Open access Siberian genetic diversity reveals complex origins of the Samoyedic-speaking populations, by Karafet et al. Am J Hum Biol (2018) e23194.
Interesting excerpts (emphasis mine):
Consistent with their origin, Mongolic-speaking Buryats demonstrate genetic similarity with Mongols, and Turkic-speaking Altai-Kizhi and Teleuts are drawn close to CAS groups. The Tungusic-speaking Evenks collected in central and eastern Siberia cluster together and overlap with Yukagirs. Dolgans are widely scattered in the plot, justifying their recent origin from one Evenk clan, Yakuts, and Russian peasants in the 18th century (Popov, 1964). Uralic-speaking populations comprise a very wide cluster with Komi
… Read the rest “The complex origin of Samoyedic-speaking populations”
This is the fourth of four posts on the Corded Ware—Uralic identification:
Let me begin this final post on the Corded Ware—Uralic connection with an assertion that should be obvious to everyone involved in ethnolinguistic identification of prehistoric populations but, for one reason or another, is usually forgotten. In the words of David Reich, in Who We Are and How We Got … Read the rest “Corded Ware—Uralic (IV): Hg R1a and N in Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic expansions”
This is the third of four posts on the Corded Ware—Uralic identification. See
An Eastern Uralic group?
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 … Read the rest “Corded Ware—Uralic (III): “Siberian ancestry” and Ugric-Samoyedic expansions”
New paper (behind paywall) A case-study in historical sociolinguistics beyond Europe: Reconstructing patterns of multilingualism in a linguistic community in Siberia, by Khanina and Meyerhoff, Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics (2018) 4(2).
The Nganasans have been eastern neighbours of the Enets for at least several centuries, or even longer, as indicated in Figures 2 and 3.10 They often dwelled on the same grounds and had common households with the Enets. Nganasans and Enets could intermarry (Dolgikh 1962a), while the Nganasans did not marry representatives of any other ethnic groups. As a result, it was not unusual for Enets and Nganasans
… Read the rest “The traditional multilingualism of Siberian populations”