How close are Slavs, Germanics and Celts related to each other genetically?

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

How close are they genetically?

[Sandman]

Germanics and Celts are very closely related genetically. The Slavs are significantly alienated from them. Our close genetic cousins are Balts.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Germanics and Celts are very closely related genetically. The Slavs are significantly alienated from them. Our close genetic cousins are Balts.

I have some old Polish ancestry on my German side. My Pomeranian ancestors originally had Slavic ancestry. Like 'Grünmann' is a last name in my family's history, but it is a German form of Zieliński which is Polish in origin. Among other names that ultimately have Slavic origins.

[Oneeye]

Here is a plot that Grace O'Malley posted in another thread. I'm not sure what the source is, tbh.


http://nextnature.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/genetic_map_of_europe_530.jpg





Going by this, Celtics and Germanics are VERY closely related.

[Hevo]

Here is a plot that Grace O'Malley posted in another thread. I'm not sure what the source is, tbh.


http://nextnature.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/genetic_map_of_europe_530.jpg





Going by this, Celtics and Germanics are VERY closely related.

Would be interesting where da Hallstatt Celts plot.

[Weedman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)

central and North western Europe, Y-DNA R1b ,
Celts,Germanic peoples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M253

Northern , NW Europe I1a Y-DNA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M170
parent sub-clade I1 and I2


http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)

Eastern Europe, NE Europe

Slavs, some others etc.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M438

Y-DNA I2 in SE Europe but also throughout other areas of Eastern Europe

[Weedman]

Would be interesting where da Hallstatt Celts plot.
do you mean west-central Europeans?

[Hevo]

do you mean west-central Europeans?

Nah ancient gnomes from the Hallstatt Culture as they were the original Celts. Btw, out of all modern Celts and Germanics it's only the Germans from east of the Elbe who are really pulling towards the Balto-Slavic samples. Possibly some Austrians too.

[Weedman]

Nah ancient gnomes from the Hallstatt Culture as they were the original Celts. I wish they had a lot more genetic evidence and info from this too

[drgs]

Closer than Romance cultures are to Germanics

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Do Germanics, Celts and Slavs share common ancestor?

[Vorg]

Do Germanics, Celts and Slavs share common ancestor?

Yamniks, Cordeds etc

[Gaston]

Those are language families, which don't necessarily coincide with genetics. A Germanic Austrian is closer to an Uralic Hungarian than to a Germanic Swede.


As a whole, Europeans form a continuum in Northern and Central Europe.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Those are language families, which don't necessarily coincide with genetics. A Germanic Austrian is closer to an Uralic Hungarian than to a Germanic Swede.


As a whole, Europeans form a continuum in Northern and Central Europe.

Really? That is really interesting.

[Veneda]

Do Germanics, Celts and Slavs share common ancestor?

Yo, Kaszëbë LOL :D

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Yo, Kaszëbë LOL :D

Yo! It is true I have Kashubian ancestry, my ancestors from Pommern had the Kashubian surname of Grünmann. It's a Germanization of Zielensky. Also a few other Kaszub surnames. I feel kinship with Poles because Kaszubs and Poles are the same people, just the Poles and Kaszubs don't always get along (now they do). The Lutheran Kaszubs not always welcome in Poland :( the Catholic ones are okay.

[Dombra]

Really? That is really interesting.

You will hear Turanists with other theories but that is the truth. Hungarians are essentially Ugric-speaking central Europeans. Asian score is extremely low in them and "Turanic hablogroups" are basically nonexistent

[Veneda]

Yo! It is true I have Kashubian ancestry, my ancestors from Pommern had the Kashubian surname of Grünmann. It's a Germanization of Zielensky. Also a few other Kaszub surnames. I feel kinship with Poles because Kaszubs and Poles are the same people, just the Poles and Kaszubs don't always get along (now they do). The Lutheran Kaszubs not always welcome in Poland :( the Catholic ones are okay.

Kashubs are Western Slavic tribe, but they consider themselves Poles :)

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Kashubs are Western Slavic tribe, but they consider themselves Poles :)

I suppose they are Polish :) one of the 'Polish tribes'. I have some ancestors, too, that I am having hard time tracing them. I wish Pomeranian genealogy was easier. I love being descendant of Pomeranians, it's a great part of the world with very interesting history :)

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Kashubs are Western Slavic tribe, but they consider themselves Poles :)

Also I have a picture of an ancestor, who came from this family, and I think she looks really Polish. I would love to scan the picture and make a classification thread. Unfortunately the picture is not in my possession at the moment.

[Unome]

Germanics and Slavics both descend from Keltic Central European tribes which predated either, yes

[Gaston]

Really? That is really interesting.

In a way, there is a "core" modern Europe since the bronze age, in which most Europeans belong (with more or less pronouced deviations) + outliers who are isolates like Sardinians, who are almost their own "race" because they have little to no ANE admixture.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Germanics and Slavics both descend from Keltic Central European tribes which predated either, yes

So they both have a Celtic origin? Interesting, I never knew that...

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

In a way, there is a "core" modern Europe since the bronze age, in which most Europeans belong (with more or less pronouced deviations) + outliers who are isolates like Sardinians, who are almost their own "race" because they have little to no ANE admixture.

Slavs, Germanics, Celts, and Romance peoples (I know this refers to language but I mean their genetics) are all such great people! They have all done the most greatest things in the history of the world. So it is true that they are all one big family? I wonder how CLOSE they are, though, just because they do share common origins doesn't necessarily mean they are close? I would love to know how close for example a Russian is to an Sicialian, a German to a Bulgarian, and Irishman to a Romanian man?

[♥ Lily ♥]

Are Austrian people Germanic or Slavic? I'm just curious since my nieces are half English and half Austrian.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Do Austrian people have Slavic in them? I'm just curious since my nieces are half English and half Austrian.

I am no expert but I have hard that they do. My good friend from Lithuania knows A LOT about genetics, and I swear I remember him saying most Austrians had some Slavic blood. He said the same about East Germans.

[Vorg]

Heterogeneity of European linguistic groups (In ascending order): Germanics, Celts, Slavs, Romanics, Turkics, Finno-Ugrics

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oL5v4cDMCKY/UOrLur5aFDI/AAAAAAAAChQ/9U9DqNHlvjE/s1600/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D 0%B5+%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D1 %82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85.jpg

[Neon Knight]

Slavs, Germanics, Celts, and Romance peoples (I know this refers to language but I mean their genetics) are all such great people! They have all done the most greatest things in the history of the world. So it is true that they are all one big family? I wonder how CLOSE they are, though, just because they do share common origins doesn't necessarily mean they are close? I would love to know how close for example a Russian is to an Sicialian, a German to a Bulgarian, and Irishman to a Romanian man?See this thread of mine: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?165990-The-Germanic-populations-according-to-Eurogenes-K13

[Neon Knight]

Are Austrian people Germanic or Slavic? I'm just curious since my sister's 2 daughters are half English and half Austrian.They are rather more Germanic.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

They are rather more Germanic.

Both genetically and culturally they are more Germanic, but they do have Slavic blood like East Germans.

[Neon Knight]

Both genetically and culturally they are more Germanic, but they do have Slavic blood like East Germans.Try telling that to Leilana :)

From what evidence I've seen, it is Poles who have a small German DNA influence rather than the other way around. I don't know about Czechs.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Try telling that to Leilana :)

From what evidence I've seen, it is Poles who have a small German DNA influence rather than the other way around. I don't know about Czechs.

Look, I am not the expert on Austrian genetics. As far as East German genetics, talk to Litvin. He knows a lot. East Germans are close to Poles (and I mean more eastern Germans, from what is today Poland). Most East Germans have the R1a Y-DNA that is associated with Slavs. Hang on, I'll get a map for you.

