# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Genetic make-up of Europe

## Maciamo

Based on the Distribution of Y-chromosome DNA in Europe, here is a list of countries based on their ethnic percentages.

*Foreword*

*Celts*

There isn't a homogeneous Celtic ethnicity. Pre-Roman Europe had a strong Celtic culture ranging from Central Europe to the British Isles and Iberia. Celtic people can be divided in these rough categories, each associated with a subclade of R1b-S116+ (subclade markers are in brackets) :

- Rhine-Alpine-Italic Celts (S28)
- Scottish Celts (M222)
- Irish Celts (M37)
- Atlantic Celts* (M167)
- Basques (M65, M153)

* Northern Iberia, Western France, Cornwall, Wales.

*Germans*

What people call "Germanic ethnicity" is in fact a mixture of northern continental R1b (S116-, S21+) and I haplogroups (I1 + I2b). In Scandinavia and East Germany, the inclusion of a strong Slavic component (R1a) make them a slightly different ethnicity from the English, Dutch, Belgian or West Germans.

*Slavs*

The original Slavic (or Aryan or Kurgan) people belonged to haplogroup R1a. This haplogroup is also common in Central Asia, Iran and India, thanks to the great Indo-Aryan migrations.

*Greco-Romans*

The Ancient Greeks were an admixture of European and Near-Eastern people. The paternal side shows a strong Near-Eastern component, making modern Greek Y-DNA closer to Turkish, Syrian, Lebanese and even Iraqi one than to that of Western or Northern Europe. According to Y-DNA frequencies observed in Europe, Southern Italy and the Balkans were heavily settled by the Ancient Greeks, or their Neolithic ancestors that did not yet call themselves "Greeks". 

We are still unsure about the original Y-DNA types of the Romans, but due to the proximity of the Greek colonies, and the fact that Etruscans were also of Near Eastern origins, it is likely that the Romans were an admixture of Near-Eastern J2, G2 and E3b with the native Italo-Celtic R1b. As the Romans played a major role in spreading Near-Eastern haplogroups in and north of the Alps, I will refer to the J2-G2-E3b admixture as Greco-Roman, and the Italic R1b just as "Celtic". Haplogroup G2 correlates strongly with the spread of J2 with a ratio of 1 G2 for 3 J2 in average, suggesting that these haplogroups spread together from Anatolia, while the European E3b had a different origin (probably in the Balkans).


*Most Celtic countries in Europe (R1b-S116+)*

Ireland : about 75% of Y-DNASpain & Wales : about 70%Scotland : about 65%France & Portugal : about 55%Italy : about 40%Switzerland, Belgium & England : about 35%Germany : about 25%Netherlands & Denmark : about 20%

*Most Germanic countries in Europe (I1 + I2b + R1b-S116-)*

Netherlands: about 70% of Y-DNASweden : about 65%Denmark : about 58%Norway & Iceland : about 55%England : about 53%Germany : about 40%Belgium : about 38%Austria : about 34%Finland : about 32%Czech Republic : about 26%Switzerland : about 22%France : about 21%Slovakia : about 19%Estonia : about 18%Poland : about 14%

*Most Slavic countries in Europe (R1a + I2a2)*

Belarus & Croatia : about 70% of Y-DNAPoland : about 65%Bosnia : about 63%Ukraine & Russia (historical) : about 55%Slovakia : about 52%Serbia : about 50%Hungary : about 48%Czech Republic & Romania : about 43%Bulgaria : about 38%

*Most Indo-European countries (R1a + R1b)*

Wales : about 84% of Y-DNAIreland : about 82%Scotland : about 80%Poland : about 73%Spain : about 72%England : about 71%Iceland & Belgium : about 65%Netherlands & Germany : about 60%

*Most Paleolithic European (Cro-Magnon) countries (I1 + I2)*

Croatia : about 51% of Y-DNASweden : about 44%Norway & Bulgaria : about 37%Denmark : about 36%Serbia : about 35%Iceland : about 33%Belarus & Finland : about 29%Netherlands & Hungary : about 25%Czech Republic : about 24%England, Germany & Romania : about 21%Belgium : about 20%

*Most Greco-Balkanic (or Near Eastern) countries in Europe (E-M78 + T + J + G2a)*

Greece : about 58% of Y-DNAAlbania : about 48%Turkey : about 45%Italy : about 40%Macedonia Portugal : about 38%Romania : about 33%Austria & Bulgaria : about 30%Switzerland : about 25%Hungary : about 22%France : about 20%Germany : about 16%

*Most Uralo-Finnic countries in Europe (N1c1)*

Finland : about 60% of Y-DNALatvia & Lithuania : about 40%Estonia : about 35%Russia (historical) : about 23%Sweden : about 7%


-------------------

Here are a few ethnic combinations (must have at least 20% of each). I use the term "Greek" or "Greco-" as an abbreviation to mean "Near-Eastern" (actually Levant + Anatolia + Greece + Balkans), i.e. the people associated with the early farming. 

*Most Greco-Celtic countries* (R1b + E + T + G2a + J2)

Portugal : about 90% of Y-DNAItaly : about 82%France : about 75%Switzerland : about 60%

*Most Italo-Celto-Germanic countries* (R1b + I)

Netherlands : about 95% of Y-DNAIreland & Wales : about 90%England & Scotland : about 85%Belgium : about 78%Denmark & France : about 75%Germany : about 65%Switzerland : about 58%Italy : about 55%

*Most Slavo-Germanic countries*

Iceland : about 95% of Y-DNASweden & Norway : about 85%Czech Republic : about 72%Austria & Slovakia : about 65%

*Most Greco-Slavic countries*

Ukraine : about 85% of Y-DNASerbia & Greece : about 80%Albania & Bulgaria : about 77%Romania : about 70%Hungary : about 65%Austria : about 60%

*Most Uralo-Slavic countries*

Lithuania : about 85% of Y-DNALatvia & Russia : about 80%Estonia : about 70%

----------


## Maciamo

Here is a map of major ethnic groups in Europe mostly based on Y-DNA (as well as some anthropologic maps). There are three kinds of regions on the map :

1) single ethnicity : over 50&#37; of the Y-DNA matches an ethnic group (e.g. Ireland = Celtic)
2) two dominant ethnicities : at least 20% of Y-DNA from each ethnicity totalling over 50% of the population.
3) three dominant ethnicities : at least 20% of Y-DNA from each ethnicity totalling over 50% of the population.

----------


## Joro

I2a is not Slavic,it has not been brought by Slavs,it is indigenous to Balkans.R1a is Slavic,therefore most Slavic are Poland,Russia,Ukraine,Czech etc....
Croats and Bosniaks are gentically indigenous.

----------


## Maciamo

> I2a is not Slavic,it has not been brought by Slavs,it is indigenous to Balkans.R1a is Slavic,therefore most Slavic are Poland,Russia,Ukraine,Czech etc....
> Croats and Bosniaks are gentically indigenous.


That's correct. I have mentioned that in the description of European haplogroups. For the sake of simplicity (to avoid confusing novice readers) and I considered ethnic groups here as being modern ethnicities, not ancient ones. Modern ethnic groups are the admixtures I described above.

----------


## Joro

But it is little inappropriate then to make a list of 'most Slavic' countries.what should that mean?only logical to me would be that they carry Slavic original haplogroup the most,so this is confusing.

----------


## Joro

well,it doesn't matter.being called dinaric,slavic or pocahontas,it won't magically influence the good old I2a :Laughing:

----------


## Maciamo

> But it is little inappropriate then to make a list of 'most Slavic' countries.what should that mean?only logical to me would be that they carry Slavic original haplogroup the most,so this is confusing.


It's not inappropriate if you think of modern ethnicities as admixtures. R1a alone could be Central Asian, not necessarily Slavic. What makes them distinctively Slavic is that R1a mixed with the native East European I2 (+ E-V13, G2a, J2b and T, which I will call the "Thessalian Neolithic farmer admixture").

I think it is even clearer with R1b. R1b alone is Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic. Germanic people came to exist as a distinct ethnicity when R1b mixed with I1 and R1a in Scandinavia. Italic split from Celtic once they moved to Italy and mix with the people of the Terramare culture (I2, E, G2a, J2). The Celtic ethnicity is the most closely linked to a high percentage of R1b, but also include some I2, as well as a few percents of E, G2a and J2b of Neolithic origin (much less than the Italic branch). The proportion of E-G-J is lower in the British Isles than in Central Europe. 

In other words, what distinguishes the various Italo-Celtic branches is the total percentage of E-G-J admixture to the R1b-I2 component. Insular Celts have the lowest E-G-J and Italics the highest, with Gaulish/Hallstatt and Iberian Celts in the middle.

You can't distinguish later ethnic groups without using admixtures. Looking only at R1b or R1a gives you Indo-Europeans, not actual Slavs, Celts, Germans and Italics.

----------


## JackMack

> Based on the Distribution of Y-chromosome DNA in Europe, here is a list of countries based on their ethnic percentages.
> 
> *Foreword*
> 
> *Celts*
> 
> There isn't a homogeneous Celtic ethnicity. Pre-Roman Europe had a strong Celtic culture ranging from Central Europe to the British Isles and Iberia. Celtic people can be divided in these rough categories, each associated with a subclade of R1b-S116+ (subclade markers are in brackets) :
> 
> - Rhine-Alpine-Italic Celts (S28)
> ...


 I though that the Cro Magnons were derived from the IJ Haplogroup- isn't that both I and J Y-DNA Haplogroups or at least I with a kinship to J? :Thinking:

----------


## Ua'Ronain

Have they even been able to do a Y DNA test on any Cro Magnons? I didnt think they have, possibly they have pulled mtdna but I have never heard of y-dna test results. If it is a theory I just wondered where I could find information about the subject.

----------


## Maciamo

You are right, Cro-Magnon Y-DNA hasn't been tested yet.

----------


## JackMack

I found the following and thought it was interesting....
For review: http://www.continuitas.com/intro.html
Haplogroup I (Y-DNA)
I is the oldest haplogroup in Europe and in all probability the only one that originated there (apart from deep subclades of other haplogroups). It is thought to have arrived from the Middle East as haplogroup IJ around 35,000 years ago, and developed into haplogroup I approximately 25,000 years ago. This means that Cro-Magnons most probably belonged (exclusively ?) to IJ or I. Nowadays haplogroup I accounts for 10 to 45% of the population in most of Europe. It is divided in four main subclades. 
The megalithic structures (5000-1200 BCE) of Europe were built by I people.

