Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 81 of 81

Thread: New dedicated page for Y-haplogroup N1c

  1. #76
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Ordas's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-17
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    39
    Points
    1,638
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,638, Level: 11
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    N1a1a1a1a4a2 -A9416
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c6

    Ethnic group
    Hungarian
    Country: Afghanistan



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

    My wild guess is that it was one of truly Magyar N1a, that migrated all the way from Southern Urals to Pannonia. But I would assume, that you might have N1a1a1a1b2-A9408 or something else, as my Genographic project v2(the reason I choose it, because it offered right to delete all my data from there and anonymity) sent me, that I was N1a1-M46/Page70/Tat and in reality it is something down the line... but yeah, for me that information was all I needed anyway,as I don't have that much options to choose in the region of my ancestors anyway.
    Thank you Iaint, in the meantime I tested at ftDNA BigY and you are right I have down the line from A9408 final SNP is PH106 (PH1612) so it is the Yakut Soyot branch.

    Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

  2. #77
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-08-18
    Posts
    49
    Points
    583
    Level
    6
    Points: 583, Level: 6
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 31.0%


    Country: Madagascar



    If Tarand graves (culture that is clearly Baltic Finns) new research brings up N folk that autosomally look exactly like Baltic_IA, then the case is settled.
    1. What case?
    I would not care that much about autosomal comparisions... because the main tendency is that neighbours have the same, but slightly different autosomal genes. In other words - it means nothing, compared to y-dna, besides mtdna of Baltic region is present all over Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Also, it makes no sense to assume, that Brushed pottery came from East, and that applies also to Selonians. A couple of hundreds years without borders, visas and passport control is enough for people to mix - plenty of time for that, but even prior Latvian and Lithuanian ancestor push to west main seeping of N most probably came from ancestors of Latvians/Lithuanians.
    Last edited by laint; 04-03-19 at 01:50.

  3. #78
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-09-16
    Posts
    12
    Points
    2,203
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,203, Level: 13
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 247
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Lithuania



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

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



  4. #79
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-08-18
    Posts
    49
    Points
    583
    Level
    6
    Points: 583, Level: 6
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 31.0%


    Country: Madagascar



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

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


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

  5. #80
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



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


    Here is a rather good model that I got:

    Lithuania-MA (DA171):

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

    Map showing location of DA171 burial:

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

    =====

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

  6. #81
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-09-16
    Posts
    12
    Points
    2,203
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,203, Level: 13
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 247
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Lithuania



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

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

    Attachment 10791

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •