Zeng et al: Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia...

[Jaska]

Some observations about the qpAdm-results.

- Most Yakutia_LNBA ancestry is seen in Tundra Yukaghirs, second most in Nganasans.
- EHG is seen more in other Samoyeds (Selkups, Enetses) except Nganasans – even more than in the Volga populations. Also Kets, Yakuts, and Dolgans have EHG.
- Instead of Yamnaya ancestry, here the steppe ancestry is modeled with 2nd millennium BCE Srubnaya ancestry. This is also seen far in the east: in other Samoyeds except Nganasans, and in Kets, Dolgans, Yakuts, and Yukaghirs.
- Also Admixture results show equally wide distribution of these ancestries in Siberia.

Widely in the Uralic populations we can see all three ancestries. Only Nganasans lack EHG and Srubnaya ancestries, but because they are strongly drifted population in the far north, farthest from the Samoyedic homeland and different from other Samoyedic populations, Nganasans cannot be considered proving for the genetic composition of the Proto-Samoyedic population and even less of the Proto-Uralic population.

It seems probable that there were already several ancestry components present in the Proto-Uralic speaking population. It would be ill-advised to just arbitrarily decide that the Uralic language was connected to the Yakutia ancestry component, when it could have equally well been connected to some other ancestry component, or even an admixture of different ancestry components.

[Pribislav]

Some observations about the qpAdm-results.

- Most Yakutia_LNBA ancestry is seen in Tundra Yukaghirs, second most in Nganasans.
- EHG is seen more in other Samoyeds (Selkups, Enetses) except Nganasans – even more than in the Volga populations. Also Kets, Yakuts, and Dolgans have EHG.
- Instead of Yamnaya ancestry, here the steppe ancestry is modeled with 2nd millennium BCE Srubnaya ancestry. This is also seen far in the east: in other Samoyeds except Nganasans, and in Kets, Dolgans, Yakuts, and Yukaghirs.
- Also Admixture results show equally wide distribution of these ancestries in Siberia.

Widely in the Uralic populations we can see all three ancestries. Only Nganasans lack EHG and Srubnaya ancestries, but because they are strongly drifted population in the far north, farthest from the Samoyedic homeland and different from other Samoyedic populations, Nganasans cannot be considered proving for the genetic composition of the Proto-Samoyedic population and even less of the Proto-Uralic population.

It seems probable that there were already several ancestry components present in the Proto-Uralic speaking population. It would be ill-advised to just arbitrarily decide that the Uralic language was connected to the Yakutia ancestry component, when it could have equally well been connected to some other ancestry component, or even an admixture of different ancestry components.

After this paper, the interconnection between proto-Uralic, Yakutia_LNBA, haplogroup N-L708 and Ymyyakhtakh culture is almost as strong as the one between proto-Indo-Iranian, Steppe_MLBA, haplogroup R1a-Z93 and Sintashta culture. There are absolutely no valid arguments that would contradict these connections, so what you're saying is nothing but grasping at straws. Your last sentence tells me you're well aware that probability of finding pre-2000 BC Yakutia_LNBA-rich and L708-rich population west of the Urals is close to zero, so you're relativizing these connections and basically saying that every type of evidence except linguistic one is irrelevant. I would advise you modify/change your Upper-Volga-is-Proto-Uralic-homeland theory, in line with newly available data, otherwise you're in a risk of becoming the new Carlos Quilles, and we all know what an epic fiasco that was.

[Queequeg]

After this paper, the interconnection between proto-Uralic, Yakutia_LNBA, haplogroup N-L708 and Ymyyakhtakh culture is almost as strong as the one between proto-Indo-Iranian, Steppe_MLBA, haplogroup R1a-Z93 and Sintashta culture.

It is obvious, - and has been for some time, that Yakutia_LNBA and N-L708 make the core of the genetic Siberian root of the Uralic speakers. Also, these two are very much linked to the formation of Ymyakhtakh Culture. However, as far as I know, besides some Uralic loan words into Yukaghiric, there are no signs of people speaking anything related to Uralic within the Ymyakhtakh Culture. This being the case, either people taking part in the formation of the Ymyakhtakh Culture spoke different languages, one possibly being Pre Proto Uralic or maybe then Uralic was assumed from some other group, possibly residing in West Siberia, for example in the upper reaches of Ob and Irtysh.

[Parastais]

I think what Jaska is pushing for is Pre-Proto-Uralic from the East and Proto-Uralic from Upper Volga.
If so - Yakutia_LNBA is Pre-Proto-Uralic and Yakutia+EHG + Srubnaya = Proto-Uralic.

If we consider option that Uralic and Yukaghir formed a clade, then Pre-Proto-Uralic ~ Uralo-Yukaghir. Which would then make sense being Yakutia_LNBA like.

