Friday, February 5, 2021
Finally, a proto-Uralic genome
Obviously, genes don't speak languages, people do. But sometimes it's possible to associate a linguistic group with a very specific genetic signature.
A while ago many of us in the blogosphere spotted an uncanny connection between the Uralic language family, Y-haplogroup N-L1026 and Nganasan-like genome-wide genetic ancestry.
As a result, we expected a Nganasan-like population rich in N-L1026 to eventually appear in the ancient DNA record, probably somewhere in Siberia and in burials from a likely proto-Uralic archeological culture. This hasn't happened yet, but we now have direct evidence that such a population must have existed somewhere deep in Siberia as early as the Bronze Age.
Kra001, whose genome was published recently along with Kilinc et al., belongs to a pre-N-L1026 lineage and, at least in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, could well be from a population directly ancestral to present-day Nganasans. Of course, the Nganasan language is part of the Samoyedic branch of Uralic.
Below is a series of Principal Component Analyses (PCA) featuring kra001. He's labeled RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA, after the location and age of his burial. Note the obvious Uralic cline running across the plots. That is, from west to east. Kra001 is positioned at the end of this cline very close to a small cluster of Nganasans. To see interactive versions of the plots, paste the Global25 coordinates here into the relevant field here.
Admittedly, there's no way of knowing whether this individual spoke proto-Uralic or not. Indeed, he may have spoken something totally unrelated. The important point is that the very specific genetic signature shared by almost all present-day Uralic speakers, except perhaps Hungarians, is now finally represented in the ancient DNA record. And I can reveal to you that we'll soon be seeing many more ancients very similar to kra001 in upcoming papers.
See also...
The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time
The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?
Fresh off the sledge
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
279 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 279 of 279@Jaako
"In every step the genetic composition of the language carriers could have been somewhat different. Do you understand? It is erroneous and absurd to ignore the linguistic results and this step-by-step spread, and only imagine that there was one step from Proto-Uralic to Nganasan."
This is basically grasping at straws, yes of course the genetics changed every time specifically to convey a language in the way that you want it to have happened. Using this reasoning one could link almost any language family to almost any genetic population.
But the fact is that while genes do not speak languages they do convey ethnicity, of which language is a non-negotiable aspect (excepting imperial and colonial impositions and religious languages).
So it is entirely unlikely that Uralic language spread was maintained through repeated major stepwise "switches" between distinct genetic populations unless it was some kind of imperial religious language, which seems unlikely.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
What makes the connection between the CWC and IE "scientific" and the connection between Seima-Turbino and Uralic not? As far as I'm concerned they match each other quite well in terms of time, space and direction.
You may argue that Seima-Turbino only represents the spread of pre-proto-Uralic, and you may be right. However, in my opinion this complicates things unnecessarily and would require an immediate back migration of the Ugric/Samoyedic branch.
The relationship between Y haplogroup N-L1026, Siberian admixture and Uralic speakers has been repeatedly pointed out in academic literature. You can stop claiming that this is "unscientific" now.
Davidski:
“Abashevo culture came from the west and it was an offshoot of Fatyanovo.
Samples from Abashevo, coming soon, are exactly like Fatyanovo, Sintashta, etc. and rich in R1a-Z93.”
It’s fine by me, if Abashevo is also originally NwIE.
@Jaakko
Abashevo couldn't have been Northwest Indo-European at any stage.
It's identical to Sintashta and Andronovo.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
"Again, during all these steps the genetic composition of the language carriers could have been somewhat different. And there are 7 steps between modern Saami and Nganasan! Think about that."
Yes, and Saami and Samoyedic peoples are quite different, yet a significant amount of both their ancestries stems from a common source; namely, a population with lots of Nganassan-like ancestry. Think about that.
LGK:
“This is basically grasping at straws, yes of course the genetics changed every time specifically to convey a language in the way that you want it to have happened. Using this reasoning one could link almost any language family to almost any genetic population.”
Indeed the same can be said about your method: guessing. Any population anywhere at anytime could be claimed to be Proto-Uralic. The only way to get a reliable connection is to take the linguistic results as a starting point to which a genetic match is looked for. I suggest you read my earlier comments about the scientific and unscientific methods.
LGK:
“But the fact is that while genes do not speak languages they do convey ethnicity, of which language is a non-negotiable aspect (excepting imperial and colonial impositions and religious languages).”
Yes, all the levels of ethnicity (language, DNA, culture, habit, sustenance, religion etc.) meet at certain point in time. But every aspect can change at the next moment, because these levels are all independent. Therefore you cannot see one level from another – you can only find matches between the results of different disciplines.
LGK:
“So it is entirely unlikely that Uralic language spread was maintained through repeated major stepwise "switches" between distinct genetic populations unless it was some kind of imperial religious language, which seems unlikely.”
I didn’t say that genetic composition did change in every step – I said that it could have been changed. There really is no reliable method to claim one or another based only on genetic results. The only scientific method is to find matches between the results of different disciplines.
Anthony Hanken:
“What makes the connection between the CWC and IE "scientific" and the connection between Seima-Turbino and Uralic not? As far as I'm concerned they match each other quite well in terms of time, space and direction.”
Here you misunderstood something – I agree with you on these both. Because here we use the scientific method: we take the linguistic results and the genetic results and we find matches between them. :)
Anthony Hanken:
“You may argue that Seima-Turbino only represents the spread of pre-proto-Uralic, and you may be right.“
I never said that.
Anthony Hanken:
“The relationship between Y haplogroup N-L1026, Siberian admixture and Uralic speakers has been repeatedly pointed out in academic literature. You can stop claiming that this is "unscientific" now.”
Pointing a correlation is not unscientific – this is what scientists do. Claiming to know what was the genetic composition of the Uralic speaker when we have no direct evidence is only guessing.
N-L1026 is too old and too widespread to consist only of Proto-Uralic speakers. Some of its subhaplogroups could be better matching. Also the Nganasan-like ancestry is too widespread to match only with the Uralic languages.
Davidski:
“Abashevo couldn't have been Northwest Indo-European at any stage.
It's identical to Sintashta and Andronovo.”
You just wrote: “Abashevo culture came from the west and it was an offshoot of Fatyanovo.”
So, according to you Abashevo Culture also has roots in the Corded Ware Culture. That happens to match with the NwIE speakers. These cultures also have other, later “roots”, which can be connected to the forming Proto-Aryan speakers.
And no, Abashevo is not identical to Sintashta and Androvo – identical culture would be just one culture, not three different cultures.
@ Jaako
''You only have genetic results, and your method is guessing''
I was being modest, there's little guessing here. Ultimately, you have to remember that linguistics isn;t a science, whilst bioanthropology is. I think we are trying to help, not disprove your thesis.
In any case, what I have proposed doesn;t contradict any linguistic laws
@Jaakko
I stand by what I said.
The Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta, Petrovka chain of cultures and populations could not have been Northwest Indo-European speaking at any stage of their development.
They simply do not align with any Northwest Indo-European language families in any plausible way, not archeological or genetic.
Western Corded Ware is a different matter, of course.
Erik Andersson:
“Yes, and Saami and Samoyedic peoples are quite different, yet a significant amount of both their ancestries stems from a common source; namely, a population with lots of Nganassan-like ancestry. Think about that.”
I know that. But how do we interpret it? You people here like to think that it is the genetic trace of Uralic speakers. But if that component ended up in Lapland 2000 BC via the Arctic Sea from the northern Siberia, then it CANNOT have anything to do with the Uralic languages. Do you know why?
Because neither the source area nor the target area had Uralic speakers even close to them! Samoyedic languages spread to the north from the Altay-Sayan region around 1 AD, and Saami languages spread to north from the Southern Finland even a bit later. So that Nganasan-like ancestry in Taimyr or Kola Peninsula cannot originally be connected to Uralic speakers.
