PDA

View Full Version : Are Uralic language speakers more closely related to Altaic speakers than Europeans?



Veritator
11-11-13, 10:19
Please clarify and discuss the following:

Do European Uralic language speakers such as Hungarians, Finns and Estonians have Turkic DNA?

Are the original Uralic language speakers genetically related to the original Altaic language speakers?

Are the Northern Asian Uralic language speakers, such as Samoyedic people, more closely related to Turkic tribes than to Northern Europeans?


Please discuss.

Maciamo
11-11-13, 11:00
Most Uralic speakers (Sami, Finns, Estonians, Udmurts, Mari, Komi, Nenets, Selkups, etc.) share a high percentage of Y-haplogroup N. The Hungarians are an exception. They have hardly any hg N (0.5%). Their paternal lineages are very typical of Central Europe (mix of R1a, R1b, I2a, I1, E1b, J2, J1, G2a). The only haplogroup that connects them to some other Uralic speakers is R1a, but that lineage actually reflects Indo-European admixture.

The original Altaic people belonged essentially to haplogroups C3, Q and N. They were joined by R1a in the Bronze and Iron Ages. In the Middle Ages, Altaic speakers left their homeland to conquer most of Central Asia, where they picked up a lot of the local Indo-European R1a lineages before reaching Kurdistan and Anatolia.

So if there is one haplogroup that links up all Uralo-Altaic people it is N.

Idun
27-11-13, 10:30
Most Uralic speakers (Sami, Finns, Estonians, Udmurts, Mari, Komi, Nenets, Selkups, etc.) share a high percentage of Y-haplogroup N. The Hungarians are an exception. They have hardly any hg N (0.5%). Their paternal lineages are very typical of Central Europe (mix of R1a, R1b, I2a, I1, E1b, J2, J1, G2a). The only haplogroup that connects them to some other Uralic speakers is R1a, but that lineage actually reflects Indo-European admixture.

The original Altaic people belonged essentially to haplogroups C3, Q and N. They were joined by R1a in the Bronze and Iron Ages. In the Middle Ages, Altaic speakers left their homeland to conquer most of Central Asia, where they picked up a lot of the local Indo-European R1a lineages before reaching Kurdistan and Anatolia.

So if there is one haplogroup that links up all Uralo-Altaic people it is N.

Complete BS saying having a distant Y-DNA "link" is sharing close similarity with an other population. :laughing:

Everyone else in Europe are more related to Turks than NW Finno-Ugrians, tell the truth!

adamo
27-11-13, 12:05
Correct, turks share a very minimal amount of dna with finno-ugrians, if any at all, about 5-10%

Templar
27-11-13, 12:53
Everyone else in Europe are more related to Turks than NW Finno-Ugrians, tell the truth!

There is a huge difference between ancient Turkic people and modern inhabitants of Turkey (Turks). Turkic people do seem to have a connection with Uralic people. Both were Mongoloids at some point (and some still are). Turks are mostly Caucasoids, specifically, mostly descendants of neolithic farmers.

Nobody1
27-11-13, 13:03
Turks are mostly Caucasoids, specifically, mostly descendants of neolithic farmers.

And also many Indo-Europeans;
Hittites (first) and than Thracians (Phrygians/Bithynians) that went to Anatolia after the Hittite empire collapse;

Idun
27-11-13, 14:08
There is a huge difference between ancient Turkic people and modern inhabitants of Turkey (Turks). Turkic people do seem to have a connection with Uralic people. Both were Mongoloids at some point (and some still are). Turks are mostly Caucasoids, specifically, mostly descendants of neolithic farmers.

Uralics are and have been as Mongoloid as Indo-Europeans. :laughing:

I actually like to study Mongol history but it really is related to Turkic people.

What is this agenda to push Finno-Uralic people as originating as Mongoloid when you dont have any proof of that?

The Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans where born in the same place and spread together, figure it out.

Petter
17-12-13, 21:43
Uralics are and have been as Mongoloid as Indo-Europeans. :laughing:

I actually like to study Mongol history but it really is related to Turkic people.

What is this agenda to push Finno-Uralic people as originating as Mongoloid when you dont have any proof of that?

The Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans where born in the same place and spread together, figure it out.

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 the Altaic. And, the Altaic family probably doesn't either, it breaks up into isolated languages. To make it even more complicated it is more difficult to reconstruct a proto-Uralic language than it is to reconstruct an Indo-European one.

The original Uralics were probably similar to the Mordvins who live close to the Urheimat where Uralic linguistic diversity is the greatest. As for where they came from before then, who knows? Proto-Uralic in itself can barely be reconstructed, let alone can any kinship further back be reconstructed!

As for why Uralics are often "pushed" to be mongoloid, I guess Finnish nationalists such as Mathias Castrén are partly to blame. They wanted to find an origin of the Finns and thought they found it in Asia. Also, during the cold war people in the Soviet sphere of influence were "pushed" towards having a more Eastern origin.

Petter
17-12-13, 21:47
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 recently. The Saami theyselves must have picked it up from a Siberian people living in Northern Europe.

But to say that the linguistic origin is the source of East Asian admixture in Uralic people, that is definitly a stretch. Perhaps the recently found component in the Malta boy is an ancestral Uralic component? (That's of course a stretch too.)

Idun
18-12-13, 01:04
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 the Altaic. And, the Altaic family probably doesn't either, it breaks up into isolated languages. To make it even more complicated it is more difficult to reconstruct a proto-Uralic language than it is to reconstruct an Indo-European one.

The original Uralics were probably similar to the Mordvins who live close to the Urheimat where Uralic linguistic diversity is the greatest. As for where they came from before then, who knows? Proto-Uralic in itself can barely be reconstructed, let alone can any kinship further back be reconstructed!

As for why Uralics are often "pushed" to be mongoloid, I guess Finnish nationalists such as Mathias Castrén are partly to blame. They wanted to find an origin of the Finns and thought they found it in Asia. Also, during the cold war people in the Soviet sphere of influence were "pushed" towards having a more Eastern origin.

I have not learned proto-Uralic is in anyway more difficult to reconstruct? Where did you hear that?

Well Swedish nationalists have also done a good job in making Finns mongols.
It is part of the historical pan-germanism so no hard feelings, modern science could even make Sveas our close relatives. :heart:

Petter
19-12-13, 20:39
I have not learned proto-Uralic is in anyway more difficult to reconstruct? Where did you hear that?

It is mainly outlined in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Uralic-Language-Family-Publications/dp/0631231706


Well Swedish nationalists have also done a good job in making Finns mongols.
It is part of the historical pan-germanism so no hard feelings, modern science could even make Sveas our close relatives. :heart:

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 phrase: Even though the Ural-Altaic family hypothesis finds no support among linguists, it is still common in schoolbooks and similar publications. When I was young, I certainly believed that Finnish belonged to a wider Asian family, because that was what school atlases said. The situation is probably the same in most of Europe.

Idun
21-12-13, 16:07
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 phrase: Even though the Ural-Altaic family hypothesis finds no support among linguists, it is still common in schoolbooks and similar publications. When I was young, I certainly believed that Finnish belonged to a wider Asian family, because that was what school atlases said. The situation is probably the same in most of Europe.

More study should go in the cultural relations between Scandinavians and Baltic Finns, they seem so close that there must be something behind it.
One reason could be the mutual need in handling the traffic on the eastern trade routes, I am talking even pre-viking age.
The clan system would have brought the exchange of wives to seal the deals made, and from just this there are signs in sagas and genetics.

Nobody1
21-12-13, 17:49
Finns arent close to Scandinavians in terms of Genetics;
In autosomal-Admixture the Finns are completely isolated and Y-DNA Hg Finns are mostly N-M231 like the Mongoloids of Yakuts and Nenets further east;

Idun
21-12-13, 18:12
Finns arent close to Scandinavians in terms of Genetics;
In autosomal-Admixture the Finns are completely isolated and Y-DNA Hg Finns are mostly N-M231 like the Mongoloids of Yakuts and Nenets further east;

If a French or English fur trapper lives and marries in to a native tribe does this tribe turn French or English?

If you have no idea of Finnish or Estonian history you are just ignorant, the other option is that you feel like a mongrel yourselves and take it out on those that have kept themselves pure.

Nobody1
21-12-13, 18:26
If a French or English fur trapper lives and marries in to a native tribe does this tribe turn French or English?

If you have no idea of Finnish or Estonian history you are just ignorant, the other option is that you feel like a mongrel yourselves and take it out on those that have kept themselves pure.

Whats your message? that you have never seen a genetics study? that Finns are not Isolated or N-M231 like Yakuts and Nenets?

If thats the message than bother no further;
You have convinced me; Finns are pure Scandinavians - proper Vikings;

BakodiP
21-12-13, 18:52
If a French or English fur trapper lives and marries in to a native tribe does this tribe turn French or English?

If you have no idea of Finnish or Estonian history you are just ignorant, the other option is that you feel like a mongrel yourselves and take it out on those that have kept themselves pure.

Pure? Are you serious?

Idun
21-12-13, 20:42
Whats your message? that you have never seen a genetics study? that Finns are not Isolated or N-M231 like Yakuts and Nenets?

If thats the message than bother no further;
You have convinced me; Finns are pure Scandinavians - proper Vikings;

Your message was totally misleading so I think you really do have an agenda.

Why are Finns isolated?
Answer that one honestly and tell what is the founder population and first settlers of present Finland.
Where did they come from and who are the closest relatives?
Yakuts, Nenets, Jamaicans, Ottawa? :rolleyes2:

Baltic Finns are not Scandinavians, they dont want to be, they never where and never will be.
But they do share a lot of cultural things and connections that are worth preserving.
Both where hardcore pagans with a cultural fetish for weapons, that is a fact, that culture is still alive.

Idun
21-12-13, 20:43
Pure? Are you serious?

Relatively speaking, yes I am.

Sile
21-12-13, 20:50
If a French or English fur trapper lives and marries in to a native tribe does this tribe turn French or English?

If you have no idea of Finnish or Estonian history you are just ignorant, the other option is that you feel like a mongrel yourselves and take it out on those that have kept themselves pure.

no the trapper turns native

Finns are not classified as scandinavians. The only scandinavian countries are Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Finns are part of the baltic states, which is Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
But gentics like to associate fennoscandia zone with scandinavians

Idun
21-12-13, 21:00
no the trapper turns native

Finns are not classified as scandinavians. The only scandinavian countries are Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Finns are part of the baltic states, which is Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
But gentics like to associate fennoscandia zone with scandinavians

And they should not be classified and dont want to be classified.

That obsession is for Central Europeans that are basically latinized serfs.

Templar
21-12-13, 21:05
As for why Uralics are often "pushed" to be mongoloid, I guess Finnish nationalists such as Mathias Castrén are partly to blame. They wanted to find an origin of the Finns and thought they found it in Asia. Also, during the cold war people in the Soviet sphere of influence were "pushed" towards having a more Eastern origin.

Sami people look extremely Mongoloid. Sami people share a common origin with Finns. Therefore it is logical to assume that Sami are part Mongoloid as well. Not to mention fact that haplogroup N seems to be primarily found among Mongoloids.

Nobody1
21-12-13, 21:05
Your message was totally misleading so I think you really do have an agenda.

Why are Finns isolated?
Answer that one honestly and tell what is the founder population and first settlers of present Finland.
Where did they come from and who are the closest relatives?
Yakuts, Nenets, Jamaicans, Ottawa? :rolleyes2:

Baltic Finns are not Scandinavians, they dont want to be, they never where and never will be.
But they do share a lot of cultural things and connections that are worth preserving.
Both where hardcore pagans with a cultural fetish for weapons, that is a fact, that culture is still alive.

Nelis et al 2009
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005472#close
http://previews.figshare.com/445209/preview_445209.jpg

I am Nelis et al and thats my agenda;
Closest relatives Sami/Lapps proper Vikings as well - All Pure;

Idun
21-12-13, 21:15
Sami people look extremely Mongoloid. Sami people share a common origin with Finns. Therefore it is logical to assume that Sami are part Mongoloid as well. Not to mention fact that haplogroup N seems to be primarily found among Mongoloids.

Saami are the paleo people that have changed their language to that of the dominant population.
Not to mention that those mongoloids are not related to orginal Uralics other than they spread their legs for them.

mihaitzateo
21-12-13, 21:16
Hungarians,if you take most numerous Uralic speakers,are most closest,as genetics,to Austrians.
While Finns and North Swedes are most closest.
Estonians are most closest to Lithuanians and Latvians.
So this confirms the fact that Germanic people and Finno-Ugrian people developed together.
Sure,now are other Uralic speakers that mixed with Turks,after Turkic invasions,but original Uralic speakers were not mixed with Turkic speakers.
Sami people are Uralic language speakers and Scandinavians have plenty of DNA from Sami people.
Sami people do not have any Turkic DNA,think they are most closed to original Feno-Ugrian populations,from all Feno-Ugrians that survived.
(Sami people Y DNA,majority of it,N1C,2nd they have I1,so guess what,they are clustering with Finns and North Swedes;
but their maternal lines are different,with mostly U5B maternal HG).
Hungarians,after their DNA results,seems to have mixed with Thraco-Dacians and Slavic people.
A more very weird thing,a Romanian can read Finnish language,without any effort,we are pronouncing their written words,as they are pronouncing them,but we do not understand these words.
Give me a Finnish written text and I will read it and record it and you listen it and tell if you are understand what I am saying.
So I think is quite clear that most closest people to Finno-Ugrians are Germanic people.

Idun
21-12-13, 21:34
Nelis et al 2009
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005472#close
http://previews.figshare.com/445209/preview_445209.jpg

I am Nelis et al and thats my agenda;
Closest relatives Sami/Lapps proper Vikings as well - All Pure;


It is a beautiful picture, shame you dont understand it, Swedes should be proud they are that breaking out in it.
You should read about founder effect with Kuusamo and know that Helsinki is full of Savonians.

Try the same chart with Western Finland, the area where most still live and has the oldest settlements, throw in some Saarenmaa, Livonia, Gotland, Uppland, Trondelag for fun.

Your total lack of history of the area comes our very clear.

LeBrok
21-12-13, 21:46
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by BakodiP http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=422495#post422495)
Pure? Are you serious?


Relatively speaking, yes I am.

Relatively pure? It's as oxymoronic as saying the glass is "half full". As half full is not full, the relatively pure is not pure, is it?

Nobody1
21-12-13, 22:00
It is a beautiful picture

Yes;


shame you dont understand it, Swedes should be proud they are that breaking out in it.

Those are just a few outlier (Swedish) samples that are next to a few outlier (Finnish) samples; Maybe some exiled Finns in Sweden;
Bulk of the Swedish samples is very close (even overlaps) with North German Samples; Bulk of the Finnish samples is isolated and closest to Bulk of Sami/Lapps;

You do understand that each symbol = a sample?


You should read about founder effect with Kuusamo and know that Helsinki is full of Savonians.

Does that mean that Savonians are not pure Finns i.e. not proper Vikings? Makes me sad;


Try the same chart with Western Finland, the area where most still live and has the oldest settlements, throw in some Saarenmaa, Livonia, Gotland, Uppland, Trondelag for fun.

How much fun will we be having?

Idun
21-12-13, 22:09
Relatively pure? It's as oxymoronic as saying the glass is "half full". As half full is not full, the relatively pure is not pure, is it?

It is better than an empty and dirty glass.

albanopolis
21-12-13, 22:22
Finns arent close to Scandinavians in terms of Genetics;
In autosomal-Admixture the Finns are completely isolated and Y-DNA Hg Finns are mostly N-M231 like the Mongoloids of Yakuts and Nenets further east;
haplo N is Scandinavian?

mihaitzateo
21-12-13, 22:24
Vikings were savage people,not really Germanics,as behavior,only as language.
Compare Vikings to Goths,which were East Germanic speakers - there are no terms of comparison,Goths impressed Roman Empire inhabitants,with their civilized behavior when they conquered Rome.
Or compare Franks to Vikings,Franks were very civilized people.
Vikings were actually Scandinavian,not Germanic,uncivilized persons who were living from fishing , hunting and preying on other people.
Their interpretation (of Scandos) of Odinism was primitive,compare East Germanic and West Germanic speakers,who saw Christianity as something linked to Odinism,while Scandos did not saw such a thing.
The shamanic things of Vikings,like getting into berserker mode,was something taken for sure from Fino-ugrian speakers,not something related to Germanic religion.
Sure Fino-Ugrians are closed to Europeans,but were primitive and now they got very civilized.

Idun
21-12-13, 22:43
Those are just a few outlier (Swedish) samples that are next to a few outlier (Finnish) samples; Maybe some exiled Finns in Sweden;
Bulk of the Swedish samples is very close (even overlaps) with North German Samples; Bulk of the Finnish samples is isolated and closest to Bulk of Sami/Lapps;

You do understand that each symbol = a sample?


Swedes are more mixed to Central Europe, they import even rarer genes these days.
You really dont know how to read the Sami results.





Does that mean that Savonians are not pure Finns i.e. not proper Vikings? Makes me sad;

Savonians showcase a massive founder effect and can represent Finland only as a curiosity when talking about genetics.
Savonians could not have been Vikings as they did not exist in the Viking Age, Western Finns did and are basically the same people still.




How much fun will we be having?

Might get hilarious.

Nobody1
21-12-13, 22:48
haplo N is Scandinavian?

haplo N is Scandinavian?

Idun
21-12-13, 22:50
haplo N is Scandinavian?

Are you saying Rurik was a Finn? Make up your mind.

Nobody1
21-12-13, 22:51
You really dont know how to read the Sami results.

Exactly;
I have been waiting since 2009 for a genius of your format to explain it to me;


Savonians showcase a massive founder effect and can represent Finland only as a curiosity when talking about genetics.
Savonians could not have been Vikings as they did not exist in the Viking Age, Western Finns did and are basically the same people still.

Ok got it;
West Finns = Pure Vikings;
Savonians = founder Effect and Finnish curiosity;

So simple and not the least bit bizarre;


Might get hilarious.

I am laughing already;

PS: did you notice all the Baltic volks in the beautiful picture (i.e. Genetic chart)?

Nobody1
21-12-13, 22:55
Are you saying Rurik was a Finn? Make up your mind.

Was Rurik even tested?

