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

**~~Äike~~** · 03-08-2011, 01:55 PM

If you browse around here, 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** · 03-08-2011, 02:17 PM

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

**~~Äike~~** · 03-08-2011, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ēriks

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** · 03-16-2011, 01:37 AM

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** · 03-18-2011, 01:03 AM

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...

**~~Äike~~** · 03-18-2011, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by 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...

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** · 03-18-2011, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Jäärapää

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/viritt...tut/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.

Originally Posted by Jäärapää

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** · 03-18-2011, 12:34 PM

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** · 03-18-2011, 12:39 PM

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** · 03-18-2011, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Polako

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?