And then Uralic formed when part of Uralic-Yukaghir went West to Upper Volga.

I don’t think this necessary is at odds with any of linguistic, genetic or archeology.

[Queequeg]

I think what Jaska is pushing for is Pre-Proto-Uralic from the East and Proto-Uralic from Upper Volga.
If so - Yakutia_LNBA is Pre-Proto-Uralic and Yakutia+EHG + Srubnaya = Proto-Uralic.

If we consider option that Uralic and Yukaghir formed a clade, then Pre-Proto-Uralic ~ Uralo-Yukaghir. Which would then make sense being Yakutia_LNBA like.

And then Uralic formed when part of Uralic-Yukaghir went West to Upper Volga.

I don’t think this necessary is at odds with any of linguistic, genetic or archeology.

The new article is in the press so we'll soon know what he's pushing. That being said, Jaska has been one of those for years who's been saying that Pre Proto Uralic probably came from Siberia, I think he has been suggesting Eastern Sayan, if I recall it right. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to accept anything else than a proper linguistic model to support a linguistic hypothesis, especially related to Uralic.

[Psynome]

I think what Jaska is pushing for is Pre-Proto-Uralic from the East and Proto-Uralic from Upper Volga.
If so - Yakutia_LNBA is Pre-Proto-Uralic and Yakutia+EHG + Srubnaya = Proto-Uralic.

If we consider option that Uralic and Yukaghir formed a clade, then Pre-Proto-Uralic ~ Uralo-Yukaghir. Which would then make sense being Yakutia_LNBA like.

And then Uralic formed when part of Uralic-Yukaghir went West to Upper Volga.

I don’t think this necessary is at odds with any of linguistic, genetic or archeology.

I'm glad you mentioned the possibility of a Uralo-Yukaghir clade. The possible existence of this unity, supported by genomic and linguistic evidence, has been mentioned by the likes of Michael Peyrot and Guus Kroonen in the linguistic supplement to  Sikora et al 2019 . 

I myself do believe in its likely existence, as well as the ancestral language to Proto-Uralic originating east of the Urals. It's been mentioned before that not enough work has yet been done to integrate Yukaghirs and their presumed ancestral cultures into these models. It would be helpful to have systematic comparison of Y-hg profiles, if anyone has this data for Yukaghirs I'd love to see it.

[PopGenist82]

Delete

[PopGenist82]

I think what Jaska is pushing for is Pre-Proto-Uralic from the East and Proto-Uralic from Upper Volga.
If so - Yakutia_LNBA is Pre-Proto-Uralic and Yakutia+EHG + Srubnaya = Proto-Uralic.

If we consider option that Uralic and Yukaghir formed a clade, then Pre-Proto-Uralic ~ Uralo-Yukaghir. Which would then make sense being Yakutia_LNBA like.

And then Uralic formed when part of Uralic-Yukaghir went West to Upper Volga.

I don’t think this necessary is at odds with any of linguistic, genetic or archeology.

it’s surprising you imply that Samoyeds came from west of the urals. Is there anything which might support that ?

[Jaska]

Pribislav:

“After this paper, the interconnection between proto-Uralic, Yakutia_LNBA, haplogroup N-L708 and Ymyyakhtakh culture is almost as strong as the one between proto-Indo-Iranian, Steppe_MLBA, haplogroup R1a-Z93 and Sintashta culture. There are absolutely no valid arguments that would contradict these connections, so what you're saying is nothing but grasping at straws.”

It still seems to me that you do it all backwards: you only stare at one ancestry and one paternal lineage and ignore all the others. How, then, could you ever find any other possible solutions? How can you prove that the Yakutia ancestry is the one and only match? Please try, at least: show me the evidence behind your claim.

- N-L708 is far too old and too widespread to work as a correlate for the Uralic languages. It looks rather much older expansion, connected to some ancient language.
- Even N-Z1936 and N-VL29 are older than Proto-Uralic. Still, at least it seems possible that both of them were involved in expansion of at least some Uralic branches.

Pribislav:

“Your last sentence tells me you're well aware that probability of finding pre-2000 BC Yakutia_LNBA-rich and L708-rich population west of the Urals is close to zero, so you're relativizing these connections and basically saying that every type of evidence except linguistic one is irrelevant. I would advise you modify/change your Upper-Volga-is-Proto-Uralic-homeland theory, in line with newly available data, otherwise you're in a risk of becoming the new Carlos Quilles, and we all know what an epic fiasco that was.”

You have misunderstood me: I have never supported the Upper Volga homeland. I have supported the Kama homeland for Late Proto-Uralic and Siberian homeland for Pre-Proto-Uralic. In my forthcoming article I support the LPU homeland in the Central Ural Region and ignore the PrePU homeland.

