Supposed yDNA K2a* basis of Chukotko-Kamchatkans, alledgedly having West Eurasian relatives in Jager
Quote:
"Most notably, Uralic parallels in eastern Siberia include even basic words for ‘reindeer’, an all-important livelihood animal for many groups these days, especially Chukotkan *qora (whence the ethnonym Koryak), Tungusic ⁽*⁾oron (or probably *xoron, with further diffusion after *x > ∅ in NTg) (whence the ethnonym Oroqen). Kolyma Yukaghir qoroj ‘two-year-old male reindeer’ is usually adduced here too, as well as loanwords further into Siberian Yupik. This has been already identified in earlier research as a Wanderwort originating in Proto-Uralic *kojəra ‘male [domestic?] animal’ > Proto-Samoyedic *korå ‘id.; bull reindeer’, which might have already had an allophonic [q-] in Proto-Samoyedic or even earlier. But we seem to lack especially clear evidence on who is to be credited for the original diffusion of this word. Yakut, as far as I know, has no reflex of it, splitting the Eastern Siberian region off from Samoyedic, and thus probably suggesting a pre-Turkic movement eastward. If so, then maybe even already at the time of the original Uralic expansion (which I think must have been partly eastwards too in any case)? Who knows. Maybe someone will eventually though, if we get e.g. some additional toponym data for guidance and keep inter-family comparative research going."
“Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” pointed to mtDNA M8’CZ (mtDNA C4b2 and mtDNA C4b2a branches) as mtDNA uniting two groups of Chukotko-Kamchatkan representatives (mtDNA C4b2 and mtDNA C4b2a branches were only observed in CHukotko-Kamchatkans in that article).
Indeed, in Jager, 2017 ( type in names of languages: http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gja...slidesHITS.pdf) Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages clustered with Papuan and Australian languages, while the ancient ca.45000-year-old Ust-Ishim Man, belonging to a deeply diverged 50000-52000-year old yDNA K2a* branch is the only ancient, who was shown to have the genetic connetion to the indigenous Australians (and Papuans) in “The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene”. When migrating, the ancient Ust-Ishim Man, belonging to the basal branch of mtDNA R*, had to contact the mtDNA M8’CZ-related population, and, in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the mtDNA M8’CZ-related ancient specimens showed the preference for the Ust-Ishim sample as one of sources for their DNA in the models. The listed facts form the chain, uniting speakers of Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages and speakers of Australian and some Papuan languages via mtDNA M8’CZ-related populations, having had an affinity to the Ust-Ishim Man, to whom Australians and Papuans had an affinity in their turn.
The Chukotkan word *qora (a reindeer) may be alien or may not be so alien here.
https://i.ibb.co/4VfwF5L/php7-DSVyz.png
IE = Indo-European
A = Altaic
U = Uralic
Ko = Korean
pChK = proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan
In his “Nostratic Dictionary”, the linguist Aharon Dolgopolsky suggests the common root *gür- “beast”, from which the Indo-Europeanc and Altaic words could have originated, and the derived words had different meaning in all proto-languages. Aharon Dolgopolsky mentions the treatment of the Korean word as a loanword from Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan. It is not surprising, because nearby “Altaic” Tungusic languages were also shown to have a few specialized Chukotko-Kamchatkan loanwords. The article “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” has the PCA, where one of the Chukotko-Kamchatkans participates in the genetic cline, which is near the Tungusic Ulchi individual (the Ulchi people live in the Lower Amur (Heilongjiang) river basin and on the Sakhalin Island, which should be closer to the Chukotko-Kamchatkans), and this cline does not intersect any Koreans, but passes by very close to Northern Koreans, which is a good prerequisite for possible language contacts between ethnic groups.
From Aharon Dolgopolsky’s material, it can be seen that the Uralic word *koyra “male animal” cannot originate from the Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan word *qoraŋi “reindeer” and the Uralic word cannot derive from Chukotko-Kamchatkan in a form of substratum influence or adstratum influence, and Indo-European and Altaic similar words with differing meanings cannot originate from the Chukotko-Kamchatkan word as well. The Uralic word *koyra “male animal” appeared to be internally analyzable as deriving from the common Uralic and Altaic word *goy “man” (but Aharon Dolgopolsky does not mention any word *goy “man” for Proto-Yukhagir or derived Yukaghir languages). Consequently, it is possible that the common root *gür had once formed among the ancestors of Indo-European and Altaic speakers in the same fashion from elements of the common proto-language, shared by ancestors of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic speakers.
The following material from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” can provide the basis for the solution for the problem of the origin of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan word.
On the PCA of this article, the Chukotko-Kamchatkan individual is connected by the genetic cline to the Far Eastern Devil’s Cave ancient individual of the yDNA C2-M217-related population, and this Devil’s Gate sample had a Western Eurasian-like component in another article and the genetic affinity to the Western Eurasia-influenced ancient Kolyma individual of yDNA pre-Q-M120 in this very article, therefore, it is not surprising that the Western Eurasia-influenced ancient Kolyma individual of yDNA pre-Q-M120 also participates in this Chukotko-Kamchatkan- Devil’s Gate cline, but the cline ends in China’s individuals, whose population has the component of the deep mtDNA R* population, as in the Ust-Ishim and Australians.
