Finns weren't N but I haplogroup originally

[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/ancient-dna-from-bronze-age-altai.html

When you examine this figure (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/07/30/005850.DC1/005850-1.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