search this blog

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Ancient genomes from NE Europe suggest in tandem spread of Siberian admixture and Uralic languages into the region >3,500 ya


Max Planck's Thiseas Christos Lamnidis recently tweeted this image of a part of a poster that he's presenting on the population history of Northeastern (NE) Europe at the Human Evolution 2017 conference in Cambridge, UK (for the tweet see here):


If you can't make out the text in the image, this is what the introduction says:

European history has been shaped by migrations, and subsequent admixture. Evidence points to migrations linked to the advent of agriculture, and the spread of Indo-European languages [a b]. Little is known about the ancient population history of NE Europeans, specifically Uralic speakers. Here we analyse eleven ancient genomes from Finland and NW Russia and a high-coverage modern Saami genome, and show that northern Europe was shaped by gene flow from Siberia that began at least 3,500 ya. Today, this ancestry is found in modern populations of the region, especially Uralic speakers. Additionally, we show that ancestors of the Saami inhabited a larger territory in Finland during the Iron Age than today.

It's intriguing to me that Max Planck is looking so closely at these issues now, because back in 2015 I ripped into Max Planck's Paul Heggarty for some comments that he made about the potential link between Yamnaya-related admixture and Uralic languages (see here). This is what I said back then:

These are exceedingly naive and stupid comments from someone representing the Max Planck Institute. Perhaps as an ardent supporter of the Anatolian hypothesis he's feeling more than a little desperate at this point and clutching at straws? That's because anyone with even a basic grasp of European linguistics and genetics should know that:

- present-day Hungarians and Estonians speak Uralic languages, but they are of course overwhelmingly of Indo-European origin, which is easily seen in their genome-wide and uniparental DNA

- other Uralic speakers, further to the north and east, in the forest zone away from Indo-European influence, are clearly distinct from the vast majority of Indo-European speaking Europeans, because they show significant levels of recent Siberian ancestry, which was missing among the Yamnaya and Corded Ware people, and appears to be an Uralic-specific genetic signature

- therefore, it's highly unlikely that Uralic-speakers were also part of the Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement; rather, early Uralics in all likelihood began to move west across the forest zone well after the Yamnaya and related expansions from the steppe.

All of this is probably just a remarkable coincidence, but in any case, it's nice to see that the good people at Max Planck are now beginning to understand the processes that have shaped the genetics and linguistics of NE Europe.

See also...

Uralic genes

Genetic and linguistic structure across space and time in Northern Europe

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

263 comments:

1 – 200 of 263   Newer›   Newest»
Ric Hern said...

Interesting linguistic implications I think. How much of the Indo-European in Uralic is related to later Archaeological Cultures that postdate the PIE expansion or could those PIE loans have been picked up in Siberia before their migration to the West ?

Ric Hern said...

Or are those PIE loans related to a Pre-Uralic population who already admixed with PIEs ?

Ric Hern said...

If there are Uralic loans in PIE then it begs the question where PIE was first spoken if Pre-Uralics did not have an influence on PIE ?

Kristiina said...

It is not probable that Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people spoke a Uralic language. Instead, Iron Age Ostrobothnians may have been Saami speakears.

If we try to find a language family that could be relavant for the Bronze Age Kola Peninsula, I have proposed a relationship with Yukaghiric languages, as archaeologically Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov site shows links with the Ymyakhtakh culture which is usually connected with the Yukaghiric language family.

Populations in Siberia and in the neighboring areas carry Siberian and this is only natural and should not be otherwise.

Anthony Haken said...

I am confused as to why they are calling these samples Uralic. I agree with Kristiina about the Ostrobothnian samples being Saami in fact that was said in a previous abstact. However Oleni Ostrove seems to be related to circum polar peoples and I'm not sure the Kola peninsula is the best place to look for ancient Uralic samples.

capra internetensis said...

It doesn't say that the ancient BOO people were Uralic speakers.

Kristiina said...

Jaakko Häkkinen has reconstructed two words for metals *wäśka and *äsa and a few agricultural words, *oxči (sheep), *woxji (butter), *šeŋti (wheat/barley) and *puśnV (flour), to Proto-Uralic (https://tuhat.halvi.helsinki.fi/portal/fi/persons/jaakko-hakkinen%286e21403c-6ff1-4ba4-a0db-d868bf394c97%29/publications.html).

This means that these words show regular sound correspondences in the daughter languages and this is not compatible with an origin in Kola or Taimyr Peninsula together with the ample lexical and morphological evidence of contacts between Proto-Uralic and early IE languages.

Ric Hern said...

I wonder how does the PIE loans in Uralic compare with Tocharian ?

Romulus said...

aren't there already samples from Oleni Ostrov? Is comb ware Uralic?

Davidski said...

No one's saying that the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people spoke a Uralic language. What I'm saying is that there's a close correlation between Uralic languages and Siberian ancestry, not Yamnaya ancestry, in Northern Europe and Max Planck are starting to figure this out too.

supernord said...

@ Kristiina

It's been proved of late borrowing.

M. Myllylä said...

Just because of the low Siberian of Estonians and Hungarians it is likely that 3500 ya is the time of the Siberian gene flow, but not connected primarily to Uralic languages. On the other hand nothing proves against the view that some Uralic speakers had Siberian ancestry very early, but it barely can be connected to the language group itself.

M. Myllylä said...

@Davidski, I don't understand how it is possible to prove any connection between Uralic speakers and Siberian ancestry let say 3000 ya. Definitely we know the present-day situation though.

Davidski said...

@M. Myllylä

In your opinion what was the genetic structure of the earliest Uralic speakers?

And if it was European, then how does this explain the existence of fully Siberian populations speaking Uralic and related languages?

andrew said...

Makes lots of sense.

I'd love to see your views on the Iron Gate Neolithic hypothesis advanced at Bell Beaker blogger's most recent post.

Kristiina said...

@Davidski
You did not ask me, but, however, I give you an alternative view.

We can quite safely say that the progress went primarily from the south to north. In the Pontic Steppe the progress came from the south with CHG and created a new culture from the merger with local EHG. The same process continued from the southern Russia towards the north and Proto-Uralic developed in the modernization process of the forest Volga. Original Uralic speakers may have been a mixture of EHG and Siberian with a strong Yamnaya input.

@And if it was European, then how does this explain the existence of fully Siberian populations speaking Uralic and related languages

Related languages is a very relative concept: http://eurogenes.blogspot.lu/2015/09/support-for-linguistic-macrofamilies.html

There is only one fully Siberian Uralic speaking community: 1000 Nganasans, and you can imagine the amount of drift in such a small and isolated population. I doubt that the admixture analysis is the best tool to compare them with others. Moreover, you know that in India there is not a small amount of men carrying R1a1 with a fully Indian autosomal profile.

Ric Hern said...

Was Proto-Indo-Iranian still spoken at 1500 BCE ?

Ryan said...

@Kristiina - "If we try to find a language family that could be relavant for the Bronze Age Kola Peninsula, I have proposed a relationship with Yukaghiric languages, as archaeologically Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov site shows links with the Ymyakhtakh culture which is usually connected with the Yukaghiric language family."

Aren't Uralic and Yukaghir suspected to form a clade though?

@David - "therefore, it's highly unlikely that Uralic-speakers were also part of the Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement; rather, early Uralics in all likelihood began to move west across the forest zone well after the Yamnaya and related expansions from the steppe."

Do you still stand by the second half of this? Modern Uralic languages are probably from a relatively late wave of expansion, but I'd think the the Pit-Comb Ware culture would have to be something really closely related, and would predate Yamnaya in starting their expansion, no? Or are you just talking about a different geographic area?

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

Original Uralic speakers may have been a mixture of EHG and Siberian with a strong Yamnaya input.

Yes, it's very likely that the original Uralics had significant Siberian admixture, and they spread this signal as they and their descendants expanded west. Not sure about significant steppe input though. Maybe.

Moreover, you know that in India there is not a small amount of men carrying R1a1 with a fully Indian autosomal profile.

Fully Indian yes, but not fully Ancestral South Indian (ASI), because no such population exists today. In other words, western steppe admixture is baked into the fully Indian genome-wide profile.

On the other hand, Nganasans don't show any such West Eurasian input; the closest they have is Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) admixture, which obviously has a very ancient presence in Siberia and cannot be linked to the spread of Uralic languages from west to east.

Also, even though "related languages" is a relative concept, it's certain that Uralic had ancient contacts with other Siberian languages, which are now spoken by people with a similar genetic profile to Nganasans, with ANE ancestry but no West Eurasian admixture.

Samuel Andrews said...

It isn't coincidence Asian yHG N is the dominate yHG in Uralic Europeans who are also some of the only Europeans with Asian ancestry. Obviously, yHG N1c, Uralic languages, and Siberian ancestry in Northeast Europe all come from the same source. As we know from Indo European languages, whoseever language is spoken also has the most Y DNA success.

Davidski said...

@Ryan

Yes, because >3,500 ya can still be much later than the Yamnaya and related expansions from the steppe.

Pit-Comb Ware may have had some minor post-ANE Siberian admixture, as my experiments with ancient data suggest, but I'd say nowhere near the level seen in proto-Uralics.

supernord said...

@ Kristiina
"Proto-Uralic developed in the modernization process of the forest Volga."

No, The largest specialist in the Ural languages and Ethnology, V. Napolskikh convincingly and unequivocally proved that the Ural comes from the Siberian dark coniferous Taiga.

M. Myllylä said...

@Davidski, today we see fully European Uralic speakers, almost fully European Uralic speakers, fifty-fifty admixtures and fully Siberian Uralic speakers. I don't know what to say, but we should have all this explained before I can say "it is solved". Dis Uralic speakers subjugated Europeans or conversely? This is of course a rhetorical question.

Romulus said...

If Uralic came with Siberian admixture how do you explain the relationship between Uralic and Basque?

supernord said...

Romulus said...

If Uralic came with Siberian admixture how do you explain the relationship between Uralic and Basque?


This does not exist.

Davidski said...

@supernord

Ural(ic) comes from the Siberian dark coniferous Taiga.

Somewhat dramatic, but I generally agree.

@Romulus

If Uralic came with Siberian admixture how do you explain the relationship between Uralic and Basque?

Well, obviously, Basque is also originally from the Siberian dark coniferous Taiga.

Ric Hern said...

If this is true then Uralic and Indo-European languages retained similarities since Macro Haplogroup MNOPS came into the picture.......which does not make sense.

Huck Finn said...

@Davidski and re: "Yes, it's very likely that the original Uralics had significant Siberian admixture, and they spread this signal as they and their descendants expanded west."

The problem, at least if I'm following the local discussion here, is the type of Siberian the early Uralic speakers might have had. As you may have noticed, some people duly advertize the idea that there is no universal Uralic type of Siberian. They may be even right, though I'm still somewhat suspicious.

Kristiina said...

@ “Yes, it's very likely that the original Uralics had significant Siberian admixture, and they spread this signal as they and their descendants expanded west.”

Not necessarily. It is probable that there was Siberian in the Comb Ceramic Finland and people who preceded Saamis and Finns were probably more Siberian-mixed than Uralic speakers. Finnish farmers surely diluted the Siberian percentage of inland inhabitants.

In the West Asian farmer paper, Lazaridis estimated that the EHG percentage of Nganasans is 15%.

We really need ancient yDNA and autosomal data from the forest Volga. As long as it is not available, the issue is unresolved.

Anthony Haken said...

I am aware they aren't specifically calling BOO Uralic but they do seem to be attaching the language to cultures that have no clear connections to Uralic.

Anthony Haken said...

It seems more and more likely that N1c didn't reach Finland until the iron age. If thats the case it wouldn't make sense for Finns and Saami to be less "Uralic/Siberian" now then they were prior to the arrival of N1c.

Ryan said...

@M. Myllylä - "today we see fully European Uralic speakers, almost fully European Uralic speakers, fifty-fifty admixtures and fully Siberian Uralic speakers. I don't know what to say, but we should have all this explained before I can say "it is solved". Dis Uralic speakers subjugated Europeans or conversely?"

I'm not sure what big mystery there is there. There's a historical record of the Magyars migrating to Hungary. There's no doubt that the preceding population was non-Uralic. There's even ancient samples showing what the original Magyars were like which confirms the small demographic impact. We don't have a great historical record for similar happenings in Estonia, but there's a damned good genetic record. There's no mystery here - a small number of Uralic speakers assimilated Indo-Europeans in Estonia and Hungary. Elite dominance is a thing. Ask the Irish about being assimilated into a Germanic language.

Kristiina said...

@Myllylä

Did Uralic speakers subjugate Indo-Europeans or the other way round? Did Siberians subjugate Yamnayas or did the Yamnayas civilize the hunters?

I think I understand your point. Every intelligent person should think about the implications.

Kristiina said...

@Ryan

There's no mystery here - a small number of IE speakers assimilated Europeans in Eastern and Western Europe. Elite dominance is a thing. Ask the Sardinians about being assimilated into a Romanic language. And ask the Greeks about being assimilated into the Greek language.

