Wednesday, February 5, 2025
G25 available again
To get your Global25 coords, please use the app HERE. The whole process usually takes a couple of days. Feel free to spread the word.
Please don't order the Global25 unless you have experience in modeling Global25 data with the Vahaduo analysis tools.
Note that the conversion of VCF, BAM, CRAM and/or fastq files is 30 to 50€ extra depending on the case. For enquiries please email teepean47 on g25requests@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
777 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 777 Newer› Newest»First fun finding:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/mtdna/H13a1/tree
Berezhnovka 22199 (4929 - 4730 BCE)
Y: I-S21579 (downstream I-l699)
M: H13a1
Ilıpınar 10542 (3630 - 3377 BCE)
M: H13a1
Some more fun looking at yet to be uploaded individuals from the Nikitin paper:
One Giurgiulești Suvorovo individual (I20072) is just upstream of that Volga clade at H13.
The other Gieurgiulesti Suvorovo individual (I20073) is K1b2b. The Csongrad Suvorovo sample is just upstream, but a Sredni Stog sample sits at the same clade.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/mtdna/K1b2b/tree
mtdna is not interested.... we are patriarchal people
None of these cultures further west descend from Ananyino in specific.
And if proto-Uralic had already disintegrated during the period preceding the Early Iron Age as is usually established, then there's no problem with certain branches coming in contact with Baltic, Germanic or East Iranian during the Late Bronze Age.
@ Zelto: ''It's also worth noting that the burials associated with Yakutia_LNBA ancestry at Neftoprovod 1/2 and Tatarka Hill are already culturally distinct and slightly more phylogenetically related to European N branches than the Ymmyakhtakh samples. Any thoughts on this?''
I have only broad view at present, that the 'proto-Uralic genetic profile' was formed when certain Baikal_N people departed from their Baikal homeland and fused with some of the natives in the Yenesei-Lena region. And this population and social event led to the formation of proto-Uralic, although languages do not just 'fuse' like genes do, so we would need to introduce theoretical concepts from Contact Linguistics.
From here, we can parsiminously explain the dispersal of Samoyedic groups toward the sub-arctic, without realying on the currently dominant ('ethnographic'-based) views that they only recently migrated due to Mongol or Russian encroachment. Otherwise, I have not looked in greater depth other published samples you mentioned other than an inkling that they are early outliers; but you might be right. BTW check out the distribution map of Ymyyakhtakh Culture sites as far as the Ob in 'Ancient Cultures and Migrations in Northeastern Siberia'; Grebenyuk et al, Fig 3 (after Dyakanov).
I probably didnt answer your question. What do you think ?
@ Finngreek
to elaborate what I mean re: convergence and layering for Saami language, there have been suggestions about dual inputs, one earlier branch and another related to proto-Finnic. For ex: in 'The Origins of Magyar-Hungarians...' by Perry & Perry, featuring a language tree by Benko-Imre. I think Aikio hints at this as well, but not explicitly stated. I brought up the case of proto-Germanic because that has similar layering of IE lects- an earlier Battle Axe and later 'Single Grave'/ 'para-Beaker' one.
@ Copper Axe - looking forward to your post. Shout out when it's up.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
First of all, language shift is not always limited to cultural boundaries, and multiple languages can be spoken in a single material culture. Djakovo, Gorodets etc. do not need to descend from Ananyino, but they were virtually simultaneous formations alongside Akozino-Akhmylovo; and Ananyino did impact cultures to the west archaeologically and genetically, as evidenced by axe finds, tarand graves and their ornaments (which were later reflected in developments of local styles, not dissimilar to how Gamayun influenced local Itkul traditions), and Siberian genetics that only arrived after 800 BCE. See Lang (2007) "The Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Estonia", Saag et al. (2019) "The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East".
The Proto-Uralic speaker was originally a highly mobile warrior-trader who could easily pass through pre-existing cultures along river systems until settling wherever was suitable: Finnic, Samic, Samoyedic etc. did not need to gradually descend through cultural assignments before reaching their respective proto-zones (see Saarikivi 2022, Map 2.8 "The divergence of Proto-Uralic and its offspring. A descendent reconstruction"). There is no problem with Uralic being in contact with Germanic, Baltic, and East Iranian according to an Early Iron Age model, either: Germanic loans are only relevant to Finnic and Samic after their separate arrivals to the East Baltic; Balto-Slavic loans are "West Uralic" (Finno-Mordvinic +/- Samic), which was apparently an areal feature during Uralic diversification; and Ananyino's southern boundary was Sarmatia, which suits phonologically innovative Iranic loans at the PU ~ PFU level.
If you'd like to continue this debate, I'd appreciate more informative and cited arguments than one-sentence replies.
I should add that there isn't actually an established disintegration of Proto-Uralic during the Bronze Age in Uralic linguistics: We don't even have a clear phylogenetic model for any phase of PU disintegration until we get to the individual branches (e.g. PFU may be identical to PU, East Uralic and even Ugric developments are irregular, Finnic and Samoyedic have been modeled as lexically the closest branches, etc.). What happened is that around 25 years ago, when Continuity theory became glottochronologically untenable, authors who were interested in dating PU had to rework its origin. The ST network became an attractive but tentative correlation, due to its geographical similarity with the ultimate distribution of the Uralic branches. On one end, there is Kallio (and in his wake, Parpola) who, with Indo-Uralic bias, assigned PU to Netted Ware. On the other end, Häkkinen more recently proposed the assignment of Late Proto-Uralic to the metallurgical Koptyak culture in the Central Urals (for criticism of lexical evidence for metallurgy in Proto-Uralic, see Aikio 2022), with a radically different phylogenetic model that has yet to be corroborated by any other Uralic linguist. The remaining authors just reiterate a tentative correlation to ST. There is no consensus on a cultural assignment for PU, and therefore no clear model for cultural dispersal until we get to less ambiguous branches with more loan data (e.g. Finnic + Samoyedic).
With the recent data that has come out (e.g. Grünthal et al. 2022, Zeng et al. 2023), there is now a clear demic component to factor into Uralic diversification. It is my conviction that Ananyino + Akozino-Akhmylovo expansion, under the influence of a Gamayun influx, is the most parsimonious theory available. Whether this ancestry should be further sourced to Lozva-Atlym (and possibly an "Arctic highway" responsible for BOO), or rapid migrations to the Urals through a pre-existing ST network (e.g. kra001), is a matter to be resolved - but mark my words: Proto-Uralic did not fully disintegrate until after 800 BCE, and no further breakthroughs can happen in Uralic research until this is accepted.
I found this paper pretty interesting.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/migratsii-v-surgutskom-priobie-v-kontse-bronzovogo-nachale-zheleznogo-vekov
I guess Atlym culture could be proto-East Uralic of some kind. I wouldn't consider Uralic to be a single language at this time considering the range of cultures it would be present in. Beloyarsk culture would eventually give rise to the Kulai culture which would give rise to the Selkup Ryolkin culture.
As for Europe, I think looking at the preceding era to see how these EIA cultures developed would be helpful. I find Chirkovo culture especially interesting, as it seemingly had connections with Ananyino and Gamayun cultures of the later eras.
https://arheologija.ru/chirkovskaya-kultura/
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Parpola 2013 connected Chirkovo (ca. 1800 - 700 BCE) with Proto-Mari - obviously, I disagree with this and most of the original research in the paper. Other than Netted Ware expansion into Chirkovo while it was under Ananyino influence, Chirkovo locally descended from the Volosovo culture (ca. 4000-1800 BCE), who started out as "forest foragers", but learned metallurgy, agriculture, animal husbandry (swine, horse domestication, cattle breeding etc.), and even wagoneering under Pre-PII Balanovo and Abashevo influence. This again looks nothing like the Proto-Uralic language, unless one were to date PU back to ca. 4000 BCE while somehow receiving no regular Pre-II loans for pigs, horses, cows, wheels, grains, metal, etc.; and evolving from substrate to superstrate. Basically the same problems as Netted Ware, but with extra steps - and no demic component. Also, we can't say if "East Uralic" was a proto-language rather than a potential sprachbund: And the Ugric sprachbund was along the Tobol-Ishim-Irtysh, which is likewise a site of Ananyino axe finds. Samoyedic could have just continued on from this point, since it may be a younger branch than Ugric.
@Rob
The Benko-Imre tree I found in that paper doesn't appear to show dual input for Samic, except for subsequent influence from Finnic itself - and the tree is also from 1971? If you find an updated discussion about "dual input" (ideally from the 21st century), feel free to link it.
@Ramber
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OjUwp7JG0_aSaQ1bqFitDLBLgytD_9je/view?usp=sharing
Samoyedic being that late of an incursion doesn't make much sense when the connection between Atlym culture is explainable via Molchanovo and Beloyarsk cultures.
https://arheologija.ru/kosarev-perehodnoe-vremya-ot-bronzovogo-veka-k-zheleznomu/
@EthanR
a sample from Khvalynsk was added to FTDNA, they attributed it to J1-Z1841, that is, in fact, in the same branch as Ginchi, Velikent, and samples of Kura Araks, this is what I was talking about when I wrote that CHG in Khvalynsk, steppe Eneolithic, Kura Araks have a common North Caucasian, or maybe even East Caucasian (including northern Azerbaijan) origin
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Z1841/tree
The Khvalynsk J1 clade has a TMRCA of 10500BC so I don't think there is any close relationship with K-A but I agree that Steppe CHG may have entered from closer to the Caspian (Seroglazovka culture?).
The paper you linked just discusses that Molchanovo ceramics with Gamayun influence are difficult to date, but can be associated with the end of the Irmen culture (ca. 800 BCE) onward, when northerners began to migrate up the Ob. Gamayun influence was asynchronously multidirectional to the southwest, south, and southeast, as the author explains. This information isn't necessarily relevant to when Ugro-Samoyedic would have migrated from the Kama-Chusovaya to its core zones: Para-Uralic could have been spoken by early Gamayun migrants to the Tavda, Tobol, Chulym etc., without being descended from Proto-Uralic proper. Gamayun migrations ca. 1000 BCE were originally motivated by a general exodus from Lozva-Atlym, due to a humid climate that caused flooding and worsened hunting prospects (Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007): There wasn't a preceding episode of migration into Gamayun that could be considered as the formation of "East Uralic", Samoyedic etc. from the Volga-Kama, as the Gamayun mainly filled a vacuum of abandoned Mezhovskaya sites with their own "foreign" style, which then influenced the Itkul.
Also, the dating of Proto-Samoyedic on the Yenisei is only 500-1 BCE (Janhunen 2012), with its disintegration dated to ca. 200 BCE (Blazek 2016). There is no formal reason to assign a deep chronology to Samoyedic; nor to derive it directly from Lozva-Atlym, which would archaeologically imply that Proto-Uralic never made it to Europe in the first place. Perhaps Pre-Proto-Samoyedic could have been located in the easternmost zone of the late Proto-Uralic dialects, which would have kept it (and perhaps Ugric) closer to Gamayun Ob-Chulym migratory networks, but this is just speculation since we don't know where Samoyedic belongs in Uralic phylogeny. Proto-Uralic just diversified too quickly to be linguistically informative beyond some areal features (e.g. Finno-Mordvinic m > n and Balto-Slavic loans; Ugro-Samoyedic irregular sibilant developments); and Indo-Iranian loans have proven to be contradictory. Virtually all of the cultural, glottochronological, and phylogenetic models of Proto-Uralic diversification have been discredited: So we need a new model that doesn't contradict the genetic and linguistic evidence. The model I propose is as follows:
Lozva-Atlym (Early PU) + Gamayun migration to the Kama > Ananyino (Late PU) + Ugro-Samoyedic migrations to the Tobol-Irtysh / Ob-Chulym > Akozino-Akhmylovo (Finno-Permic core sprachbund) + Finnic and Samic migrations to the Daugava / Finland.
This chain of events can be dated to ca. 1200-500 BCE (probably with a later arrival of Samoyedic to its core zone on the Chulym). Since Ananyino and Akozino-Akhmylovo roughly coincide, the assigned divergences are primarily archaeological (i.e. axe-type-related) rather than linguistic. Samic is more ambiguous due to pre-existing Ananyino axe finds in Finland before subsequent Akozino-Malar finds, but overall may fit better lexically in the FP ~ "West Uralic" sprachbund. Samoyedic is indirectly assigned to axe finds in the eastern Ugric core zone, as I'm not aware of finds on the Chulym. Mordvinic, Mari, and Permic would have canonically remained in the FP sprachbund until its disintegration.
If anyone wishes to question, fortify, or contradict aspects of this model, I am happy to continue the discussion. However, at this point I've spent more than enough time here outlining the contradictions of Netted Ware, ST, and Indo-Uralic origin theories. I know that other users here have already done the same on this blog, Anthrogenica, Academia sessions etc. In any case, I hope the model I've provided can helpful to those of you who are working out your own theories.
Gamayun doesn't need to migrate eastward to bring Uralic over since Beloyarsk and Molchanovo both showcase connection with Atlym culture, which gave rise to Kulai culture. Kulai culture expanded into the Yenisei around the time depth of the word formation as proposed by Janhunen, so Kulai culture being proto-Uralic fits.
https://arheologija.ru/vasilev-severotaezhnoe-priobe-v-epohu-pozdney-bronzyi-hronologiya-i-kulturnaya-prinadlezhnost/
https://arheologija.ru/borzunov-rol-migratsiy-v-slozhenii-kultur-krestovoy-keramiki/
Mutin, Benjamin, et al. (15 April 2025). "New radiocarbon dates of human tooth enamel reveal a late appearance of farming life in the Indus Valley," in: Scientific Reports 15.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92621-5
Abstract:
"The domestication of plants and animals is believed to have commenced around 9500 BCE in the Near East. If the timing of the westward diffusion of the Neolithic transition is well documented, the precise mechanisms by which agriculture emerged between the Iranian Plateau, Central Asia, and South Asia remain unclear. In this context, the archaeological site of Mehrgarh (Pakistan) represents an essential point of reference. It is the sole site in the region where Neolithic occupation deposits have been extensively excavated, thereby providing the most essential insights into this period in northwest South Asia. Nevertheless, the accurate dating of these deposits remains a matter of contention, with implications for the most critical question of the emergence of agricultural life in the regions between the Fertile Crescent in the west and the Indus Valley in the east. Bayesian modelling of new radiocarbon dates performed on human tooth enamel from 23 Neolithic burials indicates that the aceramic Neolithic cemetery at Mehrgarh started between 5200 and 4900 BCE and lasted for a period of between two and five centuries. This result is in stark contrast with the previously proposed chronology of Neolithic Mehrgarh, which had not only suggested an early beginning around 8000 BCE but also a much longer duration of three millennia. This new, younger chronology implies that agriculture emerged in the Indus Valley as the result of a late diffusion of farmers into this region. Additionally, the data suggest that the thick Neolithic occupation deposits of Mehrgarh were formed at a faster rate than previously assumed, and that pottery production and its utilization in present-day Pakistan emerged not before the mid-fifth millennium BCE."
Correction, I meant Kulai fits as proto-Samoyedic, not proto-Uralic.
@Carlos Aramayo
It is very good that such articles come out with samples of the Neolithic of the Far East
@Mr Funk
Yes, it's important. And in this case it's the study of Italian archaeologists basically challenging the French view. I also wish aDNA samples could have been taken!
the Middle East *
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
According to you, Djakovo-Gorodets is evidence for pre-Ananyino Uralic expansion, while Samoyedic skirted by Gamayun after 1000 BCE from Atlym to Kulai? I've never seen anyone but you argue for a model like that.
It is not a controversial view in Uralic linguistics that Samoyedic originated on the European side of the Urals. Even if it wasn't as close to the Volga-Kama interfluve (which we don't know), Samoyedic couldn't have been disconnected from the general area. Pre-Proto-Samoyedic still had to be able to receive regular, innovative Iranian loans present in other Uralic languages that were in Europe, be part of the same sprachbund with Ugric, etc. The Finno-Ugric / Samoyedic split is generally considered obsolete; and I already stated that Ugric is probably older than Samoyedic (Saarikivi 2022). Also, I never said that Proto-Samoyedic was derived from the Gamayun culture, but that it could have mediated Ugro-Samoyedic arrivals from the Ananyino.
The Kulai culture developed along the Narym-Surgut Ob between 500 BCE-500 CE, and is divided into two stages. Due to overpopulation, mass Kulai migrations in various directions began ca. 300 BCE, which would have led to the destruction of the Tagar culture. If you want to associate Proto-Samoyedic with Kulai expansion instead of directly with Tagar (like e.g. Parpola), that's fine with me. The dating doesn't contradict my model. Even if early Atlym migrations to the Narym-Surgut Ob could have occurred without mediation through the Gamayun culture, that doesn't mean they determined the final nature of Proto-Samoyedic: The branch still needs input that the rest of Uralic received after its migration to Europe.
Anyway, I wouldn't devote much time to trying to disconnect Gamayun from Atlym: The link you provided even states "The development of the Gamayun culture is a model for the development of the entire community", meaning the entire community of subsequent migrations associated with Atlym - and that "The migration (up the Ob) spanned several centuries and took place in stages... judging by the small size of early settlements... in small groups". It explicitly states that migration up the Ob should not be thought of as a "sharp ethnocultural shift" or "frontal advance". But if you want to now isolate Samoyedic from Finno-Ugric and Gamayun, but not Atlym, then that's your hypothesis. Let us know when you've determined how Finno-Ugric derived from Netted Ware while Samoyedic derived from Atlym. Maybe Atlym were R1a? We don't have samples yet.