----------


## JackMack

There are a lot of theories regarding the Neolithic contribution to European genetics. I'm curious for others' thoughts:

*Genetics of the Neolithic*

Main article: Genetic history of Europe




> Archaeologists agree that the technologies associated with agriculture originated in the Levant/Near East and then spread into Europe. However, debate exists whether this resulted from an active migratory process from the Near East, or merely due to cultural contact between Europeans and Near Easterners. Currently, three models summarize the proposed pattern of spread:[5]
> 1. Replacement model: posits that there was a significant migration of farmers from the Fertile Crescent into Europe. Given their technological advantages, they would have displaced or absorbed the less numerous hunter-gathering populace. Thus, modern Europeans are primarily descended from these Neolithic farmers. 2. Cultural diffusion: in contrast, this model supposes that agriculture reached Europe by way of a flow of ideas and trade between the Mesolithic European population and Anatolian farmers. There was not net increase in migration during this process, and therefore, modern Europeans are descended from the "original" Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. 3. Pioneer model: recognises that models 1) and 2) above may represent false dichotomies. This model postulates that there was an initial, small scale migration of farmers from the Near East to certain regions of Europe. They might have enjoyed localized demographic expansions due to social advantages. The subsequent spread of farming technologies throughout the rest of Europe was then carried out by Mesolithic Europeans who acquired new skill through trade and cultural interaction. Genetic studies have been utilised in the study of pre-historic population movements. On the whole, scientists agree that there is evidence for a migration during the Neolithic. However, they cannot agree on the extent of this movement. The conclusions of studies appear to be 'operator dependent'. That is, results vary depending on what underlying mutation rates are assumed, and conclusions are drawn from how the authors 'envisage' their results fit with known archaeological and historic processes. Consequently, such studies must be interpreted with caution.
>  
> Cavalli-Sforza's first principal component
> 
> 
> Perhaps the first scholar to posit a large-scale Neolithic migration, based on genetic evidence, was Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. By applying principal component analysis to data from "classical genetic markers" (protein polymorphisms from ABO blood groups, HLA loci, immunglobulins, etc), Cavalli-Sforza discovered interesting clues about the genetic makeup of Europeans. Although being very genetically homogeneous, several patterns did exist.[6] The most important one was a north-western to south-eastern cline with a Near Eastern focus. Accounting for 28% of the overall genetic diversity in the European samples in his study, he attributed the cline to the spread of agriculture from the Middle East circa 10,000 to 6,000 years ago[7].
> Cavalli-Sforza's explanation of demic diffusions stipulated that the clines were due to the population expansion of neolithic farmers into a scarcely populated, hunter-gathering Europe, with little initial admixture between agriculturalists and foragers. The predicted route for this spread would have been from Anatolia to central Europe via the Balkans. However, given that the time depths of such patterns are not known, “associating them with particular demographic events is usually speculative”.[8] Apart from a demic Neolithic migration, the clines may also be compatible with other demographic scenarios (Barbujani and Bartorelle 2001), such as the initial Palaeolithic expansion, the Mesolithic (post-glacial) re-expansions.[9], or later (historic) colonizations.[10]
> Studies using direct DNA evidence have produced varying results. A notable proponent of Cavalli-Sforza's demic diffusion scenario is Chikhi. In his 1998 study, utilising polymorphic loci from seven hypervariable autosomal DNA loci, an autocorrelation analysis produced a clinal pattern closely matching that in Cavalli-Sforza’s study. He calculated that the separation times were no older than 10,000 years. “The simplest interpretation of these results is that the current nuclear gene pool largely reflects the westward and northward expansion of a Neolithic group”.[11].
> ...

----------


## Joro

maciamo,from which studies is that y-dna table you showed me derived?

----------


## Maciamo

> maciamo,from which studies is that y-dna table you showed me derived?


There are many sources, some unpublished, some gathered on public databases, but for the most part they are from major studies such as those listed here. The list isn't exhaustive, and also includes other studies used in references by these ones. If I had to list everything there would be several pages, so I tried to abridge. For examples Dienekes' blog alone has hundreds of references. I obviously wasn't going to spend numerous hours just to copy the links that were already on his website. Waste of time.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

I'm sure recent research has led to changes in haplogroup figures.

----------


## javonoL21

> I found the following and thought it was interesting....
> For review: 
> Haplogroup I (Y-DNA)
> I is the oldest haplogroup in Europe and in all probability the only one that originated there (apart from deep subclades of other haplogroups). It is thought to have arrived from the Middle East as haplogroup IJ around 35,000 years ago, and developed into haplogroup I approximately 25,000 years ago. This means that Cro-Magnons most probably belonged (exclusively ?) to IJ or I. Nowadays haplogroup I accounts for 10 to 45% of the population in most of Europe. It is divided in four main subclades. 
> The megalithic structures (5000-1200 BCE) of Europe were built by I people.


Haplogroup R moved into Europe at the same time as I, 35 thousand years ago from Western Asia or Eastern Europe, I had a symbiotic relationship with R, Haplogroup I where camp followers similar to dogs, they realized they could make a living from the scraps of food we aRyan's discarded. LOL This is only a joke.  :Laughing:  

But R did move into Western Europe 30 -35 thousand years ago and found refuge in the Basque region synomously with Haplogroup I when the last ice age occured, this Ice Age is what brought about the diversity in both Haplogroups. The I and R's that where in Spain became different from the more eastern peoples. R1A is only 15 thousand years old and sprung from the Ukrainian refuge, this diversity was created by separation from the western R1B because of the last glacial maximum.

----------


## Maciamo

> Haplogroup R moved into Europe at the same time as I, 35 thousand years ago from Western Asia or Eastern Europe, I had a symbiotic relationship with R, Haplogroup I where camp followers similar to dogs, they realized they could make a living from the scraps of food we aRyan's discarded. LOL This is only a joke.  
> 
> But R did move into Western Europe 30 -35 thousand years ago and found refuge in the Basque region synomously with Haplogroup I when the last ice age occured, this Ice Age is what brought about the diversity in both Haplogroups. The I and R's that where in Spain became different from the more eastern peoples. R1A is only 15 thousand years old and sprung from the Ukrainian refuge, this diversity was created by separation from the western R1B because of the last glacial maximum.


R could hardly have been in Europe 30,000 years ago. All the oldest subclades of R are found in Central Asia and the Middle East. R2 is exclusively Central/South Asian.

----------


## javonoL21

I cannot post URL's yet, but the Aurignacian culture began around 40,000 to 35,000 and is located in France in Europe and South West Asia, since Haplogroup I holds on to hte claim of originating in Europe they could not of been Aurignacian, this culture is from Haplogroup R.

----------


## Haganus

But what are the proves that the people of the Aurignac culture had the haplogroup
R1B? Only because the haplogroup R1b abounds in the areas where the Basks lived?
It also is thought that the Aurignac men had red hair and blue eyes, because the
Irish have red hair and the same skull shape as the Aurignac men did. 
Please can you give some proves that the Aurignac men had the haplogroup R1b?

----------


## javonoL21

> But what are the proves that the people of the Aurignac culture had the haplogroup
> R1B? Only because the haplogroup R1b abounds in the areas where the Basks lived?
> It also is thought that the Aurignac men had red hair and blue eyes, because the
> Irish have red hair and the same skull shape as the Aurignac men did. 
> Please can you give some proves that the Aurignac men had the haplogroup R1b?


I never said R1B, I said R.

----------


## Maciamo

> I cannot post URL's yet, but the Aurignacian culture began around 40,000 to 35,000 and is located in France in Europe and South West Asia, since Haplogroup I holds on to hte claim of originating in Europe they could not of been Aurignacian, this culture is from Haplogroup R.


The current estimates for the age of R is about 28,000 years old. R split from P about 30,000 years ago, which itself split from NOP 35,000 years ago.

Considering that haplogroups N is mainly found in Siberia, O in East Asia, P in Central Asia, and Q from the Middle East and Central Asia to the Americas, it is extremely doubtful that R appeared in Europe. The most likely place is Central Asia. 

I have explained that in the history of R1b. You can visualise this on the R1b migration map.

Even haplogroup K, parent of NOP, L and T, probably originated somewhere between the Middle East and Central Asia. This would explain the dispersal of N, O, P and Q around Asia, and the presence of L in South Asia. T is a back migration to North-East Africa, probably through the Arabian peninsula.

People of Aurignacian culture must have belonged either to haplogroup IJ (the main haplogroup in Paleolithic Europe and Middle East) or to an extinct haplogroup. All the evidence is consistent with a development of R1 and R2 in Central Asia, then a spread of R1a to the Eurasian steppes, and of R1b to Anatolia via the (northern) Middle East. Typically European subclades of R1b (R1b-S28, R1b-L21, R1b-M167) have a coalescence time of around 4500 to 5000 years ago, except R1b-S21 which is even younger (around 3500 years old).

----------


## javonoL21

> The current estimates for the age of R is about 28,000 years old. R split from P about 30,000 years ago, which itself split from NOP 35,000 years ago.


^
^
This is what you say, whereas a Doctor of of Science says,
V
V
V
"
Y-DNA Haplogroup R is perhaps the most prominent Y-DNA lineage on Earth today. The date for its origin is in the Paleolithic Era, 35-40kya.

The origin of Haplogroup R dates to 30-35kya in the Paleolithic Era and Pleistocene Epoch. Its entry into Europe at this point coincides with the spread of the Aurignacian culture across Eurasia. Haplogroup R is further linked with the spread of proto-Indo-European languages that took hold as the early languages in large portions of Europe and Asia. 
"

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Based on the Distribution of Y-chromosome DNA in Europe, here is a list of countries based on their ethnic percentages.
> 
> *Foreword*
> 
> *Celts*
> 
> There isn't a homogeneous Celtic ethnicity. Pre-Roman Europe had a strong Celtic culture ranging from Central Europe to the British Isles and Iberia. Celtic people can be divided in these rough categories, each associated with a subclade of R1b-S116+ (subclade markers are in brackets) :
> 
> - Rhine-Alpine-Italic Celts (S28)
> ...


I believe some of this figures require revision.

----------


## Maciamo

> ^
> ^
> This is what you say, whereas a Doctor of of Science says,
> V
> V
> V
> "
> Y-DNA Haplogroup R is perhaps the most prominent Y-DNA lineage on Earth today. The date for its origin is in the Paleolithic Era, 35-40kya.
> 
> ...


No, this is what the ISOGG says (they are the reference in terms of Y-DNA haplogroups and age estimates) :




> Y-DNA haplogroup R is believed to have arisen approximately 27,000 years ago in Asia. The two currently defined subclades are R1 and R2.
> 
> * Haplogroup R1 is estimated to have arisen during the height of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), about 18,500 years ago, most likely in southwestern Asia.


What are *your* sources ?

