Norses: Were the Skraelings Amerindians?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the Americas
Forum Discription: The Americas: History from pre-Colombian times to the present
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18898
Printed Date: 17-Apr-2024 at 20:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Norses: Were the Skraelings Amerindians?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Norses: Were the Skraelings Amerindians?
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 22:13
|
Were the Skraelings of the Iceland sagas Native Americans?
If so, what are the documented proof to sustain that claim?
The Norse posts in North America were short lived and vanished without any impact in local Native America population, it seems.
On the other hand, there is no proof that the Native Americans influenced the Norse either (like they did with the European at contact), or that such a profitable trade like the furs is, had any impact in Europe at Vinland's times.
That is it. I believe Skraelings were Inuits and not Amerindians. What do you think?
Pinguin
|
Replies:
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 03:10
|
Well, the Norse settled in New Foundland for a few years, so its possible that Amerindians are Skraelings. I have always thought so, but the Norse would have had longer contact with the Inuits, so there is a good argument that they are the skraelings. Or, perhaps, the Norse lumped Inuit and Skraelings together? I thought skraeling meant non-human, or sub-human, or something to that effect, so, in my mind it is logical that the Norse would have called the Inuit and the Amerindians skraelings.
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 03:18
|
Inuit learned from Norse, such as buildind their boat based on the structure of the longship, or building their summer huts following the structure of the Vikings huts.We should study the myth and legend of the Native American ,especially those in Newfoundland ot North pole, in order to find out the clues of the Norse contact. there were fighting between Norse in Vinland and the skraelings, if Newfounldland was vinland, were the skraelings Amerindians? Any inuits tribes lived in NEWfoundlands? I am not sure ------------- leung |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 12:30
| From what I recall of the sagas, I may be wrong, the Vikings said the Skraelings were ugly with no facial hair or something like that. Of course, beauty and ugly is subjective observations, and I am quite convinced that the Natives found the grizzled Norsemen quite ugly too, but the point here is the facial hair. While the Inuits and also the tribes of the Pacific Coast such as Kwakiutl and Tlingit were known for having facial hair, the Newfoundland Natives were not as far as I know. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 14:09
|
Native Americans also have facial hair. For the genetic point of view, Inuits and Native Americans are closer related together than with Europeans. So, the facial hair is not a conclusive argument. Besides, in Northern Canada it is noticeable that there is a smooth transition between Natives and Inuits, and it seem some admixture have existed between both groups. T |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 15:52
|
In terms of territory, wouldn't it be more likely that the Skraelings would have been Iroquois or cree. I don't recall ever reading that the inuit inhabited as far south as New Foundland or Maine. Every listing I've seen has Inuit set as an Artic culture, with the cree and Iroquois set as sub-artic. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 20:00
|
You're right the facial hair is no very solid evidence, yet notice that these Slraelings did not have facial hair, which means they were more likely to be Native Americans than Inuits.
Anyway, Newfoundland was inhabited by the now extinct Beothuk tribe which occasionally encountered Inuits from time to time, yet the Inuits did not live on Newfoundland. So it is most likely that the Skraelings must have been Beothuks. This conclusion is also based on archaeological evidences claiming that the Beothuks inhabited this area around 1000 A.D, and Leiv Eiriksson is believed to have landed on Vinland this very year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk
Bill Yenne - The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Tribes, Crescent 1986
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 20:02
|
Anybody has the precise refferences in the Icelandic sagas about Vinland, where they talk about the Skraelings? It would be interesting to take a look.
