Search results

It is very funny that you call this "real genetic and anthropology data", as it is as far away from real science as it gets. You use some ancient, unnamed Russian source which probably meant well at the time but is now completly obsolete and would not be used by any serious scientist today. Why...

Very good IMO. I have one comment - the Swedish N is too old to have been caused by population exchange with Finland during the last 800 years, and in any case it is different from Finnish N (as has been made famous by the Rurikids, who carry the Sweden-specific N). It is not impossible that it...

To begin with, there is no historically attested ruling elite in Finland until around 1100-1300 AD, when Finland was incorporated into what would become Sweden. The three Finnish tribes (Finns, Tavastians and Karelians) lived partly as farmers and partly as hunters/fishers. Finland was so...

I think it is very likely that it is so. I have always argued for that there are components in Central Eurasia that can neither be classified as caucasoid nor mongoloid, in fact I think there is an obsession with only two races among some people. There most also be unique genes in between, as...

That's the most plausible, but I dont think its possible to ever know for certain. The Turkic family branched into todays languages quite recently and some groups, such as Uyghurs, are partly caucasoid.

I have not read the whole debate between Idun, Nobody1 and others, but I must say that at the beginning of the thread it feels like there were strong insinuations that Uralics are a mongoloid people, which most of them clearly are not (The Finnic-Permic bransch). If people do not wish to be...

The Siberian admixture is indeed the highest among Norweigan Saami, and in general it peaks along the arctic coast in Europe. Most likely it is a very old component in Europe which has diffused into both Uralic and Slavic groups in Northeast Europe (a bit into Germanic too). This is the most...

Until the eastward Slavic expansion, Northeastern Europe was dominated by Uralic speakers, I have never seen any source claim anything else. What other group would have been there? The Finns were not dominated by any elite until they were incorporated into Sweden around 1200-1300. I dont see...

Finns indeed have about 6% Siberian genes, which is very remarkable. The admixture date is quite recent and the most likely candidate for bringing this component is of course the Saami-speaking people. They were originally a people very like the Finns, since the language is very close (I assume...

Finns are not "completly isolated", that is absurd. Finns are typical North Europeans, although heavily genetically drifted. Finns also have 6% Siberian genes. If Finns are plotted in a principal component analysis with other Europeans, their genetic drift ususually pulls them heavily in one...

It is mainly outlined in this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Uralic-Language-Family-Publications/dp/0631231706 Probably, but a mongoloid origin of Uralics is usually not a controversial stance, albeit for the most part false. The Swedish Wikipedia article on Uralic languages has a good...

Of course, if we think of genes as having West-East clines, then Uralic people have more East Asian admixture, as they live further East than other Europeans. For example, Finns have 6% Siberian admixture which is though to have come from the proto-Saami speaking people living in Finland quite...

I must say I agree here. The Uralic Urheimat is adjacent to the Indo-European one, and the closest relative to the Uralic family is still the Indo-European. That is not to say that they are related at all, but the similarities are just far greater than between Uralic and any other family, such...

As usual with cluster analyses, I wonder what kind of component this is. Is it a hybrid of European and Subsaharan African, or something which exists solely around the horn of Africa? Does the admixture signal mean shared ancestry, or actual admixture? I think that the correlation with E1b...

It is hard to understand because it requires us to dismiss the most widely held theories on Indo-European linguistics. As far as I've seen there are no evidence that the R1B expansion to Western Europe was by Indo-Europeans in the first place. It is considered proven in itself, and when asked...

Your FTDNA source above clearly states that connecting Y-DNA to language families is controversial. (Also, you don't consider mtDNA in you post above, so it is wrong to say that "almost all blood" is from certain invasions) For your theory to be true, you must assume that the Celtic language...

Isn't the Bell Beaker culture a more likely candidate for the spread of R1B? Bell Beaker people were clearly very mobile, especially at sea, and more advanced than the previous cultures. Celts seem like much later arriving people.

It is a fairly established theory that the Siberian admixture in Finland came from proto-Saamis, who had gotten it from some other Siberian people. The admixture date is also quite recent, 1000 BC -0, as evident from linkage disequilibrium, while N is much, much older. As I wrote above Siberian...

There are probably several waves behind N in Europe. 1. An ancient migration wave of unknown people before 6000 BC, perhaps connected to the Comb-Ceramic culture. This is the reason N is so widespread in Europe, and some of the local branches are very old, too old to be connected to 2. or 3...

So what was your long argument for? Do you want to speculate that because of N, pre-proto-Uralics were Mongoloid? Personally, I think that is OK speculation, as long as you call it speculation. I dont think its any more likely than that they were Causaoid before reaching the Urheimat. In the...