| Uralic origins | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 13 2005, 06:16:29 PM (1,641 Views) | |
| ren | Jan 13 2005, 06:16:29 PM Post #1 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Regarding Uralic origins... from HOMO, "Origins of Uralic-speaking populations: craniological evidence" by Moiseyev V., 240 April 2002, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 240-253(14) "In biological anthropology, two principal hypotheses have been formulated. According to the first one [...] the biological features of the Uralians are basically a result of prolonged and extensive hybridization between various European and Siberian populations. If so, present linguistic affinities are solely due to the fact that Uralic languages, having spread from some center, were adopted by a number of unrelated peoples, much like the situation with Turkish languages. According to another theory [...] most modern Uralic groups have descended from a single population whose features survive in many of them despite hybridization with European and Siberian populations." Anthropometric-wise, the author's own analysis and conclusion: "Our results demonstrate that while hybridization was indeed the major factor in Uralic evolution, most Uralic-speaking groups possess a common and highly specific biological trait combination which differentiates them from any other northern Eurasian groups (or any other groups studied by us) and suggest that they have indeed descended from a single proto-Uralic population. Now the Abstract: "Data on 55 modern cranial samples representing Uralic and other Eurasian populations were subjected to canonical variate (CV) and principal component (PC) analysis for 6 nonmetric and 14 metric traits, respectively. While PC1 and CV1 reveal strong east-to-west gradients among the Uralians, PC2 and CV2 separate most of them from the remaining groups, suggesting that they have descended from an ancestral proto-Uralian population. The biologically «Uralic» features survive in modern Uralic groups despite the fact that the initial split was followed by a long period of hybridization with widely dissimilar people. Our results confirm that the ancestors of many Turkish-speaking groups as well as the Yukaghirs belonged to the proto-Uralic community." some "meat" of the study: (The metric variables were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA), while nonmetric variables were subjected to canonical variate analysis (CVA).) "Both the first vectors, PC1 and CV1, reveal a west-to-east gradient (traditionally referred to as "Caucasoid-to-Mongoloid") . ... Although Uralians occupy very different positions on the west-to-east vector, Moksha Mordvinians, Suomi Finns, and Estonians being among the most "western" groups, and Nenets showing a strong eastern tendency, most of them were intermediate. This is a well-known fact which is compatible with either of the two competing hypotheses mentioned above. No doubt, hybridization was a very important factor in the population history of Uralic peoples. The question is, was it the only factor? To answer this question, we must examine the second vectors, CV2 and PC2, which are orthogonal to the first ones. Here, the Uralians are highly specific rather than intermediate [...] Both vectors set most Uralic groups apart from others. As seen from tables 2 and 3, the "Uralic" trait combination includes an extremely high frequency of infraorbital pattern type II, and low frequency of sphenomaxillary suture (traits most highly correlated with PC2), a long and narrow brain case, low face and very small nasal projection angle (traits with the highest loadings on CV2). Notably in certain Ob Ugrian series, especially in the Khanty from the Lower Irtysh [...] as well as in the Salym and Balyk Khanty, the nasal bones are even flatter than in some Tungus groups, which are among the most flat-faced and flat-nosed in the world. [...] This combination, which may be described as "Uralic", is quite unusual on a world scale. Utmost lack of proportionality in the expression of "eastern" and "western" traits speak against the purely hybrid nature of the Uralic groups. Also, "The groups with the most pronounced "Uralic" trait combination are Ob Ugrians. Interestingly, this tendency is strongest in Khants, not in Mansi as previously believed." Genetics-wise: From Lahermo et al., Eur J Hum Genet. 1999 May-Jun;7(4):447-58. "Aside from the Hungarians, the C allele of the Tat polymorphism was common in all the Finno-Ugric speaking populations (from 8.2% to 63.2%), with highest incidence in the Ob-Ugrian Khanty." Above information was via http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000465.html of Dienekes' Anthropology Blog. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Feb 5 2005, 12:02:25 AM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Y-chromosome haplogroup N3, thought to have been from East Eurasia, according to new study, seems not to be of recent origin from East Eurasia, but is probably "indigenous" to Eastern Europe, where it expanded: pg 16: http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Tambets2004.pdf The predominant Saami Y-chromosomal haplogroup N3 has a nearly uniform circumarctic distribution in Eurasia (table 3). The closely related N2 lineages are frequent in Siberian and Volga-Uralic populations. Thus, it is likely that haplogroup N variation represents a prehistoric link between the Siberian and eastern European/ proto-Finnic populations via their paternal heritage. The improved resolution of the Y-chromosomal phylogenetic tree (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2003) reveals an ancestral node shared by haplogroups N and O, with the latter restricted largely to eastern Asia. This connection is intriguing, but it is still unclear when and where this common ancestor first appeared. Nevertheless, one does not need to postulate a recent Siberian flow of Y chromosomes into the Saami gene pool to explain their high N3 frequency. First, such a flow from Samoyedic-speaking aboriginal Siberians to the Saami Y-chromosomal pool would predict the presence there of haplogroup N2 and/ or haplogroup Q, widely spread in Samoyeds (Karafet et al. 2002). Second, the much higher diversity of N3 in eastern Europe than in Siberia (Villems et al. 1998; Rootsi et al. 2000) suggests that eastern Europe, rather than Siberia, is a possible origin of the earliest expansion of this haplogroup in northern Eurasia. Third, the lack of Y-chromosomal haplogroup C in Saami contrasts with its high frequency among Tungusic-speaking native Siberians (such as the Evenks and the Evens) as well as among Mongolic-speaking Mongols, the Buryats, the Kalmyks, and the Turkic-speaking Kazakhs and Uzbeks (Wells et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2002; authors’ unpublished data). Therefore, without introducing specific additional ad hoc scenarios, these observations make it unlikely that there was recent Y-chromosomal flow from these Siberian populations into the gene pool of the Saami. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Mar 23 2007, 12:17:01 AM Post #3 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bagashev's book "Этнография и антропология Ямала" (2003), described in a review , gives an impression of Russian progress in West Siberian anthropology. According to the materials presented in it, not only an element associated with modern Westerners and an element associated with modern (East) Siberians but also a cranially "protomorphic" element were involved in the hybridisation process of Uralians (and Kets), except for the Nenets. Furthermore, a relationship between Uralians and Yukaghirs had been confirmed by cranial data. More literature for references in the list at a Russian site . |
![]() |
|
| ren | Apr 24 2007, 12:12:23 PM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Keep in mind that Starostin's theory has not been tested or accepted by most linguists. It was just popularized by people with fantastic imaginations, conspiracy-theorists and scientists alike, such as Cavalli-Sforza. Everything from the reconstructed roots, the system he uses, and the words from each language he used are in question.
A little more like central Siberia...
As I've cited from the Aurignacian thread, the first prehistoric cultures associated with Moderns in Iberia and Italy are not Aurignacian.
Aurignacian does exist in Eastern Europe, and perhaps just as old or even older than in "Central" Europe, where the European Aurignacian is proposed to originate. The Central Asian Aurignacian seems as old as the Central European one.
This is unlikely, and whatever evidence for it likely is due to bias in excavation.
South of it seems to be desert and huge rivers or atleast steppe-tundra.
No, most of northern Europe, Central Asia, Siberia would've been barriers. Steppe-Tundra is not exactly habitable. You need wood to keep warm and melt ice/snow, for example. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Apr 24 2007, 03:30:07 PM Post #5 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Update: I've looked into the lake; it seems to border on glaciers in the north and Central Asia/desert in the south, so it was a barrier.
Well, if it can be shown that people came into Europe from two separate regions, had different cultures, and different lineages, as well as different morphology, that is significant. Certain aspects hint that this was so, but of course they may all derive from a single branch, so you shouldn't be unhappy about this. The art, unparalleled in the world of that time, seems to start with the Aurignacian.
The point is that it would be hard to traverse such landscapes, and thus a barrier. I've been to the steppes, and it's hardly a jolly good life as you say. Central Asia is still today bitterly cold, and the LGM would've made it much worse. Wood would be a very rare thing to have, and manure doesn't lie everywhere to be picked, nor water. Even game would be hard to track. Modern nomads still have a hard time in this setting. Tundra is perhaps worse. Steppe-tundra during the ice age in the center of Eurasia/Siberia would make it virtually impossible to live. Even today, getting frostbite in Siberia is a concern. Can you imagine some hunter having to spend days out in the open procuring wood, manure, meat? :rolleyes: This is not to say there weren't people living in Siberia, but a continuim from France to the Altai in a greater "Europa" is a bit warping the facts. Between Altai and eastern Europe, nothing as been found around the LGM AFAIK.
