Sławomirowi Ambroziakowi i innym allo-allo wyznawcom tzw.
wspólnoty bałto-słowiańskiej i pamięci o tym ich przeciw-słowiańskiemu przeciw-logicznemu zamotaniu, niniejszy wpis poświęcam. 🙂
Przyznaję się bez bicia, że to ten wpis, a nie poprzedni miał być zapowiadanym wcześniej podarkiem na Szczodre Gody. Z powodu dużej ilości danych wyszło jak wyszło. Pisywałem już o tym nie raz i nie dwa. Może ze dwa razy w życiu powołałem się na jakieś przykłady tego nieistniejącego czegoś, ale robiłem to celowo. Tu macie to ostatni raz wytłumaczone prosto w zad, jak upartej krowie na miedzy tłumaczyć się należy.
Nie będę już do tego nigdy wracał, a i innym też to polecam. Najwyższy już czas to prusko-nazistowskie kłamstwo o tzw.
wspólnocie bałto-słowiańskiej, języku Pra-Bałto-Słowiańskim / Proto-Balto-Slavic, itp., trzeba tępić do skutku, z całych sił w dwójnasób niezmiernie niemiłosiernie bezlitośnie!
Oto „podstawa prawna”:
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions
The academic consensus is that Indo-European languages first spread into the Baltic region from the Eastern European steppes along with the Corded Ware culture (CWC) and its people during the Late Neolithic, well before the expansion of Uralic speakers into Fennoscandia and surrounds, probably from somewhere around the Ural Mountains.
On the other hand, the views that the Uralic language family is native to Northern Europe and/or closely associated with the CWC are fringe theories usually espoused by people not familiar with the topic or, unfortunately it has to be said, mentally unstable trolls. (..)
The genetic prehistory of the Baltic Sea region
Alissa Mittnik, Chuan-Chao Wang, Saskia Pfrengle, Mantas Daubaras, Gunita Zariņa, Fredrik Hallgren, Raili Allmäe, Valery Khartanovich, Vyacheslav Moiseyev, Mari Tõrv, Anja Furtwängler, Aida Andrades Valtueña, Michal Feldman, Christos Economou, Markku Oinonen, Andrejs Vasks, Elena Balanovska, David Reich, Rimantas Jankauskas, Wolfgang Haak, Stephan Schiffels & Johannes Krause
Published: 30 January 2018
Nature Communications volume 9, Article number: 442 (2018)
While the series of events that shaped the transition between foraging societies and food producers are well described for Central and Southern Europe, genetic evidence from Northern Europe surrounding the Baltic Sea is still sparse. Here, we report genome-wide DNA data from 38 ancient North Europeans ranging from ~9500 to 2200 years before present. Our analysis provides genetic evidence that hunter-gatherers settled Scandinavia via two routes. We reveal that the first Scandinavian farmers derive their ancestry from Anatolia 1000 years earlier than previously demonstrated. The range of Mesolithic Western hunter-gatherers extended to the east of the Baltic Sea, where these populations persisted without gene-flow from Central European farmers during the Early and Middle Neolithic. The arrival of steppe pastoralists in the Late Neolithic introduced a major shift in economy and mediated the spread of a new ancestry associated with the Corded Ware Complex in Northern Europe.(…)
The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East
Lehti Saag et al.
Published: May 09, 2019
- increase in hunter-gatherer ancestry in Bronze Age Eastern Baltic genomes
- genetic input from Siberia to the Eastern Baltic during the transition to Iron Age
- arrival of Siberian ancestry coincides with proposed arrival of Uralic languages
- light eyes, hair, and skin and lactose tolerance become frequent in the Bronze Age
In this study, we compare the genetic ancestry of individuals from two as yet genetically unstudied cultural traditions in Estonia in the context of available modern and ancient datasets: 15 from the Late Bronze Age stone-cist graves (1200–400 BC) (EstBA) and 6 from the Pre-Roman Iron Age tarand cemeteries (800/500 BC–50 AD) (EstIA). We also included 5 Pre-Roman to Roman Iron Age Ingrian (500 BC–450 AD) (IngIA) and 7 Middle Age Estonian (1200–1600 AD) (EstMA) individuals to build a dataset for studying the demographic history of the northern parts of the Eastern Baltic from the earliest layer of Mesolithic to modern times. Our findings are consistent with EstBA receiving gene flow from regions with strong Western hunter-gatherer (WHG) affinities and EstIA from populations related to modern Siberians. The latter inference is in accordance with Y chromosome (chrY) distributions in present day populations of the Eastern Baltic, as well as patterns of autosomal variation in the majority of the westernmost Uralic speakers [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. This ancestry reached the coasts of the Baltic Sea no later than the mid-first millennium BC; i.e., in the same time window as the diversification of west Uralic (Finnic) languages [ 6 ]. Furthermore, phenotypic traits often associated with modern Northern Europeans, like light eyes, hair, and skin, as well as lactose tolerance, can be traced back to the Bronze Age in the Eastern Baltic. (…)
Identification and analysis of mtDNA genomes attributed to Finns reveal long-stagnant demographic trends obscured in the total diversity
Sanni Översti, Päivi Onkamo, Monika Stoljarova, Bruce Budowle, Antti Sajantila & Jukka U. Palo
Published: 21 July 2017
Scientific Reports volume 7, Article number: 6193 (2017) Cite this article
In Europe, modern mitochondrial diversity is relatively homogeneous and suggests an ubiquitous rapid population growth since the Neolithic revolution. Similar patterns also have been observed in mitochondrial control region data in Finland, which contrasts with the distinctive autosomal and Y-chromosomal diversity among Finns. A different picture emerges from the 843 whole mitochondrial genomes from modern Finns analyzed here. Up to one third of the subhaplogroups can be considered as Finn-characteristic, i.e. rather common in Finland but virtually absent or rare elsewhere in Europe. Bayesian phylogenetic analyses suggest that most of these attributed Finnish lineages date back to around 3,000–5,000 years, coinciding with the arrival of Corded Ware culture and agriculture into Finland.Bayesian estimation of past effective population sizes reveals two differing demographic histories: 1) the ‘local’ Finnish mtDNA haplotypes yielding small and dwindling size estimates for most of the past; and 2) the ‘immigrant’ haplotypes showing growth typical of most European populations. The results based on the local diversity are more in line with that known about Finns from other studies, e.g., Y-chromosome analyses and archaeology findings. The mitochondrial gene pool thus may contain signals of local population history that cannot be readily deduced from the total diversity. (…)
To kolejne dane świadczące o tym samym, o czym do znudzenia pisywałem już nie raz, np. patrz:
Od dziś i tę rzekomą tzw.
wspólnotę bałto-słowiańskąi wszystkie nawiązujące do niej ofitzjalne odtfoszenia spuszczamy do kibelka! Czy to jest w końcu dokładnie zrozumiałe dlaczego, hm? 🙂
Zwolennikom tzw. słowiańskiego stepu szczerze radzę przeczytać komentarze EastPole, które zamieściłem na koniec tego wpisu. W następnych wpisach bowiem zajmę się stepem i rzekomymi od-tureckawatymi zapożyczeniami, jak np. kurhan, itp, rzekomo odnajdywanymi w języku słowiańskim.
Zwolennicy Florina Curty i jego pomysłów o j. słowiańskim, powstałym w tzw. 8w, jako rzekoma tzw. lingua franca kaganatu awarskiego tez powinni raczej jeszcze głębiej kopać swoje norki.
Na zwolenników tzw. zapożyczeń od-irańskich, twierdzeń dr Makucha i innych allo-allo krętactw też już przyszedł czas. Muszą oni jednak jeszcze na ostateczną rozprawę jeszcze ociupinkę cierpliwie zaczekać.
Tymczasem usypmy miły kopczyk nad parszywym rzekomym tzw.
bałto-słowiańskimtruchłem, a na pomysły Curty już teraz zwalmy zadzierzyście tęgiego klocka! 🙂 Języki bałtosłowiańskie, języki bałtycko-słowiańskie – hipotetyczna podrodzina językowa w obrębie języków indoeuropejskich, obejmująca języki bałtyckie i języki słowiańskie. Posługuje się nimi ponad 300 mln osób.Istnienie grupy języków bałtosłowiańskich bywa kwestionowane, jednak większość badaczy uznaje ją.
- języki indoeuropejskie
języki bałtosłowiańskie(ok. 322,5 mln)
- języki bałtyckie (ok. 5,5 mln)
- języki słowiańskie (ok. 317 mln)
- języki zachodniosłowiańskie (ok. 56 mln)
- języki południowosłowiańskie (ok. 28 mln)
- języki wschodniosłowiańskie (ok. 210 mln)
- † – język wymarły lub dawne stadium historyczne języka dzisiejszego
- †* – język dawny, ale zachowany tradycyjnie w liturgii, tekstach religijnych, filozoficznych lub naukowych
- Leszek Bednarczuk: Początki i pogranicza polszczyzny. Kraków: LEXIS, 2018, s. 25–26. ISBN 978-83-89425-96-6.
Baltic and Slavic languages share several linguistic traits not found in any other Indo-European branch, which points to a period of common development. Although the notion of a
Balto-Slavic unity has been contested (partly due to political controversies), there is now a general consensus among specialists in Indo-European linguistics to classify Baltic and Slavic languages into a single branch, only with some details of the nature of their relationship remaining in dispute.
Proto-Balto-Slavic language is reconstructable by the comparative method, descending from Proto-Indo-European by means of well-defined sound laws, and out of which modern Slavic and Baltic languages descended. One particularly innovative dialect separated from the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum and became ancestral to the Proto-Slavic language, from which all Slavic languages descended.
The nature of the relationship of the
Balto-Slavic languages has been the subject of much discussion from the very beginning of historical Indo-European linguistics as a scientific discipline. A few are more intent on explaining the similarities between the two groups not in terms of a linguistically „genetic” relationship, but by language contact and dialectal closeness in the Proto-Indo-European period.
Baltic and Slavic share many close phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic and accentological similarities (listed below). The early Indo-Europeanist August Schleicher (1861) proposed a simple solution: From Proto-Indo-European descended
Proto-Balto-Slavic, out of which Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic emerged. Schleicher’s proposal was taken up and refined by Karl Brugmann, who listed eight innovations as evidence for a Balto-Slavic branch in the Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (“Outline of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages”).
The Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, however, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages resulted from intensive language contact, i.e. that they were not genetically more closely related and that there was no common
Proto-Balto-Slavic language. Antoine Meillet (1905, 1908, 1922, 1925, 1934), a French Indo-Europeanist, in reaction to Brugmann’s hypothesis, propounded a view according to which all similarities of Baltic and Slavic occurred accidentally, by independent parallel development, and that there was no Proto-Balto-Slavic language.
In turn, the Polish linguist Rozwadowski suggests that the similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages are a result of both a genetic relationship and later language contact. Thomas Olander corroborates the claim of genetic relationship in his research in the field of comparative
Even though some linguists still reject a genetic relationship, most scholars accept that Baltic and Slavic languages experienced a period of common development. This view is also reflected in most modern standard textbooks on Indo-European linguistics. Gray and Atkinson’s (2003) application of language-tree divergence analysis supports a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages, dating the split of the family to about 1400 BCE.
The traditional division into two distinct sub-branches (i.e. Slavic and Baltic) is mostly upheld by scholars who accept
Balto-Slavic as a genetic branch of Indo-European. There is a general consensus that the Baltic languages can be divided into East Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian) and West Baltic (Old Prussian). The internal diversity of Baltic points at a much greater time-depth for the breakup of the Baltic languages in comparison to the Slavic languages.
Balto-Slavic tree model
This bipartite division into Baltic and Slavic was first challenged in the 1960s, when Vladimir Toporov and Vyacheslav Ivanov observed that the apparent difference between the „structural models” of the Baltic languages and the Slavic languages is the result of the innovative nature of Proto-Slavic, and that the latter had evolved from an earlier stage which conformed to the more archaic „structural model” of the
Proto-Baltic dialect continuum. Frederik Kortlandt (1977, 2018) has proposed that West Baltic and East Baltic are in fact not more closely related to each other than either of them is related to Slavic, and Balto-Slavic therefore can be split into three equidistant branches: East Baltic, West Baltic and Slavic.
Balto-Slavic tree model
Although supported by a number of scholars, Kordtlandt’s hypothesis is still a minority view. Some scholars accept Kordtlandt’s division into three branches as the default assumption, but nevertheless believe that there is sufficient evidence to unite East Baltic and West Baltic in an intermediate Baltic node.
The tripartite split is supported by glottochronologic studies by V. V. Kromer, whereas two computer-generated family trees (from the early 2000s) that include Old Prussian have a Baltic node parallel to the Slavic node. Onomastic evidence shows that Baltic languages were once spoken in much wider territory than the one they cover today, all the way to Moscow, and were later replaced by Slavic.
The sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic in the sixth and the seventh century (around 600 CE, uniform Proto-Slavic with no detectable dialectal differentiation was spoken from Thessaloniki in Greece to Novgorod in Russia) is according to some connected to the hypothesis that Proto-Slavic was in fact akoinéof theAvar state, i.e. the language of the administration and military rule of the Avar Khaganate in Eastern Europe.
In 626, the Slavs, Persians and Avars jointly attacked the Byzantine Empire and laid siege to Constantinople. In that campaign, the Slavs fought under Avar officers. There is an ongoing controversy over whether the Slavs might then have been a military caste under the khaganate rather than an ethnicity.Their language—at first possibly only one local speech—once koinéized, became a lingua franca of the Avar state. This might explain how Proto-Slavic spread to the Balkans and the areas of the Danube basin,and would also explain why the Avars were assimilated so fast, leaving practically no linguistic traces, and that Proto-Slavic was so unusually uniform. However, such a theory fails to explain how Slavic spread to Eastern Europe, an area that had no historical links with theAvar Khanate.
That sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic erased most of the idioms of the
Balto-Slavic dialect continuum, which left us today with only two groups, Baltic and Slavic (or East Baltic, West Baltic, and Slavic in the minority view). This secession of the Balto-Slavic dialect ancestral to Proto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological criteria to have occurred sometime in the period 1500–1000 BCE.
The degree of relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages is indicated by a series of common innovations not shared with other Indo-European languages, and by the relative chronology of these innovations which can be established. The Baltic and Slavic languages also share some inherited words. These are either not found at all in other Indo-European languages (except when borrowed) or are inherited from Proto-Indo-European but have undergone identical changes in meaning when compared to other Indo-European languages. This indicates that the Baltic and Slavic languages share a period of common development, the
Common sound changes
- Winter’s law: lengthening of vowels before Proto-Indo-European (PIE) unaspirated voiced consonants (*b, *d, *g).
- PIE voiced aspirated consonants (*bʰ, *dʰ, *gʰ, *ǵʰ) merge into the voiced consonants (*b, *d, *g, *ǵ). This also occurred in several other Indo-European branches, but as Winter’s law was sensitive to the difference between the two types of consonants, the merger must have happened after it and so is a specific
- Hirt’s law: retraction of the PIE accent to the preceding syllable, if that syllable ended in a laryngeal (*h₁, *h₂, *h₃, see Laryngeal theory).
- A high vowel is inserted before PIE syllabic sonorants (*l̥, *r̥, *m̥, *n̥). This vowel is usually *i (giving *il, *ir, *im, *in) but in some occasions also *u (*ul, *ur, *um, *un). Proto-Germanic is the only other Indo-European language that inserts a high vowel (*u in all cases), all others insert mid or low vowels instead.
- Emergence of a register distinction on long syllables, between acute (probably glottalized) and circumflex. The acute arose primarily when the syllable ended in a PIE voiced consonant (as in Winter’s law) or when it ended in a laryngeal. The distinction is reflected in most
Balto-Slavic languages, including Proto-Slavic, as an opposition between rising and falling tone on accented syllables. Some Baltic languages directly reflect the acute register in the form of a so-called „broken tone”.
- Shortening of vowels before word-final *m.
- Word-final *-mi > *-m after a long vowel. This followed the preceding change, as the preceding long vowel is retained.
