Page 100 of 129 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102110 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,000 of 1287

Thread: Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

  1. #991
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Hmm... we can add Saarikivi (2020) to Aikio (2019) and Janhunen (2013) as supporters of a West Siberian/TransUral, vs Volga-Kama/CisUral homeland:

    The argument (Ugric is the oldest and not even coherent as a branch, so 3 old branches all close tgt in an area must be the homeland) doesn't seem particularly strong to me, but we can see that there is scope for reasonable disagreement regarding the homeland.
    Yes, that is a poor argument. Saarikivi just totally ignores all the arguments presented for the Volga-Kama homeland.

    Where Aikio supports the Siberian homeland? I haven't found it.

  2. #992
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Can anyone access this paper?

    https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=38505428

    Saarikivi references it in the 2020 paper as important in establishing the Eastern limits of the Finnic spread.
    Here:
    https://journal.fi/uralicahelsingien...load/uh11/uh11

  3. #993
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    The data in the paper, on which the map is based, shows that the phylogeny and distributions of these markers are associated with Uralic populations and expansions, and it most certainly does not prove your point.
    Post-Proto-Uralic populations. Important difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    Of course, you can claim that is just a remarkable set of coincidences, because that's the only course of action you have left, but no one will really believe you, even those who say that you're "wrong for the right reasons".
    I can't be wrong when I say, that we cannot claim to know the genetic composition of the Proto-Uralic speakers. Anyone, who claims to know that, is wrong.

  4. #994
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    It seems like you're trying really hard to disassociate the role of east Siberian ancestry and N-L1026 had in the formation of Proto-Uralic though however.
    No, you got it wrong. All I'm saying is, that we don't have evidence of that yet. You know, in science only the evidence matter. E

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe
    Your linguistic results. not the linguistic results.
    I have collected also all the relevant results from the earlier researchers. They all point to the same direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe
    Can yo make a case based on archaeology that the Garino-Bor culture responsible for the spread of Uralic people? Because otherwise it is not really linking, it is just throwing options out there.
    It has connections to Upper Volga (Chirkovo) and Siberia (Krotovo), about the areas, where the first wave of Uralic expansion spread.

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe
    We know the origin of Garino-Bor, in that it is derived from the same populations as Neolithic Volga-Kama populations such as Lyalovo/Volosovo. No Garino Bor samples but we do have a genomes frrom the Lyalovo/Volosovo, as well as some other Neolithic Volga-Kama samples, and when you put 1+1 together you can imagine what kind of genetic structure the Garino Bor had.
    You cannot make that math.
    1. There is always gene flow between nearby populations.
    2. There is always cultural influence between nearby cultures.
    3. Populations and cultures have many roots - you cannot just take one root and claim that language followed it.


    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe
    Unless you can make a case the Garino Bor people had significant East Siberian ancestry through whatever means, archaeology or DNA. But of course you can play that game where you say it's not necessary for the Proto-Uralic Garino Bor people to have had N lineages or East Siberian ancestry, which brings me back to the point I mentioned earlier.
    We will see when we have aDNA from there. Before that, no 1+1 can ever reach the truth.

  5. #995
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    If you look at the article by Saarikivi (2020), he reviews your points and highlights that some disagree with your hypothesis of a Ugro-Samoyedic branch according to phonology, e.g. Grunthal, who sees it has problematic. I haven't read Grunthal's article yet, but what do you make of this?
    Unfortunately Saarikivi only scratches the surface there; he doesn't present any new arguments nor consider the earlier arguments.

    Grünthal only points that morphological level can give something to the taxonomy, but he doesn't question the importance of phonology.
    https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust253/sust253_grunthal.pdf
    "This article emphasises that there is still much to be learned regarding the historical relationship between the Uralic languages. The evidence from Finnic and Mordvinic
    grammatical elements suggests that this aspect should be more carefully examined in the analysis of the historical development."

  6. #996
    Registered Users
    Posts
    196
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Swedish 1/2 German
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    U2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    They are related, yes, but spread differently.
    Autosomal composition can change in every generation, as you know. Think about the Lithuanian N-men with no Nganasan ancestry. So you shouldn't tie autosomal ancestries, to paternal lineages, that is a mistake. You can only say in which samples they meet.
    Yes, that's not disputable. I was referring to the autosomal composition of the original N-L1026* population, which was presumably Nganasan-like. Although, this ancestry has survived, it's found in Finns and even Estonians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    You remember, that N-L1026 is present in populations from several language families. Uralic is just one of these, so you should avoid the tunnel vision
    I recognize that there is no 1:1 relationship between any haplogroup and language. But, Uralic is a broadly distributed and phylogenetically distant subclades of N-L1026 appear at high frequencies in geographically and typologically distant branches of Uralic. Also, some of its distribution in non-Uralic speakers can easily be explained by prehistoric/historic contacts with Uralic speakers.

