# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups > N1c >  New dedicated page for Y-haplogroup N1c

## Maciamo

To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.

----------


## Ha-Nasr

awesome work maciamo :)

----------


## Fire Haired14

If Finno-Urgics are of Mesolithic origin in north-east Europe, why is there little evidence of genetic continuum of Karelian and Scandinavian hunter gatherers with modern north-east Europeans and Scandinavians, typical European mtDNA(mainly farmer) in Finno-Urgics, etc. I have not looked deep into the subject of Finno-Urgic origins at all, but i have many initial doubts about a Mesolithic origin because they are defintley not Mesolithic Europeans. Another problem is their light pigmentation which is typical for northern Europeans, most Mesolithic Europeans probably had light eyes but it seems they probably had dark skin and were mainly or entirely dark haired. It is likely in my opinion that north European-pigmentation evolved after or during the Neolithic, so they must have some type of recent common ancestry with other northern Europeans like Irish and Polish.

----------


## Maciamo

> If Finno-Urgics are of Mesolithic origin in north-east Europe, why is there little evidence of genetic continuum of Karelian and Scandinavian hunter gatherers with modern north-east Europeans and Scandinavians, typical European mtDNA(mainly farmer) in Finno-Urgics, etc. I have not looked deep into the subject of Finno-Urgic origins at all, but i have many initial doubts about a Mesolithic origin because they are defintley not Mesolithic Europeans. Another problem is their light pigmentation which is typical for northern Europeans, most Mesolithic Europeans probably had light eyes but it seems they probably had dark skin and were mainly or entirely dark haired. It is likely in my opinion that north European-pigmentation evolved after or during the Neolithic, so they must have some type of recent common ancestry with other northern Europeans like Irish and Polish.


The Mesolithic Uralic people lived between Finland and Siberia, not in the rest of Europe. Mesolithic Europeans were not a single ethnicity. There was the central-northern group associated with Y-DNA I and mtDNA U2, U4, U5 and U8. There were more gracile Mediterranean Europeans who probably were a blend of Y-DNA I2 and E-V13 (+ J2b in the Balkans) and mtDNA H, V, J1c, J2a1, T and U5. There were R1a steppe people with mtDNA U4, U5a, etc. Uralic people were yet another group, but maternally related to the I and R1a populations through haplogroups U4 and U5.

----------


## gyms

1.There is no evidence that N1c is the "original" Finno-Ugric haplogroup.
2.There is no evidence for Siberian homeland of Finno-Ugric peoples/languages.
3.I-haplogroup (and)subclades are the best candidates for the original Finno-Ugric people.

Accordingly, in the year 8,000 BC, Europe had at least three large linguistic areas: the comparatively unified area of Uralic languages (U), the western area of Basque languages (B) and, in the centre and south of the continent, an area of many unknown small languages (X).

My most decisive claim is that the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic languages were born under the influence of the Finno-Ugrian languages in the context of a shift in language from Finno-Ugrian to Indo-European. 
http://www.finlit.fi/booksfromfinland/bff/399/wiik.htm

*HOW FAR TO THE SOUTH IN EASTERN EUROPE DID THE FINNO-UGRIANS
LIVE?
*http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA14_23.pdf

----------


## gyms

"The Mesolithic Uralic people lived between Finland and Siberia, not in the rest of Europe."

How do you know that?Wat about the Lithuaian mesolithic Saami-like skull?

BTW:Where is my previous post?!!

----------


## gyms

http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA14_23.pdf

----------


## Salbrox

I think MNOPS peoples are relatively recent (meaning post-Mesolithic) in the region comprising Finland, Karelia and northern Scandinavia. No claims about the languages (though gut feeling says Indo-European and Uralic both were spread by them) as since there's no SNP to tell that I'll leave that matter to professional linguists.

There certainly was a preceding paleo-European language, or multiple such languages, that left a substrate in Saami languages.

----------


## gyms

"Uralic people were yet another group, but maternally related to the I and R1a populations through haplogroups U4 and U5." 

What kind of language have they(U4,U5+I,R1a) communicated?

Communication is a basic behaviour, found across animal species.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Accident post

----------


## bicicleur

> To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.


The spread of N can be traced by the spread of pottery, 20.000 years ago Xienrendong, China, entering Siberia 13000 years ago, entering Europe by Khvalynsk culture 9000 years ago.

Kunda is an offshoot of Swiderian cultures, originating in Poland. They were probably a tribe of haplo I, going extinct after the furhter spread west of haplo N1c till the Baltic and further. (comb-ceramic culture)

2 nd impulse for spread of N1c was Seima-Turbino 2500 years ago, originating in Southern Ural, radiating west till Finland, east till northern China.
If you check ancient Y DNA in northern China you'll notice N1 is still there 6000 years ago, but N1c is absent, coming back only with the bronze age cultures in that area, i.e. after Seima-Turbino.

The Uralic N1c world got destroyed by the Bulgaro-Turk N1b world , 3000 years ago.
Uralic Yakuts had to flee east till lake Bajkal. 700 years ago they were chased up north by Mongols. Now they live in Yakatia surrounded by non-Uralic people.

That is at least the script I figured out for myself for haplo N.
Please check and comment.

----------


## bicicleur

> To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.


Maciamo, can you tell me more about Saami haplogroup N1a1a ? Where did you get that info ?

----------


## Salbrox

> The spread of N can be traced by the spread of pottery, 20.000 years ago Xienrendong, China, entering Siberia 13000 years ago, entering Europe by Khvalynsk culture 9000 years ago.
> 
> Kunda is an offshoot of Swiderian cultures, originating in Poland. They were probably a tribe of haplo I, going extinct after the furhter spread west of haplo N1c till the Baltic and further. (comb-ceramic culture)
> 
> 2 nd impulse for spread of N1c was Seima-Turbino 2500 years ago, originating in Southern Ural, radiating west till Finland, east till northern China.
> If you check ancient Y DNA in northern China you'll notice N1 is still there 6000 years ago, but N1c is absent, coming back only with the bronze age cultures in that area, i.e. after Seima-Turbino.
> 
> The Uralic N1c world got destroyed by the Bulgaro-Turk N1b world , 3000 years ago.
> Uralic Yakuts had to flee east till lake Bajkal. 700 years ago they were chased up north by Mongols. Now they live in Yakatia surrounded by non-Uralic people.
> ...


Yakuts are not Uralic, but Turkic. Even further, it's likely that they are turkified aboriginal siberians. Their N1c clade is not derived from the ones that appear in Uralic speakers, and hasn't been found in the Volga-Urals region.

----------


## Fire Haired14

4,000BP Iberian farmer named Portalon seems to be listed as having Y DNA R-YP265(what SNP is that?) at yfull.com. Also i have heard 17,000BP west Eurasian(primarily or entirely ANE) hunter gatherer from Siberia not to long ago was listed a belonging to Y DNA Q1a at Yfull.com. Based on a PCA Portalon was put into i think he had some ANE ancestry and more middle eastern ancestry than modern Iberians(around as much as north-African admixed west-south Iberians). Maciamo, since you know more about R1b than anyone on this forum how do you interpret R1b(probably Df27) being in Iberia 4,000 years ago? Do you think the arrival of R1b is connected with Portalon's difference between other early European farmers? Do you think his R1b is from early western Indo Europeans or a non-Indo European people?

----------


## bicicleur

> 4,000BP Iberian farmer named Portalon seems to be listed as having Y DNA R-YP265(what SNP is that?) at yfull.com. Also i have heard 17,000BP west Eurasian(primarily or entirely ANE) hunter gatherer from Siberia not to long ago was listed a belonging to Y DNA Q1a at Yfull.com. Based on a PCA Portalon was put into i think he had some ANE ancestry and more middle eastern ancestry than modern Iberians(around as much as north-African admixed west-south Iberians). Maciamo, since you know more about R1b than anyone on this forum how do you interpret R1b(probably Df27) being in Iberia 4,000 years ago? Do you think the arrival of R1b is connected with Portalon's difference between other early European farmers? Do you think his R1b is from early western Indo Europeans or a non-Indo European people?


DF27 would be connected with Bell Beaker ??
they would have been families with knowledge about metallurgy transferred from father to son and setting up trading networks ??

----------


## bicicleur

> Yakuts are not Uralic, but Turkic. Even further, it's likely that they are turkified aboriginal siberians. Their N1c clade is not derived from the ones that appear in Uralic speakers, and hasn't been found in the Volga-Urals region.


so i got that wrong
Yakut are N1c Turkified
still they were defeated by the Mongols 700 years ago and fled north from lake Bajkal to Yakutia and sttled among other people with whom they have no ethnical/linguistic connection

----------


## Maciamo

> The spread of N can be traced by the spread of pottery, 20.000 years ago Xienrendong, China, entering Siberia 13000 years ago, entering Europe by Khvalynsk culture 9000 years ago.
> 
> Kunda is an offshoot of Swiderian cultures, originating in Poland. They were probably a tribe of haplo I, going extinct after the furhter spread west of haplo N1c till the Baltic and further. (comb-ceramic culture)
> 
> 2 nd impulse for spread of N1c was Seima-Turbino 2500 years ago, originating in Southern Ural, radiating west till Finland, east till northern China.
> If you check ancient Y DNA in northern China you'll notice N1 is still there 6000 years ago, but N1c is absent, coming back only with the bronze age cultures in that area, i.e. after Seima-Turbino.
> 
> The Uralic N1c world got destroyed by the Bulgaro-Turk N1b world , 3000 years ago.
> Uralic Yakuts had to flee east till lake Bajkal. 700 years ago they were chased up north by Mongols. Now they live in Yakatia surrounded by non-Uralic people.
> ...


Interesting theory. However I have always associated the Seima-Turbino phenomenon with the diffusion of R1a. Seima-Turbino did extent from Finland to Mongolia, but so does R1a today. Actually there is hardly any N1c in the Altai region (0% to 2.5% according to Dullik 2011), not much more in Mongolia (0% of N1c and 6% of N1c1 according to Xue 2006). This contrasts sharply with R1a which is around 50% in the Altai and 12% in Mongolia. It is possible and indeed likely that a minority of N1c1 lineages were assimilated by R1a people in the Volga-Ural region prior to the Seima-Turbino (namely during the Abashevo culture). But the Russian and Altaian core of Seima-Turbino is predominantly R1a.

----------


## Maciamo

> Maciamo, can you tell me more about Saami haplogroup N1a1a ? Where did you get that info ?


Good question. I thought it was on the FTDNA Saami Project or N1c Project but I can't find the data anymore. Perhaps it was a mistake that was corrected. Anyway ISOGG doesn't have any N1a1a. It's surely N1*c*1a. The FTDNA Saami projects has mant N-M232, but that SNP is also missing in ISOGG. All studies on the Saami date from 2000 to 2006 and don't have N1c subclades.

----------


## Salbrox

> Interesting theory. However I have always associated the Seima-Turbino phenomenon with the diffusion of R1a. Seima-Turbino did extent from Finland to Mongolia, but so does R1a today. Actually there is hardly any N1c in the Altai region (0% to 2.5% according to Dullik 2011), not much more in Mongolia (0% of N1c and 6% of N1c1 according to Xue 2006). This contrasts sharply with R1a which is around 50% in the Altai and 12% in Mongolia. It is possible and indeed likely that a minority of N1c1 lineages were assimilated by R1a people in the Volga-Ural region prior to the Seima-Turbino (namely during the Abashevo culture). But the Russian and Altaian core of Seima-Turbino is predominantly R1a.


Seima-Turbino is recent enough that if it was spread by N1c1 people from Volga region, we should see the N1c1 subclades common in Indo-European and Uralic speakers of Eastern Europe (VL29 and Z1936 are estimated to be 4000-5000 years old) in China and Mongolia, but that isn't the case. Yakuts don't have those clades either.

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=211&start=40

----------


## Maciamo

> Seima-Turbino is recent enough that if it was spread by N1c1 people from Volga region, we should see the N1c1 subclades common in Indo-European and Uralic speakers of Eastern Europe (VL29 and Z1936 are estimated to be 4000-5000 years old) in China and Mongolia, but that isn't the case. Yakuts don't have those clades either.
> 
> http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=211&start=40


That's a good point. However all Slavic populations (outside Russia) do have a low percentage of N1c1, typically between 1 and 4%. It is a similar ratio to R1a as in the Altai, so it is very possible that a few percents of N1c1 spread alongside R1a from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age.

----------


## bicicleur

> Interesting theory. However I have always associated the Seima-Turbino phenomenon with the diffusion of R1a. Seima-Turbino did extent from Finland to Mongolia, but so does R1a today. Actually there is hardly any N1c in the Altai region (0% to 2.5% according to Dullik 2011), not much more in Mongolia (0% of N1c and 6% of N1c1 according to Xue 2006). This contrasts sharply with R1a which is around 50% in the Altai and 12% in Mongolia. It is possible and indeed likely that a minority of N1c1 lineages were assimilated by R1a people in the Volga-Ural region prior to the Seima-Turbino (namely during the Abashevo culture). But the Russian and Altaian core of Seima-Turbino is predominantly R1a.


That is true. There is little known about Seima-Turbino. It seems to me there were 2 tribes involved , 1 tribe R1a and another N1c, R1a operating in the south, N1c in the north.
Strange thing is, N1c appears in Northern China after Seima-Turbino and then dissapears again, after spreading bronze metallurgie.
They look like a small elite on horseback and with bronze armor organising and controling societies. The Xiongnu (and Hunnic) warriors might be a legacy from them.

----------


## Nobody1

*Hong Shi et al 2013* has this migration map for Hg N
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...e.0066102.s002




Leaves the question who if anything Turkofied the Yakuts (N1c1-M46);

----------


## Salbrox

Generally it's understood that Yakuts got their language from Turkic speakers fleeing the Mongols 700 years ago.

Whether they got N1c1 that way too is unknown without ancient DNA from Sakha-Yakutia. As seen in the case of Hungarians, a group can change language without the event leaving a significant Y-DNA signal.

Regardless of whether Yakut N1c1 came from the Baikal during the Mongol invasions or was there before they became Turkic speaking, it diverged from the N1c1 found in Indo-European and Uralic speaking populations of Europe perhaps 7000 years ago, according to the str-calculations done @ molgen. The latter do not have L1355+ or L1356+ which are found in members of Yakut branch and are all L1026+ while Yakut branch is not.

Edit. apparently amateurs are not the only ones who caught onto that. A study published in Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy (in Russian, "Внутренняя структура якутской ветви гаплогруппы N1c1 Y-хромосомы", Adamov 2014) found what seems to be a defining SNP (M2019) for Yakut branch that separates it from others. All Yakut samples were also M2020+ while other N1c1 clades were not, and there was further substructure with Yakuts splitting into M1933+ and M1991+ branches. Fitting known history, in light of that many unique SNP's and other differences the Yakut branch is not ancestral to more widespread clades but an end to one migratory path like Sub-Saharan  R1b-V88.

----------


## bicicleur

> Generally it's understood that Yakuts got their language from Turkic speakers fleeing the Mongols 700 years ago.
> 
> Whether they got N1c1 that way too is unknown without ancient DNA from Sakha-Yakutia. As seen in the case of Hungarians, a group can change language without the event leaving a significant Y-DNA signal.


why should they change language while fleeing ?

actualy the whole tribe didn't flee, the tribe got killed and just a few survivors escaped
so a founder effect may have created N1c1

----------


## bicicleur

> Regardless of whether Yakut N1c1 came from the Baikal during the Mongol invasions or was there before they became Turkic speaking, it diverged from the N1c1 found in Indo-European and Uralic speaking populations of Europe perhaps 7000 years ago, according to the str-calculations done @ molgen. The latter do not have L1355+ or L1356+ which are found in members of Yakut branch and are all L1026+ while Yakut branch is not.
> 
> Edit. apparently amateurs are not the only ones who caught onto that. A study published in Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy (in Russian, "Внутренняя структура якутской ветви гаплогруппы N1c1 Y-хромосомы", Adamov 2014) found what seems to be a defining SNP (M2019) for Yakut branch that separates it from others. Fitting known history, in light of that and other differences the Yakut branch is not ancestral to more widespread clades but an end to one migratory path like Sub-Saharan R1b-V88.


7000 years ago ? that means they probably never made it as far west as Europe ?

----------


## Nobody1

> apparently amateurs are not the only ones who caught onto that. A study published in Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy (in Russian, "Внутренняя структура якутской ветви гаплогруппы N1c1 Y-хромосомы", Adamov 2014) found what seems to be a defining SNP (M2019) for Yakut branch that separates it from others. Fitting known history, in light of that and other differences the Yakut branch is not ancestral to more widespread clades but an end to one migratory path like Sub-Saharan R1b-V88.


Not exactly;
The R1b scenario was a split [P25(M415)] into two diff. migratory routes; The N1c1 scenario is the same migratory route with diff. out branches from it; And the Yakut branch (as such) is of course *not* ancestral to the others but what created the Yakut branch upstream is equally ancestral to the other branches;

----------


## Salbrox

> Not exactly;
> The R1b scenario was a split [P25(M415)] into two diff. migratory routes; The N1c1 scenario is the same migratory route with diff. out branches from it; And the Yakut branch (as such) is of course *not* ancestral to the others but what created the Yakut branch upstream is equally ancestral to the other branches;


Genetically that situation is similar to how R1b (M415) is equally ancestral to V88 and P297. The geographical differences in migration routes are relative in comparison, the main difference between the splits of R1b(V88) and N1c1 (M2019) from others is that the men carrying the former travelled a longer distance before settling down.