- Raising of stressed *o to *u in a final syllable.
- Merging of PIE short *o and *a into *a or *o. This change also occurred in several other Indo-European branches, but here too it must have happened after Winter’s law: Winter’s law lengthens *o to *ō and *a to *ā, and must therefore have occurred before the two sounds merged. It also followed the raising of *o to *u above. It is to be noted that both vowels merged differently in both groups: Baltic languages have a in both cases, but Slavic ones have o (compare Lith. ašìs with old. Sl. ось (from Ide. *a: Latin axis, Greek ἄζων); Lith. avìs, old Slavic овьца (from Ide. *ŏ: Latin ovis, Greec ὄις). The Indo-European long vowels *ā and *ō merged only in the Slavic group, and later only in old Prussian.
Balto-Slavic innovations include several other changes, which are also shared by several other Indo-European branches. These are therefore not direct evidence for the existence of a common Balto-Slavic family, but they do corroborate it.
- Satemization: The PIE palatovelar consonants *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ become palatal sibilants *ś, *ź, *ź, while the PIE labiovelar consonants *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ lose their labalization and merge with the plain velar *k, *g, *gʰ. The palatal sibilants later become plain sibilants *s, *z in all
Balto-Slavic languagesexcept Lithuanian.
- Ruki sound law: *s becomes *š when preceded by *r, *u, *k or *i. In Slavic, this *š later becomes *x (variously spelled ⟨ch⟩, ⟨h⟩ or ⟨х⟩ in the Slavic languages) when followed by a back vowel.
Common grammatical innovations
- Replacement of the original PIE genitive singular ending of thematic (o-stem) nouns, which is reconstructed as *-osyo, with the ablative ending *-ād (Proto-Slavic *vьlka, Lithuanian vil̃ko, Latvian vìlka). Old Prussian, however, has another ending, perhaps stemming from the original PIE genitive: deiwas „god’s”, tawas „father’s”.
- Use of the ending *-ān (from earlier *-āmi) of the instrumental singular in ā-stem nouns and adjectives. This contrasts with Sanskrit -ayā, archaic Vedic -ā. Lithuanian rankà is ambiguous and could have originated from either ending, but the correspondence with East Lithuanian runku and Latvian rùoku point to Balto-Slavic *-ān.
- Use of the ending *-mis in the instrumental plural, e.g. Lithuanian sūnumìs, Old Church Slavonic synъmi „with sons”. This ending is also found in Germanic, while the other Indo-European languages have an ending with -bʰ-, as in Sanskrit -bhis.
- Creation of a distinction between definite (meaning similar to „the”) and indefinite adjectives (meaning similar to „a”). The definite forms were formed by attaching the corresponding form of the relative/demonstrative pronoun *jas to the end of the adjective. For example, Lithuanian geràsis ‚the good’ as opposed to gẽras ‚good’, Old Church Slavonic dobrъjь ‚the good’ as opposed to dobrъ ‚good’. These forms in Lithuanian, however, seem to have developed after the split, since in older Lithuanian literature (16th century and onwards) they had not yet merged (e. g. naujamę́jame ʽin the new one’ from *naujamén + *jamén). In Lithuanian, the pronoun merged with the adjective having a modern (secondary) pronominal inflection; in Slavic, the pronoun merged with an adjective, having an ancient (primary) nominal inflection.
- Usage of the genitive case for the direct object of a negative verb. For example, Russian кни́ги (я) не читал, Lith. knygos neskaičiau ‚I haven’t read the book’.
Some examples of words shared among most or all
- *léiˀpāˀ ‚tilia‚ (linden tree): Lithuanian líepa, Old Prussian līpa, Latvian liẽpa, Latgalian līpa, Common Slavic *lipa (Old Church Slavonic липа, Russian ли́па, Polish lipa, Czech lípa)
- *ránkāˀ ‚hand’: Lithuanian rankà, Old Prussian rānkan (acc. sg.), Latvian rùoka, Latgalian rūka, Common Slavic *rǭkà (Old Church Slavonic рѫка, Russian рука́, Polish ręka, Czech ruka)
- *galwā́ˀ ‚head’: Lithuanian galvà, Old Prussian galwo, Latvian gal̂va, Latgalian golva; Common Slavic *golvà (Old Church Slavonic глава, Russian голова́, Polish głowa, Czech hlava)
Despite lexical developments exclusive to
Balto-Slavic and otherwise showing evidence for a stage of common development, there are considerable differences between the vocabularies of Baltic and Slavic. Rozwadowski noted that every semantic field contains core vocabulary that is etymologically different between the two branches. Andersen prefers a dialect continuum model where the northernmost dialects developed into Baltic, in turn, the southernmost dialects developed into Slavic (with Slavic later absorbing any intermediate idioms during its expansion.) Andersen thinks that different neighboring and substratum languages might have contributed to the differences in basic vocabulary.
- List of
- Corded Ware culture
- International Workshop on
- Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017). „
Balto-Slavic„. Glottolog 3.0. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
Balto-Slavic languages. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online”. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Retrieved 10 December 2012.
Those scholars who accept the
Balto-Slavic hypothesisattribute the large number of close similarities in the vocabulary, grammar, and sound systems of the Baltic and Slavic languages to development from a common ancestral language after the breakup of Proto-Indo-European. Those scholars who reject the hypothesis believe that the similarities are the result of parallel development and of mutual influence during a long period of contact.
- Fortson (2010), p. 414.
- Young (2009), p. 136.
- Petit (2004), p. 21.
- Olander (2002)
- Mallory & Adam (2006), p. 77.
- Clarkson (2007), p. 6.
- Beekes (2011), p. 31:”The supposed unity of the
Balto-Slavic groupis often disputed, but it is really above all doubt”.
- Kapović (2017), p. 5.
- Gray & Atkinson (2003)
- Clarkson (2007).
- Beekes (2011), p. 22.
- Young (2017), p. 486.
- Dini, P.U. (2000). Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. p. 143. ISBN5-420-01444-0.
- Бирнбаум Х. О двух направлениях в языковом развитии // Вопросы языкознания, 1985, № 2, стр. 36
- Kortlandt (1977), p. 323:”Though Prussian is undoubtedly closer to the East Baltic languages than to Slavic, the characteristic features of the Baltic languages seem to be either retentions or results of parallel development and cultural interaction. Thus I assume that
Balto-Slavic splitinto three identifiable branches, each of which followed its own course of development.”
- Kortlandt (2018).
- Andersen (1996), p. 63.
- Derksen (2008), p. 20:„I am not convinced that it is justified to reconstruct a
Proto-Baltic stage. The term Proto-Balticis used for convenience’s sake.”
- Kim (2018), p. 1974.
- Hill (2016).
- Kromer, Victor V. (2003). „Glottochronology and problems of protolanguage reconstruction”. arXiv:cs/0303007.
- Clackson, James (2007). Indo-European Linguistics, An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — the so-called „Pennsylvania Tree” (pg. 12) and the so-called „New Zealand Tree” (pg. 19)
- Beekes (2011), p. 48.
- cf. Holzer (2002) with references
- Controversy discussed in Martin Hurbanič (2009). Posledná vojna antiky. Avarský útok na Konštantínopol roku 626 v historických súvislostiach [The Last War of Antiquity. The Avar Siege of Constantinople, 626, in Historical Sources]. Prešov: Vydavatel’stvo Michala Vaška. pp. 137–153.
- Until the year 800 Slavic languages were spoken all the way to the Trieste–Hamburg line. Later, they were pushed back to the east.
- Curta (2004): It is possible that the expansion of the Avar khanate during the second half of the eighth century coincided with the spread of… Slavic into the neighbouring areas of Bohemia, Moravia and southern Poland. (but) could hardly explain the spread of Slavic into Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, all regions that produced so far almost no archaeological evidence of Avar influence
- cf. Novotná & Blažek (2007) with references. „Classical glottochronology” conducted by Czech Slavist M. Čejka in 1974 dates the
Balto-Slavic splitto -910±340 BCE, Sergei Starostin in 1994 dates it to 1210 BCE, and „recalibrated glottochronology” conducted by Novotná & Blažek dates it to 1400–1340 BCE. This agrees well with Trzciniec-Komarov culture, localized from Silesia to Central Ukraine and dated to the period 1500–1200 BCE.
- Mažiulis, Vytautas. „Baltic languages”. Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- Hill, Eugen (2013). „Historical phonology in service of subgrouping. Two laws of final syllables in the common prehistory of Baltic and Slavonic”. Baltistica. XLVIII (2): 161–204. doi:10.15388/Baltistica.48.2.2170. Retrieved 11 January 2015.
- Zigmas Zinkevičius. Lietuvių kalbos kilmė [Origin of the Lithuanian Language]. Vilnius, 1984, page 120
- Matasović (2008:56–57) „Navedimo najvažnije baltoslavenske izoglose…Upotreba genitiva za izricanje objekta zanijekanog glagola”
- Andersen, Henning (2003), „Slavic and the Indo-European Migrations”, Language Contacts in Prehistory. Studies in Stratigraphy, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 239: 71–73,
It has always been a riddle how it came about that the Slavic and Baltic languages, while sufficiently similar to suggest a common origin (“
Proto-Balto-Slavic”), and developing side by side for thousands of years under natural and technological conditions that must have been fairly similar, came to be so different. Leaving the similarities of structure aside and considering just the lexicon, there are indeed several hundred lexemes in Common Slavic that have etymological equivalents or near-equivalents in Baltic. On the other hand, however, there is not a single semantic field in which there are not deep differences in the corresponding lexis.
- Andersen, Henning (1996). Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN3-11-014705-X.
- Barschel; Kozianka; Weber, eds. (1992), Indogermanisch, Baltisch und Slawisch, Kolloquium in Zusammenarbeit mit der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Jena, September 1989 (in German), Munich: Otto Sagner, ISBN3-87690-515-X
- Beekes, Robert (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics (2nd. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Clackson, James (2007). Indo-European Linguistics, An Introduction. Cambridge.
- Curta, Florin (2004), „The Slavic Lingua Franca. (Linguistic Notes of an Archaeologist Turned Historian)”, East Central Europe/L’Europe du Centre-Est, 31 (31): 125–148, doi:10.1163/187633004X00134
- Derksen, Rick (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
- Fortson, Benjamin W. (2010), Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction (2nd ed.), Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, ISBN978-1-4051-8896-8
- Gray, R.D.; Atkinson, Q.D. (2003), „Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin”, Nature, 426 (6965): 435–439, Bibcode:2003Natur.426..435G, doi:10.1038/nature02029, PMID14647380
- Hill, Eugen (2016). „Phonological evidence for a Proto-Baltic stage in the evolution of East and West Baltic”. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction. 13: 205–232.
- Holzer, Georg (2001), „Zur Lautgeschichte des baltisch-slavischen Areals”, Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch (in German) (47): 33–50
- Holzer, Georg (2002), „Urslawisch”, Enzyklopädie des Europäischen Ostens(PDF) (in German), Klagenfurt: Wieser Verlag, archived from the original(PDF) on 2007-09-27, retrieved 2008-10-01
- Holzer, Georg (2007), Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache (in German), Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, ISBN978-3-631-56119-5
- Kapović, Mate (2017). The Indo-European Languages (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-73062-4.
- Kim, Ronald I. (2018). „
The phonology of Balto-Slavic„. In Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 1974–1985.
- Kortlandt, Frederik (1978), „
I.-E. palatovelars before resonants in Balto-Slavic„(PDF), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology: 237–243, archived from the original(PDF) on May 17, 2014
- Kortlandt, Frederik (1977). „Historical laws of Baltic accentuation”. Baltistica. 13 (2): 319–330. doi:10.15388/baltistica.13.2.1129.
- Kortlandt, Frederik (2009), Baltica &
Balto-Slavica, Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi, ISBN978-90-420-2652-0
- Kortlandt, Frederik (2018). „Proto-Baltic?”. Baltistica. 53 (2): 175–185. doi:10.15388/baltistica.53.2.2338.
- Mallory, J. P.; Adam, D. Q. (2006). The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-928791-0.
- Matasović, Ranko (2005). „Toward a relative chronology of the earliest Baltic and Slavic sound changes”(PDF). Baltistica. 40 (2). doi:10.15388/baltistica.40.2.674. Archived from the original(PDF) on October 9, 2006.
- Matasović, Ranko (2008), Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika (in Croatian), Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, ISBN978-953-150-840-7
- Novotná, Petra; Blažek, Václav (2007). „Glottochronology and its application to the
Balto-Slavic languages„(PDF). Baltistica. XLII (2): 185–210. doi:10.15388/baltistica.42.2.1168. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2008-10-31.
- Olander, Thomas (2002), Det
baltoslaviskeproblem – Accentologien(PDF) (in Danish), archived from the original(PDF) on 2011-07-19, retrieved 2010-07-30 Thomas Olander’s master’s thesis on the existence of Balto-Slavic genetic nodesolely on the basis of accentological evidence
- Olander, Thomas (2009),
Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN978-3-11-020397-4
- Petit, Daniel (2004). „Les langues baltiques et la question
balto-slave„. Histoire Épistémologie Langage. 26 (2): 7–41. doi:10.3406/hel.2004.2092.
- Stang, Christian (1957), Slavonic accentuation, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, ISBN978-82-00-06078-9
- Szemerényi, Oswald (1957), „The problem of
Balto-Slav unity„, Kratylos, 2: 97–123
- Young, Steven (2009), „
Balto-Slavic languages„, Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World: 135–136, ISBN978-0-08-087774-7
- Young, Steven (2017). „Baltic”. In Kapović, Mate (ed.). The Indo-European Languages (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 486–518. ISBN978-0-415-73062-4.
Balto-Slavic Accentuation, by Kortlandt; a very idiosyncratic approach to Balto-Slavic accentuation
- Трубачев О.; Бернштейн С. (2005), „Отрывки о балто-южнославянских изоглосах”, Сравнительная грамматика славянских языков (in Russian), Moscow: Наука (Bernstein and Trubachev on the
- Biennial International Workshop on
Balto-SlavicNatural Language Processing
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions
The academic consensus is that Indo-European languages first spread into the Baltic region from the Eastern European steppes along with the Corded Ware culture (CWC) and its people during the Late Neolithic, well before the expansion of Uralic speakers into Fennoscandia and surrounds, probably from somewhere around the Ural Mountains.
On the other hand, the views that the Uralic language family is native to Northern Europe and/or closely associated with the CWC are fringe theories usually espoused by people not familiar with the topic or, unfortunately it has to be said, mentally unstable trolls.
The likely close relationship between the CWC expansion and the early spread of Indo-European languages was discussed in several papers in recent years (for instance, see here). This year, we saw the first ancient DNA paper focusing on the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the East Baltic, including the likely first arrival of Uralic speech in what is now Estonia.
Published in Current Biology courtesy of Saag et al., the paper showed that the genetic structure of present-day East Baltic populations largely formed in the Iron Age (see here). It was during this time, the authors revealed, that the region experienced a sudden influx of Y-chromosome haplogroup N, which is today common in many Uralic speaking populations and often referred to as a Proto-Uralic marker. Little wonder then that Saag et al. linked this genetic shift in the East Baltic to the westward migrations of early Uralic speakers.
The table below, based on data from the Saag et al. paper, surely doesn’t leave much to the imagination about what happened.
Unfortunately, I have to say that the genome-wide analysis in the paper was less informative than it could have been. The authors focused their attention on rather broad genetic components, and, as a result, missed an interesting fine scale distinction between their Bronze Age and Iron Age samples. The spatial maps below, based on my Global25 data for most of the ancients from Saag et al., show what I mean. The hotter the color the higher the genetic similarity between them and present-day West Eurasian populations.
Note that the Bronze Age (Baltic_EST_BA) samples are most similar to the Baltic-speaking, and thus also Indo-European-speaking, Latvians and Lithuanians, rather than the Uralic-speaking Estonians, even though they’re from burial sites in Estonia. On the other hand, the Iron Age (Baltic_EST_IA) samples show strong similarity to a wider range of populations, including Estonians and many other Uralic-speaking groups.
