N1c-L392 associated with expanding Turkic lineages in Siberia

Second in popularity for the expansion of haplogroup N1a-L392 (ca. 4400 BC) is, apparently, the association with Turkic, and by extension with Micro-Altaic, after the Uralic link preferred in Europe; at least among certain eastern researchers.

New paper in a recently created journal, by the same main author of the group proposing that Scythians of hg. N1c were Turkic speakers: On the origins of the Sakhas’ paternal lineages: Reconciliation of population genetic / ancient DNA data, archaeological findings and historical narratives, by Tikhonov, Gurkan, Demirdov, and Beyoglu, Siberian Research (2019).

Interesting excerpts:

According to the views of a number of authoritative researchers, the Yakut ethnos was formed in the territory of Yakutia as a result of the mixing of people from the south and the autochthonous population [34].

These three major Sakha paternal lineages may have also arrived in Yakutia at different times and/ or from different places and/or with a difference in several generations instead, or perhaps Y-chromosomal STR mutations may have taken place in situ in Yakutia. Nevertheless, the immediate common ancestor(s) from the Asian Steppe of these three most prevalent Sakha Y-chromosomal STR haplotypes possibly lived during the prominence of the Turkic Khaganates, hence the near-perfect matches observed across a wide range of Eurasian geography, including as far as from Cyprus in the West to Liaoning, China in the East, then Middle Lena in the North and Afghanistan in the South (Table 3 and Figure 5). There may also be haplotypes closely-related to ‘the dominant Elley line’ among Karakalpaks, Uzbeks and Tajiks, however, limitations in the loci coverage for the available dataset (only eight Y-chromosomal STR loci) precludes further conclusions on this matter [25].

17-loci median-joining network analysis of the original/dominant Elley, Unknown and Omogoy Y-chromosomal STR haplotypes with the YHRD matches from outside Yakutia populations.

According to the results presented here, very similar Y-STR haplotypes to that of the original Elley line were found in the west: Afghanistan and northern Cyprus, and in the east: Liaoning Province, China and Ulaanbaator, Northern Mongolia. In the case of the dominant Omogoy line, very closely matching haplotypes differing by a single mutational step were found in the city of Chifen of the Jirin Province, China. The widest range of similar haplotypes was found for the Yakut haplotype Unknown: In Mongolia, China and South Korea. For instance, haplotypes differing by a single step mutation were found in Northern Mongolia (Khalk, Darhad, Uryankhai populations), Ulaanbaator (Khalk) and in the province of Jirin, China (Han population).

14-loci median-joining network analysis for the original/dominant Elley (Ell), Unknown Clan
(Vil), Omogoy (Omo), Eurasian (Eur) and Xiongnu (Xuo) Y-chromosomal STR haplotypes and that for a representative ancient DNA sample (Ch0 or DSQ04) from the Upper Xiajiadian Culture
recovered from the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China.

Notably, Tat-C-bearing Y-chromosomes were also observed in ancient DNA samples from the 2700-3000 years-old Upper Xiajiadian culture in Inner Mongolia, as well as those from the Serteya II site at the Upper Dvina region in Russia and the ‘Devichyi gory’ culture of long barrow burials at the Nevel’sky district of Pskovsky region in Russia. A 14-loci Y-chromosomal STR median-joining network of the most prevalent Sakha haplotypes and a Tat-C-bearing haplotype from one of the ancient DNA samples recovered from the Upper Xiajiadian culture in Inner Mongolia (DSQ04) revealed that the contemporary Sakha haplotype ‘Xuo’ (Table 2, Haplotype ID “Xuo”) classified as that of ‘the Xiongnu clan’ in our current study, was the closest to the ancient Xiongnu haplotype (Figure 6). TMRCA estimate for this 14-loci Y-chromosomal STR network was 4357 ± 1038 years or 2341 ± 1038 BCE, which correlated well with the Upper Xiajiadian culture that was dated to the Late Bronze Age (700-1000 BCE).

Geographical location of ancient samples belonging to major clade N of the Y-chromosome.

NOTE. Also interesting from the paper seems to be the proportion of E1b1b among admixed Russian populations, in a proportion similar to R1a or I2a(xI2a1).

It is tempting to associate the prevalent presence of N1c-L392 in ancient Siberian populations with the expansion of Altaic, by simplistically linking the findings (in chronological order) near Lake Baikal (Damgaard et al. 2018), Upper Xiajiadian (Cui et al. 2013), among Khövsgöl (Jeong et al. 2018), in Huns (Damgaard et al. 2018), and in Mongolic-speaking Avars (Csáky et al. 2019).

