1932

Abstract

Recent progress in comparative linguistics, distributional typology, and linguistic geography allows a unified model of Uralic prehistory to take shape. Proto-Uralic first introduced an eastern grammatical profile to central and western Eurasia, where it has remained quite stable. Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic had no connection, either genealogical or areal, until the spreading Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European came into contact with the already-diverged branches of Uralic about 4,000 years ago. A severe and widespread drought beginning about 4,200 years ago cleared the way for a rapid spread of Uralic-speaking people along the Volga and across southwestern Siberia. It also contributed to the sudden rise of the Seima-Turbino bronze-trading complex, one component of the Uralic spread mechanism. After the initial spread, the Uralic daughter languages retained their Volga homelands remarkably stably while also extending far to the north in a recurrent Eurasian pattern.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030405
2021-01-04
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-011619-030405.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030405&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abondolo D 1998. The Uralic Languages London/New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikio A. 2012. An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory. See Grünthal & Kallio 2012 63–117
  3. Aikio A. 2020. Proto-Uralic. See Bákro-Nagy et al. 2020. In press
  4. Allentoft ME, Sikora M, Sjögren KG, Rasmussen S, Rasmussen M et al. 2015. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature 522:167–72
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anthony DW. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anthony DW, Ringe D. 2015. The Indo-European homeland from linguistic and archaeological perspectives. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 1:199–219
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bákro-Nagy M, Laakso J, Skribnik E 2020. The Oxford Handbook of Uralic Languages Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Balanovsky O. 2019. Evolution of the Y-chromosomal pool in East Europe Presented at CONTACTS: Archaeology, Genetics & Languages, Suomenlinna Helsinki: May 9–10
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barfield T. 1989. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757 London: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bickel B, Nichols J, Zakharko T, Witzlack-Makarevich A, Hildebrandt K et al. 2017. The AUTOTYP Database release version 0.1.0. https://github.com/autotyp/autotyp-data
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Carpelan C, Parpola A, Koskikallio P 2001. Early Contacts Between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations Helsinki: Suom.-Ugr. Seura
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang W, Hall D, Cathcart C, Garrett A 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the steppe chronology of Indo-European origins. Language 91:1194–244
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Corbett GG. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83:18–42
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Corbett GG. 2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: a typology of lexical splits. Language 91:1145–93
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Darden BJ. 2001. On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo-Hittite. Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family R Drews 184–228 Washington, DC: Inst. Study Man
    [Google Scholar]
  16. de Barros Damgaard P, Martiniano R, Kamm J, Moreno-Mayar JV, Kroonen G et al. 2018. The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. Science 360:eaar7711
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Diebold A. 1960. Determining the centers of dispersal of language groups. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 26:11–10
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dyen I. 1956. Language distribution and migration theory. Language 32:4611–26
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Feist T. 2015. A Grammar of Skolt Saami Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grünthal R. 2012. Baltic loanwords in Mordvin. See Grünthal & Kallio 2012 297–343
  21. Grünthal R, Kallio P 2012. A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Grünthal R, Nichols J. 2016. Transitivizing/detransitivizing typology and language family history. Ling. Posnan. 58:211–31
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Grünthal R, Salminen T. 1993. Geographical Distribution of the Uralic Languages Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Häkkinen J. 2009. Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut putarissa. J. Finno-Ugrian Soc. 92:9–56
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Helama S, Oinonen M. 2019. Exact dating of the Meghalayan lower boundary based on high-latitude tree-ring isotope chronology. Quat. Sci. Rev. 214:178–84
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Helimski E. 2001. Early Indo-Uralic linguistic relationship: real kinship and imagined contacts. See Carpelan et al. 2001 235–63
  27. Holopainen S. 2019. Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic: critical overview of the sound substitutions and distribution criterion PhD Diss., Univ. Helsinki Helsinki:
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ilumäe AM, Reidla M, Chukhryaeva M, Järve M, Post H et al. 2016. Human Y chromosome haplogroup N: a non-trivial time-resolved phylogeography that cuts across language families. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 99:163–73
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Janhunen J. 1990. Material on Manchurian Khamnigan Mongol Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Janhunen J. 1991. Material on Manchurian Khamnigan Evenki Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Janhunen J. 1996. Manchuria: An Ethnic History Helsinki: Suom.-Ugr. Seura
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Janhunen J. 2005. Khamnigan Mongol Munich: Lincom
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Janhunen J. 2020. Grammaticalization in Uralic as viewed from a general Eurasian perspective.. Grammaticalization Scenarios: Cross-Linguistic Variation and Universal Tendencies, Vol. 1: Grammaticalization Scenarios from Europe and Asia W Bisang, A Malchukov 361–98 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Junttila S. 2012. The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages. See Grünthal & Kallio 2012 261–96
  35. Kaiser J. 2004. Ural farmers got milk gene first. Science 306:1284–85
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kallio P. 2006. Suomen kantakielen absoluuttista kronologiaa. Virittäjä 110:2–25
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kallio P. 2015. The language contact situation in prehistoric northeastern Europe. The Linguistic Roots of Europe R Mailhammer, T Vennemann, BA Olsen 77–102 Copenhagen, Den: Mus. Tuscul. Press, Univ. Copenhagen