Ric Hern said...

Maybe it is the same case as in the Basque with the R1b males most probably adopting the language of the females....

Rob said...

Lol this thread is good

Shaikorth said...

@Kristiina
You jest, but the IE (Romance?) ancestors of Sardinians left what looks to be a distinct male-biased signal of steppe ancestry resulting in their autosomes being less Neolithic-like than their X-chromosomes relative to CEU.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/12/07/092148.full.pdf (figure 7)

Any eastern male-biased ancestry relative to CEU would cause this same pattern, Yamnaya, EHG, Siberian, ASI, you name it. However as seen in the figure none of the 1000genomes Europeans including Finns have the signal so the Saami-like eastern ancestry (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i8s-hd7CQAc/WFkSgmO7wNI/AAAAAAAAA-Y/HPVeLLlNH18GVAZ0cc0Az6-4FGsfoH3kgCLcB/s1600/pca14d.gif) is most likely not from a male-biased migration (high N frequencies are from a bottleneck, one more recent than in Balts). One could test if Saamis, Estonians and Volga populations show the X/autosome pattern or not.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

There's no mystery here - a small number of IE speakers assimilated Europeans in Eastern and Western Europe. Elite dominance is a thing.

So you reckon the Neolithic farmers and foragers in the Baltic region were more numerous than the incoming R1a-M417 Indo-Europeans from the steppes?

How would this explain the genetic structure of modern Northern Europeans, who are as much steppe as farmer and forager put together? See here...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/the-genetic-history-of-northern-europe.html

Rob said...

If we take Hakkinen's tree, which places Samoyedic with East Uralic, then F-U could have expanded from Volga-ural forest/forest-steppe.

Davidski said...

@Anthony Haken

It seems more and more likely that N1c didn't reach Finland until the iron age. If thats the case it wouldn't make sense for Finns and Saami to be less "Uralic/Siberian" now then they were prior to the arrival of N1c.

You should wait for the Y-chromosome data from this study before taking that as a fact.

Kristiina said...

@Davidski ”So you reckon the Neolithic farmers and foragers in the Baltic region were more numerous than the incoming R1a-M417 Indo-Europeans from the steppes?”

The foragers surely were not. And I understood from the Baltic paper that pastoralism arrived in the Baltic with R1a1 from the steppe.

Apparently, in Scandinavia the situation was different. There were TRB/ Funnelbeaker farmers before the Bronze Age. The Neolithic population in Scandinavia might have been clearly bigger than in the Baltic region. Maybe that is why Scandinavians are mostly I1 (c. 40%).

In any case, in Neolithic Europe, I would expect that the density was higher than in the Pontic steppe.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

Maybe that is why Scandinavians are mostly I1 (c. 40%).

No, that's a very recent founder effect.

@M. Myllylä

Today we see fully European Uralic speakers, almost fully European Uralic speakers, fifty-fifty admixtures and fully Siberian Uralic speakers.

Even Estonians and Hungarians show Siberian admixture.

And keep in mind that the early Hungarians only arrived in the Carpathian Basin from far Eastern Europe during the Middle Ages in relatively small numbers. So the original migrant Hungarian speakers during the Middle Ages were surely more Siberian than modern Hungarians.

In other words, modern Hungarians can't be used as an argument that Uralic was originally spoken in a fully European population, since they only have minor Uralic ancestry and are mostly of Slavic and German descent.

Peter Klevius said...

@Kristiina - "We can quite safely say that the progress went primarily from the south to north."

I think the progress went just the opposite way - and has always done - although the wealth from bigger populations in the south made it look otherwise in general. However, look at the Denisova cave from the distant past or the development of the spoke wheeled chariot etc. more recently. And behind it all I think it's the women from the north who carried more genetic memories from the sex party in the Denisova/Altai region than their more southern sisters. And as you well know from Kalevala, the daughters from the north were for some reason very thought after by southern Finns. Btw, I don't know Albert Einstein's mother's dna - does anyone?

Roy King said...

The plot thickens: nuanced complexity in the origin of the European Neolithic:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1867/20172064

MomOfZoha said...

While I wait for the present categorization of languages and peoples to become obsolete (will be a long time later but will happen), I will submit to the speaking in terms of the present day categories and make just one remark in this regard, beginning with this question: Who is the European Mithra?

I love the name Mithra and all of its Iranian variations including "Mehri" and "Mihri". By the time the Sun goddess transformed into the later colloquial variations of the root "mehr", notions of warmth, brilliance, and kindness were naturally attached. Thus, you have beautiful names like "Mihrimah" which can mean "Sun and Moon" and "Kindness of the Moon" simultaneously.

I like the name "Mehri" so much that I considered naming my daughter so. But, I admit that when I first learned its meanings, "warmth and kindness", I immediately asked, "You mean like the Russian 'mir'?" Of course, one need not even speak Russian in order to know that famous Russian word for Peace.

But, of course, neither does "mehr" derive from "mir" nor do we have a suitable linguistic candidate for the European Mithra, sun god of the Iranians and Indians.

There is no properly European Mithra. There is no Slavic Mithra either, despite the word "Mir".

Yet, there is an Ob-Ugric Mir-Susne-Khum.

The combinations of ways in which words are transferred from one [Indo-European] language to another in reality are not limited by faulty application of "parsimonious" principles. At some point, too much parsimony is simply a lack of creativity.

Of course, the same applies to the mobility of peoples, especially of [or admixed with] nomadic varieties.

On that note, I wouldn't group Hungarians with Finns in every context, as Hungary has both recent Hunnic influence and Turkic Ottoman influence (that is apparently enough to cause more recent surprising relations between some Hungarians and Turks today).

Davidski said...

It's unlikely that Hungarians have much if any Hunnic or Ottoman admixture.

Keep in mind that Hungary was almost totally depopulated during fairly recent Tatar raids, and resettled by Slavic and German migrants. This is why they're the Finno-Ugrians on this plot who cluster with western Slavs and eastern Germans.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/genetic-and-linguistic-structure-across.html

And most of the Ottoman armies in the Balkans were made up of local conscripts, often not even Muslims, let alone with recent ancestry from Anatolia.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Keep in mind that Hungary was almost totally depopulated during fairly recent Tatar raids, and resettled by Slavic and German migrants. This is why they're the Finno-Ugrians on this plot who cluster with western Slavs and eastern Germans."

Does this mean that the modern Hungarians are just Slavs and Germans, with no relation to the historical Hungarians (not the original Magyars, the pre-Ottoman Medieval ones)?

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Does this mean that the modern Hungarians are just Slavs and Germans, with no relation to the historical Hungarians (not the original Magyars, the pre-Ottoman Medieval ones)?

Hungarians are mostly the descendants of Slavs and Germans who settled in the Carpathian basin after the Tatar invasion and before the Ottoman invasion.

Mike the Jedi said...

@ Dave
Well, obviously, Basque is also originally from the Siberian dark coniferous Taiga.

I wasn't expecting this joke and probably woke my neighbors from laughing so loudly.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski

"Hungarians are mostly the descendants of Slavs and Germans who settled in the Carpathian basin after the Tatar invasion and before the Ottoman invasion."

Then why do they speak the Magyar language? What do you think is the reason for this? If anything, they could have maintained their culture and language, since Hungary became a part of the Austrian Empire following the Ottoman defeat in the Great Turkish War.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski

Oh, never mind. You said before the Ottoman invasion. But then, do you think that the Tatars/Mongols exterminated the native Hungarians?

Samuel Andrews said...

@David,
"Hungarians are mostly the descendants of Slavs and Germans"

And for unrelated reasons, Estonians and Finns and even Saami mostly descend from unknown prehistoric IE groups.

Samuel Andrews said...

How Corded Ware-types (plus extra WHG, farmer admixture) made it as far north as the Lapland and is unknown but somehow they did. Eventually, it'll be consensus Finno Urgics mostly share the same ancient ancestors as their Indo European neighbors.

Kristiina said...

@Samuel
Estonian Corded Ware genomes are now available and Finns or Estonians do not descend from them.

My ancestors were Finnish speaking farmers from the south who cleared land for farming. They are not the EBA Corded Ware migrants of the Finnish coast.

http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.lu/2017/06/estonian-corded-ware-enigma.html

Davidski said...

Finnish and I guess Estonian Corded Ware people largely went extinct as the weather deteriorated up north, and I think this is when the Finno-Ugrians moved in, absorbing the stragglers.

But I'm pretty sure that Estonians have a lot of ancestry from Trzciniec, which was derived from Corded Ware groups in the south Baltic and western Russia. The type of R1a matches, and Estonians can be modeled as Trzciniec + East Asian with formal stats. It's in this paper.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/the-genetic-history-of-northern-europe.html

Finns, on the other hand, have more ancestry from Scandinavia, one way or another.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Krisstiina Likewise, the Sintashta culture and their descendants in India and Iran do not descend from the Corded Ware culture. They were a sister culture, no doubt, just not the same, exact, people. Sintashta has proven to have had more Steppe admixture than the Corded Ware culture. While I love the work David has put into his studies (and literally, love the man for his work ethic and firm stance against bogus OIT and OII theories), I do not agree with some of his observations, such as this one made here about the Hungarians being replaced (I don't think they were ever Uralic/Siberial looking, except early on) by Germans and Slavs. Going back to my point about the Sintashta culture, it has been proven that they were not the same people as those from the Corded Ware culture, who certainly had more European farmer DNA.

Davidski said...


@Shahanshah of Persia

“In this year, after existing for 350 years, the kingdom of Hungary was annihilated by the Tatars.” This terse statement by the Bavarian monk Hermann of Niederaltaich appears in the annals of his monastery for the year 1241. At almost the same time, the Emperor Frederick II wrote to the English King: “That entire precious kingdom was depopulated, devastated and turned into a barren wasteland.”

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/02/22/the-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-1241-and-its-consequences-i/

Davidski said...

By the way, some Corded Ware samples can be modeled as 100% Yamnaya. This can't be said for any of the Steppe_MLBA (Andronovo, Sintashta or Srubnaya) samples, because they all have excess Anatolian farmer and WHG ancestry. It's in this paper. Page 8.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/the-genetic-history-of-northern-europe.html

So, early Corded Was very similar to Yamnaya. But Steppe_MLBA had much more farmer admixture.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

So was this a Proto-Corded Ware who spread directly East instead of West first ? So basically a R1a Yamnaya group ?

Kristiina said...

@Davidski "Finns, on the other hand, have more ancestry from Scandinavia, one way or another."

Swedes have more Finnish admixture than Finns Swedish admixture. Finns seem to be c. 3 % Swedish.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2016/08/on-remarkable-genetic-homogeneity-of.html

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski

“In this year, after existing for 350 years, the kingdom of Hungary was annihilated by the Tatars.” This terse statement by the Bavarian monk Hermann of Niederaltaich appears in the annals of his monastery for the year 1241. At almost the same time, the Emperor Frederick II wrote to the English King: “That entire precious kingdom was depopulated, devastated and turned into a barren wasteland.”

"https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/02/22/the-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-1241-and-its-consequences-i/"

Alright, thanks for that. I guess you are probably correct with your analysis. Plus, many Hungarians were also killed by the Ottomans. Do you think that Hungarians have no DNA left from their medieval ancestors?

"By the way, some Corded Ware samples can be modeled as 100% Yamnaya. This can't be said for any of the Steppe_MLBA (Andronovo, Sintashta or Srubnaya) samples, because they all have excess Anatolian farmer and WHG ancestry. It's in this paper. Page 8."

Okay, I didn't know that some Corded Ware samples could be modeled as 100% Yamnaya. However, regardless, do you think that the Indo-European migrations had a more genetic impact than previously thought, even on populations which may not be Indo-European speakers, i.e. the mentioned Uralic peoples.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

I wonder if Repin was not more R1a than Afanasevo ?

Kristiina said...

Thanks Shahanshah of Persia! I could not agree with you more. IMO, we need more plurality and less racial purity in our thinking.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

How Corded Ware derived are Northern Europeans, what about Central Europeans, what about Slavs, and what about Western Europeans in general?

50 to 80%?

Davidski said...

@Ric

I don't know. Right now there are three options for the spread of R1a-M417 into Asia; 1) with a sister group of Corded Ware that was basically like Yamnaya, 2) with a North Pontic population like the R1a-M417 guy from Alexandria that then imposed itself on Afanasievo-derived and related groups of Central Asia, or 3) same as 2) except the population that spread R1a-M417 was an offshoot of Corded Ware.

@Kristiina

Well I said Scandinavian, so not necessarily Swedish.

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

How Corded Ware derived are Northern Europeans, what about Central Europeans, what about Slavs, and what about Western Europeans in general?

Haak et al. 2015 and the paper on Northern Europe that I linked to explains most of that stuff in a broad way, but we need more ancient DNA to fill in the gaps and come up with detailed estimates.

