The Origin of the Baltic-Finns from the
Physical Anthropological Point of View
Markku Niskanen1
University of Oulu, Finland
The author provides a comprehensive analysis of the physical
anthropology of the Finns and Saami, comparing them with other
Scandinavian peoples and contrasting them genetically with the
Mongoloid peoples of Asia, notwithstanding the affinities which
link the Finnish language with the Uralic and to a lesser extent
the Altaic languages. He concludes that both the Finns and the
Saami are genetically Caucasoid or European, and that the Finns
especially are closely akin to the other North European peoples of
Scandinavia.
Key Words: Finns, Saami, Samoyeds, mitochondrial DNA, nuclear DNA,
Y-chromosomal DNA, craniometry, facial index, Caucasoids, Mongoloids.
Introduction
It is impossible to reconstruct the origins of ethnic groups
without information about their genetic relationships. This
information provides knowledge about inter-population
contacts, assists in determining the geographic areas of origins
of the populations in question, and sometimes even reveals how
long these populations have lived in their present territories.
Therefore, these reconstructed genetic relationships can be
used to test hypotheses and theories of ethnic origins based on
linguistic and/or archeological evidence. In this article,
craniometric and nuclear DNA data, as well as the findings of
recent studies of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA
variation are used to determine whether the origin of the Baltic-
Finns is better explained by the traditional migration theory or
by the more recent settlement continuity theory. These two
competing theories are reviewed briefly below.
According to the traditional migration theory based
primarily on the linguists’ family tree model and estimated dates
of linguistic divergences, the Finno-Ugrians (the Baltic-Finns
and Saami/Lapps) arrived in the Baltic region only about three
thousand years ago from the Proto-Uralic homeland in the east
(see HŠkkinen 1996 for a review). Most researchers locate this
homeland in northeastern Europe (SetŠlŠ 1926, Korhonen
1984, HŠkkinen 1996), but some in northwestern Siberia (Hajdœ
1976, Fodor 1976). Although supported by a minority of the
researchers, the Siberian homeland theory is more commonly
known than the European one outside the main centers of the
uralistic studies.
The Baltic-Finns and Saami are argued to have arrived in
their present locations either as a still undifferentiated ethnolinguistic
group or as linguistically and ethnically separate
people. Supporters of the latter view assume the Saami arrived
in Fennoscandia before the Baltic-Finns. The Proto-Baltic-Finns
started to separate into different “tribes” with their own
languages during the last 2000 years. For example, the
separation of the Estonians and Finns would have occurred
during the first millennium BC, when the latter moved into
Finland (see HŠkkinen 1996 for a review).
The continuity theory practically replaced the migration
theory in 1980 at the “roots” symposium in TvŠrminne, Finland.
According to the continuity theory, the Uralic-speakers arrived
in the Baltic region either about 6000 years ago with the Typical
Comb Ware culture (Meinander 1984, Korhonen 1984), or
when the earliest post-Glacial inhabitants of the region arrived
about 11,000 years ago (Nu–ez 1987, Julku 1995, Wiik 1995, Salo
1996). Supporters of the continuity theory commonly argue that
the Uralic-speaking territory extended in the past further west in
Central Europe than is traditionally proposed. For example,
Kalevi Wiik (this volume) argues that the Finno-Ugric-speaking
people lived during the Mesolithic period as far west as the
westernmost regions of the North European Plain.
As this article demonstrates, the human biological data
(craniometric, nuclear genetic markers, mitochondrian DNA,
and Y-chromosomal DNA) supports the continuity theory by
showing the Baltic-Finns to have closer genetic affinities with
their Scandinavian neighbors than with the eastern Finno-Ugricspeaking
populations. Therefore, the genetic ancestors of the
Baltic-Finns have lived in the Baltic region more likely for 10,000
years rather than for 3000 years, and more likely arrived from
the south than from the east. I will next explain how biological
information is used in the reconstruction of the geographic
areas of origins of populations and/or ethnic groups.
The Study of Genetic Affinities and Origins
Physical anthropology, the study of human biology, is the
Origin of the Baltic-Finns from a Physical Anthropological Viewpoint 123
study of human evolution and biological variation. The latter
includes the study of age-, sex, and population-related biological
variation. In the past, researchers tried to organize the observed
population-related variation by dividing humankind into races.
This traditional classificatory approach has been largely
abandoned because of several factors: disagreements as to the
classification criteria and the number of existing races;
difficulties in drawing racial boundaries due to the graded
distribution pattern of most biological traits; the lack of
objectivity on the part of researchers; and wrong-doingsthrough distance analyses. In addition, the craniometric data is
analyzed through discriminant function analyses. Interpopulation
distances provide a great deal of information about
population relationships because they are estimations of the
degree of genetic relationships. Also, a distance matrix can be
used as an input to construct a dendrogram (a “family” tree
diagram) or a plot of multidimensional distance coefficients (as
is done in this study). These methods exhibit inter-population
relationships visually and, therefore, reveal how populations
cluster with each other. In general, neighboring populations
usually cluster with each other because long-time interpopulation
gene flow (exchange of genes) has caused them to
become genetically similar. Linguistically related populations
are often genetically similar (and cluster with each other)
because the origin of the linguistic relationship is either a
common geographic area of origin or intensive long-term
cultural interactions. Linguistic boundaries are often also
genetic boundaries, as Barbujani and Sokal (1990) have
demonstrated in the case of Europe, because most people do
not marry across linguistic and other cultural boundaries.
However, we should not automatically assume that the
linguistically-related populations always have the same genetic
origin or the linguistically distinct populations have separate
origins because languages are inherited through cultural
transmission. The old assumptions of the Baltic-Finns and other
Uralic-speakers’ genetic affinities with the Asian populations are
primarily based on the theory that the Uralic-speakers arrived
from the east and, therefore, should be genetically distinct from
the Indo-Europeans of Europe.
The Old Assumption of the “Mongoloid” Affinities
The widespread assumption that all of the Uralic-speaking
people are at least partially “Mongoloid” has its origin in
Friedrich Blumenbach’s 200-year-old claim that two Saami
(Lapp) skulls and one Finnish skull resembled one Mongol
skull. The Mongoloid affinity of the Finno-Ugrians was accepted
as scientific truth by those who had actually never seen the
people in question because Blumenbach was a prominent
scientist of his time and the linguists were looking for the Uralic
homeland to be somewhere in the east (KilpelŠinen 1985,
KemilŠinen 1985, 1993).
Interpretations of findings of physical anthropologists and
Origin of the Baltic-Finns from a Physical Anthropological Viewpoint 125
Volume XLIII Number 2, Winter 2002
geneticists have been until nowadays strongly influenced by this
assumption of eastern affinities of the Finno-Ugrians. For
example, Karin Mark (1970) calculated what she calls
“Mongolidheitsindex” (Mongoloid-index) from facial features to
estimate the proportion of Mongoloid element of Finno-Ugric
populations. Also, many prominent geneticists (for example,
Guglielmino et al. 1990, Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, Piazza et al.
1995) assume that the original homeland of the Uralic people
was northwestern Siberia; the ancestral Uralic people were
Mongoloids; the Samoyeds are the purest representatives of this
ancestral type; ancestors of the Baltic-Finns and the Saami
arrived in the west along the Arctic coast and mixed genetically
with the Europeans. These researchers (mainly Piazza et al.
1995) consider the Finns, whom they find genetically typical
Europeans contrary to this assumption, as an example of a
discrepancy between the language and the genes.
These old assumptions are incorrect. In reality, all Finno-
Ugrians of Europe (the Baltic-Finns, Saami, Volga-Finns,
Permian-Finns, and Hungarians) are phenotypically and
genetically typical Europeans. The Ob-Ugrians (Khanty and
Mansi) of western Siberia, who are genetically poorly known are
phenotypically European-Siberian Mongoloid intermediates.
Only the Samoyeds are phenotypically and genetically
predominantly Siberian Mongoloids.
The Baltic-Finns and, as a surprise to many people, also the
Saami exhibit clearly North European phenotypes. Epicanthic
eyefolds, flat faces, coarse straight hair, and other Mongoloid
traits are not encountered among them more frequently than
among other Europeans (Coon 1939, Brues 1977). Strong
cheekbones and flaring zygomatic arches of many Finno-
Ugrians, commonly and erroneously assumed to be Mongoloid
features, are actually inherited from European Cro-Magnons
(Coon 1939, Niskanen 1994b). These two “Paleo-European”
features have survived especially well among the Finno-Ugrians
of northern Europe because, as the archeological evidence
presented by Zvelebil (1986) indicates, the subsistence transition
from foraging to farming occurred more recently and with a
lesser influx of immigrants in these marginal regions for
agriculture than further south. Most other Europeans have been
farmers for so many generations (eating soft bread, porridge,
etc.) that their cheek bones (which provide attachments for the
performed in the name of race. However, the study of the
geographic distribution of visible “racial” traits, such as skin
color, nose shape, hair form, etc., was not entirely wasted effort
because this information has helped to discover how such
variation has emerged as a result of environmental (especially
climatic) selection. Since the 1950s, molecular and population
genetic studies have had important roles in physical
anthropology, especially in the study of evolution and
population-related variation. These molecular anthropological
studies have greatly increased our understanding of the origin
of genetic variation, the inheritance of biological characteristics,
and human evolution itself.
Modern research of human population-related biological
variation examines how natural selection (for example, climatic
selection), migrations (gene flow), genetic drift (the founders’
effect, for example), and mutations effect the genetic structures
of populations over generations. Genetic structures of
populations can be used to reconstruct their histories and
genetic relationships. This reconstruction should ideally be
based on different types of biological data because different data
reveals information on different aspects and time perspectives of
population history. Because all of our biological traits are either
direct products of our DNA or results of an interaction between
our DNA and the environment, the larger the number of traits
studied, the longer segments of DNA are included in analyses.
For this reason, I have used craniometric data, allele frequencies
of genetic markers found in blood and other tissues (nuclear
DNA markers), and the findings of recent mitochondrial DNA
and Y-chromosomal DNA studies to reconstruct the origins of
the Baltic-Finns.
I have analyzed the craniometric and the nuclear DNA data
through distance analyses. In addition, the craniometric data is
analyzed through discriminant function analyses. Interpopulation
distances provide a great deal of information about
population relationships because they are estimations of the
degree of genetic relationships. Also, a distance matrix can be
used as an input to construct a dendrogram (a “family” tree
diagram) or a plot of multidimensional distance coefficients (as
is done in this study). These methods exhibit inter-population
relationships visually and, therefore, reveal how populations
cluster with each other. In general, neighboring populations
usually cluster with each other because long-time interpopulation
gene flow (exchange of genes) has caused them to
become genetically similar. Linguistically related populations
are often genetically similar (and cluster with each other)
because the origin of the linguistic relationship is either a
common geographic area of origin or intensive long-term
cultural interactions. Linguistic boundaries are often also
genetic boundaries, as Barbujani and Sokal (1990) have
demonstrated in the case of Europe, because most people do
not marry across linguistic and other cultural boundaries.
However, we should not automatically assume that the
linguistically-related populations always have the same genetic
origin or the linguistically distinct populations have separate
origins because languages are inherited through cultural
transmission. The old assumptions of the Baltic-Finns and other
Uralic-speakers’ genetic affinities with the Asian populations are
primarily based on the theory that the Uralic-speakers arrived
from the east and, therefore, should be genetically distinct from
the Indo-Europeans of Europe.
The Old Assumption of the “Mongoloid” Affinities
The widespread assumption that all of the Uralic-speaking
people are at least partially “Mongoloid” has its origin in
Friedrich Blumenbach’s 200-year-old claim that two Saami
(Lapp) skulls and one Finnish skull resembled one Mongol
skull. The Mongoloid affinity of the Finno-Ugrians was accepted
as scientific truth by those who had actually never seen the
people in question because Blumenbach was a prominent
scientist of his time and the linguists were looking for the Uralic
homeland to be somewhere in the east (KilpelŠinen 1985,
KemilŠinen 1985, 1993).
Interpretations of findings of physical anthropologists and
geneticists have been until nowadays strongly influenced by this
assumption of eastern affinities of the Finno-Ugrians. For
example, Karin Mark (1970) calculated what she calls
“Mongolidheitsindex” (Mongoloid-index) from facial features to
estimate the proportion of Mongoloid element of Finno-Ugric
populations. Also, many prominent geneticists (for example,
Guglielmino et al. 1990, Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, Piazza et al.
1995) assume that the original homeland of the Uralic people
was northwestern Siberia; the ancestral Uralic people were
Mongoloids; the Samoyeds are the purest representatives of this
ancestral type; ancestors of the Baltic-Finns and the Saami
arrived in the west along the Arctic coast and mixed genetically
with the Europeans. These researchers (mainly Piazza et al.
