View Full Version : Karin Mark on Mongoloid origins of Estonians
(http://baer.emu.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=244296/10Heapost.pdf):
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4479/66627563fe6.jpg
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4691/68726050az0.jpg
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2562/22601431yr6.jpg
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6159/56344097os3.jpg
http://www.panf.info/ this is a far more appropriate forum for those that manage to find mongols in estonia that havent been sent there by their dear and wonderful soviet friends..
Besides, im sure you would find many more friends and much more understanding.
The above post of ikke is evident spam. I kindly ask the administration to erase it.
If you are trying to prove that the East-Baltid subrace is Mongol, then Russians are the biggest Mongols in entire Europe...
http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/pic/bigracemap01.jpg
Both West-Baltid and East-Baltid derive from Cro-Magnon, East-Baltid being a more northern version.
Of modern nationalities, Finns are closest to Cro-Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements.Cro-Magnon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon)
The above post of ikke is evident spam. I kindly ask the administration to erase it.
Not at all, merely pointing out one has to be more than a bit deranged to make such posts as the one above. But dont worry, I dont discriminate against the insane.
It's already getting boring, tovarish Hors.
This is another case of misrepresenting higher cheekbones and flatter facial features as being of mongoloid origin. Nowadays it is already very well known that these were typical for Upper Paleolithic era Europids.
Now, what about all those Mongol-Tatar traits in Russians? :thumb001:
Brännvin
07-22-2009, 04:31 PM
Old crappy biased "anthropology"; :rolleyes:
Genetic Structure of Europeans: A View from the North–East (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005472)
http://bayimg.com/image/naaieaacf.jpg
Osweo
07-22-2009, 04:42 PM
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6159/56344097os3.jpg
Absolutely worthless for your present purposes while treating Finnics in a vacuum.
I would like to see Russians, Balts and Swedes included, as well as some Turkic peoples of the Volga.
Skandi
07-22-2009, 04:45 PM
http://www.panf.info/ this is a far more appropriate forum for those that manage to find mongols in estonia that havent been sent there by their dear and wonderful soviet friends..
Besides, im sure you would find many more friends and much more understanding.
The above post of ikke is evident spam. I kindly ask the administration to erase it.
Right I have only just read this thread, if you want all insulting posts to be removed from the rest of this thread, then that is fine...
But be careful what you wish for.
Absolutely worthless for your present purposes while treating Finnics in a vacuum.
I would like to see Russians, Balts and Swedes included, as well as some Turkic peoples of the Volga.
The index of Mongoloidness wouldn't fit on the chart;) That would be if you take samples in the Russian heartland, Moscow and surrounding areas.
Skandi
07-22-2009, 04:51 PM
The index of Mongoloidness wouldn't fit on the chart;) That would be if you take samples in the Russian heartland, Moscow and surrounding areas.
That is unfortunately true in many different countries there is way to much mixing in the large cities.
Osweo
07-22-2009, 04:51 PM
The index of Mongoloidness wouldn't fit on the chart;) That would be if you take samples in the Russian heartland, Moscow and surrounding areas.
Your comments are quite as stupid as Hors's, just his mirror image version.
Skandi
07-22-2009, 04:53 PM
All right all of you please keep to the topic and it's merits not eachothers.
Your comments are quite as stupid as Hors's, just his mirror image version.
Well, I'm trying my best. Not only Russians should have the privilege of making stupid comments:wink
Absolutely worthless for your present purposes while treating Finnics in a vacuum.
I would like to see Russians, Balts and Swedes included, as well as some Turkic peoples of the Volga.
Actually, they are included:
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:2ytirxcGA9UJ:hse.ru/data/741/401/1233/1%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C %D0%90_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8% D0%B5%2520%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B_2.doc+%D0 %98%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81+%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0% BD%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE %D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&cd=5&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ru
Swedes: 4-14
Finns: 12-36
Volga Russians (the highest MI among Russians): 18
MI up to 21 - no Mongoloidness, higher than 80 - no Europeoidness
And Estonian MI is 25 :)
Actually, they are included:
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:2ytirxcGA9UJ:hse.ru/data/741/401/1233/1%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C %D0%90_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8% D0%B5%2520%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B_2.doc+%D0 %98%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81+%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0% BD%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE %D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&cd=5&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ru
Swedes: 4-14
Finns: 12-36
Volga Russians (the highest MI among Russians): 18
MI up to 21 - no Mongoloidness, higher than 80 - no Europeoidness
And Estonian MI is 25 :)
I did read it. It's the same as with Russian history;) Being completely different from the true story.
Not very accurate, and the determination of the Mongoloid Index is faulty. Also, Northern Scandinavia has Lapps, you do know that?
Why is that only sources that are written in Russian, make such decisive claims. Also, posting sources that only a handful people on TA understand is quite pointless. Luckily I speak enough Russian and I can say that your source is close to sci-fiction. It's false.
Hors, do you even live in Russia? If you do, then you know that your post is false. If I'd get 1 Euro every time I see a slightly mongoloid Russian, then I wouldn't have to work, I would have to just walk around the Russian ghettos of Tallinn.
I can't say the same for Finns and I have seen quite a few.
Your source also doesn't overlap with other researches.
Now, if you look at this map, then it is quite clearly visible, that Estonia couldn't have a higher "MI" then Russia. As Russia is mongoloid influenced, when Estonia isn't. With a Nordic minority in the NW parts. Now look at Finland, taking Lappish influenced Finns(not pure Finns) from borderline areas such as Northern Finland, can get a quite high max "MI". http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/pic/bigracemap01.jpg
Osweo
07-22-2009, 06:36 PM
Actually, they are included:
Volga Russians (the highest MI among Russians): 18
MI up to 21 - no Mongoloidness, higher than 80 - no Europeoidness
And Estonian MI is 25 :)
And where is the MI of the Pomors, of various Kazak groups, of the Russians of Perm', of the far southern Russians? All looks pretty incomplete.
Whoever came up with these numbers probably went out of their way to find subjects without a Tatar great grandparent and so on. That's automatically eliminated a good proportion of the Volga population. I won't exaggerate the level of this mixing, but it does exist. I have two good friends with such a background, and it does show a little in the face. It's not really the end of the world to have a dash of this in a population.
21 - 80 is the transitional range? And 25 is the highest Estonian value? Not much to worry about then, anyway. It's minor. And it's just based on phenotype, not blood, so there's plenty of room to explain it by convergent evolution.
Is the so called 'MI' accepted by anyone other than this Mark character?
I did read it. It's the same as with Russian history;) Being completely different from the true story.
Whatever you say :)
Not very accurate, and the determination of the Mongoloid Index is faulty.
Karin Mark is an internationally recognized scholar, you're nothing.
Also, Northern Scandinavia has Lapps, you do know that?
Any more idiotic questions?
Why is that only sources that are written in Russian, make such decisive claims.
You're retarded.
Also, posting sources that only a handful people on TA understand is quite pointless. Luckily I speak enough Russian and I can say that your source is close to sci-fiction. It's false.
The text is in English. What are you talking about, looney?
Hors, do you even live in Russia? If you do, then you know that your post is false. If I'd get 1 Euro every time I see a slightly mongoloid Russian, then I wouldn't have to work, I would have to just walk around the Russian ghettos of Tallinn.
The topic is about Estonians being semi-Mongoloid bastards. Deal with it. After that you're free to post scientific, not anecdotal out-ofEstonian-arse-BS, evidence about Russians.
I can't say the same for Finns and I have seen quite a few.
YAAAAAAWN
It also doesn't overlap with other researches.
LOL
Now, if you look at this map, then it is quite clearly visible, that Estonia couldn't have a higher "MI" then Russia. As Russia is mongoloid influenced, when Estonia isn't. With a Nordic minority in the NW parts. Now look at Finland, taking Lappish influenced Finns(not pure Finns) from borderline areas such as Northern Finland, can get a quite high max "MI". http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/pic/bigracemap01.jpg
[/QUOTE]
You're a cretin. And it's not an adhominem. It's a medical fact.
And where is the MI of the Pomors, of various Kazak groups, of the Russians of Perm', of the far southern Russians? All looks pretty incomplete.
Go and get it, if you're interested.
Whoever came up with these numbers probably went out of their way to find subjects without a Tatar great grandparent and so on.
Perhaps.
That's automatically eliminated a good proportion of the Volga population. I won't exaggerate the level of this mixing, but it does exist. I have two good friends with such a background, and it does show a little in the face. It's not really the end of the world to have a dash of this in a population.
Who cares. They're not Russian.
21 - 80 is the transitional range? And 25 is the highest Estonian value? Not much to worry about then, anyway. It's minor.
You hear Karl? The international opinion says Estonians have visible Eurasian traits! LOL
Not much to worry about then, anyway. It's minor.
As we say in Russian English: to whom how :D
Whatever you say :)
Karin Mark is an internationally recognized scholar, you're nothing.
Any more idiotic questions?
You're retarded.
The text is in English. What are you talking about, looney?
The topic is about Estonians being semi-Mongoloid bastards. Deal with it. After that you're free to post scientific, not anecdotal out-ofEstonian-arse-BS, evidence about Russians.
YAAAAAAWN
LOL
You're a cretin. And it's not an adhominem. It's a medical fact.
This just shows that you got pissed at the fact that I proved your sci-fictional and selective research wrong.
My oh my.
The text was in russian, that established this "mongol index".
Too bad we cannot establish whether this is a real researcher, or the validity of the methods or what exactly happened with the sampling.
But your reaction is quite something.
IF this Karin Mark is valid, then this is groundbreaking research. Such either is borrowed if valid.. and thus should spread, or if cookery, stays exactly where it is: in russian on some nameless server.
And then this "this is about estonians being mongol bastards". That really did in any credidibility whatsoever your sources had, since evidently that was the purpose of said research aswell?
Thank you and goodnight comrade troll.
Afaik you dont need more than a single year of academic studies to come to those conclusions.
And where is the MI of the Pomors, of various Kazak groups, of the Russians of Perm', of the far southern Russians? All looks pretty incomplete.
Whoever came up with these numbers probably went out of their way to find subjects without a Tatar great grandparent and so on. That's automatically eliminated a good proportion of the Volga population. I won't exaggerate the level of this mixing, but it does exist. I have two good friends with such a background, and it does show a little in the face. It's not really the end of the world to have a dash of this in a population.
21 - 80 is the transitional range? And 25 is the highest Estonian value? Not much to worry about then, anyway. It's minor. And it's just based on phenotype, not blood, so there's plenty of room to explain it by convergent evolution.
Is the so called 'MI' accepted by anyone other than this Mark character?
If you look at Estonia and Russia on the map (http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/pic/bigracemap01.jpg), then you must realize that the actual "MI" of Russians should be way higher. And lower for Estonians. The creator of this research didn't work very scientifically.
ROFL
Listen, laddie, Karin Mark is an internationally renowned scholar while you're just a hole in an arse.
Science says Estonians are Eurasian mongrels. Deal with it.
The Lawspeaker
07-22-2009, 06:56 PM
ROFL
Listen, laddie, Karin Mark is an internationally renowned scholar while you're just a hole in an arse.
Science says Estonians are Eurasian mongrels. Deal with it.
Karin Mark ? Never bloody heard of her. I googled her name and I came up with 0. Some "internationally renowned scholar" if she is not even mentioned on Google.
Your turn !
The text was in russian, that established this "mongol index".
You have the text in English, what's your problem?
Too bad we cannot establish whether this is a real researcher, or the validity of the methods or what exactly happened with the sampling.
Too bad you're too uneducated and retarded to establish it.
But your reaction is quite something.
IF this Karin Mark is valid, then this is groundbreaking research.
Eh? It's known since the early days of anthropology that Finnics are partially Mongoloid. Nothing groundbreaking thus.
Such either is borrowed if valid.. and thus should spread, or if cookery, stays exactly where it is: in russian on some nameless server.
YAWN
And then this "this is about estonians being mongol bastards". That really did in any credidibility whatsoever your sources had, since evidently that was the purpose of said research aswell?
You're racist and have HUGE proble with admitting your Mongol ancestry. Karin Mark is an Estonian scholar without racial prejudice. That's the difference.
Thank you and goodnight comrade troll.
So far only Oswiu tried to debate the topic, and even he made it in a rather trollish way, without presenting something of substance, just asking validity of this and that.
The rest of you are certified trolls.
Too bad you're too uneducated and retarded to establish it.
We can't debate like this, please. It would strengthen your case enormously if you did not use such words. I know it's tempting but it's better not to.
Basil
07-22-2009, 07:09 PM
Karin Mark ? Never bloody heard of her. I googled her name and I came up with 0. Some "internationally renowned scholar" if she is not even mentioned on Google.
Your turn !
Karin Mark is great Soviet and then Estonian anthropologist, field-worker devoted herself to study of Finno-Ugrian people. She has died in 2002. I think Estonians could easily find her works in Tallinn's libraries.
The Lawspeaker
07-22-2009, 07:12 PM
Karin Mark is great Soviet and then Estonian anthropologist, field-worker devoted herself to study of Finno-Ugrian people. She has died in 2002. I think Estonians could easily find her works in Tallinn's libraries.
But clearly overestimated then as she was remains pretty illusive on the Internet. I invite Estonians to post samples of her work, in English.
Osweo
07-22-2009, 07:16 PM
Who cares. They're not Russian.
People with fully Russian names, speech, culture and sympathies are not Russian? Don't be absurd. They are not ancestrally pure Slavyane, sure, but the Russian identity has a little more to it than that.
You hear Karl? The international opinion says Estonians have visible Eurasian traits! LOL
Some Estonians do have a funny 'Elfish' look, that points to the great northern forests, sure. It would be stupid to deny it. But it doesn't mean a connection to the Han Chinese!
If you look at Estonia and Russia on the map (http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/pic/bigracemap01.jpg), then you must realize that the actual "MI" of Russians should be way higher. And lower for Estonians. The creator of this research didn't work very scientifically.
That's map's a wonderful piece of antiquariat, and I correspondingly saved it to my hard drive. It's about as useful as Madison Grant's very similar looking map that you often see around on the net. Russian 'MI' will vary very widely from place to place, that's obvious.
So far only Oswiu tried to debate the topic, and even he made it in a rather trollish way, without presenting something of substance, just asking validity of this and that.
The rest of you are certified trolls.
Do you have any idea what the academia is about? Certainly you cannot possibly have an education wherein collecting sources played any significant part.
Validity, purpose and sampling are everything when it comes to setting down theories and ever so slowly proving them.
That you deny such are needed, and that this world renowned researcher cannot be found. My field admittedly isnt genetics or anthropology, but please... some standards?
Really.
But clearly overestimated then as she was remains pretty illusive on the Internet. I invite Estonians to post samples of her work, in English.
I have never heard of her, but as she worked for the Soviets(as an Estonian). Then she had to be extremely pro-Russian(this may explain the biased results of her researches). You couldn't get a good job like that back then if you weren't like that.
You should ask the Russian members of TA for more samples of her work as she did work for the Soviets/Russians.
Some Estonians do have a funny 'Elfish' look, that points to the great northern forests, sure. It would be stupid to deny it. But it doesn't mean a connection to the Han Chinese!
Elfish look? Could I get some examples? I haven't noticed any "Elfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf)" traits.
Or am I taking this too seriously?
Allenson
07-22-2009, 07:25 PM
One has to wonder how all these Mongoloids reached Estonia without crossing at least parts of Russia on their way westward.....
Nowadays it is accepted that Karin Mark was mistaken. Hors has his own agenda, trying to cover up his Mongol-Tatar roots by bashing the superior, tall blond and blue-eyed Finnics he is so jealous of.
It is specifically written on Ago Künnap's web site on Finno-Ugristics that Karin Mark misrepresented typical features of Paleolithic Europeans (high cheekbones and flat facial features) as proof of some sort of mongoloid admixture. Karin Mark's colleague Leiu Heapost had confirmed that even the thousands of years old skulls found in Estonia are fully Europid. There have never been any mongoloids here.
One has to wonder how all these Mongoloids reached Estonia without crossing at least parts of Russia on their way westward.....
Indeed... :D
http://kokshetau.online.kz/maps/mongol.gif
"and more friendly towards the people of another class"
Once more we see the pearls of soviet science and their criteria...
Elfish look? Could I get some examples? I haven't noticed any "Elfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf)" traits.
Or am I taking this too seriously?
I don't think he's joking but at the same time I'm thinking WTF is an elfish look. :D Connected to the northern forests. Oh my goodness. ROFL
The Lawspeaker
07-22-2009, 07:32 PM
Indeed... :D
http://kokshetau.online.kz/maps/mongol.gif
Perhaps even the Mongols found Russia too much of a shithole ^^ :D
Nah, Russians, don't worry, I am just making fun of a ludicrous assumption by a pseudo-scientist working as a traitor during the Soviet era.
But before you all flare up with your lack of a sense of humor look at it from this way: the Mongols looted and raped their way deep into Europe. So the Balts, Russians, perhaps even the Hungarians, Poles and Germans have some traces of Mongol blood. And who bloody cares. It was during the Middle Ages and I am sure that the genetic damage has been undone over the centuries that followed.
Anyways.. how common is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_spot) in Estonians or Russians ?
I don't think he's joking but at the same time I'm thinking WTF is an elfish look. :D Connected to the northern forests. Oh my goodness. ROFL
Lord of the rings ;)
Evidently a lot of people seem to think finns look like those elves :P Certainly helps the elvish langauge is constructed from finnish... and the nature itself sure dosent hurt either.
But before you all flare up with your lack of a sense of humor look at it from this way: the Mongols looted and raped their way deep into Europe. So the Balts, Russians, perhaps even the Hungarians, Poles and Germans have some traces of Mongol blood. And who bloody cares. It was during the Middle Ages and I am sure that the genetic damage has been undone over the centuries that followed.
You're confusing the Mongols with the Huns here.
http://www.taiwandna.com/ProfileRachelHunnicEmpire.png
And btw, the northern barely green areas on the map were just vassals, nothing else.
Anyways.. how common is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_spot) in Estonians or Russians ?
I dare to say that 0% among Estonians and it should be low among Russians too. But as the Mongols pillaged Russia, not Estonia, then the Mongolian spot shouldn't be that rare there.
Lord of the rings ;)
Evidently a lot of people seem to think finns look like those elves :P Certainly helps the elvish langauge is constructed from finnish... and the nature itself sure dosent hurt either.
Picture of Ikki:
http://www.quizilla.com/user_images/L/Ladyevenstarr/1093478388_lden_light.jpg
hehe, and someone prettier than me keeps cursing me that i insist on keeping a crew cut instead of growing the hair into full "elf length" :D
The Lawspeaker
07-22-2009, 08:11 PM
You're confusing the Mongols with the Huns here.
http://www.taiwandna.com/ProfileRachelHunnicEmpire.png
And btw, the northern barely green areas on the map were just vassals, nothing else.
I dare to say that 0% among Estonians and it should be low among Russians too. But as the Mongols pillaged Russia, not Estonia, then the Mongolian spot shouldn't be that rare there.
I didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe).
I didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe).
Yes, it seems that for a short period of time, the Mongol empire controlled parts of Belarus, Ukraine and Romania. Also, there were mayor battles even further in Central-Europe.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif
Absinthe
07-22-2009, 08:27 PM
Estonians are eurasian mongols whereas Russians, whose 90% of the country extends in Asia, and whose nation encompasses a thousand different ethnic groups, aren't?
That is a good one. :clap:
We can't debate like this, please. It would strengthen your case enormously if you did not use such words. I know it's tempting but it's better not to.
A mod refused to remove spamming and trolling posts earlier, thus making any sound debate in the thread impossible.
People with fully Russian names, speech, culture and sympathies are not Russian? Don't be absurd.
This ethnic Yakut fits the description perfectly:
http://www.ysu.ru/content/about/pochetprof/NicolaevME/
http://www.ysu.ru/upload/nikolaev.jpg
They are not ancestrally pure Slavyane, sure, but the Russian identity has a little more to it than that.
Do not forget to add IMHO to such claims.
Some Estonians do have a funny 'Elfish' look, that points to the great northern forests, sure. It would be stupid to deny it. But it doesn't mean a connection to the Han Chinese!
What's about Finnic speaking Mansi?
Nowadays it is accepted that Karin Mark was mistaken.
By whom it is "accepted"? By a bunch of mongrelized WP Finnics?
Hors has his own agenda, trying to cover up his Mongol-Tatar roots by bashing the superior, tall blond and blue-eyed Finnics he is so jealous of.
LOL
It is specifically written on Ago Künnap's web site on Finno-Ugristics that Karin Mark misrepresented typical features of Paleolithic Europeans (high cheekbones and flat facial features) as proof of some sort of mongoloid admixture. Karin Mark's colleague Leiu Heapost had confirmed that even the thousands of years old skulls found in Estonia are fully Europid. There have never been any mongoloids here.
Who has brought up to 40% of TAT-C from Northern China then?
Estonians are eurasian mongols whereas Russians, whose 90% of the country extends in Asia, and whose nation encompasses a thousand different ethnic groups, aren't?
That is a good one. :clap:
It's always fun to hear a Greek debating racial issues.
Absinthe
07-22-2009, 09:24 PM
Oh don't get me wrong, Horsy, if anyone vastly admires Mongols and their war techniques, then it is me! :D
As for the race...you've seen my face but I haven't seen yours? ;)
By whom it is "accepted"? By a bunch of mongrelized WP Finnics?
Anthropologists who are experts in their field. Like Ago Künnap, for instance.
Who has brought up to 40% of TAT-C from Northern China then?
Haplogroups are no racial markers. Haplogroups R and NO have common origin from haplogroup NOP, N just developed amongst those early people who first migrated somewhat more eastwards. Mongoloid Ugric-speaking populations got this haplogroup when tribes migrated there from Northeastern Europe (there's a greater variability of the haplogroup in Europe).
Oh don't get me wrong, Horsy, if anyone vastly admires Mongols and their war techniques, then it is me! :D
Have I? If so, it had to be very unremarkable, as I have no recollections of seeing it.
Absinthe
07-22-2009, 09:34 PM
Have I? If so, it had to be very unremarkable, as I have no recollections of seeing it.
Well find me a *single* person on this forum, the most hardcore nordicists included, that will refresh your memory as to whether I look swarthy or racially dubious to them. ;)
A mod refused to remove spamming and trolling posts earlier, thus making any sound debate in the thread impossible.
The definition of trolling and spamming can be debated, and it usually depends on whether you support the views "spammed" and "trolled", or not. By contrast, calling people retarded can be interpreted in only one way.
A mod refused to remove spamming and trolling posts earlier, thus making any sound debate in the thread impossible.
Read my signature and then ask yourself who's the Troll here:wink
Anthropologists who are experts in their field. Like Ago Künnap, for instance.
Is not he a linguist actually?
Haplogroups are no racial markers.
Because you do not like them being such?
Haplogroups R and NO have common origin from haplogroup NOP, N just developed amongst those early people who first migrated somewhat more eastwards.
Good that you admit that ancestors of Estonians have arrived to Europe from what is now China...
Mongoloid Ugric-speaking populations got this haplogroup when tribes migrated there from Northeastern Europe (there's a greater variability of the haplogroup in Europe).
Of what group? Don't bullshit people. We're talking abot N and NO whose Asiatic origin is well established.
So summing things up, we see that Estonians are Eurasian by both anthropological and genetical markers. They even speak an Asiatic language!
Well find me a *single* person on this forum, the most hardcore nordicists included, that will refresh your memory as to whether I look swarthy or racially dubious to them. ;)
They're a very undiscriminating bunch after all.
Because you do not like them being such?
Mongoloid Kyrgyz people have around 63% of haplogroup R1a. These are not racial markers.
Good that you admit that ancestors of Estonians have arrived to Europe from what is now China...
They say all human beings originate from Africa. Are we all negroids now?
Of what group? Don't bullshit people. We're talking abot N and NO whose Asiatic origin is well established.
That's the geographic origin. Haplogroup R comes from Central or South Asia.
So summing things up, we see that Estonians are Eurasian by both anthropological and genetical markers. They even speak an Asiatic language!
Estonians are Europids who speak a language that predates the Indo-European languages in Europe.
The definition of trolling and spamming can be debated, and it usually depends on whether you support the views "spammed" and "trolled", or not. In contrast, calling people retarded can be interpreted in only one way.
Im my view the nonsense spouted by that soviet indoctrinist has been going on long enough. Just an eyesore anymore, having been beaten into the ground but doesent seem to quite get it.
Mongoloid Kyrgyz people have around 63% of haplogroup R1a. These are not racial markers.
Kyrgyzes belong to the Central Asian type. Thus they are (a bit more than) half Mongoloids.
They say all human beings originate from Africa. Are we all negroids now?
The point is that Estonians are not European. Amount of Mongoloid admixture in Estonians is another issue.
That's the geographic origin. Haplogroup R comes from Central or South Asia.
While ancestral for Finnics N from China.
Estonians are Europids
Not according to anthropologists, not quite so... they're somewhat Eurasian.
who speak a language that predates the Indo-European languages in Europe.
Wishful thinking of people trying to present Finnics like bona fide Europeans.
Lahtari
07-22-2009, 10:23 PM
I know I should stay away from a mud-slinging contest between racists, but..
What's about Finnic speaking Mansi?
Never heard of them. Must be a similar curiosity like Slavonic-speaking Arabs. :P
(For the record, the Mansi language belongs to the Ob-Ugrian branch of the Ugric languages. Which are related to Finnic about as closely as English is related to Iranian.)
So summing things up, we see that Estonians are Eurasian by both anthropological and genetical markers. They even speak an Asiatic language!
If Finno-Ugric languages are Asiatic, then so are Indo-European. It is well established by studying loan words that the speakers of the two proto-languages lived as neighbors before their dispersal.
While ancestral for Finnics N from China.
Like you yourself state, N is in minority in Estonia. And in western Finland as well. It peaks in Savonians - who are an extremely bottlenecked population even in Finland - and the northern woodlands colonized by them.
We're talking abot N and NO whose Asiatic origin is well established.
Yes, Asiatic origins in Pleistocene, like some other haplogroups. And the relevance is?
Lahtari
07-22-2009, 10:24 PM
Estonians are Europids who speak a language that predates the Indo-European languages in Europe.
That theory is largely discredited. There's no linguistic evidence to support it.
That theory is largely discredited. There's no linguistic evidence to support it.
Finnish language is a Finno-Ugric language but...
Finnish and Ugric have 200 common words from which Finns understand only a few!
Finnish and the most oldest form of Proto-German have over 500 common words and most of them has remained in Finnish language almost unchanged!
And most of these words are not from Indo-European origin.
Here a short list of examples:
modern Finnish ← Proto-German (the most oldest form)
löytää < . *leütä- ← *χleutan
keula ← *skeula
teuras ← *theuraz
liuta ← *leuda(z)
riutta ← *greuta- (*griuta-)
kuningas- ← *kuningaz
nauta < *nauta (< *nawta) ← *nauta
muoto < *mooto ← *mõto
rytö < *rytö (*ruto) ← *brutan
köyhä . *keüχä- (< *kewχä-) ← *skeuχa
pöytä < *peütä- (< *pewtä) ← *beuda
köysi ← *kewdi (*käwdi)
laiva ← *hlaiwa
lautta ← *flauta
kulju, kuilu ← *guljö
laipio ← *laubiõ
kaivata ← *kaujan
arpi, arven ← *arwiz
raivata ← *straujan
patja ← *badja
ahjo ← *asjön
lantio ← *landiö
hipiä, hiviä ← *hiuja
purje ← *burja
karsia ← *skardian
kihla ← *gisla
niittää ← *snittãn
tarita (tarjota) ← *tarjan
karsia, keriä ← *skardian
äyräs ← *äfraz
vaahti,vaahto ← *pwahtia
lenseä, lempeä ← *lenpia
kaunis ← *kauniz
äiti ← *aithin
rauta ← *rauthan
Non-Indo-European elements
The reconstructed Proto-Germanic vocabulary includes a number of fundamental words (referring to, among other things, parts of the body, animals and nature) which appear to some linguists as non-Indo-European in origin, suggesting a vocabulary influence from the earlier inhabitants of northern Europe. The mechanism of this influence is unknown; it may have been simple borrowing, or perhaps retention of old words by people who adopted Proto-Germanic as their new language. For examples, see the Germanic substrate hypothesis.
Non-Indo-European influence
The Germanic substrate hypothesis attempts to explain these features as a result of creolization with a non-Indo-European language. Writing an introductory article to the Germanic languages in The Major Languages of Western Europe, Germanicist John A. Hawkins sets forth the arguments for a Germanic substrate. Hawkins argues that the proto-Germans encountered a non-Indo-European speaking people and borrowed many features from their language. He hypothesizes that the first sound shift of Grimm's Law was the result of non-native speakers attempting to pronounce Indo-European sounds, and that they resorted to the closest sounds in their own language in their attempt to pronounce them. The Battle-axe people is an ancient culture identified by archaeology who have been proposed as candidates for the people who influenced Germanic with their non-Indo-European speech. Alternatively, in the framework of the Kurgan hypothesis, the Battle-axe people may be seen as an already "kurganized" culture built on the substrate of the earlier Funnelbeaker culture.
Proponents of the theory sometimes call the alleged non-Indo-European element in Germanic Folkish, on the assumption that the Germanic root folk is not an Indo-European word.
Kalevi Wiik, a phonologist, has put forward a controversial hypothesis that the pre-Germanic substrate was of Finnic origin. Wiik claimed that there are similarities between mistakes in English pronunciation typical of Finnish speakers and the historical sound changes from Proto-Indo-European to proto-Germanic.[1][2] Wiik's argument is based on the assumption that only three language groups existed in pre-Indo-European Europe, namely Finno-Ugric, Indo-European and Basque, corresponding to three ice age refugia. Then, Finno-Ugric speakers would have been the first to settle most of Europe, and the language of the Indo-European invaders was influenced by the native Finno-Ugric population, producing the Germanic protolanguage.[1][2] Wiik's theory is controversial and rejected by most other linguists.[3][4][5]
Words derived from non-Indo-European languages
Hawkins moreover asserts that more than one third of the native Germanic lexicon is of non-Indo-European origin, and again points to the hypothetical substrate language as the cause. Certain lexical fields are dominated by non-Indo-European words according to Hawkins. Seafaring terms, agricultural terms, engineering terms (construction/architecture), words about war and weapons, animal and fish names, and the names of communal and social institutions are centers of non-Indo-European words according to Hawkins.
Some more Germanic loanwords from "Sissejuhatus läänemeresoome keeltesse":
Agriculture:
Finnish, Votic akana, Karelian agana, Veps agan, Ingrian akkaana, Estonian agan, Livonian agan -- Old High German agana;
Fin aura, Kar, Ing, Vot adra, Vps, adr, Est ader -- Old Norwegian arðr;
Fin, Kar humala, Vps, Est humal, Ing. hummaala, Vot umala, Liv umal -- Swedish humle;
Fin juusto, Ing juusto(maido), Est juust -- Old Norwegian ostr;
Fin, Kar, Vps, Ing, Vot, Est, Liv kana -- Gothic hana;
Fin kaura, Kar, Ing, Vot kagra, Vps kagr, Est kaer, Liv kaggõrz – Swedish dial. hagre;
Fin, Est, Ing, Vot lammas, Kar lammaš, Vps lambaz, Liv laambaz – Old Swedish lamb;
Fin, Vot leipä, Kar, Ing leibä, Vps leib ~ liib, Est leib, Liv leeba – Old High German hleib;
Fin pelto, Kar, Ing peldo, Vps pöud, Vot põlto, Est põld – German Feld;
Fin, Ing ruis, Kar ruiš, Vps rugiž, Vot rüis, Est rukis, Liv riggõz – Old Norwegian rugr;
Fishing, seafaring:
Fin, Kar, Ing, Vot airo, Vps air, Est aer, Liv aairaz – Old Swedish ār;
Fin merta, Kar, Ing merda, Vps merd, Vot mõrta, Est mõrd, Liv mõõrda – Old Norwegian merð;
Fin, Kar nuotta, Vps not, Ing, Vot nootta, Est noot – Swedish not;
Metals:
Fin, Vot kulta, Kar, Ing kulda, Vps, Est kuld, Liv kuulda – Old Norwegian gull;
Fin, Vot rauta, Kar, Ing rauda, Vps, Est raud, Liv rooda – Old Norwegian rauði;
Fin, Ing, Vot, Est, Liv tina, Vps t’in – Old Norse tin;
Building, tools, arms:
Fin, Kar, Vot ahjo, Vps ahj, Est ahi, Liv ooi – Swedish ässja;
Fin, Kar miekka, Ing meekka, Vot mõõkka, Est, Liv mõõk – Gothic mēki;
Fin naula, Kar noagla, Vps nagl, Ing naagla, Vot nagla, Est nael, Liv naggõl – Old Norwegian nagli;
Fin neula, Kar niegla, Vps n’egl, Ing neegla, Vot nigla, Est nõel, Võro nõgõl – Old High German nâdala;
Fin, Ing rengas, Kar rengaš, Vps rengaz, Vot, Est rõngas – Old Swedish ringer;
Fin seula, Kar šiegla, Vps s’egl, Ing seegla, Vot sigla, Est sõel, Võro sõgõl, Liv sõggõl – Old Swedish sald;
Fin, Vot tupa, Ing, Est, Liv tuba – Old High German stubā;
Household, clothing:
Fin, Ing hame, Vot amõ, Võro hamõh, Liv am – Swedish dial. ham;
Fin, Kar, Ing, Vot kattila, Vps katil, Est katel, Liv kat’l’aa – Gothic katils;
Fin kynttilä, Ing küntteli, Vot tšüüntteliä, Est küünal, Liv kiindõl – Old Swedish kyndil-;
Fin, Ing, Vot sukka, Kar šukka, Est sukk, Liv sukaa – Swedish dial. sucka;
Fin, Ing taikina, Kar taigina, Vps taigin’, Vot taitšina, Est taigen, Liv taigandõks – Gothic daigs;
Social relations:
Fin, Kar, Ing kauppa, Est kaup, Liv koop – Old Norwegian kaupa;
Fin, Kar kihla, Vps k’ihl, Ing kihlad, Est kihl, Liv kiil – Old Swedish gīsl;
Fin, Est kuningas, Kar kuningaš, Vps kun’ingaz, Ing kunigas, Vot kunikas – Old High German kuning;
Fin laina, Kar laihina, Est laen, Liv lainõ – Old Norwegian lán;
Fin lunastaa, Kar lunašta-, Vot lunassaa, Est lunastada – Gothic lun;
Fin, Kar, Ing, Vot, Est, Vps raha, Liv roo – Old Norwegian skrá;
Fin, Vot, Est rikas, Kar rikaš, Ing rigas, Liv rikaaz – Swedish rik;
Fin, Vot valta, Vps vaud, Ing valda, Est vald, Liv vaalda – Old Norse vald;
Nature:
Fin, Ing kallio, Kar kallivo, Vps kal’l’i, Vot kal’l’o, Est kalju – Old Norwegian hella;
Fin multa, Kar mulda, Est muld, Liv muulda – Gothic mulda;
Fin, Vot ranta, Kar, Ing randa, Vps, Est rand, Liv raanda – Swedish strand;
Others:
Fin, Vot, Est, Ing armas, Kar armaš, Vps armaz, Liv aarmaz – Gothic arms;
Fin, Est, Vot kaunis, Kar kaun’is – Gothic skauns;
Fin, Vot tauti, Est taud – Old Norwegian dauði;
Fin, Kar, Ing, Vot, Est, Liv ja – Gothic jah.
:coffee:
That theory is largely discredited. There's no linguistic evidence to support it.
However, that's far more likely and substantiated than Hors' theories on mongoloid Finnics. ;)
Lahtari
07-22-2009, 11:18 PM
However, that's far more likely and substantiated than Hors' theories on mongoloid Finnics. ;)
Perhaps. :P
But where Wiik fails - besides of his theory of Finno-Ugric substrate in Germanic & co. being debunked by other linguists - is that he relies on the Renfrew's theory that the Indo-European speakers brought farming to Europe. Farming vocabulary of IE languages is of non-IE origin - the proto-IE people were more likely pastoralists. Furthermore, he simplistically places the direct predecessors of IE and FU in the Ice Age refugias, ignoring 6000 years of language development. And this while modern comparative linguistics is hardly able to reach back the other, following 6000 years.
Osweo
07-23-2009, 12:11 AM
This ethnic Yakut fits the description perfectly:
http://www.ysu.ru/content/about/pochetprof/NicolaevME/
http://www.ysu.ru/upload/nikolaev.jpg
No he doesn't. He knows he's Sakha, Russians know it too, it's blindingly obvious. He probably speaks the language, at least to some degree. He probably takes part in the Kumis festival or whatever they have. He thinks like a Yakut.
I was talking about people with a Tatar grandparent, or great grandparent, who have no other connection with Turkic life.
What's about Finnic speaking Mansi?
Глагол <'s> там не нужен.
What about them?
Are you trying to say that, because some members of the Uralic family are near fully mongoloid, that the ancestral speakers of the relevant proto-language must have been too? That's pretty unfounded. There's good reason to suppose that the present day Samoyedic and Ugric speakers have absorbed an older pre-Uralic stratum, probably of some now extinct linguistic grouping, or related to the Kets on the Yenisey. That's where the funny look comes from. A Finno-Ugric Urheimat is probably best sought on the Volga, not in the east.
Estonians are Europids who speak a language that predates the Indo-European languages in Europe.
Thankyou to Lahtari for already having countered this statement, based on little but assumptions. :thumb001:
The point is that Estonians are not European.
Manifestly untrue. What an idiotic thing to say. Even if you were right in supposing that Finnic originated beyond Ural, you'd still have to acknowledge a good few millenia of residence in Europe, with all its attendant consequences of mixing with neighbours and internal selection and adaptation.
While ancestral for Finnics N from China.
Do you have any serious reason to believe that N arose in China?
(For the record, the Mansi language belongs to the Ob-Ugrian branch of the Ugric languages. Which are related to Finnic about as closely as English is related to Iranian.)
Exactly. Or actually, you might even say as close as Etruscan to English...
If Finno-Ugric languages are Asiatic, then so are Indo-European. It is well established by studying loan words that the speakers of the two proto-languages lived as neighbors before their dispersal.
THis is the case, yes. And both are European.
Perhaps. :P
But where Wiik fails - besides of his theory of Finno-Ugric substrate in Germanic & co. being debunked by other linguists - is that he relies on the Renfrew's theory that the Indo-European speakers brought farming to Europe.
GODS I hate Renfrew's idiotic 'theory'. The man knows NOTHING of linguistics. But having made himself enough of an archaeologist to get himself Lorded, he is treated as an authority... :mad: There is NO ROOM in Anatolia for a PIE Urheimat. End of story.
Farming vocabulary of IE languages is of non-IE origin - the proto-IE people were more likely pastoralists. Furthermore, he simplistically places the direct predecessors of IE and FU in the Ice Age refugias, ignoring 6000 years of language development. And this while modern comparative linguistics is hardly able to reach back the other, following 6000 years.
Idiocy... :(
Angantyr
07-23-2009, 12:17 AM
Maybe I should not admit this, but I got my Ph.D. in historical linguistics with a specialization in Uralic. I studied two years of Finnish and two years of Estonian and four years of Hungarian.
There are literally hundreds of words, comprising the most basic vocabulary of Finnic and Ugric languages including Finnish, which are inherited from Proto-Uralic, which existed maybe 8.000 years ago. The oldest Germanic words are all borrowings from perhaps 1.500 years ago and continuing with borrowings from more modern borrowings from German and Swedish.
Refrew's idea of putting Indo-European and Finno-Ugric (he really means Uralic) into ice-age refugia is ridiculous when we can reach back only 6.000 for Indo-European and 8.000 for Uralic (which, although smaller is more divergent in its branches).
There are, however, Indo-European loan words in even the oldest strata of Uralic, indicating the proto-languages were indubitably neighbours in their Urheimats...both of which were almost certainly wholly within Europe proper (what is now the territory on the eastern Slavs).
Basil
07-23-2009, 04:34 AM
Nowadays it is accepted that Karin Mark was mistaken. Hors has his own agenda, trying to cover up his Mongol-Tatar roots by bashing the superior, tall blond and blue-eyed Finnics he is so jealous of.
It is specifically written on Ago Künnap's web site on Finno-Ugristics that Karin Mark misrepresented typical features of Paleolithic Europeans (high cheekbones and flat facial features) as proof of some sort of mongoloid admixture. Karin Mark's colleague Leiu Heapost had confirmed that even the thousands of years old skulls found in Estonia are fully Europid. There have never been any mongoloids here.
Paleolithic Europeans are dead since palaeolith. Ancient Finno-Ugrians tribes weren't Europid. They belonged to so called Uralic race, which occupies intermediate position between major Mongoloid and Caucasoid races. Thousands of years old skulls found in Estonia weren't Finno-Ugric skulls. It's obvious. You are Finno-Ugrians so there is nothing strange about having some occasional non-Europid traits in your people. Nothing personal.
Look at genetic study http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4889.
We see that Finnish sample is distinctly distinguished from European core group and Estonians tend towards Finns. It's all about your common origin, which is not fully European. Being farther from core group in this direction means having more higher values of index of mongoloidness. It's straight correlation. Genetic data just prove that anthropologic data were quite reliable. But yes, the word 'mongoloidness' is kind of misleading, 'non-europeoidness' is more precise here.
Brynhild
07-23-2009, 05:21 AM
I know I should stay away from a mud-slinging contest between racists, but..
Good gods, I'm not even getting involved in that. I just wish the map of Norway and Sweden combined would stop winking at me! It has that definitive male look about it I find really hard to avoid! :D
Paleolithic Europeans are dead since palaeolith.
I beg to differ. They were assimilated. This might not be relevant, but there are a number of words in Estonian (and other Baltic-Finnic languages) that have an unknown origin, linguists believe it is most likely these came from the Proto-European people associated with the archeological Kunda culture - the first people to inhabit Estonia.
Ancient Finno-Ugrians tribes weren't Europid. They belonged to so called Uralic race, which occupies intermediate position between major Mongoloid and Caucasoid races. Thousands of years old skulls found in Estonia weren't Finno-Ugric skulls. It's obvious. You are Finno-Ugrians so there is nothing strange about having some occasional non-Europid traits in your people. Nothing personal.
I doubt that. Any find of mongoloid traits are a misrepresentation of higher cheekbones and flat facial features (in the East Baltic race which is similar to the Upper Paleolithic people's race and has gone through changes due to cold adaption). And it is is known very well that mongoloid Ugric-speaking tribes got their haplogroup N from Europe.
We see that Finnish sample is distinctly distinguished from European core group and Estonians tend towards Finns. It's all about your common origin, which is not fully European.
Around one third of the Estonian male population carries haplogroup N. All other lines, both paternal and maternal, are typically European.
Northern Russians are no different:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72807&postcount=10
Paleolithic Europeans are dead since palaeolith. Ancient Finno-Ugrians tribes weren't Europid. They belonged to so called Uralic race, which occupies intermediate position between major Mongoloid and Caucasoid races. Thousands of years old skulls found in Estonia weren't Finno-Ugric skulls. It's obvious. You are Finno-Ugrians so there is nothing strange about having some occasional non-Europid traits in your people. Nothing personal.
The Russians were raped by Mongols, Tartars and Huns. And don't forget the Turkic influence. The Finno-Ugrics more East then the Russians "of course" didn't get any admixture at all:rolleyes: by all of this. Now also try to remember that Finno-Ugrics around the Urals have lived next to Turkics and Tartars for thousands of years.
Russians weren't the only ones who were influenced by non-Europeans. By the way? Do you know this saying?
Scratch a Russian and you find a Tartar
Osweo
07-23-2009, 12:54 PM
I beg to differ. They were assimilated. This might not be relevant, but there are a number of words in Estonian (and other Baltic-Finnic languages) that have an unknown origin, linguists believe it is most likely these came from the Proto-European people associated with the archeological Kunda culture - the first people to inhabit Estonia.
Is there a list anywhere?
And it is is known very well that mongoloid Ugric-speaking tribes got their haplogroup N from Europe.
Not very well known to me! Do tell!
The Russians were raped by Mongols, Tartars and Huns.
In your fantasies, perhaps. All these Stepnyaki were not too rarely rather better behaved than you seem to give them credit for. Aggressive sexuality is not really a feature of the Central Asian mindset/behavioural stereotype, for whatever reason. Girls were carried off, mostly in the later period of the Golden Horde, but mostly to trade with the South, and in any case, the bastard offspring entered the slavers' genepool, not the other way round. Only since Russia conquered the Horde has intermixing begun to happen on the more 'natural' level, and this is obviously restricted to zones of Tatar settlement, hampered by religious and cultural differences, and possibly effecting the Tatars more than the Russians themselves. Far more has occured in the last fifty years than in the last 200, I'd bet, too.
Scratch a Russian Find a Tatar.
An aphorism. A successful one. Because it panders to western preconceptions of the wild east, is short and snappy, and is easier to employ than any real attempt to tackle the ethnic history of the Eastern Slavs. Banal, really.
Well haplogroup N is very common in Northern and Eastern Europe, while it's less common near around the Ural mountains.(because of Tartar, Turkic and Mongol admixture)
And yet it's in very high frequencies among the furthest eastern Siberians. A European origin for N needs better explanation.
Good gods, I'm not even getting involved in that. I just wish the map of Norway and Sweden combined would stop winking at me! It has that definitive male look about it I find really hard to avoid! :D
thats finland and sweden ;)
http://jordanmaxwell.com/images/monkey/euro.jpg
Is there a list anywhere?
These are among those, according to linguist Paul Ariste:
* eile
* haug
* higi
* hull
* konn
* liha
* meri
* must
* mägi
* neem
* nisk
* nüri
* Peipsi
* Pärnu
* saar
* selg
* siig
* sugu
* vimb
Not very well known to me! Do tell!
I wrote about this before. There is a greater variation of the haplogroup in Northeastern Europe which means it is older here. And thus it is likely it expanded from Europe to areas which had a mongoloid population.
Osweo
07-23-2009, 01:51 PM
thats finland and sweden ;)
http://jordanmaxwell.com/images/monkey/euro.jpg
Good Gods, that's obscene! :D
I wrote about this before. There is a greater variation of the haplogroup in Northeastern Europe which means it is older here. And thus it is likely it expanded from Europe to areas which had a mongoloid population.
Ah, that makes some sense. :thumb001: I suppose it is pertinent to recognise that though high among Chukchi, it has crossed the Bering Straits, and so has reached the 'Palaeosiberians' relatively recently...
As for 'Peipsi' and co. (rather familiar! ;)), could I be so bold as to ask for the translations?
As for 'Peipsi' and co. (rather familiar! ;)), could I be so bold as to ask for the translations?
Peipsi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Peipsi-Pihkva)
Basil
07-23-2009, 02:51 PM
Around one third of the Estonian male population carries haplogroup N. All other lines, both paternal and maternal, are typically European.
You tell me about Y-DNA and mtDNA, but above mentioned study covers more than 270000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Just feel the difference between two genetic markers and 270000 ones.
Northern Russians are no different:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72807&postcount=10
To be sincere I am not interested in genetic and anthropologic origins of Northern Russians. If they are Finnics, well, who cares?
The Russians were raped by Mongols, Tartars and Huns. And don't forget the Turkic influence. The Finno-Ugrics more East then the Russians "of course" didn't get any admixture at all:rolleyes: by all of this. Now also try to remember that Finno-Ugrics around the Urals have lived next to Turkics and Tartars for thousands of years.
"Of course" true Finno-Ugrics were pure-blooded nordics. I understand you. You are biased person who will reject science if it comes into conflict with your agenda.
Russians weren't the only ones who were influenced by non-Europeans. By the way? Do you know this saying?
Well, I tried to be serious, but it's meaningless if you use such "sayings" as argument. You know to whom "white chukchi" refers.
You tell me about Y-DNA and mtDNA, but above mentioned study covers more than 270000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Just feel the difference between two genetic markers and 270000 ones.
To refute any further mongoloid theories:
http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Villems2004.pdf
http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Tambets2001.pdf
Estonian Y-chromosome haplogroups:
34% N1c1
32% R1a
15% I1
8% R1b
3.5% T
3% I2a
2.5% E1b1b
1% J2
0.5% Q
0.5% I2b
It is noteworthy, again, that Latvians and Lithuanians are genetically more Finnic than Estonians. Northern Russians have 35% of haplogroup N, Latvians 38%, Finns 58.5% and Lithuanians 42%.
Estonian mtDNA haplogroups:
43.5% H
24.5% U
10% J
8% T
4% V
2.5% W
2.5% K
1% I
1% X2
3% Other
To be sincere I am not interested in genetic and anthropologic origins of Northern Russians. If they are Finnics, well, who cares?
And I don't understand why should anyone consider some European nationalities to be mongoloids when the evidence states exactly the opposite.
To be sincere I am not interested in genetic and anthropologic origins of Northern Russians. If they are Finnics, well, who cares?
At least half of the white Russians live in NW-Russia.
Venemaa kaart aga näitab, et vähemalt Loode-Venemaal on palju inimesi , kes räägivad vene keelt, kuid geneetiliselt on väga sarnased soomeugrilastega. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72806&postcount=9)
Translation of bold text: The Russian map shows that in North Western Russia, there are lots of people who speak Russian, but genetically they are very similar to Finno-Ugrics.
If you don't believe me, then use a translator:coffee:
http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/~jgonza/wordpress/wp-images/blue_eyes_map.jpg
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/blond_hair_map1.jpg
:coffee:
"Of course" true Finno-Ugrics were pure-blooded nordics. I understand you. You are biased person who will reject science if it comes into conflict with your agenda.
Actually no, they weren't "Hallstat überaryan Nordics" They were mostly Cro-Magnon and then the derived subraces of Cro-Magnon->West-Baltid->East-Baltid. But they were light pigmented if you asked that.
Well, I tried to be serious, but it's meaningless if you use such "sayings" as argument. You know to whom "white chukchi" refers.
I don't take anyone seriously, who claims that Estonians are Mongoloids.
Basil
07-23-2009, 04:13 PM
At least half of the white Russians live in NW-Russia.
You have to know that Nothwestern Federal District is weakly populated. According to census there are 12 millions Russians. So you estimate that only 24 millions Russians all over the world could be considered white. Thanks. :D
I don't take anyone seriously, who claims that Estonians are Mongoloids.
Notice I never said that Estonians are mongoloids. There is much difference between being mongoloid and having a little uraloid admixture on population level.
You have to know that Nothwestern Federal District is weakly populated. According to census there are 12 millions Russians. So you estimate that only 24 millions Russians all over the world could be considered white. Thanks. :D
I saw a census that said 14 million. The white population of Russia is 2 times higher then 28million, if you consider the Muscow area too.
Notice I never said that Estonians are mongoloids. There is much difference between being mongoloid and having a little uraloid admixture on population level.
Well, there isn't any "Uraloid/Turkic, Mongol, Tartar, Hunn" admixture in Estonia, because the Tartars, Turkics, Mongols and Huns didn't reach Estonia.
Lahtari
07-23-2009, 07:27 PM
Paleolithic Europeans are dead since palaeolith.
Comparisons of genetic material from paleo-Europeans and modern Europeans are giving results that we're 80% paleo-European. The rest is neolithic admixture, most prevalent in south-eastern Europe.
Ancient Finno-Ugrians tribes weren't Europid. They belonged to so called Uralic race, which occupies intermediate position between major Mongoloid and Caucasoid races.
And you know this from where?
Even if it's correct, why it should be assumed that the population of the proto-Finno-Ugric speakers suddenly boomed and the people marched in hordes straight to the areas FU languages were to be spoken? Indo-Europeanization wasn't a fast process either, it was still going on long in the historic period.
You are Finno-Ugrians so there is nothing strange about having some occasional non-Europid traits in your people.
I'm constantly astonished of people's tendency to make complicated things simple. Because you speak a Finno-Ugric language, you must have Mongoloid traits. And because you (supposedly) have Mongoloid traits and a rare Y-haplogroup, and speak a Finno-Ugric language, the physical traits and the haplogroup are without question associated with the language. And all this while the time-span is 10,000 years.
I don't see why this should be the case, without any evidence. The fact that both N2 and N3 have been proposed as markers associated with Finno-Ugrian migration is quite telling.
Personally I see the Eurasian boreal forest belt as the main culprit. Living in a boreal environment causes borealization (no matter what you want to call those traits - Mongoloid, Uralic, whatever. I'd just call them borealized). It also favors certain livelihoods over others, and language is often associated with a people's livelihood. This is exactly what happened in Finland, when the supposedly Indo-European Corded Ware culture assimilated to the natives as the environment cooled down - leaving a people speaking a Finno-Ugric language. The Russian FU speakers resisted IE pressures until historic Slavonic migrations - despite the fact that they lived next to the IE expansion centre.
Look at genetic study http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4889.
We see that Finnish sample is distinctly distinguished from European core group and Estonians tend towards Finns. It's all about your common origin, which is not fully European. Being farther from core group in this direction means having more higher values of index of mongoloidness. It's straight correlation.
Since this study didn't involve East-Asian peoples, no conclusions like that can be made.
http://bayimg.com/image/naaieaacf.jpg
This graph is obviously not aligned according to geography - otherwise Spaniards would be more northern than Swedes. Geographical east lies is in south-east in the graph, and geographical north in the north-east. Two obvious things that can be seen is that Russians are too western for their location, and Finns are too northern.
I'm not sure where the next graph is from (somebody posted it in another thread), but at least it has something that other comparisons are lacking: a global perspective.
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/FSTHGDP8bunch-uprecalculaterearr-1.gif
What can be seen, besides the huge distances between racial groups, is that while the Komi and Mari are very slightly in the East-Asian direction, Finns are in another direction, of that where the Saami are. And those "eastern" Saami, in turn, are some way in the direction of... Native Americans. :D
To explain this, I can come up with five possibilities:
1) The Saami have direct North American ancestry, which has diffused south into Finland.
2) The Saami, and to some extent the Finns, have preserved some odd genetics of the Ice Age Europeans that are known of having settled to North America. MtDNA haplogroup X, which also exists in America has a high frequency among Saami.
3) The positions are due to northern isolation, possibly combined with slight eastern admixture. It is however remarkable how the line Europe(average)-Finland-Saami is pointing a bit too straight into Amerindian.
4) Isolation combined with coincidence. The weird position of the Kalash seems to point to this.
5) There's something screwed up in the methodology here.
An interesting curiosity is that there's certain prehistoric, man-made stone formations that has been associated with the ancient Saami. They are found in Scandinavia, Finland, North-Western Russia - and in North-Eastern America. ;)
So, did I make things complicated enough? :p
Lahtari
07-23-2009, 07:39 PM
Oh, just one more point:
Genetic data just prove that anthropologic data were quite reliable.
What ever the geneticists happen to find, there's always someone chanting that "this just confirms the findings of classical anthropology".
Not really. Classical physical anthropology did put Finns in the same cluster with Russians and Baltics ("East-Nordid", "Baltid"), to some extent with Swedes ("Hallstatt") and also with even some distant east-European people that supposedly shared the same "Baltid" strain. This genetic study the above quote is referring to is showing something completely different - Finns separated from everyone else. There's no way physical anthropology could have predicted this - and no wonder: the genes associated with phenotype are just a tiny fraction of what's seen in a full-genome scan.
So I ask: what has to be found, in order to make someone to say that it paints a different picture than old anthropology? Or at least that you'd not say that it confirms it? ;)
Well, there isn't any "Uraloid/Turkic, Mongol, Tartar, Hunn" admixture in Estonia, because the Tartars, Turkics, Mongols and Huns didn't reach Estonia.
Of course there is not. Simply because they're the main element there and thus can not be viewed as admixture!
Of course there is not. Simply because they're the main element there and thus can not be viewed as admixture!
Are you actually serious? With every passing day, you make me(and probably other members of TA) doubt in your intelligence when you make statements like that.
In my entire existence on fora like such, I have never seen a Troll like you and it's not an ad hominem, it's a proven fact.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online communitysource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))
Not a single person on The Apricity can argue me that my definition of "Troll" is false, based on your current post.
Admins, when will you finally start removing Finnic spam? Their flaming is harmless, of course, but too boring for TA, unless it's now a low-brow fora.
PS. LOL I can imagine amount and "quality" of BS Finnics post on their national forums. Some of their discussions about Finnics being or not being Uralic mongrels/ Nordic Europeans are hundreds and hundreds pages long! I recall I once stumbled across a discussion more than 700 pages long! :D
Admins, when will you finally start removing Finnic spam? Their flaming is harmless, of course, but too boring for TA, unless it's now a low-brow fora.
PS. LOL I can imagine amount and "quality" of BS Finnics post on their national forums. Some of their discussions about Finnics being or not being Uralic mongrels/ Nordic Europeans are hundreds and hundreds pages long! I recall I once stumbled across a discussion more than 700 pages long! :D
In Internet slang, a troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)) is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community
:coffee:
Edit:
rep comment:
Don't feed the troll :)
I'll stop feeding the troll here too, for the popular demand:)
Seriously, admins, if threads at TA are so hopelessly clogged with senseless Finnic spamming I'll take a leave. The spamming itself is not a problem, I can survive it, but TA Finnics are just SOOOOO WITLESS and BORING!!! They're like children with the Down syndrome. I know we have to pity them, but I always try to keep away from them...
Seriously, admins...
Man, just quit posting about them and stop your interactions instead of complaining. You can't argue with people for pages, exchanging insults, and then call them spammers. You are doing the same thing.
Lahtari
07-23-2009, 10:23 PM
PS. LOL I can imagine amount and "quality" of BS Finnics post on their national forums. Some of their discussions about Finnics being or not being Uralic mongrels/ Nordic Europeans are hundreds and hundreds pages long! I recall I once stumbled across a discussion more than 700 pages long! :D
If we'd put all your posts in one thread, we'd get 700 pages of Russian supremacism. :p
Osweo
07-24-2009, 11:43 AM
Am I the only one who can't see Lahtari's second picture in post 82? It's just an enormous blank box, and is skewing my page display.
Am I the only one who can't see Lahtari's second picture in post 82? It's just an enormous blank box, and is skewing my page display.
I see it perfectly.
I downloaded the picture and uploaded it to imageshack, can you see it now?
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2170/fsthgdp8bunchuprecalcul.gif
Osweo
07-24-2009, 04:40 PM
Still no! :P
Maybe it's too big, and my connection doesn't like it? Very odd. :shrug:
Still no! :P
Maybe it's too big, and my connection doesn't like it? Very odd. :shrug:
Maybe your internet browser doesn't display GIF images. Try using a different internet browser, maybe that helps :p
EDIT: If you can see this, then your internet browser displays GIF images:
http://www.riemurasia.net/jylppy/albumit/mmedia/p2/3co/rh8/92378/641791803.gif
Osweo
07-24-2009, 05:06 PM
Hehe, I see the little black boy! Never mind, I'll have to live without it, thanks for trying!
Basil
07-25-2009, 06:14 PM
Comparisons of genetic material from paleo-Europeans and modern Europeans are giving results that we're 80% paleo-European. The rest is neolithic admixture, most prevalent in south-eastern Europe.
hmm... 80%? I read once that we share 99% of all our genes with chimps, however we look totally different and our lineages diverged from each other 5-7 million years ago.
And you know this from where?
It's generally accepted theory, at least in country where I live. There is no much information in English (or maybe I'm not good at google searching) but following article throws some light on origin of my views on whole Finno-Ugric subject.
...
About 10,000 years ago, with the retreat of the continental ice sheet from Fennoscandia, the land started to rise and vegetation and animal life to return. In about 7,000 B.C. man arrived, too, in pursuit of herds of reindeer and elk. The culture of these people, known in Finland as the Suomusjarvi culture, has affinities with the Komsa culture of the Finnmark area in northern Scandinavia. It is assumed that the Suomusjarvi peoples came from the east.
Archaeological finds dated at around 4,000 B.C. point to a new culture, the Early Comb Ceramic or Sperrings culture. More people probably arrived again from the east, from Karelia and the Upper Volga. Sparsely inhabited though it was, the country probably supported the maximum population possible under the prevailing conditions: supporting a family or a whole clan on reindeer and elk called for large hunting grounds. Very few human bones dating from the Stone Age have been found in Finland, and unfortunately there is not even one well-preserved skull from which we might deduce what kind of people lived there. In Russia, though, numerous well-preserved skulls were found in the 1950's, in a late Mesolithic cemetery on the island of Oleniy Ostrov on Lake Onega in Karelia. The skulls have been dated to the period spanning the transition from the Suomusjarvi to the Early Comb Ceramic cultures, at about 5,000 - 4,000 B.C. There are two different types of skull. One is large and meso-cephalic, broad and flat-faced - what is known as the Uralic or Proto-Lapponoid type. The other is dolichocephalic and narrow-faced, or the Europeoid type (Jakimov 1953). The Russian craniologist M.M. Gerasimov has used these skulls to reconstruct a model demonstrating what these types of people probably looked like while alive (Fig. 1). It has been assumed that the Uralic type originated, and that the Europeoid type came from, farther south, from the Upper and Middle Volga. The ancient Uralic race inhabited the area from the west of the Ural Mountains eastwards to the middle and lower reaches of the river Ob. It is presumed that the eastern or so-called "Mongoloid morphological features and genetic markers, or the "eastern roots" of the Finno-Ugrians, originate in from the Uralic race and not in Mongolia, where the population belongs to the quite different "true" Mongoloid race. Hence, the question put forward in the beginning of my presentation really ought to be "Are we Uralic or Germanic?"
The next culture to spread to Finland, the Upper Volga, Karelia and the Baltic was the Typical Comb Ceramic Culture, which has been dated to 3,500 - 2,500 B.C. During this time more settlements and, presumably, larger communities appeared, increasing the population of southern Finland and Karelia. This culture has distinct associations with the East Baltic. In the view of modern science, this phase marks the genesis of the Proto-Finnish, or Baltic Finnish culture. Because archaeological artefacts point east- and southwards, the contact population is assumed to have been closer to the Europeoid type. Skull finds made in Estonia, and ascribed to the same period, have also revealed both the broad, Uralic skull and the more gracile, Europeoid type (Mark 1970, Denisova 1973).
The Battle Axe or Boat Axe cultures, which are dated as belonging to the period spanning the years 2,500 - 1,500 B.C. introduced influences from the southwest and south, from the eastern Baltic and possibly even from Central Europe. It seems very likely that this was a period of major cultural and populational change. We see the first signs of primitive agriculture and animal husbandry. In eastern Finland, contact continues to be maintained with northeastern Europe. Most of the skulls from graves dating from this period that have been found in Estonia have distinct Europeoid features (Mark 1970). Gerasimov's reconstructions these skulls are shown in Figure 2.
Nevertheless, individual skull finds should always be viewed with caution. First of all, it is unlikely that the person in the grave represents the average type of the population. All populations include both dolichocephalic and brachycephalic individuals with broad and narrow faces. Second, we cannot even be sure that the person buried in the grave was in fact a representative of the culture in question; he may have been a hunter or prisoner from distant parts. But then again, there is always the possibility that even though the person might have been a representative of a neighbouring culture, he may still have deposited his genes in the population's genetic pool.
The objects of the next period, the Bronze Age (2,000 - 500 B.C.), are unmistakably Scandinavian. There is very little evidence of links with Scandinavia in earlier periods. As far as is known, migration from the west did not start until the Bronze Age, and even then it was restricted to southern and western coastal districts. In the interior and east of the country, Bronze Age contacts were still bound up with the world of Karelia and the Volga.
The next cultural phase, the Iron Age, covered the period that included the birth of Christ. According to the earlier theory of settlement, it was during this short period that the majority of the Finnish forebears arrived, in southwestern and western Finland across the Gulf of Finland from Estonia, a smaller number coming from the east via the Karelian Isthmus. Nowadays, however, archaeologists are of the opinion that if there were any migrations during that period, then they were in the opposite direction - from Finland to Estonia.
Thus, we now consider that Finland has been continuously inhabited ever since the end of the Ice Age, that is for about 9,000 years. Throughout this time, the population has been augmented by new arrivals, although some people have probably also moved away. Until the Bronze Age, virtually the only contacts were with the east, and to some extent with the south. But after the BronzeAge, there was continuous contact westwards, with Scandinavia. The population density has fluctuated over the years: deteriorating conditions may have reduced numbers, but it is unlikely that the land was ever completely deserted. We do not know to what extent the different cultures and innovations established by archaeologists mark the arrival of new settlers. With the introduction of farming and stock breeding, the land was able to support a greater number of people; but whether the existing population grew or whether new settlers arrived is not known. Philologists have proposed that the shared agricultural vocabulary of the Volga-Finnish proto-language could not have reached this country before 2,000 B.C. However, the Finno-Ugrian linguistic relationship does not have to imply a corresponding biological relationship. It would take only a small population to introduce important new knowledge and skills, together with the vocabulary needed to depict them, from the Volga region into Finland.
Professor Harri Nevanlinna has studied the genetic markers of Finnish blood and compared them with markers in Swedes, Estonianis, Latvians, Hungarians and some Siberian peoples. He came to the conclusion that about three quarters of the Finnish genetic material is western European in origin and about one quarter of eastern origin. Finns have certain blood group genes that also occur among Estonians and Volga Finns but very rarely among Swedes. The origin of these genes may lie far back in the genetic pool of the Finno-Ugrian Comb Ceramic Age. We may call them Uralic characteristics, if we like, but certainly not Mongolian. On the other hand, a certain proportion of the genetic pool of the Swedes, particularly the northern Swedes, comes from Finland. In other words, Swedes also have a genetic element from the east, even though they are regarded as typical representatives of the Nordic race. In any case, according to recent population genetic findings, Finns are biologically more closely related to Scandinavians than to their linguistic relatives on the banks of the Volga - the Mari (Zyrians) and Komi (Cheremis) peoples (Kajanoja 1978).
There are about 3,000 Lapps or Saamis in Finland. Many branches of science have been called on in the effort to solve the mystery of their origin. The genetic and anthropological characteristics of the Saams have been documented and studied in detail (Eriksson 1984). A more recent theory regarding the origin of the Saamis draws on the findings of archaeological, philological and anthropological research: the Proto-Finnish and Proto-Lapp population began to diverge from the Comb Ceramic population in Finland and Karelia at the same time as the Baltic and Central European Boat Axe culture began to spread from the south. The differentiation continued in the Bronze Age and is thus dated to 2,500 - 1,000 B.C. The Saami population had few contacts with the Baltic peoples. In the early years of the Christian era, the territory inhabited by the Saamis extended all the way from central and northern Norway via central and northern Finland to the White Sea and the Kola Peninsula. The Finnish population settled in western and southern Finland and around Lake Ladoga. Morphologically, the Saamis probably resemble the Uralic type of Comb Ceramic people: they are less mixed with the Europeoid racial type of Europe and Scandinavia than the Baltic Finns (Alekseev 1966).
...
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/kajanoja.htm
I'm not sure where the next graph is from (somebody posted it in another thread), but at least it has something that other comparisons are lacking: a global perspective.
Unfortunately I can see neither this image nor re-uploaded one.
Osweo
07-26-2009, 01:30 AM
In any case, according to recent population genetic findings, Finns are biologically more closely related to Scandinavians than to their linguistic relatives on the banks of the Volga - the Mari (Zyrians) and Komi (Cheremis) peoples (Kajanoja 1978).
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/kajanoja.htm
Just a small correction - for whoever looks after the SNPA website? - The Mare were called Cheremis, once upon a time, and the Komi called Zyrians. I don't know why these old terms are ALWAYS referred to in the literature - they are nigh on obsolete in Russia itself, and aren't the terms the peoples themselves use.
Unfortunately I can see neither this image nor re-uploaded one.
Aye, it's frustrating that! Maybe somebody can save it, shrink it down 50% and reupload it to imageshack or something?
Treffie
07-26-2009, 08:59 AM
How does it look as an attachment?
Edit: Mmmmm!
Osweo
07-26-2009, 09:05 AM
Hooray! I've finally seen it!!! :D
Diolch yn fawr, Tref!
But I can't read the labels on this one, though. Maybe it'd be okay as an attachment at its original size?
Treffie
07-26-2009, 09:14 AM
Os, I've uploaded it from its original size already, if I expand it, it's too big to be uploaded - wretched thing.:(
Osweo
07-26-2009, 09:24 AM
Sori for the trwbl... :P
It is a bluddy troublesome pic, though! And yet now I can see that it is worth looking at. Bloody difficult to prune down to. Ekh! :shrug:
Treffie
07-26-2009, 09:26 AM
Sori for the trwbl... :P
It is a bluddy troublesome pic, though! And yet now I can see that it is worth looking at. Bloody difficult to prune down to. Ekh! :shrug:
Have you got your dongle plugged into your laptop?
Osweo
07-26-2009, 09:28 AM
Yep (I'll resist the opportunity for silly jokes)
Treffie
07-26-2009, 09:32 AM
Yep (I'll resist the opportunity for silly jokes)
Those things are restrictive, I get probs with mine when I'm using smileys, have learned now to resort to : then D, or whatever. Pain in the proverbial!
What strikes me it that predominantly Estonian counties appear rather "West-Baltic" (blue). And it's rather the East, where we got the "East-Baltic" nucleus (red):
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3086/sxdadcasfca.png
One is located North of Lake Peipus, in the Ida-Viru County - noted for its large Russian minority, while the other one is located round the Southern (Russian) banks of Lake Peipus, next to Pskov, Novy Izborsk and Pechory, and within the two Estonian border counties of Võru and Põlva.
Frankly most of the Southern Nucleus is located un modern Russia:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8244/scasa.gif
Absolutely worthless for your present purposes while treating Finnics in a vacuum.
I would like to see Russians, Balts and Swedes included, as well as some Turkic peoples of the Volga.
Here we go... (from the very paper Hors posted):
The mean value of MI of the Estonians is 24.8. The smallest MI value has been recorded in West Estonia (22.0), followed by the West Islands and North Estonia (23.7), then South-West (24.7), and South-East and North-East (about 26) Estonia (Mark, 1994:51). According to K. Mark the population of West Estonia is almost entirely Europoid. The Mongoloid addition, which is obviously connected with the East-Baltic anthropological type, becomes more noticeable when proceeding to the east. The lowest MI value among other peoples studied was recorded among Finnish Swedes (10.1), followed by western Finns (16.3) and the Russians of Volga districts (18.1). According to the increase of MI value the compared Finno-Ugric peoples can be set in order as follows: Mordvinians-Erza (21.6), Izhorians 26.1), Karelians (28.0), eastern Finns (29.5), Vepses (30.1), Mordvinians-Moksha (32.8), Komis (about 36), Lapps (46.6), Maris (48.3), Khants and Mansi (about 85). It is interesting to note that the difference between the western and eastern Finns is comparatively great, while respective differences in Estonia are quite trifling.
MI by ethnic group:
Khants and Mansi (Ugric) - 85
Mari (Finnic) - 48.3
Lapps (Finnic) - 46.6
Komis (Finnic) - 36
Mordvinians-Moksha (Finnic) - 32.8
Vepses - 30.1
eastern Finns (?) - 29.5
Karelians - 28.0
Izhorians - 26.1
Mordvinians-Erza - 21.6
Russians of Volga districts - 18.1
western Finns - 16.3
Seems Volga Russians are on average more Mongoloid than Western Finns, though not than Estonians. I would love to see MI of Ingrian or Pskov Russians. Judging from the West-to-East trend, and the map of Lake Peipus vicinity, I'd assume its quite high too.
It's generally accepted theory, at least in country where I live. There is no much information in English (or maybe I'm not good at google searching) but following article throws some light on origin of my views on whole Finno-Ugric subject.
A bunch of outdated material. I've posted contemporary articles here, there isn't a thing that would suggest any mongoloid origin of the Finno-Ugric speaking people in Europe.
There are two different types of skull. One is large and meso-cephalic, broad and flat-faced - what is known as the Uralic or Proto-Lapponoid type. The other is dolichocephalic and narrow-faced, or the Europeoid type (Jakimov 1953).
Mesocephalic, broad and flat-faced. Typical Paleolithic Europids.
This is an outdated and biased view, another case of misrepresentation of high cheekbones and flat facial features for being somehow tied to non-Europids. These features were found throughout Upper Paleolithic Europe.
