. Here is you, Archie, of course many knowledgeable man, but not in you academic breadth of thinking. Details you know, but build academic hypotheses or not you can or you are afraid. Here is in Davidski immediately in sight a major scientist, see what global hypotheses he puts forward, and you all about small details.
ReplyDeleteTrue or not, I read somewhere that Turkey banned DNA tests. Allegedly due to the fact that Erdogan was shocked when he learned that there are no real Turks in Turkey, there is no dominant haplogroup, but there is a set of all kinds of haplogroups, each 5-10 percent
ReplyDelete@Davidski "The Indo-Aryans who went to South Asia from the steppe never met any Uralians, but their brethren who moved north into Siberia did, except their languages are now extinct."
ReplyDeleteOne language with Fino-Ugric borrowings has been preserved.
"V. I. Abaev
SCYTHIAN-URAL MATCHES
This report is a continuation of the work "Scythian-European isoglossae" published in 1965. The work was subtitled "at the junction of East and West". It was meant not just to state the geographical position of the Scythian-Sarmatian world, but to emphasize its bilateral linguistic and cultural contacts: on the one hand, with the peoples of the European circle (Slavic, Baltic, Tocharian, Germanic, praitalics), on the other - in the East and North-East - with the Uralic language and cultural world (Permian, Ugric, Mari, Mordovian, West Finnish languages). There are already many publications on Scythian-Uralic language relations...
But the material needed to be systematized, both in terms of purely linguistic criteria and in terms of material and cultural realities and relationships reflected in the language. This gap we are trying to fill.
As is known, by the end of the II Millennium BC, the disintegration of the all-Iranian unity into separate ethnolinguistic groups was determined. Part of the Iranian tribes advanced in the southern direction, and only the North-Eastern, Scythian-Sarmatian (sakomassaget) group continued to contact the Finno-Ugric peoples. Based on the data on the territory of distribution of Iranian-speaking tribes in the I Millennium BC, it can be concluded that neither Sogdian, nor Khorezm, nor Persian, nor Parthian Finno-Ugric could not have direct contacts. "The wide strip occupied by the Scythian-Saka (later also Turkic) tribes forever cut off the Ugro-Finns from the rest of the Iranian peoples. And if we still meet in the Ugro-Finnish languages some words clearly Persian appearance, it is usually about wandering terms that could get to the Ugro-Finns through the medium of other languages "(Abaev, 1981, 88-89).
Based on the material about the territory of settlement of the Finno-Ugric peoples, from archaeological and linguistic data, the most involved in the area of contact with the Iranian-speaking (Scythian-Sarmatian) tribes in the I Millennium BC are the great-Permians and Ugric peoples, to a somewhat lesser extent the ancestors of the modern Mari and Mordvins.
Iranian loanwords in Finno-Ugric languages, relating to this time (I thousand BC), are defined as Scythian-Sarmatian-Alan. "They are recognized by the fact that they find the most accurate correspondence in form and meaning in the Ossetian language, the only surviving representative of the Scythian-Sarmatian-Alan group" (Abaev, 1981, 87)."
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete“V. I. Abaev”
A very interesting article by Constantine Borissoff criticizing Abayev
“It is difficult to imagine that the Scythians, which was for the Greek a generic name applied to any ‘barbaric’ (in their opinion) people living north of their confines, had remained a single ethnos speaking a uniform ‘Scythian’ language over the vast territory for a thousand of years.
…
In his analysis Abaev completely ignored any possibility that on the vast territory of what the Greeks referred to as ‘Scythia’ could also live numerous IE tribes who never migrated to Iran and, therefore, never returned from there bringing with them the already changed ‘Iranian’ dialects.”
https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/
Modern genetic studies show that Scythians were very diverse genetically and we now have no idea what languages they spoke.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/10/cimmerians-scythians-and-sarmatians.html
Even if some Iranian related dialects survived on the steppe, which is not certain, they were very different from Sanskrit, for sure much farther from Sanskrit than Slavic. So the theory that similarities between Slavic and Sanskrit come from Scythians is BS. Not a single evidence for this.
@Vladimir He is not an expert, he is a long-dead, deep-aged old man, he died in 1972 before the publication of his book written in the 60s. And already for his time his opinion was contrary to science, what he writes about, his opinion was marginal and outdated. What to do if you are always ignorant of the issue of Googling the first caught, long outdated and marginal. Wikipedia you are ours, you write nonsense. Don't be shamed, even in Wikipedia there are not written such dates of Srubnaya culture, you're just lying. You do not know anything about Scythian DNA at all, it is visible at once.
ReplyDeleteWhat to do, you always write only mistakes, nonsenses, your fantasies, and marginal opinions, because you never know anything.
A question about Volosovo people: are they the same people as the following Fatyanovo-Balanovo people? Or they will turn to be genetically completely different?
ReplyDeleteWonder if Proto-Volosovans split from the same group as Proto-Afanasevans ? Can Repin be linked to Volosovans ?
ReplyDeleteDid Okunevans have something to do with Proto-Samoyeds ?
@Larth Ulthes "A question about Volosovo people: are they the same people as the following Fatyanovo-Balanovo people? Or they will turn to be genetically completely different?"
ReplyDeleteOf course, they are different, Fatyanovians from Central Europe, and Volosovians are related to the Baltic population that dating back to the Narva culture in combination with the Pit-Combed ware.
The problem of the origin of Volosovo population is complicated - three possible sources point to: the Upper Volga culture, the Narva culture, the Pit-Combed ware.
Archie, you of course excuse, but until Professor Artamonov you still very far. Of course, science is developing and something is outdated, but his main thesis, that the population of Srubnay culture joined the Scythian world, is true now. Moreover, it is confirmed by the data of ancient DNA.
ReplyDelete@EastPole Borisov, as I understand, this what the young man-lover of, and Abaev-Professor linguist. In any case, the quote from Abayev's work that I cited does not concern the Slavic language. Slavs and the Slavic language, this is not yet investigated question. Considering the ancient DNA evidence from apparently non-Slavic bronze age Estonia, where virtually all samples showed R1a-CTS1211, I'm pretty sure this subclades is Baltic, not Slavic. The fact that the Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians it is the majority only testifies to the truth of the old historical dogmas that the area of the Dnieper was inhabited by the Dnieper Balts, which were assimilated by the Slavs who came from Prague culture
And that suddenly such interest to Volosovo culture? Became known what the ancient DNA? The process of Volosovo formation is the same as the process of Narva culture formation. In the first case it is the imposition of the culture of pit-comb ceramics on the Mesolithic culture of the Upper Volga, in the second case it is the imposition of the culture of pit-comb ceramics on the Mesolithic culture of Kunda. Mesoliths and there and there were, apparently, haplogroups I. Pit-comb people apparently R1b, I think, that this M73.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDelete" you of course excuse, but until Professor Artamonov you still very far. Of course, science is developing and something is outdated, but his main thesis, that the population of Srubnay culture joined the Scythian world, is true now."
Do not carry nonsense always, Artamonov is a scientist of the first half of the 20th century, of course he is outdated, his opinion was not about the participation of Srubna population, but about the fact that the Scythians come from Srubnaya culture. The fact that the local population is always involved to some extent in the addition of even the coming culture is a banal fact, it is called a substrate, but this word you obviously have not heard.
True Scythians by origin are exactly from the eastern Andronovo are, but not Srubnaya.
" I understand, this what the young man-lover of, and Abaev-Professor linguist. In any case, the quote from Abayev's work that I cited does not concern the Slavic language."
As always, you write nonsense about the fact that Slavic languages have not been studied, it is just that here the discussion about Slavic languages goes on such a childish level that there is nothing to write about in such a childish murmur. Believe me, all questions of linguistic contacts of the Slavs, Aryans and Finn-Ugrians are very carefully studied by Abayev, Napol'skikh, and so on.
You are referring to Abayev, and by the way you do not know him at all, otherwise you would know that Abayev was no Scythians-farmers reconstruct, he has Scythians-cowboys "Геродотовские Skythai geōrgoi" 1990 https://books.google.at/books?id=sb00DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95 Therefore, all your reasoning is wrong.
"The process of Volosovo formation is the same as the process of Narva culture formation. In the first case it is the imposition of the culture of pit-comb ceramics on the Mesolithic culture of the Upper Volga, in the second case it is the imposition of the culture of pit-comb ceramics on the Mesolithic culture of Kunda."
As always, you write nonsense, Narva culture was after Kunda culture and before Pit-Combed ware!
The Upper Volga culture is Neolithic culture, but not Mesolithic culture, which is exactly what is Neolithic, in the original sense of the term.
"Pit-comb people apparently R1b, I think, that this M73."
You know nothing as always, but replace your ignorance with a stormy fantasy.
Pit-Comb Ceramic Estonia Kudruküla, Ida-Viru [3 / MA975] R1a5 YP1272
@Vladimir "Considering the ancient DNA evidence from apparently non-Slavic bronze age Estonia, where virtually all samples showed R1a-CTS1211, I'm pretty sure this subclades is Baltic, not Slavic."
ReplyDeleteDon't be ridiculous, the haplogroup R1a-CTS1211 was formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4400 ybp in any case before the division into Balts and Slavs. The fact that it is present in Estonia doesn't mean anything, the Balts didn't come to the sea at all before the Era boundary.
Archie, you were very good at coming back. The dispute we had began with the fact that you claimed that the population of Srubnay culture at the time of the arrival of the Scythians was not, now you say that it was a substrate. Means it all??? was and became Scythians. As for Volosovo culture and Narva culture, then here you are behind the latest data. And there and there initially were Neolithic culture Kunda and Upper Volga, then syncretic culture Narva and Volosovo and then pit-comb ceramics completely replaced the Neolithic elements.
ReplyDeleteArchie, so in Estonia discovered not simply STS1211, and as least Y35
ReplyDelete@Vladimir "you were very good at coming back. The dispute we had began with the fact that you claimed that the population of Srubnay culture at the time of the arrival of the Scythians was not, now you say that it was a substrate. Means it all??? was and became Scythians."
ReplyDeleteyou're lying and twisting, all the moves are recorded. You literally asserted that the Scythian Srubna culture, wrote the Scythian Srubnaya culture which Herodotus called the Scythians-farmers. You just save yourself from the shame and so you lie.
"As for Volosovo culture and Narva culture, then here you are behind the latest data. And there and there initially were Neolithic culture Kunda and Upper Volga, then syncretic culture Narva and Volosovo and then pit-comb ceramics completely replaced the Neolithic elements."
You're a liar and a liar, you wrote that Narva culture was after the Pit-Combed ware, that Narva culture was formed as a result of overlapping of Pit-Combed ware on Kunda culture! Have you ever written anything no crazy in your life? You still dare to accuse me of falling behind in my life when you write the delirium of a madman, and after correction of your mistake, you immediately accuse someone who corrects you!
Do not make up stories, I wrote that the Scythians were different, the Scythians were nomads and the Scythians were farmers. The latter were evidently local, the first of the nomads to arrive. About Volosovo and Narva, I wrote that they were before the pit-comb ceramics, or rather, that they were a mix of Neolithic and pit-comb ceramics.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir "so in Estonia discovered not simply STS1211, and as least Y35"
ReplyDeleteGive us the Refernce and Number of the samples! Immediately. I don't see any samples СTS1211 in the Bronze age at all (I see only Z283, Z645).
No one trusts any of your words.
"Neolithic culture Kunda"
Learn the archeology. The Kunda culture is the Mesolithic, but not the Neolithic.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteCare to elaborate on Balts "the Balts didn't come to the sea at all before the Era boundary."?
I am getting slowly to similar-ish conclusion, but there are many unresolved questions.
Did you mean East Balts or Balts specifically? In any case, what is your view on where East Balts and/or Balts were dwelling before AD? And what linguistic affiliation very homogenous twins Estonian_BA and Latvian_BA were?
If you could provide a link to good source on subject (English or Russian does not matter) would appreciate.
@Vladimir "Do not make up stories, I wrote that the Scythians were different, the Scythians were nomads and the Scythians were farmers."