1995) consider the Finns, whom they find genetically typical
Europeans contrary to this assumption, as an example of a
discrepancy between the language and the genes.
These old assumptions are incorrect. In reality, all Finno-
Ugrians of Europe (the Baltic-Finns, Saami, Volga-Finns,
Permian-Finns, and Hungarians) are phenotypically and
genetically typical Europeans. The Ob-Ugrians (Khanty and
Mansi) of western Siberia, who are genetically poorly known are
phenotypically European-Siberian Mongoloid intermediates.
Only the Samoyeds are phenotypically and genetically
predominantly Siberian Mongoloids.
The Baltic-Finns and, as a surprise to many people, also the
Saami exhibit clearly North European phenotypes. Epicanthic
eyefolds, flat faces, coarse straight hair, and other Mongoloid
traits are not encountered among them more frequently than
among other Europeans (Coon 1939, Brues 1977). Strong
cheekbones and flaring zygomatic arches of many Finno-
Ugrians, commonly and erroneously assumed to be Mongoloid
features, are actually inherited from European Cro-Magnons
(Coon 1939, Niskanen 1994b). These two “Paleo-European”
features have survived especially well among the Finno-Ugrians
of northern Europe because, as the archeological evidence
presented by Zvelebil (1986) indicates, the subsistence transition
from foraging to farming occurred more recently and with a
lesser influx of immigrants in these marginal regions for
agriculture than further south. Most other Europeans have been
farmers for so many generations (eating soft bread, porridge,
etc.) that their cheek bones (which provide attachments for the
masseter muscle) have reduced in size in comparison to other
parts of their facial anatomy.
The light coloring of the Baltic-Finns and Saami reflects
their long history of inhabiting northern Europe. North
Europeans are the lightest colored people of the world because
they have lived in northern latitudes the longest. Therefore,
natural selection has had the longest time to produce the light
skin color adapted to low levels of ultraviolet radiation. The hair
and eye colors are predominantly light because the region’s first
permanent inhabitants’ gene pool (the total of all genes of a
population) included by chance a large number of alleles
(variants of genes) producing light-colored phenotypes. The
light-skinned North Asians do not have light-colored hair and
eyes because the first permanent inhabitants of East Asia did not
have alleles producing color in their gene pool. Natural
selection and founders’ effect are, therefore, the most important
factors behind the distribution of most biological traits. Sexual
selection has had far less influence on the geographic
distribution of these traits than most people assume. The mate
selection among “natural” populations is based more on ability
to procure necessities for life, give birth and raise children, and
create and maintain alliances between groups and families than
on particular physical traits, such as eye color or nasal profile.
Due to these reasons, most marriages are arranged in many
societies because the mate selection was considered too
important to be left to the young in question.
The Degree of Facial Flatness and
Frequencies of Eastern Genetic Markers
All human populations are linked to other human
populations through at least indirect gene flow. As a result, most
biological traits have graded geographical distribution and there
have never been pure races. Some human populations are,
however, results of an admixture of two or more genetically
fairly distinct populations. For example, the Finno-Ugrians of
Europe are commonly assumed to have originated from the
genetic admixture of European and Siberian populations. To
estimate the degree of this assumed admixture, Karin Mark
(1970) calculated a Mongolidheitsindex (Mongoloid-index) from
facial traits of living people. I followed her example and
calculated “Mongol-indices” from four indices of facial flatness
(DKI, NDI, SII, and SSI) computed from measurements of the
facial skeleton. These measurements and indices are presented
in Niskanen (1994b). Table 1 lists sources of the cranial data
used. I use the term Mongol-index because the Mongols are
among the most flat-faced and, therefore, “Mongoloid-looking”
people. At first, I computed index-specific values so that the
value indicating the most extreme facial flatness equals 100 and
then averaged these values. The higher the Mongol-index, the
flatter and, therefore, the more “Mongoloid” the face (Table 2).
Gene-frequency data allows more accurate estimations of
genetic admixture than morphological data. Nevanlinna (1978)
estimated from nuclear genetic markers (blood groups) that 20-
30% of the Finns’ genes originated from the east (Siberia) and
the rest originated from the west (Western Europe). He did not
provide genetic admixture estimations for other Europeans,
which resulted in a common misunderstanding that the Finns
are a mixture of Europeans and Asians while their neighbors are
“pure” Europeans. As will be pointed out by the “Orientalindices”
discussed below, the 20-30% eastern component of the
Finnish gene pool is average for the Europeans.
