I just emailed this to the authors of
High-resolution genomic ancestry reveals mobility in early medieval Europe, a new preprint at
bioRxiv [
LINK].
I appreciate that Polish population history is not the main focus of your preprint, and also that you're constrained by the lack of relevant and suitably high quality ancient genomes from East-Central and Eastern Europe. However, I must say that your analysis of the Medieval Polish population and resulting conclusions about Polish population history don't reflect reality.
Your Poland_Middle_Ages genomic cluster is made up of just six samples that don't fully represent the genetic complexity of the core population of Medieval Poland.
As a result, you classified PCA0148 as one of the Poland_Middle_Ages outliers, even though this sample isn't an outlier when analyzed within the context of the full set of published Polish Medieval genomes.
Moreover, PCA0148 is very similar to several Polish Viking Age samples that show Scandinavian-specific genome-wide and Y-chromosome haplotypes, and probably likewise shows some Scandinavian-related ancestry.
This is important to note when attempting to recapitulate Polish population history, because it suggests that Scandinavian-related ancestry played a formative role in the shaping of the core Polish Medieval genetic cluster.
Thus, you might be correct when you claim that the six samples in your Poland_Middle_Ages cluster don't show any "detectable" Scandinavian-related ancestry, but this doesn't necessarily mean that this type of ancestry isn't a key part of the post-Iron Age Polish population history.
Below is a self-explanatory Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot that illustrates my points. Interestingly, Figure 3c in your preprint shows very similar outcomes in regards to the post-Iron Age Polish population history. But the style and scale of your figure makes it difficult to spot the subtle but likely genuine Northwest European-related genetic shifts shown by PCA0148, the Viking context samples and present-day Poles relative to the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster.
However, I'm also skeptical that your Poland_Middle_Ages cluster doesn't carry any detectable or even significant Scandinavian-related ancestry. That's because I suspect that there might be some technical issues with your analysis that are masking this type of ancestry in the Polish samples.
Your top mixture model for the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster is, in all likelihood, an extreme statistical abstraction of reality, rather than a close reflection of it. That's because, due to a combination of historical, geographical and genetic factors, neither Italy.Imperial(I).SG nor Lithuania.IronRoman.SG are realistic formative source populations for the Medieval Polish gene pool.
One of the reasons why you ended up with such a surprising result is probably the lack of suitable samples from East-Central and Eastern Europe, especially those associated with plausibly the earliest Slavic-speaking populations.
It's also possible that basing your mixture model on formal statistics played a key part.
Formal statistics-based mixture models are known to be biased towards outcomes involving mixture sources from the extremes of mixture clines. If your analysis is affected by this problem, then this would help to explain why you characterized the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster as simply a two-way mixture between a Middle Eastern-related group from Imperial Rome and a Baltic population with a very high cut of European hunter-gatherer ancestry.
I do note that on page 6 of your manuscript you consider the possibility that the Southern European-related signal in the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster might only be very distantly related to Italy.Imperial(I).SG, and that it may even have spread across Poland with early Slavic speakers. This is a great point, and I think it should be emphasized and expanded upon, because I suspect that the problem runs deeper than this.
For instance, if the early Slavic ancestors of Poles carried substantially more Southern European-related ancestry than Lithuania.IronRoman.SG, and this ancestry was, say, more Balkan-related than Italian-related, then this might radically change your modeling of the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster. That's because these early Slavs would be positioned in a very different genetic space than Lithuania.IronRoman.SG, which could potentially require a significant signal of Scandinavian-related ancestry to get a robust mixture model.
Finally, it might be useful to consider Isolation-by-Distance as a partial vector for the Italy.Imperial(I).SG-related signal in Medieval Poland.
The full set of published Polish Medieval genomes includes a number of outliers with obvious ancestry from Western Europe and the Balkans. These people probably don't represent any large-scale migrations into Poland, but rather the movements of individuals and small groups. Over time, such small-scale mobility may have had a fairly significant impact on the genetic character of the Polish population.
Update 26/03/2024: I sent another email to Speidel et al., this time in regards to their analysis of present-day Hungarians.
Your preprint also claims that present-day Hungarians are genetically similar to Scythians, and that this is consistent with the arrival of Magyars, Avars and other eastern groups in this part of Europe.
However, present-day Hungarians are overwhelmingly derived from Slavic and German peasants from near Hungary. This is not a controversial claim on my part; it's backed up by historical sources and a wide range of genetic analyses.
Hungarians still show some minor ancestry from Hungarian Conquerors (early Magyars), but this signal only reliably shows up in large surveys of Y-chromosome samples.
The Scythians that you used to model the ancestry of present-day Hungarians are of local, Pannonian origin, and they don't show any eastern nomad ancestry. So they're either acculturated Scythians, or, more likely, wrongly classified as Scythians by archeologists.
And since these so-called Scythians lack eastern nomad ancestry, the similarity between them and present-day Hungarians is not a sign of the impact from Avars, Hungarian Conquerors and the like, but rather a lack of significant input from such groups in present-day Hungarians.
Citation...
Speidel et al.,
High-resolution genomic ancestry reveals mobility in early medieval Europe,
bioRxiv, Posted March 19, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.15.585102
See also...
Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin
615 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 615 Newer› Newest»Jaakko
The line of reasoning here goes in the opposite direction... We know what the genetics of people speaking Slavic looked like in the years 1000-1200 AD. If we look for the same or very similar genetically people from around 1300 BC, i.e. the time of the first Slavic innovations, we will find Proto-Slavics.
Ambron:
"The line of reasoning here goes in the opposite direction... We know what the genetics of people speaking Slavic looked like in the years 1000-1200 AD. If we look for the same or very similar genetically people from around 1300 BC, i.e. the time of the first Slavic innovations, we will find Proto-Slavics."
So you claim. But Slavs around 1000 CE have several genetic roots. Why do you think that you can just follow the majority autosomal ancestry and claim that language followed it? Language does not always follow majority autosomal ancestry, as you can easily see: take any old and widespread language family, and in different regions in the speaker populations of different branches there are different majority ancestries. Within Uralic: Estonians vs. Nganasans; within Turkic: Turkish vs. Yakuts; within Indo-European: Norwegian vs. Sardinian vs. Iranian, etc.
The problem in your method is that you make a presupposition which is not valid in this reality ("language always follows the majority root"). Only if it was valid, your retrospective method could provide reliable results. Now it cannot.
The only scientific way to find out, when and where distant Pre-Proto-Slavic was spoken, is to accept the linguistic results and then try to find a genetic (and/or archaeological) match for them, agreeing upon time, place, and direction of expansion. There is no law requiring that Pre-Proto-Slavs over two full millennia earlier must have been genetically similar to Slavs in 1000 CE. Language shift and expansion are socially conditioned processes, and they cannot be reliably read from the DNA or the material culture (see the examples above).
Moreover, seeing migrations reliably from the material culture has also proven to be impossible. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Funnel Beaker Culture
”The arrival of farming in northern Europe around 4000 B.C. changed substantially the life of prehistoric communities in the Baltic Sea basin and southern Scandinavia. Archaeologically, this event was marked by the development of the Funnel Beaker (also known as Trichterbecher, or TRB) cultural tradition—indeed, in the view of most scholars, Funnel Beaker culture arose as a result of the adoption of new farming practices and cultural traditions (such as new ways of making pottery, production of long-bladed flint and of polished stone tools, and new burial practices and house construction) by the local hunter-gatherer communities after a prolonged period of contact with the first farmers to the south, in central Europe.”
(Ancient Europe 8000 BC–1000 AD, vol. 1 [2004]: page 431)
Ancient DNA has shown that only ca. 40 % of the ancestry of the Funnel Beaker population was inherited from the earlier hunter-gatherers, and 60 % was inherited from the farmers (Coutinho et al. 2020: The Neolithic Pitted Ware culture foragers were culturally but not genetically influenced by the Battle Axe culture herders).
2. Corded Ware Culture
”Many different views have been voiced concerning the genesis of the Corded Ware culture. There is a division between archaeologists who allow for participation in this process by pastoral societies of the steppes near the north shore of the Black Sea and those who think that Corded Ware is a core central European phenomenon. In both camps, there are many differing views. Among the advocates of a steppe origin, the differences center on the degree that the “steppe factor” played in the genesis of Corded Ware culture, while those who favor central European roots are divided as to where specifically in central Europe the genesis of Corded Ware took place.”
(Ancient Europe 8000 BC–1000 AD, vol. 1 [2004]: page 468)
Ancient DNA studies have shown that ca. 70 % of the ancestry of the Corded Ware population was inherited from the Yamnaya population, and only ca. 30 % from the population of Globular Amphora Culture (Saag et al. 2021: Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain).
Linguistics, genetics, and archaeology are independent disciplines, which can only study their own objects – nothing else. it is not possible to ignore the results of any of these disciplines and make claims of its study object based only on the results of other disciplines. Language cannot be seen from the DNA or from the material culture.
@St
The authors consider the Imenkovo culture to be Slavic, because there is a significant similarity in material culture, funeral rites, house construction, etc., which are similar to presumably Slavic cultures. Plus historical evidence such as Marwan’s incursion to Khazar Khaganate in 737, when his troops in the north captured 20.000 families of Slav, whom he settled in Khakhli at first, al-Dimashqi’s information (yes, quite late one) in his “Nukhbat al-dahr fi 'aja'ib al-barr wa-al-bahr” (Excerpts of Time on the Marvels of the Land and Sea), about Bulgars who arrived in Baghdad for Hajj, when to the question who they are, they answered that they are a people of Turks and Slavs.
In the Imenkovo culture, the main funeral rite was cremation, but there were a few inhumations. These Imenkovo samples are from Komintern-2, Novoslavka-2, Karlinsky-1. What is known about them?
”The article provides a thorough introduction of the materials from the Novoslavsky 2 burial ground that was discovered in a course of the exploration of the Kuybyshev Reservoir islands and coastal area in the Spassk District of the Republic of Tatarstan. The Turbasly-Imen'kovo artifacts of the 6th-7th Centuries A.D……A total of 14 pits were discovered on a shoal, one of which was excavated. The feature appeared to be a female inhumation burial with rich grave goods including fibulae, waist plates, pendants, bronze pin and earring, an iron buckle and knife, amber beads and ceramic spindles. The two handmade clay vessels, a horse skull and limbs were found inside the burial too. The goods and funeral rite are similar to the Imen'kovo-Turbasly inhumations at Komintern II burial ground.” Karlinsky-1 also female inhumation.
Does Vyazov connect the Slavs with the Aestians? It seems his answer to his own question, what kind of ”PriBaltic” population is this, which is similar to the early Slavs - this is the Tarand-graves culture... what Tacitus would have called Aesti. More likely, Vyazov associates the early Slavs with Eastern European champlevé enamels.
Also, It is possible that there are cases when some parts of the remains after cremation still turn out to be suitable for DNA extraction. ”Sample № А5 (Y-N1c, mt-H2) was found in burial mound with cremation of the burial ground Devichi gory near the lake Sennitsa, that is attributed to the middle age culture of long barrows (Pskov Long Barrows Culture)” from Chekunova E.M., Mazurkevich A.N. ”The first results of genetic typing of local population and ancient human bones in Upper Dvina region”
@Rob
Most likely you are right, I need to get together for one day and think about this moment
@a
I'm sorry, did you answer me about my message about modeling Iranian peoples through syntashta? I just didn’t talk about haplogroups, I meant my favorite Davidski calculator
Michael:
"Does Vyazov connect the Slavs with the Aestians? It seems his answer to his own question, what kind of ”PriBaltic” population is this, which is similar to the early Slavs - this is the Tarand-graves culture... what Tacitus would have called Aesti."
If he means that the Tarand-grave culture had something to do with Slavs, that is a mere fairy tale. The best-argumented view is that this culture is associated with the Finnic speakers.
Hi,Davidski, I recently read a genetic paper on the Y-DNA of the Huns, or Avars, who conquered Hungary. (Neparaczki et al., 2019). The author claims that E-V13 originated in the Middle East and spread to the Balkans and Western Asia during the Bronze Age.
I thought it was established that E-V13 is a European subclade because it originated in Europe.
@Micheal
The Aestians were in all likely reality Western Baltic peoples. East of the Vistula was mainly occupied by the ancestors of the Old Prussians and West Galindians. A lot of the Western Balts seemed to have taken upon Gothic practices in their burial practices to a certain degree which isn't surprising.
Either way, by the time of Tacitus, Slavs wouldn't have been anywhere near the Vistula or in general Pomerania.
@ Michael
''The authors consider the Imenkovo culture to be Slavic, because there is a significant similarity in material culture, funeral rites, house construction, etc., which are similar to presumably Slavic cultures''
Those pre-600 AD 'forest groups' are not slavic.
I have outlined the archaeological trail of Slavic expansion into Russia in previous aomment
''Plus historical evidence such as Marwan’s incursion to Khazar Khaganate in 737, when his troops in the north captured 20.000 families of Slav, ''
Yes- 737 AD, which is after 600 AD
@ Jaako
''Ancient DNA studies have shown that ca. 70 % of the ancestry of the Corded Ware population was inherited from the Yamnaya population, and only ca. 30 % from the population of Globular Amphora Culture ''
Praise be to Professor Jaako. However, you're not saying anything new.
Ancient peoples, like modern ones, didnt tend to live in exclusivist bubbles.
This changes nothing about the fact that language expansions occurred because people moved and took language with them, and this is why it is reflected in the DNA evidence.
As one of your examples - surely not even you actually believe Turkic languages spread from Iron Age Anatolian/ Mediterranean ancestry to the East. So you havn't disproven the obvous links between DNA & language, you've just said that Turkic peoples exist on a cline.
Again, old news
Jaakko
Inferring from the results of scientific research, aimed at establishing material truth, is based on cause-and-effect thinking.
So if today's speakers of the northern European Indo-European branches have 70-80% CWC admixture, we conclude that the vector of these branches was the CWC population. Similarly, if modern speakers of the northern European Slavic branch have 80-90% TCC admixture, we conclude that the vector of this branch was the TCC population.
Vyazov map shows finds of Champleve enamel. The oldest finds of this enamel come from north-eastern Poland. Therefore, if we want to use this enamel to determine the location of the Slavic homeland, we must locate it in north-eastern Poland.
The problem is that archaeologists attribute Champleve enamel to the Balts.
I'll just go ahead and trust the professional geneticists instead of the criticisms of an anonymous crank with a blog and axe to grind. I'm sure there was a very valid reason they ran you out of academia and you had to settle as a bitter gadfly pretending he knows better than the actual people doing the research. I enjoy your impotent outbursts tho, very funny stuff. I check your blog every time new research comes out to listen to the impotent rageposting. Just understand that most of your visitors come here to laugh at you as you turn red in the face.
In general, Vyazov et al had previously written a solid article on the archaeology of the middle Volga from late Iron to Middle Ages
(Demographic Changes, Trade Routes, Formation of Anthropogenic Landscapes in the Middle Volga in the Past 2500 years).
Seems to imply an eastern migration of Kiev culture to the Volga area before the Imenkovo emergence. There are two distinctive Imenkovo phases.
The 2 Imenkovo genomes apparently show Sarmatian, and Finno-Baltoid (Y-hg N) affintieis. Would be interesting to see which date theyre from
But then Imenkovo, Kolochin and Penkovka all collapse sometime in the mid 600s (garnering further info from Kazanski for the Dnieper area). Some sites have nomadic yurts and mounds overlying them. These probably assimilated remnants of the penkovka group, and must be none other than the Bulgars/ Kutrigurs.
Going in the other direction, from west to east, there is appearance of Volentsyevo culture from Carpatho-Dnieper region, originating from Prague culture. It is from these cultures that East Slavs emerged rather than direct filiation from Penkovka, Kolochin, Kiev or Imenkovo.
Rob: "As one of your examples - surely not even you actually believe Turkic languages spread from Iron Age Anatolian/ Mediterranean ancestry to the East."
Of course not.
Rob: "So you havn't disproven the obvous links between DNA & language, you've just said that Turkic peoples exist on a cline."
I said that you cannot trace the language by following only the majority ancestry of certain population backward in time. There is no law determining that language always follows the majority ancestry. If you follow that method with the Turkish and the Yakuts, you get two contradictory results.
Ambron: "So if today's speakers of the northern European Indo-European branches have 70-80% CWC admixture, we conclude that the vector of these branches was the CWC population. Similarly, if modern speakers of the northern European Slavic branch have 80-90% TCC admixture, we conclude that the vector of this branch was the TCC population."
We conclude that the vector for the MAJORITY ANCESTRY of these populations was CWC or TCC. Again: you cannot make presupposition that language always and automatically follows the majority ancestry. Otherwise you will get contradictory results within one language family. Just follow your method with the Norwegians, the Sardinians and the Iranians, and you will understand the problem: Indo-European language cannot be associated with three different majority ancestries.
@ Jaako
“There is no law determining that language always follows the majority ancestry. If you follow that method with the Turkish and the Yakuts, you get two contradictory results. ”
As previously explained, arguments do not rest on the majority ancestry but what is a *common* ancestry which is shared.
So Turks have a common Turkic component + East Med
Yakuts have common Turkic + extra Siberia
In fact, the common Turkic shared NEA component is a minority in Turkey, but it’s certainly there and is what links it with all other Turkic speakers.
@Apceh
Any thoughts on matching different haplogroups that share IBD segments and common steppe pastoralist cultural similarities (for example pottery or metallurgy)within a certain time frame.
Rob: "As previously explained, arguments do not rest on the majority ancestry but what is a *common* ancestry which is shared."
This is a slightly better method. But there still is no law requiring that there must be a shared ancestry component between populations speaking related languages, or that the language was always inherited together with this particular ancestry alone. Languages spread via multiple steps, and the genetic composition of the language carriers often changes between these steps.
@ Jaako
“But there still is no law requiring that there must be a shared ancestry component between populations speaking related languages,”
This is not about “laws”, we’re not policemen and solicitors.
It’s about (fairly straightforward) rational deduction in historical study.
“Languages spread via multiple steps, and the genetic composition of the language carriers often changes between these steps. ”
They change as they move away and mix with other groups but that signal is never actually lost because all these things happened fairly recently rather than the dinosaur era. That’s why Uralic, Germanic, Slavic speakers all share ancestry
Rob: "They change as they move away and mix with other groups but that signal is never actually lost because all these things happened fairly recently rather than the dinosaur era. That’s why Uralic, Germanic, Slavic speakers all share ancestry"
By "law" I meant that you cannot lock into a presupposition that language can always be traced by comparing genetic compositions of speaker populations. True, the younger the proto-language and the narrower the speech-area, the more probable it is that they share genetic traits.
But they can share several genetic traits, showing opposite frequency patterns, like the Uralic populations. You have just decided that the Yakutia-ancestry was connected to the Uralic language since the beginning, and you have just decided to ignore the European ancestries shared by the Uralic populations (EHG- and steppe-ancestries). That is unscientific, because you still cannot predict the language from the DNA.
@Jaakko
What specific type of European ancestry is shared by all Uralic speakers that isn't too old so that it can plausibly be linked to the proto-Uralic population.
@Jaakko
I thought the entire debate on where Uralic expanded from (broadly) was already finished? It's quite obvious that, paired with Y-DNA N1, that there's an obvious cline from Eastern Siberia to Fennoscandia and the East Baltics being accompanied by Neo-Siberian ancestry. The only debate is the specific group that contributed directly to Estonians and Finns compared to the Sami.
Genes don't speak languages, but they can sometimes follow them and the Uralic family is the perfect example of this. There is a perfect linguistic and genetic cline. It is not a matter of prediction, it's a matter of the evidence being overwhelming to the Uralic language being accompanied by Neo-Siberian ancestry migrating Eastward.
@ jaako
“You have just decided that the Yakutia-ancestry was connected to the Uralic language since the beginning, and you have just decided to ignore the European ancestries shared by the Uralic populations (EHG- and steppe-ancestries).”
Not ignoring anything.
There is no common European ancestry in Uralic speakers, so it cannot account as a common origin. You seem to have been misled by Carlos Q about Pan-CW ancestry in Uralic speakers.
Their “European” or west Eurasian components are all very distinct and/ or old, and don’t even reach the eastern most of Uralic speakers.
By contrast their Siberian ancestry clearly moved in ~ 2000 BC. And it’s not some generic “east Siberian HG” as Gabru implied, but from a specific location & time.
This Siberian demographic event closely matches your own linguistic dating for Uralic dispersal as well as the Long observed dispersal of Yhg N, which enjoys 40% frequency in Finnish men.
Davidski: “What specific type of European ancestry is shared by all Uralic speakers that isn't too old so that it can plausibly be linked to the proto-Uralic population.”
How could it even be “too old”? The same old ancestry could have spread again with the speakers of Proto-Uralic. It is up to geneticists to show that such ancestry was either (1) already there in those populations before the spread of Proto-Uralic, or (2) it spread there only after the spread of Proto-Uralic. Until this is done, it is possible that such an ancestry spread together with Proto-Uralic.
Noble Goth: “I thought the entire debate on where Uralic expanded from (broadly) was already finished? It's quite obvious that, paired with Y-DNA N1, that there's an obvious cline from Eastern Siberia to Fennoscandia and the East Baltics being accompanied by Neo-Siberian ancestry. The only debate is the specific group that contributed directly to Estonians and Finns compared to the Sami.”
Nobody denies that spread of Siberian ancestry. But you people here cannot just decide that it is associated with the spread of Proto-Uralic: it could be (1) earlier, (2) simultaneous, or (3) later.
Moreover, you cannot just look at the ancestry which spread from the east to the west and decide that it is associated with the spread of Proto-Uralic. There are also ancestries which spread from the west to the east, and they could also be associated with the spread of Proto-Uralic.
Do you see now, how blindly you guys have been looking at the data? You only pick one ancestry and ignore others, and you decide that it was simultaneous with the spread of Proto-Uralic, even though it could have been also earlier or later. You have voluntarily hidden other possibilities from your sight.
Noble Goth: “Genes don't speak languages, but they can sometimes follow them and the Uralic family is the perfect example of this. There is a perfect linguistic and genetic cline. It is not a matter of prediction, it's a matter of the evidence being overwhelming to the Uralic language being accompanied by Neo-Siberian ancestry migrating Eastward.”
Sure, we can try to find matches between linguistic and genetic data. Here is how the scientific method works:
1. You look what are the linguistic results: Late Proto-Uralic cannot have begun spreading from Siberia, although very distant Pre-Proto-Uralic might have spread from there.
2. You take the spatio-temporal coordinates form the linguistic results, and you look if there is a match in the genetic data which appears in the right place at the right time and spread to the right direction(s).
At the moment the data shows that Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Central Ural Region ca. 2500 BCE and that in this population there were already several ancestries present: the EHG ancestry, the steppe ancestry, and the Yakutia_LNBA-ancestry. But this genetic composition is a guess based on the samples from nearby regions, as there are so far no samples from the Central Ural Region from the right time.
Rob: "Their “European” or west Eurasian components are all very distinct and/ or old, and don’t even reach the eastern most of Uralic speakers."
Prove your claim that they are different ancestries or did not spread at the right time. Until then, we cannot exclude any possibilities. Other Samoyedic peoples also have these western ancestries, and some steppe ancestry can be seen even in the Nganasans in Zeng et al. 2023.
Rob: "By contrast their Siberian ancestry clearly moved in ~ 2000 BC. And it’s not some generic “east Siberian HG” as Gabru implied, but from a specific location & time.
This Siberian demographic event closely matches your own linguistic dating for Uralic dispersal as well as the Long observed dispersal of Yhg N, which enjoys 40% frequency in Finnish men."
If this Siberian ancestry reached the Urals only ca. 2000 BCE, it is too late to be associated with Late Proto-Uralic spoken in the Central Ural Region already ca. 2500 BCE. But it is still early enough to have spread further to the west and back to the east with the Uralic populations.
It is possible that within the Seima-Turbino Network both the Yakutia_LNBA ancestry and the paternal N-haplogroup spread to the west from the Upper Irtysh region. Their route to Europe went ca. 2000 BCE through the Central Ural Passage, which was occupied by the Uralic speakers. Their participation in this network could explain the expansion of the Uralic language.
N in the Finns reaches ca. 60 % in total; less in the southwest, more in the east and north. But the most frequent Finnish subhaplogroups ("Karelian" VL62 = 22 % of all men, and "Savonian" CTS8565 = 19 % of all men) are only ~2000 years old, so they have largely replaced older paternal lineages.
@Jaakko
If you're proposing that EHG and/or CWC ancestry ties Uralic speakers together just like, or even better than, Krasnoyarsk BA ancestry, then you have to demonstrate this.
But I don't see how you can do it, because Uralic speakers share EHG and CWC ancestry from different sources, and on top of that sources that are clearly documented as Indo-European-speaking.
That means you have to push back the existence of proto-Uralic at least to the time before the expansion and breakup of the CWC.
And then you have to account for Uralic being present alongside Indo-European languages in the CWC as it expanded.
So let's see you try.
@Jaakko
Have you seen a similar animation of the spread of Uralic languages? What can you say about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROMikM-OAOc&ab_channel=CostasMelas
@Jaakko
*'Moreover, you cannot just look at the ancestry which spread from the east to the west and decide that it is associated with the spread of Proto-Uralic. There are also ancestries which spread from the west to the east, and they could also be associated with the spread of Proto-Uralic.'
It isn't 'just looking at the ancestry which spread from the East to the West'. It's noticing that there's a very clear a distinct pattern in the genetics of all Uralic speakers, which is Neo-Siberian ancestry followed by N1 on an East to West cline. There is no documented West-Eurasian groups migrating from West of the Urals to Eastern Siberian that carried not only the most distinct haplogroup of the Uralic language family, N1, but neither is there cultural evidence. West-Eurasian ancestry only began back-migrating towards Siberia with Indo-Aryan ancestry, and that doesn't need explaining why you can't connect that to Proto-Uralic.
The only distinct West-Eurasian lineage in Siberia was the ANE and the later EHG who didn't carry Uralic associated haplogroups either or the necessary Neo-Siberian ancestry. Is it possible West-Eurasian ancestry impacted some Uralic speakers in Western Siberia? Yes, but they wouldn't have been the ancestry necessary to spread the Uralic language or at the correct times. It'd be like arguing Indo-European derives from Iran or India with the same argument attached.
*'Do you see now, how blindly you guys have been looking at the data? You only pick one ancestry and ignore others, and you decide that it was simultaneous with the spread of Proto-Uralic, even though it could have been also earlier or later. You have voluntarily hidden other possibilities from your sight'
Nobody is ignoring the other ancestries. It's simply that it's been mostly accepted that Uralic languages are intimately tied to the expansion of Neo-Siberian ancestry and Y-DNA with no West-Eurasian lineages or ancestry being a good candidate to oppose that consensus. The fact that certain Uralic speakers have West-Eurasian ancestry in minor amounts is not evidence of a Westward migration. In fact, it's the opposite. It's West-Eurasian groups with large amounts of Neo-Siberian ancestry. If you can prove otherwise, as only you and Carlos seem to be pushing otherwise then do so, because no other bit of evidence has argued it.
"We can make a guess of Finland HG Y-DNA. One can guess by inferring the archaeological cultures are associated with Mesolithic Finland. Have you looked at that ?
What about the surrounding sample list from Veretye, Butovo, Narva, Motala etc, and the more younger Pitted Ware, Baltic Corded Ware
Have you looked at that ? "
No I haven't, sorry I am not very knowledgeable on the material cultures. But isn't it still a possibility that Western Finland had its own unique set of Y-haplogroups separate from the Comb Ceramic culture? Motala and Narva HGs have totally different YDNA despite being autosomally pretty similar. I was not aware pre-I1 was only found in West European WHG
Is there a reason for why East Hunter Gatherers display WHG admixture but no other significant Paleolithic like admixture? Does that imply that far eastern europe experienced a complete population replacement by WHG before the ANE related ancestry arrived?
@ Jaako
''Prove your claim that they are different ancestries or did not spread at the right time.''
It's done and sealed. Everybody except you, Arsen, a couple of boomers from GeneArchiver understand this
''If this Siberian ancestry reached the Urals only ca. 2000 BCE, it is too late to be associated with Late Proto-Uralic spoken in the Central Ural Region already ca. 2500 BCE. ''
Not so
The Uralic - Indo-Aryan contacts took place c. 2200 - 2000 BC east of the Urals, and were ongoing well into later times.
@ Arsen
''Have you seen a similar animation of the spread of Uralic languages? What can you say about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROMikM-OAOc&ab_channel=CostasMelas''
Somehow you manage to constantly post wrong & irrelavnt links & comments.
This video by some random Costas is outdated, in fact, it was never in date to begin with
@Rob
Costas has his own opinion, for sure his numerous animations of maps of different languages have a basis, it’s just that I like such animations, they are easily perceived for me and many beginners.
And I didn’t ask your opinion, dear Rob, I want Jaakko to answer my question himself, he, apparently, is a native speaker of the Uralic language, and is more in-depth in this direction than me and you, so let him answer, okay?
@ Arsen
''And I didn’t ask your opinion, dear Rob, I want Jaakko to answer my question himself, he, apparently, is a native speaker of the Uralic language, and is more in-depth in this direction than me and you, so let him answer, okay?''
It doesn't matter who you asked. When you spread disinformation, which you constantly do, it is the task of any honest & competent citizen to correct you, for the sake of everyone else.
If you wnat a personal discussion with Jaako, email him; and being a native speaker is irrelevant.
Jaako's expertise is on display and has been for several years. You should speak only for your own limitations, and not project them onto others.
@Jaakko
Have you seen this?
https://bedlan.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/OHAL_Uralic_Vesakoski-Salmela-Piezonka.pdf
We're probably going to be inundated by papers claiming Proto-Uralic was spoken by Okunevo and/or other cultures within the “flowerpot complex”.
@Rob
are you accusing me of populism, saying that I ask misleading questions for everyone to see without asking him personally in the mail? and why is this blog needed then? And this video from YouTube is freely available, more people have watched it than will read my message with a “populist” question, if something is wrong there, Jaakko will say that the card is not correct, throw it in the trash and forget it about this, and other people will see it, so you’re wrong, every question, even the stupidest one, has a benefit, I don’t break the chat rules
@ Scott G
''No I haven't, sorry I am not very knowledgeable on the material cultures.''
That was just an open invitation. So I took my own suggestion to look into it and described it up thread.
''But isn't it still a possibility that Western Finland had its own unique set of Y-haplogroups separate from the Comb Ceramic culture?''
Yes that's true. In theory, it could be anything between I, R, C, and Q
''Motala and Narva HGs have totally different YDNA despite being autosomally pretty similar''
Similar as an end-result of distinctive processes. Narva & Latvia have a lot of R1b, where as it's pretty much absent in Motala & SHG, despite the fact that SHG have more EHG than the East Baltics.
''I was not aware pre-I1 was only found in West European WHG''
It's also found in Staro Forvar 6000 BC in Gotland. But most are in western Europe. That said, I1 not any I was native to the West originally. So all a bit complex.
''Is there a reason for why East Hunter Gatherers display WHG admixture but no other significant Paleolithic like admixture? Does that imply that far eastern europe experienced a complete population replacement by WHG before the ANE related ancestry arrived?''
Good observation. I think that's what it very much implies, dual replacement from west (Italo-Balkans) and East (Siberia). But as you know, there is a huge time gap between Sunghir and the EHGs with missing data.
@ Zelto: many thanks for posting the preprint, very good reading. While it is indeed tempting to see Minusinsk Basin area or within that, more spesific places such as Kansk Forest Steppe, as the original sxpansion area of the Uralic language, two points might be worth mentioning. First, in terms of linguistics, the evidence still seems to be rather anecdotal. That being said, the genetic and archeological links are apparently undeniable. Second, Yakutia_LNBA and related paternal N apparently was a late incomer in that area, so any deeper links with Okunevo Proper may be far fetched.
@ Arsen
So you’re a native of the Caucasus, that doesn’t make you an expert on Caucasian languages and dna., does it ?
Jaako can dance around all he wants, but plenty of linguists incl from Finland support an eastern origin. You just don’t know about it because you get your info from TikTok
@ Rob
I think after Yakutia_LN_BA, WSHG makes the most sense to be Proto-Uralic if you rank it in order of plausibility. That aside Krasnoyarsk_BA is very likely related to ESHG as a whole, for example Lokomotiv, Shamanka and Baikal. Okunevo culture is put forward as Proto-Uralic and Bolshoy can be modelled as Okunevo included. With that Okunevo obviously has some WSHG as we know. Botai, Tyumen, Sosonivoy, all carry some additional East Asian input saying they could have some N. 1/2 Botai sample is N2F. It is said Okunevo carries some NO
@ Zelto
That's what I also said in this thread. WSHG being Proto-Uralic is the second best candidate after Krasnoyarsk_BA/Para-ESHG/ESHG.
It's all about WSHG vs ESHG for Uralic
@ Jaakko
WSHG theory over ESHG/Yakutian or same thing to you?
@Gabru
Can you explain how WSHG links all of the modern Uralic speakers?
Do Finns and Hungarian Conquerors have any WSHG?
@ Davidski
Okunevo is the protagonist of WSHG Uralic theory. It's an amateur modelling I know but I found Okunevo in Bolshoy. Also do Finnish R1b subclades match with Okunevo ones? Let's see ProtoHungarians modelled with Okunevo?
Note:- I'm am not well aware about Uralic genesis theories but as a layman I understand Okunevo as a candidate for Proto-Uralic. I'm not aware of the genesis of Hungarians entirely
Finnish R1b subclades are from Northwestern and Western Europe.
@ Davidski
It seems like Harvard is gonna betray Anthony again and tryna connect Indo-Iranian in the "Southern Arc" framework as they did for Anatolian
Maier et al., 2023
(co-authored by David Reich)
**“If the Iranian-related ancestry in Indus Periphery was spread eastward into the Indus Valley across the Iranian plateau as part of the same agriculturally associated expansion—[[[ perhaps brought by people speaking Indo-European languages as well as introducing West Asian crops ]]]—then we would expect to see at least some of the Iranian-related ancestry in Indus Periphery being a clade with that in Hajji Firuz relative to Ganj Dareh. . . . In Figure 3—source data 6, we show four graphs with four admixture events that model the Indus Periphery group as a mixture of three or four sources, with a significant fraction of its ancestry derived from the Hajji Firuz Neolithic or Tepe Hissar Chalcolithic lineages including both Iranian and Anatolian ancestries.”**
@Davidski
all Uralic speakers are united by Asian origin, you just need to find an approximate wedge of modern Uralic speakers, where it goes to which point in Asia according to ancient components, there are many Asian proxies, like the Neolithic of Baikal, the Iron Age of Mongolia, China, the Yellow River, Shamanka, DevilsCave
Magyars definitely had WSHG admix on account of being Ugrian and ultimately having origins in western Siberia. The European Uralic speakers do not aside from the most eastern ones.
