Page 129 of 130 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129130 LastLast
Results 1,281 to 1,290 of 1293

Thread: Uralic homeland and genetics and their implications for PIE

  1. #1281
    Registered Users
    Posts
    256
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Swedish 1/2 German
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    U2

    The Yfull tree finally updated, with some surprises.

    N4b2 (the older Ymyyakhtakh sample) is not pre-M2019 as some thought. He actually forms a new subclade, N-Z1976 formed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybp. Ancestral to N-L1026 and below N-CTS1678.

    Kra001 also forms a new subclade, N-CTS6967 formed 5400 ybp, TMRCA 5100 ybp. Below N4b2 (N-Z1976) and above N-L1026.

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Z1979/

    N-L1026* itself, is now estimated to have formed 5100 ybp, 1000 years later than the previous Yfull version estimated.

    This seems to support that pre-N-L1026 and kra001-like ancestry spread west from a proto-Ymyyakhtakh population.

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Zelto For This Useful Post:

     alchemist223 (05-03-2021),  Boreas (05-07-2021),  Ebizur (05-01-2021),  Huck Finn (05-01-2021),  Jaska (05-01-2021),  JoeyP37 (04-30-2021),  Nganasankhan (04-30-2021),  parastais (05-01-2021),  Ryukendo (05-01-2021),  siberoberingian (05-01-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (05-01-2021)

  3. #1282
    Registered Users
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    "Thus, it turns out that Indo-European is a sister of Finno-Ugric while Indo-Uralic is a sister of Samoyedic and a daughter of Uralic." )))))
    Kortly trolling Jaska ))
    Exactly! He is lucky not to be here...

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais
    Maybe it can all be better compromised in a way that "agricultural substrate that got assimilated by expanding "Uralic minus Samoyed" was a sister of PIE"
    Good formulation.

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

     parastais (05-01-2021)

  5. #1283
    Registered Users
    Posts
    517
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    N-Z1936-CTS12908
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto View Post
    This seems to support that pre-N-L1026 and kra001-like ancestry spread west from a proto-Ymyyakhtakh population.
    I still have to do some reading but now it seems to me that Ymyakhtakh culture was based on influence from more southern areas, between lake Baikal and Amur drainage. Also, now that some paternal N lineages seem to follow Ymyakhtakh routes, some not, I'd guess that the lineage took many routes from those southern areas, including those related to Ymyakhtakh. Not sure then to what extent ancient Amur drainage is related to kra001 like ancestry, too.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Huck Finn For This Useful Post:

     Jaska (05-01-2021)

  7. #1284
    Registered Users
    Posts
    256
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Swedish 1/2 German
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    U2

    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    I still have to do some reading but now it seems to me that Ymyakhtakh culture was based on influence from more southern areas, between lake Baikal and Amur drainage. Also, now that some paternal N lineages seem to follow Ymyakhtakh routes, some not, I'd guess that the lineage took many routes from those southern areas, including those related to Ymyakhtakh. Not sure then to what extent ancient Amur drainage is related to kra001 like ancestry, too.
    Certainly not all N lineages, but those relevant for N-L1026 seem to have come from a pre or early-Ymyyakhtakh population.

    The Trans-Baikal samples cluster away from the Ymyyakhtakh samples and kra001/Nganasans. Ymyyakhtakh ancestry probably reflects an admixture event, which occurred north of Baikal, between the Bel'kachi culture and Trans-Baikal newcomers. At least, this seems to be the consensus among archeologists and looks reasonable given the aDNA. Radiocarbon dates suggest the Ymyyakhtakh population arrived in Southern Yakutia, from Trans-Baikal sometime around 3000BC.

    Kra001 clusters with the Ymyyakhtakh samples, but is slightly drifted towards Nganasan (thus the Siberian DNA in Uralics). This makes sense given the geographic distance between the two, even though they share a common origin.

    The new subclades in Yfull corroborate this, as they are ancestral to N-L1026 and phylogenetically closer than the N-L708* samples found in Trans-Baikal.

