• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Genetic composition of Proto-Uralic speakers?

We might keep it with "Mari-associated drift" or something similar, instead of ancestry. You can get a list of Siberian Uralic by subtracting specific populations, e. g.:

Code: 
Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Lithuanian_PZ:LTG-1099
B: Western_Arctic:Mari08
C: ↴
0.08164449    Mari
0.03700537    Chuvash
0.02931259    Khanty_o2
0.02896740    Mansi
0.02739442    Khanty
0.02000453    Nenets_Tundra
0.01776438    Nenets_Forest
0.01571217    Nenets
0.01155988    Komi_B
0.00992766    Selkup
0.00883201    Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye
0.00686074    Nganasan
0.00614892    Nganasan_o
0.00458274    Udmurt
0.00385932    Ket
0.00290955    Ket_o2
0.00140583    Khanty_o1

It's also possible to tell from PCA that Nganassans are shifted towards West Eurasia/ANE, relative to other East Asian populations and especially Evens.

By the way, I don't think there is any genuine "Srubnaya" ancestry in Tundra Yukagirs. The European admixture in Forest Yukagirs is obviously very recent.
 
By the way, I don't think there is any genuine "Srubnaya" ancestry in Tundra Yukagirs. The European admixture in Forest Yukagirs is obviously very recent.
Click to expand...

Well yes, qpAdm only gives back what is put in... All these fine genetic methods are still just interpretations of manyth degree from the real, concrete nucleotids. Hopefully more suitable ancient samples will appear, and the models develop toward greater accuracy and reliability.
 
traveller said:
Note that Nganasans have also been identified as the most representative of the “Uralic” component in the DNA of Uralic people, which is also a strong distinguishing factor. This may be due to the fact that they are simply the least admixed people of the Uralic groups, having been pushed northward by other groups instead of staying put and mixing.

There is a good summary of the evolution of theories on Wikipedia: Proto-Uralic homeland.

In general, there are two factors we need to consider:

  • The age of of the Proto-Uralic language, being estimated as 4k-9k ybp;
  • Our knowledge of migration/admixture times and directions.

Basically, we have a range of locations west, east and south of the Ural mountains.

So, as to the genetic composition, one just needs to backtrack the admixture events in those areas since about 9k ybp :)

​

Click to expand...
Have you read this paper of Kozincev/Kozintsev about proto-IE and proto-Utalic? It would change the persepective, and seems placing the pre-proto-Uralic more in south.

 
MOESAN said:
Have you read this paper of Kozincev/Kozintsev about proto-IE and proto-Utalic? It would change the persepective, and seems placing the pre-proto-Uralic more in south.

Click to expand...
He is basing his suggestion on a common Indo-Uralic language, not sure if that idea has much support these days. Also all these ideas of languages being related because of 1-2 similar words out of 50 are not a strong argument in my mind.

The Kelteminar culture he refers to was apparently a sedentary culture building houses and making pottery. Are there examples of any such cultures turning to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

The bulk of that paper is on PIE origins though, which generally appears much more in line with the other ideas being floated recently. But this is not the topic for that.
 
traveller said:
He is basing his suggestion on a common Indo-Uralic language, not sure if that idea has much support these days. Also all these ideas of languages being related because of 1-2 similar words out of 50 are not a strong argument in my mind.
Click to expand...

Indeed. When one moves from intra-family comparison to inter-family comparison, the loosening of criteria occurs automatically. This leads to unreliability of the method: several contradicting results can be achieved with the very same method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top