@Mr Funk
Actually it's South Asia.
The pulse that brought over pre-proto-Samoyedic could have also brought pre-proto-Ugric. Samoyedic definitely wasn't isolated from the other cultures and we can't strictly say that any of these cultures was purely pre-proto-Samoyedic before the Kulai culture. Kulai also formed on the basis of Kalininskaya culture, which was a southern migration to the Surgut Ob area, and Molchanovo had a pretty strong local component. On the other hand some sort of via Gamayun Ananyino pulse seems very far fetched to be the progenitor of proto-Samoyedic let alone proto-Uralic as a whole to the area when there's plenty of opportunities for proto-Uralic to have already been there before that. Proto-Uralic would have had to reach the soon to be Kulai area in a few hundred years and split off to its own branch of proto-Samoyedic almost immediately.
@Rob
I agree with what you've outlined, but I was interested in your assessment of the Bronze Age North Ural cultures. The orthodoxy would suggest that they are primarily derived from a Comb ceramic/Trans-Ural environment. A relationship to Siberian 'Textile' ceramics is intriguing, but there are of course problems with such an interpretation, as well. As I mentioned, 'Textile' imprints are widespread already in the Neolithic. The 'waffle' ceramics and associated materials spread across this cultural landscape, but remained largely relegated to the Polar-zone. It seems like they should be considered an intrusive element amongst the northernmost Lebyazh and Atlym cultures, perhaps involved in their development (e.g. "serpetine" ceramic ornamentation). The Korshakov culture is representative of these Circum-Polar immigrants, with their 'mesh' ceramics. There are few absolute dates available, but the formation of Ataman-Nyursk might be too early to be relevant. Briefly discussed here: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/eneolit-i-epoha-bronzy-lesnoy-zony-vostochnoy-evropy-disgarmoniya-arheologicheskoy-periodizatsii
Siberian ancestry also could have spread to the North Ural cultures via ST/Kaninskaya Cave where Lebyazh materials are also found. Regardless of the source, the effect Atlym and related cross-stamped cultures had on the anthropology of the 'Classic'/Cord Ananyino variant is manifest.
Presently, only the Circum-Polar advance and 'Baikal' component of Seima-Turbino can be definitively traced back to East Siberia. To the extent that these were separate phenomenon, Neftoprovod 1/2 and Taraka Hill might be remnants of the Taiga-zone route responsible for the latter. Although, ST tin-bronze has also been found on the Taimyr Peninsula in a Ymmyakhtakh context. If ROT002 actually is Z1936, I think it would highlight the importance of the Taiga/ST route. Moreover, linguistic evidence does not favour a PU - Tundra environment.
Of course, there is still plenty of room for heterodox arguments and I am open ears.
Ananyino axe finds extended to the Central Urals and beyond to the eastern Ugric sprachbund; and Ugro-Samoyedic itself was a sprachbund. How many centuries do you think it should take for mobile riparian warrior-traders to get from the Tobol-Irtysh interfluve to Surgut? By the way, Yakutia_LNBA may have taken 200 years to get from the Upper Yenisei to the Urals.
You said Djakovo-Gorodets was Finno-Ugric before 1000 BCE while Atlym was Ugro-Samoyedic in Siberia after 1000 BCE. What are the "plenty of opportunities" that allowed for this?
Google Maps says it's a 5-day walk from Tobolsk to Surgut. I'm not sure how to factor in paddling a dugout canoe to Khanty-Mansiysk.
Not saying that Ananyino traders couldn't have reached eastward fairly quickly, although I didn't really find any mentions of Akozino axes that deep into Siberia. My main point is that if Atlym culture spoke some kind of Uralic language and it passed it onto it's descendants, then it seems more plausible for proto-Samoyedic and proto-Ugric to have arisen among these cultures rather than a further pulse from the west.
As for the western regions and the connecting thread between them and Atlym etc. there's Lebyazh culture for one which had connections with Atlym culture. I suppose within the Mesh ceramics network and also the Comb-Pit culture Uralic languages would have spread among some local variants.
@Zelto
I'll continue to remain agnostic about an Arctic vs. ST (Ob?) route for Pre-Proto-Uralic, but I'm not sure the linguistic evidence is actually worse for the former. PU had skis and possibly sleds, snow/snowstorms/ice; few words for trees, and all were conifers except for the birch and bird-cherry, which have native distributions to the mouth of the Ob and parts of the European Arctic. Animal names are more difficult to go by, since words like 'seal' could have been lost and others gained upon leaving the region, but none I've found seem to be a problem besides 'hedgehog' (Aikio 2022 lists this, but UEW lists no Samoyedic reflexes). The Adder viper (i.e. 'snake') appears to natively reach the mouth of the Ob.and other Arctic coastlines. The importance of rivers and wetlands of course can not be stressed enough in the lexicon. I'm not sure this is especially favorable to either model until reaching the Urals region, since ST movement in Asia appears land-based, and the Arctic wouldn't always be hospitable (but kayaks are a thing). PU doesn't have a word for 'boat', but does have other nautical terms to presume boats were common.
I know I've already stressed it, but the big problem with ST is that Proto-Uralic lacks all the characteristic terms associated with it: No words for 'wheel', 'horse' or pastoralism, agriculture, or metallurgy. Hunting and fishing relied on flint arrows and dragnets. If PU migration was motivated by the ST highway, it doesn't seem they were invested in it until after Uralic disintegration. I think it's more likely that, if Pre-PU did migrate down the Ob or another river, they largely ignored or even avoided contact. The only way I see around this is reconstructing Uralic migrations as pre-diverged groups that inherited loans with limited distributions until somehow reuniting in Europe for some centuries before disintegrating. This is not parsimonious to me, but is essentially what Häkkinen 2023 proposes (again, I've not seen another author support this model yet). Aikio still posits the potential for Eskimo-Uralic; but we can leave macrotheory out for now since it's inconclusive. What other linguistic evidence do you want to see to discern between the two pathways?
So in a way the Ananyino traders certainly could have introduced words to the proto-Samoyedic speakers through their trade networks, but the basis for the language would have been among the cultures that formed Kulai culture instead.
And with Comb-Pit Ceramics I mean of course the Pit-Comb Ceramics of Western Siberia and not the Comb Ceramic Culture.
I wonder if locating the homeland of Yeniseian languages would help with locating the migration of Uralic speakers.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Parpola (2022) Figs. 6 + 9 show Ananyino and Akozino-Malar axe distributions, respectively.
https://www.academia.edu/78436524/Parpola_A_2022_Location_of_the_Uralic_protolanguage_in_the_Kama_River_Valley_AES_2022_2_258_
Ananyino axes are specifically found in what became the Khanty core zone. Also note the cluster in the Central Urals, which appears to be where the Chusovaya and Iset rivers meet (~ Yekaterinburg), suggesting a general eastward impulse. Impulses turn to the west with Akozino-Akhmylovo, and the east is basically forgotten. By the way, I do not agree with Parpola's findings in this paper, as with Parpola 2013.
For discussion of the Uralic core zones, see Saarikivi 2022:
https://www.academia.edu/61676595/The_divergence_of_Proto_Uralic_and_its_offspring_A_descendent_reconstruction
As for Ugro-Samoyedic staying east of the Urals, it would only make sense through Gamayun. We at least require direct contact between Finno-Permic and Ugro-Samoyedic which allowed for regular, innovative loans from Iranian into Finno-Ugric and perhaps Samoyedic. This means that the Gamayun culture would have played a central role in Uralic diversification even after intial Atlym migrations to Ananyino or Molchanovo: So even if you wanted to reconstruct Ugro-Samoyedic east of the Urals, it would only be as far east as Gamayun allowed. It's more reasonable to assume that Ugro-Samoyedic extended at most to the Central Urals before its departure, as part of the Ananyino scene. And again, Ugro-Samoyedic may have just been areal, while either could have had closer phylogenetic ties to other branches.
Those Ananyino axes seem to concentrate on the Irtysh-Ishim forest-steppe, to get to Kulai it would require a further pulse from this area. I don't know exactly what culture was there at this time, something inheriting the Irmen and Suzgun cultures I suppose.
And couldn't these languages have borrowed Iranian loans independent of one another? There doesn't seem to be a pan-Uralic layer of consistent Iranian loans. Indo-Iranian sure but not Iranian.
Gamayun would require a pulse to Yenisey for that hydronym in proto-Samoyedic. That pulse would have to take place between the formation of Gamayun around 1000 BCE and the disintegration of proto-Samoyedic at around 300 BCE. An intermediary culture would probably be required somehow.
@ Finngreek
''he Benko-Imre tree I found in that paper doesn't appear to show dual input for Samic, except for subsequent influence from Finnic itself - and the tree is also from 1971? If you find an updated discussion about "dual input" (ideally from the 21st century), feel free to link it.''
Linguistics isn't like aDNA where stupendous advances have been made in the past 5-10 years, so I don't think a publication being in 1971 somehow devalues its work. And it's not like modern 'updated' linguistic discusssions on Fino-Uralic have been scoring touchdowns.
I maintain the view that convergence and other language contact phenomena remain underappreciated phenomena in linguistics in general, apart from occasional works e.g. Garrett. But we can wait until aDNA shows variuos geneflows into Finland and northern Scandinavia to debate this further
The tree from Benko-Imre for people can check for themselves
https://imgur.com/Jzhcgqq
@ Zelto
'' I think it would highlight the importance of the Taiga/ST route. Moreover, linguistic evidence does not favour a PU - Tundra environment.'
But it does suggest sub-mesolithic sort of folk, of which the sub-taiga route was one component. Maybe it was a dead-end, but that remains to be seen.
Can you summarise what your suggesting, perhaps less in 'archaeological culture' terms (as these are often subjective classifications) but more in basic geography & chronology ?
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
You keep concluding that Kulai has to be Proto-Samoyedic, and that somehow this language development was different from the rest of Uralic, but you haven't made any linguistic arguments to support that claim. What is typologically/morphologically different about Samoyedic? Aikio 2022 states that the PU case system survived best in Sami, Mari, and Samoyedic. There is a "far-reaching congruence" between the Samoyedic predestinative and Finnic translative, with regular sound correspondence and exact semantic and functional equivalence. The Finnic translative otherwise only has a parallel in Mordvin and perhaps Mari: Not Ugric. The "conjunctive" suffix *-j is only continued in Sami and Samoyedic. Ugro-Samoyedic preserves dual number, but so does Sami. Clear reflexes of nominal dual *-k(V) are in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic, but not Hungarian. Possessive suffix order is preserved in West Uralic and Samoyedic, while the reverse order is found in Ugric and Permic. The paradigm of verbal conjugation in general can not be reconstructed; but the only clear mood, the 2SG imperative, is in Sami, Finnic, and Samoyedic. Ugro-Samoyedic has objective conjugation for definite objects, at least. Word formation is surprisingly similar between Finnic and Samoyedic, in both derivation and compounding. One of the only morphosyntactic rules reconstructed to PU is Finnic and Nenets evidence for nominative objects of 2nd-person imperatives; as well as bare predicate 3SG verbs in Finnish and Nenets. Samoyedic numerals are more divergent from FU, but this isn't a case for Ugro-Samoyedc. So what is your linguistic argument?
For whatever reason, the eastern Ananyino axe finds align exactly with the Khanty core zone. In Fig. 7, this area appears to be most similar to the western stretch of the LBA Krotovo culture, which reached the Ob in the east. Maybe someone more knowledgable on Krotovo can explain what cultural events postdate it; but it could be that Ananyino trade here was following a pre-existing path along the forest-steppe. As for Pan-Uralic Iranian loans, I already discussed that innovative loans have wider distributions in Uralic than archaic loans, the latter point which to me better reflects substratal II groups, whereas the former would fall under Scytho-Sarmatian influence on the Ananyino. The oldest Iranian loans that might have reached Samoyedic all present innovative phonology. The assignment of these loans to "Late Proto-Indo-Iranian", rather than "Iranian", is a formality due to Uralic-ST bias. There is no evidence for Uralic loans into II.
@Rob
There is actually a lot that has happened in Uralic linguistics since then: For example, the Finno-Volgaic clade is not considered valid anymore, but appears in the figure you provided. See Blazek 2012 (discussion also in Aikio 2022): https://www.academia.edu/81743487/Was_there_a_Volgaic_unity_within_Finno_Ugric_Finnisch_Ugrische_Forschungen_Helsinki_61_2012_29_91
I am not saying the paper is too old to be insulting: If a dual-input Samic origin has been corroborated, then there should be at least a few discussions in the past 55 years of Uralic publications. As I said, if you find some, please share them. I haven't seen them.
-
Not to be rude, but as much as I disagree with Häkkinen's views, I have to agree when he said that some users here do not pay enough attention to linguistics.
@FinnGreek
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you accept Häkkinen's homeland in the Urals and are trying to make that mesh with the spread of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry, correct? This means you have to reject the concurrency of late PIIr and the Uralic expansion. However, Late PIIr loanwords are widely considered a spatial/temporal anchor for the Uralic expansion and include words for metal tools, social hierarchy, trade, and a term for 'wax', possibly related to bronze casting. This phase of contact has been dated to ~2000 BC, which correspondes to the first known interactions between Steppe_MLBA and Yakutia_LNBA in West Siberia. Perhaps this does not HAVE to be the case, but such a date jives well with a Siberian homeland for Proto-Uralic. If Samoyedic speakers inhabited a higher latitude, that may explain their lack of early loans, while contact with Ugric was maintained.
As I mentioned earlier, tin-bronze artifacts have been found on Taimyr in a Ymmyakhtakh context. Furthermore, the Atlym culture was in contact with 'Andronoid' cultures and likewise made use of metal tools prior to its expansion. Isn't that a problem for Proto-Uralic?
https://nguhist.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/1486
@Rob
By the end of the 3rd millennium BC, hunter-gatherers from Southern Yakutia had spread to the Arctic, whilst related groups reached Krasnoyarsk. We know that the former expanded west, interacting with the northernmost cultures of Eastern Europe by the mid 2nd millennium BC.
Evidently, Yakutia_LNBA had also reached the West Siberian forest-steppe a few centuries earlier. Tentatively, I would wager that the latter arrived via waterways of the Taiga-zone, with the Krasnoyarsk group being indicatve of this; dead end, or not. At this stage, late PIIr may have been a lingua franca of the Seima-Turbino network, or were simply more active in the forest-zone. The ensuing cultural interaction led to an integration of newcomers within the trade network. Intermarraiges at Rostovka and Satyga-16 could be interpreted as evidence of alliance formation. The Yakutia_LNBA migration might then be traced with the 'Baikal' materials in ST sites, linguistically corresponding to Finno-Ugric or Common Uralic depending on your preferred phylogeny.
The North Ural cultures discussed above almost certainly played an important role in later developments, especially as they took part in the Comb-Cord and 'Classic' Ananyino cultures. However, I have a *feeling* that they alone won't be enough to explain the totality of Yakutia_LNBA ancestry in Eastern Europe. I'll reevaluate once the relevant unpublished samples are released.
Unless the dating for proto-Samoyedic is all out of whack they need to get Yenisei before disintegration as a hydronym which leaves Kulai in the best position. It also works thanks to the aforementioned migrations which gave rise to the Samoyedic components of Lower Ob culture and the fact that Ryolkin culture descends from it. Tagar doesn't fit due to it's lifestyle and genetics and penultimate fate.
ETYMOLOGICAL AND ETHNOHISTORICAL ASPECTS
OF THE YENISEI https://www.ejournals.eu/pliki/art/302/pl&ved=2ahUKEwjGr66W1OKMAxX4GRAIHXIYO1UQFnoECFcQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw2hZzsT7BerztqziUrGnuv9
@Zelto
I do not accept Häkkinen's homeland except for its geographical likelihood: I accept that the Upper Kama / Central Urals region was where Proto-Uralic would have first entered Europe in an Ananyino context. I do reject the synchronicity of late PII and Uralic expansion. It is undeniable that some form(s) of Indo-Iranian ~ Iranian had a major influence on disintegrated Uralic, but none of the semantic examples you listed can be reconstructed to Proto-Uralic, meaning a range including any distribution with both western Uralic and Samoyedic reflexes. There are currently (to my knowledge) only 4 loans with such a distribution: *pvnka 'psychedelic mushroom' < *b(h)anga, *c'vr(k)v '?gray/white' < *c'ar-, *tora 'fight' < *tara-, and *c'ada- 'rain' < *c'ad-. Note that three of these four loans are restricted to only West Uralic + Samoyedic distribution, with no Mari, Permic, or Ugric reflexes - only *pvnka has a wider distribution. Also, not all Uralicists support these loans as they are formally proposed, or even reject them entirely (I've seen heated debate from other researchers, esp. on *c'ada-). There are no relevant terms for metallurgy, trade, wax, animals, hierarchy etc. until we get to Finno-Ugric/Permic, which again are now generally viewed as areal rather than phylogenetic. The above Samoyedic-inclusive II > U loans do not phonologically require an early dating, if they are even correct.