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Zelto For This Useful Post:

     Generalissimo (04-19-2021),  Michał (04-19-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (04-20-2021),  Ryukendo (04-19-2021)

  8. #997
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto View Post
    Yes, that's not disputable. I was referring to the autosomal composition of the original N-L1026* population, which was presumably Nganasan-like. Although, this ancestry has survived, it's found in Finns and even Estonians.
    Even if the original L1026 population were 100 % Nganasan-ancestry, the situation changed right after the first generation mixed with the aboriginals. Result:
    1. N-men with varying degrees of Nganasan ancestry
    2. Other haplogroups with varying degrees of Nganasan ancestry

    So there really is no true connection, which we could follow. All we can do is to collect the evidence of aDNA and try to reconstruct the population movements throug different temporal steps. If some of these population movements matches the linguistic results in time and place and the direction of spread in every temporal step, only then we have a scientifically acceptable evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto
    I recognize that there is no 1:1 relationship between any haplogroup and language. But, Uralic is a broadly distributed and phylogenetically distant subclades of N-L1026 appear at high frequencies in geographically and typologically distant branches of Uralic. Also, some of its distribution in non-Uralic speakers can easily be explained by prehistoric/historic contacts with Uralic speakers.
    Some, yes.

  9. #998
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    4,850
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    I can't be wrong when I say, that we cannot claim to know the genetic composition of the Proto-Uralic speakers. Anyone, who claims to know that, is wrong.
    I don't think I'm wrong when I say that Proto-Uralic speakers must have been rich in N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry.

    This is a very logical deduction, and if you claim that they weren't, then you should explain why N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry show such an unusually strong correlation with Uralic speakers and nearby groups that they came into contact with.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Generalissimo For This Useful Post:

     CopperAxe (04-19-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (04-20-2021)

  11. #999
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    4,850
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Even if the original L1026 population were 100 % Nganasan-ancestry, the situation changed right after the first generation mixed with the aboriginals. Result:
    1. N-men with varying degrees of Nganasan ancestry
    2. Other haplogroups with varying degrees of Nganasan ancestry.
    People from different cultures don't mix readily. It's a process that takes time and usually shows very specific patterns.

    See that's why even analyses based on modern DNA can pick up very subtle genetic relationships between linguistic relatives.




  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Generalissimo For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (04-20-2021),  CopperAxe (04-19-2021),  Max_H (04-19-2021),  Michał (04-19-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (04-20-2021)

  13. #1000
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    I don't think I'm wrong when I say that Proto-Uralic speakers must have been rich in N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry.
    It is possible, yet far from proven. I would say, that those were possible present among some other lineages and ancestries.

    Time will show, if we find aDNA in the right time and place, so that we can connect them to the Proto-Uralic speakers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    This is a very logical deduction, and if you claim that they weren't, then you should explain why N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry show such an unusually strong correlation with Uralic speakers and nearby groups that they came into contact with.
    I never claimed that they weren't - I always said that there isn't enough evidence.

    The reason why there is a correlation with the Uralic languages, is, that Uralic is the last widespread language family in the Northeastern Europe, if we exclude Russian. It follows, that any lineage and any ancestry present in the Northeastern Europe gets similar correlation with the Uralic languages. Just like any lineage and any ancestry in the Northwestern Europe gets a correlation with the Germanic languages.

    Of course we shouldn't look only at the modern languages in the certain area - we must acknowledge that earlier there were many different languages in NE and NW Europe. These earlier languages could also correlate with the same lineages and ancestries.

Page 100 of 129 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102110 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Uralic
    By JoeyP37 in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-14-2021, 03:15 AM
  2. Replies: 160
    Last Post: 11-16-2020, 06:28 PM
  3. Ante Aikio on Proto-Uralic
    By anglesqueville in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-03-2019, 05:36 AM
  4. Eurogenes Uralic genes Analysis
    By J Man in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 09-26-2015, 01:20 PM
  5. Is there Tocharian influence in Uralic? Implications?
    By newtoboard in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-06-2015, 12:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •