Haplogroup N1c is Mongoloid / Siberian ?

[Gurka atla]

The highest frequencies are in the Nenets and Yakuts, and they look Mongoloid however this DNA exists in about 60% of Finns and 35% of Russians


The average Finns have 9.3 Mongoloid in their autosomal DNA does this mean haplogroup N1 is Mongoloid? where did this DNA come from?

[Petter]

In Dienekes K13 analysis Nganassan, Evenk and Yakut have highest, above 80%. Their autosomal DNA is probably not exactly the same as East Asians, however. They have East Asian genes, European genes, and proabably genes of their own.

9.3% for Finns seems high - most estimates are in the range of 5-6%, for example Dienekes K13. In Russian it varies between somewhat higher and significantly lower.

Sarkissian et al analysed ancient European remains in the article "Ancient DNA Reveals Prehistoric Gene-Flow from Siberia in the Complex Human Population History of North East Europe". They found that some ancient people who were living in Europe were clearly Siberian, but still not related to the Siberian admixture in Saamis! So, as the title suggest, Eastern Europe has a complex population history, with both caucasoids and mongoloids turning up far from were we are used to see them today.

As for Finns, the most widely held theory is that the proto-Saami speaking people, moving from the Uralic Urheimat in the Volga region, picked up Siberian genes from a population in North-Eastern Europe. They then moved to Lapland and mixed with the paleo-European population to form present day Saamis. Finns in turn got their Siberian admixture from the proto-Saami speaking people.

This explain why all Uralic people do not have Siberian genes. For example Veps lack it, and it's not found in the Baltic although Finnic languages were previously spoken there.

[Petter]

So to answer the question in the topic - N in Europe originally came from Asia, but N-rich people were completly assimilated into the European gene pool. Of course, Siberian people are also N-rich. So there is no clear correlation between N and East Asian genes.

[Jaska]

I continue here, because the linguistic thread is locked.

Yeah well, Yakuts and Samoyeds also carry Y-DNA N1c at an over 90% level in their population;

Wrong again: no Samoyed people have that much N1c, only N1b.
Source: Tambets et al. 2004:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181943/

I believe N1c1 is purely Asian. Makes you wonder if Finns are actually white.
They may have mostly Europeans genetics; but N1c1 seems to be an Asian haplogroup.

You should understand that genome-widely Finns have only few percents Asian genes – that is a scientific result. Balts have 40 % of N1c1, too. In reality N1c1 spread to Europe so slowly, that in every step westwards the gene pool was more and more European. Therefore the high frequency of N1c1 does not correlate with high proportion of Asian genes in the genome-wide level.

Do you understand this? It is very important to understand. Similarly, R1a was born somewhere in the Eastern Asia, but still Slavic peoples are not genetically Asian, although they have great proportions of R1a. Do you understand? Paternal lineages cannot tell anything about the genome-wide composition; only genome-wide results can!

Besides, Central Europeans and Scandinavians have a lot of genes from Near Eastern farmers, while Northeast Europeans have very little of these Asian genes and mostly ancient North European hunter-gatherer genes. (See Skoglund et al. studies)

I fully recognize that I am not telling the ultimate truth, but I think that when we are making etymologies we should take into account all evidence in all languages without any a priori hierarchy, and there are words in Finnish language that have a counterpart with a k/g sound: taula – degla, kaura – hagri, kaula - kaklas .

Yes, but these go back to original *k which in Old West Finnish only has developed into a vowel u. The word rauta has u in all Finnic languages, so it cannot go back to original *k but *u. Therefore an etymology where there is *k in the donor language cannot be correct. Because we know that other Finnic languages did not change their *k > u, we cannot assume that they did so in this one and only exceptional word. Right?

So, to sum up, it is possible that the Uralic protolanguage as it is constructed at the moment does not really have much to do with the modern Finns or their immediate ancestors or DNA N1c VL 29+ in general but is more related to ancient northeners, such as ancient Karelians of Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, and their y DNA whatever it was.

True, we don’t know which paternal lineage brought the Uralic language to Finland.

What I would like to know personally; could it be possible Uralic developed as a Caucasian tongue? Or is it East Asian? This would explain why Ugrics such as the Mansi and Khanty have Mongoloid/East Asian genetics like Turkic-speaking Yakuts. While other Ugrics like Hungarians seem European.

This is the case with all wide-spread language families: there are great genetic differences within the families. This is because languages spread via language shifts: some people move to a new area, and if their language is prestigious, it is adopted by the locals.

Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe, while Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Siberia. Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Europe, but we don’t know if its predecessor was spoken in Europe.

You should understand that both claims cannot be true:
- Part of Uralic/IE speakers are Asian, so the speakers of the protolanguage were Asian.
- Part of Uralic/IE speakers are European, so the speakers of the protolanguage were European.

Moreover, you cannot just arbitrarily decide either option – the choice must be done through scientific procedure.

[Kristiina]

Yes, but these go back to original *k which in Old West Finnish only has developed into a vowel u. The word rauta has u in all Finnic languages, so it cannot go back to original *k but *u. Therefore an etymology where there is *k in the donor language cannot be correct. Because we know that other Finnic languages did not change their *k > u, we cannot assume that they did so in this one and only exceptional word. Right?

I see your point! However, every word has its own history and it is always unique. So, if I want to insist in this connection between the forms raut* and rak*, there are two possibilities. The first one is very Finnocentric, as it would require that the word ”rauta” has a Finnish origin and that’s why the Finnish form has prevailed in other Finnic languages. The other possibility is that this change from rakta to rauta happened in a language such as Merya/Meschera languages or in an unknown source language between Caucasus and the above-mentioned extinct languages and the word arrived in the Baltic Sea area in the form ”raut*”.

In any case, one of the earliest smelted iron artifacts are found in Anatolia, and in my opinion, it is not impossible that the same word travelled from Turkey/Caucasus through the Eastern route to Northern Europe. Almost all Caucasian languages have a possible cognate word to rak/raq. However, I am broad-minded and open to many interpretations. But it is true that I am against the current a piori rule that if a word is found, even marginally, in a Germanic language, it must be a Germanic loanword and against this a priori hierarchy: Germanic/Scandinavian languages – Baltic languages - Slavic languages – Finnic languages – Saami languages.

[Ukko]

I see your point! However, every word has its own history and it is always unique. So, if I want to insist in this connection between the forms raut* and rak*, there are two possibilities. The first one is very Finnocentric, as it would require that the word ”rauta” has a Finnish origin and that’s why the Finnish form has prevailed in other Finnic languages. The other possibility is that this change from rakta to rauta happened in a language such as Merya/Meschera languages or in an unknown source language between Caucasus and the above-mentioned extinct languages and the word arrived in the Baltic Sea area in the form ”raut*”.

In any case, one of the earliest smelted iron artifacts are found in Anatolia, and in my opinion, it is not impossible that the same word travelled from Turkey/Caucasus through the Eastern route to Northern Europe. Almost all Caucasian languages have a possible cognate word to rak/raq. However, I am broad-minded and open to many interpretations. But it is true that I am against the current a piori rule that if a word is found, even marginally, in a Germanic language, it must be a Germanic loanword and against this a priori hierarchy: Germanic/Scandinavian languages – Baltic languages - Slavic languages – Finnic languages – Saami languages.

Just what I was going to say.

[vandalorum]

Wide-spread language families? - people in Mozambique speak portuguese language but still are Africans. It is almost to late to determine who is language owner and who user only (in finnish language case for example).

[Jaska]

However, I am broad-minded and open to many interpretations. But it is true that I am against the current a piori rule that if a word is found, even marginally, in a Germanic language, it must be a Germanic loanword and against this a priori hierarchy: Germanic/Scandinavian languages – Baltic languages - Slavic languages – Finnic languages – Saami languages.

To my knowledge, there is no such a priori hierarchy. All that matters is: in which language we can find semantically and phonologically most plausible original? Very often it is some Germanic language stage, although Baltic loanwords are also numerous, considering that they are temporarily more restricted.

All those words which are considered IE loanwords in Finnic and/or Sámi have wider distribution in Indo-European than in Uralic language family. That is one main criterion, other being sound substitution. For example, a word with a cognate set IE *b ~ U *p can only be borrowed from IE to U, because Uralic *p would have substituted with IE *p, not *b.

Conclusion:
No a priori hierarchy, only scientific, objective criteria!

[Kristiina]

I dug out my old papers that I have printed out from Internet more than 10 years ago with the following results: Gaulish glossary, roudo- (red, rust); Umbrian glossary, rofu, rufru (red); Oscan glossary, rufru (red, rust); Thracian glossary, rudas (red); Tocharian glossary, ratre (red). Instead, Hittite and Hattic word for iron is totally different: hapalki. Then I noticed that some Anatolian languages, such as Luwian, Lycian, Lydian and Phrygian (as well as northwest Caucasian languages), do not have words with iniatial R, so this word should not originate in Anatolia.

There seems to be even four roots that all mean red or brown and are close to each other: 1. rout/raut; 2. ruf/rub; 3. rus/ras. 4. ruk/rak.

I would sat that all these words originate somewhere in south Russia and are obviously linked with IE languages but not only with them. They may have taken different routes at different times. The distribution of the root ”raut/rout” is anyway the following:
red: Thracian ,Tocharian, all Celtic languages, all Germanic languages, (Finnic languages colour of horse)
metallurgical term: all Baltic languages, all Finnic languages, all Saami languages, all Slavic languages.

After all this investigation, I would say that it is a loanword in all above languages.