Page 122 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2272112120121122123124 ... LastLast
Results 1,211 to 1,220 of 1287

Thread: Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

  1. #1211
    Registered Users
    Posts
    196
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Swedish 1/2 German
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    U2

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    Arctic expansion doesnt seem likely but something along the latitude of the central Ob river kind of makes sense. Rapid expansion westwards along those latitudes and then separate, gradual migrations southwards, absorbing local ancestries in the process seems to fit pretty well with the distribution of East Siberian ancestry and N-L1026 lineages amongst Uralic peoples.

    Potential point of origin? I think the regions north and west of the Angara river bend make sense, considering it is directly linked to the Yenisei river.
    Again, if those FtDNA call are correct (I wish there was a more definitive source) N-L1026 could have formed as far east as the Lena.

    I agree, an Arctic expansion would require a complete disassociation with Uralic. Multiple founder effects/bottlenecks among post split Uralic populations, would be needed to explain the current distribution of N-L1026 subclades. Not likely at all, IMO.

    The role N-L1026/kra001-like had in Seima-Turbino still needs to be investigated. Maybe slightly farther South, but an expansion from around the same latitude as Novosibirsk seems reasonable.
    Last edited by Zelto; 04-22-2021 at 07:54 PM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Zelto For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (04-22-2021)

  3. #1212
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,337
    Sex

    For what its worth, ADMIXTURE has often been good at inferring the existence of components that do turn out to be near-matches to actually recovered ancient DNA, where the components do in fact peak in populations where the ancient DNA is best retained (e.g. Yamnaya ancestry in Lithuanians, Iran_N ancestry in Pakistani populations, Caucasus_HG ancestry in Georgians).

    The "Khanty" component in Tambets et al 2018 that strongly distinguishes Uralic peoples from their neighbours is ~40% European-like. If, with some reservations one bets that early Uralic ancestry (either late Proto-Uralic or early post-Proto-Uralic ancestry) peaks in today's Khanty, this implies quite a bit of Steppe_MLBA in early Uralics. Now we don't know in what ways Khanties differ from that population (we wouldn't know that the "NE Euro" component peaking in Lithuanians differed from Yamnaya, which also peaks in Lithuanians, by having a bit more WHG and EEF until we got the ancient DNA), but given that modern Khanties are probably admixed with local Kra001 substrate (they live near the lower Ob close to the Arctic circle, very far from their homeland), one can guess that proto-Khanties and possibly early Uralics near the foothills of the Urals were a little bit more European than that. Not too confident about this, but in light of the mania for predictions I'm gonna bet that when the samples come to the labs it will turn out like this.
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 04-22-2021 at 09:18 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

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

     Alain (04-22-2021),  Jaska (04-22-2021),  Megalophias (04-22-2021),  parastais (04-22-2021)

  5. #1213
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,337
    Sex

    Here is a presentation given by Sampsa Holopainen in 2017, about archaic IE and NWIE loanwords in Western Uralic and Baltic Finnish.
    https://www.academia.edu/37668508/Va...alaislainoista

    It reads very well in Google document translate. A few mistranslations:
    ieur = indo-european; kanta- (e.g. kantauralin, kantaarja) = proto-
    Birch Bark/Birch Leaves = Koivulehto
    Rock = Kallio

    Very interesting presentation! His conclusions:
    ➢ Many of the archaic Indo-European loans presented in Baltic Finland are clearly uncertain or false etymologies
    ➢ One must therefore keep one's head cold in relying on the evidence of loan contacts in prehistory in the study
    ➢ The same applies to the definition of early contact areas
    ➢ Less compelling reasons to expect old contacts in the Baltic Sea region
    ➢ However, the idea of ​​North - West Indo - European loans should not be abandoned altogether, and the narrow-spreading laryngeal etymologies [Ryu: laryngeal etymologies with a narrow distribution] of birch leaves [Ryu: of Koivulehto] cannot be discarded, let alone ignored with a shrug!
    Edit: An interesting thing here that deserves mention is that there are only about 20 NWIE/archaic IE items with Baltic Finnish distribution, of which he claims many are problematic. It would be nice if Kummel and him could work together through the remaining ones with Laryngeals as well, going through the entire layer with Kummel's new reconstruction of Laryngeals in IIr.
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 04-22-2021 at 08:54 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Jaska (04-22-2021),  JMcB (04-22-2021),  Michał (04-23-2021),  parastais (04-22-2021)

