How did Finno Ugrics and Uralids ended up with such a high Yamnaya ancestry, but barely any R1b?

[Yamnaya]

Specially when N1c appears in Europe about 2000 years ago. European finno-ugrics and uralics tend to have around 50% yamnaya ancestry, bur for example, Finns only have 4% of their population with R1b.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Percentage_of_major_Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_Europe.png

[Pansarkamrat]

Chinks fucked the Indo-Europeans wifes

[Figaro]

lots of N1c in balts too and not super major R1b, plus less Siberian than in FU’s. Just chalk it up to drift, founder effects.

[Cumansky]

Zoltar proposes that R1b tribes got ran off Steppe early in the migratory expansions

[Yamnaya]

lots of N1c in balts too and not super major R1b, plus less Siberian than in FU’s. Just chalk it up to drift, founder effects.

I'm just using the Finns example because they're apparently the ones with the highest yamnaya ancestry among all europeans (not counting udmurt,etc)

[Yamnaya]

Zoltar proposes that R1b tribes got ran off Steppe early in the migratory expansions

Then how they kept so much yamnaya then? Also assuming that I1 is purely northern european, how did the nords kept so much yamnaya ancestry and at the same so much of I1 haplogroup

[Ülev]

the Komids also?

[vbnetkhio]

Specially when N1c appears in Europe about 2000 years ago. European finno-ugrics and uralics tend to have around 50% yamnaya ancestry, bur for example, Finns only have 4% of their population with R1b.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Percentage_of_major_Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_Europe.png

most Finnic people don't have Gedrosian admixture so they have very little or no indo-european ancestry
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/00/95/af/0095af7f322d0d17c363fe8a43f05c49.gif

[Cumansky]

most Finnic people don't have Gedrosian admixture so they have very little or no indo-european ancestry
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/00/95/af/0095af7f322d0d17c363fe8a43f05c49.gif

Zoltar proposes Gedrosia admixture is directly from Turks because it peaks in Albania and Kosovo

[Cumansky]

Then how they kept so much yamnaya then? Also assuming that I1 is purely northern european, how did the nords kept so much yamnaya ancestry and at the same so much of I1 haplogroup

Zoltar proposes Western Europeans have a blonde fetish, they will even vacation to Ukraine to invest in wife that is ex hooker

[michal3141]

1. Yamnaya was not the only source of R1b. R1b was present in Europe much earlier than IndoEuropeans!
2. There were many Steppe populations similar to Yamnaya in which R1b wasn't dominant at all.

[Yamnaya]

most Finnic people don't have Gedrosian admixture so they have very little or no indo-european ancestry
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/00/95/af/0095af7f322d0d17c363fe8a43f05c49.gif

Gedrosia only makes up for about 15-25% of the yamnaya genome. The rest is almost all Eastern hunter gatherer

[Yamnaya]

1. Yamnaya was not the only source of R1b. R1b was present in Europe much earlier than IndoEuropeans!
2. There were many Steppe populations similar to Yamnaya in which R1b wasn't dominant at all.

Then that means that finns are not Indo-european but came from steppe tribe that had high Eastern hunter gatherer ancestry?

Is there any discussions about this topic among genealogists?

[vbnetkhio]

Gedrosia only makes up for about 15-25% of the yamnaya genome. The rest is almost all Eastern hunter gatherer

but if you mixed with yamnaya or bell beaker, you have to have at least some Gedrosia

[Crimson Winds]

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

[Yamnaya]

but if you mixed with yamnaya or bell beaker, you have to have at least some Gedrosia

Since Baltic people (Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians) lack the CHG/Gedrosia admixture, it does not necessarily mean that they have a lot of Yamna ancestry, but that they descend from a related population with a high percentage of EHG ancestry - more probably actual EHG from Northeast Europe, who only became Indo-Europeanised through the Corded Ware expansion.

