Finn origins

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Any study that claims to determine any "first European" is bullshit. All alarm bells should be ringing when you see such a statement.

Aha. Right.
The DNA studies should then be left out, and continue to wonder where the Finnos came from, because we are not Indo-Europeans, nor are we Eastern kin.

The Shamanistic past of Finnos also points towards the Europeans of Ice-Age era. The striking similarities of stone-age pictures in the Finnish rocks and those of earlier Central Europe also suggests that.

I don't atatck you outright, but ask mearly to point out the flaws in the recent studies.

-Reason for fiery response is that I have clashed with Swedes who hold adamant opinion that Finns were primitive hunter-gatherers in the Viking-era.
Living in Jurtas and having no social, economical, religious or govermental institutions and indeed having no advances whatsoever.
That Swedes brought us civilization, founded cities and towns and thus, we should be ever grateful of the 600 years of exploitation.
(because that is what it was. -Choose to question that, and I'll provide some pointers.)

I truly do hope that those Swedes having that opinion of the late 19th century, are in the minorities.

I have to agree with Styrbiorn. Claims of "Finns oppressed by the Swedes" sprung mainly from the internal difficulties between the Finnish speaking reformers and Swedish speaking bourgeoise during late 1800' and early 1900's. Combatants also known as Fennomans and Svekomans (-man ending has nothing to do with men, but with mania).

There was not even clear linguistical boundaries between the two as many of the prominent Fennomans were infact from Swedish speaking background and many ardent Svekomans from Finnish speaking families. It was political struglle for the direction of Grand Duchy of Finland and her relation to St. Petersburg (then capital of Czaristic Russia).

Fennomans generally saw Russian Empire in rather positive light and wanted to co-operate in the context of Russian Empire. This led to Czaristic policies which were positive for the Fennoman ideals (until period of russification which then led into rebellious attitudes amongst the Fennomans too). Svekomans whom were more Sweden-minded and even tought that Finland should return to community with Sweden. Svekomans were more conservative and wanted to hold on to "old Swedish" power structures (capital in Turku, only Swedish as legislative language etc), as they saw that as only way to escape russification.

As Fennomans played the ball with the Czar they obviously got most of their initiatives through. There was also an period of major internal development (railroads, general infratructure) which led to positive outcome. Also the markets of Russian Empire turned out to be prosperous for Finns.

All this together led the Svekomans to very bitter situation, as they saw that the Fennoman reformist were bit byt bit taking down the "old powerstructure" and replaced it by new one. They saw that the russification was inevitable. Svekoman hardliners started to distance themselves from fellow Finns and created new theories how Finns are "mongoloids of inferior race" and "how swedes brought the civilisation to wild Finns" etc. They even created an phony ethnicity "Östsvenskar", east-swedes, whom were responsible for all the good things in Finland, negative things were attributed to "mongoloid finns whom are like russians anyway". In this mindmap Finns belong to culture of Central Asian Turanic peoples and are not part of the European culture at all. The General situation has to keep in mind, as these people were very pro-Sweden, and Russia, if anything has allways seen as the other, the enemy, the alien. Idea that the reformist Fennomans dared to play ball with that eastern monster certainly made them equally evil!

This kind of talk were ofcource fighting words which did not pass under the radar. Fennoman "party" started to make fabricated claims how Swedes oppressed Finns for hundreds of years and now Finns are finally free of the Swedish yoke. It was direct response to Svekoman provocations.

Fennoman side came out victiorious from that internal strugle, after Finlands independence. During the very nationalistic period of young Republic of Finland these Fennoman claims staid as part of the "national history". Svekoman stories of "Finnish mongoloids" staid too on some international forums, especially amongst the "Indo-Germanish Aryan" voodoo science of 1930's.

Modern Finnish history writing has very pragmatic and in general positive view about the Osterland-period. However, many people in Finland feel that we are a bit written off from the history books because it's allways the Swedes. Swedish army fought victorious on the battle X (losses you can keep) and Swedes build that castle or bridge or whatever ;) 

What comes to subject about origins of Finns, that is very simple. Finns have dual origins, Northeast European and Northwest European. This can be seen clearly from physical anthropology and Y-chromosal data. According to Prof. Markku Niskanen, Oulu university, typical Finnish crania is between West European and East European. Between Norwegians and Russians. How very surprising. From DNA evidence Finns share most of their markers with people of East Baltic (Northwest Russians, Estonians, Latvians) and on the other hand with Scandinavians (especially with Swedes). Language is evidently of East Baltic origins as most of eastern shore of Baltic Sea was Finnic speaking not very long ago, and largely still is.


Edited by Torsten Stålhandske - 04-May-2009 at 18:24

Thanks for the post, I learned some new things there.

Originally posted by Torsten Stålhandske Modern Finnish history writing has very pragmatic and in general positive view about the Osterland-period. However, many people in Finland feel that we are a bit written off from the history books because it's allways the Swedes. Swedish army fought victorious on the battle X (losses you can keep) and Swedes build that castle or bridge or whatever ;)

Well, at least in Swedish history writing, Finland and the Finns seem to be considered included in the terms Sweden, Swedish army, etc, so it's really not a case of neglect. I'm sure you know this, but I'm just stressing the point many seem to miss: Finland, or rather the Finnish provinces of which proper Finland was one, were on the same "level" as the Swedish provinces. Always writing them out separately while omitting those west of the sea makes no sense from a Swedish point of view. Sweden proper itself consisted of many lands, whose populations not always considered themselves especially Swedish - at least not in first the centuries of the time as a single state.
I fully understand your point though, which is the logical one if you have the modern point of view that Sweden and Finland was two natural and distinctive units - something that wasn't that natural 3-400 years ago.

Sorry, but from the point of view of an outsider this kind of assesment is very pro-Swedish biased.

Originally posted by Sarmat Originally posted by Jams   Most of them do, true. But those "republics", despite their names, don't always fit perfectly with the ethnicity they're named after. It's the Russians who named the republics, and sometimes they were a bit arbitrary with the borders, back in the day.   Yes, Komi live on the Eastern part of Urals, but it's not their "native territory" and they started to settle their largely together with the Russian colonists in the 18th century.

Originally posted by Torsten Stålhandske There was one thing which indeed was clear wrong doing against the Finns. That was the military. Swedish military allways had major over representation of Finns. Considering that as much as half of the troops were often from Finland, while the Finnish population was not much more than 1/3 of that of Sweden. Obviously reason for that is Finlands location in the east, neighbouring the main enemy. That however was significant burden for the eastern part of the Kingdom. Finns even today have a joke; Swedes are allways ready to fight hard! To the last Finn standing!

I doubt this, although you hear it a lot from Finns. Between the mid 17th century until the breakup in 1809, there were 15 national (ie indelta) Swedish infantry regiments (~18,000) and 7 Finnish (~7,000), while the national cavalry consisted of ~6000 Swedish and ~3000 Finnish (and some 1000-odd Estonians). I have no real numbers on the ethnic balance in värvade regiments though. The navy was mostly manned by Swedes.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 06-May-2009 at 20:27

Originally posted by Torsten Stålhandske Originally posted by Styrbiorn I doubt this, although you hear it a lot from Finns. Between the mid 17th century until the breakup in 1809, there were 15 national (ie indelta) Swedish infantry regiments (~18,000) and 7 Finnish (~7,000), while the national cavalry consisted of ~6000 Swedish and ~3000 Finnish (and some 1000-odd Estonians). I have no real numbers on the ethnic balance in värvade regiments though. The navy was mostly manned by Swedes. Put your figures into the context of population density in both countries and you see what I mean. Figures for total population amount in Kingdom of Sweden, anno domini 1700, figures are from: The Crown, the Nobility and the Peasants 1630–1713: Tax, rent and relations of power (Helsinki: SKS, 2003), isbn 978-952-10-5375-7. Sweden     1 370 000 Finland          350 000 Kexholm          30 000 Baltics           500 000 in Germany 1 000 000 total  3 250 000 In the core empire we have  1.72 million persons, of those allmost 80% living in Sweden. After the 30 years war there literally were hundreds of villages with only few old men and couple of kids left. Rest were fighting somewhere in Europe, and many did not come back at all. Constant warfare against Russia certainly had the strongest effect in Finland, both in victorious times as well as times of trouble (Greater Wrath comes to mind instantly). These all combined had dramatic effect to population development of Finland.