ReplyDeleteHahaha. You wrote that the Scythians were in Srubnaya culture, so don't twist it.
"About Narva, I wrote that they were before the pit-comb ceramics, or rather, that they were a mix of Neolithic and pit-comb ceramics."
Hahaha. You wrote lie and delusional again.
Literal quote
"... the process of Narva culture formation. ... it is the imposition of the culture of pit-comb ceramics on the Mesolithic culture of Kunda."
The Narva culture is no mix of any Neolithic culture, which had not existed there before, and Pit-Combed ceramics was not formed, your statement is generally an anachronism.
And you are not tired of writing meaningless sets of words that confuse everything - times, cultures, and everything in general?
Have mercy on the people who read your nonsense.
@All
ReplyDeleteThoughts?
Kinship and social organization in Copper Age Europe. A cross-disciplinary analysis of archaeology, DNA, isotopes, and anthropology from two Bell Beaker cemeteries
ReplyDeleteOn the topic, here are the calculated times and the positions of the Uralic languages I have inscribed.
https://i.ibb.co/dGFTVYM/image.png
... and this the original study without Archi's own additions:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.phil.muni.cz/jazyk/files/uralic-migrations.pdf
Nowadays we BTW know that for instance poča "reindeer" of the study is a loan word from Aryan, "tame (animal)", just like Finnic orja "slave" < Aryan (person).
@Davidski,
ReplyDelete"The Indo-Aryans who went to South Asia from the steppe never met any Uralians, but their brethren who moved north into Siberia did, except their languages are now extinct."
Still no Indo-Aryans in Central Asia. Everything looks Iranian over there. Now, with Uralic coming from further East it supports the Eastern Central Asian origin of the Iranian languages. Still a lot of talk about the 'Aryan' influence on Uralic here, not sure what 'Aryan' is, but certainly not Indo-Aryan as Balto-Slavic and Uralic have little to no direct Indo-Aryan influence. Only a blind person can see Indo-Aryan influence there.
@mzp1
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, when all of these new samples start getting released I'll go through all of the links between Balts, proto-Aryans and Uralians in detail on this blog.
Sit back and watch.
@ mzp1 "Still a lot of talk about the 'Aryan' influence on Uralic here, not sure what 'Aryan' is, but certainly not Indo-Aryan as Balto-Slavic and Uralic have little to no direct Indo-Aryan influence."
ReplyDeleteRead about early Indo-Aryan borrowings at FU in: The problem of the beginning of Finno-Ugric-Iranian contacts "Напольских В.В. Проблема начала финно-угорско-иранских контактов // Очерки по этнической истории" 2015. He found a lot of them.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"Fear not, eventually we'll see some really obvious evidence of contacts between Uralians and Indo-Iranians. Even you won't be able to explain it away."
Is that based on more rumours like the upcoming Volosovo aDNA or an educated guess? :)
@David,
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion on the origin and language of Sintashta?
When I play with vahaduo I get that most Sintashta samples look like a mix of Central European R1a dominated Corded Ware/Chlopice_Vesele/Trzciniec cultures mixed with Eastern Steppe R1b dominated Afanasievo/Yamnaya/Poltavka/Kubano-Tersk cultures:
https://i.postimg.cc/NQbjcX9w/screenshot-55.png
So we can assume that the resulting language of Sintashta was a mix of two languages spoken by above two groups i.e. Central European R1a and Eastern Steppe R1b.
Assuming that Eastern Steppe R1b dominated Afanasievo/Yamnaya/Poltavka/Kubano-Tersk cultures spoke languages close to PIE:
https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/7/1/22125892_007_01_s003_i0001.png
And we know that Indo-Iranian languages are closer to Slavic than to PIE, what were the languages of Central European R1a dominated Corded Ware/Chlopice_Vesele/Trzciniec cultures?
@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteThey're my own pretty straightforward inferences from some stuff that is coming sooner or later. Probably sooner.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if that methodology is reliable enough to use it to infer such fine scale linguistic affinities.
Considering all of the multidisciplinary data, it's now rather obvious that the Sintashta people spoke an early Indo-Iranian language and moved into the Trans-Ural steppe from the west, probably from a place where languages ancestral to Slavic languages were spoken.
@Davidski,
ReplyDelete"Thoughts?
Kinship and social organization in Copper Age Europe. A cross-disciplinary analysis of archaeology, DNA, isotopes, and anthropology from two Bell Beaker cemeteries"
Repeat of the paper on Bronze age Lech Valley. But, this time they link the patrilocalism on the reconstruction of kinship words in Proto-Indo EUropean. I don't trust lingustic evidence. But I guess the DNA backs it up. There's now good DNA evidence, all Kurgan/IE tribes practiced patrilocalism not just Bell Beaker.
Naysayers are still saying Bell Beaker was multi-ethnic. Or at least Harvard is not sure and so doesn't have opinon. But, Patrilocalism is good evidence Bell beaker phenamonon represents an IE-speaking ethnic group not a multi-ethnic trade network. Their wide range of variation is explained by female ancestors from all over Europe, but their male ancestors which represents ethnicity comes from the same source for all of them.
Ancient DNA, has flipped upside, the consensus on how IE languages spread. David Anthony in his famous book on Indo Europeans, claims IE languages spread with Steppe men who immigrated into local communities as "patrons."
ReplyDelete23andme, describes R1b L151 as male traders from Steppe who immigrated into Western Europe communities to trade and stuff.
What the ancient DNA is howing, Steppe groups didn't immigrate into native settlements. They pushed out native settlements and then created their own settlements. This is why the first CWC genomes are 100% Steppe. Then very quickly they assimilated the native female population creating a mixed population. Female immigration into Steppe communities, not Steppe male immigration into native communities.
Really, the Anatolian farmers spread into Europe in a similar way. They didn't immigrate into hunter gatherer bands. Which, really destroys the whole idea modern Europeans are the descendants of immigrants.
ReplyDelete“”But, Patrilocalism is good evidence Bell beaker phenamonon represents an IE-speaking ethnic group”
Yes the study makes a very strong case for the tight bonds of BBC society, between their males, culture & language linked to this
Which is why it’s so odd so many of their descendants in Western Europe adopted the language of female megalithic people
It also puts to rest the notion that they were just kidnapping women and mating with them. They were in fact nuclear families .
It was GAC which were polygamous
@Rob, "It also puts to rest the notion that they were just kidnapping women and mating with them. They were in fact nuclear families."
ReplyDeleteTrue. Plus, they didn't conquer any of the groups they were inter-marrying with as far as I know. The female immigrants came mostly from Balkans & Central-East Europe, areas Bell beaker didn't have lots of settlements. They weren't kidnapped, it was probably a dowry agreement.
"It was GAC which were polygamous"
Of the three GAC families only one was polygamous. GAC had same Y DNA founder effect thing as Kurgans did. This doesn't mean they did lots of female exogamy. But, it probably means they were Patrilocal.
@Rob,
ReplyDelete"Which is why it’s so odd so many of their descendants in Western Europe adopted the language of female megalithic people"
That's because in Iberia, R1b P312 Beaker folk were OUTNUMBERED by native population. Bet a trillion dollars Beaker Britain spoke IE. Which of course will shcok experts because they think Celtic is only possible IE language which could exist in Britain. Maybe, Pictish was a Beaker British laguage. We'll have to wait and see.
ReplyDeletewe would need proper details of numbers and evaluate its contextual relevance
For ex; many people assume that Balkans had a big population; and hence the lower steppe % there. But thats contradicted by data; which shows that during the 4000-3000 BC, it actually had Lower settlement than, say, Central Europe; and the cause of lower steppe ancestry is due to some other reason
So, back to Western Europe; BB obviously had some advantage because they became demographically dominant; even in Iberia. The situation wasn’t BB versus the rest of Western Europe; but it instead came across a series of disparate groups.
The oft quoted figure 40% figure isn’t correct. You check yourself - model north iberia beaker with France BB + Iberia Late Chalc
"Thoughts ?"
ReplyDeleteI think the Fosterage system can rather easily prove how Steppe related Male Lineages became prominent among Non-Indo-European speaking groups. I think France was a hotspot for such developements....
But I think it was not sole reason for all spread of Steppe Related Male Lineages in Western Europe. Conquest and Fosterage worked hand in hand depending on time and need of the day.
A scenario that I can think of is. Young Male are send to live with his Mother's Brother. Learns Non-Indo-European Language. When it became time to return to his father and learn Indo-European, he realize that his father or his whole family died or vanished for some or other reason. So what would his options have been ? Go stay with his Mothers Family or among people similar to which he grew up with....
ReplyDeleteYeah perhaps North Atlantic was early IE and then “evolved” into Celtic overtime
ReplyDeleteStill; we’ll get the picture with Halstatt and la Tene DNA
@Samuel Andrews "There's now good DNA evidence, all Kurgan/IE tribes practiced patrilocalism not just Bell Beaker."
ReplyDeleteThat CWC were patrilocal with female exogamy over long distances genetics proved long ago. These are all banal results, which archaeologists and anthropologists have known for a long time.
Naturally, there is no argument for what BB spoke on IE.
Patrilocalism is not specific enough to prove anything about the language BB spoke, it just makes the transmission of a female mediated language to a male R1b group even less likely.
ReplyDeleteBut matrilocality, even matrilinearity wouldnt implicitly an easy switch of the males at all.
Archie, if you are not well informed about samples from Estonia, then about samples from Estonia, then increase your educational level, I have not been hired as a teacher. If you are not able to understand what I wrote about the Scythians and Srubnay culture, then this is again your problem.
ReplyDelete@zardos,
ReplyDelete"Patrilocalism is not specific enough to prove anything about the language BB spoke,"
True. Yet, at the same time, the kind of Patrilocalism practiced by Bell Beaker is not normal. In almost all human pops, there variation in Y Chromsome. In Bell Beaker literally 100% of males had the same Y chromosome. This was the result of a unique kind of Patrilocalism.
@Vladimir, you're caught, you can't say anything because you imagined it all, you're always lying. This is a statement of fact, you just embarrass yourself. You just don't know anything, your goal is to deceive everyone, you're not the first one to deceive everybody in this way. I have a full database of all the samples, but you replace any knowledge with your fantasies.
ReplyDelete@Samuel: It was normal for the most time in Europe. The main difference between LBK-Cardial and BB in this respect is, the early European Neolithics started with a more diverse lineage pool already.
ReplyDeleteAlso look at TRB, GAC, Yamnaya and CW. None of them were that diverse at all. BB started, it seems, from a very small group of people. This is, I think, also one of the main reasons for their craniometric traits, because some of them are rather subdominant and more common in inbred people. They disappeard quite fast after they began to mix, exactly after the Lech Valley social structures were destroyed or at least transformed. BB survived, but in mixed form. That's also important to note, because that BB lineages appear elsewhere in the Iron Age doesn't have to mean its local continuity from BB. It could be about transformed, assimilated BB lineages from Central Europe.
@zardos
ReplyDelete"Patrilocalism is not specific enough to prove anything about the language BB spoke, it just makes the transmission of a female mediated language to a male R1b group even less likely."
Yes, that's true. These Bell Beakers communities were not integrating any local males (they didn't seem to have integrated at all with locals), only some local women (has anyone estimated the percentage per generation? 10-20%?). We don't know the status of the women who were integrated into the BB communities (wives, concubines,..) but they were still a few foreign women in these communities. Would the community switch the language to that of these foreign women?
Looking at the wider picture, it doesn't seem either that there could have been any benefit of shifting to the language of the locals. Doesn't the ~100% replacement in the Y DNA mean that these Bell Beakers communities replaced 100% of the local Neolithic ones regardless of the amount of admixture hey could get from foreign females? And didn't it happen quite fast as to BB people always being mostly surrounded by the other BB communities who would speak the same language? Even if one community here or there started switching to the local language, it was not long (1 generation?) before they would be surrounded again by speakers of the BB language and would easily switch back.