However, its finding among Palaeo-Laplandic peoples in the Kola peninsula ca. 1500 BC (Lamnidis et al. 2018) and among Palaeo-Siberian populations near the Yana River (Sikora et al. 2018) ca. AD 1200 should be enough to accept the hypothesis of ancestral waves of expansion of the haplogroup over northern Eurasia, with acculturation and further expansions in the different regions since the Iron Age (see more on its potential expansion waves).

Also, a simple look at the TMRCA and modern distribution was enough to hypothesize long ago the lack of connection of N1c-L392 with Altaic or Uralic peoples. From Ilumäe et al. (2016):

Previous research has shown that Y chromosomes of the Turkic-speaking Yakuts (Sakha) belong overwhelmingly to hg N3 (formerly N1c1). We found that nearly all of the more than 150 genotyped Yakut N3 Y chromosomes belong to the N3a2-M2118 clade, just as in the Turkic-speaking Dolgans and the linguistically distant Tungusic-speaking Evenks and Evens living in Yakutia (Table S2). Hence, the N3a2 patrilineage is a prime example of a male population of broad central Siberian ancestry that is not intrinsic to any linguistically defined group of people. Moreover, the deepest branch of hg N3a2 is represented by a Lebanese and a Chinese sample. This finding agrees with the sequence data from Hallast et al., where one Turkish Y chromosome was also assigned to the same sub-clade. Interestingly, N3a2 was also found in one Bhutan individual who represents a separate sub-lineage in the clade. These findings show that although N3a2 reflects a recent strong founder effect primarily in central Siberia (Yakutia, Sakha), the sub-clade has a much wider distribution area with incidental occurrences in the Near East and South Asia.

Frequency-Distribution Maps of Individual Sub-clades of hg N3a2, by Ilumäe et al. (2016).

The most striking aspect of the phylogeography of hg N is the spread of the N3a3’6-CTS6967 lineages. Considering the three geographically most distant populations in our study—Chukchi, Buryats, and Lithuanians—it is remarkable to find that about half of the Y chromosome pool of each consists of hg N3 and that they share the same sub-clade N3a3’6. The fractionation of N3a3’6 into the four sub-clades that cover such an extraordinarily wide area occurred in the mid-Holocene, about 5.0 kya (95% CI = 4.4–5.7 kya). It is hard to pinpoint the precise region where the split of these lineages occurred. It could have happened somewhere in the middle of their geographic spread around the Urals or further east in West Siberia, where current regional diversity of hg N sub-lineages is the highest (Figure 1B). Yet, it is evident that the spread of the newly arisen sub-clades of N3a3’6 in opposing directions happened very quickly. Today, it unites the East Baltic, East Fennoscandia, Buryatia, Mongolia, and Chukotka-Kamchatka (Beringian) Eurasian regions, which are separated from each other by approximately 5,000–6,700 km by air. N3a3’6 has high frequencies in the patrilineal pools of populations belonging to the Altaic, Uralic, several Indo-European, and Chukotko-Kamchatkan language families. There is no generally agreed, time-resolved linguistic tree that unites these linguistic phyla. Yet, their split is almost certainly at least several millennia older than the rather recent expansion signal of the N3a3’6 sub-clade, suggesting that its spread had little to do with linguistic affinities of men carrying the N3a3’6 lineages.

Frequency-Distribution Maps of Individual Subclade N3a3 / N1a1a1a1a1a-CTS2929/VL29.

It was thus clear long ago that N1c-L392 lineages must have expanded explosively in the 5th millennium through Northern Eurasia, probably from a region to the north of Lake Baikal, and that this expansion – and succeeding ones through Northern Eurasia – may not be associated to any known language group until well into the common era.


13 thoughts on “N1c-L392 associated with expanding Turkic lineages in Siberia

      1. Vilems first works on Tat-C pointed to an origin in the Finnish Gulf area – and a subssequent spread towards the east.

        That would be along the Volga, east to Ural and beyond. Populating the waterways along the Eurasias boreal forest-zone. (Preparing the infrastructure nessecary to help spread the later agriculture, evolved by the ‘highlanders’ among cattlefarmers – characteristic of the early R1a-dynasties – both west and east of the Finnish Gulf.)

        .A small decade later his ex-adept, Siiri Rootsi, investigated mt-dna along the same horison, pulling in the oposite direction – as (archaic) sino-tibetan mt-dna (hgs C-Z, D) was observed moving west. (Consequently she made the assumption that the spread of y-dna N across the board would have the same area of origin – explaining the sub-clades along the Ural-Volga-Baltic horizon to be the result of “multiple founder-effects”.)

        Later discoveries have shown that they were both right – in part.

        As the rest of macro-group F, Y-dna N do have a west-eurasian origin. The only populations known to have survived The Younger Dryas Extinction Event – the coldest millennia on record, 12.900 to 11.900 yrs ago – are found at the shores of the incomming Gulfstream, between the SW Baltics and the English Channel.

        Understanding that the only population (and culture) that came out of the YD – to repopulate the empty void of arctic/semi-arctic Eurasia – had the very same, European roots. From Cro-Magnon to Caucasian. Thus we do undertand that macrogroup F is the defining root of all “Caucasians” – including N1a/b/c.

        Simultanously we do know that mt-DNA from the (archaic) sino-tibetan gene-pool – that survived the YD south-east of Himalaya – reached Carelia no later than 7.500 yrs ago. We even know that one of them married an early farmer of at the Deer Island in Onega – at the exact bridge-head between the Baltic waterways and the Volga, Eurasias largest river-system.

        Moreover we do know that the Caucasians that re-populated Northern and Southern Europe had a common origin – and a common way of perpetuating/reproducing themselves, in patrilinear dynasties.

        Thus we find y-dna I2 among all the pioneers re-populating N Europe, while their brother-line G2 re-populated S Europe. The border-areas between I2 and G2 are pretty consistent through the Mesolithic, marked by the watershed between the rivers floating north vs. south. Thus we find G” to dominate the entire Mediterranean facade as well as the western side of the Black Sea – an all up the Donau.

        Copnsequently we find several graveyards along these border-areas where men from both dynasties (G2 and I2) are buried together. As the climate improves and the larger plains of Eurasia became grasslands the cattle-farmers follow suit, as the specific ability to digest diaries made it possible to build entirely new economies – in otherwise useless plains and grasslands. Inbetween the pioneering foragers and goat-herders, whose skills in mineralogy, forestry, pyrotech, boatbuilding, rowing and sailing had already reached and populated the entire Atlantic facade (from Gibraltar to North Cape and Carelia) – as well as the Mediterranean facade – no later than 11.200 yrs ago.

        Since the early 1990-ties we have known that the first regular trade-routes across Fenno-Scandias northern hemiphere – along the waterways between the Botninc Bay and Lofoten, the White Sea and Carelia – are no less than 8.500 yrs old

        By today we even know that the very first pioneers to re-populate the grand Volga and its many tributaries were from the same, patrilinear dynasties that re-populated Fenno-Scandia and the Baltic countries. Moreover we already have solid proof of travel and trade between the Western Baltics and the Eastern Baltics since the pioneer-time already, as of 11.900 – 11.700 BP as the Swidrien culture is established between Oder and Vistula – to soon frog-leap into Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Carelia, from where the “oriental” climates would produce a culture slightly different from their occidental cousines of western Europe. Thus we have an Eastern culture that diversed from the Western culture, splitting the Baltic in two different traditions – from where one produced the Finns aka Vends, while the other produced the Goths.

        The later cattle-farmers populating the plains bifuricated to – into R1a and R1b – utilizing differnt breeds for different climates and biotopes.

        The highlands of Central and South Europe, as well as the boreal plains up north, were utilizing specifically bred “cold-bloded” horses and cattle, able to withstand really cold winters. Meanwhile their warm-bloded cousins were (re-)populating the lower plains of W Europe and the southern plains (‘steppes’) of E Europe and C Asia. The highlanders are obviously developed by the first R1a-dynasty, while the initiating R1b-dynasty would be the lowlanders, utilizing the areas between the European wetlands and meadowlands – where the paleolithic Aurochses and their contemporary ‘aur-horses’ had their natural habitats.

        As the Holocene Optimum makes large-scale cattle-farming possible we see an explosive growth in the dynasties of R1a and R1b, unrivalled by any other y-dna-group during the Neolithic. Moreover we find that they both spread far and wide – as R1a took highly adaptible cattles – along with cheese and cream, butter and beef all the way to China, Nepal and Sri Lanka, while the R1b produced cattle able to live and thrive as far south as the African savanna.

        Measuring Lactose Persistence around the globe it seems obvious that the oldest population of cattle-famiers and milk-drinkers are found around the Danish islands. The only known populations where 99-100% of the adults can digest milk is actually found in some Scanian communes. The areas in question have both y-dna R1a and R1b, besides the old y-dna I2/I1.