Since the ancient Western Eurasia-influenced Kolyma belonged to mtDNA G1b, the “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” showed the existence of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan mtDNA G1b lineage, sharing mutation T4646C with mtDNA U4:
T4646C L0d2c2a
T4646C G1b2
T4646C W6b
T4646C H69
T4646C U4
T4646C K1-a4b1a
T4646C K1b1a1a
T4646C U5a1h1
Consequently, one suggestion may be to think that the Western Eurasian mtDNA U4-related population, related to the ancestors of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic speakers, influenced the formation of the Kolyma population of yDNA Q, the Kolyma population of yDNA Q passed the word, ancestral to Chukotko-Kamchatkan *qoraŋi to the Devil’s Gate’s population of yDNA C2-M217, and the Devil’s Gate’s population of yDNA C2-M217 contributed such a word to the pre-Chukotko-Kamchatkan-speaking population, mostly belonging to mtDNA M8’CZ and, initially, to some ancient Ust-Ishim-related yDNA K2a* lineages.
The farther connection to the populations, preserving the deep mtDNA R* population’s autosomal component means that Eastern Eurasian speakers could also once have had similar words to Indo-European-Uralic-Altaic *gür- and *goy-, in case derivatives of such words are ever uncovered in the poorly studied dialects of East Asian languages or even in the poorly studied dialects of Papuan and Australian languages.
THE MORE DETAILED CLASSIFICATION
It is necessary to explain in greater detail the most precise non-trivial placement of Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages in Jager, 2017 (http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gja...slidesHITS.pdf), because the articles of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, contain such clues, and it is impossible to understand such a placement without such materials.
In Jager, 2017, first some Australian and Papuan languages separated from languages of other Eurasians, then some Native American language separated from the Australian-related Papuan part, then once again Australian and Papuan languages separated from the mentioned Papuan- and Australian-related non-mainstream Native American branch, comprising only two Native American languages, then the Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Abkhazian-Adygean linguistic cluster split from Papuan-Asutalian cluster, which had beffore split from the mentioned Papuan- and Australian-related non-mainstream Native American branch, comprising only two Native American languages, which in their turn had also separated from Papuans and Australians...
[1] The split of a considerable group of Papuan languages and almost all Australian languages from other Eastern Eurasians should be explained by the split of Ust-Ishim’s yDNA K2a*-related population.
[2] Speakers of the resulting Papuan languages are dominated by mtDNA M, speakers of the resulting Australian languages are dominated by the mixture of mtDNA M, mtDNA R, mtDNA N.
[3] In the article “Maternal genetic history of ancient Tibetans over the past 4000 years” mtDNA D4g is an important lineage for the ancient Sino-Tibetan-speaking population. When mtDNA D4g started to separate from mtDNA D4 in the O-M122-connected population, the mtDNA pre-D4g lineage appeared, and mtDNA pre-D4g (or the died-out mtDNA D4g*) started to distribute. First the died-out mtDNA D4g* bearers mixed with “Ust-Ishim-related” mtDNA M8’CZ-related population, and the most northern part of mtDNA D4g*+ mtDNA M8’CZ was contributed to the ancestors of the Native Americans, and the appearance of two Native American languages, “separating from Ust-Ishim-related Papuans” is a result of this ancient separation within “Ust-Ishim-related” mtDNA M8’CZ population, triggered by the interaction with mtDNA D4g*-related population.
[4] ancient mtDNA D4g*+mtDNA M8’CZ+ -related population (the deeply diverged mtDNA M8’CZ lineages in question are extremely rare now in China because of the very ancient period of divergence as compared to modern East Asian-related M8’CZ) started to distribute in China and reached South China, from where it could have started to migrate to Papua and Australia since Paleolithic or wait until the Holocene period when there was one more distribution from Southern China via peninsular Thailand to Island Southeast Asia and farther Papua and, judging by the appearance of innovations in Australia, to Australia . The described situation should explain the split of a new small group of Australian and Papuan languages from above-mentioned two Native American languages in Jager, 2017. The ancient sample, related to the movement of such ancient populations to Papua and Australia, clustered far from the ancient Thailand’s sample, distantly related to yDNA N2-Y6503 DA247 sample, which in his turn had had an East Asia-derived Papuan-like component of its own, absent in other samples, belonging to yDNA N1, consequently, yDNA N2-Y6503 and yDNA N1 were not related to the described mtDNA D4g*+mtDNA M8’CZ+ -related population.
[5] One of such mtDNA D4g*+mtDNA M8’CZ+ -related populations in Southern China mixed with mtDNA M74 population, which should be an important lineage for the later formation of Austroasiatic-speaking populations. After the advent of agriculture, this newly mixed population contributed to the formation of the Austroasiatic Munda speakers and should have migrated to India along with the ancestors of the Munda Austroasiatics. Whereas Proto-Austroasiatic is sometimes treated as almost fully isolating language, it is suggested by some western linguists, that the Austroasiatic Munda languages are unusually polysynthetic, whereas Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages (if akin to mtDNA M8’CZ-related populations,) are polysynthetic as well, though there were likely to be other speakers of differing types of polysynthetic languages in China.
