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

Veritator

Regular Member
Messages
686
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Ethnic group
Albanian, Greek, Armenian
Y-DNA haplogroup
No Genetic testing.
mtDNA haplogroup
Not yet known.
Please clarify and discuss the following:

Do European Uralic language speakers such as Hungarians, Finns and Estonians have Turkic DNA?

Are the original Uralic language speakers genetically related to the original Altaic language speakers?

Are the Northern Asian Uralic language speakers, such as Samoyedic people, more closely related to Turkic tribes than to Northern Europeans?


Please discuss.
 
Most Uralic speakers (Sami, Finns, Estonians, Udmurts, Mari, Komi, Nenets, Selkups, etc.) share a high percentage of Y-haplogroup N. The Hungarians are an exception. They have hardly any hg N (0.5%). Their paternal lineages are very typical of Central Europe (mix of R1a, R1b, I2a, I1, E1b, J2, J1, G2a). The only haplogroup that connects them to some other Uralic speakers is R1a, but that lineage actually reflects Indo-European admixture.

The original Altaic people belonged essentially to haplogroups C3, Q and N. They were joined by R1a in the Bronze and Iron Ages. In the Middle Ages, Altaic speakers left their homeland to conquer most of Central Asia, where they picked up a lot of the local Indo-European R1a lineages before reaching Kurdistan and Anatolia.

So if there is one haplogroup that links up all Uralo-Altaic people it is N.
 
Most Uralic speakers (Sami, Finns, Estonians, Udmurts, Mari, Komi, Nenets, Selkups, etc.) share a high percentage of Y-haplogroup N. The Hungarians are an exception. They have hardly any hg N (0.5%). Their paternal lineages are very typical of Central Europe (mix of R1a, R1b, I2a, I1, E1b, J2, J1, G2a). The only haplogroup that connects them to some other Uralic speakers is R1a, but that lineage actually reflects Indo-European admixture.

The original Altaic people belonged essentially to haplogroups C3, Q and N. They were joined by R1a in the Bronze and Iron Ages. In the Middle Ages, Altaic speakers left their homeland to conquer most of Central Asia, where they picked up a lot of the local Indo-European R1a lineages before reaching Kurdistan and Anatolia.

So if there is one haplogroup that links up all Uralo-Altaic people it is N.

Complete BS saying having a distant Y-DNA "link" is sharing close similarity with an other population. :LOL:

Everyone else in Europe are more related to Turks than NW Finno-Ugrians, tell the truth!
 
Correct, turks share a very minimal amount of dna with finno-ugrians, if any at all, about 5-10%
 
Everyone else in Europe are more related to Turks than NW Finno-Ugrians, tell the truth!

There is a huge difference between ancient Turkic people and modern inhabitants of Turkey (Turks). Turkic people do seem to have a connection with Uralic people. Both were Mongoloids at some point (and some still are). Turks are mostly Caucasoids, specifically, mostly descendants of neolithic farmers.
 
Turks are mostly Caucasoids, specifically, mostly descendants of neolithic farmers.

And also many Indo-Europeans;
Hittites (first) and than Thracians (Phrygians/Bithynians) that went to Anatolia after the Hittite empire collapse;
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBS
There is a huge difference between ancient Turkic people and modern inhabitants of Turkey (Turks). Turkic people do seem to have a connection with Uralic people. Both were Mongoloids at some point (and some still are). Turks are mostly Caucasoids, specifically, mostly descendants of neolithic farmers.

Uralics are and have been as Mongoloid as Indo-Europeans. :LOL:

I actually like to study Mongol history but it really is related to Turkic people.

What is this agenda to push Finno-Uralic people as originating as Mongoloid when you dont have any proof of that?

The Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans where born in the same place and spread together, figure it out.
 
Uralics are and have been as Mongoloid as Indo-Europeans. :LOL:

I actually like to study Mongol history but it really is related to Turkic people.

What is this agenda to push Finno-Uralic people as originating as Mongoloid when you dont have any proof of that?

The Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans where born in the same place and spread together, figure it out.

I must say I agree here. The Uralic Urheimat is adjacent to the Indo-European one, and the closest relative to the Uralic family is still the Indo-European. That is not to say that they are related at all, but the similarities are just far greater than between Uralic and any other family, such as the Altaic. And, the Altaic family probably doesn't either, it breaks up into isolated languages. To make it even more complicated it is more difficult to reconstruct a proto-Uralic language than it is to reconstruct an Indo-European one.

The original Uralics were probably similar to the Mordvins who live close to the Urheimat where Uralic linguistic diversity is the greatest. As for where they came from before then, who knows? Proto-Uralic in itself can barely be reconstructed, let alone can any kinship further back be reconstructed!

As for why Uralics are often "pushed" to be mongoloid, I guess Finnish nationalists such as Mathias Castrén are partly to blame. They wanted to find an origin of the Finns and thought they found it in Asia. Also, during the cold war people in the Soviet sphere of influence were "pushed" towards having a more Eastern origin.
 
Of course, if we think of genes as having West-East clines, then Uralic people have more East Asian admixture, as they live further East than other Europeans. For example, Finns have 6% Siberian admixture which is though to have come from the proto-Saami speaking people living in Finland quite recently. The Saami theyselves must have picked it up from a Siberian people living in Northern Europe.

But to say that the linguistic origin is the source of East Asian admixture in Uralic people, that is definitly a stretch. Perhaps the recently found component in the Malta boy is an ancestral Uralic component? (That's of course a stretch too.)
 
I must say I agree here. The Uralic Urheimat is adjacent to the Indo-European one, and the closest relative to the Uralic family is still the Indo-European. That is not to say that they are related at all, but the similarities are just far greater than between Uralic and any other family, such as the Altaic. And, the Altaic family probably doesn't either, it breaks up into isolated languages. To make it even more complicated it is more difficult to reconstruct a proto-Uralic language than it is to reconstruct an Indo-European one.

The original Uralics were probably similar to the Mordvins who live close to the Urheimat where Uralic linguistic diversity is the greatest. As for where they came from before then, who knows? Proto-Uralic in itself can barely be reconstructed, let alone can any kinship further back be reconstructed!

As for why Uralics are often "pushed" to be mongoloid, I guess Finnish nationalists such as Mathias Castrén are partly to blame. They wanted to find an origin of the Finns and thought they found it in Asia. Also, during the cold war people in the Soviet sphere of influence were "pushed" towards having a more Eastern origin.

I have not learned proto-Uralic is in anyway more difficult to reconstruct? Where did you hear that?

Well Swedish nationalists have also done a good job in making Finns mongols.
It is part of the historical pan-germanism so no hard feelings, modern science could even make Sveas our close relatives. :heart:
 
I have not learned proto-Uralic is in anyway more difficult to reconstruct? Where did you hear that?

It is mainly outlined in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Uralic-Language-Family-Publications/dp/0631231706

Well Swedish nationalists have also done a good job in making Finns mongols.
It is part of the historical pan-germanism so no hard feelings, modern science could even make Sveas our close relatives. :heart:

Probably, but a mongoloid origin of Uralics is usually not a controversial stance, albeit for the most part false. The Swedish Wikipedia article on Uralic languages has a good phrase: Even though the Ural-Altaic family hypothesis finds no support among linguists, it is still common in schoolbooks and similar publications. When I was young, I certainly believed that Finnish belonged to a wider Asian family, because that was what school atlases said. The situation is probably the same in most of Europe.
 
Probably, but a mongoloid origin of Uralics is usually not a controversial stance, albeit for the most part false. The Swedish Wikipedia article on Uralic languages has a good phrase: Even though the Ural-Altaic family hypothesis finds no support among linguists, it is still common in schoolbooks and similar publications. When I was young, I certainly believed that Finnish belonged to a wider Asian family, because that was what school atlases said. The situation is probably the same in most of Europe.

More study should go in the cultural relations between Scandinavians and Baltic Finns, they seem so close that there must be something behind it.
One reason could be the mutual need in handling the traffic on the eastern trade routes, I am talking even pre-viking age.
The clan system would have brought the exchange of wives to seal the deals made, and from just this there are signs in sagas and genetics.
 
Finns arent close to Scandinavians in terms of Genetics;
In autosomal-Admixture the Finns are completely isolated and Y-DNA Hg Finns are mostly N-M231 like the Mongoloids of Yakuts and Nenets further east;
 
Finns arent close to Scandinavians in terms of Genetics;
In autosomal-Admixture the Finns are completely isolated and Y-DNA Hg Finns are mostly N-M231 like the Mongoloids of Yakuts and Nenets further east;

If a French or English fur trapper lives and marries in to a native tribe does this tribe turn French or English?

If you have no idea of Finnish or Estonian history you are just ignorant, the other option is that you feel like a mongrel yourselves and take it out on those that have kept themselves pure.
 
If a French or English fur trapper lives and marries in to a native tribe does this tribe turn French or English?

If you have no idea of Finnish or Estonian history you are just ignorant, the other option is that you feel like a mongrel yourselves and take it out on those that have kept themselves pure.

Whats your message? that you have never seen a genetics study? that Finns are not Isolated or N-M231 like Yakuts and Nenets?

If thats the message than bother no further;
You have convinced me; Finns are pure Scandinavians - proper Vikings;
 
If a French or English fur trapper lives and marries in to a native tribe does this tribe turn French or English?

If you have no idea of Finnish or Estonian history you are just ignorant, the other option is that you feel like a mongrel yourselves and take it out on those that have kept themselves pure.

Pure? Are you serious?
 
Whats your message? that you have never seen a genetics study? that Finns are not Isolated or N-M231 like Yakuts and Nenets?

If thats the message than bother no further;
You have convinced me; Finns are pure Scandinavians - proper Vikings;

Your message was totally misleading so I think you really do have an agenda.

Why are Finns isolated?
Answer that one honestly and tell what is the founder population and first settlers of present Finland.
Where did they come from and who are the closest relatives?
Yakuts, Nenets, Jamaicans, Ottawa? :rolleyes:

Baltic Finns are not Scandinavians, they dont want to be, they never where and never will be.
But they do share a lot of cultural things and connections that are worth preserving.
Both where hardcore pagans with a cultural fetish for weapons, that is a fact, that culture is still alive.
 
If a French or English fur trapper lives and marries in to a native tribe does this tribe turn French or English?

If you have no idea of Finnish or Estonian history you are just ignorant, the other option is that you feel like a mongrel yourselves and take it out on those that have kept themselves pure.

no the trapper turns native

Finns are not classified as scandinavians. The only scandinavian countries are Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Finns are part of the baltic states, which is Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
But gentics like to associate fennoscandia zone with scandinavians
 
no the trapper turns native

Finns are not classified as scandinavians. The only scandinavian countries are Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Finns are part of the baltic states, which is Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
But gentics like to associate fennoscandia zone with scandinavians

And they should not be classified and dont want to be classified.

That obsession is for Central Europeans that are basically latinized serfs.
 

This thread has been viewed 52680 times.

Back
Top