Why are "Baltic" Lithuanians(and Latvians) so heavily FinN1C?

[Äike]

If you browse around here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml), then you can see that "100% Baltic" Lithuanians have a lot of N1c1 and so do the Latvians. They have more of it than the Estonians.

My assumption is that the Estonian percentage of N1c1 has decreased because of the fact that the Estonians have almost 3 times more I1 than the Balts. But I would like to hear more theories.

Chart of FinN1Cness:

1. Finland, 58.5
2. Lithuania, 42
3. Latvia, 38
4. Estonia, 34

[Peerkons]

Here we go...
You posted this to prove, that actually we all are Baltic speaking finns, right?

[Äike]

Here we go...
You posted this to prove, that actually we all are Baltic speaking finns, right?

No, I didn't. Please contribute to this thread or do not post at all. I intended to keep this thread to be completely high-brow, thus I would be pleased if your dumb post and my reply to your dumb post would both be removed from this thread.

[Polako]

It's just founder effect. These are small populations in large areas of land that were heavily forested and inpenetrable until recently.

In terms of genome-wide genetic structure Lithuanians don't resemble much any Finnic speaking population. They're like an isolated and genetically drifted version of Belorussians.

[Jaska]

Of course we all know that no linguistic labels (like "Finnic" or "Baltic") can be attached to any haplogroup. There are different languages in every haplogroups, and different haplogroups within every language speakers.

The "Baltian" (areal, not linguistic label) N1c has probably nothing to do with the Finnic languages: it has been born in the area where no Finnic language has never been spoken (the limit goes across Latvia). Furthermore, new linguistic studies show that Uralic languages only started to expand later than earlier was thought, about 2000 BC. But Karl, as we know, will stubbornly resist these new results, because they do not fit into his belief that Estonian language is the oldest language in Europe...
:coffee:

[Äike]

Of course we all know that no linguistic labels (like "Finnic" or "Baltic") can be attached to any haplogroup. There are different languages in every haplogroups, and different haplogroups within every language speakers.

The "Baltian" (areal, not linguistic label) N1c has probably nothing to do with the Finnic languages: it has been born in the area where no Finnic language has never been spoken (the limit goes across Latvia). Furthermore, new linguistic studies show that Uralic languages only started to expand later than earlier was thought, about 2000 BC. But Karl, as we know, will stubbornly resist these new results, because they do not fit into his belief that Estonian language is the oldest language in Europe...
:coffee:

What new results? The main theory, supported my the majority of the scientists and written in most books says that the proto-Uralic area was in Eastern-Europe, the Volga region, next to the Ural mountains. The Finno-Ugric languages in Northern-Europe predate the Indo-European languages.

At 2000 BC, Estonians were already living in modern-day Estonia. Estonian has loan words from Proto-Germanic starting from 2000 BC. But when believing you and saying that the Uralic languages didn't start expanding before 2000 BC, then Proto-Germanic loanwords existing in the Estonian language from already 2000 BC, wouldn't be possible.

[Jaska]

What new results? The main theory, supported my the majority of the scientists and written in most books says that the proto-Uralic area was in Eastern-Europe, the Volga region, next to the Ural mountains. The Finno-Ugric languages in Northern-Europe predate the Indo-European languages.
These new results:
http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/virittaja/hakemistot/jutut/2006_2.pdf
http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf

In brief: Proto-Uralic started to expand about 2000 BC from the Volga-Kama area. So the Uralic languages cannot predate the Indo-European languages here near the Baltic Sea. You see, the Indo-European dating has not changed: it is still connected to the Corded Ware Culture, reaching the Baltic Sea region about 3200 BC.

And here is something in English to tell you what is wrong with the continuity argument you believe in:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
More in Finnish:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus1.pdf

Many linguists have already agreed with these new results. During the present decade you will see these views also in English and in popular books, and at 2020's they are in the school books. I have told this to you earlier in ForumBiodiversity, but you just refuse to understand it.


At 2000 BC, Estonians were already living in modern-day Estonia. Estonian has loan words from Proto-Germanic starting from 2000 BC. But when believing you and saying that the Uralic languages didn't start expanding before 2000 BC, then Proto-Germanic loanwords existing in the Estonian language from already 2000 BC, wouldn't be possible.
1. Some ancestors of Estonians have of course lived in Estonia "forever". But some of the ancestors are later newcomers.

2. You cannot claim that the Estonian language is inherited from the first inhabitants. Firstly, it is methodologically invalid (see the third link above), and secondly, it is against the linguistic results (see the first and second link above).

3. Proto-Germanic loanwords are not older than 500 BC, but there are Palaeo- and Pre-Germanic loanwords older than that. There is no need to consider them older than, say, 1500 BC, when the Uralic (Pre-Finnic) language had already reached the Baltic Sea.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Jaska:
There were two waves of N1c that spread to the Baltic area and they both spread there from an area where no Uralic was spoken, so the haplotype may not be connected with the spread of Uralic languages. The first wave some 6-7000 years ago, was to modern day (roughly) Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine and the second approx 4000 years ago to northwestern Russia.
As far as I know, tha majority of N1c in Estonia and western Finland spread north from the first wave. From the second wave the younger N1c was brought to eastern Finland. The younger spread may have brought with it Uralic languages to the region.

Is this correct?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

The links you provide are your theories. And you have some supporters. Wouldn't it be nice of you to mention this?

There are also other theories, and your theories (although strong in many ways) have been questioned.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

It's just founder effect. These are small populations in large areas of land that were heavily forested and inpenetrable until recently.
There are plenty of rivers and lakes in northeastern Europe so the area was very accessible along them and that's why Uralic languages are spoken over such a vast territorium (Northern Norway to east of Urals and south along the Volga). Nevertheless, the population was low since the land was not open for agriculture (= population boom) until recently.


In terms of genome-wide genetic structure Lithuanians don't resemble much any Finnic speaking population. They're like an isolated and genetically drifted version of Belorussians.
But isn't it a fact that Finnics resemble Balts quite a lot?

[Wyn]

Ah, the petty squabbles of Finnics, Balts, and other non-EuR1bns. :cool:

[Don Brick]

Ah, the petty squabbles of Finnics, Balts, and other non-EuR1bns. :cool:

Yeah, but what about us kI1ngs? Back in the day the original R1b (peasant) Britons were dominated hard by the I1 carrying invading Germanic aristocracy if I´m not completely mistaken. The same is probably true even today. ;)

j/k :p

[Jaska]

The links you provide are your theories. And you have some supporters. Wouldn't it be nice of you to mention this?

There are also other theories, and your theories (although strong in many ways) have been questioned.
They are peer-reviewed articles, so it does not matter that I actually wrote some of them. And all who have considered the subject since, agree. Those articles which don't agree, are older - you cannot rely on them, because during their writing the new view was not yet presented. Nobody have questioned these new theories on any argumental ground since they were published, unless you have some secret knowledge?