It is uncontroversial that Samoyedic occupied the Minusinsk Basin, so this makes it extraneous and ad hoc to propose that Pre-Proto-Samoyedic was at a much higher latitude in order to avoid longstanding external contacts with II. Aikio 2022, Janhunen 2009 etc. discuss how similar Finnic and Samoyedic are morphologically, and Blazek 2016 continues this on a lexical basis. The current II loan proposals inclusive of Finnic and Samoyedic would also weaken this argument.
Lozva-Atlym had some examples of small-scale domestic metalwork, but this is negligible compared to the "factories" of Mezhovskaya, Itkul, Akozino-Akhmylovo, etc. Gamayun were originally fleeing an environmental crisis rather than expanding their economy, so any original term they might have had for metal could have been replaced by cultures with more advanced technology. I don't think Lozva-Atlym refugees were teaching ST-derived cultures how to do metallurgy. The Mezhovskaya were the Andronoid southern neighbors of Lozva-Atlym before the former abandoned their sites. The Gamayun-Ananyino scene could have just been adapting to different local metal economies as it expanded, which would explain irregular Wanderworts for metal and limited areal distributions.
Does Lozva-Atlym not count as a Siberian homeland for Proto-Uralic? I do not specifically assign Yakutia_LNBA / kra001 as the demic component originally responsible for Uralic expansion, but am open to it for now, as I am open to N-L1026 relatives of BOO, as Davidski previously had suggested as early Uralic speakers. Or maybe another N1a subclade with high density near the mouth of the Ob should be considered. Archaeogenetics is not my field to say which is most likely.
@ Finngreek
There is actually a lot that has happened in Uralic linguistics since then: For example, the Finno-Volgaic clade is not considered valid anymore, but appears in the figure you provided. See Blazek 2012 (discussion also in Aikio 2022): https://www.academia.edu/81743487/Was_there_a_Volgaic_unity_within_Finno_Ugric_Finnisch_Ugrische_Forschungen_Helsinki_61_2012_29_91
I am not saying the paper is too old to be insulting: If a dual-input Samic origin has been corroborated, then there should be at least a few discussions in the past 55 years of Uralic publications. As I said, if you find some, please share them. I haven't seen them.
-
Not to be rude, but as much as I disagree with Häkkinen's views, I have to agree when he said that some users here do not pay enough attention to linguistics.''
I am familiar with Blazek's works. There’s some controversy around glottochronology. Is linguistics really liable to statistical analysis (e.g. Mordvin is 43.9% is closer to Finnic). Really ?
IMO this is an attempt to modernise and 'sexy up' the discipline by contemporary linguists. Similar with the articles using fluxus network analysis on lexical terms, e.g. allegedly showing affinities between PIE and Native American languages, then some LARPing geno-amateurs started coming up with silly theories about PIE coming from Siberia.
Let's be real - due to the limitations of reconstruction and loss of evidence, linguistics alone cannot resolve intricate phylogeny issues nor population histories, and the often wrong platforms on which the assumptions were based render exisint models as problematic. Linguistics gives a general guide for more detailed models which utilise propper anthropology (rather than the sort of vague ethnographic analogies commonly employed) and a correct understranding of aDNA rather than outdated or amateurish understanding of genetics (e.g. your colleague JH who still subscribes to a simplisti bi-polar physical anthopology model of 'eastern Eskimos' and 'western Uralics').
Nothing wrong with experimenting with 'word stats' of course, but the best thing for linguists to do focus on classical comparative methodology and hope for new material discoveries. And follow the handful of genetic anthropologists who tend to know what they're talking about.
@Rob
I agree that computerized models can be exaggerated or even meaningless depending on the author and data, but in any case the obsolescence of Finno-Volgaic is basically unanimous in mainstream Uralic linguistics now. This was likewise the fate of Finno-Ugric, Finno-Permic, Finno-Samic; and now West Uralic, Ugro-Samoyedic, and even Ugric itself as a branch. The agnostic "comb model" has become increasingly popular in recent publications, since diversification occurred too rapdily to be informative. I never said that DNA should be ignored: I just want the genetic and cultural components to complement the linguistic evidence.
@Zelto
By the way, I wanted to bring up your mention of the Uralic term loaned from II ~ "Indo-Aryan" for 'wax', *s'ishta (Holopainen 2019: 249). This word is only reconstructed to Mordvinic, Mari, and Permic (the three branches that remained near the Volga-Kama interfluve), which is not by any means its own clade. However, the term is regular in all three languages, which means it goes back to either Proto-Uralic or at least a Finno-Permic sprachbund, which already had to be in Europe due to e.g. FP *mekshv 'European honeybee' and *metv 'honey'. If we are to correlate this term with bronze casting, then it's an excellent piece of evidence that FP ~ U metallurgy originally centered on the Volga-Kama interfluve, i.e. Ananyino + Akozino-Akhmylovo. There is not any other II loan for wax into even descendant Uralic branches that I am aware of. Either II > U metallurgical influence spread from the Volga-Kama, or we have to discount that the loan was relevant to bronze casting.
@ Zelto
Yep perhaps the more integreated, southerly Yakutia-LN derived groups were more important for post-Samoyedic expansion west of the Urals whilst northwestern cousins of Yakutia_LN are relevant for Samoyedic expansions. If so, it would be interesting to evaluate if these groups moved further west to mix in with CCC type folks before being overlaid by later, Iron Age expansions of para-Baltic and post-Ugric groups.
I would not be surprised if pre-proto-Saami groups were in central-southern Finland by 1500 BC, I think the commonly accepted chronology is too late. We know that early PGMc was already existing, or at least well onto the way of developing, in southern Scandinavia by 2000 BC. By 1500 BC, Nordic BA groups had reached SW Finland. Secondly, one of the individuals from BOO was associated with a Nordic Bronze Age axe. If northern outposts show evidence of contacts with Nordic groups by 1500 BC, then the southern core regions must have already been earnestly so. I would wonder if Sarsa-Tomitsa ware is associated with pre-proto-Saami arriving to Finland
There is also the Proto-Yukaghir and Proto-Samoyedic contacts as proposed in "The Uralic-Yukaghir lexical correspondences: genetic inheritance, language contact or chance resemblance?" by Aikio. Minusinsk homeland would require association with Tagar culture or Tashtyk.
@Rob
If you want to get Pre-Proto-Samic in Finland by 2000-1500 BCE, then you have to first contradict the lexical evidence, e.g. Häkkinen 2022 on Para-Slavic loans into Sami, which pushes the terminus post quem of WU areal dispersal to ca. 500 BCE.
https://www.academia.edu/75917854/Recurring_irregularities_in_West_Uralic_1_Para_Slavic_loanwords
It's also funny to me that you consider Samic migration to Finland in the context of clear Akozino-Akhmylovo (as previously cited) or even Ananyino trajectories with numerous finds and a demic component as "invisible", but one BOO individual with a NBA axe is "earnest" evidence of a PPS migration from a "southern core" to northern outposts. I would check your bias; along with Norfern's willful ignorance of Samoyedic historical linguistics, and Zelto's "feelings". Hopefully Davidski can at least interpret archaeogenetic data from my expansion model, or contradict the evidence for a productive debate. Otherwise, I'm not interested in circling around non-starters in hopes for a landing.
It had been a while since I checked, but it turns out that two of the Y-hg Q Rostovka samples made it on to FTDNA discovery. ROT004 belongs to a typical WSHG clade, but ROT017 is really interesting. He's downstream from the main CisBaikal_LNBA branch. This might be confirmation of two distinct sources of 'Baikal'/East Siberian materials in Seima-Turbino, further complicating the picture.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/Q-BZ2200/tree
Childebayeva et al. modeled him with roughly 50% Yakutia_LNBA. Although, some of that is probably standing in for CisBaikal_LNBA. As Copper Axe pointed out in his blog post, there is a discrepancy between the Zeng and Childebayeva papers; in the former "burial 34" is a genetic female, in the latter the burial belongs to ROT017. There's no mention of a double burial.
Here's all the post-Afanasievo cultures in terms of genetics in Minusinsk basin.
Target: Russia_IA_Tashtyk:LC8544
Distance: 4.1326% / 0.04132556
58.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
20.2 Russia_Lokomotiv_Eneolithic.SG
16.2 Russia_Afanasievo
5.0 Russia_Tyumen_HG
Target: Russia_IA_Tashtyk:KE9609
Distance: 4.4811% / 0.04481145
72.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
19.6 Russia_Lokomotiv_Eneolithic.SG
7.8 Russia_Tyumen_HG
Target: Russia_Tagar.SG
Distance: 1.3408% / 0.01340814
58.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
18.0 Russia_Lokomotiv_Eneolithic.SG
17.8 Russia_Afanasievo
6.2 Russia_Tyumen_HG
Target: Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG
Distance: 2.0713% / 0.02071274
64.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
15.0 Russia_Tyumen_HG
14.6 Russia_Lokomotiv_Eneolithic.SG
5.8 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG
From archaeological and genetic evidence I think a Minusinsk homeland can be ruled out. The only arguments I saw in favor of it based it on areal linguistics alone.
https://www.academia.edu/45034529/The_emergence_of_the_Tagar_culture
New archaeological evidence from the Lower Ob’ indicates the onset of reindeer herding as early as 260 BC, creating novel transport possibilities in taiga and tundra (Gusev 2014; Losey et al. 2020). Following these discoveries, the history of reindeer domestication has been connected to the spread of Samoyedic language in recent publications. However, presumptions that the new herding practice emerged in the Sayan-Altai region around c. 2000 years ago and was rapidly taken north thousands of kilometres by speakers of northern Samoyed (Khanina 2022) are not supported by the chronological and material evidence. Instead, a scenario of two independent instances of reindeer domestication in southern and in northern Siberia, respectively, must be further explored. Janhunen (2022) suggests that ProtoSamoyedic would have been spoken within the Tagar culture of the Minusinsk basin at the upper Yenisei in the 1st mill. BC. However, both archaeologically and genetically, the Tagar culture and its individuals seem to be strongly related to the steppe tradition (AbashevoSintashta – Andronovo – Scytho-Saka) which has been plausible related to the Proto-IndoIranian to Iranian language branches (Jeong et al. 2020). Altogether, an expansion of Samoyed languages from the Altai – Sayan region northwards along the river Yenisei seems possible also on geographical grounds, but the detailed dynamics and timing of these processes remains currently open.
https://bedlan.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/OHAL_Uralic_Vesakoski-Salmela-Piezonka.pdf
Kulai seems to be associated with Ugric too. Could be that both brances were spoken there, and as the phylogeny remains unresolved who knows what that may mean.
But I would love to hear your line of thought on Samoyedic dispersal into the east beyond just Gamayun and Ananyino stages.
@Zelto
If you want more information on why the Proto-Samoyedic homeland is located to the Minusinsk Basin, read the following publications:
Janhunen 2012: https://www.academia.edu/44351079/Etymological_and_ethnohistorical_aspects_of_the_Yenisei
Blazek 2016 (Ctrl+f "Helimski", "Janhunen" for earlier discussions on the homeland and sprachbund): https://www.academia.edu/81743635/On_the_classification_of_the_Samoyedic_languages_Finnisch_Ugrische_Forschungen_63_2016_79_125
Piispanen 2018: https://www.academia.edu/38215552/Turkic_lexical_borrowings_in_Samoyed
Peyrot 2019, "The deviant typological profile of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European may be due to Uralic substrate influence": https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/7/1/article-p72_3.xml
You will find different arguments for the absolute chronology of various events in each, so just focus on the linguistic boundaries.
You already know that we are not just talking about Atlym in general, but specifically Gamayun migrations and their impact on Ananyino. I have not been ambiguous about this. It doesn't matter what use wax had in Siberia: The only term we have for it in Uralic is exclusive to the Volga-Kama interfluve. You brought up 'wax' as an argument for metallurgical relations with II speakers, and the evidence worked against you. There is not otherwise regular evidence for II metallurgial influence on Proto-Uralic, nor the other semantic categories you described. How many times do I have to explain that these cultural categories, which were central to the ST lifestyle, are entirely absent from PU? You said that Late PII is the anchor for "Uralic" expansion, but now you are saying it should only be viewed in the context of an FU group: So what happened to Samoyedic if it is not phylogenetically distant from West Uralic languages, and may even contain II loans exclusive to them? It seems that your argument about PU not being linguistically tenable in the Arctic is likewise unfounded, since the Lower Ob agrees with virtually every lexical boundary. I think you should stick to arguments specific to whatever field you are best-versed in, rather than linguistics.
@Norfern
Aikio 2014 discusses that Yukaghir may have been earlier located as far west as the Yenisei, and originated from there towards its present distribution. This would be in agreement with Proto-Samoyedic in the Minusinsk in regards to loaning.
@Finngreek
In regards to Late PIIr loans, I was refferring to Finno-Ugric, or a linguistic continuum (xSamoyedic) assuming a 'rake'-like phylogeny. NOT Proto-Uralic.
Is there anything substantive that requires a Proto-Samoyedic homeland in the Minusinsk Basin, or that makes northern latitudes less probable? Appealing to recieved wisdom seems like special pleading, especially considering that your own model is quite heterodox.
Your rational behind the loss of hypothetical indigenous metallurgical words points to another problem. In the archaeological literature, Atlym-derived cultures are described as dissolving within the cultural environments of their more advanced neighbors. By what mechanism were they affecting language change? It seems more likely that their language would have been a substrate. Also, I do think the Estonian Tarand graves were influenced in some way by Ananyino (Comb-Cord or Akozino-Akhmylovo), but this must have been a complex process. KAM axes = Finnic 'warrior-traders' is overly simplistic. I don't have time to give that topic justice right now-- maybe later.
We already have samples that precede the expansion of Atlym-derived cultures with Yakutia_LNBA ancestry. These are BOO and RISE523 dated to 1531-1403 calBCE from Kapova Cave. This holds true even with a ~400 year accommodation for potential reservoir effect. There are plenty of unpublished samples from the LBA Volga-Kama basin, let's wait and see.
Those IIr loans you mentioned (i.e. 'honeybee', 'honey') and 'wax' are all related to apiculture. This was very important for making mead. Therefore, the natural range of the European honeybee is not a restriction. Wax was given a new use in Siberia with the spread of wax casting. That doesn't nessacarily mean that it was borrowed into Uralic in that use, but that is one hypothesis.
@Norfern
We already talked about this. Ananyino gets Ugric (and thereby Samoyedic in the context of Ugro-Samoyedic, e.g. exclusive but irregular sibilant developments) to the Khanty core zone, from where Samoyedic-specific migrations could have either happened towards Surgut (which was not far and on the same river system, keeping in mind that riparian travel was characteristic of Uralic speakers), or perhaps it could have traveled on the aforementioned post-Krotovo forest-steppe path, which stretched close to the Ob-Chulym interluve (this however requires further cultural discussion). Ugric would have had a regular word for 'horse' by this point, although we'd have to presume it was replaced by a later loan in Samoyedic if it had the word at all. Word replacement in this context is not remotely controversial across world languages, however.
I already stated that I am not opposed to locating (Pre-)Proto-Samoyedic to either the Kulai or canonical Tagar. In either case, it is linguistically understood that Proto-Samoyedic entered a zone where other languages were already present, which means there is no formal reason to assume that either the Kulai or Tagar culture had to be initiated by Samoyedic speakers: Only occupied by them. There is no chronological objection.
If you think that a Minusinsk homeland for the Proto-Samoyedic language can be ignored on the grounds that it is "only" substantiated by linguistics, then we have a more important problem with how you interpret data in general. If you think that you can conclude where a proto-language was located without consulting its linguistic evidence, you don't understand how language works, which means we have no reason to continue this discussion. You should not be making or discounting any claims as it pertains to the origin or expansion of Samoyedic, Uralic, or any language group, because you don't have the wherewithal.
@Zelto
I already replied to your now-deleted, unedited comment above. As for the revisions:
1. It seems like a "special pleading of received wisdom" to you, because you aren't familiar with the material. This is a decades-old discussion in Uralic linguistics that has nothing to do with my original research.
2. It doesn't matter whether BOO or other samples can be found in Europe before Ananyino. BOO would have reached its destination(s) before Lozva-Atlym ethnogenesis and its later exodus was complete. It is generally understood in historical linguistics that the first (potential) speakers of a language in an area do not finalize the nature of the proto-language: The last speakers before its expansion do. It's well-understood that the local Volga-Kama and Central Urals cultures in question did not lose their continuity until Gamayun and Ananyino emerged. BOO ancestry could have been pouring into the Volga-Kama for centuries before the Gamayun migrations that transformed local cultures under Ananyino influence. Anyway, I can't infer anything from unpublished samples.
@Finngreek
Gamayun belongs to the circle of Cross ceramic cultures, which have their origin in the Atlym culture. 'Atlym-derived', understood?
'Uralic expansion' as in 'Common Uralic', or 'FU (xSamoyedic)'. I'm not sure why you are getting so caught up in sematics because I've already clarified what I said. Were there PIIr speakers in the Arctic? If not, a Finno-Ugric (xSamoyedic) homeland in the Arctic is not tenable. As you know, most Uralicists do favour a forest-zone homeland for Proto-Uralic. Later 'andronoid' influence spread widely across the forest-zone and Samoyedic 'might' have acquired any IIr loans specific to them at this stage.