And when this is the case, it is obvious that its predictive power is equally weak in all the other times and locations. Because we cannot see language from the genetic results.
Do you follow?
Rob:
“I was being modest, there's little guessing here. Ultimately, you have to remember that linguistics isn;t a science, whilst bioanthropology is.”
Oh, you are a troll. Sorry, I don’t waste my time on you anymore. :D
O/ T RE “the great shift” in Britain
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal/article/tales-from-the-supplementary-information-ancestry-change-in-chalcolithicearly-bronze-age-britain-was-gradual-with-varied-kinship-organization/5B71BE0F34927E0A7199A6A568DAB3BC?fbclid=IwAR35IgCir89uGif1VI8dlvB_wkoCFNRWX792Duohg_C08j8zUNt8LOvQKek
Davidski:
“The Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta, Petrovka chain of cultures and populations could not have been Northwest Indo-European speaking at any stage of their development.
They simply do not align with any Northwest Indo-European language families in any plausible way, not archeological or genetic.
Western Corded Ware is a different matter, of course.”
You have opinions, but you are unable to present any supporting evidence for them. You refuse the answer the questions. Please explain to me:
How is it even theoretically possible, that these Corded Ware Cultures which spread from the west, from the NwIE lands, could not have been carried there by the NwIE speakers?
And still you have totally different standards when you consider the spread of the Uralic languages. How is this possible?
Your opinions just seem to get weirder and weirder…
@Jaakko
"The only scientific method is to find matches between the results of different disciplines."
Yes, and the obvious match is Siberian related ancestry and the discussed Y-dna haplogroup which is common to Uralic peoples. It is not possible with available data to identify a stronger common thread. Very simply, Uralic speakers share a common genetic linguistic and genetic ancestry with one another, and a genetic link to this individual (and his community). In the absence of a better candidate - and if you know of one now is the time to name it - the logical conclusion is that this ancient community was a common source of ancestry for Uralic-speaking people.
This is a mode of language expansion and dispersal you have already accepted for Indo-European languages, but seem unable to for Uralic for some reason, I assume you don't like the implication it posits of an origin outside of Europe.
You have avoided identifying and describing the "tens of migrations" that could have a better chance at having introduced Uralic to north-western Europe. Please be honest with yourself, you know it is because they don't exist.
Matt, thanks for the paper and the charts. Very interesting! I am analyzing just this. I will share my conclusions later.
Fatyanovo etc could have been a sort of pseudo-NW Indoeuropean if indo -Iranian is a post-2000 BC development in Central Asia
@Jaska
If you want science:
“ Tambets, Kristiina; Metspalu, Mait; Lang, Valter; Villems, Richard; Kivisild, Toomas; Kriiska, Aivar; Thomas, Mark G.; Díez del Molino, David; Crema, Enrico Ryunosuke (2019). "The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East". Current Biology. 29 (10): 1701–1711.e16. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.026. ISSN 0960-9822. PMC 6544527. PMID 31080083.”
:)
BOO does prefer kra001 over Yukagirs and Ymyiakhtakh. What stops BOO being an extinct branch of Uralic?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440321000030
Is there any linguistic or archeological evidence Samoyedic and Ugric languages need to come from the Volga-Kama and not be left overs? In short do they have these NwIE loans in a form that can only be explained via proto-Uralic? In archeological context it seems like the flow of people was exclusively westward.
@Rob
“Fatyanovo etc could have been a sort of pseudo-NW Indoeuropean if indo -Iranian is a post-2000 BC development in Central Asia”
No, it is a delusion. Fatyanovo etc could have been only a sort of Indo-Slavic. Satem, Ruki were there but we don’t know if ‘l’–>’r’, ‘o’–>’a’ etc. in Fatyanovo i.e. how much it converged towards proto-Indo-Iranian and diverged from Balto-Slavic. Maybe it happened later in Abashevo or Sintashta.
Look at the IE language tree:
https://i.postimg.cc/m2LBZJXf/IEtree-R1a-TMRC.jpg
Fatyanovo came from Middle Dnieper culture and was adjacent to Balto-Slavic lands. Bell-Beakers and all those centum Italo-Celto-Germanic lands were far away adjacent to Atlantic ocean.
https://i.postimg.cc/MzC1z7rq/Slavic-Homeland.png
@Jaakko Häkkinen
"Please show me arguments of Napolskikh and I can counter-argue them. Napolskikh’s views are not widely accepted, if you mean Siberian homeland for Uralic."
This is not true, you ignore them because you have nothing to argue with him. it remains only to be silent. Understand that in the scientific world your views are marginal, in the Napolskikh's views are mainstream confirmed by all sciences.
" The Volga Bend (Volga-Kama fork) is the only plausible homeland based on linguistic evidence. Please try to disprove the arguments, or just accept them. Your method is unscientific, because you just arbitrarily decide which genetic wave is connected to Uralic language. Guessing is not a scientific method, as you should know."
The fact that you write is not true, science has categorically denied your opinion, linguistics has categorically denied your opinion. You have shown that you are unfamiliar with Uralistics. You are simply ignoring linguistics, you are not familiar with the linguistic works of Uralistics, so all your statements are anti-scientific.
" When we have analysed the reconstructed languages between loanwords (that is, both the recipient and the origin), we can tell the dating of the sound changes."
We cannot, because the dating of the borrowing is itself uncertain. The dating of sound changes in other languages is also controversial and uncertain.
Therefore, alas for you, glottochronology is the only source of dating in linguistics, no matter how it suits you for your preconceived goals, borrowings only give a relative time frame of contacts. And there is no need to write about your neutrality, here Napolskikh is completely neutral, there is no reason to prove that Siberia is the homeland of Uralians.
" Please tell me your linguistic arguments supporting your claim. Are you aware that genetics and archaeology do not study language, because they don’t have any method to even find language? You are being so utterly unscientific that I believe you are already beyond any reasoning now."
I gave you linguistic facts, gave you a tree with dates as proof, you did not give any proof of your empty words. You are behaving completely unscientific, you are not a scientist, a scientist cannot ignore sources. You generally deny not only linguistics but any science.
Once again, the fact that the Uraliс languages from Siberia were proved by linguistics by purely linguistic methods, and their European origin was also refuted by purely linguistic methods. Unlike your statements that have little to do with linguistics. And the fact that you do not know is a shame.
"Fatyanovo-Balanovo spread there from the East Baltic region. How on Earth could they have anything to do with the Aryans? There really is no evidence of any Aryan language so far west until the spread of the Romani."
It’s not like that, you just don’t know anything.
"Because neither the source area nor the target area had Uralic speakers even close to them! Samoyedic languages spread to the north from the Altay-Sayan region around 1 AD, and Saami languages spread to north from the Southern Finland even a bit later. So that Nganasan-like ancestry in Taimyr or Kola Peninsula cannot originally be connected to Uralic speakers."
They could have easily wound up there via a southern taiga route and have spoken an extinct branch of Uralic. And what was the Ladoga origin based upon again? Toponyms? Those could have dispersed during the Medieval era, after all Karelians do not originate from Tver just because it is the most southern region. And as for Germanic loans, there was a whole lot of pre-proto-Germanic all around Fennoscandia, so the loans could have been absorbed withinall regions of Saami speakers. I believe Saami greatly correlate with Bronze and Iron age Asbestos Ware cultures considering the huge amount of HG ancestry, historical livelyhood and a pre-Uralic substrate. And are we to believe eastern Finland and Karelia weren't Uralic at this time? The Bronze Age of the time was heavily connected with the east with Ananyino and Akozino material being found all the way to the Bronze Age.
