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
279 comments:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
See also...
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
Sucked in Quiles.
ReplyDeleteBolshy Oleni was Uralic too. Oldest Uralic genomes from Europe.
ReplyDeleteCarlos Quiles and that Korean guy, who called me an idiot for suggesting Uralic comes from Siberia, can both suck it.
Who's that Korean guy?
DeleteHere's a map posted by Arza in another comment thread.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/xj7PLsvq/genes-vs-geography.jpg
So, early Uralics in Baltics, the oldest sample. Can they be modelled as Kra001 + something?
ReplyDeleteAnd Kra001 itself - how can it be modelled based on more ancient samples?
What has Carlos Quiles to say about this?
ReplyDeleteProbably some bullshit as usual.
ReplyDeleteNo one really cares what he has to say anymore, except for the few crazies who hang out at his blog.
RUS_Karasuk_o:RISE497 looks close to RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA:kra001, so maybe some Karasuk tribes were N-L1026.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/SKhDk6Bd/Krasnoyarsk-Uralic2.png
What is the origin of Udmurts? Do they have some R1a-Z93?
Udmurts are Permians, I believe we need better data regarding them. Any Z93 is probably of Turkic origin with a sliver of Scythian perhaps.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA is an obvious Samoyedian, the ancestor of the Nenets, he is very close to them. More recently, the Samoyeds lived near the Sayan Mountains, where the Samoyed language remained. We can say for sure that he spoke the Uralic language, since the ancient Samoyed language remained in this area.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the haplogroup, he can refer to the ancestors of all Finno-Ugric peoples.
@Genos Historia
"Bolshy Oleni was Uralic too. Oldest Uralic genomes from Europe."
This is just not a fact. There is no evidence that their culture belongs to the Urals, there is a strong assumption that they are pre-Uralic population. These people could speak just any language, and their genomes are pre-Uralic genomes, which separated from the Uralians even before they switched to the Uralic languages.
They have Uralic specific subclades if I recall. They also prefer kra001 over Ymyiakhtakh.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Vasistha
ReplyDeleteJust curious, what would you say if Y3+ Y-haplogroups were found on the Steppe, against your predictions? What would be your stance then and why?
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteAll Bolshy Oleni Males belonged to N-L1026. They were 50% Siberian. There is no other reason they would be in Northeast Europe other than being apart of the Uralic expansion.
They also fit well as being an ancestor of Saami. Bolshy Oleni=Proto Saami.
"I can reveal to you that we'll soon be seeing many more ancients very similar to kra001 in upcoming papers"
ReplyDeleteAny idea what the cultural context is for these upcoming samples? Something that can be easily linked to Uralic?
RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA:kra001 looks almost the same as the the Ymyakhtakh_LN samples. This population probably originated near the Lena River and rapidly spread west.
@ Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"They also fit well as being an ancestor of Saami. Bolshy Oleni=Proto Saami."
It is precisely that they were away from the Uralic expansion, they were from the Ymyyakhtakh culture, which was not the Uralic culture. These were people who most likely spoke the language that the ancestors of the Uralians spoke before the transition to the Nostratic Uralic language. The Sami language has a huge layer of non-Uralic and not even Nostratic vocabulary; they received it from the immediately preceding population, that is, from Bolshoy Oleniy Ostrov. The Sami came there later from the south.
The problem with that is BOO seemingly picks up Steppe MLBA.
ReplyDeleteTarget: RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov
Distance: 2.2046% / 0.02204570
47.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
39.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
13.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Isn't that more likely to be some sort of post-Corded Ware admix from Northern or Eastern Europe?
ReplyDeleteThe other problem is that Saami and other Uralics take kra001 admixture over BOO. Obviously this should not be the case if BOO spoke proto-Saami.
ReplyDeleteBOO may have been Uralic speaking, but not necessarily proto-Saami.
ReplyDeleteBOO looks like a very mixed pop, but the N-L1026 suggests that it's at least partly of Uralic origin.
Other uralics needn’t “take” BOO if it’s some side branch population
ReplyDeleteI suspect that FU somehow links with Scythians
Backgroubd: the genetic data shows that Scythians descend from local catacomb, srubnaja and eastern Hallstatt (chernolis; holihrady, etc) incl forest -steppe groups
The inner Asian ancestry in fact arrived with the preceding “Cimmerian” period. I suspect that at least some of this eastern ancestry might in fact be linked to para-Uralic forest tribes (Aninyo; Sargat, etc) rich in Hg N; and these contacts might explain the bulk of indo-Iranian loans in FU
I think calling the genetic profile of this population "proto-Uralic" is causing more confusion. A better name is "(Eastern) Neo-Siberian" as it's related ancestry is spread around people speaking Tungus, Turkic, Uralic, Yukaghir and in lesser part, Chukchi. This name would contrast with the Eastern Paleo-Siberians who were more closely related to First American populations.
ReplyDelete@Leron
ReplyDeleteA better name is "(Eastern) Neo-Siberian" as it's related ancestry is spread around people speaking Tungus, Turkic, Uralic, Yukaghir and in lesser part, Chukchi.
Nonsense.
If that were true then the Uralic cline wouldn't exist.
@Archi
ReplyDelete"The Sami language has a huge layer of non-Uralic and not even Nostratic vocabulary; they received it from the immediately preceding population, that is, from Bolshoy Oleniy Ostrov."
You might be right, but you should consider an alternative explanation for the unidentified language layer. It could be from the language of Scandinavian HG-s. The Saami apparently draw some genetic ancestry from them.
@Rob
"I suspect that FU somehow links with Scythians...and these contacts might explain the bulk of indo-Iranian loans in FU"
No, because it is too late for that. FU had already diversified by the time of the Scythians and the more generic (old enough) IE loanwords appear to be borrowings into PU.
Actually most of the linguistic papers I read place the start of FU diversification around the time of Sintashta and Seima-Turbino and by the time of the Scythians the branches were separated and geographically spread.
@slumberry @rob @archi According to @Davidski, Sami are:
DeleteTarget: Saami
Distance: 4.3350% / 0.04334978
36.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
26.8 SWE_Motala_HG
23.2 Nganassan
10.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
2.6 Han
So almost 40% Indo-European, 27% SHG, only 10% Anatolian (I thought it would be much higher, closer to 20%), and another 1/4 is Siberian/East Asian/FU.
And Sami speak a Finno-Ugric language with a substantial “Paleo-European” substrate, rather than an IE language.
So it makes me wonder, if the very high degree of WSH ancestry didn’t make such an enormous linguistic impact on the Sami, maybe in the case of PIE, by the same token, it is NEITHER an EHG NOR a CHG one, but a completely independent and isolate dialect continuum that was somehow created ex-nihilo when the WSH cluster was formed?
It's likelier that Asbestos Ware people of Finland, Kola and Karelia in a similar manner to BOO were absorbed by Saami, considering that it was the Asbestos Ware pottery that was continued all the way to the Iron Age.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDelete"Backgroubd: the genetic data shows that Scythians descend from local catacomb, srubnaja and eastern Hallstatt (chernolis; holihrady, etc) incl forest -steppe groups"
This is a complete lie.
@ Slumberry
ReplyDelete''No, because it is too late for that. FU had already diversified by the time of the Scythians and the more generic (old enough) IE loanwords appear to be borrowings into PU.
Actually most of the linguistic papers I read place the start of FU diversification around the time of Sintashta and Seima-Turbino''
Yes Im aware of the hitherto views of linguists, although I do not hold them to gospel . If linguists were sure of their dating, some would not have ascribed a Mesolithic time for FU expansion.
The 'time of Sintastha' scenario doesn't really work, because these Sintashta outliers (where an interaction with putative FU tribes would occur) do not align with the F-U cline. They are on the WSHG/ ANE cline, which seems to disappear. So we can discard that.
If BOO is anything to go by, then the FU expansion is dated after, or during the tail-end of S-T.
This brings it down to the LBA, an the subsequent nebulous transition to the Pre-Scythian/ Cimmerian period, for which we have not established a terminus ante quem, althoug it already arrived in Hungary by ~ 930 BCE. Herein, you misquoted me, because I actually stated 'preceding “Cimmerian” period'. Moreover, in stating 'the bulk of loans', the nuance of English language allows for earlier interaction too.
IMO there is no doubt that the bulk of Indo-Iranian loans occurred into FU occurred during the Scythian period (broadly construed), so I wont even belabour the point. This is a historical fact, so i won;t fall back on more tenuous hypotheses. Even if the FU people had dispersed by this time, being 'communicative communities', such loans would have diffused throughout.
@ Archi
ReplyDelete'@Rob
"Backgroubd: the genetic data shows that Scythians descend from local catacomb, srubnaja and eastern Hallstatt (chernolis; holihrady, etc) incl forest -steppe groups"
This is a complete lie.''
That's what the data shows, clown man
Quick "Uralic frame" PCA, using only Uralic language speakers, and then Indo-European Baltic/Nordic populations and ancient dna as anchors: https://imgur.com/a/SMJ82sJ
ReplyDelete(I don't *think* I've missed anyone).
The Selkup/Nenets populations are all pretty diverse on the cline position. E.g. Selkup87 is basically like Nganassan, while Selkup105 is pretty much close to Mari/FIN_Levanluthta_IA.
Usually that kind of spread position has been indicative of recent admixture or else long term structure. Could be either. It'd be interesting to know if there is any sampling structure to these populations - I could tell from the HO anno that the Selkups were sampled from multiple locales, but it didn't actually tell me which samples were from where... Lots of these groups are pretty small today. There are like 3,000 / 5,000 Selkup people . I wonder how genetically isolated they were.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThat's what the data shows, clown man
This is you complete lie, you liar.
Scythian Ukraine Starosillya(Cherkassy) [scy006] F D4j2
Scythian Ukraine Nesterivka [scy011] 355 - 115 BCE F A
Scythian Ukraine Kup'evaha village, Bogodukhov district, Kharkiv region, Ukraine, Kup'evaha, Mound 25, burial 1, skeleton 1, 108 [MJ-35] 2701-2358 calBP (2440 ± 30 BP) M Q1c-L332 X4
Scythian Hungary Sandorfalva ‚Äì Eperjes 11 118 9423 [DA194, CGG_2_019188, Sandorfalva ‚Äì Eperjes 11 118 9423] 408-369 cal BC (2322 ± 36 BP, UBA-33596) F D4j8
Scythian Russia Rostov-on-Don [RD8] 500-300 BC A4
Scythian Russia Rostov-on-Don [RD1] 400-300 BC F1b
Scythian Russia Rostov-on-Don [RD2] 400-300 BC C
Scythian Russia Rostov-on-Don [RD13] 400-300 BC D
Scythian Russia Rostov-on-Don [RD17] 400-300 BC D4b1
Scythian Russia Nadezhdinka, Volga Steppes, Samara [I0247 / SVP 56] 375-203 calBCE (2220±30 BP, Beta-392493) R1a1a1b2a2a Z2123 G2a4
Scythian North Pontic region Kolbino 1 [KOL1] 3rd BCE X4
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteso what ? Significant amounts of Siberian mtDNA, of some sort. This does not mean SCythians come from Siberia. You don't know how this got there, and in what context
As I said, this came with ''Cimmerians'', and persisted but washoued-out in Scythians
This is what genome-wide data shows:
Scythian_UKR
Baltic_LTU_BA: 25%
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany 18%
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD001 16.5%
HUN_BA 14%
UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA 10.8%
TKM_Gonur1_BA:I10410 7.8%
Khovsgol 7.4%
RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:kzb003 0.5%
MDA_Cimmerian
KAZ_Taldysay_MLBA1:I4787 28.1%
Khovsgol 27.6%
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD001 13.3%
HRV_IA 11.9%
UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA 11%
TKM_Gonur1_BA:I10410 6.4%
RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:kzb003 1.7%
Baltic_LTU_BA:Turlojiske1 0%
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany 0%
HUN_BA 0%
Distance 1.9589%
The old clunky Soviet views which you defend viewed Scythians as invaders from Siberia. The locals quivered and cowed and hid behind trees and forts in the forest-steppe. Genetics has diproven this. Sorry comrade
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Yes Im aware of the hitherto views of linguists, although I do not hold them to gospel . If linguists were sure of their dating, some would not have ascribed a Mesolithic time for FU expansion."
They could be wrong, but the "some of them were palpably wrong, therefore they must be all wrong as long as their results do not fit my theory" style argument is not very convincing for me. There are reasons for that dating, among them parallels with the IE diversification based on the loanwords.
"The 'time of Sintastha' scenario doesn't really work, because these Sintashta outliers (where an interaction with putative FU tribes would occur) do not align with the F-U cline. They are on the WSHG/ ANE cline, which seems to disappear. So we can discard that."
That is completely irrelevant to my argument, because I did not suggest any specific association with the Sintashta outliers. I merely referred to Sintashta as a timeframe. Although Sintashta could be very well a source of loanwords, the assumption that those outliers were Uralic is not required for that either.
"If BOO is anything to go by, then the FU expansion is dated after, or during the tail-end of S-T."
Assuming that the expansion was an one time event in the entire range.
"IMO there is no doubt that the bulk of Indo-Iranian loans occurred into FU occurred during the Scythian period (broadly construed), so I wont even belabour the point. This is a historical fact, so i won;t fall back on more tenuous hypotheses"
Good for you not having doubts, I do have.
Even if the FU people had dispersed by this time, being 'communicative communities', such loans would have diffused throughout.
It could have happened. But by and large I do not think it did.
It is not that I have problem with the idea that Scythians influenced neighboring Uralic groups and some of that spread deeper into the forest zone, but I think the "bulk" of Indo-Iranian is older. At least the part that is common in the entire FU range. (Hungarian has loanwords even from specific _Medieval_ Iranian groups, but that is another story.)
BTW, Hungarian has an important loanword (the word for cow) that seems to lean toward Indo-Aryan and even that is probably older than the Scythian age.
@Matt
ReplyDelete"The Selkup/Nenets populations are all pretty diverse on the cline position. E.g. Selkup87 is basically like Nganassan, while Selkup105 is pretty much close to Mari/FIN_Levanluthta_IA.
We talk about small mobile groups here. Sometimes with a rather mosaic-like geographical spread. Entire (small) groups can change language time to time, when their neighbors change.
Rob
ReplyDelete"so what ? Significant amounts of Siberian mtDNA, of some sort. This does not mean SCythians come from Siberia. You don't know how this got there, and in what context
As I said, this came with ''Cimmerians'', and persisted but washoued-out in Scythians"
This is anti-historical and anti-archeological nonsense. There were never any Cimmerians there. You have a crazy fantasy. The Cimmerians were no different from the Scythians, archaeologically they are indistinguishable. In the Middle East, the Cimmerian monuments are no different from the Scythian ones.
your pseudo-model is rubbish, that's why you didn't write the distance to deceive everyone, liar. You deliberately chose the most delusional sources to deceive everyone. You take the Scythians and non-Scythians by the average, because most of them are marked as Scythians by mistake.
scy009 & scy010 of Starosillya are not Scythians absolutely.
Nobody had the right to mark them as Scythians of Ukraine, because science categorically writes that these samples were never Scythians. Polish paper is rubbish that they had no right to pass for printing, it did not go through peer review and was printed illegally.
Distance to: Scythian_UKR:scy011 True Late Scythian 355 - 115 BCE, no Cimmerian
0.03030726 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1063
0.03369881 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0984
0.03710930 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:VOR004
0.03736362 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0987
0.03756767 RUS_Tagar:DA6
0.03809147 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0989
0.03845439 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1027
0.03850338 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1022
0.03857979 RUS_Tagar:DA7
0.03919439 RUS_Tagar:DA2
0.03934895 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1090
0.03983227 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1060
0.03998937 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:NIK008AB
0.04049951 RUS_Tagar:DA8
0.04118689 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1086
0.04146336 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0939
0.04179737 RUS_Tagar:DA5
0.04190704 RUS_Tagar:DA9
0.04194973 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1053
0.04206519 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1055
0.04225612 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089
0.04268407 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0943
0.04273816 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1018
0.04301930 RUS_Tagar:DA4
0.04305729 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1065
Target: Scythian_UKR:scy011
Distance: 2.3320% / 0.02332035
60.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
18.8 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA
8.8 RUS_Boisman_MN
4.0 RUS_Baikal_N
4.0 RUS_Tagar
2.4 RUS_Baikal_BA
1.4 RUS_Yakutia_LUP
NO CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany, RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA, ......etc/
The fact that I write is strictly proved by genetics, what the fool Rob fantasizes is strictly denied by genetics. He is the only one on earth with such delusional retrograde anti-scientific views remained, he is an inadequate freak, unable to understand any scientific arguments.
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteLike everybody says, your models are crap
You’ve got no formal stats there .
@ Slumberry
ReplyDelete“ They could be wrong, but the "some of them were palpably wrong, therefore they must be all wrong as long as their results do not fit my theory" style argument is not very convincing for me. ”
That’s not the line of argument I was making. I’m not saying they’re all wrong; I’m saying that even linguists outline they they do relative dating well; absolute dating is more difficult
We should not attach undue weight on “archaisms” here n there to elevate the date language. Ultimately, its the population data which will tell us, not linguistic hypotheses of the past
“ BTW, Hungarian has an important loanword (the word for cow) that seems to lean toward Indo-Aryan and even that is probably older than the Scythian age.”
Yes some linguists (Trubachev) have found even Indic toponyms in the Black Sea .
It could pertain to inherent heterogeneity in archaism retentions, as per above
I take your cautionary notes, but I just don’t see the process happening much before ~13/1200 BCE.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteJust a question: how many words are there that comply with the following requirements?
1. Specifically of Indo-Iranian origin (so cannot be general Indo-European or from another branch)
2. Are more or less universal among FU languages?
I am really curious, because your phrasing suggest there are a lot of them, but when I made (an admittedly very quick) search in the on-line literature in Hungarian, I was not exactly buried under an avalanche of candidates. I am bracing myself to read some longer winged study on the topic, but I am not sure I will have a the time. (The one I have found is 400+ pages...)
@Rob
ReplyDeleteCome on, why are you deleting your answers to me?
I suppose I will 'unlurk' here...
ReplyDelete@Davidski
"BOO may have been Uralic speaking, but not necessarily proto-Saami.
BOO looks like a very mixed pop, but the N-L1026 suggests that it's at least partly of Uralic origin."
Agreed. Saami (including Chalmny-Varre and Levänluhta IA) appear to have some Baltic and Scandinavian ancestry. They probably didn't get that in the Kola Peninsula.
@Leron
"A better name is "(Eastern) Neo-Siberian" as it's related ancestry is spread around people speaking Tungus, Turkic, Uralic, Yukaghir and in lesser part, Chukchi. This name would contrast with the Eastern Paleo-Siberians who were more closely related to First American populations."
