Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 78 of 78

Thread: Are Uralic language speakers more closely related to Altaic speakers than Europeans?

  1. #76
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-10-11
    Posts
    1,040

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Yes
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Yes

    Ethnic group
    German
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    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., 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.

  2. #77
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    31-08-13
    Posts
    37


    Country: Sweden



    Quote Originally Posted by ElHorsto View Post
    Possible. Looking more closely at the ADMIXTURE runs by Lazaridis, Patterson, et al., 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.

  3. #78
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    31-08-13
    Posts
    37


    Country: Sweden



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •