Y DNA, mtDNA, Hair color, and Eye color in ethnic groups of pre Indo European Europe

Do you think this is Accurate

  • Yes, very accurate

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • More accurate than not accurate

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • Not really

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • No not at all

    Votes: 7 53.8%

  • Total voters
    13
It seems you have the E-V13+ mutation on the E1b1b y-DNA line. This mutation (E-V13) took place in the southern Balkans (near Albania/Serbia/Greece). It got to you via the Greek colonization of magna Grecia, "greater Greece" (southern Italy). Today, some 25-30% of Greek men are positive for E1b1b, of which the vast majority of it is E-V13+. E-V13 is downstream of E-M78, thus indicating that E-M78 is the father of E-V13. E-M78 reaches its highest frequencies in Libya/Egypt (eastern north-Africa). This is from where an E-M78 man would migrate from Egypt to the Middle East, eventually reaching the Balkans (southeastern Europe) via Anatolia (turkey). Hope this helps.
 
It has pretty much been completely proven the R1b L11 Indo Europeans who spoke Proto Italo Celtic and Proto Germanichttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml is where all red hair in Europe comes from except parts of Scandinavia and the Udmurt people in Volga Russia
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

There is a correlation between L11 and red hair in Western Europe, but I would say that's it far from proven that L11 is the source of red hair.

The Udmurts are arguably the most red haired people on the planet. They have very little r1b. That's a big exception and possibly a big clue.

The simplest explanation is that red hair is the indigenous hair color of Western Europe and it's been buried under wave after wave of invaders from the East and South West. Considering the Udmurts, it could be argued that red hair might even have been the indigenous hair color across all of Northern Europe during the Ice Age until it was pushed to the fringes (both Western and Eastern) by blond haired and dark haired invaders.

Red hair seems to be older than blond hair and it just seems very unlikely it was camped out in the sunny Middle East (with r1b) during the Neolithic. Under that theory. during the Bronze Age, red hair would have invaded Western Europe with r1b, and also wandered East to the Urdmurts but without r1b, and left no trail of red hair from the Middle East to the fringes of Europe. It's much simpler for red hair to have developed over a long period of time in isolation in a cool place with low sunlight, like Northern Europe.

Occam's razor: among competing theories, the one with the fewest assumptions should be favored.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Adamo. The results I posted, the result that is label Italian is my results, would I be closely related with those other results DNA wise.
 
There is a correlation between L11 and red hair in Western Europe, but I would say that's it far from proven that L11 is the source of red hair.

The Udmurts are arguably the most red haired people on the planet. They have very little r1b. That's a big exception and possibly a big clue.

The simplest explanation is that red hair is the indigenous hair color of Western Europe and it's been buried under wave after wave of invaders from the East and South West. Considering the Udmurts, it could be argued that red hair might even have been the indigenous hair color across all of Northern Europe during the Ice Age until it was pushed to the fringes (both Western and Eastern) by blond haired and dark haired invaders.

Red hair seems to be older than blond hair and it just seems very unlikely it was camped out in the sunny Middle East (with r1b) during the Neolithic. Under that theory. during the Bronze Age, red hair would have invaded Western Europe with r1b, and also wandered East to the Urdmurts but without r1b, and left no trail of red hair from the Middle East to the fringes of Europe. It's much simpler for red hair to have developed over a long period of time in isolation in a cool place with low sunlight, like Northern Europe.

Occam's razor: among competing theories, the one with the fewest assumptions should be favored.

I agree for the most,
but please, let's keep in mind red hair HAS NOTHING TO DO with dark or light hairs: more than a mutation caused rufosity (eryhtrism) so maybe not linked populations could have showed a certain percentage of red hairs, independently one from another – AND YOU CAN BE RED DARK HAIRED OR RED LIGHT HAIRED ( or red mixed) – (it is ridiculous to put on the same map or survey 'red hairs' along with 'blonds', 'browns' or 'blacks – it 's true some old anthropologists did it) – quality # quantity, for I think) – perhaps quite cold climates did that red hairs better survived ( I believe erythrism managed well enough, better yet under wet cloudy weathers than under bright dry cold climate... -
difficult to tell how were the first I-Eans (to determine yet) – what I believe (for now) according to red hairs current distribution (N-W Europe atlantic lands (neo-Celts and Iceland) and isolates (Hessen and South-East Nieder-Sachsen Germany, Tydalen Norway, S-Jutland, alemanic Switzerland, W-S-W Sweden, Wallonia, Udmurts and less but interesting in South, Albania << ? Thracians???) is that a not completely but rather rich ancient Europe for rufosity knew a rarification of red hairs under populational flow(s) from East-South-East, at more than a time, with people bearing more 'B' blood group – but that does not tell us what Y-DNA haplogroups were linked to the actors of this story – I 'm not sure at all red hairs were making the higher percentages in old populations of Europe even at Paleolithical times -
concerning Udmurts, a Volga Finnic-Ugric speaking people, their geographical localization could (or could not: fifty-fifty) could do of them an ancient partially I-Ean people later uralicized by foreign males - (?!?)...
concerning western Europe, it is very possible that ultimatly occidental Y-R1b populations bore a lot of red hairs people: helas it does not tell us if this autosomals peculiarity is due to their original stock of males and females (statistical link even if no direct link between Y-DNA Hgs and rufosity), or if it is due to subjugated females on their way to West...the fact that we find big differences of red hairs distribution among populations showing almost the same percentages of Y-R1b today seems proving that there was no direct link between first Y-R1b populations and red hair, at first sight (I do not see why Y-R1b would have kept their original females in some places when taking foreign females in close other places, but maybe I pass by a hiden detail I miss) – by the way, the regions RICH for Y-R1a ARE POOR FOR RED HAIRS, as a whole, not?...
 
