(06-15-2024, 01:49 AM)qijia Wrote:(06-12-2024, 04:08 PM)kolompar Wrote:Code:Target: Ket
Distance: 9.8236% / 0.09823607 | R3P
67.0 Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
23.6 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
9.4 China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.SG:XHM75.SG
Target: Ket_o1
Distance: 4.1032% / 0.04103245 | R3P
64.6 Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
19.2 Russia_Vologda_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG:KAR001_noUDG.SG
11.6 Hungary_MN_ALPc_Tiszadob:I4199
4.6 Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT002
Target: Ket_o2
Distance: 5.1890% / 0.05188975 | R3P
57.2 Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
31.6 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
11.2 Russia_UstBelaya_Angara:I7335
ROT017 is the most Siberian individual in the paper, in G25:
Code:Target: Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
Distance: 2.4838% / 0.02483847 | R3P
48.2 Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG
31.2 Russia_Karasuk_o1.SG
20.6 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG
ROT017 or Karasuk also appear in some Samoyeds:
Code:Target: Nenets
Distance: 3.7175% / 0.03717500 | R3P
60.4 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
20.2 Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE493_noUDG.SG
14.0 Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE496_noUDG.SG
5.4 Russia_EHG:UzOO77
Target: Nenets_Forest
Distance: 4.6593% / 0.04659292 | R3P
64.6 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
16.2 Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE493_noUDG.SG
12.0 Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE496_noUDG.SG
7.2 China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.SG:XHM75.SG
Target: Nenets_Tundra
Distance: 3.9621% / 0.03962060 | R3P
65.8 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
14.2 Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE493_noUDG.SG
11.4 Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE496_noUDG.SG
8.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta_o1:I1007
Target: Selkup
Distance: 5.1681% / 0.05168145 | R3P
67.6 Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
27.0 Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
5.4 China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.SG:XHM75.SG
according to former AG member:
"Typological features of Tocharian show strong differences to other Indo-European languages, while being similar to Uralic languages, specifically to the Samoyedic branch. The Tocharian vowel system shows strong similarities to Yeniseian languages, and is structurally identical to the South Siberian system represented by Ket, while being different from the typical Indo-European vowel system. Another striking characteristic of Tocharian is agglutinative case marking and case functions, as well as the lack of dative case. Agglutinative case systems are widely found in Siberia and Eastern Asia, but the case functions, in particular the Tocharian perlative, best match Samoyedic and Yukaghir and comparable systems in South Siberia."
- Seima turbino culture migrated to china bronze age:
https://www.academia.edu/45055541/Seima_..._Silk_Road
-
"Abstract: "**tees" was the supreme god worshipped by the early ancient people wholived in the Delta of the Yellow River (DYR). All the people of Xia4, Shangl and Zhouldynasties worshipped him. There are many striking similarities between Old Chinese "*tees" andProto-Indo-European "*deus," based on the ancient documents. In addition, we have proof fromcomparative historical linguistics to verify that the two words share the same source. Evidencefrom historical records and linguistics comes to a common conclusion: the early civilization ofDYR received crucial influence from early Indo-European civilization."
Old Chinese “*tees” and Proto-Indo-European “*deus”: Similarity in Religious Ideas and a Common Source in Linguistics (sino-platonic.org)
- by Alexander Lubolsky
"Tocharian Loan Words in Old Chinese: Chariots, Chariot Gear, and Town Building",
The Ket language of the Yeniseian language family is a polysynthetic language, while polysynthetic grammar is not characteristic of both ancient Proto-Sinitic and Proto-Tibeto-Burman languages and modern Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages. Polysynthetic languages were not reported from East Asia and Northeast Asia, the Ainu language being an exception.