Yukaghir and Chukchi are 'Paleo-Siberians'. Nganassan/Ymyiakhtakh/kra001-related ancestry appears to be pretty widespread.
https://imgur.com/a/tfmlsXh
But the spread of 'Neo-Siberian' Turkic or Tungusic clearly has nothing to do with it, unlike Uralic.
In that context, perhaps the 'Uralo-Siberian' hypothesis is worth considering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralo-Siberian_languages
@Slumbery, yes, this is where ethnography, unfortunately or not, probably matters a lot to look at these groups, and there is a limitation on what I (for example) could shed light on this.
ReplyDeleteSupplemented with some look at the actual individuals personal genetic histories in detail. They're not from very large, sedentary populations where they are insulated from these events, so it potentially matters.
Btw, another quick PCA looking at the same populations as my above PCA: https://imgur.com/a/4QQ4RqF
This is Vahaduo CustomPCA, where you can set some populations as Source and others as Projected.
The advantage of this is that the resulting plots won't be distorted by drift particular to Nganasans, Mari, etc, if they're projected and not source. It should discard any tendency to recent drift that is correlated with ancestry.
@Slumberry
ReplyDelete@Rob
How do you explain the presence of *orja in Proto-Uralic, if Indo-Iranian loanwords in Finno-Ugric languages are of Scythian antiquity? Or do you consider the etymology of Proto-Indo-Iranian *áryas -> Proto-Uralic orja to be wrong?
Re: "formal stats"
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/FzrxTBTL/G25-vs-qp-Graph.png
G25 is at least as good as admixtools.
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteScythians may have originated in Western Steppe. But Iranian languages could not have.
Cimmerians, Sarmatians have Asian admixture because Iranian languages came from Asia.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what would make you think PU expanded alongside the Scythians. Except that you don't believe in linguistic datings? The Ananyino culture had contacts with Scythians, but that was well after PU speakers crossed the Urals.
Your theory requires the dating of Indo-Iranian to be very wrong as well, not just Uralic.
Besides, BOO at most spoke some dead branch of Uralic. There is no need to assume a few samples from the Kola peninsula were the only Uralic speakers in Europe >3500ybp.
@Genos Historia
ReplyDelete"Scythians may have originated in Western Steppe."
The Scythian language is linguistically related to North-Eastern Iranian.
BTW, we've already heard "rumors" here that N-L1026 has been found in S-T circa 2000BC. I personally trust the source.
ReplyDeleteThis should be case closed. No need for Scythians to explain the spread of PU which, happened over a millennia earlier.
@ Slumberry
ReplyDeleteBecause I condensed it into one comment
@ Anthony
“ I'm not sure what would make you think PU expanded alongside the Scythians.”
That’s not what I said. Scythians were for the most part IE . You should reread what I said
“ This should be case closed”
Famous last words !
@ Genos
“ Scythians may have originated in Western Steppe. But Iranian languages could not have.”
Sure . These are two different phenomena. One is a linguistic spread the other is a human network
They need not overlap. The origins of Scythians , sarmatians and Sakae are all distinctive .
So my point has always been about the Scythians. I’m not saying Sakae are from the west, or that Iranians are from Europe lol
"Scythians may have originated in Western Steppe. But Iranian languages could not have."
ReplyDeleteI'd say it is flipped although I wouldn't say that Scythians developed in X or Y, their culture is the result of both western steppe and siberian cultural and genetic impulses.
Where Iranian comes from depends on where you think Proto-Indo-Iranian separated because that is where you find the first "Iranians".
I don't think that happened in Asia.
@ Sam
ReplyDelete“ Cimmerians, Sarmatians have Asian admixture because Iranian languages came from Asia.”
You’re too attached to modern geographic labels. Let’s go back to basics- look at the srubnaja culture distribution; and you will see it is found in western steppe as well as parts of central steppe (image) . And this is the reasonable postulate for proto-Iranian . So we have no need for any migrations to explain things beyond what had occurred already after 2000 bC, plus ongoing social contacts within that network . What was in the west was in the centre
Secondly; as I’ve outlined, the inner Asian admixture is a heterogeneous phenomenon ; which cannot be simplistically linked to a “back
Migration of indo-Iranians”. In fact; in the western steppe it has nothing to to with I-I; but has more to do with Siberian populations disseminating Karasuk bronzes in the LBA-IA transition
The second factor is the persistence of late catacomb ancestry in some groups, imparting a perceived eastern shift due to its low levels of EEF
@rob said
ReplyDelete"@Rob
"Backgroubd: the genetic data shows that Scythians descend from local catacomb, srubnaja and eastern Hallstatt (chernolis; holihrady, etc) incl forest -steppe groups""
Lol. this again?
Russia_IA samples RISE 504 & 602
y-hG J2a2a1a1a~
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur I12482 J2a2a1a~
Mj-16 Jarve et al. Label Ukraine_IA_WesternScythian.SG
Y-Hg: J2a1a4b
Do you know where the only other J2a1a4b s have been found in the bce era? Heres a list. (referring latest Harvard anno file)
Iran_C_TepeHissar
Uzbekistan_Bustan_Eneolithic
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Iran_BA1_ShahrISokhta
Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Kyrgyzstan_Aygirdjal_BA
Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA2
Kazakhstan_Taldysay_MLBA2
Pakistan_Butkara_IA
Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Ukraine_IA_WesternScythian.SG
Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Saka.SG
Herodotus, Ptolemy were right when they recorded that scythians come from syr darya region Rob, you are wrong.
Vahaduo model for Mj34 - with and without loebanr_outlier. Note the change in distances.
Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ34
Distance: 2.2519% / 0.02251942
43.4 Bell_Beaker_HUN
31.2 RUS_Catacomb
22.8 RUS_Tagar
2.6 MNG_North_N
0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ34
Distance: 1.7143% / 0.01714284
40.6 Bell_Beaker_HUN
28.0 RUS_Tagar
19.0 RUS_Catacomb
12.2 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
0.2 MNG_North_N
0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
For MJ15
Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ15
Distance: 2.3720% / 0.02372031
37.4 RUS_Catacomb
20.4 RUS_Tagar
16.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
11.4 MNG_North_N
7.6 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
7.2 Bell_Beaker_HUN
Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ15
Distance: 2.8739% / 0.02873866
53.8 RUS_Catacomb
17.2 RUS_Tagar
15.4 Bell_Beaker_HUN
13.6 MNG_North_N
0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
MJ16
Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ16
Distance: 3.6826% / 0.03682603
48.2 RUS_Catacomb
38.6 Bell_Beaker_HUN
9.2 MNG_North_N
4.0 RUS_Tagar
0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ16
Distance: 2.7985% / 0.02798524
28.2 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
24.8 RUS_Catacomb
24.2 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
16.4 Bell_Beaker_HUN
6.4 MNG_North_N
0.0 RUS_Tagar
This model is not to be taken as sacrosanct, just showing affinities with SC asia.
Had run qpadm months back on sarmatians
Russia_EarlySarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG
Samples: MJ41, MJ39, MJ43, MJ56, LS13
left pops:
Russia_EarlySarmatian_SouthernUrals.SG
Turkmenistan_IA.SG: 25.6 +- 4.9%
Russia_Tagar.SG: 62.2 +- 3.9%
Russia_North_Caucasus: 12.1 +- 5.2%
tailprob: 0.463
result file https://pastebin.com/Axvu1nCu
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteI ask again:
What is your stance if R-Y3+ is found in Steppe_MLBA type samples around the Fatianovo and Abashevo periods, like people are predicting? Will you accept the AMT? How would your view change?
In the linguistic supplement to the Sikora 2019 paper, there is a suggested relationship between the Urakic and Yukaghir languages based on shared "Neosiberian" ancestry (unfortunately this term has now acquired at least two meanings in the academic literature).
ReplyDeleteNote how close Yukaghirs are to the Nganasan cluster in the PCAs. This is where things can be a bit cloudy, because it's been suggested that Nganasan are Uralicized Yukaghirs.
However, if these two linguistic families are in fact closely related, the very source population for the Proto-Uralic speakers may have very well been very similar to Yukaghirs, and thus it becomes difficult to tell ancient proto-Uralics and proto-Yukaghirs apart, and to determine when and where they later may have influenced each other.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"That’s not what I said. Scythians were for the most part IE . You should reread what I said"
I know that. I said alongside, meaning they had contacts with each other. I am not convinced however, that PU and Scythians were anywhere close to being contemporaries.
"Famous last words !"
Do you believe N-L1026 is associated with the spread Uralic? If so, kra001 like folk had to migrate from Krasnoyarsk to Fennoscandia one way or another. If N-l1026 has been found in S-T circa 2000BC (which is not "after, or during the tail-end of S-T" BTW) then that would be my bet as to how.
@ Vasistha
ReplyDelete''Lol. this again?
Russia_IA samples RISE 504 & 602
y-hG J2a2a1a1a~
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur I12482 J2a2a1a~''
This Iron Age sample from the Altai is not a historical Scythian. It's relevance is only for a comparative study for 'eastern Scythians'
Your Vahaduo models for Ukr Scythians show that ~ 70% of the ancestry comes from BB Hungary & Catacomb. But BB Hungary wasn’t around in the LBA_IA. So, as I said, this is represented by Urnfield-Halstatt groups in the Carpathian basin, which extended toward the Ukraine forest-steppe and bled into Baltic-BA type populations. Hence your models confirm what I stated
Here is model again. I have also added TKM and PAK for your pleasure
Scythian_UKR
Baltic_LTU_BA 24.5%
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany 18.7%
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD001 17.8%
HUN_BA 15.5%
PAK_Loebanr_IA_o 8.9%
Khovsgol 6.5%
UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA 5.3%
TKM_Gonur1_BA:I10410 1.6%
TKM_IA 1.2%
KAZ_Taldysay_MLBA1:I4787 0%
Distance 1.1545%
('better' than yours & Archie's; not that Im wedded to such overfitted models, and accept that it is averaged out)
Yes, we have a J2a1 from Turan appearing in Scythians. In fact there also J2a appearing from the other, European end of Scythians too. There is also N1c, Q1a, G2a. This is because of the well known fact that Scythians were mobile groups, and incorporated people into the ranks. Or do you think we should believe that this one J2a1 individual proves that Scythians – all Scythians moreover – come from Turan or SCA ? This would be a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Secondly, Have a look where Itkul culture (gif 3) is, then get back to us about why Sarmatians have ''Inner Asian'' admixture.
Then familiarise yourself with the archaeological context of the Uralian-ScythoSarmatians -
'''The northernmost sites of the Early Saka culture are located at the boundary of the foothills of the Urals. The Itkul culture is distinguished there, based around a center of metallurgy that more and more began to fulfil the needs of the nomads wandering in the
region [19, 130, 131]. This cultural group is dated to the 7th–5th century BC. One of the samples analyzed in this study (MJ-42 /UT-4-16) originates from the Nikolaevka II burial site, one of the earliest sites of this culture [132]. The population of the Itkul culture was likely gradually assimilated by the early Prokhorovka culture (‘‘Early Sarmatian’’) people .'' (from Jarve)
The eastern admixture does not come from Tagar Scythians. Tagar Scythians did not migrate westward. On the contrary, the Tagar Scythians are the result of a near-virgin colonization by new groups of WSHs arriving to the East. I already showed this but you ignored it.
Ao whilst you might find your model pleasing, it is ahistorical
Further -
ReplyDelete''Herodotus, Ptolemy were right when they recorded that scythians come from syr darya region Rob, you are wrong.''
Again the issue is people don't bother to acquire basic understanding. Herodotus'
Asia was in the middle east & Iran. But scholars sloppily applied it to Central or Inner Asia.
The reason why H. thought Scythians are from 'Asia' is because they raided those regions from their base in the North. This is where the earliest historical references of Scythians come from.
But this was merely one hypothesis, which has been overplayed
There were others by H.
''Firstly (4.7), the Scythians' legend about themselves, which portrays the first Scythian king, Targitaus, as the child of the sky-god and of a daughter of the Dnieper. Targitaus allegedly lived a thousand years before the failed Persian invasion of Scythia, or around 1500 BC. He had three sons, before whom fell from the sky a set of four golden implements—a plough, a yoke, a cup and a battle-axe. Only the youngest son succeeded in touching the golden implements without them bursting with fire, and this son's descendants, called by Herodotus the "Royal Scythians", continued to guard them.
So don't take my word for it, listen to the Scythians themselves
@ Anthony
ReplyDelete''@ Anthony
''Do you believe N-L1026 is associated with the spread Uralic? If so, kra001 like folk had to migrate from Krasnoyarsk to Fennoscandia one way or another. If N-l1026 has been found in S-T circa 2000BC (which is not "after, or during the tail-end of S-T" BTW) then that would be my bet as to how.''
Well I did point out the significance of kra001, so I have also considered possible flow on effects too. :)
''I know that. I said alongside, meaning they had contacts with each other. I am not convinced however, that PU and Scythians were anywhere close to being contemporaries.''
Okay. My wording was confusing, I will modify that to LBA-IA 'pre-Scythian', as in the period ~ 1300 BCE
@ Greg
''How do you explain the presence of *orja in Proto-Uralic, if Indo-Iranian loanwords in Finno-Ugric languages are of Scythian antiquity? Or do you consider the etymology of Proto-Indo-Iranian *áryas -> Proto-Uralic orja to be wrong?''
Point taken. But can you elaborate ?
@ Synome and re "However, if these two linguistic families are in fact closely related, the very source population for the Proto-Uralic speakers may have very well been very similar to Yukaghirs, and thus it becomes difficult to tell ancient proto-Uralics and proto-Yukaghirs apart, and to determine when and where they later may have influenced each other."
ReplyDeleteNo, the languages are not closely related but there apparently are both Pre Proto Uralic and East Uralic loan words in Yukaghir. The question of source population is a different issue, see fex here:
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Your Vahaduo models for Ukr Scythians show that ~ 70% of the ancestry comes from BB Hungary & Catacomb. But BB Hungary wasn’t around in the LBA_IA. So, as I said, this is represented by Urnfield-Halstatt groups in the Carpathian basin, which extended toward the Ukraine forest-steppe and bled into Baltic-BA type populations. Hence your models confirm what I stated"
No Rob. The models show introgressing SC asian ancestry in a region where it wasn't present in the previous period. Along with appearance of Y-hg J2a1a4b from SC asia.
also i dont model Ukr_Scythian as a whole as aside from MJ16, MJ15 and MJ34, the rest of the samples either have none of these SC asian components or I havent got good models for them in terms of distance %.
Which again goes to show that the SC asian ancestry was a recent introgression.
@ani excavator
ReplyDelete@vAsiSTha
I ask again:
What is your stance if R-Y3+ is found in Steppe_MLBA type samples around the Fatianovo and Abashevo periods, like people are predicting? Will you accept the AMT?
Yes I will accept it.
Sadly, steppe proponents don't have courage to accept a similar test. Post narasimhan paper they just doubled down on the stance when the data just did not agree with them.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteDon't be absurd. Under the label Ukr_Sky in Jarve 2019 were marked not Scythians, but Scythoids of the forest-steppe from different times from different forest-steppe territories of Ukraine on long distance from different archaeological cultures. Read the archeological description in the source, this label meant the Scythian period, not that this burial is a Scythian.
It is anti-historical, but even it categorically refutes your speculations. Central Asia = 19%!
PAK_Loebanr_IA_o 8.9%
Khovsgol 6.5%
TKM_Gonur1_BA:I10410 1.6%
TKM_IA 1.2%
And that's despite the fact that 90% of them are not Scythians, they are part of at least 4 completely different clusters of different cultures.
UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA 5.3% - hahahaha
You don't have a model you have the nonsensical crap mud of a madman. You do not have the slightest idea how to model, only shame showing that you do not understand anything in any matter. You have one continuous stream of meaningless words writing only untruths.
Target: Saami
ReplyDeleteDistance: 4.3350% / 0.04334978
36.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
26.8 SWE_Motala_HG
23.2 Nganassan
10.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
2.6 Han
So, seeing from the G25 the genetic makeup of the Sami, the large (up to 1/3 of vocabulary!) which is not FU (not sure how come IE one isn’t much larger) - derives from a Pit Ware Culture/Scandinavian HG language? If affirmative, it means that words such as “moksha” (substrate word for walrus) and lots of others are a relic of what the Motala HG tribes spoke?
@Huck Finn “
ReplyDeleteNo, the languages are not closely related but there apparently are both Pre Proto Uralic and East Uralic loan words in Yukaghir. The question of source population is a different issue, see fex here:
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.”
You quoted Haakinen. I have read that article, although I remember reading something in the same one about non-IE non-Uralic typonyms in the Baltics that may have been a vestige of some Kunda/Narva/other Baltic HG language(s), however much less than that found in Sami
It's likely that Motala HG didn't contribute to Saami in any way. For one, Finland, Karelia and Kola had EHGs not SHGs, which was the territory where Saami people first entered through. The Pit-Comb Ware derived Asbestos Ware would continue through the Metal Ages. The SHGs of Northern Scandinavia were more EHG than WHG through the Late Stone Age.
ReplyDeleteTarget: Saami
Distance: 2.6358% / 0.02635788
29.2 Baltic_LTU_BA
26.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
24.0 VK2020_NOR_North_IA
10.6 RUS_Veretye_Meso
10.2 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
0.0 SWE_Motala_HG
Target: VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
Distance: 3.4636% / 0.03463643
85.2 RUS_Veretye_Meso
14.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
Target: SWE_Motala_HG
Distance: 3.7634% / 0.03763416
57.2 RUS_Veretye_Meso
42.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
The fate of the southern SHGs also challenges them being a contributor to Saami. The PWC show substantial EEF ancestry by themselves and the Funnelbeakers would entirely submerge them by the Middle Neolithic. I doubt that the remaining PWC in say Åland would have had the numbers or the territory to be an expansive population.
And Saami likely didn't have WSH ancestry prior to entering Northern Europe, most of it seems to be from Germanics and Balts/Finns in the Iron ages and later all the way to the modern era. And they did leave an enormous linguistic impact on the Saami.
ReplyDelete@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDelete"For one, Finland, Karelia and Kola had EHGs not SHGs, which was the territory where Saami people first entered through."
This is not fine, Fennoscandia is a common phenomenon, united with the Baltic and Scandinavia. There are a lot of WHGs there and little EHGs at Saami Kola, Saami Swe + SHG.
https://i.ibb.co/M9yFjxp/Tambets-et-al-2018-Genes-reveal-traces-of-common-recent-demographic-history-for-most-of-the-Ural.png
Perhaps we could actually retreive Bronze Age data from Karelia to compare.
DeleteSo I know most of you guys wont agree but I'd like to post my theory here anyway as something to think about for you guys or try to critique.