How did the 'wax' argument work against me? As you stated, the term was borrowed into PU or Finno-Ugric. It was lost outside of Mordvinic, Mari, and Permic. So what? Can't loanwords can be preserved areally, irrespective of where they were initially borrowed?
I am aware that many linguists believe the Minusinsk Basin is the homeland of Proto-Samoyedic. That's not what I asked. Throwing links around is not productive unless you are citing something specific. I can send you multiple recent articles that endorse 'Uralic-ST'.
To be clear, I do think the Cross ceramic cultures were important, especially in regards to later Uralic populations. I have already stated as much. However, you seem to have a poor understanding of the cultural developments that led to the formation of the Ananyino cultures. I have no idea what you mean by Volga-Kama and Central Ural cultures 'losing their continuity'. That's completely unfounded. The Anayino horizon is made up of multiple cultures, united by common characteristics emanating from Maklasheevo/Post-Maklasheevo. They formed on the basis of local LBA cultures (i.e. Netted Ware, Maklasheevo, Lebyazh, and other 'post-Garino' formations). The main cultural innovators were Post-Maklasheevo and Akozino-Akhmylovo due to their Caucasus + Steppe contacts and more productive economy. The formation of the Comb-Cord and Classical Ananyino cultures probably involved some influence from Atlym-derived (not only Gamayun) populations. What is your evidence for Gamayun influence on Akozino-Akhmylovo and Post-Maklasheevo? There might have been some interaction along the Beleya ('Kurmantau' variant of Maklasheevo), but hardly anything transformative. The Gamayun culture itself was largely assimilated by Itkul. Where is the supposed loss of continuity? Evidence for Ananyino influence on the D'yakovo and Gorodets cultures is similarly limited. Is that not problematic for Volga-Finns?
Janhunen 2012 bases the Minusinsk homeland based on areal and typological distribution, but also leaves open a homeland between Ob and Yenisei rivers.
Helimski 2000 mentions that proto-Samoyedic had reindeer herding vocabulary. Kulai culture had reindeer herding. Not so sure about Tagar.
https://arheologija.ru/kulajskaya-kultura/
Helimski also highlight the lack of Indo-Iranian loans in Samoyedic, which doesn't favor intrusion into the Scythoid Tagar culture.
Now Turkic loans are an interesting conundrum. Even with a Minusinsk homeland, the Uyuk culture is in the way of Slab Grave Culture. Perhaps Xiongnu played a part?
https://history.novosibdom.ru/kulayskaya-kultura-v-gunno-sarmatskoe-vremya-ii-v-do-n-e-v-v-n-e
Samoyedic Tocharian interaction would place Samoyedic entry way earlier.
We do have a sample from a bit downstream from Minusinsk basin in Krasnoyarsk around 1000 BCE.
Target: Russia_LBA_2.SG:RISE554_noUDG.SG
Distance: 3.8220% / 0.03822049
66.6 Russia_AngaraRiver_BA.SG
14.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
10.6 Russia_Tyumen_HG
8.0 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG
0.8 Russia_Uelen_OldBeringSea
Could have borrowed some loans into Proto-Samoyedic.
As for the Irtysh Ishim interfluve, the Krasnoozersk culture existed there. It formed on the basis of the Irmen, Suzgun and Barkhatovskaya cultures and an intrusive Cross-shaped ceramic culture.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kompleksy-krasnoozerskoy-kultury-ishimo-irtyshya
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/perehodnoe-vremya-ot-bronzovogo-veka-k-zheleznomu-na-territorii-priishimya-itogi-i-problemy-izucheniya
https://arheologija.ru/sherstobitova-krasnoozerskaya-kultura-v-srednem-priirtyishe-dinamika-razvitiya/
Later it would be succeeded by the Sargat culture, which however seems to be a further western intrusion based on Itkul culture.
So in short I don't think there is much linguistic support for Tagar culture. I think the most important aspect is reindeer herding vocabulary. Minusinsk basin and Kulai are both capable of interacting with surrounding cultures and the Yenisei, and Turkic loans during the Xiongnu period work for either region.
Maybe the reason why Uralic phylogeny is so hard to resolve is because instead of a clean phylogeny there is a webbed ancestry among all these languages. Basically the effects of sprachbunds and intrusions overshadow any sort of phylogeny, and in fact speaking of a true phylogeny would be meaningless altogether.
@Zelto
You think that I need you of all people to send me articles about Uralic-ST? You didn't even know about Samoyedic-Minusinsk. It's clear this isn't your field, and that's fine - but stop pretending like it is. I don't debate with people on archaeogenetics. It's one thing to ask questions, but another to feign a background. It was generous of me to provide you with free, full-text articles relevant to the very question you passive-aggressively asked. It is not my responsibility to spoonfeed you research from those articles that you didn't read. You asked for "anything substantive", and you got it.
If you are going to paraphrase what I stated, then do it correctly: I said the only term for 'wax' was borrowed regularly from II into a Finno-Permic sprachbund - not Finno-Ugric. You now want to argue that a loan only found on the Volga-Kama interfluve, where there was a major metallurgical culture associated with western Uralic diversification while in close contact with Iranian, should by default be searched for somewhere outside of that area? Academia favors parsimony. The II > Uralic loans for 'axe', 'handle', 'wax', 'iron', 'gold' etc. are all limited to FP or even WU. The only more widespread loan for metal is an irregular Wanderwort with an unknown source and different meanings, from 'bronze/copper' to 'iron', 'lead' or even just 'a kind of metal'. Words for '(elk) calf', 'cow/horse', 'foal', 'pig', etc. are again FP, and more often just WU. How long do you want to continue this charade of Siberian intercultural marriages that shaped Proto-Uralic as it spread westward through ST Siberia? You have no evidence. Häkkinen 2023 doesn't even associate Uralic with ST until it already reached the Central Urals.
I already discussed that Atlym was multidirectional over different stages, so we have to discern Gamayun-Ananyino developments from the greater scene of Atlym dispersal. Also, Lozva-Atlym was an Arctic forest zone, as you don't know. You don't know what most Uralicists favor in general: You still think Finno-Ugric is valid.
"I have no idea what you mean by Volga-Kama and Central Ural cultures 'losing their continuity'. That's completely unfounded". Again, not my fault you aren't familiar with the material. We've been talking about it here for maybe 5 days now. Parpola 2022 discusses that Ananyino interrupted the ST material tradition; Kuzminykh & Chizhevsky 2017 discusses the formation of Ananyino during Gamayun-Itkul migrations; Klima 1996 discusses the pottery boundary between Djakovo-Gorodets and Ananyino; and Saarikivi 2022 ilustrates that the Finnic core zone surpassed Djakovo - unless you mean "Volga-Finns" as in Finno-Volgaic, which is obsolete.
"What is your evidence for Gamayun influence on Akozino-Akhmylovo and Post-Maklasheevo?"
I never made this claim. The Akozino-Akhmylovo sites were the two primary Ananyino sites. Only Ananyino itself had to influence Akozino-Akhmylovo at this point (800-500 BCE). The latter would have already contained the required demographic (i.e. linguistic) component by then.
I've explained enough to you, even though you've already demonstrated that you are now arguing in bad faith. Let me know when you have any evidence to outline and substantiate your own beliefs, other than your "feelings".
@Norfern
"As for the Irtysh Ishim interfluve, the Krasnoozersk culture existed there. It formed on the basis of the Irmen, Suzgun and Barkhatovskaya cultures and an intrusive Cross-shaped ceramic culture."
The Cross-shaped ceramic cultural intrusion sounds interesting to me, although that doesn't necessarily connect it with Post-Ananyino directly, since separate Gamayun migrations were already taking place up the Irtysh tributaries by then. I'll have to look at the links later, because I'm about to head out for Easter. I'll send you another comment if I want to discuss something in them.
Whether we try to favor Samoyedic in the Tagar culture or first in the Kulai, at some point it is clear that at least part of Proto-Samoyedic or an archaic Samoyedic dialect continuum had to settle in the Minusinsk in order to access the Yenisei. From what I've seen studying the map area, the Chulym (already associated with PSy. by e.g. Saarikivi) was by far the most direct path between the Ob and Yenisei. The Chulym and Yenisei in the Minusinsk are only a few miles apart, while the rest of the area between the Ob and Yenisei was/is untranversable forests and mountains. Samoyedic apparently had to loan into Yukaghir (I'll leave Uralo-Yukaghir macrotheory out of this for now) on the Yenisei, and Samoyedic itself used it as a northward migratory path.
Russians are Finno-Ugrians assimilated by Slavic tribes
@Norfern
From the first article you shared ("Krasnoozerskaya culture in the Middle Irtysh region: development dynamics"), it seems that if I want an archaeological/cultural context for my model of Ananyino east to the Ishim-Irtysh and beyond, I would need to date the arrival of Ugric + Samoyedic speakers to during or after the Inberen stage of the Krasnoozersk, when the local Suzgun and Irmen traditions received the "alien cross" interaction. Late Inberen monuments can be synchronized with the formation of Zhuravlevka-type dishes ca. 600-300 BCE in the Middle Irtysh region.
In the paper "Комплексы красноозерской культуры Ишимо-Иртышья", I found very interesting information from p. 52 onward. Fragments of typical Itkul and Gamayun pottery are found at Mergen 6, which is a unique group of ceramics of mixed appearance, combining features of the Krasnoozerskaya and Itkul cultures. Some cases exhibit typical ornamentation of the Itkul culture of the Trans-Urals. Mergen 6 is located just outside modern-day Ishim, which is virtually exactly where the Ananyino axe trail begins east towards the Irtysh, even on the same side of the river (I need to find the name of this site). The dough contains talc, which is characteristic of Trans-Urals ceramics. Cluster analysis of 19 main ornamentation features unites the Mergen 6 settlement with a group of settlements of the late Inberen stage of the Krasnoozersk culture of the Irtysh region, and in particular with one of them, Alekseyevka XIX, which is just south of the Irtysh-Tara interfluve. The is likewise the approximate location of the easternmost Ananyino axe find (again, I need to find the name of this site), although on the other side of the river. It seems we may have archaeological evidence for an overland route in the Krasnoozersk culture, on which both Ananyino axes and Gamayun-Itkul ceramics were transmitted.
The dates of the Itkul culture ca. 700-200 BCE (Parpola 2013) and the "latest" Inberen monuments ca. 600-300 BCE seem like a promising correlation to me, although I will have to spend more time with this data. In any case, I am optimistic about this data for the explanation of Ugric ethnogenesis from relatively synchronous Ananyino and Itkul impulses, which were both influenced by the Gamayun. I appreciate you sharing this data with me.
I did not find much new information in the third article, since it's mostly a review of other research, but I did find this excerpt important to add to the discussion: "For all complexes with cross-shaped ceramics in the south of Western Siberia, the problem of the origins of this tradition remains unresolved. Research in recent years does not allow us to unambiguously link it with the Atlym culture [Koksharov, 2007, p. 53]."
Кокшаров С.Ф. Памятники атлымской культуры на реке Ендырь // Археология, этнография и антропо логия Евразии. Новосибирск. 2007
This paper states on p. 59 that connections between the Surgut Ob population and their western neighbors (e.g. Ananyino) are indicated not only by the composition of site metals, but also by ceramics of the Gamayun culture found in the settlements of Barsova Gora II/16 and I/10a [Kuzminykh, Chemyakin, 1998, p. 114]. Meanwhile, on p. 60: "The listed discrepancies (of site finds) do not provide grounds for considering the Yendyr VIII settlement complex as a derivative of the “classical” Atlym ceramics found in the layer of the Malo-Atlym II settlement."
@Norfern
All of this is to say that specifically Gamayun ~ Itkul finds are located to both the Surgut Ob and Ishim-Irtysh. The latter also contains Ananyino finds in the same linear areal distribution. I view this as a promising, chronologically appropriate extension of my current model. Meanwhile, the question of specifically Atlym influence up the Ob is a more ambiguous problem. The conclusion in Koksharov 2007 goes into more discussion about this, if you'd like to check it out. This is of course not to say that Atlym influece didn't exist, but that it does not need to be prioritized over Gamayun-Itkul and Ananyino influence on an archaeological basis for Uralic expansion.
Still, this evidence does not entirely answer whether I should model the Samoyedic trajectory as a direct Irtysh-Ob-Chulym riparian migration, or if perhaps some extension beyond the Ishim-Irtysh path (e.g. up the Tara river to an overland route connecting to an Ob tributary towards the Chulym) should still be considered. I am already biased towards the former, singular riparian path due to its parsimony, as well as Samoyedic riparian terms going back to Proto-Uralic. This would also agree better with your proponency for the Kulai as Samoyedic. I guess then Kulai can subsume Tagar. If you have more articles you'd like to share regarding the Kulai-Samoyedic connection, let me know, thanks.
@Finngreek
I'm arguing in bad faith? You're the one operating under the pseudonym of your pet-theory. What you 'provided' is contrived nonsense and your stunted Proto-Uralic chronology has no mainstream support. You haven't engaged with what I've said and clearly have a penchant for wasting time. Citing linguists like Parpola on archeological matters and arrogantly flaunting your ignorance of the underlying literature. You keep pleading to Davidski for genetic evidence. Go ahead and ask him, CopperAxe, Norfern, Rob, or any other knowledgeable participants if they believe Proto-Uralic speakers were heavily Steppe_MLBA and EHG -admixed like 'Ananyino' were. I'll wait.
'I said the only term for 'wax' was borrowed regularly from II into a Finno-Permic sprachbund - not Finno-Ugric.'
No, you said: 'it goes back to either Proto-Uralic or at least a Finno-Permic sprachbund.' Regarding 'Common Uralic' terminology related to trade items and materials, see: Grünthal et al. 2022, (Supplement S2).
'Kuzminykh & Chizhevsky 2017 discusses the formation of Ananyino during Gamayun-Itkul migrations; Klima 1996 discusses the pottery boundary between Djakovo-Gorodets and Ananyino; and Saarikivi 2022 ilustrates that the Finnic core zone surpassed Djakovo - unless you mean "Volga-Finns" as in Finno-Volgaic, which is obsolete.'
None of this contradicts what I told you above. If you think it does, your reading comprehension needs improvement. 'Volga-Finns', as in Uralic speakers who historically inhabited the Volga-Oka region and Mordvins. 'Finno-Ugric (xSamoyedic)', i.e. post-dispersal Uralic languages excluding Samoyedic, irrespective of phylogenic model... More semantic strawmaning from you.
"The Akozino-Akhmylovo sites were the two primary Ananyino sites. Only Ananyino itself had to influence Akozino-Akhmylovo at this point (800-500 BCE). The latter would have already contained the required demographic (i.e. linguistic) component by then."
'Ananyino' is not a cultural monolith and includes Akozino-Akhmylovo. You are severely exaggerating the archaeologically visable influence Gamayun had on Ananyino as a whole. You would know that if you understood the literature you claim to have read. Volumes 2 and 3 here might be useful.
http://archtat.ru/arheologiya-volgo-uralya/
"I don't debate with people on archaeogenetics."
If you crave a linguistic -based discussion, I suggest you make an account on this forum. https://genarchivist.net/index.php
There's a gentleman named 'Jaska' who regularly comments there. I'm sure he would love to hear about why Proto-Uralic must date to ~600 BC in order to accommodate 'Helleno-Uralic'. Maybe you can post about it on your 'Finngreek' branded- website, Reddit, Academia.edu, Instagram, YouTube, MySpace, Yahoo Messenger, LinkedIn, Vimeo, Facebook, and X accounts.
@Zelto
Lots of feelings! I never dated PU to 600 BCE. You don't know what Finno-Ugric is. You don't know that "Common Uralic" is a term and concept original to Grünthal et al. 2022, and does not otherwise appear in the body of Uralic literature with the exception of Häkkinen 2023, which itself is a brand-new and uncorroborated Proto-Uralic model that only mentions "CU" in a "5-U" system where it is dubbed "U4", and otherwise does not appear in the text. You don't even know that Jaska is Häkkinen. I would like for you to know these things, but you prefer to "feel". If I want to talk to a linguist, I e-mail them: I don't haunt a genetics forum. Get some sleep: It's late in Toronto. Good night!
The conclusion of Koksharov mostly discusses the lack of study regarding the Atlym culture but doesn't de-emphasize it's importance in the study of southern Siberian culture of the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age. In fact it emphasizes the importance of clarifying the nature of Atlym culture for these cultures.
As for Gamayun, the vessels date to the latter stage of Atlym culture, so this to me mostly seems like cross cultural exchange and not a vector of linguistic migration. In fact since the vessels date to this period, then the vector through which Uralic would spread would be the source of Gamayun culture (most likely Atlym) to Gamayun culture back to Atlym culture, which then passes it onto Beloyarsk and Molchanovo cultures. So it's a sort of re-entry model.
I am in contact with many of the linguists mentioned in this Uralic discussion, and the level of debate here is so poor that many of the points are not even wrong. For one, you can speak directly to many of the linguists who mention a Minusinsk homeland for Samoyedic, and find that their commitment to a location so far south for Samoyedic is really not as strong as you would think, especially in light of the newest archaeogenetic evidence. Go and look back at the linguistic arguments for so specific a localization. The linguists themselves will acknowledge that they are not airtight. Sometimes linguistic hypotheses are first proposed when the evidence is not so solid yet, and then survive due to academic inertia.