One is located North of Lake Peipus, in the Ida-Viru County - noted for its large Russian minority, while the other one is located round the Southern (Russian) banks of Lake Peipus, next to Pskov, Novy Izborsk and Pechory, and within the two Estonian border counties of Võru and Põlva.
Frankly most of the Southern Nucleus is located un modern Russia:
It seems similar to the area inhabited by the Estonian Seto people:
http://www.larko.org/setomaa.jpg
Within the area, which is still under Russian occupation:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Estonia1925physical.jpg
I guess that the East Baltic race is the one most resembling the original inhabitants of the area. And its features are due to cold adaption.
Here is a good passage for Inese:
In comparison with the neighbouring peoples, the very light pigmentation of Estonians is especially conspicuous. Of the peoples of the Baltic states the Latvians and Lithuanians have a slightly darker pigmentation of eyes and a noticeably darker hair pigmentation than the Estonians (PI, accordingly, 22.5, 25.8 and 17.8). All the Balto-Finnic peoples and also Finnish Swedes have light or even very light pigmentation. Among them the lightest pigmentation have northeast Estonians (PI 11.2), eastern Finns (15.0) and west Estonians (17.8); southeast Estonians have a slightly darker pigmentation (20.0), then follow Izhorians (22.5), western Finns (22.5), Finnish Swedes (25.8), Karelians (26.0) and Vepses (34.4) (Mark, 1994:67; Fig. 3).
Well, clearly Latvians are not so close to Estonians anthropologically as one might think... Also seems to confirm that Finnics are among the blondest people in Europe. On the other hand the study mentions high abundance of the paleo-asiatic (or paleo-europid or cromagnoid) type among Finnics:
North European relic type, which is also typical of Finno-Ugrians, but has been recorded among eastern Latvians, too.
It seems similar to the area inhabited by the Estonian Seto people: Within the area, which is still under Russian occupation:
I guess that the East Baltic race is the one most resembling the original inhabitants of the area. And its features are due to cold adaption.
Precisely so! That's why the authors mention higher prevalence of the "relic type" among Eastern Estonians and Latvians. Who were the Seto people?
Precisely so! That's why the authors mention higher prevalence of the "relic type" among Eastern Estonians and Latvians. Who were the Seto people?
Well, they speak a very archaic Estonian dialect (sometimes considered a separate Finnic language), which has many properties standard Estonian (based on the northern dialect) has lost. Some have guessed they used to be a bit more similar to the Baltic-Finnic tribes which used to live next to Estonia before East-Slavs came among.
Anyway... I just discovered the existence of the whole separate branch of South Estonian dialects, now dispersed throughout Russia and Latvia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Estonian_language
Here is a map of historical South Estonian (Võro, Seto, Mulgi, Tartu) language area with historical South Estonian language enclaves (Lutsi, Leivu and Kraasna):
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/5752/southestonianlanguagear.jpg
In the West, I marked the historical range of Finnic Livonian language, related to Estonian. I reckon the "gap" between Livonian and South Estonian was once sealed. One gets an image of what must have been a predominantly Finnic country.
Here are several maps of Livonian after the Baltic expansion from upper Dvina and Dnieper:
http://homepage.mac.com/uldis/livonia/livciltis.jpg
and
http://www.suri.ee/r/liivi/kaarts-en.jpg
and
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Liivi_keel.GIF
P.S.
What is more interesting, there existed a whole Votic (Kreevin) dialect in Latvia, from Votians who were settled there XV century:
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631220398_chunk_g978063122039828_s s2-10
and (after http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/votes.shtml ):
The Votic language belongs to the southern group of the Baltic-Finnic languages and is the closest relative of the Estonian language. Western, eastern (main dialects), Kukkusi and Kreevin dialects can be distinguished. The western dialect is also spoken in the villages of Vaipool and the Kukkusi dialect -- Izhorian -- influenced Votic language -- in the village of Kukkusi. The Kreevin dialect, a Votic linguistic enclave in Latvia, had already become extinct in Courland by the middle of the 19th century, and the last speakers of the eastern dialect passed away in Itchдpдivд (Itsepino) in the 1960s.
I hope Inese doesn't read this, but this saying is true enough: :D
"The Latvian language is Lithuanian spoken with an Estonian accent"
Here is a good website: "BEYOND THE POINT OF NO RETURN", about how various Uralic people have been balticised and russified over centuries:
http://www.suri.ee/eup/beyond.html
A study by a Norwegian scholar and gradual slavicisation of Finnic populations of Northern Russia:
http://www.slav.helsinki.fi/nwrussia/eng/Conference/pdf/Bjornflaten.pdf
It states that Votic Krevinian was most likely "transplanted" into Latvia in XV century. It existed in "Souther Courland" and went extinct in XIX century. Pity the article does not state where precisely it existed.
You guys have to admit it - threads started by Hors frequently turn out to become fascinating discussions! :D This is an excellent thread and very educating. I've learnt a lot more about the Baltic region's ethnic and anthropological make-up already.
Inese
07-26-2009, 03:28 PM
Here is a good passage for Inese:
Well, clearly Latvians are not so close to Estonians anthropologically as one might think... Also seems to confirm that Finnics are among the blondest people in Europe.
Hm and what is the problem please?? You know i was not the donkey who said that the old Livonian who were connected to the Estonians are now a part of Latvian people which makes " Latvia a Southern Estonia "!! :coffee:
I always said that Estonia and Latvia are different people and different ethnicys and that i dont like it when Estonian say that parts of Latvia belong to them. :rolleyes2:
And Balts are the most blonde ethnicity in Europe with the Finnic!! If the Finnic rate is a little bit higher or not --- is not a problem!! We are blonder and lighter than most of rest of Europe and that is what matters okay?? :cool: If we have rank 1 and the Finnic rank 2 or the Finnic rank 1 and we rank 2 is all the same to me.
http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/~jgonza/wordpress/wp-images/blue_eyes_map.jpg
I hope Inese doesn't read this, but this saying is true enough: :D
"The Latvian language is Lithuanian spoken with an Estonian accent"
That is a very stupid and wrong saying!! I have to tell you that Lithuanian can not understand us and we can not understand Lithuanian!! Some words are smiliar but that is not enough to understand complete sentences or the sense of complete texts.
And i ask you what is so funny about it?? :confused: If the Russian mongrel annoys you with anti Estonian texts then you should not attack my country as a form of coping method!! Your identification friend or foe is not good configured you know??
Brännvin
07-26-2009, 03:57 PM
Interesting that in recent studies has revealed that the Estonians are closer genetically to Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles and some Russians than the Finns with whom Estonians share a similar language;
http://www.ajakiri.ut.ee/438787
Estonians are not like Finns;
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/02/estonians_are_not_like_finns.php
Brännvin
07-26-2009, 04:15 PM
http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/~jgonza/wordpress/wp-images/blue_eyes_map.jpg
What is the credibility of that map? Do you know what were the criterias used for development?
What is the credibility of that map? Do you know what were the criterias used for development?
That's one big enigma. As long as we do not know the stats behind this map, we might as well commit it to the flames.
Hm and what is the problem please?? You know i was not the donkey who said that the old Livonian who were connected to the Estonians are now a part of Latvian people
:rolleyes2: ...which is entirely correct as you can see - both historically, linguistically and anthropologically (the aformentioned Paleolithic relic type). And yes, I was "the donkey" who said this. That might be the main reason for which Latvians are more blonde than their fellow Lithuanians. Coming from upper Dvina and Dnieper they assimilated a lot of Baltic Finnic blood.
which makes " Latvia a Southern Estonia "!! :coffee:
Here, some other donkey had to chip his bit in... :mad:
I always said that Estonia and Latvia are different people and different ethnicys and that i dont like it when Estonian say that parts of Latvia belong to them. :rolleyes2:
However, on several occasions (just look below) you implied Latvia is as fair and blonde as Scandinavia or Estonia, which seems blatantly incorrect. So it seems you are deliberately spreading incorrect information to "nordicise up" your home country - Latvia.
And Balts are the most blonde ethnicity in Europe with the Finnic!! If the Finnic rate is a little bit higher or not --- is not a problem!! We are blonder and lighter than most of rest of Europe and that is what matters okay?? :cool: If we have rank 1 and the Finnic rank 2 or the Finnic rank 1 and we rank 2 is all the same to me.
No. Balts are not the most blonde ethnicity in Europe and they do not rank as 1st nor even 2nd. We had this in our eye color discussion. Latvia ranks clearly below all Scandinavian nations, and Estonia.
And yes, it is a problem, particularly when you are desperately trying to make Balts look more blonde than they really are. Frisian and Scandinavian, particularly Finnic, blondism is not just "a little bit" higher. It is much higher. And that scientific paper clearly states the differences between the Balts and the Estonians are not "little", but are "NOTICABLE" and "CONSPICUOUS":
In comparison with the neighbouring peoples, the very light pigmentation of Estonians is especially conspicuous. Of the peoples of the Baltic states the Latvians and Lithuanians have a slightly darker pigmentation of eyes and a noticeably darker hair pigmentation than the Estonians (PI, accordingly, 22.5, 25.8 and 17.8).
Latvians in this respect seem much closer to Lithuanians than to Finnics, even though they assimilated some Finnic tribes. More on pigmentation:
All the Balto-Finnic peoples and also Finnish Swedes have
light or even very light pigmentation. Among them the lightest pigmentation have northeast Estonians (PI 11.2), eastern Finns (15.0) and west Estonians (17.8); southeast Estonians have a slightly darker pigmentation (20.0), then follow Izhorians (22.5), western Finns (22.5), Finnish Swedes (25.8), Karelians (26.0) and Vepses (34.4)
Apparently Estonians are more blonde than the Finns.
That is a very stupid and wrong saying!! I have to tell you that Lithuanian can not understand us and we can not understand Lithuanian!! Some words are smiliar but that is not enough to understand complete sentences or the sense of complete texts.
Naturally I know that this saying isn't true, but the way the Latvian language sets its stress on words is due to Finnic substratum (and assimilating Livonians is a relatively recent thing, so it doesn't necessarily come from them).
And i ask you what is so funny about it?? :confused: If the Russian mongrel annoys you with anti Estonian texts then you should not attack my country as a form of coping method!! Your identification friend or foe is not good configured you know??
I didn't intend to attack Latvia. Estonians have also assimilated Balts just like Balts assimilated Finnics, it is nothing to be ashamed of.
Absinthe
07-26-2009, 05:41 PM
Naturally I know that this saying isn't true, but the way the Latvian language sets its stress on words is due to Finnic substratum
Finnic languages always stress the first syllable whereas that's not true for Latvian ;)
Finnic languages always stress the first syllable whereas that's not true for Latvian ;)
I dug this up concerning Finnic substratum in Latvian:
The stress is "almost always" on the first syllable - this is totally alien to Lithuanian which retains the typical Indo-European type of mobile pitch accent. This has also led to reduction of vowels in later syllables which means Latvian words are often shorter than their Lithuanian counterparts. There are also morphological influences, some phrases (like "I have a book") seem to follow a typical Finnic pattern...
Absinthe
07-26-2009, 06:22 PM
I dug this up concerning Finnic substratum in Latvian:
The stress is "almost always" on the first syllable -
Well that's not true :) I learned some basic Latvian phrases, plus I was hearing Latvian day to night for one week and the stress is not on the first syllable.
Plus, the overall impression of the language - it sounds nothing like Finnish or Estonian whatsoever.
To the untrained ear it may sound somewhat slavic at first, but once you get used to the sounds, it is distinct, and also with a touch of german-sounding words. :)
Latvian stereotypes
Towards Estonia:
* Successful businesses and economy
* Advanced social- and medical system
* IT-sphere
* Spas
* Islands
* Munamägi (largest mountain in the Baltics)
* Tartu University
* Soviet memories
* Liquor "Old Tallinn"
* Kama (food)
* More successful then Latvia
Towards Estonians:
* Blond, light haired
* Non-communicators
* Slow (when contacting)
* Rational
* Foreseeing
* Strategic
* Patriotic
* Careful
* Determined
* "Sexy Estonian boy"(?)
* Better then Latvians
* Scandinavian like
The first stereotype that comes into the mind of a normal Latvian when thinking about Estonians, is Blond hair. Yes, the stereotypes are in chronological order.
@ Inese, Latvians not being majority Finnic and thus not being as blond and light eyed as Estonians is not a thing to be ashamed of. I have never understood Nordicists, but I can say that brunette hair, green eyes and even brown eyes are an European trait. Me being blond and light eyed doesn't make me superior to Southern-, Western- and Eastern Europeans.
Plus, the overall impression of the language - it sounds nothing like Finnish or Estonian whatsoever.
Of course not, it is part of a entirely different language family. But they do have Finnic substratum, I'm sure they have some loan words as well - all Baltic-Finnic languages have numerous Proto-Baltic and Baltic loanwords.
but once you get used to the sounds, it is distinct, and also with a touch of german-sounding words. :)
This is due to hundreds of years shared with the Baltic Germans. This is also true for Estonian - the majority of loanwords in Estonian come from Low German and German. I guess this is also the case with the Latvian language. ;)
Absinthe
07-26-2009, 06:52 PM
EWtt, Latvia is just a bus ride away!! :D Why don't you drop by? It is a lovely excursion, plus you'll get to spy on the local language :thumbs
EWtt, Latvia is just a bus ride away!! :D Why don't you drop by? It is a lovely excursion, plus you'll get to spy on the local language :thumbs
I wonder if there is an Estonian who hasn't been to Latvia at least once? :P
Absinthe
07-26-2009, 06:59 PM
I wonder if there is an Estonian who hasn't been to Latvia at least once? :P
So have you been to Latvia already? What did you think of the language and the overall culture? :)
So have you been to Latvia already?
Yep, many times. ;)
What did you think of the language and the overall culture? :)
My opinion of Latvia and Latvians is very positive. What else can I say... It's a nice country - flat, just like ours! :thumb001: :D
Inese
07-26-2009, 09:24 PM
:rolleyes2: ...which is entirely correct as you can see - both historically, linguistically and anthropologically (the aformentioned Paleolithic relic type).
Total wrong!! :mad: We have nothing to do with Estonians linguistically and anthropoligically only a little. Cultural and ethnically only with some Livonian tribe who integrated to us! :)
However, on several occasions (just look below) you implied Latvia is as fair and blonde as Scandinavia or Estonia, which seems blatantly incorrect. So it seems you are deliberately spreading incorrect information to "nordicise up" your home country - Latvia.
I tell you again that you are a bookworm far away from reality!! There is no statistic you can not abuse for your favor --- do you know the saying from Churchill?? I give you a hint: Get out of your polski basement and drive to my country and open the eyes for the people okay??
Finnics are a little blind blonder in the mass but we are at the same level with Swedish and Norwegian people.
No. Balts are not the most blonde ethnicity in Europe and they do not rank as 1st nor even 2nd. We had this in our eye color discussion. Latvia ranks clearly below all Scandinavian nations, and Estonia.
Below Estonia but not below all Scandinavian countrys. :rolleyes2: You are giving wrong informations from wrong sources or wrong books or you interpret them negative.
And yes, it is a problem, particularly when you are desperately trying to make Balts look more blonde than they really are. Frisian and Scandinavian, particularly Finnic, blondism is not just "a little bit" higher. It is much higher. And that scientific paper clearly states the differences between the Balts and the Estonians are not "little", but are "NOTICABLE" and "CONSPICUOUS":
Your super scientific paper is standing against all comon sources! There are no big differences between Balts, Finnic and Scandinavians in eye and hair color.
My opinion of Latvia and Latvians is very positive. What else can I say... It's a nice country - flat, just like ours! :thumb001: :D
Yes but we have the highest point of Baltic countrys!! :D Estonian mountain Suur Munamägi is with 318 meter 7 meter higher than our highest mountain Gaizinkalns with 311 meter --- but we build a sight plattform on our moutain and the top of the plattform is higher than Suur Munamägi!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Gaizinkalns.jpg/428px-Gaizinkalns.jpg
:jump0000:
Yes but we have the highest point of Baltic countrys!! :D Estonian mountain Suur Munamägi is with 318 meter 7 meter higher than our highest mountain Gaizinkalns with 311 meter --- but we build a sight plattform on our moutain and the top of the plattform is higher than Suur Munamägi!
:jump0000:
Hold on now, we also have a tower on Munamägi which makes the total height around 346,7 meters. ;)
http://www.suurmunamagi.ee/upload/image/1148309903759527.jpg
Total wrong!! :mad: We have nothing to do with Estonians linguistically and anthropoligically only a little. Cultural and ethnically only with some Livonian tribe who integrated to us! :)
I tell you again that you are a bookworm far away from reality!! There is no statistic you can not abuse for your favor --- do you know the saying from Churchill?? I give you a hint: Get out of your polski basement and drive to my country and open the eyes for the people okay??
:) Why are you assuming Im stuck in my "polski basement" and not at Imperial or Cambridge? Life can be sometimes generous for East Euros, you know... ;)
Finnics are a little blind blonder in the mass but we are at the same level with Swedish and Norwegian people.
Below Estonia but not below all Scandinavian countrys. :rolleyes2: You are giving wrong informations from wrong sources or wrong books or you interpret them negative.
Your super scientific paper is standing against all comon sources! There are no big differences between Balts, Finnic and Scandinavians in eye and hair color.
Well it's your word versus the articles ;) I prefer to trust the latter. By the way, the paper was posted by Hors, not me (and its not a Russian paper).
EDIT: or even "very generous".. particularly thanks to our Saxon friends' hospitality ;)
What strikes me it that predominantly Estonian counties appear rather "West-Baltic" (blue). And it's rather the East, where we got the "East-Baltic" nucleus (red):
As I have said many a time Finnics are Asiatic invaders. The coastal Estonia is the place where the original UP proto-Balto-Slavic population survived. The rest was overrun by primitive Finnic tribes.
One is located North of Lake Peipus, in the Ida-Viru County - noted for its large Russian minority, while the other one is located round the Southern (Russian) banks of Lake Peipus, next to Pskov, Novy Izborsk and Pechory, and within the two Estonian border counties of Võru and Põlva.
You're suggesting that it's Russians who are East-Baltid on the map? Funny you...
Frankly most of the Southern Nucleus is located un modern Russia:
It's orthodox Setu.
Here we go... (from the very paper Hors posted):
The Mongoloid addition, which is obviously connected with the East-Baltic anthropological type, becomes more noticeable when proceeding to the east.
... in Estonia
MI by ethnic group:
Khants and Mansi (Ugric) - 85
Mari (Finnic) - 48.3
Lapps (Finnic) - 46.6
Komis (Finnic) - 36
Mordvinians-Moksha (Finnic) - 32.8
Vepses - 30.1
eastern Finns (?) - 29.5
Karelians - 28.0
Izhorians - 26.1
Mordvinians-Erza - 21.6
Russians of Volga districts - 18.1
western Finns - 16.3
Seems Volga Russians are on average more Mongoloid than Western Finns, though not than Estonians.
It seems you overlooked the information that Mongoloidism starts with a certain treshold. Both Volga Russians and West-Finns (who are also original UP dwellers of Europe) are below the treshold and thus not Mongoloid at all, unlike Estonians who are above the treshold.
I would love to see MI of Ingrian or Pskov Russians. Judging from the West-to-East trend, and the map of Lake Peipus vicinity, I'd assume its quite high too.
You're obviously not very good in assumptions.
It seems similar to the area inhabited by the Estonian Seto people:
http://www.larko.org/setomaa.jpg
Within the area, which is still under Russian occupation:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Estonia1925physical.jpg
It's rather the area next to the territory which is temporarily out of Russian jurisdiction. Not for long...
I guess that the East Baltic race is the one most resembling the original inhabitants of the area. And its features are due to cold adaption.
Your guess is wrong. Before semi-Mongoloid Finnics arrived there was not a trace of this bastard type in the Eastern Baltic area. The Baltic types were essentially the same as in Upper and Middle Volga and Dnieper and Don areas. Unfortunately the climatic conditions changes and it gave a chance for primitive semi-Mongoloid Finnics to occupy the some land.
Your guess is wrong. Before semi-Mongoloid Finnics arrived there was not a trace of this bastard type in the Eastern Baltic area. The Baltic types were essentially the same as in Upper and Middle Volga and Dnieper and Don areas. Unfortunately the climatic conditions changes and it gave a chance for primitive semi-Mongoloid Finnics to occupy the some land.
I think. In fact, Im certain that is incorrect. I read Aleksiejew's "Geography of Human Races" and he openly states that the West-to-East gradient in facial flatness, and higher incidence of Mongoloid-like features in Eastern Latvia and Estonia has been visible among the very earliest findings. He even noted, that this was the reason why several Soviet anthropologists were astonished, when they discovered a similar pattern in still visible today (which the article posted by you clearly supports btw).
What is more interesting, Coon and the article you posted, both state that Eastern Latvia and Eastern Estonia is more blonde than Western. Thus, blondism would seem to be correlated with the Finnic "Northern relic" (Paleoeuropid) type.
Lahtari
07-28-2009, 11:56 AM
I think. In fact, Im certain that is incorrect. I read Aleksiejew's "Geography of Human Races" and he openly states that the West-to-East gradient in facial flatness, and higher incidence of Mongoloid-like features in Eastern Latvia and Estonia has been visible among the very earliest findings. He even noted, that this was the reason why several Soviet anthropologists were astonished, when they discovered a similar pattern in still visible today (which the article posted by you clearly supports btw).
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3086/sxdadcasfca.png
Just compare with minimum temperatures of the area. In Estonia the decrease is particularly rapid:
http://www.tulipworld.com/info/bulbcare/images/xtra-europe.gif
It is no surprize that the people living next to the sea warmed by the Gulf Stream are less borealized than those who have to cope with < -30C.
Attached is the zipped image from post #82 for Oswiu.
As I have said many a time Finnics are Asiatic invaders. The coastal Estonia is the place where the original UP proto-Balto-Slavic population survived. The rest was overrun by primitive Finnic tribes.
Proto-Balto-Slavs came after the Finnic tribes had already arrived. All Baltic-Finnic languages have proto-Baltic loanwords, which also means that Estonia is probably the Urheimat of Baltic-Finnic languages.
Who told you Kunda culture people were in any way related to proto-Balto-Slavs?
It seems you overlooked the information that Mongoloidism starts with a certain treshold. Both Volga Russians and West-Finns (who are also original UP dwellers of Europe) are below the treshold and thus not Mongoloid at all, unlike Estonians who are above the treshold.
Those physical peculiarities have been called "pseudomongoloid" by some researchers. They are due to cold adaption and diet, but certainly not from any mongoloids.
I think. In fact, Im certain that is incorrect. I read Aleksiejew's "Geography of Human Races" and he openly states that the West-to-East gradient in facial flatness, and higher incidence of Mongoloid-like features in Eastern Latvia and Estonia has been visible among the very earliest findings.
Denisova says that the Metis type appears in Latvia in the Mesolithic period. Thus there is no question about presence of such elements in the Upper Paleolithic population of Latvia.
What is more interesting, Coon and the article you posted, both state that Eastern Latvia and Eastern Estonia is more blonde than Western. Thus, blondism would seem to be correlated with the Finnic "Northern relic" (Paleoeuropid) type.
Or maybe that the coastal regions of Latvia and Estonia received more darker southern elements via sea routes.
Anyway, where do you see any point about blondism I made in the thread?
Proto-Balto-Slavs came after the Finnic tribes had already arrived.
That's all what really matters. Now do us all a favor and please leave ASAP!
Nodens
08-04-2009, 02:24 AM
Interesting bit from Wikipedia:
The Y-chromosomal data has revealed a common Finno-Ugric ancestry for the males of Finnic peoples and Baltic peoples. According to the studies, Baltic males are most closely related to the Finno-Ugric-speaking Volga Finns such as the Mari, rather than to Baltic Finns.[9] The indicator of Finno-Ugric origin has been found to be more frequent in Latvians (42%) and Lithuanians (43%) than in Estonians (34%). The results suggest that the territories of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been settled by Finno-Ugric-speaking tribes since the early Mesolithic period.[10]
This is "theory" thrusted by the Finno-Ugric countries like Estonia and Finland and it don't have nothing with the reality, not confirmed by the archeology, linguistic and other sciences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balts#Finno-Ugrian_prelude
Is it just me, or does the underlined sound strangely familiar?
The actual data in question:
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=57985&ProduktNr=224250&filename=57985.pdf
On-Topic Edit: Any Mongoloid influence west of the Urals (Kalmyks and Samoyeds excluded) is negligible at best.
