Categories are instruments; Slavs are tools

Martin has responded at length to my posts where I argue for an inclusion of genetic data in a synthetic model of human history and development. There are multiple issues here where we disagree, or differ in our interpretations. First, as Martin admits at one point, "Those are all my words put into Razib's mouth." Much of the post is a misunderstanding. Because I would rather devote my time to discussing positively my ideas, as opposed to misunderstandings or misconceptions of what I believe, I'm not going to deconstruct every single point which Martin attributes to my own sense of the past. Don't misconstrue this for an avowal of the positions which I leave on the table. Time is finite and I simply don't feel obligated to clear up confusions deriving from one post. I have commented on these topics long enough and with enough detail that I suspect regular readers can naturally derive the implicit background axioms with little difficultly. Second, Martin states "I myself haven't studied natural sciences in any organised way since high school." This is a problem, because his idea of what I believe in regards to history and social dynamics aren't the only points where his interpretation is off; I think he signals some misunderstandings of biological dynamics as well. Finally, in regards to the Etruscan & genetics, Martin states, "I just don't find it very interesting that this confirms statements in a poor historical source." Much of the disagreement derives from a different emphasis of the ends of historical research, from what I can tell. That is, we're interested in different questions. I do happen to think it is very interesting that genetic science has falsified the consensus of archaeologists and validated a myth recorded by Herodotus.

On the issue of ethnic identity, I'm an instrumentalist. I'm clearly not an essentialist as Martin assumes I am, I am not an essentialist on species concepts, so it makes no sense to say that I'm an essentialist on cultural categories which are by their nature more fluid. Use of the term "Slav" is shorthand, and it does not imply certainty that a group or individual fits all the criteria which one adduces to a Slav. Rather, it is a label for a correlation of traits which span geographic space and imply a cultural complex. The analogy to racial/population groups is relevant; these are simply labels for statistical constructs which trace a distribution of gene frequencies across populations. And, unlike genetic variation cultural variation can manifest sharp differences and crisp boundaries because of the nature of inheritance. While one by definition receives half of one's genes from two parents, there may be a bias in inheritance of cultural traits from one line of descent. For example, a region where patrilocality is dominant may show little genetic variation because of movement of females from one village to another, but because the offspring are raised in the cultural unit of the father there still remains strong differences in dialect and religious custom. As an example, the cultural difference between Anatolian Turks and Greeks is far greater than the genetic distance. This does not mean that cultures are "turnkey" modules, where characteristics perfectly integrated into a functional whole. The Pomaks are Muslims in Bulgaria who speak a Slavic language. They share a religious identity with their Turkish neighbors, and a linguistic one with their Orthodox Christian neighbors.1 Here are the current ethno-linguistic and religious demographics for Bulgaria:

According to the 2001 census...Bulgaria's population consists mainly of ethnic Bulgarian (83.9%), with two sizable minorities, Turks (9.4%) and Roma (4.7%). Of the remaining 2.0%, 0.9% comprises some 40 smaller minorities, most prominently in numbers the Russians, Armenians, Vlachs, Jews, Crimean Tatars and Karakachans. 1.1% of the population did not declare their ethnicity in the latest census in 2001.

96.3% of the population speak Bulgarian as their mother-tongue.

...

Most Bulgarians (82.6%) belong, at least nominally, to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the national Eastern Orthodox church. Other religious denominations include Islam (12.2%), various Protestant denominations (0.8%) and Roman Catholicism (0.5%); with other denominations, atheists and undeclared totalling approximately 4.1%.

It is generally appropriate to assume that Turks, if they have a religious identity, will be Muslim.2 But this leaves around 3% of the Muslim population which by the numbers must be non-Turkish. Some may be Roma, and some are likely Pomak. The Roma are religiously diverse, so many of them may be Orthodox. Where does this leave us? Obviously religion, language and likely region play a major role in various identities in Bulgaria today, there are complicated contingencies here, but that does not mean that we can not engage in generalization to capture the patterns we see before us! If you know someone speaks Turkish you can be assured that they are likely Muslim (or Muslim identified). The certitude is lower that one is Orthodox Christian if one speaks Bulgarian, but, if one adds a geographic qualification then your probability calculation shifts because Pomaks tend to be concentrated in the Rhodope mountains.