Also, the percentage of the people in East Germany with the Germanic R1a sub clade is low. So most people with the R1a must have descended from Wends. I have some Wendish surnames in my line and many East Germans descend partly from them.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Try telling that to Leilana :)

From what evidence I've seen, it is Poles who have a small German DNA influence rather than the other way around. I don't know about Czechs.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/R1a_Europa_centralna.png

Here's the map of R1a in Europe.

[Äijä]

Heterogeneity of European linguistic groups (In ascending order): Germanics, Celts, Slavs, Romanics, Turkics, Finno-Ugrics

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oL5v4cDMCKY/UOrLur5aFDI/AAAAAAAAChQ/9U9DqNHlvjE/s1600/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D 0%B5+%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D1 %82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85.jpg

What are you posting? Who and what is being measured?

[Rugevit]

Nah ancient gnomes from the Hallstatt Culture as they were the original Celts. Btw, out of all modern Celts and Germanics it's only the Germans from east of the Elbe who are really pulling towards the Balto-Slavic samples. Possibly some Austrians too.

Austrians are more similar to some Slavs (Slovenes, Croats and Czechs) than to many Germanic such as Scandinavians, Dutch, Icelandic, northern Germans.

[Vorg]

What are you posting? Who and what is being measured?

mtDNA

[Äijä]

mtDNA

LOL

[Vorg]

LOL

What lol? Heterogeneity of linguistic groups in Europe by mtDNA.

http://www.med-gen.ru/ar/ar_Balanovsky.pdf

[Arhat]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/R1a_Europa_centralna.png

Here's the map of R1a in Europe.

The map is crap. Poles have not more R1a than Belarusians and just a bit more than Ukrainians.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

The map is crap. Poles have not more R1a than Belarusians and just a bit more than Ukrainians.

Actually the part of Ukraine with higher R1a is not showing and some parts of Poland have more R1a than Belarusia

[Äijä]

What lol? Heterogeneity of linguistic groups in Europe by mtDNA.

http://www.med-gen.ru/ar/ar_Balanovsky.pdf

Sorry, actually it is interesting. :)

[Arhat]

Look, I am not the expert on Austrian genetics. As far as East German genetics, talk to Litvin. He knows a lot. East Germans are close to Poles (and I mean more eastern Germans, from what is today Poland). Most East Germans have the R1a Y-DNA that is associated with Slavs. Hang on, I'll get a map for you.

Also, the percentage of the people in East Germany with the Germanic R1a sub clade is low. So most people with the R1a must have descended from Wends. I have some Wendish surnames in my line and many East Germans descend partly from them.

It is a myth that East Germans are close to Poles. Just slavic Sorbs cluster with Slavs genetically and look Slavic. I have seen many East Germans and yes they look more "eastern" than west Germans but still very different from Poles

[Harkonnen]

mtDNA

Can I ask what is the point of the study?* IE is there divided to some of it's daughter languages, whereas the same has not been done with Uralic and Turkic. So you are comparing there different levels: you should compare Slavic, Germanic etc with Finnic, Saamic, Permic, Mordvinic, Ugric etc.

*the question was rhetoric. Please don't answer, you are just going to mumble something idiotic.

[Äijä]

Can I ask what is the point of the study?* IE is there divided to some of it's daughter languages, whereas the same has not been done with Uralic and Turkic. So you are comparing there different levels: you should compare Slavic, Germanic etc with Finnic, Saamic, Permic, Mordvinic, Ugric etc.

*the question was rhetoric. Please don't answer, you are just going to mumble something idiotic.

LOL

[Vorg]

Can I ask what is the point of the study?* IE is there divided to some of it's daughter languages, whereas the same has not been done with Uralic and Turkic. So you are comparing there different levels: you should compare Slavic, Germanic etc with Finnic, Saamic, Permic, Mordvinic, Ugric etc.

*the question was rhetoric. Please don't answer, you are just going to mumble something idiotic.

It's funny to hear it from you, seriously. Sorry, but science in general, destroys your fantasy world.

[Äijä]

It's funny to hear it from you, seriously. Sorry, but science in general, destroys your fantasy world.

:picard1:

[Vorg]

:picard1:

You work in tandem to support each other? It is right. ;)

[Vorg]

you should compare Slavic, Germanic etc with Finnic, Saamic, Permic, Mordvinic, Ugric etc.

You speak as if it I spent these studies. lol

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

It is a myth that East Germans are close to Poles. Just slavic Sorbs cluster with Slavs genetically and look Slavic. I have seen many East Germans and yes they look more "eastern" than west Germans but still very different from Poles

They are closer to the Poles than the Dutch, anyway. What does that tell you?

Anyways in Pomerania most Germans had some Slavic ancestry, which is where my ancestors came from. Not anymore since they were expelled after WW2.

[Rugevit]

Can I ask what is the point of the study?* IE is there divided to some of it's daughter languages, whereas the same has not been done with Uralic and Turkic. So you are comparing there different levels: you should compare Slavic, Germanic etc with Finnic, Saamic, Permic, Mordvinic, Ugric etc.

*the question was rhetoric. Please don't answer, you are just going to mumble something idiotic.


It's a PhD dissertation by Oleg Balanovsky . The catchy title of the disseration reads: The Variability of Gene Pool in Space and Time: Data Synthesis about genogeography of mtDNA and Y-Chromosome. The purpose of the study? Oleg's mother Elena Balanovskaya has academic standing and she's the head of the laboratory in the genetic centre that was doing a lot of DNA testing and publishing on population genetics in the last 15 years. These were Y-DNA and mtDNA in early and mid 2000s mostly. Oleg worked in the same lab. After much material was accumulated and published Oleg decided to use it for his dissertation. That was the purpose. But the researcher did not offer anything new to the field of science.

The graph Vorg posted shows heterogeneity of genes pools of linguistic groups (Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Romance, Turkic, Finno-Ugric) based on mtDNA data. Germanic are most homogeneous group of people, while Finno-Ugric are least homogeneous based on mtDNA.

But all that is irrelevant to what is discussed in this topic.

[Harkonnen]

It's a PhD dissertation by Oleg Balanovsky . The catchy title of the disseration reads: The Variability of Gene Pool in Space and Time: Data Synthesis about genogeography of mtDNA and Y-Chromosome. The purpose of the study? Oleg's mother Elena Balanovskaya has academic standing and she's the head of the laboratory in the genetic centre that was doing a lot of DNA testing and publishing on population genetics in the last 15 years. These were Y-DNA and mtDNA in early and mid 2000s mostly. Oleg worked in the same lab. After much material was accumulated and published Oleg decided to use it for his dissertation. That was the purpose. But the researcher did not offer anything new to the field of science.

The graph Vorg posted shows heterogeneity of genes pools of linguistic groups (Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Romance, Turkic, Finno-Ugric) based on mtDNA data. Germanic are most homogeneous group of people, while Finno-Ugric are least homogeneous based on mtDNA.

But all that is irrelevant to what is discussed in this topic.

Are you fucking stupid or what?

[Äijä]

Are you fucking stupid or what?

He also thinks Finnic spread by superior hunter gatherer skills.

[Rugevit]

Are you fucking stupid or what?

I was giving you some insightful information, you slow retard.

[Arhat]

They are closer to the Poles than the Dutch, anyway. What does that tell you?

Anyways in Pomerania most Germans had some Slavic ancestry, which is where my ancestors came from. Not anymore since they were expelled after WW2.

The difference between north and south is much bigger than between east and west in Germany. East Germans have a special look i can not really describe but it is certainly a part of the germanic spectrum. There are many people in Germany of Slavic ancestry and descendants of Baltic Germans can look very "eastern" but East Germans would in most cases better pass in Germanic countries than in Slavic countries. They look more eastern but if you leave east Germany and enter Poland you notice immediately differences between both populations. Most people forget that East Germany was already Germanic when Slavs arrived and slavicized the local population. So east Germans are descendants of Slavicized Germanics and new German settlers from the west and northwest.