Idun
21-12-13, 22:58
Vikings were savage people,not really Germanics,as behavior,only as language.
Compare Vikings to Goths,which were East Germanic speakers - there are no terms of comparison,Goths impressed Roman Empire inhabitants,with their civilized behavior when they conquered Rome.
Or compare Franks to Vikings,Franks were very civilized people.
Vikings were actually Scandinavian,not Germanic,uncivilized persons who were living from fishing , hunting and preying on other people.
Their interpretation (of Scandos) of Odinism was primitive,compare East Germanic and West Germanic speakers,who saw Christianity as something linked to Odinism,while Scandos did not saw such a thing.
The shamanic things of Vikings,like getting into berserker mode,was something taken for sure from Fino-ugrian speakers,not something related to Germanic religion.
Sure Fino-Ugrians are closed to Europeans,but were primitive and now they got very civilized.

Propaganda spread by the degenerated Franks and their Popes.

You got the shamanism right , I will give you that.

LeBrok
21-12-13, 23:05
It is better than an empty and dirty glass.
Who are the nations of "dirty glass" profile, you're implying?

Idun
21-12-13, 23:15
I have been waiting since 2009 for a genius of your format to explain it to me

Now you can get to work and study the matter, I will always accept an apology. :good_job:



Ok got it;
West Finns = Pure Vikings;
Savonians = founder Effect and Finnish curiosity;

So simple and not the least bit bizarre;

There where no tribe or clan called Vikings, there where Nordic pagan tribes and clans that had a distinct culture.



I am laughing already;

PS: did you notice all the Baltic volks in the beautiful picture (i.e. Genetic chart)?

Yep, they are cousins to us also, Curonians especially, brave sobs.

Idun
21-12-13, 23:22
Was Rurik even tested?

They are looking for him but the Nenets all look alike.

Idun
21-12-13, 23:26
Who are the nations of "dirty glass" profile, you're implying?

The ones that see the glass half empty, that is not the attitude you go hunting or to war.

Nobody1
21-12-13, 23:28
Now you can get to work and study the matter, I will always accept an apology. :good_job:

I apologies;


There where no tribe or clan called Vikings

No kidding;


there where Nordic pagan tribes and clans that had a distinct culture.

Not so distinct from other Germanic people;


Yep, they are cousins to us also, Curonians especially, brave sobs.

Beautiful picture suggests otherwise;
Maybe distant cousins;

Idun
21-12-13, 23:43
I apologies;

I will take it when you mean it.



No kidding;

Lifestyle of the North.


Not so distinct from other Germanic people

Except they did not go to church on sunday and give their money away, like two peas in pot. :rolleyes2:


Beautiful picture suggests otherwise;
Maybe distant cousins.

Also related to the Nenets those Balts. :good_job:

mihaitzateo
21-12-13, 23:46
What about Yakuts who have about 75% N on paternal lines,but are Turkic speakers?
Is possible that they are assimilated Uralic people from Siberia?
I have found some of their folk tales here:
http://www.philology.nsc.ru/departments/folklor_en/t09.php
Something more about Yakuts folk customs:
http://www.yakutiatoday.com/region/culture_calendar_yakut.shtml

Idun
22-12-13, 00:17
What about Yakuts who have about 75% N on paternal lines,but are Turkic speakers?
Is possible that they are assimilated Uralic people from Siberia?
I have found some of their folk tales here:
http://www.philology.nsc.ru/departments/folklor_en/t09.php
Something more about Yakuts folk customs:
http://www.yakutiatoday.com/region/culture_calendar_yakut.shtml

Yes, they are our Urheimat population, we are half Turk, half Mongol. :rolleyes2:



6149

Alan
22-12-13, 00:56
I wish the Saami their own country.

Last time I checked the Finns were very Caucasian/European and not much of Siberian (~5-6% similar to Russians).


Turkic language family is relatively young. The more I do my research about it, the more it appears to me like a hybrid of Iranic and Mongolian. The Iranic substrata in Turkic is so strong that it goes even all the way into the grammar and is not exclusive to loanwords alone.

Nobody1
22-12-13, 00:58
I will take it when you mean it.

Yes;


Lifestyle of the North.

Yes;


Except they did not go to church on sunday and give their money away, like two peas in pot. :rolleyes2:

Yes;


Also related to the Nenets those Balts. :good_job:

No;

Idun
22-12-13, 01:26
No;

So the N haplo is mongoloid only in Finns?

OK, Herr Übermenschpidgmin PGmc.:cool-v:

Nobody1
22-12-13, 01:59
OK, Herr Übermenschpidgmin PGmc.:cool-v:

I never said that its Mongoloid;
I said that Finns are Isolated (not close to Scandinavians) and N-M231 is also heavy in Mongoloids further East like Yakuts and your all time favorites the Nenets; I cant spot a mistake;

Idun
22-12-13, 02:40
I never said that its Mongoloid;
I said that Finns are Isolated (not close to Scandinavians) and N-M231 is also heavy in Mongoloids further East like Yakuts and your all time favorites the Nenets; I cant spot a mistake;

Your post did give the impression that Finns are not European and Nordic and closer to Nenets, that was a bad wording or intentional.

Isolation is from lack of mixing since arrival with the Central Euro populations, others in the neighbourhood have done it more since the Iron Age.

If you are for real you will take my advice and check the regions/populations I listed. :good_job:

The Sami skew your results if you dont understand the nature of the contact with Baltic Finns, they are the dominating population taking tribute and some of the tax collectors and fur traders mixing with paleo natives.

They where first to arrive, then came the clans and moved along the coasts and river valleys in the West of the country, later Karelians pushed from the East doing the same thing.

They Sami are giving back echoes and making you believe they are closer than you think to the Western Finns aka Estonians, Goths etc.
.
Part of the Siberian is not from Sami, it is original europid from the steppe where they rode taking tribute from the Nenets and Yakuts, no sable, give beaver. :laughing:

Nobody1
22-12-13, 03:38
Your post did give the impression that Finns are not European and Nordic and closer to Nenets, that was a bad wording or intentional.

Than you got the wrong impression;
The Finns are most def. European and mass-majority/rule (Anthropology) Nordo-Baltic;
Are they like the Scandinavians (Germanic) - No there is a diff. in Culture (language) and Genetics;
Nothing to do with Good or Bad;


Isolation is from lack of mixing since arrival with the Central Euro populations, others in the neighbourhood have done it more since the Iron Age.

