Edit filter log

'[[File:Fenno-Ugrian_languages.png|thumb|upright=2|Current distribution of the Uralic languages]] Various '''Proto-Uralic homeland hypotheses''' on the origin of the [[Uralic languages]] and the location ([[Urheimat]] or homeland) and the period in which the [[Proto-Uralic language]] was spoken have been advocated over the years. ==Homeland hypothesises== === Europe versus Siberia === The Proto-Uralic homeland has been suggested to be located near the [[Ural Mountains]], either on the European or the Siberian side. The main reason to suppose a Siberian homeland has been the traditional taxonomic model that sees the [[Proto-Samoyed language|Samoyed]] branch splitting off first. Because the present border between the Samoyed and the [[Ugric languages|Ugric]] branch is in Western Siberia, the original split was seen to have occurred there too. However, because the Ugric languages are known to have been spoken earlier on the European side of the Urals, a European homeland would be equally possible. In recent years, it has also been argued that on the phonological basis the oldest split was not between the [[Samoyedic languages|Samoyed]] and the [[Finno-Ugric]] but between the [[Finno-Permic]] and the Ugro-Samoyedic language groups.<ref>Häkkinen, Jaakko 2007: Kantauralin murteutuminen vokaalivastaavuuksien valossak.{{cite web |url=https://oa.doria.fi/handle/10024/7044 |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2012-04-16 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://archive.is/20120523223524/https://oa.doria.fi/handle/10024/7044 |archivedate=2012-05-23 |df= }}</ref> The lexical level is argued to be less reliable, and lexical innovativeness (a small number of shared cognates) can be confused because of the great age of the division. For a long time, no new arguments for a Siberian homeland have been presented. Both European and Siberian homeland proposals have been supported by palaeolinguistic evidence, but only such cases in which the semantic reconstructions are certain are valid. A Siberian homeland has been claimed on the basis of two coniferous tree names in Proto-Uralic, but the trees (''[[Abies sibirica]]'' and ''[[Pinus cembra]]'') have for a long time been present also in the far east of Europe. A European homeland is supported by words for 'bee', 'honey', 'elm' etc.<ref>Sebestyén-Németh, Irene 1951–1952: Zur Frage des alten Wohngebietes der uralischen Völker.</ref> They can be reconstructed already in Proto-Uralic, when Samoyed is no more the first entity to split off.<ref name="JH09">Häkkinen, Jaakko 2009: Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. – Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 92, p. 9–56. http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf</ref> More recently also the [[loanword]] evidence has been used to support a European homeland. Proto-Uralic has been seen borrowing words from [[Proto-Indo-European]],<ref>Rédei, Károly 1986: Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten. (Toim. Manfred Mayrhofer & Volfgang U. Dressler.) Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Linguistik und Kommunikationsforschung, Heft 16. Wien.</ref><ref>Koivulehto, Jorma 1991: Koivulehto, Jorma 1991: Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 566. Band. Wien 1991.</ref> and the Proto-Indo-European homeland has rarely been located east of the Urals. Proto-Uralic even seems to have developed in close contact with [[Proto-Aryan]],<ref>Häkkinen, Jaakko 2012: Uralic evidence for the Indo-European homeland. http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf</ref> which is seen to have been born in the [[Poltavka culture]] of the Caspian steppes before its spread to Asia.<ref>Mallory, J. P. & Adams, D. Q. (editors) 1997: Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London and Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. p. 439</ref> Pre-Proto-Uralic seems to have been spoken in Asia on the basis of early contacts with the [[Yukaghir languages]] <ref>Häkkinen, Jaakko 2012: Early contacts between Uralic and Yukaghir. Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika Sandman (editors): Per Urales ad Orientem Iter polyphonicum multilingue Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 264, p. 91–101. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf</ref> and typological similarity with the Altaic (in the typological meaning) language families.<ref>Janhunen, Juha 2001: Indo-Uralic and Ural-Altaic: On the diachronic implications of areal typology. – Carpelan, Parpola & Koskikallio (editors): Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations, p. 207–220. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 242.</ref> ===Continuity theories=== Archaeological continuity has long been applied as an argument for linguistic continuity in Uralic studies since Estonians Paul Ariste and Harri Moora in 1956.