@Gabru
They actually state this, notice the last sentence:
If the Iranian-related ancestry in IP was spread eastward into the Indus Valley across the Iranian plateau as part of the same agriculturally associated expansion—perhaps brought by people speaking Indo-European languages as well as introducing West Asian crops—then we would expect to see at least some of the Iranian-related ancestry in IP being a clade with that in Hajji Firuz relative to Ganj Dareh. The fact that we do not find any models compatible with this scenario is thus a potentially important finding.
@Gabru
Proto-Indo-Iranians came from Corded Ware.
You should try and accept this.
@ Copper Axe
"The fact that we do not find any models compatible with this scenario is thus a potentially important finding."
This sentence is added by you in attempt to cope pathetically and dishonestly for a peer-reviewed paper co-authored by David Reich asserting the possibility of IVC itself to have been Indo-European, this line is nowhere mentioned in the paper. They literally prove the presence of this Hajji Firuz clade ancestry in Indus_Periphery as they assert in the beginning. I was expecting a sound word salad but turns out it has been turned 180 degrees. But nothing new, lol
@ Davidski
Yeah "academic consensus" also believed Anatolians to be from Steppes until 2022. What I implied by quoting Maier (2023) is to show how Harvard may soon shift its position and try to commit a "Southern Arc 2.0" with Indo-Iranian included in the near future
@ Davidski
Yeah and Proto-Indo-Anatolians came from South of Caucasus.
You should try and accept this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Gabru
Yeah and Proto-Indo-Anatolians came from South of Caucasus.
Nonsense.
The consensus is that the Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland was in the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
@ Copper Axe
If your triggered shameless mind could understand then the paper literally proves the opposite of what you sneaked in here.
"The fact that we do not find any models compatible with this scenario is thus a potentially important finding."
+ "The fact that we find models compatible with this scenario is thus a potentially important finding demonstrating how Indus Periphery is the definite candidate for Indo-Iranian."
Fixed it for you
@Gabru
Well, there were obvious migrations of Corded Ware-related people from Europe to Iran and India. This has been known for decades and is confirmed directly by ancient DNA.
But there's no real evidence of any Indo-European migrations from South of the Caucasus to Eastern Europe.
Inferences from statistical abstracts aren't real evidence.
So deal with that.
@Gabru
"This sentence is added by you in attempt to cope pathetically and dishonestly for a peer-reviewed paper co-authored by David Reich asserting the possibility of IVC itself to have been Indo-European, this line is nowhere mentioned in the paper."
Instead of these posting these emotionally charged comments you should scroll down in a bit in the article where they talk about Shinde 2019. Or just hit ctrl + f and search for the sentence...
@Davidski ,Apparently, the catacombs invaded Iran long before migrations from the eastern Proto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian corded ware to the east began, for example, the Bronze Age Hajji Firuz
@Арсен
Catacomb is probably proto-Armenian.
Armenian Bronze Age samples show a lot of R1b-M269 and strong IBD links to Catacomb.
Proto-Indo-Iranians definitely came from Corded Ware. This has been known for decades well before ancient DNA.
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004438200/BP000002.xml?language=en
Target: Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA:I4243
Distance: 1.5000% / 0.01499973
54.6 Yamnaya_Afanasievo
25.0 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
10.2 Iran_N
9.0 CHG
1.2 Levant_Natufian
Target: Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA:I4243
Distance: 1.2100% / 0.01209972 | R4P
42.4 Yamnaya_Afanasievo
39.0 Armenia_C_Areni
16.2 Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes_Karnut_o
2.4 WHG
@David ,It seems that people from the Iranian Bronze Age Hajji Firuz spoke Proto-Armenian, and that's why Kurds and Western Iranians are better represented through pit rather than corded pottery, as there were people with a sufficient admixture of Yamnaya living there even before people like the Sintashta+BMAC types invaded from Central Asia, adding additional steppe ancestry to Western Iran.
@Арсен
“Apparently, the catacombs invaded Iran long before migrations from the eastern Proto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian corded ware to the east began, for example, the Bronze Age Hajji Firuz”
Indo-Iranian languages are grouped with Balto-Slavic languages forming Indo-Slavic clade genetically derived from CWC –>Fatyanovo –> Abashevo –> Sintashta –> Andronovo –> India and Iran.
But Indo-Iranian languages are also grouped with Graeco-Armenian languages forming Graeco-Aryan, or Graeco-Armeno-Aryan clade. What is the genetic origin of Graeco-Armenian influences in Indo-Iranian languages?
@EastPole
What is the genetic origin of Graeco-Armenian influences in Indo-Iranian languages?
Catacomb influence in Abashevo.
@ EastPole
“What is the genetic origin of Graeco-Armenian influences in Indo-Iranian languages?”
There’s no slam dunk explanation but possibilities include
- Catacomb adstrate in Iran
- older affinities from Europe. In fact, there’s more to what Davidski said- heaps of I2c from Central Europe in Armenians too , making them a slightly more western variant of Catacomb, thus close to the EEF rich departure zone of indo-Iranians
- no actual special affinities, just some linguists view that they share links
“Catacomb influence in Abashevo.”
That too ^
Also what about the question of origin of Albanian in relation to the above languages?
There's an excellent preprint at bioRxiv about the origins of Albanian languages. The paper will be even better when it gets published soon.
Some guy called David Wesolowski is a co-author on that.
Hard to say. Seems like half the Balkans fled to northern Albania between 600 & 700 AD.
Bulgarians have also discovered non Thracian , non Illyrian inscriptions on the northern slopes of the Balkans.
@Rob @Arsen
'Have you seen a similar animation of the spread of Uralic languages? What can you say about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROMikM-OAOc&ab_channel=CostasMelas'
His content in general is very outdated or just outright incorrect. Another video he did on the Baltic languages claimed the West-East split happened only in the 6th century BCE, whereas it's well documented it happened around the early Iron Age. The videos are interesting, but by no means should they be treated or taken seriously - most of it is guess work seemingly.
I’m not sure if Davidski coauthors know anything beyond Yamnaya and R1b as an explanation for Balkan IE
@Davidski
Very interesting! Albanian is a very intriguing Indo-European language, glad it's receiving more attention. Will the paper only be going over the linguistic component or will it also correlate the Albanian language with the genetics of her speakers as well? Regardless, look forward to the paper.
Still crying for research and sampling for possible West Balts.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Yes, he meant that they had something to do with Slavs, they were genetically close. He didn’t say that the Aestians were Slavs, or descended from the Aestians. ”The best-argumented view is that this culture is associated with the Finnic speakers” – Very…funny.
@ambron
According to Vyazov’s Campleve enameles map, the concentration of Eastern European enamels is in Belarus/Ukraine, and in terms of time period is associated with the post-Zarubintsy/Kyiv cultures. But yes, According to Anna Bitner-Wróblewska, the earliest decorations with East European champleve enamels, come from Masuria, Suwalki and Lithuania (the middle of the 2 AD)
@Rob
“Those pre-600 AD 'forest groups' are not Slavic”
Maybe, in case if we consider only Prague culture to be Slavs.
Of course, the Antes (the Penkovka culture) didn’t consider themselves as Slavs, Sklavins.
“Yes- 737 AD, which is after 600 AD”
The discussion was about Imenkovo culture. Is there any evidence of the presence of Prague culture in that region at that time?
“there is appearance of Volentsyevo culture from Carpatho-Dnieper region, originating from Prague culture. It is from these cultures that East Slavs emerged”
This is according to some archaeologists. On the Left Bank of the Dnieper, Volyntsevo culture settlements usually overlap settlements of the Penkovka and Kolochin cultures; on the Right Bank - Prague culture and Kolochin culture. But is a bit of an overstatement about Prague culture. At that time there was Luka-Rajkovetsk culture, it developed from Korchak culture.
Couldn't that ancestry be associated with proto-Dravidian or something related to Burushashki or language X?
@Gabru
No. Finnish R1b typically matches Germanic branches(U106+) or later merchant class migrants from west-central Europe(P312+). I guess a very tiny minority could match Russian ones, but it would be small.
I wonder then what language the people from the Areni cave spoke, the people who were the first to use shoes, a skirt and wine, the language was borrowed from the North Caucasian cattle widows, was it similar to the Hittite? or was it proto Urartu-Khurito-Nakh-Dagestan
Davidski: “If you're proposing that EHG and/or CWC ancestry ties Uralic speakers together just like, or even better than, Krasnoyarsk BA ancestry, then you have to demonstrate this.”
It has been demonstrated just as well as the proposal that the Yakutia_LNBA ancestry is associated with Uralic speakers: qpAdm and other methods show these ancestries widely in the modern Uralic speaking populations. You guys just choose to see the latter but not the former.
Davidski: “But I don't see how you can do it, because Uralic speakers share EHG and CWC ancestry from different sources, and on top of that sources that are clearly documented as Indo-European-speaking.”
1) Please give me a study which shows that their EHG and steppe/CWC ancestry comes only from different sources.
2) It is irrelevant that the early sources are Indo-European speaking. Otherwise you should similarly dismiss the Yakutia ancestry, because it originates in a non-Uralic population in Eastern Siberia.
3) The language of the original population is irrelevant, if the ancestry arrived early enough to be present in the Proto-Uralic speaking population. We know that the Yakutia ancestry does not seem to fulfill this criterion: it reached the Central Ural Region only AFTER Late Proto-Uralic (which is dated to ca. 2500 BCE).
Davidski: “That means you have to push back the existence of proto-Uralic at least to the time before the expansion and breakup of the CWC.”
No, you got the chronology wrong. The CWC ancestry reached the Kama-Ural Region ca. 2600 BCE (the Balanovo Culture), being early enough to be present in the Late Proto-Uralic speaking population (unlike the Yakutia ancestry, see above).
Davidski: “And then you have to account for Uralic being present alongside Indo-European languages in the CWC as it expanded.”
No, you got that wrong, see above.
Regarding the Uralic languages, such a wedge is traced among the speakers of these languages on the 3D PCA plot:
https://i.postimg.cc/901rMr1B/Screenshot-20.png
Its vector points towards the Nganasans, but it does not reach them. Most likely, the Nganasans were closest to the Proto-Uralic speakers but mixed with some additional Asian population.
Arsen: “Have you seen a similar animation of the spread of Uralic languages? What can you say about this?”
All the datings seem too early, probably based on some outdated view like the spread together with the Comb Ceramic Culture.
Noble Goth: “It isn't 'just looking at the ancestry which spread from the East to the West'. It's noticing that there's a very clear a distinct pattern in the genetics of all Uralic speakers, which is Neo-Siberian ancestry followed by N1 on an East to West cline.”
So? You cannot just decide that these genetic phenomena are related to the Uralic expansion from the beginning. I already explained why that is not possible. You have to take the best-argumented linguistic results and try to find a match for them.
Noble Goth: “There is no documented West-Eurasian groups migrating from West of the Urals to Eastern Siberian that carried not only the most distinct haplogroup of the Uralic language family, N1, but neither is there cultural evidence. West-Eurasian ancestry only began back-migrating towards Siberia with Indo-Aryan ancestry, and that doesn't need explaining why you can't connect that to Proto-Uralic.”
1) There is nothing documented in prehistory; that is why it is called prehistory. ;)
2) Why should we see haplogroup N spreading from west to east? You cannot just decide that it spread together with the Uralic language, when it could have been also earlier or later phenomenon. But the “Ugric” descendant of N-Z1936 apparently spread to Siberia from Europe. And there are N3 lineages present in all the studied Samoyedic populations, even in the Nganasans (see Post et al. 2019; Ilumäe et al. 2016).
3) There is cultural evidence of contacts over the Urals, for example in ceramic (comb ceramic and textile-impression ceramic), but at the moment we cannot be certain about the direction of these cultural spreadings. They could have spread from the west to the east.
4) EHG ancestry was already present in Western Siberia before Late Proto-Uralic. Steppe ancestry reached the Kama-Ural Region with the Balanovo Culture, early enough for this ancestry to be present in the Late Proto-Uralic population.
Noble Goth: “The only distinct West-Eurasian lineage in Siberia was the ANE and the later EHG who didn't carry Uralic associated haplogroups either or the necessary Neo-Siberian ancestry.”
Paternal lineages do not follow autosomal ancestry, those two are independent levels. About half of the ancestry in the Finns is CWC ancestry, and we also have 60 % of haplogroup N – even though there was no N in the original CWC population. Therefore, your counter-argument is not valid.
I repeat: you cannot just decide that the Yakutia ancestry spread together with the Uralic language, when it could have been either earlier or later.
Noble Goth: “Is it possible West-Eurasian ancestry impacted some Uralic speakers in Western Siberia? Yes, but they wouldn't have been the ancestry necessary to spread the Uralic language or at the correct times. It'd be like arguing Indo-European derives from Iran or India with the same argument attached.”
How so? Why the European ancestries could not have participated in the Uralic expansion? They were in the right place early enough – the same cannot be said about the Yakutia ancestry; see my reply to Davidski above. Again, you just cannot decide that the Yakutia ancestry was associated with the Uralic expansion.
Zelto:
“Have you seen this?
https://bedlan.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/OHAL_Uralic_Vesakoski-Salmela-Piezonka.pdf
We're probably going to be inundated by papers claiming Proto-Uralic was spoken by Okunevo and/or other cultures within the “flowerpot complex”.”
Yes, I have seen it and given feedback to the authors. The best-argumented linguistic results do not allow Late Proto-Uralic homeland in Southern Siberia. The only probably valid linguistic argument pulling the homeland into South Siberia (Ural-Altaic typological features) is several millennia earlier than Late Proto-Uralic, and it in any case contradicts with the shared Indo-Uralic features. Wherever distant Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken, it is irrelevant for the location of Late Proto-Uralic; just like the location of Late Proto-Uralic is irrelevant for the location of Proto-Finnic (in Estonia) or Proto-Samoyedic (north from the Sayan Mountains).
Gabru: “It seems like Harvard is gonna betray Anthony again and tryna connect Indo-Iranian in the "Southern Arc" framework as they did for Anatolian”
That is weird. The Sintashta Culture cannot be ignored as the Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland. Have they got infected by the “see the language from the DNA” -virus?
Michael: “Yes, he meant that they had something to do with Slavs, they were genetically close. He didn’t say that the Aestians were Slavs, or descended from the Aestians. ”The best-argumented view is that this culture is associated with the Finnic speakers” – Very…funny.”
What is funny? If you read my comment, I wrote about the Tarand grave culture. That is universally connected to the Finnic speakers.
OT. After seeing that movie about climate change, I wonder how reliable official science is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24fWmNA6lM
@ Michael
Didn't you read carefully what I wrote ?
''“Yes- 737 AD, which is after 600 AD”
The discussion was about Imenkovo culture. Is there any evidence of the presence of Prague culture in that region at that time?''
As per above, Imenkovo culture disappears c. 630 AD. Vyazov is quite categorical on this. The entire Volga region remains rather depopulated until arrival of Mordvins.
The Penkovka culture & Kolochin culuture also disappear this time, with evidence of destructions and takeover by nomads (Bulgars, Khazars), again fairly clearly written by Kazanski. The exatct time of collapse of all these groups is quibbled due to lack of C14 dates, but whatever.
So the narrated population of 737 AD, wherever they were precisely from, cannot have been Imenkovans
''This is according to some archaeologists. On the Left Bank of the Dnieper, Volyntsevo culture settlements usually overlap settlements of the Penkovka and Kolochin cultures; on the Right Bank - Prague culture and Kolochin culture. But is a bit of an overstatement about Prague culture. ''
In fact I said originating from Prague culture.
The sequences goes Prague-Korchak -> sites of Sakhnivka type -> early Luka-Rajkovska & Volyntsevo (latter with Khazar influence)
Hence my suggestions : ''. It is from these cultures (L=R, V) that East Slavs emerged rather than direct filiation from Penkovka, Kolochin, Kiev or Imenkovo.''
In other words, if we define late proto-Slavic as the final stage before emergence into East, South and West Slavic, then Kolochin & even Penkovka are not proto-Slavic but para-Slavic/ Balto-Slavic, and Imenkovo is far cry from being anything Slavic, with ''Finnic'' & ''Sarmatian'' profiles.
@ Gabru
Have Harvard & MPI managed to actually figure out where proto-Anatolians come from , or are they still posing vague models of "Homo Sapiens from somewhere near Iran'' with a 'highly convincing F3 stat' ?
@ Noble Goth
'''Have you seen a similar animation of the spread of Uralic languages? What can you say about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROMikM-OAOc&ab_channel=CostasMelas'
His content in general is very outdated or just outright incorrect. Another video he did on the Baltic languages claimed the West-East split happened only in the 6th century BCE''
It's just a copy/paste of Parpola theory of Volga-Kama EHG origins, which is obviously not a viable scenario today or 4 years ago.
@Huck Finn @Gabru
The authors recognize that the Yakuyia_LNBA component seems to have spread with Proto-Uralic. However, they have also bought into the idea that Uralic was THE ‘lingua franca’ of the Seima-Turbino network and thus must have been spoken within the ST ‘core’ (i.e. “flowerpot complex”). They bring up Okunevo specifically in this context, but aDNA that has already been published is neglected; that leaves the contradiction between genetic evidence and their archaeo-linguistic model unaddressed.
This is something I have brought up many times, but the westward expansion of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry was not very archaeologically visible, at least within the current paradigm. This partly explains why the authors were drawn to the “flowerpot complex”, rather than the innominate archaeological grouping rich in Yakutia_LNBA ancestry north of Okunevo.
@ Jaako
''it in any case contradicts with the shared Indo-Uralic features.''
