Focused Series »

Indo-European Origins
Siberia
Northern California
The Caucasus
Imaginary Geography
Home » Cultural Geography, Genetics, Geographical Thought, Linguistic Geography, Russia, Ukraine, and Caucasus

Mapping Language and Race in the Finnic World

Submitted by on February 3, 2011 – 4:30 pm 9 Comments |  



In skimming through old atlases, one might be surprised to find Finns racially classified as yellow-skinned Mongolians. Yet until fairly recently, that was the norm. Consider the 1962 map posted above, “Classification of Mankind By Color of Skin,” from the popular Bartholomew’s Advanced Atlas of Modern Geography. Here both Finns and Estonians are “xanthodermic Asiatics.” “(Xanthoderma,” medical dictionaries tell us, refers to “skin that has a yellow coloration, as in jaundice.”) Bizarre as it may be, the idea that Finns are racially linked to East Asians lives on; if in doubt, try an internet search of “Finns Mongols.”

The notion that Finns and other Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples of Europe are of Mongolian stock is hard to take seriously. While biological race is itself a questionable concept, a number of physical traits distinguish East Asians (the “Mongolians” of racial classification): epicanthic eyelid folds; dark, straight, thick hair; and a number of bone and teeth features. (Note that yellow skin is nowhere on this list.) These attributes are as rare in Finland as they are in other European countries. If anything, Finns may be the blondest, most blue-eyed people in the world, as the second set of maps shows. The Eastern Finnic peoples are not quite as light as the western ones, falling closer to the European norm. Red hair, however, is oddly common among the Urdmuts of the central Volga. Udmurtia is proud of this characteristic, running an annual “red festival” that celebrates rufous coloring not only in people but also in “cats, dogs, hamsters, [and] squirrels…”

Why then have the Finno-Ugric peoples, Hungarians as well as Finns and Estonians, so often been classified as “Mongolian”? The credit – or discredit – goes to a German scholar named Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752 -1840). Known as the “father of physical anthropology,” Blumenbach is famed for coining the term “Caucasian race.” Blumenbach thought that cranium shape was the key to human differentiation, but his collection of skulls was limited. He purportedly based his claims on the fact that “two Saami (Lapp) skulls and one Finnish skull resembled one Mongol skull.” Evidently, he never examined any livings Finns. Blumenbach’s scientific stature was so elevated that his ideas carried the day, nonsensical though they were.

Linguistic analysis seemed to bolster the idea that Finno-Ugric peoples belonged in the “Mongolian” category. Scholars once widely assumed that peoples who spoke related languages belonged to the same race, sharing descent from a common ancestral population. From the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s, most linguists grouped “Uralic” Finno-Ugric languages with Altaic languages, forming a Ural-Altaic macro-family that linked Finnish to Mongolian and Manchu. If their languages were related, the reasoning went, the Finns and Mongols had to be sibling peoples. This Ural-Altaic hypothesis has long since been abandoned, but the Uralic component is still widely accepted, and it still links Finns to peoples who look Asian. Uralic’s highest order split separates Finno-Ugric from Samoyedic, and the Samoyeds – Nenets, Selkups, and others – have dark eyes, straight black hair, and epicanthic eyelid folds. The eastern Ugric-speakers of western Siberia, the Khanty and the Mansi, appear Eurasian, with intermediate features and mixed genetic markers as well.

But we now know that linguistic groups and genetic groups need not have any connection. Languages can spread into new populations even when genes do not, just as migration can bring wholesale genetic changes without linguistic transformations. As a result, large language families often encompass peoples who look very different and have markedly distinct genetic heritages. The Afroasiatic macro-family, for example, encompasses blonde Berbers in North Africa and dark-skinned Hausa in northern Nigeria, and even the Berber family includes the generally dark-skinned Tuareg as well as the generally light-skinned Kabyle. The fact that some Uralic speakers look European while others look East Asian thus tells us nothing about the racial attributes of the Finns—nor of the original speakers of Uralic languages.

