some common language root yet to be discovered amongst paleosiberians?
>live the same arctic, tundra, steppe reindeer, fishing lifestyle
>live next to each other
>all look the same
>be language isolates
Nivkh
Ainu
Mongolic
Tungusic
Turkic
Yenisei
Uralic
Koreanic
Japanic
Yukaghir
Eskimo–Aleut
Chukotko-Kamchatkan
paleosiberian language families are distinct from one another yet the people are basically the same
discuss
Steppe is like the prehistoric version of a superhighway.
A large number of pastoral people, none of whom had writing, have been following their herds or fleeing other nomads across the steppe since the domestication of cattle.
This leads to genetic and linguistic diversity.
>>1383844
but this did not occur in africa where there is the savannah (african steppe)
all the paleo-siberian families are identical except linguistically
the difference between a samoyed, evenk, chukchi, yakut, mongol, manchu, korean, eskimo, khanti is minimal
>>1385795
I am pretty sure the Africans thanks to their climate had a more well functioning agriculture than those Siberian peoples had. This did allow for another form of conquest, correct me if wrong.
>>1385982
Also, related.
>>1386507
>Niger–Congo language family has the most languages in the world
at ~1600 languages
>>1383820
language families can be tricky
australia has more than 10 ancient, separate, and unrelated language families
americas has more than 100 ancient, separate, and unrelated language families
new guinea has more than 25 ancient, separate, and unrelated language families
>>1385987
what I don't understand is why it took the Africans so long to expand to the Southern Africa, I mean sure Kongo jungles are vast cockblock but why didn't East Africans spread southward along the coast? West coast is pretty shitty with jungles and deserts, but Mozambique etc is not that bad, you could reach Cape pretty comfy from there.
>>1386535
Didn't they come there quite early?
>>1386535
east africans were originally khoisan-like and did spread along the coast and south all the way to namibia and south africa
the bantus replaced them recently after migrating out of west africa
>>1386532
>>1383820
so if papuans are all considered one ethno-group eventhough they have many language family isolates within, why do we not group all eskimos, yakuts, mongols, tungus, evenks, chukchis, uralics, turks, koreans into one paleosiberian ethnogroup?
we also do this for australian aborigenese
>>1386616
can sino-tibetans be included in paleo-siberian?
the formosans and other austrnesians originally inhabited many parts of china
>>1386616
What do you exactly mean by ethno-group? Aren't papuans grouped out of convenience just like siberians?
>>1387456
papuans are have many unrelated linguistic families, but are grouped under one ethnogroup, same with australian aboriginese
slavs on the otherhand are an ethnogroup that are grouped by linguistic relation
basques are not grouped with their IE neighbors, whereas papuans are grouped with unrelated linguals
>>1387456
tungus, mongols, turks, uralics, inuits etc are not grouped together due to linguistic separation
but as with papuans, we do know that linguistic grouping is not the basis of erhnicity and is faulty and irrelevant
cool
>>1385795
>all the paleo Siberian families are identical except linguistically
Not sure if troll, or just stupid
>>1389476
prove the contrary or gtfo
>>1383820
Just because Altaic is bogus doesn't mean you get to drop its contents into Palaeosiberian - it's neither a phylum in the traditional sense (not even hypothetically) nor tied to "Palaeosiberians" as a single population (Ainu, for instance, are sundadont and thus likely originated from a southern migration route of proto-Jomon). It's a catch-all, sure, but designated for languages which fulfill a certain criterion, namely that they are thought to predate the expansion of large language families/phyla into North Asia, in strict contrast to Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic etc.
>yet the people are basically the same
Are you a t*rk
>paleosiberian language families are distinct from one another yet the people are basically the same
>>1389737
>>1389476
>totally different lifestyles and cultures
the following are just some of northern mongoloid groups that share the ancient paleo lifestyle of herding reindeer, shamanism, and hunting :
evenks -tungus
yakuts, soyot, tuvans, dolgans -turks
buryat -mongols
samoyed, evenki, nenets, khanty, sami, mansi -uralic
chuvan, khodynts -yukagir
chukchi, koryak - chukotko-kamchatkan
ket, yugh - yeniseian
nivkh
inuit, yupik -aleut-eskimo
the list is not comprehensive
>>1390313
>>1389737
n recent genetic analysis of ancient human bones excavated from the remains of Liao civilization, haplogroup N1 (Y-DNA) is found with a high frequency of 71%, including old paragroups of N1.[27] So, a new possibility arises that the Urheimat of Uralic languages (and perhaps also Yukaghir languages) may be Liao river region. The oldest Pit–Comb Ceramic, related to Finno-Ugric peoples, is also found in Liao civilization
>>1389737
Genetically, Yukaghirs have 31% of parentalHaplogroup C-M217(C3), which is dominant among Mongolian and Tungusic peoples.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M217
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N-M231
Pre-Proto-Uralic seems to have been spoken in Asia, as argued on the basis of early contacts with theYukaghir languages[8]and typological similarity with the Altaic (in the typological meaning) language families.[9]
>>1390684
Nonsense. The European branch of haplogroup N diverged 14000 years ago from East Asian variants not 7000.
>>1390722
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-13-216
>>1390722
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2%80%93Comb_Ceramic
>>1390801
European N is older by several thousands of years more than this civilization. However, it does have roughly the same age as pottery in East Asia so it may very well be associated with the spread of it to Europe slowly through Siberia.
Paleo-Siberian Pride World Wide.
>>1391362
>reindeer domestication started between the Bronze and Iron Ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reindeer#Reindeer_and_humans
but that is not really the point, since the circumpolar, paleosiberians all revolved on the reindeer lifestyle (whether hunting or herding)
in anycase we see that language is not the determining factor in ethnogroups as we have papuans and australians who have numerous isolated language families yet are all within a general ethnogroup
the decisive factor in an ethnogroup is not language but genetics, and paleosiberians (tungus, uralics, mongols, turks, nivkh, yenisei, yukaghir, chukchi, aleut) are closely related
they also share a similar reindeer (hunting/herding) lifestyle and phenotype
inb4 mongols, turks are horseman
mongols, turks adopted the horse lifestyle recently from IE
the question to ask yourself is:
can you tell apart an evenk from a yakut from a khanty from a chuvan from a chukchi from a ket from a nivkh from a buryat from an inuit?
not considering attire/garb
>>1391796
>tl;dr all arctic, circumpolar peoples originated from paleo-siberians who themselves originated from ancient SEA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_homeland_hypotheses
>>1383820
do you have regular sound correspondences that can't be explained by random chance or borrowing? if not, then you have no basis whatsoever for language relationship.
>>1393667
do you papuans have regular sound correspondences that can't be explained by random chance or borrowing?
no, because there are many isolates within the papuan group
as long as you have genetic continuity you are an ethnogroup like papuans, australians, and paleosiberians
paleosiberian is more appropriate term than circumpolar, arctic, altaic etc since it designates the origin of the group from where it spread across
paleosiberian, like papuan, or australian, is based on genotype and not language
>>1391796
evenks and yakuts are totally differeent, uol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSvPw_Qzj8
>>1394225
this
the video debunks any affinities between yakuts and evenks
>>1387305
There's no evidence Austronesian developed
on the mainland. You can't derive a language family from archaeology or genetics.
>>1390801
mtDna of the Chinese "northern zone" resembles modern day "Altaic" populations/Shang Chinese not Uralics.
You can even see the influx of Ydna associated with agriculturalist O and pastoralist C.
>>1394604
so uralics are not Liao?
>>1396162
Archaeological remains and haplogroups are useless for determining linguistic affinity.