|
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 20:05
| I'll check into that tomorrow, bit late now and I'm closing down and heading for bed within minutes, but remind me tomorrow. |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 03:03
|
There is a book which I found from the library of my university, the name is Westviking, the sub title is The Ancient Norse in Greenland and North America, which is written by Farley Mowat.He had copied the saga and then studied them, for example from 458-464, there is ananalysis of the conflict between norse and the Native, he also identified the native as Beothuks. ------------- leung |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 09:00
|
That's interesting, Tommy. Too bad the Beothurks are not longer here to bring testimony.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 10:12
|
From Lee Sultzman's History of the Beothuks-
People have lived in Newfoundland for at least 9,000 years, but it is unlikely the first residents were Beothuk. Ice age hunters followed the retreating glaciers into the area and remained as the Maritime Archaic Culture until about 3,200 years ago. They were replaced by paleo-eskimos - the Groswater and then later the Dorset Cultures. The Beothuk are believed to have first occupied the coastal areas of Newfoundland sometime around 200 A.D. and shared the area with the Dorset Eskimo during the next 400 years. After 600 A.D. there were only Beothuk living in Newfoundland. Towards the end of the 10th century, the Vikings (Norse) reached North America and established one of their settlements at L'Anse aux Meadows at Epaves Bay (near Cape Bauld on the northern end of Newfoundland). Exactly how far south the Vikings explored along the coast is unknown, but it is certain the people they encountered there, who they called Skraelings, were Beothuk. During the time they remained on Newfoundland, the Vikings traded with the Beothuk and occasionally fought with them, the most notable incident being a battle over a Viking cow. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 10:27
| Sadly, in the Saga of the Norwegian Kings there is only a minor reference to Vinland and no reference at all to the Skraelings, so I haven't found any description yet. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 10:55
|
That's interesting. So the Beothuks are the proto-Inuits that are supposed to reach Iceland before the Norse?
In any case, as you can see, it seem Norse didn't enter in contact with American Indians but Artic people like the Inuits.
For the people that does not know, the Inuits are Native Americans but not American Indians. There is a genetical or "racial" difference between both groups beside a different history. American Indians entered the Americas 15.000 years ago and populated all these lands. Inuits entered from Asia circa 500 A.D. and populated the Artic, from Alaska to Newfoundland and Greenland. Both groups have some degree of contact but in practical terms were two distinct ethniticities.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 11:06
Don't know how you made the jump, but in everything I've read the Beothuk are considered Amerindian. The language was supposedly an isolate of Algonquin. [the last known Beothuk speaker was a woman who died of cancer in 1829] ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 11:17
|
I got confussed now. I believed they were the proto-Inuits that reached Greenland, that I read somewhere. Sorry |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 12:04
|
First, I want to correct a mistake I've made: In the Icelandic sagas, facial hair was not mentioned, only their hair and faces.
Anyway, the Beothuks were what we occasionally call Indians (or Amerindians if you prefer). They lived in teepees and hunted sea mammals among other game. The Beothuks painted their bodies, their teepees and also I think their canoes with red ocre, which gave them the lable the Red people.
This according to Bill Yenne and Wikipedia
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 12:31
|
But there still the mistery of the name "Vinland". As you know Vin=Wine. And the only regions of the Americas were you can find parrs and well formed grapes are in the East coast of North America. (The parr does not exist in South America, for example, were it was introduced by the Europeans)
Now, it is known Natives used grapes to made wine in those regions, but I wonder how far north you can find parrs in the east coast of North America.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 13:15
|
That mystery was solved by Norwegian anthropologist Helge Ingstad. The Norse word "vin" means pasture, and since Newfoundland is an area of green fields, the name Vinland quite simply means Land of Rich Pastures. |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 21:34
|
Well, according to the record of the Portuguese, they stated that the King of Norway had a mysterious land at the west, his ship would go there, and brought back animal skin,the ship spent one year to go there and returned,but the King kept the existence of the land as a secret. ------------- leung |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 02:07
|
Just to clear something up. There is no mention of Inuits in the account of the settlement of Greenland. The Inuits turned up later, when the climate deteriorated. Their lifestyle wasn't suited to the climate at the time the Scandinavians arrived. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 06:18
Your not suggesting that the Beothuk were the Red Paint People, whose remains and artifacts are found mainly in Northern New England? Even conservative dating has them at 3500bp. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 07:22
|
Joinville:
That may be so, but remember that the Norse settlement in Greenland existed until the 15th century.
Red Clay: No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm just reciting information. But however, remember that the Beothuks moved to Newfoundland (probably from New England) around 1000 A.D.
|
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 08:13
Sure. There are Inuit tales of the Scandinavians, but nothing about them in Scandinavian sources. Certainly not from the time of the expeditions towards America. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 11:16
|
No, as you stated, at that time the Norsemen and the Inuits had no contact. Perhaps with the exceptions of some spotting along the coast of Labrador, but nothing certain. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 13:31
|
Just a question. How you guys are so certain Inuits weren't in Greenland by the time Norses arrived? I remember seen on TV, in National Geographic, I believe, a report were the talk about people living in Greenland, comming from the Americas, before Eric the Red reached there. That's my question. Why do you discard so easily Inuits reached Greenland. After all, it was relatively easily for Inuits to reach there.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 14:07
| Not that they lived in Greenland, but in the area where Eirik Raude - or Erik the Red if you prefer - settled, the place he called Brattalid, I believe there were no Inuits at the time of his arrival. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 00:13
| Yes, that's what I though. They didn't enter in contact in Greenland but Inuits usually preffered the Northern part of the Island |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 16:23
|
I'm not too sure about that, look at this link:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/greenland/history.html - http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/greenland/history.html
And look at the part about Ivar Bardarson.
Also, there were people before the present Inuits on Greenland. The mysterious Dorset culture! ------------- |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 01:33
|
Some stated that Dorset culture had Irish element. Some stated that Dorest people, who had Asia root, were the real Native ,and Inuits were the new people, or you can say, the hybirds between the Dorest people and the white(Norse) people. ------------- leung |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 01:36
|
And how about the Lapps. Do they have any ethnic connection with the Inuits or Dorset, was the Inuits migrated eastwards and became the Lapps,or the lapps migrated westwards and became the Dorset and Inuits ------------- leung |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 01:44
|
The inuit were hunters, they moved frequently,just following the animals, the seals, a theory stated that just before the western settlement to be destoryed , the climate became very cold in the north, the seals and fish moved south, so the Inuits followed them and moving south, finally eliminated the western settlement. ------------- leung |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 06:13
|
That theory is probably correct. I read in a Norwegian history magazine that in the last centuries prior to the fall of the colony, the Norse competed with the Inuits for game and fish. |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 06:47
As far as is known, both from archeological and genetic studies, there are no known link between Inuit and Sami. Besides, dress any individual Sami up as any European, and you can't pick him out from among the Scandinavians anyway.
I've talked to Sami activists who participate in international congresses for Native People. They regularly get hostile stares from other participants who don't know them, and think some White folks have managed to weasel their way into the proceedings. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 08:51
|
I agree with you, Joinville, it is highly unlikely there are genetic connections between Samis and the Inuits. Although both those ethnic groups probably originated in modern day Russia, the distance between them must have been too great to establish a relationship. |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 10:34
Actually, one interpretation of Sami genetics I've seen, where they actively tried to link them to people in the east, over in Russia, like the Samoyed and Evenk, they turned up nothing.
Those geneticists have instead suggested that the Sami is a breakaway group of the first imigrants into Europe, traipsing off to the high north along the west coast of Norway on their own some 15.000 years ago. Relations were only re-established with the bulk of the European population to the south some 1000 years ago. This makes the Sami pretty unique, genetically speaking, but they're still not widely divergent from the rest of the European population.
But this is going OT, or at least would need its own thread. (Sorry.) ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 14:24
|
Inuits and Sámi obviously really have nothing in common, not even culturally, they're at the opposite end of the artic cultures. I'm sure there have been cultural exchange between some of the other arctic peoples, specifically Nenets and Khanty (I'm not sure if they count as arctic?)or Nenets and Evenks, maybe even a few late contacts between those and the Sámi, but I doubt that it ever happened between Inuits and Sámi - they would have had to travel round the polar circle to meet! Not a chance!
The idea that the Dorset culture could actually be "Native Americans" seem interesting - that could be the case!
Sámi:
 Greenlanders:
 ------------- |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 21:06
             ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 21:33
|
Sound of Skraeling? http://www.folkways.si.edu/search/AlbumDetails.aspx?ID=414# - http://www.folkways.si.edu/search/AlbumDetails.aspx?ID=414# ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 22:12
  Notabilities with ancient etnic bonds. Three average sized ministers, one caucasian, two sami.   ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 22:36
Quote, Tommy:
That was new to me. Do you have any reference on that? ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 23:04
|
Good point!
In any case, even the son of Columbus, Fernando, mentioned a possible knowledge his father found in his trips to Northern Europe. Nothing new. It is very likely the news about new lands to the west filtered from Norse sources.
|
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 01:50
|
The key book to this subct-matter is "Westwards before Colombus" by Kare Prytz. According to Prytz Colombus returned from Labrador to Iceland, with the merchant Jon Jay in 1477. That trip is mentioned by Fernando Colon, as the key to his fathers correct accounting of the width between Europe and Terra del Norumbega and - further south - Terra del Indianas. The Norse settlements along Norumbega strected as far as Cheasapeak Bay, at least. Probably down to the Mexican Gulf, since the Northmen also are repported to have rowed along the Missisippi. Prytz even found out that the old Norse settlements - along the east-coast - was using the name "Vinland" and "Vinland Goda", as well as "Landit Goda" - as they moved south. Vinland later became english, and named "Virginnia", while "Landit Goda" became portuguese and called "Terra Cova". Later the Spaniards took it over and the name became "Terra Coba" - before the English finally took it over and made it Carolina. From that point on the Terra Coba became the name for the (Spanish) island today called "Cuba"...! But - that was all happening after 1370 - when the vital blows were made on the Norse strongholds of Greenland - that governed the "western isles" on behalf of the Norwegian king. In 1362-1364 a certain frenchman called Metzier visited Scandinavia where he wrote a book about the Norwegian Sea-King and his settlements "out in the ocean". According to Metzier it would take the Norwegian Chancellor three years to complete a sailing around this "enormous area", in order to collect the taxes and look after the trade of the Norwegian crown... ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 05:41
|
Boreasi, I'm not sure about what you were trying to say with those pictures?
True, some of the Sámi maybe short, but there's nothing in common between them and the actual Mongolians you posted? And Mongolians aren't short! And they sure aren't Inuit!!!!!
The only comparison that have been made have been with the Nenets, and they're not related at all, as have been found out. However, some studies seem to suggest they have something in common with Berbers, although that may be far back. All in all, they're just a specialized type of Europeans. ------------- |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 11:13
|
Sure?! I think we should look for the logic of history when we deal with these questions. At least we should refrain from using pics of henna-bleached sami women to prove genetic points... Traditional ethnology used to point to the mere fact that there were several tribes that have spread out around the circum-polar area of the arctic world - well after ice-time. The first trace of these peoples - that also makes sense - is a migration from the Himalayan area and northwards along the Ural mountain-range, where there was an ice-free corridor already 40.000 years ago. Much later there have been a spread from the northern mounths of the arctic, Russian rivers towards both east and west. The Inuits and the Eskimos were held as the end of the eastern branch, while the Norwegian Sami were held as a logical end of western branch. The similarities between these tribes were both physical as well as cultural. Looking into their traditional ways of life we can still see the paralells in life-style, housing, clothing and social organisation. Obviously they have developed differences as well, but they are still not disqualifieng the simlarities. Recent mixes and traces of genetic markers common to their respective hemispheres can't be taken as a proof of anything but signs of integration. Recent analyzis from Sweden have already shown that the DNA-markers of the Sami arrived to Scandinavia from the Ural-area - about 4.500 - 5.500 years ago. Simultaniously we just heared that the Aleut and the Inuit reached Alaska some 2.500 years ago. From Kamchatcka, of course. 30 years back the antropologists talked about the 12 mongolian tribes that circumferenced the arctic nort. I haven't seen anything lately that really contradicts that. --- Btw.: Could you name the different etnicities reflected in the pictures collected on the previous page?! ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 13:30
|
Hey Boreasi, I'm not too sure of any of this, to be honest. Let's not get too off topic, though.
(I guess you posted some people from Tibet, including the Dalai Lama and a miss contestant, an Inuit (in full garb) some dark haired Sámi (not all Sámi are dark haired!!!!) including a Sámi woman from a movie, and the sámi president, both previous and present)
Edit: Forgot the Mongolian, if that's what he is, the one with the bow!! ------------- |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 07:49
|
From a book, the discovery of the Portuguese, it had such statement, i tell you more when i go back to university to find the book,and then i reply you. ------------- leung |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 02:00
|
The first four pics are all northern Samis - who still have the strongest same-charactheristics left. Though - we can see how some of them bear traces of partly Norwegian or Swede mix. The general pattern is quite clear, the further south and the younger they get - the higher influx we see from mixed marriages with Scandinavians. Thus the blonds are far more frequent among the southern Samis. The Eskimo and Inuits actually have far less blondism - and still they show the same variation of physiognomy - as can be seen by the two Inuit women. The third American example was "Miss Arctic Circle" from Canada, 2005. She clearly has some Caucasian influx - too, although her pigmentation have remained Inuit or Aleut. Then we have miss Tibet, miss Mongolia, Miss China and Miss Kazakstan - along with an actress in a Russian film. With what kind of certainty would you place the rigth country to the rigth miss? And what would be the plausible etnicity of the film-actress? The answer to that would actually reflect directly back to the main issue of this thread. ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 02:45
|
But some samis clearly had Asian, or Mongolian -charactheristics , they had ethnical connection with people of Siberia or east asia ------------- leung |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 03:15
|
The Samis had an eastern origin, simply. The same ones as the Inuit - just an "opposite" branch - from the same Uralic origin. http://www.indians.org/Resource/FedTribes99/fedtribes99.html http://www.usm.maine.edu/gany/webaa/disapear.htm http://boxer.senate.gov/services/CAlinks/indians/tribalgroups.cfm The sound of a Skrael; http://www.folkways.si.edu/search/AlbumDetails.aspx?ID=414# ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 03:51
|
But Finns also from Uralic region, but I do not think they have Asian root? ------------- leung |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 11:53
|
I actually posted the miss Tibet 2004 on a Mongolian forum, and the Mongolians there agreed that she would not look too alien there. She could pass for Mongolian.
Never the less, Eastern Sámi are often blond, the Finnish ones.
Technically, the Sámi have short faces, while northern Mongoloids have long (and wide-flat) faces, so there's a big morphological difference.
Also, Sámi aren't sinodont at all, and they have in fact small teeth as a characteristica - while northern Mongoloids have very large teeth. Furthermore, DNA test show they're their own, and mostly unrelated to those northern Mongoloids, but very related to Europeans, because they are Europeans.
However, just to be a little bit on topic:
Sámi artist Åsa Simma with her Native American husband
  Ps. Eskimos have NO blondism, at least not the Kalaallit/Greenlandic Inuit ones, unless they're mixed or sick.
Pps. The Russian film you're talking about - the woman is Sámi, I already mentioned that!! Inari-Sami, I think, at least she's from Finland.
There's nothing remotely un-european about her:
http://www.actorsagency.se/skadis/anni_kristiina_juuso/anni_kristiina_juuso.html - http://www.actorsagency.se/skadis/anni_kristiina_juuso/anni_kristiina_juuso.html ------------- |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 22:29
|
Tommy, The Finns are NOT from an Uralian root - but are the original population of the eastern part of Fenno-Skandia, while the Swedes, Danes and Norse are their western counterparts. That's been the case since mesolothic time. They both spread from the Baltic, after ice-time - born out of the same original "proto-caucasians" that had survived in a "biotic refugia" - up north, during the end of ice-time, according to the more recent sources. The Finns spread east-wards over a vast area - from Transylvania to Tocharia. We see those traces already during the various stages of stone-age. In western Europe these eastern Finns were originally called "Vaner" or "Vends" ("Vene", "Wende" "Wendi") - carrying amber from the Baltic to the Black Sea - and onwards. Thus we find "Schytian" mummies in their easternmost off-springs - the Tarim-bassin, in present China. The Chinese wall pretty much explains their eastern border. Simultaniously another branch of people came out of the Himalayan mountains - that later made it along the northern coast of Russia to Scandinavia. Thus we have Samojeds and Sami. The Himalayan population had kept the contact with their southern brothers much longer though, since they did not live isolated from their tropical origin during ice-time, but rather as the northenmost branch of the asian peoples. Thus we see their pigmentation to be far more intact - compared to the "refugians" that became the caucasian