----------


## secherbernard

> ^
> ^
> This is what you say, whereas a Doctor of of Science says,
> V
> V
> V
> "
> Y-DNA Haplogroup R is perhaps the most prominent Y-DNA lineage on Earth today. The date for its origin is in the Paleolithic Era, 35-40kya.
> 
> ...


Javolno, this is the old R theory, but it seems now this old theory is obsolete...
R1 is now considered to have originated 18,500 BP (see Karafet 2008) and R1b is now supposed to have entered in Europe with Indo european migrations.

Bernard

----------


## Sirius2b

> That's correct. I have mentioned that in the description of European haplogroups. For the sake of simplicity (to avoid confusing novice readers) and I considered ethnic groups here as being modern ethnicities, not ancient ones. Modern ethnic groups are the admixtures I described above.


This information is simply fantastic. 

(I am a novice in this theme of Genealogical DNA, and I wish I would have seen it before). 

You have given here a whole and ordered introduction to the theme. And if you delve, you can go down to the full description of the terms, the technics involved, almost to sequencing itself. 

This is what I was looking for! 

Many, many thanks.

----------


## Chris

> This information is simply fantastic. 
> 
> (I am a novice in this theme of Genealogical DNA, and I wish I would have seen it before). 
> 
> You have given here a whole and ordered introduction to the theme. And if you delve, you can go down to the full description of the terms, the technics involved, almost to sequencing itself. 
> 
> This is what I was looking for! 
> 
> Many, many thanks.


I couldn't agree more. As a novice myself, I've only been delving into this subject for six months or so, and have yet to find any web-based information that even comes close. Full marks to Maciamo and a great festive season to all.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

Found a map for E1b1b1a2 distribution in Europe.

----------


## maltesekid

e is supposed to be ultimatly from the horn and ethiopia and then evolved into balkanic e subclade and north african e subclades etc! e is ethiopid in origin! ethiopids left east africa and evolved into east mediterranean balkan greeks and the berbers of northwest africa this is looking at the male side only though

----------


## Maciamo

This thread needs some updating. After realising that G2a probably came to Europe along with the Indo-Europeans during the Bronze Age, I now think that it would make more sense to list G2a as Indo-European too, along with R1a and R1b. It's actually Caucasian, but since the limit between the steppe, north Anatolian and Caucasian cultures isn't clear, and the two groups were obviously very connected, it's not a bad idea to merge them. In that case, the most Indo-European countries based on Y-DNA percentages are :

Wales 88%Ireland 83%Scotland 81.5%Poland 75%Spain 74%England 73%France 68.5%Belgium 67.5%Germany 65.5%(Southern-Central Russia 65%)Iceland 65%Portugal 64%Slovakia 64%Switzerland 63%Netherlands 62%Czech Republic 61%Italy 58.5%Denmark 58%Ukraine 58%Austria 57%Norway 56%Belarus 55%Hungary 54.5%Russia 53%Latvia 52%Georgia 51%Romania 45%Sweden 45%Lithuania 43%Estonia 40%Croatia 38%Turkey 33.5%Bulgaria 33%Iran 33%Greece 27.5%Albania 27%Syria 26.5%Serbia 23%Cyprus 21%Iraq 20.5%Bosnia 19%Lebanon 14.5%Finland 11%

Russia ranks low because it has a significant Uralic population (N1c1). Ukraine and Georgia rank low because of of the Middle Eastern influence (J2, E1b1b, T) but also Central Asian haplogroups (Q, P, K, F, C3). Ukraine, Belarus and Russia also inherited from a lot of Carpathian I2a2, which I think could have come from the integration of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture to the Corded Ware culture. Poland is therefore more representative of the Bronze-Age northern steppe population. 

Now that I have added the frequencies for mtdna U subclades I would like to rank countries by percentage of Indo-European haplogroups. The problem is that many mtDNA haplogroups are found both in Paleolithic Europeans and Indo-Europeans, since after all they are all Europeans. This is the case of haplogroup H, V and U5. Besides K and T were surely part of the main IE haplogroups, but also among Neolithic immigrants from the Near-East. The only haplogroups for which we can be relatively (but not absolutely) confident that they are of Pontic-Caspian and/or Caucasian (i.e. Indo-European) origin are U2, U3, U4, I, W and X2. The ranking below will be based on these 6 haplogroups, but is therefore lower than the real percentage of Indo-European origin. H, V and U5 can _potentially_ add over 50% to the total of each country (more likely something like 20 to 30%).

(Adygea/North Caucasus 43%)(Bashkirs/Volga-Ural 27%)Latvia 23%Bulgaria 22.5%Denmark 17.5%Finland 17.5%Slovenia 17%Serbia 16.5%Lithuania 14.5%Russia 14%Poland 13.5%Macedonia 13.5%Czech Republic 13.5%Netherlands 13.5%Portugal 13.5%Sweden 13%Scotland 12.5%Estonia 12.5%France 12.5%Italy 12.5%Ireland 12%Croatia 12%Ukraine 11.5%Austria 11.5%Romania 11%Norway 11%England 10.5%Switzerland 10.5%Greece 10.5%Germany 10%Spain 10%Albania 10%Wales 8.5%Belgium 8%


MtDNA is much more evenly widespread and patterns do not emerge based on this selection. It will in all likelihood be clearer once H, V, T, U5 and K subclades can be taken into consideration. Furthermore the data for whole countries is not always reliable. There are huge regional variations in countries that have been studied in detail like Spain, Croatia or Russia. 

The data I found for the subclades of U is based on small sample size (hence prone to bias) for most countries except Ireland, the Balkans, Poland, Latvia and Finland. Data was particularly sparse for Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria and the Czech Republic, and I couldn't find anything at all for Hungary.

The *Bashkirs* of the Volga-Ural region (where horses were first domesticate and the war chariot invented) have 18%. However they have 34% of Mongoloid mtDNA (A, C, D, F1, G, M7, M8a, N9a, Y). On the Y-chromosome side, the Bashkirs have 73% of R1 (R1a1a + R1b1b1 + R1b1b2) and 25% of Mongoloid haplogroups (C3, N, O). In other words, if we exclude the later Mongoloid admixture, the Y-DNA is almost 100% R1a and R1b, with just a little bit of I, G2a, E1b1b, J2 and T. Applying the same process to mtDNA (multiplying by 3/2) the percentage passes from 18% to *27%*, including 22.5% of U4.

The Republic of *Adygea* in the North Caucasus (matching roughly the geographic location of the Maykop culture) would rank first in the list with 37.5% of the 6-haplogroup admixture. They have one of the highest percentage of mtDNA T (16%), also linked to the Indo-Europeans. If we recalculate the percentages by excluding the 15% of Mongoloid and Central Asian mtDNA, the Adygei would have *43%* of the U2-U3-U4-I-W-X admixture.

----------


## Maciamo

Mtdna haplogroup T could potentially be an important Indo-European marker. Its highest frequencies are found around the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus, and its settlement patterns undeniably match the Indo-European migrations, covering all Europe, with enclaves in Central Asia and India as well as in Xinjiang and southern Siberia.

Here is an alternative ranking using the same mtDNA admixture as above + T.


(Adygea/North Caucasus 61.5%)Latvia 32%(Bashkirs/Volga-Ural 31.5%)Denmark 29.5%Bulgaria 29%Netherlands 27.5%Sweden 25.5%Poland 25%Lithuania 24.5%Czech Republic 24.5%Macedonia 24.5%Italy 24.5%Portugal 24.5%Ireland 24%Scotland 24%Switzerland 24%France 24%Russia 24%Slovenia 23%Norway 22%England 21.5%Finland 21.5%Serbia 21.5%Germany 21%Greece 20.5%Estonia 20.5%Austria 20%Croatia 19.5%Wales 19.5%Romania 19%Ukraine 18.5%Belgium 18%Spain 18%Albania 16.5%

It does look more correct, but still far from perfect due to the absence of H, V and U5.

----------


## Wilhelm

How is that the place were indoeuropeans came from, the Pontic Steppes, only about 10% of R1b is found ?

----------


## Maciamo

> How is that the place were indoeuropeans came from, the Pontic Steppes, only about 10% of R1b is found ?


Because most of them migrated ! One particularity of prehistoric/ancient steppe nomads is that they didn't stay in place because they didn't have cities or towns and most of them didn't practice any form of agriculture (they tried it a bit during the Pontic Neolithic but gave it up in favour of exclusive herding because the steppe climate wasn't well suited to primitive farming). Therefore it's easy for them not to leave much evidence of their passage behind them, archaeological or genetic. The North Caucasus was more settled so more evidence remained.

The people living in the Pontic-Caspian region now mostly descend from later arrivals from the northern forest-steppe and from Central Asia. I made a list in 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe. I am not sure which group was the last to be predominantly R1b, but I'd say either the southern Yamna people or the Cimmerians. It is pretty much certain that the Scythians and Sarmatians were already in great majority R1a1 because 1) they came from Central Asia and 2) ancient Scythian Y-DNA has been tested and was constantly R1a1.

The strong incidence of I2a2 (with a tint of E1b1b, J2 and T) in modern Ukraine, Belarus and central European Russia is most probably a remnant of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people, who had developed the largest towns on earth (bigger than in Mesopotamia or Egypt) around 4000-3500 BCE. They were absorbed by the steppe people to form the Globular amphora culture, then progressively dispersed around the region for the last 5500 years. Their genetic impact is important because they maintained a huge population in hundreds of towns in modern Moldova and the western half of Ukraine.

----------


## RACHEL WALL

I know im not allergic to anything and i can pretty much eat anything.. I also know that i cannot have too much intake of sugars and salts as diabetes runs in my family as well as high blood pressure and cholesterol..

----------


## Catchabus

*Genetic Structure of the Spanish Population:* 
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/05...opulation.html




> In general, the Spanish population is similar to the Western and Northern Europeans, but has a more diverse haplotypic structure. Moreover, the Spanish population is also largely homogeneous within itself, although patterns of micro-structure may be able to predict locations of origin from distant regions.

----------


## windy138

Thank for your sharing

----------


## Anatolian

Interesting. I am Anatolian born and raised in a place called Bogazliyan between Yozgat and Kayseri so at the direct middle of Turkey and Anatolia. I always wonderd why me and my fam. looked liked Greeks and also from the people of the Balkans..

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> In Scandinavia and East Germany, the inclusion of a strong Slavic component (R1a) make them a slightly different ethnicity from the English, Dutch, Belgian or West Germans.