Thats exactly what Isolation is;
I have said that 100s times; Archaic, Remote, Isolated all go hand in hand thats why Sardinians (the other isolated Europeans) are very close to Neolithic corpses and Finns/Estonians to Hunter-gather corpses; Isolated is not anything bad; In fact an impressive continuity;


If you are for real you will take my advice and check the regions/populations I listed. :good_job:

Thats what i said 100s times as well;
Europe must be looked at in Regions (Historic Regions) and not national (modern-day) boundaries;
Both Autosomal-Admixture and mt&Y Hg's; many diff. feature from region to region; just look at the Alps; every 100 people village is diff. than the next 100 people village - but thats the extreme isolation (and incest);


They Sami are giving back echoes and making you believe they are closer than you think to the Western Finns aka Estonians, Goths etc.

The Lapps are an isolated case of their own and when exactly did the Lapps come to Fennoscandia area?
Lappanoid/Brachycephalic is very common in Europe;
The Brachycephalic Ancient Ligurians were examined (Dr. Virchow) to have exclusive similar features to the Lapps and they inhabited the Alpine areas;
.

Part of the Siberian is not from Sami, it is original europid from the steppe where they rode taking tribute from the Nenets and Yakuts, no sable, give beaver. :laughing:

I dont think that Fur-traders are that important compared to Hunter-gatherers in that region;
A much broader realm of which maybe the Proto-Yakuts and Proto-Nenets were equally a part of and later changed course;

LeBrok
22-12-13, 03:51
Your post did give the impression that Finns are not European and Nordic and closer to Nenets, that was a bad wording or intentional.

I think your "pure" of whatever you want to be agenda, skews our posts (in your mind), giving you impression that we are attacking you and making you mongoloid. Obviously you think that Mongoloid means a lesser human being, for some reason.


The ones that see the glass half empty, that is not the attitude you go hunting or to war.
Can you be less cryptic?

Idun
22-12-13, 04:30
Than you got the wrong impression;
The Finns are most def. European and mass-majority/rule (Anthropology) Nordo-Baltic;
Are they like the Scandinavians (Germanic) - No there is a diff. in Culture (language) and Genetics;
Nothing to do with Good or Bad;

I see very much common in the culture and think it should be studied more, I think it shows intensive relations, most likely trade motivated.
I cant see what language has to do with it, I see a distinct Baltic cultural region during the Iron Age that ended with the two churches pushing in the area.
I dont really care how close the genetic links are but I am arguing the cultural ties did not develop without kinship, that was everything back then.
That is only thing that protected your property and movements, no police back then.






Thats exactly what Isolation is;
I have said that 100s times; Archaic, Remote, Isolated all go hand in hand thats why Sardinians (the other isolated Europeans) are very close to Neolithic corpses and Finns/Estonians to Hunter-gather corpses; Isolated is not anything bad; In fact an impressive continuity;

Yep, it is a fascinating history.



Thats what i said 100s times as well;
Europe must be looked at in Regions (Historic Regions) and not national (modern-day) boundaries;
Both Autosomal-Admixture and mt&Y Hg's; many diff. feature from region to region; just look at the Alps; every 100 people village is diff. than the next 100 people village - but thats the extreme isolation (and incest);

Those areas I listed are the trade hubs and where people mostl likely met and arranged marriages. Luckily many of those regions contain very preserved populations, even with long recorded family histories, so they should be intensively tested.



The Lapps are an isolated case of their own and when exactly did the Lapps come to Fennoscandia area?
Lappanoid/Brachycephalic is very common in Europe;
The Brachycephalic Ancient Ligurians were examined (Dr. Virchow) to have exclusive similar features to the Lapps and they inhabited the Alpine areas;

They probably came following the ice, Im not sure how many paleo populations there where, I think there where more than one population and Baltic Finns came after what ever they had of value to trade or tax.

.



I dont think that Fur-traders are that important compared to Hunter-gatherers in that region;
A much broader realm of which maybe the Proto-Yakuts and Proto-Nemets were equally a part of and later changed course

I would say the value of furs and controlling its trade has been undervalued as an source of wealth and a motivating factor in general, but that is just me.

Idun
22-12-13, 04:47
I think your "pure" of whatever you want to be agenda, skews our posts (in your mind), giving you impression that we are attacking you and making you mongoloid. Obviously you think that Mongoloid means a lesser human being, for some reason.




That is the problem of those that feel the need to lie about Finns being recent arrivals from Asia compared to others in Europe, I am personally a fan of Asian cultures from Mongolia to Japan.



Can you be less cryptic?

Yes, I can answer in a Finnish dialect.

ElHorsto
22-12-13, 14:38
Nelis et al 2009
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005472#close
http://previews.figshare.com/445209/preview_445209.jpg

I am Nelis et al and thats my agenda;
Closest relatives Sami/Lapps proper Vikings as well - All Pure;

I don't think this deviation of Finns shown is due to mongoloid admixture, maybe only due to a minor siberian admixture. There are countless admixture graphs in the web (dienekes, eurogenes,..) which show that this siberian admixture is marginal (~3%-10%, depending on the parameters) and not unique to Finns.

I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans. IMHO this map (http://magnusducatus.blogspot.de/2012/09/the-component-maps-of-mdlp-world22.html) shows the "purest" hunter-gatherer autosomal component which is possibly linked to U5:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5ExU3K6jw8/UFtLKlMOeLI/AAAAAAAAD2g/-3PXcdFPnmI/s1600/mdlpmesolithic.jpg

Nobody1
22-12-13, 15:25
I don't think this deviation of Finns shown is due to mongoloid admixture, maybe only due to a minor siberian admixture. There are countless admixture graphs in the web (dienekes, eurogenes,..) which show that this siberian admixture is marginal (~3%-10%, depending on the parameters) and not unique to Finns.

