Page 102 of 129 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112 ... LastLast
Results 1,011 to 1,020 of 1288

Thread: Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

  1. #1011
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    But the correlation between N-L1026, Nganasan-related ancestry and Uralic languages isn't just found in Northeastern Europe. It's also found in Siberia and in ancient DNA from the Carpathian Basin (Hungarian conquerors).
    That is true: ancient Hungarians clearly have DNA traces from Siberia.
    And ancient Bulgarians probably also have DNA traces from Siberia, and Crimean Tatars have it, too.

    Again we face the same problem: we have gene flows from the east, but we cannot see from DNA to which language they are connected. You cannot just decide, that they must be connected to the language which is seen in the area at the present moment.

    For example, Avars lived in Hungary before Hungarians, and they came from Siberia, too. There are proposed Tungusic loanwords in Hungarian, connected to this wave. Bolghar-Hunnic people also came to Hungary from the east before Avars.

    So, how can we know for sure, that this eastern geneflow in Hungarians really is connected only to the spread of Uralic languages and not to any movement before them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    Why do you think that N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry correlate better with Uralic speakers and ancient peoples regarded to have been Uralic speakers than with groups from any other language family, especially considering the rapid and relatively late spread of N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry across North Eurasia?
    But do they correlate better?
    N-L1026 is found in the Chukchis, so can we say it is a Proto-Chukchi lineage?
    Or can it be both Proto-Uralic and Proto-Chukchi?

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    Is there a plausible alternative explanation to Proto-Uralics and early Uralics being rich in N-L1026 and Nganasan-related ancestry?
    Define "rich". Nganasan ancestry varies from few percents in Southern Finnic speakers to ~25 % in Saami (part of that possibly inherited from the assimilated non-Uralic BOO people with 50 % of Siberian ancestry), to ~10 % in Mordvinians, to ~35 % in Udmurts, being the majority ancestry only in the Siberian Uralic speakers.

    Furthermore, in Tambets et al. 2018 the Siberian ancestries split already in the K=9 of the Admixture analysis: after that, only in the Nganasans the Nganasan ancestry is majority; others take Khanty ancestry instead.

  2. #1012
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    Genes don't just spread via osmosis for no reason, especially when they do it this fast in very specific directions. The expansions of N-L1026, Nganasan-related ancestry, and Uralic languages are obviously intimately connected.

    You can't accuse us of pseudoscience for noticing this obvious fact.
    Of course I haven't accused anybody for noticing facts.
    I accuse people pseudoscientific only if they claim they can ignore the linguistic results and instead see the language from the DNA.

    My previous post shows how much there are possible interpretations, if we don't let the tunnel vision get the hold of us. We cannot stare only at the present languages, because gene flow could have been spread with some older linguistic waves.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jaska For This Useful Post:

     Huck Finn (04-20-2021),  Pylsteen (04-20-2021)

  4. #1013
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,337
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    That is true: ancient Hungarians clearly have DNA traces from Siberia.
    And ancient Bulgarians probably also have DNA traces from Siberia, and Crimean Tatars have it, too.

    Again we face the same problem: we have gene flows from the east, but we cannot see from DNA to which language they are connected. You cannot just decide, that they must be connected to the language which is seen in the area at the present moment.

    For example, Avars lived in Hungary before Hungarians, and they came from Siberia, too. There are proposed Tungusic loanwords in Hungarian, connected to this wave. Bolghar-Hunnic people also came to Hungary from the east before Avars.

    So, how can we know for sure, that this eastern geneflow in Hungarians really is connected only to the spread of Uralic languages and not to any movement before them?


    But do they correlate better?
    N-L1026 is found in the Chukchis, so can we say it is a Proto-Chukchi lineage?
    Or can it be both Proto-Uralic and Proto-Chukchi?


    Define "rich". Nganasan ancestry varies from few percents in Southern Finnic speakers to ~25 % in Saami (part of that possibly inherited from the assimilated non-Uralic BOO people with 50 % of Siberian ancestry), to ~10 % in Mordvinians, to ~35 % in Udmurts, being the majority ancestry only in the Siberian Uralic speakers.

