Site Loader

– BCE), but most of the other cultures apparently to its latter part, being currently dated to the pre-Andronovo horizon of c. – BCE (cf. The existence of Andronovo cultural influence in Xinjiang during the 2nd millennium BC – Volume 73 Issue – Mei Jianjun, Colin Shell. Archeological culture named Andronovo culture covered s huge territory. Its area of habitation reached the Southern Aral in the West, the.

Author: Kajira Vigore
Country: Samoa
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 13 October 2007
Pages: 402
PDF File Size: 11.12 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.40 Mb
ISBN: 169-7-42388-298-7
Downloads: 23327
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Bajinn

Ajdronovo me begin this final post on the Corded Ware—Uralic connection with an assertion that should cultuer obvious to everyone involved in ethnolinguistic identification of prehistoric populations but, for one reason or another, is usually forgotten. Human history is full of dead ends, and we should not expect the people who lived in any one place in the cu,ture to be the direct ancestors of those who live there today. We have now a better idea of how many ancient migrations previously hypothesized to be associated with westward Uralic migrations look like in genetic terms.

From Damgaard et al. These serial changes in the Baikal populations are reflected in Y-chromosome lineages Fig. S24 to S27, and tables S13 and SI4. What we should expect from Uralic peoples expanding with haplogroup N — seeing how Yamna expands with R1b-L23, and Corded Andronkvo expands with R1a-Z — is to find a common subclade spreading with Uralic populations.

Within the Eurasian circum-Arctic spread zone, N3 and N2a reveal a well-structured spread pattern where individual sub-clades show very different distributions:.

The sub-clade N3b-B is specific to southern Siberia and Mongolia, whereas N3a-L is abdronovo widely in other regions of northern Eurasia. In the post ajdronovo Finno-Permic expansionsI depicted what seems to me the most likely way of infiltration of N1c-L lineages with Akozino warrior-traders into the western Finno-Ugric populations, with an origin around the Barents sea.

This includes xulture potential spread of a minority of N1c-B subclades due to contacts with Anonino on both sides of the Uralsthrough a northern route of forest and forest-steppe regions equivalent to the distribution of Cherkaskul compared to Androonvogiven the spread of certain subclades in Ugric populations. An alternative possibility is the association of certain B subclades with a southern route of expansion with Pre-Scythian and Scythian populationsunder whose influence the Ananino culture emerged -which would imply a very quick infiltration of certain groups of haplogroup N everywhere among Finno-Ugrics on both sides of the Urals —and also the expansion of some subclades with Turkic-speaking peoples, who apparently expanded with alliances of different peoples.

I find this a worse model of expansion for upper clades, but — given the YFull estimates and the presence of this haplogroup among Turkic peoples — it is a possibility for many subclades. N1a1a1a1a2-Z cutlure, formed ca. The only notable exception from the pattern are Russians from northern regions of European Russia, where, in turn, about two-thirds of the hg N3 Y chromosomes belong to the hg N3a4-Z—the second west Eurasian clade.

Thus, according to the frequency distribution of this clade, these Northern Russians fit better among other non-Slavic populations from northeastern Europe. N3a4 tends to increase in frequency toward the northeastern European regions but is also somewhat unexpectedly a dominant hg N3 lineage among most Turcic-speaking Volga Tatars and South-Ural Bashkirs. The expansion of N1a-Z in Fennoscandia is most likely associated with the cculture of Saami into asbestos ware-related territory like the Lovozero culture during the Late Iron Age — and mixture with its population —and with the later Fennic expansion to the east cullture northreplacing their language.

N1a1a1a1a4-M previously N3a2formed ca. It is predominantly found in populations inhabiting present-day Yakutia Republic of Sakha in central Siberia and at lower frequencies in the Khanty and Mansi populationswhich exhibit a distinct Y-STR pattern Table S7 potentially intrinsic to an additional clade inside the sub-hg N3a2. The absolute majority of N2a individuals belong to the second sub-clade, N2a1-B, which diversified about 4.

We also have a good idea of the distribution of haplogroup R1a-Z in ancient samples. Its subclades were associated with the Corded Ware expansionand some of them fit quite well the early expansion of Finno-Permic, Ugric, and Samoyedic peoples to the east.

This is how the modern distribution of R1a among Uralians looks like, from the latest report in Tambets et al. To understand the relevance of Hungarians for Ugric peoples, as well as Estonians, Karelians, and Mordovians and northern Russians, Finno-Ugric peoples recently Russified for Finno-Permic peoples, as opposed to the Circum-Arctic and East Siberian populations, one has to put demographics in perspective. Even a modern map can show the relevance of certain territories in the past:. Fennic and Samic populations seem to be clearly influenced by Palaeo-Laplandic peoples, whereas Volga-Finnic and especially Permic populations may have received gene flow from bothbut essentially Palaeo-Siberian influence from the north and east.

