Ugrian and Turkic Ethnogenesis

[Aria88]

I am not so certain that the original Ugrian and Turkic peoples were of Mongolid stock. I posit that possibly they were from the first Caucasoids, who then picked up the occasional Mongolid additives via their ruminant lifestyle. I cannot prove this, and I am not totally convinced of this, either. It does seem that the farthest east one travels the heavier the Mongolid phenotype (i.e. the mixing with true Mongol folk). What y'all think?

[AWAR]

Yay! Someone finally agreed with me!

I wrote more than a year ago about that, somewhere.
I think that the lifestyle of the first nomad horsemen was invented by the 'Aryans' and then it became something widespread around central Asia, and thus on to Mongoloid peoples.

I think Ugrians were originally Caucasoid, and Turks are a much newer label/meta-ethnicity, so anything is possible.

[Graeme]

I don't think they were the first caucasians. People get hung up on language. The Ugrian and Turkic languages were probably first spoken by caucasians and later became associated with mongoloids particularly Turkic. Everyone assumes things from casual observation. Turkic speakers are mostly mongoloid today, therefore they were originally mongoloid. It ain't necessarily so. Similarly the original Keltic speakers probably were not Irish or Scots looking. We assume too much from what is present today. That was the basis of my argument with S about the Semitic/Hamitic languages. He assumes because the majority of speakers and languages are in Africa, it must be African in origin and it therefore of negroid origin also.

I think the Turkish people getting lumped with mongoloids all the time, because of their language, is unfortunate and bad thinking. It is also the basis of the Iranians are not white business. Everyone knows that Iranians are heavily Turkic and have many Azeris among them. So they assume they must be mongoloid.

[Aria88]

Allow me to clarify: I did not mean they were from the (cardinal) first Caucasoids, as the "first Caucasoids." I meant that they were from the start (temporally "first"), as they were "at first" and continually, usually, Caucasoids, except when admixtures were present. Mea culpa.

[Aria88]

I agree with both AWAR and Graeme. Too often I've come across references by esteemed scholars to Turco-Mongol people and languages. Even Grousset in History of the Steppes. I do, though, highly recommend any interested in the topic to read this book. It is nice and lengthy. (One of my criticisms of historical/anthropological/cultural/linguistic works is that they tend to brevity -- very unsatisfying.)

[Dienekes]

Proto-Uralics differed from both Caucasoids and Mongoloids

www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000465.html

[Graeme]

Interesting DP. The Khanty, and Mansi as well, are mongoloid and mongoloid mixes who once spoke Ugrian languages. The % of Khanty and Mansi who still speak their Ugrian tongue is from 30 - 60 %. I don't have to tell you, but when a group loses its language it loses everything including its racial integrity.

[Aria88]

Graeme, could you please elaborate vis-a-vis "when a group loses its language it loses everything including its racial integrity." I differ, but I'd like to hear more.

[Aria88]

I did not see a reply to the query "were the original Uralics closer to the Mongolid or Caucasoid line?"

[Aria88]

Don't forget that Dienekes' link mentioned that was only one of two theories, the other being solely hybridization of Caucasoid & Mongolid. I am, of course, open to both possibilities.

[zemelmete]

I have finno-ugric ancestry and can say that finno-ugrians are mix between northen european and siberian (except hungarians and 90% estonians). Finno-ugric people have unique look. Ordinary asian (chinese, japanese etc.) and european mixed people are not looking like finno-ugrians(even khanty or mansi).
True finno-ugrian people have white skin, usually straight hair (colour can be different), small or medium eyes, big, high cheeks and they are snub-nosed. Children often have blonde hair, which later can change into darker colour.

[Graeme]

In Australia most of the people listed as Aborigines are of mixed race and speak English. Every generation is becoming less and less Aborigine. Even now Tasmanian and some Victorian Aborigines are caucasian. Among the "immigrants", the Greeks, Italians, Thai, Filipino, Chinese, Polish...., these groups are amalgamating with the emphasis on mating and the ethnic/racial groups are disappearing with English as the only language. I have four brothers and three sisters and we have all outmarried. There is nothing Maltese about any of our children except us. With the Mansi and Khanty it is obvious that they have been intermarrying with Russians, speaking Russian and have Russian culture.

[Aria88]

Language retention is very important, but not mandatory, for genetic integrity.

[Graeme]

This is off the topic, but I would have to disagree. Genetic integrity is eroded and often lost by the loss of language. What is the point in being Greek without the language? Why all the fuss about the Macedonians past, present and future without the quarrel about language? A sub race, ethnic group...without their language is like a male human without testicles. A man who is not a man.

[Aria88]

As for the Turks, here are a couple scenarios:

1. Turkic peoples were originally Caucasoids, who, living in central Asia (which was dominated by Iranian & Tocharian Indo-Europeans until 1500 years ago) were nomadic folk who came in contact with Mongolids and, to some degree, experienced a symbiosis with them, e.g. language exchange, equine-based warfare, some intermarriage, etc.

2. The Turks were originally Mongolids who established a military aristocracy over central Asian Caucasoids. This aristocracy was numerically small and became lost in the Caucasoid gene pool over the centuries, except where it could be refreshed by the integration of other Mongolids to the east, hence the visibly Mongolid phenotype of most Kazakhs and Kirghiz, and many Uzbeks.

I do recall reading that the Kirghiz were Mongols before their linguistic transformation into "Turks."

Scenario #2 is more akin to the traditional viewpoint, but I lean toward #1.