[Äijä]

I was giving you some insightful information, you slow retard.

You dont see a problem comparing language families and branches of an language family?

[Rugevit]

He also thinks Finnic spread by superior hunter gatherer skills.

The regions over which Finnic languages were spread were not suited for agriculture 3,000 years ago given the availability of technology . Hunting and fishing were common, while any agricultural practises were auxiliary in that part Europe. Something as simple as this will take time for you to understand. Maybe you are frustrated over the fact that your ancestors were hunters & gatherers?

[Rugevit]

You dont see a problem comparing language families and branches of an language family?

I can see you are also a clever guy. Samples were compared using mtDNA. The regions from which samples were defined. The "language families", "branches of a language" or whatever are convenient labels for the groups of samples.

[Harkonnen]

The regions over which Finnic languages were spread were not suited for agriculture 3,000 years ago given the availability of technology . Hunting and fishing were common, while any agricultural practises were auxiliary in that part Europe. Something as simple as this will time to understand. Or you are frustrated over the fact that your ancestors were hunters & gatherers?

I think you are not understanding at all the situation here. If you think of the Seima-Turbino (It is wrong to call ST Uralic, but it is linked to it in a way) phenomenon. The vehicle that caused the sudden explotion that is ST was the gigantic coppermines at Urals. That was the reason. You don't need to be a farmer to need metals. Everybody likes metals. Metals are cool.

[Äijä]

The regions over which Finnic languages were spread were not suited for agriculture 3,000 years ago given the availability of technology . Hunting and fishing were common, while any agricultural practises were auxiliary in that part Europe. Something as simple as this will time to understand. Or you are frustrated over the fact that your ancestors were hunters & gatherers?

They where pastoralists or pastoral farmers.

Hunting and fishing are common in all parts of Europe even today, especially in Fennoscandia, Baltic and Russia.

[Harkonnen]

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg202/StonedAgian/heavymetal2000.jpg

[Peterski]

My Eupedia nick is Tomenable (see the links below).

I started there a thread about prehistoric (ancient DNA) distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe. I made some maps - they are on page 1 (all haplogroups) and on page 8 (R1a vs R1b in samples 8000-2000 years old):

Page 1: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

Page 8: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe/page8

My main source was "Ancestral Journeys" (with a database of ancient DNA), but some samples were from other sources:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/

====================================

This is the distribution of R1a and R1b in aDNA samples from ca. 8000 - ca. 2000 years ago:

http://s24.postimg.org/tbvhtfpcl/R1a_vs_R1b.png

The area where R1a and R1b were both present, was central Germany. But they were present in different cultures:

CW = Corded Ware cultures
BB = Bell Beaker cultures
Urn = Urnfield cultures
Lus = Lusatian Culture

Red circle = one sample of R1a
Blue circle = one sample of R1b

ybp = sample age (years before present)

http://s4.postimg.org/5yqhxcvb1/Central_Germany.png

The two R1a samples from Poland (4000 ybp) are also from burials of Corded Ware peoples.

=======================

1) Corded Ware cultures:

https://aratta.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corded_ware_culture.jpg

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/early_bronze_age_europe.gif

2) Bell Beaker cultures:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Beaker_culture.png

http://s15.postimg.org/p3loxvv9n/Bell_Beaker.png

=============================

Edit:

Few years from now - around 2019 - there should be more samples of ancient Y-DNA available from Polish areas:

"This year [April 2014] begins a major research program, the goal of which is to examine ancient DNA from several dozen archaeological sites from the area of Poland. This project is supposed to test ancient DNA of inhabitants of Poland from pre-Roman, Roman, early Medieval and Medieval times and compare it to DNA of modern inhabitants. Research is going to last at least 5 years, its authors are - among others - prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz and prof. Janusz Piontek."

[Peterski]

This is the comparison of R1a and R1b in aDNA samples from 8000 - 2000 years ago:

http://s24.postimg.org/tbvhtfpcl/R1a_vs_R1b.png

Compared to modern distribution of these haplogroups (dominant HG by country):

http://s4.postimg.org/kji3ibznx/Dominant_YDNA.png

[Rugevit]

I think you are not understanding at all the situation here. If you think of the Seima-Turbino (It is wrong to call ST Uralic, but it is linked to it in a way) phenomenon. The vehicle that caused the sudden explotion that is ST was the gigantic coppermines at Urals. That was the reason. You don't need to be a farmer to need metals. Everybody likes metals. Metals are cool.

Here is the situation. I am presenting facts and arguments, while you are pulling a straw-man.

Who wrote anything about the metals? Hunter-gatherers had the metals , so did nomads. Both groups also used axillary forms of agriculture. In spite the use of metals and agricultural products those peoples were hunter-gatherers and nomads.

[Rugevit]

They where pastoralists or pastoral farmers.

Hunting and fishing are common in all parts of Europe even today, especially in Fennoscandia, Baltic and Russia.


Like herding reindeers? 3,000 years ago people could not sustain their livings from farming in northern climates. Farming was axillary to hunting, fishing and gathering.

[Harkonnen]

Like herding reindeers? 3,000 years ago people could not sustain their livings from farming in northern climates. Farming was axillary to hunting, fishing and gathering.

Ok, just to put another little fact to the table. This is the reindeer habitat

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Rangifer_tarandus_map.png

Uralic language (Saamic) spread to Lapland around 1000 years ago. Therefor it is rather unlikely that the proto-Saami at southern Finland or Ladoga area were reindeer herders. Also the word for reindeer is a recent IE loanword in Saami.

[Äijä]

Like herding reindeers? 3,000 years ago people could not sustain their livings from farming in northern climates. Farming was axillary to hunting, fishing and gathering.

Like cattle, proto-Uralic has words associated with cattle and dairy products, this was in the Volga-Kama region 2500-2000BC.

[Äijä]

Ok, just to put another little fact to the table. This is the reindeer habitat

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Rangifer_tarandus_map.png

Uralic language (Saamic) spread to Lapland around 1000 years ago. Therefor it is rather unlikely that the proto-Saami at southern Finland or Ladoga area were reindeer herders. Also the word for reindeer is a recent IE loanword in Saami.

Saami reindeer herding started in larger scale, meaning migrating with them, in the 13th century and was at its largest in the 19th. :D

[Rugevit]

Not sure why some people see hunter-gatherer's life-styles less progressive. When I mentioned it in another topic it wasn't for the purpose of rubbing it in someone's face. In my opinion hunter-gatherers were as progressive as any community given the environment in which they had to survive. Besides, Finland & Ural were not the only regions in which hunter-gatherer life-styles were dominant at some point in time.


Back to genetics of Germans, Slavs and Celts.

[Peterski]

In Scandinavia we have the following Y-DNA patterns in period since 8000 years ago until the Iron Age:

1. Hunter-gatherers of southern Scandinavia:

Kongemose culture - I2 (I2a1 and I2c)
Pitted Ware culture - I2 (I2a1 and I2c)

2. Immigration of Neolithic farmers (TRB culture):

Northern group of TRB culture - I1 (descended from previous Neolithic LBK culture)

Why do I think that I1 came to Scandinavia with Neolithic TRB farmers? Because a sample of I1 was found in ca. 7500 years old burial of LBK culture in Hungary (Neolithic farmers - Linear Pottery culture), from which the TRB (Funnel Beaker culture) later evolved. Of course not entire TRB was I1, but the northernmost group of TRB could become I1 due to a founder effect. Those I1 people came as Neolithic farmers and largely replaced Y-DNA haplogroups of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (I2a1 and I2c), but absorbed some of their maternal lineages (mtDNA).