@ Rob
ReplyDelete"Yeah perhaps North Atlantic was early IE and then “evolved” into Celtic overtime
Still; we’ll get the picture with Halstatt and la Tene DNA"
The two Hallstatt samples from Bohemia are already quite instructive; DA111 is Occitan-like and DA112 Austrian-like, but with a somewhat larger distance. DA112 is like a mixture of 41.6% HUN_LBA + 37.6% DEU_Welzin_BA + 13.4% Scythian_HUN + 7.4% Bell_Beaker_FRA_C. Thus, he's not as strongly Scythian admixed as I had assumed, based on Davidski's blog post. But still clearly eastern shifted, towards east central Europe and the steppe and with that WHG-enriched signature typical of LBA Hungary and Welzin. Together DA111 and DA112 yield a French-like average, closest to the French_Nord. While it's possible that the La Tene culture brought about some genetic shifts I don't expect them to be big. Clearly neither Hallstatt nor La Tene were British-like or Insular-Celtic-like, that's out of question. But also craniometrically Insular Celts were on average clearly distinct from Continental Celts. The latter were probably no more than a thin superstrate in Britain.
I think the best way to use the Hallstatt Bylany samples as proxies for Gaulish ancestry is to use them both, but individually. In the models I get for various French speaking samples they usually occur in a proportion of about 2 DA111 : 1 DA112, give or take.
ReplyDeleteSimon
ReplyDeleteI don’t think anybody expects a huge Iron Age impact in Britain
However a fuller analysis with more samples will be worthwhile
I’m not sure of the utility of analysis via modern proxies (?)
@All
ReplyDeleteIt looks like we can expect an awesome paper on the ancient North Caucasus in...2025!
This project leads to one of the most dynamic regions in prehistory: the Caucasus of the 4th and early 3rd mill. BC. During this vibrant time, basic innovations emerged, which were crucial until the 19th century: wheel and wagon, copper alloys, the potter’s wheel, new breeds of woolly sheep, domestication of the horse, and others. At the same time, massive migrations from the East European steppe during the early 3rd mill. BC changed the European gene pool.
The project challenges the still predominant narrative that all technical achievements stemmed from urban centres in Mesopotamia. New studies have created space for alternative hypotheses: possibly it was not the development of new techniques, but instead their adaptation from different ‘peripheries’ and their re-combination and re-configuration that formed the basis for the success of these ‘civilisations’.
The Caucasus, linking Mesopotamia to the Eurasia and Europe, is for the first time in the focus of a study on innovation transfer. The study will make a major contribution by investigation of four axial innovations: wheel and wagon, metal alloys, silver metallurgy and woolly sheep. 40 wheels will be analysed by computer tomography and strontium isotopes. Some 300 copper alloys artefacts and 200 silver objects will be examined using mass spectrometry with laser ablation. 400 aDNA genom-wide analyses of humans from burials in the North Caucasus will offer the unique chance of elucidating the role of migrations for the spread of innovations. The pottery in the region, often linked to Mesopotamia, will be studied under technical aspects and is a complementary path to shed light on migration and the transfer of knowledge. Excavations in settlements will allow building up a chronology using 400 AMS 14C analyses. The project is multidisciplinary, making use of the most up-to-date analytical methods. Our long experience and reputation on both sides of the Caucasus is the ideal background for cutting-edge research.
Technical and Social Innovations in the Caucasus: between the Eurasian Steppe and the Earliest Cities in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC
And even more wonderful data will be waiting for us in 2120!)))
ReplyDeleteAccording to the concept of the world-system of the Bronze Age all innovations were on the periphery, and they borrowed only due to the developed trade and a large number of hands due to the high density of the population as a result of a large amount of food. Initially, only the elite consumed everything there, for example, until the 19th century BC in the Near East ordinary people did not use bronze tools at all, everyone made of stone, bronze used only kings and elite. And only at the beginning of the Hittite invasion did bronze become the norm in all strata of the population.
Archi, if you what the not know, and not know you much, then this not means that all what you not know there is fiction
ReplyDelete@All
ReplyDeleteLots of samples coming from the forest zone of Russia soon.
The late 4th to 3rd mill. BC in the East European forest zone is characterized by dramatic changes mirrored in material culture, burial customs, and supra-regional contacts of local groups. These transformations are for example reflected in interactions between Volosovo culture hunter-fisher-gatherers and newcomer pastoralists from the forest and forest-steppe zone represented by the Fatyanovo and Balanovo cultural types. Presumably, the contacts had diverse character: cultural influences are visible in borrowed elements of ceramic decoration, modification of certain stone tool types, the increase of copper artefacts, and in the beginning of pastoralism. However, the spread of knowledge was possibly accompanied by violent actions, as reflected by the emergence of mass graves in the Upper Volga region with individuals who died violent deaths. Another possible interpretation of the graves involves epidemics triggered by the spread of infection. In this paper we present and discuss new archaeological, palaeopathological and palaeogenetic analyses on material from the Sakhtysh burial sites, investigating the nature of contacts between the respective forager and pastoralist societies more precisely. We will also discuss the potential of mass graves as a source for interdisciplinary reconstructions.
http://news.sbras.ru/ru/Documents/v_sak_tezisy.pdf
@ Davidski
ReplyDeletePresumably, the contacts had diverse character: cultural influences can be seen in imported Fatyanovo ceramic vessels and some stone tools in the Late Volosovo cultural layers, the increase of copper artefacts, and in the beginning of pastoralism [Крайнов 1987]. However, the inter-group contacts have presumably been accompanied by violent actions, as reflected by the emergence of mass graves in the Upper Volga region with individuals who died violent deaths. The most illustrative cases derive from the burial sites which are located by the Sakhtysh lake — Sakhtysh II and Sakhtysh IIa where the Late Stone Age horizon is well represented [Костылева, Уткин 2010; Piezonka et al. 2013]: For instance, traces of violence, represented by lesions caused by stone axes, have been detected on the bones of four individuals from grave 4 at Sakhtysh II. A collective burial of nine individuals with Fatyanovo cultural affiliation who were shot by flint arrowheads of Volosovo type was excavated at Nikolo-Perevoz I.