@ East Pole
''. Bell-Beakers and all those centum Italo-Celto-Germanic lands were far away adjacent to Atlantic ocean.''
Yes that's obviousm which is why I said pseudo-NW. Apparently Tocharian has centum features too, but it doesn't derive from Bell Beaker, did it ?
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Nganassan-like ancestry may not be exclusive to Uralic peoples, but it unites them, hence why I think it's likely to have been present in Proto-Uralians. On the other hand, if Proto-Uralians were East European hunter-gatherers like those at Volga-Kama, then they contributed next to no ancestry to later Uralic speakers, including near their supposed homeland.
Of course, you already know all of this, so it's pointless for me to keep repeating it.
For what it's worth, I don't think Nganassans are unmixed Proto-Uralians, just that they would share ancestry with them. And I agree with you that Saami spread northward after the time of the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people. And, probably like the Proto-Uralians, they brought their genes with them, which is why modern Saami are not genetically like the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people.
This whole discussion feels unreal to me.
@Davidsky: In 2000 BCE nobody spoke Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Germanic or Italic. What 'NW Indo-European' people spoke was a dialect of late Indo-European that existed within a dialect continuum. Pre-Indo-Iranian probably had already undergone some specific II sound changes. The first real attestation of Indo-Iranian are the Mitanni around 1500 BCE and that language looks a lot like reconstructed Indo-Iranian.
@Jakko Häkkinen: I very much respect your work, especially the part about how the old assumption of an early split between Samoyed and Finno-Ugric is wrong. This is now mainstream.
But your views on loan etymologies are clearly outdated. Loan etymologies from the likes of Koivulehto and Katz should not be accepted at face value. Often the motivation is nothing more than that words look alike, which is clearly insufficient. (See Eugene Helimsky's paper "Early lndo-Uralic linguistic relationships: Real kinship and imagined contacts" about Koivulehto and Ante Aikio's paper "Review: Hartmuz Katz, Studien zu den älteren indoiranschen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen" about Katz)
Reevaluation of those loan etymologies yields that there is no hard evidence for a North-West Indo-European loan layer (Again: see Zsolt Simon's "Urindogermanische Lehnwörter in den uralischen und finno-ugrischen Grundsprachen"). There are tantalizing look-alikes. But you need more than look-alikes to come up with any evidence that can be considered *scientific* in Historical Linguistics. As a Historical Linguist you must know this.
There is hard evidence for an Indo-Iranian loan layer, but still, about half of the existing Indo-Iranian loan etymologies are either clearly bogus (like e.g. II *dʒuhau 'poured' > PU *j[u/e̮]xi 'to drink' that you use in your paper) or not secure (See Sampsa Holopainen's thesis "Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic : Critical overview of sound substitutions and distribution criterion").
Fatyanovo and balanovon did not move to south asia. Show me one acceptable qpAdm model of swat with fatyanovo as source.
Re Fatyanovo and North West IE.
Before Fatyanovo genes were analysed, not only Jaska would call it NW IE. Whole generations of Soviet and post-Soviet scientists were labelling Fatyanovo “Baltic”, “Baltoid”, “Balto-Slavic”, “para-Balto-Slavic”. Later mostly Finnish scientists were re-labelling it “North West IE”.
Now genetics are giving hints they were actually Indo-Iranian-ish folk. But there has been no re-evaluation of these facts by traditional Academics (linguists and archeologysts) who still live in the “world of old paradigms”. This is why Jaska keeps to his “science”, because old scientists are slow to properly understand “pioneer sciences” and create new explanations (new coherent picture of world) based on new facts.
LGK:
“Yes, and the obvious match is Siberian related ancestry and the discussed Y-dna haplogroup which is common to Uralic peoples.”
Obvious match with Hungarians and Southern Finnics? No. So why do you pick this one component, when you could as well pick a HG-component, which is also widespread in Uralic peoples while missing in some populations? What is your criterion in choosing between them?
And which Y-haplogroup is common to all Uralic peoples? As I said, N-L1026 is too old and too widespread to correlate with Proto-Uralic speakers, and none of its subhaplogroups is found in all Uralic populations.
The solution is simple: we should reconstruct the spread of the language step by step and admit that in different steps the carrier lineages could have been different.
LGK:
“This is a mode of language expansion and dispersal you have already accepted for Indo-European languages, but seem unable to for Uralic for some reason, I assume you don't like the implication it posits of an origin outside of Europe.”
I accept all the same results and methods for Uralic as for IE.
For example, there is also no common paternal lineage common to all IE populations. From ancient DNA we know that the carrier lineages shifted already between Yamnaya R1b and Corded Ware R1a. And similar situation is with the Uralic language family: no one common paternal lineage.
LGK:
“You have avoided identifying and describing the "tens of migrations" that could have a better chance at having introduced Uralic to north-western Europe. Please be honest with yourself, you know it is because they don't exist.”
I meant archeologically perceivable cultural waves, because ancient DNA shows that they usually are connected to migrations, although we do not yet have ancient DNA from all of them: the earliest pioneer colonisation, the Early Comb Ceramics, Lyalovo Ceramics, Typical Comb Ceramics, Textile Ceramics, Ananjino-Mälar network etc. If linguistic results are ignored, all these could be connected to the spread of the Uralic languages – and indeed about all of them have been connected to it! This shows how unreliable a method guessing is.
Parastais:
“If you want science:”
I’m well aware of the study of Tambets et al. 2018. Why?
Northern-Ostrobothnian:
“BOO does prefer kra001 over Yukagirs and Ymyiakhtakh. What stops BOO being an extinct branch of Uralic?”
1. There are no traces of any such extinct Uralic language in the Kola Peninsula.
2. There were no Uralic speakers in the source region in Northern Siberia around 2000 BC.
3. Even if BOO had shared genetic ancestors with Kra001, it could not testify that there is a linguistic continuity, because language is not inherited in DNA.
4. There are so far no scientific arguments to see Kra001 as a Proto-Uralic speaker – it is only a guess of Davidski.
Northern-Ostrobothnian:
“Is there any linguistic or archeological evidence Samoyedic and Ugric languages need to come from the Volga-Kama and not be left overs? In short do they have these NwIE loans in a form that can only be explained via proto-Uralic? In archeological context it seems like the flow of people was exclusively westward.”
Yes, eastern branches have these old IE loanwords, which earlier were seen as Proto-Indo-European, but after the youngering of Proto-Uralic they must be seen as archaic Northwestern IE loanwords, contemporaneous with Early Proto-Aryan loanwords:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf
And because Samoyedic and Ugric branches are undeniably descendants of Late Proto-Uralic, they must be derived from an area where Late Proto-Uralic was spoken: from the Volga-Kama area. Mansi was still recently spoken on the European side, and there are Mansi placenames even in the more western area of Northern Russia.
Archi:
“The fact that you write is not true, science has categorically denied your opinion, linguistics has categorically denied your opinion. You have shown that you are unfamiliar with Uralistics. You are simply ignoring linguistics, you are not familiar with the linguistic works of Uralistics, so all your statements are anti-scientific.”
Hahaha, you are a funny boy. :D Archi, go somewhere else to troll. Preferably to library, where you could read about Uralic linguistics.
Northern-Ostrobothnian:
“They could have easily wound up there via a southern taiga route and have spoken an extinct branch of Uralic.“
Yeah, and Yamnaya culture could have represented an extinct branch of Hottentots. ;)
You see, speculations based on zero evidence are not very fruitful.
Northern-Ostrobothnian:
“And what was the Ladoga origin based upon again?”
I assume you are talking about Saamis now.
