PDA

View Full Version : All Europeans are related back to 1000 years ago.



ebAmerican
08-05-13, 18:36
"Anyone alive 1,000 years ago who left any descendants will be an ancestor of every European,"

"The researchers were surprised to find that even individuals living as far apart as Britain and Turkey shared a chunk of genetic material 20 percent of the time. To explain that degree of genetic commonality, the researchers say those pairs of individuals would have to have a huge number of common genealogical ancestors 1,000 years ago — a number that takes in everyone who was alive in Europe back then."

"Eastern Europeans, in contrast, showed more relatedness than the average, perhaps due to the Slavic expansion into that region more than 1,000 years ago."

Graham Coop, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Davis, told NBC News.

Their findings were published on Tuesday in the open-access journal PLOS Biology (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555).

I'm not a geneticist, but this seems dubious.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555

BakodiP
08-05-13, 19:17
I read the NBC News link posted by Geno Project Facebook site. I think it's a bunch of cr*p! 2000 samples from Europe... that's not a great amount, and I don't think it represents anything. They didn't do archeogenetical research, so how can they talk about Europeans 1000 years ago? It really sounds like 'Biritsh scientists' found out that chocolate is bad for health, next week another 'British scientists' found out that chocolate is good... I don't think this study has anything to do with science at all!

ebAmerican
08-05-13, 20:36
There is some interesting tidbits. On a whole most Europeans look to be related, except the Italians. The Italians show more heterogeneity to the rest of Europe (interesting). Within specific population groups (UK for example) there is more heterogeneity, while looking inside than out. Those in the UK who had less Irish decent had more of the German component. The authors contributed it to the Celtic and Germanic differences. Italy is interesting, because it shows it was a truly international hub in ancient times. The authors contribute the Roman Empire and it's attraction by peoples far and wide. The homogeneity of Europe shows that after the late Neolithic not much new DNA entered into the picture, that the people of ancient Europe traveled extensively from the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea and From Ireland to Turkey and vice versa intermingling. The study also proves that diffusion of cultural ideas is nonsense, and the transmittal of ideas and culture was by migration (people).

adamo
08-05-13, 22:28
Italians correlate a lot with Western Europeans, their Neolithic elements of J2 (E3b is only 10% national level) is what makes them stand out but they are far more European than say, Greeks, who are really "outliers" in Europe.

Luan
08-05-13, 23:30
Italians correlate a lot with Western Europeans, their Neolithic elements of J2 (E3b is only 10% national level) is what makes them stand out but they are far more European than say, Greeks, who are really "outliers" in Europe.

What makes you say that? People on here say the same thing about Albanians but according to my Autosomal Dna I came out all European.

ebAmerican
08-05-13, 23:34
Italians correlate a lot with Western Europeans, their Neolithic elements of J2 (E3b is only 10% national level) is what makes them stand out but they are far more European than say, Greeks, who are really "outliers" in Europe.

On the studies PCA maps they had Italians as the outliers with Greece in-between Italy and the rest of Europe. J2 maybe European Neolithic but it is relatively small percentage compared to other dominate haplogroups in Europe. The study is not about Europeanism, it's about how closely related each group is to each other comparatively speaking. Spain has the most heterogeneous population, but is still more closely related to other European countries than Italy. I would interpret this as Italy having more foreign DNA influence than any other country in Europe. This makes sense because Italy housed the greatest empire the wold has ever known, and was known as an international city for commerce. All roads lead to Rome! It's only logical they would be the furthest removed.

ebAmerican
08-05-13, 23:41
What makes you say that? People on here say the same thing about Albanians but according to my Autosomal Dna I came out all European.

It's not about Europeanism. European is a geographical term, like American (although it is usually associated with the US). The Mexicans and Canadians are technically American (North). The Study was demonstrating how closely related Europeans were to each other. Italians out of the group were least related. It has nothing to do with who is European or non-European.

albanopolis
09-05-13, 01:07
Italians correlate a lot with Western Europeans, their Neolithic elements of J2 (E3b is only 10% national level) is what makes them stand out but they are far more European than say, Greeks, who are really "outliers" in Europe.
10% of 60 mil of Italy is 6 million Italians have e-v13 haplogroup. 25% e-v13 in Greece is 2,5 million. So why 6 milion E-v13 Italians is not an outlier, but 2.5 milion Greeks is? Don't forget that J1 arabic has huge presence in Italy whereas in ballkans is missing.

adamo
09-05-13, 07:22
J1 does NOT have a "huge" presence in Italy, Greeks do NOT correlate closer to other Europeans as they have the highest Neolithic components ( J2+E3b+G) accounting for slightly more than half of their y-DNA, the Spanish cluster very close with other Europeans, Western Europeans in particular and Italy is in between Spain and Greece?; at the other extremity. Italians cluster with Swiss, French, and many other Western Europeans as their R1b levels are in a zone considered still very/quite high (50%), whereas the common European hg's of Greece are a low level spread of I2a(15%) R1a (15%) R1b (15%) and then a nice 55% chunk of Neolithic foreign components, to approximate. If Italy is not Western European, if its an "outlier" then Greece is very much an outlier as well.

adamo
09-05-13, 07:25
Finns are a MAJOR outlier, as are Sardinians....but the totality of Italians?? Really?....I guess Greeks are part of outliers too I guess.

zanipolo
09-05-13, 08:20
10% of 60 mil of Italy is 6 million Italians have e-v13 haplogroup. 25% e-v13 in Greece is 2,5 million. So why 6 milion E-v13 Italians is not an outlier, but 2.5 milion Greeks is? Don't forget that J1 arabic has huge presence in Italy whereas in ballkans is missing.

your calculations make no sense, they ONLY work IF the whole Italian population was tested.
The 10% of E is for Italians that did a test. You need to also consider which regions where mostly tested. your 10% would be lucky to reach a number of 100000 Italians

I doubt that even 10 million Italians have ever been tested.

