Finnic arrival

[Hweinlant]

Just a theory, what do you think ?

Spread of Hiv-immunity

http://i35.tinypic.com/2sbu2h5.jpg

Spread of light hair

http://i33.tinypic.com/ekfe6u.jpg

Spread of ligh eys

http://i36.tinypic.com/2lcpeh2.jpg

Supposed spread of Finnic languages

http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/FinnoUgricbkgd_files/FinnoUrgicNewTheory2.jpg

[Hweinlant]

No Comments ? It's only genetics and Nordic outlook combination....

[Loki]

There is definitely a correlation in distribution, I agree. Thanks for the maps.

[Osweo]

Spread of Hiv-immunity

http://i35.tinypic.com/2sbu2h5.jpg

The concentration among the inhabitants of Arkhangelsk Province is striking! I wonder if we're looking at ancient Veps/Komi substrate in the local Russian 'Pomor' population, or the results of more recent adaptation? A very small population up there on the Tundra, naturally, so an ancient plague could have had more noticeable selective effect than elsewhere, I suppose. It spreads across to the Kola Peninsula, so probably involves the Pomors taking it across the White Sea rather than the earlier inhabitants, unless it was taken there by relatively recent Samoyed migrations. Interesting!

[Albion]

http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/FinnoUgricbkgd_files/FinnoUrgicNewTheory2.jpg

That map is from Uirala (http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/index.html), it supposes that pre-Indo-European Europe would have spoken Finnic languages.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

The correlations are so evident that only hardcore-dumbos can still refuse the Finnic influence on the selective traits obvious in northern Europeans.

[Heretik]

What would "atlanto-finnic" be? :confused:

[Peerkons]

What would "atlanto-finnic" be? :confused:
Finnic kingdom where everyone speaks estonian, where latvians and other "balto-slavs" are kept in concentration camps and Karl is king. :)

[Albion]

The correlations are so evident that only hardcore-dumbos can still refuse the Finnic influence on the selective traits obvious in northern Europeans.

Before the spread of IE languages I believe Finnic probably would have been the predominant language family in Europe. Its expansion during other periods of history can be explained by the shifting of its speakers and in some areas it probably "won back" territory lost to adopters of IE languages.

In the west Theo (?) Vanneman argues for a "Vasconic" language family with Basque as the sole survivor and correlating roughly with the post-Ice Age expansion of humans from the Basque refuge out across Western Europe (roughly Northern Iberia, France, Benelux, British Isles, parts of Norway).

Andres Paabo who's the creator of the Uirala website uses theories I've seen from Finland before as well as a few of his own to claim that most of Europe formerly spoke Finno-Ugric languages and that "Vasconic" and Basque actually belong to a very isolated form of Finnic.
Paabo's theory is based around waterways and that Finnic spread along riparian zones as farming is meant to have spread to Germany (rivers).

Paabo makes some quite interesting claims but also adds a few I'm not so certain about such as a Finnic contact and influence upon the Ainu and British Columbian Amerindians.
Over his argument regarding whether Western Europe spoke "Vasconic" or his theory about "Atlanto-Finnic" I don't see much evidence to claim either way so far but I've wrote to him before and he does make some good arguments for "Atlanto-Finnic" but I'd say its inconclusive.

[Heretik]

Before the spread of IE languages I believe Finnic probably would have been the predominant language family in Europe. Its expansion during other periods of history can be explained by the shifting of its speakers and in some areas it probably "won back" territory lost to adopters of IE languages.

That's a very bold presumption especially if we take Celts into consideration who had their settlements all over Europe.

[Albion]

That's a very bold presumption especially if we take Celts into consideration who had their settlements all over Europe.

Yes it is bold but we have little understanding of what was spoken before IE and the Celts. The Celts in Central Europe didn't seem to progress much beyond Southern Poland / Czechia but the Finnic remnant areas where it hasn't survived would have been under threat from the expansion of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages as well as perhaps languages spread from the Steppes (dubious).

[Heretik]

Celtic settlements were found as far south as Serbia and Croatia. Maybe even more to the south but I am not sure about that.


Yes it is bold but we have little understanding of what was spoken before IE and the Celts.

Can't argue that. :D

[Albion]

Celtic settlements were found as far south as Serbia and Croatia. Maybe even more to the south but I am not sure about that.


Can't argue that. :D

When I was referring to Finnic languages they probably would have been spoken in Northern Europe as opposed to Southern Europe where other language families would have probably existed.

[Heretik]

You specifically said "Europe", that's why I said it was a bold assumption. ;)

[Albion]

You specifically said "Europe", that's why I said it was a bold assumption. ;)

So I did :thumb001: Well in terms of area covered I think it would have perhaps been the largest language family, especially when looking at some of Paabo's maps but again this can;t really be proved until the theory is proved (if it ever is).