And obviously, Northern Slavs are very different from Southern Slavs, so Slavs can't be regarded as a single group in terms of genetic structure.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Kristiina You are spot on. I do not like some of Davidski's theories. For some reason, he focuses a lot on racial purity (not that, that's a bad thing). I somehow sense that he has a "We were better than you and colonized you" mentality, when in reality, it wasn't his ancestors who colonized any of us. It was a population distinct from modern day Northern Europeans, by quite a bit. This is evident from the fact that Northern Europeans themselves have reduced Steppe ancestry in comparison to ancient Steppe populations and the Corded Ware people. I think all cultures, languages, and societies develop separate of one another, and one cannot forget how many of the civilizations in which Indo-Europeans were at the forefront, were actually developed on the foundations laid by pre-Indo-European cultures and civilizations, i.e. the Indus Valley Civilization, BMAC culture, Yaz culture, Elamites, Minoans, Etruscans, etc. Many of these great pre-Indo-European cultures were severely lacking in Northern Europe. Really makes you think, doesn't it? I think it is also why it took a while for Northern Europeans to get their act together, but once they came into contact with other cultures and peoples of Southern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean, they adapted quickly, and gave us a lot in terms of culture, civilization, etc.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the Indo-European migrations had any impact on the civilizations which were established in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern worlds after the first Century B.C.E., Sassanids, Byzantines, etc.

I think all of this should be taken into account, just saying.

Ryan said...

@Kristiina - "There's no mystery here - a small number of IE speakers assimilated Europeans in Eastern and Western Europe. Elite dominance is a thing. Ask the Sardinians about being assimilated into a Romanic language. And ask the Greeks about being assimilated into the Greek language."

I'm not sure what you're getting at here exactly? I absolutely agree with you Sardinia and Greece. Western Europe I think is more ambiguous depending on who the late Bell Beakers really were, but I lean to non-IE in which case I would agree there too. Eastern Europe there was a pretty damned big demographic impact though (and a damned big impact on the Bell Beakers too).

@David - "Yes, because >3,500 ya can still be much later than the Yamnaya and related expansions from the steppe."

Could sure. Must though? When do you think proto or pre-proto Uralics started moving West? What is the Urheimat in your view and when? And does it tie to haplogroup N1?

"Pit-Comb Ware may have had some minor post-ANE Siberian admixture, as my experiments with ancient data suggest, but I'd say nowhere near the level seen in proto-Uralics."

My suggestion is there seems to have been multiple waves of post-ANE Siberian into NE Europe, but surely the first wave of expansion started before Yamnaya, even if it didn't reach the Baltic until later, no?

I think there's a fair amount of scholarship on that too (ie that there was a language related to Uralic in NE Europe prior to actual Uralic showing up).

Ryan said...

@ Shahanshah of Persia - "I somehow sense that he has a "We were better than you and colonized you" mentality, when in reality, it wasn't his ancestors who colonized any of us. It was a population distinct from modern day Northern Europeans, by quite a bit. "

I get a bit of that sense too sometimes (sorry David) though I don't think it's meant to be a "I'm better than you" thing so much as just a preferred interpretation.

The truth of the matter is we're all descendants of both colonizers and the colonized. It's just a question of when.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Haak et al. 2015 and the paper on Northern Europe that I linked to explains most of that stuff in a broad way, but we need more ancient DNA to fill in the gaps and come up with detailed estimates."

Thanks, I will take a look at this my brother.

Of course, of course. I agree.

Ryan said...

How well does Family Tree DNA's calculator line up with your current thinking by the way David. It has me as 82% Old Europe (42% farmer and 40% WHG) vs 18% "metal age invader" which seems... low I'd think for Celts and Germanics?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"I get a bit of that sense too sometimes (sorry David) though I don't think it's meant to be a "I'm better than you" thing so much as just a preferred interpretation."

I am not saying that it is intentional on David's part or anything. In my personal dealings with him he is a very kind, generous, and loving individual. I just said that I get this impression from his work. Again, not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, and I am grateful to him for presenting a lot of evidence to support his claims, but sometimes he just goes a bit overboard (sorry David, I get this impression a bit). Perhaps, it is just a natural response to all of those who deny the obvious, which is the Pontic-Caspian Steppe theory for the spread of Indo-European languages. I have personally observed many deniers who have insulted David in the past, but he has remarkably kept his composure well. I just do not like some of what David says, sometimes. But overall, he is a great person.

"The truth of the matter is we're all descendants of both colonizers and the colonized. It's just a question of when."

You are correct, and how much as well.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"How well does Family Tree DNA's calculator line up with your current thinking by the way David. It has me as 82% Old Europe (42% farmer and 40% WHG) vs 18% "metal age invader" which seems... low I'd think for Celts and Germanics?"

It's definitely inaccurate and biased, considering that South Asians score as high as 65% metal age invader! I highly doubt that!

Kristiina said...

@Davidski "Well I said Scandinavian, so not necessarily Swedish."

Yes, for example one of the oldest mtDNAs in Finns is H1f1, age c.4800 years with a frequency of 3.6% in the Finnish population. H1f has been detected in the archipelago of Åland (between Sweden and Finland) in a Scandinavian Pitted Ware context (c. 3200 – c. 2300 BC). Sample is Köpingsvik KOP32/GE44 and dated to c. 2900 BC. Scandinavian Pitted Ware hunter-gatherers were not IE speaking, let alone Germanic speaking.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05673-7/figures/1

Samuel Andrews said...

@Kristina,
"Estonian Corded Ware genomes are now available and Finns or Estonians do not descend from them."

I'm suggesting Finns descend from people similar to Corded Ware. Irish count as similar to Corded Ware, by "similar to Corded Ware" I mean anyone along the MN farmer-Steppe continuum.

"My ancestors were Finnish speaking farmers from the south who cleared land for farming. They are not the EBA Corded Ware migrants of the Finnish coast. "

An origin in southern Finland would make a lot of sense. I suppose people further north had less mainstream European (Steppe, MN farmer) ancestry and more Fennoscandian HG and Siberian admixture.

Davidski said...

About FTDNA's Metal Age Invader...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/the-metal-age-invader-that-never-was.html

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/the-metal-age-invader-that-never-was-2.html

Kristiina said...

@Ryan «I'm not sure what you're getting at here exactly?»

It was irony, because many of you seem to think that IE migrations must be demic, even complete replacements. But Uralic migrations cannot be demic, or what’s even more funny, there must have been a late flow of hunter gatherer Nganasans to northeast Europe who then subjugate Indo-Iranians in the forest Volga.

Ancient Greeks were mostly Mediterranean Neolithic and Baltic Corded Ware was mostly EBA steppe. Do we really need the racial uniformity for the proto-languages.

@”Davidski, When do you think proto or pre-proto Uralics started moving West?”

This is a linguistic issue, and the linguistic evidence, such as Jaakko Häkkinen’s linguistic work, should prevail over autosomal components.

Angantyr said...

@Kristina

"H1f has been detected in the archipelago of Åland (between Sweden and Finland) in a Scandinavian Pitted Ware context (c. 3200 – c. 2300 BC). Sample is Köpingsvik KOP32/GE44 and dated to c. 2900 BC."

That sample is from Köpingsvik on Öland, not Åland. (PWC people obviously did inhabit Åland as well though.)

Creative said...

@Shahanshah of Persia
In fact, if one was cynical, one could say that Indo-Europeans are the equivalent of Arab Bedouins. What is of interest is what fundamentally bonded this community together? Somehow I have the feeling they were also fueled by religion like in the case of Islam.

Kristiina said...

Thanks for correction Angantyr!

However, the fact remains that it seems that H1f made it to Finland in the Pitted Ware period as the Finnish-specific subclade H1f1 is c. 4800 years old in Finns.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Creative True, but they were not equivalent in many respects, although they were in some. I see the Arab Bedouins and the Asiatic Turks, and to a lesser extent, Mongols, as having played the same role in history as the Indo-Europeans, with a less of a genetic impact, and not at all the same influence on civilization and culture. For one, I do not deny the genetic and cultural impact of the Indo-Europeans, but I think that we shouldn't be too fixated on their ever changing genetic makeup.

@Davidski Have you done some research on the influx of Mongol genes into Europe? How much of an impact did they have on eastern Europe?

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Mongols carry Y-haplogroup C and a significant level of the East Asian (as opposed to Siberian) genetic component. Both of these markers are very rare in Eastern Europe, except among Tatar groups, who are documented to have Mongolian-like and even Mongolian ancestry. See here...

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/lipka-tatars-vs-balto-slavs.html

Dienekes had a funny theory for many years that much of the R1a in Eastern Europe was of Turko-Mongol origin, but that died a quick death after it was revealed that the subclades of R1a in Eastern Europe are European-specific. Again, Asian subclades are only really found among Tatars, and people who derive from them.

Peter Klevius said...

@Kristiina - "Swedes have more Finnish admixture than Finns Swedish admixture. Finns seem to be c. 3 % Swedish."

Again, try to look at it the other way round. It's the coastal areas in Finland that disproportinally affects stats. The Viking age started at the root of the Fennoscandian peninsula - as far you could get from Sweden. Why? Because the Vikings were bilingual Finns as were most of their neighbors around Ladoga. In fact, even long before the Viking age there may have existed a bilingual strech through Scandinavia. This could explain the genetic pattern as well as be in line with the southern Kvenland (Kvinnoland, compare 'Queenland') and its mythological (?) King Fornjotr who ruled over Gotland and Kvenland some 200 ad. And as we all know, Gotland became the main Viking hub and long before that may have had something to do with the emergence of 'Goths' and Ghotic language. Waterway traditions are usually longstanding in history. And as usual, one has to caution about Finland in history because much more of it was below sea level back then and Saimaa lake used not long ago to connect to the Finnish bay were Viborg (note the old 'vi' word) trading place and town was/is situated. In short, we may be open for similar patterns even further back in time.

Samuel Andrews said...

The H1f label for that one Pitted Ware sample is based on its 16093c mutation. 16093c is a really common mutation. All we can confidently say about that sample is it is H with the 16093c mutation.

Do you not agree Finns are ultimate of mostly MN farmer+Steppe origin just like their Indo European speaking neighbors? Do you not agree PIE languages arrived in Europe alongside Steppe ancestry and therefore there's a good chance Finns have lots of Indo European speaking ancestors? That looks like sound logic to me.

M. Myllylä said...

@Ryan

"I'm not sure what big mystery there is there. There's a historical record of the Magyars migrating to Hungary. There's no doubt that the preceding population was non-Uralic. There's even ancient samples showing what the original Magyars were like which confirms the small demographic impact. We don't have a great historical record for similar happenings in Estonia, but there's a damned good genetic record. There's no mystery here - a small number of Uralic speakers assimilated Indo-Europeans in Estonia and Hungary. Elite dominance is a thing. Ask the Irish about being assimilated into a Germanic language."

Explaining why Estonian speak Uralic language and are fully European is problematic, because Finnish and Estonian languanges are very similar and according to linguists we understood each other only 1000 ya. I can still understand written Estonian excluding some words, though the written form differs. In many case the reason for differences can be the linguistic evolution on our side of the sea and Estonian can be more archaic. So the dilemma is following: how Estonians and Finns can have spoken same language only 1500 years ago and the Siberian on our side is a proof of yje linguistic origin? This means that a small group of Finnish upper class dominated Estonians. This is absolutely a new theory and unknown for us and Estonians. The counterargument is that archaeological evidences are just contrary.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Mongols carry Y-haplogroup C and a significant level of the East Asian (as opposed to Siberian) genetic component. Both of these markers are very rare in Eastern Europe, except among Tatar groups, who are documented to have Mongolian-like and even Mongolian ancestry. See here..."

Lol! Thanks for the link. I guess that pretty much answers my question.

"Dienekes had a funny theory for many years that much of the R1a in Eastern Europe was of Turko-Mongol origin, but that died a quick death after it was revealed that the subclades of R1a in Eastern Europe are European-specific. Again, Asian subclades are only really found among Tatars, and people who derive from them."

Yep, Dienekes is a bit weird overall. He has some serious issues when it comes to accepting the Pontic-Caspian Steppe theory, and only recently has he begun acknowledging it. Although, quite frankly, I think he will be in for a bigger shock when the remains of Classical Greeks are found and sequenced, as well as those from the major elite burials of the Mycenaean period. I bet that Slavic in Greeks won't end up being Slavic after all, any thoughts?

Davidski said...

@M. Myllylä

Estonians show a stronger signal of Siberian ancestry than their Baltic speaking neighbors. I suppose that it can be argued that this minor admixture is just from contacts with Finns, rather than from their early Uralic ancestors, but it can also be argued that it's from both.

Quote from Mittnik et al. Page 10...

In contrast, the statistic D(Estonian, BA_Baltic; X, Mbuti) gives the most significant positive hits for East Asian and Siberian populations (Supplementary Information Table S8) as previously suggested.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/the-genetic-history-of-northern-europe.html

@Shahanshah of Persia

I bet that Slavic in Greeks won't end up being Slavic after all, any thoughts?

