PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Permic Finns were Danubian



Väring
Sunday, April 10th, 2005, 09:11 AM
The evidence for the racial composition of the early Finns is scanty, but incapable of misinterpretation. One small series of ten skulls dating from about the sixth century B.C., contemporaneous with the Early Scythian period, has been identified with the ancestors of the Volga Finns at the time of their unity.4 (See Appendix 1, cot. 49.) These come from the cemeteries of Polianki and Maklacheievka, from the former Viatka government in Permian Finn country just south of the present Komi or Zyryenian Republic. The graves belonged to the so-called Anan'ino cultural horizon. This Anan'ino culture5 was formed from a combination of influences from Siberia, the Caucasus, Scythia, and Scandinavia. It did not end suddenly, but passed by a gradual process of evolution into the civilization of the historic Volga Finns. Therefore, we may consider these skulls, few as they are, to represent the ancestors of the Finns before the beginning of their historic expansion.

This small group of seven male and three female crania is not completely homogeneous, but it is nearly so. All of the skulls are European in racial type. The faces are a little broader than in most Mediterranean groups, but not to an exceptional degree. The noses, with the exception of one extremely leptorrhine male, are mesorrhine or chamaerrhine; but so are those of many early Danubians. The cranial form is mesocephalic or dolichocephalic, with one male reaching the figure of 83; the vault is moderately high; the forehead usually straight, the browridges moderate.

There is nothing new about these crania, and nothing specifically mongoloid. They closely resemble another small series of eight male skulls from the cemetery of Polom in the same district as the Anan'ino cemeteries6 (see Appendix I, cot. 50), dating from the ninth century A.D., and known to have been those of Finns of the Permian sub-family. In view of the small numbers, no difference can be found which would be statistically valid. A third group from the Lower Volga, representing the Mordvins of the fourteenth century, is similar to the Anan'ino and Permian crania, except that it is extremely long headed, with low indices, centered about the range from 71 to 73.

When we make a metrical comparison between the first two groups of Finnish skulls and all European series previously studied, the find that they fit into the ranks of Iron Age Indo-European speakers without difficulty. On the whole, they resemble most nearly the larger-sized members of the intermediate group; they also resemble the Scythian crania to a considerable extent, and even more the Minussinsk skulls. They arc slightly smaller than the Germanic type, but equal to it in vault height and face breadth. In nose form and cranial height, they resemble the Neolithic Danubians.

News of the racial position of these early Finnish skulls will come as a surprise to scholars who see in the Finns a group of mongoloid immigrants from Asia. But that they were essentially if not wholly European is, despite the paucity of Debetz's material, incontestable. Nor can one derive these Finns from forest-dwellers of Mesolithic tradition, except perhaps as a minor influence. Furthermore, in the early Anan'ino series, recognizable Corded peculiarities are to he found in but one male skull out of seven. The Finno-Ugrians, therefore, may be tentatively considered to have been, in the period before they expanded into their historic scats, Europeans of mixed origin, basically Danubian in type, with some brachycephalic element and an extremely long-headed variation as well; the latter is already familiar to us in the form of the Corded type; the former is not clearly definable, but is European. Its only discernible difference from the others in the same series is in a greater breadth of the skull. This broad-headed element is completely lacking in the late lower Volga group, of which we have only the cranial indices.

Debetz's discovery that the Finno-Ugrian speakers were originally purely European in race, and furthermore, not local Palaeolithic or Mesolithic survivors, is in perfect accord with the present state of linguistic knowledge, which makes their form of speech one of two equally weighted elements in the basic Indo-European. They not only were, but on logical grounds must have been, in the larger sense, Mediterraneans.

