8/12/2019 The Origin of the Na-Dene Merritt Ruhlen

1/3

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAVol. 95, pp. 1399413996, November 1998Anthropology

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-seian family of languages, spoken in central Siberia, is mostclosely related to the Na-Dene family of languages spoken, forthe most part, in northwestern North America. This hypoth-esis locates the source of one of the three migrations respon-sible for the peopling of the Americas.

The Yeniseian family of languages today consists of a singlelanguage, Ket, spoken by around 550 people (out of a to-tal population of 1,100) along the Yenisei River in centralSiberia. Five other related languages are known from histor-ical sources, but all became extinct in the nineteenth cen-tury (1). The Na-Dene family has four branches, three of

which are single languages spoken along the coastline of west-

ern Canada and southern Alaska (Haida, Tlingit, Eyak). Thefourth branch is the Athabaskan family, spread over interior

Alaska and western Canada, with outliers along the Pacificcoast of Oregon and California and in the American South-

west (Navajo, Apache). Both the Yeniseian and the Na-Denefamilies have traditionally been considered isolates, that is,families with no known relatives (2, 3), and many linguistsmaintain that there is no trace of genetic connections be-tween New World and Old World stocks (4). The presentpaper presents evidence that the Yeniseian and Na-Dene fam-ilies are most closely related to one another within the worldslanguages. If this hypothesis is correct, it would locate thesource of one of the three migrations to the Americas positedby Greenberg, Turner, and Zegura (5).

To my knowledge, no one has ever directly compared the

Yeniseian and Na-Dene families, and the reason is not hardto find. Because both have traditionally been considered iso-lates, that is, language families with no known relatives, theYeniseian family has been compared with other Eurasian lan-guages and families (6), while Na-Dene has been compared,for the most part, with other New World families (7), in bothcases because related languages are more likely to be foundin the same geographical area rather than on different conti-nents. Moreover, very few linguists have concerned themselves

with both Old World and New World languages. Na-Dene haspreviously been compared with two Old World families, Sino-Tibetan and Caucasian. Around 1920 Sapir became convincedthat Na-Dene was more closely related to Sino-Tibetan thanto other American families. Although he wrote about this hy-pothesis in personal letters, and kept comparative notebooks

on the two families, he never published any evidence on thisconnection. Recently Bengtson (8) has reviewed Sapirs evi-dence, adding additional evidence of his own. Nikolaev (9)compared Na-Dene with Caucasian. Although I do not ques-tion that Na-Dene is related to both Sino-Tibetan and Cau-casian (within the larger Dene-Caucasian family), as positedby Sapir and Nikolaev, the evidence presented below indicatesthat Na-Dene is more closely related to Yeniseian than to ei-ther of these other two families.

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page chargepayment. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1998 by The National Academy of Sciences 0027-8424/98/9513994-3$0.00/0PNAS is available online at www.pnas.org.

The linguistic evidence presented at the end of this pa-per consists of 36 etymologies, that is, 36 sets of cognate

words that appear to be shared by Yeniseian and Na-Dene,but not (for the most part) by other language families. It issignificant that these shared words include basic vocabulary(boil/burn, children, dry, he, hunger, name, night, nit/louse,old, summer, word/speak), body parts (breast, cheek, elbow,foot, guts/stomach, head, shoulder), flora and natural phe-nomena (birch bark, cedar, clay, fir, lake, river, snow [onground], snow [falling], stone), fauna (deer, owl, rabbit, skin[animal], squirrel), and cultural artifacts (boat, bow/arrow,dish/plate/basket, rope). It is difficult to imagine that simi-larities of this nature could exist between language familiesthat do not share a common origin. The other possible ex-planations for linguistic similarities can, in this case, easily beruled out. Borrowing is excluded because there is no evidencethat people speaking the Yeniseian and Na-Dene languageshave ever been in contact; onomatopoeia is ruled out be-cause the terms are clearly not sound symbolic; and chance isruled out by simple probability. Two language families mightshare one or two accidental resemblances, but they would notshare 36, so the only plausible explanation for these resem-blances is common origin. These 36 etymologies represent

what seem to me the most secure evidence for the geneticconnection of these two families. Other etymologies, of amore problematical nature, also exist.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for theYeniseianNa-Dene connection is the word for birch bark.The Ket word for birch bark is qy, and this is distinctfrom the Ket word for birch tree (u s). The Ket word for

birch bark is almost identical to the word reconstructed forbirch tree in Proto-Athabaskan: *qy. These two formsdiffer in only two respects. First, the glottalization in theProto-Athabaskan form (symbolized as ) has shifted afterthe vowel in Ket, where it is symbolized as the glottal stop .Second, the Yeniseian form means exclusively birch bark,

while the Proto-Athabaskan form has been reconstructed asmeaning birch tree. Both of these apparent differences can,however, be reconciled.

With regard to the difference in meaning, we need note onlythat the meaning of this word in the two most conservative

Athabaskan languages (Ahtna and Tanaina) is birch bark.Elsewhere in Athabaskan, the meaning has apparently shiftedto birch tree in general, leading Athabaskanists to recon-struct birch tree as the original meaning. However, the pres-ence of the meaning birch bark in the two most conservative

Athabaskan languages, and in the nearest outgroup (Yeni-seian), indicates that the meaning of the Proto-Athabaskanterm was originally birch bark, and it was only after the fis-sion of these two languages from the rest of Athabaskan thatthe meaning was generalized to birch tree.

The difference in phonetic form also has a simple expla-nation because the different location of the glottal stop inYeniseian and Na-Dene is not an idiosyncratic feature of theparticular word birch bark, but is rather a recurrent soundcorrespondence connecting these two families. It affects not

just the word for birch bark, but also the words for stone,utensil, bow, and foot.

To whom reprint requests should be addressed. e-mail: ancar@leland.stanford.edu.

13994

8/12/2019 The Origin of the Na-Dene Merritt Ruhlen

2/3

Anthropology: Ruhlen Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (1998) 13995

On the basis of the evidence presented in this paper, itwould seem that Na-Dene and Yeniseian must have onceformed a single population in Eurasia. Part of this populationmigrated to the New World, giving rise to the Na-Dene lan-guages, while the portion of the population that remained in

Asia gave rise to the Yeniseian languages. The implication ofthis proposal for prehistory is that the Na-Dene represent adistinct migration from Asia to the Americas, in all likelihoodintermediate between the first migration of Amerinds around11,000 years ago and the third migration of the Eskimo-Aleut

around 3,000 years ago. The origin of the YeniseianNa-Denepopulation can plausibly be traced to West Asia, where themore distantly related Caucasian and Burushaski languagesare found. Genetics and archaeology may shed further lighton these relationships, as will no doubt a more extensivestudy of the linguistic evidence.

Linguistic Evidence Connecting Yeniseian and Na-Dene

Each of the following etymologies consists of a semantic gloss,indicating the general meaning in both families, followed bythe relevant Yeniseian and Na-Dene evidence separated byan equals sign (=). The meaning of each form is identical

with the general gloss unless specified otherwise. For Yeni-seian, Starostins reconstructions (1) and a few representa-

tive examples are given. These reconstructions require a com-ment. Starostin reconstructs affricates and fricatives that de-

velop into stops in some words in some languages, but remainas affricates and fricatives in others. For example, Starostinreconstructs Proto-Yeniseian *w birch bark to accountfor Ket qy and Yug xy. This analysis is suspect on twogrounds. First, on internal grounds it is highly unusual for af-fricates and fricatives to develop into stops, while the reversedevelopmentfrom stops to affricates and fricativesis com-mon in linguistic evolution. Second, the external evidence pro-

vided by Na-Dene indicates that the stops were the primitivestate. It is also difficult to understand why Starostin has recon-structed word-final -w for this word, when all the Yeniseianand Athabaskan forms show word-final -y.

For Na-Dene, forms from individual languages are

given because there is at present no Na-Deneor evenAthabaskancomparative dictionary. Where they are known,Proto-Athabaskan reconstructions are cited, followed by afew examples from individual languages. For the most part,however, the Na-Dene evidence has been taken directly fromHaida, Tlingit, Eyak, or one of the Athabaskan languages.Several of the etymologies connecting Na-Dene with Yeni-seian were first proposed by Bengtson (10) in the contextof the larger Dene-Caucasian family (though not exactly inthe form given here): dry, foot, guts, head, name, old, (ani-mal) skin, snow (falling), squirrel. Although tone appears inboth Yeniseian and Na-Dene, it has not been taken into ac-count here because Starostin did not reconstruct tones forProto-Yeniseian. Tone is generally thought to have devel-oped independently within both Yeniseian and Na-Dene, but

this aspect of the relationship warrants further investigation.The following abbreviations are used: PY, Proto-Yeniseian;PND, Proto-Na-Dene; PEA, Proto-Eyak-Athabaskan; PA,Proto-Athabaskan; PPA, Pre-Proto-Athabaskan.