It is only your personal imagination that the Indo-Uralic features which permeate *must have* occurred in the Sintashta- Abashevo area 2500 BC. You keep chiming about this in a fascist-like manner because it is your thin hope which will somehow anchor Uralic further West.
But you don't seem to understand that Indo-Iranian only began to galvanise east of the Urals as they began to admix with 'Inner Asians' and then Turan people and slowly acquire loans and substratal interference from those people, leading to the emergence of a recongnisable I-I c.f. a late dialectical IE stage (Garrett et al).
Moreover, all Uralicists apart from you recognise Samoyedic as the earliest branching Uralic group, with a paucity of Indo-Iranian loans but heavy presence of 'Arctic' and Yukhagir contacts (e.g. Saarikivi, Aikio).
Thus, even putting aside the genetics, the linguistic evidence supports the somewhere in Siberia homeland, but obviously neither the Okunevo nor Seima-Turbino scenarios hit the nail on the head.
Arsen: “Most likely, the Nganasans were closest to the Proto-Uralic speakers but mixed with some additional Asian population.”
Why do you think so? The Nganasans are a highly drifted small population in the vanguard of the Samoyedic northern expansion, different from all the other Samoyedic populations and close to Dolgans and Tundra Yukaghirs. Therefore, it seems that they are one of the most different populations compared to the Proto-Uralic population, strongly descending from the earlier non-Uralic populations of northern Central Siberia.
You cannot just decide that because the Yakutia ancestry is widely seen in the Uralic populations, then the Proto-Uralic speakers must have had 100 % this ancestry. With this same method, you should also claim that the Proto-Uralic speaking population had 100 % of the EHG ancestry and 100 % of the steppe ancestry, too (300 % superhumans!), because these ancestries are similarly widely seen in the Uralic populations.
Rob, it never ceases to amaze me how self-confidently you comment on articles which you have not even read or understood. Everything is wrong in your comment, beginning with what you claim to be my views. I will gladly reply to you when you have finally read and understood the relevant articles and the linguistic arguments in them. :) So, it's a date in monday in... 2089?
@Jaakko, I am not an expert in Uralic languages and you know much more, I made this conclusion based on 3D PCA graphics of some Uralic peoples, I simply made a grid of basic components such as Neolithic Iran, Anatolia, some EHG (Peschanitsa, Seilkino cluster, Karelia, Samara hunters, Khvalynsk), Afonova gora ag3, WHG
And then I sketched out different Ural-speaking populations there, and you know, a clear wedge is visible there, if you look at the link that I threw on the graph, this wedge is in no way connected with EHG, nor with ANE, nor with WSHG, this independent wedge goes towards the Nganasans, but how I’m saying that the Nganasans themselves do not lie on the straight line of this wedge, they were pulled away from it by an additional Asian admixture not related to the Uralic languages
So there are patterns between the Ural-speaking peoples, which can be clearly seen on the PCA graph
Sorry for my english
@Jaakko
No, you got the chronology wrong. The CWC ancestry reached the Kama-Ural Region ca. 2600 BCE (the Balanovo Culture), being early enough to be present in the Late Proto-Uralic speaking population (unlike the Yakutia ancestry, see above).
You're still missing the point.
I asked you to explain how EHG/CWC ancestry links Uralic speakers as well as, or better, than Yakutyia_LNBA ancestry.
CWC ancestry in the Kama-Ural Region ca. 2600 BCE doesn't help your cause, because if this is where proto-Uralic ancestry expanded from, then we would expect to see Fatyanovo and/or Balanovo admixture in present-day Uralic speakers.
So can you prove that there's Fatyanovo and/or Balanovo ancestry in all Uralic speakers, just like there's Yakutyia_LNBA ancestry in all Uralic speakers?
@Jaakko
so that you understand what I mean, here is a look at the 3D PCA along this wedge where the Uralic languages are grouped
https://i.postimg.cc/g2pSGnT5/Screenshot-21.png
a small cloud of discrepancies is visible, associated with small admixtures from the Slavs, EHG, etc., etc., but the Nganasannas are most deviated from this cloud, although this wedge stretches from the Finns to them.
Here is another side view of this straight line (wedge)
https://i.postimg.cc/0y9fLh61/Screenshot-22.png
and also a comparison of the whg-ane wedge and the Ural peoples
https://i.postimg.cc/Fs3CtjD3/Screenshot-23.png
@ Jaako
''Rob, it never ceases to amaze me how self-confidently you comment on articles which you have not even read or understood. Everything is wrong in your comment, beginning with what you claim to be my views. I will gladly reply to you when you have finally read and understood the relevant articles and the linguistic arguments in them. :) So, it's a date in monday in... 2089?''
Says the guy who doesnt understand basic population dynamics and hides behind vague linguistic claims which are a house of cards.
This is what Garrett states: ''In some cases this (emergence) may have been a long, gradual process; ..as in ..Indo‑Iranian (if a Bactria‑Margiana collapse c. 1750 BC played a role in the emergence of distinctive Indo‑Iranian phonology and morphology''..
Indo-Iranian began to emerge gradually in Central Asia itself, which is where Uralic speakers first came into contact with them. Even you & Arsen know this fits the genetic data.
It's all over for your model, Jaapi. The rest is you making an idiot of yourself
This is what Saarikivi says:
''Anikin and Helimski (2007) point out that the names of trees can be used for locating Proto- Samoyed, as well as the Proto- Uralic, an idea originally presented by Hajdú (for
instance, Hajdú 1966b). The names of the major taiga zone tree species, such as fir (
Abies), larch (Larix), Pinus Sibirica, as well as the names of Siberian roe deer and flying squirrel, indicate a fairly southern homeland in the taiga zone''
''The slightly smaller vocabulary of Proto-Samoyed in comparison with the other Uralic intermediate protolanguages suggests a somewhat earlier dating for Proto- Samoyed than
for most of the intermediate protolanguages of the Uralic family, probably about 2,000 years or more''
Jaako's consistently lies through his teeth.
@ Арсен: Nnagasans are still, after all admixture which have taken place, indeed genetically close to Yakutia_LNBA i.e. the common eastern genetic root of Uralic speakers, but the latter is so eastern that it is even closer to ancient Xianbei of the Amur area. This, even if Yakutia_LNBA itself is a mixture of North East Asian, Amur-Trans Baikal based genes and already partly ANE-based Yakutia_MN. In other words, even Nnganasans are too European, if you like.
Otherwise, I think that the idea of Koptyaki Culture being related to the origins and also the dispersal phase of Uralic has it's merits and can be linked to the eastern genetic roots of Uralic speakers by assuming that there was not just one migration phase from the East, but many. First, the relative amount of eastern immigrants being small, they of course assumed the local language. After that, the next groups did the same, again being the linguistic minority. This being said, I'd still like to see signs and traces, such as loan words, from some very eastern language in Proto Uralic. Such a big genetc impact wihout any kind of a linguistic impact just don't make sense. Normandy of the Viking Era BTW might be a good comparison to this model, also in terms of linguistics.
Related to flower pots: now that it seems that there is no common WSHG, even tiny but traceable amounts, in Uralic speakers, I think that the idea of Uralic being a Lingua Franca in the Seyma Turbino Proper is a dead end. The main Yakutia_LNBA groups seemed to have crossed West Siberia very quickly, cf. later Avars.
@ Queequeg
''Nnagasans are still, after all admixture which have taken place, indeed genetically close to Yakutia_LNBA i.e. the common eastern genetic root of Uralic speakers, but the latter is so eastern that it is even closer to ancient Xianbei of the Amur area. ''
You keep saying that, but it doesnt make any sense. Why are you mentioning Xianbei when they lived thousands of years after Yakutia_LN formed ? Do you understand who the Xianbei are and when they lived ? They do not figure in this narrative
'' I think that the idea of Koptyaki Culture being related to the origins and also the dispersal phase of Uralic has it's merits and can be linked to the eastern genetic roots of Uralic speakers by assuming that there was not just one migration phase from the East, but many. First, the relative amount of eastern immigrants being small, they of course assumed the local language. After that, the next groups did the same, again being the linguistic minority. This being said, I'd still like to see signs and traces, such as loan words, from some very eastern language in Proto Uralic. ''
Too many fallacious inconsistencies & internal contradictions here.
You claim that the north Siberians were a minority (despite waves of migration, according to you), who changed completely genetic landscape of the boreal zone and upturned the male population. How are they a peristent minority doomed to forever switch language ?
And who were the original bearers of Uralic then? If not Northern neoSiberians or the original WSHG, that only leaves the indo-Iranians. Doesn’t really add up does it ?
Then Jaako on the one hand claims the Uralic must date earlier, then he claims they come from the mid second millennium Koptyaki culture
What do you think Koptyaki aDNA will look like ?
@ Robban and re:” Why are you mentioning Xianbei when they lived thousands of years after Yakutia_LN formed ?” Because Xianbei is, after all that time, still surprisingly similar to Yakutia_LNBA? It works both ways, sidu.
And, each Yakutia_LNBA group arriving into Koptyaki area may of course have represented the linguistic minority at that point of time. Re genetics, for instance already some groups of bone armoured young men with bronze weapons, joining the earlier campaigns, could have made a big difference. However, it may very well be that Proto Uralic was spoken somewhere near Sayan area, but if that is the case, it is kind of interesting that the hard linguistic proof still seems to be missing.
Koptyaki aDNA? Dunno, maybe something between Karasuk RISE493 and NEO538 of Vologda i.e. not very far from (some of) the Sargat samples.
Davidski: “I asked you to explain how EHG/CWC ancestry links Uralic speakers as well as, or better, than Yakutyia_LNBA ancestry.”
I already explained the situation: it is explained just as well as the Yakutia ancestry. All these ancestries are present widely in the Uralic speaking populations (among others). Anything better than that has never been presented to support the Yakutia ancestry, nor any other ancestry. So my question is: why do you just pick the Yakutia ancestry but ignore all the other equal ancestries?
Davidski: “CWC ancestry in the Kama-Ural Region ca. 2600 BCE doesn't help your cause, because if this is where proto-Uralic ancestry expanded from, then we would expect to see Fatyanovo and/or Balanovo admixture in present-day Uralic speakers.”
Just give me the study which shows that we do not have Fatyanovo/Balanovo ancestry in the Uralic populations. Steppe ancestry is widely present in the Uralic populations, but unfortunately so far I have not seen more resolute studies about its origin. If you have seen such, just name the study.
Davidski: “So can you prove that there's Fatyanovo and/or Balanovo ancestry in all Uralic speakers, just like there's Yakutyia_LNBA ancestry in all Uralic speakers?”
No, but it seems possible until it is disproven. Just like the picture has grown more resolute with the Nganasan => Krasnoyarsk => Yakutia ancestry, it will probably grow more resolute concerning the steppe ancestry in the Uralic populations.
My point is that you cannot ignore the steppe and the EHG ancestry BEFORE it has been proven that it cannot have spread with the Proto-Uralic population. You cannot just decide that the Yakutia ancestry is associated with the spread of Proto-Uralic, and even less that it is the sole ancestry associated with it. At the present state of knowledge, we have several possible ancestries, which could have been associated with the Uralic expansion. You cannot just pick your favorite and ignore all the rest.
@ Noble Goth
“Very interesting! Albanian is a very intriguing Indo-European language, glad it's receiving more attention. Will the paper only be going over the linguistic component or will it also correlate the Albanian language with the genetics of her speakers as well? “
One would hope such attempts are familiar with the archaeology of medieval Balkans and address the big impact of E-V13. Also I can’t recall reading anything in that article about the Latin / Romance toponymy across the west Balkans and the difficult concordance between Illyrian & Albanian anthroponymy
@Jaakko
If you want to convince the world that proto-Uralic can be placed at the meeting point between Fatyanovo and Balanovo, then obviously you have to prove that Fatyanovo/Balanovo ancestry links Uralic speakers by and large.
But I can tell you right now that there's no sign of any such thing in any Uralians who obviously don't have Fatyanovo ancestry via Indo-Iranian admixture.
For example, Finns and Saami don't have it, while Udmurts do have it because they have obvious Iranian ancestry.
So no, it's not possible and I don't have to cite any papers.
You're basically screwed, and either you don't know it yet or you don't want to accept it.
@ Queequeg
The “Koptyaki theory is just a Band-Aid for Jako’s booboo.
It’ll be heavily indo-Iranian, so there’s no way in the world it’s at the origin core of Uralic
They’re also 1000 years earlier than Sargat
FU come from north Siberia, close to where Samoyeds are to this day. And it’s no coincidence that all credible linguists consider it as the most archaic branch of Uralic
It’s a perfect alignment
And of course, they have no Corded ware ancestry.
“However, it may very well be that Proto Uralic was spoken somewhere near Sayan area, but if that is the case, it is kind of interesting that the hard linguistic proof still seems to be missing.”
Well it doesn’t come from the Sayan , so who cares
We also know that the evidence positively disproves the Volga-Ural theory.
You need to be aware that you’ve been brainwashed by Jaako’s “linguistic proofs”. They don’t exist and are based on lies and incompetence. It’s best you cleanse yourself :)
Davidski: “But I can tell you right now that there's no sign of any such thing in any Uralians who obviously don't have Fatyanovo ancestry via Indo-Iranian admixture.”
Just give me a genetic study showing this, and the case is clear. You saying so is not evidence.
Davidski: “For example, Finns and Saami don't have it, while Udmurts do have it because they have obvious Iranian ancestry.”
Based on which study?
@Jaakko
I think everyone has already digested and has put across any point I'd make to you already, so I have nothing new to add. I'm simply going to be blunt, but for the sake of everyone's last few brain-cells after interacting with you stop pretending to be a mediator and a devil's advocate for your 'EHG/ CWC URALIC EXPANSION' theory. You're acting as if everyone else is ignoring 'obvious counter-points' and that an entire community of historians, geneticists and linguists is wrong and stomping their feet, refusing to look at any other perspective. You've asked for genetic evidence, it's been provided numerous times in an easy-to-digest way and yet you don't even speculate it, you just rant about how we're all missing the point and Jaakko the Great is the only neutral minded speaker here.
I think everyone here would prefer it if you outright said you're biased, you are not trying to propose an alternative perspective and that you're simply pushing your theory based on your personal opinions on it. It doesn't make you anymore correct, but at least you come off as ignorantly respectful. You are quite literally the 'Out of Corded Ware' for Uralic studies along with Carlos.
So, for the sake of everyone here who has to read your mental hop, provide a better model both genetically, linguistically and historically that at least heavily supports your theory, is in agreement with all three components and isn't your head canon. Your red-ball nose to wear otherwise.
@Rob
'One would hope such attempts are familiar with the archaeology of medieval Balkans and address the big impact of E-V13. Also I can’t recall reading anything in that article about the Latin / Romance toponymy across the west Balkans and the difficult concordance between Illyrian & Albanian anthroponymy'
I'm not overtly familiar with the Balkans' history on most fronts that isn't modern. Although, from what I have seen it does seem quite underdeveloped on the archaeological front as much Europe is on those fronts. Maybe I'll turn better attention to it after my personal reads on the Western Balts.
Noble Goth: “You're acting as if everyone else is ignoring 'obvious counter-points' and that an entire community of historians, geneticists and linguists is wrong and stomping their feet, refusing to look at any other perspective.”
There is no “entire community” or even any community of scientists who would believe that Proto-Uralic was associated entirely or since the beginning with the Yakutia ancestry – it is only the cult of you guys here, who believe you can see the language from the DNA. :) If you truly believe your own claim, you have severely misunderstood every scientific article concerning these matters.
Noble Goth: “I think everyone here would prefer it if you outright said you're biased, you are not trying to propose an alternative perspective and that you're simply pushing your theory based on your personal opinions on it.”
Totally wrong. I am probably the most unbiased individual here: I always support the view with best arguments and evidence behind it. As should every scientist.
Noble Goth: “It doesn't make you anymore correct, but at least you come off as ignorantly respectful. You are quite literally the 'Out of Corded Ware' for Uralic studies along with Carlos.”
You have severely misunderstood my views: of course Corded Ware Cultures were not Uralic. I would appreciate if you would try to read and understand my views before commenting them.
Noble Goth: “So, for the sake of everyone here who has to read your mental hop, provide a better model both genetically, linguistically and historically that at least heavily supports your theory, is in agreement with all three components and isn't your head canon. Your red-ball nose to wear otherwise.”
Linguistically best-argumented model is my view: Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Central Ural Region ca. 2500 BCE. Nothing in the results of other disciplines can change this – if you think they can, you have not understood science. Genetic and archaeological results can only be matches or non-matches for the linguistic results.
If you are interested in scientific views, I can help you understand why you cannot see the language from the DNA. But you must be ready to dismiss the beliefs of your cult to be able to understand science.
Noble Goth “You've asked for genetic evidence, it's been provided numerous times in an easy-to-digest way and yet you don't even speculate it, you just rant about how we're all missing the point and Jaakko the Great is the only neutral minded speaker here.”
Nobody could have presented a single genetic study supporting your claims. Even still you cannot do this. And yet, you claim as if you have presented that evidence! What a joke. :D Why do you people like trolling more than giving supporting arguments for your claims?
Btw this is a bit off-topic, but could anyone upload to G25 these Pyrenean Catalan samples from this study ? Here are the plink files, scroll down for the download button:
https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Genotype_files/21404643
@truth
"truth said...
