Saturday, February 13, 2021
The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time
A whole lot of nonsense was posted online, often by people who should've known better, after I claimed that kra001 was a solid proxy for a proto-Uralic genome (see here).
For those of you who still don't get it, below are three Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots featuring Uralic speakers and other present-day Eurasians. Kra001 is also there. These graphs are based on genotype data not reprocessed Global25 data. The relevant datasheet is available here.
Compared to my previous PCA with kra001, here I included a bigger range of East Eurasian populations to help mitigate the effects of extreme genetic drift in some of the Siberian groups, at least on the first few Principal Components (PCs). Moreover, kra001 wasn't projected onto PCs computed with modern-day samples, so he was free to influence the outcome of the PCA.
Note the east to west clines made up largely of Uralic speaking groups on the first two plots. These plots are based on PCs 1/2 and 1 /3, respectively. The third plot, based on PCs 1/4, is more complex and thus more difficult to interpret, but it also manages to isolate many of the Uralic populations from the others.
The Uralic-specific clines do intersect with the clines and clusters formed by the other linguistic groups. However, based on the three plots, the Yeniseian-speaking Kets are the only Asian group that can plausibly be confused for Uralic speakers.
Importantly, apart from the Kets, kra001 is the only Asian individual who shifts his position on all three plots as if he were a Uralic speaker. This might well be a coincidence, and we'll never know what language was spoken by kra001, but it does suggest to me that his genome is a solid proxy for a proto-Uralic genome.
See also...
First taste of Early Medieval DNA from the Ural region
The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?
Fresh off the sledge
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
773 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 773 Newer› Newest»@ Rob
If only family-tree method is applied, strange results can be offered. E.g. Warnow's 'Albano-Germanic' branch within I.E.
These results aren't strange. In fact they're very good. Very good at exposing how PIE reconstruction is being manipulated. If there is an obscure word in Germanic, which in the worst case may be e.g. a loanword from Slavic, then they look for any equally obscure word in Armenian or Albanian and they create PIE reconstruction out of them. Impartial algorithms fed with sets of cognates "see" this as an Albano-Germanic branch.
Re: samples from Greece
Plenty of new samples from Greece are in this study, but unfortunately it's just screening:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235146
Data is published, but it's hard to squeeze anything from it.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB37812
https://pastebin.com/5M0Mes5h
Mari.SG
Russia_BA_Krasnoyarsk: 32.0%
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta: 59.2%
Norway_LN_BA.SG: 8.8%
tailprob: 92.1 %
Norway_LN_BA.SG is VK531
Quick go at labelling Harney-Cheronet samples: https://pastebin.com/FY1deiFt
Quite a lot of new Slavic-like samples from Hungary (2nd and 1st Millennium BCE) which solidifies the Eastern European like drift being present then.
Many of these samples have uncertain dating intervals. I'm fairly sure that the Moldovan samples that are Yamnaya-like are probably not from 1000 AD, while the ROU_Glavanesti who are broadly Steppe_MLBA like (but with some more exotic / different ancestry perhaps) are also from wide dating intervals, and some of them are Sintashta like while others are Sarmatian like. I suspect some of these are probably actually Steppe_MLBA while some are actually Sarmatian?
I would doubt there is anything going on with Glavanesti in terms of enriched ANE / Steppe_Maykop ancestry from their position in Vahaduo's North Eurasia PCA.
Yamnaya like people in Moldovan Tumulus seems pretty cool. Might be worth seeing if these have any Steppe_Maykop like ancestry as well, as maybe a little off cline.
@Jaakko
"Please feel free to present a reconstruction of the spread of N1c and Uralic language. If you can present a structure which matches considerably with the spread of Uralic languages on time, space, direction of spread and taxonomic units of the language family, I am ready to accept it. But if it doesn’t match, then the scientific method requires to find a better match.
I still remind you that we cannot exclude other haplogroups like N2 = N1b or R1a"
Something to do with Seima-Turbino seems like the only option.
N2 split from N1 22000ybp, it's not relevant. N1b and R1a aren't widespread among Uralic speakers, they clearly reflect admixture from neighboring populations.
This should be obvious with the Balto-Slavic subclades of R1a in Uralic speakers.
N1b may represent an arctic substrate which, mainly effected Samoyedic groups.
The connecting factor here are, subclades of N-L1026 which share a common ancestor 4700ybp, and began to spread around 4100ybp.
These dates are from YFull.
I suggest:
HUN_Füzesabony_MBA:I20772
HUN_Füzesabony_MBA:I20750
for
I20772 Polgár Kenderföld, Hungary 4,300-3,600
I20750 Polgár Kenderföld, Hungary 4,300-3,600
http://bakota.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/SAA%20Posters/Giblin%20et%20al_SAA%20Poster_2019_FINAL.pdf
It is interesting, Füzesabony culture crossed Carpatian mountains in the north and was in direct contact with ‘Hyperboreans’ i.e. proto-Slavs and this would explain their genetic and cultural influence on early Greeks.
https://postimg.cc/t7ckXM3L
https://postimg.cc/bZcRnSFg
@Arza Davidski
"I can take care of naming them, but it'll be tricky as 2-3 samples correspond to a single individual, and some of them came out quite differently."
For good duplicate samples, you need to combine into one sample. 2 duplicate samples of I11922-I11928 turned out very different.
@ Archie
''Indo-Uralic theory is strictly proved''
It doesn't look like it
''Nichols and Koivulehto are not authorities. ''
Says you
''It must be borne in mind that for a long time after PIE penetration to Europe between Europe and Western Siberia continued continuum dialects. I am sure that at this time R1A live there.''
Although you think it is, R1a is not the PIE marker, but is linked to Balto-Slavic , Indo-Iranian and perhaps Tocharian.
Greeks & Balkan-Anatolian IE do not come from KMK, so forth. This is clear to anyone with the slightest grip on reality.
R1a was present in the Dnieper region by 11,000 BP, which is already the start of Mesolithic. This means it was there already by the late Paleolithic, fi not Ice Age.
On the other hand, Ra is completely absent from Siberia so far. And even if it was, it had no contact with N1-lineages, which were in a completely different system (Baikal-northern China at the time)
Your theory (which is basically a R1a-haplocentric version of Carlos Quilles mixed with antiquated Soviet Nostraticism) has zero % chance of being proven correct. In fact, we can already sing goodbye
@ EastPole
These are two samples from a single individual, so we need to decide if we're keeping one or merging both.
MDE - tooth HUNG395B I20750
WTR - tooth HUNG395B I20772
@ Archi
IMHO as long as the shift is a result of the unevenness of distribution of SNPs and not contamination or damage it should be fine to merge them.
@Matt
"Many of these samples have uncertain dating intervals. I'm fairly sure that the Moldovan samples that are Yamnaya-like are probably not from 1000 AD, while the ROU_Glavanesti who are broadly Steppe_MLBA like (but with some more exotic / different ancestry perhaps) are also from wide dating intervals, and some of them are Sintashta like while others are Sarmatian like. I suspect some of these are probably actually Steppe_MLBA while some are actually Sarmatian?"
MDA_Ciumai is Sarmatians, early and late. ROU_Glavanesti_BA is Corded Ware population coming from the east, carrier Asian genes, one sample is very mixed with a local substrate. Glavanesti is a cemetery of Babino culture.
https://i.ibb.co/P9b7HxQ/ROU-Glavanesti-BA-MDA-Ciumai-PCA.png
@Arza
"These results aren't strange. In fact they're very good. Very good at exposing how PIE reconstruction is being manipulated. If there is an obscure word in Germanic, which in the worst case may be e.g. a loanword from Slavic, then they look for any equally obscure word in Armenian or Albanian and they create PIE reconstruction out of them. Impartial algorithms fed with sets of cognates "see" this as an Albano-Germanic branch."
This is not the case, Albanian is simply not in accurate calculation because it is a pidgin, there are very few original words in it. No one has been manipulated with anything, just with such pidgins is very great noise of errors.
@Rob
"Your theory (which is basically a R1a-haplocentric version of Carlos Quilles mixed with antiquated Soviet Nostraticism) has zero % chance of being proven correct. In fact, we can already sing goodbye"
This is 100% proven theory. It has nothing to do with Carlos Quilles. All that you write is refuted in 100% of cases, you were right in zero % of cases, we can say "goodbye" to you.
Archie I want to see you publish your theory; just for laughs
Question of the day.....
How would a Turkish nationalist, respond to Sardinian tourist who says Turkey belongs to the indigenous Anatolians.
@Rob
Carlos Quilles, re-login. You and your theory that IE was spoken by the European Australopithecines is ridiculous.
Andrzejewski:
“1. Basal Hap Y-N is originally from Northern China, a subclades of O-N.
If anything, Uralic’s prehistoric forebears may have had something to do with the East Eurasian side of the Native Americans (“Devil’s Gate) than with anything resembling MA1 or AG3. The WSH had 50% ANE.”
What has basal N to do with Uralic speakers?
How is the second sentence even connected to the first?
Anthony Hanken:
“N2 split from N1 22000ybp, it's not relevant. N1b and R1a aren't widespread among Uralic speakers, they clearly reflect admixture from neighboring populations.”
But they are, at least on that level of resolution:
- N1b (N2 in the Y-studies) is found from Vepsians to Samoyeds – only Hungarians, Saamis and other Finnic peoples than Vepsians do not have it.
- R1a is found almost in every Uralic population, only northernmost Samoyeds don’t have it.
AH: “This should be obvious with the Balto-Slavic subclades of R1a in Uralic speakers.”
So, what are these Balto-Slavic subclades?
AH: “The connecting factor here are, subclades of N-L1026 which share a common ancestor 4700ybp, and began to spread around 4100ybp.”
Yes, and the problem is, that this resolution still tells us nothing more: L1026* itself is not widespread in Uralic speakers, and none of its subclades is a very good match, neither.
@archi, here's where they cluster on Vahaduo's West Eurasia and North Eurasia PCA: https://imgur.com/a/egSja0P
The Glavanesti samples definitely seem to me like Steppe_MLBA, with maybe some slight pull towards East Eurasia and the MDA Tumulus seem like Afanasievo/Yamnaya with maybe some slight pull to East Eurasia. This is not necessarily definite though, you may be more correct.
(The closest samples to the MDA samples out of whole Global 25 set seemed to be: KAZ_Sarmatian:DA26, KAZ_Kyzlbulak_MLBA2:I4784, RUS_Yamnaya_Samara:I0231, RUS_Yamnaya_Samara:I0357, RUS_Kubano-Tersk:PG2002, RUS_Sarmatian_Pokrovka:I0574, RUS_Poltavka:I0126, RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2:I1020, RUS_Sarmatian_Urals:tem003. Some are Sarmatian, some are Steppe_EMBA.)
@Matt
MDA_ - the problem is that now these are different parts of one genome, so they give different proximity to different samples from one set.
Distance to: MDA_Ciumai:I11927
0.02039068 Sarmatian_KAZ:DA26
0.02144388 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2:I1057
0.02332445 Andronovo_TJK_Dashti_Kozy_LBA:I4160
0.02430514 Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0574
0.02430864 Andronovo_KAZ_Kyzylbulak_LBA_o:I4784
0.02553488 Andronovo_TJK_Dashti_Kozy_LBA:I4257
0.02589208 Andronovo_RUS_Minusinsk_LBA:I1821
0.02600212 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0231
0.02622079 Andronovo_KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LFBA_Fedorovo:I3976
0.02630076 Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0575
0.02637499 Andronovo_RUS_Krasnoyarsk_LBA:I3389
0.02668333 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA141
0.02674734 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:tem002
0.02696331 Andronovo_KAZ_Maitan_LBA_Alakul:I6792
0.02717057 RUS_Karasuk:RISE499
Distance to: MDA_Ciumai:I11926
0.01809116 Andronovo_TJK_Dashti_Kozy_LBA:I4160
0.01838450 Andronovo_KAZ_Kyzylbulak_LBA_o:I4784
0.01939227 Sarmatian_KAZ:DA26
0.02024895 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2:I1057
0.02091841 Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0574
0.02105065 Andronovo_TJK_Dashti_Kozy_LBA:I4257
0.02227532 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0231
0.02268568 Andronovo_RUS_Krasnoyarsk_LBA:I3389
0.02339936 Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0575
0.02340000 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:tem002
0.02350149 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:tem003
Distance to: MDA_Ciumai:I11928
0.01877552 Andronovo_KAZ_Kyzylbulak_LBA_o:I4784
0.01880771 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2:I1057
0.02145903 Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:I0574
0.02218536 Sarmatian_KAZ:DA26
0.02335359 Andronovo_RUS_Minusinsk_LBA:I1821
0.02373120 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0357
0.02427035 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:tem003
0.02429897 Andronovo_TJK_Dashti_Kozy_LBA:I4160
0.02455769 Andronovo_KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LFBA_Fedorovo:I3753
Distance to: MDA_Cimișlia:I11925
0.01784433 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:chy001
0.02109502 Andronovo_KAZ_Kairan_LBA:I4776
0.02114876 Andronovo_KAZ_Aktogai_LBA:I4773
0.02122640 Andronovo_KAZ_Maitan_LBA_Alakul:I6793
0.02193285 Andronovo_KAZ_Dali_LBA:I0507
0.02234010 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1063
0.02257078 RUS_Tagar:DA8
0.02262985 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1090
0.02263581 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA81
0.02272136 Sarmatian_KAZ:DA30
0.02279101 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ56
Distance to: MDA_Cimișlia:I11924
0.01722498 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:chy001
0.02144271 Andronovo_KAZ_Aktogai_LBA:I4773
0.02211628 KAZ_Chanchar2_LBA:I11537
0.02217296 KAZ_Katon_Karagay_FBA:I6709
0.02228520 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ56
0.02239397 Andronovo_KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LFBA_Fedorovo:I4267
0.02260066 Andronovo_RUS_Krasnoyarsk_LBA:I3390
0.02285804 HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
0.02291441 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe:DA134
0.02332209 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA81
Distance to: MDA_Cimișlia:I11923
0.01964306 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:chy001
0.02186458 Andronovo_KAZ_Aktogai_LBA:I4773
0.02211854 Andronovo_KAZ_Kairan_LBA:I4776
0.02300761 KAZ_Nomad_IA:DA129
0.02304713 RUS_Srubnaya_LBA:I0361
0.02387865 KAZ_Katon_Karagay_FBA:I6709
0.02390251 KAZ_Nomad_IA:DA18
0.02418181 KAZ_Chanchar2_LBA:I11537
0.02436801 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ56
0.02450429 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ41
0.02488293 Andronovo_KAZ_Dali_LBA:I0507
0.02510259 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0987
0.02513245 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1090
0.02554428 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA81
Distance to: MDA_Cimișlia:I11922
0.01993866 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:chy001
0.02105635 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA81
0.02108459 Andronovo_KAZ_Aktogai_LBA:I4773
0.02306643 Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:MJ56
0.02398604 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1063
0.02399104 RUS_Srubnaya_LBA:I0359
0.02419483 RUS_Srubnaya_LBA:I0232
0.02422726 HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
0.02423861 KAZ_Kangju:DA121
0.02442233 KAZ_Katon_Karagay_FBA:I6709
0.02450102 Andronovo_RUS_Krasnoyarsk_LBA:I3390
0.02452142 RUS_Tagar:DA5
@ Arza
Thanks
@Jaakko
I guess at some level you find Quiles' R1a = Proto-Uralic fantasies comforting.
However, you must understand that there are no Uralic-specific subclades of R1a.
In Eastern Europe Uralic speakers carry R1a lineages derived from the Balto-Slavic-specific R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458.
In Siberia a few Uralic groups show R1a-Z93, and this is obviously due to contacts with Indo-Iranians and, more recently, Turkic groups.
Also, there's no way to link the R1a lineages from Comb Ceramic and other similar populations to Proto-Uralics, because they're extremely rare today and don't show any correlations with linguistics.
And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up N-L1026* and its paucity in modern populations in these discussions?
N-L1026 existed before Proto-Uralic was spoken, and the reasons that almost all Uralic speaking populations show high frequencies of various subclades of N-L1026 are founder effects in these specific subclades during and after the Proto-Uralic expansions and genetic drift.
Perhaps you don't understand what N-L1026* really means? It means N-L1026 with no further resolution, because I'm not aware of any instances of N-L1026 in existence today that actually stop at the N-L1026 mutation.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-L1026/
@All
Someone has to bite the bullet and label the highest coverage/least noisy samples from this Harney-Cheronet list as best as you can according to the Global25 labeling style.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E2KusMn1duD-kbtBBLla2JrgQ1jOjiGZ/view?usp=sharing
If you do that I'll stick them into the Global25 datasheets. If not then I won't.
Davidski:
“I guess at some level you find Quiles' R1a = Proto-Uralic fantasies comforting.”
Of course not. Science is not comforting: it just tells us how things are. No single lineage means to me more than any other lineage. Falling in love with fantasies is something you amateurs do.
D: “However, you must understand that there are no Uralic-specific subclades of R1a.”
Please prove it.
And besides, it is also possible that there are no Uralic-specific lineages in any haplogroup.
Moreover, it is also possible that the same lineage could be connected to two different language groups.
D: “In Eastern Europe Uralic speakers carry R1a lineages derived from the Balto-Slavic-specific R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458.”
Neither of these are Balto-Slavic-specific, so please do not lie publicly. See supplementary tables of Underhill et al. 2014.
D: “In Siberia a few Uralic groups show R1a-Z93, and this is obviously due to contacts with Indo-Iranians and, more recently, Turkic groups.”
