Romanians are Mongol-Tatars (the elite) steppe and Vlach boor(rumun)-shepherds(shepherd)

[blogen]

Do you consider Botai culture purely Ugric?

Yes, since the ancestor culture (Surtanda) correlated with the Uralic homeland and the survivor (Pakhomovo for example) descendants of this cultures were the Ugrics. So Botai was an extint proto-Ugric culture (they assimilated into the Aryans from the Yamna).

[Proto-Shaman]

Yes, since the ancestor culture (Surtanda) correlated with the Uralic homeland and the survivor (Pakhomovo for example) descendants of this cultures were the Ugrics. So Botai was an extint proto-Ugric culture (they assimilated into the Aryans from the Yamna).

I know people have tried to connect the Botai culture to R1b and Turkic speakers. Is there any evidence for either or even evidence that there were East Eurasians among the Botai culture?

[blogen]

I know people have tried to connect the Botai culture to R1b and Turkic speakers. Is there any evidence for either or even evidence that there were East Eurasians among the Botai culture?

Baseless pan-Turkic theories maybe, but in the reality there are only two option:

1. the most probably: some proto-Uralic tribes, because of the cultural traditions and this is based on the hard evidences of the continuity of the archaeological cultures.
2. maybe some kelteminarian related tribes, because of the place and the time.

And they were definitely not:

- Aryans, because of the cultural connection's defiency.
- Turkics, because no Turkic related cultural tradition from west of the Altay before the Hunnic invasion in Central Asia (2nd century AD).

[Proto-Shaman]

Baseless pan-Turkic theories maybe, but in the reality there are only two option:

1. the most probably: some proto-Uralic tribes, because of the cultural traditions and this is based on the hard evidences of the continuity of the archaeological cultures.
2. maybe some kelteminarian related tribes, because of the place and the time.

And they were definitely not:

- Aryans, because of the cultural connection's defiency.
- Turkics, because no Turkic related cultural tradition from west of the Altay before the Hunnic invasion in Central Asia (2nd century AD).

Do you have sources for these 4 claims?

[blogen]

Do you have sources for these 4 claims?

The outlines about the Botai:

- The stone tools are identical with the tools of the Tersek and Surtanda cultures
- The Ugrian identity of the Tersek and Surtanda cultures were very probable
- the parallels of the ceramics were very strong between the Finno-Ugrics
- the parallels of the bone tools are typical in the Ural region and the Volga valley and the woodland region in Eastern Europe entirely to the lake Onega.
- the Botai culture was the extension of the Surtanda culture presumably from the South-Ural region.

source: Захаров С.В. К вопросу о происхождении ботайской культуры (The question of the Botai culture's origin) - Вестник археологии, антропологии и этнографии. 2010, № 1 (12). С. 49-58.

And the fourth is a historical fact. No Turks from the west of the Altai before the Hunnic invasion.

[Proto-Shaman]

The outlines about the Botai:

- The stone tools are identical with the tools of the Tersek and Surtanda cultures
- The Ugrian identity of the Tersek and Surtanda cultures were very probable
- the parallels of the ceramics were very strong between the Finno-Ugrics
- the parallels of the bone tools are typical in the Ural region and the Volga valley and the woodland region in Eastern Europe entirely to the lake Onega.
- the Botai culture was the extension of the Surtanda culture presumably from the South-Ural region.

source: Захаров С.В. К вопросу о происхождении ботайской культуры (The question of the Botai culture's origin) - Вестник археологии, антропологии и этнографии. 2010, № 1 (12). С. 49-58.

And the fourth is a historical fact. No Turks from the west of the Altai before the Hunnic invasion.

What you have provided simply says that Finno-Ugrians were possibly related to the Botai culture, nothing else.

In reality it would look like this:

"Some possible linguistic correlations During the hunter-gatherer-fisher phase, Phase A, ... we may imagine, according to some writers, including Dolukhanov (this volume, Chapter 2), a Proto-Uralic population in the Western Steppes. Early or Proto-Tungus speakers may already have occupied the northeastern areas where the reindeer-herding Tungus are later encountered, and Proto-Mongolian speech may already have been found on the Eastern Steppes (Janhunen, 1996), and perhaps Proto-Turkic somewhere on the Southern Steppes."

source: Katherine V. Boyle, Colin Renfrew, Marsha Ann Levine. Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 200, page 7.