Posted by Davidski at 11:17:00 PM 236 comments:
Labels: ancient DNA, Corded Ware Culture, East Baltic, Estonia, Fennoscandia, Finnic, Finno-Ugric, Indo-European, N1c, N3a, Northeastern Europe, Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic, R1a, R1a-M417, Siberia, Uralic, Urals
Interesting map for OLS10, eh? I wrote about this guy here…
December 2, 2019 at 12:28 AM
M. Myllylä said…
I am not sure about the eastern/Volga route of the Baltic Finnic languages, but more northern origin through the Ladoga region is possible. Hopefully Russian researchers in future have success and are able to find something in one way or another. Moving from Volga to Estonia sounds unlikely.
December 2, 2019 at 6:07 AM
Oh no, Carlos! Alexa, play Despacito. Truth always wins out.
December 2, 2019 at 6:11 AM
@ Davidski Thank you for this very interesting post. It is very enlightening.
So, now we are anxiously waiting for the dearly cherished theory of the Volgaic origin of the Uralic languages being possibly debunked? I will accept the picture as it emerges from the ancient DNA data. In any case, I do not think that the Proto-Uralic language could have been spoken in a culture if it yields next to 0% of haplogroups carried by modern Uralic populations.
December 2, 2019 at 8:34 AM
Anthony Hanken said…
A rereading of Tambets et al. 2018 may be interesting in light of this paper and rumours. In it they offer two archealogical models for the spread of N3a into northeast Europe, which they link with Uralic languages. Comb-Ceramic/Volosovo favouring an older age estimate of PU and Seima-Turbino favouring a younger sge estimate.
In the picture of unpublished Reich samples it looks like there is a large cluster just east of the Urals in the forest-steppe. If these are ~2000BC they would likely be from the Krotov culture and maybe N-L1026. I know the SUGRIGE project is working with Reich’s lab so maybe they have a better understanding of things than we currently do regarding unpublished data.
Either way the Estonian IA samples definitely seem to support a demic diffusion of N-L1026 along with Uralic languages as the Tambets paper suggested, especially considering their relationship to modern Uralic speakers.
December 2, 2019 at 9:02 AM
@Anthony Hanken. Second option. In Central Siberia (before the arrival of the Andronov Indo-Iranian culture R1a-Z2124) it is a Krotov culture. After the arrival of the Andronov culture, it is a syncretic Samus culture (Western Siberia 3500-2000 BC). At the same time there were two crossings through the Urals. First, the tribes of Garino-Bor culture (Y9022) passed. Further back in Siberia, the M2019 subclades separated from the second group. Forth transition through Ural apparently makes L1026. In the Volga region, this group is the Chirkov culture it is also the Seimin-Turbin culture. Here one group Z1936 goes North, forming the Ananyin culture, and another group goes West, assimilating the remnants of the Fatyanovo culture R1a-?, Abashev and Srubnaya culture R1a-Z2124, Volosov culture I2a, Pozdnyakov culture R1b-Z2103, Lola culture G2A or J2 ???, as well as R1b-M73, the result is a syncretic culture of mesh ceramics ( CTS10760).
December 2, 2019 at 11:29 AM
By the way, these assimilated groups could not go to the Baltic, and remain in the Volga region. The structure of the gene pool of Mordvins (Fino-Ugric people): N1a-CTS10760-20%, R1a-Z2124-20%, I2a-20%, R1b-Z2103 -15%, R1b-M73 -10%, J2a – -10%
December 2, 2019 at 11:52 AM
M. Myllylä said…
@Davidski „Well, we’ve got the stone-cist grave people from Estonia who look like extreme Latvians and with a frequency of R1a of 100%. And then we’ve got all of the later folks from Iron Age Estonia, Ingria and Finland, who always show something from the east in their Y-DNA, mtDNA and/or autosomes. So the big picture is clear. Uralic languages and DNA came to the Baltic after the stone-cist grave people.”
Of course, Uralic languages are young in Baltic sea area, probably only 2000 years old, Saami a bit older.
But the mitochondrial message tells about older story, and Översti et al. used it, so I made some conclusions too. Making conclusions about genetic history of any areal population needs also to fit it to the present and there are obvious and admitted shortages now.
December 2, 2019 at 2:51 PM
@All Any thoughts about this? Basically, Proto-Uralic as a language of the fur road…
A diachronic linguistic geography for Uralic
December 2, 2019 at 3:41 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
You don’t have to be an expert on Uralic studies to know: Y DNA N1c and Uralic languages are from Asia (Siberia) not Europe. Seems people avoid acknowledging this. I’d say both ultimately trace back to a population with no European ancestry at all (meaning nothing with WHG in it). You guys seem to think it is likely the actual proto-Uralics who spread the language had mixed European, Asian ancestry. That makes sense. But, the ancestor of proto-Uralic definitely is from an Asian population.
If Bolysho-Oleni doesn’t qualify as Uralic according to expert archeaology and lingustics, they were definitly most derived Asian population who the proto-proto Uralics came from. But you really have to think they may have been Uralic. Because, what was this mostly Asian population with Y DNa N1c doing so far deep in Erope, if they didn’t have something to do with Uralic languages? You have to consider Bolysho-Oleni was proto-Saami.
December 2, 2019 at 6:58 PM
The Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov site is very mysterious. No one knows who these people were and where they came from. But yeah, looking back, I can’t see any convincing arguments why they couldn’t have been Uralic speakers.
December 2, 2019 at 8:42 PM
@Samuel Andrews. “ You have to consider Bolysho-Oleni was proto-Saami.” Apparently all so. But the big deer island is R1a-YP1272. Confuses that its sister line R1a-M198 appeared so far, in Mesolithic of Ukraine. Where they parted, that’s the question. It is logical that, too, somewhere in Siberia.
December 2, 2019 at 8:47 PM
@Davidski. According to the Russian researcher of Fino-Ugric languages Napolsky, based on ancient toponymy, under the layer of Fino-Ugric languages lies an unknown, but definitely not Fino-Ugric language. He calls it paleo European. One can assume that it is Fino-Ugric only in one case, accepting the theory of Carlos Quilis that the pit-comb pottery culture was the R1A-M459 culture. Then we can assume that haplogroup N1a1, arriving in Europe adopted an autochthonous language. However, this does not happen in life, the conqueror always imposes his language, and hardly N1a1 were an exception. Looking at the modern Finns is not think, but reading the appearance of the Volga tribes Chirkov culture becomes clear that it was a well-armed tribes, assimilated on its way all the tribes that existed in the Volga region before 2000 BC. Not just the same as the first kings of Rus and Lithuania were haplogroup N1a1.
December 2, 2019 at 9:05 PM
The R1a sample from the big deer island isn’t related to the samples from Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov. There’s a huge genetic difference between them. The R1a sample is EHG, with no Siberian ancestry, while the samples from Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov have around 50% ancestry from a population related to Nganasans from Siberia. So no, it doesn’t look like R1a arrived in Eastern Europe from Siberia.
December 2, 2019 at 9:10 PM
Right, well there’s no R1a in the samples from Bolshoy Oleny Ostrov. There is an R1a in a sample from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov (Karelia_HG I0061). But this sample isn’t related to the samples from Bolshoy Oleny Ostrov. They form two completely different populations.
December 2, 2019 at 10:01 PM
@Davidski. I agree. There is another version. So as R1a-YP1272 discovered together with man haplogroup J, on my J2a, then can be suggest, that they where the from Caucasian region. Off topic, but ngasany N1a-L666 diverged with the ancestors of the future Urals N1a-Z1956 about 16,000 years ago. This is a very distant connection, for the base you need to take something more approximate.
December 2, 2019 at 10:17 PM
The J in the Mesolithic sample from Karelia is J1, but this doesn’t mean that R1a arrived in Karelia from the Caucasus. The oldest R1a is on the steppe in Ukraine (~8,700 BC), and shows no signs of any recent ancestry from outside of this region.
December 2, 2019 at 10:41 PM
Vladimir, the conqueror does NOT always impose his language. Look at the case of the Bulgars who conquered the Slavic tribes in the Balkans, yet the language spoken to this day is Slavic. Bulgarians have a lot of Slavic ancestry but very little, if any, ancestry from the Bulgarians from the Volga. That’s probably why they speak Slavic.
December 2, 2019 at 10:42 PM
Johanna Nichols paper is a superficial mixture of geographic maps and linguistic graphs that are not explained. In any case, I don’t buy her idea that Estonian, Hungarian, Finnish or any Uralic language spread on the basis of fur trade. Her main linguistic conclusion seems to be this: ”Typologically, Proto-Uralic clusters with the greater Pacific Rim population of language: high causativation, inflectional person, fairly high POS flexibility, head final.”
Pacific Rim languages are Ainu, Nivkh and Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages.
In this map you can see where a Western Uralic language (Finnish) and an Eastern Uralic language (Hungarian) cluster typologically among the world languages (fig 1 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2010.0051). Finnish and Hungarian are closer to the core IE than Hindi is. Nivkh and Ainu are together on a completely different direction.
I suspect that Nichols has picked up some features that somehow support her idea and has discarded the rest. This is a good technique to get the result you want to have.
In the paper, causativization is explained with examples from two languages, Spanish and Ingush. I can add that for example in Khanty and Finnish, causative verb is usually made with infix ”tt”, e.g. istua ’to sit’, istuttaa, ’make sit’. In Arabic, the verb ’know’ is ʿalima, and it can be causativized with gemination, ʿallama ’teach’. I cannot see a huge difference between, for example
Finnish: istua ’to sit’, istuttaa, ’make sit’
Arabic, ʿalima ’to know’, ʿallama ’to teach’
As for inflectional person, it is not explained in the paper. An explanation of ”inflectional person” can be found here (https://books.google.fi/books?id=lnbnBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=%22inflectional+person%22&source=bl&ots=qRcFkJ24oA&sig=ACfU3U2nH76xJ3Ty6v67xq7OnIsRNQo-iQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs4ZW_6pjmAhWv_CoKHQLzDk4Q6AEwDXoECDEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22inflectional%20person%22&f=false)
I cannot see much difference in this respect between Uralic and IE languages.
Again, ”POS flexibility” (Part of speech flexibility) is not explained. However, I am wondering how any Uralic language could be more flexible than English in this respect. In all languages, it is possible to make verbs from nouns and nouns from verbs and adjectives from nouns, etc.
As regards, head final languages, English is head-initial and German is head-final. In Uralic language Finnish is head initial and Nenets is head-final. In this map (https://wals.info/feature/81A#2/18.0/153.1) you can see the distribution of SOV and SVO languages and in this map (https://wals.info/feature/87A#2/18.0/152.8) order of adjective and noun. I really cannot see any Uralic-Pacific Rim unity.
December 2, 2019 at 11:01 PM
Does this mean Panonian Avars were Uralic?
December 3, 2019 at 1:17 AM
Johanna Nichols’ presentation seems pretty non-controversial. She’s summarizing what can be inferred about the history of the Uralic language family based historical linguistics, and current and known historical distribution of the Uralic languages. It seems pretty consistent with what I’ve read from other historical linguists discussing this language family.
Uralic likely spread as a trade language. Traders married women from local peoples they traded with (as Nichols puts it, „Likely mechanism: local chiefs’ daughters marry rich traders (as with with French fur franchises in North America)”. The Uralic languages borrowed extensively from other languages, including IE languages as different places and time periods.
Immediate- family kinship terms in Uralic languages are frequently loanwords, but terms referring to extended family are retained from Proto-Uralic. This makes sense if traders’ children often grew up in bilingual households, but it was important to maintain extended family contacts across larger areas of the trade network where the local languages were different. (Terms in the Uralic lingua franca would be preferred in this context. Within the immediate family terms from either Uralic or the local language could be used.)
In the case of Estonian and Finnish, the substrate language is IE, presumably a language ancestral to Baltic and Slavic, for instance, the Estonian word for „sister” is sõsar, in Finnish, it’s sisar,from PIE *swesōr. (Sami languages and Finnish also have loans from Proto-Germanic that are not shared with Estonian.)
Nichols also discusses loanwords from Indo-Iranian languages in Uralic. (If I remember correctly, the pattern of borrowings here suggests trade contact, but not intermarriage. I might be misremembering.) These loans aren’t shared with Samoyedic languages.
December 3, 2019 at 3:17 AM
@ Davidski @ Vladimir
R1a, like R1b, arrived in Eastern Europe from Siberia, but in the Final Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic.
Bulgarians did not win Slavs, they have entered into the union relations with Seven Slavic tribes against Byzantium and Avar, thus the union with the subsequent creation of the state was formed.
December 3, 2019 at 3:22 AM
R1b is in Europe by at least 16000 BP; long before FP/ early Mesolithic
“Seven Slavic tribes against Byzantium and Avar, thus the union with the subsequent creation of the state was formed.”
Modern Bulgarians are Vlachs and Slavs from Macedonia. First Bulgarian empire ceased to exist after Basil destroyed it ; the Rus overan it. It was the settled mostly by Turkics (Patztinaks; Cumans) until the aforesaid reconquista
December 3, 2019 at 3:35 AM
Nomic Belief said…
According to my understanding of recent archeology (the little read from papers by W. Lang), the stone cist graves in Estonia should rather represent coast-dwelling Germanic culture than Baltic. The ppl in those graves being „genetically Baltic” may thus not mean they were Baltic by language or culture, despite shared ancestry?
December 3, 2019 at 4:16 AM
Don’t pay attention to Johanna Nichols. She’s always delirious, she’s getting IE out of „India”. She always fantasizes without any arguments and without any understanding of the issue.
„R1b is in Europe by at least 16000 BP; long before FP/ early Mesolithic”
LOL. 16000 BP is Final Paleolithic, which you have specifically reduced to FP so that it wouldn’t be visible.
“Seven Slavic tribes against Byzantium and Avar, thus the union with the subsequent creation of the state was formed. Modern Bulgarians are Vlachs and Slavs from Macedonia . First Bulgarian empire ceased to exist after Basil destroyed it ; the Rus overan it It was the settled mostly by Turkics (Patztinaks; Cumans) until the aforesaid reconquista”
You don’t know what you’re writing about and what you’re talking about.
December 3, 2019 at 4:24 AM
There’s absolutely nothing Germanic about the ancestry of the people in the stone-cist graves, so even if they were Germanic speakers they were derived from a Baltic-related population that probably spoke something related to Baltic.
December 3, 2019 at 4:25 AM
@ Nomic Belief
What are the archaeological elements that show that Stone Cist people spoke Germanic?
December 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM
I agree with Kristiina that Nichols’ discussion of typological features is pretty dubious. Historical linguists usually caution against reading to much into these kinds of resemblances unless there’s also other evidence of a connection. The rest, though, seems like pretty standard stuff.
The idea that trade networks may have been involved in the spread of Uralic languages isn’t new, or something Johanna Nichols came up with. Ante Aikio has also discussed this, and has gone into some detail about how he thinks this may have played out in the spread of the Sami languages. I think Aikio knows his stuff, whatever you think of Nichols. („Knows his stuff” doesn’t mean he’s infallible, of course, but I take what he has to say quite seriously.)
December 3, 2019 at 5:04 AM
Nomic Belief said…
„What are the archaeological elements that show that Stone Cist people spoke Germanic?”
Well, you should better be asking this from prof. Lang. Anyway, the grave style is probably from Gotland and Scandinavia, as is their advanced coastal agriculture. Also the geography and time frame match the people whose pre-germanic coastal life vocabulary the Uralic immigrants assimilated. That sounds more probable to me than taking them for some kind of pre-Balts, or for whichever of the previous paleo folks that were decimated apparently due to severe climate. So, I rather see them more probably Germanic than Baltic notwithstanding the genetic profile. Is there some other reason not to see the stone cist people (pre-)Germanic?
December 3, 2019 at 5:38 AM
@ Kristiina „What are the archaeological elements that show that Stone Cist people spoke Germanic?”
