Talk:Sámi peoples/Archive 1

Northern Indigenous peoples
Why not a separate article for Northern Indigenous peoples? -- Zoe


 * Good plan. Not today, though!  GrahamN 21:12 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)


 * Are the Ainu not sufficiently northern to make the list? --Brion


 * Not sure. I got the term Northern Indigenous Peoples (best not to turn it into an acronym, I just discovered!), and the list of tribes, from [this article] from [Survival International], a respected and long established authroity on the subject of indigenous tribal peoples.  GrahamN 21:34 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)


 * Ah, I see; the term seems to be Russia-specific. The last Ainu in Sakhalin were evicted to Japan after World War II, so there presumably aren't any left in Russian territory. --Brion

80.141.119.26 removed the link to Siberia, saying "There are no Saami in Siberia, but on the Kola peninsula in northern Russia". However, two separate sources cited in the article state that the Saami ARE indigenous to Siberia (http://www.buryatmongol.com/sibnative.html and http://survival-international.org/tc%20siberia.htm). I will add Siberia back in pending an explanation from 80.141.119.26. GrahamN 23:11 24 May 2003 (UTC)
 * There is no way how Lapps could be indigenous to Siberia. The easternmost place where the Lapps live is Kola Peninsula. However Siberia starts behind the Ural Mountains more than thousand kilometers to east from the easternmost historic Lappish areas. Lapps may or may not be originally from Siberia, but that is a different question not related to this one. The oldest origins of Lapps is a controversial question. Lapps have lived in their historic areas in Fennoscandia for thousands of years and therefore being indigenous there (and not Siberia), no matter where their far ancestors arrived from after (or during) the ice age Tuohirulla 21:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there any serious thinking that Saami are related to Vedic traditions in India? Or is this a way-out theory? Rmhermen 04:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I have never heard it. This is pure folk etymology. I think this should be deleted from the entry unless someone has a reference for it. Evertype 15:59, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

This sound very far fetched. Tourists visiting the Sami area are often more interested in trying to make connections to far-away peoples in Asia and North America (or Bolivia...as some told me..), than actually study the unique culture at hand. So forget about vedic traditions, unless you have solid proof.

There seems to be an arithmetical conflict regarding the Saami population of Norway, between the Norway page and the Saami one. Saami says: The population of about 85,000 ... Roughly half the Saami population lives in Norway (so that would be 40000 ish). But Norway says ...Saami people (about 6000 people. Source: Samemanntallet).. I don't know if this due to the difference between those who are ethnically Saami and those who speak Saami, or some "registered Saami" issue, or if it's just a matter of the wording needing tightening-up somewhere. Still, the two pages (as they read right now) seem to directly contradict one another. -- Finlay McWalter 17:52, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The number 40 000 in Norway is an estimate. Norway undoubtedly has the largest number of Sami, but in coastal areas of Norway, it is hard to distinguish Sami from Norwegians, since the present Norwegians have a great deal of Sami ancestry, and the present Sami are much more assimilated into Norwegian culture than the ones in inland areas. The present number of 11 000 people registered in the samemanntallet are the ones who have declared themselves Sami, a voluntary thing. Teh others may or may not regard themselves as Sami, and quite a few are fluent in Sami language, without referring to themselves as Sami. This is because it is still a social stigma in rural coastal areas to be a Sami. Today many people "step out of the closet" as Sami, so the gap between the estimate of 40 000 and the number declared in the samemanntallet is narrowing.

The various estimates concerning the Sami vary enormously, so any number should be taken with a pinch of salt.

This article claims that jojks are known in English as yoicks. My source spells it joiks and gives no other transliterations (though it does mention the North Saami luohti and the South Saami vuolle). Googling indicates that joiks is the most common, but yoicks gives virtually no hits (can't tell for sure how many, because there seem to be other uses of the word). I can only find one page in English which uses yoicks to refer to this. Can anybody clear this up? Tuf-Kat 20:43, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

The name in Sami is juoiggus, and this word has a separate Norwegian adaptation; "joik", and a similar Swedish one "jojk". A word starting with "j" in Sami, Norwegian or Swedish, is pronounced "y". An exampel is "jul" (Christmas), which is also used in English as "yule", the pronunciation is exactly the same. The average English speaker is probably unaware of this, so spelling "juoiggus/joik/jojk" as "yoik" in English probably makes English speakers pronounce the word correctly.

I have also seen the inhabitants of Lapland referred to as "Laps". Is this a misspelling of "Lapps", or is it valid? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:03, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

The words Laps and Lapland have been used extensively, especially in Sweden and Finland (and in countries outside the Sami area) historically. In Norway one would often call the Sami "Finn" (a term that you still hear sometimes), although Lap was also heard. However, with the increased respect for Sami identity, we today prefer to say Sami. And their ancestral lands are hence called Sàpmi.

It's Sami not Saami
The best English term for this population is "Sami". This reflects the native designation "Sápmi" (where -pm- is a grade of -m-; Sámi is a declined form of this). The Norwegian/Swedish designation is "samisk". The spelling "Saami" is a Finnicism (Finnish "saami"); since most Sami live in Norway, it makes sense to borrow a Germanic spelling into English rather than a Finnic one. Further, the spelling "Saami" risks hypercorrection to "Såmi" (cf. Haakon/Håkon, Aarhus/Århus). The New Oxford Dictionary of English gives "Sami" on page 1644. "Saami" does not occur there. The term "Saami" is attested; a google search will certainly find it. But it is not the recommended form in English. Evertype 16:00, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. But are you sure that it is a finnicism, though? I would suppose that it is likely to be a rendition of the acute accent in Sámi in 7-bit ASCII. arj 21:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The people in question have had some difficulties to unite on what the best transliteration to English should be, and there is no reason to believe that this issue is finally concluded. You can find representatives who argue against Sámi for it being too difficult for Americans who panic for accents, against Saami for being too difficult for Indo-Europeans who don't know how to handle vowel-length, against Sami for beeing too close to the more "oppressive" or more alien Germanic nations (compared to the akin Finno-Ugric or Finnic, and again against Sami as it more likely renders an unwished distorted English pronounciation.

I don't know what to do in Wikipedia, but one thing is clear. The statement "the spelling "Saami" is found but is a Finnicism" can not remain where it's inserted. Wikipedia-article usually do not in the first sentence argue in controversies. Further, it's a peculiar and strange assertation, as the languages of this people really are Finno-Ugric, why a scandinavism ought to be more out of place than a finnicism. Finally, the only name which Wikipedia ought to take a clear stand against, based on the sentiments in the people in question, is the "Lapp" term, by many considered particularly offensive. The first-sentence stance against Saami is thus unfortunate, as it might give the impression of Wikipedia not taking the reservations against Lapp- as serious as against "Finnicisms". /Tuomas 06:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you mean we should remove all forms of "Lapp(ish)" from the article? Lapp(onia) is something that have been used, at least from the Carta Marina since 1539 to ~1990. //Rogper 22:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but we shouldn't give the usage prominence. /Tuomas 20:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I am sure that the -aa- is a Finnicism, yes.
 * ...or Samiism... :-) /Tuomas 20:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason to use -aa- in English while -a- is used in Norwegian.
 * The issue is exactly this. Should the indigenous people be shown respect &mdash; or their Germanic masters? /Tuomas 20:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Oxford (which one can consider to be authoritative) prefers Sami. Tuomas' point about not bothering with the word "Finnicism" is well-taken. "Sami" rhymes with "swami" in English, by they way. Same spelling, same sound. "Saami" just isn't right.
 * The Sami Parlament, Sametinget, uses "Sami" on their homepage. I've been using Sami (=singular Same, plural Samer in Swedish) or Samic (=Samisk in Swedish). // Rogper 22:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * They do this year, yes. I don't care much about which transcription to use, but as information the first vowel is (should be) rather close to, but not quite as, English arm, SAMPA /A:/, or maybe rather as a long version of the sound in cup, SAMPA /sV:mI/. Swami is maybe a better approximation than Slavic. The way my Arabic teacher pronounces Ba'ath is even closer. However, some sound distinction get lost in the transfer to other languages, that can't be avoided. /Tuomas 20:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

In Sami, Sami is spelt Sàmi. Accents are hard and difficult to many. Why not simply say Sami, and leave out all the rest? This is a direct Sami-English adaptation, not via Norwegian/Swedish or Finnish.

I am a Sami, and the native way of saying Sami in sound is "Sæmi" not Sami or Saami. "æ" = "ae", using norwegian "æ". Also notice that the Finns call them self "Suomi" indicating some kind of relationship.


 * It doesn't indicate any other relation than a linguistic one which is being discussed above. The term Suomi is pretty recent and I think dates from the beginning of the 19th century. Before that there were tavastians, carelians, savonians etc.

If Sami is pronounced like "Sæmi" in Sami, all texans will say it right if spelled Sami. I cannot see the problem...

Sámi is pronounced "Sæmi", like the above stated, so it shouldn't cause too many problems for English-speakers to pronounce correctly, unless they try to hypercorrect it to be "Sami". And the Finnish version of the word is saame, not saami. Sámi is the correct form, not Sàmi. -yupik

germanic? scythian?
"Sami People are a group of Germanic and Scythian tribes"...

I have grave doubts that the above is not at all correct.

Sami language is indisputedly known of being a Finnic language. Not germanic, nor scythian (who also probably were indoeuropean).

(Sami old religion and culture is known to be close with finnic shamanism.)

The above should be altered: Sami people are a group of Finnic tribes, or something like that. Germanic and scythian taken away. 213.243.157.114 21:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it was unclear where the Sami first come from, although they nowadays speak a Finnic language. It seems that this could have been, because of close contact with Finnic tribes in some way, though.

Scytians? Sounds very far-fetched to me. Being a guide for foreign tourists in Northern Norway, I have heard tourists connect the Sami with any possible ethnic group on the globe, from Tibetans via Bulgarians to Bolivan Indigenous groups. Often based on "similarities" in clothes etc. Clothes of course have changed ove the centuries, and are no indication whatsoever.


 * There is indication of a unknown language substratum in the Saami language indicating a possible language shift from a unknown language to a finnic one, this is due to the fact that a considerable part of Saami genetics have its origin in the Iberia ice age refuge. One hypothesis is that it may be a ancient form of basque. http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~lillekas/mainlanguage.html

Basque? Not again! The origin of Sami is not more mysterious than that of other peoples: If we go back a few centuries, there would have been a continuous belt of Finno-Ugric languages stretching from Sapmi though Finland, Estonia, Latvia, North-Western Russia down to the Upper Volga, with isolates into western Siberia. Today this belt is broken up by the advance of Russian, Norwegian and Swedish, but numerous relatives survive thoughout this area. Forget about far-fetched theories. Poor basques, they seem to be related to almost any exotic ethnic group in this world, according to unscientific theories.

Indeed, the sami are about as germanian as they are fenno-ugric..

Sami: governmental definitions
The Organization section can be confusing to read. It's not clear on who can vote where if certain operational criteria are met. Splitting along state lines may improve it. A-giau 18:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It also seems to suggest there's a united, transnational Sami Parliament when there are in fact several, with rather different powers. A-giau 18:52, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official status
It'd be nice to have some information on official status or official recognition (perhaps described along state lines), and a bit of details about the implications. Info on related social movements would be appreciated, as well. A-giau 19:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Lapp derogatory?
There seems to be quite some controverse about the name Lapp: It is said to be offending and derogatory. On the other hand, almost anyone not involved in ethnological affairs uses the word. I would like to know: If Lapp is considered an insult, doea the word have a specific meaning (Like "Eskimo" meening "raw meat eater" in a Cree dialect), and are all Sami offended by the name Lapp. Btw, why do I want to know this? Because I am to write an article on the Sami and their language on the Limburgic Wikipedia. Caesarion 10:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It means "patch", as in "bums in patched clothes". If someone uses the term, he's simply ignorant of this. --Vuo 11:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Lapp doesn't mean anything. In Norwegian, lapp also means "patch" or "piece of paper", but I suspect the two have nothing to do with each other (except in wordplays...for instance the president of the Sami parliament was humorously called "laptop"). The term "lapp" is NEVER used in Norwegian, except by very ignorant people, or if they want to offend. If say the prime minister would use the word, it would be a scandal. However, some Norwegians and Sami use the word Lapp in English, because they don't know the word Sami is the correct one in English too. That's why you still hear the word used at times.
 * Derogatory or not? That is in the ear of the listener. It has been used as such, though, and thus got a bad sound to it. That the word also means "patch" of course has nothing to do with it, it is just a coincidence. "Sami" do doubt is more politically correct, but lots of people in Sweden say "lapp" and means absolutely nothing bad at all. It might be more controversial in Norway. /Habj 23:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The word "Lapp" is from Finnish where it means something like distant or living in a total wilderness. In its original form and meaning in Finnish the word can be seen as degorating. Tuohirulla 17:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The blade of a sword has and edge and a flat side. In Finnish this flat side is called "lappea" meaning the same thing than Lapp and Lapland. Its something outside the main area.Tuohirulla 17:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that the word "Lapp" comes from this Finnish word, is it a coincidence, or has this meaning come about later?
 * I mean that this international word "Lapp" comes from a Finnish word. Tuohirulla 20:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC). S

