search this blog

Sunday, April 7, 2019

On the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

Almost all present-day populations speaking Uralic languages show moderate to high frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroup N. I reckon there are two likely explanations for this:

- the speakers of Proto-Uralic were rich in N because they lived in an area, probably somewhere around the Ural Mountains, where it was common, and they spread it with them as they expanded from their homeland

- Uralic languages often came to be spoken in areas of North Eurasia where N was already found at moderate to high frequencies

The major exception to this rule are Hungarians, whose language belongs to the Ugric branch of Uralic. Their frequency of N is close to zero and they don't differ much in terms of overall genetic structure from their Indo-European-speaking neighbors in East Central Europe.

This is an issue that has generated much debate over the years about the nature of Uralic expansions, who the Hungarians really were, and how the Hungarian language came to be spoken in the heart of Europe.

But I never understood what the fuss was about, because based on historical sources alone it seemed rather obvious that Hungarian was introduced into the Carpathian Basin during the Middle Ages by a relatively small number of invaders from the east, probably from somewhere around the Ural Mountains, who imposed it on local Indo-European-speaking populations.

As far as I can remember, this has always been the academic consensus, and the results from one of the first ancient DNA studies of human remains soundly corroborated it. Back in 2008, Csányi et al. reported that two out of four skeletons from elite Hungarian conqueror graves dating to the 10th century carried the Tat C allele, which meant that they belonged to Y-haplogroup N (see here).

We've since had to wait over a decade to get a more comprehensive look at the Y-chromosome haplogroups of medieval Hungarians. The most useful effort to date, a manuscript courtesy of Neparáczki et al., was posted this week at bioRxiv (see here).

The results in the preprint suggest a much more complex picture than simply a migration of an obviously Uralic-speaking population rich in Y-haplogroup N into the medieval Carpathian Basin. But they do confirm the presence of N in Hungarian conqueror elites, and, in fact, of very specific subclades of N that link them to the present-day speakers of Uralic languages from around the Ural Mountains. Here are some pertinent quotes from the prepint:

Three Conqueror samples belonged to Hg N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936, the Finno-Permic N1a branch, being most frequent among northeastern European Saami, Finns, Karelians, as well as Komis, Volga Tatars and Bashkirs of the Volga-Ural region. Nevertheless this Hg is also present with lower frequency among Karanogays, Siberian Nenets, Khantys, Mansis, Dolgans, Nganasans, and Siberian Tatars 23.


It is generally accepted that the Hungarian language was brought to the Carpathian Basin by the Conquerors. Uralic speaking populations are characterized by a high frequency of Y-Hg N, which have often been interpreted as a genetic signal of shared ancestry. Indeed, recently a distinct shared ancestry component of likely Siberian origin was identified at the genomic level in these populations, modern Hungarians being a puzzling exception 36. The Conqueror elite had a significant proportion of N Hgs, 7% of them carrying N1a1a1a1a4-M2118 and 10% N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936, both of which are present in Ugric speaking Khantys and Mansis 23.


Population genetic data rather position the Conqueror elite among Turkic groups, Bashkirs and Volga Tatars, in agreement with contemporary historical accounts which denominated the Conquerors as “Turks” 38. This does not exclude the possibility that the Hungarian language could also have been present in the obviously very heterogeneous, probably multiethnic Conqueror tribal alliance.

Indeed, a large proportion of the 44 males from elite Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror burials analyzed in the study belonged to Y-haplogroups that can't be plausibly associated with the earliest Uralic speakers, but rather with those of various Indo-European languages, such as I1 and R1b-U106 (these are Germanic-specific markers), I2a-L621 and R1a-CTS1211 (obviously Slavic) and R1a-Z2124 (largely Eastern Iranian).

If most of these results aren't due to contamination, then it's likely that both the early Hungarian commoners and elites were, by and large, derived from Indo-European-speaking populations. No wonder then, that present-day Hungarians are basically indistinguishable genetically from their Indo-European-speaking neighbors and, like them, show hardly any Y-haplogroup N.

See also...

Hungarian Conquerors were rich in Y-haplogroup N (Fóthi et al. 2020)

More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

Ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 243 of 243
Desdichado said...

@M. Myllyla

I didn't know that he is such a controversial figure. I only saw that there was some good points regarding the Finnic home land. Whatever he has written about IE-languages is out of my competence.

