When could possibly Ugrofinians have come to Europe?

No, I do not think that Finns were earlier and Saami arrived later. Finns are more related to people and cultures of the southern rim of the Baltic Sea and Saamis to the inland traditions.

Jastorf culture is not the origin of Iron Age in Finland. The paper I referred to above states that the first traces of metal working are from the Net Ware period and they are fragments of small drossed crucibles with net imprints on the outer surface from Kelka III and Tonda IV and celts of Akozino-Mälar type.

Bicicleur, I do not understand your last question about I1-L22. Finland is full of L22 and we have our own Finnish branch. The share of I1 in Finns is 29%. Saamis seem to have in particular I-L1302 which is not L22, and their I1 frequency varies between 20% and 40%. There is a sea between Finland and Sweden, so, to my undestanding, the connections became more frequent with sea faring, i.e. during the common era. Instead, Saami culture had a land bridge to Scandinavia.
 
Arvistro, you should read this article: (http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA13_51.pdf)

On page 2, there is a map that shows the extension of Net Ware (textile ceramic). It also covers northern Scandinavia and Central Sweden. The origin is in Novgorod and Tver oblasts, i.e. at the entrance of the landbridge to Fennoscandia. The artefacts show the following styles: Type A pottery < Fatyanovo; Type B < Pozdnyakovo culture and indirectly Srubnaya; Type C plain pottery without any particular style.

Here is the conclusion of the paper: ”Archaeological research over the past few decades has shown that the Net Ware culture in the territories to the north of the Volga was completely overlapped by and mixed with the Urallc Ananyino culture during the Early Iron Age. (…) A comparative analysis of the strata of ancient place names in Karelia suggests the conclusion that the earliest 'Volgic' layer of local names for bodies of water most probably corresponds to the Net Ware culture, while the Lapp (Sami) hydronyms correspond to the Ananyino stratum of the Iron Age and the Baltic-Finnish place names to the early medieval culture of the 10th and 11th centuries in southeastern Karelia (Kosmenko 1993).”

This could be interpreted that it was the Saami language that spread to Finland with an Iron Age package while the Finnish language developed on the coastal areas and had tight connections with Estonia and the southern rim of the Baltic Sea.
 
Arvistro, you should read the article by M.G. Kosmenko, The Culture of Bronze Age Net Ware in Karelia, available on Internet.

On page 2, there is a map that shows the extension of Net Ware (textile ceramic). It also covers northern Scandinavia and Central Sweden. The origin is in Novgorod and Tver oblasts, i.e. at the entrance of the landbridge to Fennoscandia. The artefacts show the following styles: Type A pottery → Fatyanovo; Type B → Pozdnyakovo culture and indirectly Srubnaya; Type C plain pottery without any particular style.

Here is the conclusion of the paper: ”Archaeological research over the past few decades has shown that the Net Ware culture in the territories to the north of the Volga was completely overlapped by and mixed with the Urallc Ananyino culture during the Early Iron Age. (…) A comparative analysis of the strata of ancient place names in Karelia suggests the conclusion that the earliest 'Volgic' layer of local names for bodies of water most probably corresponds to the Net Ware culture, while the Lapp (Sami) hydronyms correspond to the Ananyino stratum of the Iron Age and the Baltic-Finnish place names to the early medieval culture of the 10th and 11th centuries in southeastern Karelia (Kosmenko 1993).”

This could be interpreted that it was the Saami language that spread to Finland with an Iron Age package while the Finnish language developed on the coastal areas and had tight connections with Estonia and the southern rim of the Baltic Sea.
 
No, I do not think that Finns were earlier and Saami arrived later. Finns are more related to people and cultures of the southern rim of the Baltic Sea and Saamis to the inland traditions.

Jastorf culture is not the origin of Iron Age in Finland. The paper I referred to above states that the first traces of metal working are from the Net Ware period and they are fragments of small drossed crucibles with net imprints on the outer surface from Kelka III and Tonda IV and celts of Akozino-Mälar type.