But here again you do it all backwards: you use genetic phenomena as linguistic arguments, which they are not and can never be. It is irrelevant that those phenomena are not found west of the Urals before 2000 BCE, because you just cannot decide that Uralic languages are inherited in DNA – because they are not. Relevant is only what the linguistic results tell us.

Interestingly, the linguistic results now seem to show that the Uralic expansion from the Central Ural Region did not begin until the 2nd millennium BCE. Therefore, the Yakutia ancestry and certain N-subhaplogroups may agree with the Uralic expansion - just like also some other phenomena may agree with it. 

But if these genetic phenomena in the future will be shown to have spread into Europe earlier, I guess you would then claim that the Uralic expansion must also be earlier, because your method is all backwards. When we look at language, the linguistic results are the relevant ones – everything else from other disciplines is only a match or a non-match and not actual evidence. You will understand this sooner or later, so why not sooner?

[Jaska]

Queequeg:

“It is obvious, - and has been for some time, that Yakutia_LNBA and N-L708 make the core of the genetic Siberian root of the Uralic speakers. Also, these two are very much linked to the formation of Ymyakhtakh Culture. However, as far as I know, besides some Uralic loan words into Yukaghiric, there are no signs of people speaking anything related to Uralic within the Ymyakhtakh Culture. This being the case, either people taking part in the formation of the Ymyakhtakh Culture spoke different languages, one possibly being Pre Proto Uralic or maybe then Uralic was assumed from some other group, possibly residing in West Siberia, for example in the upper reaches of Ob and Irtysh.”

Thank you, there are some important points in your post.
Indeed, the Siberian root in the Uralic populations is undeniable: stronger in the east and weaker in the west. At the same time there is an opposite cline, showing European ancestry more in the west and less in the east. It is impossible to ignore the latter merely due to wishful thinking.

Boundaries of cultural areas do not often correspond with languages, but instead with areal units consisting of several languages. See Saarikivi & Lavento 2012: “Linguistics and Archaeology: A Critical View of an Interdisciplinary Approach with Reference to the Prehistory of Northern Scandinavia.” https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust265/sust265_...avento.pdf

Parastais:

“I think what Jaska is pushing for is Pre-Proto-Uralic from the East and Proto-Uralic from Upper Volga. If so - Yakutia_LNBA is Pre-Proto-Uralic and Yakutia+EHG + Srubnaya = Proto-Uralic.
If we consider option that Uralic and Yukaghir formed a clade, then Pre-Proto-Uralic ~ Uralo-Yukaghir. Which would then make sense being Yakutia_LNBA like. And then Uralic formed when part of Uralic-Yukaghir went West to Upper Volga. I don’t think this necessary is at odds with any of linguistic, genetic or archeology.”

Correction: I have never supported the Upper Volga homeland for Late Proto-Uralic, but the Kama homeland; and now the Central Ural homeland between Kama and Tobol (spoiler alert?).

Indeed, the situation is complex, when there are all these admixture events between populations. In every crossroads there are more than one possible root to which we could connect the language lineage. Therefore, the cumulative probability weakens step by step, when we try to trace the “carrier ancestry” for the Uralic language.

Uralo-Yukaghir relatedness is still far from proven, and there are other interesting propositions, like Uralo-Eskimo relatedness. Perhaps this could also agree with the Yakutia ancestry?

[Jaska]

PopGenetist82:

“it’s surprising you imply that Samoyeds came from west of the urals. Is there anything which might support that ?”

Modern Samoyeds are of course quite late by their genetic composition; Nganasans still different from the rest of them. In agreement with the linguistic results, the Samoyedic populations show traces of both local populations and from the south (the Sayan Region).

Then, the Proto-Samoyedic population was again an admixture of different ancestries, and so on. Tracing the language from DNA is not possible, unless we accept the linguistic results as the framework: in every admixture event there are at least two possibilities, and the probability to hit the right root by guessing grows weaker and weaker, the further back in time we go.

If the linguistic results show that Samoyedic language lineage originates in the west, there is nothing in the genetic results which could disprove or overrule this. Do you follow?

[PopGenist82]

PopGenetist82:

“it’s surprising you imply that Samoyeds came from west of the urals. Is there anything which might support that ?”

Modern Samoyeds are of course quite late by their genetic composition; Nganasans still different from the rest of them. In agreement with the linguistic results, the Samoyedic populations show traces of both local populations and from the south (the Sayan Region).

Then, the Proto-Samoyedic population was again an admixture of different ancestries, and so on. Tracing the language from DNA is not possible, unless we accept the linguistic results as the framework: in every admixture event there are at least two possibilities, and the probability to hit the right root by guessing grows weaker and weaker, the further back in time we go.

If the linguistic results show that Samoyedic language lineage originates in the west, there is nothing in the genetic results which could disprove or overrule this. Do you follow?

Well, your understanding of genetics is overtly misguided and your arrogant  belief in the self- superiority & non-falsifiability of your personal viewpoints (which you confuse as “evidence”) only undermines your credibility as a linguist

[Jaska]

PopGenetist82:

“Well, your understanding of genetics is overtly misguided and your arrogant  belief in the self- superiority & non-falsifiability of your personal viewpoints (which you confuse as “evidence”) only undermines your credibility as a linguist”

So, you did not understand a word I wrote?
1. Understanding of genetics is totally irrelevant for tracing linguistic homeland: only understanding of linguistics and its methods is relevant.
2. Understanding the fact 1 above is also relevant, so that one does not waste time believing in false axioms like “We can see language from DNA” and building unscientific speculations upon it.
3. I never confuse viewpoints with evidence. Please, at least try to prove your false accusations.
4. My credibility as a linguist can be undermined only by showing that I have misunderstood the methods of historical linguistics or the scientific principles. I will gladly teach you the scientific way to combine results from different disciplines, if you are at all interested in science.

[Kale]

I think what Jaska is pushing for is Pre-Proto-Uralic from the East and Proto-Uralic from Upper Volga.
If so - Yakutia_LNBA is Pre-Proto-Uralic and Yakutia+EHG + Srubnaya = Proto-Uralic.

If we consider option that Uralic and Yukaghir formed a clade, then Pre-Proto-Uralic ~ Uralo-Yukaghir. Which would then make sense being Yakutia_LNBA like.

And then Uralic formed when part of Uralic-Yukaghir went West to Upper Volga.

I don’t think this necessary is at odds with any of linguistic, genetic or archeology.

Yes it seems Jaska's view on the genetic evidence is often misinterpreted, so I'd like to offer a comparison of counterparts with the more familiar PIE in hopes it may be helpful.
PIE ~ Pre-proto-Uralic
Yamnaya ~ Yakutia_LNBA/Kra001
Indo-Iranian ~ proto-Uralic
Sintashta ~ Mostly Yakutia_LNBA/Kra001, but with some other stuff

So to say Proto-Uralic is associated with Yakutia_LNBA/Kra001 ancestry is the equivalent to saying Indo-Iranian is linked to Yamnaya ancestry.
That's not technically wrong, given Steppe_MLBA are ~2/3 Yamnaya-related, but clearly linking Indo-Iranian to Steppe_MLBA is more correct.

[Andar]

I think what Jaska is pushing for is Pre-Proto-Uralic from the East and Proto-Uralic from Upper Volga.
If so - Yakutia_LNBA is Pre-Proto-Uralic and Yakutia+EHG + Srubnaya = Proto-Uralic.

If we consider option that Uralic and Yukaghir formed a clade, then Pre-Proto-Uralic ~ Uralo-Yukaghir. Which would then make sense being Yakutia_LNBA like.

And then Uralic formed when part of Uralic-Yukaghir went West to Upper Volga.

I don’t think this necessary is at odds with any of linguistic, genetic or archeology.

Yes it seems Jaska's view on the genetic evidence is often misinterpreted, so I'd like to offer a comparison of counterparts with the more familiar PIE in hopes it may be helpful.
PIE ~ Pre-proto-Uralic
Yamnaya ~ Yakutia_LNBA/Kra001
Indo-Iranian ~ proto-Uralic
Sintashta ~ Mostly Yakutia_LNBA/Kra001, but with some other stuff

So to say Proto-Uralic is associated with Yakutia_LNBA/Kra001 ancestry is the equivalent to saying Indo-Iranian is linked to Yamnaya ancestry.
That's not technically wrong, given Steppe_MLBA are ~2/3 Yamnaya-related, but clearly linking Indo-Iranian to Steppe_MLBA is more correct.

well we have some Uralics today with zero or tiny amount of Steppe_MLBA or EHG. Nganassan can be pretty much modelled with just Kra001. I know some argue they are recent language shifters or so but i honestly have not seen any convincing evidence for this. The fact that arrival of Uralic languages in Steppe_MLBA-rich zones was fairly late and much after 2000 B.C (before it were rather small Indo-Iranian pioneer groups moving north like in Satyga) makes Proto-Uralic around 2000 B.C caring high Steppe_MLBA fairly unlikely. But yeah today the people with highest direct Steppe_MLBA are Udmurts higher actually than Pamiri (talking about Indo-Iranian Steppe_MLBA and not Corded Ware ancestry in general)