        Otherwise we find R1b dominating mainland Denmark, as well as Germany, Be-Ne-Lux and England, Later also in Spain, France, Poland, Ukraine and Armenia. While R1a appear in Scotland, Fenno-Scandia and Russia.

        Thus we may conclude that the Swedes and Danes are of two different dynasties, aka tribes aka ‘races’. While the Danish cattlefarmers shares ancestry with the Brits, French and Germans the Swedes share paternal ancestry with the ancient Sueones and Swyz, as well as the farming Finns, Russians, Kazaks and Kashmiri.

        Looking at the diversity among domesticated cattles and horses we find a pretty complete overlap. The very same area – between Brittain and Poland – have the far highest diversity in milk-producing alleles within domesticated cattles.

        As Tambets keep working on the genetics she will have to adress the Fenno-Ugric (“Uralian”) language to the areas where the vast majority of “uralian” speakers are found, historically. Which still is around the more temerperate and bio-productive areas of the Uralian hemisphere – where the old highways of travel and trade between Asia and Europe were first established, no less than 10.000 years ago. A continous inter-action and exchange of ware and wifes found between Bactria and the Baltic is no less than 9.500 yrs old.

        The lingusitic split between (“proto”-) IE and (“proto”-) Uralian should be at least 10.000 years. Thus we need to adress the Paleolithic Continuation Theory – to match the ‘revolutionary’ facts that have been discovered during the last two decades – within both archaeology and genetics. Finally we have to get the facts that (still) is needed to determine the age and area of origin for the (first) N1-dynasty – whose descendants came to domiante the entire Uralian horizon. Unless Tambets gives the PCT a closer look it’s doubtful that she will ever solve this puzzle…

        1. Understanding that the only population (and culture) that came out of the YD – to repopulate the empty void of arctic/semi-arctic Eurasia – had the very same, European roots. From Cro-Magnon to Caucasian. Thus we do undertand that macrogroup F is the defining root of all “Caucasians” – including N1a/b/c.

          It’s funny you should say that it’s the defining root of all ”Caucasians”. Macrogroup F is the parent of M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, L, and T, which includes the Ket, Nganasan, Yakut, Tatars, and Inuit. I would say it’s the defining root of nearly every human being on earth, irrespective of phenotype. 90% of paternal lineages outside of African descend from it.
          And as for N1a, its main carriers can hardly be classified as caucasian.

          1. The palearctic macro-group CF/F is obviosuly ancestral to y-dna-lines that spread far and wide – AFTER ice-time.

            Just like the evolutionary sub-groups of the palearctic Greywolf, ancestral to all domesticate dogtypes. (That doesn’t mean other canines were excluded from this evolution. Cross-breeding with other wolves and foxes have definitly been tried.)

            Later we might follow the evolution of domesticated horses and cattles the same way – from a palearctic origin in NW Europe, where a climatical refugia by the incomming Gulfstream had made it possible for these aur-species to survive both the LGM and the YD – in the very same area.

            As the expressions of macro-group F is found throughout Eurasia DURING ice-time (Ust Istim/Kostenki/Cro-Magnon/Goyet/Sungir/Malta/etc) we may safely assume that this macro-group is directly responsible for the Cro-Magnons that returned after ice-time as “Caucasians”.

            Consequently we have to deifine the descendants of hg CF/F as archetypical to the Caucasian dynasties/tribes/stocks/etnicities.

            Moreover we have to adress that the newer lines of this macro-group could be the result of a cross-bred between descendants from the pale-arcrtic refugia of macro-groups F* and (mt-dna) R* – with mitocondrial DNA of descendants from the paleo-tropical refugias. Thus the archaic gene-pools that survived ice-age in the tropical parts of the world – from S America and Africa to S India, Indo-China, SE China and Oceania – could all be mixed with descendants of the pale-arctic survivors.

            In patrilocal and patrilinear, agnatically defined dynastical tribes – aka enticities – an adpotion of a new y-line would affect the entire population in just about five generations – turning an old kingline line of y-dna A, B, D or E into a new dynasty, by adapting a descendant of y-dna F to become the new Crown and genetical source of the tribes next generations of noblmen, chieftains and procreators.

            This may explain both the origin and the diversity – as well as the (main) distribution – of the hgs K-T. Reaching out after ice-time it’s clear that the navigating boat-buiilders, herders and dog-whistlers from palearctic Europe actually did find their way to the surviving populations in the troical hemisphere – as soon as ice-age were over and safe travels possible.