On equally logical grounds, this discovery does not invalidate the hypothesis that the descendants of Mesolithic hunters and fishers persisted until modern times in the forests of the far north, nor that some such survivors may not have been absorbed by those tribes of Finns which migrated even beyond the Permian country to the chilly drainage of the Arctic Ocean. This theory is very hard to test, however, for if we review the early racial history of the northern forest belt,' we find very little skeletal data with which to work. What material there is comes almost entirely from Latvia, Esthonia, and the Ladoga Lake country, all north and west of the historic Finnic center. It includes skulls of Corded type, both with and without mixture, and a number of ill-defined crania which do not fit into the usual European picture. Many of these latter are brachycephalic, some are perhaps, but not certainly, incipiently or partially mongoloid.

Unfortunately, the manner in which these skulls have been published does not permit a lucid review of their racial position. Similar ones appeared sporadically in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age series in Poland and on the plains of southern Russia, apparently as intrusions from the north, but not in sufficient numbers to alter the prevailing character of the population south of the forest from which they, as the osseous headpieces of stray woodsmen, had wandered.

Until almost three centuries after the birth of Christ, therefore, Europe, except possibly along the very Arctic rim, had not witnessed the invasion of any mongoloid people. Western Asia, from the Bosporus to the Indus, and the plains immediately east of the Caspian as well, were equally ignorant of them. But with the arrival of the Huns this gap was soon filled.

Coon, Carleton (1939). The Races Of Europe.

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-IX8.htm

Death and the Sun
Sunday, April 10th, 2005, 08:18 PM
Does this mean something?

Son of a gun
Sunday, April 10th, 2005, 08:21 PM
The one believes who wants to

Väring
Monday, April 11th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Does this mean something?

It means that there are alternative theories about the origins of the Finns other than the usual, malicious "Mongoloid" theory which is completely devoid of any truth what so ever.

Lundi
Monday, April 11th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Does this mean something?

Means next time some crazed “ARYANS OF THE WORLD UNITED FOR GLORY AND AN IRANIAN DANCE LESSON” forum member tries to declare that Finns are directly descended from Mongols you have a link with the writings of the good Dr. Carleton S. Coon to proof otherwise, not that a proof is needed for most sane people anyways. :rolleyes:

Lissu
Monday, April 11th, 2005, 10:32 PM
It means that there are alternative theories about the origins of the Finns other than the usual, malicious "Mongoloid" theory which is completely devoid of any truth what so ever.So only now you have found that out? :rolleyes:

Since the article is not about Finns, but Permic Finns who live west from the Urals, I have changed the title of this thread.

I know that in the past all Finnic peoples have incorrectly been called as Finns, but today Finn is used only from Finns, one of the Baltic Finnic nation (Baltic Finns mean Finnic peoples living around the the Baltic sea region). There is no need to repeat ancient, erroneous theories anymore.

Son of a gun
Monday, April 11th, 2005, 11:01 PM
So only now you have found that out? :rolleyes:

Since the article is not about Finns, but Permic Finns who live west from the Urals, I have changed the title of this thread.

I know that in the past all Finnic peoples have incorrectly been called as Finns, but today Finn is used only from Finns, one of the Baltic Finnic nation (Baltic Finns mean Finnic peoples living around the the Baltic sea region). There is no need to repeat ancient, erroneous theories anymore.
True!

Besides, What the hell is Danubian?

Lissu
Monday, April 11th, 2005, 11:11 PM
True!

Besides, What the hell is Danubian?Hmmm... :scratch:

Wasn't Cosmocreator Danubian? :D

Skildur
Monday, April 11th, 2005, 11:14 PM
I think they have something to do with river Danube. :D

Son of a gun
Monday, April 11th, 2005, 11:15 PM
Hmmm... :scratch:

Wasn't Cosmocreator Danubian? :D
So, good old chairman was a Finn...

Lundi
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 12:04 AM
Besides, What the hell is Danubian?

Danubians are very much like the East Baltic types and they are a proto-nordic group said to have brought the Indo-European languages (Slavic and Baltic) to the eastern parts of Europe. Like Skildur pointed out they are named after the river Danube


Neo-Danubians are very round-skulled, and their cephalic indices frequently exceed 85. The head form is globular, and the forehead is steep and not seldom protuberant. The face is square to oval in shape, and the combination of a round face and a plump cheek is common. There is often a slight flatness to the Neo-Danubian face.