    Where true N-L1026* formed is still up in the air. N4b1 may be N-L1026*, however that seems unlikely considering even kra001 forms a node above it.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Zelto For This Useful Post:

     Huck Finn (05-01-2021),  Jaska (05-02-2021),  Nganasankhan (05-01-2021),  Ryukendo (05-02-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (05-01-2021)

  9. #1285
    Registered Users
    Posts
    432
    Sex

    Greece
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Finn View Post
    Frederik Kortlandt has a view, if not even a vision:

    https://www.academia.edu/44755526/Th...ard=view-paper
    An inteseting suffix is Proto-Finnic -ma (< PU? -ma), PIE *-mn̥ (whence e.g. Greek -ma but interestingly -mat in oblique cases and plural which is unexpected, for example Gk. ono-ma, pl. ono-mat-a)
    And Hungarian maːɲ / meːɲ seems possibly related to me (compare Latin nomen). All these are noun forming suffixes of some short. (That is why Kortlandt mentions a 'nominalizer -m' I think).

    It is interesting because in the IE word *h₁nómn̥, the root is h₁nó- and -mn̥ seems to be a suffix. The verb root could have meant something like "to name" (Kloekhorst has supported that and reconstructs a root *h₃neh₃- with a different 'laryngeal', the o- in Greek seems to support that)

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Recon...oto-Finnic/-ma
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CE%BC%CE%B1
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-m%C3%A1ny

    It is interesting because in PU *nime, the -me part may also be a noun forming suffix, similar to Finnic -ma.

    Forest Yukaghir has ñū 'name' which can be related with the IE (or IU?) root somehow but in my opinion even e.g a proto-Bantu word with the same meaning can be somehow distantly related (I am not sure how they reconstruct it, maybe δina ? 'name' -edit: I see they reconstruct is as *gina). Some scholars seem to think that h₁ represented an /h/ sound so h₁no- = hno-, some think it was a glottal stop, but concerning *h₃ some scholars seem to believe it was a velar or uvular fricative.

    I really believe there may be 'ultraconserved' words and some of them may predate Eurasiatic even. Suffixes like this one may point to a more recent genetic relationship though.

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

     Jaska (05-02-2021),  parastais (05-02-2021)

  11. #1286
    Registered Users
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanenas View Post
    It is interesting because in PU *nime, the -me part may also be a noun forming suffix, similar to Finnic -ma.
    In Proto-Uralic, the open *a and close *i in the second syllable remain distinct. So there should be traces of PU *-mi-suffix different from *-ma-suffix to explain the word for 'name'.

    Here is Janhunen's attempt to reach for some Pre-Proto-Uralic derivations:
    https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust253/sust253_janhunen.pdf

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

     parastais (05-02-2021),  Ryukendo (05-02-2021)

  13. #1287
    Registered Users
    Posts
    557
    Sex
    Location
    Moscow
    Ethnicity
    East Europe + Finland
    Nationality
    Russian
    Y-DNA (P)
    N-Z1936-Y19110
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a5b

    Russian Federation
    Quote Originally Posted by VladimirTaraskin View Post
    If we talk specifically about this region - the mouth of the Kama river, then events in my understanding develop as follows: around 2000, there are burials of Seymo-Turbino, there are finds of the East Ural Koptyakov culture. For some reason, from 1900 to 1800, the burials of Seimo-Turbino in this area form a synthesis not with Abashevo, but with the Pokrovka culture (Srubnaya). At this time around 1800 there appear monuments of Zaymischevo (formerly the first stage of the Prikazan culture). Most archaeologists believe that this is a type of Pokrovka culture, but still with some elements of East Ural influence. Around 1700, monuments of Lugovskaya culture ( the second stage of the Prikazan culture) appeared on this territory. Most people are inclined to believe that this is the population of the Fedorovo ( northern Andronovo) culture that came from the eastern Urals. At the same time, separate monuments of Cherkaskul culture appear on this territory in the northernmost part. Around 1400, the monuments of the Atabaevo stage of the Maklasheevo culture ( Stage 3 of the Prikazansky culture) appeared on this territory, as this stage is also called the Mezhovskaya culture, whose monuments are geographically located a little south of the Maklasheevo monuments. Most believe that the Maklasheyevskaya, Mezhovskaya, and Pakhomovo cultures that remain in Western Siberia are descended from the Cherkaskul culture. By the way, it is believed that the Pakhomovo culture was the main substrat of the Sargat culture. At the same time, around 1300, the Ivanovo culture of roller ceramics appeared to the south of the Mezhovskaya culture. This culture reaches the Black Sea and there is a hypothesis that it is the Cimmerians. I will definitely look for new articles.
    An interesting article about Andronovo, but even more about the formation of Fedorovo, Cherkaskul culture, Mezhovskaya culture, Pakhomovo culture

    https://www.degruyter.com/document/d...2020-0123/html

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VladimirTaraskin For This Useful Post:

