new ancient DNA study in LBK

Yes and no. It depends when, and where in Anatolia. Nowadays R1b is more common in northern and eastern Anatolia. However R1b is not dominant there, and probably came from somewhere else first (like the Pontic-Caspian steppe or even Central Asia). It's hard to say at present when R1b entered Anatolia, and if these early Anatolian R1b were indeed the ancestors of present-day Western Europeans.

I had imagined that the R1b homeland might actually be on the other side of the Caucasus, between the northern shore of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. Repeated westward and southward invasions would have brought R1b to Europe and Anatolia, but also depleted the original stock, until most of the R1b were pushed out of the Pontic steppes by their R1a neighbours. Of course this would have taken several millennia to achieve, starting approximately 5000 years ago, and ending not so long ago, with the last Central Asian invaders (Bulgars, Magyars, Khazars) that swept across the Pontic steppes to Europe (=> see my thread 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe ).

If modern Europeans descended in great part from Anatolia, Caucasian and Levantine immigrants, the incidence of fair hair and fair eyes would not be as high as it is today. Let's not forget red hair, which is almost unique to Western European R1b countries and parts of Central Asia. If red and blond hair came from Paleolithic Europeans (hg I), then the highest incidence would be in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sardinia. But these places are among the darkest in Europe for hair colour (Sardinia might well be the darkest, close to 100% black hair - Sardinian R1b appears to be mostly R-U152 from continental Italy, where the high percentage of Near-Eastern blood had lowered the incidence of fair hair before R1b reached Sardinia).

Yes but why there is fair hair and blue eyes and milk aptitude in the mixture R1a -11c or R1b - I1c among the Germanic peoples as Scandinavians cause if I1c was not fair hair and blue eyes the recessive genes of I1 supposed to be black brown eyes and black hair would appear
 
Yes but why there is fair hair and blue eyes and milk aptitude in the mixture R1a -11c or R1b - I1c among the Germanic peoples as Scandinavians cause if I1c was not fair hair and blue eyes the recessive genes of I1 supposed to be black brown eyes and black hair would appear

Simply because R1a and R1b are the dominant haplogroups among Germanic peoples (about 60% in the Benelux and North Germany, 65% in Iceland, 67% in Denmark). European Russians, Poles and Ukrainians have a lot of blond hair and also have a high percentage of R1a + R1b (73% for Poles, about 54% for Russians and Ukrainians).

Add to this natural selection in northern Europe for fair pigmentation. Blond hair and blue eyes could have entered the I1 and I2b gene pool quite early on. I1 in particular seems to be a very recent haplogroup, which re-expanded from a common ancestor only 4000 years ago (i.e. after Scandinavia and Germany were swallowed up by R1a and probably also R1b). So the Paleolithic and neolithic pre-I1 could have been darked haired and eyed (like the Saami), but a small group of I1 might have been assimilated by the conquering R1a, married blond Indo-European girls, and after a few generations have male I1 children that were blond with blue eyes. It didn't happen with I2a because there was no such bottleneck.

You should also look at the percentage of maternal lineages corresponding to R1a and R1b. U2 and U4 lineages in particular correlate strongly with R1a, and are almost as strong in Scandinavia as in North-West Russia.

In Italy, southern France or Iberia, on the other hand, most of the mtDNA lineages are Paleolithic or Neolithic, and few are Indo-European. If genes are only passed on by the paternal side, and the R1b replacement did take place progressively due to a small oligarchy of Indo-European having lots of local wives for many centuries, then the Indo-European blood would have been heavily diluted. This is how a society can end up with a high percentage of one particular Y-DNA haplogroup but not so much autosomal DNA in line with it. This tends to be especially true if the Y-DNA lineages lack diversity, as is the case in northern Italy (mostly R1b-U152) and Spain (mostly R1b-P312 or R1b-M153 for the Basques).
 
In Italy, southern France or Iberia, on the other hand, most of the mtDNA lineages are Paleolithic or Neolithic, and few are Indo-European. If genes are only passed on by the paternal side, and the R1b replacement did take place progressively due to a small oligarchy of Indo-European having lots of local wives for many centuries, then the Indo-European blood would have been heavily diluted. This is how a society can end up with a high percentage of one particular Y-DNA haplogroup but not so much autosomal DNA in line with it. This tends to be especially true if the Y-DNA lineages lack diversity, as is the case in northern Italy (mostly R1b-U152) and Spain (mostly R1b-P312 or R1b-M153 for the Basques).

Yes this is the same thing about the R1b found at high % in Central Africa notice this Y-DNA lineage lake also diversity anyway they are not white cause their African mtDNA ! Same thing about the Y-DNA R1a in India .Other cases of mixture are the French - Spanish - Italians I do agree. I am often surprise to see some dark skin peoples in Brittany with North African features for a high level of Y-DNA R1b1b2 who seems also lake diversity ? anyway I always wondering if these North African features found in Brittany , I mean : black skin brown eyes etc .. were really correlated to these paleolithic mtDNA or from a more recent mixture but I do agree with you . Anyway the Indo european blood is more representative in Germanic and Nordic countries include Poland and Baltic eras no doubt .
 
