Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Locating Proto-Uralic
#31
Page 77 of your work:
Archaic Indo European 2,800 BCE - EPU
Archaic Indo European 2,500 BCE - LPU
Early Proto Indo-Iranian 2,300 BCE - FU and Samoyedic
< this is where Fatyanovo ends 2,100 BCE>
Late Proto Indo-Iranian 2,000 BCE - FU and Samoyedic
Proto Indoiranian/ Indic 1,800 BCE - Pre Dialects
< this is where main TCC expansion happens, we got some guys walking around before (Spiginas2, Strzyzow outlier, but main expansion is here>

So, do we have loanwords in FU dating same time as Early PII or at least Late PII from some Early Proto Baltoslavic?
If it can be demonstrated I would have to change my mind. Will be hard for me to build a coherent picture, but I can deal with it.
Psynome and Jaska like this post
Reply
#32
(11-09-2023, 07:37 PM)PopGenist82 Wrote:
(11-09-2023, 09:49 AM)IVladMC Wrote: The hypothesis is interesting. I will not touch upon linguistics, but the following can be said regarding archeology. The Koptyakovo culture is truly ideal in time and place for the Ural homeland. However, there is one weak point here, it is rather linguistic. The Koptyakovo culture is a society of metallurgists - hunters, oddly enough. And if everything is more or less normal with hunters, then as for metallurgy there is a question. If Koptyakovo were proto-Ural, then the proto-Ural language should have a large number of terms related to metallurgy. Are there such terms? The Koptyakovo culture is interpreted by archaeologists as a mix of the local late Ayat culture with the alien early Alakul culture (perhaps it was even some kind of northern derivative of the Abashevo culture) and the alien Karasyozersk culture. The later Ayat culture is a descendant of the earlier Siberian Sosnovoostrovskaya culture (in the G25 database there is an example of this culture - Sosnoviy. This is a typical WSHG). With the early Alakul (Abashevo northern derivative) it is also more or less clear - these are steppe people. The most interesting thing here is the Karasyeozersky culture. Its origins are archaeologists they see in the Samus culture the Central Siberia (Tomsk region). That is, a connection with the central Siberian region can be traced here. 
Indeed, the ceramics of the Koptyakovo culture are found on the middle and upper Kama in the Perm region and are called the Zaosinovskaya culture. Subsequently, the Zaosinovskaya culture was transformed into the Lugovskaya culture and the Cherkaskul culture. Further on the basis the Lugovskaya culture and the Cherkassul culture formed the Atabaevo culture and then the Maklashevo culture. On the basis of the Maklashevo culture, the Akozino-Akhmylovo culture with axes of the Melar type and the Ananino culture with axes of the Ananino type were formed.
There 
Which one movement from Siberia to northeastern Europe after 2000BC do you consider to exist? The blacksmiths in the depths of the Ural Mountains were quite real, the only question is whether they were F-U or someone else.
Reply
#33
(11-10-2023, 03:04 AM)VladMC Wrote:
(11-09-2023, 07:37 PM)PopGenist82 Wrote:
(11-09-2023, 09:49 AM)IVladMC Wrote: La hipótesis es interesante. No tocaré la lingüística, pero se puede decir lo siguiente sobre la arqueología. La cultura Koptyakovo es verdaderamente ideal en tiempo y lugar para la patria de los Urales. Sin embargo, aquí hay un punto débil: más bien lingüístico. La cultura Koptyakovo es una sociedad de metalúrgicos, cazadores, por extraño que parezca. Y si con los cazadores todo es más o menos normal, entonces en cuanto a la metalurgia surge una pregunta. Si Koptyakovo fuera proto-Ural, entonces el lenguaje proto-Ural debería tener una gran cantidad de términos relacionados con la metalurgia. ¿Existen tales términos? Los arqueólogos interpretan la cultura Koptyakovo como una mezcla de la cultura Ayat tardía local con la cultura alienígena temprana Alakul (quizás fue incluso algún tipo de derivado norteño de la cultura Abashevo) y la cultura alienígena Karasyozersk. La cultura Ayat posterior es descendiente de la anterior cultura siberiana Sosnovoostrovskaya (en la base de datos G25 hay un ejemplo de esta cultura: Sosnoviy. Este es un WSHG típico). Con los primeros Alakul (derivado del norte de Abashevo) también está más o menos claro: se trata de gente esteparia. Lo más interesante aquí es la cultura Karasyeozersky. Sus orígenes son arqueólogos que ven en la cultura Samus de Siberia Central (región de Tomsk). Es decir, aquí se puede rastrear una conexión con la región central de Siberia.
De hecho, las cerámicas de la cultura Koptyakovo se encuentran en el Kama medio y superior en la región de Perm y se llaman cultura Zaosinovskaya. Posteriormente, la cultura Zaosinovskaya se transformó en la cultura Lugovskaya y la cultura Cherkaskul. Además, sobre la base de la cultura Lugovskaya y la cultura Cherkassul formaron la cultura Atabaevo y luego la cultura Maklashevo. Sobre la base de la cultura Maklashevo, se formaron la cultura Akozino-Akhmylovo con hachas del tipo Melar y la cultura Ananino con hachas del tipo Ananino.