Based on what evidence? If Z93 was born within Fatyanovo Culture, in the area where the Pre-Proto-Uralic speakers arrived before spreading again as Proto-Uralic speakers, then Z93 could have been present in the Proto-Uralic speaking population already. There are still many possible options, although you refuse to see them.
D: “Also, there's no way to link the R1a lineages from Comb Ceramic and other similar populations to Proto-Uralics, because they're extremely rare today and don't show any correlations with linguistics.”
Someone should first assess that. But it’s true that R1a5 is not very common today.
D: “And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up N-L1026* and its paucity in modern populations in these discussions?
N-L1026 existed before Proto-Uralic was spoken, and the reasons that almost all Uralic speaking populations show high frequencies of various subclades of N-L1026 are founder effects in these specific subclades during and after the Proto-Uralic expansions and genetic drift.”
The same explanation could then be applied also to all the other haplogroups, like N2 and R1a. No double standards.
D: “Perhaps you don't understand what N-L1026* really means? It means N-L1026 with no further resolution, because I'm not aware of any instances of N-L1026 in existence today that actually stop at the N-L1026 mutation.”
I do understand. That’s why I keep saying that neither L1026* nor any of its subclades has particularly fitting match with the Uralic language family.
@Jaska “ Based on what evidence? If Z93 was born within Fatyanovo Culture, in the area where the Pre-Proto-Uralic speakers arrived before spreading again as Proto-Uralic speakers, then Z93 could have been present in the Proto-Uralic speaking population already. There are still many possible options, although you refuse to see them.”
Volosovo vanished without a trace. No additional HG was found in Fatyanovo.
@Jaakko
Since you're the one claiming that there might be a Uralic-specific and thus potentially Proto-Uralic subclade of R1a, then the onus is on you to prove that it exists.
But I can tell you that no one has ever heard of such a thing.
As I've already pointed out to you, Eastern European Uralics, who've had contacts with Balto-Slavs, carry lineages under R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458 that look suspiciously Balto-Slavic.
Fennoscandian Uralics, who've had contacts with Germanics, carry lineages under R1a-Z284 that look suspiciously Germanic.
Asian Uralics, who've had contacts with Indo-Iranians and Turkics, carry lineages under R1a-Z93 that look suspiciously Indo-Iranian.
That is, there is no subclade of R1a that, like N-L1026, is shared by almost all Uralic populations in Europe and Asia.
Uralics carry R1a subclades that obviously reflect their recent contacts with their non-Uralic neighbors.
It’s ironic, as Archie and Jaako are actually fairly similar in their standpoint, although in the converse.
They both believe in higher order linguistic affinities which require a dose of faith ; and both plead against the hard data of population genomics
J believes that FU originated in the Volga -Kama, despite the fact that FU populations have origins well to the East. Okay fine; but what is the alternative ? These weren’t “assimilated arctic hunter-gatherers “
Archie imagines that PIE arrived to Europe from Siberia ~ 6000 BC with west Siberian hunter-gatherers who settled the Volga -Kama region ; despite the fact that the uni parental forefathers of putative early IE -associated lineages being in Europe since the Palaeolithic & has nothing to do with WSHGs . A ludicrous proposal by a low-tier nostraticist
@ Archie
At least come up with your own jokes .
@all
Does anyone have any reservations about these names?
https://pastebin.com/0QVcPbNV
I skipped Ekven, Uelen and Ust Belaya as they're probably duplicates of samples that are already in G25. Dereivka is a duplicate of I5885.
@Rob “ Archie imagines that PIE arrived to Europe from Siberia ~ 6000 BC with west Siberian hunter-gatherers who settled the Volga -Kama region ; despite the fact that the uni parental forefathers of putative early IE -associated lineages being in Europe since the Palaeolithic & has nothing to do with WSHGs . A ludicrous proposal by a low-tier nostraticist”
uni parental forefathers of putative early IE -associated lineages being in Europe since the *Mesolithic* & has nothing to do with WSHGs.
PIE was created from an equal 1:1 ratio of EHG: CHG-like ancestry at Progress or Piedmont, just north of Caucasus.
It was a language isolate, unrelated to either EHG or CHG.
It was later influenced by EEF languages but to a very limited degree.
@Rob “ R1a is from Mesolithic Ukraine, at least”
Exactly! Sredny Stog —> Corded Ware —> Balto-Slavic & Indo-Iranians.
@!Andrze
“
It was later influenced by EEF languages but to a very limited degree.”
This is called adstrate influences
We can fairly confidently identify the strata
They would be
1. Varna , C-T & related Balkan groups
2. Majkop & related groups
(-> Anatolian split )
3. GAC on nuclear IE
@Arza,
Are those the G25 coordinates of all the new samples Davidski linked to?
@Jaakko
"N1b-P43 and N1c-M46 are both enriched in Siberia with N1b-p43 having a north-to-south decline and N1c-M46 having an east-to-west decline"
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066102
N2a dates to about 9.3 kya (95% CI = 7.8–10.9 kya). The minor sub-clade, N2a2-B520, is represented in our dataset by individual samples from China, Vietnam, and Japan, indicating the presence of this clade at marginal frequencies in Southeast Asia. The absolute majority of N2a individuals belong to the second sub-clade, N2a1-B523, which diversified about 4.7 kya (95% CI = 4.0–5.5 kya) (Figure 1A and Table S5). Its distribution covers the western and southern parts of Siberia, the Taimyr Peninsula, and the Volga-Uralic region with frequencies ranging from from 10% to 30% and does not extend to eastern Siberia (Table S2 and Figures 2 and S3). Whereas earlier studies presumed two sub-clades on the basis of different Y-STR patterns of N2a1 carriers,5, 15 we now have a total of 19 sequences from N2a1 and reveal three separate sub-clades. The most frequent one splits into a clade represented by nine individuals from Siberian populations (N2a1-B478) and another clade represented by three individuals, a Turk, an Arab, and an Afghani (N2a1-B525) (Figures 1A and S1). The latter sub-clade is occasionally found in populations such as the Mongols, Central Asians, and rarely also the Russians (Table S2). The “European” branch suggested earlier from Y-STR patterns turned out to consist of two clades: N2a1-B528, spread in the southern Volga-Uralic region, and N2a1-L1419, spread mainly in the northern part of that region (Figure S3). Although not all samples fall into any defined N2a1 branches (Table S2), when Y-STR haplotypes (Table S7) are used in network analysis, potential close affinity to the west Siberian N2a1-B528 sub-branch appears".
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.05.025
Do you think N-P43 (N2a1) can be reasonably linked to the Uralic expansion?
On the other hand....
"Another pattern involves the similarity in the range of hg N3a3’6, especially in the western part of Eurasia and the distribution of the Seima-Turbino trans-cultural phenomenon during the interval of 4.2–3.7 kya.51 Extending across northern Eurasia from Mongolia to the Baltic region, this phenomenon encompasses the cultures of nomadic forest and steppe societies with advanced metal-working technology.51 Taken together, these facts hint at the Seima-Turbino metalsmith-traders as the probable primary carriers of hg N3a3’6 lineages."
Andrzejewski:
"Volosovo vanished without a trace. No additional HG was found in Fatyanovo."
How does this relates to what I said? I said that Fatyanovo lineages could well be inherited onwards to the later population in the Volga-Kama region, which spoke Proto-Uralic.
Davidski:
“Since you're the one claiming that there might be a Uralic-specific and thus potentially Proto-Uralic subclade of R1a, then the onus is on you to prove that it exists.”
I’m not claiming anything like that. I’m just telling you that you cannot ignore any of the haplogroups which have wide distribution within the Uralic-speaking populations. You must research it first.
D: “As I've already pointed out to you, Eastern European Uralics, who've had contacts with Balto-Slavs, carry lineages under R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458 that look suspiciously Balto-Slavic.”
And I told you that these lineages are not Balto-Slavic but much more widespread.
That you believe them originating in Balto-Slavic is just believing. Belief is not evidence.
D: “Fennoscandian Uralics, who've had contacts with Germanics, carry lineages under R1a-Z284 that look suspiciously Germanic.”
It might originate in the populations which spoke Germanic. But guessing or believing is not evidence: you must research it.
D: “Asian Uralics, who've had contacts with Indo-Iranians and Turkics, carry lineages under R1a-Z93 that look suspiciously Indo-Iranian.”
How so? Z93 is found also within Finnic speakers. We could equally well say that Z93 lineages found in Indo-Iranian and Turkic populations look suspiciously like Uralic.
The point is: you just cannot decide these things based on your beliefs - you must research the origin and present evidence.
D: “That is, there is no subclade of R1a that, like N-L1026, is shared by almost all Uralic populations in Europe and Asia.”
If we take some upper clade compared to N-L1026, like R-Z645, it suddenly is widespread within Uralic populations. Still, none of the subclades is Uralic-specific, but the same goes with N-L1026. No double standards!
D: “Uralics carry R1a subclades that obviously reflect their recent contacts with their non-Uralic neighbors.”
This is again only your belief. How can you prove it?
@ GH
Yes.
There are also two new Trypillian samples worth adding to G25:
Scaled
UKR_Trypillia:Gordinesti,0.122929,0.162485,0.012822,-0.03553,0.03139,-0.024821,0.00188,0.000923,0.020248,0.03991,-0.001949,-3e-04,-0.010704,-0.004679,-0.025923,0.001856,0.019036,0.0019,-0.005656,0.005378,0.002995,0.007543,-0.001109,-0.004097,-0.003473
UKR_Trypillia:Pocrovca3,0.122929,0.162485,0.01961,-0.040698,0.048009,-0.028168,-0.000705,-0.005769,0.032928,0.05376,0.005846,0.014237,-0.024678,-0.001789,-0.024294,-0.008353,0.02034,0.006714,0.004525,0.001376,-0.000749,0.002226,-0.003574,-0.020003,0.006706
Raw
UKR_Trypillia:Gordinesti,0.0108,0.016,0.0034,-0.011,0.0102,-0.0089,0.0008,0.0004,0.0099,0.0219,-0.0012,-0.0002,-0.0072,-0.0034,-0.0191,0.0014,0.0146,0.0015,-0.0045,0.0043,0.0024,0.0061,-0.0009,-0.0034,-0.0029
UKR_Trypillia:Pocrovca3,0.0108,0.016,0.0052,-0.0126,0.0156,-0.0101,-0.0003,-0.0025,0.0161,0.0295,0.0036,0.0095,-0.0166,-0.0013,-0.0179,-0.0063,0.0156,0.0053,0.0036,0.0011,-0.0006,0.0018,-0.0029,-0.0166,0.0056
Rob:
“It’s ironic, as Archie and Jaako are actually fairly similar in their standpoint, although in the converse. They both believe in higher order linguistic affinities which require a dose of faith ; and both plead against the hard data of population genomics.”
You are mistaken. I don’t believe in any “higher order linguistic affinities”.
I don’t plead against hard data of genetics – I’m only telling you ignorant trolls that you cannot see language from DNA. Please tell me how it could even in theory be possible?
Rob:
“J believes that FU originated in the Volga -Kama, despite the fact that FU populations have origins well to the East. Okay fine; but what is the alternative ? These weren’t assimilated arctic hunter-gatherers”
Again you are mistaken. How do you know where is the origin of Proto-Uralic-speaking population, when you don’t even know what is the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic-speaking populations? You are only guessing: you erroneously think that you can see language from the genes, and you are too stupid to understand that it is impossible in this reality.
Anthony Hanken:
“Do you think N-P43 (N2a1) can be reasonably linked to the Uralic expansion?”
Actually not, because I know the steps and routes through which Saamic and Finnic spread, and N2 doesn’t match them. Still, the same problem concerns also the N3 lineages with Samoyedic. There simply is no single lineage, which would be found within all the Uralic-speaking populations. And the same goes with IE, too.
N3a3’6 is around 7000 years old, and nowhere is seen its *-clade, so this is a very poor match for Proto-Uralic. Its distribution reaches to Eskimos and Chukchis in Northeastern Siberia, very far from Uralic speakers and Seima-Turbino findings.
What we should do next is, that we reconstruct a step-by-step model for the spread of the Uralic branches. Every step began in different place at different time, so the genetic composition of the language-carriers could have changed between the steps.
@Jaakko
What makes you think that this hasn't been researched? In fact, it has been extensively researched by me and many others.
And based on this research, it's clear that R1a-M417 and several of its major subclades are closely associated with the Indo-European and Corded Ware expansions.
They can't be associated with any early Uralic expansions, for the simple reason and proven fact that Uralic speakers carry local, Indo-European-specific R1a-M417 lineages.
@Jaakko
Ok, but Proto-Uralic was spoken by people, some of which were men. Thus by spreading their language, they also spread their Y-haplogroup.
The Y-hg that matches this expansion best is N-L1026. Its subclades are widespread among Uralic speakers and their TMRCAs line up well with late Proto-Uralic.
True basal N-L1026* does not exist in modern populations. You have to look at its subclades as a whole because they shared the same ancestor 4700ybp.
Otherwise thats like saying Proto-Uralic never expanded because no population alive today speaks Proto-Uralic.
I'm still not married to the idea that there's not a remote connection between PIE and proto-Uralic.
@ Jaako
“ How do you know where is the origin of Proto-Uralic-speaking population, when you don’t even know what is the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic-speaking populations? You are only guessing: you erroneously think that you can see language from the genes, and you are too stupid to understand that it is impossible in this reality.”
As we have been trying to explain to you; all FU populations share this type of ancestry; and no other
So unless you think proto-Uralic wafted in with the wind; this is the link. Language spread is a process which has population correlations and at least some type of movement
Unlike linguistics, where each person might reconstruct meanings & sound changes differently; the observations are agreed across the board.
This is not an artefact of methodology; or guessing
You can keep shielding behind “scientific method” but unfortunately you cannot grasp what even amateurs and casual enthusiasts can. This is rather embarrassing for you
@Rob
“Archie imagines that PIE arrived to Europe from Siberia ~ 6000 BC with west Siberian hunter-gatherers who settled the Volga -Kama region ; despite the fact that the uni parental forefathers of putative early IE -associated lineages being in Europe since the Palaeolithic & has nothing to do with WSHGs . A ludicrous proposal by a low-tier nostraticist”
This is an outright lie of a liar. I never wrote that, you invented it to denigrate me, I always wrote that PIE is EHG based on R1a, Indo-European dialect of the Nostratic language and it is proven, they arrived with one wave of EHG / R1a since the Mesolithic. I've written about this many times. You always carry lies and nonsense and only deceive everyone.
WSHG and EHG are close relatives.
@Andrzejewski
"It was a language isolate, unrelated to either EHG or CHG."
This is unscientific nonsense.
Marry each other you have found each other.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Admit that you are one of those believers who cannot be proven anything, you have a typical creationist style. You deny any methods of science, demand proof from everyone and at the same time deny any proof, do not want to admit any proof, you only have references to erroneous statements, you are directly deceiving everyone.
@ Andrze
“ PIE was created from an equal 1:1 ratio of EHG: CHG-like ancestry at Progress or Piedmont, just north of Caucasus. ”
this region was a population sink with recurrent population replacements. But then again no region has absolute continuity
I would prefer to see more eneolithic genomes from the steppe / forest steppe to fully appreciate the dynamism of the process which led up to the Yamnaya period
@Rob
Everything that you write is irrelevant, you only troll and you have never written anything except trolling and deception.
You are false in its entirety
@ Archie
“ I always wrote that PIE is EHG based on R1a, Indo-European dialect of the Nostratic language and it is proven, they arrived with one wave of EHG / R1a since the Mesolithic.”
Which doesn’t make sense because Nostratic is irrelevant ; R1a is only linked with some IE languages; and R1a did not arrive from Siberia during the Mesolithic
You are free to believe what you want; but don’t pretend to be the scientist
Matt, Arza, David, I hope that in the light of all these new Hungarian genomes the enthusiasm to see in the West Slavic genome a medieval mixture of East Slavs and Celto-Germans will pass.
Archi, Nostraic is a wish not a fact. As far as the evidence goes it is just grasping at imaginary straws.
@Genos Historia
Re: skin colour genes in Africa.
Interesting. Recently Johannes Krause claimed in an interview that, if we met a WHG today, we would be unable to tell him apart from a Sub-Saharan African. Because there would be no visible difference apart from the WHG's blue eyes. As if this alone wouldn't suffice, not to speak about other things like hair texture etc.
"How would a Turkish nationalist, respond to Sardinian tourist who says Turkey belongs to the indigenous Anatolians."
You don't have to be a nationalist to reject claims like this as absurd, or at least as irrelevant in practical reality.
Palacista said...
" Archi, Nostraic is a wish not a fact. As far as the evidence goes it is just grasping at imaginary straws."
This is written only by those who have not read a single book on Nostratic and have not seen a single dictionary. You all just make up because you do not know anything about this topic and do not understand. But I will just inform you that the Uralic-Indo-European relationship is supported by all linguists, even those who deny Nostratic. Another position is simply anti-scientific.
I gave a link to the online dictionary, learn.
@Rob You are free to believe what you want; but don’t pretend to be the scientist"
I'm a scientist, but you are just a harmful troll for everyone, absolutely useless with some kind of secret sectarian faith and a fierce hatred of science.
@SimonW
"Interesting. Recently Johannes Krause claimed in an interview that, if we met a WHG today, we would be unable to tell him apart from a Sub-Saharan African. Because there would be no visible difference apart from the WHG's blue eyes. As if this alone wouldn't suffice, not to speak about other things like hair texture etc."