[5] It was suggested that the Munda languages were one of groups of languages of the Indus Valley Civilization in India. Consequently, the accompanying descendants of mtDNA D4g*+mtDNA M8’CZ+mtDNA M74b population should have also raised their level of development, when living within the Indus Valley Civilization in India.
[6] The IVPP materials point to Iran as the next destination for the distant descendant of mtDNA D4g*+mtDNA M8’CZ+mtDNA M74b population, continuing to migrate westward out of India. For an even farther migration, the IVPP materials point to Armenia and Georgia of Caucasus, which is already very close to one of destinations of the migrating ancient Kaskians of Anatolia ( an ancient people of the unclear linguistic affiliation, who probably later incorporated the distant descendant of mtDNA D4g*+mtDNA M8’CZ+mtDNA M74b population and distributed them to the ancestors of the Abkhazians and Adygeans, who surprisingly appeared to be members of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Papuan-Australian cluster in Jager, 2017. Abkhazians do not have any “Onge_New” component, according to “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, which means that “Onge_New”-related populations, such as Boshan or Shamanka_EN individuals, are not related to the Abkhazian-Adygean-Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Papuan-Australian commonality from Jager, 2017. Instead, the Abkhazians have some other East Asian components.
The IVPP materials suggest that new yDNA Q lineages could have joined the above Abkhazian-Adygean-“Kaskian”-related populations on their way, which bypassed Xinjiang.
[7] Some Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers have mutations, related to mtDNA J1b2, and the IVPP materials point to the relevant mtDNA J2b2f, joining Caucasian Armenia with China, Pamir of Xinjiang and its neighbourhood and the Daur-related part of Northeast China, which is already much closer geographically to ancestors of the Chukotko-Kamchatkans. There is a Turkic population, which is thought to possibly derive its name from the ancient Kaskians and which has relevant uniparenthals among its members, which means that a part of the Kaskians (who might have incorporated the distant descendant of mtDNA D4g*+mtDNA M8’CZ+mtDNA M74b population) probably joined the Steppe populations, migrating as far as Northeast China, and later Turkic peoples incorporated the remnants of such a branch of the ancient Kaskian population.
MF362750(Armenian) Margaryan J1b2f
MF362753(Armenian) Margaryan J1b2f
MF362814(Armenian) Margaryan J1b2f
JN648827(Armenian) FTDNA J1b2f
KY941900(China) You J1b2f
MF522934(Pamir) Peng J1b2f
MF522962(Pamir) Peng J1b2f
ON127803(Daur-China) Jia J1b2f
The Bronze Age yDNA H-P96 Western Eurasan lineage (Magadan BA), was reported from the Olskaya, the nearby archaeological site close to the sites of ancestors of Chukotko-Kamchatkans. Consequently, the arrival of the described “Kaskian-related” populations should have produced the linguistic result, which manifests itself as the joining of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages to Abkhazian-Adygean languages in Jager, 2017.
Since actual ancient Kaskians distributed from a more western part of Anatolia, it is only possible that they incorporated such an easterly population of the distant descendants of mtDNA D4g*+mtDNA M8’CZ+mtDNA M74b population as described above, but the affiliation of the initial Kaskian language may have been initially different.
According to the IVPP materials, the yDNA P* HistAndaman ancient sample of the Andaman Islands, where the Onge also live, was not related to the population movements, described above.
The mtDNA D4g*, described above, can only be a deep basal branch of mtDNA D4g, which is not closely related to modern populations in China. The same should be said about the Chinese branches of mtDNA M8’CZ: most of them should not be related to such ethnogenetic processes, described above. The Sino-Tibetan languages did not cluster with Australian-Papuan-Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Abkazian-Adygean linguistic cluster in Jager, 2017. The migrations, described above, are not related in any form to the formation of the Sino-Tibetan speakers, for whose formation yDNA O-M122 lineage is important.
According to the IVPP materials, the yDNA N-B202 lineage only joined the Chukotko-Kamchatkans later, and the yDNA N-B202 lineage joined them, because yDNA N-B202 lineage interacted with one of pimary Para-Tungusic populations, which is thought by the western researchers to be incorporated in the territory of the Kingdom of Puyo and which interacted with the Lower Amur (Helongjiang) and Sakhalin populations, contributing to the formation of the local Tungusic populations. According to the IVPP materials, the yDNA N-B202 lineage did not distribute to the Native Americans, but the mtDNA, formerly related to this lineage is quite distributed in Altaic-speaking populations. Consequently, the more ancient ancestors of yDNA N-B202, who did not live in Chukotka and in the Kamchatka Peninsula, should not be thought to be assimilated by the Chukotko-Kamchatkans or some relatives of the Abkhazians and Adygeans
Though mtDNA D4g used to be an important lineage for the formation of the proto-Sino-Tibetans in the Holocene, today some of branches of mtDNA D4g are observed in Japanese and Korean populations.