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Khanina O, Koryakov Y, Shluinsky A 2018. Enets in space and time: a case study in linguistic geography. Finn.-Ugr. Mitt. 42:109–35
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Klumpp G, Mazzitelli LF, Rozhanskiy F 2018. Typology of Uralic languages: current views and new perspectives. J. Estonian Finno-Ugr. Linguist. 9:1 https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2018.9.1.01
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Koivulehto J. 2001. The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic speakers in the light of lexical loans. See Carpelan et al. 2001 235–63
  41. Lang V. 2018. Läänemeresoome Tulemised Tartu, Estonia: Univ. Tartu Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lehtinen J, Honkola T, Korhonen K, Syrjänen K, Wahlberg N, Vesakoski O 2014. Behind family trees: secondary connections in Uralic language networks. Lang. Dyn. Change 4:189–221
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mallory JP. 1997. Poltavka culture. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture JP Mallory, DQ Adams 439–40 London: Fitzroy Dearborn
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Marchenko ZV, Svyatko SV, Molodin VI, Grishin AE, Rykun MP 2017. Radiocarbon chronology of complexes with Seima-Turbino type objects (Bronze Age) in southwestern Siberia. Radiocarbon 59:51381–97
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mathieson I, Lazaridis I, Rohland N, Mallick S, Patterson N et al. 2015. Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature 528:499–503
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Matveev AK. 1962. Az ugor népek ősi letelepulési helyei. Nyelvtud. Közlemények 64:289–97
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Meillet A. 2005 (1908). The Indo-European Dialects Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Miestamo M, Tamm A, Gáspár K, Wagner-Nagy B 2015. Negation in Uralic Languages Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Nichols J. 1997. Modeling ancient population structures and movement in linguistics. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:359–84
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Nichols J. 2007. A typological geography for Indo-European. Proceedings of the 18th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference K Jones-Bley, ME Huld, A Della Volpe, MR Dexter 191–211 JIES Monogr. 53 Washington, DC: Inst. Study Man
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nichols J. 2010. Proof of Dene-Yeniseian relatedness. The Dene-Yeniseian Connection J Kari, BA Potter 266–78 Fairbanks: Alsk. Nativ. Lang. Cent.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Nichols J. 2018. Non-linguistic conditions for causativization as a linguistic attractor. Front. Psychol. 8:2356
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Nichols J. 2019. Why is gender so complex? New typological considerations. Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity F Di Garbo, B Wälchli 63–92 Berlin: Lang. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Nichols J. 2020a. Canonical complexity. The Complexities of Morphology P Arkadiev, F Gardani 16392 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Nichols J. 2020b. For better and/or for worse: complexity and person hierarchies. Language Change for the Worse D Enke, T Weber, G Seiler, L Hyman, J Nichols Berlin: Lang. Sci In press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Nichols J, Rhodes RA. 2018. Vectors of language spread at the central steppe periphery: Finno-Ugric as catalyst language. Digging for Words G Kroonen, R Iversen 58–68 Oxford, UK: BAR
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Nikolaeva I. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Nordqvist K, Heyd V. 2020. The forgotten child of the wider Corded Ware family: the Fatyanovo culture in context. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 86: In press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Outram AK, Stear NA, Bendrey R, Olsen S, Kasparov A et al. 2009. The earliest horse harnessing and milking. Science 323:1332–35
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Pajusalu K, Uiboaed K, Pomozi P, Németh E, Fehér T 2018. Towards a phonological typology of Uralic languages. J. Estonian Finno-Ugr. Linguist. 9:1187–207
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Parpola A. 2012. Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: revised and integrated “total” correlations. See Grünthal & Kallio 2012 119–84
  62. Perşoiu A, Ionita M, Weiss H 2019. Atmospheric blocking induced by the strengthened Siberian High led to drying in west Asia during the 4.2 ka BP event—a hypothesis. Clim. Past 15:781–93
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Rahkonen P. 2013. Southeastern contact area of Finnic languages in the light of onomastics PhD Diss., Univ. Helsinki Helsinki:
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Rootsi S, Zhivotovsky LA, Baldovič M, Kayser M, Kutuev IA et al. 2007. A counterclockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia toward Europe. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 15:2204–11
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Saag L, Laneman M, Varul L, Malve M, Valk H et al. 2019. The arrival of Siberian ancestry connecting the eastern Baltic to Uralic speakers further east. Curr. Biol. 29:1701–11.e16
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Saarikivi JS. 2020. Uralic intermediate protolanguages: a descendent reconstruction. See Bákro-Nagy et al. 2020. In press
  67. Salminen T. 2001. The rise of the Finno-Ugric language family. See Carpelan et al. 2001 385–96
  68. Sapir E. 1949 (1916). Time perspective in aboriginal American culture: a study in method. Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality DG Mandelbaum 389–467 Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Simon Z. 2020. Urindogermanische Lehnwörter in den uralischen und finno-ugrischen Grundsprachen: eine Fata Morgana. Indoger. Forsch. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Tambets K, Yunusbayev B, Hudjashov G, Ilumäe AM, Rootsi S, Metspalu M 2018. Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for most of the Uralic-speaking populations. Genome Biol 19:139
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Toldova SJ, Xolodilova MA, Tatevosov SG, Kashkin EV, Kozlov AA et al. 2018. Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii Moscow: Buki Vedi
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Toporov VN, Trubačev ON. 1962. Lingvističeskij analiz gidronimov verxnego podneprov'ja Moscow: AN SSSR
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Trudgill P. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Structure and Complexity Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Wilbur J. 2015. A Grammar of Pite Saami Berlin: Lang. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030405
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030405
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error