Btw this is a bit off-topic, but could anyone upload to G25 these Pyrenean Catalan samples from this study ? Here are the plink files, scroll down for the download button:
https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Genotype_files/21404643"
you can write about it here
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=648&page=16
although I can write it myself now
@Jaakko
'There is no “entire community” or even any community of scientists who would believe that Proto-Uralic was associated entirely or since the beginning with the Yakutia ancestry – it is only the cult of you guys here, who believe you can see the language from the DNA. :) If you truly believe your own claim, you have severely misunderstood every scientific article concerning these matters.'
I don't even know how you could ignore the numerous, very easy to find and public papers documenting the introduction of Neo-Siberian ancestry in accordance to the Uralic expansion into North-Eastern Europe. Your choice to live in la-la-land. Should also mention, if this blog is a cult to you, then leave. You seem to just enjoy inflating your ego.
'Totally wrong. I am probably the most unbiased individual here: I always support the view with best arguments and evidence behind it. As should every scientist.'
Cognitive dissonance.
'You have severely misunderstood my views: of course Corded Ware Cultures were not Uralic. I would appreciate if you would try to read and understand my views before commenting them.'
No, they aren't and I never said you claimed that. What you did however claim is that CWC/ EHG or whatever West-Eurasian source you turn to next had a large lead role in the Uralic expansion and that Uralic was intimately tied to a West-Eurasian source like CWC or EHG.
'Linguistically best-argumented model is my view: Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Central Ural Region ca. 2500 BCE. Nothing in the results of other disciplines can change this – if you think they can, you have not understood science. Genetic and archaeological results can only be matches or non-matches for the linguistic results.
If you are interested in scientific views, I can help you understand why you cannot see the language from the DNA. But you must be ready to dismiss the beliefs of your cult to be able to understand science.'
Your view is ignoring when the DNA and the language overlay perfectly. Again, provide an actual theory worth substance instead of rambles.
'Nobody could have presented a single genetic study supporting your claims. Even still you cannot do this. And yet, you claim as if you have presented that evidence! What a joke. :D Why do you people like trolling more than giving supporting arguments for your claims?'
Lehti Saag et al. 2019. I cited this already as it's the most straightforward and probably best example of the Uralic connection to Neo-Siberian descended folk. The paper even has pretty diagrams so you can more easily understand.
I'll leave it there for you for now. Any more rambling from you is just entertainment. Enjoy the read!
Noble Goth: “I don't even know how you could ignore the numerous, very easy to find and public papers documenting the introduction of Neo-Siberian ancestry in accordance to the Uralic expansion into North-Eastern Europe.“
Of course I do not ignore those studies – but unlike you and your fellow cult followers, I read and understand what is written in them. The geneticists correctly state that they cannot see the language from the DNA. They do not claim that the Yakutia ancestry is certainly related to Proto-Uralic since the beginning – they just point out that this ancestry is widely seen in the Uralic speaking populations (among other populations, and among other ancestries).
Noble Goth: “No, they aren't and I never said you claimed that. What you did however claim is that CWC/ EHG or whatever West-Eurasian source you turn to next had a large lead role in the Uralic expansion and that Uralic was intimately tied to a West-Eurasian source like CWC or EHG.”
I never said anything about “the lead role” or being “intimately tied”, that is just your own strawman. I said that at our current state of knowledge, these European ancestries are just as probable having been present in the population speaking Proto-Uralic than the Yakutian ancestry is. Considering the Central Ural Region around 2500 BCE (which is the best-argumented homeland for Late Proto-Uralic based on the linguistic evidence), these European ancestries were certainly there, while it is so far uncertain was the Yakutia ancestry still anywhere near so early.
Can you understand what I say here? Now, tell me about what you disagree and based on which data?
Noble Goth: “Your view is ignoring when the DNA and the language overlay perfectly.”
You got that one wrong, too: there is no perfect overlay. There is only one Uralic-speaking population – the Nganasans – which consist mostly of the Yakutia ancestry, and it is more similar to non-Uralic populations (Dolgans and Tundra Yukaghirs) than to the other Uralic or even to the other Samoyedic populations.
Moreover, the linguistic results show that it is impossible that Proto-Uralic was ever spoken in Yakutia. And as you should know, you cannot see the language from the DNA, because language is not inherited genetically. So, make your math: clearly the Nganasans are the aberrant population here, one of the farthest ones from the Proto-Uralic population.
Noble Goth: “Lehti Saag et al. 2019. I cited this already as it's the most straightforward and probably best example of the Uralic connection to Neo-Siberian descended folk.”
Tell me in your own words what you interpret them writing in that paper, if you believe they support your view? Then I will tell you what you have gravely misunderstood.
@truth
Not enough data for the G25.
@ noble Goth
''I'm not overtly familiar with the Balkans' history on most fronts that isn't modern. Although, from what I have seen it does seem quite underdeveloped on the archaeological front as much Europe is on those fronts. ''
The Balkans is one of the best studied regions in the world, with lots of recent literature in English, C14 dating programmes, and aDNA. Compare that to Iron Age Germany, or the Forest Zone of the East.
That said, the big question of Thracian block or Illyrians propper of Glasinac-Mati remain to be analysed, thus precocious syntheses should proceed with caution
@Jaakko
Just give me a genetic study showing this, and the case is clear. You saying so is not evidence.
This comment shows to me that you're not interested in the truth, only in pushing your agenda.
If you were interested in the truth you would do all you can to investigate for yourself if there's any chance that Uralic speakers by and large carry Fatyanovo and/or Balanovo ancestry, rather than pretend that it's an open question.
That's because this is a key point in the context of your claims about the proto-Uralic homeland, and, if ignored, will mean that you spend years or even decades on a wild goose chase, and in the end you'll just look like a fool.
@ D: do I get it right that you're saying that Uralic speaking groups, taking them all into account and besides Yakutia_LNBA, don't all share anything being present by 2000 BCE, such as Sintashta? In other words, the Yakutia_LNBA based people of each Uralic speaking group mix with different groups, with distinctive drifts? And, this being the case, each Uralic speaking group would have come from say Tatarka Hill area as pure Yakutia_LNBA and only say in Europe mixed with other, but different groups?
@Queequeg
It's a fact that present-day Uralic speakers are only linked by a specific kind of Siberian ancestry, and that's why they can be modeled as part of the Uralic cline.
It's not clear yet how they ended up with the this specific kind of ancestry, and I'm not going to speculate about that here. Some of them did probably get it from unmixed Siberians while others from more admixed groups, including with Sintashta admixture.
But keep in mind that Sintashta and Andronovo are different from Fatyanovo. So, for example, the possible presence of minor Sintashta/Andronovo admixture in Finns or Hungarians (like maybe some Indo-Iranian-specific R1a-Z93 lineages) doesn't help Jaakko's cause.
He really needs to establish that Finns, Saami, Hungarians etc. are linked in some way via Fatyanovo/Balanovo ancestry.
I think this would be fairly obvious if they were, because we'd likely see some very distinctive Fatyanovo-derived R1a-Z93 lineages and/or Balanovo-derived R1a/R1b lineages in them.
@ D: I think Fatyanovo Proper area is too western (- and any cultures too much based on WSHG are obviously too eastern), see fex:
”In most of the forest and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe, celts began to be made, the relationship of which with the Seima-Turbino ones is only sometimes detected in the decor ("ladder" belts, geometric figures), but morphologically, a series of eared and earless celts of the end of the Bronze Age are very far from the Seima-Turbino and Samus-Kizhirovo ones. This line of development “will emerge” here only in the Early Iron Age - the hexagonal series of Celts of the Ananyino world and the Itkul culture.”
Kuzminykh, S.V. (2011). Сейминско-Турбинская проблема: новые материалы. In N.A. Makarov (ed.), Краткие сообщения Института археологии, vol. 225, (pp. 240-263).
Koptyaki Culture area, related to the distribution of Seima Turbino and especially more eastern Samus-Kizhirovo type of celts, seems to be rather similar to current Sverdlovsk Oblast in Trans Urals i.e. it fits the bill, in terms of archeology, quite nicely.
@ Queequeg
''Koptyaki Culture area, related to the distribution of Seima Turbino and especially more eastern Samus-Kizhirovo type of celts, seems to be rather similar to current Sverdlovsk Oblast in Trans Urals i.e. it fits the bill, in terms of archeology, quite nicely.''
It's garbage theory by Jaako and his ignorant denier cult ( you, Vlad the "expert on Russia") and other no-hopers on NoobArchiver)
Davidski: “This comment shows to me that you're not interested in the truth, only in pushing your agenda.”
This comment shows me that you still cannot name one single genetic study which would support your claim. We must conclude that no such studies exist.
Davidski: “If you were interested in the truth you would do all you can to investigate for yourself if there's any chance that Uralic speakers by and large carry Fatyanovo and/or Balanovo ancestry, rather than pretend that it's an open question.”
I am no geneticist. I leave that to the geneticists. Surely we will get the result sooner or later. Until then, we cannot make bold claims to one direction or to another.
Davidski: “That's because this is a key point in the context of your claims about the proto-Uralic homeland, and, if ignored, will mean that you spend years or even decades on a wild goose chase, and in the end you'll just look like a fool.”
You got this one wrong: the linguistic results are independent from the genetic results. You cannot see the language from the DNA. I thought you already agreed with this. Please, tell my step by step your method, how you could even in theory see the language from the DNA.
Davidski: “He really needs to establish that Finns, Saami, Hungarians etc. are linked in some way via Fatyanovo/Balanovo ancestry.”
You must establish that they are not. You cannot just decide that, when there are no genetic studies about that topic.
Davidski: “I think this would be fairly obvious if they were, because we'd likely see some very distinctive Fatyanovo-derived R1a-Z93 lineages and/or Balanovo-derived R1a/R1b lineages in them.”
You know well that in small populations the uniparental lineages are very prone to strong genetic drifting: lineages disappears and others prevail. Just ~2000 years ago there were two male individuals, and nowadays their descendants cover 41 % of the Finnish men – that is ~1 million men. Probability that there would still today remain some Fatyanovo/Balanovo lineages is very low.
Davidski: “But keep in mind that Sintashta and Andronovo are different from Fatyanovo. So, for example, the possible presence of minor Sintashta/Andronovo admixture in Finns or Hungarians (like maybe some Indo-Iranian-specific R1a-Z93 lineages) doesn't help Jaakko's cause.”
Keep in mind that in the qpAdm calculations usually CWC or Yamnaya referent is used, and the Finns and even the Saami get ~50 % of that ancestry. To this day, nobody has yet studied from which actual sources this kind of ancestry originates. That is why you cannot make claims about it: there is no data to lean on. All possibilities are still around.
It seems that Jaako thinks that “genetic components” just float around from population to population randomly, with no rhyme or pattern, that occasionally have “temporary resemblances”
He also has no understanding of the concept of “genetic drift”
And the comedy is how he thinks we think we “see language from the DNA”, as if we look down a microscope and listen to it resonate in Finnish.
It seems possible that populations from many Uralic speaking subgroups may share particular genetic drifts to varying extents... which the G25 for example is designed not to get "hijacked" by?
But are any of these common to all Uralic speaking populations? It seems unlikely.
@Matt
Krasnoyarsk BA ancestry is shard by all Uralic speakers. That's why there's a Uralic-specific cline in North Eurasian PCA.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-uralic-cline-with-kra001-no.html
@Davidski, my comment is "...drift excl. some East Siberian common thread".
Davidski in the linked post:
“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.”
You made a few ad hoc presuppositions there:
1. That the location of Kra001 in the extreme end of the Uralic cline would automatically mean that Proto-Uralic speaking population was spoken by that kind of population, even though the PU population could equally well be located on any other point of that cline. There is no reason why it should be in the extreme ends only. Apparently, considering other widespread language families, you do not assume that the speakers of the proto-language are located in the extreme end of the respective clines?
2. You think that linguistic results can be ignored and the language can be better seen from the DNA, even though you refuse to tell us what is your actual method to trace the language from the DNA. We know that Proto-Uralic cannot have been spoken in the Krasnoyarsk Region or in Yakutia, and even less at so late a date – it is outright impossible. Whatever language(s) these fellows spoke, it was neither Late Proto-Uralic nor any later Uralic language. Highly speculatively it could have been some Para-Uralic language, though, although there is no positive evidence of any such language ever existing.
3. You assume that when the Yakutia/Kra001 ancestry pulls the Uralic populations into a nice cline, then the spread of this ancestry must be simultaneous with the spread of the Uralic language. But of course it must not be simultaneous – it can equally well be earlier or later.
@Jaakko
None of your points are valid.
You have a very poor understanding of how genes relate to language expansions.
Davidski:
"None of your points are valid.
You have a very poor understanding of how genes relate to language expansions."
My points are very valid, and my understanding about how genes relate to language expansions is very thorough. Arguments speak for themselves.
Could you please finally tell step by step your method for seeing the language from the DNA?
@Davidski
Jaakko is nothing but a partisan. It's quite clear he mentally avoids reading into other opinions that hurt his ego-centric view on Uralic studies. He's collecting dust with Carlos at this point.
Still entertained he thinks that because Finns and Sami have most of their autosomal DNA for a CWC source that it means Proto-Uralic, rather than Neo-Siberian ancestry were the original speakers of it and contributed heavily to it's expansion. A teenage girl could understand it better.
@ Matt
''But are any of these common to all Uralic speaking populations? It seems unlikely.''
What's the point you are trying to make ?
@ NG
''He's collecting dust with Carlos at this point.''
He'll continue to lecture his anti-DNA nonsense on FraudArchiver forum, an alleged genetics forum but in reality pseudoscience peddling runt farm, run by his equally idiotic friend (some irrelevant douchebag called Anglesqueville).
@Rob
Jaakko is just a Finnish version of Out of India. That's all you need to know about him without having a conversation with him.
let's talk about Armenian languages, what language did the people from the Areni cave speak?
Anyhow, despite Matt's claims, Nenets, Selkup, Nganassan are are overhwlemingly derived from Yakutia-LNBA. So it's not just a case of 'drifted Nganassans'
The Urals homeland in above cited 'scholar' rests on one simple belief that Uralic can only have acquired Indo-Iranian loans from Sintashta. This is a very faulty logic, and seems rather desparate.
Noble Goth: "Still entertained he thinks that because Finns and Sami have most of their autosomal DNA for a CWC source that it means Proto-Uralic, rather than Neo-Siberian ancestry were the original speakers of it and contributed heavily to it's expansion. A teenage girl could understand it better."
Are you Rob? You have equally severe disabilities in your understanding of written English. Although you make less typing errors and your English is better than his.
Noble Goth: "Still entertained he thinks that because Finns and Sami have most of their autosomal DNA for a CWC source that it means Proto-Uralic, rather than Neo-Siberian ancestry were the original speakers of it and contributed heavily to it's expansion. A teenage girl could understand it better."
Are you Rob? You have equally severe disabilities with understanding written English. Although you make less typing errors.
Rob:
"Anyhow, despite Matt's claims, Nenets, Selkup, Nganassan are are overhwlemingly derived from Yakutia-LNBA. So it's not just a case of 'drifted Nganassans'"
Of course all Samoyeds have also the Yakutia ancestry. But west from Urals, populations have less of it and instead more European ancestries. You cannot just decide that only the Yakutia ancestry was present in the Proto-Uralic population, because throwing a dice or reading from tea-leafs is not a scientific method. Everybody with nearly normal intelligence can understand this.
Moreover, all the other Samoyeds have plenty of European ancestries, and even the Nganasans have some steppe ancestry. You ignore the fact that Proto-Samoyedic spread from the Sayan Region to the north only less than 2000 years ago. So, even the Proto-Samoyedic speakers did not consist 100 % of the Yakutia ancestry. The Nganasans were the vanguard population, assimilating earlier inhabitants of Northern Siberia. Therefore they resemble more the non-Uralic Dolgans and Tundra Yukaghirs than other Uralic populations.
Now you and Blone Thog are acting just like the "Southern Arc" cult: you ignore the linguistic results. They assume that a random shared genetic trait proves that Indo-European language spread directly from Anatolia to India, and your cult members believe that a random shared genetic trait proves that Proto-Uralic and Proto-Samoyedic were spoken in Northern Siberia, from where they spread to the west. Both views are equally imbesillic, because they totally ignore everything we know about the locations of ancient languages.
Fortunately here are much more intelligent readers, who can understand scientific argumentation better than you, even though English is not their native language. :)
Jaerl:
"The Urals homeland in above cited 'scholar' rests on one simple belief that Uralic can only have acquired Indo-Iranian loans from Sintashta. This is a very faulty logic, and seems rather desparate."
Unfortunately you present an ignorant and erroneous opinion here. First, the Indo-Iranian contacts are not the only argument for the Central Ural homeland.
Second, there are four early layers of Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic, and not all of them were acquired from the Sintashta Culture: the earlier ones were acquired before it, when Early Proto-Indo-Iranian developed in EUROPE. As you should already know, the Indo-Iranian lineage developed in EUROPE before it spread to Asia after Late Proto-Indo-Iranian.
If you want to argue against a view, you should first read and understand correctly the arguments supporting that view. You cannot just build your own strawmen and beat them. You can do better than Rob and his cult, can't you? :) I have faith in you.
@ Jaako
The core Indo-Iranian people do indeed came from Eastern Europe
But the language developed as a longer process. The people of Fatyanovo & Sintashta didn’t speak ready-made Indo-Iranian. Its rise occurred much further east. That’s because language contact and cultural adstrata are potent drivers of language development, and this made the language shift from a dialectical IE corded ware language to something actually resembling indo-Iranian
In a similar way, Germanic developed in Scandinavia and Northern Europe, not the steppe ; and Greek developed in Macedonia/ northern Greece.