A nice map! However, why did you omit Karelian Hunter gatherer, Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov man's yDNA R1a. He is dated 7,500 uncal. yBP, so he fits your timeframe. We do not yet have any prove of ancient yDNA N in Finland but R1a is certain.
 
A nice map! However, why did you omit Karelian Hunter gatherer, Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov man's yDNA R1a. He is dated 7,500 uncal. yBP, so he fits your timeframe. We do not yet have any prove of ancient yDNA N in Finland but R1a is certain.

I made that map 2 years ago.
 
look it up okay i am not just making guess y dna r1b and r1a in europe came form indo europeanbs fact

mid eastern J groups and most north african e1b1b in europe came in greco roman times fact

Y DNA I subclades and g2a where probably about 100% of pre indo european europe y dn fact

if u subtract all y dna that came to europe in last 6,000 years u get my results fact

and i said that over 609% of france and most of spian, south germany and italy would have y dn g2a with minority i2a1a and some e1b1b in spain in germany some i2a2 from 31 y dna samples of farmers in germany, france, spain, and alsp italy 26 out of 31 had g2a 4 had i2a1a1 and one had eb1b v13 in spain fact and thats upports my theories

this in my opinion is very accurate and ancient dna totally backs me up u need to study this subject before u crtize me

also with hair color and eye color the uraalic language in finalnd is about 8,000 years old we have cultures that are most likley uralic ivading north east europe from siberia about 7,000-8,000ybp we have mtdna from them 7,500ybp three had siberia c1 also this culture was in baltic sea area but modern baltic spak a balto language which is indo european but they still have about 30% uralic n1c1 while eastern european near them who where never apart of that culture have no N1c1 so that culture was almost defintley uralic also baltic peoples non indo european, uralic, and mid eastern dna is almost only I1 which is scandnavien and they also have 60% blonde hair and 70% light eyes like scandnaviens so baltic's are in the same family as nordics also since this also means the very light haired and eyed nordic baltic people already completly settled their area 8,000ybp this means they where most liley teh first scandnviens over 10,000ybp and that he people here 6,000-8,000ybp had same light hair eye colors

also we have austomnal dna of farmers in europe they had over 55% med in all diffenrt types of tests modern spainish and italiens are most likley mainly decended of them and their closest modern relatives this means those farmers in spain and italy most likley had mainly dark hair and eyes also according to irish legand the native irish the celts invaded had dark hair and dark eyes so that is what i used also red hair almost defintley comes from indo europeans who invaded western europe i explained it so there would be no red hair also there would probably be less light hair and eyes in central europe in my opinon i was very accurte and now that theyw ill have more y dna hair color and eye color samples in europe from this time remeber this thread because rust me it is probably mainly correct

I suggest you remove all the R1 associated in this program, re run it and map what is remaining. Only with this method will you get a true picture.

to get details , always remove the main group
 
Just for accuracy...we now know from ancient dna that E-V13 related lineages and J2 were already in Europe in the transition from the mid to late Neolithic. Things are changing very quickly.
 
Just for accuracy...we now know from ancient dna that E-V13 related lineages and J2 were already in Europe in the transition from the mid to late Neolithic. Things are changing very quickly.

I don't think it's as simple as EEF/WHG/Steppe. We don't need to find an EEF source for E/J. EEF's ancestors arrived what 9,000 years ago. Who's to stay there wasn't constant gene-flow between Near East/Europe for 1,000s of years after that?!! There are lots of possibilities out there to explain J/E. Pre-Neolithic Greeks probably had sometype of "Near Eastern"-ancestry before Near Eastern immigration, why can't they be a source? Greek DNA ranging the Mesolithic-Bronze age will probably reveal a lot and how complex things are.
 