So according to Krause all dark people look alike? I take it then that the German cant tell the difference between Africans and Sri Lankans lol
@Simon_W,
Yeah.....I've realized, most geneticists like Johannes Krause don't spend much time actually studying their DNA. It seems they just run it through tests and repeat what the all holy tests say. Or they repeat what referenced studies say.
Just because WHG lacked light skin mutation in modern Europeans, doesn't mean they were black. You would think this would go through his mind.
@Simon_W,
"You don't have to be a nationalist to reject claims like this as absurd, or at least as irrelevant in practical reality."
Why so serious? But, of course, that is the right answer. 8,000 year haitus, is too long to come back and claim the land. But it would be funny.
@Genos
Even, say, 70 years is too long. Imagine Germans going to the Russian exclave Kaliningrad and claiming the land. Sure, they are not in the military position to do so, but even if they were, it wouldn't be fair towards the Russians living there. Or then all those descendants of Palestinian refugees claiming the right to "return", it's a similar case. But if 70 years are too long, then 2000 years are it too. And this all shows why I was so serious, these are touchy issues, and moreover political and therefore against the rules, so I'll not say anything more about this.
This Rob here eternally trolls with a cry about Nostratic, because he is easily without having the slightest concept of her content to troll to me to support his false scientific faith that the IE languages go at least from Neanderthals.
I am an opponent of discussions here on linguistic topics, because these topics can only be discussed with those who at least read all books on linguistics and in particular on a Nostratic when it comes to her. All discussants should know linguistics not worse than me, but better better. And otherwise there is nothing to stutter.
We here consider genetic data. But genetic data just support the whole to the Nostratic, someone can argue against it.
1. ANE and EHG is deeply related.
2. Siberian Malta ANE has R*, EHG has R1a.
3. In Paleolithic, there are no EHG and R1a in Europe during the Sunghir and the Kostenki in Europe.
4. The first Mesolitic EHG in Europe is R1a.
5. EHG and WSHG are deeply related.
6. R and Q are related and have Siberian origin, Yana is confirmation.
7. The fact that the EHG come from the east of Siberia confirm their mitohaploups, this is an indicator of the community of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia at the time.
Mesolithic Russia Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov [I0061 / UzOO 74; Karelia in Fu 2016; MAE RAS collection number 5773-74, grave number 142] 6773-5886 BCE R1a1* M459+, Page65.2+, M515-, M198-, M512-, M514-, L449- C1g
Mesolithic Russia Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov [UzOO 7 and 8] 7500 BP C1g
Neolithic Dnieper-Donets Ukraine Yasinovatka [Ya 45] 5471-5223 calBC (6360±60 BP, OxA-6164) M C
Neolithic Dnieper-Donets Ukraine Nikolskoye [Ni 58] M C
Neolithic Dnieper-Donets Ukraine Yasinovatka [Ya 34] 5323-4941 BC C4a2
Bronze Ukraine Liubasha, kurgan 2 [L8] 2512 ± 105 BC M C4a2
Bronze Ukraine Liubasha, kurgan 2 [L15] 2161 ± 107 BC CC4a2
Bronze Potapovka Russia Utyevka VI, Samara River, Samara [I0246 / SVP 41] 2469-1928 BC M R1 R1:CTS2908:14556851C->T C1
What is contrary to the Nostratic, what does it refute? What genetic arguments are that it is not correct?
@Genos Historia
"Just because WHG lacked light skin mutation in modern Europeans, doesn't mean they were black. You would think this would go through his mind."
Europeans have a lot of WHG, so if WHG had their mutations to light the skin, they would have been be sure to donate to modern Europeans, but they are not.
@Copper Axe
"I take it then that the German cant tell the difference between Africans and Sri Lankans lol"
Good point. It's funny, but some people really can't. Once I even saw the picture of an old Native American woman who was described as the descendant of African slaves in the caption.
@Bob Floy “ I'm still not married to the idea that there's not a remote connection between PIE and proto-Uralic.”
I’m much more wedded to the 18th century Turanic (namely, “Ural-Altaic”) idea than anything remotely Indo-Uralic. I would put the Ural-Altaic linguist unity at a pre-LGM period, more or less at the same time that the Proto-Afro-Asiatic family was spoken in North Africa by the Iberomaurasians: some time around 13,000BCE.
Even from an anthropological point of view: Hap N came from a Tran-Baikal Ulchi-related (Tungus) meta-population, that had much more in common with the East Eurasian side of Native Americans than with ANE populations, such as the original Yamnaya (50% ANE). Let alone they Nganassan are pre-eminently East Asian genetically and culturally whereas WSH even before the strong later gradual admixture with WHG and Anatolian neighbors had prominent Caucasian/Europoid features.
@Rob & @Archi “ @ Archie
“ I always wrote that PIE is EHG based on R1a, Indo-European dialect of the Nostratic language and it is proven, they arrived with one wave of EHG / R1a since the Mesolithic.””
No one but Anthony (2019) has ever explicitly written it.
And he has been debunked in the past many times.
His magna opus has been largely disproved. The one he wrote in 2009 which shot him to fame.
R1a1 is a Ukraine Mesolithic uniparental marker; it originated in Sredny Stog, which from the get-go has already had a much more considerable EEF amount mediated via GAC and CTC than Yamnaya and other fellow WSH kinfolk.
Sredny S —> Corded Ware. CWC was the fore-bearer of most modem IE languages and subfamilies, with the exception of perhaps Anatolian (unknown), Armenian (could it be Catacomb and Poltava, maybe even Srubnaya, which soaked the Northern Caucasus with Steppe admixture on their way?), and possibly Thraco-Illyrians or any other Paleo-Balkan dialects (perhaps stemming from Yamnaya Bulgaria or Yamnaya Hungary?).
So directly - all Satem languages (Baltic-Slavic & Indo-Iranian) and indirectly through SGC and BellBeaker - PIE may’ve been a much more Westerly Dnieper-based language; however, other para-PIE languages such as Yamnaya and Repin were undoubtedly IE and hewn to the same wood.
@Simon_W @Genos Historia “Yeah.....I've realized, most geneticists like Johannes Krause don't spend much time actually studying their DNA. It seems they just run it through tests and repeat what the all holy tests say. Or they repeat what referenced studies say.
Just because WHG lacked light skin mutation in modern Europeans, doesn't mean they were black. You would think this would go through his mind.”
WHG weren’t black; Cheddar Man wasn’t . In fact, SHG were mostly aDNA WHG but were fair skinned, not different from contemporary Scandinavians.
Skin color was an ongoing mutation that started 6,000 among separate WHG, Anatolian and WSH populations at various degrees, and only became common among Europeans post-BA period.
Davidski:
“And based on this research, it's clear that R1a-M417 and several of its major subclades are closely associated with the Indo-European and Corded Ware expansions.”
So, show me the evidence. Let’s see, if your interpretation of it stands, or if there are other possible interpretations.
D: “They can't be associated with any early Uralic expansions, for the simple reason and proven fact that Uralic speakers carry local, Indo-European-specific R1a-M417 lineages.”
You contradict yourself: they can’t be Indo-European-specific lineages, if they are found also within the Uralic-speaking populations.
Anthony Hanken:
“Ok, but Proto-Uralic was spoken by people, some of which were men. Thus by spreading their language, they also spread their Y-haplogroup.”
Yes, of course. We just cannot see from the genes which haplogroup is connected to which language. Guessing is not a reliable method.
AH: “The Y-hg that matches this expansion best is N-L1026. Its subclades are widespread among Uralic speakers and their TMRCAs line up well with late Proto-Uralic.”
We must be as concrete and precise as possible: we must separate L1026 and its subclades. Otherwise we could similarly claim that some upper node of R1a is also found in many Uralic populations and therefore connected to Proto-Uralic. Right?
AH: “True basal N-L1026* does not exist in modern populations. You have to look at its subclades as a whole because they shared the same ancestor 4700ybp.”
So, what is the distribution of these subclades and how do they match the linguistic results? I haven’t found any perfect match.
AH: “Otherwise thats like saying Proto-Uralic never expanded because no population alive today speaks Proto-Uralic.”
Still, collecting different subclades under one umbrella node is weaker evidence than a concrete subhaplogroup matching the Uralic languages. As I said:
Otherwise we could similarly claim that some upper node of R1a is also found in many Uralic populations and therefore connected to Proto-Uralic.
Rob:
“As we have been trying to explain to you; all FU populations share this type of ancestry; and no other”
Really? Where is the evidence for that claim? You only see the Admixture results, but other methods show that there is also EHG and even WHG ancestry even in Nganasans (see Tambets et al. 2018). So, this kind of ancestry is also shared by Uralic speakers.
Rob: “So unless you think proto-Uralic wafted in with the wind; this is the link. Language spread is a process which has population correlations and at least some type of movement”
Yes, but genetic roots (both autosomal components and uniparental lineages) of a population are many, and they spread to different directions, when we follow them back in time. How you can see, which of these root are connected to the spread of language?
Guessing is not a scientific method. You only see it, when you take the linguistic results and see if there is a match with some genetic root.
Rob: “Unlike linguistics, where each person might reconstruct meanings & sound changes differently; the observations are agreed across the board.”
Again you show that you don’t know anything about linguistic methods. There are many books about the methods of historical linguistics, so I suggest you read them before embarrassing yourself with comments like this.
Besides, genetic results are not any more reliable than the linguistic results. With different methods you get different results, and even with the same method you get different results, depending on the sample. And on top of this, you have many options how you interpret the genetic data.
Rob: “You can keep shielding behind “scientific method” but unfortunately you cannot grasp what even amateurs and casual enthusiasts can. This is rather embarrassing for you”
No, you just don’t have the mental capacity to grasp even the principles of science, which is sad.
Please feel free to tell me, how you can see language from the genes! All the geneticists of the world would appreciate your revolutionary method.
@Archi
3. In Paleolithic, there are no EHG and R1a in Europe during the Sunghir and the Kostenki in Europe.
Technically true, but a bit meaningless in the context of Nostralic question. Those samples are super ancient, they are pre-LGM, they are considerably older than MA1. This point is only important if you are arguing against a viewpoint that "R" is European, but there is no such viewpoint here.
from the east of Siberia
So North America then? :) OK, this was probably just bad phrasing from you...
7. The fact that the EHG come from the east of Siberia confirm their mitohaploups, this is an indicator of the community of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia at the time."
I object this usage of the term EHG, because EHG is a mixture of Paleolithic Western Siberians and Paleolithic Europeans. Sure, EHG is more paleo Siberian than paleo European, but still, there is no EHG without the "Villabruna" component. So there was no real EHG in Siberia. Sure there was some unity after the migration, but for how long? The time between Paleolithic migration from Siberia to Europe and even proto-PIE is about the same as the entire time since PIE until today, or more.
That being said, I do not think that there is a genetic argument that refutes the Nostralic theory. The real problem is that when you go well beyond the time of the "TMRCA" of attested languages the entire thing becomes extremely speculative and dependent on assumptions even with the best intention and skill.
Has anyone read Asko Parpola's paper (Oct 2020) about the 'Sanauli chariot' found in India?
'Royal "Chariot" Burials of Sanauli near Delhi and Archaeological Correlates of Prehistoric Indo-Iranian Languages' (2020)
https://journal.fi/store/article/view/98032
@ Archie
“I am an opponent of discussions here on linguistic topics, because these topics can only be discussed with those who at least read all books on linguistics and in particular on a Nostratic when it comes to her. All discussants should know linguistics not worse than me, but better better. And otherwise there is nothing to stutter.””
What kind of expert linguist are you ? You can’t even string a sentence together
Nostraticism is bullcrap. It’s methodologically primitive and makes a caricature of highly complex linguistic histories
Which is why nobody seriously talks about it; but in Russia it’s popular because it’s an ideological tool to oppress ethnic minorities by enforcing uniformity
“ We here consider genetic data”
And you dont understand genomics either
- “ The first Mesolitic EHG in Europe is R1a”.
No. You have excluded R1b and Q1
-“ The fact that the EHG come from the east is Siberia”
No it does not ; EHG formed in eastern Europe by a combination of ANE, WHG and CHG
There is no EHG in Siberia until it migrates there with WSHs in the Bronze Age
You don’t know basics
So please inform us
- where is the Mesolithic Siberian R1a in non contaminated, next-Gen sequenced data
- which are the Illyrian & Greek specific R1a clades
- which are the Celtic and italic specific R1a clades
“ I'm a scientist”
Lol. Really ?
What are your degrees ; what lab work have you done ? what clinical work have you done ? What’s your PhD or masters in
Are you a “scientist” like Jaako ? A linguistic within theories made up of thin air
Kra001 is back to N-L1026 at YFull.
Haha.
It's even better if you switch to the live version:
https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/N-M2126/
There are 3 new nodes between M2126 and L1026.
N-M2126 > brn003
N-CTS1678 > Yana_Young
N-Z1979 > N4b2
N-CTS6967 > kra001
N-L1026
"Otherwise we could similarly claim that some upper node of R1a is also found in many Uralic populations and therefore connected to Proto-Uralic."
That would probably be R1a-Z645 with a TMRCA of 4900ybp. The VAST majority of its subclade diversity and distribution are in non-Uralic populations though.
"So, what is the distribution of these subclades and how do they match the linguistic results? I haven’t found any perfect match"
N-CTS10760 and N-Z1936 are found across most Uralic speakers. The match is not perfect, but it is by far the best.
"Still, collecting different subclades under one umbrella node is weaker evidence than a concrete subhaplogroup matching the Uralic languages"
Having one node that is connected to an expanding population is impossible because haplogroups mutate with time. Proto-Uralic may have been spoken in a closely related population with various subclades of the same node.
In this case, N-L1026 IS the concrete subclade. As Proto-Uralic spread, so too did N-CTS10760 and N-Z1936. Both united in a common language, and ancestor (N-L1026). If 4700ybp is too early for Proto-Uralic then this may correspond to a Pre-Proto-Uralic speaking population.
@Slumbery
from the east from Siberia
"I object this usage of the term EHG, because EHG is a mixture of Paleolithic Western Siberians and Paleolithic Europeans."
Another use is impossible, because we do not have ANE or Paleolithic Western Siberians in Europe right now, we only have EHG. Every specimen has some impurities, and the EHG has impurities, and we have no idea where or when they got them. Paleolithic Europeans is not Gravettian/Aurignacian.
"Sure, EHG is more paleo Siberian than paleo European, but still, there is no EHG without the "Villabruna" component."
This is just a play on words, we have no idea when and where these impurities were obtained, maybe when Pre-Villabruna was still in Siberia. It does not matter at all, what matters is that the EHG population came from Siberia.
"That being said, I do not think that there is a genetic argument that refutes the Nostralic theory."
This is what matters. The fact that now there is not enough data is the state of any science, in all sciences there is always a lack of data and proof of theories comes with time. And the dates are refined over time. The main thing is not to be like Rob, who only trolls everyone, but is unable to prove or present anything.
@Andrzejewski
"R1a1 is a Ukraine Mesolithic uniparental marker; it originated in Sredny Stog, which from the get-go has already had a much more considerable EEF amount mediated via GAC and CTC than Yamnaya and other fellow WSH kinfolk."
Please stop the nonsense. You don't know anything, you're just delusional. Sredny Stog has nothing to do with the Mesolithic, it originated in the Eneolithic.
Sredny Stog is 5000-4250BC
PES001 Peschanitsa Arkhangelsk, Russia EHG 10785–10626 calBC Male XY R1a1b U4a1
Your fantasies that Sredny Stog was mixed with EEF are just your personal fantasies, Yamnaya was not mixed with EEF.
Please stop trolling and raving, from you writing disgraceful nonsense teaching looks very disgusting.
@Rob
"Nostraticism is bullcrap. It’s methodologically primitive and makes a caricature of highly complex linguistic histories"
This wrote who can't put two words together. You haven't graduated from elementary school to be able to reason with anything Mr. troll. Therefore, you are incapable of making a single scientific argument and have not made a single scientific argument on any issue.
"Which is why nobody seriously talks about it; but in Russia it’s popular because it’s an ideological tool to oppress ethnic minorities by enforcing uniformity"
You are a brainless and a fascist.There is not a single scientist against Nostratics who is familiar with it, mostly scientists from Europe write in it, the rest are just fools arguing in something they do not understand because they have not studied it.
"And you dont understand genomics either"
You haven't left a single post here on genetics. You just aren't capable of anything except trolling everyone with harassment, you are useless to everyone. You've proven to everyone that you know nothing about genetics, there isn't a single person here who can claim otherwise.
"“ The first Mesolitic EHG in Europe is R1a”.
No. You have excluded R1b and Q1"
You shamefully know nothing.
PES001 Peschanitsa Arkhangelsk, Russia EHG 10785–10626 calBC Male XY R1a1b U4a1
Volosovo/Lyalovo 4447–4259 BC Male XY Q1 K1
Palaeolithic Epigravettian WHG Italy Villabruna, Sovramonte - Belluno, Veneto 12230-11830 calBC M R1b1a
"No it does not ; EHG formed in eastern Europe by a combination of ANE, WHG and CHG
There is no EHG in Siberia until it migrates there with WSHs in the Bronze Age
You don’t know basics"
Your fantasies are of no interest to anyone. You don't know the basics and are contradicting yourself, because if they came from ANE it doesn't matter where it was.
Shame on you for not hearing anything about WSHG. So you are destroyed.
