There's a debate, and some people take things personally because they have their favorite archaeological culture, so let's try to be pragmatic here. If Lazaridis, the Mule, and his Indo-Anatolian hypothesis is correct, perhaps Sredny Stog is the best candidate? Because it could be the ancestral Usatovo culture and its variations, even following the Balkan route to reach Anatolia, with the Istanbul kurgans of 3300 BC. Things get more complicated now, as there's debate about whether or not the CWC is descended from the Yamnaya. In any case, the Yamnaya contributed to the Balkans and parts of the Pontic steppe until it was absorbed, and the CWC to the rest of Europe and consequently to Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and even western China, mediated by the Steppe_MLBA cultures. Anyway, who would be the PIE? There's no archaeological consensus.but I believe the dates here are a key factor, whether people are from Lazaridis' wing or not, there is at least agreement that "Archaic PIE" is no older than 3300 BC, at least that's what several updated linguistic models show
>>18052821And If I'm correct, this is the date of the steppe cultures that have "Indo-European" aspects: (kurgans, artifacts, pots, body positioning patterns, etc)Eastern European archeology of the Steppe, the following Steppe-Anatolian scale of cultures of the Eneolithic-Bronze Age was adopted, and another there not.period_cultures.EEn - Sredniy Stog, Khvalynsk.MEn - Dereivka.MLEn - Konstantinovka.LEn - Repin, Pivicha.EBA - Yamnaya.MBA - Catacomb, Poltavka, Volsk-Lbishche.MLBA - Babino, Abashevo, Sintashta, .Petrovka, Potapovka, Lola, Voronezh, Krivoluk.LBA - Andronovo (Alakul / Fedorovo), Srubnaya.FBA (/ EIA) - Andronovo Eastern European archeology of the Steppe, the following Steppe-Anatolian scale of cultures of the Eneolithic-Bronze Age was adopted, and another there not.
>>18052822>>18052821I don't know who PIE is, but SS, unlike what was sold out there, is not as explanatory and defining as a link between the steppe, it is actually a dead end. 4000 BC is very old
>>18052821DNA suggests Yamnaya people descended from one small Sredny Stog clan, who apparently cracked the code of reliable carts/wagons.>>18052825>its fake cause>le timeGood, anon, very good
>>18052822Eastern Hunter Gatherer of the Dnieper-Donets Culture is the ancestral to the Sredny Stog Proto-Indo-Europeans. These people were massively built and their women were gigamommy GFThey buried their dead in pits (sometimes just the head!), accompanied by tools and covered them in ochre. Aryan Culture in its infancy
>>18052821.... redundancy of terms, if something is already "proto"; what is the semantic need to use "archaic proto", "late proto" is too redundant, that's why we don't get anywhere
>>18052821ukraine, specifically the south where the 5% central asian dna tatars live, whose hair is blond and eyes are blue. they are the closest to living like the steppeniggas as the pie were.
>>18052821>f Lazaridis, the Mule, and his Indo-Anatolian hypothesis is correct, perhaps Sredny StogNo. If Lazardis is correct then that pushes what we know as PIE(reconstructed language) into some place in Caucasus or maybe even Zagros where some kind of mountain valley community splits between the Anatolian and IE group and frankly speaking I'm certain you just can't have certainty about which one of them is the one.
>>18052821>If Lazaridis, the Mule, and his Indo-Anatolian hypothesis is correct,But it isn't. PIE seems to be from north of the Black Sea, rather than anything "anatolian". There are also no "Anatolian" objects or other material culture to the far North and West. It's just plain easier to take cares East and West on the Steppe than North and South, as well. How would you get carts over the Caucasus mountains anyway?
>>18052821We can be autistic and try to pin point one exact tribe from forest-steppe/Pontic steppe or just say that it's propably all the tribes in this area, having similar life style and economic niche. I'm frankly pretty tired with all these archeological "cultures", which don't really deliminate biological tribes aka people at all. There never was Yamnay PEOPLE, or SS PEOPLE. They saw themselves in some completely different way than we labeling them based in pottery or some shit like that. I doub't there was no other language present in area than PIE, broadly understanding. Even if some of those would be classified as para-PIE in modern historical linguistics it would still have been just a dialect of same fucking PIE in those days.
>>18052821Not an Arap.
