# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups > N1c >  Finns weren't N but I haplogroup originally

## Gurka atla

This clearly proves that Finns Y-DNA were originally like Swedes, Norwegian and Danish who are also mainly haplogroup I which is typical of Scandivanian indo-european Y-DNA. They have either moderate frequencies N to 0% of N. Danish and Finns have similar mtDNA only the Y-DNA is different partially


*Haplogroup I
*
A notable exception is Finland, where frequency in West Finns is up to 40%, and in certain provinces like *Satakunta more than 50%.*

----------


## Templar

> This clearly proves that Finns Y-DNA were originally like Swedes, Norwegian and Danish who are also mainly haplogroup I which is typical of Scandivanian indo-european Y-DNA. They have either moderate frequencies N to 0% of N. Danish and Finns have similar mtDNA only the Y-DNA is different partially
> 
> 
> *Haplogroup I
> *
> A notable exception is Finland, where frequency in West Finns is up to 40%, and in certain provinces like *Satakunta more than 50%.*


Well Finland's population was very low (they were still hunter-gatherers) when Swedish vikings began settling and raiding it. I think they left a big genetic imprint on them. The original Finns were probably an EEMH-Mongoloid mix, therefore I don't think they had blonde hair and other light features before they started mixing with Swedes. The genes for light features probably spread quickly in Finland due to aesthetic reasons, and then they remained Blonde due to geographic isolation (Finns are blonder now than the people that they got the Blonde hair genes from).

----------


## Gurka atla

> Well Finland's population was very low (they were still hunter-gatherers) when Swedish vikings began settling and raiding it. I think they left a big genetic imprint on them. The original Finns were probably an EEMH-Mongoloid mix, therefore I don't think they had blonde hair and other light features before they started mixing with Swedes. The genes for light features probably spread quickly in Finland due to aesthetic reasons, and then they remained Blonde due to geographic isolation (Finns are blonder now than the people that they got the Blonde hair genes from).



One study shows Finns are 9.3% Mongoloid on average other is 6.13% but some Finns are also 12% Mongoloid however the rest of their components is more Baltic than anyone

----------


## sparkey

> This clearly proves that Finns Y-DNA were originally like Swedes, Norwegian and Danish who are also mainly haplogroup I which is typical of Scandivanian indo-european Y-DNA.


I don't see any clear proof. Do you know the diversity of Haplogroup I in Finland? (Hint: It's not high, being dominated by one major I1 subclade.) How about the age of major Haplogroup I lineages in Finland? (Hint: ~2000YBP for the main one.) How about the cline of those lineages? What does the highly Western bias really say?

IMHO it's likely that _Finland_ could have once been Haplogroup I dominant, but I'm not convinced that it was by a time in which the ethnogenesis of the _Finns_ had occurred.

----------


## gyms

http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/04/...-skoglund.html

"The finding of Y-haplogroup I2a1 also parallels the Motala hunter-gatherers, so everything seems quite consistent with the Mesolithic Swedes being genetically very close to the Pitted Ware Neolithic ones. "

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

----------


## gyms

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.1253448

Supplementary Material for
*Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian
Foragers and Farmers
*

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2014/04/23/science.1253448.DC1/Skoglund.SM.pdf

----------


## sparkey

Here is the existing thread for Skoglund et al. 2014. gyms, do you think that study has bearing on the topic of this thread?

----------


## gyms

Thanks,I know...
Diversity and frequency means not so mutch in this case(we are talking about mesolithic-8000 years).Y haplogroup I* and/or some subclades could be Finno-Ugric in origin.The language is "quite" old.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> This clearly proves that Finns Y-DNA were originally like Swedes, Norwegian and Danish who are also mainly haplogroup I which is typical of Scandivanian indo-european Y-DNA. They have either moderate frequencies N to 0% of N. Danish and Finns have similar mtDNA only the Y-DNA is different partially
> 
> 
> *Haplogroup I
> *
> A notable exception is Finland, where frequency in West Finns is up to 40%, and in certain provinces like *Satakunta more than 50%.*


Not true. For one thing I1 which takes up nearly all I in the Norse, arrived sometime after the Neolithic, probably around 5,000-4,000BP, and at somepoint probably in pre-Germanic times moved over to Finland. Stone age Scandinavian hunter gatherers did have about 100% Y DNA I, but most or all was I2a1-P37.2, and probably many were specifically apart of brother lineages to I2a1b. Finns are a Finno-Urgic ethnic group, and the main Y DNA of FInno-Urgics is N1c1. Pre-Finno Urgic hunter gatherers of FInland may have had mainly Y DNA I, but they are probably not the main ancestors of modern Finns, and if anything contributed very small amount of ancestry to Finns. Since Finns have over 50% Mesolithic European ancestry, it makes sense that many of their male ancestors belonged to Y DNA I, but hardly any are direct paternal ancestors.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Thanks,I know...
> Diversity and frequency means not so mutch in this case(we are talking about mesolithic-8000 years).Y haplogroup I* and/or some subclades could be Finno-Ugric in origin.The language is "quite" old.


The I* samples from Mesolithic Sweden, are probably not I* it is just they were not tested for many I subclades, like I2a1-P37.2 which all most likely belonged to. Mesolithic Swedes probably had nothing to do with Finno-Urgics. There are very deep and young I1a2-L22 Finnish-specfic subclades, which probably migrated there from Sweden within the last 5,000 years.

----------


## gyms

There was hunter-gatherers (y haplogroup I.......)over the entire Europe in the pre-farming period.

http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/05/...ge-thrace.html



 Originally Posted by *Jean M*  
Why must it? Arguments from modern DNA have been shown to be wrong by ancient DNA over and over and over again. If we stick to ancient DNA, this is the pattern we see for Y-DNA: 

Palaeolithic: R* in Siberia. (Mal'ta boy, described in this paper as an example of Ancient Northern Eurasians)
European Mesolithic: I* and I2 (described in this paper as examples of West European Hunter-Gatherers)
European Neolithic: F* (older than Neolithic in origin), G2a and E1b1b1a1b (which we can class as Early European Farmers) 
Central European Copper/Bronze Ages: R1a and R1b. 

R1 may well have been lurking around the Caspian on the Europe/Asia border as early as the Mesolithic, but this paper indicates that the Ancient Northern Eurasian element to which we can link R1 did not enter Central, Western and Northern Europe until after the Neolithic.

----------


## Aberdeen

> There was hunter-gatherers (y haplogroup I.......)over the entire Europe in the pre-farming period.
> 
> http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/05/...ge-thrace.html
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by *Jean M*  
> Why must it? Arguments from modern DNA have been shown to be wrong by ancient DNA over and over and over again. If we stick to ancient DNA, this is the pattern we see for Y-DNA: 
> 
> ...


And just how do you arrive at the conclusion that Iron Age remains tells us whether R1 arrived in Europe prior to the Neolithic? Whenever R1 arrived in Europe, it was prior to that individual's lifetime.

----------


## Gurka atla

> I don't see any clear proof. Do you know the diversity of Haplogroup I in Finland? (Hint: It's not high, being dominated by one major I1 subclade.) How about the age of major Haplogroup I lineages in Finland? (Hint: ~2000YBP for the main one.) How about the cline of those lineages? What does the highly Western bias really say?
> 
> IMHO it's likely that _Finland_ could have once been Haplogroup I dominant, but I'm not convinced that it was by a time in which the ethnogenesis of the _Finns_ had occurred.



One also have to look at the mtDNA to find out the real origins of Finns. At least on mtDNA they are indistinguishable from the rest of its Scandinavian neighbors. The average Finns have 29% I1a the more west you move the lower the N1c1 however the mtDNA are exactly the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M253

Lappalainen et al 2008

Finland (west) 230 of the samples were 40% I1a 
Finland (east) 306 of the samples were 19% I1a


Haplogroup I1a is the dominant marker

----------


## Gurka atla

> Not true. For one thing I1 which takes up nearly all I in the Norse, arrived sometime after the Neolithic, probably around 5,000-4,000BP, and at somepoint probably in pre-Germanic times moved over to Finland. Stone age Scandinavian hunter gatherers did have about 100% Y DNA I, but most or all was I2a1-P37.2, and probably many were specifically apart of brother lineages to I2a1b. Finns are a Finno-Urgic ethnic group, and the main Y DNA of FInno-Urgics is N1c1. Pre-Finno Urgic hunter gatherers of FInland may have had mainly Y DNA I, but they are probably not the main ancestors of modern Finns, and if anything contributed very small amount of ancestry to Finns. Since Finns have over 50% Mesolithic European ancestry, it makes sense that many of their male ancestors belonged to Y DNA I, but hardly any are direct paternal ancestors.


However modern Finns have 40% I1a in west to 19% I1a in the east, one province even showed 56% I1a. I2a is found in small frequencies only.

Is much wiser to suggest modern Finns have ancestry derived from both proto-North germanic speakers and Uralic speakers because most of their other Y-DNA haplogroup except for N don't even resemble other Uralic people in the Urals such as I1a which is either non-existant or few percentages.

