Finno-Ugrics and Celts

[Hibernian]

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.

Oh yes, I know that. I was trying to give a simplified explanation, I didn't want to go into the whole genetics vs. culture thing, but yes of course the Magyars probably picked up people from all sorts of other cultures when they lived on the steppe (Iranic and Turkic peoples certainly) and they then merged with the Slavic people (and Avars) who were already in Hungary before they arrived. But that's pretty much the same thing that happened to all peoples in Eurasia.

We now know from Genetics that most of the time cultures and languages spread by assimilation, rather then outright replacement of previous populations. I'm quite sure that the modern Hungarians are probably significantly genetically descended from the people who had been living on that land since the Stone Age (who were presumably neither Indo-Europeans, nor Uralics).

In Ireland there has been plenty of genetic testing done over the last decade and it shows that we are mostly descended from the first Mesolithic colonists (like probably 80% to 90%), with little bits of input from the various groups who arrived later (Neolithic people, Beaker People, Celts, Vikings, English, etc.). So although Ireland became culturally and linguistically Celtic (and thus Indo-European), we are mostly not descended (genetically) from Celtic peoples of the Alps, or from Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Ukrainian steppes. But there is still a clear historical connection to those cultures that can be established.

 

[Andrelvis]

Oh yes, I know that. I was trying to give a simplified explanation, I didn't want to go into the whole genetics vs. culture thing, but yes of course the Magyars probably picked up people from all sorts of other cultures when they lived on the steppe (Iranic and Turkic peoples certainly) and they then merged with the Slavic people (and Avars) who were already in Hungary before they arrived. But that's pretty much the same thing that happened to all peoples in Eurasia.

We now know from Genetics that most of the time cultures and languages spread by assimilation, rather then outright replacement of previous populations. I'm quite sure that the modern Hungarians are probably significantly genetically descended from the people who had been living on that land since the Stone Age (who were presumably neither Indo-Europeans, nor Uralics).

In Ireland there has been plenty of genetic testing done over the last decade and it shows that we are mostly descended from the first Mesolithic colonists (like probably 80% to 90%), with little bits of input from the various groups who arrived later (Neolithic people, Beaker People, Celts, Vikings, English, etc.). So although Ireland became culturally and linguistically Celtic (and thus Indo-European), we are mostly not descended (genetically) from Celtic peoples of the Alps, or from Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Ukrainian steppes. But there is still a clear historical connection to those cultures that can be established.

Yes, which is very interesting

It makes sense too if you think about it - considering the technological levels at the time, it would be quite difficult to supply such a large migrating group as would be necessary for replacing previous populations. I don't really know of any examples of massive immigrations that could replace previous populations before the early modern period and (specially) the 19th century.

 

[Pacius Ferox]

A totally revolutionary theory was put up by a retired Professor of Phonetics, Kalevi Wiik, some years ago. He said that (some proto-) Fenno-Ugrics was the language of the hunter-fishers, and (some proto-) Indo European was the language of the agriculturists. The natural effect of this was that the indo-europeans spread out faster because they had larger families (and bigger armies), but they couldn't reach the borderlands thus leaving these to the remaining Fenno-Ugrics, who in turn developed higher survival skills.

I mention that he presented this theory only when he had retired (and needed not to apply for jobs at the university)

 

[Pacius Ferox]

We now know from Genetics that most of the time cultures and languages spread by assimilation, rather then outright replacement of previous populations. I'm quite sure that the modern Hungarians are probably significantly genetically descended from the people who had been living on that land since the Stone Age (who were presumably neither Indo-Europeans, nor Uralics).

Speaking about genetics, Finns are quite mixed people due to result of this very assimilation. The Sapmi are the real Uralics while the Tavastians are more close to Balts. The history of the independence era has deliberately played down all the past tribal consciousness, but even now it still has some effect. A recent law now passed in Finland demands "a living connection with the Sapmi culture" to grant the status and privileges of a real Sapmi.

 

[Amallric]

A totally revolutionary theory was put up by a retired Professor of Phonetics, Kalevi Wiik, some years ago. He said that (some proto-) Fenno-Ugrics was the language of the hunter-fishers, and (some proto-) Indo European was the language of the agriculturists. The natural effect of this was that the indo-europeans spread out faster because they had larger families (and bigger armies), but they couldn't reach the borderlands thus leaving these to the remaining Fenno-Ugrics, who in turn developed higher survival skills.

I mention that he presented this theory only when he had retired (and needed not to apply for jobs at the university)

I think the most commonly adopted theory is that Indo-Europeans were pastoral nomads. As for Ugro-Finns, it largely depends from where and when we are talking.

 

[Kovax]

It makes sense too if you think about it - considering the technological levels at the time, it would be quite difficult to supply such a large migrating group as would be necessary for replacing previous populations. I don't really know of any examples of massive immigrations that could replace previous populations before the early modern period and (specially) the 19th century.

The idea of groups of scattered migratory nomads significantly "replacing" another sparsely populated group of nomads does seem to have some potential in certain areas, but I don't see it as being at all likely in the more densely populated areas, at least until fairly modern times.

When the Finno-Ugrics moved into the area which eventually became Finland, it was probably only sparsely settled, so the newcomers may have constituted a significant share, or even a majority, of the genetic pool in the specific areas they chose. If those areas developed faster, and increased in population density more rapidly than the rest of the region, a small group of only a few thousand people could be responsible for a disproportionately larger percentage of the more modern ethnic makeup of the entire region than one might expect. Disproportionately large for their initial numbers, but not dominant.

 

[ShackyRustlefor]

Some say that before all such folk, including Celts and Romans, all of Europe was ruled by the Old Europeans; the stock of whom can be found still in the Basques.

There were some pre-Celtic Indo-Europeans that we don't know much about though, such as the Lusitani.

 

[Sleepyhead]

A totally revolutionary theory was put up by a retired Professor of Phonetics, Kalevi Wiik, some years ago. He said that (some proto-) Fenno-Ugrics was the language of the hunter-fishers, and (some proto-) Indo European was the language of the agriculturists. The natural effect of this was that the indo-europeans spread out faster because they had larger families (and bigger armies), but they couldn't reach the borderlands thus leaving these to the remaining Fenno-Ugrics, who in turn developed higher survival skills.

I mention that he presented this theory only when he had retired (and needed not to apply for jobs at the university)

This type of argument was used by reindeer herders (a politically privilegded group) in the Swedish juridical system in an attempt to prove a continuity of Sami people in Härjedalen and Jämtland (in most cases the Finno-ugric population can only really be traced back to the 17th century). It didn't hold up in court due to a complete lack of support for the claims.