Not Araplar.
Allah knows it's not the I1/I2 conquered dark-skinned Shudras/Dalits.
>>18052821Sredny Stog
>>18053240>There never was Yamnay PEOPLE, or SS PEOPLERetard
>>18052821>>18052835>>18053240 Yamnaya were a genetically homogeneous subset/clan arising out of Ukraine’s Eneolithic Sredny Stog culture. Yamnaya = late PIE, and descends from Sredny Stog (early PIE). Corded Ware is more significant in spreading the languages. Some groups like the Greeks come straight from Yamnaya with no Corded Ware intermediary.
>>18052852It’s the term David Anthony uses. Early PIE is Sredny. The forerunners to that are pre-PIE. I guess you’re smarter than he is though!
>>18052837Indo-European expansion Not only is Ukraine’s Sredny Strog culture the origin, but one particular SS clan that arose c. 3,600 BC is - a few thousand individuals, maybe with one chief! The Heryos and their All-Father.
>>18053536Retard terms
>>18052955Those who favor Sredny Stog will point to the Balkans for Anatolian.
>>18052821The influence of the steppes in Europe already existed before the CWC migration. It began in the time of Sredniy Stog, when steppe traders covered the entire Carpathian-Balkan region, and later, when the Baden-Boleraz cultures emerged under the direct influence of the steppes
>>18053866I.ePie= SS
It probably is Yamnaya, excluding Anatolian.
>>18052821I don't know what's there to debate about. I2a and R1b are the main paternal lines of PIE. 55-70% their ancestry is EHG, the rest being CHG and ANF, mediated by women. Their culture is direct continuation of preceding pontic-caspian steppe cultures, primarily the eneolithic seredni stih culture of ukrainian EHGs. It's fucking over, and it's been over for many years.
>>18053981Not according to the new data
All of you except >>18054042 are Indian. Literally every single one holy shit.
>>18054120What's the new data again?
>>18052821LITHVANIAN
>>18052821PIE was a dialect continuum, and had other languages related to it with no living descendants. For example, Romance languages today descend from Latin, but there were other ancient Italic languages besides Latin that didn't make it. The same would have been true of PIE.Therefore, we are probably seeing PIE along with related cultures in the archaeological record. Yamnaya, Kurgan, Bell Beaker, etc. were all related and members of this early IE annd para-IE continuum.Samara is the oldest one we know of and represents the Pre-IE transition out of hunting and gathering. Cool stuff.
>>18054126? Retard>>18054128Basically, there were pre-Yamnaya steppe cultures, and the CWC itself does not come from Yamnaya, which could be PIE. PIE, which includes Anatolia, is SS, R1a appears in Usatovo, and we have steppe-related ancestry in female samples from Cucuteni-Trypillia. We have an area of western Sredni Stog that gravitated more to the west and an area of eastern Sredni Stog that was more in contact and absorbed more purely steppe Eneolithic peoples from the Volga region and the northern foothills of the Caucasus. We have Eneolithic samples from Eneolithic Ukraine that have more EEF than I6561.
>>18054137>SamaraNot even pastoralist
>>18054126Lol ok, accepted. Doesnt matter though the same error applies to I6561 like the Czech EBA samples for which you saw y26+ & y3+.. c>t standalone.. super unreliable.Y2 is -ve kek
>>18054143Sorry, Meant to>>18054138
>>18052821There are common elements and there was a common ancient source, but the important thing is that the religion of the ancient source was not at all primitive. I don't think it came from the Proto-Celto-Germanic warriors of the steppes, the Männerbünde or the Jungmannschaf, who wore David Anthony's wolfskin cloaks it come from Vinca, as Alinei thinks, or Tripolye, or LBK/TRB.
>>18054152>it come from Vinca, as Alinei thinks, or Tripolye, or LBK/TRB.????
>>18054152Low quality post
>>18054165>>18054158Your argument... is? Still waiting your replies
>>18054171You absolutely understand nothing about archaeology, that's a proven fact, you know nothing about archaeology. And in genetics, you understand absolutely nothing you are incapable of understanding or doing anything there. Therefore, you have shamefully never presented any archaeological or genetic arguments here. Everything you write is just your naked fantasies of an ignorant person, militant ignorance.
