Finns in a Genetic Class of their Own

[Matritensis]

Finns belong to a unique genetic group of their own. According to a new wide-ranging genetic mapping study, Finns differ from Central Europeans as well as from their neighbours in the east.
The study also found that the Finnish genetic pool does not resemble that of the closest linguistic group, the Hungarians, but shares more commonalities with the Dutch.
The results of the study show that Finns may be more closely related to the Dutch and to Russians from eastern Moscow, than to Hungarians, whose language can be most closely linked to Finnish. The researchers have therefore concluded that Finnish genetic ancestry follows geographical rather than linguistic patterns.
Senior researcher Samuli Ripatti of Finland’s Institute for Molecular Medicine FIMM described the link between Finns and to western Europe via Sweden, and to the east by way of Estonia.
“The links are strong. Then we discovered that the relationship between geographic variations and location and genetic heritage is quite strong and can be clearly seen.”
Ripatti added that the genetic research did not support the links thought to exist because of linguistic similarities.
Great Differences Among Finns
Genetic variations among Finns can be traced back to location for eastern, western and northern communities. The genetic differences become larger the bigger the distance between communities.
When researchers compared local communities in Finland, they found genetic differences based on location, with the greatest differences revealed between communities in southwest Finland and Kuusamo in northeast Finland.
Similarly, coastal dwelling Swedish-speaking Finns show more genetic similarities to Swedes than they do to other Finns.
FIMM has compiled a genetic atlas for Finland by collecting genetic data from 40,000 Finns to determine their genetic origin. The genetic atlas project was conducted under the stewardship of the late academic Leena Peltonen-Palotie.
YLE
http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/03/finns_in_a_genetic_class_of_their_own_1534715.html

[Eldritch]

The results of the study show that Finns may be more closely related to the Dutch and to Russians from eastern Moscow, than to Hungarians, whose language can be most closely linked to Finnish.

Huh? Did the Estonians vanish from the face of the Earth while I was taking a nap this afternoon?

[Äike]

The linguistic similarities between Finnish and Hungarian are very small. I'm not an expert, but I'd say that English and Persian might be more similar?

Hungarians live in Central Europe, Finns near the Arctic circle. I'm shocked at the fact that Hungarians have almost zero genetic similarities with Finns. :eek:

[The Khagan]

The linguistic similarities between Finnish and Hungarian are very small. I'm not an expert, but I'd say that English and Persian might be more similar?

Hungarians live in Central Europe, Finns near the Arctic circle. I'm shocked at the fact that Hungarians have almost zero genetic similarities with Finns. :eek:

The two ethnogeneses are entirely different, and thousands of years apart too.

[The Ripper]

Huh? Did the Estonians vanish from the face of the Earth while I was taking a nap this afternoon?

Show's you what YLE knows. As for the genetic isolation, all this has been well-known for a long time.

[Hweinlant]

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4894/geneticmapfinns.jpg

Considering this:

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/blond_hair_map1.jpg

Perhaps we indeed are different.

[Pallantides]

http://westernparadigm.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/blue_eyes_map2.jpg


http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/blond_hair_map1.jpg

Perhaps we indeed are different.

I wonder why Nordland and Trøndelag is so much blonder than the rest of Norway?

[Hweinlant]

I wonder why Nordland and Trøndelag is so much blonder than the rest of Norway?

Thats only few precent.. Does it really mean something ?

[Pallantides]

Thats only few precent.. Does it really mean something ?

Yeah but Norway must be 55-60% tops.
the most common hair shades in my observation is dark blond to chestnut brown, pure light blond is more rare.

[Hweinlant]

Uralic blood at Norway, northen blood :)

[Agrippa]

The results of the study show that Finns may be more closely related to the Dutch and to Russians from eastern Moscow, than to Hungarians, whose language can be most closely linked to Finnish. The researchers have therefore concluded that Finnish genetic ancestry follows geographical rather than linguistic patterns.

Like pointed out, closest are Estonians and Hungarians are mostly Central and Central-Eastern European, with the Magyar part being very low, so no wonder about that, Hungarians are mostly the result of "elite dominance".

[Pallantides]

I have been to all the Nordic countries and I can definitely attest that Norwegians are darker in hair and eye colour compared to their Swedish and Finnish neighbours.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Like pointed out, closest are Estonians and Hungarians are mostly Central and Central-Eastern European, with the Magyar part being very low, so no wonder about that, Hungarians are mostly the result of "elite dominance".

Wrong. The genetical bridges from Finland to the west and to the east go through Sweden and Estonia. The western genetical influx in Finns is larger than the eastern making Finns closer to Swedes than Estonians.
That's what mr Ripatti said.

Well, Mr. Pseudoscience, depends on what you mean. Ancient Hungary was the result of elite dominance as the invaders most likely had more men carrying N1c (as preliminary attested by grave findings) and other funky central Asian haplogroups. The invading Hungarian people were not as numerous as the neighbouring people so todays Hungarian genetic setup is the natural result of geographical admixture. Hungary lies pretty much in central Europe and have seen a lot of push and pull and it would be a surprise if they would not be genetically similar to their neighbours.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

A few corrections and comments.
Finns do have the same genes as do everyone else in nrthern Europe, but our genes have taken a different direction thanks to isolation and drift.

The study also found that the Finnish genetic pool does not resemble that of the closest linguistic group, the Hungarians,
As, pointed out, Hungarians are definetly not the closest linguistic group of Finns. Finnish belong to the Finno part of the Finno-Ugrian languages and Hungarian belong to the Ugrian part of the Finno-Ugrian languages. Compare Indo vs. European.
The Estonians are our closest linguistical group of people.
Correction: Language groups are divided into Baltic-, Volga- and Perm-Finnic groups. The closest language group to Baltic-Finnish (Finnish, Estonian e.t.c) languages are Perm-Finnic languages. Ugric languages are a world apart and is a wholly different branch of the linguistic tree of the Finno-Ugrian languages.


The results of the study show that Finns may be more closely related to the Dutch and to Russians from eastern Moscow
Not only may be but is.



Similarly, coastal dwelling Swedish-speaking Finns show more genetic similarities to Swedes than they do to other Finns.

No. Swedishspeaking Finns show more genetic similarity to other Finns, and specially western Finns, than they do with Swedes.
What they said was that there was an elevated Swedish influence in Swedishspeaking Finns and this influence was somewhat higher in Finlandswedes than Finns.

.

[Äike]

Like pointed out, closest are Estonians and Hungarians are mostly Central and Central-Eastern European, with the Magyar part being very low, so no wonder about that, Hungarians are mostly the result of "elite dominance".

This again shows your ignorance about this area of Europe. Finns aren't genetically the closest people to Estonians, we even look slightly different. The genetically closest people to Estonians are 1. *Latvians 2. *Lithuanians 3. *NW-Russians 4. Finns

*** Latvians, Lithuanians and NW-Russians are practically Finnics who speak Indo-European languages, that's why they have lighter traits. For instance NW-Russians look more Northern-European than other Russians, because of the Finnic heritage. From a genetical viewpoint, NW-Russians are an intermediate between Finns and Estonians.

[Libertas]

http://westernparadigm.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/blue_eyes_map2.jpg


I wonder why Nordland and Trøndelag is so much blonder than the rest of Norway?

These maps are full of errors.
Eupedia's newer map for light hair colour is better.

[Guapo]

The genetically closest people to Estonians are 1. *Latvians 2. *Lithuanians 3. *NW-Russians 4. Finns

So Estonians are more similar to Batics and Russians than nordics.

[Äike]

So Estonians are more similar to Batics and Russians than nordics.

In a genetical way, yes and I have to point out that it's only NW-Russians. What's your point?

Balts and NW-Russians are Finnics who have abandoned their Finnic/Nordic culture and are now culturally alien to us.

[Agrippa]

Who is closer to Finns from the Finnish perspective?

That was my point, I know that the Estonians are in the Baltic people's group genetically and racially to a large degree.

[Äike]

Who is closer to Finns from the Finnish perspective?

Swedes and NW-Russians...


That was my point, I know that the Estonians are in the Baltic people's group genetically and racially to a large degree.

No, Balts are in the Finnic people's group, genetically and racially to a large degree. There's a difference.

By some genetic researches, Latvians and Lithuanians have a lot of Finnic genes, even more than Estonians.

Saying that Estonians are in the Baltic people's group because of genetic similarities, is the same as saying that British people belong to the Australian and American people's group. Not Americans, Australians and New Zealanders belonging to the British group. If you know what I mean.

[Agrippa]

Well, the Baltic people have a strong Indo-European component too, so it is not really comparable to what you said about the Anglosphere, because it is really a mix between the Baltic (Indo-European) and Finnish groups with just similar results in all Baltic people (geographically) including Estonians and to a large degree Finns as well, which got their Indo-European influence not just from Scandinavia, but also from the South/South East = ancient Baltic people.

Just look at the spread of Corded Ware and related people into that area.

[San Galgano]

http://westernparadigm.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/blue_eyes_map2.jpg


Why is this map still circulating over the net is a mistery for me.
We all know how turks are almost blue eyed as south english people :pound:and almost all of Italy and how berbers are light compared to much of Italy and large part of Spain right:pound:?(don't tell me turks are 20% and english 49%, i've been in both place and Turkye doesn't have those percentages)

Andalusia is not at all dark eyed as this map show(and stereotypes want) and in Italy there are place like Umbria, Tuscany, Marche(center Italy), central Campania and part of Apulia(s.Italy) very light eyed.
This map contradict too the various Livi's surveys over Italy.

[Äike]

Well, the Baltic people have a strong Indo-European component too, so it is not really comparable to what you said about the Anglosphere, because it is really a mix between the Baltic (Indo-European) and Finnish groups with just similar results in all Baltic people (geographically) including Estonians and to a large degree Finns as well, which got their Indo-European influence not just from Scandinavia, but also from the South/South East = ancient Baltic people.

The Balts have even a larger Finnic influence. 1000 years ago, most of modern-day Latvia was still Finnic territory. When speaking about Europe, the more north you go, the less Indo-European influence you see.

My point about the British, Americans and Australians meant this: Estonians being genetically similar with Latvians has more to do with a massive amount of assimilated Finnic people in the Latvian population, not the other way around(a massive amount of Balts assimilated in the Estonian population.)


Just look at the spread of Corded Ware and related people into that area.

I do know that the Corded Ware culture also reached Estonia.

[Agrippa]

The Balts have even a larger Finnic influence. 1000 years ago, most of modern-day Latvia was still Finnic territory. When speaking about Europe, the more north you go, the less Indo-European influence you see.

No, the more North or even more NORTH-EAST you go, the less Indo-European influence you see!


My point about the British, Americans and Australians meant this: Estonians being genetically similar with Latvians has more to do with a massive amount of assimilated Finnic people in the Latvian population, not the other way around(a massive amount of Balts assimilated in the Estonian population.)

Funnily both happened, we know that from the records. In Finnland and Estonia Indo-Europeans became Finnnicised, resulting in the regionally stronger Nordeuropid and other European than Osteuropid-Lappoid influences.

It is quite obvious if looking at the archaeological records.


I do know that the Corded Ware culture also reached Estonia.

Here is a very generalised map, but we can prove if from many points of view:

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/99/corded_ware_culture.png

Estonia was reached by the Corded Ware and related groups, but also later waves of Indo-Europeans, most settled in the favourable areas along the coast, which is where they could survive more successfully to this day also. They went deeper into the country too, but there they were less successful on the long run, because the situation was rather unfavourable and the locals seem to have been quite numerous already.

The Osteuropids came back from the forests, as a forest-dwelling people, they didn't colonise or conquer like the more progressive elements most of the time, only if having really superiour numbers, but rather infiltrated the dominant groups territory, sometimes as free or also often as unfree people.

As you can imagine, sometimes the superstratum and sometimes the substratum won - in the case of the Finns the substratum gave the Indo-European superstratum the language, in the case of the Balts the opposite was true, this might tell us something about the numbers in the original core groups, but not necessarily so.

The amoung of Baltoslavs or some related people being assimilated by the Finns should have been significant still, the settlements we can observe were strong enough and it is unlikely that thos were Finns, there ties to groups further South were clear.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Balts and NW-Russians are Finnics who have abandoned their Finnic/Nordic culture and are now culturally alien to us.

Slavification is bad. Russification is simply nasty.


Well, the Baltic people have a strong Indo-European component too,
Time to wake up, Agrippa. There is no such thing within genetics which is called the "Indo European component". If there is and you happen to know what it is, would you be so kind and point out what genetical component that is and how it is related to the linguistical term Indo-European?

Baltic = Paleo European, Finnic and Slavic.

Finnish groups = Same components as above but replace Slavic with Germanic

Then we must try to reveal what components make up the Paleo European? What makes it Finnic? And what makes the Slavic Slavic? And then the Germanic?

with just similar results in all Baltic people (geographically) including Estonians and to a large degree Finns as well, which got their Indo-European influence not just from Scandinavia, but also from the South/South East = ancient Baltic people.

What is that legendary, often talked about, but not verifiable Indo European influence?

Just look at the spread of Corded Ware and related people into that area Do pots and axes reveal that peoples genetical composition and language? Was it cultural diffusion or migration? One, two or 357 different tribes/peoples.
The spread of language, genes and cultures is much more complicated than your simplifications.


No, the more North or even more NORTH-EAST you go, the less Indo-European influence you see!

There it is again... Indo European influence.


Funnily both happened, we know that from the records. What records?

In Finnland and Estonia Indo-Europeans became Finnnicised, resulting in the regionally stronger Nordeuropid and other European than Osteuropid-Lappoid influences.
Osteuropid, Lappoid, Nordeuropid... They were all original tribes where all looked the same, yes? Did all Borrebys originally live on an island and all Lappoids on a mountain top?


Here is a very generalised map, but we can prove if from many points of view:
Yes, I see now.
Here is a map that will prove my point of view:
http://www.wight-orienteers.co.uk/images/orienteering-map-finished.jpg
But I admit it was a bit too general.

Estonia was reached by the Corded Ware and related groups, but also later waves of Indo-Europeans, most settled in the favourable areas along the coast, which is where they could survive more successfully to this day also. Some migrants settled with the existing people, and they learned from each other. That's the way it goes. The records show that. You see, agricultural development goes hand in hand with changing ecozones, and how you adjust a techinque to the environment. For that local knowledge is usually needed.

They went deeper into the country too, but there they were less successful on the long run, because the situation was rather unfavourable and the locals seem to have been quite numerous already.

The Osteuropids came back from the forests, as a forest-dwelling people, they didn't colonise or conquer like the more progressive elements most of the time, only if having really superiour numbers, but rather infiltrated the dominant groups territory, sometimes as free or also often as unfree people.
Geez... Is this all from "Asterix and Obelix meet the Osteuropids in the woods"? Nordicist bullshit. You are indeed wicked.

Skullshape equals traits in your world. I'm longskulled Nordicoid while you are Alpinoidid, I'm more progressive than you?

[Äike]

No, the more North or even more NORTH-EAST you go, the less Indo-European influence you see!

The same applies to NW-Europe and Scandinavia.




Funnily both happened, we know that from the records. In Finnland and Estonia Indo-Europeans became Finnnicised, resulting in the regionally stronger Nordeuropid and other European than Osteuropid-Lappoid influences.

It is quite obvious if looking at the archaeological records.

Well, Lappoids do not exist in Estonia and Osteuropids/East-Baltids aren't that common either, because we do not live next to the Arctic circle like the Finns or in a cold inner continental climate, like the Russians. Thus we are mostly West-Baltid.




Here is a very generalised map, but we can prove if from many points of view:

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/99/corded_ware_culture.png

Estonia was reached by the Corded Ware and related groups, but also later waves of Indo-Europeans, most settled in the favourable areas along the coast, which is where they could survive more successfully to this day also. They went deeper into the country too, but there they were less successful on the long run, because the situation was rather unfavourable and the locals seem to have been quite numerous already.

Indo-Europeans settled along the coast? Most scientists aren't certain who settled in different areas of Europe, while you can precisely point out who settled different areas and what areas did they settle. Estonia is a small country, dividing the country into different areas then saying who settled where is an impossible task.


The Osteuropids came back from the forests, as a forest-dwelling people, they didn't colonise or conquer like the more progressive elements most of the time, only if having really superiour numbers, but rather infiltrated the dominant groups territory, sometimes as free or also often as unfree people.

Osteuropids(aren't Estonians West-Baltid) hiding in the forests... Infiltrating "dominant" groups, when they were the dominant group... Being unfree people/slaves... What are you talking about? The Finnic word for slave resembles the word "aryan", maybe it's the other way around?

[Agrippa]

Indo-Europeans settled along the coast? Most scientists aren't certain who settled in different areas of Europe, while you can precisely point out who settled different areas and what areas did they settle.

The cultural, racial and genetic association is absolutely clear and it is obvious that the carriers of the Corded Ware were indeed Indo-Europeans.

So I just have to follow their pathways and remains, also the ancient and current racial distribution and I read it in various papers already, that the newcomers were more widespread and successful, also on the long run, along the coast and in the open fertile grounds in climates which were not too cold - like you said yourself, associated with their way of life and I might add type.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Osteuropids(aren't Estonians West-Baltid) hiding in the forests... Infiltrating "dominant" groups, when they were the dominant group... Being unfree people/slaves... What are you talking about? The Finnic word for slave resembles the word "aryan", maybe it's the other way around?

Spot on.

Finnish word for slave, orja has dual meanings, south and slave.
Where did Slavs live from a Finnic perspective? The south.
Where were slaves taken from? The south.
Finnic peoples have been very tough hunters and were also excellent warriors and their societes have not been passive bystanders when some farmers came about.
I.e the word for war is an ancient Uralic word.
If modern genetics postulates something, then it's that "original" Finno/Baltic inhabitants held their ground and killed off any invaders, until they came in very large numbers. That's why the N1c male lineages are so dominating in the region. And for sure, spread of agriculture does not necessary need to be done by aggressive and expansive landposession, it may very well be spread as an innovation, like the use of new types of axes and pots.
But this is also a hypothesis, the truth lies somewhere in between.

If you think that the area was inhabitated by "Osteuropids" it's really ridiculing you intellectual capacity.

Please Agrippa, grow up.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

The cultural, racial and genetic association is absolutely clear and it is obvious that the carriers of the Corded Ware were indeed Indo-Europeans.
Do you have genetical evidences from the period we are talking about, 4-5000 years back?
Do you have linguistical evidences from 4-5000 years back?
How do you prove it was migrating people who brought with them new axes, pots and tools ?
How do you prove they did not end up there by trade or cultural diffusion?


So I just have to follow their pathways and remains, also the ancient and current racial distribution and I read it in various papers already,
In what paper is the racial distribution 4-5000 years ago disclosed? Please enlighten me. Rassen Günther?


that the newcomers were more widespread and successful, also on the long run, along the coast and in the open fertile grounds in climates which were not too cold - like you said yourself, associated with their way of life and I might add type.

The climate, changing from warm to cold and back, has changed at least three times the past 5000 years. People have been forced to adjust to the circumstances. People come and go. Some stay others don't. The racial distribution, I bet, was quite diverse long time ago. Your migrating progressive "Indo Europeans" and forrest dwelling "Osteuropids" consisted of many different kinds of phenotypes.

[Agrippa]

And for sure, spread of agriculture does not necessary need to be done by aggressive and expansive landposession

That's what we find, because complexes move, not just material or technological details.

It is ridiculous to assume that you have primitive hunter-gatherers of the archaic Cromagnoid and Osteuropid variants first and then suddenly whole settlements and cemeteries appear, with a completely different culture, new animals and customs, a completely different racial type or at least proportions.

That is just ridiculous, obviously the old elements were pushed aside and new came in, that's what we can see if looking at the record.


Do you have genetical evidences from the period we are talking about, 4-5000 years back?
Do you have linguistical evidences from 4-5000 years back?
How do you prove it was migrating people who brought with them new axes, pots and tools ?
How do you prove they did not end up there by trade or cultural diffusion?

Well, all genetic evidences we have so far show us that the presumably Indo-European people in the Central and Eastern areas had higher proportions of classic Europid mtDNA markers and R1a in the male lineage.

And for the "cultural diffusion", of course that happened too, once the two groups lived side by side and mixed with or controlled the others.

Yet at first we see group A disappearing and group B coming with a whole complex of traits, cultural and biological.

Again, it would be ridiculous to assume "cultural diffusion" with such facts.

In Estonia the racial distribution still mirrors to a certain degree the different racial types and the Indo-European expansion:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2479/estoniat.jpg (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/estoniat.jpg/)

(After I. Schwidetzky)

Since the Neolithicum the Coastal/Western part being more Nordoid, the Eastern more Osteuropoid.

[Äike]

That's what we find, because complexes move, not just material or technological details.

It is ridiculous to assume that you have primitive hunter-gatherers of the archaic Cromagnoid and Osteuropid variants first and then suddenly whole settlements and cemeteries appear, with a completely different culture, new animals and customs, a completely different racial type or at least proportions.

That is just ridiculous, obviously the old elements were pushed aside and new came in, that's what we can see if looking at the record.

Demic diffusion reaching Northern-Europe is ridiculous. Most researchers say that it was only cultural diffusion, that's why the more north you go, the less dark individuals you see/less Indo-European influence.



Well, all genetic evidences we have so far show us that the presumably Indo-European people in the Central and Eastern areas had higher proportions of classic Europid mtDNA markers and R1a in the male lineage.

And for the "cultural diffusion", of course that happened too, once the two groups lived side by side and mixed with or controlled the others.

Yet at first we see group A disappearing and group B coming with a whole complex of traits, cultural and biological.

Again, it would be ridiculous to assume "cultural diffusion" with such facts.

Only cultural diffusion happened in Northern-Europe.


In Estonia the racial distribution still mirrors to a certain degree the different racial types and the Indo-European expansion:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2479/estoniat.jpg (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/estoniat.jpg/)

(After I. Schwidetzky)

Since the Neolithicum the Coastal/Western part being more Nordoid, the Eastern more Osteuropoid.

Western-Estonians are West-Baltid while Eastern ones are more borealized, that's logical.

It doesn't show Indo-European heritage, it clearly shows the climatic difference. The coldest place in Estonian is located in South-Eastern Estonia, Võru. Surprise-surprise, you can find the most borealized individuals there.

The warmest places in the winter are the Western-Estonian islands and the coast, surprise-surprise, there you can find the least borealized Estonians.

Different anthropological types can evolve in a single population without any foreign elements, it's the climate which plays a mayor role.

Saying that every Nordid individual descends from Indo-Europeans is quite silly. If Northern-Europeans had any Indo-European blood, then Nordids and UP-types wouldn't exist here.


Spot on.

Finnish word for slave, orja has dual meanings, south and slave.
Where did Slavs live from a Finnic perspective? The south.
Where were slaves taken from? The south.
Finnic peoples have been very tough hunters and were also excellent warriors and their societes have not been passive bystanders when some farmers came about.
I.e the word for war is an ancient Uralic word.
If modern genetics postulates something, then it's that "original" Finno/Baltic inhabitants held their ground and killed off any invaders, until they came in very large numbers. That's why the N1c male lineages are so dominating in the region. And for sure, spread of agriculture does not necessary need to be done by aggressive and expansive landposession, it may very well be spread as an innovation, like the use of new types of axes and pots.
But this is also a hypothesis, the truth lies somewhere in between.

As Finns and other Baltic-Finnics(Estonians) speak the native Northern-European languages and didn't take over the Indo-European languages/culture, then we also have the largest amount of ancient Upper Paleolithic genes. Finnic Y-DNA lineages in linguistically Indo-European Northern-European countries aren't that prevalent. But the women were spared and the ancient Upper Paleolithic Northern-European/Finno-Ugric/Uralic mt-DNA is quite common in all Northern-European countries, Finland having the most, of course.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

It is ridiculous to assume that you have primitive hunter-gatherers of the archaic Cromagnoid and Osteuropid variants
I don't assume any of this, it is you who think they were Cromagnoid and Osteuropid... I think they were Atlantolappoiddinarid Nords mixed with Trönder and Mongoliform Bruenns....


first and then suddenly whole settlements and cemeteries appear, with a completely different culture, new animals and customs,
Look dude, that's what happened when Christianity arrived. Grave customs changed almost instantly without massive migrations.
We can see from archeological evidences in Finland during Iron age how locals gradually switched from pagan burials with artefacts to christian burials.
What happens when a hunter gatherer starts breeding cows and a pigs? He becomes sedentary, right? His needs changes, he needs to spend more time near the cattle, his perception of the surrounding world changes... Instead of lurking in the forrest, he cuts down the trees. Then he thinks he needs a hatch not an axe, he needs a plow not a bow e.t.c.

For changes like that you don't need massive progressive migration and elite dominance to obtain a massive change.
When people adopt to a new lifestile, there are inevitably changes in the cultural expressions.
I do not rule out migration as the vector of these changes, as I know there have been constant trickles of migration into the area.


a completely different racial type or at least proportions.
What findings of skeletons and skulls are there in Fennoscandia/Baltics from 5000 years ago which reveal the dominating racial types and proportions?
I know a great deal about this subject, but I have never heard about any such findings!


Well, all genetic evidences we have so far show us that the presumably Indo-European people in the Central and Eastern areas had higher proportions of classic Europid mtDNA markers and R1a in the male lineage.
Yeah, Agrippa. North Africans and south Asians have mostly "classical Europid markers" without the mtDNA and Y-DNA of the Europeans.

Please explain that.


And for the "cultural diffusion", of course that happened too, once the two groups lived side by side and mixed with or controlled the others. So we agree after all?


Yet at first we see group A disappearing and group B coming with a whole complex of traits, cultural and biological.
Where have we seen this group A disappear in Fennoscandia/Baltics? Please refer.


Again, it would be ridiculous to assume "cultural diffusion" with such facts.So an almost complete population replacement is more logical?
Ok. The Roman realm i.e. was a complete replacement of people, not cultural diffusion, since the culture was similar all over the realm?:loco:

In Estonia the racial distribution still mirrors to a certain degree the different racial types and the Indo-European expansion
All those funky east Baltid and Lappoid Germans I see when visiting Germany, do they also reflect different racial types (original "Germans") and the Indo-European ("neo"-Germans) expansion?



Since the Neolithicum the Coastal/Western part being more Nordoid, the Eastern more Osteuropoid. There is a minor antropological difference atleast between western and eastern Finland. But the genes are practically the same?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Saying that every Nordid individual descends from Indo-Europeans is quite silly.

Super silly.

:D

[Agrippa]

Demic diffusion reaching Northern-Europe is ridiculous. Most researchers say that it was only cultural diffusion, that's why the more north you go, the less dark individuals you see/less Indo-European influence.

First: That's an ongoing debate.

Second: The Indo-Europeans were primarily Central- and Eastern European variants of pred. Nordoid character with stronger Mediterranid and Cromagnid tendencies.

They were not in the same league as the primarily Mediterranoid carriers of the (Printed) Cardium Pottery.

They were also not that "Southern" further South and East...


Only cultural diffusion happened in Northern-Europe.

Compare with this article about the Northern Battle Axe culture:
http://fornvannen.se/pdf/2000talet/2006_274.pdf


Western-Estonians are West-Baltid while Eastern ones are more borealized, that's logical.

It doesn't show Indo-European heritage, it clearly shows the climatic difference. The coldest place in Estonian is located in South-Eastern Estonia, Võru. Surprise-surprise, you can find the most borealized individuals there.

The Borealised variants spread there more successfully, correct, but note that originally the classic Europids were wider spread and especially the leptodlichomorphic variants came primarily with the cultures associated with the Indo-Europeans and pushed aside the more archaic elements.