----------


## Salbrox

> why should they change language while fleeing ?
> 
> actualy the whole tribe didn't flee, the tribe got killed and just a few survivors escaped
> so a founder effect may have created N1c1


The fleeing people didn't change language, but the local siberians they mingled with did. Modern Yakuts would be the result of this merger.

----------


## bicicleur

> The fleeing people didn't change language, but the local siberians they mingled with did. Modern Yakuts would be the result of this merger.


'In Siberia, haplogroup N-M46 reaches a maximum frequency of approximately 90% among the Yakuts, a Turkic people who live mainly in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic. However, it is practically non-existent among many of the Yakuts' neighboring ethnic groups, such as Tungusic speakers.'

is what wikipeadia says
if that is correct, I wonder how much intermingling could have happened

----------


## Salbrox

> 'In Siberia, haplogroup N-M46 reaches a maximum frequency of approximately 90% among the Yakuts, a Turkic people who live mainly in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic. However, it is practically non-existent among many of the Yakuts' neighboring ethnic groups, such as Tungusic speakers.'
> 
> is what wikipeadia says
> if that is correct, I wonder how much intermingling could have happened


Quite a lot obviously. N1c frequency contrast there suggests that the incoming turkics imposed both their language and Y-DNA, but also that N1c1 came recently to that part of Siberia and did not have time to spread. Autosomally Yakuts are similar to neighbouring Siberians rather than Turkics of Mongolia and Altai (who are East-Central Asian rather than North Siberian), which is easiest to explain with an elite dominance model. The populations involved must have also been small, because Yakuts have extremely low Y-STR diversity.

It would probably be prudent to some day revise that Hong Shi et al map in a way that moves the main migration route to South Siberia/Central Asia, with diverging arrows moving to North Siberia and ending there. The model they present was more acceptable at the time of publication last year, because most significant Yakut-specific SNP's were not publicized then and they seemed ancestral to many more N1c1 clades in that regard - and only in that regard, not in light of their known population history and Y-STR's.

Y-STR diversity within a haplogroup is greatest in ancestral regions, and in N1c's case that's Southwestern China's Tibeto-Burman population (shown in Hong Shi et al). Second comes Europe, and only then Siberia - _and that's all Siberian N1c put together, not just Yakuts_. If the bulk of N1c was ever in North Siberia before getting to Europe, there should be higher STR diversity and perhaps also ancestral subclades. Last year it seemed that the former didn't exist there, but also that the latter could have, in Yakutia. But science marches on and now it looks like there's neither.

----------


## gyms

More recently, the conventional framework of Uralic studies has been challenged
from two points of view. On the one hand, the so-called Roots Group,
led by Kalevi Wiik (e.g. 2004) and anticipated by János Pusztay (1996), has
proposed that the Uralic comparative corpus, or at least a considerable part of
it, should be explained as the result of areal convergence, rather than genetic divergence.
If this were the case, there would have been no single coherent Proto-
Uralic language, but, rather, two or more regional proto languages and centres
of expansion. In this context, Proto-Uralic has also been described as having
been formed as a regional _lingua franca_ (for a critical review of the issue, cf.,
e.g., Jaakko Häkkinen 2006). On the other hand, it has been claimed, notably by
Angela Marcantonio (2002), that the entire Uralic comparative corpus is simply
not valid and thus requires neither a divergence nor a convergence explanation.
According to this view, the conventional Uralic comparisons and reconstructions
are statistically unlikely to be true. This would be especially so since the
comparative corpus shared by Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic is very small, comprising
hardly more than 200 lexical items.
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf

----------


## Grubbe

> To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.


 Thank you! I have been looking for info on N1c. I have a few Finnish lines among my ancestors (Forest Finns immigrating to Norway via Sweden about 1650), and some of them were probably N1c.

----------


## Petter

> To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.


Very good IMO. I have one comment - the Swedish N is too old to have been caused by population exchange with Finland during the last 800 years, and in any case it is different from Finnish N (as has been made famous by the Rurikids, who carry the Sweden-specific N). It is not impossible that it is linked to the Saami expansion, but I think it is more plausible that it is simply a very old Mesolithic marker in Scandinavia, along with I. (N is in some cases a Siberian and in some cases a Mesolithic marker).

When you say that "Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures.", I'm guessing that you mean "Uralic and Indo-European".

----------


## gyms

> http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA14_23.pdf



http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA6_85.pdf


Nunez bases his model on the assumption that
the zone bordering the ice sheet in eastern Europe
was inhabited in the first place by ProtoUralian
populations. After 10 000 bc, they had
started to spread on the eastern side of the Urals
on the one hand (forefathers of the Samoyeds
and Ob-Ugrians), and north and west across the
Russian Plain on the other hand (other Finnougrians).
The whole of the area between the
Urals and Finland was occupied as early as c.
6000 bc by a population speaking mainly ProtoFinnougrian.

----------


## Jaska

> 1.There is no evidence that N1c is the "original" Finno-Ugric haplogroup.
> 2.There is no evidence for Siberian homeland of Finno-Ugric peoples/languages.
> 3.I-haplogroup (and)subclades are the best candidates for the original Finno-Ugric people.
> 
> Accordingly, in the year 8,000 BC, Europe had at least three large linguistic areas: the comparatively unified area of Uralic languages (U), the western area of Basque languages (B) and, in the centre and south of the continent, an area of many unknown small languages (X).
> 
> My most decisive claim is that the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic languages were born under the influence of the Finno-Ugrian languages in the context of a shift in language from Finno-Ugrian to Indo-European. 
> http://www.finlit.fi/booksfromfinland/bff/399/wiik.htm
> 
> ...


Uralic substrate in Germanic has been totally disproved; unfortunately the debate was mainly in Finnish. 
Besides, we know that:
1. There is a substratum in Germanic, and it has nothing in common with the Uralic languages;
2. The Uralic language only spread from the Volga-Kama region around 2000 BC.

Therefore it is impossible that there could be a Uralic substratum in Germanic.

----------


## Jaska

> 1.There is no evidence that N1c is the "original" Finno-Ugric haplogroup.
> 2.There is no evidence for Siberian homeland of Finno-Ugric peoples/languages.
> 3.I-haplogroup (and)subclades are the best candidates for the original Finno-Ugric people.
> 
> Accordingly, in the year 8,000 BC, Europe had at least three large linguistic areas: the comparatively unified area of Uralic languages (U), the western area of Basque languages (B) and, in the centre and south of the continent, an area of many unknown small languages (X).
> 
> My most decisive claim is that the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic languages were born under the influence of the Finno-Ugrian languages in the context of a shift in language from Finno-Ugrian to Indo-European. 
> http://www.finlit.fi/booksfromfinland/bff/399/wiik.htm
> 
> ...


 
Wiik’s Uralic substrate in Germanic has been disproved already at the 90’s. Besides, we know that:
1. there is a substrate in Germanic, but it has nothing in common with the Uralic languages – neither on the level of words nor phonotactics 
2. Proto-Uralic only spread from the Volga-Kama region around 2000 BC

----------


## Tomenable

*N1c haplogroup tree (dates according to YFull: formation time / TMRCA):



Map 1 (clade L708):



Map 2 (clade L1026):



Map 3 (clade L1034):



Map 4 (clade VL29):



Map 5 (clade L1022):



Map 6 (clade L550 - some of them can be lower in the tree but haven't tested downstream):



Map 7 (clade L1025 - some of them can be M2783 or Y4706 but haven't tested downstream):



Map 8 (clade Y4706):



Here typically Baltic clades start (branch M2783):

Map 9 (clade CTS8173):



Map 10 (clade BY158):



Map 11 (clade Z16975):



Map 12 (clade L551):


*
Source of maps:

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/n-1c-1/dna-results

Tree based on:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N-TAT/

----------


## arvistro

> To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.


This paragraph is absolutely unprofessional. Especially the bolded part seems to come from Anatoly Klyosov and similar freaks...
"The Bronze Age Indo-European Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture (3200-2300 BCE) progressively took over the Baltic region and southern Finland from 2,500 BCE (see History of haplogroup R1a). The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). *Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures*."

----------


## Rethel

> This paragraph is absolutely unprofessional. Especially the bolded part seems to come from Anatoly Klyosov and similar freaks...
> "The Bronze Age Indo-European Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture (3200-2300 BCE) progressively took over the Baltic region and southern Finland from 2,500 BCE (see History of haplogroup R1a). The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). *Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures*."


