# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups > N1c >  When could possibly Ugrofinians have come to Europe?

## Rethel

As I remember, in 80s and 90s the popular theory among lingustics
and archeologists was saying, that uralic peoples came to Finland
about 2000 or 3000 years ago.

In this diagram http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/SNP-N-TREE-FIN.jpg
will see, that common ancestor of northeuropean berers of hg N lived some
4400 years ago and he was probably geographicly located rather in Syberia
than in Europe. So, it wouldn't be so strange, if his descendands would came
to us couple of hundrets of years later. It would perfectly fit to older theories.

But the interesting thing is who was before them?
Oldeuropeans or maybe Indoeuropeans or both?
Whoever wouldn't be lives there, it must be pretty
empty space like northern Russia at the present day.

The second option can be support by
one of the oldest R1a findings in Karelia.
Or maybe majority of living there people
were of totatly different ancestry?

Some linguists claim that first were Indoeuropeans,
because the oldest toponims are indoeuropean, 
especially in Finland. So... who and when?  :Smile:

----------


## bicicleur

nice tree

before Finns, Germanic farmers lived in Southern Finland
about 600 BC climate become cooler and farming was no longer possible in these areas
Germanic farmer tribes started to move south and most of them left Finland
instead of Germanic farmers, Finnish hunters came in from the Russian forests

Germanic farming tribes descend from Nordic Bronze Age


about this climate period :

The Nordic Bronze Age was characterized first by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC (comparable to that of present-day central Germany and northern France). The warm climate permitted a relatively dense population and good farming; for example, grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time. A wetter, colder climate prevailed after a minor change in climate between 850 BC and 760 BC, and a more radical one around 650 BC.

The archaeological legacy of the Nordic Bronze Age culture is rich, but the ethnic and linguistic affinities of it are unknown, in the absence of written sources. Some scholars also includes sites in what is now northern Germany, Pomeraniaand Estonia in the Baltic region, as part of its cultural sphere.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age#Climate

----------


## Rethel

> before Finns, Germanic farmers lived in Southern Finland


How far on the north is this south? Half of Finland or maybe only coasts?

Ugrofins as far as Volga and Ural probably was preceeded by some people with prebaltic
languages, becasue they have many borrowings. In Finland for example the very name of
Finns (Suomi) and Lapps (Saami) is consider as indoeuropean. One of the most important
ugrofinian deities is clearly indoeuropean (Perkele). These are only two examples from many.
Yet one example is very interesting, from Syberia - the name Mansi people probably having
the indoeuropean root as well. So I suggest, that we can forget about ugrofinic Kunda aso.

----------


## bicicleur

> How far on the north is this south? Half of Finland or maybe only coasts?
> 
> Ugrofins as far as Volga and Ural probably was preceeded by some people with prebaltic
> languages, becasue they have many borrowings. In Finland for example the very name of
> Finns (Suomi) and Lapps (Saami) is consider as indoeuropean. One of the most important
> ugrofinian deities is clearly indoeuropean (Perkele). These are only two examples from many.
> Yet one example is very interesting, from Syberia - the name Mansi people probably having
> the indoeuropean root as well. So I suggest, that we can forget about ugrofinic Kunda aso.


I think only coastal south Finland, but it is very unclear as you can see from what they say :

The archaeological legacy of the Nordic Bronze Age culture is rich, but the ethnic and linguistic affinities of it are unknown, in the absence of written sources. Some scholars also includes sites in what is now northern Germany, Pomeraniaand Estonia in the Baltic region, as part of its cultural sphere.

this means, they don't know exactly

Kunda is descendant from Polish Swiderian 10.000 BC, which IMO is haplofroup I.
After Kunda there was Karelian hunter HG 5000 BC R1a1 and 4000 BC Serteya R1a1
Earliest HG N1c known in Europe is 2500 BC Serteya

Zhizhitskaya
Russia
Serteya (Smolenskaya oblast) II [A6]
M
2500 BC
N1c




?
Chekunova 2014

----------


## Fire Haired14

Great discussion topic. I'm pretty sure Finno-Urgicsy autosomall are basically the same as their IE neighbors but with Siberian ancestry. Whether that's because they have IE ancestry or because they're a similar mix as IE is unknown. I'll want to look at analysis done on them later. I've heard Uralic-Proto Indo European had contact with each other. I suspect Finno Urgic arrived from Siberia around 3000 BC with N1c1a1a.

----------


## gyms

http://finnugor.elte.hu/?q=fgriea

There are three disciplines – linguistics, archaeology and physical anthropology – which play a decisive role in the elaboration of new approaches to the problem of contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European. However, what must be borne in mind is that the findings of one particular discipline cannot be regarded as being universally valid and that the results of the other two disciplines can be used to a limited extent only for confirming its results. To quote an obvious example: the genetic makeup of the Finnish population is not a valid argument for claiming that the Finno-Ugrian linguistic affinity is a fundamentally misleading theory. This does not follow from a dogmatic acceptance of Finno-Ugrian linguistic affinity, but rather from the rationale that a linguistic theory can only be refuted by another linguistic theory. The genetic ancestry of a population group does not necessarily coincide with the origins of its tongue. Caution must also be exercised in the evaluation of archaeological assemblages. Although the continuity of cultures can be often demonstrated using archaeological methods, archaeological continuity does not necessarily imply the linguistic continuity of the population of the archaeological culture. These are problems which constantly bedevil the scholars of Hungarian prehistory. When the ancient Hungarians occupied their new Carpathian homeland, their material culture was basically identical with that of other steppean peoples, while their language originated from an entirely different environment. Their anthropological makeup reflected this dual origin already at the time of the Conquest. The investigation of the anthropological finds from the first centuries following the foundation of the Hungarian state reflect a considerable mingling between the ancient Hungarians of the Conquest period and 9th century population of the Carpathian Basin. The debate over the exact date of the Hungarian Conquest – fuelled in part by national pride – and the „dual Conquest” theory which has by now become acceptable also in scholarly circles has gradually been channelled onto a more scholarly plane. (Although it must in all fairness be added that the dilettante approach continues to thrive and captivate the imagination of the layman.) We can now witness an increased interest in prehistory also in Finland.

The genetic ancestry of a population group does not necessarily coincide with the origins of its tongue.

----------


## gyms

http://www.sgr.fi/susa/93/rahkonen.pdf

　Review of the Origin and Area of Settlement of the Finno-Ugrian Peoples by Richard Indreko, Heidelberg, 1948
https://www.questia.com/library/jour...tlement-of-the
Indreko's most relevant thesis from the perspective of the Uralic theory is that there appears to be no evidence of migrations from the area of the Ural Mountains, the traditional Uralic homeland, towards the West. On the contrary, it appears to Indreko that populations moved in the opposite direction, basically northwards, in concomitance with the receding ice-sheets. In particular, the first post-Ice Age inhabitants in the area extending from the Baltic Sea up to the Urals were "Finno 
Ugrian" populations of the Europoid type, who moved there from southern and western Europé.

----------


## arvistro

Good question. For a long time scientist mainstream was Comb Ceramic pottery, but now this pretty much sums up the latest thoughts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2...lture#Language

----------


## Rethel

> Good question. For a long time scientist mainstream was Comb Ceramic pottery, but now this pretty much sums up the latest thoughts:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2...lture#Language


Thanks Arvistro!

I copy that here, because it could be gone soon, who knows...

_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] Even then, linguists and archaeologists both have also been skeptical of assigning languages based on the borders of cultural complexes, and it's possible that the Pit-Comb Ware Culture was made up of several languages, one of them being Proto-Uralic._

----------


## Kristiina

Bicicleur, there is really no way that we can say a Germanic language was spoken in Finland during the Corded Ware period 3200-2300 BC. I agree that they probably spoke a language related to IE languages but that particular extinct language is surely closest to Finnic languages than to any other language in the world, and as Finns are genetically very close to Corded Ware, it is obvious that there is a population continuum to modern Finns. It is highly possible that yDNA N1c-VL29 (c. half of Finnish N1c) is from that period!
The idea that Finns are Iron Age hunters is surely completely false and without any genetic proofs. 

Till date, the only ‘hunter‘ N1c is from Zhizhitskaya culture (2500 BC) near Smolensk which is very far from Siberia. As Finns have a very interesting myth about a blacksmith who made wonders, it is possible that the arrival of the Finnish language is related to metal working. 

It is a pity that researchers only focus on yDNA that is strategic for the development of IE languages.

----------


## bicicleur

IMO there are 3 founding fathers for the Germanic tribes :
R1a-Z284 and I1-M253 who arrived with corded ware and started to expand into Scandinavia 4.7 ka
R1b-U106 with subclades who arrived as western Bell Beakers in Jutland 4.35 ka, probably displaced by R1b-P312 eastern Bell Bekaers
all that was even before Nordic Bronze
there is anciant DNA which proves both R1a-Z284 and R1b-U106 :
Nordic Middle Neolithic
Denmark
Kyndelose [RISE61]
F
2650-2300 BC including reduction for high marine signal
R1a1a1
Page7+; Tagankin adds: R1a1a1b1a3b1 (CTS8401) + Z281 R1a-Z282>Z284>Z287>CTS8401
J1c4
Allentoft 2015; Mathieson 2015; additional info from Vladimir Tagankin



Battle Axe/ Nordic LN
Sweden
Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98]
M
2275-2032 BC
R1b1a2a1a1
M405/S21/U106
K1b1a1
Allentoft 2015; Mathieson 2015



since then the genetics of the proto-Germanics has little changed, probably neither changed their language a lot due to external contacts
due to warm climate since 4.7 ka they had catlle as far north as southern Finland
German tribes came into history only some 2.3 ka when they were moving south due to climate change since 2.6 ka
it is the same climate change that made Finns and Saami become reindeer hunters and move into Finland and northern Scandinavia, probably from Russia, as Uralic languages were supposed to have existed north of Sintashta (which is derived from corded ware) since at least 4.1 ka 
those Uralics north of Sintashta probably got cattle and learned about metallurgy and were involved in the Seima-Turbino phenomenen
but climate change didn't allow cattle herding in Finland and Lapland after 2.6 ka

----------


## Kristiina

Let's agree to disagree. I am western Finn and I have taken a test that shows that I am close to Corded Ware and I clearly have Neolithic blood and my Siberian percentage is in 5% range. There is no way that I am a newcomer from Siberia. I am by no means very close to Volga Ural populations but instead I am close to people living in the nearby areas, and an Eastern Finnish male with no known foreign blood whose family is on both sides from Eastern Finland, and even from Northeastern Finland, who did the test was even more Corded Ware and very Sintashta, so this Eastern Finnish wave did not take us further away from IEs.

----------


## Kristiina

Bicicleur, according to Wikipedia (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rautakausi), during the Iron Age (from 500 BC ), in Finland, people lived in individual houses or in groups of a few houses. The economy was based on agriculture, hunting and fishing and small scale trade. The cultivated species were barley, spelt, rye, oats and turnip. The plough was a rudimentary hook plough. Domesticated animals were cattle, sheep and pigs. Houses were from 10 to 20 meters long and erected on poles, and the walls were made of intertwined branches or of peat. The amount of Iron Age finds is smaller than that of Corded Ware finds but is enough to show that the Finnish territory was contunuosly populated. 

Moreover, the Finnish traditional cow race (itäsuomenkarja) belongs to the rare species of Central Asian steppe cattle that is also found in Volga Ural and even in Yakutia, so the Finnish cow has the same origin as the language.

Reindeer herding is a Saami-specific thing, and it was not practised by Finns who used to live in the warmer areas of the country.

