To me it seems that before Germanics and Slavs arrived, Finno-Ugrics and Celts were everywhere on the continent where the Romans weren't. Are those two related somehow?
- 1
Uh, I don't think the Finno-Ugrics were ever as expansive as the Celts. And I'm pretty sure that they're two completely different groups of people.
Well they lived all over Scandinavia before the Norse and in quite a bit of western Russia. I'm assuming before the Slavs migrated to the Kiev area the Finno-Ugrics were there too.
Well they lived all over Scandinavia before the Norse and in quite a bit of western Russia. I'm assuming before the Slavs migrated to the Kiev area the Finno-Ugrics were there too.
I highly doubt that finno ugrics lived as south as kievWell they lived all over Scandinavia before the Norse and in quite a bit of western Russia. I'm assuming before the Slavs migrated to the Kiev area the Finno-Ugrics were there too.
Well they lived all over Scandinavia before the Norse and in quite a bit of western Russia
To me it seems that before Germanics and Slavs arrived, Finno-Ugrics and Celts were everywhere on the continent where the Romans weren't. Are those two related somehow?
I was under the impression that the Finno-Ugrics migrated westward from somewhere in southern Russia or thereabouts. One group migrated northwestward early on, and settled in what was to become Finland, while a second group later moved west and eventually reached the Carpathian Basin, forming Hungary. Supposedly, Magyars from Hungary found an enclave of Finno-Ugric speakers with a very different but still mostly understandable dialect still living in the Ukraine region sometime during the late 1700s or early 1800s. It also appears that Finnish and Hungarian are closely related in structure, while being unrelated to the languages around them, but have no major words in common due to having been separated for so long.
The information I've read considers Germans and Celts to have been two of the major native populations of much of Europe for at least several thousand years, with the Celts primarily in the West and Germans primarily in the Northeast. I'm assuming that Slavs were mainly to the Southeast.
I don't mind being corrected, but if you're saying that most of the information I read was wrong, that does nothing to correct it. Saying "that's not how you spell that word" is all but useless without giving the actual spelling. In this case, I'm assuming that the "actual spelling" is subject to much debate anyway, both informed and uninformed.This is almost completely wrong.
While the Uralic urheimat is debated I think that most consider it to have it's origin somehwere on the Kama river and spread from there into Siberia and toward Scandinavia while the indo-european's are belived to have originated not very far away on the middle volga and then spread south, east and west from there.I was under the impression that the Finno-Ugrics migrated westward from somewhere in southern Russia or thereabouts. One group migrated northwestward early on, and settled in what was to become Finland, while a second group later moved west and eventually reached the Carpathian Basin, forming Hungary. Supposedly, Magyars from Hungary found an enclave of Finno-Ugric speakers with a very different but still mostly understandable dialect still living in the Ukraine region sometime during the late 1700s or early 1800s. It also appears that Finnish and Hungarian are closely related in structure, while being unrelated to the languages around them, but have no major words in common due to having been separated for so long.
I was under the impression that the Finno-Ugrics migrated westward from somewhere in southern Russia or thereabouts. One group migrated northwestward early on, and settled in what was to become Finland, while a second group later moved west and eventually reached the Carpathian Basin, forming Hungary. Supposedly, Magyars from Hungary found an enclave of Finno-Ugric speakers with a very different but still mostly understandable dialect still living in the Ukraine region sometime during the late 1700s or early 1800s. It also appears that Finnish and Hungarian are closely related in structure, while being unrelated to the languages around them, but have no major words in common due to having been separated for so long.
The information I've read considers Germans to have been one of the major native populations of much of Europe for at least several thousand years.
I'll try to explain what Amallric meant. You need to understand the dates involved to see why your statement didn't make much sense. Basically we think that the Proto-Uralic peoples were living somewhere in the forests of the Ural mountains (no one is sure where exactly) at around the same time that the Proto-Indo-European peoples were living on the open grasslands of Southern Russia and Ukraine (again, no one is sure where exactly). And this was in the stone age (or Neolithic age), like 4000 or 5000 BC (very roughly).
The Indo-Europeans spread out to the West, East and South, into most of Europe, parts of the Middle East and India. While the Uralics spread out to the North, to Scandinavia, Central Russia and Siberia.
Both groups gradually developed into many different cultures over a long period of time (I wont list them all). The Hungarians only come into the story much later. The ancestors of the Hungarians (Magyars) were a group we call the Ugrians, who lived in parts of Siberia East of the Ural mountains. They were Uralics, but they split off from the rest of them very early on. They lived in the tough arctic forests of that region until around 1300 BC (again rough estimate) when for some reason the Proto-Hungarians left that region and went south to live on the steppe (the grasslands). They became horse nomads and they interacted with the other nomads there, like the Scythians and later the Turks. In the Middle Ages the Hungarians migrated west into Ukraine and lived there for a while, until they invaded modern-day Hungary (the Pannonian plain) around the year 900 AD.
The Finnish people are also descended from the original Uralic peoples and they moved to Finland in ancient times. So yes the Finns and the Hungarians are related, but only distantly. The two groups of Uralics probably separated back in the stone age.
Yes. Modern Hungarians are Uralic people only in their language.I agree with most of what you said, but to say that modern Finns and Hungarians are descended from older Uralic peoples is not something I think is accurate. Their culture descends from them, yes, but there was probably a lot of assimilation of local peoples when the Magyars and etc. migrated to their final destinations; we shouldn't confuse cultural heritage with biological ancestry.