Saying Lapp is REALLY bad in Norway, where more than half the Sami live. Skip the word, and change to Sami. After all, half the countries in Africa have changed names over the last century, as has a number of different people. After all, we don't talk about bushmen and hottentotts anymore.
 * I'm a Norwegian, and I can't really say that "Lapp" is a derogatery term here, just a bit old-fashioned really. "Same" simply rolls better off the tongue, so it's more used, but I've heard "Lapper" and never heard anyone refer to it as offensive. "Lappland" is even printed on the map (at least until recently). But I do agree that the most common term is "Same" (and therefore "Sami" ?)

193.216.164.123 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a Norwegian Sami, and if some Norwegian calls me a "Lapp", I'll assume the person is either very hostile or simply extremely old-fashioned and ignorant. All depending on the manner in which it is said. Among Sami, however, the word can be used somewhat self-ironically. I'm under the impression that in Sweden and Finland, "Lapp/Lappi" is still widely used, though considered offensive by the Swedish Sami. In Russia, the related word "Lopar'" is considered very old-fashioned and "Saam" is applied instead (the double "a" is there to avoid confusion: The Russian word "sam" means "self"). I don't know if "Lopar'" is deemed offensive by Russian Sami. There are more efficient words used for insulting Sami in Russia (like "Chukcha") so there isn't any use at all for "Lopar'".


 * Anyway, "Sami" is the chosen form of our public, representative institutions. It derives from our languages, and is in no way derogatory. So stick with it.

I think that a statement such as "Today, all terms other than Sami are best avoided," is a clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. People have differing opinions on this issue, and given Wikipedia's express purpose it is not proper for an article in this venue to take one position or another. --Misha bb 17:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted these changes. There may be different opinions about how offensive the term is, but the main purpose of Wikiepdia should be to inform people. So just as the Nigger article states that you should not use that term in the US, this article should state that you should not use Lapp in the Sami areas.Labongo 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloid
Are Sami people of Mongoloid stock as the Inuits or are they similar to their Finnish and Scandinavian cousins? Meursault2004 08:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither. They are European, but no direct genetic link has been established with any other European population; the DNA pattern is unique. The physical characteristics are European as well. There is no significant "Mongoloid" influence. --Vuo 23:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What do mean 'neither'? They are indeed related to Finns, Karelians, and Estonians, aren't they?ExRat
 * No, they aren't. Language isn't the same as genetic origin. --Vuo 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sami, Karelians and Estonians are in fact genetically related. Tatiana Zerjal et.al.(2001) conclude that it is striking that the Y-chromosomes of the Sami are very similar to those of the Estonians (Genetic map) and distinct from most southern Swedes and Finns, but there might be exceptions (e.g. in Skåne where Kittles et.al.1999 probably have found a genetic pattern identical with the Sami mtDNA). There are most likely different genetic histories and migration patterns for Sami men and women. Sami mtDNA patterns are truly unique and differs from other European lineages with specific motifs, like "The Sami motif" - U5b1. Finns and Sami people are also genetic related (Aprerogative 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

The Sami people are definitively both Scandinavian and Nordic. A commonly occurring mistake and misleading idea and discourse is to contrast or negate the Sami people with the Nordic or the Scandinavian (Meursault2004 mentioned their Scandinavian cousins). New genetic research indicates that the Sami people and their ancestors have populated the Scandinavian Peninsula for thousands of years (probably longer than other groups of people) and all countries populated by the Sami people belong to the Nordic countries except for Russia. aprerogative 28 January 2006 (UTC).

A comment to Vuo 26 Jun 2005: The Sami people do undeniably have unique DNA patterns with several population specific mutations. The unique DNA pattern is best explained as consequence of thousands of years of isolation in the northwestern corner of Europe, with minimal immigration and emigration from the Sami and their ancestors’ areas. Reasons for the isolation may be many e.g. climate, language differences and more recent social factors as education and racism. Other groups e.g. Icelandic, Sardinians, the Basques (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993) and the Finnsare also genetically considered to be European outliers, much because of the same reasons. Being a genetic outlier does not mean that the cited groups of people and the Saami have no genetic link to the rest of Europe. This model of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1994) roughly shows what genetic populations in Europe the Saami belong to: The History and Geography of Human Genesand Genetics and the population history of Europe. aprerogative 28 January 2006(UTC).