This is one of V. Lang’s theories from his book „Finnic be-comings” („Läänemeresoome tulemised”). Two paragraphs from his summary:
„At around 1500 BC in western and southern coastal Finland and around 1200 BC in northern coastal Estonia people started to build monumental stone-cist graves above ground. As the grave type (together with some other evidence) refers directly to the west, i.e. Proto-Germanic-speaking Scandinavia, one has to consider the establishment of Germanic settlement on both sides of the Gulf of Finland. One can suppose that this Germanic population came from different parts of Scandinavia because in northern Estonia they were well-established agriculturalists (the closest parallels being with Gotland; Fig. 6.1) but in coastal Finland there is not much evidence on agricultural activity by this population at that time.”
„From the Daugava valley the members of the language group Finnic AB shifted northwards to the Estonian, Finnish and central Swedish coasts, where they met Proto-Germanic speaking populations. Unlike the very frst pioneers, the communities of fortifed settlements that reached coastal Estonia and Finland in the 9th century or around 800 BC settled within the core areas inhabited by this population. As a result of the establishment of mixed, bilingual settlements of Finnic and Germanic communities, the language Finnic AB received a strong Germanic inﬂuence and gradually became Finnic ABG (the middle PF). This could happen only in the coastal zone of Estonia, Finland, central Sweden, and Courland (Fig. 6.7) inhabited supposedly by Germanic-speaking populations before the arrival of newcomers from the SouthWestern Passage. The earlier Germanic population east of the Baltic Sea was later assimilated by the Finnic; the communities burying their dead in stone-cist graves gradually acquired new ‘eastern’ customs, such as using pottery in funerals and adding new tarand-like structures to graves that had initially built to be circular in design (Fig. 6.8).”
December 3, 2019 at 5:38 AM
Actually, some ancient Gotlanders have genetic profiles similar to the stone-cist grave people in Estonia, and also to Balts. So the migration of the stone-cist people may have gone from the East Baltic to Gotland, rather than the other way around. There’s really no ancient DNA evidence of any Germanic settlements in Estonia during the Bronze Age.
December 3, 2019 at 5:48 AM
Link to „Finnic be-comings” pdf format. The English summary is at the end.
December 3, 2019 at 5:54 AM
This is the description of the same period in Gotland:
In the Early Bronze age around 1800 BC the same burial pattern tied to the coastal areas is continued, and at that time it is sometimes seen that some of the late Neolithic stone cists were covered by a monumental stone cairn, and additional burials were added outside the stone cist (Burenhult, 1986, p. 344–351; Stensköld, 2004, p. 155–157). This act protected the old genealogical burial place and possibly tied these earlier generations to the followers, as well as, the cairns became clearly visible monuments in the landscape.
The bronze finds on Gotland show local character in the ornamentation already in period I (Montelius period system) but with close resemblance with finds from areas to the South West and South East. Finds of so called Mälardal axes show connections to the East but also ties to the East Swedish area. During the late Bronze Age the connections with the East Nordic area are stronger than contacts with South Scandinavia according to Hansson (1927, p. 100p). Eriksson (2010xx) who have studied pottery from the Bronze and Iron Age contexts in East Sweden suggests that Gotland show a mixed find material and contacts from several areas around the Baltic Sea are indicated.
During this time was an extensive farming and herding method used. According to Lindquist (Ibid) the land-use changed into intensification of agriculture with arable meadows and grazing in smaller “privatised” established areas with a fencing system, during the pre-Roman Iron Age. These types of smaller irregular farming units are also found in Estonia. Lang (1996) calls these “Baltic fields” and according to him they reflect the boundaries of clearing of the arable soil and centered on clearing cairns. Thus they diverge from the larger regular Celtic fields, which reflect a conscious land-division and land ownership. Hallin (2002, p. 34) suggest that the Baltic field type is found on Gotland as well.
Source : Prehistoric lifestyles on Gotland – Diachronic and Synchronic perspectives
December 3, 2019 at 6:51 AM
@Davidski „There’s really no ancient DNA evidence of any Germanic settlements in Estonia during the Bronze Age.”
For the Bronze Age it is incorrect to speak about the Germanics, we can only talk about links with specific territories of Scandinavia. There were no Germanics at that time. Therefore, nothing contradicts the fact that Estonia and Eastern Scandinavia were connected in the Bronze Age, they also have the haplogroup R1a-Z283. Nowadays, genetics does not show the direction of connections, but archeology says that it was from Scandinavia to the Eastern Baltic. Of course, there were no Finns there at the time.
December 3, 2019 at 7:19 AM
So the intensified farming means this: „According to Lindquist (Ibid) the land-use changed into intensification of agriculture with arable meadows and grazing in smaller “privatised” established areas with a fencing system, during the pre-Roman Iron Age.”
In Scandinavia, Pre-Roman Iron Age is from 5th to 1st centuries BC. Can anyone find out from Lang’s book when the „Baltic fields” appear in Estonia? Pre-Roman Iron Age is already the period of Tarands in Estonia.
December 3, 2019 at 7:43 AM
According to Lang’s book
Estonian Archaeology 3 Valter Lang The Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Estonia, p. 101, the oldest part in the Saha-Loo field complex is from the Middle Bronze Age, ca 14th-11th centuries BC. This means that these intensive fields are clearly older in Estonia than in Gotland.
December 3, 2019 at 7:59 AM
Does this mean Panonian Avars were Uralic? Hungarian scholars considered this possibility for a while (for example he: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3 ), but the current academic consensus is against it.
December 3, 2019 at 8:48 AM
Nomic Belief said…
„Actually, some ancient Gotlanders have genetic profiles similar to the stone-cist grave people in Estonia, and also to Balts.”
Actually, I almost brought this up but was not sure enough. Thanks for confirming this. That is a telling point about the ancient Gotlanders. It is, however, difficult to identify them as plain Balts based on genetics. Probably these supposedly Pre-Germanic folks or whoever were some kind of mix, at least on the islands and the Eastern shore of the Baltic Sea.
„So the migration of the stone-cist people may have gone from the East Baltic to Gotland, rather than the other way around.”
True, it is a possibility. OTOH the population and grave numbers are very few in Estonia/Saaremaa, so which direction is more probable is up for debate.
„There’s really no ancient DNA evidence of any Germanic settlements in Estonia during the Bronze Age.”
I guess this depends on the ethnic identity of the individuals found in stone cist burials.
December 3, 2019 at 9:10 AM
@Slumberry – Hungarian scholars considered this possibility for a while (for example he: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3 ), but the current academic consensus is against it.
According to this a majority of Avar-era Y-DNA sampled was N1, so it seems pretty damned likely that there were at least some Uralics in that coalition I’d think.
December 3, 2019 at 9:38 AM
capra internetensis said…
The Avar N1 was mainly N-B197, the branch containing Turko-Mongolic N-F4205 (peaks in Buryats) and Chukotkan N-B202 (Chukchis and Asian Eskimos). None of it looks Uralic AFAICT. On the other hand the Conqueror period has several N-Z1936(xL1034), a largely Uralic branch.
December 3, 2019 at 11:11 AM
All Avar samples (with enough resolution) belong to N-Y16323/B197, or more specifically to Y16312 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y16323/). The highest frequency of Y16312 is in Buryats (18.4%). It is also found in Altaians. Y16323 is not found in any Uralic population. IMO, it is quite safe to say that these Avars spoke a Turkic language. Instead, none of the Hungarians belonged to Y16323/B197. Hungarian yDNA haplotypes are mostly shared with Uralic populations.
December 3, 2019 at 11:13 AM
@ Archi “16000 BP is Final Paleolithic, which you have specifically”
Nope. It’s Bolling Allerod-> late glacial. FP is 12/11,000; and certainly not Mesolithic, as you claimed .
“You don’t know what you’re writing about and what you’re talking about.”
Aha. Where’s all the Hunno-Bulgar ancestry in modern “Bulgarians”? Basil the Bulgar slayer ….
December 3, 2019 at 11:50 AM
@Ryan In the South-West krotovtsy reached Northern Kazakhstan (monument Vishnovka-1), where they, in our opinion, coexisted with Petrovka culture Z2124, as evidenced by the presence of characteristic features of Petrovka in the ornamentation of ceramics Krotovka monuments of the area. So the subclade of future Avars Y16323 separated from future Balto-Finns CTS10760 about 2700 years BC, i.e. in Siberia. I think that Y16323 were the southernmost tribe, but they were obviously Fino-Ugric language, but apparently were assimilated first by the Scythians, then the Turks and then joined the Avar cocktail.
December 3, 2019 at 12:30 PM
@Rob What evidence suggest Bulgaria harbored high Turkic populations that were replaced continually by Vlachs and Slavs from Macedonia?
December 3, 2019 at 12:49 PM
@ Gabriel Are you telling me that you’re not aware of the Ogur -Turkic origin of Bulgars ? Or that the newly conquered Bulgarian territories were settled by cumans & Pechenegs who settled in 10-12th cc The 2md Bulgarian empire was led by Vlachs, who’s origin is a mystery but they first attested in the central balkan region & supported by DNA and by the fact that they spoke romance
December 3, 2019 at 12:58 PM
@Rob No, I mean, many believe Turks to have been a minority population in Bulgaria. That’s why I was asking.
December 3, 2019 at 1:04 PM
20,000 horsemen isn’t exactly a minority in 6th century mountain lands. That’s a population of 50,-60,000
December 3, 2019 at 1:08 PM
“16000 BP is Final Paleolithic, which you have specifically”
Nope. It’s Bolling Allerod-> late glacial.
FP is 12/11,000; and certainly not Mesolithic, as you claimed .”
You are a liar, I did not even write this date, but you’re talking nonsense as usual, 12,000 BP is an early Mesolithic. At least don’t write your nonsense from an uneducated person, for example, we looked at the dates of the Iron Gate Mesolithic.
Mesolithic England Gough’s Cave, Cheddar [Not Cheddar Man] 12700 BC
Mesolithic Natufian Israel Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel [I1685 / Nat 4] 11840-9760 BCE
Mesolithic Italy Grotta Continenza, Abruzzo [Continenza] 11200-10510 cal BP
Mesolithic Iron Gates Serbia Vlasac [I4657 / VLSC_1G/3] 9755-9275 calBCE (9942±66 BP, PSUAMS-2294, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect)
And in general – R1b 14000BP, Palaeolithic Epigravettian Italy Villabruna, Sovramonte – Belluno, Veneto 12230-11830 calBCE (12140±70 BP, KIA-27004) M R1b1a mammoth hunter is as shameful as ever.
December 3, 2019 at 1:21 PM
@ Archi ”And in general – R1b 14000BP, Palaeolithic Epigravettian Italy Villabruna, Sovramonte – Belluno, Veneto 12230-11830 calBCE (12140±70 BP, KIA-27004) M R1b1a”
So if it made it to Italy by 14,000, it was certainly present by 16,000 EPigravettian period stretches back to 25,000 BP
And I don’t know what Israel or Gough’s cave have anything to do with it; there is no ”Mesolithic” in Isreal, its called an ‚Epipaleolithic’ . You have no clue
December 3, 2019 at 2:55 PM
Mr. Rob gehn mamonth hunter … As a typical embarrassed troll, you’re twisting through a lie. I wrote to you to look at the Iron Gates because you were shamefully yelling that in 1200BP there was no Mesolithic. You lied that the R1b you found had a date of 16000BP, and now you’re twisting it. You shouted that 16000BP is not the Final Paleolithic, and now you are twisting.
Epipaleolithic Turkey Pinarbași [ZBC] 13642-13073 cal BCE
Epipaleolithic France Rochedane, Villars-sous-Dampjoux 11140-10880 calBCE (11120±50 BP, GrA-41739)
I actually wrote the Final Paleolithic/Early Mesolithic period, you’re the one who set the dates. Remember, I’m not going to listen to you scream ignorant, you’re disgusting.
December 3, 2019 at 3:22 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Anthony Hanken, „I would bet this populations was 100% Nganassan like and non-Uralic speaking originally. Wether it was originally N-L1026 is something I can not say but by the time this group reached the Kola peninsula it was clearly mixed with something else, maybe something Uralic?”
By, Y DNA N is an Asian haplogroup (originally) so they didn’t pick it up in Europe.
December 3, 2019 at 4:10 PM
@Rob You don’t know anything about terminology at all. You think it’s the same everywhere and you give some meaningless references. The Final Palaeolithic (Epipalaeolithic) is simply an abbreviation of words of the final Upper Palaeolithic (final stages), any specific meaning is given to it by local archaeologists studying specific cultures. All terminology is relative. Read and learn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epipalaeolithic.
December 3, 2019 at 4:21 PM
Yeah, see that’s why there’s so much talk about the link between Siberian ancestry and the Uralic language family, even though those early Uralic speakers from the Tarand graves had very little Siberian ancestry on their autosomes. The general consensus is that proto-Uralics came from somewhere near the Urals, but some linguists propose that the pre-proto-Uralic language came from Siberia.
And from what I’ve been seeing in recent years, there might be a push coming to do away with the pre-proto-Uralic thing, and just say that the proto-Uralic language came from Siberia. You can see that in the stuff posted here IMHO…
December 3, 2019 at 4:23 PM
@Davidski „The general consensus is that proto-Uralics came from somewhere near the Urals, but some linguists propose that the pre-proto-Uralic language came from Siberia.”
Napol’skich and other Russian scientists have long argued that Uralic languages existed in Siberia, and only the Finno-Volgian (FU without Ugrian) ones crossed the Uralic mountains. All the bother in a completely unsuccessful name „Uralic” languages.
December 3, 2019 at 4:33 PM
As everything always seems to boil down to the speculation about the area of origin of N N-M2126, formed 7500 ybp, and N-L1026, formed 6300 ybp, I hope that the geneticists start screening the taiga area. Although I am not at all convinced that N-M2126 spoke Proto-Uralic, it is clear that the place where these y lines will hopefully be one day found is very significant for the understanding of the origin of Uralic languages. I hope that I need not wait the rest of my life until this riddle is solved.
December 3, 2019 at 10:17 PM
M. Myllylä said…
In my opinion the biggest difference between Bolshoy and Levanluhta is that B is a mixture of Baltic HG and Siberian and the latter one Baltic CWC and Siberian. How did this happen? Bolshoy looks like an older concept of Siberian-European admixture and Levanluhta went through a modernization process somewhere near Ladogan, in Finland or near the Baltic area anyway. But there is nothing Baltic Finnic in both samples. In this area the cock crow of Uralic people was younger and Levanluhta admixture was born in Finland before them, meaning that CWC, or Baltic BA if you wish, was the ruling component in South Finland still around 2ky ago.
December 4, 2019 at 2:50 AM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Anthony Hanken, „N being from Asia is completely irrelevant. I am talking about N-L1026, a specific subclade relevant to Uralic speakers. Are all R1b sublades from Asia because R* is? We currently don’t have enough data to know where N-L1026 was born 6300ybp.”
There’s no Y DNA N in Europe predating Bolysho Oleni. Bolshyo Oleni is the first Y DNA N in Europe plus they have about 50% East Asian ancestry. So, it looks like Y DNA N in Europe „recently” arrived from Asia.
December 4, 2019 at 9:08 AM
Anthony Hanken said…
@Samuel Andrews „There’s no Y DNA N in Europe predating Bolysho Oleni. Bolshyo Oleni is the first Y DNA N in Europe”
The oldest N in Europe sampled so far. There are still huge swaths of Russia north of the steppe that remain completely unsampled. Unfortunately this is the area most key to understanding N-L1026’s expansion in to Europe.
„plus they have about 50% East Asian ancestry. So, it looks like Y DNA N in Europe „recently” arrived from Asia.”
BOO also has 50% EHG ancestry. N obviously entered Europe from Asia but believing an isolated population on the Kola peninsula is the be all end all of all Eurpean N is flawed thinking. By 1500BC N-L1026 was probably already spread along the forest-steppe and could have entered a circum-arctic group anywhere along the way at that point.
December 4, 2019 at 10:06 AM
“The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European”
A lot of articles, some open access:
Indo-Uralic hypothesis, if true, would suggest that the precursor of PIE was EHG language IMO.