>>18054042That's why Indo-Uralic is like exposing vampires to sunshine on /his/. It's the final nail in their coffins because they will no longer be able to deny PIE = EHG cultural heritage.
>>18054042>>18054245nta, enlighten me, I'm beyond tired of hearing the usual anti-aryan shill trying to tell me their version of the story
>>18054250https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409354>The Indo-Uralic hypothesis states that the closest genetic relative of Indo-European is the Uralic language family, and that both derive from a common ancestor called Proto-Indo-Uralic. The book unravels the history of these hypotheses and scrutinizes the evidence for and against them.Get it on Library Genesis.
>>18054308>Get it on Library Genesis.how?
>>18054308Lunatic, we've already said it, if you want to explain your arguments, Russell Gmirkin, Aryans or whatever, make your own thread. We're talking about PIE here, not Uralics, which, surprisingly, genetics has already definitively killed any Indo-Uralic hypothesis, do your job
>>18054308>against themThere are so many that this hypothesis should be thrown into the trash can, anyway, off topic>>18054143both R1a and Z93 are Eastern European, which means R1a and Z93 in India are Eastern European
>>18054250It is believed that Proto-Indo-Uralic (PIU) and some stage of PIE had implosive stops. If this is true, then it begins to explain why the PIU hypothesis has had some difficulties historically. Former implosives can produce counterintuitive divergent outcomes that obscure obvious etymological connections.Example:>PIE *ɗ = PU *l>PIE *seɗ- ‘to sit’>PU *sälə- ‘to sit down’: Komi se̮l-,>PIE *meɗ- ‘to measure, think’>PU *mälə ‘mind’: PS *mielə, Finn. mieli, Komi mil̮Yes, that's correct. An implosive stop /ɗ/ can evolve into a liquid /l/. This sort of sound change would make it difficult to notice etymological connections with an intuition based on more common sound changes.>>18054375>genetics has already definitively killed any Indo-Uralic hypothesisComplete nonsense.
>>18054380Not off topic. This is the antidote to the southern arc. The final nail in the coffin.
>>18054384>>18054308interesting, I mean based on my understanding uralic-pie geographic convergence makes perfect sense, siberia and shit
>>18054384Not about "indo-uralic", please, get out>Complete nonsense.I'm not as arrogant as some, but I can demonstrate with genetics that it doesn't make sense, are you able to debate genetics?>>18054393Stop talking to yourself
>>18054498Take meds.
>>18054384>Proto-Indo-UralicNot a thing.You're clearly begging the question. The article you like and cite states that most proponents of a relationship between Indo-European and Uralian also support a relationship with other additional language families. That is, they don't support an 'Indo-Uralian' node within their broader hypothesis. PIE and PU are unrelated. This would mean that both proto-languages arose independently from nothing. This hypernihilistic stance, while common among linguists, is highly unlikely. This approach is quite popular among current Dutch scholars—Kortlandt, Kloekhorst Treating this as a consensus shows how you unfortunately favor this failed hypothesis and are not being objective. Your analyses lack applied logic, and I see many syllogisms here. This is based on a number of misunderstandings and false cognates that are borrowings, such as the false equivalence PIE *wed- 'water' => PU *wete 'water'. Very vague (a euphemism for complete rejection, as there is no reason for it) regarding this zombie hypothesisOP'S question:>Which culture represents PIE?I can't see any statement on """proto-indo-uralic""", the zombie theory.
>>18054503You didn't answer me, do you want a genetic debate? Yes or no?>>18054515he loves these kind of "independent" authors for some reason and has a hard time determining what is consensus
>>18054515He or she is also an acquaintance of the /his/ characters for being one of the proponents of the "Afro-Asiatic" and PIE nonsense through a more intimate connection, even though I've already explained to him or her that Bomhard and the Nostratic thing have already accumulated a huge amount of data that has been analyzed as late borrowings, rather than some common origin of both families. He generally uses "ANE" as the vectorIn all cases, the supposed "last ancestor" that could be shared by PU and PIE is dated to the Paleolithic, probably much, much older than 10,000 years before the present. and it cannot be reduced as "ANE" as the subject postulates, and there were no EHG cultures that would be the ancestors of the cultures that would form common PIE elements of the steppes, the oldest that we know with PIE elements, at least within an archaeological perspective, would be Khvalynsk culture... forcing the formers of the "PIE" being older than that is erroneous. and the CLV cline that formed what would be the PIE itself, not these Eneolithic steppe cultures that had cultural continuity are too recent for any connection with Afro-Asiatic and "Uralic".