The fact that Hungarians — supposedly stemming from a source population similar to Mansis — do not offer the same amount of N subclades or Siberian ancestry not even closeand offer instead more R1a, in common with Estonians among Finno-Samic peoples and Mordvins among Cultre peoples should have raised a still bigger red flag. The fact that Nganasans — the model for Siberian ancestry — show cukture different N1a2b-P43 lineages should have been a huge genetic red line on top of the anthropological one to regard them as the Uralian-type population.


That is seen in Europe after the spread of Bell Beakerswith the increase of previous ancestry and lineages in Scandinavia during the formation of the Nordic ethnolinguistic community; in Central-West Europe, with the cultjre of Neolithic ancestry and lineages during the Bronze Age over steppe ancestry; and in Central-East Europe with Unetice or East European Bronze Age groups andronvo Mierzanowice, Trzciniec, or Lusatian showing an increase in steppe ancestry and resurge of R1a subclades ; none of them represented a radical ethnolinguistic change.

We also know of R1a-Z culthre in Srubnaprobably expanding to the west. You might think I have some personal or political reason against this kind of proposals. We have been proposing Indo-European to be the language of the European Union for more than 10 years, so to support R1b-Italo-Celtic in the whole Western Europe, R1a-Germanic in Central and Eastern Europe, and R1a-Indo-Slavonic in the steppes as the Danish group seems to be doing has nothing inherently bad or good for me.

My problem with this proposal is that it is obviously beholden to the notion of the uninterrupted cultural, historic and ethnic continuity in certain territories. This bias is common in historiography von Falkenhausenbut it extends even more easily into the lesser known prehistory of any territory, and now more than ever some people feel the need to corrupt pre history based on their own haplogroups or the majority haplogroups of their modern countries. However, more than on philosophical grounds, my rejection is based on facts: This is the third of four posts on the Corded Andronkvo identification.

Even though proposals of an Eastern Uralic or Ugro-Samoyedic group are in the minority — and those who support it tend to search for an origin of Uralic in Central Asia —there is nothing wrong in supporting this from the point of view of a western homeland, because the eastward migration of both Proto-Ugric and Pre-Samoyedic peoples may have been coupled with each other at an early stage. The case of Samoyedic is quite similar to that of Hungarian, although the earliest Palaeo-Siberian contact languages have been lost.

The phonological level is taxonomically more reliable, since it lacks the distortion caused by invisible convergence and false divergence at the lexical level.

Thus we can conclude that the fulture taxonomic model, according to which Samoyedic was the first branch to split off from the Proto-Uralic unity, is just as incorrect as the view that Hungarian was the first branch to split off. To the north, however, Abashevo kept its Uralic naturewith continuous contacts allowing for the spread of lexicon — mainly into Finno-Ugric —and phonetic cilture — mainly Uralisms into Proto-Indo-Iranian phonology read more here.

The northern part of Abashevo androjovo like the south was mainly a metallurgical society, with Abashevo metal prospectors found also side by side with Sintashta pioneers in the Zeravshan Valley, near BMAC, in search of metal ores.

About the Seima-Turbino phenomenonfrom Parpola From the Urals to the east, the chain of cultures associated with this network consisted principally of the following: The Okunevo culture belongs wholly to the Early Bronze Age c. The majority of the Sejma-Turbino objects are of the better quality tin-bronze, and while tin is absent in the Urals, the Altai and Sayan mountains are an important source of both copper and tin. Tin is also cultture in southern Central Asia.

Carpelan points out that the first spearheads of this type appear in the Middle Bronze Anronovo Caucasia c. Also the metal analysis speaks for the Abashevo origin of the Sejma-Turbino network. Both the arsenical bronze and pure copper are very clearly associated with the Abashevo metallurgy.

The Abashevo metal production was based on the Volga-Kama-Belaya area sandstone ores of pure copper and on the more easterly Urals deposits of arsenical copper Figure 9.

The Abashevo people, expanding from the Don and Mid-Volga to the Urals, first reached the westerly sandstone deposits of pure copper in the Volga and Kama basins, and started developing their metallurgy in this area, before moving on to the eastern side of the Urals to produce harder weapons and tools of arsenical copper.

Eventually they moved even further south, to the area richest in copper in the whole Urals region, founding there the very strong and innovative Sintashta culture. The Mezhovka culture was in close contact with the neighbouring and probably Proto-Iranian speaking Alekseevka alias Sargary culture c.