On the other hand, you will find that all Uralicists universally reject a Arctic route for Uralic arrival into Europe, or even a route deep into the Taiga that is far removed from Iranic steppe populations further south, because the linguistic evidence against this is overwhelming. This is something no Uralicist will budge on, and if you understood the arguments you'd understand why.
And this hang-up about the status of "common Uralic"--this is simply a label Holopainen used for when the languages have already split, but no branch-specific sound changes have set in yet. There is nothing untrustworthy about a new label being assigned to a stage of the evolution of Uralic languages that must have occurred as a matter of course. No one needed to do as fine a stratification of Indo-Iranian loanwords into Uralic languages as Holopainen did, and so he had to assign a new label. The fact that this label was not used before in Uralic linguistics does not detract from it, and the fact that everyone after him has referenced this label is evidence that others don't find that objectionable at all.
How and when did E-V13 rise to prominence in the east balkans? Late bronze age? Early iron age? Is it tied to Thracians?
@Finngreek
'I never dated PU to 600 BCE'
The chronology isn't exact because this period falls within the Hallstatt Plateau. However, in the ~6/5th centuries, BC Akozino-Akhmylovo, Post-Maklasheevo, and Vyatka-Vetluga (Comb-Cord) cultures began expanding, primarily to the northwest. The latter particularly so, as they had a subsistence economy geared towards hunting and fishing in the sparsly inhabited north. Perhaps you believe Proto-Uralic expanded immediately after the Ananyino cultures formed? I will state this again, 'Ananyino' refers to a cultural horizon, which includes multiple distinct cultures. They are united by shared features emanating from Post-Maklasheevo. You need to be more specific.
'You don't even know that Jaska is Häkkinen'
I guess my sarcasm didn't land. Also, 'you don't know' isn't exactly a convincing line of argumentation. Especially since it should be evident that I do.
'I would like for you to know these things, but you prefer to "feel".'
It's ironic that you keep bringing this up. I was hinting at something with the double asterisks in the context of my comment. I'm not going to spell it out for you.
Also, I was merely reciprocating your tone. I'd be happy to have a civil conversation, although I think this one has run its course.
Contrary to what you've claimed, I haven't presented myself as anything that I'm not. I believe that the spread of Yakutia_LNBA coincides with Seima-Turbino and a modified version of what was proposed in Grünthal et al. 2022. NOT that Uralic was a lingua franca of ST or that early Uralic speakers were bronze- ladened 'warrior-traders.' They would have directly participated to some extent, as is visable at Rostovka, but primarily migrated along the ST riverine trade routes. I can concede that there are uncertainties with this model, as I have earlier in this thread. It's not a matter of being married to it.
Regarding the Atlym culture, there is nothing particularly unique about it; except for maybe its later expansion. It's one of many post-Eneolithic cultures with Comb ceramics in the northern forests (e.g., Lebyazh, Atamannyur, Late Kargopol and Late Belomorian at an early stage, etc.). Most of these cultures had contacts with Circum-Polar Ymyyakhtakh or Korshakov groups to their north and 'andronoid' cultures to their south. Yakutia_LNBA ancestry may have arrived already during the ST period or through interactions with the aforementioned Circum-Polar clique. However, the Comb ceramic basis of these cultures implies EHG ancestry- probably similar to BOO. Furthermore, such a model becomes strained when attempting to explain the western most Uralic languages.
The unpublished Ananyino samples are all from post-Maklasheevo. There's a slight increase in Yakutia_LNBA and EHG ancestry from Maklasheevo to Post-Maklasheevo, but it's quite minor. Possibly, due to Gamayun migrations or interactions with Vyatka-Vetluga and 'Classical' Ananyino cultures.
Now, how likely is it that Proto-Uralic was spread by a population with ~70% West Eurasian ancestry?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2024/07/23/2024.07.21.599526/F2.large.jpg
@Norfern
Yes, the conclusion of Koksharov 2007 emphasizes the need for clarification of the nature of the Atlym culture, but not the importance of it directly, precisely because it needs clarification: So my point is that it is immature to discuss Gamayun-exclusive Atlym vs. Gamayun-mediated Atlym until we have more data. In any case, the finds I discussed above are labeled as specifically Gamayun ~ Itkul in the literature. I have to follow what the literature says, unless a newer study contradicts it.
"As for Gamayun, the vessels date to the latter stage of Atlym culture, so this to me mostly seems like cross cultural exchange and not a vector of linguistic migration."
Can you clarify the dating you mean for latter Atlym here? There are sometimes incongruencies in the materials regarding "Atlym" vs. "Lozva-Atlym", Gamayun migrations vs. Gamayun culture etc., so I need you to disambiguate the specific spacetime of Gamayun-Atlym "cross-cultural exchange" vs. "linguistic migration" you are referring to, thanks. To my knowledge, there is not a model for Gamayun cultural input back to Atlym, but I'd be interested in reading about it if you have something. However, your view on "Atlym > Gamayun > Atlym > Molchanovo" is becoming overcomplicated, since the formations of Gamayun and Molchanovo are roughly synchronous. It would greatly restrict the timeframe here to exclude a direct Gamayun > Molchanovo > Kulai impulse in favor of Atlym mediation from Gamayun (and again, Samoyedic does not need to be considered the formative language branch of Molchanovo regardless).
@ANI EXCAVATOR
There are plenty of ignorant hobbyists in contact with "many of the linguists" - perhaps I've seen you before on Academia sessions? "Not even wrong" is lazy mimicry. If you want to post "the newest archaeogenetic evidence" against a Minusinsk location for Samoyedic, then do it. The linguistic arguments not being airtight doesn't mean the authors never made the arguments: Deductive reasoning forms the evolution of interdependent academic dialogue. They didn't put an addendum in their publications, "Ignore what I wrote".
Show me where "all Uralicists universally reject an Arctic route for Uralic arrival into Europe", which I never even suggested: The Ob is not in Europe. Show me the "overwhelming linguistic evidence" that Proto-Uralic must be from near the Siberian Iranic steppe.
The label "Common Uralic" is not relevant to this discussion, because it is not associated with any absolute spacetime, which is what we have been talking about here for days. Holopainen has already begun formal reconsideration of his earlier II > U glottochronological model, due to contradictory evidence across the phases of Uralic diversification: So even a relative dating or location of Common Uralic would not be informative. No one needed to do a fine stratification of II > U loanwords? Of course it needs to be done: Otherwise, II-U contacts can't be correctly described, which correlation with ST should depend on. It's because of Holopainen's investment in this topic that he was able to critically re-evaluate his own material in later presentations.
Your propensity for vague generalizations as absolutes with no further explanation or citation bespeaks the Dunning-Kruger effect. You are belligerently unversed.
The notion that all Uralicists universally support or reject anything is a humorous claim that you should disabuse yourself of.
@Zelto
You could have just asked me for my proposed dating of Proto-Uralic if you were unclear from my prior outline here, rather than claiming that I said PU "must date to ~600 BC", which is an example of a bad-faith argument since you know I never said that. If you had read my "pet theory", then you would know that isn't how I describe Uralic diversification: I use the original term "Archaic Uralic" from ca. 800-500 BCE for the Uralic proto-dialects that already would have begun varying degrees of disintegration during the Ananyino civilization. This would be roughly synonymous with Late Proto-Uralic. It appears to me that I should then assign Early Proto-Uralic to Lozva-Atlym and/or its Gamayun migrations into the emerging Ananyino zone in the Upper Kama. However, "Late" and "Early" here are just static terms for a diachronic process.
If you think things should be evident, then it should be easy for you to explain them. You can't assume that anyone knows what you are thinking. You have, however, presented yourself as more well-versed in Uralic linguistics than you are. If you had spoken from an archaeogenetic perspective on the relevant cultures in question, then we could have had a productive dialogue. I am here to learn about archaeogenetics: Not to debate linguistics with non-linguists.
The problem with early Uralic speakers directly participating in ST Siberian riparian trade routes is that this model can not be associated with Proto-Uralic, since the linguistic evidence does not support it. As I said before, you would have to propose some kind of model where already-disintegrated proto-dialects engaged in ST.. This is essentially what Häkkinen (in my opinion erroneously) proposes, but only in a "PU Central Urals" context, while formally separating ST expansion from the Proto-Uralic zone until reaching the Koptyaki: So if you want kra001 to be a Proto-Uralic speaker, then he could only have started speaking Proto-Uralic after in the Koptyaki culture. Is there archaeogenetic evidence for kra001 ancestry in Koptyaki? Otherwise, if you want kra001 to work, you have to pick a different cultural association. In any case, it is linguistically untenable that kra001 already spoke (Pre-)Proto-Uralic, unless he did not have the aforementioned association with ST, because the PU lexicon does not support this.
What is evidently unique about Atlym is what you just said: its later expansion. I don't try to say what happened before that point - only that I'm open to either an Arctic or Ob highway for its pre-formative demic component. I am working from a model where Atlym-Gamayun expansion is the relative terminus post quem for a Proto-Uralic migration to Ananyino. Did any of the other post-Eneolithic cultures you mentioned have a similar migratory or cultural impact on Ananyino? If so, just tell me. Why does BOO-related ancestry become strained in explaining the westernmost Uralic languages? Did you have this same criticism when Davidski suggested BOO as an early Uralic speaker?
I am not a statistician, so I am the wrong person to ask how likely it is that PU was spoken by any population based on its ancestry percentiles. I wasn't aware that you can determine what proto-language an ancient sample spoke by its genetic mosaic. In any case, I think you are about 20 questions ahead of where you should be with me: I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on how the PU lexicon prohibits an association with the Lozva-Atlym arctic zone. I went out of my way to discuss that subject with you in good faith (based on your original claim), but since then you've been moving goalposts while dodging evidence. This is again an example of arguing in bad faith. We should be having a linear discussion where we each acknowledge the other's material. So far, only I've been doing that.
"Gamayun pottery of Ural origin is indeed known in the Surgut Ob region. It comes from the early (Atlym) layer of Barsov Gorodok I/10 and is distinguished by the admixture of talc in the clay [Chemyakin, Korotayev, 1976, p. 53, 55, Fig. 2, 1]. However, talc was not used in the manufacture of pottery of the Vagil variant of the Gamayun culture. According to the observations of V. A. Borzunov, Vagil ceramics have such a significant similarity with some of the Lozva type pottery that they become difficult to distinguish from each other [1992, p. 90]"
https://biblio.kz/m/articles/view/%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%9C%D0%AF%D0%A2%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%9A-%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%9B%D0%AB%D0%9C%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%99-%D0%9A%D0%A3%D0%9B%D0%AC%D0%A2%D0%A3%D0%A0%D0%AB-%D0%9D%D0%90-%D0%A0%D0%95%D0%9A%D0%95-%D0%95%D0%9D%D0%94%D0%AB%D0%A0%D0%AC
This sample is apparently from the Itkul culture.
Target: Russia_EasternScythian_SouthernUrals.SG:MJ-42_noUDG.SG
Distance: 2.7661% / 0.02766092
45.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
23.8 Mongolia_East_N
21.4 Russia_BA_Okunevo.SG
9.2 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
0.0 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG
I don't think BOO has much to do with Ymyakhtakh after all.
"A type of 'Waffle Ware' occurs among the Ymyakhtah culture of the Taimyr Peninsula and elsewhere in northern Central Siberia (Hlobystin 1987: 336-340, 409 Fig. 130). Comparison with Vardøy Ware led to an assumption that small communities had pushed westwards along the tundra zone and ended up in northern Fennoscandia (Okladnikov 1953: 156; 1970: 168-169). Afterwards the idea was abandoned because no 'Waffle Ware' has been found between Taimyr and northern Fennoscandia. The Siberian Waffle Ware also differs radically from Vardøy Ware in that the vessels have a row of pierced holes below the rim. In addition, Vardøy Ware appears to have originated in northern Sweden from where it spread eastwards."
page 36 from Environment, Archaeology and Radiocarbon Dates
https://journal.fi/iskos/issue/view/7829
@Norfern
I'm of course not an archaeogeneticist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like a steppe sample with maybe Turkic input: ~25% "Mongolia_East" DNA doesn't look promising for a Uralic sample. We should be looking at samples from at least as far north as the Central Urals region, not Southern Urals. What are some samples from e.g. the Upper Chusovaya (west of Yekaterinburg) ca. 800-500 BCE?
-
@All
I just disproved Hakkinen 2023's Proto-Uralic diversification model, if any of you would like to read it: https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=1281&pid=50588#pid50588
@Finngreek
'~600 BC' falls within your 800-500 BC 'Archaic Uralic' window and aligns with the archaeological evidence of Ananyino expansion and disintegration of Akozino-Akhmylovo + Post-Maklasheevo shortly thereafter. I would hardly call my comments 'bad faith' and would appreciate if you cease the accusations.
I have never presented myself as a linguist. My stance largely aligns with the model proposed in Grünthal et al. 2022. That is, an association between 'Common Uralic' and ST. As for the Proto-Uralic homeland, Häkkinen (2023) is incompatible with the former. Jaska has made that clear. There is no genetic data from the Koptyaki culture, but also no reason to assume substantial Yakutia_LNBA admixture ad rem.
'Did any of the other post-Eneolithic cultures you mentioned have a similar migratory or cultural impact on Ananyino?'
Yes, for instance Lebyazh is considered to have been directly involved in the formation of the Vyatka-Vetluga culture.
'Why does BOO-related ancestry become strained in explaining the westernmost Uralic languages?'
That's not what I meant. The direct influence of Ananyino cultures on the territory of the Moskva - Oka region is minor. Exceptions are the Lower Oka and parts of the Upper-Volga. North of this region, there was a lively contact zone resulting in 'hybridization' between Vyatka-Vetluga and local Netted Ware groups. In the D'yakovo culture, there are loose contacts on the periphery, a few chance 'KAM' axe finds, and 'animal-style' decorative motifs on bone and antler objects. The latter indicative of Ananyino OR Scythian influence. At all stages, D'yakovo was in closer contact with Striated Ware and related cultures to their west, but this escalated in the last centuries BC. There is a 200-300 year lacuna between late D'yakovo and Slavic settlement. However, hydronyms and toponyms seem to indicate a degree of continuity. The Gorodets culture was more isolated from the northwest promenade of Ananyino cultures. Their fate did involve a migration or military occupation from the east around the turn of the CE (i.e. Piseralsky-Andreevsky). These 'warrior' burials are of disputed origin. There are Sarmatian elements, with parallels to post-Ananyino cultures (e.g. Pianobor and Kara-Abyz). All that to say, direct Ananyino influence is hardly visable in the territories historically inhabited by Mordvins, Muromians, Meshchera, and Merya in the period you mentioned.
'I am not a statistician, so I am the wrong person to ask how likely it is that PU was spoken by any population based on its ancestry percentiles. I wasn't aware that you can determine what proto-language an ancient sample spoke by its genetic mosaic.'
You don't need to be a statistician. It was established years ago that modern Uralic speakers share a common Siberian genetic component that is most similar to Nganasan. This was later labeled 'Yakutia_LNBA' in print after Kilnic et al. 2021 and more recently Zeng et al. 2023. The presence of ANY trace West Eurasian ancestry common to Uralic populations has been a contentious issue, both here and on other forums. Ananyino (Post-Maklasheevo) had 70+% West Eurasian ancestry.
'I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on how the PU lexicon prohibits an association with the Lozva-Atlym arctic zone.'
I made that comment with Arctic Ymmyakhtakh in mind and never said that PU lexicon 'prohibits' an Arctic environment. I said that it is not favoured- which is true. How many linguists have placed the PU homeland in the Arctic? This is not relevant to our discussion anyways. Atlym was a forest-zone culture that moderately expanded into the Arctic/Tundra.
Kudos for actually commenting on the Proto-Uralic thread. Hopefully he responds. :)
@Zelto
"All that to say, direct Ananyino influence is hardly visable in the territories historically inhabited by Mordvins, Muromians, Meshchera, and Merya in the period you mentioned."
Tambets et al. 2018 illustrates that, after Hungarians, Mordvins have the least "East Eurasian" Y-DNA input - less than half compared to Finns, Mari, or Perms. The last time I checked, the verdict is still out on how to classify the extinct Muromian, Meshchera, and Merya languages. This is just speculation, but since Gorodets was isolated from the Ananyino scene (this is likewise corroborated by Greek and Greco-Scythian finds among the Ananyino, but absent from the Gorodets), and since Mordvinic development is associated with the Gorodets, this might correlate with why Mordvins have much less of a Uralic demic component.
Of all terms, hydronyms across the scene should demonstrate continuity, since migrations were primairly riparian. I would also like to reiterate that, when it comes to western diversification (e.g. Moskva-Oka), we should be looking at Akozino more specifically than just Ananyino overall, which came first from the east towards the Volga-Oka interfluve.
"You don't need to be a statistician. It was established years ago that modern Uralic speakers share a common Siberian genetic component that is most similar to Nganasan. This was later labeled 'Yakutia_LNBA' in print after Kilnic et al. 2021 and more recently Zeng et al. 2023. The presence of ANY trace West Eurasian ancestry common to Uralic populations has been a contentious issue, both here and on other forums. Ananyino (Post-Maklasheevo) had 70+% West Eurasian ancestry."
I am aware of the research, and have referenced it in my own work. However, there is apparently still ongoing debate over the archaeogenetic accuracy of this assessment, which has been expressed both here and the Genarchivist forum. If the Uralic genome is in fact best-represented by the Nganasan, this raises questions about the origins of the Nganasan themselves, who are linguistically considered to be the most divergent Samoyedic branch, having migrated to the Arctic while Core Samoyedic remained in the Minusinsk. If Nganasans are our best genetic representative of the Proto-Uralic speaker, we have to ask ourselves why they are native to the Taimyr, and how that might have impacted their genetic profile.
I am not going to get into a discussion about Maklasheevo vs. Classical Ananyino, because I know that you are already familiar with the materials regarding the Classical phase, the strengthening of eastern demographic components by ca. 500 BCE, etc. Gamayun migrations likewise impacted the Itkul culture from ca. 900-300 BCE. What we need, as I've read, are Lozva-Atlym and Gamayun samples to describe and better chronologize the genetic impacts these migrations would have had on the Ananyino. Until then, all we can do is talk in circles.
"My stance largely aligns with the model proposed in Grünthal et al. 2022. That is, an association between 'Common Uralic' and ST."
The data in Grünthal et al. 2022 re: ST association via "Pre-II FU ~ CU" glottochronology is subject to the same criticism I gave on Häkkinen 2023, because the lexical data is based on Holopainen 2019, who is a co-author of the paper. Häkkinen just adapted Grünthal et al. 2022 to his own theory. Holopainen 2023 still brings down the ST glottochronological evidence in Grünthal et al. from ~14 etyma down to only 3 plausible etyma, all of which are absent from Ob-Ugric and one of which is only found in West Uralic. The Pre-II evidence for Häkkinen's model was reduced to zero etyma because of the additional restrictions in his own theory. So I just want you to know that you are following virtually the same glottochronological model as Häkkinen 2023 - just with an ST vs. Koptyaki assignment.
Apparently the authors of this article read my messages in GA and Eurogen, and therefore placed the homeland of the steppe CHG in the region of the eastern Caucasus
https://x.com/DEJAvain/status/1914866769254342690
Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Romania_CA_Bodrogkeresztur_(n=40)
B: carpathian:I23123
C: ↴
0.06437053 Kabardino-Balkaria_EBA_Steppe_Maykop_(n=4)
0.06415581 Moldova_Eneolithic_Zhyvotylivka_Taraclia_(n=1)
0.06415108 Xinjiang_EBA_Chemurchek_o2_(n=3)
0.06413792 Stavropol_MBA_Lola_o1_(n=1)
0.06411744 Xinjiang_EBA_Jirentaigoukou_(n=1)
0.06407108 Xinjiang_EBA_Tuoganbai_(n=4)
0.06406986 Xinjiang_EBA_Afanasievo_Dzungaria_(n=4)
0.06401256 Stavropol_LBA-EIA_Koban_Essentukskiy_(n=2)
0.06395753 Stavropol_Eneolithic_Konstantinovskiy_(Eneolithic_Piedmont_Steppe)_(n=1)
I23123
Urziceni-Vamă (Satu Mare County), Romania
4270-3970 BCE
R1b-M343*(xL502,V69,PH1030)
Interesting sample.
@Zelto
It seems that I was more-or-less able to get Hakkinen to reconsider his views on a "Pre-PII" layer, and be more open to Siberian demic input for Uralic expansion after 2000 BCE - although how that manifests in his future publications remains to be seen. In any case, it's a better outcome than I had expected. I did enjoy that final dart he threw at Eurogenes "nonsense" commentators.
@Finngreek
'This is just speculation, but since Gorodets was isolated from the Ananyino scene (this is likewise corroborated by Greek and Greco-Scythian finds among the Ananyino, but absent from the Gorodets), and since Mordvinic development is associated with the Gorodets, this might correlate with why Mordvins have much less of a Uralic demic component.'
There's aDNA from the Ryazan-Oka culture (Petsola et al. 2023) which presumably arose out of Piseralsky-Andreevsky influence on Gorodets. These (all female) samples have roughly 20% Yakutia_LNBA (Krasnoyarsk_Krai_BA) admixture in the author's qpAdm model (Figure 3A).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.11.036
A few Russian studies on Ryazan-Oka exist as well, unfortunately limited to Y-STR data.
1. https://proza.ru/2023/07/25/306
2. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/proishozhdenie-ryazano-okskih-krestoobraznyh-fibul-i-genezis-mestnoy-voinskoy-elity
3. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/novye-dannye-dnk-issledovaniya-pamyatnika-undrih-90
Modern Mordvins have a lot of Slavic ancestry, undoubtedly contributing to their paucity of 'East Eurasian' Y-DNA.
'we should be looking at Akozino more specifically than just Ananyino overall, which came first from the east towards the Volga-Oka interfluve.'
I factored Akozino-Akhmylovo in. They were the dominant Ananyino group active along the Upper-Volga. The 'Younger Volosovsky' burial on the Lower-Oka has also been attributed to them.
'What we need, as I've read, are Lozva-Atlym and Gamayun samples to describe and better chronologize the genetic impacts these migrations would have had on the Ananyino. Until then, all we can do is talk in circles'
That would be ideal, but these cultures are defined by settlement complexes. The lack of burials and thus osteological material leaves little prospect for aDNA analysis.
'So I just want you to know that you are following virtually the same glottochronological model as Häkkinen 2023 - just with an ST vs. Koptyaki assignment.'
Fair enough. Although, I would argue that Grünthal et al. is more compatible with the archaeologenetic evidence currently available. Just so I am clear, do you believe that Proto-Uralic couldn't have had a 'deep' chronology, or simply that it is not requisite?
@ Gaisgeach
'How and when did E-V13 rise to prominence in the east balkans? Late bronze age? Early iron age? Is it tied to Thracians?''
Could be LBA, even be MBA, There are very few samples from western Bulgaria , the Morava valley, etc. A scenario like I1 in Germanics somehow hitching along and rising to prominence might be similar to the case of E-V13 and 'Thracians'. But the development of proto-Thracians remains a mystery due to poor MBA sample set
@ Norfern
''I don't think BOO has much to do with Ymyakhtakh after all.
"A type of 'Waffle Ware' occurs among the Ymyakhtah culture of the Taimyr Peninsula and elsewhere in northern Central Siberia (Hlobystin 1987: 336-340, 409 Fig. 130). Comparison with Vardøy Ware led to an assumption that small communities had pushed westwards along the tundra zone and ended up in northern Fennoscandia (Okladnikov 1953: 156; 1970: 168-169). Afterwards the idea was abandoned because no 'Waffle Ware' has been found between Taimyr and northern Fennoscandia. The Siberian Waffle Ware also differs radically from Vardøy Ware in that the vessels have a row of pierced holes below the rim. In addition, Vardøy Ware appears to have originated in northern Sweden from where it spread eastwards."
page 36 from Environment, Archaeology and Radiocarbon Dates''
This 'disproval' was formulated during the recent immobilist era of archaeology, when FenoScandian & eastern European scholarship tried to stay in vogue with theoretical platforms invented by Anglo-American colleagues. It's not empirically based, more theoretical/ ideological
@Zelto
"Just so I am clear, do you believe that Proto-Uralic couldn't have had a 'deep' chronology, or simply that it is not requisite?"
The problem with Uralic chronology is that there is almost no internal evidence to determine relative datings of diversification until we get to areal innovations like FMd. *m > *n, the same number for 10, exclusive loans; or EU irregular sibilant developments. Because of this, it became fashionable to date Uralic to dubious proposed loan layers like PIE (or even further, the notorious "Indo-Uralic") and "NWIE". Indo-Iranian ~ Iranian loaning, however, obviously played a role early on in Uralic diversification: So as Uralicists typically do, they revised their relative dating of Uralic to the oldest possible dates.these loans would allow. 6000-4000 BCE became ~2000 BCE. Now the supposed earliest layer of "Pre-PII" loans has crumbled, and we are left with a combination of unclear Uralic taxonomy and often phonologically ambiguous II ~ I loans. I think these two problems can be at least somewhat more resolved in the future - but we're not there yet: So these all-too-common conclusions drawn by authors that PU "must" be a certain age are misleading.
I believe that Proto-Uralic, in the strictest sense of an undiversified language spoken by a small community, could probably be dated to somewhere between 1500-1000 BCE. This is not even a great leap from the revised ca. 2000 BCE dating that appears in the ST context. As it pertains to my original research, I do believe that Samoyedic could still share loans with e.g. Finnic until some time after 700 BCE. I also believe that this timeframe was probably synchronous with Finno-Mordvinic. That's about as far as I go with my conclusions on dating Uralic diversification for the time being.
@ Zelto
''There is no genetic data from the Koptyaki culture, but also no reason to assume substantial Yakutia_LNBA admixture ad rem.''
But we do have aDNA from Mezhovskaya, which is a key component in JH's framework. We also have aDNA from Karasuk, which ties in with Cherkaskul.
JH suggests: ''The Ugric branches possibly continued together in the Central Ural Region within the following Mezhovskaya Culture ca. 1500–1000 BCE........ The East Uralic branches (Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty, and Samoyedic) could be connected to the Cherkaskul Culture''
Mezhovskaya can be modelled qpAdm as ~ 80% Srubna-Andronovo derived & ~ 20% Siberian, in qpAdm both Yakutian_LN & Baikal_BA seem to work.
However, as Koptyaki predates Mezhovskaya, I doubt there'd be any actual Yakutia_LN ancestry, any hunter-gatherer and quasi-'eastern' ancestry would probably similar to that seen in Sintashta 'outliers', founded on EHG and WSHG.
So would a region which is overwhelmingly Indo-Iranian-oid be the the homeland of proto-Uralic ? I dont think so.
One can persistently claim that linguistic evidence is paramount in linguistic reconstructions. That might be true for linguistic exercises themselves, but not for the field of *historical linguistics*, which is supposed to be a multi-disciplinary analysis. And this demands credible population phenomena to spread languages. 'Real people'.
There might be cases which deviate from this elementary precondition such as parts Romance language expansions detaching from original Italics, and the worldwide spread of modern English, but obviously these contexts cannot just be mis-applied to the MBA Ural region, even though we accept that the S-T phenomenon was 'complex', 'developed' and entailed peoples, cultures and langauges mixing together (to a degree).
The alternative proposal also asks us not to ignore the western ancestry in Uralic populations. But we have explained that, unlike the pervasive 'Yakutia_LN' component, there is no common 'western' ancestry in Uralic pops, as the latter comes from different & rather divergent 'western' sources.
''Modern Mordvins have a lot of Slavic ancestry, undoubtedly contributing to their paucity of 'East Eurasian' Y-DNA.''
In my hunch, they drifted south after the collapse of LBA Srubnoid groups. They also have E-V13 and J2 lineages, would have been inpacted by Sarmatians and later (e.g trade, settlement & empire) networks which linked the middle Volga with global phenomena. Their northern cousins, the Mari retain 80% Y-hg N (Trofimova et al 2015). An important question is whether the R1a in these groups is indeed Baltic/Slavic-related, R1a-Z93, or a mix. And if Z93, do they slot in under Iron & medieval age nomad clades or earlier / distal Sintashta & Srubna clades (less likely IMO).
"I made that comment with Arctic Ymmyakhtakh in mind and never said that PU lexicon 'prohibits' an Arctic environment.'' (Z -> FnGk)
Just to clarify, I do not think FU spread via the Polar Express :) Just that its expansion was a tad more northerly than S-T as a whole, as they were along its northern fringe.
@ Finngreek
To me loan word analysis seems as if it pushes evidence to an extreme, treating sound laws in loans as archaeological fossils which are securely dated. I also think languages can retain archaic forms of words, because sound shift laws do not take effectively immediately across the entire corpus of words and geographic extent, especially in pre-literate socieites. That is, the few 'archaic PIE' and 'early P-IIr' word forms, if they indeed exist, were not necessarily acquired between 3000 and 2000 BC.
@Rob
"That is, the few 'archaic PIE' and 'early P-IIr' word forms, if they indeed exist, were not necessarily acquired between 3000 and 2000 BC."
I agree. There is also important distributional evidence against these conclusions. Other authors have not picked up on it yet, but I will make sure they do. This isn't just a problem with Hakkinen 2023: Hakkinen's interpretation of the data is just a symptom of a wider problem of presumptuous publications in Uralic historical linguistics. That's why I'm forgiving when Hakkinen says he was "just interpreting the data", because it's the truth. The "data" itself is often the problem.
Although I do have to admit that Hakkinen seems to have a problem with arrogance in lieu of argumentation. I'm not sure he realizes that his communication style makes him look desperate. The way he writes in publications is not so emotional.
@Finngreek
Thanks for the explanation. I'm still waiting for a formal response or acknowledgment of Häkkinen (2023) by Grünthal et al. I know you take issue with the latter as well, though. I'll keep what you've said here in mind as I follow your discussion with 'Jaska'.
@Rob
My comment was certainly not intended to defend Häkkinen's model. I agree with your statements about Koptyaki and Mezhovska. Regarding the lack of a 'common "western" ancestry', the same problem applies to an expansion via Ananyino cultures. What do you think?
In my experience modeling Mordvin samples with G25, they have a lot of Slavic ancestry on top of the Baltic_BA found in the Bolshoye Davydovskoye samples. Pending further verification, my assumption is that this wasn't inordinatly female- mediated. I also found some discussion about the 'Erzya-Moksha-Mescher' FTDNA project, unfortunately I don't have direct access to the results. With a grain of salt: Mordvin R1a branches are predominantly Z280, with some M458 and Z93.
To your point, Gorodets tribes are supposed to have migrated quite rapidly to the south/southeast along the Volga and Don rivers at the end of the 1st millennium BC. On the Middle Don, interactions with Steppe cultures were predictably intense.
@Norfern
MJ-42 is interesting. His 'Itkul' cultural classification was apparently due to location. The burial rite is actually reminiscent of the Tasmola culture (Järve et al. 2019).
When you look at where MJ-42 is located it's not actually close to Itkul culture at all. I guess the assignment was based on broad geography. I saw some blogposts describing the site as Itkul but I don't find any actual references to that.
@Zelto
You're welcome. I wouldn't be surprised if Grunthal et al. never write a response to Hakkinen 2023: The authors each probably have their own projects that will inevitably take priority. The only really new thing to be discussed in Hakkinen's paper is the Koptyaki cultural assignment. I don't think Jaska and I have anything else to talk about: I said what I needed to correct his work, and to go any further would just elicit more non-sequiturs about Schrodinger's Finno-Ugric.
By the way, did you or @Rob see the plot that Norfern posted on Genarchivist and my response? I was curious if you had any views on that data, in general or as it pertains to Uralic diversification.
I just uploaded a new short paper on the 10 "oldest" Greek loans into Proto-Uralic, if anyone is bored over the weekend and wants something to read:
https://www.academia.edu/129003307/The_oldest_Greek_loanwords_in_Proto_Uralic
@Norfern
'When you look at where MJ-42 is located it's not actually close to Itkul culture at all.'
MJ-42 was found near Nikolaevka village, Chelyabinsk Region. South of the eponymous 'Itkul 1' site, also in Chelyabinsk Region. According to Järve et al. 2019, the 'Nikolaevka II burial site' was attributed to the Itkul culture; however, I don't have acces to the work cited.
@ Zelto
''I agree with your statements about Koptyaki and Mezhovska. Regarding the lack of a 'common "western" ancestry', the same problem applies to an expansion via Ananyino cultures. What do you think?''
Is Minino 300 BC (NEO538) broadly associated with Ananyino ? It has ~ 40% Yakutia_LN ancestry
@ Finngreek
''Although I do have to admit that Hakkinen seems to have a problem with arrogance in lieu of argumentation. I'm not sure he realizes that his communication style makes him look desperate. The way he writes in publications is not so emotional.''
His arrogance is just defensive posturing & a symptoms of being a small fish in a small pond. You'd think someone who couldn't get things right after 3 decades of fiddling would sober up ? But instead he is just pulling more crap out of the air and takes refuge behind the skirt of Anglesqueville, a Fraudarchiver admint who manipulates posts and fakes data to support their dumb takes. In their Fairy world, they also imagine to hold Linguistic Synods, as ANI excavator recently exclaimed. The problem is that these clowns are spreading disinformation and will soon be put in their place.
@Rob
Damn, I didn't know it was that serious. In Hakkinen's defense, he has done some good work about e.g. "West" + "East" Uralic, which are terms I believe are original to him?, and still relevant today at least as areal units. I just think 2023 was a misfire. I know nothing about the other users you mention. What is some of the disinformation they spread, so I can be aware if it shows up?
@Finngreek
In general, when representatives of the Finno-Ugric languages first appeared on the Finnish peninsula, what did you decide?
Hey there any news about the new G25 tools?
Will there be a redesign on the Vahudo website?
NEO538 actually dates to the 9th century BCE.
@Rob
Minino I was a collective burial with most individuals dating to the Mesolithic - Early Neolithic. As far as I can tell, nothing distinguished NEO538 until he was radiocarbon dated.