Alexander Lubotsky is an Indo-Europeanist, and he acknowledged in his article that “looking at the Old Chinese vocabulary through a glasses of an Indo-Europeanist involves various methodological dangers.” Moreover, Lubotsky acknowledged in his article that he was going to dismiss the Tibetan evidence: if a Sinitic (Old Chinese) word had a relative in the Tibetan languages (that is, the common word could be reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan), Lubotsky still treated a word as a possible loan from the late Tocharian branch of Indo-European into a Sinitic language. Such an approach reminds of the situation, which would appear, if one had a goal “To find Tocharian loans in Sinitic”, set for him in advance. Consequently, an example of a strange situation is a suggestion by Lubotsky that Old Chinese 里 /lǐ/ or /*rǝɁ/ “village”, which is usually considered to derive from Proto-Sino-Tibetan /*rwǝ/ “town, village”, related to Tibetan /ra-ba/ “fence” and Tai (Tai-Kadai) /rua/ “fence”, might have been a loan from Tocharian /ri, riye/ “town”, for which Lubotsky had to search for a hypothetical relative in the isolated Thracian word /bria/ “town”, which Lubotski had to read as /u̯ria/ in order to claim similarity to Tocharian /riye, ri/ “town”, which would otherwise be similarly isolated within Indo-European, whereas another Indo-Europeanist read the Thracian word as /bria/ (cf. “The Thracian term bria does not seem to be preserved in any modern form, excepting PN Nesembdr in Bulgaria which arguably reflects the old Mesembria” in “Thracian Terms for 'Township' and 'Fortress', and Related Place-Names[/color]”; in this article, the word /bria/ is considered to be of non-Indo-European origin).
The transparent indigenous East Asian origin for Sino-Tibetan and Tai-Kadai words for “village”, “town”, “fence”, implying the enclosure of the settled area, becomes clear, if one recalls that, in China, settlements were enclosed since the Early Neolithic period into Middle Neolithic and Late Neolithic: ditches were digged in Jiahu (ca. 9000 years ago) of the Huai River basin and Xiaojingshan (Houli culture of Shandong); earth walls surrounded settlements, reported from the Yangshao culture of the Huanghe river basin and cultures of the Yangtze river basin; earlier costly stony platforms, elevated for the defence purposes as well, simplified into the construction of cheaper stony walls by 5500 years ago in the Hongshan culture.
The Old Chinese word 帝 dì “sage king, mythological ruler, ancestor, honorific for deceased fathers” did not have the meaning of “deity” in the very beginning, being semantically related to the idea of an important ancestor, who was worthy of making sacrifices to him, which reminds of the ancestor worship. Unlike this, Proto-Indo-European *dyḗus “daylight-sky-god” is based upon the concept of the beneficial daylight (*dyeu from *dei- “to shine, be bright”) as opposed to the darkness of night.
Quote:The words, related to Old Chinese 帝 dì “sage king, mythological ruler, ancestor, honorific for deceased fathers”, which is related to another Old Chinese word 禘 dêkh “a kind of great sacrifice”, were independently used to denote supernatural beings in Tibeto-Burman languages, which gives to their root of derivation the level of the presence in the Sino-Tibetan proto-language. Consequently, despite somewhat similar sounding, Old Chinese 帝 dì “sage king, mythological ruler, ancestor, honorific for deceased fathers” is not so similar semantically to Proto-Indo-European *dyḗus “daylight-sky-god”, which is based upon the concept of the beneficial daylight (*dyeu from *dei- “to shine, be bright”) as opposed to the darkness of night.
It is considered in China that the Chinese word for “honey” originated from the indigenous Proto-Sinitic word *m-lig.
Quote:(…) the Chinese word for “honey” originated from the indigenous Proto-Sinitic word *m-lig, which is in line with the formation of some other Proto-Sinitic words for food products of the same consistency. The keeping of the native Chinese bee species Apis cerana cerana sinensis was the most widespread in the past, while the western bee species Apis mellifera was only introduced to China in 1896: http://www.insect.org.cn/EN/Y2005/V48/I3/401#1
Other achievements in ancient China were already mentioned in this topic:
Quote:Unlike the “Seima-Turbino” phenomenon, which could only conveniently serve as the northern “dead-end” offshoot, the ancient Tocharian population was paid much more attention to in the western world for the potential of its hypothetical interactions with early China. However, today it is already known from archaeology that oldest towns in China are either contemporaneous with the dates for the early Tocharian Afanasievo culture or even older than the early Tocharian Afanasievo culture, which did not have towns. Moreover, today it is already known that the domestication of indigenous varieties of cattle in China started as early as ca.10700 years ago; there are also genetic data on the indigenous horse breeds in China; the oldest Austronesian-related dog, available from ancient DNA of Southern China was dated to 7000 years ago, which is also considerably older than the Tocharian Afanasievo culture. Moreover, the earliest bronze implement in China is older than the new dates for the Seimo-Turbino phenomenon and its design is based upon the indigenous Chinese Neolithic stone implements, used for the same purpose in China; earlier cases of artifacts, made of other metals, than bronze, are also available from Chinese archaeological sites; the oldest chariot pits in China were either contemporaneous with the Sintashta culture or even older than the Sintashta culture.