Also the Western-coastal part is not just Westbaltid, but has, like the graphic shows, significant real Nordoid elements.


The warmest places in the winter are the Western-Estonian islands and the coast, surprise-surprise, there you can find the least borealized Estonians.

Different anthropological types can evolve in a single population without any foreign elements, it's the climate which plays a mayor role.

Especially if both elements were present - the first due to the original archaic Cromagnoids and the Mongoliform tendency, potential Mongoloid admixture, the second because it came with the carriers of the Neolithic and Metal Age cultures.


Saying that every Nordid individual descends from Indo-Europeans is quite silly. If Northern-Europeans had any Indo-European blood, then Nordids and UP-types wouldn't exist here.

Well that's silly, because the original Indo-Europeans in Central-Eastern Europe were more Nordoid than the Mesolithic Northern and even more North Eastern Europeans...

The Nordoid element was the result of a fusion in Indo-Europeans and spread with them in areas in which it wasn't present before.

So there are parts of Europe where it means little, but in certain areas of North Eastern Europe most leptodolichomorphs came with the movements mentioned.

Also the typological make up of a population can change because of selective pressures, obviously, but the question is which variants came into the genpool first...


As Finns and other Baltic-Finnics(Estonians) speak the native Northern-European languages and didn't take over the Indo-European languages/culture, then we also have the largest amount of ancient Upper Paleolithic genes.

And Mongoloid too.


Finnic Y-DNA lineages in linguistically Indo-European Northern-European countries aren't that prevalent. But the women were spared and the ancient Upper Paleolithic Northern-European/Finno-Ugric/Uralic mt-DNA is quite common in all Northern-European countries, Finland having the most, of course.

yDNA N came most likely later and with non-Europids, but that's something we had already...


Look dude, that's what happened when Christianity arrived. Grave customs changed almost instantly without massive migrations.

Yet that doesn't mean anything for this case in which practically everything changed. There is almost no continuity to begin with in many areas!


We can see from archeological evidences in Finland during Iron age how locals gradually switched from pagan burials with artefacts to christian burials.
What happens when a hunter gatherer starts breeding cows and a pigs? He becomes sedentary, right?

Many Indo-European groups were rather semi-nomadic and quite mobile btw...


What findings of skeletons and skulls are there in Fennoscandia/Baltics from 5000 years ago which reveal the dominating racial types and proportions?
I know a great deal about this subject, but I have never heard about any such findings!

We know the related groups and even the Balanovo variants looked like this most of the time, only little Osteuropoid/Lappoid influences, most were classic Europids, many Nordoid/Aurignacoid (look at the 3rd in particular):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5737&stc=1&d=1284056615

On the other hand rather archaic reduced Cromagnoids with Mongoliform/Mongoloid tendencies, most likely the carriers of yDNA-N, I hope studies will prove that in the near future:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5738&stc=1&d=1284056763

Both from: Wolfram Bernhard, Annelise Kandler-Palsson, Ethnogenese europäischer Völker (1986).

The mostly Indo-European groups compared with Comb Ceramic and related in Neolithic times in a scale from Europid to Mongolid:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3350&stc=1&d=1260102647

More about it here:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=148347&postcount=46

The issue was also discussed on a genetic level here:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147790&postcount=30

and in the same thread:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147988&postcount=34


Yeah, Agrippa. North Africans and south Asians have mostly "classical Europid markers" without the mtDNA and Y-DNA of the Europeans.

Please explain that.

North Africans have Negroid and South Asians Weddoid influences, that's detectable also on a genetic level, yet they have a lot of variants in common with Europeans and R and IJ are very important for the yDNA.

Most Europid or related markers are present in various Europeans groups, one of the main exceptions is N.


Where have we seen this group A disappear in Fennoscandia/Baltics? Please refer.

Look at Denmark f.e. and the coastal regions of the Balticum...


So an almost complete population replacement is more logical?

The original inhabitants were pushed aside and fled into the woods if they could. Then, after some generations, mixture took place this or that way.


All those funky east Baltid and Lappoid Germans I see when visiting Germany, do they also reflect different racial types (original "Germans") and the Indo-European ("neo"-Germans) expansion?

Where they exist they are mostly the result of Eastern Germans, often Germanicised Slavs and Balts, being carried back into Western territories.

F.e. in Lower Saxony or Tyrol you rarely if ever find such variants...


There is a minor antropological difference atleast between western and eastern Finland. But the genes are practically the same?

If a large wave came into the country and then mixture took place, but new waves came (Germanics then), what do you expect? There will be mixture and therefore a common profile, but also regional differences reflecting the different degree of - in this case - Indo-European vs. Finno-Ugrian to a large extend - not only, but to a large extend - influences.

And "funnily" the more North Eastern regions are also less Nordoid and more Mongoliform in comparison.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

First: That's an ongoing debate. Agreed. But why are you so certain about your version?


Second: The Indo-Europeans were primarily Central- and Eastern European variants of pred. Nordoid character with stronger Mediterranid and Cromagnid tendencies.Don't make me laugh.
Explain the Nordoid North Africans and South Asians first and how this Nordoidness is related to MtDNA and Y-DNA.
Also explain why Finns and Swedes are craniometrically closest to Cro magnids of all European populations (M. Niskanen 2002) if your Central- and Eastern European buddies had stronger Cromagnid tendencies than the people in Fennoscandia/Baltics?


http://fornvannen.se/pdf/2000talet/2006_274.pdf
I will read this....


Especially if both elements were present - the first due to the original archaic Cromagnoids and the Mongoliform tendency, potential Mongoloid admixture, the second because it came with the carriers of the Neolithic and Metal Age cultures.
Now they (the Fennoscandian/Baltic natives) were more Cro Magnid again?


Well that's silly, because the original Indo-Europeans in Central-Eastern Europe were more Nordoid than the Mesolithic Northern and even more North Eastern Europeans...
The Nordoid element was the result of a fusion in Indo-Europeans and spread with them in areas in which it wasn't present before.
Really? How come the Indo European languages spread only later to Fennoscandinavia than the earliest "Nordoid" skulls found from Fennoscandia have been found, Mr Pseudoscience?
http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/map_of_indo_european_migration.jpg


yDNA N came most likely later and with non-Europids, but that's something we had already...Pure nonsense.
First, phenotypes have nothing to do with MtDNA or Y-DNA.
Second, Y-DNA N is virtually absent in Europe. N1c and N1B with their subgroups is present.
Third, we have no findings whatsoever of Mongoloid cranias from the region we discuss.


On the other hand rather archaic reduced Cromagnoids with Mongoliform/Mongoloid tendencies, most likely the carriers of yDNA-N, I hope studies will prove that in the near future:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5738&stc=1&d=1284056763
Your heartcase isn't it?


The mostly Indo-European groups compared with Comb Ceramic and related in Neolithic times in a scale from Europid to Mongolid:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3350&stc=1&d=1260102647
That table is based on the infamous reconstruction of fragments of a skull purposedly to reconstruct a mongoloid skull because that is what the Soviet anthropologies wanted to link Comb ceramic culture to Uralic language speakers.
And here are two facts to add to your already busted theory of linking N1c, Uralic languages and Mongolidness;
1. Linguistic research shows quite overwhelmingly that Uralic language spread later to the region than the Comb ceramic culture.
2. Y-DNA N1c spread later to the region than the dating of the Comb ceramic culture.


North Africans have Negroid and South Asians Weddoid influences, that's detectable also on a genetic level, yet they have a lot of variants in common with Europeans and R and IJ are very important for the yDNA.
I repeat Y-DNA does not equal phenotype. If it does then people like kazakhs and Khoton would look über Aryan in comparison because they carry huge amount of very important Y-DNA R1a.

Most Europid or related markers are present in various Europeans groups, one of the main exceptions is N.
See? You don't even know what haplotypes are involved. R = R1a? N = N1c?


The original inhabitants were pushed aside and fled into the woods if they could. Then, after some generations, mixture took place this or that way.Oh, you were there and saw all this?


Where they exist they are mostly the result of Eastern Germans, often Germanicised Slavs and Balts, being carried back into Western territories.Ahaa? And those huge east Baltid traits in Danes and Britons? Germanized slavs infiltrating?


Indo-European vs. Finno-Ugrian to a large extend - not only, but to a large extend - influences. Tell me, why do "Finno Ugrians" carry same MtDNA and Y-DNA as "Indo Europeans" do?

[Agrippa]

Agreed. But why are you so certain about your version?

Because Nordoids are not cold adapted type, their traits must have been evolved in a different environment and can't be explained by ancestral populations living close to or even in the cold zones during the Ice Age.

The most likely explanation of the Nordisation is the influx of Mesolithic and Neolithic Aurignacoids coming from the South and East, mixing with local Cromagnids while the leptodolichomorphic/Aurignacoid racial/phenotype prevailed in the new context.


Explain the Nordoid North Africans and South Asians first and how this Nordoidness is related to MtDNA and Y-DNA.

The Nordoid North Africans are mostly the result of a parallel process - lighter Cromagnoids which existed there since the Ice Age mixed with mostly Neolithic Mediterranoids. Most light pigmented original forms should have been Cromagnoid (Berberid) there too, the Nordoid variants today are the result of mixture between Berberid-Mediterranoid or European genflow (Greeks, Romans, Vandals etc.), with the "light Berberid" being the main cause.

In South Asia we see the results of a massive Europid influx, in various waves, also from Central Asia which was an Indo-European centre before the Turko-Mongol expansions.


Also explain why Finns and Swedes are craniometrically closest to Cro magnids of all European populations (M. Niskanen 2002) if your Central- and Eastern European buddies had stronger Cromagnid tendencies than the people in Fennoscandia/Baltics?

Can I see the Niskanen study somewhere?

That's nonsense anyway latest at the times of the LBK and Corded Ware groups. You want to tell me the LBK and Corded were more Cromagnid than pre-Corded Fennoscandia and the Baltics?

Also compare with this, from "Mesolithic Europe" by G. N. Bailey und P. Spikins:

Large communal cemeteries, unknown in earlier periods reflect new social developments in the Ukrainian Mesolithic. A group of impressive cemeteries, Vasilevka, Volos'ke and others, lies near the Dniepr Rapids south of Dnepropetrovsk (Stolyar 1959, Telegin 1982). Individuals within the same cemeteries are associated with distinct burial rites, suggesting cultural homogeneity: most were buried in a contracted position, and some in an extended supine position. Still more important, the skeletons belong to at least three distinct physical types (Gokhman 1966, 1986, Potekhina 1999). A first group of individuals with broad and high-relief faces in by Gokhman (1966: 187) as belonging to the autochthonous Cro-Magnon population stemming from the Upper Palaeolithic of Central and Eastern Europe. A second group was found only at Volos'ke cemetery and includes individuals with very narrow and long faces typical of the Mediterranean race. The third type, found at Vasilevka 1 and among the dead buried in extended supine postures at Vasilevka 3, features narrow faces and protruding jaws. At Volos'ke and at Vasilevka 1 and 3, there are numerous cases of ribs and vertebrae penetrated by flint arrowheads, indicating death by violence.

http://forum.thiazi.net/showthread.php?t=103225

Volos'ke Nr. 16, male (after Debetz 1955):
http://www.anthropometry.info/Voloske_16.jpg

Vasilevka 3 Nr. 38, male (after Gokhman 1966):
http://www.anthropometry.info/Vasilevka_3_No_38.jpg

If you can read German, here and additional article:
http://forum.thiazi.net/showpost.php?p=1828971&postcount=50

Also compare with my whole thread about early Indo-Europeans on Thiazi (in German):
http://forum.thiazi.net/showthread.php?t=103225


Now they (the Fennoscandian/Baltic natives) were more Cro Magnid again?

The base was always (rather archaic) Cromagnoid, it is about the fact that Lappid-Eastbaltid is the result of Mongoloid accretion we can also observe to this day in the genetic deviation.

Simple put, the more progressive elements are rather the result of European, largely but not only Indo-European influences in that region, the Mongoliform tendencies of Mongoloid/Uralic...


Really? How come the Indo European languages spread only later to Fennoscandinavia than the earliest "Nordoid" skulls found from Fennoscandia have been found, Mr Pseudoscience?

- Can't see the skull.
- Don't know it, the date, circumstances etc.
- As my links show Nordoids were present in Eastern Europe in Mesolithic times already, thats not the point, the point is they didn't penetrate the North East significantly until the major expansions.

I. Schwidetzky too assumed that Nordoid elements might have made it to the Finns before the Indo-Europeans btw., it might have been the result of Mesolithic connections to the groups South.

Yet if looking at the population development in the North East, it is clear that the major shift took place when the Neolithic/Bronze Age/Indo-European cultures expanded.


First, phenotypes have nothing to do with MtDNA or Y-DNA.

Of course not, in a mixed population. But a foreign marker had to be introduced and N was introduced by non-Europids (at least in the narrower sense).


Second, Y-DNA N is virtually absent in Europe. N1c and N1B with their subgroups is present.

Correct it is absent in Europe, yet N1c is part of it.


Third, we have no findings whatsoever of Mongoloid cranias from the region we discuss.

So the "deviating" skulls they found in the Comb Ceramic group (no classic Cromagnoids) were as Europid as the Corded Ware and Unetice variants?

Make me laugh...


That table is based on the infamous reconstruction of fragments of a skull purposedly to reconstruct a mongoloid skull because that is what the Soviet anthropologies wanted to link Comb ceramic culture to Uralic language speakers.

Yes, it was a conspiration...


1. Linguistic research shows quite overwhelmingly that Uralic language spread later to the region than the Comb ceramic culture.
2. Y-DNA N1c spread later to the region than the dating of the Comb ceramic culture.

Interesting, can you elaborate on that?


I repeat Y-DNA does not equal phenotype. If it does then people like kazakhs and Khoton would look über Aryan in comparison because they carry huge amount of very important Y-DNA R1a.

Exactly, that's why Baltic Finns are Europid nevertheless, at least overwhelmingly.

But the same is true for the Central Asians, they have Indo-European genes too, it's just that the Mongolid influx was stronger because of the Turko-Mongol expansions. So the ancestral link to a specific race and the admixture is present as well.


See? You don't even know what haplotypes are involved. R = R1a? N = N1c?

I know it. Fact is N is only/primarily present (with its subgroups) in North Eastern Europe, R is (with its various subgroups) presentin virtually all Europid territories, at least at a low level even in North Africa and the Near East...


Oh, you were there and saw all this?

If you have one archaeological horizon and than a nother, completely different, while you see the survival of the older in the forest-territories - what else?


Ahaa? And those huge east Baltid traits in Danes and Britons? Germanized slavs infiltrating?

They are not that significant...


Tell me, why do "Finno Ugrians" carry same MtDNA and Y-DNA as "Indo Europeans" do?

Explained above: The dominance of the archaic Cromagnid and Neolithic Eastern European mtDNA, the Uralic influence is the strongest in the yDNA because of the genetic drift or social selection I'd assume.

As for the genetic part of the story, here new results which proof an Eastern component in Uralic speakers in Europe, with the Europid component being the result of a predominant maternal ancestry from Europeans:

The westernmost populations from Europe, both Uralic- and Indo-European speakers, are similar in their pattern of ancestry components and show low levels (less than 10%) of the eastern component. Conversely, the eastern ancestry component is dominant (60-70%) in the gene pool of the Siberian Uralic-speakers. In general, the genome-wide analyses corroborate the results of mtDNA analysis and do not reflect the common genetic characteristics between western and eastern Uralic-speakers at the level seen in case of N1c. Interestingly, among Saami from North Europe, who are often considered as „outliers“ in genetic studies, the dominant western component is accompanied by 30% of eastern component making them more similar to Volga-Uralic populations than to their closest neighbours.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/ashg-2010-abstracts.html

Note especially the character of the less European Saami.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Because Nordoids are not cold adapted type their traits must have been evolved in a different environment and can't be explained by ancestral populations living close to or even in the cold zones during the Ice Age. The most likely explanation of the Nordisation is the influx of Mesolithic and Neolithic Aurignacoids coming from the South and East, mixing with local Cromagnids while the leptodolichomorphic/Aurignacoid racial/phenotype prevailed in the new context. The Nordoid North Africans are mostly the result of a parallel process - lighter Cromagnoids which existed there since the Ice Age mixed with mostly Neolithic Mediterranoids. Most light pigmented original forms should have been Cromagnoid (Berberid) there too, the Nordoid variants today are the result of mixture between Berberid-Mediterranoid or European genflow (Greeks, Romans, Vandals etc.), with the "light Berberid" being the main cause.In South Asia we see the results of a massive Europid influx, in various waves, also from Central Asia which was an Indo-European centre before the Turko-Mongol expansions.
Explain this 9000 years old "Nordoid" skull:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18764
Skip the word-fog and get to the point, what MtDNA and Y-DNA gives the Nordoid traits?


Can I see the Niskanen study somewhere?
It's right here
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samp...ccorrected.pdf


- Don't know it, the date, circumstances etc.
Man, you better get to know this because this is the only, repeat only, reconstruction around which this whole Comb ceramic/Uralic theory revolves around!
Your "analysis" is based more or less completely on this case, you refer to this all the time, but yet you have not the knowledge about the circumstances about this reconstruction???

The Olenij Ostrov findings is better known as the hoax reconstructions of broken skullfragments found by Soviet archeologist.
The first findings were made when escavating limestone during the Stalinist Era, and therefore often damaged.

According to Denisova, this is quote a paper from the Archeology lecture at the Helsinki University, the bones found match most nearly those of the modern Saami. However, there seems to be a very wide variation between the anthropological type of the sculls found. Some have been classified as distictively Caucasoid, the others "Mongoloid".

Markku Niskanen, Muinaistutkija nr.4-1998:

"Many scholars have claimed that in the light of cranial findings, both Europid and Mongoloid types would have been present among the early inhabitants of Baltia. For example according to Denisova (1980) the Comb Ceramic population was Europid-Mongoloid hybrids, but the representatives of the Corded Ware culture were of purely Europid type. The Mongoloid-Europid type, that she considered as Finno-Ugric would had arrived to Baltia from the east.

In the reality, the most ancient inhabitants of eastern Europe and western Siberia were craniologically Europid, and the Mongoloid traits didn't appear to western Siberia earlier than at the turn of the Bronze- and the Iron ages (Liptak 1980). It has also been claimed, that only those skulls from Olenij Ostrov that were reconstructed, are flat-faced and so artificially Mongoloid (personal comment by Kozintsev in 1991), and that the variation among the early inhabitants of Baltic is normal variation within population (personal comment by Jacobbs, 1994). According to Zagorska (personal comment, 1997) Denisova has also recently considered all of the early Baltic skulls to be morphologically Europid."


