I1a Not From Scandinavia?

[Stevo]

Genetic research is not all there is to anthropology and history.

We know from archaeological and anthropological research that prehistoric Scandinavia was populated by three or more different groups of people, for example, the Fosna Folk, who were short in stature and brachycephalic (broad headed), and the Komsa Folk (I don't recall their physical description offhand).

It's a fairly safe bet that not all of those different peoples were I1a.

The word gracile means slender, slim, graceful.

Genetic researchers today generally try to test rural populations whose families have resided in the same place for several generations. In this way they hope to obtain results that are somewhat indicative of a native population. Of course, that procedure is not fool proof.

Given the current genetic evidence for the Scandinavian population and the anthropological and archaeological evidence, my own belief is that the male population of Scandinavia probably never was wholly I1a.

I1a was there in prehistoric times, to be sure, but there were other varieties of Y-DNA, as well.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think so.

It was a rare people, even in prehistoric times, who were entirely one thing or stayed that way for long.

[Noaide]

Wena,

You site me correct, however the N3 in the southern Baltics and Poland have distinct pattern from the Finnish, not the Balkans

The Saami's sampled by Raitio were of Anara (Enare), Skolt and Kildin (Kola) Saami origin. I have not managed to find anyone similiar to these haplotypes. I have corrected for the Oxford standard that seem to be used in this paper. I have been looking with flashlight for any similar haplotypes in different research papers and search engines but have found no equals even they only use five Y-STR markers and therefore have a wide gap.

A DYS389i=12 is what I am primary looking for in a hg N haplotype. So far the lowest value I have seen is DYS389i=13.

So I beg anyone of Anara, Skolt or Kildin Saami origin or anyone knowing these to test.

However, a very small frequency of old origin N3 seems to be present among the Saami. I will study the article of Ratio et.al in closer detail on hg N later on and then comment more on this, but it have to wait for a few days. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/11/3/471#T1

From what Noaide told there is a specific Eastern Saami N3a that differs from the Finnish on DYS389I and DYS389II that have no match YHRD.ORG, Dupuy et.al (2005) or in other studies:

Noaide, please correct if I cited you wrong.

This specific N3a must be older since it has a distinguishing mutation from the larger pool of N3 in Scandinavia and Finland.

Another support for the theory that hg N/N3 has its origin in newer immigrations of men from northwestern Siberia is that northwestern Siberian N/N3 match with the N/N3 men of Scandinavia and Finland (i.e. the Kvens) on a nuclear level, but not at a nuclear level with the N guys on the Balkans. This means that a more southeastern migration path is less likely for N/N3.

_____________________________________________

[Wena]

Genetic research is not all there is to anthropology and history.

We know from archaeological and anthropological research that prehistoric Scandinavia was populated by three or more different groups of people, for example, the Fosna Folk, who were short in stature and brachycephalic (broad headed), and the Komsa Folk (I don't recall their physical description offhand).

It's a fairly safe bet that not all of those different peoples were I1a.

It was a rare people, even in prehistoric times, who were entirely one thing or stayed that way for long.

1) Genes on the 23.chromosome pair say nothing about physical features as far as my knowledge go.

2) I never said that I1a was the only yDNA haplogroup in Scandinavia from about 15.000-10.000 years ago. If you read my text you will see hg R and old fraction of N3 mentioned. The present Saami men have a relatively high frequency of yDNA hg R, but so far I have not read any research on that haplogroup in relation to early migrations toward Scandinavia.

3) Founder effects and very old specific genetic motifs indicate that the Saami people have been isolated for a long time in Scandinavia.
This isolation might be explained by factors as for instance: Harsh climate in the northern areas after the ice age, that Northern Europe was sparsely populated in general, and that the Saami immigrated the areas long before the farming revolution i.e. before any population pressures became evident. Most people of northern Europe were hunters and gatherers and did not produce as many children as the later farming populations.

Genetic researchers today generally try to test rural populations whose families have resided in the same place for several generations. In this way they hope to obtain results that are somewhat indicative of a native population. Of course, that procedure is not fool proof.