The way the theory goes is that the pre-Yamnaya steppe was split between an R1a western portion and an R1b Eastern portion. The east: Khvalynsk, Repin, and later Yamnaya, were the homeland of the IE languages, while the Sredny Stog, and prior to that the Dnieper-Donets II, etc. cultures were an R1a Uralic group. As Yamnaya expanded, they displaced the Sredni Stog guys, who went mostly north and formed the Corded Ware complex, which he proposes is a Uralic language horizon, only to be Indo-Europeanized when the Bell Beakers superimposed themselves over the Corded Ware. In this scenario, pretty much all of Northern and Eastern Europe have a Uralic substrate. Exactly how the Indo-Iranian languages formed in the far east from a Uralic culture which wasn't superimposed by Bell Beakers isn't exactly clear to me. Either way, the theory, while interesting, runs afoul of well-accepted facts fairly quickly.

Desdichado said...

On the other hand, if he'd applied the same methodology to centum vs satem rather than Indo-European vs Uralic, the theory really isn't all that objectionable.

Davidski said...


Either way, the theory, while interesting, runs afoul of well-accepted facts fairly quickly.

I think you're missing the main problem. But you should get it eventually.

Wait for the ancient data from the Tarand graves and then watch the mental gymnastics and crazy talk from Carlos.

Kristiina said...

It is always good to be suspicious.😊 So, a word like "lehti" is used as evidence for the origin of Proto-Germanic in Volga-Ural c. 1500 Bc and this word would then be borrowed by Uralic and Balto-Slavic languages. However, I noticed that there is a word closely resembling this Proto-Germanic reconstruction in ancient Greek with a similar meaning. Was it also borrowed from Proto-Germanic? And how would the Proto-Germanic arrive in Denmark and South Sweden? With N1c and Mälar axes? Is this mainstream thinking?

Mauri said...


thanks you. Sounds incredible. One incredible theory doesn't make another more credible. By another one I mean the theory of common Finnic (Baltic Finnic and Volga Finnic) and Germanic home lands. This is all what I have to say, to avoid tautology.

Gaska said...

@ Davidski

To be honest, I will tell you that there is a small possibility that R1b-P312 spoke some Kind of IE. But we need samples of the historical peoples of the Castilian Plateau (Vacceos, Vettones and Astures Cismontanos). These people were NOT Celtiberians, but they possibly spoke a very old IE similar to the Lusitanian (Remember the phoneme P). The genetic and cultural continuity of Las Cogotas culture (1800-800 BC) with the BB culture is amazing (as evident as that of the Iberians). We could arrive at the absurdity of finding P312 speaking IE and NOT IE languages in the Iberian Iron Age. The problem is that they also practiced cremation and we only have the children buried under the floor of the houses. I hope it's enough to find out their genetic identity.

EHU002- El Hundido (Burgos)-(2.434 BC)- BB culture-Hap Y- R1b-P312
EHU001El Hundido (Burgos)-(2.165 BC)- BB culture--Hap Y-R1b-L5-
I5665-Pago del Virgazal (Burgos)- (2.133 BC)- BB culture-Hap Y- R1b-P312
VAD001-Valdescusa (La Rioja) (1.741 BC)- BB culture-Hap Y-R1b-Df27-Z225-
I6470-Pago del Virgazal (Burgos)(1.651 BC)- Hap Y-R1b- DF27-ZZ12
VAD005-Valdescusa (La Rioja) (1.644 BC)- Hap Y-R1b-L52-
VAD002- Valdescusa (La Rioja) (1.608 BC)- HapY- R1b1a/1a-CTS5082
I1840-El Sotillo (Álava) (1.557 BC)- Hap Y-R1b-L52
I2472-El Sotillo (Álava)(1.515 BC)- Hap Y-R1b-P311-
Esp005-Cueva de los Lagos (La Rioja)-(1.500 AC)- Cogotas Culture-Hap Y-R1b-DF27-
I3492-Los Tordillos (Salamanca) (1.500 BC)- Cogotas- Hap Y-R1b-M269-
VAD004-Valdescusa (La Rioja)- (1.464 BC)- Cogotas- Hap Y-R1b-L151-
I2470-El Sotillo (Álava) (1.321 AC)-Haplogrupo Y-R1b-P312-
I12209-La Requejada (Valladolid)- (1.289 AC)-Cogotas Hap Y-R1b-P312-DF27

We know the evident links between the culture of Las Cogotas and the culture of El Soto de la Medinilla (Iron Age I), and its relationship with vacceos (Iron Age II). On the other hand, in Castile there is 60-65% of R1b-Df27 at present, which would prove the genetic continuity up to our days.

Mauri said...


"And how would the Proto-Germanic arrive in Denmark and South Sweden? With N1c and Mälar axes? Is this mainstream thinking?"

If Mälar axes are evidences of migrations from Volga to Sweden, then Arabic coins in Viking era Sweden are evidences of Iron Age Arabic migration to Sweden :) But in this particular case we can practice main stream thinking and decide that I am wrong.

Mauri said...


speaking about Mälar axes, should we trust more in Russian or Swedish sources. We live between and trust in ourselves :)

" Alkuperä ja sen levintäalue
Mälarin tyypin kirveitä on löydetty pääasiassa kahdelta alueelta, joissa niitä esiintyy varsin tiheästi. Keski-Ruotsin Uplannista ja muualla Etelä-Ruotsissa tunnetaan noin 80 kirvestä ja Itä-Venäjän metsäalueella Volgan ja Kaman yhtymäkohdassa tunnetaan noin 265 kirvestä kalmistolöytöinä. Näiden keskittymien ympärillä ja niiden välisellä alueella on kirvestyyppiä on löydetty yhteensä noin 450, mikä on ihmetyttänyt tutkijoita syystäkin. Kirveen alkuperästä on käyty pitkä ja hedelmätön tieteellinen debatti. Ruotsalaiset ovat pitäneet sitä omana tuotantona, jota oli viety myös Venäjälle. Venäläiset tutkija olivat sitä mieltä, että se on volgalainen kirvestyyppi ja että sitä oli viety länteen päin.[1][6][2][7][3]"

Google translation:

"Origin and distribution area
Mälar-type axes have been found mainly in two areas where they occur very often. About 80 axes are known from Upland in Central Sweden and elsewhere in southern Sweden, and around 265 axes are known as cemetery pits at the confluence of Volga and Kama. Around 450 of these concentrations have been found around and between these concentrations, which has surprised scientists. There has been a long and fruitless scientific debate about the origin of the ax. The Swedes have considered it as a separate production that was also exported to Russia. The Russian scholar was of the opinion that it is a type of Volga ax and was taken westward [1] [6] [2] [7] [3]"

Funny text. Reminds me about the discussion of Finnish history enthusiasts and historians (f.ex. Swedish Nöteborg border aggreement, Rus. Орешек, Orešek)

Mouthful said...

As far as I've read about Mälar axes they seem to be mostly produced elsewhere compared to their major distributions where they are found.

Mälar axes in red, Mälar moulding forms in yellow and metallurgical sites of 1000BC or a bit later in orange/black.

This is from Lithuanian archaeologist data so it might have missing data from other regions and some Lithuanian archaeologists proposed theory that Mälar were produced by travelling blacksmiths at least in Lithuanian territory as they seem to mostly produced for non local people but for other "markets". One point is that Kivutkalns in Latvia had Mälar axe found, also had Mälar moulding forms and was metal working site but 10 samples from Kivutkalns dated to 800-230BCE, were all R1a.

For me personally it's very interesting what was the process between Mälar axe manufacturing, trading and so on. Because major hot spots of axes themselves are in Scandinavia and Volga but moulding forms for them are mostly found elsewhere. Same as Ulfberht swords which ended up all over Europe.

Anthony Hanken said...

Something to consider about the Tarand graves is that R1a along with N1c are found in them. R1a is of course uncommon in Finland compared to N1c and the little R1a in Finland may be of later Russian origin. Tarand peoples may be Balto-Finnic but not the direct ancestors of Finns.

Akozino-Malar axes are usually accepted to have come from the Volga even amoung most Swedish archeologists (with some exceptions). That being said they were almost certainly traded widely and even made amoung Finnic, Baltic and Germanic peoples.

N-L550 connects Russia,Sweden,SW Finland and the Baltic.

Arza said...

