Analysis of Norwegian Y DNA

Fire Haired14

Fire Haired14

Banned
Messages
2,185
Reaction score
582
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b DF27*
mtDNA haplogroup
U5b2a2b1
In just two days I was able to get very detailed information about Norwegian Y DNA, thanks to the Norway FTDNA Project. I'll do the same for other countries. In terms of Y DNA, academic studies don't offer much. Most information lately about structure of haplogroups has come from private testing companies and amatures who study Y DNA for a hobby.

Here's my work. Most useful information is in this spreadsheet.

Norway Y DNA ftdna

As is true for most of Europe(xItaly, Balkans) Norwegian Y DNA is defined by lineages that expanded between 3000-2000 BC. 76% of their Y DNA is I1a, R1b1a2a1, R1a1a1. 70% of their Y DNA falls under Norse-specific clades of R1a, R1b, and I1 that probably expanded in that region over 4,000 years ago. Although it is important to note some fairlly I1/R1a/R1b clades expanded even in historical times based on their TMRCA estimates by yfull. Interestingly a few percent have R1b-L21 and some even were confirmed to belong to clades that have a TMRCA of less than a 1,000 years and are associated with Irish clans. Certainly descends from Viking age interaction with British Isles.

All other Norwegian Y DNA probably descends from older-expansion Y DNA expansions in Europe. The largest non-R1a/R1b/I1 clade is I2a2a-M223. Most M223 falls under Z161 which has been found in Neolithic Spain. Most Bronze age Hungarians had M223, it could have been popular at the eve of IE-arrival. Next largest is N1c1a-M78, which probably comes from Finnic admixture. Q1a2-L42 is the next largest and can have many possible origins.

Then the next largest are G2a-L140(found in Neolithic Anatolia, very old), E1b-V13(found in Neolithic Spain), J2(found in Neolithic Anatolia and Hugary), and I2a1-P37(Mesolithic, Neolithic Europe).
 
Very good analysis. I already used the FTDNA data for the Y-DNA frequencies of Norway (using only surnames with proven Norwegian origins).

I am not surprised that the TMRCA for L21 is under 1000 years old. I have long said that L21 in Norway descend from Irish or Scottish slaves brought back by the Vikings.

It would be very useful to have the TMRCA for G2a-L140, E1b-V13, I2a1-P37, I2a2a-M223, N1c1a-M78 and Q1a2-L42 in Scandinavia. I now have a pretty good idea of when modern I1, R1a and R1b subclades entered Scandinavia (namely during the Batttle Axe culture for R1a and Nordic Bronze Age for I1 and R1b), but it is less clear if G2a-L140, E-V13 and I2a1-P37 are Neolithic survivors, or came from Germany alongside R1b and I1 but didn't prosper because they were never part of a royal lineage. A third possibility is that they came much later, as progressive northward drift from Germany during the Middle Ages and in modern times.

The origins of haplogroup Q in Scandinavia are also highly controversial. Some claim that it is a remnant of Mesolithic HG, but it could also have been brought by undocumented Hunnic migrations to Scandinavia.
 
Good job Fire Haired! Interesting thing is that R1a in Norway is almost exclusively Z284 and L664, only 0.55% of population has Central European R1a ( 2.2% of all R1a). It seems that there was not much movement to Norway from the first entrance from central europe in bronze age. It is very interesting if Z284 is Norwegian specific snp or Scandinavian specific. I'm waiting for further analisis of Sweden and Danmark.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
In just two days I was able to get very detailed information about Norwegian Y DNA, thanks to the Norway FTDNA Project. I'll do the same for other countries. In terms of Y DNA, academic studies don't offer much. Most information lately about structure of haplogroups has come from private testing companies and amatures who study Y DNA for a hobby.

Here's my work. Most useful information is in this spreadsheet.

Norway Y DNA ftdna

As is true for most of Europe(xItaly, Balkans) Norwegian Y DNA is defined by lineages that expanded between 3000-2000 BC. 76% of their Y DNA is I1a, R1b1a2a1, R1a1a1. 70% of their Y DNA falls under Norse-specific clades of R1a, R1b, and I1 that probably expanded in that region over 4,000 years ago. Although it is important to note some fairlly I1/R1a/R1b clades expanded even in historical times based on their TMRCA estimates by yfull. Interestingly a few percent have R1b-L21 and some even were confirmed to belong to clades that have a TMRCA of less than a 1,000 years and are associated with Irish clans. Certainly descends from Viking age interaction with British Isles.

