Можно ознакомиться ознакомиться с осовремененным взглядом Фортескью на "уральско-сибирскую гипотезу" в статье
CORRELATING PALAEO-SIBERIAN LANGUAGES AND POPULATIONS: RECENT ADVANCES IN THE URALO-SIBERIAN HYPOTHESISИсключает чукотско-камчатские языки, оставляет в "семье" уральский, юкагирский, эскимосско-алеутские языки. Вот что пишет о созвучных ему мнениях лингвистов относительно уральских языков:
Little new of a lexical nature has been unearthed as regards the westernmost
link to Uralic since my book appeared, although as regards the morphology
Seefloth (2000) has presented a comparison of Samoyedic and Yupik personal
possessive and verbal paradigms in the spirit of the U-S hypothesis. He claims on
this basis (op. cit.: 167) that the relationship here may be more straightforward
than the correlation of these morphemes in Samoyedic and the innovative Ob-
Ugrian languages within Uralic itself – something of an exaggeration no doubt,
though the morphological parallels are striking. Further arguments have also
been presented by Janhunen (2009) and Häkkinen (2012) for the eastern,
Siberian homeland of the Uralic languages (close to the Sayan region), as
proposed in Fortescue (1998). This is based on the particularly archaic nature of
the Samoyedic branch of the family (a claim consistent with the Uralo-Siberian
hypothesis) plus the evidence of early loans into Yukagir.2 Janhunen further
accepts the possibility that Yukagir is a ‘para-Uralic’ language, with a common
source in Pre-Proto-Uralic, earlier than Proto-Uralic, which he tentatively dates
to around 5,000 years ago (op. cit.: 68). Pusztay (2004) goes further and suggests
a broad Uralic-Palaeo-Siberian mesh of languages all the way across northern
Eurasia.
____________________________________________________________________________
Внелингвистическая интерпретация Фортескью может помочь в разрешении проблемы прародины уральцев. В данной статье Фортескью рисует верную на мой взгляд картину формирования неуральских языковых семей Северной Евразии на основании миграций мтДНК. Сравнивая имеюшиеся цепочки формирования археологических культур вплоть до современности и сопоставляя ареалы их последовательного распространения с современным распространением тех или иных языковых семей, я пришел к тем же выводам, что и Фортескью, а именно:
дене-енисейские языки изначально от дюктаской культуры;
эскимосско-алеутские от белькачинской культуры (которая от громатухинской, которая от селемджинской, а селемджинская - это хронологически ранний ("изначальный") вариант дюктайской );
юкагирские языки от ымыяхтахской культуры.
чукотско-камчатские языки от токаревской культуры [от себя добавлю, что время существования токаревской культура идеально совпадает со временем разделения чукотско-камчатской ветви N-B202 гаплогруппы N-M46; в момент написания статьи Фортескью это было еще неизвестно].
Фортескью считает нивхский и чукотско-камчатский языки родственными, но прочитав его статьи на эту тему, я подозреваю, что отдельных элементов, которые он приводит, все же слишком мало, чтобы говорить о родстве. Российский исследователь Бурыкин в одиночестве полагает, что нивхский язык - это рано отделившаяся ветвь тунгусо-маньчжурских языков на мощном чукотско-камчатском субстрате. Данные археологические, которые я проанализировал для своего лучшего понимания, показывают, что этнографически известная культура нивхов будет уходить корнями в археологические культуры, которые, в частности, на острове Сахалин, наслоились на культуры, родственные неолиту Приамурья, при этом сами эти наслаивающиеся культуры вполне следует возводить в конечном счете к урильской культуре, которая урильская культура по данным китайских археологов через цепочку более поздних культур связывается с достоверно тунгусо-маньчжурскими культурами. Поэтому мнение Бурыкина имеет смысл. Но не лишено основания и мнение тех лингивистов, которые связывают язык нивхов с языками различных индейских племен, потому как на Сахалин кроме неолита Приамурья и тунгусоидных культур проникала некая болшебухтинская культура с запада (учитываем, что на западе сохраняется, к примеру, такой "индейский" язык как кетский, значит, могли быть и некие иные палеоиндейские языковые реликты), и притом для нивхов согласно исследованию Lell, 2001 свойственна некая гаплогруппа P, но при прочтении этого исследования станет ясным,что большинство гаплотипов гаплогруппы Q в статье Lell, 2001 не проверялось, поэтому и нивхи эти с большой долей вероятности, учитывая данные других малых народов региона, будут относиться к гаплогруппе Q, а на основании этого, в купе с данными лингвистов о неких индейско-нивхских языковых параллелях, можно было бы приписать привнесение этого "палеиндейства" проникновению большебухтинской культуры. Неолит Приамурья не можем считать палеоиндейским, так как во-первых он имеет южное происхождение с территории Китая (техника обработки камня приамурской осиповской культуры родственна технике обработке камня японской пещеры Фукуи и корейской островной стоянке, ЕМНИП, Осанни, а техника пещеры Фукуи по мнению японских исследователей имеет параллель в технике китайской пещеры Сячуань; так называемая руднинская культура, в том числе стоянка Чертовы Ворота вместе с 2-мя образцами древней ДНК - это ничто иное как культура Синкайлю - единственная китайская культура охотников собирателей, которая вместе с сельскохозяйственными культурами Маньчжурии и Северного Китая имеет культ личин; поздние культуры Приамурья малышевская и вознесеновская имеют множество параллелей с маньчжурскими культурами фухэ, синлунва, хоува, хуншань, чжаобаогоу), а во-вторых по мнению Бурыкина во всех современных языках Приамурья есть заимствования из чукотско-камчатского, так что это древний язык, распространенный в неолите как минимум на севере Приамурья, хотя должно быть в Нижнем Приамурье и Приморье и много других языков, от которых в современных тунгусо-маньчжурских осталось множество заимствований с необъяснимыми этимологиями).
Приведу выдержки из статьи Фортескью о формировании языковых семей:
Stage 1. Following the initial entry of ‘Palaeo-Indians’ into Beringia and
beyond (let us call it ‘Stage Ø’ since the focus of this paper is on later stages),31 a
‘Palaeoarctic’ population related to the Diuktai culture of the Lena/Aldan valleys
of around 16 to 12 thousand years ago and typified by a combination of mainly
D and A haplogroups (from central Siberian roots), entered Beringia, eventually
to develop into the Na-Dene of the interior – A2 is almost fixed among northern
Athabaskans today. Eventually they came into contact with ‘Palaeo-Indian’
groups ancestral to, amongst others, Algonquian speakers (typified by
predominant A haplogroups).32 This may have occurred either within the Alaskan
interior or on the adjacent Canadian Shield some 12 thousand years ago once the
inland corridor south had opened. Note the ‘Albumin Naskapi’ mutation (Scott &
O’Rourke 2010: 129) that is found only in Algonquian and Athabaskan
populations (and some immediately adjacent groups).
A somewhat different scenario is suggested by Achilli et al. (2013), in which
the Na-Dene represent a mixing of an intermediate wave of entry into the New
World, through the ice-free corridor in the early stages of the Holocene33 which
brought X2a and C4c lineages – attested predominantly among Algonquians, but
also Wakashan, Salish and other adjacent northern populations – plus a much
later input to the Na-Dene gene pool of A2a from Alaska (along with D2a1),
associated with the Palaeo-Eskimos.
Stage 2a. Newcomers bearing the Arctic Small Tool (‘Palaeo-Eskimo’)
tradition – probably with roots in the Bel’kachi culture of interior Siberia about
6000 years ago34 – arrived in Alaska around 5,000 years ago, well after the
flooding of the land bridge (cf. Powers & Jordan 1990). Being already partially
adapted to coastal life, these people expanded rapidly along the Arctic coasts
both south and east, as far as the Aleutian islands and Greenland respectively.
They would have been responsible for the spread of a predominant new
haplotype D2a1, as found in the Saqqaq individual mentioned above, also in
Sirenik Eskimos and in Commander Island Aleuts (Volodko et al., op. cit:
1093).35 As Ives (2010: 327) argues, there is reason to believe that the interface
between the AST and Northern Archaic (probably Athabaskan) populations was
permeable, which supports the ‘admixture’ model. He dates the D2a1-bearing
entry at around 4 to 5 thousand years ago, i.e. falling together with the
appearance of the AST people around the Bering Strait.36 There is no need to
assume that the AST people spoke anything other than proto-Eskimo (pace
Dumond 2010, who very tentatively suggests equating the AST people with
ancestral Na-Dene speakers). There would have been gradual interaction and
mingling with more numerous Athabaskans from the interior, resulting
eventually in the modern Eskimos, characterised by predominant A2a (the
Beringian ‘trademark’ lineage), like their Athabaskan neighbours.37 Conversely,
D2a1 would have been absorbed to some extent by the Athabaskans (and carried
south much later by Apacheans). Aleuts display somewhat less A2, perhaps just
a matter of sheer isolation, although there may well have been some substratum
population involved with whom they merged on the Alaskan peninsula (perhaps
related to Northwest Coast populations like the Wakashans or Haida, also bearers
of predominant A2 plus some D2 lineages – Merriwether et al. 1996: 208).38
Stage 2b. Eskimo groups bearing the A2a lineage could then have spread
back to Chukotka, perhaps in late Norton times, when Neo-Eskimo cultural
developments burgeoned around Bering Strait, culminating in the Birnik-Thule
phase in northeast Chukotka. This expanded in turn back into northern Alaska
and then rapidly east towards Greenland, thus explaining the high proportion of
A2a amongst the modern Inuit. At this time or a little later, in connection with
the Punuk whaling culture of St Lawrence Island around 900 years ago, Eskimo
groups also expanded back to the west along the coasts of Chukotka, reaching in
the southwest as far as the Kamchatkan peninsula (Fortescue 2005b; for Eskimo-
Aleut migrations in general see Fortescue 2013).
Stage 3. At about the same time as the Punuk expansion a Chukotko-
Kamchatkan population was moving towards the Bering Strait from the coast of
the Okhotsk Sea, interacting with the Eskimos in both warfare and trade as they
approached the Chukotkan peninsula. The cultural, physical and linguistic results
of that meeting are still discernible today. By the time they reached the interior
of Chukotka they were practicing reindeer herding, learnt from nomadic
neighbours, Evenks and Evens. The Chukotians would have brought new
‘Siberian’ C lineages (C4b2 and 5a) with them from the Okhotsk coastal region,
also a G1 component, especially prevalent amongst Itelmens, but also found
among the Yukagir and the Tungusic Even and indeed the Nivkh, further to the
south at the mouth of the Amur.39 This may well reflect the merging of an
interior population like the Yukagir and a coastal Amuric group moving
northwards – see the discussion in Schurr et al. (1999: 32-33) and also Fortescue
(2011a) as regards the Tokareva culture of the Okhotsk Sea coast of some 3,500
years ago, preceding the Old Koryak phase (cf. Lebedintsev 1998: 298). This
development would subsequently have been obscured by the Neo-Eskimo A2
gene flow back from America. Note that the Chukchi have a much higher
percentage of A2 and D2 than the linguistically closely related Koryak further
south (Schurr et al. 1999:14), reflecting their mingling with the modern Eskimo
(in whom A2 is the major lineage).
Further developments within northeast Siberia. The Yukagir, who once
covered a vast area of northern Siberia from the Taymyr peninsula to the Bering
Sea and south as far as Lake Baykal, have mixed with or been absorbed by
various more recent populations and languages, but a core is probably equatable
with the Ymiakhtakh culture of about 4 thousand years ago – cf. Fedoseeva
(1980). The ‘core’ Yukagir display typical Siberian C2 and 3 (now renamed C4
and 5) and also D2 and D3 lineages (Volodko et al. 2008: 1097). These same
lineages are also discernible amongst the Nganasan, who represent a Uralicised
Yukagir population (the original Tavgi). The D3 lineage here is of particular
relevance for the Uralo-Siberian hypothesis since it is also found among Eskimos
(Naukan and North American Neo-Eskimo) and Chukchi (D3a2a).40 It is found
among Uralic Samoyeds, including the Nganasan and southern Samoyedic
groups that have shifted to Turkic – Tuvans and Tubulars from the Sayan region
(cf. Starikovskaya et al. 2005: 82). Both the D lineages could have been brought
across together to Alaska (Gisele Horvat, pers. comm.), and thus be relatable to
the AST arrival (associated most strongly with D2a1). The age of the sub-cluster
of D3a2a that contributed to the formation of the modern Eskimos and Chukchis
is estimated by Volodko et al. at 6.4 +/- 2.9 thousand years, i.e. within the range
of the arrival of the AST people in Alaska (op. cit.: 1097). The type of D3 found
amongst Yukagirs is D3a1 and 2, and according to Volodko et al. (op. cit.: 1094)
the D3a2a haplogroup converges at about 11.1 +/- 4.3 thousand years ago, in
conjunction with an Upper Palaeolithic dispersal initiated northwards from the
Altai-Sayan region. This corresponds nicely with the scenario in Fortescue
(1998: 184) for the origin of the AST in the Sumnagin Mesolithic (out of which
both the Bel’kachi and Ymiakhtakh stages probably arose), somewhere not far
from Lake Baykal, although the time of hypothetical common Uralo-Siberian
being spoken in that region might have been somewhat earlier than the 6,000
years ago suggested.
There is also some genetic data for the Yukagirs which could reflect a
common gene pool with eastern Uralic speakers, e.g. the strong presence of
Y-chromosome haplogroup N. mtDNA haplogroup G1 points towards Chukchi
to the east rather. However, ‘Beringian’ A2 is quite lacking except in the mixed
Chuvantsi-Chukchi population (Volodko et al. 2008: 1087). The Samoyedic
(Uralic) Selkup also display A2a from further east (not found in the Yukagir but
found also amongst Tungusic Evenks – Ives op. cit.: 327), the Beringian type
mentioned above as reflecting Tamm et al.’s proposed back-migration.41
As for the Yenisseian Kets, still further west, they seem to have been largely
absorbed by more widespread Siberian neighbours (including the Uralic
Selkups). They display a mixture of Siberian lineages (including A1, from which
Beringian A2 developed at a very ancient stage, and some C and D lineages) and
others more typical of further west in northern Europe. Attempts to find a
common mtDNA link with the Na-Dene of North America have as yet produced
no positive results, though there are specific links to the neighbouring Selkups.42
It is conceivable that a small group of Na-Dene speakers remaining on the
Siberian side of Beringia as the land bridge was gradually swamped migrated
further west, eventually reaching the Baykal-Angara region, probably following
a riverine route.43 In fact the Ket also share with the Selkup an unusual conflation
of meanings for terms meaning ‘towards/away from the water’ and
‘towards/away from the fire’, which points back in the direction of the Nivkh of
the lower Amur and the coastal Tungus (Evenks and Evens) of the Okhotsk
coast, who display the same conflation. Could this not reflect the route this group
took? Recall the A2a link back from the Selkups to the Evenks and beyond to
Alaska mentioned above. One of the tribes heading into the Sayan region west of
Lake Baykal and the upper reaches of the Yenissei could have been these
remnant Na-Dene speakers, now mixing with other peoples of the region – in
particular with the southern Samoyeds, including the Selkup. The Sayan, note, is
a quintessential ‘refugium’ area, with movement south blocked by a formidable
mountain range. Compare the layering of populations that Janhunen (2009: 72)
describes for this relatively small area: an early Indo-European layer
(Tocharian?), then a Samoyedic one (the Tagar culture), followed by a
Yenisseian one (the Tashtyk culture?).44 Both the Samoyeds and the Yenisseians
were ultimately ousted northwards (if not absorbed) by Turkic speakers from
further south (perhaps initiated by the turmoil of Hunnic times).
That this group may have wandered so far from the vicinity of the Bering
Strait, across territory by no means devoid of other small tribes, is by no means
impossible, especially if they adapted early on to a riverine way of life (which
typifies them today), unlike surrounding peoples. Compare the wanderings of
those ‘other’ Na-Dene, the Apacheans, who reached almost as far on the
American side as the Yenisseians may have done on the Asian side (cf. Ives
2010: 329-331). Their genetic profile (displaying B haplogroups unknown in
Alaska) is quite different from that of their Alaskan cousins – and reflects that of
the surrounding people they have mixed with, like the Hopi. However, the jury is
still out as to whether there ever was such a thing as a Yenisseian return. The
alternative (a very early migration – over 10,000 years ago – of the Na-Dene
from a Siberian source common with the Yenisseians) presupposes a remarkably
slow evolution of the two language families, which is not impossible of course.
Тема: Прародина уральцев (Прочитано 164800 раз)