Sami Biological Origins: mtDNA and Y-chromosome Lineages versus Totality of Evidence

Alexander Kozintsev

Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

agkozintsev@gmail.com

2

Genetic data (1): Sami as genetic outliers

• Early mtDNA and Y-chromosome studies:

Sami are quite distinct from their neighbors

(Sajantila e.a., 1995; Lahermo, 1996, 1999).

Language replacement in Fenno-Scandia?

(Sajantila & Pääbo, 1995).

• Classical genetic markers: Sami have ca. 53%

of Caucasoid ancestry and 47% of Mongoloid

ancestry (Guglielmino-Matessi e.a.,1991), or,

if “Mongoloids” are replaced by Nenets, 82% and

18%, respectively (Cavalli-Sforza e.a., 1994). .

3

Genetic data (2): Sami as Europeans

• Later Y-chromosome studies (Richard Villems’s group):

Sami are even less distinct from their neighbors. Haplogroup N3

(allele Tat C) has a circum-Arctic distribution, but had likely migrated

from Europe to Siberia (90% in Yakuts!). Haplogroups I and R1a

are European (Rootsi e.a., 2004; Tambets e.a., 2004).

• Later mtDNA studies

Richard Villems’s group: Sami mostly have European haplogroups

(U5 and V). Only the rare haplogroups D5 and Z point to Siberia.

The distinctness of Sami is caused by genetic drift (Tambets e.a.,

2001, 2004).

Antonio Torroni’s group: Affinities between Sami, Yakuts, Berbers,

and Fulbe (sic!) based on a rare U5b variant; divergence time –

8.6 ky (sic!). Postglacial migration from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge?

(Achilli e.a., 2005).

4

“Genetic data [mtDNA and Y-chromosome]

support the theories of Emil Setälä (1926)

and especially Richard Indreko (1948) about

the European homeland of the Finno-Ugrians.

The migration was to Siberia, not from Siberia.”

(Tambets e.a., 2004).

?

For some reason, mtDNA and Y-chromosome data

lead to rather outdated conclusions:

Possible reason: natural selection (e.g. in favor

of Y-chromosome haplogroup N3 in the Arctic

environment – Tambets e.a., 2001).

5

Classical genetic markers – dozens of loci rather than

just one locus as in mtDNA and Y-chromosome: YES

(Guglielmino-Matessi e.a.,1991; Cavalli-Sforza e.a., 1994).

I. Eastern roots of the Sami

Craniometry: partly (Gokhman,1975; Khartanovich,1980).

Dental traits: YES (Zubov, 1982).

Dermatoglyphics: YES – more Siberian than European

(Khit, 1983); ridge count, NO (Jantz e.a.,1992).

Cranial epigenetics: YES (Kozintsev, 1988-91).

6

Moksha -2.18

Lithuanians -1.92

Finns -1.80

Estonians -1.73

Russians -1.70

Letts -1.55

Komi -1.46

Highland Mari -1.23

Karelians -1.08

Erzya -1.06

Lowland Mari -0.59

Udmurts -0.56

Sami Kola -0.43

Sami Finland -0.37

Position of groups on the 1st principal component: craniometry and cranial epigenetics (Kozintsev, Moiseyev,

1995,1998):

Khanty I -0.07

Khanty II 0.18

Khanty III 0.56

Mansi 0.61

Selkups 0.62

Khanty IV 0.67

Khanty V 1.07

Nenets 1.13

Yukaghir 1.98

Tungus 3.20

Europe:Siberia:

More

Easte

rn

Mo

re E

aste

rn

7

But does this mean we should ignore correspondence

between biology and language when it IS observed?

“The grouping of populations according to language

families should be used exclusively only in a linguistic

context” (Tambets e.a., 2004: 678)…

…perhaps the only thing to say when no correspondence

between biological and linguistic data is observed…

Biology and Language

8

II. Biological specificity of the Sami

and of other Uralian-speaking groups

What happens when data on four systems of traits –craniometric, cranial epigenetic, dental, and

dermatoglyphic – are integrated?

Let us look at the results of multidimensional scaling

of distances between 39 groups of Northern Eurasia

(Moiseyev, 2001, based on a method introduced

by Kozintsev e.a., 1999).

Is language classification really irrelevant for

biological classification?

9

1st MDSCAL axis (more Eastern)

2n

dM

DS

CA

L a

xis

(m

ore

Ura

lian

)

10

(1) Could such pattern have resulted from selection

(if so, to what?) or random drift?

(2) Isn’t common origin a more likely cause?

Questions:

11

Conclusions:

(1) Based on the totality of biological traits, both genetic and

morphological, Sami display a distinct Eastern tendency.

Biologically, they are the most Eastern of all European

groups except Kalmyks and Nenets.

(2) This tendency cannot have resulted from recent admixture,

because, at the same time, Sami display a very distinct

“Uralian” tendency, which is independent from their

Eastern traits and is more pronounced than in Nenets.

(3) Given the combination of Eastern and Uralic traits,

biological (not necessarily cultural!) ancestors of the Sami

must have migrated from the common Uralic homeland,

situated probably in Western Siberia, but definitely not

in Western Europe.

12

(4) Biological systems which do not reveal either the Eastern

or the Uralian tendencies of the Sami must be considered

exceptional and require a special explanation (selection,

random genetic drift, etc.)

13

Thanks:

Vyacheslav Moiseyev