So what you propose insted?

----------


## arvistro

I do not know, but these are some of mistakes or possible misinterpretations noticed:
*Fatyanovo culture never reached Baltic coasts or Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatyan...lanovo_culture

*"t_he merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE)." and then "_*Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger"
*This implies that Baltic proportions of N1c1 and R1a has something to do with Kiukainen culture. Which is very wrong. There is nothing Baltic about Kiukainen, they could however be North-West IE speakers and probably became a substrate for later Baltic Finns, who formed later with Net Ware culture (http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA13_51.pdf) which own origins were most likely from Upper Volga region.
Also the Baltic N1c patriarch Mr M2783+ was born only 600 BCE. A thousand years after Kiukainen... 

*Slavic cultures as participating into creation of Kiukainen :))))) This is absurd in many levels. 
I hope Maciamo simply misused Slavic instead of Balto-Slavic because to imagine Slavic (pre-Slavic, proto-Slavic) in Finland 1500 BCE is wow :) That is like saying Romance cultures merged with local tribes in Italia to give rise to Oscan and Umbrian.

As to whether those were proto-Balto-Slavic.. Is a good question. Acceptable as version, although after reading bunch of works on subject, it seems they were North-West IE speakers, not really Baltic or Balto-Slavic. 

About Fatyanovo and Baltic, there are many versions. I suppose new mainstream is that Fatyanovo did not really participate in modern Balts ethnogenesys (maybe via being substrate of Baltic Finns -> Livonians -> Latvians). But like I said there are versions and Balticism of Fatyanovo version is not dead yet.

As to Uralic (if we are strict in our terminology - Uralic are those surviving languages derived from proto-Uralic), then it must have been formed near Proto-Indo-Iranians. Baltic loanwords (Balto-Slavic) then those are only in Baltic Finns branch and some rare in Mordvins. PII loanwords are numerous and in every survived Uralic branch and language. So, Comb Ceramic could not be Uralic by definition, but para-Uralic, pre-Uralic or something is possible.

Also Comb Ceramic could not be a direct source for Baltic N, because Baltic N man was born 600 BCE to "parents" that today reside in East Sweden/West Finland.

So, I would just delete that fragment altogether.

----------


## Kristiina

That Hong Shi map is rubbish.  :Smiling:  I am pretty sure it will be refuted when we get ancient yDNA from the relevant areas as their map goes against all subgroup information and ancient yDNA evidence we have.

Bicicleur, “that means Yakuts probably never made it as far west as Europe”
Read this PDF “The European Relatives of the Yakuts” (http://rjgg.molgen.org/index.php/RJG...iewArticle/157)
They identified three N-M2019 lines: B182 branch, “Eur1” branch and Yakut branch, so Yakut branch is in no way ancestral to European N-M2019. Apart from Yakut branch, other N-M2019 lines are not Arctic and Yakut branch is not only Arctic.

Many of you are confident that N1c is Comb Ceramic, although we lack all ancient Comb Ceramic yDNA. I would expect a bit more hard evidence in support of the yDNA theories.

----------


## arvistro

For some reason my post is not showing up. Basically I just offered to delete that paragraph altogether.

----------


## Kristiina

That Hong Shi map is rubbish. :) I am pretty sure it will be refuted when we get ancient yDNA from the relevant areas as their map goes against all subgroup information and ancient yDNA evidence we have.

Bicicleur, “that means Yakuts probably never made it as far west as Europe”
Read the PDF “The European Relatives of the Yakuts”. It is freely available on Internet. 
They identified three N-M2019 lines: B182 branch, “Eur1” branch and Yakut branch, so Yakut branch is in no way ancestral to European N-M2019. Apart from Yakut branch, other N-M2019 lines are not arctic, and Yakut branch is not only arctic.

Many of you are confident that N1c is Comb Ceramic, although we lack all ancient Comb Ceramic yDNA. I would expect a bit more hard evidence. However, this map on the spread of pottery is interesting:

PreNeolithic pottery dispersal.jpg

I am wondering where you would like to place yDNA N with respect to pottery. Comb Ceramic started in Finland c. 4200 BC and N-Z1925 which is frequent in Eastern Finland formed c. 2500 BC and N-CTS10760 which developed into VL29 formed c. 2500 BC.

----------


## arvistro

Yay, my rant post appeared.
As to N, I believe they did arrive with Comb Ceramic and probably spoke some Uralic related language (but only in very limited area it they spoke direct ancestor to all survived Uralic languages, that limited area must have developed close to PII, all other dialects and related Ys went extinct).
Net Ware expansion I believe was responsible for modern VL29 spread and also for spread of Baltic Finnic languages (either it was already Baltic Finnic or part of it became Baltic Finnic, part Mordvinic later, I am not sure yet). Probably later, since Baltic Finnic languages are as close to each other as Slavic languages are, so it is relatively modern phenomenon.

Baltic (Balto - Slavic) N patriarch was born 600 bce in population that seems to be founded in West Finland/ East Sweden (future Kwens?) and it seems arrived directly into Lithuania from where it spread around (Latvian 80% N is just one subbranch of Baltic N; Lithuanians have all of them).

----------


## Kristiina

Sure, N1c in Finland (c. 2500 BC) is too young to be Corded Ware (3200 - 2500 BC) but not too young to be Combed Ware (5000–2000 BC).

----------


## Rethel

> Sure, N1c in Finland (c. 2500 BC) is too young to be Corded Ware (3200 - 2500 BC) but not too young to be Combed Ware (5000–2000 BC).


Could be, but is doubtfull.

Guy could be yet born on Syberia. And there had to be
some group of 100% mongoloid people who settled in
Österland in ~1/10 proportion to local people or 50%
momngoloid in ~1/5 propotion. So, it need some time.
2500BC originated, and create some small tribe... 500
years seems to be enaugh and is a good reason to change
the culture of region after arriving. IT could be the reason,
of the end of Combed Ware.

----------


## arvistro

> Sure, N1c in Finland (c. 2500 BC) is too young to be Corded Ware (3200 - 2500 BC) but not too young to be Combed Ware (5000–2000 BC).


I am not sure I follow.

----------


## Kristiina

It was irony. 

According to yfull, none of the Finnish N lines is old enough for Comb Ceramic. N-Z1934 has a TMRCA of 4500 years, so it could only go back to Corded Ware. N-VL29 is even younger. The TMRCA of the oldest existing N-P43 line everywhere is only 4100 years. Even if it is older, I would not think that it could be that much older to have existed in the Finnish Comb Ceramic. 

However, it is possible that (one of) the Finnish Comb Ceramic yDNAs is an extinct branch of the Volgaic N-Y9022 which formed 7200 years before present or an extinct branch of N-P43 which formed 7600 years before present.

The oldest branches of TAT are in Volga-Ural, Altai and North China, so the oldest TAT lines should be found in the area between Volga Ural and North China. The midpoint is in Kazakhstan.

----------


## Rethel

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2...b_Ware_culture

_
Previously, the dominant view was that the spread of the Comb Ware people was correlated with the diffusion of the Uralic languages, and thus an early Uralic language must have been spoken throughout this culture. However, another more recent view is that the Comb Ware people may have spoken a Paleo-European (pre-Uralic) language, as some toponyms and hydronyms also indicate a non-Uralic, non-Indo-European language at work in some areas.[4]_ 


It perfectly has sense.

----------


## arvistro

> It was irony. 
> 
> According to yfull, none of the Finnish N lines is old enough for Comb Ceramic. N-Z1934 has a TMRCA of 4500 years, so it could only go back to Corded Ware. N-VL29 is even younger. The TMRCA of the oldest existing N-P43 line everywhere is only 4100 years. Even if it is older, I would not think that it could be that much older to have existed in the Finnish Comb Ceramic. 
> 
> However, it is possible that (one of) the Finnish Comb Ceramic yDNAs is an extinct branch of the Volgaic N-Y9022 which formed 7200 years before present or an extinct branch of N-P43 which formed 7600 years before present.
> 
> The oldest branches of TAT are in Volga-Ural, Altai and North China, so the oldest TAT lines should be found in the area between Volga Ural and North China. The midpoint is in Kazakhstan.


OK, that I agree. I think Comb Ware brought now extinct N lines to East Baltics, those lines that survived probably arrived to Finland later. Net Ware or post Net Ware.

----------


## Captain Nordic

> OK, that I agree. I think Comb Ware brought now extinct N lines to East Baltics, those lines that survived probably arrived to Finland later. Net Ware or post Net Ware.


That can not be assumed until we have samples from neolithic finland. We already know that N1c was present in western russia 5k years ago though.

----------


## arvistro

> That can not be assumed until we have samples from neolithic finland. We already know that N1c was present in western russia 5k years ago though.


It cant be proven, but it can be assumed. Main modern Finnic lines have age estimates of having TMRCA of 1000 bce or later. So, whatever N lines were there before, they got replaced by expanding ones after 1000 bce.
Of course if age estimates are correct.

----------


## Ordas

Hi evryone! Can anyone tell me where and when N1a1a1a1 (P298) originated and where it is likly to find it today? 


Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk

----------


## MontyK

> Hi evryone! Can anyone tell me where and when N1a1a1a1 (P298) originated and where it is likly to find it today? 
> 
> 
> Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk


Hello Ordas,

P298, also known as M2126 is the father clade of L1026 and M2019. L1026 makes up the vast majority of N1c in Europe while M2019 is much more rare. If your paternal line is Hungarian you are probably either M2783 which is Baltic or L1034 which was brought to Hungary with the Magyars. With that being said there is a branch of M2019 which has been found in Hungary although IMO it is unlikely that is your branch.

If you’ve tested with FtDNA I recommend you join the N North Eurasia project for more details or take another test to get more resolution.

Edit: I apologize, I have just seen your other posts. If you really are M2019 and L1026 negative I would highly recommend you take another YDNA specific test as you probably belong to a highly divergent unknown branch.

----------


## Ordas

Thank you for your answer. I tested with Living DNA. They don't provide their negative maches, so I'm not sure about that. I think I will join some ftDNA project in the future.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk

----------


## Ordas

> Hello Ordas,
> 
> P298, also known as M2126 is the father clade of L1026 and M2019. L1026 makes up the vast majority of N1c in Europe while M2019 is much more rare. If your paternal line is Hungarian you are probably either M2783 which is Baltic or L1034 which was brought to Hungary with the Magyars. With that being said there is a branch of M2019 which has been found in Hungary although IMO it is unlikely that is your branch.
> 
> If you’ve tested with FtDNA I recommend you join the N North Eurasia project for more details or take another test to get more resolution.
> 
> Edit: I apologize, I have just seen your other posts. If you really are M2019 and L1026 negative I would highly recommend you take another YDNA specific test as you probably belong to a highly divergent unknown branch.


Could you, or enyone here tell me which snp-s should be tested for further details?


Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk

----------


## Ordas

> Could you, or enyone here tell me which snp-s should be tested for further details?
> 
> 
> Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk


Just for the understanding: is it necesary to have all the snp-s in the picture to be in this subclade , or are these just different names for the same snp? I'm just not sure I got it right...

Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk

----------


## 50cal

> OK, that I agree. I think Comb Ware brought now extinct N lines to East Baltics, those lines that survived probably arrived to Finland later. Net Ware or post Net Ware.


How would you explain the distribution of R1a and N within Latvia? The research was carried out by the University of Latvia, but I can't seem to find it anywhere online right now. 

Long story short, R1a correlates with Livonian speaking areas with peaks in Northern Courland, which is mind-boggling and completely counter-intuitive in respect to the traditional understanding of N as being Finnic and R1a as being Baltic. N peaked in Eastern Latvia as well. It 'should' be the other way around.

Could we be talking about a language shift here? Could Livonians actually be much more recent newcomers? Could they possibly be Finnicized Balts/Slavs? Or, more conservatively, is it just a massive bottleneck effect at work? If it's the latter and the effects of the 17th century plague on the Latvian genome are so huge, it really puts things into perspective.

----------


## arvistro

I remember that study.
Estonians when compared to East Balts (both LV and LT) have less N %, somewhat more R1a %, increased I1 %.
In former Livonian areas it is similar-ish. 
So, my take was historical Livonians were genetically pretty much like Estonians.

And another take - N in Balts had very little to do with Livonians. 

Possibly it had to do with some other guys, maybe Selonians. At least former Selonian regions have elevated Baltic N %. Lithuanian NE and Latvian East.

----------


## 50cal

No, I believe the R1a rate was much higher when compared to Estonia. And the I1 part is a topic worth a separate discussion. 
Vagoth/Gotlander settlements along the Baltic coast, as well as in Courland and the Estonian isles seem to have been permanent. Hybrid Curonian/Gotlander cultures and the West-East I1 gradient are all indicative of that. There's also a clear Norse influence on Livonians.

I don't buy the part about Selonians. It's more likely there were several waves of N migrations towards the Baltic area. But the general share of N is quite similar throughout the Baltics.

It does look like most of Northern Courland was wiped out during the Northern War, though. 99% of the Livonian population there perished. That would probably do it.

----------


## arvistro

> No, I believe the R1a rate was much higher when compared to Estonia. And the I1 part is a topic worth a separate discussion. 
> Vagoth/Gotlander settlements along the Baltic coast, as well as in Courland and the Estonian isles seem to have been permanent. Hybrid Curonian/Gotlander cultures and the West-East I1 gradient are all indicative of that. There's also a clear Norse influence on Livonians.
> 
> I don't buy the part about Selonians. It's more likely there were several waves of N migrations towards the Baltic area. But the general share of N is quite similar throughout the Baltics.
> 
> It does look like most of Northern Courland was wiped out during the Northern War, though. 99% of the Livonian population there perished. That would probably do it.


Where would they get that mass R1a from then? After Northern War? From Poland or Russia to Northern Curonia?

----------


## laint

> No, I believe the R1a rate was much higher when compared to Estonia. And the I1 part is a topic worth a separate discussion. 
> Vagoth/Gotlander settlements along the Baltic coast, as well as in Courland and the Estonian isles seem to have been permanent. Hybrid Curonian/Gotlander cultures and the West-East I1 gradient are all indicative of that. There's also a clear Norse influence on Livonians.
> 
> I don't buy the part about Selonians. It's more likely there were several waves of N migrations towards the Baltic area. But the general share of N is quite similar throughout the Baltics.
> 
> It does look like most of Northern Courland was wiped out during the Northern War, though. 99% of the Livonian population there perished. That would probably do it.


Source for higher N in Selonia is because of Votians, who were captured during Livonian Order wars against Novgorod, and as a 3000 POW Votians(Rüsche/Krieviņi) were settled near Bauska in 1445 in empty lands, who were ravaged by Lithuanians. Selonia is also least populated region, so that's a huge number of population for that era. 3000 is ~1% for whole population in borders of Latvia in 15th century, so in Selonia alone that % changed by 10 times more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreevins

Entry point of Livonians to modern Latvia territory is from Saaremaa around 6-8th century. 
If we compare 12. century map with major settlements, then there are ~60 Curonian and ~10 Livonian settlements of whom at least half of Livonian settlements falls in shared area with Curonians. Not to mention, that Livonians diluted their y-dna when they went through Estonia, why would anyone expect some high N in Courland? Especially, if there is idea, that Curonians inhabited Saaremaa during their maximum extent.
https://uzd-resources.azureedge.net/...r114-w1200.jpg
Curonians expelled Livonians to eastern side of Riga bay around 8th century, where Semigallians were living before.



The reason for N higher in Eastern Latvia is because of influx of Proto-Latvians-Lithuanians, who migrated towards West around 5-6th century, because of new migrant Slavic pressure and ancestors of ancient Proto-Latvians-Lithuanians were in closer proximity to Finnic for longer time, than rest of ancient Baltic tribes. That is where most of N in Lithuania and Latvia is coming from and not from Livonians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...rope_3-4cc.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...rope_5-6cc.png


There is observation of N spread in Kievan Rus from Novgorod, but it doesn't have much to do with modern Baltic people, who were not part of Kievan Rus.

----------


## arvistro

Nah, not Votians... there is no reason to believe those guys had N lines under L1025, M2783 (where they come from L550 and Estonian-ish N lineages should be more common), which is what you notice in big concentrations NE Lithuania (Aukstaitija, Selonian LT part, btw ‘Saali’ in Livonian means highlanders, just like ‘Aukstaitians’ later in Lithuanian).

It is more likely proto-East Balts encountered and absorbed N from previous population (Pre-Selonians) right there in NE Lithuania.

----------


## 50cal

> Where would they get that mass R1a from then? After Northern War? From Poland or Russia to Northern Curonia?


A Swedish naval blockade basically genocided the entire coastal Livonian population in Courland. Imagine entire communities dead, with literally no or just a few survivors. It was a huge surprise for me as I researched it, since none of this is well-known or included in school curriculums. An outbreak of plague combined with a naval blockade really changed the genetic landscape in Latvia.

These territories experienced a massive bottleneck effect. The surviving individuals were so few and far apart, they didn't represent the previous/original genetic reality. It's just a random effect, pure chance. Nothing to do with Poles or Russians.