  7. #1214
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,337
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Standardized Ape View Post
    I had to dig through the entire Finnish forum to find it. It concerns a people known as the Otšela chudes. Oddly enough one member(Shaikorth) labeled them a group of criminals! Strange forum.
    https://kultuur.postimees.ee/4455107...st-otsad-kokku
    "Recent studies based on old DNA by the Estonian Biocentre also suggest that the rural population of Adaste was different from the Estonians. Therefore, the burials buried in the grave differ significantly from the medieval rural Estonians based on genetic data - located between them and modern Mordvins, pointing to the east."
    Can you link the forum post?
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

  8. #1215
    Registered Users
    Posts
    506
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Not with PIE, but after that.
    Well even after PIE, you still supposedly have a checklist of Archaic IE, Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian, and NWIE to run through which instead of 3000 bc gives a starting point of 2800-2500 bc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    So, you cannot connect those genetic phenomena to "earlier than Late Proto-Uralic"? Then it is not a match at that temporal step (unless aDNA in the future gives us older evidence).
    Nope.

    I think there is a more pressing dilemma at hand actually, and that is that Pre-Proto-Uralic seemingly has connections to East Siberian languages. Very eastern ones, like Yukhagir. Maybe not directly related, but contact perhaps. This is something you tentatively support right?

    If so, you have to look for a genetic signal that is Transbaikalish at the least, or you are going to have to convince me that Yukhagir was a West-Siberian hunter gatherer language.

    And this genetic signal has to be present in somewhat of a sizeable population, and neither genetics or archaeology seems to be in favour of such an event occurring. Like if we are really stretching it you could have a 2300-2000 bc westwards and we just havent been able to differentiate their sites from others. But accepting this would mean that several of the factors which tie Proto-Uralic to Europe such as Pre-Indo-Iranian, Archaic IE, NWIE etc. are not applicable. Then Archaic IE and Pre-Indo-Iranian points of contact have to be relocated to Siberia for example. But if we can do that in that case, we can also do that if there is no signal present in Europe inbetween 2300 and 2000 bc.

    Or, Pre-Proto-Uralic has nothing to do with East Siberia; which is the only way you can explain Proto-Uralic being linked to the Garino-Bor culture or any other contemporary peoples in the vicinity.

    So if Proto-Uralic is has links to East Siberia, it came from N-L1026 and before that shows up we cannot assume Proto-Uralics were there, unless there is a solid archaeological case to be made to extend dates beyond the oldest samples. If it is not, then it can be explained by way of East Siberians language flipping to EHG/WSHG languages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Maybe you can then consider other options? How about this:

    When Seima-Turbino network spread to Europe, most probably connected to the spread of those Siberian genetic features, the original Turbino people in the Kama region took advantage, joined the network and got the local trade network in their own hands, of course as subordinates to the "Great Khan" of the Altai Bronze Mafia. That could have resulted as the admixture of local and Siberian ancestries and the spread of the original Turbino language (Proto-Uralic) soon after 2000 BC.

    The other European centre, Seima, was in the Upper Volga-Oka region, where we find the West Uralic dialect (> Mordvin, Meryanic, Saami and Finnic).
    No those EHG remnant populations had unfortunate fates. They were in no position of power over anyone. Not to mention I don't think there is any indication that these type of events occured in the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. I find most descriptions a bit to fruitful to be honest, not to mention the conclusions people draw from those descriptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    It's a new synthesis, but many Uralicists have reviewed it positively. Archaeologically the Daugava route is better supported than the "straight" northern route directly to the Northern Estonia (ceramics, fortified settlements etc.). Linguistic data still allows different possible interpretations, though.

    Placename evidence is not yet conclusive, but I hope in the future we will find out more about that. Still, there are possibly old (there's no chronologically clarifying phonological criteria) Finnic placenames even in Lithuania, and Occam's razor states, that it is more probable the Finnic speakers arrived from there, than it is to assume, that Finnic speakers arrived from the north, then spread to the south, then were replaced by the Balts again.
    Why couldn't you have a scenario where early Finnic peoples migrated from north to south, and then only got replaced/assimilated by Baltic people coming in during the LBA?
    If they migrated along the Daugava and then moved northwards, only for their southern relatives to get assimilated into Baltic speaking communities, then we could equally have the opposite scenario right?