There is not any indication of a new archaeological culture or people arriving to Finland during the Iron Age, and the admixture statistics show that Finns have not mixed extensively during the last 2000 years. However, by the Iron Age, Corded Ware derived groups probably mixed or started to mix extensively with the inland groups to form the modern Finns.

----------


## arvistro

> Let's agree to disagree. I am western Finn and I have taken a test that shows that I am close to Corded Ware and I clearly have Neolithic blood and my Siberian percentage is in 5% range. There is no way that I am a newcomer from Siberia. I am by no means very close to Volga Ural populations but instead I am close to people living in the nearby areas, and an Eastern Finnish male with no known foreign blood whose family is on both sides from Eastern Finland, and even from Northeastern Finland, who did the test was even more Corded Ware and very Sintashta, so this Eastern Finnish wave did not take us further away from IEs.


I think Hungarian dna showed some continuity with pre-Magyar folk, but not really with Magyars who actually brought the language. 
So, one might argue based on dna that there is continuity and they spoke Hungarian since early iron age and are not new comers by same logic.

----------


## Kristiina

Maybe the Finnish language was introduced by a handful of high prestige iron workers or chieftains whose yDNA (specific N1c haplotypes) spread wildly in a sparsly populated country. However, this is all pure speculation as long as we do not have any ancient yDNA or autosomal studies from the relevant periods and cultures. In any case, it is clear that there was not any cultural or genetic turnover during the Iron Age.

----------


## arvistro

I am a fan now of Napolskich's work and ideas re Uralic people ethnogenesys. I found him very convincing. But unfortunately I only know of his works in Russian..
Basically he links the beginnings of Baltic Finns to Textile Ceramics culture.

----------


## Kristiina

If we combine archaeology and ancient DNA analyses by comparing ancient DNA to that of modern inhabitants we get quite reliable results, but if we only connect a certain archaeological culture and language without any ancient DNA, it is very speculative at best. 

In any case, textile ceramic is very ancient in North Eurasia, it is found even in America, and it started to spread already during the Mesolithic period. However, there are two later types that are relevant here: Imitated Ceramic is concentrated in northern Scandinavia, northern Finland and Kuola Peninsula (http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/arla/keram/it.html) and Sarsa Tomitsa ceramic is found in the rest of the country (http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/arla/keram/st.html). They are dated to 1500–500 BC. Sarsa Tomitsa ceramic has also been found in agricultural settlements. I do not know if anybody has claimed that Sarsa Ceramic corresponds to the arrival of new people. They look like local developments.

In his very detailed comparative analyses, Jaakko Häkkinen has found that certain metallurgical terms and a handful of agricultural terms can be reconstructed to proto-Uralic, so I do not find it at all convincing that Uralic languages are a kind of a Mesolithic relic and even more so when the yDNA that is typical to Uralic people has not been found in hunter gatherer contexts e.g. in Mesolithic Karelia or in Bronze Age Altai.

----------


## bicicleur

> Bicicleur, according to Wikipedia (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rautakausi), during the Iron Age (from 500 BC ), in Finland, people lived in individual houses or in groups of a few houses. The economy was based on agriculture, hunting and fishing and small scale trade. The cultivated species were barley, spelt, rye, oats and turnip. The plough was a rudimentary hook plough. Domesticated animals were cattle, sheep and pigs. Houses were from 10 to 20 meters long and erected on poles, and the walls were made of intertwined branches or of peat. The amount of Iron Age finds is smaller than that of Corded Ware finds but is enough to show that the Finnish territory was contunuosly populated. 
> 
> Moreover, the Finnish traditional cow race (itäsuomenkarja) belongs to the rare species of Central Asian steppe cattle that is also found in Volga Ural and even in Yakutia, so the Finnish cow has the same origin as the language.
> 
> Reindeer herding is a Saami-specific thing, and it was not practised by Finns who used to live in the warmer areas of the country.
> 
> There is not any indication of a new archaeological culture or people arriving to Finland during the Iron Age, and the admixture statistics show that Finns have not mixed extensively during the last 2000 years. However, by the Iron Age, Corded Ware derived groups probably mixed or started to mix extensively with the inland groups to form the modern Finns.


so you think the Finns were earlier, but Saami arrived later?

iron age started with Jastorf culure and spread to north-European plain and Scandinavia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture
is this the source of Finnish iron age as well?

iron was much more abundant than bronze, during iron age many more tools were made, like an iron tip under the ploughs, it made agriculture much more productive and caused population to rise

the Yakut cow race is a special race, able to survive in cold climates, there is some logic that Finnish cows are the same

if the Finns are present so long, why did they not mix and spread into the same areas as I1-L22 ?

----------


## Kristiina

Arvistro, you should read this article: http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA13_51.pdf

On page 2, there is a map that shows the extension of Net Ware (textile ceramic). It also covers northern Scandinavia and Central Sweden. The origin is in Novgorod and Tver oblasts, i.e. at the entrance of the landbridge to Fennoscandia. The artefacts show the following styles: Type A pottery → Fatyanovo; Type B → Pozdnyakovo culture and indirectly Srubnaya; Type C plain pottery without any particular style.

Here is the conclusion of the paper: ”Archaeological research over the past few decades has shown that the Net Ware culture in the territories to the north of the Volga was completely overlapped by and mixed with the Urallc Ananyino culture during the Early Iron Age. (…) A comparative analysis of the strata of ancient place names in Karelia suggests the conclusion that the earliest 'Volgic' layer of local names for bodies of water most probably corresponds to the Net Ware culture, while the Lapp (Sami) hydronyms correspond to the Ananyino stratum of the Iron Age and the Baltic-Finnish place names to the early medieval culture of the 10th and 11th centuries in southeastern Karelia (Kosmenko 1993).”

This could be interpreted that it was the Saami language that spread to Finland with an Iron Age package while the Finnish language developed on the coastal areas and had tight connections with Estonia and the southern rim of the Baltic Sea.

----------


## Kristiina

Arvistro, you should read this article: http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA13_51.pdf

On page 2, there is a map that shows the extension of Net Ware (textile ceramic). It also covers northern Scandinavia and Central Sweden. The origin is in Novgorod and Tver oblasts, i.e. at the entrance of the landbridge to Fennoscandia. The artefacts show the following styles: Type A pottery → Fatyanovo; Type B → Pozdnyakovo culture and indirectly Srubnaya; Type C plain pottery without any particular style.

Here is the conclusion of the paper: ”Archaeological research over the past few decades has shown that the Net Ware culture in the territories to the north of the Volga was completely overlapped by and mixed with the Urallc Ananyino culture during the Early Iron Age. (…) A comparative analysis of the strata of ancient place names in Karelia suggests the conclusion that the earliest 'Volgic' layer of local names for bodies of water most probably corresponds to the Net Ware culture, while the Lapp (Sami) hydronyms correspond to the Ananyino stratum of the Iron Age and the Baltic-Finnish place names to the early medieval culture of the 10th and 11th centuries in southeastern Karelia (Kosmenko 1993).”

This could be interpreted that it was the Saami language that spread to Finland with an Iron Age package while the Finnish language developed on the coastal areas and had tight connections with Estonia and the southern rim of the Baltic Sea.

----------


## Kristiina

No, I do not think that Finns were earlier and Saami arrived later. Finns are more related to people and cultures of the southern rim of the Baltic Sea and Saamis to the inland traditions.

Jastorf culture is not the origin of Iron Age in Finland. The paper I referred to above states that the first traces of metal working are from the Net Ware period and they are fragments of small drossed crucibles with net imprints on the outer surface from Kelka III and Tonda IV and celts of Akozino-Mälar type.

Bicicleur, I do not understand your last question about I1-L22. Finland is full of L22 and we have our own Finnish branch. The share of I1 in Finns is 29%. Saamis seem to have in particular I-L1302 which is not L22, and their I1 frequency varies between 20% and 40%. There is a sea between Finland and Sweden, so, to my undestanding, the connections became more frequent with sea faring, i.e. during the common era. Instead, Saami culture had a land bridge to Scandinavia.

----------


## Kristiina

Arvistro, you should read this article: (http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA13_51.pdf)

On page 2, there is a map that shows the extension of Net Ware (textile ceramic). It also covers northern Scandinavia and Central Sweden. The origin is in Novgorod and Tver oblasts, i.e. at the entrance of the landbridge to Fennoscandia. The artefacts show the following styles: Type A pottery < Fatyanovo; Type B < Pozdnyakovo culture and indirectly Srubnaya; Type C plain pottery without any particular style.

Here is the conclusion of the paper: ”Archaeological research over the past few decades has shown that the Net Ware culture in the territories to the north of the Volga was completely overlapped by and mixed with the Urallc Ananyino culture during the Early Iron Age. (…) A comparative analysis of the strata of ancient place names in Karelia suggests the conclusion that the earliest 'Volgic' layer of local names for bodies of water most probably corresponds to the Net Ware culture, while the Lapp (Sami) hydronyms correspond to the Ananyino stratum of the Iron Age and the Baltic-Finnish place names to the early medieval culture of the 10th and 11th centuries in southeastern Karelia (Kosmenko 1993).”

This could be interpreted that it was the Saami language that spread to Finland with an Iron Age package while the Finnish language developed on the coastal areas and had tight connections with Estonia and the southern rim of the Baltic Sea.

----------


## Kristiina

Arvistro, you should read the article by M.G. Kosmenko, The Culture of Bronze Age Net Ware in Karelia, available on Internet.

On page 2, there is a map that shows the extension of Net Ware (textile ceramic). It also covers northern Scandinavia and Central Sweden. The origin is in Novgorod and Tver oblasts, i.e. at the entrance of the landbridge to Fennoscandia. The artefacts show the following styles: Type A pottery → Fatyanovo; Type B → Pozdnyakovo culture and indirectly Srubnaya; Type C plain pottery without any particular style.

Here is the conclusion of the paper: ”Archaeological research over the past few decades has shown that the Net Ware culture in the territories to the north of the Volga was completely overlapped by and mixed with the Urallc Ananyino culture during the Early Iron Age. (…) A comparative analysis of the strata of ancient place names in Karelia suggests the conclusion that the earliest 'Volgic' layer of local names for bodies of water most probably corresponds to the Net Ware culture, while the Lapp (Sami) hydronyms correspond to the Ananyino stratum of the Iron Age and the Baltic-Finnish place names to the early medieval culture of the 10th and 11th centuries in southeastern Karelia (Kosmenko 1993).”

This could be interpreted that it was the Saami language that spread to Finland with an Iron Age package while the Finnish language developed on the coastal areas and had tight connections with Estonia and the southern rim of the Baltic Sea.

----------


## bicicleur

> No, I do not think that Finns were earlier and Saami arrived later. Finns are more related to people and cultures of the southern rim of the Baltic Sea and Saamis to the inland traditions.
> 
> Jastorf culture is not the origin of Iron Age in Finland. The paper I referred to above states that the first traces of metal working are from the Net Ware period and they are fragments of small drossed crucibles with net imprints on the outer surface from Kelka III and Tonda IV and celts of Akozino-Mälar type.
> 
> Bicicleur, I do not understand your last question about I1-L22. Finland is full of L22 and we have our own Finnish branch. The share of I1 in Finns is 29%. Saamis seem to have in particular I-L1302 which is not L22, and their I1 frequency varies between 20% and 40%. There is a sea between Finland and Sweden, so, to my undestanding, the connections became more frequent with sea faring, i.e. during the common era. Instead, Saami culture had a land bridge to Scandinavia.


it seems to me I1-L22 (itself or at least some subclades) is a southern Finnish clade which spread later with Germanic tribes or with Vikings

----------


## Kristiina

According to y full, I-CTS2208 formed 4100 ybp, with the TMRCA of 2800 ybp, and I-L287 formed 2800 ybp with the TMRCA of 1900 ybp, and both can be considered valid age estimates for the typical Finnish I1 line, so it cannot be from Vikings as they started sailing along the Finnish coasts 800 AD. By comparison, according to y full, a typically Scandinavian branch under L22, i.e. I-Y5476, was formed 3500 ybp with the TMRCA of 2700 ybp. When you check the y full I1 tree, you see that in Finland there are several rare haplotypes that do not sit on a Scandinavian branch. 