Do we see here the process of Indo-Europeanization of R1b? Cultural exchange followed by a violent takeover and rapid expansion west (Moscow - Netherlands)?
BTW it seems that there are only historians and archaeologists among the authors. Do you know which laboratory is responsible for the palaeogenetic part and when they will publish the study?
@Arza
ReplyDeleteI don't have all the details, but, as far as I know, the Y-haplogroups will include R1b, R1a, I2, and Q1a, more or less in that order.
Apparently, some of the foragers from Sakhtysh belong to R1b-M269.
^^^
ReplyDeleteIf the Fatyanovo was R1a xZ93 (like Tarim mummies) and if they've survived and moved east then potentially we also see the here the birth of the "centum" isogloss - post-Volosovo R1b going west and post-Fatyanovo R1a proto-Tocharians going east.
@Arza
ReplyDeleteYou're getting way ahead of yourself there champ. Let's wait for the paper.
Related and just published:
ReplyDeleteINDO-IRANIAN BORROWINGS IN URALIC
CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE SOUND SUBSTITUTIONS AND DISTRIBUTION CRITERION
Sampsa Holopainen
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION to be presented for public discussion with the permission of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Helsinki, in Auditorium PII, Porthania, on the 14th of December, 2019 at 12 o’clock.
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/307582/INDO-IRA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteWhat's the upshot of the thesis?
Very many layers including loans from Proto Indo Iranic and even earlier phases:
ReplyDelete"The area where the contacts took place was probably not far from the area where Proto-Uralic and its early dialects were spoken, that is, the Volga-Kama area west of the Urals."
There are BTW later Iranic loan layers too, especially into Permic but also for instance into West Uralic.
@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteWell, as far as I know at this point, there's no Indo-Iranian R-Z93 or Uralic N-1026 in pre-Iron Age DNA near the Volga-Kama.
They're in other places.
@ D: The linguistic contact is still real, for sure. If you're able to show that say also Pre & Proto Indo Iranic was present in Ob-Irtysh, then you're fine. Otherwise, some other explanation will be needed. Maybe Steppe Maykop etc. spoke Proto Uralic or something?
ReplyDelete@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteDuring most of the Bronze Age Central Asia and West Siberia were swarming with different groups that migrated there from far to the west. So it's likely that many different Indo-European languages from at least a couple of different families were spoken there.
I think this is the factor that is causing many linguists to put the proto-Uralic homeland west of where it really was. In other words, they think Europe because Europe basically extended east of the Urals during much of the Bronze Age.
The area where Indo-Europeans/Iranians and proto-Uralians interacted was located where we'll find both R-Z93 and N-1026 in ancient DNA, possibly in samples of mixed heritage. And that won't be west of the Urals.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete„Well, as far as I know at this point, there's no Indo-Iranian R-Z93 or Uralic N-1026 in pre-Iron Age DNA near the Volga-Kama.”
“The area where Indo-Europeans/Iranians and proto-Uralians interacted was located where we'll find both R-Z93 and N-1026 in ancient DNA, possibly in samples of mixed heritage. And that won't be west of the Urals.”
“The Indo-Iranian languages share a number of features which distinguish them from the related Indo-European languages, but in some cases it is difficult to determine whether a word has been borrowed from Indo-Iranian or some other branch. Especially difficult is the distinction between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic,”
“there is no reason to consider a borrowing from Indo-Iranian more plausible than an early borrowing from Balto-Slavic.”
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/307582/INDO-IRA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Linguistic arguments are very uncertain, and in case of doubt I would look at genetic evidence for support.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteYes, but as we shall see, populations with R-Z93 and N-1026 did interact east of the Urals. So that fits the linguistic theory that early Indo-Iranians interacted with proto-Uralians.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete„Yes, but as we shall see, populations with R-Z93 and N-1026 did interact east of the Urals. So that fits the linguistic theory that early Indo-Iranians interacted with proto-Uralians.”
Only those clades of R1a-Z93 which are common in India and Iran can be safely correlated with Indo-Iranian languages plus some autosomal components from India or Iran would also support it. Otherwise it is pure speculation.
@ Eastpole and re: "Otherwise it is pure speculation."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. The linguistic contact is real and it would be foolish to deny it. "In some cases" means just some cases, there's no way to explain Indo Iranic loans by for instance saying that they are loans from Balto Slavic, if that's what youre saying. The contact zone is a different issue. If it was east of Urals, then it was.
@Huck Finn
ReplyDelete„No, it's not. The linguistic contact is real and it would be foolish to deny it. "In some cases" means just some cases, there's no way to explain Indo Iranic loans by for instance saying that they are loans from Balto Slavic, if that's what youre saying. The contact zone is a different issue. If it was east of Urals, then it was.”
We don’t know when and how Indo-Iranian languages emerged i.e. separated from Indo-Slavic. We don’t know also what that Indo-Slavic language was like. Maybe it was just an early form of Balto-Slavic? Why not, Slavs and Balts didn’t move and mix as much as Eastern Indo-Slavs who later became Indo-Iranians.
In my post above I was asking this question and considered one possibility:
“When I play with vahaduo I get that most Sintashta samples look like a mix of Central European R1a dominated Corded Ware/Chlopice_Vesele/Trzciniec cultures mixed with Eastern Steppe R1b dominated Afanasievo/Yamnaya/Poltavka/Kubano-Tersk cultures:
https://i.postimg.cc/NQbjcX9w/screenshot-55.png
So we can assume that the resulting language of Sintashta was a mix of two languages spoken by above two groups i.e. Central European R1a and Eastern Steppe R1b.”
If mixed language was similar to Balto-Slavic then unmixed was more so, wasn’t it? But then Pre-Indo-Iranians went south to Central and South Asia and mixed with populations there and their language mixed even more and there Sanskrit, which is still similar to Balto-Slavic, originated.
Carlos writes about “Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian-speaking Poltavka groups”. So there are various opinions on the subject. Who is right? We will see.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteCarlos is a clown. Obviously Poltavka is out of the picture since the Steppe_MLBA cluster doesn't have any recent ancestry from Poltavka. Those R1b outliers are outliers for a reason.