Northern-Ostrobothnian:
“Toponyms? Those could have dispersed during the Medieval era, after all Karelians do not originate from Tver just because it is the most southern region. And as for Germanic loans, there was a whole lot of pre-proto-Germanic all around Fennoscandia, so the loans could have been absorbed withinall regions of Saami speakers.”
1. All of Finland is full of Saami placenames.
2. Even the easternmost Saami languages have Pre-, Paleo-, and Proto-Germanic and Proto-Scandinavian loanwords. And no, there were no Germanic speakers all over Fennoscandia.
3. With the Germanic loanword layers the sound changes leading to Late Proto-Saami can be dated to the first centuries AD.
There really is no possibility that Saami could have been developed in Lapland.
Northern-Ostrobothnian:
“I believe Saami greatly correlate with Bronze and Iron age Asbestos Ware cultures considering the huge amount of HG ancestry, historical livelyhood and a pre-Uralic substrate. And are we to believe eastern Finland and Karelia weren't Uralic at this time? The Bronze Age of the time was heavily connected with the east with Ananyino and Akozino material being found all the way to the Bronze Age.”
Your correlation is wrong, because you ignore the linguistic results. Finding a correlation/match means that you must take the linguistic results and compare them to the results of other disciplines. If you just guess and decide that certain culture or genetic component represent Saamis, you use unreliable and unscientific method, like Davidski, Kalevi Wiik and other pseudo-scientists.
Of course there were also Para-Saami and other West Uralic languages, which have since then disappeared but left traces in the placenames of Northwestern Russia.
Erik Andersson:
“Nganassan-like ancestry may not be exclusive to Uralic peoples, but it unites them, hence why I think it's likely to have been present in Proto-Uralians.”
Well, it’s not shared by Hungarians and probably not by all Southern Finnic peoples. So why would it be any more important than say HG-ancestry, which is also seen in most if not all of the Uralic peoples?
And even if it was present in Proto-Uralic speakers, which is very possible (although we don’t know its portion), we cannot claim that all people sharing that component were Uralic speakers.
Erik Andersson:
“On the other hand, if Proto-Uralians were East European hunter-gatherers like those at Volga-Kama, then they contributed next to no ancestry to later Uralic speakers, including near their supposed homeland.”
Which genetic study says that there is no HG-ancestry in modern Uralic populations? All studies I have seen tell that there is: both EHG and WHG all the way to the Urals and even beyond. See Tambets et al. 2018, for example.
Erik Andersson:
“Of course, you already know all of this, so it's pointless for me to keep repeating it.
For what it's worth, I don't think Nganassans are unmixed Proto-Uralians, just that they would share ancestry with them.”
I agree, it is easier to explain the deviance of Hungarians.
Erik Andersson:
“And I agree with you that Saami spread northward after the time of the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people. And, probably like the Proto-Uralians, they brought their genes with them, which is why modern Saami are not genetically like the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people.”
Yes, modern Saami and Iron Age Levänluhta people have ~25 % Nganasan-component, the BOO have ~50 %. Although this Siberian (also in the more southern peoples) can be divided to further components like in Saag et al. 2019.
Not much to contribute to this debate (There isn't a lot new here - Nganassan like people existed at this time, well, interesting to see attested but that's not that unexpected, and doesn't tell us anything more about the direction of dispersal of Uralic on top of what we already knew that would change our directions. It's basically just people going through a loop of "But Nganassans don't have any non-East Eurasian ancestry!" over and over again at this point.)
But as a non-linguist and dabbler (and at risk of being presumptuous to linguists), would be agree with upthread comment to be cautious about idea of trying to date interactions between IE languages / pIE and Uralic via whether loanwords can be assigned to Indo-Aryan. The attested Indo-European tree is really not stable at all in how its well-attested and defined branches fit in clades with each other.
Not just in core lexicon (as is seen in Chang 2015 - https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling001/LanguageIE_Phylogeny2015.pdf) but also using "binary phonological characters" and "binary morphological characters" (sound changes and grammar changes), you can see Indo-Iranian languages split off from Western and Northern Europe IE - https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/8/1/article-p110_3.xml?language=en. And the whole higher level structure of tree is uncertain (Sample of images at: https://imgur.com/a/WhVMqmi)
Despite the sort of trees that Ringe and Warnow others have seemed to argue are strong, quite confidently, it seems like Indo-European languages may have radiated in something close to a starburst explosion, followed by contact between dialects and sharing of features, before regional families became established and went their own way. That would probably help explain the weak structure (unlike languages that may have shown more of a stepwise expansion like Sino-Tibetan). That would also suggest that there are a lot of dead branches about and dialects which begin to show features which are out of place for later attested families and which then went extinct. That would suggest caution on trying to state that a particular loan must have happened at a particular time, when looking at epochs which are largely unattested.
@Onno Hovers
In 2000 BCE nobody spoke Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Germanic or Italic.
Yes, and everyone here knew that already before you came along.
@Jaakko
I see, but is there a reason for why proto-Saami couldn't have already been within Finland and dispersed internally? West Finland's Bronze Age had intimate contacts with the Nordic world and so could act as an interaction zone.
@ Jaakko Häkkinen s
Hahaha, you are a funny boy. :D Archi, go somewhere else to troll. Preferably to library, where you could read about Uralic linguistics.
Judging by the list of literature given by you you are absolutely not familiar with Uralistics, you have not read anything and do not understand the subject. So it is for you to study in library, however, for you it probably already late.
Judging by the list of literature given by you you are absolutely not familiar with Uralistics, you have not read anything and do not understand the subject. So it is for you to study in library, however, for you it probably already late.
You are the one trolling here. Your texts are completely false, they are simply unprofessional and biased. You are criticized without exception for your unprofessionalism in linguistics. Just look at your ridiculous completely baseless assertion that Proto-Uralic: *toɣe- "to bring, give" is a borrowing from PIE: *doh3- "to give" This is despite the fact that there is Yukaghir: tadi "to give", Mongolian: *taɣu > ta'ul-, Turkic: toj, Tungus-Manchu: *tuju-, Dravidian: *ta(')-. Are they all borrowings from PIE as well? Hahaha. That's the thing, you are completely ignorant of linguistics, everyone accuses you of faking facts and ignoring facts and ignorance of the subject.
And that's what you build your hypothesis about some "NwIE" language on such erroneous falsifications.
recent perspectives have still placed the F-U homeland near the Yenesei basin
https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/vectors-of-language-spread-at-the-central-steppe-periphery-finno-
I'm not sure why the eminent scientist feels his (self-published) works represent consensus.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
"Which genetic study says that there is no HG-ancestry in modern Uralic populations?"
You misunderstand me. There isn't a signal of a particular type of HG ancestry in Uralic speakers. Saami might have a lot of Scandinavian HG ancestry, whilst Selkups have some West Siberian HG ancestry. People from the Volga-Kama region don't seem to have very much local EHG ancestry, suggesting that HGs there were largely replaced.
There is however a signal of a particular type of Siberian ancestry. And I'm going to say it's there even in Estonians:
Target: Estonian
Distance: 0.9063% / 0.00906326
63.8 Latvian
25.6 SWE_Oland_IA
8.8 EST_BA
1.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA:kra001
No other component is likely to be very relevant.
This one is very recent as well.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030405?journalCode=linguistics
Abstract:
Recent progress in comparative linguistics, distributional typology, and linguistic geography allows a unified model of Uralic prehistory to take shape. Proto-Uralic first introduced an eastern grammatical profile to central and western Eurasia, where it has remained quite stable. Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic had no connection, either genealogical or areal, until the spreading Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European came into contact with the already-diverged branches of Uralic about 4,000 years ago. A severe and widespread drought beginning about 4,200 years ago cleared the way for a rapid spread of Uralic-speaking people along the Volga and across southwestern Siberia. It also contributed to the sudden rise of the Seima-Turbino bronze-trading complex, one component of the Uralic spread mechanism. After the initial spread, the Uralic daughter languages retained their Volga homelands remarkably stably while also extending far to the north in a recurrent Eurasian pattern.