origin. Jams, The present population of Samis are definitly "European", in any juridical term, whatsoever. But their etnic and cultural characteristics originates from an altaic descent - not much doubt about that. Most of the northern samis still carry their pigment very clearly, as do the eskimos and the aleut-inuits. Thus you were absolutely correct about Anna Kriistina Juuso. I just wonder if she could pass in a mongolian or tibetan beuty-contest?! These mongolian branches have traditionally lived by a nomadic life-style and used the "Yur-ta-principle" when building their homes. Thus have the circular cone-building as "lavvus" and "tipis" on each side of the north Atlantic, paralell to the squares and angles of the eurasian settlers. As they have settled inbetween Scandinavians, Finns and American Indians they have adapted different morphologic traits that separate them genetically - today. But they still all share a common origin - as can be seen also in their respective traditions of architecture, life-style, clothing and cultural expressions. Their long, due and close relationship with the Finnish tribes of eastern Russia have made very special impact on the western branch of the Himalayan descendants, as they have adapted to the Finno-Ugrian language. Thus they were able to live successfully and prosperously side by side - for millenias - without ever getting into serious conflicts. Because they had a very clear division of culture - the Samojoeds and Samis were high-landers that lived "with a ligth bag" - with seasonal migrations to get to the scarcer sources of nature. Meanwhile the Finns would stick to their forests, rivers and lowlands - for the traditional fishery, log-production, lowland agriculture, boat-building and river-trade - connected to their Scandinavian neighbours that developed coastal setlements, ships and ocean-sailings. When these "goths" reached America they populated the empty land of the east-coast and its islands. The Norse buildings and tools from the Orkneys are very similar to the Mound-builders of the US. Thus the Norse kept their connections across the Atlantic already during neolithic time. As the Inuits arrived they became a normal part of the scarce northmen that inhabitated the rural, arctic part of north America - too. Thus we may see that there are two differnt styles of life-style and architecture among the North American Indians - too. The ones that were singing - like you can hear the Norwegian joiker - you may understand what the later Norsemen called them "hollers" - which in Norwegian can still be written "skraelings"... ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 23:35
Genetic trails:The genetic origin of the Sami is enigmatic and contributions from Continental Europe, Eastern Europe and Asia have been proposed. To address the evolutionary history of northern and southern Swedish Sami, we have studied their mtDNA haplogroup frequencies and complete mtDNA genome sequences. While the majority of mtDNA diversity in the northern Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish Sami is accounted for by haplogroups V and U5b1b1, the southern Swedish Sami have other haplogroups and a frequency distribution similar to that of the Continental European population. Stratification of the southern Sami on the basis of occupation indicates that this is the result of recent admixture with the Swedish population. The divergence time for the Sami haplogroup V sequences is 7600 YBP (years before present), and for U5b1b1, 5500 YBP amongst Sami and 6600 YBP amongst Sami and Finns. This suggests an arrival in the region soon after the retreat of the glacial ice, either by way of Continental Europe and/or the Volga-Ural region. Haplogroup Z is found at low frequency in the Sami and Northern Asian populations but is virtually absent in Europe. Several conserved substitutions group the Sami Z lineages strongly with those from Finland and the Volga-Ural region of Russia, but distinguish them from Northeast Asian representatives. This suggests that some Sami lineages shared a common ancestor with lineages from the Volga-Ural region as recently as 2700 years ago, indicative of a more recent contribution of people from the Volga-Ural region to the Sami population. (Gyllensten et al, University of Upsala, 2006)http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14470&PN=3 ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 04:34
|
But some people say that there is no ethnical connection between Finns and Vikings, but they are both white people, One of my teachers stated that she had a Finns friend, and the friend stated that they were the offspring of the Huns, then this is not correct? ------------- leung |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 05:55
|
Actually, the Nordic countries were NOT invaded by the Huns, or anyone else, from outside of Europe. If anything, other than the western countries like Britain and Spain etc., the Nordic countries incl. Finland are the ones that had the LEAST "Hun" influence.
If you ever came to Finland, you'll have admit they look just like any Scandinavian in general. Sure, there's the odd exotic looking person, but they're in the Scandinavian countries too, even where I live in Denmark, and we have had absolutely no Hun (or Sámi) influence here.