Of course some people (like Jäärapää) may be stuck in the old views, but as in science only arguments count, such opinions have no value. Stubbornity is not a scientific argument. :)


There were two waves of N1c that spread to the Baltic area and they both spread there from an area where no Uralic was spoken, so the haplotype may not be connected with the spread of Uralic languages. The first wave some 6-7000 years ago, was to modern day (roughly) Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine and the second approx 4000 years ago to northwestern Russia.
As far as I know, tha majority of N1c in Estonia and western Finland spread north from the first wave. From the second wave the younger N1c was brought to eastern Finland. The younger spread may have brought with it Uralic languages to the region.

Is this correct?
So far it's hard to tell for sure.
With the 67-marker haplotree it looks like all the "northern N1c" (in Karelia, Finland and Scandinavia) is relatively young and descended from some wide-spread branch. There are of course some older groups in the north, too, but the great majority of Finns belong to the top branches 7, 8 and 9:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/SukupuuN1c.pdf

[Äike]

These new results:
http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/virittaja/hakemistot/jutut/2006_2.pdf
http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf

In brief: Proto-Uralic started to expand about 2000 BC from the Volga-Kama area. So the Uralic languages cannot predate the Indo-European languages here near the Baltic Sea. You see, the Indo-European dating has not changed: it is still connected to the Corded Ware Culture, reaching the Baltic Sea region about 3200 BC.

And here is something in English to tell you what is wrong with the continuity argument you believe in:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
More in Finnish:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus1.pdf

Many linguists have already agreed with these new results. During the present decade you will see these views also in English and in popular books, and at 2020's they are in the school books. I have told this to you earlier in ForumBiodiversity, but you just refuse to understand it.


1. Some ancestors of Estonians have of course lived in Estonia "forever". But some of the ancestors are later newcomers.

2. You cannot claim that the Estonian language is inherited from the first inhabitants. Firstly, it is methodologically invalid (see the third link above), and secondly, it is against the linguistic results (see the first and second link above).

I wasn't talking about Kalevi Wiik's theory of the Uralic people being the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Northern-Europe.

I was talking about the main theory, that's written in school books and history books.

The Uralic people arrived to Northern-Europe in 4200BC, 1000 years before the Indo-Europeans. That's the main theory, Kalevi Wiik's theory is considerably different.


3. Proto-Germanic loanwords are not older than 500 BC, but there are Palaeo- and Pre-Germanic loanwords older than that. There is no need to consider them older than, say, 1500 BC, when the Uralic (Pre-Finnic) language had already reached the Baltic Sea.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

...Estonia was part of the Nordic bronze age and the Germanic loanwords started coming into our language since 2000BC. A lot of them are related to trade.

Some examples:

Proto-Germanic and Germanic loans 2000 BC – 13th century: agan, ader 'plough', humal, kana 'hen', kaer 'oats', rukis 'rye', lammas 'sheep', leib 'bread', põld 'field'; aer 'oar', mõrd 'fish trap', laev 'ship', noot 'seine, sweep net', puri 'sail'; kuld 'gold', raud 'iron', tina 'tin'; sukk 'stocking', katel 'kettle', küünal 'candle', taigen 'dough'; kuningas 'king', laen 'loan', luna 'ransom, bail', raha 'money', rikas 'rich', vald 'parish, community'; kalju 'rock', kallas 'shore', rand 'coast'; armas 'dear', taud 'disease', kaunis 'beautiful', ja 'and'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_vocabulary

[Jaska]

I wasn't talking about Kalevi Wiik's theory of the Uralic people being the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Northern-Europe.

I was talking about the main theory, that's written in school books and history books.

The Uralic people arrived to Northern-Europe in 4200BC, 1000 years before the Indo-Europeans. That's the main theory, Kalevi Wiik's theory is considerably different.
You have earlier supported Wiik's views, too.
Yes, this "Uralic Combed Ware Culture" is the school-book theory. But as I said, scientists are in growing numbers turning to the new theory - but of course it takes some time before you can find it in the school books. Why don't you read scientific articles, instead?

It happens to be, that the view of the scientists end up into the school books, not vice versa.


...Estonia was part of the Nordic bronze age and the Germanic loanwords started coming into our language since 2000BC. A lot of them are related to trade.
You are wrong, the loanwords did not start to come into your language - they started to come in Early Proto-Finnic. They were also adopted in Middle Proto-Finnic and Late Proto-Finnic. I doubt there are any other Germanic loanwords than Swedish loanwords adopted directly to Estonian. Estonian - like all the other Finnic languages - has separated so recently.

I repeat: there was no Estonian language 2000 BC.
There was no Estonian language even 0 AD.

[Äike]

You have earlier supported Wiik's views, too.
Yes, this "Uralic Combed Ware Culture" is the school-book theory. But as I said, scientists are in growing numbers turning to the new theory - but of course it takes some time before you can find it in the school books. Why don't you read scientific articles, instead?

It happens to be, that the view of the scientists end up into the school books, not vice versa.


You are wrong, the loanwords did not start to come into your language - they started to come in Early Proto-Finnic. They were also adopted in Middle Proto-Finnic and Late Proto-Finnic. I doubt there are any other Germanic loanwords than Swedish loanwords adopted directly to Estonian. Estonian - like all the other Finnic languages - has separated so recently.

The Swedish language, Old Norse, nor Proto-Norse yet existed, when the first (Proto-Germanic) loanwords started coming into the Estonian language.


I repeat: there was no Estonian language 2000 BC.
There was no Estonian language even 0 AD.

At 2000 BC, the Finnic languages were certainly more similar than they are now, in the 13th century, Estonian was closer to Finnish than it is now. But we cannot talk about the Finnic people speaking an identical language.

Anyone who says that there was no Estonian language at 0 AD, is an extremist and is more extreme than people like Kalevi Wiik.

[Jaska]

The Swedish language, Old Norse, nor Proto-Norse yet existed, when the first (Proto-Germanic) loanwords started coming into the Estonian language.
Darling, can't you understand English? The first Germanic loanwords did not come into Estonian, they came into Early Proto-Finnic. Estonian was a separate language only well after the year 1 AD. Different Finnic languages are only little older than different Scandinavian languages.

What is it here that you don't understand ?


At 2000 BC, the Finnic languages were certainly more similar than they are now, in the 13th century, Estonian was closer to Finnish than it is now. But we cannot talk about the Finnic people speaking an identical language.

Anyone who says that there was no Estonian language at 0 AD, is an extremist and is more extreme than people like Kalevi Wiik.
And your view is, again, based on the schoolbooks? :thumbs up
My view is based on the scientific studies. I have given links to you earlier, but you rather keep your erroneous beliefs.

"Triangulation" between Germanic, Finnic and Saamic shows us that Late Proto-Finnic was contemporaneous with Saamic protodialects and Early Proto-Norse, and they all were spoken ca. at the Younger Roman Iron Age (some centuries after 0 AD). See table in page 6:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

I know well that you cannot understand any scientific argumentation contradicting your religious beliefs, but I write for those who can.

[Äike]

Darling, can't you understand English? The first Germanic loanwords did not come into Estonian, they came into Early Proto-Finnic. Estonian was a separate language only well after the year 1 AD. Different Finnic languages are only little older than different Scandinavian languages.

If the Finnic languages would be as old as the Scandinavian languages, then they should be mutually intelligible. Many Slavic languages and also the Scandinavian languages are mutually intelligible, because of their young age. Saying that Finnic languages are just as young, just doesn't add up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_vocabulary


And your view is, again, based on the schoolbooks? :thumbs up
My view is based on the scientific studies. I have given links to you earlier, but you rather keep your erroneous beliefs.