    Or rather, why couldn't you have both scenarios at the same time? Too geographically vast for Proto-Finnic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    I'm positively surprised that you accepted the challenge.
    And thanks for the constructive answer - no need for any of us to get banned again...
    I haven't been banned or suspended yet. Squeaky clean

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Steps:
    1. Proto-Uralic in the Volga-Kama area around 2000 BC.
    2. East Uralic dialect/areal unit southeast from Kama soon after that; possibly already in the both sides of the Ural mountains.
    3. Pre-Proto-Samoyedic jumps far away from the closest relatives, to the Altai-Sayan region. (One cannot ignore the possible pulling factor of the Seima-Turbino network.) Time estimates are rough when there is no conclusive chronological evidence, but somewhere between 1500-1000 BC seems right. Contacts with Pre-Proto-Yukaghir and possibly with Iranians established.
    4. Late Proto-Samoyedic stage achieved some centuries before 1 AD. Contacts with Proto-Turkic and possibly Proto-Yeniseic.
    5. Samoyedic inner dialectology is still uncertain, but there seem to have been already many primary branches, indicating a fast spread towards the north. There some Yeniseic speakers are assimilated in the way, especially by the Selkup branch. North Samoyedic may be a protodialect or an areal unit. Some arctic Palaeo-Siberian language is assimilated by the Nganasan, and contacts with Khanty are established by the (Forest) Nenets. Probably only around 1000 AD the coasts of Arctic Sea areas are reached, and Tundra Nenets starts to spread to the west, reaching the Kanin Peninsula in the Arkhangel region around 1500 AD.
    Out of the numerous amount of samples we had adjacent to the Sayan region I haven't come across any which had a particular affinity to Samoyeds or a fitting Samoyedic source parent for example. I get that we probably dont have any samples from relevant regions and that their populations would've been small, but still the lack of the signal so far is strange.

    There is one outlier from the Andronovo samples at Krasnoyarsk which has 25% Kra001-like ancestry, 25% WSHG like (probably from west of the Altai) and 50% steppe mlba, but it predates the supposed presence of Samoyedic peoples in the region. Also had a Q lineage.

    But none of the Karasuk samples including outliers show strong signs of it, nor any of the following eastern Scytho-Siberian samples like Tagar, Pazyryk, Sagly etc.

    For example the proposed homeland of the Yeniseian language seems to correlate pretty well with the populations in the region around the LBA/EIA. The only difference is that Kra001-like ancestry so far hasnt show itself in considerable amounts amongst any of the LBA/EIA samples around the Sayan region and the Ket do have a lot of that. But aside from that you have populations on the WSHG-ESHG cline, steppe_mlba and we even see mixed populations with predominantly Siberian lineages on their paternal sides but still a lot of steppe_mlba ancestry.

    By the way I think Yeniseian is argued to be a bit older than Proto-Yeniseian around 1 AD. The hints of Yeniseian languages we find in Xiongnu and Jié related textual attestations seem to point towards Southern Yeniseian languages specifically, indicating that this split already must've occurred before that date.

    What are the arguments for Pre-Proto-Samoyedic being placed in the Altai-Sayan from around 1500 bc to 500 bc-ish (?) on linguistic grounds anyways? Couldn't they have arrived to the Altai-Sayan from a more northern region after 500 bc?

    Oh, and considering there is no genetically traceable signal of this bronze age migration yet, is there an archaeological trail of such movements?
    Last edited by CopperAxe; 04-22-2021 at 09:05 PM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Michał (04-23-2021)

  10. #1216
    Registered Users
    Posts
    194
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Can you link the forum post?
    Most of the forum is private because of EU laws relating to personal genetic information or something like that.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Standardized Ape For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (04-22-2021)

  12. #1217
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,337
    Sex

    Holopainen has reviewed the articles in a book, The precursors of Proto-Indo-European:The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. His review is very measured. THe chapters of the book are written by professional linguists using mainstream methods in comparative linguistics, and are scrutinised with through that lens as well. This is, I think, an excellent overview of how people working in the mainstream can try (but as expected mostly fail) to advance long-range comparisons, and how much care is necessary when dealing with the material.