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 11:04 AM
Hehee! Gr8 thread :) . I certainly am pure blooded mongoloid invader from the vast steppes of Mongolian plain :)
On more serious note I wonder why this was not posted allready:
The Origin of the Baltic-Finns from the Physical Anthropological Point of View
Prof. Markku Niskanen, Oulu university 2002
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/niskanenbalticcorrected.pdf
http://i26.tinypic.com/25i3o78.jpg
Norwegians and Austrians are my fullblooded Mongolian bro's. Together we will rule!
http://i27.tinypic.com/11skuiv.jpg
Unfortunately there is no direct data about Estonians but I doubt they differ from Finns that much (by physical phenotype).
Norwegians and Austrians are my fullblooded Mongolian bro's. Together we will rule!
WoW! Austrians stand out here... odd :) What's the source of these tables, if I may ask?
There is some big BS with this index. Have a look at your table, and now at this (coming from the article posted by Hors):
MI by ethnic group:
Khants and Mansi (Ugric) - 85
Mari (Finnic) - 48.3
Lapps (Finnic) - 46.6
Komis (Finnic) - 36
Mordvinians-Moksha (Finnic) - 32.8
Vepses - 30.1
eastern Finns (?) - 29.5
Karelians - 28.0
Izhorians - 26.1
Mordvinians-Erza - 21.6
Russians of Volga districts - 18.1
western Finns - 16.3
Seems Volga Russians are on average more Mongoloid than Western Finns, though not than Estonians.
Compare them...
1. Volga Russians less Mongoloid than average Russians and Czechs?
2. Czechs as Mongoloid as Russians?
3. Austrians as Monogloids as Mordvinians?
4. Western Finns less Monogloid than Germans?
One or both of these studies have to be seriously flawed.
1. Volga Russians less Mongoloid than average Russians and Czechs?
2. Czechs as Mongoloid as Russians?
3. Austrians as Monogloids as Mordvinians?
4. Western Finns less Monogloid than Germans?
One or both of these studies have to be seriously flawed.
These studies have been seriously flawed from the very beginning because this Karin Mark would have said all Europeans with UP/Cro-Magnoid characteristics are semimongoloids.
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 11:28 AM
WoW! Austrians stand out here... odd :) What's the source of these tables, if I may ask?
Those flatfaced hitlerites! Data is from the study " Origins of Baltic Finns.." , full study in my previous message. Pay attention to those no good Greek swarthies and their oriental index. Certainly dont classify as European people.
Another nice one:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2621k6r.jpg
Note how close Swedes and Russians are to Finns by cranial similarity. We have poisoned them with our Mongolian genes! Haa! Siberiaaaaaa!
There is some big BS with this index. Have a look at your table, and now at this (coming from the article posted by Hors):
Karin Mark's work was limited by the situtation at Soviet Union and politically oriented results.
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 11:29 AM
These studies have been seriously flawed from the very beginning because this Karin Mark would have said all Europeans with UP/Cro-Magnoid characteristics are semimongoloids.
Term mongoloid-index is prolly misleading. It measures facial flatnes and stuff like that. Everyone has mongoloid index. It doesnt really mean "genetic connection" to actual fully evolved mongoloids.
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 12:06 PM
Lets continue with theme. Data is from:
http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/Laan_XChromosome_EJHG_2004doi.pdf
Study uses human X-chromosome lineages to examine European and Asiatic ancestry. X-chromosome lineage is not same as mtdna (maternal lineage), allthough mtdna is extracted from X-chromosome. Both males and females have X-chromosome, females have 2 XX and males have 1 , combined with y-chromosome so XY. Males inherit the X-chromosome from mother, daughters inherit one from mom and another from dad. Basically x-chromosome changes sex every generation! Thus X-chromosome lineage can be used to trace ancestry of both sexes, not just another like Ydna or mtdna.
This time data including the Estonians too:
http://i29.tinypic.com/308egef.jpg
Russians have slightly (surprisingly little imo) more Asiatic ancestry than Estonians. Even the Mari (most mongoloid of Finnic people, living in the fareast of geographical Europe) are predominantly European by ancestry.
These studies have been seriously flawed from the very beginning because this Karin Mark would have said all Europeans with UP/Cro-Magnoid characteristics are semimongoloids.
Yeah. I can't see how the two studies can be reconciled in any way... There is way Western Finns have a lower MI than French, Germans, Austrians and Czechs. Likewise MI of over 30 in case of Austrians seems bizzare too. They are not Modvinians for goodness sake. Either or both are incorrect, however, I think this second study, with these Austrians, is more fishy.
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 12:38 PM
I think this second study, with these Austrians, is more fishy.
Niskanen wrotes in the study that there was not all variables available for his Austrian sample set. Some variable may have too big weight when compared to other samples with larger amount of variables used.
Although 39 craniofacial variables provides accurate
information of craniofacial affinities of distantly related
populations, a larger number of variables is needed to gain
reliable information of population relationships of closely
related and, therefore, craniofacially similar populations
(Niskanen 1994b). For this reason, I also computed
craniometric distances by using 96 craniofacial measurements
(listed in Niskanen 1994b) to determine the craniometric
relationships of the Europeans (Table 4). Unfortunately, I was
unable to include the Norwegians, Austrians, and the Buryats
measured by Howells due to lack of measurement values. These
distances reveal that the Finns are craniometrically very close
tothe Swedes and the Russians (mostly from northwestern
Russia), and the least distant population from the
craniometrically distinct Saami.
I have no idea where Ross/Horos/Hors data comes from. Atleast it uses far less variables than Niskanen study.
Term mongoloid-index is prolly misleading. It measures facial flatnes and stuff like that. Everyone has mongoloid index. .
Everyone has the Mongoloid index, but not everyone is partially/fully Mongoloid according to the index. Only peoples like Estonians, Finns, Tatars, Yakuts...
It doesnt really mean "genetic connection" to actual fully evolved mongoloids
Oh, well... if you say so :)
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 03:21 PM
Everyone has the Mongoloid index, but not everyone is partially/fully Mongoloid according to the index. Only peoples like Estonians, Finns, Tatars, Yakuts...
Finns and Estonians are not particulary Mongoloid. Some Rooshans r tho' .
Oh, well... if you say so :)
Northwest Russians seem to be pretty damn close to Finns
http://i30.tinypic.com/51amnb.jpg
These distances reveal that the Finns are craniometrically very close
to the Swedes and the Russians (mostly from northwestern
Russia), and the least distant population from the craniometrically distinct Saami.
Why is that Hors ? Are they Mongol too ? Or is it because of old Novgorod, when we Baltic-Finns established that state.. what was it called again ? Oh yes, Russia.
Finns and Estonians are not particulary Mongoloid. Some Rooshans r tho' .
Northwest Russians seem to be pretty damn close to Finns
http://i30.tinypic.com/51amnb.jpg
Why is that Hors ? Are they Mongol too ? Or is it because of old Novgorod, when we Baltic-Finns established that state.. what was it called again ? Oh yes, Russia.
It's proven that North Western Russians are Finnic. Read my post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72806&postcount=9). That's also the reason why NW-Russia is the lightest area of Russia.
Lahtari
08-26-2009, 05:01 PM
Compare them...
1. Volga Russians less Mongoloid than average Russians and Czechs?
2. Czechs as Mongoloid as Russians?
...
4. Western Finns less Monogloid than Germans?
One or both of these studies have to be seriously flawed.
What are you talking about? Niskanen and Mark have completely different systems that they just called with the same name. So far as I know, Mark focused on a way smaller number of metrical traits and also on the soft part features like epicanthic folds. Niskanen's "Mongoloid-index" is about facial flatness.
Finns and Estonians are not particulary Mongoloid.
True, they're less Mongoloid than Yakuts.
Some Rooshans r tho' .
Estonian cretinism is second only to Finnish cretinism.
Northwest Russians seem to be pretty damn close to Finns
They have little in common with Finnic groups, acc. to both Y-chromosome and mtDNA data.
Why is that Hors ? Are they Mongol too ? Or is it because of old Novgorod, when we Baltic-Finns established that state.. what was it called again ? Oh yes, Russia.
Craniometrical data is not used for determination of race for half a century.
Once again, Estonian cretinism is second only to Finnish cretinism.
What are you talking about? Niskanen and Mark have completely different systems that they just called with the same name. So far as I know, Mark focused on a way smaller number of metrical traits and also on the soft part features like epicanthic folds. Niskanen's "Mongoloid-index" is about facial flatness.
So Niskanen's MI is something quite different? Then I definitely prefer Mark's index. It makes no sense whatsoever that Austrians should be more Monogoloid than Finns or Russians. Or Germans more Mongoloid than Western Finns. I do not really get it... Niskanen's system that is. How come Austrians have so flat faces (over 30) while Germans have not (index of 16)? And presence of epicanthic folds is crucial here. If Niskanen ignores such important key trait, then his "Mongoloid" index has little value.
What are you talking about? Niskanen and Mark have completely different systems that they just called with the same name. So far as I know, Mark focused on a way smaller number of metrical traits and also on the soft part features like epicanthic folds. Niskanen's "Mongoloid-index" is about facial flatness.
True. Niskanen's approach is outdated and insufficient. Karin Mark's is using fine morphological features which truly help to differentiate basic races.
It's proven that North Western Russians are Finnic.
It is proven they're not.
That's also the reason why NW-Russia is the lightest area of Russia.
NW Russia IS NOT the lightest area of Russia. The northernmost Russia is, followed by some peripheral strips of NW Russia and some parts of Central Russia.
Once again, the nucleus of NW Russia (i.e. Novgorod and Pskov) is morphologicall and pigmentation wise is typically Russian. Its Russianness is mirrored by Y-chromosome and mtDNA data which show the region being unquestionably Slavic and NOT Finnic.
I wonder, how many time I will have to repeat it to implant the idea into your typically Estonian inferior out-of-Siberia brain?
Im afraid Niskanen fell into the old habit of defending Europeaness of the Finns. He writes:
The widespread assumption that all of the Uralic-speaking people are at least partially “Mongoloid” has its origin in Friedrich Blumenbach’s 200-year-old claim that two Saami (Lapp) skulls and one Finnish skull resembled one Mongol skull. The Mongoloid affinity of the Finno-Ugrians was accepted as scientific truth by those who had actually never seen the people in question because Blumenbach was a prominent scientist of his time and the linguists were looking for the Uralic homeland to be somewhere in the east (Kilpeläinen 1985, Kemiläinen 1985, 1993).
Well if we look at historical sources, Fenno-Ugrians had to evolve somewhere between Volga and Ural. Definitely in a relative isolation from most other (Indo)Europeans.
Interpretations of findings of physical anthropologists and Origin of the Baltic-Finns from a Physical Anthropological Viewpoint 125 Volume XLIII Number 2, Winter 2002 geneticists have been until nowadays strongly influenced by this assumption of eastern affinities of the Finno-Ugrians. For example, Karin Mark (1970) calculated what she calls “Mongolidheitsindex” (Mongoloid-index) from facial features to estimate the proportion of Mongoloid element of Finno-Ugric populations. Also, many prominent geneticists (for example, Guglielmino et al. 1990, Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, Piazza et al. 1995) assume that the original homeland of the Uralic people was northwestern Siberia; the ancestral Uralic people were Mongoloids; the Samoyeds are the purest representatives of this ancestral type; ancestors of the Baltic-Finns and the Saami arrived in the west along the Arctic coast and mixed genetically with the Europeans. These researchers (mainly Piazza et al. 1995) consider the Finns, whom they find genetically typical Europeans contrary to this assumption, as an example of a discrepancy between the language and the genes.
The thing is they do not find Finns as "typical Europeans". In every genetic study Ive seen, Finland is always an outlier.
These old assumptions are incorrect. In reality, all Finno- Ugrians of Europe (the Baltic-Finns, Saami, Volga-Finns, Permian-Finns, and Hungarians) are phenotypically and genetically typical Europeans. The Ob-Ugrians (Khanty and Mansi) of western Siberia, who are genetically poorly known are phenotypically European-Siberian Mongoloid intermediates. Only the Samoyeds are phenotypically and genetically predominantly Siberian Mongoloids.
I get a strong impression, Niskanen wants to prove a thesis which he already pre-conluded to be correct. I fully agree that Ob-Ugrians and Volga Finns show intermediate features. Perhaps before the waves of Turkic and Mongol invaders they were even more European-looking. I guess its very probable, since the proto-Europid Cro-Magnons reached as far as Central Asia in Paleolithic.
However, one thing I cannot understand is that: "all Finno Ugrians of Euorpea" are genetically typical Europeans". I do not know whats Niskanen's definition of "typical European", but both the Finns and the Hungarians do show clear genetic links to their urheimat on the fringes of Asia.
Whether Niskanen likes it or not, language is most usually passed down vertically, from one generation to another - just like genes. Some ancestors of the Finns and Hungarians came from the vicinity of Volga. And Asian influence has been present there since millenia. If it reached mainland Europe, it reached Finland too.
Another thing which I find bizzare are Niskanen's opinions on Samis:
These old assumptions are incorrect. In reality, all Finno- Ugrians of Europe (the Baltic-Finns, Saami, Volga-Finns, Permian-Finns, and Hungarians) are phenotypically and genetically typical Europeans.
This is not true. Neither Volga Finns, nor Permians, nor Samis are "genetically" fully European. That's some gross misunderstanding. Samis are always an outlier. Here are two articles on the origins of Sami:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/pdf/5201712a.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15024688
The last one reads:
The Saami are regarded as extreme genetic outliers among European populations. In this study, a high-resolution phylogenetic analysis of Saami genetic heritage was undertaken in a comprehensive context, through use of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and paternally inherited Y-chromosomal variation. DNA variants present in the Saami were compared with those found in Europe and Siberia, through use of both new and previously published data from 445 Saami and 17,096 western Eurasian and Siberian mtDNA samples, as well as 127 Saami and 2,840 western Eurasian and Siberian Y-chromosome samples. It was shown that the "Saami motif" variant of mtDNA haplogroup U5b is present in a large area outside Scandinavia. A detailed phylogeographic analysis of one of the predominant Saami mtDNA haplogroups, U5b1b, which also includes the lineages of the "Saami motif," was undertaken in 31 populations. The results indicate that the origin of U5b1b, as for the other predominant Saami haplogroup, V, is most likely in western, rather than eastern, Europe. Furthermore, an additional haplogroup (H1) spread among the Saami was virtually absent in 781 Samoyed and Ob-Ugric Siberians but was present in western and central European populations. The Y-chromosomal variety in the Saami is also consistent with their European ancestry. It suggests that the large genetic separation of the Saami from other Europeans is best explained by assuming that the Saami are descendants of a narrow, distinctive subset of Europeans. In particular, no evidence of a significant directional gene flow from extant aboriginal Siberian populations into the haploid gene pools of the Saami was found.
Samis are European overall. Their ethnogenesis took place in Europe. But it appears that genetically they are distinct and by no means they can be regarded as genetically "typical Europeans". This is dishonest.
The Baltic-Finns and, as a surprise to many people, also the Saami exhibit clearly North European phenotypes. Epicanthic eyefolds, flat faces, coarse straight hair, and other Mongoloid traits are not encountered among them more frequently than among other Europeans (Coon 1939, Brues 1977).
This struck me outright... and since Niskanen listed Coon (1939) in his sources, I looked it up:
Otherwise the Lapp face takes a position midway, in many respects, between whites and mongoloids.
(...)
On the whole, the Lapp crania, as the Lapp soft parts, take an intermediate position between mongoloid and white standard forms. In some special characters the Lapps are unique, as in the masticatory development, and in the orbit, where Hisinger-Jägerskiöld has found a curiously primitive bony conformation.21 The possession of these peculiar specializations and primitive traits should prevent the Lapps from being considered a hybrid mongoloid-white racial form. Compared to central Asiatic mongoloids, the Lapps are little specialized. The soft and often fine head hair, the absence of the blue-black hair pigment shade, the infrequency of the mongoloid eyefold, and the absence of an excessive lateral malar development or of great facial width, are evidence of this lack of specialization in a mongoloid direction.
Im sorry to say, but Niskanen appears highly biased and quotes his sources dishonestly. Its true that Coon notices low frequency of epicanthus, however he does not state that Lapps have faces just as flat as other Europeans. Coon simply suggests the Lapps are an isolated, archaic population, resembling in some ways Paleolithic hunters and consequently not as specialised/evolved as Mongoloids and Europids.
Basil
08-26-2009, 06:58 PM
Mark's index is based on 8 traits such as:
1) and 2) facial flatness (naso-malar and zygo-maxillary angles)
3) flatness of nasal bridge
4) cheekbone prominence
5) inclination of eye-slit
6) beard growth
7) epicanthus
8) upper-lip profile (I don't know exactly what it is).
Overall it is more complex approach than Niskanen's one.
It is proven they're not.
Read my post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72806&postcount=9), the genetic evidence says that NW-Russians are very Finnic.
NW Russia IS NOT the lightest area of Russia. The northernmost Russia is, followed by some peripheral strips of NW Russia and some parts of Central Russia.
See Map 1 (http://westernparadigm.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/blue_eyes_map2.jpg) and Map 2 (http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/blond_hair_map1.jpg).
Once again, the nucleus of NW Russia (i.e. Novgorod and Pskov) is morphologicall and pigmentation wise is typically Russian. Its Russianness is mirrored by Y-chromosome and mtDNA data which show the region being unquestionably Slavic and NOT Finnic.
Read my post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72806&postcount=9), NW-Russians are far from being Slavic. They are majority Finnic.
I wonder, how many time I will have to repeat it to implant the idea into your typically Estonian inferior out-of-Siberia brain?
I'm not inferior, you're the one who uses ad hominems and my brain isn't (http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/297/26471477.gif) "out-of-Sibera".
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 07:56 PM
Overall it is more complex approach than Niskanen's one.
Indeed if speaking only about the MI-system. Niskanen's other cranial measurement stuff however is from different planet compared to methods available to Mark in the 1970's. Mainly Mahalabonis distances measured using dozens of cranial variables. Niskanen's MI is strictly about facial flatnes, nothing else.
Lahtari
08-26-2009, 08:05 PM
So Niskanen's MI is something quite different? Then I definitely prefer Mark's index. It makes no sense whatsoever that Austrians should be more Monogoloid than Finns or Russians. Or Germans more Mongoloid than Western Finns. I do not really get it... Niskanen's system that is. How come Austrians have so flat faces (over 30) while Germans have not (index of 16)?
Can you point me where he states that Western Finns are less 'mongoloid' than Germans? His paper doesn't state a separate MI for East- and West-Finns, it states 25.4 for Finns and 16.7 for Germans. And he especially stated that his data is incomplete for Austrians.
This struck me outright... and since Niskanen listed Coon (1939) in his sources, I looked it up:
Im sorry to say, but Niskanen appears highly biased and quotes his sources dishonestly. Its true that Coons notices low frequency of epicanthus, however he does not state that Lapps have faces just as flat as other Europeans. Coon simply suggests the Lapps are an isolated, archaic population, resembling in some ways Paleolithic hunters and consequently not as specialised/evolved as Mongoloids and Europids.
Did you check the other source as well?
The thing is they do not find Finns as "typical Europeans". In every genetic study Ive seen, Finland is always an outlier.
...
However, one thing I cannot understand is that: "all Finno Ugrians of Euorpea" are genetically typical Europeans". I do not know whats Niskanen's definition of "typical European",
Here I agree with you: Finnish geneticists have an annoying habit of using the word "typical European population" in a very loose way. I wonder what would be an "untypical European population" to them.
Lahtari
08-26-2009, 08:09 PM
but both the Finns and the Hungarians do show clear genetic links to their urheimat on the fringes of Asia.
Whether Niskanen likes it or not, language is most usually passed down vertically, from one generation to another - just like genes.
This 'urheimat'-thinking is antiquated, it would require that the original speakers of the language would have replaced populations of a large area in a very short time. Needless to say, this is usually not the case, or do you think the populations of westernmost Europe have much to do with the original Indo-European speakers?
Not to say that it can't happen, but a more likely scenario would be a slow dispersal, at least to outside the central areas of the language, which would become a lingua franca used extensively in trade and other contacts, and possibly boosted with military conquest. The ancient trade relations between Finland and Volga region are well documented by archaeology.
Some ancestors of the Finns and Hungarians came from the vicinity of Volga. And Asian influence has been present there since millenia. If it reached mainland Europe, it reached Finland too.
Where has it been established that those people had Asian influence since millennia? There is some today, but it could as well be a result of later Turkification, like Niskanen states.
The thing is they do not find Finns as "typical Europeans". In every genetic study Ive seen, Finland is always an outlier.
And it is usually attributed to genetic isolation for the most part. There is hardly any genetic comparisons that have enough reference populations, Asians are usually missing from them.
I suggest you to take a look at the map (http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/FSTHGDP8bunch-uprecalculaterearr-1.gif) with global genetic comparison I posted earlier. While Komi and Mari are slightly diverged to the Asian direction, Finns are diverged into another direction.
Lahtari
08-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Mark's index is based on 8 traits such as:
1) and 2) facial flatness (naso-malar and zygo-maxillary angles)
3) flatness of nasal bridge
4) cheekbone prominence
5) inclination of eye-slit
6) beard growth
7) epicanthus
8) upper-lip profile (I don't know exactly what it is).
And here's a danger of confusing borealization and a lack of some newer European genetics with Asian ancestry.
Coon actually noted the presence of "pseudo-Mongoloid" kind of people in Ireland.
Can you point me where he states that Western Finns are less 'mongoloid' than Germans? His paper doesn't state a separate MI for East- and West-Finns, it states 25.4 for Finns and 16.7 for Germans. And he especially stated that his data is incomplete for Austrians.
Yeah! I got confused. I guess we can easily discard Austrian MI as not credible.
Did you check the other source as well?
No. But he should not list Coon's publication if it blatantly does not support his argument.
This 'urheimat'-thinking is antiquated, it would require that the original speakers of the language would have replaced populations of a large area in a very short time. Needless to say, this is usually not the case, or do you think the populations of westernmost Europe have much to do with the original Indo-European speakers?
Not to say that it can't happen, but a more likely scenario would be a slow dispersal, at least to outside the central areas of the language, which would become a lingua franca used extensively in trade and other contacts, and possibly boosted with military conquest. The ancient trade relations between Finland and Volga region are well documented by archaeology.
Well, there had to be a place and time when ancestors of all Uralics lived together in the East European tundra/steppe. It almost certainly was not Finland, which was populated after the last glaciation.
Where has it been established that those people had Asian influence since millennia? There is some today, but it could as well be a result of later Turkification, like Niskanen states.
And it is usually attributed to genetic isolation for the most part. There is hardly any genetic comparisons that have enough reference populations, Asians are usually missing from them.
I suggest you to take a look at the map (http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/FSTHGDP8bunch-uprecalculaterearr-1.gif) with global genetic comparison I posted earlier. While Komi and Mari are slightly diverged to the Asian direction, Finns are diverged into another direction.
Nowhere did I say they are of Asian extraction. Even Coon does not imply any significant genetic link to Mongoloids. But they are an isolate, far from being typical or representative of European genepools. And there are some evident marks of Asian influence ( http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/pdf/5201712a.pdf ), unlike in most other European ethnicities. And no wonder. It would be strange to assume ethnicities inhabiting East European borderlands for millenia had no genetic links with Asia...
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 08:41 PM
Well, there had to be a place and time when ancestors of all Uralics lived together in the East European tundra/steppe. It almost certainly was not Finland, which was populated after the last glaciation.
Reality check Jarl. Some ancestors of modern Uralic speakers, not all. Simply looking Y- and mtdna of modern Uralic/Finno-Ugric speakers reveal the mixed bag of origins. Just the way with any other population. I am HG. I1(d), I doubt I1's originally came from East European lowland, rather from SE Europe or smth. I'm however 100% Finnic and Finnish. What comes to Asiatic genes I think there should be clear line between modern East Asians (Mongoloids) and some "proto-eurasiatics" of Ice Age.
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 08:47 PM
NW Russia IS NOT the lightest area of Russia. The northernmost Russia is, followed by some peripheral strips of NW Russia and some parts of Central Russia.