Which one movement from Siberia to northeastern Europe after 2000BC do you consider to exist? The blacksmiths in the depths of the Ural Mountains were quite real, the only question is whether they were F-U or someone else.

It's surprising that you're unfamiliar with the past few yeras of research findings, Vlad.
The idea that F-U is related to EHG is pseudo-science at this state of play.
As Ive said before, this data is consistent with the positions of several credible linguists, now fine tuned.


[Image: Fq0lGcE.png]
Reply
#34
The most recent study is just the one that Jaska wrote. In general, there have been a lot of studies and hypotheses, too. The migration of the BOO group is considered a dead end by linguists, archaeologically this line also has no continuation. There are no paleogenetic studies across the Middle Urals at the moment. The last two preprints linking F-U migration with ST do not contradict the Jaska hypothesis in general. But the samples in these studies were taken only from central Siberia. The most important regions are not covered - Western Siberia - Middle Urals - Kama
Psynome and Jaska like this post
Reply
#35
(11-10-2023, 04:30 AM)VladMC Wrote:
(11-10-2023, 04:18 AM)PopGenist82 Wrote:
(11-10-2023, 04:13 AM)It VladMC Wrote: The most recent study is just the one that Jaska wrote. In general, there have been a lot of studies and hypotheses, too. The migration of the BOO group is considered a dead end by linguists, archaeologically this line also has no continuation. There are no paleogenetic studies across the Middle Urals at the moment. The last two preprints linking F-U migration with ST do not contradict the Jaska hypothesis in general. But the samples in these studies were taken only from central Siberia. The most important regions are not covered - Western Siberia - Middle Urals - Kama

What does the opposition of EHG and the Baikal component have to do with the F-U migration route and time? And what did you see so unusual in the Jaska hypothesis? In recent years, several articles by other linguists have been published with a similar concept in general - the migration of FU was through the Middle Urals as part of ST or a little later, that is, in the period 2000-1500BC.

Incorrect. This is what Jasko states

I argue that Late Proto-Uralic – the last shared ancestor of all extant Uralic languages – was spoken between Europe and Siberia in the Central Ural Region....
 close to mid-second millennium BCE, Samoyedic could have moved to Southern Siberia, far from all the other Uralic branches.

In other words, same old same old from Jasko & Parpola, the defunct middle -Volga theory, moved a few miles toward the Urals

Here is what other studies have proposed : 

Nichols & Heyd 
'' We argue that the Uralic homeland was east of the Urals and initially out of contact with Indo-European. The spread was rapid and without widespread shared substratal effect' They place it close to Baikal.