Do you think that I1 men who came to Finland maybe even c. 2000 BC or at least c. 1000 BC spoke a Germanic language? Wikipedia proposes that Proto-Germanic was likely spoken after c. 500 BC.

My own guesses for the origin of Finnish yDNA haplogroups are the following:
Comb Ceramic: N1b and/or R1a (of Karelian HG type) and/or Q (all nearly or completely extinct)
Corded Ware (3200-2300 BC): N1c-VL29 (formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3500 ybp) and/or R1a1-Z280
Kiukainen Culture (farming culture, 2300-1700 BC): I1-L22
Net Ware (inland Bronze Age culture 1500-500 BC): N1c-Z1935 (formed 3700 ybp, TMRCA 2600 ybp)
Iron Age under the Ananyino culture: N1c-Z1939 (formed 1850 ybp, TMRCA 1300 ybp) and/or N1c-Z1941 ’Karelia’ (formed 1850 ybp, TMRCA 1750 ybp) and/or N1c-CTS4329 ’Savo’ (formed 2100 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybp)

N1c-Z1939, N1c-Z1941 and N1c-CTS4329 are all under N1c-Z1935. IMO, N1c-Z1935 arose somewhere close to Vologda area and did not originate directly from Ananyino culture but was influenced by it and may have thus adopted its language.

We definitely need ancient yDNA from Finland in order to say anything definitive about I1.

Mesolithic yDNA seems to have disappeared everywhere, so why not in Finland. The extinction is probably also due to lower resistance to epidemies and not only to social and economic factors.

----------


## Ukko

> Maybe the Finnish language was introduced by a handful of high prestige iron workers or chieftains whose yDNA (specific N1c haplotypes) spread wildly in a sparsly populated country. However, this is all pure speculation as long as we do not have any ancient yDNA or autosomal studies from the relevant periods and cultures. In any case, it is clear that there was not any cultural or genetic turnover during the Iron Age.


It is not really speculation as N1c, the Uralic language, material finds, even horses and cattle, originate from the same place in the Volga region.

There is no better proof at this time for any other theory, if this is speculation everything else is fantasy.

----------


## Kristiina

There are many questions that are still open: origin of N1c-VL29 and its relation to Corded Ware, identification of Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov yDNA and the question of Siberian yDNA, the share of Combed Ware DNA in Finns and its yDNA identification. Also the detection of ancient N1c-Z1935 would shed a lot of light on the expansion and time frame of Uralic languages.

Autosomally, Finns are not particularly close to Volga Uralic groups, and there are big differences in haplogroup frequencies: mtDNA U5b is old and important in Finns while U4 is scarce is recent and mtDNA U4 is old and important in Volga Uralic groups and U5b rare, and the Siberian mtDNA haplogroups are not the same; Volga Uralic groups have high amounts of R1a1 (mostly R-Z282 and R-M558) and their yDNA N1c is an early Ananyino branch of N1c which is non-existent in Finns while Finns have high amounts of N1c-VL29 and I1 which are rare in Volga Ural.

In order to understand the relationship between IE languages and Uralic languages and to resolve the Indo-Uralic hypothesis we need yDNA and autosomal data from both Fatyanovo and Balanovo, as well as from Ananyino, Combed Ware and Finnish Corded Ware contexts.

----------


## F117stealth

Mesolithic yDNA seems to have disappeared everywhere, so why not in Finland. The extinction is probably also due to lower resistance to epidemies and not only to social and economic factors.[/QUOTE]

It did disappear in the places where it was no population continuity. For instance Cucuteni- Trypillian culture - I2a1b-L621 - whose gene prints are still present in up to 30% of SE Europe? Aren't they direct descedents of I2a mesolithic populations?

----------


## Goga

UgroFinid or FinoUgrid race is much more native to Europe than Indo-Europeans. FinoUgric folks were in Europe much earlier before Indo-Europeans arrived.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> UgroFinid or FinoUgrid race is much more native to Europe than Indo-Europeans. FinoUgric folks were in Europe much earlier before Indo-Europeans arrived.


Don't put character labels on ancient people. Ancient people had little knowledge of history and geography. FinoUrgics aren't romantic native people of Europe. They don't know their own history, geography, even aware FinoUrgic is a language family, and know little about other humans. There isn't a native European identity or character. People who have lived in a land for 20,000 years, will have the same mindset about life Mexicans do, who have a young and genetically-mixed history. Being native or not doesn't matter if no one is aware of it or cares. 

I don't understand why you like labeling FinoUrgics and N1c as "native to Europe", and Indo Europeans having a boring unromantic and young history. This is similar to the stupid obsession some had with Basque and R1b. Basque aren't Paleolithic-relics, they're culture and identity is defined by recent events. Anyways, your want for FinoUrgics to be native, is used to defend your want for PIE to be from West Asia not Europe. Your want for PIE to be from West Asia is also stupid. It doesn't make Kurds or whoever else greater. They were never aware of it, it isn't apart of who they're are. It's a distant pre-historic event no one was aware of at the time or is today(without academics). The PIE weren't like "We're superior PIE. We will dominate other people and have a shared PIE identity for 1,000s of years."

Anyways, FinoUrgics aren't anymore ingenious to Europe than their IE neighbors. The most ingenious people to Europe were WHG/EHG. EHG lived in FinoUrgics territory. Yet, FinoUrgics at most are like 30% EHG. And most of their EHG isn't from the regions they live in today. They have lots of Caucasus(CHG) blood and especially Western European blood(EEF and WHG). They also have loads of Siberian blood that EHG didn't have. There were huge replacement events in FinoUrgic lands, even as recent as 3500 years ago(proven by mtDNA years ago). 

IEs are almost definitely native to Russia and Ukraine. They lived in the same area as Finno-Urgics, mixed with Finno-Urgics, and therefore modern FinoUrgics and IE North Europeans are very similar. Finnish are some of Corded Ware's closest relatives, so it's clear they have lots of IE blood. The Western blood(EEF, WHG) in FinoUrgics, especially Finnish, is evidence they have loads of IE-blood. How else did EEF/WHG get to Volga Russia? It appears in 2500 BC with a R1a-Z93 guy. The EEF/WHG in Finourgics of Russia, came via IE admixture, whether it be Slavs or Sycthians or whoever else.

----------


## Goga

Saami predate all Indo-European speakers in Europe. Saami are Finno-Ugrid, so Finno-Ugrid race was before Indo-Eropean speakers. This is a FACT! But it's true that Europoid race in Europe is a mixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid (Fino-Ugrid) race.

Europoid = Caucasoid + Mongoloid

Native people of Western Russia/Ukraine were I2 and N1c1. Exactly, partly Caucasoid (I2) and partly Mongoloid (N1c1).



Scythians were native peoples in the Steppes, partly Mongoloid, partly Europoid with minor Iranid DNA who spoke an East Iranic language, I'm sure because of the Aryan influence and the Iranid elite dominance from the Iranian Plateau they adapted an East Iranic language from BMAC. But they were not really Iranid, Iranid DNA was heavily diluted by Mongoloid/Europoid DNA of Scythians in the Eastern Steppes.


Btw, Scythian kings were destroyed by the West Iranid (Aryan) Medes in Kurdistan, lol.

----------


## arvistro

> Saami predate all Indo-European speakers in Europe. Saami are Finno-Ugrid, so Finno-Ugrid race was before Indo-Eropean speakers. This is a FACT! But it's true that Europoid race in Europe is a mixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid (Fino-Ugrid) race.


If you had a clue regarding new developments you might find that Saami has quite some layer of pre-FU substrate words, that are lacking in other FU folk. 
_"In the north, a similar scenario to Indo-European is thought to have occurred with Uralic languages expanding in from the east. In particular, while the Sami languages of the indigenous Sami people belong in the Uralic family, they show considerable substrate influence, thought to represent one or more extinct original languages. The Sami are estimated to have adopted a Uralic language less than 2,500 years ago.[2] Some traces of indigenous languages of the Baltic area have been suspected in the Finnic languagesas well, but these are much more modest. There are early loanwords from unidentified non-IE languages in other Uralic languages of Europe as well.[3]"
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-...s#North_Europe
[2] Aikio, Ante (2004)."An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami".
[3] Ringe, Don (January 6, 2009). "The Linguistic Diversity of Aboriginal Europe". _Language Log_. Mark Liberman. Retrieved 22 September 2011

----------


## Goga

> If you had a clue regarding new developments you might find that Saami has quite some layer of pre-FU substrate words, that are lacking in other FU folk. 
> _"In the north, a similar scenario to Indo-European is thought to have occurred with Uralic languages expanding in from the east. In particular, while the Sami languages of the indigenous Sami people belong in the Uralic family, they show considerable substrate influence, thought to represent one or more extinct original languages. The Sami are estimated to have adopted a Uralic language less than 2,500 years ago.[2] Some traces of indigenous languages of the Baltic area have been suspected in the Finnic languagesas well, but these are much more modest. There are early loanwords from unidentified non-IE languages in other Uralic languages of Europe as well.[3]"
> _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-...s#North_Europe
> [2] Aikio, Ante (2004)."An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami".
> [3] Ringe, Don (January 6, 2009). "The Linguistic Diversity of Aboriginal Europe". _Language Log_. Mark Liberman. Retrieved 22 September 2011


I guess you missed this line? "_There are early loanwords from unidentified non-IE languages in other Uralic languages of Europe as well.__[3]__""


_I'm sure it was some kind of Finno-Ugric, Ugric or other Mongoloid language related to Finno-Ugric!


N1c1 has Mongoloid roots. FACT Finnish population belongs for *61.5 % to N1c1*, and yeah they speak Finno-Ugric. Baltic folks are also for a huge part (+ 45% ) Finno-Ugric / Mongoloid. And yeah even part of the Baltics folks, like the Estonians, speak Finno-Ugric as a native language

But hey,

max population of Estonians is 1 million (34% N1c1 = 340000 people) = native speakers of Finno-Ugric
max population of Lithuania is 2,8 million ( 42% N1c1 = 1.18 million people)
max population of Latvia is 2 million (38% N1c1 = 760000 people)


Although, a lot of them are Slavic and ethnic Russian

So, of course such a minor and small population as native Baltic folks are heavily mixed people. Small populations is easily getting influeced by other, while it is impossible for them to influence others by race or language or culture...

----------


## Goga

2000 years ago there lived maybe only max 5000 - 10000 humans in the Baltic states , of course they were heavily mixed and influenced with everybody who came to their land.

----------


## arvistro

> I guess you missed this line? "_There are early loanwords from unidentified non-IE languages in other Uralic languages of Europe as well.__[3]__""
> _


I guess you missed two lines before the one you enjoyed so much  :Laughing: 
_
_


> I'm sure it was some kinf of Finno_Ugric, Ugric or a Mongoloid language related to Finno-Ugric


_
Yes, you are sure. Let me guess - that is because you have not read the source article?