Northernmost Russians (Whitesea Baltic Type) are also decendent from Finnics. Thats why there is towns named Kargopol fex. Karhu -> bear. Russian language did not have proper letter H -> G , like Gelsingfors (Helsingfors/Helsinki) or Gangut (Hanko). So Karhutown, Beartown. Nice try anyway.
Once again, the nucleus of NW Russia (i.e. Novgorod and Pskov) is morphologicall and pigmentation wise is typically Russian. Its Russianness is mirrored by Y-chromosome and mtDNA data which show the region being unquestionably Slavic and NOT Finnic.
Since when is not Vologda and Ingermanland part of NW Russia ? Modern people from Novgorod region likely have far more Slavo-Turkic-Jewish Russian genes than they had earlier. This however does not mean that their overall genetic inheritance is not from the "Chudes".
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 08:51 PM
Craniometrical data is not used for determination of race for half a century.
Once again, Estonian cretinism is second only to Finnish cretinism.
Genetics are not helping you either. You have to invent new Russian way for determination of race . I suggest you call it "Sovereign directed vertical race determination".
brgds,
Fenno(nordic)-Cretin
Reality check Jarl. Some ancestors of modern Uralic speakers, not all. Simply looking Y- and mtdna of modern Uralic/Finno-Ugric speakers reveal the mixed bag of origins. Just the way with any other population. I am HG. I1(d), I doubt I1's originally came from East European lowland, rather from SE Europe or smth. I'm however 100% Finnic and Finnish. What comes to Asiatic genes I think there should be clear line between modern East Asians (Mongoloids) and some "proto-eurasiatics" of Ice Age.
That is entirely correct. And even those who came from the Uralic heimat probably did not look a lot different to Samis. As for the Asiatic influence, its a plain geographical consequence of gene diffusion through neighbouring populations. The whole "Mongolid origins" thing is a bs.
This study might be of intrest regarding settling the area:
Migration Waves to the Baltic Sea Region
http://www.zincavage.org/Lappalainen2008.pdf
In this study, the population history of the Baltic Sea region, known to be affected by a variety of migrations and genetic
barriers, was analyzed using both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal data. Over 1200 samples from Finland,
Sweden, Karelia, Estonia, Setoland, Latvia and Lithuania were genotyped for 18 Y-chromosomal biallelic polymorphisms
and 9 STRs, in addition to analyzing 17 coding region polymorphisms and the HVS1 region from the mtDNA. It was
shown that the populations surrounding the Baltic Sea are genetically similar, which suggests that it has been an important
route not only for cultural transmission but also for population migration. However, many of the migrations affecting the
area from Central Europe, the Volga-Ural region and from Slavic populations have had a quantitatively different impact
on the populations, and, furthermore, the effects of genetic drift have increased the differences between populations
especially in the north. The possible explanations for the high frequencies of several haplogroups with an origin in the
Iberian refugia (H1, U5b, I1a) are also discussed.
Supports what Walkila said - mixed origins. Mostly Paleolithic Central and East European.
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 09:11 PM
Supports what Walkila said - mixed origins. Mostly Paleolithic Central and East European.
Plus very small genetic diversity , small founding pop combined with rapid population growth and extreme drift (in case of Finns). Estonians have much less of the drift tho' + more East Europe / Central Europe. Estonians are more "normal" than Finns.
Oldie but goodie, Uralic genes in Europe by Guglielmino et al 1990 :thumb001: :D
http://i31.tinypic.com/k03jp5.jpg
According to Guglielmino (+ Cavalli-Sfrorza) Finns had max 10% of Uralic genes and Hungarians 13%. Source population was determined (guessed wrongly) to be Samoyeds. Samoyeds are actually very mixed population with mostly arctic Mongoloid appearance. Some of them look surprisingly Europoid, revealing their recently mixed ancestry. Anyway, from that pic we can guess the amount of "Uralic" genes in other populations :)
What allways has confused me about that study (allthough it's from antigue of dna studies) is why north Italians are pulled towards Finns ?
Lahtari
08-26-2009, 09:39 PM
Well, there had to be a place and time when ancestors of all Uralics lived together in the East European tundra/steppe. It almost certainly was not Finland, which was populated after the last glaciation.
Would you mind reading the relevant part of my post again?
The population that originally spoke proto-Uralic (aka. proto-Finno-Ugric) indeed lived in somewhere around Volga area more than 6000 years ago. But is it likely that they suddenly rushed out of their homeland and killed or drove away all the original inhabitants of the whole area where FU languages are spoken today? Even if we assume mass-migration resulting in language change, it could as well have originated from an area that was previously targeted by mass-migration from the original Volga-area. Or from an area targeted by immigration from an area previously targeted by the original area.. :icon12:
Nowhere did I say they are of Asian extraction.
That's right - you spoke about Asian influence that is millennia old, and I suspected that it could as well be more recent in the Volga area. You wrote:
Some ancestors of the Finns and Hungarians came from the vicinity of Volga. And Asian influence has been present there since millenia.
If 'millennia' means less than 6000 years, when the language-expansion had already started, it means that it was not present in the original proto-FU speaking population.
But I think you have gotten me wrong: I'm not categorically denying any Asian influence, or influence of Asian influenced populations in Finland - I'm simply not buying the old simplistic migration model that assumes an Asian influence that is automatically connected with the language change.
Lahtari
08-26-2009, 09:41 PM
What allways has confused me about that study (allthough it's from antigue of dna studies) is why north Italians are pulled towards Finns ?
Let me guess: there are 3 gene complexes in this picture. A common European one, an "Uralic" (or rather West-Siberian?) one, and one archaic European, still present in some isolated areas, that is in the process of being replaced by the first one?
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 09:52 PM
If 'millennia' means less than 6000 years, when the language-expansion had already started, it means that it was not present in the original proto-FU speaking population.
Fully evolved Mongoloids did not reach even West Siberia/East Europe until Iron Age. They certainly were not there during proto-FU phase (nor proto-IE phase obviously). Samoyeds (only fully evolved Mongoloids of Europe) did not reach East/North Europe until historical period. Their arrival is attested in Russian chronicles.
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 09:57 PM
Let me guess: there are 3 gene complexes in this picture. A common European one, an "Uralic" (or rather West-Siberian?) one, and one archaic European, still present in some isolated areas, that is in the process of being replaced by the first one?
Not actually, it has the-very-mixed-CE group (homogenity through common admixture events), including Hungarians, Finnish-group and Uralian-genetic-geographical group. That North Italy vs Finns is simply buzzling. Considering the very low genetic diversity amongst the Finns there must be "Finn-specific" element in N-Italy. I cant really explain that otherwise.
Read my post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72806&postcount=9), the genetic evidence says that NW-Russians are very Finnic.
Read MY post http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6366
the genetical data says that NW Russians have nothing to do with Finnics
See Map 1 (http://westernparadigm.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/blue_eyes_map2.jpg) and Map 2 (http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/blond_hair_map1.jpg).
These maps are (1) incorrectly drawn and (2) grossly outdated
but the latter does not matter, really
Read my post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72806&postcount=9), NW-Russians are far from being Slavic. They are majority Finnic.
Another load of Estonian crap with no facts (which you still fail to submit)
I'm not inferior,
You're inferior.
you're the one who uses ad hominems
You're retarded. It's a medical fact. It's in your genes.
and my brain isn't (http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/297/26471477.gif) "out-of-Sibera".
LOL
Indeed if speaking only about the MI-system. Niskanen's other cranial measurement stuff however is from different planet compared to methods available to Mark in the 1970's. Mainly Mahalabonis distances measured using dozens of cranial variables.
LOL
YOU are from a different planet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahalanobis_distance
Mahalanobis distance is a distance measure introduced by P. C. Mahalanobis in 1936.
Since when is not Vologda and Ingermanland part of NW Russia ? Modern people from Novgorod region likely have far more Slavo-Turkic-Jewish Russian genes than they had earlier. This however does not mean that their overall genetic inheritance is not from the "Chudes".
Genetical data is unambigious: NW Russians are not Finnic.
And I'm not going to comment on your shitty entries about "Turkic-Jewish Russian genes". If the mods want TA to turn into a cesspoll filled with Finnish feces - let it be.
Fully evolved Mongoloids did not reach even West Siberia/East Europe until Iron Age.
I'm already tired. Finnics are both pathetic and obnoxious in their lies.
Will you post another shitty picture or a diagram "proving" (Finnic BS production, all rights reserved) your "revelation"?
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 10:31 PM
LOL
YOU are from a different planet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahalanobis_distance
So Karin Mark in 1970's was able to collect dozens of cranial variables (metric and non-metric) and calculate the mahalanobis distance from them... Way to go Hors!
Hweinlant
08-26-2009, 10:33 PM
And I'm not going to comment on your shitty entries about "Turkic-Jewish Russian genes".
That is not insult, it is fact. Ever heard of Tatars, Chuvasses and such ? How about the Khazar Jewish Empire, which resided where ?
The point is that the mahalanobis distance was known and used in anthropology long before 70s.
That is not insult, it is fact. Ever heard of Tatars, Chuvasses and such ? How about the Khazar Jewish Empire, which resided where ?
The fact is that you're a shit-head.
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 07:16 AM
I'm already tired. Finnics are both pathetic and obnoxious in their lies.
Will you post another shitty picture or a diagram "proving" (Finnic BS production, all rights reserved) your "revelation"?
See: NONMETRIC TRAITS IN EARLY IRON AGE CRANIAL SERIES
FROM WESTERN AND SOUTHERN SIBERIA by V.G Moiseyev .
His contact details:
Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera), Russian Academy of Sciences,
Universitetskaya Nab., 3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
E-mail: vmoiseyev@mail.ru
:cool::D
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 07:17 AM
The fact is that you're a shit-head.
High level of your argumentation is astonishing.
Lahtari
08-27-2009, 07:29 AM
Not actually, it has the-very-mixed-CE group (homogenity through common admixture events), including Hungarians, Finnish-group and Uralian-genetic-geographical group. That North Italy vs Finns is simply buzzling. Considering the very low genetic diversity amongst the Finns there must be "Finn-specific" element in N-Italy. I cant really explain that otherwise.
What I was suggesting is that perhaps the North Italians and Finns both lack something that is common in Central Europe.
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 07:52 AM
Another plot from the Guglielmino et al 1990 study. This time without the Uralian-Genetic-Geographic group
http://i29.tinypic.com/b6zo1y.jpg
Bolzano and Verona are still way off where they should be (imo). They are pretty much aligned with Åland-Swedes, whom certainly are pulled towards the Finnish group. It could be that the study is just so outdated that this is just noise.
Lahtari
08-27-2009, 08:13 AM
Bolzano and Verona are still way off where they should be (imo). They are pretty much aligned with Åland-Swedes, whom certainly are pulled towards the Finnish group. It could be that the study is just so outdated that this is just noise.
Maybe, those older studies may have used such a limited number of variables that there's more room for pure chance.
Read MY post http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6366
the genetical data says that NW Russians have nothing to do with Finnics
Genetical data says that NW Russians are very Finnic, it's proven. The Estonian genome project foundation did work together with the Russian genome researchers. Even Russian experts say that NW Russians are Finnic.
These maps are (1) incorrectly drawn and (2) grossly outdated
but the latter does not matter, really
That's your opinion.
Another load of Estonian crap with no facts (which you still fail to submit)
Not crap... Facts proven by Estonian and Russian experts.
You're inferior.
I doubt it.
You're retarded. It's a medical fact. It's in your genes.
:lame:
The fact is that you're a shit-head.
You're inferior.
You're retarded. It's a medical fact. It's in your genes.
Let's try to keep these kind of comments out of the debate please. :coffee:
Would you mind reading the relevant part of my post again?
The population that originally spoke proto-Uralic (aka. proto-Finno-Ugric) indeed lived in somewhere around Volga area more than 6000 years ago. But is it likely that they suddenly rushed out of their homeland and killed or drove away all the original inhabitants of the whole area where FU languages are spoken today?
Highly unlikely if we look at the high frequency of Central European markers. Yet it could be as well the other way round. After glaciation - Finns were the ones who arrived first, and only afterwards they assimilated groups of central European settlers. Or they got there simultaneously, yet over time Finns turn out to be stronger and more successful. Whatever it was like, Finns also reveal their Eastern, Uralic ancestry.
Even if we assume mass-migration resulting in language change, it could as well have originated from an area that was previously targeted by mass-migration from the original Volga-area. Or from an area targeted by immigration from an area previously targeted by the original area.. :icon12:
Yeah. The wave effect. Theoretically possible. Still tough, we know that the migration from the Volga-Ural region had to be pretty substantial, hence very high East European/Siberian N frequency among the Finns.
That's right - you spoke about Asian influence that is millennia old, and I suspected that it could as well be more recent in the Volga area. You wrote:
If 'millennia' means less than 6000 years, when the language-expansion had already started, it means that it was not present in the original proto-FU speaking population.
But I think you have gotten me wrong: I'm not categorically denying any Asian influence, or influence of Asian influenced populations in Finland - I'm simply not buying the old simplistic migration model that assumes an Asian influence that is automatically connected with the language change.
It depends what we mean by "Asian influence". By "Asian" I mean markers that most likely evolved in Asia - like N1c , and perhaps also N1b:
The presence of N1c and N1b in modern Siberian and Asian populations is considered to reflect an ancient substratum, possibly speaking Uralic/Finno-Ugric languages. [4], [5], [6], [7].
Asian influence among modern Finnics is a fact. Was it there in the beginning and is it connected to the language? Well, here we enter the issue of the Uralic urheimat. Since N haplogroup is most typical of all the ethnicities that constitute the Uralic language family, it is reasonable to assume, that people carrying this marker, descend from the original proto-Uralic speakers.
The subclade N1c1* likely arose in Southern Siberia during the late Pleistocene (~10,000 years ago), whence it spread to Europe about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is notable that N1c1* has higher average frequency in Eastern Europe than in Siberia, reaching frequencies of approximately 60% among Finns and approximately 40% among Latvians and Lithuanians.[2] Traditionally, this has been seen as an indicator of an older presence and, thus, the place of origin of a haplogroup.[citation needed] Although median-joining trees have been interpreted to suggest that N1c1* should have first appeared in South Siberia, the possibility of back-migration from Europe cannot be ruled out.[citation needed]
In Siberia, haplogroup N1c reaches a maximum frequency of approximately 90% among the Yakuts, a Turkic people who live mainly in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic. However, it is practically non-existent among many of the Yakuts' neighboring ethnic groups, such as Tungusic speakers. It has also been detected in Seoul, South Korea at 2/85 = 2.4%[3] and Tokushima, Japan at 1/70 = 1.4%[4].
Furthermore, most theories link Uralic languages to either Altaic or Siberian language family, or the Yukaghir. There are thus genetic and linguistic factors (either genetic or caused by close contacts) which link the Uralic family, as a whole, more to Asia than to Europe. There is reason to suspect that proto-Uralic speakers formed in Asia, or on the Eastern fringes of Europe, and subsequently colonised other territories, blending in with settlers from Central Europe.
In response to Karl's argument:
You're quite educated in other things but don't know much about Finno-Ugrics. The Finno-Ugrics around the Urals and such area used to look like modern Finns, now they're mixed with Tatars, Turkics, Siberians and Mongols. This doesn't make N, Asian.
I do know it and I was the one who mentioned here that the Cro-Magnon or the Paleoasiatic type reached out far into Central Asia. Consequently, I would like to kindly ask my Finnish friends not to confuse "Asiatic influence" with "Mongoloid". Asia is a large continent. In fact, the largest one. "Mongoloids" evolved in the Eastern part of it. If I say, that there are some Asiatic markers present in Uralic-speaking populations, I do not necessarily equate them with Altaic (Turkic and Mongol) markers. Im not saying "N" haplogroup is Mongoloid, but it is almost undoubtedly Asian in origin (and here I just follow the current scientific consensus, nothing more).
Whether East Europe, or West Siberia, the Uralic language family had to evolve in isolation, independently of the IE and Altaic families. Geographical and historical distribution points to the vicinity of Ural region. Linguistics appear to link this family to other Asian language families more often than to European languages. Genetics indicate that haplogroup N is the key marker "binding" all the Uralic-speakers together. The origin of this haplogroup and most of its clades seems to be Asiatic - Uralics share it with many other Altaic ethnicities. There is reason to associate the proto-Uralic speakers with the N marker, just like Slavs and Iranians with R1a.
Im not saying "N" haplogroup is Mongoloid, but it is almost undoubtedly Asian in origin (and here I just follow the current scientific consensus, nothing more).
The N1c1 haplogroup is most common among Finns (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml). Finns are also the blondest people in Europe. This means that blond hair is an Asian trait and has an Asian origin? Any "dark" ancestry should dominate the light genes.
I'm just using basic logic here.
N1c1 is most common in Europe, doesn't this mean that it's European in origin:confused:
The N1c1 haplogroup is most common among Finns (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml). Finns are also the blondest people in Europe.
By "Finns" you obviously mean the Baltic Finns, and you're correct. However, the Baltic Finns are the Westernmost Uralic ethnicity and they reveal a high degree of Central European Paleolithic ancestry. By no means are they representative of the whole Uralic family. They have also gone through bottlenecks and substantial drift - hence elevated frequency of certain genetic disorders.
This means that blond hair is an Asian trait and has an Asian origin? Any "dark" ancestry should dominate the light genes.
Are Samoyeds, Mansis, Khanties and Mordvinians blonde? No. Again I repeat - Finns are not typical Uralics. They have a significant European ancestry.
I'm just using basic logic here.
N1c1 is most common in Europe, doesn't this mean that it's European in origin:confused:
Here is whay I found on N1c:
After Haplogroup N arose in Southeast Asia, males carrying the marker moved to the region of North China and thence to the Altai region (South Siberia). The mutations that define the subclade N1c (old name N3) occurred either in Siberia or in Northwest China. The age of Haplogroup N1c is approximately 14,000 years.
Haplogroup N1b is a significantly younger subclade, perhaps only 6,000 to 8,000 years old. Its first appearance is either in Eastern Europe or in Siberia; the question of its exact origin is still not solved.
The N1c1 haplogroup is most common among Finns (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml). Finns are also the blondest people in Europe. This means that blond hair is an Asian trait and has an Asian origin? Any "dark" ancestry should dominate the light genes.
I'm just using basic logic here.
N1c1 is most common in Europe, doesn't this mean that it's European in origin:confused:
N1c1 is likely to have first developed in Europe (it has higher frequencies here), but the ancestral haplogroup N developed in Asia.
See: NONMETRIC TRAITS IN EARLY IRON AGE CRANIAL SERIES
FROM WESTERN AND SOUTHERN SIBERIA by V.G Moiseyev .
His contact details:
Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera), Russian Academy of Sciences,
Universitetskaya Nab., 3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
E-mail: vmoiseyev@mail.ru
:cool::D
Siberia... LOL
Read, for starters
http://www.lib.csu.ru/vch/144/002.pdf
A.A. Khokhlov. Pertaining the Mongoloid skulls of the Bronze Age in the Volga-Ural region. 2009
Anyway. While it is reasonable to link the N haplogroup with Uralic language, it seems equally unfounded to link it with blondism. Finns are a small, drift-prone population. Bottlenecks and drift have eleveated the frequencies of some alleles - like those responsible for blondism. However blondism is not a uniform feature of Uralic-speaking populations. Haplogroup "N" is. And if this is correct:
"The mutations that define the subclade N1c (old name N3) occurred either in Siberia or in Northwest China. The age of Haplogroup N1c is approximately 14,000 years."
...then it is reasonable to assume Uralic speakers were an off-shoot of a larger Paleolithic Asiatic racial stock. This seems much more likely than that their originated in Europe, and subsequently spread into Asia.
By "Finns" you obviously mean the Baltic Finns, and you're correct. However, the Baltic Finns are the Westernmost Uralic ethnicity and they reveal a high degree of Central European Paleolithic ancestry. By no means are they representative of the whole Uralic family. They have also gone through bottlenecks and substantial drift - hence elevated frequency of certain genetic disorders.
Are Samoyeds, Mansis, Khanties and Mordvinians blonde? No. Again I repeat - Finns are not typical Uralics. They have a significant European ancestry.
I don't expect blondness from people who are mixed with Turkics, Tatars, Siberians and Mongols.
Finns are a genetic isolate. It could be said that all other Europeans have Finnish genes but Finns don't have all the genes found in other Europeans.
Genetical data says that NW Russians are very Finnic, it's proven.
As you're both retarded and have the reading disability I repeat once more: NW Russians have nothing to do with Finnics.
The Estonian genome project foundation did work together with the Russian genome researchers.
It must have sampled a peripheral swamp village where Russianized remnants of primitive Finnics still dwell. The large samples of the nucleus of NW Russia show that NW Russians are NOT Finnic.
Even Russian experts say that NW Russians are Finnic.
They say they are not.
That's your opinion.
No.
Not crap... Facts proven by Estonian and Russian experts.
Another load of Estonian BS.
I doubt it.
Retards always doubt the obvious. That's because they're retarded.
...then it is reasonable to assume Uralic speakers were an off-shoot of a larger Paleolithic Asiatic racial stock. This seems much more likely than that their originated in Europe, and subsequently spread into Asia.
I dis (http://www.finlit.fi/booksfromfinland/bff/399/wiik.htm)agree (http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/6823/97126690.gif).
Anyway. While it is reasonable to link the N haplogroup with Uralic language, it seems equally unfounded to link it with blondism.
And keep in mind that while NW Finnics are the blondest group they're far from being totally or even predominately blond. They're no more than 20-30% blonder than Swedes and Russians.
So it's obviously not about Siberid Ns...
I don't expect blondness from people who are mixed with Turkics, Tatars, Siberians and Mongols.
Why not? Boris Johnson comes from a Turkish family, and is as blond as you can get.
I don't expect blondness from people who are mixed with Turkics, Tatars, Siberians and Mongols.
I do not think we should associate blondism with the Uralic language family. Its rather a European Paleolithic trait. There are very blonde populations were Uralic "N" markers are almost non-existent. The fact that Finns are genetically almost typical Europeans, unlike the much darker Samis, Permiaks, Khanites or Samoyeds, points to the fact they have a highly mixed ancestry and divereged a lot from the original Uralic stem (represented better by the aforementioned ethnicities). I would associate Finnic blondism with the European part of their ancestry, rather than Siberian-Volgaic.
I dis (http://www.finlit.fi/booksfromfinland/bff/399/wiik.htm)agree (http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/6823/97126690.gif).
I see little point in discussing things with TA Finnics. They're both ignorant AND obtuse, so the former could not be helped.
Why not? Boris Johnson comes from a Turkish family, and is as blond as you can get.
Turkey has several different ethnicities. Boris Johnson could be Galatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia)
I dis (http://www.finlit.fi/booksfromfinland/bff/399/wiik.htm)agree (http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/6823/97126690.gif).
Well, how would you then explain the high prevalence of Asiatic "N" marker among all Uralics?
Plus very small genetic diversity , small founding pop combined with rapid population growth and extreme drift (in case of Finns). Estonians have much less of the drift tho' + more East Europe / Central Europe. Estonians are more "normal" than Finns.
Oldie but goodie, Uralic genes in Europe by Guglielmino et al 1990 :thumb001: :D
http://i31.tinypic.com/k03jp5.jpg
According to Guglielmino (+ Cavalli-Sfrorza) Finns had max 10% of Uralic genes and Hungarians 13%. Source population was determined (guessed wrongly) to be Samoyeds. Samoyeds are actually very mixed population with mostly arctic Mongoloid appearance. Some of them look surprisingly Europoid, revealing their recently mixed ancestry. Anyway, from that pic we can guess the amount of "Uralic" genes in other populations :)
What allways has confused me about that study (allthough it's from antigue of dna studies) is why north Italians are pulled towards Finns ?
Here is the abstract:
We have analysed data of three European populations speaking non-Indoeuropean languages: Hungarians, Lapps, and Finns. Principal coordinate analysis shows that Lapps are almost exactly intermediate between people located geographically near the Ural mountains and speaking Uralic languages, and central and northern Europeans. Hungarians and Finns are definitely closer to Europeans. An analysis of genetic admixture between Uralic and European ancestors shows that Lapps are slightly more than 50% European, Hungarians are 87% European, and Finns are 90% European. There is basic agreement between these conclusions and historical data on Hungary. Less is known about Finns and very little about Lapps.
