Genetic study The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[norbert]

concerning the term 'kurgan', it would be interesting to know if other words exist (synonyms) in Slavic languages for this kind of artificial mounds; I suppose an IE root *k-r-g or something close existed for this kind of things (maybe circular mounds with stones circles?) - in breton we have 'krug', 'krugell' = tumulus

I'd say the most interesting synonym would be the Slavic word hum which means hill or mound. From what I've discovered, they use the word humka for grave mounds but some Slavic languages use completely different words like nasip in Ukrainian and Bulgarian or kopiec in Polish. However, it should be noted that hum comes from Germanic *hulma (Old English: holm) meaning hill or mound. Its PIE root is reconstructed as *kelH which could mean something like "to rise."

Kurgan is a borrowing from an unidentified Turkic language dating back to the early Middle Ages. It would have described a kind of fortress rather than grave mounds. So there's clearly no relation to PIE nor do I think that Breton krug could have anything to do with kurgan. Fortunately a more scientific term (tumuli) has been introduced to cast off the confusion and unnecessary speculation about a rather trivial matter which can easily be solved.

 

[norbert]

Of course you know, not an international team of over 80 language specialists who strongly believe Indo-European languages originated in the south of the Caucasus and the West Asia: https://www.mpg.de/20666229/0725-evan-origin-of-the-indo-european-languages-150495-x

A hybrid hypothesis is usually the approach of dishonest cowards who don't want to offend anyone, so let's be "inclusive" and sacrifice scientific profoundness instead. This is happening in physics, too. Why having to choose between A or B when both can be true? Problem solved. Another such "hybrid hypothesis" is the claim that Western Steppe Herders were made up of EHGs and CHGs in equal proportions. Find a middle ground, make everyone happy. What you quote here is old news and has not garnered any substantial support with good reasons. Alone the claim that PIE could be as old as 8100 years is preposterous.

Twittering birdie "Ugra" seems to refer to this, still not peer-reviewed, paper: https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(24)02188-6

It's a rather short paper for such large claims, based on one single sample ("Nalchik man").

 

[MOESAN]

I'd say the most interesting synonym would be the Slavic word hum which means hill or mound. From what I've discovered, they use the word humka for grave mounds but some Slavic languages use completely different words like nasip in Ukrainian and Bulgarian or kopiec in Polish. However, it should be noted that hum comes from Germanic *hulma (Old English: holm) meaning hill or mound. Its PIE root is reconstructed as *kelH which could mean something like "to rise."

Kurgan is a borrowing from an unidentified Turkic language dating back to the early Middle Ages. It would have described a kind of fortress rather than grave mounds. So there's clearly no relation to PIE nor do I think that Breton krug could have anything to do with kurgan. Fortunately a more scientific term (tumuli) has been introduced to cast off the confusion and unnecessary speculation about a rather trivial matter which can easily be solved.

You are speaking of scientific term, but before they acquire some specification, words are picked among ordinary vocabulary except when they are forged using archaical forms of other languages as is made with Latin and ancient Greek. 'tumuli' was not an universal scientific term at the tumuli times! Not to say my light hypothesis (rather a "thought") is valuable. I thought only into the lot of IE roots with *k°l-, *kl°-, *k°r- or *kr°- which refer to something round, bent or circular... Sure this lateral question is not the very matter of this thread.

 

[Hawk]

Isn't linguistic facts in favor of EHG? PIE must have been nearby Uralic somewhere based on close prehistoric word borrowings.

 

[Moja]

Isn't linguistic facts in favor of EHG? PIE must have been nearby Uralic somewhere based on close prehistoric word borrowings.

No, Proto-Uralic was agglutinative, PIE was closer to Proto-Semitic which also a fusional language.

 

[Anfänger]

Isn't linguistic facts in favor of EHG? PIE must have been nearby Uralic somewhere based on close prehistoric word borrowings.

Uralic was somewhere in Siberia when PIE was spoken, just saying.

 

[Hawk]

No, Proto-Uralic was agglutinative, PIE was closer to Proto-Semitic which also a fusional language.

Doesn't work like that. Whatever is ancestor to Uralic and ancestor of PIE lived nearby eachother.

Proto-Semitic on initial stage was likely spoken in South Levant by some E-M34/E-M78 tribe.

 

[Anfänger]

Doesn't work like that. Whatever is ancestor to Uralic and ancestor of PIE lived nearby eachother.

Proto-Semitic on initial stage was likely spoken in South Levant by some E-M34/E-M78 tribe.

You’re points about Uralic and its relationship to PIE isn’t supported by any archaeogenetic evidence. PIE wasn’t nowhere close to Uralic when it comes to genetic evidence. It just shows how outdated linguistic 'facts' from before the aDNA revolution are.

 

[Hawk]

You’re points about Uralic and its relationship to PIE isn’t supported by any archaeogenetic evidence. PIE wasn’t nowhere close to Uralic when it comes to genetic evidence. It just shows how outdated linguistic 'facts' from before the aDNA revolution are.

Dude, Proto-Uralic and pre PIE have shared vocabulary, flora and fauna supports this with Proto-Uralics living in a forested environment and PIE in a more open steppe environment, they should have lived just north of them. In my opinion there is no need for further dilemma and controversies.

The Trypillian farmers on their west, Uralic in their North and many Proto-Caucasus tribes to their south. It just fits like a hot knife in a butter.

 

[Anfänger]

Dude, Proto-Uralic and pre PIE have shared vocabulary, flora and fauna supports this with Proto-Uralics living in a forested environment and PIE in a more open steppe environment, they should have lived just north of them. In my opinion there is no need for further dilemma and controversies.

The Trypillian farmers on their west, Uralic in their North and many Proto-Caucasus tribes to their south. It just fits like a hot knife in a butter.

Dude, like I said you can throw those linguistic arguments in the bin, it’s not like we’re still in 2000s concerning research in this field and are you seriously denying Y-haplogroup N and its relationship to Uralic speakers? There is literally not one argument for a homeland north of the PC steppe for Uralic. Everything north of the PC steppe was massacred when Fatyanovo arrived in the region.

 

[Hawk]

Dude, like I said you can throw those linguistic arguments in the bin, it’s not like we’re still in 2000s concerning research in this field and are you seriously denying Y-haplogroup N and its relationship to Uralic speakers? There is literally not one argument for a homeland north of the PC steppe for Uralic. Everything north of the PC steppe was massacred when Fatyanovo arrived in the region.

There is nothing 2000s about it lol. Ancestors of Uralic lived more North to ancestors of PIE. It's a common knowledge.

Whatever scenario you want to cook, doesn't work.

 

[Anfänger]

Zero arguments but a lot of personal attacks. Case closed.

 

[Hawk]

Pontic-Caspian steppe scretched up north to Uralic Mountains where the contact zone between PIE and their cousins had contact with Uralics. This is well attested. Nothing personal here.

 

[norbert]

PIE and proto-Uralic did not emerge in close proximity. However, it seems like proto-Uralic was in close contact with proto-Indo-Iranian which makes sense considering the location of the Sintashta culture. But PIE and proto-Uralic were too far apart.

What is even less logical is that PIE would have been closer to proto-Semitic. The dissimilarities are such as if both languages were from different planets. I agree that proto-Semitic emerged in the Southern Levant with some E subclades. E-M34 is a good candidate to be among them but I would assume that the story is much more complicated. Now I'm aware of my ignorance about a great many things but what puzzles me is how haplogroups are identified and assigned. How come that CF, i.e. F diversified into so many macro- and micro haplogroups but D and E didn't? This makes the identification of proto-Semitic with a specific haplogroup rather difficult. You might argue that biology doesn't work in accordance with our expectations and sense of order but it was a particular hint that alerted me to this question. For years there was haplogroup F3 until it was suddenly renamed to H2.

 

[Hawk]

PIE and proto-Uralic did not emerge in close proximity. However, it seems like proto-Uralic was in close contact with proto-Indo-Iranian which makes sense considering the location of the Sintashta culture. But PIE and proto-Uralic were too far apart.

What is even less logical is that PIE would have been closer to proto-Semitic. The dissimilarities are such as if both languages were from different planets. I agree that proto-Semitic emerged in the Southern Levant with some E subclades. E-M34 is a good candidate to be among them but I would assume that the story is much more complicated. Now I'm aware of my ignorance about a great many things but what puzzles me is how haplogroups are identified and assigned. How come that CF, i.e. F diversified into so many macro- and micro haplogroups but D and E didn't? This makes the identification of proto-Semitic with a specific haplogroup rather difficult. You might argue that biology doesn't work in accordance with our expectations and sense of order but it was a particular hint that alerted me to this question. For years there was haplogroup F3 until it was suddenly renamed to H2.

