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

[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).




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. 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, 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.