As it turns out, the Finns are genetically distinctive, forming an “outlier” European population, as the New York Times “Genetic Map” posted above indicates. Why this should be the case is a matter of some controversy. Some attribute it to a “founder effect,” arising from the fact that the “Finnish population was at one time very small and then expanded, bearing the atypical genetics of its few founders.” Others think that the Finns are simply “more European” than others, having absorbed fewer genes from outsiders. According to this line of reasoning, the Finns most closely resemble the Paleolithic European Cro-Magnons.

Several specific genetic markers also help differentiate the Finnish population. As Asya Pereltsvaig noted in the Geocurrents comments section on Monday, the Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup N is extremely common in Finland, found in 60 percent of the country’s male population, yet is rare in most of the rest of Europe. As Y-DNA passes only in the paternal lineage, a majority of Finnish men must be descended from a single man with a particular mutation on his Y-chromosome who probably lived some 12-14,000 years ago. As it happens, haplogroup N has a close association with peoples speaking Uralic languages. It is thought to have originated in Central Asia, and then spread in a counter-clockwise route through central Siberia and into northern Europe. Haplogroup N is also prevalent in a few areas outside of the Uralic-speaking zone, reaching especially high concentrations (75 percent) among the Turkic-speaking Sakha (Yakut) of central-northern Siberia. But even if most Finns and Sakhas can trace their male lineages back to a single great-great-great…grandfather, that does not mean that they are otherwise genetically similar; when one goes back 12,000 years, the number of one’s ancestors becomes staggeringly large.

Genetic studies also shed light on the history of interactions among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples in northern European Russia. According to a 2005 paper by Boris Malyarchuk and others, published in Human Biology 76(6), “… only the most western Russian populations appear to be descendants of the Slavs, whereas northern and eastern Russian populations appear to be the result of an admixture between Slavic tribes and pre-Slavonic populations” (p. 897). For further explorations of the linguistic, genetic, and gender history of this region, see the recent postings on Languages of the World.

Previous Post
«
Next Post
»

Subscribe For Updates

It would be a pleasure to have you back on GeoCurrents in the future. You can sign up for email updates or follow our RSS Feed, Facebook, or Twitter for notifications of each new post:
        

Commenting Guidelines: GeoCurrents is a forum for the respectful exchange of ideas, and loaded political commentary can detract from that. We ask that you as a reader keep this in mind when sharing your thoughts in the comments below.

  • Maju

    You may also be interested on this open access paper, which basically produces (fig. 2) a "genetic map of Europe" from a Estonian viewpoint (Estonians are oversampled and are the focus of the study, what distorts the rest but is more interesting from a West Finnic point of view probably).

    As for the "Mongolian" (rather Siberian) issue, I must say that it has some genetic support, even if obviously Finns are basically European. Not only half their Y-DNA is of Siberian stock (haplogroup N) and direct relative of the most important East Asian lineage (haplogroup O) but each time an autosomal pooling including Siberians or East Asians is made, Finnish and Northern Russians (who are largely of Finnic stock) show up as some 10-15% Siberian/East Asian.

    It may not be much but it's something and irregularities in its phenotype expression among individuals produce some Finnish/-c people who look somewhat more "Mongoloid" than most other Europeans (though there are also other random Europeans who have "Mongoloid" tendencies in appearance, specially in Northern Europe).

    Also Uralic speakers in Siberia are clearly Mongoloid-looking in all cases. These are not Finnic but are related and not just by language alone (usually they are also high in Y-DNA N for example).

    Anyhow. Nice blog. I have been following for a week or so and it's most interesting. Cheers.

  • Maju

    I forgot to put a link to Bauchet 2007, which (besides of being one is one the best papers for West European autosomal genetics) it is also one of several papers that compares Europeans with Asian groups, in this case Altaians and some Indians (fig. 1) and there you can see how Finnish are the only sampled Europeans showing some affinity (roughly 15-20%) with Altaian's main component.

    As I say, there are other papers, where Vologda Russians also appear to have a minor but notable Siberian affinity. And, as I say too, there is the issue of Y-DNA N and also some minor mtDNA from East Asia (CZ and D specially).