The argument is that whatever were the ancestors of Uralics lived north of PIE people, whether they shared borders directly or through PIE cousin tribes they share some vocabularies which makes linguists believe that they might not have lived far from each other. Either side of Uralic mountains is the candidate of the origin of this linguistic group(Proto-Uralics). Now, I am not an expert on this, but blatantly rejecting this assumption without quoting arguments, just on the fly is not a good argument.

As for Proto-Semitic, Proto Afro-Asiatic is a way older language family than other language families, it's hypothesized to be between 10-15k old language family. Considering that most family branches are mostly presented by various Y-DNA E-M35 i suppose they were the originators of the language with Proto-Semitic being a West-Asian offshoot.

 

[norbert]

The argument is that whatever were the ancestors of Uralics lived north of PIE people, whether they shared borders directly or through PIE cousin tribes they share some vocabularies which makes linguists believe that they might not have lived far from each other. Either side of Uralic mountains is the candidate of the origin of this linguistic group(Proto-Uralics). Now, I am not an expert on this, but blatantly rejecting this assumption without quoting arguments, just on the fly is not a good argument.

As for Proto-Semitic, Proto Afro-Asiatic is a way older language family than other language families, it's hypothesized to be between 10-15k old language family. Considering that most family branches are mostly presented by various Y-DNA E-M35 i suppose they were the originators of the language with Proto-Semitic being a West-Asian offshoot.

Well, it's possible that some PIE tribes on the easternmost fringe of the PIE urheimat came in contact with proto-Uralic speaking groups but it's questionable that PIEs reached that far to the east. That expansion happened after PIE was disintegrating into various sub-branches. When talking about the early developmental phase of IE and Uralic, it is widely recognised that the contacts were mainly between Uralic (especially proto-Finno-Ugric) and proto-Indo-Iranian.

Speaking of Afro-Asiatic, I'm not qualified to claim it's disputed, but the branches of that proposed language family are so far apart, some people questions its validity. Especially Omotic is disputed as belonging to Afro-Asiatic. It's the huge distance between the branches in terms of vocabulary and syntax that led many scholars in that field to conclude that proto-A-A may be up to 15.000 years old. I find that claim to be very bold. What if the branches aren't related as postulated? Unlike with PIE for example, it remains impossible to reconstruct proto-A-A and the best excuse they have is to say "it's too old." If that is a credible approach, why not date PIE back to EHGs? That would be a bold claim, too. But why are they doing it in the case of Afro-Asiatic? Another problem with the Afro-Asiatic studies is the heavy Semitic bias.

 

[Jaska]

You’re points about Uralic and its relationship to PIE isn’t supported by any archaeogenetic evidence. PIE wasn’t nowhere close to Uralic when it comes to genetic evidence. It just shows how outdated linguistic 'facts' from before the aDNA revolution are.

Anfänger, we do not even know the genetic composition (either autosomally or uniparentally) of Proto-Uralic speaking population. To know that, we should find ancient DNA from the right place and the right time. And to define the right place and the right time, we should accept the results of historical linguistics.

Unfortunately many people are unaware of or even intentionally ignore this kind of scientific procedure. Instead, they just decide that Proto-Uralic was associated with the Yakutia ancestry or with the paternal haplogroup N. In reality, there is no compelling evidence supporting any of these associations. Sure, we know that the Yakutia ancestry and the haplogroup N have spread from Siberia to Europe (that is: over the Ural Mountains) during the recent millennia. But we do not know, if they spread (1) earlier, (2) simultaneously, or (3) later than the Uralic language(s). We do not know if they spread via the same route than the Uralic language.

Moreover, neither genetic phenomenon is restricted to the Uralic speakers, but both of them are also found among speakers of many other language families. Uralic speaking populations form a continuum, in which the easternmost populations have more Siberian ancestry and less European ancestry, while the westernmost populations have less Siberian ancestry and more European ancestry. There is no way how we could reliably see the original genetic composition from the modern populations. Even if these ancestries would have remained the same for several millennia, the genetic composition would depend fully on the original homeland of Proto-Uralic. This means that we come back to the results of historical linguistics: if the homeland was in the west, the genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers would be very different from the situation in which the homeland was in the east.

And finally, we cannot see language from DNA or material culture, because language is not inherited in DNA or material culture. We cannot just pick a random genetic or archaeological phenomenon (like the Yakutia ancestry or the Seima-Turbino Network) and claim that we can trace the Uralic language(s) from these. We cannot, it is methodologically utterly impossible.