More broadly, the Vologda region during the EIA saw 'mixing' between local Textile ware and foreign Ananyino (Vyatka-Vetluga) ceramics resulting in the hybrid 'Vatazhka' -type. A.V. Novikov has done a lot of recent research on this process.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360294763_Kulturnaa_transformacia_na_Verhnej_Volge_v_rannem_zeleznom_veke
@Finngreek
'By the way, did you or @Rob see the plot that Norfern posted on Genarchivist and my response? I was curious if you had any views on that data, in general or as it pertains to Uralic diversification.'
Yes, insofar as that data pertains to the diversification of individual Uralic daughter languages. The 'Hungarian Conquerors' are the most obvious example, considering their genetic relationship to earlier Circum-Uralic cultures. Perhaps that is a trivial observation on my part. However, beyond a common Yakutia_LNBA component, I think the early phase of demic expansion is still quite speculative. This is partly due to a lack of osteological material (and in some cases political impediment), but also because labs sit on their samples for years before publishing them.
@Mr Funk
What do you mean? Samic is associated with the northern Akozino-Malar path, and arrived before Finnic came north from the Daugava, Estonia etc. These aren't my original views, though. If you mean the earlier Ananyino axes to the Oulu area, I don't know who they would have been, except maybe early Uralic.
The NEO538 dating takes into account the reservoir effect of 397-203 BC (excluding 986-813 BC). If the authors' correction to the reservoir effect is correct, then NEO538 is highly likely to belong to the Vyatka-Vetluga group of the Ananyino culture.
https://www.evrazstep.ru/index.php/aes/article/view/733
https://www.evrazstep.ru/index.php/aes/article/view/988
https://www.evrazstep.ru/index.php/aes/article/view/983
@Finngreek
Well, I mean, when the Finno-Ugric languages first appeared in this area, you just argued for a long time, and in the end, what did you come to?
@ Norfern & Vlad
''NEO538 actually dates to the 9th century BCE.''
I was just reading off the Allentoft 2024 supplement : 300 BC midpoint cal. after reservoir correction
Has this been revised or challenged ?
I mean it would be 'better' for our discussion to be 900 BC but shout out if you know the DL otherwise Ill have to go on an original lit search..
@ Zelto
''Minino I was a collective burial with most individuals dating to the Mesolithic - Early Neolithic.''
OK, so no diagnostic features. Still, the act of secondary deposition might be a clue ....
I remember we discused ''textile ware'' a while ago, the issues of its 'origins', inspirations and dating; so what is your current view on this ?
Bizarre, in AADR the date is 986-813 calBCE and there is no mention of freshwater correction. In fact the samples from the same sites do have freshwater correction.
@Finngreek
Finland after it became Russian:
https://x.com/kvistp/status/1916118678984167800
But the later date does seem to be the accurate one.
@Mr Funk
I didn't really propose anything new as it regards Finland specifically: The Akozino-Malar connection for Finnic and Samic already appears in the literature. Samic would have arrived to southern Finland first, and Akozino-Malar was ca. 800-500 BCE. I would argue Samic then arrived closer to 500 BCE, since there has to be room made for HU contact not only during "Archaic Uralic" (incl. Ugric + Samoyedic) from ca. 800 BCE, but also during a subsequent phase of Finno-Permic disintegration. Did that answer your question?
I have some more thoughts on R-V1636 after reviewing its tree again.
- Both the branch with overwhelmingly "near east moderns" (R-Y148165) and the branch with overwhelmingly "european moderns" (R-V1274) are found on the eneolithic steppe, although there are more of the former uncovered so far
- The Kura-Araxes R-V1636 is, ironically, on the aforementioned european moderns branch
- this clade appears to have experienced significant branching during the late eneolithic
- the "near east moderns" clade instead experiences significant branching during the BA (perhaps as a very, very minor BA Armenian clade?)
If the K-A sample, and with better coverage, the Gaziantep and Arslantepe R-V1636 samples all happened to be on that same "european moderns" branch, it would suggest that this southern pulse was extremely unsuccessfully, leaving virtually no surviving moderns in the near east.
If proto-Uralic emerges from Koptyak culture and if that's predominantly Corded Ware - Sintashta derived, then Haakinen's theory is very similar to Carlos'. These folks really want to turn Corded Ware into something it's not
waaa waaa
I have a feeling that R-BY15337 (ancestors of R1b-V1636) are the remains of ANE that survived the ice age in the Central Caucasus region, mixed with representatives of the East Caucasian pastoralists (J1-CTS1026), and formed some steppe populations of Khvalynsk Sredny Stog Mariupol, Don and the like
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-BY15337/tree
https://x.com/iizumoo/status/1895161397845115373
@Rob
'I remember we discused ''textile ware'' a while ago, the issues of its 'origins', inspirations and dating; so what is your current view on this ?'
I don't have a particularly strong opinion. The second 'phase' of the Maklasheevka culture is supposed to have emerged consequent Textile Ware migration/influence. I posted an ANDMIXTURE analysis from the Gyuris et al. preprint earlier in this thread. It's not easily legible, but Maklasheevka(?) is modeled with 'EMN Narva.' We should see once it's published.
@EthanR
My message above was addressed to you
Interesting article for Caucasus enthusiasts
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gea.21994
Eastern Georgia/ cholchis (proto-Colchian, etc) began to be more permanently settled from 2500 BC with mound / -tepe type settlements
Sorry that should say western Georgia
From your older blogpost
"Note that one of the Bronze Age females from Alalakh, labeled ALA019, appears to have ancestry from Turan and the Eurasian steppe. She may well have been a Mitanni of Indo-Aryan origin"
On PCA she sits between BMAC and Aygirdjal_BA and not between BMAC and steppe.
Target: Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019__BC_1564__Cov_63.81%
Distance: 1.6590% / 0.01658966
72.2 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
23.4 Kyrgyzstan_MLBA_Andronovo
4.4 Russia_BA_Okunevo
Target: Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019__BC_1564__Cov_63.81%
Distance: 1.4888% / 0.01488792
88.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
7.0 Kyrgyzstan_MLBA_Andronovo
5.0 Russia_BA_Okunevo
Do you still stick to this stance of yours?
Target: Kyrgyzstan_MLBA_Andronovo:I11527__BC_1993__Cov_66.31%
Distance: 1.6201% / 0.01620115
45.8 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
45.0 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
9.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Kyrgyzstan_MLBA_Andronovo:I11526__BC_2129__Cov_45.99%
Distance: 1.8821% / 0.01882137
47.2 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
40.8 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
12.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Genetic studies are pure propaganda lol
Distance to: Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_2
0.02119484 Iranian_Lor_Bakhtiari
0.02249764 Iranian_Lor_Khorramabad
0.02259646 Iranian_Persian_Fars
0.02374368 Iranian_Zoroastrian
0.02411180 Iranian_Mazandarani
0.02424266 Iranian_Cosmopolitan_Tehran
0.02692336 Talysh_Azerbaijan
0.02729137 Kurd_USSR
0.02767198 Iranian_Persian_Yazd
0.02936577 Irani_Zoroastrian_India
0.02938616 Ezid
0.02948530 Kurd_Sorani_Iran_Mukriyan
0.02949013 Kurd_Iraq
0.03010232 Iranian_Central
0.03086788 Iranian_Mazandarani_o
0.03093681 Iranian_Persian_Shiraz
0.03162183 Kurd_Kurmanji_Turkey
0.03206166 Kurd_Zaza_Turkey
0.03276160 Alevi_Dersim
0.03366606 Kurd_Syria
0.04038594 Tat_Azerbaijan
0.04143780 Azerbaijani_Republic_Gabala
0.04328245 Azerbaijani_Republic_Shaki
0.04383306 Bukharian_Jew
0.04441046 Udi
Target: Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_2
Distance: 0.6431% / 0.00643076
44.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
37.4 Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA
18.0 Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA
Just because there was no R1a in these samples...Steppe proponents ignored the samples...and just because there is R1a in Israel_o it became Mitanni....
Distance to: Israel_MLBA_o:I2189__BC_1550__Cov_11.40%
0.06351662 Armenian_Artsakh
0.06558517 Armenian_Parspatunik
0.06646727 Mountain_Jew_Chechnya
0.06663238 Armenian_Syunik
0.06926066 Mountain_Jew_Dagestan
0.07046484 Alevi_Dersim
0.07073693 Armenian_Gesaria
0.07084217 Turkish_Erzurum
0.07089686 Greek_Crete_Heraklion
0.07092240 Kurd_Zaza_Turkey
0.07097555 Greek_Central_Anatolia
0.07100270 Kurd_Kurmanji_Turkey
0.07120239 Azerbaijani_Turkey
0.07138151 Azerbaijani_Republic_Shaki
0.07140171 Bukharian_Jew
0.07156206 Armenian_Erzurum
0.07180589 Udi
0.07201330 Syrian_Aleppo
0.07258785 Ezid
0.07296615 Mountain_Jew_Azerbaijan
0.07335475 Turkish_Nevsehir
0.07341352 Georgian_Jew
0.07368005 Kurd_Iraq
0.07371286 Kurd_Syria
0.07371708 Chaldean_Iraq
Alalakh has persistent IBD hits with Sintashta and other CWC-related populations like Aesch (which can only be adequately explained through Steppe_MLBA).
''Distance to: Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_2''
i don't understand why people post these 'distance to...' figures on the blogosphere. They're rather meaningless
maybe some new post, Mr. Davidski?
Glad to see G25 is back! I submitted my data 9 days ago and I'm still waiting for my coordinates—hope to hear back soon.
David can you take a look at the new Vergina samples? Cause there's either some contamination or Alexander the Great is Danish.
@Anrazaya
You should email g25requests@gmail.com if you're waiting that long.
@Rob and @Davidski What is the consensus about the Genetic makeup of Eneolithic Steppe and Yamnaya and also was the CHG that mixed with Steppe populations different to Kotias/SATP but since the new Satanay sample came out and it turned out to be pure EHG, I would like to hear your opinion
@DragonHermit
More Welsh than Danish, but yeah, unexpected outcome.
greek:DEM3235_rmdup,0.126344,0.136081,0.068636,0.03876,0.056318,0.015339,0.004465,0.003231,0.004909,0.028064,0.003573,0.024578,-0.024232,-0.019955,0.000136,-0.008486,0.003129,-0.010008,0.004777,-0.000625,0.010482,0.003215,0.003328,0.017111,0.005868
greek:DEM3237_rmdup,0.133173,0.144205,0.016593,-0.046835,0.029852,-0.018686,0.005405,0.005077,-0.001636,0.033167,0.00341,0.007194,-0.021704,-0.006744,-0.012079,-0.000133,0.008736,-0.008108,0.006411,-0.011255,-0.015223,-0.0115,-0.008504,0.011447,-0.001796
@Davidski I did that twice, but still no response. I asked if there was a problem in any way.
Please send me an email on eurogenesblog at gmail dot com.
@ Fcv
''What is the consensus about the Genetic makeup of Eneolithic Steppe and Yamnaya and also was the CHG that mixed with Steppe populations different to Kotias/SATP but since the new Satanay sample came out and it turned out to be pure EHG, I would like to hear your opinion''
Complex topic, more studies on the way,. Im not sure there is an established concensus, although i often dont agree with views published to date (poor analysis, intellectually deficient, narrative driven, etc)..
I know people have been talking about 'other CHG'. Possible, but I dont see the need for it, because Kotias & Satsurblia work just fine with various forms of analysis and the archaeological trail is supportive. Yep Satanay was EHG, not CHG, but I think we're past that because IMO there is genuien Mesopotamian ancestry in Yamnaya, steppe, etc
In short, groups from all over Eurasia (from west to east to Mesopotamia) were moving toward the steppe between 6000 and 3500 BC, forming an autosomal' soup'. Then gtroups from the steppe began to expand out, some such as the 4200 wave didnt really carry on, whilst post 4000 BC groups did. And these were mostly centred around 'local-ish European' lineages, but there were some focal expansions led by Caucasian derived linegaes .
Eveyone will have to wait for greater details.
@David
Thanks. Yeah I'm not sure if someone's beating off into the vials or what kind of sick joke is this.
@Davidski
Do you have any new thoughts on the key Eneolithic/EBA Steppe admixture events now that both the Harvard and Max Planck Institute papers have been published?
I take it we have 100% reason to believe that these ancient Greek examples are somehow connected to Alexander the Great?
@EthanR
Yes, I'm about to start blogging again and this will be the main theme of several blog posts.
viking mma
https://youtube.com/shorts/savZxmiCpC8
I don't think there's any genuine ancient DNA in the alleged 'Argead' study
And why do studies (Wang et al, Ghaliachi et al) keep saying 'there is continuity between Meshoko and Majkop' when it's only partially so
Even the casual reader can understand the two groups look completely different
Does anyone have the G25 coords for the samples from the three recent steppe papers in one neat datasheet? And also their most accurate Y-haplogroup classifications?
Time to really dig into this thing.
Did you know that the man with the flag in his hands in this famous photograph is a Dagestani from Khasavyurt?
https://x.com/TheFl0orIsLaVa/status/1918348651643945229
@Mr Funk
"Did you know that the man with the flag in his hands in this famous photograph is a Dagestani from Khasavyurt?
https://x.com/TheFl0orIsLaVa/status/1918348651643945229"
I have a theory at the geopolitic level about the multiethnic empires, that they soon or later fall. Look at French and English ones. United States are on the way, and also Russian Federation and Others minor. Perhaps only the Chinese Empire will servive. Look at as to they act with Uyghurs…
@Gio
in any case, the United States is a country of immigrants, where the English language has won, there are no French, English, Germans, Africans, etc. there. They went there to be Americans and not French, etc.
I have a personal file of eneolithic coordinates that I use for PCA reference if it is of any help, but I don't have coverage, precise dating, Y-DNA listed with the coordinates though. The labeling is an amalgam of the analysis labels from both the Harvard and Ghalichi papers.
https://pastebin.com/e9BQdTd8
I don't have the time or, frankly, the efficiency to add further detail, but someone else could cross reference those coordinates against other databases like:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0q39lrsynq7prjc7mm8gq/G25-Ancients.txt?rlkey=33i5tycf3nd6glv1w7z6dleco&e=7&dl=0
There are some important samples not here because of coverage: for example the two other Suvorovo samples could not produce G25 coordinates, but the one that Harvard was able to get any analysis from showed it being cladal with Csongrad/Berezhnovka/Piedmont Eneolithic.
@Davidski
Which papers do you mean?
What is everyone's opinion about the language/languages of the CHG's? I've seen a lot of nationalists from the Caucasus region, mainly Georgians, claiming Proto-Kartvelian for example is derived from them. I don't buy that personally, though I recognise it's not impossible.
What is the general idea about the "local" languages (Kartvelian, NEC, NWC) of that region? Where did the families originate and what are the deepest father cultures based on the haplogroups?
@Norfern
Ghalichi, Lazaridis and Penske.
@Tom
In short, this is how it can be said. Georgian CHG spoke Svan, a language close to it, naturally, East Caucasian CHG spoke Dido, a language close to it.
@ Dave
you might want to break up this topic into sub-sections, e g the north Caucasus Eneolithic, the formation of Sreni Stog, Yamnaya, links to CWC, etc
e.g. Here's a list of Caucasus Y-DNA from updated studies, c/- genealogist Tibor Feher
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TtHnOgrXxgrtaO6cZXYkIU14LduHHbff/view?usp=drive_link
@ Mr Funk
The man with the flag is not Dagestani Ismailov (Kumyk), but Russian Kovalev from Kyiv, he was born in the territory of modern Kazakhstan (the RSFSR back then). Kovalev and Gorychev are Russian surnames, what's the issue?
The ancient roots theory for Caucasian languages is a bad meme. It’s not just internet “nationalists” making unsubstantiated theories, but it’s also at a formal level. One recent example is “The time and place of origin of South Caucasian languages: insights into past human societies, ecosystems and human population genetics” by Alexander Gavashelishvil et al. Claiming that Kartvellian languages emerged in the post-ice age period due to some alleged “Bayesian lexical Analysis”. Yet the study ignores the fact that Kartvellians are dominated by an “Anatolian” related Y hg G2 which is missing in CHG and they moreover do not offer a sound population history. A more sober proposal is the Bronze Age, touched on by “Genetic Analysis of Mingrelians Reveals Long-Term Continuity of Populations in Western Georgia (Caucasus)” by Theodore G Schurr et al although limited to a scan of ydna.
North Caucasians emerged from local Iron Age Koban groups, with NEC linking further back KAx and NWC to some post -Majkop / MBA group.
Btw I noticed Tom Roswell posting garbage created by a “friend” of his about PIE. It’s a shame, coz I though Tom had a bit of IQ
@Car
no, the one with the flag is a Kumyk, he himself told about it in one program
@Rob
why are you writing like an evil version of gpt chat?
@ Mr Funk
Ismailov himself confirmed that he was holding Kovalev's leg to prevent him from falling. The photographer's daughter confirmed that the flag was held by Kovalev, and only Arsen has his own version.
@ Mr Funk
''why are you writing like an evil version of gpt chat?''
ChatGPT is for clueless Bots like you
@Car Who are you?
@Davidski what is your opinion?