The nose is moderately leptorrhine, straight to concave in profile, and often snub-tipped in a Ladogan fashion. The nasal skeleton is rather low, with a broad tip.

The upper lip is long and convex, and the cheek furrows are as a rule strong.

Neo-Danubian pigmentation is more blond than brunet, and the pigment character is prevailingly light-mixed. The combination of ash-blond hair with gray-mixed eyes seems to be a specialization shared with East Baltics and partially blond Ladogans, but the most common combination is golden blond hair and blue eyes.


Danubian isn't the most common racial type with Finns today (only about 30% according to McCulloch) but origionally the Finns are said to have been made up heavily by this racial group.

I'm not sure I would agree that Cosmocreator was Danubian but yes he did state he classified him self as one.

Kalevi
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 01:04 AM
Is she a Danubian?

http://ski.h6038.serverkompetenz.net/xfiles_a6/1075301034_1104.jpghttp://www.levinsanomat.fi/tanjapoutiainen.jpg

bittercreek
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 06:39 AM
Is she a Danubian?

http://ski.h6038.serverkompetenz.net/xfiles_a6/1075301034_1104.jpghttp://www.levinsanomat.fi/tanjapoutiainen.jpg

Isn't she from Lapland? :scratch:

Sigel
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 09:14 AM
Coon, Carleton (1939). The Races Of Europe.
Debetz's discovery that the Finno-Ugrian speakers were originally purely European in race, and furthermore, not local Palaeolithic or Mesolithic survivors, is in perfect accord with the present state of linguistic knowledge, which makes their form of speech one of two equally weighted elements in the basic Indo-European.
I never realised that Finnish was considered an Indo-European language. I had always believed that it belonged to another group entirely, related in fact to Hungarian. Finns and Hungarians, themselves, have told me this, but the above quote casts this belief into doubt.
Does it share any similarity with Lapp languages and do we know at what point it diverged from the main IE language tree?

Lissu
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 09:42 AM
I never realised that Finnish was considered an Indo-European language. I had always believed that it belonged to another group entirely, related in fact to Hungarian. Finns and Hungarians, themselves, have told me this, but the above quote casts this belief into doubt.
Does it share any similarity with Lapp languages and do we know at what point it diverged from the main IE language tree?Finnish is not I-E language, never have been and never will be. As for genetics, Finns are considered as old Europeans.

Besides, as already known, this thread is not about Finns, but so -called Permic Finns. People who live west to the Urals, in todays Russia, and have very little to do with Finns.

Death and the Sun
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 10:37 AM
I never realised that Finnish was considered an Indo-European language. I had always believed that it belonged to another group entirely, related in fact to Hungarian. Finns and Hungarians, themselves, have told me this, but the above quote casts this belief into doubt.
Does it share any similarity with Lapp languages and do we know at what point it diverged from the main IE language tree?

Finnish is a Uralic language, not an Indo-European one. It is related to Hungarian, although rather distantly as the distance between the two nations might suggest. Some people consider the terms "Uralic" and "Finno-Ugric" to be synonymous, which I myself do not agree with.

Finno-Baltic languages, of which Finnish is one, is one subgroup of the Uralic language group. Ugric languages are another subgroup (including Hungarian) and finally the Samish subgroup includes Lappish languages.

Sigel
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 12:55 PM
Finnish is a Uralic language, not an Indo-European one. It is related to Hungarian, although rather distantly as the distance between the two nations might suggest. Some people consider the terms "Uralic" and "Finno-Ugric" to be synonymous, which I myself do not agree with.

Finno-Baltic languages, of which Finnish is one, is one subgroup of the Uralic language group. Ugric languages are another subgroup (including Hungarian) and finally the Samish subgroup includes Lappish languages.
Thanks Eldritch. So Samish is also Ugric, I thought I'd read that somewhere.

Death and the Sun
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 01:04 PM
Thanks Eldritch. So Samish is also Ugric, I thought I'd read that somewhere.

