The ancestors of modern Swedes lived in Scandinavia way before the Sami.
And there were people already living in the North where the Smai setteled down.
Why are the Sami called indigenous again?
The ancestors of modern Swedes lived in Scandinavia way before the Sami.
And there were people already living in the North where the Smai setteled down.
No?
Even in your map;
People living only in the south
The CWC and Battle Axe subculture lived only in the southern part, the north was still inhabited by SHG remnants, who would continue to live there until they were conquered and raped by Samis. Samic languages have unique loanwords from this population.
Sources?
When the "saamis" conquest them?
Proto-saami in... finland. Qowo
>Sources?
This is general knowledge, not any specific statement by any one publication.
You can find more reading material for the topic from these general directions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Laplandic_languages
https://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Pre-Finno-Ugric_substrate
>When the "saamis" conquest them?
"The Sámi people arrived in their current homeland some time after the beginning of the Common Era."
paleo laplandic
It's not "from the beginning of the common era" the Saami have been in Europe since the iron age
The Iron Age ended a few centuries into the CE in most of Europe, and Finnics remained in the iron Age until like 1400
What do Sámi have to do with Finnics again?
They have everything to do with them, closest relatives, most relevant example to cite
Finns are genetically closer to Sicilians than Sámi. Linguistically it's a three way branching, Finnic, Samic and Mordvinic. The mode of subsistence has been entirely different for thousands of years. Finns are effectively Baltified then Germanized to nearly an order of magnitude more than Sámi.
That's not exactly true, Sami are closer to Suomi than Siceli are but it's a respectable distance nonetheless. I don't really care either way, I am *þiudiskaz and in my language *finnaz means Sami originally, and was then applied to other Uralics indiscriminately. You all look same to me
Depends on the method, Sámi are actually one of the most drifted populations and so in FST they have astronomical distances to everyone else. G25 just projects them into normal variation which lowers the distance.
Interesting. I'm always very annoyed by people asserting Sami as the whitest people ever or some such, and in my efforts to refute this I do not care about dragging down other Uralics, which I suppose conflicts with your interests. You mentioned Samis selecting against Siberian features; what type of phenotype are you granting pure Samis then? I have seen contradicting information about whether various photos are representative or not due to the assertion that self-identified Samis are mutts, perhaps like Saami_Kola.
Scandinavians are pretty homogenic so their brains tend to produce the exact same output kind of like ChatGPT and generally the idea that Sámi were quite recently some indigenous Siberian people who then became whitewashed over the past couple of generations is some of this ChatGPT output Scandinavians can't help but produce.
In reality they are probably almost completely unchanged not just for 2000 years but even beyond. Kola Sámi are a special case since they number in the hundreds and are now mixed.
Anyway, Sámi just look like shorter Finns with even rounder features although they do not have as much blond hair as Finnish East Baltids. If we suppose they are 20-25% Siberian or whatever on average I would say they look like they are 10-15% Siberian because of selection.
??? Semantics
No. We are actually siberians
What I am saying is that you are correct but being in Europe since the Iron Age in that context does not nearly mean what you are trying to insinuate
Sámi are a four-way mix of Baltic-Germanic-Siberian-EHG with probably some bottlenecked and drifted traces of Indo-Iranian. That's genotype anyway in terms of phenotype they actively selected against Siberian features except they couldn't select for tall stature for environmental reasons.
>they couldn't select for tall stature for environmental reasons
???
Short stature are generally ideal for Sub-Arctic climates.
>Saami have been in Europe since the iron age
Maybe if you think Europe begins at the Finland-Russia border. Sámi developed in Europe and have only partial Siberian admixture.
Not true, Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov are 1300 BC and from the Norwegian border. They probably clined into SHG before Sámi arrival although it is anyone's guess to what extent. Sami have no SHG admix btw neither do any modern Scandinavians.
Sami definitely have HG admix, they are the closest population to EHG. What else would Paleo-Laplanders have been?
They were either a EHG/SHG mix or more probably Bolshoy Oleni Ostrovs so a little bit more Siberian than the Sámi. Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov differed from Sámi in having very little Indo-European admixture.
the "Starkadr" branch of the Trønder northern PIE heritage came via Finland/Bothnian Sweden and not via Scania.
picrel
Well basically they were treated very poorly, and oppression and discrimination towards them was justified by claiming they didn't belong in Sweden. They had lived in the arctic parts for thousands of years, thats proven beyond a doubt.
So a special category had to be created so they could have legal protection and to be able to claim ownership etc. It was also a way to protect their language and cultural practices(Swedes tried to eradicate their way of life & language).
But Finland to this day has not signed the treaty acknowledging the indigenous status of the Sami yet the Sami have their own little gay parliament and some special gay rights.
>they didn't belong in Sweden.
They don't.
It’s American braindamage.
They think the Sami are Indians so they are „native“.
Europeans are native to nowhere, according to Americans
>another thread of chuds whining they aren't being called the word used to distinguish people who are being colonized from the colonizers
How can they be colonised by people who were there before them?
Danes moved to Northern Scandinavia a few centuries after Sámi. It was an empty land most likely it would be like talking about Norse colonizing Iceland. It happened but no one was colonized.
Europeans are indigenous to Europa.
Because normies think "indigenous" means "le ooga booga tribes living in nature"
They aren't, they're invaders and "colonists"
>indigenous
This is a UN defined term which does not mean "ethnic" it means "ethnic minority in the same borders as another ethnic majority".
For example the Han Chinese people are not classified as "indigenous", but some minorities in China are.
Connecting nomadic hunter gatherer goups, like Sami, to fixed locations is trickier than with later populations. Northern scandinavia was always their 'hunting ground' even if they might have not had permanent settlements.
Northern Scandinavia was not the "hunting ground" of Samis that lived thousands of miles east 2000 years ago
>that lived thousands of miles east
What are you talking about? They lived in Finland 2000 years ago. They migrated to Scandinavia because of increasing pressure from Finns. We don't know for certain who they replaced in Northern Scandinavia but genetic evidence suggests it was Siberian-rich Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov.
It occurred to me after I hit send that miles are so massively larger than kilometers that it makes the statement absurd, happens to me sometimes when speaking English
They weren't even to the east but south. Around Tampere, Helsinki, Pori etc.
They were both east and south, it is implied when the straight line would go into the ocean
Moreso south. You can walk across ice so not really an obstacle.
You are both east and north of me
Lapps are at best only indigenous to Lapland