Also, have you read Kourtland's Indo-Uralic? Better don't, you may never find your inner peace after 

_


> N1c1 has Mongoloid roots. Finnish population belongs for 61.5 % to N1c1, and yes they speak Finno-Ugric. Baltic folks a re also for a huge part (+ 45% ) Finno-Ugric / Mongoloid. And yeah even part of the Baltics folks, Estonians, speak Finno-Ugric


Must be why Finns have highest IQ in Europe and one of the highest in the world, after Mongoloids proper, that is :) 
On a serious note, I missed your point.

----------


## Goga

2 options: or they killed them or they f*cked with them. There're now 3-5 million folks in the Baltics and 5 million in Finland. So that makes 8-10 million. At least 50% of them belong to N1c1. 

2000 years ago there lived maybe 15000 - 20000 people in those areas combined. It was a very very tiny population. Almost nothing.

And N1c1 is and was the most important part of those. And there're many other haplogroups, not just 1 or 2. So I'm almost certain that every new groups (Indo-European) from the east were assimiltaed by the natives of Finland and Baltics. Some of them started to speak Baltic languages, lol.

----------


## Goga

> I guess you missed two lines before the one you enjoyed so much 
> _
> Yes, you are sure. Let me guess - that is because you have not read the source article?
> 
> Also, have you read Kourtland's Indo-Uralic? Better don't, you may never find your inner peace after 
> 
> _
> Must be why Finns have highest IQ in Europe and one of the highest in the world, after Mongoloids proper, that is :) 
> On a serious note, I missed your point.


Read what I wrote about the very tiny population of the Baltics. 2000 years ago they were even much, much more *irrelevant* then they are now. What could they do with such a small population of 5000 people (men, women, children). Invade India, like some deranged people believe, LMAO???

Who cares, my IQ is much higher than average Finnish IQ!

Modern Indo-European loanwords in Finnish came much, much later after Indo-European was formed. There was a contact between Uralic and Indo-European people around Yamnaya and even in the Eastern Steppes (East Iranian speakers).

But, same can be said about Semitic and Indo-European. Or Tukic and Indo-European.


But on the other side Kartvelian (Caucasus group) and Indo-European share the same deep ancient roots.

----------


## arvistro

> Read what I wrote about the very tiny population of the Baltics. 2000 years ago they were even much, much more *irrelevant* then they are now. What could they do with such a small population of 5000 people (men, women, children). Invade India, like some deranged people believe, LMAO???
> 
> Who cares, my IQ is much higher than average Finnish IQ!
> 
> Modern Indo-European loanwords in Finnish came much, much later after Indo-European was formed. There was a contact between Uralic and Indo-European people around Yamnaya and even in the Eastern Steppes (East Iranian speakers).
> 
> But, same can be said about Semitic and Indo-European. Or Tukic and Indo-European.
> 
> 
> But on the other side Kartvelian (Caucasus group) and Indo-European share the same deep ancient roots.


So, you have not read Kourtlandt, too.... It is not about loanwords, it is about skeleton of the language...
You seem to argue a lot on subjects that you have not read anything or just cherry picked the info you liked :)

----------


## Goga

> So, you have not read Kourtlandt, too.... It is not about loanwords, it is about skeleton of the language...
> You seem to argue a lot on subjects that you have not read anything or just cherry picked the info you liked :)


No, I didn't read the book. Why should I read a nonsense book? Don't have time for it. I would read Dune again instead. Better science fiction. But I read many arguments of people who refer to that book. And their arguments s*ck big time!

I see you're from Latvia. You like it or not, but you are at least 40% Mongoloid/Finni-Ugric ...

----------


## arvistro

> No, I didn't read the book. Why should I read a nonsense book? Don't have time for it. I would read Dune again instead. Better science fiction. But I read many arguments of people who refer to that book. And their arguments s*ck big time!


Do you have a degree in linguistics preferably in area of comparative linguistics to be able to assess arguments in the area?

----------


## arvistro

> Read what I wrote about the very tiny population of the Baltics. 2000 years ago they were even much, much more *irrelevant* then they are now. What could they do with such a small population of 5000 people (men, women, children). Invade India, like some deranged people believe, LMAO???


According to the best theory we have, Indo-Euros started in Steppe and moved into different locations, including Baltics, in Baltics initially as Corded Ware culture. Since Baltics was rather empty region Indo-Euros there replaced whatever hunters lived there before and stayed pretty much the same until these days, since new arrivers into Baltics a) were not that frequent; b) were derived from Corded Ware ultimately as well :)

Also you have to take into account that all Baltic (Latvian and Lithuanian) N comes from one man who lived 500-700 BCE. So, who knows how this guy managed to produce 50% of our folk. Probably he was either very strong (conqueror) or very useful (iron smith).

____________
I don't know where you get your fantasies about Baltic people invading India 2000 years ago???? :)))) That is 0 AD, man!!

----------


## Goga

> Do you have a degree in linguistics preferably in area of comparative linguistics to be able to assess arguments in the area?


I do speak *Kurdish* (Kurmanji) as my native language. I was born in the USSR, Georgia so obviously *Russian* is even better then Kurdish. Some *Georgian* too. I live more than 25 years in Holland. So I do speak *Dutch* fluently. I can read, speak and write in *German*, *French* and *English*. My highest education I got only in English.

I went to a gymnasium, so I'm also familiar with *Latin* and ancient *Greek*.


But the true is that I'm better at math (equations etc.) than in languages. Languages are not really my strongest point.


I read many 'real' linguistic scientists who never wrote anything thoughtful about ancient Finno-Ugric and PIE connection.



I see you're from Latvia. You like it or not, but you are at least 40% Mongoloid/Finni-Ugric . I'm sure than Finno-Ugric/Mongoloid DNA is part of East European auDNA


______________

Well people like you believe that you're the Aryans who invaded India, right? Ok, I made a mistake it was maybe 4000 years ago, at the time when there lived maybe 100 people in the Baltics, LMAO!

----------


## Goga

At least NAZI Germany made more sense with their ATLANTIS theory, homeland of the Aryans, then some deranged folks, from the Eastern Europe, especially very lost Polish fellas.


ATLANTIS theory where Aryans are from is much more amusing than theories by Polish guys ...

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Goga,

IEs weren't absorbed in Finland. Corded Ware was a brand new type of people when they arrived 4500 years ago. No one in Finland like them lived there before. Modern Finnish are mostly Corded Ware-like. They are instead mostly descended of newcomers from the European plain. Ancient DNA has proven genetic discontinuity with Mesolithic and modern FinoUrgic region. Most of their ancestry is from people who arrived from the European plain 4,000-5,000 years ago.

"Eurpoid=Caucsoid+Mongolid". There's no way to define Caucasoid anyways. The Mongoloid admixture in FinoUrgics came after 7,000 years ago and is exclusive to them and Turks in Russia.

----------


## Goga

> @Goga,
> 
> IEs weren't absorbed in Finland. Corded Ware was a brand new type of people when they arrived 4500 years ago. No one in Finland like them lived there before. Modern Finnish are mostly Corded Ware-like. They are instead mostly descended of newcomers from the European plain. Ancient DNA has proven genetic discontinuity with Mesolithic and modern FinoUrgic region. Most of their ancestry is from people who arrived from the European plain 4,000-5,000 years ago.
> 
> "Eurpoid=Caucsoid+Mongolid". There's no way to define Caucasoid anyways. The Mongoloid admixture in FinoUrgics came after 7,000 years ago and is exclusive to them and Turks in Russia.


Anno 2016 there're 5 million Fins. They speak a Finno-Ugric language. At least 61.5% of them belong to N1c1. That is more than 3 million of Fins are N1c1 !

How many people lived in Finland 4000 years ago? *0*? Maybe a few thousands? Because of the climate it was not really densely populated.


What we do know that we've got Saami folks in Lapland, they are the oldest people in Europe. Saami predate Indo-European speakers. They speak Finno-Ugric and are Mongoloid / N1c1, distantly related to Eskimos.


Corded Ware folks were very multicultural. They had very, very diverse haplogroups, native I1, I2, N1c1, but mostly recent European type of R1a. Which came from the East. Corded Ware was also partly Mongoloid, but not as much as people of Finland nowadays.


Caucasoid = the name says it all. *CAUCASUS*, Caucasoid (CHG, Gedrosia) was native to 'Caucasus Mountains' / 'West Asia'.


Caucasoid haplogroups are derived from IJ are I1, I2, J1 and J2

R1* also evolved in West Asia / Iranian Plateau. Since R1* evolved in West Asia it has to be Caucasoid. Original R1b that migrated from 'West Asia'/Maykop into Yamnaya Horzion was Caucasoid / Gedrosia type. The same can be said about R1a. R1a from the Iranian Plateau was Caucasoid/ Gedrosia. 


But when R1b & R1a entered into the Steppes, R1a and R1b mixed heavily with Mongoloid DNA. Because Mongoloid DNA is NATIVE to the Steppes. So Caucasoid DNA of R1a/R1b continuously diluted and is diluting as times passed / passing by.



"Purest" Caucasoids live in the Caucasus...

----------


## Tomenable

> Because Mongoloid DNA is NATIVE to the Steppes.


Nope, it is not - at least studies have not found any Mongoloids in the Steppes until the Late Bronze Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andron...l_anthropology




> *The Andronovo have been described by archaeologists as exhibiting pronounced Europoid features.[14] A 2004 study also established that, during the Bronze/Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during Bronze Age), was of West Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the thirteenth to seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages.[21] Other studies confirm, that during Bronze Age in areas to the north of present-day China, the boundary between Europoid and Mongoloid populations was on the eastern slopes of the Altai, in Western Mongolia.[22][23] Some Europoid influence extended also into Northeast Mongolia,[24] and the population of present-day Kazakhstan was Europoid during the Bronze/Iron Age period.[25] Archaeological investigations likewise suggest, that in the steppe region of Central Asia and the Altai Mountains, the first food production began towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC and that the peoples who first entered this region were Europoids of the Afanasevo culture who came from the Aral Sea area (Kelteminar culture).[26]*


Mongoloids expanded into the Steppes during the Iron Age and the Middle Ages, for example in the 1200s:

----------


## Tomenable

Already during the Iron Age there had been migrations of mixed*** Caucasoid-Mongoloid peoples to West Eurasia:

Most of those early migrations (pre-Medieval ones) originated from territories of Xiongnu and Xianbei realms:

- from the 1st / 2nd to the 4th centuries AD the Chuni / Huns expanded westward****
- between the 5th and the 13th centuries AD various Turkic peoples expanded westward
- during the 6th century AD the Rouran / Avars went in western direction towards Europe
- in the 12th century Khitans (relatives of Mongols) migrated westward to Central Asia
- from the 13th to the 17th centuries there were Mongol migrations (including Kalmyks)

***The most Mongoloid of those groups are the Mongols, but even they have ca. 10% of Caucasoid admixture.

****The main wave of Huns reached Europe in 375 AD, but already in the 100s AD Ptolemy mentioned "Chuni":

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...lemy/3/5*.html

Quote (but scholars are not sure if Ptolemy's 2nd century "Chuni" were related to the later 4th century Huns):




> near the bend of the Tanis river are the Ophlones and then the Tanaitae; below whom are the Osili extending as far as Rhoxolanis; between the Amaxobii and the Rhoxolani are the Rheucanali and the Exobygitae; and between the Peucini and the Basternae are the Carpiani, above whom are the Gevini, then the Bodini; *between the Basternae and the Rhoxolani are the Chuni,* and below the mountains named from these are the Amadoci and the Navari.


The Basternae are usually considered a Celto-Germanic mix, while the Rhoxolani are considered Iranic.

----------


## Goga

Huh? What are according to you the Eurasian Steppes?


