A. Interdisciplinary and meta-level approaches

A.1 Encounters in the Field and the Archive (Jyrki Pöysä)

A.2 Contradictions inherent in temporal and spatial conceptualisation in the Finno-Ugric Ontology: Oppositions and Constructivity (Tatiana Minniyakhmetova)

A.3 Foreigners in the Habsburg Monarchy (Andrea Seidler & Károly Kókai)

B. Linguistics

B.1 Cognitive linguistic investigations in Finno-Ugric languages (Tuomas Huumo)

B.2 Finno-Ugric languages in the Circum-Baltic area: typological maintenance and change (Helle Metslang)

B.3 Etymology and the diachrony of valency change in Uralic (Riho Grünthal)

B.4 Vowel harmony (László Fejes)

B.5 Interrogativity in the Uralic languages (Nikolett Mus)

B.6 Uralic nominal structures: noun phrases and nominal sentences (Barbara Egedi)

B.7 Areal effects in prehistoric contacts between Uralic and Indo-European (Sampsa Holopainen)

B.8 Contact phenomena in the grammar of Uralic languages (Ksenia Shagal)

B.9 Current issues in the syntactic typology of Uralic languages (Erika Asztalos)

B.10 Intragenetic typology of the Uralic languages (Natalia Koškareva & Tatiana Agranat)

B.11 VIRSU (Finno-Ugric languages as target languages) (Helka Riionheimo)

B.12 Everyday bilingualism. Finno-Ugric languages and practice – theoretical approach and applied linguistics (Zsuzsa Salánki, Beatrix Oszkó & Natalja Kondratjeva)

B.13 M. A. Castrén and his contemporaries: grammaticography in the 18th and 19th century (Ulla-Maija Forsberg and Sirkka Saarinen)

B.14 Family language policy and actual language use in Finno-Ugrian minority situations (Magdolna Kovács, Svetlana Edygarova & Outi Tánczos)

C. Ethnology, Religion, and Folklore

C.1 Private and collective sphere of women (Ildikó Lehtinen)

C.2 Animism, shamanism and ethnic religions: ontologies of the Finno-Ugric peoples (Eva Toulouze)

C.3 The Visual Data Corpus of Explorers as Historical and Ethnographic Resource (Elena Nechvaloda & Tatiana Minniyakhmetova)

C.4 Cultural Heritage, Identity Symbols and Traditions (Old, New, Invented) (Hanne Hieta [2020] and László Mód [2021])

D. Literature and Art

D.1 Ethnofuturism and modern art of Finno-Ugrians (Elvira Kolcheva & Esa-Jussi Salminen)

D.2 Literatures of the Finno-Ugric peoples from the second half of the 20th century to the 21st century: features of poetic judgment of reality (Tatiana Kuznetsova)

D.3 Cultural relations between Finno-Ugric (Hungarian/Finnish/Estonian) and Western-European (German/French) Literatures and Cultures in the 19-20th Century (Emese Egyed & Ildikó P. Varga)

E. History, prehistory, and archaeology

E.1 Finno-Ugric connection through the Textile ceramics: the beginning and development (Mika Lavento)

E.2 The interdisciplinary past of the Uralic linguistic area (Outi Vesakoski & al.)


A. Interdisciplinary and meta-level approaches

A.1 Encounters in the Field and the Archive

Since at least the 19th century scholars of Finno-Ugric studies have emphasized the importance of well-documented materials collected among and with the speakers themselves, which is why fieldwork, along with the archives, forms one of the cornerstones of Finno-Ugric studies. Whether studying old, archival materials, or his/her own field data, researchers should be well informed about the multifaceted backgrounds behind the field work, which guide both the researchers and the informants alike. These are related to research paradigms, archival practices and ideologies, but also for example to bodily and affective aspects of those who encounter in the field or in the archives.

This symposium invites researchers interested in the interaction of researcher and informant and their backgrounds and practices, and in the interface between the field and the archive to discuss the methodological questions related to working in the field and with field work based materials. 

The symposium is organized by the Academy of Finland funded project Russia as a Field and an Archive hosted by the University of Eastern Finland. The convenor of the symposium will be Jyrki Pöysä.



A.2 Contradictions inherent in temporal and spatial conceptualisation in the Finno-Ugric Ontology: Oppositions and Constructivity

Organiser: Tatiana Minniyakhmetova (

Within indigenous ontologies of the Finno-Ugric communities, space, and time are conceptualised in a way that renders them positive or destructive. In this context, perhaps the most natural human instinct comprises of the need of people to arrange everything around themselves and construct the world around them in culturally approved, secure ways. When accomplished, such spatial and temporal arrangements contribute to the feeling of comfort and security. In every instance in which a person arranges their personal space has its own properties. But sometimes, it happens that even when one’s personal space is perfectly constructed, contradictions and oppositions exist which upend the contrived, secure order.

This leads to the questions of why such contradictions occur? How do objects or phenomenon that have at least two opposing, binary aspects (dependant on the location, or space) interact and/or manifest their inherent properties? More specifically, all objects and phenomenon are poly-semantic entities and this implies an inherent contradiction: binaries that obviously refer to the collaborating phenomenon or object. Thus, day includes into itself the presence of night; a man exists in relation to a woman and so on. They are unseen, physical or concrete, and they exist in the psychological unconsciousness of the community. Certain peculiarities existent in the construction of space among the Finno-Ugrians are woven into the temporal dimensions. They are clearly manifested if the contradictions are meant between the sacred and profane spaces and in exactly the same way between the sacral and everyday time. Contradictions saturate and thereby enrich the qualitative characteristics of space and time.

In the context of such perspectives of space and time, presentations are invited to explore the implications of such conceptualising of phenomenon and the meanings which they have for the community they exist in.

A.3 Foreigners of the Habsburg Monarchy

This symposium deals with the subject of “foreigners” in the Habsburg Monarchy. The approach will be chronological and comparative. The phenomenon of Fremdsein (the English words foreignness, alienation or otherness capture the meaning of the German word only partially) is nothing new: it is an integral part of European history, resulting from the basic human experience of encounter. At the same time, it has international relevance and is one of the most challenging concepts of today’s world. Otherness can be interpreted in many senses. It can be seen positively – there are cases in which the host society welcomes the foreigners – and it can be seen negatively; the foreigner can be met with rejection and ideologically justified anxiety. In the framework of the symposium, different kinds of reactions will be discussed. The focus will be on the Kingdom of Hungary – which is only understandable considering its embeddedness in the Habsburg Monarchy.