They seem to have other methods too, like the correlative techniques already mentioned to check the reoccurrence of different genes, time estimations and matching of genes of large groups of people to trace migration paths. Etc.etc. Still a lot to learn.


__________________________________________________ ____

[Wena]

Wena,

You site me correct, however the N3 in the southern Baltics and Poland have distinct pattern from the Finnish, not the Balkans

Thanks for the correction Noaide. This means that N3 does not very likely come to Finland and Scandinavia from Poland and the Baltic states.

____________________________________

[Stevo]

1) Genes on the 23.chromosome pair say nothing about physical features as far as my knowledge go.

True, but they are carried by human beings, and human beings of disparate appearance and bone structure generally (but not always) have different sets of ancestors. That was especially true in prehistoric times.

The fact that there were a number of different physical types in prehistoric Scandinavia is a pretty good indication of the presence there of several different y and mtDNA haplogroups.

I1a is in general a fair indicator of Scandinavian ancestry because that y-haplogroup finds its locus there and is found in quantity only in Northern Europe. R1b and R1a, on the other hand, although found in a high proportion of the male population of Scandinavia, are so widespread throughout Europe and into Asia that it is much tougher to narrow them down and say, "R1b is this," or "R1a is that."

Besides, the point I have been making is that R1b is native to Scandinavia, at least since the Mesolithic Period.

[Eki]

I1a is in general a fair indicator of Scandinavian ancestry because that y-haplogroup finds its locus there and is found in quantity only in Northern Europe. R1b and R1a, on the other hand, although found in a high proportion of the male population of Scandinavia, are so widespread throughout Europe and into Asia that it is much tougher to narrow them down and say, "R1b is this," or "R1a is that."

R1b has a locus between France and Spain, and another one in western Britain and eastern Ireland:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...b_large_RG.jpg

R1a has a big locus between Poland and Lithuania, and smaller ones around Belarus/Ukraine and Czech/Slovak:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg

[Stevo]

R1b has a locus between France and Spain, and another one in western Britain and eastern Ireland:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...b_large_RG.jpg

R1a has a big locus between Poland and Lithuania, and smaller ones around Belarus/Ukraine and Czech/Slovak:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg

Take a look at the loci you just described. They cover a pretty large geographic area.

The locus for I1a is much more limited. That is what makes it possible to say with relative certainty that I1a represents Scandinavian ancestry.

R1b and R1a cover a much wider area.

It is not possible to say that R1b or R1a is one thing or another. They are present in too many places and among too many different ethnic and cultural groups.

Both are present in a high proportion of the male population of Scandinavia and probably have been since prehistoric times.

Are you arguing that R1b and/or R1a are late arrivals to Scandinavia?

BTW, I don't even know my own haplogroup yet, so this is not personal for me.

Are you guys afraid that if you admit that R1bs and R1as have been in Scandinavia since the Stone Age it will drive property values down?

[Eki]

Are you arguing that R1b and/or R1a are late arrivals to Scandinavia?

Later than I1a and N3 anyway. Otherwise they would have spread more to Northern Scandinavia and Finland like I1a and N3 did. I can't think of any reason how I1a and N3 could have "skipped" R1b and R1a and gone straight to the north. I think it's more logical to say that I1a and N3 were already there before R1b and R1a came and "pushed" them further north.

[Stevo]

Later than I1a and N3 anyway. Otherwise they would have spread more to Northern Scandinavia and Finland like I1a and N3 did. I can't think of any reason how I1a and N3 could have "skipped" R1b and R1a and gone straight to the north. I think it's more logical to say that I1a and N3 were already there before R1b and R1a came and "pushed" them further north.

N3 is present in relatively small numbers in most of Scandinavia outside Finland, especially when compared with R1b and R1a.

Your argument ignores the large numbers of R1bs in Scandinavia. It is the majority y-haplogroup in Denmark (a late invasion?) and forms a high proportion of the y-dna in both Norway and Sweden.