ReplyDeleteANE (AG3/MA1/Botai etc) and Anatolian do not form a North to South cline but an East to West cline. That is to say that ANE is actually Eastern West Eurasian not North Eurasian. The cline from ANE to Anatolian/Iran_N/CHG runs from Siberia, then South into Eastern Central Asia, then West into West Asia. The Northeastern end of this cline is pure ANE, as we move South into Central Asia we get more South Western (Anatolian/Iran_N/CHG) affinity.
In the East we have the cline from ANE to Yamnaya/Afanasievo. Before the Steppe the Forest Steppe was more important. Karelia, Samara, Steppe Eneolithic and Yamnaya all moved East to West across the Forest Steppe. The increasing Southern affininity in these groups (EHG, Karelia, Samara, Steppe Eneolithic, Yamnaya) does not go West Asia -> Eastern Europe, but West Asia -> Central Asia ->Siberia ->Forest Steppe -> Eastern Europe. Either that or the South Western affinity is just local to Central Asia, differentiating them from Siberians.
So Steppe MLBA is actually quite different from the preceding groups as they did not use the Forest Steppe and did not come from so far East. Basically, the ANE to South Western cline runs clockwise from Siberia to Anatolia, mostly through Central Asia.
Thus we can roughly locate all groups by their ratio of ANE to South Western DNA.
Yamnaya is influenced by South Western (farmer) groups, hence they are different from Afanasievo in that they bury in Kurgans, which seems to have its origins in the more socially stratified, West Asian Neolithic. Afanasievo, on the other hand, continue the older Nomadic tradition and build stone enclosures. So Yamnaya probably gets this from Maykop.
Pedantically, I don't think we can say "Finland had EHG" given that we don't have any pure HG ancient genomes from within the modern borders of Finland (as far as I know!). I know that the Karelia HGs found very close to Finland are holotype EHG, but Steigen in Norway was *also* found pretty close to Finland and can be modelled as a ~50:50 split of WHG and EHG[1].
ReplyDeleteI think it can sometimes be useful to retreat slightly from conceptualising European HGs as being clearly split into WHG/EHG[/SHG]. When I see PCAs with lots of HGs[2], I get the sense that the W/S/EHG variation is pretty clinal. There's also a hell of a lot of structure within the WHG group[3][4]. Both of these observations make sense if you think of the variation and structure within European HGs as building up over a very long time (barring a few replacements), in tiny populations that got extremely drifted, but were mobile and occasionally mixed; it's a very different scenario to the sudden entry of quite homogenous ancestry like, say, ANF or Steppe ancestry into Europe, where considering "ANF" as a discrete entity makes more sense.
VK531 in North Norway from the Vikings paper dates to 2400 BCE (one of the latest surviving high-HG samples around), and as far as I can tell from Supplementary Fig 8.1 is like a PWC sample with practically no EEF shift.[5] Also, I think that PWC samples to date are somewhat heterogenous, in that most (like VK531, possibly) don't show the clear EEF shift that you see in some of the individuals[6].
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2003703
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0871-9/figures/2
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993/figures/4
[4] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6432/1230
[5] https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2688-8/MediaObjects/41586_2020_2688_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
[6] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1528
Maybe 50/50 ANE/WHG? And VK531 isn't associated with PWC considering how north he resided. PWC was more like Motala.
DeleteTarget: VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
Distance: 4.1595% / 0.04159530
78.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
21.4 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
Target: NOR_N_HG
Distance: 4.2194% / 0.04219443
69.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
30.4 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
In terms of archeology, Finland was tightly a piece of the cultural developments of Northeast Europe, receiving multiple waves of settlement, technology and material from the Volga-Oka. Comb Ceramics prevailed through the Neolithic in multiple forms.
This publication shows some nuance to cultural exchange and settlement of Fennoscandia but Finland is still in the Early Mesolithic quite connected to the east rather than the west.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/first-encounters-in-the-north-cultural-diversity-and-gene-flow-in-early-mesolithic-scandinavia/145BE8DD6BF495FCDE9B9EAF54063252
@Andrzejewski @Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind me weighing in here...
Modern people from the Volga-Ural region appear to have quite a bit of Steppe MLBA/CWC-type ancestry, e.g.:
Target: Udmurt
Distance: 2.0962% / 0.02096249 | R4P
51.2 UKR_MBA
23.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
17.6 LTU_BA
8.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
As does 0LS10, in addition to SHG-like ancestry:
Target: EST_IA:s19_0LS10_1
Distance: 2.4198% / 0.02419791 | R4P
54.0 EST_BA
29.0 KAZ_Karagash_MLBA
12.4 NOR_N_HG
4.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
Thus, I don't think it's implausible that the ancestors of Saami had some such ancestry prior to arriving in Fennoscandia:
Target: Saami
Distance: 1.6686% / 0.01668619 | R5P
25.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
25.0 KAZ_Karagash_MLBA
17.4 SWE_Oland_IA
16.4 EST_BA
15.6 RUS_Volosovo_N
Steppe MLBA doesn't have much unique drift on it's own, so I believe most of that is indeed from East Europeans who were not as Baltic drifted. There's certainly room for that as evidenced by how it drops by the Iron Age in Estonia.
DeleteTarget: Saami
Distance: 1.8740% / 0.01874036
25.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
21.0 POL_Chlopice_Vesele_Culture
17.4 Baltic_EST_BA
16.6 VK2020_SWE_Oland_IA
15.2 VK2020_NOR_North_LN_HG
4.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
0.0 POL_EBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Veretye_Meso
0.0 SWE_Motala_HG
0.0 VK2020_NOR_North_IA
Hey guys have the global25 coordinates of the 12,000+ year old Russian HG PES001 (Peschanista 1) sample been released yet?
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDelete"Okay. My wording was confusing, I will modify that to LBA-IA 'pre-Scythian', as in the period ~ 1300 BCE"
Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean, that is still too late for PU. If you are talking about Ananyino or Sargat, that looks correct they did have close contacts with proto-Scythians. However, they are thought to have already spoken proto-Permic and proto-Ugric respectively.
This is a long read but just skim through or use term search. You will see plenty of borrowings at the PIIr/PU/PFU level. That should correlate roughly to 4000ybp.
http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-5729-4
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, in the tree YFull new Russia Ust'-Ishim, western Siberia [Ust_Ishim] 45530-40610 calBCE [46064-40920 calBCE (41400±1300 BP, OxA-25516); 46364-40844 calBCE (41400±1400 BP, OxA-30190)] M K2a* (pre-NO*) is under https://www.yfull.com/tree/K2/ and is designated as K2*, but not K2a*.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteHe's not K2*, but https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/K-M2308*/
@KM To reply to my own post, I've realised that my claim about most PWC lacking EEF was mistaken and came from reading the PCA in [6] incorrectly. A larger set of 25 PWC samples here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24079 includes 1 or at a stretch 2 individuals who might be consistent with lacking significant EEF according to the PCA. The ADMIXTURE plot implies that the EEF component is generally very minor and absent in even more individuals, but I'm not sure that I believe it.
ReplyDelete@ Vasistha
ReplyDelete'No Rob. The models show introgressing SC asian ancestry in a region where it wasn't present in the previous period. Along with appearance of Y-hg J2a1a4b from SC asia.''
This is incorrect, because it was present in Taldysay _2 MLBA, which is also J2a1.
KAZ_Taldysay_MLBA2
KAZ_Taldysay_MLBA1:I4787 49.3%
TKM_Gonur1_BA:I10410 17.3%
Khovsgol 10.5%
TKM_IA 9.8%
UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA 6.2%
Moreover, I have not argued against the introgession of BMAC -related ancestry, but highlight that is not what defines all Scythian complex populations, nor is it the most salient aspect of their cultural genesis.
The common denominator is preceding post-Sintashta population ancestry
And that seems to be clear to most people apart from you & Archi
For some reason, you wish to preference Turan-related admixture over all others.
@ Archi
''Under the label Ukr_Sky in Jarve 2019 were marked not Scythians, but Scythoids of the forest-steppe from different times from different forest-steppe territories of Ukraine on long distance from different archaeological cultures. Read the archeological description in the source,''
I'd suggest that you should learn to read more carefully. My mention of the Jarve dataset was in relation to Sarmatians, not Scythians ('' (MJ-42 /UT-4-16) originates from the Nikolaevka II burial site, one of the earliest sites of this culture [132]. The population of the Itkul culture was likely gradually assimilated by the early Prokhorovka culture (‘‘Early Sarmatian’’) people .'' (from Jarve)''
With more Western Steppe Scythian samples, im sure they'd also have secondary Siberian admixture, probably of mostly forest -region origin; similar to current Ural Sarmatians
@The Divine Trumpet “ Actually the Sami people are not native to Scandinavia, the real natives who arrived first were the European hunter gatherers.”
ReplyDeleteActually, Sami are 27% SHG, so at least over 1/4 of the aDNA is derived from original inhabitants.
Come to think about it - 2 pre-IE speaking ethnic group, long mistaken to be descendants of the very first colonizers, Sami and Basques - both turned out to be very rich in Western Steppe Herder autosomal components, to the tune of at least 40%.
This fact leads me to think over the origin and evolution of the PIE language; was it a language isolate, completely unrelated to EHG, CHG or to any other major macro family, created on independently? After all, both Kartvelian and North West Casucasus language family speakers have mostly CHG heritage but they speak utterly different languages, and both Etruscans and basques have a major part of their ancestry coming from Anatolian farmers but their languages aren’t related.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteThat’s closer to the truth than when you say “PIE was a CHG language”.
@mzp1
Thing is, unless you’re talking about cultural differences, Yamnaya and Afanasievo are basically identical. And even then they’re culturally very similar.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Do you think it’s possible there could be some SHG influence anywhere in Fennoscandia after the Bronze Age, or do you think they all went extinct? Seems not much was left of them, so I want to see if there is any wiggle room for any other possibilities.
Anyone can answer, really.
Seemingly so, as for whst happened to them, I don't know.
Deletehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08003838608580335
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeleteChlopice Vesele is CWC-like, same as Karagash MLBA, so there's not much difference between our models.
You are right, there is some other East European gene flow involved in the East Baltic, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with it:
https://imgur.com/a/YCWTuly
@Andrzejewski
"Actually, Sami are 27% SHG, so at least over 1/4 of the aDNA is derived from original inhabitants."
27% is a high estimate. I would say 15-20%.
Considering the SHG-like profile of BER001 (RUS_Volosovo_N), as well as the high WHG ancestry in Baltic HGs (raising the possibility that some Finnish HGs, who have yet to be sampled, were SHG-like), and the likely presence of similar ancestry in 0LS10, I would not be confident that their SHG-type ancestry is local to northern Fennoscandia.
It is likely that this ancestry is not from the steppe, Steppe MLBA merely works as a counter to drift. Baltic BA was pretty heterogeneous and Central West Russia was settled by southern groups after Fatyanovo ceased. They could have had a genotype almost identical to Steppe MLBA.
DeleteTarget: Latvian
Distance: 1.9903% / 0.01990291
73.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
26.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Rob I don't know what to say to you.
ReplyDeleteGreeks noted that scythians came from syr darya region. 3-4 of those jarve et al samples show SC asian ancestry creeping in what is now Eastern Ukraine, which you accept.
You also see uniparental marker from sc asia.
So as far as I am concerned the aDna data corroborates the literature.
Also I don't see how taldyay2 being J2a1 is relevant. Mj-16 and taldysay2 are 3300km apart and also doesn't seem to be selected as source in most of the jarve samples.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"And that seems to be clear to most people apart from you & Archi"
Against what you write absolutely everything. Absolutely everyone, without exception, knows that you are wrong. Everyone here is telling you that you are wrong.
"I'd suggest that you should learn to read more carefully."
You're the one who needs to learn how to read, since you took samples from Jarve 2019. I didn't write about any sample, I wrote about the samples marked Sky_Ukr, learn to read, the ones you use when modeling on the average.
Here they are on the PCA, I separated other clearly non-Scythian clusters that you also take as Scythians in the modelling, otherwise they would have been larger than Europe, so different were the mixtures of different Scythians and non-Scythians there.
https://i.ibb.co/RzXQwKR/PCA-Scythoid-relation-small.png
https://i.ibb.co/NnJm8sW/PCA-Scy-relation-large.png
ReplyDelete@ Archi
''https://i.ibb.co/NnJm8sW/PCA-Scy-relation-large.png
nice image. It confirms what I say
1. The most east shifted individuals are the Cimmerians, who are the earliest Iron Age steppe nomads in the Ponto-Caspian region
2. in comparison, the Black Sea Scythians & Sarmatians are westshifted
3. there are at least 3 (purple, green, blue) east-west clines of this complex, confirming the multi-modal cause of eastern admixture,
4. It shows that the most ancient Siberian Scythians- the Tagar (Grey/brown) - are situated on the western aspect of the plot in comparison to all later Eastern Scythians
5. look at the position of Saka _outliers (DA53 & Saka Steppe_o1)
This shows that a complex network of shifts and connections generated the picture; with several sources of pull toward the east; not a simple narrative of 'Scythians coming from Syr Darya', or Siberia, or whicever narrative is preferred to the casual analyst
Yes in comparison to Srubnaja, the Sarmatian-Sakae are east -shifted, but in comparison to the preceding populations in Siberia & S-C Asia, the shift is astronomical in the counter-direction. The origins of this network is the (relative) west
@ Vasistha
''You also see uniparental marker from sc asia.''
You also see uniparental markers from WHSG,ESHG, EEFs, Steppe. No need to keep repeating yourself ; it shows your partialness
“ SC asian ancestry creeping in”
And that means that Scythians came from Syr Darya?
The issue is you don’t appreciate the difference between the reality of collateral admixture within pre-existing networks from your primordialistic paradigm
''Greeks noted that scythians came from syr darya region”
Greeks did not say that
@Archi
ReplyDelete“https://i.ibb.co/RzXQwKR/PCA-Scythoid-relation-small.png
https://i.ibb.co/NnJm8sW/PCA-Scy-relation-large.png”
Surely all of these “Scythians” could not be Iranian speaking. Could you on your PCA draw a small circle containing few samples two or three which were the most likely Iranian speaking in your opinion and explain why you consider them Iranian speaking. Maybe vAsiSTha could help.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeleteYou're of course right that VK531 is very likely too far north to represent PWC -- PWC are a roughly contemporaneous population that appears in the Supp Fig 8.1 PCA I mentioned, so it was just an easy comparison to make.
@Gabriel
Well, when it comes to late-surviving HGs: Tangermünde[1] and Blätterhöhle[2] in Germany (both ~50% HG) survived nearly to 3000 BC; PB675 in the Ireland dynasty paper dates to around 3000 BC and seems to have had a high-HG ancestor in the past 4 generations[3]. Then there's VK531 in North Norway around 2400 BC, which as Norfern-Ostrobothnian was kind enough to calculate, looks to be fully HG. I can't recall any "pure" or >50% European HG samples dating past this. (Bear in mind that it's always possible for some of these dates to just be wrong.)
If you're speculating about survival of HGs to, say, 1000 BC -- it would certainly be a fascinating story, but that's a ~1500 year gap without known HGs, and it seems a bit of a leap of faith to suggest they lasted through that! But by looking at the geographic pattern of late HG relicts, they're in the peripheral parts of Europe (British-Irish Isles, northern Germany, Fennoscandia), and you can't get much more peripheral than (far northern) Fennoscandia, which has the added benefit of being very difficult to farm for Neolithic and Bronze Age technological toolkits. I mean, even today, far northern Norway, central to northern Sweden, and northern Finland have extremely low agricultural output, even for sheep grazing -- you can Google image search maps of agricultural output in Europe to verify this. It would make sense if HGs held out the longest there.
But even during the Bronze Age you have groups like BOO[4] in 1500 BC with significant East Eurasian ancestry in northern Fennoscandia, which would probably have replaced or subsumed any remaining HG ancestry. If they had lived side by side, it seems likely there would have been at least some mixing over 100s of years.
[1] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/22/eaaz5344
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24476
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2378-6#Sec14
[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07483-5
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteThe inscription Scythian_UKR is conventional; it refers to completely different populations from different times, different cultures at a distance of a thousand kilometers. Scythian_UKR means Scythian_period_UKR (also _HUN), and refers to pre-Scythian burials, Scythoid burials of the forest-steppe and Scythians. Unfortunately, most of the burials there were without inventory or from looted graves, from the remaining ones it is very unfortunate that Jarve 2019 did not give their cultural affiliation. Poor communication with archaeologists is a common disease of genetic research.
It goes without saying that the Iranians went east from Sintashta (Corded Ware), but the Scythians came already from the Karasuk/Tagar cultures and neighboring areas, as ADMIXTURE and models clearly show.
@EastPole
The Pre-Scythian and Scythoid samples from the forest-steppe culture did not speak Scythian. Herodotus distinctly writes about that, who lists a dozen peoples living in the forest-steppe, he distinctly writes about them as neither Scythians, nor Scythian-speaking. The true Scythians were only those who lived in the steppe. Here are their burials, unfortunately, none of them are tested.
https://i.ibb.co/smMyLNw/Scythian-Black-See.png
Regarding Scythians and all,
ReplyDeleteAn easy way too look at is is by a simple formula of local bronze age steppe_mlba populations (Srubnaya, Andronovo etc) + early nomads from the Altai region + neighbouring populations on the periphery.
You pick any iron age material culture on the steppes and this applies to a varying degree. And the genetics so far seem to be in line with this.
What is noticeable though is that the earlier waves definitely had more Siberian ancestry. Cimmerians, but also those central "Saka" from 900-600 bc. I cant remember the article but there recently was a sample from the Caucasus from around 1000-900 bc which was predominantly Okunev-like. There was quite a bit of variety in amounts of steppe vs siberian ancestry, but I cant say if this is due to heterogenity coming out of the Altai region or because of admixing events on the steppes between a relatively stabily mixed Siberian Indo-Iranian population and the steppe_mlba(+central asian admix)Indo-Iranian populations already on the steppes
This impulse from Siberia was key for the formation of the Scythian material culture though, including that of the Pontic Scythians.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Point taken. But can you elaborate ?"
It potentially means that Uralic-speaking groups were having linguistic exchanges with Indo-Europeans as early as 2000 BC, perhaps even with Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves—which would lend support to the self-designated ethnonym *h2eryos as being of Proto-Indo-European origin, rather than Proto-Indo-Iranian.
Hey, now i know this irrelevant and all to the topic, but how much steppe ancestry do southern europeans like spanish, italians and greeks get(both north and south in all countries)?
ReplyDeletePutting some deeper ideas out there...