Greeks do carry Slavic-specific lineages of Y-haplogroups R1a and I2, and at pretty decent frequencies in parts of the country, so they do have Slavic ancestry.

Rob said...

@ Shahansash

"I think he will be in for a bigger shock when the remains of Classical Greeks are found and sequenced, as well as those from the major elite burials of the Mycenaean period. I bet that Slavic in Greeks won't end up being Slavic after all, any thoughts?"

Well my first thought is you have no idea what you're talking about .

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Greeks do carry Slavic-specific lineages of Y-haplogroups R1a and I2, and at pretty decent frequencies in parts of the country, so they do have Slavic ancestry."

Alright, I just thought that perhaps the Slavic was actually just hidden Steppe admixture from the Classical Period, i.e. Dorians.

"Well my first thought is you have no idea what you're talking about ."

I am new to genetics, so there's that. I just assumed that the Slavic was just admixture from the later Steppe migrations. But, I guess not.

Kristiina said...

@Davidski

"Estonians show a stronger signal of Siberian ancestry than their Baltic speaking neighbors."

As I know that for you the role of yDNA in the linguistic issues is very important, I would like to put forth a question: the frequency of N1c in Latvians is 38% and in Lithuanians 42%. N1c has not been detected in the presumed IE samples to date and it was not even detected in the latest Baltic papers which included for example the Latvian BA Kivutkalns samples dated to c. 805 BC - 300 BC. How come the Siberian signal in Balts can be so low if they mixed with Nganasan like hunters c. 300 BC and how come this yline became so popular among the Balts?

huijbregts said...

@Davidski
Which I2 lineages do you consider Slavic?

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

How come the Siberian signal in Balts can be so low if they mixed with Nganasan like hunters c. 300 BC and how come this yline became so popular among the Balts?

They didn't mix with Nganasan-like hunters. Their N1c was mediated via contacts with Europeans rich in N1c but poor in Siberian admixture.

Uralic languages spread into Northeastern Europe because Uralic speakers had an edge over Indo-Europeans in the region for a time. This may have been due to climate changes that gave them the upper hand, or some type of technology. But once this time was up, the language shifts ceased, and Uralic didn't spread into the southern Baltic, while a few of the associated paternal lineages continued to do well for one reason or another.

Davidski said...

@huijbregts

I2a-L621 or I2a-Dinaric.

Kristiina said...

@Davidski" Their N1c was mediated via contacts with Europeans rich in N1c but poor in Siberian admixture."

From the yfull yDNA N1c tree you can see that the Baltic N1c sits under the Finnic N1c variation, so the Europeans that you are talking about were probably Uralic speakers.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

From the yfull yDNA N1c tree you can see that the Baltic N1c sits under the Finnic N1c variation, so the Europeans that you are talking about were probably Uralic speakers.

Yes, possibly, but they no longer had that mojo to make language shifts happen.

M. Myllylä said...

@Davidski

"Estonians show a stronger signal of Siberian ancestry than their Baltic speaking neighbors. I suppose that it can be argued that this minor admixture is just from contacts with Finns, rather than from their early Uralic ancestors, but it can also be argued that it's from both."

During the Swedish heydays in the 17th century Estonian population shrank to the half of the earlier size due to wars, famine and a new wave of Black Death. Almost all lands in Estonia were owned by German lords who searched profits. They found workers from Finland and Latvia to substitute the deficit. According Estonian historians in Northern Estonia the Finnish proportion of all land workers and craftsmen was up to 30%. Indeed, we don't need to go to prehistory to find out the Finnish influence. Estonians in northern provinces are much more Finnish-ike than in southern provinces. It is sad that Estonians researchers don't release all available information about their ydna, because it would be possible to date exactly the Finnish influence by SNP's and STR's. They have one of the best sample archive in the world. What I am saying is that we don't need to speculate, first we should solve the information we already have.

Ebizur said...

Kristiina,

"As I know that for you the role of yDNA in the linguistic issues is very important, I would like to put forth a question: the frequency of N1c in Latvians is 38% and in Lithuanians 42%. N1c has not been detected in the presumed IE samples to date and it was not even detected in the latest Baltic papers which included for example the Latvian BA Kivutkalns samples dated to c. 805 BC - 300 BC. How come the Siberian signal in Balts can be so low if they mixed with Nganasan like hunters c. 300 BC and how come this yline became so popular among the Balts?"

Most Y-DNA haplogroup N Y-chromosomes in Europeans outside the Uralic-speaking northeastern corner of the continent (or is it no longer okay to call Europe a continent?) belong to a few very derived subclades that have grown to large population sizes because of their being carried by certain males who have been established in positions of hereditary high status during the second millennium CE.

As far as I can discern from relevant Y-DNA data, the founders of these dynasties were probably at some time in the middle ages Baltic Finns who somehow managed to get accepted by a Germanic-speaking community (probably some group of Scandinavians), and thereafter spread out over Eastern Europe as "Varangians," into the British Isles as "Vikings," and so forth.

Huck Finn said...

Estonian South is apparently more Latvian i.e. Baltic than Estonian North is Finnish. In other words, Davidski most probably is right when he's saying that Siberian influence may be based both on ancestral Uralic (related to Volga-Kama origins?)and later Finnish influences (related to BOO, Leväluhta people and Saami?). Remains to be seen.


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170325&type=printable

The amount of paternal N in Balts is an indication, but not a really good argument, because of obvious founder effects related to that young lineage.

M. Myllylä said...

A piece of Estonian history

http://www.estonica.org/en/History/1558-1710_Estonia_under_Swedish_rule/Population/

Estonian demographics without tooth and claw. Read and learn :)

Anthro Survey said...

@Davidski

"And most of the Ottoman armies in the Balkans were made up of local conscripts, often not even Muslims, let alone with recent ancestry from Anatolia."

Absolutely. Not many realize this. Greeks from Thrace & Marmara regions, as well as Vlachs and Macedonians, comprised the core of early Ottoman armies and decision-makers. Kose Mihal and Zaganos Pasha are prime examples. Muslim Serbo-Croats and Albanians joined in soon thereafter.

The Ottoman m.o. was different to prior Persianate states in that it did not rely so heavily on a core of Turkoman mounted archers to do the trick.

Shaikorth said...

In line with what M. Myllylä said about recent history, Estonians have elevated IBD sharing with Finns and Saamis compared to Balts, but not with any Uralic-speaking population in the Volga region or with Turkics such as Tatars and Bashkirs. As expected, Balts tend to share more than Estonians do with various Slavs.

Nomic Belief said...

@Myllylä

"Explaining why Estonian speak Uralic language and are fully European is problematic, because Finnish and Estonian languanges are very similar and according to linguists we understood each other only 1000 ya. I can still understand written Estonian excluding some words, though the written form differs. In many case the reason for differences can be the linguistic evolution on our side of the sea and Estonian can be more archaic. So the dilemma is following: how Estonians and Finns can have spoken same language only 1500 years ago and the Siberian on our side is a proof of yje linguistic origin? This means that a small group of Finnish upper class dominated Estonians. This is absolutely a new theory and unknown for us and Estonians. The counterargument is that archaeological evidences are just contrary."

Estonians are mostly (genetically Baltic) language shifters from less than 1000 ya because of wars and famines and other population turnovers (source: book of Estonian history read while visiting Tarto). So there should be no mystery (for once!) in less eastern ancestry/difference to other Finnic ethnic groups in Estonians.

@Kristiina

How can the Yamnaya people -- who may even be half CHG -- be the origin of Finns, as you suggested, or even Balts as both Finns and Balts do not have similar CHG ancestry (if at all) compared to other Europeans, even less than the Scandinavians in general? (Which is curious as they still have similar Neolithic farmer ancestry.) Rather, the ancestors of Finns and Yamnaya could be the same (EHG?) people that had not yet mixed with CHG.

It is an interesting question, which ethnic group was living in Kola Peninsula/Karelia/Finland before the Saami people. It was not the EHG carrying Comb Ceramic people. Your Yukaghir hypothesis is interesting. Could you elaborate?

Davidski said...

So Estonians may have been the only fully European population to speak Uralic before they acquired Finnish admixture? Hmmmm.

Ancient DNA can answer when significant Siberian admixture and N1c first arrived in what is now Estonia, and I reckon that will turn out to be the Bronze Age. If so, there won't be much to debate, unless someone wants to propose that the Corded Ware people were Uralics.

Davidski said...

@Nomic Belief

Where did you get the idea that Balts didn't have any CHG?

In fact, they have about 20%, and hence about 50% Yamnaya-like (steppe) ancestry.

Anthro Survey said...

@Shahanshah

We should not underestimate the metallurgical skills of Bronze and Iron Age peoples of Central Europe and their legacy. It was not only this (Unetice-like?) demographic impact that made them as pivotal in Rome's foundation as Bronze Age Anatolian influences and Hellenism. Metallurgical techniques stemming from modern day South Germany and thereabout continued to play a highly influential role across Europe well after earlier waves from there colonized much of Italy, France and Britain.

It is no accident, for example, that Roman legionnaires were outfitted in a largely "La Tene" fashion with chainmail, montefortino helmets, and gladii.

In fact, in pre-Roman times, aside from the Hellenized East Med region, Northern and West-Central Europe did not lag behind Iberia, Liguria or Italy tech-wise.

Davidski said...

@Nomic Belief

I should add to my comment above that of course Finns also have a lot of CHG, almost as much as Balts and Scandinavians.

Seems like you're relying on some outdated ADMIXTURE output that shows membership, or lack of, in a "West Asian" cluster.

If so, please keep in mind that this is no way to estimate ancient ancestry proportions. You need to rely on formal stats, or at least an ADMIXTURE test that actually has an accurate CHG cluster.

Shaikorth said...

@Davidski
It's quite possible Livonians and Setos wouldn't show even the Saami trace Estonians do. But there's Estonian Iron Age and post-CW Bronze Age data on the way, and it's sensible to expect N-L1026 will be there no earlier than that timeframe. The autosomal tendencies compared to modern Estonians should be the most interesting part.

Nomic Belief said...

@Davidski

You're right, I based that on various admixture outputs showing none (they did show some with some k-values, so of course rather less or different than none) CHG component for Finns and Balts but a lot less than for other Europeans and Scandinavians. I found this curious and thought of it as evidence of differential ancestry. Point taken, ADMIXTURE is not the perfect guide, and the CHG admixture may be complex and hidden in other components -- which also requires explanation if the CHG ancestry differs for Finns/Balts/Northern Russians and others.

Any reference to proportions of CHG in Finns and Balts compared to others using formal tests appreciated.

M. Myllylä said...

@Davidski

"So Estonians may have been the only fully European population to speak Uralic before they acquired Finnish admixture? Hmmmm."

Touché! But don't forget disappeared Livonians. And so was the root population of Finns in Southwestern Finland around 2000 years ago. Actually Estonian and Livonian populations were over 10 times larger than the tiny Finnish population on the other side of the sea. The sea between them and Estonians had not any big effect on the spoken language until several centuries had passed. Genetically the change was faster because of the tiny number of Finns in Southwestern Finland. This was the first Finnish genetic bottle neck. Poor Estonians had a rough history and became mostly replaced by other poeple.

Kristiina said...

@Samuel ”Do you not agree PIE languages arrived in Europe alongside Steppe ancestry and therefore there's a good chance Finns have lots of Indo European speaking ancestors?”

Yes, I agree that IE languages arrived in Europe alongside Steppe ancestry, but Proto-IE may have been spoken only on the steppe (or closer to Anatolia).

Most linguists agree that Proto-Uralic was spoken in the forest Volga (http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Anthropogenesis-HakkinenUralicHomeland.jpg) (or p. 56 http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf)

The Yamnaya influence must have been strong in this area as well as the later western influence in the form of Fatyanovo. Therefore, Proto-Uralic and its western descendants developed under a strong IE influence and this is clearly seen in the structure and lexicon of Uralic languages and probably in the genetics. I would imagine that for example during the Fatyanovo period, there was a lot of bilingualism in the Volga Ural. In my thinking, Uralic speakers and different IE groups mixed and influenced each other.

Kristiina said...

@ Nomic Belief "It is an interesting question, which ethnic group was living in Kola Peninsula/Karelia/Finland before the Saami people. It was not the EHG carrying Comb Ceramic people. Your Yukaghir hypothesis is interesting. Could you elaborate?"

There are clear similarites in the mtDNA haplotypes of ancient Kola Peninsula people and modern Yukaghirs. Check this discussion on Anthrogenica: http://www.anthrogenica.com/archive/index.php/t-6245.html

As for a linguistic relationship between Saami and Yukaghir, to my knowledge the linguistic evidence is non-existing.