    One interesting point he raises is that most proponents of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis are on the IE side, with most Uralicists much less convinced, and the body of evidence put forward both in previous work and in the current volume is usually a little lacking on the Uralic side. Also a funny quote:

    It is good that the material here is not mixed up with more distant Nostratic comparisons.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Jaska (04-22-2021),  JMcB (04-22-2021),  JoeyP37 (04-22-2021)

  14. #1218
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    I'm saying that the spread of Uralic speech and Siberian ancestry into the Baltic region during the Iron Age was facilitated by the same population.
    Possible, yet still unproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    And since language can be a strong barrier to gene flow, the association between Uralic speech and elevated Siberian ancestry has persisted into the present.
    There are still also other options.
    That language can be a barrier, does not mean that it always is, or that every barrier is language-related. You should avoid too black-and-white overinterpretations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    So the upshot, unfortunately for you, is that it doesn't matter whether the early Uralics used the southern route, northern route or middle route to get to Estonia, because they didn't just spread Siberian ancestry randomly as they moved west, but instead in very specific cases and overwhelmingly into their linguistic descendants.
    You cannot make a possibility as a certainty.

  15. #1219
    Registered Users
    Posts
    506
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    but given that modern Khanties are probably admixed with local Kra001 substrate (they live near the lower Ob close to the Arctic circle, very far from their homeland), one can guess that proto-Khanties and possibly early Uralics near the foothills of the Urals were a little bit more European than that. Not too confident about this, but in light of the mania for predictions I'm gonna bet that when the samples come to the labs it will turn out like this.
    The iron age Sargat samples show about 20% Kra001 like ancestry.

    Khanty don't live all that far away from where the iron age Kulai culture was, which is associated with Ugric peoples like the Sargat culture. Just more northern along the Ob. Given that Kulai was northeast of the Sargat you'd expect quite a jump in Kra001-like ancestry because the Sargat culture was proximate to Scythian groups, whereas the Kulai culture was a bit further away.

    The Khanty have about the double of Kra001-like ancestry than the Sargat. If the Sargat had significant ancestry from steppe groups after 1000 bc, this would imply that their bronze age source population was probably closer to modern Ugric peoples.

  16. #1220
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto View Post
    There was no mass migration, archeologists stress that the entire Seima-Turbino phenomenon consisted of relatively few individuals. Also, I don't think Seima-Turbino is at the wrong place, or wrong time to be connected with Proto-Uralic. Even if Late Proto-Uralic broke up west of the Urals, why couldn't S-T have brought Pre-Proto/Early Proto-Uralic to Turbino?
    It contradicts for example the Pre-Proto-Aryan loanword layer: nobody has presented any reliable argument that this language was ever spoken in Siberia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto
    You can't claim it was some "random migration" either, as you yourself have connected it, at least partially, to the spread of Proto-Uralic.
    All I said is, that even if the European part of the S-T network was connected to the spread of PU, it does not mean, that other parts of the S-T network were also connected to the spread of PrePU.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto
    Because the post-Fatyanovo language was replaced by Uralics, spread by Seima-Turbino. There are far more necropli located in the related Fatyanovo-Balanovo/Abashevo culture, than the single Turbino site in Garino-Bor. Abashevo influences begin all the way in West Siberia.
    How is this relevant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto
    That's not true, they were just some of the fist sites discovered; Seima is also located in the previously Fatyanovo area. There are also the Reshnoe, Yurino, Kaninskaya cave and Satyga necropoli west of the Urals.
    See the maps of the S-T findings: Seima and Turbino were the greatest centres in Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto
    How does Seima-Turbino being linguistically diverse, make it any more likely PU was spread from Garino-Bor? If anything that would make it harder to effect language change across the network. S-T groups also had preestablished contact with the neighboring cultures.
    S-T was a newcomer in Europe, so they relied on the local network - they didn't have their own yet. The Kama people were the first they met in the European side, and therefore they had a chance to become important within that network.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto
    Seima-Turbino was spread via elite dominance, that is pretty well accepted. There was no mass migration, only a small number of traders and bronze smiths, who formed an elite within native cultures.
    I mean that "no mass migration" does not mean, that elite dominance is the only option.
    Still, the socio-linguistic factors, prestige etc. probably had contained "elite" features, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto
    Unless the local Garino-Bor population held a higher social position than the migrating Seima-Turbino group (+Fatyanovo-Balanovo/Abashevo), there is no reason to assume they would adopt AND spread their language.
    It is not probable that locals just let few foreign traders to hustle there, without setting any terms and deals. Especially, because there was no "tribal movement" involved = no fear of violent reaction. So, the network could only spread and grow, if they gave something to the locals.

    So the "higher position" is relative:
    Siberian S-T originals > Kama/Turbino S-T posse > more western periphery.

Page 122 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2272112120121122123124 ... 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
  •