I1 was originally a marker of hunter-gatherers, but it became assimilated by Neolithic farmers (mostly G2a) in Hungary and mixed with them, acquiring Neolithic autosomal DNA. Later probably a founder effect (migration of a relatively small group) and chance, caused the spread of I1 - but not G2a - to Scandinavia with TRB people.

3. Copper-Bronze Ages (Indo-European invasion):

3a) North-westernmost group of Corded Ware culture - R1a-Z284 and R1a-L664
3b) North-eastern group of Bell Beaker culture - R1b (probably U106 subclade ?)

It seems that R1a-Z284 & L664 came first and penetrated deeper towards the north, while Beaker folks came later and initially stayed more confined to southern part of Scandinavia. This would explain the patterns of modern distribution of haplogroups in Scandinavia (R1a frequency peaks in Norway, while R1b frequency in Denmark).

4. Earlier part of the Iron Age:

4a) Influence of Hallstatt culture (Celts) on Nordic Bronze Age, leads to emergence of Jastorf culture,
4b) Influence of La Tene culture (Celts) on Jastorf culture, leads to so called latenization of the latter:



Latenization - an archaeological term referring to the diffusion of the Celtic culture called after the Swiss site of La Tène.


During 4a) and 4b) I suppose that more R1b (was it still U106 or other subclades ?) was introduced to Scandinavia by the Celts - at first by Hallstatt on the Nordic Bronze Age, then by La Tene on Jastorf. During that period Celtic-speaking peoples exerted strong influence on proto-Germanic-speaking peoples. PGMC terms for 'ruler/king', 'kingdom', 'iron', 'medic', 'mail shirt', 'town', etc. were loanwords from Celtic according to linguist Donald Ringe. In early written sources we also find suspiciously many leaders of Germanic tribes, who had Celtic names (e.g. Boiorix, Lugins, Claodicus, Ceasorix, Marbod, Ariovistus - all of these appear to be names of Celtic linguistic origin).

[Äijä]

Not sure why some people see hunter & gatherer's life-styles less progressive. When I mentioned it in another topic it wasn't for the purpose of rubbing it in someone's face. In my opinion hunter-gatherers were as progressive as any community given the environment in which they had to survive. Besides, Finland & Ural were not the only regions in which hunter-gatherer life-styles were dominant at some point in time.


Back to genetics of Germans, Slavs and Celts.

That is all nice and well but the Finnic that spread from the Volga-Kama region where not hunter gatherers.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

The difference between north and south is much bigger than between east and west in Germany. East Germans have a special look i can not really describe but it is certainly a part of the germanic spectrum. There are many people in Germany of Slavic ancestry and descendants of Baltic Germans can look very "eastern" but East Germans would in most cases better pass in Germanic countries than in Slavic countries. They look more eastern but if you leave east Germany and enter Poland you notice immediately differences between both populations. Most people forget that East Germany was already Germanic when Slavs arrived and slavicized the local population. So east Germans are descendants of Slavicized Germanics and new German settlers from the west and northwest.

Yes, and they also descend from real Slavs. R1a is most common haplogroup in Pomerania, and not the Germanic sub clade either...what does this tell us? East Germans = a mixture of Slavicized Germanics, Germanized Slavics and new German settlers from the west and northwest.

South Germans have more of a Celtic connection, I think they descend from Hallstatt culture of that region?

[Harkonnen]

Not sure why some people see hunter-gatherer's life-styles less progressive. When I mentioned it in another topic it wasn't for the purpose of rubbing it in someone's face. In my opinion hunter-gatherers were as progressive as any community given the environment in which they had to survive. Besides, Finland & Ural were not the only regions in which hunter-gatherer life-styles were dominant at some point in time.


Back to genetics of Germans, Slavs and Celts.

In my opinion there is a bit of a misunderstanding about Volga-Ural. The East Baltic area was indeed backwords for a long time. Put looking at archaelogy Volga-Ural was developed early on. It is just today that it is a shithole - so to say.

Anyway I'm always going to be suspicious when I see a Slavic study. From experience I know that the the Russians are plotting something again :eek:

[Rugevit]

That is all nice and well but the Finnic that spread from the Volga-Kama region where not hunter gatherers.

Volga and Kama are large rivers. Kama is actually larger than Volga at a point where the two rivers meet. The region is well suited for fishing. The area was forest zone 3,000 years ago, which was not ideal for farming or pastoralism. It was better suited for hunting and gathering berries and mushrooms. Pastoral life-style was flourished in the steppes. Farming was in warmer climate on fertile soils. Later, the technology of cutting & burning trees was exploited in the forest zones of Europe. I suspect that's how most of Europe was colonised by newcomers.

When I think of a traditional life-style of a Pomor I imagine a hard-working man spending his days in the seas catching fish. In autumn he would go hunting. In winters he would fix fishing boats and fishing nets I cannot imagine him ploughing land growing grains and harvesting hay for livestock spending short summers on these activities. That's the traditional life of a Pomor. Why would the lifestyle be different for any community that lived near large lakes, rivers or seas in northern climates?

[Not a Cop]

He also thinks Finnic spread by superior hunter gatherer skills.

You shouldn't laugh at hunting skills of N1c folks, Siberians are amazing hunters, their skills were used during WWII.

367 frags (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D 0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%91%D0%BD_%D0%94%D0%B0% D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87)

429 (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Охлопков,_Фёдор_Матвеевич)

487 (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D 0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_% D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0 %B8%D1%87)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/d/dd/Nomokonov_S_D.jpg



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/3/3a/Kulberdinov_I_N.JPG



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/2/28/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9E%D1%85%D0%BB% D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2.jpg

[Äijä]

In my opinion there is a bit of a misunderstanding about Volga-Ural. The East Baltic area was indeed backwords for a long time. Put looking at archaelogy Volga-Ural was developed early on. It is just today that it is a shithole - so to say.

Anyway I'm always going to be suspicious when I see a Slavic study. From experience I know that the the Russians are plotting something again :eek:

No there is not, he is on purpose muddying the waters, he knows by now there was a Finnic migration that happened in the Bronze Age.
Previously he tried to claim that Scandinavian and Balto-Slavic N1c was IE when it arrived in the Baltic.

[Peterski]

Something more about Y-DNA of hunters found in graves of farmers:

Haplogroup I was originally a marker of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, but as Neolithic farmers (haplogroups G, E1b, T1, H2, probably J, etc.) expanded into Europe from the Near East, some of those hunter-gatherers with I2 or I1 became assimilated by expanding farmers.

However, data on autosomal DNA shows that no of those I2 or I1 were "pure hunters".

All farmers with "hunter Y-DNA" found so far, were autosomally partially Near Eastern - so they were mixed with new immigrants, farmers. Near Eastern farmers practically always interbred with local hunters - transition to farming of those I2 and I1 was not "purely cultural".

And that I1 from 7500 years ago (the oldest I1 found so far) was also partially of Near Eastern ancestry. Same with I2. So far, I2 from hunting-gathering cultures is purely WHG (autosomally), while I2 from farming cultures is always partially EEF (Near Eastern admixture).

[Äijä]

Volga and Kama are large rivers. Kama is actually larger than Volga at a point where the two rivers meet. The region is well suited for fishing. The area was forest zone 3,000 years ago, which was not ideal for farming or pastoralism. It was better suited for hunting and gathering berries and mushrooms. Pastoral life-style was flourished in the steppes. Farming was in warmer climate on fertile soils. Later, the technology of cutting & burning trees was exploited in the forest zones of Europe. I suspect that's how most of Europe was colonised by newcomers.

When I think of a traditional life-style of a Pomor I imagine a hard-working man spending his days in the seas catching fish. In autumn he would go hunting. In winters he would fix fishing boats and fishing nets I cannot imagine him ploughing land growing grains and harvesting hay for livestock spending short summers on these activities. That's the traditional life of a Pomor. Why would the lifestyle be different for any community that lived near large lakes, rivers or seas in northern climates?