As my links show Nordoids were present in Eastern Europe in Mesolithic times already But how on earth do you know they were "Indo Europeans" or not?


Yet if looking at the population development in the North East, it is clear that the major shift took place when the Neolithic/Bronze Age/Indo-European cultures expanded.
Duuuuuuude... If there was a shift, then it has to do with the arrival of Uralic languages. Send PM to member Jaska. He can give you some more details on when Uralic languages spread to the Baltics.


Of course not, in a mixed population. But a foreign marker had to be introduced and N was introduced by non-Europids
You are a slow learner aren't you.

There is hardly any N in Europe.



Correct it is absent in Europe, yet N1c is part of it.

Learning? R1a is a part of R.

Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype.



But the same is true for the Central Asians, they have Indo-European genes too, it's just that the Mongolid influx was stronger because of the Turko-Mongol expansions. So the ancestral link to a specific race and the admixture is present as well.

There it is again, Indo-European genes.


As for the genetic part of the story, here new results which proof an Eastern component in Uralic speakers in Europe, with the Europid component being the result of a predominant maternal ancestry from Europeans:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/ashg-2010-abstracts.html

Excuse me? The eastern component is well know, but how on earth do you pull the conclusion that N1c reflects phenotype?

For about last two decades the examination of uniparentally inherited genetic marker systems revealing the variation embedded in mtDNA and Y chromosome has been the main tool in the studies of human genetic origins. Within few recent years the analysis of the genome-wide SNP data of individuals from different populations has started to give promising new insights in the field of human population genetics. The uniparentally inherited markers have shown slightly different demographic scenarios for the maternal and paternal lineages of North Eurasian, particularly of European Uralic-speaking populations. The geographical location of a population has evidently been the most important component that dictates the proportion of western and eastern mtDNA types in the gene pool of Uralic-speakers. Thus, the palette of maternal lineages of the Uralic-speakers resembles that of their geographically close European or Western Siberian Indo-European and/or Altaic-speaking neighbours, respectively. At the same time, the most frequent North Eurasian Y chromosome type N1c, that is also a common link between almost all Uralic-speakers, is with few exceptions rare, if present at all, among Indo-European-speakers of Western and Southern Europe. Here we combine genome-wide high density SNP data (650 000 SNPs, Illumina) with uniparentally inherited mtDNA and Y-chromosome variation of 16 Uralic-speaking populations to assess their place on the genetic landscape of North Eurasia. By the use of principal component and structure-like analysis on the autosomal data we show that the proportions of western and eastern ancestry components among the Uralic-speakers are determined mostly by geographical factors. The westernmost populations from Europe, both Uralic- and Indo-European speakers, are similar in their pattern of ancestry components and show low levels (less than 10%) of the eastern component. Conversely, the eastern ancestry component is dominant (60-70%) in the gene pool of the Siberian Uralic-speakers. In general, the genome-wide analyses corroborate the results of mtDNA analysis and do not reflect the common genetic characteristics between western and eastern Uralic-speakers at the level seen in case of N1c. Interestingly, among Saami from North Europe, who are often considered as „outliers“ in genetic studies, the dominant western component is accompanied by 30% of eastern component making them more similar to Volga-Uralic populations than to their closest neighbours.


Because they are more similar to eastern Europeans than their north European neighbours?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

MRM wrote:
1. Linguistic research shows quite overwhelmingly that Uralic language spread later to the region than the Comb ceramic culture.
2. Y-DNA N1c spread later to the region than the dating of the Comb ceramic culture.


Agrippa wrote: Interesting, can you elaborate on that?

Look for member Jaskas posts.

[Agrippa]

Explain this 9000 years old "Nordoid" skull:

At best Nordeuropid, not Nordoid in the narrower sense I'd say after a first look.

Also we know from the Swedish samples that Nordoids were indeed present among earlier populations, but the not only and in many other areas became common only after the Neolithic/Indo-European input.

Here is a comparison of various prehistoric populations of importance, after I. Schwidetzky:
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/4764/neolithiccluster.jpg (http://img833.imageshack.us/i/neolithiccluster.jpg/)

You can see that mostly presumably Indo-European cultures and populations cluster together, Corded Ware and related cultures, Ocre grave and related cultures.

One group from the Comb Ceramic and the Swedish Wohnplatzkultur cluster together (19 + 22), closest to them is Dnepr-Donec.

Those are the Nordeuropid elements in the Comb Ceramic, but now look at th outlier - clustering with the brachycephalic Southern elements, that is the foreign element we spoke about, because we can assume that it's facial details don't fit into the other brachycephalics scheme...


It's right here
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samp...ccorrected.pdf

You didn't post the link correctly, it is a short version which can't be used, this is the real link (for others):
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf


Therefore, the genetic ancestors of the
Baltic-Finns have lived in the Baltic region more likely for 10,000
years rather than for 3000 years, and more likely arrived from
the south than from the east.

That is correct - for the Europid part.

For the rest: His work is obviously biased if looking at various aspects of it from the position of the Saami in particular, that's almost ridiculous.


But how on earth do you know they were "Indo Europeans" or not?

You and some others said that the Nordoid-Mediterranid elements came mostly from "Anatolians" and therefore can't have entered Northern Europe with Indo-Europeans. Yet in the areas from which most authors assume that they were Indo-European heartlands, we know Nordoid-Mediterranid variants from the Mesolithic times on!

So if racial variants expanded with Indo-Europeans, they could have come very well from these areas and being of similar racial quality, that's the point. There was no direct massive influx of Anatolian Neolithics marching through Europe from the South East to the North, but rather a continuous expansion and in the East we can observe Nordoid variants early on.


There is hardly any N in Europe.

You are funny aren't you, N1c is obviously a subgroup of N so N1c represents N in Europe.

Understood?

If you have problems with that, here is haplogroup N and N1c is a SUBgroup!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA)

Like R1a1a is a subgroup of R...


Haplotypes have nothing to do with phenotype

If an Europid racial group enters Mongoloid areas, it has to do with phenotype, not necessarily directly, but in the population, because the presence of the markers reflects the presence of Europid genes and vice versa.


There it is again, Indo-European genes.

Obviously the Central Asian Indo-European core group had a genetic profile, hadn't it? That genetic profile was different from Turkic and Mongol people? Wasn't it?

So there were Indo-European and Turkic or Mongol genes, until they mixed up...


Excuse me? The eastern component is well know, but how on earth do you pull the conclusion that N1c reflects phenotype?

Today a carrier of N1c can be a perfect textbook Nordid too, but the presence of N1c reflects the influence from the East which is also visible in the populations phenotypical variation.


The geographical location of a population has evidently been the most important component that dictates the proportion of western and eastern mtDNA types in the gene pool of Uralic-speakers.

That's why Baltic Finns are overwhelmingly Europid, because of the old and new Europid heritage. The foreign element which carried N in the yDNA was not that important for the whole genpool.


At the same time, the most frequent North Eurasian Y chromosome type N1c, that is also a common link between almost all Uralic-speakers, is with few exceptions rare, if present at all, among Indo-European-speakers of Western and Southern Europe.

Exactly.


the common genetic characteristics between western and eastern Uralic-speakers at the level seen in case of N1c. Interestingly, among Saami from North Europe, who are often considered as „outliers“ in genetic studies, the dominant western component is accompanied by 30% of eastern component making them more similar to Volga-Uralic populations than to their closest neighbours.

And Niskanen tried to make them more Europid than Central Europeans... :rolleyes:

[Pallantides]

I wish I was in a genetic class of my own.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

You are funny aren't you, N1c is obviously a subgroup of N so N1c represents N in Europe.


You're the funny guy with your skullpictures and obscure charts...


Today a carrier of N1c can be a perfect textbook Nordid too, but the presence of N1c reflects the influence from the East which is also visible in the populations phenotypical variation.

The scientists have not made this conclusion (genetic marker = phenotype) as they have no evidence of this. What makes you think you know more than scientists?


That's why Baltic Finns are overwhelmingly Europid, because of the old and new Europid heritage. The foreign element which carried N in the yDNA was not that important for the whole genpool.

Baltic Finns are completely Europid not overwhelmingly.
N1c has been present in Europe for at least 5000 years. What makes N1c foreign?
What foreign element? Your "Indo Europeans" (language group) are equally foreign to Europe as they were not even present in Europe 5000 years ago.

When will you realise that you keep contradicting yourself? Now you say it was "not that important for the whole genpool"?



And Niskanen tried to make them more Europid than Central Europeans... Atleast I'm more Europid than you Agrippa(Alpinid). Niskanens results must be correct.

[Agrippa]

N1c has been present in Europe for at least 5000 years. What makes N1c foreign?

Because 5000 years ago most ancestral variants were already present in Europe - not too much came in since then. Also those which came earlier from the Near East came at least from an Europid territory, N1c presumably not.


Atleast I'm more Europid than you Agrippa(Alpinid). Niskanens results must be correct.

