Alexander's Roam Garden

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

Preregistration: Uralic Contact Hypotheses

  • make-public
  • Given a genomic tracer dye corresponding to Proto-Uralic speakers:
  • I predict on the basis of known language shifts and interaction processes that this signal would also be visible in modern speakers of the following non-Uralic languages:
    • Several areal clusters and subclades of Turkic
      • South Siberian
        • Sayan: Tuvan, Tofa, Soyot
        • non-Sayan: Khakas, Shor, Chulym, North Altay
        • South Altay
        • main predicted donor: Southern Samoyeds
          • caveat: possible interpretive ambiguity due to Yeniseian assimilation into these same groups
      • West Siberian 'Tatar': Baraba, Tomsk, Tobol-Irtysh
        • main predicted donors: Ugrians and Samoyeds
      • Volga Basin and Ural regions – Turkic assimilation of and interaction with speakers of multiple Uralic branches (Permic, Mordvinic, Mari, Ugric)
        • Northwestern Turkic
          • predicted maximum signal in Bashkirs followed by Volga Tatars
            • much greater in these two groups than in any other Kipchaks
        • Chuvash (Oghuric)
          • notable "quasi-symbiosis" with Mari
      • Dolgan
        • primary predicted donor: Northern Samoyeds
        • predict stronger signal than in Yakuts due to geographic contiguity with Nganasan, Enets, Nenets
    • Yeniseian, i.e., modern Kets
      • genetic convergence with Selkups (known historical interactants)
    • Indo-European
      • Slavic
        • primary predicted donor: Finnic groups
        • Russians and other East Slavic speakers
          • predicted proportions: Russians (with maximum in Russian North) > Belarusians > Ukrainians
        • not expected in West or South Slavic groups
      • Baltic
        • Latvians and Lithuanians
          • predicted proportions low (fraction of Estonian level)
          • sole predicted donor: Finnic (Estonian and Livonian)
      • Germanic
        • North Germanic
          • predicted proportions low on average but significantly substructured, peaking in far north of Scandinavian peninsula
          • primary predicted donors: Finns (namely, Savonian-speaking Forest Finns) and Sámi
          • West Scandinavian
            • Norwegians (predicted maximum in Finnmark)
              • predicted proportion > Icelanders or Faroese
          • East Scandinavian
            • Swedes (predicted maximum in Norrland)
              • predicted proportion > Danes
        • not expected in Germanic speakers elsewhere
    • Tungusic
      • Evenks, particularly northwestern Evenks
        • primary predicted donor: northern Samoyeds
      • not expected in southern Tungusic groups
    • Yukaghir
      • ongoing debate about whether Yukaghir language genealogically related to Uralic
        • current consensus seems to favor contact scenarios instead
          • most obviously and recent interactions with northern Samoyeds but deeper contacts with Uralic also postulated
    • Mongolic
  • Diagrams
    • {Peyrot, 2019, 79153}, modified
        • ARROWS
          "Pre-Proto-Samoyedic"-\>"Proto-Samoyedic"["500BCE – 0?"]
          "Proto-Indo-Iranian"-\>"'Andronovo' (Helimski)"["(hypothetical)"]
          "'Andronovo' (Helimski)"-\>"Proto-Finno-Ugric"["(hypothetical)"]
          "Pre-Proto-Samoyedic"-\>"Proto-Tocharian"["contact in S. Siberia?"]
  • In progress
    • Possible external connections at greater depth than Proto-Uralic
      • Eskimo-Aleut
    • I predict on the basis of following patterns of signal loss and decoupling in the genetics of present-day Uralic speakers:
      • Attenuation roughly from east to west and north to south
      • Among present-day Uralic speakers, minimal signal in Hungarians
      • Lower signal in Nganasan than in other extant Samoyedic groups due to substantial non-Uralic ancestry [potentially complicated if the substrate population were itself related to pre-proto-Uralic populations]
    • Strong predictions about ancient DNA:
      • Conquest-era Magyar individuals will exhibit a much more pronounced Uralic signal
    • At a lower level of epistemic confidence, anticipation of the following observations in ancient DNA data:
      • Some hypothetically "Indo-Iranian" ancient populations in East Europe and Siberia may exhibit low levels of this signal due to Uralic admixture or even include outlier individuals with pronounced Uralic affinity
      • (If Edward Vajda's hypothesis about an extinct eastern branch of Uralic in Siberia and East Central Asia is correct) There may be evidence for an Uralic signal in at least a subset of Xiongnu
Preregistration: Uralic Contact Hypotheses