This would imply a multhi-ethnic possibility of the Botai area, just like the multi-ethnic Andronovo culture which grew out of Surtanda/Botai:

(source of the graphic)

"Andronovo grew out of Surtanda/Botai in northern Kazakhstan. The latter evolved as a result of a new adaptation to the steppe environment documented earliest with the Yamna horizon (3500/3300 BC - 2500/2300 BC) of the Pontic-Caspian steppes."

source: The Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 19. 1991. page 215.

"Both Botai and Tesek showed some influence in their ceramics from forager cultures of the forest-steppe zone in the southeastern Urals, known as Ayatskii, Lipchin, and Surtanda. Botai-Tersek might have originated as a southern, steppe-zone offshoot of these cultures."

source: David W. Anthony. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press, 26.07.2010. page 487.

Specific info about multi-ethnic Andronovo:

"A migration-free theory that assumes the continuity of all European and Asiatic populations from Paleo-/Mesolithic times is gaining consensus not only among prehistorians (cf., e.g., Marcel Otte's and Alexander Hausler's work) but also, and especially, among linguists (Alinei 1996-2000 n.d.; Ballester n.d; Cavazza 2001; Costa 1998; Poghirc 1992). In this framework not only Andronovo but also the whole cultural sequence that precedes it, from Srednyi Stog to the Pit Grave, Catacomb Grave, and Timber Grave cultures (cf. Makkay's comment), can only be seen as expressions of an already developed Turkic branch of the Altaic population, originating in Central Asia in Paleolithic times. Among other advantages, this conclusion produces (1) a straightforward explanation of the numerous Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in Samoyed and other Uralic languages, as well as in Slavic, and (2) a convergence between a hippocentric geo-cultural scenario, on the one hand, and the continuity of the archaeological record, on the other ("The steppe tribes of horse-breeders and mobile pastoralists had already begun, in the Copper Age, to play the role which they were to continue to play for the next 5,000 to 5,500 years of human history" [Chernykh 1992:42-3]), pace Anthony and other scholars who continue to cultivate the myth of the hippocentrism of the Indo-Europeans and the Indo-Iranians. The origin of the Iranians, in turn, must be sought in Iran itself, and their role in the steppes should be seen as an aspect of a later expansion from the south (see Khlopin 1990:177). The Bactrian Margiana complex, in my opinion correctly interpreted by Lamberg-Karlovsky as opposed to Andronovo, may well be an important aspect of the Iranians' earliest northern expansion."

source: More on Archaeology and Language: Mario Alinei, Richard N. Frye: Current Anthropology, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2003), pp. 109-110. Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. DOI: 10.1086/345686.

"Russian and Central Asian scholars working on the contemporary but very different Andronovo and Bactrian Margiana archaeological complexes of the 2nd millennium b.c. have identified both as Indo-Iranian, and particular sites so identified, are being used for nationalist purposes. There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they had a common [Indo-European] ancestor or that either is Indo-Iranian. Ethnicity and language are not easily linked with an archaeological signature, and the identity of the Indo-Iranians remains elusive. [...]. There are serious problems in determining the chronology of the Common Altaic protolanguage. The question is not whether an Altaic protolanguage existed but how shared linguistic material due to early contacts can be distinguished from that inherited from the supposed Common Altaic. Whatever the answer to this question, it is very unlikely that in the chronological range of Andronovo and the Bactrian Margiana complex a Common Altaic (still) existed. This means that the possible languages of the bearers of these archaeological cultures can only be Turkic or Mongolian (for several reasons I would exclude Manchu-Tunguzian and other supposed Altaic languages such as Korean or Japanese).[...]. Both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolian could, however, reflect a culture like the Andronovo. [.]. It is not surprising that the majority continue to hold the view that the bearers of the Andronovo culture spoke Indo-Iranian. Consensus is not, however, the hallmark of all responses. [...]. Renfrew favors an Indo-Iranian identity for the Andronovo, and he fully realizes that there is not a shred of evidence that identifies the Andronovo with the traditional homeland of the Indo-Iranian-speakers either on the Iranian Plateau or in South Asia. There is, however, clear evidence for a Bactrian Margiana presence on the Iranian Plateau (Amiet 1984, Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992) and in South Asia (Jarrige 1993, n.d.). [...]. Such diversity among the Andronovo appeals to me. Framing the question as what language the Andronovo spoke is, I believe, misdirected. The Andronovo was made up of many cultures subject to constant change; some may have spoken Indo-Iranian, others Proto-Turkic, and yet others Proto-Mongolian, and, pace Mallory, there may have been an occasional Finno-Ugric-speaker among the lot."

source: Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians, by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Harvard University, Current Anthropology Volume 43, Number 1, February 2002, © by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, pp.63-84.