I'm not pred. Alpinid, yet even Alpinids are Europid than Eastbaltid or Lappid variants, not to speak of Nordid, Atlantomediterranid, Dinarid, Dalofaelid etc.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Because 5000 years ago most ancestral variants were already present in Europe - not too much came in since then. Also those which came earlier from the Near East came at least from an Europid territory, N1c presumably not.
You presume an awful lot which can not be backed by solid evidences.


I'm not pred. Alpinid Yes, you are. Classification is subjective, remember?


yet even Alpinids are Europid than Eastbaltid or Lappid variants, not to speak of Nordid, Atlantomediterranid, Dinarid, Dalofaelid etc
Nonsense.

[Agrippa]

Yes, you are. Classification is subjective, remember?

Tall, medium-longheaded, narrow faced, sharp facial profile, rangy, leptomorphc basic type...

There are objective criteria and going after those, I can only be Alpinoid influenced - what's even the case, but not pred. so.

That's like saying green while there is yellow. That can be your opinion and there might be unclear cases in which more than one opinion makes sense, but in such clear cases, you must be color blind or lying, so it's not up to subjective standards.

[Pallantides]

Agrippa;)
http://digilander.libero.it/agenziagiornalisti/_borders/mv%20AGRIPPA.jpg

[Motörhead Remember Me]

That's like saying green while there is yellow. That can be your opinion and there might be unclear cases in which more than one opinion makes sense, but in such clear cases, you must be color blind or lying, so it's not up to subjective standards.

Actually, I am color blind...

[safrax]

N1c has been present in Europe for at least 5000 years. What makes N1c foreign?


you should know that N1c is generally regarded as an asian haplogroup, wich can be traced back from western Siberia, to Altay, north China, and finally Burma. It's an Y-DNA marker, ie. male line. Therefore you cannot argue that male representatives of the finnic *master race* "absorbed" some asian females. Just the opposite is true. Finns as all Uralians are not Europeans!

[Pallantides]

Lol aliens to yurop!



you should know that N1c is generally regarded as an asian haplogroup, wich can be traced back from western Siberia, to Altay, north China, and finally Burma. It's an Y-DNA marker, ie. male line. Therefore you cannot argue that male representatives of the finnic *master race* "absorbed" some asian females. Just the opposite is true. Finns as all Uralians are not Europeans!

How about Y-DNA Q in Europe:
http://i.imgur.com/CFQpa.gif


About 4%(from Norwegian source) of ethnic Norwegians and 3%(wikipedia) of Swedes belong to Y-DNA haplogroup Q1a3, Haplogroup Q peaks in Native Americans and some Siberian and Turkic populations.

[Max]

This again shows your ignorance about this area of Europe. Finns aren't genetically the closest people to Estonians, we even look slightly different. The genetically closest people to Estonians are 1. *Latvians 2. *Lithuanians 3. *NW-Russians 4. Finns

*** Latvians, Lithuanians and NW-Russians are practically Finnics who speak Indo-European languages, that's why they have lighter traits. For instance NW-Russians look more Northern-European than other Russians, because of the Finnic heritage. From a genetical viewpoint, NW-Russians are an intermediate between Finns and Estonians.

Are these really Karl's words?:eek: No no some Ruski must have hacked his account :rolleyes:

[Mordid]

*** Latvians, Lithuanians and NW-Russians are practically Finnics who speak Indo-European languages, that's why they have lighter traits. For instance NW-Russians look more Northern-European than other Russians, because of the Finnic heritage. From a genetical viewpoint, NW-Russians are an intermediate between Finns and Estonians.
Tsk, tsk, come on karl, you know that's not right. Lighter features is not exclusively Finnic trait, but also Slavic, Baltic, Germanic and other Nord-Europid.

[Mordid]

Are these really Karl's words?:eek: No no some Ruski must have hacked his account :rolleyes:
You are Finnic in denial. xD

[Max]

You are Finnic in denial. xD

http://ria.ru/ny11_mm/20101229/314968367.html

[Mordid]

I don't understand Russian. :D

[Max]

The Russian/Finnish Santa Clauses (Father Frost) "Ded Moroz" and "Youlopukki" have a race every year on the Russian/Finnish border and the loosing Santa must give up one of his children to be eaten by the victor. The meal sustains the winning Santa to deliver the presents that year while the loosing Santa just sits in his home and get drunk on Vodka leaving his country without a single present. It's basically how we resolve our differences. We've won 4 years straight :thumb001: True story:D

[Motörhead Remember Me]

you should know that N1c is generally regarded as an asian haplogroup, wich can be traced back from western Siberia, to Altay, north China, and finally Burma. It's an Y-DNA marker, ie. male line. Therefore you cannot argue that male representatives of the finnic *master race* "absorbed" some asian females. Just the opposite is true. Finns as all Uralians are not Europeans!

You're not very intelligent, right?

Did you know that virtually all male haplogroups in European populations can be traced to outside Europe?:D:D

[Motörhead Remember Me]

The Russian/Finnish Santa Clauses (Father Frost) "Ded Moroz" and "Youlopukki" have a race every year on the Russian/Finnish border and the loosing Santa must give up one of his children to be eaten by the victor. The meal sustains the winning Santa to deliver the presents that year while the loosing Santa just sits in his home and get drunk on Vodka leaving his country without a single present. It's basically how we resolve our differences. We've won 4 years straight :thumb001: True story:D

It's not a Finnish practice to eat other's children so your Russian Santa must be competing with another Russian Santa.

[d3cimat3d]

Nothing but Balts isolated by inbreeding + with Asian admixture pulling them further away from the others = Finnish genetic class of their own.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Nothing but Balts isolated by inbreeding + with Asian admixture pulling them further away from the others = Finnish genetic class of their own.

Oh, well. Whatever...:cool:

[safrax]

You're not very intelligent, right?

.. indeed, we the disbelievers of your unscientific racist propaganda are all morons. Didn't u know that? Shame on you!

[Pallantides]

Motörhead Remember Me +1
safrax -1

[AinoMaria]

I have been to all the Nordic countries and I can definitely attest that Norwegians are darker in hair and eye colour compared to their Swedish and Finnish neighbours.

ive been at norway and they dont seem any darker than finns and definitely not darker than swedes, exept they maybe dye their hair black even more often then finns..:P

[AinoMaria]

The cultural, racial and genetic association is absolutely clear and it is obvious that the carriers of the Corded Ware were indeed Indo-Europeans.

So I just have to follow their pathways and remains, also the ancient and current racial distribution and I read it in various papers already, that the newcomers were more widespread and successful, also on the long run, along the coast and in the open fertile grounds in climates which were not too cold - like you said yourself, associated with their way of life and I might add type.

lol everybody allreaydy knows where finns and estonians setled, and thats finland and estonia, after that came indoeuropeans

[AinoMaria]

No, the more North or even more NORTH-EAST you go, the less Indo-European influence you see!



Funnily both happened, we know that from the records. In Finnland and Estonia Indo-Europeans became Finnnicised, resulting in the regionally stronger Nordeuropid and other European than Osteuropid-Lappoid influences.

It is quite obvious if looking at the archaeological records.



Here is a very generalised map, but we can prove if from many points of view:

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/99/corded_ware_culture.png

Estonia was reached by the Corded Ware and related groups, but also later waves of Indo-Europeans, most settled in the favourable areas along the coast, which is where they could survive more successfully to this day also. They went deeper into the country too, but there they were less successful on the long run, because the situation was rather unfavourable and the locals seem to have been quite numerous already.

The Osteuropids came back from the forests, as a forest-dwelling people, they didn't colonise or conquer like the more progressive elements most of the time, only if having really superiour numbers, but rather infiltrated the dominant groups territory, sometimes as free or also often as unfree people.

As you can imagine, sometimes the superstratum and sometimes the substratum won - in the case of the Finns the substratum gave the Indo-European superstratum the language, in the case of the Balts the opposite was true, this might tell us something about the numbers in the original core groups, but not necessarily so.

The amoung of Baltoslavs or some related people being assimilated by the Finns should have been significant still, the settlements we can observe were strong enough and it is unlikely that thos were Finns, there ties to groups further South were clear.


lol, the whole thing about every "facial type" originating from one people is lol, people aint even got a clue what those ancient people who settled ther place looked like, but still someone wants to make fantasy about what is whos original or typical facial type like nordic is now swedes and balttid is now estonians, and if finns dont look like u would want then to look, it must mean that they arent finns, then why u even speak about finns as finnougrians if whole population has changed? lol moron

[Pallantides]

ive been at norway and they dont seem any darker than finns and definitely not darker than swedes, exept they maybe dye their hair black even more often then finns..:P


I have been to Sweden, but not Finland and my impression is that we have higher frequency of darker hair than the Swedes.:)

[TheBorrebyViking]

I have been to Sweden, but not Finland and my impression is that we have higher frequency of darker hair than the Swedes.:)

Well you are the mountain monkeys.

[AinoMaria]

Because Nordoids are not cold adapted type, their traits must have been evolved in a different environment and can't be explained by ancestral populations living close to or even in the cold zones during the Ice Age.

The most likely explanation of the Nordisation is the influx of Mesolithic and Neolithic Aurignacoids coming from the South and East, mixing with local Cromagnids while the leptodolichomorphic/Aurignacoid racial/phenotype prevailed in the new context.



The Nordoid North Africans are mostly the result of a parallel process - lighter Cromagnoids which existed there since the Ice Age mixed with mostly Neolithic Mediterranoids. Most light pigmented original forms should have been Cromagnoid (Berberid) there too, the Nordoid variants today are the result of mixture between Berberid-Mediterranoid or European genflow (Greeks, Romans, Vandals etc.), with the "light Berberid" being the main cause.

