Racial Types of Finno-Ugrians, Baltisation and Eastbaltids

[Agrippa]

Racial Types of Finno-Ugrians and Eastbaltids
Mainly a summary of various posts on Dodona and elsewhere.
Finns are the result of mixture of various European and non-European groups according to classic anthropologists. I'm always speaking about phenotypical feature-combinations:
The elements which participated primarily are Nordid, Cromagnoid/Protoeuropid and Westsibirid-Mongoloid. The Nordid elements came mainly with Indoeuropeans of the Corded-Battle Axe and related groups to Finland and wheras Indoeuropeanised Finno-Ugrians in minority became Balts and Slavs, where Finno-Ugrians dominated Finns and Estonians came up (Baltic Sea Finns).
The basic element was Cromagnoid but partly mixed with Mongoloids, depending on the ratio and the selective pressure working on the elements more Europid or more part-Mongolid forms evolved out of that basic mixture of Nordid-Cromagnoid forms with Mongoloids = Osteuropid spectrum.
Largely unreduced and not Lappoid influenced basic Cromagnoid variants = Westbaltid; more borealised (adapted for cold and rather unfavourable conditions), brachymorphised, partly reduced, very slight Mongoloid influence possible = Baltid (standard). Stronger Borealisation, reduction, adaptation for very unfavourable conditions and more Lappoid influenced = Eastbaltid.
Lappoids themselves are the result of a mixture of reduced Cromagnoids which were pushed away by mobile groups coming from the South (first new, more progressive Cromagnoids which were still hunter and gatherers, later Indoeuropean Nordoids which were mobile farmers and strongly relied on animal husbandry, were partly just pastoralists) and had a higher ratio of Mongoloid admixture.
Westsibirids are an intermediate form with both Mongoloid and Europoid features and seem to have influenced parts of North Eastern Europe too.
The result is this racial composition of Finno-Ugrians:

Some argue that certain features are both rather primitive-protomorphic and/or cold adaptation without direct Mongoloid influence, but what I read recently convinced me of an influence which can be just called Mongoloid in the Comb-Ceramic group.
I think that the Pit-Comb-Ware culture was for Finno-Ugrians as important as Corded Ware-Battle Axe for Indoeuropeans and its quite sure that at least greater parts of this group were Finno-Ugrians. This explains why the Baltic Finns have so many words from Indoeuropeans too, because the Corded People, herder-farmer groups brought new social structures, techniques and ways of thinking to this basic hunter-gatherers.

The distribution of the found artifacts is approximately as follows: Finnmark (Norway) in the north, river Kalix (Sweden) and the Gulf of Bothnia (Finland) in the west and the river Wisla (Poland) in the south. In the east the Comb Ceramic pottery of North-Western Russia merges with a continuum of resembling ceramic styles ranging towards the Ural mountains. It would include the Narva culture of Lithuania and the Sperrings culture in Finland, among others. They are thought to have been essentially hunter-gatherers, though e.g. the Narva culture in Lithuania shows some evidence of agriculture. Some of this region was absorbed by the later Corded Ware horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ce...e#Distribution
Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture
Mongoloid admixture and tendencies were proven in parts of the Pit-Comb-Ware culture too. Eastern affinities are clear in some groups.
Corded/Fatjanovo reconstructions:


Inside the Nordoid range definitely. A basic, classic European form with very progressive and mature-virile traits.
Comparison of a) Uralic [Lappoid] and b) Europid:

More Lappoid Comb Ceramic people reconstructions:


The position of various prehistoric groups of North Eastern Europe on gradient from Europid to Mongolid:

Neolithic skulls, 1. LBK, 2. Corded, 3. Bell Beaker:

Neolithic clusters, Fatjanovo clusters with Central German Corded Ware people:

Both from I. Schwidetzky.
Some comments of Denisova, very important for the Cromagnoid component:

At this time, facial width distinctly separated morphological forms in Northern Europe from those in the Mediterranean region -- two distinct geographic regions. Massive, broad-faced morphological forms dominated in northern and northeastern Europe, while gracile, narrow-faced forms are found most often in Middle Europe and the continent's southeastern reaches. During the Atlantic period, narrow-faced populations gradually moved in the northerly and northeasterly direction. They reached the Baltic region only during the Bronze Age. For this reason, during the Mesolithic and Neolithic period, people in the Baltic region (and surrounding regions) had broad faces, a fact which affirms their links to the late Paleolithic populations of Europe. This does not by any means suggest, however, that all of the Mesolithic and early Neolithic populations of Northern Europe were identical from the anthropological standpoint. At least two gradations of facial width (135-142 mm in one group and 144-150 in the other) can be found in this territory. Other characteristics for race specification, moreover, suggest that the most ancient residents of Latvia had several different morphological forms.
...
Nevertheless it seems that the territory which in the Mesolithic period was populated by distinctly broad-faced individuals can be defined quite specifically. These inhabitants did not disappear over time. Their successors continued to inhabit Eastern Europe in the early Neolithic period, although their territory, possibly, diminished considerably. It is thought, for example, that these people were no longer present in Latvia during the Atlantic period.
...
During the early Neolithic period, similar residents populated the Upper Volga and Upper Oka, the area in which the Upper Volga culture prevailed (unpublished data by the author). The same anthropological type was also found among early Neolithic residents of the Dnieper-Donetz culture of Ukraine (Gohman 1996;Konduktorova 1973). The large number of skulls found in this region provide a very complete understanding of the anthropological type of the massive, broad-faced (145-153 mm on average) inhabitants of the region, and they allow us to conclude firmly that such inhabitants existed in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic period. It is possible that residents of the same background also continued to populate Denmark (Stasevang, Kolderod, Dojringe) during the same period.

http://vip.latnet.lv/hss/denisova.htm
Thats correct, Denmark at this time was more Cromagnoid too and this type evolved to modern Borrebies/Nordalpinoids.
There was a continuity from such Eastern European variants from Neolithic times to modernity f.e. in the Balticum. For Lithuania its said that on the countryside to this day the more Eastern regions are more Osteuropid ("Finnic", Cromagnoid-Lappoid) influenced and the West is Nordid of a kind we can observe in unmixed Fatjanovo and Balanovo skulls, with the later being mixed and Baltised later.
In most cases we see both peaceful assimilation and transfer and violence. Finally we are speaking about rather small unities, clan-size most of the time, maximal small tribes, which came in to contact. Its fully understandable that sometimes violence solved a potential conflict and in another case a rather peaceful contact dominated.
Concerning the relations to Indoeuropeans, both happened, Indoeuropeans "becoming" Finno-Ugrians and vice versa.
Compare with:
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=37593
and
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=54765

[MisterSinister]

Agrippa: "Finns are the result of mixture of various European and non-European groups according to classic anthropologists. I'm always speaking about phenotypical feature-combinations"

Quasi intellektual [inappropriate language, CAPS] based on classical racial biology (as Agrippa admits) with no basis in reality.

How about looking at new knowledge about archaeology, genetics and linguistics instead of filling your head with theories from the 19th century?Your rambling is typical for someone deeply rooted in nationalromantization of Germanic/IE peoples.

I will now crush this theory of Agrippa into dust.
Just watch, I'll start here:


The Right Way to Make a Beaker: Finland and the origin of the Swedish Battle Axe Culture tradition.

Åsa M. Larsson

Around 2850 BC the regional version of the Corded Ware Culture known as the Battle Axe Culture appears in Southern Sweden. While some artefacts show continuity from earlier period, many are new not just in shape (battle axes), but also in technology (pottery). The prevailing view in Scandinavian archaeology is that innovation goes from south to north, and west to east. Therefore the model of the Battle Axe Culture as being spread from Denmark to South Sweden and then northwards has only rarely been questioned. However, in my opinion the material itself suggests otherwise, since there are few similarities between the Danish Single Grave Culture and the Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe Culture.
Analysing the material culture not just as objects but as products of craft practice and learning means we have to try to unravel the social bonds and structures that govern not just who makes what and why, but how that person learns the craft and from who. The BAC potters seem to have been taught in a strictly regulated social framework, where the
making of a proper beaker depended heavily on technological know-how. I would also propose that the Swedish BAC owes much of its craft practices to Finnish traditions. The introduction of the Corded Ware Complex in Sweden came mainly from the east across the Baltic Sea.

More to come...

[Ariets]

Originally Posted by MisterSinister

Agrippa: "Finns are the result of mixture of various European and non-European groups according to classic anthropologists. I'm always speaking about phenotypical feature-combinations"

Quasi intellektual BULLSHIT based on classical racial biology (as Agrippa admits) with no basis in reality.

How about looking at new knowledge about archaeology, genetics and linguistics instead of filling your head with theories from the 19th century?Your rambling is typical for someone deeply rooted in nationalromantization of Germanic/IE peoples.

I will now crush this theory of Agrippa into dust.
Just watch, I'll start here:


The Right Way to Make a Beaker: Finland and the origin of the Swedish Battle Axe Culture tradition.

Åsa M. Larsson

Around 2850 BC the regional version of the Corded Ware Culture known as the Battle Axe Culture appears in Southern Sweden. While some artefacts show continuity from earlier period, many are new not just in shape (battle axes), but also in technology (pottery). The prevailing view in Scandinavian archaeology is that innovation goes from south to north, and west to east. Therefore the model of the Battle Axe Culture as being spread from Denmark to South Sweden and then northwards has only rarely been questioned. However, in my opinion the material itself suggests otherwise, since there are few similarities between the Danish Single Grave Culture and the Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe Culture.
Analysing the material culture not just as objects but as products of craft practice and learning means we have to try to unravel the social bonds and structures that govern not just who makes what and why, but how that person learns the craft and from who. The BAC potters seem to have been taught in a strictly regulated social framework, where the
making of a proper beaker depended heavily on technological know-how. I would also propose that the Swedish BAC owes much of its craft practices to Finnish traditions. The introduction of the Corded Ware Complex in Sweden came mainly from the east across the Baltic Sea.

More to come...

DUDE you ware banned from HBF for writing B/S and for insulting people. How many accounts there you have? 5? At least 2 are banned lol

[MisterSinister]

Your conclusion on the phenotype is "fortified" with drawings from the 30's racial studies.
That is really impressive.

Like I have said before, any country has exotic looking individuals but the Finnish phenotype is far from mongoloid admixture.

I belong to haplogroup N3 and my ancestry goes into the late mediaval books in Finland and there sure as hell is no mongoloid staring back at me when I look into the mirror.

When I stroll down any city street in Finland I see nothing but "westerners" and one or two vietnamese boat refugees.
You read and you read and you come to conclusions but, have you ever been to Finland?

It is no wonder that people with even the slightest interest in Finland and its people are inclined to ask: Who, then, are the Finns?
In trying to find an answer to this question, we ought first of all to point out one deep-rooted prejudice. We are apt to think, and it was also generally the belief of scholars of bygone times, that language and race are inseparably connected with one another. Anyone who takes the trouble to think of the matter more precisely and to consider the evidence gained from his own experience, will realize that race signifies inheritance and blood relationships, but that language is an influence of the environment, of society. There are to be found some linguistically highly unified peoples, but very seldom, if ever, any people of pure race. The Finnish people are no exception to the rule, and it is easy for a traveler to notice that all the racial types of Northern Europe are represented among them. Incidentally, the claim that the Finns are of Asiatic or Mongolian origin is completely unfounded. In the heart of Finland, for instance, live some of the fairest and most blond racial types in the entire world.

From Scandinavian Review in June, 1961

[MisterSinister]

The autosomal data shows that Finns are related to other Europeans, though Finns are in some ways genetically distinctive.
Cavalli-Sforza detected a "Finno-ugric" component of about 10% in Finns, and a recent clustering study showed that at a high enough resolution, Finns start to form their own cluster, but no autosomal study links Finnish distinctiveness to Mongoloid admixture.

Haplogroup N3 which is the most common in Finns was “born” in south Siberia about 10 000 years ago. Subcluster N3a1 which is the most common in Baltic Finnish population is estimated to have been in Europe for at least 8000 years. The father of Haplogroup N3a is N, thought to have been born in East Asia about 20 000 years ago (in a region between modern day China and Mongolia) an area correlates roughly with Xinjiang in Western China.
Haplotypes belonging to ancient paragroup N* are still widely distributed in southeastern Asia and, rarely, even in south Siberia. It is believed that the point of transition for N3 and N is south Siberia.
(http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Derenko2007.pdf M. Derenko et al , 2007)

N3’s spread into Europe is believed to have happened as a result of the withdrawal of the ice after the last glacial maximum and the concentration of these peoples, which could be refered to as proto Uralic peoples, have been in an area around modern day Ukraina, northwestern Russia.

Today 30 million northeastern European men carry N3a compared with about 1 million Asian men throughout northern Eurasia where it has been spread several thousand years later than to Europe. The European N3 does not have a genetic linkage with the Asian.

Does the birthplace of N give us a reason to believe these people really were Mongoloid?
Not at all, About 200,000 years ago, in Eastern Africa a Homo group started the evolution towards Homo sapiens, the modern human. About 100,000 years ago, modern humans entered South Asia and by 70,000 years ago they were present in southern China. 40,000 years ago, they entered Europe and this ancestral type was called "Cro-Magnon". About 55,000 years ago humans from southern Asia entered Australia. But all these groups are not what we see today in China and Europe, but more related to the Australian Aborigines.

In Siberia the first humans appeared almost 25,000 years ago, and from here, a group that already started to evolve towards the typical Mongoloid race entered 14,000 years ago the North American prairies through Behringia. 13,000 years ago, these people reached central South America.
The Han Chinese appeared in the Tibet area (their language is related to the Tibetan) and by about 5,000 years ago started to displace other tribes from modern Eastern China, many speaking Hmong-Mien, Thai and Tibetan-related
languages. In fact, even today southern China is home to various minorities from these groups, and from a historical point of view, modern western and northern China was not Chinese at all.
There are skeletons found in north China are about 15.000 years old. They are neither Caucasoid nor Mongoloid. Caucasoid/Mongoloid split did not occur until 10.000BP (Zerjal et al 1997).
The oldest distinct Mongoloid skull is roughly 9000 years old.

Let’s look at Xinjiang. This is an interesting region where different peoples have passed through.
According to Dr. Dolkun Kamberi
"Xinjiang is today known as the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of the Peoples Republic of China, one of six territorial regions of China. In the past, however, it has been known by a variety of different names such as Inner Asia, Chinese Turkestan, East Turkestan, Uighurstan, many of which conjure up images of the silk road. On the south, Xinjiang is bordered by Tibet, to the north and west is Russia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tadjikistan and Afghanistan. The region possesses an historical culture and history all its own, as proven by the remarkable discoveries made by Kamberi and his colleagues in ancient cemeteries.
Throughout its history, Xinjiang has been the meeting ground for the civilizations of the east and west; Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity were all practiced in the region; Indo-Iranian languages, and Greek, Ural-Altaic, Tibetan, were all spoken here. "
(http://christianparty.net/tarim.htm)
In this area the 3-5000 years old Tarik mummies of distinct European phenotype were found and this gives us a direct insight in the areas diversity of peoples. This is said about one of the mummies known as the Cherchen man: "Radiocarbon dating, showed that he had been lying there since the 11th century BC and that similar mummies found in the region dated from between 2000BC and 300BC. Until then, historians believed that China had not been in contact with the West until around 140BC. Proof of the Xinjiang mummies' European origins came in 1995, when DNA tests showed that they were genetically related to present-day Swedes, Finns, Tuscans, Corsicans and Sardinians."
(http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...s/tcase16.html)

[Agrippa]

The Tarim-Basin people were Europids, mainly Indoeuropeans, which moved there later from Europid centres.
Central Asia was Europid before the Turko-Mongol invasians, but Northern Asia had an older and more significant Mongoloid presence.