     Boreas (05-07-2021),  Jaska (05-06-2021),  Ryukendo (05-05-2021)

  15. #1288
    Registered Users
    Posts
    169
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Do you have any scientific source for such a claim?
    The Stellmoor-site in the SW Baltics was a typical reindeer-culture of Paleolithic Europe - up to 13.000 BP. It was left at the start of the Younger Dryas (ca. 12.900 -11.900 C-14 BP) but re-populated immediately after the YD. Thus the paleolithic Magdalenien-Hamburgian-Pertuna culture of paleolithic Europe was immediately continued by the holocene Ahrensburg-Swidrien-Kunda_volga and LYNGBY-Fosna-Hensbacka cultures. Like their paleolithic ancestors they both utilized reindeers as a primary source of food.

    In the mesolithic layer of the Stellmoor-site archeologers found bones from more than 600 reindeers, which sparked the debate - wether the paleolitic reindeer-eaters were "hunting", "trapping" or "herding" their primary source of substinence. Since there's NO way to answer that question 'scientifically' there are no scientific answer existing to that question. Which means we can't just anticipate they were "hunting" - as a mere assumption - without further evidence.

    There are a lot of indications existing though - pointing to all three alternative answers, respectively.

    One being that the Ahrensburgians populating the Stellmoor-site were the experts of their time in producing weapons of "projectile points", such as daggers, spears, bows and arrows. The arrows found in Stellmoor and the longbow found in danish Holmgard are still the oldest known to archeology.

    On the other hand, the enormous number of reindeers found within the same habitat would require extraordinarily skilled hunters to successfully kill those amounts of reindeers - however good their bows and arrows maight have been. Anyone familiar with the hunting of wild deer - not to speak of reindeer - do know that. Compared to the efforts needed to get a shot at a wild rangiferus trapping and semi-domesticating calves would be e-a-s-y. Especially since they did have dogs, already, to help shepherd the tamed animals.

    The possibility of reindeer-herding and semi-domestiation during the mesolithic - if not even the late paleolithic - have been aired among german and other archeologists for a long time, but there have (still not) been a adequate group of experts assembled to have a close and qualified look into this topic-matter - to settle this discussion;
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2743570?seq=1
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...th_west_France

    In view of the fact that reindeers were a primnary source of food throughout Western Europe for tens of thousands of years PRIOR to the LGM, the YD and the early Ahrensburgians - it's less than logic to assume that NO kind of semi-domstication took plae. Especially so as the domestication of the grey-wolf, into different breeds of dogs, had gone on since the time of the first Cro-Magnons. Compared to the taming of wolfs and hogs - a semi-domestication of reindeers - as well as goats, horses and aurochs - is a piece of cake. Today we even know that the ancestors to all these domestiates survived the last glacial maxima along the wetlands of NW Europe - in the proximity of a handful, seaborne family of human beings...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture
    https://www.academia.edu/28570560/Ba...zeit_Darmstadt

    Looking back to the paleolithic flint- and reindeer-cultures of Western Europe - spanning back to the Eem-period, 120.000 yrs ago - we may have to adress this question with some caution. Espeially if we have no clue, whatsoever, about the level of skills and capabilities needed to get a shot at a wild reindeer, with a modern hunting-rifle. Not to speak of a hand-thrown spear. As per consequence we may broaden our understanding of the reindeer-cultures of todays arctic by looking back to the paleartic period of Europe.
    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-4020-9699-0_7

    Thus we may follow the first post-glacial settlers of the Fenno-Scandian inland - in continuing their flint- and rendeer-culture, to survive the early mesolithic north of the North Sea and the Baltics;
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...3.2020.1758992

    Refs:
    https://scholar.google.no/scholar?hl...eer+herd&btnG=


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    We don't need any certain livelihood method to explain the spread of languages.
    At different stages, the reason for spreading could have been different.
    As of 1996 the cuban-finnish archaeologist Milton Nunez presented a comparative analyzis of Finish archaeology explaining that there had been only ONE imigration to the area today known as 'Finland'. Which was the mesolithic pioneers re-populating the waterways from the Baltic to the White Sea and the Lapponian Sea, respectively. (One migration running from the Gulf of Finland, the other from the Botnic Bay, IIRC.) AFAIK there's been no refusal of Nunez' analyzis.