I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans. IMHO this map (http://magnusducatus.blogspot.de/2012/09/the-component-maps-of-mdlp-world22.html) shows the "purest" hunter-gatherer autosomal component which is possibly linked to U5:


Never said they are;
I said Finns are isolated and what that means goes without saying i.e. not inter-mixed with surrounding pops. hence the stronger Hunter-gatherer continuity;
Dienekes and EuroGenes are just Hobby-Blogs; Great to look at but nothing academic about it - just a side note;

ElHorsto
22-12-13, 15:37
Never said they are;
I said Finns are isolated and what that means goes without saying i.e. not inter-mixed with surrounding pops. hence the stronger Hunter-gatherer continuity;


Ok, then I agree with you.

mihaitzateo
22-12-13, 16:29
Yakuts and Nenets are not Turkic population,they are Siberian population .
From what I knew,Turkic populations are Central Asians,coming from Altai Mountains.
If you take this image ,with Turkic speakers:
http://www.umich.edu/~turkish/images/map-flag/turkiclangmap.gif

For me,is very clear that actually Yakuts were conquered by Turkic people and they adopted Turkic language,from the people that conquered them.
I was not arguing here,I was just asking other people if they agree with the opinion that Yakuts were conquered by Turkic tribes and this is how they ended speaking a Turkic language.
From what I know,average Finn got some Siberian admixture but I do not think that (Siberian admixture) can be put into the category of Mongoloid admixture.
Mongolians are central Asians,they are different people,as way of behavior,as culture etc from Siberians.
But this thread was about the fact if Uralic languages speakers are more closed to Altaic speakers,than to Europeans and from my point of view,Fino-Ugrian speakers (Uralic languages) are rather closed to either Germanic people,or Balto-Slavic (included Baltic and Slavic in same larger group) people.
Would be very interesting to study folk music,folk customs and so on,between North Europeans,both Scandos and Balto-Slavs,from North Europe and Uralic speakers.
Cause I think you will find common folk customs between them.
For example,both Finns and Germanic speakers from Scandinavia share as a common folk custom that the bride should wear some piece of gold,on her chest/belly to bring fertility,at wedding.
EDIT:
This thread is becoming boring,without any Turkic native speaker coming here and bringing his/her arguments that Finno-Ugrian speakers are rather related to Turkic languages,than to Indo-European languages.

Templar
22-12-13, 18:04
"I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans"

Nope, original paleolithic Europeans couldn't have been as light as the Finns and also not as Mongoloid as the Saami.

Saami can't be aboriginal because: Cro-Magnon skulls have typical Caucasoid traits: high nose bridge, strong chin, and long skull length.

Finns can't be aboriginal because: Blue eyes and blonde hair developed around the Black Sea only around 5,000 years and were spread by Indo-Europeans. They only spread throughout Europe during the Bronze Age.

Idun
22-12-13, 18:16
"I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans"

Nope, original paleolithic Europeans couldn't have been as light as the Finns and also not as Mongoloid as the Saami.

Saami can't be aboriginal because: Cro-Magnon skulls have typical Caucasoid traits: high nose bridge, strong chin, and long skull length.

Finns can't be aboriginal because: Blue eyes and blonde hair developed around the Black Sea only around 5,000 years and were spread by Indo-Europeans. They only spread throughout Europe during the Bronze Age.

That must be it, did you know Arya means slave for Finns?

ElHorsto
22-12-13, 18:24
"I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans"
Nope, original paleolithic Europeans couldn't have been as light as the Finns and also not as Mongoloid as the Saami.


Why is this still relevant since we know genetic evidence?
I also once thought the Saami were part-mongoloid, but now I realize they aren't. They show borealization as the east-baltic 'race' too. However, mesolithic hunter-gatherers were probably eurasian dwellers anyways, so their asian contacts were probably frequent (see amerindian SNP and STR admixtures in north-europeans).



Saami can't be aboriginal because: Cro-Magnon skulls have typical Caucasoid traits: high nose bridge, strong chin, and long skull length.


They very well can:

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/6/6/4/5/2/7/Cro-magnon-53724682337.jpeghttp://www.norja.fi/FileCache/PageFiles/363487/ole-henrikmagga.jpg/width_199.height_307.mode_MaxWidthOrHeight.pos_Def ault.color_White.jpg



Finns can't be aboriginal because: Blue eyes and blonde hair developed around the Black Sea only around 5,000 years and were spread by Indo-Europeans. They only spread throughout Europe during the Bronze Age.


The La Brana sample has been tested positive for blue eyes already.

Idun
22-12-13, 18:31
Yakuts and Nenets are not Turkic population,they are Siberian population .
From what I knew,Turkic populations are Central Asians,coming from Altai Mountains.
If you take this image ,with Turkic speakers:
http://www.umich.edu/~turkish/images/map-flag/turkiclangmap.gif

For me,is very clear that actually Yakuts were conquered by Turkic people and they adopted Turkic language,from the people that conquered them.
I was not arguing here,I was just asking other people if they agree with the opinion that Yakuts were conquered by Turkic tribes and this is how they ended speaking a Turkic language.
From what I know,average Finn got some Siberian admixture but I do not think that (Siberian admixture) can be put into the category of Mongoloid admixture.
Mongolians are central Asians,they are different people,as way of behavior,as culture etc from Siberians.
But this thread was about the fact if Uralic languages speakers are more closed to Altaic speakers,than to Europeans and from my point of view,Fino-Ugrian speakers (Uralic languages) are rather closed to either Germanic people,or Balto-Slavic (included Baltic and Slavic in same larger group) people.
Would be very interesting to study folk music,folk customs and so on,between North Europeans,both Scandos and Balto-Slavs,from North Europe and Uralic speakers.
Cause I think you will find common folk customs between them.
For example,both Finns and Germanic speakers from Scandinavia share as a common folk custom that the bride should wear some piece of gold,on her chest/belly to bring fertility,at wedding.
EDIT:
This thread is becoming boring,without any Turkic native speaker coming here and bringing his/her arguments that Finno-Ugrian speakers are rather related to Turkic languages,than to Indo-European languages.

You seem to understand some of this stuff, there are many common customs.
Christmas is a good example, totally pagan tradition from Norway to Estonia.
We still have people dressing up as a goat, I hate Santa, we should have theme parks with Odin and Thor.