Just found this in eupedia

[Yamnaya]

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


I didn't meant all tribes, but a lot of them do lack r1b compared for the proportions of yamnaya they have. Bashkirs are one of the ones with the highest yamnaya ancestry aswell, same as Tatars

[Cumansky]

but if you mixed with yamnaya or bell beaker, you have to have at least some Gedrosia

Zoltar proposes the Gedrosia admixture that was brought to Europe from Steppe will peak in the partially Iranic Jasz people of Romania and Hungary, and Zoltar knows all other traces of Gedrosia admixture in Europe has arrived thru Bosporus

[Yamnaya]

Zoltar proposes the Gedrosia admixture that was brought to Europe from Steppe will peak in the partially Iranic Jasz people of Romania and Hungary, and Zoltar knows all other traces of Gedrosia admixture in Europe has arrived thru Bosporus

Can you post more info about this. I don't know who Zoltar is, and what he says seems interesting

[vbnetkhio]

Since Baltic people (Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians) lack the CHG/Gedrosia admixture, it does not necessarily mean that they have a lot of Yamna ancestry, but that they descend from a related population with a high percentage of EHG ancestry - more probably actual EHG from Northeast Europe, who only became Indo-Europeanised through the Corded Ware expansion.

Just found this in eupedia

that's true

[michal3141]

Then that means that finns are not Indo-european but came from steppe tribe that had high Eastern hunter gatherer ancestry?

Is there any discussions about this topic among genealogists?

That's roughly correct. Yamnaya were a mix of EHG and CHG + some minor Neolithic. Modern Finns are also a mix of EHG, CHG and Neolithic but in different proportions.

[Yamnaya]

That's roughly correct. Yamnaya were a mix of EHG and CHG + some minor Neolithic. Modern Finns are also a mix of EHG, CHG and Neolithic but in different proportions.

People here said that baltics and finns don't have any CHG

[michal3141]

People here said that baltics and finns don't have any CHG

The question is how to measure the CHG admixture.
I think they have some CHG admixture. Not much though.

[Yamnaya]

The question is how to measure the CHG admixture.
I think they have some CHG admixture. Not much though.

The way it's explained by Allentoft and Haak et al is that Ancient Finns were influenced a lot by North EHG and then mixed with corded ware. Those North EHG were also predominently N1c, which kinda explains the low R1b:

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/late_neolithic_europe.gif

[vbnetkhio]

The way it's explained by Allentoft and Haak et al is that Ancient Finns were influenced a lot by North EHG and then mixed with corded ware. Those North EHG were also predominently N1c, which kinda explains the low R1b:

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/late_neolithic_europe.gif

i think Ancient Finns were EHGs, had N1c, and spoke Finnic, without mixing with anybody

[Aren]

Actually within Northern Europe, Finno-Ugrics have lower Yamnaya ancestry than their IE speaking neighbours(Estonians have slightly less than Latvians, Finns less than Norwegians).

I would say bottlenecking played a big role in the formation of the modern uniparental distribution in the very sparsely populated areas of Northeastern Europe. Another thing to remember is that there is actually a relatively large amount of IE-related Y-DNA in both Finland and Estonia. In Finland it's I1 which ended up in Finland with (pre?)proto-Germanic speakers from Eastern Sweden who must've been rich in I1 and not much R1a/R1b(hence the numerous proto-Germanic loans and the large chunk of Scandinavian ancestry in Finns).
In Estonia it's obviously the Balto-Slavic R1a.

[Blondie]

Specially when N1c appears in Europe about 2000 years ago.

Wrong, finno-ugrics were in Europe roghly 6000-7000 years ago:

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Early_Middle_Neolithic_map.png

[Rob1992]

I'm just using the Finns example because they're apparently the ones with the highest yamnaya ancestry among all europeans (not counting udmurt,etc)

Nordic and baltic populations have the highest rate of yamnaya ancestry according to Davidski . In addition, the siberian component among finno-ugrics creates a pseudo-yamnaya ancestry. But you have to keep in mind that finno-ugrics are just Indo-Europeans who adopted the language and culture of the ugro-finnic invading elite.

[Blondie]

Nordic and baltic populations have the highest rate of yamnaya ancestry according to Davidski . In addition, the siberian component among finno-ugrics creates a pseudo-yamnaya ancestry. But you have to keep in mind that finno-ugrics are just Indo-Europeans who adopted the language and culture of the ugro-finnic invanding elite.

