keskiviikko 23. maaliskuuta 2016

Two-fold ancestry of Finnish people

It has been a common idea, especially among linguists, to say that Baltic Finnic languages came from the Volga region, from so called Volga river bend near Samara. It is a carefully cherished tradition in Finnish science, but any movement of people from there to Finland is still without genetic evidences. Now I am going to prove something which contradicts with this idea of the Volga origin of Finns, or at least gives a new view about it.  I'll show a plausible genetic evidence of Volga-Saami connection using the Saami sample (Haak et al. 2015 and Lazaridis et al. 2014), which shows very high similarity with the ancient Eneolithic Samara sample (Mathiesson et al.).

The other half of my Finnish story tells about ancient Central-European influence in Finland.  Around 20% of Finnish samples from the 1000genome project show Corded-Ware similarity comparable to Estonians and Lithuanians, and Western Finnish project samples show equally Corded-Ware similarity with Swedes, some even more, despite of the fact that they are much more "eastern" when compared to present-day Swedes.

This Finnish duality doesn't tell were and when the mixing occurred and so far I have not seen any genetic evidence about the Baltic Finnic origin. It looks very possible that genetically Baltic Finns were born somewhere in region from Estonia to White Sea, no matter what the origin of Baltic Finnish language could have been. 

Saami results

Saamis are genetically closer for Eneolithic Samara people than Mordovians (Mordva) and Chuvashes.   Worth noticing is that Mordovians, who live near Volga are not closer those ancient people living in Samara.  Saami people live thousands kilometers and thousands years away from what was the suggested Volga home range.  Siberian admixture of Chuvashes roughly equals to Saami Siberian.  This statistic has however very limited use, because Saami people are not Central Europeans, but still the statistic shows them being comparable to Central Europeans when compared to ancient East European samples.   What could be the best outcome?

Probably some readers can think that the Eneolithic Samara - Saami - Finnish genetic connection is only based on the amount of Siberian.  It is not true and easily proved false.  Chuvashes and Mansi people (and Komis, not included) with high Siberian admixture are far away from the Eneolithic Samara, definitely not comparable to the Saamis.  Similarly those Finns being closest Eneolithic Samara have less Siberian than Russians living in Archangel and Pinega regions in Russia (look project results).


Only people in northernmost Europe beat Saami_WGA in comparison with Eneolithic Samara.  Have to admit, this is a bit complicated question. Then let's look at another perspective of supposed Finnish ancestry, Corded Ware samples.  It is less complicated.

Corded Ware results







Only Lithuanians beat the Finnish CW-group (20% of Finnish samples from the 1000g project after removing outliers) when the test is done using over half million SNPs.  Even Lithuanians would be beaten with more homogeneous Finnish sample group.  There is all variations from very CW-looking to only moderately CW-looking. They don't look like coming from Volga bend.  Not really.

Then combining Saami and CW results and project members.  To do this I have to use my smaller data base, based on Estonian Biocentre's data.   The accuracy is somewhat poorer.   Numbers show the difference between Eneolithic Samara and German Corded Ware affinities in Finland and in neighboring countries, as well as results for project members.  Using Eneolithic Samara and CW samples the Siberian-like admixture becomes excluded and results show only affinities common for those two groups, even if tested populations or project members have extra Siberian admixture.  It is important to understand that this table alone doesn't tell how much individuals and populations have those two ancient affinities  (it tells only a ratio).  To see the big picture you have to take into account also two previous tables showing how significant is the relation between ancient and modern populations.

Project results


15 kommenttia:

  1. It has been a common idea, especially among linguists, to say that Baltic Finnic languages came from the Volga region, from so called Volga river bend near Samara. It is a carefully cherished tradition in Finnish science, but any movement of people from there to Finland is still without genetic evidences. Now I am going to prove something which contradicts with this idea of the Volga origin of Finns, or at least gives a new view about it. I'll show a plausible genetic evidence of Volga-Saami connection using the Saami sample (Haak et al. 2015 and Lazaridis et al. 2014), which shows very high similarity with the ancient Eneolithic Samara sample (Mathiesson et al.).

    Then how do you explain the more than 5% Siberian Nganasan-type ancestry in the average Finn, which is lacking in the pre-Iron Age Eastern European genomes we have? And how do you explain the lack of Y-DNA haplogroup N in the pre-Iron Age Eastern European genomes we have?

    VastaaPoista
    Vastaukset
    1. I think that ancient N1c1 still waits for unearthing. As far as I know only one ancient N1c1 is found and it was in Belarussia or Lithuania. But it sounds as poor logic to say that N1c1 came from Siberia to Finland and Baltic countries, if we have not found any positive evidences.

      Poista
    2. The Siberian came with people who moved westwards from Siberia to Fennoscandinavia thousands years ago (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573127/ )


      "Results from odontometric analyses suggested a direct genetic continuity between the Mesolithic population of Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov and present-day Saami"

      And if they had a connection with Saami, they should have a connection also with Finns, although in lesser amount.

      I have not those samples, so this is for me still a postulate.

      So, as my results suggest, the Saami people came from Volga to Fenniscandinavia, with very little Siberian admixture. They mixed with those ancient Siberians here in Finland and in Northern Fennoscandinavia.

      Before Saamis the Southernmost Finland was populated by Corded Ware and Germanic people who obviously adopted Finnish language around 1500-1800 years ago.

      Baltic-Finns came to Finland after all aforementioned groups, they were the last big migration flood to Finland. It happened around 2000 years ago.