|
![]() |
|
| ren | Apr 25 2007, 10:51:28 PM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's also possible, given the estimate age of N3 in Europe, that it accompanied the spread of NE Asian microblade technology to the Urals around 11,000 years ago. Fagan also seems to mention a NE Asian-like microblade technology among certain Dnieper peoples (such as at Mezirich), which are dated to 16,000-12,000 BP. Actually, as implausible as it sounds, there is a slight possibility it could have something to do with R-lineages. I'm not sure if the microlithic age in Europe (12,000-Neolithic) is indigenous, Levantine, or Asiatic. Reindeer-herding seems to be a much later development, just a few millenia back. Some northerly Siberian groups still go by hunting-gathering, such as Ngansans. |
![]() |
|
| ren | May 5 2007, 07:53:13 PM Post #7 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://vip.latnet.lv/hss/denisova.htm |
![]() |
|
| ren | May 5 2007, 09:44:01 PM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Further debate has been split into this thread: http://z6.invisionfree.com/orient/index.php?showtopic=1304 Actually, broad-faced, brachycephalic populations in Europe abound and are usually regarded as aboriginal Europeans prior to Neolithic times. The earliest Europeans were dolicho but during the late glacial times the limbs became short and the skull round, sort of like arctic people. Such traits are cold-adaptive. They even cohabitate with Med types for hundreds if not thousands of years during the Mesolithic and Neolithic all over Europe, uncluding Iberia, thus leading certain published studies claiming population replacement in Iberia. Original Iberian? Something like this maybe? ![]() Still has that sworthy Med dark good looks, as described by northern Europeans, just more Brad Pitt-looking. |
![]() |
|
| ren | May 10 2007, 02:19:44 PM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Continuous text but in different sizes. The Mesolithic and Neolithic Eastern European finds.![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | May 23 2007, 12:23:33 PM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, it appears that manju is a Tamil from Kerala whose patrilineal ancestor, belonging to Y-chromosome haplogroup R2, is supposed to have originated from Andhra Pradesh. I learn something new about the regulars here every time I visit this forum! Anyway, it is nice to have someone who has first-hand knowledge of Indian languages and cultures participating in this discussion. Now, more to the point, I would like to mention that Turkish has /kïz/ < proto-Turkic */kïrj/ for "girl; daughter; virgin, maiden; queen (of cards)," Mongolian has /ger/ for "house; dwelling," and Ainu has /kotan/ for "dwelling; inhabited place; village," as in "Kamuy-kotan" ("dwelling place of a god"). The /kVt-/ ~ /kVd-/ ~ /kVr-/ root for "house" or "habitation" is practically universal throughout Eurasia and some surrounding islands; even English has "house" < */khūs/ and Korean has /kos/ < */kut/ ("place, location"), which are also rather similar, although their modern forms have a sibilant /s/ rather than a plosive /t/ ~ /d/ or flap /r/. Old Japanese /ki/ < */kï?i/ ("walled compound; fortified dwelling place, fort, fortress, castle-town") might also belong in this group, although it appears to be a loanword from the extinct Paekchean language. It should also be noted that Mandarin Chinese has */ga/ or */gä/ > jia ("house; family"), which might be derived from the same root (perhaps */gad/ > */gä/ > jia) as Mongolian /ger/; I personally have noticed many other similarities in addition to this between Mongolic and Sinitic (or Sino-Tibetan) vocabulary. In conclusion, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to claim that there is a particularly close connection between Uralic and Dravidian based on the superficial similarity of their words for "house" or "girl; female." Oh, by the way, the Mongolian and Manchu words for "town" or "city" are practically identical to Ainu /kotan/ ("dwelling; inhabited place; village"). Middle Korean had /kas/ ("wife") and /kasnah@j/ ~ /kannah@j/ ("girl"), etc., etc. |
![]() |
|
| ren | May 23 2007, 01:17:57 PM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ahh... your sentiments about the Ainu... :rolleyes: my European friend. The Ainu language has been pretty much conclusively rejected from the Altaic bunch by Vovin, who is the only to provide a scientific study of the possibility rather then comparing supposed similar words for huts: Vovin, Alexander. 1994. "Long-distance relationships, reconstruction methodology, and the origins of Japanese". Diachronica 11:95-114. ------. 1993. A Reconstruction of Proto-Ainu. Leiden: E. J. Brill. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id...7CCbY#PPA157,M1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ga" is more non-Mandarin/southern Chinese language types... |
![]() |
|