>>18054522>"independent" authorsWe're off to a great start if right out the gate you begin by lying outright. Is there anyone who wouldn't want to have a conversation with such a pleasant personality?
>>18054556>>18054384Off topic
>>18054138>CWC itself does not come from Yamnayamm, yeah
>>18054515>treating this as consensusNo, did I say what consensus is? This is cutting edge research.
>>18054560Not off topic just because it disagrees with an ultimate southern origin of language and culture.
>>18054559Anon, shall we debate genetics or not? Could you start by explaining the Kra001 type samples, possibly a "proto-Uraloid," and how it correlates with the 4000 BC Volga populations? This sample belongs to a pre-N-L1026 lineage and, in terms of genomic genetic structure, comes from a population directly ancestral to the present-day Nganasans. There are many difficulties with this hypothesis, but I'd like your opinion on it.There's no doubt that most of the Indo-Iranian loanwords for the FU occurred during the Scythian period (in the broad sense), so I won't even belabor the point. This is a historical fact, so I won't resort to more tenuous hypotheses. Even if the FU people had dispersed at this time, being "communicative communities," such loanwords would have spread far and wide.
>>18054578>This is cutting edge research.Lmao>>18054581No one but you here believes that the PIE has a maximum of 4000 BC and originates in the steppe>>18053531were not related to Urlaics or Semites, just shepherds from Ukraine
>>18054572We accept your concession
>>18054600Who is "we"? Speak for yourself. I believe CWC derives from Yamnaya. Although calling Yamnaya PIE may be complicated by Anatolia and its new dating and archaeological complications, Ozero and the like may be Proto-Anatolian, and Yamnaya is too young to be the ancestor of these Balkan cultures that migrated to Anatolia. But I agree with him>>18053531Sredny Stog= early PIEYamnaya=late PIE
I believe in indo-uralic Brothers enslaving each otherStop the brothers wars
>>18054591There's no reason to believe implosive stops existed in Indo-Iranian. Late borrowings are also distinguishable based on morphology. Cognates go back to an archaic period before PIE existed.>>18054596I'm not interested in changing the date of PIE. I'm pointing out that there are signs PIE is continuous with an older, northern culture. Is there a reason this would be impossible considering the EHG/ANE ancestry inherent to PIEs? Did these people with northern haplogroups actually pick up their language from the south despite there being signs their language could be related to Uralic?
>>18054612H2eryós bros??? Its over...
>>18054623>Cognates go back to an archaic period before PIE existed.no, and it doesn't make sense, cognate in relation to what exactly? genetics, as I proved above and you were unable to understand, shows no correlation between the "proto-uralic" samples and the PIE. there is no genetic reason for this
>>18054623You're an amateur, EHG wasn't the one who created PIE directly. And there certainly wasn't a magical language that was spoken between the Proto-Uralics, whoever they were, and the pre-PIEs.Stop subverting everything here, different families and groups. One of the biggest problems with this theory is the fact that the Urals are dominated by very distinct haplogroups (subclades of N), all of which have East Asian ancestry. If what the anon posted is true, this KILLS the PIU, because they were Asians without any kind of steppe ancestry and vice versa. And stop citing ANE and EHG as if they were the same thing. EHG is ANE+WHG, and in some samples even EEF. If Indo-Uralic (*didn't exist) existed, it was probably very old. At least 10,000 years ago. And if N wasn't the original Uralic Y-DNA, then what language did these guys speak? There's no point in using haplos here.Maybe people like the Botai and the HGs of Western Siberia were actually Urals? No fucking way.
>>18054639The book I linked to explains that PIE *ɗ corresponds to Uralic *n ~ *l ~ *t. This relationship is not possible with late, Indo-Iranian borrowings. Implosive stops along with shared, inherited morphology show words that are cognate between IE and Uralic must go back to an archaic period before PIE existed.Your genetics argumentation is weak because it isn't able to dismiss genuine linguistic relationships. Genetics just ends up being subordinate to the linguistic revelations here. But I do not see why the genetics perspective can't be reformulated to consider a more general relationship with EHGs/ANE. Another issue is there could be a third party which links PIEs and Uralics. It's not like we can't find common ground if we actually want to.
>>18054662>And stop citing ANE and EHG as if they were the same thingI'm not. I am referring to these ancestries together because they highlight Eastern and Northern origins that help bridge the gap with Uralics.
>>18054556They met Indo-Iranian speakers moving east, received some genetic admixture, adopted horses and bronze metallurgy, and then journeyed to the west to conquer Finland. End of history, IU BTFO'd>>18054623There's Uralic influence in the Indo-Iranian branch, its late borrowings, is the perfect setting for Indo-European loanwords in Proto-Uralic, that according to a growing consensus must have split no later than 2100 BC with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, if PU existed, was late as fuck
>>18054666>Your genetics argumentation is weak There's no genetic evidence.as already shown here, idiot, you ruined everything with your off-topic garbage, make your own thread we are talking about PIE. There are Proto-Uralic words that have roots in Indo-Iranic languages.The similarities between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-european are most likely due to the interaction between Afanasievo (possible Proto-Tocharian) and the Proto-Uralic population. Since the Afanasievo spoke some kind of a Late-PIEThere's no PIU
>>18054666It turns out they have genetically unrelated origins.Sorryhttps://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/s41586-025-09189-3.pdf>Genetics just ends up being subordinate to the linguistic revelations hereno, because it is more consistent than linguistics, so your attacks were weak, you lost the genetic discussion.
>>18054694We wuz basconic-afroasiatic, bascoafroasiatic-eurouralic
Bad news for the proto-indo-european-proto-uralic parent theory hypothesis...>>18054666nonsense, linguistics today completes genetics, and the same "linguists" that you so adorn have come to the conclusion, together with geneticists, that UI is not a thing. different origins.connections btwn indo-iranian and uralic/finnic linguistically etc. are due to Seima-Turbino aren't they, for example. When the majority of the cognates have been found, now we knowSee https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.01.560195v1.full.pdf
>>18054715Related pic
>>18054676>its late borrowings,Borrowings exist but you are flat out wrong. The connections cannot be reduced to borrowings. If you don't believe me then email the authors of this book and take it up with themhttps://brill.com/edcollbook/title/55752>>18054687>The similarities between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-european are most likely due to the interaction between Afanasievo (possible Proto-Tocharian) and the Proto-Uralic population.Ad hoc nonsense. That can't account for shared, inherited morphology between the two language families. If it did, PU would look like a branch of IE, not it's own thing which descends from something older.Look at the list of authors on this book. These are some of the most prominent living historical linguists. If something as simple as language contact with Afanasievo could explain it, they would acknowledge it.I don't know if you realize that by looking at comparisons between the two language families it becomes obvious whether a simple language contact scenario is even possible. There is an order to which things happen as far as sound and morphology changes go that rules out arbitrary relationships. (You can see when two languages descend from a common source because of the ordering of events among other things.)
>>18054715He made it clear that he will deny any evidence against this garbage theory that he loves, he said categorically that genetics is useless, let's ignore this girl
>>18054724But none of this really works if Proto-Uralic came late out of Yakutia, as several people proved here>>18054694So geneticists have to ignore or cherrypick the linguistic evidence to keep the story pat? tho Patterson himself dismiss Indo-Uralic. (Given linguistics is necessarily asterisky, it's understandable)
>>18054694RIP Indo-Uralic
>>18054731Genetics is not useless. You misunderstand priorities. Genetics is subordinate to the linguistic context when our goal is to learn about who spoke what. Genetics is silent. It doesn't inherently tell us who spoke what but it does point suggestively. Genetics ultimately can't invalidate a linguistic relationship. If the linguists say a relationship is true, the purpose of genetics ends up being to explain how or why that is true. So if the geneticists say there is no obvious genetic relationship and the linguists say there is a linguistic relationship, it means someone picked up a language without receiving an obvious genetic signal.Alternatively, sometimes the geneticists just don't understand how to model the relationship even though there should be one.