@Jaakko
The structure of R1a-Z645 both in ancient and modern populations suggests that it's an Indo-European associated marker that was acquired by Uralic speakers at various stages of their expansions.
In fact, a lot of the R1a-Z645 in Uralic populations looks very recent, and can be attributed to Medieval Russian and Turkic admixture.
You can't make similar claims about most of the N-L1026 in Uralic populations.
Indeed, there's no other way to explain the widespread presence of N-L1026 in Uralics than to admit that it must have been present in the Proto-Uralic gene pool.
@ Archie
I'm just straight to the point because I dont entertain fools claiming to be 'scientists'. My intention isnt to denigrate you, you excel at doing that yourself.
So answer the questions
- which are the Illyrian & Greek specific R1a clades ?
- which are the Celtic and italic specific R1a clades ?
- what are your scientific credentials ?
- why do you ignore the fact that Y-hg R1 was already present in Europe by the Paleolithic/ late PLeistocene (R1b 14,000 BP- VB) and (R1a 12,000 BP_PES001) ? Therefor it did not arrive during Mesolithic.
- where is the Mesolithic Siberian R1a in non contaminated, next-Gen sequenced data ?
- what does your (misunderstanding) of Paleo history even have to do with PIE, whose TMRCA is 4000 BC
You cant/ wont answer those questions because you 've got nothing.
@Rob
"why do you ignore the fact that Y-hg R1 was already present in Europe by the Paleolithic/ late PLeistocene (R1b 14,000 BP- VB) and (R1a 12,000 BP_PES001) ? Therefor it did not arrive during Mesolithic."
You're embarrassing yourself in a way that disgusts everyone. You've embarrassed yourself once again in a way that makes everyone laugh. Veretye cilture is Mesolithic, not Paleolithic!
Mesolithic Veretye Peschanitsa Arkhangelsk, Russia EHG [PES001] 10785–10626 calBC M R1a1b U4a1
Absolutely everyone here despises you without exception.
The rest of the trolling questions have nothing to do with the subject at all, I've already given answers to them many times, which you deliberately ignored. Especially since you have no answers to these questions at all, you just troll them because you have nothing to say, you only have anti-science and hatred for any scientific method. You are a copy of Gaska and Jaska.
See https://i.ibb.co/3NQh1wX/IE-with-TMRCA.png
Anthony Hanken:
“That would probably be R1a-Z645 with a TMRCA of 4900ybp. The VAST majority of its subclade diversity and distribution are in non-Uralic populations though.”
Yes, and N-L1026 has spread all the way to northeastern Siberia, far away from Uralic languages; and in the west it has Scandinavian, Balto-Polish and even Spanish subclades – again far away from Uralic languages. So the match isn’t actually better than with R1a-Z645.
Still, distribution alone is a weak argument – reconstructing the phylogeny mutation by mutation is the only way to find out where the subclade was originally born. Only after that we can compare the result to the linguistic results: which language was spoken in that location at that time?
AH: “N-CTS10760 and N-Z1936 are found across most Uralic speakers. The match is not perfect, but it is by far the best.”
We should again be more precise, more concrete: Z1936 does not have wide distribution within the Uralic populations, but its subclades do.
1. Western B535 is not found within the Mari, Udmurt, Mansi, Khanty or Selkup populations, but it is found within the Russian, Latvian, Chuvash, Tatar and Bashkir populations.
2. Eastern B539 is not found within the Saami, Finnic, Mari, Udmurt, Komi, Mordvin, Nganasan or Selkup populations, but it is found within the Dolgan, Bashkir and Tatar populations.
So, how are they good matches distributionally?
Of course we could try to reconstruct the genetic composition branch by branch, taking the linguistic results as the frame. Then the western and eastern subclade of Z1936 would make more sense: indeed the Volga-Kama region, where Late Proto-Uralic spread from, is the precise area where both subclades are present.
Therefore it is possible that after the Late Proto-Uralic stage, western and eastern Uralic “bottlenecks” diminished the proportion of the ancestral Z1936 and lead to the proportional growth of its subclades: B535 in the west and B539 in the east. (At least Huck Finn has proposed something like that.)
Moreover, N3a1 (B211) is found widely although sparsely within Uralic populations from the Finns in the west to the Mansi and Khanty in the east, although not in Samoyed populations. (At least Kristiina has proposed this.)
AH: “In this case, N-L1026 IS the concrete subclade. As Proto-Uralic spread, so too did N-CTS10760 and N-Z1936. Both united in a common language, and ancestor (N-L1026). If 4700ybp is too early for Proto-Uralic then this may correspond to a Pre-Proto-Uralic speaking population.”
Post et al. 2019 date even Z1936 over 7000 years old, so L1026 should be even older.
Methodological problem here is, that based on genetic evidence alone there is no way to know, if the subclades of L1026 even spoke the same language after the initial separation. There simply is no law which would support this – otherwise L1026 could not be found within populations representing many different language families.
Davidski:
“The structure of R1a-Z645 both in ancient and modern populations suggests that it's an Indo-European associated marker that was acquired by Uralic speakers at various stages of their expansions.
In fact, a lot of the R1a-Z645 in Uralic populations looks very recent, and can be attributed to Medieval Russian and Turkic admixture.”
I’m glad you use words like “suggest”, instead of bluntly claiming that something is a fact.
It is well possible that this is young in Uralic populations, if the phylogeny shows that there are only tips of branches in the Uralic populations.
Davidski:
“You can't make similar claims about most of the N-L1026 in Uralic populations.
Indeed, there's no other way to explain the widespread presence of N-L1026 in Uralics than to admit that it must have been present in the Proto-Uralic gene pool.”
Wrong. Otherwise I could equally claim:
- There's no other way to explain the widespread presence of N-L1026 in northeastern Siberia than to admit that it must have been present in the Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan gene pool.
- There's no other way to explain the widespread presence of N-L1026 in Balto-Slavic speakers than to admit that it must have been present in the Proto-Balto-Slavic gene pool.
Presence of lineage in a population alone cannot tell anything about how and when the lineage entered the population: it could have happened (1) already before the language arrived there, (2) with the language arriving there, or (3) after the language had arrived there.
Only reconstructing the development and comparing it to the linguistic results we can see, which case it is.
@Jaakko
It's a fact that R1a-Z645 was acquired by Uralic speakers from their Indo-European and Turkic neighbors. You can't fool me or most of the people reading this blog about that.
So there's no need for you to keep pretending that this is something that still needs to be researched.
It's also a fact that N-L1026 shows a closer association with Uralic than any other language family, and this association is being studied at a very fine scale level. For example, see here...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44272-6
So again, there's no need for you to keep pretending that the topic of the Proto-Uralic gene pool is a complete mystery and a blank slate.
You can't fool me or most of the people reading this blog about that either.
@Jaakko
Yes, and N-L1026 has spread all the way to northeastern Siberia, far away from Uralic languages; and in the west it has Scandinavian, Balto-Polish and even Spanish subclades – again far away from Uralic languages. So the match isn’t actually better than with R1a-Z645.
Haha.
Nope, these so called Scandinavian, Balto-Polish and Spanish subclades all post date the early Uralic expansions and indeed they're all derived from Uralic lineages.
@Jaakko
"Yes, and N-L1026 has spread all the way to northeastern Siberia, far away from Uralic languages; and in the west it has Scandinavian, Balto-Polish and even Spanish subclades – again far away from Uralic languages. So the match isn’t actually better than with R1a-Z645."
Almost all of these 'western' subclades are under N-L550 which, was in the Iron Age Estonian Tarands. In all likelihood they were once Finnic speakers; that were assimilated, and rose to prominance within IA-MA Balts, and Scandinavians.
"Then the western and eastern subclade of Z1936 would make more sense: indeed the Volga-Kama region, where Late Proto-Uralic spread from, is the precise area where both subclades are present."
So you think N-Z1936 was the main Uralic marker? Why not N-CTS10760 as well? Considering, it's also found in Uralic speakers, and shares a common origin.
"Post et al. 2019 date even Z1936 over 7000 years old, so L1026 should be even older."
I'm not sure what their methodology was, but that's not likely, given the recent Trans-Baikal samples. We have a basal N-L708* sample (brn008) from around 7500ybp.
"there is no way to know, if the subclades of L1026 even spoke the same language after the initial separation. There simply is no law which would support this – otherwise L1026 could not be found within populations representing many different language families."
Sure, but there is no way of knowing what language an archeological culture spoke either. It's simply a matter of what is probable, based on the latest research.
@ Archie
“Mesolithic Veretye Peschanitsa Arkhangelsk, Russia EHG [PES001] 10785–10626 calBC M R1a1b U4a1”
The Holocene- Mesolithic begins in 9700 BC
But whatever the case, if R1a is already in Europe at the inception of the Mesolithic ; then it couldn’t have “arrived during the Mesolithic”
If the related R1b is present in 12000 BC , then R1 could not have arrived in the Mesolithic
If no relevant clades of R1 exist in Siberia, then neither R1a nor R1b could have possibly arrived to Europe from there during the Mesolithic
You have no case; hence are frothing at the mouth because your crappy pet theory doesn’t make any sense. And yes I’m enjoying playing with you.
See “ https://i.ibb.co/3NQh1wX/IE-with-TMRCA.png”
Wow ! How long it take to doodle R1a over somebody else’s IE tree ?
So italic arrived with associated with all that R1a-L664 & M417* (~0% ) which is found there
Clap clap; what a pathbreaking model. As I said - you’re the R1a version CQ
@Andrzejewski
Did you see my reply regarding Xiongnu? They weren't East Asian looking on average and weren't Q1a in their elite strata.
Gonna copy and paste the content for you in case you missed it.
Most historical descriptions of the Xiongnu describe them as looking European and the archaeological evidence largely confirms this as well.
See also: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2020/2585324/
Their conquerors also weren't majority Q1a, either. Q1a seems to have been a subordinate clade under Iranian Q1b, and the most frequent is R1a.
@ D and re:"Haha's" and "Nope, these so called Scandinavian, Balto-Polish and Spanish subclades all post date the early Uralic expansions and indeed they're all derived from Uralic lineages.
While it's easy to agree on the latter one how about Pannonian Avars, then? They are post N-L1026 and come from Siberia. They spoke Uralic, right?
@ Anthony: I don't believe Jaska was saying that N-Z1936 was the only N-clade or any other lineage speaking Uralic around Ural mountains. The east-west SNP division of N-Z1936 v. the linguistic division just happens to support the area as a possible/probable dispersal area of Uralic.
Arza, have you already tried modeling with these new Hungarian samples? Will it be possible to mark Y-DNA clades in them?
Maybe the Avars did speak Uralic. nobody is certain what they did or did not speak
@Huck
No one knows what language was spoken by Pannonian Avars.
But they came from deep in Asia, so their native language surely wasn't anything Germanic or Balto-Slavic.
And since they belonged to N-L1026, then it's possible that their ancestors did speak Uralic at some point somewhere deep in Asia.
Hannibal makes a good point . Xiongnu were R1a -Z93 heavy. Some might have spoken IE
@Jaakko
There's no doubt that N-L1026 was present in the Proto-Uralic gene pool.
This is an obvious and accurate inference based on all of the lines of evidence available to us.
The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can start figuring out what really happened instead of making a fool of yourself in public.
You are ridiculous.
@ D: it is indeed very difficult to determine a language just by looking at genetics. However, I think that Gyula Laszlo's Pannonian Avar continuity proposal has a point, if the toponymes in the previous Avar areas are just generic Hungarian one, not for instance Turkic. Especially not that there's this N-L1026 > involved.
@Huck
It's not that difficult.
I can predict with a high degree of certainty which language family modern Siberians belong to by using just a few dimensions in a PCA.
Y-haplogroups can also be very informative about linguistic affinities, especially for populations.
Any ancient population with a high frequency of N-L1026 has a high likelihood of being Uralic speaking, no matter what any Avars spoke, so let's not pretend otherwise.
@Rob
"The Holocene- Mesolithic begins in 9700 BC"
You're delusional. The date of the beginning of the Mesolithic is not an approved date from above, it is determined by dated finds of cultures, not the ruling of some profane Rob. Holocene and Mesolithic are completely different concepts not connected in any way, they suddenly became connected only in Rob's empty head.
" But whatever the case, if R1a is already in Europe at the inception of the Mesolithic ; then it couldn’t have “arrived during the Mesolithic”"
Learn to read and stop deceiving you ignoramus , do not distort my word you deceiver, I did not write the word "during" I wrote the word "in" Mesolithic, these are your words.We have a typical troll in front of us, making up things that have not been said, and then squealing about it himself refuting himself.
" If the related R1b is present in 12000 BC , then R1 could not have arrived in the Mesolithic"
Even children have more logic, even they understand that R1b is not the same as R1a. You will never master logic. Do not twist my words, I wrote about R1a and not about R1 or R1b.This is your personal fiction that R1 appeared in Mesolithic.
" If no relevant clades of R1 exist in Siberia, then neither R1a nor R1b could have possibly arrived to Europe from there during the Mesolithic"
Stop fantasizing and raving, you know nothing.
You are an evil little dumb kid.
@Rob
"the Avars did speak Uralic"
You know nothing again, the Avars had a specific Mongolian N1c1-F4205 subclade, not Finno-Samoyedic.
@ Archi @ Rob
How old is EHG and out of what mixture did it originate ? Was a part of ANE Proto-EHG and Proto-Villabruna ? I think we need some Late Upper Paleolithic samples from between the Don, Urals and Caucasus Piedmont Steppe to see where R1b and R1a originated...after all Villabruna was still several thousand years downstream from the proposed origin of R1b.
Going by the proposed 10 000 year affinity threshold of languages within a Language Family it is hard to see that even Villabruna spoke something recognizable to the Mal'ta Buret people even if they did know how to apply Linguistics principles. Even Languages Villabruna spoke would have been in a different Language Family compared to Languages spoken by their descendants(If any) 4000 years ago.
@ Archie
''You're delusional. The date of the beginning of the Mesolithic is not an approved date from above, it is determined by dated finds of cultures, not the ruling of some profane Rob. ''
No its not from my head. I refer to literature. And yes the mesolithic in Europe is based on the turn of the Holocene
https://imgur.com/dxo0FIt
@ Archie
“ do not distort my word you deceiver, I did not write the word "during" I wrote the word "in" Mesolithic,”
Nope you wrote - “ the Indo-Europeans, they are also from Siberia from the same places as the Finno-Samoyedians, only they left it not in the late Neolithic, but in the early Mesolithic”
You are clearly stating that R1a left Siberia in the early Mesolithic . This implies that it was occurring during the Mesolithic”
In & during mean the same thing. Don’t participate in a forum in which you cannot properly speak the language
''Stop fantasizing and raving, you know nothing''
I know bullshit when I read it - and its you personified. Its your r'aison d'etre
You're getting owned so you're mentally breaking down. Eat it
@ Archie
''Even children have more logic, even they understand that R1b is not the same as R1a. ''
Pfft no shit. Your problem is you don't realise that I understand these banal factoids.. Your convictions revolve around racist and haplo-centric notions of R1a superiority whislt R1b and I2 and other lineages are, according to your words, 'slaves' & impurities' These delusions of yours obviously stem from your deep inferiority complex & psychological trauma. And you're obviously no scientist, I know that you are not, Scientists would never claim they 'know everything'.
But R1a and R1b form a clade over the extinct P* in Yana and extinct R3 in Mal'ta.
Their TMRCA is ~23,000 BP , which is basically the Ice Age, which is the middle - late Upper Paleolithic transition.
This has nothing to do with Mesolithic. aDNA will show that both R1a and R1b were present in eastern Europe since the Paleoluthic, so you will be left twisting, distorting and forthing as per your usual.
@ Archie
''You know nothing again, the Avars had a specific Mongolian N1c1-F4205 subclade, ''
I said they might have, for hypotheses
N1c is a is a minority lineage in Mongolia arriving from outside Mongolia
@ Ric
''Languages Villabruna spoke would have been in a different Language Family compared to Languages spoken by their descendants(If any) 4000 years ago.''
Of course; and the same for any other HGs. Pre-Neolithic languages were easily shifted due to the very nature of hunter-gatherer socieites (opern, extensive, egalitarian, often matriarchal). There is no linear model here, unlike the Bronze Age when cohesiveness and competition accentuated language inheritence. Archie's model of Mal'ta -> PIE is obviously nonsense. Nobody would even write it; but unfortunately he likes to waste space here with it
@Rob
"No its not from my head. I refer to literature. And yes the mesolithic in Europe is
based on the turn of the Holocene "
You are untrained and can't read, as you prove every time. You shamefully fantasize without knowing anything about the subject. Mesolithic concept is purely archaeological, it is based on technology, it has nothing to do with Geology, technology is not tied to geology, what you have imagined is your brainless business. You are hopeless.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Stop engaging in anti-scientific flooding. Study what you're flooding about before you write an empty set of words. What kind of scientist are you if you don't study anything at all and are not interested?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-L1026/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/
The main thing here is the dates of TMRCA.
You write completely unscientific statements and are engaged only in criticism without trying to prove or refute anything with facts. This is not a scientific approach.
Davidski:
“Nope, these so called Scandinavian, Balto-Polish and Spanish subclades all post date the early Uralic expansions and indeed they're all derived from Uralic lineages.”
Very wrong again!
You are only guessing that they are derived from Uralic lineage – there is no evidence for that. It is still very well possible that N-L1026 in the Baltic region preceded the Uralic language, just like N-L1026 in BOO preceded the Uralic language by 2000 years.