Thematic fields for discussion:

1. Theoretical introduction: Otherness in Central Europe in historical perspective

2. The Renaissance, as under King Matthew Corvinus numerous Italian humanists arrived in Hungary and contributed to the formation of a Hungarian identity model with their works on the historiography of Hungary.

3. The 16th century, characterized by confessional plurality and as a consequence the establishment of colleges for education under the particular participation of German intellectuals

4. The Ottoman invasion of Central Europe

5. German migration into regions populated by Germans to this day in the former Upper (Scepusium), East (Transylvania) and South-East (Banat) regions of Hungary.

6. The era of Enlightenment with its extremely productive migration inside (in both directions between Austria and Hungary) and from beyond the Monarchy.

7. The historical situation of the tolerated Jewry in the Habsburg Monarchy with special consideration of the situation in the Kingdom of Hungary

8. The establishment of modern national states during the 19thand 20th centuries and the associated ethnic conflicts

9. Migration in the early 20th century – the dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy and the parallel or the following, partly politically-motivated emigration from Hungary.

Organizers: Andrea Seidler, Károly Kókai
Contact: Károly Kókai (


B. Linguistics

B.1 Cognitive Linguistic Investigations in Finno-Ugric Languages

The symposium is organized by the CoFuLa (Cognitive Linguistic Perspectives on Finno-Ugric Languages) Project. The CoFuLa Project, founded in 2012, focuses on comparative and contrastive researches in present-day Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian languages in the theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics.

The main aim of the symposium is to demonstrate new theoretical, methodological and descriptive results in Finno-Ugrian linguistics, from a functional cognitive viewpoint. On one hand, both the earlier publications, workshops and conference presentations of the project participants and the present proposal carry out researches on specific linguistic topics in the description of the Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian (and also other smaller Finno-Ugrian) languages. On the other hand, there is a main concern on the general linguistic and typological aspects of the investigated topics, in adopting theoretical tenets as well as modifying them through language-specific and typological results. The most important theoretical starting points are: the conceptual, encyclopaedic nature of semantics, the continuum principle (between lexicon and syntax), the usage-based character of the linguistic system, the cognitive basis of construal, and type and instantiation (grounding).

The main topics planned as sections of the symposium are:

  1. Temporality, motion, aspect, metaphor
  2. Reference, deixis, space
  3. Evidentiality
  4. Conceptualization patterns, ways of construal (in certain lexical and morpho-syntactic constructions)

Main organizer: Tuomas Huumo, University of Turku,
Co-organizers: Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy, ELTE University, Budapest; Renate Pajusalu, University of Tartu; Jaakko Leino, University of Helsinki; Tiina Onikki-Rantajääskö, University of Helsinki.


B.2 Finno-Ugric languages in the Circum-Baltic area: typological maintenance and change

The Finnic and Saami languages are among the languages of the Circum-Baltic area. The common features that have developed in these languages have led to discussions over whether the Circum-Baltic languages can be considered a Sprachbund. However, it has been found that the region is rather a contact superposition zone (Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Wälchli 2001), which is part of a buffer zone between SAE and Central Eurasia (Wälchli 2011). The Finnic and Saami languages fall either on the periphery of SAE or outside of it entirely (Haspelmath 1998, 2001). At the same time, though, changes are being observed which are bringing languages on the periphery of SAE closer to typical SAE languages (Heine, Kuteva 2006).

As regards traditional morphological typology, the Finno-Ugric languages have been regarded as agglutinative, with the Saami and southern Finnic languages exceptional due to their high degree of fusion (Korhonen 1996). Agglutination is more prominent in Finnish, but the WALS data reveal that on the global scale, Finnish does not stand out in this regard, being of only roughly average complexity (Dahl 2008). Studies based on WALS are inevitably dependent on the limitations of the WALS data in terms of the choice of source data, the synchronic-static approach and the discrete (non-scalar) assessment of the presence/absence of linguistic features in each language assessed.

The picture of the similarities and differences between Circum-Baltic languages can be supplemented by data from other databases. We call on researchers of Finnic and Saami languages and the compilers and users of existing databases to present new stances and new data regarding the typology and areality of the Circum-Baltic languages, to discuss these languages’ typological similarities and differences, maintenance and change. 


Dahl, Östen 2008, Kuinka eksoottinen suomen kieli on? - Virittäjä 4: 545–559.

Haspelmath, Martin 1998, How young is Standard Average European? − Linguistic Sciences, 20 (3), 272−287.

Haspelmath, Martin 2001, The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. − Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, Wolfgang Raible  (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Vol. 2. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 20.2.) New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1492–1510.

Heine, Bernd , Tania Kuteva 2006, The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Wälchli, Bernhard 2001, The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. − Östen Dahl,  Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, The Circum-Baltic Languages, vol. 2. Grammar and Typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 615−750.

Korhonen, Mikko 1996, Typological and historical studies in language by Mikko Korhonen: a memorial volume published on the 60th anniversary of his birth. Ed: Tapani Salminen. (Suomalais-ugrilainen seuran toimituksia 223.) Helsinki.

Wälchli, Bernhard 2011, The Circum-Baltic languages. – Bernd Kortmann, Johan van der Auwera (toim.), The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, Volume 1. (World of Linguistics, vol. 1. Ed: Hans Heinrich Hock.) De Gruyter Mouton, 325–340.

WALS = Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at, Accessed on 2017-10-29.)

Organizers: Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu (University of Tartu)
Contact: Helle Metslang,


B.3 Etymology and the diachrony of valency change in Uralic

Abundant derivational morphemes and overlapping lexical and functional properties in verbal morphology are characteristic of very many Uralic languages. While etymology focuses on the history of words as basic semantic entities, the diachrony of verb, its morphology and syntax can reveal deeper typological traits. Causative derivation, for instance, raises the multifaceted question about the diachrony of the word, the history of the derivational suffix and other morphemes as well as the morphosyntactic information included in a single lexical item. Cross-linguistically, valency change is one of the most salient operations that adds new properties to a verb. Presumably, all verbs can be labelled either as transitive or intransitive.

Both lexical and grammatical information is needed to uncover the diachrony of valency changing mechanisms. Although verbal derivation is typically transparent in Uralic languages, we may assume that, historically, lexical stems may take over some derivational properties that originally were morphologically distinct. On the one hand verbal morphology and inherent vocabulary emphasize the stability of lexemes and basic grammar. However, on the other hand, verb phrase is a dynamic entity that is influenced by both the stability and change of categories, derivational matters and constant interplay between morphology and lexicon. Hence, the appearance of syntactic structures may contribute to the etymology and comparisons of individual words. In the long run the relationship between verb, derivation and valency can show long-term continuity of different inherited patterns and traces of morphological evolution.

One of the keys to examine these phenomena more closely is to shed light on the relationship between underived and derived verb pairs, such as causative verbs and decausativizing mechanisms. Given that derivational morphology is widely used in the Uralic languages, we seek to bring new light to its importance for etymology and the diachrony of language. In this respect, the evidence of the Uralic languages is also of more general interest.

We are interested in identifying the role of different morphological and structural units in the diachronical development of valency and verb. Does the evidence of Uralic branches and individual languages show similar patterns of change or are they mutually contradictory? How is grammatical information transferred from morphology to lexemes? To what extent does the pairing of verbs, i.e. the relationship between underived and derived words, reveal the diachrony of grammatically encoded lexemes?

Furthermore, there are several questions targeting a more detailed analysis of Uralic languages. What are the origins of valence-related suffixes in Uralic languages?   What valence-related derivational suffixes can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic (PU) or assumed intermediate branches?  For what PU verbs can valence be reconstructed?  Can we reconstruct PU derived verbs consisting of a verb root and valence-changing suffix? Was causativization as predominant in PU as in many contemporary Uralic languages?  Was transitivity generally an inherent lexical property in PU, or were most/many verbs ambitransitive (labile)?

Organizers: Riho Grünthal and Johanna Nichols


B.4 Vowel harmony

Vowel harmony is considered to be a feature typical of Uralic languages. Vowel harmony (front/back) is reconstructed for Proto-Uralic, Proto-Samoyedic and Proto-Finno-Ugric. Many of the contemporary Uralic languages have preserved vowel harmony, although although the pattern has changed compared to the original (reconstructed) one. Other languages have lost the original vowel harmony, but some of these have developed a new vowel harmony system. Sometimes there are considerable differences between the dialects of the same language.

Our knowledge of vowel harmony in Uralic languages is very limited. There is only sporadic information available in handbooks on various Uralic languages. Therefore we invite papers on the following topics:

From a historical perspective:

  • emergence, development and disappearance of vowel harmony systems;
  • reconstructing vowel harmony for earlier (undocumented) stages of language history;
  • vowel harmony in linguistic records (archives, databases, etc): problems and possibilities of analysis.

From a dialectological perspective:

  • detailed description of vowel harmony in specific dialects;
  • comparative description of vowel harmony systems in different dialects of the same language.

From a sociolinguistic perspective:

  • vowel harmony and language death: vowel harmony in the language of semi-speakers;
  • vowel harmony in indicating style, register etc.

From the perspective of language contact:

  • phenomena in vowel harmony that result from language contact;
  • emergence, development or disappearance of vowel harmony as a result of language contact;
  • areal features of vowel harmony.

From a typological perspective:

  • vowel harmony in Uralic languages from a cross-linguistic point of view;
  • contrastive study of vowel harmony systems in different Uralic languages.

From a theoretical perspective:

  • exceptionality in harmony;
  • disharmony and antiharmony;
  • variation in harmony;
  • neutrality in harmony;
  • the domain of harmony;
  • phonetic bases of harmony;
  • morphological factors in vowel harmony;
  • experimental studies of vowel harmony.

Papers investigating less studied Uralic languages (i.e. other than Hungarian, Finnish or Estonian) have preference.

The languages of the symposium are English and Russian. Papers based on the presentations will be published in a special number of Acta Linguistica Academica. 

Fejes, László RIL HAS, Rebrus, Péter RIL HAS, Szigetvári, Péter ELTE ,Törkenczy, Miklós ELTE, RIL HAS

Contact person:
Fejes, László ( 


B.5 Interrogativity in the Uralic languages

There are several approaches that categorize the types of clauses in the known (natural) languages. One common classification concentrates on the relation between the illocutionary force of the utterances, i.e., the speech acts performed by the speaker in the utterance, and the syntactic structure and prosody of the clauses leading to the differentiation of at least three universal clause types, namely, declaratives, imperatives and interrogatives.

Root clause interrogatives are often differentiated on the basis of the typical answer they require. The main subtypes are polar questions (which can be answered by yes/no), alternative questions (which themselves include alternative options for an answer) and constituent (or content) questions (which expect an answer specified by the interrogative phrase they contain). These question types are marked by various different strategies across languages.

Although in recent years there has been a steady growth in the study of the syntax of Uralic languages, interrogativity and interrogative constructions have not been a matter of systematic research yet. The present symposium aims to provide a forum for original research on constructions in the Uralic languages which are typically, but not exclusively, used for requesting information, i.e., constructions used as questions. We invite submissions addressing questions in the following major topics in particular:

  1. Intonation. In many languages, the intonational patterns of interrogatives differ from those of declarative clauses. Considering the interrogative intonation patterns cross-linguistically, the following questions might be raised: is there a dedicated intonational pattern of the different question-types in the Uralic languages? If so, is it only intonation that differentiates interrogatives from other clause types? How do different pragmatic uses of interrogatives differ in their intonation?
  2. Morphemes. In some languages, there are morphemes employed for marking interrogativity. The interrogative element can usually be a particle, a tag, an inflectional suffix – such as the interrogative mood marker in some Samoyedic languages – and (even) an interrogative verb. New questions which have not been addressed before may be raised. These may include, but are not limited to: the availability of such interrogative morphemes, their position in the clause, their polarity, and their defectivities.
    Additionally, in some languages it is the declarative clause type that is marked by a marker, which is unavailable in interrogative clauses. Are there such examples in the Uralic languages?
  3. Syntax. In this domain the central empirical question to explore is what differences, if any, the various interrogative constructions show in their syntax as compared to declarative patterns. The following topics may be highlighted: What is the distribution of interrogative phrases in constituent questions (e.g. fronted, optionally fronted, in situ)? Is there a dedicated position for syntactically marked interrogative phrases? If so, how does the position of interrogative phrase(s) relate to the position of focus in the language, i.e., do these elements occupy the same or different syntactic positions? What characterizes the marking of focus and negation in polar and alternative questions? If adjacency of interrogative phrases to the verb figures in the syntax of constituent questions, how can it be captured, and how can exceptions be explained? What syntactic strategies are available to questions containing multiple interrogative phrases? What asymmetries, if any, do root and non-root contexts exhibit with regard to the syntactic marking strategies in interrogative clauses of any type? How does syntactic marking interact with morphological and prosodic marking within a question type? How do different pragmatic uses of interrogatives differ in their syntax?

Bearing in mind that the main aim of the symposium is to provide cross-linguistically comparable descriptions of interrogative constructions in the Uralic languages, submissions employing a typological approach are especially (but not exclusively) encouraged.

Nikolett Mus (Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Katalin Mády (Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Balázs Surányi (Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences & Pázmány Péter Catholic University)
Contact person: Nikolett Mus (


B.6 Uralic nominal structures: noun phrases and nominal sentences

The symposium is dedicated to the study of constructions that have the noun as their core element, both from a descriptive and from a theoretical perspective. Our aim is to bring together researchers who will present their latest results regarding the syntactic structure and the semantic properties of noun phrases as well as nominal predication patterns in Uralic languages. The results of the discussion are expected to fill the descriptive gaps, on the one hand, and to enrich our knowledge of the Uralic language family through comparative syntactic observations, on the other hand. Studying Uralic nominal patterns provide additional empirical data for linguistic typology as well. We also hope to offer a new insight into the syntax of nominal structures in general and to advance theoretical research in this field, through providing formal analyses that account for language-specific phenomena and refining previously established hypotheses regarding the relevant structures.

The basic research questions concern the internal properties of noun phrases, with special attention to referentiality, definiteness, possession, agreement phenomena, head-finality, and adnominal modification including relative clauses. Word order variation within the noun phrase and the non-possessive use of possessive suffixes are especially in the center of our interest. At the same time, the symposium invites papers that deal with nominal sentences, i.e. clauses with a nominal constituent as their predicate. The main aspects of nominal predication to be discussed are the following: the absence/presence of copular elements, the morphological agreement between the subject and the predicate, the case marking of NP predicates, as well as the referential properties of the constituents and its consequences on syntax, especially on word order. Additionally, we are also interested in patterns of predicative possession, as these are closely connected to possessive structures within the noun phrase, and in locative and existential constructions, which are in turn connected to nominal clauses.

The symposium also aims at exploring how efficiently syntactic hypotheses can be tested using corpora that have been developed for Uralic languages. Accordingly, data-mining and empirical observations based on electronic databases and annotated corpora are extremely welcome. Selected papers will be published after the conference as a special issue of the scholarly journal Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics (FULL).

Contact: Barbara Egedi (RIL HAS),  


B.7 Areal effects in prehistoric contacts between Uralic and Indo-European

The purpose of this symposium is to bring together scholars carrying out research either on early varieties of Uralic or Indo-European languages, or contacts between these two families. Prehistorical Indo-European influence in Uralic has been a constant topic in the research of the languages of prehistoric North Europe and Russia. This topic has been addressed repeatedly in recent research, see for instance the symposium volumes The Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European (published in 2001) and A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe (published in 2012). Nevertheless, the beginning of the 21st century has given push for several new ideas in Uralic phonology and prehistory, which suggests that statements about early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European should be revisited as well.

The proposed workshop aims at 1) up-dating the study of prehistoric contacts between Uralic and Indo-European in terms of most recent results most notably in the field of Uralic and Indo-European phonology and lexicology; 2) extending the geographical perspective of contacts from the well-researched languages of the Baltic area to central and eastern parts of the Uralic language family covering the geographical distribution of contemporary Mordvinic, Mari, Permic, Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic languages. Naturally, presentations focusing on language contacts in the Baltic Sea region are equally welcome. Yet, the proposed workshop emphasizes the need to examine in more detail contacts between more eastern branches of Uralic languages with prehistoric Indo-European; 3) broadening the scope of the loanword and contact research from etymology to other aspects of linguistics as well, including morphology and syntax. Quite frequently, the Indo-European influence on other aspects than the lexicon of Uralic has been considered as non-existent or controversial. Recently, de Smit (FUF 62, 2014) has underlined the lack of treatments of these topics in recent studies. Moreover, one may assume that early language contacts have had influence in the opposite direction as well, that is, the influence of Uralic on lexicon and grammar of various Indo-European languages (Baltic, Germanic, Indo-Iranian). Despite of a somewhat controversial perception of this issue, fresh insights to this topic are also welcome.

The international congress of Finno-Ugric studies in Vienna 2020 is an ideal instance for the proposed workshop, making it possible to invite many specialists of Indo-European studies to participate in the workshop.


Carpelan, Christian & Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio (eds.) 2001: Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: linguistic and archaeological considerations. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.

Grünthal, Riho & Petri Kallio (eds.) 2012: A Linguistic map of Prehistoric Northern Europe. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.

de Smit, Merlijn 2014: Northern European Prehistory, from above (review of Riho Grünthal & Petri Kallio (eds): A linguistic map of prehistoric Northern Europe). Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 62.


Sampsa Holopainen, University of Helsinki (
Santeri Junttila, University of Helsinki
Juho Pystynen, University of Helsinki
Riho Grünthal, University of Helsinki


B.8 Contact phenomena in the grammar of Uralic languages

Languages belonging to the Uralic family are spoken on a vast territory throughout Eurasia, and despite sharing a number of important structural properties, they also demonstrate considerable diversity in all language domains, including morphology and syntax. Importantly, the distribution of various grammatical properties in the languages is not random, but it clearly reflects their geographical distribution and different contact histories. For instance, Western Uralic languages (e.g. Finnish and Hungarian), which have been influenced by Slavic, Germanic and Baltic varieties, are in many respects well-deserved members of the Standard Average European linguistic area. On the other hand, Eastern Uralic varieties (e.g. Nenets and Khanty), which have been in contact with northern Eurasian languages, such as Turkic and Yeniseian, exhibit a number of features considered as areal traits in Siberia.