Finns mtDNA are extremely similar to Sweden, Norway, Denmark and partially similar in Y-DNA the only really notable difference is that N1c1 is predominant in Finland ( at least on the east ). Sweden and Norway have but but a mere 7.5% N1c1 but Denmark have 0% to 0.5%

Like some previous thread had posted before. I1a is found high all countries speaking North germanic languages like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and even Iceland and Finland being the only geographic country next to them that speaks Uralic have the highest I1a out of all non-North Germanic speaker. So it's definitely sure they have partial proto-north germanic ancestry.

----------


## sparkey

> Thanks,I know...
> Diversity and frequency means not so mutch in this case(we are talking about mesolithic-8000 years).Y haplogroup I* and/or some subclades could be Finno-Ugric in origin.The language is "quite" old.


The question was whether or not "Finns" were mainly Haplogroup I originally. Maybe some sort of recognizable proto-Finno-Ugric speaking population was Haplogroup I dominant back in the Mesolithic, but they wouldn't have been _Finns_, and that's so speculative anyway that it's tough to say much more about it. A more relevant question than "when did proto-Finno-Ugric form?" is "when did the Finns become recognizable as such?"




> There was hunter-gatherers (y haplogroup I.......)over the entire Europe in the pre-farming period.
> 
> http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/05/...ge-thrace.html


Although it's likely that Haplogroup I was "over the entire Europe," there are some places where it's still ambiguous whether or not that was the case, like Greece. I suppose Finland at least is close enough to Sweden that it's a very good guess that Finland hosted Haplogroup I carriers in the Mesolithic, but that is consistent with what I've been saying.

----------


## sparkey

> One also have to look at the mtDNA to find out the real origins of Finns. At least on mtDNA they indistinguishable from the rest of its Scandinavian neighbors. The average Finns have 29% I1a the more west you move the lower the N1c1 however the mtDNA are exactly the same.


Agreed, this seems to be the same effect we often see with Y-DNA, where modern Y-DNA distributions exaggerate migrations and admixture. Looking at the Y-DNA of Finns, it looks like they have massive influence from Germanic peoples (post formation of proto-Germanic) as wells as massive influence directly from the N1c direction. However, mtDNA can have the opposite effect, in which it looks like everyone is only slightly different from their neighbors. The truth is probably somewhere in-between.

----------


## MOESAN

> Well Finland's population was very low (they were still hunter-gatherers) when Swedish vikings began settling and raiding it. I think they left a big genetic imprint on them. The original Finns were probably an EEMH-Mongoloid mix, therefore I don't think they had blonde hair and other light features before they started mixing with Swedes. The genes for light features probably spread quickly in Finland due to aesthetic reasons, and then they remained Blonde due to geographic isolation (Finns are blonder now than the people that they got the Blonde hair genes from).


just for pigmentation:
Finns are more often "white" flaxen blond than germanic Scandinaves!!! (as are the Estonians too): it is without any discussion - this trend of lighter quality among blonds is common in Eastern Europe and surely, associated with other autosomals traits, predate the I-Ean and no-I-Ean languages in these areas, and it is hard to link this peculiarity to any Y-HG or mt-HG for now (not to say therie is no link at all, but to say we don't know at this stage)... So I can affirm (I believe) these very light haired people were all over N-E Europe before Germanics!

here and now I answer to every "colleague" here:
Y-I1 apparently not the first in S-Scandinavia, has some particular clades in Finnland which do not seem came with germanic speaking people - it's not to say there is NO sandinavian germanic Y-I1 in Finnland - I have not the subclades nor special SNP's for Russia, but in N-Russia Y-I1 reaches the 12-15% in certain regions outside the zones of historic germanic influence: so it could be old (look too at the Saami) - a russian scholar thinks these Y-I1 ancestors came from S-Baltic region into N- Russia at Mesolithical times -
it seems to me that Y-N1 came with the Finnic language mediated by a population more male than female (if I can say like that) the most of the female population seem having been steady enough and N-E European by nature - the West Finnland population was Y-I1 for the most since long ago, but surely enough received more recent apports by germanic speaking people at historic times (male mediated too): we have yet some scandinavian speaking areas in this part of Finnland -
my probelm is rather the Balts; who have an appreciable quantity of Y-N1: can we suppose the more northern of them were finnic speakers at some times but were overflowed by Y-R1a I-Ean speaking bearers?
Finno-Ugric languages are old enough at the source but that does not tell us the extension of the languages in Finnland nor Lappland nor South Baltic countries - we can figure out (when looking at metal works) that a part of the Finno-Ugric tribes had exchanges with I-Eans AND EVEN THAT THEY PARRALELED THE ADVANCE of some steppic tribes westwards? the classical scholars of Hungary seemingly thought the expansion of these F-U tribes from Oural/Ural to NE-Europe took place around the III-II° thousands years BC when we see upon some history maps that Finns already occupied Scandinavia about the 4500 BC...

----------


## Sile

I tend to agree with gurka....Finns originally where I group , few in numbers and where displaced in numbers by the migrating N group...............of course other groups also came in.

You need to also remember, finns ( finnic) where present in large numbers in modern latvia, estonia, lithuania and northern russia as stated as per ancient historians

----------


## MOESAN

> I tend to agree with gurka....Finns originally where I group , few in numbers and where displaced in numbers by the migrating N group...............of course other groups also came in.
> 
> You need to also remember, finns ( finnic) where present in large numbers in modern latvia, estonia, lithuania and northern russia as stated as per ancient historians


I agree concerning finnic languages in these countries, but when at first??? here is the big question!
I don't think first Finns arriving around the Baltic Sea were Y-I1 as a majority: I repeat that for me Y-I1 bearers were there before finnic speakers, and they were descendants of Hunters-Gatherers of North-Europe - I see the cradle of Y-I1 South the Baltic Shores, between Denmark and Estonia...it's Y-N1 the core HG of the forst finnic speakers: I feel it in my guts (or maybe in my lever? to much akvavit?) - 
good nigh,t nevertheless

----------


## Gurka atla

Look where I1a is mainly distributed.

----------


## MOESAN

> Look where I1a is mainly distributed.


and what???
yes, I know this map, it seems globally good - but Shtrunov found in a survey more than 11% in Arkhangelsk region (Krasnoborsk) and other regions more southern (Ryazan by instance) so a bit more South and East than on this map (of Maciamo) ... but I'm not sure your map was for me in particular...
yet on this map we see Y-I1 that cannot not by sure being put on the account of Germanics nor Finns: the more you go close to the Finnic-Ugric cradle, the more you fonnd Y-N1

----------


## Gurka atla

> and what???
> yes, I know this map, it seems globally good - but Shtrunov found in a survey more than 11% in Arkhangelsk region (Krasnoborsk) and other regions more southern (Ryazan by instance) so a bit more South and East than on this map (of Maciamo) ... but I'm not sure your map was for me in particular...
> yet on this map we see Y-I1 that cannot not by sure being put on the account of Germanics nor Finns: the more you go close to the Finnic-Ugric cradle, the more you fonnd Y-N1



Y-I1 is much more common in non-uralic or finno-ugric speakers of Russia this is very obvious. N1 is clearly a Mongoloid marker that's found highest frequencies in Nenets and Yakuts.

----------


## gyms

Arguments from modern DNA have been shown to be wrong by ancient DNA over and over and over again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Grubbe

At least the Forest Finns who came to Norway via Sweden in the 17. century were overwhelmingly N1c, at least from FTDNA results so far. Most of them came from the northeastern part of Finland, I have read, even if I don't know the source of that statement.

----------


## albanopolis

> At least the Forest Finns who came to Norway via Sweden in the 17. century were overwhelmingly N1c, at least from FTDNA results so far. Most of them came from the northeastern part of Finland, I have read, even if I don't know the source of that statement.


Had the Fins been haplo I originally they should not have been speaking Fino-Ugric now. Their language should have been indoeuropean or some non Asian language. My view is that they were a small group of Mongolian related people at the beginning who constantly mixed with local I people. On the way to Finland these Mongolian tribes had already mixed with Russians and later Germanic.

----------


## sparkey

> Arguments from modern DNA have been shown to be wrong by ancient DNA over and over and over again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Not good ones. Certain arguments from modern DNA have had a lot of predictive power. I could show you arguments based on modern DNA that predicted Otzi's haplogroup, and others that predicted that Haplogroup I but not R1b would be found in the European Mesolithic, and still others that C-V20 would be pre-Neolithic in Europe. There's more where that came from as well. Rather than dismissing all arguments from modern DNA, you need to learn which are well-reasoned and which are not.

----------


## gyms

*Jean M* :
"Arguments from modern DNA have been shown to be wrong by ancient DNA over and over and over again."

----------


## Templar

> My view is that they were a small group of Mongolian related people at the beginning who constantly mixed with local I people.


I agree. They were maybe around 50% European 50% Mongoloid by the time the Swedes started colonizing Finland. And due to Swedish admixture now they are 85%-90%(depending on the study used) European.

----------


## Gurka atla

> I agree. They were maybe around 50% European 50% Mongoloid by the time the Swedes started colonizing Finland. And due to Swedish admixture now they are 85%-90%(depending on the study used) European.


I doubt that. More like 10-20% Mongoloid, the western uralic males who spread this would have been about 70% White and 30% Mongoloid eurasians like todays western uralic people. Modern day western uralics are not mostly Mongoloid either only those from the central and east are predominately Mongoloid to pure Mongoloid.

A finnic tribe in Finland on western siberia are only 11 - 39% Mongoloid.

If you mix a western uralic Finnic ( 11 - 39% Mongoloid) with Caucasian you will produce a closer genetic result like modern day Finns.


Haplogroup N reaches highest in Ngannasans who have 93% N and Yakuts and Nenets 75% N where caucasoid admixture is non-existant except the Nenets have 54% Caucasian maternal mtDNA.

----------


## gyms

"It is now easier to accept that the Finno-Ugric languages originate from the original boat-oriented hunter-fisher peoples of northern Europe."

http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/FinnoUgricbkgd.html

"
For several hundred years, there was a belief that the Sámi and the Finns had a Mongoloid origin. This false belief was due to linguists of the time believing that Finno-Ugric languages had an eastern origin. It was also due to the Finns’ and Sámis’ tendency to have a phenotypic resemblance to the Mongoloids. In actuality, these Mongoloid-like traits do not occur at a higher average rate than they would in other Northern European groups. "
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/sami/d...st/genetic.htm

----------


## LeBrok

> "It is now easier to accept that the Finno-Ugric languages originate from the original boat-oriented hunter-fisher peoples of northern Europe."


It is hard to be boat oriented up North where rivers are frozen for half a year.

----------


## gyms

From Poland west to Britain, humans soon found themselves in a marshy land where it was difficult to walk . That began the environmental pressure that promoted a way of life moving about in canoes made from logs.
This would be the beginning of the boat people. These are the people that appear first to archeologists as the "Maglemose" culture. Remnants of ttheir dugout canoes dating to as much as 10,000 years ago have been found preserved in bogs from Britain to Finland.

http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/ui-ra-la.html

----------


## Gurka atla

> "It is now easier to accept that the Finno-Ugric languages originate from the original boat-oriented hunter-fisher peoples of northern Europe."
> 
> http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/FinnoUgricbkgd.html
> 
> "
> For several hundred years, there was a belief that the Sámi and the Finns had a Mongoloid origin. This false belief was due to linguists of the time believing that Finno-Ugric languages had an eastern origin. It was also due to the Finns’ and Sámis’ tendency to have a phenotypic resemblance to the Mongoloids. In actuality, these Mongoloid-like traits do not occur at a higher average rate than they would in other Northern European groups. "
> http://www.utexas.edu/courses/sami/d...st/genetic.htm



The oldest skulls of Uralic/Finno ugric in western Siberia were both Mongoloid and Mongoloid/Caucasoid.






Comb-ceramics (3500-2750) - Finno-Ugric peoples, who came from Siberia








*The closest analogy to the skull early Finno-Ugric peoples are found in the burial Fofanova in the Baikal region (6th millennium BC)*



( Russian translation to English)


FACE OF ANTHROPOLOGY


There has been an act of invasion of the Finno-Ugric peoples of Eastern origin in the territory inhabited by Caucasians. Dnieper-Donets culture has developed Caucasians, after which it mingled with the Finno-Ugric tribes. This is confirmed by the data from the repository and Yasinovatka, which (like the Vasiljevka II) is the most ancient among the other cemeteries of the Dnieper-Donets culture. Moreover, it contains the burial of non-simultaneity and divide the period of 500 years (between A and B).


Since culture comb-ceramic spread anthropological type, bearing the features of a "relaxed Mongoloid." In the anthropological literature, it is named laponoidnogo. From the point of view of anthropologists, "there is every reason to believe that the origin of anthropological traits media cultures comb-ceramics associated with the eastern parts of Russia." In particular, male and female skulls from graves 19 and 20 (Sahtysh II), belonging to the comb-culture and dating con. 4th - early. 3rd millennium BC. e. have pronounced Mongoloid appearance - "brain structure of the skull, face and horizontal profile morphology of the nose in two sahtyshskih skulls undoubtedly confirm their membership of the Mongoloid race.

----------


## Gurka atla

> "It is now easier to accept that the Finno-Ugric languages originate from the original boat-oriented hunter-fisher peoples of northern Europe."
> 
> http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/FinnoUgricbkgd.html
> 
> "
> For several hundred years, there was a belief that the Sámi and the Finns had a Mongoloid origin. This false belief was due to linguists of the time believing that Finno-Ugric languages had an eastern origin. It was also due to the Finns’ and Sámis’ tendency to have a phenotypic resemblance to the Mongoloids. In actuality, these Mongoloid-like traits do not occur at a higher average rate than they would in other Northern European groups. "
> http://www.utexas.edu/courses/sami/d...st/genetic.htm


Look what a unreliable article. The person who edited this article was Idda a member from anthroscape who got banned (or maybe they won't the same person, who knows). Don't you see she doesn't get her head right?

She also said this

" Though the Sámi do have some Asian genetic influence, at its highest rate it is only 20-30%, which is no higher than the European average. [7]  "


" The Sámi, as well of the Finns, are a very heterogeneous group of people who display a wide range of physical features. While there are some that feature darker Mongoloid-like characteristics, there are others who display very light colored pigments in their skin and hair "

----------------

*Real genetic and anthropology data*


The oldest skulls of Uralic/Finno ugric in western Siberia were both Mongoloid and Mongoloid/Caucasoid.



Comb-ceramics (3500-2750) - Finno-Ugric peoples, who came from Siberia









*The closest analogy to the skull early Finno-Ugric peoples are found in the burial Fofanova in the Baikal region (6th millennium BC)*



( Russian translation to English)


FACE OF ANTHROPOLOGY


There has been an act of invasion of the Finno-Ugric peoples of Eastern origin in the territory inhabited by Caucasians. Dnieper-Donets culture has developed Caucasians, after which it mingled with the Finno-Ugric tribes. This is confirmed by the data from the repository and Yasinovatka, which (like the Vasiljevka II) is the most ancient among the other cemeteries of the Dnieper-Donets culture. Moreover, it contains the burial of non-simultaneity and divide the period of 500 years (between A and B).


Since culture comb-ceramic spread anthropological type, bearing the features of a "relaxed Mongoloid." In the anthropological literature, it is named laponoidnogo. From the point of view of anthropologists, "there is every reason to believe that the origin of anthropological traits media cultures comb-ceramics associated with the eastern parts of Russia." In particular, male and female skulls from graves 19 and 20 (Sahtysh II), belonging to the comb-culture and dating con. 4th - early. 3rd millennium BC. e. have pronounced Mongoloid appearance - "brain structure of the skull, face and horizontal profile morphology of the nose in two sahtyshskih skulls undoubtedly confirm their membership of the Mongoloid race.[/QUOTE]

----------


## Gurka atla

*This is what it said
*
" *There has been an act of invasion of the Finno-Ugric peoples of Eastern origin in the territory inhabited by Caucasians.
*
*Dnieper-Donets culture has developed Caucasians, after which it mingled with the Finno-Ugric tribes. 
*
*This is confirmed by the data from the repository and Yasinovatka.* "

----------


## gyms

*Gurka atla:

This is what i said*......

And this is what i said:OH MY GOD!

----------


## Gurka atla

> *Gurka atla:
> 
> This is what i said*......
> 
> And this is what i said:OH MY GOD!


What *it* said not what *i* said

----------


## gyms

A few decades ago the family tree of the Finno-Ugrian languages was interpreted as a map showing how the FU peoples wandered to their present homes. Modern archaeology obviously does not support such wide migrations. Also recent loan word research has shown very old Indo-European loanwords especially in Finnish and the westernmost (Finnic) branch, which means that some pre-form of Finnish must have been spoken relatively close to the Baltic Sea already quite early.
On the other hand, Finnish is certainly related to languages spoken in Middle Russia and West Siberia. This means either that the area of the Finno-Ugrian (Uralic) proto-language has been very wide, reaching perhaps from the Baltic Sea to the Urals, or that we must find alternative explanatory models to account for the spreading of these languages. 
http://www.helsinki.fi/~jolaakso/fufaq.html

----------


## motzart

There is more diversity of I1 in Finland than anywhere else, second only to Norway and much more than Sweden. There are only two possible routes for a migration into Scandinavia for Mesolithic people, Finland or Denmark, and given our distributions a Denmark migration is highly unlikely. We know I is very old in Europe and there have not been any N finds at all, also if N was older in Finland than I we should see more N spread into Scandinavia and Europe instead of seeing its limit there. I see hapogroup N arriving in the Neolothic with the Pit Comb culture around 3200 B.C., I1 being much much older.

