Turks with 10 - 25% Mongoloid admixture ( Turkish people autosomal DNA )

Russians claim this what what the original Uralic look like from 6000 BC...

I dont know what research that is that you are referring to, but according to current theories, Uralics began expanding from their Urheimat in the Volga-Ural region as recently as 4000 BC. The Samoyedic groups were the first to depart, going East.

Of course, where the proto-Uralics came from, no one knows, because the proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Volga Urheimat. They might have originated from the East, and in that case were originally mostly Mongoloid, just as Turks (although the proto-Uralic migration is far more ancient). That is just speculation though.

The Uralic family was very expansive and I doubt that the original Uralics were completly assimilated into the existing populations, given how wide-spread the family is. If the Urheimat-Uralics were mongoloids, I would at least expect a lot more Siberian admixture in Estonians and Latvians. Of the Finnic peoples, only the Saami can be said to have a clear Siberian component (which they have donated to the Finns, in particular the East Finns). Even a Komi or Chuvash-like origin seems a bit unlikely to me, a Mordvin-like origin not being impossible though.

Even though any kind or origin is of course possible, the most plausible is probably an origin rich in caucasoid the NE-Europe component present in the region.
 
I dont know what research that is that you are referring to, but according to current theories, Uralics began expanding from their Urheimat in the Volga-Ural region as recently as 4000 BC. The Samoyedic groups were the first to depart, going East.

Of course, where the proto-Uralics came from, no one knows, because the proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Volga Urheimat. They might have originated from the East, and in that case were originally mostly Mongoloid, just as Turks (although the proto-Uralic migration is far more ancient). That is just speculation though.

The Uralic family was very expansive and I doubt that the original Uralics were completly assimilated into the existing populations, given how wide-spread the family is. If the Urheimat-Uralics were mongoloids, I would at least expect a lot more Siberian admixture in Estonians and Latvians. Of the Finnic peoples, only the Saami can be said to have a clear Siberian component (which they have donated to the Finns, in particular the East Finns). Even a Komi or Chuvash-like origin seems a bit unlikely to me, a Mordvin-like origin not being impossible though.

Even though any kind or origin is of course possible, the most plausible is probably an origin rich in caucasoid the NE-Europe component present in the region.

I woudn't say that's the current theory if I was you. The Uralic people were associated with the comb culture and the people their were mongoloid and the exact people who inhabit the culture colored in purple are Mongoloid Uralic tribes like Nenets, Khanty and Nenets

As even wikipedia don't agree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheimat#Uralic_homeland

maw4lt.jpg




No you shouldn't expect so much Siberian admixture in Estonians and Latvians because DNA shows they are a mixture of Finns and Slavic people, in fact their mtDNA are exactly the sames as Russians, Ukranians with heavy frequencies of R1a at 32% and haplogroup I 15%

On the hand Finns are mixture of Saami tribes and people related with haplogroup I which is dominant in northern Europe. While the Saami ancestors were the Uralic from western Siberia who have 16.5 to 35% Mongoloid DNA, and the ancestors of these people are Nenets and they live where the Comb ceramic culture is located today.

haplogroupI1.gif



" With regard to the Y-chromosome, the most common haplogroups of the Finns are N1c (58%), I (29%), R1a (7.5%) and R1b (3.5%).[41] Haplogroup N1c, which is found only in a few countries in Europe (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Russia), is a subgroup of the haplogroup N (Y-DNA) distributed across northern Eurasia and estimated in a recent study to be 10,000–20,000 years old and suggested to have entered Europe about 12,000–14,000 years ago from Asia.[42]
 
The Siberian admixture is small in West Finns and Estonians, and largely missing in Veps and Latvians, who descend from Uralic-speaking peoples (Livonian in the case of Latvians). We also know from linguistics that early Uralics had close contacts with proto-Indo-Europeans, of which very few groups today show Siberian admixture. All this would lead me to believe that the original Uralic people were at least mostly Caucasoid, and that the Siberian admixture has come later.

At least in the case of Finns, it is a fairly accepted theory that the 6% Siberian admixture came from the proto-Saamis, who had in turn picked it up from a Siberian people. Finnish Saami have about 10-15% Siberian admixture.