      So my well-grounded opinion is that almost all Siberian in Finland was here already BEFORE Corded Ware (or at the same time with CW-people), Germanic, Saami and Baltic-Finnish migrations. It didn't come with those four main migrations.

      Poista
    3. Since we have no post-Mesolithic ancient autosomal or Y-DNA result from Finland, Karelia and the Saami lands, there is still a lot of room for speculation. For me, it is obvious from the existing modern and ancient genetic results that both the Nganasan-like ancestry and Y-DNA haplogroup N came to those regions from Siberia. What is not so obvious is when they came.

      Poista
    4. I disagree, but not with the POSSIBILITY of a connection between N1c1. It is possible, but not plausible, otherwise the Lithuanians would have more Siberian admixture than they have. But they have according many testers plain zero! We will never find ancient human remains from Finland, because Finnish soil is very acidic and destroys organic material in 1000 years. It is possible to find in maximum around 2000 years old genetic material, if we are lucky. So the main approach is to study ancient samples from our neighborhood. This was what I did, making conclusions about finds from Kola peninsula, Russian Karelia, Volga region, Estonia, Lithuania etc. There is no evidence about a simple connection between European N1c1 and Siberian admixture.

      People have a tendency to create fallacies about own ydna groups, also in Finland and almost everywhere. This is absolutely irrelevant, but my ydna is I1 and what I am doing is only notice what can be said about N1c1, no matter what people say, even those belonging to the N1c1 :) I don't care about it. I prefer evidences, and we have after we have found ancient lineages of present-day N1c1. Then we have evidences, only then.

      Poista
    5. There is a connection between N1c1 and Siberian admixture in Eastern Europe and Fennocscandia, because there is no other Y-DNA haplogroup to explain the existence of the Siberian admixture there. But that does not mean N1c1 and the Siberian admixture are tightly connected. It has been a very long time since the entry of the Siberian admixture and N1c1 in Eastern Europe, so lots of things must have happened to loosen their connection in Eastern Europe and Fennoscandia, but not to the same extent everywhere. The Baltic countries are the regions where the connection has been broken the most.

      Poista
    6. Probably the connection is not originally between N1c1 and Siberians. For example, Saamis have also other ydna haplogroups, I1 and R1b and also Siberian ydna, which one can be connected to present-day Siberians without doubt. People are not aware of this, because of all this mystery around Saami genes. The most likely scenario is that men belonging to non-Siberian origin married Saami women and all Northern populations have less or more gone through bottle necks spreading out also Siberian admixture via populational expansions. Nothing new here. We have many old narrations about marrying Saami women, even Nordic kings did it if we can believe sagas :) And remember that Finland have not been uninhabited, Saami people lived even in southernmost Finland only 1500 years ago. We just don't know about who lived here in inland before Saamis, who came around 2500 years ago. Linguists tell that we have many toponyms from unknown origins, being neither Saami nor Finnish. Even less from any IE-source.

      Poista
    7. The original connection between Siberian admixture and N1c1 is well known for years, it is not open to dispute.

      http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n2/full/5201748a.html

      Poista
    8. That is an old Str-based study. To make truly convincing conclusions we need SNP's and a proper sampling, including the oldest N-clades found in the Balkans of all places. Yakut N1c is not old and modern Siberians are not ancient peoples.

      There is an old link to Southeast Asia though, as with all subclades of haplogroup K.

      Poista
    9. Using only 17 Str's we can get connections below 1000 years, even if the SNP qualification shows that the bifurcation happened thousands years ago. We have today hundreds SNPs mor than in 2007. We need only ancient ydna, or new studies using all inormation we have today.

      Poista
  2. Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people predate Uralic speakers (Saami and Finnish) in Fennoscandia and likely they carried Siberian admixture. That's the probable earliest source. They came from North Siberia directly, not from Volga.
    http://samenes-historie.origo.no/-/bulletin/print/763551_ukjent-sibirsk-befolkning-funnet-i-3-500-aar-gamle-levninger?ref=checkpoint
    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

    That's why SpaceMix infers Siberian admixture in Finland and Norway from a different source than Northern Russians and Chuvash.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005703.s027
    As did Busby et al's GLOBETROTTER. If it was all from one source, Uralic or not, these differences would not appear.

    Earliest N1c1 in Europe is from Smolensk region in Russia 4500 years ago, and I bet from remains that are very different from Bolshoy people.



    VastaaPoista
    Vastaukset
    1. Yeah, this model explains some hardly explainable questions, like why Lithuanians have zero Siberian admixture despite of high amount of N1c1. We don't know enough of the history of N1c1, some lineages can have had Siberian admixture, but it is only one explanation and it is too early to say what the outcome will be after we have more relevant ancient samples. Today evidences speak about a distinct Siberian source. This should not be an opinion poll, but a proven matter.

      Poista
    2. Earliest N1c1 in Europe is from Smolensk region in Russia 4500 years ago, and I bet from remains that are very different from Bolshoy people.

      Which study is that ancient N1c1 from? Can you give a link?

      Poista
    3. https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Archaeology_of_lake_settlements_IV-II_mill._BC_Mazurkevich_A._Polkovnikova_M._Dolbunova_E._ed

      Page 291.

      Bummer there's no subclade beyond Tat-c or autosomal data which are of crucial importance.

      Poista

English preferred, because readers are international.

No more Anonymous posts. Do not act like folks on poorly moderated forums.