>>18054724You ruined the entire thread. My last response to you and your nonsense, off-topic, after being humiliated by all the anonymous people and crying here.>Mommy! I hate genetics.Let me educate you again, one last time. A proposal you often discuss is Indo-Uralic, but you ignore all the errors and masturbate to this "independent" booklet (LOL). Uralic arrived in the region significantly after the IE, with the expansion of ancestry related to Neo-Siberian, carrying haplogroup N. They can't have been related. Dilate, cry, cry some more, and then cry some more, you Russian faggot. It seems Uralic is related to Yukaghir, and perhaps extremely distantly to Altaic, however, actual modern similarities between the two families are more likely due to contact rather than recent relationship.Your favorite book can't change the facts, sorry bro its over
>>18054775>this "independent" booklet (LOL).>Leiden Studies in Indo-European, Volume: 21Concession accepted
>>18054770>Genetics is not uselessand this same genetics destroyed Indo-Uralic, so we're done here for good. Semantics didn't change that, linguistics is subservient to genetics, as is archaeology. There is no genetic evidence for IU, I'm really done here, ad nauseam>>18054694
>>18054783You couldn't refute meI won, again ;)
>>18054785This>b. But muh favorite bookLol genetics make it clear Uralic speakers descend from Yakutian neo-Siberians who relocated west of west Baikal late 3rd millennium and radiated away by millennium's end with minimal intervening admixture and variegated admixture thereafter.There's no plausible connection between the ANE who left their heartland for the west and the neo-Siberians who left their own heartland for the ANE's noooo its over Kloekhorst riders BTFO'd
>>18054785>and this same genetics destroyed Indo-Uralic,I don't see how "destroying" Indo-Uralic becomes possible with genetics. It requires ignorance of very basic facts about PIEs such as their EHG/ANE admixture and haplogroups which are 100% compatible with Eastern and Northern cultural origins.Do Proto-Uralics have ANE admixture? If this is the case I do not see how it is possible to say there is no genetic relationship between PIEs and PUs *at all*, but of course we should still aim to find a genetic connection more specific, less indirect, and one requiring a smaller or more recent timeframe.
Kroonen asks a salient question:>However, an important remaining question is whether the lexical material displaying the correspondence of Proto-Uralic nasals and Proto-Indo-Euro-pean mediae actually substantiates the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis or that it rather reflects borrowing from Pre-Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Uralic. Future studies will have to address this question,Let me reiterate that I think this type data can be used to more thoroughly refute southern arc-style hypotheses. It doesn't actually matter (as far as this conversation goes) whether or not IU is true. That's not the point. Kroonen gives you two choices:1) Indo-Uralic is true2) Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans were merely in contact with Proto-Uralics.While I think 2) represents a naive and superficial understanding of the full scope of the evidence, both 1) and 2) situate Pre-PIEs with an Eastern and Northern geographic bias.
>>18054810....? What?Stop talking about genetics.>ANEYou've said this about 10 times, but it's irrelevant. Do you know why? We have a PU sample, similar to the Nganasan, and the Nganasan don't show Western admixture, so even though they are admixed, their admixture is composed of Far Eastern populations. The Proto-Uralians had Far Eastern ancestry, and the Uralian cline was formed due to gene flow from the Far East toward Fennoscandia. *ABSENT* in PIE populations, why is this so hard to understand? You're wasting my time.It is corroborated by ancient DNA, as in the case of kra001, which is also part of the Uralian cline without showing Western admixture and belongs to a Y chromosome haplogroup closely related to the Uralian lineage N-L1026. Stop creating migration theories you don't understand, and stop citing ANE, since the PU is relatively recent. I'm not here to explain the basics.Labels like ANE, CHG, WhG, EHG are almost irrelevant here, because there wouldn't be a confluent cline of related languages. They would have been disconnected and often unrelated. This is what Amerindian and Australian Aboriginal languages demonstrate.This is why concepts like Indo-Uralic and Nostratic are problematic; they are constructions of linguists with little understanding of sociology and anthropology, trying to build a castle of twigs.
>>18053268I've taken longer and more voluminous shits in my life than this. Although less girthy.
>>18052821>>18052825The social collapse of the north sea coastal cultures in 4000BC is what caused the migratory wars and mergers that PIE eventually came out as the war-victors of.Just as when Alexanders father defeated the last Scythian king, so did the original Yamnaya become a great war culture after defeating the arriving migrants from the West. This was the OG war between Neptune/Poseidon and Dyeus/Zeus. The north sea brewer god of the flooded lands lost to the sky-father of the black sea steppe.t. rust me
>>18054877What type of Western admixture do you expect Uralics to have if there's some relationship with PIEs? WHG admix?If IU is real I would expect Siberian or central Eurasians origins. Then pre-Proto-Uralics migrate East. Then Proto-Uralics migrate West.
>>18054898Fanfic schizophrenic
>>18054916the anthropology, geology and linguistics agree with the myths of what i said.the real schizophrenia is believing PIE arose natively and in isolation within some proto-ukrainian village.
it's pretty hilarious just how deeply invested into aryan anthropology these anti-aryan shills are
>>18054810>Do Proto-Uralics have ANE admixture?Yes, even the pre-proto-Uralics. I mean even if these pre-proto-Uralics are derived from "Yakutia", they still have ANE. Mesolithic version of "Yakutia" is ANE heavy and that admix is still visible in Neolithic "Yakutia".If original pre-U are derived from pre-IE Tarim basin (and thence West Siberia), then they would carry loads of ANE and their og haplo would be Q, not N. N and "Yakutia" would only jump inboard during Seima-Turbino. Both version are possible under Seima-Turbino theory. In any case ANE is there.
What I'm not getting about this conversation are these blind "geneticists" who think genetics can falsify the existence of an unattested proto language. No geniuses, genetics is not some magic bullet that gives you psychic insight into what languages did or didn't exist in prehistory. That's what the comparative method is for.Linguistics is the final stop on whether or not a language existed. Stay in your lane. What's that? The genetics you currently know about don't make any sense of the situation? Tough shit. Pound sand. kra001 can't be indirectly connected to PIEs? Whoops! I guess you just debunked that sample as Proto-Uralic.If the linguists say PIU exists, your only choice is to track migrations and gene flow in order to help characterize who spoke it. Genetics offers near zero insight into whether or not a language or language contact situation existed.Imbeciles.
>>18055924>kra001 can't be indirectly connected to PIEs? Didn't you read what I said? You idiot!They are genetically different from PIEs, and there is no connection. At the same time, you try to discredit genetics because you are ignorant on the subject, and then insist on this topic even though you have no idea. If the two language families shared a common ancestor, we would expect partial genetic overlap in the populations that spread them. The genetic data suggests origins in separate regions, carried by distinct populations with no known shared ancestry, making the proposed genealogical link more difficult to sustain.And ANE doesn't prove its connection, you damn thing, stop citing that like a child.>Genetics offers near zero insight into whether or not a language or language contact situation existedironically, here you killed yourself. the exact same must necessarily be said about the opposite; linguistics cannot prove that cluster X or Y spoke language A or B, and ANE cannot even speak a dialect that would be "PIE" for the simple fact that it could not be reconstructed
>>18052821there is an idiot here who was so humiliated and gave me a damn, but getting back to the subject and taking sameflag aside, we have evidence that the usatovo cultures and their derivatives are really the PA, see
>>18055924>If the linguists say PIU existsThey didn't, besides some isolate guys
>>18055924If the geneticists say PIU don't exists, your only choice is to stop spamming this failed theory. Linguisticz offers near zero insight into whether or not a language or language contact situation existed, ANE could spoke anything, we don't know
>>18056271>. Linguisticz offers near zero insight into whether or not a language or languageI own the only PIE language stone in Europe but no university is trying to study it (no funds).
>>18056356Btw I found it near a never studied dolmen in a very rural area.And I also found this not far away. Probably protoceltic.