ReplyDeleteLooking at this from the perspective of Hunter Gatherers vs Nomadic Herders. Herders are generally very Patriarchal, even though they may not have practiced monogamous marriage. Because herders have to move around with valueable livestock they are more likely to be more warlike in general, and the task of looking after large animals like Cattle is more suited to men rather than women. Hunter Gatherers on the other hand tend to be settled, and hence, are less likely to come into confrontations with other tribes. Staying on one place allows HGs to develop longer lasting peaceful relationships with neighbouring tribes. It can be seen that farming is more suitable for HGs than for Nomads. HGs, settled in one place, can start low-investment farming of lands close to them, whereas Nomads, being on the move, cannot invest in land in the same way.
The earliest nomads tended Cattle, and Cattle dont go up mountains. So it is possible that tribes living at higher altitudes were more like Matriarchal HGs/low-investment Farmers, and those on the plains more Warlike Nomads. This can be seen in the Rigveda, where it is mostly the non-Aryans/enemies that show signs of Matriarchy. Examples are the Saramas, who are regarded as the Children of Sarama, and the Danus, who are children of Danu. Both Danu are Sarama are regarded somewhat negatively by the Aryans. Danu is mentioned as the mother of Vrtra who Indra slays on top of a Mountain. It is interesting that the Vedic tribes themselves are always the children of Men, yet these other tribes are referred to as children of Females. From the Steppes too we see a greater freedom in the roles of females than from Iran and South Asia. Female Warriors can be found in the Yamnaya graves and the myths of Amazon female warriors with Scythian/Sarmatian connections.
It is clear that in all of Indo-Aryan, Iranian and European literature, Saka, Scythians, Sarmatians, Danus are related and are non-Aryans.
In North And West Eurasia, we see cultural similarities that predate late IE. These include the Venus Figurines, Russian obelisks also found in Anatolian Neolithic, and general Neolithic innovations that seem to link East Asia, Siberia and Anatolia/Near East. The connection between Siberia and Anatolia can be seen predating the Neolithic, as EHG has specific Anatolian HG affinities (vs Anatolian_N) not found in MA1/AG3/Botai.
Sidelkino Chimp.REF Anatolia_HG Anatolia_N 0.0115 0.00552 2.08 18064 17653 375622
MA1_HG.SG Chimp.REF Anatolia_H Anatolia_N 0.0054 0.00572 0.941 15339 15175 323333
AfontovaGora3 Chimp.REF Anatolia_HG Anatolia_N 0.0037 0.00782 0.475 6164 6118 134683
So the Forest Steppe region seems to connect East Asia and Anatolia since very early times.
This is a widespread culture that seems to surround the Aryans from all sides. The Dasas, for instance, can be found to their East in India, to their North in Central Asia, and their West in Mespotamia (Azi DAHAKA, in Iranian literature, is said to come from the West, from Mespotamia).
Dasa, Dahaka, Saka, Dacians, Daghae and other likely derivatives are all linked and are non-Aryans. One can see that Dasa in an ancient ethynony by looking at how much different derivatives have drifted. But interestingly, all the drifted names can be explained by Centumization of the original. Even Tokharian can be derived from it, D->T, S->K gives Dasa->Tukhar, and even the vowels are closer to Centum forms. Also, Saka is easily related to Dahaka, from DaSaka.
This asks an interesting question. Did the Centum form originally develop in the Eastern Steppe, where linguists point to the origin of Iranian? This language could then have travelled anti-clockwise through the Forest Steppe to find itself in Anatolia. Tocharian is then a relic in the East, the others expanding Westward from the Anatolia Neolithic. The Centum/Satem would then be an ancient separation predating the Neolithic.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteThe Aryans are the most Nomadic and Patrilineal of all these peoples. Venus figurines do not show up in their vicinity other than the early settlement of Mergharh. To the West of the early Aryans, a new Neolithic culture has developed. The West Asian Neolithic is a combination of low investment farming as practiced by early Eurasian HG Farmers, and a more Patriarchal and Warlike culture as practiced by the Southern Aryans. This, more warlike, competitive, and hierarchical structure gives them the advantage in population size and competition. BMAC is then a new civilization, where the Aryans finally adopt these West Asian Neolithic innovations, along with the Indus Valley.
Here we come full circle, the low-investment farming of Dasa mountain tribes, went full circle and ended up in West Asia. Soon stripped of it's matriarchal elements, a more warlike and structured system was enforced. This system was then adopted by the Aryans and ended the Vedic period, in India closing the Rigvedic cannon, and introducing the more heirarchical caste based system, agriculture and marriage.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeleteOkay, my point is that ancestors of the Saami may have acquired WSH-rich ancestry in European Russia prior to their migration to Fennoscandia, and that Steppe MLBA is a good proxy for some of that ancestry, as it is in modern people from the Volga-Ural region and Estonian Iron Age individuals.
@Rob said
ReplyDelete"''Greeks noted that scythians came from syr darya region”
Greeks did not say that"
Quoting from 'Who Were the Scythians?'
G. W. B. Huntingford (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40447574?seq=1)
"The South Russian steppewas invaded by these Asiatic Scythians about B. C. 700 1; and this no doubt is the invasion referred to by Herodotus when he wrote that "the Nomadic Scythians who lived in Asia were driven across the Araxes by the Massagetae, and invaded the Cimmerian country" (IV, 11). By Araxes Herodotus meant the Jaxartes (Sir-darya) which flows into the east side of the Aral Sea, and not the Araxes of later writers, which flows into the Caspian from the west. And Ptolemy places the people called Sacae above, i. e. east of, the source of the Jaxartes.The Scythians, therefore, in the 8th century B.C. were in Central Asia;.............."
Norfern-Ostrobothnian, have you tried to model the Northern Slavs with Baltic BA and Steppe MLBA?
ReplyDeleteLooking at the North European PCA, you can guess that Steppe MLBA (and the core of the CWC) might be a proxy for the Scandinavian component. For example (G25):
Distance to: RUS_Fatyanovo_BA: NAU001
0.06255601 Norwegian
0.06382020 Icelandic
0.06509371 Danish
As some Central European genomes are often interpreted as a mixture of Slavs (or Balts) with Scandinavians, one should ask - is it really the Scandinavian component, or is it a larger remainder of the CWC component?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ambron
ReplyDeleteNIEcap2 may be a Slav, if his Eurogenes K13 components are not grossly distorted by the low coverage. His yDNA could be instructive, but alas, there is none. Anyhow, the neareast Slavs were those on the Regnitz, just north of Nuremberg, which isn't too far away. He was just a kid, makes you wonder what brought him there, into a foreign Germanic community. A wild guess: Maybe his parents gave him away so he could learn to be a warrior. But it didn't end well obviously, as he was only about ten when he died.
NIEcap12a isn't as low coverage, but his Eurogenes K13 suggests rather admixture from migration era steppe people, than from Slavs, maybe he's partly Hunnic. But his R1b1 father was probably Germanic, so the exotic admixture must be from his mother's side. He was buried in the same grave as two Swedish-like Alamanni, they seem to have regarded him as belonging to their group.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Greg
ReplyDelete''It potentially means that Uralic-speaking groups were having linguistic exchanges with Indo-Europeans as early as 2000 BC, perhaps even with Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves—which would lend support to the self-designated ethnonym *h2eryos as being of Proto-Indo-European origin, rather than Proto-Indo-Iranian.''
I agree that some pre-Indo-Iranian language contacts would have occurred with a putative proto-Uralic zone
It all hinges on what Tarim basin genomes reveal. If they derive from Andronovo-like groups, then it'll modify how we understand the FU-I/I exchange
I also have the view that dialects loss/ retained archaic features differentially. Hence archaic appearing loans might sometimes be younger than perceived
@Erik Andersson “ Actually, Sami are 27% SHG, so at least over 1/4 of the aDNA is derived from original inhabitants."
ReplyDelete27% is a high estimate. I would say 15-20%.
Considering the SHG-like profile of BER001 (RUS_Volosovo_N), as well as the high WHG ancestry in Baltic HGs (raising the possibility that some Finnish HGs, who have yet to be sampled, were SHG-like), and the likely presence of similar ancestry in 0LS10, I would not be confident that their SHG-type ancestry is local to northern Fennoscandia.”
That’s @Davidski’s finding, so I’ll go with that. I personally think that the Anatolian component is much underestimated in this method. ANF would likely be 20% -25% in Sami
@Gabriel “ That’s closer to the truth than when you say “PIE was a CHG language””.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, the the Pre-Proto-proto-whatever-PIE, which was first spoken in Progress and Vanyuchka, wasn’t an EHG language either, contrary to what Dr. Anthony wrote (2019). My guess that it was a language isolate, which later gave way to some “dialect continuum” spoken by pastoralists carrying WSH all over the Eurasian Steppe. All theories attempting to link it to some other macro family as in “Indo-Uralic”, “Nostrastric” ANF others are sheer bonkers. The word “wódr” —> “water” didn’t exist past 7,000 YBP = 5,000BC. The Steppe Herders north of the Caucasus invented a brand new language as soon as their EHG and CHG progenitors merged to create something completely new.
Does that make any sense?
And one more example:
ReplyDeleteDistance to: Corded_Ware_POL:pcw361
0.06544747 Icelandic
0.06550554 Swedish
0.06556574 Norwegian
@ Vasistha
ReplyDelete''Greeks did not say that"
Quoting from 'Who Were the Scythians?'
G. W. B. Huntingford (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40447574?seq=1)''
Well, Huntingdon is not an ancient Greek :)
Herodotus was referring to the actual Araxes river. This is the river in his 'Asia', which is west Asia. I already posted this map . Araxes is above his Asia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Herodotus_World_Map.jpg
Herodotus made one of the 4 origin hypotheses in his Asia because that is where the earliest references in the ancient world emerge from. This was not Syr Darya, nor Siberia. These were SCythian raids into Babylonia, Urartu, Assyria, etc from the Caucasus region.
Much like today, we need to understand how ancient authors or bearers of news came at certain conclusions or why they said certain things, not simply take at face value, transform & elevate whichever aspect suits our model.
@ Archi
''It goes without saying that the Iranians went east from Sintashta (Corded Ware), but the Scythians came already from the Karasuk/Tagar cultures and neighboring areas, as ADMIXTURE and models clearly show.''
As per your image, it can be seen that Karasuk & Tagar are distinct clines. They also have distinctive burials, simpler cist graves in Karasuk, in Tagar elaborate kurgans with prototypes are in central-western Kazakhstan.
I again highlight where the Saka outliers are. It seems people are not appreciating their significance.
I understand what admixture & the G25 models posted here are thought to show. But there's more to it.
@ Copper Axe
''An easy way too look at is is by a simple formula of local bronze age steppe_mlba populations (Srubnaya, Andronovo etc) + early nomads from the Altai region + neighbouring populations on the periphery.''
I think that's true. But im ~ 80% sure that it's more than just a 'back-migration' scenario by proto-Scythians
'' I cant remember the article but there recently was a sample from the Caucasus from around 1000-900 bc which was predominantly Okunev-like. ''
There is this uniparental study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X20301486
Features R1a and D1a2, in the Koban culture. I guess this also points to a heterogeneity of eastern admixture.
The Koban culture was also an important influence on Scythians.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Herodotus was referring the actual Araxes river - in the southern Caucasus."
You are deeply wrong. Herodotus, like all the Greeks, called many rivers Araxes. The Araxes is the name of many rivers. It comes from Indo-Iran. Sarasvati > Iran. Haraxvatī > Iran. (in Greek name place) Arachosia > Greek-Iran. Araxes.
Therefore Herodotus was not referring to the Caucasian Araxes.
"As per your image, it can be seen that Karasuk & Tagar are distinct clines."
Karasuk and Tagar are different cultures separated from each other by half a millennium, they do not have to fully coincide.
"They also have distinctive burials, simpler cist graves in Karasuk, in Tagar elaborate kurgans with prototypes are in central-western Kazakhstan."
Karasuk culture is still proto-Scythian, Tagar culture is already Scythian.
" I again highlight where the Saka outliers are. It seems people are not appreciating their significance."
You do not understand that. Understand that the Scythians and the Sacae and the Saka are complete synonyms, they are one and the same, to distinguish them is like saying that the Dutch and the Nederlanders and the Hollanders are different people. In the Northern Black Sea coast lived Sacae, in Tianshan lived Scythians, and Herodotus knew it perfectly well, he knew that they are complete synonyms.
@Andrzejewski
"My point is, the the Pre-Proto-proto-whatever-PIE, which was first spoken in Progress and Vanyuchka, wasn’t an EHG language either, contrary to what Dr. Anthony wrote (2019). My guess that it was a language isolate, which later gave way to some “dialect continuum” spoken by pastoralists carrying WSH all over the Eurasian Steppe. All theories attempting to link it to some other macro family as in “Indo-Uralic”, “Nostrastric” ANF others are sheer bonkers. The word “wódr” —> “water” didn’t exist past 7,000 YBP = 5,000BC. The Steppe Herders north of the Caucasus invented a brand new language as soon as their EHG and CHG progenitors merged to create something completely new."
What you wrote is complete sheer bonkers, strictly anti-scientific sheer bonkers and there are no two opinions.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThat D is probably a bad call, the same paper referenced an E1a sample and said that it's a "common haplogroup in Europe and in the Caucasus".
I believe Copper Axe was referencing MK3001 from "Emergence of human-adapted Salmonella enterica is linked to the Neolithization process". The sample was Q.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L330/
MK3001_scaled,0.104717,-0.234587,0.068636,0.05168,-0.064627,0.01255,0.013396,-0.007384,-0.003886,-0.027335,-0.021598,0.006145,0.00892,-0.020093,0.028773,0.021347,-0.012647,-0.008361,0.008045,0.012131,-0.024457,0.002968,-0.011462,0.001084,-0.00275
I believe these are the up to date coordinates.
ReplyDeleteRUS_Marinskaya_IA:MK3001,0.084229,-0.121864,0.063733,0.037791,-0.033237,0.013108,0.0094,0.006461,-0.00409,-0.009112,-0.012829,0.003447,-0.003717,-0.026148,0.015744,0.019093,-0.005737,0,0.002137,0.003377,-0.017095,0.00507,-0.002342,-0.00253,-0.007424
Pretty similar to Sagly and Altai Iron Age
Distance to: RUS_Marinskaya_IA:MK3001
0.03045241 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
0.03249377 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
0.03845019 MNG_Mongun_Taiga_LBA_3
0.04069509 RUS_Altai_IA
0.04455318 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
0.04563089 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
0.04724571 MNG_EIA_5
0.05519128 MNG_Altai_MLBA
0.05605478 CHN_Shirenzigou_IA
0.05611829 MNG_Xiongnu_Central_Asian
0.05792171 Scythian_RUS_Urals
0.06010284 RUS_Nomad_MA
0.06261668 MNG_EIA_2
0.06271420 MNG_Center_West_LBA_5
0.06337492 MNG_Chandman_IA
0.06467541 KAZ_Kipchak
0.06793469 KAZ_Kimak
0.06801170 KAZ_Turk
0.06802043 Hun_Tian_Shan
0.06979889 MNG_Pazyryk_EIA_6
0.07045918 MNG_Early_Xiongnu_west
0.07259436 RUS_Khaptsagai_IA
0.07827578 MNG_Early_Med_Uigur
0.08236204 KAZ_Karakhanid
0.08474514 KAZ_Karluk
@The Divine Trumpet
ReplyDeleteThat sounds very scientific. Based on your take on "who was first" as disqualifying the Sami as native to their area and your obsession with the distribution of "oriental" looks makes me think you're one of those old school race typology, long skull vs short skull type of guys from TheApricity etc. I could be wrong though.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that that model is using distal sources. The proximate sources of Yamnaya and Barcin in Saami would also have had some HG ancestry, so not all of it is likely to be from SHGs.
So we are able to prove that Sintashta is not derived from Yamnaya, and that Yamnaya comes from the East. This is because Sintashta has too much EHG and Yamnaya too much ANE(AG3). EHG and Anatolian (and WHG) are linked. The light skin alleles found in Steppe MLBA and other populations must originate with ANE->EHG, therefore Yamnaya does not have much whereas Sintashta does.
ReplyDeleteThe phylogeny we want to disprove is the following.
1. Yamnaya is descended from EHG (Sidelkino or Karelia) and something else like CHG/Iran_N.
2. Sintashta is descended from Yamnaya and Anatolian (and maybe some extra CHG/Iran_N).
So,
3. if we put AG3 as an outgroup, it should only be related to EHG, and not directly with Yamnaya or Sintashta,
4. Sintashta should not be related to EHG other than via Yamnaya.
We have the following Phylogeny:
AG3->EHG->Yamnaya->Sintashta (Hypothesis)
We will use formal stats to disprove this phylogeny.
But first, lets look at a PCA. This one has ANE, EHG, Anatolian, Iran_N and intermediate populations.
https://ibb.co/mBhzfrn
For the above phylogeny to be true, Yamnaya, Sintashta and Anatolian should form a cline. But they dont, Sintashta is out of place, it should appear close to Andronovo, between Yamnaya and Anatolian.
It looks like the above phylogeny may be broken due to excess allele sharing between AG3->Yamnaya and EHG->Sintashta.
First, we test using f3.
Russia_Sidelkino Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara Chimp.REF 211. 0.824 256. 283196
Russia_Sidelkino Russia_MLBA_Sintashta Chimp.REF 210. 0.796 264. 329885
This is consistent with the Hypothesis as Sidelkino is closer to Yamnaya than to Sintashta. But this could be affected by excess allele sharing between Yamnaya and ANE (AG3), as ANE is close to EHG. So we set ANE as outgroups (MA1 and AG3) and rerun the f3.
Russia_Sidelkino Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara Russia_MA1_HG 116. 0.780 148. 180835
Russia_Sidelkino Russia_MLBA_Sintashta Russia_MA1_HG 116. 0.761 153. 220882
Russia_Sidelkino Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara Russia_Afontovara3 107. 0.954 113. 70440
Russia_Sidelkino Russia_MLBA_Sintasta Russia_AfontovaGora3 108. 0.952 114. 86131
With MA1 as an outgroup, Sidelkino is equally close to Yamnaya and Sintashta. With AG3, Sidelkino is actually closer to Sintashta than to Yamnaya.
This is inconsistent with the Hypothesis, where Sintasta does not share alleles with EHG not shared with Yamnaya (4), and Yamnaya does not share alleles with AG3 not shared with EHG (3).
But the last f3 shows that this excess allele sharing (AG3->Yamnaya and Sidelkino->Sintashta) does exist.
Finally we test with f4.
Going back to our Hypothesis phylogeny,
AG3->EHG->Yamnaya->Sintashta
This Phylogeny should give a POSITIVE Z-score when we run an f4 of the form
f4(AG3,EHG)(Sintashta, Yamnaya)
Because there should be excess allele only between Yamnaya and EHG, because EHG->Yamnaya is the only edge in the Hypothesis Phylogeny that crosses clades in the f4. The other two edges are both within clades.
