Genetic make-up of Europe

Maciamo, Does an R-L2* 'Y' make one S116+?
 
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 .
 
Norþman said:
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 .
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yorkie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Yorkie - Welcome! (y) Chris
 
Last edited:
Taranis said:
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).
Click to expand...

Actually, recent ancestry studies show an increasing number of Iberians testing as L21. A Eupedia member is tracking the results.
 
Last edited:
Yorkie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
Norþman said:
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 :grin:. If someone can point me in the right direction , I would be most grateful .
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
LeBrok said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
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.
 
Maciamo said:
Most Uralo-Slavic countries

  1. Lithuania : about 85% of Y-DNA
  2. Latvia & Russia : about 80%
  3. Estonia : about 70%
Click to expand...

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?
 
ultralars said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
sparkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
ultralars said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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?
 
ultralars said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 223478 times.

Back
Top