"Triangulation" between Germanic, Finnic and Saamic shows us that Late Proto-Finnic was contemporaneous with Saamic protodialects and Early Proto-Norse, and they all were spoken ca. at the Younger Roman Iron Age (some centuries after 0 AD). See table in page 6:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

I know well that you cannot understand any scientific argumentation contradicting your religious beliefs, but I write for those who can.

My views are based on common sense and a wide array of books(not school books).

[Motörhead Remember Me]

[QUOTE]They are peer-reviewed articles, so it does not matter that I actually wrote some of them. And all who have considered the subject since, agree. Those articles which don't agree, are older - you cannot rely on them, because during their writing the new view was not yet presented. Nobody have questioned these new theories on any argumental ground since they were published, unless you have some secret knowledge?
No, I don't have any secret knowledge. I refer to the debates betweeen you and others on i.e. tiede.fi (Note: I'm not arguing against your theories but it has caught my eye that you almost always refer to yourself) Maybe there are new theories in the making as science is not static? Waht we accept today may be debatable tomorrow.



So far it's hard to tell for sure.
With the 67-marker haplotree it looks like all the "northern N1c" (in Karelia, Finland and Scandinavia) is relatively young and descended from some wide-spread branch. There are of course some older groups in the north, too, but the great majority of Finns belong to the top branches 7, 8 and 9:
Sure, one man (approx 1800-1900 years ago) have had a lot of descendants. The Djingis Khan effect. We do not know much more than that.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

If the Finnic languages would be as old as the Scandinavian languages, then they should be mutually intelligible. Many Slavic languages and also the Scandinavian languages are mutually intelligible, because of their young age. Saying that Finnic languages are just as young, just doesn't add up.


This is actually very true.

The Scandinavian languages i.e. are mutually intelligble because the have rather recently spread from a small core area. But Finnic languages have been separated from each other for a longer period of time taking on greater differencies. They cannot have separated later than all Germanic languages!

There's a nice paper on this by a Swedish linguist. I'll find that soon.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

The Language of southern Scandinavia in the Bronze Age:
Fenno-Ugric, Baltic, Germanic, or ...? Claes-Christian Elert. He's not your average Joe but a Professor Emeritus in linguistics.

The absence of any great dialect split in the Germanic language spoken in Scandinavia and northern Germany at the time of the earliest written sources (ca. 200-500 A.D.) indicates strongly that a Germanic language has been spoken over such a large area for only a short time. The late Bronze Age (ca. 700 B.C.) was a time of cultural change when the language(s) spoken earlier may have been replaced by the Germanic language.
..................
..................
On archeological, genetic and linguistic grounds the late Bronze Age language in Scandinavia could have been a Finnic or Baltic language (or both). However, from what can be inferred from parallels in history or ethnolinguistics a more complicated and varied pattern is the most likely one in subglacial Europe at the end of the Ice Age after tens of thousands of years of human settlement or, later, in Bronze Age Scandinavia, after 7-8 millennia. The better-known linguistic situation in early cultures, such as southern Europe and Anatolia in the first two millennia B.C., shows a complicated pattern of IE and non-IE languages together with languages with unknown relationship, most of them spoken over restricted areas, and often subject to swift change. This is true also about cultures of a similar level of development in many parts of the world. There is archeological evidence in Bronze Age Sweden of a tribal community which is not incompatible with this language pattern (Larsson 1986; Nordström 1992; Wigren 1987).


What's your opinion on this, Jaska?

[Jaska]

If the Finnic languages would be as old as the Scandinavian languages, then they should be mutually intelligible. Many Slavic languages and also the Scandinavian languages are mutually intelligible, because of their young age. Saying that Finnic languages are just as young, just doesn't add up.
Yes, they are. Foreigner would immediately recognize the common features, just like in the case of Slavic or Scandinavian languages. Mutual intelligibility is the criteria only if we talk about the dialects of ONE language; it is not the criteria when we talk about a group of closely related languages.


No, I don't have any secret knowledge. I refer to the debates betweeen you and others on i.e. tiede.fi (Note: I'm not arguing against your theories but it has caught my eye that you almost always refer to yourself) Maybe there are new theories in the making as science is not static? Waht we accept today may be debatable tomorrow.
In the forum debates my opponents are on the level of Jäärapää – they are not linguists but laymen who have some early day fell in love with some theory and now opposite everything which contradicts it. I refer to my own writings, because I have done the collecting work; it is easier for everybody to read one article where all the points are, instead of reading dozen different articles where the points are. And it is easier to refer to an article than rewrite it again for the forum. :)


The Scandinavian languages i.e. are mutually intelligble because the have rather recently spread from a small core area. But Finnic languages have been separated from each other for a longer period of time taking on greater differencies. They cannot have separated later than all Germanic languages!
There are greater differences even between German and English than between any two Finnic languages – not to speak of the differences between Gothic, Swedish and English. So clearly the Finnic languages have differentiated later than Germanic languages, although earlier than the Scandinavian languages. And still you couldn’t understand Faroese (føroyskt) on the basis of Swedish.

And there are also other arguments (than just comparing the difference between the languages of different branches) which testify for the late separation of Finnic languages; see the downmost link below (and I already gave it earlier).


The Language of southern Scandinavia in the Bronze Age: Fenno-Ugric, Baltic, Germanic, or ...? Claes-Christian Elert. He's not your average Joe but a Professor Emeritus in linguistics.
Yes, he is a phonetician, just like Wiik. He is not comparative linguist. But of course the arguments are the only thing that matter, so let’s see:

It’s true that majority of Scandinavia has only Scandinavized very late, only at the second millennium AD. And now (since 2004) we also know that there truly was a Palaeo-European substrate language (or even more of them) in northern Scandinavia. This language, however, seems to have had nothing in common with the Uralic, Finnic or Baltic languages (or Basque, or Sumerian, etc.).

What comes to the claim of Elert, that “On archeological, genetic and linguistic grounds the late Bronze Age language in Scandinavia could have been a Finnic or Baltic language (or both)”, this claim is just based on the invalid method, in which one assumes that archaeological or genetic continuity could testify for linguistic continuity, too. But this is a false assumption, and the invalidness of this method has been presented here:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
Or in Finnish:
http://www.tieteessatapahtuu.fi/0106/hakkinen.pdf

So, what is the true linguistic evidence for the earlier Finnic or Baltic presence in Scandinavia? None. There is neither loanword stratum, nor place-name stratum from these languages in Scandinavia(n). Zero evidence. Nought. Nil. Saamic loanwords and place-names there are, of course, but they cannot predate the Proto-Saamic development which occurred in Southern Finland only 2 000 years ago. So, even the Saamic languages were not there during the Bronze Age, even though it was earlier thought so (based on the above-mentioned erroneous method).

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

[Polako]

But isn't it a fact that Finnics resemble Balts quite a lot?

Based on my latest results, not really.

Western Finns and Balts do show affinity. But Western Finns are most similar Finns to North and Central Europeans, so this isn't a strong argument for Finnic influence in Balts, but rather Baltic and Germanic influence in Western Finns.