In South Asia we see the results of a massive Europid influx, in various waves, also from Central Asia which was an Indo-European centre before the Turko-Mongol expansions.



Can I see the Niskanen study somewhere?

That's nonsense anyway latest at the times of the LBK and Corded Ware groups. You want to tell me the LBK and Corded were more Cromagnid than pre-Corded Fennoscandia and the Baltics?

Also compare with this, from "Mesolithic Europe" by G. N. Bailey und P. Spikins:


http://forum.thiazi.net/showthread.php?t=103225

Volos'ke Nr. 16, male (after Debetz 1955):
http://www.anthropometry.info/Voloske_16.jpg

Vasilevka 3 Nr. 38, male (after Gokhman 1966):
http://www.anthropometry.info/Vasilevka_3_No_38.jpg

If you can read German, here and additional article:
http://forum.thiazi.net/showpost.php?p=1828971&postcount=50

Also compare with my whole thread about early Indo-Europeans on Thiazi (in German):
http://forum.thiazi.net/showthread.php?t=103225



The base was always (rather archaic) Cromagnoid, it is about the fact that Lappid-Eastbaltid is the result of Mongoloid accretion we can also observe to this day in the genetic deviation.

Simple put, the more progressive elements are rather the result of European, largely but not only Indo-European influences in that region, the Mongoliform tendencies of Mongoloid/Uralic...



- Can't see the skull.
- Don't know it, the date, circumstances etc.
- As my links show Nordoids were present in Eastern Europe in Mesolithic times already, thats not the point, the point is they didn't penetrate the North East significantly until the major expansions.

I. Schwidetzky too assumed that Nordoid elements might have made it to the Finns before the Indo-Europeans btw., it might have been the result of Mesolithic connections to the groups South.

Yet if looking at the population development in the North East, it is clear that the major shift took place when the Neolithic/Bronze Age/Indo-European cultures expanded.



Of course not, in a mixed population. But a foreign marker had to be introduced and N was introduced by non-Europids (at least in the narrower sense).



Correct it is absent in Europe, yet N1c is part of it.



So the "deviating" skulls they found in the Comb Ceramic group (no classic Cromagnoids) were as Europid as the Corded Ware and Unetice variants?

Make me laugh...



Yes, it was a conspiration...



Interesting, can you elaborate on that?



Exactly, that's why Baltic Finns are Europid nevertheless, at least overwhelmingly.

But the same is true for the Central Asians, they have Indo-European genes too, it's just that the Mongolid influx was stronger because of the Turko-Mongol expansions. So the ancestral link to a specific race and the admixture is present as well.



I know it. Fact is N is only/primarily present (with its subgroups) in North Eastern Europe, R is (with its various subgroups) presentin virtually all Europid territories, at least at a low level even in North Africa and the Near East...



If you have one archaeological horizon and than a nother, completely different, while you see the survival of the older in the forest-territories - what else?



They are not that significant...



Explained above: The dominance of the archaic Cromagnid and Neolithic Eastern European mtDNA, the Uralic influence is the strongest in the yDNA because of the genetic drift or social selection I'd assume.

As for the genetic part of the story, here new results which proof an Eastern component in Uralic speakers in Europe, with the Europid component being the result of a predominant maternal ancestry from Europeans:


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/ashg-2010-abstracts.html

Note especially the character of the less European Saami.


http://etzyoseph.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Y-chromosome-ftdna-migration-map.jpg

[AinoMaria]

First: That's an ongoing debate.

Second: The Indo-Europeans were primarily Central- and Eastern European variants of pred. Nordoid character with stronger Mediterranid and Cromagnid tendencies.

They were not in the same league as the primarily Mediterranoid carriers of the (Printed) Cardium Pottery.

They were also not that "Southern" further South and East...



Compare with this article about the Northern Battle Axe culture:
http://fornvannen.se/pdf/2000talet/2006_274.pdf



The Borealised variants spread there more successfully, correct, but note that originally the classic Europids were wider spread and especially the leptodlichomorphic variants came primarily with the cultures associated with the Indo-Europeans and pushed aside the more archaic elements.

Also the Western-coastal part is not just Westbaltid, but has, like the graphic shows, significant real Nordoid elements.



Especially if both elements were present - the first due to the original archaic Cromagnoids and the Mongoliform tendency, potential Mongoloid admixture, the second because it came with the carriers of the Neolithic and Metal Age cultures.



Well that's silly, because the original Indo-Europeans in Central-Eastern Europe were more Nordoid than the Mesolithic Northern and even more North Eastern Europeans...

The Nordoid element was the result of a fusion in Indo-Europeans and spread with them in areas in which it wasn't present before.

So there are parts of Europe where it means little, but in certain areas of North Eastern Europe most leptodolichomorphs came with the movements mentioned.

Also the typological make up of a population can change because of selective pressures, obviously, but the question is which variants came into the genpool first...



And Mongoloid too.



yDNA N came most likely later and with non-Europids, but that's something we had already...



Yet that doesn't mean anything for this case in which practically everything changed. There is almost no continuity to begin with in many areas!



Many Indo-European groups were rather semi-nomadic and quite mobile btw...



We know the related groups and even the Balanovo variants looked like this most of the time, only little Osteuropoid/Lappoid influences, most were classic Europids, many Nordoid/Aurignacoid (look at the 3rd in particular):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5737&stc=1&d=1284056615

On the other hand rather archaic reduced Cromagnoids with Mongoliform/Mongoloid tendencies, most likely the carriers of yDNA-N, I hope studies will prove that in the near future:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5738&stc=1&d=1284056763

Both from: Wolfram Bernhard, Annelise Kandler-Palsson, Ethnogenese europäischer Völker (1986).

The mostly Indo-European groups compared with Comb Ceramic and related in Neolithic times in a scale from Europid to Mongolid:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3350&stc=1&d=1260102647

More about it here:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=148347&postcount=46

The issue was also discussed on a genetic level here:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147790&postcount=30

and in the same thread:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147988&postcount=34



North Africans have Negroid and South Asians Weddoid influences, that's detectable also on a genetic level, yet they have a lot of variants in common with Europeans and R and IJ are very important for the yDNA.

Most Europid or related markers are present in various Europeans groups, one of the main exceptions is N.



Look at Denmark f.e. and the coastal regions of the Balticum...



The original inhabitants were pushed aside and fled into the woods if they could. Then, after some generations, mixture took place this or that way.



Where they exist they are mostly the result of Eastern Germans, often Germanicised Slavs and Balts, being carried back into Western territories.

F.e. in Lower Saxony or Tyrol you rarely if ever find such variants...



If a large wave came into the country and then mixture took place, but new waves came (Germanics then), what do you expect? There will be mixture and therefore a common profile, but also regional differences reflecting the different degree of - in this case - Indo-European vs. Finno-Ugrian to a large extend - not only, but to a large extend - influences.

And "funnily" the more North Eastern regions are also less Nordoid and more Mongoliform in comparison.



u seem to think that light pigmentation is indoeuropean trait, but how, just how since, still the Blondest country is finland, komis, udmurts etc, especially udmurts are more redhead than anybody else exept irish, and all finnic and all or allmost all ugrics are pretty light pigmented, while u indoiranians, especially those in asia are dark

[AinoMaria]

No, the more North or even more NORTH-EAST you go, the less Indo-European influence you see!



Funnily both happened, we know that from the records. In Finnland and Estonia Indo-Europeans became Finnnicised, resulting in the regionally stronger Nordeuropid and other European than Osteuropid-Lappoid influences.

It is quite obvious if looking at the archaeological records.



Here is a very generalised map, but we can prove if from many points of view:

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/99/corded_ware_culture.png

Estonia was reached by the Corded Ware and related groups, but also later waves of Indo-Europeans, most settled in the favourable areas along the coast, which is where they could survive more successfully to this day also. They went deeper into the country too, but there they were less successful on the long run, because the situation was rather unfavourable and the locals seem to have been quite numerous already.

The Osteuropids came back from the forests, as a forest-dwelling people, they didn't colonise or conquer like the more progressive elements most of the time, only if having really superiour numbers, but rather infiltrated the dominant groups territory, sometimes as free or also often as unfree people.

As you can imagine, sometimes the superstratum and sometimes the substratum won - in the case of the Finns the substratum gave the Indo-European superstratum the language, in the case of the Balts the opposite was true, this might tell us something about the numbers in the original core groups, but not necessarily so.

The amoung of Baltoslavs or some related people being assimilated by the Finns should have been significant still, the settlements we can observe were strong enough and it is unlikely that thos were Finns, there ties to groups further South were clear.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3220490/1/

[Styggnacke]

Well you are the mountain monkeys.
What the hell are you talking about? :confused:

[Pallantides]

Fjellaper is a Danish slur for Norwegians, it's not commonly used outside the sports world.

[Äike]

u seem to think that light pigmentation is indoeuropean trait, but how, just how since, still the Blondest country is finland, komis, udmurts etc, especially udmurts are more redhead than anybody else exept irish, and all finnic and all or allmost all ugrics are pretty light pigmented, while u indoiranians, especially those in asia are dark

Actually, Udmurts are the most red-haired people in the world, even more so than the Irish.