It is a compliment to say to a Finn that he or she looks Swedish. Why?

[Harkonnen]

I understand but it is irrelevant to the discussion, because it is unrelated to my points. I wrote that N1c crossed the Ural 7500 years ago and did not reach the Baltic Sea until later than 4000 years ago.

Finnic languages were not spoken in Estonia earlier than 4000 years ago.

And when Finnic-speakers came, they absorbed local Indo-European substrate (CWC).

This is why "Yamnaya" admixture is so high in Estonians (and South-Western Finns):

That admixture graph is outdated. There is hardly any Yamna admix in Finns. Zero. Nada.

[Harkonnen]

OK - and so what ??? That was during the Late Bronze Age, or even later.

I'm just telling you that there was no any N1c in East Baltic Corded Ware.



This is because of random genetic drift (small population size = high genetic drift).

No it's not genetic drift. There is something else there.

[Peterski]

Did you already swallow the fact that N1c is not a WHG marker ???

Narva culture was all I2. It will soon be confirmed in a publication.

Maybe some I1 too, but I haven't heard about it.

That admixture graph is outdated. There is hardly any Yamna admix in Finns

Finnish woman from Anthrogenica, Kristiina, thinks differently.

It is slightly outdated but there is still a lot of Yamnaya in Finns.

[Magnolia]

I guess the biggest compliment for both Finns and Estonians is to tell them that they look like Russians.

[Harkonnen]

Did you already swallow the fact that N1c is not a WHG marker ???

Narva culture was all I2. It will soon be confirmed in a publication.

Maybe some I1 too, but I haven't heard about it.

Well neither is fucking R1a so you can shove your Indo-Europeans into your fag ass.

I was talking about Finnic N1c1. Finnic N1c1 has Estonian origins/Southwest Finnish origins.

[Dick]

She is searching for a boyfriend she attacked me to show off just because she was trying to seduce a gay

[Dick]

Well neither is fucking R1a so you can shove your Indo-Europeans into your fag ass.

[Harkonnen]

Did you already swallow the fact that N1c is not a WHG marker ???

Narva culture was all I2. It will soon be confirmed in a publication.

Maybe some I1 too, but I haven't heard about it.



Finnish woman from Anthrogenica, Kristiina, thinks differently.

It is slightly outdated but there is still a lot of Yamnaya in Finns.

I don't know what Kristiina has said about this particular topic. But I know that Kristiina agrees with most what I've said here. I've had many discussions with her on Finnish forums, and she's totally like a female version of me. She's just very polite on international forums, so you don't always "get" what she really thinks.

[Harkonnen]

Haplogroup N1c originated in East Asia or in Siberia.

Oldest samples of N1c found in ancient DNA are from Northern China (samples from Jiangjialiang, Xueshan culture dated to 5600-4900 years ago and from Dashanqian dated to 3000-2500 years ago):

http://www.nature.com.sci-hub.cc/jhg...g2016107a.html

http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com...71-2148-13-216

The oldest subclades of N1c (namely N1c*, N1c-TAT and N1c-M178) can be found only in Asia. The first subclade which crossed the Ural Mountains and settled in Europe was N1c-L708 (which is ca. 7500 years old). The oldest actual ancient DNA sample of N1c found in Europe so far, is from the region of Smolensk, and it is ca. 4500 years old. All subclades of N1c descending from L1026 (which is ca. 4500 years old) can in my opinion be associated with migrations of Uralic-speakers. N1c-M2783 is an ethnic Baltic subclade of N1c.

Ancient N1c samples from Europe can be found here (Table 3. on page 294):

https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Arc...olbunova_E._ed

Also: http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/AS/2...hanov_etal.pdf

Here is a "genealogical tree" of N1c:

N1c->TAT->M178->L708->M2126>L1026->L1034/VL29->L550->L1025->M2783

VL29 is only 3600 years old and L1034 (linked with Mansi and Proto-Magyars) is 3900 years old.

Feher 2015, "Y‑SNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian‑speaking populations":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25258186



Within that, we can distinguish:

M2783->Z16975 = West Baltic (Prussian)
M2783->L551 = Lithuanian and East Latvian
M2783->BY158 = Lithuanian and East Latvian
M2783->CTS8173 = West Latvian and Lithuanian

This is what Kristiina wrote about that N1c1:

On the basis of that new Estonian haplotree, the expansion from the South Siberian Ice Age refuge makes sense, although on the basis of its age, it is possible that N4 was already at that time in a North Chinese Ice Age refuge wherever it was.

From South Siberia, P43 may easily have parted company with one line (B523) heading to West Siberia and the other (N2a2) to China, as well as L708 to the west and B496 to the east.

However, the east west dichotomy exists:
N5 (oldest split) west
N4 (next oldest split) Southeast Asia, + N-F1206* (Southeast Asia)
N1a (Central Asia v. Southeast Asia)
N-P43 (Eastern Europe/West Siberia v. Southeast Asia)
N-TAT (Eastern Europe v. East Asia)

I also think that Northern Central Eurasia is the most probable centre of expansion as several branches spreading to opposite directions is unlikely to have happened repeatedly only from one end of the area to the other end.

As almost all others, I also believed in the southeastern origin of yDNA N when the Karafet yDNA K paper was published. Then, Ust Ishim came out as NO and was autosomally not East Asian but generic Eurasian and close to ASI. Then, even the Chinese researchers found out that N is older in Siberia/Altai than in China, even without the western N-P189.2.
N-M231 mainly Han and Mongol 9.8 kya, linearly calibrated 15.8 kya
N1-F2130 mainly Han and Mongol 8.4 kya, linearly calibrated 13.5 kya
N2-F2930 Mainly Han 6.7 kya, linearly calibrated 10.8 kya.
(http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06463)

In this new Estonian paper, the Chinese branch N4 was again younger (16220 ybp) than the non-Chinese branch N1’3 (17621 ybp). N5, Balcanic line, derived from the oldest split, has been detected in one Iron Age burial from Hungary and possibly from Iron Age Altai but to my knowledge it has never been found in China.


If N4 and N1c separated c. 20 000 and 13 000 years ago, respectively, do you really think that there could be only one or two languages? N4 in Neolithic China probably spoke a common/ similar language but I would not dare to make any guess of its type as long as we do not know where N4 originated. N1c will probably be quite scattered, and I do not make any presumptions about the original language. At a Neolithic time depth (c. 5000), N1c men may have spoken several different languages depending on the extent of the area they occupied. However, in the west, N1c males probably spoke Proto-Uralic c. 3000 BC.

In general, I am totally against the idea that old and widespread y haplogroups such as N, R or J can be linked with one language family.

Manchu y DNA is the following: C3*(xC3c) 8/35, C3c 1/35, D 1/35, O1 1/36, O2 3/36, O2b 2/36, O3* 3/36, O3/-cd 3/36, O3e 2/36, O3c1 5/36, K* 1/36, N* 2/36, N1 2/36, N2 1/36, so modern Manchu are not relevant for the identification of Neolithic Liao Region people.



I explained above that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the European N1c is derived from the Chinese Neolithic N4. There is 0% of N4 in Europe. Moreover, Sanggan N1c is quite recent, only c. 1500 BC, so we do not know where it was during the Neolithic.

Chinese N1c1 is migrant from the Steppe

"The Upper Xiajiadian culture (UXC) of the late Bronze Age succeeded the LXC but was completely different from the LXC. The UXC people mainly practiced animal husbandry and made bronze objects decorated with animal and other natural motifs in the style of the Eurasian steppes...The presence of N1c in the UXC might suggest that there is immigration from the north Eurasian steppes during this period."


Physical anthroplogy:

The results of this study indicate that significant
craniofacial variation exists between southern and
northern Neolithic and Modern Chinese. For example,
northern Chinese have more robust crania than
southern ones. Principal component analyses show
that the Neolithic-North is distinguished from the
Neolithic-South in having a tall face, narrow nose and
high eyes, while the Modern-North separate from the
Modern-South in having a tall, broad face and high
nose. Bivariate plots of selected measures indicate the
northern Chinese are different from the southern
Chinese on cranial length, upper facial height and nasal
height. The Neolithic Chinese between the Qinling
Mountain range and the Yangtze River are mixed with
the North and South. Statistically significant cranio-
metrical differences exist between the Neolithic age
and Modern day groups, and between the northern and
southern Chinese. Temporal variation is also present.
For instance, size decreased through time. However,
some degree of morphological similarity exists
between North and South China, and also between
successive time periods. In the Neolithic sample the
separation is clearer between the northern and
southern samples than with the Modern arrays. During
the Neolithic, the Qinling Mountain Range and the
Yangtze River served as a geographic boundary
between North and South China.

So let's recap: Chinese N1c1 is not ancestral to Finnish N1c1. It is from different branch. Furthermore Neolithic Chinese N1c1 looks to be immigrant from the Steppes.