Are they Mongols? What is the origin of them?

Autism. Indo-Iranian people didn't conquer India with bone.
There was tech sharing between them and the indigenous people who soon came up with their own designs.

Uralics were not Indo Aryan

Indo Aryan lived in fucking Afghanistan before going to India

>also

"Conquering"

IVC collapsed before they came because of natural disasters

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon

Massive autism intensifies.

They introduced the Bronze Age to South Siberia and the earliest layer of Indo-European loanwords in Uralic languages is from them.

>I'm Right and you're wrong yada yada
Okay I don't want to go into your bullshit, but the current consensus according to Häkkinen, Kallio they're dating it to 2000BC. Or a Valter Lang paper which says Baltic Finnic is an outcome of a Bronze Age-early Iron Age expansion from the Volga-Oka area to the Baltic area.

Expecting the arrival of Finnish haploautists soon. I will take this opportunity to remind you that you are all N1c Asiatic Khaganoids.

Aryan women belong to Uralic cock.

They came to that date only by dismissing all the archaic influence in Samoyedic languages as mere local substrate.

Either way, their theoretical PU at 2000 BC is essentially identical to their theoretical PFU at 2000 BC.

to *others* theoretical PFU at 2000 BC.

t. Sven Wikangsson

>still posting that pic
lmao dude April called it wants its autistic memepic back

That's not what Valter Lang said at all.

t. Åke Bögsson

My people has 0% Nganasan so i no our women do not belong to you, Pekka

Anglo women seems to love the Yellow cock tho

I didn't say anything about Lang. What did he say?
I was talking about the relationship between Samoyedic and the other Uralic languages.

If everything strange in Samoyedic is dismissed as local substratum it can be seen as much younger and be fit into the timeline much closer to PFU.

>memepic
Nice cope

>Massive autism intensifies.

I know you're autistic

>is too rude to reply to me
Ummm wtf? Could this be a side effect of the infamous Finnish violence gene?

You know you could just google it, I'm not going to spoon feed you. It's based on archaeology not linguistics, archaeology shows that Proto-Finnics at best showed up near Baltic sea at the end of bronze age/early iron age.

So?
What does that have to do with anything?

Nice deflection, cuck. Uralics enslaved Aryan women.

It also states that Uralic is no older than 2000BC.

So in regards to op who asked what's the origin of them, it can be answered as they formed around 2000BC at around Kama river around where Udmurt is in that OP's pic and showed up in Europe at the end of bronze age/early iron age. Some branches like Saami might have showed up a little earlier compared to Baltic-Finnic and Magyars showed up in medieval period.

Fact is linguists say Uralic formed around 2000BC. archaeological evidence is also in cline to support the idea.

You can throw your hissy fit now we-wuzing how Proto-Uralics are from 9000BC. Like it was generally supported among Finnicists not long ago stating they're the first Europeans and shieet.

And why would I care what happened to R1a Proto-Indo-Aryans whose descendants currently live in Iran and South Asia? I have more connection to Germanic Swedes who enslaved F*nnshits.

Yeah like all 5 of them. In 1150 Population of Finland was around 20k. So the in bronze age/iron age it was probably in a few thousands. Fact is your haplogroup frequency is bottlenecked.

Have you always had these issues with reading comprehension?

Not an argument.

Still better than a strawman

Not an argument either.

Feel free to strawman more

>m-muh s-s-strawman
Nice cope.

t. Håkan Svjälborgensson

What's the point of explaining for the 3rd time that the 2000 BC number is based on the idea that PU=PFU and Samoyedic having a heavy local substrate which causes it to have divergent properties not shared with other Uralic languages since you're too dumb to get it?

It still doesn't change much on the Finno-Ugric side of things whether it's true or not.

>N1c
RICED

N1c masterrace

>Actual interesting and informative discussions about pseudo-obscure language families
>memes
>good times

Woah. Is this the power of Veeky Forums?