----------


## MOESAN

> There is more diversity of I1 in Finland than anywhere else, second only to Norway and much more than Sweden. There are only two possible routes for a migration into Scandinavia for Mesolithic people, Finland or Denmark, and given our distributions a Denmark migration is highly unlikely. We know I is very old in Europe and there have not been any N finds at all, also if N was older in Finland than I we should see more N spread into Scandinavia and Europe instead of seeing its limit there. I see hapogroup N arriving in the Neolothic with the Pit Comb culture around 3200 B.C., I1 being much much older.



I agree for the most
the Comb-Ceramic people seems have beenphenotypically a mix of roughly caucasoids-mongoloids – based upona scarce panel I think they were already a bit more on the caucasoidor europoid side - 

the mt-DNA of northeastern Europe(about the 4200 BC ? later?) was strongly asiatic by origin, as opposedto the steppic people's one, their nevertheless closer neigbours inSouth - 

I know nothing about their Y-DNA whatis not saying I 've no opinion - 
concerning Finno-Ugric people, if theirfarthest origins are debated (feet in the Keltiminar culture or onlyinfluences from the Keltiminar people ? I think Keltiminar wasrather indo-european, albeit at recent stages, but if we suppose asmany linguists, contacts between ancestors of the Finno-Ugric peopleand the other ancestors of the Indo-Europeans, we are obliged toimagine a contact region somewhere...around Samara ? Kazan ?Surroundings on a band of lands stretching far enough?
Still about phenotypes, Hungarianscholars thought the ancestors of first Hungarians were a mix ofeuropoid 'cro-magnoids A' (their naming) and Ouralians of mongoloidstock, even if less typical than the East-Asians – their'cro-magnoid A' seems a broadly Est-Baltic type so 'cromagnoid' onthe way of brachycephalization, a kind of reduced 'west-borreby' type(the less brutal)... but these Hungarians were maybe not exactly thesame as the Finns who colonized Europe in North, partial ancestors ofFinns of Finland, Estonia and Lappland (Saami) – today ouralic(finno-ougric) tribes show very different means of looks mixture, andoften enough, this 'east-baltic' type dominates the 'mongoloid' typesin the crossing -
&: I speak here of the trueeuropoid element in 'east-baltic', strongly affiliated to a« non-brutal, non-brünnoid » 'borreby'– but somereconstructed pictures given in the thread here show also brutalfeatures and too broad cheekbones compared to less broad jaws - 


the today Finland population showgradual clines between West and East, and too, North and South 


as a whole, the mt DNA is strongly« european », being the Y-DN very more variated, andhere again, presenting different %s from West to East (and surelyNorth to South) Y-N is very stronger in East (E : 60 to > 70%vs W : 15-20%), Y-I1 stronger in West (W : 30 to >50% vs E : 15-20%); – the fact that mt-DNA is very often more« autochtonous » than Y-DNA, we can suppose firstdwellers of Finland were predominantly of european hunters-gatherersstock AND AT FIRST ANALYSIS NOT FINNIC SPEAKING (supposed substrataof proto-basque and a proto-satem language in the Saami's finnic,even if Lappland is not exactly the same as Finland story) – thefinnic languages were send from East I suppose at « late neolithic »times according to our more southern criteria, around the 4200/3000BC (here again material culture and language are not easy to link)-the preceding culture of Finland are considered as come from West Askola 9000 BC and Komsa : reindeers hunters of Magdaleanculture from North Germany – I 'm almost sure the Y-N bearerswere finnic speakers, and arrived later than the Y-I1 bearers (theselast giving more mothers to the today population) – the Y-I1quality as concluded surveys is specific enough to Finland and farfrom being an exclusive gift of western Scandinavians orpre-Scandinavians -
at the beginning of the I-Ean era camethe Battle Axe people from West and South into Finland : notonly cultural loan, but demic moves according to scholars ;surely not overwhelmingly dominant in number ! - an Y-R1aelement + some rare othrs, sure enough, we can say more present in Estonia than inother neigbouring countries- 

Saami present more Y-I1 as a whole evenif they are not so strong as the Osterbothnia region for it – theirphysical type is not homogenous, even if drift augmented somepeculiar features leading to more homogenous aspect - their prototypewould have been in Western Oural regions, between 'east-baltic' and aspecial 'proto-mongoloid type, and they mixed with western Europepopulations of unsure origin (mesolithical N-Spain as farthestorigin?) - all the way, even the majority of their dark hairedindividuals showed a head-hair quality NOT mongoloid - 



I conclude this personal opinionssaying the Baltic people OF TODAY are a mix of Finnic AND finnicizedpeople and Indo-Europeans : _the lack of Y-I1 is not a lack ofautosomals which were born by Y-I1 people some time ago_ – but,the Finns males took at some time the strong side upon the firsthunter-gatherers (not by physical force but by material and weaponsadvantages), before being subjected by I-Eans (Y-R1a dominant) andlearning the proto-baltic language.

all that roughly said


In french : « ça vaut ceque ça vaut »...

----------


## Rikala

Plenty of nonsense in this thread, some sensible opinions (especially from Sparkey), but otherwise lots of fiction written in sub-par English and not surprisingly the content seems to correlate strongly with the language.

The Finnish I1 predates any known historical "Swedish migration" to Finland, this is easily seen in the fact that the area with most I1 - Satakunta - is almost 100% Finnish speaking (the areas with considerable historical Swedish settlement are still ~5%+ Swedish speaking and have more n1c1 than Satakunta). The Swedish migration to Finland happened much later than what can explain the Finnish I1 and is historically known. "The Swedes" did not "bring" I1 and western genes to "Mongoloid Finns". The Finnish ethnogenesis is far more complex than that and involves several waves of people and a pre-Finno-Ugric Finland before any notion of a "Swedish nation" either.

However, in my opinion and I don't think it is debatable, it makes no sense to say that "Finns were haplogroup I originally". "Finns" are a creation of I1 and n1c1 together, where n1c1 has nothing to do with being "Mongoloid".

----------


## MOESAN

> Plenty of nonsense in this thread, some sensible opinions (especially from Sparkey), but otherwise lots of fiction written in sub-par English and not surprisingly the content seems to correlate strongly with the language.
> 
> The Finnish I1 predates any known historical "Swedish migration" to Finland, this is easily seen in the fact that the area with most I1 - Satakunta - is almost 100% Finnish speaking (the areas with considerable historical Swedish settlement are still ~5%+ Swedish speaking and have more n1c1 than Satakunta). The Swedish migration to Finland happened much later than what can explain the Finnish I1 and is historically known. "The Swedes" did not "bring" I1 and western genes to "Mongoloid Finns". The Finnish ethnogenesis is far more complex than that and involves several waves of people and a pre-Finno-Ugric Finland before any notion of a "Swedish nation" either.
> 
> However, in my opinion and I don't think it is debatable, it makes no sense to say that "Finns were haplogroup I originally". "Finns" are a creation of I1 and n1c1 together, where n1c1 has nothing to do with being "Mongoloid".


_I agree but only for some détails_ I rewrote
Y-N1c1 is an occidental branch of Y-N –a Y-SNP is not 'europoid' nor 'mongoloid' (rough namings) by itself –nevertheless we can consider the first one were born by autosomallymore 'mongoloid' people and by progressing toward West they took moreand more what we can name 'europoid' autosomals, considering it hadbeen a possible definitive break with their far sources in East Asiaor at least in Siberia – 
some scholars consider it has been asort of 'finnic phenotype' with statistical proper features, globallyhalfway between 'euro-' and 'mongol-', even if not all the featureswere halfway - 
as genetics is not on the model ofisolated drawers but rather dynamics we even could imagine apopulation beginning only to differentitate from an older euroasiaticstage where the more typical and current 'europoid' and 'mongoloid' were not yet completely discriminated (a beginning is needed foreverything!); – I think the first finnic speaking people reachingN-E Europe were as a majority y-N1 males already more on the'europoid' side – some 'asiatic' mt-DNA was found in N-E Europebefore them but was erased by other demic moves from East and West –these first finnic speaking people were not already the Finns ofFinland they contributed to form later, but they could have beensurprisingly more 'europoid' for mt-DNA than some predecessors ontheir way to Finland ! - in Finland and Estonia they found, Ithink, a completely old 'europoid' population as well by males (a lotof Y-I1, found too, let's not forget, in N-Russia in lands whereGermanics never put a foot) that by females - males and females forthe most of hunters-gatherers stocks– some of these finnic peoplewent northward to Lappland where they mixed with an other (alreadypartly differentiated) 'europoid' population-
so Finns of Finland are no more theprevious finnic speaking tribes from Oural but a geographicallygradual mix of these last ones with the « autochtones » ;all that can explain the almost absent to light presence of'east-asiatic' autosomals and almost absent to light typically 'mongoloid' phenotypic features - 
&: among the regions they crossed(and maybe formed for a part) or frequented were the shared N-Steppeswhere the genesis of apparently entirely 'europoid' I-Eans tookplace (perhaps not all the ancestors of I-Eans, according to debatedtheories) and I'm almost sure contacts and eschanges took place atsome level -

----------


## Petter

> *Real genetic and anthropology data*
> 
> The oldest skulls of Uralic/Finno ugric in western Siberia were both Mongoloid and Mongoloid/Caucasoid.
> 
> Comb-ceramics (3500-2750) - Finno-Ugric peoples, who came from Siberia


It is very funny that you call this "real genetic and anthropology data", as it is as far away from real science as it gets. You use some ancient, unnamed Russian source which probably meant well at the time but is now completly obsolete and would not be used by any serious scientist today. Why do you cling on to this?

Claiming that the Comb-Ceramic culture was Uralic-speaking is just incredibly speculative - first, serious anthropologists never connect archeological cultures to languages in this way, and second, the comb-ceramic culture is much older than the spread of Uralic languages, and third, it is too wide to include a single language famiy. No serious scientist today would believe that a comb-ceramic burial could be interpreted as a "Uralic burial". 

The only thing we know about Uralic languages is that they spread from an Urheimat in the Volga region, and that they had close proximity to the Indo-European languages. These are facts. Anything else is speculation. 

As far as genes go, I would guess that the Uralic people were originally similar to the Uralic people now living close to the Uralic Urheimat, such as Mordvins and Mari (although these may have gotten later admixture from Turkic and then Slavic people), ie mostly European. The Siberian component in NE Europe (which is also of course a fact) has most likely come via an Arctic route, and may be older than the Uralic languages. This Arctic explanation for the Siberian component seems to be rapidly gaining ground among anthropologists.

----------


## mihaitzateo

Most Sami people are bearing N1 HG.
Now,Sami people are very closed to Finns and are speaking an Ugric language.
So I think is quite clear that most of the original Finnish speakers were bearing N1 HG.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Most Sami people are bearing N1 HG.
> Now,Sami people are very closed to Finns and are speaking an Ugric language.
> So I think is quite clear that most of the original Finnish speakers were bearing N1 HG.


N is the most common Y haplotype among the Sami, but I1 is also quite common, and their mtDNA pattern is similar to that of Berbers. IMO, the Sami were an old European population who moved into their present homeland after the last glacial maximum and were later conquered by Ugric speaking N types from Russia. The Finns seem to have been formed by the same mixture, but the types of people who were ancestors of the Sami were probably a minority among the Finns. I see N as the Y haplotype of Russia before the Bronze Age expansion of R1a types into the Russian forest from the steppes.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> N is the most common Y haplotype among the Sami, but I1 is also quite common, and their mtDNA pattern is similar to that of Berbers.


A 2005 study found that some Berber and Sami people belong to the same maternal lineage; U5b1b1. This doesn't mean much U5b1b1 because takes up a small percentage of Berber mtDNA, is a very old lineage that originated in western Europe, exists all over Europe today, and because the northeast European-specific U5b1b1a is only around 4,000 years old and takes up close to 50% of Sami mtDNA because of a founder effect. It is true the Sami and Berbers have maternal connections because of U5b1b1, but that's true for almost all Europeans, and if you count other maternal lineages every population from Bangledish-Spain and from Lapland-Libya has common grandmothers in the last 6,000 years, which is no big deal. 




> IMO, the Sami were an old European population who moved into their present homeland after the last glacial maximum and were later conquered by Ugric speaking N types from Russia.


The Irish aka Gealics have been Ireland for at least as long as the Sami have been in Lapland. 

The Sami are Finoo-Urgic, how could they have been conquered by themselves? You must mean most of their blood is from the pre-Finno-Urgic people of Scandinavia. There is already ancient mtDNA prove the Mesolithic hunter gatherers of Karelia are not the ancestors of modern Sami, and have very few remaining maternal lineages in the region. The other ~50% of Sami mtDNA is V, which could defintley be a farmer lineage. I don't know of any autosomal DNA tests done on Sami, but I guarantee you they are very similar to other northeast Europeans, like Finns and Finno-Urgics in Russia. 

I think you should update your knowledge on European genetics, because no one believes the romantic theories people made decades ago(pre-DNA) about the peaceful matriarchal ingenious non-Indo European people of old Europe, that were conquered by evil patriarchal Indo Europeans, and some how Basque, Sami, etc. are pure breed Paleolithic survivors, despite being surrounded by other ethnic groups. They're not true, and people created them because of their own agendas not because of evidence. The Indo Europeans were actually more ingenious to Europe than the Neolithic-descended west Europeans they conquered and than modern Sami.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

Are west Finns taller and more cro-magnon looking than east Finns?

----------


## Kristiina

> It is very funny that you call this "real genetic and anthropology data", as it is as far away from real science as it gets. You use some ancient, unnamed Russian source which probably meant well at the time but is now completly obsolete and would not be used by any serious scientist today. Why do you cling on to this?
> 
> Claiming that the Comb-Ceramic culture was Uralic-speaking is just incredibly speculative - first, serious anthropologists never connect archeological cultures to languages in this way, and second, the comb-ceramic culture is much older than the spread of Uralic languages, and third, it is too wide to include a single language famiy. No serious scientist today would believe that a comb-ceramic burial could be interpreted as a "Uralic burial". 
> 
> The only thing we know about Uralic languages is that they spread from an Urheimat in the Volga region, and that they had close proximity to the Indo-European languages. These are facts. Anything else is speculation. 
> 
> As far as genes go, I would guess that the Uralic people were originally similar to the Uralic people now living close to the Uralic Urheimat, such as Mordvins and Mari (although these may have gotten later admixture from Turkic and then Slavic people), ie mostly European. The Siberian component in NE Europe (which is also of course a fact) has most likely come via an Arctic route, and may be older than the Uralic languages. This Arctic explanation for the Siberian component seems to be rapidly gaining ground among anthropologists.


Petter, I love you! I agree with you on everything. That article was awful! And good heavens, how they can be sure that Fofanova people spoke a Uralic language and how come they think that Uralic people invaded Indo-European areas. Honestly, all East Siberians look pretty similar and they speak very different languages. With the improving climate, there was plenty of room in Boreal Asia for everybody. It is very fascinating that the Siberian component in Finns is very much Native American-shifted! However, I am sick and tired with this Mongol thing. The Finnish N1c is more Chinese than Mongol. Mongols have clearly more R1a and Q than N1c, and in Mongols N1c+ N1b often amounts the same as R1a and Q and even less.

----------


## Gurka atla

> It is very funny that you call this "real genetic and anthropology data", as it is as far away from real science as it gets. You use some ancient, unnamed Russian source which probably meant well at the time but is now completly obsolete and would not be used by any serious scientist today. Why do you cling on to this?
> 
> Claiming that the Comb-Ceramic culture was Uralic-speaking is just incredibly speculative - first, serious anthropologists never connect archeological cultures to languages in this way, and second, the comb-ceramic culture is much older than the spread of Uralic languages, and third, it is too wide to include a single language famiy. No serious scientist today would believe that a comb-ceramic burial could be interpreted as a "Uralic burial". 
> 
> The only thing we know about Uralic languages is that they spread from an Urheimat in the Volga region, and that they had close proximity to the Indo-European languages. These are facts. Anything else is speculation. 
> 
> As far as genes go, I would guess that the Uralic people were originally similar to the Uralic people now living close to the Uralic Urheimat, such as Mordvins and Mari (although these may have gotten later admixture from Turkic and then Slavic people), ie mostly European. The Siberian component in NE Europe (which is also of course a fact) has most likely come via an Arctic route, and may be older than the Uralic languages. This Arctic explanation for the Siberian component seems to be rapidly gaining ground among anthropologists.




Lol the stuff I posted is better than any indenial Finns or Swedes ( who also have 7.5% N and would rather claim it as Caucasian ).

*
Undeniable fact.* (Wether you accept this or not is your problem )


1) All modern Uralic speaking people are mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid, and they are all linked with N


2) Facial reconstruction of people from western Siberian since 2000 BC had already revealed people with Mongoloid/Caucasoid


3) Haplogroup N is found maximum in Siberian Mongoloid population where caucasian admixture reaches 0% where as all Caucasian Population with N always shows hint of Mongoloid admixture

----------


## Gurka atla

> Petter, I love you! I agree with you on everything. That article was awful! And good heavens, how they can be sure that Fofanova people spoke a Uralic language and how come they think that Uralic people invaded Indo-European areas. Honestly, all East Siberians look pretty similar and they speak very different languages. With the improving climate, there was plenty of room in Boreal Asia for everybody. It is very fascinating that the Siberian component in Finns is very much Native American-shifted! However, I am sick and tired with this Mongol thing. The Finnish N1c is more Chinese than Mongol. Mongols have clearly more R1a and Q than N1c, and in Mongols N1c+ N1b often amounts the same as R1a and Q and even less.


Their R1a and Q is not significant, most studies shows Mongols only have 4% R1a and 5% Q.


The nature of Journal science shows haplogroup N in Europe among Finns, Sammi have a Eastern Eurasian origin rather than Western Eurasian origin

----------


## Dalmat

I am not convinced deivercity or variance=origin

I belive these mutation happen with mixing people of different origin, and them mutations could start popping like crazy.

so for instance if British guy has Chinese wife, their son probably could have some new mutation in his Y chromosome, then child of 2 British people of same origin people who have similar genetic traits.

Mutations could happen on same origin people, but then it would be probably to climate adaptation, or developed sickness immunity, and would happen streamlined rather then varied.


So Finns having most variance is because of mixing with Swedes, people of different origin.

There is also another example, in Croatia around Zadar there is big E-V13 variance, much greater then in Albanians, while frequency is low, but E does not have origin in Zadar, in 16 century, Albanians escaping Turks settled in part of Zadar and were mixing with Croats, and thus, because of mixing, you have much greater variation today in Zadar then anywhere among other Albanians, even tho their ancestors did came from those low variance albanians

----------


## Kristiina

> Their R1a and Q is not significant, most studies shows Mongols only have 4% R1a and 5% Q.


That is not quite true! Ebizur gave recently very detailed distributions of Mongol YDNA on Eurogenes blogspot and you can see that in Mongols Q and R are clearly more important than N.

Mongol/Central Mongolia (DiCristofaro et al. 2013)
1/18 = 5.6% C2e1a-M407
4/18 = 22.2% C2b2a-M86
3/18 = 16.7% C2-M532
1/18 = 5.6% C2-M401
2/18 = 11.1% D1c1a-M533
1/18 = 5.6% J1a2b-Page8
1/18 = 5.6% N1c2b-P43
1/18 = 5.6% O3a2c1a-M117
1/18 = 5.6% Q1a1a1-M120
1/18 = 5.6% Q1a1b-M25
2/18 = 11.1% R1b1a1-M478/M73

Mongol/Northwest Mongolia (DiCristofaro et al. 2013)
3/97 = 3.1% C2-M386(xM407)
6/97 = 6.2% C2e1a-M407
29/97 = 29.9% C2b2a-M86
2/97 = 2.1% C2-M532
11/97 = 11.3% C2-M401
1/97 = 1.0% D1c1-P47(xD1c1a-M533)
1/97 = 1.0% I2a2-M436
1/97 = 1.0% J1a2b-Page8
2/97 = 2.1% J2a-M410(xJ2a1-Page55)
1/97 = 1.0% J2a1-Page55(xM530, M67)
1/97 = 1.0% J2a1-M530(xDYS445=6)
1/97 = 1.0% J2a1b-M67(xJ2a1b1-M92)
1/97 = 1.0% N1c2b-P43
12/97 = 12.4% N1c1-Tat
1/97 = 1.0% O-M175(xO1a-M119, O2a1-M95, O2b-M176, O3-M122)
3/97 = 3.1% O3-M122(xO3a1-KL2, O3a2-P201)
2/97 = 2.1% O3a2-P201(xO3a2c1-M134)
4/97 = 4.1% O3a2c1-M134(xO3a2c1a-M117)
3/97 = 3.1% O3a2c1a-M117
1/97 = 1.0% Q-M242(xQ1a1a1-M120, Q1a1b-M25, Q1a2-M346, Q1b1-M378)
1/97 = 1.0% Q1a1a1-M120
5/97 = 5.2% Q1a2-M346
2/97 = 2.1% R1a1a-M198/M17
2/97 = 2.1% R1b1a1-M478/M73
1/97 = 1.0% R1b1a2a-L23

Mongol/Southeast Mongolia (DiCristofaro et al. 2013)
2/23 = 8.7% C2e1a-M407
1/23 = 4.3% C2b2a-M86
1/23 = 4.3% C2-M532
1/23 = 4.3% C2e-M546(xC2e1a-M407)
6/23 = 26.1% C2-M401
2/23 = 8.7% D1c1a-M533
1/23 = 4.3% G1-M285
1/23 = 4.3% N1c2b-P43
1/23 = 4.3% O1a-M119
2/23 = 8.7% O3a2c1-M134(xO3a2c1a-M117)
1/23 = 4.3% O3a2c1a-M117
1/23 = 4.3% Q-M242(xQ1a1a1-M120, Q1a1b-M25, Q1a2-M346, Q1b1-M378)
1/23 = 4.3% R2a-M124
1/23 = 4.3% R1b1a1-M478/M73
1/23 = 4.3% R1b1a2-M269(xR1b1a2a-L23)

Moreover, now we know for a fact that during the Bronze Age there was no N in Altai. There was only R, Q and a small amount of C. http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2014/06/...age-altai.html

When you examine this figure (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/005850-1.pdf), you see that Uralic people form their own cluster. They stand apart from Kets, Chukchis, as well as Turkic and Mongol people. They are formed from Northwest Eurasian and Northeast Asian clusters but have hardly any role in the formation of most Northeast Asian and Turkic populations.

----------


## albanopolis

> I tend to agree with gurka....Finns originally where I group , few in numbers and where displaced in numbers by the migrating N group...............of course other groups also came in.
> 
> You need to also remember, finns ( finnic) where present in large numbers in modern latvia, estonia, lithuania and northern russia as stated as per ancient historians


First of all the theses of this thread is murky. 
If the question was who were the first inhabitants of Finland?--Then a very strong possibility is that probably haplofroup I1 people inhabited it. But They were not FInns. They were also Swedish, Norwegian and German.
The definition of a Finn is a person who speaks and understand Finn language (which I doubt a person belonging to Haplogroup I would understand it). A Finn is a person who could be R1a haplogroup which is to say that the original I1 people were not. In modern days a Finn is a person highly intoxicated with alcohol. I dont think they (The I1) had time to drink.
So I don't feel its right to characterize the original people of Finland as Finns. They become Fins when Turkic-Mongolian nomads arrived in the area. These Turkic Mongolian people brought their language, their culture, their genes.
In the Balkans, where I live, before everyone else came there were living a people that called themselves Pellasgus. Obviously they mixed with incoming populations and become Greeks, Albanians, Southern Italians and whatever. Probably they were I haplogroup as well, but very few of them so they were overrun by others. But we can not claim that original Greeks were haplo I.
So, if I am not wrong it is senseless to say The original Finns were I.

----------


## Aberdeen

> First of all the theses of this thread is murky. 
> If the question was who were the first inhabitants of Finland?--Then a very strong possibility is that probably haplofroup I1 people inhabited it. But They were not FInns. They were also Swedish, Norwegian and German.
> The definition of a Finn is a person who speaks and understand Finn language (which I doubt a person belonging to Haplogroup I would understand it). A Finn is a person who could be R1a haplogroup which is to say that the original I1 people were not. In modern days a Finn is a person highly intoxicated with alcohol. I dont think they (The I1) had time to drink.
> So I don't feel its right to characterize the original people of Finland as Finns. They become Fins when Turkic-Mongolian nomads arrived in the area. These Turkic Mongolian people brought their language, their culture, their genes.
> In the Balkans, where I live, before everyone else came there were living a people that called themselves Pellasgus. Obviously they mixed with incoming populations and become Greeks, Albanians, Southern Italians and whatever. Probably they were I haplogroup as well, but very few of them so they were overrun by others. But we can not claim that original Greeks were haplo I.
> So, if I am not wrong it is senseless to say The original Finns were I.


I agree that the original Y haplotype I type inhabitants of Finland weren't Finns, in the sense that they didn't speak a Uralic language, but they didn't become Finns because of Turkic Mongolian people. The Y haplotype N folk who probably lived for a very long time in what is now Russia brought their Uralic language to Finland, and they weren't Turks or Mongolians, who speak Altaic languages. Those are two different groups, even though they probably have very ancient related ancestry.

----------


## gyms

Aberdeen,how do you know that?Can you prove that Y haplogroup N brought the Uralic laguae to Finland?

----------


## Aberdeen

> Aberdeen,how do you know that?Can you prove that Y haplogroup N brought the Uralic laguae to Finland?


Can I prove it 100%? No - right now, without DNA evidence, nobody can prove or disprove the idea. But, given the distribution of N in Russia and the Uralic influences in Russian culture, I'm willing to say I think that was how it was.

----------


## MOESAN

I agree with Aberdeen, and his sensible analysis (evidently, for now, no 100% proof, but big probability, concerning Uralic or Finnic languages)
By the way, a new survey by a Finland scientist about languages (and placenames?) and substratae in Finland concluded the current Finland finnic took the place of, and pushed the saamic finnic northwards, the substrata words being of an Indo-European language and of (if a did not mistake) of an unknown one - I recall an other survey about saami finnic language substratae concluded, some time ago, that two stocks of words, one Indo-European proto-satem and one assigned to a proto-basque*, passed in Lappland into the sami finnic language -
I'll try to find the Finland scientist digest - 
*perhaps disputed today, I had no echo of it?