You jump from Volga-Kama to Pomors, you really are something. :D

[Arhat]

Yes, and they also descend from real Slavs. R1a is most common haplogroup in Pomerania, and not the Germanic sub clade either...what does this tell us? East Germans = a mixture of Slavicized Germanics, Germanized Slavics and new German settlers from the west and northwest.

South Germans have more of a Celtic connection, I think they descend from Hallstatt culture of that region?

In some regions there is maybe around 30% R1a (not all of it is of slavic origin) but overall it is around 20% - 25%. R1b is also dominating in East Germany. They have certainly slavic ancestry but i dont think that it is higher than their Germanic ancestry. I would say that they are around 2/3 Germanic and 1/3 (west)slavic.

[Peterski]

Vir9, Y-DNA is only one part of the story. Paraguayans have probably something like ~85% Spanish Y-DNA and ~15% Guarani Y-DNA, but their overall genetics is perhaps rather like ~65% Guarani and ~35% Spanish.

[Rugevit]

No there is not, he is on purpose muddying the waters, he knows by now there was a Finnic migration that happened in the Bronze Age.
Previously he tried to claim that Scandinavian and Balto-Slavic N1c was IE when it arrived in the Baltic.

I may not know everything on the subject but I know enough. Certainly, I know more than you. I don't have any agendas or prejudices unlike you who thinks that pastoral lifestyle must be cool because it's a current buzz term associated with PIE of the steppes. So read what I have to say on the subject. :) And yes, one branch of N1c1 is a Balto-Slavic in my opinion, as it is specific to Baltic and Slavic populations only. Besides, N1c1 (mutations down the branch are unknown) was found in several samples unearthed in western Russia bordering Belarus - the region in which no Finno-Ugric settlements have been attested. There aren't any Finno-Ugric toponyms and hydronyms or archaeological cultures, while plenty of Baltic and Slavic hydronyms and some archaeological cultures. The samples are dated to 4,000-6,000 ybp - the time when proto-Finnic peoples were in Volga region or between east Baltic and Volga region, while N1c1 was already present in pre-Corded-Ware region and what would become future Balto-Slavic lands.

[Peterski]

Besides, N1c1 (mutations down the branch are unknown) was found in several samples unearthed in western Russia bordering Belarus - the region in which no Finno-Ugric settlements have been attested.

Three samples (two R1a, one N1c) dated to 4500 years ago were found near Russian-Belarusian border.

They were found close to each other.

But I wouldn't be so sure that those were Indo-European speakers, including also those two R1a.

Those samples seem to be described as "Zhizhitskaya Culture".

Were those hunter-gatherers ???

[Arhat]

Vir9, Y-DNA haplogroups are only one part of the story.

Paraguayans have ~85% of Spanish Y-DNA / ~15% Guarani Y-DNA, but overall genetics is ~50% Guarani / ~50% Spanish.

Yes but my guess was about overall genetics. East Germans are in many ways closer to West and North Germans than to Poles . Typical slavic faces like in Poland are rather rare there. But i have not found any studies about overall east German genetics so far.

[Rugevit]

You jump from Volga-Kama to Pomors, you really are something. :D

Seeing you are unable to grasp trivial arguments I had to resort to such example.

[Rugevit]

Three samples (two R1a, one N1c) dated to 4500 years ago were found near Russian-Belarusian border.

They were found close to each other.

But I wouldn't be so sure that those were Indo-European speakers, including also those two R1a.

Those samples seem to be described as "Zhizhitskaya Culture".

Were those hunter-gatherers ???

I mentioned those people were pre-Corded-Ware. They were not Finno-Ugric either. If memory serves me correctly proto-Finnic speakers did not arrive to eastern Europe and east Baltic 4,500 years ago.

[Peterski]

Typical slavic faces like in Poland are rather rare there.

I don't know what exactly are "typical Slavic faces"?

Can you show me which of these faces are "typically Slavic" and which aren't?:

You can use MS Paint and mark Slavic or Germanic faces:

http://s29.postimg.org/zcy1pjdo7/FACES_A.jpg
http://s30.postimg.org/9fsfcz44x/FACES_B.jpg

Both these images contain both Slavic and Germanic faces.

I know which are which, but do you know just by looking at them?

[Äijä]

I may not know everything on the subject but I know enough. Certainly, I know more than you. I don't have any agendas or prejudices unlike you who thinks that pastoral lifestyle must be cool because it's a current buzz term associated with PIE of the steppes. So read what I have to say on the subject. :) And yes, one branch of N1c1 is a Balto-Slavic in my opinion, as it is specific to Baltic and Slavic populations only. Besides, N1c1 (mutations down the branch are unknown) was found in several samples unearthed in western Russia bordering Belarus - the region in which no Finno-Ugric settlements have been attested. There aren't any Finno-Ugric toponyms and hydronyms or archaeological cultures, while plenty of Baltic and Slavic hydronyms and some archaeological cultures. The samples are dated to 4,000-6,000 ybp - the time when Finnic peoples were in Volga region or between east Baltic and Volga region, while N1c1 was already present in pre-Corded-Ware region and what would become future Balto-Slavic lands.

Linguists dont find evidence for your hunter gatherer theory, they find evidence for pastoralism, words related to cattle and dairy products in proto-Uralic.

Finnish and Estonian horses are traced to Siberia and cattle to the Caucasus by DNA.

The Scandinavian and Baltic labeled N1c is found in Finland, funny how diverse is the N1c from Finland, Estonia and Karelia.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N/

[Äijä]

I mentioned those people were pre-Corded-Ware. They were not Finno-Ugric either. If memory serves me correctly proto-Finnic speakers did not arrive to eastern Europe and east Baltic 4,500 years ago.

They where not IE either and there is no info where they would fit in the N1c tree.

[Rugevit]

Those samples seem to be described as "Zhizhitskaya Culture".

Were those hunter-gatherers ???

People of Zhizhitskaya had agricultural practises similar to those of central Europe.

[Peterski]

They where not IE either

They could be:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer%27s_Epic_Tales


People of Zhizhitskaya had agricultural practises similar to those of central Europe.

Thanks for this info.

So Ancestral Journeys website incorrectly lists them as part of Mesolithic aDNA.

[Rugevit]

They where not IE either and there is no info where they would fit in the N1c tree.

How can you be sure they were not IE given Corded-Ware culture considered to be IE by most scholars was around Zhizhitskaya? There is no info mutations down the branch of N1c1 , but we now know N1c1 haplogroup was present in eastern Europe at the time there were no proto-Finnic peoples in the region.

[Peterski]

BTW - this map shows the range of Finno-Ugrian settlement (red colour) in the 800s:

http://s17.postimg.org/mcrd7o52n/900.jpg

http://s17.postimg.org/mcrd7o52n/900.jpg

Some of that (in western regions) could be already mixed with expanding Slavic settlement:

http://s22.postimg.org/mtfqsgzj5/Slavic_lands_850.png

http://s22.postimg.org/mtfqsgzj5/Slavic_lands_850.png

Both maps show also such areas, in which Finno-Ugrians and Slavs were mixed with other groups.

Actually the eastern extent of Slavs overlapped with the western extent of Finno-Ugrians.

[Äijä]

How can you be sure they were not IE given Corded-Ware culture considered to be IE by most scholars was around Zhizhitskaya? There is no info , but we now know N1c1 was already present in eastern Europe at the time there were no proto-Finnic peoples in the region.



If the "Baltic" N1c is IE in origin then N1c in Finland and Estonia is also, then you should offer a new carrier for the language spread.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/SNP-N-TREE-FIN.jpg

[Peterski]

Perhaps Russians and Belarusians are partially descended from Ugro-Finns, who became Slavicized.