| ren | Dec 1 2007, 06:32:46 PM Post #12 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Juha janhunen, the Man of Uralic studies, places Uralic beginnings at Ob abd Yenisei Rivers, where he proposes the Samoydic-Finno-Ugric split. According to Juha, the western-most Uralic languages, Finnish and Saami, show "pre-Iranian" and "Iranian" influence. If Indo-Iranic is linked to the Andronovo culture, then that contact was 4,000 years ago in Siberia. This places a time and place for Uralic. However, his link of Samoyedic with Tagar culture seems far-fetched, since Tagar seems to be rather IE-like in culture, morphology, and lineage. That leaves Karasuk, which still doesn't seem to fit it is more advanced then what Uralic linguistic reconstructions and modern groups (Samoyeds) tend to reveal, although Karasuk is proposed as coming from farther southeast, with links to North China. Whatever the case, it seems Uralic is pre-reindeer. Edited by ren, Apr 16 2010, 07:39:05 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| ren | Dec 16 2009, 03:44:40 AM Post #13 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-934.html 2009-12-17 Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when? 2010-8-8 It seems proto-Uralic the language has been found to to be morphologically closest to Eskimo. Vovin 2011-10-27 Merged into here from a redundant topic: - In Search of the Indo-Europeans says that proto-Uralic developed around the Volga region, possibly north of proto-Indo-Europeans, adn was present in the area before IE expansion. -According to Alekseev, "In the Mesolithic period, populations in European Russia exhibit the same physical traits as did the Paleolithic populations i.e. tall, thick bones, broad face, long hair, well developed nasal bones. The term "Cromagnon" refers to Upper Paleolithic people, but there are local variations. The Mesolithic people of eastern Europe are definitely descendants of Upper Paleolithic populations i.e. massive bones, tall, broad face, and well developed nasal bones. However, from Kostenki the skeletal remains depict Mongoloid features similar to remains from Choukoutien and Eastern Asia." Footnote 4: Reconstruction of the skeletal remains produces a strong adult with a combination of morphological features. Most informing is a strong development around the nose that is not typical for Europoid but similar to east African populations; however, Negroid nasal bones are flat while these from Kostenki IV are strong. http://www.drummingnet.com/alekseev/ChapterV.html -http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Tambets2004.pdf -mtDNA on Mansi suggest they are a pre-neolithic population with "East Eurasian" mtDNA in them that is a minority.w -mtDNA on the Saami concludes that they are basically European, including some ancient pre-neolithic demography. -Osteological analysis shows a third element besides East and West Eurasians: http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000465.html -Raisa Denisova suggests a population replacement of the Baltic region by people a bit further east. http://vip.latnet.lv/hss/denisova.htm Edited by ren, Oct 27 2011, 02:25:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| black man | Aug 2 2012, 12:37:00 PM Post #14 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/population-strata-in-west-siberian.html |
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Sep 11 2012, 01:06:12 PM Post #15 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are these people of the Pit-Comb Ware Culture? Is that what the Russian subtitle says? http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/aiwn/uralics.jpg |
![]() |
|
| black man | Sep 11 2012, 02:33:22 PM Post #16 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to the descriptions, that's the reconstructions of neolithic people. They are not associated with any culture but with place names, two of which I'd tentatively identify with these regions in NW Russia... - 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargopol - 3/4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanovo_Oblast I couldn't find out about the place in the description of the second picture. Don't know about "1" but "3"/"4" seems to be on linguistically very Russian territory. Note that Russian place names can reoccur within a very vast territory. |
![]() |
|
| Jaska | Oct 2 2012, 12:26:32 AM Post #17 |
|
Newbie
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have argued Pre-Proto-Uralic to have been located in South Siberia: http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf |
![]() |
|
| skywalker | Oct 2 2012, 12:43:23 AM Post #18 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
welcome. Are you Jaakko Häkkinen? I think we would agree with you on its origins. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Oct 2 2012, 04:33:15 PM Post #19 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
most recent addendum: there is the opinion that Yukaghirs were "Uralianised". If so, the light pigmentation of the Yukaghirs (prior to their almost complete Russianisation) could be interpreted as a consequence of Uralics having been descendants of light-pigmented Caucasoids [insert link to my post on the findings of Bouakaze et al.]. This would be in accordance with the idea that Nganasans and Enets were "Uralianised" as well. So I wouldn't exclude the possibility that light-pigmented (Caucasoid) NW Asian carriers of the y hg R1a mutation(s) were the earliest speakers of Uralic languages. Welcome to this forum, Jaska. Back on topic, the anthropometric data of NE European Neolithic people were published. But I don't have enough experience to independently interpret them. ren, the pictures to which you linked above, are just reconstructions. There is a different point of view according to which Neolithic NE European people were broad-faced West Eurasians. Also, maybe some skulls cannot be compared with the skulls of average modern humans possibly because those ancient skulls belonged to very isolated people adapted to environmental conditions different from those in the (more or less) civilised world today. (They're just extreme.) E.g., the Oleni Island specimens of Russian Karelia apparently described by Yakimov in 1960 are even more broad-faced than present-day Nenets according to Bunak. 1st addendum: Mesolithic Karelian mtDNA was found out to be partly East Eurasian, Der Sarkassian writes in her thesis. See table 1 on p. 98. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Uralo-Siberian areal phenomenon/sprachbund · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