Idun
22-12-13, 18:57
It burned again, good show.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77c_1387649458 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77c_1387649458)

BakodiP
22-12-13, 19:13
You seem to understand some of this stuff, there are many common customs.
Christmas is a good example, totally pagan tradition from Norway to Estonia.
We still have people dressing up as a goat, I hate Santa, we should have theme parks with Odin and Thor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Odin and Thor are Viking, Germanic gods. Finns aren't Germanic people. So why would you like a Viking god theme park? I know there are at about 300 000 Swedish Finns (suomenruotsalaiset) in Finnland, but the majority of the population is Finn. You have Väinämöinen, why do you need Thor? :confused2:

Idun
22-12-13, 19:20
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Odin and Thor are Viking, Germanic gods. Finns aren't Germanic people. So why would you like a Viking god theme park? I know there are at about 300 000 Swedish Finns (suomenruotsalaiset) in Finnland, but the majority of the population is Finn. You have Väinämöinen, why do you need Thor? :confused2:

We actually have our own names for gods, just using english here.

Nobody1
22-12-13, 21:20
Ok, then I agree with you.

The so called Siberian component is a Mongoloid component;
Acc. to the last 2 Academic studies (DiCristofaro/Rhagavan) the "Siberian" component is most common in folks like the Yakuts, Evenkis and Nganassans; All Mongoloid people; Finns or Lapps were not tested - no idea; Estonians have only minor traces of this Siberian admixture but much more than Lithuanians (who have almost none);

ElHorsto
22-12-13, 21:42
The so called Siberian component is a Mongoloid component;
Acc. to the last 2 Academic studies (DiCristofaro/Rhagavan) the "Siberian" component is most common in folks like the Yakuts, Evenkis and Nganassans; All Mongoloid people; Finns or Lapps were not tested - no idea; Estonians have only minor traces of this Siberian admixture but much more than Lithuanians (who have almost none);

Yeah, that seems to fit. According to K12b, Siberian admixture is ca. 7% in Finns, 2%-7% in Russians (depends on the sample) and 0% in Lithuanians. The Evenks have 84%, Yukagir have 80% and the Yakuts have 77%.
Siberian admixture can be found in very tiny traces also in other european countries, but Finns and Russians (Saami not tested) have the most (although still minor) in europe. I think that their siberian admixture is different from the more common "amerindian" admixture and it is probably not of paleolithic origin but came later. I'm not sure whether it is linked to Y-HG N, because Lithuantians have it too, but they have 0% siberian.

Idun
23-12-13, 00:21
On the other hand, the ancient Dane is clearly shifted towards East Asia, and as a result clusters with Finns, which I suppose is somewhat unexpected because that never happens with modern Danes. So either there's a problem with the analysis, like, say, projection bias (see below for more details), or this Bronze Age Dane was in fact more eastern in terms of global genetic affinities than modern Danes. The latter might well be true if, for instance, he was a recent descendant of migrants from the east (like present-day Russia), and/or he harbored more Mesolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry than Danes do today. (http://polishgenes.blogspot.fi/2013/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric-bulgaria.html)


http://polishgenes.blogspot.fi/2013/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric-bulgaria.html (http://polishgenes.blogspot.fi/2013/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric-bulgaria.html)




The Egtved Girl [ˈɛɡtʋɛð] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Danish) (eckt-VED) (c. 1390–1370 BC) was a Nordic Bronze Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age) girl whose well-preserved remains were discovered outside Egtved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egtved), Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark) in 1921. Aged 16–18 at death, she was slim, 160 cm tall (about 5 ft 3 in), had short, blond hair and well-trimmed nails.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egtved_Girl#cite_note-1) Her burial has been dated by dendrochronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology) to 1370 BC. She was discovered in abarrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus) approximately 30 metres wide and 4 metres high. Only the girl's hair, brain, teeth, nails and little skin remain preserved. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egtved_Girl#cite_note-2)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egtved_Girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egtved_Girl)


So a noble blond girl from the Nordic Bronze Age clusters with modern Finns, sorry Nenets. :laughing:

Idun
24-12-13, 12:09
There may in fact be multiple layers of Siberian gene flow into northeastern Europe after the initial ANE gene flow, as our analyses
reported in SI 12 show that some Mordovians, Russians and Chuvash have Siberian-related admixture that is significantly more recent than that in Finns(SI12).

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2013/12/23/001552.full.pdf

Did Nobody1 read the paper? Your first impressions?

Petter
25-12-13, 17:15
Finns arent close to Scandinavians in terms of Genetics;
In autosomal-Admixture the Finns are completely isolated and Y-DNA Hg Finns are mostly N-M231 like the Mongoloids of Yakuts and Nenets further east;
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 direction, "taking over" the diagram. The Siberian component is ususually not visible. If Finns are plotted along Europeans and more distant people, they tend to cluster with Swedes, Estonians and Northern Russians.

Swedes may be the closest relatives of Finns, but for Swedes, Finns are not the closest, due to the Finnish genetic drift and the closeness of Norwiegans and Danes.

Haplogroup N in Europe must be seen as a marker for mesolithic genes, there is no other way to look at it. It is most common in the Baltic states and Finland, both refugia for mesolithic European genes, autosomal studies are very clear on that. It has a distant East Asian origin, but this hardly tells anything about origins of people today. It is merely a sign of some ancient migration.

Idun
25-12-13, 18:14
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 direction, "taking over" the diagram. The Siberian component is ususually not visible. If Finns are plotted along Europeans and more distant people, they tend to cluster with Swedes, Estonians and Northern Russians.

Swedes may be the closest relatives of Finns, but for Swedes, Finns are not the closest, due to the Finnish genetic drift and the closeness of Norwiegans and Danes.

Haplogroup N in Europe must be seen as a marker for mesolithic genes, there is no other way to look at it. It is most common in the Baltic states and Finland, both refugia for mesolithic European genes, autosomal studies are very clear on that. It has a distant East Asian origin, but this hardly tells anything about origins of people today. It is merely a sign of some ancient migration.

Finns will get their prehistory solved with the help of multidisciplinary science, having fun seeing it unravel.

Have you ever thought possible that Æsir–Vanir War could be linked to Sveas and Finnics?
If you take it literally that is what it basically says, could be that the Balto-Slavs have a better case, im not an expert of them.
But I can compile a long list of things that match from the stuff I have read and know about the cultures.

mihaitzateo
25-12-13, 19:25
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 direction, "taking over" the diagram. The Siberian component is ususually not visible. If Finns are plotted along Europeans and more distant people, they tend to cluster with Swedes, Estonians and Northern Russians.