December 4, 2019 at 1:32 PM
@EastPole „Indo-Uralic hypothesis, if true, would suggest that the precursor of PIE was EHG language”
There is no doubt about the truth of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. However, after separation in Mesolithic (or before), the PIE and the proto-Uralic languages were not in contact before the proto-Indo-Iranian period (Napol’skikh).
December 4, 2019 at 3:03 PM
@Archi – „There is no doubt about the truth of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis.”
What? They don’t even have the same counting base.
December 4, 2019 at 3:24 PM
If Indo-Uralic is true then F-U can’t be associated with N or Altai. Uralic is EHG; whilst PIE is originally from eastern WHG.
December 4, 2019 at 3:49 PM
@Rob „If Indo-Uralic is true then F-U can’t be associated with N or Altai. Uralic is EHG; whilst PIE is originally from eastern WHG”
It’s full absurd. Uralic was Siberian before Iron age. EHG was European. You always don’t understand any topic you’re trying to talk about. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis concerns the kinship of languages during the Palaeolithic period.
December 4, 2019 at 3:56 PM
Y-haplogroup N is not an East Asian lineage, but a Siberian one. It’s found in West Siberian hunter-gatherers and even samples associated with the Poltavka culture (Mereke_MBA). Keep in mind also that Eastern European and West Siberian hunter-gatherers are distantly related and were probably always in contact with each other in the Urals region. And just because modern Uralic speakers don’t have much West Siberian hunter-gatherer ancestry, it doesn’t mean that Proto-Uralics didn’t, nor that Uralic-specific subclades of N aren’t derived from populations rich in West Siberian hunter-gatherer ancestry. So Proto-Uralic can be from Siberia and at the same time related to Proto-Indo-European.
December 4, 2019 at 4:05 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Davidski, West Siberian Hgs had tiny (15-20%) East Asian ancestry. Also, what about the ancient relationship between y-haplogroup N and y-haplogroup O (the main hg in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc)? Can’t imagine Y-haplogroup N isn’t ultimately from East Asia.
December 4, 2019 at 4:10 PM
N might be ultimately from East Asia, but even if that’s true, it’s native to Siberia, because it’s found in indigenous Siberian foragers with, as you say, very little East Asian ancestry. Do we have any indigenous East Asian foragers belonging to N? Not that I’m aware of.
So the low levels of West Siberian ancestry and relatively high levels of East Asian ancestry in Uralic speakers might not have anything to do with the origins of their subclades of N.
December 4, 2019 at 4:17 PM
Anthony Hanken said…
Your right, I should have said north of the forest-steppe.
Again if N is from East Asia (Northeast China?) we are talking about over 20,000ybp, completely irrelevant to Uralic or neolithic WSHGs.
December 4, 2019 at 4:24 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Anthony Hanken, By East Asia I mean East Asian genetically not geographically. East Asian derived people lived in Siberia by at least 10,000yo. Bolysho Oleni descended from Siberian peoples of mostly East Asian origin. West Siberia HGs were part East Asian btw which could easily explain their Y haplogroup N.
There’s no Y-haplogroup N recorded in ancient Europe yet predating BOO. EHG, Baltic Hgs are all R1b, I2, R1a, and a few Q. The chances N-L1026 derives from this low, just like it is a low chance R1b L151 derives from Neolithic Spain.
December 4, 2019 at 4:40 PM
@David – „N might be ultimately from East Asia, but even if that’s true, it’s native to Siberia, because it’s found in indigenous Siberian foragers with, as you say, very little East Asian ancestry.”
N is also found in Vietnamese populations but I’ve never seen you suggest they have even a sliver of Siberian ancestry. I’d say rather that WSHG was the western limit of N’s ancient range, but that range extended pretty far East, and reasonably far south. Wasn’t the Longshan culture along the Yellow River rich in N?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the ultimate origin of N and the ancestors of Uralics is somewhere between the Yellow and Amur rivers.
December 4, 2019 at 4:44 PM
Anthony Hanken said…
N doesn’t show up in Southeast Asia until the iron age. As far as Longshan goes the subclades are unknown. There are plenty of old Chinese branches of N Longshan could be but if they aren’t N-L708 then they can not be the ancestors of Uralics.
December 4, 2019 at 5:18 PM
@ Davidski “So Proto-Uralic can be from Siberia and at the same time related to Proto-Indo-European.”
That’s not really viable. Unless Uralic is an EHG language; or indo-Uralic isn’t real
December 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM
Ric Hern said…
Or if Proto-Uralic and PIE indeed were closer than Haplogroup Q Languages it could be that Haplogroup N was bordering Haplogroup R1s in the North for significantly longer than Q bordered R1s to their East…so maybe the Sub-Arctic was always N territory and they only sporadically made excursions Southwards.
December 4, 2019 at 9:50 PM
Ric Hern said…
Maybe this Northern distribution is why Uralic share both somethings with both Altaic and Indo-European (R) and Altaic (Q) and Indo-European are more distant from each other ?
December 4, 2019 at 10:07 PM
@ Ric It’s hard to guess, but I think Siberia & EE went their own ways after 15000 BP. But some occasional hg Q, mtDNA R1b -associated admixture contnued to trickle in via boreal path. I think there might be something to the ice-path theory for N1.
December 4, 2019 at 11:35 PM
Huck Finn said…
Proto Uralic ceased to exist around 2000 BCE. Based on all we know, for the time being, it was spoken near Ural area, possibly next to Volga-Kama interfluve. Pre Proto Uralic then might have been West Siberian or not, we don’t know.
Also, really old mutation levels of N predating even Ice Age don’t have anything to do with Proto Uralic or even Pre Proto Uralic, in terms of scientific discussion. Some next-to-Ural-area specific younger sublineages of N such as still pretty Uralic N-Y9022 TMRCA 3900 YBP in my opinion however do support the idea that N has resided in the area already during the emergence of Proto Uralic language. This, even if there are younger sublineages such as very much (Siberian) Turkic N-M2019 TMRCA 3800 YBP.
That being said, this sentence of D makes a lot of sense, especially after Narasimhan et al have shown that WSHG type of genebase was apparently present also in that Volga-Kama interfluve:
„And just because modern Uralic speakers don’t have much West Siberian hunter-gatherer ancestry, it doesn’t mean that Proto-Uralics didn’t, nor that Uralic-specific subclades of N aren’t derived from populations rich in West Siberian hunter-gatherer ancestry.”
Then there are posts, however for instance those of Anthony’s excluded, which don’t make a lot of sense.
December 5, 2019 at 12:10 AM
@ Anthony These are Chinese Neolithic samples from Cui et al, 2013:
Niuheliang Hongshan, 5000 ypb: 4 N (xN1a, N1c),1 C3e,1 O3a3
Halahaigou, Hongshan-Xiaoheyan culture, 4500 YBP 12 x N1(xN1a, N1c)
Miaozigou, Inner Mongolia, Yangshao Culture, 5500 YBP 3 x N1(xN1a, N1c)
You see that they are all xN1a and N1c.
Instead, N1a (N1a2-L666 according to ISOGG 2019) and N1c (N1a1-M46/TAT according to ISOGG 2019) have been detected in the Baikal Neolithic, and the oldest published Baikal sample is dated to 7123 ybp. Although Uralic N which is under N1a-F1206 is closer to Baikal N1a2-L666 than to Chinese Neolithic N1b-F2930, the typical Uralic N1a1a1a1a-L1026 has not yet been found in the east. N1a1a1a1a-L1026 was detected in Zhizhitskaya culture ca 2500 BC close to Smolensk. I hope that other samples from this site would be analyzed with modern techniques. Moreover, the oldest split in the N tree is between N2-Y6503 (Botai) and the rest, and N2 has only been found in the west.
If we have a look at the issue from a broader perspective, we see that Ust Ishim in Siberia ca 45 kya is K2a. Then Tianyuan ca 33 kya close to Beijing is K2b, Yana samples ca 30 kya are P1. Malta1 24 kya is R*. The tropical hunter-gatherers in Southeast Asia are D and C, respectively. Ydna O is Neolithic in Southeast Asia and N arrives with Iron Age. The ancient evidence has been consistently against Southeast Asian origin of yDNA K2.
Considering the structure of K2 haplogroups and the current ancient evidence, one must conclude that K2 was the first haplogroup to move to the northern latitudes. N and Q remained there, but O headed to the southeast and R to the southwest.
December 5, 2019 at 1:47 AM
Linguists do not doubt the relationship between the PIE and the Uralic languages, there are unambiguous phonetic correspondences and common vocabulary, which cannot be explained by borrowing. This commonality is determined by the final Upper Paleolithic (maybe including the beginning of the Mesolithic). Uralic languages lived in Siberia, as their vocabulary makes clear; they were not present in Europe until the Iron Age.
EHG+R1a came to Europe from Siberia in the final Upper Palaeolithic-Early Mesolithic. EHG is related to WSHG, so says genetics. That unequivocally proves that only EHG+R1a is a PIE, but not a WHG and CHG, in Siberia from Baikal to the Urals at that time were inhabited by their Uralic-speaking relatives with WSHG.
This is the way it should be according to the theory, the carriers of N should have absorbed the Indo-Uralic language from proto-EHG+R1a+(?).
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Lokomotiv, Irkutsk [LOK_1980.006 and LOK_1981.024.01] 5500-4885 BC M R1a1-M17 2 samples
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Shamanka II [DA245, SHA_2006.076, Grave 76] 6065-5916 calBCE (7123±37 BP, OxA-26456) M N1c2b2-L666
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Shamanka II [DA248, SHA_2005.063.01, Grave 63-1] 5755-5635 calBCE (6815±38 BP, OxA-25327) M N1c2b2-L666
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Shamanka II [DA247, SHA_2004.051, Grave 51] 6856 ± 40 BP, OxA-21526 M N-M231
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Shamanka II [DA250, SHA_1998.006, Grave 6] 6483 ± 37 BP, OxA-27054 M? NO1-M214
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Shamanka II [DA251, SHA_2008.108.03, Grave 108-3] 6373 ± 32 BP, OxA-21503 M N1-M2291
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Shamanka II [DA362, SHA_2004.049.01, Grave 49-1] 6319 ± 33 BP, OxA-24793 M? N1c2b2-L666
Neolithic Isakovo Russia Ust’-Ida [DA345, UID_1995.056.01, Grave 56-1] 4730 ± 70 BP M N1c1-M46-M2080
The Zhyzhytsky sample is dated very indirectly, it is somewhere there stashed at the bottom without radiocarbon dating and research of the reservoir effect, so its dating cannot be trusted.
December 5, 2019 at 4:13 AM
@Kristina „N1a1a1a1a-L1026 was detected in Zhizhitskaya culture ca 2500 BC close to Smolensk.”
There is not N1a1a1a1a-L1026 there. There is simple N1c there.
Neolithic Zhizhitskaya Russia Serteya II (Smolenskaya oblast’) [A6] after 2500 BC M N1c Chekunova E. M. et al. (2014)
December 5, 2019 at 4:40 AM
The GenomeAsia 100K Project enables genetic discoveries across Asia
Lots of European genes in Asia
December 5, 2019 at 6:59 AM
„On the other hand, the views that the Uralic language family is native to Northern Europe and/or closely associated with the CWC are fringe theories usually espoused by people not familiar with the topic or, unfortunately it has to be said, mentally unstable trolls.”
Peter Schrijver, not a troll and a pretty well respected linguist, considers a Uralic substrate in Germanic, concluding that Germanic was a IE languages imposed on native Uralic speaker.
His line of reasoning is that a very typical Germanic sound shift, Verner’s law, has a pretty exact replica in Finnish. There, it is considered a so called onsonant gradation, a phenomenon known in more Uralic languages, although with different characteristics.
I think also Parpola at least for some times considered the option.
December 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM
I don’t think there is any other evidence for Uralic languages in Scandinavia – not a trace in toponyms – so there must be a different explanation. One could be that the Finnish consonant degradation is simply a result from CWC or Nordic Bronze Age in Finland, i.e. it is independent from such phenomena in other Uralic languages. Or some older shared substrate. It *is* interesting though. No other IE language has such a thing where sound shifts depend on stress of syllable following it, if I understand it all correctly.
December 5, 2019 at 11:37 AM
„There, it is considered a so called onsonant gradation, a phenomenon known in more Uralic languages, although with different characteristics.”
The very origin of the consonant gradation in the Finnish is mysterious, as it does not exist in other Uralic languages. Most likely, it dates back to the ancient European(?) substratum.
„Peter Schrijver, not a troll and a pretty well respected linguist, considers a Uralic substrate in Germanic, concluding that Germanic was a IE languages imposed on native Uralic speaker.”
Therefore, he is mistaken, he simply does not consider the fact that in Finnish it is a unique phenomenon even in relation to other Uralic, and therefore could not be passed on to anyone from the Finns, because the Finns borrowed it themselves.
December 5, 2019 at 11:57 AM
Samoyedic languages have a form of consonant gradation:
December 5, 2019 at 12:08 PM
@ Ryan “Prove it. Show that „all linguists agree Indo-Uralic is true.””
Has Archie yet been able to prove anything ?
December 5, 2019 at 12:12 PM
@epoch „Samoyedic languages have a form of consonant gradation”
They just seem similar, but they function differently. Therefore, in Samoyedic languages it is called an alternation consonants, not a consonant gradation.
December 5, 2019 at 12:32 PM
“I don’t think there is any other evidence for Uralic languages in Scandinavia – not a trace in toponyms – so there must be a different explanation. One could”
Toponyms are an almost useless line of evidence; long misused. What’s the common thread ? Battled Axe.
December 5, 2019 at 2:39 PM
@Rob gehn „early cwc wasnt IE”
Go to Carlos Quelles, you’ll be welcomed there, you’ve never been right about anything, and you haven’t been able to prove anything to anyone.
@Anthony Hanken „The oldest BHGs are only from the 7500ybp IRC and there is a branch of N-L666 with a TMRCA of 7800ybp in China.”
You can’t see that, you consider marginal branch that was at the beginning it to be a basal, but that’s a mistake. The fact is that China borders both with the Baikal region and Amur river. Therefore, everything that is located on the territory of eastern Baikal and Amur, all this inevitably gets to China, but this is North Chine. You can see how far migrations have gone, that there are Koreans and Japanese in the late branches, as well as Vietnamese. In general, there is no sense in separating eastern Baikal, Amur, and Northern China (Manchuria). The branch N-F1101 most likely belonged to Altaic languages such as Manchurian or most likely Japan-Korean.
December 5, 2019 at 3:07 PM
@ Archie Prove what language BAx spoke. If Germanic substrate is related to FU then BAx is a possible link. In any case; Germanic arrived late to Scandinavia. And don’t get too lippy; you’d drop in a second
December 5, 2019 at 3:58 PM
@Rob Battle-Axe is considered Indo-European based on linguistic, archeological and genetic data. It’s the ancient culture that links Germanic speaking groups to Balts, Slavs and Indo-Iranians archeologically and genetically. The idea that Battle-Axe was a Finnic culture doesn’t stand a chance. It’ll never be accepted by any serious scholars because it doesn’t make any sense in terms of linguistics, archeology or genetics.
December 5, 2019 at 4:09 PM
By the way, Battle-Axe need not have been the sole precursor to Germanic to be the link between Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. Its people may even have spoken a now extinct Indo-European language, but Indo-European nonetheless.
A theory like this is outlined in this recent thesis:
The shared lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic
December 5, 2019 at 4:17 PM
@epoch „His line of reasoning is that a very typical Germanic sound shift, Verner’s law, has a pretty exact replica in Finnish.”
Werner’s law certainly cannot came from the ancient substratum, because it appeared after all the Germanic movements of consonants and it is very poorly represented in the Gothic language, i.e. it is very limited in the Gothic language, it simply did not have time to spread in it, so it could not appear before the boundary of the Eras. And in fact, it is not even common German, because it acts differently in different languages and on different consonants, it had different rules in different Germanic languages.
December 5, 2019 at 4:30 PM
@ Sam ”Let me guess, you think before 500 BC, Scandinavia spoke non-IE. Just like you think before 500 BC, Western Europe spoke non-IE.”