 * Thanks, hmm that is interesting. But according to the article Mongoloid, many Sami do have what many people would call slanted eyes:


 *  Epicanthal folds and oblique palpebral fissures that create almond-shaped eyes are common among most Mongoloid individuals, though their occurence among Amerindians is almost absent, except for in the west coast and the far north. The presence of epicanthal folds is normal in people of many, though not all, groups of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and is also present to some degree among the Sami people of northern Scandinavia. This fold covers and appears to lower the inner corners of the eyes, creating the appearance of "slanted eyes." It is commonly known amongst Asians as "single-eyelids", as opposed to "double eyelids". The occurrence of the epicanthic fold is believed to be an evolutionary defense against both the extreme cold as well as the extreme light the occurs in the Eurasian arctic and far north.  -- Meursault2004 28 June 2005 09:35 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. First, the rest of the physical features are distinctively European, and the epicanthal fold is by no means universal among the Sami. Second, the evidence I'm referring to is DNA. Major physical features may be changed by a single random mutation, but major DNA chunks cannot. The epicanthal fold is found in several non-Asian populations, because it develops following some process in the developmental anatomy. There is even a disease (Down syndrome) that causes an epichantal fold, so it can't be hereditary only. Also, all peoples in the region have some (1.5%) Mongoloid influence, so finding a single Asian physical feature or gene passed along in an isolated population doesn't prove a dominant Asian ancestry. For example, there are genes (TATC allele) that are shared by the Sami and the Asians; problem is, that they are found in the Nordic Finns, too. --Vuo 28 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

OK I now understand more about the Sami. Thanks again for the info. Meursault2004 28 June 2005 14:43 (UTC)

A comment on Vuo's message from aprerogative 18:00, 19 Jul 2005(UTC) :

The growing evidence of mother linked mtDNA studies show that 98% of the Sami people’s haplogroups belong to the European gene pool (Comas D et.al. (Eur J Hum Genet 1999): Tambets K; Rootsi S; Kivisild T; Help H; Serk P; et al. (American H Hum genetics, 2004): Achilli et.al. (American J Hum genetics, 2005)). These and other studies support the Franco Cantabrian glacial refugium theory which postulates that the Sami people migrated from areas in northwestern Spain via one main eastern European route and a significant smaller one along the ice edge from western Europe. Tambets et.al did not find that there have been a significant gene flow from the Nenets and the Samoyed people of Siberia to the Sami areas, but they mention findings which show that over 50% of the Sami father linked Y-chromosomes share a TatC allele (haplogroup N3) with Siberian and Finnish people. It is hypothesized that these N3 genetic links that is shared with the Siberian people have reached the Sami via Eastern European ancestors. Together with N3, the haplogroup R1 makes up almost 60% of the Y-chromosomal pool of the Sami, while R1b and I make up 33%. R1a, R1b and I are linked to the western European gene pool.

The Sami ancestors of northward migrating European groups may have mixed with Siberian groups that had followed the reindeers and settled along the ice free coast line of the pre-glacial Scandinavian peninsula. The ice melted both from the south and northwards as well as southwestwards from the Kola peninsula (Russia). There are archeological supports for very early migration and settlements (10.000 years old) from the northeast(Russian/Siberian) areas to the coastal areas of Finnmark County in Norway.

More studies need to be conducted before the Siberian ancestries among the Sami people can be ruled out. Larger samples from all Siberian as well as all Sami groups must be studied. Even if many new studies support that the Sami people dominantly belong to the European gene pool, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the Asian features (as for instance the epicanthic fold) are not of Siberian origins. It is important to be cautious about concluding

substantially from too few studies, relatively small samples and from studies conducted in limited geographical areas of the Sami.


 * This is basically the same as I wrote. If the Sami are Mongoloid, then also all French are Arabs and all Russians are Chinese. --Vuo 09:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Vuo|Vuo what you said makes no sense. French, Arabs, and Russians are not considered races of people. And for the most part, Russians, French, and Arabs belong to the same race while chinese belong to a seperate race. The fact that Russsians are not arab has no significance in proving whether or not the Sami's belong to the mongoloid race or otherwise.

