Yes, Uralic and Finnic spread earlier than the comb ceramic.
And neither is R1a or R1b purely indo-european.
Printable View
Yes, but population of Finland didn't speak Finno-Ugric language at first either. I think I need to be more careful with mixing linguistic terms with haplogroups. Anyway, no matter what languages the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers spoke, Lithuanians have very large concentration of N1c1.
Certainly not, in a sense, that Finns also have fair amount of I1. I think the current theory is, that Finns were largely language adopters, who adopted their Finnic-language from Baltic Finns. It's seems certainly so, that Finns don't descend from Esths, like was thought in older anthropological texts.
This again depends on how we define "Balts". Are Balts the original population, or are they the result of the race mixing between Indo-Europeans and paleolithic tribes?
No.
Finns are more representative of the northern baltic-finns, while estonians are more representative of the southern baltic-finns.
Until the late medieval times, southern baltic-finns have been more numerous.
As I mentioned before, N1c is not purely finnic, and finnic is not only N1c. And R1a and R1b are not only indo-european.
The picture I showed before:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.fi/2012/04...of-us-all.html
The innermost core (the 3 Baltic states) represents the original southern-baltic-finnic area.
The outermost core represents the whole baltic-finnic area as recognized today.
That map is not a map of a spread of newer influences, it is primarily a map of lingering older 'european' presence. So for clarity, one should turn that map inside out and invert the scale (esp so because then the centre of white people would roughly coincide with the centre of white people ;) ).
As I said, finns are much more a genetic isolate. AND finns have a bit more eastern influences, and those additional eastern influences among finns can't count for the arrival of finno-ugrians, because the population centre was to the south of the Bay of Finland and that area was less affected by those finnish eastern influences.
Most of those influences are not 'slavic', if you remember that estonians are at the inner core of europeanness. Russians are not even in the outer core, russians are in the close proximity of the core. And I repeat again, the europeanness core here is not a centre of the spread of influences, it is the inverse.
I think that finns adopted only a newer more popular version of baltic-finnic language. That finns used to speak finnic or uralic even before that.
The 'estonian component' is still large, perhaps even over 50%, but that is not from one short specific period. There were several periods of migration to the north of Bay of Finland (and perhaps some to the south of Bay of Finland).
Exactly. Finns basically aren't "Baltic Finns" genetically. We just speak Finnic-language. The Southern Baltic Finns are genetically closer to Balts, than to Finns.
What do you mean by this? R1a in the Baltics surely came with Indo-Europeans, did it not?
Yes of course Finns have more Eastern influences, because we are more isolated and have less Indo-European/Slavic influences than Estonians. The Eastern influence probably is something the original population had all ready (like the Saamis for example). This again backs me up: Finns don't descend from Baltic Finns, but are much older genetic stock, which just adopted their language from the neighboring tribes (with some mixing involved too).
That reference is actually just an abstract, not even a poster, certainly not a scientific article.
And that abstract conflicts with your understanding of the spread of finno-ugric: one assumes it took place 6000 years ago, the other assumes it took place 4000 years ago or later - you can't use that reference to support your conflcting views.
PS. Comb-ceramic arrived to Estonia and the Baltics as early as 7000 years ago, so that is another problem.
And while comb-ceramic arrived to the Baltics at roughly the same time with the first local experiments with agriculture, those agricultural experiences are more similar to what happened further south and south-west, not what happened in the east.
No.
Balts are genetically close to southern baltic-finns, because they used to be one.
Finns are northern baltic-finns, a genetic isolate of baltic-finns.
I think it didn't come with indo-europeans.
No, the older swiderian stock did not have that much (more recent) eastern influence. The larger eastern influence of finns is not a sign of old influence.
Same with saamis - part of their genetic makeup is atlantic (solutrean, basque, berber), part is 'finno-ugric', part is samoyedic. The samoyedic part is the most recent part - and that has also influenced karelians and veps (and finns), but not so much estonians and balts.
So the eastern influences came about 2000 and 7000 years ago (and the Baltics did not get the last one), but the 'amerindian' influences came even way before that. And neanderthal + denisovan influences before that.
That 'unknown paleolithic language' had some funny and very familiar words.
The oldest placename with a -mere or -meri in Estonia dates back about 12000 years, to before the Billingen event.
Some other quite finnic placenames suggest Allerod period geography right during and after Estonia was released from under the ice shield.
There are conflicting schools of thought and conflicting theories.
It also depends on how to define uralic, or finnic or estonian.
Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether estonian is still a finnic language, or where is the line when estonian would cease to be a finnic language.