The aim of the proposed symposium is to bring together specialists in various Uralic languages working on contact phenomena in the domain of grammar. We welcome contributions focusing on particular cases of contact-induced grammatical change, as well as more general papers discussing the methodology of language contact research and challenges specific to the Uralic family. Possible topics for talks may relate to (but are not restricted to) the following:

  • contact-induced grammaticalization,
  • matter and pattern borrowing in contact situations,
  • role of language contact in paradigm formation and morphological levelling,
  • mechanisms of contact-induced language change,
  • areal typological studies of particular grammatical features or constructions,
  • linguistic convergence in the Volga-Kama area,
  • interaction of Uralic idioms with non-standard varieties of Russian,
  • case studies of language contact from a broader perspective of historical sociolinguistics.

The symposium will consist of 10–15 papers and possibly a keynote lecture. After the symposium, we plan to publish a collection of articles by the participants as an edited volume or a special issue of a journal. The language of both the symposium and the joint publication will be English.

Organizers: Alexey Kozlov (Higher School of Economics, Moscow), Ksenia Shagal (University of Helsinki)
Contact person: Ksenia Shagal (


B.9 Current issues in the syntactic typology of Uralic languages

The symposium aims to be a forum for presenting and discussing current issues in syntactic typology (including the syntax–morphology interface) of Uralic languages. Contributions investigating any syntactic or morphosyntactic issue carried out in a typological-functionalist approach are welcome. Papers related to a specific Uralic language or to a subgroup of the Uralic languages are both equally appreciated.

We especially welcome presentations related to the (morpho)syntactic feature set of the World Atlas of Language Structures Online ( and of the Typological Database of the Ugric Languages ( The questions that can be addressed thus include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  • case marking
  • ditransitive constructions
  • word order
  • evidentiality
  • passive constructions
  • negation
  • causation
  • argument structure
  • the syntax of complex sentences etc.

Talks can be given in any of the official languages of the Congress. Nevertheless, abstracts are to be submitted in English only. The event is planned for 2 days.

Keynote speaker: András Bárány (University of Leiden): Case and agreement in ditransitives in Uralic and beyond.

Organizers: Ferenc Havas, Erika Asztalos, Nikolett F. Gulyás, Laura Horváth, Ditta Szabó, Bogáta Timár  (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest)
Contact person: Erika Asztalos,


B.10 Intragenetic typology of the Uralic languages

It is known that the studies of some phenomena in typological perspective require a mandatory appeal to the languages of different areas and different genetic background otherwise trivial or degenerate generalizations are expected. However, many parameters can be successfully explored within the same language family, and in some cases, typological studies on material of related languages are preferred.

First, the language settings differ in the degree of their variability. Some parameters accept a limited number of discrete values (at least two), while others represent rather a scale with continuous range. From the point of view of the characteristic of the degree of variability the study of the continuum parameters on the material of related languages is especially promising: in this case, one can expect a more uniform coverage of the scale of values for this parameter, while the sample data of languages of different families do not guarantee sufficiently dense coverage of the space of typological features, and range of types can be too large (and typologically random) to build an adequate calculus. When the general scheme of variation of the phenomenon under consideration is determined, just data of related languages, in some cases, can provide the missing information for missing typological generalizations. Secondly, the language settings vary in their degree of internal structural complexity. The language setting is more difficult than on a larger number of its constituent parameters it is divided and than greater is the depth of this division. The study of "complex" parameters is particularly promising in related languages, as it can give results which are unattainable when comparing genetically distant languages. Thirdly, the language settings can be generic, frequency or rare phenomena.

The choice of languages for the study of rare parameters depends on the representation of this parameter in the studied language group. Fourth, the language settings are heterogeneous in respect to their diachronic stability/variability. Changeable parameters are most favorable for the typology of related languages, as it is more likely that related languages do not retain the original proto-language status of this parameter and implement the various stages of its variations.

However, traditionally stable parameters, in principle, are capable of change, and detection of existing shifts is the most significant in the comparison of related languages. Typological research of related languages acquire even more value from a diachronic perspective (see Kibrik 2003: 191-195).

Referring to A. E. Kibrik (2003), we can say that in some cases, a typological comparison within groups of related languages has certain methodological advantages.

While comparative study of the Uralic languages is a long-developed direction, the method of intragenetic typology - typology of related languages is not yet widely used in linguistic science in general, and in the Uralic studies in particular, although in recent years there has been an increasing popularity.

Studies of one or more of the phenomena of any language level for all Ural languages or within any group of the Uralic languages, the determination of similarities and differences of any parameters in the Ural languages as a whole or within the separate groups of languages, as well as, perhaps, the study of the interaction of these parameters are invited to the discussion.

Organizers: Natalia Koškareva (, Tatiana Agranat (


B.11 VIRSU (Finno-Ugric languages as target languages)

Within the XIII International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies, the VIRSU network will organise a symposium on Finno-Ugric languages as target languages. VIRSU (, originally a network of researchers and teachers of Finnish and Estonian as target languages, now aims at fostering wider international cooperation and bringing together all researchers who work on any Finno-Ugric language as a second or a foreign language.

The main goal of this symposium is to prepare ground for cooperations in the area of applied-linguistic research and teaching of Finno-Ugric languages. We especially welcome papers about the teaching and learning of Finno-Ugric minority languages, but presentations dealing with Hungarian, Finnish, or Estonian as a target language are welcome as well, especially if they include a wider perspective, inviting international comparisons and/or targeting a wider, international audience.