For confirmation the pink is Steppe, it's stretched from Mongolia/Northern China to Ukraine. Russia is a huge country and borders even Japan...






http://slaviclandscape.blogspot.nl/2...steppes-8.html




Are you saying that people in Mongolia/Northern China were Europoid = Caucasoid + Mongoloid?


*The Northern Eurasian Steppes have always been populated by Mongoloid people.* But some Caucasoid folks migrated into the Steppes very early and in some areas where Caucasoid mixed with Mongoloid people became Europoid.


To my understanding the Steppe folks in Mongolia/Northern China were always Mongoloid.


Never heard of *Uralo-Siberian Mesolithic* hunting and fishing people in south-central Siberia between 8000-10000 years ago? If they were not from the Steppes, where are they from then? From the Moon?

----------


## Goga

My point is that the early East Euopean Steppe hunter/gatherers were already heavily mixed with Mongoloid people from the East. Actually they were already 'Europoid' what means: Caucasoid + Mongoloid. Maybe they were even Mongoloid first before WHG or CHG (Caucasoid) arrived and made them more Europoid. More to the East they became gradually more Mongoloid and more to the West toward Europe they became less Mongoloid and more Caucasoid.

In the Western Steppes (West Russian Steppes), WHG and maybe CHG folks mixed with Mongoloid Uralo-Siberian/Altaian and Finno-Ugric folks. East European hunter/gatherers were a product of those admix folks

----------


## Tomenable

> The most Mongoloid of those groups are the Mongols, but even they have ca. 10% of Caucasoid admixture.


This graph shows, that Mongols from Mongolia are ca. 90% Mongoloid and 10% Caucasoid - not 100% Mongoloid (like Han Chinese):

----------


## Tomenable

> East Euopean hunter/gatherers were already mixed with Mongoloid people from the East.


You mean Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) from Siberia ???

Modern Mongoloids - such as Han Chinese - do not have any ANE admixture.

So ANE should rather be considered a separate group.

ANE admixture is present in Native Americans, West Eurasians and Siberians.

But it isn't present in classic Mongoloids such as Chinese, Koreans or Japanese.

==========================




> Huh? What are according to you the Eurasian Steppes?


Sorry, I was talking only about the Western Steppe (to the West of the Altai).

Map "A" shows the percent of East Asian mtDNA in the Bronze Age:
Map "B" shows the frequency of East Asian mtDNA in Late Iron Age:

----------


## Tomenable

Huh? What are according to you the Eurasian Steppes?

Sorry I forgot to add - I meant Eurasian Steppes to the west of Altai Mountains.

To the east of the Altai - in Mongolia - was predominantly Mongoloid territory.

The Altai mountains were the boundary until the end of the Bronze Age.

See here:

Map "A" shows the percent of East Asian mtDNA in the Bronze Age:
Map "B" shows the frequency of East Asian mtDNA in the Iron Age:

[IMG]http://s24.postimg.org/6td3u1p85/paz2.png[/IMG]

----------


## Tomenable

Until the end of the Bronze Age, the steppe Caucasoid-Mongoloid boundary was approximately here:
(but some Caucasoid influence extended farther east too; and probably also the other way around):

----------


## Tomenable

> Europoid = Caucasoid + Mongoloid?


Euorpoid is not Caucasoid + Mongoloid. Europoid is just another name for Caucasoid.

A "geographically neutral" name for it, is West Eurasian. And Mongoloid is East Asian.

----------


## Goga

> You mean Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) from Siberia ???



I mean East Euro H&G as EHG. EHG = WHG/CHG + Mongoloid (Uralo-Siberian)


EHG is Europoid (partly Caucasoid, partly Mongoloid). Europoid = Caucasoid + Mongoloid.





Inuktitut is a different name for Eskimos right? Saami and Finns in Northern Europe are as old as Inuit/Eskimos in Northern America
" _Saami, Finnish, Inuktitut: ancient cousins, once removed

__... There, families whose migrations were ruled by the coming and going of glaciers during the Ice Age moved northward out of this area in successive waves until about 4,000 BC._
_Some headed west along the northern coasts and others went east, eventually crossing the Bering Strait to North America._
_They would end up living across the circumpolar region, with Inuit living from Alaska through to Canada and Greenland, Saami in Sápmi (northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and northern Russia) and Finns in Finland (or Suomi in Finnish.) ...
_
_... You can still hear today’s version of that language in Nunavut — where Uralo-Siberian developed into Inuktitut — and in Finland — where that language survived as Saami and as Finnish._
_To me, someone who has lived in both regions and speaks Finnish (fairly fluently) and Inuktitut (not nearly as well) and can understand when people speak Saami (usually), the idea that there was once a united Uralo-Siberian family of languages makes sense._
_That's because the grammars of the three languages feel so similar (not to mention many shared cultural elements). ..._
_
... More recent genetic tests do show Saami and Finns share more genetic markers linked with Asian populations in the Bering Strait and beyond than do any other European populations. ...

... The Origin and Genetic Background of the Sámi suggests that Saami and, to a lesser extent, Finns were able to maintain their separate language identities over the centuries due to their geographic isolation in the Arctic while other peoples were losing their languages to Indo-European speakers from the South._ ... "


for more : http://jgeorgeblog.com/2014/06/19/fi...-once-removed/

----------


## Tomenable

Mongoloid (Uralo-Siberian)

That was not Mongoloid, but Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).

Modern Mongoloids and North Africans do not have ANE *(light green = very low or no ANE):*

*Grey = data not included*

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...9QSG52Z0k/view

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...-eurasian.html



On the other hand, modern Kurds such as you and Poles such as me have quite a lot of it:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ANE)-admixture

----------


## Tomenable

Also Native Americans have ANE admixture (in addition to their Mongoloid ancestry).

And this ANE is considered to be the *Non-Mongoloid* *part (minority) of their ancestry:*




*ANE ancestry (Native Americans have most, then Europeans and Indo-Iranians; Chinese people don't have it):*

----------


## Goga

> Mongoloid (Uralo-Siberian)
> 
> That was not Mongoloid, but Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).
> 
> Modern Mongoloids and North Africans do not have ANE *(light green = very low or no ANE):*


I'm not talking about ANE, but about *EHG*. In the same manner as *WHG* and *CHG*. EHG were native ancient East European people. And I'm not saying that EHG were fully Mongoloid. They were Europoid, with that I do mean partly Caucasoid, partly Mongoloid...

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Anno 2016 there're 5 million Fins. They speak a Finno-Ugric language. At least 61.5% of them belong to N1c1. That is more than 3 million of Fins are N1c1 !


Lots of their ancestors had R1a. 80% of Irish have R1b, but 80% of their blood isn't from the ancestors who gave them R1b. Same for Finns and N1c1. 





> What we do know that we've got Saami folks in Lapland, they are the oldest people in Europe. Saami predate Indo-European speakers. They speak Finno-Ugric and are Mongoloid / N1c1, distantly related to Eskimos.


EHG is native to Saami territory. Saami are 30% EHG at most. The rest of their blood is EEF, WHG, and CHG. They have decent from the same Yamnaya-like and EEF/WHG-like populations all Europeans do. 3500 year old mtDNA from Saami country is unlike modern Saami. So, no Saami aren't ultra-ingenious to Saami country. They, like Norse, are descended of new people who came from further south 5,000-4,000 years ago. Saami are native to their country in modern times, but they aren't native when you go back 5,000 years. The reason Saami are viewed as these romantic natives, is because they've been conquered by Norway, Sweden, and Finland in modern times. But if anything Swedes are just as native to Scandinavia as Saami are. 





> Corded Ware folks were very multicultural. They had very, very diverse haplogroups, native I1, I2, N1c1, but mostly recent European type of R1a. Which came from the East. Corded Ware was also partly Mongoloid, but not as much as people of Finland nowadays.


There's nothing that suggests East Asian blood in Corded Ware. EHG looks like it had a little bit, so I guess Corded Ware had a melted down version of that. 





> Caucasoid = the name says it all. *CAUCASUS*, Caucasoid (CHG, Gedrosia) was native to 'Caucasus Mountains' / 'West Asia'.


CHG was discovered after the term Caucasian was made. There's no special relationship between Caucasus Mountains and Europeans. 




> R1* also evolved in West Asia / Iranian Plateau. Since R1* evolved in West Asia it has to be Caucasoid. Original R1b that migrated from 'West Asia'/Maykop into Yamnaya Horzion was Caucasoid / Gedrosia type. The same can be said about R1a. R1a from the Iranian Plateau was Caucasoid/ Gedrosia.


What is Caucasoid? We don't know. It's a term for Europeans or West Eurasians, that's it. There's no exact definition of what it is. So, saying because R1* evolved in West Asia it has to be Caucasoid, doesn't make sense. 





> But when R1b & R1a entered into the Steppes, R1a and R1b mixed heavily with Mongoloid DNA. Because Mongoloid DNA is NATIVE to the Steppes. So Caucasoid DNA of R1a/R1b continuously diluted and is diluting as times passed / passing by.


EHG is native to Steppe. They had very little Mongoloid DNA, and lots of R1a and R1b.

----------


## Tomenable

> I'm not talking about ANE, but about EHG.


But EHG can be modeled as a mix of ~60% WHG + ~40% ANE. 

They did not have any other "Mongoloid" component. Only that ANE.

ANE admixture probably came with Siberian microblade producers:

See: _"... the origin of microblade technology in Europe"_ (link):

http://www.quartaer.eu/pdfs/2010/2010_hartz.pdf

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Goga,

I'm not trying to get you angry. I've got nothing against you. It's you create definitions(Eupoid=Caucasoid+Mongoloid) that aren't proven to exist, then base your theories based on those definitions. And you put character labels on people, like Saami are somehow ultra-ingenious. These are the root of your incorrect theories.

----------


## Goga

> Lots of their ancestors had R1a. 80% of Irish have R1b, but 80% of their blood isn't from the ancestors who gave them R1b. Same for Finns and N1c1. 
> 
> EHG is native to Saami territory. Saami are 30% EHG at most. The rest of their blood is EEF, WHG, and CHG. They have decent from the same Yamnaya-like and EEF/WHG-like populations all Europeans do. 3500 year old mtDNA from Saami country is unlike modern Saami. So, no Saami aren't ultra-ingenious to Saami country. They, like Norse, are descended of new people who came from further south 5,000-4,000 years ago. Saami are native to their country in modern times, but they aren't native when you go back 5,000 years. The reason Saami are viewed as these romantic natives, is because they've been conquered by Norway, Sweden, and Finland in modern times. But if anything Swedes are just as native to Scandinavia as Saami are. 
> 
> There's nothing that suggests East Asian blood in Corded Ware. EHG looks like it had a little bit, so I guess Corded Ware had a melted down version of that. 
> 
> CHG was discovered after the term Caucasian was made. There's no special relationship between Caucasus Mountains and Europeans. 
> 
> What is Caucasoid? We don't know. It's a term for Europeans or West Eurasians, that's it. There's no exact definition of what it is. So, saying because R1* evolved in West Asia it has to be Caucasoid, doesn't make sense. 
> ...


I gave my answers already in my 2 previous posts. I'm not going to do it again.

The name 'Caucasian' is older than me and you combined. People used already that word before DNA. And the name 'Caucasian' is derived from the 'Caucasus region', period. This is a FACT!


All I want to say is that Saami in their homeland Lapland (Scandinavia) predate Indo-European language. Like Finns, they are mostly N1c1.


Europeans are not fully Caucasoid. They are Europoid, which means they are = Caucasoid + Mongoloid.


EHG is also not fully Caucasoid, but Europoid. Partly Mongoloid, partly Caucasoid.