[MisterSinister]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

The Tarim-Basin people were Europids, mainly Indoeuropeans, which moved there later from Europid centres.
Central Asia was Europid before the Turko-Mongol invasians, but Northern Asia had an older and more significant Mongoloid presence.

You do not know for sure that they were Indo european.

Unfortunately Seekers is destroying my communication with you on this thread so my real answer to you can be found here
Shared Ethnic Minorities between Sweden and Finland

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by MisterSinister

You do not know for sure that they were Indo european.

Unfortunately Seekers is destroying my communication with you on this thread so my real answer to you can be found here
Shared Ethnic Minorities between Sweden and Finland

The article was moved because it does not contain any physical anthropological data or discussion.

And by the way, I think you're trying to refer us to this post: Shared Ethnic Minorities between Sweden and Finland

[MisterSinister]

Originally Posted by Seekers

The article was moved because it does not contain any physical anthropological data or discussion.

And by the way, I think you're trying to refer us to this post: Shared Ethnic Minorities between Sweden and Finland

Thank you , Seekers.

It is a discussion about physical anthropology.

Physical anthropology incorporates often anthropometry, craniometry or phrenology which all are semi-scientific or unscientific disciplines.

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by MisterSinister

Physical anthropology incorporates often anthropometry, craniometry or phrenology which all are semi-scientific or unscientific disciplines.

Maybe you should tell it to the people who use craniometry as part of criminal investigations. Anthropometry and craniometry are empiric sciences - only the interpretation of their results can be unscientific.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Kalevi

Maybe you should tell it to the people who use craniometry as part of criminal investigations. Anthropometry and craniometry are empiric sciences - only the interpretation of their results can be unscientific.

Indeed. And even if phrenology should be "unscientific", this doesnt mean the other aspects of research on humans you mentioned are, because they aren't. Just some people like to tell you that for obvious political-ideological reasons.

By the way, if you think its unscientific, why do you care about whether Lapps are Europid or Mongolid to begin with? Human races are human specialisations and adaptation to a specific region and way of life. This adaptations had measurable effects on the physical appearance of individuals, which is what physical anthropological, typological racial concepts are about.
While using such concepts various biological strategies of adaptation could be measured and put into context - like the cold adaptation of various Northern, circumpolar people, including Lappids. This is an important field of the scientific research on humans and human variation.

How you evaluate the measured differences is another matter, though it can be discussed in a more or less scientific manner too. And people like Lundborg and Lundman were for sure more scientific than authors claiming that craniometry or even anthropometry in general had no scientific value at all, though I dont read any anthropologist writing such nonsense. They might have refused the typological concept, but never the concept of measuring humans for other than political-ideological reasons or simple stupidity and misled naivety.

[Ariets]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

How you evaluate the measured differences is another matter, though it can be discussed in a more or less scientific manner too. And people like Lundborg and Lundman were for sure more scientific than authors claiming that craniometry or even anthropometry in general had no scientific value at all, though I dont read any anthropologist writing such nonsense. They might have refused the typological concept, but never the concept of measuring humans for other than political-ideological reasons or simple stupidity and misled naivety.

Sorry for offtopic. I can give link to one of his work (full-text pdf file) about Sweden.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by MisterSinister

Thank you , Seekers.

It is a discussion about physical anthropology.

Physical anthropology incorporates often anthropometry, craniometry or phrenology which all are semi-scientific or unscientific disciplines.

is not because many authors include phrenology in their works that all of the physical anthropology is fake