i say in the article that the ancestral allele for light eyes is mainly in the mid east and they probably originated there

i read a scientific article that says north Africans, mid easterns, and Palestinian people have the same light skin genes as Europeans and almost at the same rate and one of the European genes for white skin SLC24A5 111 rs146654 alle (A,A)is also found in mid easterns and north Africans but all non European people are suppose to have alleles G,G and when a European and non European have a kid the alles become A,G but mid eastern and north Africans have A,A which means it is not from inter marraige with Europeans

this means European white skin originated in the mid east and there are some naturally white skinned mid easterns and north Africans and people in the caucus mountains have almost no european blood but they have white skin this could mean that Europeans where founded by a group of white skinned people from the mid east and that blue and green eyes might also have originated in the mid east this would mean Europeans have always had white skin and light eyes and that it did not evolve in Europe as an adaption

and i think they need to stop calling those genes that create white skin in Europeans are only European because they are not and they dont always create white skin and there is no way Europe became white only 6,000-12,000ybp honestly i think it is raciest propaganda i have noticed they always say Europeans have ONLY been white for 6,000-12,000 years as if they want to give the idea it is very young.

I put again my nose in this thread, spite I fear an "epidermic" reaction of yours, Fire Haired; I admit you work hard and I have nothing against you, I only claim the right to disagree sometimes (LOL)...
. SLC24A5 variant concerns only light skin (but certainly capacity to tan) and I agree with your interpretation. But light eyes and hairs is something else and you may not do affirmations as you do, for I think. the most of light eyes and light hairs regions in South are "pocket regions", not big areas. As I think Southern people didn't invade themselves to recreate dark regions in South, I think the lightER skins and light hairs and eyes came into South from North, apart some combinations of dark hairs-light eyes possibly very old in Western Europe (HGs). Some regions in South as Sardinia and Portugal have in fact a non neglictible % of WHG even if a minority, and ancient enough (first?) Neareasterners descendants (pre-Neolithic I think), and they are among the darkest haired populations of Europe.
so for me NO, light eyes and light hairs did not came anciently from Near-Eastern or AL LEAST not as a definetely allover acquired mutation; It remains the question of the development of the responsible mutation in North or Northeastern Europe or Eastern Eurasia; it is an exciting question. What we are doing now are bets. We have TOO SMALL ANCIENT SAMPLES for now, from too limited number of places. I long for more, after I 'll say more.
&: I understand you can think the "Neareasterners" who brought fair mutations (eyes, hairs) could have done it before the Neolithic wave. It does not change my reasoning concerning today Southerners. There has been a kind of selection and I have some hard work as you to think it could be occurred in so short time (6000/8000 years, but who know? the last discoveries seem showing lightening mutation occurred in North-Eastern Europe among HGs if I red well so? maybe ancient; the question remains: allover pre-old Europe or only in some places (my personal bet)?
 
the Wessern Hunters Gatherers (small sample it's true!!!) seems answer half the question: not all over pre-Neolithic Europe?
 
This thread has been "asleep" a while but I find it extremely interesting. I am no geneticist, so I can only contribute with the naivety (and hopefully, the common sense) of the profane.

I think everyone underestimates the mobility of the paleolithic hunter-gatherers. If populations were able to reconquer Europe as a whole from a few southern refugia after the LGM, why couldn't they possibly have extended further ? People seem to set a sort of frontier between y-dna I populations and R populations. However, accepting the idea that western Europe was essentially I, and Eurasia essentially R doesn't rule out the possibility of a fringe zone where populations mixed, nor the possibility of long-distance incursions of the ones into the others' territories - to degrees we have no idea of. Recently, it has appeared that PIE people owed a significant part of their genome to WHG. Similarly, I wouldn't be overly surprised to learn in a near future that the R haplogroup arrived in some areas of western Europe long before the massive late-bronze-age influx from the steppe. We should keep in mind the very sudden, very brutal, but also very short-lived forays of the Goths, the Huns, the Cimmerians, etc... Similar raids (of conquest or just exploration) could have brought R1b populations to the west before the bronze age, maybe even before the copper age. This would account for such "riddles" as the Ligurian and Lusitanian substrata. So it is hard to tell which population blondness is to be connected with.

Also, geography and adaptation may have played a much greater role than y-dna in terms of skin/hair/eye color. Blondness is to a large extent confined to the shores of the Baltic, irrespective of dna. Genes may determine blondness, but maybe it works the other way round. Maybe living under darker skies for millenia may have caused skin, eyes, and hair to grow lighter, and ultimately that evolution was traduced into a gene mutation, no matter what y-dna you were ?!? Or is this utterly stupid ?

To finish with, regarding red hair... could it result, not from one specific influx of DNA, but from the encounter between two DNAs which, when they met, somehow "favored" the red-hair mutation ?

So many questions and opinions I have no scientific data to support. But I guess the forum can on occasion make room (and allowance) for ingenuousness ! Greetings to eveyone, and since I only discovered Eupedia recently, and even more recently joined the forum, a million thanks to Maciamo for this incredible site, my very best treasure trove by far in recent years on the internet.
 

This thread has been viewed 55551 times.

Back
Top