Похоже, что в эпоху ранней бронзы в южную Сибирь (Прибайкалье и минусинскую котловину) произошла масштабная экспансия носителей палеосибирского компонента. Все это связано с гаплогруппой Q. И результатом чего является окуневская культура.
Интересно, где это носители палеосибирского компонента могли так размножиться? Откуда они пришли в южную Сибирь? Не с Чукотки же.
Они пришли не в эпоху ранней бронзы, но позднего неолита (исаковская культура - серовская культура произошла от исаковской)
C точки зрения российских археологов и антропологов исаковская (исаково-серовская) культура произошла с Верхнего Енисея и пришла на место китойской:
Hunter-Gatherer Culture Change and Continuity in the Middle Holocene of the Cis-Baikal, SiberiaТеперь же некоторые западные ученые высказывают предположение (но надо отметить, что лишь на основании климатических данных), что это новое население Прибайкалья произошло с территории Монголии.
Holocene Climate, Environmental Change, and Neolithic Biocultural Discontinuity in the Baikal Region. Dustin White and Andrew Bush.________________________________________________________________________
Origins of the Post-Hiatus Cultures in Cis-Baikal The second issue to address regarding the Cis-Baikal Middle Neolithic dis-
continuity is the origin of the post-hiatus populations which inhabited the area
during the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age. When use of large formal cemeter-
ies resumes during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods, marked
differences in the genetic composition between pre-hiatus Kitoi and post-hia-
tus Isakovo-Serovo and Glazkovo groups are observed. These data suggest that
a new population(s) originating from outside the Lake Baikal region entered
the area during the Middle Neolithic period and contributed to the biocultural
profile of resident hunter-gatherer populations. The homeland of these new im-
migrants is unknown, as are the reasons for their migration into the region.
Several authors have inferred that western Siberia (i.e., Upper Yenisey Ba-
sin) may have been the origin of Isakovo-Serovo and Glazkovo ancestors based
on similarities in cranial characteristics, pottery traditions, and mortuary prac-
tices (Mamonova 1983; Goriunova et al. 2004; Weber 1995; Weber, Link, and
Holocene Climate, Environmental Change, and Neolithic Biocultural Discontinuity 21
Katzenberg 2002), but few comparative studies exist, particularly for all other
areas adjacent to Lake Baikal. Also, the territorial expansion of nomadic pas-
toralists across Central Asia beginning by c. 6,000 yrs BP has been suggested
as a possible impetus for the western migration of hunter-gatherer populations
into the Baikal region. Weber, Link, and Katzenberg (2002:288) speculate
about a domino effect, whereby the movements of steppe-adapted nomadic
pastoralists pushed inhabitants of the northern and eastern steppe peripheries
and steppe-boreal forest transition zone into neighboring areas. While such a
scenario is quite conceivable, the timeline for these proposed interactions in
Central Asia remains unresolved (Levine, Renfrew, and Boyle 2003).
Another factor that we have introduced and addressed here is the dis-
tinct climatic and environmental variability occurring across interior East
Asia during the Early–Middle Holocene, and its spatiotemporal effects on
both subsistence resources and the adaptive strategies of cultural groups in
the broader region. While difficult to examine in detail given the relative
paucity of archaeological sites in many of the areas under consideration, this
issue nonetheless warrants more attention.
As outlined above, the Middle Neolithic discontinuity in Cis-Baikal was
contemporaneous with a significant climatic and environmental transition
from generally warming-wet to warmer-drier conditions across the region.
Outside of the immediate Baikal area at this time, the shifting domain of the
East Asian summer monsoon is of particular interest given the large-scale
influence that this would have had on landscape ecology and the consequent
adaptive responses of cultural groups. Proxy climate data indicate that the
Early Holocene was dominated by a strengthened summer monsoon system
which penetrated into parts of northern China and Mongolia bringing in-
creased precipitation (An et al. 2000; C. Chen et al. 2003; F. Chen et al.
2003, 2006; He et al. 2004; Jiang et al. 2006; Rhodes et al. 1996; Shi et al.
2002; Tarasov, Dorofeyuk, and Metel’tseva 2000). Greater effective moisture
in these presently arid and semi-arid regions would have resulted in increased
habitat diversity for local flora and fauna.
These more humid conditions may have also been favorable for the terri-
torial expansion of hunter-gatherer groups or those with more mixed subsis-
tence economies, enabling the migration of small populations into previously
less inhabitable areas. This idea is supported by archaeological evidence from
southern Mongolia and the Tibetan Plateau, where human settlement ex-
tended into this region during the Early Holocene (Derevianko et al. 2008;
Rhode et al. 2007).