Zeng et al 
'' Extreme diversity should not obscure the fact that the ST phenomenon was the context within which Yakutia_LNBA ancestry first dispersed westwards—almost to the Urals—for the first time''

This is what Torok envisages
[Image: Kf39OJY.png]

And further, even S-T is an incorrect theorem. its based on multiple false foundations, but at least its less wrong.
Dont ask me to elaborate, because this is not the thread for science & credible historical linguistics
Reply
#36
(11-10-2023, 04:52 AM)PopGenist82 Wrote:
(11-10-2023, 04:30 AM)VladMC Wrote:
(11-10-2023, 04:18 AM)PopGenist82 Wrote:
(11-10-2023, 04:13 AM)It VladMC Wrote: The most recent study is just the one that Jaska wrote. In general, there have been a lot of studies and hypotheses, too. The migration of the BOO group is considered a dead end by linguists, archaeologically this line also has no continuation. There are no paleogenetic studies across the Middle Urals at the moment. The last two preprints linking F-U migration with ST do not contradict the Jaska hypothesis in general. But the samples in these studies were taken only from central Siberia. The most important regions are not covered - Western Siberia - Middle Urals - Kama

You obviously don’t understand anything about genetics Vlad, that’s why you speak of old Russian proverbs based on dubious constructions. The Yakut component fixed in Samoyeds have Lena basin ancestry + Baikal, not EHG. 
The 2 studies clearly place the homeland east of the Urals, hence you’re also dishonest. 

And Which linguists ?  I don’t take Jaska and his fan club here seriously.
These results will take time to be digested by honest  linguists , therefore your statement is nonsense . You’re talking out of your depth, but I get it - you don’t like the fact FU came along with sub-arctic north East Asians. We’ve been hearing people on forums not coping with this for years already

What does the opposition of EHG and the Baikal component have to do with the F-U migration route and time? And what did you see so unusual in the Jaska hypothesis? In recent years, several articles by other linguists have been published with a similar concept in general - the migration of FU was through the Middle Urals as part of ST or a little later, that is, in the period 2000-1500BC.

Incorrect. This is what Jasko states

I argue that Late Proto-Uralic – the last shared ancestor of all extant Uralic languages – was spoken between Europe and Siberia in the Central Ural Region....
 close to mid-second millennium BCE, Samoyedic could have moved to Southern Siberia, far from all the other Uralic branches.

In other words, same old same old from Jasko & Parpola, the defunct middle -Volga theory, moved a few miles toward the Urals

Here is what other studies have proposed : 

Nichols & Heyd 
'' We argue that the Uralic homeland was east of the Urals and initially out of contact with Indo-European. The spread was rapid and without widespread shared substratal effect' They place it close to Baikal.

Zeng et al 
'' Extreme diversity should not obscure the fact that the ST phenomenon was the context within which Yakutia_LNBA ancestry first dispersed westwards—almost to the Urals—for the first time''

This is what Torok envisages
[Image: Kf39OJY.png]

So theyre not the same. You're either misunderstanding basic facts, or dishonest, and I've known you to be both quite regularly, 

And further, even S-T is an incorrect theorem. its based on multiple false foundations, but at least its less wrong.
Dont ask me to elaborate, because this is not the thread for science & credible historical linguistics

The Middle Volga and the Middle Urals are quite different things both genetically and archaeologically. Thus, according to the time and route of penetration of F-U into the European part, you have no objections or you shy away from a reasoned argument with the phrase "THIS is not a true, but less erroneous theory." Jaska does not consider the previous period, therefore, I did not go into the archaeological details of this period, although I noticed that the Koptyakovo culture is not local to the Middle Urals, it was formed from three components around 2100BC and transformed around 1800BC into the Cherkaskul culture of the Urals and the Pakhomovo culture of Siberia. The Pakhomovo culture was transformed into the Suzgun culture, and it was transformed into the Sargat and Kulai cultures. So there are lines to both Hungarians and Samoyeds. As for the dispute about where the proto FU node was - in the Middle Urals or somewhere to the east, this is a question of linguists. In the absence of disagreements and the time and route of movement of the population, the dispute about where the F-U broke up on this route - in the Middle Urals in the Koptyakovo culture or in Siberia in the Samus culture or even earlier on the Yenisei or even in Yakutia, I do not consider it important. Perhaps Jaska did not know that the Koptyakovo culture had two branches, the first is the Ural one, about which Jaska writes. This branch was transformed into the culture of Cherkaskul. The second branch of the Koptyakovo culture is located in the Tyumen region. This branch was transformed into the Pakhomovo culture/Suzgun. And it is from this eastern branch that the lines go to the Sargat and Kulai cultures. Therefore, the migration of Samoyeds and Hungarians/Khanty/Mansi from the Middle Urals is generally superfluous, eastern F-U could initially be in the eastern branch of the Koptyakovo culture in the Tyumen region.