(Alhough personally I'm part Finnish, but that's recent)
The "exoticness" frequency may be slightly higher in Finland, but it's not something conected with the Huns. Rather, if anything, it may be an "Uralic" thing, whatever that is.
That Finnish friend must have been joking!
Boreasi, we may not actually disagree as much as I thought.
The way I see it, the Uralic branch (maybe a misnomer, but the term has sorta stuck) "branched off" from the other Europids at an early stage, perhaps as far back as the branch of of the ones who became (Northern)Mongoloids, or perhaps a bit later, and this branch moved about and spread until it reconected in the west with other Europids, while in the east they reconected with the Mongoloid branch - thus becoming Nenets. A few stayed relatively outside of influence (Mansi/Khanty) but were later a bit influenced by both Nenets and Finnic peoples (Komi I think] While the western part may have been the Sámi, who in turn were quite isolated, but also had some late influence from Finns -( I'm not absolutely convinced Sámi are Uralic, though, they're somewhat Unique)
This may have happened multiple times, complicating the matter further.
We're talking a timeframe of 10000+ years here, of course!
------------- |
Posted By: Hope
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 06:37
|
Just a note to the Finnish-Hunnic thing:
Finnish belongs to the same linguistic group as the Samis, the Estonians and the Hungarians.
|
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 17:07
|
Yes, the languages are related, especially Finnish & Estonian, less so the Sámi languages.
However, the Hungarian language seem to be much more distantly related.
Or so they say, I don't speak any of those languages! ------------- |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 20:09
So it's either or both, but nothing is really settled for now it seems. The ancestors of the Sami walked in as soon as the ice retreated enough, something like 15.000 years ago. Likely one contribution came from the south, others from the Urals in the east. Any link with other arctic peoples to the east is quite weak, and probably non-existant with the Inuits. And you still can't pick out the 15.000 Sami living in Stockholm in a crowd. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 05:50
|
The oldest Sámi remains I've heard about are 5600 years old, or something like that, with some evidence of 8000 years old settlement. Those might not really have been Sámi as we know them today, but the area was populated.
Another thing, the Sámi cannot have been the Skraelings, because the Norse, especially those from Norway, and they were the ones going to Greenland and America, knew very well the Sámi, so they would have described them as so, if they met them. ------------- |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 20:37
|
Hope, Quote; "While the majority of mtDNA diversity in the northern Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish Sami is accounted for by haplogroups V and U5b1b1, the southern Swedish Sami have other haplogroups and a frequency distribution similar to that of the Continental European population." Comment: The influence from the European genome among the Samis are strongest in the south. The northern Samis have maintained their Mongolian genetics to a greater extent - due to less Scandinavian influence. Quote; "Haplogroup Z is found at low frequency in the Sami and Northern Asian populations but is virtually absent in Europe." Comment: See? Quote: "Several conserved substitutions group the Sami Z lineages strongly with those from Finland and the Volga-Ural region of Russia, but distinguish them from Northeast Asian representatives." Comment: Which means that the haplogroup Z originated as the Sami got mixed with the Finnish gene-pol at an early stage - creating a sligth difference between the Samis and their eastern brethren. Quote: "This suggests that some Sami lineages shared a common ancestor with lineages from the Volga-Ural region as recently as 2700 years ago, indicative of a more recent contribution of people from the Volga-Ural region to the Sami population." Comment: Presumig that the Finns originate in the Volga-bend of the Ural region. Today we know that NOT to be true, since the Finns seemto carry proves of a "central European origin". Consequently the Samis must have gained their Asian charcteristics before 2.700 BP - which is the latest date when the mix between the Finnsh and the Sami gen-pools got started. Quote, Hope; "And you still can't pick out the 15.000 Sami living in Stockholm in a crowd." Still? The difference was more clear before, when "racial mixture" were less usual. And still - after generations of mixing - you can still pick 9 out of 10 samis from the general crowd of Wilhelmina and Luleå - the two Swedish cities with the highest percentage of Samis. In the ethnic mixing-bowl of Stockholm that migth be more difficult and tricky, since todays Stockholmer may have a great variety of genetic inlfuences, like Marrocan, Spanish, Basque, Walonian, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Kurd, Kazak, Tibetan, Chineese - as well as Sami. In northern Sweden, where the traditional Swede and Sami still live side by side - without all these