Finns weren't N but I haplogroup originally

[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/Alterling/SettlEastEur/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/jour...ropean-origin-of-the-finns-and-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.


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

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
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.

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?