So we run the f4 setting EHG as Sidelkino and then Karelia
(Russia_AfontovaGora3, Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG); (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) -0.0123 0.00443 -2.78 5450 5587 137583
(Russia_AfontovaGora3, Russia_HG_Karelia); (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) -0.0081 0.00436 -1.86 6438 6543 159693
Both f4s are negative and hence the Hypothesis Phylogeny is rejected. Yamnaya has too much AG3-like ancestry, and Sintashta too much EHG. We can say that Sintashta is not descended from Yamnaya, However, Sintashta maybe descended from EHG.
@mzp1
DeleteSintashta does have some extra EHG compared to Yamnaya, but Sintashta obviously requires the same CHG/INF ancestry as Yamnaya to work, essentially descending from Yamnaya.
@Archi “ What you wrote is complete sheer bonkers, strictly anti-scientific sheer bonkers and there are no two opinions.”
ReplyDeleteWhat’s *your* theory then?
@The Divine Trumpet “ The most interesting thing is that looking at the old photos of inhabitants of Karelia and eastern Finland, you notice a different pattern. People have a less ´´ oriental`` appearance, totally the opposite of today!.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s the reason why Davidski frowns on Physical Anthropology in his blog
Simon, it seems to me that the Germanic world met the Slavic world in the nearby areas much earlier as Suevi, Suavi.
ReplyDelete@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ The Araxes is the name of many rivers. It comes from Indo-Iran. Sarasvati > Iran. Haraxvatī > Iran. (in Greek name place) Arachosia > Greek-Iran. Araxes.
Therefore Herodotus ”
There’s no therefore here . Youve just word played and haven’t shown anything
Herodotus” Asia was west Asia .
“ You do not understand that. Understand that the Scythians and the Sacae and the Saka are complete synonyms”
You don’t understand . Those saka outliers have minimal / no Siberian admixture
Therefore the common link in Scythians is WSH admixture . Siberian is admixture is therefore a secondary, collateral phenomenon in a subset of Saka
“ Karasuk and Tagar are different cultures separated from each other by half a millennium, they do not have to fully coincide. ”
ReplyDeleteThey are completely different. Tagar is much Younger than Karasuk. Having spent all those hundreds of years extra in Siberia- according to your continuity scenario- they should be even more eastern shifted
But they are not. they are more West shifted than their predecessors. This clearly demonstrates, along with a shift in burial practices a population replacement in southern Siberia by a second (third in fact) migration of WSH from the west associated with the arrival with ProtoScythians.
The so-called pan-Siberian admixture does not exist. In Tuva it is from local Siberian tribes; in Pazyryk & Saka it is from Mongolia, demonstrated by isotopic studies. T-S even have Mebrak admixture
@Rob
ReplyDelete" There’s no therefore here . Youve just word played and haven’t shown anything"
These are historical names from the same area of Afghanistan from different times. You just don't know anything at all.
" Herodotus” Asia was west Asia ."
Bullshit from a man who knows nothing. In Herodotus, Asia began with the Tanais, the Don River.
" You don’t understand . Those saka outliers have minimal / no Siberian admixture"
That's completely untrue. These outliers have as much of it as the Sarmatians. And the Sarmatians have a lot of it. In this case, the word outliers does not apply at all.
" Siberian is admixture is therefore a secondary, collateral phenomenon in a subset of Saka"
A complete lie. You don't know anything, are incapable of counting anything, just making up fantasies and lying.
Target: Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1:DA17
Distance: 1.2059% / 0.01205852
42.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
23.4 TKM_Gonur1_BA
18.4 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
6.8 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
5.8 RUS_Baikal_N
3.4 RUS_Baikal_BA
Target: Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2:DA19
Distance: 1.0808% / 0.01080847
58.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
20.6 TKM_Gonur1_BA
9.8 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
5.8 RUS_Baikal_EBA
2.8 RUS_Baikal_BA
1.2 RUS_Baikal_N
1.2 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.6 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
cmp with
Target: Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:chy001
Distance: 0.4874% / 0.00487405
28.8 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
27.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
17.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA
13.4 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
11.4 RUS_Baikal_BA
1.6 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
0.6 RUS_Baikal_N
Target: Saka_Tian_Shan_o:DA53
Distance: 1.7752% / 0.01775202
37.8 TKM_Gonur1_BA
25.2 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
15.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
15.2 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
4.0 RUS_Boisman_MN
2.4 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
Target: Saka_Tian_Shan:DA49
Distance: 1.6181% / 0.01618083
37.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
18.6 TKM_Gonur1_BA
14.4 RUS_Baikal_BA
12.2 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
8.6 RUS_Baikal_BA_o
4.6 RUS_Boisman_MN
3.8 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
Target: Saka_Tian_Shan:DA47
Distance: 0.6205% / 0.00620488 | R5P
45.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
22.6 TKM_Gonur1_BA
11.4 RUS_Baikal_N
11.2 RUS_Baikal_BA
9.4 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
Saka_Tian_Shan_o:DA53 ~= 50% Saka_Tian_Shan:DA49 + 50% TKM_Gonur1_BA
"Having spent all those hundreds of years extra in Siberia- according to your continuity scenario- they should be even more eastern shifted"
You are fantasizing without understanding anything at all.
"The so-called pan-Siberian admixture does not exist. In Tuva it is from local Siberian tribes; in Pazyryk & Saka it is from Mongolia, demonstrated by isotopic studies. "
Shameful nonsense, isotope studies can't prove anything at all in admixtures.
Isotopes have nothing at all to do with genetics.
Isotopes only show one thing, whether a given person is local or foreign in his lifetime, they say nothing at all about his parents.
@ MZP
ReplyDeleteYou're simplifying the phylogeny too much here... Sintashta also has 25-30% ancestry from EEF but not Yamnaya or much less in Yamnaya, there is shared drift between EEF and EHG not shared with ANE because of WHG in EEF and EHG and this will outweigh everything else you are testing. The WHG ancestry in EEF and EHG are united by a lot of shared drift because WHG has existed for a long time. The methods being used here are not fit for the task.
@The Divine Trumpet
ReplyDeleteI doubt that looks have changed in such a short period of time.
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteIndeed, ~ 8% Baikal admixture in an over fitted model of Saka_o is - as I said “virtually little or none”
“ Shameful nonsense, isotope studies can't prove anything at all in admixtures.
Isotopes have nothing at all to do with genetics.”
Archie you can’t understand basics. DNA modelling shows great fits for Mongolian admixture ; and isotopic provenenance studies show mobility across the altai for those Scythians based on geomorpholic signatures
@ CrM
ReplyDeleteNoted; thanks
What does everyone make of the youngest sample from BachoKiro belong to ydna pre-P/R and being older than Yana? Autosomally he is apparently no different than other Gravettians.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Tigran
ReplyDeletehttps://i.ibb.co/c6y1DTT/UP-PCA.png
Autosomally, everything is expected. Anyway, the Gravettian apparently came from the area north of the Caucasus, it is likely that populations from northern Central Eurasia could have been affected there, or even it could have happened under their pressure.
Target: BGR_Bacho_Kiro_MUP:BK-1653
Distance: 2.0345% / 0.02034521
43.8 BEL_GoyetQ116-1_UP
31.2 CZE_Vestonice16_UP
17.2 RUS_Sunghir_UP
3.4 RUS_Ust_Ishim_UP
2.6 RUS_Yana_UP
1.8 CHN_Tianyuan_UP
Target: BGR_Bacho_Kiro_IUP:F6-620
Distance: 2.0395% / 0.02039486
78.2 RUS_Ust_Ishim_UP
12.4 IND_Great_Andamanese_100BP
9.4 RUS_Yakutia_LUP
Target: BGR_Bacho_Kiro_IUP:CC7-335
Distance: 1.9473% / 0.01947317
67.2 RUS_Ust_Ishim_UP
20.4 IND_Great_Andamanese_100BP
9.2 RUS_Yakutia_LUP
3.2 CZE_Vestonice16_UP
Target: BGR_Bacho_Kiro_IUP:BB7-240
Distance: 2.2628% / 0.02262815
44.6 RUS_Ust_Ishim_UP
39.6 IND_Great_Andamanese_100BP
9.4 RUS_Yana_UP
6.4 CZE_Vestonice16_UP
@Rob you can’t understand basics.
"Indeed, ~ 8% Baikal admixture in an over fitted model of Saka_o is - as I said “virtually little or none”"
That's not true. 6.8 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG + 5.8 RUS_Baikal_N + 3.4 RUS_Baikal_BA = 16%, the main thing is that they are there and all your arguments go down the drain.
Iron OutSaka Central steppe Birlik, Kurgan 12, Bajaul [DA17, CGG_2_015474, KG42] 800-773 cal BC (2577 ± 30 BP, UBA-31142) M mtDNA C4a1 - east asian - checkmate
Iron OutSaka Central steppe Karaterekh, Burial 1, Maiskij rajon [DA19, CGG_2_015361, PD51] 801-749 cal BC (2555 ± 46 BP, UBA-31144) M E U2e2a1 - Gonur - checkmate
Saka Outliers - NO Srubnaya - checkmate!
@ANI EXCAVATOR
ReplyDelete"You're simplifying the phylogeny too much here... Sintashta also has 25-30% ancestry from EEF but not Yamnaya or much less in Yamnaya, there is shared drift between EEF and EHG not shared with ANE because of WHG in EEF and EHG and this will outweigh everything else you are testing. The WHG ancestry in EEF and EHG are united by a lot of shared drift because WHG has existed for a long time. The methods being used here are not fit for the task."
Yes, I know, the bolded part is what we're interested in.
Looking again at the PCA,
https://ibb.co/mBhzfrn
Sintashta (and CW) is not between Yamnaya and GAC/Anatolian_N, as would be expected if it was derived from them. It's actual position forms a line in the direction of Sidelkino from AG3.
EHG does not exist in 3,000BC or so, so there is nothing to pull Sintashta (and CW) so far away from it's expected position. This is drift that is native to Sintashta, CW and Srubnaya_Late. Anatolian HG, GAC and Anatolian N are all somewhat in-line with AG3, Sidelkino, and Sintashta and further from AG3, but they are pulled up by Iran_N. So this line that forms from AG3, Sidelkino, Sintashta and GAC/Anatolian_N is NE to SW differentiation, from Siberia, through the Forest-Steppe and then into Eastern Europe and Anatolia.
According to the accepted phylogeny (the bolded part above), we have something like this:
EHG -> Yamnaya -> Sintashta <- EEF
and also some
EHG -> EEF (as you say, related to WHG, and direct)
So we can make an f4 like this
f4(EHG, Yamnaya) (Sintashta, EEF)
The only edges to cross the clades should be
Yamnaya -> Sintashta (Negative)
EHG -> EEF (Negative)
Both cases will result in a NEGATIVE value so the final value should be SIGNIFICANTLY NEGATIVE.
f4(EHG, Yamnaya) (Sintashta, EEF), EHG=Sidelkino,Karelia, EEF=GAC,LBK (bolded for clarity)
(Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Poland_GAC.SG) -0.0066 0.00447 -1.47 19384 19641 441773
(Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Germany_EN_LBK) 0.0128 0.00262 4.89 21968 21413 489017
(Russia_HG_Karelia, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta Poland_GAC.SG) 0.0016 0.00421 0.382 22001 21931 494661
(Russia_HG_Karelia, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Germany_EN_LBK) 0.0155 0.00238 6.52 24891 24130 549694
With EEF as GAC, the result is barely negative and not even above the threshold of |3|. For LBK the results completely break the proposed phylogeny.
EHG did exist all the way to 2000 BCE if not beyond. There was nothing to replace them north of Volga prior to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. And archeological evidence suggests that Volosovites existed alongside Fatyanovo, although heavily outnumbered. There's also WSHG/Steppe EMBA that shows clear prevalence in Sintashta outliers.
Delete@Tigran
ReplyDeleteNot suprising at all considering Oase 1 belonged to something similar, I believe it is pre-N/O.
@ambron: "As some Central European genomes are often interpreted as a mixture of Slavs (or Balts) with Scandinavians, one should ask - is it really the Scandinavian component, or is it a larger remainder of the CWC component?"
ReplyDeleteOne way that might be possible to look at this could be to look at the haplotype chunk count sharing between populations. A big paper was published last year with a large set of chunk count sharing supplementary tables for populations that overlap the Global 25 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696950/ - "Global
Picture of Genetic Relatedness and the Evolution of Humankind".
I used this to make a file comparing Global 25 distance to chunk count sharing: https://imgur.com/a/HzLUJhH
We can see there's a good relationship between the two, with chunk counts generally falling off exponentially with distance. However, some populations share fewer chunks than expected for their G25 distance, and sometimes there is more. The populations with high chunk count sharing relative to G25 distance probably have more recent contacts, while those with closer distance relative to chunk sharing probably related back in time.
So perhaps someone could look at how many chunks Central European groups share with Scandinavians and then work out how intense contact in the recent past was, and from that work out what the most plausible source is, and if that is it.
A difficulty is that it's hard to interpret chunk count sharing in terms of admixture, as chunks are more shared between small populations than large, and are broken up by time. So a population that was small and then grew large recently shares more chunks with itself, and a chunk will sometimes be more shared by someone in a population with another small population that grew large recently than with another person in the same population...
@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ That's not true. 6.8 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG + 5.8 RUS_Baikal_N + 3.4 RUS_Baikal_BA = 16%, the main thing is that they are ”
Thanks for yet again confirming my observations- Multiple sources of eastern admixture . Not a single train ex-Yenesei
The element of WSHG is parallel with hg N in samples like IR-1
“ Iron OutSaka Central steppe Birlik, Kurgan 12, Bajaul [DA17, CGG_2_015474, KG42] 800-773 cal BC (2577 ± 30 BP, UBA-31142) M mtDNA C4a1 - east asian - checkmate
Iron OutSaka Central steppe Karaterekh, Burial 1, Maiskij rajon [DA19, CGG_2_015361, PD51] 801-749 cal BC (2555 ± 46 BP, UBA-31144) M E U2e2a1 - Gonur - checkmate”
Yes they have significant Gonur admixture
So some Saka are BMAC heavy; some Mongolian , some Siberian heavy
But what’s the common link? WSH ; and yes it is from srubnaja, as the recent paper showed
Boom
“ Pribislav has him Y-DNA P or even pre-R.”
ReplyDeleteHoly moley. So PIE came from homo erectuseses in the Balkans ?
@epoch said...
ReplyDelete"Pribislav has him Y-DNA P or even pre-R"
Paleolithic Bulgaria Bacho Kiro Cave [BK-1653] 34690-34380 cal BC (30570±120 BP, AIX-12024) [*Pribislav reads pre-P-P226: Y507/M1267+ G>A (3A) PF5511+ G>A (1A) PF5487/M1201+ G>A (2A); M1215/CTS3813/PF5491- G>C (10G); M1229/F359/PF5920- G>A (2C-1G); (R level: PF6002+ C>T (6T); CTS7876/PF6052+ G>A (1A); PF6034- A>T (1A) R1 level: PF5474+ G>C (4C) - ???)] U8
P PF5850(H) formed 44300 ybp, TMRCA 41500 ybp
R-Y482 Y482/PF6056/F459 * PF6040/YSC179/FGC1168 * PF5919/F356/M703+1 SNPs formed 28200 ybp, TMRCA 28200 ybp
R1 P225/PF6128 * PF6133/F378/M711 * M717/CTS7122/PF6135+60 SNPsformed 28200 ybp, TMRCA 22800 ybpinfo
@epoch
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean there is a possibiity R/R1/R1a/R1b originated in Europe?
@Archi
Does that meant Gravitteans migrated as far as the the Yana RHS site and then back migrated as y R1/R1a/R1b? Or is this indicative of a population that was concentrated in the steppe with outposts in Siberia and the Balkans? Either way very interesting.
@Romulus
Oase1 is a Crown Eurasian and belongs to K2a. This guy is pretty much a West Eurasian who belongs to something downstream of K2b and might even be pre-R which most people had accepted as originating in the region near Yana or MA1/AG3.
Has anyone ever been able to model Tianyuan as partially West Eurasian, even marginally (like as little as 1-10%)?
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty nuts to me that these IUP Bacho Kiro folks seem to have some East Eurasian affinity, in Bulgaria 40,000 years ago. It really makes me wonder where proper West Eurasians were at this time, the Middle East, Anatolia, Caucasus, maybe even parts of North or East Africa?
@epoch said...
ReplyDelete"Pribislav has him Y-DNA P or even pre-R"
Paleolithic Bulgaria Bacho Kiro Cave [BK-1653] 34690-34380 cal BC (30570±120 BP, AIX-12024) [*Pribislav reads pre-P-P226: Y507/M1267+ G>A (3A) PF5511+ G>A (1A) PF5487/M1201+ G>A (2A); M1215/CTS3813/PF5491- G>C (10G); M1229/F359/PF5920- G>A (2C-1G); (R level: PF6002+ C>T (6T); CTS7876/PF6052+ G>A (1A); PF6034- A>T (1A) R1 level: PF5474+ G>C (4C) - ???)] U8
P PF5850(H) formed 44300 ybp, TMRCA 41500 ybp
R-Y482 Y482/PF6056/F459 * PF6040/YSC179/FGC1168 * PF5919/F356/M703+1 SNPs formed 28200 ybp, TMRCA 28200 ybp
R1 P225/PF6128 * PF6133/F378/M711 * M717/CTS7122/PF6135+60 SNPsformed 28200 ybp, TMRCA 22800 ybpinfo
@Romulus said...
"@Tigran
Not suprising at all considering Oase 1 belonged to something similar, I believe it is pre-N/O."
You've got it all mixed up. This sample is completely different from Oase 1, it is anti-Oase 1 and completely from a different time.
@ Cy
ReplyDeleteThis sample is younger than the other ones. It is from 34000 years ago. What would you consider a more proper West Eurasian? These guys were like well over 90% West Eurasian. West Eurasian in the Middle East and North Africa would have probably been admixed with Basal Eurasians and Ancient North Africans.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1TT7OUilXtqyD1a4848VLIhfrEgslinAn/view?usp=sharing
BK-1653, all BAMs merged. +200 kSNPs, 3x higher coverage
@Tigran
ReplyDelete"Does that meant Gravitteans migrated as far as the the Yana RHS site and then back migrated as y R1/R1a/R1b? Or is this indicative of a population that was concentrated in the steppe with outposts in Siberia and the Balkans?"
You did not understand, the Gravettin is a purely European phenomenon, but it most likely arose from the north of the Caucasus and already under the pressure from the east coming from the north of Сentral Eurasia advanced to the Western Europe, this is the most probable scenario. Yana has nothing to do with Europe and the Gravettian, it, like all other P/R/R1s from north-Сentral Eurasia advanced to the northeast. From the borders of eastern Gravettian advanced MA1 to Baikal as well. The Balkans have nothing to do with any of this, they have nothing to do with Gravettian.
"Oase1 is a Crown Eurasian"
these people came very recently from the area of northern India, moving along the only corridor that existed, that is the Мountain corridor from India to the Altai to Siberia. The conditions in Siberia at that time were ideal, they were the Mammoth Steppes with the megafauna with the highest density of bioresources, they moved very fast on these steppes there.
"This guy is pretty much a West Eurasian who belongs to something downstream of K2b and might even be pre-R which most people had accepted as originating in the region near Yana or MA1/AG3."
The MA1 came from the more western area bordering the European Gravettian, not only genetics, but also archaeology points to this. Yana is also from more western places. This was clear at once.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
"And archeological evidence suggests that Volosovites existed alongside Fatyanovo, although heavily outnumbered."
The Volosovians did not exist at the same time as the Fatyanovians, they disappeared under the Fatyanovian pressure, and disappeared long before the end of the Fatyanovian culture. This is what archaeology says.
@Rob
"Not a single train ex-Yenesei"
This is your fake claim, especially since you have no idea what the Yenisei looked like at the time.
"Yes they have significant Gonur admixture
So some Saka are BMAC heavy; some Mongolian , some Siberian heavy
But what’s the common link? WSH ; and yes it is from srubnaja, as the recent paper showed
Boom"
You are faking your nonsense. You claimed that the Outliers are direct proof that the Scythians are Srubnaya, I proved to you that they are Outliers because they are Anti-Srubnaya, they are all Outliers because they just have nothing to do with Srubna. No paper proved anything, don't make this up, no paper proved that the Scythians are Srubnaya.
Checkmate.
There were hostilities against the Fatyanovo peoples by the Volosovites.
Deletehttp://azimut.psn.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=772
@Mzp
ReplyDeleteYour PCA shows things like the closest populations to Yamnaya being Burusho and Kalash and Loschbour close to English and Andronovo. Usually, this is caused by there being not enough samples in the basis of the PCA. If you increase the numbers and the coverage the shape will come to resemble normal West Eurasian PCA that you find in published papers and also in David's work, and there Andronovo and Srubnaya are clearly in between Yamnaya and EEF, in almost the same place as modern Northern Europeans.
(Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Germany_EN_LBK) 0.0128 0.00262 4.89 21968 21413 489017
Of course the result will be positive, EHG has less Basal Eurasian ancestry than Yamnaya, and Sintashta has less Basal Eurasian ancestry than LBK.
Your statistics are hopelessly confounded. There is a simple way test for Sintashta as admixed between Yamnaya and EEF and that is to run admixture f3 with two populations being Yamnaya and Sintashta and check which third member produces the most negative f3 statistic. The result is going to be some population rich in EEF ancestry. The other way is not to use some weird statistic like (Russia_AfontovaGora3, Russia_HG_Karelia); (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara), which is clearly gonna detect WHG uniting Sintashta and Karelians, but (Yamnaya, Sintashta; X, Mbuti) and check which population X gives you the most negative statistic. If you don't want to assume anything you can also run qpAdm with outgroup rotation. Yamnaya in the outgroups will make all models for Sintashta fail.
ReplyDeleteIt is tempting to connect ancient DNA samples to the known protolanguages, but it must be done scientifically. There are tens of possible genetic waves in the Northeastern Europe, and in principle any of them could be connected to any protolanguage. The only way to make a credible comparison is to take the results of linguistics and look if the results of genetics match them: are the time, the place and the direction of spread really the same?
What we do know about Late Proto-Uralic is that it was spoken around the Volga Bend (Volga-Kama fork) in the easternmost Europe about 2000 BC. Before that point, the picture is not clearly as clear. Earlier stages of Proto-Uralic seems to have had contacts with both the Aryan branch and the Northwestern branch of Indo-European language family. Earlier than that, Pre-Proto-Uralic probably arrived from Siberia.
So, this Kra001 locates in Southwestern Siberia around 2300 BC. It is quite close to time and place where we could indeed find approximately “Middle Proto-Uralic”, the stage immediately preceeding Late Proto-Uralic. Genomewise, however, in Admixture it looks closest to the Yakutian samples, not any Uralic-speaking population.
Samuel Andrews:
“All Bolshy Oleni Males belonged to N-L1026. They were 50% Siberian. There is no other reason they would be in Northeast Europe other than being apart of the Uralic expansion.
They also fit well as being an ancestor of Saami. Bolshy Oleni=Proto Saami.”
You assume them to be Uralic only because you know of no other eastern wave than Uralic? Still, there could have been tens of genetic waves from the east, only one of them being connected to the spread of Uralic language. So, you cannot just decide that this particular wave is connected to Uralic languages. It is unscientific.
You ignore all the linguistic results. There is no known spread of Uralic language which would concern Kola Peninsula right after 2000 BC. None. Especially it could not in any case be Saami. The linguistic results show that Saami is born through these steps:
1. Proto-Uralic starts to spread from the Volga Bend around 2000 BC.
2. West Uralic dialect is a pre-stage of Saamic, Finnic, Mordvinic and some lost languages. It is spoken around Upper Volga and starts branching roughly around the centuries in the mid-second millennium BC.
3. Pre-Saami or Early Proto-Saami could have started to spread to the northwest already before 1000 BC, like Valter Lang proposes, or even later still: linguistic evidence actually does not require Pre-Saami in Finland until centuries later.
4. Late Proto-Saami evolved in Southern Finland during the first centuries AD. The chronology is undeniable and anchored in the loanwords from Northwest Germanic and Proto-Scandinavian. Only after that Saami spread to Lapland.
Therefore the Early Bronze Age BOO people in the Kola Peninsula could not have been Proto-Saami speakers: they are 2000 years too early!
The Siberian wave to Kola Peninsula could in theory have been Uralic-related (if someone could present any evidence supporting this), but in that case it has no preserved descendant languages, and many of its maternal lineages have not descended to modern Uralic peoples at all. Still too early to say if the paternal N-lineage has modern descendants in Fennoscandia or not.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
ReplyDeleteWhat we do know about Late Proto-Uralic is that it was spoken around the Volga Bend (Volga-Kama fork) in the easternmost Europe about 2000 BC.
How do we know this?
All recent ancient DNA evidence contradicts this scenario, so why are you still so sure?
Earlier stages of Proto-Uralic seems to have had contacts with both the Aryan branch and the Northwestern branch of Indo-European language family.
How do you know that this isn't an artifact of the close contacts between Proto-Uralic and the several waves of Indo-European populations that moved east of the Urals during the Bronze Age?
Genomewise, however, in Admixture it looks closest to the Yakutian samples, not any Uralic-speaking population.
I can tell you that kra001 is not only most similar to Nganasans (rather than Yakuts), but is also the best proxy to date for the far eastern admixture in all Uralic speaking populations.
Therefore the Early Bronze Age BOO people in the Kola Peninsula could not have been Proto-Saami speakers: they are 2000 years too early!
I'm pretty sure that they were Uralic speakers, and this is based on scientific evidence.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-boo-people-earliest-uralic-speakers.html
Rob: “Yes Im aware of the hitherto views of linguists, although I do not hold them to gospel . If linguists were sure of their dating, some would not have ascribed a Mesolithic time for FU expansion.”
ReplyDeleteYou should be aware of the evolution of linguistic datings. Earlier Mesolithic datings were based on the continuity argument: the method was based on the erroneous assumption that archaeological continuity could testify for the linguistic continuity. But now we know that it cannot: the method is totally unreliable and produces contradictory results. Some older linguists still haven’t updated their views and may repeat the wrong older datings, but these can be ignored.
The new Proto-Uralic chronology is anchored in the Indo-European loanword layers, which are not Proto-Indo-European but later: they represent the Aryan and Northwest Indo-European stages. Therefore Late Proto-Uralic cannot be older than around 2000 BC.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf
Also the primary split cannot be between Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric anymore: there is no support for that in historical phonology. Instead, East Uralic (Ugro-Samoyedic) dialect can be defended.
@ Jaako
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Proto-Uralic is younger than 2000 BC either but I do suspect the main phase of its expansion is younger than that
I’m aware of the false-divergence scenario you proposed for Samoyedic
@Jaakko Häkkinen
ReplyDelete" What we do know about Late Proto-Uralic is that it was spoken around the Volga Bend (Volga-Kama fork) in the easternmost Europe about 2000 BC. Before that point, the picture is not clearly as clear."
Uralic lang tree with dates https://i.ibb.co/dGFTVYM/image.png
@Davidski
" I'm pretty sure that they were Uralic speakers, and this is based on scientific evidence."
Actually there is no such evidence, linguistics has no such evidence.
I would like to see what bronze objects were found in Bolshoy oleni ostrov. They should be easily identifiable.
Delete@ D and re: "All recent ancient DNA evidence contradicts this scenario, so why are you still so sure?"
ReplyDeleteGenes don't speak languages, also stuff you find in the archeological context don't speak languages. In terms of historical linguistics only languages matter, spoken or written. If I was you, I'd reread what he said at least a couple of times.
@Huck Finn
ReplyDeleteBut languages don't speak themselves, do they?
So who spoke the supposed late proto-Uralic at the Volga Bend 2,000 years ago?
No one, because there are no longer any plausible candidate populations for that time and place.
Indeed, there's no unambiguous linguistic evidence putting any sort of proto-Uralic at the Volga, because we now know that Indo-Iranians were all over Western and Central Siberia, so this is plausibly where the contacts between them and proto-Uralics actually happened.
My impression is that guys like you and Jaakko are still shocked by the ancient DNA evidence, so you're hoping for a miracle, or even a series of miracles.
But of course you know as well as I do that you'll never find any ancient groups around the Urals that will fit the bill as the proto-Uralic population, nor will you ever find N-L1026 in any samples much before 2,000 BCE that don't resemble kra001.
@ D and re: "My impression is that guys like you and Jaakko are still shocked by the ancient DNA evidence, so you're hoping for a miracle, or even a series of miracles."
ReplyDeleteJaska may correct me if I'm wrong but in terms of evidence, I mean real HC evidence within each scientific approach, we are both happy turncoats. For instance kra001 is not enough for me yet. Too much Ymyiakhtakh like, maybe also too young in terms of timing. That being said, kra001 might very well be connected to earlier than Proto Uralic layers through a partially common root population.
Jaska: “What we do know about Late Proto-Uralic is that it was spoken around the Volga Bend (Volga-Kama fork) in the easternmost Europe about 2000 BC.”
ReplyDeleteDavidski: “How do we know this? All recent ancient DNA evidence contradicts this scenario, so why are you still so sure?”
You should know, that DNA CANNOT EVEN IN THEORY CONTRADICT LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE. It is simply impossible, because you cannot see language from the DNA. You can only research language by linguistic methods.
If you see a genetic wave that does not match a linguistic wave concerning time, place and direction, then your genetic wave is not connected to that linguistic wave. It is that simple.
You are now being unscientific, if you think that you can ignore linguistic results and name linguistic spreads only based on genetic waves. There simply is no scientific method for seeing language from DNA! Or if you have discovered such a method, you will receive a Nobel price, I promise you.
Jaska: “Earlier stages of Proto-Uralic seems to have had contacts with both the Aryan branch and the Northwestern branch of Indo-European language family.”
Davidski: “How do you know that this isn't an artifact of the close contacts between Proto-Uralic and the several waves of Indo-European populations that moved east of the Urals during the Bronze Age?”
How it even could be an artifact? Explain to me, please.
Davidski: “I can tell you that kra001 is not only most similar to Nganasans (rather than Yakuts), but is also the best proxy to date for the far eastern admixture in all Uralic speaking populations.”
So, are you claiming that Proto-Uralic speakers were 100 % Nganasan-component? As far as I know, there really is no evidence supporting that. Even all Samoyeds are not 100 % that, and Proto-Samoyed spread from the Altai-Sayan region to the north.
About the proxy for Siberian admixture I agree. But it’s a long way from identifying that proxy to actually reconstructing the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers.
Davidski: “I'm pretty sure that they were Uralic speakers, and this is based on scientific evidence.”
Here again you are unscientific: you think that language runs in the DNA, which is absurd. You only see a strong migration from the east, and you then believe that it was a Uralic-speaking. Actually your method is a pure guess: we could take any of the tens of migrations and similarly claim that they all were Uralis-speaking. So your method is unreliable and unscientific. The only scientific way to connect DNA to language is to accept the genetic AND the linguistic results and only then look if they match or not.
I repeat: it is unscientific to ignore the linguistic results and try to see language from the genetic results. It is not even theoretically possible!
There's evidence of cultures such as Chirkov in Mari El being formed within Seima-Turbino and preceding Srubnaya and Mesolithic peoples. The driving factor would obviously be Siberian bronze making. Most EHGs still remaining in the Urals and Volga were situated in late Garino-Bor/Choinovta, wich can work as a substrate but not an origin point.
ReplyDeleteRob: “Uralic lang tree with dates https://i.ibb.co/dGFTVYM/image.png”
ReplyDeleteWell, glottochronology is not reliable dating method. Reliable absolute chronology can only be formed by anchoring sound changes to the well-known loanword strata.
Davidski: “So who spoke the supposed late proto-Uralic at the Volga Bend 2,000 years ago? No one, because there are no longer any plausible candidate populations for that time and place.”
You have gone too far, too deep, without coming back to the square one. You have built this network of guesses, in which you mistake the earlier guesses as facts.
How can you even say something like there is no plausible candidate population in the Volga Bend 2000 BC? (Not 2000 years ago.) That sentence makes no sense. You cannot see the language in the DNA, that is not scientifically possible.
Davidski: “Indeed, there's no unambiguous linguistic evidence putting any sort of proto-Uralic at the Volga, because we now know that Indo-Iranians were all over Western and Central Siberia, so this is plausibly where the contacts between them and proto-Uralics actually happened.”
You forget the Northwest Indo-European loanword layer. Why? You cannot make a puzzle right if you are leaving out pieces.
Davidski: “My impression is that guys like you and Jaakko are still shocked by the ancient DNA evidence, so you're hoping for a miracle, or even a series of miracles.”
Hahaha, very funny. :D
Your comments show that you have moved from science to pseudo-science, which is unfortunate. Ancient DNA is great, but it can only tell us about DNA – not about languages. About ancient languages only historical linguistics can tell us. Do you understand? Only when we take the results of genetics AND linguistics, we can see if they unite in certain time and place or not. I’m happy to repeat this to you as long as it takes to get you back to the scientific way. :)
Davidski: “But of course you know as well as I do that you'll never find any ancient groups around the Urals that will fit the bill as the proto-Uralic population, nor will you ever find N-L1026 in any samples much before 2,000 BCE that don't resemble kra001.”
How can you even claim that? Only if you have already decided that you know. And how on Earth could you know something like that? Tell me.
@Jaakko & Huck
ReplyDeleteYou forget the Northwest Indo-European loanword layer. Why? You cannot make a puzzle right if you are leaving out pieces.
So this is your unambiguous, scientific evidence that proto-Uralic was spoken near the Volga?
And who spoke Northwest Indo-European near the Volga at the time?
Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta, Srubnaya???
Obviously, something doesn't gel here, and I'm willing to bet that it's your interpretation of the linguistic facts.
Jaakko Häkkinen said...
ReplyDelete" Rob: “Uralic lang tree with dates https://i.ibb.co/dGFTVYM/image.png”
Well, glottochronology is not reliable dating method. Reliable absolute chronology can only be formed by anchoring sound changes to the well-known loanword strata."
NO Rob! Glottochronology is the only method of dating in linguistics. Borrowing is an unreliable method because the dates of the borrowings are mostly unknown, and the place and sources of the borrowings are also unknown. But just as borrowing strictly proves this tree. There is no contradiction with it. It is proved by the strictly linguistic method by the appearance of new vocabulary in the Uralic languages associated with new natural environments and technologies.
"So this is your unambiguous, scientific evidence that proto-Uralic was spoken near the Volga?
ReplyDeleteAnd who spoke Northwest Indo-European near the Volga at the time?
Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta, Srubnaya???
Obviously, something doesn't gel here, and I'm willing to bet that it's your interpretation of the linguistic facts."
Of course that area is not based only on the NW-IE loanwords. The Volga Bend area is the only possible homeland for Proto-Uralic - there really is no credible alternative, especially now that Samoyedic is no more the first branch to split off. Arguments are collected here (in Finnish), but you can find them here and there in the Uralistic studies.
https://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf
I master the linguistic results, I am producing them myself. So if anyone, you are lacking knowledge about this subject. Like you lack knowledge about the scientific method to compare the results of linguistics and genetics.
Once again: please tell me how on Earth do you think that you can see the language from the DNA? Nobel price awaits you.
@ Jaako
ReplyDeleteI did not post the glottochronology link.
@ all
David is right. Let’s move beyond this “ Genes don't speak languages” cliche . It’s banal
People speak languages! And dna tells us about who was what, where and how
We can’t make up history on the basis of loan word stratigraphy
@ D and re: "Obviously, something doesn't gel here, and I'm willing to bet that it's your interpretation of the linguistic facts."
ReplyDeleteI should probably emphasize the fact that I'm definitely not a professional historical linguist. Jaska, on the other hand, is and even a very skilled one. And yes, you're of course free to bet as much as you want but Jaska is still right, in terms of the definition of the scientific approch. This idea of Volga Kama being the craddle of Proto Uralic is however not just his personal view.
I think the FU - Iranian contact occurred in the Mezhovska-Irmen-Sargat horizon ; LBA
ReplyDelete@ Jaako & archi
ReplyDeletePlease read carefully; I have not said anything about glottochronolgy :)
You should be speaking to each other
@Jaakko Häkkinen
ReplyDelete"he Volga Bend area is the only possible homeland for Proto-Uralic - there really is no credible alternative, especially now that Samoyedic is no more the first branch to split off. Arguments are collected here (in Finnish), but you can find them here and there in the Uralistic studies.
I master the linguistic results, I am producing them myself."
Thanks for the laugh. Where do you pray at your church? What you have written is purely untrue; it is only your personal preconceived notion. Don't pass it off as everyone's opinion. Napolskikh has clearly refuted this opinion and he is a serious scientist whose words can be trusted, unlike your unsubstantiated statements. Sorry, but your article is insignificant compared to the fundamental works of Napolskikh.
@Jaakko & Huck
ReplyDeleteThere are no candidate populations in the ancient DNA record for Northwest Indo-Europeans and proto-Uralics at the Volga Bend around ~2,000 BCE.
So the only way you can get around this problem is to hide behind terms like "scientific method" and claim that there is practically no correlation between genes and languages when it comes to the spread of Uralic.
And I'm telling you what you already know anyway.
