Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
some of the Second half of twentith Cy Hungarian scientists thought that the basis of the first proto-Uralic speakers, concerning phenotypes, was a 'cromagnoid' pop (Russian meaning), it's to say 'proto-europoid' as an important component of pre-Andronovo people , kind of EHG for us; the admixture with Siberian pops would have occurred later when reaching more Northern regions West of Oural Mountains, admixture which varied in proportions because of different moves later.
That said, around the 2500's BC during a PWC stage, the crania of people in Estonia and Latvia (very few or almost nothing in Lithuania) became more mesocephalic, with lower and broader faces and more importantly with mostly flatter faces and noses, showing slight so called "mongoloid" input, from the East-Europe Forest zone, phenotypically on the direction of people from Carelia, themselves already a mix but more Siberian-like. But this input would have been almost erased by the CWC-like input in the Baltic countries a litlle later. PWC there = Uralic? Not sure. For Y-haplos I know nothing to date.
Concerning the question of discrepancies between language, auDNA and Y-haplos, we also can imagine that first Uralic speakers were more 'siberian-like', from farther East, and that after acquisition of Seyma-Turbino metallurgic skills they took the road westwards, assimilating IE females, and "European" mt-DNA and autosomes. Just to say things can hide things, and evidence is not always so evident; but I prefer rely on specialists of Uralic cultures!
Very interesting comment! Thanks for your input. I think these anthropological findings are basically compatible to what I believe was happening in the centuries before Proto-Uralic proper (not related languages and cultures) started to expand and diverge, which I think happened only after it became highly influenced by CWC.