Refuting the Debunking of the Altaic Theory: An Iranian-American Perspective

By Bobby Darvish, Iranian-American Ex-Muslim, Former Vegan, Former Democrat, Former Socialist, Former CAIR-Columbus Executive Director, Former Muslim Forum of Utah President, Christian Conservative LDS

The Altaic theory, proposing that Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages share a common origin, has been a subject of intense academic debate. Critics argue that these languages are independent families with separate genetic and cultural histories, positing that Mongolic and Tungusic peoples are closely related while Turkic peoples are distinct. Furthermore, they assert that these groups did not originate in the Altai region but in various parts of northeastern Asia. While these points are worth examining, the dismissal of the Altaic theory as "debunked" oversimplifies the nuanced interplay of linguistics, genetics, and archaeology.

Linguistic Connections Among Altaic Languages

Linguists supporting the Altaic theory point to shared features among Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages, such as vowel harmony, agglutination, and similar syntactic structures. While critics argue these are typological rather than genetic similarities, the existence of systematic correspondences in vocabulary suggests otherwise. Scholars like Ramstedt and Poppe have identified phonological correspondences that indicate a possible shared proto-language.

Moreover, loanwords and linguistic diffusion do not negate genetic relationships. Instead, they reflect the shared cultural and geographic space these groups occupied, reinforcing the plausibility of a common origin. To outright dismiss these linguistic ties undermines the complexity of historical linguistics.

Archaeogenetics and Population Dynamics

Critics assert that Mongolic peoples are primarily of Western Liao River descent, Tungusic peoples trace back to Amur River hunter-gatherers, and Turkic peoples have Neolithic South Siberian roots. While recent genetic studies, such as those using ancient DNA, reveal regional distinctions, they also highlight significant overlap among these populations, especially in the Altai and surrounding regions.

The Altai region has long been a crossroads of human migration. Genetic evidence shows intermingling among proto-Turkic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Tungusic groups. The Denisova Cave findings, for example, demonstrate that the Altai served as a melting pot for ancient human populations, supporting a scenario where linguistic and cultural exchanges could have occurred.

Historical and Cultural Interactions

History tells us that the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic peoples were not isolated but part of a dynamic network of interaction. The Xiongnu confederation, often associated with proto-Turkic and proto-Mongolic groups, exemplifies early alliances that would facilitate linguistic and cultural blending.

Furthermore, the spread of the Uyghur Khaganate and the Mongol Empire highlights the interconnectedness of these peoples, who often adopted and adapted each other’s languages and customs. The critics’ claim that Turkic peoples are entirely distinct from their Mongolic and Tungusic counterparts ignores this shared history and mutual influence.

The Role of Religion and Ideology

As a former socialist and vegan who once sought answers in ideologies emphasizing division, I now see the importance of recognizing interconnectedness. The same logic applies here: insisting on strict separations between Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic peoples mirrors an ideological rigidity that denies the fluid nature of human history.

From my perspective as a Christian Conservative, unity and shared origins matter. The Altaic theory reminds us of the shared threads in our human story, even when differences appear prominent. This approach aligns with my faith’s emphasis on recognizing the interconnectedness of all God’s children.

Conclusion

The outright dismissal of the Altaic theory is premature and reductionist. While modern evidence complicates its original formulation, it does not invalidate the idea of a shared linguistic and cultural heritage among Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic peoples. By embracing a balanced view, we honor the complexity of human history, one that transcends the simplistic binaries of separation and isolation.

---

Citations

1. Ramstedt, G. J. (1922). Über die Lautgesetze der Altaischen Sprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
2. Poppe, N. (1960). Comparative Grammar of the Altaic Languages. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.
3. Allentoft, M. E., et al. (2015). "Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia." Nature, 522(7555), 167–172.
4. Jeong, C., et al. (2019). "A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe." Cell, 176(4), 890–904.
5. Golden, P. B. (2011). Central Asia in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Heggarty, P., & Renfrew, C. (2014). Language Families and the Spread of Agriculture. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
7. Ma, P., et al. (2021). "Ancient DNA from the Altai Mountains Reveals a 5000-Year History of Population Migrations and Mixture." Science Advances, 7(24), eabg8675.