Bicicleur, I do not understand your last question about I1-L22. Finland is full of L22 and we have our own Finnish branch. The share of I1 in Finns is 29%. Saamis seem to have in particular I-L1302 which is not L22, and their I1 frequency varies between 20% and 40%. There is a sea between Finland and Sweden, so, to my undestanding, the connections became more frequent with sea faring, i.e. during the common era. Instead, Saami culture had a land bridge to Scandinavia.

it seems to me I1-L22 (itself or at least some subclades) is a southern Finnish clade which spread later with Germanic tribes or with Vikings
 
According to y full, I-CTS2208 formed 4100 ybp, with the TMRCA of 2800 ybp, and I-L287 formed 2800 ybp with the TMRCA of 1900 ybp, and both can be considered valid age estimates for the typical Finnish I1 line, so it cannot be from Vikings as they started sailing along the Finnish coasts 800 AD. By comparison, according to y full, a typically Scandinavian branch under L22, i.e. I-Y5476, was formed 3500 ybp with the TMRCA of 2700 ybp. When you check the y full I1 tree, you see that in Finland there are several rare haplotypes that do not sit on a Scandinavian branch.

Do you think that I1 men who came to Finland maybe even c. 2000 BC or at least c. 1000 BC spoke a Germanic language? Wikipedia proposes that Proto-Germanic was likely spoken after c. 500 BC.

My own guesses for the origin of Finnish yDNA haplogroups are the following:
Comb Ceramic: N1b and/or R1a (of Karelian HG type) and/or Q (all nearly or completely extinct)
Corded Ware (3200-2300 BC): N1c-VL29 (formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3500 ybp) and/or R1a1-Z280
Kiukainen Culture (farming culture, 2300-1700 BC): I1-L22
Net Ware (inland Bronze Age culture 1500-500 BC): N1c-Z1935 (formed 3700 ybp, TMRCA 2600 ybp)
Iron Age under the Ananyino culture: N1c-Z1939 (formed 1850 ybp, TMRCA 1300 ybp) and/or N1c-Z1941 ’Karelia’ (formed 1850 ybp, TMRCA 1750 ybp) and/or N1c-CTS4329 ’Savo’ (formed 2100 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybp)

N1c-Z1939, N1c-Z1941 and N1c-CTS4329 are all under N1c-Z1935. IMO, N1c-Z1935 arose somewhere close to Vologda area and did not originate directly from Ananyino culture but was influenced by it and may have thus adopted its language.

We definitely need ancient yDNA from Finland in order to say anything definitive about I1.

Mesolithic yDNA seems to have disappeared everywhere, so why not in Finland. The extinction is probably also due to lower resistance to epidemies and not only to social and economic factors.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the Finnish language was introduced by a handful of high prestige iron workers or chieftains whose yDNA (specific N1c haplotypes) spread wildly in a sparsly populated country. However, this is all pure speculation as long as we do not have any ancient yDNA or autosomal studies from the relevant periods and cultures. In any case, it is clear that there was not any cultural or genetic turnover during the Iron Age.

It is not really speculation as N1c, the Uralic language, material finds, even horses and cattle, originate from the same place in the Volga region.

There is no better proof at this time for any other theory, if this is speculation everything else is fantasy.
 
There are many questions that are still open: origin of N1c-VL29 and its relation to Corded Ware, identification of Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov yDNA and the question of Siberian yDNA, the share of Combed Ware DNA in Finns and its yDNA identification. Also the detection of ancient N1c-Z1935 would shed a lot of light on the expansion and time frame of Uralic languages.

Autosomally, Finns are not particularly close to Volga Uralic groups, and there are big differences in haplogroup frequencies: mtDNA U5b is old and important in Finns while U4 is scarce is recent and mtDNA U4 is old and important in Volga Uralic groups and U5b rare, and the Siberian mtDNA haplogroups are not the same; Volga Uralic groups have high amounts of R1a1 (mostly R-Z282 and R-M558) and their yDNA N1c is an early Ananyino branch of N1c which is non-existent in Finns while Finns have high amounts of N1c-VL29 and I1 which are rare in Volga Ural.