Megalithic tombs in western and northern Neolithic Europe were linked to a kindred society

Paleogenomic and archaeological studies show that Neolithic lifeways spread from the Fertile Crescent into Europe around 9000 BCE, reaching northwestern Europe by 4000 BCE. Starting around 4500 BCE, a new phenomenon of constructing megalithic monuments, particularly for funerary practices, emerged along the Atlantic façade. While it has been suggested that the emergence of megaliths was associated with the territories of farming communities, the origin and social structure of the groups that erected them has remained largely unknown. We generated genome sequence data from human remains, corresponding to24 individuals from five megalithic burial sites, encompassing the widespread tradition of megalithic construction in northern and western Europe, and analyzed our results in relation to the existing European paleogenomic data. The various individuals buried in megaliths show genetic affinities with local farming groups within their different chronological contexts. Individuals buried in megaliths display (past) admixture with local hunter-gatherers, similar to that seen in other Neolithic individuals in Europe. In relation to the tomb populations, we find significantly more males than females buried in the megaliths of the British Isles. The genetic data show close kin relationships among the individuals buried within the megaliths, and for the Irish megaliths, we found a kin relation between individuals buried in different megaliths. We also see paternal continuity through time, including the same Y-chromosome haplotypes reoccurring. These observations suggest that the investigated funerary monuments were associated with patrilineal kindred groups. Our genomic investigation provides insight into the people associated with this long-standing megalith funerary tradition, including their social dynamics.

epoch said...


"That area is quite far north and within former Corded Ware territory, so the name might have been coined by the Single Grave people, and obviously we don't have any samples from them."

That is true. But if the Dutch Origin hypothesis is right it also is the origin, or part of the origin of BB. Even if not, the area was an important part of the Bell Beaker horizon and of one of its subsequent cultures, the Hilversum culture and Barbed Wire Beaker cultures.

Taking it to extremes you might say either BB originally spoke a non-IE language or the Dutch Origin hypothesis has something to explain.

Arza said...

@ epoch

Thus, protolanguage reconstructions are not “data”. They are forever provisional and hypothetical. Using them as data is a category error.

epoch said...


Hence my remarks that this is circumstantial evidence, and: "Taking it to extremes".

The point is that this isn't a standalone etymology. There has been Gysselings suggestion of a "Belgic" language and the NW Block theory.

So yes, I know this is based on assumptions. But probing ancient languages is bound to be.

Matt said...

@Arza, very cool abstract for take on megaliths; male biased burial tradition, probably patrilocal*, associated (at least within Ireland) with particular male kin groups. I wonder what the dates are on these.

This is the cool thing that adna can potentially do on a more site specific archaeological basis rather than focused only on big migration dynamics overall, and as a complement to isotope signals of movement. You can have a direct look into whether societies are matrilocal or patrilocal, or whether particular burials and rites and power structured around male or female lineages.

(Rather than this sort of "Oh Marija Gimbutas looked at a bunch of female figurines and her intuitions about the development of society and declared X" or "Some ancient Greek or Latin geographer made a comment about social feature X, so we can project this faithfully on societies thousands of years earlier" and so on tosh that seems to pass muster at times).

*Not necessarily so, as whether a society is matrilocal or patrilocal is somewhat idealized; in societies that are designated as one or other most marriages are probably equally local in the sense of both being from the local community. But paternal continuity over generations suggests patrilocality more likely.

Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...

I'm sure that the irony of this isn't lost on anyone posting here.


He just uses whatever fits and ignores what doesn't, and makes things up as he goes along.

Hallmark of Steppe Theory

Right now I think that CWC or at least Sredny Stog is the ancestor of everything from Tocharian (where R1a was found) to the rest from Iranian to Celtic. But perhaps not Greek and Hittite.

Arza said...

@ Matt
From the "sample title" column you can extract such names:
Primrose, Ansarve, Carrowmore, Kolin (plus IDs without full name - bal, lai, mid)
Quick google search yields some C14 dates.

Davidski said...


I'm not aware of any R1a in Tocharian remains. You're probably referring to the Tarim Basin mummies. They may or may not belong to the ancestors of the Tocharians.

Apparently, remains from Tocharian speaking sites from along the Silk Road have been tested and analyzed, but I don't know what their Y-haplogroups are.

The Corded Ware people have been pegged as the speakers of late Proto-Indo-European dialects decades ago, and that inference stands stronger now than ever thanks to ancient DNA. So Carlos is out in the weeds, and nothing good will ever come of his theory that Corded Ware was Proto-Uralic. He's just wasting his time and confusing a lot of people in the process.

However, the genetic relationship between the Corded Ware people and the speakers of Indo-European languages that split early from the base of the Indo-European tree, like Hittite and Tocharian, remains unknown. Let's wait and see what happens with that.

Bob Floy said...


Were those Afanasevo R1bs ever tested for downstream subclades? I don't recall hearing anything specific about that.

Samuel Andrews said...

Afanasievo had R1b Z2103. Same as Yamnaya. However, we don't know what subclade of Z2103. I've read, most Yamnaya males belong to a specific subclade of Z2103. Like, how many Beakers belonged to subclades of subclades of P312 not P312*.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arza, thanks for sharing.
"These observations suggest that the investigated funerary monuments were associated with patrilineal kindred groups. Our genomic investigation provides insight into the people associated with this long-standing megalith funerary tradition, including their social dynamics."

All British Neolithic males belong to the same two Y DNA haplogroups. So, far all Globular Amphora males belong to the same Y DNA haplogroup. Looks, like Neolithic farmers organized themselves into patrilineal kin groups just as Kurgan cultures did.

My take on this....

It is another defeat for feminist archaeologists. Two main groups that formed western & eastern Europe: Late Neolithic farmers & Kurgan Indo Europeans were both patrilineal & certainly patriarchal.

Kurgan cultures "conquered" the farmers, replaced their Y DNA. But, farmers were not humiliated cuckers & Kurgans were not uber macho as some sensationalists imagine.

Bob Floy said...




Bob Floy said...


"Kurgan cultures "conquered" the farmers, replaced their Y DNA. But, farmers were not humiliated cuckers & Kurgans were not uber macho as some sensationalists imagine. "

I'm inclined to agree.

NeilB said...

Could you expand on your proposition that "the very same process happened in medieval England" - are you alluding to a change in liturgical and subsequent common language?

Drago said...

Are the “Germany medieval” in G25 the Alemans ?

Samuel Andrews said...

Can't wait till people look at the new 24 Megalithic genomes. Y DNA, genome-wide, mtDNA.

IMO, Globular Amphora looks like very good canidate for the farmer ancestor of Corded Ware, Bell BEaker, Unetice. Also, Globular is mostly descended from Lengyel/Danube Neolithic. This explains the absence of mtDNA N1a1a in Bronze age & modern Europe.

Davidski said...


I don't know what they are. You need to find out which papers they came from by looking at their individual IDs and the anno files here.

Mauri said...


many thanks for an interesting map.

@Anthony Hanken

"Something to consider about the Tarand graves is that R1a along with N1c are found in them. R1a is of course uncommon in Finland compared to N1c and the little R1a in Finland may be of later Russian origin. Tarand peoples may be Balto-Finnic but not the direct ancestors of Finns."

Can you give me a hint about Russian R1a in Finland? Basic written sources. As far I know only a small minority is from Russia and most of the Finnish R1a is from from Swedish, Baltic and Polish origin.

"Akozino-Malar axes are usually accepted to have come from the Volga even amoung most Swedish archeologists (with some exceptions). That being said they were almost certainly traded widely and even made amoung Finnic, Baltic and Germanic peoples."

Please give me sources written in Swedish about those Swedish researchers, without those exceptions.

"N-L550 connects Russia,Sweden,SW Finland and the Baltic."

However, also in this case following straightforwardly haplotrees we have a certain history, but following TMRCA information we have another history. If we follow clade ages we can suggest also west to east and north to south migrations. Our conclusions depends on how we select and qualify present-day samples. Mostly the genetic history, due to local founder efects, is not ideal to make conclusions, but we still do it.

Matt said...

@Sam, well, there are probably sensible feminists with a sensible framework who make good contributions still to archaeology, but I would say this is another nail in coffin of the fantasies of "primitive matriarchy" or "primitive egalitarianism" (if they are not already discredited) which are indeed influenced by radical feminism (although as I understand it have origins in the 19th century when they weren't really seen as radical feminist).

It looks like everywhere that assumptions of matrilocality or matrifocality or equal male and female status are looked for in primitive pre-IE societies, the claims are found wanting: - Shennan - "(Talking about Linearbandkerarik), nevertheless, claims of inequality fit in with inferences that can be made from strontium isotope studies of teeth from human skeletons to identify patterns of mobility. They point to a widely occurring pattern of greater variability among females than males, resulting from the fact that many more females were non-local, i.e. they did not pass their early lives in the place where they were buried (Bentley et al., 2012).

The authors see this as pointing to patrilocal residence patterns, where women moved on marriage to the residence of their husband’s family. The pattern often occurs where there are kin group property rights, such as land rights, that are inherited through the paternal line. Males buried with distinctive stone adzes, made of material obtained by long-distance exchange, also had more uniform isotope signatures than those without from the same site, with values corresponding to those for loess soils, pointing to inequality among males." - Hoffmanova - "Ancient Genomic Diversity Reveals Differences in Cultural Practices and Cultural Barriers between Prehistoric Farmers and Hunter-gatherers in Europe" - Humans differ from most other species in that we create our own ecological niche. Culture has thus shaped human genetic variation over millennia. While surprisingly little is known about prehistoric cultural practices, there is vested hope that patterns of ancient genetic diversity will elucidate how past societies were organized and interacted with each other. Yet such inferences remain challenging due to generally low numbers of individuals and especially the lack of population-level samples. Here we present novel samples from the region of the Danube Gorges (Balkans), located in the heart of the migration corridor through which farming was brought from Anatolia to Central Europe.

Our archaeologically well-defined samples (~10000-5500 calBC) represent multiple closeby-settlements of a sedentary society before and during Neolithisation. Contrasting population-genomic and cultural affinities of our samples revealed that settlements differed strikingly in their interaction with immigrating farmers: while some exhibited strong barriers to gene flow, others incorporated multiple individuals of genetic ancestry common to Aegean farmers. To elucidate important aspects of social practices before, during and after this demographic shift, we accurately inferred within and between individual genetic diversity of our population sample by sequencing either whole genomes or many putatively neutral regions, and by using novel methods that account for post-mortem damage and the heterochronous nature of our reference panel.

Notably, we found a lower within-individual diversity as well as a lower X to autosomes diversity in hunter-gatherers than farmers prior to their contact, consistent with an elevated population size and stronger patrilocality in farmers.


Matt said...

(cont.) - The Lost World of Old Europe The Danube Valley, 5000–3500 bc - David Anthony The roles of the genders in Old European society are not accurately reflected in figurines. At the settlement of Golyamo Delchevo in eastern Bulgaria, not far from Varna and connected with the Varna culture, there were no identifiably male figurines in the houses of the excavated town; all of the figurines that could be assigned a gender were female. Yet all of the high-prestige graves in the nearby cemetery, marked by exotic trade goods and metal, belonged to men. The same was true at Varna itself—Grave 43, the richest single grave in Old Europe, was that of a mature male.

Although in most sites more than ninety percent of the identifiable human figurines were female, male figurines were also made, and were grouped with females in some cases (fig. 5-4a). Men seem to have controlled external relations involving trade and negotiations with neighboring chiefs, while the rituals represented by female figurines seem to have emphasized the dominant role of women inside the house, and perhaps were connected with ancestor cults centered on their mothers and aunts.

In a more general sense when anthropology finds matrilocal societies, these generally seem to be linked to hoe agriculture (where communities are keen to tie women to their area of their birth because they are basically put to work in the fields, unlike heavier plough agriculture more reliant on male strength) 'visiting marriage' (where men don't actually move to live with women but live separately and practice occasional 'brideservice' and are involved and preoccupied in the communities of their birth) and men basically control war and politics and high status activities anyway.

Even when matrilocality is practiced, it seems to involve far fewer men moving ( - In addition to providing genetic quantification of sex-specific dispersal rates in human populations, we show that although men and women are exchanged at a similar rate between matrilocal populations, there are far fewer men than women moving into patrilocal populations. This finding is compatible with the hypothesis that men are strictly controlling male immigration and promoting female immigration in patrilocal populations and that immigration is much less regulated in matrilocal populations.)

(I'd add that my impression is that oddly these ideas seem to maybe live on less in feminists these days, who by and large seem more or less prepared to accept that men may have always been in power, than among guys who seem to identify strongly with the early Indo-Europeans and see their supposed "invention" of patriarchy as a good thing!).

Anthony Hanken said...

@M. Myllylä

"Can you give me a hint about Russian R1a in Finland? Basic written sources. As far I know only a small minority is from Russia and most of the Finnish R1a is from from Swedish, Baltic and Polish origin".

R1a is most common in East and Northwest Finland. It makes most sense that R1a in the east is Russian and in the NorthWest is Nordic.

Of course we will need aDNA to determine when, where and with who N-L550 spread. I believe we currently have a Sigtuna Viking and an IA Lithuanian confirmed so far. Right now I am just making a guess based on whats available.

epoch said...


"Right now I think that CWC or at least Sredny Stog is the ancestor of everything from Tocharian (where R1a was found) to the rest from Iranian to Celtic. But perhaps not Greek and Hittite."

Greek seems to be the only known IE language where we can prove its introduction also saw the introduction of steppe admixture: Crete. Whether Linear A was an IE language or not, it certainly wasn't Greek as Linear B *was* a form of Greek.

Sleepingtoss said...

Let's think together about definition: what Y-happlogroup can be called Slavic (or Indo-European, or Russian e.t.c)?
I am quite sure it is wrong to call I2a-L621 Slavic, because L621 is too old. Yes, most of L621 living today are of Slavic descent, speak Slavic languages, but we would never call I2a-L621 Indo-European, although today most of I2a-L621 speak one of Indo-European languages and are descendants of Yamnaya culture. I2a-L621 has TMRCA 6500 years ago, about 4500 years before first Slavic culture appeared!

So, I think we should only call Y-haplogroup Slavic in case if we think that all of its branches were present in Slavic community at a time of Slavic unity.
So, we should only call Y3120 Slavic, but not all the L621 (this is only in case if we agree that Y18331 (today it is mostly Greek) was present in that united Slavic community, I think it was, so I consider Y3120 is Slavic).

R1a-CTS1211 has TMRCA 4400 ybp, that's too old, and it looks like not all of its branches were present in that early Slav community. If we check one by one branches of R1a-CTS1211 that are 2000-1500 years old, we will see that most of them look like they are Slavic, but there are some that look definitely non-Slavic.

P.S. Just want some order when talking about Y-haplogroups. Calling all the I2a-L621 Slavic is as misleading as calling all the R1a/R1b Indo-European, this will confuse newbies in the topic.

Davidski said...


I2a-L621 and R1a-CTS1211 are Slavic-specific markers in the context of the discussion about their origins in the Avar and Hungarian elites.

That is, when I say that they're obviously Slavic-specific markers here, I don't mean that they emerged in Slavic-speaking groups, but that they're much better associated with Slavic-speaking groups than with those speaking Turkic, Uralic, Germanic, Iranian and so on.

Mauri said...

@Anthony Hanken,

I didn't read the first paper, because it was about Viking Age, but the second one really handled those axes. As a conclusion it states:

"None of the axes from Russia seem to correspond to the
ornamental schema of the Norwegian variant".

Then it describes differences between axe shapes in different regions and sees all types as local variants.

Please learn to read Swedish, it would help you to understand Swedish researchers better.

My opinions about Finnish R1a are not based on how I feel and what is my reckonings and believes about probability. It is better to classify existing haplotypes.

Anthony Hanken said...

@M. Myllylä

The first paper talks about Akozino-Malar axes in the first couple paragraphs as using the same water ways Vikings did except in the opposite direction. Maybe you should have read it instead of dismissing it immediately.

The second paper sees the axes as a result of cultural exchange between the Volga and Sweden resulting in the local varients. NOT just local designs with no commonality.

A few examples of historical Polish and Baltic migrants resulted in a few examples of R1a in modern Finland. Go look at a map of R1a distribution in Finland and it is clear where most of it came from.

MomOfZoha said...

Late to the game but because it's come up in my recent totally unrelated communications:

Those of you speaking of Iranic or-lack-thereof speakers in modern Hungary should look up the Jasz people (I'm not ashamed to link to wiki):

gL said...


A typical example of ethnocentrism in which you depreciate your neighbour and minimize their genetic, linguistic and cultural contribution and value and overrate your own.
I have researched history of my roots and they include roots from virtually all neighbors. I see that as advantage, when I can base my personal traits on so many choices of eccentrics, which do not fit locally.
If your input is targeted at the Baltic/Finnic languages more ancient presence in region, then there is no way, that Latvians or Lithuanians originally spoke Uralic language. And completely impossible, that Finnic in Estonia was spoken much earlier than Baltic. And, thanks, but I am fine with my N1a ancestry and my ancestors, who arrived in Baltic as migrants of mixed group, who adapted Baltic. My concerns are more about something, that unifies different people, as you can easily hate your own, as their weaknesses are easier to be pointed out and in their language...
As for culture... most of it has been heavily influenced by Germans. It is rather very mixed result - similar to what I will get from painting eggs this weekend in christian influenced pagan tradition.

Overwhelming facts of linguistical evidence points that Uralics, who lived in Volga and Baltic area had Baltic influence on their language. Besides, Latvian linguists would give you really rose-tinted view on relationship between Baltic and Uralic, which is too much for my comfort zone.

We now know for sure that N-L1026 arrived in Estonia c. 700 BC with the Tarand Graves Culture.

