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.

Check for new replies
Proto-Indo-Iranian and the Sintashta Culture
#16
Rana, still the fact remains that the oldest known chariots with spoked wheels are from the Sintashta Culture. There appear to be no older similar chariots in Mesopotamia. Or can you find any?

Rana:
Quote:“There isn't a model that addresses all these problems in south asia context.
1.Centum substrate in Uttarakhand
2.Nature of ruki law in Nuristan
3.Two wavey Ir-IA theory (as proposed by Parpola)
4.Inner–Outer hypothesis”

1. Centum substrate is irrelevant for the location of Proto-Indo-Iranian.
2. What is the problem with the ruki law in Nuristan?
3. Number of waves is irrelevant for the location of Proto-Indo-Iranian.
4. What is the problem with inner-outer hypothesis?

Rana:
Quote:“Heggarty (2023) Hybrid model is somewhat better suited to address such models.”

How so?
Their datings are as a whole incredibly early. Because those contradict the archaeo-linguistic datings, they must be wrong. There is no reliable way to date languages from the number of shared words, because there are so many possible factors involved with such a number.

The southern route is utterly impossible, because there is a continuum of early Indo-Iranian loanword layers in Uralic.
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#17
(11-12-2023, 10:48 AM)Andar Wrote: The Sintashta–Petrovka complex + Middle Volga region is were the main bulk of Indo-Iranians would be around 2000 B.C but we have archaeological and now genetic evidence for Abashevoid/Sintashtoid groups almost contemporary to Sintashta in Siberia/North Russia (Seima Turbino) and even Zerafshan valley (Tugai site with Petrovka//Abashevo pottery). The R1a-Z93>Z2122 sample from Satyga in Khanty-Mansi okrug is even dated to around 2300 B.C (probably a bit reservoir effect but still).  Other said Para/Proto-Indo-Iranians pioneer groups could already in Sintashta if not late Abashevo period push far east and south and likely created the network which allowed a bigger number of Indo-Iranians to move east and south (Andronovo culture). So the earliest Indo-Iranian loanwords might come from these far northeastern basal Indo-Iranian pioneer groups like in Satyga or Rostovka.

I doubt that the bulk of loans occur in middle Volga region when we dont even have proof of proto-Uralic Yakutia_LN populations even being there at that time. The chronological window for Iranian loans especially is exceedingly lengthy, extending from Andronovo well into 1200 BC. As you say this extended well to the East of the Urals, where some post-Samoyedic groups came into direct contact with Indo-Europeans for the first time.
There is no reason to imagine that such loans could only have come from Sintashta, indeeed this would artificially attempt to hook the Uralic contacts far too much to the west.

The issue here is that the middle Ural (modified from middle Volga) theory fails to account for Samoyedic, indeed, the entire claim that proto-Uralic expanded with a fantom EHG group from the Ural-Volga region has no basis. EHG formed just after the Ice Age, so it has nothing to do with the middle-late bronze age expansion of proto-Uralic from Siberia. The Sintashta outliers we have from ~ 22/2000 BC do not match the proto-Uralic profile either.

We might expect the usual cliche "we cant see languages from alleles', so we can only ask -  what other migrations and genetic pattern can account for the link amongst speakers of Fino-Uralic ?
There are no other.
Andar likes this post
Reply
#18
(11-19-2023, 10:01 PM)PopGenist82 Wrote: We might expect the usual cliche "we cant see languages from alleles', so we can only ask -  what other migrations and genetic pattern can account for the link amongst speakers of Fino-Uralic ?

Or, where fex are the loan words into Uralic or other signs of contacts with East Siberian languages such as Mongolic, Tungusic or Turkic? The topological features or Uralic loan words into Yukaghir don't really count here, for obvious reasons. That being said, I'm open to the idea of Uralic being the language of (some) Yakutia_LNBA group, the linguistic evidence is unluckily missing. So, like it or not, Jaska has a point here. Besides some other really talented scientists you are not aware of, - and apparently won't ever be.
JMcB, Jaska, Anglesqueville like this post
Reply
#19
(11-20-2023, 04:29 AM)Queequeg Wrote:
(11-19-2023, 10:01 PM)PopGenist82 Wrote: We might expect the usual cliche "we cant see languages from alleles', so we can only ask -  what other migrations and genetic pattern can account for the link amongst speakers of Fino-Uralic ?

Or, where fex are the loan words into Uralic or other signs of contacts with East Siberian languages such as Mongolic, Tungusic or Turkic? The topological features or Uralic loan words into Yukaghir don't really count here, for obvious reasons. That being said, I'm open to the idea of Uralic being the language of (some) Yakutia_LNBA group, the linguistic evidence is unluckily missing. So, like it or not, Jaska has a point here. Besides some other really talented scientists you are not aware of, - and apparently won't ever be.

Your proclamations are geographically & chronologically confused. Turkic expanded in the 500s AD, 2000+ years after proto-Uralic expanded, and it barely reached the Lena-Ob-Irtysh, apart from isolated tribes which language-switched. Mongolic even later, from Mongolia, which is very far from the FU launching zone. Why would there be loans when there is a 3000 year & 2000 km gap ? Have you personally deciphered where the proto-Mongolia homeland even is ?
Tungus encroached on the proto-U homeland also after a probable gap and after the main mass of FU had moved west. 

“Talented scientists”. Haha,  let’s face it, science doesn’t in fact support their claims. I’ll reserve my praise for those who got it correct independent of & without the help of aDNA.
Andar likes this post
Reply
#20
(11-20-2023, 04:56 AM)PopGenist82 Wrote: Your proclamations are geographically & chronologically confused.

I suppose you're aware of the fact that Yakutia_LNBA, coming from the East into West Siberia, is a mixture of neolithic Trans Baikal and Yakutia_MN type of heritages. Yakutia_LNBA is even so eastern that according to Childebayeva et al one of the ancient groups most similar to that is Xianbei, on the other hand for instance Angara_EBA is too western. Now, which one of those two groups i.e. Trans Baikal Neolithic or Yakutia_MN did first speak Uralic?
Reply
#21
Indian and Iranian populations were very big and not related to Sintashta or Andronovo, the specific local clades are completely different from each other, no signal of IBD sharing and no archaeological connections between them.
parasar and KACHRASETH like this post
Reply
#22
(11-20-2023, 09:54 PM)RCO Wrote: Indian and Iranian populations were very big and not related to Sintashta or Andronovo, the specific local clades are completely different from each other, no signal of IBD sharing and no archaeological connections between them.

Please show your evidence for that non-relatedness and tell how it could overrule the known genetic results listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_a...on_history
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
Reply
#23
(11-20-2023, 09:54 PM)RCO Wrote: Indian and Iranian populations were very big and not related to Sintashta or Andronovo, the specific local clades are completely different from each other, no signal of IBD sharing and no archaeological connections between them.
absolutely point on sintastha being indo iranic is a psuedo scientific attempt to claim a cultural and language family , and i certainly a unfair and immoral practice often fueled by nationalistic point of view
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)