The point is that there are patterns extant within non-essential statistical categories. Characteristics are not distributed randomly, but exhibits known distributions. Even if we can not speak with total certainty because of one characteristic, a sequence of conditional probabilities generated by the intersection of characteristics can allow us to make a strong inference. The probabilistic nature of inferences will result in the inevitable error, but the key is to attain an understanding beyond our null hypothesis and random expectation. If we take an extreme rigorous/experimentalist interpretation of science then we must discard much of geology, paleontology and astronomy. I do not believe most would be satisfied with this, so we make due to with the tools we have to generate inferences when experiment is not available. Similarly, in the historical sciences the data is scattered, noisy and subject to equivocal interpretation. But that does not mean that general truths do not exist and can not be discerned with cautious analysis.

When Martin contrasts the nature of archaeology, and social science in general, with an understanding of species and biological dynamics, he manifests ignorance of the latter topics. Consider:

Archaeological cultures and linguistic areas are not like biological species. One end of a culture blob often hates the guts of the other end, insisting that although the two have similar languages and pottery styles, they are in fact not related at all. One end will happily join forces with part of an adjoining blob to annihilate the other end of the home blob. As a result, a third blob may be born, consisting of ten sub-blobs that fight constantly among themselves while exchanging wives and porphyry axe-preforms with the two parent blobs.

In reality, as I have implied elsewhere, I am interested in the dimension of within species competition. To be succinct about it a great deal of evolutionary process occurs because of competition of individuals & groups within species. Assuming that cultural dynamics are a sharp contrast illustrates a lack of knowledge of the complexity of multiple-levels of biological dynamics. The similarities between the two processes have even resulted in the production of cultural models which borrow heavily from population genetics.

The final issue is one of emphasis. Martin has brought up the example of Croats and Serbs, the Cantonese and Mandarin dialects (I am not totally comfortable with the 1:1 comparison between Cantonese and "Mandarin," since the latter is geographically fragmented and many different regional identities are subsumed into this one dialect label). I really don't know where that's coming from, but I suppose he presumes that I have a naive conception of ethnic identity. As someone who has visited villages in Bangladesh where locals have asked if I was a "foreigner," but which they meant someone from across the river (in primary river in their district), I would reassure him that I have no such illusions. Rather, it seems to me, as Martin implies, many identities are newly constructed and are quickly "fit" into national narratives. That being said, I also think that time and space are parameters we need to take into account; the post-French revolutionary nation-state is one extreme model, which most "modernizing" nations have taken up when possible, but it obviously isn't appropriate for the ancient, let alone pre-literate, societies which are at issue in this post. Ancient Turks and Slavs surely spoke mutually intelligible dialects (unless linguistic homogenization has occurred), but they were not nation-states. Pan-Turkism and Pan-Slavism are the children of the Enlightenment; not echoes of ancient days.

With that being said, I still think a term like "Slav" is appropriate and useful. Even if a tribe or clan were primarily identified with their local identity, that does not mean that their macrosocial group has no relevance. Antelope do not think of themselves as antelope, but it is appropriate to make generalizations about antelope.3 When I speak of religion I don't talk about something that I think has a grounding in reality; I don't believe in the unique truth claims of any religion. On the other hand, believers do accept their own truth claims, and believe that the differences are so great that they are important enough to kill over on occasion (and certainly important enough to make or break a marriage possibility). The preconceptions of a conscious agent is one thing, but the mass action of thousands of conscious agents is another thing altogether. I am not particularly interested in how Slavs viewed themselves because as a methodological matter I think across much of human history conscious reflection is overrated.