Within this framework, the papers presented can deal with a variety of issues, such as 

  • How does research into the Finno-Ugric languages challenge previous research into second language acquisition?
  • How can Hungarian, Finnish or Estonian applied-linguistic research support and inspire research of the teaching and learning of Finno-Ugric minority languages, or vice versa?
  • How are bilingualism or multilingualism understood in contexts involving a Finno-Ugric language? How are they realized in the education systems?
  • How can relatedness or perceived similarity between languages be taken into account in the teaching and learning of Finno-Ugric languages?
  • How can language technology / corpus linguistics / translation studies / etc. be utilized in the teaching and learning of Finno-Ugric languages?
  • What kind of special problems do heritage-language speakers of Finno-Ugric languages have (for example, second-generation migrants or dispersed minorities such as Saami speakers in the South)? How can their language acquisition or language maintenance be supported?
  • etc.

In addition to English, papers can be presented in Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, German or Russian, in which case visual support in English is strongly recommended.

The publishing of symposium proceedings as such is not planned, but all participants are invited to submit papers based on their presentations to the journal Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja.

Organizers: Helka Riionheimo (University of Eastern Finland), Annekatrin Kaivapalu (University of Turku/University of Tallinn), Johanna Laakso (University of Vienna)


B.12 Everyday bilingualism. Finno-Ugric languages and practice – theoretical approach and applied linguistics / Двуязычие в повседневной жизни: проблемы теоретической и прикладной лингвистики в изучении финно-угорских языков

The participants of the symposium examine the issues of how far native language in daily practice (in public spaces, at school, in offices and personal spaces) is present among Finno-Ugric languages in minority status. The examined linguistic cases represent the bilingual status of minority Finno-Ugric languages vs. majority Slavic languages, more precisely Permian/Permic/Volgaic (Udmurt, Komi-Permyak and Komi-Zyrian, Mari, Mordvins) - Russian and Hungarian-Slavic (Slovak, Croatian) bilingualism. These cases of bilingualism occur in various geographical, societal, geopolitical situations, although referring to language use we can find many common characteristics which are specific to bilingual situations.

The symposium reports the possibilities of using native language in everyday practice for the Finno-Ugric languages in the majority - minority contexts mentioned above according to the current legal and political regulations. The lectures about the Hungarian language and smaller Finno-Ugric languages observe simultaneously those practical questions of teaching native language in schools, in which the major Slavic environment has a determinative role. The further lectures focusing on language ideology, linguistic landscape and minority attitudes are presented in parallel as well. This point of view can contribute to the enforcement and survival of these languages in everyday life through the mutual introduction of already existing, well-accepted methods.

Симпозиум посвящен изучению вопросов функционирования венгеро-славянского (словацкий, хорватский языки) и волжско-пермско- (мордовские, марийский, удмуртский, коми-зырянский, коми-пермяцкий языки) -славянского (русский язык) билингвизма. Указанные двуязычные ситуации проявляются в разных географических, социальных и геополитических условиях, однако имеется ряд общих черт, касающихся использования финно-угорских и славянских языков в билингвальной среде.

Приглашаем участников симпозиума рассказать о практике использования родного языка в повседневной жизни, осветить вопросы правового и политического регулирования миноритарных финно-угорских языков или представить доклад о языковом ландшафте конкретного региона. Для участия в симпозиуме приглашаются также ученые, исследующие вопросы преподавания родного (финно-угорского) языка в условиях доминирующей славянской языковой среды.

Во время работы симпозиума планируется обсуждение докладов, посвященных исследованию разных языковых ситуаций, что позволит участникам симпозиума выработать эффективные формы взаимодействия между представителями различных финно-угорских регионов, а также позволит использовать полученные знания в практической деятельности с целью ревитализации и развития финно-угорских языков.

Organizers / контактные данные:

Zsuzsa Salánki (,

Beatrix Oszkó (,

Kondratjeva, Natalja (


B.13 M. A. Castrén and his contemporaries – grammaticography in the 18th and 19th centuries

The Finno-Ugrian Society has launched a huge project in the honour of Matthias Alexander Castrén (1813–1852), the pioneer and icon of Uralic studies: Catrén's whole literary production including his published works as well as the manuscripts will be edited, commented and (re)published.

Castrén was, however, not the only grammaticographer of his time. Several early scholars of the 19. century produced grammatical descriptions of Uralic and Turkic languages. Which were the guiding principles in their work? How did they, e.g., describe sounds that they had never heard before? How did they find the suitable characters for these sounds? Did the morphology of their own vernacular influence their grammatical description? What did they use as a model for their description? Was their approach historical or functional? 

We invite scholars of Uralic as well as other languages who are interested in questions related to grammaticography of the 18.–19. centuries to take part in the symposium.

Organizers: Ulla-Maija Forsberg and Sirkka Saarinen

B.14 Family language policy and actual language use in Finno-Ugrian minority situations

Language choices of individuals and families are connected with societal, political, legal, environmental and linguistic aspects alike. Family’s language norms, ideologies and planning are called family language policy (FLP). Family forms a contact surface between the individual and the society. In Finno-Ugrian studies, family language policy has not been studied extensively, although it is closely connected with minority language and revitalization studies. This symposium aims at reinforcing this line of study and enhancing our knowledge about the factors influencing individual choices and actual language use.

The situations of the speakers of Finno-Ugrian minority languages vary greatly in terms of their legal and societal status and history. In addition, demographic factors produce significant differences that have an effect on the language choices of individuals and families. The goal of the symposium is to provide an arena for researchers to create a versatile view of complex dynamics of language choices. The symposium contributes to an insight into the differences between language groups in particular countries (especially Russia and Finland) as well as differences between countries. 

The symposium also aims to reach beyond the framework of particular countries and put the situation in a larger context in order to clarify the actual linguistic and social circumstances of Finno-Ugric minority language speaking families. All this contributes to better understanding of the impacts of language policy and concrete measures in language maintenance.

The focus of the symposium is on FLP, but we welcome also other contributions examining language choices, ideologies, attitudes and language use on the individual level.

Organizers: Magdolna Kovács, Svetlana Edygarova, Outi Tánczos


C. Ethnology, Religion, and Folklore

C.1 Private and collective sphere of women

During the Soviet and post-Soviet era in Russia, women have still been bound to the traditional division of labour, with agrarian society as its underlying basis. The Soviet constitution of 1918 granted women equality and the vote. In 1936, the Soviet constitution included equality for women in the workplaces as well. The Soviet Union formally implemented the equality of the sexes and sought to create the homo sovieticus – an ideal type of human transcending the boundaries of gender.