True, it was just a quick calculation. I only included the conscripted/drafted/indelta regiments though. An additional 10,000 men in seven regiments were recruited from Sweden proper.
I'm interested in the topic - I've never seen a good calculation. What you are saying about Finland was also true for many Swedish provinces. The draft was quite uneven: some areas didn't provide any troops at all, but payed extra taxes instead. All the Norrland provinces - of which Österbotten/Pohjanmaa was also a part - were as heavily drafted as those of Finland, and they were as sparsely populated. Villages were depopulated during the 30 Years War as well as during the GNW. A fair comparison should be made on the provincial level. Take the outbreak of the Great Northern War as an example. Norrland, including Österbotten, had a population of around 110,000 in 1700, but provided four large infantry regiments and a small cavalry unit, which is on par with Finland.

This is of course very crude and only covers the outbreak of the war, adding to that is the continous drafting to replenish losses during the 20 years of prolonged war. Unfortunately I couldn't find any works making a serious investigations of all the drafts during the whole war. The devastating part that most of Sweden was spared from was indeed that Finland served as a cushion and took the brunt of most Russian invasions though (Småland served the same role during the wars with the Danes). I'm just saying that the Swedes were quite ruthless towards their own population when it came to drafts.

We are seriously off topic though, maybe it is time to split the thread?


Edited by Styrbiorn - 07-May-2009 at 09:31

Originally posted by Torsten Stålhandske I have to agree with Styrbiorn. Claims of "Finns oppressed by the Swedes" sprung mainly from the internal difficulties between the Finnish speaking reformers and Swedish speaking bourgeoise during late 1800' and early 1900's. Combatants also known as Fennomans and Svekomans (-man ending has nothing to do with men, but with mania).

I am not talking about Fennomania here. Fennomania was a counterstrike against Russifications, people had very little knowledge of the Finnish historical past back then.
Archeology did not co-operate with filology and scientific research back then.
In fact, studies of the past were made to elevate own "race" or nation above normal.

There was not even clear linguistical boundaries between the two as many of the prominent Fennomans were infact from Swedish speaking background and many ardent Svekomans from Finnish speaking families. It was political struglle for the direction of Grand Duchy of Finland and her relation to St. Petersburg (then capital of Czaristic Russia).

As I said, counterstrike against eventual Russification programs. Although before those attempts, Grand Dutchy of Finland had had its Golden age under the Tsar. For Russians had no sayings with the matters of Grand Dutchy, only the Tsar did.

Fennomans generally saw Russian Empire in rather positive light and wanted to co-operate in the context of Russian Empire. This led to Czaristic policies which were positive for the Fennoman ideals (until period of russification which then led into rebellious attitudes amongst the Fennomans too). Svekomans whom were more Sweden-minded and even tought that Finland should return to community with Sweden. Svekomans were more conservative and wanted to hold on to "old Swedish" power structures (capital in Turku, only Swedish as legislative language etc), as they saw that as only way to escape russification.

You know your history, well said.

As Fennomans played the ball with the Czar they obviously got most of their initiatives through. There was also an period of major internal development (railroads, general infratructure) which led to positive outcome. Also the markets of Russian Empire turned out to be prosperous for Finns.

Tsar modernized Finland. Gave our language legimate status (which Swedes had downplayed), built fortifications to protect us, built roads, fuctional post-offices, schools, libraries... everything the Swedes had denied.
Tsar went as far as denied Russians access to his Grand Dutchy. Only traders and certain army units were allowed access.

All this together led the Svekomans to very bitter situation, as they saw that the Fennoman reformist were bit byt bit taking down the "old powerstructure" and replaced it by new one.

New order, which did not promote Sweden nor Swedish. I view Svekomans as traitors. Finally Finns were given a chance, and they longed the old times where we had to pay, endure and bleed.

[/QUOTE]They saw that the russification was inevitable.[/QUOTE]I have to disagree here, Russification became as a shock to Finns when it hit, and it was because of hardliners in Russian leaders added with a weakling Tsar.