----------


## 50cal

> Source for higher N in Selonia is because of Votians, who were captured during Livonian Order wars against Novgorod, and as a 3000 POW Votians(Rüsche/Krieviņi) were settled near Bauska in 1445 in empty lands, who were ravaged by Lithuanians. Selonia is also least populated region, so that's a huge number of population for that era. 3000 is ~1% for whole population in borders of Latvia in 15th century, so in Selonia alone that % changed by 10 times more.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreevins
> 
> Entry point of Livonians to modern Latvia territory is from Saaremaa around 6-8th century. 
> If we compare 12. century map with major settlements, then there are ~60 Curonian and ~10 Livonian settlements of whom at least half of Livonian settlements falls in shared area with Curonians. Not to mention, that Livonians diluted their y-dna when they went through Estonia, why would anyone expect some high N in Courland? Especially, if there is idea, that Curonians inhabited Saaremaa during their maximum extent.
> https://uzd-resources.azureedge.net/...r114-w1200.jpg
> Curonians expelled Livonians to eastern side of Riga bay around 8th century, where Semigallians were living before.
> 
> 
> ...


Can you please elaborate your obscure theory on the emergence of Livonians? It's generally accepted they have been inhabiting Courland since the Bronze age.

----------


## laint

> Can you please elaborate your obscure theory on the emergence of Livonians? It's generally accepted they have been inhabiting Courland since the Bronze age.



Well, you are confused about these things:

*It is generally accepted, that Uralics reached and inhabitated Courland in Bronze Age.* And that the first Uralics in Baltic were most probably Saami people.

Livonians are not that old to be there from Bronze Age... not to mention that it would require some explanation about center of emergence of Finnish languages and Courland is far from it.

----------


## laint

> Nah, not Votians... there is no reason to believe those guys had N lines under L1025, M2783 (where they come from L550 and Estonian-ish N lineages should be more common), which is what you notice in big concentrations NE Lithuania (Aukstaitija, Selonian LT part, btw ‘Saali’ in Livonian means highlanders, just like ‘Aukstaitians’ later in Lithuanian).
> 
> It is more likely proto-East Balts encountered and absorbed N from previous population (Pre-Selonians) right there in NE Lithuania.


Let me repeat again:
*Source for higher N in Selonia is because of Votians
*
Nowhere else I mentioned, that ALL of N comes from Votians.
Selonians and Aukstaitians basically ceased to exist after Letts-Leits moved in. Unlike Selonians, who have limited cultural and even linguistical differences from Letts and the main one is only name, Aukstaitians were completelly absorbed and are considered Lithuanians where Aukstaitians are synonym for Lithuanians.

There were many people who had Votian roots thorough Selonia - most prominent is Rainis. Krieviņi in Selonia were not even marginal group - it is the problem of today that population has amnesia about anything preWW2.

There was also large population of Estonians/Seto in eastern Latvia, which started to assimilate into Latvians only during first republic of Latvia. So, those N sources are different:
more recent Estonian-ish, Komi-Mari-Mordvian that were brought with Letts/Leits and the ones that absorbed in preLatvian Baltic population were probably more proto-Saamic.

Y‐Chromosomal Lineages of Latvians in the Context of the Genetic Variation of the Eastern‐Baltic Region
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/ahg.12130




> Kasperaviciute et al. (2004) found differences in the variance of the N1c Y‐STR between Baltic‐ and Finno‐Ugric‐speakers of the region: the 15 repeat STR marker DYS19 was more frequent in Lithuanians (93%) and Latvians (80.6%), whereas the same variant was significantly (_p_ ≤ 0.05) less frequent among Estonians (25.0%), and even less so among Finns (9.3%). In contrast, among Estonians and Finns a 14 repeat allele was more frequent (60.0% and 86.0%, respectively) (Kasperaviciute et al., 2004; Lappalainen et al., 2008). The Td estimate of 8000 years for hg N1c1a among Latvian lineages was found to be similar to those proposed for the Lithuanian and Estonian hg N1c carriers (Kasperaviciute et al., 2004). Our detailed analysis of the Latvian Y‐chromosomal gene pool supports the previously stated idea (Zerjal et al., 1997; Kasperaviciute et al., 2004; Lappalainen et al., 2008) that observed differences of hg N1c haplotype variants between the Baltic‐ and Finno‐Ugric‐speaking populations could indicate that two migration waves have introduced hg N1c founder haplotypes (“Baltic” and “Fennoscandian”) to the Eastern coast of the Baltic Sea.

----------


## arvistro

> Can you please elaborate your obscure theory on the emergence of Livonians? It's generally accepted they have been inhabiting Courland since the Bronze age.


What Bronze Age?
Baltic BA samples from Kivutkalns (-1000; -200 BCE) cover several centuries and are 100% R1a and very similar to that Lithuanian BA sample that was also R1a, and looked pretty much like ancestor of modern Balts.

Later we have Baltic IA sample from North Lithuanian Barrow Culture (200-500 AD) with the correct N (L-1025) to be among direct N grandpas of modern Balts.

The Baltic IA sample autosomally looked like 3 parts Lithuanian plus 1 part FU Erzya folk. Apparently not that long time ago his grandparents arrived from around Volga.
Modern Balts autosomally look like mostly descending from Lithuanian BA sample, with some admixture from EHG and farmers.

So, in my head it goes like this until new data:
1) post CW folk similar to Kivutkalns living in East Baltic (NW IE? North Baltic? West Baltic?)
2) arrival of Ananino - Malar axes that coincides with demise of Kivutkalns center. That would be arrival of FU folk, careers of N1c L1025 among others. That is around -500;0 AD.
3) and then push North (North - West) by East Balts that were pretty much Lithuanian BA like folk. That is around 0-700 AD.

----------


## laint

> A Swedish naval blockade basically genocided the entire coastal Livonian population in Courland. Imagine entire communities dead, with literally no or just a few survivors. It was a huge surprise for me as I researched it, since none of this is well-known or included in school curriculums. An outbreak of plague combined with a naval blockade really changed the genetic landscape in Latvia.
> 
> These territories experienced a massive bottleneck effect. The surviving individuals were so few and far apart, they didn't represent the previous/original genetic reality. It's just a random effect, pure chance. Nothing to do with Poles or Russians.


That would explain only bottleneck of Livonian population, but not influx of R1a in Livonians. Most probably R1a comes from earlier assimilation of Curonians done by Livonians. Not to mention, that part of Livonian R1a comes from venturing through Estonia, which during Livonian traversing had much more R1a and probably some of that population also was speaking Baltic. Livonians did a lot of assimilations and some of them are well documented - like it was with mixed population of Koknese. Most of assimilations done by Livonians are not documented and there is no need to assume, that Livonian spread was in empty lands or that Livonian arrival was followed with genocide of locals. Anyway - all of areas Livonians settled in Latvia was settled by someone else already.

PS If you are refering to Northern War, then the main issue was bubonic plague. Basically does not even come close to "for sure", because rest of territory in Latvia was depopulated in similar proportions - do some proper research first and you could visit something much further from coast, like castle of Dobele, that has a very nice story about owners and daughters, who were few survivors in that area. There were naval blockades in Crimean war, too and basically they did not had that devastating impact on local population you are trying to paint.

----------


## arvistro

Re:
Votians :) do you think they had higher percent of N than Estonians? Maybe they made percent of N lower than higher.

Repeat it again :) but this time if you could back it up by facts (y-dna N proportion in survives Votians population or in genetic tests for folk with Krievins surname)

----------


## laint

> Re:
> Votians :) do you think they had higher percent of N than Estonians? Maybe they made percent of N lower than higher.
> 
> Repeat it again :) but this time if you could back it up by facts (y-dna N proportion in survives Votians population or in genetic tests for folk with Krievins surname)


Let me use your words:



> There is no reason to believe


© that Votians of 13th century should have less N y-dna, than modern Latvians in those regions. And if you are asking for me to back up data, maybe you should do it first by providing data that does back up your faulty logic about Selonians.


To be fair, that research did not specify Selonia, but only Semigallia, however from coordinates given for Semigallia, it also included western part of Selonia. And Bauska and that western part of Selonia was main receiver of Votes.
Here is what you probably don't realize:
1. Livonians had much higher N share than mainland Estonia, because Livonians took Sea route, where they did not need to mingle with mainland locals with high R1a share.
Main mixing for Livonians happened in Courland. 
Livonian count was smaller than Curonians. 
Lots of Livonians were expelled by Curonians. 
Max N that comes from Livonians(along with Southern Estonians) in Latvian is less than 20%(of all N in Latvia).
2. Western Balts(Curonians and Selonians) initially had minimal % of N. Probably none at all.

Also, Semigallia is rather bad egg, because of history that had regular expulsions of original population in 13th century. Most of central Semigallia had to be repopulated by Semigallians and Selonians of Eastern Semigallia and later there was also heavy influx of Livonians around Jelgava. Most probably before these events R1a might have been at the same high levels comparable to other Western Balts. The fact that it has such high N % nowadays is mainly because of Livonians. And settling Votes in Eastern Semigallia added more N % share as well and without them it might have been similar to Courland.