@Jaakko
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "Northwestern Indo-European"? I don't think Baltic and definitely not Germanic people left any impact on Proto-Uralic. If I am not wrong there are hardly any Baltic loanwords in Permic or Mari either, but correct me if I am indeed wrong. I can see Uralic being spoken within Volga-Kama in 2000 BCE by a heterogeneous societies, but does it need to be the incubator of proto-Uralic including Ugro-Samoyedic?
Rob: “I did not post the glottochronology link.”
ReplyDeleteWell, the picture you linked says that it is based on glottochronology.
Archie: “NO Rob! Glottochronology is the only method of dating in linguistics. Borrowing is an unreliable method because the dates of the borrowings are mostly unknown, and the place and sources of the borrowings are also unknown. But just as borrowing strictly proves this tree. There is no contradiction with it. It is proved by the strictly linguistic method by the appearance of new vocabulary in the Uralic languages associated with new natural environments and technologies.”
Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. There really is no reliable method to assess the replacement rate in vocabulary: it differs language by language and also different times even considering the same language. Samoyedic and Hungarian are examples where replacement of old vocabulary has been faster and therefore the branches seem to be older than they are (this is false divergence). Sound changes are more reliable level and prove that Samoyedic was not the first branch to split off.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Hakkinen2012AfterTheProtolanguage.pdf
Rob: “David is right. Let’s move beyond this “ Genes don't speak languages” cliche . It’s banal People speak languages! And dna tells us about who was what, where and how
We can’t make up history on the basis of loan word stratigraphy”
Rob please, don’t be unscientific. Tell me how you can see languages from DNA? I have to repeat myself, because you didn’t read my earlier comments:
You only see a strong migration from the east, and you then believe that it was a Uralic-speaking. Actually your method is a pure guess: we could take any of the tens of migrations and similarly claim that they all were Uralic-speaking. So your method is unreliable and unscientific. The only scientific way to connect DNA to language is to accept the genetic AND the linguistic results and only then look if they match or not.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
ReplyDelete"the Volga Bend area is the only possible homeland for Proto-Uralic - there really is no credible alternative, especially now that Samoyedic is no more the first branch to split off. Arguments are collected here (in Finnish), but you can find them here and there in the Uralistic studies."
Thanks for the laugh. Where do you pray at your church? What you have written is purely untrue; it is only your personal preconceived notion. Don't pass it off as everyone's opinion. Napolskikh has clearly refuted this opinion and he is a serious scientist in the Uralistic studies whose words can be trusted. Sorry, but your article is insignificant compared to the fundamental works of Napolskikh. What Napolskikh wrote is the opinion of the scientific world.
Is it really because of the scientific method, or is this because of Friedrich Blumenbach?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDavidski: “There are no candidate populations in the ancient DNA record for Northwest Indo-Europeans and proto-Uralics at the Volga Bend around ~2,000 BCE.”
Your sentence makes no sense, no matter how much you repeat it.
1. How do you even know the genetic composition of all the peoples in the Volga-Ural area around 2000 BC? There is no resolute ancient DNA.
2. Even if there were, how can you claim that they could not be Proto-Uralic speakers? How can you see their language from their DNA?
Davidski: “So the only way you can get around this problem is to hide behind terms like "scientific method" and claim that there is practically no correlation between genes and languages when it comes to the spread of Uralic.”
There can be a correlation. But you must remember that the languages had many steps in time and space when they spread, and that the genetic composition could have been different in every step (because time and place very different).
You cannot escape the truth: you have somehow slipped to pseudo-science. That is unfortunate, but you can come back to science, if you just receive more knowledge about the scientific multidisciplinary methods.
Scientific method:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s look at the linguistic results.
3. Let’s look if there are in both of these any phenomenons which match concerning time, place and direction of spread.
Your unscientific method:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s ignore the linguistic results.
3. Let’s decide ad hoc that this genetic wave in certain place at certain time represents certain language.
Do you see the difference here? Do you understand that is not scientifically possible to see language from DNA?
Mezhovka could actually be connected to Uralics somehow.
ReplyDeleteTarget: RUS_Mezhovskaya:RISE525
Distance: 2.9737% / 0.02973711
71.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
19.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
9.4 RUS_Tyumen_HG
Target: RUS_Mezhovskaya:RISE523
Distance: 2.7075% / 0.02707491
81.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
10.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
8.8 RUS_Tyumen_HG
What are the odds of N-L1026 and Nganassan-related ancestry, exactly what unites modern Uralic speakers, in the Kola peninsula in 1500 BC, not being linked to the spread of Uralic?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I'm not sure if the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people are Proto-Saami exactly.
https://imgur.com/a/tQw9J5K
The Baltic BA ancestry in Saami, ancient and modern, may hint towards a more southern origin. I doubt it's all from Finnic admixture.
@ D: taking into account the obvious problem related to sampling biases vs. say different burial habits, which one's of the samples you're referring to are related to ST burials?
ReplyDelete@ANI Excavator,
ReplyDeleteTheres nothing wrong with the PCA. Its shows South Asians and Loschbour closer to the middle because it is splitting Iran_N from Anatolian and ANE from Anatolian/Iran_N. Because South Asians and Loschbour are not in that geographic space they appear closer to the middle, as they are not affected by the separation that causes differentiation between ANE-Anatolian/Iran_N and Anatolian-Iran_N. I have PCAs with more South Asian samples and that does look different, and there Sintashta may appear according to your expectation, but there Anatolian and Iran_N are quite close. This is the standard Eurasian PCA you are talking about.
https://ibb.co/xL7Qtvc (Eurasia)
https://ibb.co/RhWRbrv (Zoom on Steppe cluster)
Still you can see that Sintashta is too far to Top Left in the PCA to be in-between Yamnaya and Anatolian. But it is much less noticeable there.
"(Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) (Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Germany_EN_LBK) 0.0128 0.00262 4.89 21968 21413 489017
Of course the result will be positive, EHG has less Basal Eurasian ancestry than Yamnaya, and Sintashta has less Basal Eurasian ancestry than LBK."
The external ancestry (outgroups) in Sidelkino and LBK is not important here, we are testing the phylogeny EHG -> Yamnaya -> Sintashta <- LBK, and the it fails to hold up. Other components going in to EHG and LBK are irrelevant because we can only test the phylogeny, not look at every possible ancestry that may or may not have contributed somewhere upstream from EHG (CHG, Basal, Iran_N etc etc).
The result has to be negative for the proposed phylogeny to be credible.
So what's happening here? The assumption that something only came into existence when it's first testified in Archeology or Archeo-Genetics is problematic. Scientists in this field follow this assumption, but they shouldnt.
EEF is not really Anatolian. From wiki,
"Settlements are sparse, and these normally just contain small clusters pits. No convincing house-plans have yet been excavated. It is suggested that some of these settlements were not year-round, or may have been temporary."
So GAC is not really an Anatolian Neolithic culture, which would be a settle culture based on permament settlements with above ground houses. Here we have temporary pit-dwellings and a more nomadic culture. This points to a Central Asian/Siberian/Steppe origin.
Similarly for LBK,
"The LBK people settled on fluvial terraces and in the proximities of rivers. They were quick to identify regions of fertile loess. On it they raised a distinctive assemblage of crops and associated weeds in small plots, an economy that Gimbutas called a "garden type of civilization".[28] "
This is more like low-investment farming, of early type of Agro-Pastoralism that may have been practiced in Siberia (as discussed in my earlier posts) rather than the fully-fledged highly organized large-scale farming and settlements of the Anatolian and West Asian Neolithic.
Culturally, EEF and CW seem to be coming from the East, from Siberia, not from the South. It is just the DNA that confounds the issue. But we can see Anatolian affinity in Sidelkino so this 'Anatolian' ancestry may have come from Western Siberia/Central Asia and not necessarily from Anatolia. If thats the case, Sintashta and other Steppe MLBA groups do not need to get their Anatolian affinity from so far West as Anatolia.
"Arguments are collected here (in Finnish), but you can find them here and there in the Uralistic studies. https://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf"
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to assume a (NW-)Indo-European loan layer (See "Urindogermanische Lehnwörter in den uralischen und finno-ugrischen Grundsprachen - Eine Fata Morgana?" by Zsolt Simon). And these words may be better understood as reflecting a common Indo-Uralic language (See "Early Indo-Uralic relationships, real kinship and imagined contacts" by Eugene Helimsky). But the loan layer from Indo-Iranian is undeniable.
I think the origins of Uralic are more complex than commonly assumed. My thoughts about this are not mainstream, but I do like to share them.
Before/at the start of Seima-Turbino, the Uralic speech community extended from the western side of the Urals (Volga-Kama) to far into Siberia. During/after Seima-Turbino there was a massive migration of Siberian Uralic speakers to North-Western Europe. The Siberian Uralic that they spoke was influential to the Central Uralic branches around the Urals and directly ancestral to both Samoyed and the West-Uralic branches. Subsequent areal developments in Uralic obscured this division between Central Uralic (Permic + Ugric) and Siberian Uralic (Samoyed + West-Uralic). But there are still clear traces.
Siberian Uralic had a specific prosody that resulted in the development of consonant gradation in both West-Uralic and Samoyedic branches. While Central Uralic has a lot of phonetical irregularities that are hard to describe in terms of a Common Uralic proto-language and which (if they are archaic) point to a more Indo-European-like situation in Early Uralic. Permic shows traces of a voicing distinction in the Early Uralic stops. Eastern Khanty (and to a lesser extend Mansi) shows traces of an Early-Uralic ablaut system.
@Jaakko,
ReplyDelete"Earlier stages of Proto-Uralic seems to have had contacts with both the Aryan branch and the Northwestern branch of Indo-European language family."
I'm interested in this. So Uralic has some Centum as well as Satem affinity. Can you tell me more about the bolded, or point to some links? This really strengthens some ideas I have.
The earliest Seima-Turbino bronze artifacts west of the Urals, have been radiocarbon dated to around 2000 BC.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/34105930/RADIOCARBON_CHRONOLOGY_OF_COMPLEXES_WITH_SEIMA_TURBINO_TYPE_2_OBJECTS_BRONZE_AGE_IN_SOUTHWESTERN_SIBERIA
The Volga-Kama is not the only proposed homeland of PU. Juha Janhunen for example places an origin somewhere in Siberia.
Linguistics and aDNA don't really seem to be contradicting each other here. PU may have originated in a kra001-like population AND have spread west of the urals around 2000BC.
I'm aware N-L1026 or kra001-like ancestry hasn't been found in any Fatyanovo samples however, at this early stage these components would likely only be present in S-T necropoli.
Rob
ReplyDelete“
I think the FU - Iranian contact occurred in the Mezhovska-Irmen-Sargat horizon ; LBA ”
It is the only competitive alternative to ST. But read these two articles. Even if you're right, there's still something missing.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANANYINO CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL REGION: NORTHEASTERN EUROPE
IN THE FINAL BRONZE AND EARLY IRON AGES
S.V. Kuzminykh, A.A. Chizhevsky
At the end of the Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age the northern part of European Russia was un- dergoing complex ethno- and culturogenetic processes. Maklasheevo (Pre-Anayino) area formed in the Vol- ga-Kama region on the basis of the Post-Andronovo and textile population groups. The regional specificity of the Maklasheevo ceramic complex allows to consider it a multicomponent cultural phenomenon. Ananyino Cultural and Historical Region (the Ananyino world) formed on the basis of local archaeological cultures in the Early Iron Age. It consisted of four primary cultures: Akozino-Akhmylovo, Post-Maklasheevo, cord and comb-cord ceramics. A large ‘veil’ of cultures experiencing the cultural influence of this formation established on the western and northern outskirts of the Ananyino world. The penetration of population characterized by ceramics with an Early Sarmatian appearance intensified in the final period of the ACHR. Apart from internal reasons, the disintegration of the ACHR in the late 3rd century or at the turn of the 2nd century B.C. was caused by the pressure on the part of the early nomads.
2017 N 3 p. 22
https://01e96300-f7e6-4734-8984-60896a3551a0.filesusr.com/ugd/0735a8_0a210aafcccf47a0841d77ac2234406c.pdf
LUGOVSKAYA I AND II SITES AND THE ISSUE OF THE INTERACTION OF CHERKASKULSKAYA, LUGOVAYA AND MEZHOVSKAYA CULTURES IN THE LOWER KAMA REGION
A.V. Lyganov, V.V. Morozov, E.S. Azarov
The article considers Lugovskaya I and II sites, the materials of which formed the basis for identifica- tion of a number of cultures of the Late Bronze Age in the Volga-Kama region in the second half of the 20th century. The authors conclude that Lugovskaya I and II sites belong to different cultures and different cultural and chronological horizons of the Late Bronze Age of the Volga-Kama region. Lugovskaya I site is a refer- ence monument of Lugovo archaeological culture. According to the known calibrated radiocarbon dates and metal articles of Lugovskaya culture, the main complex of Lugovskaya I site dates back to the 17th-15th / 14th centuries B. C. Lugovskaya culture itself was formed in a later period than Srubnaya and Fedorovo, and coin- cides with Suskanskaya and Cherkaskulskaya cultures, which is partly confirmed by site materials. A special fire burial rite was revealed at Lugovskaya I site in the settlement area, and its earliest traces were discovered in an agricultural activity area. Lugovskaya II site corresponding to a later period than Lugovskaya I, belongs to the Atabaevo stage of Maklasheevo culture and Mezhovskaya (Late Lugovskaya) culture. According to the metal articles, funeral rite, ornamentation of the vessels with rollers, the Atabaevo stage of Maklasheevo cul- ture and Mezhovskaya culture are synchronous with the roller cultures of the Eurasian steppe area and certain Andronoid cultures of the Trans-Urals. Based on the counterparts, the material of the site dates back to the 14th-12th centuries B.C. According to the insignificant amount of ceramics of the Maklasheevo stage of Makla- sheevo culture of the Final Bronze age (11th-10th centuries B.C.), Lugovskaya II site is deserted in the specified time period.
2019 N2 p. 38
https://01e96300-f7e6-4734-8984-60896a3551a0.filesusr.com/ugd/0735a8_d515bb1f90b143d6bbe6684f6bd3eaf1.pdf
@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteMy point: the chances that the speakers of Northwest Indo-European lived around the Urals in ~2,000 BCE, and that this is also where the late proto-Uralic homeland was, are exactly zero.
What Jaakko is describing can be explained in two ways:
- massive population movements from Europe into Siberia during the Bronze Age by people speaking proto-Tocharian, early Indo-Iranian languages, and other Indo-European languages that we've never heard of and never will.
- the long reach and impact of the Seima-Turbino networks.
Of course, it'll take him the next ten years to figure out what I just said, because he'll be busy with the so called scientific method trying to salvage his outdated theories.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
ReplyDelete"Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. There really is no reliable method to assess the replacement rate in vocabulary: it differs language by language and also different times even considering the same language. Samoyedic and Hungarian are examples where replacement of old vocabulary has been faster and therefore the branches seem to be older than they are (this is false divergence). Sound changes are more reliable level and prove that Samoyedic was not the first branch to split off. "
I know perfectly well what I am writing about. You have unsubstantiated unscientific fantasies. Sorry, but you are not an authority on these issues, all your statements are in advance biased. You do not have scientific research, you are very biased and your goal is to be true Europeans in any way, so you go for any anti-scientific statements.
Don't write what you don't understand at all. Lexical changes are more constant, they are similar to SNP and STR mutations, this has been proven in many languages and have an approximately constant rate. But the sound changes are absolutely unpredictable and do not have any rate of change, they change infinitely from different languages and eras, and spontaneously and unpredictably, an example of this is the Great English vowel shift.
1. Until 2000BC, there was no Finnish DNA in the Volga-Kama region, this is known for sure.
2. Uraliс broke up long before 2000BC, it is known for sure. This means that Proto-Uraliс in the Volga-Kama region could not be, it is known for sure.
3. By that time even the Finno-Ugric peoples had disintegrated in Siberia. In the Volga-Kama region, one FU branch appears after 2000BC, it is known for sure.
@mzp1
ReplyDeleteAnatolian-like ancestry coming from Siberia or Central Asia? Why make it so complicated and unlikely, Globular Amphora is right by Corded Ware and Globular Amphora itself can be explained by LBK or other Neolithic groups. For one GAC has entirely different type of pottery than anything found in Siberia.
Northern-Ostrobothnian: “What do you mean by "Northwestern Indo-European"? I don't think Baltic and definitely not Germanic people left any impact on Proto-Uralic. If I am not wrong there are hardly any Baltic loanwords in Permic or Mari either, but correct me if I am indeed wrong. I can see Uralic being spoken within Volga-Kama in 2000 BCE by a heterogeneous societies, but does it need to be the incubator of proto-Uralic including Ugro-Samoyedic?”
ReplyDeleteNorthwest Indo-European dialect is a predecessor of Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italic and Celtic. It is connected to the spread of Corded Ware Culture.
Mansi was still until recently spoken also in the European side of Urals, and Hungarian shares areal innovations with Permic. East Uralic branches are normal descendants of Proto-Uralic spoken in the Volga-Kama area, although Pre-Samoyedic seems to have moved quite early to the Altay-Sayan region.
Archi: “Thanks for the laugh. Where do you pray at your church? What you have written is purely untrue; it is only your personal preconceived notion. Don't pass it off as everyone's opinion. Napolskikh has clearly refuted this opinion and he is a serious scientist in the Uralistic studies whose words can be trusted. Sorry, but your article is insignificant compared to the fundamental works of Napolskikh. What Napolskikh wrote is the opinion of the scientific world.”
I’m sorry that you cannot understand scientific argumentation. 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.
Erik Andersson:
ReplyDelete“What are the odds of N-L1026 and Nganassan-related ancestry, exactly what unites modern Uralic speakers, in the Kola peninsula in 1500 BC, not being linked to the spread of Uralic?”
1. You still cannot see language from DNA.
2. The same genetic component is and even earlier was present in the populations which have never been Uralic-speaking. Scientifically you cannot claim that this component makes someone Uralic-speaking.
3. N-L1026 is too old and wide-spread to be Proto-Uralic. The same lineage is and even earlier was present in the populations which have never been Uralic-speaking. Scientifically you cannot claim that this lineage makes someone Uralic-speaking.
Erik Andersson:
“On the other hand, I'm not sure if the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people are Proto-Saami exactly.
https://imgur.com/a/tQw9J5K
The Baltic BA ancestry in Saami, ancient and modern, may hint towards a more southern origin. I doubt it's all from Finnic admixture.”
They can’t be Proto-Saami, because Proto-Saami only spread from Southern Finland to Lapland less than 2000 years ago. BOO is 2000 years too early to be Proto-Saami. It is that simple, if we want to stay scientific.