Again, bear in mind Baltic Finns cannot be regarded as typical Uralics. Yet they still exhibit Asiatic/Siberian markers at 10% frequency.
Basil
08-27-2009, 10:21 AM
Indeed if speaking only about the MI-system. Niskanen's other cranial measurement stuff however is from different planet compared to methods available to Mark in the 1970's. Mainly Mahalabonis distances measured using dozens of cranial variables. Niskanen's MI is strictly about facial flatnes, nothing else.
And do you know by any chance what those abrreviations stand for? I guess there is nothing specific that Mark wasn't aware of in 1970's. Methods of anthropological measurements haven't changed too much during last half-century.
http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/234/54571747.jpg (http://img386.imageshack.us/i/54571747.jpg/)
And here's a danger of confusing borealization and a lack of some newer European genetics with Asian ancestry.
Coon actually noted the presence of "pseudo-Mongoloid" kind of people in Ireland.
By "pseudo-mongoloid" in Ireland they often mean somewhat flat-faced, broad-faced, snub-nosed type. But if we take into consideration additional somatoscopic traits such as inclination of eye-slit, low beard growth and presence of epicanthic fold I doubt that you will find many Irish who fit all or at least most of criteria. That's why there is no way that Irish have higher values of MI than Swedes (4-14) while Finns have 12-36. By the way Russian anthro school have always distinguished North-Western relic Europoid type and North-Eastern Uralic type.
The same goes for Paleo-Europeans. They were flat-faced in comparison with modern Europeans but overall their skulls show predominance of proper Europid traits. I don't believe that Mark and her colleagues confused Uralic traits with Paleo-Europid ones. Compare reconstructions of Paleo-Europid skulls of man and woman dated by 45 and 30 thousand years ago respectively and reconstruction of Comb Ceramic man. They don't belong to one race in my opinion.
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/5682/256.jpg (http://img131.imageshack.us/i/256.jpg/)http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/3757/kajafig1.jpg (http://img386.imageshack.us/i/kajafig1.jpg/)
As regards 'borealization' that you blame for 'pseudo'-mongoloidness, I don't get the point well... Due to cold adaptation North-Siberian Mongoloids are those who they are. So what's the matter? Borealization, mongolization are different terms for the same process.
Estonian Minister of Defence and his Mongolian blue-eyed (dance, nordicists) lookalike:
http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/5232/est.jpg (http://img386.imageshack.us/i/est.jpg/)http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6903/monnet.jpg (http://img269.imageshack.us/i/monnet.jpg/)
Turkey has several different ethnicities. Boris Johnson could be Galatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia)
There are no pure Galatians left, and neither are there Pharaoic Egyptians or Etruscans.
The same goes for Paleo-Europeans. They were flat-faced in comparison with modern Europeans but overall their skulls show predominance of proper Europid traits. I don't believe that Mark and her colleagues confused Uralic traits with Paleo-Europid ones.
That Karin Mark misrepresented Paleo-Europid traits as Mongoloid traits is exactly what today's researchers say.
Compare reconstructions of Paleo-Europid skulls of man and woman dated by 45 and 30 thousand years ago respectively and reconstruction of Comb Ceramic man. They don't belong to one race in my opinion.
Physical anthropologist Leiu Heapost has confirmed that the Comb Ceramic people were Europid. (Heapost 1998: 2150–2151, 2160–2161; 2000).
Also, Enn Haabsaar has concluded in his argumentation that the Comb Ceramic people don't belong to some "Uralic race with mongoloid traits." He also took research from past 70 years into account and concluded that the mongoloidness hypothesis is based on selected biased materials, which have been supported by refrences that contort the original sources.
Here are the reconsturctions from Estonia:
http://web.zone.ee/ylar/Kilvad/Image199.gif
Paleo-European (Kunda culture), Comb-Ceramic and Corded Ware...
There are no pure Galatians left, and neither are there Pharaoic Egyptians or Etruscans.
There are those pontic populations tho.
Or the rich enough who could get infidel slave wives, and breed with those generastion after another... until there wasnt terribly much left of the original turk .. 1/2^20 ;)
Still tho, those are also blind in a racial sense. Althought they do recognize the divinity of the northern race.
Blond kids passing thru a village will be made demigods of the decade, and either offered to be purchased (you can make another just like that, me.. i can never have such a beautiful child).. or even attempted theft and changeling switch in the case of kurds.
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 12:55 PM
And do you know by any chance what those abrreviations stand for? I guess there is nothing specific that Mark wasn't aware of in 1970's. Methods of anthropological measurements haven't changed too much during last half-century.
I cant really remember what those stand for, SSI likely has something to do with simotic index (nasal flatnes). I havent seen them in use by anthropology studies with more modern approach. Hanihara et al did pretty massive study about human facial flatnes worldwide few years ago. I should have that somewhere. Large scale nonmetric measurements were invented in late 1960's. Karin Mark did not use them at all. All modern physical anthropology is based on nonmetric values. Methods of the studies have changed completely, you think Karin Mark, year 1970, used computers, software, high density scanning etc ? Absolutely not. Physical anthropology has changed about as much genetics since 1970. It's allmost different science now.
I don't believe that Mark and her colleagues confused Uralic traits with Paleo-Europid ones
Debez vs Bunak schools. Karin Mark belonged to Debez school which considered early Uralians as hybrid population, while Bunak considered it as separate "racial" unit. Debez later changed his views towards Bunak but Karin Mark did not. Latest on the issue I'm aware of are studies by VG Moiseyev, he thinks that there was separate Uralian unit (non-mongoloid, non-europoid) which was assimilated into Siberian Caucasoids quite early on.
Compare reconstructions of Paleo-Europid skulls of man and woman dated by 45 and 30 thousand years ago respectively and reconstruction of Comb Ceramic man. They don't belong to one race in my opinion.
That particular reconstruction was made from the fragments. It also is not from Comb Ceramic era! Those reconstructions are from Olenij Ostrov burial ground from lake Onega (Karelian Republic, Russia). They are c-dated to 6000BC (late Swiderian/Kunda culture), that is long before CC arose. Few other reconstructions from same burial ground by Gerasimov
http://i27.tinypic.com/2lkb43c.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/2uq0jo9.jpg
"Putinoid":
http://i25.tinypic.com/2nunp5f.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/zkn0ae.jpg
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 01:14 PM
Well, how would you then explain the high prevalence of Asiatic "N" marker among all Uralics?
How is N so Asiatic but R is not ? R1a1 is btw most common HG amongst Uralic speakers, Hungarians have hardly any N1c1, yet they make up 65% of all Uralic speakers.
Again, bear in mind Baltic Finns cannot be regarded as typical Uralics. Yet they still exhibit Asiatic/Siberian markers at 10% frequency.
We dont know how much, if any, Estonians have "real Asian affinity", for east Finns that is around 5% more than Brits, west Finns around 3%. Swedes around 2%. Brits themselves have some, obviously.
In STRUCTURE it turns out like this:
http://i31.tinypic.com/2hsclrm.jpg
Massive zoom (look for orange):
http://i29.tinypic.com/24cffaf.jpg
https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/44624/humangen.pdf?sequence=1
Where is the 10% ? Not existing.
How is N so Asiatic but R is not ? R1a1 is btw most common HG amongst Uralic speakers, Hungarians have hardly any N1c1, yet they make up 65% of all Uralic speakers.
R might be West Asian, yet it penetrated Europe long before East Asian N did. Hungarians are not typical Uralic speakers either. They are heavily mixed with Slavs, Turkics and Iranians. And yet still they do exhibit Asiatic markers, including Altaic. Its been discussed here:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2739&page=5
We dont know how much, if any, Estonians have "real Asian affinity", for east Finns that is around 5% more than Brits, west Finns around 3%. Swedes around 2%. Brits themselves have some, obviously.
Where is the 10% ? Not existing.
I don't get you. This is what you wrote yourself:
According to Guglielmino (+ Cavalli-Sfrorza) Finns had max 10% of Uralic genes and Hungarians 13%. Source population was determined (guessed wrongly) to be Samoyeds. Samoyeds are actually very mixed population with mostly arctic Mongoloid appearance. Some of them look surprisingly Europoid, revealing their recently mixed ancestry. Anyway, from that pic we can guess the amount of "Uralic" genes in other populations
What allways has confused me about that study (allthough it's from antigue of dna studies) is why north Italians are pulled towards Finns ?
This is the abstract:
We have analysed data of three European populations speaking non-Indoeuropean languages: Hungarians, Lapps, and Finns. Principal coordinate analysis shows that Lapps are almost exactly intermediate between people located geographically near the Ural mountains and speaking Uralic languages, and central and northern Europeans. Hungarians and Finns are definitely closer to Europeans. An analysis of genetic admixture between Uralic and European ancestors shows that Lapps are slightly more than 50% European, Hungarians are 87% European, and Finns are 90% European. There is basic agreement between these conclusions and historical data on Hungary. Less is known about Finns and very little about Lapps.
So what is your point? Are you saying there are no Asiatic genes among Uralics and they have perfectly European genepools and ancestry?
That Karin Mark misrepresented Paleo-Europid traits as Mongoloid traits is exactly what today's researchers say.
Quote them.
Quote them.
Ago Künnap refers to Karin Mark making that mistake in his Estonian article on Finno-Ugristics, citing Leiu Heapost.
I couldn't find the study by Leiu Heapost for public reading, however...
In 1999 the symposium “The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia III” (s.-c. “Roots III”) took place in Estonia, Loona
Concerning the Baltic area, more concretely, for some time already the participants in the series of symposiums principally share the opinion about the 12,000-year-long ancient settlement of Estonians and the 10,000-year-long ancient settlement of the Finns on their present territory that excludes obsolete views on their relatively recent arrival from the East, their Mongoloid-mixed genetic origin (the archaeological bone findings in the area, dated millennia-long, refer to their normally Europoid origin), radical differences from their neighbouring peoples, “Europeanization” under the influence of Germanic, Baltic and other peoples and the like. The whole ancient Northern European population was most likely speaking Finno-Ugric languages and the direction of expansion of Finno-Ugric languages has altogether been from west to east up to Central Siberia.
Who were those participants who shared this opinion? Here:
Academician Prof. Richard Villems and Prof. Ago Künnap. PhD Indre Antanaitis (anthropology, Vilnius Univ., Lithuania), Prof. Pavel Dolukhanov (archaeology, Newcastle Univ., England), Prof. Lutz Edzard (linguistics, Bonn Univ., Germany; was not present himself but sent his presentation), Prof. István Fodor (ethnology, Szeged Univ., Hungary), PhD Leiu Heapost (anthropology, Estonian Acad. of Sciences, Estonia), Ass. Prof. Rimantas Jankauskas (anthropology, Vilnius Univ., Lithuania), Prof. em. Kyösti Julku (history, Oulu Univ., Finland), Prof. Ago Künnap (linguistics, Tartu Univ., Estonia), Prof. Valter Lang (archaeology, Tartu Univ., Estonia), MA Kristian Nilsson (linguistics, Lund Univ., Sweden), MA Anu Nurk (linguistics, Tartu Univ., Estonia), researcher Jüri Parik (genetics, Estonian Biocentre, Estonia), Prof. János Pusztay (linguistics, Szombathely Coll., Hungary), Ass. Prof. Tõnu Seilenthal (linguistics, Tartu Univ., Estonia), PhD Urmas Sutrop (linguistics, Konstanz Univ., Germany), licenciate Ants-Michael Uesson (linguistics, Malmö, Sweden), Prof. Richard Villems (genetics, Tartu Univ., Estonia), Prof. em. Kalevi Wiik (linguistics, Turku Univ., Finland).
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 03:37 PM
R might be West Asian, yet it penetrated Europe long before East Asian N did. Hungarians are not typical Uralic speakers either. They are heavily mixed with Slavs, Turkics and Iranians. And yet still they do exhibit Asiatic markers, including Altaic. Its been discussed here:
Absolutely not. There is 0% of R in Europe, just like there is 0% of N. You keep referring to originating place of HG N, like it would be somehow meaningfull for North European carriers of HG N1c1. HG N prolly originated somewhere in Asia 20kya ago, R1 was still in Asia 18.5Kya ago. R1a1 and R1b did not even exist then. What exactly makes N1c1 so Asian but not R1a1/R1b ? I smell double standards. HG N1c may have originated in South Siberia or Europe, jury is still out. Latest research would indicate rather East Europe, for N1c1 East Europe is allmost certain. See : Y-Chromosome distribution within the geo-linguistic landscape of northwestern Russia, Mirabel et al 2009.
From Abstract:
Data based on haplogroup N1b challenge earlier findings and suggest that the mutation may have occurred in the Uralic range rather than in Siberia and much earlier than has been proposed (12.9plusminus4.1 instead of 5.2plusminus2.7 kya). In addition, age and variance estimates for haplogroup N1c1 suggest that populations from the western Urals may have been genetically influenced by a dispersal from northeastern Europe (eg, eastern Slavs) rather than the converse.
So what is your point? Are you saying there are no Asiatic genes among Uralics and they have perfectly European genepools and ancestry?
Not anymore than other people living around Uralic speakers. Thats my point. There certainly is Asiatic (as Mongoloid) genes amongst the Volga-Finnics, Ob-Ugrics living in Siberia are even predom Mongoloids. Idea that Samoyeds would somehow represent "undilluted Uralics" is complete bs. They are recent arrivals in to Uralic lands, genetically Arctic Mongoloids from East Siberia. I wouldnt even rule out language change what comes to them.
Those Volga-Finnics however are no more "Asiatic" than their Russian-Slavic neighbours. Baltic-Finns are no significantly more "Asiatic" than their neighbours. You know perfectly well that no "racial purity" exists in genetics.
I'll repost it for Karl:
With regard to the Y-chromosome, the most common haplogroups of the Finns are N3 (58%), I (29%), R1a (7.5%) and R1b (3.5%).[40] Haplogroupe N3, which is found only in a few countries in Europe (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden and Russia), is a subgroup of the haplogroup N (Y-DNA) distributed across northern Eurasia and estimated in a recent study to be 10,000–20,000 years old and suggested to have entered Europe about 12,000–14,000 years ago from Asia.[41]
According to an earlier study conducted by four scientists, including Cavalli-Sforza LL:
Principal coordinate analysis shows that Lapps/Sami are almost exactly intermediate between people located geographically near the Ural mountains and speaking Uralic languages, and central and northern Europeans. Hungarians and Finns are definitely closer to Europeans. An analysis of genetic admixture between Uralic and European ancestors shows that Lapps/Sami are slightly more than 50% European, Hungarians are 87% European, and Finns are 90% European. There is basic agreement between these conclusions and historical data on Hungary. Less is known about Finns and very little about Lapps/Sami.[42]
According to recent autosomal (genomewide, 10,000 markers instead of few looked at Y-DNA and MtDNA-studies) give distinct picture of Finnish genes. Finns are a genetic isolate. It could be said that all other Europeans have Finnish genes but Finns don't have all the genes found in other Europeans. Finns show very little if any Mediterranean and African genes but on the other hand almost 10% Finnish genes seem to be shared with some Siberian populations. Nevertheless more than 80% of Finnish genes are from single ancient North-European population, while most Europeans are a mixture of 3 or more principal components.[43]
My conclusions:
(1) Uralic language family has developed most likely on the European-Asian borderlands. Proto-Uralics colonised the vicnity of the Baltic Sea, from either West Siberia or South-East Europe. They entered Europe from Asia, and it had to occur much later than in the case of R1a or R1b bearers.
(2) Most Uralics have clear Asiatic affinities revealed in their markers. Some of these markers they share with the Altaic family - Turkics and Mongolics. For instance Hungarians are said to have about 13% non-European markers and 5% Monolic markers. If Samis have Altaic markers then Finns certainly do have them as well.
(3) Baltic Finns are Westernmost Uralics and they represent a later wave of Uralic migration. Ancestors of Baltic Finns mixed heavily with other Europeans once the glacier has receded - they are racially and genetically very close to Europeans...that's why they are not representative of the Uralic family - whose origins and genetic makeup clearly differ from that of most Europeans. If all other Uralic branches have some Asian markers, then Finns most likely have some traces of them too. N1c being one of the examples.
(4) I can't understand why Walkila insists that N3 or N1c1 is not an Asiatic marker, if all artilces I came across so far state its definitely Asiatic, and evolved in Siberia. Its present in Korea and Japan. N1b evolved in the vicinity of Ural, so it can hardly be considered as a typical "European" marker.
Map of the N3 marker distribution:
http://www.ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pages/documents_Aussois_2005/pdf/Toomas_Kivisild.ppt#280,24,Slide 24
and here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/12/dissection-of-y-chromosome-haplogroups.html
Khants (N=76.6%):
Anthropologically, the Khants are representatives of the Uralic race. Over half of their racial characteristics are predominantly Mongoloid (particularly in the Beryozovo region). They are short (the average height for men is 158 cm and for women 146 cm), and their broad-shouldered stocky trunk has a characteristic convexity. They have narrow eyes and high cheek-bones and their eyes and hair are dark.
Nganasans (N=92.1%):
Anthropologically, the Nganasans are representatives of the Uralic race in which Mongoloid and Arctic traits dominate European. Due to their relative isolation they have scarcely mixed with other peoples, (this situation has changed in more recent times with incursions by the Dolgans and Russians). Nganasans are a short (men up to 160 cm), stocky people. They have a broad face with high cheekbones, a flat nose and the epicanthic fold. Hair and eyes are dark but the skin is relatively fair.
Nenets (N=97.3%):
Anthropologically, the Nenets are representatives of the Uralic race with stronger than average Mongoloid characteristics. They are commonly of short stature (the average male height is 158 cm) and a stocky build. The face is broad and flat, with a short and somewhat protruding nose. While hair is straight and thick, beard growth is poor. Eyelids commonly exhibit epicanthic folds. Due to dark pigmentation, hair and eyes are black or brown and the skin is swarthy. In appearance the Nenets resemble most the Ostyaks, displaying, however, more Mongoloid characteristics. The Nenets of the Arkhangelsk region exhibit a somewhat stronger European strain.
Selkups (Q=66.4%):
Anthropologically, the Selkups are representatives of the Uralic race, being rather similar to the Ob-Ugrians. They are of small stature (men below 160 cm) and have a short skull. The hair and eyes are dark. Mongoloid traits are less conspicuous than in the Northern Samoyeds, the colour of the skin is fairer. The Selkups are unique among the Samoyeds as they are bearded.
Overall, Uralic speakers are predominantly N bearers. Conclusion:
Some observations: it seems that haplogroup N implies presence of the Uralic race, as I have noted elsewhere. Haplogroup Q, which is also strongly represented in the American Mongoloids, is present in two of the Siberian groups, one of them identified as Mongoloid (Kets) in the Red Book, while the other (Selkups) identified as Uralic.
The Uralic race has been thought to be either the result of admixture of Caucasoids with Mongoloids, or a race of its own which has also undergone admixture with the two major Eurasian races. The discovery of haplogroup N and the study of its distribution strongly suggests that the Uralic race has an independent origin, even though it seems to be related to the Mongoloid race.
In the case of haplogroup Q, its Mongoloid association seems unassailable, especially since it is found in the Americas. Therefore, the identification of the Selkups as "Uralic" requires an explanation. The Selkups have a frequency of Caucasoid haplogroups (R1b+R1a=25.2%) plus 6.9% of haplogroup N. Therefore in their case, their "Uralic"-type of appearance is probably the result of admixture between Caucasoids, a hint of "real" Uralics, and Q-haplogroup Mongoloids.
In conclusion, the genetic data seems to support the multidimensional craniometric view of Uralics as a race of their own which also shows signs of hybridization with Caucasoids and Mongoloids on a West-East axis.
Very similar to Coon's: Uralics are overall un-specialised descendants of hunter-gatherers from Eurasian tundra with some archaic, undifferentiated features, which make them similar to Paleolithic populations. Although they heavily mixed with Indo-Europeans in the West and Altaics in the East, they have a distinct origin reflected by the high frequency of the N haplogroup. On the origins of the Uralic N2 and N3:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d73858t027m230k3/
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v.../5201748a.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d73858t027m230k3/
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medli...haplogroups%5D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnic_peoples
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00009/00000179
Someone find me an article that does not suggest Siberian/Uralic origin, please.
Poltergeist
08-27-2009, 07:14 PM
Moronic threads have the biggest number of posts?
Absinthe
08-27-2009, 07:14 PM
Moronic threads have the biggest number of posts?
Makes you think, doesn't it? ;)
Makes you think, doesn't it? ;)
something about denseness becoming denser still in ever larger amounts, when squeezed into the same thread :D
Hewinlant posted:
HG N1c may have originated in South Siberia or Europe, jury is still out. Latest research would indicate rather East Europe, for N1c1 East Europe is allmost certain. See : Y-Chromosome distribution within the geo-linguistic landscape of northwestern Russia, Mirabel et al 2009.
I read Mirabel et al 2009 abstract. It says:
Data based on haplogroup N1b challenge earlier findings and suggest that the mutation may have occurred in the Uralic range rather than in Siberia and much earlier than has been proposed (12.94.1 instead of 5.22.7 kya). In addition, age and variance estimates for haplogroup N1c1 suggest that populations from the western Urals may have been genetically influenced by a dispersal from northeastern Europe (eg, eastern Slavs) rather than the converse.
So N1b is still a peripheral marker. It appeared in the vicinity of Ural among migrants who were of Asiatic N1 extraction. The article does NOT state N1c is European. N1c1 is an Asiatic marker and Mirabel et al 2009 also states it (like all the other studies whose links I posted in my previous post), contrary to what Hweinlant said.Here is a link to a commentary on Mirabel et al 2009:
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:Og5O4iBTp2oJ:dna-forums.org/index.php%3Fact%3Dfindpost%26pid%3D90761+N1c1+orig in+Y-Chromosome+distribution+within+the+geo-linguistic+landscape+of+northwestern+Russia&cd=1&hl=pl&ct=clnk&gl=uk
*The highest haplotype variance (based on 6 Y-STR loci) within haplogroup N1c (0.450) is found in their collection of five N1c haplotypes from Turkey. This is followed by a value of 0.429 for a collection of eight N1c1 haplotypes from Yili Uygur (Turkic; Northwest China), Xibe (Manchu-ish; Northwest China), Harbin Han (Mandarin Chinese; Northeast China), and Daur (Mongolic; Northeast China) and a value of 0.300 for a collection of five N1c haplotypes from "China" (presumably Han).
I should also mention that the set of 23 N1c1 haplotypes obtained from the Komi of Priluzsky District has exhibited a slightly higher variance (0.121). However, this is still not nearly so high as the variance of the Slavic N1c (0.167 Kursk, 0.181 Slovakia, 0.183 Tver, 0.226 Arkhangelsk) and Baltic Finnic N1c (0.206 Estonia, 0.223 Finland). So, according to these data, the variance of N1c haplotypes is highest in somewhat southerly regions of Asia (Turkey, China), moderate among the Baltic Finnic and Slavic peoples of northeastern Europe, and lowest among the indigenous populations of the Urals, Siberia, and Mongolia (Komi, Tuva, Yakut, Mongol).
Here is a chart of N1c:
http://pic.ipicture.ru/uploads/090203/xNcT12pz0n.png
http://pic.ipicture.ru/uploads/090205/1emcmzXaf8.png
And that's pretty much it for now. Im tired and fed up with arguing against the "almost certain" European character of N1c, Nenets, Selkups, Mansi and Khanty. I listed the sources which clearly indicate that Uralics had a distinct origin, separate from other Eurasians, and more Eastern to other Europeans. And even though some of them colonised Eastern Europe and mixed heavily with the local populations, they still retain their language along with traces of some Asiatic markers. I also posted a link to a commentary on Mirabel et al 2009, which is the latest study on N1b and N1c. There are exact figures there. Neither N1b and N1c is a European marker, or Ukrainian (like Karl wants). First is peripheral and emerged in the Ural area, and the other is Asian.
So finns and estonians travelled to china, like in: kiKrD6FEa6A
? ;)
not my field at all... nevertheless the statistical methods are known... aswell as some of the facts like bottlenecks presented by arctic geography... and as such could limit variance from what it may achieve in a easier enviorment. Especially if those matings in the faroff land, lead to those gaining also other benefits like the improved northern brain.