[Äijä]

Perhaps Russians and Belarusians are partially descended from Ugro-Finns, who became Slavicized.

It seems Balts are even more.

[Rugevit]

If the "Baltic" N1c is IE in origin then N1c in Finland and Estonia is also, then you should offer a new carrier for the language spread.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/SNP-N-TREE-FIN.jpg





Mate! Posting charts won't add credibility to your argument. These are the facts:

- N1c1 was found in the region that have no attested Finnic settlements dated to 4,500 ybp. The culture is Zhizhitskaya had some agricultural practises similar to those of central Europe.
- The mutation of the "Balto-Slavic" marker (L550+, L1025+) (read as common among Balts and eastern Slavs) occurred some 2,700+/-300 years ago, which is within the time frame of Baltic settlements according to archaeological findings.


These are speculations:

People of Zhizhitskaya could have been IE or paleo-European.
People of Zhizhitskya could have passed N1c1 to ancestors of proto-Balts or Balto-Slavs.

[Äijä]

Mate! You have little idea what you are talking about. Posting charts won't add credibility to your argument either. These are the facts:

- N1c1 was found in the region that have no attested Finnic settlements dated to 4,500 ybp. The culture is Zhizhitskaya that had some agricultural practises similar to those of central Europe.
- The mutation of the "Balto-Slavic" marker (L550+, L1025+) (read as common among Balts and eastern Slavs) occurred some 2,700+/-300 years ago, which is within the time frame of Baltic settlements according to archaeological findings.

You dont seem to have an idea, your theory should be named "Magic Bullet, how N1c spread in to Europe".

[Peterski]

However, I did not say that Ugro-Finns have a monopoly for N1c. BTW according to this study, there were strong prehistoric connections between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic speakers:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812

[Äijä]

However, I did not say that Ugro-Finns have a monopoly for N1c. BTW according to this study, there were strong prehistoric connections between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic speakers:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812

I am not claiming monopoly over N1c.
But you should understand that if "Scandinavian" and "Baltic" N1c where not Finnic in origin then most of Finnish and Estonian N1c is neither.
What will it be?

[Peterski]

People of Zhizhitskya could have passed N1c1 to ancestors of proto-Balts or Balto-Slavs.

Yes. Also I2a1 was passed - very early on - to ancestors of Balto-Slavs or proto-Slavs, and expanded with them. So Balto-Slavs had a "core" of R1a, but with significant participation of N1c1 and I2a1 as well:

http://s10.postimg.org/mnv684tyx/I2a1.png

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

It seems that N1c1 was absorbed by those groups of Balto-Slavs which later went north and north-west. While I2a1 was absorbed mostly by those groups of Slavo-Balts which later went south, east and north-east.

[Rugevit]

You dont seem to have an idea, your theory should be named "Magic Bullet, how N1c spread in to Europe".

The same way as R1a1 was spread into Europe from the east. It was spread by people not necessarily by Finno-Ugric or IE speakers.


In a nutshell, for you

The Comb Ceramic culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2%80%93Comb_Ware_culture) which included the Narva culture encompassed territories of north-eastern Europe. There is a debate about the language of inhabitants of the Narva culture. Some scholars suggest that inhabitants were paleo-European speakers based on evidence of toponyms and hydronyms. The Comb Ceramic culture was replaced by Corded-ware horizon which is associated with IE family of languages by many scholars. Proto-Finnic speakers migrated to Baltic shore around 1000BC from Volga-Ural direction as per Finnish scholars.

Assuming Finnish scholars are right, then proto-Finnic speakers assimilated IE that settled eastern Baltic. If we assume Finnish scholars are wrong, then proto-Finnic speakers came earlier assimilating paleo-Europeans - the same or related group of people that were also assimilated by IE speakers little bit further south.

[Rugevit]

However, I did not say that Ugro-Finns have a monopoly for N1c. BTW according to this study, there were strong prehistoric connections between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic speakers:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812

Someone instilled the idea in their minds that N1c1 is Finno-Ugric entirely, which we know is not true.

[Rugevit]

I am not claiming monopoly over N1c.
But you should understand that if "Scandinavian" and "Baltic" N1c where not Finnic in origin then most of Finnish and Estonian N1c is neither.
What will it be?

Why does it have to be conditional given that Scandinavian and South-Baltic N1c1 belong to another clade? Why is it not possible for two groups speaking different languages having the same clade from which Scandinavian and Finnish branches were mutated?

[Äijä]

The same way as R1a1 was spread into Europe from the east. It was spread by people not necessarily by Finno-Ugric or IE speakers.


In a nutshell, for you

The Comb Ceramic culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2%80%93Comb_Ware_culture) which included the Narva culture encompassed territories of north-eastern Europe. There is a debate about the language of inhabitants of the Narva culture. Some scholars suggest that inhabitants were paleo-European speakers based on evidence of toponyms and hydronyms. The Comb Ceramic culture was replaced by Corded-ware horizon which is associated with IE family of languages by many scholars. Proto-Finnic speakers migrated to Baltic shore around 1000BC from Volga-Ural direction as per Finnish scholars.

Assuming Finnish scholars are right, then proto-Finnic speakers assimilated IE that settled eastern Baltic. If we assume Finnish scholars are wrong, then proto-Finnic speakers assimilated paleo-Europeans - the same or related group of people that was also assimilated by IE little bit further south.

Last time you associated N1c to the spread of Finnic, VL29 fits this spread, do you agree?

[Äijä]

Why does it have to be conditional given that Scandinavian and South-Baltic N1c1 belong to another clade? Why is it not possible for two groups speaking different languages having the same clade from which Scandinavian and Finnish branches were mutated?


http://www.yfull.com/tree/N/

They all magically seem to trace back to Finland and Estonia in the roots, must have been the go-to destination for IE language shifters.

[Peterski]

Why is it not possible for two groups speaking different languages having the same clade from which Scandinavian and Finnish branches were mutated?

Because:"[insert name] ethnic group is the most awesome and doesn't share anything and shut up". :)

PS: Of course it is possible.

[Rugevit]

Last time you associated N1c to the spread of Finnic, VL29 fits this spread, do you agree?

The marker could have been spread by different speakers: Paleo-Europeans, IE and proto-Finnic. People speaking different languages could carry the same marker. And people speaking the same language could carry different markers. There are many possibilities.

[Äijä]

Because:"[insert name] ethnic group is the most awesome and doesn't share anything and shut up". :)

PS: Of course it is possible.

We seem to have shared you some awesome paternal lines.

[Äijä]

The marker could have been spread by different speakers: Paleo-Europeans, IE and proto-Finnic. People speaking different languages could carry the same marker. And people speaking the same language carry different markers. There are many possibilities.

http://probability.ca/sbl/UKcover.gif

[Peterski]

The same way as R1a1 was spread into Europe from the east.

R1a1 rather emerged in Europe (within its commonly defined boundaries from the Atlantic to the Ural).

[Rugevit]

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N/

They all magically seem to trace back to Finland and Estonia in the roots, must have been the go-to destination for IE language shifters.

Proto-Finnic arrived to eastern Baltic 3000 years ago. That's what Finnish scholars state. N1c1 was already on eastern border of Belarus 4,500 years ago surrounded by Corded Ware who were IE according to most scholars. So who brought N1c1 to eastern Europe? :)

[Rugevit]

http://probability.ca/sbl/UKcover.gif



I noticed that you are a clever guy a little while ago. ;)

[Rugevit]

R1a1 rather emerged in Europe (within its commonly defined boundaries from the Atlantic to the Ural).


If I am not mistaken the earliest sample with R1a1 marker was found in Karelia. Underhill et al placed the origin of European branch of R1a1 in eastern Turkey and north-western Iran referencing to the greatest haplotype variation found in the region. Many people did not agree with him.

[Äijä]

Proto-Finnic arrived to eastern Baltic 3000 years ago. That's what Finnish scholars state. N1c1 was already on eastern border of Belarus 4,500 years ago surrounded by Corded Ware who were IE according to most scholars. So who brought N1c1 to eastern Europe? :)

You dont know what N1c was in Belarus, I am talking about what is there now, it can actually be observed and tested.
You can find N1c all over the world, we are talking about the VL29 branch.

[Peterski]

Estimates of age of formation and start of expansion (TMRCA) for major R1b and R1a subclades (from YFull):

R1b-M269 formed 13600 ybp, TMRCA 7000 ybp - and from M269 are descended:
================================================
R-L23 formed 7000 ybp, TMRCA 6300 ybp - and from L23 are descended:
===========================================
R-Z2103 formed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 6100 ybp
R-L51 formed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybp
R-L151 formed 5700 ybp, TMRCA 5100 ybp
R-U106 formed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 5100 ybp
R-P312 formed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 4900 ybp
R-DF27 formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4900 ybp
R-L21 formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp
R-U152 formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp

R1a-M198 formed 14300 ybp, TMRCA 8400 ybp - and from M198 are descended:
================================================
R-M417 formed 8400 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybp - and from M417 are descended:
==============================================
R-Z645 formed 5400 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp
R-Z282 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp
R-Z280 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R-Z93 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-Z94 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-Z2124 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-M458 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp
R-Z284 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4300 ybp

Main Asian branch of R1a is Z93 - as we can see it expanded fairly recently (4600 ybp = 2600 BC).

Some ancestral M198* is also found in a few modern Asians, but also in a few modern Europeans. So there is no conclusive evidence where did M198 originate. And - anyway - it was M417 which really started expansion.


If I am not mistaken the earliest sample with R1a1 marker was found in Karelia.

Yes, the oldest so far aDNA sample of R1a was from Karelia - I'm not sure if it was already M198, though.

========================

Edit:

I've found this info: "Karelian R1a [from 7500 ybp] is on the root of M198" - so it was not M198.

But if there was one R1a there, then probably there were other men with R1a living not so far away.

Some of those could be already M198 and M417 - those lineages, which later expanded in numbers.

PS: age and TMRCA estimates by YFull are not fully reliable, there is always a large margin of error. They also change them from time to time. It seems that they have already slightly modified some of their estimates compared to data posted above (that is according to estimates which were on YFull website in late April 2015).

http://www.yfull.com/tree/

[Äijä]

Asian (Indo-Iranian) branch of R1a is Z93 - as you can see it expanded fairly recently (TMRCA 4600 ybp = 2600 BC).

Maybe they where Finnic?

[Rugevit]

You dont know what N1c was in Belarus, I am talking about what is there now, it can actually be observed and tested.
You can find N1c all over the world, we are talking about the VL29 branch.

We know for a fact N1c1 was found in Russia (on eastern border of Belarus). The sample was from the Zhazhitskaya archaeological culture dated to 4,500 ybp. See the map of the district in which the N1c1 sample was found.


http://oi60.tinypic.com/k0he0o.jpg

[Äijä]

We know for a fact N1c1 was found in Russia (on eastern border of Belarus). The sample was from the Zhazhitskaya archaeological culture dated to 4,500 ybp. See the map of the district in which the N1c1 sample was found.


http://oi60.tinypic.com/k0he0o.jpg

I know the sample and it does not change the VL29 tree as it is.

[Rugevit]

I know the sample and it does not change the VL29 tree as it is.


What does tree have to do with the fact there were no proto-Finnic speakers 4,500 years ago in the region? Why do you keep thinking that a Y-DNA marker can be spread only by a single linguistic group?

[Äijä]

What does tree have to do with the fact there were no proto-Finnic speakers 4,500 years ago in the region? Why do you keep thinking that a Y-DNA marker can be spread only by a single linguistic group?

There is a conflict in the timing and places separated by distance, it comes down to propabilities.
It is common to trace population migrations trough Y-DNA, I assume the same rules apply to Finnic peoples.
VL29 branch is in origin either IE or Finnic, it cant be both by any serious calculation.

[Peterski]

Underhill et al placed the origin of European branch of R1a1 in eastern Turkey and north-western Iran referencing to the greatest haplotype variation found in the region.

The main European branch and the main Asian branch have a common origin, most probably from Europe.

The main Asian branch is Z93, which - as ancient DNA proves - was Indo-Iranian and perhaps Tocharian.

We have M417 (TMRCA 5400 ybp) which was ancestral to CTS4385 (formed 5400 ybp) and to Z645 (formed also 5400 ybp). Z645 had its TMRCA 5000 ybp (all data from April 2015 version of estimates). That Z645 gave rise to Z283 (formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp) and Z93 (formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp). Then Z283 gave rise to Z282 (formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp) and Z93 to Z94 (formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp).

Z283 (->Z282) is the main European branch, while Z93 (-> Z94) is the main Asian branch today.

CTS4385 is a smaller branch, but found almost exclusively in Europe (one of its main descendants is L664).

As you can see Z283 and Z93 could even be brothers (!) and Z645 could be their father (!). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but number of generations between them was surely small (all formed around 5000 ybp).

Now consider this - M417 around 5400 ybp "produced" CTS4385 and Z645. Then that Z645 "produced" Z283 and Z93. Of these groups, CTS4385 and Z283 are mostly European, and only Z93 is Asian.

It seems that "grandfather" (M417), "uncle" (CTS4385) and "father" (Z645) of Z93 and Z283 lived in Europe. That Z645 had two "sons", of whom one stayed in Europe, and only one (Z93) went to Asia.

Z93 is Indo-Iranian-Tocharian - which included Scytho-Siberians (Pazyryk) and Aryans (invasion of India).

Though one scholar suggested that Tocharian branch of R1a was not Z93, but a more typically European subclade.

Tocharian burials found so far (Tarim mummies) were 100% R1a, but subclades haven't been tested yet.

=============================================

Indo-Europeans with R1a-Z93 travelled as far east as Mongolia, where they encountered (and some of them possibly eventually mixed with) people of local Y-DNA haplogroups, such as Q1a-L54, Q-M242, C-M130.

That mixing is also the reason why many Turkic-speaking peoples today have R1a-Z93.

They absorbed parts of Indo-European populations during their westward expansion.

As for Tocharians in the Tarim Basin - they were 100% R1a (seven out of seven samples), but their maternal lineages were mostly local - 65% (13) out of 20 samples was C4, which is typically East Asian, IIRC.

So we can see that Indo-European males probably took local females as their wifes.

There is also data on hair colors, which shows that they get darker when they mixed with East Asians. But for example R1a-Z93 man who died in Western Mongolia ca. 1011 B.C. had blond or light brown hair.

[Äijä]

We should start discussing who these Baltic Finnic where, why did they arrive in the Bronze Age and how did they interact with the IE and paleo speakers around the Baltic Sea. :thumb001:

[Äijä]

Should we talk about Long Barrows and horse culture?

[Äijä]

It is interesting how in Estonia, Finland and Livonia the Finnic assimilated Balts and Germanic peoples.

[Peterski]

Here are the developments leading to M198 and M417:

http://s27.postimg.org/mfvicgucj/R1a.png

That hunter from Karelia was of R-YP1272 subclade.

That branch was ancestral to M198. But that particular hunter was probably not "father" of M198, because he died around 7500 years ago, and M198 already existed at that time (if YFull's estimate is correct).

YP1272 apparently also experienced a population bottleneck some 4000 years ago, because modern individuals with this haplogroup (some of whom live in Belarus, also in other countries - but generally this is a very rare subclade today) have TMRCA some 3900 ybp (even though thi subclade emerged around 14300 ybp).

