Kvali

Таблица из работы автора Wolfgang Schulze из Universität München: "Historische und areale Aspekte der Bodenschatz Terminologie in den ostkaukasischen Sprachen." Отмечены именно те металлы, названия которых по мнению автора, в восточно-кавказких языках являются (либо возможно являются) заимствованиями. Спараведливости ради необхоходимо отметить, что для обозначения металла "медь" (Kupfer в таблице) в нахских языках автором принято слово "гез" (инг. гез), которое фактически редко употребляется и чаще означает латунь. Фактически обиходное слово для обозначения меди в нахский языках является солово цlаст.

Several Caucasus proxies were tested for North Ossetians, including Ginchi_MLBA, Digomi_IA, Samsun_B/Colchian-related samples, and Koban_EIA. Koban_EIA produced the strongest fit and was selected as the primary source. Importantly, Koban_EIA already carried pre-Alanic Srubnaya-related steppe ancestry, so it does not represent a purely local Caucasus baseline. Additional sources were then tested alongside Koban_EIA. The strongest valid model was: North Ossetian ≈ 95.9% Koban_EIA + 4.1% Slab Grave p = 0.106 A broad panel of Scythian, Sarmatian, Srubnaya, and related populations was subsequently tested both with Koban alone and with the successful Koban + Slab Grave model. The Right set was kept fixed throughout, allowing direct comparison under identical conditions. Overall, Koban_EIA + Slab Grave remained the strongest valid model, while the tested Scytho-Sarmatian populations did not provide a better-fitting alternative. This supports the interpretation that most of the steppe-related ancestry in North Ossetians was already present before the Alanic period, rather than being primarily introduced by later Alans. In turn, the results are more consistent with substantial linguistic assimilation or language shift toward an Iranian/Alanic language with comparatively limited additional Alan-related gene flow, rather than Ossetian emerging through large-scale genetic replacement or admixture.

Who were the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers — and which modern populations have the most CHG ancestry? Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG) were one of the major ancestral populations of prehistoric West Eurasia. They are represented by three males from western Georgia: Satsurblia (~11,300 BCE), KK1 from Kotias Klde (~7,700 BCE), and the later-published NEO281, also from Kotias Klde (Jones et al. 2015; Allentoft et al. 2024). Their Y-DNA lineages were remarkably diverse: Satsurblia belonged to J1-FT34521, KK1 to J2a-Y12379, and NEO281 to basal J2b-Z533. J2a-Y12379 is an important and widespread lineage in the modern Caucasus, and various of its subclades are present among Georgians, Circassians, Ossetians and Nakhs. CHG were closely related to prehistoric populations of the Iranian plateau. One recent model estimates them as roughly 72% Western Asia_UP + 18% earlier Caucasus_UP (Dzudzuana cave) + 10% ANE-related ancestry (Allentoft et al. 2024). This also means CHG were not simply descendants of the earlier people of western Georgia. Before them lived the Dzudzuana/Caucasus_UP population, genetically closer to the ancestry later found among Anatolian hunter-gatherers. Dzudzuana Cave also produced dyed and twisted flax fibres ~30,000 years old - some of the earliest evidence for sophisticated fibre technology (Kvavadze et al. 2009). CHG-related populations later expanded northward and mixed extensively with Eastern European hunter-gatherers. Recent work identifies a Caucasus–Lower Volga (CLV) cline, whose populations contributed heavily to the ancestry that eventually produced Western Steppe Herders and Proto-Indo-Europeans (Lazaridis et al. 2025). And where is CHG ancestry highest today? Exactly where you might expect: the Caucasus itself. Western Georgian groups such as Megrelians, Imeretians and Svans, together with Abkhazians and other Caucasus populations, show some of the strongest CHG affinity in modern populations (Gavashelishvili et al. 2021). Exact percentages vary by model, but in distal models some Caucasian groups can approach or exceed ~60% CHG-related ancestry. More than 13,000 years after the Satsurblia man lived, the strongest genetic legacy of CHG is still found only a short distance from the caves where their remains were discovered.