Research mentioned these N1c lineages:
15 repeat STR marker DYS19 Lithuanians 93% ; Latvians 80.6%, Estonians 25% Finns 9.3% - this variation is not coming from Estonia, but from mixed Latvian-Lithuanian ancestry
14 repeat allele Estonians 60%; Finns 86% - this variation is Finnish-Estonian-Livonian-Votian
others Estonians 15%; Finns 4% - probably Saami is main source
it doesn't mean, that all others were present in Latvia already and is not brought by those 2 biggest groups as a ride-along.




> Nah, not Votians... there is no reason to believe those guys had N lines under L1025, M2783 (where they come from L550 and Estonian-ish N lineages should be more common), which is what you notice in big concentrations NE Lithuania (Aukstaitija, Selonian LT part, btw ‘Saali’ in Livonian means highlanders, just like ‘Aukstaitians’ later in Lithuanian).


This doesn't collerate with data in paper - Lithuanian N1c have almost exclusivelly one source with 93% of that DYS19 marker and *Lithuanian N1c is not from Estonia* :P




> Possibly it had to do with some other guys, maybe Selonians.


I do not think you have actual idea, what Selonians were. They were native population of this region and could not be any source for N. All the N they had, they received from later influx of population.

Selonians + Aukstaitians = Highlanders
Semigallians + Zemaitians = Lowlanders
Lowlanders + (assimilated Daugava and Gauja Lowlanders) + Highlanders + (assimilated Daugava right bank Highlanders) + (assimilated Estonian Highlanders) = East branch of West Balts.
All their N at best might have been from Saami ancestry. And most of N of Selonians and Aukstaitians comes from later influx of Latvians-Lithuanians. And there is no better picture, than those Lithuanian 93% DYS19 among N1c, that proves that main source for N1c in Latvian and Lithuanian populations comes from arrival of Latvians-Lithuanians.

----------


## arvistro

So, you don’t have data  :Sad:  that is so sad.

But we have some ancient dna, so maybe we can get somewhere:)

First N1c of Baltic type (Baltic_IA) so far was found in Northern Lithuania 200-500 AD (NLBC culture). It had foreign autosoms, best approximated with modern populations as 3 parts modern Lithuanian and one part Erzya. 
Before 0 AD (but after CW) all ancient samples from Baltics found so far were 100% R1a and pretty much modern Balts autosomally. So, some Erzya like L1025 men brought it there. Their journey must have started somewhere near Volga. 

This NLBC culture participated in genesis of both later Semigalians and Selonians. Selonians initially were NE Lithuanian folk (modern Baltic N hotspot). Selonians must have been (or become) a mixed culture since their ethnonym is Finnic (highlanders), but their hillforts and leaders in historical times have already Baltic names (i.e. Selpils). 

If Tarand graves (culture that is clearly Baltic Finns) new research brings up N folk that autosomally look exactly like Baltic_IA, then the case is settled.

----------


## laint

> Hi evryone! Can anyone tell me where and when N1a1a1a1 (P298) originated and where it is likly to find it today? 
> 
> 
> Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk


MontyK is wrong there - it has nothing to do with Baltic, as Baltic actually have Finnic and Mari N1a(I'm still getting over my failure of posting wallpaper with all that information, that I tried to post earlier) and are children branches, that branched off this clades children branch along with the ones found in Chukci and Yakuts. Anyway, I am not much help there as well.

My wild guess is that it was one of truly Magyar N1a, that migrated all the way from Southern Urals to Pannonia. But I would assume, that you might have N1a1a1a1b2-A9408 or something else, as my Genographic project v2(the reason I choose it, because it offered right to delete all my data from there and anonymity) sent me, that I was N1a1-M46/Page70/Tat and in reality it is something down the line... but yeah, for me that information was all I needed anyway,as I don't have that much options to choose in the region of my ancestors anyway.

----------


## laint

> So, you don’t have data  that is so sad.
> 
> But we have some ancient dna, so maybe we can get somewhere:)
> 
> First N1c of Baltic type (Baltic_IA) so far was found in Northern Lithuania 200-500 AD (NLBC culture). It had foreign autosoms, best approximated with modern populations as 3 parts modern Lithuanian and one part Erzya. 
> Before 0 AD (but after CW) all ancient samples from Baltics found so far were 100% R1a and pretty much modern Balts autosomally. So, some Erzya like L1025 men brought it there. Their journey must have started somewhere near Volga. 
> 
> This NLBC culture participated in genesis of both later Semigalians and Selonians. Selonians initially were NE Lithuanian folk (modern Baltic N hotspot). Selonians must have been (or become) a mixed culture since their ethnonym is Finnic (highlanders), but their hillforts and leaders in historical times have already Baltic names (i.e. Selpils). 
> 
> If Tarand graves (culture that is clearly Baltic Finns) new research brings up N folk that autosomally look exactly like Baltic_IA, then the case is settled.


My previous effort to post wallpaper failed, so I will be very brief(kinda).

1. Most of data was before y-dna became thing. I really need to save those links, but recently I've read paper, where Russians identified tribe, that was culturally Uralic, but spoke Baltic, so y-dna data even today can't be used to identify culture or language - it can only identify ancestry.

2. I know, that is common mistake - maybe even I made it some time ago, but looking on map helps a lot. Erzya are in blue - in East, so it is impossible, that Baltic had any parts of Erzya(this is rather naming problem and I think Mari is proper name for that):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M...rdovia_map.svg

I don't think, that Baltic had any parts of Moksha either. I do remember that theory about Mordvian link, but for years it has irked me about Mari people how similar their ethnography was to Latvians.


3. Selonians are sibling-nation to Semigallians - depending on perspective it can be said that Selonians are eastern Semigallians. Most probably before arrival of Letts they were undistinguishable from each other. They never mixed with Finnic people - archeology does not show that. What it shows is that Selonians were influenced a lot by Letts, so their N1a comes from them. If you are interested in Selonians, there were some archeological digging done in prewar Latvia on right bank of Daugava - not to mention linguistical substrate of Selonians in Vidzeme.

3a. Also what a silly concept, that if Selonians had Livonian name, therefore they mixed with them. Same with Latvians actually - but surprise, surprise - they differ from Estonian N1a. I mean we established that already. 
Curonians have Latin name(corsare - seamen), but it is known that Curonians were related to Prussians and there is no hint that they had any ties to Romanians.

4. Modern Latvians were released from serfdom only in late 19th century - that's where comes idea, that all of them lived there from immemorial times and they think, that they can trace their ancestry to ancient tribes. That is a big lie - most of modern Latvian ancestry comes from Letts, as they settled in territories of ancient tribes that were wiped out. Only Letts did not fought against Germans - Curonians were wiped out, and many of them went and created Samogitia with Zemaitians and Semigallians. Selonians were not numerous and they were already assimilated by Letts before Germans arrived. So, even if Curonians and Semigallians were mainly R1a, wars and creation of Livonia shuffled people around. By 15th century there were no more ancient tribes of previous folks, but only one - Lett tribe with dialectial variations in language, where even Latgalian "language" had this influence from Nieder-Saxons, as it has bērns - same word that Scots received as bairn from Saxons.

5. I don't think, that autosomal genes work like that... You know, for example, if you import some dude from Africa, his descendants will have same autosomal genes that other people around them have. This is the reason why Uralic people in Europe look European and not Chinese, even if they originated from China. Because very important part of autosomal genes comes from BOTH parents, so the reason why you look similar to locals is that your paternal ancestors were taking local women as wives. To be fair, it takes 3 generations at max to water out any difference in your exotic ancestry - I know from my own diverse ancestors on mother side. So, this goes both ways.
Autosomal genes work the same as mixing liquid: 
1st generation has 50% of both parent genes.
2nd generation will have only 1/4 or 25% of nonlocal autosomal genes
3rd generation will have 1/8 
4th will have ~6% 
5th will have 3%
6th ~1.5%
7th 0.8%
8th 0.3%
I would stop at 3rd generation to allow claim native ancestry in America for non native people... even if they threaten to sue someone in court  :Laughing:

----------


## arvistro

1) did not get your argument
2) update yourself on autosomes. When something can be modeled as 1/4 Erzya, 3/4 Lithuanian. It is not meant to be taken literally. It just shows you direction from where part of people that were later assimilated into Semigallians arrived. Letts arrived much later.
3) you seem to miss the main point - N was found in Semigall/Selonian ancestor population. The only tested sample from them. But you keep repeating that N arrived with Letts later :)))
4) no, you are wrong. The myth of “wiped out” is equal to myth of “did not mix”. Of course they mixed and of course part of genes can be traced back to ancient tribes. 
5) That is what I am saying, that N guy, one of ancestors of later Semigall, Samogitian, Selonian people was apparently descendant of some not yet fully diluted migrants from somewhere around Volga, perhaps Finnic speakers originally. Later his ancestry got diluted when more East Balts arrived from somewhere South East of Baltics.