<ref>Moora, Harri (editor) 1956: Eesti rahva etnilisest ajaloost. Tallinn.</ref> Just as long, this kind of argumentation has also been heavily criticised. The oldest version of the continuity theories can be called the moderate or shallow continuity theory. It claims that linguistic continuity in [[Estonia]] and [[Finland]] can be traced back to the arrival of [[Pit-Comb Ware culture|Typical Combed Ware]], about 6,000 years ago. This view became mainstream in the multidisciplinary Tvärminne symposium in 1980,<ref>Gallén, Jarl (editor) 1984: Suomen väestön esihistorialliset juuret. Tvärminnen symposiumi 17.–19.1.1980. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk, 131. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.</ref> when there seemed to be no serious linguistic results to contradict that archaeological view. The continuity argumentation in the Uralic studies gained greater visibility in the 1990s, when the next step was popularised (even though this line of reasoning had been occasionally sported). In the radical or deep continuity theory, it is claimed that the linguistic continuity in Finland could be traced back to the [[Mesolithic]] initial colonization, beyond 10,000 years.<ref>Nuñez, Milton G. 1987: A Model for the Early Settlement of Finland. – Fennoscandia Archaeologica 4.</ref><ref>Wiik, Kalevi 2002: Eurooppalaisten juuret. Jyväskylä: Atena.</ref> However, in Indo-European studies, J. P. Mallory had already thoroughly scrutinized the methodological weakness of the continuity argumentation in 1989.<ref>Mallory, J. P. 1989: In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson.</ref> In Uralic studies, it was also soon noted that the one and the same argument (archaeological continuity) was used to support contradicting views, which revealed the method's unreliability.<ref>Mallory, J. P. 2001: Uralics and Indo-Europeans: Problems of time and space. Carpelan et al. (edited): Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations, p. 345–366. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 242.</ref><ref>Aikio, Ante & Aikio, Aslak 2001: Heimovaelluksista jatkuvuuteen. Suomalaisen väestöhistorian tutkimuksen pirstoutuminen. – Muinaistutkija 4/2001, p. 2–21. Helsinki: Suomen arkeologinen seura. {{cite web |url=http://cc.oulu.fi/~anaikio/Heimovaelluksista_jatkuvuuteen.pdf |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2008-01-07 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227095022/http://cc.oulu.fi/~anaikio/Heimovaelluksista_jatkuvuuteen.pdf |archivedate=2008-02-27 |df= }}</ref><ref>Häkkinen, Jaakko 2006: Studying the Uralic proto-language. http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html [Translation from: Uralilaisen kantakielen tutkiminen. – Tieteessä tapahtuu 1 / 2006, p. 52–58.]</ref><ref>Häkkinen, Jaakko 2010: Jatkuvuusperustelut ja saamelaisen kielen leviäminen (OSA 1). – Muinaistutkija 1 / 2010, p. 19–36. http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Jatkuvuus1.pdf</ref> At the same time, new linguistic results appeared to contradict the continuity theories: the datings of [[Proto-Samic language|Proto-Saami]] <ref>Aikio, Ante 2004: An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami. – Irma Hyvärinen, Petri Kallio & Jarmo Korhonen (toim.): Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen. Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag, s. 5–34. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, LXIII. Helsinki: Uusfilologinen yhdistys ry.</ref><ref>Aikio, Ante 2006: On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory. – Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 91, p. 9–55. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. http://www.sgr.fi/susa/91/aikio.pdf</ref> and Proto-Finnic<ref>Saarikivi, Janne & Grünthal, Riho 2005: Itämerensuomalaisten kielten uralilainen tausta. Muuttuva muoto. Kirjoituksia Tapani Lehtisen 60-vuotispäivän kunniaksi, s. 111–146. Kieli 16.</ref> and of Proto-Uralic (Kallio 2006; Häkkinen 2009)<ref name="JH09"/><ref name="PK06">Kallio, Petri 2006: Suomen kantakielten absoluuttista kronologiaa. – Virittäjä 1 / 2006, p. 2–25. http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/virittaja/hakemistot/jutut/2006_2.pdf</ref> both are clearly younger than were thought in the framework of the continuity theories. Now, linguists rarely believe in or reject the continuity theories because of their shown methodological flaws and their incompatibility with the new linguistic results, but some archaeologists and laymen may still claim such arguments.