New dedicated page for Y-haplogroup N1c

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

That is true. There is little known about Seima-Turbino. It seems to me there were 2 tribes involved , 1 tribe R1a and another N1c, R1a operating in the south, N1c in the north.
Strange thing is, N1c appears in Northern China after Seima-Turbino and then dissapears again, after spreading bronze metallurgie.
They look like a small elite on horseback and with bronze armor organising and controling societies. The Xiongnu (and Hunnic) warriors might be a legacy from them.
 
Hong Shi et al 2013 has this migration map for Hg N
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0066102#pone.0066102.s002


fetchObject.action


Leaves the question who if anything Turkofied the Yakuts (N1c1-M46);
 
Generally it's understood that Yakuts got their language from Turkic speakers fleeing the Mongols 700 years ago.

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

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

Edit. apparently amateurs are not the only ones who caught onto that. A study published in Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy (in Russian, "Внутренняя структура якутской ветви гаплогруппы N1c1 Y-хромосомы", Adamov 2014) found what seems to be a defining SNP (M2019) for Yakut branch that separates it from others. All Yakut samples were also M2020+ while other N1c1 clades were not, and there was further substructure with Yakuts splitting into M1933+ and M1991+ branches. Fitting known history, in light of that many unique SNP's and other differences the Yakut branch is not ancestral to more widespread clades but an end to one migratory path like Sub-Saharan R1b-V88.
 
Generally it's understood that Yakuts got their language from Turkic speakers fleeing the Mongols 700 years ago.

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

why should they change language while fleeing ?

actualy the whole tribe didn't flee, the tribe got killed and just a few survivors escaped
so a founder effect may have created N1c1
 
Regardless of whether Yakut N1c1 came from the Baikal during the Mongol invasions or was there before they became Turkic speaking, it diverged from the N1c1 found in Indo-European and Uralic speaking populations of Europe perhaps 7000 years ago, according to the str-calculations done @ molgen. The latter do not have L1355+ or L1356+ which are found in members of Yakut branch and are all L1026+ while Yakut branch is not.

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

7000 years ago ? that means they probably never made it as far west as Europe ?
 
Salbrox;430848Edit. said:
apparently amateurs are not the only ones who caught onto that. A study published in Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy (in Russian, "Внутренняя структура якутской ветви гаплогруппы N1c1 Y-хромосомы", Adamov 2014) found what seems to be a defining SNP (M2019) for Yakut branch that separates it from others. Fitting known history, in light of that and other differences the Yakut branch is not ancestral to more widespread clades but an end to one migratory path like Sub-Saharan R1b-V88.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y-STR diversity within a haplogroup is greatest in ancestral regions, and in N1c's case that's Southwestern China's Tibeto-Burman population (shown in Hong Shi et al). Second comes Europe, and only then Siberia - and that's all Siberian N1c put together, not just Yakuts. If the bulk of N1c was ever in North Siberia before getting to Europe, there should be higher STR diversity and perhaps also ancestral subclades. Last year it seemed that the former didn't exist there, but also that the latter could have, in Yakutia. But science marches on and now it looks like there's neither.
 
More recently, the conventional framework of Uralic studies has been challenged
from two points of view. On the one hand, the so-called Roots Group,
led by Kalevi Wiik (e.g. 2004) and anticipated by János Pusztay (1996), has
proposed that the Uralic comparative corpus, or at least a considerable part of
it, should be explained as the result of areal convergence, rather than genetic divergence.
If this were the case, there would have been no single coherent Proto-
Uralic language, but, rather, two or more regional proto languages and centres
of expansion. In this context, Proto-Uralic has also been described as having
been formed as a regional lingua franca (for a critical review of the issue, cf.,
e.g., Jaakko Häkkinen 2006). On the other hand, it has been claimed, notably by
Angela Marcantonio (2002), that the entire Uralic comparative corpus is simply
not valid and thus requires neither a divergence nor a convergence explanation.
According to this view, the conventional Uralic comparisons and reconstructions
are statistically unlikely to be true. This would be especially so since the
comparative corpus shared by Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic is very small, comprising
hardly more than 200 lexical items.
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf



 
To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.
Thank you! I have been looking for info on N1c. I have a few Finnish lines among my ancestors (Forest Finns immigrating to Norway via Sweden about 1650), and some of them were probably N1c.
 
To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.

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

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


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


Nunez bases his model on the assumption that
the zone bordering the ice sheet in eastern Europe
was inhabited in the first place by ProtoUralian
populations. After 10 000 bc, they had
started to spread on the eastern side of the Urals
on the one hand (forefathers of the Samoyeds
and Ob-Ugrians), and north and west across the
Russian Plain on the other hand (other Finnougrians).
The whole of the area between the
Urals and Finland was occupied as early as c.
6000 bc by a population speaking mainly ProtoFinnougrian.
 
1.There is no evidence that N1c is the "original" Finno-Ugric haplogroup.
2.There is no evidence for Siberian homeland of Finno-Ugric peoples/languages.
3.I-haplogroup (and)subclades are the best candidates for the original Finno-Ugric people.

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

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

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

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

Therefore it is impossible that there could be a Uralic substratum in Germanic.
 
1.There is no evidence that N1c is the "original" Finno-Ugric haplogroup.
2.There is no evidence for Siberian homeland of Finno-Ugric peoples/languages.
3.I-haplogroup (and)subclades are the best candidates for the original Finno-Ugric people.

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

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

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


Wiik’s Uralic substrate in Germanic has been disproved already at the 90’s. Besides, we know that:
1. there is a substrate in Germanic, but it has nothing in common with the Uralic languages – neither on the level of words nor phonotactics
2. Proto-Uralic only spread from the Volga-Kama region around 2000 BC
 
N1c haplogroup tree (dates according to YFull: formation time / TMRCA):

N1c_Tree.png


Map 1 (clade L708):

L708.png


Map 2 (clade L1026):

L1026.png


Map 3 (clade L1034):

L1034.png


Map 4 (clade VL29):

VL29.png


Map 5 (clade L1022):

L1022.png


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

L550.png


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

L1025.png


Map 8 (clade Y4706):

Y4706.png


Here typically Baltic clades start (branch M2783):

Map 9 (clade CTS8173):

CTS8173.png


Map 10 (clade BY158):

BY158.png


Map 11 (clade Z16975):

Z16975.png


Map 12 (clade L551):

L551.png


Source of maps:

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

Tree based on:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N-TAT/
 
To complete the series of pages about major haplogroup in Europe, here is Haplogroup N1c.
This paragraph is absolutely unprofessional. Especially the bolded part seems to come from Anatoly Klyosov and similar freaks...
"The Bronze Age Indo-European Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture (3200-2300 BCE) progressively took over the Baltic region and southern Finland from 2,500 BCE (see History of haplogroup R1a). The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures."
 
This paragraph is absolutely unprofessional. Especially the bolded part seems to come from Anatoly Klyosov and similar freaks...
"The Bronze Age Indo-European Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture (3200-2300 BCE) progressively took over the Baltic region and southern Finland from 2,500 BCE (see History of haplogroup R1a). The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures."

So what you propose insted?
 
I do not know, but these are some of mistakes or possible misinterpretations noticed:
*Fatyanovo culture never reached Baltic coasts or Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatyanovo–Balanovo_culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I would just delete that fragment altogether.
 

This thread has been viewed 55390 times.

Back
Top