March 27, 2008...6:32 pm
More on Vajda’s Siberian-Na-Dene Language Link
National Geographic News has just published an article about the recent symposium in Alaska regarding a possible connection between Yeniseic languages in Siberia and Na-Dene languages in the Americas. John Roach’s article, Siberian, Native American Languages Linked — A First, highlights the recent work of Edward Vajda, who defended his connection during the February symposium. Vajda goes deeper than cognate lists in his parallels, providing several corresponding grammatical systems, particularly verb prefix structure. Ket, his primary Siberian source, is the only living Yeniseic language (which remains highly endangered) and bears some striking grammatical similarities to Navajo. Yeniseic languages have a unique verb prefix system: unique enough that Vajda could not find a corresponding system throughout Northern Asia. Na-Dene was the closest family geographically with a similar system. Johanna Nichols, a groundbreaking Historical Linguist and Linguistic Anthropologist, attended the symposium and made comment. Roach quotes:
With the exception of the Eskimo-Aleut family that straddles the Bering Strait and Aleutian Islands, this is “the first successful demonstration of any connection between a New World language and an Old World language,” Nichols said.
Vajda has not yet published his findings, so the extent of his linguistic claims is not yet clear. However, based on Roach’s summary of his discussion, there are two major points of controversy. First, Roach states that Vajda found “several dozen” cognates. Whether or not the comparative method for linguistic reconstruction was used remains to be seen. Regardless, a cognate list under 50 seems a bit thin to solidify a connection at all, let alone begin reconstruction. Furthermore, the public at this point has no access to the words to assess their status as true cognates. Without a doubt, a consistent and corresponding element of grammatical structure is a strong argument for a common ancestor, but we must consider the systems of linguistic change, particularly sound change (which requires cognates), as a central factor.
A second point of controversy is the matter of depth: how long ago does the proposed connection date back? Vajda makes no direct claims, but states that this would be the oldest known language link if it corresponds to the late Pleistocene migrations evident in the archaeological record. Unfortunately, the field of linguistics currently has no reliable absolute dating techniques, and relative dating such as glottochronology, has been widely discredited. In this case, it seems the lack of cognates would help secure this relationship as an old one. If that were indeed the case, a volume of cognates would become evident in the reconstructions of Proto-Yeniseic and Proto-Na-Dene. Whether or not Vajda has taken this into consideration remains to be seen. At any rate, Nichols is not convinced of a 10,000 year-old connection:
“I don’t think there is any reason to assume the connection is [10,000 years] old … this must surely be one late episode in a much longer and more complicated history of settlement,” she said.
At this point it is very difficult to make any generalizations. Vajda has not yet published his findings, but merely opened the door to discussion on the topic. Until he does, the foundation of our support or criticism is unknown.
14 Comments
March 28, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Well. That’s interesting isn’t it? Tim has just posted this for me:
http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/search/label/Human%20Evolution%20on%20Trial%20-%20Culture
In the language tree there I’ve put Ket and Na-Dene on the same branch. I’d independently come to the conclusion they were probably related.
From Vadja’s comments: “this would be the oldest known language link if it corresponds to the late Pleistocene migrations evident in the archaeological record”. However I believe that if the hypothesis is correct it provides evidence in support of the comments I made to Alex regarding the expansion from the Sea of Japan. Therefore it is actually more recent than the earliest movement into America.
March 29, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Wow, thanks for sharing it! I’m looking for info like this!
March 31, 2008 at 9:52 am
Thanks for the comment. I agree that the age of the connection will have a great impact on a number of related studies; particularly within the fields of human biology and archaeology. If the connection is deep, it adds weight to many Pleistocene migration theories. If it isn’t, it evokes (and supports) a number of new questions and hypotheses, such as yours about the Sea of Japan. Although coorisponding grammatical systems tend to indicate depth, I agree with Nichols in her assertion that this is likely a later connection, part of a larger subset of migration patterns. When we get to see the cognates, we may have a better idea. Hopefully, Vajda will include modern and reconstructed examples.