            In meeting with the archaic populations of Northern Africa the “Caucasians” fom Europe is known to have made the first “proto-minoans” – born and bore by a y-dna-line from F that ended up as a dynasty and tribe by its own – finally ending up as a stable and sustainable mutation today known as y-dna G2a2.

            Later this split in an eastern and western dynasty – as Greek evolved side by side with the Roman civilization. From the eastern family-line (ran by ‘Zevs’) new subclades would evolve the hellenci culture in Egypt and Anatolia, as well as in Sumeria. The monuments still existing in Anatolia and Asia Minor – from Gobekli Tepe to Baalbek and Giza – are due proof of the megalithic architecture that occured TOGETHER with the first Caucasian descendants from ice-age Europe – just about 11.600 yrs ago.

            During this first millennia after ice-age these arctic Eurasians would try to explore, mix and mingle with ALL their tropical cousines – from Africa to India, Oceania, China and America.

            Consequently they came to build world-wide connections that evidently came to cross the Pacific as well as the Atlantic oceans – bringing the organizing principle of a patrilinear dynasty – together with the descending mutations of y-dna F – to all the eight corners of the world.

            Thus we may even claim that most of todays dravidians, burmese and chineese have dual origins – as their female gene-pool have paleo-tropical roots while their paternal herritage has a paleo-arctic – aka caucasian – origin.

            Which is why both Tamil and Singaleese have this ‘Caucasian’ y-dna, such as y-dna H and y-dna R1a1, respectively. Which means there’s some closely shared ancestry between Tamils and Gypsies – similar to the relationship between the Singalese and the Swedish farmers, respectively.

            Same thing with the Sami, Samoyeds, Ket, Nganasan, Yakut and Inuit. Their fenotypes are obviously influenced by a sino-tibetan side, also. Due to the dominance of the troipcal traits over the (younger) arctical traits – when mixed – we might fail to see their arctical/caucasian ancestry. Before aDNA started to actually explain the last 45.000 years of the human genome. (With Tartars it’s a bit different, probably stemming from indo-aryans (y-dna J2) that expanded into the Caspian depression during the conquests of the Achmenid empire.)

            Thus we may speak of macro-group F as “caucasian males” – that mutated into a large variety of fenotypes as they succeeded to find and marry into the various cultures that survived the LGM as well as the YD within the tropical world.

            We already know that y-dna DE survived ice-time south of the Mediterranean, while CF survived north of the Meds. Looking closer at the critical stages of ice-time, as the fluctations in median temperatures exceeded all older scopes – we find the YD to be the very worst, with an initial drop of 15′ Celsius, some12.930 years ago.

            The spread of modern y-dna througout Eurasia came after that – which may be a challenge to the present estimates of the various mutation-rates found within the descending lines from macro-group F.

            We know that the older lines from mg F, such as hgs G,H,I and J, became the pioneering settlers that organized and excuted the re-population of the (north) Eurasian coasts and rivers – between 11.900 and 11.200 yrs ago. As dynastical entities.

            Moreover we know that the first horse-breeders and cattle-farmers spread and multiplied with dynastical lines of y-dna R, bifuricated into highlanders and lowlanders, as R1a and R1b, respectively – out of NW Europe, where the native horses and aurochs had their natural habitat during ice-age. We also know that the northern shores of the Atlantic Facade became their area of survival during severe cold of the LGM and the YD.

            Since the hgs F-K is considered directly ancestral to K-T as the younger subclads of macro-dad F we have to adress the spread of the extant versions of KL/MNO/PQRST as the later. The critical question then remaining will be wether M/NO and QR/ST bifuricated AND spread after the LGM or after the YD.

            “The Younger Dryas Megafaunal Extinction Event” were definitvely the most cataclysmic cold-event known to paleo-biology, as checked by quartenary geology. Severly decimating ALL plants and animals it’s known to have entirely eradicated each and every animal of most mammals known to Europe and N-America. Up to 2/3 of the larger mammals went ecxtinct…

            The worst and most defining bottle-neck of the modern human genome is obviously connected to the Younger Dryas – when only a handfew people survived within the landmass of Eurasia. Consequently we my speak of the refugia of men and mice, horses and oxen – known as the Bromme culture of the the Western Baltics – as the very genesis of the ‘Caucasians’ that made it through the “fimbulwinter” to re-populate Europe. Besides outgoing descendants – ready to travel the world and initiate a re-connection between the isolated cultures of the arctical versus tropical world.