other representatives - the local inhabitants still see and relate to these traditional differences, with immediate recognition and without any notable problem. Just as we still see the difference before we hear it - between the "typical Swede" and the "typical Norwegian". Not to forget the typical Dane, who can be identified at sigth even in a crowd of Germans. In the mountain-areas of northern Norway, Sweden and Finland we still don't have a big problem observing a Swede from a Norwegian or a Sami from a Finn. We may even discriminate between the northern Finns, called Kvens - and the southern Finns, called Finns. (Which is a bit funny, since the differences between northern vs. southern Swedes - or Norwegians, repectively, are more difficult to spot - before they start speaking...) Even if we - in our day and age - wear the same clothes, drive the same cars and enjoy the same liquor, attend the same kind of schools AND the exactly same parties, we STILL may look and speak a little different. Is there a problem with that - in Stockholm? ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 21:27
|
Jams, Tommy I think you have a quite un-biased approach to these questions - which is higly necessary and appreciated. I also think that a lot of emotional stuff, "backward" prejudice and misunderstood empaty may still cloud the debate connected to "etnicity" - not to say "race" or "kind". Even though the recent progress of bio-molecular science starts to clear up some major outlines and bring some basic facts of historic relevance back to the debate. To understand history, not to use and misuse it - of course. I think the European academia have learnt that lesson quite well, after all. Thus there is no peculiar reason for us to dwell with those mistakes, but to use the common knowledge along with specific information form the sciences of antropology, etnology and biology to get rid of any reminiscences of abusiveness, as we acknowledge the genuinity and value of each and every cultural group that were able to survive, and sustain, throughout the turmoils and horrors of history. Thus we may expand out knowledge of the Sami etnicity and history to further their own understanding of their true roots - to actually repair some of the damage done to their culture throughout the last centuries. The same we migth try to do as we investigate the truer history and origin of the other populations of the northern hemisphere - wheter they are Russians, Finns, Swedes, Danes, Anglons or Irish - as well as Sami, Samojeds, Navaho, Objiwa, Inuit or Eskimo... ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 21:34
Found it? ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 22:38
I don't have references at hand, however I have seen the subject before and there are documents that refer to this, But, things like this aren't unusual. There are countless same ideas recorded for centuries. Punt, was for a time, thought to have been possibly Central America, the theory derived from the same type of information. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2007 at 00:38
Well, I declare! You have magic abilities! 
I.e. no you can't. You can suspect something on an individual level at best. Often you will simply be wrong. It was always like that with attempts to link morphology with ethnicity. Stick to the genetics. Type thinking never worked in the first place. (I know its popular with some around this site. Still doesn't make it work. Stick to genetics.) As for the "genetic influence" in Stockholm, last time I checked Stockholmers were not drosophilia. This international mix you're talking about could only occur in the last 20-30 years, way too short to have any noticeable effect on the vast majority of individuals yet. (When a Turkish sailor stepped off the boat for a few hours shore leave in the 1950's , he was interviewed by the morning papers for being such a rareity.) Come back in a couple of centuries.  ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 14:03
Says who? I've lived there most of my life and I never acquired that ability.
Actually the easiest way (except listening to them speaking) to recognize if someone is a Swede, Dane, Norwegian or Sami is to look at their clothes and behaviour. Looks won't take you anywhere.
|
Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 21:30
Since I was born and raised in the arctic north I can't but say I'm sorry for your ignorance. NO ONE in my schoolyard was ever in doubt to wether they were Gypsies, Romani, Sami, Finn/Kven, Swede or Norwegian. Even if we all shared the common dialect of the area we were born and rised in. Ask any old Sami - and he can probably guide you into the nuances needed to understand the various discrepancies in question. Their eyes are usually very sharp in recognizing the various nuances of nature - also of this kind. Good luck! ------------- Be good or be gone. |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 10-May-2007 at 15:26
Can you really pick out Swedes with absolute certainty?
I certainly can't do that here.
Romani I can understand, but not the others, although admittedly some of the Sámi's look "peculiar", some of them look just Nordic, and some (not many, though) Nordic's look just like them. ------------- |