222 Ponowna ostateczna śmierć tzw. Proto-Balto-Slavic, wspólnoty bałto-słowiańskiej i wszystkiego, co ma związek z tym nigdy nie istniejącym czymś

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”:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/big-deal-of-2019-ancient-dna.html

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. (..)

…..

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9

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)

Abstract

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.(…)

…..

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30424-5

The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East

Lehti Saag et al.

Published: May 09, 2019

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.026

Highlights
  • 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

Summary<

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 [ , , , , ]. 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 [ ]. 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. (…)

…..

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05673-7

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

Abstract
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:

https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/59-corded-ware-origin-of-a-big-chunk-of-finnish-mtdna-oversti-et-al-2017-czyli-koniec-bredzenia-o-starozytnosci-ugrofinow-nad-baltykiem-i-takie-tam

Od dziś i tę rzekomą tzw. wspólnotę bałto-słowiańską i 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-słowiańskim truchłem, a na pomysły Curty już teraz zwalmy zadzierzyście tęgiego klocka! 🙂

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%99zyki_ba%C5%82tos%C5%82owia%C5%84skie

Języki bałtosłowiańskiejęzyki 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[1].

Klasyfikacja języków bałtosłowiańskich

języki indoeuropejskie

języki bałtosłowiańskie (ok. 322,5 mln)

języki bałtyckie (ok. 5,5 mln)

języki zachodniobałtyckie

staropruski †

nowopruski
jaćwiński †
galindyjski †
języki wschodniobałtyckie

kuroński †
seloński †
zemgalski †
litewski (ok. 4 mln)
łotewski (ok. 1,5 mln)

łatgalski (150–200 tys.)
języki słowiańskie (ok. 317 mln)

języki zachodniosłowiańskie (ok. 56 mln)

język połabski †
języki pomorskie (ok. 200 tys.)

kaszubski (ok. 200 tys.)
polski (ok. 42,5 mln)
języki łużyckie (ok. 70 tys.)

dolnołużycki (ok. 15 tys.)
górnołużycki (ok. 55 tys.)
czeski (ok. 10 mln)
słowacki (ok. 5 mln)
języki południowosłowiańskie (ok. 28 mln)

staro-cerkiewno-słowiański †
cerkiewnosłowiański †*
słoweński (ok. 2 mln)
serbsko-chorwacki (ok. 21 mln)
macedoński (ok. 1,8 mln)
bułgarski (ok. 8,5 mln)
języki wschodniosłowiańskie (ok. 210 mln)

staroruski †

białoruski (ok. 10 mln)
ukraiński (ok. 40 mln)
rusiński
rosyjski (ok. 160 mln)

Oznaczenia:

† – język wymarły lub dawne stadium historyczne języka dzisiejszego
†* – język dawny, ale zachowany tradycyjnie w liturgii, tekstach religijnych, filozoficznych lub naukowych
Przypisy
  1.  Leszek Bednarczuk: Początki i pogranicza polszczyzny. Kraków: LEXIS, 2018, s. 25–26. ISBN 978-83-89425-96-6.
Linki zewnętrzne

…..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto-Slavic_languages

The Balto-Slavic languages are a branch of the Indo-European family of languages. It traditionally comprises the Baltic and Slavic languages.


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[2] (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.[3]

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.[4]


Historical dispute

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.

Various schematic sketches of possible alternative Balto-Slavic language relationships; Van Wijk, 1923.

Baltic and Slavic share many close phonologicallexicalmorphosyntactic 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”).[5]


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 Balto-Slavic accentology.[6]

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.[7][8][9][10] 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.[11]


Internal classification

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.[12][3][13] 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.[4][14]

„Traditional” Balto-Slavic tree model

Balto‑Slavic
Baltic
West Baltic
East Baltic
Slavic

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.[15][16] 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.[17][18]

Alternative Balto-Slavic tree model

Balto‑Slavic
West Baltic
East Baltic
Slavic

Although supported by a number of scholars,[19][20][21] 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.[22]

The tripartite split is supported by glottochronologic studies by V. V. Kromer,[23] whereas two computer-generated family trees (from the early 2000s) that include Old Prussian have a Baltic node parallel to the Slavic node.[24] 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.[25]

Area of Balto-Slavic dialect continuum (purple) with proposed material cultures correlating to speakers Balto-Slavic in Bronze Age (white).  Red dots= archaic Slavic hydronyms.

Historical expansion

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.[26]

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.[27]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,[28]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.[29]

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.[30]

Shared features of the Balto-Slavic languages

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.[31] This indicates that the Baltic and Slavic languages share a period of common development, the Proto-Balto-Slavic language.

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). 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 Balto-Slavic innovation.
  • 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.[32]
  • Word-final *-mi > *-m after a long vowel.[32] This followed the preceding change, as the preceding long vowel is retained.
  • Raising of stressed *o to *u in a final syllable.[32]
  • 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  and *a to , 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. : Latin ovis, Greec ὄις). The Indo-European long vowels  and  merged only in the Slavic group, and later only in old Prussian.[33]

Common 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*ǵʰ become palatal sibilants , 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 languages except Lithuanian.
  • Ruki sound law*s becomes  when preceded by *r*u*k or *i. In Slavic, this  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.[32] This contrasts with Sanskrit -ayā, archaic Vedic . 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 sūnumìsOld 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 dobrъ ‚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.[33]
  • 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’.[34]
Shared vocabulary

Some examples of words shared among most or all Balto-Slavic languages:

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.[35]

See also
Notes
  1. ^ Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017). Balto-SlavicGlottolog 3.0. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
  2. ^ Balto-Slavic languages. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online”. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Retrieved 10 December 2012Those scholars who accept the Balto-Slavic hypothesis attribute 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.
  3. Jump up to:ab Fortson (2010), p. 414.
  4. Jump up to:ab Young (2009), p. 136.
  5. ^ Petit (2004), p. 21.
  6. ^ Olander (2002)
  7. ^ Mallory & Adam (2006), p. 77.
  8. ^ Clarkson (2007), p. 6.
  9. ^ Beekes (2011), p. 31:”The supposed unity of the Balto-Slavic group is often disputed, but it is really above all doubt”.
  10. ^ Kapović (2017), p. 5.
  11. ^ Gray & Atkinson (2003)
  12. ^ Clarkson (2007).
  13. ^ Beekes (2011), p. 22.
  14. ^ Young (2017), p. 486.
  15. ^ Dini, P.U. (2000). Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. p. 143. ISBN5-420-01444-0.
  16. ^ Бирнбаум Х. О двух направлениях в языковом развитии // Вопросы языкознания, 1985, № 2, стр. 36
  17. ^ 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 split into three identifiable branches, each of which followed its own course of development.”
  18. ^ Kortlandt (2018).
  19. ^ Andersen (1996), p. 63.
  20. ^ Derksen (2008), p. 20:„I am not convinced that it is justified to reconstruct a Proto-Baltic stage. The term Proto-Baltic is used for convenience’s sake.”
  21. ^ Kim (2018), p. 1974.
  22. ^ Hill (2016).
  23. ^ Kromer, Victor V. (2003). „Glottochronology and problems of protolanguage reconstruction”. arXiv:cs/0303007.
  24. ^ 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)
  25. ^ Beekes (2011), p. 48.
  26. ^ cf. Holzer (2002) with references
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ Until the year 800 Slavic languages were spoken all the way to the Trieste–Hamburg line. Later, they were pushed back to the east.
  29. ^ 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
  30. ^ cf. Novotná & Blažek (2007) with references. „Classical glottochronology” conducted by Czech Slavist M. Čejka in 1974 dates the Balto-Slavic split to -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.
  31. ^ Mažiulis, Vytautas„Baltic languages”Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
  32. Jump up to:abcd Hill, Eugen (2013). „Historical phonology in service of subgrouping. Two laws of final syllables in the common prehistory of Baltic and Slavonic”BaltisticaXLVIII (2): 161–204. doi:10.15388/Baltistica.48.2.2170. Retrieved 11 January 2015.
  33. Jump up to:ab Zigmas Zinkevičius. Lietuvių kalbos kilmė [Origin of the Lithuanian Language]. Vilnius, 1984, page 120
  34. ^ Matasović (2008:56–57) „Navedimo najvažnije baltoslavenske izoglose…Upotreba genitiva za izricanje objekta zanijekanog glagola”
  35. ^ 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.
References
External links

…..

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/big-deal-of-2019-ancient-dna.html

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.

See also…

It was always going to be this way

Fresh off the sledge

More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

Posted by Davidski at 11:17:00 PM 236 comments:

Labels: 

Davidski said…
Interesting map for OLS10, eh? I wrote about this guy here…
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/fresh-off-sledge.html
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

Vinitharya said…
Oh no, Carlos! Alexa, play Despacito. Truth always wins out.
December 2, 2019 at 6:11 AM

Kristiina said…
@ 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

Vladimir said…
@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

Vladimir said…
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

Davidski said…
@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

Davidski said…
@Samuel Andrews
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

Vladimir said…
@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

Vladimir said…
@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

Davidski said…
@Vladimir
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

Davidski said…
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

Vladimir said…
@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

Davidski said…
@Vladimir
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.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/09/y-haplogroup-r1a-and-mental-health.html
December 2, 2019 at 10:41 PM

Davidski said…
@RobertN
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

Kristiina said…
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

Ryan said…
Does this mean Panonian Avars were Uralic?
December 3, 2019 at 1:17 AM

Craig said…
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

Archi said…
@ Davidski @ Vladimir
R1a, like R1b, arrived in Eastern Europe from Siberia, but in the Final Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic.

@RobertN
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

Rob said…
@ Archi
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

Archi said…
@Kristiina @Craig
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.

Rob said…
„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.

gehn”
“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

Davidski said…
@Nomic Belief
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

Kristiina said…
@ Nomic Belief
What are the archaeological elements that show that Stone Cist people spoke Germanic?
December 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM

Craig said…
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…
@Kristiina
„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

Olavi said…
@ 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

Davidski said…
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

Olavi said…
Link to „Finnic be-comings” pdf format. The English summary is at the end.
https://www.etis.ee/File/DownloadPublic/680cdbdb-88f5-421c-aea0-6a2b12ba3759?name=tulemised_etis.pdf&type=application%2Fpdf
December 3, 2019 at 5:54 AM

Kristiina said…
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

Click to access FULLTEXT01.pdf


December 3, 2019 at 6:51 AM

Archi said…
@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

Kristiina said…
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

Kristiina said…
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

@Ryan
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…
@Davidski

„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

Ryan said…
@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.

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2019/12/european-barbarians-has-varied-y-dna.html
December 3, 2019 at 9:38 AM

capra internetensis said…
@Ryan
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

Kristiina said…
@ Ryan
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

Rob said…
@ 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

Vladimir said…
@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

Gabriel said…
@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

Rob said…
@ 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

Gabriel said…
@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

Rob said…
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

Archi said…
@Rob gehn
„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 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

Rob said…
@ 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

Archi said…
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

Archi said…
@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

Davidski said…
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…

News


December 3, 2019 at 4:23 PM

Archi said…
@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

Kristiina said…
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

EastPole said…
“The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European”
https://brill.com/view/title/55752
A lot of articles, some open access:

https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004409354/BP000013.xml

Indo-Uralic hypothesis, if true, would suggest that the precursor of PIE was EHG language IMO.
December 4, 2019 at 1:32 PM

Archi said…
@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

Ryan said…
@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

Rob said…
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

Archi said…
@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

Davidski said…
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

Davidski said…
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…
@Archi
Your right, I should have said north of the forest-steppe.

@Samuel Andrews
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

Ryan said…
@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…
@Ryan
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6397/88
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

Rob said…
@ 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

Rob said…
@ 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

Kristiina said…
@ 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

Archi said…
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

Archi said…
@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

EastPole said…
The GenomeAsia 100K Project enables genetic discoveries across Asia

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1793-z#Sec6

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1793-z/figures/2

Lots of European genes in Asia
December 5, 2019 at 6:59 AM

epoch said…
„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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonant_gradation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verner%27s_law

I think also Parpola at least for some times considered the option.
December 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM

epoch said…
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

Archi said…
„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

epoch said…
Samoyedic languages have a form of consonant gradation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonant_gradation#Samoyedic_languages
December 5, 2019 at 12:08 PM

Rob said…
@ 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

Archi said…
@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

Rob said…
@ epoch
“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

Archi said…
@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

Rob said…
@ 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

Davidski said…
@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

Davidski said…
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
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/67436
December 5, 2019 at 4:17 PM

Archi said…
@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

Rob said…
@ 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

Rob said…
@ 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

Davidski said…
@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

Rob said…
@ 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

Rob said…
”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…
@ Rob
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

Davidski said…
@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

Rob said…
@ 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

EastPole said…
@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

Rob said…
@ 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

EastPole said…
@Rob „Not sure about indo -Iranian being from cwc Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either”

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6457/eaat7487

You should study scientific literature and accept reality. Stop reading sites run by trolls.
December 6, 2019 at 4:14 AM

Archi said…
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

Rob said…
@ 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

EastPole said…
@Rob „And what does that show?”


December 6, 2019 at 4:39 AM

Vladimir said…
@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

Matt said…
@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

Rob said…
@ 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

Rob said…
@ 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

Rob said…
@ 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

JuanRivera said…
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

Rob said…
@ 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

Rob said…
@ 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

Kristiina said…
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

Vladimir said…
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

Kristiina said…
@ 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

Davidski said…
@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

Ebizur said…
EastPole wrote,

„The GenomeAsia 100K Project enables genetic discoveries across Asia

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1793-z#Sec6

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1793-z/figures/2&#8221;

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

Kristiina said…
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

Davidski said…
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

Slumbery said…
@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

Vladimir said…
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

Vladimir said…
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

Vladimir said…
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-
R1a>YP4141>pre-YP5018
December 8, 2019 at 11:36 PM

Davidski said…
@All
New thread…
The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?
December 9, 2019 at 1:09 AM

…..

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-boo-people-earliest-uralic-speakers.html

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.

See also…

Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions

It was always going to be this way

More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

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

Davidski said…
@Huck Finn
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

Kristiina said…
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

Davidski said…
@Kristiina Which Northeast European language? Does anyone still speak it?
December 9, 2019 at 3:26 AM

Vladimir said…
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

Vladimir said…
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

Vladimir said…
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

epoch said…
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

Vinitharya said…
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

Kristiina said…
@ 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

Davidski said…
@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…

https://www.academia.edu/34105930/RADIOCARBON_CHRONOLOGY_OF_COMPLEXES_WITH_SEIMA-TURBINO_TYPE_2_OBJECTS_BRONZE_AGE_IN_SOUTHWESTERN_SIBERIA
December 9, 2019 at 1:11 PM

Davidski said…
I think Seima-Turbino was initially an Indo-European network. Finno-Ugric groups joined it later.
December 9, 2019 at 2:45 PM

Archi said…
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

Vladimir said…
@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

Vladimir said…
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

EastPole said…
@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

EastPole said…
@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

vAsiSTha said…
@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”.[3] 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

EastPole said…
@vAsiSTha „According to Matasović (2008), „solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic”

It is BS. Read T. Burrow “The Sanskrit Language”

https://goo.gl/mBeFD8

and this:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html?showComment=1523740548383#c6191530895381495941

Slavic words present in Sanskrit or Avestan have Slavic etymology. And now it is all confirmed by genetics:


December 10, 2019 at 6:57 AM

Vladimir said…
@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

Davidski said…
@All Thoughts?

The deviant typological profile of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European may be due to Uralic substrate influence

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

Davidski said…
Nice map…
Figure 2: Possible prehistoric neighbours of Tocharian
https://doi.org/10.1163/22125892-00701007
December 10, 2019 at 12:49 PM

Vladimir said…
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

EastPole said…
@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.”

https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

Modern genetic studies show that Scythians were very diverse genetically and we now have no idea what languages they spoke.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/10/cimmerians-scythians-and-sarmatians.html

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

EastPole said…
@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

Davidski said…
@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

EastPole said…
@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.”

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/307582/INDO-IRA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

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

Davidski said…
@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

EastPole said…
@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

EastPole said…
@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

Davidski said…
@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

250 uwag do wpisu “222 Ponowna ostateczna śmierć tzw. Proto-Balto-Slavic, wspólnoty bałto-słowiańskiej i wszystkiego, co ma związek z tym nigdy nie istniejącym czymś

  1. Wszystko o wiarygodności odtfoszeń, czyli rekonstrukcji… Jeśli chodzi o odtfoszenia zrobione na podstawie kości, no to mamy przynajmniej jakieś kości. A co powiecie o odtfoszenia zrobione na podstawie innych odtfoszeń, jak to ma miejsce w ofitzjalnym jęsykosnaftzfie… hehehe


    Top 13 Most Inaccurate Fossil Reconstructions

    994,969 views•Apr 28, 2015
    TREY the Explainer
    443K subscribers
    All copyrighted images belong to their respected owners
    -Fluffy Rex by arvalis (http://arvalis.deviantart.com/)
    -Therizinosaurus – The Turtle Beast by nemo-ramjet (nemo-ramjet.deviantart.com)
    -Therizinosaurus by novablue (novablue.deviantart.com)
    -Nudist Velociraptor lineart by Tomozaurus (http://tomozaurus.deviantart.com)
    -Deinocheirus mirificus over the years by ZeWqt (http://zewqt.deviantart.com)
    -The Deinocheirus Saga continues… by luisvrey (https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2014/0…)
    -David Peters’ Pteranodon by nemo-ramjet (nemo-ramjet.deviantart.com)
    -David Peters’ 2013 Vision by nemo-ramjet (nemo-ramjet.deviantart.com)
    -Various by David Peters (http://www.reptileevolution.com/)
    -How not to draw pterosaurs by Eurwentala (http://eurwentala.deviantart.com/)
    -Jeholopterus by apostlebird (http://apostlebird.deviantart.com/)
    -New Logo by Nemo Ramjet, re-colored by me (nemo-ramjet.deviantart.com)

    Today we examine the top 13 and a half most inaccurate fossil reconstructions! Hope you enjoy!

    Stricq
    Plot twist: they were all correct and we’re just clueless

    Mithrennon of Aegwynn
    50 years from now, someone will do a list like this that shows how silly and wrong all our dinosaur reconstructions are in 2019.

    Erick Riul
    I actually had that last book when i was a kid. The reconstruction is false on purpouse. The reader was supposed to tell the wrong ones!

    Masoniclight
    I just find it funny how they are like ” this is definitely how they looked!” Despite being wrong in the past lmao like what the fuck we have never seen a living one in person so it is a lot of guess work

    CJCroen1393
    @Masoniclight Yeah, paleontology is such a dumb science, isn’t it? Why should we bother studying these animals to get a better idea of how they looked when we could just throw all that research aside and make stuff up just because some mistakes were made in the past?
    If you couldn’t tell, I’m being sarcastic.

    Polubienie

  2. Pingback: 223 Ptak, Ptach, Ptica, Ptactwo, Ptasi, Pióro, Feather, czyli śmierć palatalizacji słowiańskich i tzw. Proto-Germanic i wszystkiego, co ma związek z tym nigdy nie istniejącym czymś 01 | SKRBH

    • Wrzucam to tu, ponieważ gdyż to wszystko nawiązuje do min. i do tego wpisu:

      https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/166-the-proto-indo-european-homeland-czyli-indogermanskie-kompleksy-fielko-giermancow-fielko-ormian-fielko-anatolijczykow-fielko-iranczykow-fielko-sindusow-fielko-finow-fielko-turkow-itp/

      …..

      http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-final-note-for-year.html

      Monday, December 30, 2019

      A final note for the year

      I feel like I’ve spent a good part of 2019 banging my head against a thicker than average brick wall.

      Much of this feeling is tied to the controversy over the ethnogenesis of the Yamnaya people, and my often futile attempts to explain that their origin cannot be sought in what is now Iran, or, indeed, anywhere outside of Eastern Europe.

      This post is my final attempt to lay out the facts in regards to this topic. Next year I’ll have better things to do than to argue the bleeding obvious.

      Below are two graphs from a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on relatively high quality ancient human genotype data from the Caucasus and surrounds. They include two typical Yamnaya individuals from burial sites north of the Caspian Sea. I made the graphs with the Vahaduo Custom PCA tool here. The relevant datasheet can be downloaded here.

      Here’s what I’m seeing:

      – the Yamnaya individuals sit on genetic clines made up of hunter-gatherers native to the Caucasus and various parts of Eastern Europe, including a trio from the southernmost part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe (labeled Steppe_Eneolithic), with whom they form a distinct cluster

      – the samples from the Caucasus and the Iranian Plateau form very different clusters, so there’s no support here for the ancient Caucasus/Iranian grouping that is often haphazardly invoked in scientific literature

      – there’s no indication that the Yamnaya and/or Steppe_Eneolithic groups experienced recent gene flow, or, for that matter, any gene flow whatsoever, from what is now Iran.

      Of course, analyses based on formal statistics suggest that the Yamnaya population harbors minor western ancestry that is missing in Steppe_Eneolithic. In fact, I was first to argue this point (see here). So let’s add a couple of ancient farmers from Western Europe to my PCA to see how they affect the graphs. The relevant datasheet is available here.

      Yep, the Yamnaya pair appears to be peeling away very slightly, but deliberately, from the Steppe_Eneolithic individuals towards the part of the plot occupied by the farmers.

      Admittedly, I’m no Sherlock Holmes, but even with my fairly average sleuthing abilities, I’m pretty sure I know how the Yamnaya people came to be. They formed largely on the base of a population very much like Steppe_Eneolithic somewhere deep in Eastern Europe, well to the north of the Caucasus, and nowhere near the Iranian Plateau.

      See also…

      A note on Steppe Maykop

      Posted by Davidski at 7:16:00 PM

      Labels: ancient DNA, Caucasus, Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Corded Ware Culture, Eastern Europe, Indo-European, Iran, Iranian Plateau, Maykop, migration, PCA, Pontic-Caspian steppe, Proto-Indo-European, Yamna, Yamnaya

      Polubienie

      • old europe said…
        @slumbery

        I think you start with a wrong assumption: the level of EEF in Yamnaya is not 5% it ranges from 15 to 20 per cent but likely more 20 than 15 I5651 is basically half old european half steppe eneolithic so it makes sense Sredni Stog in Yamnaya being close to 40 %
        January 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM

        Samuel Andrews said…
        David Reich’s 2018 ancient DNA book, Who We are and How We Got here. Says Yamnaya’s Middle Eastern ancestry is „Iranian-related.”

        As does, Narasimhan 2018 The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia.

        These were two big publications of the Harvard lab related to Indo European stuff. Both say Yamnaya has „Iranian-related” ancestry. So, Davidski is right. This is really annoying, the experts seem stubborn about this „Iranian farmer” thing in Yamnaya

        This is even though its Middle Eastern ancestry is clearlly more related to CHG, Caucasus hunter gatherers, than to ancient Iran. Anybody, could see this doing simple analysis of the ancient DNA.
        January 1, 2020 at 4:40 PM

        Davidski said…
        @Ric It was obvious years ago that Yamnaya didn’t have any ancestry from Iran. Looking at a few mtDNA markers was enough to work that out.
        https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/steppe-boys-farmer-girls.html
        January 1, 2020 at 8:23 PM

        Davidski said…
        @Ric Yeah, books are going to be outdated very quickly after they’re published in fast moving and evolving scenes like ancient DNA. But that’s where modern communications and transport can be useful. Like e-mail, phones, planes and trains. Can’t these guys get together for a weekend and talk some things over?

        Anthony’s theory that CHG lived in Iran is just one problem here. Kristiansen seems to think that Steppe Maykop morphed into Yamnaya. I hope someone eventually explains to him that the Wang paper made a mistake by lumping Steppe Maykop and Yamnaya into one cluster, because they’re not directly related.
        January 1, 2020 at 8:50 PM

        Rob said…
        @ Sam “Yes and Reich usually does a good job making conclusions.” Really, Which ones ?
        January 1, 2020 at 9:21 PM

        Bob Floy said…
        @Davidski
        (…)

        How could it be that these things are obvious to dedicated amateurs and bloggers, while these well-funded professionals are so confused about them? I still cannot wrap my head around this. The idea that they’re all just reinforcing each other’s incorrect beliefs just dosen’t cut it for me.

        January 1, 2020 at 10:04 PM

        Samuel Andrews said…
        Reich discovered ANE before Mal’ta boy’s ancient DNA was sequenced. In Lazardis 2013, when the first two key high coverage Mesolithic & Neolithic European genomes were published Reich and his team did a good job understanding what it meant. Back then, there were a lot of possibilities they had to test out and the conclusion they came turned out to be right: Europeans derive from three ancestors. It was very controversial back then to say Mal’ta boy was an ancestor of anyone but Native Americans.

        ASI vs ANI for India. This was discovered with modern DNA. Bell Beaker. To be able to show Bell Beaker represented migration from Eastern Eurppe into Western Europe not from Iberia, went against the grain of previous work. They have acute understanding of BMAC, small number of Indus valley immigrants buried there.
        January 1, 2020 at 10:08 PM

        Samuel Andrews said…
        Generally, the Harvard lab has made a lot of discoveries. They always backup big claims that go against expectations with evidence. You can’t be sure a different lab would have done as well interpreting the data. Also, David Reich’s is the one who industrialized ancient DNA. Even if we dis agree with their conclusions of the data, it’s possible we wouldn’t have all this ancient DNA available if not for them.
        January 1, 2020 at 10:12 PM

        Gaska said…
        @Rocca said-Niedertiefenbach-No surprises. Poster artemv checked 18 of 25 males thus far and all belong to haplogoup I. It was to be expected for their percentage of whg, but there are still 7 genomes left to analyze – There may be surprises

        Regarding Reich/Harvard and his genetic successes, I don’t think that in Europe he/they are a reference. He has to defend an ideological agenda and that is why his conclusions are often wrong (in the case of BB culture they are scandalously wrong and biased)

        As always, the supporters of the steppe theory applaud that agenda when it suits them and run away like rabbits when they talk about Iranian ancestry.But the fault is yours for the sickly obsession for bringing everything from the steppes. You have to overcome the trauma of the failure of the Yamnaya culture, 2019 has shown that it was just a fable which has generated useless discussions for 5 years

        @Davidski-Remember that my friends talked about M269 in northern Russia? it seems to be true and that Volosovo has a lot to say. However they talked about L51 and it seems that this haplogroup does not appear- I’m curious to check its origin

        @Ric said-At least we do not sit with Haplogroup R1b in Western Europe during the Paleolithic kind of scenario anymore… R1b has been in Western Europe since the epigravettian and the Villabruna cluster is indispensable to understand the genetics of modern Europeans- The BBculture saved your collective L21 butts when the Iranian/Indoeuropeans was terrorizing mainland Europe
        January 2, 2020 at 1:57 AM

        Gaska said…
        @Davidski Yeah,there are many people trying to save the „steppe theory” by linking P312 with the CWC, but even if you find more cases of this lineage in that culture, the problem would still exist and would be even harder to solve.

        Because, if I don’t misunderstand, you would have to demonstrate a joint migration from Eastern Europe and later a P312 back-migration to Hungary and Poland thanks to the BBC- In other words, M417 and P312 travel together and then P312 ignores or exterminates M417, invents or kidnaps a different culture and colonizes Western Europe alone-Perhaps the CWC despite its steppe ancestry is much more Central European in origin than people think because its archaeological relationship with the TRB is obvious

        It would be better to temporarily forget the issue of the origin and diffusion of IE and its possible link to R1a-M417 and R1b-P312 and try to think only about the cultural and geographical origin of these lineages-

        Now that everyone seems to have forgotten Yamnaya to make their models of steppe ancestry, someone should check what is the percentage of Khvalynsk, Sredni Stog, Steppe Eneolithic etc in the western Bbs of France, Italy, Sicily or Spain- You can check that it is literally ZERO in many cases and that they can be perfectly modeled without taking into account that steppe component
        January 2, 2020 at 4:05 AM

        Ric Hern said…
        What is also interesting is the domesticated European Pigs…They started out as fully Middle Eastern and ended up almost fully European Boar like genetically….
        January 2, 2020 at 4:25 AM

        Gaska said…
        Richard,how can you ask for evidence if you’ve been wasting your/our time with L51 in Yamnaya for five years without providing a single convincing proof?, and how can you say that you provide evidence when everyone knows that Niedertiefenbach’s genomes have been public for more than a month

        Remember „Delenda Est Yamnaya” you had to shut me up in anthrogenica and a year later your fanatic Kurganists friends continue to talk nonsense-People want to participate in free and honest debates not to hear opinions of airheads with only steppe in their brains-
        January 2, 2020 at 11:57 AM

        Polubienie

      • Richard Rocca said…
        @Gaska, you’ve been saying L51 will show up in Western Europe for 5 years and you are no where close. Your cop-out is that perhaps L51 will show up in Spain, or France or Germany or Switzerland etc, etc. Why don’t you just play it even more safe and say it originated on planet Earth? Now you are saying that even if L51 shows up in CWC it will not be meaningful? You are delusional.
        January 2, 2020 at 1:38 PM

        Rob said…
        @ Gaska ”Shouldn’t it be the other way around? ”

        because its not so simple. As ive been saying, the big paradox is that some of these East-Yamnaya-associated groups had the biggest impact in the far west of Europe. BBC package is just Yamnaya in western Europe. The steppe influences in Hungary & Balkans are more varied, and from earlier phases of steppe-farmer interaction.

        ”I suppose you are joking, Olalde and Heyd had the mission of annihilating the possibility of an Iberian origin using absurd and unscientific arguments to demonstrate the steppe theory”

        Well, you don’t follow historiography very well. Olalde is a young scholar with no pre-set path. From what I recall in his works, Heyd supported an Iberian origin of BB. In any case, the received dogma of current geneticists and their collaborators is that BB spread from Iberia ‚with ideas’; something which I disagree with because its fundamentaly wrong, and skews the rest of European history.
        January 2, 2020 at 3:50 PM

        Ryan said…
        @Rob – If BB was just Yamnaya in western Europe, Basque people would be speaking something Indo-European. A steppe origin for late Bell Beakers seems increasingly certain, but I wouldn’t take for granted the possibility of meaningful genetic and cultural differences between steppe groups.
        January 2, 2020 at 3:53 PM

        Rob said…
        @ Ryan ”If BB was just Yamnaya in western Europe, Basque people would be speaking something Indo-European. ”

        Not really. Firstly, we need to appreciate how big the steppe was (breadth wise it’s as big as the rest of Europe); the variant sub-groups of Yamnaya, the co-synchronous non-Yamnaya steppe groups, etc; secondly, the divergent faits of BB groups post 2000 BC. And I did highlight east Yamnaya there.
        January 2, 2020 at 4:57 PM

        Davidski said…
        @All L51 probably moved out of the steppe or forest steppe into Central Europe north of the Carpathians with early Corded Ware groups.

        That’s what all of the evidence that we have is showing, including the L51 in the published and as yet unpublished Corded Ware samples, as well as the significant Globular Amphora and TRB ancestry in early Bell Beakers. The eastern cultural traits of the Bell Beakers can be explained by their heavy contacts with groups from the Danube region and the Balkans. I talked about this here:

        https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-balkan-connection.html

        No matter what any us is hoping to see, we’ll all have to eventually accept reality, and that reality is looking like what I just described.
        January 2, 2020 at 5:37 PM

        Samuel Andrews said…
        @About Volosovo and Narva connection

        Davidski has told me Volosovo was genetically similar to Latvia Baltic HGs not EHG. This is even though they lived in Russia. Before, we assumed all of Russia was EHG. But, not so. Latvia Hgs are mostly WHG while EHG is mostly ANE. It’s an important difference. They were pretty far from each other in the Mesolithic European cline.

        It makes sense Volosvo is most similar to Baltic HGs considering Volosovo has the oldest R1b P297>M269 and that several R1b P297 (1 step behind M269) have been found in Baltic HGs. But, R1b P297>M73 has also been found in EHG. It’s confusing.

        There’s a lot of different ways Yamnaya and Bell beaker got their R1b M269. Neither show lots of Latvia HG-like ancestry. So, it’s very confusing trying to make sense of R1b M269 in Volosovo who were supposedly very western genetically (mostly WHG).
        January 2, 2020 at 5:49 PM

        Gaska said…
        @Rob What you call a paradox, I call it inability to prove your theory due to ignorance of what BB culture really was.

        Regarding Iñigo Olalde, I think he has done a great job and I am proud that he is my countryman. He is young and has a lot to learn. He has obtained a lot of ancient samples for Harvard that would not have been so easy to obtain because Prof Reich has no prestige or influence in Spain-I recommend that you read his doctoral thesis, it will surely surprise you-

        This does not mean that we cannot criticize their conclusions regarding the BB culture- I have already said many times that their main objective was to deny the genetic exchange between Iberia and the rest of Europe to ensure the steppe theory- To do this they had to attack many previous papers that ensured the similarity of mitochondrial haplogroups between German and Spanish BBs, and other papers that referred to the genetic influence of the Mediterranean domain (Besse) -And the most surprising thing is that their only argument is that in Iberia he did not find the frequent H3 mit-hap in the German Bbs. Well, Olalde did not study Spanish databases, because it has been found very abundantly since the Neolithic- Anyone who understands genetics can check what I am saying-

        Regarding Heyd, you should reread his introduction to Olalde’s paper and the rest of his work on BB culture-Like the vast majority of European archaeologists, he defends that there is a Pre-BB Package in Iberia before that culture spread throughout the rest of Europe – Tanged copper daggers, halberds, V perforated buttons, wristguards, ivory, gold etc. but he always defended the possibility of a later influence of the Yamnaya culture (Example-Sion-Switzerland) to try to justify the steppe migrations
        January 2, 2020 at 5:56 PM

        Samuel Andrews said…
        @Ric Hern, „I think some early R1b in Europe followed the same path as the domesticated pigs of Europe. Originating somewhere else and while migrating and admixing loose their original genetic makeup rather thoroughly.”

        No, ANE ancestry is high in Mesolithic Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Its high in most R1b carriers from Mesolithic Europe. Assuming Siberian ANE is the original carrier of R1b, ANE ancestry was still high in R1b carriers in Stone age Europe. It didn’t wither away. Yamnaya & Bell beaker carried lots of ANE original R1b carriers too. R1b spread deep into Europe by 15,000 years ago. So, by the time it spread into Western Europe with Bell Beaker it was already a primarily European haplogroup.
        January 2, 2020 at 10:20 PM

        Ric Hern said…
        @ Samuel
        Yes. To be more clear I’m talking about the WHG and EHG split….
        January 2, 2020 at 10:30 PM

        Rob said…
        @ Davidski ” They formed largely on the base of a population very much like Steppe_Eneolithic somewhere deep in Eastern Europe, well to the north of the Caucasus” and where did Steppe Eneolithic form, with what ?
        January 2, 2020 at 11:35 PM

        Davidski said…
        @Rob Steppe_Eneolithic is indigenous to the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe. That’s because it sits on a Mesolithic genetic cline that includes hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus and the steppe. Darkveti-Meshoko almost sits on this cline too, which suggests that pure CHG groups lived in the northwest Caucasus until the Eneolithic.
        January 2, 2020 at 11:46 PM

        Vladimir said…
        As I understand it, the steppe eneolite is L23, so M269 must be something that makes up the steppe eneolite. This is either an EHG of the Sidelkino type, or the same Mesolithic-Neolithic North Caucasian steppe. One of them is R1b-M269 and the other of R1a-M198. In the area of Sidelkino later formed Elshan culture, from which, according to one version, comes the Samara culture. So it is quite possible that EHG is R1b-M269. In this case, the steppes of the North Caucasus (the Eastern coast of the sea of Azov) may well be home to CHG, which is R1a-M198. Or maybe the other way around. But if we assume that EHG is R1b, then M269 should be looked for somewhere to the East or South-East of Samara. This is the southern Urals, the North-Eastern coast of the Caspian sea, or even Western Siberia.
        January 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM

        Vladimir said…
        Archie, you are hopelessly out of touch with modernity. Now almost all cultures are radiocarbon dated. Narva with 3280 BC is also late for the M269. In Volosovo radiocarbon dates from 3180 BC to 2100. http://archsamara.ru/files/biblioteka/254.pdf .
        Well, as for what makes you think, logic. If you have a different logic, then tell me
        January 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM

        Gaska said…
        @Richard Rocce said-Gaska, so your hypocrisy is complete as you can tell others where L51 DIDN’T originate based on biased archaeological arguments but you can’t say where it DID based on those same arguments. Looks like the only one who is afraid to be wrong is you.

        What you call hypocrisy, I call it humility, common sense, reasoned thinking and search for reasonable arguments-Ultrakurganist fans like you are the modern Holy Inquisition, you have the power, the money, you control the media and you have been trying for five years to impose an absurd dogma without having enough evidence for it-Now when Yamnaya culture is dying, instead of apologizing for your unscientific and unfair behavior, you get carried away by resentment and continue to attack people who don’t think like you-

        So, I have to admit that I don’t know what the exact geographical origin of R1b-M269 / L51 is, but if I can affirm the following

        1-R1b is a typical WHG lineage with evidence in Europe since the Epigravetian-
        2-Villabruna cluster R1b spread throughout Europe reaching France (Iboussieres-Mesolithic), the Baltic (Narva culture hunter-gatherers), the Balkans and Scandinavia
        3-Whgs contributed decisively to the formation of German (TRB, LBK, Rossen, Baalberge), French (Michelsberg) and Spanish Neolithic cultures
        4-We have VK531 (probably R1b-L51) in Scandinavia (2,400 BC) with zero steppe ancestry
        5-The Latvian hunter gatherers are 70% WHG and 30% EHG with zero steppe ancestry
        6-Now it seems that we have R1b-M269 in Volosovo, very far from the steppes, and this culture seems to be related to the Narva culture
        7-The R1b lineages related to Yamnaya and other steppe cultures (Khvalynsk, Sredni Stog, Catacomb, Repin, MAykop) etc. are exclusively R1b-V1636 and R1b-Z2103

        And knowing this data some enlightened as you and your friend Kurgan Stevens intend to make everyone believe that the swarthy dolichocephalus riders supposedly L51/P312 of the Yamnaya culture domesticated the horse, invented the wheel, perfected metallurgy, conquered mainland Europe thanks to their strength, and the plague, created the BB culture and arrived in Iberia where they stayed forever to sunbathe on the beaches of southern Europe-You will succeed sleeping your children with this fairy tale but I don’t think you get a PhD in a University using those arguments-However, Yamnaya culture is not the source but the sink of R1b and you cannot even prove that it is the origin of IE

        So, you are right, with my genetic and archaeological knowledge, I cannot say where L51 originated, but I am intelligent enough to understand that the steppe theory as it has been interpreted by the new Kurganists for five years is a fairy tale-
        January 4, 2020 at 2:47 AM

        Davidski said…
        @Vladimir The dates that you’re citing for Volosovo aren’t calibrated.
        January 4, 2020 at 5:16 AM

        Davidski said…
        @vAsiSTha The oldest R1a, almost from the Upper Paleolithic, is from north of the Black Sea you dickhead. https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/09/y-haplogroup-r1a-and-mental-health.html
        There’s no evidence that R1a came from the Caucasus.
        January 5, 2020 at 12:40 PM

        Davidski said…
        R1a, R1b and R2 are all obviously from the north somewhere, since R and P1 are from Siberia.
        January 5, 2020 at 1:21 PM

        old europe said…
        @ Rob
        Another paper that perfectly matches the genetic profile of Sredni Stog and reinforces Kotova’s view of the western origin of this culture and the well know thesis of Manzura. Pivotal in this paper the reference to the warrior knight or warrior priest ( REX) which perfectly fit what we know of later historically attested IE populations.

        I’m just waiting of news of horse domestication between the Dneper and the Danube and it will be game over.
        https://www.academia.edu/41287512/Attack_and_defence_New_evidence_for_Trypillia-Steppe_interaction_in_the_valley_of_the_Southern_Bug_River_Central_Ukraine_

        The above-mentioned social processes formed a part of the general trend that affected the Balkans,the Carpathian Basin, Ukraine and Moldova as well as the Central Europe in the second half of the V millennia BC and was called “eneolithization” by S.Kadrow [Kadrow 2015]. He explains it by “the ad-aptation of the ‘patriarchal’ ethos (warrior-knightor warrior-priest)”. While several other social inter-pretations were proposed, S. Kadrow ʼs model corresponds well with the surrounding of villages by palisades and with the wide distribution of menʼs most common weapon – arrows and bows.Eneolithization expanded well beyond the Cucuteni-Trypillia zone, penetrating deep east-wards into the Pontic Steppe. Mobile herders of Seredny Stog were “eneolitized” along with their early farming contemporaries. I. Manzura sup-posed that the ideological standards were imposedon the Steppe population in the course of coloni-zation following the “frontier model” [Zvelebil,Rowley-Conwy 1984; Manzura 2005]. The Southern Bug valley is a corridor linking the Steppe and Forest-Steppe zones. The abundant resourcesof the river attracted people of various cultural backgrounds for millennia [Tovkailo 2014]. It is a natural interaction zone and vivid relations took place there between the dwellers of the settlementsof Sabatynivka 1 type and mobile steppe groups. However, the exclusive military character of these contacts is very doubtful. The bearers of sedentary and mobile ways of life were equally involved in the general process of creation of a new society of fully Eneolithic type.
        January 7, 2020 at 2:13 AM

        Polubienie

  3. Problemu CHG, Yamna i powiązania tego ze Skałkazem ciąg dalszy.

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-note-on-steppe-maykop.html

    Friday, December 20, 2019

    A note on Steppe Maykop

    I’m reading a new book titled Dispersals and Diversification: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo-European (see here). One of the chapters is authored by archeologist David Anthony, in which he makes the following claims:

    A previously unknown genetic population actually was identified in Wang et al. (2019), but it was a peculiar relict-seeming group related to Paleo Siberians and American Indians (Kennewick) that had survived isolated somewhere in the Caspian steppes or perhaps in the North Caucasus Mountains. The Maykop people did admix with this previously isolated Siberian/Kennewick population in graves labeled „Steppe Maykop” in Wang et al. (2019).

    But this just makes it clearer that a cultural choice motivated the Maykop people to exclude marriages with Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya people specifically, even while exchanges of material goods, ideas, technologies continued. Neither the Maykop nor the North Caucasus/Siberian/Kennewick population can be the source of most of the CHG [Caucasus hunter-gatherer] ancestry in Yamnaya. In order to narrow down when and where CHG ancestry entered the steppes, we must widen our geographic frame beyond the Caucasus.

    Unfortunately, this is way off the mark. Especially unsound is his inference that the CHG-related ancestry in the Yamnaya population may have come from beyond the Caucasus.

    In fact, the chances that the Steppe Maykop people were derived from a relict Siberian/Kennewick-related group that survived into the Maykop era in the Caspian steppes or the North Caucasus are exactly zero.

    The real story was surely more complicated. In my opinion, it initially involved the migration during the Eneolithic or earlier of a people rich in CHG ancestry from the southernmost steppes into the Volga Delta and surrounds, and then the back-migration during the Early Bronze Age (EBA) of their descendants with around 50% admixture from Central Asian foragers. If so, these foragers were very similar to indigenous West Siberians and also relatively closely related to Native Americans.

    I don’t know why such an exotic people migrated into the North Caucasus steppes to form the bulk of the Steppe Maykop population, but I’m certain they did, and one interesting possibility is that they were recruited by Maykop chiefs to create a buffer zone against hostile Yamnaya-related groups trying to push into the Caucasus, possibly from the lower Don region.

    Of course, the same ancient northward migration of the CHG-rich population that may have eventually given rise to the Steppe Maykop people might also explain the deep origins of the Yamnaya people.

    The key sample in all of this is VJ1001 from the Wang et al. paper. This female comes from an Eneolithic (4332-4238 calBCE) kurgan burial in the North Caucasus steppes. But despite her early date, she’s genetically very similar to most Yamnaya individuals. And she’s also a perfect proxy for half of the ancestry of three out of the six Steppe Maykop individuals. Here’s a mixture model that I put together using the Broad MIT/Harvard software qpAdm:

    RUS_Steppe_Maykop (3/6)
    RUS_Eneolithic_steppe_VJ1001 0.452±0.023
    RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.548±0.023
    chisq 7.494
    tail prob 0.874914
    Full output

    Indeed, these Steppe Maykop samples don’t harbor any Maykop ancestry. They’re simply a two-way mixture between a population closely resembling VJ1001 and another one similar to hunter-gatherers from Tyumen, West Siberia.

    Importantly, a couple of Steppe Maykop-related populations were inadvertently discovered by Narasimhan et al. northeast of the Caspian Sea in what is now Kazakhstan. One of these groups is labeled Kumsay_EBA, after the location of its cemetery. It’s roughly contemporaneous with Steppe Maykop and basically identical to the aforementioned Steppe Maykop trio.

    KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
    RUS_Eneolithic_steppe_VJ1001 0.440±0.022
    RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.560±0.022
    chisq 10.573
    tail prob 0.646513
    Full output

    I suppose it’s possible that Kumsay_EBA represents the migration of Steppe Maykop people into the Kazakh steppes. But even if this is true, then there had to have been an earlier migration of a group from the Kazakh steppes or West Siberia that mixed with the VJ1001-related natives of the North Caucasus steppes to give rise to Steppe Maykop.

    I’m assuming that the Yamnaya-like VJ1001 and her people were the indigenous population of the North Caucasus steppes because there are no indications that they or their ancestors migrated there within any reasonable time frame from anywhere else, and certainly not from as far afield as, say, what is now Iran.

    The other three Steppe Maykop individuals, who are genetic outliers in varying degrees from the main Steppe Makyop cluster, show variable levels of Maykop ancestry, with an average of about 50%. But they too harbor significant VJ1001-related ancestry. So despite the fact that there was some irregular mixing between the Maykop and Steppe Maykop peoples, this is not what created the typical Steppe Maykop genetic profile.

    RUS_Steppe_Maykop_o
    RUS_Eneolithic_steppe_VJ1001 0.234±0.074
    RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya 0.461±0.046
    RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.305±0.033

    chisq 7.378
    tail prob 0.831667
    Full output

    And, of course, it should be obvious by now that the ancestry of the vast majority of Yamnaya individuals is better modeled without any input whatsoever from the Maykop or Steppe Maykop samples.

    In fact, early indications are that the Yamnaya people flooded into Steppe Maykop territory from the north and completely replaced its population (see here). Despite this, in Dispersals and Diversification archeologist Kristian Kristiansen makes the following claim: „steppe Maykop expanded north, leading to the formation of the Yamnaya Culture and Proto-Indo-European”. Not a chance in hell Professor.

    See also…

    A final note for the year

    The PIE homeland controversy: August 2019 status report

    Some myths die hard

    An exceptional burial indeed, but not that of an Indo-European

    Posted by Davidski at 7:44:00 PM

    Labels: ancient DNA, Caspian Sea, Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Indo-European, Iran, Maykop, Pontic-Caspian steppe, R1a-M417, R1b-M269, Steppe Maykop, West Siberia, Yamnaya
    264 comments:

    Polubienie

    • Davidski said…
      Here’s some more stuff from Anthony’s chapter in that book:

      – there’s plenty of R1b1a in Khvalynsk samples, but no mention by Anthony of any R1b-M269, which is in line with my info, and obviously makes it tricky to directly link Yamnaya males to Khvalynsk, but Anthony didn’t pick up on this detail

      – he says that at least five Khvalynsk males belong to Q1a1b, and some of them are from very rich graves

      – other Y-haplogroups in the Khvalynsk samples include R1a1, J1 and I2a2a

      – he potentially links the J1 to a recent influx of CHG-related ancestry into the steppes, which may or may not be correct considering that there’s earlier J1 in Eastern Euro hunter-gatherers (EHG) from way up north in Karelia.

      I feel obliged to add that the oldest, yet to be published instances of R1b-M269 are actually in foragers from the Russian forest zone some distance west of Khvalynsk. The relevant site is described in this paper…

      Сhronology of early Neolithic materials of the site Sakhtysh IIa (Central Russia)

      So it’s possible that Yamnaya males came from somewhere to the west of Khvalynsk and totally replaced the descendants of Khvalynsk males in the Samara region. This would be in line with the autosomal genetic structure of Yamnaya, which shows signals of western admix, including some farmer ancestry and elevated Western Euro hunter-gatherer (WHG) ancestry relative to the Eneolithic samples from the Caspian steppe.
      December 20, 2019 at 7:47 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Davidski ”I’m assuming that the Yamnaya-like VJ1001 and her people were the indigenous population of the North Caucasus steppes because there are no indications that they or their ancestors migrated there within any reasonable time frame from anywhere else,”

      CHG-rich people might have been moving into eastern Europe during the LUP; however this was a discontinuous process. I still think it the bulk of it moved between 6000 & 5000 BC, however as it turns out, theyr not very instrumental to PIE genesis. I’d call them ‚genomic donors’ but culturally peripheral
      December 20, 2019 at 8:33 PM

      Romulus said…
      Steppe migration should be renamed as the Forest Steppe migration since that is where they actually came from.
      December 20, 2019 at 9:04 PM

      Ric Hern said…
      @ Romulus I agree. The obvious connections of Indo-European with Trees and specifically species that can not be found East of the Don/Volga to Caspian Sea area and Northern Black Sea Coastal areas and Grassland Steppe for me points also to the Forest Steppe…
      December 20, 2019 at 10:22 PM

      Knowledgeable Geneticist said…
      „- he potentially links the J1 to a recent influx of CHG-related ancestry into the steppes, which may or may not be correct considering that there’s earlier J1 in Eastern Euro hunter-gatherers (EHG) from way up north in Karelia.”

      I very much doubt that the Karelian J who is dated to 6000 BC and has no or close to no CHG input has the J from a recent migration of a CHG-high people. Karelia is not just very far from the Caucasus but also from the Eneolithic Steppe territories. What I think is more probable is that CHG and Iran N have J from the ANE or ANE-like ancestry, and the original haplogroup of Iran N was perhaps G (both G2 and G1) since we have such samples in Iran with only very tiny ENF ancestry, not to mention that Pinarbasi was haplogroup C and the G domination in ENF had to do with some invasion from the East, most likely something Iran N related with a founder effect as ENF had no J. So the J in Karelia might have come from an ANE or ANE-related source because CHG reaching Karelia somewhen 7000-6000 BC is just incredibly hard to believe for me when it is possible that this is the date CHG even reached the North Caucasus Steppe.
      December 20, 2019 at 10:47 PM

      Rob said…
      @ KG it’s northern Mesopotamia not Iran ; the Fertile Crescent A’s has long been described
      “related with a founder effect as ENF had no J”
      There are a few J2a
      December 20, 2019 at 11:05 PM

      a said…
      Here is what makes perfect sense that has not been addressed, since no data has been provided. I predict that Anthony and Kristiansen will both be proven wrong when Yamnaya and Corded Ware Sintashta BellBeakers will be shown to be R1a/b and I2 and share the same evolutionary geographical microbiology traits, like the evolutionary adaption to a steppe dairy diet.
      December 21, 2019 at 12:37 AM

      epoch said…
      Maybe I read this wrong, but considering the fact that David Anthony recently stated:

      „This partial description of the genetic data, if it stands, suggests that Maikop was not the source of most of the CHG that amounts to half of Yamnaya ancestry. This is because CHG was already in the steppes long before Maikop, and it was in an unadmixed form. This older introduction of CHG into the steppes is less compatible with the Maikop-NWCaucasian-Yamnaya-PIE connection, but it is what is indicated by the emerging genetic data.”

      and:

      „If the CHG element in Yamnaya came from a non-admixed CHG population of this kind, they could have walked into the steppes from northwestern Iran/Azerbaijan at any time before about 5000 BC — before admixture with Anatolian Farmers began.”

      I think he means the scope of our search for the geographic origin of the CHG admixture needs to be widened beyond the Caucasus. He advocates a group of foragers in the lower Volga delta here:

      https://www.academia.edu/39985565/Archaeology_Genetics_and_Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard

      December 21, 2019 at 1:24 AM

      Davidski said…
      @epoch There weren’t any CHG foragers in the lower Volga Delta. „Eneolithic steppe” from Wang et al. are the CHG, or rather CHG-rich, foragers we’re looking for. So we’ve already found them and it’s a mystery to me why Anthony hasn’t accepted that.

      To make matters worse, he seems to be using Steppe Maykop to argue that CHG entered the steppe from Iran via the eastern Caucasus, by claiming that the Siberian/Kennewick-related ancestors of Steppe Maykop may have been the indigenous peoples of the North Caucasus and/or Caspian steppes. If so, that’s bonkers.
      December 21, 2019 at 1:35 AM

      EastPole said…
      @ Davidski What does Anthony say about mating networks? Which one he links with PIE? I guess, if he is in line with Kristiansen, it should be CHG.

      @Andrzejewski

      ”For someone who touts that PIE was a WHG language, why am I not surprised?”

      So you are thinking along the line of Anthony i.e. that mating networks like WHG can be associated with PIE. I am not sure about it. WHG probably contained many language families. I think it is possible that PIE comes from Central-Eastern Euro HG, something between WHG and EHG, that R1a rich group of HGs which started mixing with CHG rich steppe groups coming from the East and South and with EEF coming from the West.
      December 21, 2019 at 3:59 AM

      Davidski said…
      @EastPole It seems there’s a preview of Anthony’s article at Google Books.

      LINK

      But please don’t copy paste the text here.
      December 21, 2019 at 4:04 AM

      Archi said…
      Of course, the Steppe Maikop could be connected with the Dene-Caucasian macrofamily, especially with Kets and Burushaska. Perhaps, they were the ones who brought the North Caucasian languages to the Caucasus. There are many variants and it is still unclear.
      One thing is clear: CHG in Yamnians is a Caucasian component, not Iranian. Kristiansen, of course, speaks nonsense.
      December 21, 2019 at 7:36 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Davidski “It seems there’s a preview of Anthony’s article at Google Books. LINK”

      Unfortunately pages 40-53 are not accessible so I don’t know what the final story is and which mating network #1, #2, #3 or #4 he considers PIE and why.

      I am mostly interested in real IE mating network, i.e. the one which really links India and Europe by language, religion, Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA. And it seems to be Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian Corded Ware culture mating network. All the rest like Khvalynsk or Yamnaya or Maykop does not look convincing at this stage, but as I said I haven’t read Anthony’s article to the end. If there is something valuable there people sooner or later will start talking about it, but so far Internet seems quiet.
      December 21, 2019 at 9:46 AM

      Archi said…
      @ EastPole The Corded Ware is Core PIE culture. Core PIE means that this is culture all PIE except Hettite-Luwians and Tocharians.
      December 21, 2019 at 9:54 AM

      Davidski said…
      @EastPole
      On page 46 Anthony just says that the most likely place for the archaic PIE (Indo-Hittite) homeland is the Volga-Caucasus steppes east of the Don.
      December 21, 2019 at 2:33 PM

      Polubienie

    • Leron said…
      If proto-IE developed near the Caucasus I’d expect a lot more IE influence to Caucasian languages but they are relatively minimal. Meanwhile the borrowings into Uralic point to a far more northerly location, but how much in terms of east or west direction is yet not clear.
      December 21, 2019 at 5:38 PM

      EastPole said…
      @Davidski “Despite this, in Dispersals and Diversification archeologist Kristian Kristiansen makes the following claim: „steppe Maykop expanded north, leading to the formation of the Yamnaya Culture and Proto-Indo-European”. Not a chance in hell Professor.”

      I think that Kristian Kristiansen has lost touch with reality. On page 157:

      “These new findings correspond well with our premise that early Yamnaya groups in the western steppe already spoke a later version of PIE. The Yamnaya and later Corded Ware/Bell Beaker groups mostly belonged to the original centum group while the slightly later Fatjanovo,and Abashevo groups to the north between the Baltic Sea and the Urals. belonged to the satem group of pre-Baltic before the Andronovo migrations into central Asia (Allentoft et al. 2015 : Figure 1).”

      There is absolutely no evidence that Corded Ware spoke centum language. Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages correlate with R1b and Bell Beakers.
      December 22, 2019 at 7:19 AM

      Archi said…
      @EastPole „Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages correlate with R1b and Bell Beakers.”

      There’s no evidence that Bell Beakers spoke any Indo-European language. There’s only evidence that categorically denies it. Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages originate from the Urnfield culture, which ultimately dates back to the CWC from R1b that were included in this culture.
      December 22, 2019 at 9:55 AM

      Gabriel said…
      @Archi What’s the evidence that Germanic originated in Urnfield?
      December 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM

      Archi said…
      @Gabriel „What’s the evidence that Germanic originated in Urnfield?”

      I’ve shortened the phrase here, for the Germanic maybe there is also Nordic BA. But in any case, Urnfield was involved in its formation, nobody knows the details of this process and it is of course discussed.
      December 22, 2019 at 10:33 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Archi R1a-Z645 split into R1a-93 and R1a-283 about the time CWC originated and started to expand:

      It means that R1a-Z645 was Indo-Slavic, i.e. all common elements in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages were present in the language of population which started to expand with R1a-Z645. Populations with R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z283 evolved separately and didn’t mix. It means that R1a-Z283 was proto-Balto-Slavic and R1a-Z93 was proto-Indo-Iranian. It happened soon after 3000 BC. You cannot fit any other language between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, they are just too close, too similar. Neither Balto-Slavic nor Indo-Iranian was centum R1a-Z645 was not centum and Corded Ware was not centum. Kristiansen is wrong.
      December 22, 2019 at 11:08 AM

      Archi said…
      EastPole „R1a-Z645 split into R1a-93 and R1a-283 about the time CWC originated and started to expand”

      It doesn’t mean that CWC consisted only of R1a-Z645, exactly no.

      Copper Corded Ware Poland Obłaczkowo [poz81] 2880-2630 calBCE M R1a-M417 xZ645

      Naturally, there were also many German R1a-L664. There were R1a-M417 and R1a-M17 in general. R1a-L664 is not a language of Satem, it’s a proto-German Centum. and other Centum proto-languages.

      R1a-Z645 it not only Balto-Slavic branch, but also Indo-Iranian and Scandinavian.
      December 22, 2019 at 11:21 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Archi What you are saying is of course possible but at the same time hard to believe. R1a was not very successful in Western Europe. It is not easy to believe that unsuccessful males managed to change the language of huge population so early in history i.e. before organized groups like kingdoms emerged. Maybe you have a theory why R1b masses of Western Europe took the language of small group of R1a males from Eastern Europe. And why do you assume that this group of R1a males from Eastern Europe was so drastically different from similar and contemporary males living in Eastern Europe. I think that it is more probable that their language, religion and culture were similar to those of East European groups, at least were not more different from Balto-Slavic groups than Indo-Iranians were.
      December 22, 2019 at 12:35 PM

      Archi said…
      @ EastPole „What you are saying is of course possible but at the same time hard to believe. R1a was not very successful in Western Europe. It is not easy to believe that unsuccessful males managed to change the language of huge population so early in history i.e. before organized groups like kingdoms emerged. Maybe you have a theory why R1b masses of Western Europe took the language of small group of R1a males from Eastern Europe.”

      It is definitely without options. There were no Indo-Europeans in Western Europe before the Urnfield culture. In Western Europe Indo-Europeans are Celts who are from the Hallstatt culture, Italics who are from the Proto-Villanova culture, Lusitani who are from the Spanish branch of the Urnfield culture. Other Indo-Europeans before the Great Migration of Nations were not there at all.
      December 22, 2019 at 1:11 PM

      EastPole said…
      “Interactions between earliest Linearbandkeramik farmers and central European hunter gatherers at the dawn of European Neolithization”

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56029-2
      December 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM

      Rob said…
      @ East Pole ”R1a was not very successful in Western Europe.. why R1b masses of Western Europe took the language of small group of R1a males from Eastern Europe”

      Atlantic LBA koine following lead of Urnfield
      Anyway; there was R1b-M269 in Central Europe
      December 22, 2019 at 8:06 PM

      Bob Floy said…
      „There’s no evidence that Bell Beakers spoke any Indo-European language. There’s only evidence that categorically denies it. Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages originate from the Urnfield culture, which ultimately dates back to the CWC from R1b that were included in this culture.”

      Definitely have to agree with Archi on this one, at least about Italic and Celtic. The Bell Beaker=centum IE idea dosen’t look very strong anymore.
      December 22, 2019 at 10:28 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Simon Is it a more evolved form of ANE or is it an EHG/ANE mix?

      I’m actually not up to speed with how the experts view the WSHG currently, but I’d describe it as EHG with elevated ANE ancestry and ESHG (or East Asian) admix. As far as I know, the Botai people are basically the same population.
      December 23, 2019 at 12:39 AM

      Bob Floy said…
      @Ric „I think we can not ignore the interactions between the Rhine/Elbe and Britain/Ireland since the Early Bronze Age all the way into the Urnfield…”

      No, and I’m not suggesting that we should.

      „Putting all the Bell Beakers under one umbrella is also not sensible…

      Agreed, what I really mean is that I don’t think those Beakers who colonized western Europe mid 3rd century BC were speaking Celtic or Italic, I think it came later, with the Urnfield expansions.

      „The Centum/Satem thing is also not something carved in stone.”

      Agree.

      „If Mycenaean Greek was Centum then how can it be linked to the Urnfield which evolved several centuries later ?”

      Urnfield dosen’t have to be the sole source of centum IE languages, indeed, I wouldn’t guess that it is. Obviously we don’t have the whole picture yet.
      December 23, 2019 at 1:00 AM

      Bob Floy said…
      „those Beakers who colonized western Europe mid 3rd century BC”

      Meant to write 3rd millennium BC, sorry.

      @Ric

      No doubt the earliest Italo-Celtic speakers were very closely related to those Beakers, I’m not disputing that. But I’m pretty sure that the consensus among linguists has Proto-Celtic being way too young to have been spoken by the BBC, their respective time frames don’t add up. Throw in the revelations from this year’s big Iberia paper, and the case for Italo-Celtic=BBC looks very weak to me.
      December 23, 2019 at 4:39 AM

      Archi said…
      @ East Pole I added TMRCA to that picture with subclasses of R1a and IE languages and times of division of languages.

      December 23, 2019 at 6:57 AM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @Lvciano, The main feature about Pontic Caspien Scythians/Sarmatians is they have Asian admixture which hadn’t ever existed in Europe before. Specifically, they are closely related to Scythians who lived in Southcentral Asia near modern tajikstan. This Asian ancestry included both East Asian stuff and „SouthCentral Asian Neolithic” stuff.

      What this means is, Iranian-language in Pontic Caspien probably an import from Asia to Europe. Even though ultimately Indo Iranian, ancestor of Iranian, was from Pontic Caspien Europe. So, they were a back migration in Europe. They admixed with some of their cousins in Europe including ones with Yamnaya R1b Z2103+ ancestry. But, Iranian language isn’t from Yamnaya.
      December 23, 2019 at 8:46 AM

      Polubienie

    • a said…
      @Lvciano. I suggest you have a look or ask someone familiar with, Digor and or Iron- Ossetian ydna project. They are one of the few groups that speak Iranian in Alania, aka Northern Ossetian.
      December 23, 2019 at 9:07 AM

      Archi said…
      @Lvciano ” if Ponto Caspian Sarmatians and Scythians were mainly Z2103″

      They weren’t Z2103. See

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bnVJujBs_bQu_dqSVi_dSXUuz9gNIYFX_XlqRrz92mo/edit#gid=0

      https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15533-Ancient-genomes-of-Srubnaya-Cimmerians-Scythians-and-Sarmatians(Science-2018)&p=539749&viewfull=1#post539749

      December 23, 2019 at 9:15 AM

      a said…
      Sarmatians R1b-z2209+
      Only a few areas have ancient Sarmatian graves. Since water is needed for pastoralism and viticulture, placing it is interesting.

      Nesite-watar
      Tocharian-war
      German-wator

      Pastoralist and viticulture cultures are also near the oldest R1b-z2109 Sarmatian burials. PIE -water-wodr
      December 23, 2019 at 9:26 AM

      Archi said…
      @a „Sarmatians”
      chy002 Cherniy Yar Late Sarmatian 65 – 220 CE XY T1a1 R1a R-Y52
      tem002 Temyaysovo Late Sarmatian 125 – 240 CE XY D4q R1a R-FGC48758
      tem003 Temyaysovo Late Sarmatian 130-320 CE XY U5b2b R1a R-YP3920
      Nomad_Hun-Sarmatian Central steppe Halvay, Kurgan 3, 3A, Kostay [DA27, CGG_2_015429, KS61] 349-368 cal AD (1641 ± 33 BP, UBA-31149) M R1a1
      December 23, 2019 at 9:45 AM

      TLT said…
      @knowledgable geneticist
      The J in Iran HGs and CHGs has a common ancestry going back to over 18,000 years ago. If this is from ANE then it would push back the mixture far too back in time.
      December 23, 2019 at 12:37 PM

      mzp1 said…
      Centum IE shares a lot with NW Caucasian Languages, Labiolevars for instance, and also skewing towards greater consonant use. These are the biggest differences between Indo-Iranian and the Centum languages. Wile Uralic seems to be more Iranian influenced from the East, NWC seems to share exactly those things with the Centum languages that pull them away from Indo-Iranian.

      https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iFe3BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197

      I think there was a strong ‚Caucasian’ influence on early European IE resulting in the spread of the Centum languages. They must have spread out from a point of contact, to Greece in the South and Germanic in the North, and look connected to R1B and Bell Beaker.
      December 23, 2019 at 12:54 PM

      Archi said…
      @mzp1 „Centum IE shares a lot with NW Caucasian Languages, Labiolevars for instance”

      Nonsense, the labiovelars were at PIE. Only in the Satem languages they were not preserved but there are theirs traces, and in Centum languages they were preserved. Otherwise, in the Satem languages the palatovelars were preserved, and in Centum languages they were not preserved.
      December 23, 2019 at 1:12 PM

      EastPole said…
      @Davidski

      “Yeah, if that’s not an error then they must have unpublished samples from Copper Age Greece and these samples have a lot more steppe ancestry than Mycenaeans.”

      Yes, but it looks like not IE steppe. No WHG there. It is too early for Mycenaeans.
      December 26, 2019 at 3:07 AM
      Davidski said…
      @EastPole

      It’s not yet certain who brought proto-Greek to Greece and when exactly.

      But it looks like an Eneolithic steppe/Yamnaya/early Corded Ware-like population showed up in Greece during the Copper Age.

      December 26, 2019 at 3:21 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Davidski “It’s not yet certain who brought proto-Greek to Greece and when exactly. But it looks like an Eneolithic steppe/Yamnaya/early Corded Ware-like population showed up in Greece during the Copper Age.”

      It is not even certain that proto-Greek was brought to Greece because there are theories that Greek dialects originated locally from various influences, not proto-Greek. According to this theory IE were arriving to Greece gradually in small groups in the beginning and there by various convergence and divergence processes Greek dialects emerged:

      „Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity” By Jonathan M. Hall, p.169

      Corded Ware could be responsible for many similarities Greek has with Slavic unless it is later Hyperborean influence. It looks very complex but there are many Slavic words in ancient Greek.

      For example in the days of Plato also other names for „Zeus” like “Ζήν” or “Ζῆνα” were popular.

      Cratylus 396A

      http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=*zeu/s

      But Greek. “Ζήν” = Polish “Dzen” ‘day’, the same pronunciation and meaning. There are plenty of such words or Slavic etymologies for Greek words.
      December 26, 2019 at 4:19 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Archi „Enough with the childish amateurism with wordplay and spreading all kinds of outdated nonsense.”

      Please, stop trolling my posts. Theories of your beloved NSDAP-professor Porzig are outdated nonsense.
      December 26, 2019 at 7:23 AM

      Archi said…
      @EastPole Porzig is not NSDAP-professor. Porzig wrote linguistical studies in 1950s! Those studies are acknowledged classical. you are writing NSDAP-nonsens.
      December 26, 2019 at 8:18 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Archi
      About your beloved Porzig:

      „From 1925 ord. Professor of comparative linguistics and classical philology at Bern. In 1935 he was dismissed for political reasons (as Nazi) and returned to Jena as Professor.”

      https://whowaswho-indology.info/4850/porzig-walter/

      December 26, 2019 at 9:04 AM

      Archi said…
      @EastPole There was no Nazi in the 1950s! Your loved Werner von Braun was a supreme member of NSDAP and SS.
      December 26, 2019 at 9:29 AM

      EastPole said…
      А. Клёсов has published some maps recently on which the routes of ancient R1a and R1b migrations are reflected. He noticed that it all changing all the time:

      “I did not favor such cards, because they are constantly out of date. New and new data is progressively appearing, migration routes are being supplemented and revised, and for me they are constantly on the move.”

      Here is his R1a map:

      http://pereformat.ru/2019/10/r1a-map/

      And R1b map:

      http://pereformat.ru/2019/11/r1b-map/

      We don’t have to agree with him in everything but it may be some food for thought and discussion. Nothing is proven yet. Carlos doesn’t like Klyosov, and we don’t like Carlos etc….
      December 29, 2019 at 4:37 AM

      EastPole said…
      @Ric Hern “Just for interests sake, why did you even post it ?”

      I don’t have very strong opinions about PIE homeland. Many things are still possible. But I love this blog very much and feel that sooner or later we will get closer to the truth, closer than anyone else. I also want this blog to thrive. This requires new data, new people and new ideas presented in an interesting way. As a consumer I also feel obliged to contribute something from time to time. But there is not much to contribute right now. Not many new important discoveries. Everything seems to be hanging in limbo, just waiting for final resolution. So my dilemma is should I contribute something controversial or nothing. I decided for a controversial thing to avoid boredom. I am not Klesov follower. There are some interesting knowledgeable people here but they avoid making clear statements and present their theories in an interesting and transparent way. So there is a danger of boredom for many readers.
      December 29, 2019 at 7:41 AM

      Kristian Kristiansen said…
      Thanks for this interseting blog. Concernig Maykop and Yamnaya origins let me kristian kristiansen explain tjat I do not infer a fenetic origin from Maykop toYamnay, I propose a culturlaæ and perhpas linguistic influence from the highly developed Maykop to the much less deceloped early Yamnaya
      Kristian kristiansen
      January 2, 2020 at 8:21 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Kristian Kristiansen

      Yes, I understand that this is a continuation of your earlier work based purely on archeological data. However, my point was that we now have the relevant ancient DNA data from Maykop sites, and it contradicts the inferences from archeological data that there may have been rich cultural and linguistic ties between Maykop and Yamnaya.

      For me it suggests the following things:

      – the Maykop and Yamnaya groups were genetically highly distinct and they didn’t mix, so it’s unlikely that their languages were related or that the Yamnaya people eventually adopted the language of the Maykop people

      – the Steppe Maykop population seems to have totally disappeared before, during or just after the Yamnaya people moved into the steppes north of the Caucasus, so it’s possible that these groups were in a hostile relationship with each other, and makes it likely that the Steppe Maykop language also totally disappeared from the steppe.
      January 2, 2020 at 4:43 PM

      …..

      ŁaŁ! 🙂

      Polubienie

        • Hehehe. A czytałaś kto te mapki zrobił? Pamiętasz, jaki szał był z 5 lat temu o to? Wiesz kto to Kliosov?

          Przy okazji, chcę Wam obojgu bardzo podziękować, za Wasze zaangażowanie i ostatnie uporczywe plucie mi do talerza! Nie wiem, co bym bez Was zrobił! 🙂

          Uczciwie przyznaję się, że „analizuję” możliwości że TRB i KAK/GAC były PRE-PIE i jedynie zindoeuropeizowały R1a. Możecie sobie powinszować. Odpowiecie na moje ostatnie pytania, co do min. utraty końcówek, jak +os/us/as, itp?

          Siedzę nad tym teraz i tyle danych wyłazi, że muszę mieć jakiś punkt odniesienia, jak to widzicie. A przy okazji ANE, no to podobno przyszło tak naprawde z R1a w CWC. Dziwne to, ponieważ wszystko R1b i R1a powinno byc Po-ANE z zasady. Pogubiłem się znów z domieszkami i dla tego puściłem ten ostatni wpis o tzw. Step Maykop. Robię to samo, co EastPole. Wolę wrzucić coś krzywego, niż miłego.

          Polubienie

          • Nieprawda z tym pluciem.
            „A przy okazji ANE, no to podobno przyszło tak naprawde z R1a w CWC.”
            A gdzie tam. To przyszło z EHG.
            A R1a podobno z CHG.
            Najwięcej ANE było w WSHG – 50%.

            Polubienie

            • Pewno, że nie prawda. To takie przekomarzanie się. U Sapkowskiego skrzaty chyba pluły do zupy i szczały do piwa. Tak przynajmniej mówiły niziołki, czy inne elfy. Bardzo lubię, jak ktoś ma swoje zdanie, a jeszcze bardziej, jak go umie bronić. Czekam na to ostatnie, bo tak to może w końcu ułożymy sobie protokół rozbieżności, co do powstania Pra-Słowiańszczyzny.

              Czyli chcesz powiedzieć, że np. takie R1b Villabruna nie ma z ANE nic wspólnego, nawet jak musi pochodzić z R z Mal’ta? Masz jakieś zestawione dane o ANE? WSHG to Motala I1? Coś tu znów masakra jakaś jest z tymi domieszkami i logiką. Gdzie czegoś nie rozumiem?

              Czytałaś to, co puściłem o CHG z Davidskiego? Widzisz, że „Iran Neolitic” i CHG to lipa na północy, a to CHG musiało pałętać się na północ od Skałkazu już wcześniej? Kliosov jest już raczej martwy. Czy teraz czas na CHG z na południe od Skałkazu? Czekam teraz na śmierć tzw. domieszki stepowej, co to w sunie CHG ma być. Ktoś tam znów, jak Gaska łączył ją z Mal’ta, więc i z ANE, o ile jeszcze coś w ogóle rozumiem.

              Polubienie

              • Dlaczego Villabruna R1b z podobnego okresu co afontowa Gora Q jest WHG?

                Skąd R1 się wzięło w Europie?
                Skąd jest R1a?
                S, ty tylko ANE, poANE i vasiljewka.
                Ale Vasiljewka ma zaledwie 10 tys lat, więc jest młodsza od willabruna i AG.

                Mogło być tak, że vasiljevka R1a pochodziła
                a) z migracji na Zachód populacji AG – ANE.
                b) Z migracji na wschód populacji jak villabruna (jakaś Francja to R1) WHG
                c) Od paleolitu ukraińskiej, czyli Ra tak samo tu stare jak AG nad Jenisejem
                d) Skądś jeszcze indziej

                Polubienie

                • Czyli te pare próbek kopalnych coś tam mówi, ale nie na tyle, żeby ustalić faktyczne dzieje.
                  A z badan współczesnych populacji wynika jakoś tak, że najstarsze R1 i R2 są w okolicach Pakistanu Afganistanu Iranu.

                  Inna sprawa to to, że w Iranie są R1a ale nie R1a1 a R1a2. Więc jakiś podział na południe R1a2 i północ R1a1 musiał nastąpić.
                  Co jest jeszcze ciekawe, to R1 u rdzennych Amerykanów. Z tym, że pracy o amerykańskim R1a nie mogę odnaleźć.

                  Hipoteza solutrejska?

                  Polubienie

                • R1 i R2 ma pochodzić z Mal’ta i doszło do Ganj Darech droga na południe, a nie drogą na zachód. Chyba widziałem R1 gdzieś w próbkach w Europie, czy nie we Francji?

                  Polubienie

                • Mogła, ale wtedy na zachodzie było dopiero co po lodowcu. R1b żyła sobie na południu od Alp, patrz Villabruna. Czy R1a też tam żyła? A co, jak R1b i R1a rozdzieliły się po drodze na zachód i np. R1a pałętała się od Bajkału do lodowca i nie zapędziła się dalej na zachód za Żyłosiami, czyli została na Nizinie Rosyjskiej?

                  Polubienie

          • Na tym samym kanale wizualizacja EEF:

            Bardzo ładnie widać jak w neolicie weszli do Polski, ale starannie omijają tereny Prusów i Bałtów.

            Na tym zaś ladnie widać WHG, jak w neolicie zostaje rozcięte przez EEF na dwie części, wschodnią częścią są Bałtowie:

            W późnym eneolicie Bałtowie stają się wyróznikiem WHG, w epoce miedzie ostatecznie zanika WHG ale pozostaje mini wyróżnikiem Bałtów.

            Ciekawe są przypadki syberyjskich HG, w środkowym brązie przybywają do pólnocnej Rosji i Norwegii i Finlandii,

            Dalej w późnym brązie są nad M.Czarnym, aż nikną w późnej epoce żelaza, co wygląda na przybycie i rozpłynięcie się plemion scytyjskich i sarmackich, niosących a Azji ten składnik

            A tak ładnie wygląda GAC i CWC w przełomowych 5000 lat temu:

            https://indo-european.eu/2019/11/steppe-ancestry-step-by-step-2019-mesolithic-to-early-bronze-age-eurasia/

            Dodałbym od siebie, że tak w X wieku wygląda sytuacja po zeslawizowaniu CWC z powyższej grafiki:

            Polubienie

            • Poprawiłem Ci url ostatniej mapki i w odpowiedzi puściłem Ci mapkę z tego filmu Carlosa. I co Ty na to? Wg tego źródła Early PIE to Samara, a nie TRB, czy KAK/GAC!

              Tu masz kolejny dziw nad dziwy, który raczej nie wspiera Twojej teorii o TRB/KAK/GAC, jako Pre-PIE, patrz:

              Polubienie

              • Jeśli umiejscowił Słowian w Polsce w epoce środkowego brązu, to jest już wygrana.
                Środkowy brąz jest dosyć wąsko określany jako 1300-1100 pne, to jest dokładnie czas bitwy nad Dołężą.
                Reszta opisów na mapie może być fikcyjna nawet.

                Polubienie

            • „Tu masz kolejny dziw nad dziwy, który raczej nie wspiera Twojej teorii o TRB/KAK/GAC, jako Pre-PIE”

              Nie biorę pod uwagę co on jak podpisał (że to jest PIE a tamto uralic) tylko uzywam tego w kontekście geograficzno-czasowym, tzn.co i jak się zmieniało, gdyż opis kultur archeologicznych czy wskaźników EHG czy WHG są oczywiście dobrze i obiektywnie opisane.

              Wkliłem mapkę Słowiańszczyzny, odejmij od niej Słowian Południowych i z tego stanu odejmij lechickich Wiatyczy i Radymiczy oraz Wołynian, a także Ruś Czerwoną (Przemyśl i Lwów) oraz Grody Czerwieńskie, gdyż tak są opisane lechickie plemiona u Nestora.
              Ile zostaje Słowian Wschodnich?
              Czy nie tyle co nic?
              Czy ci Słowianie Wschodni nie są zeslawizowanymi Bałtami – na mapie widzimy tylko połowę Bałtów jako Bałtów, druga ich połowa jest już zeslawizowana?

              Polubienie

              • Rozumiem Twój punkt widzenia. Chodzi mi o to, skąd TRB i KAK/GAC miałyby być PRe-Pra-PIE, czyli w sumie raczej Pre-Pra-Bałtyckie? Z Anatolii, czy skąd?

                To, co pokazuje Carlos, jest od czapy, patrz np. Proto-Uralic w CWC, poniżej PIE na północy i na wschodzie. Z drugiej strony, patrzcie jak jemu ANE wiąże się z PIE. Tam az roi się od niebieskich kropek, co jest zbieżne z tym, co mi się wydaje, jak było, czyli PO-ANE / EHG + różne dodatki z okolic = różne wysokoenergetyczne tzw. dialect continuum PIE.

                Nie odpowiedziałeś co z utratą końcówek +os/us/as w CWC i dalej w Sintashta. WIesz, że w łacinie masz raczej końcówki +us, w grece +os, ale już w bałtyckich raczej +as? To jest dokładnie zbieżne z tzw. prawem Brugmanna, wiesz? Wg Mie wskazuje to na wtórność końcówek np. litewskich, wobec tych pierwszych. A co jak te wszystkie końcówki to to coś, co poszło na zachód przez step np. od Seima-Turbino, i do Mykeńczyków do Epiru i dalej do języków italo-celtyckich?

                Takie stepowe fale Dorów, czy innych Ahajów…

                Ja mogę udowodnić drogę wtórnych ubezdźwięcznień po Sintashta, do Sindii, Iranu, Armenii, Bałkanów, dalej na zachód. Ktoś to musiał przywlec. Wg Mię, to ma związek z N1c, które to zmieniło na Giralu i okolicach.

                Co do początków animacji Carlosa:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravettian
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigravettian
                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018217309756
                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X17308428
                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284173872_The_Gravettian_and_Epigravettian_settlement_of_Poland
                https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/geochr/44/1/article-p16.xml?lang=en
                The Epigravettian and the Magdalenian in Poland: New chronological data and an old problem

                Oni przyszli ze wschodu…

                Early Mesolitic.
                Late Epigravetian na animacji to czerwone WGH, ale w okolicach Vasilievka jest jeden przykład pół na pół z niebieskim ANE. Pojawia się w Iranie żółty Iran Neilitic / Chalcolitic i na zachodnim Skałkazie, ale już w połowie z niebieskim. Czerwono-niebieskie kropki pojawiają się i na południu Szwecji i nad Bałtykiem i w Karelii. To wskazuje, że ANE już tam było wszędzie.

                Late Mesilitic.
                PPNB czyli okolice południowej Anatolii i Ganj Darech. Brązowe Anatolia HG + trochę zielonego African HG i żółtego Iran HG. To przechodzi na Bałkany. Język to coś jak Afro-Asiatic.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B

                Neolithic.
                Samara to Early PIE, a Bałkany to Po-PPNB, kolorki jak wyżej. Sporo kropek, a w niektórych na północy Bałkanów pojawia się i czerwony WHG i niebieski ANE. Wszystko przesuwa się na północ w tych samych proporcjach, z tym, że na wschodzie od tego są tylko czerwono-niebieskie kropki. Do Karpat dominują jednak kropki brązowe Anatolian HG.

                Early Eneolitic.
                Wschód i północ od Skałkazu, to w tylko niebiesko-czerwone lub czerwono-niebieskie kropki. Tylko Maykop ma trochę żółtego Iran HG. Pojawia się druga taka sama kropka bardziej na zachód. Potem znika czerwony i pojawiają się niebiesko-zółte kropki tam.

                TRB. Na północ od Karpat kolorki jak na południe od Karpat, ale nawet mniej niebieskiego ANE. Nad Bałtykiem tylko czerwono-niebieskie kropki. Wzrasta ilość czerwonego i niebieskiego na północ od Karpat.

                Midlle Eneolitic.
                KAK/GAC. Brąz, czerwień i odrobina żółtego na północ od Karpat. Na zachód tylko brązowo-czerwone kropki. Na wschód tylko czerwono -niebieskie. Wzrasta wszędzie ilość niebieskiego ANE. CWC to „uralic”. Niebieskie ANE nagle widoczne wszędzie do Renu i jedna kropka na Wyspach. Wszystko na wschód przewaga niebieskiego ANE.

                To już około tzw. 2200 pne, czyli późno.

                Wg Mię wynika z tego, że Pre-PIE to Anatolia i rolnicy G2, idąc tokiem rozumowania Roberta.

                Polubienie

                • „Chodzi mi o to, skąd TRB i KAK/GAC miałyby być PRe-Pra-PIE, czyli w sumie raczej Pre-Pra-Bałtyckie? Z Anatolii, czy skąd?”

                  Albo z Anatolii (jeśli przejęli język EEF) albo od WHG, czyli miejscowych, przybyłych do Europy jako pierwsi współcześni ludzie a rozprzestrzenieni od Bałtylku do Adriatyku, aż po płw.iberyjski i Atlantyk.

                  Przy czym, co już podpowiada alfabetyczna bliskość numeracji YDna u EEF i WHG ( I oraz G) a także prawdopodobne to samo miejsce wejścia do Europy jednych i drugich, że … obie grupy, czyli EEF i WHG są językowo podobne.

                  Tutaj przydałby się link do pewnego grafu, który pokazuje, że EEF to jest tak naprawdę WHG z domieszką.

                  Po prostu, wygląda to tak jakby WHG podzieliło się na tych co zostali w Anatolii i na tych, którzy weszli na Bałkany, zaś ci z Anatolii 20-25 000 lat później, weszli do Europy i zmieszali się ze swoimi kuzynami.

                  Polubienie

                • „Nie odpowiedziałeś co z utratą końcówek +os/us/as w CWC i dalej w Sintashta. WIesz, że w łacinie masz raczej końcówki +us, w grece +os, ale już w bałtyckich raczej +as? To jest dokładnie zbieżne z tzw. prawem Brugmanna, wiesz? Wg Mie wskazuje to na wtórność końcówek np. litewskich, wobec tych pierwszych. A co jak te wszystkie końcówki to to coś, co poszło na zachód przez step np. od Seima-Turbino, i do Mykeńczyków do Epiru i dalej do języków italo-celtyckich?”

                  Nie odpowiedziałem, gdyż nie wiem, nie ma wspólnego stanowiska językoznawców, a jeśli gdzieś jest to słabo albo wcale tłumaczy, więc nawet nie chce się mi w to wchodzić.
                  Np. przyjęli sobie prawo Grimma, które wykłada im wprost który język jest bliżej fikcyjnemu IE, więc go stosują ale wobec np. polskiego, to już nie za bardzo, bo okazuje się, ze według tego prawa jest on bliższy IE niż germańskie, zaś sanskryt do IE jest dalszy niż polski.
                  Nie widze sensu bym się miał przejmować tak szczegółowo końcówkami i prawami językowymi.

                  Polubienie

                • O nie kochaniutki, o nie. Tak to się nie uda.

                  Logicznie wynika z Twojej teorii, że TRB, KAK/GAC były „właściwym” ale już późnym PIE, a właściwie czymś jak Pre=Proto-Baltic, jak pisałeś. One MUSIAŁY MIEĆ TE KOŃCÓWKI, o których wspomniałem! Po niech CWC MUSIAŁA MIEĆ TE SAME KOŃCÓWKI, ponieważ pozostałości po tych „właściwych” Pre-Proto-Baltic sa widoczne w językach bałtyckich, italo-celtyckich, greckim, a także odrobinę i bardzo zniekształcone w germańskim. NIE MA ICH W JĘZYKACH SŁOWIAŃSKICH I INDO-IRAŃSKICH.

                  Jeszcze raz pytam. Co spowodowało ich zanik, „ugro-fińskie” R1a i jej „ugrofiński-język”? A co z językiem N1c, czy N3c, patrz węgierski? Oni raczej też nie mają tych końcówek. Zwróć uwagę, że sam sobie zaprzeczam z tymi końcówkami zrobionymi przez coś Po-Sintashta, co poszło stepem na zachód i przeniosło te wszystkie widoczne na południu ubezdźwięcznienia.

                  A co do praw Grimma, Vernera, Raska, czy Brugmanna, no to ciągle pokazuję, że j. polski / zachodnio-słowiański / lechicki jest STATYSTYCZNIE IDENTYCZNY z tym tzw. PIE. Pomijam te „pierwotne” odtfoszone ubezdźwięcznienia, ponieważ to jest błąd” założycielski wtórnie ubezdźwięcznionego ofitzjalnego jęsykosnaftzfa, patrz tzw. rough breathing.

                  Ktoś ma wątpliwości, no to niech poszuka Pra-Słowiańśkiego wtórne ubezdźwięcznionego kfiadu fafroki. Ja dzięki annaM po 31 wpisach znalazłem JEDEN i opiszę to w oddzielnym wpisie poświęconym Pływaniu i to nie tylko takiemu w mętnej wodzie logiki ofitzjalnego jęsykosnaftzfa. Wcześniej pisywałem, o tym kiedy porywałem się na podstawy ofitzjalnego jęsykosnaftzfa przy okazji targania się i darcia, czego i tak nie skończyłem, tyle tego było.

                  Polubienie

                • A i jeszcze jedno. EEF mają związek z tym PPNB, a ci z tym:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B

                  Genetics

                  Pre-Pottery Neolithic B fossils that were analysed for ancient DNA were found to carry the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups E1b1b (2/7; ~29%), CT (2/7; ~29%), E(xE2,E1a,E1b1a1a1c2c3b1,E1b1b1b1a1,E1b1b1b2b) (1/7; ~14%), T(xT1a1,T1a2a) (1/7; ~14%), and H2 (1/7; ~14%). The CT clade was also observed in a Pre-Pottery Neolithic C specimen (1/1; 100%).[16] Maternally, the rare basal haplogroup N* has been found among skeletal remains belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B,[17] as have the mtDNA clades L3[18] and K.[19]

                  DNA analysis has also confirmed ancestral ties between the Pre-Pottery Neolithic culture bearers and the makers of the Epipaleolithic Iberomaurusian culture of North Africa,[20] the Mesolithic Natufian culture of the Levant, the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic culture of East Africa,[21] the Early Neolithic Cardium culture of Morocco,[22] and the Ancient Egyptian culture of the Nile Valley,[23] with fossils associated with these early cultures all sharing a common genomic component.[22]

                  … czyli z północną Afryką… Czyli Pre-PIE to byłby Afro-Asiatic, ale bez Asiatic ale z Anatolian. Co Ty na to? Gdzie w tym jest tzw. stara Europa I1 i I2? Czy i ich też E i G2 „zpreindoeuropeizowało”? A dlaczego G2 i E utracili swój pierwotny rolniczy Pre-PIE?

                  Polubienie

                • „po tych „właściwych” Pre-Proto-Baltic sa widoczne w językach bałtyckich, italo-celtyckich, greckim, a także odrobinę i bardzo zniekształcone w germańskim. NIE MA ICH W JĘZYKACH SŁOWIAŃSKICH I INDO-IRAŃSKICH.”

                  KIażdy ma jakieś końcówki.
                  Ja powiem, że słowiański ma również końcówki, tamci mają -as -us a my mamy -om zapisywane literą ‚ą’ własnie.
                  W sanksrycie ‚om’ jest świętym dźwiękiem, ma specjalny status.

                  I co mi na to odpowiesz?

                  Polubienie

                • Nie uciekaj od pytania i nie ściemniaj, proszę. Mi chodzi o końcówki +us/os/as. Tylko o te. Jak one zanikły w j. słowiańskim, już raczej w CWC, patrz ich brak w sanskrycie i awestyjskim, co?

                  Polubienie

                • „Logicznie wynika z Twojej teorii, że TRB, KAK/GAC były „właściwym” ale już późnym PIE, a właściwie czymś jak Pre=Proto-Baltic, jak pisałeś. ”

                  Niepotrzebnie zajmujesz się wszystkimi językami dookoła a nie tylko językiem polskim a ogólnie zachodniosłowiańskim.
                  Nawet zajmowanie się wschodnio słowiańskim uznaję za błędne podejście.

                  Czy inni przejmują się językiem polskim gdy robią rekonstrukcję PIE? No nie, nie przejmują się nim. Skoro przy ich metodzie nic się nie klei, zatem uznanie przeciwnej do niej, powinno dać dobry skutek, ot taka moja nieżyczliwość dla nich.

                  Język polski ma tylko 3 opcje:
                  1. jest językiem WHG, nośnikiem są ci, którzy przyszli po ustąpieniu lodowca
                  2. jest językiem EEF rozpowszechnionym w kulturze GAC
                  3. jest językiem pre-CWC, którego nośnikiem są ludzie R1a

                  Końcówki w litewskim a których nie ma w polskim.
                  Jeśliby przyjąć, ze R1a mówiło bałtyjskim, którym mówią dzisiaj Litwini to sprawa jest oczywista, to polskie R1a utraciło swój język na rzecz języka kultiury GAC, a w migracji zaniosło końcówkę ‚ą=om” jako świętą do sankrsytu. Co tam sie dzieje w greckim czy łacińskim, nie ma co się wysilać, niech się oni tym martwią.

                  Odnośnie punktu 2, to za pozbyciem się EEF w Polsce swojego języka na rzecz lokalnego WHG, przemawia to, że autosomalne DNA ludzie z GAC jest mega oddalone od współczesnych Polaków,a umiejscowione centralnie wśród dzisiejszych Sardyńczyków, zatem z góry przyjmuje, że podobnie stało się z językiem.
                  Ale ci Sardyńczycy musieli mieć całkiem podobne końcówki -us jak w łacinie,, więc tracąc język, zostały one utracone.

                  Słownik języka sardyńskiego:
                  https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kategoria:sardyński_(indeks)

                  Przeszukaj w odnalezieniu podobnych słów do polskiego

                  Polubienie

                • (…) „Logicznie wynika z Twojej teorii, że TRB, KAK/GAC były „właściwym” ale już późnym PIE, a właściwie czymś jak Pre=Proto-Baltic, jak pisałeś. ” Niepotrzebnie zajmujesz się wszystkimi językami dookoła a nie tylko językiem polskim a ogólnie zachodniosłowiańskim. Nawet zajmowanie się wschodnio słowiańskim uznaję za błędne podejście.(…)

                  Robercie masz prawo uważać, co Ci wygodnie, tyle tylko, że ja zapytałem nie o wszystkie języki, ale o te powiązane z bezpośrednimi przodkami CWC na terenie Odrowiśla.

                  (…) Czy inni przejmują się językiem polskim gdy robią rekonstrukcję PIE? No nie, nie przejmują się nim. Skoro przy ich metodzie nic się nie klei, zatem uznanie przeciwnej do niej, powinno dać dobry skutek, ot taka moja nieżyczliwość dla nich. (…)

                  Niby logiczne, ale ja nie odtfaszam. Ja jedynie porównuję.

                  (…) Język polski ma tylko 3 opcje: (…)

                  Rozumiem, że myślisz o jakimś czymś jednolitym, jak np. podkład językowy / substrat, a nie o nakładce językowej / adstrat / superstrat, czy tak? A co z mieszaniem się języków?
                  Czy zakładasz, że słownictwo rolnicze było ważniejsze, od słownictwa hodowców, pasterzy i myśliwych? A dlaczego, patrz np. pomoc Łowców w przetrwaniu pierwszych rolników na Bałkanach? Tam Łowcy byli więksi i umieli lepiej przetrwać niż niżsi i słabsi rolnicy.

                  Myślę, że może jak sam twierdziłeś nie trzeba żenić się z córką rolnika, żeby zostać rolnikiem, tak samo żeby nauczyć się np. związanego z tym nazewnictwa. Resztę można sobie olać, patrz jak to zrobili np. N1c nad wschodnim Bałtykiem, czy N3c na Pustej Puszcie.

                  (…) 1. jest językiem WHG, nośnikiem są ci, którzy przyszli po ustąpieniu lodowca (…)

                  Czyli mówimy tu o PIE i o R1b, i o I2. Co z I1, czy np. C, CT, czy K? Skoro R1b to WHG, gdzie wtedy była R1a, nad Jeziorem Czarnym, jak pisałeś wcześniej? Skąd wiadomo, że nie było jej np. w Doggerlandzie, jak to kiedyś domniemała annaM, itp? Ponieważ R1a jest EHG? O WHG R1b nad wschodnim Bałtykiem pisze dalej.

                  (…) 2. jest językiem EEF rozpowszechnionym w kulturze GAC (…)

                  Czyli mówimy tu o PIE G2 i I2, I, (co z I1?), czyli TRB i LBK i potomkach Starcevo, Lepensky Vir, Cerna Voda, Koros, Cris, itp. Oni pochodzili z PPNB i np. lubili odcinać czaszki swoim przodkom, oblepiać je gipsem i zakopywać pod progami swoich szałasów / chatek. To potomkowie pierwszych rolników z Anatolii.

                  (…) 3. jest językiem pre-CWC, którego nośnikiem są ludzie R1a (…)

                  R1a to Łowcy EHG z laso-stepu, powiązani z ANE.

                  (…) Końcówki w litewskim a których nie ma w polskim.
                  Jeśliby przyjąć, ze R1a mówiło bałtyjskim, którym mówią dzisiaj Litwini to sprawa jest oczywista, to polskie R1a utraciło swój język na rzecz języka kultiury GAC, a w migracji zaniosło końcówkę ‚ą=om” jako świętą do sankrsytu. Co tam sie dzieje w greckim czy łacińskim, nie ma co się wysilać, niech się oni tym martwią. (…)

                  Jeśli GAC miało te końcówki, to czy GAC było Pre-Baltic i czy było nad Bałtykiem? Jakoś nie było, patrz:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_Amphora_culture

                  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Map_Corded_Ware_culture-en.svg

                  Nad Bałtykiem było CWC, Narwa i Kunda, patrz:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva_culture
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunda_culture

                  Jak GAC, czy TRL, lub LBK mogło być Pre-Baltic, skoro ich tam nie było i nie ma śladu np. G2 tam? Było tam I2 i R1b. Jeśli to R1a i CWC było tym Pre-Baltic, no to co wniosło R1a, skoro Bałtowie nie utracili tych kocówek? Dlaczego nagle potomkowie CWC w Odrowiślu i w Sintashta tych końcówek nie mają?

                  Wygląda na to, że te końcówki tylko R1b i I2 WHG mogło przynieść do Kunda i Narwa i już tam zostały. Ani GAC, anie TRB, ani LBK nie mogłaby więc być Proto-Baltic i nie mogły mieć tych końcówek, ponieważ nie było ich nad wschodnim Bałtykiem i nie ma śladu migracji tego tam.

                  Wcześniej byli tam jeszcze Łowcy z k. świderskiej, też WHG na logikę.

                  (…) Odnośnie punktu 2, to za pozbyciem się EEF w Polsce swojego języka na rzecz lokalnego WHG, przemawia to, że autosomalne DNA ludzie z GAC jest mega oddalone od współczesnych Polaków,a umiejscowione centralnie wśród dzisiejszych Sardyńczyków, zatem z góry przyjmuje, że podobnie stało się z językiem. Ale ci Sardyńczycy musieli mieć całkiem podobne końcówki -us jak w łacinie,, więc tracąc język, zostały one utracone. (…)

                  Dlaczego EEF mogło utracić swój język na rzecz R1b i I2, a GAC nie mogło zrobić tego samego na rzecz R1a?

                  (…) Słownik języka sardyńskiego:
                  https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kategoria:sardyński_(indeks)

                  Przeszukaj w odnalezieniu podobnych słów do polskiego (…)

                  Sam zobacz co tam jest. Nie żartuj sobie.

                  Polubienie

                • Myślę, że od zmieszanego stepu po Yamna i Sintashta, tego który wrócił na zachód i przyniósł ze sobą też i ubezdźwięcznienia.

                  Polubienie

                • „Myślę, że od zmieszanego stepu po Yamna i Sintashta, tego który wrócił na zachód i przyniósł ze sobą też i ubezdźwięcznienia.”

                  Jeśli końcówki -as -us w Grece, Łacinie i Litewskim miałby ktoś przynieść to tylko ludzie sprzed przybycia R1a na Litwę, a przed nimi byli WHG, gdzie jak sprawdziłem w pracy Mathiesona:
                  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oeA1S2Dc-YFuwo9p1D1h4sstx_upPFkqRRdcLORnj-c/edit#gid=1261376483

                  była to głownie mieszanka I2a2 i R1b1a1a, dokładnie taka mieszanka była obecna i w Serbii i we Włoszech,
                  Wyjątkiem była tylko Bułgaria gdzie dominowało G2a (czyli EEF).

                  Problem w tym, że przybycie R1a na Litwę zdominowało poprzedników, R1a było słowiańskie albo bałtyjskie – bez znaczenia, ale mogło te końcowki przejąć po poprzednikach.

                  W tym samym czasie w Polsce w GAC było tylko i wyłącznie I2a2 oraz ( nie ma próbej, domyslam się) G2a, które dodało komponent EEF w GAC.
                  Wniosek jest taki, że na ziemiach Polski nigdy nie było końcówek -as, -us, więc nikt ich nie musiał wycinać.

                  Gdyby R1a niosło te końcowki, to by je wprowadziło u nas.
                  Wychodzi, że odpowiada za nie R1b1a1a.

                  Polubienie

                • (…) Wychodzi, że odpowiada za nie R1b1a1a. (…)

                  Tak to wychodzi na logikę. Nie mówię, że cały język PIE to WHG, ale że np. końcówki +us/os/as/es/is to R1b i może I2. Co jest z I1? Oni istnieją tylko w Skandynawii. Gdzie byli wcześniej?

                  Co do końcówek, no to jeszcze powtórzę, że one wg mnie są związane z wtórnym ubezdźwięcznieniem po-Sintashta. Tam na stepie na południe od Guralu zaczęli się mieszać np. z tym, co było na Syberii w okolicach, a troche tego tam było. Syberia, jako kolor różowy pojawia się późno na animacji Carlosa. Ariowie pojechali z Arkaim na południe i wschód. Ludy z Syberii, jak np. Seima-Turbino pojechała na zachód i północ. Wg Mię może za to odpowiadać też Andronowo, itp. Po drodze jest jeszcze starsza Yamna i potem Srubna no i początki Scytów na Załtaju. Patrzcie, że to wszystko pchało się Dunajem na zachód, a nie na północ od Karpat…

                  Może nie trzeba aż tak głęboko szukać tego, patrz Yamna. Tyle, że Baskowie tez powinni mieć te końcówki i być Po-PIE, a ani nie są, ani raczej ich nie mają!

                  Polubienie

                • Patrzcie jaką kobitę znalazłem na you:

                  Ona mogła by poodgadywać co i od kogo, kiedy i jak przyszło.

                  Polubienie

                • KąT=CoT przypominam, że ą jest nosowym o.

                  Kto wniósł to słowo do polskiego i staroangielskiego:

                  cot (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
                  znaczenia:
                  rzeczownik, rodzaj nijaki
                  (1.1) chata

                  Kolejne LeCz, LeCzyć:

                  læce (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
                  wymowa:
                  IPA: /ˈlæːtʃe/
                  znaczenia:
                  rzeczownik, rodzaj męski
                  (1.1) lekarz, doktor
                  (1.2) zool. pijawka

                  białoruski: (1.1) лячыць

                  Polubienie

                • A i jeszcze coś. Ciągle porównuję dane i wiecie, że mi wychodzi, że np. w tzw. grece końcówka +iS, +S to odpowiednik słowiańskiego bezokolicznika… Zamiana jest z C>T>S…

                  Polubienie

                • Leczenie, jest też w Skandynawii, za to nie za bardzo w Niemczech i Holandii, więc jeśli chodzi o Brytanię to podejrzewał bym Duńczyków i Norwegów

                  Polubienie

                • „Leczenie, jest też w Skandynawii, za to nie za bardzo w Niemczech i Holandii, więc jeśli chodzi o Brytanię to podejrzewał bym Duńczyków i Norwegów”

                  Nie, to jest starsze, pierwotne, od WHG reprezentowanego przez hg.I w tym w szczególnosci przez I2a, które dominowało w GAC oraz w neolicie na Wyspach Brytyjskich.

                  Kolejny przykład:

                  ŁGa, ŁGać, LŻy, LŻyć

                  lygen (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
                  wymowa:
                  IPA: /ˈlyje/
                  znaczenia:
                  rzeczownik, rodzaj żeński
                  (1.1) nieprawda

                  A tak oficjalnie tłumaczą:
                  From Proto-Germanic *luginō (“lie, falsehood”), from Proto-Indo-European *lewgʰ- (“to tell lies, swear, bemoan”). Cognate with Old Saxon lugina (“falsehood”), Norwegian lygn (“lie”). More at lie.

                  Polubienie

                • Kolejnym będzie nasz LiŚĆ, umieszczony w staroangielskim Lēaf.

                  Czy Liść jest życiem drzew i krzewów?
                  Czy powietrze jest życiem dla człowieka?

                  Wszystkie mają one rdzeń L.F i wspólny sens.

                  lif (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
                  znaczenia:
                  rzeczownik, rodzaj nijaki
                  (1.1) życie

                  a to jest również:

                  lyft (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
                  znaczenia:
                  rzeczownik, rodzaj żeński
                  (1.1) powietrze

                  oraz:

                  leof (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
                  wymowa:
                  IPA: /leːof/
                  znaczenia:
                  przymiotnik
                  (1.1) kochany

                  lufian (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
                  znaczenia:
                  czasownik
                  (1.1) kochać

                  Podobne jest i niemieckie LieBe oraz słowiańskie LuBa

                  L.F>F.L

                  felan (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
                  wymowa:
                  IPA: /ˈfeːlan/
                  znaczenia:
                  czasownik
                  (1.1) czuć

                  angielskie współczesne FeeL

                  Polubienie

                • No i paczpan jek to ładnie pasuje do mojej teorii w której słowiańskie I2a z GAC slawizuje bałtyjskie R1a, najsamprzód w samym GAC a potem rozprzestrzenia się na wschód (może kulturowe, może genetycznie, może i tak i tak):

                  „@ Gość: Oon
                  Historycy. Mączka do Gniewka; dzisiaj, 23.02.2020, 01:23
                  „A co ci nie pasuje u Babika? Hydronimia jak najbardziej nadaje się do wnioskowania o lokalizacji różnych ludów, w tym Słowian.
                  W Czechach wyraźnie widać tzw. staroeurpejskie, celtyckie, germańskie i słowiańskie nazwy cieków wodnych, podczas gdy na terenie Polski są praktycznie tylko tzw. staroeuropejskie i słowiańskie, więc w czym problem?”
                  ……
                  OK! Właśnie obecność tych „staroeuropejskich”, czyli z pierwszego okresu post-PIE, czyli sprzed formacji bałtyckiego, germanskiego, celtyckiego i italskiego dialektów, hydronimów na terenie Polski świadczą o ciągłości osadniczej Słowian/Polaków na tym terenie.”

                  https://old.histmag.org/Pokochaj-genetyke-historyku-18915#comment-79644

                  Polubienie

              • Na pewno WHG mówili i coś po sobie zostawili, ale było to na tyle dawno, że stało się integralną częścią słownictwa PIE i obecnie jest mało prawdopodobne rozpoznanie i wydzielenie tego dziedzictwa.
                Mam wrażenie, że próbujesz odgrzać teorię substratu przedgermańskiego, kiedy pracowicie tworzono listy przedindoeuropejskich germańskich rdzeni, do których na koniec i tak dawało się znaleźć indoeuropejskie etymologie.
                Bardzo możliwe, że założenie jakoby WHG mówili językiem niepodobnym i całkowicie odrębnym od języka ANE jest błędne.
                Nie rozumiem co ma na celu wyciąganie z angielskiego słownictwa występującego obecnie tylko w językach germańskich i słowiańskich.
                Wracając do sardyńskiego, przecież to stosunkowo nowy język romański, ich poprzednim językiem był nuragijski (czasy brązu) często identyfikowany z PIE i „Ludami Morza”.

                Polubienie


                • Na pewno WHG mówili i coś po sobie zostawili, ale było to na tyle dawno”

                  Całkowicie się mylisz, było to również całkiem niedawno i cała kultura amfor kulistych mówiła (musiała mówić) językiem WHG. Jak dotąd wszyscy z tej kultury byli I2, czyli bardzo jednorodni oraz spokrewnieni ze sobą autosomalnie (próbki z Ukrainy i Kujaw)

                  Z kolei badacze rozpowszechniania się języka słowiańskiego, daleko na wschodzie, czyli okolice miasta Perm i na obszarze przed uralskim (powyżej dałem linka do jednej z prac) stawiają jego rozprzestrzenianie się z napływem mieszanki R1a M458 i I2 a nie samej tylko R1a M458.

                  Pytanie 1 za czyją przyczyną te same słowa dotarły do staroangielskiego jak i wschodniosłowiańskiego pod Perm, a jednocześnie nie ma ich w sanskrycie?
                  Pytanie 2 za czyją przyczyną są i w staroangielskim i w sanskrycie?

                  Moim zdaniem samo R1a nie miało mozliwości zrobić pkt 1 i 2, tylko I2.

                  Polubienie

                • (…) Pytanie 2 za czyją przyczyną są i w staroangielskim i w sanskrycie? Moim zdaniem samo R1a nie miało mozliwości zrobić pkt 1 i 2, tylko I2. (…)

                  Znasz Ariów z I2?

                  Polubienie

                • „Nie rozumiem co ma na celu wyciąganie z angielskiego słownictwa występującego obecnie tylko w językach germańskich i słowiańskich”

                  Będzie to słownictwo WHG, staroangielski jest jezykiem z pogranicza duńsko-niemieckiego, nie bez powodu również z pogranicza obszaru słowiańskiego, ale i obszaru kultury GAC.

                  Polubienie

                • „Staroangielski jest mieszaniną nie tylko anglo-saską… Byli tam wcześniej i Celtowie i Rzymianie.”

                  Nie zagłębiałem się, ale na wiki piszą, że wpływ celtyckiego był nikły. Staronordyjskiego znaczny, ale.. no właśnie staronordyjski będzie też językiem WHG, a może i mieszanki EHG, gdyż wydzielają wschodnio i zachodnio nordyjski.
                  Wpływ łaciny jest rozpoznawalny gdyż łacina jest dobrze rozpoznana i jest to łatwe do wychwycenia.

                  Jakie/które/czyje są to języki (staro-wschodnio-norsyjskie według opisu pod mapą) a zaznaczone na terenie Polski, Litwy, Rosji i Ukrainy?

                  Polubienie

                • Klasycznie to zmieszany język „staroeuropejski” I1 + Po-PIE z CWC R1a. Teraz wychodzi, że I1 to też Pra-Słowianie, jak I2? Coś tu jednak nie dodaje się, patrz to, co np. Wenemann opisywał, jako j. atlantydycki, czyli język „staroeuropejski” budowniczych megalitów, co miał być rzekomo coś jakoś afro-semickiwaty…

                  Polubienie

                • „Znasz Ariów z I2?”

                  Nie znam, ale jest na to dosyć łatwe wytłumaczenie.
                  Maksima I2 na północ od Karpat sięgają zaledwie 10-15% i są one tam gdzie są najstarsze miejsca związane z CWC oraz są to centra geograficzne kultury GAC.

                  Azjatycki oddział R1a, czyli Z93 nie jest powiązany z europejskim M458, który został zeslawizowany przez I2, po czym stworzył wschodnich Słowian w migracji na wschód w ramach CWC a może później, w epoce żelaza.

                  Można by zatem przyjąć, że R1a Z93 ma nie zeslawizowany język, podobnie jak i współczesny litewski, przyniesiony tam w epoce brązu przez R1a.
                  Znawcy sanskrytu, jak choćby syn małżeństwa indologów, który dał kiedyś wywiad dla Kamila z ‚wspaniała rzeczpospolita’ powiedział, że jego zdaniem, sanskrytowi najbliższy jest współczesny litewski.
                  Czyli to by się zgadzało, sanskryt byłby czymś w rodzaju języka bałtyjskiego, który był pod wpływami w czasie wędrówki Ariów na wschód(sintashta, andronowo) i później na południe.

                  Polubienie

                • Już Ci o tym pisałem, że logicznie nie jest możliwe, żeby I2 był Pra-Słowiański i sam spowodował utratę swoich rzekomo pierwotnych Pra-Słowiańskich końcówek, które jednocześnie rzekomo zachowały się z j. bałtyckich, które pochodzą od Pra-CWC, które wg Ciebie nie było Pra-Słowiańskie, a Pra-Bałtyckie, przy czym zarówno w sanskrycie, jak i w awestyjskim te rzekomo pierwotne końcówki tez zanikły.

                  Jeszcze raz powtórzę, że skoro I2 było Pra-Słowiańskie, to oznacza, że było odpowiednikiem tzw. PIE, a nie jest możliwe żeby to samo rzekome Pra-Słowiańskie PIE I2 było jednocześnie i soba i językiem już od siebie pochodnym, patrz Pra-Bałtyckim w Pra-CWC.

                  Polubienie

                • Jedynym wytłumaczeniem wg mnie jest to, że R1a było NIE, ale wtedy to, co nazywasz PRa=CWC nie mogło być Pra-Bałtyckie, ponieważ skąd by zmieszał się już wcześniej z I2? Chyba, że mówimy o czymś jak tzw. dialect continuum w tzw. starej europie, a R1a to syberyjskie późne Po-ANE, które z WHG jednak wcześniej też coś miało wspólnego, patrz EHG, jako WHG+CHG+ANE, o ile CHG jest jeszcze czymś wiarygodnym, patrz brak CHG na południe od Skałkazu, jako rzekomy tzw. Iran Neolitic to, o czym pisałem ostatnio i cytowałem za Dawidskim, patrz:

                  https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2019/12/25/222-ponowna-ostateczna-smierc-tzw-proto-balto-slavic-wspolnoty-balto-slowianskiej-i-wszystkiego-co-ma-zwiazek-z-tym-nigdy-nie-istniejacym-czyms/comment-page-1/#comment-14321

                  Polubienie

                • „Już Ci o tym pisałem, że logicznie nie jest możliwe, żeby I2 był Pra-Słowiański i sam spowodował utratę swoich rzekomo pierwotnych Pra-Słowiańskich końcówek, które jednocześnie rzekomo zachowały się z j. bałtyckich, które pochodzą od Pra-CWC, które wg Ciebie nie było Pra-Słowiańskie, a Pra-Bałtyckie, przy czym zarówno w sanskrycie, jak i w awestyjskim te rzekomo pierwotne końcówki tez zanikły.

                  Jeszcze raz powtórzę, że skoro I2 było Pra-Słowiańskie, to oznacza, że było odpowiednikiem tzw. PIE, a nie jest możliwe żeby to samo rzekome Pra-Słowiańskie PIE I2 było jednocześnie i soba i językiem już od siebie pochodnym, patrz Pra-Bałtyckim w Pra-CWC.”

                  Przed wejściem R1a na Litwę w epoce brązu, w mezolicie mieszkali tam tacy sami genetycznie ludzie jak GAC w Polsce. Może oni coś wnieśli do języka R1a?

                  Nie mam zamiaru wyjaśniać powstanie języka zachodniosłowiańskiego przez pryzmat germańskiego, bałtyjskiego, sanskrytu czy wschodniosłowiańskiego.
                  Fakty są takie, że GAC odpowiada zasięgowi zachodniosłowiańskiemu z X wieku (zarówno na zachodzie, po Hamburg, jak i na wschodzie, jako lechickie plemiona dzisiejszej zachodniej Ukrainy), ten X wieczny zasięg jest niepodważalny.
                  W centrum (zachodnia Polska, wschodnie Niemcy) obszaru GAC wyłania się CWC, a nie na odwrót.

                  Czyj jezyk stał się językiem CWC?
                  Czy nie dlatego CWC tak szybko rozporzestrzeniła się i na wschód i na zachód od jej źródła powstania, gdyż był to jednolity obszar językowy GAC?

                  Popatrz jak to wygląda:

                  Zwraca uwagę, że CWC na Ukrainie nie wyszło poza obszar GAC. Dlaczego, skoro na pólnocnym wschodzie zaszło tak daleko poza obszar GAC?

                  W Rosji i Białorusi wygląda to na akulturację CWC, czyli bez zmiany genetycznej populacji, zresztą najbardziej północne i północno-wschodnie obszary CWC (Karelia,Perm) były niesłowiańskie, odejmij obszar Litwy, Łotwy i Estonii jako niesłowiański, okolice Moskwy jako niesłowiańskie.
                  I co się okazuje? Że poza GAC to co było słowiańskie było według Nestora lechickie (Wołynianie, WIatycze, Radymicze):

                  Język GAC musiał być słowiański.

                  Mamy złudne wrażenie, gdyż zachodni GAC został zniemczony, zaś to co na wschód od GAC zostało zeslawizowane przez Moskwę, aż po m.Czarne i Kaspijskie.

                  Polubienie

                • Zgadzam się z tym, co napisałeś. Mi chodzi tylko o to, że Pra-CWC R1a swoją „Pra-Bałtyckość” odziedziczyli po Pra-Słowiańskim GAC I2. To oznacza, że tzw. wspólnoty bałto-słowiańskiej nigdy nie było. Tylko tyle. 🙂

                  Polubienie

              • Polecam też teorię istnienia „języka belgijskiego” wraz z hipotezą „bloku północno-zachodniego” tyle, że obie dotyczą czasów na długo po rozpowszechnieniu się PIE z odrowiśla.
                Wynajdują co mogą żeby nie przyznać się do słowiańskich zapożyczeń. Cytuję: „… in Germanic languages … any word starting with a „P”…, must be a loan from another language. Kuhn ascribes those words to the Nordwestblock language.”
                Sto lat temu jak jeszcze chodziłem do szkoły mówiło się o języku wenedzkim jako illyrskim, staroeuropejskim a nawet tyrreńskim, a slawizację widziano dopiero w V-VII wieku ;).

                Polubienie

                • PoRT i FoRD udowadniają, że zapożyczeń Od-Pra-Słowiańśkich, (niech będzie, że od I2), musiało być co najmniej ze 2 fale. Pierwsza zdążyła się ubezdźwięcznić do FoRD, a druga przeszłą z łaciny i już się nie zdążyła ubezdźwięcznić.

                  Polubienie

  4. „…nawet jak musi pochodzić z R z Mal’ta?”
    No właśnie nie musi.
    Takich R łowców mamutów mogło być więcej. Skąd wiesz że był tylko 1? Akurat mieli profesję wymagającą przemieszczania się, wiec geny mogli zawlec wszędzie.

    „WSHG to Motala I1?”
    WSHG jest zachodnio syberyjskim HG. West Syberian HG.

    „Czytałaś to, co puściłem o CHG z Davidskiego?”
    Nie. Ja się w tym gubię.

    Polubienie

      • Imo HG to ludzie z okresu paleolitu/mezolitu.
        I są pogrupowani geograficznie.
        WHG – zachód Europy
        SHG/UHG – północ i wschód jak Skandynawia Ukraina
        EHG – wschód Rosja
        WSHG – dalej na wschód zachodnia Syberia

        WSHG więc wygląda na po ANE. Bo mieli aż 50% ANE, ale zmieszali się w międzyczasie z EHG 30% i wschodnimi Azjatami 20%.
        Nie podano co konkretnie mają na myśli east asian. Ale imo chodzi o Nganasan a nie Chan domieszkę.

        Polubienie

        • Zobacz ile tego ANE jest wszędzie w domieszkach. Zerknij na mapki i filmik. Wg Mię to, co Robert zamieścił, to wszystko jest ANE, patrz moje grafiki. Widzisz to?

          Polubienie

  5. Spotkałam się też z opinią że to Baskowie mają najwięcej WHG.

    Więc w pnwsch Europie to nie może być czyste WHG, tylko to związane z SHG/UHG.
    S, skąd wziąłeś dane o Vasiljewce? Czy to nie z pracy o Bałtyku? Tam, o ile pamiętam była jakaś ukraynska próbka z mezolitu podobna do SHG tzn zmiksowane WHG z EHG.

    Weź np. pod uwagę, że kultura oryniacka rozwinęła się też na Syberii w tym wokół jeziora Bajkał.

    Polubienie

  6. A co jeśli Oryniacy częściowo wyemigrowali nad Bajkał i Malta pochodzi z tej migracji?
    Czy wówczas pochodzenie tych co pozostali w jakimś refugium będzie bajkalskie? Czy jednak europejskie?

    Polubienie

      • Ja sobie domniemuję jedynie, że migranci na Syberię (Bajkał, Minusinsk)
        z kultury oryniackiej mogli nosić hg pokrewne/przodkowe Malta.
        Czy wiesz, jakie hg przysieśli ci oryniaccy migranci nad Bajkał?

        Polubienie

          • „A byli tacy?”
            I tu mnie masz, bo moja znajomość archeologii to Wiki.
            Ale o oryniackiej w lokalizacji była jak widzisz i Syberia. „around Lake Baikal, the Ob River valley, and Minusinsk”
            Poza oczywiście „Lebanon/Palestine/Israel region”.

            No i pamiętam z przed lat, że w pobliżu Malty znaleziono starożytną sztukę, która wykazuje podobieństwo do europejskiej z tego samego okresu. No figurki.

            Polubienie

            • Brawo. Obroniłaś się. 🙂 Ja tez nie siedzę w archeologii, a nawet jakby, to czy garnki / ostrza kamienne są wyznacznikiem języka i kultury, czy tylko umiejętności technicznych?

              To samo pytanie zadawałem już wielokrotnie co do genów, a szczególnie domieszek autosomalnych. Czy domieszki odzwierciedlają różne języki?

              Polubienie

              • Już pisałam że nie twierdzę, tylko domniemam. Czyli jest to możliwa hipoteza.
                Tak jak ty mniemasz że R* w Malta jest tubylcze i właśnie nad Bajkałem się wykluło. Obie hipotezy są prawdopodobne. R* mogło być też tubycze w całej północnej Eurazji.

                Głównym „za” dla twojej hipotezy jest mamcia Malta. Z hg U typową dla WHG. Więc pognała na wschód, wzięła sobie męża R* i nauczyła rzemiosła. Stąd też może wynikać podobieństwo do sztuki oryniackiej.

                Hipoteza solutrejska powstała na podstawie znalezisk archeologicznych i ich podobieństwa, tak? Co o niej sądzisz?

                Czy nie dziwne że w Ameryce są podstawowe eRy?

                Polubienie

                • (…) Już pisałam że nie twierdzę, tylko domniemam. Czyli jest to możliwa hipoteza. (…)

                  Jest to logiczne i prawdopodobne, ponieważ mogło byc różnie. Zwróć uwagę, że ja używam od pewnego czasu znaku nieskończoności, jako odwzorowania drogi R1a. Można to tez przyjąc szerzej, jako łażenie w kółko za Żyłosiami w te i na zad…

                  (…) Tak jak ty mniemasz że R* w Malta jest tubylcze i właśnie nad Bajkałem się wykluło. Obie hipotezy są prawdopodobne. R* mogło być też tubycze w całej północnej Eurazji. (…)

                  Eee… Nie twierdziłem tak nigdy. Coś pokręciłaś. „Od zawsze” twierdziłem, że był Ust’ishim, czyli że Łowcy Północni łazili za Żyłosiami ze wschodu na zachód i odwrotnie. Mogli być nad Atlantykiem też. Gadaliśmy już o tym kiedyś. Mi nic się nie zmieniło. Wg Mię WHG tak jak Gravetians przyszli ze wschodu, za Żyłosiami właśnie.

                  (…) Głównym „za” dla twojej hipotezy jest mamcia Malta. Z hg U typową dla WHG. Więc pognała na wschód, wzięła sobie męża R* i nauczyła rzemiosła. Stąd też może wynikać podobieństwo do sztuki oryniackiej. (…)

                  To wspiera też Twoje twierdzenie, o możliwości zachodniego pochodzenia R i pochodnych. Pytanie co z I1 i I2?

                  (…) Hipoteza solutrejska powstała na podstawie znalezisk archeologicznych i ich podobieństwa, tak? Co o niej sądzisz? Czy nie dziwne że w Ameryce są podstawowe eRy? (…)

                  Wątpię o możliwości i sensowności podróży z Europy na zachód do Ameryki kajakami przy brzegu bariery lodowej. Po co? R i Q z nad Bajkału miało blisko przez niebyłą Cieśninę Beringa. Nie muszę wymyślać niestworzonych rzeczy. Nie wiem, jak było, ale lepiej jest iśc za mamutem na wschód, niż płynąć kajakiem przy lodowcu na zachód.

                  Polubienie

                • „Czy nie dziwne że w Ameryce są podstawowe eRy?”

                  NIe ma. Takie są owszem, ale na Bliskim Wschodzie, w Jordanii, drugi rzut, nieco niżej na drzewie R1a są współcześnie w poblizy jeziora Ładoga,

                  To wskazuje, że R1a zajmowało okolice m.Czarnego, na przykład północne i zachodnie wybrzeże w epoce zlodowacenie, po czym w miarę ocieplania się klimatu ruszyła na północ korzystając z rzek, co było bardzo łatwe i bezpieczne (woda, pokarm, brak możliwości zabłądzenia) i stąd mamy R1a u Karelczyka sprzed 8500 lat.

                  A co ważniejsze, tak powstałoby EHG z WHG (pytanie czy to było 12 czy 15 czy 20 tysięcy lat temu), gdyż na innych mapach WHG w tym okresie jest od dzisiejszego Krymu, wąskim pasem do Rumunii i Bułgari, do Włoch i do Hiszpanii.

                  Polubienie

  7. Nie odpowiedziałeś na:

    Dlaczego Villabruna R1b z podobnego okresu co afontowa Gora Q jest WHG?

    Skąd R1 się wzięło w Europie?
    Skąd jest R1a?

    Polubienie

    • Vasilievka jest starsza od Karelczyka. R1a musi być Po-ANE, poniewaz R z Mal’ta było ANE. A co do Twojego pytania, no to nie wie, ale kto mówi, że musiała byc tylko jedna fala Po-ANE? Popatrz lepiej na filmiki Carlosa.

      Tak przy okazji, no to te filmiki pokazują PIE w Samarze i jest to powiązane z niebieskimi kropkami, czyli z ANE właśnie! 🙂 Ciekawe co Wy oboje na to?

      Polubienie

      • Co do fal poANE no to wiadomo, że w neolicie dolała jakaś grupa.
        Ale przyznasz czy nie, że R1a z Vasiljewki mógł pochodzić od lokalsów albo nawet z zachodu a ta odrobina ANE od baby ze wschodu. (jakAG).?

        „R1a musi być Po-ANE, poniewaz R z Mal’ta było ANE…. kto mówi, że musiała byc tylko jedna fala Po-ANE?”

        Polubienie

  8. Obecna narracja jest uproszczona. Widzi WHG w paleo/mezo Europie, tzw staroeuropejskie I2. A to dlaczego kultury paleo się różniły?
    Dlaczego zapomina się o R1 z Francji, R1b z Vilabruna i wielu nieco młodszych ze wschodniej Europy? Co?

    No wiec czym różniła się oryniacka od solutrejskiej, skoro to jedynie solutrejska była podobna do clovis?

    Co z kulturami po oryniackimi jak magdalenska czy Lyngby a co z kulturami po solutrean jak świderska?
    Czy na pewno to byli ci sami ludzie? Z tą samą hg?
    Tego mi brakuje.

    Bo teraz hipotetyzuję, ze solutrean/swiderian mogli mieć Q i R. Ot tak.
    Chyba, że wolisz N, co?

    Polubienie

    • Dobre pytania. N, gdyby była wcześniej w zach. Europie, to by wyszła gdzieś, nie sądzisz? Wyszła, bo przyszła późno nad Bałtyk. Wg MIę, to ona zmieniła język Pra-Słowiański CWC na j. bałtyckie w epoce żelaza.

      Polubienie

  9. „To wspiera też Twoje twierdzenie, o możliwości zachodniego pochodzenia R i pochodnych. Pytanie co z I1 i I2?”
    Nie. Mamcia U pochodząca z zachodu, z WHG mogła wnieść owo WHG do genomu chłopca z Malty. I stąd zarówno jego autosomalne zachodnie pochodzenie jak i sztuka, narzędzia, zwyczaje etc. Ale po kimś pozostałą część – ANE musiał odziedziczyć. I pozostaje nam tylko 1 możliwość – tatuś.

    I2 musiało odpaść po drodze.

    „Dobre pytania”
    Znasz odpowiedzi?

    Skoro N nie było w świderskiej, to co było?

    Mogło być I2 ale jeśli technologia ostrzy ciśnieniowych stąd pochodzi i jest związana z EHG, tzn tam gdzie się pojawia jest mix WHG/EHG, a nie jak dotąd czyste WHG to jakieś hg charakterystyczne dla EHG są przeze mnie spodziewane.

    Nie wiem czy to jest istotne dla rozważań językowych ale jeśli nawet mamy język po rolnikach to co z podkładem?

    Tak czy inaczej już w mezolicie wszystkie wschodnie i skandynawskie kultury miały domieszkę EHG. Różną ale była wszędzie. Nie wiemy co z paleolitycznym świdrem.
    Ze względu na oryginalną technikę należy takiej domieszki oczekiwać również w Polsce i północnych Niemczech.

    Badanie aHG Europy wsch. potwierdzaja również wzrost EHG w neolicie. Co chyba oznacza że rolnictwo tu przybyło ze wschodu i jest związane z EHG, czy szerzej z ANE.

    Na mapkach Carlosa to wygląda tak jakby Syberia to coś z N1c. Co ciekawe te geny napierają w neolicie. Może seima?
    Tak czy srak zepchnęli ANE na zachód. Więc wzrost EHG/ANE w Europie w neolicie mógł być wyparciem ich z Rosji przez Azjatów a nie jakimś pakietem rolniczym.
    Po czym w chalkolicie nastąpił odwrót, wiec metal należał do EHG/ANE. Dodatkowo są zauważeni w niemczech. Potem i w BBC.
    Wynika z tego, ze Carlos i EHG i Jamna podpiął pod ANE.

    Polubienie

    • Nie brałbym za dużo z tego, co tam Carlos napisał. Kropki to ok, ale nazwy rzekomych języków, to jakaś totalna masakra, patrz np. CWC, jako Ugro-Finic, gdy powyżej i na wschodzie ma PIE.

      (…) Znasz odpowiedzi? (…)

      Poczytaj, co pisze do Roberta.

      Co do tego rolnictwa ze wschodu, no to na wschodzi stepu ono faktycznie samo się zrobiło, bez żenienia się z córkami rolników, czy z samymi rolnikami, ale czy można tu mówić o przyjściu rolnictwa ze wschodu? A TRB i GAC/KAK to pies?

      Polubienie

    • „Nie. Mamcia U pochodząca z zachodu, z WHG mogła wnieść owo WHG do genomu chłopca z Malty.”

      Zwracam uwagę, że ciagle nie umiecie interpretować Malta sprzed 24 000 lat.

      Definicje WHG, EHG są późniejsze niż on sam, on jest tak stary, że MUSI miec w sobie EHG niesiony przez R1a czy WHG niesiony przez R1b jak równiez to co niosą R2 z południowych Indii, jak równiez jest tak blisko rozpadu hg, że musi miec to co zaniesiono do Ameryki czy nawet co mają Chińczycy.
      Popatrzcie na grafy, że wyłonienie się N, Q, R nastąpił blisko siebie, a on jest wysoko na drzewie R.

      Polubienie

        • „A co z CHG, też to ma? To rozwiązywałoby problem CHG, czyż nie tak?”

          Nie wiem, gdyż ja z CHG nie mam żadnych problemów, wzorcem jest irański mezolit i neolit HG, na pewno nie możemy uzywać Malta jako takiego w przepływie genów w neolicie.
          Popatrz jak blisko Kaukazu był Sredni Stog. To, że ci ludzie mieli w sobie CHG i byli jego nosicielami, to zupełnie przewidywalna sprawa

          Tam powyżej Malta jest Karelczyk, jeśli on jest wzorcem EHG to oznacza tylko tyle, że każde WHG z 20% domieszką syberyjsko-amerykańską (kolor pomarańczowy i czerwony) dalej jest uzywany jako EHG.
          Więc gdy znajdą w Skandynawii gościa, który ma 5% pomarańczowego lub/i czerwonego, a pozostałe WHG to napiszą 75% WHG+25% EHG

          Polubienie

          • (…) Nie wiem, gdyż ja z CHG nie mam żadnych problemów, wzorcem jest irański mezolit i neolit HG, na pewno nie możemy uzywać Malta jako takiego w przepływie genów w neolicie. (…)

            No tak, ale sam pokazałeś te kropki kolorowe, a ja je opisałem. Żółty CHG nie idzie nigdzie powyżej Step Maykop! Nie ma przepływu genów z Iranu na nadczarnojeziorski/morski step!

            Przy okazji Afontowa Gora ma najwięcej kolorków, nawet te, których nie ma Mal’ta!

            Polubienie

  10. Z koncówkami to gramatyka i nic wiecej.
    Córka – curuś
    Syn – synuś
    Mama – mamuś
    Chłopiec – chłoptaś
    Gruby – grubas
    Głupiec – głuptas
    Cienki – cienias
    Mamy jak chcemy i –us i –as i nic nie zanikło.

    Polubienie

  11. Od dawna nie zaglądałem na inne fora, a tutaj taka niespodzianka, popatrzcie jak wspierająca moją teorię o nieslowiańskim R1a, a słowiańskim GAC slawizującym bałtyjskich pastuszków z CWC, Sławomir referuje pracę naukową:


    Koledzy, dopiero dzisiaj znalazłem czas na lekturę pracy Zbigniewa Babika, opublikowanej, jak wiecie, pod koniec grudnia zeszłego roku w Kulturze Słowian, Roczniku Komisji Kultury Słowian Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności.

    Najciekawsze fragmenty:

    Snuta w slawistyce mityczna opowieść o toponomastycznie
    protosłowiańskim Polesiu nie wytrzymuje konfrontacji z pełniejszym
    materiałem nazewniczym tego obszaru, analizowanym zgodnie z wymaganiami
    współczesnej toponomastyki. Obecnie nie ulega wątpliwości, że cała wschodnioeuropejska
    strefa leśna pokryta jest szczelnie przedsłowiańskim substratem toponimicznym.
    Substrat rozrzedza się w strefie leśno-stepowej, gdzie równomiernie
    zanika i starsza słowiańska warstwa nazewnicza. W części zachodniej (dorzecze
    górnego i częściowo środkowego Dniepru) pochodzi on z wymarłych języków indoeuropejskich
    blisko spokrewnionych z bałtosłowiańskimi (czy może nawet bałtyckimi),
    w części wschodniej Podnieprza niewykluczone są wpływy ugrofińskie.

    Zachodnia granica
    tego areału biegnie w dorzeczu Bugu / Wieprza (i Sanu?).

    Mimo stanowiska zajętego przez Toporowa i Trubaczowa nadal utrzymuje się
    pogląd o istotnej odmienności najstarszych warstw toponimii północnego i południowego
    dorzecza Prypeci.

    W świetle
    obecnie dostępnych materiałów, a wbrew obiegowej opinii, także Wołyń jawi się
    jako jeden z najbardziej wyrazistych areałów masowego występowania substratu
    przedsłowiańskiego w toponimii. Inwentarz spotykanych tu baz leksykalnych i formantów
    nazwotwórczych nie odbiega znacząco od obserwowanego dalej na północnym
    wschodzie.

    Jednak prowadzone od pewnego czasu badania nad bazą leksykalną słowiańskiej
    warstwy nazewniczej dorzecza Dniepru wskazują na jej ubogi i silnie przesunięty
    w kierunku historycznej leksyki wschodniosłowiańskiej charakter. Proporcja między
    niejasnymi nazwami ważnych obiektów terenowych i nazwami nawiązującymi
    do słowiańskiej leksyki dialektalnej kształtuje się tu w sposób wyjątkowo niekorzystny.
    Najbardziej skrajną sytuację obserwujemy na terenie dobrze rozpoznanego
    nazewniczo obwodu czernihowskiego (którego oś – przypomnijmy – wyznacza
    bieg dolnej Desny), gdzie mimo ponawianych kwerend nie udało się znaleźć żadnych
    współczesnych ojkonimów motywowanych słowiańską leksyką „niemacierzystą”
    względem ukraińskiej, a wśród anojkonimów warstwa ta jest reprezentowana
    słabiej niż gdzie indziej7. Toponimia tego obwodu stanowi modelowy przykład
    współczesnej słowiańskiej warstwy nazewniczej o charakterze kolonialnym, zaszczepionej
    na silnym przedsłowiańskim substracie. Wykonane sondaże wskazują,
    że dotychczas dostępne materiały toponimiczne z niżowej części Ukrainy (nie
    analizowałem opracowań karpackich) nie pozwalają na wytworzenie nawet pozoru
    możliwości konkurowania z ziemiami zachodniosłowiańskimi (w tym środkowymi
    partiami ziem polskich) pod względem różnorodności dialektalnej leksyki słowiańskiej
    odbitej w toponimii.

    Nie potwierdza się również
    opinia o większym archaizmie odapelatywnej słowiańskiej warstwy nazewniczej
    północnej czy zachodniej Ukrainy względem Białorusi. ”

    Koniec cytatu.
    Czyż nie sprawdza się moja druga teoria, że lechiccy Wiatycze są ostatnią pozostałością slawizacji tych terenów?
    W wersji ostrej, byli by jedynymi slawizatorami, ale myślę, że tylko kolejną, ostatnią falą, no chyba, żeby w kopalnym Dna wyszło by, że przyszli tam w epoce brązu i do XII wieku zachowali odrębność.
    Przypominam, że na wschód od Wiatyczy są tylko niesłowiańskie plemiona ugrofińskie, jednakże z silną domieszką R1a.
    Do tej pory sądziliśmy, że słowiańskie R1a zostało ugrofinizowane, teraz wychodziłoby, że tak, ale z bałtyckiego języka.

    Dodam jeszcze, że jak wcześniej wydomyślałem się, że końcówki -us, -as odpowiadałoby R1b1a masowo znajdowane od Łotwy, poprzez Rumunię i Serbię do Włoch (za wyjątkiem Bułgarii), w okresie mezolitu:
    praca Mathiesona:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oeA1S2Dc-YFuwo9p1D1h4sstx_upPFkqRRdcLORnj-c/edit#gid=1261376483

    to przecież R1a jest gdzieś po tej drodze, w dodatku ono samo W TYM OKRESIE (MEZOLICIE) musiało mieć podobny język do R1b, gdyż mezolit to bliskość do czasów rozpadu R1 na R1a i R1b (np. Vilabruna jest blisko tego węzła rozdzielenia się), zatem nośnikiem tych końcówek w litewskim może być samo R1a z epoki brazu, nisoące tam CWC.

    Polubienie

    • Po pierwsze co do hydronomii i toponimii to jest tylko gadanie bez podawanych przykładów.

      Po drugie. R1b ma nie tylko końcówki. Ma też wtórne ubezdźwięcznienia, a także Basków. Rozumiem, że o TRB i KAK/GAC zapominamy, jako PIE, czy tak? Teraz PIE to już nie pasterze z koniem, ale Łowcy z Północy R1b? No to teraz pytanie, dlaczego oni tak zniekształcili sobie języki, patrz i Baskowie, i Celtowie i tzw. Germanie. Ponownie pytam, co z I1 i I2.? A co jak to I1 i I2 byli PIE? Co z tzw. stara europą, która jakoś teraz znikła? Cały step też przestał być nagle PIE, w tym Yamna. Co Ty na to?

      Przypominam, że Sławomir utrzymuje za Yamna allo-allo, że miękkie k’/K’ było pierwotnym dźwiękiem z którego powstały wszystkie dźwięki wysokoenergetyczne, w tym i S, który jednak ofitzjalnie istniał w tzw. PIE. Co do Księcia / Kniezia no to też jest argument, że u Słowian książęta pojawili się dopiero w epoce feudalnej, a wcześniej ich nie było.

      Nie odpowiedziałeś na pytanie o ew. utratę języków przez EEF na rzecz WHG. Dlaczego go utracili? Dlaczego WHG ma zachować zwój język, skoro R1b jakoś wszędzie go traci, ubezdźwięcznia i zniekształca?

      N1c dało radę narzucić swój język w Puszcie. Dlaczego R1a nie dał rady tego zrobić w Odrowiślu? R1a miało konia i jak widać wymieniło G2 skutecznie.

      Przy okazji, w j. fińskim istnieją takie końcówki:

      https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%99zyk_fi%C5%84ski

      Oto wykaz najczęściej pojawiających się końcówek słowotwórczych[30]:

      -ja/jä : sprawca czynności, np. lukea czytać → lukija – czytelnik, puhua – mówić, puhuja – mówca
      -lainen/läinen: mieszkaniec (rzeczownik lub przymiotnik). Englanti – Anglia → englantilainen Anglik, angielski; Venäjä → venäläinen – Rosjanin
      -sto/stö: zbiór. Na przykład: kirja – książka → kirjasto – biblioteka; laiva – statek → laivasto flota
      -in: narzędzie, na przykład: kirjata – spisać → kirjain „litera; vatkata ubijać → vatkain – mieszadło, mikser
      -uri/yri: sprawca bądź narzędzie: kaivaa – kopać → kaivuri – koparka; laiva – statek → laivuri marynarz
      -os/ös: rezultat czynności kääntää – tłumaczyć → käännös – przekład; tehdä – robić → teos – wytwór, dzieło
      -ton/tön: brak: onni – szczęście → onneton – nieszczęśliwy; koti – dom → koditon – bezdomny
      -llinen: posiadający cechę: lapsi – dziecko → lapsellinen – dziecinny; kauppa – sklep → kaupallinen – handlowy
      -va/vä: mający coś lub robiący coś: taitaa – być zdolnym → taitava – zdolny; johtaa – prowadzić → johtava – prowadzący.
      -la/lä: miejsce związane z danym słowem: kana – kura → kanala – kurnik; pappi – ksiądz → pappila – plebania.

      Polubienie

      • „Po drugie. R1b ma nie tylko końcówki. Ma też wtórne ubezdźwięcznienia, a także Basków. Rozumiem, że o TRB i KAK/GAC zapominamy, jako PIE, czy tak? Teraz PIE to już nie pasterze z koniem, ale Łowcy z Północy R1b?”

        Po co mieszasz R1b sprzed 7-9-14 000 lat, z tym sprzed 4500 lat, które było w Yamna i BBC i weszło do europy zachodniej.

        Dyskuja jest na forum histmag, wejdz w najnowsze komentarze i będzie to miał.

        Poza tym zacytowałem cytat, ale było nie było to jest praca naukowa, opublikwana w naukowym czasopismie, jesli jest zgodna z moją hipotezą to biorę ją w ciemno.

        Polubienie

        • (…) Po co mieszasz R1b sprzed 7-9-14 000 lat, z tym sprzed 4500 lat, które było w Yamna i BBC i weszło do europy zachodniej. (…)

          Po to, że próbuję zrozumieć coś. To nie mieszanie, ale zestawianie ze soba danych.

          (…) Dyskuja jest na forum histmag, wejdz w najnowsze komentarze i będzie to miał. (…)

          MIło, ale nie widze żadnego odnośnika…

          (…) Poza tym zacytowałem cytat, ale było nie było to jest praca naukowa, opublikwana w naukowym czasopismie, jesli jest zgodna z moją hipotezą to biorę ją w ciemno. (…)

          Ponownie miło, ale ja zacytowałem część tego, co Ty zacytowałeś i z tego wynika, że Pra-Słowiańskich jakichś danych nie ma obecnych w jakimś powiecie koło Desny na Ukrainie. To akurat np. Mezine i okolice, ale sa za to widoczne jakieś dane w Odrowiślu. Tyle.

          Nie mam nic innego, żadnych dowodów, danych nic, tylko to, co zacytowałeś. Jestem niewiernym i proszę o dane lub np. url, to sobie sam doczytam…

          Polubienie

    • (…) Najbardziej skrajną sytuację obserwujemy na terenie dobrze rozpoznanego nazewniczo obwodu czernihowskiego (którego oś – przypomnijmy – wyznacza bieg dolnej Desny), gdzie mimo ponawianych kwerend nie udało się znaleźć żadnych współczesnych ojkonimów motywowanych słowiańską leksyką „niemacierzystą” względem ukraińskiej, a wśród anojkonimów warstwa ta jest reprezentowana słabiej niż gdzie indziej7. Toponimia tego obwodu stanowi modelowy przykład współczesnej słowiańskiej warstwy nazewniczej o charakterze kolonialnym, zaszczepionej na silnym przedsłowiańskim substracie.

      Wykonane sondaże wskazują, że dotychczas dostępne materiały toponimiczne z niżowej części Ukrainy (nie analizowałem opracowań karpackich) nie pozwalają na wytworzenie nawet pozoru możliwości konkurowania z ziemiami zachodniosłowiańskimi (w tym środkowymi partiami ziem polskich) pod względem różnorodności dialektalnej leksyki słowiańskiej odbitej w toponimii.

      Nie potwierdza się również opinia o większym archaizmie odapelatywnej słowiańskiej warstwy nazewniczej północnej czy zachodniej Ukrainy względem Białorusi. ” (…)

      Czyli wg tego to Odrowiśle ma źródłosłowy słowiańskie, a nie okolice Desny i Prypeci! Ciekawe o jakim przed słowiańskim substracie jest tu mowa? Możesz pdać url na tę dyskusję, proszę?

      Polubienie

    • (…) to przecież R1a jest gdzieś po tej drodze, w dodatku ono samo W TYM OKRESIE (MEZOLICIE) musiało mieć podobny język do R1b, gdyż mezolit to bliskość do czasów rozpadu R1 na R1a i R1b (np. Vilabruna jest blisko tego węzła rozdzielenia się), zatem nośnikiem tych końcówek w litewskim może być samo R1a z epoki brazu, nisoące tam CWC. (…)

      Skoro to rzekomo NIE R1a mogło dać te PIE końcówki Bałtom z R1b, no to dlaczego CWC R1a już IE te końcówki częściowo utraciło, patrz Sintashta i dalej? Zresztą annaM pokazała, że te końcówki nadal istnieją w j. polskim, jak to ma miejsce w przypadku j. bałtyckich, czy italo-celtycko-germańskich. Tyle że dotyczy to innych słów, niż te odtfaszane ofitzjalnie lub istniejące w j. bałtyckich, patrz Lwów > Lvov+as.

      Te końcówki są ważne dla odtfoszeń PIE. Tylko języki Po-Sintashta ich nie mają.

      Jak możliwe, żeby G2 było jednocześnie i PIE W LBK, TRB i KAK/GAC i Pra-Kartwelskie na Skałakazie? Czy zrobiło się PIE na Bałkanach przez styczność z Łowcami I2?

      Dlaczego wszystkie języki tzw. kentum związane z R1b mają tyle wtórnych zniekształceń, patrz D>T, czy P>F, czy S>H?

      Polubienie

  12. Najstarsze jak dotąd R1a m417 jest z Aleksandrii. Autosomalnie było jak późniejsze w CWC, czyli mieszanka jak GAC i EHG i CHG
    Jednak pomimo, ze CWC jest o 1000 lat młodsze od Aleksandrii to na wschodnim Bałtyku była próbka R1a z CWC czysto stepowa.

    Jak wy rozumiecie przebieg wydarzeń?

    Polubienie

      • No dobra, nie wiem czy GAC czy SRAC prosto z Anatolii.
        Wiesz, że chodzi mi o domieszkę EEF.
        Pamiętasz I6561?
        A 1000 lat później R1a pojawia się w CWC. I w Niemczech jest podobny autosomalnie do Aleksandrii ale jakies R1a z CWC nad Bałtykiem jest jak stepowiec 100%, bo nie ma nic anatolijskiego.
        Pomyśl jak to wyjaśnić.

        Polubienie

        • Część CWC nie pochodzi z Alexandrii, czyli ze Sredny Stog, ale z północy, gdzie nie dotarła domieszka od Anatolian HG, czyli inaczej pierwszych rolników EEF.

          Polubienie

            • „Czyli co? CWC miała 2 źródła R1a? Jedno z Ukrainy z domieszka neolityczna a 2 ze stepu bałtyckiego?”

              Ja bym powiedział, że R1a pomimo jednorodności YDna była mocno zróżnicowane, w zależności z kim sąsiadowało.
              Wniosek jest taki, że musiało być zasiedziałe od tysięcy lat oraz różnorodnośc nabyło poprzez żony.

              Polubienie

  13. Obejrzałam filmiki Carlosa i komponent Iran nie wydaje się odgrywać jakiejś roli. Wygląda, że poza Włochami do modern czasów tego tu nie było. Zobaczcie średniowiecze i dzisiaj.
    Jakaś niedawna migracja?

    Syberia to jakby coś z N1c. Co ciekawe te geny napierają w neolicie. Może seima?
    Tak czy srak zepchnęli komponent ANE na zachód. Więc wzrost ANE w Europie w neolicie mógł być wyparciem ich z Rosji przez Azjatów a nie jakimś pakietem rolniczym.
    Po czym w chalkolicie nastąpił odwrót, wiec może metal należał do ANE. Dodatkowo są zauważeni w niemczech. Potem i w BBC.
    Wynika z tego, ze Carlos i EHG i Jamna (EHG + CHG) podpiął pod ANE.

    Polubienie

    • (…) Wynika z tego, ze Carlos i EHG i Jamna (EHG + CHG) podpiął pod ANE. (…)

      Nie wiem skąd on bierze swoje wnioski. Rozumiem kropki i kolorki, ale nazewnictwo, np. CWC jako Proto-Uralic, czy coś, kiedy powyżej ma PIE i na wschód na PIE?!! Skąd on to wymyślił? Robert nie odpowiedział na większość pytań, które mu zadałem, w tym to dotyczące żółtego Iran HG, czyli podstawy CHG i jego braku powyżej Step Maykop. To samo do tyczyło innych rzeczy. CIągle czekam na jego wyjaśnienia, bo i z tymi cytatami, które opisałem nie wynika nic więcej, jak pozycjonowanie ojczyzny Pra-Słowian w Odrowiślu, a nie na Ukrainie w okolicach Desny, czy Prypeci. Gdzie tu jest mowa o Bałtach w Odrowiślu? Nie wiem skąd Robert to wyczytał.

      Tak, czy srak to najciekawsza dyskusja od dawna. Bardzo Wam obojgu za to dziękuję! 🙂

      Polubienie

      • Generalnie, powstanie
        -dryftu bałtosłowiańskiego w genetyce
        – języka słowiańskiego jako pierwotnie zachodniosłowiańskiego
        -CWC ze zmieszania się GAC z preCWC
        -moja teoria bałtyjskiego R1a i słowiańskiego GAC

        jest jednym i tym samym wydarzeniem genetyczno-kulturowo-językowym

        Spina się w całość pod warunkiem przyjęcia, że R1a nie było słowiańskie tylko bałtyjskie.
        Przydałby się link do wypowiedzi tego Polaka, ktory studiował sanskryt w Indiach, a jego rodzice są indologoami, w którym określił, że język litewski jest jego zdaniem najbliższy sanskrytowi, wówczas należaloby jakoś złożyć w całość bałtyjskość R1a a sanskryt Z93.

        Polubienie

        • Skoro G2 i I2 z GAC było wg Ciebie PIE (czy co?), to jakie było pierwotnie R1a pre-CWC, które stało się po zmieszaniu z GAC zachodniosłowiańskie w CWC w Odrowiślu, ale już bałtyckie nad Bałtykiem, a na wschód od Bugu wschodniosłowiańskie?

          Skoro istnieje widoczne przejście między dźwiękami zapisywanymi znakami o i a, patrz prawo Brugmanna, to wygląda na to, że to słowiańskie CWC, a nie Bałtyckie, czy wschodnie było wcześniejsze, patrz porównanie postaci Pra-Słowiańskich z tzw. PIE. Postacie Pra-Słowiańskie są bardziej podobne do sanskryckich, patrz np. Ko’L”+Ko, CaKRa niż bałtyckie, parz:

          Proto-Indo-European *kʷekʷlóm, *kʷékʷlos, *kʷékʷléh₂
          Avestan 𐬗𐬀𐬑𐬭𐬀‎ (caxra), Sanskrit चक्र (cakrá))
          Old Church Slavonic коло (kolo, “wheel”)
          Lithuanian kãklas,
          Tocharian B kokale,
          Ancient Greek κύκλος (kúklos), Latin colus,
          Old English hwēol (whence English wheel).

          https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wheel
          https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7%C3%A9k%CA%B7los

          Jeśli R1a miałoby być bałtyckie, czyli zbałtyczczone przez PIE G2 i I2 z GAC, no to pytam się jakie było wcześniej jako pre-CWC, ugro-fińskie, syberyjskie?

          TRB i LBK to G2 z Anatolii i I2 z Europy. Jak widzę odrzuciłeś już WHG i R1b i I2, jako PIE, a zostałeś przy Anatolii, czy tak?

          Ponownie pytam czy możesz podać odnośnik na tę dyskusję, która wskazuje, że Odrowiśle ma toponimię i hydronomię Pra-Słowiańską, a która zaprzecza temu samemu nad Desną?

          Polubienie

          • „Skoro G2 i I2 z GAC było wg Ciebie PIE (czy co?), to jakie było pierwotnie R1a pre-CWC, które stało się po zmieszaniu z GAC zachodniosłowiańskie w CWC w Odrowiślu, ale już bałtyckie nad Bałtykiem, a na wschód od Bugu wschodniosłowiańskie?”

            Już to pisałem, wg mnie R1a w pre-CWC było bałtyjskie, takim jak obecnie jest język litewski.

            To co jest na wschodzie, np. wschodniosłowiańskie i język w Sintashta pochodzi z migracji z CWC (czyli zachodniosłowiańskiego) jako efekt slawizacji.
            Sintashta mieści się centralnie w CWC Poland i Germany, dodatkowo ma on WHG które musiało nabyć od GAC, popatrz jak dużym był GAC:

            Odejmij na wschód od Buga obszar hydronimów bałtyjskich, od góry to co zajmowały plemiona Karelski, Mari, Mordwinów, Perm i co zostanie ze wschodniosłowiańskich obszarów?

            Tak to widzę na podstawie genów, nie wchodze w dyskusję czy to jest zgodne z tym czy innym prawem językowym.

            Polubienie

            • (…) Już to pisałem, wg mnie R1a w pre-CWC było bałtyjskie, takim jak obecnie jest język litewski. (…)

              1. A skąd wg Ciebie ten Pre-CWC R1a język bałtyjski, jak litewski się wziął, z Syberii z ANE, czy skąd?
              2. Jakim językiem był język GAC, czy to PIE, czy co, patrz wcześniejsze TRB i LBK?

              (…) To co jest na wschodzie, np. wschodniosłowiańskie i język w Sintashta pochodzi z migracji z CWC (czyli zachodniosłowiańskiego) jako efekt slawizacji. (…)

              Czyli zeslawizowane Pre-CWC i zmieszane z jakimś GAC ponownie zaslawizowało wszystko na wschód do Sintashta. Dlaczego nie zeslawizowało Bałtów, przecież CWC już zeslawizowane z GAC też tam dotarło?

              Czy CWC „zeslawizowało” I1 w Skandynawii?

              (…) Tak to widzę na podstawie genów, nie wchodze w dyskusję czy to jest zgodne z tym czy innym prawem językowym. (…)

              Ok. Ja mam jakieś takie dziwne wrażenie, że unikasz odpowiedzi na moje pytania i przekonujesz sam siebie, a nie mnie. Jak widzę o WHG R1b i I2, które miało dać końcówki Bałtom już zapomniałeś, natomiast teraz R1a jakoś ma być bałtyckie, bez powiązania tego z GAC. To wg Mię dziwne, ponieważ wskazuje na to, że jednocześnie R1a na wschód od Bugu i G2 na południe od Karpat JAKOŚ NIEZALEŻNIE OD SIEBIE BYŁY POWIĄZANE JĘZYKOWO! Jak to możliwe, skoro G2 to Anatolia i Skałkaz? Czyżby Pra-Kartwelski jakieś 10,000 lat temu był mówiony w Anatolii i jakoś „zeslawizował się” po drodze przez Bałkany, czy co? Mętne to wszystko, chyba że ja tu czegoś nie rozumiem. Wytłumaczysz?

              1. Jakim językiem mówił GAC G2 i I2?
              2. Jakim językiem mówił WHG R1b i I2?
              3. Jakim językiem mówił I1 i gdzie on był przed pojawieniem się w Skandynawii, gdzie dotarło też zeslawizowane już CWC?

              Po raz kolejny proszę o url na tę dyskusję na histnag, na którą się powołujesz.

              Polubienie

  14. O ile zrozumiałam Robka właściwie to R1a w całości było prabałtyckie. Od Vasiljevki. I Karelczyka. I tylko ta część R1a stała się Słowianami, która chciała się zmieszać z I2 i G z GAC.
    Czyli PIE = prabałtycki a Słowianie to odnoga Bałtów + GAC.

    Polubienie

    • „Czyli PIE = prabałtycki a Słowianie to odnoga Bałtów + GAC.”

      Powiedziałbym, że Słowianie Wschodni są odnogą Bałtów, Słowianie Zachodni są samymi sobą, którzy w pewnym momencie zasymilowali i zaakulturyzowali bałtyckich R1a.

      PIE było tym co WHG, R1a było EHG, ale to EHG to po prostu WHG z domieszką ANE.
      Wklejałem powyżej mapkę z miejscami przetrwania w epoce zlodowacenia i był to wąski pas od północy m.Czarnego, poprzez Włochy, aż do Hiszpanii.
      R1a byłoby nad m.Czarnym, stąd było ono WHG w tym czasie, tak jak i Vialbruna z płn Włoch, który jest bratnim R1b, przypominam że w Serbii 8-9 tys lat temu było od groma R1b i to z niego pochodzi afrykańskie R1b V88.
      W miarę ocieplania się klimatu R1a wędrowało na północ, przez Vasilewkę, wzdłuż Dniepru, aż po Karelię, nabywając w 10-15% składnik ANE i stając się EHG.

      [Jakim językiem mówił GAC G2 i I2?] Językiem słowiańskim na obszarze Polski, a był to język wzięty od I2, nie G2

      [Jakim językiem mówił WHG R1b i I2?] Na obszarze Polski I2 słowiańskim, R1b z domieszką CHG językiem nie indoeuropejskim, R1b bez tej domieszki mogło mowić językiem IE

      [Jakim językiem mówił I1 i gdzie on był przed pojawieniem się w Skandynawii, gdzie dotarło też zeslawizowane już CWC?]
      Stawiam, że I1 dominowało w kulturze TRB i mówiło w języku germańskim,

      Skribho zajmij się tym europejskim R1a, które w znacznym stopniu jest obecne u ludów uralskich, nazwa i % udział R1a:
      Baszkirzy
      26
      Chuvashs
      30
      Komis
      29
      Maris
      32
      Mordwini (Mordovians)
      36

      Dlaczego nie ma wśród ani śladu słowiańskości? Właśnie dlatego, że R1a nie było słowiańskie, a slawizacja nie dotarła do nich.

      Polubienie

      • Baszkirzy mają azjatyckie R1a, podobnie jak niewymieni Karaczaje, ale pozostali mają europejską gałąź. Tutaj jest praca jakiegoś Węgra w tym temacie, są tam też wymienieni Permiacy,
        https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjOuqDK5ZrnAhVu_SoKHTb-AOwQFjAEegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Feujournal.org%2Findex.php%2Fesj%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F4182%2F4018&usg=AOvVaw2qwDeYbARN-lp3nN35ZOrA

        Piszą tam już o tym, że N przybyło w epoce żelaza nad Bałyk, jak i że na podstawie Permiaków, były dwie fale napływu R1a w ich region,
        Ta druga niosła tylko M458, pierwsza nie, czyli ta druga byłaby powiązana ze slawizacją, czyli była migracją zeslawizowanego przez GAC na wschód.
        Czyli pierwsza to migracja bałtyjskiego R1a.

        Polubienie

        • cd. Doczytałem i w tej pracy z 2014 roku za wprowadzenie języków słowiańskich obarczają R1a M458 wraz z I2a, datując to zgrubnie pomiędzy 3000 a 400 lat temu.
          Permiacy w ogóle nie mają tych Y, tylko Z283, czyli bałyjskie R1a wg mojej teorii.
          I to się zgadza, język Permiaków nie był nigdy słowiański.

          Polubienie

          • A czy język Permiaków ma jakieś bałtyckie naleciałości? Przecież N1c ma nie zmieniać języka, jak to stało się z rzekomo bałtyckim językiem bałtyckiego pre-CWC i CWC?

            Polubienie

        • To są dane z European Scientific Journal September 2014.

          (…) Haplogroup N is also represented by two different subclades in the region. An older one, N1c, that seems to have been autochthon to the region before the arrival of haplogroup R1a, and a newer one, haplogroup N1b that seems to be a more recent arrival from Western Siberia.340 Two other haplogroups of presumably Central European origins, R1b and I2a are also present in the region (…)

          To jest nieprawda, co zostało udowodnione w tym wpisie.

          Polubienie

      • (…) „Czyli PIE = prabałtycki a Słowianie to odnoga Bałtów + GAC.” Powiedziałbym, że Słowianie Wschodni są odnogą Bałtów, Słowianie Zachodni są samymi sobą, którzy w pewnym momencie zasymilowali i zaakulturyzowali bałtyckich R1a. (…)

        Czyli GAC, a wcześniej TRB i jeszcze wcześniej LBK doprowadziły do ucięcia końcówek +os/us/es/as z większości słów „bałtyckich”, ale nie ze wszystkich, patrz : mamuś, mamusia, ale i mat, matka, itp; synuś, ale i synek, syneczek; córuś, ale córka, córeczka. To jest oboczność końcówek.

        Wg tego co twierdzisz GAC „zeslawizowała” bałtyckie pre-CWC R1a. Co to oznacza „zeslawizowała”? Co ona zrobiła? Rozumiem, że GAC nie była sama „bałtycka”, więc jaka była, anatolijska G2, czy bałkańsko-wschodnio-półncna I2?

        (…) PIE było tym co WHG, R1a było EHG, ale to EHG to po prostu WHG z domieszką ANE. (…)

        Jeśli WHG miało być PIE, to domieszka ANE co wniosła i stworzyła, „bałtyckość”? Języki bałtyckie mają końcówki, jak języki italo-celtyckie, grecki i germańskie. Wynikałoby z tego, że to pozostałość po WHG, ale ANE ich nie usunęła, tylko GAC. Tyle tylko, że nawet odtfoszenia wskazuja na wtórne ubezdźwięcznienie j. italo-celtyckich, greckich, germańśkich, jak i częściowo bałtyckich. To jest faktem, patrz to o czym tu piszę. Jak to wytłumaczysz?

        GAC było WHG, czy EEF, a jeśli było EFF to czy EEF było tez PIE? Czy PIE było wszędzie?

        (…) Wklejałem powyżej mapkę z miejscami przetrwania w epoce zlodowacenia i był to wąski pas od północy m.Czarnego, poprzez Włochy, aż do Hiszpanii. R1a byłoby nad m.Czarnym, stąd było ono WHG w tym czasie, tak jak i Vialbruna z płn Włoch, który jest bratnim R1b, przypominam że w Serbii 8-9 tys lat temu było od groma R1b i to z niego pochodzi afrykańskie R1b V88. (…)

        W Czadzie nie mówią w jakimś języku pozostałym po PIE. R1b zmieniło swój język, jak 100% stepowi Baskowie R1b?

        (…) W miarę ocieplania się klimatu R1a wędrowało na północ, przez Vasilewkę, wzdłuż Dniepru, aż po Karelię, nabywając w 10-15% składnik ANE i stając się EHG. (…)

        Co dało ANE do języka WHG?

        (…) Jakim językiem mówił GAC G2 i I2?] Językiem słowiańskim na obszarze Polski, a był to język wzięty od I2, nie G2 (…)

        Czyli Pra-Słowiańskim był język I2, a G2 utraciło swój język, patrz wymarcie anatolijskich rolników G2 i pomoc Łowców I2.

        (…) Jakim językiem mówił WHG R1b i I2?] Na obszarze Polski I2 słowiańskim, R1b z domieszką CHG językiem nie indoeuropejskim, R1b bez tej domieszki mogło mowić językiem IE. (…)

        Czyli CHG np. G2 z północnego Skałkazu, np. Step Maykop to mógł być język coś jak Pra-Kartwelski, coś jak np. Baskijski.

        (…) Jakim językiem mówił I1 i gdzie on był przed pojawieniem się w Skandynawii, gdzie dotarło też zeslawizowane już CWC? Stawiam, że I1 dominowało w kulturze TRB i mówiło w języku germańskim. (…)

        Problemem jest to, że j. germańskie są wtórnie ubezdźwięcznione, najbardziej poza ormiańskim. Nie mogły istnieć wcześniej niż GAC, ponieważ TRB i LBK nie były PIE. I1 jest jednak podobne do I2, które jest wg Ciebie słowiańskie i jednocześnie staroeuropejskie…

        Trochę ta układanka coś jakoś tu nie układa sie, albo ja czegoś nie rozumiem lub nie widzę. Poprawicie moje błędy?

        Szkoda, że nie chcesz podac tu tego url na tę dyskusje o słowiańskiej typo i hydronomii Odrowiśla. annaM, Czy Ty ja masz i dasz mi ją, ponieważ Robert jest głuchy na moje liczne prośby? Ja jej nie mogę znaleźć.

        Polubienie

        • „Czyli Pra-Słowiańskim był język I2, a G2 utraciło swój język, patrz wymarcie anatolijskich rolników G2 i pomoc Łowców I2.”

          Tak, I2 była prasłowiański, w Anglii budowniczowie Stonehenge również byli wyłącznie I2 i musieli mówić tym samym językiem, to zapewne stąd znajdujemy takie perełki zrozumiałe tylko dla nas zazwyczaj z gwar polskich, jak np. watching – Łoczy, łoczyć

          albo łupnąć (kogoś):
          wæpen (język staroangielski)[edytuj]
          wymowa:
          IPA: /ˈwæːpen/
          znaczenia:
          rzeczownik, rodzaj nijaki
          (1.1) broń

          Z jakiegoś powodu G2 nie stało się popularne, G2 utraciło swój język na pólnoc od Karpat, zapewne z powodu odległości migracyjnych, jednak na południe od Karpat, było silnie obecne (nie chce mi się szukać w których dokładnie), chyba w Baden, więc jest prawdopodobne, że zostawiło do dzisiaj jakieś lokalne języki.

          Z dokładnie tych samych powodów, dużej odległości od Rzymu, język słowiański nie podzielił losu języków Francji czy Hiszpanii, czyli nie został zromanizowany.

          Stonehenge, megality kujawskie (tu też było wyłącznie I2a2) pokazują, że ci ludzie nie mieli żadnych kompleksów wobec napływającego G2a, czy później pastuszków z R1a.

          „Jeśli WHG miało być PIE, to domieszka ANE co wniosła i stworzyła, „bałtyckość”? Języki bałtyckie mają końcówki, jak języki italo-celtyckie, grecki i germańskie. Wynikałoby z tego, że to pozostałość po WHG, ale ANE ich nie usunęła, tylko GAC. Tyle tylko, że nawet odtfoszenia wskazuja na wtórne ubezdźwięcznienie j. italo-celtyckich, greckich, germańśkich, jak i częściowo bałtyckich. To jest faktem, patrz to o czym tu piszę. Jak to wytłumaczysz?”

          Nie wiem, nie chcę nawet wnikać, dla każdego z tych języków musisz wymyślić osobny schemat, może końcówki to przypadek po prostu.

          Skupiłbym się na słowiańskim, gdyby odjąć X wieczny przegłos lechicki, to zachodnio i wschodnio odłamy są niemal jednolite, a jednocześnie badacze są zgodni, że hen na wschodzie, dopiero napływ M458 oraz I2 dał jezyk słowiański. W okolicach jeziora Ładogą są kłady R1a, które nie należą do M417 i ich języki karelskie są bez choćby cienia słowiańskiego w X wieku.

          Za WHG przemawia kolejne słowo, dotąd myślałem, że polskie słowo ‚TaNi’ jest zapożyczone, gdy tknięty identycznym brzmieniem angielskiego TiNy /taɪniː/:

          W polskim słowniku:
          [1. ‘niedrogi’; 2. ‘oferujący towary, usługi po niższej cenie niż inni’; 3. ‘lichy, marny’.
          Pochodzenie:
          Od XVI w.; w in. językach słow. w postaciach z -u-: por. dolnołuż i górnołuż. tuni ‘tani’, słowac. dialektalne tuni / tuný ‘ts.’, strus. tunii ‘bezpłatny; lepszy’; pochodzi od psłow. *tuńь ‘daremny; darmowy, bezpłatny’, pierwotnie w użyciu był prawdopodobnie psłow. przysłówek *tuńe ‘na darmo, za darmo, bezpłatnie’, ale dalsza etymologia jest niejasna; w pol. nastąpił rozwój postaci od pierwotnego tuni > tąni (pod wpływem -n-) > tani.
          Pierwotna postać
          W stpol. w XV w. występował przysłówek tanie ‘za niską cenę, niedrogo’.]

          W angielskim:
          tiny {przym.}PL
          mały malutki drobny maleńki tyci maciupeńki maciupki maciupci

          Nie znalazłem w staroangielskim, więc zakładam, że będzie podobnie, skąd się to wzięło jak nie od WHG, zazwyczaj jest tak, że wersja niemiecka-holenderska będzie mniej podobna niż staroangielska, a przecież tak było, że EEF bardziej dotarło do Niemiec niż do Anglii, bardziej zniekształcając.

          Polubienie

          • (…) Tak, I2 była prasłowiański, w Anglii budowniczowie Stonehenge również byli wyłącznie I2 i musieli mówić tym samym językiem, to zapewne stąd znajdujemy takie perełki zrozumiałe tylko dla nas zazwyczaj z gwar polskich, jak np. watching – Łoczy, łoczyć (…)

            Skoro język Łowców I2 na Bałkanach był Pra-Słowiański, to logicznie język pierwszych rolników anatolijskich G2 nim nie był. Skoro tak, to G2 stracili swój język już na Bałkanach, skoro I2 w GAC miał np. „zeslawizować R1a pastuszków”, co już i tak jakoś tak dziwnie mówili prawie takim samym językiem, czyli bałtyckim. Pytanie skąd, czyżby dlatego, że Pra-Słowiański I2 był tam już jako WHG w Narwa i Kunda, a także w Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog, itp? Skąd wziął się j. pra-bałtycki, skoro I2 było wszędzie?

            Wygląda na to, że poza wyczyszczeniem ubezdźwięcznień z bałtyckiego, GAC I2 usunęli mu tylko końcówki, ponieważ odmian rzeczownika i czasownika jest więcej w słowiańskim, niż w bałtyckich. Jak to możliwe, że Pra-Słowiański I2 usunął końcówki z pra-bałtyckiego, skoro on pochodzi z WHG, z R1b, które końcówki zachowało? Mętne to wszystko.

            (…) Z jakiegoś powodu G2 nie stało się popularne, G2 utraciło swój język na pólnoc od Karpat, zapewne z powodu odległości migracyjnych, jednak na południe od Karpat, było silnie obecne (nie chce mi się szukać w których dokładnie), chyba w Baden, więc jest prawdopodobne, że zostawiło do dzisiaj jakieś lokalne języki. (…)

            A skąd wiadomo, że G2 nie utraciło swojego języka już na Bałkanach? Jak G2 wpłynęło na Pra-Słowiański język I2, skoro mieszało się z nim już dawno temu na Bałkanach?

            (…) Z dokładnie tych samych powodów, dużej odległości od Rzymu, język słowiański nie podzielił losu języków Francji czy Hiszpanii, czyli nie został zromanizowany. (…)

            Eee. Tu nie chodzi o odległość, ale ZALEŻNOŚĆ POLITYCZNĄ!

            (…) Stonehenge, megality kujawskie (tu też było wyłącznie I2a2) pokazują, że ci ludzie nie mieli żadnych kompleksów wobec napływającego G2a, czy później pastuszków z R1a. (…)

            Pastuszkowie z R1a jednak zdominowali Odrowiśle, a G2 zanikło zupełnie…

            (…) „Jeśli WHG miało być PIE, to domieszka ANE co wniosła i stworzyła, „bałtyckość”? Języki bałtyckie mają końcówki, jak języki italo-celtyckie, grecki i germańskie. Wynikałoby z tego, że to pozostałość po WHG, ale ANE ich nie usunęła, tylko GAC. Tyle tylko, że nawet odtfoszenia wskazuja na wtórne ubezdźwięcznienie j. italo-celtyckich, greckich, germańśkich, jak i częściowo bałtyckich. To jest faktem, patrz to o czym tu piszę. Jak to wytłumaczysz?”

            Nie wiem, nie chcę nawet wnikać, dla każdego z tych języków musisz wymyślić osobny schemat, może końcówki to przypadek po prostu. (…)

            Jeśli założymy, że I2 to pierwotny język Pra-Słowiański, czyli ten PIE, no to Łowcy WHG z I2 są odpowiedzialni za Vinca, itp. R1b nie było PIE, podobnie jak R1a, ponieważ przyszło później od I2 do Europy. I R1b i R1a to Po-ANE w różnych proporcjach, ponieważ pochodzą z Mal’ta. I2 ne ma z tym nic wspólnego!

            (…) Skupiłbym się na słowiańskim, gdyby odjąć X wieczny przegłos lechicki, to zachodnio i wschodnio odłamy są niemal jednolite, a jednocześnie badacze są zgodni, że hen na wschodzie, dopiero napływ M458 oraz I2 dał jezyk słowiański. W okolicach jeziora Ładogą są kłady R1a, które nie należą do M417 i ich języki karelskie są bez choćby cienia słowiańskiego w X wieku. (…)

            Pisze o tym w kółko i pokazuję dane, że tzw. przegłos lechicki jest pierwotnym stanem dla wszystkich innych gwar słowiańśkich i że tzw. palatalizacje to wymysł, patrz błędne założenia, że pierwotne były postacie ubezdźwięcznione, patrz tzw. rough breathing. Bierzesz co Ci pasuje i nie patrzysz się na nic, co Ci nie pasuje. Jak skomentujesz pierwotność dźwięków wysokoenetgetycznych, patrz S>H? Zaprzeczasz temu?

            (…) Za WHG przemawia kolejne słowo, dotąd myślałem, że polskie słowo ‚TaNi’ jest zapożyczone, gdy tknięty identycznym brzmieniem angielskiego TiNy /taɪniː/ (…)

            MOże być, że I2 to Pra-Słowianie właściwi. I1 to też tzw. staraeuropa, a oni jakoś ubezdźwięcznili i zniekształcili np. j. germańśkie… I1 nie spadło z nieba. O ile pamiętam Motala był I2, a nie I1…

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/

            Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans
            Iosif Lazaridis
            Nature. 2014 Sep 18; 513(7518): 409–413.
            doi: 10.1038/nature13673

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer

            Jakoś mi się to teraz nie otwiera…

            Polubienie

        • „Co dało ANE do języka WHG?”

          To jest dobre pytanie, według mojej teorii po tym dodatku wyszedł język bałtyjski. Było go też bardzo mało, więc najpewniej nic nie wniósł, poza paroma słowami, być może to są te wybrane i nieliczne słowa identyczne u amerykańskich Indian i u SŁowian?
          A może one są wspólnym dziedzictwem po przodkach a nie zapożyczeniem, to sa zbyt odległe czasy by to rozważać.

          ” Nie mogły istnieć wcześniej niż GAC, ponieważ TRB i LBK nie były PIE. I1 jest jednak podobne do I2, które jest wg Ciebie słowiańskie i jednocześnie staroeuropejskie…”

          TRB było zdominowane przez hg.I, więc niezaleźnie jakie ono było, a było I1 musiało mówić jezykiem WHG, czyli PIE,

          LBK, próbki z Austrii były zdominowane przez hg.G2, jest dobra mapa rozprzestrzeniania się tych osób:

          W Polsce bylo już mało G2a, czyli rozpływali się genetycznie, co jest zrozumiałe patrząc na mapę.
          Pytanie co zostało z ich języka?
          Może zachował się w górskich dolinach Austrii i Szwajcarii? Czy są tam jakieś języki niepodobne do IE?

          Polubienie

          • (…) „Co dało ANE do języka WHG?” To jest dobre pytanie, według mojej teorii po tym dodatku wyszedł język bałtyjski. (…)

            Dane wskazują na to, że postacie z języków bałtyckich, w tym odtfoszony Proto-Balto-Slavic są bardziej zniekształcone od postaci z odtfoszonego Proto-Slavic i np. j. polskiego, patrz np. nosówki, przejście o>a, czy nieregularne ubezdźwięcznienia, itp. ANE mogło dać to właśnie, tyle tylko, że język I2, jako Przed-Pra i Słowiański i Bałtycki, czyli PIE jest właściwie taki sam, jak j. polski, za wyjątkiem końcówek, jak +us, os, es, as.

            Coś tu się nie zgadza, jeśli język GAC/I2 miał mieć te końcówki. Jesli ich nie miał, to końcówki te mogą być po ANE. Tyle, że WHG R1b je mają. Ja to tłumaczę migracją na zachód stepu po Andronowo, czyli wszystkim w tym N1c. Tyle, że ANE przyszło wcześniej.

            (…) Było go też bardzo mało, więc najpewniej nic nie wniósł, poza paroma słowami, być może to są te wybrane i nieliczne słowa identyczne u amerykańskich Indian i u SŁowian? A może one są wspólnym dziedzictwem po przodkach a nie zapożyczeniem, to sa zbyt odległe czasy by to rozważać. (…)

            Jak to jest, że WGH R1b pochodzi z Mal’ta ANE, ale ANE nie jest? Mam to samo pytanie dot. R1a. Pamiętasz, że ja twierdzę, że PIE to nie jest język pierwszych rolników, ale Łowców? Ja akurat stawiam na EHG, ale to I2, jako Pra-Słowiańśkie wygląda na bardzo rozsądne. To muszę przyznać. Nadal twierdzę, że logicznie tz. Proto-Balto-Slavic nie mógł istnieć, ponieważ jeśli I2 było Pra-Słowiańskie, to było wcześniej niż Proto-Balitic, który MUSI logicznie wywodzić się z języka I2, lub… języka WHG ogólniej. Tyle, że nie mam jeszcze rozgryzionych tych końcówek i ich ew. częściowej utraty lub nabycia przez Italo-Celto-Greko-Germano-Bałtów.

            (…) ” Nie mogły istnieć wcześniej niż GAC, ponieważ TRB i LBK nie były PIE. I1 jest jednak podobne do I2, które jest wg Ciebie słowiańskie i jednocześnie staroeuropejskie…” TRB było zdominowane przez hg.I, więc niezaleźnie jakie ono było, a było I1 musiało mówić jezykiem WHG, czyli PIE, (…)

            Ok, ale masz problem tzw. podkładu „staroeuropejskiego” wj. germańskich, powiązanych z I1. Teraz ten podkład zanika, ponieważ znikło pojęcie tzw. staroeuropejskości, które jest równoznaczne z I2 i Pra-Słowiańśzczyzna na Bałkanach, ale i wszędzie w Europie, od Atlantyku, po Karelię i Khvalynsk… Pra-Słowiańśkie I2 Łowców z Północy logicznie rozwiązuje całą zagadkę PIE. Nie mówię, że sie poddałem z EHG, ale potwierdzam, że możesz mieć rację z tym. Trzeba w punktach wypisać protokół rozbieżności. Napiszesz swój?

            (..) W Polsce bylo już mało G2a, czyli rozpływali się genetycznie, co jest zrozumiałe patrząc na mapę. Pytanie co zostało z ich języka? Może zachował się w górskich dolinach Austrii i Szwajcarii? Czy są tam jakieś języki niepodobne do IE? (…)

            To może być ten „staroeuropejski” podkład językowy w j. germańskich, który jest tak naprawdę podkładem afro-azjatyckim. I1 nie urodziło się w Skandynawii. Ono tam przyszło, za I2 z Motala. Podkład po G2 na południu i ubezdźwięcznienia afro-azjatyckie wiążą się nie sądzisz?

            Polubienie

            • Wielkie dzięki!

              https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%99zyk_retycki

              (…)
              Pochodzenie
              Tytus Liwiusz twierdził, że Retowie byli „etruskiego rodu”. Również Pliniusz Młodszy, znający język etruski, usłyszawszy zapewne rozmawiających ze sobą Retów w swym rodzinnym Como, napisał, że posługują się językiem podobnym do etruskiego. Podobnego zdania był Pliniusz Starszy. Mimo starożytnych świadectw wysuwano wiele rozbieżnych hipotez dotyczących jego pochodzenia, choć większość współczesnych uczonych podkreślała związki z etruskim. Jeden z nich, niemiecki etruskolog i indoeuropeista, Helmut Rix, w wydanej w 1998 roku publikacji pt. Rätisch und Etruskisch, wykazał szereg podobieństw między etruskim a retyckim, szczególnie w sferze gramatyki i połączył je, wraz z lemnijskim, w tyrreńskiej rodzinie językowej. Pokrewieństwo etrusko-retyckie potwierdzają również badania genetyczne przeprowadzone na prawdopodobnych potomkach Retów zamieszkałych w zachodniej Austrii i mieszkańcach dzisiejszej Toskanii. Mimo że wykazane przez Rixa pokrewieństwo zostało zaakceptowane przez wielu językoznawców, wciąż istnieje wobec jego hipotezy silna i zróżnicowana opozycja. Niektórzy – uznając niewystarczalność zgromadzonego materiału – opowiadają się za zachowaniem nieokreślonego status quo lub traktują retycki jako izolat. Oprócz tego – sugerując się geograficzną bliskością Celtów – wliczano go do języków celtyckich. Jedną z głośniejszych, choć z powodów wątpliwej metodologii odrzuconą przez zdecydowaną większość językoznawców, była hipoteza, wysunięta w latach 80. XX w. przez samouka Linusa Brunnera, o semickim rodowodzie języka retyckiego.

              Przyjmując retycko-etruskie pokrewieństwo możemy zidentyfikować m.in.:

              ret. -χe, por. etruską końcówkę czasu przeszłego strony biernej -χe
              ret. -ke, por. etruską końcówkę czasu przeszłego strony biernej -ce
              ret. -s, por. etruski dopełniacz I -s
              ret. -ile, -ale, -le, por. etruski dopełniacz II -al, pertinentivus II -ale
              ret. -si, -se, por. etruski pertinentivus I -si
              ret. -is, por. etruski ablativus -is
              ret. -r, por. etruską końcówkę liczby mnogiej rzeczowników ożywionych -r
              ret. -va, -ve, por. etruską końcówkę liczby mnogiej rzeczowników nieożywionych -va, -χva
              ret. -na, -nu, por. etruski sufiks przymiotnikowy -na
              (…)

              I nagle mamy tu końcówki dziwne…

              Polubienie

              • Patrzyłem na linkowane dane z pracy Mathiesona i co widać w temacie I2a2?
                Łotwa 7500 lat temu jest bardzo mocno obecne jak również 8000 lat temu w Serbii niemal w 100% dominuje w miejscowości Vlasac a także są dwwie próbki z Jury Szwabskiej z Niemiec, 9000 lat, patrząc na mtDna to wszyscy oni mają bardzo podobne matki, natomiast GAC z Polski i Ukrainy są również I2a2 ale mają matki zupełnie inne, takie jakie mają G2a.
                A to G2a jest 3 na 3 przypadki w k.Trypolskiej, Bułgarii, także obecne w LBK Austria, z tego co pamiętam był nim również cżłowiek z lodu-Oetzi.

                I co powiesz na to, że GAC miały takie żony? Komponent EEF nabyli przez kobiety Jest to bez znaczenia dla języka?

                Polubienie

                • „Ja od dawna pytam się, czy domieszki są związane z językiem. To samo dotyczy haplogrup, czy mtDNA. Jak sądzisz?”

                  Popatrz co było w Dereiwka na Ukrainie, 7000 lat temu, mieszanka I2a2, R1a i R1b.
                  Jakim językiem oni mówili?

                  Polubienie

                • Pytanie na pytanie. Zabawa. Nie bawię się tak. Byłem pierwszy. Odpowiesz na moje pytanie, to ja odpowiem na Twoje. Ciągle nie dostałem odpowiedzi dot. tej dyskusji dot. Odrowiśla i Pra-Słowiańskich źródłosłowów dla topo i hydronomii tego obszaru, jak i tego samego dla Desny… Nie rozumiem, czego nie możesz mi zwyczajnie podać tego url.

                  Polubienie

  15. Sorry ale muszę siegać do Wiki, bo niewiele wiem o bałtyckich
    I tam jest, że „w przeszłości językiem urzędowym w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim był język ruski, a od 1696 język polski[22] i wówczas też ostatecznie ustaliła się tam supremacja języka polskiego[23]. Literatura litewska zaczęła się rozwijać dopiero w 1 poł. XIX wieku.

    W okresie międzywojennym język litewski został poddany zabiegom oczyszczenia z wpływów języków słowiańskich”

    Czy to oznacza, że Białorusini to tacy Litwini nie poddani oczyszczeniu?
    Czy są jakieś stare zapiski prabałtyckiego?

    Mi się wydaje, że u Bałtów poza słowiańskimi wpływ miały germańskie. I może greckie.
    Jakby byli klientami greków.
    No i Z92 jest odłamem Z280. Takim co poszedł na wschód. I jak widać po Bałtach wrócił.Z N1c.

    Polubienie

    • „Mi się wydaje, że u Bałtów poza słowiańskimi wpływ miały germańskie. I może greckie.
      Jakby byli klientami greków.
      No i Z92 jest odłamem Z280. Takim co poszedł na wschód. I jak widać po Bałtach wrócił.Z N1c.”

      Wszystko do ustalenia, przeczytaj pracę którą zalinkowałem powyżej, gdzie piszą, że np.Permiacy mają R1a które nie jest M458, zaś ten lud nigdy nie był słowiański językowo.
      Trzeba rozwikłać język permiaków, mari i okolicznych zestawić z litewskim i łotewskim, by ustalić jakim językiem mówiły pierwotnie te niesłowiańskie kłady R1a.

      Wpływy greckie byłyby to wytłumaczenia gdyby litewski był reliktowym językiem R1a, a R1a w okresie zlodowacenia przetrwało w okolicy m,Czarnego w kontakcie z ludami Anatolii i Grecji, które mówiłyby wówczas jakimś pragreckim.
      Dużo w tym założeń, ale jest to możliwe.

      Polubienie

      • (…) Wpływy greckie byłyby to wytłumaczenia gdyby litewski był reliktowym językiem R1a, a R1a w okresie zlodowacenia przetrwało w okolicy m,Czarnego w kontakcie z ludami Anatolii i Grecji, które mówiłyby wówczas jakimś pragreckim. (…)

        Nie sądzisz, że to co piszesz wskazuje, że język „bałtycki” R1a to nic innego, jak tzw. PIE? Skąd inaczej wzięłyby się, jego podobieństwa do tego odtfaszanego PIE? 🙂

        Po raz kolejny napiszę, że proszę o url na tę dyskusję o topo i hydronomii Odrowiśla. Nie rozumiem dlaczego nie chcesz tu tego upowszechnić. 😦

        Polubienie

  16. S, co widać na mapach Carlosa to przybycie Syberian w neolicie.

    Czy to N1c uralic, czy jakieś inne hg, zobacz Turcję w średniowieczu.
    Moim zdaniem Carlos przegina złączeniem Syberian języka z ANE.

    O UFach można powiedzieć że są z Syberian ekspansji, ale konfabulować o UF w CWC?
    ANE nie wygląda na to samo. Popatrz na mapki. Garnki ze wschodu parły od neolitu. A metal ich wstrzymywał. Język ANE może być podkładem w zachodnich UFach.

    Ale czy ANE miało wpływ na PIE?

    Dobrze by było dojść do jakichś wniosków.

    Polubienie

    • (…) Dobrze by było dojść do jakichś wniosków. (…)

      Najpierw pozbierajmy do kupy pytania. Masz ten url, o którego wiele razy już prosiłem Roberta?

      Co do metalu, to zgoda, patrz pierwsze wydobycie na Bałkanach, a nie w Mezopotamii, itp, jak to bredzi Kristiansen i ofitzjalna nałka, patrz poniżej od 05:50, a szczególnie od 08:14.


      Revolutions: The Age of Metal and the Evolution of European Civilization
      26,255 views•Jul 22, 2013
      SAR School for Advanced Research
      2.48K subscribers
      Revolutions: The Age of Metal and the Evolution of European Civilization
      William Parkinson

      Polubienie

    • „co widać na mapach Carlosa to przybycie Syberian w neolicie.”

      Spójrz jak w epoce miedzi zielony wbija się w Syberian i ich rozcina, to samo w epoce brązu:
      [URL=https://tinypic.pl/khwdubs7g5qk][IMG]https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00996/khwdubs7g5qk_t.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

      Czy to nie jest migracja R1a, a dokładniej azjatyckich kładow Z93? Szczególnie w epoce brązu.

      Polubienie

  17. Lepiej poczytajcie to poniżej. Tak, czy srak wychodzi tu na język EGH, jako PIE… I wcale nie twierdzę, że to prawda, patrz język „staroeuropejskiego” I2, jako PIE.

    https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/01/james-mallory-and-oleg-balanovsky.html

    Thursday, January 30, 2020

    James Mallory and Oleg Balanovsky

    Here’s a quote from a new paper on the impact of genetics, and especially ancient DNA, on archeology and linguistics co-authored by archeologist James Mallory and geneticist Oleg Balanovsky:

    Just as the genetic evidence for a steppe homeland appeared to weaken a popular theory (among archaeologists more than linguists) that the Indo-European languages spread from an Anatolian homeland with the spread of farming and the AF genetic signature, a new complication arose: the steppe signal that is found from Ireland to the Yenisei comprises an admixture of EHG and CHG. Such an admixture would appear to involve two deep sources that should have developed separately over the course of thousands of years; in short, there is no reason to believe that the two components spoke closely related languages or even belonged to the same language families. Such a model suggested that Proto-Indo-European may have originated out of the merger of two very different language families, a theory that had once had been suggested by several linguists but had never attained anything remotely resembling consensus [62]. If one does not accept an “admixture language” then the natural question remains: did Proto-Indo-European evolve out of language spoken by EHG or out of language spoken by CHG? So genetics has pushed the current homeland debate into several camps: those who seek the homeland either in the southern Caucasus or Iran (CHG) and those who locate it in the steppelands north of the Caucasus and Caspian Sea (EHG). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1022795419120081

    Make no mistake, this is, in common parlance, total horsehit. That’s because:

    – if we go back far enough, every goddamn human population that ever existed is a mixture of genetically highly diverged earlier populations, but this obviously doesn’t mean that all languages are creoles

    – in fact, the so called CHG/EHG mixture that Balanovsky and Mallory are talking about was already present on the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 4,300 BCE, and probably much earlier, so it’s likely that it first emerged there before the existence of anything even resembling an Indo-European language

    – come to think of it, I’m not aware of any tradition in historical linguistics that requires language families to be directly traced back to specific Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations. So, with all due respect to Mallory and Balanovsky, it looks like they pulled that theory out of their hats.

    The impression that I’ve been getting for a while now is that the great and the good at various major academic institutions are having a rather difficult time interpreting the ancient DNA data relevant to the Indo-European homeland debate. Why? I don’t have a clue. Someone should e-mail them and ask. Feel free to let me know what they say in the comments below.

    See also…

    A final note for the year

    A note on Steppe Maykop

    Did South Caspian hunter-fishers really migrate to Eastern Europe?

    Posted by Davidski at 4:02:00 AM 233 comments:

    Labels: Caucasus hunter-gatherersCHGEastern EuropeEastern European hunter-gatherersEHGIndo-EuropeanJames MalloryNorth CaucasusOleg BalanovskyPontic-Caspian steppeProto-Indo-EuropeanYamnaya

    Polubienie

    • Pine trees and mountains said…
      So, the situation is pretty clear to me personally, but I am still not 100% certain because there is still not enough proof. Nonetheless I think this is the most probable case:

      PIE/IE and Kartvelian have very interesting cognates, like the words for some bird species, soil/earth, pigs/tusks, hills, mountains, clover etc. Thing is that some of these could spread with technology spread, like pigs and clover being related to new forms of pastoralism, but that doesn’t explain such core similarities like earth, hills, mountains and bird species endemic to the steppe and the Caucasus. Some people speculate the similarities are from contact with Maykop, which according to this theory was either Kartvelian or contributed a big substrate to Kartvelian languages.

      I disagree for several reasons. It is much more likely for Maykop to have been a mix of proto-NWC and the Leyla Tepe related migrants. Now, you do oppose this Davidski but it can’t be denied that in isolated areas the lexicon can change minimally even on a span of thousands of years, and the Caucasus and Western Caucasus especially was always very isolated until the significant steppe migrations started with the Catacomb-related groups and later their GAC admixed descendants and Turkics and etc.

      Why does NWC not have more cognates with PIE than Kartvelian does is what many ask. It is simple. You look at Darkveti-Meshoko and they are J dominated, if I recall correctly all were J1/J2. Meanwhile, modern NWC are dominated by G2a2, this is the overwhelming majority of their G2, an ENF-related clade of G2a. There are no EEF and ENF with G2a1. Meanwhile Georgian and Ossetian G2a is dominated by G2a1 even though Georgians have a significant minority of G2a2. What does this mean? NWC speak a language of Anatolia_Chalcolithic people. Why not the language of Kaskians? Because by the time of Kaskians Hurro-Urartians had already left a huge amount of J2 and J1 haplogroup in Anatolia and especially Eastern Anatolia, so G2a2 wouldn’t have dominated NWC as much if it were spread by Kaskians.

      NWC are linguistically Anatolia_C+Maykop. Darkveti were linguistically proto-Kartvelian or perhaps related to Kartvelian, early Maykop were Leyla Tepe who eventually admixed with locals. NEC languages are Leyla Tepe, Iran_C related languages. The similarities between NEC and NWC exist precisely due to the Maykop/Leyla-Tepe common element in both peoples (despite modern NWC having only tiny Iran_N admixture).

      Kartvelians meanwhile spoke the language most closely related to the language of the CHG who spread North and admixed with EHG. The similarities of Kartvelian and PIE come from this common element. This common element was wiped out from NWC and NEC during the Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age, which is why Kartvelian is more similar to PIE than NC languages are.
      January 30, 2020 at 5:42 AM

      Gaska said…
      1-Nobody can date a language and the languages ​​do not arise spontaneously, then nobody can know if IE or PIE or Pre-PIE etc.. were spoken in the Mesolithic or in the Paleolithic

      2-Relating unipersonal markers with languages ​​is risky but linking autosomal components with languages ​​is surreal among other things because those autosomal markers are not „pure” in genetic terms either (EHG has part of WHG, Yamnaya also has EEF etc…)

      3-The linguistic debate has been polluting and complicating the genetic and archaeological debate for years

      4-The only way to find out which language was spoken by any European prehistoric culture is to draw a line of evident genetic continuity between that culture and current populations that speak a certain language. Everything else is speculation

      5-The above is impossible with regard to female markers and very complicated with respect to male markers because the vast majority of prehistoric cultures from the V Millennium are absolutely heterogeneous (genetically speaking)

      6-Then, the dispute regarding the origin of IE is a sterile fight because it will never be resolved satisfactorily
      January 30, 2020 at 5:47 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Gaska Quit talking shit. There’s a consensus that Proto-Indo-European dates to around 4,000 BCE.
      January 30, 2020 at 5:53 AM

      Archi said…
      This article is purely review, it is devoted to the historiography of the issue and review of issues. The article is generally banal, but in one place introduces a correlation between genetics, archeology and anthropology, it’s good. In it, not only the problem of the Indo-Europeans is considered, but also the origin of the Altaians, it is proved that the Altaians come from whole over the territory of Eastern Mongolia and Manchuria in the Early Neolithic, it is shown that they were agricultural farmers.

      As for the quote, so it continues with the next quote:

      „Those who prefer a southern homeland look to proposed contacts between Indo-European and the Kartvelian and Semitic languages [63–65] while those who prefer the steppe hypothesis point to the evidence that Indo-European is most closely related to Uralic, which should pitch its origin nearer the Urals [54, 66, 67]. The matter is complicated enormously by the fact that CHG cannot possibly represent the signature of a single language family as it is found over a broad area from the Caucasus to the southern Zagros that encompassed the territory of a whole series of other language families,e.g., Hurro-Urartian, Elamite, Kartvelian, and one must devise a credible model of how the Indo-European-speaking segment of CHG found its way north of the Caucasus [68].”
      January 30, 2020 at 6:11 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Archi It’s a review, a review of nonsense. All of the arguments they discuss are meaningless, because of the three points I mentioned.
      January 30, 2020 at 6:15 AM

      Gaska said…
      @Davidski Really? Not everyone thinks like you or the linguists who have rebuilt that language. It is one thing to find out when the common language was spoken and another thing to establish with absolute certainty its origin. So let me be skeptical about establishing precisely the geographical and temporal origin of any language spoken in the world – Regarding Europe I think that the different IE languages ​​have expanded in recent dates (bronze age and iron age)
      January 30, 2020 at 6:16 AM

      Archi said…
      @Davidski In reality, they do not affirm anything at all, they only refer to opinions already expressed. Reacting to this article is pointless. There is nothing that they would not have written earlier, the authors do not say anything except the archae-genetic correlation they found, so it could be discussed. Once again, the autors only list the questions; they do not even express their opinion.
      January 30, 2020 at 6:22 AM

      Davidski said…
      LOL Mallory and Balanovsky also think that CHG lived in Iran. They must be in the same country club as David Anthony or something.
      January 30, 2020 at 6:22 AM

      Archi said…
      @Davidski They know that CHG lived in the Caucasus and Iran. They attribute the Iranian variation of this component to CHG, which is generally true.
      January 30, 2020 at 6:26 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Archi CHG didn’t live in Iran.
      January 30, 2020 at 6:28 AM

      Archi said…
      @Davidski Iran variant of CHG is CHG. Better post a picture with a correlation between genetics, archeology and anthropology in the topic.

      This is the only new thing in this paper.
      January 30, 2020 at 6:35 AM

      Drigu said…
      @All if you haven’t read it yet, here’s an interesting paper on the homeland of „early PIE” and the hypothetical Indo-Uralic by Alexander Kozintsev, with some references to Davidski:
      https://www.academia.edu/41077803/Proto-Indo-Europeans_The_Prologue
      January 30, 2020 at 6:43 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Archi Iran variant of CHG is CHG.

      No it’s not. They’re separated by thousands of years, and the „Iran variant” has some admix from far to the east. CHG proper, on the other hand, is much more western shifted. This was obvious ages ago…

      On the enigmatic early Neolithic farmers from Iran

      January 30, 2020 at 6:45 AM

      Archi said…
      @DriguWe have read. Everything that Kozintsev writes has long been refuted and is of no interest.
      January 30, 2020 at 6:46 AM

      Archi said…
      @Davidski These nearer impurities related to the Neolithic do not matter, it is still a cluster of CHG.
      January 30, 2020 at 6:51 AM

      Polubienie

    • Davidski said…
      @Archi Nope.

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aRiUb8efQvjfqfE4Yb9AnxkK5iWMWMyL/view?usp=sharing


      January 30, 2020 at 6:59 AM

      Davidski said…
      @Matt Well, the assumption that a mixed ancient genetic heritage should equate to a mixed language, or even a creole, is definitely dubious. But how dubious do you think is the idea that language families should be traced back directly to Mesolithic genetic isolates?
      January 30, 2020 at 7:03 AM

      Archi said…
      @Davidski Your pictures do not prove anything. The difference between them is minimal, such that it is not resolved by most tests, you can see this everywhere on the PCA, ADMIXTURES,…

      This is really one cluster, that’s why some are substituting Iran for the steppes and starting to talk about coming from Neolithic Iran to the steppe. I think no need to remind. In general, they understand by CHG precisely the common cluster of the Caucasus and Iran.
      January 30, 2020 at 7:10 AM

      Archi said…
      People began to misquote this expression of theirs, here is their expression in full:

      „Just as the genetic evidence for a steppe homeland appeared to weaken a popular theory (among archaeologists more than linguists) that the Indo-European languages spread from an Anatolian homeland with the spread of farming and the AF genetic signature, a new complication arose: the steppe signal that is found from Ireland to the Yenisei comprises an admixture of EHG and CHG. Such an admixture would appear to involve two deep sources that should have developed separately over the course of thousands of years; in short, there is no reason to believe that the two components spoke closely related languages or even belonged to the same language families. Such a model suggested that Proto-Indo-European may have originated out of the merger of two very different language families, a theory that had once had been suggested by several linguists but had never attained anything remotely resembling consensus [62]. If one does not accept an “admixture language” then the natural question remains: did Proto-Indo-European evolve out of language spoken by EHG or out of language spoken by CHG? So genetics has pushed the current homeland debate into several camps: those who seek the homeland either in the southern Caucasus or Iran (CHG) and those who locate it in the steppelands north of the Caucasus and Caspian Sea (EHG). Those who prefer a southern homeland look to proposed contacts between Indo-European and the Kartvelian and Semitic languages [63–65] while those who prefer the steppe hypothesis point to the evidence that Indo-European is most closely related to Uralic, which should pitch its origin nearer the Urals [54, 66, 67]. The matter is complicated enormously by the fact that CHG cannot possibly represent the signature of a single language family as it is found over a broad area from the Caucasus to the southern Zagros that encompassed the territory of a whole series of other language families,e.g., Hurro-Urartian, Elamite, Kartvelian, and one must devise a credible model of how the Indo-European-speaking segment of CHG found its way north of the Caucasus [68].”

      This is a full paragraph that reflects the essence of the paper, you can not cut the end, because it expresses their position.
      January 30, 2020 at 9:24 AM

      Archi said…
      @TLT It is not clear what you mean. Here’s what they mean in this case.

      January 30, 2020 at 11:40 AM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @TLT, Thanks for showing that Distance between CHG and IranN. Experts need to stop repeating the lie CHG and IranN are the same population. The lie keeps being repeating again and again while no one checks DNA stats to see if it is actually true.

      The lie started with David Recih’s team. They emphasized CHG and IranN’s similarities too much. Then, every non-DNA expert trusted what David Recih said whole heartidly because they don’t have the ability to test his statements themselves.
      January 30, 2020 at 11:51 AM

      Archi said…
      @Samuel Andrews LOL. Don’t talk nonsense. No distance was shown. This cluster was not invented by anyone, it is obtained by formal tests, it stands out in ADMIXTURE and is perfectly visible on PCA. No one lies except you.
      January 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM

      Palacista said…
      The biggest problem is the strange idea >

      one must devise a credible model of how the Indo-European-speaking segment of CHG found its way north of the Caucasus

      It is a fact that there is an CHG component in the steppe population, so why is there a need for a credible model for an uncontested fact. The CHGs did get there and they most certainly spoke a language but there is no reason to assume that it was IE speaking before reaching the steppe, non at all. It is clear that the closest relation to PIE is proto Uralic making the case for a southern origin even weaker.

      I still struggle to understand what the attraction is to site PIE south of the Caucasus because it seems to be a wish rather than an evidence based proposition.
      January 30, 2020 at 12:04 PM

      K33 said…
      Not to mention all the most recently published qpGraphs are showing Steppe NOT as a simple EHG/CHG hybrid, but as a hybrid of EHG + something BASAL to CHG, ie, something with less WHG-related drift than CHG has. The fact that an adequate proxy for this deep population has not been found (despite our possession of pre-Neolithic and Neolithic DNA from Iran, Caucasus, and Anatolia) proves ipso facto that the „CHG-like” signature on the steppe must be very old– likely even pre-Neolithic.
      January 30, 2020 at 12:54 PM

      old europe said…
      @K33 You mean that CHG on the northern Caucasus could be a left over of a more Dzuzdzuana like population? While proper CHG is more ANE shifted IIRC. Seems like proto WHG + Basal Eurasian= Dzudzuana

      Dzuzdzuana+ ANE= CHG

      In these equations how do you frame the Iran farmers. Maybe they are CHG+ more ANE? I’m just asking
      January 30, 2020 at 1:05 PM

      Arza said…
      @ Rob Equating R-M269 with PIE would be foolish, but its origin is one of the things we need to know to be able to say that we know how different IE languages have emerged. Unfortunately, no, we don’t have any of the required samples.
      January 30, 2020 at 1:20 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Arza The samples are there, they just haven’t been published yet. The spread of M269 went something like this…
      Forest > Forest Steppe > Sredny Stog > Yamnaya & Corded Ware
      January 30, 2020 at 1:29 PM

      Archi said…
      @Matt All three chains are not possible: CHG->EHG, WHG->EHG, ANF->EHG.
      The CHG in the North Caucasus dates back to the final Paleolithic, and the steppe component clearly has links to the Caucasian CHG, but not to the Iranian component.

      @Davidski We have not any evidence about Sredny Stog > Corded Ware for M269. M269 can be though from R1b of Dnieper-Donets culture or others, like Narva, or others.
      January 30, 2020 at 1:46 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Archi I wasn’t commenting on the position of Mallory and Balanovsky, but rather on the quality of their arguments. They may well believe that PIE could not have originated in CHG, but I don’t care about that, because this is what I have problems with:

      Such an admixture would appear to involve two deep sources that should have developed separately over the course of thousands of years; in short, there is no reason to believe that the two components spoke closely related languages or even belonged to the same language families. Such a model suggested that Proto-Indo-European may have originated out of the merger of two very different language families, a theory that had once had been suggested by several linguists but had never attained anything remotely resembling consensus [62]. If one does not accept an “admixture language” then the natural question remains: did Proto-Indo-European evolve out of language spoken by EHG or out of language spoken by CHG?

      Also, I see that you still don’t understand that CHG and Iran_N are very different populations. But you’ll have to accept it when it’s eventually shown in scientific literature, and it will be. And when I was talking about M269 in Sredny Stog, I was referring to unpublished data.
      January 30, 2020 at 2:35 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Archi You appear to be mentally retarded. But I’ll try one last time.

      CHG and Iran_N share mostly the same deep components, but CHG is more Dzudzuana/Anatolian-related while Iran_N has more ancestry from East Eurasia. There’s no evidence that CHG and Iran_N largely descend from the same one population. They may well be similar products of parallel processes that affected the Caucasus and the Iranian Plateau at around the same time.
      January 30, 2020 at 3:11 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @Davidski, Archi is right when he says IranN/CHG create the same component in ADMIXTURE runs. No reason to call him mentally retarded. This is just a fact. But obviously, ADMIXTURE isn’t a great tool for measuring deep relationship between ancient pops. So this fact is irrelvant in understanding how IranN and CHG were related.
      January 30, 2020 at 3:18 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Samuel Andrews Well, strictly speaking there aren’t any East Eurasian uniparentals in West Siberian foragers either, but I guess you wouldn’t argue that they don’t have East Eurasian autosomal DNA?

      There seems to be an unusually high frequency of R2 in the Zagros Neolithic farmers. This might be a signal of their far eastern ancestry, which may have been a composite of various things from Siberia and Central Asia.
      January 30, 2020 at 3:30 PM

      K33 said…
      In Global25/Vahaduo, if you place modern Celto-Germanic and East/West Slavic speaking peoples in the „Target” slot, the Eneolithic Source combination of:

      Sredny_Stog_II_En + UKR_Dereivka_I_En2 + RUS_Vonyuchka_En

      actually produces substantially better fits than substituting those three for the familiar RUS_Yamnaya_Samara (using Globular_Amphora in both models to sop up farmer ancestry)

      Romance speakers and South Slavs obviously have additional „southern” ancestry, but also East Slavs and Balts show poor fits across the board in these models.

      Neither WHG nor EHG nor Narva really help the fits for East Slavs or Balts. So we are clearly missing something from the Forest Zone.

      @Davidski, can you divulge which archaeological culture the M269 sample came from? Northern reache Dnepier-Donets Culture?
      January 30, 2020 at 3:31 PM

      Davidski said…
      There’s M269 in Volosovo and Sredny Stog.
      January 30, 2020 at 3:33 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      @Nick Patterson, A paper published by the Harvard lab as recently as September 2019 described Steppe-pasotrolists has being a mix of Iranian-related and EHG ancestires. It is a mistake to link Yamnaya’s Middle Eastern ancestry to Iran if it is not from Iran but instead from the Paleolithic Caucasus.

      Click to access 2019_Science_NarasimhanPatterson_CentralSouthAsia.pdf

      „. In far eastern Europe at latitudes spanning the Black and Caspian Seas there was the Caucasus Cline, consisting of a mixture of Eastern
      European hunter-gatherers and Iranian farmer–related ancestry with additional Anatolian farmer–related ancestry in some groups”
      January 30, 2020 at 6:43 PM

      TLT said…
      @Archi ADMIXTURE also fails to distinguish between sub-saharans, neanderthals and apes. It isn’t a good argument. It probably detects deep common ancestry in CHG + Iran neolithic and just puts it in one group. There is considerable distance between scales CHG and scaled Iran samples. The reason for this is a combo of large time duration since split + different ghost populations contributing the to minority of the ancestry in these populations. Ultimately this is enough to classify them as 2 separate things.
      January 30, 2020 at 7:14 PM

      TLT said…
      @old Europe >In these equations how do you frame the Iran farmers. Maybe they are CHG+ more ANE? I’m just asking

      Well, Iran farmers as in Ganj Dareh pastoralists and Tepe Adbul Hosein farmers had as much or most likely less ANE than CHG does, however, Hotu cave mesolithic seems to have more ANE than CHG and Iran_N. It would make sense since it is clear to central Asia and hence closer to the WSHG/pre-WSHG late ANE range.
      January 30, 2020 at 7:19 PM

      Ric Hern said…
      There was an interesting documentary some time ago about two Neighbouring tribes in Papua New Guinea. They spoke completely different languages yet shared a festival yearly apparently for a very long time. They use gestures to communicate yet didn’t bother to learn each others Language. Wonder how their DNA compare ? This shows how complicated evidence for language transferring can be…
      January 30, 2020 at 11:51 PM

      Polubienie

    • old europe said…
      If the tie between Sredni Stog and R1b M269 is confirmed then it is game over.

      Sredni Stog has already R1a M 417

      Sredni Stog is the source population of CWC ( the only difference being the fact that SS absorbed a more CHG shifted steppe population both from the Volga basin and from the northern caucasus)

      Cultural ties of SS and balkano-carpathian coltural complex are as evident as day light. PIE born out in the mating network between farmers and Dneper Donets foragers is the bottom line. Better Reich Mallory and company update as soon as possible.
      January 31, 2020 at 3:13 AM

      Archi said…
      @old europe So far, we don’t have any samples from Sredniy Stog culture. Alexandria sample is not Sredniy Stog. The Alexandria sample has an obviously erroneous date. Knowing how Europe and America make mistakes with Eastern European cultures, we must be very wary of statements about Sredniy Stog. It is necessary to look at what kind of burial ground, for example, the Mariupol burial ground is not Sredniy Stog, at best there are burials of the Novodanilovsky type. It is possible that this is Revova that at north of Odessa on periphery of Sredniy Stog, whose attribution is often done as Post-Stog.
      January 31, 2020 at 3:49 AM

      epoch said…
      @Knowledgeable Geneticist

      „Trade doesn’t mean however that with materials genes were „traded” as well, or not to the same degree. Just as Yamna had a lot of trade with Caucasus Maykop, but minimal mixing.”

      True. But surely such contacts are enough of a vector for language influence. The PIE words for donkeys are connected to (Proto-)Semitic ones, just as words for trade. Considering that there were donkey caravans traveling all through neolithic Anatolia I’d say trade brought these words over long distances.

      It is striking though to see shared words for birds. Can you provide a list? Could some be onomatopoeic? There is a cognate for cattle in early PIE and Afro-Asiatic: *gwṓu- and Semitic gi, Epytian gw. However, if you ever heard a herd of cows low you know it’s simply a representation of the sounds they make.

      Click to access Bj%C3%B8rn-2017-Foreign-elements-in-the-Proto-Indo-European-vocabulary.pdf

      January 31, 2020 at 4:50 AM

      Pine trees and mountains said…
      @Andrze I am not well acquainted with Elamites, but even proto Elamite culture is founded much later than Leyla Tepe, around one thousand years later. I am not aware of similarities existing between Elamites and Leyla Tepe.

      Look what the evidence is though. KAC have a pretty high Iran N level, exceeding 20%. KAC comes centuries after Leyla Tepe and is also founded North-West of Leyla Tepe. LT culture itself would have even higher Iran N, I speculate 30%+, and was an extension of Zagros, East Anatolia Chalcolithic people, most likely Shulaveri Shomu, who were probably the ones who brought to Georgians the non-ENF G2a1 haplogroup. Leyla Tepe artifscts are also similar to Chalco Eastern Anatolian and North Ubaid artifacts. It is not out of question this could be due to recent trade, but there is a big chance that is from Shulaveri Shomu culture, which was coming to an end when LT and KAC appeared. Now, KAc samples found in Northern Armenia, who one would think should have been similar to modern Eastern Georgians, are still moderately distinct due to low CHG levels. Eastern Georgia received an input of a high CHG population after the existence of KAC or towards its end, which was certainly Western Georgians from the Colchian culture. This probably happened during the MBA and LBA with the new Shida Kartli culture that appeared in central Georgia and that had a serious weaponry culture and conflicts with an Eastern Georgian Kakheti culture (you won’t find much about this in English). Meanwhile the NEC region was part of KAC, but it never received an additional high CHG input, but modern NEC have 8-15% Iran N admixture, similar to extreme Eastern Georgian who mixed the least with West Georgian invaders and retained the most Iran N among Georgians at around 8-10%. Do consider though that even this 8-10% is reduced compared to KAC levels, and even the 8-13% percent in NEC is reduced due to EHG admixture later on.

      Hurro-Urartian languages, descendants of the KAC culture, are among modern languages most similar to NEC languages, especially the Lezgic branch, southernmost NEC group.

      Basically all the stars are aligning and pointing towards NEC being an Iran C language group. I forgot to mention another thing, modern Vainakh people have a myth that their people have migrated from the South. This could be a myth about Kartvelian invaders expulsing the Hurro Urartians living in Eastern Georgia or it could very well be about KAC settlers, because KAC did cover NEC, all the way to Velikent and the Caspian coast of Dagestan.
      January 31, 2020 at 5:21 AM

      Ric Hern said…
      If CHG and EHG mixed during the Mesolithic or earlier, then the innitial CHG/EHG mixture can not be directly linked to the formation of PIE at 4000 BC. If so then the linguistic changes that could have occurred during that long time before the formation of PIE would have left the original EHG and CHG Languages basically unrecognizable compared to PIE…
      January 31, 2020 at 1:16 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Ric In fact, the initial EHG/ CHG admixutre is not linked to PIE genesis at all. Again, this should be 100% clear by now. So one can only wonder why some people, both here & in ”academia” are so hopeless.
      January 31, 2020 at 1:57 PM

      zardos said…
      „look the dominant lineage of Mariupol & Sredniy Stog; look at EBA Bulgaria . One doesn’t need to have a palanatir to figure out what proto-Anatolians and several Balkan IE are going to be (???)”

      Well, what do you have from the Mariupol elite and Sredniy Stog? For sure not sufficient data base. The core & main body of the PIE/IE is clearly dominated by R1. Corded Ware, Sintashta? The outer ring is not as important as the central group. Cernavoda was a mixed culture, yet what do we really have? You will find steppe lineages there, while you have not enough else in IE core groups. This is not definitive, but it favours the EHG clan.
      January 31, 2020 at 5:03 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Zardos
      Of course, that the main volume & most prolific of IE was exapnded by R1-lineages. But we’ (or at least I) am discussing the genesis of the process- what got the ball rolling. I’m not interested in a pissing contest (in any case, I actually have no horse in the race)

      Moreover, R1a -M417 & R1b-M269 might have been very different groups intially. To clump these into ‚EHG clan’ is rather pseudo-scientific w.r.t to the matter at hand. Your claim that there isn’t enough samples Mariupol samples should direct to you the published data. So I ask for th 4th time w.r.t. your stated Lower Don group- which L/D group ? Do they have especially rich burials ? I can certainly see their role as a link in the process of suffusion of EHG/CHG through the steppe, but what makes them them the most instrumental.
      January 31, 2020 at 10:03 PM

      Rob said…
      “Farmer” dna in Georgians is up to ~ 5o % (G2a; non -native J2). Sure they’re isolated; but not that isolated. Anyhow; I’d heard the “TMRCA” of Kartvelian was c 2000 BC
      February 1, 2020 at 12:17 AM

      Pine trees and mountains said…
      @Rob „“Farmer” dna in Georgians is up to ~ 5o % (G2a; non -native J2). Sure they’re isolated; but not that isolated Anyhow; I’d heard the “TMRCA” of Kartvelian was c 2000 BC”

      Autosomal farmer DNA (if we consider the ENF and Natufian component as farmer) does not reach 50%. It doesn’t even reach 45% in any part of Georgia, and in most parts it is up to 40%.

      I have talked about this in 2 separate posts and clearly you either have bad short-term memory or didn’t bother reading either post. There is not one G2a1 in ENF and EEF samples, not a single one. Do consider how many EEF and ENF samples we have found, we have even found C among EEF, yet not even one G2a1. Meanwhile, late Neolithic Iranian has G2a1 with minimal ENF admixture.

      https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#12/34.4795/48.0000

      But you might say, „that can very well be from the ENF!”. No it cannot, it cannot because the highest G haplogroup diversity we see in ancient groups is among Iran_N and Iran_C. We see both G2b and G1a in them, two subclades which today are extremely rare. Yet, the ENF are dominated almost entirely by G2a2 with no other subclades of G2 in sight, at least not in a remotely significant amount cause we haven’t found one.

      G2a2 in ENF itself almost definitely comes from Iran_N and perhaps CHG, because Pinarbasi was C, and later we see that C has gone almost extinct among farmers, we just find 1 or 2 Cs among the tens of samples of ENF and EEF.

      If you consider Iran_C to be a farmer group, then we have around 35% farmer Y-DNA, but genetically speaking when we use the word farmer we use it as shorthand for ENF and Levant_N groups. So in reality in Georgia we have low Iran_N autosomal admixture but high Y-DNA – G2a1 specifically, and the Ls, R2as and Ts one might occasionally find among Georgians of different regions is also a trace of that Iran_C related expansion.

      As for our J2a being a non-native element, I can only reply to that with „lol”.

      Oldest instances of both J1 and J2 are from Western Georgia, and we know they weren’t recent migrants because they were blocked off from the rest of the world during the ice age, so they were in the region at least before the LGM. Claiming that a significant amount of J2 in Georgians is non-native is beyond foolish. Not to mention that we know very well that the J2 that is so common in modern Anatolia and Levant and Arabs was spread by expansion of KAC, expansion of Iran_N/C people and later expansion of Hurrians.

      Here is one major J2a subclade of Georgians: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y12378/

      Here is another: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M67/

      These are like 95%+ of our J2s, so you will have a hard time proving they are not native if you do try it.
      February 1, 2020 at 12:56 AM

      CrM said…
      @Rob, @KG Proto-Kartvelians were isolated, this is a fact supported by Archeology and Archaegenetics. The Core Kartvelian region is Colchis, ie Western Georgia, and it was never a part of KAC like Eastern Georgia was(which was likely inhabited by various proto-Lezgic, proto-Nakh and Hurro-Urartian tribes). Kartvelians expanded to East Georgia at a much later date, well after KAC.

      Genetically Georgians and pre Steppe admixed NWC are essentially the same, the only difference is that Georgians have a slightly higher % of Neolithic Iranian ancestry.

      Kartvelians and Northwest Caucasian having a similar genetic background, but them speaking two unrelated languages is the most peculiar part.
      The best Eneolithic proxy for proto-Kartvelians and proto-NWC is Darkveti-Meshoko, which was modeled as half CHG and half Anatolia_C in Wang et al.

      You can assume that one Darkveti-Meshoko (Darkveti?) related group retained their original CHG language, while another (Meshoko?) switched to Anatolian. I’m leaning on NWC being the Anatolian speakers, it explains the prevelance of Anatolian G2a clades in NWC (Georgians are mostly G2a1, this clade was never found among ENF, so saying that Georgians are up to 50% „Farmer” is incorrect, the oldest G2a1 sample is from Iran_N, I also think it’s possible that CHG carried G from the start/received it from Iran_N who had all the G varieties including G2a, G2b, G1 etc), and the Hattic-NWC similarities (https://www.academia.edu/1215069/The_Relation_of_Proto-West_Caucasian_to_Hattic).

      The smoking gun for Kartvelian being a CHG-related language is its similarities with PIE, but things can get more complicated if you take Maykop into account, who had contacts with various Steppe peoples like Steppe Maykop, Yamnaya and Usatovo.
      February 1, 2020 at 12:57 AM

      Rob said…
      @ KG “ have talked about this in 2 separate posts and clearly you either have bad short-term memory or didn’t bother reading either post. There is not one G2a1 in ENF and EEF samples, not a single one. ”

      Who said anything about european farmers ? It should be self evident that they don’t have anything directly to do with Georgia

      G2a – whichever clade- isn’t native to Georgia . It arrived with “farmers” from whether S/S or some other group. Please use more precise nomenclature in future. Yes I know J2a is found in Native caucasus hunter gatherers; but some could be from zagros or even northern Mesopotamia
      Do you have an exact breakdown for J2a sub-Clades ?

      The similarities of Kartvelian with PIE I take Arame view quite well- sprachbund effect due to Armenian etc Otherwise CHG has nothing directly to do with PIE

      So, Kartvelian might be a “CHG language”; but it’s so after the fact it’s something of a moot question, apart from appeal to romantic nationalism
      February 1, 2020 at 1:27 AM

      Pine trees and mountains said…
      @Rob There is no J2a found among Iran_N, only J2b so far.

      Farmers are shorthand for ENF, EEF and Levant_N, stop being an autistic pedant and use common sense in these discussions. We don’t even have a sample of SSC and I can already guarantee you that they are more Iran_N/CHG than ENF, you will see in time.

      If it were a sprachbund effect due to Armenian, Georgian and Armenian would have more similarities than they currently have, yet most linguistic similarities we have are due to Persian influence.
      February 1, 2020 at 1:43 AM

      Polubienie

  18. Podobne rozważania, co do natury CHG, ale komentarze dotyczą też ANE, EHG i WGH.

    https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/02/did-caucasus-hunter-gatherers-ever-live.html

    Monday, February 3, 2020

    Did Caucasus hunter-gatherers ever live in what is now Iran?

    Nope, they only lived in the Caucasus Mountains. See that’s probably why they’re called Caucasus hunter-gatherers, or CHG for short.

    But what about the hunter-gatherers from the Belt and Hotu caves in northern Iran, you might ask? Well, what about them? They’re not CHG, nor are they significantly more CHG-like than the early farmers of the Zagros Mountains.

    To illustrate the point, below are a couple of TreeMix graphs. I’d say they’re rather straightforward and self-explanatory.

     

    However, please note that I combined the Belt and Hotu individuals into one sample to help keep the marker count at over 100K. Also keep in mind that CHG is represented by Kotias_HG.

    See also…

    A final note for the year

    A note on Steppe Maykop

    Did South Caspian hunter-fishers really migrate to Eastern Europe?

    Posted by Davidski at 11:02:00 PM

    Labels: ancient DNA, Belt, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Caucasus, Caucasus hunter-gatherers, CHG, Georgia, Hotu, Hotu and Belt caves, Iran, Kotias, Near East, Satsurblia, South Caspian, West Asia, Zagros Mountains

    Polubienie

    •  Cpk said…
      @Samuel Andrews If IE came from the steppes it ultimately came with ANE and from Asia.
      February 5, 2020 at 2:02 AM

       Samuel Andrews said…
      @Cpk, Yeah, but their ANE ancestors in Asia lived like 15,000 years ago so too long ago to matter linguistically.
      February 5, 2020 at 2:12 AM

       old europe said…
      @cpk No EGH is WHG+ ANE
      The interesting question is if Pre PIE comes from the WHG component or from the ANE one. ANE was a native american ( like) or a mongoloid like population.eneolithic eastern european peoples ( both in the steppe and in the forest zone) were european like. That means that the WHG factor largely prevailed over the ANE one.
      February 5, 2020 at 2:19 AM

       Cpk said…
      @Samuel Andrews You can’t be sure about that. Also there are some similarities between IE and Native American languages.
      February 5, 2020 at 2:22 AM

       Rob said…
      NWC apparently has more eastern features than *PIE But given that ANE has been around EE since the paleolithic; some of the (chance) resemblances amongst north Eurasian languages could simply be that
      February 5, 2020 at 2:50 AM

      zardos said…
      American Indians came from different waves to North East Asia and Beringia. The dominant ones seem to have been more East Asian and even the ANE component split from its, for this debate relevant, Western relatives early and clearly. So chances are rather slim for a very close relationship to Indian languages. But that EHG spoke the Western ANE branch’ language is practically certain. They contributed all/vast majority of the the patrilineages and much more than 50 percent of the total ancestry! For CHG things look different, because Southern patrilineages and Southern genetic dominance.
      February 5, 2020 at 4:04 AM

      Ric Hern said…
      Could someone point us to the similarities between Indo-European and Amerindian without doing extraordinary linguistic gymnastics ? Remember 2 words out of a Dictionary of thousands are hardly the making of a Language….
      February 5, 2020 at 5:23 AM

      zardos said…
      @Andre: Please inform yourself before posting on physical anthropology, which is not the focus of this blog anyway. But if you write such things…

      First you have to differentiate between absolute and relative measurements. Then you have to distinguish facial and head shape.

      You totally mix things up. The Eastern hunter gatherers were not uniform, but they had very massive, robust bones, especially skulls. They were more often broadfaced than later steppe people or the narrow faced Corded Ware carriers. But they were usually dolicho-mesocramic, not at all brachycranic. Skulls could be massive boned but still narrow faced (samples from Yamnaya, especially Corded Ware) and they can be broad faced and dolicho-mesocramic, like DDC and again some Yamnaya (variable). These can be completely independent variables, don’t lump and mix them up.

      Brachycephaly was actually less common in Eastern than in Western Europe for most of the time. None of the major possible contributors to PIE was brachycranic. The first major related group to show that cranial shape were the Bell Beakers. Which makes their appearance and origin even more puzzling.

      @Matt: That’s interesting, I always read lower ANE estimates for American Indians in articles and papers.
      February 5, 2020 at 5:49 AM

      TLT said…
      @old Europe >ANE was a native american ( like) or a mongoloid like population.eneolithic eastern european peoples ( both in the steppe and in the forest zone) were european like

      ANE wasn’t mongoloid. The dental patterns were more like that of upper paleolithic and modern Europeans than that of mongoloids. It did have an ENA component of 25% to 32%, but that component entered the genepool back when there weren’t any Mongoloid crania on record, just Australo-Melanesian ones.

      See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35426-z

      So it would have looked like some Australo-Caucasoid mix.
      February 5, 2020 at 8:48 AM

      Cpk said…
      Brachycephals invade Anatolia at 2000 BC, ratio of brachys suddenly goes from 16% to 42%-50% so it is a huge migration and coincides with the rise of the Hittites too. The problem is there are already Anatolian languages there at 2500 BC and even those invader brachys don’t have steppe. It’s a mystery.
      February 5, 2020 at 9:11 AM

      TLT said…
      @Andrzejewski I don’t think that U4 would be WHG at all. It originates in the LGM and is only found in WHG zones when there was ANE intrusion in the very late UP to mesolithic. Probably originated in western Siberia or the zone west of Siberia which includes European part of Russia. I guess it originated in pre-EHG ANE since it is also found in modern Georgia which has ANE but very little if any EHG.

      To Andrzejewski and co discussing the cranial shapes: Yamnaya and other steppe cultures were mostly dolichocephalic but they varied in the height-length index. Yamnaya had the lowest one because they had higher cranial L+B values on average in comparison to Khvalynsk and later post-Yamnaya steppe cultures. They also had among the lower auricular height of the steppe cultures in question: Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, Poltavka and Srubnaya.
      February 5, 2020 at 11:45 AM

      Archi said…
      The closest relatives of the PIE language in Siberia. EHG is by origin from Siberia. R1(a) is by origin from Siberia, etc.
      February 5, 2020 at 12:31 PM

      Rob said…
      “Macro-linguistics” enjoys little support outside Russia ; And the dataset is obviously skewed because there is very little nin-Indo-European languages surviving in Europe, apart from Basque, which could be of north Eurasian origin. Anyway I’m not sure about R1a from Siberia given that it has not appeared in Siberia before the Bronze Age, you better wait for evidence to lend you support
      February 5, 2020 at 12:37 PM

      Archi said…
      @TLT „Yamnaya and other steppe cultures were mostly dolichocephalic”

      Yamanaya was brachicephalic mainly. Other Steppe cultures were not. Yamnians in general did not resemble anyone in the main, those are especially not any of the Dnieper-Donetsk as Wikipedia writes. Yamnians have your own cluster.

      https://ibb.co/mK8CSa

      February 5, 2020 at 12:42 PM

      Archi said…
      Denial of the kinship of languages is freaking all languages are relatives to others with common root, this is a fact. Anyone who denies the affinity of languages is simply racist. All over the world this is accepted. No one in the world denies the kinship of Indo-European and Uralic languages.
      February 5, 2020 at 12:50 PM

      TLT said…
      @archi >Yamanaya was brachicephalic mainly. Other Steppe cultures were not. Yamnians in general did not resemble anyone in the main, those are especially not any of the Dnieper-Donetsk as Wikipedia writes. Nonsense

      https://imgur.com/a/fWQ7ByR

      Average Yamnaya dry skull cranial index was 75.1. Dolichocephalic.
      February 5, 2020 at 12:59 PM

      Polubienie

    • Archi said…
      @TLT I don’t know where you got this picture from, it’s just funny, only 11 samples taken from nowhere, but calling > 75% as dolichocephalic is just ridiculous, it’s already mesocephalic.
      February 5, 2020 at 1:23 PM

      zardos said…
      That’s why I talked about dolicho-mesocranic, because most modern Caucasoids of the „long headed shape” are at the borderline, extreme dolichocephalism is rare. Brachycranic is more clear and they are far, far away from it. So what’s the point?
      February 5, 2020 at 1:35 PM

      Archi said…
      @ zardos No, he not right, among the pit culture people dolichocranic was only the North-Western population, the rest were strictly speaking mesocephalic, along with brachycranic groups. Yamnians was not dolichocranic, they are called subbrachycranic, of course not as strong as brachycranic of the Catacomb culture.
      February 5, 2020 at 1:44 PM

      TLT said…
      @archi
      https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr&id=KWmRDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA105&dq=sintashta+cranial+measurements&ots=D1CwtNZ8EG&sig=vZ_sLx0V-Fdx_pmagr5AaNTqLn0#v=onepage&q&f=false

      Ignore what is written in the url, it will take you to chapter 6 and the measurements were taken from there.

      75.1 is either very high dolicocephalic or extremely low mesocephalic depending on the scale that you are using. Living skulls add another ~11 mm so the average living skull would have been between 76 and 77. Below 77 and hence low mesocephalic on average. Far from your brachycephalic average value claims. In my original comment I wrote high dolichocephalic but amended it because the others generally had a lower cephalic index than Yamnaya did.

      These cranial length and width average values in Yamnaya are 0.49 SD higher and 1.47 SD higher than the LBK average length and width respectively. So yes, their cephalic index was higher than that of EEF neolithic Europeans (on average), which might be perhaps why the latest Srubnaya culture in the list also has the lowest cephalic index in the list. Srubnaya would have been ~3/4th Yamnaya and 1/4th EEF. But that doesn’t mean that Yamnaya is outright brachycephalic.
      February 5, 2020 at 1:58 PM

      TLT said…
      @archi Sub-brachycephalic? The sub-brachycephalic range is from 80 to 83. Yamnaya dry skull average was just above 75 and the living skull average would have been somewhere between 76 and 77.
      February 5, 2020 at 2:01 PM

      Archi said…
      @ TLT You have a very limited source, it gives you incorrect data simply because there is very little of it. It’s not serious, so you just make a mistake, but you can’t figure out your mistake.
      February 5, 2020 at 2:11 PM

      TLT said…
      @archi You on the other hand have literally nothing, and don’t even know the different categories of the classification of something as simple as cephalic index.
      February 5, 2020 at 2:18 PM

      zardos said…
      Archi, if you have sources, with regional differentiation inside of the Yamnaya cultural horizon, please show it to us – if in Russian with basic translation please. That Yamnaya formed a cluster on its own is known, but because of other measurements, not because of a high cranial index. Data wins.
      February 5, 2020 at 2:44 PM

      TLT said…
      I found an excel file uploaded by commentator „Lukasz” in a 3 year old+ thread. It has 17 male pit grave measurements along with 2 questionable male measurements from the pit grave cultures. Average for males was ~74.3 while the total average for the whole group was ~74.96/ almost 75. Pretty much in line with 75.1 from the book. IDK if there is an overlap in the samples in question, but regardless, this supports a ~75 dry skull index among Yamnaya and in general pit grave remains since there were more samples from this list, so the overlap wouldn’t be a complete one.

      Definitely going up there in the high dolichocephalic/borderline mesocephalic range. This should correspond to low mesocephalic values for living individuals. Certainly not brachycephalic or even sub-brachycephalic in average. There was one ultrabrachycephalic male (CI = ~95) and one extremely ultradolichocephalic female (CI = ~49) from the next period, so extreme outliers do exist. Probably related to craniosyntosis in most cases I guess.
      February 5, 2020 at 5:09 PM

      Rob said…
      I was reading a language blog about FU & PIE. This is what some said
      “ As a Uralicist, I can tell you that the vast, vast majority of Uralicists reject any genetic relationship between Uralic and other language families. Lyle Campbell’s contribution to the volume Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence ed. Joseph & Salmons (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998) explains many reasons why.

      The only folks regularly publishing on Indo-Uralic at the moment are Kortlandt and his students. Their work is awful. Kloekhost especially has a completely dilettante understanding of the history of Uralic”
      February 5, 2020 at 10:54 PM

      EastPole said…
      They keep repeating that Yamnaya is the archeological culture of PIE. at 57:30:

      February 6, 2020 at 2:41 AM

      gamerz_J said…
      New here, from which paper is Tyumen_HG?

      Furthermore, could anyone help me understand the East Eurasian ancestry in ANE and CHG? Is there a population that can be a reasonable proxy for it or where there many such gene flow events? Also, interested in how old it is, if anyone knows.
      February 6, 2020 at 6:45 AM

      JuanRivera said…
      Tyumen_HG is from Narasimhan et al. The East Eurasian ancestry of ANE is Tianyuan-like, and it predates 30 kya, as shown by Yana RHS (which is ancestral to ANE). East Eurasian ancestry in MA1 (an ANE individual) is estimated at ~25%; in Yana RHS it’s estimated at ~29%; in AG2 and AG3 it’s unknown but must be near ~25% given their extreme closeness to MA1 (forming together with him the ANE cluster). As for CHG’s East Eurasian ancestry, I’ll leave the explaination to more experienced people here.
      February 6, 2020 at 7:36 AM

      gamerz_J said…
      @JuanRivera

      Thank you for the info and explanation. So would it be safe to assume that East Eurasian affinities of Yamnaya and descendant populations are through ANE? Is there additional East Eurasian in CHG than its ANE component?

      Also, could I trouble you with why in their ADMIXTURE analysis Narasimhan et al,2019 modeled Afanasievo and Samara as heavily WSHG (with 20% East Asian ancestry unless I am misunderstanding something)? I thought they were similar to the Yamnaya, unless Yamnaya itself harbored extra East Asian ancestry than ANE did.

      (Apologize in advance for any silly questions,relatively new to ancient DNA)
      February 6, 2020 at 7:49 AM

      JuanRivera said…
      There are two reasons why they come WSHG-admixed: the closeness of EHG and WSHG (with the biggest difference being WSHG’s raw East Asian-like admixture) and extra ANE in Vonyuchka and Progress (both forming a Piedmont cluster, which is ancestral to Khvalynsk/Samara Eneolithic, the samples marked as Sredny Stog and Dereivka, and Yamnaya and Afanasievo; Progress, the main Piedmont population ancestral to the non-Piedmont steppe populations, has more extra ANE; WSHG too has extra ANE). As for the latter, I have no idea if it’s just extra ANE or true WSHG admixture (though fits favor the extra ANE option). As for CHG’s East Eurasian admixture, I suggest you ask more experienced people like David. Another note is that East Eurasian covers, in addition to East and Southeast Asians (including Oceanians, Neosiberians, and the largest part of Indigenous Americans’ and Paleosiberians’ ancestry), AASI, other Onge-like populations and Onge themselves, the Aeta and similar populations, and Papuans and Indigenous Australians.
      February 6, 2020 at 8:41 AM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      There’s no East Eurasian in Yamnaya unless you consider ANE to be part East Eurasian. Of which we have no idea whether it is or not. All we know is it is a really diistinct thing. Ma’ta boy shows no relation to modern East Asians. If ANE is part East Eurasian it is not something closely related to any modern East Asians.
      February 6, 2020 at 11:13 AM

      Davidski said…
      There’s definitely no WSHG in Yamnaya. Very old layers of East Eurasian ancestry in Yamnaya, CHG and early Iranian farmers are possible, but characterizing and estimating the levels of such deep ancestry components is very difficult. Phylogenetic trees done with qpGraph can never be treated as unambiguous evidence in such matters, only as rough guides.
      February 6, 2020 at 12:28 PM

      Draft Dozen said…
      Since there was a discussion about anthropology in this topic and the previous one, I post some skull’s pics and their measurements.