A clear example of the dynamics I'm getting at already exists in the literature. In the 1970s L. L. Cavalli-Sforza proposed the model of demic diffusion for the expansion of agriculture into Europe from Anatolia and the Levant. The extreme cases would be that agriculture expanded through cultural diffusion or that it spread through the migration of peoples. Cavalli-Sforza suggested that population expansion would have resulted in the spread of agriculture as demes, populations, which practiced the new cultural technique grew at a faster rate than hunter-gatherer groups. This is not a purely theoretical model; there is a body of anthropological literature which contrasts the pro-natalism of farming peoples (more young hands to work) with the anti-natalism of hunter-gatherers (more young mouths to feed). This is where genetics comes in. The short of it is that the most probable scenario is that 25% of the ancestry of Europeans, as a whole, descends from a population expansion out of the Middle East in the last 10,000 years. Critics of Cavalli-Sforza have used this number to suggest that it was cultural diffusion which spread agriculture, but he has pointed that the 25% number is totally acceptable in a wave of advance model where the initial genetic signal will become weaker with admixture every generation. Another key point is that the frequency of "Neolithic" genes seem to decrease not as a pure linear function of distance from the point of origin (Anatolia); rather, coastal regions and river valleys in southern Europe tend to exhibit higher frequencies. What the genes are telling us here is that the balance between migration/demographic expansion and cultural diffusion was likely influenced by geographic parameters. Ideas were more apt to climb up mountains than people!

Is this interesting? I think it is. I don't know if Martin would think so. Obviously the peoples who expanded into Europe from Anatolia did not think of themselves as "Anatolians." It seems plausible that they spoke related languages, but the overall point is that they spread a cultural toolkit which eventually conquered Europe. Part of this conquest was that they reproduced at high rates. And part of it was the spread of the new lifestyle to the indigenous population. The balance between the two can be answered, or inferred, in part from analysis of patterns of genetic variation.

At this point it should be clear that these were the questions I was probing in my initial posts on the Slavs; why is it that over the past 2,000 years Slavic languages have spread at the expense of Finno-Ugric languages? The historical linguistics and the geography of Finno-Ugric strongly implies this (the expanse of Russian has embedded within it many Finno-Ugric dialects). One could posit that this was a random event, though I would point that that a parallel process occurred in the Balkans and central Europe. Slavic languages are roughly intelligible to this day, which strongly implies a recent ancestry. Some of the genes, ancestral lineages, which are exist across groups we label "Slavic" are not shared across Slavic groups, and some of them are. It seems that a parsimonious explanation of this pattern would be the expansion of Slavic groups and their genetic assimilation of indigenous peoples into their cultural complex. I would leave the Croat-Serb differences to political scientists.

1 - These religious identities themselves may be notional and not strictly adhered to.

2 - Prior to the ethnic exchange of the 1920s large numbers of Turkish speaking Christians and Greek speaking Muslims existed. But the literature I have seen suggests that even if an Orthodox Christian Anatolian spoke Turkish as their first language, they did not identify as Turkish in the manner that their Muslim neighbors did. Note that in much of Europe "Turk" is synonymous with Muslim identity despite the fact that those Muslims may not be ethnic Turks!

3 - Please don't object that antelope can only breed with other antelope, it's actually more complicated than that. Biological species concepts are quite often fuzzy as well.

Tags

More like this

In my previous post I contended that biology is an important causal factor to keep in mind when we model the behavioral ecology (a.k.a., history) of H. sapiens. A separate, but complementary, tack is to use genetic data to supplement what we know from other historical sciences (history, archeology…
Western European archaeology is largely a humanistic tradition where many scholars have little knowledge of the natural sciences. For instance, I myself haven't studied natural sciences in any organised way since high school. Still, in my field, I'm known as an unusually science-orientated guy. (…
A new paper came out in Science this week, Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation, that's getting some media play. The second-to-last author is L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, and the general combination of means and ends on display in The History and Geography of…
I have often said that I tend to see "group selection" as a lesser evolutionary force when set against lower levels of evolutionary processes, e.g., "individual" or "gene" level selection. By group selection I do not mean pro-social tendencies, or the success of individuals who band together as a…

"genetic science has falsified the consensus of archaeologists": archaeology seems to be driven as much by fashion as by evidence.

From thi page

Turkish belongs to the Turkish branch of the Altaic language family. It is the westernmost of the Turkic languages spoken across Central Asia and is generally classified as a member of the South-West group, also known as the Oguz group (Baskakov 1966, Campbell 1991). Other Turkic languages, all of which are closely related, include Azerbaijani (Azeri), Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Turkmen, Uighur, Uzbek, and many others spoken from the Balkans across Central Asia into northwestern China and southern Siberia. Turkic languages are often grouped with Mongolian and Tungusic languages in the Altaic language family.

