I1a Not From Scandinavia?

[Stevo]

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.

Your guess is different from mine.

R1b is found in much larger numbers in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark than is N. In Denmark R1b is the biggest haplogroup; in Norway it splits the population almost evenly with R1a and I1a (almost). Only in Sweden is I1a much larger than the other groups, and even there R1b is well represented.

I1a was in Scandinavia first, but was followed closely during the prehistoric period by R1b and R1a. R1b has been a long while in southern and western Scandinavia, which is why it is so populous there.

I think N came in last of all, from the East, which is, BTW, where the Finno-Ugrians came from and are still found to a large extent.

[Eki]

Here's another attempt to explain it:

The loci of I1a and N3 are in northern Europe and the loci of R1a and R1b are in central Europe (i.e. more south). If all Europeans were in southern Europe during the Ice Age, how were I1a and N3 able to circumvent R1a and R1b when migrating north if R1a and R1b had already settled northern Europe?

[Stevo]

Here's another attempt to explain it:

The loci of I1a and N3 are in northern Europe and the loci of R1a and R1b are in central Europe (i.e. more south). If all Europeans were in southern Europe during the Ice Age, how were I1a and N3 able to circumvent R1a and R1b when migrating north if R1a and R1b had already settled northern Europe?

Here's another attempt to explain it.

I1a got to Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) first.

Not long after, by the Mesolithic at the latest, R1bs from the southwest moved into Scandinavia. R1as also entered Scandinavia at some point around that time.

Last of all, N moved into Finland from the east. It has still not penetrated Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in numbers anything like R1b or R1a.

There was no need to "circumvent" N. It wasn't in Scandinavia before R1b and R1a. R1b and R1a evidently mingled with the I1as already in Scandinavia.

Prior to the 20th century, in the historical period Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) has been an exporter of peoples. There was no mass influx of foreigners to account for the high levels of R1b and R1a there.

[Noaide]

There was no need to "circumvent" N. It wasn't in Scandinavia before R1b and R1a. R1b and R1a evidently mingled with the I1as already in Scandinavia.

I disagree with you. I believe N3 has been present in Fenoscandia and inner part of Scandinavia quite some time. Remember that the N3 marker have been present in very scare population of hunters and gathers spread over a huge area. Just a relative small migration of agriculturalist into an area would soon have outnumbered the hunter and gather populations to fractions. Also a semi-nomadic lifestyle would quickly clean them out of an area as their summer habitats typically closer to the coast would be occupied permantly. As suggested by Rootsi 2004 the age of N3 in Europe probably is not as young as 4500 BC, as the early papers suggested.

An other important factor is the presence of an ancient N population in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania strongly suggesting a finnic-uralic presence deep into central europe.

"From the archaeological point of view, hg N3 is spread in Europe i the area of comb-ceramic culture. It is not, however, obvious that the spread of the two can be temoporily connected, because STR diversity-based calculations of the time depth of hg N3 among the Finnick-speaking European population suggests expansion time before-around the end of pleistoscene - that is long before the rise of the comb-ceramic cuture in the 4th millennium BC"

Source: Rootsi 2004

[Eki]

Last of all, N moved into Finland from the east. It has still not penetrated Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in numbers anything like R1b or R1a.

Neither have R1b and R1a penetrated Finland and northern Scandinavia like N and I1 a have. R1a hasn't even penetrated western Norway like it has penetrated the Oslo area ( see its locus in Norway):

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

There was no need to "circumvent" N. It wasn't in Scandinavia before R1b and R1a. R1b and R1a evidently mingled with the I1as already in Scandinavia.

I was talking about N circumventing R1a and R1b, not the other way around. How did it jump from Siberia to Finland and northern Scandinavia without getting into contact with R1a and R1b if it wasn't there before them?

Prior to the 20th century, in the historical period Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) has been an exporter of peoples. There was no mass influx of foreigners to account for the high levels of R1b and R1a there.

If the Black Death killed up to 2/3 of Norway's population in the 13th century AND new people have not moved in AND there was a large scale emigration from Norway to Nort America in the 19th and early 20th century, Norway should be even more empty of people than it is now.