----------


## MOESAN

here part of the abstract from DIENEKES BLOG* (Ph.D.Thesis)

My dissertation shows that Proto-Germanic, Proto-Scandinavian, Proto-Finnic and Proto-Sami all date to different periods of the Iron Age.* I argue that the present study along with my earlier published research also proves that a *(West-)Uralic language – the pre-form of the Finnic and Samic languages – was spoken in the region of the present-day Finland in the Bronze Age, but not earlier than that.* In the centuries before the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of what is now called Finland, excluding Lapland. At the beginning of the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of Finland, including Southern Finland, from where the Sami idiom first began to recede. *An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age.* For example, the names Suomi ʻFinlandʼ and Viro ʻEstoniaʼ are likely to have been borrowed from the Indo-European idiom in question. (Proto-)Germanic waves of influence have come from Scandinavia to Finland since the Bronze Age. A considerable part of the Finnic and Samic vocabulary is indeed Germanic loanwords of different ages which form strata in these languages. Besides mere etymological research, these numerous Germanic loanwords make it possible to relate to each other the temporal development of the language-forms that have been in contact with each other. That is what I have done in my extensive dissertation, which attempts to be both a detailed and a holistic treatise.

----------


## arvistro

I also tend to agree that Finnic language was brought by N1C people when they arrived to Finland. 
Is it known when Y-N1C got into Finland? (or Baltics for that matter?)
For proto-IE language to enter Finland it could be through Corded-Ware Culture. If N1c paternal lines entered after then indeed at first Finland inhabitants would have spoke some I language, which then was replaced with proto-IE (proto-Baltic/Germanic) and then with Finno-Ugric.

----------


## Sile

> First of all the theses of this thread is murky. 
> If the question was who were the first inhabitants of Finland?--Then a very strong possibility is that probably haplofroup I1 people inhabited it. But They were not FInns. They were also Swedish, Norwegian and German.
> The definition of a Finn is a person who speaks and understand Finn language (which I doubt a person belonging to Haplogroup I would understand it). A Finn is a person who could be R1a haplogroup which is to say that the original I1 people were not. In modern days a Finn is a person highly intoxicated with alcohol. I dont think they (The I1) had time to drink.
> So I don't feel its right to characterize the original people of Finland as Finns. They become Fins when Turkic-Mongolian nomads arrived in the area. These Turkic Mongolian people brought their language, their culture, their genes.
> In the Balkans, where I live, before everyone else came there were living a people that called themselves Pellasgus. Obviously they mixed with incoming populations and become Greeks, Albanians, Southern Italians and whatever. Probably they were I haplogroup as well, but very few of them so they were overrun by others. But we can not claim that original Greeks were haplo I.
> So, if I am not wrong it is senseless to say The original Finns were I.


correct, the first people of I in Finland where not Finns, but where baltic people. The baltic people inhabited all lands that have a sea shore with the baltic sea....later, these baltic people, became, finns, scandinavians, germans etc

----------


## gyms

There is evidence that before the arrival of the Slavic speaking tribes to the
area of modern-day Russia, speakers of Finno-Ugric languages may have been
scattered across the whole area between the Urals and the Baltic Sea. This was
the distribution of the Comb Ceramic Culture, a stone age culture which appears
to have corresponded to the Finno-Ugric speaking populations,
c. 4200 BC–c. 2000 BC.
https://sucs.org/~pwb/misc/sample.txt

From the point of view of the earliest contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European it does not matter too much if the primeval Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European centres of expansion are thought to have been located next to each other or not, because even at the time of a relatively late first contact the dialects within the proto-language continuums had not differentiated much. Some Indo-European loanwords have been used as evidence either in classifying Finno-Ugrian languages and locating their Urheimat or for the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. Three cases may be briefly dealt with here, namely the words for ‘bee’ and ‘honey’, the word for ‘copper’, and the word for ‘water’.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/tvarminne.html

The vocabulary material for the table-dictionary of the Finno-Ugric languages was mostly taken from bilingual dictionaries according to the semantic list of the basic vocabulary. The list was compiled by the everyday and other most frequent words (names of plants, animals, kinship terms etc.), the same as for the table for Indo-European languages.
http://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterl...astEur/FU.html

The discussion about the Finno-Ugric people's original homeland and migrations has continued for over a century, but to the present only one hypothesis - that the Finno-Ugrians originate from the Volga Bend or the Urals - has been proposed. When heretical ideas have been presented, the ruling consensus has ignored them. The research has focused on answering four prominent research questions: 1. Where was the original Fino-Ugrian homeland? .2. How did the linguistic relationships of the Finno-Ugrians develop? 3. How did the Finno-Ugrians spread from their area of origin? 4. What linguistic loans have the Finno-Ugrians received from the IndoEuropean and possibly other languages? … 
http://www.questia.com/library/journ...their-relation

Nunez bases his model on the assumption that
the zone bordering the ice sheet in eastern Europe
was inhabited in the first place by ProtoUralian
populations. After 10 000 bc, they had
started to spread on the eastern side of the Urals
on the one hand (forefathers of the Samoyeds
and Ob-Ugrians), and north and west across the
Russian Plain on the other hand (other Finnougrians).
The whole of the area between the
Urals and Finland was occupied as early as c.
6000 bc by a population speaking mainly ProtoFinnougrian.
http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA6_85.pdf

----------


## MOESAN

> I am not convinced deivercity or variance=origin
> 
> I belive these mutation happen with mixing people of different origin, and them mutations could start popping like crazy.
> 
> so for instance if British guy has Chinese wife, their son probably could have some new mutation in his Y chromosome, then child of 2 British people of same origin people who have similar genetic traits.
> 
> Mutations could happen on same origin people, but then it would be probably to climate adaptation, or developed sickness immunity, and would happen streamlined rather then varied.
> 
> 
> ...


variance, I believe, is calculated upon STRsvariants - where did you learned this INTERNAL variability was influenced by genetic crossings? I don't say it is impossible, I say it is unknown to me (an to others?)
What is known is that crossings mix genes of different sorts, augmenting the variability of SNPs - but STR's in a SNP???

----------


## gyms

> here part of the abstract from DIENEKES BLOG* (Ph.D.Thesis)
> 
> My dissertation shows that Proto-Germanic, Proto-Scandinavian, Proto-Finnic and Proto-Sami all date to different periods of the Iron Age.* I argue that the present study along with my earlier published research also proves that a *(West-)Uralic language – the pre-form of the Finnic and Samic languages – was spoken in the region of the present-day Finland in the Bronze Age, but not earlier than that.* In the centuries before the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of what is now called Finland, excluding Lapland. At the beginning of the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of Finland, including Southern Finland, from where the Sami idiom first began to recede. *An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age.* For example, the names Suomi ʻFinlandʼ and Viro ʻEstoniaʼ are likely to have been borrowed from the Indo-European idiom in question. (Proto-)Germanic waves of influence have come from Scandinavia to Finland since the Bronze Age. A considerable part of the Finnic and Samic vocabulary is indeed Germanic loanwords of different ages which form strata in these languages. Besides mere etymological research, these numerous Germanic loanwords make it possible to relate to each other the temporal development of the language-forms that have been in contact with each other. That is what I have done in my extensive dissertation, which attempts to be both a detailed and a holistic treatise.


In the study of ancient prehistoric developments, a high level of source criticism is required, and intuitive or authoritative methods must be avoided. If, for instance, evidence suggesting ancient contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European is disregarded without proper consideration because of an underlying hypothesis of a Siberian Urheimat for Finno-Ugrian, or vice versa, the results are bound to be biased and circular. While comparing archaeological and linguistic data in general, it should be remembered that the correlation between language and culture has always been weak at best, as can be seen from historically attested cases, for example, the complex linguistic and cultural patterns found in Siberia. To sum up the basic, perhaps rather discouraging message of this paper, the development of the field depends, more than anything else, on getting away from preconceived notions, which means that scholars must  welcome rather than deny or ignore information that seriously challenges their preconceptions.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/tvarminne.html

----------


## gyms

The new directions in Finnish prehistory call for a fresh look at the contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European. In the archaeological record the problem of Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European relations are reflected in the interaction between chronologically and spatially well defined cultures. In contrast, the definition of the time and place of contacts is considerably more problematic in the case of anthropological and linguistic contacts. Linguistic contact between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European is documented by the common ancestry of certain morphological elements and by various words which have a common etymology. Many studies have been devoted to this common stock of words, to establishing the chronology of the various layers within this vocabulary and to associating these layers with population groups or archaeological cultures. Aulis Joki’s monograph offers a detailed overview of research until the 1970s. Joki lists 222 Finno-Ugrian–Indo-European etymologies, and even if some of these have since been rejected, the order of magnitude of the vocabulary has remained essentially unchanged.
http://finnugor.elte.hu/?q=fgriea

----------


## Gurka atla

> That is not quite true! Ebizur gave recently very detailed distributions of Mongol YDNA on Eurogenes blogspot and you can see that in Mongols Q and R are clearly more important than N.
> 
> Mongol/Central Mongolia (DiCristofaro et al. 2013)
> 1/18 = 5.6% C2e1a-M407
> 4/18 = 22.2% C2b2a-M86
> 3/18 = 16.7% C2-M532
> 1/18 = 5.6% C2-M401
> 2/18 = 11.1% D1c1a-M533
> 1/18 = 5.6% J1a2b-Page8
> ...