Which finno-ugrians? Genetically hungarians are indo-europeans, same as croats, austrians, slovaks but finns aren't they have 70% n1c paternal origin which is siberian. Siberian component is originated from proto-uralics who migrated from siberia, basically the proto finno-ugric population was asiatic, asian looking with light skin and hair. If you see the modern finno-ugrians they have some asian features until the present day.

[TheOldNorth]

they were indo-europeans, before the uralic peoples did the same thing the indo-europeans did to the greeks (aka have a minority take over the majority and take the majorities wives and completely replace their culture)

[Rob1992]

Which finno-ugrians? Genetically hungarians are indo-europeans, same as croats, austrians, slovaks but finns aren't they have 70% n1c paternal origin which is siberian. Siberian component is originated from proto-uralics who migrated from siberia, basically the proto finno-ugric population was asiatic, asian looking with light skin and hair. If you see the modern finno-ugrians they have some asian features until the present day.

Finns are mostly Nordic IA plus minor siberian admixture. The high percentage of n1c is result of a bottleneck effect.

[Blondie]

Finns are mostly Nordic IA plus minor siberian admixture. The high percentage of n1c is result of a bottleneck effect.

This minor is 5-10% and the Y haplogroup shows your real paternal origin.

[MagnusDark]

Zoltar proposes Gedrosia admixture is directly from Turks because it peaks in Albania and Kosovo

You're not very bright if you honestly believe Gedrosia is turkic. Whoever that Zoltar is is wrong. Gedrosia admixture is significantly older than Turkic arrivals. It is linked to Proto-Indo-Europeans. Also if you bother looking at the map, West Europe has the same levels as Albania whereas central and east europe are near devoid of it. If you honestly think Albanians and the whole of Western Europeans were impacted by Turkic admixture more than Central and East Euros(who have little Gedrosia) than you need serious help.

Turkic admixture is east Asian DNA. We have next to none of it.

"The East Asian admixture combines Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. This admixture was brought to Europe by Mongoloid people via Siberia. Some of it was already present in Russia during the Mesolithic period, but the largest East Asian migration to Europe took place with the arrival of Proto-Uralic people during the Neolithic. They originated in Manchuria and carried Y-haplogroup N1c. North Siberian Y-haplogroup Q1a (which is also the main paternal lineage of Amerindians) was also found in the Proto-Indo-European Khvalynsk culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, the precursor of the Yamna culture. Since then, 5000 years of migrations from the Steppe brought wave upon wave of Siberian invaders to Eastern Europe and the northern Middle East. The most recent of them were the most Mongoloid as populations shifted from east to west. They included the Huns, the Bulgars, the Magyars, the Turks and the Mongols."

https://i.postimg.cc/sxTzvrN5/East-Asian-admixture.gif

[Peterski]

The so called Yamnaya ancestry is not really Yamnaya but from all Steppe cultures closely related to it as well, including Sredny Stog II which was R1a.

[L3mon J3lly]

Turkic admixture is east Asian DNA. We have next to none of it.

"The East Asian admixture combines Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. This admixture was brought to Europe by Mongoloid people via Siberia. Some of it was already present in Russia during the Mesolithic period, but the largest East Asian migration to Europe took place with the arrival of Proto-Uralic people during the Neolithic. They originated in Manchuria and carried Y-haplogroup N1c. North Siberian Y-haplogroup Q1a (which is also the main paternal lineage of Amerindians) was also found in the Proto-Indo-European Khvalynsk culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, the precursor of the Yamna culture. Since then, 5000 years of migrations from the Steppe brought wave upon wave of Siberian invaders to Eastern Europe and the northern Middle East. The most recent of them were the most Mongoloid as populations shifted from east to west. They included the Huns, the Bulgars, the Magyars, the Turks and the Mongols."

https://i.postimg.cc/sxTzvrst-Asian-admixture.gif

Every sentence in this quote is wrong.
The made-up image is also inaccurate.

[L3mon J3lly]

The so called Yamnaya ancestry is not really Yamnaya but from all Steppe cultures closely related to it as well, including Sredny Stog II which was R1a.

Thank you. "Yamnaya" and "Yamnaya-like" are the most misused and abused terms in genetics among proles and reporters.

[Blondie]

but the largest East Asian migration to Europe took place with the arrival of Proto-Uralic people during the Neolithic. They originated in Manchuria and carried Y-haplogroup N1c.

Wrong, Proto-uralic peoples have never been in East Asia, just because the haplogroup N1 and n1c came from there it doesn't mean they were uralics because the uralic n1c subtypes originated from west siberia, east europe not from east asia. Just an example: slavs belong to r1a haplogroup, its originated in Central Asia, but it doesn't mean that slavs are central asians because the slavic r1a subtypes originated in East Europe. Do you understand?


Since then, 5000 years of migrations from the Steppe brought wave upon wave of Siberian invaders to Eastern Europe and the northern Middle East. The most recent of them were the most Mongoloid as populations shifted from east to west. They included the Huns, the Bulgars, the Magyars, the Turks and the Mongols."

Magyars, bulgars, huns, turks were mostly caucasoid/turanid not mongoloid.

[Finnish Swede]

Just an example: slavs belong to r1a haplogroup, its originated in Central Asia, but it doesn't mean that slavs are central asians because the slavic r1a subtypes originated in East Europe.


LOL. Oh, are you now absolutely sure about that matter? For many: Sky would fall down.
http://49.media.tumblr.com/9ee6826b80329182591aa84a50df095b/tumblr_nz9givpEQH1tx9vazo1_500.gif

... and that ''reading'' would make this forum much more comic/funny place.

[Ymyyakhtakh]

Wrong, Proto-uralic peoples have never been in East Asia, just because the haplogroup N1 and n1c came from there it doesn't mean they were uralics because the uralic n1c subtypes originated from west siberia, east europe not from east asia.

If simply Yukaghir would have been classified as Uralic, then what is now called Pre-Proto-Uralic could instead be called Proto-Uralic. The Pre-Proto-Uralic urheimat could well be in East Asia.

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Keski-AasiaU.jpg

Out of the language families that are spoken in Siberia today, the Mongolic and Tungusic languages are known to have come from East Asia. The Turkic urheimat is generally placed either in northern Mongolia (East Asia) or in the Altai region (which is partially in East Asia).

Depending on how Western Siberia is defined, it may overlap with the Altai region. In the map below, the red line, which denotes the boundaries of Western Siberia, borders both Mongolia (East Asia) and China (East Asia):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Западная_Сибирь.jpg

Uralistics hasn't even determined the location of the Uralic urheimat. Juha Janhunen wrote (https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf):


Potentially the most informative method for locating the homeland would seem to be offered by linguistic palaeontology. It has long been argued that, especially, dendronyms require the Uralic homeland to be placed rather far in the east, possibly on the Siberian side of the Urals (Hajdú 1969: 257–258), the crucial argument being provided by the Proto-Uralic item for 'cedar' (*sïksi). It may be recalled that the typological orientation of the Uralic languages in the Ural-Altaic areal context also favours the assumption of an 'eastern' homeland. Linguistic arguments in favour of a 'western' homeland, located possibly as far west as the Baltic region, are mainly based on alleged protolanguage-level lexical parallels between Uralic and Indo-European (Koivulehto 2001 and elsewhere). Unfortunately, the parallels in question are highly controversial (cf., e.g., Helimski 2001) and can hardly serve as a basis for further conclusions, especially as the question concerning the Indo-European homeland also remains unsettled.

[...]

The region in question is the borderline between the Ob and Yenisei drainage areas in Siberia, and until the contrary is shown, it qualifies as the most likely candidate for the Uralic homeland.

In relation to the last sentence of the quotation above, both the Ob and Yenisei basins extend to East Asia:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Ob_watershed.png/480px-Ob_watershed.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Yeniseirivermap.png/481px-Yeniseirivermap.png

[SharpFork]

That's not East Asia, that's East Eurasia or North/Inner Asia.