Svekoman hardliners started to distance themselves from fellow Finns and created new theories how Finns are "mongoloids of inferior race" and "how swedes brought the civilisation to wild Finns" etc. They even created an phony ethnicity "Östsvenskar", east-swedes, whom were responsible for all the good things in Finland, negative things were attributed to "mongoloid finns whom are like russians anyway". In this mindmap Finns belong to culture of Central Asian Turanic peoples and are not part of the European culture at all. The General situation has to keep in mind, as these people were very pro-Sweden, and Russia, if anything has allways seen as the other, the enemy, the alien. Idea that the reformist Fennomans dared to play ball with that eastern monster certainly made them equally evil!

One of the sad moments in Finnish history, I am afraid.
Once again, I have to congratulate you on the knowledge you have.

[/QUOTE]This kind of talk were ofcource fighting words which did not pass under the radar. Fennoman "party" started to make fabricated claims how Swedes oppressed Finns for hundreds of years and now Finns are finally free of the Swedish yoke. It was direct response to Svekoman provocations. [/QUOTE]Yes, but I am not talking about Fennomania claims, but the events which took place right after Swedes managed to gain control of Häme, Satakunta and Uusimaa. Those two talk of the same thing, but are not the same.

Fennoman side came out victiorious from that internal strugle, after Finlands independence. During the very nationalistic period of young Republic of Finland these Fennoman claims staid as part of the "national history". Svekoman stories of "Finnish mongoloids" staid too on some international forums, especially amongst the "Indo-Germanish Aryan" voodoo science of 1930's.

And only now we can try to see past the claims of two sides.

Modern Finnish history writing has very pragmatic and in general positive view about the Osterland-period. However, many people in Finland feel that we are a bit written off from the history books because it's allways the Swedes. Swedish army fought victorious on the battle X (losses you can keep) and Swedes build that castle or bridge or whatever ;)

This is just the reason why I feel the need to study history before Swedish rule. History books used to have blank pages on the kingdoms which were before Swedish succesfully gained control. We know very well the events after the succesful claiming of area, but the absence of information before those times... that is the intresting part.
-We had a highly complex hill-fort system in Häme, Uisko-longboats, own weapon-types, own religion, own trading routes.. and own quarrels with neighbouring Karelians, Swedes, Kveeni and Novgorod.

What comes to subject about origins of Finns, that is very simple. Finns have dual origins, Northeast European and Northwest European. This can be seen clearly from physical anthropology and Y-chromosal data. According to Prof. Markku Niskanen, Oulu university, typical Finnish crania is between West European and East European. Between Norwegians and Russians. How very surprising.

He has said that finnish skull-type is the closest of the cro-magnon-type of skull. The one which migrated into Europe around 40 000 B.C.   http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?53
Not that skull would be a mix of Eastern and Western. Finns being a mix of Eastern and Western is simply an outdated theory, proven false.
As DNA states, Markers of Finno can be found in most other European, but Finnish lack other European markers.

From DNA evidence Finns share most of their markers with people of East Baltic (Northwest Russians, Estonians, Latvians) and on the other hand with Scandinavians (especially with Swedes). Language is evidently of East Baltic origins as most of eastern shore of Baltic Sea was Finnic speaking not very long ago, and largely still is.

With Estonians, not so much with Latvi or Lietti. Russians are a mix of various Finno and Slavonic tribes, so there should be a clear link to point it out.

Why is this point incessantly repeated: bad Swedes and their language schtick!? Every single one of the nation states in Europe had a language tick and sought to enforce conformity either through social pressure or outright force. "Language" laws still dotted the legal landscape well into the 20th century. Certainly one can posit a good argument that the "Enlightment' [or a I prefer to label it, the "En(b)lightment"] and its Academies fought hard against regional dialects and languages. In this instance, Sweden was scarcely different from any of its contemporary states. National "establishments" actually believed they were doing good in educating the bumpkins on proper speech and educational institutions sought to enforce conformity. Events in Scandinavia were no different than elsewhere in Europe--or throughout the empires as well. 

Originally posted by Sarmat Yes, but that doesn't mean that Finns should be happy with that.

Should we raise this question with the Saami? After all, since 1917, Helsinki has not recalled its own travails prior to 1863.