[Stevo]

I disagree with you. I believe N3 has been present in Fenoscandia and inner part of Scandinavia quite some time. Remember that the N3 marker have been present in very scare population of hunters and gathers spread over a huge area. Just a relative small migration of agriculturalist into an area would soon have outnumbered the hunter and gather populations to fractions. Also a semi-nomadic lifestyle would quickly clean them out of an area as their summer habitats typically closer to the coast would be occupied permantly. As suggested by Rootsi 2004 the age of N3 in Europe probably is not as young as 4500 BC, as the early papers suggested.

An other important factor is the presence of an ancient N population in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania strongly suggesting a finnic-uralic presence deep into central europe.

"From the archaeological point of view, hg N3 is spread in Europe i the area of comb-ceramic culture. It is not, however, obvious that the spread of the two can be temoporily connected, because STR diversity-based calculations of the time depth of hg N3 among the Finnick-speaking European population suggests expansion time before-around the end of pleistoscene - that is long before the rise of the comb-ceramic cuture in the 4th millennium BC"

Source: Rootsi 2004

I am not talking about Finland. I have been talking about the prehistoric presence of R1b and R1a in Scandinavia.

N is not present in Scandinavia in anything like the proportion that R1b and R1a are.

Finland is different linguistically, culturally, and genetically from Scandinavia.

[Stevo]

Neither have R1b and R1a penetrated Finland and northern Scandinavia like N and I1 a have. R1a hasn't even penetrated western Norway like it has penetrated the Oslo area ( see its locus in Norway):

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

The y-dna of Finland is predominantly N. But Finland is different from Scandinavia linguistically, culturally, and genetically.

What you are missing is the fact that N is NOT present in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark in anything even remotely like the proportion that R1b and R1a are, Lappland notwithstanding.

I was talking about N circumventing R1a and R1b, not the other way around. How did it jump from Siberia to Finland and northern Scandinavia without getting into contact with R1a and R1b if it wasn't there before them?

Finland is east of Scandinavia. No need to jump over anybody if you move into Finland from the east. Scandinavia is west of Finland. Had the bearers of N attempted to move into Scandinavia in any numbers, then they would have bumped into R1bs and R1as, as well as I1as.

Northern Scandinavia is remote and thinly populated, even today. The N to which you are referring there forms a minute proportion of the total population of Scandinavia.

Once again, the amount of y-dna N in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) is nowhere near the amount of R1b or R1a there.

If the Black Death killed up to 2/3 of Norway's population in the 13th century AND new people have not moved in AND there was a large scale emigration from Norway to Nort America in the 19th and early 20th century, Norway should be even more empty of people than it is now.

You could argue that about Europe as a whole following the Black Death of the 13th century and the movement of immigrants to North America beginning in the 17th century and culminating in the 20th.

Obviously, people reproduce. Native populations bounce back.

What evidence do you have of a mass immigration of R1b and R1a-bearing foreigners into Scandinavia during the historical period, an influx of foreigners large enough to skew the native, rural population to the levels shown in recent studies?

It seems fairly obvious to me that as the bearers of y-haplogroup I moved north from the Balkans, I1a moved into a central position in Scandinavia.

Shortly thereafter, R1b-bearers began moving in from the southwest, R1a-bearers probably from the southeast.

All of these groups were prehistoric hunters and gatherers. Their numbers were probably small, since hunting and gathering is not a lifestyle that supports large populations.

R1bs came in from the southwest. Their numbers are largest in the southwestern portions of Scandinavia (which makes perfect sense given the direction from which they came). As one goes north and east, the numbers of R1bs decline. For whatever reason, R1bs did not go to Finland - east of Scandinavia - in very large numbers.

In the same way, as one goes south and west, the number of I1as declines, even within Scandinavia itself.

At some point the Finno-Ugrians, no doubt represented largely by the bearers of y-haplogroup N, moved into Finland from the east. They have never penetrated into Scandinavia in large numbers.

England has a fairly high proportion of I1as (about the same as the proportion of I1as in Denmark). We can account for their presence there through the Anglo-Saxon invasion beginning in the 5th century and through the very similar Viking incursions and settlements that began late in the 8th century. No doubt much of the present R1b and R1a in England also came from Scandinavia and North Germany.

We can account for the I1a in England through the history we know.

How do you account for a supposed historical migration of R1bs and R1as into Scandinavia?

Where is the record of an incursion massive enough to support the amount of Scandinavian y-dna supplied by those two haplogroups?

I know of none.

