Kvens: Pre-Germanic Scandinavians?

[Kelmendasi]

Its more likely that the pre-Germanic and Pre-Finnic inhabitants of that area were Saamic, or at least something more akin to Saamic than Finnic

According to this guy the Saami aren't even native to Scandinavia

[Rethel]

According to this guy the Saami aren't even native to Scandinavia

But if Saamis aren't the same aren't Finns.

I saw some pieces of the output of this guy, and he seems to be very deluded.
From the things which I saw, it can seem, that he is some kind of IE-OWD guy,
probably not even an R1 - or at least he acts like that

In this video, he is showing correctly people, when he speaks about syberian
Ugrofinians, but when he talks about Finns, he shows Finnesses or even it shall
be said Finlanderesses aka Österlanderesses (knows someone why such difference? )
Maybe he thinks, that all Finns are allready transgerders

Maybe it should pleased my ears, that 2000 years ago was none N-man in europe, but it
is probably not so true. Of course Ugrofinians are quite recent immigrants to europe, but
not so recent. Maybe he forgot, that Europe started on Ural, but I think, that at that time
they also allready penetrated Finland as well. Maybe it is quite interesting possibility/theory
worthy to consider, which have some slight probability, but considering the fact, that known
is some separated N-man from 4000 years ago and that majority of pre-genetic theories did
place arriving of Ugrofinians some 3000 years ago (2000 years ago rather a replacement of
Saamis in Finalnd what is rather totaly opposite to what he claims) then - as I many times
said - their arriving should be placed at that time - 3000 years ago. The main clades seems
to support this timing, and eventuly earlier N in Europe could be just incidents - some early
pioneers, traders, pastoralists who went too far. 1000BC I would say should be consider as
the beginning of more ethnic apperience if Ugrofinians in Europe, which slowly - living among
Indoeuropeans and maybe rest of Oldeuropeans - became a linguistic, and later also haplog-
roupic majority on the north. It has to be also always remembered, that the population of the
North was not very numerous. For example, in whole Finland - yet 1000 years ago - lived only
some 20-40 thousands people - so logically earlier this number was much lower, and many small
groups of different provenance could lived side by side. Some diseases or wars could take out
males, so women slowly were marrying men from foreign tribes. This could be also the case (and
probably was) in XVIIIth century when half of Finland's population was killed in wars - so logically
this half was in huge majority men - so remaining women (even Swedish) were marrying to lefted
men, probably from lower social ladder => bearers of N hg at that time speaking finnish. In this and
the next century finally Finns had lost their mongolidic features (in 19th century was also a deasise
which killed 15% of population) so this is the reason, why modern inhabitants of Finland are so IE-ic
in appirience. Actually, when I think, writing this, then his 2000 years is not so improbable as it was
at the beginning. But I think, in the near future will be more data to say it for sure.

-----------------------------------

Oh! It is interesting. At 9:50 he says, that finnic population had more asiatic DNA at 350 AD
than modern Saamis. So it perfectly fits to what I said earier, and what I was saying many
times, about the shifting from mongoloidness to caucasoidness.

4000 BC an R1 in the northiest Scandinavia! I am nicely surrpriesed

But finally he didn't say, are they IE or not
I think he thinks like that.

[cosmoo]

Its more likely that the pre-Germanic and Pre-Finnic inhabitants of that area were Saamic, or at least something more akin to Saamic than Finnic

Saamis came in relatively same time as Finnic triebs.
As for original inhabitants of Scandinavia (the ones who settled it first after glaciers retreated)- they no longer live there, plain and simple. Roughly 2 or less percent of modern Scandinavians are their direct paternal descendants.

[Rethel]

Roughly 2 or less percent of modern Scandinavians are their direct paternal descendants.

Why do you not count I1 brubers?

[Rethel]

Trolls,

These were thraels, pre-IE population.

dragons

I didn't know, you dont belive in such creatures...

and kraken were also mentioned in sagas. It doesn't mean they existed.

It also doesn;t mean, that they did not exist.

[cosmoo]

Why do you not count I1 brubers?

They came in Neolithic.

[Peterski]

Trolls, dragons and kraken were also mentioned in sagas. It doesn't mean they existed.

Trolls do exist. I'm not sure about dragons and kraken though.

[Kelmendasi]

Saamis came in relatively same time as Finnic triebs.
As for original inhabitants of Scandinavia (the ones who settled it first after glaciers retreated)- they no longer live there, plain and simple. Roughly 2 or less percent of modern Scandinavians are their direct paternal descendants.

Which Ydna is from the original inhabitants in your opinion?

[cosmoo]

Which Ydna is from the original inhabitants in your opinion?

It is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of facts (ancient DNA is available). Native Scandinavian hunters most commonly had certain I2 branches (in this order)- I2a1b (Motala samples, Steigen from northern Norway, Ire8 from Gotland), I2a1a-L1287 (Ajvide samples from Gotland), and I2c-L597 (one Motala sample).

[Kelmendasi]

It is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of facts (ancient DNA is available). Native Scandinavian hunters most commonly had certain I2 branches (in this order)- I2a1b (Motala samples, Steigen from northern Norway, Ire8 from Gotland), I2a1a-L1287 (Ajvide samples from Gotland), and I2c-L597 (one Motala sample).

Interesting, was the I2a1b L161.1 or L147.2? I think I2a2 could of been present in the SHG