Finland lies to the east. Is what happened to the east of Scandinavia the rule for the whole region? Besides, R1b is present in Finland, albeit in much smaller numbers than in Scandinavia, and so is R1a.

N is by far and away the most populous haplogroup in Finland, yet it is a much smaller proportion of the y-dna population in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden than R1b and R1a are.

Why is that, if N got to Scandinavia before R1b and R1a?

Why should Finland, which differs from Scandinavia in language and to a large extent in genetic profile, be the rule?

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/Wo...groupsMaps.pdf

[Eki]

N3 is present in relatively small numbers in most of Scandinavia outside Finland, especially when compared with R1b and R1a.

Your argument ignores the large numbers of R1bs in Scandinavia. It is the majority y-haplogroup in Denmark (a late invasion?) and forms a high proportion of the y-dna in both Norway and Sweden.

Finland lies to the east. Is what happened to the east of Scandinavia the rule for the whole region? Besides, R1b is present in Finland, albeit in much smaller numbers than in Scandinavia, and so is R1a.

N is by far and away the most populous haplogroup in Finland, yet it is a much smaller proportion of the y-dna population in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden than R1b and R1a are.

Why is that, if N got to Scandinavia before R1b and R1a?

Why should Finland, which differs from Scandinavia in language and to a large extent in genetic profile, be the rule?

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/Wo...groupsMaps.pdf

Denmark is not northern Scandinavia. It's a gateway to Scandinavia, not the last outpost you can go before you reach the Arctic Ocean.

N3 is more common further north than R1a. Therefore, if R1a was there first, N3 must have gone through the R1a in the south without getting mixed with them.

Likewise, I1a is more common in central and northern Scandinavia than R1b and R1a. Therefore, if R1a and R1b were there first, I1a must have gone through the R1b and R1a in the south without getting mixed with them.

[Eki]

Stevo, can you explain why R1bs didn't spread from the west to Finland as much as I1as did? Were they afraid of water, and is it genetic?

[Wena]

Stevo, bone structure can vary within a group. The Saami people do not have one kind of bone structure or skull form (as earlier thought). I guess there is room for a lot of biased judgement in the interpretation of such findings, and archaeological research are for certain not foolproof. Governmental department reports in Norway admit that archaeological findings in this country have been interpreted in disfavour of the Saami culture when it comes to origin. Archaeological researches are often influenced by for instance ideology; political and other interests than for instance the Genographic Project and other genetic studies. Well, that is another discussion. Here we are discussing haplogroups.

If there were other haplogroups in Scandinavia, Finland and the larger area of the Saami prehistorically, THEN:
1) The Saami would not have been isolated.
2) The frequencies of a few genetic haplogroups would not have accumulated to the extreme among the Saami.
3) The haplogroups of the other groups of people would have developed specific motifs as it did in the Saami due to their long-lasting presence in the area referred to.


As far as I know there are no observations of old specific motifs in other groups of people than the Saami in Scandinavia, Finland or north-western Russian areas (Karelia, Estonia, Kola Peninsula) that can be attributed to early prehistorical migrations.

True, but they are carried by human beings, and human beings of disparate appearance and bone structure generally (but not always) have different sets of ancestors. That was especially true in prehistoric times.

The fact that there were a number of different physical types in prehistoric Scandinavia is a pretty good indication of the presence there of several different y and mtDNA haplogroups.

Besides, the point I have been making is that R1b is native to Scandinavia, at least since the Mesolithic Period.

[Stevo]

Stevo, can you explain why R1bs didn't spread from the west to Finland as much as I1as did? Were they afraid of water, and is it genetic?

Can you explain why y-haplogroup N is not found in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark in anywhere near the proportion that R1b is or that R1a is?

The very obvious reason why R1b did not spread into Finland as much as I1a did is that 1) I1a was probably in eastern Scandinavia before R1b, and 2) R1b came into Scandinavia from the southwest (but it arrived there during the Stone Age).