And if the L1026 or its subclade spread before the Uralic language, then you can’t call those lineages Uralic. It is just that simple.
I have to repeat and repeat until you understand:
YOU CANNOT MAKE GUESSES ABOUT LANGUAGE FROM DNA.
YOU CANNOT MAKE CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS BETWEEN URALIC LANGUAGE AND N-L1026.
ALL THAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC.
@Rob
You do not understand that this is an abstract picture built out of some head, because no cultures are synchronized on the boundaries of 2000 years, and besides anti-scientific, because it uses anti-scientific terminology such as Pottery Mesolithic. You are hopeless.
"Archie's model of Mal'ta -> PIE is obviously nonsense. Nobody would even write it; but unfortunately he likes to waste space here with it"
Nonsense is everything you write from first to last word, always unsubstantiated nonsense.
@Jaakko
Pay attention to what I'm saying here you knucklehead.
Y-haplogroups that become associated with certain language groups are usually much older than those language groups.
No doubt, N-L1026 is older than the Uralic language family.
However, N-L1026 and most of its major subclades can be associated closely with the Uralic language family and its expansions because of rapid founder effects, especially during those expansions, which were population as well as linguistic expansions.
That is, there's no need to match the formation of a Y-haplogroup/subclade with the formation and expansion of a language group to call a Y-haplogrouop Uralic-specific.
Pay attention to what's being said here to you and learn the basics.
@ Archie
“ and besides anti-scientific, because it uses anti-scientific terminology”
Lol yeah usual story- these multinational archaeologists are anti-scientific. You can never back your your claims . What else is new ?
Anthony Hanken:
“Almost all of these 'western' subclades are under N-L550 which, was in the Iron Age Estonian Tarands. In all likelihood they were once Finnic speakers; that were assimilated, and rose to prominance within IA-MA Balts, and Scandinavians.”
Most of the L550 subclades are found and spread outside the known Finnic area in Baltia and Scandinavia. You should know that even if in some area L550 happens to match Finnic speakers, you cannot claim based on that, that in other areas it would testify for Finnic speakers. It cannot testify that, because language does not follow DNA.
For all we know, L550 may have been born in Scandinavia, because basal samples from at least five subclades are found in Sweden. Therefore it is possible that the Iron Age Estonian L550 man is a descendant of the Germanic speakers of Late Bronze Age Coastal Estonia.
Once again this shows, that you shouldn’t make too quick guesses based on secondary associations: the data is always open to different interpretations.
AH: “So you think N-Z1936 was the main Uralic marker? Why not N-CTS10760 as well? Considering, it's also found in Uralic speakers, and shares a common origin.”
Actually I don’t think it is the main Uralic marker: I only presented different possibilities. I think that we do not know yet which mutations spread with the Uralic speakers, because there are no perfect matches. Anyone who claims to know is only in love with his own guess.
AH: “I'm not sure what their methodology was, but that's not likely, given the recent Trans-Baikal samples. We have a basal N-L708* sample (brn008) from around 7500ybp.”
Actually that is not a counter-argument.
Basal samples of many mutation levels are known to remain up to the modern time – like also Z1936*. Therefore you cannot claim that a basal sample must be temporally close to the birth of that mutation.
But of course if we happen to find close relatives for them, they cease to be basal and form a new subhaplogroup. So, the “basalness” is a vague concept, dependent of the data.
AH: “Sure, but there is no way of knowing what language an archeological culture spoke either. It's simply a matter of what is probable, based on the latest research.”
Good! Indeed, it all comes to the question: is there in the archaeological data a match for the linguistic results? If there is, then we can correlate them. That is the scientific method. Now you can help people here to understand that the same goes with genetics, too:
Is there in the genetic data a match for the linguistic results? That is the only scientific method.
@ Archie
“ and besides anti-scientific, because it uses anti-scientific terminology”
Lol yeah usual story- these multinational archaeologists are anti-scientific. You can never back your your claims . What else is new ?
Jaska the Finnish Gaska ^_^
Yep, I'm begging to think that Jaska is as hopeless a case as Gaska.
The facts are simply not sinking in for him.
Davidski:
“Any ancient population with a high frequency of N-L1026 has a high likelihood of being Uralic speaking, no matter what any Avars spoke, so let's not pretend otherwise.”
Circular argumentation and guesses upon guesses – that is truly your method. Sadly, it has nothing to do with science. Even if we knew that N-L1026 was present in Proto-Uralic speakers, we wouldn’t be able to tie all L1026 men to the Uralic language. It is just unscientific to believe in such a tight association between DNA and language.
Once again I could similarly claim:
“Any ancient population with a high frequency of N-L1026 has a high likelihood of being Chukchi-speaking.”
How is it possible, that you still cannot understand how erroneous your method is?
It must be your pride which thickens your skull...
@Jaakko
I'm not guessing anything.
Everything that I'm saying here is based on very solid inferences after studying the relevant data for several years.
You simply don't understand how utterly hopeless your case is.
@Jaska
"It cannot testify that, because language does not follow DNA."
Well yes well yes, it is only passed on the Internet, the father and mother never teach the language to the child. In fact, it is transmitted by robots who have no DNA.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-L550/ CTS8428 * L550/S431 * Z4776(H)+3 SNPs formed 3100 ybp, TMRCA 2800 ybp
"Therefore it is possible that the Iron Age Estonian L550 man is a descendant of the Germanic speakers of Late Bronze Age Coastal Estonia."
You are cruelly contradicting yourself, just now you stated that languages cannot be attached to DNA. Again you show your ignorance, because the Saami lived in Sweden, the fantasy that Estonians spoke German in Estonia 800BC is ridiculous. You are already making a ridiculous point.
"Is there in the genetic data a match for the linguistic results? That is the only scientific method."
Exactly, this was proven long ago accurate linguistic method by Napol'skix and it fully coincides with genetics. It has also been proven by anthropologists and it is fully consistent with genetics. That is, just the strict scientific method fully coincides with genetics, but alas for you, it does not coincide with your preconceived notions.
@Rob
"You can never back your your claims . What else is new ?"
I'll claim all the old you can neither read nor look. In your picture and Holocene and Mesolithic (Butovo, not Veretie), begin 10000BC, not 9700BC as you stated. Your claims and your references always do not coincide.
@ Archie
“begin 10000BC, not 9700BC as you stated. Your claims and your references always do not coincide.”
Well you’re blind then ; because it’s 9700 BC .
“ Mesolithic concept is purely archaeological, it is based on technology, it has nothing to do with Geology, technology is not tied to geology,”
It’s completely linked; the rapid warming led to technological & subsistence shifts.
Even low-caste Nostraticists should know this.
@Rob
"No its not from my head. I refer to literature. And yes the mesolithic in Europe is
based on the turn of the Holocene "
You are as deluded as ever without knowing the basics. I can't understand where you get your fantasies from.
"The Mesolithic period began at the end of the Pleistocene epoch" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Southeastern_Europe#Mesolithic
@Ric Hern “ Going by the proposed 10 000 year affinity threshold of languages within a Language Family it is hard to see that even Villabruna spoke something recognizable to the Mal'ta Buret people even if they did know how to apply Linguistics principles. Even Languages Villabruna spoke would have been in a different Language Family compared to Languages spoken by their descendants(If any) 4000 years ago.”
So how come Proto-Afro-Asiatic is dated by linguists to 14,000BCE?
So it’s possible indeed to date language macro-families that back in time...
@Andrzejewski
"So how come Proto-Afro-Asiatic is dated by linguists to 14,000BCE?"
Such dates cannot be trusted, they are beyond the working range of Glottochronology. The working range of glottochronology is 10,000 years, anything higher should be discarded as unreliable because there noise of inaccuracies and contamination is already an overwhelming proportion. It is like trying to calculate a date by radiocarbon method for samples older than 50,000 years ago.
@Rob
"It’s completely linked; the rapid warming led to technological & subsistence shifts. Even low-caste Nostraticists should know this."
You do not even understand when and how climatic changes took place. You don't even understand that the emergence of the Mesolithic is not related to warming, but to the disappearance of megafauna, which occurred at the end of the Pleistocene. The hunting animals changed, so did the tools of their prey, which caused a change in technology. The megafauna became extinct in the late Pleistocene.
Even the disgraceful Neanderthals who have no coherent speech should know that using unscientific sources is ridiculous, the guy who drew his fantasy picture had no idea about archaeology, otherwise he would know that Butovo culture began only in the 8th millennium BC, but before that there was Mesolithic Rasseta culture about which he has not heard anything.
I am not going to argue about Y-DNA haplogroups. The N-L1026* in Uralic speakers came from East-Asia. Just like the R1b1* in Basque speakers came from the Steppe. But calling steppe genomes 'Proto-Basque' would be silly.
From the standpoint of population genomics, deep Siberia may be the most promising candidate for the source of the Uralic language right now. But Volga-Kama is still in the race.
The reason is that the Western Ancestry in Uralic speakers is not all late IE. The key giveaway is the PCA_1_4 chart, where there is a perfect cline between Nganasan - Selkup/Nenets - Khanty - Saami where the western part (Saami) is far away from IE.
That western ancestry probably contains populations that were ancestral to late IE, like EHG and EEF. And that is exactly the kind of ancestry I would look for if the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is valid.
I have noticed that KAZ_Botai correlates with bad matches. So I am using samples here that don't need any KAZ_Botai.
Target: Khanty:799_R01C02
Distance: 3.3088% / 0.03308763
35.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA (Siberian)
27.8 RUS_Karelia_HG (EHG)
21.6 RUS_Poltavka (Late IE)
14.8 DEU_LBK_KD (EEF)
Target: Mansi:Mansi91
Distance: 4.5481% / 0.04548131
51.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA (Siberian)
21.8 RUS_Karelia_HG (EHG)
21.8 RUS_Poltavka (Late IE)
5.2 DEU_LBK_KD (EEF)
Target: Nenets:nenets10
Distance: 2.8180% / 0.02818024
55.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA (Siberian)
20.6 RUS_Karelia_HG (EHG)
15.0 RUS_Poltavka (Late IE)
8.8 DEU_LBK_KD (EEF)
It is even possible to eliminate late IE ancestry entirely and improve the match slightly by using pre-IE RUS_Khavalynsk_HG from the Volga Bend.
Target: Khanty:799_R01C02
Distance: 3.1618% / 0.03161773
35.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA (Siberian)
35.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En (pre-IE)
16.4 DEU_LBK_KD (EEF)
13.0 RUS_Karelia_HG (EHG)
Target: Mansi:Mansi91
Distance: 4.3166% / 0.04316564
50.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA (Siberian)
38.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En (pre-IE)
6.4 DEU_LBK_KD (EEF)
4.8 RUS_Karelia_HG (EHG)
Target: Nenets:nenets10
Distance: 2.7664% / 0.02766442
55.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA (Siberian)
23.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_En (pre-IE)
11.0 RUS_Karelia_HG (EEF)
10.0 DEU_LBK_KD (EHG)
The only unexpected part from the perspective of "Uralic from Volga-Kama" is the Farmer ancestry. But this is also the reason why it is so easy to mistake this kind of western ancestry for late Indo-European ancestry. And this observation also puts another nail in the coffin of Carlos Quiles's crazy CWC=Uralic theory.
https://dplus.app.link/V3iZEGQG3db
A very good 55min documentary on sanauli excavation and findings. English subtitles. But premium content so don't know if accessible to all.
Davidski:
“I'm not guessing anything.
Everything that I'm saying here is based on very solid inferences after studying the relevant data for several years.”
You have gravely misunderstood the “relevant data.”
- For DNA, the relevant data comes from genetics.
- For language, the relevant data comes from linguistics.
- For DNA, linguistics cannot produce any relevant data.
- For language, genetics cannot produce any relevant data.
If you want to connect language and DNA, you have to do it scientifically: you cannot just guess what DNA phenomenon is connected to certain language – you have to look if there are matches is DNA for the linguistic results.
D: “You simply don't understand how utterly hopeless your case is.”
Yes, it truly seems to be hopeless, because you have decided not to understand arguments. But it is enough, if I get even some of your cult followers to understand the basic principles of science.
You – like everybody with normal intelligence – will finally understand how wrong your current method is. And when you realize it, you will be embarrassed. So, for your own good, the sooner you understand it, the better it is for you.
@ Andrzejewski
I think the problem with that date is the Later Neolithic migration from the Near East into Africa. This could significantly impact their previous conclusions....clearly this migration was not older than 10 000 years.
Unetice Y-DNA:
R1b - LEU001.A0101
T1a - LEU002.A0101
G2a - LEU003.A0101
I2a1 - LEU005.A0101
R1b - LEU007.A0101
R1a - LEU011.A0101
R1b - LEU012.A0101
H2 - LEU019.A0101
R1b - LEU024.A0101
R1a - LEU027.A0101
R1a - LEU033.A0101
R1b - LEU041.A0101
R1a - LEU047.A0101
R1b - LEU060.A0101
I2a2 - LEU061.A0101
R1b - LEU062.A0101
@Davidski
I've just noticed that you've added some of the Alamanni from Niederstotzingen to the Global 25. That's awesome, thanks. But regarding the archaeological contexts of the individuals it has to be said that while NIEcap3a is indeed buried with a bridle with Byzantine decoration, NIEcap3b and NIEcap3c have no Byzantine gravegoods. Also, while NIEcap12a and NIEcap12b do have Byzantine armour, and a Byzantine helmet, respectively, NIEcap12c is without any Byzantine possesions. Also it has to be borne in mind that these cultural markers in this case don't signify ethnic identity, as NIEcap9 with the Frankish lance and equestrian gear and NIEcap12b with the Byzantine helmet are brothers, and NIEcap3a with the Byzantine bridle is the son of NIEcap9. And NIEcap6 with the Lombard sword, armour, belt and bridle is the grandson of NIEcap9. (I'm drawing upon the supplementary info of the paper by O'Sullivan et al. If someone has conflicting info from archaeological papers that would have to be preferred of course.) MOreover I would suggest to rename the DEU_MA to DEU_MA_Baiuvaric, analogous to DEU_MA_Alemannic (with 2 n BTW).
@Davidski (continued)
NIEcap3c (Tuscan-like) and NIEcap3b (Thessalian-like) are outliers very much comparable to DEU_MA_o:STR300 (Lazio-like).
Arza, I have already found the haplogroups.
@Onno Hovers
It's impossible for the Volga-Kama region to be the Proto-Uralic homeland.
Saami are extremely genetically drifted, so their behavior in the PCA, especially in the less significant dimensions, cannot prove anything about what happened ~4,000 years ago.
Also...
- the NWIE word layer in Proto-Uralic that Jaakko talks about is bullshit
- there's not a single candidate Proto-Uralic population in the Volga-Kama in ~2,000 BCE because the key genetic features that link almost all modern Uralic speakers - N-L1026 and kra001-like ancestry - are missing there
- even if we eventually find some stray samples with kra001-like ancestry and/or N-L1026 in the Volga-Kama at around ~2,000 BCE, Siberia will still be a better candidate for the Proto-Uralic homeland because this is where we see profound contacts between populations that genetically fit the profiles of early Indo-Iranians and Proto-Uralics during the Bronze Age
- other, older Indo-European influences in Proto-Uralic can be explained by the likely presence of archaic Indo-European and Proto-Tocharian speakers in Siberia, and their presence there appears to be attested by ancient DNA.
So this debate is over, except of course in Jaakko's head, where it will continue to rage forever.
@Onno Hovers
Your models come from somewhat outdated data, you ignore WSHG.
Russia Siberia, Sosnoviy Ostrov, Tomsk10 4230-3983 calBCE F U5a2b1
Target: Khanty:799_R01C02
Distance: 2.0674% / 0.02067417
36.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
22.4 Andronovo_RUS_Krasnoyarsk_LBA
18.8 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
11.4 RUS_Karelia_EHG
10.0 DEU_LBK_HBS
1.0 Andronovo_KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LFBA_Fedorovo
Target: Mansi:Mansi91
Distance: 2.7785% / 0.02778523
53.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
18.4 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
8.6 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
8.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
6.0 Andronovo_KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LFBA_Fedorovo
4.0 RUS_Karelia_EHG
1.6 DEU_LBK_HBS
Target: Nenets:nenets10
Distance: 1.4220% / 0.01421986
55.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
15.0 RUS_Karelia_EHG
13.4 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
9.4 DEU_LBK_HBS
6.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Target: Nenets
Distance: 2.7023% / 0.02702299
68.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
14.2 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
10.8 RUS_Karelia_EHG
6.2 DEU_LBK_HBS
0.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Target: Mansi
Distance: 2.8976% / 0.02897627
49.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
29.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
8.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
6.8 RUS_Karelia_EHG
6.0 DEU_LBK_HBS
Target: Khanty
Distance: 2.9377% / 0.02937677
50.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
33.6 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
5.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
5.4 DEU_LBK_HBS
4.8 RUS_Karelia_EHG
Target: Ket
Distance: 5.3398% / 0.05339758
40.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
33.2 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
13.2 DEU_LBK_HBS
12.8 RUS_Karelia_EHG
DEU_LBK_HBS ~= RUS_Karelia_EHG rather from Russian
Extra WHG = 0% Yamnaya = 0%
You can use RUS_Tyumen_HG instead RUS_Sosnoviy_HG, it gives the same percentages.