    So - keeping all options open - "at all stages" - we may start with Ockhams principle razor and scrutinize the most plain and simple of all models to explain the spread of the IE and the Uralian languages - as well as their respective diversity of dialects and sound-changes. Which is that the 'migrational wave' that pioneered the repopulation of NE Europe and Finland, as the Swidrien-Kunda-Volga-culture. As theorized by various linguists, such as Wiik and Alinei. http://www.continuitas.org/intro.html

    Thus we don't need a variety of phonetic hypothesises - as proto-sami, proto-finnish, proto-uralian or proto-nagasan - to explain the origin of the finish language. It seems to originate together with the pioneering populations between Volga and Kunda - including Suomussalmi and Komsa - where the first ceramics of Europe (Volga-Sperrings) appear. (To become both high-tech asbestos-ceramics of Carelia-Lapponia, as well as the heraldical Pit-Comb-, Comb- and Corded Wares surrounding the Gulf og Finland. Which was the very HUB of traffic and trade between Europe and Asia, along the Volga no less than 10.000 yrs ago...)

    So far i haven't seen any scientific paper presenting facts proving that a paleolithic continuation of the 'uralian' and the 'I-E' languages is wrong. To the contrary, the more we get to know about the paleolithic-mesolithic transition of Europe, the more evidence this view have gained. Today it may be regarded as the most likely of the proposed hypothesises trying to explain the h-i-s-t-o-r-i-c-a-l origins - and thus a plausible bi-furication-area - of the Uralian and IE language-families. Conseuently we may find the old folklores and annals (Tacitus, Jordanes, Strulasson) describing "Goths" and "Vends" as the first populations in the Baltics, as two separate dynasties with a common origin in a distant, cold and 'glacial' past - both horisontally and vertically comparable to the two dynasties of I2/I1 and N1, that recently appeared, as a result of modern genetics.
    https://www.familytreedna.com/groups.../about/results
    https://bijoforexorol.nuamooreaid.co...ok-28881bk.php

    EDIT:
    Checking on the infamous Mr Quilles I was reminded about some unique clues brought forth lately, to understand the continuity of the symbolic culture from the European Paleolithic - such as Lascaux - to the Eurasian Mesolithic - such as Stellmoor and Starr Carr - as the domesticational processes went from wolves, reindeers and goats to aurochses, horses and elks:
    http://www.artepreistorica.com/2009/...to-be-decoded/
    hunter-gatherers https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52409X20304296

    One may note the spread of it throughout the boreal horizon - from the North Sea to the White Sea and onwards to the east - continously from the Early Mesolithic to the Midle Brone Age.
    https://www.academia.edu/38195704/El...s_new_outlooks

    The very same symbols of rank is found in the Seimo-Turbino horizon, that would reach the led-, tin- and copper-mines of the Scandinavian mountains as well as the mines of the Uralian and Tocharian mountains - north to the Arctic Sea, south to the Caspian.
    https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/...ppe.jpg?x26656

    A smaller similar spread can be found through the same periods - in a tradition seemingly worshipping ancestors:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Ancestor_Deity
    Last edited by Boreas; 05-09-2021 at 12:27 PM.

  16. #1289
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,104
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Speaking about possible farmer substrate in West Uralic (source for farmer loanwords). Although it is not clear for how long these kind of people survived up North, and maybe their words got into WU via third source (such as local now extinct post-IE language -> either of para-II or para-BS variety):
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    There is a hint of “Mediterranean” population in Serteya, Belarus (next to Daugava, West Dvina)
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-5xziA...ture=emb_title

    Basically 2 women like Balkan farmers in Serteya I think dated 3,000 BCE or so.

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

     Ryukendo (05-21-2021)

  18. #1290
    Registered Users
    Posts
    557
    Sex
    Location
    Moscow
    Ethnicity
    East Europe + Finland
    Nationality
    Russian
    Y-DNA (P)
    N-Z1936-Y19110
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a5b

    Russian Federation
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Speaking about possible farmer substrate in West Uralic (source for farmer loanwords). Although it is not clear for how long these kind of people survived up North, and maybe their words got into WU via third source (such as local now extinct post-IE language -> either of para-II or para-BS variety):
    I think these are girls from the post-Tripolie, Sophievka culture, which is just there nearby and was located near modern Kiev and went to the Gomel, Chernihiv and Bryansk regions, which apparently were the wives of men of the Sertey group

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VladimirTaraskin For This Useful Post:

     Michał (05-22-2021),  Ryukendo (05-21-2021)

Page 129 of 130 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129130 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
  •