Genetic make-up of Europe

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.
 
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.
 
It is less if your home is European in the Middle East rather than in India?
 
It is less if your home is European in the Middle East rather than in India?
Sorry, I don't understand. Habla en español.
 
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-)?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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. :unsure:
 
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. :unsure:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
Google is superior in translating Spanish to English. Yahoo works better on other languages.
 
Go with google Carlitos.
 

This thread has been viewed 222851 times.

Back
Top