>You can throw your hissy fit now we-wuzing how Proto-Uralics are from 9000BC. Like it was generally supported among Finnicists not long ago stating they're the first Europeans and shieet.
What's up with this? Are you conflating the Finnish language and the people who live(d) in Finland? Do you think that the ones who spoke baltic languages were the first ones who settled in Finland or that the different peoples who came to Finland somehow supplanted and drove out the previous ones?

Nobody who spoke "Baltic" languages ever settled in Finland or Estonia

Initial Corded Ware spoke pre-satemized PIE

Hell, Baltic languages might actually be newer in the Baltic region than Finnic languages since they don't have many old Germanic loans. They came from somewhere deeper inside Russia and took Latvia, Lithuania and Prussia from some other IE people.

>implying the collapse of Ancient Finnic Empire and the subsequent complete holocaust of Ancient Finns and their culture committed by Hwangooks isn't the reason why modern historians now speculate that Finns arrived to Fennoscandia some time around 5000-2000BC

No, Uralics are not related to the Mongolics, they have separate languages.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolic_languages

Let's not forget the darkest of days when Ancient Finns drained all the special mind powers from the Ancient Lithuanians and turned them into a bunch of drooling idiots even though it was against the treaty signed at the Nubian Human Rights Convention of 12000 BC.

>Hell, Baltic languages might actually be newer in the Baltic region than Finnic languages since they don't have many old Germanic loans.

What the fuck? There aren't attested any archaeological data or linguistic data like hydronyms or anything of sorts Germanic in Baltic region save for Estonia so why would they have Germanic loans?

Also Balts came from Trzciniec_culture which developed from Corded Ware culture.

>They came from somewhere deeper inside Russia and took Latvia, Lithuania and Prussia from some other IE people.

Baltic CWC samples belonged belonged to R1a-Z283 to which you know their current branches downstream R1a branches belong to. Of course they those people in like 2000BC BC didn't speak Baltic or whatever you can't speak of Germanic/Baltic/Celtic languages at such a date. Proto-Germanic itself is though to developed around 500BC. They spoke some sort of Late PIE dialects with regional differences. Same way those people who showed up in Finland didn't spoke Finnish in the same sense as your equating it.

>Also Balts came from Trzciniec_culture which developed from Corded Ware culture.

Indeed, they don't come from the local Corded Ware contemporary with Trzciniec at least as far as language is concerned.

So when did the Baltic languages replace the X of local Corded Ware?

My own guess would be about 500-200 BC for Prussian(West Baltic) and an uncertain number of centuries later for Lithuanian/Latvian(East Baltic)

Just a guess though no need to get upset

>So when did the Baltic languages replace the X of local Corded Ware?

Nigga what. By the time Baltic languages came into existence or Germanic languages or Celtic for that matter Corded Ware was long gone and it was succeeded by other cultures which developed out of Corded Ware. To pin point when exactly they started speaking Baltic is a bit idiotic. Same as to say what language Corded Ware culture spoke? Fuck knows some sort of LATE PIE dialect. Or take Bell Beaker for that matter? We don't know either. But it was some sort of IE dialect. Beaker for example existed around 2800-1800BC but proto-Celts can according to various dating can only be dated to 800BC in Hallstatt culture which was preceded out of various cultures all stemming out from Beaker which in turned stemmed from Corded Ware there's thousand year gaps.

And how can Baltic languages replace local Corded Ware if they developed out of it? Earliest "Baltic" culture would be Brushed pottery around 1300BC which was then succeeded by East Lithuanian barrow culture.

>Don't speak Mongolian
>Aren't from Mongolia
>Never joined Mongol army

This board is retarded

They didn't develop from the local CW. They came from Kaluga.

No point dragging local cultures in the Baltic into this. I'm sure there is genetic continuity to a good extent but language is a different beast entirely.

>They didn't develop from the local CW. They came from Kaluga.

Yeah whatever floats your boat. You know better than archaeologists and linguists.

It was not me who said

>Also Balts came from Trzciniec_culture which developed from Corded Ware culture.

But apparently that has become outdated information in the last 50 minutes?

You said.

>They didn't develop from the local CW. They came from Kaluga.

What culture do you think Triziniec developed from? Not Corded Ware? And you don't see that basically Trizniec reaches Eastern Lithuania half of Lithuania? Nucleus of East Lithuanian Barrow culture and Latvian archaeological cultures was in east so is it some sort of miracle for you that by 1300BC they were well into modern day Latvia/Lithuania?

That's a pretty optimistic circle considering there's neither triangles nor circles in half of it.

Still, whatever fringe groups of Triziniec may or may not have touched the very border of Lithuania can probably be linked to the West Balts/Prussians.

The question is when did the Kalugabalts/East Balts from Kaluga move to Lithuania and Latvia.

Maybe 300 AD?

Also your definition of local might be skewed. At best we can differentiate Eastern Corded Ware and Western Corded Ware if you think Corded Ware people in lets say Belarus differed very much so from Corded people in Estonia, and thus not qualify for "local" then I have some very bad news for you.

>Maybe 300 AD?
You're full of shit, just stop it already.

Stroked pottery culture which is undoubtedly East Baltic and compromised central and eastern Lithuania is dated from 7th century BC.

>Stroked pottery culture which is undoubtedly East Baltic and compromised central and eastern Lithuania is dated from 7th century BC.

Can you provide some information or alternative names for this?
It could be West Baltic though instead of Kalugabalt.

Google it my finshit friend, I already gave you plenty of info that you need to find more about it.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strichkeramik-Kultur

Stichbandkeramik 4950–4400 BC is also called Stroked Pottery Culture and there's much more information available about that.

But apparently this other Stroked-pottery Culture could indeed be Kalugabalt since it arrived in Lithuania around the 2nd century BC.

How did hungarian end isolated down there?

Also what language was spoken therw before hungarian?

You're really hopeless. If you think Baltics were compromised of entirely one archaeological culture.
Open up link there's every culture name near every archaeological group in that pic.

Probably dacian or some sort of celtic. And later this
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Romance

Probably also turkic (avar) and gepid (germanic) at some point, maybe not by the general population.

WE

I'm just wondering when the Kalugabalt languages arrived there, nothing else.

Maybe you should up your slant eyes a bit more. East Baltic archeological cultures were as early as 7th century BC in Lithuania but somehow you derive to such dates as 2nd century or 300AD. Seriously you're fucked in the head a bit.

>which spread over central and northern Belarus and southeast Lithuania from about the 7th to the 1st century BC

It's implied that they arrived in Lithuania after 7th century

>Most of Finland has been speaking Saami languages before 1000AD

lek

Haha this nigga do you have dyslexia or some shit? That culture was gone by 5th century but somehow they arrived in 7th century.

Having a meltdown since nothing is backing up your ideas about indigenous East Balts?

I believe it was mostly inhabited by slavs at that point. I'm also guessing the slavic substrate is the reason why there is so much slavic vocabulary in Hungarian

No really I'm just wondering how do you even come up to such conclusions? The culture showed up around 7th century BC and went extinct around 5th century AD. There's nothing about it all saying that showed up in 2nd century BC, 300AD or whatever you're implying.

Here's even a map of Baltic archeological cultures from 600BC to 200BC. But you're still parroting same shit like a broken clock. Seriously seek help.

t. Kuk Rövsson

I'm just trying to understand when Kalugabalt languages arrived in Lithuania and Latvia.

The German Wikipedia uses some pretty old sources like Gimbutas 1983.

t. Þor Sveine Guđmundsson

>During the Roman Iron Age, some of the Latvian hillforts (like Ķivutkalns) were abandoned or became sparsely populated. A new period in hillfort development started during the 5th-8th centuries AD

Interesting. So this could be when Latvian speakers arrived to that part of Latvia.

...