PS.
In fact, there would be conceptual differences between us if you insisted on a different route or a different time. For example, there is a point of view that F-U moved through the taiga along a trans-Arctic route and the BOO group is the ancestors of all European F-U. Or there is a point of view that F-U moved across Siberia in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages and crossed the Urals only after 500 BC as part of the Pianoborovo and Glyadenovo cultures. However, both of these points of view are much less supported by archaeological arguments than the now basic concept of movement along the southern strip of the forest zone of Siberia in the period 2000-1500 BC. There is another controversial issue, but less conceptual. Agreeing with the route of movement along the southern strip of the forest zone, the first hypothesis states that movement through the Urals took place during the Seymo-Turbino period or immediately after it (2100-1700 BC) with a transition in the European part to the Chirkovo culture and further to the culture of Textile Ceramics or movement through the Urals occurred later in the period 1700-1300BC and is associated with the formation of a number of cultures in the Volga region, which can conditionally be called the Prikazan culture (Zaimishchevo, Zaosinovo, Lugovskaya, Atabaevo, Maklasheyevo, Kemertau, etc.). This is a complex question and, apparently, cannot be answered without genetics.
Psynome, SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents, Queequeg And 2 others like this post
Reply
#37
It looks like Yakutia_LNBA in the Krasnoyarsk region is associated with a hitherto unidentified culture. The characteristics of which are:
burials in shallow grave pits containing skeletons in supine position, with their skulls in the southeastern parts of grave pits and oriented northwest to southeast. Some burials are covered by 'rubblework' or stone slabs. Grave goods are rare, but include bronze knives and beads. In some burials, there are traces of fire on the bones and fragments of charred birch bark. The relevent sites are Tartarka hill and the Anzhevskiy complex (kra001); all of these burials date to between 2200-1900 calBC.
(Paraphrasing from Zeng et al.)

This population is probably derived from the Ymyyakhtakh culture, as evidenced by Ymyyakhtakh-like pottery and a man buried with bone armour at Nefteprovod 2- akin to the Kyordyughen warrior. Although, the former has not yet been properly dated; a close relationship is made certain by the genetic data.

A similar and approximately coeval funeral rite, farther west, would obviously be a smoking gun. However, most of the BOO burials were placed within wooden boat/sledge shaped boxes, with heads facing NE/E and the Yakutia_LNBA outlier at Rostovka did not differ from the others in terms of funeral rite. This supports the notion that these East Siberians readily adopted novel/autochthonous burial practices and materials, making their western escapades hard to trace without direct aDNA testing.
Jaska, VladMC, SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents And 3 others like this post
Reply
#38
VladMC, thank you for your many informative comments, especially about the archaeological cultures. Unfortunately a person you were discussing with has not understood correctly what was said in the article at hand.

As I wrote in my article, the arguments presented for the South or Southwest Siberian homeland are not valid: either they relate to much earlier stage than Late Proto-Uralic, or they are only distances and tendencies. Arguments presented for the Central Ural homeland, on the other hand, are compelling, so there is a clear difference in the quality and weight of the arguments. The supporters of the Siberian homeland have also ignored many “inconvenient” linguistic results covered in my article.

The genetic fact is that there is more Siberian ancestry in the eastern Uralic populations, and more European ancestry in the western Siberian populations. Only Nganasans – small, highly drifted arctic population different even from other Samoyeds – seem to lack any European ancestry so far. One cannot just stare at the Siberian ancestry and decide that the Uralic language must be connected to it, when it could also be connected to the European ancestry, or some kind of admixture between them.