IIRC the only euro country to test all or nearly all of its population was Estonia. And I think they test children at the start of primary school...for free

adamo
09-05-13, 08:29
Interesting so then the most precise genetic results must be those of the Baltic Estonians, who are patrilineally a Finno-Slavic genetic composition (37%) R1a and about (40%) N1c nt to mention 10-15% hg I, I1a in particular.

Nobody1
09-05-13, 09:07
The problem i see with this study and Italy is that they didnt chop the Italian sample.
Every study has shown that Italians are diverse from each other, N. Italian and S. Italian do not cluster with each other and the Sardinians cluster in a world of their own.

However, this study has lumped the Italians together, and therefor gets the diverse results it has gotten:

Figure 2A shows the distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland.

The study also shows that the Italians as a whole (North to South and the islands) are not mixed with each other

Spain and Portugal showing very few common ancestors with other populations over the last 2,500 years. However, the rate of IBD sharing within the peninsula is much higher than within Italy—during the last 1,500 years the Iberian peninsula shares fewer than two genetic common ancestors with other populations, compared to roughly 30 per pair within the peninsula; Italians share on average only about eight with each other during this period.

Not surprising, since Italy didnt exist until 1861.
Would have been more revealing if they chopped the Italian sample;

Great study in total though

BakodiP
09-05-13, 12:45
Just one fact, they tested at about 2000 samples.
5 samples from Russia (population: 143 347 100)
839 samples of Swiss French origin (population: whole Switzerland 8 100 000)
I have no more questions...

adamo
09-05-13, 19:41
Sardinians should not even be considered Italians, and southern Italians have much higher Neolithic component (about 50%; as much as greece or Albania) but north-central Italians fit very well in the Western European genetic sphere. I particularly like the segment stating certain italian samples cluster with French and Swiss ( the R1b u152's obviously) and others with Turks and Cypriots ( the middle eastern J2's and some of the E3b's.) it's really Italy's Neolithic predominant blood in the south that sets it apart from much of the rest of Europe, but even in the south there's STILL 25-35% R1b, so its another piece of an equally sliced 3 piece pie between R1b,J2 and E3b and even hg G frequencies go up reaching a maximum but definite 15% in the south. Hg G reaches 20% on Sardinia where it is responsible for the exotic and indigenous Nuraghi culture. In northern Italy, R1b levels hit 55-60%, making it a mini France or Belgium, its considered R1b dominant territory fitting very well in the west European genetic landscape. J2 and E3b are far rarer in the north being allotted 10% each. Most other hg's don't really have appreciable frequencies there to even bother mentioning. Central Italy has 40-45% R1b, slightly less than half, making it like a mini central Germany, although instead of I1a and R1a ( Scandinavian and Slavic) levels rising, it is Mesopotamian J2 and north-African E3b that rises. 20% of central Italians are J2, thanks probably to the ancient Etruscans, but again, only 10% are E3b. In southern Italy, 25-30% are R1b, making this region like a distant Poland or Hungary where only 1/3 to 1/5 men are R1b, this is no longer Western European core cluster area. 25% are J2, and another 20-25% are E3b, not to mention 15% G. On Sicily, 25% are R1b, 28% are J2 and 25% are E3b. There a many parts of southern Italy+ Sicily, even central Italy where J2 or E3b dominates in a village or region, but overall, on a national level within these regions ( total genetic composition of southern Italy) ( total genetic composition of Sicily), on a total scale of the entire island etc. the J2 alone or the E3b alone never overtakes the R1b levels, so if you combine Neolithic blood then its 50% compared to 30% R1b, but on their own ( E3b and J2) never overtake the R1b , even the southern most areas are an equally split pie of the three haplogroups more or less. Although, if analyzed province by province, area by area, region by region, then you will find many areas in south Italy for example, where J2 controls 37%, 44% of men within a city or region.

kamani
09-05-13, 22:11
@adamo
Look at autosomal maps:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml

Italy groups much closer with Greece/Albania than let's say with Germany. Sorry man!

adamo
10-05-13, 06:30
I never even said Italians cluster with Germans I said French and Swiss, considering half of italian men are R1b.

kamani
10-05-13, 11:53
I never even said Italians cluster with Germans I said French and Swiss, considering half of italian men are R1b.
Since a good percentage of the Swiss are actually italian by origin, you might be right about them.
Regarding the French, only the north of italy, is the same distance from the French as they are from Romanians/Bulgarians/Albanians. However, even North-Italians are closer to Spanish/Portugese than to French. That's because the French genetically are considerably germanic. Most italians are about 2 times closer to Balkans than to France. Look into genetical-distance stuff for proof.

Nobody1
10-05-13, 12:11
Since a good percentage of the Swiss are actually italian by origin, you might be right about them.
Regarding the French, only the north of italy, is the same distance from the French as they are from Romanians/Bulgarians/Albanians. However, even North-Italians are closer to Spanish/Portugese than to French. That's because the French genetically are considerably germanic. Most italians are about 2 times closer to Balkans than to France. Look into genetical-distance stuff for proof.