----------


## Ordas

> MontyK is wrong there - it has nothing to do with Baltic, as Baltic actually have Finnic and Mari N1a(I'm still getting over my failure of posting wallpaper with all that information, that I tried to post earlier) and are children branches, that branched off this clades children branch along with the ones found in Chukci and Yakuts. Anyway, I am not much help there as well.
> 
> My wild guess is that it was one of truly Magyar N1a, that migrated all the way from Southern Urals to Pannonia. But I would assume, that you might have N1a1a1a1b2-A9408 or something else, as my Genographic project v2(the reason I choose it, because it offered right to delete all my data from there and anonymity) sent me, that I was N1a1-M46/Page70/Tat and in reality it is something down the line... but yeah, for me that information was all I needed anyway,as I don't have that much options to choose in the region of my ancestors anyway.


Thank you Iaint, in the meantime I tested at ftDNA BigY and you are right I have down the line from A9408 final SNP is PH106 (PH1612) so it is the Yakut Soyot branch.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## laint

> If Tarand graves (culture that is clearly Baltic Finns) new research brings up N folk that autosomally look exactly like Baltic_IA, then the case is settled.


1. What case?
I would not care that much about autosomal comparisions... because the main tendency is that neighbours have the same, but slightly different autosomal genes. In other words - it means nothing, compared to y-dna, besides mtdna of Baltic region is present all over Europe.

2. Yeah, I get it now - I've jumped on gun of "Erzya" without noticing "like".

3. When exactly? And at what time? What type of N? Could you cite a link, please? I'm genuinelly interested. But I don't think, that it is the case, though - more detailed explanation in 5.

The problem with Semigallians is that current history teaches, that they were moving into Latvia from Lithuania only in 5th century or so, but we can let it slide for the sake of argument, as some of the Semigallian settlements were there before that date. I understand, that so far samples from early 5th century AD were predominantly R1a and one sample, doesn't really change main direction for Semigallians/Selonians.

Anyway, I'm not here to prove my point, but learn - my real passion is to get to the root of this and if it is something, that does not corrobate with what I've constructed, I'm more than happy to adapt and change it ;)

4. I'm sorry, but I was not really specific - by "wiped out" I meant, that their manpower(essentially also able to breed men) was not usable to make war and that big part of Curonians moved to Samogitia(and also - to be fair not all of them moved, because some parts of Samogitia consisted of Curonian and Semigallian lands), just like a big part of western Semigallians. Of course, not everyone were wiped out 100% - I'm not making THAT statement, but enough to require influx of fresh settlers from other regions, essentially making locals extinct and their distinct identity in the process.

5. Can't agree on that Semigallians and Selonians are descendants of the same group and came along the same route as Letts-Lithuanians. Nothing supports that thinking.

1) First, their cultural and liguistical commonity points to west Selonians/Semigallians are more related to Prussians, than to Latvians/Lithuanians, or actually - most probably their own center. 
Historical vowel shifts in Latvian and Lithuanian languages points to Selonian as local archaical substrate, that is used as a base for modern Latvians-Lithuanians. I have no idea what language used Latvian/Lithuanian ancestors, but IT IS NOT proto-Baltic, as that seems like a construction, that is what happens when Latvian and Lithuanian is cleared of language that used Latvian and Lithuanian ancestors.
2) Then there is other problem - related to theory, of first group of Baltic people arriving from south. It has archeological findings, that points to that direction. In 90s there were publications, of findings of ancient Baltic teeth similarities to Romania region.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ure-en.svg.png
Anyway, it might be possible, that ancestors of Balts initially dispersed to north from Ukraine - that includes those regions from where Latvians/Lithuanians came from, maybe there was some moving back and forth - Golads in Moscow region hardly is an exception. But looking on the dispersal map of Corded Ware culture, Baltic is like an offshot to northern region. And proving, that initial N, that is present in east would mean that it also came from south, but we see, that there are two main groups of dispersal of N in Baltic - one is from Karelia(the term, that also includes central Finland), and other that is nowadays present as a remnant of wave from east.


It would be hard to link that Latvian/Lithuanian belonged to Brushed Pottery culture, so it is belonging to Dniepr-Dvina culture. (Well... there are publications, that points to that Dniepr-Dvina culture link of Latvian/Lithuanian ancestry, but I have no link...)
It corresponds to earliest Lithuanian and Latvian settlements in Latvia and Lithuania. So, it leaves only Selonian-Semigallian group(along wih their southern variations Aukstaitian-Žemaitian) as Brushed pottery group, which was more local and indigenous, compared to Latvian/Lithuanian. It was almost near core of emergence of Balts and also R1a for that matter, too.

Also, it makes no sense to assume, that Brushed pottery came from East, and that applies also to Selonians. A couple of hundreds years without borders, visas and passport control is enough for people to mix - plenty of time for that, but even prior Latvian and Lithuanian ancestor push to west main seeping of N most probably came from ancestors of Latvians/Lithuanians.

----------


## teftelis

*It would be hard to link that Latvian/Lithuanian belonged to Brushed Pottery culture, so it is belonging to Dniepr-Dvina culture. (Well... there are publications, that points to that Dniepr-Dvina culture link of Latvian/Lithuanian ancestry, but I have no link...)
It corresponds to earliest Lithuanian and Latvian settlements in Latvia and Lithuania. So, it leaves only Selonian-Semigallian group(along wih their southern variations Aukstaitian-Žemaitian) as Brushed pottery group, which was more local and indigenous, compared to Latvian/Lithuanian. It was almost near core of emergence of Balts and also R1a for that matter, too.

*You have no idea at all what are you talking about, East-Lithuanian Barrow culture dated 2nd-3rd-12th AD centuries from which Lithuanian tribe came directly stems from Brushed Pottery culture, not Dnieper-Dvina I've never seen any publications suggesting that Lithuanian or Latvian ethnos or tribes if we're going into specific formed in Dnieper-Dvina culture. Funny that you also don't have any links or references. Semigalians/Samogitians/Selonians formed on the basis of West-Baltic Barrow culture migrating from Baltic coast into and running into BPC culture and formed Barrow culture of Northern Lithuania and Southern-Latvia on which basis later Samogitians/Semigalians and Selonians tribes later differentiated. Read  Tucas R, evolution of population of Lithuania territory in the 1 12 centuries AD, E. Jovaiša, Aisčiai kilmė, also works by Luchtanas and Zabiela.

----------


## laint

That's like mentioning that in 250AD ancient Romans were natives in modern France and came before Gauls, because clearly before them there was no history at all.

*Lithuanian barrow culture is insignificant* in current discussion trend, because it is only Lithuanian locality and *can't be a source for both Latvian and Lithuanian N1a*.


I have an idea - stick to the topic, please.

----------


## arvistro

So, I am interested in those R1a samples of 500 AD you mentioned earlier, because I know only of this sample:
It is highly likely but not formally confirmed that n was L1025, so Baltic type. Below he found Karelia for Finnish like genes, in article it was Erzya, so something Finnish was there.
Copy from Tomenable:
“Bronze Age Balts published so far were all R1a, but Early Medieval (MA) Balt DA171 (ca. 350-650 AD) had N1c. I tried to model DA171 autosomally as a mixture of Bronze Age (BA) Balts and modern Non-Baltic populations, to check if he had any extra admixture that possibly arrived together with N1c.

Here is a rather good model that I got:

Lithuania-MA (DA171):

Latvia-BA 52.5 %
Poland_Sudovia 20.5 %
Belarus_Vitebsk 18.6 %
*Finland_Karelia 8.4 %
Lithuania-BA 0%

Map showing location of DA171 burial:

https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map.../54.453/28.459

=====

Before you ask, I wasn't using Global25 for this model. Is DA171 also available in Global25 spreadsheet?*

----------


## teftelis

>*Lithuanian barrow culture is insignificant in current discussion trend, because it is only Lithuanian locality and can't be a source for both Latvian and Lithuanian N1a.

*How is it insignificant? You brought it up that Latvians and Lithuanians can't be from Brushed Pottery culture, archaeologically all of Lithuanian and Latvian tribes in broad sense like Selonians,Semigalians,Lithuanians,Samogitians, Curonians all of them formed on the basis of Brushed Pottery culture some with additional influx of West Baltic burrow culture or vice versa from Lithuanian/Latvian/Prussian coast. Do you have anything to back up your theories other than your own opinion?

Attachment 10791

----------