Of course, Finnic peoples living close to the Volga urheimat have more Siberian admixture, so the original people may have been close to modern Mordvins.

This sets Uralics apart from Turks. While Turks descend from a mostly mongoloid population which has been diluted among Caucasoid, the reverse is true for Uralics.

I have already posted about the formation of first uralic people, basing me on a Hungarian scientists work: the first uralic tribes seemingly were first of europoid types, mostly 'proto-nordic' and 'cro-magnon' (these last maybe with a tendancy to meso-sub-brachycephaly) with a mixture with siberian people of more or less affirmed mongoloid traits like Sayanians-Toungids people -
after that proto-Hungarians take more 'Cro-magnoid elements when proto-Voguls, proto-Ostiaks and others got more on the siberian side, but not purely mongoloid- they did not speak to deeply about the Finnic speakers types, more focused on the ugrian ones -
I agree with you for the most concerning modern shifts -
 
I don't agree that every Udmurt can pass for European

241jo8h.jpg

2cgoi9h.jpg

2a4oh91.jpg

the girl on the central picture as almost nothing of a mongoloid phenotype!
and I think the first europoids of Paleolithical times have this kind of eyelids, higher in external corners than close the nose BUT WITHOUT THE TRUE MONGOLOID EYELID BRIDLE (it is easy to see yet among some Europeans from Portugal to N-Scandinavia - what I suspect to be the Brünn type would have the same eyelids model, with the inferior eyelid almost rectiligne, what is rarer in southern Europe "old types": but all that is based I reckon, on intuitive conclusions
 
a possible innocent cause of some disaccords here: are we speaking about the first geographially north-siberian types accultured by uralic speakers or about the first speakers of proto-finnic-ugric languages near the Urals??? maybe the so called "uralic" phenotype given by the Russians corresponds to the first case and is correct? but it is not the the most common type of the first "uralic languages" speakers?
 
I have already posted about the formation of first uralic people, basing me on a Hungarian scientists work: the first uralic tribes seemingly were first of europoid types, mostly 'proto-nordic' and 'cro-magnon' (these last maybe with a tendancy to meso-sub-brachycephaly) with a mixture with siberian people of more or less affirmed mongoloid traits like Sayanians-Toungids people -
after that proto-Hungarians take more 'Cro-magnoid elements when proto-Voguls, proto-Ostiaks and others got more on the siberian side, but not purely mongoloid- they did not speak to deeply about the Finnic speakers types, more focused on the ugrian ones -
I agree with you for the most concerning modern shifts -

I can't find your quote of a Hungarian from anywhere while my source comes from Russian anthrolologist. The Uralic expansion to Europe may have been mostly Proto-European with some Mongoloid admixture but the original Uralic were Mongoloid

Oldest Proto-Uralic by Russian anthropologist from 6000 BC
2w40mm9.jpg



( Russian translation to English)


FACE OF ANTHROPOLOGY

There has been an act of invasion of the Finno-Ugric peoples of Eastern origin in the territory inhabited by Caucasians. Dnieper-Donets culture has developed Caucasians, after which it mingled with the Finno-Ugric tribes. This is confirmed by the data from the repository and Yasinovatka, which (like the Vasiljevka II) is the most ancient among the other cemeteries of the Dnieper-Donets culture. Moreover, it contains the burial of non-simultaneity and divide the period of 500 years (between A and B).


Since culture comb-ceramic spread anthropological type, bearing the features of a "relaxed Mongoloid." In the anthropological literature, it is named laponoidnogo. From the point of view of anthropologists, "there is every reason to believe that the origin of anthropological traits media cultures comb-ceramics associated with the eastern parts of Russia." In particular, male and female skulls from graves 19 and 20 (Sahtysh II), belonging to the comb-culture and dating con. 4th - early. 3rd millennium BC. e. have pronounced Mongoloid appearance - "brain structure of the skull, face and horizontal profile morphology of the nose in two sahtyshskih skulls undoubtedly confirm their membership of the Mongoloid race.
 
the girl on the central picture as almost nothing of a mongoloid phenotype!
and I think the first europoids of Paleolithical times have this kind of eyelids, higher in external corners than close the nose BUT WITHOUT THE TRUE MONGOLOID EYELID BRIDLE (it is easy to see yet among some Europeans from Portugal to N-Scandinavia - what I suspect to be the Brünn type would have the same eyelids model, with the inferior eyelid almost rectiligne, what is rarer in southern Europe "old types": but all that is based I reckon, on intuitive conclusions

The first europoids actually had much larger eyes than modern day human, their noses was also much more prominent and physically larger.