That is odd.

Surely such an event, involving so many people, would have been momentous, if it occurred within the historical period.

[Eki]

The y-dna of Finland is predominantly N. But Finland is different from Scandinavia linguistically, culturally, and genetically.

What you are missing is the fact that N is NOT present in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark in anything even remotely like the proportion that R1b and R1a are, Lappland notwithstanding.

Strictly speaking, only Norway, Sweden and northern Finland belong geographically to Scandinavian peninsula. Denmark is mainland Europe.

What evidence do you have of a mass immigration of R1b and R1a-bearing foreigners into Scandinavia during the historical period, an influx of foreigners large enough to skew the native, rural population to the levels shown in recent studies?
.
.
.
How do you account for a supposed historical migration of R1bs and R1as into Scandinavia?

Where is the record of an incursion massive enough to support the amount of Scandinavian y-dna supplied by those two haplogroups?

I know of none.

That is odd.

Surely such an event, involving so many people, would have been momentous, if it occurred within the historical period.

Not if it happens gradually in a time frame of several centuries. Norway was part of Denmark for hundreds of years, people may have moved from Denmark to southern Norway without anybody much noticing, especially when they spoke the same or similar language as the Norwegians.

Sweden had a lot of European merchants and mercenaries when it was a great power. Here's for example an article about Scots in Sweden:

http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...eden/index.htm

Here's a database where you can even look up their names from 1580 - 1707:

http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...candinavia.htm

Besides, I have not said that all R1a and R1b came within the historical period, but there's nothing to prove they came in the Stone Age or even Bronze Age. Some of them could for example descend from slaves taken to Scandinavia by the Vikings. The words "Slavic" and "slaves" have the same root because Vikings kept some of their prisoners of war as slaves.

[Eki]

I forgot to mention that southern Sweden was a part of Denmark for centuries too.

[Wena]

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

Stevo it seems like your strategy is to try to ”talk down” good arguments, instead of trying to answer them.

First I see that you are discussing Scandinavia, which is the peninsula where Norway and Sweden is located. Finland and Denmark are not Scandinavian although they are Nordic countries.
You have not read my text properly. I have not argued about yDNA hg R not being “native” to Scandinavia. What I said is that so far I have not found any articles about prehistoric migrations of hg R northwards after the last Ice age.

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

Again read my text, this is not my point of view. The Saami probably migrated northwards prehistorically right after the last ice age carrying several male haplogroups, like hg I and most likely R. It is very unlikely that people with one particular haplogroup migrated northwards in full strength simultaneously like a gathered army. Hg I might have mutated to I1a in the Saami areas. Later on a small fraction of N3 migrated to the same areas and mutated to-> N3a. Much more recently strong and successful hg R and hg N3 men immigrated and the Saami (and also the Finnish) yDNA gene pool changed dramatically. According to Rootsi et.al you can see that unlike any other Scandinavians, the Saami men have a certain frequency of M170 (hg I*) in addition to M253 (hg I1a). This line M170 is very likely a result of newer immigration too.
This is my temporary conclusion.

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.

“Lappland” is a term for a particular county in Finland and the population living there is called Laplanders even if they are Saami or not. The Saami areas did in earlier times stretch to a much larger area, before incoming farmers pushed many of the Saami north-westwards to the areas they live today.

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

They are not bald assertions. If you read the many different research articles studying Saami genes and migration you will see that a few haplogroups have accumulated to extreme frequencies in the Saami population. Read my tread on U5b1 here and you will find references to different articles and there are many more. Most researchers believe that the extreme frequencies of mtDNA hg U5b1 and hg V in the Saami population are bottleneck effects that can be explained by isolation for a long period of possibly thousands of years.

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.

The Saami are not isolated today, but they have been for a long time and earlier in history the Saami areas was stretched from Scandinavia, Kola Peninsula and Finland to Karelia and possible as far as Estonia (where there still are Saami people). For instance, at the south end of Onega and Ladoga lakes there are old remains of the previous Saami culture.

To stress some of the important arguments:

1) There are no observations of old specific motifs in other groups of people than the Saami in Scandinavia, Finland or northwestern Russian areas that can be attributed to early prehistorical migrations.

2) The climate was as harsh in these areas; there are no direct connection between for instance southern Norway and the European continent. If there were other groups of people living in Scandinavia right after the ice age they certainly must have been as isolated as the Saami for a very long period.