Thats exactly the problem with studies that dont chop the Italian sample,

from the study Ralph-Coop et al. 2013 (posted above)
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555.g002&representation=PNG_M

One can see three patches of Italians samples, the top clusters close to the French (partially with); the bottom clusters with the Greeks and close to Cypriots and Turks. But one can only guess as to what patch indicates what sample (North? South?). Not specified.
Also clearly shows Italians dont cluster with each other; Studies are always more revealing/informative when they chop the Italian sample [North - South - Sardinia]

also from the study; showing the diversity within Italy:

Figure 2A shows the distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland.

zanipolo
10-05-13, 20:07
Thats exactly the problem with studies that dont chop the Italian sample,

from the study Ralph-Coop et al. 2013 (posted above)
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555.g002&representation=PNG_M

One can see three patches of Italians samples, the top clusters close to the French (partially with); the bottom clusters with the Greeks and close to Cypriots and Turks. But one can only guess as to what patch indicates what sample (North? South?). Not specified.
Also clearly shows Italians dont cluster with each other; Studies are always more revealing/informative when they chop the Italian sample [North - South - Sardinia]

also from the study; showing the diversity within Italy:

Figure 2A shows the distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland.


This is correct in what you say. northern italians are related to southern -french and northern iberians.
The L'oc language is very close to northern italian, while l'oil of northern france was due to the frankish invasion via the north.
L'oil became the modern French language , but l'oc is still spoken

Grubbe
10-05-13, 21:35
"Anyone alive 1,000 years ago who left any descendants will be an ancestor of every European,"


Even if for instance Charlemagne had many descendants, I strongly doubt that I am one of them. But a descendant of Europeans living at the same time? Of course!

ebAmerican
10-05-13, 23:40
Probably not directly, but indirectly you definitely are. The assertion of Charlemagne being the Father of all Europeans is metaphorical, but also autosomal. The study looks at both matrilineal and patrilineal decent. It's the same theory as "Six degrees of separation". When you think of the crazy spider web of relativeness it becomes clear. It's difficult to wrap your mind around.

Example: A male I1 marries a female U5a, they have four kids all I1 and U5a autosomal. The daughters marry a R1b men, and a J2 man. The Sons marry H3 woman, and T1a woman. The grand kids who are I1,R1b, and J2 yDNA and U5a, H3, and T1a all have a common ancestor of the grandfather who was I1. Bring in human mobility and 50 generations and you can see how we are all related from a dominate male figure like Charlemagne. His decendents married and had children in Slavic, British Isles, and Scandinavian countries. There are a lot of bastard children out there. It wasn't unheard of to sleep with your vassals bride. The French call it "Droit du seigneur" right of the lord.

albanopolis
10-05-13, 23:49
Sardinians should not even be considered Italians, and southern Italians have much higher Neolithic component (about 50%; as much as greece or Albania) but north-central Italians fit very well in the Western European genetic sphere. I particularly like the segment stating certain italian samples cluster with French and Swiss ( the R1b u152's obviously) and others with Turks and Cypriots ( the middle eastern J2's and some of the E3b's.) it's really Italy's Neolithic predominant blood in the south that sets it apart from much of the rest of Europe, but even in the south there's STILL 25-35% R1b, so its another piece of an equally sliced 3 piece pie between R1b,J2 and E3b and even hg G frequencies go up reaching a maximum but definite 15% in the south. Hg G reaches 20% on Sardinia where it is responsible for the exotic and indigenous Nuraghi culture. In northern Italy, R1b levels hit 55-60%, making it a mini France or Belgium, its considered R1b dominant territory fitting very well in the west European genetic landscape. J2 and E3b are far rarer in the north being allotted 10% each. Most other hg's don't really have appreciable frequencies there to even bother mentioning. Central Italy has 40-45% R1b, slightly less than half, making it like a mini central Germany, although instead of I1a and R1a ( Scandinavian and Slavic) levels rising, it is Mesopotamian J2 and north-African E3b that rises. 20% of central Italians are J2, thanks probably to the ancient Etruscans, but again, only 10% are E3b. In southern Italy, 25-30% are R1b, making this region like a distant Poland or Hungary where only 1/3 to 1/5 men are R1b, this is no longer Western European core cluster area. 25% are J2, and another 20-25% are E3b, not to mention 15% G. On Sicily, 25% are R1b, 28% are J2 and 25% are E3b. There a many parts of southern Italy+ Sicily, even central Italy where J2 or E3b dominates in a village or region, but overall, on a national level within these regions ( total genetic composition of southern Italy) ( total genetic composition of Sicily), on a total scale of the entire island etc. the J2 alone or the E3b alone never overtakes the R1b levels, so if you combine Neolithic blood then its 50% compared to 30% R1b, but on their own ( E3b and J2) never overtake the R1b , even the southern most areas are an equally split pie of the three haplogroups more or less. Although, if analyzed province by province, area by area, region by region, then you will find many areas in south Italy for example, where J2 controls 37%, 44% of men within a city or region.
Look! I am having hard time to understand your point of view! R1b is the only European cluster? Have you not seen E-V13 is wide spread in Europe? Are they not present in Europe before R1b? Why is not E-v13 European? Or J2 for that matter. Again, do the math, there are at least 3 times more e-v13 individuals in Italy than Greece, Albania, Kosovo Macedonia, Bulgaria Montenegro, Bosnia taken together, because of the size of population of Italy. European means people formed in Europe, not blond people. We know we are different, that is why our name is Albanians, Greeks and so on.. We are not Germans or Spaniards. But we are a lot more Europeans than Hungarians for that matter, Serbs, Croats etc.. I agree with you about Italy though. Italy is not glued by common blood the way other nations are. Italy is a group of nations. You have those muted interdependence movements of Padania, Venetian, Sicilian for that matter. They used to be separate nations.