22 Dustin White and Andrew Bush
Between c. 8,000 and 7,000 yrs BP, however, proxy records indicate that
the East Asian summer monsoon began a southward retreat and that climatic
conditions across parts of northern China and Mongolia became increasingly
more arid, extending desert and semi-desert zones. Greater aridity and associ-
ated ecological changes brought about by the retreating monsoonal front may
have led to unsustainable subsistence resources which acted as a stimulus for
the migration of small groups of people from these increasingly marginalized
environments into more hospitable neighboring areas. In such a case, a south-
ward or eastern migration into less arid parts of China would have been met by
interactions with expanding farming communities. A northward migration
might have been an alternative option, given the comparatively low regional
population densities combined with the relative continuity of the steppe and
forest-steppe landscapes extending to Lake Baikal via either the Hovsgol Ba-
sin–Irkut River or Selenga River corridors. We believe that this scenario may
be directly relevant to the “origins” issue of post-hiatus cultures in Cis-Baikal.
Again, unfortunately, few data sets are currently available to adequately
evaluate whether shifts in the East Asian summer monsoon played any specific
role in hunter-gatherer cultural developments in the Lake Baikal area. The near
absence of Early–Middle Holocene archaeological sites reported from the vast
and sparsely populated regions immediately south of Lake Baikal remains large-
ly a product of both the limited-scale excavations that have been conducted to
date and the inherent difficulties involved in locating small, isolated campsites
used thousands of years ago. Nonetheless, direct connections between Neolith-
ic Baikal and areas to the south are not entirely unfounded. For example, new
archaeogenetic (mtDNA) research reported by Mooder et al. (2006; Chapter
5 this volume) not only demonstrate a Middle Neolithic biological discontinu-
ity in the Lake Baikal region, but also indicate an ancestral link between Late
Neolithic–Bronze Age Serovo-Glazkovo groups in Cis-Baikal and a c. 2,300
cal yrs BP Xiongnu (or Hun) Iron Age cemetery population from the Egyin
Gol in northern Mongolia (Keyser-Tracqui, Crubezy, and Ludes 2003). Fur-
thermore, when combined with genetic analyses of modern populations from
the broader region (Schurr et al., Chapter 6 this volume), these data are sugges-
tive of “a shared matrilineal genetic structure from Lake Baikal across East Asia
spanning six millennia” (Mooder et al., Chapter 5 this volume).
Results from these studies help to establish an important link between
Neolithic Baikal and areas to the south, and lend potential new insights re-
lated to the timing and patterns of prehistoric migrations throughout the
region. However, to further substantiate whether shifts in the East Asia sum-
Holocene Climate, Environmental Change, and Neolithic Biocultural Discontinuity 23
mer paleomonsoon acted as a stimulus for the northward displacement of
small populations into the Lake Baikal area during the Early–Middle Ho-
locene transition, critical new records will need to emerge. Foremost is the
need for systematic excavation and study of Early–Middle Neolithic archaeo-
logical sites in Mongolia and northern China to better document hunter-
gatherer culture change at this subcontinental scale.
The recovery of new artifact collections would also enable more me-
thodical comparative investigations from across the broader region. Ideally,
this would also include evidence from mortuary contexts, particularly Early–
Middle Neolithic skeletal remains suitable for genetic analyses. Such data
would be invaluable for tracing the ancestry of Central Asian populations
during the Holocene, and more specifically for testing the key premise of the
“paleomonsoon hypothesis,” which posits that the Early–Middle Holocene
shift in the intensity of the East Asian summer monsoon was (1) a signifi-
cant factor contributing to Neolithic migration patterns across northern in-
terior East Asia and (2) the region influenced by increased aridity (parts of
Mongolia and northern China) was both a geographical homeland of new
immigrant populations into the Baikal area and a source for the genetic dis-
continuity in Neolithic–Bronze Age Cis-Baikal.
Finally, if future research demonstrates an earlier age for the introduc-
tion of agriculture and/or nomadic pastoralism and horse domestication in
the broader region, then the interplay among Middle Holocene subsistence-
settlement systems across Central Asia may add to the complexity in recon-
structing the events underlying hunter-gatherer culture change in the Lake
Baikal area. Nonetheless, the timing of the shift in the East Asian summer
paleomonsoon and the large-scale spatial influence this would have had on
both the natural and cultural landscapes warrant more detailed consider-
ation of its potential links to the Neolithic history of the Baikal region.
______________________________________________________________________
Говорили ли эти люди на енисейских языках? Не думаю.
В разделе этой статьи
Supplementary Information section 10Overview of the Dene-Yeniseian linguistic hypothesis
by Edward J. Vajda
сыалахская культура была приравнена к носителям прадене-енисейского языка на основании данных палеогенетики.
Однако в этом же разделе приводится опыт датировки распада прадене-енисейского языка лингвистическими методами:
In contrast to the ability of archaeologists to carbon-date their finds, or geneticists to calibrate
the time separating two related populations, there is no universally accepted method to reliably
and precisely compute the time of separation of languages known to be genealogically related.