March 31, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Is it possible that the link between the Yeniseic and Na Dene language families (if it does indeed withstand closer scrutiny) could reflect a population movement from east to west (i.e., North America to Eurasia), rather than from west to east? If the connection between the two language families can still be demonstrated and hasn’t been obliterated by the passage of time, isn’t it likely that the relationship is relatively recent rather than dating back to the earliest peopling of the Americas? The Na Dene languages are spread over a wide area of North America, suggesting that they have been established there for a very long time, but the Yeniseic languages don’t seem ever to have been widespread in Siberia, which raises the suspicion that they might be relatively recent intruders rather having been derived from the same Eurasian source as the Na Dene languages. Also, it appears that Ket and perhaps the other Yeniseic languages are typologically quite different from any of their neighbors. If populations could move from Eurasia to North America, why couldn’t they just as easily have moved in the opposite direction?
Another puzzling aspect of the Yeniseic/Na Dene connection is that Ket and the other Yeniseic languages weren’t spoken anywhere near the Chukchi peninsula, but rather in a region that’s almost half-way to Moscow. Even the supposed Yeniseic homeland seems to be placed in the Gobi desert region. Still, it’s an interesting an exciting theory.
March 31, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Bill, I’d agree that there is no reason at all why there should not have been a movement of people back into Asia from Beringia at some time. You comment, “the Yeniseic languages don’t seem ever to have been widespread in Siberia”. Although Yeneseic languages have a limited distribution at present it seems the region where they are spoken has been shrinking, at least historically. It is quite probable they were widespread and have been replaced by a relatively recent expansion of languages such as Chukchi and Tugusic etc.
I agree totally with your comment, “If the connection between the two language families can still be demonstrated and hasn’t been obliterated by the passage of time, isn’t it likely that the relationship is relatively recent rather than dating back to the earliest peopling of the Americas?” If the relationship dated back that far we’d be very unlikely to be able to find any connection. Of course the possibility of any connection awaits the publication of the evidence.
March 31, 2008 at 8:39 pm
forget beringia, the yenissey river[where the ket and the rest are located ] sweeps out into the zemlyas and on towards spitzbergen and northern greenland [greenberg said there is no trace in the far east of this language group in his book great human diasporas ] early assemblages in northern greenland have previously been described as magdalenean ,neolithic finds in spitsbergen would be rather a smoking gun. We allready have them hunting mammoths in the zemlyas. Mercator maps dont do justice to the question use google look from the north pole and you can plot the circum polar distribution of the dene caucasian groups identified by greenberg.
March 31, 2008 at 8:50 pm
there is an incorrect author attribution in the first draft i miss atribute cavalli sforzas book title to greenberg.
April 1, 2008 at 8:14 am
Here’s a link to a message by Prof. Vajda that might be of interest.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/9536
April 8, 2008 at 5:10 pm
the zemlyas are the most northern point in siberia[one of them will be the magnetic north pole in 2050]
There were several separate colonizations of northern greenland dating back 5000 bc
These early tool assemblages show no similarity to inuit
a northern polar entry onto the continent does not really dispute greenbergs West to east movement for the language, provided we accept that after a polar entry the immigrants followed the” back side “of the artic southwards ,towards alaska rather than gander
April 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm
maglemossian
April 8, 2008 at 5:20 pm
maglemossian not magdalenean
April 8, 2008 at 7:49 pm
any dna comparisons been done?
May 11, 2008 at 11:12 am
[...] new model of human origins and dispersals. As you may know, we have had many recent discussions on linguistic and genetic evidence behind the peopling of the Americas, so to read someone has a different take [...]
May 12, 2008 at 2:08 pm
[...] take Edward Vajda’s recent discovery of a linguistic connection between an isolated Siberian language, Ket, and Na-Dene in North [...]
Leave a Reply