Some common language root yet to be discovered amongst paleosiberians?

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

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

can sino-tibetans be included in paleo-siberian?
the formosans and other austrnesians originally inhabited many parts of china

What do you exactly mean by ethno-group? Aren't papuans grouped out of convenience just like siberians?

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

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

>all the paleo Siberian families are identical except linguistically

Not sure if troll, or just stupid

prove the contrary or gtfo

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

brill.com/products/book/peoples-northeast-asia-through-time

Get this book.

The problem is all those peoples you have listed have totally different lifestyles and cultures. This book looks into this how it isn't really feasibly to link them all together.

Siberia is way to big for any of them to be closely linked genetically

Genetics show that Koreans and Japanese are more similar to Chinese than they are to Northern Asians.

Ainu/Jomon don't really fit in anywhere

Uralic was 1000s miles away from the "Altaic" languages.

Nivkh as well as Chukotko-Kamchatkan were proven way too old to have commonalities with languages further south.

Turkic and Mongolian share 25% of lexical features and 50% grammar

While Mongolian and Tungusic share 5 and 10% respectively. Which, makes it more similar to Paleo-Asiatic.

Sure, Turkic and Mongolian may have started off as small Siberian languages, but due to the size of the language family, they are now considered in their own groups

If you read the book I posted, you will know why your assumptions are dubious

>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

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

Genetically, Yukaghirs have 31% of parentalHaplogroup C-M217(C3), which is dominant among Mongolian and Tungusic peoples.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M217

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]

Nonsense. The European branch of haplogroup N diverged 14000 years ago from East Asian variants not 7000.

bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-13-216

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit–Comb_Ceramic

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.

domestication of reindeer was a recent process. they did it as a means of surviving. it started 1500 years ago, and only spread 500 to all siberian peoples

it's explained in that books I posted

Paleo-Siberian Pride World Wide.

>reindeer domestication started between the Bronze and Iron Ages.

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

>tl;dr all arctic, circumpolar peoples originated from paleo-siberians who themselves originated from ancient SEA

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_homeland_hypotheses

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.

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

evenks and yakuts are totally differeent, uol
youtube.com/watch?v=JmSvPw_Qzj8

this
the video debunks any affinities between yakuts and evenks

There's no evidence Austronesian developed
on the mainland. You can't derive a language family from archaeology or genetics.

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.

so uralics are not Liao?

Archaeological remains and haplogroups are useless for determining linguistic affinity.