Russia Siberia, western, Tyumen Oblast, Tyumen50, Kurgan 6, Mergen 6 (building No. 15) [I1960] 6361-6071 calBCE F U2e3
Russia Siberia, western, Tyumen Oblast, Tyumen1, Kurgan 1, Mergen 6 (building No. 21, burial 1) [I1958] 4723-4558 calBCE (5805±25 BP, PSUAMS-2359) F U
@Jaakko Häkkinen
" You have gravely misunderstood the “relevant data.”
- For DNA, the relevant data comes from genetics.
- For language, the relevant data comes from linguistics.
- For DNA, linguistics cannot produce any relevant data.
- For language, genetics cannot produce any relevant data.
If you want to connect language and DNA, you have to do it scientifically: you cannot just guess what DNA phenomenon is connected to certain language – you have to look if there are matches is DNA for the linguistic results."
No one understands your claims. No one understands what you are demanding, no one understands your claims because you personally do not know what the scientific method is, you do not adhere to it, you are its opponent. You act as a promoter of anti-science. You can't even articulate what you want from anyone, you just have one deafening screech.
@Romulus,
Where'd you get that Unetice Y DNA?
@Davidski
In short, the cultural markers in this Alemannic graveyard seem pretty random. While this itself is an interesting detail worthy of note, it doesn't make much sense to group the individuals into a Byzantine group and a Lombard individual. Because one of the "Byzantines" (NIEcap 3a) is the uncle of the "Lombard" NIEcap 6.
@Jakko
"Most of the L550 subclades are found and spread outside the known Finnic area in Baltia and Scandinavia. You should know that even if in some area L550 happens to match Finnic speakers, you cannot claim based on that, that in other areas it would testify for Finnic speakers. It cannot testify that, because language does not follow DNA.
For all we know, L550 may have been born in Scandinavia, because basal samples from at least five subclades are found in Sweden. Therefore it is possible that the Iron Age Estonian L550 man is a descendant of the Germanic speakers of Late Bronze Age Coastal Estonia."
On YFull those basal Swedish subclades are underneath sample IIa_1 (from an Estonian Tarand grave). N-L550 has a TMRCA of 2800ybp, that corresponds to around the same time early Tarand graves began to spread across the Baltic.
N-L550 may not correspond to modern Finnic speakers however, in the Iron Age it most likely did.
"Actually that is not a counter-argument.
Basal samples of many mutation levels are known to remain up to the modern time – like also Z1936*. Therefore you cannot claim that a basal sample must be temporally close to the birth of that mutation.
But of course if we happen to find close relatives for them, they cease to be basal and form a new subhaplogroup. So, the “basalness” is a vague concept, dependent of the data."
That is true for modern subclades. Brn008 is N-L708* and dated close to the estimated TMRCA of N-L708 on YFull (7500ybp).
Not to mention, if N-Z1936 is indeed over 7000 years old, it would require major reworking of the currently understood phylogeny. I'm not sure why it would be though.
"Good! Indeed, it all comes to the question: is there in the archaeological data a match for the linguistic results? If there is, then we can correlate them. That is the scientific method. Now you can help people here to understand that the same goes with genetics, too:
Is there in the genetic data a match for the linguistic results? That is the only scientific method."
That is what people here are saying. There is a strong correlation between N-L1026 and Uralic populations. Both ancient and modern.
@Simon
Those are the official classifications, so I just went with them.
How do you think I should group these samples?
@Jaakko
You don't have a clue about L550.
Shut up and read this.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30424-5
@Rob
Davidski has said that there is a 17000 year old R1b sample to be published. I also suspect that we will find R1a samples in Eastern Europe that are much older than the ones we have
@All What do you think about this article?
https://www.academia.edu/7513297/Huns_and_Xiongnu_identified_by_Hungarian_and_Yeniseian_shared_etymologies?email_work_card=title
Onno Hovers:
“I am not going to argue about Y-DNA haplogroups. The N-L1026* in Uralic speakers came from East-Asia. Just like the R1b1* in Basque speakers came from the Steppe. But calling steppe genomes 'Proto-Basque' would be silly.”
Good point.
OH: “From the standpoint of population genomics, deep Siberia may be the most promising candidate for the source of the Uralic language right now. But Volga-Kama is still in the race.”
But because you cannot see language from the genes, you have to stick with the linguistic results. And they tell us, that even if Pre-Proto-Uralic arrived from Siberia, still Late Proto-Uralic dispersal started in the Volga-Kama region.
Davidski:
“It's impossible for the Volga-Kama region to be the Proto-Uralic homeland.”
You truly are hopeless! Whatever you see in DNA, language it cannot be. Ask from any geneticists.
You have created some mystical pseudo-language which is inherited in DNA. Sad and laughable at the same time.
D: “there's not a single candidate Proto-Uralic population in the Volga-Kama in ~2,000 BCE because the key genetic features that link almost all modern Uralic speakers - N-L1026 and kra001-like ancestry - are missing there”
I already told you many times, that shared genetic phenomena can be:
1. earlier than the spread of language,
2. contemporaneous with the spread of language, or
3. later than the spread of language.
You just cannot guess which is the correct answer, that is pseudo-science.
Comparing to the linguistic results is the only reliable, scientific method which can solve this question.
D: “the NWIE word layer in Proto-Uralic that Jaakko talks about is bullshit”
Repeating your lies don’t make them true. How childish can you be?
@Jaakko
There's no NWIE layer in Proto-Uralic.
There's no academic consensus that such a thing exists, nor have you proved here that it does.
Clearly, you're very confused about what constitutes a scientific fact, because the claim that there's a NWIE layer in Proto-Uralic is not it.
Archi:
“No one understands your claims.”
I know that you cannot understand, but fortunately here are also people with normal intelligence: they will understand. :) People everywhere have understood, once they opened their minds to arguments.
Anthony Hanken:
“On YFull those basal Swedish subclades are underneath sample IIa_1 (from an Estonian Tarand grave). N-L550 has a TMRCA of 2800ybp, that corresponds to around the same time early Tarand graves began to spread across the Baltic.”
This means that there are still many possible interpretations.
AH: “N-L550 may not correspond to modern Finnic speakers however, in the Iron Age it most likely did.”
Actually not. Do you know why? Because linguistic results deny that connection.
At the moment it seems that Pre-Proto-Finnic did not spread from the east to Estonia, but more southern route via Dvina and Belorussia during the Late Bronze Age. (See synthesis by Valter Lang.)
Areas east of Estonia were instead occupied by Meryan-related languages. So, the people who arrived to Ingria and Northern Estonia from the east at the beginning of the Iron Age could not have been Finnic speakers.
This is yet one more example, how important it is to take the linguistic results as the frame and not just make loose guesses.
AH: “Not to mention, if N-Z1936 is indeed over 7000 years old, it would require major reworking of the currently understood phylogeny. I'm not sure why it would be though.”
You can read Post et al. 2019 to find out: they have several new samples from several subclades of Z1936, and their diversity being greater than was thought before, makes the dating of the whole branch older.
To be precise, the separation of N3a4 is 7100 years, but N3a4 is 4900 years.
AH: “That is what people here are saying. There is a strong correlation between N-L1026 and Uralic populations. Both ancient and modern.”
1. There is also strong correlation between it and the Chukchis.
2. Shared genetic phenomenon can be older, younger or contemporaneous with the language spread. No point to guess that.
Correlation is not the result – it is only a starting point for a research.
@Jaakko
No one ever claimed, nor is it necessary, for N-L1026 to be exclusively Uralic to be a Uralic marker.
It can be simultaneously closely associated with Chukchis and Uralics.
That's because, you dumbass, genes don't speak languages.
Andrzejewski:
“@All What do you think about this article?
https://www.academia.edu/7513297/Huns_and_Xiongnu_identified_by_Hungarian_and_Yeniseian_shared_etymologies?email_work_card=title “
Not convincing: the first word has a more credible Uralic etymology, the second has a Turkic etymology. Probably most of the shared words would be Turkic loanwords in Yeniseian and Hungarian.
Davidski:
“No one ever claimed, nor is it necessary, for N-L1026 to be exclusively Uralic to be a Uralic marker.
It can be simultaneously closely associated with Chukchis and Uralics.
That's because, you dumbass, genes don't speak languages.“
You now play like you understood it, but actually you haven’t. You just earlier wrote:
“There's no other way to explain the widespread presence of N-L1026 in Uralics than to admit that it must have been present in the Proto-Uralic gene pool.”
Then I told you that there are actually two other ways to explain it: it can be either earlier, later or contemporaneous with the spread of language. You just cannot decide that it spread with the language – that is unscientific.
I can repeat this until you will understand. You will thank me later for guiding you back to the science. :)
@Jaakko
There are no contradictions in what I said.
My claim is that the Proto-Uralic homeland was in Siberia and that N-L1026, or rather its various modern subclades, can be used to trace early Uralic migrations from this Siberian homeland.
I never said that N-L1026 was linked directly to Uralic speech or even that it formed in the Proto-Uralic population.
N-L1026 could well have been present in populations speaking several different proto languages in Siberia, but the point is that it moved out of Siberia with the early Uralic expansions, and in such a massive way that it now forms the bulk of the Uralic paternal gene pool.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
N-B202 is closely associated with Chukchi. Its sibling, N-F4205, appears to be Turco-Mongolic. Their common root, N-Y16323, plausibly originated in Siberia.
Its sibling, N-CTS10760, is associated with speakers of Uralic languages.
Those plausibly originated in Siberia too.
"Actually not. Do you know why? Because linguistic results deny that connection.
At the moment it seems that Pre-Proto-Finnic did not spread from the east to Estonia, but more southern route via Dvina and Belorussia during the Late Bronze Age. (See synthesis by Valter Lang.)"
Valter Lang connects the Estonian Tarand graves to the southeastern passage.
"You can read Post et al. 2019 to find out: they have several new samples from several subclades of Z1936, and their diversity being greater than was thought before, makes the dating of the whole branch older.
To be precise, the separation of N3a4 is 7100 years, but N3a4 is 4900 years."
I have read it. That date doesn’t line up with Ilumäe et al. 2016 or, Rootsi et al. 2007. Both of which suggest N-L1026 underwent an expansion within the last 5000 years.
"1. There is also strong correlation between it and the Chukchis.
2. Shared genetic phenomenon can be older, younger or contemporaneous with the language spread. No point to guess that."
Only a single branch of N-L1026 can not easily be connected to a Uralic speaking group, that being N-Y16323. I wouldn't call this a strong correlation though, considering this subclade is widespread across many eastern populations, speaking a variety of languages.
@ Mary
That should be interesting
@ Mary
A 17 000 year old R1b ? That will surely be extremely informative. Any idea where it was found or at least a relatively broader idea but not too broad, Heheheeh ? My guess is near the Lower Don River or near the Czech Republic.
The Lower Don due to Kammenaya Balka and or the Czech Republic because it seems to me that R1b samples along the Danube gets younger as it went down the Danube from Villabruna and a vague possibility earlier Archaeological connection between Villabruna and Czechia ?
Is N-L1026 only in European Uralics (Finno-Urgics)?
Is it also predominate in Asian Uralics?
I'm going to do a video on evidence Uralic languages originated in SIberia.
@ Archie
“ You do not even understand when and how climatic changes took place. You don't even understand that the emergence of the Mesolithic is not related to warming, but to the disappearance of megafauna”
No, I understand very well. This is bread & butter
The megafauna disappears during the Bolling- Allerod warming, which is still Upper Paleolithic
This was followed by Younger Dryas return to glacial conditions ; which is still late upper paleolithic
Then Holocene occurs again with a rapid warning; which brings in the Mesolithic 11700 cal BP; 9700 BCE)
This is the same for Baltic/ northern Russia, as for Balkans; as for France & Italy
Again, you have no case
Colleagues, can someone help me? What is the ultimately clade of this sample?
I20750 / 1240K: R1a>M459>M198;R1a>M459;R1a;R1a>M459>M198>M417;G>L89>P15>L1259>L30>M406>PF3299>PF3293>PF3296>Z30814>Z30797>Z30793>FT75972>BY68816;D>M174>CTS11577>F6251>M15>PH4
correction Italy / S France
Davidski:
“N-L1026 could well have been present in populations speaking several different proto languages in Siberia, but the point is that it moved out of Siberia with the early Uralic expansions, and in such a massive way that it now forms the bulk of the Uralic paternal gene pool.”
As I said, there are three possibilities for that:
1. N-L1026 spread before Proto-Uralic.
2. N-L1026 spread with Proto-Uralic.
3. 1. N-L1026 spread after Proto-Uralic.
You cannot just decide which it was.
Anthony Hanken:
“I have read it. That date doesn’t line up with Ilumäe et al. 2016 or, Rootsi et al. 2007. Both of which suggest N-L1026 underwent an expansion within the last 5000 years.”
You just cannot ignore the new dating and stick with the older dating. If there is no methodological error, you just have to update your view about the age of L1026.
AH: “Only a single branch of N-L1026 can not easily be connected to a Uralic speaking group, that being N-Y16323. I wouldn't call this a strong correlation though, considering this subclade is widespread across many eastern populations, speaking a variety of languages.”
It would be fruitful if you told me which subclades best correlate with the Uralic languages. Correlation is only a starting point: it still can have spread earlier, later or simultaneously with the language.
Genos Historia:
“I'm going to do a video on evidence Uralic languages originated in SIberia.
So you handle the linguistic evidence? Because only that can prove Uralic language having originated in Siberia.
Genetic evidence can only tell that some roots of Uralic speakers originate in Siberia. You cannot even know, did those genetic roots spread earlier, later or simultaneously with the Uralic language. The only way to find that out is to consider the linguistic evidence and see, if there are genetic matches.
@Jaakko
It's not my decision.
Modern DNA shows that N-L1026 is a very good fit for a marker of the early Uralic expansions to the west, and ancient DNA is corroborating this inference.
If you think that N-L1026 spread into Europe before the Uralic expansion then try and prove it.
And, by the way, estimating the ages of Y-haplogroups with modern DNA is inherently unreliable. So try and stick to ancient DNA, otherwise you'll come up with all sorts of nonsense.
@Romulus
This is to be expected, archaeologically Unetice culture looks like a non-Indo-European over an Indo-European base. Rob claimed they were Slavs haha. Under the term Unetice culture is actually a number of disparate cultures, in particular the Proto-Unetice culture was Indo-European, but the Unetice culture is not, it already has a lot of matriarchy, a lot of elitism, a very disparate society. This is a time of depression when Indo-Europeans stopped expanding westward, instead there are complex processes of Indo-Europeans digesting local and migrated non-Indo-Europeans to them.
@Rob
"The megafauna disappears Upper Paleolithic"
That was required to prove, the rest is just your useless words devoid of logic. You have disproved yourself and have clearly recognized that I am unequivocally right, your other delusions from full ignorance of a subject are simply your imaginations which have no scientific bases, the science asserts absolutely others.
End of the Pleistocene https://i.ibb.co/bRGs5K5/Terminal-Pleistocen-Extintion.jpg,
@mary
" I also suspect that we will find R1a samples in Eastern Europe that are much older than the ones we have"
This is almost unbelievable. The arrival of the R1a marked the onset of the Mesolithic, and led to the fact that in the Kostenki (bones) where at all times were buried there are no Mesolithic burials, this could only be if the aliens displaced the local population and simply did not know that people were buried there. Only R1a/EHG (or maybe R1b/WHG) are suitable for the role of such displaces of the local population, there is simply no one else, but these aliens could not have come before the Mesolithic, because in the Paleolithic there are constantly buried in Kostenki.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
"I know that you cannot understand, but fortunately here are also people with normal intelligence: they will understand. :) People everywhere have understood, once they opened their minds to arguments."
No, no one can understand you because you make demands, but you don't articulate what you want from people. No one here sees your mind, you only write one meaningless words, an endless set of meaningless words. I can understand everything, but not a set of meaningless words.
You constantly appeal to science, but you yourself do not give a single scientific argument, you have only empty blather.
@Anthony Hanken
""To be precise, the separation of N3a4 is 7100 years, but N3a4 is 4900 years."
I have read it. That date doesn’t line up with Ilumäe et al. 2016 or, Rootsi et al. 2007. Both of which suggest N-L1026 underwent an expansion within the last 5000 years."
It is possible that we are talking about different times here, separation is the time of forming of a branch, expansion is the TMRCA of branch.
@ric and Mary
the real deal will be to find the long awaited R1b L388 or at least a R1bP297 to the west of the former USSR. No big news if it will turn out to be an usual and boring R1bV88
@All
Thanks to Arza the following samples are now in the Global25 datasheets.
ROU_C:I11902
ROU_C:I11906
ROU_BA:I11910
ROU_BA:I11914
Sarmatian_MDA:I11925
Sarmatian_MDA:I11926
HUN_ALPc_MN:I11929
HUN_ALPc_MN:I11933
Scythian_HUN:I20743
Scythian_HUN:I20745
Scythian_HUN:I20746
HUN_LBA:I20771
HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:I20784
David, do you know when the next samples of La Tene will be available?
I don't have a clue.
Sure, OK, thanks!
@Jaakko
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Archi's sentiments about you.
You're about as scientific as a Scientiology convention.
@Archi
"Only R1a/EHG (or maybe R1b/WHG)"
Am I misinterpreting you here or are you suggesting that the main lineage of WHG was R1b, not I2?
@Archi “@Romulus
This is to be expected, archaeologically Unetice culture looks like a non-Indo-European over an Indo-European base. Rob claimed they were Slavs haha. Under the term Unetice culture is actually a number of disparate cultures, in particular the Proto-Unetice culture was Indo-European, but the Unetice culture is not, it already has a lot of matriarchy, a lot of elitism, a very disparate society. This is a time of depression when Indo-Europeans stopped expanding westward, instead there are complex processes of Indo-Europeans digesting local and migrated non-Indo-Europeans to them.”
Hallstatt Culture is hypothesized to be Scythian influenced by bearers of Scythian or Sarmatian elite.
It was also claimed that at around the same time, Scythians pushed their fellow Indo-Iranian Cimmerians deeper into Europe, and the result of this migration is the Daco-Thracian branch.
@Davidski
"Those are the official classifications, so I just went with them."
Not quite; in the multiple burials the authors don't assign the cultural assignments to all included individuals, but only to those with the respective objects.
And anyway, I don't think the usage e.g. of a Byzantine helmet or Byzantine horsegear or a Lombard sword and Lombard belt makes anyone Byzantine or Lombard; compared with modern times it's a bit like wearing American trousers, driving a Lombard car or carrying a Swiss army knife.
I would group them like this: DEU_MA_Alemannic
DEU_MA_Alemannic_o1
DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2
@Archi:
"Your models come from somewhat outdated data, you ignore WSHG.
Russia Siberia, Sosnoviy Ostrov, Tomsk10 4230-3983 calBCE F U5a2b1..."
Thanks! Modelling with Vahaduo and the G25 datasheets on this blog is child's play. But what is often missing is a dictionary of samples. I know a lot from lurking here, but I don't know everything.
@Davidski:
"- there's not a single candidate Proto-Uralic population in the Volga-Kama in ~2,000 BCE because the key genetic features that link almost all modern Uralic speakers - N-L1026 and kra001-like ancestry - are missing there"
I am arguing that the source of proto-Uralic may not be a deep-Siberian population, but a Volga-Kama like population. And you reply with "But they don't have any deep-Siberia ancestry there."
It is possible that the western EHG-like population from Volga-Kama merged with the eastern kra001-like population at some point, and then spread east and west. But there is no reason why that had to happen in Eastern Europe specifically.
"other, older Indo-European influences in Proto-Uralic can be explained by the likely presence of archaic Indo-European and Proto-Tocharian speakers in Siberia, and their presence there appears to be attested by ancient DNA."
The similarities between IE and Uralic are not only in the basic vocabulary which is already not very prone to being borrowed, but also in the morphology. Morphology is the way we derive words, conjugate verbs and decline nouns. And that is even less likely to be borrowed.
Those similarities are on the same level as you'll find in the Afro-Asiatic language family. If Uralic and IE were two language families in Africa, linguists would have long since called them genetically related, with only a few dissidents remaining. Many prominent Indo-Europeanists already believe there is a genetical relationship between IE and Uralic.
@ Archi
How many Upper Paleolithic sites are there in the area between the Balkan/Baltics and the Ural/Caucasus ? And how many to date were sampled ?
Off Topic
Using Y-chromosome capture enrichment to resolve haplogroup H2 shows new evidence for a two-Path Neolithic expansion to Western Europe
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.19.431761v1.full.pdf
From the abstract:
"Here we introduce a new DNA enrichment assay, coined YMCA (Y-mappable capture assay), that targets the “mappable” regions of the NRY. We show that compared to low-coverage shotgun sequencing and 1240K capture, YMCA significantly improves the coverage and number of sites hit on the NRY, increasing the number of Y-haplogroup informative SNPs, and allowing for the identification of previously undiscovered variants.
To illustrate the power of YMCA, we show that the analysis of ancient Y-chromosome lineages can help to resolve Y-chromosomal haplogroups. As a case study, we focus on H2, a haplogroup associated with a critical event in European human history: the Neolithic transition. By disentangling the evolutionary history of this haplogroup, we further elucidate the two separate paths by which early farmers expanded from Anatolia and the Near East to western Europe."
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2021/02/better-ancient-dna-analysis-sheds-light.html
" ....supporting the archaeologically supported hypothesis that the expansion involved a distinct Daunbian Linear Pottery (LBK) culture and a Northern Mediterranean Cardial Pottery (CP) culture. "
@andrz
"PIE was created from an equal 1:1 ratio of EHG: CHG-like ancestry at Progress or Piedmont, just north of Caucasus."
Steppe_en samples at progress and vonyuchka are not 1:1 EHG:CHG. The wang paper which suggests this does not have a p-value in the paper for this model, neither in the supplement. Which is strange because p-values for all other models are present. And my recreation of the same qpAdm model as Wang did not give a satisfactory p -value.
EHG + CHG model invariably fails when Iran_N is in the right pops. The Iran like component in steppe_en is still a mystery and needs more samples. Even Harard acknowledges this.
Could this scientific paper shed light on why Neolithic farmer mtDNA were so diverse?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5069350/
@Archi: "Your models come from somewhat outdated data, you ignore WSHG."
I can't reproduce your results.
Target: Khanty
Distance: 4.6015% / 0.04601506
46.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
29.6 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
10.4 DEU_LBK_HBS
7.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
6.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Andronovo_KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LFBA_Fedorovo is not in the G25 datasheet. Also RUS_Karelia_EHG is not in the G25 datasheet, only RUS_Karelia_HG (without E) is. And are you using population averages or individual samples as source?
This explains why Uralics must have originated east of the Urals:
During the last glacial advance (known as the
Wiirm) which, like the preceding glaciations, is be-
lieved to have been a period of land depression,
the White Sea extended far to the south of its
present limits, while the enlarged Caspian Sea,
then and long afterward connected with the Sea
of Aral, extended northward to the great bend of
the Volga. The intermediate area was studded
with large lakes and morasses. Thus an almost
complete water barrier of shallow sea located just
west of the low Ural Mountains, separated Europe
from Asia during the Wiirm glaciation and the
following period of glacial retreat. The broken
connection was restored just before the dawn of
history by a slight elevation of the land and the
shrinking of the Caspian-Aral Sea through the in-
creasing desiccation which has left its present sur-
face below sea level.
"You just cannot ignore the new dating and stick with the older dating. If there is no methodological error, you just have to update your view about the age of L1026."
I'm not ignoring anything. I was pointing out that the date in Post et al. 2019 for N-Z1936, is older than any other date that has been published. To an extent that it would cause chronological errors across many upstream subclades.
In the current YFull tree, despite the addition of new aDNA; N-Z1936 remains, formed 4500ybp, TMRCA 4100ybp.
Ancient DNA should be the ultimate authority here, and right now, it looks like N-Z1936 would have been formed in Trans-Baikal IF, 7100ybp is correct.
"It would be fruitful if you told me which subclades best correlate with the Uralic languages. Correlation is only a starting point: it still can have spread earlier, later or simultaneously with the language."
What is your approximate dating for late Proto-Uralic? Around 2000BC?
N-CTS10760 and, N-Z1936 both decend from N-L1026. They also, both have TMRCAs of 4100ybp.
Both are found in many modern and, (likely) ancient Uralic speaking groups.
@Archi
"It is possible that we are talking about different times here, separation is the time of forming of a branch, expansion is the TMRCA of branch."
N3a4 is N-Z1936. A subclade of N-L1026.
Currently on YFull N-L1026 was formed 6200ybp, TMRCA 4600. This is much more in line with, Ilumäe et al. 2016 and, Rootsi et al. 2007.
N-Z1936 in Post et al. 2019, formed 7100ybp with a TMRCA of 4900ybp.
Something is clearly wrong here.
@Archi
Unetice was the origin of the Celto/Italo/Germanic Centum languages. Germanic came from Unetice in 1700 B.C. corresponding to the Nordic Bronze age, Italic from Urnfield , and finally Celtic in the Halstatt/La Tene period.
@ Mary
As im sure you & everybody barr Archie are aware, the current samples from Kostenki are all older than ~ 30,000 calBP. Several shifts occurred there in th following epochs, long before the Mesolithic, including the Late Gravettian, Ziamantin, eastern Epigravettian, etc, cultures.
As in western Europe, Late phases of the Late Upper Paleolithic formed the basis of the Mesolithic in eastern Europe.
Nor is Kostenki the only site in EE...
Davidski:
"Unfortunately, I have to agree with Archi's sentiments about you.
You're about as scientific as a Scientiology convention."
Hahaha! It tells everything that you agree with the worst lunatic here. :D
As any reader here can see, you just haven't been able to present any arguments supporting your unscientific methods, nor any counter-arguments against my arguments.
Don't be so bitter just because of us, I am the only scientist. You are an amateur with no clue of even the basic principles of science. And you are too proud and stubborn to ever admit that you are wrong, so you just keep on bluffing and hope that your cult followers are equally ignorant to buy your pseudo-scientific crap.
@ Archie
“ I am unequivocally right.” “I know everything”
Spoken like a truly delusional manlet
@mary,
Davidski hinted towards the 17ky R1b being from Southeast Europe (Balkans).
My bet is this individual is mostly WHG and similar to Mesolithic Southeast Europe.
R1b, at least R1b1a, probably originated in Epipaleolithic Europe.
Romulus:
“This explains why Uralics must have originated east of the Urals”
No. Uralic spread only happened many thousands of years after the end of the Ice Age, therefore so early situation is not relevant at all.
Romulus:
“The broken connection was restored just before the dawn of history…”
This certainly is false. Migrations between Europe and Siberia occurred much, much earlier than the dawn of history.
Anthony Hanken:
“I'm not ignoring anything. I was pointing out that the date in Post et al. 2019 for N-Z1936, is older than any other date that has been published. To an extent that it would cause chronological errors across many upstream subclades.”
It is older, because they have samples that no study before that had.
There are no chronological errors: always when a branch gets older, the upstream mutations also get older. YFull only represents very narrow sample of the whole Y-DNA diversity, so their datings will continuously keep getting older.
Anthony Hanken:
“What is your approximate dating for late Proto-Uralic? Around 2000BC?
N-CTS10760 and, N-Z1936 both decend from N-L1026. They also, both have TMRCAs of 4100ybp.
Both are found in many modern and, (likely) ancient Uralic speaking groups.”
Z1936 we handled already: it is not widespread or common, but some of its subclades are.
1. Western B535 is not found within the Mari, Udmurt, Mansi, Khanty or Selkup populations, but it is found within the Russian, Latvian, Chuvash, Tatar and Bashkir populations.
2. Eastern B539 is not found within the Saami, Finnic, Mari, Udmurt, Komi, Mordvin, Nganasan or Selkup populations, but it is found within the Dolgan, Bashkir and Tatar populations.
VL29 (N3a3) consists most of the CTS10760. According to Ilumäe et al. 2016, it is found in the Saami, Finnic, Mari, Komi, Mordva, Nenets and Selkup populations, but it’s lacking in the Udmurt, Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Nganasan populations. Outside the Uralic language family it is found in the Karanogays (Altay Turkic), Siberian Tatars, Dolgans, Bashkirs, Tatars, Chuvash, Ukrainian, Crimean Tatars, Russians, Belorussians, Polish, Latvians and Lithuanians.
In Altay Turkic and Volga Turkic populations this could be inherited from earlier Uralic populations. The same cannot be true for all the southwestern populations (Balts and Slavs), because never was Uralic language spoken in their area, except in the Daugava region.
Therefore it is very well possible that the spread of N-VL29 to the west precedes the spread of Uralic language. Even YFull dates L550 3100/2800 years, and that is only getting older when the data increases. Also many of its branches are remarkably western, having basal samples in Sweden. Even the Balto-Polish L1025 is 2800/2500 years by now.
@ Andrze -> Archie
'' archaeologically Unetice culture looks like a non-Indo-European over an Indo-European base. Rob claimed they were Slavs haha. ''
O right, I said SLavs come from Bronze Age Germany. Tweedle dumb & tweedle dee
@ Ono Hovers
''The similarities between IE and Uralic are not only in the basic vocabulary which is already not very prone to being borrowed, but also in the morphology. Morphology is the way we derive words, conjugate verbs and decline nouns. And that is even less likely to be borrowed.''
This is an outdated view.
Centuries of deep & significant language contact can impart even morphological changes, esp when there is language shift.
''It is possible that the western EHG-like population from Volga-Kama merged with the eastern kra001-like population at some point, and then spread east and west.''
Where is the evidence for an EHG migration (independent of Yamnaya or Sintashta-related groups) east of the Urals ?
@Genos Historia
Hold on with your video about the Proto-Uralic homeland.
I'm going to do a blog post by tomorrow outlining why Siberia is now the best option both in terms of linguistics and genetics.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
"As any reader here can see, you just haven't been able to present any arguments supporting your unscientific methods, nor any counter-arguments against my arguments.
Don't be so bitter just because of us, I am the only scientist. You are an amateur with no clue of even the basic principles of science. And you are too proud and stubborn to ever admit that you are wrong, so you just keep on bluffing and hope that your cult followers are equally ignorant to buy your pseudo-scientific crap."
You are not a scientist. You, like Rob, don't have the slightest clue about the principles of science. A real scientist would not freak out, but simply explain what he wants his opponent to do or would do it himself, you do nothing. You have not presented a single scientific argument, everything you write has been refuted, you have not refuted anyone. Everything you write has nothing to do with science, you are just there in your village infinitely distant from science.
"It tells everything that you agree with the worst lunatic here."
The lunatic one is you, you just lie and freak out. I tell you directly that you are not a scientist, you are only a liar and deceiver. In your anti-scientific papers, none of which did not pass true scientific review, you wrote only lies and deceit.
@Jaakko
"It is older, because they have samples that no study before that had.
There are no chronological errors: always when a branch gets older, the upstream mutations also get older. YFull only represents very narrow sample of the whole Y-DNA diversity, so their datings will continuously keep getting older."
Ilumäe et al. 2016 and, Rootsi et al. 2007. were both specifically dedicated to resolving the phylogeny of N. YFull has analyzed far more aDNA than Post et al. 2019 which, was dedicated to the medieval Hungarian conqueror period.
We will see, maybe N-Z1936* will turn up in a sample from >4900ybp
@Jaakko
"Z1936 we handled already: it is not widespread or common, but some of its subclades are."
I know, and we aren't getting anywhere.
These subcldes below N-Z1936 and, N-CTS10760 did not exist 4000ybp when Proto-Uralic was expanding. There is no need to account for subclades with TMRCAs of <1500ybp when discussing Proto-Uralic.
"Therefore it is very well possible that the spread of N-VL29 to the west precedes the spread of Uralic language. Even YFull dates L550 3100/2800 years, and that is only getting older when the data increases. Also many of its branches are remarkably western, having basal samples in Sweden. Even the Balto-Polish L1025 is 2800/2500 years by now."
N-L550 was found in the Estonian Tarand graves. This burial type has also been found in central Sweden.
N-L550 lineages were probably assimilated by Balts and Scandinavians. Then subsiquintly spread with those respective populations.
If you don't think the Tarand graves can be connected to proto-Finnic, you can take that up with Valter Lang or, Asko Parapola.
Davidski:
"@Genos Historia
Hold on with your video about the Proto-Uralic homeland.
I'm going to do a blog post by tomorrow outlining why Siberia is now the best option both in terms of linguistics and genetics."
It would require that you actually learn the linguistic results.
And because they would disprove your claim, you will not learn them.
So what you will actually do is, that you cherry-pick some outdated views which happen to match your Siberian homeland, and you still keep ignoring all the relevant, recent results, which testify for the Volga-Kama homeland.
That is: you keep on dwelling in your pseudo-scientific fantasies - in science you must always update your views to match all the relevant evidence. But you have decided your truth, and you won't let scientific arguments change that. You want to continue as the high priest of this pseudo-scientific cult.
LOL Archie. You need to stop pretending you're a scientist. Being an anonymous amrchair nostraticist without credentials & having some half-digested knowledge on russian archaeology doesn't make you ascientist
At least Jaako has committed pen on paper. It's just that instead of coming up with an explanatory model for the genetic evidence, he comletely dismisses which doesn't really hold him up in a positive light.
The Bottom line is - FU & IE speaking populations expanded from opposite sides of Eurasia. Their similarities -even morpho-syntactic components - relate to centuries of deep-seated language contact, in addition to whichever fleeting pan-north-Eurasian commonalities might exist.
@Jaakko
It's OK. One day you'll thank me.
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2021/02/better-ancient-dna-analysis-sheds-light.html?m=1
So, there were already differences between the first wave of Anatolian migrants into Europe v. The second wave that was much more Kura-Araxes/Anatolian BA influenced, which was impacting Minoan Greeks, Ötzi had it, was similar to Kumtepe as opposed to Barcin, and was CHG-rich. This was in the article I linked yesterday.
Now we also see, that LBK and Cadmium Pottery were not just 2 similar Anatolian populations taking different migratory routes but actually two distinct populations altogether.
We know that LBK had a high frequency of mtDNA clades common much more in the Near East today such as K, T, HV, R and N. Nevertheless, contemporary European mtDNA is much more H-based like in GAC than LBK derived ones.
Genetic drift and natural selection aside - can the fact that LBK and CPC were genetically distinct explain why Neolithic farmers’ mtDNA subclades were so diversed?
After all, we have N, K, W, T, X, Z, R, H and almost any other letter in this alphabet soup found within EEF groups.
This is the article I quoted yesterday:
“ Could this scientific paper shed light on why Neolithic farmer mtDNA were so diverse?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5069350/ “
Anthony Hanken:
“N-L550 was found in the Estonian Tarand graves. This burial type has also been found in central Sweden.
N-L550 lineages were probably assimilated by Balts and Scandinavians. Then subsiquintly spread with those respective populations.