There is no way to see from genetic or archaeological record, if these phenomena spread together with the Uralic language (1) the whole of their extent, (2) a portion of their extent, or (3) not at all. The only scientific method is that we accept the linguistic results, and then we look if there is a genetic or archaeological match concerning time, place, and the direction of expansion. There might be, but just as well there might not be any clear, credible match.

That said, it is of course possible that there was some Yakutia ancestry and some subhaplogroups of N in and among the speakers of Proto-Uralic. This is quite likely even, taken the rough temporal and spatial correlation between these phenomena. But we cannot claim that we know it, because we cannot know it. The best-argumented location for Late Proto-Uralic (but not for very distant Pre-Proto-Uralic, which is a different question) is in the Central Ural Region (see the link), and we do not yet have any ancient DNA results from the right place at the right time. That is the reason why we cannot claim that we know the genetic composition of the Proto-Uralic speaking population.

https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910

 

[Anfänger]

Where do you place the Proto-Uralic homeland? You need an alternative model. The main theories were west of the Urals in most cases in the Volosovo Culture and east of the Urals somewhere in Siberia. Genetics favors strongly the latter. There is simply no place for Volosovo to be the Uralic homeland because we know that Fatyanovo replaced it without mixing.

Furthermore, I don't see any european ancestry in populations like the Nganasan. I don't argue about linguistic points like grammar and vocabulary because most of the time it has been proven wrong. It can only provide very basic models.

 

[Jaska]

Where do you place the Proto-Uralic homeland? You need an alternative model. The main theories were west of the Urals in most cases in the Volosovo Culture and east of the Urals somewhere in Siberia. Genetics favors strongly the latter. There is simply no place for Volosovo to be the Uralic homeland because we know that Fatyanovo replaced it without mixing.

Furthermore, I don't see any european ancestry in populations like the Nganasan. I don't argue about linguistic points like grammar and vocabulary because most of the time it has been proven wrong. It can only provide very basic models.

1. In the Central Ural Region, please read the linked article.

2. Genetics can agree with many different homelands, but genetics cannot tell which is the correct one - only linguistics can tell about language. Genetics does not even have methods for reaching language. You cannot see language from DNA, because language is not inherited in DNA.

3. Nganasans are an aberration. Proto-Samoyedic was spoken in the Sayan Region, and Nganasans differ from all the other Samoyedic populations and resemble Dolgans and Tundra Yukaghirs (see Zeng et al. 2023). They have assimilated the local population heavily, when the Samoyedic language spread to the Taimyr Peninsula. There are European ancestries in all the other Samoyedic populations.

There is zero possibility that Nganasans could represent the Proto-Uralic population, because (1) first Proto-Uralic spread from Central Ural Region to South Siberia, and (2) later Proto-Samoyed spread from South Siberia to the north. During every step the genetic composition of the language carriers has changed.

4. Valid and relevant linguistic arguments are not proven wrong - only invalid and irrelevant linguistic arguments are. Genetic or archaeological results can never prove wrong linguistic arguments, just like linguistic results can never prove wrong genetic or archaeological arguments. Please read the linked article.

 

[Anfänger]

1. In the Central Ural Region, please read the linked article.

2. Genetics can agree with many different homelands, but genetics cannot tell which is the correct one - only linguistics can tell about language. Genetics does not even have methods for reaching language. You cannot see language from DNA, because language is not inherited in DNA.

3. Nganasans are an aberration. Proto-Samoyedic was spoken in the Sayan Region, and Nganasans differ from all the other Samoyedic populations and resemble Dolgans and Tundra Yukaghirs (see Zeng et al. 2023). They have assimilated the local population heavily, when the Samoyedic language spread to the Taimyr Peninsula. There are European ancestries in all the other Samoyedic populations.

There is zero possibility that Nganasans could represent the Proto-Uralic population, because (1) first Proto-Uralic spread from Central Ural Region to South Siberia, and (2) later Proto-Samoyed spread from South Siberia to the north. During every step the genetic composition of the language carriers has changed.

4. Valid and relevant linguistic arguments are not proven wrong - only invalid and irrelevant linguistic arguments are. Genetic or archaeological results can never prove wrong linguistic arguments, just like linguistic results can never prove wrong genetic or archaeological arguments. Please read the linked article.

Its 90 pages but I give it a try. EDIT: I see now that it starts with 44. Did you write the article Jaska?