"Thus, there is an equally valid quest in searching for the homeland and subsequent migration of the Altaic languages (Turkish, Mongolian), Ugric (Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian) - see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov for a full listings of these language families and Elamo-Dravidian. Each of these three language families have their roots on the Eurasiatic steppes and/or in Central Asia. The fact that these language families, compared to Indo-European, are of far less interest to the archaeologist with regard to the study of homeland(s) and/or subsequent spread, may have a great deal to do with the fact that it is primarily speakers of Indo-European who address this topic in search of their own roots. [...] Although there is a consensus among archaeologists working on the steppes that the Andronovo culture is in the right place at the right time, and thus is to be considered Indo-Iranian, there is neither textual, ethnohistoric, nor archaeological evidence, individually or in combination, that offers a clinching argument for this consensus."

source: C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, In: The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. Edwin Bryant, Associate Professor of Early Indian Religions and Laurie Patton, Laurie Patton, Routledge 2013, pp.142-172.

I suggest that the non-horse-domesticated parts were inhabited by early Finno-Ugrians and the horse-domesticated parts were inhabited by Altaic (in particular early Turkic) speakers.

Mario Alinei on this subject:

"Moreover, overwhelming linguistic evidence, among which most important is the spread of exclusively Turkic loanword related to horse terminology in all languages of Eastern Europe, both Indo-European and Uralic, shows that horse domestication is a fundamental Turkic innovation. It is no accident that the Botai culture is a khazak culture, belonging to the Turkic-speaking area, and not to the IE-, or Uralic-speaking one! Myths and dogmas are hard to die! (M.A.)"

source: PCP SCIENTIFIC NEWS: Edited by Mario Alinei, Xaverio Ballester, Francesco Benozzo. 07/12/2009.

This circumstance is also confirmed by other scientists:

"This development is evidenced as early as 3000 BC in the Botai and Surtanda cultures of the southern Urals and northern Kazakhstan. These cultures have evidence of metal mining (Matyushin 1986) and horseback riding, though they seem to lack wheeled vehicles or formal cemeteries (Anthony 1995, 1998). The eventual onset of the Iron Age in the area marked a disintegration of some earlier cultural units and a period of shifting cultural traits, cultural borrowing, and cultural admixture (Matveeva 2000, Andrey Shpitonkov et al., Ural State University, Personal Communication 2004). It is also from the Trans-Ural area that modern Ugrian populations are thought to have derived (Golden 1991, Andrey Shpitonkov et al., Ural State University, Personal Communication 2004). ... A more general comparison by Bermisheva (2002) found that, at least maternally, “the Finno-Ugric populations of the (Ural) region proved to be more similar to their Turkic neighbors than to linguistically related Balto-Finnish ethnic groups” (p. 82). The genetic findings in that study pointed toward a joint role of Siberian and Central Asian influence in the ethnogenesis of modern trans-Ural populations (Bermisheva 2002)."

source: Bennett, Casey and Frederika A. Kaestle (2010) “Investigation of Ancient DNA from Western Siberia and the Sargat Culture.” Human Biology, Volume 82, Number 2, April 2010: 143-156.

(my comment: shit happens, so, Botai was "purely Finno-Ugric" according to you, right? only in a hardcore ethnocentric worldview )

Specific linguistic evidence between Botai and Altaics based on PIE marḱ- ("horse"):

"Celtic *markos (“horse”) and Germanic *marhaz (“horse, mare, steed”) are loanwords from some unidentified source which the Indo-Europeanists T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov associate to horse riding in the Bronze Age.

This might be an Asiatic Wanderwort found also in Proto-Sino-Tibetan *mrāH,*mrāŋ (“horse, mare, steed”), Proto-Tibeto-Burman *mrāŋ ("horse"), and Proto-Northeast Caucasian *far-nē (“horse, mare”), possibly originated in the domestication of wild horses by the Botai culture of northern Kazakhstan (3700-3100 BCE). This is apparently a suffixed form of a root found in Proto-Altaic *mórV (“horse”), compare Proto-Mongolic *mori (“horse”), Proto-Tungus-Manchu *murin (“horse”), Proto-Korean *màr (“horse”) and possibly also in Proto-Dravidian *mar-ai (“a k. of deer)”)."