The Slavic languages/dialects are one branch of the Indo-European superfamily. As you've no doubt noted, it's much easier for cultural species to hybridize than biological. :)

BTW, at times connecting Sumerian with some Altaic language has been popular. The most popular alternate is with one of the Caucus area languages.

As you've no doubt noted, it's much easier for cultural species to hybridize than biological.

right, but cultural clay is not just more malleable, it is potential more robust. consider the shia-sunni split in iraq, it has always existed, but a shia arab majority as it exists today is a feature of the past two centuries with the opening up of new lands to farming and the conversion of previously sunni nomads. in other words, sharp religious differences emerged very quickly across groups which previously had had no difference. on the other hand, hybridization and mixing culturally can occur as well, as evidenced by syncretistic groups all across the world.

Use of the term "Slav" is shorthand, and it does not imply certainty that a group or individual fits all the criteria which one adduces to a Slav. Rather, it is a label for a correlation of traits which span geographic space and imply a cultural complex.

As you've noted, this usage of a common ethnic and nationalistic term led to communication problems. If you need a random label, better use an impenetrable acronym of your own devising. And don't mix your ethnic categories with your linguistic or political ones.

The point is that there are patterns extant within non-essential statistical categories. Characteristics are not distributed randomly, but exhibits known distributions.

Your Bulgarian example is very apt, and shows exactly the kind of information we do not have for prehistoric societies. This means that archaeologists cannot make the kind of inferences you mention: "He's an ethnic Turk and so likely to be a Muslim".

I am not particularly interested in how Slavs viewed themselves because as a methodological matter I think across much of human history conscious reflection is overrated.

That, I'm afraid, will always make it hard for you to talk to archaeologists and social anthropologists.

Finally, don't shoot the messenger. You're talking to an archaeologist who is seen as a bit of a pro-science extremist in his profession. You may not like current archaeology much, but that is very likely mutual, and you can't change it.

BTW, at times connecting Sumerian with some Altaic language has been popular.

It was often included in the Ural-Altaic tree back when people actually believed in the Ural-Altaic tree. This is a really good example of how nationalistic hopes can mess with understanding of prehistory. Sumerian is the first language of civilization, so obviously everyone would like to claim it for themselves, and conveniently it's not Indo-European, so it's a self-esteem boost just waiting to be picked up by some small group with IE neighbours feeling all bad for not "ruling" the world. So, no one who actually spoke an Uralic or an Altaic language had much motivation to argue against the idea, while anyone who didn't have such an emotional investment in the subject was very unlikely to have the knowledge to say anything on it.

The most eager promoters of Ural-Altaic-Sumerian were Hungarian national romanticists, followed by Finns and Turks. Finnish nationalists who wanted glorious relatives had less need for Sumerians, because they tended consider the Mongols glorious enough and because they already knew that more closely related Finnic tribes used to "rule" over a large mass of land in Europe (before the Slavs ate them). Turks still have those people, but today a lot of them have switched from Sumerians to trying to claim relations to Finns and Hungarians, because they want to be European and not Middle Eastern. (Of course, they'd be a lot more credible to Europeans if they claimed to be converted Greeks, but...)

Your Bulgarian example is very apt, and shows exactly the kind of information we do not have for prehistoric societies. This means that archaeologists cannot make the kind of inferences you mention: "He's an ethnic Turk and so likely to be a Muslim".

but those aren't the sort of inferences i was examining anyway. i was using the example to show you i know what you're talking about....but you misunderstood the focus of the post.

That, I'm afraid, will always make it hard for you to talk to archaeologists and social anthropologists.

yeah, well, most social anthropologists don't say anything worth listening to. economists and psychologists are much more comprehensible and actually engaged in an attempt to generate systematic knowledge. since archaeologists deal in material objects i assumed they were less susceptible to becoming wrapped up in their Theory.

Finally, don't shoot the messenger. You're talking to an archaeologist who is seen as a bit of a pro-science extremist in his profession. You may not like current archaeology much, but that is very likely mutual, and you can't change it.

i have little hope for cultural anthropology; they're basically literary theorists and intellectual solopsists. archaeology i have more hope for because i assume within the next 10 years DNA analysis will become much like carbon-dating within the field. that being said, i have the sneaking suspicion that a better alliance might be made with economic historians because of methodological commonalities....

most social anthropologists don't say anything worth listening to.