Recently there have been some discussions in the German media wether East and West Germans are two ethnic groups. There was a hot topic especially job discrimination and if East Germans form a distinct ethnicity. Of course it was primarly meant on a cultural bases, but this gives a completly new view on it *lol*

I know it's pure chance, but it is really amazing to see how the former East and West German border matches roughly with the predominental distribution of Y-DNA. I'm just waiting for the tabloids to discover this, haha  :Laughing:

----------


## Taranis

East and West Germans, two ethnic groups?! That is silly.  :Laughing: 

Actually, the R1a component is not necessarily Slavic. Granted, the West Slavic peoples migrated into the area of modern Eastern Germany during the migrations period, however in the area probably R1a was already abundantly present since the Corded Ware culture. Also, Scandinavian R1a arrived there probably with the Battle Axe culture (offshot of Corded Ware). Basically, R1a in eastern Germany could be easily of both Germanic or Slavic origin. But it's a bit hard to tell (I don't know much about subclades of R1a, that might shed some light though).

Genetically, there's much more of a north-south difference in Germany than an east-west one, with Germanic influence (I1, R1b-U106, R1a) in the north and Celtic influence (R1b-P312) in the south and the extreme west. R1a was also probably enriched by the Slavic migrations. Modern Germany was probably also enriched by Haplogroup N as a result of the post-WWII explusions from historic eastern Germany, since the original population of East Prussia was of Baltic descend.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

Hmm, that's really interesting, I've never read it that detailed. How much genetic impact do you think did the East Colonization of the Holy Roman Empire have during the Middle Ages in the area of modern eastern Germany?


(Neues von Thilo Sarrazin (jetzt holt er schon wieder wieder aus): "Süddeutschland schafft sich ab; Norddeutsche tragen ein bestimmtes Gen in sich" *lol*)

----------


## Carlitos

E-V22 is the predominant subclade in the Levant and is therefore associated with the Phoenicians and Jews. It is also common in Egypt, where it might have originated. The Phoenicians spread E-V22 to Sicily, Sardinia, southern Spain and the Maghreb, and the Jews to Spain and Italy. Approximately half of Spanish and Italian E are V-22 (Jewish-Phoenician), and the other half V-13 (Greek).

I thought the V22 originated in northern Syria.

----------


## Wilhelm

> E-V22 is the predominant subclade in the Levant and is therefore associated with the Phoenicians and Jews. It is also common in Egypt, where it might have originated. The Phoenicians spread E-V22 to Sicily, Sardinia, southern Spain and the Maghreb, and the Jews to Spain and Italy. Approximately half of Spanish and Italian E are V-22 (Jewish-Phoenician), and the other half V-13 (Greek).
> 
> I thought the V22 originated in northern Syria.


That's completely wrong. The E-V22 in Spain is found at only 0.06% and most of the E in Iberia is of type E-M81, the second one being E-M35. The phoenicians had a very little impact in Iberia.

----------


## Carlitos

It is less if your home is European in the Middle East rather than in India?

----------


## Wilhelm

> It is less if your home is European in the Middle East rather than in India?


Sorry, I don't understand. Habla en español.

----------


## Retroqqq

> Here is a map of major ethnic groups in Europe mostly based on Y-DNA (as well as some anthropologic maps). There are three kinds of regions on the map :
> 1) single ethnicity : over 50% of the Y-DNA matches an ethnic group (e.g. Ireland = Celtic)
> 2) two dominant ethnicities : at least 20% of Y-DNA from each ethnicity totalling over 50% of the population.
> 3) three dominant ethnicities : at least 20% of Y-DNA from each ethnicity totalling over 50% of the population.


hey guys
In the map that now is moved to trivia. Everything seems fine except one thing.
You don't indicate any significant Slavic admixture in the Eastern part of Germany.
Why is that?

Also England, of 67% R1B, 35% is (R1b-S116+) and 32% is (R1b-S116-)?

----------


## Retroqqq

Also you include England mostly in the Germanic group. I found some articles that claim that everybody in the British Isles has majority Basque or Iberian DNA.
Thats confusing.

Please explain.

----------


## Taranis

> Also you include England mostly in the Germanic group. I found some articles that claim that everybody in the British Isles has majority Basque or Iberian DNA.
> Thats confusing.
> Please explain.


It must be older articles/statements. It was originally thought that R1b originated on the Iberian penninsula, and spread from there after the last glacial max, and hence the idea that the English are descended from Basques/Iberians. However it was later realized that R1b arrived in Europe only relatively recently. There is also a lot of discrepancy in the various subclades of R1b, meaning that the English are, after all, not _that_ closely related with the Basques, anyways.

----------


## Carlitos

The news I read on the subject of the English and their genetic connection with the Iberian peninsula, the region of Cantabria, rather than with Basques, if I remember correctly.

----------


## Retroqqq

> It must be older articles/statements. It was originally thought that R1b originated on the Iberian penninsula, and spread from there after the last glacial max, and hence the idea that the English are descended from Basques/Iberians. However it was later realized that R1b arrived in Europe only relatively recently. There is also a lot of discrepancy in the various subclades of R1b, meaning that the English are, after all, not _that_ closely related with the Basques, anyways.


its from Stephen Oppenheimer:

In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."

"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

In page 367 Oppenheimer states in relation to Zoë H Rosser's pan-European genetic distance map:

"In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and then northern France."

maybe he was wrong?

----------


## Taranis

Let's say that Stephen Oppenheimer was very wrong. As I said, it was originally thought that R1b originated in the Iberian penninsula during the last ice age, however it is nowadays thought that R1b arrived in Europe only 8000-4000 years ago. 

Also, Oppenheimer was unaware of the vast differences in the R1b subclades. The claim that the dominance of R1b in Britain "invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout" theory is also wrong, since there's a huge difference between the R1b subclades U-106 (associated with the Germanic peoples, accumulated in England by the Anglo-Saxon invasion) and the subclade M-153 (associated with Basques). There's also a difference between the various Celtic R1b subclades and U-106.

Also, I am afraid to say this, Oppenheimer is an eccentric, and based on his (outdated) finding he formed some very crazy ideas, including the idea that the English "have always been there", and that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period, which of course is totally ludicrous.

----------


## Retroqqq

> Let's say that Stephen Oppenheimer was very wrong. As I said, it was originally thought that R1b originated in the Iberian penninsula during the last ice age, however it is nowadays thought that R1b arrived in Europe only 8000-4000 years ago. 
> 
> Also, Oppenheimer was unaware of the vast differences in the R1b subclades. The claim that the dominance of R1b in Britain "invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout" theory is also wrong, since there's a huge difference between the R1b subclades U-106 (associated with the Germanic peoples, accumulated in England by the Anglo-Saxon invasion) and the subclade M-153 (associated with Basques). There's also a difference between the various Celtic R1b subclades and U-106.
> 
> Also, I am afraid to say this, Oppenheimer is an eccentric, and based on his (outdated) finding he formed some very crazy ideas, including the idea that the English "have always been there", and that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period, which of course is totally ludicrous.


What about Bryan Sykes:

In his 2006 book Blood of the Isles (published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), Sykes examines British genetic "clans". He presents evidence from mitochondrial DNA, inherited by both sexes from their mothers, and the Y chromosome, inherited by men from their fathers, for the following points:
The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon. In continental Europe, this same Cro-Magnon genetic legacy gave rise to the Basques. But both "Basque" and "Celt" are cultural designations not genetic ones and therefore to call a Celt "Basque" or a Basque "Celtic", is a fallacy.
The contribution of the Celts of central Europe to the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland was minimal; most of the genetic contribution to the British Isles of those we think of as Celtic, came from western continental Europe, I.E. the Atlantic seaboard.
The Picts were not a separate people: the genetic makeup of the formerly Pictish areas of Scotland shows no significant differences from the general profile of the rest of Britain.
The Anglo-Saxons are supposed, by some, to have made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes's opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.
The Vikings (Danes and Norwegians) also made a substantial contribution, which is concentrated in central, northern, and eastern England - the territories of the ancient Danelaw. There is a very heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of 40 percent. Women as well as men contributed substantially in all these areas, showing that the Vikings engaged in large-scale settlement.
The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.
There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.
In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.
There is a difference between the genetic histories of men and women in Britain and Ireland. The matrilineages show a mixture of original Mesolithic inhabitants and later Neolithic arrivals from Iberia, whereas the patrilineages are much more strongly correlated with Iberia. This suggests (though Sykes does not emphasize this point) replacement of much of the original male population by new arrivals with a more powerful social organization.
There is evidence for a "Genghis Khan effect", whereby some male lineages in ancient times were much more successful than others in leaving large numbers of descendants.

is he wrong also?

----------


## Taranis

Yes, notice that both books are from 2006. The realization that R1b did not originate in Iberia is since circa 2008, I believe.

EDIT: By the way, you might want to take a look at Maciamo's article on R1b: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origin...rope.shtml#R1b

----------


## Wilhelm

Yes, well but the mtDNA H1 and H3 are of Iberian origin and they spread to all Europe. As for the R1b, there are subclades such as the M167, which are common only in Iberia, Britain and Western France.  :Thinking:

----------


## Taranis

> Yes, well but the mtDNA H1 and H3 are of Iberian origin and they spread to all Europe.


Yeah, but consider that the maternal aboriginal lineages in Europe fared a lot better than the paternal ones.




> As for the R1b, there are subclades such as the M167, which are common only in Iberia, Britain and Western France.


Well yeah, but I thought M167 is not particularly common in Britain and France. On the other hand, typically Celtic- and Germanic-associated subclades of R1b like L-21, U-152 and U-106 are prettymuch absent in the Basques.

Either way, the fact remains that R1b didn't originate on the Iberian penninsula.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Well yeah, but I thought M167 is not particularly common in Britain and France. On the other hand, typically Celtic- and Germanic-associated subclades of R1b like L-21, U-152 and U-106 are prettymuch absent in the Basques.


Actually R-L21 seems to be common in Iberia. The U-106 is not even common in Western Europe except in Germanic countries.

----------


## Taranis

> Actually R-L21 seems to be common in Iberia. The U-106 is not even common in Western Europe except in Germanic countries.


Well, according to Myres et al 2010, L21 is much rarer in Iberia than it is in France and the British Isles. However, I would not be surprised if L21 was more common in Iberia though, given how the Celts were in Iberia.

As for U-106, it's actually fairly common, especially France (Frankish and Burgundian influence) and especially Britain (Anglo-Saxons).

----------


## Carlitos

_The majority of the present presence of haplogrupo R is represented by the lineages R1a and R1b. R1a would have been originated in steppes of Eurasia associated with the Kurgan culture and the first Indo-European expansion. One has been mainly in central and western Asia, India, and between the Slavic towns of Eastern Europe. R1b was originated during the last freezing, when human groups inhabited between the Near East and the South of Europe; at the moment it is very common between the European and more frequent population in Ireland and Spain; the R1b1b2a1a2 variety reaches important frequencies in Basque Country (Spanish and French Basque Country). Less common is R2, only found in India, Iran and central Asia._

----------0-------------


*El R1 no es originario de la península ibérica, ni de Francia o Alemania, ni de ningún país de Occidente, fueron llegando, como todos.* 

Traslation Yahoo:
The R1 is original of the Iberian Peninsula, neither from France or Germany, nor in no country of the West, were arriving, like all.

Traslation Google:
The R1 is not native to the Iberian Peninsula or France or Germany, or any Western country were coming, like everyone else.


*What translation better you understand?* Yahoo
*Better understand what translation?* Google.

_Thank you very much._

----------


## ^ lynx ^

....  :Bored:

----------


## Aristander

Google is superior in translating Spanish to English. Yahoo works better on other languages.

----------


## LeBrok

Go with google Carlitos.

----------


## elly

Maciamo, Does an R-L2* 'Y' make one S116+?

----------


## Norþman

I think the Normans left a bigger genetic mark in England than most people know, The Normans were originally Danish Vikings and the Saxons and angles were from the north German boarder with Denmark , so would that make them genetically the same ? If there DNA were similar How could you tell them apart ? I'm very new to this so i could be wrong. Sorry for the ignorance , just like to find out more about my Ancestors .

----------


## Yorkie

> I think the Normans left a bigger genetic mark in England than most people know, The Normans were originally Danish Vikings and the Saxons and angles were from the north German boarder with Denmark , so would that make them genetically the same ? If there DNA were similar How could you tell them apart ? I'm very new to this so i could be wrong. Sorry for the ignorance , just like to find out more about my Ancestors .


Writers such as Gwyn Jones ['History of the Vikings' ] suggest that the bulk of Rollo's Viking band that originally invaded Normandy [formerly Neustria] were Danes, but that there were also Anglo-Danes from the Danelaw, Norse-Gaels from Cumbria who had spent some time previously in Ireland, and a smaller Norwegian contingent. The latter Norwegian contingent settled around the Cotentin in particular.

The Norman invasion force of 1066 is quite a different matter. Whilst it is probably true that the higher eschelons of the Normans were Scandinavian on the male line by this date, it is unlikely that they were Scandinavian on all lines. There had been a good deal of intermarriage between Scandinavian-descended Normans and Frankish, Breton etc women in Normandy and northern France before 1066. 

William's army of 1066 contained not only 'Normans proper' in their ranks. There were also Franks, Flemings, Bretons, Gascons etc among the knights and men-at-arms. Look at some of the so-called famous 'Norman' surnames; 'Joyce' is Breton, 'Bellamy' is Frankish, 'Roche' is Flemish etc.

Regarding genetic differences between Norwegians, Danes and Anglo Saxons; it is terribly difficult to separate them. In the case of Norwegians, it is the case that they would carry higher incidences of R1a1, and possibly more of Nordtvedt's 'Ultra Norse' variety of I1.

It is only possible to make an educated guess as to the likelihood of an I1 haplotype belonging to Danes or Anglo Saxons at this stage. The main problem, aside of the geographical proximity, is the plain fact that we do not know the extent to which the Germanic tribes were 'mixed' before they invaded Britain. However, it is usually the case [Nordtvedt; Barac; Tambets] that I1 with 23 at 390 and 13 at 462 represents the more Scandinavian-leaning varieties of I1. Conversely, I1 haplotypes with 22 at 390 and 12 at 462 usually represent the default, more common type of I1 found in greatest numbers in the Germanic lowland countries and Britain. 

Of course, we are talking about _the greatest likelihood_ here regarding I1, which all Population Geneticists associate with the Germanic peoples. There are exceptions to the above rules. Some 22 at 390, 12 at 462 'I1-Anglo Saxon' [to employ Nordtvedt's terminology] is found as far north as Norway and Sweden, and some of the more Scandinavian-leaning I1-Norse and I1-Ultra Norse is found in lower latitudes, i.e, northern Germany and England. My Maternal Grandfather, a Yorkshireman [surname SHIRT] carried the Scandinavian-leaning I1-Norse.

Regarding R1b; it appears to be the case that Nordtvedt discovered a small 'Norse' cluster of R1b which may indicate possible Norwegian ancestry. Ethnoancestry are currently marketing tests for this re SNP S182. Some argue that the so-called 'S' clades of R1b indicate Germanic rather than Celtic ancestry if found in British men, particularly 'S21' [U106] and the rarer 'S29' [U198]. I remain open to persuasion.

I hope this is helpful.

----------


## Chris

> Writers such as Gwyn Jones ['History of the Vikings' ] suggest that the bulk of Rollo's Viking band that originally invaded Normandy [formerly Neustria] were Danes, but that there were also Anglo-Danes from the Danelaw, Norse-Gaels from Cumbria who had spent some time previously in Ireland, and a smaller Norwegian contingent. The latter Norwegian contingent settled around the Cotentin in particular.
> 
> The Norman invasion force of 1066 is quite a different matter. Whilst it is probably true that the higher eschelons of the Normans were Scandinavian on the male line by this date, it is unlikely that they were Scandinavian on all lines. There had been a good deal of intermarriage between Scandinavian-descended Normans and Frankish, Breton etc women in Normandy and northern France before 1066. 
> 
> William's army of 1066 contained not only 'Normans proper' in their ranks. There were also Franks, Flemings, Bretons, Gascons etc among the knights and men-at-arms. Look at some of the so-called famous 'Norman' surnames; 'Joyce' is Breton, 'Bellamy' is Frankish, 'Roche' is Flemish etc.
> 
> Regarding genetic differences between Norwegians, Danes and Anglo Saxons; it is terribly difficult to separate them. In the case of Norwegians, it is the case that they would carry higher incidences of R1a1, and possibly more of Nordtvedt's 'Ultra Norse' variety of I1.
> 
> It is only possible to make an educated guess as to the likelihood of an I1 haplotype belonging to Danes or Anglo Saxons at this stage. The main problem, aside of the geographical proximity, is the plain fact that we do not know the extent to which the Germanic tribes were 'mixed' before they invaded Britain. However, it is usually the case [Nordtvedt; Barac; Tambets] that I1 with 23 at 390 and 13 at 462 represents the more Scandinavian-leaning varieties of I1. Conversely, I1 haplotypes with 22 at 390 and 12 at 462 usually represent the default, more common type of I1 found in greatest numbers in the Germanic lowland countries and Britain. 
> ...


Hi Yorkie - Welcome!  :Good Job:  Chris

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Well, according to Myres et al 2010, L21 is much rarer in Iberia than it is in France and the British Isles. However, I would not be surprised if L21 was more common in Iberia though, given how the Celts were in Iberia.
> 
> As for U-106, it's actually fairly common, especially France (Frankish and Burgundian influence) and especially Britain (Anglo-Saxons).


Actually, recent ancestry studies show an increasing number of Iberians testing as L21. A Eupedia member is tracking the results.

----------


## Yorkie

> Hi Yorkie - Welcome!  Chris


Cheers, Chris!

----------


## Norþman

> Writers such as Gwyn Jones ['History of the Vikings' ] suggest that the bulk of Rollo's Viking band that originally invaded Normandy [formerly Neustria] were Danes, but that there were also Anglo-Danes from the Danelaw, Norse-Gaels from Cumbria who had spent some time previously in Ireland, and a smaller Norwegian contingent. The latter Norwegian contingent settled around the Cotentin in particular.
> 
> The Norman invasion force of 1066 is quite a different matter. Whilst it is probably true that the higher eschelons of the Normans were Scandinavian on the male line by this date, it is unlikely that they were Scandinavian on all lines. There had been a good deal of intermarriage between Scandinavian-descended Normans and Frankish, Breton etc women in Normandy and northern France before 1066. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William's army of 1066 contained not only 'Normans proper' in their ranks. There were also Franks, Flemings, Bretons, Gascons etc among the knights and men-at-arms. Look at some of the so-called famous 'Norman' surnames; 'Joyce' is Breton, 'Bellamy' is Frankish, 'Roche' is Flemish etc.
> ...


Hi Yorkie thanks for the response , And good post to say the least .
I think I'm going to purchase History of the vikings , as i dont know a graet deal on this subject . Iv only recently taken interest on finding out the history of our people, I find it very interesting . So ill leave it to the experienced people before i start debating. Thank You for the information.




> William's army of 1066 contained not only 'Normans proper' in their ranks. There were also Franks, Flemings, Bretons, Gascons etc among the knights and men-at-arms. Look at some of the so-called famous 'Norman' surnames; 'Joyce' is Breton, 'Bellamy' is Frankish, 'Roche' is Flemish etc.


Did the rest of these clansmen leave a smaller impact on England through DNA than the Normans ?




> Regarding genetic differences between Norwegians, Danes and Anglo Saxons; it is terribly difficult to separate them. In the case of Norwegians, it is the case that they would carry higher incidences of R1a1, and possibly more of Nordtvedt's 'Ultra Norse' variety of I1.


Would you say these people are very closely related then ?

Sorry for the questions I'm still learning , Its just finding the time to learn about it .

Is there a thread on this forum with a diagram of the DNA makeup of Europe , In detail  :Grin: . If someone can point me in the right direction , I would be most grateful .

----------


## Yorkie

> Hi Yorkie thanks for the response , And good post to say the least .
> I think I'm going to purchase History of the vikings , as i dont know a graet deal on this subject . Iv only recently taken interest on finding out the history of our people, I find it very interesting . So ill leave it to the experienced people before i start debating. Thank You for the information.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the rest of these clansmen leave a smaller impact on England through DNA than the Normans ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm no expert but I regard Danes, Norwegians and north Germans as very closely related in that they are all predominantly Germanic in heritage. I believe, as does Ken Nordtvedt and, I think, Peter Underhill, that Scandinavia was populated from northern Germany. Each country's population appears to be basically the same mixture of haplogroups just in slightly different proportions. For example, Norway has the most R1a1, Denmark has the most R1b, northern Germany has more I2b1 etc.

If your question anbout 'clansmen' refers to Frankish, Flemish, Breton etc followers of the Normans I'll have a bash at answering it. There has been, as yet, no proper genetic study of the Norman impact on Britain. Both Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer are on record as estimating the Norman impact on the British gene-pool as around 2%.

The problem is, how do we sort the 'Norman' genes from those of the Frankish, Flemish and Breton followers, and also from those of earlier Danish/Norwegian Vikings and Anglo Saxons? We might start by looking at paper trails and pedigrees, although these are NEVER 100% reliable.

My view on Norman genes is as follows, and it is entirely subjective. I strongly suspect that some Scandinavian-derived Ydna from the original invaders of Normandy may still survive in the higher eschelons of the English Aristocracy. That would be the place to look, and it might make an amusing 'Reality Tv' series too! Seriously, that is my view.

As we know, there were followers from Flanders, Brittany etc as well as 'Normans proper'. I am a Criminologist/Sociologist not a Population Geneticist, so I would not be qualified to go about looking 'in the field' for traces of such genes. However, I am able to speculate. My speculation is that Sykes and Oppenheimer have seriously underestimated the percentage of 'Norman' blood in Britain. For example, Breton-Norman followers of William [from Celtic Brittany] heavily settled parts of north Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and East Anglia- Suffolk in particular was a 'Breton Soke'. In north Yorkshire, Count Alan's Breton followers ran around 30 manors. So, I speculate that much R1b found in these areas of England may actually come from the Normans rather than earlier Brythonic Celts. Proving it is another matter.

As for Frankish and Flemish contributions; terribly difficult to even think about separating these from 'Normans proper' even with the best guarantees around continuity of surnames and authenticity of pedigrees. One would imagine that Franks and Flemings might carry less R1a1, and possibly carry more of the 'Germanic lowland' 22 at 390, 12 at 462 type of I1, and more I2b1 than Scandinavians but it would still be a nightmare for any scientist...

----------


## ultralars

Hey, sounds like you guys know yours stuff. I myself, as a 16 year old, have no knowledge of these things but i try to keep up. 

I have a question, I have for a long time wondered where my ethnicity lies, i have always tough of my self as germanic but i am not sure, and i'd like to be sure before labeling me anything. So i asked my dad and it turns out my grandparents got a paper made which tells the heritage of my family, and it goes pretty far back. 

On my grandmothers side it goes all the way back to a big line of frankish kings starting at 39 BC( frankus ) to 445 ( klodio)

it then contiues on to some french kings, flanderian dukes and danish kings before finally ending at norway, where my family has lived till now. 

So i guess my heritage has gone from west germany, to france, to back, to denmark and finally to norway.

----------


## LeBrok

Wowowow, hold on a second. Are you sure Franks were keeping written records from 39 BC, even the kings and dukes? I'm a little skeptic how can one go back 2000 years in heritage. I'm not saying you are wrong, but this is veeeeeery unusual!
Welcome to Eupedia ultralars. :)

----------


## ultralars

> Wowowow, hold on a second. Are you sure Franks were keeping written records from 39 BC, even the kings and dukes? I'm a little skeptic how can one go back 2000 years in heritage. I'm not saying you are wrong, but this is veeeeeery unusual!
> Welcome to Eupedia ultralars. :)


Yeah i know it sounds weird :P but the guy used 2 years to make it.
Maybe the franks did keep written records because it's the royal family?

Thanks :)

----------


## Antigone

Only two years to trace a line of descent through 2,000yrs? Doesn't seem likely that that amount of research could be done in so short a time, or not accurately anyway. But 39BC does sound odd, even the Queen of England cannot trace her ancestry back that far. 

First rule of family history research is never to take anyone else's work at face value, always check and re-check the information yourself for verification before you accept it.

----------


## Dagne

> *Most Uralo-Slavic countries*
> 
> Lithuania : about 85% of Y-DNALatvia & Russia : about 80%Estonia : about 70%


It is a very good description Maciamo! Only Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians are rather Uralo-Baltic than Uralo-Slavic. R1a1a doesn't have to be reserved only for the Slavic nations, right?

----------


## sparkey

> Yeah i know it sounds weird :P but the guy used 2 years to make it.
> Maybe the franks did keep written records because it's the royal family?
> 
> Thanks :)


Franks were a tribal amalgamation that came together in the 3rd century AD. Going back to that point is going to be pretty much impossible, and going back farther than that is the realm of mythology. It's possible that you have Frankish noble ancestry, but it's probably very little in the grand scheme of things unless it is very immediate in your family tree.

Could you tell us where each of your great-grandparents lived? If the answer is Norway, Norway, Norway, Norway, Norway, Norway, Norway, and Norway, then you can be pretty confident in calling your ancestry Germanic. As a Norwegian (non-Saami, right?) you are Germanic anyway. If you want to have an even deeper understanding, you can read theories about how proto-Germanic formed.

----------


## zanipolo

> Franks were a tribal amalgamation that came together in the 3rd century AD. Going back to that point is going to be pretty much impossible, and going back farther than that is the realm of mythology. It's possible that you have Frankish noble ancestry, but it's probably very little in the grand scheme of things unless it is very immediate in your family tree.
> 
> Could you tell us where each of your great-grandparents lived? If the answer is Norway, Norway, Norway, Norway, Norway, Norway, Norway, and Norway, then you can be pretty confident in calling your ancestry Germanic. As a Norwegian (non-Saami, right?) you are Germanic anyway. If you want to have an even deeper understanding, you can read theories about how proto-Germanic formed.


There are different branches of the Franks, like the Salians .

As for Ancestry, unless you trace your family with 1 continous line, then its all speculation, example, my grandmother surname was one of the founding 26 surnames that began Venice in 462. But I have no continous line from her name, so her ancestors could have been peasants that took the name of the landlord , its speculation.

All we can say is that be it norway or franks, he would be a germanic line

----------


## ultralars

After checking the papers a second time and comparing to a list of kings of Frankish kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frankish_kings

I saw that none of the names and timeline fits. 

It was then i discovered that " Franken "( Norwegian) does not translate to " franks " in English, it translates to " Franconia "

Which is a different place.

So what does that make me?

Or do you think it's Naive to believe these papers which go so far back?

BTW the guy made 2 sets of papers, one for my grandmothers heritage and one for my grandfathers, on my grandfathers side it goes back to 1390. which is more believable.

----------


## sparkey

> After checking the papers a second time and comparing to a list of kings of Frankish kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frankish_kings
> 
> I saw that none of the names and timeline fits. 
> 
> It was then i discovered that " Franken "( Norwegian) does not translate to " franks " in English, it translates to " Franconia "
> 
> Which is a different place.
> 
> So what does that make me?
> ...


I would suggest that you stop trying to trace _depth_ on your family tree and instead focus on _breadth_. It will become more obvious what your family makeup is if you manage to trace many lines back a couple of centuries. Tracing just a couple of lines back very far is both opening yourself up to errors along those lines and limiting the scope of your ancestry too far.

Tracing depth can be fun sometimes to see how far back you can get it, or to see how you map to ancient migrations (especially if you take Y-DNA or mtDNA tests). But if you want to answer the question "do I come from a Germanic background?" you really just need to understand the cultural background of your immediate ancestors.

Franconia, by the way, is a region of Germany that used to be a Duchy. The Franks weren't from there, but they occupied it. If your ancestry comes from there, they'd most likely be Germanic, at least following the Migration Period. But again, having a single line from Franconia doesn't tell you much. I have a single line from Franconia (Franconian Moravian Church member who came to America in the 1700's) but since it's only one line, I never mention Franconia when describing my ancestry, I always mention regions that are higher as a percentage of my ancestry (in my case: South England, Wales, Cornwall, the old Electoral Palatinate, and Bern Canton).

----------


## ultralars

I am sure that pretty much all of my close ancestors are norwegian. 

Does that mean something? is there any genes that is more predominant in scandinavia than any other place? and what are those genes function?

----------


## sparkey

> I am sure that pretty much all of my close ancestors are norwegian.
> 
> Does that mean something? is there any genes that is more predominant in scandinavia than any other place? and what are those genes function?


It means that you are North Germanic, so don't worry about needing to figure out what other groups you might fit into. If all of your recent ancestors are Norwegian, why identify with anything else? Things like Franconian ancestry dating back over 500 years could have contributed, but not much (and Franconians are also Germanic, anyway).

With being Scandinavian, you probably get the usual Scandinavian genes... a high chance of fair hair, eyes, and skin in your family, good lactose tolerance in general, etc. In terms of what Y-DNA tells us, you're probably a mixture of ancient Stone Age Europeans whose population dwindled and then expanded (I1), the descendants of the Corded Ware expansion (R1a), and the other Indo-European expansion that produced Italo-Celtic peoples on a closely related branch (R1b), with other minor influences being generally minimal (like Siberian Q, Uralic N, and the more southerly ancient Stone Age European I2a2). At this forum it's a general consensus that these peoples combined to form proto-Germanic peoples, although there are some questions about the details (like whether R1a maps as well to Germanic peoples as I1 in this context). Southern Norway was probably one of the first places that proto-Germanic reached, with the usual thought being that it formed in or around Denmark. Read some things on Eupedia: Migration Maps and Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations. And on Wikipedia: Proto-Germanic language and North Germanic languages.

----------


## ultralars

Thanks for the great information! 

I actually have fair hair, eyes and skin( blue eyes and dark blonde hair ) which most of the rest of my family also have. Also i live in southern Norway.

----------


## ultralars

So is the statistics mentioned in the first post outdated/wrong or accurate?

----------


## Templar

Maciamo why isn't Bosnia on the paleolithic/Cro-magnon list. It has the highest rate of Haplogroup I (over 60%).

----------


## onslo

Thank you,Maciamo! I 1 split from I haplogroup about 20,000 y.a. in Scandinavia.Y-DNA I1 descended from a SINGLE ancestor who lived 10,000 y.a. I 1 are indigenous people of EUROPE, the direct descendants of Cro-Magnon.I read this on eupedia.com today.What if I am I1 (IGENEA test) M253+ P259- P15- P109- M72- M69-M286- M227- M21- M201- L91- L42- L30- L22- L211- L141- L140- L14- L13- , Is this VIKING,GOTHS or GERMANIC?

----------


## mihaitzateo

Your datas about Romania are pretty wrong.
No ideea about whole country,but in next two tables you will see that Romania got M170 between 38.9% (no one made detailed tests about what branches are,but very probabily most frequent is I2A2) to almost 50% (from which 40% is P37.2,or I2) in Moldavia,but not in extreme north of Moldavia (romanian Bukovina).
http://www.carswell.com.au/wp-conten...n-analysis.pdf
http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokser...=981561349.pdf

However,no one made tests on people from Bukovina,which are known to have a high percentage of blue eyes,no one made tests in north Ardeal or Apuseni Mountains and so on.No one made tests in Buzau county either,where a gothic treasure was found (called Pietroasele treasure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietroasele_Treasure ,which includes a ring written in elder futhark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Pietroassa).In Buzau mountains some historians are telling that goths ran and hide in the dense forests here,from Roman empire army.
To state that Romania got 13% J2 on paternal line is just pure nonsense,what data have you used to say this?

It was only 1 place from Romania where it was found about 16% J2 and some 2% of some oher clades of J,in some village near Ploiesti,but that is not concludent for the rest of Romania.If you look in same document,in romanians near Constanta J2 was found only in about 6.5% percentage.If you look in the other document,in romanians from Neamt and Buhusi if you sum all clades of J found that is only 5.7% (seems that all branches of J found here are from J2).So I would say whole J in Romania is rather about 6-7% maximum,not really think J2 reaches 16%.