All other Norwegian Y DNA probably descends from older-expansion Y DNA expansions in Europe. The largest non-R1a/R1b/I1 clade is I2a2a-M223. Most M223 falls under Z161 which has been found in Neolithic Spain. Most Bronze age Hungarians had M223, it could have been popular at the eve of IE-arrival. Next largest is N1c1a-M78, which probably comes from Finnic admixture. Q1a2-L42 is the next largest and can have many possible origins.

Then the next largest are G2a-L140(found in Neolithic Anatolia, very old), E1b-V13(found in Neolithic Spain), J2(found in Neolithic Anatolia and Hugary), and I2a1-P37(Mesolithic, Neolithic Europe).
Click to expand...

So, help me understand!
Does the presence of N1c and Q means that The Norse have a dash of Chinese blood?
 
DuPidh said:
So, help me understand!
Does the presence of N1c and Q means that The Norse have a dash of Chinese blood?
Click to expand...

Yes it does.
 
DuPidh said:
So, help me understand!
Does the presence of N1c and Q means that The Norse have a dash of Chinese blood?
Click to expand...

I assume by Chinese you mean from what is today in China or East Asia. Because Chinese ethnic group probably isn't more than 4,000 years old. Very few ethnic last 4,000 years.

There's no way of knowing. Q and N1c were born over 20,000 years ago. We know from ancient DNA that West Eurasinas are a mixture of distinct people who lived 20,000 years ago. There wasn't a western people. The same could be true for East Asians, they could be a mixture of multiple distinct people, so there wasn't a such thing as Eastern back then.

Obviously each population that contributed blood to West Eurasians but not to East Asians is more related to West Eurasians than to East Asians, so in that sense is western. The same is true for any pops that contributed blood to East Asians but not to West Eurasians. Y DNA Q if anything in that sense comes from a Western population. Native Americans and North Asians probably received Q from their "ANE" ancestors who were much closer to Europeans than to East Asians.

Scandinavians probably received Y DNA N1c from their Finnish neighbors who are mostly N1c. If you went back like 5,000 years maybe N1c was in an Eastern people. There's a good chance N1c was brought to East Europe from Siberia, so that would make anyone who has N1c at least a tiny bit Eastern.
 
Q in Latvian ftdna project belong to folk with possibly Jewish surnames. But I do not know re subclades.
 
DuPidh said:
So, help me understand!
Does the presence of N1c and Q means that The Norse have a dash of Chinese blood?
Click to expand...

no
N1b is Chinese, N1a and N1c are Siberian although their common origin, N and N1 are very likely in Manchuria
Q is Siberian, not Chinese except for Q-M120 who possibly were the first ones to discover the eastern part of the silk road in Gansu between China and the Anasievo herders on the steppe 5000 years ago
 
Just a harmless question... Why is it that Scandinavians never take any "heat" for their non-European ancestry, unlike Southern Europeans?
 
Degredado said:
Just a harmless question... Why is it that Scandinavians never take any "heat" for their non-European ancestry, unlike Southern Europeans?
Click to expand...

For a lot of people it's not really about genetics; it's about phenotype. If you're a blonde, blue-eyed Scandinavian or Finn you're "white" even if you're 8% Asian. That's how atavistic and unscientific some of this is on anthrofora, but then people like that only use genetics as a tool of their racism, and bend the findings any way necessary to support their agenda. They're not into it out of scientific or intellectual curiosity.
 
Angela said:
For a lot of people it's not really about genetics; it's about phenotype.
Click to expand...

Angela,
but phenotype depend on genetic - so it is about genetic :)
You cannot be a blonde without genes... :useless:

If you're a blonde, blue-eyed Scandinavian or Finn you're "white" even if you're 8% Asian.
Click to expand...

So, how big percentage makes someone asian? :rolleyes:

And who this blondes think they are? Aryans? Vikings or what?
 
Degredado said:
Just a harmless question... Why is it that Scandinavians never take any "heat" for their non-European ancestry, unlike Southern Europeans?
Click to expand...

Southern Europeans are a lot more mixed than Nordic countries. The proximity with North Africa and West Asia makes it impossible not to have those admixtures.
But now with mass migration of Kurd's, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians in Sweden, Germany, Denmark mark there is no more difference.
I leaned that in Germany alone are about 2 million Kurd. That's not a number to be ignored.!
 
