3 ms·

This migration possibly occurred as a result of the fall of the Xiongnu confederation, which, according to Alexander Vovin, is likely to have had a Yeniseian-sp

This migration possibly occurred as a result of the fall of the Xiongnu confederation, which, according to Alexander Vovin, is likely to have had a Yeniseian-speaking ruling elite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_people There is a theory that the Xiongnu are the ancestors of the Huns. So the Navajos might be related to the Huns!

danans 4y ago
> This migration possibly occurred as a result of the fall of the Xiongnu confederation That doesn't sound right. The peopling of the Americas from Siberia occurred on the order of 10k+ years ago, whereas the Xiongnu confederation collapsed in the 1st century CE. That doesn't rule out a common ancestor language, but it does rule out the Xiongnu as linguistic ancestors of the Navajo. There is already a known genetic ancestral link between Siberian peoples and the Navajo, though so a linguistic common ancestor is plausible, if not provable.
- tombh 4y ago
  I may be misunderstanding your point, but Wikipedia is suggesting that the connection is because of a _back_ migration from North America to Asia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951421 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951421
  - danans 4y ago
    The last migration referenced in that paper, of the Eskimo-Aleut population in the circumpolar regions, occurred 9000 years ago and the back migrations discussed occurred in that time frame, so 7000 years before the Xiongnu confederation. If I missed something and they mentioned a back migration contemporaneous with the Xiongnu, please point it out.
    - tombh 4y ago
      I don't think my comment helped. You had already made what I think is the main point, that a _common_ linguistic ancestor (rather than direct ancestry) is plausible between the Hun and the Navajo. But the parent comment author (which I am not) didn't say there was direct ancestry either, just that they were related. I mean we're all related to a greater or lesser extent anyway, so what difference does a direct or back migration make? I think to me, what would be most interesting is that the proposed linguistic connection wasn't from a back-migration, because then we'd have more of a linear narrative. Oversimplifying, it would be: Africans became central Asians, who became Eastern Asians, who became Americans. And I kind of feel that's how everybody else wants it to be too, a neat little linear story. Which is what I assumed you read into the parent comment, that the Navajo and Hun share a narratively pleasing close connection. So I just wanted to point out that the Navajo and Hun could be related from a non-linear perspective, and for the parent comment to still be relevant. But I think you were already ahead of me anyway! BTW, it does seem like the parent comment is implying that the Na-Dene migration occurred as a result of the collapse of the Xiongnu, which is obviously misleading, because the 2 events are something like 12,000 years apart.
      - danans 4y ago
        Yeah, my comment was about the miscorrelation of the dates of events. I don't have much doubt that the peoples of NE Asia and the indigenous Americans have recent common ancestor on the time scale of human migrations, or that back migrations took place. Those seem pretty well attested by genetic evidence.

danans 4y ago

> This migration possibly occurred as a result of the fall of the Xiongnu confederation That doesn't sound right. The peopling of the Americas from Siberia occurred on the order of 10k+ years ago, whereas the Xiongnu confederation collapsed in the 1st century CE. That doesn't rule out a common ancestor language, but it does rule out the Xiongnu as linguistic ancestors of the Navajo. There is already a known genetic ancestral link between Siberian peoples and the Navajo, though so a linguistic common ancestor is plausible, if not provable.

tombh 4y ago
I may be misunderstanding your point, but Wikipedia is suggesting that the connection is because of a _back_ migration from North America to Asia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951421 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951421
- danans 4y ago
  The last migration referenced in that paper, of the Eskimo-Aleut population in the circumpolar regions, occurred 9000 years ago and the back migrations discussed occurred in that time frame, so 7000 years before the Xiongnu confederation. If I missed something and they mentioned a back migration contemporaneous with the Xiongnu, please point it out.
  - tombh 4y ago
    I don't think my comment helped. You had already made what I think is the main point, that a _common_ linguistic ancestor (rather than direct ancestry) is plausible between the Hun and the Navajo. But the parent comment author (which I am not) didn't say there was direct ancestry either, just that they were related. I mean we're all related to a greater or lesser extent anyway, so what difference does a direct or back migration make? I think to me, what would be most interesting is that the proposed linguistic connection wasn't from a back-migration, because then we'd have more of a linear narrative. Oversimplifying, it would be: Africans became central Asians, who became Eastern Asians, who became Americans. And I kind of feel that's how everybody else wants it to be too, a neat little linear story. Which is what I assumed you read into the parent comment, that the Navajo and Hun share a narratively pleasing close connection. So I just wanted to point out that the Navajo and Hun could be related from a non-linear perspective, and for the parent comment to still be relevant. But I think you were already ahead of me anyway! BTW, it does seem like the parent comment is implying that the Na-Dene migration occurred as a result of the collapse of the Xiongnu, which is obviously misleading, because the 2 events are something like 12,000 years apart.
    - danans 4y ago
      Yeah, my comment was about the miscorrelation of the dates of events. I don't have much doubt that the peoples of NE Asia and the indigenous Americans have recent common ancestor on the time scale of human migrations, or that back migrations took place. Those seem pretty well attested by genetic evidence.