For these reasons, linguistics shows that FU and Indo-Iranian were mixing in Siberia. Little wonder why linguists are by the drove supporting a Siberian homeland 🙃
As a slam dunk, there is perfect correlation with autosomal, uniparental and archaeological evidence as well. Swish
In order to improve your menial linguistic abilities, you should read the references I offered above.
“Of course all Samoyeds have also the Yakutia ancestry. But west from Urals, populations have less of it and instead more European ancestries.””
That doesn’t matter, because all those “other ancestries” are missing in the east. So they’re obviously not the vector for Uralic. Your “European ancestries” are just local Germanic admixture in Fins or Baltic admixture in Estonians, irrelevant for Uralic as a whole.
“Although you make less typing errors.”
I have big hands and fingers. You’re lucky you don’t have such issues.
The Nganasans were the vanguard population, assimilating earlier inhabitants of Northern Siberia. Therefore they resemble more the non-Uralic Dolgans and Tundra Yukaghirs than other Uralic populations.”
This is false. Yukhagirs and Dolgans have extra East Asian affinities and Haplogroups, such as Yhg C, which Uralics
Again, something which has been explained to you dozens of times and dealt in Zeng et al
@Jaakko
I forgot spelling errors are a far more important concern than you explaining your theories with any reason.
@Rob
You see this is what Jaakko, for whatever reason seems to ignore. It's irrelevant if West Uralic speakers have mostly European ancestry when all of them also have very clear levels of Neo-Siberian as well. All Uralic speakers share the same Neo-Siberian component, none of them share the same West-Eurasian component (when it is present).
On a brighter note, there's still the paper (I believe the McColl et al. 2024?) Davidski has an upcoming blog for. Will be interesting to see the breakdown of it on here with all the takes I've read so far.
no one is interested in Areni? these guys invented sneakers, skirts and wine
Rob wrote,
"This is false. Yukhagirs and Dolgans have extra East Asian affinities and Haplogroups, such as Yhg C, which Uralics
Again, something which has been explained to you dozens of times and dealt in Zeng et al"
Actually, Y-DNA haplogroup C has been found among present-day speakers of Samoyedic languages, including Nganasan and Selkup, as well as among the Kets, who are Yeniseian-speaking neighbors of the Selkups.
For example, consider the data from Karafet et al. 2018:
Nganasan 2/34 = 5.9% C-M86
Ket 1/44 = 2.3% C-M86
Selkup 2/129 = 1.6% C-M86
However, every one of these haplogroup C individuals in northwestern/north-central Siberia has been assigned to the rather young C-M86 subclade (TMRCA 4270 ybp according to 23mofang), which otherwise has been observed mostly among speakers of Northern Tungusic languages (e.g. Evenks, Evens) and among Oirats and Alshyns (aka western Mongols and western Kazakhs). Therefore, one might suppose that members of haplogroup C-M86 among present-day Kets and speakers of Samoyedic languages may be descendants of men who have previously been Evenks or (north)westward-migrating Turko-Mongols.
Noble Goth:
"You see this is what Jaakko, for whatever reason seems to ignore. It's irrelevant if West Uralic speakers have mostly European ancestry when all of them also have very clear levels of Neo-Siberian as well. All Uralic speakers share the same Neo-Siberian component, none of them share the same West-Eurasian component (when it is present)."
So, you can give us a genetic study which proves your claim to be true? Why have you not already given it, then? The studies I have seen show that even the other Samoyedic populations share the steppe and EHG ancestry just like the European Uralic populations (see Zeng et al. 2023: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.01.560332v2.full).
How would you describe a person who ignores the published studies and makes claims without any supporting evidence? You are that person now.
If these cult members would just take a look at the qpAdm figures of Zeng et al. 2023, they would see that not only the Yakutia ancestry, but also the Mongolia ancestry is shared between the Nganasans and the Yakuts and the Dolgans. this component is lacking from all the other Uralic populations, except the Enets, who also live east from Yenisei (in the region were Uralic language has arrived only recently).
Moreover, the Nganasans share also the Tyumen_HG ancestry With the Tuvinians and the Altaians - and again, this ancestry is lacking from all the other Uralic and Samoyedic populations.
To conclude: there are clear indications that the Nganasans are for a considerable extent language shifters, descendants of the original non-Uralic inhabitants of Northern Central Siberia. Even the Proto-Samoyedic speakers in the Sayan Region, and much less the Proto-Uralic speakers in the Central Ural Region, could not have been anything like the modern Nganasans.
@ Ebizur
Yes some cross-border inflow from the Evenki migration which partially replaced proto-Uralic in its ancestral homeland
Some Samoyeds also have a time of Y-hg Q which im not sure of exactl clade but might prresnt the native (pre-Baikal) Kolyma Mes. variety
But I'm just keeping things simple for Jaako, as he cant even understand the basics. Nuances will only confuse him further.
@ Noble Goth
'You see this is what Jaakko, for whatever reason seems to ignore. It's irrelevant if West Uralic speakers have mostly European ancestry when all of them also have very clear levels of Neo-Siberian as well. All Uralic speakers share the same Neo-Siberian component, none of them share the same West-Eurasian component (when it is present).''
Constantly whining about MAJORITY ANCESTRY, then goes on to make claims about MAJORITY ANCESTRY
He has severe intellectual incapacity and/ or pathological liar.
@ Arsen
''no one is interested in Areni? these guys invented sneakers, skirts and wine''
You were just jumping around saying Jaako is the expert, so everyone else is going to ignore you. You were already baseline annoying to begin with.
@ Jaako
'Even the Proto-Samoyedic speakers in the Sayan Region, and much less the Proto-Uralic speakers in the Central Ural Region, could not have been anything like the modern Nganasans.''
It's best that you dont make predictions, as you dont understand genetics.
'To conclude: there are clear indications that the Nganasans are for a considerable extent language shifters, descendants of the original non-Uralic inhabitants of Northern Central Siberia.
You are confused about the concept of a ''cline'' and how it was generated. You think that ''original proto-Uralic speakers'' could lie anywhere on that cline, such as the middle, and then injected in either direction.
But that's not correct. The cline was generated only because populations from north-central Siberia expanded westward, and admixed with several diffferent west Eurasian populations, giving the apparent East-West cline
Anyhow, Nganasans are no longer relevant here. You're using them as excuse whilst ignoring other Samoyedic & Ugric populations which are also overwhelmingly Yakutia_LNBA in origin
So, even if there was a language shift at some point, this would have occurred before the expansion of Uralic langauges. I.e. it is a moot and irrelevant point which doest not salvage your Volga-Ural paradigm.
To elaborate further, language shift Fails to explain the Uralic dispersal. Most obvious reason is that because it's nonsenical speacial pleading in the face of an archaeological, genetic and linguistics slam-dunk of corrrelation.
Any language switch which did occur did so at two phases
1. in the pre-proto-Uralic phase: either Baikal folk switched to the language of original inhabitants of the Lena basin (less likely), or Lena basin inhabitants switched to the lanague introduced by Baikal migrants (more likely). This fused population and their language became the proto-Uralic Ur-Volk and migrated West.
2a. post-facto language shift at the ends and extreme range of territory, e.g. some Estonian Balts switching to Finnic-Estonian, Some Nordic Germanics switching to Finnic in Finalnd, Slavic central Europeans switching to Magyar, etc.
2b; post -Facto switch in the eastern range of the original homeland, as some Uralics were absorbed into the Evenki migration, and further south, some Uralics became part of the Turkic oukumene
So if Nganasans are 'hyper-drifted' to use this term, then it's because they preserve greater amount Lena Basin native ancestry vis-a-viz the Baikal component. It does not mean that Uralic actually came from Corded Ware, or the Iranian Koptyaki culture.
The Kopt. C. didnt even make the migrations Jaako claims they did, and fails to account for the distribution of Samoyedic languages. They would be extinct para-Iranic groups with traces of Yakutia-LN ancestry, like Mezhovskaya, or at best something related to Permic or pre-Mansi-Magyars ( I doubt it). No chance theyre proto-Uralic
@Rob
"@ Arsen
''no one is interested in Areni? these guys invented sneakers, skirts and wine''
You were just jumping around saying Jaako is the expert, so everyone else is going to ignore you. You were already baseline annoying to begin with."
He’s probably an expert on Uralic languages, but apparently he doesn’t agree with genetics, but there is a clear connection between the peoples of the Uralic group and autosomal DNA, I don’t understand why he’s arguing
"So if Nganasans are 'hyper-drifted' to use this term, then it's because they preserve greater amount Lena Basin native ancestry vis-a-viz the Baikal component." Well done this time Robban, this indeed seems to be true, besides the fact that they are also very drifted. Yakutia_LNBA indeed has less Yakutia_MN, which BTW probably explains why later Xianbei is still relatively close to Yakutia_LNBA samples of say Tatarka Hill. However, there area no non-disputed signs of anything looking Uralic in the Ymyakhtakh area before the Samoyedic expansion from the South. So, apparently no BA language switches in that area either from or into Uralic. If, i.e if Proto Uralic came from East Siberia, some place like Kansk Forest Steppe, because of the strong connection to Samus Kizhirovo tradition, is a much better candidate. Of course bearing in mind that Yakutia_LNBA was a relatively late newcomer in that area, which could possibly mean that Pre Proto Uralic was one of the languages of the Amur-Baikal area (i.e. not of the Ymyakhtakh area), before the whole linguistic lineage disappeared there. However and as said, the Koptyaki model indeed has it's undeniable merits, like it or not.
@ Арсен and re:"I don’t understand why he’s arguing". Don't worry, you have at least understood that you don't understand whereas there are many here, I don't mention you Rob here as an example, who don't even understand that they don't understand.
@ Queequeg
“However, there area no non-disputed signs of anything looking Uralic in the Ymyakhtakh area before the Samoyedic expansion from the South”
Uralic & Samoyedic cannot come from the south as the forest steppe and even the southern forest zone was population by Andronovo and Andronovo-like tribes.
We have Andronovo populations from krasnoyarsk which are Iranic and we have Kra-1 from the area as well, and he was clearly a migrant from the north/ notheast.
At this point, you're just arguing potatoes.
@Queequeg
There's no linguistic, archeological or genetic evidence constraining the proto-Uralic homeland near to the Urals.
Thanks to the high mobility of Sintashta-related Indo-Iranian groups starting before 2,000 BCE, we can push things deep into Siberia without any issues.
Once we do that the fact that all Uralic speakers share Nganassan-related ancestry makes perfect sense.
There's no other way to explain this Nganassan-related signal in Uralic speakers, because if you and Jaakko deny that it's the proto-Uralic genetic signal, then you must come up with a plausible alternative explanation why it's a Uralic-specific signal.
When did Uralic speakers acquire it and why?
@ D and re:"There's no other way to explain this Nganassan-related signal in Uralic speakers, because if you and Jaakko deny that it's the proto-Uralic genetic signal, then you must come up with a plausible alternative explanation why it's a Uralic-specific signal."
Of course Yakutia_LNBA was obviously at least a part of the gene base of the founding Proto Uralic linguistic group, but that is not the real issue, in terms of linguistics. I'm sure you understand the difference. I already asked you whether there is anything, besides Yakutia_LNBA, in all Uralic spaking populations i.e. shared by all of them. As long as there is at least something, such as something Sintashta-like, the linguistic question seems to remain open. And, even then, it is anecdotal evidence in terms of linguistics, though very good one, as you most probably appreciate.
@Queequeg
I'm not aware of any other genetic signal that is shared between all or almost all Uralic groups, unless we go back to something more general like CWC ancestry or even more basal components.
But I recall that there are some unusual mtDNA haplogroups in Iron Age Finnish samples that look like they're from near the Altai somewhere, or even from Central Asia. I suppose they might be from near the Urals instead.
That might be worth investigating.
@ D and re: "I'm not aware of any other genetic signal that is shared between all or almost all Uralic groups, unless we go back to something more general like CWC ancestry or even more basal components."
If this really is the case the Uralic speaking groups, after the dispersal of Proto Uralic, somewhere east of the WSHG based area, should have arrived in an unadmixed form fex to the later area of the Ananyino Culture. Also, if say Kansk Forest Steppe was on the other hand already then populated by Sintashta looking groups, the dispersal took place somewhere further east, - or at least the Proto Uralic speakers generally did not mix with the Sintashta looking people. According to you, these post Proto Uralic speaking migrations would anyway have happened among i.e. were affected by populations with a specific, rather modern, post Sintashta type of genetic drift. Could be the case, remains to be seen.
Arsen:
"He’s probably an expert on Uralic languages, but apparently he doesn’t agree with genetics, but there is a clear connection between the peoples of the Uralic group and autosomal DNA, I don’t understand why he’s arguing"
There are always clear connections, usually several, like in the case of the Uralic populationss. Please try to explain your method step by step, how you can see the language from the DNA results, so I can show you how impossible and wrong that method is. It would also help you, if you try to understand everything I have written before this comment.
P.S. Poor Röp keeps ridiculing himself by constantly testifying that he cannot understand written English. He has misunderstood everything, and then he spanks his own strawmen. :)
The authors compare the basic vocabulary of the North Caucasian, Kartvelian and Indo-European languages from the 35 word-list of S.E. Yakhontov, which is a reduced sample from Swadesh word-list. Several critical remarks were made about the composition of this list and the strict requirements for the identity of the semantics of the compared words. During the process of comparison, it is recommended to take the main word used in the language to express a particular meaning, but this is not always possible, since many words have synonyms and it is often difficult to choose the “main” one from them. In such cases, a researcher is forced to take two or more synonyms and this immediately increases the number of actually compared words in the list. The authors studied more than 50 words in this article instead of 35. As a result of the analysis, it was established that in the list of S.E. Yakhontov there are 7 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Kartvelian languages, 8 correspondences between the Abkhaz-Adyg and Kartvelian languages, 13 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Abkhaz-Adyg languages, more than 50 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Indo-European languages (including synonyms). According to this data, the authors conclude that all the studied languages, despite Starostin and his followers, are related to each other, and the closest relationship exists between the East Caucasian (or Nakh-Dagestan) and Indo-European languages.
https://www.europeanproceedings.com/article/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.349
Davidski:
“There's no linguistic, archeological or genetic evidence constraining the proto-Uralic homeland near to the Urals.”
1. Only linguistic evidence can testify about language. There is no scientific way to see the language from the archaeological or genetic data, as you should already understand. And why would you use unscientific methods, if you want to be taken seriously?
2. There are several pieces of linguistic evidence pointing to the Central Ural Region and none requiring Late Proto-Uralic in Siberia. Perhaps you should read the relevant linguistic articles before commenting the topic?
Davidski:
“Thanks to the high mobility of Sintashta-related Indo-Iranian groups starting before 2,000 BCE, we can push things deep into Siberia without any issues.”
That is too late for the earliest Uralic—Indo-Iranian contacts. You must know that the Indo-Iranian lineage developed in Europe, don't you?
Davidski:
“Once we do that the fact that all Uralic speakers share Nganassan-related ancestry makes perfect sense.”
1. The Nganasans are aberrant among the Uralic populations; see Zeng et al. 2023.
2. The Uralic populations widely share also the EHG and the steppe ancestry, as you can see in Zeng et al. 2023. Why do you ignore these ancestries, even though there is no single genetic study proving that these would have been acquired later and independently into different Uralic populations?
Davidski:
“There's no other way to explain this Nganassan-related signal in Uralic speakers, because if you and Jaakko deny that it's the proto-Uralic genetic signal, then you must come up with a plausible alternative explanation why it's a Uralic-specific signal.”
There are still three possibilities: the spread of the Yakutia ancestry is (1) earlier, (2) simultaneous, or (3) later than the spread of the Uralic languages. You cannot just decide that it is simultaneous – you have to prove it scientifically. Moreover, you cannot just decide that the linguistic results can be ignored and that you can date the spread of Uralic language based on genetic results – that is highly unscientific.
To correct some strawmen: it is possible (yet not proven) that the Yakutia ancestry was among the ancestries of the Proto-Uralic speaking population, nobody denies that. But it cannot have been the only ancestry, based on the location of Late Proto-Uralic. You cannot ignore the linguistic results and claim that you can see language better from the genetic data. That is impossible and thus unscientific.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
I don’t know, I haven’t read all your messages, can you briefly explain what theory of the Uralic languages you adhere to, that they arose from the Sintashta Indo-Iranian languages? only if possible briefly
'' clearly the Nganasans are the aberrant population here, one of the farthest ones from the Proto-Uralic population.'' ''The Uralic populations widely share also the EHG ''
This is unequivocally false
Here are other Samoyedic groups, which Jaako ignores
Selkups:
Russia_CentralYakutia_LN.SG 64.8Russsia_EHG 0.0
''You cannot ignore the linguistic results''
Jaako is ignoring the linguistic results, that of other linguists who are entirely comfortable locating Uralic origins in Siberia.
He has no case
Arsen:
"I don’t know, I haven’t read all your messages, can you briefly explain what theory of the Uralic languages you adhere to, that they arose from the Sintashta Indo-Iranian languages? only if possible briefly"
Briefly: all the valid linguistic evidence points to the Central Ural Region and ~2500 BCE. Earliest contacts with the Indo-Iranian speakers predate Late Proto-Indo-Iranian (which was spoken within the Sintashta Culture) and must be associated with some European culture (because Indo-Iranian was born in Europe). Probably the Abashevo Culture, which is an offshoot of the Fatyanovo Culture, although showing also some steppe influence.
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910/86381?acceptCookies=1
It is not scientifically possible to claim that because the Yakutia ancestry arrived from Eastern Siberia, then the Uralic language also must have arrived from there. This kind of argumentation is totally absurd, which anyone can see if he only tried to apply it to every case of populations sharing the same ancestry.