You Caucasians
The Caucasus and all this Yamnaya BS is very boring and does not really represent anything for Western Europe. I understand that you claim through genetics an importance that you do not deserve, but the reality is that your contribution to European genetics is minimal. By the way, two important works on the Iron Age in Iberia have been published. Nothing new, the genetic continuity with the Chalcolithic has been confirmed again, the Indo-Europeanists still have to explain why the Iberians being 100% R1b-P312 spoke non-Indo-European languages. It will always be fun to listen to their arguments, the Harvardians are very imaginative and never cease to surprise
An interesting sample in Xinjiang
Target: China_Xinjiang_Caishichang_IA_oWestEurasian:C3320__BC_302__Cov_68.57%
Distance: 1.7810% / 0.01781029
65.6 Russia_BA_SrubnayaAlakul
24.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
9.8 TibetanPlateau_Zongri
Y haplo J2a1a1b2a1a2-Y13535
Wonder if this model replicates on qpadm...
Using it as a primary source...
Target: Punjabi_Sikh_India
Distance: 1.4615% / 0.01461540
60.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
39.2 China_Xinjiang_Caishichang_IA_oWestEurasian
Target: Khatri
Distance: 1.4475% / 0.01447508
62.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
38.0 China_Xinjiang_Caishichang_IA_oWestEurasian
Target: Punjabi_Hindu_India
Distance: 1.4895% / 0.01489458
62.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
37.2 China_Xinjiang_Caishichang_IA_oWestEurasian
@Rob
I want to like Tom Roswell but his understanding of aDNA is poor. Poorer by orders of magnitude than the dumbest poster here or on GenArchivist.
@All
Razib Khan has a new blog post claiming that Germanics are from Finland. Exaggerating the results quite a bit it seems. That particular component of the article seems to be behind a paywall though so can't dissect what he actually has to say. Razib never usually has anything interesting to say.
https://www.razibkhan.com/p/germans-are-from-finland-finns-are
@ Romulus
''Razib Khan has a new blog post claiming that Germanics are from Finland. Exaggerating the results quite a bit it seems. That particular component of the article seems to be behind a paywall though so can't dissect what he actually has to say. Razib never usually has anything interesting to say.
https://www.razibkhan.com/p/germans-are-from-finland-finns-are''''
Very weird take, and obviously fallacious. I dont think even Allentoft et al stated that proto-Germanics come from Finland itself.
Germanics are not from Finland.
If Razib is suggesting that they are, then he's probably just trolling for some clicks. Or he's gone barking mad.
@Gaska I am the only Caucasian
There are a group of people who have decided that the Kiukainen culture must be the source of both I1 and the minor "Baltic" signature in BA Scandinavians on the basis of zero evidence.
''There are a group of people who have decided that the Kiukainen culture must be the source of both I1 and the minor "Baltic" signature in BA Scandinavians on the basis of zero evidence.''
When I think of Finland I essentially think of Karelia-Minino type hunter-gatherers. So a post-Corded 'HG-bounce back' would be R1-rich.
But even if I1 is from Finland, it does not follow that PGMc was brought in by this specific group.
It seems that some people havent graduated beyond Genetics 101
@ Romulus
''I want to like Tom Roswell but his understanding of aDNA is poor.'
I generally like his posts, but was surprised to see him brandishing the problematic Harvard model. But this is symptomatic of all westoids with a slight penchant for Yamnaya larping - in love with the 'academic' steppe model whilst oblivious to its Trojan horse.
I'm going to confront McColl & Allentoft in person. They should be aware of the garbage they publish and it's consequences.
And this is a section of the burial chamber from one of the catacomb burials in Velikent (works from 2003). In total, the remains of more than 600 deceased individuals were recorded in the catacomb. The burials were not simultaneous, as can be seen from the materials in the previous post, but took place over a rather long period. Thus, it is possible that the catacomb represented a kind of "family crypt," where both men and women, adults, teenagers, and children were buried. However, a catacomb containing exclusively child skeletons has also been recorded in Velikent.
https://t.me/dars_lessonsfromthepast/3651
600 dead in one grave, and this is the beginning of the Bronze Age. I wonder why their DNA is not processed?
@ Asega
Best save yourself the effort (they'd probably just tell you to 'write a commentary'), wait for more aDNA from Fenoscandia.
@ Arsen/ Shomu tepe
''600 dead in one grave, and this is the beginning of the Bronze Age. I wonder why their DNA is not processed?''
Sure why not, but what we really need is post-Shuvaleri data from the Caucasus in the period before Kura-Araxes. Apart from Areni cave, which might not be representative, aDNA from this period is the key missing piece in order to understand what happened between the demise of early Caucasian farmers and the emergence of KAx
@Davidski
“Germanics are not from Finland”.
Of course not. Corded Ware in Eastern Europe were Indo-Slavic tribes. Germanic languages are not Indo-Slavic.
The range (distribution) of the Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis).
The dark-shaded areas represent the distribution of this tree.
The solid yellow line marks the boundary of the entire Caucasus ecoregion.
The dashed yellow line shows the borders of its two historical-biogeographical subregions: Colchis in the west and Hyrcania in the southeast.
https://i.ibb.co/933wQZ77/IMG-20250508-222956-725.jpg
@Zelto
I didn't want to go there, but I had to lay into Hakkinen. To be honest, I'm disappointed to find out this is how he communicates: I've had various discussions with a number of Uralicists, and none of them ever talked to me or others like that. Maybe he is embittered by the ongoing rejection of his work. Anyway, thanks for redirecting me to another debate. I probably won't be using that site much after today, though - not that there's anything wrong with it: I'm just only really into the Uralic topic. But let me know here (or you can e-mail me) if you find any good samples for/against the model I propose, thanks. I'll be praying for Lozva-Atlym samples...
@Rob Agreed.
One thing that concerns me is the vector of expansion for proto-Samoyedic under the whole model. The reason being that there'd have to be some pulse eastward around the 8th century. The culture that forms after the 8th century is the Sargat culture, which is very much Scythian influenced. I don't think it quite fits for it. Then there's the issue of "redundancy", as in the language being spread back to the cultures from which proto-Uralic came from, that being Gamayun -> Ananyino -> back to Gamayun etc.
I think something to consider is if these etyma you propose could have been spread around through secondary loans between Ugric and Samoyedic or through some other intermediary, or if proto-Samoyedic didn't form on simply the basis of this hypothetical pulse from Ananyino to the east.
Vavilov Institute study has been on ENA for nearly a year now without update:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJNA1086800
What I presume to be some of the data from the study had already been used for a published paper on Abashevo, but that data was never released.
I wonder if or when we will get anything. As far as I know, this might be the last major study on the PC Steppe for the next while, unless someone knows of other studies in the works.
In the Jizzakh region (Uzbekistan, Central Asia), new archaeological sites dating back to the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods have been discovered.
https://podrobno.uz/cat/obchestvo/v-dzhizakskoy-oblasti-obnaruzhili-novye-arkheologicheskie-pamyatniki-vremen-paleolita-i-neolita/
Paleosols under kurgans and kurgan constructions of the bronze age as indicators of paleoenvironmental conditions in steppe area of russia
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0341816225004242
What I dont understand is why is Razib Khan pretending to understand European archeogenetics, or indeed other topics ?
He presents as a low level publicity Bot for Harvard, bragging about how once had lunch with David Reich.. ..Not much going on
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
I don't know if I was clear about this in our correspondence, but I'm open to other explanations about Samoyedic besides a direct association with Ugric: This is just one possibility following the literature about Ugro-Samoyedic as at least an areal unit, due to their shared but irregular sibilant developments. I was already going to revise my draft (Finngreek 2024) sometime soon; and there are some important aspects about Samoyedic I want to factor in to the discussion: As Holopainen 2019 wrote, the Indo-Iranian loan evidence in "Ugro-Samoyedic" doesn't have any Samoyedic examples. Samoyedic is known to have underwent "lexical loss", but it's still troubling if there are zero examples (please don't ask me about "probability" haha). Also, I've pointed out that western Uralic and Samoyedic don't appear any more distant than Ugric and Samoyedic - sometimes there are even examples of them being closer: Finno-Samoyedic lexical affinity (Blazek 2016), Permic and Ugric undergoing unique developments that Samoyedic and other branches didn't (Aikio 2022), etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by Sargat "not fitting", but we know from loan evidence that Ugric diversified under Iranic influence. Saarikivi 2022 already places the three Ugric core zones in or immediately beside the Sargat horizon (at least as I'm seeing it on Wikipedia). If you mean this is a problem for Samoyedic, then maybe it doesn't fit (at least for long) next to Sargat if we can't show common loans into Ugro-Samoyedic. We can ponder how this might have happened (Samoyedic took the northern Irtysh-Ob path to Kulai, avoiding loans from Sargat?). I wouldn't worry about redundancy, though: Just look at kra001. If this was a Pre-Proto-Uralic speaker, then they moved all the way from the Yenisei to Europe, only for Samoyedic to end up back in the same place. Back-and-forth trips happen all the time - and it's especially unproblematic when we consider that Proto-Uralic speakers were river traders. Going back and forth was probably a routine part of their life (I allude to this in my paper "The oldest Greek loanwords in Proto-Uralic": See entry 4 for ela-). Gamayun and Ananyino were basically immediate neighbors (with Itkul sandwiched between them): So we're not talking about much distance.
Secondary loaning or an intermediary doesn't work since I'm proposing loans that resulted in regular cognates between e.g. Finnic and Samoyedic. All the loans with Samoyedic I propose have Finno-Permic cognates. Either all the loan etymologies I propose into Samoyedic are wrong, or Samoyedic was in the same speaking area (i.e. on the same river system) as the Finno-Ugric languages before it left. Leaving Hellenic out of this, there isn't a linguistic problem with the latter: See the distribution for the word *jvkv ~ *joki 'river' (https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?locale=en_GB&id_eintrag=186). Proto-Uralic was indubitably a riparian language. If Samoyedic hung out somewhere like the upper Chusovaya instead of the Volga-Kama before making its long trip to the Chulym, that's fine with me. If you look at Parpola 2022: Fig. 6 (https://www.academia.edu/78436524/Parpola_A_2022_Location_of_the_Uralic_protolanguage_in_the_Kama_River_Valley_AES_2022_2_258_), there are a few large clusters of Ananyino sites east (upstream) of the Volga-Kama that might be worth considering as a pre-Proto-Samoyedic "homeland". Maybe pre-Proto-Finno-Permic was around Kazan while pre-Proto-Samoyedic was around Perm. This is just speculation, though.
Early neolithic cultures of the Caucasus circa 7000 BC, based on the work of E. A. Cherlenok 👇
https://x.com/akhvakhshaman/status/1920741375462576396
I stopped caring about what Razib has to say when he claimed that the PIE homeland was obviously in West Asia because David Reich said so.
The blind leading the blind.
That's kind of the problem when Ananyino and Gamayun are so close in time, total language replacement from the Ananyino variant of Uralic doesn't make much sense given that if Gamayun is the source of Uralic in Ananyino then they would have still spoken a very close language. In fact given the time scale it's very likely that they would have spoken the same language.
@Norfern
I already told you to stop worrying about the linguistics problems, because that's not your field. There is a difference in this context between "Gamayun migrations" vs. "Gamayun culture". You are still thinking in a rigid sense of "1 culture = 1 language unit", and imagining "total language replacement" - but the only Uralic languages that developed in/near the Gamayun culture were the three Ugric branches (Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty), which can't be reconstructed to a common proto-language. The way the Uralic branches originally developed was not like e.g. Indo-Iranian, where groups swept over large swaths of land and spoke a unified language: The earliest Uralic expansions would have involved warrior-trader parties moving up and down rivers, and settling in specific locations. There was no clear linguistic unity in the Gamayun culture or Ugric sprachbund, so there is no reason to assume that the Gamayun culture itself would have been monolingual even before the arrival of Ugric. The post-Ananyino Ugric also may have had advantages over local Gamayun groups, such as improvements in weaponry/armor and developments in cavalry (Ugric has a unique equestrian lexicon). I'm not going to speculate on what demographic events may have led to the "victory" of Ugric languages during this time, since that might be better told through archaeological or archaeogenetic evidence, but I'm not going to go through all the historical examples of languages being replaced by closely-related neighboring languages.
You should take a break from playing the role of abstract contrarian, and instead spend more time reflecting on the archaeological data to find consistent patterns, if that is how you want to spend your time.
This theory about the Kiukainen culture is really bad. In order to understand the origin of Germanics we need to look at the broader picture of what is happening in Europe at that time. The situation with the Nordic Bronze age and the sudden appearance and expansion of this I1 bearing East Scandinavian group is not a singleton, we see the same pattern occur in the Trzciniec and Unetice Cultures at the same time. In Trzciniec and Unetice both show an elevated relationship to Scandinavian/Baltic type Hunter Gatherers on the autosomal and Y-Chromosome, I2-P37.2 in Trzciniec and I2-M223 ( as well as I1 and I2-P37.2) in Unetice. This is not present in the earlier Corded Ware. So why do we see a resurgence of Hunter Gatherer DNA synchronous with the dawn of the Bronze Age in Northern Europe? We see a similar pattern during the Neolithic across Europe where early farmers lack much WHG DNA but over the course of thousands of years it increases consistently. In this case we see a rather sudden resurgence some 500+ years after the Steppe migration. What is also interesting is that this pattern is completely absent in the Beaker area and is specific to the post-Corded Ware zone. Not just Germanic but Balto-Slavic, Celtic, and seemingly Italic as well derive from these post-Corded Ware cultures.
Nordic Bronze Age -> Germanic
Unetice ->Italo-Celtic
Trzciniec ->Balto-Slavic
It's clear that these Scandinavian/Baltic type Hunter Gatherers did not drop their sticks in 2300-2000 BCE and pick up the blacksmith tongs. What was the mechanism by which these groups thrived in the Corded Ware era leading to the resurgence? The evidence points to a stark contrast in the nature and consequence of the 3000 BCE of Steppe Adjacent migration and the Beaker expansion in 2500 BCE. Many of the Kurganists here work to conflate the two to support their arguments, they deliberately muddy the waters like irrational idiots because the facts don't support their fantasies. Whereas the post-Corded Ware zone spawned exclusively IE languages, the post-Beaker zone spawned only non-IE languages (Basque, Iberian, Rhateic, Etruscan) or "unknown" languages" like Pictish. The picture is clear that the Beakers were not speaking IE before they expanded, either because they adopted their speech from the Neolithic Farmers who catalyzed their metamorphosis from ??Steppe Group?? to Beaker, or because they were not to begin with. Maybe they adopted the speech of these high status neolithic women found in the South German Beaker origin zone (Lech Valley paper), but I doubt that. Either the Beakers at their origin were a Matriarchal culture or they were not IE prior to leaving the Steppe. The Kurganists like neither option and so they just spew irrational shit and tantrum.
“Early neolithic cultures of the Caucasus circa 7000 BC, based on the work of E. A. Cherlenok 👇
https://x.com/akhvakhshaman/status/1920741375462576396”
Don’t know who this retarded Taliban-wannabe is, but he doesn’t know the difference between Mesolithic and Neolithic.
The earliest Neolithic domestic animals and crops in the Caucasus date after 6000 bc
@Rob
as far as i understand he is an atheist, he is trolling with an avatar, he is an Akhvakh by nationality, and i saw your comment there, with your stupid mug
@Rob
Eneolithic map of the Caucasus, circa 4500 BC👇
https://x.com/akhvakhshaman/status/1921482759664517325?s=19
It is interesting that all the sites of Sioni tsopi ginchi (Eneolithic) lie within the Chaff-Faced Ware Culture
@ Romulus
There's no I1 in Unetice.
My point is that since Gamayun would have been a vector of proto-Uralic to Ananyino originally it stands to reason that within just 100 years of time it would have still been spoken in some form there. Same goes for the closely related cultures of Gamayun in Western Siberia formed on the basis of Atlym migrations. So whatever innovations and loans the Ananyino variant may have taken can be spread around in this language community, not just through migrations of bands spreading their specific variant to other communities which adopt them. You said yourself that Uralic languages are weakly differentiated in the early stages and any phylogeny is hard to construct the deeper you go. And there's eat one stage of it's existence given the loanword layers in Yukaghiric.vidence for proto-Samoyedic being closer to proto-Uralic
That's of course if we assume that Gamayun is the source of Uralic in Ananyino in the first place.
*And there's evidence for proto-Samoyedic being closer to proto-Uralic at one stage of it's existence given the loanword layers in Yukaghiric.
I don't know what happened there.
g25 from a man with Avar and German roots👇
https://x.com/dagdag05rd/status/1920599460054184129
@Rob interesting, I haven't seen this version, the steppe Eneolithic clearly contacted the Darkveti group and Sioni Ginchi
@ Arsen / Shomu Tepe
We know steppe Eneolithic was in contact with South Caucasus, not only in map/ border terms, but genetically - Areni Cave.
But Areni don’t need CHG, they can be modelled as a 2 way mix of En Steppe and Iran-shifted PPN.
But KAx has high levels of CHG and a big drop in steppe, not even needed in some individuals. So where did this CHG come from - Darkveti, Sioni, Ginchi, a hidden group in armenia ?
Post a Comment