And in any case, in multi-step linguistic expansions the genetic composition of the language carriers could have changed from step by step, and the language carriers could have eventually been assimilated in the surrounding majority population. There exists no old, wide-spread language family in which all populations would be similar to each other, so too simplistic models are just not realistic: language does not always follow the majority root. This seems to be the hardest part to understand for many laymen.
Psynome and VladMC like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#39
(11-10-2023, 07:55 AM)PopGenist82 Wrote: No other model can work apart from a deep Siberian origin of FU populations. 

So where do you place LPIE and Pre-II in your scheme then ? Somewhere in Western Yakutia I assume ? Or is it that you have bag of magic alleles that give you veto right against linguistic results ? 

Fi mesi ‘nectar’ (cognates in all Finnic languages); Md E med’, mäd’, M med’; Ko ma, Ud mu (< PP *ma); Hu méz ‘honey’ < PU *meti ‘honey; nectar’ (UEW s.v. *mete; Sammallahti 1988: 545) ← Pre-II or PIE *médhu- ‘mead, honeywine’ > PII *mádhu- > OI mádhu- ‘sweet drink, honey, sweetness, soma, milk’, Av maδu- ‘Beerenwein’; other IE: Gr. μέθυ ‘wine’, English mead, OCS medъ ‘honey, mead’, Tocharian B mit ‘honey’ < PIE/core-IE *médhu- (EWAia II s.v. mádhu; Dunkel 1995: 12; SIL: 306; NIL: 467– 468; Kölligan 2018: 2275)

Fi mehiläinen ‘bee’ (derivative; cognates in all Finnic languages); Mo E mekš, mäkš, M meš id.; Komi moš, Udmurt muš; Hu méh, méj (dial.) id. < PU *mekši ‘bee’ (UEW s.v. *mekše; Sammallahti 1988: 545) ← Pre-II *mékš- > PII *mákš- > OI mákṣ- ‘bee, fly’, (der.) mákṣikā, also makṣā-; PII *makšī- > YAv maxšī- ‘fly’ (EWAia II: 287; KEWA II: 540–542, s.v. mákṣā)
Jaska likes this post
Reply
#40
(11-10-2023, 09:44 AM)Zelto Wrote: It looks like Yakutia_LNBA in the Krasnoyarsk region is associated with a hitherto unidentified culture. The characteristics of which are:
burials in shallow grave pits containing skeletons in supine position, with their skulls in the southeastern parts of grave pits and oriented northwest to southeast. Some burials are covered by 'rubblework' or stone slabs. Grave goods are rare, but include bronze knives and beads. In some burials, there are traces of fire on the bones and fragments of charred birch bark. The relevent sites are Tartarka hill and the Anzhevskiy complex (kra001); all of these burials date to between 2200-1900 calBC.
(Paraphrasing from Zeng et al.)

This population is probably derived from the Ymyyakhtakh culture, as evidenced by Ymyyakhtakh-like pottery and a man buried with bone armour at Nefteprovod 2- akin to the Kyordyughen warrior. Although, the former has not yet been properly dated; a close relationship is made certain by the genetic data.

A similar and approximately coeval funeral rite, farther west, would obviously be a smoking gun. However, most of the BOO burials were placed within wooden boat/sledge shaped boxes, with heads facing NE/E and the Yakutia_LNBA outlier at Rostovka did not differ from the others in terms of funeral rite. This supports the notion that these East Siberians readily adopted novel/autochthonous burial practices and materials, making their western escapades hard to trace without direct aDNA testing.

There are articles dedicated to this culture. It is called Krasnoyarsk culture. It includes the burials Nefteprovod-1 and Nefteprovod-2 and other complexes. However, in the absence of dating, the authors believe that it was formed on the basis of the Karasuk culture. Now it is clear that this is not so and rather the Karasuk culture has its origins in the Krasnoyarsk culture.
https://archeo.ru/doi/2021/2021-vadez-ma...1645278849
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/krasno...iri/viewer

http://ildt.istu.irk.ru/journals/2018/01
Queequeg, Jaska, Psynome And 1 others like this post
Reply
#41
No. Hg N1a is certainly from Siberia and it's spread at western side of Urals is partially (even mainly!) connected with Uralic languages. Could you now actually reply to my question and try to be less aggressive. It's not good for your blood pressure. And yes, it indeed looks like a specific clade N1a-L550 was part of Proto-Germanic speaking population at Sweden but thats another topic. 