[Äike]

Based on my latest results, not really.

Western Finns and Balts do show affinity. But Western Finns are most similar Finns to North and Central Europeans, so this isn't a strong argument for Finnic influence in Balts, but rather Baltic and Germanic influence in Western Finns.

You should rename your "Finnic" group into Finnish. It's currently misleading. You might as well do a test with the Germanic people, but only use an Austrian sample. It would make as much sense.

In a way, Finns are peripheral Baltic-Finnish people, the proto-Finnic area was south-east of Finland and Estonians are less peripheral. There was a good article about this somewhere.

[Pallantides]

Yeah, but what about us kI1ngs? Back in the day the original R1b (peasant) Britons were dominated hard by the I1 carrying invading Germanic aristocracy if I´m not completely mistaken. The same is probably true even today. ;)

j/k :p

If anything it was I1 who were the docile peasents of Scandinavia being dominated by the aR1an's, :P btw R1b is quite frequent in Germanic speaking populations.

R1b1b2a1a1(R-U106)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/THYYn0iOp2I/AAAAAAAACiw/GTn5liL2F68/s1600/u106.jpg

[Don Brick]

If anything it was I1 who were the docile peasents of Scandinavia being dominated by aR1an's, also R1b is quite frequent in Germanic speaking populations.

R-U106
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/THYYn0iOp2I/AAAAAAAACiw/GTn5liL2F68/s1600/u106.jpg

Sure sure. Only a jealous baR1ba(wannabe)R1an would come with such nonsense. :p Let the haplogroup wars begin! It was about time! :D

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Based on my latest results, not really.

Western Finns and Balts do show affinity. But Western Finns are most similar Finns to North and Central Europeans, so this isn't a strong argument for Finnic influence in Balts, but rather Baltic and Germanic influence in Western Finns.

Thanks, this was what I meant. The influence goes from the Balts to Finns and not the opposite.
But, what is the component in Balts which make them Balts (Latvians/Lithuanians --> Livs/Estonians --> Finns/Karelians)?
Clearly, it must be partially linked to the N1c (and the U5a) which is in fact is this ancient root population of Proto-Ur-Balto "Fininics".

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Sure sure. Only a jealous baR1ba(wannabe)R1an would come with such nonsense. :p Let the haplogroup wars begin! It was about time! :D

It's only because the swarthy one's aren't as N1ce as the KI1ngs of the North.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

In the forum debates my opponents are on the level of Jäärapää – they are not linguists but laymen who have some early day fell in love with some theory and now opposite everything which contradicts it. I refer to my own writings, because I have done the collecting work; it is easier for everybody to read one article where all the points are, instead of reading dozen different articles where the points are. And it is easier to refer to an article than rewrite it again for the forum. :) Not everything in Wiik's theories is wrong, I think you agree wtih me here.
The idea to track a language, people and culture is best done by a multidisciplinary approach. It give contradicting results but it should do that! History is not simple, it's full of twists and turns.


There are greater differences even between German and English than between any two Finnic languages I for sure don't understand a shit in Komi language but German and English is a piece of cake so I don't really understand this statement of yours (you don't have to tell me, I am a layman). Maybe you refer to the similiarities in grammar?


– not to speak of the differences between Gothic, Swedish and English. So clearly the Finnic languages have differentiated later than Germanic languages, although earlier than the Scandinavian languages. And still you couldn’t understand Faroese (føroyskt) on the basis of Swedish. But you must take the Finnic languages icebox effect into consideration !! The Finnic languages evolves slower.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

It’s true that majority of Scandinavia has only Scandinavized very late, only at the second millennium AD. And now (since 2004) we also know that there truly was a Palaeo-European substrate language (or even more of them) in northern Scandinavia. This language, however, seems to have had nothing in common with the Uralic, Finnic or Baltic languages (or Basque, or Sumerian, etc.).

What comes to the claim of Elert, that “On archeological, genetic and linguistic grounds the late Bronze Age language in Scandinavia could have been a Finnic or Baltic language (or both)”, this claim is just based on the invalid method, in which one assumes that archaeological or genetic continuity could testify for linguistic continuity, too. But this is a false assumption, and the invalidness of this method has been presented here:

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
Or in Finnish:
http://www.tieteessatapahtuu.fi/0106/hakkinen.pdf

So, what is the true linguistic evidence for the earlier Finnic or Baltic presence in Scandinavia? None. There is neither loanword stratum, nor place-name stratum from these languages in Scandinavia(n). Zero evidence. Nought. Nil. Saamic loanwords and place-names there are, of course, but they cannot predate the Proto-Saamic development which occurred in Southern Finland only 2 000 years ago. So, even the Saamic languages were not there during the Bronze Age, even though it was earlier thought so (based on the above-mentioned erroneous method).

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

Thanks.

[Polako]

Thanks, this was what I meant. The influence goes from the Balts to Finns and not the opposite.
But, what is the component in Balts which make them Balts (Latvians/Lithuanians --> Livs/Estonians --> Finns/Karelians)?
Clearly, it must be partially linked to the N1c (and the U5a) which is in fact is this ancient root population of Proto-Ur-Balto "Fininics".

N1c is still something of a mystery. There were probably a couple waves of it from the east into Europe, the first one possibly during the late Mesolithic. It was then probably connected to the proto-Finns moving into the Baltic area during the Bronze Age, possibly thanks to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. But no one really knows.

In any case, modern Balts seem to be the most Mesolithic Europeans in terms of mtDNA and autosomal DNA, and if their N1c is the early version from the "late Mesolithic", then that would fit as well. They have the least amount of Neolithic influence, which is actually much higher in Northwestern Europeans, like Brits and even Scandinavians. You can see why on the map below, with the Neolithic movements seemingly going from Anatolia straight for Germany and France, and not really bothering with the east Baltic, where the land wasn't suitable for agriculture. Finns are also very "Mesolithic", but you guys have the later stuff from the east that the Balts largely lack (except, to some degree, Latvians from around Livonia).

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/LBK.gif


Haak W, Balanovsky O, Sanchez JJ, Koshel S, Zaporozhchenko V, et al. (2010) Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities. (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536#pbio-1000536-g002) PLoS Biol 8(11): e1000536. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536


And recent work with ancient crania backs that up...


The extent to which the transition to agriculture in Europe was the result of biological (demic) diffusion from the Near East or the adoption of farming practices by indigenous hunter–gatherers is subject to continuing debate. Thus far, archaeological study and the analysis of modern and ancient European DNA have yielded inconclusive results regarding these hypotheses. Here we test these ideas using an extensive craniometric dataset representing 30 hunter–gatherer and farming populations. Pairwise population craniometric distance was compared with temporally controlled geographical models representing evolutionary hypotheses of biological and cultural transmission. The results show that, following the physical dispersal of Near Eastern/Anatolian farmers into central Europe, two biological lineages were established with limited gene flow between them. Farming communities spread across Europe, while hunter–gatherer communities located in outlying geographical regions adopted some cultural elements from the farmers. Therefore, the transition to farming in Europe did not involve the complete replacement of indigenous hunter gatherer populations despite significant gene flow from the Southwest Asia. This study suggests that a mosaic process of dispersal of farmers and their ideas was operating in outlying regions of Europe, thereby reconciling previously conflicting results obtained from genetic and archaeological studies.

Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel and Ron Pinhasi, Craniometric data support a mosaic model of demic and cultural Neolithic diffusion to outlying regions of Europe (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/02/17/rspb.2010.2678.abstract), Proc. R. Soc. B published online 23 February 2011, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2678

[Äike]

Thanks, this was what I meant. The influence goes from the Balts to Finns and not the opposite.
But, what is the component in Balts which make them Balts (Latvians/Lithuanians --> Livs/Estonians --> Finns/Karelians)?
Clearly, it must be partially linked to the N1c (and the U5a) which is in fact is this ancient root population of Proto-Ur-Balto "Fininics".

According to Polako, the native Finnic people of Northern-Europe disappeared under the ground and they didn't leave a single genetic mark to the modern-day Balts.

In reality, the Balts have a lot of Finnic influence, this is visible by their genetic closeness to the Estonians. For Polako, Finnic = Finnish. While in reality, at one point, the Veps lived so far east that they bordered the Komi. There were also populations(that disappeared/assimilated without a trace) further south and west.

Latvia is a good example to take, 1000 years ago it was quite Livonian, but the Latvians gradually assimilated the Livonians. I am rather certain if I say that every single Latvian has some Livonian blood running in his/her veins. When Riga was founded it was a Livonian/Finnic town, not a Baltic town.

Thus claims by Polako that the Balts do not have any Finnic influence at all, 0%, but the Finnics have Baltic influence, are very surprising for me. In reality, it is the opposite, the Balts have recently assimilated the native Finnic populations.

Saying that the Balts do not have Finnic influence is the same as saying that Englishmen are 100% Anglo-Saxon and do not have any Celtic influence, although they assimilated the native Celtic populations.

[Peerkons]

Riga was founded by crusaders.
It was not likely that native people lived in towns/cities as they didn't had the right to leave their rural areas.

[Äike]

Riga was founded by crusaders.
It was not likely that native people lived in towns/cities as they didn't had the right to leave their rural areas.

The lower classes in the towns were always natives and the Livonians weren't automatically turned into serfs in 5 years. It took 500 years.

The Latvian people should embrace their Finnic heritage and revive the Livonian language and culture.

[Polako]

^ That's total overkill with the dots and the aa's in your nick. I can already see you have two pairs of aa's, so there's no need to put the dots there.

Anyway, the Uralic migrants from the Volga-Ural, or even Siberia, did assimilate the older Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe on their way to the east Baltic. That's why there are Tocharian loanwords in Finnish and Mordvin for native plants...and that's why there's only about 5% more East Eurasian influence in Southern Finland than in Central Europe.

[Äike]

^ That's total overkill with the dots and the aa's in your nick. I can already see you have two pairs of aa's, so there's no need to put the dots there.

What? "Jaarapaa" isn't a word, at least in the Estonian language.


Anyway, the Uralic migrants from the Volga-Ural, or even Siberia, did assimilate the older Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe on their way to the east Baltic. That's why there are Tocharian loanwords in Finnish and Mordvin for native plants...and that's why there's only about 5% more East Eurasian influence in Southern Finland than in Central Europe.

Migrants? Us Basques and Finno-Ugrians are natives of our land, you Indo-Europeans, are migrants.

Saying that the Indo-Europeans were in North-Eastern Europe before the Finno-Ugrians, is extreme Indo-European chauvinism. Nothing backs it up. It is practically a fact that we were here before, but there's only one question. Have we been here for 6000 years or 12 000 years.

[Peerkons]

The lower classes in the towns were always natives and the Livonians weren't automatically turned into serfs in 5 years. It took 500 years.

The Latvian people should embrace their Finnic heritage and revive the Livonian language and culture.

Riga was founded in 1201.
Livonians were conquered in 1208.

[Äike]

Riga was founded in 1201.
Livonians were conquered in 1208.

What are you trying to do? The Livonians became a part of Riga in a matter of years after it was founded. Or are you saying that fancy German crusaders and priests who came to Riga, cleaned the streets and were servants?

[Wyn]

you Indo-Europeans, are migrants.

Not exactly. Most speakers of Indo-European languages in Western Europe are not descended from the Indo-Europeans.

Unless you really believe that a Basque is a native of his land while a Cantabrian is an Indo-European migrant, of course.

[Äike]

Not exactly. Most speakers of Indo-European languages in Western Europe are not descended from the Indo-Europeans.

Unless you really believe that a Basque is a native of his land while a Cantabrian is an Indo-European migrant, of course.

I was talking about this in general, but you do have a point. For instance, the Scandinavians may speak Indo-European languages, but they're actually native Northern-Europeans who took over Indo-European languages through cultural(not demic) diffusion. The same applies to Western-Europeans. The most "Indo-European" Europeans live in the Balkans, that's where the demic diffusion happened.

[Polako]

I was talking about this in general, but you do have a point. For instance, the Scandinavians may speak Indo-European languages, but they're actually native Northern-Europeans who took over Indo-European languages through cultural(not demic) diffusion. The same applies to Western-Europeans. The most "Indo-European" Europeans live in the Balkans, that's where the demic diffusion happened.

Why can't you understand the difference between...

a) Neolithic farmers

b) Indo-European pastoralists

Can you explain to me why you keep confusing the two?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

In reality, the Balts have a lot of Finnic influence, this is visible by their genetic closeness to the Estonians. For Polako, Finnic = Finnish. While in reality, at one point, the Veps lived so far east that they bordered the Komi. There were also populations(that disappeared/assimilated without a trace) further south and west.

Latvia is a good example to take, 1000 years ago it was quite Livonian, but the Latvians gradually assimilated the Livonians. I am rather certain if I say that every single Latvian has some Livonian blood running in his/her veins. When Riga was founded it was a Livonian/Finnic town, not a Baltic town.

Thus claims by Polako that the Balts do not have any Finnic influence at all, 0%, but the Finnics have Baltic influence, are very surprising for me. In reality, it is the opposite, the Balts have recently assimilated the native Finnic populations.

Saying that the Balts do not have Finnic influence is the same as saying that Englishmen are 100% Anglo-Saxon and do not have any Celtic influence, although they assimilated the native Celtic populations.

I agree with you to some extent here. There is something ancient still running around in our veins which is shared by Finnic, Baltic and to ssome extent in north Scandinavian and north western Russian populations.
But what it is, proto-"Finnic", "Uralic", "Baltic" paleo European etc is still a puzzle.

And yes, you are quite right about the history of Riga. It was a Livonian settlement and I remember that there is a historical record that the Livonian chief either invited, sold to or was subjugated by the teutonic knights. I can't remember which.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

N1c is still something of a mystery. There were probably a couple waves of it from the east into Europe, the first one possibly during the late Mesolithic. It was then probably connected to the proto-Finns moving into the Baltic area during the Bronze Age, possibly thanks to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. But no one really knows.
The Seima Turbino phenomena can be seen as more of a cultural diffusion, not a population movement. It is possible that Seima Turbino gave Volga Ural populations a technological advantage which enabled them to push west.
To credit the spread of an Uralic language to the Baltic shores by the small trickles of the Seima Turbino phenomena is to stretch it a lot because there are no signs of an "Uralic invasion" seen in Baltic archeology.


In any case, modern Balts seem to be the most Mesolithic Europeans in terms of mtDNA and autosomal DNA, and if their N1c is the early version from the "late Mesolithic", then that would fit as well. They have the least amount of Neolithic influence, which is actually much higher in Northwestern Europeans, like Brits and even Scandinavians. You can see why on the map below, with the Neolithic movements seemingly going from Anatolia straight for Germany and France, and not really bothering with the east Baltic, where the land wasn't suitable for agriculture. Finns are also very "Mesolithic", but you guys have the later stuff from the east that the Balts largely lack (except, to some degree, Latvians from around Livonia).

That "stuff" from the east is this:
There is ancient rock art found from Norway in the west all across Fennoscandinavia all the way to east of the Urals which is quite uniform and reveals the presence of an arctic hunter gatherer people spanning all across northern Eurasia. These were not proto-Samis who are mainly of European origin, but a people present in the area before the proto-Sami.

This fits nicely with the idea that when the forefathers of those who we may regard as proto-Sami people pushed north they met and bred with the first arctic inhabitants of the area. When the forefathers of Norse and Baltic Finns (and later Slavs) gradually pushed north, they in turn met and bred with the proto Sami populations who by this time had absorbed a significant portion of the first arctic inhabitants.
Why Finns show the most of this “ancient Asian” imprint is obvious.

Take the population history of Kuusamo which is well documented and in broad swipes goes like this: In late 17th century, predominantly males but also families from Savo in central Finland cleared lands for agriculture in the Kuusamo area, which was Sami land. The men took mostly Sami wives. But also Sami men married into the growing Kuusamo population.
The Kuusamo sample reflect very clear where the “ancient Asian” (Polakos eastern stuff) comes from. How the population came to be in Kuusamo may have very well happened to a varying degree all over Finland and northern Scandinavia (I have also previously commented that Kuusamo references in genetical studies are only intresting in the sense that it allows us to see where an isolated population stemming from two different ethnic backgrounds positions in relation to other Finns).

Vologda Russians have this increased ancient Asian, but it does not first come from the Finno-Ugrian peoples usually thought to be the original inhabitants, but actually from the people who were there before the Finno-Ugrians.
Case example here: The Komi population history is quite well known and plays a significant role in explaining what have happened. The Komi expansion to the northeastern White Sea area happened during Iron age and there they partially absorbed an arctic people. In the wake of the Komi the Slavs emerged.

This is also why we don't see this much of this "stuff" in the Estonian samples.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Riga was founded by crusaders.
It was not likely that native people lived in towns/cities as they didn't had the right to leave their rural areas.

What right? People creating the settlements needed no right to be there.

The coastal settlements were "towns", there people met a and traded ever since pre historical times. All over the north it was like this. Then they evolved into towns, often by conquest because the places were established and lucrative.

[lei.talk]

Founding of Riga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Riga)
The river Daugava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daugava_River#Etymology) has been a trade route since antiquity, part of the Vikings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians#Etymology)' Dvina-Dnieper navigation route to Byzantium. A sheltered natural harbour 15 km (9.3 mi) upriver from the mouth of the Daugava — the site of today's Riga — has been recorded, as Duna Urbs, as early as the 2nd century. It was settled by the Livs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_people), an ancient Finnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnic_peoples) tribe.

Riga began to develop as a centre of Viking trade during the early Middle Ages. Riga's inhabitants occupied themselves mainly with fishing, animal husbandry, and trading, later developing crafts (in bone, wood, amber, and iron).

The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Henry_of_Livonia) testifies to Riga having long been a trading centre by the 12th century, referring to it as portus antiquus (ancient port), and describes dwellings and warehouses used to store mostly corn, flax, and hides. German traders began visiting Riga, establishing a nearby outpost in 1158.

Along with German traders also arrived the monk Meinhard of Segeberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Meinhard) to convert the pagans to Christianity. (Catholic and Orthodox Christianity had already arrived in Latvia more than a century earlier, and many Latvians baptised) Meinhard settled among the Livs, building a castle and church at Ikšķile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ik%C5%A1%C4%B7ile), upstream from Riga, and established his bishopric there. The Livs, however, continued to practice paganism and Meinhard died in Ikšķile in 1196, having failed his mission. In 1198 the Bishop Bertold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berthold_of_Hanover) arrived with a contingent of crusaders and commenced a campaign of forced Christianization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization#Kievan_Rus.27). Bertold was killed soon afterwards and his forces defeated.

The Church mobilised to avenge. Pope Innocent III issued a bull declaring a crusade against the Livonians. Bishop Albert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_of_Riga) was proclaimed Bishop of Livonia by his uncle Hartwig of Uthlede, Prince-Archbishop of Bremen and Hamburg in 1199. Albert landed in Riga in 1200 with 23 ships and 500 Westphalian crusaders. In 1201 he transferred the seat of the Livonian bishopric from Ikšķile to Riga, extorting agreement to do so from the elders of Riga by force.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/SwordBrothers.svg/85px-SwordBrothers.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Brothers_of_the_Sword)

[Jaska]

Not everything in Wiik's theories is wrong, I think you agree wtih me here.
The idea to track a language, people and culture is best done by a multidisciplinary approach. It give contradicting results but it should do that! History is not simple, it's full of twists and turns.
Multidisciplinary approach was there long before Wiik. He gave nothing extra value to it, except the erroneous method, and this wasn't his idea, either - he merely copied some internationals researchers. What is right in Wiik's view, is the results of the autonomous disciplines, which he collected from the studies of these disciplines.

History is not simple, but Wiik tried to force it to be simple. But the languages cannot be seen in the genes, no matter how simple it would be; and tha languages do not change only due to the contacts, no matter how simple it would be.


I for sure don't understand a shit in Komi language but German and English is a piece of cake so I don't really understand this statement of yours (you don't have to tell me, I am a layman). Maybe you refer to the similiarities in grammar?
Komi is not a Finnic language, it is one of the Finno-Permic languages. It is common misunderstanding in the "Indo-European" world to think that Finno-Ugric language family consists of Finnic and Ugric. But it does not: it consists of Finno-Permic and Ugric. Finnic consists only of Finnish, Karelian, Ludian, Vepsian, Votian, Estonian and Livonian. Some see Ingrian and Võro-Seto as independent languages.

So, Estonian and Finnish are more similar than English and German, and Vepsian and Livonian are more similar than English and Swedish.


But you must take the Finnic languages icebox effect into consideration !! The Finnic languages evolves slower.
Finnish has evolved slowly, while Estonian, Livonian etc. have evolved faster. And the artificial literary Finnish is more conservative in many respects than any actual Finnish dialect. And Finnish is not any more "icebox" than Icelandic in the Scandinavian branch. And Baltic languages are even more conservative. In Proto-Finno-Saamic there was a word *šalna 'frost', which is halla in Finnish and suoldni in Northern Saami. It is an old Baltic loanword, and in Lithuanian it is still šalna.

Language does not change at the same speed all the time. In Germanic languages there was a long period of slow change, and then suddenly at the middle of the first millennium AD there occurred a period of fast change; but from 1000 AD onwards, Scandinavian languages have not changed so much.

Similarly, in Finnic branch there was a period of faster change about 1000-0 BC, when the Finnic languages developed very different from other Uralic branches. But after that the speed of change has been slower, at least in Finnish and Vepsian, but faster in Estonian and Livonian.

[Jaska]

Thus claims by Polako that the Balts do not have any Finnic influence at all, 0%, but the Finnics have Baltic influence, are very surprising for me. In reality, it is the opposite, the Balts have recently assimilated the native Finnic populations.

Actually Polako said nothing about 0 %. He wrote:
“But Western Finns are most similar Finns to North and Central Europeans, so this isn't a strong argument for Finnic influence in Balts, but rather Baltic and Germanic influence in Western Finns.”



Migrants? Us Basques and Finno-Ugrians are natives of our land, you Indo-Europeans, are migrants.
Saying that the Indo-Europeans were in North-Eastern Europe before the Finno-Ugrians, is extreme Indo-European chauvinism. Nothing backs it up. It is practically a fact that we were here before, but there's only one question. Have we been here for 6000 years or 12 000 years.

Please read the scientific links I gave you in the earlier messages. Don’t make fool of yourself by repeating such a crap. It seems clear for the present-day linguists that Indo-European language spread earlier than Uralic language.

All the peoples of Europe have partially ancient roots, but it may well be that all these language families have origins outside Europe: Basque in Africa, Indo-European in Near East and Uralic in South-Siberia/Central Asia. 2 000 years ago there were still spoken many Palaeo-European languages from Mediterranean Coast to Lapland, but since then they all have disappeared.

You do remember, that cultural continuity cannot prove the linguistic continuity, don't you? Please read those links I gave, at last.



The Seima Turbino phenomena can be seen as more of a cultural diffusion, not a population movement. It is possible that Seima Turbino gave Volga Ural populations a technological advantage which enabled them to push west.
To credit the spread of an Uralic language to the Baltic shores by the small trickles of the Seima Turbino phenomena is to stretch it a lot because there are no signs of an "Uralic invasion" seen in Baltic archeology.
Seima-Turbino culture seems to have been male-concerned: the bronze-traders lived among the natives of different areas, they didn’ have dwellings of their own. This may explain why the strong Easternness is seen in the paternal lineages alone.

But Seima-Turbino is an Early Bronze Age phenomenon, it can be connected only to the spread of Uralic protodialects. At this period the West-Uralic languages didn’t proceed farther than Ladoga area. Only 1 000 years later did the Middle Proto-Finnic people start to expand to Estonia, and still more than 1 000 years later did the Livonians proceed into the Curland.

So, there even cannot be any single archaeologically perceivable expansion from Middle-Volga to Latvia. The process took many steps at different times, involving different cultures.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Seima-Turbino culture seems to have been male-concerned: the bronze-traders lived among the natives of different areas, they didn’ have dwellings of their own. This may explain why the strong Easternness is seen in the paternal lineages alone.

But Seima-Turbino is an Early Bronze Age phenomenon, it can be connected only to the spread of Uralic protodialects. At this period the West-Uralic languages didn’t proceed farther than Ladoga area. Only 1 000 years later did the Middle Proto-Finnic people start to expand to Estonia, and still more than 1 000 years later did the Livonians proceed into the Curland.
So, there even cannot be any single archaeologically perceivable expansion from Middle-Volga to Latvia. The process took many steps at different times, involving different cultures.

Language does not equal genetics, but you are linking the N1c haplotype to the spread of Uralic languages? The men who mediated the Seima Turbino bronze culture cannot have brought Uralic languages with them because it's usually the mothers who pass on a language, how can a small group of men brought with them an Uralic language which apparently so totally spread over such a large area that it in practice wiped out earlier languages?
This would have required Uralic speaking women moving with them, but that is not seen in MtDNA haplotypes which would have spread from eastern central Asia.
It is usually explained that in western Finland, despite the evident migration of men from Scandinavia, it was the women who passed on the (proto-)Finnish language which broke the Germanic language continuity between bronze age and early medieval times. The Germanic movement into Finland was at a larger scale than the Seima Turbino male migration from central Asia which can be called a trickle in comparison.

[Jaska]

Language does not equal genetics, but you are linking the N1c haplotype to the spread of Uralic languages?
That is correct. There are too different things, which are hard for some people to distinguish.

1. Unscientific method = one sees that haplogroup N1c is found within many Uralic peoples; then he claims that N1c is everywhere and every time connected to Uralic language. This method is erroneous, because it leads to contradicting results and because language cannot be seen from the genes.

2. Scientific method = one sees that haplogroup N1c is found within many Uralic peoples, but it is just an observation. To find out if N1c could be connected to the spread of Proto-Uralic, he looks at the linguistic results and sees that Proto-Uralic seems to have expanded from Middle Volga about 4 000 years ago. At that time haplogroup N1c already seems to have been there, so it is likely that there were N1c-men (and others, too) among the Proto-Uralic speakers.
To find out if the earliest N1c in Baltia could be connected to Uralic language, he looks at the linguistic evidence and sees that Northern Baltia only got Uralicized no earlier than at the last millennium BC, while Southern Baltia was never Uralicized. And yet it seems that N1c spread to Baltia much earlier, and even to the Southern Baltia. Therefore the earliest N1c in Baltia cannot be connected to Uralic language.


The men who mediated the Seima Turbino bronze culture cannot have brought Uralic languages with them because it's usually the mothers who pass on a language, how can a small group of men brought with them an Uralic language which apparently so totally spread over such a large area that it in practice wiped out earlier languages?
Yes, usually mothers. But we cannot exclude the prestige factor here: for local women (if the bronze traders didn't bring women of their own) it was better that their children could learn also the fathers language; and in some later generation this newcomer-language (opening gates to richness and happiness) may have become the only language.

Similar action can be seen today; even in Finland there are purely Finnish-speaking families who want their children to be fluent also in English.


This would have required Uralic speaking women moving with them, but that is not seen in MtDNA haplotypes which would have spread from eastern central Asia.
No women needed, see above.
Eastern Central Asia? No need for that, the Proto-Uralic area was in Europe, in Volga-Kama area. And it may still turn out that there are larger portion of eastern maternal lineages, because the maternal lineages are so widespread in Europe that it is possible that some of them came to Finland from the east. Hopefully the growing accuracy in mtDNA-studies will help us with defining the source areas.


It is usually explained that in western Finland, despite the evident migration of men from Scandinavia, it was the women who passed on the (proto-)Finnish language which broke the Germanic language continuity between bronze age and early medieval times. The Germanic movement into Finland was at a larger scale than the Seima Turbino male migration from central Asia which can be called a trickle in comparison.
But in this case, too, the area may have been earlier Germanicized and later Finnicized. We know from the place names that Germanic and Middle Proto-Finnic peoples arrived at the same time (~500 BC) to the west coast of Finland, but we don't know which language was more widespread there. But we know that Germanic speakers were only assimilated after Late Proto-Finnic spread to Finland (~300-500 AD), because there are at least three Germanic placename layers of different ages. This strongly points to that Germanic language was indeed permanently spread to Western Finland before it was totally Finnicized.