3) There is a lack of old geographically traceable specific genetic motifs in other populations present in the referred areas today.’

4) Therefore the other people in present Scandinavia and Finland most probably came here with newer migrations.

5) Additionally it is widely known that we have had quite extensive newer immigrations to Scandinavia. There must have been some around year 0 (according to Thor Heyerdahl et.al) that brought with them for instance yDNA hg J and Q (those are very frequent in Jews and Arabs) and hg R1a from the areas around the Black Sea to the Norwegian genetic pool and possible some mtDNA hg H. Later on the main immigrations that started in the medieval brought with them more European genes like Hg I1c, and more R1b and R1a. Eu19 (M17) most likely came to Norway from the areas around Poland and Hungary. If you read the literature on this stuff you will see that researchers cannot tell when the genes that matches the Germans in the southern Norwegian gene pool migrated to these areas because these genes have no distinct mutations for Scandinavia.

Stop beating about the bush and come up with some real genetic evidence that support your theories of other old populations Scandinavia, Finland and the northwestern Russian areas. So far only the Saami populations have very old markers that are geographically traceable here, and they are not going to send anyone back to their starting points for that reason whether they are hg Q, J, R1a, I1c or newer Kven-immigrants with N3.

__________________________________

[Stevo]

Stevo it seems like your strategy is to try to ”talk down” good arguments, instead of trying to answer them.

When did you present "good arguments"? I must have missed them.

Your "arguments" were bald assertions based on the genetic traits of an isolated minority, the Lapps or Saami.

Besides, from what I have read, even they are 4% R1b and 10% or more R1a.

I cited sources for my arguments.

R1b and R1a are present in such a high proportion that it would take a mass immigration to account for them, if their bearers moved in during the historical period.

There is no record of any such mass immigration, especially not any that you have produced.

Since the sources I cited say that Cro Magnon types moved into Scandinavia (which includes Denmark, BTW) by no later than the Mesolithic Period, and the older skeletons found there are of a different type, that is a pretty good indication that different prehistoric populations went into the making of the Scandinavian people.

To argue that such different peoples were all of one y-haplogroup, or that none of them was R1b, is stretching credulity, especially since you offer no evidence for such an assertion and R1b is so very well represented in Scandinavia.

We are not going to agree.

You offer no realistic or plausible explanations for the high proportion of R1b in Scandinavia. The anthropological and archaeological evidence, as well as the genetic and historical evidence, are against you.

Why you persist in arguing that R1b arrived in Scandinavia during the historical period is beyond me, but I can see that discussing this with you is a waste of my valuable time.

Believe what you will.

[Wena]

Besides, from what I have read, even they are 4% R1b and 10% or more R1a.
I cited sources for my arguments.

Stevo, it does not help to try to kick on me because you lack the genetic evidence for your theories. I have not seen any references to genetic research that found old motifs here in Scandinavia, other than the Saami.
Please send me the name of the articles or the URL's.

You do not seem to have read much on this subject and the Saami are an excellent starting point to try to explain the population of Scandinavia prehistorically.

The Saami have about:
20-22 % hg R1a
7-9 % hg R1b (1% in the Enare Saami)
37-39% hg N3 (55% in the Enare Saami)
17-31% hg I (41% in the Enare Saami)

Numbers are found in an article of Tambets et.al (2004).


__________________________________________________ _____

[Stevo]

Stevo, it does not help to try to kick on me because you lack the genetic evidence for your theories. I have not seen any references to genetic research that found old motifs here in Scandinavia, other than the Saami.
Please send me the name of the articles or the URL's.

You do not seem to have read much on this subject and the Saami are an excellent starting point to try to explain the population of Scandinavia prehistorically.

The Saami have about:
20-22 % hg R1a
7-9 % hg R1b (1% in the Enare Saami)
37-39% hg N3 (55% in the Enare Saami)
17-31% hg I (41% in the Enare Saami)

Numbers are found in an article of Tambets et.al (2004).


__________________________________________________ _____

You have not produced one iota of evidence - genetic or otherwise - that R1b did not arrive in Scandinavia during prehistoric times.

The Lapps (Saami) are an isolated minority in northern Scandinavia. To use them to generalize about the population as a whole and about the history of the entire region is an obvious error. They are not typical Scandinavians, and yet even they show the presence of R1b. 7-9% is not insignificant.

