Talk:Shamanism in Siberia

Sami people

Sami people are not in Siberia or from Siberia. They have developed in Scandinavia for thousands of years and are genetically far from any original Siberians. Sami people should not be mentioned in this article just because they are shamanistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.65.112.51 (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You very much for the feedback. I suppose You may be right, I have read somewhere that Sami people had underwent a language shift, thus, I can imagine now that they do not have their origin in the supposed Proto-Uralic area. I shall read some details and search for references, and rewrite the Sami section accordingly in a few days.

If non-Siberian origin of Sami turns to be true, then I propose

• to open a new section "language shift" in the article (alongside with or inside in the existing Unsettled classifications or complex problematics of origin section),
• to move the information about Sami people there.

I shall do that if no concerns will be raised, and if references turn out to support it.

Physis (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I have done as described above, so that it can bee discussed at. Physis (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I stupidly forgot to look at the Talk page before editing the article and writing the explanation for that edit. Regardless, here it is below. Thanks. :)

I removed the Sami section entirely and the following from the "Finno-Permic" and "Sami" sections:

"Although Sami language can be classified as belonging to the Finno-Permic languages, but Sami are not of Uralic origin, they underwent a language shift.[4]" and "Moreover, [Sami] are not of Uralic origin: although Sami language can be classified belonging to Finno-Permic languages, but they acquired it through a language shift.[4]"

The reasons for the removal are as follows:

1. Linguistics research indicates that Baltic-Finnic as well as Sami languages, both of which are Uralic language family branches, likely contain several layers of *both shared and distinct* unknown "Palaeo-European" (i.e., non-Uralic, non-Indo-European) language substrates. This evidence alone demonstrates why it problematic to single out Sami peoples as not of "Uralic origin" due to non-Uralic language borrowings into the (Uralic) Sami languages.

2. Genetics research demontrates that the Sami peoples are in fact closely genetically related to other Uralic speakers via the y-DNA haplogroup N3 (N1c). This paternal genetic line is Northern Eurasia's most common and is often termed by researchers an Uralic or Finno-Ugric haplogroup (along with N2, or N1b). This is the *most common* y-DNA haplogroup of Samis and Finns, for example. (And, with a few exceptions, it is rare outside Uralic speaking populations.) Research indicates that y-DNA haplogroup N originated in China during the late Upper Palaeolithic and during the Holocene spread into Southern Siberia then into North/Eastern Europe and Northern Siberia. Many researchers posited the latter spread to correlate with that of the Uralic languages. mtDNA haplogroups, or maternal lines, are also, but to a lesser degree, shared amongst, for example, Samis, Finns, and Volga-Finnics, indicating further ancient gene flow to these Uralic peoples.

Finally, the second most common y-DNA haplogroup of Samis and Finns, I1a, is also closely shared (and, unlike N3, it is also common in Indo-European speaking Swedes and Norwegians). This paternal line is thought by a number of researchers to have resided in an ice age refugia in Southwestern Europe during the late Upper Paleolithic and then to have immediately spread to Northern Europe during the recession of the ice sheets, becoming the first y-DNA haplogroup to reach Fenno-Scandinavia. (*My* speculation is that this haplogroup could correlate with some of these Paleo-European languages).

In short, there is no single linguistic or genetic "origin" for any of the Uralic peoples, including Samis. But because the Sami peoples are demonstrably related linguistically and genetically to other Uralic peoples, it is specious to state simply that Samis are of not of "Uralic origin." I'm not sure of how much relevance is truly to this article on Shamanism in Siberia (especially since Samis don't even reside in Siberia!), but a *cited* mention of both so-called "Paleao-European" and "Uralic" "origins" would be much more credible.

Actually, after all of that (sorry to be a windbag!), I think the Sami section in this article should be removed entirely, as, once again (it's even stated already in the article), Samis are indigenous to Northern Europe and do not even reside in Siberia! I will go ahead and remove this section as well as mentions of the Samis' non-"Uralic origin" in this article for the above reasons.

I would be happy to provide citations upon request (but I don't have time dig through them at the moment). Thanks. Peer Gynt (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Purpose

The name of this article is Shamanism in Siberia however very little about Shamanism is found. The article seems to be primarily focused on hypotheses of ethno-genesis, a subjective matter. Shouldn't we have less about what a people may or may not be, where they may or may not come from, what language they may or may not speak and what types of DNA they may or may not have and have more about the animistic practises and beliefs of Shamans found throughout Siberia? Xaghan (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It troubled me while I try to translate it into Indonesia. Maybe I should remove a lot of the repeated sentences and linguistic subjects from the translation. Okkisafire (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkic Section

Section 3.3 of this article states Turkic shamanism to have been widely amalgamated with Islam. This may be true in Central and Western Asia but not in Siberia, where Islam has minimal influence, with perhaps the Qazaqs being an exception. Among the Tuvans, Buddhism could be described as being amalgamated, many Shamans are also monks and many Tuvans seek help from both. The Sakha, still predominantly animist, have been influenced in recent times by Orthodox Christianity as have the Khakas. The sentence should be removed. Xaghan (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yukagir 'alma' and Latin 'alma' is a false cognate

The " 'shaman' : /alman, olman, wolmen/[5] (Yukagir) -- with these possibly cf. Latin /alma/ 'soul' ." on the section "Terms for 'shaman' and 'shamaness' in Siberian languages" is a false cognate. The cognate of the Yukagir alman between Latin alma is not scientific! İt's a "folk etymology". --Kmoksy (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yupik section

Yupik people are not indigenous to Greenland or Canada. It's unclear whether the authors of this section might have been generalizing across Yupiks, Aleutians, and Inuit. Phoebsie (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Griffins

Is there anybody with griffin knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulstermarck (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ulstermarck: Try and post this (and related questions) at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. –Austronesier (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)