In order to understand the relationship between IE languages and Uralic languages and to resolve the Indo-Uralic hypothesis we need yDNA and autosomal data from both Fatyanovo and Balanovo, as well as from Ananyino, Combed Ware and Finnish Corded Ware contexts.
 
Mesolithic yDNA seems to have disappeared everywhere, so why not in Finland. The extinction is probably also due to lower resistance to epidemies and not only to social and economic factors.[/QUOTE]

It did disappear in the places where it was no population continuity. For instance Cucuteni- Trypillian culture - I2a1b-L621 - whose gene prints are still present in up to 30% of SE Europe? Aren't they direct descedents of I2a mesolithic populations?
 
UgroFinid or FinoUgrid race is much more native to Europe than Indo-Europeans. FinoUgric folks were in Europe much earlier before Indo-Europeans arrived.
 
UgroFinid or FinoUgrid race is much more native to Europe than Indo-Europeans. FinoUgric folks were in Europe much earlier before Indo-Europeans arrived.

Don't put character labels on ancient people. Ancient people had little knowledge of history and geography. FinoUrgics aren't romantic native people of Europe. They don't know their own history, geography, even aware FinoUrgic is a language family, and know little about other humans. There isn't a native European identity or character. People who have lived in a land for 20,000 years, will have the same mindset about life Mexicans do, who have a young and genetically-mixed history. Being native or not doesn't matter if no one is aware of it or cares.

I don't understand why you like labeling FinoUrgics and N1c as "native to Europe", and Indo Europeans having a boring unromantic and young history. This is similar to the stupid obsession some had with Basque and R1b. Basque aren't Paleolithic-relics, they're culture and identity is defined by recent events. Anyways, your want for FinoUrgics to be native, is used to defend your want for PIE to be from West Asia not Europe. Your want for PIE to be from West Asia is also stupid. It doesn't make Kurds or whoever else greater. They were never aware of it, it isn't apart of who they're are. It's a distant pre-historic event no one was aware of at the time or is today(without academics). The PIE weren't like "We're superior PIE. We will dominate other people and have a shared PIE identity for 1,000s of years."

Anyways, FinoUrgics aren't anymore ingenious to Europe than their IE neighbors. The most ingenious people to Europe were WHG/EHG. EHG lived in FinoUrgics territory. Yet, FinoUrgics at most are like 30% EHG. And most of their EHG isn't from the regions they live in today. They have lots of Caucasus(CHG) blood and especially Western European blood(EEF and WHG). They also have loads of Siberian blood that EHG didn't have. There were huge replacement events in FinoUrgic lands, even as recent as 3500 years ago(proven by mtDNA years ago).

IEs are almost definitely native to Russia and Ukraine. They lived in the same area as Finno-Urgics, mixed with Finno-Urgics, and therefore modern FinoUrgics and IE North Europeans are very similar. Finnish are some of Corded Ware's closest relatives, so it's clear they have lots of IE blood. The Western blood(EEF, WHG) in FinoUrgics, especially Finnish, is evidence they have loads of IE-blood. How else did EEF/WHG get to Volga Russia? It appears in 2500 BC with a R1a-Z93 guy. The EEF/WHG in Finourgics of Russia, came via IE admixture, whether it be Slavs or Sycthians or whoever else.
 
Saami predate all Indo-European speakers in Europe. Saami are Finno-Ugrid, so Finno-Ugrid race was before Indo-Eropean speakers. This is a FACT! But it's true that Europoid race in Europe is a mixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid (Fino-Ugrid) race.

Europoid = Caucasoid + Mongoloid

Native people of Western Russia/Ukraine were I2 and N1c1. Exactly, partly Caucasoid (I2) and partly Mongoloid (N1c1).



Scythians were native peoples in the Steppes, partly Mongoloid, partly Europoid with minor Iranid DNA who spoke an East Iranic language, I'm sure because of the Aryan influence and the Iranid elite dominance from the Iranian Plateau they adapted an East Iranic language from BMAC. But they were not really Iranid, Iranid DNA was heavily diluted by Mongoloid/Europoid DNA of Scythians in the Eastern Steppes.


Btw, Scythian kings were destroyed by the West Iranid (Aryan) Medes in Kurdistan, lol.
 
Saami predate all Indo-European speakers in Europe. Saami are Finno-Ugrid, so Finno-Ugrid race was before Indo-Eropean speakers. This is a FACT! But it's true that Europoid race in Europe is a mixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid (Fino-Ugrid) race.
If you had a clue regarding new developments you might find that Saami has quite some layer of pre-FU substrate words, that are lacking in other FU folk.
"In the north, a similar scenario to Indo-European is thought to have occurred with Uralic languages expanding in from the east. In particular, while the Sami languages of the indigenous Sami people belong in the Uralic family, they show considerable substrate influence, thought to represent one or more extinct original languages. The Sami are estimated to have adopted a Uralic language less than 2,500 years ago.[2] Some traces of indigenous languages of the Baltic area have been suspected in the Finnic languagesas well, but these are much more modest. There are early loanwords from unidentified non-IE languages in other Uralic languages of Europe as well.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-European_languages#North_Europe
[2] Aikio, Ante (2004). "An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami".
[3] Ringe, Don (January 6, 2009). "The Linguistic Diversity of Aboriginal Europe". Language Log. Mark Liberman. Retrieved 22 September 2011
 
If you had a clue regarding new developments you might find that Saami has quite some layer of pre-FU substrate words, that are lacking in other FU folk.
"In the north, a similar scenario to Indo-European is thought to have occurred with Uralic languages expanding in from the east. In particular, while the Sami languages of the indigenous Sami people belong in the Uralic family, they show considerable substrate influence, thought to represent one or more extinct original languages. The Sami are estimated to have adopted a Uralic language less than 2,500 years ago.[2] Some traces of indigenous languages of the Baltic area have been suspected in the Finnic languagesas well, but these are much more modest. There are early loanwords from unidentified non-IE languages in other Uralic languages of Europe as well.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-European_languages#North_Europe
[2] Aikio, Ante (2004)."An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami".
[3] Ringe, Don (January 6, 2009). "The Linguistic Diversity of Aboriginal Europe". Language Log. Mark Liberman. Retrieved 22 September 2011
I guess you missed this line? "There are early loanwords from unidentified non-IE languages in other Uralic languages of Europe as well.[3]""


I'm sure it was some kind of Finno-Ugric, Ugric or other Mongoloid language related to Finno-Ugric!


N1c1 has Mongoloid roots. FACT Finnish population belongs for 61.5 % to N1c1, and yeah they speak Finno-Ugric. Baltic folks are also for a huge part (+ 45% ) Finno-Ugric / Mongoloid. And yeah even part of the Baltics folks, like the Estonians, speak Finno-Ugric as a native language

But hey,

max population of Estonians is 1 million (34% N1c1 = 340000 people) = native speakers of Finno-Ugric
max population of Lithuania is 2,8 million ( 42% N1c1 = 1.18 million people)
max population of Latvia is 2 million (38% N1c1 = 760000 people)


Although, a lot of them are Slavic and ethnic Russian

So, of course such a minor and small population as native Baltic folks are heavily mixed people. Small populations is easily getting influeced by other, while it is impossible for them to influence others by race or language or culture...
 
2000 years ago there lived maybe only max 5000 - 10000 humans in the Baltic states , of course they were heavily mixed and influenced with everybody who came to their land.
 
I guess you missed this line? "There are early loanwords from unidentified non-IE languages in other Uralic languages of Europe as well.[3]""
I guess you missed two lines before the one you enjoyed so much :D

I'm sure it was some kinf of Finno_Ugric, Ugric or a Mongoloid language related to Finno-Ugric

Yes, you are sure. Let me guess - that is because you have not read the source article?

Also, have you read Kourtland's Indo-Uralic? Better don't, you may never find your inner peace after :D

N1c1 has Mongoloid roots. Finnish population belongs for 61.5 % to N1c1, and yes they speak Finno-Ugric. Baltic folks a re also for a huge part (+ 45% ) Finno-Ugric / Mongoloid. And yeah even part of the Baltics folks, Estonians, speak Finno-Ugric
Must be why Finns have highest IQ in Europe and one of the highest in the world, after Mongoloids proper, that is :)
On a serious note, I missed your point.
 
2 options: or they killed them or they f*cked with them. There're now 3-5 million folks in the Baltics and 5 million in Finland. So that makes 8-10 million. At least 50% of them belong to N1c1.

2000 years ago there lived maybe 15000 - 20000 people in those areas combined. It was a very very tiny population. Almost nothing.

And N1c1 is and was the most important part of those. And there're many other haplogroups, not just 1 or 2. So I'm almost certain that every new groups (Indo-European) from the east were assimiltaed by the natives of Finland and Baltics. Some of them started to speak Baltic languages, lol.
 
I guess you missed two lines before the one you enjoyed so much :D

Yes, you are sure. Let me guess - that is because you have not read the source article?

Also, have you read Kourtland's Indo-Uralic? Better don't, you may never find your inner peace after :D


Must be why Finns have highest IQ in Europe and one of the highest in the world, after Mongoloids proper, that is :)
On a serious note, I missed your point.
Read what I wrote about the very tiny population of the Baltics. 2000 years ago they were even much, much more irrelevant then they are now. What could they do with such a small population of 5000 people (men, women, children). Invade India, like some deranged people believe, LMAO???

Who cares, my IQ is much higher than average Finnish IQ!

Modern Indo-European loanwords in Finnish came much, much later after Indo-European was formed. There was a contact between Uralic and Indo-European people around Yamnaya and even in the Eastern Steppes (East Iranian speakers).

But, same can be said about Semitic and Indo-European. Or Tukic and Indo-European.


But on the other side Kartvelian (Caucasus group) and Indo-European share the same deep ancient roots.
 
Read what I wrote about the very tiny population of the Baltics. 2000 years ago they were even much, much more irrelevant then they are now. What could they do with such a small population of 5000 people (men, women, children). Invade India, like some deranged people believe, LMAO???

Who cares, my IQ is much higher than average Finnish IQ!

Modern Indo-European loanwords in Finnish came much, much later after Indo-European was formed. There was a contact between Uralic and Indo-European people around Yamnaya and even in the Eastern Steppes (East Iranian speakers).

But, same can be said about Semitic and Indo-European. Or Tukic and Indo-European.


But on the other side Kartvelian (Caucasus group) and Indo-European share the same deep ancient roots.
So, you have not read Kourtlandt, too.... It is not about loanwords, it is about skeleton of the language...
You seem to argue a lot on subjects that you have not read anything or just cherry picked the info you liked :)
 
So, you have not read Kourtlandt, too.... It is not about loanwords, it is about skeleton of the language...
You seem to argue a lot on subjects that you have not read anything or just cherry picked the info you liked :)
No, I didn't read the book. Why should I read a nonsense book? Don't have time for it. I would read Dune again instead. Better science fiction. But I read many arguments of people who refer to that book. And their arguments s*ck big time!

I see you're from Latvia. You like it or not, but you are at least 40% Mongoloid/Finni-Ugric ...
 
No, I didn't read the book. Why should I read a nonsense book? Don't have time for it. I would read Dune again instead. Better science fiction. But I read many arguments of people who refer to that book. And their arguments s*ck big time!
Do you have a degree in linguistics preferably in area of comparative linguistics to be able to assess arguments in the area?
 

This thread has been viewed 56411 times.

Back
Top