All proposed methods of dating prehistoric language splits have been criticized (Campbell
2013:447-492). McMahon & McMahon (2005: 177-204) distinguish between methods of
55
establishing relatedness or degrees of relatedness between languages (lexicostatistics) from the
use of such data to assign precise dates for prehistoric language splits based on an assumed
regular rate of linguistic change (glottochronology), which in fact does not exist across
languages or even in a single language over time. While rejecting glottochronology, McMahon &
McMahon (2005:204) support the value of gathering and comparing lexicostatistic data, which
then can sometimes be useful for purposes of dating when combined with facts from other
disciplines such as archaeology and genetics. Several types of evidence can potentially be
combined with evidence of shared vocabulary and grammatical homologies to help narrow the
range of plausible separation dates between related languages.
For Dene-Yeniseian, all of them
suggest a split roughly between 10,000 and 8,000±500 calBP.Сыалахская же культура имеет возраст не более 7000 лет, что заставляет усомниться, связано ли разделение сыалахской культуры (одна ее часть мигрировала на восток,
другая может быть встречена в Прибайкалье (
В районе, прилегающем к Байкалу, как показывают находки из X слоя Улан-Хады, горшки с отпечатками сетки приобретают усложненные формы венчиков, и развитие сетчатой керамики приводит к появлению горшков, украшенных на лепными валиками (находки в Малой Лударской пещере на западном берегу Байкала). Такая керамика стала характерной для ранненеолитической сыалахской культуры Якутии.) с распадом-праденеенисейского языка 8000-10000 лет назад.
Сам же праенисейский язык распался, по данным глоттохронологии 2500-3000 лет назад:
The high rate of shared cognates in basic vocabulary 1302 (over 70%) between Ket and Kott, which belong to different primary branches of the family, 1303 suggest that Proto-Yeniseian must be at least 2,500 to 3,000 years, if not older, which would roughly match the more plausible estimates of time depth for Athabaskan.
Жорж ван Дрим, в рамках гипотезы о "сино-кавказской макросемье" приводит следующие данные о схождениях между енисейскими языками и сино-тибетскими языками:
Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasian, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan, and Tibeto-Burman as default theoryIn total, 331 Sino-Caucasian reconstructions are based only on North Caucasian and
Sino-Tibetan reconstructions,
197 Sino-Caucasian reconstructions on correspondences be-
tween North Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan and Yenisseian reconstructions, 163 Sino-Caucasian
reconstructions on North Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan and Burushaski correspondences, 134
Sino-Caucasian reconstructed roots on North Causasian and Yenisseian correspondences,
110 Sino-Caucasian roots on North Causasian and Burushaski correspondences
, 86 Sino-
Caucasian roots on Sino-Tibetan and Yenissiean correspondences, 57 Sino-Caucasian
roots on North Causasian, Yenissiean and Burushaski correspondences, 44 Sino-Cauca-
sian reconstructions on Sino-Tibetan and Burushaski correspondences,
26 Sino-Caucasian
reconstructions on Sino-Tibetan, Yenisseian and Burushaski correspondences, and
9 Sino-
Caucasian reconstructions on correspondences between Yenisseian and Burushaski recon-
structions. Нетрудно заметить, что имеется довольно много схождений между сино-тибетскими и енисейскими языками.
В то же время центры набольшего разнообразия основных "китайских" ветвей O-M175 лежат очень далеко даже от предполагаемого места зарождения микролитических культур Китая (пещера Сячуань в бессейне Хуанхэ), вероятных носителей восточноазиатской части палеосибирского компонента, среди которых могли скрываться и далекие предки носителей прадене-енисейского языка:
Сравним:
Основные ветви O-M175: важны территории наибольшей диверсификации:
Поэтому можно подозревать, что схождения между сино-тибетскими и енисейскими языками имеют не природу генетического родства языков, но лишь контактную природу.Распространение сино-тибетских языков связывают с культурой Яншао, сама же эта культура через цепочку иных культур в конечном счете произошла от культуры Лаогуаньтай:
Поэтому мое мнение таково: прадене-енисейский распался 8000-10000 лет назад по данным в т.ч. глоттохронологии. Прана-дене, в принципе, могли скрываться в сыалахской культуре, истоком которой служит Забайкалье, однако неизвестно пока, откуда эти люди в Забайкалье пришли. Но думаю, что из-за енисейско-сино-тибетских схождений нужно полагать, что ранее прадене-енисейский обитал южнее, и праенисейский образовался из той части прадене-енисейского, которая осталась в этом более южном ареале. Этот ареал надо располагать так, чтобы возможны были енисейско-сино-тибетские схождения - т.е. не слишком далеко от культуры Лаогуаньтай.