BIRCH BARK PY *w-, Ket qy, Yug xy = PA*qybirch, Ahtna qeybirch bark, Tanaina qy birchbark, Koyukonqxbirch tree, Chipewyan k i birch.

BOAT PY*qa()p,Yugxa()p,Kottxep = Eyak-qegoby boat, PA*-qe-go by boat.

BOIL (v.) PY*qan, Ket n, Yug xan = Tlingit andry meat, fish, Eyak -qaburn, PA*-qan burn, Ahtnaqan burn, Koyukon -qun burn, Kato kan burn,Navajo-k a ahburn.

BOW (n.) PY *q, Ket qt, Yug qt = PA(Krauss/Leer) *qa-zs quiver (lit. arrow-skin), Tanaina

qada-tes blunt arrow (tes blunt arrow), qaditinspear, qadiluy bone spearhead, PA *-qa arrow,Koyukon qo arrow, Chipewyan ka arrow, Hupa -qaarrow, Mattole kaarrow, Navajok aarrow.

BREAST PY*ta, Ket ta, Yug ta = Tlingit teiheart, PA*-tq suckle, Ahtna tu, Koyukon -tua,Kutchintau, Slave -to.

CEDAR PY *pay,Ket hay, Yugfay,Kott fei,Assanpey= Tlingit ayyellow cedar.

CHEEK PY *ol-, Ket qet, Yug xlat, Kott hol =Haida qul forehead, Eyak -quhcheek.

CHILDREN PY*t,Ketkt, kiteyyoung = Haidayt child, Tlingit itachild, Eyak qets child.

CLAY PY *tq-,Ket taar, tuitsmear with clay, Yugtx= Tlingits e 7 s aclay, Eyaktsamud, Ahtnatsqclay, glacial mud.

DEER PY*ser1e,Ket s,Yugsr,Kottseli 7 sele=?Haidasaltracks, trace, imprint, Galice silii 7 seliidoe.

DRY PY *qr1-, Ket qol-ins, Kott s-al = Haidaka 7 a, PA*-,Ahtna -an,Ingalik -,Navajo -an.

ELBOW PY *id, Ket u-it = Eyak uhd knee, PA*-t knee, Ahtna -ot knee, Tanaina -t knee,

joint, Koyukon -ut knee, Sarsi -udknee, elbow, Car-rier -t knee, Hupa -ot knee, Kato -qot knee,

Navajo-odknee.FIR PY *d ne, Ket d n, Yug dn, Kott tni, Arin tin,Pumpokold ne = Eyak ts tsih fir, PA*cn-c Douglasfir, Chilcotintsintsn fir.

FOOT PY*kis,Ketki s,Yugkis= Tlingitkos 7 qosfoot, leg, Eyak -kahs-.

GUTS PY*p,Ket p ,Yugf = Eyakwutbelly,PA (Krauss/Leer)* -wt belly, Ahtna-bet belly, Tanaina-vet belly, Slave-bebelly, Carrier-butstomach, Sarsi-mibelly, Mattole -bibelly, Kato-butbelly, Navajo-bidstomach.

HE PY *d, Ket da- 7 di- = Haida dei just that way,Tlingit de now, Ahtna d ,Slave ti this, Navajo d this.

HEAD PY *ts-,Ket t,Yug c= Eyak -tsineck,PA *-tsi head, Ahtna -tse, Tanaina tsi, Koyukon -t,

Beaver ts

ii, Sarsi ts

i, Galice -sii, Mattole -ts

i, Navajo-tsii.

HUNGER PY *qqante, Ket q t, Yug xxat = Haidaqut hungry.

LAKE PY *de,Ket d,Yugd = Slave deh river,Chipewyande river flowing out of lake.

NAME PY *i, Ket , Yug i, Kott ix = ?Haida ki,Tlingitix call out, announce, invite, Eyak e call, name,Chipewyan-ye 7 -yito be named.

NIGHT (SPEND THE ) PY *saar1, Ket sal, Yugsar, Kottsaal spending the night = Haida aladark,alqwa last night, Eyak t night, PEA *-.et getdark, Ahtna .t 7 . dark, quiet, Sarsi -al dark,Katokanight passes.

NIT PY *yok, Ket (n-)k, Yug (eti-)k, Kott doa

= PA (Krauss/Leer)*yalouse, Tanainaeyu human lice,Koyukonyo lice, Galice ya louse, Navajo y a louse.

OLD PY *si n, Ket si n, Yug sin= Tlingitsan old age,s`anold person, ?Ahtna sen last year, Tlatskanaisen oldman, Navajo s an old (person or thing).