The non-IE character of western Europe is professed by majority of scholars. Scandinavia is more difficult, but yes, Germanic is generally posited to have been spoken after 500 BC (evoloving of course). Your (mis)understanding of genomic evidence doesn’t change anything for me.
December 5, 2019 at 4:59 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, „Germanic is generally posited to have been spoken after 500 BC (evoloving of course). ”
Yes, but it didn’t appear out of nowhere. Germanic evolved in Northwestern Europe since the 3rd millenium BC. There were certainly IE languages in Northern Europe other than pre-Germanic. Also, Pre-Germanic was not the only IE language in Late Neolithic and Bronze age Northwestern Europe. The whole region had been Indo European since Corded Ware.
„The non-IE character of western Europe is professed by majority of scholars.”
Well, those scholars don’t know anything about ancient DNA. Those scholars thought Bell Beaker came from Spain. Those scholars thought Corded Ware was mostly derived from Funnel Beaker. They were wrong.
Now we know, Northern & Western Europe was overtaken by Kurgan/Steppe people in the 3rd millenium BC. This is a perfect explanation for the introduction of MANY IE dialects including what later became Balic, SLavic, Italic, Celtic, and Germnaic.
Rob, the only explanation for your nonsense theories about IE languages, is you are ideologically and politically opposed to the Kurgan hypothesis. It’s pretty damn obvious. The arguments you provide are incredible weak. You basically go for anything that isn’t the Kurgan hypothesis.
December 5, 2019 at 5:31 PM
@ Sam I said that hypothesis before the Wang and Mathieson data. And it seems to be doing pretty well-
1) the origin of kurgan culture is and remains to be from the Danube- Dnieper region; of WHG dominated lineages in an EEF admixed environment
2) the “magic steps signal” you monkeys go on about did come from the north Caucasus steppe Eneolithic groups; and then permeated throughout the steppe by female exogamy
My contention has always been that that the form of kurgan hypothesis you monkeys are aware is wrong. Sure, sometimes I dumb it down, but that’s only to convey it to your approrpiate level. Sure, I flirted with a Caucasus scenario; but that’s because one needs to be open minded, and it might still have had some impact. And it’s not my fault you or Epoch distinguish between genomic ancestry and geography.
”Rob, the only explanation for your nonsense theories about IE languages, is you are ideologically and politically opposed to the Kurgan hypothesis.”
Pfft what poltics ? You’re just too ill to understand concepts. You havent read a single thing about Europe, but are under the false belief you understand what youre talkin
“Well, those scholars don’t know anything about ancient DNA. Those scholars thought Bell Beaker came from Spain. Those scholars thought Corded Ware was mostly derived from Funnel Beaker. They were wrong.”
No, you’re wrong. These scholars are linguists and don’t care about TRB. It’s actually the Celtic from the West crowd who needs BB to be from Iberia; to come up with the notion that R1b “stole “ their language; or whatever Kristiansen’s silly theory is. So again; you’ve got everthing back to front; because your clinically retarded. You’re going to be a teacher ? God help America.
December 5, 2019 at 6:50 PM
@Rob R1a-Z280 isn’t a Battle-Axe marker. Some of its subclades might be, but no one knows yet which ones. The R1a-Z280 in Uralics is from Baltic BA, Balts, Srubnaya, Russians, and many other near and far related groups. I’d put Battle-Axe somewhere at the end of that list.
December 5, 2019 at 7:27 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
R1a Z284, which is only found in Northwest Europe, is the Battle Axe R1a subclade. It has already been found in Battle Axe. Bet, it doesn’t exist in Uralic spekaing places.
December 5, 2019 at 8:20 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, „the origin of kurgan culture is and remains to be from the Danube- Dnieper region.”
No its in the East European STeppe. Srendy Stog live din Dnieper-Donets not Dnieper-Danube. I don’t know why you try to derive Kurgan cultures from farmers. Farmers have never settled in the Dnieper-Donets region. Kurgan cultures & farmers lived in two SEPERATE locations. Also, it was Kurgan people who invaded farmer territory not the other way around. Kurgan influence on farmers not the other way around.
The fact is, no population from the „Danube-Dnieper” regions migrated in the places in order for them to explain the extent of IE languages. I know you are trying hard to make the illusion that the farmers were the actual PIEs, that they hopped on board with Kurgan cultures, then spread IE languages with Corded Ware & Sintashta and what not. That’s really pathetic pleading.
December 5, 2019 at 8:28 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, Let’s go back to the statement you repeated a lot back in the day…. “the key regions are Balkans and Caucasus which together can explain the entire diversity of BA Europe. The further pull toward the steppe was obviously due to marrying EHG women.”
Basically, what you were saying is Yamnaya and the Steppe signal is a product of movements from the Caucasus and Balkans into the Steppe and marrying EHG wives. The Eneolithic Caucasus farmers, Meshvo & Maykop, DID NOT contribute ancestry to Yamnaya. DID NOT. They mostly descended from EHG-rich groups in Southern Russia. I wouldn’t call it the North Caucasus because it was flat Steppe land not mountains. And, those Steppe Eneolithic samples probably live south of where Yamnaya’s ancestors came from. Back in 2017, when you said „Caucasus” you meant Caucasus farmers like for example Maykop. They clearlly DID NOT contribute ancestry to Yamnaya. You were wrong.
December 5, 2019 at 8:32 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, Name a migration documented in ancient DNA of farmers from the Danube? Name a migration of farmers from the Balkans? You can’t name any because you’re full of shit. If you can’t name any, you have to admit there’s no genetic evidence that is where IE language came from. The only group in 4th-3rd millenium BC Europe who was moving all over the place came from the East European Steppe.
You keep trying to exaggerate farmer influence on Kurgan groups because you will make a pathetic pleading argument that those Kurgan groups did spread IE language but they got IE language from their MINOR farmer ancestry.
December 5, 2019 at 8:34 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, The stuff you say about Unetice is a perfect example of the kind of bull shit you pull.
Kurgan migrations of COrded Ware, Bell Beaker are a perfect explanation for the origins of most IE languages in Europe. But, you see Unetice has some Y DNA I2c which could mean they have minor ancestry from the Danube/Balkans. Oh my goodness, therefore you conclude this tiny, almost impossible to document migration from the Danube is the origin of IE in Europe not the massive well documented migrations from the Steppe which preceded it. I’m so tired of this bull shit.
December 5, 2019 at 8:42 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, You’re doing the exact same thing with Battle Axe as you do with Unetice. You want to link Battle Axe with Uralic language because you’ll look for any evidence you can that Corded Ware wasn’t IE. It’s all bogus. You never had a real theory, you just look for anything that says the Kurgan hypothesis isn’t true.
December 5, 2019 at 8:45 PM
@ Sam “No its in the East European STeppe. Srendy Stog live din Dnieper-Donets not Dnieper-Danube”
Suvorovo horizon forms in the Danube -Dnieper region. You don’t know anything about Europe ; it’s subregions or ecology
“Name a migration documented in ancient DNA of farmers from the Danube? ”
You mean LBK. Have you digested anything in the last 10
“You want to link Battle Axe with Uralic language””
Please quote where I said that. ? There is a difference between that; and outlining the possibility of BAx ancestry in western FU speakers
You don’t understand basics; go take your psychiatric medications now
December 5, 2019 at 9:43 PM
”But, you see Unetice has some Y DNA I2c which could mean they have minor ancestry from the Danube/Balkans. Oh my goodness, therefore you conclude this tiny, almost impossible to document migration from the Danube is the origin of IE in Europe not the massive well documented migrations from the Steppe which preceded it.”
The funny thing is that the massive steppe migration to western Europe is difficult to place as IE. Unetice is indeed a minor migration. but significant cultural shift. I never claimed anything categorically about it, but it does mark the start of the Bronze Age in Europe, which is pretty important. All these nuances & sub-waves are critical to understanding events. Again, you dont know this because you lack the faculties to even read up on basics.
December 5, 2019 at 9:56 PM
Ric Hern said…
How do you exclude Suvorovo from a Steppe Migration ? Do we not see Horse Headed Scepters moving from the Volga/Don into that area ?
December 5, 2019 at 10:00 PM
@Kristiina R1a-M417 in both Uralic and Turkic groups represents Indo-European substrata at different levels, so even if there are some highly derived mutations on the M417 tree that are Uralic-specific, they ultimately come from Indo-Europeans within a fairly recent time frame anyway. This of course leaves Y-haplogroup N, and more specifically N-L1026, as the Uralic paternal marker.
December 6, 2019 at 1:21 AM
@ Ric H ”How do you exclude Suvorovo from a Steppe Migration ? Do we not see Horse Headed Scepters moving from the Volga/Don into that area ?”
Not excluding it from a steppe migration ? But we don’t know where those guys came from exactly, suffice to say they were probably E. European huntergatherers beloning to WHG (I2a) or EHG (R1-) lines. The formation of this culture occurred in the Danube-Dnieper region; in contact with EEF (MNE , to be specific) groups.
The classic dictum as popularised in ‚Indo European studies’ is that they came from the Volga, rode horses and invaded the Balkans. But this isn’t looking like its panning out; because we know that the Bulgarian EBA guys are I2a2a1b, and they arrived after a 500 yearr hiatus. This means they re-populated the region from somewhere close by c 3800 BC
The R1b and R1a-M417 guys who moved through central-northern Europe did so later, and are probably more eastern/ “steppe”, due to the their higher steppe ratio. But M417 was already see in 4000 BC with significant EEF, so it could be that they secondarily become more steppe
M269 appears late, and if they are really from the forest zone, then little wonder Im not convinced if they were originally PIE. We also now know that the “magical steppe signal” is found in kuban steppe eneolithics; but given that their male lineages aren’t relevant for IE; it means it had at least some major component of female exogamy within the steppe (exactly as I predicted). This is what the facts state, so im not sure what is so hard to understand in this, all the obtuse misunderstanding & historionicity.
December 6, 2019 at 3:07 AM
@Rob “Suvorovo horizon forms in the Danube -Dnieper region”
So you think Suvorovo was PIE? Interesting. You should remember however that PIE is not a real language. It has never been spoken by anybody. Therefore you cannot link it with any real population. We can link real population of CWC with IE/PIE languages because Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian ,derived from CWC, are real, spoken languages. It is much more complex than you think.
December 6, 2019 at 3:39 AM
@ EastPole “So you think Suvorovo was PIE? Interesting.”
I didnt explicitly state that did I ? uvorovo was probably pre-IE.
“You should remember however that PIE is not a real language. It has never been spoken by anybody. Therefore you cannot link it with any real population.”
Yeah no shit but PIE dialects were spoken by real people
“We can link real population of CWC with IE/PIE languages because Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian ,derived from CWC, are real, spoken languages.”
Not sure about indo -Iranian being from cwc Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either
“It is much more complex than you think.”
If you think it’s complex , then I’m 7D
December 6, 2019 at 3:45 AM
@Rob „Not sure about indo -Iranian being from cwc Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either”
You should study scientific literature and accept reality. Stop reading sites run by trolls.
December 6, 2019 at 4:14 AM
Suvorovo is not a culture at all, it is a group of monuments of Novodanilovsky type in the composition of Sredniy Stog culture. They are from the Lower Don and extend to the east to Kalmykia (Dzhangar). Suvorovo is just a steppe merchant who traded with the Balkans. It is impossible to attribute any importance to them, they did not live there, but passed by, they are just burials. Their center was Lower Donets, where they extracted high-quality silicon for sale in the Balkans. It is ridiculous to attribute Suvorovo some special role in the PIE, and these people are just from Don.
December 6, 2019 at 4:24 AM
@ East Pole And what does that show ? Balto-Slavic has its own specific drift I don’t need to ready any “sites “ . I appraise data myself CWC isn’t “Slavic”
December 6, 2019 at 4:25 AM
@Rob „And what does that show?”
@Kristiina. /It would be interesting to identify the Uralic specific subclades if we had information on R1a1 haplotypes carried by Volga Uralic and Siberia Uralic populations. At the moment, they are missing from yfull./
For the peoples of the Volga region, the structure is as follows:
Komi: R1a-CTS1211-22%, R1a-M458-4%, R1b-L51 -4%, R1b-Z2103-8%, I1 -2%, I2-2%, E-M35-4%, EM78-4%, N-TAT-30%, N-P43-20%.
Chuvash: R1a-CTS1211-20%, R1a-M458 -5%, R1a-Z2124-5%, I1-7%, I2-5%, J1-3%, J2a-9%, J2b-4%, E-M78-14%, N-TAT-19%, N-P43-9%.
Udmurt: R1a-CTS1211 -2%, R1a-M458-7%, R1b-Z2103-22%, N-TAT-64%, N-P43-5%.
Bashkirs: R1a-CTS1211-2%, R1a-Z2124- 32%, R1b-L51-2%, R1b-Z2103-35%, R1b-M73-6%, J2a-4%, N-TAT-12%, N-P43-7%.
Mari: R1a-CTS1211-18%, R1a-Z2124-3%, R1b-L51-3%, N-TAT-43%, N-P43-33%.
Mordovians: R1a-CTS1211-35%, R1a-Z2124-8%, R1a-M458-2%, R1b-Z2103-7%, R1b-L51-3%, I1-3%, I2-3%, J1-3%, J2a-10%, G-P303-4%, E-M78-10%, N-TAT-10%, C-M130-2%.
Tatars of Kazan: R1a-CTS1211-10%, R1a-M458-7%, R1a-Z2124- 4%, R1b-M73- 3%, I1-12%, I2- 2%, G-M485-2%, G-P16-5%, J2a-9%, J2b-6%, E-M35-5%, N-TAT-22%, N-P43-5%, C-M130-6%, O-M175-2%.
Besermyan: R1a-CTS1211-32%, R1b-Z2103-4%, I1-4%, I2-2%, E-M78-4%, N-TAT-41%, N-P43-13%.
Bashkir Tatars: R1a-CTS1211-8%, R1a-Z2124-7%, R1b-L51-16%, I1-8%, I2-4%, J1-2%, J2a-6%, J2b-2%, G-M201-2%, G-P16-2%, G-U1-2%, E-M78-6%, N-TAT-8%, N-P43-16%, C-M130-2%, L-M20-5%, Q-M242-2%, Q-M346-2%.
December 6, 2019 at 6:28 AM
@Sam, some things pretty much do seem to being argued here to twistily shifting about of cultures being IE or not IE, depending on however much they can be fit with some sort of complicated series of shifts from a WHG/Anatolian population.
CWC was argued to not be IE, when it is argued to be derived from Yamnaya… then argued to be IE when would be argued to be derived directly from Sredny-Stog and this has culture had Anatolian+WHG ancestry and CWC was separate in genesis from Beaker Culture… then argued to be not IE, again, when an fairly strong sequence of earliest Corded Ware samples turn up that look like Yamnaya and when early CW is being proposed as being plausibly the direct origin of the Beaker Culture.
There isn’t much evidence of a clear methodology and consistent line of thought over time proposing a particular genesis, and rather it shifts depending on what opportunistically can avoid connecting IE to the cultures of the Volga interfluve, despite claims to the contrary and that „Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia” and the usual insults – nothing wrong with people changing their mind of course, but acknowledge it and why.
December 6, 2019 at 10:38 AM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob,”My position has always been that the steppe was subject to complex set of interactions coming from west (Balkans, Baden, CT) and East”
Have you heard about Usatovo? They date to 3500-3000 BC, lived on Dniester and Danube river in Moldova, Romania. had Kurgan burials, horse scepters, all the stuff that defines an Eneolithic Steppe culture. They basically, conquered late Tripolye. Unpublished DNA shows suprise suprise they were „Steppe people” and also they carried R1a Z93.
Also, there’s a few outliers from Chalcolithic Balkans from Mathieson 2017, including as far south as Bulgaria, with signifcant Steppe ancestry. They date 4000-5000 BC. The point is, „Steppe people” were invading the Balkans not the other way around.
December 6, 2019 at 2:36 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, „Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either”
Literally, 95% of Baltic Bronze age Y DNA samples are R1a M417 meaning derived fro CWC. 95% fricking percent! They’re the main ancestors of modern Balts, contributed lots to SLavs. Yet, yo don’t think Balto-Slavic is related to CWC? C’mon. Not just that, a CWC sample from Lithuania is identical to Baltic Bronze age confirming Baltic Bronze age is a direct descendant of Corded Ware.
December 6, 2019 at 2:40 PM
old europe said…
The only population that fits the bill in order to be the steppe source population of IE moving both west and east is Sredni Stog/ Dereivka because It has both R1a M-417 and I2a and probably also R1bL-51 in the near by ( maybe west of the dneper maybe north of SS).
It has the autosomal profile perfectly fitting west and east ( Sintashta and German/ central european Bell Beaker ). The only thing to remember is the more CHG shift in later steppe is due to SS absorbing people from further east ( from the Volga and from the northern Caucasus ). You can think of the relationship between SS and the Volga as the relationship between Rome and eastern mediterranean dna. Eastern mediterranean dna went to Rome but the empire remained roman.
SS was founded from a cultural and dna movement from the west.( see Kotova) All the relavent cultural package of later movement is found between Danube/ Vistula and Dneper. PIE has agricoltural terminology. It was a settled down population. the more mobile life style is a later development ( yamnaya horizon) There is no sign of agricolture whatsoever east of the Dneper till 2000 BC. PIE has a society structured in a tripartite way: warriors, priests and farmers. It was not a foragers population. Everything point in a direction towards the region between the Dneper and the Balkans with a time window between 4500 and 3800 BC. The agricoltural societies west of the Dneper were still too strong for not having been involved in the PIE. The bottom line is PIE = MNE + steppe eneolithic with a chance that the PIE could be only the farmers in virtue of what we see in SS ( acculturation and language shift )
December 6, 2019 at 2:48 PM
old europe said…
The only person that thinks of a purely caspian source for PIE seems Carlos Quiles
December 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM
@ Sam ”Have you heard about Usatovo? They date to 3500-3000 BC, lived on Dniester and Danube river in Moldova, Romania. had Kurgan burials, horse scepters, all the stuff that defines an Eneolithic Steppe culture.”
No I hadn’t heard of Usatavo, thanks genius. I knew this 25 years ago
”The point is, „Steppe people” were invading the Balkans not the other way around.”
No they colonized parts of the Balkans. You can’t make up scenarios until you analyse the data, and see it. You have neither
”, „Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either”
No it has its pwn specific drift with a yet unsampled HG population + cline of admixture with an East Halstatt group.
Sam, save it. You & Matt cant’t educate me because you’re nothing & nobody
December 6, 2019 at 2:52 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, „No it has its pwn specific drift with a yet unsampled HG population „
So you think Balto-Slavic is from a HG population? Yet, earliest Balts had 95%+ Corded Ware Y DNA. They share this Y DNA with early Indo Iranians. Yet, Corded Ware isn’t where they got their language. Um……
December 6, 2019 at 2:59 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
@Rob, What links these two IE-speaking Bronze age groups….. Andronovo (Indo-Iranian) and Baltic Bronze age (Balts)? I say R1a M417, Steppe people. What do you say?
December 6, 2019 at 3:01 PM
@ Sam “@Rob, What links these two IE-speaking Bronze age groups….. Andronovo (Indo-Iranian) and Baltic Bronze age (Balts)? I say R1a M417, Steppe people. What do you say?”
Yes ; but that only takes us to c. 4000 BC proto IE stage. Balto-Slavic has its own subsequent development; as does indo-Iranian in the IAMC-Turan zone. Your friend Matt’s closet view is that I-A is from Hurrian Z2103; but that’s obviously rubbish. Andronovo has its own development; distinguishable from CWC. Hence your picture only encapsulates 10%
December 6, 2019 at 3:33 PM
Samuel Andrews said…
So you agree, Andronovo & Baltic Bronze age get their IE language from common ancestor who lived on STeppe and carryed R1a M417?
December 6, 2019 at 3:38 PM
@ OE “It has both R1a M-417 and I2a and probably also R1bL-51 in the near by ( maybe west of the dneper maybe north of SS).”
M269 Probably arrived later down the Don; replacing the local lineages in south Russia. So it’s late to the PIE fold. Might explain why it correlates with non-IE languages in Western Europe. As for the other EHG/ CHG from Khvalynsk and Caucasus; they’re just autosomal donors; culturally & linguistically irrelevant. This is huge
“The only person that thinks of a purely caspian source for PIE seems Carlos Quiles”
Never again will we see a bunch of Americans and west Europeans so desperate for an invasion from Russia Lol
December 6, 2019 at 9:57 PM
Ric Hern said…
All Hail. The Great Adoption Theory. R1a and R1b guys must have been quite intrigued with the I2a guys…so much indeed that they adopted their language and displaced or erased them in most of their former territory.
December 6, 2019 at 10:14 PM
Don’t forget the Q1a and J, especially seeing as the former is also seen in Mesolithic Latvia.
December 6, 2019 at 10:17 PM
@ Ric Of course you’re right; from Western Europe. From whom they adopted Vasconic & Iberian. ‚The Great Adoption Theory’ indeed ! Zing
December 6, 2019 at 10:26 PM
Ric Hern said…
@ Rob Yes and last I’ve looked all of those so called Vasconic areas today, except the Basque speaks Indo-European…1% out of 99%…oops.
December 6, 2019 at 10:31 PM
@ Ric “Yes and last I’ve looked all of those so called Vasconic areas today, except the Basque speaks Indo-European…1% out of 99%…oops”
Thats rubbish. Even you know that Vasconic& Iberian were widely spoken in Western Europe; from Dooblin to Iberia
December 6, 2019 at 10:34 PM
Ric Hern said…
@ Rob Yes hords of Vasconic inscriptions in Ireland…Whahahaha !!!
December 6, 2019 at 10:39 PM
Ric Hern said…
@ Rob And many Old Irish words similarities to Sanskrit is pure wishful thinking…
December 6, 2019 at 10:59 PM
What is that N2 you are talking about? To my knowledge, N2-Y6503 (Botai line) has not been found in the Neolithic Baikal. o my knowledge, there is no no N2 in Uralics. However, the line is very rare, and it is found mainly in the Balkans. This is again a very good illustration of the problems related to viewing modern frequencies as evidence of a situation thousands of years ago. Modern frequencies show that there is a hotspot of N2 in the Balkans, but who of you think that it is a Mesolithic relic? Modern hotspots cannot be taken as any evidence of the origin of a haplogroup. Only ancient yDNA is relevant. People constantly move around.
December 7, 2019 at 3:22 AM
Everything will depend on what Fatyanovo culture will show. If she will show R1a-Z280, then means these Volga CTS1211 from it, if same Fatyanovo will show R1a-Z93, then means this outcome later assimilation. Although with Fatyanovo can be and surprises. For example, all R1b-L51 living in the Volga region is U-106.
December 7, 2019 at 3:31 AM
@ Vladimir I presume that a lot of Uralic R1a1 is from the Baltic Corded Ware and later cultures such as Trzciniec.
December 7, 2019 at 3:55 AM
@Kristiina How did the Baltic Corded Ware R1a skip Baltic BA and end up in Uralics? Trzciniec culture as a source of Uralic R1a is about as crazy as Baltic Corded Ware, unless you count Baltic and Russian R1a as Trzciniec R1a. Nope, Uralic R1a is mostly from Baltic BA and Balts in Estonians, while in more easterly Uralics it’s mostly from eastern post-Corded Ware groups, Srubnaya, Balts and Russians.
December 7, 2019 at 4:05 AM
„The GenomeAsia 100K Project enables genetic discoveries across Asia
Some of the Y-DNA results reported in this study are interesting.
Their sample of Buryats is approximately 70% Y-DNA N (probably „N3a5”), with the remainder being about 15% C2, about 10% O2, about 2.5% O1b, and about 2.5% D1. It looks like they may have sampled mostly Buryats from Mongolia rather than those from the Buryat Republic of Russia. It appears that there may be a cline within the Buryat population, with the frequency of Y-DNA N increasing toward the southeast and the frequency of C2 increasing toward the northwest.
Their sample of Koreans is substantial (n=152), although I am not sure how many of the sampled Korean individuals are male. The males in their Korean sample are approximately 55% O2, approximately 25% O1b, approximately 20% C2, and approximately 3% D1. There also appear to be a few instances of N and C1.
Many of their Totos (a tribe in Northeast India) apparently belong to Y-DNA haplogroup N.
The authors have remarked that most of their samples of Austroasiatic people from India belong to Y-DNA haplogroup H. Other studies have found O1b1 (O-M95) to be predominant among Austroasiatic-speaking populations, including those from India. Apparently, most of their sampled Birhors belong to Y-DNA haplogroup H, although O1b was also found among them. On the other hand, they did find O1b in more than half of their sample of Hill Korwas. They also found O1b in more than half of their samples of Dhurwas and Konda Reddys, who are currently speakers of Dravidian languages. However, the Dhurwas speak a Central Dravidian language that is closely related to the Ollari language spoken by some Gadabas, whereas other Gadabas speak an Austroasiatic language, so it is not very surprising that the Dhurwas may have experienced a great amount of male-mediated Austroasiatic admixture. Konda Reddys are a currently Telugu-speaking tribe in Telangana/Andhra Pradesh, but I suppose they might be descended from Bonda- or Gadaba-like tribals who have assimilated linguistically to the mainstream urban culture of the region.
December 7, 2019 at 4:12 AM
The oldest R1a1a1b1a2b-CTS1211 (under Z282) is Spiginas 2 from the Estonian Corded Ware. There are several R1a1a1b1a2b-CTS1211 samples also in Kivutkaln Latvia BA. I presume since CTS1211 reached the Baltics during the Corded Ware, it has not stopped diffusing to the East. I recently read an article about the influence of Corded Ware further east. CTS1211 was found both in Estonians and Hungarians so it is something common to both Eastern and Western Uralics.
December 7, 2019 at 4:36 AM
There’s no evidence that Baltic Corded Ware expanded east. Just assumptions. If Baltic Corded Ware-related lineages made it as far east as the Urals (and the Hungarian Corded Ware lineage isn’t just West Slavic), then they got there from the Middle Dnieper Corded Ware.
December 7, 2019 at 4:41 AM
@Daviski Ah, so some of the rumored Northern Russian forest zone samples are actually from Volosovo. I see. Thank you. I we can’t find any N in Eastern Europe before Bronze Age that has implications. Especially that it is in agreement with the autosomal data, where relatively high level of East Siberian ancestry shows up in the data around 1500 BC (probably arrived earlier, but not by a wide margin.)
December 7, 2019 at 4:44 AM
In General, Comb Ceramic is a combination of many cultures. Apparently it will be R1a-YP1272, R1b-M73, and possibly R1b-M269. The last probably is the culture of stroke-ornamented pottery. It was in the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, it was in the Lyalovo culture, and its beginning somewhere on the Middle Volga and in the South-Eastern Urals.
December 7, 2019 at 4:53 AM
The only possible variant of the appearance of CTS1211 in the Volga region is Fatyanovo culture. If it is not confirmed by ancient DNA, it is later spread through the Baltic cultures, such as the Dnieper-Dniester and then the Kiev culture and in General, taking into account the Estonian finds of the bronze age, CTS-1211 most likely were originally Balts, not Slavs. The original Slovenes are most likely R1a-M458.
December 7, 2019 at 5:03 AM
Anthony Hanken said…
We can say for certain that N1 was common amoung men in the north Asian neolithic. Even if N-Tat is found it probably will not be the right subclade to be pre-European. I think pre-European N was in Siberia from at least 10800ybp (N-F1419). The Baikal N was mostly N-L666 (not the pre-European subclade) and N-B187 was found in Okunevo likely originating in the Siberian HGs north of the Altai region. So it makes sense that N-L708 would have already been farther west of both, for sure by the bronze age but most likely even earlier.
It is then possible that N-L708 was common if not the dominant lineage amoung the WSHGs. If Volosovo has no N then I would suggest Garino-Bor won’t have any either unless from WSHGs migrating across the Urals or from west Siberian Seima-Turbino peoples migrating around 2000BC.
Too much importance should not be placed on BOO until we have more context. The N-L1026 found there could have come from anywhere between Finland and Yakutia in the Taiga zone by 1500BC. I hope Kristiina agrees with most of what I have just said…
December 7, 2019 at 8:33 AM
on the Russian site molgen.org write that it was possible to type a sample of the Ukrainian Mesolithic:
I5876 Dereivka I Ukraine_Mesolithic 7040-6703 calBCE R1a
R-YP4141: YP4145+, YP4184+
R-YP5018: YP5056+ (even 2 readings), YP5022-, YP5049-, YP5054-, Y22681-
December 8, 2019 at 11:36 PM
The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?
December 9, 2019 at 1:09 AM
Monday, December 9, 2019
The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?
N-L1026 is the Y-chromosome haplogroup most closely associated with the speakers of Uralic languages. Thus far, the oldest published instances of N-L1026 are in two Siberian-like samples dating to 1473±87 calBCE from the site of Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov (BOO), located within the Arctic Circle in the Kola Peninsula, northern Russia.
So does this mean that the BOO people were Uralic speakers? I’m now thinking that it probably does, even though, as the scientists who published the BOO samples a year ago pointed out, they predate most estimates of the spread of extant Uralic languages into the Kola Peninsula (see Lamnidis et al. here).
Hundreds of ancient human samples from across Eurasia have been sequenced since last year. In fact, thousands if we count unpublished data. But only a handful of them belong to N-L1026.
Indeed, as far as I know, the next oldest instance of N-L1026 from Europe after those at BOO is still in an Iron Age sample from what is now Estonia published earlier this year as OLS10. Of course, this individual was in all likelihood an early west Uralic (Finnic) speaker (see Saag et al. here).
Moreover, consider these comments by Murashkin et al. in regards to the BOO site (referred to as KOG in their paper, available here):
Most of the bodies had been buried in wooden, boat-shaped, lidded caskets, which looked like small boats or traditional Sámi sledges (Ru. kerezhka).
The morphological characteristics of the skull series of the KOG are not like those of any other ancient or modern series from the Kola Peninsula, including the Sámi people. Instead, the series shows closer biological affinities with ancient Altai Neolithic and modern, Ugric-speaking Siberian groups (Moiseyev & Khartanovich 2012). It has earlier been suggested that modern Ugric-speaking Siberians, together with Samoyeds and Volga Finnic populations, share some common morphological characteristics that indicate their common origin (Alekseyev 1974; Bunak 1956; Gokhman 1992).
Based on the materials from the grave field, we can argue that there were direct or indirect contacts between the inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula and southern and western Scandinavia (Murashkin & Tarasov 2013).
Thus, the BOO people may have spoken an early west Uralic language related to Sami languages. It’s also possible that they are in part ancestral to the N-L1026-rich Sami people.
Another intriguing thing about these mysterious ancients is that individual BOO003 belongs to the rare mitochondrial haplogroup T2d1b1. Now, this clearly is not a lineage native to Europe or indeed any part of North Eurasia. Its ultimate source is probably West or Central Asia. So how did this pioneer polar explorer end up with such an unusual and exotic mtDNA marker, and might the answer be an important clue about the origins of the BOO people?
The most plausible explanation is that the ancestors of BOO003 were associated with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, which stretched from the taiga zone to the oases of what is now western China along the Ob-Irtysh river system, and probably facilitated cultural, linguistic and genetic exchanges between the populations of North Eurasia and Central Asia.
In other words, considering all of the clues, it would seem that the BOO people came from some part of the Ob-Irtysh basin, which might thus be the best place to look for the population with the oldest and phylogenetically most basal N-L1026 lineages. And if we find that, then we’ve probably found the proto-Uralians and their homeland.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on Global25 data featuring the earliest likely Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record. It was produced with an online PCA runner freely available here. EST_IA includes the above mentioned OLS10, while FIN_Levanluhta_IA is largely made up of Saami-related samples from western Finland. See anything interesting? Feel free to let me know about it in the comments below.