zanipolo
11-05-13, 00:02
Look! I am having hard time to understand your point of view! R1b is the only European cluster? Have you not seen E-V13 is wide spread in Europe? Are they not present in Europe before R1b? Why is not E-v13 European? Or J2 for that matter. Again, do the math, there are at least 3 times more e-v13 individuals in Italy than Greece, Albania, Kosovo Macedonia, Bulgaria Montenegro, Bosnia taken together, because of the size of population of Italy. European means people formed in Europe, not blond people. We know we are different, that is why our name is Albanians, Greeks and so on.. We are not Germans or Spaniards. But we are a lot more Europeans than Hungarians for that matter, Serbs, Croats etc.. I agree with you about Italy though. Italy is not glued by common blood the way other nations are. Italy is a group of nations. You have those muted interdependence movements of Padania, Venetian, Sicilian for that matter. They used to be separate nations.

the problem is that you are using modern nationalist terms/names which are only 200 years old when you are talking about ancient iron-age people.
example..ancient Romans are not italians

The program uses modern names/terms for ease of explanation, they should have gone to older names.

if you are albanian, then you need to find something along ghegs, tosks, dardanians or moesians or something like that

your concern of E-v13 has already been spoken about

albanopolis
11-05-13, 00:10
Its hard to believe that all Europeans are related since 1000 yrs ago. What relations means? I have to have common blood haplogroups. If I am E-V13 how am I related with an Irish? We come from distinct individuals.

zanipolo
11-05-13, 00:33
Its hard to believe that all Europeans are related since 1000 yrs ago. What relations means? I have to have common blood haplogroups. If I am E-V13 how am I related with an Irish? We come from distinct individuals.

as an example they are saying something like this - in the time of the romans, they took people from your area and made them soldiers or slaves or both and took them to england, these people never went back ( most likely did not know where back was ). they took people from, illyria, north italy, iberia, maurtania ( algeria now) , egypt, levant, anatolia etc etc.............so the DNA in these ancients markers are the same.
The roman policy was to move many people to other parts of the empire to control them.

james stock
11-05-13, 00:54
Its hard to believe that all Europeans are related since 1000 yrs ago. What relations means? I have to have common blood haplogroups. If I am E-V13 how am I related with an Irish? We come from distinct individuals.

Very easily, actually. As you go back in time it becomes exponentially more likely that you share a grandparent with someone that is living. Since you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc.. if you go back n generations then you have 2^n grandparents, unless you have inbreeding which would reduce the amount of grandparents, and should be expected to s degree.

If we go back 1000 years or 36 generations we have 2^36 grandparents that you are descended from that could also be possible grandparents to other people in parts of the world. Thus you would be nth cousins, which is pretty much meaning less. The study even says the further you go in geographic distance that it exponentially decreases the likelyhood of random people being cousins. The only way it increases is if you go further back in time, but distance and relatedness should be inversely correlated.

At 500 years or 18 generations you have 262,144 nth grandparents.
At 1000 years or 36 generations you have 68,719,476,736 nth grandparents.

This assumes no inbreeding, which is impossible. Populations will also show more genetic similarity with inbreeding.

Thus the fact that you are nth cousins with someone from an ancestor 1000 years ago is basically meaningless.

The interesting part of the article is about the genetics of Albanians, who show the most similarity out of the the groups tested.

The interesting part of the similarity is that while Albanians show a high degree of similarity compare to other populations, the similarity occurred with the last 500 years. If we go back 2000 years Albanians show no more similarity to each other than Hungarians or Polish do.

Thus from this we can conclude that Albanians are homogenous as a people from about 500 years ago and are no more homogenous than Hungarians or Polish at 2,000 years ago.

kamani
11-05-13, 01:18
The interesting part of the article is about the genetics of Albanians, who show the most similarity out of the the groups tested.

The interesting part of the similarity is that while Albanians show a high degree of similarity compare to other populations, the similarity occurred with the last 500 years. If we go back 2000 years Albanians show no more similarity to each other than Hungarians or Polish do.

Thus from this we can conclude that Albanians are homogenous as a people from about 500 years ago and are no more homogenous than Hungarians or Polish at 2,000 years ago.

you read it wrong, they share a higher than usual number of common ancestors from 1500 years ago, and it also says that the samples were from a small area in Albania. Concluding from this article, the Albanians were decimated by the Romans and the plague, and started repopulating after 500 AD. This is what the article says:

The highest levels of IBD sharing are found in the Albanian-speaking individuals (from Albania and Kosovo), an increase in common ancestry deriving from the last 1,500 years. This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years. These individuals share similar but slightly higher numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations than do individuals in other parts of Europe (see Figure S3 (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1 001555.s003)), implying that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one. Furthermore, our Greek and Macedonian samples share much higher numbers of common ancestors with Albanian speakers than with other neighbors, possibly a result of historical migrations, or else perhaps smaller effects of the Slavic expansion in these populations. It is also interesting to note that the sampled Italians share nearly as much IBD with Albanian speakers as with each other. The Albanian language is a Indo-European language without other close relatives [53] (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1 001555-Hamp1) that persisted through periods when neighboring languages were strongly influenced by Latin or Greek, suggesting an intriguing link between linguistic and genealogical history in this case.

al-kochol
11-05-13, 01:55
"Eastern Europeans, in contrast, showed more relatedness than the average, perhaps due to the Slavic expansion into that region more than 1,000 years ago."

Slavic expansion... I know what you mean... more than 1000 years ago they just started calling those former Scythian tribes Slavs. So you mean the expansion of the word, not people.

james stock
11-05-13, 02:02
you read it wrong, they share most common ancestors from 1500 years ago, and it also says that the samples were from a small area in Albania. So based on this article, the Albanians were decimated by the Romans and started repopulating after 500 AD. This is what the article says:The highest levels of IBD sharing are found in the Albanian-speaking individuals (from Albania and Kosovo), an increase in common ancestry deriving from the last 1,500 years. This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years. These individuals share similar but slightly higher numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations than do individuals in other parts of Europe (see Figure S3), implying that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one. Furthermore, our Greek and Macedonian samples share much higher numbers of common ancestors with Albanian speakers than with other neighbors, possibly a result of historical migrations, or else perhaps smaller effects of the Slavic expansion in these populations. It is also interesting to note that the sampled Italians share nearly as much IBD with Albanian speakers as with each other. The Albanian language is a Indo-European language without other close relatives [53] that persisted through periods when neighboring languages were strongly influenced by Latin or Greek, suggesting an intriguing link between linguistic and genealogical history in this case.

The article, where i bolded your quote of it, indicates that the Albanians came from a small, cohesive group 1500 year ago, which is what i stated. I will post two flaws which could question the data that even the authors talked about.

Flaw 1 - sample size is too small which could lead to less diversity or selection bias of the samples
Flaw 2 - the geographic distances within nations shows high degree of divergence. ie. North/South clade in Italy, a east/west clade in England and a possible north/south clade in Croatia, since Bosnians show more similarity to each other than Croatians do.

Aside from this, more errors that I have yet to identify are possible.

Albanians started becoming homogeous somewhere around 1000-1500 years ago or 500-1000AD. Here is data from S-12 in the study.

At 0-500 years two random people share
Albanians: 90
Yugoslavian: 8
Hungarians: 0
Polish: 3

At 500-1500 years two random people share
Albanians: 600
Yugoslavian: 100
Hungarians: 50
Polish: 100

At 1500-2500 years two random people share
Albanians: 600
Yugoslavian: 500
Hungarians: 200
Polish: 400

At 2500 years two random people share
Albanians: 1200
Yugoslavian: 400
Hungarians: 1200
Polish: 1200

Albanians show the same amount of common ancestors at 500-1500 as they do at 1500-2500. That means they came from a much more diverse population at 1500-2500 years. So the hegemony of Albanians must have occurred no sooner than 500-1000AD since their genetic likeness, around before 500AD, starts to match other European populations. So I would date E-V13 in Albania and Kosovo to 500-1000AD. Where they were before 500 AD, i do not know. These dates also corresponds to Dienekes model that dates E-V13 in Albania/Kosovo to roughly 500-1000AD.

james stock
11-05-13, 02:12
Slavic expansion... I know what you mean... more than 1000 years ago they just started calling those former Scythian tribes Slavs. So you mean the expansion of the word, not people.

You cannot conclude anything without differentiating the North-South Croatian clade. North has a higher frequency of R1a, south higher frequency of I2a. That fact alone mitigates the hypothesis of slavic diffusion to Dalmatia and Hercegovina. I'm confident that the study would show, given a large enough sample and the willingness of the authors to address it, a North-South Croatian divergence like it the one it shows for North-South Italy.

zanipolo
11-05-13, 02:35
you read it wrong, they share most common ancestors from 1500 years ago, and it also says that the samples were from a small area in Albania. Concluding from this article, the Albanians were decimated by the Romans and the plague, and started repopulating after 500 AD. This is what the article says:

The highest levels of IBD sharing are found in the Albanian-speaking individuals (from Albania and Kosovo), an increase in common ancestry deriving from the last 1,500 years. This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years. These individuals share similar but slightly higher numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations than do individuals in other parts of Europe (see Figure S3 (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1 001555.s003)), implying that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one. Furthermore, our Greek and Macedonian samples share much higher numbers of common ancestors with Albanian speakers than with other neighbors, possibly a result of historical migrations, or else perhaps smaller effects of the Slavic expansion in these populations. It is also interesting to note that the sampled Italians share nearly as much IBD with Albanian speakers as with each other. The Albanian language is a Indo-European language without other close relatives [53] (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1 001555-Hamp1) that persisted through periods when neighboring languages were strongly influenced by Latin or Greek, suggesting an intriguing link between linguistic and genealogical history in this case.

thracians, illyrians and macedonians decimated the albanians, the romans decimated the illyrians and thracians

kamani
11-05-13, 02:40
Albanians started becoming homogeous somewhere around 1000-1500 years ago or 500-1000AD. Here is data from S-12 in the study.

At 0-500 years two random people share
Albanians: 90
Croatians: 8
Hungarians: 0
Polish: 3

At 500-1500 years two random people share
Albanians: 600
Croatians: 100
Hungarians: 50
Polish: 100

At 1500-2500 years two random people share
Albanians: 600
Croatians: 500
Hungarians: 200
Polish: 400

At 2500-4335 years two random people share
Albanians: 1200
Croatians: 400
Hungarians: 1200
Polish: 1200

Albanians show the same amount of common ancestors at 500-1500 as they do at 1500-2500. That means they came from a much more diverse population at 1500-2500 years. So the hegemony of Albanians must have occurred no sooner than 500-1000AD since their genetic likeness, around before 500AD, starts to match other European populations. So I would date E-V13 in Albania and Kosovo to 500-1000AD. Where they were before 500 AD, i do not know. This also corresponds to Dienekes model of E-V13 in Balkans at 500-1000AD.

Your conclusion is wrong, look at the text at the data in bold. They're the most related and homogenous group also at 1500-2500 years ago and at 2500-4335 years ago. Which means their E-v13 could have been there since 2335 BC for what we know from the article.
Basically albanians are the most homogenous population in the study. If you pair that with the fact that a random italian is just as related to an albanian as to another italian; and with the fact that Greeks and Macedonians have common ancestors with albanians more than with any other population, you get the picture that Albanians have been a cohesive group in the Balkans at least since the Bronze Age.

james stock
11-05-13, 02:57
Your conclusion is wrong, look at the text at the data in bold. They're the most related and homogenous group also at 1500-2500 years ago and at 2500-4335 years ago. Which means their E-v13 could have been there since 2335 BC for what we know from the article.
Basically albanians are the most homogenous population in the study. If you pair that with the fact that a random italian is just as related to an albanian as to another italian; and with the fact that Greeks and Macedonians have common ancestors with albanians more than with any other population, you get the picture that Albanians have been a cohesive group in the Balkans at least since the Bronze Age.
Do you understand that it's expected, by virtue of hereditary genetics, that as you go back further in time it is more probable that two random people show more common ancestors? That's why two random Europeans tend to be cousins at 1000 years.

Per article:


implying that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one.
This puts a pretty big dent into the Albanians are Illyrians hypothesis.

kamani
11-05-13, 03:42
This puts a pretty big dent into the Albanians are Illyrians hypothesis.

I'm not sure about that dent, but here is a bulldozer to the jugoslav-illyrian hypothesis. (Not that I care much, but just for the sake of putting correct information out there)

per article:
This period begins with the Huns moving into eastern Europe towards the end of the fourth century, establishing an empire including modern-day Hungary and Romania, and continues in the fifth century as various Germanic groups moved into and ruled much of the western Roman empire. This was followed by the expansion of the Slavic populations into regions of low population density beginning in the sixth century, reaching their maximum by the 10th century [52] (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1 001555-Barford1). The eastern populations with high rates of IBD are highly coincident with the modern distribution of Slavic languages, so it is natural to speculate that much of the higher rates were due to this expansion. The inclusion of (non-Slavic speaking) Hungary and Romania in the group of eastern populations sharing high IBD could indicate the effect of other groups (e.g., the Huns) on ancestry in these regions, or because some of the same group of people who elsewhere are known as Slavs adopted different local cultures in those regions. Greece and Albania are also part of this putative signal of expansion, which could be because the Slavs settled in part of these areas (with unknown demographic effect), or because of subsequent population exchange.

james stock
11-05-13, 04:00
I'm not sure about that dent, but here is a bulldozer to the jugoslav-illyrian hypothesis. (Not that I care much, but just for the sake of putting correct information out there)

per article:
This period begins with the Huns moving into eastern Europe towards the end of the fourth century, establishing an empire including modern-day Hungary and Romania, and continues in the fifth century as various Germanic groups moved into and ruled much of the western Roman empire. This was followed by the expansion of the Slavic populations into regions of low population density beginning in the sixth century, reaching their maximum by the 10th century [52] (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1 001555-Barford1). The eastern populations with high rates of IBD are highly coincident with the modern distribution of Slavic languages, so it is natural to speculate that much of the higher rates were due to this expansion. The inclusion of (non-Slavic speaking) Hungary and Romania in the group of eastern populations sharing high IBD could indicate the effect of other groups (e.g., the Huns) on ancestry in these regions, or because some of the same group of people who elsewhere are known as Slavs adopted different local cultures in those regions. Greece and Albania are also part of this putative signal of expansion, which could be because the Slavs settled in part of these areas (with unknown demographic effect), or because of subsequent population exchange.
Of course the study will show a certain degree of Slavic influence in "YG" because the study includes Serbs. The study does not differentiate between Bosnian, Croatians, Serbians, and Montenegrins. I have corrected my post to signify this fact. If they only tested south Croatians from Dalmatia and Hercegovina, it cannot be doubted that the differences would be dramatic. The amount of Slavic influence in Croatians cannot be inferred in any way from this study. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise and a travesty that they bulked all Croatian speakers together.

al-kochol
11-05-13, 06:20
You cannot conclude anything without differentiating the North-South Croatian clade. North has a higher frequency of R1a, south higher frequency of I2a. That fact alone mitigates the hypothesis of slavic diffusion to Dalmatia and Hercegovina. I'm confident that the study would show, given a large enough sample and the willingness of the authors to address it, a North-South Croatian divergence like it the one it shows for North-South Italy.

The same differentiation R1a/I2a you will find in modern Ukraine, where once were living so diverse tribes as Antes or Ostrogoths. To me I2a is a stamp coming from Ostrogoths.

Grubbe
11-05-13, 14:15
What about religious differences and relatedness? I suppose not all Europeans are descendants of the prophet Muhammed or king David?

james stock
11-05-13, 15:05
What about religious differences and relatedness? I suppose not all Europeans are descendants of the prophet Muhammed or king David?
It is trivial that you and another person share a grandfather 1000 years ago.

At 1000 years or 36 generations you have 68,719,476,736 nth grandparents. (assuming no inbreeding which is not possible)

Grubbe
11-05-13, 15:24
It is trivial that you and another person share a grandfather 1000 years ago.

At 1000 years or 36 generations you have 68,719,476,736 nth grandparents. (assuming no inbreeding which is not possible)

Yes, but religious division has had great implications of marriage patterns for hundreds of years. Wouldn't that also reflct in the proportion of ancestors from different religious paths?