      Malta boy’s replica

      Sidelkino 3

      Sidelkino 3 measurements

      Sidelkino EHG wasn’t an Uraloid, it looked like there might have been some influence, but it looked quite Caucasoid, also he wasn’t massive and wasn’t broad-faced. Maybe that’s why: – “As on the first skeleton (Sidelkino 1 without a skull), there are apertures (one or more) on the humeri, between the cubital and coronoid fossae. There is osteoporosis on the cubital fossae and medial epicondyles… The necks of femoral bones, especially right near the head, as well as greater trochanters and lower metaphyses are affected by osteoporosis. On the rear, above the medial con-dyle, both bones have strong texture, but also with porosis… The up-per and lower ends of both bones are affected by osteoporosis. There is periostitis on the right bone, on the medial side of its lower half… The fibular bones have lateral malleoli affected by osteoporosis” But nevertheless its height was great. – “The intravital stature defined with the use of Dupertuis, Hadden and Bunak formulae (Alekseyev 1966) amounted to 180.1 cm.” Sidelkino 3: – “We should also note a number of pathologies: osteoporosis in the radial notch, as well as small porosis and signs of osteolysis on the lateral part of the olecranon, on the styloid process and laterally, between the styloid process and the cubitus head…The right bone has small porosis on the articular circumference, as well as porosis with osteolysis of the styloid process base and the ulnar notch. Small poro-sis is also revealed on the lower epiphysis of the left radius. There is also osteoporosis on the sternal articular surface of both collar bones…The acromial processes of both bones have considerable osteoporosis;… The pelvic bones are also affected by osteolysis and osteoporosis in the cotyloid cavities, there is also incon-siderable osteoporosis in the frontal part of iliac wings…The intravital stature defined with the use of Dupertuis and Hadden formulae (Alekseyev 1966) amounted to 174.4 cm”

      Popovo, Peschanitsa little bit different

      Male

      Female

      I can post their measurements (not only their, rare Vovnigy measurements), if it is interesting to someone. They are written in Cyrillic, but you can understand Martin’s numbers.
      February 7, 2020 at 4:43 AM

      Polubienie

    • Dmytro said…
      „In Slavic non-Indo-European substratum nobody yet found”

      Does anyone know the origin of some Slavic words for „horse” and „dog”? „mare” (KOBYLA) seems similar to Latin CABALLUS. One dog-word (SOBAKA) to Old Iranic SPAKA. But what about the dog word PES ((PIES): does it have Old IE cognates? And KOMON/KON’/KIN’ („horse”)? The term asva/aspa for horse which is found in Indic and Iranic and Baltic (and elsewhere probably) is missing in Slavic.
      February 7, 2020 at 6:45 AM

      Archi said…
      @Dmytro This is all either borrowings or common European words such as linen, that is, borrowed in ancient times, say in all times of the CWC. Kobyla and komon’/kon’ are the same root European words of Cabalus „horse”. Pis „dog” is not a loan, it is actually a Slavic innovation, cf. Old Indian pic̨áŋgas, Gr. ποικίλος. The substratum of a language is a fairly large set of words that is unique only for this language.
      February 7, 2020 at 7:07 AM

      andrew said…
      „I’m amazed how some renowned linguists claim that they have proven a Dene-Yenisseyan link dating back more than 15k-20k years but they debunk any PIE link to anything dating back more than 8,000 years!”

      The Dene’s distinctive genetic component (about 16% of their autosomal DNA on average but as much as 30% in some individuals) derives not from the Founding population of the Americas, but from a second wave of Paleo-Eskimo migration ca. 5000-4400 years BP (ca. 3000 BCE – 2400 BE). See, e.g., Pavel Flegontov, et al., „Palaeo-Eskimo genetic ancestry and the peopling of Chukotka and North America” Nature (June 5, 2019); Flegontov et al., „Na-Dene populations descend from the Paleo-Eskimo migration into America” bioRxiv (September 13, 2016). While the Paleo-Eskimo genetic contribution is a minority, the linguistic and cultural contribution was a majority.

      Pure blooded Paleo-Eskimos went extinct close in time to the arrival of the ancestors of „Neo-Eskimos” like the Inuits in North America (ca. 1100 BCE and 200 BCE).

      Thus, the time depth of the Dene-Yenisseyan link is comparable to the time depth of the links between fairly basal branches of the IE languages through PIE like Sanskrit v. Latin and Old Norse. This is a time depth accessible to historical linguistic methods.

      This is underscored by improve ancestry matching techniques in the 2016 paper cite above which show a genetic link between the Na-Dene and the Yenesians. Using a relatively novel method of focusing in rare genetic variants, the 2016 study fairly conclusively established (1) that many Na-Dene individuals have significant (up to 30%) ancestry from Paleo-Eskimos admixed with a majority of founding population genes and a smaller contribution of Inuit admixture in some individuals, (2) that the Saqqaq and Dorest derive from a single wave of migration that arrived in North America ca. 2,400 BCE, and (3) that the Paleo-Eskimo wave of migration from a Trans-Baikal population that had a genetic affinity to populations that ended up in Western and Central Siberia, where the Yenesians live. Previous studies using methods based on average genetic similarity, uniparental markers and common genetic variants, had been unable to find the subtle genetic connections between the Na-Dene and Central Siberian populations, due to roughly 75 generations of dilution with neighboring populations on each side of the Pacific.
      February 7, 2020 at 11:53 AM

      Ryan said…
      Just to back up @andrew’s point, at some point the ancestors of either the Dene or the Kets had to have crossed the Bering Strait using wood boats (their boat making techniques and terminology are shared), and the Bering Strait only had trees on its coast between 8kya and 4kya. So that common terminology puts a fairly narrow window on went such a crossing happened that supports the genetic and archaeological evidence.
      February 7, 2020 at 11:59 AM

      Simon Stevin said…
      @Samuel Andrews So to summarize, there is no East Eurasian ancestry in Vonyuchka, Progress, Samara, Khvalynsk, Dnieper–Donets, Sredny Stog, and Yamnaya. The same applies for the latter Wester Steppe Herder derived cultures, such as Catacomb, Corded Ware, Poltavka, Potapovka, Srubnaya, Abashevo, Fatyanovo–Balanovo, and Volosovo. I believe most of the Afanasievo and Sintashta samples lack this admixture as well with the exception of a few Central Asian admixted samples. Concerning said admixture in some of the Sintashta and Afanasievo samples, would that East Asian like admixture come from the WSHG derived hunter gatherers of the region? Or are there some WSHG populations that don’t have East Asian admixture?
      February 7, 2020 at 1:05 PM

      Blogger Samuel Andrews said…
      @Simon Stevin, It’s possible some didn’t have East Asian but not likely. So, far all ancient DNA samples from Central Asia, from before Andronovo, have some East Asian ancestry. The West Siberian hunter gatherers are from Siberia but they lived pretty close to Botai hunter gatherers in Kasazkhstan. They’re all kind of the same people. „Ancient Central Asians” (pre-Andronovo).
      February 7, 2020 at 2:27 PM

      epoch said…
      @Matt It’s the next slide after the horse and wheel argument.

      „Linguistic paleontology: agriculture

      Ploughing:

      . Hitt. harra- ‚to crush’, terip- ‚to plough’. Different root than PIE
      . PIE *h2erh3- ‚to plough’, *trep= ‚to turn'”

      She therefore concludes:

      „Anatolian did NOT share agricultural terminology with rest of PIE”

      I wholeheartedly agree with your notion that this might not mean a thing. But her argument is a ‚can’t have the cake and eat it’ variant. If we agree this might just be term loss we should also not make to much of the absence of wheel related terms.
      February 8, 2020 at 11:42 AM

      Gaska said…
      This is increasingly fun.

      1-When it came to claiming Yamnaya as the source of migration to Europe, what really distinguished that culture from European Neolithics was precisely the CHG component because obviously EHG has a WHG component-

      2-Then EEF appears in Yamnaya and CHG also appears in the Balkans and the steppes long before the Yamnaya culture existed.

      3-Harvard tells us do not worry because that steppe signal only appears in mainland Europe with the appearance of the CWC which is supposed to be 75% Yamnaya

      4-Then it turns out that Yamnaya’s uniparental markers do not match those of Central Europe or those of Western Europe

      5-But nothing matters because we continue to detect the Yamnaya signal in mainland Europe after 3.000 BC, although now, we are not going to call it that, but „steppe signal”

      6-Then suddenly, nobody knows what CHG is, or where it comes from, or the way it spread throughout Europe because the uniparental markers typical of that ancestry do not match the European markers either (we will have to assume then that it was the women who were responsible)

      7-Meanwhile everyone is still looking for R1b-M269 in Russia, the Urals and the steppe forests because that lineage is inextricably linked to that magic steppe signal-

      8-Soon it will turn out that R1a and R1b have their origin in Iran, that the steppe signal is actually a Persian signal, and that the BBs brachycephaly is a typical anthropological feature of Southern Caucasus or the Middle East

      9-And so magically the swarthy dolichocephalus and uraloids Yamnaya riders become just 300 years later in Western-looking brachycephalus Basques-

      It’s a joke right?-Manda huevos
      February 9, 2020 at 12:15 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Gaska Quit talking out of your ass. There’s no evidence of any Iranian farmers or herders migrating into Eastern Europe. This is indeed someone’s fantasy. However, there is plenty of evidence of steppe people migrating deep into Europe during the Late Neolithic. And you can’t do anything about this.
      February 9, 2020 at 1:01 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      Anti-migrationist archaeologist tries to dispel the „problematic” interpretation of ancient DNA that in the case of Bell beaker, genes and culture go hand and hand.

      Haunted by the Ghost of the Beaker folk?
      https://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article/42/1/30/221979/Haunted-by-the-ghost-of-the-Beaker-folk

      „….it has been claimed that there must have been a direct causal link between the demographic and cultural changes that happened in Britain during the 3rd millennium BC. This is a curious assumption that seems to echo the highly problematic approaches that characterized early forms of archaeology and resulted in the construction of a mythical ‘Beaker folk’. ”
      February 9, 2020 at 2:11 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      Bell Beaker blogger covers it.
      https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2020/02/beaker-ghosts-carlin-2020.html

      The benchmark of his argument, is that Iberian Bell Beaker is the same culture but different genes than Northwest Europe Bell beaker. This claim was an important mistake made by Harvard geneticists. As Bell beaker blogger says, it was like Harvard handed an olive branch to anti-migrationist archaeologists….

      „Harvard started this meme that the Beaker phenomenon was totally people not pots, but they leave this big olive branch to the archaeological community by offering Iberia as an example of cultural imitation. Sorry everyone, but that nice idea will explode as well in time. What happened between the LN and MBA Iberia was not imitation.”
      February 9, 2020 at 2:14 PM

      Bob Floy said…
      The Harvard team has been making a lot of embarrassing claims recently, haven’t they…
      February 9, 2020 at 2:17 PM

      A said…
      @Pine trees and mountains „One of the dumbest things I have read in this thread.”

      Ok.

      “The first metal objects discovered in the northern Caucasus come from settlements attached to the Meshoko culture. They include an undetermined object (Chernykh 1991) from the upper level 1 of Svobodnoe, a small ring and a knife blade from Skala (Formozov 1965) and 11 fragments of tools and ornaments (awl, bracelet, pendant) from Meshoko (Chernykh 1966). […]

      Analysis of the metal artefact from Svobodnoe revealed that it was made of “pure” copper (Chernykh 1991). Chernykh considered this evidence for the use of copper ores free of impurities, argued to be typical of the copper deposits in the Carpatho-Balkan area (Chernykh 1992; Chernykh et al. 1991). Thus, he suggested that this object came from across the Black Sea (Chernykh 1991). […] Chernykh’s hypothesis implied a west–east circulation that was later reinforced by the discovery of similar prestige objects over a vast area (including bone pearls, tusk pendants, very long flint blades, triangular stone arrowheads, bracelets and adzes in serpentine and zoomorphic sceptres) (Rassamakin 1999). In this exchange trade, the Skelya culture of the Pontic Steppe (north of the Black Sea) could have played an intermediary role. This culture does seem to have been a link between the entities of the Lower Danube (Suvorovo and Cernavoda I cultures), the Kuban region (including Svobodnoe, Meshoko, Myskhako and Zamok) and the wooded steppes of the Volga River (Khvalynsk). This vast territory coincides with the area of the Carpatho-Balkan metallurgical province (CBMP) as laid out by Chernykh et al. (1991). Furthermore, a certain chronological overlap exists between the period of these exchanges (ca. 4550–4100/4000 BCE) and the apogee of this CBMP, dated to ca. 4400–4100 BCE (Chernykh 1978a; see also Pernicka et al. 1997; Ryndina 1998). (p.585-586) […]

      The metallurgical processes, most likely originating in the Carpatho-Balkan area and already known during the preceding Meshoko culture, were probably further developed by the Majkop population. It seems that this western influence continued into the beginning of the Majkop phase, as suggested by the introduction of the socket and the metal pickaxe.” (p.622-623)

      ‚Ancient Metallurgy in the Caucasus from the Sixth to the Third Millenium BCE’ (2014)
      https://www.academia.edu/5789550/2014_-_Ancient_Metallurgy_in_the_Caucasus_From_the_Sixth_to_the_Third_Millennium_BCE

      „Although similarities between the Varna culture and that of Ikiztepe on the central coastal region of the Black Sea strongly imply close ties between the northern Balkans and central Anatolia, the lack of similar evidence from the western parts of the Anatolian peninsula suggests a maritime connection through the coastal areas of the Black Sea rather than by way of a land route.” (p.13)

      ‚Eastern Thrace: the Contact Zone Between Anatolia and the Balkans’ (2011)

      Click to access 101093-at-oxfordhb-at-97801953761420130029.pdf

      „longer voyages, beyond the Bosporus or along the Anatolian coast of the Black Sea, were probably unusual. However, such expeditions cannot be ruled out. A remarkable ‘hoard’ of decorative items, now part of the Burton Y. Berry collection at the Indiana University Art Museum, was bought on the antiquities market in the 1950s and was said to have originated from the area of Trabzon on the south-east Black Sea coast (Rudolph 1978; Rudolph et al. 1995). The hoard consists of a number of artefacts with striking parallels in the fifth millennium jewellery of the western Black Sea coast. Not merely the shapes and style of the items, but also the specific combination of materials (gold, carnelian, shell) show an unmistakable similarity to Varna (for comparisons see Todorova and Vajsov 2001).” (p.359)

      ‚Early maritime trade along the western coast of the Black Sea’ (2012)
      https://www.academia.edu/2543543/Perilous_waters_early_maritime_trade_along_the_western_coast_of_the_Black_Sea_fifth_mill.BC

      February 9, 2020 at 3:50 PM

      A said…
      @ CrM „The Maikop chieftan… His tunic had sixty-eight golden lions and nineteen golden bulls applied to its surface…. Around his neck and shoulders were 60 beads of turquoise, 1,272 beads of carnelian, and 122 golden beads. Under his skull was a diadem with five golden rosettes of five petals each on a band of gold pierced at the ends.”

      ————————

      Varna:

      “The significance of Varna is that it constitutes the earliest flowering of gold metallurgy in the world, dating to the start of the Balkan Late Copper Age, with over forty accelerator mass spectrometry dates between 4650 BC and 4450 BC. […] The majority of gold finds has no parallels anywhere else in Eurasia: such as the diadem from Tomb 3, appliqués often in the form of a bull, gold-plated axe shafts, the solid gold astragalus, and the penis sheath from Tomb 43. The copper finds include shaft-hole axes, awls, chisels, and beads. Beads are also made of Spondylus and Dentalium shells, as well as bone, marble, carnelian, and limestone. Marble rhyta, dishes, axes, and stylized figurines are found, the latter with metal earrings. Many carnelian beads have been faceted with millimetric precision, possibly using a lap-wheel. Obsidian and flint blades up to 16 inches (40 cm) in length were made using pressure-flaking techniques. The ceramics are typically decorated with geometric designs outlined in graphite.

      Whereas part of the high status of these grave goods derives from their workmanship and aesthetic qualities, the distance over which they were exchanged provided additional value. Much of the gold, and the marble, derived from southeastern Bulgaria; the carnelian from much further away. Some gold came from Transylvania. The obsidian was from northeastern Hungary. Most of the copper and graphite came from central Bulgarian mines. Spondylus and Dentalium were from the Aegean, the honey-coloured flint from northeastern Bulgaria. Two of the polished stone axes were made of jadeite from quarries in the northwestern Alps, some 940 miles (1,500 km) distant. The richest graves contained symbols characteristic of different regional communities: the gold astragalus characteristic of northwestern Bulgaria, the gold-painted vase of central Bulgaria, and a marble figurine of southern Bulgaria. Not only do products and symbols underline Varna’s integration into wide-ranging exchange and ritual networks covering much of eastern Europe, but there are artifactual links connecting Varna to Atlantic Brittany and near-Caspian cemeteries on the Lower Volga – a total span of 2,100 miles (3,400 km).”

      Oxford Companion to Archaeology, Vol 1 (2012), p.324.

      https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xeJMAgAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA343&lpg=RA2-PA343&dq=varna+carnelian&source=bl&ots=3DlOj5Buap&sig=ACfU3U1vWCMKJ6kwAJit9hwWF4IhPa-N5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih0pWXpsvnAhUYSxUIHS6dDmMQ6AEwGXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

      “Among the metal (gold and copper) and non-metal (minerals, rocks, pottery, pigments, bioobjects) artefacts in the Chalcolithic graves from Varna in Bulgaria are numerous beads of chalcedony (carnelian and agate) composition. … The nearest to the Balkan Peninsula sites with probable agate and carnelian deposits are the Crimea Peninsula, the Caucasus region, Asia Minor, the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen) and Egypt.”

      https://www.academia.edu/1118945/Complex_faceted_and_other_carnelian_beads_from_the_Varna_Chalcolithic_necropolis_archaeogemmological_analysis

      February 11, 2020 at 11:30 PM

      A said…
      @ Rob, „W.r.t. to Caucasian metallurgy, sure, the ores might have ceme from East Anatolia or S. Caucasus, but lets take a step back. Again, it is more than coincidence that after Varna collapses, a host of other metallurigcal centres appear”


      “During the fifth millennium BC the population of the region of Thrace and the Lower Danube developed the earliest known metallurgy based on mining. This led to significant socio-economic changes: development of trade, specialization in some types of production, and the earliest signs of socio-economic differentiation. The level of development of that culture is the highest at the time. During the fourth millennium the continuous development of the local cultures gradually stopped and new cultures appeared in their place, which were considerably simpler from a technological point of view. The system of cultures related to mining and metal production and called by E. N. Chernykh the Balkan-Carpathian Metallurgical Province ceased to exist. A new system of mutually related cultures occupying a larger territory was formed: the Circum-Pontic Metallurgical Province. This was a long process that took place during the fourth millennium. The centres of metallurgy of the fifth millennium were abandoned and a development of metallurgy based on mining began in Anatolia. The paper discusses the opportunities for tracing influences of the Balkans on Anatolia during the fifth and fourth millennia BC. It presents arguments in support of the hypothesis about a migration of population from the Balkans and in particular from the region of the Varna and Kodzhadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI cultures south and southeast towards Anatolia.”

      ‘Opportunities for tracing influences of the Balkans on Anatolia during the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth millennium BC’ ( Georgieva, 2014)

      https://be-ja.org/index.php/Be-JA/article/view/112

      February 12, 2020 at 11:23 AM

      Polubienie

  19. Ciąg dalszy problemu CHG, itp, patrz:

    https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/02/ancient-dna-vs-ex-oriente-lux.html

    Thursday, February 13, 2020

    Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux

    In recent years you may have read academic papers, books and press articles claiming that the Early Bronze Age Yamnaya culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe was founded by migrants from the Caucasus, Mesopotamia or even Central Asia.

    Of course, none of this is true.

    The Yamnaya herders and closely related groups, such as the people associated with the Corded Ware culture, expanded from the steppe between the Black and Caspian seas, and, thanks to ancient DNA, it’s now certain that they were overwhelmingly derived from a population that had existed in this region since at least the mid-5th millennium BCE (see here).

    So rather than being culturally advanced colonists from some Near Eastern civilization, the ancestors of the Yamnaya herders were a relatively primitive local people who still largely relied on hunting and fishing for their subsistence. They also sometimes buried their dead with flint blades and adzes, but hardly ever with metal objects, despite living in the Eneolithic epoch or the Copper Age.

    As far as I know, this group doesn’t have a specific name. But in recent scientific literature it’s referred to as Eneolithic steppe, so let’s use that.

    It’s not yet clear how the Yamnaya people became pastoralists. Some scholars believe that they were basically an offshoot of the cattle herding Maykop culture of the North Caucasus. However, the obvious problem with this idea is that the Yamnaya and Maykop populations probably didn’t share any recent ancestry. In fact, ancient DNA shows that the former wasn’t derived from the latter in any important or even discernible way (see here).

    On the other hand, Yamnaya samples do harbor a subtle signal of recent gene flow from the west that appears to be most closely associated with Middle to Late Neolithic European agropastoralists (see here). Therefore, it’s possible that herding was adopted by the ancestors of the Yamnaya people as a result of their sporadic contacts with populations living on the western edge of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

    Eneolithic steppe is currently represented by just three samples in the ancient DNA record, and all of these individuals are from sites on the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe (two from Progress 2 and one from Vonyuchka 1).

    As a result, it might be tempting to argue that cultural, if not genetic, impulses from the Caucasus did play an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya and related peoples. However, it’s important to note that the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe was the southern periphery of Eneolithic steppe territory.

    Below is a map of Eneolithic steppe burial sites featured in recent scientific literature. It’s based on data from Gresky et al. 2016, a paper that focused on a specific and complex type of cranial surgery or trepanation often practiced by groups associated with this archeological culture (see here).

    Incredibly, one of the skeletons from Vertoletnoe pole has been radiocarbon dated to the mid-6th millennium BCE. My suspicion, however, is that this result was blown out by the so called reservoir effect (see here). In any case, the academic consensus seems to be that the roots of Eneolithic steppe should be sought in the Lower Don region, rather than in the Caucasus foothills (see page 36 here).the roots of Eneolithic steppe should be sought in the Lower Don region, rather than in the Caucasus foothills (see page 36 here).

    Considering that nine Eneolithic steppe skulls from the Lower Don were analyzed by Gresky et al., I’d say it’s only a matter of time before we see the publication of genome-wide data for at least of couple of these samples. Indeed, the paper’s lead author is from the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, which is currently involved in a major archaeogenetic project on the ancient Caucasus and surrounds. Unfortunately, the study is scheduled to be completed in about four years (see here).

    But whatever happens, the story of Eneolithic steppe deserves to be investigated in as much detail as possible, because it obviously had a profound impact on Europe and its people.

    In my estimation, at least a third of the ancestry of present-day Northern Europeans, all the way from Ireland to the Ural Mountains in Russia, is ultimately derived from Eneolithic steppe groups. It’s also possible that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, the two most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroups in European males today, derive from a couple of Eneolithic steppe founders. If so, that’s a very impressive effort for such an obscure archeological culture from what is generally regarded as a peripheral part of Europe.

    See also…

    Posted by Davidski at 12:21:00 PM

    Labels: ancient DNA, Bell Beaker culture, Corded Ware Culture, Early Bronze Age, Eneolithic, kurgan, North Caucasus, pastoralism, Pontic-Caspian steppe, Proto-Indo-European, R1a-M417, R1b-M269, Sintashta, Yamna, Yamnaya

    Polubienie

    • Henrique Paes said…
      The signal from CHG genetics in the samples is too strong to be relativized in this way. I believe that you are right in the sense that the steppe population did not migrate ‚ready’ from elsewhere to the steppes, but there was undoubtedly a lot of genetic and cultural influence from the Caucasus. The CHG genetic signal is stronger than the EEF signal in the old steppe populations. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if it was recent or old, CHG genetics is there and represents more than a third of steppe genetics.
      February 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM

      Davidski said…
      @Henrique Paes CHG was long extinct at this time, and Caucasus populations already had too much Anatolian admixture during the Eneolithic to be relevant. Also, Eneolithic steppe doesn’t really have CHG ancestry. It has ancestry from a related population.
      February 13, 2020 at 1:21 PM

      Andrzejewski said…
      The reason that Reich lab and others try to diminish the role of the WSH PIE Yamnaya people is because of the erroneous and extremely racist association a cabal of murderous warmongers in 1930s made between themselves and the innocent Western Steppe Herders. Thus, researchers are going out of their way to dissociate PIE/WSH from anything linked to Europe, and instead attempt to claim that “everyone is an immigrant”, and that “European so-and-so came from Anatolia/Mesopotamia/you name it”. Acknowledging that our ancestors contributed to our culture the most does not mean at all that we are against non-Europeans.
      February 13, 2020 at 2:42 PM

      Davidski said…
      By the way, those still arguing that Caucasus populations had a huge genetic and cultural impact on Yamnaya, please explain why there was a genetic border between the Caucasus and the steppe already a thousand years or more before Yamnaya.
      https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/06/genetic-borders-are-usually-linguistic.html
      February 13, 2020 at 2:44 PM

      Rob said…
      ”They also sometimes buried their dead with flint blades and axes, but never metal objects, ”
      That’s not really correct; e.g. Khvalynsk (even if Khvalynsk itself might not have been the direct ancestors of yamnaya). Eneolithic steppe is a rather poor name. I’m not sure if they’re even proto-Repin, let along all other relevant groups.
      February 13, 2020 at 4:28 PM

      FrankN said…
      Dave: Good summary! I especially like the link to the Gresky e.a. paper, and the conclusion that „the roots of Eneolithic steppe should be sought in the Lower Don region, rather than in the Caucasus foothills.” In fact, the Eneolithic Steppe is atypical in two respects:
      (i) Their share of CHG is above the standard 50/50 EHG/CHG ratio observed in most other Steppe(-related) populations, and
      (ii) Isotopic (dietary) studies suggest that they were not just herders, but actually cereal Farmers, see e.g. Shishlina e.a. 2012 (btw the first English language paper to use the term „Eneolithic Steppe”
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285099434_Isotope_ratio_study_of_Bronze_Age_samples_from_the_Eurasian_Caspian_Steppes

      The most parsimonous explanation is that the Elbrus piedmont population included some Sioni Culture (East Caucasian) element; a suggestion strengthened by the presence of typical North Caucasian „Pearl pottery” in Areni I (Armenia_CA).

      With respect to the Gresky e.a. paper, I find two things intriguing:
      (i) They suggest religious motives for the trepanations. This implies that we are rather dealing shaman burials than with warriors;
      (ii) The European practice of trepanation has been traced back to the Dniepr Rapids area, more specifically Vasilievka II, ca. 6.200 BC, from where it spread into various directions, including the Alsacian LBK (sources on request). While we don’t have the aDNA of that first documented case of trepanantion, we have that of an adjacent burial, namely Ukraine_Neo:I1736. That one is essentially 60% WHG (IronGates), 40% EHG (Sidelkino), and has obviously not much genetically in common with the Eneolithic Steppe population.

      Apparently, we are dealing here with a tradition of high cultural significance, both in terms of religion and as concerns medical skills and related tool-making, that seems to have been transmitted by mechanisms that hardly included gene transfer.

      A final question: If the roots of the Eneolithic Steppe population are to be sought on the Lower Don, how and when did the CHG element get there? On the „when“, we may conclude from the Khvalynsk samples that it arrived in the European Steppe before 4,700 BC. OTOH, there isn’t much CHG in the Ukraine_Neo samples that date to before ca. 5,300 BC. The same applies to the Samara_HG, ca. 5,500 BC. As such, we seem to be talking about ca. 5,000 BC plus/minus a few centuries. That’s a time when the SE Caucasus was already fully neolithicised (late Shulaveri-Shomu /early Sioni) and practised copper metalurgy, none of which is found along the Lower Don (cereal farming there only started with Sredny Stog). I personally find it unlikely that an immigration that so subtantially shifted the genetic profile from the preceding EHG/WHG mix to almost 50% CHG would not have introduced farming and metalurgy, if its origin is to be sought in the SE Caucasus. What does that leave us with? Of course not Iran, equally farming and copper-melting by that time. But what about the E. Caspian, with attested hunter-herders, e.g. Kelteminar. Kelteminar is a poor fit in other respects, such as their lithic technology, and INO geographically too eastern, but the archeologically yet poorly explored areas between the Caspian and Aral Seas come to mind…
      February 13, 2020 at 4:29 PM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      The exact origins of Steppe (Yamnay) is soooooo important that the Recih lab needs to be on top of this. Seems like they don’t care about investigating it.
      February 13, 2020 at 4:29 PM

      EastPole said…
      @Davidski „They thought they solved it ages ago…

      Iran ChL (Mesopotamia) > Maykop > Yamnaya”

      I don’t understand it. Corded Ware was important IE culture. Agriculture came from Tripolye/Balkans. Religion came from Tripolye/Balkans. Metallurgy came from Tripolye/Balkans. Wheel came from TRB/Tripolye. Horses most likely from Dereivka/Sredny Stog. Some MtDNA came from Tripolye/Balkans and Yamnaya. Y-DNA was local i.e. Sredny Stog. Autosomal was mixed, from Sredny Stog, Yamnaya and Tripolye/Balkans. 

      The origin of IE language in Corded Ware is unknown. It can be from Sredny Stog, it can be from Tripolye/Balkans, it can be local development in Poland where CWC originated. We don’t know the language and religion of Yamnaya. We know that the religion of Vedic Aryans and Hellenes was related to Balto-Slavs i.e. to Corded Ware. This is all we know for sure.

      The rest is dreaming and speculating.
      February 13, 2020 at 5:38 PM

      Ric Hern said…
      @ FrankN Maybe Health played a significant role. Some papers do suggest that some Hunter Gatherer populations were on average Healthier than cereal consumers….So it could have been something as simple as that.
      February 13, 2020 at 5:44 PM

      FrankN said…
      Dave:
      1. You implicitly (in your Wang e.a. 2019 quote) adress the issue of red ochre burials, of course a main feature of all steppe-derived cultures. This is another intriguing point: Red ochre burials were pretty common in the European Mesolithic, but rather uncommon for ANF/EEF, and are, from what I could gather, also not well documented for North Asia. IOW: This seems to be another cultural trait, in addition to trepanation, which seems to have reached the Steppe from WHGs. Yet, we have these Elbrus Piedmont burials that archeologically/ culturally should have beeen WHG-derived, but aDNA-wise don’t have anything in common with them. Frankly, I don’t know how to explain this enigma!

      2. „Which traits/conditions would have enabled such founder effects? For one, the introduction of the wheel.”

      Do you really want to say that the wheel was introduced into the Steppe already around 4,500 BC? Come on! For all that we know so far, the first culture to have regularly used wheeled vehicles was TRB (Bronocicze pot, Flintbek trails, that TRB barn in Poland constructed for being through-passed by wheeled vehicles; all slightly after 3.500 BC). The final (AMS) verdict on CT is still out, so TRB might have acquired their wheeled vehicles from there. There are also pretty early wheel finds from Zurich Lake. Anything from the Steppe dates considerably later, and is in addition from a background (Maykop Novosvobdnaya) that has little to do with the Steppe aDNA we are discussing here.
      February 13, 2020 at 5:56 PM

      Davidski said…
      @FrankN I’m not sure why you’re focusing on the red ochre, since it’s just one of the clues, and not a very important one at that? The point is that this is a very early kurgan culture identified by archeologists from various traits and it expanded from the Lower Don region to the southeast, not from east of the Caspian to the Lower Don. Nothing gels with your theory here.
      February 13, 2020 at 6:07 PM

      Andrzejewski said…
      @Davidski When do you suggest that PIE in its earliest recognizable form might’ve begun?
      February 13, 2020 at 6:22 PM

      Davidski said…
      I don’t have a personal opinion on the matter. The seemingly most reliable (ie. least insane looking) academic works suggest that archaic PIE was first spoken sometime in the 5th or 4th millennium BCE. So let’s go with that for now.
      February 13, 2020 at 6:31 PM

      Polubienie

    • Davidski said…
      @MaxT J does appear on the Eneolithic steppe. Not only in the singleton Khvalynsk sample which belongs to J1, but also in other unpublished samples from further west. However, it’s always much less common than I2, R1b and R1a.

      And it does still seem to me like the CHG-related ancestry on the steppe mostly arrived with women, because there’s a lot of Caucasus-related mtDNA in the ancient steppe groups, but hardly any such Y-DNA.
      February 14, 2020 at 2:09 AM

      zardos said…
      @Andre: The consensus is that PIE is no creole language. So whatever the subdominant language was, its supposed to be a substrate only.
      February 14, 2020 at 8:24 AM

      epoch said…
      @Zardos Creole languages form when non-native speakers that don’t understand each others language use an intermediate language. Mixed languages, however, form from two languages that speakers are all acquainted with. However, as Agamemnon of AG explained to me, mixed languages lead to many exceptions of rules. PIE however is quite neatly structured so is not considered a mixed language.
      February 14, 2020 at 9:28 AM

      FrankN said…
      Zardos, Andrzej;
      A general characterisation of PIE would go as follows:
      – Phonetically it is typical Caucasian, i.e. with a large consonant inventory including lots of guttural and aspirated sounds (laryngeals, the kw, bh, gh etc. stuff) – a feature shared with Kartvelian, NWC and NEC languages. A classic areal phenomenon that often unites otherwise distinct language families, compare SE Asian tonal languages (Sino-Tibetan, Thai, etc.) or Klick sounds present in Khoisan and also South African Bantu languages.
      – Morphologically, the closest living relative seems to be Afro-Asiatic, more specifically Semitic. Multi-consonant roots (in contrast to most North Eurasian languages that prohibit inter-syllabic consonant clusters), Ablaut/Umlaut, i.e. vowels serving for semantic/grammatical differentiation, presence of grammatical gender (missing in Uralic, Altaic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese), inflection (in contrast to agglutination) plus various other features are shared by PIE and Semitic. Whether this relation is genetic, or stems from long and intensive contact, e.g. with Akkadian, has remained unclear to me.
      – There are also a couple of parallels to Hurro-Urartian, especially when it somes to derivational suffixes. Compare, e.g. Hurrian -(a)=šše to English „-ness”, Hurr -nzi/lzi to Engl. „-ing”, Hurr. -he to Engl. „-an” (as in „Hurri-an”). Probably not genetic, rather via prolonged language contact (EEF might have spoken a language related to HU).
      – In terms of basic vocabulary (Swadesh lists), the closest connections are with Uralic and, intriguingly, Nivkh-Algic as proposed by S. Nikolaev.

      In short: PIE looks like a Near Eastern language that acquired heavy ANE substrate, plus quite some HU (ANF/EEF?) adstrate somewhere not too far away from the Caucasus.
      February 14, 2020 at 10:28 AM

      Samuel Andrews said…
      You can’t blame Harvard or anyone for thinking Yamnaya’s and Indo European language roots were in the Middle East. Because, it’s hard to believe them being pastorlists, metal-makers and having 50% Middle Eastern ancestry was a coincidence. It’s just really annoying how Harvard won’t change this view of Yamnaya and IE origins after evidence comes out showing it is wrong.
      February 14, 2020 at 10:46 AM

      Archi said…
      @FrankN ” There are also a couple of parallels to Hurro-Urartian, especially when it somes to derivational suffixes. Compare, e.g. Hurrian -(a)=šše to English „-ness”, Hurr -nzi/lzi to Engl. „-ing”, Hurr. -he to Engl. „-an” (as in „Hurri-an”). Probably not genetic, rather via prolonged language contact (EEF might have spoken a language related to HU).”

      This is just absolutely ridiculous nonsense. Such random coincidences exist between any two languages.

      ” aspirated sounds (laryngeals, the kw, bh, gh etc. stuff)”

      Aspirated sounds did not exist in PIE. Character of laryngeals are unknown, therefore suggestion that they were gutturals is unreasonably.

      „ntriguingly, Nivkh-Algic as proposed by S. Nikolaev.”

      This is linguistic friction.

      „In short: PIE looks like a Near Eastern language that acquired heavy ANE substrate, plus quite some HU (ANF/EEF?) adstrate somewhere not too far away from the Caucasus.”

      Absolutely does not look. This Semitic-Hamitic look as if they are from Ukraine(R1b-V88 ahahah). Ablaut is also in the Kartvelian languages; this is generally a property of Western Nostratic languages. The umlaut to the ablaut has nothing to do.
      February 14, 2020 at 11:35 AM

      a said…
      @FrankN Red ochre near Moscow— Sungir samples 32,050 and 28,550 BC, Y-DNA Haplogroup C1a2.” Red ochre,…. Grave 1 and the two adolescent children in Grave 2, placed head-to-head, together with an adult femur filled with red ochre….. an important ritual material associated with burials at this time, covered the burials”…. Dobrovolskaya, M; Richards, M. -P; Trinkaus, E (2011). „Direct radiocarbon dates for the Mid Upper Paleolithic (eastern Gravettian) burials from Sunghir, Russia”.
      February 14, 2020 at 12:39 PM

      FrankN said…
      Since I mentionned possible relations between the PIE and the Proto Nivkh-Algic-Wakashan (PAW) vocabulary in my previous comment, and remember someone having asked about it not too long ago, here follow several examples.
      Sources: S. Nikolev 2017 http://www.jolr.ru/files/(232)jlr2017-15-3-4(250-278).pdf
      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European_Swadesh_list

      „belly”: PAW *ʔVta:gA, PIE *úderos
      „big”: PA *meʔł (Miami-Peoria mehš-i), PIE *méǵh₂s
      „burn”: PNA *tu(:)ʁwV, PIE dʰegʷʰ-
      „come”: PW *Gi:, PIE *gʷeh₂-
      „die”: PNA *mo:ryV, PIE *mer-
      „dog”: PAW *q’änV, PIE *ḱwṓ(n) [a Wanderwort]
      „drink“: PAW *hək’ʷE (also „water“), PIE *h₁egʷʰ-
      „egg”: PNA *ʔə:wV, PIE *h₂ōwyóm
      „fish”: PAW *ǯu: , PIE *dʰǵʰu- (->Balto-Slav. *źū́ˀs)
      „good”: PA *wal-, *wel- [comp. Engl. „well”]
      „hair”: PAW *həpV(-lV), PIE *pulh₂-
      „I”: PAW *ńV, PIE *me (a paleo-word)
      „kill” PAW *χVlV ≈ *ʔVlχV (compare to English!)
      „to lie”: PAW *łi:hV, PIE *légʰyeti
      „long”: PAW *gɨl’V, PIE *dl̥h₁gʰós (metathesis?)
      „man, male”: PWN *wi:s-, PIE *wiHrós
      „meat”: PAW *mi:-, PIE *mḗms (a paleo-word, c.f. Malay makan „to eat)
      „moon”: PAW *l’u:ŋ’ʒV, PIE *lowksneh₂
      „night” PAW *ńä:gʷE ~ *ńä:gʷTV, PIE *nókʷts
      „nose”: PWS *nic-, PIE *Hnéh₂s
      „one”: PAW *ń’ə, PIE *(H)óynos
      „round” PAW *kOlxV ~ *k’Olk’V [No PIE root given, but compare to „wheel” terminology]
      „say”: PW *wa:-, PIE *wéwket
      „see”: PWN *du:qʷ-, PIE *derḱ-
      „small”: PNi *məc-ki-, PIE *mey-
      „this”: PAW *gV ~ *gʷV, PIE *koh₂ (a paleo-word)
      „warm”: PWN *kʷu:xʷ-, PIE *gʷʰer-
      „water”: PAW *hək’ʷE ≈ *ʔəhk’ʷE, PIE *h₂ekʷeh₂
      „what, who”: PAW *qV, *gʷV; PIE *kʷis (a paleo-root, equally present in PU)
      „Woman”: PWN *Gən- ; PIE *gʷḗn
      „far (away)”: PAlg *wa:ɣl-aw, PIE *wi
      „heavy“: PWN *Gʷi:- , PIE *gʷréh₂us

      This is a long-list of 32 potential parallels within the Swadesh-110 list (~30%). Surely, some parallels are more obvious than others – die, drink, egg, moon, night, small, water are among my favourites. In several cases, we are dealing with „ultraconserved“ paleo-words – but these also drive up similarity scores between PIE and other families, e.g. Uralic, which ranges around 35% in this respect, including at least ten attested PIE borrowings into Proto-Uralic. My list will in all likelyhood also include some cases of chance similarity. But it is extremely unlikely that all potential parallels have come about accidentally.

      Now, let’s put this into context: Comparison is made between two reconstructed proto-languages that each date to some 7,000 or more years ago. And, in spite of all the perceived parallels, both proto-languages were already quite differentiated by that time. I lack the competence to translate that difference into a TMRCA estimate, and am actually not sure if anyone has ever conducted such exercise.