Steppe_MLBA moved into Central Asia and West Siberia as an unadmixed population from far in the west, and it's the only ancient group that explains the relationships between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian on one hand, and Indo-Iranian and proto-Uralic on the other.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteDon't know about the BOO guys, but on the whole the population of Komi peninsula apparently did not speak Uralic until around the middle Iron Age.
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_aikio.pdf
Ob-Irtysh urheimat doesn't sound that bad on the other hand, maybe some ancestor of Proto-Uralic was present there.
If for Western Siberia there are archaeological cultures directly claiming the area of convergence of L-1026 and Z2124, in particular, it is the Samus culture itself. It is obvious that in Western Siberia the tribes of the Ural Krotov culture and the Indo-Iranian (or rather I would say Scythian) Andronov culture cooperated closely. But already in the Western Urals the Ural tribes Chirkovo culture obviously fought with the Indo-Iranian tribes Abashevo culture. On the other hand, it was in the European part of Russia, i.e. in the Volga region, that the Ural tribes interacted very closely with the Fatyanovo culture tribes. There is even such a term as" fatyanoid " culture, i.e. something mixed between Indo-European Fatyanovo and Ural Mesh ceramics. Personally, for me, there are only three unknowns. Who are Fatyanovo-Balanovo, who are Abashevo and where did the Indo-Iranians of the haplotype R1a-Y3 actually go from Ukraine.
ReplyDelete@kavir
ReplyDeleteThose sorts of inferences from linguistic data will have be calibrated with ancient DNA data at some point to fit reality.
The BOO people came from the east, and they're closely related to Uralic speakers both in Europe and Siberia on multiple levels.
So obviously the idea that they spoke Palaeo-Laplandic or Palaeo-Lakelandic doesn't make much sense.
They spoke something eastern and considering their genetic ties it was something Uralic or Uralic related IMO.
@Vladimir you know absolutely nothing, it's a statement of fact. You just write your own fiction, so you can't answer the questions. You can't blame anyone for not knowing something, because you don't know anything and you're just lying frankly. You just proved to everybody that you are a troll sneaky and frank liar.
ReplyDelete@Arza "Do we see here the process of Indo-Europeanization of R1b? Cultural exchange followed by a violent takeover and rapid expansion west (Moscow - Netherlands)?"
The Volosovo population disappeared completely, they did not fit into Fatyanavians.
@Huck Finn
No one normal will read such long papers, so it is not clear what is written there. Usually, Finnish works are not serious, it's always a fit the results. You can find any advance opinion at Finnish authors, because they do not investigate the question, but adjust it to the result. Napol'skih's analysis of the appearance of each word and concept in each Uralic language literally by time and place, but the Finns deliberately ignore his results.
@Vladimir "(I would say Scythian) Andronov culture"
LOL. As always, you write your fantasies without knowing anything about Andronovo culture, i.e. absolutely nothing! You do not even know what time Iranians and Indo-Aryans invaded Iran and India. There is nothing Scythian in the actual Andronovo culture.
"There is even such a term as" fatyanoid " culture, i.e. something mixed between Indo-European Fatyanovo and Ural Mesh ceramics."
You do not even understand the essence of this term at all, Fatyanoid ceramics does not mean mixed with Net ceramics. This term means "similar to Fatyanovo's ceramics", it was made by different tribes according to their own traditions, absolutely most of them without net ornament.
"the Ural tribes Chirkovo culture"
These are just groundless speculations that are not supported by anybody. Chirkovо culture was as times treated to Fatyanoid ceramics.
V. I. HARTANOVICH
ReplyDeleteFORMATION OF THE POPULATION COMPOSITION OF THE NORTH OF FENNOSCANDIA
IN THE EARLY METAL AGE (NEW DATA ON THE ANTHROPOLOGY
OF THE KOLA OLENY OSTROV BURIAL SITE)
The study of the craniological and the odontological characteristics gave grounds for the assumption, that
at least two components took part in the formation of the composition of the population that left the Kola
Oleny Ostrov burial site. One of them was associated with the territory of the south of Western Siberia,
and the second — with the Ymyyakhtakh cultural tradition population.
The change in the volume of the analyzed data, the use of modern methods, the study of new systems of signs made the" Eastern " specificity of the series even more distinct than it had previously seemed. According to craniology series from BOO demonstrates similarity with craniological series of the Neolithic — bronze age from Asia. The nearest-a fairly wide range of series of the middle bronze age from the territory of the Barabinsk forest-steppe and the Altai-Sayan highlands (Kuznetsk-Altai, Odin, krotovskaya,okunevskaya culture).According to the frequencies of features traditionally used by odontologists for inter-population comparisons, the oleneostrovskaya series demonstrates the closest similarity with the carriers of the ymyyakhtakh late Neolithic culture of Yakutia. In multivariate analysis of odontological features - with carriers of the Krot culture of the Barabinsk forest-steppe and okunevtsy of southern Siberia, as well as the results of craniological analysis. With "yeahthere", kitaazumi Transbaikalia, carriers of the Glazkovo culture. The integrated analysis of craniological and odontological features gives grounds for the assumption that at least two components participated in the formation of the composition of the population that left the COMA. One of them is connected with the territory of the South of Western Siberia, the second-with "ymyyakhtakhtsami". It is also possible to preserve the morphological features of the ancient metapopulation ancestral to the population of the West Siberian and East Siberian regions. The results of anthropological analysis, modern genomic studies unanimously indicate the maximum proximity of "oleneostrovtsev" to Mansi - among the modern population.
http://news.sbras.ru/ru/Documents/v_sak_tezisy.pdf
And you, Archie, are a pathetic demagogue
ReplyDeleteAnd if would, Archie, less here fludil, and more read, then learned would, that culture Chirkovo contains in itself not only elements Fatyanovo such, but and elements such culture Samus, and also elements such culture Seymino Turbino. And also the fact that the culture of Chirkovo at its final stage smoothly passed into the culture of Mesh ceramics.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete" And you, Archie, are a pathetic demagogue
And if would, Archie, less here fludil, and more read, then learned would, that culture Chirkovo contains in itself not only elements Fatyanovo such, but and elements such culture Samus, and also elements such culture Seymino Turbino. And also the fact that the culture of Chirkovo at its final stage smoothly passed into the culture of Mesh ceramics."