Grubbe
11-05-13, 15:38
Yes, but religious division has had great implications of marriage patterns for hundreds of years. Wouldn't that also reflct in the proportion of ancestors from different religious paths?

Or to rephrase it: If "all" Europeans living today are descendants of Charlemagne, wouldn't most of them be found among Christians and not (so many or none at all?) among Jews and Moslems?

MOESAN
11-05-13, 15:42
i found this "digest" on DIENEKES BLOG, thanks to him!
I need more details about the survey
I have a big mistrust in conclusions about timing of ancestry - what I understood through my reading is that every European share a few common ancestors with almost every other Europeans, dated to 1500 years ago, and a LOT of common ancestors when considering 1000 years before these 1500 years, it's to say 2500 years ago - how did they manage it... I 'm hungry to know -
Common genes are in our genomes for thousands and thousands of years, sometimes shared with OTHER SPECIES (!) and coalescence is not a perfect tool to appreciate it -(this point can reduce the time scale a little ) and coalesence marks only a mutation event, and we have ancestors with different genes compared to us by the effects of these single mutations- the ancient community between all Europeans goes back very far in old old times, outside Europe so... -
surely some genes passed from a single man or woman to a HUGE numbers of present day Europeans, everypart, but there is a difference between a few genes among milliards of them and a close genetical affinity - as say someones, Sardinians and other isolats populations share surely very few with SOME other Europeans population for this last 2500

Michel Gilson
11-05-13, 16:10
So ebamerican the chances of us being related to Charlamagne are quite real? I had heard that about 80% of those with European blood were related to Charlamagne but always wondered how true that was. Thanks for the info.

james stock
11-05-13, 17:37
Or to rephrase it: If "all" Europeans living today are descendants of Charlemagne, wouldn't most of them be found among Christians and not (so many or none at all?) among Jews and Moslems?
Let me try to explain the concept more clearly.

If all Europeans descended from Charlemagne, he is only 1 grandparent out of thousands or millions that you are descended from. The further you back in time, the more ancestors you have by a function of 2^n generations, but this function decreases with inbreeding which is impossible to avoid.

Being related to Charlemagne has little to no meaning unless almost all of your possible lineages also branch to Charlemagne.

james stock
11-05-13, 17:55
Yes, but religious division has had great implications of marriage patterns for hundreds of years. Wouldn't that also reflct in the proportion of ancestors from different religious paths?
Yes, you are correct in believing that religion would segregate gene flow. The most important influence, however, is geography.

Although all Europeans might be related by 1 ancestor 1500 years ago, it is probable that two random people from the same country would be related by many more ancestors. Moreover, it is probable that two random people from the same village are related by more ancestors than two random people from the same country. The further you compare two peoples relatedness in geographic distances, the less related they become.

Ie.
Two random Europeans share 1 ancestor 1500 years ago
Two random Albanians share 600 ancestors 1500 years ago

Boss
11-05-13, 18:18
Probably not directly, but indirectly you definitely are. The assertion of Charlemagne being the Father of all Europeans is metaphorical, but also autosomal. The study looks at both matrilineal and patrilineal decent. It's the same theory as "Six degrees of separation". When you think of the crazy spider web of relativeness it becomes clear. It's difficult to wrap your mind around.

Example: A male I1 marries a female U5a, they have four kids all I1 and U5a autosomal. The daughters marry a R1b men, and a J2 man. The Sons marry H3 woman, and T1a woman. The grand kids who are I1,R1b, and J2 yDNA and U5a, H3, and T1a all have a common ancestor of the grandfather who was I1. Bring in human mobility and 50 generations and you can see how we are all related from a dominate male figure like Charlemagne. His decendents married and had children in Slavic, British Isles, and Scandinavian countries. There are a lot of bastard children out there. It wasn't unheard of to sleep with your vassals bride. The French call it "Droit du seigneur" right of the lord.

Isn't that a post-medieval myth?

Grubbe
11-05-13, 18:28
Yes, you are correct in believing that religion would segregate gene flow. The most important influence, however, is geography.

Although all Europeans might be related by 1 ancestor 1500 years ago, it is probable that two random people from the same country would be related by many more ancestors. Moreover, it is probable that two random people from the same village are related by more ancestors than two random people from the same country. The further you compare two peoples relatedness in geographic distances, the less related they become.

Ie.
Two random Europeans share 1 ancestor 1500 years ago
Two random Albanians share 600 ancestors 1500 years ago

We can agree on that : )

Grubbe
11-05-13, 18:30
Isn't that a post-medieval myth?

No, but it was not practised everywhere, for instance not in Norway.

Boss
11-05-13, 18:33
No, but it was not practised everywhere, for instance not in Norway.

Hm so what medieval sources do we have for it? I only need to check a few writers.

Grubbe
11-05-13, 19:19
Hm so what medieval sources do we have for it? I only need to check a few writers.

Wish I could be specific; the only thing I remember is that I read about it while studying history nearly 30 years ago.