OWL PY*k-,Kotthikei-se,Arinkak hawk, Pumpo-kolxaam-kolka= Haida kakw,Tlingit qukw.

RABBIT PY*ax, Yugak jumping hare = PND (Pin-now) *a, Tlingit a, Eyak , PA (Krauss/Leer) *,

Ahtna a, Tanaina , Tsetsaut qax, Slave ah, Navajoah.

RIVER PY *ses, Ket se s, Yug ses = Haida sskwocean, salt water, Tlingit is still deep water, Eyak screek, stream.

8/12/2019 The Origin of the Na-Dene Merritt Ruhlen

3/3

13996 Anthropology: Ruhlen Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (1998)

ROPE PY *ti,Ket ti = Tlingit tix rope, PA*tsesinew, Ahtna tssinew, thread, string, ?Tanaina tsik-tibowstring (-tistring).

SHOULDER PY*ken-,Ketkn-t-bushoulder joint,Arin q na shoulder, arm = PA *-an arm, Ahtna-an arm, Tanana -an- arm, Slave -on arm, Kato-kwaneshoulder, arm, Navajo -aanarm.

(ANIMAL) SKIN PY*s as, Ket sa si,Yug s as = Tlingitsisa cloth, Eyak -sits skin (of fish), PA (Krauss/Leer)*-zsskin [+ PPA (Krauss/Leer)*-sts], Hupasitsbark,

skin, Tututni ss skin, Galice -saasskin.SNOW (ON GROUND) PY *ti, Ket tk, Yug tik,

Pumpokolt= Tlingit tisnow, ice.SNOW (FALLING) PY *bec snow, Ket bt,

Yug bt, Pumpokol bec = Eyak wehs soft snow, PA(Krauss/Leer) *ys,Tanaina yes falling snow, Slave yah,Carrier yus, Galice yas,Hupa yahs white frost (on trees),Navajoyas.

SQUIRREL PY *saqa, Ket saq, Yug sax = Haidaatsaak, Tlingit tsk, Eyak tsk, PA *tslx, Ahtnatseles arctic ground squirrel, Tanaina tsla red squirrel,flying squirrel (different dialects), Koyukon tilix groundsquirrel, Carriertsalk.

STONE PY *cs, Ket t s, Yug cs, Kott s s = Haidats piece of rock sticking out of water or sand, PA *tses

rock, Ahtna ts

esrock, stone, Tanaina ts

esrock.SUMMER PY *sir1-, Ket si, Yug sr, Arin sil = PA*sen,Ahtna sn, Tanainasan,Carriersin,Navajos .

UTENSIL PY *sk trough for dough, Ket sk, Yugsk= PND (Nikolaev) *ts `a(w) basket, bowl, dish, Tlin-

git six dish, Eyak tsa dipper, PA (Krauss and Leer)*tsak plate, dish, Ahtnatsak plate, dish, bowl, Tanainatsuk dish, plate, Beavertsadish, Navajo-ts ashallowbasket.

WORD PY *qa,Ket qa,Yugx a,Kott xe7 ke=Haida qawa to talk, Tlingit qa say, Eyak -a say, PA*qa-n-(h)e-x speak.

I would like to thank John Bengtson, Victor Golla, Michael Krauss,Sergei Starostin, Edward Vayda, and William S.-Y. Wang for criticismof an earlier version of this paper. Part of this article was written atthe Santa Fe Institute, whose support is gratefully acknowledged.

1. Starostin, S. A. (1982) Ketskij Sbornik (Nauka, Leningrad),pp. 144237.

2. Comrie, B. (1981)The Languages of the Soviet Union(CambridgeUniv. Press, Cambridge, U.K.), p. 261.

3. Campbell, L. (1997) American Indian Languages (Oxford Univ.Press, New York), p. 286.

4. Nichols, J. (1990)Language 47, 495.5. Greenberg, J. H., Turner, C. G. & Zegura, S. L. (1986) Curr.

Anthropol.27, 477497.6. Starostin, S. A. (1984) in Lingvisticheskaja Rekonstruktsija i

Drevnejshaja Istorija Vostoka(Akademija Nauk, Moscow), Vol. 4,pp. 1938.

7. Haas, M. R. (1964)Int. Cong. Amerincanists 35, 495500.

8. Bengtson, J. B. (1994)Anthropol. Sci. 102, 207230.9. Nikolaev, S. L. (1991) in Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages, ed.

Shevoroshkin, V. (Brockmeyer, Bochum), pp. 67129.10. Bengtson, J. D. (1991) in Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages, ed.

Shevoroshkin, V. (Brockmeyer, Bochum), pp. 4266.