Distribution of haplotype G2a1-Z6553 in aDNA records This haplotype is associated with Proto-Kartvelian people. It spread to the northern Caucasus during the Late Bronze Age Koban culture. Later, in the Migration Period, many northern Caucasians with this lineage joined Alans in their migrations westward to Europe, thus leaving their mark in the European aDNA.

aDNA from Varsimaantkari, Georgia, dated to 400 BCE is the earliest group displaying a genetic profile typical to Khevsurs. Another group from centuries later, 400 CE, from nearby Nedzikhi is also displaying the same genetic profile. Common haplogroups for these samples were G2a1, J2-Y3612 and I2c.

One subscriber noted that it should be said that the Alan component is a proxy (i.e. a replacement for a better ancestry due to not having better samples) for local Caucasus ancestry, but that is not the truth. The Ekazhevo Alan is neither a purely local Caucasian sample nor a purely steppe Alan, but a Caucasian Alan, which represents a mixed genetic profile between Steppe Alan and Caucasus ancestries. It should also be noted that using proxies on qpAdm isn't as simple as on G25, and oftentimes a proxy not close enough can get rejected. The subscriber noted you could simply use a Bronze Age Maikop culture sample as a proxy for the Caucasus, but there is no need to do this as we no longer live in 2016 and have better options. The subscriber also asked why Ginchi culture samples weren't used for the Caucasus proxy - replacing Ekazhevo with Ginchi gets rejected, adding Ginchi together with Ekazhevo causes a collinearity issue because Ekazhevo itself is made of Ginchi or Ginchi-like ancestry. The purpose of this model was to demonstrate that the bulk of the Chechen-Ingush genome had already formed in the first few generations of Alan appearance in the Caucasus. We later see this same genetic profile appear in later Alan populations like DA243 in Karachay-Cherkessia from 900 CE. All of this taken together indicates that "Alania" was not a population speaking a singular language, and in some cases not even sharing the same genome. Zaragizh Alans from Kabardino-Balkaria for example were very different from Ekazhevo, and Ossetian Alans differed from each other over the span of centuries as well. Note that while the p-value is good, it is still not perfect. This imperfection is likely driven by the fact that Chechens require an additional CHG-rich ancestry similar to that of Ossetians and Georgians, which most likely originates from the Koban culture. With more samples, we will be able to construct even more precise models.

This same model gets rejected for Ossetians, who require an additional West Caucasian ancestry source

qpAdm model of Chechens Ekazhevo Alan is a Caucasian Alan from 398 CE Khovd is Mongols from 1250 CE Swapping Mongol with Kipchak also worked, but the models preferred Mongol sources over Kipchak sources, indicating that the East Asian input is more likely to have come from the Golden Horde period rather than previous Khazar/Kipchak periods.

Y-DNA Haplogroups of Kazakh tribes

Касательно чечено-ингушского языкознания и нахских языков ---- Современные Нахские языки представляют из себя результат разделения прото-нахского языка основы, который разделился на две ветви бацбийскую и вайнахскую. Говоря о вайнахской ветви то в наиболее простом описание можно сказать, что ее дальнейшее развитие в определенный период привело к образованию некоего диалектного континуума. В данном посте речь пойдёт непосредственно о разностях легших в основу литературных форм и имеющие языковой статус. Как говорится: "Язык - это диалект, которому повезло". Вайнахские языки представлены Ингушским и Чеченским языками. Согласно данным приводимым чеченским лингвистом Ю.Д. Дешериевым схождения в лексике между Ингушским и Чеченским языками составляет 70-80% при около 50% полностью идентичных словах. Для нахских языков в целом т.е. включая Бацбийский приводится значение в 60-70% при не более 5-10% полностью совпадающих словах. Американский лингфист профессор Дж. Николс приводит цифру в 83-84 % схождения в лексике Ингушского и Чеченского языков (по ее мнению  данное значение завышено как следствее контактов носителей после разделения). Уровни схождения приведенные выше, для сравнения, ниже чем схождения между Португальским и Испанским языками (89%) и сопоставимы с, приводимой в различных источниках, разницей между Недерладским и Немецким или Французким и Итальянским.

Schematic periodization of archaeology of Armenia based on radiocarbon (Palaeolithic-Early Iron) and comparative-historical (Middle Iron-Medieval) chronology. Source: ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARMENIA IN REGIONAL CONTEXТ

Rough breakdown: I1 - Germanic N - Uralic Rest mostly Slavic