<ref>Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when? Juha JANHUNEN (Helsinki) - The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society 2009</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/blog/2012/10/01/on-the-homeland-of-the-uralic-language-family/|title=On the Homeland of the Uralic Language Family|last=Dziebel|first=German|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-21}}</ref> ==Modern view== After the rejection of continuity theories, recent linguistic arguments have placed the Proto-Uralic homeland possibly around the [[Kama River]] or, more generally, close to the Great [[Volga]] Bend and the [[Ural Mountains]]. The expansion of Proto-Uralic has been dated to about 2000 BC (4000 years ago), and its earlier stages go back at least one or two millennia earlier. Either way, that is considerably later than the earlier views of the continuity theories, which would place Proto-Uralic deep into Europe.<ref name="JH09"/><ref name="PK06"/> [[Juha Janhunen]], and others, suggest a homeland in South-Central Siberia, near [[Lake Baikal]] and the [[Sayan Mountains]] in the [[Russia]]<nowiki/>n-[[Mongolia]]<nowiki/>n border region.<ref>Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when? Juha JANHUNEN (Helsinki) - The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society 2009</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/blog/2012/10/01/on-the-homeland-of-the-uralic-language-family/|title=On the Homeland of the Uralic Language Family|last=Dziebel|first=German|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-21}}</ref> ==Evidence from population genetics== The characteristic [[genetic marker]] of Uralic-speaking peoples is [[haplogroup N-M231|haplogroup N1c]]-Tat (Y-DNA), also known as N-M46. 63% of [[Finns]],<ref name="Rosser ZH 2000 PMC">Rosser ZH, Zerjal T, Hurles ME, Adojaan M, Alavantic D, Amorim A, Amos W, Armenteros M, Arroyo E, Barbujani G, Beckman G, Beckman L, Bertranpetit J, Bosch E, Bradley DG, Brede G, Cooper G, Côrte-Real H. B., De Knijff P, Decorte R, Dubrova YE, Evgrafov O, Gilissen A, Glisic S, Gölge M, Hill EW, Jeziorowska A, Kalaydjieva L, Kayser M et al. (2000). "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language". The American Journal of Human Genetics 67 (6): 1526–1543. {{doi|10.1086/316890}}. {{PMC|1287948}}. {{PMID|11078479}}. Vancouver style error (help)</ref> and 47% of [[Sami people|Saami]] <ref>Tambets K, Rootsi S, Kivisild T, Help H, Serk P, Loogväli EL et al. (2004). "The western and eastern roots of the Saami--the story of genetic "outliers" told by mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes". Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74 (4): 661–82. {{doi|10.1086/383203}}. {{PMC|1181943}}. {{PMID|15024688}}. Vancouver style error (help)</ref> and 41% of [[Estonians]] <ref name="Rosser ZH 2000 PMC"/> belong to this haplogroup. Samoyedic peoples mainly have more N1b-P43 than N1c.<ref>Tambets, Kristiina et al. 2004, The Western and Eastern Roots of the Saami—the Story of Genetic “Outliers” Told by Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosomes</ref> Haplogroup N originated in the northern part of [[China]] in 20,000 -25,000 years BP<ref>Shi H, Qi X, Zhong H, Peng Y, Zhang X, et al. (2013) Genetic Evidence of an East Asian Origin and Paleolithic Northward Migration of Y-chromosome Haplogroup N. PLoS ONE 8(6): e66102. {{doi|10.1371/journal.pone.0066102}}</ref> and spread to north [[Eurasia]], through [[Siberia]] to [[Northern Europe]]. Subgroup N1c1 is frequently seen in [[Finno-Ugric people]], N1c2 in [[Samoyedic peoples]]. In addition, [[Haplogroup Z|haplogroup Z (mtDNA)]], found with low frequency in [[Saami people|Saami]], [[Finns]], and [[Siberia]]ns, is related to the migration of Uralic peoples. In recent genetic analysis of ancient human bones excavated from the remains of [[Liao civilization]], [[haplogroup N-M231|haplogroup N1 (Y-DNA)]] is found with a high frequency, of 60-100%.<ref>[http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/216　Yinqiu Cui, Hongjie Li, Chao Ning, Ye Zhang, Lu Chen, Xin Zhao, Erika Hagelberg and Hui Zhou (2013）"Y Chromosome analysis of prehistoric human populations in the West Liao River Valley, Northeast China. " BMC 13:216]</ref> Therefore, a new possibility arises that the origin of Uralic languages (and perhaps also of the [[Yukaghir languages]]) may be [[Liao River]] region. The oldest [[Pit–Comb Ceramic]], related to [[Finno-Ugric peoples]], is also found in Liao civilization. That is also corroborated by the works of [[Vladimir Napolskikh]], who studied the origins of the "[[earth-diver]]" creation myths and concluded that a certain variety of those myths, which is found in the folklore of Uralic peoples and other N1(Y-DNA) populations, originated in [[Northern Asia]], possibly in the northeastern regions of today's China.<ref>Napolskikh V. V. (Izhevsk, Russia). [https://www.academia.edu/4918926/Diving_Bird_Myth_after_20_years_2012 Earth-Diver Myth (А812) in northern Eurasia and North America: twenty years later].</ref> ==See also== *[[Proto-Uralic language]] *[[Uralic languages]] *[[Finno-Ugric languages]] *[[Samoyedic languages]] ==References== {{Reflist}} [[Category:Uralic languages]] [[Category:Urheimat]]'