N came into Finland from the east. That explains why it is found in quantity in the easternmost country we are discussing, i.e., Finland, but much much less in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, where R1b and R1a form a much greater proportion of the y-dna than does N.

Apply your argument from the west instead of from the east and explain why N, if it arrived in Scandinavia before R1b did, is present in much much smaller amounts in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark than R1b is.

[Stevo]

Stevo, bone structure can vary within a group. The Saami people do not have one kind of bone structure or skull form (as earlier thought). I guess there is room for a lot of biased judgement in the interpretation of such findings, and archaeological research are for certain not foolproof.

Biased judgment? I wonder why you and Eki are so set in arguing that R1a and especially R1b are not in some sense native to Scandinavia.

There were several different groups of people who moved into Scandinavia as the ice retreated.

The likelihood that all of the males were I1a is pretty slim.

Bone structure might vary, but it did not vary hugely within prehistoric groups, which were small in numbers.

Governmental department reports in Norway admit that archaeological findings in this country have been interpreted in disfavour of the Saami culture when it comes to origin. Archaeological researches are often influenced by for instance ideology; political and other interests than for instance the Genographic Project and other genetic studies. Well, that is another discussion. Here we are discussing haplogroups.

This discussion is not influenced by ideology, at least not on my part.

You seem to want to argue that prehistoric Scandinavian males were some sort of "pure" strain of haplogroup I1a.

I think it is painfully obvious that that is not the case, that it could not have been the case.

There were different kinds of people in Scandinavia during the Stone Age. It is not likely that all of the males belonged to just one haplogroup.

If there were other haplogroups in Scandinavia, Finland and the larger area of the Saami prehistorically, THEN:
1) The Saami would not have been isolated.

Not true at all. Geography and climate contribute to isolation.

There were different groups in Scandinavia in prehistoric times. They weren't all Lapplanders and yet the Saami managed to remain isolated.

Prehistoric peoples could live in relatively close proximity by modern standards and yet remain isolated from one another, and southern and western Scandinavia were not inhabited (AFAIK) by Saami.

2) The frequencies of a few genetic haplogroups would not have accumulated to the extreme among the Saami.
3) The haplogroups of the other groups of people would have developed specific motifs as it did in the Saami due to their long-lasting presence in the area referred to.

All of those arguments are bald assertions (meaning there is no support for them).

Are you arguing that what is true of the Saami should be true for all those descended from prehistoric Scandinavian populations?

In that case, almost none of you had prehistoric ancestors in Scandinavia!

The Saami or Lapps are an isolated minority in northern Scandinavia. It is a mistake to use them - the exception - to generalize for Scandinavia as a whole.

As far as I know there are no observations of old specific motifs in other groups of people than the Saami in Scandinavia, Finland or north-western Russian areas (Karelia, Estonia, Kola Peninsula) that can be attributed to early prehistorical migrations.

We are talking about Scandinavia and the prehistoric presence of R1b there.

Look at Norway, Sweden, and especially Denmark.

When in the historical period did an influx of foreigners large enough to so skew the level of R1b occur?

If N is older in Scandinavia than R1b or R1a, why is there so little N in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark relative to R1b and R1a?

How did R1b get to be the single largest y-haplogroup in Denmark?

Are you guys in danger of some sort of I1a haplo-snobbery?

[Eki]

Can you explain why y-haplogroup N is not found in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark in anywhere near the proportion that R1b is or that R1a is?

It is in northern Sweden and Norway. Look at the N map:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...N_large_RG.jpg

The reason why it isn't in southern parts is probably because the central parts of Sweden and Norway were already taken by I1a. And they couldn't jump over them to reach Denmark. Look at the I1a map again in central Sweden and Norway:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg

Then look at the R1b map and you'll notice they are mainly in southern Norway, southern Sweden and Denmark:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...b_large_RG.jpg

Why? My guess is that they came later and the central parts of Scandinavia were already taken by I1as and the northern parts by N3, and the R1bs couldn't push I1a and N3 any further north because they would have drowned in the Arctic Ocean.