No, it's Uralic, not Ugric. :)

Lissu
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Here's a list, which might be useful to clear things up:


Uralic languages:

Finno-Ugric
Finno-Permic
Finno-Volgaic
Baltic-Finnic
Finnish
Estonian
Karelian
Veps
Ingrian
Votic
Livonian
Saami
Volgaic
Mordvin
Cheremis (Mari)
Permic
Zyrien (Komi)
Votiak (Udmurt)
Ugric
Hungarian (Magyar)
Ob-Ugric
Vogul (Mansi)
Ostiak (Khanti)

Samoyedic
North Samoyedic
Nenets
Enets
Nganasan
South Samoyedic
Selkup
Sayan

Triglav
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 04:01 PM
Danubians are very much like the East Baltic types and they are a proto-nordic group said to have brought the Indo-European languages (Slavic and Baltic) to the eastern parts of Europe. Like Skildur pointed out they are named after the river Danube



Danubian isn't the most common racial type with Finns today (only about 30% according to McCulloch) but origionally the Finns are said to have been made up heavily by this racial group.

I'm not sure I would agree that Cosmocreator was Danubian but yes he did state he classified him self as one.
You're confusing Danubian Nordids with the basically non-existent "Neo-Danubians".

Kalevi
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Isn't she from Lapland? :scratch:

Yes she is, but I was talking about the Danubian sub-race that should include 30% of us Finns according to McCulloch. I'm a bit uncertain about what a Danubian should look like, so if anyone has got good representative pictures I'd be glad to see them.

Väring
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 05:36 PM
Danubians are very much like the East Baltic types and they are a proto-nordic group said to have brought the Indo-European languages (Slavic and Baltic) to the eastern parts of Europe. Like Skildur pointed out they are named after the river Danube

Coon believed that the East-Baltic race was related to Danubians, but the similarities end there.

Väring
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 05:42 PM
I never realised that Finnish was considered an Indo-European language. I had always believed that it belonged to another group entirely, related in fact to Hungarian. Finns and Hungarians, themselves, have told me this, but the above quote casts this belief into doubt.
Does it share any similarity with Lapp languages and do we know at what point it diverged from the main IE language tree?

Coon's theory implied that IE languages was a mix between Uralic, Altaic and Caucasian languages, but that does not mean Finnish is IE, of course.

bittercreek
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 05:44 PM
Yes she is, but I was talking about the Danubian sub-race that should include 30% of us Finns according to McCulloch. I'm a bit uncertain about what a Danubian should look like, so if anyone has got good representative pictures I'd be glad to see them.

The classification by McCulloch based on Coon's work (I believe) was NEO-Danubian (Danubian+Ladogan), not Danubian. Here are images from "Races Of Europe"

The examples on the attached plate image are from Minks, Belarus, Volhynia, Ukraine, the third guy I have no clue about and the last person is from Linz, Austria.

Whoops, found them both here from an earlier topic (sometimes using search can be handy ;-) ).

Danubian
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=551

Neo-Danubian
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=552

And descriptions in the same topic
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=449&page=2

Kalevi
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Thanks, that clarified the issue.

Kalevi
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005, 05:57 PM
It means that there are alternative theories about the origins of the Finns other than the usual, malicious "Mongoloid" theory which is completely devoid of any truth what so ever.

Indeed there is. And the one that has been the most widely accepted among scholars during the past few decades is the Continuity Theory (jatkuvuusteoria). In a nutshell, it states that when there's no archaeologically observable interruptions of settlement, nor there can be observed signs of a sudden immigration that would dramatically alter the population during the past 9000 years, the main part of our ancestors must be considered to be the paleo-European hunters who following the expansion of their natural environment moved to present Finland's territory as the glacier slowly melted and the earth was rising. Also, most variations of the theory state that we have spoken a Finno-Ugric language since the neolithic, and place the origin of our language to the middle Volga (but not the origin of the people, like it was previously thought).