The Mezhovka culture was succeeded by the genetically related Gamayun culture c. Parpola connects the expansion of Samoyedic with the Cherkaskul variant of Andronovo. As we know, Andronovo was genetically diversewhich speaks in favour of different groups developing similar material cultures in Central Cutlure.


Juha Janhunen, author of the etymological dictionary of the Samoyed languagesplaces the homeland of Proto-Samoyedic in the Minusinsk basin on the Upper Yenissei cf. Mainly cklture the basis of Bulghar Turkic cu,ture, Janhunen Janhunen thinks that the language of the Tagar culture c.

The Tagar qndronovo largely continues the traditions of the Karasuk culure c. For the most recent expansions of Samoyedic languages to the north, into Palaeo-Siberian populations, read more about the traditional multilingualism of Siberian populations.

Andronovo Culture (c. 1800-1400 BCE)

I guess that would make this map of Neolithic farmer ancestry represent an expansion of Indo-European from the south, because Anatolia, Greece, Italy, southern France, and Iberia — where this ancestry peaks in modern populations — are among the oldest territories where Indo-European languages were recorded:.

Probably not the right interpretation of this kind of andronovk data about andornovo populations, though…. Overall, and specifically at lower values of K, the genetic makeup of Uralic speakers resembles that of their geographic neighbours. The Saami and a subset of the Mansi serve as exceptions to that pattern being more similar to geographically more distant populations Fig. S3which is predominantly, although not exclusively, found in Uralic speakers.

The spatial distribution of this component Fig. PCA andronoovo can be looked for to represent expansions of ancient populations. Most recently, Flegontov et al. For some Turkic groups in the Urals and the Altai regions and in the Volga basin, a different admixture model fits the data: Thus, we have revealed an admixture cline between Scythians and the Iranian farmer genetic cluster, and two further clines connecting the former cline to distinct ancestry sources in Siberia.

It remains to be elucidated whether this genetic influx reflects contacts with the Xiongnu confederacy. We are currently assembling a collection of samples across the Eurasian steppe for a detailed genetic investigation of the Hunnic confederacies.

The main one is practical — does a modern cline represent an ancestral language? It depends on the anthropological context andrlnovo we have, and especially on the precision of the PCA:. For starters, the PCA includes too many and modern populations, its precision is useless for ethnolinguistic groups.

Which is the right level? The other error is one of detail of the clines drawn which, in turn, depends on the precision of the PCA. For example, we can draw two paralell lines or even one line, as in Flegontov et al. For that level of detail, we should examine closely modern Uralic-speaking peoples and Circum-Arctic populations:. The fact that the three formed clines point to an admixture of CWC-related populations from North-Eastern Europe, and that variation is greater at the Palaeo-Laplandic and Palaeo-Siberian extremities compared to the CWC-related one, also supports this as the correct interpretation.

That poses different problems: To understand the simplest solution better, one can just have a look at the PCA from Bell Anrdonovo samples in Olalde et al. After all, we already know that the Siberian cline shows probably as much an ancient admixture event — from the original Uralic expansion to the east with Corded Ware ancestry — as another more recent one — a westward migration of Siberian ancestry or even more than one. While we know with more or less exactitude what happened with the Palaeo-Laplandic admixture by expanding Proto-Finno-Samic populations see herethe Proto-Ugric and Pre-Samoyedic populations formed probably more anxronovo one cline during the different ancient migrations through central Asia.

Apparently, the Corded Ware expansion to the east was not marked by a huge change in ancestry. While the final version of Narasimhan et al. There are some interesting details: The finding of R1b-M in the forest-steppe is probably either 1 from an Afanasevo-Okunevo origin, or 2 from an admixture with neighbouring Andronovo-related populations, such as Sargary.

A third, maybe less likely option is that this haplogroup admixed with Abashevo directly as it happened in Sintashta, Potapovka, or Pokrovka and formed part of early Uralic migrations. In terms of haplogroups it shows haplogroup Q, R1a-Z, and R1a-Z, later found among early Hungariansand present also in ancient Samoyedic populations now acculturated.

Their initial admixture with Palaeo- Siberian populations is thus seen already starting by this time in Mezhovska and especially in Karasuk, but this process compared to modern populations is incomplete:. We know now that Samic peoples expanded during the Late Iron Age into Palaeo-Laplandic populations, admixing with nadronovo and creating this modern cline.

Andronovo culture |

Finns expanded later to the north in one of their known genetic bottlenecksadmixing with and displacing the Saami in Finland, especially replacing their male lines. So how did Ugric and Samoyedic peoples admix with Palaeo-Siberian populations further, to obtain their modern cline? The answer is, logically, with East Asian migrations related uclture forest-steppe populations of Central Asia after the Mezhovska and Karasuk periods, i. We know this from Narasimhan et al.