If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her.

2012-07-02_10-44-26_303.jpg
 
The first europoids actually had much larger eyes than modern day human, their noses was also much more prominent and physically larger.
These are Neanderthal's traits. Ancient Europeans (Otzi) carried much more of Neanderthal genome than modern do.
 
I can't find your quote of a Hungarian from anywhere while my source comes from Russian anthrolologist. The Uralic expansion to Europe may have been mostly Proto-European with some Mongoloid admixture but the original Uralic were Mongoloid

Oldest Proto-Uralic by Russian anthropologist from 6000 BC



2w40mm9.jpg



( Russian translation to English)


FACE OF ANTHROPOLOGY

There has been an act of invasion of the Finno-Ugric peoples of Eastern origin in the territory inhabited by Caucasians. Dnieper-Donets culture has developed Caucasians, after which it mingled with the Finno-Ugric tribes. This is confirmed by the data from the repository and Yasinovatka, which (like the Vasiljevka II) is the most ancient among the other cemeteries of the Dnieper-Donets culture. Moreover, it contains the burial of non-simultaneity and divide the period of 500 years (between A and B).


Since culture comb-ceramic spread anthropological type, bearing the features of a "relaxed Mongoloid." In the anthropological literature, it is named laponoidnogo. From the point of view of anthropologists, "there is every reason to believe that the origin of anthropological traits media cultures comb-ceramics associated with the eastern parts of Russia." In particular, male and female skulls from graves 19 and 20 (Sahtysh II), belonging to the comb-culture and dating con. 4th - early. 3rd millennium BC. e. have pronounced Mongoloid appearance - "brain structure of the skull, face and horizontal profile morphology of the nose in two sahtyshskih skulls undoubtedly confirm their membership of the Mongoloid race.

read what I wrote: WHAT IS URALIC PEOPLE for these russian scientists??? here is the problem!
geographic dwelling ones or so called uralic (more correctly 'finno-ugrian') languages speakers: I repaet: here is the problem and misundertsanding will perdure a lot of time!!!
 
The first europoids actually had much larger eyes than modern day human, their noses was also much more prominent and physically larger.

If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her.

2012-07-02_10-44-26_303.jpg

what is 'mongoloid' typical traits for you???
her nose is not mongoloid, her apparent cheekbones can be found in some europoid subtype (she is smiling: modifying effect), her eyes are half closed by smiling: at first sight (and I'm interested by phenotypes since a lot of time) I can't see any mongoloid trait in her - maybe, if we had a better pictures or more than a side of picture we could decide?
 
read what I wrote: WHAT IS URALIC PEOPLE for these russian scientists??? here is the problem!
geographic dwelling ones or so called uralic (more correctly 'finno-ugrian') languages speakers: I repaet: here is the problem and misundertsanding will perdure a lot of time!!!

( Russian translation to English )

Ural race (western siberia )

Ural race - a race , which occupies an intermediate position between the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races. Characterized by straight dark hair, average development of tertiary hair , moderate pigmentation of the skin, predominantly brown eyes, sometimes flattened face , strongly developed fold of the upper eyelid , narrow , moderately prominent nose with a concave back . Distributed in the Urals (Bashkiria ) and West Siberia ( Khanty, Mansi, northern Altai and Khakassia , some groups [1].

West Siberian Ural race


Recently, for the trans-Ural race options instead of the concept of " Ural race," suggested the concept of " West Siberian race" [ 12]. In this case, the Western Ural race options are Caucasoid race , but as part of the West Siberian race remains a population with slightly more Mongoloid appearance, common among the Khanty , Mansi , Narym Selkup Tomsk Tatars and Chulyms [ 13]. West Siberian race consists of two physical types - Urals and the Ob - Irtysh [ 14].