  • ironrailsironweights

    What's even funnier about the 1962 skin color map is how it puts Somalis in the light-skinned group!

    Peter

  • Martin W. Lewis

    Many thanks to Maju for the additional information and references. There are indeed some genetic affinities between Finnic peoples and Siberians (and hence East Asians), no doubt reflecting some east to west historical migration streams, perhaps mainly of men.

    Peter also makes an important point. The Somalis are indeed absurdly classified here as "light skinned." Linguistics again plays a misleading role, as Somali is in the Afroasiatic macro-family, which has often been associated with "Caucasians." It is also of note that the neighboring Ethiopians were widely reclassified from being Black to being dark-skinned Whites after they defeated the Italians in 1896!

    I also agree with Peter that the map, overall, is so absurd as to be funny. As a result, I may dig a little deeper into the geography of skin coloration and racial classification next week.

  • Maju

    I'd say the map reflects the linguistic concepts of "race" en vogue back then. I have seen similar maps where a "German race" is the same as a Germanic speaking area, "Latin race" corresponds to Latin Europe, etc. The concept of race back then was much more fluid and actually meaning "ethnic". Like that Jewish-German guy who, at the British Army, was informed that there was no "Jewish race" (a common concept then in Germany) but Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English races only.

    Things like that were common in that period of the 19th-20th century transition. However I reckon that it's quite shocking to see those linguistic ideas extrapolated to the "major races". In this sense that map is quite funny.

    However Ethiopians and Somalis have been often classified as "Caucasoids". They are definitively not typical "Negroids" and also show some West Eurasian admixture. But specially I think that the racial concept fail to grasp properly the incredible human diversity and complexity, and that's speicially true in Africa.

    Glad that you find my links useful. Cheers.

  • Asya Pereltsvaig

    Yes, the assumption that linguistic relations correlate with racial or genetic relations between groups doesn't work. For example, to stay in the Finno-Ugric family, Hungarians' closest *linguistic* relatives are Khanty and Mansi, but they have little resemblance in the physical appearance (Khanty and Mansi look Siberian, Hungarians do not) and little overlap genetically. More on this here: http://languages-of-the-world.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-magyar-migration.html

    Also, Finnish and Saami languages are very closely related, and Finns and Saamis have similar genetic profiles, but their physical appearance is very different.

    I will write more on these issues in my blog in the coming days…

  • Anonymous

    "Also, Finnish and Saami languages are very closely related, and Finns and Saamis have similar genetic profiles, but their physical appearance is very different."

    On the contrary: Finnish and Sami languages are not very closely related, but the physical appearance of the two groups is not that different in many cases, or rather they overlap and are on the same continuum. Samis are darker than Finns on average, yet they are still as light or lighter than most Europeans.

  • TimUpham

    Khanty Hungarian Finnish
    1 – Yit Egy Yksi
    2 – Kat Keto Kaksi
    3 – Xutem Harom Kolme
    4 – Nyate Negy Nelja
    5 – Wet Ot Viisi
    6 – Xut Hat Kuusi
    7 – Tapat Het Seitseman
    8 – Nevet Nyolc Kahdeksan
    9 – Yaryan Kilenc Yhdeksan
    10 – Yan Tiz Kymmenen
    20 – Xus Husz Kaksikmmenta
    30 – Xutemyan Harminc Kolmekymmenta
    40 – Nyateyan Negyven Neljakymmenta
    100 – Sot Szaz Sata

    Notes on pronunciation. In Hungarian (Magyar), the “gy” is pronounced as a “d.” The “sz” is pronounced like a French “s” or “su.” The “zs” is pronounced like a French “j” or “jz.” I have heard Finnish speakers, and I cannot make out a word of what they are saying. But that is because Finnish came to Europe, over a 1,000 years before Hungarian. I do not know how much I would be able to understand a Khanty speaker, I do not know how they pronounce the “x.”

    • There are lexical similarities between Hungarian and Khanty/Mansi but it is my understanding that the languages are about as similar as Italian and Hindi, and there’s not much mutual intelligibility to speak of.