[Heretik]

I think we'll need a time-machine to send a regiment of language experts to confirm that theory. :D

[Äike]

Finnic kingdom where everyone speaks estonian, where latvians and other "balto-slavs" are kept in concentration camps and Karl is king. :)

You had to troll this fine thread? You do know that there are barely any Latvians(~2000) in Estonia and other Finnic nations?

[Jaska]

Only the linguistics can tell which languages were spoken where. Genes cannot tell that. There are traces of many Paleo-European substrate languages, and none of them looks like Uralic languages. Uralic languages only spread to west from Volga–Kama area some 4 000 years ago, according to the newest linguistic results.

So, it is just impossible that Finnic or any Uralic languages would have been spoken widely in Europe before the spread of the Indo-European languages.

[Äike]

Only the linguistics can tell which languages were spoken where. Genes cannot tell that. There are traces of many Paleo-European substrate languages, and none of them looks like Uralic languages. Uralic languages only spread to west from Volga–Kama area some 4 000 years ago, according to the newest linguistic results.

According to the newest (main-stream, written in all school books and history books) theories, Finno-Ugric languages have been spoken in Northern-Europe for at least 6200 years.


So, it is just impossible that Finnic or any Uralic languages would have been spoken widely in Europe before the spread of the Indo-European languages.

Are you one of those funny people who thinks that the Finno-Ugrics assimilated the native Indo-Europeans(:pound:) of Finland?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Only the linguistics can tell which languages were spoken where. Genes cannot tell that. There are traces of many Paleo-European substrate languages, and none of them looks like Uralic languages. Uralic languages only spread to west from Volga–Kama area some 4 000 years ago, according to the newest linguistic results.

So, it is just impossible that Finnic or any Uralic languages would have been spoken widely in Europe before the spread of the Indo-European languages.

Jaska,

I would like to ask you this:
As we know, the Finnish language is an ice box preserving very well original words, how well do we really know at what pace the proto-language have developed?
I.e. you as a linguist say that a certain phase of the language took place so and so many thousand years ago and lasted for approximately so and so long, based on how the words have developed or not developed from it's ancestral form.
How can we be sure for how long the ancestral form lasted? In a remote area a language may be preserved by its speakers in its ancestral form very long, am I correct or not?
How sure can a linguist then be when he/she says a proto-word is 2000, 3500 or 5000 years old. Why not 8000? What evidences speak against the assumption that the ancestral form may have been in use longer than what fo example you think?
I'm not sure if you understand, but I hope you do and take your time to answer.

[Jaska]

According to the newest (main-stream, written in all school books and history books) theories, Finno-Ugric languages have been spoken in Northern-Europe for at least 6200 years.
So? If you won’t read the newest studies [hint: they are given below], you just have to wait that some proponent of the older views shows that there is something wrong with the new results. So far nobody has showed anything wrong, but instead more and more scholars have agreed with the new results, because they show the errors of the older views.


Are you one of those funny people who thinks that the Finno-Ugrics assimilated the native Indo-Europeans of Finland?
You know well that I am, from the ForumBiodiversity. You should be objective: if Uralic language reached the coasts of Baltic Sea about 4 000 years ago and Indo-European language reached them about 5 200 years ago, you probably can do the calculation, too. Or can you?

(Answer: you cannot. I know it from the other forum: you are neither objective nor capable of understanding scientific argumentation.)



How can we be sure for how long the ancestral form lasted? In a remote area a language may be preserved by its speakers in its ancestral form very long, am I correct or not?
How sure can a linguist then be when he/she says a proto-word is 2000, 3500 or 5000 years old. Why not 8000? What evidences speak against the assumption that the ancestral form may have been in use longer than what fo example you think?
I'm not sure if you understand, but I hope you do and take your time to answer.

I think there are two different levels here:
- how old is some word?
- how old is a language in certain area?

These both can be assessed mainly by the same methods, namely loanword studies and palaeolinguistics, but the questions and the answers still differ from each other. Perhaps you’ll get the picture from these articles (in Finnish):

http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf
http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/virittaja/hakemistot/jutut/2006_2.pdf
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus1.pdf
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

[Moonbird]

Andres Paabo who's the creator of the Uirala website uses theories I've seen from Finland before as well as a few of his own to claim that most of Europe formerly spoke Finno-Ugric languages and that "Vasconic" and Basque actually belong to a very isolated form of Finnic.


Is there anyone else than this Paabo who sees Basque as a Finnic language?

[Jaska]

Is there anyone else than this Paabo who sees Basque as a Finnic language?
May well be, because the world is full of unscientific people.
But nobody who has any knowledge about linguistics thinks so.

[Albion]

Is there anyone else than this Paabo who sees Basque as a Finnic language?

Paabo cites a few scholars in his references that do, check out the site.