My hunch is that if there are common roots, they are not restricted to Saami but encompass Finnish as well, often lacking in other Uralic languages. One interesting word is the Finnish word norppa, Ringed seal (Pusa hispida), cf. North Saami noarvi, Karelian ńorppa, Komi ńerpa, Yukaghir (T) ńierpe,(KD) nierpa, Russian nerpa, all meaning seal or a certain seal species.

In any case, I think that I have found several Finnish words that could be related to Yukaghir words and they are often restricted to Finnish and Saami languages or show irregular sound correspondences between Uralic languages and should therefore not be taken as "inherited words".

The Bolshoy site shows archaeological links to Ymyakhtakh culture and here you can find more information on Ymyakhtakh:
https://books.google.be/books?id=TyJlBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=Ymyakhtakh+culture&source=bl&ots=dpTd5ntYAe&sig=1dUdgM1tGdkwPK3GgeTsGLC8EoQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiovYyO-tTXAhWOZlAKHfsNA2sQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=Ymyakhtakh%20culture&f=false

In this book "The Global Prehistory of Human Migration", it is said that proto-Yukaghir people are believed to be associated with the Ymyakhtakh culture (4200-3200 years ago, i.e. 2200-1200 BC). The Bolshoy site is dated to c. 1500 BC which means that these people had 700 years for reaching the Kola Peninsula from their area of origin in Central Siberia.

Anthony Haken said...

I think the spread of N1c and the Uralic languages can be associated with the spread of Iron working technology from the Volga. This would explain the edge Uralics had in North East europe that Davidski is talking about.

Arza said...

Everything is really simple.

It looks like Nganasan(-like) population mixed with Samara_Eneolithic, then this now Nenets(-like) group moved further West and mixed with Baltic_BA (CWC + Narva) giving Saami(-like) population. Then Saami(-like) population mixed with Baltic_BA shifted south-west towards Slavs admixed with Hungary_BA (Trzciniec, Lusatian + Kyjatice, Piliny, Otomani-Füzesabony), giving Estonians, Finns, Vepsians or Ingrians.

Population,X,X,Nganasan,Samara_Eneolithic:I0122,D statistic
Nenets,0,0,74,26,0.0035

Population,X,X,Latvian,Nenets,D statistic
Saami,0,0,67,33,0.0054

Population,X,X,Latvian,Slav_Czech:RISE569,D statistic
Lithuanian,0,0,82,18,0.0033

Population,X,X,Lithuanian,Saami,D statistic
Estonian,0,0,94,6,0.0045
Finnish,0,0,70,30,0.0033
Vepsa,0,0,66,34,0.0013
Ingrian,0,0,73,27,0.0044


One model to rule them all:

PCA (Global 10, PC2/PC4/PC6)
https://s6.postimg.org/s6q0eztmp/Uralic-_Baltic-_Slavic.png

D statistic,Slav_Czech:RISE569,Baltic_BA_ghost,Samara_Eneolithic:I0122,Nganasan,Population
0.0014,24,75,01,00,Latvian
0.0031,38,62,00,00,Lithuanian
0.0041,63,37,00,00,Russian_Smolensk
0.0047,65,35,00,00,Belarusian
0.0045,72,28,00,00,Polish
0.0033,69,27,04,00,Russian_Orel
0.0051,75,23,02,00,Ukrainian_East
0.0062,86,14,00,00,Slovakian
0.0041,93,07,00,00,Ukrainian_West
0.0071,95,05,00,00,Czech
0.0027,29,70,00,01,Estonian
0.0031,52,39,04,05,Russian_Kostroma
0.0030,52,32,11,05,Russian_Kargopol
0.0038,26,66,02,06,Ingrian
0.0018,35,57,01,07,Finnish
0.0017,28,60,04,08,Vepsa
0.0033,44,26,14,16,Komi
0.0046,45,00,34,21,Udmurt
0.0012,00,66,08,26,Saami
0.0028,38,15,19,28,Mari
0.0028,15,03,33,49,Mansi
0.0037,08,05,32,55,Khanty
0.0023,01,06,28,65,Selkup
0.0031,00,03,23,74,Nenets
0.0064,00,01,25,74,Nenets_Forest

^^^ High Slavic, low Baltic, high Samara_EN = probably Steppe_MLBA(-like) proxy.
Baltic_BA_ghost can be replaced with Latvian, practically only proportions will change.

Derek said...

When trying to establish the relationship between Finns/Estonians/Saami it could be helpful to think like a person from 2005 and look at mtDNA haplogroups. The Saami famously have extraordinarily high percentages of U5 (48%) and V (42%) which differentiate them from all their neighbors. Interestingly, in comparison to Estonians, Finns also have strikingly elevated frequencies of these haplogroups: 7.3 to 1.5% for V and 20 vs 13% for U5. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that much of the Siberian mixture in Finns came from the Saami in the last 1,000 years or so, whereas the smaller Siberian % in Estonians cannot be explained this way. Given the dissimilarity between Finnish and Estonian mtDNA, I don't think it can be explained by Finnish back migration either.

Kristiina said...

@ Arza

But now we have (or will have) strong evidence that Siberian admixture in Finns and other Finnics is recent and from the Northeast European arctic and not from Volga.

Nomic Belief said...

@Kristiina, Arza, Myllylä, Davidski and others

This is very helpful, thanks a lot!

However, I can't help presupposing that the data I've seen repeatedly indicates to some Caucasus related ancestry difference in North Eastern Europeans vs. North Western Europeans.

Ryan said...

@M. Myllylä - With respect, there's nothing to solve, and it seems like you're trying to find a way to justify a European origin for Uralic languages for ideological reasons. That strikes me as rather silly though - there's really nothing wrong with Uralic languages originating in Siberia. IF you go back far enough that's probably where Indo-European's ancestor languages came from.

CWC had a stronger presence in Estonia than in southern Finland let alone the rest of Finland, so I don't see why we would be surprised by a relatively weaker Siberian signal there. It's exactly what we would expect.

There's really no mystery here at all.

@David - "Yes, possibly, but they no longer had that mojo to make language shifts happen."

Maybe they didn't and maybe they didn't. I'd bet good money that that part of Europe was a disordered mess when it came to languages until relatively recently, with different groups assimilating each other over and over, and it being a matter of groups merging as much as anything else. Multi-ethnic coalitions definitely seem like the norm for the more recent groups that we have records for.

@Kristiina - What are your thoughts on Uralic and Yukaghir having a genetic relationshipÉ

Kristiina said...

@Kristiina - What are your thoughts on Uralic and Yukaghir having a genetic relationship

Trying to be as objective as possible I would say that the amount of common lexicon with IE languages is clearly much bigger and the Swadesh list comparison does not indicate a close relationship between Yukaghir and Uralic. Syntactically Proto-Uralic is clearly closer to Proto-IE than Yukaghir, and between Uralic and IE languages there are many morphemes that look like cognates.

However, my personal opinion is that Finnic languages show some vague similarities with Yukaghir or an unknown Siberian language and these are not shared with other Uralic languages and not reconstructed to Proto-Uralic.

Therefore, I do not believe in a closer genetic relationship between Proto-Uralic and Yukaghir than Proto-Uralic and Proto-IE. IMO, there is rather a genetic relationship between Proto-Uralic and Proto-IE. However, there were contacts on the daughter languages level or, possibly, on a substrate level.

M. Myllylä said...

@Ryan,

you sound somewhat pathetic, because everything what I wrote is from history books, books you probably are not able to read. It is the mainstream known history that Southwestern Finns lived in a small area in a few villages and their ancestry has connected to Estonia. I gave also a link to the Estonian history during the 17th century, showing the Finnish influence. The same mainstream historical research tells also that Saamis lived in South Finland BEFORE Finns, and perhaps we have now first ancient genomes confirming archaeological and linguistic proofs. I have nothing against real scientific results, only against beliefs.

Did Uralic languages came from Siberia? I have no clue about it and didn't even comment it, although you try to give this impression and then you say that it strikes silly. This is called a straw man.

AWood said...

I'm believing this Siberian link and (probably) N1c arriving during this period, since it's nearly absent everywhere else in Europe except the northern Baltic, but who really knows if this is related to Uralic language.

supernord said...

Kristiina said...
"Most linguists agree that Proto-Uralic was spoken in the forest Volga"

This is wishful thinking. Finnish linguists often give proven loanwords as ancestral.

M. Myllylä said...

@AWood,

if I remember right the N1 is from China. I don't see it very interesting, because what I have read its subclade N1c1 is common everywhere in the Baltic region and southern clades are downstream subclades of the northern ones. Speculating with it and proto-languages makes no sense, it is not even entertaining and mostly useless. I feel like wasting my time although it bothers many of us. However just wasting time...

VOX said...

Hate to be off topic but are there any updates on the South Asian ancient DNA papers?

Davidski said...

@Nomic Belief

Levels of CHG across much of Europe as predicted by me. Unlikely to be perfect, but probably correct in terms of relative outcomes.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/qpadm-tour-of-europe-mesolithic-to.html

On the other hand, ADMIXTURE doesn't say anything about the type of CHG present in different populations, because it focuses on recent genetic drift, and attempts to account for ancient population structure in that context.

EastPole said...

Lord Colin Renfrew | Marija Rediviva: DNA and Indo-European Origins lecture video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6vByg1lVdA

He says that not everything is quite clear yet because we don’t have Hittite aDNA but praises Gimbutas in general and admits that recent aDNA discoveries vindicate her Kurgan theory.

Arkaim said...

Quite a bad(?) thread, comment-wise.
To understand Uralic, people have to read this paper here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615

You can see what happened when the Yamnaya expanded East and mixed with Nganasan-types. They, then, back migrated and settled in the Finno-Karelian-Volga Uralic cluster.
The Magyars come from this region, it's where the Udmurt and Mordvin live today and their genetic pattern match those from the Iron Age to an extent (of course, they've acquired other admixtures since).
It's known that the East Scythians became the Proto-Turks as well.

So, basically: From those Yamnayas that went far-east, many were Uralized and Turkisized. Similar to how Mongols would also absorb the Steppe culture later.
Funnily enough, I'm suggesting here now an ancient origin of Uralic and Turkic in the Siberian Nganasan-types so that this could make sense.

Another theory would be a much earlier origin of Uralic along with the EHG, which already had loads of ANE ancestry, and this ancestry would be the cornerstone for Uralic, as the ANE would speak "Pre-Proto-Uralic" (It's known that the Uralic that people like the Nganasan speak diverged very anciently from the other branches).

@Shahanshah of Persia
"We were better than you and colonized you" mentality
Steppe_MLBA is practically the same as Nordic_LNBA and clusters with Northern/Eastern Europeans of today.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-bronze-age-dominion-from-atlantic-to.html
http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis/PCA/Eurogenes_Lazaridis_(2016)_Near_Eastern_aDNA_PC_plot_1-2-3.html

It's not a mentality. People might interpret this reality as an attack, but it's just a statement.
What you find bad is the statement itself, based on data.

Davidski said...

@VOX

In regards to South Asia, last I heard was that deliberations were under way on how to best interpret and present the data to the satisfaction of all concerned.

I can see three potential outcomes at this stage:

1) one big paper comes out very soon with all sorts of caveats that the data are still limited and the conclusions might change in the future, especially about the spread of Indo-European languages into South Asia

2) the effort splinters, and within a few months some of the teams put out separate papers that contradict each other in the interpretation of very similar data

3) some of the people involved keep asking for more and more ancient samples in the hope that something pops up that contradicts the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, but nothing ever does, so the effort drags on for another year or so, until they finally give up and accept reality.

Ryan said...

@M. Myllylä - "you sound somewhat pathetic, because everything what I wrote is from history books, books you probably are not able to read."

You're just missing the point. I'm not contracting what you wrote - I'm just pointing out that it is irrelevant to proto-Uralic and its spread to Europe. The history isn't wrong, it just doesn't cast doubt on the genetics as you suggest. It actually supports the genetics and visa versa.

"Speculating with it and proto-languages makes no sense, it is not even entertaining and mostly useless."

It's worked out pretty well for R1a and Indo-European languages.

@Kristiina - "However, my personal opinion is that Finnic languages show some vague similarities with Yukaghir or an unknown Siberian language and these are not shared with other Uralic languages and not reconstructed to Proto-Uralic."

Which similarities if you don't mind me asking? Is this the plural markers for pronouns thing?

Long paper on the subject if you're interested - http://www.sgr.fi/susa/94/piispanen.pdf

I think the argument that shared features between Finno-Saamic and Yukaghir are archaic features from an earlier proto-Uralo-Yukaghiric is an interesting idea at least.

Anthony Haken said...

Any idea when the data will be released? Its quite simple if the BOO and Kola samples are high in Nganasan like ancestry but lack L1026 it means proto Finnic speakers probably didn't carry that type of ancestry before entering Finland. If they did it would definitely shake up the mainstream view on Uralic linguistically and archeologically considering what we know about BOO.