The more R1* in EHG, the less Mongoloid it is. So EHG to the East is more Mongoloid than EHG to the West. That's because original R1* was from the Iranian Plateau and was Caucasoid...

----------


## Goga

> @Goga,
> 
> I'm not trying to get you angry. I've got nothing against you. It's you create definitions(Eupoid=Caucasoid+Mongoloid) that aren't proven to exist, then base your theories based on those definitions. And you put character labels on people, like Saami are somehow ultra-ingenious. These are the root of your incorrect theories.


Once again and the last time:

WHG = Caucasoid
CHG = Caucasoid

EHG = Caucasoid + Mongoloid = Europoid . Native to NorthEastern Europe.

You can say that native Finno-Ugric speakers of Europe are somehow Europoid (Mongoloid + Caucasoid). Because they ARE native to Europe, and therefore they are hardcore Europeans. Finns and Saami are purest Europeans, even they have Mongoloid deep ancestry and Eskimos from Alaska are their relatives. Europeans are party Mongoloid. Mongoloid DNA is part of Europe. Why can't you understand this? Mongoloid is not only East Asian, but also Northern European!

Saami and Finns are 'ultra-ingenious' to their homeland (Scandinavia) as Eskimos to Alaska (Northern America)! And they are relatives. How great can it be ?!

----------


## Goga

For the last time and I'm gone:

Mongoloid DNA is native to NorthEast Europe. Mongoloid DNA is part of EHG. If I say that some Europeans are partly Mongoloid, I'm not saying they are not native. The more Mongoloid DNA some native NorthernEuropean folks have, the more native they are to Europe. Saami & Finns have more Mongoloid DNA in them than other Scandinavians, therefore they are more native to Europe. Don't you see? Mongoloid DNA is part of North-East Europe. Mongoloid DNA is part of EHG. EHG is Europoid means Caucasoid + Mongoloid...


_" ..._ _The Origin and Genetic Background of the Sámi__ suggests that Saami and, to a lesser extent, Finns were able to maintain their separate language identities over the centuries due to their geographic isolation in the Arctic_ *while other peoples were losing their languages to Indo-European speakers from the South.* ... "

for more : http://jgeorgeblog.com/2014/06/19/fi...-once-removed/

----------


## Tomenable

Eskimos are not very indigenous to their lands. For example, Eskimos came to Greenland later than Vikings.

Eskimos represented the Thule culture and they replaced previous native inhabitants - the Dorset culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture

Maps:

Dorset people = green
Vikings = dark red
Eskimos = dark blue

----------


## Kristiina

Goga, this post pretty useless as your mind is set but I still want to make clear that Inuits are not linguistic or genetic relatives of Saamis.
In this paper ‘Genomic study of the Ket: a Paleo-Eskimo-related ethnic group with significant ancient North Eurasian ancestry,’
they “found that: (1) Kets and Selkups constitute a clade closely related to Nganasans; (2) Nganasans, Kets, Selkups, and Yukaghirs form a cluster of populations most closely related to Paleo-Eskimos in Siberia (not considering indigenous populations of Chukotka and Kamchatka).
According to Euclidean distances in the ten-dimensional space of principal components on the HumanOrigins dataset, Kets were a closer population to Saqqaq than Nganasans, Selkups, Yukaghirs, and the other populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750364/

Paleo-Eskimo, modern Eskimos, Kets and Selkups are all yDNA Q folks. Yukaghirs have equal amounts of Q, C2 and N1c. Nganasans are 92% N1b and 8% C2 and Q (?). The common yDNA seems to be rather Q.

In my opinion, Eskimos and Paleo-Eskimos are Q folks and N has nothing to do with it. Moreover, Nganasan N1b is very recent. TMRCA of Arctic N1b (N2a1a) is only c. 3500 years. Saqqaq was 2000 BC in Greenland, and arctic N1b probably arose somewhere between northern Volga and South Siberia c. 1500 BC, so there is not any direct relationship with Eskimos.

I cannot post any image snips but if you are interested, N1b haplotree is available here p. 29 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/supp...al_Figures.pdf)

----------


## Hauteville

> This graph shows, that Mongols from Mongolia are ca. 90% Mongoloid and 10% Caucasoid - not 100% Mongoloid (like Han Chinese):


I think this caucasoid admixture even in Mongolia and Kazakhistan is due to Tocharian admixture. They have disappeared as a civilization but remained a lot of their genetics.

----------


## Hauteville

I think this ANE map is better


And this map of 450 ad as well

----------


## Tomenable

Hauteville,

Tocharians were not present in Kazakhstan or Mongolia. That admixture is due to Scythians and other Iranic peoples.

Tocharians were in Xinjiang, where Uyghurs live today. But Iranic-speakers were also there (and some still are).

====================

Andronovo culture (which I mentioned above) was Caucasoid, and they spoke Indo-Iranic languages. Here is a map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

https://archive.org/details/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...sion-%28Map%29

And this article is about a fully Caucasoid man found in North-Eastern Mongolia - he was one of the Xiongnu peoples:

http://volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Kim_et_al.pdf

----------


## Hauteville

> Hauteville,
> 
> Tocharians were not present in Kazakhstan or Mongolia. That admixture is due to Scythians and other Iranic peoples.
> 
> Tocharians were in Xinjiang, where Uyghurs live today. But Iranic-speakers were also there (and some still are).


Xinjiang (or Uyghuristan) in fact, it borders with Kazakhstan and Mongolia.
I think Scythians and other Iranics lived there were really related with Tocharians.

----------


## Tomenable

Yes, they were related to each other, you are right.

----------


## Kristiina

I checked Supplementary File 9 of the paper I referred to, and found out that Nganasans have 5% C2 and 3% O. Nenets have 1% O and 1,5% Q and the rest is divided between N1b and N1c. Selkups have 66.4% Q, 19% R1a, 6% R1b, 6.9% N and 1.5% C. 

In any case, Nganasans are genetically very different from Nenets and Kets. Nganasans are close to Tungusic people who are mostly C2 and often lack Q. However, Tungusic people and Nganasans also seem to have true Southeast Asian admixture as they have yDNA O. Nganasans surely have a different history from other Uralic-speaking groups. Uralics have obviously mixed with Kets and Selkups who are more related to Eskimos via their yDNA Q.

----------


## Tomenable

> Selkups have 66.4% Q, *19% R1a, 6% R1b*, 6.9% N and 1.5% C.


Interesting - what kinds of subclades of R1a and R1b do they have?

----------


## Hauteville

> Yes, they were related to each other, you are right.


Yes. If you remember on K6 of Lazaridis also some Native Americans scored some Caucasoid admixture like Mongols and Kazakhs, maybe some of them joined with Siberians and moved to America in the year of proto-Amerindian migrations.

----------


## Kristiina

Tomenable, according to Tomsk Journal Ling & Antropo. 2013.1(1), southern Selkup R1b is R1b-M73, which is interesting. The paper does not say anything specific about R1a1, but on the basis of R1b-M73, their R1a1 could be the same as R1a1 of Turkic-speaking groups.

(http://www.academia.edu/4442616/Toms...0%A3._1_1_2013)

----------


## Kristiina

In a new article (2015), southern Selkup yDNA is analyzed. They do not have any R1a1, and it is northern Selkups wo live on the tundra who have R1a1.

Southern Selkups:
Q1a3-L330 25%
Q1a3-L53* 18.75%
Q1a2 6.25%
R1b-M73 12.5%
N1b-L1419 (European line) 6.25%
N1b-VL67 (Asian line) 31.25% (shared with Nenets)

They have even three different Q ydna haplotypes. One could conclude that the Samoyedic language comes from South Siberian N1b-VL67 men who gave rise to both Nenets, Enets and Selkup languages in their respective groups. 
(http://ling.tspu.edu.ru/files/ling/P..._4_10_2015.pdf)

In the article they estimate that N1b-VL67 is 3000 years old which would mean that Proto-Samoyedic language formed c. 1000 BC in South Siberia.

Northern Selkups:
Q 66.4%
R1a1 19%
N1b 6.9%
R1b 6.1%
C2 1.5%

Kets:
Q1a3 84%
N1c1 8%
N1b 4%
R1a1 4%

----------


## Rethel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland

Two interesting details can be added to the pule of informations:

1. About VII century AD the avarage hight of people was 158 for men and 147 for women. This is very short even for Middle Ages, but if we consider, that yet in XVII/XIX centuries Finns were consider as mongoloids, then this is understandabe - then, 1000+ years earlier, they had to be much more mongoloidal - so also shorter.

2. And about languages, what is compareable with data wich I mentiond earlier about, maybe whole quote will be the best explanation:

_According to a widespread presumption,[6][7][8] Finno-Ugric (or Uralic) languages were first spoken in Finland and the adjacent areas during the Comb Ceramic period, around 4000 BCE at the latest. During the 2nd millennium BCE these evolved — possibly under an Indo-European (most likely Baltic) influence — into proto-Sami (inland) and Proto-Finnic (coastland). However, this theory has been increasingly contested among comparative linguists.[9][10][11] It has been suggested instead that the Finno-Ugric languages arrived in the Gulf of Finland area much later, perhaps around 2000 BCE[10] or later in the Bronze Age, as result of an early Bronze Age Uralic language expansion possibly connected to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon.[10][11] This would also imply that Finno-Ugric languages in Finland were preceded by a North-Western Indo-European language, at least to the extent the latter can be associated with the Cord Ceramic culture, as well as by hitherto unknown Paleo-European languages.[11] The center of expansion for the Proto-Finnic language is posited to have been located on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland.[11] [12] The Finnish language is thought to have started to differentiate during the Iron Age starting from the earliest centuries of the Common Era.


_And it must be always remembered that before 1000 AD Finland had less than 20.000 inhabitants in the area of 500.000 km2. So, racial, haplotypical and lingistic changing were very easy to happend, especially, that there were probably many demografical breakdowns as in the later history also. The best known are 50% depopulation in XVIII century (probably mostly men) and 15% in first half of XIXth century. Considering the fact, that in first quater of XVIII century remains only 250.000 people, mostly women, it is reasonably to assume, that many women had children without official husband (as it was for instance in Paragway in XIXth century after huge depopulation) so it is probable that propotion of the races and haplogroups were shifted. In which side? Of course to more present picture: more nordic looking percentage of people and especially increasing of hg N, maybe not so much, but such pattern musted be also in the past, when population was smaller, what resulted in ugrofinization of these area in deep antiquity. Less than 20.000 people in such large area this is really very small population, very easly changing it's own image._

_

----------


## RobertColumbia

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland
> 
> Two interesting details can be added to the pule of informations:
> 
> 1. About VII century AD the avarage hight of people was 158 for men and 147 for women. This is very short even for Middle Ages, but if we consider, that yet in XVII/XIX centuries Finns were consider as mongoloids, then this is understandabe - then, 1000+ years earlier, they had to be much more mongoloidal - so also shorter....
> And it must be always remembered that before 1000 AD Finland had less than 20.000 inhabitants in the area of 500.000 km2. So, racial, haplotypical and lingistic changing were very easy to happend, especially, that there were probably many demografical breakdowns as in the later history also....Of course to more present picture: more nordic looking percentage of people and especially increasing of hg N, maybe not so much, but such pattern musted be also in the past, when population was smaller, what resulted in ugrofinization of these area in deep antiquity. Less than 20.000 people in such large area this is really very small population, very easly changing it's own image._
> 
> _


Great points!