      Nevertheless, there is the expansion of „combed“ or „pseudo-corded“ pottery out of the Baikal Lake area, arriving in European Russia via Kokharovsky Kholm (some 100 km N. of Yekaterinenburg) around 5,800 BC. And, we have the arrival of domesticated dogs in the Americas by around 8,000 BC, apparently having travelled from Siberia via the Polar Sea and the Mackenzie to the Great Lakes area, and in all likelyhood with human assistance (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326211519_The_evolutionary_history_of_dogs_in_the_Americas)…
      February 14, 2020 at 1:26 PM

      JuanRivera said…
      I don’t think the hypothetical EHG languages were the same as hypothetical ANE languages (plural because they occupied an immense area from the Urals to Western Beringia and from at least Southern Siberia to the Arctic coastlines, guaranteeing the existence of several languages or even language families in Siberia; similarly, EHGs occupied a huge area from the Urals and Arctic coastlines to ill-defined western and southern boundaries in Ukraine and Russia, given them being part of a continuum). The hypothetical EHG languages, though very likely descended from an ANE language, would have diverged beyond mutual intelligibility with those ANE languages still remaining in Siberia (and not yet displaced by the hypothetical languages of Paleosiberians, which are not to be equated with the Paleosiberian wastebasket) and with each other, plus it would have some hypothetical loanwords from WHG languages (again, they occupied a huge area) and maybe features too (more pronounced in the hypothetical language spoken by Dnieper Rapids HGs), and maybe some hypothetical CHG language influence (increasing towards the south) and maybe later influence from a hypothetical Western Siberian ANE-derived language. Added hypothetical because we don’t know what was actually being spoken; there was nothing back then to attest them.
      February 14, 2020 at 1:46 PM

      Rob said…
      @ Frank Don’t you think the odd similarity between indo-European and Ket, American languages, etc can be explained by the fact that the western steppe saw movement on movement of people from Central -East Asia ( steppe -neolithic Q1a; steppe Majkop, Cimmerians, etc)
      February 14, 2020 at 2:24 PM

      FrankN said…
      Juan: I aggree that there is a huge speculative element to any attempts to figure out which languages were spoken in Ukraine/ European Russia prior to the IE expansion.

      However, may I suggest the following exercise to you: Model Samara_HG:I0124 as (i) direct continuation of Sidelkino (you may add the usual suspects, i.e. CHG, IronGates, Barcin, Kunda etc. to account for „trickling in” of new elements), and (ii) as a mix of Sidelkino, UA_Mes (I recommend I1763, since it lacks the homeopathic Barcin element present in most other UA_Mes samples), UA_Neo:I3715 (Azov-Dniepr/”Mariopol, ca. 5,500 BC), CHG, and AG3. My runs (more precisely, the runs Alberto did on my request) showed that the second setup improved the fit considerably, and I am curious if you will reproduce that result.

      Specifically, Alberto came out with the following:

      Target: I0124 (Samara_HG)
      Sidelkino – 36.7
      AG3 – 26.4
      UA_N:I3715 – 17.9
      UA_Mes:I1763 – 16.6
      CHG – 2.4
      WSib_N:I1960 – 0.0

      Distance: 3.6778

      Provided your analysis yields a comparable outcome, we might conclude the following:
      a) Samara_HG contained a substantial Ukrainian (Mariupol) element, which actually aligns well to archeological findings, e.g. Morgunova 2015, that constate a substantial Mariupol influence on the genesis of the Samara Culture;

      b) At the same time, we see influx of fresh Siberian ancestry – for lack of chronologically closer samples somewhat imperfectly approximated by AG3. This AG3 element IMO represents the bearers of „Combed”/”Pseudo-Corded” ceramics, which replaced the preceding (Y)Elshan(ka) pottery during the early 6th mBC.

      c) EHG is essentially a methodological artefact, not a homogenous population in its own right. The Samara Region was a melting pot of western (WHG) and Siberian (ANE/WSHG) entrants during at least two points in time (possibly more): (i) the Epi-Paleolithic/ early Mesolithic, when the Region was after the Younger Dryas re-colonised from both the West and the East; and (ii) during the 6th mBC, when the „Combed Ware” expansion out of Siberia via the Middle Urals encountered the Mariupol Expansion out of Ukraine.

      If so, any speaking about „EHG languages” becomes rather meaningless. More precisely – we shouldn’t bother much about the language Sidelkino spoke, his ancestry was anyway widely replaced during the 6th mBC. The interesting question is about the linguistic outcome of the encounter between Siberian-descended „Combed Ceramic” people and substantially WHG (IronGates)- influenced Mariupol. My hunch is that this encounter could have had something to do with the differentiation between Uralic and Altaic, but that is of course also quite speculative..

      A final remark: For all the huge size of Siberia, let’s not forget that most of it was uninhabitable during the LGM, and only recolonised sustainably after the Younger Dryas. Aside from Beringia (your „Paleosiberian wastebasket”), there are only a handful of areas that might qualify as linguistic homelands: The Baikal area, the Northern Altai, and the Upper Yenisei (AG3) come to mind, but that already moreless seems to be it. As such, we shouldn’t expect too much linguistic diversity for the Siberian Mesolithic…
      February 14, 2020 at 3:13 PM

      Ric Hern said…
      Hypothetically all who evolved out of Haplogroup F > G,H,I,J,K could have had linguistic similarities at the root with some longer interaction between some and less of the other. Some could have preserved some features which could have made it easier for them to communicate with those others who preserved some of the same features. However Language is not stagnant and can change extremely in a very short time even without outside influences. So basically for me it is pointless trying to even significantly link Mesolithic languages to todays language families. Like I said before it doesn’t take only a few words or even other similarities to make up an entire Language which has Thousands of words and features etc. The best we can do is start at the known reconstructed Families and their proposed dates of origin. Anything before that is even more murky.

      So what happened between 5000 BCE and 4000 BCE is most important linguistically regarding PIE. You can not bake a cake without adding the Last ingredient. So what was the Last ingredient ? EEF ?
      February 14, 2020 at 7:08 PM

      Ric Hern said…
      How about herding spreading along a Northern Route along the Forest Steppe towards the East ?
      February 14, 2020 at 10:26 PM

      Polubienie

  20. Odnośnie moje teorii o niesłowiańskim a bałtyjskim R1a. Skąd się wzięła taka zbieżność Prussia-Russia, Prusy-Rusy, pruskie-ruskie, przypadek?

    Polubienie

  21. Pamiętacie gdy nazwę rzeki Dunaj, Dunajec wywodziłem do sanskryckiego Dunayti-Dudniący po naszemu?

    Właśnie czytam jak Dawudsky pisze, że w k.Usattowo, pogranicze Rumuńsko-ukraińskie są próbki R1a Z93 w dużej liczbie.
    Linku nie posiadam, jest to w komentach pod ostatnim wpisem, gdzieś na trzeciej stronie komentarzy, a przypominam, że jest już Z93 z Bułgarii, sprzed 3000 lat, kiedyś tam opublikowany.
    Wówczas i Arya Varta jako kraina Ariów będzie miała coś wspólnego z naszą Wartą, nie wiem, może i Warną?
    Na pewno aryjska Hima= zima, Hari-hori, gory itd itd

    I2a z GAC sięgało na zachodnią Ukrainę, i było równolatkiem dla Usatoxo:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usatovo_culture

    Polubienie

  22. S, jakie jest twoje zdanie na temat językowego zasiedlania Białorusi, co?

    Mińsk dawniej Mieńsk – Czy to słowianska nazwa? Moim zdaniem tak, chociażby z powodu mnogości u nas Kaminskich itp.
    „Niektórzy autorzy skłonni są przypuszczać, że miasto nazwano od prowadzonego w nim handlu, wymiany – miena” Mi się to podoba, od mieniać, Mienie też pochodzi z wymiany i mennica. Kto wie czy nie strzelili celnie w etymologię Money, co? Czemu właściwie mówimy pieniądz a nie mieniądz?

    Może nam się pomyliło z powodu pobliskiego Pińska? O nim nic nie napisali, ale logika podpowiada, że skoro Mińsk od mieniąc/mieniądz to Pińsk od pieniąc/pieniądz.

    Co powiesz?

    Moje śledztwo w Wiki wykazało, że Mińsk leży nad 3 rzekami.

    Svislach or Śvislač or Svisloch – bardzo ale to bardzo wiślana nazwa. Pan na Wiślech mógł być z Białorusi. No jaki transfer proponujesz?

    Nyamiha, Nemiga, Niamiha – o której napisali “In Lithuanian nemiga means insomnia.”
    Proponują jej bałtyckie korzenie ale czy to było 1 czy może Mienka?

    Bo

    „Zgodnie z wykopaliskami archeologicznymi, samo miasto i zarazem twierdza zostało założone w miejscu ujścia Niamihy do Świsłoczy, zastępując dotychczasową osadę leżącą nad rzeką Mienka (od niej prawdopodobnie pochodziła pierwotna nazwa miasta – Miensk”

    Nie bardzo rozumiem jak to było z tymi rzekami, ale najwyraźniej jakas Mienka była kiedyś.

    Mieńka (Mień, Mienia) – „Większość badaczy toponimii uważa, że nazwa miasta pochodzi od niewielkiej rzeki o nazwie Mieńka (Mień, Mienia), nad którą został założony Mińsk”

    Jak to rozumiesz? Najpierw była Mienka a potem Niemiha czy odwrotnie?

    To ważne bo to wygląda na przestawkę Mieniha <> Niemiha.

    Więc nie wiem kiedy przyszli Bałtowie ze swoją insomią.
    Też to „g” pachnie Nganasan, które to o dziwo ja w ich etnonimie wymawiam jak zwykłe „g”. Ale oni sami nazywaja siebie Njeńsan, albo jakoś tak przez „j”. Zresztą to po prostu Nieńcy.

    Rozumiesz? (Mień, Mienia) – nie wymawiamy ani H ani G a Bałtowie w Nemiga wymawiają. Tak jakbyśmy mówili podobnie do Nganasan. I nie wiem dlaczego na myśl mi przychodzi tamga i Tamiga (i Tamiza), namga tamga maja podobną konstrukcję?

    I w ogóle ta Miena podobna jakaś do Niemiena.

    A wiesz, że tak jak Mińsk leży nad Mieną tak Pińsk leży na Piną. Logiczni byli ci od tych etnonimów, co?
    Teraz wypada mi Kopińskich i Łapińskich i innych Pińskich wyprowadzić z Pińska.

    Co myślisz o niemieckiej imienniczce? Do której wpada Tollense.
    https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piana_(rzeka)

    Albo mazowieckiej?

    „Mienia – rzeka na Mazowszu o długości około 40 km. Jej źródła znajdują się niedaleko Kałuszyna. Przepływa przez tereny powiatu mińskiego…..

    Nazwa rzeki jest prawdopodobnie pochodzenia celtyckiego[1]. Przypuszczalnie od nazwy rzeki powstała nazwa dawnej osady nad Srebrną – Mensko (dzisiejszy Mińsk Mazowiecki).”

    Widzisz dublety?

    Jak myślisz kogo mieli na myśli z tymi prawdopodobnymi Celtami?

    Polubienie

    • Dużo pytań ciekawych. Nie wiem, co było pierwsze, szczerze, a nie dlatego, że to olewam.

      Wiem, że nawet jeśli I2 było Pra-Słowiańskie, to nic takiego jak tzw. wspólnota bałto-słowiańska nie mogła zwyczajnie istnieć, patrz logika skrzeczy, o czym już pisałem. Co by nie powiedzieć, to I2 było i w Narwa i w Kunda, czyli Pra-Słowianie z I2 byli nad Bałtykiem wcześniej, niż „Bałtowie” R1a, patrz to, co twierdzi Robert, o ile to jest prawdą, czego nie podważam.

      Tyle tylko, że ja tam ciągle nie wiem, jak było, ale N1c nie lekceważyłbym.

      Mnie ciekawi dlaczego np. I2 (i co z I1) nie utracili swojego języka na rzecz G2 z Anatolii. Przecież niby to postęp technologiczny miał być, itp. Piję do tego, że skoro wtedy nie doszło do wymiany języka, no to dlaczego kiedy indziej miało tak być? Powtarzam, że Pra-Słowiańskie I2 rozwiązuje wszystkie układanki i to chyba nie tylko mi…

      Co o tym wszystkim myślisz?

      Polubienie

      • Pozwól, że wrócę na Białoruś nad naszą ulubionę Pripjat, Prypeć.
        Masz coś od siebie na jej etymology?
        Mamy pąć i piąć.
        Mamy przypiąć.
        I mamy przepiąć.

        To ostatnie pasuje mi do słownictwa górskiego, gdzie zjeżdza się na linie i trzeba się przepiąć na drugą. Więc gdy taternik podąża szlakiem rzecznym i do celu musi się przepiąć na inna rzekę to nazwie ją przepięciem albo przepiną. Od przepinać. Prze + Pina.

        No może albo i nie.
        Ale zauważ, ze przepięcie i przepinanie to to samo.
        I Pina – rzeka na Białorusi, lewy dopływ Prypeci.

        I nad Peeną mamy Czerespienów albo Czerespeenów.
        A teraz zobacz co odkryłam.
        Через w rosyjskim znaczy przez. Czyli Czerespeeni = Prze(z) + Pina.

        Polubienie

          • No, są dla mnie bardziej zrozumiałe niż ich rosyjskie odpowiedniki na zachodzie.

            A propos pożyczek bałtyckich w słowianskich
            GAC nie był rolniczy. GAC hodował świnie. Więc słowo świniopas ze względu na koncówkę –as nusiało być 1 pożyczką.

            Poza tym Litewskie R1a to głównie Z92, które dzielą z Rosjanami. U nas tego bardzo mało. I jest to podgrupa zpod Z280. Nie widze powodu dla którego należałoby wszystkie Z280 podciągać pod bałtów skoro tylko ta część z Z92 i do tego tylko nad Bałtykiem jest bałtycka. Nawet nie wiadomo czy część rosyjska Z92 wykazuje jakieś powinowactwa językowe z Bałtami.

            Polubienie

            • (…) GAC nie był rolniczy. GAC hodował świnie. Więc słowo świniopas ze względu na koncówkę –as nusiało być 1 pożyczką. (…)

              Nie, ponieważ PaS’+C’, np. PaS’ Te” S’WiNie”

              Polubienie

      • „Mnie ciekawi dlaczego np. I2 (i co z I1) nie utracili swojego języka na rzecz G2 z Anatolii. Przecież niby to postęp technologiczny miał być, itp. Piję do tego, że skoro wtedy nie doszło do wymiany języka, no to dlaczego kiedy indziej miało tak być? ”

        Nie utracili języka gdyż G2a na północ od Karpat było już populacyjnie zbyt słabe by narzucić język, widać to również po tym, że Ydna w GAC było jednorodne a cała domieszka EEF jaką posiadali MUSIAŁA pochodzić od kobiet.

        Do tego GAC czy w Polsce czy na Ukrainie była autosomalnie bardzo jednorodny i genetycznie lokował się tam gdzie dzisiejsza ludność Sardynii, co też sugeruje, że również I2a musiało być z południa od Karpat, ale mogło przyjść 2-3-4 tysiące lat wcześniej.

        Czyżby to by przy okazji wytłumaczyło wspólnotę/łączność wenetyjską z północnymi Włochami?

        Z dokładnie tych samych przyczyn nie ma w Polsce językowego wpływu Cesarstwa Rzymskiego, a to spodtkało języki dzisiejszej Francji i Hiszpanii ale i w Rumunii.

        Stawiam też, że praprzyczyną zerowej rusyfikacji Polaków pod zaborem rosyjskim było to, że język rosyjski jest wtórny wobec polskiego (wschodniosłowiańskie sa wtórne wobec zachodniosłowiańskich) zatem było to czymś w rodzaju zakładania spodni przez głowę, było takim absurdem jak próba romanizacji Włochów przez współczesnych Rumunów.

        Polubienie

        • (…) Do tego GAC czy w Polsce czy na Ukrainie była autosomalnie bardzo jednorodny i genetycznie lokował się tam gdzie dzisiejsza ludność Sardynii, co też sugeruje, że również I2a musiało być z południa od Karpat, ale mogło przyjść 2-3-4 tysiące lat wcześniej. (…)

          A czy EFF, czyli Sardynia to nie jest coś innego, iż WHG? A skąd niby I2 miało przyjść, skoro to ma niby być tzw. Stara Europa?!

          Polubienie

          • „A czy EFF, czyli Sardynia to nie jest coś innego, iż WHG? A skąd niby I2 miało przyjść, skoro to ma niby być tzw. Stara Europa?!”

            Około 40% wśród Sardyńczyków jest I2a1b, bardzo dużo, w GAC był li tylko I2a2a, widać, że ktokolwiek był I2a był ze sobą bardzo mocno spokrewniony genetycznie, ale nie -według mnie i to jest zaskakujące- językowo, chyba że znajdzie ktoś uzasadnienie, np. takie,że I2a1b w Dalmacji zmieniło język, tylko nie wiem na jaki i ile razy.
            Taki dualizm idealnie odpowiada czegoś co było epoką lodowcową, wygląda że I2a schroniło się ma południu, Bałkany, płn Włochy i jego sukces w neolitycznej Europie może wynikać z tego, że Anatolia i Bałkany są sąsiadami, więc szybko i od samego początku wymieszał się z rolnikami niosącymi G2a, czyli wziął udział w przekształceniu ANF>EEF.
            Oczywiście dotyczyłoby tylko części I2, być może język EEF i WHG był z tego powodu wzajemnie zrozumiały, co ułatwiło dalsze kulturowe rozprzestrzenianie się rolnictwa.

            Polubienie

    • „Mieńka (Mień, Mienia) – „Większość badaczy toponimii uważa, że nazwa miasta pochodzi od niewielkiej rzeki o nazwie Mieńka (Mień, Mienia), nad którą został założony Mińsk”

      Jak to rozumiesz? Najpierw była Mienka a potem Niemiha czy odwrotnie?

      To ważne bo to wygląda na przestawkę Mieniha <> Niemiha.”

      Tak jak rzeka Niemen

      Polubienie

    • Mamy u Greków Mnemozynę zwaną przez Rzymian Monetą i tak się złożyło, że w jej świątyni była mennica. Na mniemanie z upominaniem nałożyło się jeszcze skojarzenie z drobnicą https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek czyli od mięci a nie miany https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/m%C3%A9ntis
      Z pieniędzmi jest mniej oczywiście ale wyglądają na odpowiednik płaciwa z płótna od germańskiego upiętego pnia https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/fan%C3%B4

      Polubienie

  23. Wiesz, moje zdanie na temat Bautów srobiło się złe. Oni wyglądają na jakieś nazi. Naziole ze żmudzi. Nie podzielam od jakiegoś czasu tej miłości z Robkiem.
    Powinno się uczyć że w tzw. wielkim księstwie litewskim językiem urzędowym był język starobiałoruski, słowianski zupełnie niepodobny do tego co nazywamy dziś litewskim. Ten dzisiejszy to coś ze żmudzi, malenkiego kawaleczka w płn Zach Litwie, stanowiącym jakas mniejszość etniczną na Litwie. wg żmudzinów żemajtas a w łacinie samogitians albo samojedas. Więc ludojady to nie bajki. Już wiesz skąd pochodzą.

    Pic, że na Białorusi albo we wschodniej Polsce mówiono po żmudzku żmudzini powinni udowodnic, bo N1c w 50% tam nie ma. A ci co dzisiaj tak się nazwali mają. Czyli w połowie Azjaci.

    „Językiem urzędowym był słowiański język ruski (w tym języku spisano m.in. Statuty Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i prowadzono Metrykę Litewską) do 1696”
    Nie ma nic po żmudzku. Jak to interpretujesz?

    Popatrz

    Miškas mežs u Bautów las, bardziej przypomina azerskie meşə niż las. I finskie metsä.
    A kaimas tureckie köy niż wieś.
    Nie wiem czy lingwiści badali język litewski pod kątem pożyczek z UF. Albo ałtajskich.
    koja to u nas występuje jako łóżko. Ukoić to może odpocząć, ukołysać. Co to jest wiesz?
    U Szwedów koja to chata.
    Czy nasza wieś jest w ogóle IE?

    https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litwini_w_znaczeniu_historycznym

    „Narodziny narodowości nowolitewskiej
    Znaczenie czwarte obejmuje okres po uwłaszczeniu chłopstwa w 1864 roku. W wyniku uwłaszczenia powstał wywodzący się ze żmudzkiego[potrzebny przypis] chłopstwa[potrzebny przypis] etniczny naród nowolitewski[potrzebny przypis] – Litwini, posługujący się językiem litewskim. Wsparcia temu procesowi udzieliły władze carskie, które po upadku powstania styczniowego, chcąc uniknąć kolejnego, przystąpiły do intensywnej rusyfikacji, m.in. poprzez zakaz nauczania w innych poza rosyjskim językach, co oznaczało, biorąc pod uwagę stan uprzedni, zakaz nauczania w języku polskim[3]. Uznając, że naród litewski to tylko chłopi[potrzebny przypis], wprowadzono wyjątkowo na obszarze północnej Suwalszczyzny (obecnie litewska jej część) do szkół (zgodnie z zasadą dziel i rządź, zob. Gimnazjum w Mariampolu) język litewski i starano się kształcić młodzież w oderwaniu od kultury polskiej, która w owym czasie niepodzielnie dominowała[potrzebny przypis] na ziemiach b. Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Szkoła taka jak Gimnazjum w Mariampolu stała się kuźnią narodowej elity, która propagowała ruch nowolitewski i tworzyła u schyłku I wojny światowej nowe państwo[4].
    Na skutek tego procesu doszło do konfliktu dwóch sposobów rozumienia terminu „litewski”. Tradycyjnie rozumiano „litewskość” jako odmianę szeroko pojętej polskości[potrzebny przypis], Nowolitwini rozumieli natomiast „litewskość” w sposób przeciwstawny do sensu tradycyjnego, jako cechę narodowościową bądź etniczno-językową. Nowolitwini nawiązywali do okresu historycznego sprzed pełnej rutenizacji Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, kiedy to język litewski wraz ze żmudzkim jego dialektem nie został jeszcze całkowicie wyparty przez język ruski. Przejawem tego była specyficzna procedura lituanizacji w XX wieku nazwisk polskich w Republice Litewskiej[potrzebny przypis]. Nowolitewscy uczeni wychodzili z założenia, że polonizacja na Litwie nie byłaby możliwa bez uprzedniej białorutenizacji kraju. Dlatego przekształcając nazwiska polskie na ich litewskie odpowiedniki najpierw przekształcano je na białoruskie analogi, by następnie formułę białoruską nazwiska przekształcić na jej poszukiwaną litewską formę „pierwotną”. Przykładem może być pospolite jeszcze w latach 20. XX wieku w rejonie Kowna polskie nazwisko Brzozowski. Po przekształceniu go na białoruski analog powstanie nazwisko Bjarozauski. Z formy białoruskiej bezpośrednio otrzymuje się „litewską praformę” (według uczonych nowolitewskich[których?]) nazwiska Brazauskas.”
    Myślę że Jagiełło nie potrafił zdania sklecić po żmudzinsku. Ciekawa jestem czy są jakieś dowody na jego język.
    Przestałam ich szanować. tak po prostu. Genetycznie sa mieszanką N1c (jak Finowie, Saamowie. Esti) z Z92 odłamem z280 R1a, czyli bardzo wschodnich Słowian, ze wshodu za Moskwa. I w ich języku Dźwina –słowianska, Vaina – Ufska jest zwykła Daugava, długawa. 0 starozytności. Sprawne Naziole. I tyle.
    Nie wiem skąd te wnioski Robka.

    Polubienie

    • (…) Wiesz, moje zdanie na temat Bautów srobiło się złe. Oni wyglądają na jakieś nazi. Naziole ze żmudzi. Nie podzielam od jakiegoś czasu tej miłości z Robkiem. (…)

      Co?!! Że ja niby kocham Bałtów?!! A gdzie i jak, co?

      (…) Sprawne Naziole. I tyle. (…)

      NO cóż, jakbyś czytała uważniej, co pisuję, no to wiedziałabyś, że myślę w sumie podobni jak Ty w temacie tem.

      (…) Nie wiem skąd te wnioski Robka. (…)

      To, co zaproponował o I2, jako Pra-Słowiańskie nie jest głupie, a powiem więcej układa mi układankę językowa w większości. Jest kilka zadziorów w tym, np. I1, czy R1a, jako rzekomo „bałtyckie”, itp. Skąd „bałtyckie”, skoro I2 ma być Pra-Słowiańskie i tzw. PIE?

      Kto wcześniej „zbałtyzował” R1a, skoro I2 ma być Pra-Słowiańskie? I tu znów dochodzimy do sedna, czyli braku tzw. wspólnoty bałto-słowiańskiej, itd.

      Polubienie

    • Podobnie CK tworzyło z Rusinów – Ukraińców, ale to nie ma nic do rzeczy. Dlatego też w porównaniach wolę łotewski bo jest mniej sztuczno rekonstruowany od litewskiego. A wieś raczej tak, patrz norskie viki, greckie oiko czy sanskrycki wiśpat.

      Polubienie

    • „„Językiem urzędowym był słowiański język ruski (w tym języku spisano m.in. Statuty Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i prowadzono Metrykę Litewską) do 1696”
      Nie ma nic po żmudzku. Jak to interpretujesz?”

      Ale co należy interpretować? Białoruś w roku 2020 nadal mowi po słowiańsku i jest parokrotnie większa od Litwy.

      Gdyby Wiatycze i Radymicze nie zostali określeni przez Nestora jako plemiona lechickie, to by mi do głowy nie przyszło, by podejrzewać białych rusów o niesłowiańskie pochodzenie.
      Wiatycze i Radymicze są na wschód od dzisiejszej Białorusi, skąd Nestorowi z Kijowa na przełomie XI i XII przyszło do głowy, że są oni plemionami lechickimi?!

      A tymczasem mamy tez coś takiego”Proces slawizacji dorzecza Niemna w VI-XI wieku:

      Click to access Przeglad_Historyczny-r1973-t64-n1-s1-23.pdf

      Jak to w VI-XI wieku? Przecież jeśliby mieli ci Słowianie znad Prypeci slawizować tam do XI wieku? Przecież to są najbliższe Prypeci tereny, więc skoro aż po odległą o tysiące kilometrów Odrę i Łabę udawało się w 100% zeslawizować w VI wieku, to czemu dorzecze Niemna aż do XI wieku?! Przecież to jakiś absurd.

      A jednak nie absurd gdy weźmiemy na serio XI/XII wiecznego Nestora i skonstatujemy, że były one, czyli dorzecze Niemna i ciała Białoruś, slawizowane od zachodu.

      Ludzie nie biorą też pod uwagę slawizacji przez chrześcijaństwo słowiańskie, czyli słowiańskich mnichów z dzisiejszych Salonik w Grecji, którzy pzynieśli religię i specjalny alfabet oraz wmówiło im, że nie mają nic wspólnego z plemionami lechickimi (idę o zakład, że pamięć wspólnoty lechickiej przetrwała do X wieku) a z czasem, że plemiona lechickie są ich wrogami (wyzyskano konflikt z łacinnikami) oraz że są odszczepieńcami i zdrajcami Słowiańszczyzny.

      Mamy to do dzisiaj na Ukrainie, Białorusi i w Rosji.

      Polubienie

  24. Chodzi o to, że straciłam do nich zaufanie. I zupełnie już nie wiem co jest prawdą a co panbałtycką fanaberią.
    Pamiętaj, że w ich okolicy leży sobie Skalowia, w niemieckich zapisach również Sklawonia i co, Sklawoni byli Bałtami? Więc mi się pomieszało całkowicie.

    Może Sklawoni-Bałtowie gdzieś w południowej Europie zostali zesłowianizowani przez nadciągających z terenu Prypeci Słowian właściwych? (Których etnonimu nie znamy – Goci?)

    Co do podobieństwa etnonimów jak Rusie, Porusie, Prusie to nie musi o niczym świadczyć. Tak jak Litwa i Liwonia. Podobieństwo etnonimów wysokie ale żadne etniczne jak to między Bautami a UFami.

    Znalazłam parę zdan z obecnie wymarłych języków nazwanych naukowo zachodniobałtyckimi.
    Np.
    Beigeite beygeyte peckolle („Run, run, devils!”)
    (piekło po łotewsku to elle. Nawet nie dokładnie pożyczyli od Germanów hell, a ich kolesie z Litwy mają słowo pragaras wyjęte z jednej beczki z estońskim põrgu. Chociaż podoba mi się to słowo jako że prochy są efektem piekła)
    Ocho moy myle schwante panicke – also recorded as O hoho Moi mile swente Pannike, O ho hu Mey mile swenthe paniko, O mues miles schwante Panick („Oh my dear holy fire!”)
    (Mój miły święty ogniu? Ja bym myślała że mój miły święty paniczyku.)

    thoneaw labonache thewelyse You are no longer a good little comrade
    (tu widzę ulabionego towarzysza. Oczywiście znacznie pokręcone)

    Eg koyte poyte
    nykoyte pênega doyte
    if you want to drink
    (but) do not want to give a penny!

    Popatrz, nie ma penegasa. Co z koncówkami „starożytnych” Bałtów?
    Ula hula nanagula. Ładnie rymowali.

    A jak bym powiedziała do ciebie

    Jak ohojta pojta
    Ni ohojta pênedza dojta.

    To tez bym była zachodnią Bałtką?

    Polubienie

    • Hahahaha… Super, że to drazysz! Ja słyszałem, że faktycznie tzw. Litwini, to tzw Żmudzini. Rumuni tez mieli inny język, ale w tzw. 19w. jezuici i im podobni zrobili czystki w j. rumuńskim, tak żeby usunąć „nierzymskie” naleciałości, przypadkiem słowiańskie…

      Polubienie

      • Pisałam do ciebie jak sobie spolszczyłam Mindaugasa? wg schematu Daug(ava) = Dźwin(a) – „as“, więc nie Wiedźmin od wiedźmy ale jak z gry Miedźwin. Międźwin od miedźwy.
        Mamy rzeczkę Miedźwinkę czy Miedwinkę. Na Pyrzycach.

        Tam przypadkiem znalazłam miejsce pochodzenia Ruryka.
        „Rurzyca – wieś w województwie zachodniopomorskim,”

        Polubienie

          • A co o Miedźwinie? Nie podoba ci się? Bo nic nie napisałeś.

            Jest przypadkiem podobne słowo “The Midewiwin also spelled Midewin and Medewiwin is a secretive religion of some of the indigenous peoples of the Maritimes, New England and Great Lakes regions in North America.”

            Jest też “In shamanistic tradition, manitous (or manidoog, or manidoowag)”.

            I mamy in Northeastern North America. “Seventy-three percent of the populations analyzed exhibited haplogroup R, which in which ranges in frequency from 4% to 88%”. Może to nie całkiem przypadkowe podobienstwa?

            Polubienie

              • Prawda, że fantastyczne.

                Już Amerindian poruszaliśmy i nic z tego nie ustaliliśmy. Wiem.
                Więc nie drążąc a jedynie przypominając ci o autosomalnym amerindian w mezolitycznej Europie (jak się pokazały neolityczne autosomy to ustalono mass migration rolników z Anatolii, jak jakiś stepowców z Kaukazu to mass migration z Jamna, a o Amerindian nic) dodam podobieństwa kulturowe czyli kurhaniki.
                Ten element zapewne też uznasz za przypadkową zbieżność? Czy inaczej to wytłumaczysz?
                Tak czy srak trochę mało jest danych z wydawałoby się terenów nie całkiem 3 świata, trochę mało dna. I jakby nie dobadane.

                Ale pomysł na Miedźwina czyli może i Wiedźmina od miedzi sam się nasuwa.
                S, a jak jest z toponimami kończącymi się –awa? Są słowiańskie czy nie?
                Głównie przypisuje się im bałtyckość chyba.

                “Why would people select against what is widely perceived to be a ‘superior’ raw material – metal – and revert back to a seemingly ‘inferior’ one – stone? Yet, by 3000 B.P., Late Archaic foraging societies of the North American Upper Great Lakes transitioned away from the utilitarian copper tools they had been using for millennia.”

                A wiesz, że w tych kurhanach szkielety są nieco duże? 9 stóp.
                Czy mamy jakieś opisy Mindaugasa? Czy to bałtycka tajemnica?

                S, czy ty jakoś łączysz to wszystko?
                Wiesz dobrze, że ja najbardziej lubię porównywanie etnonimów czy jakiś tam słów w ogóle. I jak dotąd nie za bardzo brałam Bałtów pod uwagę. Raczej Czerkiesów ze względu na relację ze słowem Cherokees.

                Polubienie

                • (…) S, a jak jest z toponimami kończącymi się –awa? Są słowiańskie czy nie? Głównie przypisuje się im bałtyckość chyba. (…)

                  Raczej niby dacko-trackie, ale to mi zwyczajnie pachnie coś tam+ DaWa+Nie…

                  (…) S, czy ty jakoś łączysz to wszystko? Wiesz dobrze, że ja najbardziej lubię porównywanie etnonimów czy jakiś tam słów w ogóle. (…)

                  A bo ja wiem? Etnonimów nie robię, patrz wyjątek Praha / Praga. W następnym wpisie będzie kolejny, też czeski.

                  Polubienie

                • Więc to dackotrackie ludy nazwały Dźwinę/Vainę Daugawą?
                  A nie Bałtowie?
                  To może Livowie nie byli wcale UF jak nam to przedstawiają a DT?
                  Bo to liwskie ziemie zajęli łotysze. Jak myślisz?

                  A oudava (dzisiaj znana jako Ottawa) to też etnonim DT?

                  Jeśli chodzi o Amerindian to ciekawa jestem na kogo stawiasz? Kto im dał technologię metalową? Kto tym nadzorował? Kto zbudował im kurhany? Dlaczego po epizodzie nad Doleżą aborygeni wrócili do narzędzi kamiennych?

                  Polubienie

                • (…) Jeśli chodzi o Amerindian to ciekawa jestem na kogo stawiasz? Kto im dał technologię metalową? Kto tym nadzorował? Kto zbudował im kurhany? Dlaczego po epizodzie nad Doleżą aborygeni wrócili do narzędzi kamiennych? (…)

                  Nie pomieszałaś tego i owego?

                  Polubienie

      • „Scoala Ardeleana” czyli Szkoła Siedmiogrodzka i Greko-Katolicy a nie „jezuici”. Aleksander Cihac zaliczył rumuński do języków słowiańskich.

        Polubienie

  25. Moje wątpliwości to adna. GAC jest mieszanką łowców z EEF a CWC nad Bałtykiem to czysty tzw step – yamna. Wyglądają na zupełnie różne.

    Natomiast język słowianski i bałtycki podobno łączy pokrewieństwo. A przynajmniej są w jednej rodzinie językowej.

    To nie jest tak, że czysto stepowe próbki „bałtyckie” wyemigrowały do kraju Ariów ewoluując do Z93 i przynosząc parabałtycki język aryjski do Azji. Bo MLBA ma domieszkę EEF/WHG, więc podoba nam się czy nie, byli zmieszani. Więc za logiką Robka (GAC = Słowianie) musieli być zeslawizowani. Więc i ich język powinien przypominać słowianski a nie język czystych stepowców przed domieszką.

    Może gdybym znała kłady R1a z nad Bałtyku z CWC to inaczej bym to interpretowała. Może już wtedy były Z92? A może „czysty bałtycki stepowiec” w ogóle nie łapał się na M417?

    GAC jeśli nawet był bardziej ekonomicznie pasterski to jednak wywodził się z poprzednich kultur neolitycznych. Więc nie tylko język WHG bo coś z terminów EEF musieli zapożyczyć.

    Polubienie

    • No właśnie z tym EEF wg Roberta on nic z tego nie wziął, o ile to dobre rozumiem. Zresztą pierwsi rolnicy na Bałkanach byli zdominowani liczebnie przez Łowców, patrz żywność i wzrost, itp.

      Polubienie

  26. Namiar na Rurzyca – https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurzyca
    Przyjęło się wśród lingwistów nazwy miejscowości wywodzić od ksyw rycerzy, kupców czy cholera wie jakich innych właścicieli – założycieli.
    Więc logika po mojej stronie, co?
    Od kogo Rurzyca? Od Ruryca.

    A co ci przeszkadza N1c? Była grupa Vikingów nie związana z Duńczykami, ale właśnie mieli komponent polski z mniejszym udziałem genów fińskich.
    Poza tym to musi być bardzo stare w Europie skoro mówią na łitwie niezmienionym CWC językiem.

    Robas,
    „Gdyby Wiatycze i Radymicze nie zostali określeni przez Nestora jako plemiona lechickie, to by mi do głowy nie przyszło, by podejrzewać białych rusów o niesłowiańskie pochodzenie.”

    To wg ciebie Rusowie (biali czy inni) to nie Słowianie?

    S, A ja zrozumiałam, ze Robek uważa, że język GAC (czyli słowianski) powstał właśnie przez komponent EEF czyli udział rolników.
    I tam gdzie tego zabrakło był bałtycki.
    Więc komponent EEF jakoś musiał zmienić język.

    Tyle tylko, ze tu nie pasuje CWC bałtyckie na prabałtycki a raczej mezolit WHG ze wsch Bałtyku, bo podobny komponent WHG stał się właśnie udziałowcem w GAC. I wg Robka w GAC mówiono jakimś dialektem korupcją języka WHG.

    Polubienie

    • „To wg ciebie Rusowie (biali czy inni) to nie Słowianie?

      S, A ja zrozumiałam, ze Robek uważa, że język GAC (czyli słowianski) powstał właśnie przez komponent EEF czyli udział rolników.
      I tam gdzie tego zabrakło był bałtycki.
      Więc komponent EEF jakoś musiał zmienić język.

      Tyle tylko, ze tu nie pasuje CWC bałtyckie na prabałtycki a raczej mezolit WHG ze wsch Bałtyku, bo podobny komponent WHG stał się właśnie udziałowcem w GAC. I wg Robka w GAC mówiono jakimś dialektem korupcją języka WHG.”

      Tak, Białorusy to są zeslawizowani Bałtowie, Żmudzini to Bałtowie którzy nie zostali zeslawizowani.

      Język GAC, uważam za język słowiański pochodzący od komponentu WHG (czyli głownie I2a) bez udziału EEF, gdyż EEF na północ od Karpat był już za słaby by zmienić język.

      Żmudzini, pierwotnie również musieli być podobni do GAC, mogli mówić tym samym i podobnym językiem, ale wraz z nadejściem R1a (CWC) zostali zbaltyzowani i takimi są do dzisiaj.

      To R1a które weszło na tereny GAC (a obejmowała ona obszar plemion zachodniosłowiańskich jakie definijemy dzisiaj) zostało zeslawizowane.

      GAC nie obejmowało BIałorusi, więc slawizacja musiała mieć miejsce później, a przede wszystkim z zachodu…

      I tutaj bardzo ładnie wpisują się plemiona lechickie Radymiczy i Wiatyczy, gdzie Wiatycze są na wschodniej granicy zasięgi Słowiańszczyzny.

      Którzy kronikarze odrózniali Rusów od Słowian? Czy to nie arabscy opisujący wschodnich Słowian od strony m.Kaspijskiego?

      Cytat z wiki o Rusach:

      {Teoria mieszana[

      Niektórzy, jak Lew Gumilow, uznają ich za lud zamieszkujący Ruś przed ekspansją Słowian, który w wiekach VII – IX walczył o dominację nad nimi i ostatecznie zwyciężył.

      Inna teoria głosi, że Słowianie żyli razem z ludnością skandynawską (germańską i ugrofińską), tworząc kilka państewek, które później zjednoczył Ruryk (którego narodowości nie znamy). Teoria ta odpowiadałaby opisowi wydarzeń z Latopisu ruskiego Nestora.

      Ruryk zakończył walki pomiędzy małymi państewkami dzięki drużynie wareskiej sprowadzonej ze Szwecji.

      Nazwa „Rusini” według tej teorii jest pochodzenia ugrofińskiego i oznacza „mieszkańców znad brzegu”, „pob