That's academic isolationism if ever I saw it. It seems we're both pro-science extremists in our respective fields, which makes me a centrist and you Pat Robertson.

i have the sneaking suspicion that a better alliance might be made with economic historians

Sure, go ahead, who knows what you may find? But in Sweden, that means that your study of the past can at best start with the 13th century AD. Meanwhile, myself and my colleagues will continue to study the past from the Allerod interstadial onward, 12,000 cal BC.

That's academic isolationism if ever I saw it. It seems we're both pro-science extremists in our respective fields, which makes me a centrist and you Pat Robertson.

i'm not isolated. i've read that crap. i have a lot of interest in ethnographic case studies, and so i have to go read stuff produced by these people. there is data in there, but it's totally scaffolded by a lot of recursive interpretative bullshit. that's why i'm saying there's nothing worth listening to. you can just skip to the tables for any data they've collected. most of the analysis is crap because they spend all their time simultaneously feeling guilty about being white and pretending as if only someone on the inside could Know, but then shoehorning their people of interest into some stupid Theory. so that's why i think most of it is crap. at least if you view it as intended toward reflecting something about the world as opposed to the sociology & psychology of a 21st century university professors.

Sure, go ahead, who knows what you may find? But in Sweden, that means that your study of the past can at best start with the 13th century AD. Meanwhile, myself and my colleagues will continue to study the past from the Allerod interstadial onward, 12,000 cal BC.

don't be so narrow. yes, most 'data sets' = documentation, but material goods can serve as proxies for wealth. the key isn't what you study with, it's the outlook. you've expressed an allergy to "big picture" formulation. that's your prerogative, but if it's totally dominant in your field then there's no possibility of synthesis with those who want to characterize broader dynamics in a contingent theoretical system because those questions don't interest you in the first place.

also, let me add an addendum to my assertion that most of cultural anthropology is crap: that's my opinion informed by my tastes in fiction. i prefer science fiction & historicals myself. the prose of most cultural anthropologists is too turgid to really drag me along in terms of their narrative vision.

Hej Razib, I sent this to Martin, but I guess I´m "persona non grata" by his blogg?
From Martin: "My work in southern Sweden is largely irrelevant to colleagues in northern Sweden, and entirely irrelevant to colleagues in Japan."

"My job is neither to draw the big picture of world prehistory nor to collect data for those who try to do so. My job is to find out what life was like for real people in certain regions during certain eras of the past. Archaeology doesn't look for general global patterns, it doesn't try to find the "laws of culture"."

That is too bad opinion in a time when we become more and more international. And more related to each other, also thanks to genetic studies. And northern Fennoskandia and southern do have many things in common archaeologically.

-------
Martin wrote:"Archaeology went through a brief period in the 60s and 70s when some people did look for general laws. They failed."

And this is what I wrote earlier about using the term "post-processuell" archaeology .
-----
Martin wrote:"Because the generalities of human existence are banal."

No, the humans are interesting, that is why we study anthropology, history, archaeology, religion....
-------
From Martin C: "There is also the results of the Icelandic genomic profiles - it looks like the population shows evidence of a founder effect - a bottleneck made up, primarily, of Scandinavian males and Irish females - despite the fact that there has been little contact between the populations for the past thousand years"

http://www.slavens.net/dna/niall_results.htm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)
http://www.isogg.org/famousdna.htmhttp://www.isogg.org/famousdna.htm
This can be rather amusing readings.

------
From Mattias Niord: "But Savon, Martin is not a saamihater or a male chauvinist."

From Martin: "Savon, if it can make you any happier, let me state that I do not believe that Saami ethnicity is any more fictitious than anybody elses', and that I picked up much of my feministic opinions from my first wife who had been a red-stocking radical in the 1970s."

It is this I see as "patting on my head". I am more worth than this.