The Sami language is believed to have originated on the siberian side of the ural mountains. The predominant speakers of Uralic languages are mongoloid. Therefore the speakers of proto-uralic most likely were also mongoloid. The Sami are believed to have migrated thousands of years ago to modern day scandinavia and finland. No one knows if they encoutered caucasoids along the way and these people mixed into the gene pool and there was further mixing while in present day finland and scandinavia so much to the fact where much to the point where the Sami were nearly racially assimilated with other nother europeans... This is what seems the most plausible to me. The fact that some Sami stil exhibit mongoloid caracteristic and were thought to have originated in a place where other mongoloids, who were not exposed to a great flux of the indo european gene pool, originated, points very strongly to the belief that the ancient sami people were mongoloids, or at the least there was very strong mongoloid presence within the sami population. The Sami bloodline today is most likely drained of this and is overwhelming caucasoid and similar to that of their closest neighbors. 69.209.143.178 10:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) anon
 * You probably made that up mostly. Uralic languages, like Indo-European languages, are spoken by more than one "race". The spread of the Uralic languages appears more like an ecological boundary than the adventures of a single people, and no single "originally" Uralic-speaking people has been identified. Predominantly Uralic speakers are North or East European; some Asians speak Uralic languages too, but these represent the extreme south and east of the distribution. --Vuo 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is the case that Saami was originally "mongoloid" you need to explain some genetic observations. In the mtDNA the Siberian-Asiatic haplogroups (Z and D) are quite young in the Saami (Delghandi 1998, Ingman 2006), not more than 2 000 years old compared to much older dominating European major haplogroups (U5b1b1 and V) that have time estimates between 5 000 to 10 500 years (Delghandi 1998, Ingman 2006). In the Y-chromosomes haplogroups I1a shows much higher diversity in among the Saami suggesting I1a are much older. Also there is a high correlation between mtDNA hg U5b and V and Y-chr hg I1a suggesting these travelled together (Rootsi 2004) and that the N3a may be a newcomer possibly mediated by the Finns during the mass immigration of Finn males into Saami areas between the years 1700-1900 or/and the Saami linguistic expansion Ante Aikio suggests may have happend as late as 500 AD (see earlier thread).
 * It has also been estimated by Cavelli-Sforza 1994 using classical autosomal markers that Saami was 82% European and 18% "mongoloid" using Danes and Urals (Komi, Mari, Ngaans and Nenets) as parent populations. However Niskanen 2002 has shown this calculation to be suspect as the genetic distances between Danish and the Urals was smaller than between Saami and Urals making it more appropriate to consider Saami 100% European and the Danes a 79% European and 21% Uralic "mongoloid" admixture. The genetic distance between Danes and the Mongol-Tungusks also reveal a smaller genetic distance than between the Saami and Mongol-Tungusks. Niskanen 2002 has also shown that the Saami are not closer related to the Mongols than the average European population, and that only the Swedes of the Scandinavian populations are more distant to the Mongols than the Saami.

Why are old racial categorizations still used? - - Research has demonstrated that they are overly static, limited, erroneous and often overlook individual differences within a particular ethnic group of people. The mutual exclusive typological descriptions of human races such as e.g. Mongoloid and Caucasoid are not able to capture the genetic continuity and genetic similarities of modern humans. Asian and Eurasian are better terms and Delghandi et.al.(1998) have shown that about 5 % of mother-linked DNA of the Sami people are related to the Asian-Siberian gene pool. aprerogative 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, finally someone said it! What's up with using race categories anyway? Most of the Western world learnt their lessons during WWII. Only Russia and the USA seems to be lagging behind on this. I was in Seattle this Christmas, and at a museum there I was asked to fill out a questionnare as I left. I was aghast to find that they asked me about my race. I wrote "in Norway we don't believe in human races any more" and left. Human races is a great, big, false socio-linguistic construction. --Misha bb 10:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I started this discussion and I had no idea that this would start a long and lengthy discussion! Meursault2004 12:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite all the claims above, the fact remains that the Sami retain large influences in both a genetic and physical sense of some Asian/Mongoloid origins. User: Vuo seems to disagree and state that they are predominantly caucasoid and are "nordic". Obviously the Sami do have Caucasian elements but they are quite distinct from other indigenous European peoples who are purely caucasoid and the Sami are definitely not "nordic" in the same sense as say the Swedes, Danes or Norwegians. Pretty much all of the peoples of Eastern Europe (i.e. from Lapland all the way south to Turkey and West to Poland and the Czech Republic) have some degree of Asian/Mongoloid influence and this generally decreases in Europe the further west and south one moves. The Sami obviously aren't mongoloid in the same sense as Koreans or Chinese, but they do retain strong elements as do the other Finnic peoples. Vuo's claim that "if the Sami are Mongoloid, then the French, Arabs and Russians are Chinese" is ridiculous and the Sami could indeed be considered "mongoloid" if compared to the French who have pretty much no such elements. The Arabs are a huge heterogenous and ambiguous group consisting of several ethnicities and peoples so their racial characteristics vary greatly. If one is speaking of the original Arabs of the Arabian peninsula, they are Mediterranean Caucasians and have very little or no Mongoloid elements. The Russians, as stated before, are like all Eastern European peoples and have varying degrees of Mongoloid/Asian influence.