Rethel said:
Angela, but phenotype depend on genetic - so it is about genetic :) You cannot be a blonde without genes... :useless: So, how big percentage makes someone asian? :rolleyes: And who this blondes think they are? Aryans? Vikings or what?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid you're missing the logic of the question and the response. Scandinavians with a couple of percent "East Asian" are still considered totally "European" by Nordicist anthrofora types, but the same people claim that some southern Europeans with under 1 or 2% SSA and some North African are not totally European. Logic is obviously not their strong suit. I suggested that it may be because the specific phenotype more common in the far north changes the perception. It may also just be typical myopic thinking in that people always see the mote in the eye of their neighbor more than in their own, to use a Biblical phrase.

Phenotype only imperfectly correlates with genotype. Ten percent ancestry from Africa or Asia may not "show" at all in a European. Siblings from "admixed" households who would get very similar scores on an Admixture run may differ markedly in terms of phenotype. That's because the alleles which control "appearance" are very few in number and not "tied" to certain ancestry informative markers.
 
DuPidh said:
Southern Europeans are a lot more mixed than Nordic countries. The proximity with North Africa and West Asia makes it impossible not to have those admixtures.
But now with mass migration of Kurd's, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians in Sweden, Germany, Denmark mark there is no more difference.
I leaned that in Germany alone are about 2 million Kurd. That's not a number to be ignored.!
Click to expand...

I think you're a little behind in your reading. More than 50% of the ancestry of all Europeans is from West Asia, with the possible exception of the Finns, precisely because of their Siberian ancestry.

I would suggest that you re-read Haak et al, in particular. Add up the EN percentage and then take half of the Yamnaya percentage and see what you get.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...mTRqE/w350-h365-no/Haak_et_al_Fig_3_small.png

That's without even considering the ANE portion of the EHG part of Yamnaya which really can't be labelled "European".

As to "racial" groupings, the only ones which make sense from a genetics point of view are West Eurasian, East Eurasian, and SSA. You could make it five by adding Amerindian and Oceanian. That's it. Everyone else is a mixture of those major groups. "European" is not a race; it only really starts to exist as an "ethnic" group around 4000 years ago, if then. The same is probably true for East Asians.

Now, we've gone off topic for long enough...let's get back to Scandinavian yDna.
 
Angela said:
I'm afraid you're missing the logic of the question and the response. Scandinavians with a couple of percent "East Asian" are still considered totally "European" by Nordicist anthrofora types, but the same people claim that some southern Europeans with under 1 or 2% SSA and some North African are not totally European. Logic is obviously not their strong suit.
Click to expand...

Aaaa... I thought that there is maybe some limit of asian DNA
wich makes or not someone blond, in yours or theirs opinion.
And this is the reason, why aDNA in personal studies has no
sense (exept only curiosity of course)...

I suggested that it may be because the specific phenotype more common in the far north changes the perception.
Click to expand...

Thats a good one! :LOL:

Phenotype only imperfectly correlates with genotype. Ten percent ancestry from Africa or Asia may not "show" at all in a European. Siblings from "admixed" households who would get very similar scores on an Admixture run may differ markedly in terms of phenotype. That's because the alleles which control "appearance" are very few in number and not "tied" to certain ancestry informative markers.
Click to expand...

In another words, outside can be totaly different than inside :)
 
Degredado said:
Just a harmless question... Why is it that Scandinavians never take any "heat" for their non-European ancestry, unlike Southern Europeans?
Click to expand...
Not true for Finns.
I've seen also Danish ****** succeed on Swedes on basis of their possible Asianness coming from connection with Finns :)

A lot of insecurity comes up in such discussions...
 
Angela said:
For a lot of people it's not really about genetics; it's about phenotype.
Click to expand...

But the stupidity of this, is when was a northern phenotype ever typical outside of the north, never! Someone put under the category white but doesn't look northern doesn't make them mixed. It's like saying "because you don't look like me you're mixed". It's too complicated for some to understand white isn't a real thing, there's just genetic-geographic trends.

Angela said:
As to "racial" groupings, the only ones which make sense from a genetics point of view are West Eurasian, East Eurasian, and SSA.
Click to expand...

SSA includes a lot, it's more diverse than Eurasia. On most GEDmatch ADMIXTURE SSA is just everything non-Eurasian. That's why Neanderthals score 100% in SSA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 13535 times.

Back
Top