[Hevo]

Austrians are more similar to some Slavs (Slovenes, Croats and Czechs) than to many Germanic such as Scandinavians, Dutch, Icelandic, northern Germans.

I don't know many calculators and plots with Austrians, can you give a few examples? I do know that there is a West-East divide in Austria.

[Peterski]

Maybe they where Finnic?

Do people in India speak Finnic or Indo-European?

They were Indo-European.

[Austrvegr]

Perhaps Russians and Belarusians are partially descended from Ugro-Finns, who became Slavicized.

And most of those Ugro-Finns were Balto-Slavs and Iranics (Fatyanovo, Balanovo, Abashevo, etc.) who became Ugro-Finnized.

[Lisa]

And most of those Ugro-Finns were Balto-Slavs and Iranics (Fatyanovo, Balanovo, Abashevo, etc.) who became Ugro-Finnized.

В русском разделе форума есть данная мною ссылка на работу Аксяновой по финно-угорским народам - смотрите "расы и народы 4 ". Так вот депигментированные популяции проживали на севере восточной европы задолго до "фатьяновцев и балановцев" .

[Äijä]

Do people in India speak Finnic or Indo-European?

They were Indo-European.

I was just playing with the idea that if VL29 branch is not Finnic in origin then anything goes.

[Äijä]

Look at the tree and the TMRCA estimates.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N-VL29/

If this changes I will change my views naturally, now it just seems that people dont want to see what is obvious.

[Peterski]

The main European branch and the main Asian branch have a common origin, most probably from Europe.

The main Asian branch is Z93, which - as ancient DNA proves - was Indo-Iranian and perhaps Tocharian.

We have M417 (TMRCA 5400 ybp) which was ancestral to CTS4385 (formed 5400 ybp) and to Z645 (formed also 5400 ybp). Z645 had its TMRCA 5000 ybp (all data from April 2015 version of estimates). That Z645 gave rise to Z283 (formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp) and Z93 (formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp). Then Z283 gave rise to Z282 (formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp) and Z93 to Z94 (formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp).

Z283 (->Z282) is the main European branch, while Z93 (-> Z94) is the main Asian branch today.

CTS4385 is a smaller branch, but found almost exclusively in Europe (one of its main descendants is L664).

As you can see Z283 and Z93 could even be brothers (!) and Z645 could be their father (!). Maybe this is an exaggeration, but number of generations between them was surely small (all formed around 5000 ybp).

Now consider this - M417 around 5400 ybp "produced" CTS4385 and Z645. Then that Z645 "produced" Z283 and Z93. Of these groups, CTS4385 and Z283 are mostly European, and only Z93 is Asian.

It seems that "grandfather" (M417), "uncle" (CTS4385) and "father" (Z645) of Z93 and Z283 lived in Europe. That Z645 had two "sons", of whom one stayed in Europe, and only one (Z93) went to Asia.

Z93 is Indo-Iranian-Tocharian - which included Scytho-Siberians (Pazyryk) and Aryans (invasion of India).

Though one scholar suggested that Tocharian branch of R1a was not Z93, but a more typically European subclade.

Tocharian burials found so far (Tarim mummies) were 100% R1a, but subclades haven't been tested yet.

=============================================

Indo-Europeans with R1a-Z93 travelled as far east as Mongolia, where they encountered (and some of them possibly eventually mixed with) people of local Y-DNA haplogroups, such as Q1a-L54, Q-M242, C-M130.

That mixing is also the reason why many Turkic-speaking peoples today have R1a-Z93.

They absorbed parts of Indo-European populations during their westward expansion.

As for Tocharians in the Tarim Basin - they were 100% R1a (seven out of seven samples), but their maternal lineages were mostly local - 65% (13) out of 20 samples was C4, which is typically East Asian, IIRC.

So we can see that Indo-European males probably took local females as their wifes.

There is also data on hair colors, which shows that they get darker when they mixed with East Asians. But for example R1a-Z93 man who died in Western Mongolia ca. 1011 B.C. had blond or light brown hair.

Indeed - Tocharian R1a was not Z93 - so not the same branch as Indo-Iranian R1a:

http://s10.postimg.org/t0umhibax/Tocharians.png

[Austrvegr]

В русском разделе форума есть данная мною ссылка на работу Аксяновой по финно-угорским народам - смотрите "расы и народы 4 ". Так вот депигментированные популяции проживали на севере восточной европы задолго до "фатьяновцев и балановцев" .

And we now know that those depigmented populations had R1a ancestral to Balto-Slavs and Iranics, that is, were early Indo-Europeans.

[Rugevit]

I don't know many calculators and plots with Austrians, can you give a few examples? I do know that there is a West-East divide in Austria.


MDLP 22 - calculator

Austrian

4 Hungarian – 3.9
5 Slovenian – 5.05
6 Croatian – 5.9
10 Bosnian – 7.2
12 Swedish – 8.3
13 Czech – 8.92
14 Serbian – 8.94
15 British – 8.96

My caluclations using Eurogenes k13 averages and Euclidean distance (older version, no Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian among populations)

1. Hungarian – 2.12
2. Serbian – 9.56
3. Polish – 12.9
5. Ukrainian_West – 14.17
7. Ukrainian – 15.34
9. North-Swedish – 17.36
11. Bulgarian – 17.79
12. Swedish – 18.20
14. Norwegian – 19.33
15. South-east English – 19.52

[Rugevit]

I don't know many calculators and plots with Austrians, can you give a few examples? I do know that there is a West-East divide in Austria.

Eurogenes k15 has Danes, Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, English and Austrians . Austrians are separated from other Germanic on this PCA plot : http://postimg.org/image/hyqi9guab/full/

[Rugevit]

Eurogenes k15 has Danes, Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, English and Austrians . Austrians are separated from other Germanic on this PCA plot : http://postimg.org/image/hyqi9guab/full/

Updated to the newest version of Eurogenes K15. Icelanders and east Germans are added. The closest Germanic population are east Germans : http://postimg.org/image/xszuezquf/full/

[Hevo]

Updated to the newest version of Eurogenes K15. Icelanders and east Germans are added. The closest Germanic population are east Germans : http://postimg.org/image/xszuezquf/full/

Thanks, it's fair to say that Austrians are the least ''Germanic like'' population and clusters firmly with other Central European populations and that makes sense.

[Rugevit]

Thanks, it's fair to say that Austrians are the least ''Germanic like'' population and clusters firmly with other Central European populations and that makes sense.

It does look that way.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

In some regions there is maybe around 30% R1a (not all of it is of slavic origin) but overall it is around 20% - 25%. R1b is also dominating in East Germany. They have certainly slavic ancestry but i dont think that it is higher than their Germanic ancestry. I would say that they are around 2/3 Germanic and 1/3 (west)slavic.

Over 50% ethnic Germans in Pommern, Silesia and East Prussia before they were expelled after WW2 had the R1a Y-DNA, and none had the Germanic subclade. There were mostly Slavs. That Germanic subclade is found mostly in Norway anyway. So the Pomeranians, Silesians and East Prussians had the highest amount of it (Slavic ancestry) but they were expelled, and today live among other Germans, many in West Germany I think. East Germany today (no longer includes Pomerania, except western part, Silesia or East Prussia) has 30% R1a. Some areas even more.

Anyways, East Germans DO NOT resemble Poles, you are right they look different.

[Arhat]

Updated to the newest version of Eurogenes K15. Icelanders and east Germans are added. The closest Germanic population are east Germans : http://postimg.org/image/xszuezquf/full/

thanks and makes sense that East Germans are somewhere between Hungarians/Central Europeans and North Germans.

[Peterski]

Coming back to that discussion about Y-DNA haplogroup R1a - I made a genealogical visualization:

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

Daco-Thracian is a hypothetical language family that was probably closely related to Balto-Slavic language family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classification_of_Thracian&redirect=no#Daco-Thracian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language