Guglielmino et al. (1990) estimated from nuclear genetic
markers the Finns to be genetically 10.1% Uralic (Samoyeds
were used as the Uralic reference population) and 89.9%
European, while the Saami were 47.5% Uralic and 52.5%
European. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:273) estimated the Saami
to be 18% Samoyed (and 82 % European) from genetic
distances between the Danes (used as the European reference
population), and the Saami (considered as an admixed
population), and Samoyeds. However, these very distances
reveal that the Saami are genetically further removed from the
Samoyeds (FST = 857.3) than the Danes are (FST = 828.5), making
it more appropriate to consider the Saami 100% Europeans and
the Danes an admixed European-Samoyed population. A recalculation
makes the Danes 21.2% Samoyedic (and 78.8%
European), while the Saami would be 100% European.
Unfortunately, Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) did not estimate the
Samoyed genetic component of the Finns and other non-Saami
Europeans, nor did they provide genetic distances between the
Finns and the Samoyeds from which to calculate the Samoyed
genetic contribution in the Finnish gene pool.
I used a simple genetic admixture estimation I call the
“Oriental-index” to estimate relative western and eastern genetic
components of Eurasian populations. This index is computed
from allele frequencies of six genetic loci (Fy, Esd, Glo1, Hp, P1,
Rh) collected from literature (Nevanlinna 1973, Kajanoja 1978,
Zubow 1979, Eriksson 1988, Heapost 1993, and Cavalli-Sforza et
al. 1994). These genes have clear west-east gradients in Eurasia.
First, I calculated allele-specific values (the most eastern value
equals 100 and western equals 0) and then averaged them. The
resulting Oriental-index is the eastern genetic component in the
gene pool. The Mongol- and Oriental-indices are listed in
Table 2.
An examination of average Mongol-index values reveals that
they increase toward the east. The inhabitants of the British Isles
(12.9%) have the sharpest facial profiles and the Buryats
(90.0%) of the Lake Baikal region have the flattest faces. The
Volga-Finnic-speaking Mordvians (39.4%) and Austrians
(32.4%) have the flattest faces in Europe, but the Finns (25.4%)
and the Saami (25.5%) are close to the European average
(24.9%). The Ainu (52.0%) have the least amount of facial
flatness among the Asians, although their faces are considerably
flatter than those of European populations. Moderate facial
flatness may be an ancient feature of inhabitants of the Pacific
coast of Asia because the Polynesians originating from this
region are not particularly flat-faced either. It appears that the
extreme facial flatness of the classic Mongoloid people
originated in the inland of northeastern Asia.
The Oriental-index values also increase toward the east. The
Basques are genetically the most western (12.4%) and the Ainu
are the most eastern (92.8%). Therefore, the Ainu cannot have
an ancient Caucasoid origin, regardless of their relatively sharply
profiled faces. The Finns (25.1%) are quite average by
European standards (European average is 22.8%) and
genetically less eastern than the Greeks (33.4%), Saami
(42.2%), Permian-Finnic-speaking Komi (30.1%), and Volga-
Finnic-speaking Mari (34.1%). The relatively high Orientalindex
of the Saami (42.2%) is much higher than their
admixture estimation (18%) based on genetic distances by
Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994), therefore, it is most likely a result of
the markers used. The indices of the Komi and Mari have
probably increased during the last 1,500 years due to the
westward expansion of the Turks. The Samoyeds’ Oriental-index
(58.0%) reflects their Northwest Asian geographic location and
both western and eastern genetic ancestors.
These indices reveal that the relative eastern components
(especially the Oriental-index) increase slowly from the Atlantic
to the Ural, but rapidly east of the Urals; the Finns
(representing the Baltic-Finns) are typical Europeans; not a
single Eurasian population is morphologically and genetically
100% western or eastern; the Mongol- and Oriental indices
correspond roughly. This rough correspondence is the result of
random genetic drift. According to the fossil evidence, the first
permanent inhabitants of Europe had sharply profiled faces and
those of East Asia had flat faces. Descendants of these founders
inherited these facial features independently from genetic traits
used to calculate the Oriental-index values.
It is worth noting that the Finno-Ugrians of easternmost
Europe are quite typical Europeans (see Liptak 1980) although
they (especially the Komi) are the immediate western neighbors
of the Nenets Samoyeds, who exhibit predominantly Mongoloid
phenotypes and eastern genetic traits. This finding indicates
that the genetic roots and, therefore, areas of origins of all the
Finno-Ugrians of Europe were in Europe.