Yaan
11-05-13, 19:46
I never even said Italians cluster with Germans I said French and Swiss, considering half of italian men are R1b.
Man would u learn that R1b means nothing the R1b in Italy is different than that in Germany. Learn it R1b in Italy is close to J2 in Italy coz they come together R1b in Germany is totally different. And stop insulting J2 and E-V13 people as being non European, they are in Europe before R1b people and u r T, so it is kinda funny ur posts :laughing:

adamo
12-05-13, 04:20
R1b in Italy did not come with J2 , italian R1b is mostly R-S28, highest frequencies are in Italy, Switzerland, France. The italian J2 came from ancient Greeks and middle eastern groups such as west anatolia's Etruscans. They did NOT arrive "together". R1b in Germany is a different subclade R-S21, but its still closer to R-S28 than R1a or J2 is. Clades of R1b are all closer to each other than any R1a or J2 Clade is to R1b. I'm not insulting J2's or E's found in Europe, they simply have a different point of origin outside of Europe. Except for EV-13 which originated in Europe, but most E is found across Africa; the nearest E to the Balkans one is the E-M78 east North African predecessor. Again, I'm not saying they aren't European.

Yaan
12-05-13, 09:49
R1b in Italy did not come with J2 , italian R1b is mostly R-S28, highest frequencies are in Italy, Switzerland, France. The italian J2 came from ancient Greeks and middle eastern groups such as west anatolia's Etruscans. They did NOT arrive "together". R1b in Germany is a different subclade R-S21, but its still closer to R-S28 than R1a or J2 is. Clades of R1b are all closer to each other than any R1a or J2 Clade is to R1b. I'm not insulting J2's or E's found in Europe, they simply have a different point of origin outside of Europe. Except for EV-13 which originated in Europe, but most E is found across Africa; the nearest E to the Balkans one is the E-M78 east North African predecessor. Again, I'm not saying they aren't European.
I think ur interest in genetics is for a period no longer than a 2-3 mounths. We can speak when u learn some things. R1b in Italy are the same as J2 people in Italy and have nothing to do with R1b in Germany.
German and Italian R1b is different as E-V13 and I1` is different.

Nobody1
12-05-13, 12:13
I think ur interest in genetics is for a period no longer than a 2-3 mounths. We can speak when u learn some things. R1b in Italy are the same as J2 people in Italy and have nothing to do with R1b in Germany.
German and Italian R1b is different as E-V13 and I1` is different.

Correct, R1b in Italy and Germany is (in total) different, and does not cluster with each other; but i dont think that the R1b in Italy has a common genetic root with the J2 in Italy.

Myres et al 2011 - R1b
http://imageshack.us/a/img266/8162/myresetal.png

Def. Italy and Germany do not cluster with each other. But they share a mutual amount [Upper Rhine area Germany] of R1b-S28 (U152); and R1b-S28 (U152) is the most common R1b sub-clade in Italy (North and Central; South not so much). Germany is much heavier R1b-S21 (U106);

Busby et al 2011;
(c) R1b-S28 (U152) in Europe
http://imageshack.us/a/img825/4572/busby2011.png

(a) R1b-S21 (U106) in Europe
http://imageshack.us/a/img41/3843/busby3.png

Myres et al 2011
Specifically, S116*(xU152, M529) occurrence is maximal in Iberia (Figure 1j), whereas the U152 branch is most frequent (20–44%) in Switzerland, Italy, France and Western Poland, with additional instances exceeding 15% in some regions of England and Germany (Figure 1l).

But Germany and Italy do not cluster in general or even in specific about R1b; S21/S28 rift

Myres et al 2011; "Principal component analysis by haplogroup R1b sub-clades" -
http://imageshack.us/a/img42/1184/myresatal2.png

Myres et al 2011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/
Busby et al 2011
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.full

MOESAN
18-05-13, 22:00
two things:
by unique male ligneage (very weakly representative) Y-R1b has NOTHING to do with Y-J nor with any other bigeuropean haplogroup, being R1a an R2 and R the closer ones -
I agree theorically that nevertheless Y-R1b and some Y-J in Italy could have reached it one together -
dominant R1b in Germany and Italy are different, but there genealogic and genetic distance is not so big - and every country has a non negligeable % of the R1b dominent in the other one... let's keep in mind the two countries show some P312 too -
nevertheless, Italy is not homogenous and we can be almost sure some Y-R1b in Italy, the most of them in South, have their origin in Greece or Anatolia, when other Y-R1b have more surely their origin (the more recent at least, a more remote origin could be in S-Baltic lands and Eurasia) around the Danau river and the Alps (the majority, I think) -

MOESAN
18-05-13, 22:05
sorry, I believe my P312 would be named S116...

MOESAN
18-05-13, 22:22
Y haplogroups have the same weight in our genetic makeup than a patronymic surname ligneage in our total genealogy, it is to say: fey a very very light weight!!!
I agree Albanians an Irish people have few in common, but it is not saying they share NOTHING - that said, I'm not sure we are all of us descendants of 'Carolus Magnus'...
concerning haplo's, yes, E1b-V13 could be a little older in Europe than R1b; just R1b seems today more typical to a certain modern Europe: things change sometime: it is history - all the way, we have not to invest ourselves too much in 'glory' and so on... the glorious ancestors are buried along with obscure ones and time passed - let 's like our origins without compete one against another in a Guinness historic book -

Zemra
20-05-13, 21:03
The interesting part of the article is about the genetics of Albanians, who show the most similarity out of the the groups tested.

The interesting part of the similarity is that while Albanians show a high degree of similarity compare to other populations, the similarity occurred with the last 500 years. If we go back 2000 years Albanians show no more similarity to each other than Hungarians or Polish do.

Thus from this we can conclude that Albanians are homogenous as a people from about 500 years ago and are no more homogenous than Hungarians or Polish at 2,000 years ago.

If you read the 2012 version of the article, this isn't what they were implying.

Actually, here's the rewritten version:
suggesting an intriguing link between linguistic and genealogical history in this case.