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 09:36 PM
(4) I can't understand why Walkila insists that N3 or N1c1 is not an Asiatic marker, if all artilces I came across so far state its definitely Asiatic, and evolved in Siberia. Its present in Korea and Japan. N1b evolved in the vicinity of Ural, so it can hardly be considered as a typical "European" marker.
Huoh. I see no point of call N1c1 in Europe as Asiatic marker. Thats the double standards speaking. Why dont we call R1a1 or R1b Asiatic markers then ? They both came from Asia. See, I have no problems N1c1 originating in Asia, lot of Asian people carry it and so. R1a1 and R1b also originate in Asia, lot of Asian people carry them. What makes N1c1 so specifically Asiatic but not R1b fex ? Double standards. N1c1 may well have originated in Europe. See: Your quotation of Mirabel et al and high N1c haplotype diversity in Turkey. Also in order to have N1b mutation occurring at vicinity of Urals (during late pleistocene), means that there was N1* present. So infact R1a1 and R1b are certainly born in Asia, N1c1 just possibly. Anyhow, I'm not loosing my sleep over the matter. Just pointing out the double standards.
So finns and estonians travelled to china, like in: ? ;)
Rather the opposite. They broke off from a larger racial stock (NOP) which gave rise to steppe-tundra Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that roamed Europe, Asia and America. They were represented by haplogroups Q, R, N and O. The main language families associated with these populations are the IE, the Altaic and the Uralic. Q and R have a more West Asian affinity, while N and O East Asian.
This close NOP affinity also stresses the cranial similarities between the European Cro-Magnons, Paleoasiatics and Paleoindians. These were unspecialised protomorphic populations which diverged broadly into Europids and Mongoloids and all in-betweeners.
So finns and estonians travelled to china
And we used Aryans ("orja") as our slaves while at it... :cool:
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 09:39 PM
And that's pretty much it for now. Im tired and fed up with arguing against the "almost certain" European character of N1c, Nenets, Selkups, Mansi and Khanty. I listed the sources which clearly indicate that Uralics had a distinct origin, separate from other Eurasians, and more Eastern to other Europeans.
Selkups, Khanties and such are all modern populations. They certainly did not exist 10kya or 15 kya ago, like not a single one of the modern populations. Kyrgyz, whom are fully evolved Mongoloids, yield R1a1 at level 68%, thats more than Poles. Do you see lot of point calling R1a1 as Asiatic marker ? I dont but using your logic thats the case.
Hweinlant
08-27-2009, 09:40 PM
Rather the opposite. They broke off from a larger racial stock (NOP) which gave rise to steppe-tundra Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that roamed Europe, Asia and America. They were represented by haplogroups Q, R, N and O. The main language families associated with these populations are the IE, the Altaic and the Uralic. Q and R have a more West Asian affinity, while N and O East Asian.
Typical Asiatic markers are C, D and different clades of O. Do you see those in Europe ? In NE Europe ? Answer: No.
Typical Asiatic markers are C, D and different clades of O. Do you see those in Europe ? In NE Europe ? Answer: No.
Im only saying that:
(1) N1b and N1c are not European markers as far as current literature is concerned. N1b can be peripherally European, yet it emerged at the end of Paleolithic.
(2) Most Uralic speakers are characterised by very or extremely high N1b and N1c frequencies.
(3) Most of N haplogroup carriers are Han Chinese (and they have some of the most diverse haplotypes), and N is most related to East Asian O.
Consequently, it is probable that the evolution of Uralic language family took place in Asia, and proto-Uralic (not modern Uralics) carriers of haplogroup N came to Europe later than R haplogroup carriers. N is Central/East Asian. O is East Asian. Before proto-Uralics arrived and mixed with European R-carriers, they were originally (in Paleolithic) more related to ancestors of some Altaic speakers who also have high N frequencies and carry O (N's closest "cousin").
Paleolithic "R" Cro-Magnons were on the other hand off-shoots from the same stem as "Q" Siberians and Paleoindians. Thats why Paleoindians were considered "Caucasoid", and thats why CroMagnon-like fossils were found all the way up to Central Asia. Yet subsequent isolation, and Neolithic migrations into Europe altered this image.
The migration of proto-Uralics into Western Siberia and Ural region was probably the main reason for their linguistic differentiation. Thats why they retained many proto-morphic features (and today they resemble Paleolithic hunter-gatherers more than other populations), and did not specialise into the Mongoloid direction like all other N carriers (and their O cousins) who remained in East Asia. Mixing with "R" and "Q" carriers further deepened the similarities.
I found something interesting...
Finno-Ugric people are original inhabitants of the European and Eurasian north that belong to a separate "Uralic Family" linguistic group. The Finno-Ugric substratum is present over a wide area within and outside Russia, from Norway to the Urals and down to the Black Sea. During the last glaciation, these people roamed east and west along the ice melt, from England to the Urals and beyond. Yes, the British too have a distant Finno-Ugric past, underlying several layers of immigrants to the Isles.
Is there such a thing as a "Finnish Race?" Firstly there has to be a valid concept of race in general. But in fact the term "race" is merely a construct and races do not exist in reality, except in someone's imagination. Of course all nationalities have their distinguishing characteristics, but these cannot be construed as constituting a particular race as such. We only use the terms "Slavs" and "Finns" to distinguish between the Finno-Ugric people with common linguistic ties and the Eastern Slavs whose language is Russian. There is no actual race of Finns, Russians, or even Englishmen although you can usually tell one from the other by certain features which are defined by the climate and environment in general where various people have lived for a long time. Besides, the term is not useful in most cases because everyone living today is of more or less mixed genetic content. The idea of a "master race" or "superior race" has been thoroughly disproved. Racism is a term derived from the concept of "race." But it is really just hatred and violence against anyone different from oneself or of what they consider a lower grade stock, by someone who imagines belonging to some elite or higher group as for example royalty, or in the case of original inhabitants, the conquerors. The main job of conquerors was to convince the conquered that they are inferior, and by so doing thwarting their development. But just in case you think that this means all humans are the same, let me say that we cannot assume that just because we are all humans. If we take each nationality as a circle, then all the circles are overlapping, but they are not concentric. We have tendencies toward certain behavior, related to the type of environment we have been exposed to for long periods. Russians are not the same as Finns, but they have more in common with Englishmen. Mongolians are not the same as Finns, but they have more in common with Tibetans, and so on. In fact, we can put to bed the idea that the Finns wandered in from Mongolia; Finnish genetics point straight to Europe. Finns were the original Europeans, and their range was from the Atlantic to the Urals.
DNA Evidence 1 (http://www.ut.ee/Ural/ingl.html)
DNA Evidence 2 (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Villems1998.pdf)
Neighbors have their rivalries which emphasizes differences. For example, Swedes sometimes, due to neighbor rivalry, believe that their background is superior to that of the Finns. But there is no way to measure superiority as such. The Finnish education system is ranked number one in the world, and the Swedes' is well down the list, so what criteria should we use for "superiority?" People are definitely not all equal. By this we mean that using any criterion, we can find differences, which really doesn't prove anything, just that people are shaped by their environment to which they are ideally suited. Therefore we cannot feel superior to anyone. So you see, some people may be superior in a few things but not in the identical areas as their neighbors. Anyone can see that race has no place in a peaceful world, and we should all begin to recognize each other as brothers - co-inhabitants of a rapidly shrinking and vulnerable planet, whose population has nearly outstripped its ability to sustain life on land and sea.
Russian policy toward the original inhabitants has a long way to go; they are preventing the Finno-Ugric people from developing prosperous communities by exploiting their local resources and giving nothing back - by being colonists as always. In fact, their behavior keeps bouncing between 1500's and today, including all the attendant evils that come with suppression, aggression, intimidation and genocide. Slavs, unfortunately, continue to be genocidal people, from the Balkans to the Arctic. (Of course not all Slavs, but enough to make a difference.) Finns know this and they have a saying "a Russian is always a Russian..." (vaikka voissa paistaisi - "even if fried in butter") See abolition of "race" concept (1950) by UNESCO (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_03_j-godeeper.htm).
Race theory presupposes that at one time there existed separate races, which in time started to mix, and there is no proof of that - quite the opposite. According to anthropologists we all came from Africa. Further, the total spectrum of humans, whether traits be based on color or any other criteria, is impossible to separate into categories. What will be the categories? Who will decide? A person could end up in different groups depending on what criteria was used. Attempts to broaden the concept of race to "white", "black", "yellow", "brown" or whatever is filled with similar problems. What race is someone who is 1/3 Finnish, 1/3 Swedish and 1/3 English? What shades are "white" and could you have siblings belonging to different "races?" Therefore categories of "race" really have no place in good science at all, in the opinion of the writer. It is a concept which blurs science. Besides, the main difference between all people for our purposes is cultural and linguistic, and the rest are subjects for feature character analyses of people. These can be categorized statistically, but cannot be sorted into "races" as such. Certain nationalities have certain traits which may be physical or behavioral. Still, they cannot be separated into racial characteristics.
Finns have been put into the Mongolian race by some historians. Of course this is absurd, since the ancestors of Finns have lived in the north, and "Finland" (not the present political boundary but an area reaching at least one thousand kilometers east) for millennia. This was started by someone who believed that Finns are not indigenous, so they had to come from somewhere, and to these sources, Mongolia was "east" and Finns must have come from that direction. Who says Finns are not indigenous? Finno-Ugric people were the original inhabitants of central Europe. Recently some ultra-nationalistic ethnic Russians ("Slavs") want to propagate this theory so perhaps it can make the Finnish tribes appear to settle on their land as squatters This reminds me of someone:D, and therefore they have the right to toss them off as they wish. Already in 2005, the president has declared many of the cities captured in 1944, as "old Russian" cities, though 99% of the population was ethnic Finn/Karelian.
Swedes may have liked to think of themselves as superior to Finns, therefore it may have been convenient to label Finns accordingly with an "inferior" culture. So if Finns came from the east, Europeans must be Africans because they came there from the south not east, by the same logic. In fact, most modern Europeans, including at least some ancestors of Finns, can be traced through Mitochondrial DNA to one of three clans in Africa. In fact most Europeans are indigenous going back further than the last ice age. That might surprise some, but it really makes sense. How can Saami of Finland be indigenous people of Europe, but everyone else are immigrants? We know this much: part of the Finno-Ugric substratum lived in the north and part possibly came from elsewhere, perhaps even Sumeria, not Mongolia. The writer has compared Finnish and Sumerian, and indeed there does appear to be an interesting correlation. Zecharia Sitchin, who is a scholar of ancient Sumeria, states that there is a solid linguistic connection. He states a lot of other things too, which give a lot of food for imagination regarding the ancient world and how we got here. But other scholars have come to the same conclusion. If so, how did these people get up to the new lands opened by the retreat of the last Ice Age? And why did they go there? Could ancient Sumerians have gone north and lived amongst the arctic people, giving Finno-Ugric languages a Sumerian stamp? Or did they travel south after the last Ice Age and settle in Sumeria, only to disappear again, some going south to India, near Kerala, and some back up north? Every answer forms the next question.
Newcomers filtered in to Finland over millennia and were absorbed by other arctic, possibly related people. The writer does not believe that the Finnish people "arrived" there from somewhere else, filling a vaccum. They had already been moving East and West for millennia on their ancient water-ways. The choice to settle in any area, including the present day Karelia and Finland was made for various reasons relating to survival in the north. The Finland we are talking about is not the present political boundary area, for their wilderness trips covered a much wider area and involved trade through various middle-men. The term Finn shall refer to Finnic people, covering the area between Norway and the Volga and North to the White Sea. Immigrants to these northern wilderness hunting, trapping and fishing grounds were from many different places, but over time they mixed and created the Finnish people. From this perspective, Finnish, like Saami, is an indigenous language of the north independent of genetics.
Finnish People of the East and West
As the ice retreated about 10,000 years ago, stone-age men, perhaps early Finns, occupied the rich new lands between Norway and the Urals. They were followed by other wanderers in the North, many of which were Germanic. According to Matti Klinge, (University of Helsinki), the dominant "genetic element" in Finland today is Germanic (http://victorian.fortunecity.com/christy/32/asr.html). Perhaps Germanic people had also followed game northward since the dawn of history and were accepted there amongst the Finns. When the waves of disease swept over Europe, it is possible that the germanic genetic traits (ie. the ones carrying specific immune factors, such as blood type A), survived because the immune factors were already there and did not have to be produced by the Human Immune Response. In this way, beneficial traits were gradually imported along with technology to the North from Europe.
The eastern Finnic nations mixed with wanderers from the south and east and therefore they differ genetically from the western Finns. This genetic variability was beneficial to the eastern Finns as well. Biological diversity is what helps species to survive, and this applied to the Finns as well. Naturally, in different geographical areas gene pools differ due to "genetic drift," which is a very well understood phenomenon. The Volga Finnic people are referred to as Finns here even though they differ significantly in many ways, especially in the language which is mostly conversationally unintelligible to Baltic Finns.
Source (http://uralica.com/fgpeople.htm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_fOJ9rYx-8 ;)
edit.. guess thats a bit too subtle, even when one understands part of it.
Anyway, finnish product, old and classical... and speakimng what sounds like asian... and most certainly isnt finnish.
But may be fooled to take just that stand..
Whoever said figuring me out is simple? :D
Ago Kьnnap refers to Karin Mark making that mistake in his Estonian article on Finno-Ugristics, citing Leiu Heapost.
I couldn't find the study by Leiu Heapost for public reading, however...
In 1999 the symposium “The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia III” (s.-c. “Roots III”) took place in Estonia, Loona
Who were those participants who shared this opinion? Here:
Academician Prof. Richard Villems and Prof. Ago Kьnnap. PhD Indre Antanaitis (anthropology, Vilnius Univ., Lithuania), Prof. Pavel Dolukhanov (archaeology, Newcastle Univ., England), Prof. Lutz Edzard (linguistics, Bonn Univ., Germany; was not present himself but sent his presentation), Prof. Istvбn Fodor (ethnology, Szeged Univ., Hungary), PhD Leiu Heapost (anthropology, Estonian Acad. of Sciences, Estonia), Ass. Prof. Rimantas Jankauskas (anthropology, Vilnius Univ., Lithuania), Prof. em. Kyцsti Julku (history, Oulu Univ., Finland), Prof. Ago Kьnnap (linguistics, Tartu Univ., Estonia), Prof. Valter Lang (archaeology, Tartu Univ., Estonia), MA Kristian Nilsson (linguistics, Lund Univ., Sweden), MA Anu Nurk (linguistics, Tartu Univ., Estonia), researcher Jьri Parik (genetics, Estonian Biocentre, Estonia), Prof. Jбnos Pusztay (linguistics, Szombathely Coll., Hungary), Ass. Prof. Tхnu Seilenthal (linguistics, Tartu Univ., Estonia), PhD Urmas Sutrop (linguistics, Konstanz Univ., Germany), licenciate Ants-Michael Uesson (linguistics, Malmц, Sweden), Prof. Richard Villems (genetics, Tartu Univ., Estonia), Prof. em. Kalevi Wiik (linguistics, Turku Univ., Finland).
You're a joke
1. The quote has nothing to do with your claim
2. There are only two anthropologists on the list, and both are Baltic
I found something interesting...
Source (http://uralica.com/fgpeople.htm)
Yeah, we all already know that Finnics have a deep inferiority complex
I found something interesting..
Source (http://uralica.com/fgpeople.htm)
Well... frankly it's a bit too much politics, too little content. And their sources on FU genetics all predate 1998. But fair enough - lets look at them closely. DNA source 2 - fragment on Y-DNA:
Meanwhile, we note that "East-Asian affinity" of the Estonian Y-chromosomal microsatellite length variability can be suggested looking e.g. at the frequency of various DYS19 repeats. While northern European populations have a typical unimodal distribution of DYS19 with predominant lengths of 190 bp, Estonians have a significant proportion of 198 and 202 bp chromosomes, characteristic for East Asians as well as to certain Africans but not at all for northern Europeans (Table 5).
http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Villems1998.pdf
Allowing a little joking, it means that besides "Siberian fathers", Estonians (and very likely also Finns and Saami) have also a fraction of Caucasoid paternal lineages, shared with Indo- European and specifically with Hamito-Semitic language group speakers of northern Africa.
The source does not deny presence of Asiatic markers among Finns and partial Asiatic ancestry. Uralics paternal ancestry is closely connected to Siberian N1c and peripheral N1b.
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5609/khantymansi.jpg
Among most Uralics N1c and N1b constitute 60-95% Y-DNA, Finns have 60-63%, Estonians, Samis and Mari a bit less, 40-50%. Its a major marker, preponderant among all Uralics (aside from Selkups who absorbed Siberian Q and Hungarians).
Craniologist Markku Niskanen wrote in Muinaistutkija-magazine 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.
Among most Uralics N1c and N1b constitute 60-95% Y-DNA, Finns have 60-63%, Estonians, Samis and Mari a bit less, 40-50%. Its a major marker, preponderant among all Uralics (aside from Selkups who absorbed Siberian Q and Hungarians).
Estonians have around 33%-34% N1c. Also it is notable that Latvians, Lithuanians and Northern Russians all have a higher prevalence of this haplogroup.
Hweinlant
08-28-2009, 08:39 AM
Uralics paternal ancestry is closely connected to Siberian N1c and peripheral N1b.
You do realise that those Siberians number in total something like 400.000 ? There is triple amount of men with N1c1 in Finland alone. Actually, there are plenty more N1c men in Poland than all Siberians combined. Heck, there are even more N1c guys in Sweden than all Siberians combined. I do realise that you have some strange urge to "Siberianize" Baltic-Finns, it likely has something to do with racial envy and the fact we are so succesfull and handsome too :thumbs up
Estonians have around 33%-34% N1c. Also it is notable that Latvians, Lithuanians and Northern Russians all have a higher prevalence of this haplogroup.
Well no wonder - if they all've been bordering on FUs for some 7000 years... Besides, we know that Latvians and Russians assimilated whole FU tribes from historical sources. Hors is wrong saying that NW Russians have nothing Uralic in them. They do - both genetically and phenotypically. Aleksiejew and other Russian anthropologists noticed that, in compariosn to other Slavic series, Russian cranial series deviate towards FU direction. I can give here an exact qutation.
You do realise that those Siberians number in total something like 400.000 ? There is triple amount of men with N1c1 in Finland alone. Actually, there are plenty more N1c men in Poland than all Siberians combined. Heck, there are even more N1c guys in Sweden than all Siberians combined. I do realise that you have some strange urge to "Siberianize" Baltic-Finns, it likely has something to do with racial envy and the fact we are so succesfull and handsome too :thumbs up
Come on Hweinlant! Im not trying to do anything here. Im just pointing to the fact that the most probable hypothesis is that Uralics developed on European-Asian borderlands, independently of the IE and Altaic-speakers. This is well evidenced by their Asiatic ancestry (N1c is most diverse in Asia, N1b in the vicinity of Ural). Baltic Finns are exceptional here. They have substantial Central European ancestry. Im saying that if we look at Uralics as a whole, it seems most reasonable to regard proto-Uralics as N-carriers. Racial envy has nothing to do with it. I don't give a tupenny fuck about Nordicist superstitions.
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's established that Mongoloids penetrated Northern NE Europe in the NEOLITHIC period.
http://www.rfbr.ru/old/pub/knigi/alekseeva/titul.htm
T. Alekseeva. Neolith of the Forrest zone of Eastern Europe. 1997
Hors is wrong saying that NW Russians have nothing Uralic in them.
I'm not saying it. They have a bit of admixture. Less in the central NW Russia, more on the periphery. What I'm saying is that they're pred. Slavic.
It's established that Mongoloids penetrated Northern NE Europe in the NEOLITHIC period.
http://www.rfbr.ru/old/pub/knigi/alekseeva/titul.htm
T. Alekseeva. Neolith of the Forrest zone of Eastern Europe. 1997
I'm not saying it. They have a bit of admixture. Less in the central NW Russia, more on the periphery. What I'm saying is that they're pred. Slavic.
Agreed. Aleksiejew wrote that the facial flatness of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers cannot be regarded as "Mongoloid". Its way lesser than typical Mongoloid and should be regarded as rather protomorphic. I wrote about it few posts ago while discussing the NOP haplogroup.
Hweinlant
08-28-2009, 08:58 AM
I'm not saying it. They have a bit of admixture. Less in the central NW Russia, more on the periphery. What I'm saying is that they're pred. Slavic.
You cant seriously believe in that. Even Russian scientists themselves say NW (and N) Russians are Finnic. Case example of language shift.
Btw: What do you think, should they secede from Russia, like Ukraine did ? I think they should. St. Petersburg would make wonderfull capital for this new Baltic country.
You cant seriously believe in that. Even Russian scientists themselves say NW (and N) Russians are Finnic. Case example of language shift.
Btw: What do you think, should they secede from Russia, like Ukraine did ? I think they should. St. Petersburg would make wonderfull capital for this new Baltic country.
I think they are too Russian mentally to do that ;)
%N
Udmurt - 85
Khants - 77
Komi - 61-68
Finns - 63.2
Mari - 41-50
Saami - 47
Estonians - 40
Mordvins - 19
While according to Pimenoff et al 2008, the Nenets, Enets, Nganasans, Khanty, Mansi and Komi have 80-95% N. The further North, away from the forest-steppe, the higher %N.
https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/42397/livingon.pdf?sequence=1
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
The major aim of this thesis was to examine the origins and distribution of uniparental and autosomal genetic variation among the Finno-Ugric-speaking human populations living in Boreal and Arctic regions of North Eurasia. In more detail, I aimed to disentangle the underlying molecular and population genetic factors which have produced the patterns of uniparental and autosomal genetic diversity in these populations. Among Finno-Ugrics the genetic amalgamation and clinal distribution of West and East Eurasian gene pools were observed within uniparental markers. This admixture indicates that North Eurasia was colonized through Central Asia/ South Siberia by human groups already carrying both West and East Eurasian lineages. The complex combination of founder effects, gene flow and genetic drift underlying the genetic diversity of the Finno-Ugric- speaking populations were emphasized by low haplotype diversity within and among uniparental and biparental markers.
Hweinlant
08-28-2009, 09:06 AM
I think they are too Russian mentally to do that ;)
There are separatist movements there. fex: http://www.ingria.info/ .
Inkeri/Ingria/Ingermanland has even flag ready (and national anthem too).
http://mikaeli.mikkeliamk.fi/mikaeli/arkisto/kulttuuri/inkerinliitto/lippu.jpg
This btw, is main reason why Hors so ardently refuses to accept the NW Russian subethnos and it's Finnic roots. If St. Petersburg says: Fuck off Moscow, we are out of here, Russia collapses like Soviet Union did.
I was meant to make a thread on threatened Euro ethnicites, including the Uralic ones.
If St. Petersburg says: Fuck off Moscow, we are out of here, Russia collapses like Soviet Union did.
Uhm, why would that ever happen? St Petersburgers are as Russian as Muscovites.
There are separatist movements there. fex: http://www.ingria.info/
There is no separatist movement there at all. The web-site is run by Ukrainian nationalists. All names are Ukrainian. Very lame. LOL
With the same success you may claim that Karelia has a separatist movement because there is a funny site run by a bunch of Finnish losers.
You cant seriously believe in that. Even Russian scientists themselves say NW (and N) Russians are Finnic.
They don't.
And there is no point to ask you to stop bullshitting people. It's your Finnish nature :)
Hweinlant
08-28-2009, 09:35 AM
Uhm, why would that ever happen? St Petersburgers are as Russian as Muscovites.
There are lot of St. Petersburgers who dont consider them as Russians but rather St. Petersburgers and/or Ingermanlanders. Ingermanlander includes the Ingrian Finns but also other people who have historical roots in the region. Ingria was allmost completely Finnish/Estonian till 1930's. St. Petersburg resides in the middle of Ingermanland. Czars of Russian Empire lived in the middle of Protestant, Lutheran, Finnic people, not in ethnic Russia.
http://www.inkeri.com/Kartta_p2.gif
Uhm, why would that ever happen? St Petersburgers are as Russian as Muscovites.
Even more so...
However, there is no "Ingria" now. The multi-million city and its suburbs are populated by people from all over Russia, while Ingrians (Finnic) are only 100-200 individuals. There are maybe several thousands of old Ingrian Russians who may have the local component in their genetic impact.
Finns just troll and spam. It's shame that the administration allow such behavior.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.