Posted by Davidski at 1:05:00 AM
Labels: ancient DNA, Arctic, Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov, BOO, Fennoscandia, Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, N-L1026, N1c, N1c1a1a, Northeastern Europe, Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic, Seima-Turbino, Siberia, Uralic, Urals
But what sort of linguistic evidence precludes the origin of proto-Uralic east of the Urals? If you’re referring to exchanges between early Uralic and Indo-Iranian languages, I’m pretty sure that the steppes around the southern Urals, and even much of West Siberia, were swarming with all sorts of Indo-Europeans for thousands of years.
December 9, 2019 at 3:09 AM
According to for example Jaakko Häkkinen, the oldest IE layer in Proto-Uralic is related to Northeast European language and Indo-Iranian comes second.
December 9, 2019 at 3:21 AM
@Kristiina Which Northeast European language? Does anyone still speak it?
December 9, 2019 at 3:26 AM
In Russia, no one will have the hands to comprehensively connect a number of disparate facts into a single logical chain. It is now known that in the Eastern Ural monuments Seimino – Turbino side by side with the monuments of the Samus culture. Samus culture itself is a syncretic culture of the monuments of Krotovo culture and Andronovo culture. In the Western Urals monuments Seimino-Tutbino the turbine side by side with monuments Chirkovo culture. The monuments of Chirkovo culture smoothly turn into the monuments of Mesh ceramics culture. Lacking only the will to draw a logical sequence. East of the Urals: Krotovo culture + Andronovo culture = Samus culture she Seimino-Turbino culture. West of the Urals: Seimino – Turbino culture = Chirkovo culture + Volovo culture = Culture of the reticulated ceramic. Judging by the fact that the culture Seimino-Turbino does not have settlement monuments, and culture Chirkova has only settler monuments, Seimino- Tubino they were warriors, and Chirkovo culture is their family.
December 9, 2019 at 7:21 AM
It is not surprising that in Siberia the future uralians interacted with the Tocharians of the Afanasiev culture
December 9, 2019 at 7:38 AM
Speaking of metals. Both Samus culture and Chirkovo culture were bronze cultures as well as Seimino. Here is Garino-Boron Yes, knew only copper. This only says that they crossed the Urals in several streams. The first apparently have gone Y9022. As I understood not all tribes are prepared were to cooperate with Andronovo, and they were leaving on North as M2019 or through Ural as Y9022. And L1026 apparently with Andronovo culture densely contacted, until such extent, that subclades Y16323 so with Scythians and remained, and Z1936 and CTS10760 are gone from steppes in forest zone, where assimilated Volosovo culture and all the rest culture the forest zone.
December 9, 2019 at 8:00 AM
So, is this the end of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis? To the best of my knowledge IU is supported by a minority among linguists, but a majority claims PU and PIE have been in intimate contact for a long period.
December 9, 2019 at 8:07 AM
I don’t think the Indo-Uralic idea holds water; Uralic borrowed extensively from proto-Indo-Aryan and that is the most likely source for any Indo-European/Uralic commonalities. Ural-Altaic would make more sense; I could see a scenario where a western Macro-Altaic dialect, spoken by N-L1026 early clades among others, was deformed and partially remade due to extensive contact with Indo-European dialects, either early Tocharian, proto-Indo-Aryan, or both. A similar scenario is what happened to English in the late medieval period when the Norman French-speaking nobility started speaking English.
December 9, 2019 at 10:52 AM
@ David ”Which Northeast European language? Does anyone still speak it?”
I copy here a link to a picture from Jaakko Häkkinen’s article on Proto-Uralic: https://ibb.co/fQ6wdsL
The picture shows that there are two kinds of Indo-European loanwords: Archaic Indo-European loanwords (second column) and pre-Aryan/ Indo-Iranian loanwords (third column). Often people only pay attention to the Indo-Iranian layer. The earlier Indo-Iranian layer, i.e. Aryan words, enter Proto-Uralic from 2300 BC. The later Iranian words with a narrower distribution are dated to 1800 BC and onwards.
However, there are words that cannot be reconstructed from an Indo-Iranian root and these words are called Archaic Indo-European words. These words are widely distributed in Uralic languages and follow regular sound changes and must be reconstructed to Proto-Uralic. These words are also divided in several categories. The oldest are dated to 2800 BC and onwards and younger to 2300 BC and onwards, and the words with only a Western Uralic distribution are dated to 1800 and onwards. I skip the Pre-Aryan category, because the example U *juxi ’to drink’ is problematic.
Häkkinen connects these archaic Indo-European words with Fatyanovo and Corded Ware cultures of northeastern Europe because many words in the Archaic category are found in Baltic and Germanic languages.
Häkkinen’s article is available here: https://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf
It is in Finnish.
To sum up, if we want to have Proto-Uralic in Western Siberia, it is not easy to fit all these different layers in that environment and also the early date of 2800 BC poses problems.
December 9, 2019 at 12:45 PM
@Kristiina This theory is based on certain assumptions, like, for instance, that these hypothetical ancient European languages weren’t spoken in Siberia. But if they were then we can shift the location of proto-Uralic east. Have a look at all of the published and unpublished aDNA data from around the Urals. The steppes there, including in West Siberia, are swarming with people rich in European uniparental markers.
Take a look at the map here as well…
I think Seima-Turbino was initially an Indo-European network. Finno-Ugric groups joined it later.
December 9, 2019 at 2:45 PM
The only people who pretend to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon from known cultures are Afanasievians, if based on that the Seima-Turbino appeared in Altai.
December 9, 2019 at 3:16 PM
@Davidski. By the way, in this work, figure object 4, the first time I see that Peplinski mound related to Seima-Turbino. In all works before Peplinski mound was related to Chirkovo culture. This place is epic Abashevo culture, just the mound is the burial place of Abashevo. It should be understood that the Volga region by 2000 was already densely populated. There were remnants of Ymnaiy culture (Poltava culture) subclades R1b-Z2103 and Abashevo (Srubnaiy culture) subclades R1a-Z2124, and remnants of Fatyanovo culture and Balanovo culture (R1a-?) and Volosovo culture subclades I, likely I1, and still mass cultures, culture Lola with North Caucasian tribes, Pozdnyakovskaya culture, the remnants of Repino culture, the remnants of culture pit-comb ceramics (R1b-M73 and still perhaps that the). Only a very strong aggressive and well-armed community could break through this shield. In fact, all these cultures were replaced by the culture of Chirkovo, which later became the culture of mesh ceramics, and their fist, apparently, was Seima-Turbino.
December 9, 2019 at 8:24 PM
Before Andronovo there was Abashevo. Just pepkin mound is the place of collision Sima/Turbino (Chirkovo) with Abashevo. And Abashevo have been going with Dnepr (where the from post Sredniy Stog and post Trypillya. The uralians came from the East of the Urals. And those and others were included into the territory of post Ymnaiy (catacomb culture, Poltavka culture). IDNO-Iranians Abashevo and Volsk-Lbishchevo fought fierce battles first with the catacomb culture, and then with Seima-Turbino. In the end cacambo culture are marginalized and their territory divided among themselves. The forest went to Seima-Turbino (Chirkovo, mesh ceramics), and the steppe Abashevo (Srubnaiy culture, future Scythians).
December 9, 2019 at 10:15 PM
@Davidski „There’s no way you can explain the layers of Indo-European influence in Uralic, and the close relationship between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan, with a few outliers who barely made it onto the steppe.”
People don’t understand even basic things about linguistics. This is the result of false PIE propaganda. Look closely at this false PIE language tree:
Many numerals in Sanskrit and Slavic are not only similar or derived from the same root. They are identical. And so are hundreds or maybe thousands of other words. How did it happen that Sanskrit preserved many Slavic numerals and other words intact? I think genetics points us in the right direction.
December 10, 2019 at 4:09 AM
@vAsiSTha “Balto slavic has had huge contact with pre scythian scythian cimmerian, sarmatian people in 1st mill bce and later.”
No, it was the opposite direction of influence. Indo-Aryans and Iranians had huge contact with Andronovo. Steppe populations in later times were Turkish speaking, not Sanskrit.
December 10, 2019 at 5:49 AM
@eastpole „According to Matasović (2008), „solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology, is one of the most important tasks of modern Slavic studies”. Slavs in the era of the Proto-Slavic language came into contact with various Iranian tribes, namely Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans, which were present in vast regions of eastern and southeastern Europe in the first centuries CE. The names of two large rivers in the centre of Slavic expansion, Dnieper and Dniester, are of Iranian origin, and Iranian toponyms are found as far west as modern day Romania.”
December 10, 2019 at 6:20 AM
@vAsiSTha „According to Matasović (2008), „solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic”
It is BS. Read T. Burrow “The Sanskrit Language”
Slavic words present in Sanskrit or Avestan have Slavic etymology. And now it is all confirmed by genetics:
@EastPole. The Scythians Srubnay culture was obviously of Indo-Iranians, Herodotus called them Scythians – cultivators. But the Scythians Andronovo culture obviously mixed with the Turks-Oguz culture Okunevo haplogroup Q and formed a syncretic Karasuk culture, passed into the Tagar culture. These Scythians were nomads and probably already spoke some language between Turkic and Indo-Iranian.
December 10, 2019 at 7:41 AM
From the paper… If the Afanas’evo Culture is not to be identified with early speakers of Tocharian, then obviously alternative scenarios are needed, though none is currently more widely supported. The most likely alternative would be that early Tocharians had not yet reached the Tarim Basin when Iranian spread over the Central Asian steppe, and, when the Iranians extended further and further east, they encountered the early Tocharians, who either went with them or were forced to move even further east, ending up in the Tarim Basin.
December 10, 2019 at 12:29 PM
Figure 2: Possible prehistoric neighbours of Tocharian
December 10, 2019 at 12:49 PM
True or not, I read somewhere that Turkey banned DNA tests. Allegedly due to the fact that Erdogan was shocked when he learned that there are no real Turks in Turkey, there is no dominant haplogroup, but there is a set of all kinds of haplogroups, each 5-10 percent
December 10, 2019 at 8:57 PM
@Vladimir “V. I. Abaev” A very interesting article by Constantine Borissoff criticizing Abayev
“It is difficult to imagine that the Scythians, which was for the Greek a generic name applied to any ‘barbaric’ (in their opinion) people living north of their confines, had remained a single ethnos speaking a uniform ‘Scythian’ language over the vast territory for a thousand of years.
In his analysis Abaev completely ignored any possibility that on the vast territory of what the Greeks referred to as ‘Scythia’ could also live numerous IE tribes who never migrated to Iran and, therefore, never returned from there bringing with them the already changed ‘Iranian’ dialects.”
Modern genetic studies show that Scythians were very diverse genetically and we now have no idea what languages they spoke.
Even if some Iranian related dialects survived on the steppe, which is not certain, they were very different from Sanskrit, for sure much farther from Sanskrit than Slavic. So the theory that similarities between Slavic and Sanskrit come from Scythians is BS. Not a single evidence for this.
December 11, 2019 at 12:41 AM
@David, What is your opinion on the origin and language of Sintashta?
When I play with vahaduo I get that most Sintashta samples look like a mix of Central European R1a dominated Corded Ware / Chlopice_Vesele / Trzciniec cultures mixed with Eastern Steppe R1b dominated Afanasievo / Yamnaya / Poltavka / Kubano-Tersk cultures:
So we can assume that the resulting language of Sintashta was a mix of two languages spoken by above two groups i.e. Central European R1a and Eastern Steppe R1b. Assuming that Eastern Steppe R1b dominated Afanasievo / Yamnaya / Poltavka / Kubano-Tersk cultures spoke languages close to PIE:
And we know that Indo-Iranian languages are closer to Slavic than to PIE, what were the languages of Central European R1a dominated Corded Ware / Chlopice_Vesele / Trzciniec cultures?
December 11, 2019 at 5:31 PM
@EastPole I’m not sure if that methodology is reliable enough to use it to infer such fine scale linguistic affinities. Considering all of the multidisciplinary data, it’s now rather obvious that the Sintashta people spoke an early Indo-Iranian language and moved into the Trans-Ural steppe from the west, probably from a place where languages ancestral to Slavic languages were spoken.
December 11, 2019 at 6:21 PM
@Davidski „Well, as far as I know at this point, there’s no Indo-Iranian R-Z93 or Uralic N-1026 in pre-Iron Age DNA near the Volga-Kama.”
“The area where Indo-Europeans/Iranians and proto-Uralians interacted was located where we’ll find both R-Z93 and N-1026 in ancient DNA, possibly in samples of mixed heritage. And that won’t be west of the Urals.”
“The Indo-Iranian languages share a number of features which distinguish them from the related Indo-European languages, but in some cases it is difficult to determine whether a word has been borrowed from Indo-Iranian or some other branch. Especially difficult is the distinction between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic,”
“there is no reason to consider a borrowing from Indo-Iranian more plausible than an early borrowing from Balto-Slavic.”
Linguistic arguments are very uncertain, and in case of doubt I would look at genetic evidence for support.
December 13, 2019 at 1:37 AM
@EastPole Yes, but as we shall see, populations with R-Z93 and N-1026 did interact east of the Urals. So that fits the linguistic theory that early Indo-Iranians interacted with proto-Uralians.
December 13, 2019 at 1:57 AM
@Davidski „Yes, but as we shall see, populations with R-Z93 and N-1026 did interact east of the Urals. So that fits the linguistic theory that early Indo-Iranians interacted with proto-Uralians.”
Only those clades of R1a-Z93 which are common in India and Iran can be safely correlated with Indo-Iranian languages plus some autosomal components from India or Iran would also support it. Otherwise it is pure speculation.
December 13, 2019 at 2:21 AM
Huck Finn said…
@ Eastpole and re: „Otherwise it is pure speculation.”
No, it’s not. The linguistic contact is real and it would be foolish to deny it. „In some cases” means just some cases, there’s no way to explain Indo Iranic loans by for instance saying that they are loans from Balto Slavic, if that’s what youre saying. The contact zone is a different issue. If it was east of Urals, then it was.
December 13, 2019 at 2:57 AM
@Huck Finn „No, it’s not. The linguistic contact is real and it would be foolish to deny it. „In some cases” means just some cases, there’s no way to explain Indo Iranic loans by for instance saying that they are loans from Balto Slavic, if that’s what youre saying. The contact zone is a different issue. If it was east of Urals, then it was.”
We don’t know when and how Indo-Iranian languages emerged i.e. separated from Indo-Slavic. We don’t know also what that Indo-Slavic language was like. Maybe it was just an early form of Balto-Slavic? Why not, Slavs and Balts didn’t move and mix as much as Eastern Indo-Slavs who later became Indo-Iranians.
In my post above I was asking this question and considered one possibility:
“When I play with vahaduo I get that most Sintashta samples look like a mix of Central European R1a dominated Corded Ware / Chlopice_Vesele / Trzciniec cultures mixed with Eastern Steppe R1b dominated Afanasievo / Yamnaya / Poltavka / Kubano-Tersk cultures:
So we can assume that the resulting language of Sintashta was a mix of two languages spoken by above two groups i.e. Central European R1a and Eastern Steppe R1b.”
If mixed language was similar to Balto-Slavic then unmixed was more so, wasn’t it? But then Pre-Indo-Iranians went south to Central and South Asia and mixed with populations there and their language mixed even more and there Sanskrit, which is still similar to Balto-Slavic, originated.
Carlos writes about “Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian-speaking Poltavka groups”. So there are various opinions on the subject. Who is right? We will see.
December 13, 2019 at 3:34 AM
@EastPole Carlos is a clown. Obviously Poltavka is out of the picture since the Steppe_MLBA cluster doesn’t have any recent ancestry from Poltavka. Those R1b outliers are outliers for a reason. Steppe_MLBA moved into Central Asia and West Siberia as an unadmixed population from far in the west, and it’s the only ancient group that explains the relationships between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian on one hand, and Indo-Iranian and proto-Uralic on the other.
December 13, 2019 at 3:46 AM