It is amazing that you manage to make L550 even 4000-5000 years old in the Baltics when you claim that it arrived in the area with R1a1-M558 c. 2700-1700 BC! Have a look at

The paper, I was referring was this, which found differences in Baltic L550:
"Y‐Chromosomal Lineages of Latvians in the Context of the Genetic Variation of the Eastern‐Baltic Region"

Kasperaviciute et al. (2004) found differences in the variance of the N1c Y‐STR between Baltic‐ and Finno‐Ugric‐speakers of the region: the 15 repeat STR marker DYS19 was more frequent in Lithuanians (93%) and Latvians (80.6%), whereas the same variant was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) less frequent among Estonians (25.0%), and even less so among Finns (9.3%). In contrast, among Estonians and Finns a 14 repeat allele was more frequent (60.0% and 86.0%, respectively) (Kasperaviciute et al., 2004; Lappalainen et al., 2008). The Td estimate of 8000 years for hg N1c1a among Latvian lineages was found to be similar to those proposed for the Lithuanian and Estonian hg N1c carriers (Kasperaviciute et al., 2004). Our detailed analysis of the Latvian Y‐chromosomal gene pool supports the previously stated idea (Zerjal et al., 1997; Kasperaviciute et al., 2004; Lappalainen et al., 2008) that observed differences of hg N1c haplotype variants between the Baltic‐ and Finno‐Ugric‐speaking populations could indicate that two migration waves have introduced hg N1c founder haplotypes (“Baltic” and “Fennoscandian”) to the Eastern coast of the Baltic Sea.

And looking through history, there was only influx of Baltic cultures(that brought Latvian and Lithuanian to native Balts of Baltic) from east - main suspects, who could have brought L550 from east are these:

gL said...


So, I might not have been too specific with this, but Tarand grave culture reached Latvia only ~1000 years later, than it entered Estonia and some of the Livonians and southern Estonians landed there only in late 1000AD, not to mention Votes who were settled in Courland in 15th century. That was my answer to question about Latvian and Lithuanian situation, why there is so much N1a. Besides, Estonians do not speak Baltic language, even if they share the same amount of N1a, but nobody wonders about Estonian share of R1a(which, from given data is higher, than in Lithuanian), but high % of N1a in Latvian and Lithuanian.

The note about R1a-M558 is that variation of R1a-M558 among R1a is very high % in Latvia(and probably whole Baltic region stands out as well), where ~90% among R1a and still high in total and the share is significantly down only because of N1a. If we take out N1a, then it blends in landscape of dominant R1a-M558 in eastern Europe as one of the hotspots even today. It definitely would help to understand migration patterns, if there were found subbranches of R1a-M558 in the light of identified information of two L550 subbranches(third one belongs to something, that is N-VL29, but NOT a branch of L550).

The modern problem is that modern Russia, that was source for both branches of L550 has underwent through more intense changes in population in central Rusia part, than others around it. Volga-Uralic populations have 10-15% of R1a‐M558 and it would be interesting to see if any of those link to Baltic area as a source of R1a. And how much of M558 in Baltic is native and how much comes from migrations. IMO, that's a huge task - sorting out Russian landscape of y-dna migrations for the last 2000+ years.

MOCKBA said...

An interesting observation about Haplogroup N in the Russians.

A large number of skeletons from the 1238 sacking of Yaroslavl by the Mongols, in Northern Russia, were turned over to DNA researchers. No NGS capacities in the lab, but they got some mtDNA, Y-DNA, and autosomal markers. A Russian clip has some more details, describing the victims as mostly R1a, a little R1b, singletons of I1 and E, nit no N1a whatsoever! (Today, the "Ugro-Finnic" haplogoroup accounts for over 30% of the city population)

MOCKBA said...

No N1a in the victims of the 1238 sacking of Yaroslavl, in Northern Russia, by the Mongols.

The bones were turned over to DNA researchers. No NGS capacities in the lab, but they got some mtDNA, Y-DNA, and autosomal markers. A Russian clip has some more details, describing the victims as mostly R1a, a little R1b, singletons of I1 and E, nit no N1a whatsoever! (Today, the "Ugro-Finnic" haplogoroup accounts for over 30% of the city population)

Sorry the URLs seem to be moderated out :)

lumina said...

This is an interesting topic.

I had my dna analyzed and I share dna with Bela III and King Ladislaus, as well as the Hunyadi Dynasty. Aside from "Hungarian Conqueror" dna, I also have Scythian, Avar, and Pannonian/Illyrian. I assume that these are the ancestors of all Hungarians.

Davidski said...

I also have Scythian, Avar, and Pannonian/Illyrian.

This is extremely unlikely.

Whoever did the analysis made this up.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 243 of 243   Newer› Newest»