----------


## sparkey

> Thank you,Maciamo! I 1 split from I haplogroup about 20,000 y.a. in Scandinavia.Y-DNA I1 descended from a SINGLE ancestor who lived 10,000 y.a. I 1 are indigenous people of EUROPE, the direct descendants of Cro-Magnon.I read this on eupedia.com today.What if I am I1 (IGENEA test) M253+
> P259- P15- P109- M72- M69-
> M286- M227- M21- M201- L91- L42- L30- L22- L211- L141- L140- L14- L13- , Is this VIKING,GOTHS or GERMANIC?


Most I1 L22- are Z58+, that's a more useful marker to test than a lot of those that you list. Z58+ is typical of West Germanic peoples (English people, Dutch people, etc.) and usually indicates Anglo-Saxon ancestry if you're an American unaware of your deep ancestry.

But it's also possible that you're L22- Z58-, and you're the rare Celtic type of I1 (I1*-AS4) or L22- Z58- Z68+, which is usually tied to East Germanic peoples, like the Goths. There are also some more rare possibilities. In short, we can't guarantee what your background is just by that data, other than "probably not Viking." Most Viking I1 would have been L22+.

----------


## Dale Cooper

> *Most Paleolithic European (Cro-Magnon) countries (I1 + I2)*
> 
> Croatia : about 51% of Y-DNASweden : about 44%Norway & Bulgaria : about 37%Denmark : about 36%Serbia : about 35%Iceland : about 33%Belarus & Finland : about 29%Netherlands & Hungary : about 25%Czech Republic : about 24%England, Germany & Romania : about 21%Belgium : about 20%


Well, this means that Croatians are by genetic THE oldest Europeans :)

----------


## Gosh

Yes, they are.

----------


## Gosh

Bulgarian data from the post #1 about I2a1 and about I in general aren't in accordance with the data from the table.

----------


## Knovas

The oldest Europeans regarding mesolithic Y-DNA preservation, which no way means the oldest Europeans as whole, neither by genetic. There are many other factors, as MtDNA, autosomal features, languaje, traditions...not that simple friends.

----------


## Eochaidh

> What about Bryan Sykes:
> 
> In his 2006 book Blood of the Isles (published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), Sykes examines British genetic "clans". He presents evidence from mitochondrial DNA, inherited by both sexes from their mothers, and the Y chromosome, inherited by men from their fathers, for the following points:





> Yes, notice that both books are from 2006. The realization that R1b did not originate in Iberia is since circa 2008, I believe.


I need a book and was about the buy Sykes' book from Amazon, but I checked here first. Is the consensus that it is out of date already? It's hard to keep up.

----------


## Taranis

> I need a book and was about the buy Sykes' book from Amazon, but I checked here first. Is the consensus that it is out of date already? It's hard to keep up.


Let me put it this way: it may certainly be interesting to see how much of what he actually wrote there is actually still tenable today, but you're probably not going to learn anything from the book that you don't already know from hanging around here. I just realized that the post you quoted by me is actually two years old. A lot has changed in the meantime. For instance, before we actually had sufficient Neolithic samples, it was still viable to assume that for instance R1b was Neolithic. Some people even suggested (after Treilles and Derenburg) that Ötzi might have been R1b (yet he also turned out to be G2, which was the most likely thing to happen).

----------


## Eochaidh

> Let me put it this way: it may certainly be interesting to see how much of what he actually wrote there is actually still tenable today, but you're probably not going to learn anything from the book that you don't already know from hanging around here. I just realized that the post you quoted by me is actually two years old. A lot has changed in the meantime. For instance, before we actually had sufficient Neolithic samples, it was still viable to assume that for instance R1b was Neolithic. Some people even suggested (after Treilles and Derenburg) that Ötzi might have been R1b (yet he also turned out to be G2, which was the most likely thing to happen).


Thanks. It's amazing how fast knowledge in this field is changing.

Maciamo used to have a list of four good books in this area on the main page. They are all very good, especially the second time through (the three that I read at least).
_The Horse, Wheel and Language.
The 10,000 Year Explosion.
The Selfish Gene._
I don't have the fourth.

And Sparkey recommended_ Albion's Seed,_ which is also good.

I may as well go back to the old Irish Manuscripts for a while and on that note, I thought that I would post some links to them here, in case others may be interested. They reside on Archive.org in several formats. One format is on-line readable and another is a *very large* PDF download. These aren't scanned as text as the CELT project is, but are rather scanned as bitmaps into PDF files from the original books which accounts for their size. Most of these aren't Google scans, which are black & white, but rather a beautiful sepia.

*Various Irish Scans as PDF files*

*Annála Ríoghachta na hÉireann*
I: http://www.archive.org/download/anna...chta01ocle.pdf
II: http://ia700307.us.archive.org/32/it...02ocleuoft.pdf
III: http://ia600402.us.archive.org/30/it...03ocleuoft.pdf
IV: http://www.archive.org/download/anna...chta04ocle.pdf
V: http://ia600504.us.archive.org/2/ite...05ocleuoft.pdf
VI: http://ia700305.us.archive.org/32/it...domo06ocle.pdf
VII: http://ia600200.us.archive.org/17/it...07ocleuoft.pdf

*Three Fragments – MacFirbisigh*
http://www.archive.org/download/anna...andt00bibl.pdf

*Annals of Ulster*
I: http://www.archive.org/download/anna...01royauoft.pdf
II: http://www.archive.org/download/anna...02royauoft.pdf
III: http://www.archive.org/download/anna...03royauoft.pdf
IV: http://ia700502.us.archive.org/35/it...nnal04magu.pdf

*John O’Hart’s Irish pedigrees; or, The origin and stem of the Irish nation (1892)*
I: http://ia700303.us.archive.org/17/it...011892ohar.pdf
II: http://ia600304.us.archive.org/7/ite...892byuohar.pdf

*The topographical poems of John O'Dubhagain and Giolla na naomh O'Huidhrin (1862)*
http://ia600308.us.archive.org/12/it...lpoe00odon.pdf

*Keating's general history of Ireland. (1861)*
http://ia600208.us.archive.org/6/ite...ralh00keat.pdf

*The Annals of Clonmacnoise, being annals of Ireland from the earliest period to A.D. 1408 (1896)*
http://ia700309.us.archive.org/20/it...macn00mage.pdf

*The annals of Tigernach [being annals of Ireland, 807 B.C. to A.D. 1178] (1895)*
http://ia600502.us.archive.org/21/it...00stokuoft.pdf

*Life of Saint Columba, founder of Hy. Written by Adamnan. Edited by William Reeves (1874)*
http://ia700202.us.archive.org/3/ite...00adamuoft.pdf

*The genealogies, tribes, and customs of Hy-Fiachrach, commonly called O'Dowda's country : now first published from the Book of Lecan, in the library of the Royal Irish Academy, and from the genealogical manuscript of Duald Mac Firbis, in the library of Lord Roden (1844)* http://ia600202.us.archive.org/19/it...ribe00macf.pdf

*The annals of Loch Cé : a chronicle of Irish affairs from A.D. 1014 to A.D. 1590 (1871)*
http://ia700506.us.archive.org/1/ite...01hennuoft.pdf

*Chronicum Scotorum : a chronicle of Irish affairs from the earliest times to A.D. 1135 ; with a supplement, containing the events from 1141 to 1150 (1866)*
http://ia600409.us.archive.org/5/ite...00macfuoft.pdf

*The ancient Irish epic tale Táin bó Cúalnge, "The Cualnge cattle-raid," now for the first time done entire into English out of the Irish of the Book of Leinster and allied manuscripts (1914)*
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924026824981

*Transactions of the Ossianic Society (1853)*
*Vol I:*  http://www.archive.org/stream/transactionsofos01ossi
*Vol II:* http://www.archive.org/stream/transactionsofos02ossi
*Vol III:* http://www.archive.org/stream/transactionsofos03ossi
*Vol IV:* http://www.archive.org/stream/transactionsofos40ossi
*Vol V:* http://www.archive.org/stream/transactionsofos05ossi

*An historical account of the Diocese of Down and Connor, ancient and modern (1878)*
*Vol I:* http://www.archive.org/stream/historicalaccoun01olav
*Vol II:* http://www.archive.org/stream/historicalaccoun02olav
*Vol III:* http://www.archive.org/stream/historicalaccoun03olav
*Vol IV:* http://www.archive.org/stream/historicalaccoun04olav

*Eoin MacNeill Papers read for the Royal Irish Academy (January 1, 1909) PDF format*
http://www.archive.org/download/pape...00macnuoft.pdf

*Leabhar Chlainne Suibhne : an account of the MacSweeney families in Ireland, with pedigrees (1920)*
http://www.archive.org/stream/leabha...nnes00walsuoft

----------


## Dale Cooper

So people, what do you think about video I've made and uploaded to youtube? here it is:




As "non-european" HG's I've named HG's such as J1, Q, T & H... means all of HG's which are present in Europe just in last 1000 or 2000 years... so don't take this term "european and noneuropean" as somethin racist, I hope you understand :)

----------


## Taranis

> So people, what do you think about video I've made and uploaded to youtube? here it is:
> 
> As "non-european" HG's I've named HG's such as J1, Q, T & H... means all of HG's which are present in Europe just in last 1000 or 2000 years... so don't take this term "european and noneuropean" as somethin racist, I hope you understand :)


You don't want your video to be taken as racist or xenophobic, but one really has to wonder what message you want to convey. That most of Europe has 'native' Haplogroups?! Well, that is view completely wrong, no matter how you define "European" and "non-European" here:

There's a number of issues in particular I completely disagree with:

R1b and R1a are decisively *not* Mesolithic. The oldest find of R1a thus far is from the (Copper Age) Corded Ware Culture. We *still* don't know when R1b entered Europe, but the oldest find of R1b thus far is from the Urnfield Culture (ca. 1000 BC), so R1b is also either from the Copper or Bronze Age.

Regarding J2, it's still unclear how old it is. It has failed thus far to turn up in any Neolithic site.

Haplogroup E1b1b, at least some subclades of it, may have been in Europe since the Mesolithic (at least in southern Europe).

In much of Europe, J1 and T are most probably originally Neolithic, and are thought to have travelled alongside of Haplogroup G2.

Even with the "native" (Mesolithic or Paleolithic) Haplogroups (Haplogroup I) it's clear that their present-day frequencies are the result of later events.

----------


## Carlos

It would be interesting to stop the term PLS: Immigrants when referring to home Neolithic haplogroups in Europe. Is it already existed in the Neolithic European national identity? I feel out of place.