Craniometric Analyses
I used the SAS-package to compute Mahalanobis distances
between cranial samples. I used measurement batteries: B39 (35
measurements and 4 indices) and B96 (96 measurements) to
calculate Mahalanobis distances and the measurement battery
B42 (42 measurements) to extract canonical discriminant
function scores. The raw measurements were standardized for
size by using W. Howells’ c-score method (Howells 1989) and
indices were standardized by converting them to z-scores before
analyses. Most of the craniometric data used was collected by
myself (Niskanen 1994b), although data kindly provided by
William Howells is also used. The craniometric samples are
listed in Table 1. The Finns represent the Baltic-Finns in these
analyses. I have also compared recent European cranial samples
with Upper Paleolithic cranial specimens (Cro-Magnon 1,
Predmost III, Pavlov I, Obercassel I, Chancelade I, and Cheddar
I) through canonical discriminant function analyses.
I used 39 craniofacial measurements and indices (listed in
Niskanen 1994a) to calculate Mahalanobis distances between
the European cranial samples and the Buryats of the Lake Baikal
region (Table 3). These distance-values reveal how similar
(small values) or distant (large values) populations in question
are from each other. An examination of these distances reveals
that the Finns (and presumably other Finno-Ugrians as well)
and the Saami do not possess more similar craniofacial
configurations with the Buryats than is typical for the
Europeans.
Although 39 craniofacial variables provides accurate
information of craniofacial affinities of distantly related
populations, a larger number of variables is needed to gain
reliable information of population relationships of closely
related and, therefore, craniofacially similar populations
(Niskanen 1994b). For this reason, I also computed
craniometric distances by using 96 craniofacial measurements
(listed in Niskanen 1994b) to determine the craniometric
relationships of the Europeans (Table 4). Unfortunately, I was
unable to include the Norwegians, Austrians, and the Buryats
measured by Howells due to lack of measurement values. These
distances reveal that the Finns are craniometrically very close
tothe Swedes and the Russians (mostly from northwestern
Russia), and the least distant population from the
craniometrically distinct Saami.
I used the multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedure of
SAS to construct a two-dimensional picture of the European
populations’ craniometric relationships. The MDS procedure is
a better method than the frequently used tree-diagram because
it constructs a kind of map of population relationships. I used
the craniometric distances of Table 3 as input because I wanted
to include the Norwegians and Austrians. I did not include the
Buryats because their inclusions would have pushed all
Europeans to the opposite side of the plot, distorting their
distances from each other (Niskanen 1994a: Fig.1). Figure 1 (a
mirror image of the diagram produced by Proc MDS of SAS)
demonstrates that a plot of two dimension coefficients extracted
from distances between the European cranial samples places
these samples almost exactly where one would place them
according to their geographic locations. The Finns are placed
between the Swedes and the Russians, and the Swedes are
placed between the Norwegians and the Finns. The Saami are
placed well apart from other Europeans, but the least apart from
the Finns and the Russians.
The craniometric relationships of populations can also be
examined with the help of the canonical discriminant analyses.
Figure 2 presents scores of the first (x-axis) and the second (yaxis)
canonical discriminant functions computed using the
SPSS-program from c-scores of 42 cranial measurements. The
cranial populations are clustered almost as one would expect in
light of their geographic relationships. This diagram also
demonstrates that the North Europeans (the Finns, Saami, and
Swedes) have diverged craniometrically the least from the Cro-
Magnons of Europe. This is expected because the transition
from hunting to farming occurred both late and without largescale
population movements in Northern Europe. In Southern
and Central Europe, this subsistence transition occurred earlier
and largely as a result of demic diffusion of farmers of ultimately
Near Eastern and/or Balkan extraction. As a result, their cranial
configuration has changed more.
These craniometric analyses demonstrate that the Finns
(and presumably other Baltic-Finns) and Saami (although they
form their own subset within the European set) possess North
European craniofacial configuration with more than average
amount of Paleo-European (Cro-Magnoid) features. This
finding indicates that the Baltic-Finns and Saami (as well as their
Scandinavian neighbors) are indigenous people of northern
Europe and not recent immigrants from elsewhere (Niskanen
1998).
No comments:
Post a Comment