During Soviet times, women were actively engaged in work, social and political life. But at the same time, they were still traditional in the roles of wife and mother, taking care of their husbands and children. The differentiation of public and private spheres was a typical way of life. Anna Temkina notes that the Soviet woman was strong in the private sphere, and the traditional female sphere, the Soviet “kitchen”, was the symbol of freedom and intellectual life during the period of stagnation (Temkina, Anna 1996. Entering Politics: Women’s Ways, Gender Ideas and Contradiction of Reality. Voices in Russia Today. Dartmouth Publishing Company. p. 227).  At the private level, this resulted in two models of behaviour. One of them was ideologically-shaped macro-culture, wherein the publicly approved self was the role. On the other hand, there was the micro-culture which was present within the framework of the predominant culture which gave space for individuals to have a real private life. Is it useful to demarcate cultures and sub-cultures? Can we draw a boundary between macro and micro-culture? Is everyday life a suitable criterion of categorization? Does everyday life correspond to the private level, or does it influence both micro and macro-culture through private and public space?

Organizer: Ildikó Lehtinen,


C.2 Animism, shamanism and ethnic religions: ontologies of the Finno-Ugric peoples

According to all available data, Finno-Ugric peoples, before contacts with world religions, lived according to ontologies often called animistic, that are deeply rooted and whose characteristics are more or less visible nowadays. In some places so-called traditional religions are not only revitalised, but also institutionalised, in others there has been remarkable continuity with little or no interruption of religious practice, in others syncretic understandings leaves ample room to very deeply rooted practices.

The aim of this symposium is to raise different questions:

  • Terminology: in Russian usually these phenomena are called “paganism”, which is a connoted term. But what alternatives do we have? Are Finno-Ugric ethnic religions forms of animism? Or should we define them primarily as ontologies?
  • What is the present situation of these worldviews and religious practices all over the Finno-Ugric world? Are there sensitive interactions with social and political forces? Case studies will be welcome
  • What is the situation of research about these phenomena? What is the position of the researcher, his or her influence on the field and the field’s influence on the researcher, outsidedness and insidedness? In particular, we would like to reflect about visual methods and controversies concerning them, openness and closeness, accessibility or privacy, even secrecy of rituals.
  • How does interaction with world and other religions function nowadays? Can we consider these ontologies endangered? 

This symposium will be piloted by a pool of scholars – Laur Vallikivi, Tatiana Alybina, Nikolai Anisimov - under the responsibility of Eva Toulouze.

Eva Toulouze, Paris/Tartu,


C.3 The Visual Data Corpus of Explorers as Historical and Ethnographic Resource

Visual materials are significantly different resources in relation with written documents. A picture cannot be replaced with an arbitrarily long and detailed text. Visual and textual sources complement one other. Ethnographic researches and historiography focus on texts, and visual documents remain on the periphery of attention or are not used at all. For this reason, many invaluable materials for researchers of traditional costume have not been introduced into the scientific discourse. Early pictorial documents of 17th and early 19th centuries, represented by few traveller-researchers during their routes ran in the East of the River Volga are exceptionally significant. These sources need careful analysis, because the visual material like, sketches and engravings, illustrations for books etc. were often drawn by different artists and under these circumstances inaccuracies appeared in the published images. Also, often there were errors made in the annotations. With the beginning of the era of photography, information on visual sources became exact and detailed. In general then, such visual resources provide an opportunity to observe the evolution of traditional costumes in a long chronological period.

At the symposium, we plan to discuss the problems of using visual materials as a highly accurate and important historical source. We intend to introduce unknown images as well as unique publications on Finno-Ugric peoples, their attribution and in some cases – reattribution.

Organisers: Elena Nechvaloda (; Tatiana Minniyakhmetova (


C.4 Cultural Heritage, Identity Symbols and Traditions (Old, New, Invented)

*Part of this symposium took place within the digital pre-congress of 2020. The remaining papers will be presented at the congress in 2021.*

Cultural heritage is the product of a process by which cultural elements, traditions or history are separated from their original context and elevated to a representative position. In its new position, heritage represents a group identity, whether it be identifying with a particular village, a more broad-based national identity, or anything in between. These identities, as well as their symbols, can have either a unifying or a dividing effect on people’s perceptions of themselves and others. We invite papers that deal with cultural heritage, especially from the point of view of how traditions (old, new or invented), cultural elements or historical events play a role in people’s identity formation. What happens in the heritage process? Who are the main players in this field in each case? Who are the expected beneficiaries from the cultural heritage work in question? What happens if some people feel excluded? Both theoretical and case-based presentations are welcome. The language of this symposium is English.

Organizers: Dr. Hanne Hieta,  (2020), Dr. László Mód, University of Szeged, Hungary, (2021); Associate Professor Bertalan Pusztai, University of Szeged, Hungary 


D. Literature and Art

D.1 Ethnofuturism and modern art of Finno-Ugrians

The task of the symposium is to generalize contemporary art practices of Finno-Ugric peoples and territories. What are the achievements and prospects of ethnofuturism? How does the professional art of Finno-Ugric regions interact with folk art and with mass culture? How do Finno-Ugrians interact with other ethnic groups in the art space? What forms of artistic creativity are the most relevant for Finno-Ugrians today? The symposium participants will try to answer these questions and determine the actual trends in the research of the artistic culture of Finno-Ugric peoples.

Organizers of the symposium:
Kolcheva Elvira Mazitovna, Candidate of Arts, Associate Professor of the Mari State University,

Esa-Jussi Salminen, M.Phil., Senior Lecturer of the Udmurt State University,


D.2 Literatures of the Finno-Ugric peoples from the second half of the 20th century to the 21st century: features of poetic judgment of reality

The purpose of this forum is to consider features of the poetic development of literatures of the Finno-Ugric peoples from the second half of the 20th century to the 21st century, to investigate features of their semantics and poetics, to reveal the specifics in the judgment of reality in literatures in the 1960s–1980s and at the turn of the millennium. The forum will introduce new material for research, in order to recreate an objective picture of the development of literatures. It is also important to comprehend the specificity of the artistic judgment of life by the Finno-Ugric peoples' literature, to reveal the general and particular in poetics.

A collection of articles based on the materials of this forum is planned; in the absence of financial support, an electronic edition is possible. This collection of papers will contribute to some of the most urgent and important questions in the research into the history and poetics of Finno-Ugric literatures. 

The working languages ​​of the symposium are Russian and English.

Organizer: Tatyana L. Kuznetsova, Institute of Language, Literature and History of the Komi Science Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences;


D.3 Cultural relations between Finno-Ugric (Hungarian/Finnish/Estonian) and Western European (German/French) Literatures and Cultures in the 19-20th Century

The research of cultural relations from a functional, structural and historical point of view is essential not only for interdisciplinary but also for comparative literary studies. This symposium aims to describe the cultural relations and their evolution between Finno-Ugric (Hungarian/Finnish/Estonian) and Western-European (German/French) literatures and cultures in the 19th and 20th century.

The symposium welcomes papers focusing on themes such as:

1. Cultural figures and their contribution(s) to these cultural relations

2. Cultural networking in a historical context

3. Western European, central cultures as models for Finno-Ugric, peripheral cultures

4. Cultural relations as products (translations, exhibitions, theatre plays etc.)

The papers will be published in the journal Erdélyi Múzeum.

The language of the symposium is Hungarian.

Organisers: Emese Egyed (, Ildikó P. Varga (


E. History and archaeology

E.1 Finno-Ugric connection through the Textile ceramics: the beginning and development 

The symposium “Finno-Ugric connection through the Textile ceramics: the beginning and development” The 13th International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies will be organized by the University of Vienna on August 16–21, 2020 which considers to the research of the Finno-Ugric Textile ceramics in the very large are from the in the upper and the middle Volga region to the northern part of western Sweden.  The ancient tribes of the Bronze and Early Iron Age of the Textile ceramics (XXIV B.C. – IV B.C.)  played a central role in the ethno-cultural process in the culture of East Europe and formation of considerable Finno-Ugric groups. In the presentations, the classification has some basic problems, belonging together with the population of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age “Textile” Ceramics; the history of “Textile” Ceramics; the role of the population of Textile ceramics of the process of the population in Eastern Europe; technological patterns of textile impressions and terminology for its qualifications; chronology and periodization of “Textile ceramics”; special qualities of Textile ceramics in Finland and Estonia. The program symposium begins with the document film with cosmical and cosmological image about the Finno-Ugric tribes and sources pagans. 


1.    Valerij Patrushev. “The part of Finno-Ugric tribes in the Textile ceramics in the History of Eastern Europe”

2.    Mika Lavento. University of Helsinki. “The Textile ceramics and its chronological frame in Russia on the ground of AMS datings”

3.    Valter Lang. University of Tartu. “Textile Ware or not? Some thoughts about the formation of Paimio, Asva, Morby, and Ilmandu wares in the eastern Baltic region and SW Finland."

4.    Christian Carpelan. University of Helsinki. Textile Ware! From where?

5.    Angelika Pavlova. Faculty of History and Psychology in the Technical University. Doctor of Historical Science. “Clothing of the Finno-Ugric the Textile Ceramic Tribes during the Early Iron Age”

6.    Marina Savenkova. “The experimental reconstructions of the textile technology by the Tribes the Djakovoj archaeology culture”;

7.    Olga Lopatina.  Kandidat hist.  Science. Ancient Science Research Institute Archaeology RAS. “The problems connected with technology making the Textile ceramics”;

8.    Evgenij Azarov. Working as Federal State Budget Institute Culture “State Historical museum”, the Department of the Archaeological Monument, the Conservator of Museum Artefacts. ”The history of the research of Textile ceramics”.

9.    Aleksandr Syrovatko. Kandidat hist. science, research worker, Kolomenskii archaeological centr. ”The characteristic impression of the Textile ceramics”;

10. Inessa Kulyazheva. Documentary film: Our journal to the south. ”Our way to the Deity” – the belief of the Finnic-Speaking populations in Russia”;

Organizer: Valerij Patrušev, Institute of the Ethnic Culture and Ethnic Cultural Communication in the Mariij State University, RAS
Coordinator: Mika Lavento, University of Helsinki,


E.2 The interdisciplinary past of the Uralic linguistic area

*Part of the symposium was organized within the digital pre-congress of 2020. The remaining papers will be presented at the congress in 2021.* 

We hereby propose a symposium for CIFU2020 with the topic “The Interdisciplinary Past of the Uralic Linguistic Area”. The symposium will cover current insights in linguistic, genetic and archaeological history of the Uralic linguistic area, specifically focusing on work promoting interdisciplinary studies of the human past.

Recent advances in studies of linguistic, genetic and cultural history during the peopling of North-Western Eurasia and Western Siberia have resulted in a wealth of new information, which in turn is leading to new attempts to synthesize a holistic view of the history of the Uralic linguistic area. The present symposium aims at enhancing multidisciplinary discussion and promoting interdisciplinary team-building by providing easy access to the recent progress made in different fields in revealing the linguistic, genetic and archaeological past of the Uralic linguistic area. Until know, natural communication between these disciplines has been hindered by a lack of data-based collaboration as well as discipline-specific jargons; to overcome this the symposium specifically solicits presentations aiming at improving multilateral understanding of the research done across discipline borders.

We invite presentations in any of the related fields ranging from basic studies in linguistics, population genetics and archaeology to applied interdisciplinary approaches. The preference is for presentations bringing a wide perspective on research on linguistic, genetic or cultural history and on the interdisciplinary work on the past of the Uralic linguistic area. Presentations should avoid intra-disciplinary jargon and details, and instead provide easy access to discussion and progress within each field. 


Contact person and the experts evaluating the abstracts are
Outi Vesakoski1,2 (contact person:
Linguists: Rogier Blokland2, Gerson Klumpp3, Karl Pajusalu3
Biologists: Terhi Honkola1,3, Elina Salmela4,5, Päivi Onkamo1,4, Kristiina Tambets6
Archaeologists: Valter Lang1,3, Kerkko Nordqvist7

1 University of Turku, Finland
2 Uppsala University, Sweden
3 University of Tartu, Estonia
4 University of Helsinki, Finland
5 Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany
6 Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia
7 University of Oulu, Finland