And also here we can only see the immigration of prestigious male groups - the case seems very similar to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Eastern Central Asia? .

I meant this is from where Seima-Turbino phenomenon spread.

Ok, when Seima Turbino bronze technique spread from Central Asia to Urals the Ural populations were propelled further west thanks to this new trade of bronze artifacts.
It does not mean people rushed from central Asia to the Baltics.

[Jaska]

I meant this is from where Seima-Turbino phenomenon spread.

Ok, when Seima Turbino bronze technique spread from Central Asia to Urals the Ural populations were propelled further west thanks to this new trade of bronze artifacts.
It does not mean people rushed from central Asia to the Baltics.
Christian Carpelan and Asko Parpola have argued for European (Abashevo culture) origin for Seima-Turbino phenomenon in their long, joined article in the book Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations.

According to them, there was of course independent bronze work in Altai region, but it only spread to Europe after the Abashevo-based trade network took control of Altai bronze industry. They think the Seima-Turbino bronze traders were Aryan, but the total distribution from Altai-Sayan to Kama, Volga-Oka and even Finland fits much better to the area of Uralic languages. True, the Abashevo culture seems to have been Aryan, but it is more probable that the language connected to Seima-Turbino network was Uralic (see pages 49-51, in Finnish):

http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf

[Austrvegr]

True, the Abashevo culture seems to have been Aryan, but it is more probable that the language connected to Seima-Turbino network was Uralic

No way was it Uralic. Seima-Turbino was by all tokens an aR1an warrior culture.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

No way was it Uralic. Seima-Turbino was by all tokens an aR1an warrior culture.

Yes, tavaritj. But then they all turned swarthy communist cabbage farming serfs...

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Christian Carpelan and Asko Parpola have argued for European (Abashevo culture) origin for Seima-Turbino phenomenon in their long, joined article in the book Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations.

According to them, there was of course independent bronze work in Altai region, but it only spread to Europe after the Abashevo-based trade network took control of Altai bronze industry. They think the Seima-Turbino bronze traders were Aryan, but the total distribution from Altai-Sayan to Kama, Volga-Oka and even Finland fits much better to the area of Uralic languages. True, the Abashevo culture seems to have been Aryan, but it is more probable that the language connected to Seima-Turbino network was Uralic (see pages 49-51, in Finnish):

http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf


Why do you use the term Aryan when Abashevo culture were more likely proto Indo European speaking if they even were that?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Why do you use the term Aryan when Abashevo culture were more likely proto Indo European speaking if they even were that?

Sorry, they. What are the evidences for that?

[Austrvegr]

Yes, tavaritj. But then they all turned swarthy communist cabbage farming serfs...

Dumb chukhna.

[Jaska]

No way was it Uralic. Seima-Turbino was by all tokens an aR1an warrior culture.
If you only had a clue about science, you would know that language cannot be predicted from the genes. I gave some useful links, you may find them in my earlier messages.

There are also Uralic R1a-men. How do you explain that oldest known languages in the area of Seima-Turbino culture were Uralic? Aryan theory is as well based as a claim that Chinese was spoken in the Corded Ware culture, because there are no traces of Chinese anywhere near that culture.


Why do you use the term Aryan when Abashevo culture were more likely proto Indo European speaking if they even were that?
Proto-Indo-European dispersed about 3500 BC, so Abashevo culture (2500-1900 BC) cannot have anything to do with PIE. Late Proto-Aryan dispersed about 2000 BC, and some centuries later we have the already differentiated daughter branches Indo-Aryan and Iranian.

Abashevo culture was born from the Pontic Steppe impulses and had connection with Caucasian metallurgical centre, and it was intrusive in Forest zone. It just happens that Late Proto-Aryans are in the right place at the right time - it is difficult to argue for any other linguistic label for Abashevo culture than "Aryan". Abashevo culture also gave much to the origin of Sintashta-Arkhaim culture, which is widely seen as Aryan (= Indo-Iranian).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta

[Polako]

Why do you use the term Aryan when Abashevo culture were more likely proto Indo European speaking if they even were that?

Abashevo was, at least to some degree, Corded Ware with links to Central Europe.

By the way, send me your raw data and I'll put you in a circum-Baltic MDS analysis that I'm about to start. I need more South/West Finns, with some Swedish pimp j.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Dumb chukhna.

Da, da. Chukna dumb, Austrvegr dumber.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Abashevo was, at least to some degree, Corded Ware with links to Central Europe. Yes, but it had strong links to surrounding (Finno-Permic) cultures to, Corded being the lesser influence.


By the way, send me your raw data and I'll put you in a circum-Baltic MDS analysis that I'm about to start. I need more South/West Finns, with some Swedish pimp j.
It's plain westnorthwest in my case. Only if you talk me into ABF, again. :thumb001:
(I think Elias ridiculously cheap ban on me (for telling PTG that I'd probably smack him out if I'd ever met him, what kind of a ban is that anyway)
should be over)

[Polako]

It's plain westnorthwest in my case. Only if you talk me into ABF, again. :thumb001:
(I think Elias ridiculously cheap ban on me (for telling PTG that I'd probably smack him out if I'd ever met him, what kind of a ban is that anyway)
should be over)

That Assyrian devil won't listen to me in regards to such matters. You have to talk to him directly.

[JeanBaMac]

Cause they are Indo-Europeans mixed with Finns.

[Peikko]

Cause they are Indo-Europeans mixed with Finns.
What? They've never mixed with Finns. N1c1 can't even be associated with Finnic languages, because even Finns didn't speak Finnish until the Bronze age.

[Hercus Monte]

Karl in this thread = :picard2:

[Weedman]

If you browse around here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml), then you can see that "100% Baltic" Lithuanians have a lot of N1c1 and so do the Latvians. They have more of it than the Estonians.

My assumption is that the Estonian percentage of N1c1 has decreased because of the fact that the Estonians have almost 3 times more I1 than the Balts. But I would like to hear more theories.

Chart of FinN1Cness:

1. Finland, 58.5
2. Lithuania, 42
3. Latvia, 38
4. Estonia, 34

just a wild guess,but maybe geography has something to do with it?...................they are pretty close to Finland so, it makes sense :)

DUH!!!!!

[JeanBaMac]

If you browse around here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml), then you can see that "100% Baltic" Lithuanians have a lot of N1c1 and so do the Latvians. They have more of it than the Estonians.

My assumption is that the Estonian percentage of N1c1 has decreased because of the fact that the Estonians have almost 3 times more I1 than the Balts. But I would like to hear more theories.

Chart of FinN1Cness:

1. Finland, 58.5
2. Lithuania, 42
3. Latvia, 38
4. Estonia, 34

Yes and because of the fact that the Estonians have far more R1a (Indo-Europeans) than the Finns too.
In fact, Balts are Indo-Europeans mixed with Uralic people. Finns are basically Uralic people mixed with autochtonous Paleaolithic population. Estonians are basically similar to Finns, but with a greater Indo-European blending.

[CordedWhelp]

Balt...Finn...arne't we talking about such slight offshoots of a thing?