For example, even the people, who know how ridiculous is the "Southern Arc" claim that Indic languages could be explained by a direct migration from Anatolia to India (only because populations in these region share the same ancestry), still themselves apply this same absurd method on the Uralic language family. People with normal intelligence should understand that if a method in one case produces erroneous results, it cannot be assumed to work reliably in any other cases, either.
@ Arsen
“He’s probably an expert on Uralic languages”
Lol experts aren’t usually completely devoid of insight.
Here are Khanty, broad components
Khanty
Russia_CentralYakutia_LN.SG 47.4
Russian_modern_Belgorod 22.4
Russia_Tyumen_HG 19.0
Russia_EHG 11.2
EHG would probalby disappear in qpAdm
A new ENA stub to keep a watch on (no data yet):
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJNA1023923
"Shotgun sequencing of ten archaeological individuals from the archaeological site of Histria, Romania" - "In this study, we employed shotgun sequencing techniques to delve into the genetics of ten archaeological individuals who were interred in the Roman necropolis of Histria. Histria was a city established by Greek colonists and is located near the Black Sea and the mouth of the Danube. Our project explores various facets of their genetic makeup. First, we performed ancient DNA authentication was rigorously conducted to ensure the reliability of the genetic data. We also estimated the sex of these individuals using genomic technique, recognizing the nuances of skeletal preservation and the limitations of traditional methods. Moreover, contamination estimates were meticulously assessed to distinguish endogenous DNA from potential exogenous sources. Finally, we investigated the intricate details of population structure of this sample. This multi-faceted approach offers a holistic view of the genetic landscape of this unique archaeological cohort. Because we upload the raw fastq files, we urge researchers that use our data to perform their own filtering and quality assessments before including the data into their downstream analyses."
@Mr Hakkinen
Do you realize that you are making the same mistake you criticize everyone else for?
Harvardians compared to you are just apprentice wizards.
Since you know that the Sinthasta culture spoke Late-Proto-Indo-Iranian, perhaps you can tell us what language (or languages) the CWC & the BBC spoke, the international scientific community will be grateful. By the way, in the absence of written records and given that archaeology and genetics are inconclusive, I suppose you have some super-interesting linguistic arguments.It must be sad to assimilate that you will never be able to prove any of your theories.
It would be interesting to know what your arguments are for linking Steppe ancestry with Indo-European languages and rejecting the possibility that this language family is related to WHG or EEF.
Explain why the contacts couldn't have occurred around 2000-1800 cal BCE with the Andronovo culture?
@Rob
Careful, you may pop Jaakko's bubble. You should be far more considerate, you may show his ego he's wrong sometimes!
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Thank you for the clear and concise answer, that's exactly what I needed, now I understand you. Yes, it's quite possible that the Uralic languages had contact with Proto-Indo-Iranian during the Abashevo culture stage, meaning that by that time Uralic languages were spread in that region. Is this the idea you are trying to express? But does this negate the fact that Uralic languages could have come from the east? Because there is no definitive correspondence between Uralic language speakers and EHG, the clusters are too different
Rob wrote,
"Yes some cross-border inflow from the Evenki migration which partially replaced proto-Uralic in its ancestral homeland
Some Samoyeds also have a time of Y-hg Q which im not sure of exactl clade but might prresnt the native (pre-Baikal) Kolyma Mes. variety"
Many Siberian populations exhibit signs of having undergone strong genetic drift and founder effects. For example, Kharkov et al. (2023) have examined samples of Khanty from two villages in Khantia-Mansia:
Y-DNA of Khanty from the village of Russkinskaya, Surgut district, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (V. N. Kharkov et al. 2023, "Relationship of the gene pool of the Khants with the peoples of Western Siberia, Cis-Urals and the Altai-Sayan Region according to the data on the polymorphism of autosomic locus and the Y-chromosome")
39/64 = 60.9% N1a2b1b1 (Y68212, Y70717, Y70315, Y70327)
16/64 = 25.0% R1a1a1b2 (Y43850, S7280, FGC687, FGC38304)
6/64 = 9.4% N1a2b2a1 (VL97, L1419, Y3185, Y3188, Y3189, Y3190, Y111190)
3/64 = 4.7% Q1a2b~ (M25, L716, YP1674, YP1676)
Y-DNA of Khanty from the village of Kazym, Beloyarsky district, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (V. N. Kharkov et al. 2023)
21/54 = 38.9% Q1b1a3b1a2~ (Z35974 xB32, B33, Z35993)
13/54 = 24.1% N1a1a1a1a2a1c1~ (Y13850, Y13852)
9/54 = 16.7% N1a2b2a1 (VL97, L1419, Y3185, Y3188, Y3189, Y3190, Y111190)
5/54 = 9.3% N1a2b1b1b1~ (B172, Z35108)
3/54 = 5.6% N1a2b1b1 (Y68212, Y70717, Y70315, Y70327)
3/54 = 5.6% N1a2b2b1~ (Z35076)
The only branch of N-Tat observed among these samples of Khanty is N1a1a1a1a2a1c1~ (Y13850, Y13852), found in 13/54 = 24.1% of the sample of Khanty from Kazym village, which is located about 365 km northwest of Russkinskaya village. The authors have written the following in regard to these Khanty from Kazym village:
"Thirteen samples of the Kazym Khanty belong to the hap logroup N1a1a1a1a2a1c1~ (Y13850, Y13852). Seven of them have the surname Pyak, which is Nenets in origin, referring to the Forest Nenets. All seven of these samples have very close haplotypes and are descendants of a relatively recent common Nenets ancestor. In the questionnaires of these men, who consider themselves Khanty, Nenets ancestors were indicated on the paternal line with different depths. The remaining six men of this haplogroup differ in haplotypes from the Pyak genus."
Pyak is a Nenets word meaning "trees, woods." (It is the plural in -q/-k of pya "tree, wood.") At least these seven "Pyak" individuals from Kazym village must be descendants of a common ancestor who has lived not too long ago and who has been by origin a Nenets male, i.e. they are descended from some Nenets man who has produced children with a Khanty woman.
In regard to haplogroup Q, one may note that it is the most often observed Y-DNA haplogroup in the sample of Khanty from Kazym village while it is the least often observed Y-DNA haplogroup in the sample of Khanty from Russkinskaya village. Furthermore, the subclades observed in these two samples are only very distantly related to each other; Q-M25, which has been observed in three Khanty individuals from Russkinskaya village, is more closely related to Chinese Q-M120 than either of those is related to Q-L330 > Q-Z35974 that predominates among the Khanty from Kazym village. Q-L330 is the same subclade of haplogroup Q that predominates among present-day Kets and Selkups.
The Selkup result came out weird
Here it is again
Russia_CentralYakutia_LN.SG 64.8
Russia_Tyumen_HG 25.6
Russian_modern_Belgorod 9.6
Russsia_EHG 0.0
No EHG here, unsurprisingly, because they live East of Urals.
@ Ebizur
''Many Siberian populations exhibit signs of having undergone strong genetic drift and founder effects''
That doesnt change their genetic composition or support Jaako's comical scenario that these Uralic speakers were originally Corded Ware like then ''drift happened and they became Siberian''.
The pnehonemenon you're describing resulted in a pruning of the original diversity of the founder lineages, which would have been variety of lineages within Y-hg NcTAT, with resulting founder effects of specific sub-haplogroups wthin 'NcTAT'.
Thanks for the info on the Y-hg Q.
@ Noble Goth
This is the situation [JH]
Gaska:
“Do you realize that you are making the same mistake you criticize everyone else for?”
No, certainly I am not. I have never believed that I could see the language from the DNA or material culture. So, you have now severely misunderstood something. You probably cannot understand the difference between that unscientific method and the scientific method which I have also explained here many times? Here is once again the scientific method:
1. FIRST we accept the linguistic result.
2. THEN we look for possible matches in the genetic or archaeological data.
Gaska:
“Since you know that the Sinthasta culture spoke Late-Proto-Indo-Iranian, perhaps you can tell us what language (or languages) the CWC & the BBC spoke, the international scientific community will be grateful.”
I agree with the other linguists and the mainstream view, which you can check from Wikipedia. But you already know what it is, because you disagree with it.
Gaska:
“By the way, in the absence of written records and given that archaeology and genetics are inconclusive, I suppose you have some super-interesting linguistic arguments.It must be sad to assimilate that you will never be able to prove any of your theories.”
Why are you so bitter? Do not project your problems on me – I have already proven my theories, as well as it possible concerning ancient times. All the alternative views seen here are much weaker and based on methodological errors.
Gaska:
“It would be interesting to know what your arguments are for linking Steppe ancestry with Indo-European languages and rejecting the possibility that this language family is related to WHG or EEF.”
In reality you are not interested to know the scientific arguments – you have decided what you want to believe, and no arguments can change that. If you were interested, you would have already read about it: Wikipedia is always a good starting point. There are references to scientific works.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
"Explain why the contacts couldn't have occurred around 2000-1800 cal BCE with the Andronovo culture?"
I have explained it already so many times. Please read it for yourself:
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910
Arsen:
"Thank you for the clear and concise answer, that's exactly what I needed, now I understand you. Yes, it's quite possible that the Uralic languages had contact with Proto-Indo-Iranian during the Abashevo culture stage, meaning that by that time Uralic languages were spread in that region. Is this the idea you are trying to express?"
Actually it has been known for a long time that (1) there are Indo-Iranian loanwords preceding Late Proto-Indo-Iranian in the Uralic languages, and (2) that the Indo-Iranian language lineage developed in Europe and only later spread to Asia. But archaeology and genetics have step by step built a more resolute picture about the prehistoric cultures and populations, and when earlier the Indo-Iranian language was assumed to have spread from the European steppe directly to the east, nowadays we know that it actually has made a spiral-like movement from the steppe first to the northwest and then to the east and southeast, having been involved in the Corded Ware movements.
Arsen:
"But does this negate the fact that Uralic languages could have come from the east?"
Asia and Europe are still equally possible options for Pre-Proto-Uralic homeland. There are linguistic phenomena in Uralic, part of which point to the closeness or relatedness with Indo-European, and part of which point to the closeness or relatedness of certain Asian language families. None of these temporally very distant features are conclusive, so nobody should lock their mind about the location of distant Pre-Proto-Uralic. Naturally, if Indo-European could be reliably derived from the east, that would then also narrow down the Pre-Proto-Uralic options. But all hypotheses concerning distant relatedness or ancient contacts are far more vague and uncertain than the proto-language level connections. Perhaps we will never reach the truth here.
Arsen:
"Because there is no definitive correspondence between Uralic language speakers and EHG, the clusters are too different"
Which clusters are you talking about? Several studies show EHG ancestry in many Uralic populations. But so far we do not know what was the genetic composition of the Proto-Uralic speakers, and which ancestries in different Uralic populations derive either from earlier or later migrations. Here the options are still open, even though some people like to close another eye and most of their brains, too.
Rib:
"That doesnt change their genetic composition or support Jaako's comical scenario that these Uralic speakers were originally Corded Ware like then ''drift happened and they became Siberian''."
That is just trolling, you miserable wreck of a human. You know well that I have never said anything like that (or otherwise you truly have a serious brain damage). Here, now I gave you some attention and virtual hug which you cry for so desperately. Now you can have a good night sleep and feel loved.
I'm not sure how "Nganasan are language shifters because they aren't 100% Yakutia LN" is supposed to be convincing.
Also, most rational people would interpret the fact that their remaining ancestry generally is not shared with other Uralic speakers to mean that those remaining ancestral streams are probably not the source of Uralic.
@Jaakko
1. The Nganasans are aberrant among the Uralic populations; see Zeng et al. 2023.
Why does this matter when Uralic speakers don't form a homogeneous cluster?
Hungarians are also aberrant and so what?
The point is that Uralic speakers share a specific kind of Siberian ancestry that peaks in Nganasans, and there's no way to reliably explain this phenomenon except with the proto-Uralic expansion.
2. The Uralic populations widely share also the EHG and the steppe ancestry, as you can see in Zeng et al. 2023. Why do you ignore these ancestries, even though there is no single genetic study proving that these would have been acquired later and independently into different Uralic populations?
There's also no single genetic study proving that any of the EHG or steppe ancestry in Uralic speakers comes from one source.
It seems I finally understand. You simply don't want the Finnish language, and consequently its culture and genes, which are Uralic, to be associated with something East Asian, as it's not prestigious among Europeans. But regarding the origin from EHG, please, as all Europeans have this admixture through steppe pastoralists. This complex is very common among those who study the history of their peoples
Ethan:
"I'm not sure how "Nganasan are language shifters because they aren't 100% Yakutia LN" is supposed to be convincing."
Has someone said so? I have missed that comment.
I have said that the Nganasans are different even from the other Samoyeds, not to speak of the more remote Uralic speakers, and resemble the Tundra Yukaghirs. If that does not hint to language shifters, then what does?
Do you know that (1) Proto-Samoyedic speakers dispersed from the Sayan Region to the north only ~2000 years ago, that (2) Nganasan is a Samoyedic language, and that (3) the Nganasans(-to-come) were the forerunners, assimilating non-Uralic populations while advancing northward? Think about that.
Ethan:
"Also, most rational people would interpret the fact that their remaining ancestry generally is not shared with other Uralic speakers to mean that those remaining ancestral streams are probably not the source of Uralic."
Correct, but not yet enough: in addition to that, you also have to acknowledge that the Yakutia ancestry is found in several Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic populations, as well as in the Yukaghirs and the Kets - in the regions were Uralic languages have never been spoken. Therefore, at least part of the Yakutia ancestry in the Nganasans could be inherited from the earlier non-Uralic inhabitants. How about that?
@Jaakko
Correct, but not yet enough: in addition to that, you also have to acknowledge that the Yakutia ancestry is found in several Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic populations, as well as in the Yukaghirs and the Kets - in the regions were Uralic languages have never been spoken. Therefore, at least part of the Yakutia ancestry in the Nganasans could be inherited from the earlier non-Uralic inhabitants. How about that?
The Uralic cline is called Uralic for a reason.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-uralic-cline-with-kra001-no.html
Yukaghirs probably represent pne phylum within the eastern arm of Ymyyakhtakh culture, probably the native 'Kolyma component'. They have high levels of Y-hg C (31%), compared to 2% of Samoyeds in Ebizur's list. Big difference. So they are not 'just like Samoyeds"
There might have even been intermediaty language groups separating proto-Uralic further west and Ukahghir in the East, now lost.
I suspect some people might not realise that the Ymyyakhtakh culture existed as far west as the Ob-Irtysh
Davidski:
“‘1. The Nganasans are aberrant among the Uralic populations; see Zeng et al. 2023.’
Why does this matter when Uralic speakers don't form a homogeneous cluster?”
Because of the following:
Davidski:
“Hungarians are also aberrant and so what?”
Exactly! You do not see anybody claiming that Proto-Uralic speakers were just like the Hungarians.
(About the Samoyedic expansion in my recent message.)
Davidski:
“The point is that Uralic speakers share a specific kind of Siberian ancestry that peaks in Nganasans, and there's no way to reliably explain this phenomenon except with the proto-Uralic expansion.”
Of course there are, as I have said many times already: this ancestry could have spread also earlier or later than the Uralic language. You must remember the following points:
1. About the linguistic expansions before Uralic we know very little.
2. About the linguistic expansions after Uralic we know more, but:
3. There is no law of nature requiring that a new ancestry should always bring a new, prevailing language with it. No. Chance and social conditions determine whether the language of the newcomers prevails or not. This means that you cannot use the lack of known linguistic expansions as a counter-argument against the possible earlier or later expansion of the Yakutia ancestry.
Davidski:
“’2. The Uralic populations widely share also the EHG and the steppe ancestry, as you can see in Zeng et al. 2023. Why do you ignore these ancestries, even though there is no single genetic study proving that these would have been acquired later and independently into different Uralic populations?’
There's also no single genetic study proving that any of the EHG or steppe ancestry in Uralic speakers comes from one source.”
Good, now we are on the same page. It is true that such a study exists for the Yakutia ancestry in the Uralic populations, but it is also possible that similar studies will be published about the other ancestries, too. And in any case, the single origin of the ancestry alone is not enough – see the above points.
The fact is that if we cannot find the Yakutia ancestry in the Central Ural Region already around 2500 BCE at the latest, this ancestry remains a poor match for the actual Proto-Uralic population. But do not yet greasest thy rope, ye olde fellowe! It is still very much possible that this ancestry participated in the Uralic expansion, because that was considerably later process: all the Uralic pre-dialects remained for many centuries very close to each other.
The key here is the Central Ural Passage: this was the gateway to Europe, both for the Seima-Turbino Network and for the Yakutia ancestry (although the more northern coastal route seems also valid for the latter). Crossing the Urals for these both occurred ca. 2000 BCE according to our current knowledge, and soon after that began the Uralic expansion (modestly in the first phase). Let us maintain the hope that in the future they shall find analyzable ancient DNA samples from the Central Ural Region before and after 2000 BCE.
@ D and re: ”The point is that Uralic speakers share a specific kind of Siberian ancestry that peaks in Nganasans, and there's no way to reliably explain this phenomenon except with the proto-Uralic expansion.”
F3's, according to Childebayeva et al:
ROT002 yak024 0,33
ROT002 yak023 0,32
ROT002 yak021 0,32
ROT002 yak022 0,32
ROT002 AR_Xianbei_IA 0,31
ROT002 Nganasan 0,30
ROT002 Evenk_Transbaikal 0,30
ROT002 Negidal 0,29
ROT002 Nanai 0,29
ROT002 Ulchi 0,29
ROT2, who is a pure Yakutia_LNBA guy found in Rostovka, shares most drift with the yak samples, with i.e. the Yakutia colonists. Then with Xianbei and only after that with both Evenks and Nganasans. After that, more Tungusic speakers, such as Evenk. So, just by looking at this, could we equally well talk about Tungusic expansion?
@ Jaako
'''That is just trolling, you miserable wreck of a human.''
You should actually be thankful, that someone of my calibre is investigating your Language
'' Proto-Samoyedic speakers dispersed from the Sayan Region to the north only ~2000 years ago, that''
How do you know that ?
In fact, they might have moved south only 2000 years ago
Because they surely not there originally.
We know there was a migration of Uralic peoples toward the steppe precicesly at this time, because they start apperaing in kazkahstan. Just refer to that thing called 'evidence'.
Arsen: “It seems I finally understand. You simply don't want the Finnish language, and consequently its culture and genes, which are Uralic, to be associated with something East Asian, as it's not prestigious among Europeans.”
No, no, no, you misunderstood so badly! :D
Do not listen to the trolls with disabled brain. This is not about ideology or wishful thinking: this is about valid EVIDENCE achieved by valid METHOD, as it always is in science. Uralic languages are naturally associated with Northeastern Asia, because some of them are spoken there. Also, all the Uralic-speaking populations show traces of genetic inheritance from Northeastern Asia. There is no point escaping facts, and no ancestry or region is inferior to any other. I personally am proud of all my roots, no matter where they come from.
All I am saying is:
1. There is no valid basis to claim that the Proto-Uralic population was like the modern Nganasans.
2. There is no reliable method to see the language from the genetic results.
3. We do not know at the moment what was the genetic composition of the Proto-Uralic speakers, so we must keep our options open until we find ancient DNA matches for the linguistic results: some well-preserved skeleton dudes and dudesses in the Central Ural Region around 2500 BCE.
Arsen:
“But regarding the origin from EHG, please, as all Europeans have this admixture through steppe pastoralists. This complex is very common among those who study the history of their peoples”
Of course all old ancestries are wide-spread. So is the Yakutia ancestry: it is seen in many Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic populations, as well as in Kets and Yukaghirs – in the regions where Uralic languages were never spoken. Still, it is present also in the Uralic populations. The same is possible with other ancestries, as we can see: also the EHG and the steppe ancestries are widely seen in the Uralic populations. That we must just accept. What is the explanation and chronological layering of these ancestries, we do not know yet. Hopefully we will know in the future.
@Queequeg
f3 stats aren't an accurate measure of similarity.
There's no reason to confuse the Uralic expansion with the Tungusic one.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-uralic-cline-with-kra001-no.html
Davidski:
“The Uralic cline is called Uralic for a reason.”
And what you think this Uralic cline proves? I already explained oncewhich arbitrary presuppositions you made. But I repeat them here in case you might want to try to present counter-arguments.
-------------
You made a few ad hoc presuppositions there:
1. That the location of Kra001 in the extreme end of the Uralic cline would automatically mean that Proto-Uralic speaking population was spoken by that kind of population, even though the PU population could equally well be located on any other point of that cline. There is no reason why it should be in the extreme ends only. Apparently, considering other widespread language families, you do not assume that the speakers of the proto-language are located in the extreme end of the respective clines?
2. You think that linguistic results can be ignored and the language can be better seen from the DNA, even though you refuse to tell us what is your actual method to trace the language from the DNA. We know that Proto-Uralic cannot have been spoken in the Krasnoyarsk Region or in Yakutia, and even less at so late a date – it is outright impossible. Whatever language(s) these fellows spoke, it was neither Late Proto-Uralic nor any later Uralic language. Highly speculatively it could have been some Para-Uralic language, though, although there is no positive evidence of any such language ever existing.
3. You assume that when the Yakutia/Kra001 ancestry pulls the Uralic populations into a nice cline, then the spread of this ancestry must be simultaneous with the spread of the Uralic language. But of course it must not be simultaneous – it can equally well be earlier or later.
@Jaakko
We're not on the same page.
You still fail to understand that this isn't just about genetic components, but about genetic relatedness.
Uralic speakers don't just share a component, they actually share very specific drift from the same relatively recent ancestors.
So it makes no difference if the speakers of other North Asian language families also share the same broad component that someone labeled Yakutia_LNBA or whatever else, because they're very rarely related to Uralic speakers in the same way that Uralic speakers are related to each other.
The real question here is why do Finns, Hungarian Conquerors and Nganasans share the same recent ancestors to the exclusion of everyone else, except those who in all likelihood also have Uralic ancestry?
You haven't been able to answer this question, because you've been talking about a genetic component rather than shared Uralic-specific ancestry.
Davidski:
“You still fail to understand that this isn't just about genetic components, but about genetic relatedness. Uralic speakers don't just share a component, they actually share very specific drift from the same relatively recent ancestors.”
So? Recent ancestors naturally have nothing to do with the original spread of the Uralic languages, because that is not a recent event.
Once again, you make an ad hoc presupposition: you assume that this sharedness would automatically be associated with the spread of the Uralic language, when it can also be earlier or later – just like the ancestry components shared by the Uralic populations (and others).
Moreover, Tambets et al. 2018 write: “Yet, we did not find any excess IBD sharing when Estonians (Fig. 4 A), Hungarians (Fig. 4 B) and Mordovians (Fig. 4 D) were compared to the Uralic speakers from VUR and Siberia.”
How these populations can then speak a Uralic language, if the IBD sharing was so crucial for the Uralic language?
Davidski:
“So it makes no difference if the speakers of other North Asian language families also share the same broad component that someone labeled Yakutia_LNBA or whatever else, because they're very rarely related to Uralic speakers in the same way that Uralic speakers are related to each other.”
True. Hopefully also those read this, who make claims based only on the Yakutia ancestry.
Davidski:
“The real question here is why do Finns, Hungarian Conquerors and Nganasans share the same recent ancestors to the exclusion of everyone else, except those who in all likelihood also have Uralic ancestry?”
Other questions:
1. Why the Estonians and the Mordvins do not share the same recent ancestors, despite of speaking a Uralic language?
2. Why the Saamis, the Karelians, the Estonians, the Mordvins, and the Nganasans share recent ancestors with non-Uralic populations?
You cannot just pick your favorite results and ignore all the rest.
Rob, if you have zero knowledge about Samoyedic, Wikipedia is usually a good place to start. Contacts with Tocharian, Iranian, and both primary branches of Turkic require that Samoyedic developed in the south. It is just as impossible to pull Proto-Samoyedic to Yakutia as it is to pull Proto-Uralic to Yakutia.
Please try to explain your method step by step: how can you see the language from the genetic data? The Nobel Committee awaits impatiently! And how can you still, after the Southern Arc paper, believe that such a method could be reliable? Your chalice is never even half empty, eh…?
@Jaakko
When I say that Uralic speakers share relatively recent ancestry, I mean from the proto-Uralic timeframe.
The Uralic cline was created at this time and only Uralic-speaking North Asians, or those with obvious Uralic admixture, consistently sit on this cline.
And obviously since Nganasans are at the far eastern end of this cline, then you can't claim that any sort of European ancestry was the catalyst for the formation of the cline.
Some Nganasans have recent Russian European ancestry, but clearly that's irrelevant to the Uralic discussion.
@ Jaako
''Rob, if you have zero knowledge about Samoyedic, Wikipedia is usually a good place to start. Contacts with Tocharian, Iranian, and both primary branches of Turkic require that Samoyedic developed in the south. It is just as impossible to pull Proto-Samoyedic to Yakutia as it is to pull Proto-Uralic to Yakutia.''
Nonsense. Samoyeds are not from the Sayan region, they are late comers there.
It is you who has zero knowledge in these matters. In fact, even amateurs know more then you because theyre not tainted but your existential failure which you mask as a sense of arrogant superiority.
''Please try to explain your method step by step: how can you see the language from the genetic data? ''
It has been explained to you several times, but you're too dumb & dishonest to understand
''And how can you still, after the Southern Arc paper, believe that such a method could be reliable? ''
We've all criticised the Arc paper because it used your methodology of 'majority ancestry' rather than nuanced use of proximally relevant shared ancestry in an contextually relevant manner. Beside that, the issue of proto-Anatolian is indeed difficult so people are allowed to make errors. So as usual, you are deflecting & strawmanning becasue you have no actual arguements.
By contrast, the issue of Uralic isnt hard for anybody, except you because (a) you lack talent (b) you're a liar.
@Mr Hakkinen
1-Yes my friend, try to accept it, you are making the same mistake. You hide in your “scientific method” to say something that is obvious to any intelligent person, that is to say that neither archaeology nor genetics “per se” can be used to determine what language a certain culture spoke. The disproportionate importance you give to “YOUR” linguistic results are only an attempt to hide the serious shortcomings of linguistics as a science when there are no written records. I have already explained it to you in other conversations, you have to take the example of western Europe where there are written records (Celtiberian, Ligurian, Etruscan, Iberian, Aquitanian, Tartessian etc) since the middle of the Iron Age. The REAL scientific method is to analyze the samples available in the sites where those writings have been found then you will have the conclusive proof that a certain autosomal composition or a certain male or female lineage spoke a certain language. everything else is fairy tales
So please don't try to give me lessons on what is a scientific method
@Mr Hakkinen
2-You criticize David, Rob, and most of those who participate in this blog because they are telling you that the only autosomal ancestry shared by ALL Uralic speakers is Siberian ancestry (Yakutia, Nganassans etc...) and that you are unable to demonstrate that they share Fatyanovo-Balanovo ancestry.
And yet as the good Kurganist that you are, you follow like a sheep the dominant view that Indo-European languages are inextricably linked to the Steppe ancestry and that the mixed Harvardian theory (i.e. origin of IE south of the Caucasus) is nonsense.
Do you understand? you share the same dogma of faith, there is nothing scientific in your linguistic position, you simply believe in the Indo-European religion and you are not able to explain why you dismiss the possibility that this linguistic family is related to the WHG or the EEF
For your better understanding, I'm going to quote verbatim what you have written in this blog;
-Hakkinen said “I already explained the situation: it is explained (EHG-CWC ancestry) just as well as the Yakutia ancestry. All these ancestries are present widely in the Uralic speaking populations (among others). Anything better than that has never been presented to support the Yakutia ancestry, nor any other ancestry. So my question is: why do you just pick the Yakutia ancestry but ignore all the other equal ancestries? My point is that you cannot ignore the steppe and the EHG ancestry BEFORE it has been proven that it cannot have spread with the Proto-Uralic population. You cannot just decide that the Yakutia ancestry is associated with the spread of Proto-Uralic, and even less that it is the sole ancestry associated with it”
And Gaska said-“I already explained the situation: it is explained (WHG or EEF ancestry) just as well as the Steppe ancestry. All these ancestries are present widely in the “INDOEUROPEAN” speaking populations (among others). Anything better than that has never been presented to support the STEPPE ancestry, nor any other ancestry. So my question is: why do you just pick the STEPPE ancestry but ignore all the other equal ancestries? My point is that you cannot ignore the WHG and the EEF ancestry BEFORE it has been proven that it cannot have spread with the INDOEUROPEAN population. You cannot just decide that the Steppe ancestry is associated with the spread of INNDOEUROPEAN, and even less that it is the sole ancestry associated with it”
What do you think if I write this? Your arguments are valid and mine are not? How is it possible that you can prove that you are right in the absence of written texts?
Exactly quoting your words-"In reality you are not interested to know the scientific arguments – you have decided what you want to believe, and no arguments can change that"
And please don't keep quoting eupedia or wikipedia, it says very little about your intellectual capacity.
@Mr Hakkinen
3-By the way, I'm not bitter, I find it funny how you are trying to explain the inexplicable using in my opinion poor linguistic arguments, and my laughter can be heard in Helsinki when I read in your paper that the Fatyanovo culture spoke North-western Indo-European (which in your opinion is Balto-Slavic, Germanic Italic and Celtic).
Do you realize what you have written?, you know the genetic makeup of the Fatyanovo culture right?
No offense, but I also find it funny the mania that linguists have for creating categories or levels of languages (“Archaic Indo-European”, “Proto-Pre-Late PIE”, “Pre-Proto-Late-Proto-Uralic”, “Late Proto Indo-Iranian”) to try to prove your theories, and more fun when you dare to ensure without any doubt the exact date when those supposed languages were spoken and which cultures spoke them.
Talking about scientific method with linguists is absurd if you are not able to recognize that your science is basically non-scientific speculation.
On the contrary, genetics is an exact science, the problem is that geneticists are using their results to explain linguistic issues, something that in the absence of written texts is simply a chimera, they seem like quixotes fighting against windmills.
@Rob
“The core Indo-Iranian people do indeed came from Eastern Europe
But the language developed as a longer process. The people of Fatyanovo & Sintashta didn’t speak ready-made Indo-Iranian. Its rise occurred much further east. That’s because language contact and cultural adstrata are potent drivers of language development, and this made the language shift from a dialectical IE corded ware language to something actually resembling indo-Iranian”
You seem to be a more reasonable person than JH and others.
I think nothing is certain in regard to the origin of II languages. There are rumors of genetic links between Central Europe and Abashevo, IBD sharing etc. That such links existed was also claimed by archaeologists. Central European tribes, i.e. Nitra, Mierzanowice, Eastern Unetice, were dominated by R1a-Z282 and Abashevo/Sintashta by R1a-Z93, but they were all derived from R1a-Z645 and at some time in the past spoke similar languages and had similar cultures, religions. Before Catacomb or some Central Asian influences the tribes from Eastern Unetice to Abashevo/Sintashta spoke similar languages and had similar religions.
In my opinion the Nebra Disc is not an astronomical tool but the symbol of the goddess which was worshiped in Rigveda and spoke to Parmenides. She was the mother of twin brothers also worshiped by R1a tribes in the region whose symbols are common in Central and Eastern Europe cultures and Greece. It is all very simple if you know Slavic folk tradition. Genetic, linguistic, archeological, cultural, religious evidence all point to one answer. To see it one has to abandon XIX century BS.
@Rob
"Proto-Samoyedic speakers dispersed from the Sayan Region to the north only ~2000 years ago, that''
How do you know that ?
In fact, they might have moved south only 2000 years ago
Because they surely not there originally".
It is based on Samoyedic having the most linguistic divergence in the region as well as it being a centre for reindeer domestication, but it is troubled by the significant lack of Indo-Iranian/Iranic contacts, which can be demonstrated in Yeniseian. Iranic was spoken there throughout the whole iron age and perhaps into the first few centuries AD if the Tashtyk samples did not undergo linguistic assimilation. Furthermore there is a lot of archaeological evidence for contact between these Iranians and their northern Siberian neighbours - the oldest pictographic evidence for reindeer domestication is in Tagar culture sites.
If they genuinely did spread from the Sayan area circa 2k years ago then they undoubtedly were recent arrivals, rather than the Tagar peoples or whatever dubious proposals fly around. But concrete evidence for this is lacking. I pointed this out on AG years ago but it fell on deaf ears of course.
The Tungusic spread clearly has eroded a larger spread of Uralic languages in the east - a simple look at tribal maps from Russian expansion into Siberia already demonstrates this as you can see that the distribution of Samoyedic languages is largely adjacent to Tungusic.
@Ebizur
"Furthermore, the subclades observed in these two samples are only very distantly related to each other; Q-M25, which has been observed in three Khanty individuals from Russkinskaya village, is more closely related to Chinese Q-M120 than either of those is related to Q-L330 > Q-Z35974 that predominates among the Khanty from Kazym village. Q-L330 is the same subclade of haplogroup Q that predominates among present-day Kets and Selkups."
This line of thinking unfortunately leads to details being lost and can make people seem less related than they actually are.
For comparison, R-M417 and R-L51 have been separate for 20k+ years and R1b-L51 is closer to R-PH155 than it is to R-M417. Yet both are signatures of the Corded Ware expansion in Europe and came from the same source population.
Likewise, the Q-M25 subclades if under L715 are related to Q-M25 clades seen in Scytho-Siberian peoples. Given the significant presence of clades such as Q-L330 in them it is clear how they acquired this lineage.
Q-YP4000 is another such Scytho-Siberian clade which at least has one Selkup on it on yfull.
Although iron age/historical Y-dna contributions via Pre-Magyars and Turkic peoples is also a possibility for the Khanty individuals with L715, I think a Siberian substrate pop is most likely.
Selkups are considered an outlier Samoyedic population on account of their significant Yeniseian ancestry but when looking at Turkic speaking Siberians with significant Samoyedic descent (Todzhins, Tofalars) it seems that a large portion of southern Samoyedic ancestry was derived from Yeniseian assimilation - perhaps the domestication of reindeer played a role in this.
The Ket are unfortunately not a great representative of Yeniseians as a whole considering their genetic bottlenecks and significant non-Yeniseian DNA. The Yeniseian core region undoubtedly was more diverse as can be seen through local non-Turkic clades in Siberian Turkic peoples - but ancient DNA from historical periods is needed to properly figure out the hows and whats.
@EastPole
On top of that, Proto-Indo-Iranians during their formation stage, and thereafter, following the breakup of Proto-Indo-Iranian, were influenced by East Caucasian languages, such as Chechen, Batsbi, Lak, and so on. Can you imagine? That's why the author's notion of placing them not east of the Ural River but somewhere deep in Asia is flawed. That's the situation.
https://i.postimg.cc/BvcWy05R/photo-2024-04-03-05-50-55.jpg
@Copper Axe
Are you planning on doing a blog post about the Germanic paper?
Post a Comment