I have produced evidence, and cited my sources, that indicates that several different groups of people moved into Scandinavia following the retreat of the ice, some of them (Cro Magnon types) from the southwest.

Unfortunately, we don't have y-dna from prehistoric skeletons, which is what allows you to maintain your unsupported and unsupportable opinion that all of the R1b in Scandinavia arrived with foreigners during the historical period.

BTW, I didn't "kick on" you. I pointed out the fact that you have not presented arguments, you have presented assertions.

Where is the evidence of a mass migration of foreigners into Scandinavia prior to the 20th century?

[Noaide]

I am not talking about Finland. I have been talking about the prehistoric presence of R1b and R1a in Scandinavia.

N is not present in Scandinavia in anything like the proportion that R1b and R1a are.

Finland is different linguistically, culturally, and genetically from Scandinavia.

Please read again, do I only talk about Finland? In my definition of Scandinavia its border to the continent goes from Finnish bay to the White Sea in Russia.

Anyway when talking about prehistoric presence of R1a, R1b and N3 and its relative propotion a study of the Saami subgroups may be interesting. As I stated before a the native Saami hunter and gathering population is thin and will be quickly outnumbered by agriculturals. If we look at the Saami's hg mix as an estimate of the ancient make up of Scandinavia it would look like this. Remember what we see of hg today in Norway, Sweden and Finland is today after massive immigration to Scandinavia and rapid population increase due to agriculturalism. Any old hg distribution should show on remaining native etnic groups.

Swedish Saami, Swedish national rate in (xx%)

I1a - 31.4% (48.2%)
N3 - 37.1% (6.9%)
R1a - 20% (18.4%)
R1b - 5.7% (22%)

As we are talking about mixes: If Swedish Saami got all their R1a and I1a from the Swedes, why have the Swedish R1b men been so shy with the Saami ladies? Did they know they were R1b? Of course not! We are looking at something else here.

Similar story with the Kildin Saami in Kola Peninsula, Russia, some distance away. Slavic Russian in ()

I1a - 17.4% (13.1% not necessarly I1a all of it)
N3 - 39.1% (8.3%)
R1a - 21.7% (42.6%)
R1b - 8.7% (21.3%)

Also here the Russian R1b men seem to be shy, but we have more. North Russia areas mostly north of Moscow have historically been known to have been mostly by native Finnic-Uralic speakers (Komi, Permians, Veps and so) conquered as late as 1000-1300 AC, the Slavs have not affected this area noticable genetically as we see little R1b or the Slavic mix.

I1a - 20.8%
N3 - 28.6%
R1a - 40.3%
R1b - 0%

So we can see here that there is Finnic-Ugric mix here from North-Russia to Sweden of somewhat equal male hg distributions over a huge area that cannot have been "poluted" much by Norse, Swedes, Finns or Slavs.

This suggest a ancient migration from the east into the whole Scandinavian Penninsula with N3, I1a and R1a.

The Finnish Saami have a bit different story with I1a at 40% and N3 at 55%, and R1a/b at around 4% together. This look similar to the Finnish national distribution but however the Finnish I1a are mostly limited to western Finland while there is extreme values of N3 in northern and eastern Finland where most of the migration to the Finnish Saami's homeland occured from. Also there is evidence using Y-STR analysis that I1a and N3 between the Finns and the Saami is not the same.

Source: Tambets 2004

[Eki]

The Lapps (Saami) are an isolated minority in northern Scandinavia. To use them to generalize about the population as a whole and about the history of the entire region is an obvious error. They are not typical Scandinavians, and yet even they show the presence of R1b. 7-9% is not insignificant.
.
.
.
Where is the evidence of a mass migration of foreigners into Scandinavia prior to the 20th century?

Wena was talking about 1% R1b among Enare Saami.

Greenland Inuits have 4.35% I1a#1, Hispanic-Americans in Connecticut have 1.92% I1a#1 and Afro-Americans in Pennsylvania have 2.33% I1a#10. The percentages are higher than the frequency of R1b among Enare Saami. According to your logic, Stevo, I1a must therefore be an ancient pre-historic haplogroup among those populations:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....i1a_part_1.htm

Have you read about the article about Scots in Sweden? What do you think?