Urals type are Uralic with the Mongoloid/Caucasoid look

Ob Irtysh are Uralic people were Caucasoid appearance with slight Mongoloid influence, this is the most dominant type.
 
what is 'mongoloid' typical traits for you???
her nose is not mongoloid, her apparent cheekbones can be found in some europoid subtype (she is smiling: modifying effect), her eyes are half closed by smiling: at first sight (and I'm interested by phenotypes since a lot of time) I can't see any mongoloid trait in her - maybe, if we had a better pictures or more than a side of picture we could decide?

Her eyes is very small and slanty, not typical of Europeans. Her nose and cheekbones are Europoid subtype but those traits can be found in nearly 50% of Europoid/Mongoloid hybrid aswell.
 
The first europoids actually had much larger eyes than modern day human, their noses was also much more prominent and physically larger.

If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her.

2012-07-02_10-44-26_303.jpg

much larger eyes than this girl in the picture and you will become an alien. It's not the size but their is indeed something small Asian about the shape of her eyes. Maybe this might change when she is older He nose and Check bones are also Caucasian. Also Caucasian does not mean huge noses, compared to on average broader and flatter East Asian or Sub Saharan African noses (this is not meant to be a assessment of their looks) almost all Caucasian noses appear prominent.

Take into account that she is children, and children have generally less prominent features.
 
Using pictures of children is really misleading and sly. Children have infantile facial features similar to Mongoloid ones (like wide-set eyes, low nose bridge, etc). Always use adult pictures when comparing different ethnic/racial groups, it will lead to less confusion.
 
I woudn't say that's the current theory if I was you. The Uralic people were associated with the comb culture and the people their were mongoloid and the exact people who inhabit the culture colored in purple are Mongoloid Uralic tribes like Nenets, Khanty and Nenets

The comb-ceramic culture is today considered to have arrived in Europe before Uralic languages. We dont know what language or genes the bearers of the culture had, but it would be a huge coincidence if it was just one language and one gene profile. Archeological cultures cannot be seen as proof of any race or language.

And by the way, the people in purple on the map most certainly are not all mongoloid, it covers Finland, the Baltic states and Northern Russia as well.

No you shouldn't expect so much Siberian admixture in Estonians and Latvians because DNA shows they are a mixture of Finns and Slavic people, in fact their mtDNA are exactly the sames as Russians, Ukranians with heavy frequencies of R1a at 32% and haplogroup I 15%

You dont consider it odd that the presumed Siberian admixture has disappeared from so many Uralic speakers?


Sure it does. That article is poorly sourced, but it still gets it right. The Urheimat is in the Volga-Ural region, where for example Mordvin and Mari people live today. Those people only have minor Siberian admixture.

Speaking of Wikipedia, the Swedish article has featured article status, and goes through the commonly accepted theories on Uralic origins. The Samoyedic people are seen as the first to leave the Urheimat, going East. Commonly Ugric (Khanty and Mansi) are then considered to have left East, but some claim that it was Finnic-Permic who left the Urheimat first. I see no reason not to trust academics here. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraliska_språk

On the hand Finns are mixture of Saami tribes and people related with haplogroup I which is dominant in northern Europe. While the Saami ancestors were the Uralic from western Siberia who have 16.5 to 35% Mongoloid DNA, and the ancestors of these people are Nenets and they live where the Comb ceramic culture is located today.

Not entirely true. Linguistic evidence shows that Finns and Saami were one people living in proximity to the Baltic-speaking peoples. Saami were thus not a Samoyedic people, and if you want to claim that, I think you are pretty alone with your theory. As they migrated north by a more Eastern route than the Finns, they picked up genes from a Siberian people now gone. They then donated these genes in turn to the Finns.
 
I can't find your quote of a Hungarian from anywhere while my source comes from Russian anthrolologist. The Uralic expansion to Europe may have been mostly Proto-European with some Mongoloid admixture but the original Uralic were Mongoloid

Oldest Proto-Uralic by Russian anthropologist from 6000 BC

As I said before, the Proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Urheimat, 4000 BC, so any theories on where the Proto-Uralics came before that are just speculation. Could be West, could be East, there is no proof.