source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen...an/marḱ-

Specific linguistic evidence between Altaics/Turkics and Scythians based on the postulated Altaic-Scythic origin of PIE marḱ- ("horse"):

"That is, this word was not transported to Europe by IE migratory tribes, but was adopted in Central Europe by IE speaking tribes (Celts and Germans) from some Asiatic people, speaking Altaic and practising horse-riding. We mean the Scythians (and Sarmats) who came from Central Asia in the seventh century B.C., crossed the Caucasus and appeared in northern Iran and Asia Minor. Scythians may not have been Indo-European, but a mixture of nations of Central Asia, including some Turkish and Altaic elements. Their language, though remaining Iranian, carried a lot of borrowed non-Indo-European features. ... At the same time, we have to note that if our idea of the Scythian origin of the word *marḱ- is right, we are then dealing only with indirect contacts, maybe via Galatians, because this word was well-rooted in Celtic before Romanization and before Scythian and Sarmatic tribes moved to Europe in the second to third century A.D."

source: Tatyana A. Mikhailova (Moscow State University) in: Hildegard L. C. Tristram, The Celtic Languages in Contact: Papers from the Workshop Within the Framework of the XIII International Congress of Celtic Studies, Bonn, 26-27. Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2007, page 7.

It is also clear that: "...on the basis of archaeological evidence, the Sargat culture has been ascribed to a zone of intermixture between the ... steppe peoples to the south, such as the Saka or Sarmatians, and native Ugrian and/or Siberian populations (Koryakova and Daire 2000; Matveeva 2000; Andrey Shpitonkov et al., personal communication, 2004).")

In this context it is no surprise that the haplogroup T1 was found within the Sargat territory:

"... the specific subtype T1 tends to be found further east and is common in Central Asian and modern Turkic populations (Lalueza-Fox et al. 2004), who inhabit much of the same territory as the ancient Saka, Sarmatian, Andronovo, and other putative! Iranian peoples of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. Lalueza-Fox et al. (2004) also found several T and T1 sequences in ancient burials, including kurgans, in the Kazakh steppe between the 14th-10th centuries BC, as well as later into the 1st Millenia BC. These coincide with the latter part of the Andronovo period and the Saka period in the region."

same source mentioned above: Bennett, Casey and Frederika A. Kaestle (2010) “Investigation of Ancient DNA from Western Siberia and the Sargat Culture.” Human Biology, Volume 82, Number 2, April 2010: 143-156.

Genetic connections between haplogroup R1b1, Botai, Andronovans and Turkics:

"The Türkic-speaking bearers of Asian R1b haplotypes and their descendants largely remained in Asia, the rest had moved to the Caucasus, the Middle East, ancient Europe. 5,700-5,100 years ago in the North Kazakhstan they established the Botai archeological culture, and according to the latest data, about 5,500 years ago horse was domesticated there (Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010). In addition to the Botai settlement dated 3,700-3,100 BC (it certainly was the haplogroup R1b, since the carriers of the R1a1 appeared in those regions only 1500-2000 years later). A summer camp dated 1,200-900 BC, i.e. 3,200-2,900 years ago, was found there. However, these were much more recent times, and the camp might have been established by the Andronovans, “Indo-European” R1a1, after a departure of a part of their tribe to India. They could also be the Türkic-speaking R1b1. The archaeologists, naturally, did not get into such distinctions. They simply noted that the camp belonged to the Bronze Age."

source: Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, vol. 3, No. 1, 2010 (in Russian) (pp. 3 - 58 in English)

Klyosov also states that Botai culture is much older than previously thought.
________________________
See also: Altaic-IE contacts based on PIE h₁éḱwos

[blogen]

The half of these sources supports the Uralic affinity, an another fourth is irrevelant in here, for example the the R1b speculations and the others are pseudoscience only, like Mario Alinei, who is a joke.

[Proto-Shaman]

The half of these sources supports the Uralic affinity, an another fourth is irrevelant in here, for example the the R1b speculations and the others are pseudoscience only, like Mario Alinei, who is a joke.

You are a lying joke now Your agressivity seems proportional to your lack of arguments...

[blogen]

You are a lying joke now Your agressivity seems proportional to your lack of arguments...

This was the essence of your flood. Anyway, do not conceal lunatics, for example Alinei between the real sources next time!

[Proto-Shaman]

This was the essence of your flood. Anyway, do not conceal lunatics, for example Alinei between the real sources next time!

fixed!