Genetic make-up of Europe

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Also, I am afraid to say this, Oppenheimer is an eccentric, and based on his (outdated) finding he formed some very crazy ideas, including the idea that the English "have always been there", and that English was spoken in Britain before the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

[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 ^]

....

[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.

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.

Hi Yorkie - Welcome! 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.

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.

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 . 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 ?



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 . If someone can point me in the right direction , I would be most grateful .

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

1. Lithuania : about 85% of Y-DNA
2. Latvia & Russia : about 80%
3. 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