Lexically Uralic languages are closer to PIE than any other family.

Talk of a "Uralic race" seems like pseudo-science or at least very dated science to me. Uralic peoples are not particularly related to each other. What exactly is the source?
 
Using pictures of children is really misleading and sly. Children have infantile facial features similar to Mongoloid ones (like wide-set eyes, low nose bridge, etc). Always use adult pictures when comparing different ethnic/racial groups, it will lead to less confusion.

That 1/4 Korean child I posted shows nothing of Mongoloid features.

Large eyes and long nose can be found in Mongoloid people but that doesn't in any way make them Caucasoid.
 
The comb-ceramic culture is today considered to have arrived in Europe before Uralic languages. We dont know what language or genes the bearers of the culture had, but it would be a huge coincidence if it was just one language and one gene profile. Archeological cultures cannot be seen as proof of any race or language.

Regardless the oldest burial shows Mongoloid/Siberian features. I see no reason why Russians need to lie about that?

And by the way, the people in purple on the map most certainly are not all mongoloid, it covers Finland, the Baltic states and Northern Russia as well.

Yes it does cover Finland but the Mongoloid people were not in finland is the culture that was spread to Finland.


You dont consider it odd that the presumed Siberian admixture has disappeared from so many Uralic speakers?

No I don't, besides Siberian admixture still reaches 1.5% in Estonia. It doesn't take long for Mongoloid to disapear in In washes away to less than 1% in 7 generation, only about in 300 years and we are talking about thousand of years. Estonians have genetic relation between Russians and Finns.

1 generation 50%
2 generation 25%
3 generation 12.5%
4 generation 6.25%
5 generation 3.12%
6 generation 1.66%
7 generation 0.75%


Sure it does. That article is poorly sourced, but it still gets it right. The Urheimat is in the Volga-Ural region, where for example Mordvin and Mari people live today. Those people only have minor Siberian admixture.

That's because their DNA are also mostly slavic than Uralic. They have 8.3% Mongoloid Siberian admixture.


Speaking of Wikipedia, the Swedish article has featured article status, and goes through the commonly accepted theories on Uralic origins. The Samoyedic people are seen as the first to leave the Urheimat, going East. Commonly Ugric (Khanty and Mansi) are then considered to have left East, but some claim that it was Finnic-Permic who left the Urheimat first. I see no reason not to trust academics here. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraliska_språk

Well it's your choice if you want to believe it or not.


Not entirely true. Linguistic evidence shows that Finns and Saami were one people living in proximity to the Baltic-speaking peoples. Saami were thus not a Samoyedic people, and if you want to claim that, I think you are pretty alone with your theory. As they migrated north by a more Eastern route than the Finns, they picked up genes from a Siberian people now gone. They then donated these genes in turn to the Finns.

Except that Saami have much more Mongoloid admixture the Finns and are genetically similar to North Europeans rather than western Uralic people.

-----------------

They have 75% haplogroup N but have 63% Caucasian maternal DNA. If haplogroup N was Caucasian one should expect Nenet to look predominately Caucasoid.

But Nenets are extremely mongoloid looking people.


Nenets%20on%20Yamal.jpg
 
As I said before, the Proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Urheimat, 4000 BC, so any theories on where the Proto-Uralics came before that are just speculation. Could be West, could be East, there is no proof.

Lexically Uralic languages are closer to PIE than any other family.

Talk of a "Uralic race" seems like pseudo-science or at least very dated science to me. Uralic peoples are not particularly related to each other. What exactly is the source?

The Saami even have some indigenous words that are not related with the Uralic languages which may be prove that the ancestors of Saami were not entirely Uralic


I've got it from Russian wikipedia but it's cited in several accademic Russian studies.
 
That 1/4 Korean child I posted shows nothing of Mongoloid features.


You implied here that she did:


"If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her."

Large eyes and long nose can be found in Mongoloid people but that doesn't in any way make them Caucasoid.


Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.

Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).
 

This thread has been viewed 226691 times.

Back
Top