When we compare modern European Uralic-speaking populations with modern Siberian Uralic-speaking populations, we do see a difference that could be described as racial, and I think it makes sense that Finnish-speaking populations have become more "Nordic" in appearance in relatively recent history due to admixture with (IE speaking) Baltic and Germanic populations. We, as humans, love to seek patterns and identify differences (basic psychology), so I would keep in mind that past (or even present) observations of Mongoloid features in Finns might be exaggerated. I'm not saying there is no difference, I'm saying that if one approaches two sets of people with prior knowledge of an ethnic distinction, one is likely to observe a difference that might not be significant.

----------


## Ukko

> Great points!
> 
> When we compare modern European Uralic-speaking populations with modern Siberian Uralic-speaking populations, we do see a difference that could be described as racial, and I think it makes sense that Finnish-speaking populations have become more "Nordic" in appearance in relatively recent history due to admixture with (IE speaking) Baltic and Germanic populations. We, as humans, love to seek patterns and identify differences (basic psychology), so I would keep in mind that past (or even present) observations of Mongoloid features in Finns might be exaggerated. I'm not saying there is no difference, I'm saying that if one approaches two sets of people with prior knowledge of an ethnic distinction, one is likely to observe a difference that might not be significant.


The guy does not have a single great point, he is a *****.

He is lying in the height and population size and settlement regions for starters, he does not know shit and that is the reason Finns dont even comment to this retard.
You people know nothing about Finnish ancient history or more importantly about Baltic Finns and Uralics as a whole.

----------


## Ukko

*The Language Contact Situation in Prehistoric Northeastern Europe

*https://www.academia.edu/20252178/Th...eastern_Europe

*On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory

*http://www.academia.edu/1959273/On_G...ami_prehistory

Formation of Proto-Finnic – an archaeological scenario from theBronze Age – Early Iron Age

http://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/CIFU12-BookOfAbstracts_4.pdf

Spatiotemporal Contributions to the Linguistic Prehistory of Fennoscandia

​https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/135714

*De situ linguarum fennicarum aetatis ferreae, Pars I

*http://www.helsinki.fi/folkloristiikka/English/RMN/RMN_9_Winter_2014-2015.pdf#page=64

*Kaleva and his Sons from Kalanti –On the Etymology of Certain Names in Finnic Mythology

*http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/...2/Heikkila.pdf

*THE MIGRATION PERIOD, PRE-VIKING AGE, AND VIKING AGE IN ESTONIA

*http://www.academia.edu/2237217/THE_...AGE_IN_ESTONIA

*Marks of Fire, Value and Faith. Swords with Ferrous Inlays in Finland during the Late Iron Age (ca. 700–1200 AD)*

http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/119919



*Estonian Journal of Archaeology*


http://www.kirj.ee/archaeology


*The Journal Virittäjä

*http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/english/index.html

----------


## Ukko

Read those and we can start discussing about Baltic Finns and Uralics.

Before that there is not much point.

----------


## ThirdTerm

Y-DNA haplogroups of the Finns are N1c (59%), I1a (28%), R1a (5%) and R1b (3.5%). Haplogroup N1c entered Europe around 12,000–14,000 years ago from southern Siberia. Haplogroup N1c is also found among the Nenets (45%) and the Finns are genetically related to the Siberians but the Siberian proportion in the Finnish genome is only 20-30% overall. The Finns' mtDNA haplogroups are HV (36%), HV0+V (7%), J (6%), U5 (20%), W (10%), X (1.3%) and Z (1.5%). Of these Finnish mtDNA haplogroups, only X and Z are from Asia and the Finns' maternal ancestry is around 98% European. Haplogroups U5 and I1a entered Scandinavia with the retreat of ice sheets from Europe around 10,000 years ago and N1c men from Siberia arrived Finland around the same time, thus interbreeding with U5 and I1a women. Haplogroups HV and V reached Scandinavia much later from 9,000 BCE to 3,000 BCE from the Near East, which may be associated with IE migrations.




> Recently, the use of mitochondrial "mtDNA" (female lineage) and Y-chromosomal "Y-DNA" (male lineage) DNA-markers in tracing back the history of human populations has been started. For the paternal and maternal genetic lineages of Finnish people and other peoples, see, e.g., the National Geographic Genographic Project and the Suomi DNA-projekti. Haplogroup U5 is estimated to be the oldest mtDNA haplogroup in Europe and is found in the whole of Europe at a low frequency, but seems to be found in significantly higher levels among Finns, Estonians and the Sami people.[36] With regard to the Y-chromosome, the most common haplogroups of the Finns are N1c (59%), I1a (28%), R1a (5%) and R1b (3.5%).[37] Haplogroup N1c, which is found mainly in a few countries in Europe (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Russia), is a subgroup of the haplogroup N (Y-DNA) distributed across northern Eurasia and estimated in a 2006 study to be 10,000–20,000 years old and suggested to have entered Europe about 12,000–14,000 years ago from Asia.[38]
> 
> The great intra-Finnish (FST) distance between Western Finns and Eastern Finns[39][40] supports the theorized dual origin of the Finns[43] based on the regional distribution of the two major Y-DNA haplogroups, N1c in Eastern Finland and I1a in Western Finland.[37] Finns show very little if any Mediterranean and African genes but on the other hand almost 10% of Finnish genes seem to be shared with Siberian populations. Nevertheless, more than 80% of Finnish genes are from a single ancient Northeastern European population, while most Europeans are a mixture of 3 or more principal components.[44]

----------


## Ukko

> Y-DNA haplogroups of the Finns are N1c (59%), I1a (28%), R1a (5%) and R1b (3.5%). Haplogroup N1c entered Europe around 12,000–14,000 years ago from southern Siberia. Haplogroup N1c is also found among the Nenets (45%) and the Finns are genetically related to the Siberians but the Siberian proportion in the Finnish genome is only 20-30% overall. The Finns' mtDNA haplogroups are HV (36%), HV0+V (7%), J (6%), U5 (20%), W (10%), X (1.3%) and Z (1.5%). Of these Finnish mtDNA haplogroups, only X and Z are from Asia and the Finns' maternal ancestry is around 98% European. Haplogroups U5 and I1a entered Scandinavia with the retreat of ice sheets from Europe around 10,000 years ago and N1c men from Siberia arrived Finland around the same time, thus interbreeding with U5 and I1a women. Haplogroups HV and V reached Scandinavia much later from 9,000 BCE to 3,000 BCE from the Near East.


And there is no such ethnicity as Russian or Russian nation for that matter, so go drink some vodka for your sorrow.

----------


## Kristiina

All the people were shorter during the Middle Ages. You should study the table 1 here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...70677X14000665
The tallest nations in Europe are, excluding western and southern Slavs who are clearly the tallest in Europe:
2. Netherlands 
4. Iceland
5. Sweden yDNA N 8.3%
6. Lithuania yDNA N 43%
8. Estonia yDNA 40.6%
10. Denmark
12. Germany
13. Latvia yDNA N 42%
14. Norway yDNA N 3.8%
16. Austria
17. Belgium
18. Finland yDNA N 63%
19. Ireland
20. Scotland
21. France
23. England
However, Wikipedia site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height) gives a higher stature to Finns (measured height 178.9 cm and 180.7 cm, so I do not know how representative the figure used in that table is with respect to other figures). People have been growing all the time, so it matters how old the data is.
In any case, yDNA N1c-bearing nations are among the highest in the world. If there is a correlation between a yDNA haplogroup and height, it correlates with yDNA I. By the way, Saami who are often referred in to in this context carry clearly more yDNA I, R1a and R1b than Finns. So using your stupid logic, their presumed higher admixture rate with Swedes has instead lowered their stature with respect to Finns. IMO, if Finns and Saamis have some Siberian short-stature genes, it is not due to yDNA N.

Saami yDNA R1b 3.9%, R1a1 11.0%, I1 31.4%, N1c 47.2%
Finnish yDNA R1b 3.7%, R1a1 7%, I1 29%, N1c 58%

" the Siberian proportion in the Finnish genome is only 20-30% overall "
Thirdterm, where do you get this figure of 20-30%? I would like to see your source. To my knowledge, the Siberian percentage ranges between 4 and 10 percent in Finns, and maybe 10-25% in Saamis.

----------


## Kristiina

I see that you are from Poland, Russia and USA. According to Wikipedia article, all these countries are below Finland in terms of height: 
Finland 180.7 cm, age under 25, 2010-2011, measured 
Poland 178.7 cm, age 18, 2010, measured
US Non-Hispanic whites 178.4 cm, 20-39, 2007-2010, measured 
Russia 177.2 cm, age 24, 2004, measured
All Americans 176.3 cm, age 20-29, 2007-2010, measured

It looks like the average Finnish height of 178.9 cm, age 25-34, is from 1994.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

----------


## Rethel

> He is lying in the height and population size and settlement regions for starters,


But your fairy tales, about finnic blond masterrace "are true"
ever and always, even if science does not support you ideas.

Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ion_of_Finland
1150 AD 20-40 thousands.

Hight: http://www.kansallismuseo.fi/fi/kans.../tulostettava3

So, get away from me, you manchurian lier and slanderer... 

Even your Ukko bear indoeuropean name Perkele,
and your country IE names Suomi aka Finland....

----------


## Rethel

> Haplogroup N1c entered Europe around 12,000–14,000 years ago from southern Siberia.


Probably much later, as XX century's theories claimed about 2000-4000 years ago.

All northeuropean N has the last common ancestor living only 4500 y.a.
(~2500 pne) who could still live in Syberia as well as his close descendants,
so logically, some time took them to get into Finland in such number, which
could left this ~8-10% of mongolian autosomal.




> The Finns' mtDNA haplogroups are HV (36%), HV0+V (7%), J (6%), U5 (20%), W (10%), X (1.3%) and Z (1.5%). Of these Finnish mtDNA haplogroups, only X and Z are from Asia and the Finns' maternal ancestry is around 98% European.


It is very important information. Thanks.

----------


## Rethel

> So using your stupid logic, their presumed higher admixture rate with Swedes has instead lowered their stature with respect to Finns.


Your logic is even stupider, if you think, that height is bind with hg.

Height is bind with other genes, which are in general autosomal combination.
This characteristic was bear by steppe (IE) people who entered Finland some
5500 years ago, long before forfather of present day N bearers even begen
to exist... they bring also fair pigmentation and lactose tolerance to this part
of the world, and they were generally R1 people.

----------


## Ukko

> But your fairy tales, about finnic blond masterrace "are true"
> ever and always, even if science does not support you ideas.
> 
> Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ion_of_Finland
> 1150 AD 20-40 thousands.
> 
> Hight: http://www.kansallismuseo.fi/fi/kans.../tulostettava3
> 
> So, get away from me, you manchurian lier and slanderer... 
> ...


So Finland had more warriors per population than rest of Northern Europe in 1150 AD?
Swedes and Novgorodians record them attacking with thousands of men, most of the population fit for war raiding neighbours.
To be fair we have even women buried with swords so they must have taken them also along. :Rolleyes: 




> The overall number of Late Iron Ageswords in Finland is relatively high in comparison with neighbouring areas and with regard to the assumption that the areas of settlement in Late Iron Age Finland were not a major part of the trade networks but lay instead outside the main trading routes. In addition, the number of decorated blades is similarly high, although comparisons are difficult due to the lack of systematic studies elsewhere. Blades with ferrous inlays were not rarities in Late Iron Age Finland but quite common, contrary to traditional beliefs.



http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/119919

You also keep bringing up the Leväluhta bodies and their height estimates that have changed from the previous ones.
Their ethnicity is not even certain yet, their DNA is being studied

You forgot Viro aka Estonia also has an IE etymology, Finnish word for slave, orja, comes from aryan.
Just like slave comes from slav.




