Lmao. What did he mean by this?https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/15/10/646>Section 2 showed that six SNP mutations associated with light eyes, hair, and skin phenotypes and originating in Europe or Eurasia have a very high presence among the Minoan samples. The SNP mutations analysis showed that the Eastern-European Hunter-Gatherer culture (EHG) was closest to the Minoans, because Minoans had the lowest distance, 0.27, to the EHGs according to the root mean square error measure. Since the area of EHGs included present day Ukraine, the proximal genetic source of the Minoans was likely the northern Black Sea coastal region.>The motivation to focus on the U5 haplogroup is that it is known to be associated with Uralic speakers. Table 4 shows that the U5 mtDNA haplogroup percentages are almost always higher among the Uralic speakers than among their Indo-European neighbors according to Simoni et al. [36], who examined more than 2600 mtDNA sequences from current European populations. For example, the U5 mtDNA haplogroup percentage is 48 percent among the Saami, while it is only 11.4 percent among the Norwegians, their Indo-European speaking neighbors.
If the clades of U5 are related among them then the ancestry is probably more ancient than Mesolithic. There was a more recent study showing a clear divide, with very little EHG ancestry among Eastern Mediterraneans even during the very clearly Indo-European era. U5 was a less common mitochondrial lineage among Minoans as well, H, K and T were more common iirc. Most of Europe has U mtDNA and I Y-dna even if at lower levels but that these clades of U5 are related is interesting.
What the hell
>>18056234>tfw the Finno-Korean Hyperwar was real all along
>>18056269How likely is this? I would have thought Uralic developed further east.>Some of the Gravettian hunter-gatherers found refuge in the lower Danube Basin and the northern Pontic coastal areas during the subsequent Ice Age. The Proto-Uralic language likely developed in this refuge area during the Ice Age and broke up sometime during the Mesolithic period when some of the Uralic speakers went northeast. These early Uralic speakers may have followed the mammoth herds, which also moved from this area north to the Baltic and southern Scandinavia, where remains were found between 17 and 12 thousand years ago [53].>The U5 mtDNA haplogroup is strongly associated with Uralic language speakers, because the Uralic language speakers had matrilineal cultures in the past. Since the husband moves to the village of the wife in a matrilineal society, their children will speak the mother’s language.
>>18056544Seems likely desu. The Minoan branch of U5 would have almost certainly come from AHG which could explain their distance to EHG/WHG. Deeply related populations but such strong drift. Many such cases.
>>18056544>>18056579
>>18056579But if the cradle of Uralic is somewhere from the lower Danube Basin to northern Pontic coast, doesn't this increase the chances of something like Proto-Indo-Uralic being the predecessor of Proto-Indo-European?Even if that's not the actual birthplace of Uralic, Minoan being related suggests something like Uralic was spoken in that area.
>>18056600continued... I'm going to see if there's any good reason to posit a Minoan connection here. This just sounds too ridiculous.I'm looking at the Revesz's work and he equates Beekes' "Pre-Greek" words with Minoan. This is highly problematic. Beekes'"Pre-Greek" words are often wrong, and many of the ones which aren't actually Greek are still Indo-European such as from Anatolian.I am still baffled how anyone could place the Uralic homeland so far west.
U5 is tens of thousands of years old and widespread across Europe, not uniquely Uralic. Using it as a linguistic marker is shaky.
>>18056681I can see Minoan potentially being part of a wider Eurasiatic family like Basque but connecting it to Uralic specifically is strange