----------


## Knovas

Very well explained Taranis. Also, again, if we focus in genetics, the haplogroup distribution don't tell us how European are populations. Doing diferent autosomal analysis would be the best option to get an idea.

----------


## sparkey

> R1b and R1a are decisively *not* Mesolithic. The oldest find of R1a thus far is from the (Copper Age) Corded Ware Culture. We *still* don't know when R1b entered Europe, but the oldest find of R1b thus far is from the Urnfield Culture (ca. 1000 BC), so R1b is also either from the Copper or Bronze Age.


Overall, I agree strongly with you, Taranis, although I'd note that it's still quite possible that R1a is Mesolithic at the far Eastern edge of Europe (like at the Dnieper), so it's probably not technically incorrect to call it "Mesolithic." R1b is almost certainly later, especially R1b L11+... although I admit we know less about R1b-ht35 in particular.

I think a takeaway point is that Dale's classification is almost certainly wrong, but it's difficult to correct based only on what we know now. It's also difficult to make unified assertions about "Europe" as opposed to regions of Europe, since, for example, it's been difficult to show Haplogroup I to be ancient outside of Western and Central Europe.

----------


## Dale Cooper

Maybe your view of this video is "wrong" in terms of "non european" and "european" term I used in video but that doesn't change the fact that overall video shows things how they are in Europe considering genetics of european nations, let's forget about "european" and "non-european", video shows which HG is dominant amongst various nations and from which period of time we can trace it in Europe. Ofcourse, we may call this "european" and "non-european" term in video as racist, but than again you can call somethin "racist" in every aspect of everyday life, I said clearly that message of that two terms isn't racist but to show HG's of Europe which are present here for 6000 or more years, and when you sum all of informations from video, you get that picture, without any racist "agenda" or anything similar to that. 

Let's not see "racism" on every corner of life, that's somethin multi-culturalism is teaching you every day on TV. Maybe it's not "politicaly correct" thing to do anything about european heritage, especially genetics, but you know what? I don't give a damn about political correctnes as long as I don't insult anyone else, and if someone is insulted with this (and have no reason to be), that's not my problem.

----------


## Dale Cooper

Maciamo what do you think about this table I've made:

*Most Greco-Neolithic countries in Europe (E1b1b + J2 + G2a):

1. Greece: around 51%
2. Albania: around 48% 
3. Bulgaria: around 45%
4. Rep. Macedonia: around 41%
5. Italy: around 37%
6. Romania & Austria: around 30%
7. Portugal: around 29%
8. Serbia: around 27%
9. Hungary: around 25%
10. Bosnia: around 22%*

----------


## Templar

> Well, this means that Croatians are by genetic THE oldest Europeans :)


Not if Bosnia is included.

----------


## Maciamo

> Maciamo what do you think about this table I've made:
> 
> *Most Greco-Neolithic countries in Europe (E1b1b + J2 + G2a):
> 
> 1. Greece: around 51%
> 2. Albania: around 48% 
> 3. Bulgaria: around 45%
> 4. Rep. Macedonia: around 41%
> 5. Italy: around 37%
> ...


I suppose you have made the total of (E1b1b + J2 + G2a based on my Y-DNA frequency table. The only problem is that we still don't know for sure that all E1b1b and J2 are or Neolithic origin. Most of the European E1b1b could be Paleolithic/Mesolithic or Neolthic or both. But some could even be more recent than that. As for J2, I think that it could have come partly during Neolithic, but mostly during the Bronze Age and Iron Age (or at least expanded from Greece and Anatolia during that period). I also think that a lot of European J1 and T could be Neolithic.

----------


## how yes no 3

> Maciamo what do you think about this table I've made:
> 
> *Most Greco-Neolithic countries in Europe (E1b1b + J2 + G2a):
> 
> 1. Greece: around 51%
> 2. Albania: around 48% 
> 3. Bulgaria: around 45%
> 4. Rep. Macedonia: around 41%
> 5. Italy: around 37%
> ...


I think some of G may be older...ancient DNA samples consistently show it in Europe...and there is also much later some G that came to Europe with Alans.. so it is not correct to lump all G together into greco-neolithic spread...

G2a is also most frequent in Europe (together with I2a1) in Sardinia that is considered to be genetic isolate...

look at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...x?section=ymap

there all 3 G samples from Serbia are G1 (2 times G1c and once G1a)..G1c is in their database found only in east Europe (Poland, Baltic countries, Belarus and Ukraine) while G1a is in their database found in several clusters (one in Baltic/Belarus/Poland, and others sparse but in various unrelated places including Asia minor, Italy, Spain, Germany) ... the last study on population from Serbia finds 5.8% of G2a in Serbia and no G1

in Slovenia/north Croatia yfamilytreedna shows cluster of G2a3

it would be also interesting to have separate maps for J2a and J2b

----------


## zanipolo

> I suppose you have made the total of (E1b1b + J2 + G2a based on my Y-DNA frequency table. The only problem is that we still don't know for sure that all E1b1b and J2 are or Neolithic origin. Most of the European E1b1b could be Paleolithic/Mesolithic or Neolthic or both. But some could even be more recent than that. As for J2, I think that it could have come partly during Neolithic, but mostly during the Bronze Age and Iron Age (or at least expanded from Greece and Anatolia during that period). I also think that a lot of European J1 and T could be Neolithic.


i think this "system" of dalecooper has some merits in determining genetics trends between neighbours.
as an example, i would next use J2+G2a+I2a , and slowly move in different directions to finally have a europe map which overlays each other with these major haplotypes.

The given example already states after the first 3 nations are clear seperation from the 4th and onwards

----------


## Savant

> Well, this means that Croatians are by genetic THE oldest Europeans :)


Actually, no. It doesn't mean that at all...

----------


## Savant

> Not if Bosnia is included.


Oh internet....First of all you'e conflating yDNA haplogroups with whole genome ancestry, big mistake. A couple of Balkan states have high amounts of I2a, which is certainly a Paleolithic haplogroup. However the overwhelming majority of Balkan genetic input is of Indo-European, Neolithic origin, not Paleolithic, and Balkans whether Bosnian or Croatian are in no way the most Paleolithic population of Europe.

----------


## Alan

> So people, what do you think about video I've made and uploaded to youtube? here it is:
> 
> 
> As "non-european" HG's I've named HG's such as J1, Q, T & H... means all of HG's which are present in Europe just in last 1000 or 2000 years... so don't take this term "european and noneuropean" as somethin racist, I hope you understand :)


 J1, G2 and R1b are Neolthic, R1a and J2 are Bronze age immigrants. E1b1b* and I* are probably paleolithic/mesolthic.

----------


## Knovas

I am not sure about G2a being entirely Neolithic, some or even more than expected could be much older.

----------


## Taranis

> I am not sure about G2a being entirely Neolithic, some or even more than expected could be much older.


There's also the question of where in Europe a Haplogroup is how old. Other people made the valid points before that for instance although R1b and R1a both appear to be in Central Europe (and hence Western) since the Copper/Bronze Age, there's the fair possibility that R1b was already on the Balkans during the Neolithic while R1a may have been lurking in Eastern Europe at the same time period.

----------


## MOESAN

outside remark: two problems of definition: some examples:
neolitihic: time or economy-culture?
neolithic, paleo, meso, bronze, iron etc... where? a HG can be 'paleo- old' here and 'bronze age old' there...
it is of worth precising the place AND the time

----------


## Alan

> I am not sure about G2a being entirely Neolithic, some or even more than expected could be much older.


Your right. I, G2, E1b1b paleolithic. J1, R1b Neolthic and J2, R1a, T Bronze age immigrants. The correlation between J1 and R1b in West Asia is also interesting. Lezgians high in J1 and R1b, Assyrians high in J1 and R1b, Kurds and Armenians high in R1b with notable presence of J1 (~10%).

----------


## sparkey

> Your right. I, G2, E1b1b paleolithic.


Would you be able to place G2 and E1b subclades on a map like I've done with I? E1b seems to be a possible fit in Southern Europe, where Haplogroup I didn't extend, but I haven't observed an obvious Paleolithic/Mesolithic pattern for G2. That makes me think that some E1b in Europe is at least Mesolithic, but for G2, I'd like to explore that hypothesis with greater precision before coming to a conclusion.




> R1a... Bronze age immigrants.


Does that mean you're disassociating R1a from Corded Ware culture? Because it began in the late Neolithic, and the only ancient YDNA samples we have from Corded Ware turned out to be R1a.




> The correlation between J1 and R1b in West Asia is also interesting. Lezgians high in J1 and R1b, Assyrians high in J1 and R1b, Kurds and Armenians high in R1b with notable presence of J1 (~10%).


The nearness of Assyrian-type R1b (L23+ L150+ L51-) to Western/Central European R1b (L23+ L150+ L51+) is really intriguing. They're closer to each other than either is to Southeast European-type R1b (L23+ L150- L51-).

----------


## julia90

Map created by me, with my personal view about the genetic of europe

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> Map created by me, with my personal view about the genetic of europe


What do the colors stand for?

----------


## julia90

Blue North west european."Celts"

Red south western europeans, the most south western ones are sardineans

Green south eastern european-higher west asians genes

Yellow germanic-scandinavian nordics

Purple "Slavics"

----------


## Alan

> Would you be able to place G2 and E1b subclades on a map like I've done with I? E1b seems to be a possible fit in Southern Europe, where Haplogroup I didn't extend, but I haven't observed an obvious Paleolithic/Mesolithic pattern for G2. That makes me think that some E1b in Europe is at least Mesolithic, but for G2, I'd like to explore that hypothesis with greater precision before coming to a conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean you're disassociating R1a from Corded Ware culture? Because it began in the late Neolithic, and the only ancient YDNA samples we have from Corded Ware turned out to be R1a.
> 
> 
> 
> The nearness of Assyrian-type R1b (L23+ L150+ L51-) to Western/Central European R1b (L23+ L150+ L51+) is really intriguing. They're closer to each other than either is to Southeast European-type R1b (L23+ L150- L51-).



Sorry for my sooo late response. I had some of my exams and when I was online from time to time I didnt wanted to login here otherwise I knew I would stay longer as I should and couldnt learn as much as I wanted.



Well I always thought E1b might be mesolithic maybe even paleolithic in Europe. I just stated it is Neolthic because most people thing of it like this.

About R1a I always thought it came by Bronze age. If the findings of R1a are older and indeed from Neolthic times this gives me another hint that Indo-European language might very well be linked to Neolthic revolution. As we all know at late Neolthic the Hunthers and Gatherers from the Steppes and East Europe had already adopted pastoralism, who knows maybe they also adopted the Indo- European language from these Shepherds.

----------