It would be strange for the Proto Uralic population to live close to the massively expanding PIE population when Uralic is much more similar to Altaic languages like Turkic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural-Altaic_languages#/media/File%3ALinguistic_map_of_the_Altaic%2C_Turkic_and_Uralic_languages_(en).png
I wonder what's Rob's point for posting links which don't quite support the claims he makes? Suicidal tendencies, maybe?"...the traditional homeland represents an average of proposals; the exact location is not essential here, as long as the homeland is close to the Urals, and this is the only location that finds more or less independent evidence in the distribution of Indo-Iranian loanwords (Finno-Ugric must be close to the known Indo-Iranian homeland, Samoyedic farther east) and phylogenetic center of gravity (which runs either just north of Kazakhstan, if an initial Samoyedic/Finno-Ugric split is recognized; or approximately along the Urals, if Khanty, with or without Mansi and Hungarian, is grouped with Samoyedic in an earliest eastern branch)." Regarding the center of gravity i.e. the deepest dialectal border within Uralic: because of Jaska we know nowadays that it lies between Finno-Permic and Mansi.
@ Jaakko
"Obvious match with Hungarians and Southern Finnics? No. So why do you pick this one component, when you could as well pick a HG-component, which is also widespread in Uralic peoples while missing in some populations? What is your criterion in choosing between them?"
Cringe, you understand full well why Hungarian and southern Finnic is this way, because of their historical development, they are largely assimilated natives under a Uralic elite. It was already pointed out to you to look not at modern Hungarians but the conqueror era Magyars for your answer. Lo and behold. There is a clear decrease in Siberian ancestry east to west, everyone knows this, nobody has ever said it was a massive horde of Uralians arriving and replacing everyone wholesale.
"I meant archeologically perceivable cultural waves"
You are simply guessing that it is any one of these half dozen odd cultures, and not indicated by Siberian ancestry and Y-DNA N, which is the common thread. Basically, your problem is that you cannot connect any of these to the Siberian manifestations of Uralic. Your guessing, and let us be clear that is what it is, has less evidence for it than Davidski and others'.
Ok, my proposal. Uralic did not exist before the moment it is first attested to in writing, before that, it lived on the moon. You cannot disprove this. It is unscientific to suggest otherwise, because you cannot know with 100% certainty that even the very same people it was recorded from spoke that language before it was written down. You merely guess that they did.
You understand? You have to work from likelihoods, because the language of extinct people with no writing cannot be empirically observed. It is not pulling names out of a hat, but educated deduction based on various correlations. In this case the greatest correlation is the aforementioned... again, we all welcome you to present your better case for another, better correlation. Until then this will be the mainstream view
@Jaakko
You're making some really noob comments here.
My suggestion is that you familiarize yourself with all of the latest data and issues and then come back, at least with some solid arguments.
For instance, this stupid shit about Hungarians won't fly anymore. We've got Hungarian Conqueror genomes now. I guess nobody told you.
@ Huck Finn
“ I wonder what's Rob's point for posting links which don't quite support the claims he makes? Suicidal tendencies, ”
O it’s the rivetting “genes don’t speak” guy. what claims have I made ? I’ve just pointed out the relevance of Kra001. dont shoot the messenger. It doesn’t affect me where the FU homeland is, but you seem a little disoriented by recent developments
in fact, did you read the article ?
“ The first scenario posits a Proto-Uralic homeland in the easternmost range of the attested Uralic territory, perhaps near the Minusinsk Basin along the mid to upper Yenisei in the Altai lowlands. Pre-Proto-Samoyedic13 stayed near the homeland (the Samoyedic homeland is probably in the attested southern Samoyedic range in the Altai-Sayan area, between the upper Ob' and upper YeniseI”
“ The other scenario posits a Uralic homeland on the northern central steppe or the forest-steppe zone just to the north (this is the tradiJonal Finno-Ugric homeland, just east of the Urals)”
I did not present it to bolster 'my claims', if i even have any. But it does cast doubt on the claimed 'consensus'
Onno Hovers:
“But your views on loan etymologies are clearly outdated. Loan etymologies from the likes of Koivulehto and Katz should not be accepted at face value. Often the motivation is nothing more than that words look alike, which is clearly insufficient. (See Eugene Helimsky's paper "Early lndo-Uralic linguistic relationships: Real kinship and imagined contacts" about Koivulehto and Ante Aikio's paper "Review: Hartmuz Katz, Studien zu den älteren indoiranschen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen" about Katz)”
Koivulehto still had more critical method than Katz, although not all his etymologies are credible. Still, until newer research disproves etymologies, we must take them into consideration. And disproving some of the etymologies does not give us right to ignore the rest, as you should know.
Onno Hovers:
“Reevaluation of those loan etymologies yields that there is no hard evidence for a North-West Indo-European loan layer (Again: see Zsolt Simon's "Urindogermanische Lehnwörter in den uralischen und finno-ugrischen Grundsprachen"). There are tantalizing look-alikes. But you need more than look-alikes to come up with any evidence that can be considered *scientific* in Historical Linguistics. As a Historical Linguist you must know this.”
Zsolt Simon cannot disprove them all – see it for yourself. Disproving some of the etymologies does not give us right to ignore the rest, as you should know.
Onno Hovers:
“There is hard evidence for an Indo-Iranian loan layer, but still, about half of the existing Indo-Iranian loan etymologies are either clearly bogus (like e.g. II *dʒuhau 'poured' > PU *j[u/e̮]xi 'to drink' that you use in your paper) or not secure (See Sampsa Holopainen's thesis "Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic : Critical overview of sound substitutions and distribution criterion").”
Yes, some of them have been questioned recently. Still, until all of them are disproved, the layer remains. Disproving some of the etymologies does not give us right to ignore the rest, as you should know.
Parastais:
“Now genetics are giving hints they were actually Indo-Iranian-ish folk. But there has been no re-evaluation of these facts by traditional Academics (linguists and archeologysts) who still live in the “world of old paradigms”. This is why Jaska keeps to his “science”, because old scientists are slow to properly understand “pioneer sciences” and create new explanations (new coherent picture of world) based on new facts.”
You are making some unscientific guesses here.
1. That some known Aryan populations have some Y-lineage, does not mean that every population everywhere anywhere having that lineage must have been Aryan too. This is a severe argumentation fallacy.
2. That some culture/population has connections to another culture/population in its ending stages, does not mean that it cannot have connections to a third culture/population in its beginning stages.
Fatyanovo is the most probably source for archaic IE / NwIE loanwords in Proto-Uralic. Do you believe that Aryan loanwords could come from the very same culture?
Northern-Ostrobothnian:
“I see, but is there a reason for why proto-Saami couldn't have already been within Finland and dispersed internally? West Finland's Bronze Age had intimate contacts with the Nordic world and so could act as an interaction zone.”
Pre-stages of Proto-Saami have been there, of course. But all the known Saami languages are descendants of Late Proto-Saami, which was born in Southern Finland only less than 2000 years ago. We have no evidence that any Saami-like language would have spread north before that, so it seems futile to speculate if that could have happened.
@Jaska
Fatyanovo obviously belongs to the same chain of cultures and populations as Abashevo, Sintashta, Petrovka and Andronovo, to the exclusion of other groups like western or even Baltic Corded Ware, and obviously Catacomb etc.
Like I said, learn the basics or shut up.