    Furthermore, in Tambets et al. 2018 the Siberian ancestries split already in the K=9 of the Admixture analysis: after that, only in the Nganasans the Nganasan ancestry is majority; others take Khanty ancestry instead.
    This "Khanty ancestry" is actually a combination of approx 50% Nganasan-like ancestry, quite a bit of Steppe MLBA/Europe_LNBA type ancestry, and some ANE-rich ancestry, precisely the combination we've been talking about as characterising either late Proto-Uralic speakers or early post-Proto-Uralic speakers. You can see this when the ADMIXTURE is run at lower K (which is a source of subjectivity and non-interpretability as you very well know). That nganasans are recently uralicised and in fact carry little early Uralic ancestry is something covered earlier in this thread, as you know as well. In the formal statistics, much more interpretable results regarding the place of the Ngansan component of this "Khanty ancestry" is presented.
    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... "

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

     Ebizur (04-20-2021),  Michał (04-20-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (04-20-2021),  parastais (04-20-2021)

  6. #1014
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    There's an element of talking-past-each-other in this discussion that's difficult to ignore.

    Jaska's fundamental points across several threads (linguistic problems cannot be readily solved by genetic, archaeological etc. data; a robust multidisciplinarian approach is necessary to either solve, approximate or construct parsimonious theories pertaining to human migration patterns or ethnogenesis; the typical approach had on lay discussion forums cannot conceivably replace any robust multidisciplinarian approach)... As far as I'm concerned, these statements are completely true.
    That is hard for some people to accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX
    However - And in defense of the members arguing in the opposite direction - There are several points that either work against a practical application of these points, or underscore the fragility of the paradigm in which these points are expected to function within:

    As Ryu's stated, the Uralic linguistic data's (apparently*) unsettled. If a consensus hasn't been reached (yet?) with the linguistic question concerning the pU urheimat, it may be considered reasonable (on the basis of alternate practices within linguistics**) to appraise urheimat scenarios based on other, ostensibly secure, non-linguistic evidence. This may not be "best practice" (or "ideal practice"), but it's certainly not unheard of within linguistics (further below).
    English Wikipedia:
    "In the 21st century, linguistic arguments have placed the Proto-Uralic homeland possibly around the Kama River or, more generally, close to the Great Volga Bend and the Ural Mountains"

    So there is a consensus, if we only count the opinions of the researchers and studies, who consider all the relevant linguistic evidence. In addition, there are superficial scratches without handling of any relevant evidence, stating for some reason a neutral and uncertain situation on the homeland question (Nichols, Saarikivi). Then there are some older fellows, who have no valid arguments but who just can't give up the view which they have so long supported (the Siberian homeland, mostly in Hungary and Russia).

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX
    Summarised, the position(s) and means of reaching this/these position(s) by our members aren't unreasonable, nor are they substantively less methodological than a lot of what I've (we've?) seen in historical linguistics papers. Expecting an ideal standard strikes me as an unfair position, given the above.
    I can see where your viewpoint comes. But still, the only methodology that I recall to have ever required from anybody here is, that people wouldn't try to see language from DNA, because that is just impossible. And always will be.

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX
    There are, however, some productive ways to address this interesting dilemma:

    Jaska - If you happen to be aware of any current "best practice" guidelines regarding a methodological assessment of linguistic issues, we'd be very grateful to receive this from you. It'd certainly elevate the level of discourse, in addition to perhaps granting some in the community with a clearer understanding of your perspective and why the scattershot, here's-a-paper-I'll-hinge-my-views-on collective approach to complex problems isn't the best one.
    I quite can't catch your point - there are too many possible interpretations in my head for the sentence "guidelines regarding a methodological assessment of linguistic issues". Could you write it open, what exactly do you mean by that?

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX
    An understanding that everyone's here to learn, is well-meaning and willing to engage in productive discourse, and that actions derivative of the alternative won't benefit anyone (which includes borderline-ad hominem's about wishing to "remain ignorant" or "grandstanding"). General point.
    True. It is difficult to not go along, when people take it personally when their views are challenged. But I must give credit to the moderators here: I got a ban for a week, so I will now try another stylistic strategies.

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX
    No gatekeeping - Informally learning the scientific method is clearly feasible thanks to the Internet, and at least half of this forum (easily) is competent-enough to adopt it.
    Agreed: people here are smart. Bigger problem than the lack of mental capacity might be the love towards one's own opinion.

    Thanks for your very convincing post!

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Jaska For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (04-20-2021)

  8. #1015
    Registered Users
    Posts
    512
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post

    Indeed, when I asked him to tell us what the geographic anchors were for a Proto-Uralic homeland in Europe (apart from the contested Indo-Aryan contacts), he refused to answer, citing a bad attitude by CopperAxe as the reason, or some such.
    Lol we are in 100 pages deep with nearly 300 comments from Jack and he still hasn't done this. It won't happen either, and we all know why

  9. #1016
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo
    In fact, there were at least two linguistic papers published recently putting the Proto-Uralic homeland in Siberia. Why should we ignore these papers, which included very coherent arguments, just because Jaska is here?
    To your earlier points I answered in my previous post. But about this one:
    I haven't seen any paper with relevant linguistic arguments, supporting the Siberian homeland. So could you tell me which papers do you mean? Then I can assess the arguments against those supporting the European homeland.

    It takes time, though - it is a much wider analysis than just a mere forum post. That' why I cannot give you any short answers right here, right now. I hoped you could have gotten something out of my long Finnish article with the help of the Google translator, but I know how crappy the translator can be.
    Last edited by Jaska; 04-20-2021 at 06:37 AM.

  10. #1017
    Registered Users
    Posts
    512
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Then there are some older fellows, who have no valid arguments but who just can't give up the view which they have so long supported (the Siberian homeland, mostly in Hungary and Russia).
    The irony in this statement

    Almost as funny as time time you told Coldmountains to google the Fatyanovo culture.

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

     Michał (04-20-2021)

  12. #1018
    Registered Users
    Posts
    491
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c1 CTS 12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    That is, he's wrong for the wrong reasons, not the right reasons.
    The way I see this discussion is based on a. Jaska's etc. idea of Proto Uralic (the language) being located in Ural area, probably in Volga-Kama area, because of linguistic (again, he's discussing the language) reasons and b. the idea of some other people, apparently including you, that Proto Uralic was spoken in Krasnoyarsk Krai because of genetic reasons and based on kra001. There's a serious mismatch, even though there's always room for different interpretations, of course, as long as genetics are not used as linguistic evidence and vice versa.

    Some related points: kra001 and his relatives may have spoken something entirely different language such as Proto Tungusic i.e. not Uralic, before a possible language switch in Ural area. Maybe BA Volga Kama was a mirror image of that what happened in Hungary? Also, the presumption of innocence principle: it is apparently very difficult or even impossible to prove that Proto Indo Iranic etc. was not spoken in BA Krasnoyarsk Krai. It may have been spoken in many places, but there are only few places which can be justified by using the evidence we have. Lack of evidence is of course not a proof as such.

    It may well be that kra001 spoke Pre Proto Uralic or it may be that his fellow N's became language switchers in greater Ural area, by assuming the language of the locals. Women can be very decisive, if they want to.
    Last edited by Huck Finn; 04-20-2021 at 06:57 AM.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Huck Finn For This Useful Post:

     Jaska (04-20-2021),  Kanenas (04-20-2021)

  14. #1019
    Registered Users
    Posts
    512
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    You are absolutely right! The Anatolian hypothesis was based on the unscientific thought that one can see language from archaeological data. So, why are you so eager to repeat that mistake, trying to see the language from DNA?
    No you're wrong. The Anatolian hypothesis came up in a period when the Indo-European question had already moved on from being just a linguistic matter. In fact it was a rebuttal of the Kurgan hypothesis by Marija Gimbutas who combined archeology with philology and linguistics to make her case.

    The message here is not that it is unscientific to trace languages via archaeology. The Kurgan hypothesis did just that. The message is that it is bad practise to ignore the reuslts and common opinions from other fields of study and put all your eggs in one basket.

    You're putting all your eggs in the basket that are your own linguistic findings. That means you're Renfrew, not Gimbutas.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     altvred (04-20-2021),  Coldmountains (04-20-2021),  Michał (04-20-2021)

  16. #1020
    Suspended Account
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    Which leads us to an interesting question - Jaska, does linguistics routinely employ measures that attempt to control for inter-observer bias, or risk of bias between/across cited materials? Are your works concerning the pU urheimat effectively narrative reviews written by yourself, or is there a team with an inter-observer bias panel in play? Linguistics is an alien ecosystem to me, so the conventions aren't clear (there's some validation in exploratory in vitro studies, unsure what the analogue is in your world).
    That is not usually explicated, but in the peer review it should come up, if there is need.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Jaska For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (04-20-2021)

Page 102 of 129 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112 ... 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
  •