Means next time some crazed “ARYANS OF THE WORLD UNITED FOR GLORY AND AN IRANIAN DANCE LESSON” forum member tries to declare that Finns are directly descended from Mongols you have a link with the writings of the good Dr. Carleton S. Coon to proof otherwise, not that a proof is needed for most sane people anyways. :rolleyes:

But obviously 20-30 years is too short time that such a brand new theory would have reached the English speaking world. The thing is that these brave and valiant Kebab-Warriors aren't just taking their views off from thin air. There's a few good or decent web pages about the subject in Finnish, but I completely failed to find a decent English description about Finnish origins in the net. Even the "official" pages are telling that "genetically the Finns are 25% Siberian". :O (of course forgetting to tell that according the same concept, the genetical "Easternness", the Greeks are 33% "Siberian" and even the British 13% "Siberian", most other Europeans being about 23%)

Prodigal Son
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005, 07:29 AM
It means that there are alternative theories about the origins of the Finns other than the usual, malicious "Mongoloid" theory which is completely devoid of any truth what so ever.

The proto-Finns were of Uralic, not Mongoloid, origin. And Coon's theories about the supposed 'Danubian' origins of the Permian Finns are obscolete, and thoroughly refuted. Modern Permians present a continuum between Uralic and gracile Baltic types.

Lissu
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005, 09:45 AM
The proto-Finns were of Uralic, not Mongoloid, origin. And Coon's theories about the supposed 'Danubian' origins of the Permian Finns are obscolete, and thoroughly refuted. Modern Permians present a continuum between Uralic and gracile Baltic types.If so, then how would you interpret the genetical data of Finns? Haplogroups and mtDNA?

ikki
Monday, May 9th, 2005, 09:38 PM
Finnish is not I-E language, never have been and never will be. As for genetics, Finns are considered as old Europeans.


Althought there are links to dravidic. (southern part of india)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages

and rivers etc having names like: "ukki", "kaveri" around there.


yeah, this looking after seemingly unrelated/irrelevant stuff is something i have been keeping busy with the last few months, rather than posting much ;)

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, May 11th, 2005, 09:55 AM
If so, then how would you interpret the genetical data of Finns? Haplogroups and mtDNA?


Such as the fact that Finns have 60% of the Tat-C genetic marker (present in 86% of Yakuts, etc...)?

Lissu
Wednesday, May 11th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Such as the fact that Finns have 60% of the Tat-C genetic marker (present in 86% of Yakuts, etc...)?Lol :P

No, I meant mtDNA and haplogroups... You know what those are, do you not?

bittercreek
Wednesday, May 11th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Lol :P

No, I meant mtDNA and haplogroups... You know what those are, do you not?

TAT/C is a haplogroup. And there still is no common agreement between scientists on if it is a Caucasian Paleolithic marker of a Ice Age or Pre-Ice Age population or if the marker originated in Asia.

There have been several discussions about it on Dodona etc. places
http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=genetics&num=1112611281&action=display&start=30

PS. Now I know what "they" ment with "hidden agenda"-posters.
:viking2:

Death and the Sun
Wednesday, May 11th, 2005, 12:12 PM
The difference between science and pseudoscience:


SCIENCE: The primary goal of science is to achieve a more complete and more unified understanding of the physical world.


PSEUDOSCIENCE: Pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals.


SCIENCE: Workers in the field commonly seek out counterexamples or findings that appear to be inconsistent with accepted theories.


PSEUDOSCIENCE In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms.


SCIENCE: Observations or data that are not consistent with current scientific understanding, once shown to be credible, generate intense interest among scientists and stimulate additional studies.


PSEUDOSCIENCE Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed.


SCIENCE: Scientific ideas and concepts must stand or fall on their own merits, based on existing knowledge and on evidence.


PSEUDOSCIENCE Pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities, almost always by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. They often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support.


SCIENCE: Scientific explanations must be stated in clear, unambigous terms.


PSEUDOSCIENCE Pseudoscientific explanations tend to be vague and ambiguous, often invoking scientific terms in dubious contexts.

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html