Archi:
“Just look at your ridiculous completely baseless assertion that Proto-Uralic: *toɣe- "to bring, give" is a borrowing from PIE: *doh3- "to give" This is despite the fact that there is Yukaghir: tadi "to give", Mongolian: *taɣu > ta'ul-, Turkic: toj, Tungus-Manchu: *tuju-, Dravidian: *ta(')-. Are they all borrowings from PIE as well?”
Thank you for showing how little you know about critical linguistics. These distant relatedness -things you support are just fairy tales: amateurs and uncritical linguists list words which have some shared sounds but which do not have credible phonological developments or regular sound correspondences and the meanings of which are only based on donkey bridges.
With that method most the words with initial T in all the languages of the world could be shown to be related. That is how reliable this method is.
Rob:
“Recent perspectives have still placed the F-U homeland near the Yenesei basin
https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/vectors-of-language-spread-at-the-central-steppe-periphery-finno-
I'm not sure why the eminent scientist feels his (self-published) works represent consensus.”
It is a consensus in modern Uralic linguistics, but how could you know that? Maybe by checking first the Wikipedia? Nichols is not a Uralicist, but let’s see her arguments here:
https://www.academia.edu/34581649/Vectors_of_language_spread_at_the_central_steppe_periphery_Finno_Ugric_as_catalyst_language
“The history and geography of the Finno-Ugric branch match closely what we have defined as
the catalyst role. Proto-Finno-Ugric is traditionally located in the forest-steppe zone just east of the
Urals, north of the central steppe (today's Kazakhstan), at about 4000 BP. New proposals put it
variously farther east or farther west, but the traditional homeland represents an average of proposals;
the exact location is not essential here, as long as the homeland is close to the Urals, and this is the only
location that finds more or less independent evidence in the distribution of Indo-Iranian loanwords
(Finno-Ugric must be close to the known Indo-Iranian homeland, Samoyedic farther east) and
phylogenetic center of gravity (which runs either just north of Kazakhstan, if an initial Samoyedic/Finno-
Ugric split is recognized; or approximately along the Urals, if Khanty, with or without Mansi and
Hungarian, is grouped with Samoyedic in an earliest eastern branch).”
As you see, Nichols does not present any arguments: she only states the views presented about the homeland during history. So, we have older views about the Siberian homeland, based partly on erroneous and partly on inaccurate assumptions (like Samoyedic being the first branch to split off; or that Pinus cembra sibirica did not grow in Europe), and we have new, better-argued views supporting the European homeland.
So I see no reason why you should pick the oldest and weakest proposition of all these homeland solutions. Do you?
Erik Andersson:
“You misunderstand me. There isn't a signal of a particular type of HG ancestry in Uralic speakers. Saami might have a lot of Scandinavian HG ancestry, whilst Selkups have some West Siberian HG ancestry. People from the Volga-Kama region don't seem to have very much local EHG ancestry, suggesting that HGs there were largely replaced.”
So what is this particular method to reveal this “signal”? What is its methodological value to testify for shared ancestry, without no room left to interpretation?
At least Tambets et al. 2018 found both EHG and WHG even in Nganasans, see supplementary data S3, figure S8.
Erik Andersson:
“There is however a signal of a particular type of Siberian ancestry. And I'm going to say it's there even in Estonians:”
These second- and third-hand calculators are interesting, but as we have seen, about any genetic component can be found matching, if tested with many enough different combinations.
Romulus:
“It would be strange for the Proto Uralic population to live close to the massively expanding PIE population when Uralic is much more similar to Altaic languages like Turkic.”
Yes, but there are different chronological stages. Typological similarity (which some don’t see very hard evidence) is connected to the millennia of Pre-Proto-Uralic development in Siberia. Still, that cannot disprove the arguments locating Late Proto-Uralic to the Volga-Kama region.
Rob:
“You are simply guessing that it is any one of these half dozen odd cultures, and not indicated by Siberian ancestry and Y-DNA N, which is the common thread. Basically, your problem is that you cannot connect any of these to the Siberian manifestations of Uralic. Your guessing, and let us be clear that is what it is, has less evidence for it than Davidski and others'.”
You don’t know that the Siberian ancestry or Y-DNA N were not present in these cultures. And you don’t know that they are connected to the spread of Uralic language – you are only guessing. No wonder you agree with Davidski, who is also only guessing.
Think about BOO: it has the Siberian ancestry and Y-haplogroup N, and yet it is found in an area where there are no traces of Uralic speakers yet for 2000 years, and the wave came from North Siberia, where there is also no traces of Uralic speakers yet for 2000 years.
Still, your unscientific guessing method requires you to consider BOO Uralic-speaking, doesn’t it? Because you have decided that these genetic phenomena must be connected to the Uralic speakers.
BEHOLD, LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, THE PERILS OF UNSCIENTIFIC METHOD: BUILDING GUESSES UPON GUESSES.
Davidski:
“For instance, this stupid shit about Hungarians won't fly anymore. We've got Hungarian Conqueror genomes now. I guess nobody told you.”
I’m well aware. Could you tell me how this is relevant and to which my comment exactly?
You seem to be so black-and-white that your comments for the most part make no sense: they mostly tell that you have seriously misunderstood something what you read, have built a strawman and then are beating it.
Davidski:
“Fatyanovo obviously belongs to the same chain of cultures and populations as Abashevo, Sintashta, Petrovka and Andronovo, to the exclusion of other groups like western or even Baltic Corded Ware, and obviously Catacomb etc.”
Fatyanovo is a Corded Ware Culture, it spread to Middle Volga from the west. That it has connections to the east, cannot change its origin, do you understand?
@Jaakko
“ So, we have older views about the Siberian homeland, based partly on erroneous and partly on inaccurate assumptions (like Samoyedic being the first branch to split off)”
According to your hypothesis, how did the Samoyedic languages penetrate far into Siberia to the Sayan Mountains and the Yenisei?
Not only do you attribute my writing to Rob, you are still only guessing, as you cannot point to a better correlation between an ancient population and the modern-day Uralic population. You evade the telling fact that Siberian ancestry decreases in areas where it is well known historically that Uralic was imposed on a non-Uralic assimilated native population precisely as would be expected if Uralic was originally associated with a Siberian population.
I'm sorry but nobody here can help you - as you have already decided what you want to believe and cannot accept anything which indicates otherwise. Nothing short of a time machine to visit Proto-Uralic people in person would convince you, maybe not even that.
1. Jaako is right of course about associating y hg or ancestries with a particular language being problematic. That's just foolish and non scientific. But alas it's done all the time on this blog.
2. But, from my perspective linguistics is also 'guesswork built upon guesswork'. Until you have a strong tether about language spoken in a particular region from archaeology/inscriptions etc (eg . mitanni inscriptions) this all is just fruitless. Otherwise it's like 2 blind men showing directions.
3. Davidski keeps repeating that fatyanovo is indo Iranian based on only presence of R-Z93. Fact is that R1a is just one of the 10 (or more) y-hgs present in Brahmins of South Asia.
Fact is that fatyanovo/sintashta DOES NOT work as a steppe source in qpAdm models of swat valley IA. There was no direct migration from these regions. It requires something more eastern from IAMC like Dali_mlba as a source and people who are serious should appreciate the difference.
LOL
There were migrations of R1a-Z93-rich populations from Eastern Europe to Asia during the Bronze Age and they definitely spread Indo-Iranian languages with them.
There were also migrations of N-L1026-rich populations across North Eurasia during the metal ages and they definitely spread Uralic languages with them.
Suck it up fools.
@ Vasistha
Hold on a second, you have no issues linking Scythians with J2a1 and Turan-related ancestry (despite the fact that north Turan-Scythians are the youngest group of Scythians); but in other cases its a no-no ? And it seems that it is lost on people, but worth emphasizing, any links between are understood as associations or correlations. It does not imply any sort of primordialism and strict equivalence.
Moreover, nobody said Fatyanovo would be a great fit for Swat. ''Fatyanovo and balanovon did not move to south asia'' No surprise there, those cultural formations are unique to eastern Europe. But their descendents did move one, and they are a good fit for Swat valley ancestry. The fun part is evaluating how they affected local society, and thats still a work in progress.
@Jaska
“ Yes, but there are different chronological stages. Typological similarity (which some don’t see very hard evidence) is connected to the millennia of Pre-Proto-Uralic development in Siberia. Still, that cannot disprove the arguments locating Late Proto-Uralic to the Volga-Kama region. ”
Now pre-Proto-Uralic development in Syberia and that N-1026 + Nganasan like genetics match like a hand and glove both unscientifically and scientifically? Don’t you find?
Then somewhere near IEs (definitely II, maybe some non-Satem/pre-Satem IE) Late Proto Uralic formed, which would consist of Nganassan + CW + hunterish X.
Kinda like Kra sample is Uralic Yamna, where Volga Kama is later Uralic CW.
Is that closer to your views?
Jaakko Häkkinen said...
"Thank you for showing how little you know about critical linguistics. These distant relatedness -things you support are just fairy tales: amateurs and uncritical linguists list words which have some shared sounds but which do not have credible phonological developments or regular sound correspondences and the meanings of which are only based on donkey bridges.
With that method most the words with initial T in all the languages of the world could be shown to be related. That is how reliable this method is."
You are not a linguist, you are a freak. You understand nothing about phonetic laws, your opinion is of no interest to anyone. Linguistics is done by real scientists, you have proven that you do not know linguistics and are not a scientist. Favorite occupation of anti-scientific freaks to deny Nostratic connections without having a clue about the linguistic essence. These studies are done by intelligent people and serious scientists. It takes intelligence to understand linguistics, which in this case is lacking.
Exactly by this you and are engaged, on any letter build favourable to you antiscientific hypotheses, on your proto-Uralians have taken place directly from monkeys not able to speak and language at them has arisen directly from air.
"we have new, better-argued views supporting the European homeland."
This is a direct lie.
Jaakko Häkkinen you're a copy of vAsiSTha.
@vAsiSTha
" Fact is that fatyanovo/sintashta DOES NOT work as a steppe source in qpAdm models of swat valley IA. There was no direct migration from these regions. It requires something more eastern from IAMC like Dali_mlba as a source and people who are serious should appreciate the difference."
This is the coolest argument, since the Fatyanovians or Sintashtians did not fly to India by airplanes, but walked across the land through other peoples, the Aryans could not have gotten to India from Eastern Europe, since migrations can only be by planes, airplanes, balloons, rockets, but not on foot! Wow.
@davidski
"and they definitely spread Indo-Iranian languages with them." I'm sure you had long chats with them to be so confident.
@rob
Hold on a second, you have no issues linking Scythians with J2a1 and Turan-related ancestry (despite the fact that north Turan-Scythians are the youngest group of Scythians); but in other cases its a no-no ?
Great question Rob. The difference is that Green writers have noted that scythians came from SC asia around the jaxartes Region, no such literary evidence exists for the Vedic Aryans and it is definitely not mentioned in the Vedas. Have a good day.
@ Vasistha
Let’s familiarise with bare facts :
“ impressive kurgan cemeteries, appear in the Semirech’e region of south-
ern Kazakhstan at the sites of Besshatyr (c. 750–550 BC) and later at Asy Zaga,
Turgen (500–200 BC), and Issyk (c. 400–300 BC) (Panyushkina et al. 2013; Gass
2011). “
There is a north - to - south progression of scythian Kurgans
A misinterpretation of ancient sources and cherry -picked genetic claims; such methodology isn’t contributory to the modern stage of the art
@archi
"This is the coolest argument, since the Fatyanovians or Sintashtians did not fly to India by airplanes, but walked across the land through other peoples, the Aryans could not have gotten to India from Eastern Europe, since migrations can only be by planes, airplanes, balloons, rockets, but not on foot! Wow."
The distance between Fatyanovo & Dali is 3600km. The distance between Sintashta & Dali is 2200km. So to suggest confidently that Dali people in bronze age spoke an indo-iranian dialect just because you assume people far away in Fatyanovo/Sintashta spoke pre-proto whatever indo-iranian is just "guesswork based upon guesswork".
Do you know what the nearest attested ancient language to the Dali region is? Tocharian, just over the Dzhungar plains and to the east of Dali/tasbas. That is a centum IE language - not satem and has hardly anything to do with the IIr branch. So no I do not buy your arguments as they lack any sort of rigour and are based upon wishful thinking and loose connections.
@vAsiSTha
"The distance between Fatyanovo & Dali is 3600km. The distance between Sintashta & Dali is 2200km. So to suggest confidently that Dali people in bronze age spoke an indo-iranian dialect just because you assume people far away in Fatyanovo/Sintashta spoke pre-proto whatever indo-iranian is just "guesswork based upon guesswork"."
What you wrote is complete nonsense. People in the Andronovo culture spoke Indo-Iranian, and this is not a guess, it is a scientific fact.
Yes, imagine the Aryans were great, and you are insignificant, and enough to reflect on this.
Dali_MLBA comes entirely 100% from Sintashta, and you cannot do anything about it, this is a fact that even you cannot question.
"Do you know what the nearest attested ancient language to the Dali region is? Tocharian, just over the Dzhungar plains and to the east of Dali/tasbas. That is a centum IE language - not satem and has hardly anything to do with the IIr branch. So no I do not buy your arguments as they lack any sort of rigour and are based upon wishful thinking and loose connections."
This is a lie, teach geography. Dali is not Xinjiang. Do not write nonsense and lies, in Xinjiang they spoke Iranian, Yuezhi are true Tokharians who lived there before the pseudo-Tokharians. More recently, there was an article about the Andronovo culture in Xinjiang.
Your insanity is simply ridiculous, everyone has already made sure that you are not capable of taking reasonable arguments.
"Dali_MLBA comes entirely 100% from Sintashta, and you cannot do anything about it, this is a fact that even you cannot question."
Lol.. this is 100% incorrect, that's a scientific fact😂
Dali_MLBA is largely derived from Sintashta in terms of culture and genetics.
So it got its language from Sintashta.
@Archi
"Dali_MLBA comes entirely 100% from Sintashta, and you cannot do anything about it, this is a fact that even you cannot question."
Target: KAZ_Dali_MLBA
Distance: 2.0201% / 0.02020083
76.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
15.8 KAZ_Botai
7.6 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.0 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
Archi heres your 100% proven scientific fact lol. Stop trolling kid.
@davidski
"Dali_MLBA is largely derived from Sintashta in terms of culture and genetics. So it got its language from Sintashta."
That's your assumption and guesswork, in a long chain of guesswork.
@vAsiSTha
"Archi heres your 100% proven scientific fact lol." Stop trolling kid.
Distance: 2.0201% / 0.02020083
LOL to you an eternal freak. Stop trolling a troll who didn't graduate from school, you're a disgrace.
Target: KAZ_Dali_MLBA:I3448
Distance: 1.2521% / 0.01252126
86.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
9.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
2.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
1.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
Target: KAZ_Dali_MLBA:I1931
Distance: 0.8848% / 0.00884839
77.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
2.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
1.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
14.0 KAZ_Dali_EBA
2.6 TKM_Gonur2_BA
2.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA
Target: KAZ_Dali_MLBA:I0507
Distance: 1.1402% / 0.01140235
75.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
17.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
4.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA_o
3.2 TKM_Gonur2_BA
you are disgraced
In fact, no KAZ_Dali_MLBA exists, it is just the usual KAZ_Andronovo_LBA. This is just ordinary Andronovo culture, all these labels are deeply mistaken. In Dali, the Sogdian language was spoken, one of the East Iranian languages even before the 3rd century BC.