> I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy; they wear neither tunics nor caftans, but the men wear a garment which covers one side of the body and leaves a hand free. Each man has an axe, a sword, and a knife, and keeps each by him at all times. The swords are broad and grooved, of Frankish sort. Each woman wears on either breast a box of iron, silver, copper, or gold; the value of the box indicates the wealth of the husband. Each box has a ring from which depends a knife. The women wear neck-rings of gold and silver. Their most prized ornaments are green glass beads. They string them as necklaces for their women.





> As for the Rus, they live on an island ... that takes three days to walk round and is covered with thick undergrowth and forests; it is most unhealthy. ... They harry the Slavs, using ships to reach them; they carry them off as slaves and…sell them. They have no fields but simply live on what they get from the Slav's lands. ... When a son is born, the father will go up to the newborn baby, sword in hand; throwing it down, he says, "I shall not leave you with any property: You have only what you can provide with this weapon."

----------


## Ukko

So I got a warning for telling the etymology for the word slave in different languages.

But this Pole who thinks he is related to Ragnar is still a member for posting his tales of Manchurian reindeer herders. 

A good reminder why Finns should get the hell out of EU and keep to themselves.

----------


## Ukko

> I see that you are from Poland, Russia and USA. According to Wikipedia article, all these countries are below Finland in terms of height: 
> Finland 180.7 cm, age under 25, 2010-2011, measured 
> Poland 178.7 cm, age 18, 2010, measured
> US Non-Hispanic whites 178.4 cm, 20-39, 2007-2010, measured 
> Russia 177.2 cm, age 24, 2004, measured
> All Americans 176.3 cm, age 20-29, 2007-2010, measured
> 
> It looks like the average Finnish height of 178.9 cm, age 25-34, is from 1994.
> 
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height


Fiinnihs average male height is 181+ and for females 170+, this was three years back with a larger study.

We measure them during school and in the army, the stats ae reliable.

----------


## Rethel

> Swedes and Novgorodians record them attacking with thousands of men,


So it is now understandable, why in 1150 so few people remained :)

Weak tactic and great casualties... and declining of nonN subclades also...

----------


## Ukko

> So it is now understandable, why in 1150 so few people remained :)
> 
> Weak tactic and great casualties... and declining of nonN subclades also...


 :Laughing: 


63734392.jpg

----------


## arvistro

> *The Language Contact Situation in Prehistoric Northeastern Europe
> 
> *https://www.academia.edu/20252178/Th...eastern_Europe
> 
> *On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory
> 
> *http://www.academia.edu/1959273/On_G...ami_prehistory
> 
> Formation of Proto-Finnic – an archaeological scenario from theBronze Age – Early Iron Age
> ...


This is Gold and must read on Baltic Finns linguistics.
Good to have it in one post.

----------


## Ukko

> This is Gold and must read on Baltic Finns linguistics.
> Good to have it in one post.


Thanks, it was just a quick and angry response for that guy.

Here is more gold for you, you deserve it as you are actually interested.

What do we know about the prehistory of languages and cultures in areas, such as Northern Europe that do not have written documents or large extinct cities? For decades, archaeology and linguistics, two disciplines weaving together multiple interdisciplinary aspects have fostered a dialogue focusing on cultural and linguistic networks, mobility and contacts between people. This book sheds new light on cultural diffusion and language change in prehistoric Northern Europe with special emphasis on the northern Baltic Sea area. The rise of agriculture, identification of new cultural waves in terms of language are topics that outline the early prehistory in the North. The book contains twelve articles by linguists and archaeologists, evidence drawn from various Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages, and up-to-date insights into the research of prehistoric Northern Europe.


*Riho Grünthal*: Introduction: an interdisciplinary perspective on prehistoric Northern Europe [*PDF*]
*Mika Lavento*: Cultivation among hunter-gatherers in Finland – evidence of activated connections? [*PDF*]
*Charlotte Damm*: From Entities to Interaction: Replacing pots and people with networks of transmission [*PDF*]
*Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte* (*Ante Aikio*): An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory [*PDF*]
*Asko Parpola*: Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated 'total' correlations [*PDF*]
*Tiit-Rein Viitso*: Early Metallurgy in Language: The History of Metal Names in Finnic [*PDF*]
*Karl Pajusalu*: Phonological Innovations of the Southern Finnic Languages [*PDF*]
*Petri Kallio*: The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic [*PDF*]
*Guus Kroonen*: Non-Indo-European root nouns in Germanic: evidence in support of the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis [*PDF*]
*Santeri Junttila*: The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages [*PDF*]
*Riho Grünthal*: Baltic loanwords in Mordvin [*PDF*]
*Willem Vermeer*: Why _Baba-Yaga_? Substratal phonetics and restoration of velars subject to the Progressive Palatalization in Russian/Belorussian and adjacent areas (appr. 600–900 CE) [*PDF*]

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266.html

----------


## Ukko

*Æsir*



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86sir





> I suggest that Proto-Finnic was introduced to the Baltic area by warrior traders of the Akozino-Akhmylovo culture, who brought Akozino-Mälar axesto southern and southwestern Finland, the Åland islands and, in so great numbers that it must have involved the movement of a fair amount of people, to the Mälaren area of eastern Sweden around 800–500 BCE (Figure 7). This main route along which the Akozino-Mälar axes went westwards probably followedthe same waterways as the Vikings later, but another trade route was through the Daugava valley mentioned earlier while speaking of South Estonian as the Finnic language that was the first to separate from the proto language





> On the basis of the associated archaeological evidence detailed below, I suggest that the “immigration of Finnic” was not from Estonia to SW Finland as has been thought, but in the opposite direction, taking the Proto-Finnic language to Estonia (Estonian)and then further to Courland (Livonian) and to Latvia (the Finnic superstratum whose assimilation to the local Baltic speakers led to the differentiation of Lithuanian and Latvian).





> The tarand graves have figured prominently in the hypothesis of the immigration of Finnic speakers from Estonia around the beginning of the Christian era. Earlier only “typical tarand graves” of the Roman Iron Age were known,but now as many as twenty-six “early tarand graves” have been partially or fully excavated in Estonia, mostly in the coastal areas of northern and western Estonia and on the islands. They are dated to c. 800–400 BCE, and “similar graves occur in south-western Finland, the eastern part of central Sweden, and in northern Latvia and Courland”





> The Akozino-Mälar axes were in Finland, Estonia and Sweden copied in iron (Asplund 2008: 245–246). Iron was at that time rare and highly valued, and the technology of its production was kept a well-guarded secret. Such esoteric knowledge, along with exclusive access to prestige goods, which were symbols of rank and power, have often guaranteed the elites their position in chiefdom-level societies (which normally involve populations of thousands or tens of thousands).The chiefdom system is usually connected with warring, and the Netted Ware cultures of Early Iron Age Russia were both very well armed





> The virtual identity of Proto-West-Uralic and Proto-Uralic suggests that Proto-Uralic has spread fast, in all likelihood in the same way as was above suggested for the migration of Proto-Finnic from the Mid-Volga to southern Finland(and to eastern central Sweden, where the Finnic language of the immigrants was assimilated into Proto-Germanic), namely through the elite dominance of incoming warrior traders.


http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_parpola.pdf

----------


## arvistro

Parpola's work seemed a bit shady on various matters.
Might be small nitpicking from my side, but having Proto-Baltic speakers in South Finland 500bce seems a bit far fetched.
Also
"Taking the Proto-Finnic language to Estonia (Estonian)and then further to Courland (Livonian) and to Latvia (the Finnic superstratum whose assimilation to the local Baltic speakers led to the differentiation of Lithuanian and Latvian)." is incorrect.
Diff bw LT and LV have many factors - Livonian substrate, Germanic superstrate, pre-Order Krivichi influence on what turned out Latvian vs later Slavic (Polish, Belorussian) influence on what became Lithuanian.
N superstrate which clearly shows in genes was something that took place at proto-Baltic or proto-East-Baltic level, because Latvian tribes represent (80/90% of LV N) only one branch of "Baltic N" (m2773) namely the šo called West Baltic from your tree above. Whereas LT tribes have all of them.
But for Finnic superstrate what is lacking is any evidence of Finnic superstrate loanwords into Lithuanian. The rulership terms are mostly Germanic in both Baltic and Finnic languages (kunigaitis, kunigas, etc).

----------


## werner

And what for a population spoken paleosibirian like Ket? 
Your genetic list is not correct, Ket-People had Haplogroup N and Q from mongolian invasion and asiatic R1b from hunnic invasion and lot more. The point is, N is a child of NO*-Group and the Language is connect to a language of O-Speaker from Tibet. They wandering with her language along sibiria about the route of jenissey river to north europe. It seems Ket is the origin language of Haplogroup N, not Uralic. Uralic was addopted by N from local population at Ural mountains.
But when it is true, what for a group had spoken uralic?

----------


## Norvila

It was theory back in 19-20c races has some typical skulls.
This was denied later skulls changes because of the living conditions during several generations.
Human height changes even faster as we can see on our kids :)

----------


## werner

> It was theory back in 19-20c races has some typical skulls.


Nonsense, this theory is new based of ADNA of Haplogroup N and her connect to Ket-Region Archeology.

----------


## laint

> And what for a population spoken paleosibirian like Ket? 
> Your genetic list is not correct, Ket-People had Haplogroup N and Q from mongolian invasion and asiatic R1b from hunnic invasion and lot more. The point is, N is a child of NO*-Group and the Language is connect to a language of O-Speaker from Tibet. They wandering with her language along sibiria about the route of jenissey river to north europe. It seems Ket is the origin language of Haplogroup N, not Uralic. Uralic was addopted by N from local population at Ural mountains.
> But when it is true, what for a group had spoken uralic?



Ket is related to Na-Dene language group in N America. Na-Dene doesn't have N yDNA, but just like Ket - both share Q yDNA. I have no idea, if Na-Dene has any relations with Nostratic languages, but currently it is not even considered to be related to Uralic at all! Ket are american indians, who stayed in Siberia. Probably up till recent most of Siberia was populated by Q, as N spread in Siberia probably when Ice age ended and Beringia vanished, so at max 11 000(in East Siberia it might be more like ~5000) years ago, because most of the Siberia was either ice or sea-sized lakes.

Ancient Tibet has D yDNA, that was replaced by O yDNA 5000(or 3000) years ago - also modern invaders, who are now Tibetians replaced ancient religion with new in process.

Siberian/European N originated on Liao River first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinglongwa_culture 6200-5400BC - Oldest Comb ceramic sample(in China)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinle_culture 5500-4800BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhaobaogou_culture 5400-4500BC Oldest Jade dragon(in China)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongshan_culture 4700-2900BC

European cultures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_culture 5300-3300
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2...b_Ware_culture 4200-2000BC

It seems, that they did more than wandering, but built civilization and before Near East civilizations made pottery. As for language - Yukaghir is also Paleosiberian language and shows similarities with Uralic, as a Uralic-Yukhagir language group.

----------


## laint

> Eskimos are not very indigenous to their lands. For example, Eskimos came to Greenland later than Vikings.
> 
> Eskimos represented the Thule culture and they replaced previous native inhabitants - the Dorset culture:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture
> 
> Maps:
> 
> Dorset people = green
> ...


It is really misleading, to claim, that innuit were not that very(what kind of level even is it?) indigenous... because most of pre-innuit population that was not killed was absorbed, so how that even makes them not indigenous anymore? They have same Q y-dna as rest of american indians - it might even be that these cultures were more related to each other than rest of american indigenous population, so what's the point of of calling them less indigenous? As I understand, then innuit/yupik were travelling back and forth across Bering strait, before they settled in America and were assimilated in Siberia.

PS There exist also Pre-Dorset culture... that was replaced by Dorset culture, obviously.

----------