I repeat the question. Where do you locate Pre-II ? In Western Yakutia ? Or do you have bag of magic alleles that can make linguistic results disappear like *poof* ?
Jaska likes this post
Reply
#42
@VladMC

The burials I am talking about are not associated with the Krasnoyarsk culture, although they are also found at the Nefteprovod sites. In your source, burials belonging to the Krasnoyarsk culture are defined by their ('andronoid') metallurgy and skeletons facing west. They also had ceramics, which are not found in the burials associated with Yakutia_LNBA.

@PopGenist

I think kra001 and the Tatarka hill samples hint at the main route Yakutia_LNBA groups took west (i.e. Southern Taiga). Rostovka is at approximately the same latitude, but not in the forest zone. At least in G25, kra001 nets better distances than the Ymyyakhtakh samples when modeling BOO. If the Tartarka samples and Rostovka outlier follow the same trend, a dual migration across Siberia may not be necessary.

Right now, I think the archaeological associations of Yakutia_LNBA groups who crossed the Urals is more interesting. Especially their relationships with the "nebulous 'netted ware" / post Fanyanovo/Andronovo groups".
Reply
#43
(11-10-2023, 08:58 PM)Zelto Wrote: @VladMC

The burials I am talking about are not associated with the Krasnoyarsk culture, although they are also found at the Nefteprovod sites. In your source, burials belonging to the Krasnoyarsk culture are defined by their ('andronoid') metallurgy and skeletons facing west. They also had ceramics, which are not found in the burials associated with Yakutia_LNBA.

@PopGenist

I think kra001 and the Tatarka hill samples hint at the main route Yakutia_LNBA groups took west (i.e. Southern Taiga). Rostovka is at approximately the same latitude, but not in the forest zone. At least in G25, kra001 nets better distances than the Ymyyakhtakh samples when modeling BOO. If the Tartarka samples and Rostovka outlier follow the same trend, a dual migration across Siberia may not be necessary.

Right now, I think the archaeological associations of Yakutia_LNBA groups who crossed the Urals is more interesting. Especially their relationships with the "nebulous 'netted ware" / post Fanyanovo/Andronovo groups".

The source is singular, but the cultural path west of Urals is not. I.e. culturally (& by process, dialectically) already differentiated. Some branches up north were less admixed with Netted Ware et al, these are BOO, and IMO will be shown to be early Saami in Feno-Scandia. 
But I reccomend you dedicate new thread based on science and evidence, we will belt out formal analyses and add new data as it comes, which it will.
Reply
#44
So, guys, until we get samples from the Koptyaki Culture, the closest spatio-temporally are probably the Mezhovskaya samples from Allentoft et al. 2015. Are there any recent qpAdm results about them? I found only qpAdm results using Mezhovskaya as a source for Ugric populations in Maróti et al. 2022: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf...22)00732-1
Psynome likes this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#45
After seeing many posts full of insults and personalizated discussion, this thread will be close until revision by part of Moderation and Administration Team. This forum isn’t a place of discord and bad manners. And due to a permanent violation of Term of Services, we are forced to take this action. 

This thread will be reopened when all are in calm.
Anglesqueville likes this post
23andMe: 98.8% Spanish & Portuguese, 0.3% Ashkenazi Jewish, 0.9% Trace Ancestry (0.4% Coptic Egypcian, 0.3% Nigerian, 0.2% Bengali & Northeast Indian).

My Heritage: 91.5% Iberian, 3.6% Ashkenazi Jewish, 2.7% Middle East, 2.2% Irish Scottish and Welsh.

The truth doesn’t become more authentic because whole world agrees with it.Rabi Moshe Ben Maimon.

-M. De la Torre, converse of jew-
-D. de Castilla-
-M. de Navas, converse of moor-
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)