            Thus they were able to relate and restore a common core and counsciousness world-wide. Initiating new dynasties within various pools of ancient mt-dna they came to form various mutations of y-dna F/C-T, as they “went out to marry foreign women…”

          1. This is pretty much in concordance with Rootsi 2007, using “multiple founder-effects” to construe a “anti-clockwise” migration from a hypotetical origin in China, dated before the LGM.

            “While the majority of these lineages are in Central Europe and Russia, the progenitor of haplogroup N likely lived as far east as China during the bottleneck from 37,000 to 22,000 years ago.”

            In other words – higly speculative. As in “likely or not?

            Which is exactly why I commented on this in the first place – by reffering to Villems 2001 as the more sober, plain and simple suggestion.

            Besides – there’s no trace of y-dna N1 surviving BOTH the LGM and the YD east of Ural – since no population is known to have survived west of the Pacific rim, (and south of Manchuria), during these periods.

            During the LGM there were no populations existing east of the lower Djepr. During the YD there was no population known to exist east of the Atlantic rim. In fact there’s hardly any population surviving the YD Extinction Event at all, even in western and southern Europe.

            So far the only clear-cut coinnection between the Aurgnac/Gravettien/Solutrean/Magdalenien continuum though ice-age – including the LGM – is found only in the transition from the Magdalenien/Hamburg/Bromme culture – from which a small popualtion survived to pioneer the re-population of post-glacial Eurasia. Staring off as the Lyngby/Ahrensburg/Ailian/Cresswellian to the west and the Swidrien/Kunda/Volga-cultures to the east.

            Slowly staring about 11.900 years ago, butr soon to pick up speed as their descendants succeeded to multiply and repopulated all the main rivers and coastlines already 11.200 yrs ago.

            PS: Any clue to where the culture producing Gobekli Tepe, 11.600 – 9.500 yrs ago, came from? What y-dna dynasty may they have belonged to?.

  1. Any thoughts on the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and Haplogroup N3a3’6, N1b (F2930)? Also, I wouldn’t be suprised if Haplogroup N and/or Q were heavily involved in the spread of “Nostratic” or “Eurasian” all along, maybe a dialect-continuum of some sort. “Considering the three geographically most distant populations in our study—Chukchi, Buryats, and Lithuanians.”

    1. The Seima-Turbino phenomenon seems to be rather a west-east phenomenon in terms of genetics, which would confirm Carpelan & Parpola’s theory of metal from the west, driven by Abashevo.

      I think this interaction, even if mainly west-east, is one of both possibilities as to where and how did haplogroup N1c infiltrate early Permian groups, and later Volga Finns and then Balto-Finns, through a more ‘southern’ route (distinct from the ‘northern route’ of the Arctic found in Kola, and later in Samic and Finnic peoples).

      I believe the infiltration happened rather through the Cis-Urals Arctic region, though, in direct contact with the Permic expansion. I explained that in the book’s sections and in the series Corded Ware—Uralic.

      The key to where the genetic hotspot of Eurasiatic peoples is – given that most waves of population movements through the Pontic-Caspian area were east-to-west from the southern Urals or beyond since the Epipalaeolithic – whether or not Palaeo-Siberian groups (and which ones) can be included in a Eurasiatic phylum. That is, linguistic again.

      Also, if the greater availability of R1b samples is a great bias today, another great bias is our better knowledge of Indo-European and Uralic, hence the variability in members of the Eurasiatic group. Kortlandt believes in a Uralo-Siberian group, but I am not so sure about the possibility of including Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, or Eskimo-Aleut, even though they are distantly connected through ANE ancestry in genetics (hence through R, Q, N…).

      For Kortlandt, Eurasiatic includes Uralo-Siberian on a par with Altaic, which in turn includes Korean and Japanese. I am not so sure about that, either. Not even about including Tungusic with Turkic and Mongolic into a “Micro-Altaic” group. And even Turkic and Mongolic appear to have separated long ago, or be the consequence of continued contacts, but I am no expert.

      Similarly, our knowledge of Semitic drives our reconstruction of Afroasiatic, and with Indo-European a potential “Nostratic”. So, basically, I prefer to follow Indo-European, Uralic, and Semitic. I wish I could know all proto-languages and all archaeological cultures in the world, but I can’t.

      If we had the same amount of research for the reconstruction of every parent language in every language family, maybe the most likely groupings would change. It’s difficult to separate typological comparisons and false etymologies from real ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.