In Xianjiang they spoke the Khotan Saka language, whose writing is perfectly preserved.
@Archie
There are Sogdian inscriptions from Kultobe which are definitely older than both the 4th ancient Sogdian letters and the oldest attestations of Tocharian.
In addition you also have the technically undeciphered but probably Iranic Issyk inscription predating the formation of proper Tocharian city states, let alone writing lol.
Vladimir:
“According to your hypothesis, how did the Samoyedic languages penetrate far into Siberia to the Sayan Mountains and the Yenisei?”
As Carpelan & Parpola 2001 and Petri Kallio 2006 proposed, a step from Volga-Kama region (Proto-Uralic and its eastern dialect) to Altay-Sayan region (Pre-Proto-Samoyedic) correlates nicely with the Seima-Turbino centers in the Kama region and the Altay-Sayan region. After millennia of changes in language, culture and genes, Proto-Samoyedic spread to north around 1 AD, either after Yeniseic expansion or as its neighbour on the western bank of Yenisei. Concerning this step I agree with Juha Janhunen.
LGK:
“Not only do you attribute my writing to Rob, “
I apologise my copy/paste errors; writing gets hurried up after several hours of continuous commenting on these fora. I hope you didn’t consider “Rob” as an insult. ;) (For an insult I would have used another nickname…)
LGK:
“you are still only guessing, as you cannot point to a better correlation between an ancient population and the modern-day Uralic population. You evade the telling fact that Siberian ancestry decreases in areas where it is well known historically that Uralic was imposed on a non-Uralic assimilated native population precisely as would be expected if Uralic was originally associated with a Siberian population.”
It works to another direction, too: Siberian ancestry increases in areas where it is well known historically that Uralic was imposed on a non-Uralic assimilated native population precisely as would be expected if Uralic was originally associated with an European population.
As you know, the Proto-Uralic homeland was in Volga-Kama area, so obviously to the east the Siberian ancestry increased, and to the west the European ancestry increased.
vAsiSTha:
“But, from my perspective linguistics is also 'guesswork built upon guesswork'. Until you have a strong tether about language spoken in a particular region from archaeology/inscriptions etc (eg . mitanni inscriptions) this all is just fruitless. Otherwise it's like 2 blind men showing directions.”
You are just being ignorant here: clearly you know nothing about the methods of historical linguistics. There are a lot of books about these, so I encourage you to read about the subject instead of making statements based on zero knowledge.
Parastais:
“Now pre-Proto-Uralic development in Syberia and that N-1026 + Nganasan like genetics match like a hand and glove both unscientifically and scientifically? Don’t you find?”
Do they match? Please convince me. :) I already pointed out, that N-L1026 (when including all sublineages) and Nganasan-ancestry are too widespread to correlate with the Uralic language (although some then apply circular argumentation and claim that they must testify about those other populations having been Uralic speaking earlier). Then, no sublineage of N-L1026 or N-L1026* itself is found in all Uralic populations. So, where is the match?
Parastais:
“Then somewhere near IEs (definitely II, maybe some non-Satem/pre-Satem IE) Late Proto Uralic formed, which would consist of Nganassan + CW + hunterish X.”
Well, this is a possible guess, too, but what is the supporting evidence for it?
Davidski:
“Dali_MLBA is largely derived from Sintashta in terms of culture and genetics.
So it got its language from Sintashta.”
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
There really is no scientific method to predict language from archaeological or genetic results like that. “Largely derived” still leaves too much to interpretation, especially if we don’t know every detail between the source area and the target area during the spread. I suggest you read works of J.P. Mallory, who has for decades argued against these invalid continuity arguments, which you here so eagerly apply.
@Jaska
I suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself.
The case for the spread of Indo-Iranian languages via Sintashta and closely related cultures is very strong, and my statement was correct.
Oh shut the hell up archi. Im using G25 scaled averages. If you use non averaged samples or unscaled, %s will of course be different. Using Outliers firstly is not proper, and even if they are, sintashta outliers are not selected.
Target: KAZ_Dali_MLBA
Distance: 2.0429% / 0.02042901
75.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
17.0 KAZ_Dali_EBA
3.8 TKM_Gonur2_BA
2.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3
1.0 TJK_Sarazm_En
0.4 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA
0.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA_o
0.0 TKM_Gonur3_BA
dali_mlba = dali_eba + sintashta.. Do you get it kid? stop trolling.
@Jaska
" step from Volga-Kama region (Proto-Uralic and its eastern dialect) to Altay-Sayan region (Pre-Proto-Samoyedic) correlates nicely with the Seima-Turbino centers in the Kama region and the Altay-Sayan region."
To link Samoyeds with the Seimas Turbino is already a complete pseudoscience. It just means not knowing anything.
" I hope you didn’t consider “Rob” as an insult."
We are consider.
"As you know, the Proto-Uralic homeland was in Volga-Kama area"
Do not pass off wishful thinking, science knows for sure that it was not there.
" WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
There really is no scientific method to predict language from archaeological or genetic results like that. "
You write anti-scientific nonsense, you are the enemy of science and the scientific method. It is you who are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
@vAsiSTha
"Using Outliers firstly is not proper, and even if they are, sintashta outliers are not selected." Do you get it kid? stop trolling.
Stop trolling babes, you are completely disgraced. I perfectly showed you that there are 100% Sintashta samples in Dali, without local admixture. Sintashta Outliers are also Sintashta, and you ignore them for malicious purposes in order to deceive everyone, and above all yourself. Everyone here considers you a troll and a deceiver without exception.
@Jaska @Parastais Linguists found faint traces of non-IE non-Uralic languages in the Baltic areas, most likely remnants of some Paleo-European Baltic HG ones, in particular in toponyms. They are much scarcer than the ones found in Saami (up to 1/3 of vocabulary in the latter one), and it source(s) might be completely unrelated to substrate origins subsumed into Saami:
Quote: “ In the north, a similar scenario to Indo-European is thought to have occurred, with Uralic languages expanding in from the east. In particular, while the Sami languages of the indigenous Sami people belong in the Uralic family, they show considerable substrate influence, which is thought to represent one or more extinct older languages. The ancestors of Sami are estimated to have adopted a Uralic language less than 2500 years ago.[5] Some traces of indigenous languages of the Baltic area have been suspected in the Finnic languages as well, but they are much more modest. There are early loanwords from unidentified non-Indo-European languages in other Uralic languages of Europe, as well.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-European_languages
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
@Davidski:
It's sad how little you know and how you believe brutal ignorance is knowledge.
There are obviously more possible options than the black-and-white guessing method of yours accepts.
1. Gene flow could or could not be connected with the spread of linguistic material – which one it was, we cannot see from the genetic results.
2. Even if it spread linguistic material, it could be loanwords instead of a whole new language – which one it was, we cannot see from the genetic results.
These are the reasons why it is not scientific to just decide that a gene flow X is connected to the spread of language Z.
Uralic genes in general.
Beside Davidxki's very convincing proposals for pre-Uralic genes (N-TAT, and N-1026) it would be very enlighting, WHEN e.g. Finland encountered the considerable turnover to its today 65 or so % Y-hg N. Such an event - if existing - would give convincing arguments for a parallel linguistic shift.
archlingo
@Davidski
"[...] See that's why Indians speak Baltic, Celtic, Germanic and Slavic." > i'm dead
Post a Comment