>>18056237>Didn't you read what I said?Did you read what I said? If you can't find a genetic connection, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. The unrelatedness of a sample to PIEs is irrelevant to the linguistic data.>At the same time, you try to discredit genetics because you are ignorant on the subject,There is no discrediting genetics here. You are committed to a fallacy about the scope of genetics. Genetics cannot falsify a proto language. Full stop.>If the two language families shared a common ancestor, we would expect partial genetic overlap in the populations that spread them.What you don't understand is that in the scenario that PIU is real, you have 3 choices here:1) the genetic samples or components which you say are impossible to relate to PIEs or their ancestors did not actually speak Uralic2) they adopted Uralic without obvious genetic transfer from the source population of the language. (They didn't speak Uralic originally and you haven't yet discovered the source population for Uralic speech.)3) Uralics are actually indirectly related to PIEs or their ancestors but you have failed to see how because of an inability to model the connection coherently.If you cannot make a genetic connection, it is not the linguist's problem. If the data says the proto language existed, the only way to refute this is with linguistic arguments. (Note: I am not saying PIU necessarily existed. This is about the limitations of genetic insight.)For example, if we had all the evidence in the world that Proto-Indo-European existed, but we could not prove the existence of a Proto-Indo-European ethnicity with genetics, that would probably point to the PIE language being a trade language or lingua franca. Likewise, PIE having affinities with Uralic in the absence of obvious genetic connections points to Pre-PIEs being in intimate contact with Pre-PUs, and this situation is also contradictory to Southern Arc hypotheses.
>>18056271>If the geneticists say PIU don't exists,They can't and don't say that. Real geneticists are more careful to stay within the scope of genetics.
>>18056386>Real geneticistsThey disapprovedSee>>18054694>>18054715Who are the real geneticists?? The ones who fuck your mother or the ones who agree with you? The latest study, done by "real scientists" has refuted IU.Illiterate monkey. We have no reliable way to determine whether Indo-Uralic or another connection between Uralic and the East is more plausible. No one can claim to know where pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken. It is unscientific to decide that the Uralic language follows Yakutia-LNBA ancestry without considering that language is not inherited in DNA and that genetic makeup may have changed throughout linguistic expansion. However, Samoyed can easily be derived from the central Ural region, and linguistic results indicate its presence close to other Uralic branches for a long period after Late Proto-Uralic, which cannot be refuted, I dare you to show me a geneticist who supports the UI, I dare you, it's a challenge
>>18056372>but we could not prove the existence of a Proto-Indo-European ethnicity with geneticsWe can, their genetic profile was basically derived from CLV cline, and PU were very different>>18054877
>>18057675It is a fallacy that genetics can falsify the existence of a reconstructed language. Genetic analyses can fail to find connections, and they can fail to identify a unified Indo-Uralic ethnicity as a homogeneous genetic group. In principle if linguistic results indicate a language existed then it existed, but your underlying assumptions about who spoke it and how language transfer works do not invalidate linguistic results.>>18057686You are responding to a hypothetical scenario. I am also reminded of the difficulties which have recently presented themselves in explaining how exactly the Irish became Celtic speaking yet everyone seems quite certain they can't be genetic Celts based on certain definitions of a Celtic genetic grouping. Language transfer can cause counterintuitive scenarios from the point of view of narrowly defined genetic models, like all the non-Europeans who are now Indo-European speakers.
>>18057726>hypothetical scenarioNo, we know what their genetic profile was like.>I am also reminded of the difficulties which have recently presented themselves in explaining how exactly the Irish became Celtic speaking Irrelevant to the PIE in question or Proto-Uralic, try again. Do you deny that the PIE were the genetic group? We already know what they were like.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08531-5>The Dnipro cline was formed when the CLV people moved westward, mixing with people of Ukrainian Neolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry along the Dnipro and Don rivers to establish the Serednii Stih groups.and you lie, the Irish have Celtic ancestry, Celtic elements, you are so desperate that there is nothing more to say>Language transfer can cause counterintuitive scenarios If they're like you, yesSee picYeah, PIE were a ethinically homogeneous and spoke the same language, and Uralics were different>>18054877
>>18057879How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
>>18057879And to make you even more embarrassed, here we have an Irish profile.They are really Celtic, they just have some more BB
>>18057885Did you give me the concession? I appreciate it anon, like, you finally stood before me and just gave in. Yes, to err is human, we all lose and talk shit, your nonsense has been refuted
>>18057879>Irish are suddenly Celts againNews to me. Make a thread about it. Everybody seems to deny it these days. I don't personally care. It just bothers me recent papers didn't even try addressing the issue of how Ireland adopted Celtic speech.>>18057891>Gael + DenmarkHow is that Celtic? Gaelic = Bell BeakerIf you want to argue Bell Beaker is Celtic that's also fine but I don't understand how that fits in mainstream theories.
>>18057895Why would anyone talk to a baboon who doesn't understand what hypothetical scenario is?
