Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 95, pp. 13994–13996, November 1998 Anthropology The origin of the Na-Dene Merritt Ruhlen† Program in Human Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 Communicated by Joseph H. Greenberg, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, September 9, 1998 (received for review January 28, 1998) ABSTRACT Linguistic evidence indicates that the Yeni- The linguistic evidence presented at the end of this pa- seian family of languages, spoken in central Siberia, is most per consists of 36 etymologies, that is, 36 sets of cognate closely related to the Na-Dene family of languages spoken, for words that appear to be shared by Yeniseian and Na-Dene, the most part, in northwestern North America. This hypoth- but not (for the most part) by other language families. It is esis locates the source of one of the three migrations respon- significant that these shared words include basic vocabulary sible for the peopling of the Americas. (boil/burn, children, dry, he, hunger, name, night, nit/louse, old, summer, word/speak), body parts (breast, cheek, elbow, The Yeniseian family of languages today consists of a single foot, guts/stomach, head, shoulder), flora and natural phe- language, Ket, spoken by around 550 people (out of a to- nomena (birch bark, cedar, clay, fir, lake, river, snow [on ground], snow [falling], stone), fauna (deer, owl, rabbit, skin tal population of 1,100) along the Yenisei River in central [animal], squirrel), and cultural artifacts (boat, bow/arrow, Siberia. Five other related languages are known from histor- dish/plate/basket, rope). It is difficult to imagine that simi- ical sources, but all became extinct in the nineteenth cen- larities of this nature could exist between language families tury (1). The Na-Dene family has four branches, three of that do not share a common origin. The other possible ex- which are single languages spoken along the coastline of west- planations for linguistic similarities can, in this case, easily be ern Canada and southern Alaska (Haida, Tlingit, Eyak). The ruled out. Borrowing is excluded because there is no evidence fourth branch is the Athabaskan family, spread over interior that people speaking the Yeniseian and Na-Dene languages Alaska and western Canada, with outliers along the Pacific have ever been in contact; onomatopoeia is ruled out be- coast of Oregon and California and in the American South- cause the terms are clearly not sound symbolic; and chance is west (Navajo, Apache). Both the Yeniseian and the Na-Dene ruled out by simple probability. Two language families might families have traditionally been considered isolates, that is, share one or two accidental resemblances, but they would not families with no known relatives (2, 3), and many linguists share 36, so the only plausible explanation for these resem- maintain that “there is no trace of genetic connections be- blances is common origin. These 36 etymologies represent tween New World and Old World stocks” (4). The present what seem to me the most secure evidence for the genetic paper presents evidence that the Yeniseian and Na-Dene fam- connection of these two families. Other etymologies, of a ilies are most closely related to one another within the world’s more problematical nature, also exist. languages. If this hypothesis is correct, it would locate the One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the source of one of the three migrations to the Americas posited Yeniseian–Na-Dene connection is the word for “birch bark.” by Greenberg, Turner, and Zegura (5). The Ket word for “birch bark” is qé?y, and this is distinct To my knowledge, no one has ever directly compared the from the Ket word for “birch tree” (u2$ s@). The Ket word for Yeniseian and Na-Dene families, and the reason is not hard “birch bark” is almost identical to the word reconstructed for to find. Because both have traditionally been considered iso- “birch tree” in Proto-Athabaskan: *qP@y. These two forms lates, that is, language families with no known relatives, the differ in only two respects. First, the glottalization in the Yeniseian family has been compared with other Eurasian lan- Proto-Athabaskan form (symbolized as ’) has shifted after guages and families (6), while Na-Dene has been compared, the vowel in Ket, where it is symbolized as the glottal stop ?. for the most part, with other New World families (7), in both Second, the Yeniseian form means exclusively “birch bark,” cases because related languages are more likely to be found while the Proto-Athabaskan form has been reconstructed as in the same geographical area rather than on different conti- meaning “birch tree.” Both of these apparent differences can, nents. Moreover, very few linguists have concerned themselves however, be reconciled. with both Old World and New World languages. Na-Dene has With regard to the difference in meaning, we need note only previously been compared with two Old World families, Sino- that the meaning of this word in the two most conservative Tibetan and Caucasian. Around 1920 Sapir became convinced Athabaskan languages (Ahtna and Tanaina) is “birch bark.” that Na-Dene was more closely related to Sino-Tibetan than Elsewhere in Athabaskan, the meaning has apparently shifted to other American families. Although he wrote about this hy- to “birch tree” in general, leading Athabaskanists to recon- pothesis in personal letters, and kept comparative notebooks struct “birch tree” as the original meaning. However, the pres- ence of the meaning “birch bark” in the two most conservative on the two families, he never published any evidence on this Athabaskan languages, and in the nearest outgroup (Yeni- connection. Recently Bengtson (8) has reviewed Sapir’s evi- seian), indicates that the meaning of the Proto-Athabaskan dence, adding additional evidence of his own. Nikolaev (9) term was originally “birch bark,” and it was only after the fis- compared Na-Dene with Caucasian. Although I do not ques- sion of these two languages from the rest of Athabaskan that tion that Na-Dene is related to both Sino-Tibetan and Cau- the meaning was generalized to “birch tree.” casian (within the larger Dene-Caucasian family), as posited The difference in phonetic form also has a simple expla- by Sapir and Nikolaev, the evidence presented below indicates nation because the different location of the glottal stop in that Na-Dene is more closely related to Yeniseian than to ei- Yeniseian and Na-Dene is not an idiosyncratic feature of the ther of these other two families. particular word “birch bark,” but is rather a recurrent sound correspondence connecting these two families. It affects not The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge just the word for “birch bark,” but also the words for “stone,” payment. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement”in “utensil,” “bow,” and “foot.” accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact. © 1998 by The National Academy of Sciences 0027-8424/98/9513994-3$0.00/0 †To whom reprint requests should be addressed. e-mail: ancar@leland. PNAS is available online at www.pnas.org. stanford.edu. 13994 Downloaded by guest on September 29, 2021 Anthropology: Ruhlen Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (1998) 13995 On the basis of the evidence presented in this paper, it qPada-t¼Pes “blunt arrow” (t¼Pes “blunt arrow”), qPaditin would seem that Na-Dene and Yeniseian must have once “spear,” qPadiluy “bone spearhead,” PA *-qPa? “arrow,” formed a single population in Eurasia. Part of this population Koyukon qPo? “arrow,” Chipewyan kPa “arrow,” Hupa -qPa? migrated to the New World, giving rise to the Na-Dene lan- “arrow,” Mattole kPa? “arrow,” Navajo kP$a? “arrow.” guages, while the portion of the population that remained in BREAST PY *t@ga, Ket töga, Yug töga = Tlingit teiXP Asia gave rise to the Yeniseian languages. The implication of “heart,” PA *-tP@qP+ “suckle,” Ahtna tP$u?, Koyukon -tPuga?, this proposal for prehistory is that the Na-Dene represent a Kutchin tPagu, Slave -tPo?. distinct migration from Asia to the Americas, in all likelihood CEDAR PY *p#a?y, Ket ha?y, Yug fa?y, Kott fei, Assan intermediate between the first migration of Amerinds around pey = Tlingit X2ay “yellow cedar.” 11,000 years ago and the third migration of the Eskimo-Aleut CHEEK PY *Xol-, Ket qOùet, Yug xOlat, Kott hol = around 3,000 years ago. The origin of the Yeniseian–Na-Dene Haida qul “forehead,” Eyak -quhË “cheek.” population can plausibly be traced to West Asia, where the CHILDREN PY *g@?t, Ket köʔt, kitey “young” = Haida more distantly related Caucasian and Burushaski languages gy$KtP “child,” Tlingit gitPa “child,” Eyak q$etsP “child.” are found. Genetics and archaeology may shed further light CLAY PY *t@q-, Ket tagar, tuγit “smear with clay,” Yug on these relationships, as will no doubt a more extensive t@x = Tlingit sP2e 7 sP2a “clay,” Eyak tsPa? “mud,” Ahtna tsP{qP study of the linguistic evidence. “clay, glacial mud.” DEER PY *s$er1e, Ket 2sEù@, Yug sE}r, Kott ˇseli 7 ˇsele = Linguistic Evidence Connecting Yeniseian and Na-Dene ?Haida sal$K “tracks, trace, imprint,” Galice silii 7 selii “doe.” DRY PY *qOr -, Ket qol-ins, Kott ˇs$K-gal = Haida Each of the following etymologies consists of a semantic gloss, 1 kPa 7 GPa, PA *-GαÎ, Ahtna -Gan, Ingalik -G@Î, Navajo -gan. indicating the general meaning in both families, followed by ELBOW PY *gid, Ket uù-git = Eyak Guhd “knee,” PA the relevant Yeniseian and Na-Dene evidence separated by *-GUtP “knee,” Ahtna -GotP “knee,” Tanaina -G@tP “knee, an equals sign (=). The meaning of each form is identical with the general gloss unless specified otherwise.