When could possibly Ugrofinians have come to Europe?

@Goga,

I'm not trying to get you angry. I've got nothing against you. It's you create definitions(Eupoid=Caucasoid+Mongoloid) that aren't proven to exist, then base your theories based on those definitions. And you put character labels on people, like Saami are somehow ultra-ingenious. These are the root of your incorrect theories.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Lots of their ancestors had R1a. 80% of Irish have R1b, but 80% of their blood isn't from the ancestors who gave them R1b. Same for Finns and N1c1.

EHG is native to Saami territory. Saami are 30% EHG at most. The rest of their blood is EEF, WHG, and CHG. They have decent from the same Yamnaya-like and EEF/WHG-like populations all Europeans do. 3500 year old mtDNA from Saami country is unlike modern Saami. So, no Saami aren't ultra-ingenious to Saami country. They, like Norse, are descended of new people who came from further south 5,000-4,000 years ago. Saami are native to their country in modern times, but they aren't native when you go back 5,000 years. The reason Saami are viewed as these romantic natives, is because they've been conquered by Norway, Sweden, and Finland in modern times. But if anything Swedes are just as native to Scandinavia as Saami are.

There's nothing that suggests East Asian blood in Corded Ware. EHG looks like it had a little bit, so I guess Corded Ware had a melted down version of that.

CHG was discovered after the term Caucasian was made. There's no special relationship between Caucasus Mountains and Europeans.

What is Caucasoid? We don't know. It's a term for Europeans or West Eurasians, that's it. There's no exact definition of what it is. So, saying because R1* evolved in West Asia it has to be Caucasoid, doesn't make sense.

EHG is native to Steppe. They had very little Mongoloid DNA, and lots of R1a and R1b.
Click to expand...
I gave my answers already in my 2 previous posts. I'm not going to do it again.

The name 'Caucasian' is older than me and you combined. People used already that word before DNA. And the name 'Caucasian' is derived from the 'Caucasus region', period. This is a FACT!


All I want to say is that Saami in their homeland Lapland (Scandinavia) predate Indo-European language. Like Finns, they are mostly N1c1.


Europeans are not fully Caucasoid. They are Europoid, which means they are = Caucasoid + Mongoloid.


EHG is also not fully Caucasoid, but Europoid. Partly Mongoloid, partly Caucasoid.


The more R1* in EHG, the less Mongoloid it is. So EHG to the East is more Mongoloid than EHG to the West. That's because original R1* was from the Iranian Plateau and was Caucasoid...
 
Fire Haired14 said:
@Goga,

I'm not trying to get you angry. I've got nothing against you. It's you create definitions(Eupoid=Caucasoid+Mongoloid) that aren't proven to exist, then base your theories based on those definitions. And you put character labels on people, like Saami are somehow ultra-ingenious. These are the root of your incorrect theories.
Click to expand...
Once again and the last time:

WHG = Caucasoid
CHG = Caucasoid

EHG = Caucasoid + Mongoloid = Europoid . Native to NorthEastern Europe.

You can say that native Finno-Ugric speakers of Europe are somehow Europoid (Mongoloid + Caucasoid). Because they ARE native to Europe, and therefore they are hardcore Europeans. Finns and Saami are purest Europeans, even they have Mongoloid deep ancestry and Eskimos from Alaska are their relatives. Europeans are party Mongoloid. Mongoloid DNA is part of Europe. Why can't you understand this? Mongoloid is not only East Asian, but also Northern European!

Saami and Finns are 'ultra-ingenious' to their homeland (Scandinavia) as Eskimos to Alaska (Northern America)! And they are relatives. How great can it be ?!
 
For the last time and I'm gone:

Mongoloid DNA is native to NorthEast Europe. Mongoloid DNA is part of EHG. If I say that some Europeans are partly Mongoloid, I'm not saying they are not native. The more Mongoloid DNA some native NorthernEuropean folks have, the more native they are to Europe. Saami & Finns have more Mongoloid DNA in them than other Scandinavians, therefore they are more native to Europe. Don't you see? Mongoloid DNA is part of North-East Europe. Mongoloid DNA is part of EHG. EHG is Europoid means Caucasoid + Mongoloid...


" ... The Origin and Genetic Background of the Sámi suggests that Saami and, to a lesser extent, Finns were able to maintain their separate language identities over the centuries due to their geographic isolation in the Arctic while other peoples were losing their languages to Indo-European speakers from the South. ... "

for more : http://jgeorgeblog.com/2014/06/19/finnish-inuktitut-cousins-once-removed/
 
Eskimos are not very indigenous to their lands. For example, Eskimos came to Greenland later than Vikings.

Eskimos represented the Thule culture and they replaced previous native inhabitants - the Dorset culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture

Maps:

Dorset people = green
Vikings = dark red
Eskimos = dark blue

Arctic_cultures_900-1500.png
 
Goga, this post pretty useless as your mind is set but I still want to make clear that Inuits are not linguistic or genetic relatives of Saamis.
In this paper ‘Genomic study of the Ket: a Paleo-Eskimo-related ethnic group with significant ancient North Eurasian ancestry,’
they “found that: (1) Kets and Selkups constitute a clade closely related to Nganasans; (2) Nganasans, Kets, Selkups, and Yukaghirs form a cluster of populations most closely related to Paleo-Eskimos in Siberia (not considering indigenous populations of Chukotka and Kamchatka).
According to Euclidean distances in the ten-dimensional space of principal components on the HumanOrigins dataset, Kets were a closer population to Saqqaq than Nganasans, Selkups, Yukaghirs, and the other populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750364/

Paleo-Eskimo, modern Eskimos, Kets and Selkups are all yDNA Q folks. Yukaghirs have equal amounts of Q, C2 and N1c. Nganasans are 92% N1b and 8% C2 and Q (?). The common yDNA seems to be rather Q.

In my opinion, Eskimos and Paleo-Eskimos are Q folks and N has nothing to do with it. Moreover, Nganasan N1b is very recent. TMRCA of Arctic N1b (N2a1a) is only c. 3500 years. Saqqaq was 2000 BC in Greenland, and arctic N1b probably arose somewhere between northern Volga and South Siberia c. 1500 BC, so there is not any direct relationship with Eskimos.

I cannot post any image snips but if you are interested, N1b haplotree is available here p. 29 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2015/02/18/gr.186684.114.DC1/Supplemental_Figures.pdf)
 
Tomenable said:
This graph shows, that Mongols from Mongolia are ca. 90% Mongoloid and 10% Caucasoid - not 100% Mongoloid (like Han Chinese):

Mongo_Caucaso.png
Click to expand...
I think this caucasoid admixture even in Mongolia and Kazakhistan is due to Tocharian admixture. They have disappeared as a civilization but remained a lot of their genetics.
 
I think this ANE map is better


And this map of 450 ad as well
 
Hauteville,

Tocharians were not present in Kazakhstan or Mongolia. That admixture is due to Scythians and other Iranic peoples.

Tocharians were in Xinjiang, where Uyghurs live today. But Iranic-speakers were also there (and some still are).

====================

Andronovo culture (which I mentioned above) was Caucasoid, and they spoke Indo-Iranic languages. Here is a map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

https://archive.org/details/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6373-Andronovo-Expansion-(Map)

And this article is about a fully Caucasoid man found in North-Eastern Mongolia - he was one of the Xiongnu peoples:

http://volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Kim_et_al.pdf


 
Hauteville,

Tocharians were not present in Kazakhstan or Mongolia. That admixture is due to Scythians and other Iranic peoples.

Tocharians were in Xinjiang, where Uyghurs live today. But Iranic-speakers were also there (and some still are).
Click to expand...

Xinjiang (or Uyghuristan) in fact, it borders with Kazakhstan and Mongolia.
I think Scythians and other Iranics lived there were really related with Tocharians.
 
Yes, they were related to each other, you are right.
 
I checked Supplementary File 9 of the paper I referred to, and found out that Nganasans have 5% C2 and 3% O. Nenets have 1% O and 1,5% Q and the rest is divided between N1b and N1c. Selkups have 66.4% Q, 19% R1a, 6% R1b, 6.9% N and 1.5% C.

In any case, Nganasans are genetically very different from Nenets and Kets. Nganasans are close to Tungusic people who are mostly C2 and often lack Q. However, Tungusic people and Nganasans also seem to have true Southeast Asian admixture as they have yDNA O. Nganasans surely have a different history from other Uralic-speaking groups. Uralics have obviously mixed with Kets and Selkups who are more related to Eskimos via their yDNA Q.
 
Selkups have 66.4% Q, 19% R1a, 6% R1b, 6.9% N and 1.5% C.
Click to expand...

Interesting - what kinds of subclades of R1a and R1b do they have?
 
Tomenable said:
Yes, they were related to each other, you are right.
Click to expand...
Yes. If you remember on K6 of Lazaridis also some Native Americans scored some Caucasoid admixture like Mongols and Kazakhs, maybe some of them joined with Siberians and moved to America in the year of proto-Amerindian migrations.
 
In a new article (2015), southern Selkup yDNA is analyzed. They do not have any R1a1, and it is northern Selkups wo live on the tundra who have R1a1.

Southern Selkups:
Q1a3-L330 25%
Q1a3-L53* 18.75%
Q1a2 6.25%
R1b-M73 12.5%
N1b-L1419 (European line) 6.25%
N1b-VL67 (Asian line) 31.25% (shared with Nenets)

They have even three different Q ydna haplotypes. One could conclude that the Samoyedic language comes from South Siberian N1b-VL67 men who gave rise to both Nenets, Enets and Selkup languages in their respective groups.
(http://ling.tspu.edu.ru/files/ling/PDF/articles/volkov_v._g._109_122_4_10_2015.pdf)

In the article they estimate that N1b-VL67 is 3000 years old which would mean that Proto-Samoyedic language formed c. 1000 BC in South Siberia.

Northern Selkups:
Q 66.4%
R1a1 19%
N1b 6.9%
R1b 6.1%
C2 1.5%

Kets:
Q1a3 84%
N1c1 8%
N1b 4%
R1a1 4%
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland

Two interesting details can be added to the pule of informations:

1. About VII century AD the avarage hight of people was 158 for men and 147 for women. This is very short even for Middle Ages, but if we consider, that yet in XVII/XIX centuries Finns were consider as mongoloids, then this is understandabe - then, 1000+ years earlier, they had to be much more mongoloidal - so also shorter.

2. And about languages, what is compareable with data wich I mentiond earlier about, maybe whole quote will be the best explanation:

According to a widespread presumption,[6][7][8] Finno-Ugric (or Uralic) languages were first spoken in Finland and the adjacent areas during the Comb Ceramic period, around 4000 BCE at the latest. During the 2nd millennium BCE these evolved — possibly under an Indo-European (most likely Baltic) influence — into proto-Sami (inland) and Proto-Finnic (coastland). However, this theory has been increasingly contested among comparative linguists.[9][10][11] It has been suggested instead that the Finno-Ugric languages arrived in the Gulf of Finland area much later, perhaps around 2000 BCE[10] or later in the Bronze Age, as result of an early Bronze Age Uralic language expansion possibly connected to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon.[10][11] This would also imply that Finno-Ugric languages in Finland were preceded by a North-Western Indo-European language, at least to the extent the latter can be associated with the Cord Ceramic culture, as well as by hitherto unknown Paleo-European languages.[11] The center of expansion for the Proto-Finnic language is posited to have been located on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland.[11] [12] The Finnish language is thought to have started to differentiate during the Iron Age starting from the earliest centuries of the Common Era.


And it must be always remembered that before 1000 AD Finland had less than 20.000 inhabitants in the area of 500.000 km2. So, racial, haplotypical and lingistic changing were very easy to happend, especially, that there were probably many demografical breakdowns as in the later history also. The best known are 50% depopulation in XVIII century (probably mostly men) and 15% in first half of XIXth century. Considering the fact, that in first quater of XVIII century remains only 250.000 people, mostly women, it is reasonably to assume, that many women had children without official husband (as it was for instance in Paragway in XIXth century after huge depopulation) so it is probable that propotion of the races and haplogroups were shifted. In which side? Of course to more present picture: more nordic looking percentage of people and especially increasing of hg N, maybe not so much, but such pattern musted be also in the past, when population was smaller, what resulted in ugrofinization of these area in deep antiquity. Less than 20.000 people in such large area this is really very small population, very easly changing it's own image.

 
Last edited:
Rethel said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland

Two interesting details can be added to the pule of informations:

1. About VII century AD the avarage hight of people was 158 for men and 147 for women. This is very short even for Middle Ages, but if we consider, that yet in XVII/XIX centuries Finns were consider as mongoloids, then this is understandabe - then, 1000+ years earlier, they had to be much more mongoloidal - so also shorter....
And it must be always remembered that before 1000 AD Finland had less than 20.000 inhabitants in the area of 500.000 km2. So, racial, haplotypical and lingistic changing were very easy to happend, especially, that there were probably many demografical breakdowns as in the later history also....Of course to more present picture: more nordic looking percentage of people and especially increasing of hg N, maybe not so much, but such pattern musted be also in the past, when population was smaller, what resulted in ugrofinization of these area in deep antiquity. Less than 20.000 people in such large area this is really very small population, very easly changing it's own image.
Click to expand...

Great points!

When we compare modern European Uralic-speaking populations with modern Siberian Uralic-speaking populations, we do see a difference that could be described as racial, and I think it makes sense that Finnish-speaking populations have become more "Nordic" in appearance in relatively recent history due to admixture with (IE speaking) Baltic and Germanic populations. We, as humans, love to seek patterns and identify differences (basic psychology), so I would keep in mind that past (or even present) observations of Mongoloid features in Finns might be exaggerated. I'm not saying there is no difference, I'm saying that if one approaches two sets of people with prior knowledge of an ethnic distinction, one is likely to observe a difference that might not be significant.
 
RobertColumbia said:
Great points!

When we compare modern European Uralic-speaking populations with modern Siberian Uralic-speaking populations, we do see a difference that could be described as racial, and I think it makes sense that Finnish-speaking populations have become more "Nordic" in appearance in relatively recent history due to admixture with (IE speaking) Baltic and Germanic populations. We, as humans, love to seek patterns and identify differences (basic psychology), so I would keep in mind that past (or even present) observations of Mongoloid features in Finns might be exaggerated. I'm not saying there is no difference, I'm saying that if one approaches two sets of people with prior knowledge of an ethnic distinction, one is likely to observe a difference that might not be significant.
Click to expand...

The guy does not have a single great point, he is a *****.

He is lying in the height and population size and settlement regions for starters, he does not know shit and that is the reason Finns dont even comment to this retard.
You people know nothing about Finnish ancient history or more importantly about Baltic Finns and Uralics as a whole.
 
The Language Contact Situation in Prehistoric Northeastern Europe

https://www.academia.edu/20252178/The_Language_Contact_Situation_in_Prehistoric_Northeastern_Europe

On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory

http://www.academia.edu/1959273/On_Germanic-Saami_contacts_and_Saami_prehistory

Formation of Proto-Finnic – an archaeological scenario from theBronze Age – Early Iron Age

http://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/CIFU12-BookOfAbstracts_4.pdf

Spatiotemporal Contributions to the Linguistic Prehistory of Fennoscandia

​https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/135714

De situ linguarum fennicarum aetatis ferreae, Pars I

http://www.helsinki.fi/folkloristiikka/English/RMN/RMN_9_Winter_2014-2015.pdf#page=64

Kaleva and his Sons from Kalanti –On the Etymology of Certain Names in Finnic Mythology

http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2012/Heikkila.pdf

THE MIGRATION PERIOD, PRE-VIKING AGE, AND VIKING AGE IN ESTONIA

http://www.academia.edu/2237217/THE_MIGRATION_PERIOD_PRE-VIKING_AGE_AND_VIKING_AGE_IN_ESTONIA

Marks of Fire, Value and Faith. Swords with Ferrous Inlays in Finland during the Late Iron Age (ca. 700–1200 AD)

http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/119919



Estonian Journal of Archaeology


http://www.kirj.ee/archaeology


The Journal Virittäjä

http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/english/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 56620 times.

Back
Top