M. Myllylä said...

@Ryan

it was you who missed the point. I was discussing with Davidski about the Siberian admixture and its origin in Estonia. I didn't write even a single word about the origin of Uralic languages, only that how we can prove the Siberian origin today, and it was much earlier in this thread. Try to focus on messages and make right quotes, otherwise it is hard to follow your thoughts. I can admit the Siberian origin of Uralic languages though, but Finnish and Estonian linguists can have different views about it. It doesn't bother me. As far as I know the outcome of Estonian and Finnish linguists is that the origin of Uralic languages is in Volga region. For better or worse, I have no opinion and I have never had it. The questions is which one of two theories, Finnish/Estonian or Russian. is right, or are both wrong, but I smell an ideological schism.

Davidski said...

Uralic languages might be from the Volga region or somewhere near by. But that's not really the issue here.

The issue is that Uralic languages were not carried into Northeastern Europe with the Yamnaya-like ancestors of the Corded Ware people, who, in all likelihood, spoke Indo-European languages.

Rather, they arrived later, and not from the steppe, but from the forests, and with people who were probably significantly Siberian and rich in N1c.

Even if early Estonians were fully European, which I seriously doubt, then this is the most likely hypothesis for the source of Uralic languages in Northeastern Europe.

Nomic Belief said...

@Davidski

"Levels of CHG across much of Europe as predicted by me. Unlikely to be perfect, but probably correct in terms of relative outcomes.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/qpadm-tour-of-europe-mesolithic-to.html"

Much appreciated, surely good enough for the present purposes.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim I never denied that they cluster with Northern Europeans, but they don't fit perfectly with them, and are a bit more Iran-shifted. You are only 60 to 70% similar to the original Indo-Europeans. Also, I said you discount other factors which led to the rise of their civilizations, and also the BMAC and Yaz factors as well. Instead of claiming something I did not say, you should carefully read what I said.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Indian nationalists are very blind to the realities. Indians did not simply go from the IVC to the Vedic era, over night. Let's hope they release them soon, but I doubt they will. Now knowing that the Aryans conquered India and imposed their culture, religion, and caste system on the natives is going to hurt the historical and scholarly ambitions of Indian nationalists. Indians like to think that they are a perfect people, yet fail to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy between North and South Indians, and why it is always the Brahmins who are dominating almost every single sector of Indian society. Basically, the North Indian Brahmins are the true and only inheritors of Indic civilization, no ifs or buts. Let's hope this sinks in for those Indian nationalists who are not in agreement with science.

Peter Klevius said...

Continuing my rant on "northern women", I once had a dream about Uralic speaking women marrying "kurgan" men in the wooden borderland from Ural to the Finnish bay. As a result, the kids spoke Uralic. However, when they grew up only part of them stayed Uralic, the rest being absorbed southwards by IE speaking women. Something opposite happened on the northern front from southeast of Ilmen up to Fennoscandia. But the sudden long jump from Ural/Volga to Hungary (and nowhere else) as late as Viking age is an Uralic mystery - or have I missed something?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski On another note, were Sogdians, Bactrians, Massagetye, etc., genetically European or Peninsular Iranic, or in between the two?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Sorry, I meant from the Iranian Plateau, not Peninsular Iranic, as no such thing as anIranian Peninsula exists.

Ryan said...

@M. Myllylä - "it was you who missed the point. I was discussing with Davidski about the Siberian admixture and its origin in Estonia. I didn't write even a single word about the origin of Uralic languages, only that how we can prove the Siberian origin today, and it was much earlier in this thread. "

The two are linked, as you should realize. See David's comment.

@David - "Rather, they arrived later, and not from the steppe, but from the forests, and with people who were probably significantly Siberian and rich in N1c."

I think it's pretty damned likely that Siberian ancestry and N1c arrived in the Volga region from Siberia though, no? And with it probably the language.

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Don't know. Mixed I suppose. Ancient DNA will inform.

@Ryan

Apparently the main theory nowadays is that pre-Proto-Uralic came from Siberia and Proto-Uralic from the Volga-Ural.

So it really depends on where one draws the line between pre-Proto-Uralic and Proto-Uralic.

Samuel Andrews said...

@David,
"The issue is that Uralic languages were not carried into Northeastern Europe with the Yamnaya-like ancestors of the Corded Ware people, who, in all likelihood, spoke Indo-European languages."
@Kristina,
"The Yamnaya influence must have been strong in this area as well as the later western influence in the form of Fatyanovo. Therefore, Proto-Uralic and its western descendants developed under a strong IE influence"

Ok, I get it now. There are two camps here. Those who believe Uralic spread with heavily Siberian people and those who believe Uralic spread with heavily Corded Ware/Yamnaya like people.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Thanks bro, I guess we will have to just wait and see.

Seinundzeit said...

Shahanshah,

"... On another note, were Sogdians, Bactrians, Massagetye, etc., genetically European or Peninsular Iranic, or in between the two?"

None of the above.

For what it's worth, populations on the Iranian plateau, with the exception of its eastern edge, are mostly Iran_Chal with minor steppe-related admixture (10%-25%) and some extra Levantine/Anatolian admixture (not to mention very minor ASI, like 1%-3%).

By contrast, South Central Asians like the Yaghnobi, the Pamiri peoples, the Afghan and Central Asian Tajiks/Parsiwan, Pashtuns, the Urmur, the Baraki, etc, tend to be around 40%-60% Steppe_EMBA (depending on the method of analysis, and depending on the population), with the rest of their ancestry being divided between Iran_Chal, Iran_N, and between 5% and 15% ASI (although, the Yaghnobi are likely to be 0% ASI).

It's these populations, not Europeans or West Asian Persians/Kurds, who should be one's point of reference for ancient Eastern Iranian genetic structure, as these populations are the direct descendants of ancient Eastern Iranians.

So again, in all probability, the Sogdians/Bactrians/Massagetae were very similar to modern-day Yaghnobi people (as a matter of fact, the Yaghnobi people are direct descendants of the Sogdians), speakers of the "Pamiri" languages, and Pashtuns (especially Pashtun highlanders in the greater Paktia/Waziristan area, who seem to have very elevated levels of Steppe_EMBA ancestry, and the least Iran_N admix and most Iran_Chal admix out of all Pashtun tribal clusters).

Seinundzeit said...

Shahanshah,

I should have posted this too, almost forgot...

"yet fail to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy between North and South Indians..."

Just to be clear, you do realize that South Indians are economically much better off than North Indians?

They also are much ahead of North Indians in terms of education, public hygiene, political progressiveness, lower crime rates, etc?

I have no dog in this sort of thing, as I have no Indian ancestry, no connection to Hinduism, believe that India was invaded by Aryans, and probably have a ton of direct "Aryan"-related ancestry (in fact, most of my ancestry is probably ancient Indo-Iranian) but still bro, let's be real...

Kristiina said...

@ Arkaim, Ryan

I agree that Yamnaya and Afanasievo modernized Central and Northern Asia. And I agree that new people from the south mixed with the original inhabitans of South Siberia. Later on, with the Silk Road southeast Asian gene flow started.

However, Proto-Uralic is syntactically close to eastern IE languages. Maybe this common structure is reminiscent of the structure of the languages of EHG populations. At the moment, Pre-Proto-Uralic is speculation as it involves presumptions that cannot be proven. Proto-Uralic is based on forms that can be reconstructed from the daughter languages. Pre-Proto-Uralic is open to personal preferences: one can pick up what one wants to be true.

Instead, Proto-IE shows traits that are remimiscent of Caucasian languages or West Asian languages: ergative pattern, gender system, phonetics are clearly similar to phonetics in Northwest Caucasian languages.

If Uralic languages have links to Siberia, IE languages have links to West Asia.

I am sure that languages like Turkic and Uralic languages were never spoken in mesolithic Siberia. The original Siberian languages were surely different. In Western Siberia, there could have been weird languages resembling Native American languages. Yukaghir could belong to a language family spoken in the Mesolithic Baikal area. In Amur and Ohotsk there could have been languages resembling Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages and Nivkh. Yeniseian languages may belong to the Dene-Yeniseian language family which could have originated even in America.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Seinundzeit

"None of the above."

Okay...

"For what it's worth, populations on the Iranian plateau, with the exception of its eastern edge, are mostly Iran_Chal with minor steppe-related admixture (10%-25%) and some extra Levantine/Anatolian admixture (not to mention very minor ASI, like 1%-3%)."

Iranians don't show Levantine/Anatolian admixture. What are you on about? Lol! Some do, such as the Iranian Lors, but the majority do not.

"By contrast, South Central Asians like the Yaghnobi, the Pamiri peoples, the Afghan and Central Asian Tajiks/Parsiwan, Pashtuns, the Urmur, the Baraki, etc, tend to be around 40%-60% Steppe_EMBA (depending on the method of analysis, and depending on the population), with the rest of their ancestry being divided between Iran_Chal, Iran_N, and between 5% and 15% ASI (although, the Yaghnobi are likely to be 0% ASI)."

Okay, thanks for clarifying. You are correct.

"It's these populations, not Europeans or West Asian Persians/Kurds, who should be one's point of reference for ancient Eastern Iranian genetic structure, as these populations are the direct descendants of ancient Eastern Iranians."

No, I knew this. But I was wondering from where the ASI in these groups came from, as I doubt that it was there to begin with. Any thoughts?

"So again, in all probability, the Sogdians/Bactrians/Massagetae were very similar to modern-day Yaghnobi people (as a matter of fact, the Yaghnobi people are direct descendants of the Sogdians), speakers of the "Pamiri" languages, and Pashtuns (especially Pashtun highlanders in the greater Paktia/Waziristan area, who seem to have very elevated levels of Steppe_EMBA ancestry, and the least Iran_N admix and most Iran_Chal admix out of all Pashtun tribal clusters)."

Yes, I know, but was wondering whether or not they became mixed later on.

"Just to be clear, you do realize that South Indians are economically much better off than North Indians?

They also are much ahead of North Indians in terms of education, public hygiene, political progressiveness, lower crime rates, etc?

I have no dog in this sort of thing, as I have no Indian ancestry, no connection to Hinduism, believe that India was invaded by Aryans, and probably have a ton of direct "Aryan"-related ancestry (in fact, most of my ancestry is probably ancient Indo-Iranian) but still bro, let's be real..."

You're right, you have a point. BTW, what is your background?





Kristiina said...

@Ryan
”Long paper on the subject if you're interested - http://www.sgr.fi/susa/94/piispanen.pdf”

That’s a good paper. However, we still have several possibilities: areal contacts, substrate influence and genetic relationship. In a way, I am sceptical about the macro language families. All languages may have a common origin and the Nostratic traits are true, but, in spite of this, I think that during the Bronze Age and thereafter, the number of languages has decreased drastically. The linguistic map was surely much more complex resembling the situation America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas#/media/File:Langs_N.Amer.png) and in Australia (https://soapboxspeakers.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/australia-city-map.gif). Therefore, we may just make imaginary unity between languages which instead are derived from a mosaic of extinct languages.

“Which similarities if you don't mind me asking? Is this the plural markers for pronouns thing?”

I was thinking about the de-verbal nominal derivation and the object marking system. The de-verbal nominal apparatus in Finnish might be the biggest in the world (https://www.listenandlearnusa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/finnish.jpg). In addition to the derivation patterns above, there is also the extensive de-verbal infinitive and participle system. Also the object marking system is unique and I am not aware of any such system in other languages.

M. Myllylä said...

@Ryan

You missed the point again.

I wrote earlier

"@Davidski, I don't understand how it is possible to prove any connection between Uralic speakers and Siberian ancestry let say 3000 ya. Definitely we know the present-day situation though"

You linked now

"@David - "Rather, they arrived later, and not from the steppe, but from the forests, and with people who were probably significantly Siberian and rich in N1c."

I think it's pretty damned likely that Siberian ancestry and N1c arrived in the Volga region from Siberia though, no? And with it probably the language."

What Davidski wroteios only a presumption (=damned likely), because we have no ancient genomes to prove it. But we have several studies and also my tests showing that the present-day Siberian of Volga-Uralic people is common with Tatars and Turkic people (and Mongols) while the Siberian admixture in Finland is not. The Siberian in Finland is similar to the northern Siberians. How do you explain study results confirming that the Siberian admixture of FU speakers is not from the same source? Sipmly, we can't prove the theory about the original connection between Proto- or preProto-Uralic languages without ancient samples. Once again, and the last time: I have nothing against Siberia and the Siberian origin of Uralic languages, but we need to prove it scientifically.



Rob said...

Yeah imo it's possible all IE/IH can be from Black Sea region
We shall see

When_in_Rome said...

Perhaps N1c, Siberian-like DNA, and Uralic languages are linked to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. It seems to fit the timeline. But there is still the question of the Comb Ceramic (N1a or N1-carriers, near Finland circa 4,200 BC and Korea circa 4,000 BC, origins in Northeast China) and Pit–Comb Ware (European variant, circa 4,200 to 2,000 BC) cultures. Both these cultures seem to show Asian admixture into Europe, but some linguists propose a Paleo-European (i.e. non-PIE, non-Uralic) language spoken in the European variants. Exactly what relation do these cultures have to history?