Onno Havers:
“There is no need to assume a (NW-)Indo-European loan layer (See "Urindogermanische Lehnwörter in den uralischen und finno-ugrischen Grundsprachen - Eine Fata Morgana?" by Zsolt Simon). And these words may be better understood as reflecting a common Indo-Uralic language (See "Early Indo-Uralic relationships, real kinship and imagined contacts" by Eugene Helimsky). But the loan layer from Indo-Iranian is undeniable.”
Even Zsolt Simon cannot explain away all the archaic IE loanwords in Uralic, if you read the article – only part of them.
Indo-Uralic, like any other distant relatedness, is far from credible. It is simply not possible that these words could have remained so similar for thousands of years, even if the languages as a whole developed to very different directions! Therefore, if one wants to defend Indo-Uralic language family, one must find a totally new set of cognate words: words which are not too similar.
@ Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDelete''Mezhovka could actually be connected to Uralics somehow.''
Looks to be a non-Uralic culture in vicinty of Uralic groups. Said more complex way, it is a social network in which individuals from distinctive by proximate social networks, within with FU langauges were spoken, had contacts with
@ Jaako
''. Tell me how you can see languages from DNA? I have to repeat myself, because you didn’t read my earlier comment'''
That's an absurd reduction. Nobody believes that looking down a microscope at DNA will tell us what language somebody spoke.
As i said, it tells not only about big migrations, but also individuals moving about, social networks, lineage/ kin systems and heriarchy
Let's look at the big picture:
Middle Volga ~ 2000 BC.
I don't know but lets assume this scenario - the people which lived there were local hunter-gatherers which had been there since 6000 BC
They then disappear by 1500 BC due to a rapid migration from the East, and then after 1000 BC, there is a migration of para-Balto-Slavic groups from Trziniec culture from the West.
So you have two new populations entering the region in a large way. So not only big numbers, but in a position of social dominance
How would the previous hunter-gatherer language survived, and moreover, become the lingua franca of the new social reality ?
A post -2000 BC spread does not in fact contradict your linguistic observations, you just need to be more malleable as to what you have identified signifies - and where;
E.g.
''When we cannot apply the laryngeal criterion, it is difficult to date a loanword. Temporal range for such Archaic Indo-European loanwords varies from the late 4th millennium BC (Late Proto-Indo-European) to the early 2nd millennium BC (Late Northwest Indo-European) (Mallory )''
Archaic IE is a nebulous concept. It could have been spoken by any language which moved east from the Pontic steppe, from Afanasievo to Scythians. A proposed 'layer of archaic IE' could be multi-centric and the result of non-unform loss of archaic traits in IE languages.
You connect NW IE with Corded Ware, but simply, CWC was not in contact with any groups whose genetic profile matches that of ancient & modern FU speakers. FOr this to be true, we would need 1 or 2 'ghost' populations or networks to have trasnmitted it further east.
''Late Archaic / Northwest Indo-European loanwords''
That could have occurred anywhere and at anytime. This so-called NW IE could be Tocharian languages in the east, it could be the Trziniec C. languages post 1200 BC, after the Srubnaja culture collapsed. As a further example, the Irmen phase i pointed out, shows a comlete medely of dfferent cultural incluences
These strata you identify need not have taken placed in FennoScandia or the East Baltic.
''Well, the picture you linked says that it is based on glottochronology.''
NO i did not post that image of time depth vs branches. It was archie.
''we could take any of the tens of migrations and similarly claim that they all were Uralic-speaking. ''
Tens of migrations? Can you list those ? Which tens of migrations occcurred from Siberia to Fennoscandia
ReplyDeleteOnno Hovers:
“Before/at the start of Seima-Turbino, the Uralic speech community extended from the western side of the Urals (Volga-Kama) to far into Siberia. During/after Seima-Turbino there was a massive migration of Siberian Uralic speakers to North-Western Europe. The Siberian Uralic that they spoke was influential to the Central Uralic branches around the Urals and directly ancestral to both Samoyed and the West-Uralic branches. Subsequent areal developments in Uralic obscured this division between Central Uralic (Permic + Ugric) and Siberian Uralic (Samoyed + West-Uralic). But there are still clear traces.”
In science it all ends to the arguments: what are the arguments supporting your view? How can you disprove the arguments supporting the mainstream view?
mzp1:
“I'm interested in this. So Uralic has some Centum as well as Satem affinity. Can you tell me more about the bolded, or point to some links? This really strengthens some ideas I have.”
It is based on the decades of research by Jorma Koivulehto. Unfortunately most of his works are in German or Finnish, and not so many in the internet. But this PDF contains also his article in English:
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/SUST242.pdf
(Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki 8 -10 January, 1999. Edited by Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola and Petteri Koskikallio)
Anthony Hanken:
“The Volga-Kama is not the only proposed homeland of PU. Juha Janhunen for example places an origin somewhere in Siberia.”
His view is based on numeral words alone. Oh, and also to outdated view that Samoyedic was the first Uralic branch to split off. He hasn’t presented any arguments stronger than or disproving those supporting the Volga-Kama homeland.
Anthony: “Linguistics and aDNA don't really seem to be contradicting each other here. PU may have originated in a kra001-like population AND have spread west of the urals around 2000BC.”
It is possible. But if a contradiction seems to appear, it is illusory, because DNA and language are independent levels. In that case it is merely a situation that the particular genetic wave does not match with the linguistic evidence: then we must reject that genetic wave and find out one that matches the linguistic evidence. That is the only scientific method.
Davidski:
ReplyDelete“My point: the chances that the speakers of Northwest Indo-European lived around the Urals in ~2,000 BCE, and that this is also where the late proto-Uralic homeland was, are exactly zero.”
Nobody claims that Northwest Indo-Europeans lived around the Urals! The contact zone was on the Middle Volga, where Corded Ware Fatyanovo-Balanovo Culture came to contact with the local cultures.
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.
Davidski:
“Of course, it'll take him the next ten years to figure out what I just said, because he'll be busy with the so called scientific method trying to salvage his outdated theories.”
I have shown what is wrong with your unscientific method and what is the correct scientific method. You cannot change facts. It tells a lot, that you don’t even try to defend your method! So you already know that it is worthless – now you just have to admit it and make corrections. You can still come to the science, if you just want to do it.
According to one of there models posted on AG, Goyet is 23% East Asian and the BachoKiro P/pre-R guy is 17% East Asian? Is that likely? Or is there some sort of bias towards overestimating ENA admixture?
ReplyDelete"Nobody claims that Northwest Indo-Europeans lived around the Urals! The contact zone was on the Middle Volga, where Corded Ware Fatyanovo-Balanovo Culture came to contact with the local cultures."
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing which links the Fatyanovo-Balanovo to Northwestern Indo-European languages. The only real option you have there are languages with an affinity to or descent from Proto-Indo-Iranian.
Early NW Indo-European presence in those regions preserved by Uralic languages sounds like a fata morgana to me.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I greatly respect your work and expertise in this area.
The problem I, and I think other people, have is that it makes little sense that ancient people that contributed no discernible ancestry to modern Uralic speakers would be the source of Proto-Uralic, whilst ancient people that contributed significant ancestry to all modern Uralic speakers (except Hungarians) have nothing to do with Proto-Uralic. I'm sure you understand this.
Perhaps it is possible that pre-Proto-Uralic came from Siberia, whilst Uralic proper is the result of a secondary expansion from Volga-Kama. Perhaps the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people spoke a Para-Uralic language. I don't know, it depends on whether the timing adds up. But one way or another, the ancestry that is shared between modern Uralic speakers is probably connected to Proto-Uralic.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
ReplyDeleteI respect your opinion on the linguistic associations of PU, you are obviously much more an expert in this area than I.
However, the "DNA does not speak language" line of argumentation becomes tiresome quick. It also seems to only apply to Uralic, as you yourself have no problem connecting the Corded Ware cultures to IE.
Uralics share a specific type of Siberian DNA and Y chromosome which, simply did not exist in the Volga-Kama region prior to the 2nd millinium BC. The language these people spoke seems clear to me.
Archi:
ReplyDelete“I know perfectly well what I am writing about. You have unsubstantiated unscientific fantasies. Sorry, but you are not an authority on these issues, all your statements are in advance biased. You do not have scientific research, you are very biased and your goal is to be true Europeans in any way, so you go for any anti-scientific statements.”
You have very delusional perspective to reality. I’m not biased, I am a neutral and objective researcher. Every valid argument must be taken into consideration, and invalid must be rejected. Only reliable methods must be applied.
Archi: “Don't write what you don't understand at all. Lexical changes are more constant, they are similar to SNP and STR mutations, this has been proven in many languages and have an approximately constant rate.”
Utterly false claim. Maybe you should read also the critical reviews on that method? You clearly have very biased and distorted perspective in this.
Archi: “But the sound changes are absolutely unpredictable and do not have any rate of change, they change infinitely from different languages and eras, and spontaneously and unpredictably, an example of this is the Great English vowel shift.”
Here you have misunderstood something. I never said that sound changes would have certain rate of change! So you are now beating your own strawman. Sound changes are the skeleton upon which the loanwords are layered. 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.
Archi: “1. Until 2000BC, there was no Finnish DNA in the Volga-Kama region, this is known for sure.”
Has anyone ever claimed that there was? Not me. Besides, define “Finnish DNA”. Again you have severely misunderstood something.
Archi: “2. Uraliс broke up long before 2000BC, it is known for sure. This means that Proto-Uraliс in the Volga-Kama region could not be, it is known for sure.”
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.
Hey Jaska, so Fatyanovo-Balanovo was Northwest Indo-European was it?
ReplyDeleteAnd then they moved to Central Asia, Iran and India.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/11/fatyanovo-as-part-of-wider-corded-ware.html
See that's why Indians speak Baltic, Celtic, Germanic and Slavic.
ReplyDeleteRob: “That's an absurd reduction. Nobody believes that looking down a microscope at DNA will tell us what language somebody spoke.
As i said, it tells not only about big migrations, but also individuals moving about, social networks, lineage/ kin systems and heriarchy”
So you have no method to reliably see the language in the DNA? Thanks.
You only have genetic results, and your method is guessing: you just arbitrarily decide that this one genetic wave now represents Proto-Uralic-speakers. Why would your guess be any valid than any other guess? Why do you think that you can ignore linguistic results, when linguistics is the only discipline which studies language?
Rob:
“Let's look at the big picture:
Middle Volga ~ 2000 BC. I don't know but lets assume this scenario - the people which lived there were local hunter-gatherers which had been there since 6000 BC
They then disappear by 1500 BC due to a rapid migration from the East, and then after 1000 BC, there is a migration of para-Balto-Slavic groups from Trziniec culture from the West.”
You build guesses upon guesses. No people ever have disappeared: there is always at least small continuity in archaeological and genetical level. Still, there is always also new features in archaeological and genetical level. Therefore there are many options considering language: was the winner the language of the earlier people or the language of the newcomers? There really is no scientific method to see this in archaeological or genetical data!
Rob:
“So you have two new populations entering the region in a large way. So not only big numbers, but in a position of social dominance
How would the previous hunter-gatherer language survived, and moreover, become the lingua franca of the new social reality?”
There are tens waves of migrations seen in archaeological and genetic data. Your method is guessing: you just decide that one of them represents Proto-Uralic speakers. But guessing is not a scientific method.
Rob:
“You connect NW IE with Corded Ware, but simply, CWC was not in contact with any groups whose genetic profile matches that of ancient & modern FU speakers.”
You really cannot know that. You are just building guesses upon guesses.
Because you have just decided unscientifically what was the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers, you can no more see any other options. You should now go back to the square one and remove all your guesses, and then apply the scientific method for multidisciplinary picture.
Rob:
“That could have occurred anywhere and at anytime. This so-called NW IE could be Tocharian languages in the east, it could be the Trziniec C. languages post 1200 BC, after the Srubnaja culture collapsed. As a further example, the Irmen phase i pointed out, shows a comlete medely of dfferent cultural incluences
These strata you identify need not have taken placed in FennoScandia or the East Baltic.“
These loanwords are called NwIE because the fittest cognates are found in the northwestern branches – not Tocharian or any other branch. And the location is Middle Volga (Fatyanovo-Balanovo), not Fenno-Baltia.
And sorry that I mistook Archi’s comment as yours. :)
Copper Axe:
ReplyDelete“There is nothing which links the Fatyanovo-Balanovo to Northwestern Indo-European languages. The only real option you have there are languages with an affinity to or descent from Proto-Indo-Iranian.”
Why do you reject the well-based connection between NwIE and Corded Ware Culture? 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.
You challenge the mainstream view, so you must present your evidence.
Erik Andersson:
“The problem I, and I think other people, have is that it makes little sense that ancient people that contributed no discernible ancestry to modern Uralic speakers would be the source of Proto-Uralic, whilst ancient people that contributed significant ancestry to all modern Uralic speakers (except Hungarians) have nothing to do with Proto-Uralic. I'm sure you understand this.”
The real problem is, that we don’t actually know the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers, because the genetic composition between modern Uralic peoples differs so much. You people here have made an unscientific guess, and then you build more guesses upon guesses.
If you know the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers, please tell me. And tell the evidence which lead you to that view.
Erik Andersson:
“Perhaps it is possible that pre-Proto-Uralic came from Siberia, whilst Uralic proper is the result of a secondary expansion from Volga-Kama. Perhaps the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people spoke a Para-Uralic language. I don't know, it depends on whether the timing adds up. But one way or another, the ancestry that is shared between modern Uralic speakers is probably connected to Proto-Uralic.”
In the opposite ends we have Hungarians (and some Southern Finnics?) who do not have that Nganasan-ancestry, and Nganasans who do not have European HG-ancestry. So why do you lock up only one of these components?
You really cannot make the puzzle whole without the linguistic evidence. See, here are the steps how the Nganasan language was “born”:
1. Late Proto-Uralic in the Volga-Kama region around 2000 BC.
2. Possibly East Uralic dialect in the Urals region some centuries later.
3. Pre-Proto-Samoyedic reaches the Altay-Sayan region some centuries later.
4. Late Proto-Samoyedic in the Altay-Sayan region spreads northwards around 1 AD.
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.
Similar steps for the Saami:
1. Late Proto-Uralic in the Volga-Kama region around 2000 BC.
2. West Uralic dialect in the Upper Volga region some centuries later.
3. Pre-Proto-Saami reaches the Ladoga region at latest around 500 BC.
4. Late Proto-Saami in the Southern Finland spreads northwards soon after 1 AD.
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.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Hanken:
“I respect your opinion on the linguistic associations of PU, you are obviously much more an expert in this area than I. However, the "DNA does not speak language" line of argumentation becomes tiresome quick.”
You all here repeat this same mantra. :) However, you cannot defend the unscientific method with any mantra: you can only defend it with valid arguments. So please, be free to present the arguments which show how you can reliably see language from genetic results (not in DNA as with microscope).
Anthony: “It also seems to only apply to Uralic, as you yourself have no problem connecting the Corded Ware cultures to IE.”
Connecting is OK, when it is done scientifically: Corded Ware Culture happens to match the Northwest Indo-European dialect in time, space and direction. I repeat:
Scientific method:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s look at the linguistic results.
3. Let’s look if there are in both of these any phenomenons which match concerning time, place and direction of spread.
Unscientific method of Davidski/Generalissimo:
1. Let’s look at the genetic results.
2. Let’s ignore the linguistic results.
3. Let’s decide ad hoc that this genetic wave in certain place at certain time represents certain language.
You surely see the difference between the two methods?
I know you people here are not stupid – you can and you will understand scientific arguments. It only requires that you put aside your pride and admit to yourself that you were mislead and misinformed.
Anthony: “Uralics share a specific type of Siberian DNA and Y chromosome which, simply did not exist in the Volga-Kama region prior to the 2nd millinium BC. The language these people spoke seems clear to me.”
Yet again another mantra which you all here repeat. Actually we don’t know the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers. You have only guessed it, and then you build further guesses upon guesses.
Nganasan-component is not the only one shared with most of the Uralic peoples (HG-ancestry is also common in them); therefore it is improbable that it alone would make 100 % of the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers.
Davidski:
ReplyDelete“Hey Jaska, so Fatyanovo-Balanovo was Northwest Indo-European was it?
And then they moved to Central Asia, Iran and India.
See that's why Indians speak Baltic, Celtic, Germanic and Slavic.”
So many misunderstandings here.
1. You cannot predict from the archaeological data if a language spread too;
2. and if it spread, you cannot see if it replaced the original language or itself got lost.
3. Only linguistic results can tell which language spreads happened and which did not happen.
The same goes with genetics:
1. You cannot predict from the genetic data if a language spread too;
2. and if it spread, you cannot see if it replaced the original language or itself got lost.
3. Only linguistic results can tell which language spreads happened and which did not happen.
I know that you can understand this. It only requires that you put aside your pride and admit yourself that you were mislead and misinformed.
@Jaakko
ReplyDeleteFatyanovo-Balanovo could not have been Northwest Indo-European speaking because such a claim is at odds with the archeological and ancient DNA data.
Northwest Indo-European dialects must have been spoken by Corded Ware populations west of Fatyanovo-Balanovo.
And like I keep saying, there are no candidate populations for proto-Uralics at the Volga Bend in ~2,000 BCE, unless of course you claim that these proto-Uralics aren't genetically related to any living Uralic populations.
So it's time to move on and look for more plausible alternatives. I'm sure you can come up with something if you put your mind to it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavidski:
ReplyDelete“Fatyanovo-Balanovo could not have been Northwest Indo-European speaking because such a claim is at odds with the archeological and ancient DNA data.”
No, you read the results too black-and-white.
The results tell that later people from that cultural area spread to the southeast, but it does not say anything about the origin of the Fatyanovo Culture. And as is widely accepted, the origin of that culture is in the East Baltic Corded Ware Culture.
So, the earliest Fatyanovo stage around 2800 BC originated in the west, in the Northwest Indo-European area. In the next stage around 2500 BC we see strong Abashevo-related influence spreading from south to the Fatyanovo area. This happens to be in the right place and time and can be connected to the forming Proto-Aryan language community.
Davidski:
“Northwest Indo-European dialects must have been spoken by Corded Ware populations west of Fatyanovo-Balanovo.”
Still, NwIE’s are connected to the spread of Corded Ware Culture to the Middle Volga area. Only slightly later strong Aryan influence from Abashevo culture “captured” that culture.
Davidski:
“And like I keep saying, there are no candidate populations for proto-Uralics at the Volga Bend in ~2,000 BCE, unless of course you claim that these proto-Uralics aren't genetically related to any living Uralic populations.”
Please, tell me finally how can you know that the population in Volga Bend at 2000 BC could not speak Uralic? I promise, you will receive the Nobel price.
We all know that your method here is guessing and as such it is totally unreliable, worthless and unscientific.
@Jaakko
ReplyDeleteAbashevo 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.