*I have known these study from last year
*


Lol the problem in this study is it tested Khoton Mongol, Zakhchin, Urainkhai who are all Turkified Mongol except for maybe UrainKhai who also have 0 R.

 Khalka Mongolian 78.8 percent is of Mongolia's population ( 4 out of 5 ), the rest are minorities Kazakhs, Tuvan and other Mongolized Turkic tribes.


Khoton Mongol have 92.6% R1a with 60% Western Eurasian maternal mtDNA HV. Zackhchin have 32% R1b and 50% western Eurasian mtDNA HV


Khaklka Mongols make up 92.6% of Mongolians And have from have 0% - 4% western Eurasian Y-DNA and most of them R1a, 
Haplogroup N is much common if you don't include other Mongol minorities ( people still don't know if they were Mongol or Mongolianzed Turks )


Mongol/Khalka ( Y.G Yao 2005)

20/38 = 52.6% C3
11/38 = 26.3% O3
1/38 = 5.2% N1c
1/38 = 2.6% O1
1/38 = 2.6% D3
1/38 = 2.6% Q1
1/38 = 2.6% J2
1/38 = 2.6% R1a

5.2% western Eurasian Y-DNA
14.7% western Eurasian mtDNA

Khalka Mongols had always been only little influenced by western Eurasian DNA compared with other Turkified Mongols




Unlike Inner Mongolian who have 7 million Mongolian ( 66% of Mongols ), Outer Mongolians ( 33% of Mongols ) includes many Turkified Mongol tribes including assimilated Turkic people.


*As for the haplogroups of the Outer Mongolian men:*

2 belonged to Y*(xA, CE, JR)
17 to C3*(xC3c)
4 to C3c
2 to K*
6 to N3a
1 to O2*
3 to O3*(xO3a-O3e)
2 to O3/-cd*
3 to O3*(xOEe1)
5 to O3e1*(xO3e1a)

Haplgroup N makes up 13.3% where as haplogroup R is 0%
and western Eurasian mtDNA only reaches 2.1% to 5.4%

----------


## Gurka atla

You obviously didn't know about this.


*Outer Mongolians* only make up 33% of Mongols population and aside from that part of what is Mongolia today included Turkic land in west Mongolia, including parts of central. That is why there is so many freaking Turkic people like Kazakhs and Tuvans and being a big ass country.

20% ( 4 out 5 ) of outer Mongolians are non-Khalka Mongolians but possibly Mongolianized Turks ( at least most scholars seem to agree )

*Inner Mongolians* makes up 66% of Mongols population.

98.5% of ( 5 out 5 ) of Inner Mongolian are Khalka Mongolian with only 1.5% Mongolian Turks


No shit that Outer Mongolians have that much R1a, R1b WHEN YOU INCLUDED SAMPLES from Mongolianized Turkic tribes


Khoton 



Uriankhai




Zakhchin

----------


## Gurka atla

Ngannasan Y-DNA N 95%







Now let's look at the autosomal DNA study.... this destroys your argument that N was not mongoloid.




15 testes samples








10 samples are = 100% pure Mongoloid /Siberian




1 Sample = 100% Mongoloid with different Siberian admixture




2 sample = a mixture of different Mongoloid Siberian groups with small Caucasoid admixture




2 Sample = a mixture of different Mongoloid siberian groups with 36% Caucasoid admixture.






Nganassan are pure Siberian Mongoloid, there is another study that gives them 5% R1a and 14% Caucasoid maternal DNA but that's it

----------


## Gurka atla

> I agree that the original Y haplotype I type inhabitants of Finland weren't Finns, in the sense that they didn't speak a Uralic language, but they didn't become Finns because of Turkic Mongolian people. The Y haplotype N folk who probably lived for a very long time in what is now Russia brought their Uralic language to Finland, and they weren't Turks or Mongolians, who speak Altaic languages. Those are two different groups, even though they probably have very ancient related ancestry.



Haplogroup N in Finland and Europe would have spread by males who like western Uralic people ( example: Udmurts, Mordvins, Maris ) who are all 8.5% to 39% Mongoloid genetically. Where as Eastern Uralic males such (example: Nenets, Khanty, Mansi) are all 40 - 90% Mongoloid.

You be expecting males who look like this when they came to Europe and Finland.



However haplogroup N is definately a Mongoloid marker because N reachest 90-100% in Siberian Mongoloid population where Caucasian admixture reachest 0%. Nganasan have 93-100% haplogroup N and yet the majority of their autosomal DNA always shows 0% Caucasian admixture. Others like Nenets who have 75% haplogroup N and with 64% Caucasian maternal not only look Mongoloid but are 67-90% Mongoloid in autosomal DNA study. If N was really Caucasian they should at least look more Caucasian or the very least be predominately Caucasian by DNA.


Other Yakut Sakha subgroups have 90% N and 26 of their samples shows 0% Caucasian admixture except for 5 samples that does shows a small to some western Eurasian admixture but that can be explained by the fact that Yakuts also have 6.5% western Eurasian Y-DNA and 13% western Eurasian mtDNA. 




Yakut autosomal DNA.



Other Yakut with 75% haplogroup N and yet 10 samples still show pure Mongoloid and 35 samples mixed to a very small extend to a few with some.

----------


## Kristiina

Gurka atla, you obviously did not get my point. I have never claimed that yDNA N was not mongoloid. It came from West China, so its bearers originally must have looked like people looked in West China at the end of the Ice Age. Autosomally, Uralic people are a mixture between Northewest Eurasian and Northeast Eurasian ancestry components in different proportions depending on their location and contact area. The original Southeast Asian component of yDNA N has for the most part disappeared. I only have 1.3% of it.

I only claim that N is not a typical yDNA of several Mongolic groups and it was even less frequent in Altai and Mongolia in the Bronze Age. Yakuts are not Uralic but Turkic speakers and autosomally they do not share almost anything with Uralic groups, not even with the Nganasans. Of course, at bottom levels, Northeast Asian ancestry component is shared between all groups inhabiting Siberia, irrespective of their yDNA which varies in different groups but consists mainly of Q, R, N and C.

----------


## Jaska

1. It is not valid to talk about Finns as a homogeneous group. West and East Finns are very different, and Finns have many genetic roots.
2. It is not possible to talk about Finns before the Finnic language arrived from Estonia at the Iron Age, and in Estonia I1 is rare. Therefore at least most of I1 in Finland most probably precedes the arrival of Finnic language. 

Templar, it is totally impossible that there could have been a half-mongoloid population in Finland 900 years ago, when Swedes arrived. If the “European” genes were inherited from Swedes, the genomewide FST-values between West Finns and Swedes would be much smaller than it is.

Probably every language spread with more than one haplogroup. N1c1 as a total is too widespread to correlate with the Uralic language (L550 > Spanish, Baltic and Scandinavian, for example), but some subgroups of it may have been present. Also some subgroups of other haplogroups may have been participating in the spread of Uralic and later Finnic language.

Gurka, autosomal DNA is like language, when compared to Y-DNA. When the haplogroup is widespread like N1c1 or R1a1, you can find wide variation of anthropological types within it: mongoloid in Asia and europoid in Europe. But you cannot decide ad hoc that one of these is the original type! It is unscientific, because Y-DNA and autosomal DNA (carrying the phenotypic straits) are not connected or interdependent.

Besides, Nganasans have only N-P43 (earlier N1b) while European Uralics have predominantly N-M178 (earlier N1c1). It is misguiding to bundle the two as “N” or “N1”, because these haplogroups separated much earlier than Proto-Uralic.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> ...In modern days a Finn is a person highly intoxicated with alcohol. I dont think they (The I1) had time to drink....


This statement is uncalled for.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> ...
> Gurka, autosomal DNA is like language, when compared to Y-DNA. When the haplogroup is widespread like N1c1 or R1a1, you can find wide variation of anthropological types within it: mongoloid in Asia and europoid in Europe. But you cannot decide ad hoc that one of these is the original type! It is unscientific, because Y-DNA and autosomal DNA (carrying the phenotypic straits) are not connected or interdependent....


Good point. Several other Y-DNA haplotypes are also found in people of different "races", even R1b shows this with it's enormous popularity among "Europoid" Celtic peoples but also displaying a significant presence among "negroid" Cameroonians. Should R1b-bearing Cameroonians therefore be considered ethnically European?

----------

