Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: The origins of the Finnic Peoples

  1. #1
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.

    The origins of the Finnic Peoples

    They're basically reviews of what the author thinks based on the evidence thus far:

    https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/06/17/the-...innic-peoples/

    See also:
    https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/06/18/the-...he-bronze-age/


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-09-14
    Posts
    232


    Country: Finland



    3 members found this post helpful.
    He admits he does not have any knowledge about the prehistory of the region.
    I posted the same stuff I have posted to you several times, the ones you dont read, I dont think he will either.
    Finns are a mixture of Baltic Finnic, Germanic and Saami from the Iron Age, genetically basically the same since then.
    But as such are not representative of any other group, studying these components needs to start from where they originated, present and ancient samples are needed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    540


    Country: Greece



    The author thought 'And now I will write an article about a subject I know nothing about'.

  4. #4
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Ukko View Post
    He admits he does not have any knowledge about the prehistory of the region.
    I posted the same stuff I have posted to you several times, the ones you dont read, I dont think he will either.
    Finns are a mixture of Baltic Finnic, Germanic and Saami from the Iron Age, genetically basically the same since then.
    But as such are not representative of any other group, studying these components needs to start from where they originated, present and ancient samples are needed.
    Ukko, if I were to read and respond to every post on this site I'd be on here 10 hours a day. I read those threads and posts closely where I have a particular interest or perhaps some expertise. Sometimes, as in the case of the I2a thread, I get drawn in because of lots of complaints. :) Not posting much in certain threads is not a sign of dis-respect, it's because I have to prioritize.

    I assure you that if you summarize your disagreement with Razib's argument I will read it with care.

    Btw, by posting Razib's article I wasn't indicating that I am necessarily in total agreement with him. I merely thought they might be of interest to people here and might spark discussion.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-09-14
    Posts
    232


    Country: Finland



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Ukko, if I were to read and respond to every post on this site I'd be on here 10 hours a day. I read those threads and posts closely where I have a particular interest or perhaps some expertise. Sometimes, as in the case of the I2a thread, I get drawn in because of lots of complaints. :) Not posting much in certain threads is not a sign of dis-respect, it's because I have to prioritize.

    I assure you that if you summarize your disagreement with Razib's argument I will read it with care.

    Btw, by posting Razib's article I wasn't indicating that I am necessarily in total agreement with him. I merely thought they might be of interest to people here and might spark discussion.
    Sorry, did not mean you so much as others that have commented a lot about Finnic origins without looking at the latest research on the matter.

    I have posted on the relevant threads and the links are there for those that are interested.

    More than anything we need ancient DNA samples to track the movements and get dates for the admixture events.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    21-11-16
    Posts
    7

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-P37
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Ukko View Post
    Sorry, did not mean you so much as others that have commented a lot about Finnic origins without looking at the latest research on the matter.

    I have posted on the relevant threads and the links are there for those that are interested.

    More than anything we need ancient DNA samples to track the movements and get dates for the admixture events.
    I have went back and looked at some of the older posts on this forum and was fascinated by some of the links you posted. I was wondering if you could elaborate more on which cultures you think brought N1c and Uralic languages into Europe. I have heard Garino-Bor, Seima-Turbino, Net-Ware, Textile-Ware and axes of Malar-Akozino together with Mirby/Ilmandu and early turand graves as well as the earlier Comb Ceramic culture could all be linked with the spread Uralic and N1c.

    Also what in your opinion did their autosomal DNA look like?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697


    Country: Poland



    Majority of Ukko's claims were debunked many times. It really has no sense to repeat it...

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    21-11-16
    Posts
    7

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-P37
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    Majority of Ukko's claims were debunked many times. It really has no sense to repeat it...
    What do you believe brought the Uralic languages then?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by MontyK View Post
    What do you believe brought the Uralic languages then?
    Not what but who.
    It did Uralians/Ugrofinians who came here from Asia through Syberia in quite not far past,
    what was always witnessed surprisingly by folklore, language, race and archeology plus
    paleolingustic research wich is showing IE linguistic substrat everywhere where Uralians
    live, supplemented by IE mythology among Ugrofinians from Lappland to Syberia.

    The matter of debate is when, but always was consider the time of 2-3 thousands years.
    Could be, that some pioneers came eariler, but Ugrofinians didn't take over the north
    until quite recent times, maybe it was finally even in the first millennium CE.

    The racial change is showing, that Ugrofinians probably increased slowly survivung some
    depopulating events better than other people who lived there in the past. Imagine, that
    yet 900 years ago, in whole Finland lived 20-40 thousands people. Since the time when
    firsts Ugrofinians arrived and when whole area was totaly IE, passed then at least 3000
    years. And yet only so few people lived there, having in the past and in the future many
    depopulation events, like killing half of the population in XVIII century (mostly men, the
    more higher in the society ladder) what obviously influenced not only final racial change
    (cause Finns at that time were still described as partialy mongoloidic) but also increase
    of ugrofinian N-bearers - lot of women widowed and remained married (logicly more from
    higher classes and from more IE part of society) and many ugrofinic peasants and herders
    survived better in the villages and in the forest, so they quicker recovered and could more
    multiplied - also with preswedish and swedish women. Simiraly could be in the past.

    In 19th century additionaly 15% died in pestilence, what also could influenced
    the population - like race and haplotypes. So all of this could and surely did
    support growing of Ugrofinian influence on the north - the more in the past
    when people were very rarely inhabitating these lands. Founders of N-lineages
    are also not so old, at best 3000 years the oldest ones.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697


    Country: Poland



    One night passed, and here we are: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/

    Instead, we find that they are more closely related to modern Siberian and East Asian populations than modern Finnish are, a pattern also observed in genetic data from modern Saami. Our results suggest that the ancestral Saami population 1500 years ago, inhabited a larger region than today, extending as far south as Levänluhta. Such a scenario is also supported by linguistic evidence suggesting most of Finland to have been speaking Saami languages before 1000 AD. We also observe genetic differences between modern Saami and our ancient samples, which are likely to have arisen due to admixture with Finnish people during the last 1500 years.

    So obviously, there was few Finns 1000 years ago - so few, that they
    were easly reracialized but preserbed some original traces until XVIIIth or
    even early XIXth century. Lappish population always was few in numbers
    also, so logically, Finns couldn't be more numerous in the past, becasue
    then they would replaced them - but until 1000 years ago, they did not.
    And considering the fact, that their change of race took them so long can
    witnesses about their separation - living side by side with older folks, not
    totaly mixing, but constantly absorbing them century after century, mostly
    via female part as it is easly guessable (majority of mt lineages in Finland
    is european, asian are bearly couple of percentages).

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    21-11-16
    Posts
    7

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-P37
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Interesting, thanks for the link.

    Isnt this just the Saami that are tested in this paper though? Not the actual Finns?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697


    Country: Poland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MontyK View Post
    Interesting, thanks for the link.

    Isnt this just the Saami that are tested in this paper though? Not the actual Finns?
    Doesn't matter. What is important it is the facts which are showing,
    how late and slow the process of finnic peopling of Finland was. Yet
    1000+ years ago most of Finland was not finnic, and Lapps, as they
    were reindeer herders, were few in number - and still are. Asiaticly
    admixed population, no matter it were yet Lapps of Finns, shows
    where the (racial in this case) roots of Uralic people are, and both
    of those tribes are uralic, aren't they? And if yet in XVIII and even
    in the early XIXth century anthropologists were counted Finns as
    showing mongoloidic resemblance, then it witnesses they have it
    also earlier - in much higher degree up to 100% in deep antiquity.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Lukas's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-04-17
    Posts
    291


    Country: Poland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    Doesn't matter. What is important it is the facts which are showing,
    how late and slow the process of finnic peopling of Finland was. Yet
    1000+ years ago most of Finland was not finnic, and Lapps, as they
    were reindeer herders, were few in number - and still are. Asiaticly
    admixed population, no matter it were yet Lapps of Finns, shows
    where the (racial in this case) roots of Uralic people are, and both
    of those tribes are uralic, aren't they? And if yet in XVIII and even
    in the early XIXth century anthropologists were counted Finns as
    showing mongoloidic resemblance, then it witnesses they have it
    also earlier - in much higher degree up to 100% in deep antiquity.
    What a deep blow in Finn theories about ultimate antiquity of Finns in NE-Europe:)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-09-14
    Posts
    232


    Country: Finland



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    Majority of Ukko's claims were debunked many times. It really has no sense to repeat it...

    No a single one has been debunked by anyone.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-09-14
    Posts
    232


    Country: Finland



    Quote Originally Posted by MontyK View Post
    Interesting, thanks for the link.

    Isnt this just the Saami that are tested in this paper though? Not the actual Finns?

    Rethel is such a stupid untermenschen that he does not understand that the new study proves correct everything he claims has been debunked.

    Main point being that modern Finns got their East Asian admixture from the Iron Age Sami, Baltic Finns from ancient Estonia did not have that.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-09-14
    Posts
    232


    Country: Finland



    Quote Originally Posted by mlukas View Post
    What a deep blow in Finn theories about ultimate antiquity of Finns in NE-Europe:)

    What are these theories? All modern theories describe a late arrival in the Baltic Sea region.
    Seems like Poles like to make things up and make false claims.

  17. #17
    The Grand Prince of Moksl Rorik's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-04-18
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    N1c

    Country: Russian Federation



    Thats interesting

  18. #18
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,257


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 members found this post helpful.
    What do people here think of the increasingly strong assumption developed in many posts of the website Indo-European.info about Corded Ware being Uralic mainly because there is (until now) no strong direct link between Yamna and Corded Ware except for similar origins of their genetic admixtures? I've read quite a bit about that assumption, but it still sounds quite fanciful for me (after all, even if CWC weren't Indo-European, why does it have to be necessarily Uralic when we already know, through ancient DNA, that a noticeable influx of eastern-shifted admixture with a partly Siberian origin came into the region during the Bronze Age and kept spreading during the Iron Age right when many expert agree that Uralic material culture and toponyms/hydronyms appears?!). There are also some other problems in that hypothesis in my opinion (I'm open to change it).

    First of all, the assumption that Uralic was simply a steppe language right next to PIE but without the heavy Caucasian influx is still very doubtful, and many linguists in the last years have dismissed any close relationship between Uralic and PIE (not later than several milennia after their appearance, probably by 3,000 BC), some have even linked Uralic more closely to Siberian proto-languages like Proto-Turkic (and the author's hypothesis is that Uralic was the language of Sredny Stog, right next to the ancestors of Yamna, Khvalynsk/Repin). The premise seems to be that before all the transformative genetic and cultural changes that would lead to Yamna the steppes spoke Uralic. But doesn't CWC material traces only appear in significant ways after 3,000 BCE and especially after 2,900 BCE? Well, by that time the Yamna culture had already expanded westward beginning at least by 3,500 BCE and most definitely after 3,300 BCE. Should we really expect that all the former Sredny Stog population just vanished after the cultural change to the Yamna horizon without having ever shifted to the PIE language in several centuries (that is IF they didn't already speak some form of PIE or para-IE, given that they also received a Caucasian/Iranian influx earlier), even in the context of two neighboring areas of an open steppe where mobile contacts seemed to naturally lead to a certain degree of linguistic homogeneization? I don't know...

    But then there is the extensive Baltic and Indo-Iranian amount of loanwords into Uralic languages, and the fact that at least half of the Uralic branches are found from the Urals to the east (Siberia) - not in core CWC areas -, and the fact that traces of Balto-Slavic exist from , and the fact that if R1b-heavy Yamna was the sole responsible for the spread of IE we just don't see its wide expansion to the "core" Balto-Slavic homeland at all (Bell Beaker AFAIK didn't reach Belarus/Russia, for instance).

    And then the main assumption to circumvent the clear correlation of Y-DNA N1c and the spread of Uralic languages is that it came with conquerors that adopted the local CWC languages and went on to expand it with their own conquests... but, I mean, if N1c men just adopted the native language of mainly R1a-M417 men (Uralic), then why/how some nations with very large percentages of N1c are or were in the past Baltic IE speakers? Would N1c Siberian men have imposed their language, which was, for our surprise, Balto-Slavic, or will we need a third party to explain that, where N1c did not adopt nor impose the local language, we simply find an IE language? It's also interesting to notice that in a large part of the former CWC territory in Central-Eastern Europe we still found remnants of Baltic languages in the Middles Ages, from at least Eastern Germany to Russia... but, again, no remnant of a Uralic language was found there, at least not west of Latvia. Siberian-like admixture and N1c also happens to drop suddenly west of Lithuania.

    And there is still the fact that CWC-like admixture does not correlate well with many other branches of Uralic (maybe is that hypothesis too focused on Finno-Ugrian and ignores the other, less famous children of Uralic?), whereas all Uralic branches without exception have some, even if minor, trace of Siberian-like admixture (but not necessarily a relevant EHG/CHG/ANF mix typical of CWC), and so on.

    What do you think? Is that hypothesis really plausible or even probable? Do my objections to it make sense or am I confusing something?

Posting Permissions

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