Kristiina said...

@Al Bundy
The deep origins of IE languages are not clear. The Indian data is not published. The Hittite data is not even coming. I hope that the Indian paper will include samples from Xiaohe. If not, we may have to wait for a while.

Ancient Greeks were very different from Yamnaya, so the role of CHG might be bigger than the role of EHG in the deep origins of IE languages. The migration through the Balkans may be true but I am very sceptical about R1a1 elite dominance model.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Kriistina Hmm... Why isn't the Hittite DNA coming?

Kristiina said...

@When in Rome

Forget Korea and Northeast China. They are not relevant for the Uralic. yDNA N has not been detected in ancient Korea and the Chinese lines separated 20 000 years ago (F2930) and 15 000 years ago (B496). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005449/figure/fig1/)

Garino Bor of the Urals is relevant and not the Seima Turbino which is vague as heck (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266226931_Early_copper_use_in_neolithic_northeastern_Europe_An_overview/figures?lo=1).

supernord said...

@Davidski
"Apparently the main theory nowadays is that pre-Proto-Uralic came from Siberia and Proto-Uralic from the Volga-Ural."



(Proto-)Uralic existed and originated in Siberia, not "pre-Proto-Uralic" and "Proto-Uralic". It's Finno-Ugric part of Uralic came from Siberia onto Volga-Ural, but Samoyedic other part Uralic keep in Siberia near kindred Yukagiric. They split up in Siberia.

Arkaim said...

@Seinundzeit
By your logic, things such as Steppe_EMBA, Steppe_MLBA and even the ANE would be impossibilities, as the "local current populations" wouldn't represent/be like them.
Actually, every ancient peoples sequenced and shown to be different would be too.
But you're wrong, and so was Cavalli-Sforza.

Peoples of Central Asia changed a lot.
The timeline would be likely this:
Steppe_EMBA > Steppe_MLBA > *South Central Asia picks Dravidian+Harappan ancestry via Northern Aryans, in a slow continuous process* > *Western Central Asia picks more Iranian ancestry due to Iranian and Caucasian Steppe-adepts* > *North Central Asia picks up Siberian-mongoloid ancestry due to East Scythians(look Early_Sarmatian_IA)* > Centuries of slow mixture between these 3 > Turkic Invasions of Central Asia, giving the other East Asian ancestry and more Siberian-mongoloid > Mongol Invasion of Central Asia > Today peoples.

@Kristiina
Syntatics are no parameter for languages and Proto-IE had no ergative patterns.
Also, as I said, it's known that Finno-Ugric separated from the other Uralic branches very early in the game and might be thus associated with the EHG and ANE.
All speculation, but there's a Mongoloid element clearly.

M. Myllylä
The peoples of the Uralic Volga might have this extra ancestry you talk about for the sake of their geographic location, but there's no doubt it's little and later in the game.
Samples from the Iron Age shows this already, that's from where the Siberian-mongoloid admixture came to Europe and that's what this thread's paper is all about.
Now, did these people brought Uralic to Europe or it was already there? Who knows.

@Shahanshah of Persia
Hittites burned their dead. They got one sample that may or may not even be Hittite.

@supernord
So you know about the Ancient split, good. What's been reffered to as Pre-Proto-Uralic is as before the Split, as Proto-Uralic reconstructed is clearly much more Finno-Ugric.

supernord said...

"Also, as I said, it's known that Finno-Ugric separated from the other Uralic branches very early in the game and might be thus associated with the EHG"

They can't be linked to EHG, since the Proto-Uralic began to split somewhere between 5000-3000 BC, not earlier, in Siberia about Obi river.

Arkaim said...

@supernord
But you can't affirm any of that?
Are you going to speak about the dark misty tundra?

Kristiina said...

@ Arkaim "Proto-IE had no ergative patterns"

Read Robert S.P. Beekes, "Comparative Indo-European Linguistic - An Introduction", p. 193-194 and p. 254.

"We already saw ... that PIE had an ergative system. The subject of transitive verbs are in the ergative, while their object was found in the absolutive. The absolutive also served as the subject of intransitive verbs. This system was valid for the athematic inflection, for the stative inflection, and for the aorist of the thematic verbs. With the present of the thematic verbs it was otherwise. (Georgian, for eaxample, has a difference of this kind between the present and the aorist). Here the subject would be found in the dative in the case of living creatures, and a non-liviing subject in the instrumental case."

As for Hittite, read http://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/webpage/ergativeparistext.pdf

supernord said...

This opinion Beekes, but that doesn't mean he is right.
PIE had NOT an ergative system.

Arkaim said...

@Kristiina
Are you not mistaking a language being Ergative with a Nominative language having an ergative case?
There are many IE languages with ergative cases, that's nothing new, but the languages aren't Ergatives, but Nominatives, with the exception of some fringes such as the Kurdish and some Indo-Aryans.

Arkaim said...

Actually, I went to search a little and the only IE languages that are Ergative are indeed the Kurdish.
The Indo-Aryan ones only have ergative cases and are Nominative as well.

M. Myllylä said...

@Arkaim,

not so small, for instance Mordvas show 17% Tatar admixture, 75% East Slavic admixture and a few percentages East Volga Uralic admixtures. Those results are from my own tests using Globetrotter and based on shared haplotypes. Maybe people don't like to see those numbers, but usual Russian opinions support my results, so I guess that my results are acceptable. I found no Baltic-Finnic admixture there.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Hittites didn't just burn their dead. There's at least 35 pit-graves from 3 cemeteries.

Arkaim said...

@M. Myllylä
I found no Baltic-Finnic admixture there.
It's the other way around.
Also, Tatars themselves are genetically similar to the people of the Volga Ural, with less Mongoloid admixture even.
But hey, what's your version of this story?
The Yamnaya/Corded Ware expansions were clearly IE ones, where do you think Uralic comes from? The guys at Academia Prisca actually think that the Corded Ware complex spoke Uralic somehow.
If not from Siberian-mongoloids, from the Iron Age West-redbound, from where? The EHG?

@Chad Rohlfsen
Isn't that great, then?

Kristiina said...

@Arkaim
It is easier if you read the theories yourself. Beekes is very clear and logical in his thinking.

Beekes is not the only one to notice this pattern: Kortland; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov; and Schmalstieg have all assumed that PIE had an ergative system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_vowel

Kortland's articles are available on internet:
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art269e.pdf
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art049e.pdf

Schmalstieg, William R. (1997), "The Origin of the Neuter Nominative-Accusative Singular In *-OM.", Journal of Indo-European Studies, 25: 401–407

Gamkrelidze, Tamaz; Ivanov, Vyacheslav (1984), Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: a reconstruction and historical analysis, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Arkaim said...

@Kristiina
Firstly, linguistics is not a Science (no humanities are), so there's no equation or perfect model.
This all means that these people are working on the basis of assumptions and "reverse engineering". Just guys with opinions.
But then, let me present some guys as well, see Sections 5 and 6:
https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/7433/1/PSiCL_44_4_Bavant.pdf

Ergativity (as in the language Core, not Case), doesn't have strong consensus regarding PIE, with actually people abandoning it.
Really, linguistics is a funny field. Just go to the Wikipedia page of Uralic and you'll see how clueless and lost people are about its classification and they're just wild guesses all around.
These people have to produce to make money, often they're Scholars in a productivity regime in universities, and many times they have to rush something just to be paid, and have to defend it to not lose their jobs (unfortunately, this is regarding every area these days).

M. Myllylä said...

@Arkaim,

there is no Volga-Uralic admixture in Finland, maybe some in Estonia, but it is hard to make difference between East-Slavic in Mordovia and Estonia.

If you as my opinion about the origin of Baltic-Finnic languages I would say that the home land were somewhere near Pskov and so called Chude? lake. Chude/Tsud I don't know how Russians say it. As to the Uralic home land, I don't know and I don't feel it important at all.

Kristiina said...

@ Arkaim

A nice article, but Bavant is not against ergativity of PIE. Instead he criticizes those who have criticized the theory on the basis of Universal Grammar. IMO, Universal Grammar is not so popular today.

"12. Conclusion
I believe that the refutation of the PIE ergativity hypothesis by Villar and Rumsey is inconclusive, in part because of the inadequacy of using a language universal as an argument in such a question, especially regarding a reconstructed language like PIE and a universal which has been tailored to expel all the known exceptions to Silverstein’s principle.

But the main flaw might be the assumption that if it is ergative, PIE must be of a split type. If we discard this split and consider that the neuter behaviour of neuter nouns is really motivated by a semantic-syntactic embarrassment shown in other languages, and confirmed by the Hittite ergative, it becomes clear that the whole refutation falls apart."

Ebizur said...

Kristiina wrote,

"Forget Korea and Northeast China. They are not relevant for the Uralic. yDNA N has not been detected in ancient Korea and the Chinese lines separated 20 000 years ago (F2930) and 15 000 years ago (B496). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005449/figure/fig1/)"

N-P43 and N-F1154 share a MRCA in N-L666 9,000 [95% CI 7,700 <-> 10,200] ybp according to YFull YTree v5.08. N-F1154 subsumes N-M128, one of the first subclades of Y-DNA haplogroup N to be defined. Underhill et al. (2000) discovered N-M128 in a sample of Japanese (1/23) and in a sample from Central Asia & Siberia (1/184). Hammer et al. (2006) found it in a sample from Korea (1/75), a sample of Northern Han (1/44), and a sample of Manchu (1/52). Xue et al. (2006) found it in Manchu (2/35), Xibe (1/41), and Buyi (2/35). The Y-DNA of one individual from Beijing, China, one individual from Guangdong, China, one individual from Japan, and two individuals from Vietnam has been tabulated under N-M128 on the YFull YTree v5.08. As you probably already know, N-P43 is another subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup N (besides N-L708) that has a significant presence among present-day speakers of Uralic languages.

Ilumae et al. (2016) found N-B479 in five Nanai individuals from Russia. The phylogenetic position of N-B479 is still somewhat unclear, but it is downstream of N-CTS6967, so it must be related within the last 6,400 [95% CI 5,500 <-> 7,400] years (and in all likelihood within the last 4,700 [95% CI 4,100 <-> 5,500] years) to Northeast Siberian N-B202, Turco-Mongol N-F4205, Russian (including an individual from Komi Republic) N-Y28526, Finno-Samic N-VL29, Ugro-Kipchak N-Y13850, and Finno-Volgaic N-Z1934.

There is also a known case of a Chinese individual whose Y-DNA belongs to N-B509 according to Ilumae et al. (2016) or to N-A9408(xPH1612) according to the YFull YTree v5.08. This individual is estimated to share a common ancestor 3,800 [95% CI 3,000 <-> 4,600] ybp with an individual from western Estonia, some individuals from Croatia, Turkey, and Hungary (and probably also from Kazakhstan and the southern Urals), and all members of N-M1982 (the Yakutian subclade). I think this is the most recent known link within Y-DNA haplogroup N between an East Asian individual and some individuals from Uralic-speaking areas.





Kristiina said...

@ Ebizur

Thanks for this detailed information.

"There is also a known case of a Chinese individual whose Y-DNA belongs to N-B509 according to Ilumae et al. (2016) or to N-A9408(xPH1612) according to the YFull YTree v5.08. This individual is estimated to share a common ancestor 3,800 [95% CI 3,000 <-> 4,600] ybp with an individual from western Estonia, some individuals from Croatia, Turkey, and Hungary (and probably also from Kazakhstan and the southern Urals),"

If there is one Chinese individual against one individual from Estonia, some individuals from Croatia, Turkey, and Hungary etc., it is probable that the yDNA ancestor of this Chinese man came from Central Asia/Taiga area and not the other way round.

To my knowledge, ancient Chinese N is not N-M128 or N-P43.

Ryan said...

@David - Fair enough. I'm just saying that no matter where you end the line, the direction of the arrow is still clear, no?

@Kristiina - I'm not really sure what to make of the ergativity thing. If we look further East, Eskimo-Aleut languages are all ergative (as are a couple of languages along the northern Pacific Coast of North America). Half of Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages are ergative and half are not, and the ergative ones (Chukotkan) are the ones that had the most contact with Eskimo-Aleut speakers. Can ergavitity be an areal feature?

I think Proto-Indo-European being at least heavily influenced by an ergative language is extremely likely, and I think the existence of something like the Eurasiatic language family uniting IE, Uralic and Siberian languages is probably likely too, but ergativity doesn't line up very well with the proposed language families (ie Dene-Caucasian vs Nostratic/Eurasiatic).

Ebizur said...

Kristiina wrote,

"If there is one Chinese individual against one individual from Estonia, some individuals from Croatia, Turkey, and Hungary etc., it is probable that the yDNA ancestor of this Chinese man came from Central Asia/Taiga area and not the other way round."

I agree. A significant percentage of the vocabulary of the Hungarian language is of Turkic or para-Turkic origin, borrowed either from a very archaic Turkic dialect or from a pre-Proto-Turkic language. Therefore, I would be inclined to associate the clade with Turkic or para-Turkic (pre-Proto-Turkic) speakers on the basis of its descendants in Yakutia, Turkey, Lebanon, Croatia, and Hungary. Plenty of Turkic influence in China has been recorded historically, and a great number of actual Turkic speakers live in China at present, so the Chinese case is plausibly explicable under a hypothesis of a Turkic origin. However, the Estonian case is quite perplexing; perhaps it may be a result of a Hun > late medieval German > Estonian serial shift of ethnolinguistic affiliation for this particular man's lineage.

"To my knowledge, ancient Chinese N is not N-M128 or N-P43."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

YFull has estimated a TMRCA of 4,800 [95% CI 3,800 <-> 5,900] ybp for the N-F1154 clade on the basis of one Japanese, two Vietnamese, and three Chinese specimens. Carriers of the lineage probably have been living somewhere in East Asia since at least 3,800 years before present, and perhaps as long as 10,200 years before present even assuming that the N-L666 MRCA of N-F1154 and N-P43 has lived somewhere in the "Central Asia/Taiga area" rather than in East Asia.

supernord said...

@Kristiina

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov do NOT suggest ergative system.

Kristiina said...

@ Ryan

Ido not think that ergativity of Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut languages is relevant for PIE. Caucasus is full of languages with varying ergative patterns, and considering the high amount of CHG of presumed early IE speakers, this is the probable area of origin of this trait. However, ergativity is still found in Dardic languages in Pakistan, Afganistan and North India, and it is possible that this language type was widespread from Caucasus to Kashmir.

http://wals.info/feature/98A#2/25.5/148.5
http://wals.info/feature/99A#2/34.1/179.5
http://wals.info/feature/99A#2/19.8/195.5

Samuel Andrews said...

@Kristina,

Did you study lingustics in college?

Kristiina said...

@ Supernord
You are right that Gamkrelidze and Ivanov used the term 'active' and posited an active language system for PIE or early PIE. However, active pattern is not so far from ergativity. It means that both agent and patient marking are used and not only agent marking. The important thing is that active languages usually lack accusative case.

According to Wals, active alignment is defined as follows:
In active alignment there are two patterns of identification of the Subject: sometimes it is treated like the Agent and sometimes like the Patient, depending on a range of semantic factors such as eventhood, performance/effect, instigation, control and significant affectedness.

One possibility is for Subject to be split between more agent-like and more patient-like instances of Subject, which we may symbolize as Sa and Sp respectively. On the basis of semantic similarity, Sa then groups with A, while Sp groups with Patient. This system has come to be called the active–inactive (or simply: active) system, on the basis of terminology originally created by the Russian linguist Georgij A. Klimov, though other terms are also found, e.g. agentive–patientive or stative-active. The active form covers Sa and A, the inactive Sp and P. This system is rather widespread as a basis for person marking on verbs, but is also found occasionally with case marking, as in examples from Georgian.

@ Samuel
Yes, I am a linguist by profession.

Ryan said...

@Kristiina - "To my knowledge, ancient Chinese N is not N-M128 or N-P43."

They didn't test for N-P43 as far as I can tell so we don't really know for that one. There are a lot (~20?) of samples that are N1

When I dig into the supplemental information - I see that they have all 3 samples from Ulanqaq/Miaozigou Central Plain Culture 6000-5000 BP as N-M128.

3 of the Dashanqian / Upper Xiajiadian Culture samples from 3000-2700 BP are also N1a1-TAT.

So yah it does seem like there is a pretty close relationship between some of these sites and modern Uralic speakers in Europe.

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-13-216

Al Bundy said...

@Rob A nuclear Black Sea or late PIE homeland looks to be pretty solid.What are your thoughts on PIE originally expanding from the Caucasus?Those Anatolian split dates,say 4500,seem to be to early to come from the PC steppe,or the dates are off.I know we're just speculating and waiting for more papers.

Rob said...

Yes Al, let's cast aside any surprises from Harappa for this discussion. I would take the possibility of all IE arising from the Black Sea zone, however for it to arrive to Anatolia from west, it would have to be from Varna-Karanovo VI people; or if from the (northeast) it would be from Caucasus
But Let's see what Harappa shows, and Halaf for the matter.

Ebizur said...

Ryan wrote,

"When I dig into the supplemental information - I see that they have all 3 samples from Ulanqaq/Miaozigou Central Plain Culture 6000-5000 BP as N-M128."

Interesting. YFull currently estimates the TMRCA of N-F1154, N-M128's parent clade, to be 4,800 [95% CI 3,800 <-> 5,900] ybp. The confidence interval overlaps that estimate for the age of the Miaozigou remains by only 900 years. Perhaps further investigation of Miaozigou might shed light on the life and times of the progenitor of N-M128.

Al Bundy said...

You see Greek as maybe coming from the North,but not this Sintashta elite business?

Kristiina said...

@ Ebizur "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I had a look at the paper Y Chromosome analysis of prehistoric human populations in the West Liao River Valley, Northeast China (https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-13-216)

In their results they use the formulation N1(xN1a, N1c) and N1c

Miaozigou, Central-South Inner Mongolia, Yangshao Culture, 5500 YBP, 3x N1(xN1a, N1c)
Sanggan River Valley, Xueshan culture 58,8% N1(xN1a, N1c), 41,2% 3xN1c
Niuheliang,Hongshan culture, 5000 YBP, 4x N1(xN1a, N1c)
Halahaigou,Hongshan-Xiaoheyan culture, 4500 YBP, 12x N1(xN1a, N1c)
Tianshan Beilu, Hami, Xinjiang, 3300-4000 YBP, 5x N1(xN1a, N1c)
Dadianzi, lower Xiajiadian culture,3600 YBP, 3x N1(xN1a, N1c)
Dashanqian,upper Xiajiadian culture,3000 YBP, 1x N1(xN1a, N1c), 3xN1c

According to Figure 2, N1(xN1a, N1c) excludes N1a M128, N1b P43 and TAT. On the basis of this, most of the ancient N in China should be N4 F2930 (according to the Estonian system), ie. belong to the specifically Chinese branch that diverged c. 20 000 years ago. As East Asia also has its own N1c branch which diverged from the rest of the TAT more than 10 000 years go, I would say that it would be logical for Chinese N1c to belong this branch. However, there is also the south Siberian "Khakass" branch which could easily span North China.







epoch2013 said...

@Arkaim

"Firstly, linguistics is not a Science (no humanities are)"

If no humanities are sciences they couldn't have a Replication Crisis, could they. The whole issue of that is that the scientific method has been used. For all their flaws Social Psychology is doing this Popperian Purge. Hence it is a science.

Al Bundy said...

@Rob one more question, you use the term Black Sea instead of Pontic Steppes sometimes to refer to where some IE spread from, is there a reason for that? Then I'll leave you alone so you can drink chamomile tea.

Rob said...

O/ T
Dave have you seen the PCA of the new GAC paper ?
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1867/20171540

Davidski said...

Yes, and it looks very strange.

supernord said...

Kristiina said...
"You are right that Gamkrelidze and Ivanov used the term 'active' and posited an active language system for PIE or early PIE."

An active language system and an ergative system are completely different.

"However, active pattern is not so far from ergativity."
They is far/

"It means that both agent and patient marking are used and not only agent marking."

The meaning of active languages is quite different.


"The important thing is that active languages usually lack accusative case."

This is not a property of active languages. But PIE always had accusative, in contrast to ergative languages. Yes, best of all active languages described in his works of Klimov, he is the primary researcher. Active languages are usually type of Amerindian languages. Active languages is closer to the nominative languages, but if PIE was once active language then on Nostratic level.


Kristiina said...

@Ryan

"When I dig into the supplemental information - I see that they have all 3 samples from Ulanqaq/Miaozigou Central Plain Culture 6000-5000 BP as N-M128."

That contradicts the main text. I see that in the supplementary material the difference is that Miazigou is marked with -2bp, but the haplogroup marking is clearly N1(ⅹN1a,N1c). In any case, the Excel file excludes N1b/P43.

"3 of the Dashanqian / Upper Xiajiadian Culture samples from 3000-2700 BP are also N1a1-TAT."

Well, according to Wikipedia Upper Xiajiadian culture is derived from the Eurasian steppe bronze tradition.

”the Upper Xiajiadian culture (1000-600 BC) was a Bronze Age archaeological culture in Northeast China derived from the Eurasian steppe bronze tradition."

"The culture still relied heavily on agriculture, but also moved toward a more pastoral, nomadic lifestyle."

"The culture is well known for its bronze objects, producing bronze daggers, axes, chisels, arrowheads, knives and helmets. Upper Xiajiadian bronzes were decorated with animal and natural motifs, which suggest possible Scythian affinities and indicate continued cultural contact and exchange across the Eurasian steppes"

On the basis of this, it would make sense for Dashanqian / Upper Xiajiadian N1c to belong to the "Khakass" line.

If this is the case, Dashanqian line diverged c. 12 000 years ago from the rest, so I do not agree that it is relevant for Proto-Uralic.

Bob Floy said...

My vote for the origin and spread of the Uralic languages goes to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon.

Ryan said...

@Kristiina - Yah I’m not sure which to believe there on M128. I’d note it doesn’t show up at all on the tree in their main text.

10kya sounds plausible for N1a-TAT but that starts putting us into a timeframe that is relevant for linguistics no?

And no I don’t think ergativity of Chukchi or Eskimo-Aleut is relevant to ergativity in PIE - I agree completely with you there. I’m just saying that it might be relevant to understanding ancient Siberia, which could indirectly tie in to PIE further back in time.

Do you find Dene-Caucasian plausible at all? And if so any ideas as to the vector that spread it?

Ryan said...

OT - how much German ancestry would you guys say derived from earlier Celtic tribes? Asking for a friend having an identity crisis (thought they were German found out they are Irish).

epoch2013 said...

@Ryan

Poor him a Guiness or a Rebel Red (!) to sooth his mind. Should this all turn out to be a mistake poor him a Weizen and a Doppelbock. Identity crises tend to melt with enough beer.

epoch2013 said...

Pour. Not poor. Sorry

Rob said...

I don't know how anyone can drink Guiness

epoch2013 said...

@Rob

Then find someone to fix your ancestry and go for the Doppelbock ;)

Ryan said...

@epoch2013 - She's pregnant lol.

@Kristiina - looking at the paper again there's no contradiction. N1-M128 is on their tree N1b. They just lumped it in with the other N1(xN1a,N1c) is all.

Kristiina said...

@ Rob
What a question you put to me! :)

According to Wals ejectives are indeed very concentrated around the Caucasus, but in older days they may have been more frequent in the Near East as they are today found in some Semitic languages and it is assumed that Proto-Semitic had ejectives.
http://wals.info/feature/7A#3/42.29/69.35

The glottalic theory is that Proto-Indo-European had ejective stops, *pʼ *tʼ *kʼ, instead of the plain voiced ones, *b *d *ɡ, hypothesized by the usual Proto-Indo-European phonological reconstructions.

This means that some people say that PIE had ejectives and others say that it had normal voiced stops.

The same disagreement goes for Hittite, as some Indo-Europeanists have replaced the aspirated stops bh dh and gh with glottalized or ejective stops p' t' k'. This theory is, however, not widely accepted.

If the point is that Anatolian languages should not lack ejectives if they arrived via Caucasus where all languages seem to have ejectives, the situation is not at all clear, if Indo-Europeanists disagree on the existance of ejectives in Hittite. If Hittite did have ejectives, there is indeed a link to Caucasus. If it did not have ejectives, I do not know if this lack is enough to rule out the eastern route of arrival. IMO, phonetics are often areal, which means that sound systems easily converge if languages are spoken side by side.

Kristiina said...

@ Ryan "Do you find Dene-Caucasian plausible at all?"

No, not at the moment. The etymologies proposed for example at the Tower of Babel (http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi?flags=eygtnnl) are too speculative and the geography and the required timeframe also cause big problems to the theory.

Al Bundy said...

@Ryan I would guess a lot, insular Celts arrived to Britain from what are now the Low countries, Northern France and the Rhine area.L21 though seems to be low in Germany itself but that's based on few studies.

Ryan said...

@Al - I'm talking about the Celts that lived in Germany during the Iron Age.

@David - are you able to use the Gedmatch Lazarus kits at all for your PCAs or anything like that? Anything I should beware of with them?

supernord said...

"The glottalic theory is that Proto-Indo-European had ejective stops, *pʼ *tʼ *kʼ, instead of the plain voiced ones, *b *d *ɡ" "The same disagreement goes for Hittite, as some Indo-Europeanists have replaced the aspirated stops bh dh and gh with glottalized or ejective stops p' t' k'. This theory is, however, not widely accepted."


There is no confirmation of this hypothesis, even topological. There is only one refutation of its correctness. The more for Hittite.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 263   Newer› Newest»