I only write the truth, you're never right. So don't be shameful.
You don't read or read anything at all, but you're delusional. I caught you on an endless lie, so you're twisting it. You don't know anything, and you don't know that Chirkovo culture hasn't changed into the culture of Net Pottery, that's just Khalikov's opinion, which nobody supports, and you just heard the ringing and don't know where he is. You're just a complete moron that pours useless and empty water. The Seima-Turbino had something to do with Chirkovo culture as Mongols to Europeans. Chirkov culture has nothing to do with Samus'skaya culture and the cultures of Net ceramics. Chirkovo culture is roughly a kind of mix of Balanovskaya culture with Volosovo culture.
D. V. GERASIMOV, S. V. BELSKY, E. M. KOLPAKOV, K. MANNERMAA, A. V. ALIEVNEW
EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE “EASTERN ROUTE” OF COLONIZATION OF FENNOSCANDIA IN THE LENINGRAD PROVINCE
The assemblages from the archaeological sites dated about 9,000 BC, discovered over the past decade in Finland, provide evidence in favor of the existence, alongside with the other routes, of the eastern route of colonization of Fennoscandia. New evidence was obtained recently as a result of dating the sites of the north-west Onega region. Archaeological items, which typologically belonged to the final Paleolithic — early Mesolithic, have been frequently found in the territory of the Leningrad Province. New discoveries were made in 2018 in the South Ladoga region. The assemblage’s typology, the geomorphological situation of the site locations, and the paleozoological data suggested their association with the period of the initial colonization of the region after deglaciation. Thus, the existence of the “eastern route” of colonization of Fennoscandia was supported with new evidence. The accumulation of the accidentally discovered archaeological sites of the period may allow building a model of their landscape and geomorphological position for the purposes of future more targeted study.
"No one normal will read such long papers, so it is not clear what is written there." Archi, you're joking, you've been joking all the time, right? At least I have been laughing, a lot.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteArchie, it looks like you copied the first thing you found on Google. What attitude has this work respected authors to what either about than I wrote or at all to what written in this topic?
You, Archie, are a demagogue and no more. And with an Outlook like a mouse. I don't think people are interested in reading our bickering, so I, as the smarter one, will continue to ignore you.
@Vladimir "it looks like you copied the first thing you found on Google. What attitude has this work respected authors to what either about than I wrote or at all to what written in this topic?"
ReplyDeleteYou can't read and understand, it's from http://news.sbras.ru/ru/Documents/v_sak_tezisy.pdf, and the bold to understand to one persone that I'm always right.
"ou, Archie, are a demagogue and no more. And with an Outlook like a mouse."
You've just fallen for your trollish lies, is the fact that you're a demagogue, a liar and a fantasist. Nothing but demagogy, lies and fantasies, you have not written, so you accuse other people of it.
@Huck Finn
And you are not even able to read a short article, you were so funny with your outright lies, shamefully funny. And here are 300 pages.
Archi, trust me. You'd have a bright future as a slapstick comic. People such as Vladimir (nice guy though, I suppose) just don't see your talent.
ReplyDelete"" The results of anthropological analysis, modern genomic studies unanimously indicate the maximum proximity of "oleneostrovtsev" to Mansi - among the modern population.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.sbras.ru/ru/Documents/v_sak_tezisy.pdf ""
Yes, BOO and Mansi are rather close.. One PCA with modern Finno-Ugric and Samojedic people with ancient BOO and Levänluhta.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxHBCsbBFo03F_YzZfdmUD9rMDpgXGkM/view?usp=sharing
So we can expect N-L1026 and R1a-Z93 from the Ob-Irtysh basin....
ReplyDeleteParapola's 2012 paper discusses a scenario where Proto-Uralic was spread via Seima-Turbino however he placed the PU urheimat west of the Urals, we now know this probably doesn't coincide well with aDNA evidence. This is fine though because it doesn't take much tweaking to assume PU was instead spoken just east of the Urals and then spread with S-T like Parapola suggested. So we already have a working linguistic and archealogical model for after 2000BC.
Recent radiocarbon datings also seem to suggest S-T sites are older in the trans-Ural/west-Siberian areas than the European sites, something Parapola could not have known in 2012.
Too bad the Sakhtysh sites are too old to be from Netted-Ware. If samples just dipped into the 2nd millennium BC we may have seen some early west-Uralic speakers, fresh from the east.
@Anthony Hanken "Recent radiocarbon datings also seem to suggest S-T sites are older in the trans-Ural/west-Siberian areas than the European sites, something Parapola could not have known in 2012."
ReplyDeleteHe knew because this stratigraphic and typological information had been known for a long time. Everyone knew for a long time that ST was older in the east than in the west. Parpola, on the other hand, deliberately contradicted this information in order to bring the Uralians out of Europe. ST is definitely not the Uralians, but they could have encouraged the Uralians to move westwards. And also bring some traditions from the east.
@Huck Finn "Archi, trust me. You'd have a bright future as a slapstick comic. People such as Vladimir (nice guy though, I suppose)"
Thank you, you made me laugh. Why do you need to read scientific books at all, if you are glad when you are cheated when you are hanging noodles on your ears. You and Vladimir are simply contraindicated by scientific data.
Uralic is one of those languages that "got around" in the northern eurasian zone, perhaps due to simple reasons of geography.
ReplyDelete1. Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate: Before IE and Uralic
2. Archaic (NE) IE: some words borrowed into PU
2a. Tocharian: linguistic interactions beyond borrowing?
2b. Indo-Iranian: cultural terms
2c. Scytho-Iranian: technological terms
3. Yeniseian: intruded into areas PU formerly extended to, from the south or west?
4. Turkic: Uralic substrate
5. Yukaghir: sister or mixed language to Uralic
6. Samoyedic substrate language: likely related to Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages
There's even some distant connections to Dravidian, and areal influences with Mongolian and Tungusic.