Swedes may be the closest relatives of Finns, but for Swedes, Finns are not the closest, due to the Finnish genetic drift and the closeness of Norwiegans and Danes.

Haplogroup N in Europe must be seen as a marker for mesolithic genes, there is no other way to look at it. It is most common in the Baltic states and Finland, both refugia for mesolithic European genes, autosomal studies are very clear on that. It has a distant East Asian origin, but this hardly tells anything about origins of people today. It is merely a sign of some ancient migration.

I thought it depends on the area from where Swedes are coming.
With North Swedes,being closest to Finns while South Swedes,being closest to Norwegians and Danes.
EDIT:
Whatever,this is if you calculate the distance taking only paternal lines.
If you make an admixture test,depends on the test.
I do remember to have seen a test about Swedes from North Sweden,about Y DNA and I remember that N was making most of the paternal lineages there,but I do not remember where I have seen it.
Second was I1.

Idun
25-12-13, 21:22
I thought it depends on the area from where Swedes are coming.
With North Swedes,being closest to Finns while South Swedes,being closest to Norwegians and Danes.

Yep, Svealand, Norrland and Gotland are more close historically than Götaland.

But the strong mixing of population has been present in Sweden since its expansion.

With right testing you could find out the ancient links and population movements.

Nobody1
26-12-13, 20:43
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2013/12/23/001552.full.pdf

Did Nobody1 read the paper? Your first impressions?

And what exactly is your point or new insight?
There may in fact be multiple layers of Siberian gene flow into northeastern Europe after the initial ANE gene flow, as our analyses

And app. that Siberian gene flow (admixture) is more recent in Russians than Finns (i.e. older/more rooted);
And you know who has the most Siberian (almost sole) admixture? Yakuts, Evenkis and Nganassans (and poss. also Nenets) all Mongoloid people; So what are you trying to convince me here by pointing out that Finns were originally Siberian (before Russians)??? Dont get it - and dont really care either;

Petter
27-12-13, 15:29
Yeah, that seems to fit. According to K12b, Siberian admixture is ca. 7% in Finns, 2%-7% in Russians (depends on the sample) and 0% in Lithuanians. The Evenks have 84%, Yukagir have 80% and the Yakuts have 77%.
Siberian admixture can be found in very tiny traces also in other european countries, but Finns and Russians (Saami not tested) have the most (although still minor) in europe. I think that their siberian admixture is different from the more common "amerindian" admixture and it is probably not of paleolithic origin but came later. I'm not sure whether it is linked to Y-HG N, because Lithuantians have it too, but they have 0% siberian.

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 both were primarily caucasoid). They must have encountered a Siberian people on their more Eastern route to their present areas however, and picked up a notable Siberian component. They have most likely lived throughout Finland in recent historical times (this is a hot debate topic), and the Finnish Siberian component correlates with Saami population density. There has also been some Saami presence in Estonia, were there is a small Siberian component.

The Siberian component is not an ancestral Uralic component, however. The admixture date is far too recent and absent in many Uralic peoples (such as Latvians, who are N-rich and previously spoke Finnic languages).

Idun
28-12-13, 09:26
And what exactly is your point or new insight?
There may in fact be multiple layers of Siberian gene flow into northeastern Europe after the initial ANE gene flow, as our analyses

And app. that Siberian gene flow (admixture) is more recent in Russians than Finns (i.e. older/more rooted);
And you know who has the most Siberian (almost sole) admixture? Yakuts, Evenkis and Nganassans (and poss. also Nenets) all Mongoloid people; So what are you trying to convince me here by pointing out that Finns were originally Siberian (before Russians)??? Dont get it - and dont really care either;

I hope they cut your funding, you should concentrate on fruit flies. :rolleyes2:

ElHorsto
28-12-13, 14:47
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 both were primarily caucasoid). They must have encountered a Siberian people on their more Eastern route to their present areas however, and picked up a notable Siberian component. They have most likely lived throughout Finland in recent historical times (this is a hot debate topic), and the Finnish Siberian component correlates with Saami population density. There has also been some Saami presence in Estonia, were there is a small Siberian component.

The Siberian component is not an ancestral Uralic component, however. The admixture date is far too recent and absent in many Uralic peoples (such as Latvians, who are N-rich and previously spoke Finnic languages).

Possible. Looking more closely at the ADMIXTURE runs by Lazaridis, Patterson, et al. (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552.figures-only), K20 in particular, shows Saami have indeed the highest Siberian admixture of all europeans: ~13% (judging bar size by eye). Interestingly they also have a slight West-Asian admixture, although less than in most europeans.

Petter
03-01-14, 16:36
Possible. Looking more closely at the ADMIXTURE runs by Lazaridis, Patterson, et al. (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552.figures-only), K20 in particular, shows Saami have indeed the highest Siberian admixture of all europeans: ~13% (judging bar size by eye). Interestingly they also have a slight West-Asian admixture, although less than in most europeans.

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 widely held theory in Scandinavia AFAIK.

An alternative theory is of course that it is an ancestral Uralic component, but as it doesn't peak around the Urheimat, rather quite far from it in the Arctic region, it doesn't seem very likely. Additionally, both Mordvins and Finns have Siberian admixture of different ages that are both quite recent anyway, so they are probably recent influx.

Petter
05-01-14, 15:05
I think your "pure" of whatever you want to be agenda, skews our posts (in your mind), giving you impression that we are attacking you and making you mongoloid. Obviously you think that Mongoloid means a lesser human being, for some reason.

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 misunderstood, they should clearly state what they mean. Also, the way the Siberian Uralic ethnic groups such as Khanty and Mansi are branded as "mongoloid" in this forum sure does sound a bit provocative and aggressive. Same with Saami, who apparently "look really mongoloid" according to some in this thread. Saami only have a minor Siberian component and Khanty and Mansi are inbetween Siberian and European. Not even all Nenets can be said to be clearly mongoloid.

I could also turn the argument around and claim that perhaps many believe that everyone wants to be a pure European, and if a Finn argues against a mongoloid origin for Uralic peoples, he must be ashamed of his partial or original "mongoloidness" and therefore wants deny facts. I for one (while not being a Finn) argue against the "mongoloid origin" because it is not scientific consensus and most often based on unscientific arguments. But having a "pure European origin" is not necesserily the number one dream of every non-Indo-European speaking European.