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

Now you can get to work and study the matter, I will always accept an apology. (y)

I apologies;

There where no tribe or clan called Vikings

No kidding;

there where Nordic pagan tribes and clans that had a distinct culture.

Not so distinct from other Germanic people;

Yep, they are cousins to us also, Curonians especially, brave sobs.

Beautiful picture suggests otherwise;
Maybe distant cousins;
 
What about Yakuts who have about 75% N on paternal lines,but are Turkic speakers?
Is possible that they are assimilated Uralic people from Siberia?
I have found some of their folk tales here:
http://www.philology.nsc.ru/departments/folklor_en/t09.php
Something more about Yakuts folk customs:
http://www.yakutiatoday.com/region/culture_calendar_yakut.shtml

Yes, they are our Urheimat population, we are half Turk, half Mongol. :rolleyes:



Light_hair_coloration_map.png
 
I wish the Saami their own country.

Last time I checked the Finns were very Caucasian/European and not much of Siberian (~5-6% similar to Russians).


Turkic language family is relatively young. The more I do my research about it, the more it appears to me like a hybrid of Iranic and Mongolian. The Iranic substrata in Turkic is so strong that it goes even all the way into the grammar and is not exclusive to loanwords alone.
 
OK, Herr Übermenschpidgmin PGmc.:cool-v:

I never said that its Mongoloid;
I said that Finns are Isolated (not close to Scandinavians) and N-M231 is also heavy in Mongoloids further East like Yakuts and your all time favorites the Nenets; I cant spot a mistake;
 
I never said that its Mongoloid;
I said that Finns are Isolated (not close to Scandinavians) and N-M231 is also heavy in Mongoloids further East like Yakuts and your all time favorites the Nenets; I cant spot a mistake;

Your post did give the impression that Finns are not European and Nordic and closer to Nenets, that was a bad wording or intentional.

Isolation is from lack of mixing since arrival with the Central Euro populations, others in the neighbourhood have done it more since the Iron Age.

If you are for real you will take my advice and check the regions/populations I listed. (y)

The Sami skew your results if you dont understand the nature of the contact with Baltic Finns, they are the dominating population taking tribute and some of the tax collectors and fur traders mixing with paleo natives.

They where first to arrive, then came the clans and moved along the coasts and river valleys in the West of the country, later Karelians pushed from the East doing the same thing.

They Sami are giving back echoes and making you believe they are closer than you think to the Western Finns aka Estonians, Goths etc.
.
Part of the Siberian is not from Sami, it is original europid from the steppe where they rode taking tribute from the Nenets and Yakuts, no sable, give beaver. :LOL:
 
Your post did give the impression that Finns are not European and Nordic and closer to Nenets, that was a bad wording or intentional.

Than you got the wrong impression;
The Finns are most def. European and mass-majority/rule (Anthropology) Nordo-Baltic;
Are they like the Scandinavians (Germanic) - No there is a diff. in Culture (language) and Genetics;
Nothing to do with Good or Bad;

Isolation is from lack of mixing since arrival with the Central Euro populations, others in the neighbourhood have done it more since the Iron Age.

Thats exactly what Isolation is;
I have said that 100s times; Archaic, Remote, Isolated all go hand in hand thats why Sardinians (the other isolated Europeans) are very close to Neolithic corpses and Finns/Estonians to Hunter-gather corpses; Isolated is not anything bad; In fact an impressive continuity;

If you are for real you will take my advice and check the regions/populations I listed. (y)

Thats what i said 100s times as well;
Europe must be looked at in Regions (Historic Regions) and not national (modern-day) boundaries;
Both Autosomal-Admixture and mt&Y Hg's; many diff. feature from region to region; just look at the Alps; every 100 people village is diff. than the next 100 people village - but thats the extreme isolation (and incest);

They Sami are giving back echoes and making you believe they are closer than you think to the Western Finns aka Estonians, Goths etc.

The Lapps are an isolated case of their own and when exactly did the Lapps come to Fennoscandia area?
Lappanoid/Brachycephalic is very common in Europe;
The Brachycephalic Ancient Ligurians were examined (Dr. Virchow) to have exclusive similar features to the Lapps and they inhabited the Alpine areas;
.
Part of the Siberian is not from Sami, it is original europid from the steppe where they rode taking tribute from the Nenets and Yakuts, no sable, give beaver. :LOL:

I dont think that Fur-traders are that important compared to Hunter-gatherers in that region;
A much broader realm of which maybe the Proto-Yakuts and Proto-Nenets were equally a part of and later changed course;
 
Your post did give the impression that Finns are not European and Nordic and closer to Nenets, that was a bad wording or intentional.
I think your "pure" of whatever you want to be agenda, skews our posts (in your mind), giving you impression that we are attacking you and making you mongoloid. Obviously you think that Mongoloid means a lesser human being, for some reason.

The ones that see the glass half empty, that is not the attitude you go hunting or to war.
Can you be less cryptic?
 
Than you got the wrong impression;
The Finns are most def. European and mass-majority/rule (Anthropology) Nordo-Baltic;
Are they like the Scandinavians (Germanic) - No there is a diff. in Culture (language) and Genetics;
Nothing to do with Good or Bad;

I see very much common in the culture and think it should be studied more, I think it shows intensive relations, most likely trade motivated.
I cant see what language has to do with it, I see a distinct Baltic cultural region during the Iron Age that ended with the two churches pushing in the area.
I dont really care how close the genetic links are but I am arguing the cultural ties did not develop without kinship, that was everything back then.
That is only thing that protected your property and movements, no police back then.




Thats exactly what Isolation is;
I have said that 100s times; Archaic, Remote, Isolated all go hand in hand thats why Sardinians (the other isolated Europeans) are very close to Neolithic corpses and Finns/Estonians to Hunter-gather corpses; Isolated is not anything bad; In fact an impressive continuity;

Yep, it is a fascinating history.


Thats what i said 100s times as well;
Europe must be looked at in Regions (Historic Regions) and not national (modern-day) boundaries;
Both Autosomal-Admixture and mt&Y Hg's; many diff. feature from region to region; just look at the Alps; every 100 people village is diff. than the next 100 people village - but thats the extreme isolation (and incest);

Those areas I listed are the trade hubs and where people mostl likely met and arranged marriages. Luckily many of those regions contain very preserved populations, even with long recorded family histories, so they should be intensively tested.


The Lapps are an isolated case of their own and when exactly did the Lapps come to Fennoscandia area?
Lappanoid/Brachycephalic is very common in Europe;
The Brachycephalic Ancient Ligurians were examined (Dr. Virchow) to have exclusive similar features to the Lapps and they inhabited the Alpine areas;

They probably came following the ice, Im not sure how many paleo populations there where, I think there where more than one population and Baltic Finns came after what ever they had of value to trade or tax.

.


I dont think that Fur-traders are that important compared to Hunter-gatherers in that region;
A much broader realm of which maybe the Proto-Yakuts and Proto-Nemets were equally a part of and later changed course

I would say the value of furs and controlling its trade has been undervalued as an source of wealth and a motivating factor in general, but that is just me.
 
I think your "pure" of whatever you want to be agenda, skews our posts (in your mind), giving you impression that we are attacking you and making you mongoloid. Obviously you think that Mongoloid means a lesser human being, for some reason.

That is the problem of those that feel the need to lie about Finns being recent arrivals from Asia compared to others in Europe, I am personally a fan of Asian cultures from Mongolia to Japan.


Can you be less cryptic?

Yes, I can answer in a Finnish dialect.
 
Nelis et al 2009
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005472#close
preview_445209.jpg


I am Nelis et al and thats my agenda;
Closest relatives Sami/Lapps proper Vikings as well - All Pure;

I don't think this deviation of Finns shown is due to mongoloid admixture, maybe only due to a minor siberian admixture. There are countless admixture graphs in the web (dienekes, eurogenes,..) which show that this siberian admixture is marginal (~3%-10%, depending on the parameters) and not unique to Finns.

I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans. IMHO this map shows the "purest" hunter-gatherer autosomal component which is possibly linked to U5:
mdlpmesolithic.jpg
 
I don't think this deviation of Finns shown is due to mongoloid admixture, maybe only due to a minor siberian admixture. There are countless admixture graphs in the web (dienekes, eurogenes,..) which show that this siberian admixture is marginal (~3%-10%, depending on the parameters) and not unique to Finns.

I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans. IMHO this map shows the "purest" hunter-gatherer autosomal component which is possibly linked to U5:

Never said they are;
I said Finns are isolated and what that means goes without saying i.e. not inter-mixed with surrounding pops. hence the stronger Hunter-gatherer continuity;
Dienekes and EuroGenes are just Hobby-Blogs; Great to look at but nothing academic about it - just a side note;
 
Never said they are;
I said Finns are isolated and what that means goes without saying i.e. not inter-mixed with surrounding pops. hence the stronger Hunter-gatherer continuity;

Ok, then I agree with you.
 
Yakuts and Nenets are not Turkic population,they are Siberian population .
From what I knew,Turkic populations are Central Asians,coming from Altai Mountains.
If you take this image ,with Turkic speakers:
turkiclangmap.gif


For me,is very clear that actually Yakuts were conquered by Turkic people and they adopted Turkic language,from the people that conquered them.
I was not arguing here,I was just asking other people if they agree with the opinion that Yakuts were conquered by Turkic tribes and this is how they ended speaking a Turkic language.
From what I know,average Finn got some Siberian admixture but I do not think that (Siberian admixture) can be put into the category of Mongoloid admixture.
Mongolians are central Asians,they are different people,as way of behavior,as culture etc from Siberians.
But this thread was about the fact if Uralic languages speakers are more closed to Altaic speakers,than to Europeans and from my point of view,Fino-Ugrian speakers (Uralic languages) are rather closed to either Germanic people,or Balto-Slavic (included Baltic and Slavic in same larger group) people.
Would be very interesting to study folk music,folk customs and so on,between North Europeans,both Scandos and Balto-Slavs,from North Europe and Uralic speakers.
Cause I think you will find common folk customs between them.
For example,both Finns and Germanic speakers from Scandinavia share as a common folk custom that the bride should wear some piece of gold,on her chest/belly to bring fertility,at wedding.
EDIT:
This thread is becoming boring,without any Turkic native speaker coming here and bringing his/her arguments that Finno-Ugrian speakers are rather related to Turkic languages,than to Indo-European languages.
 
"I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans"

Nope, original paleolithic Europeans couldn't have been as light as the Finns and also not as Mongoloid as the Saami.

Saami can't be aboriginal because: Cro-Magnon skulls have typical Caucasoid traits: high nose bridge, strong chin, and long skull length.

Finns can't be aboriginal because: Blue eyes and blonde hair developed around the Black Sea only around 5,000 years and were spread by Indo-Europeans. They only spread throughout Europe during the Bronze Age.
 
"I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans"

Nope, original paleolithic Europeans couldn't have been as light as the Finns and also not as Mongoloid as the Saami.

Saami can't be aboriginal because: Cro-Magnon skulls have typical Caucasoid traits: high nose bridge, strong chin, and long skull length.

Finns can't be aboriginal because: Blue eyes and blonde hair developed around the Black Sea only around 5,000 years and were spread by Indo-Europeans. They only spread throughout Europe during the Bronze Age.

That must be it, did you know Arya means slave for Finns?
 
"I rather tend to think Finns and Saami are in fact closest to aboriginal europeans"
Nope, original paleolithic Europeans couldn't have been as light as the Finns and also not as Mongoloid as the Saami.

Why is this still relevant since we know genetic evidence?
I also once thought the Saami were part-mongoloid, but now I realize they aren't. They show borealization as the east-baltic 'race' too. However, mesolithic hunter-gatherers were probably eurasian dwellers anyways, so their asian contacts were probably frequent (see amerindian SNP and STR admixtures in north-europeans).

Saami can't be aboriginal because: Cro-Magnon skulls have typical Caucasoid traits: high nose bridge, strong chin, and long skull length.

They very well can:

Cro-magnon-53724682337.jpeg
width_199.height_307.mode_MaxWidthOrHeight.pos_Default.color_White.jpg


Finns can't be aboriginal because: Blue eyes and blonde hair developed around the Black Sea only around 5,000 years and were spread by Indo-Europeans. They only spread throughout Europe during the Bronze Age.

The La Brana sample has been tested positive for blue eyes already.
 

This thread has been viewed 52962 times.

Back
Top