I´ve also read Anders Götherström, Helena Malmström and some others doctorial thesis, so I know that they have found in a grave in Uppsala area, a man with saami genetic markers among the other buried persons. I´ve read Torbjörn Ahlström, when he writes about bones found on Gotland that in comparison with modern saami showed same traits. And as I have studied mathematic I have nothing to disagree with Ahlströms statistical methods.
And it is this question that made me and some other saami to write comments on a few bloggs and fora. The Swedish deny us saami to even exist. Or IF we exist we came very lately to Sweden and Europe ( the GERMANS came before us!!). I saw that Martin wrote once that we are partly white, or something like that...The genetic studies, and there are many, show us saami to be of the oldest European mtDNAs. We have U5 and V mostly and some other smaller as K (also very old European), H1...

This litteraturelist you will find here: http://saamiblog.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-05-01T00%3A00%3A0…
1) "A Prehistory of the North: Human Settlement of the Higher Latitudes" by John F. Hoffecker; Rutgers University Press, 2005.

2) Don's Maps: Resources for the study of Archaeology

3) The Jesse Earl Hyde Collection, Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) Department of Geological Sciences

4) CalPhotos University of California, Berkeley

5) "The Magdalenian Colonization of Southern Germany" by Michael Jochim et al., American Anthropologist, Vol 101, No. 1, March 1999.

6) "Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe" by Siiri Rootsi et al. (2004)

7) "A Signal, from Human mtDNA, of Postglacial Recolonization in Europe" by Antonio Torroni et al. (2001). Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:844-852, 2001

8) "Saami and Berbers--An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link" by Alessandro Achilli et al. (2005). Am J Hum Genet. 2005 May; 76(5): 883-886.
9) Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions by Nicole Maca-Meyer et al. (2001), BMC Genetics 2001, 2:13.

10) The Western and Eastern Roots of the Saami--the Story of Genetic "Outliers" Told by Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosomes by Kristiina Tambets et al. (2004). Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:661-682, 2004.

11) Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool by Martin Richards et al. (2000). Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67:1251-1276, 2000.

12) mtDNA and the Islands of the North Atlantic: Estimating the Proportions of Norse and Gaelic Ancestry by Agnar Helgason et al. (2001), Am J Hum Genet. 2001 March; 68(3): 723-737.
13) The mitochondrial lineage U8a reveals a Paleolithic settlement in the Basque country by Ana M González, Oscar GarcÃa, José M Larruga and Vicente M Cabrera. BMC Genomics 2006, 7:124.
14) Denmark before the Vikings by Dr. Glyn Daniel and Ole Klindt-Jensen (1957).

15) " High Resolution Analysis and Phylogenetic Network Construction Using Complete mtDNA Sequences in Sardinian Genetic Isolates" by Cristina Fraumene et al. (2006).
16) "Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans" by Mait Metspalu et al. 2004
17) "Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the
Southwest and Central Asian Corridor" by Lluı´s Quintana-Murci et al. 2004
18)"Kvinnerollene i Oseberghaugen" av Cecilie Hongslo Vala, 2007
19) "Ancient DNA as a Means to
Investigate the European Neolithic" by Helena Malmström (2007)
20) "The Role of Selection in the Evolution of Human Mitochondrial Genomes" by Toomas Kivisild et al. 2006
21) "Diversity of Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups in Ethnic Populations of the Volga-Ural Region" by M. A. Bermisheva et al. 2002

jaakkeli: The most eager promoters of Ural-Altaic-Sumerian were Hungarian national romanticists, followed by Finns and Turks.

Apparently some Hungarians are not so thrilled to be connected to Finns. Interesting since Finns don't tend to mind.

razib: also, let me add an addendum to my assertion that most of cultural anthropology is crap: that's my opinion informed by my tastes in fiction. i prefer science fiction & historicals myself.

Do you like Mika Waltari?

Windy: Thanks for the adress to the hungarian article. Very interesting to read.

One of the examples "he" wrote is hungarian: "ház" and compared to finnish "kota". Now that is a very old saami word "goatte" means home or tent. In swedish we have "hus", sounds more like the hungarian word. But in Sweden we also have name like "-gatan", "Gatan" on farms.
The Ainupeople in Japan they also have "kota" as name for their homes. I guess that "kota" or something like that is a european "substrateword", probably much older than the indo-european language, which I have read that Ainu speaks/spoke a variant of.