If you don't think the Tarand graves can be connected to proto-Finnic, you can take that up with Valter Lang or, Asko Parapola.”
Here you tie culture, genes and language in a way that is not scientific. They are all totally independent levels and cannot affect on each other. They can only randomly meet in a point in time and place, only to disperse again.
1. There was more R1a in the Tarand graves.
2. L550 could have been assimilated by Balts and Scandinavians, but that cannot tell that it was brought there by Finnic or any Uralic speakers. As I said, it could have been spread even earlier than the Finnic language.
3. Tarand graves are at some point connected to the Finnic speakers, but that cannot prove that they are connected to them from early on. The birth of Tarand graves seems to be connected to an earlier grave type (Stone cist graves), which has origins in Scandinavia.
Rob:
“At least Jaako has committed pen on paper. It's just that instead of coming up with an explanatory model for the genetic evidence, he comletely dismisses which doesn't really hold him up in a positive light.”
I never dismiss the genetic evidence – just the opposite. I try to find from the genetic evidence matches for the linguistic evidence, which is the scientific way. You try to guess language from the genes, which is the unscientific way. You will understand this, if you put some effort in it, I promise!
So let me get the record straight. Uralic must have been within Volga-Kama and absorbed a now universally present NWIE substrate through a Fatyanovo related group like Balanovo. Then the languages spread through this cradle west and east. Are Ugric and Samoyedic languages really required to be a piece of this event? Why couldn't they merely have stayed behind? I'd love to see if Ugric and Samoyedic branches have these loans.
left pops:
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Russia_HG_Karelia
right pops:
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
China_Tianyuan
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG
Russia_Kostenki14
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Czech_Vestonice16
Spain_ElMiron
Israel_Natufian_published
Iran_GanjDareh_N
p-value: 0.0017 (rejected)
result file https://pastebin.com/MjRZEv4X
Rejection reason?
Too less Iran_N as shown by following f4 in result file
## dscore:: f_4(Steppe_En, Steppe_En_Model, Shumlaka(outgroup), Ganj_Dareh_N)
details: Georgia_Kotias.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.000518 1.077764
details: Russia_HG_Karelia Iran_GanjDareh_N -0.003902 -8.681836
dscore: Iran_GanjDareh_N f4: -0.001524 Z: -4.053403
Which is also why you see this in vahaduo and G25 (note the improvement in distance)
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En
Distance: 5.0835% / 0.05083487
53.8 GEO_CHG
46.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En
Distance: 4.1230% / 0.04123001
44.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
34.4 GEO_CHG
17.8 TKM_Parkhai_En
3.4 TKM_Namazga_Tepe_En
@Rob
It is almost certain that it was the EHG people who brought Mesolithic to Europe. Mesolithic is not local to Europe, local to Europe is epipaleolithic. In other places it developed precisely because EHG people arrived there, the Iron Gates is an example, in other places it appeared much later than in Eastern Europe, it appeared late and had small manifestations in South-Eastern Europe, it is a backward territory in terms of Mesolithic. It was brought to northern Europe by people of the Komsa culture.
You can freak out, drool, scream that it's not like that, your words are always empty and absolutely no one is interested.
@ Ono Hovers
"Rob said... This is an outdated view."
Rob the troll is just making things up as he goes along. We all know that Neanderthal Rob writes nothing here but lies, nonsense and trolling. He knows nothing, all his statements are just pure lies without exception.
@ Genos Historia
Where did Davidski hint at a 17 000 year old R1b ? All I could find was the Villabruna cluster of which the oldest Y-DNA Haplogroup was I2a....
Tibor Torok on the Pannonian genomes of the Hungarian Conquest period:
"Now here we have selected the highest of this ratio in the common cemeteries, but we can find a layer in which this Asian layer is absolutely missing, so they have neither the Nganasan nor the Han Chinese component. Their genome composition is most similar to that of the Iron Age Carpathian Basin, which is almost the same, so we can safely say that those who do not have that Eastern component can represent the local population, and those who do include the immigrant Hungarians. Now here is the composition of today's Hungarians, which is really very similar to the composition of the genome of the Iron Age Carpathian Basin after a long time".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9VUFgDUZmI&feature=youtu.be
David, so not all early Slavs looked genetically like East Slavs. For example, the Pannonian Slavs looked like the Western Slavs. And they were not the East Slavs mixed with Celto-Germans, but the local population, keeping their genetic continuity at least from the Iron Age.
Which samples are the Pannonian Slavs?
vAsiSTha said
"Rejection reason?
Too less Iran_N as shown by following f4 in result file
details: Georgia_Kotias.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.000518 1.077764"
You are shown why, because Iran_GanjDareh_N is not an outgroup for Georgia_Kotias.SG, they are in the same group. But the right populations should all be strictly outgroups for the left populations, and as far away as possible. Yes, this is not very well seen in the f4-statistics, but there is an f3-statistic for that, which is recommended to run to check for outgroups before using qpAdm.
@Jakko
"There was more R1a in the Tarand graves."
There was more than one east-west migration involved. Continuous geneflow probably brought more N.
"L550 could have been assimilated by Balts and Scandinavians, but that cannot tell that it was brought there by Finnic or any Uralic speakers. As I said, it could have been spread even earlier than the Finnic language."
It all came from the same place, the Textile/Netted Ware area of the Upper Volga. If the early Tarands were not Finnic speakers, they at the very least, spoke some dead branch of West-Uralic.
"the birth of Tarand graves seems to be connected to an earlier grave type (Stone cist graves), which has origins in Scandinavia."
What is this based on?
Tarand graves seem to be a variation of the 'House of The Dead' style of burial. These are found throughout the forest zone of European Russia during the LBA-IA.
@ ambron
Slavs don’t come from Iron Age Hungary
You’re misunderstanding things
@ Archie
No; you have been corrected by several people because you are just making up things
The EHG did not bring Mesolithic to Europe. Iberia or France or Ireland or Italy ? don’t talk nonsense In fact, EHG formed in Europe.
mother nature brought in the Mesolithic.
What you’re trying to refer to is ANE / paleo-Siberian’s. But these migrations from siberia occur during the Palaeolithic. This is clear to all specialists
“ Late Upper Paleolithic sites in northeastern Europe date back to the beginning of the second half of the Late Valdai (19,000 – 16,000 BP): These are Talitsky site, Shirovanovo II, Medvezhia Peschera, and Ganichata II. Materials of these sites are rather similar to assemblages of the middle stage (from 27,000 to 24,000 – 18– 17,000 BP) of the Upper Paleolithic of Siberia, where this period is characterized by the emergence of the so- called “small blade industries” (Vasiliev, 2000; Lisitsyn, Svezhentsev, 1997; Zenin, 2002). ”
- Pavlov
Face reality- your notion that IE came from Mesolithic Siberia will never see reality
“ statements are just pure lies without exception”
I suggest “linguists” like you, Onno & Jaako read this
Borrowed morphology: An overview
January 2015
In book: Borrowed MorphologyEdition: Language Contact and Bilingualism 8Chapter: 1Publisher: De Gruyter MoutonEditors: Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev, Nino Amiridze
Project: Borrowed Morphology: Form and Meaning
Peter ArkadievPeter ArkadievFrancesco GardaniFrancesco GardaniNino AmiridzeNino Amiridze
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=b_6OMfZ1QpUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Contact+linguistics+Kauffman&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix7O71qoPvAhXkmeYKHWwIA8cQ6AEwAHoECAMQAw
“ We all know that Neanderthal””
Wow a funny from an anti European racist .
@ Jaako
“ You try to guess language from the genes, which is the unscientific way. You will understand this, “
I understand 100%., even linguistics better than you
Find a new theory
@archi
"mr know it all"
This is what the results show and this is the math behind it. Also instructive to someone like you to try and learn the various details of qpAdm results file.
details: Georgia_Kotias.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.000518 1.077764
this means that f4(Steppe_eneolithic_actual, Kotias; Shumlaka, Iran_N) has f= 0.000518 and z-score 1.077764. Lets call this f~
details: Russia_HG_Karelia Iran_GanjDareh_N -0.003902 -8.681836
this means f4(Steppe_eneolithic_actual, Karelia; Shumlaka, Iran_N) has f= -0.003902 and z-score -8.681836. Lets call this f*
dscore: Iran_GanjDareh_N f4: -0.001524 Z: -4.053403
if assumption is that Steppe_eneolithic_model = 0.538CHG + 0.462Karelia then it means that
f4(Steppe_eneolithic, steppe_eneolithic_model; Shumlaka, Iran_N) = 0.538 f~ + 0.462 f* ~=-0.001524 that you get above with z-score of -4.05
What this is telling us is that there is significantly more allele sharing between steppe_en and Iran_N than the EHG + CHG model of steppe_en and Iran_N. So this has nothing to do with qpAdm as such (except the coefficient %s, but you could have gotten them using vahaduo too for this test) only the f stats, and im sure there is no ban on fstats of these kind is there archi?
" But the right populations should all be strictly outgroups for the left populations, and as far away as possible."
If this is the case, then almost all the Harvard papers are to be thrown in the trashcan, even though they are the ones who made the tool. If all right populations (not outgroups, there is only 1 outgroup, usually african) are as far away as possible from the sources, there is no way you can differentiate between competing sources to find the best source, and as such the tool becomes useless, which is definitely not the case. Also read Harney 2021 and the rotating model she suggests.
@Rob
"No; you have been corrected by several people because you are just making up things"
Don't lie, no one corrected me. You're lying about a several people.
"What you’re trying to refer to is ANE / paleo-Siberian’s. But these migrations from siberia occur during the Palaeolithic. This is clear to all specialists
“ Late Upper Paleolithic sites in northeastern Europe date back to the beginning of the second half of the Late Valdai (19,000 – 16,000 BP): These are Talitsky site, Shirovanovo II, Medvezhia Peschera, and Ganichata II. Materials of these sites are rather similar to assemblages of the middle stage (from 27,000 to 24,000 – 18– 17,000 BP) of the Upper Paleolithic of Siberia, where this period is characterized by the emergence of the so- called “small blade industries” (Vasiliev, 2000; Lisitsyn, Svezhentsev, 1997; Zenin, 2002). ”"
You've always denied it, and now you're poking me like I don't know it. You always denied they came from Siberia. Only you're deeply mistaken. It does not refer to the Mesolithic, but to the emergence of Epigravettians in Europe under the influence of Siberia. And this is known by all the experts to whom you do not belong.
Talitsky site is Siberia in general. And by the way, all other sites, although formally belong to Europe, but it is only on the map, because they are actually a continuation of Siberia, they are only a few kilometers from the border with Siberia. It is ridiculous to measure by meters.
" Face reality- your notion that IE came from Mesolithic Siberia will never see reality"
Make us laugh again clown, you just wrote that they came from Siberia, although previously you always squealed that they did not come from Siberia. You're contradicting yourself.
"Wow a funny from an anti European racist"
Earlier you fascist wrote that I am a European racist.
@Andre,
What reason did they give for higher genetic diversity in Anatolian farmers compared to European hunter gatherers?
In mtDNA, I think Near East hunter gatherers were already more diverse than European hunter gatherers. I don't think it began in Neolithic.
The founders in Meso Euro mtDNA are few and young. Like 20,000 years old, which points to small founding pops after the Ice age. The same is true for their Y DNA.
The founders in Near Eastern mtDNA are more diverse. But I don't think they're older. I'm pretty sure the diversity dates before Neolithic, unless Neolithic farmers are mixed between distinct hunter gatherer groups.
@Andre,
They used genome-wide diversity. Yeah, all Meso euros so far show small population sizes in genome-wide DNA.
Even in mtDNA they show local founder effects. Such as in Ukraine HGs and Serbia HGs. They were all small populations.
Neolithic farmers definitely had bigger populations.
@vAsiSTha
"If this is the case, then almost all the Harvard papers are to be thrown in the trashcan, even though they are the ones who made the tool. If all right populations (not outgroups, there is only 1 outgroup, usually african) are as far away as possible from the sources, there is no way you can differentiate between competing sources to find the best source, and as such the tool becomes useless, which is definitely not the case."
It's all right there. They don't use the right populations in the ingroup.
"Also read Harney 2021 and the rotating model she suggests."
This is a very controversial thing, their point is that they don't look at absolute p-values, but look at the dynamics of whether it increases or not relative to the correct set of right populations where there are no ingroups.
You see, you just don't understand how qpAdm works. Understand, it uses outgroup f4 statistics, where all right populations are outgroups relative to left populations. Thank goodness there are a lot of them and you can always pick up who is definitely not in a group with leftpops from Mbuti, Amerindas, Onge, Yoruba, ancient specimens.
@Genos Historia
You found someone to ask.
"What reason did they give for higher genetic diversity in Anatolian farmers compared to European hunter gatherers?"
Apparently because there were very few migrations to Europe and almost all but one probably from Transcaucasia came from Western Siberia with which Europe was not divided and to which there were no migrations in Paleolithic from south and east at all after it was populated.
We must also take into account that there was one mass extinction in Europe in the final Paleolithic and apparently there was no extinction in the Middle East.
Archi said "You see, you just don't understand how qpAdm works. Understand, it uses outgroup f4 statistics, where all right populations are outgroups relative to left populations."
Read this very very, very very, very very carefully.................
From harney 2021
Often, the target and source populations are referred to as “left” populations while the reference populations are called “right” populations. This is due to their positions as arguments in the f4-statistics, i.e. f4(target, source; ref1, ref2). Here, we prefer “target,” “source” and “reference” and minimize our use of “left and “right.” In addition, reference or “right” populations have previously been referred to as “outgroup” populations, but we also avoid this term because it suggests that reference populations should be outgroups in phylogenetic sense (i.e., equally closely related to all “left” populations). In fact, if all reference populations are symmetrically related to all source populations in this way, qpAdm will not produce meaningful results. The method requires differential relatedness, meaning that at least some reference populations must be more closely related to some source populations than to others.
@ Archie
''Earlier you fascist wrote that I am a European racist.''
That is also untrue. I have never called you European :)
@ Archie
You need to understand this premise instead of twisting facts & calling people Neanderthals :
1. ANE arrived in the paleolithic , not Mesolithic. Even within your simplistic schema of “EHG = R1a”, R1a is already present by the earliest phase of the Mesolithic, so it cannot have arrived 'in the Mesolithic”
2. but some Siberian tribes might have been important for introducing eastern pottery in 6000s BC .
3. The main basis of European Mesolithic was southeastern Europe/Molodova/ Italy (“villabruna people”); not Siberia
3. ANE arrived ~ 16,000 years before any reasonable estimate of IE expansion . Your Uralo-Siberian model of IE does not constitute “reasonable theory” but by all means feel free to believe in it
4. The deep origins of FU populations are evidently disconnected from PIE. Even when Yana people were roaming around Siberia; haplogroup N affinity people were south in China. This is what the current state of the art tells us
Sorry if this negates your “theories” but you don’t have anything to lose because youve never published or lectured anything anyway
@Jaakko
Your comments are littered with stupid statements that make it hard for anyone who can think logically to take you seriously.
For instance, you keep whining that not all Indo-Europeans share the same Y-haplogroup.
Get over it. The important point, which seems to have totally escaped you, is that all Indo-Europeans harbor ancestry from our linguistic homeland.
And this is also the expectation that we should have for all or almost all of you Uralic speakers.
So it makes no difference whether we're talking about one haplogroup or 50 haplogroups. We just need to see that all or almost all Uralic speakers harbor ancestry from the Uralic homeland.
And of course that's what we see. Almost all Uralic speaking populations carry N-L1026 and kra001-like genome-wide ancestry, and most of this is surely from the Uralic homeland.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“So let me get the record straight. Uralic must have been within Volga-Kama and absorbed a now universally present NWIE substrate through a Fatyanovo related group like Balanovo. Then the languages spread through this cradle west and east. Are Ugric and Samoyedic languages really required to be a piece of this event? Why couldn't they merely have stayed behind? I'd love to see if Ugric and Samoyedic branches have these loans.”
1. Historical phonology shows that Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty and Samoyedic branches derive from Late Proto-Uralic, which was spoken in the Volga-Kama region.
2. The eastern branches also have Archaic IE (formerly known as Proto-IE) and Pre-Proto-Aryan loanwords.
Anthony Hanken:
“There was more than one east-west migration involved. Continuous geneflow probably brought more N.”
Yes, and it is impossible to guess which geneflow was connected to the spread of language. The only way to make a scientific connection is to accept the linguistic results and try to find them a match from the genetic results.
AH: “It all came from the same place, the Textile/Netted Ware area of the Upper Volga. If the early Tarands were not Finnic speakers, they at the very least, spoke some dead branch of West-Uralic.”
You cannot claim that. You are repeating the mistakes of the archaeological continuity theories. They also claimed that because some cultural flow came from the same area, it must have been connected to the same language, and finally they decided that already the Ice Age periglacial population was Uralic-speaking! So the continuity argument leads to absurd results – and also results contradicting each other, because by this method, all the later waves could equally be claimed to be connected to the Uralic language.
That shows how erroneous and unreliable that method is. You shouldn’t use it.
AH: “What is this based on?
Tarand graves seem to be a variation of the 'House of The Dead' style of burial. These are found throughout the forest zone of European Russia during the LBA-IA.”
That is a possibility, yes. Still, in the Estonia they originally were build continuing the Bronze Age stone cist graves. So this grave type seems to have several roots, like often is the case with archaeological and genetic phenomena. It is impossible to guess to which root the language is connected.
Post a Comment