 * I believe there are some political implications that need to be taken into account here. The Sami people's claims regarding land rights etc in the traditional Sami territories are primarily based on their status as an indigenous people. Consequently, it would certainly be in the interest of the groups who oppose the Sami's claims to try and disprove that they constitute a separate ethnic category. For every scientist who claims that there is no ethnic difference between the Sami and the Scandinavian/Finnish peoples, there is another one who can make convincing arguments to the effect that they are indeed a separate group. Jonas Liljeström 11:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot wade through all that all text, but if the intent of the original question was simply "do Sami look Asian?" then the answer is no. Or at least, in mid-north Sweden, there is no easy way to tell them apart from "plain Swedes". Old anthropological photos, like the one in the article, can be misleading, either because of bias ("let's find a really flat-faced, wrinkled-up old geezer for the book") or because the people in the pictures led a very different life from ours (outdoors, different diet ...) JöG 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

'''About the suppossedly Mongolness of the Sami people I refer to Niskanen 2002 article reference in the article. Niskanen concludes that the Saami population is not more Mongoloid than the average European population. Even the Komi and Mari population just west of the Urals are antropologically Europeans. I quote from Niskanens article: "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". Further "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". I really hope the 200 year old claim of Friedrich Blumenbach will finally be put to the grave!'''


 * Repeating myself from above, and referring to the "Gene Obsession" thing I posted below: There is no such thing as human races! There is only genetic variation. Of course, it is possible to identify some "common traits" in ethinc groups but these are all stereotypics that meany members of the group deviate from - increasingly so as globalization goes on. I know about Sami who have dark skin and curly hair, I know about Sami who are two metres of height. I know about Sami who have big, blue non-slanted eyes and low cheek bones.
 * By the way: never, never imply to a Sami that s/he belongs to the "Mongoloid race". In Norway, this being a country where the idea of human races is generally dead and buried, "Mongoloid" means one thing only - having Down's syndrome.--Misha bb 10:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Organisation

 * * s/he simply considers her/himself to be Sami (valid in Finland only)

I removed the text above, because as far as I know, it is not true. I am Finnish and i can not have legal sami status by just deciding to be sami. If i want to turn into sami i dont have to look like sami, own reindeers or wear sami clothes but i have to prove that i have sami ancestors in past. (preceding unsigned comment by 70.24.237.16) --Hottentot
 * In Finland you have to prove your sami ancestors from citizen records made by churches for centuries. If this record says about an ancient person that s/he was a "fishing lapp" or "reindeer lapp" or other kind of "lapp" then s/he is considered a saami ancestor. Tuohirulla 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sami status
Post originally made at talk:Swedish people.

Alright, I see what you're saying now. You can change it back any time. I have a different question, however. Since you're Swedish, you probably would know this: what's the situation right now with the Sami people of Sweden? Are there any ethnic Swedish settlers migrating to Lapland? Are the Sami simply being absorbed into Swedish mainstream life or are there programs for them to retain their languages culture? --Khoikhoi 06:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the Sami question, but I know that there aren't too many Swedes settling in the north right now. Generally, most Swedish rural areas are experiencing a population stagnation or even a decrease. This is because a lot of people (especially the young) are moving to the major urban areas for various reasons. What I know about the status of Sami in Sweden is that it's problematic, but not because of active supression or lack of recognition of them as a minority. A lot of it has to do with legal battles over the right to keep land for reindeer pasture and trying to avoid complete assimilation.
 * Otherwise, I think this article covers a lot of the details that can answer your questions.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)