Yes this is the same thing about the R1b found at high % in Central Africa notice this Y-DNA lineage lake also diversity anyway they are not white cause their African mtDNA ! Same thing about the Y-DNA R1a in India .Other cases of mixture are the French - Spanish - Italians I do agree. I am often surprise to see some dark skin peoples in Brittany with North African features for a high level of Y-DNA R1b1b2 who seems also lake diversity ? anyway I always wondering if these North African features found in Brittany , I mean : black skin brown eyes etc .. were really correlated to these paleolithic mtDNA or from a more recent mixture but I do agree with you . Anyway the Indo european blood is more representative in Germanic and Nordic countries include Poland and Baltic eras no doubt .
what ? north african features in Brittany ? Since when is dark hair a north-african feature ? And where do you get that Baltics and Polaks are the most representatives of Indo-europeans ?? The Celts were also indo-europeans, and they settled mostly in France, Iberia, Ireland, etc. they didn't settle in Poland nor the Baltic area. Plus the Balts have lots of Ugric N1c like the Finnish.
 
Simply because R1a and R1b are the dominant haplogroups among Germanic peoples (about 60% in the Benelux and North Germany, 65% in Iceland, 67% in Denmark). European Russians, Poles and Ukrainians have a lot of blond hair and also have a high percentage of R1a + R1b (73% for Poles, about 54% for Russians and Ukrainians).

Add to this natural selection in northern Europe for fair pigmentation. Blond hair and blue eyes could have entered the I1 and I2b gene pool quite early on. I1 in particular seems to be a very recent haplogroup, which re-expanded from a common ancestor only 4000 years ago (i.e. after Scandinavia and Germany were swallowed up by R1a and probably also R1b). So the Paleolithic and neolithic pre-I1 could have been darked haired and eyed (like the Saami), but a small group of I1 might have been assimilated by the conquering R1a, married blond Indo-European girls, and after a few generations have male I1 children that were blond with blue eyes. It didn't happen with I2a because there was no such bottleneck.

You should also look at the percentage of maternal lineages corresponding to R1a and R1b. U2 and U4 lineages in particular correlate strongly with R1a, and are almost as strong in Scandinavia as in North-West Russia.

In Italy, southern France or Iberia, on the other hand, most of the mtDNA lineages are Paleolithic or Neolithic, and few are Indo-European. If genes are only passed on by the paternal side, and the R1b replacement did take place progressively due to a small oligarchy of Indo-European having lots of local wives for many centuries, then the Indo-European blood would have been heavily diluted. This is how a society can end up with a high percentage of one particular Y-DNA haplogroup but not so much autosomal DNA in line with it. This tends to be especially true if the Y-DNA lineages lack diversity, as is the case in northern Italy (mostly R1b-U152) and Spain (mostly R1b-P312 or R1b-M153 for the Basques).
But how do you explain the Finnish case, with so much blondism and 60% of N1c ? Also, if the R1b hg is indo-european, how is that the Iberians (mainly in today Catalonia, 80% R1b) are considered pre-Indoeuropean ??

Where does this come from ?
The Chikhi et al. study.
 
But how do you explain the Finnish case, with so much blondism and 60% of N1c ?

Blond Finns are south-west Finns, who are mostly I1a and R1a. They are most likely the descendants of Bronze Age Swedes (before R1b reached Sweden).

Also, if the R1b hg is indo-european, how is that the Iberians (mainly in today Catalonia, 80% R1b) are considered pre-Indoeuropean ??

MtDNA lineages in Spain are mostly Paleolithic. The high frequency of Spanish and Basque R1b are most likely due to a fast replacement of male lineages as explained here.
 
what ? north african features in Brittany ? Since when is dark hair a north-african feature ? And where do you get that Baltics and Polaks are the most representatives of Indo-europeans ?? The Celts were also indo-europeans, and they settled mostly in France, Iberia, Ireland, etc. they didn't settle in Poland nor the Baltic area. Plus the Balts have lots of Ugric N1c like the Finnish.

Excuse me about North African features who means nothing but these Britons have really sometimes brown skins , brown eyes and dark hair (not raid hair) and they are R1b1b2 of Brittany so from where they come from :unsure: Big lips brown skin black hair ? so they are Britons for a while .. This is not a recent migration the women line come from the paleolithic as in Spain or the Basque era : the ausomal DNA has turned to brown skin and black eyes in some and many of them so it is a nice mixture sometimes for cute girls :heart:
 
Excuse me about North African features who means nothing but these Britons have really sometimes brown skins , brown eyes and dark hair (not raid hair) and they are R1b1b2 of Brittany so from where they come from :unsure:
R1b1b2 is not even found in North Africa. Saying that dark-hair is of north-african origin in Europe is ridiculously ignorant.

Big lips brown skin black hair ? so they are Britons for a while .. This is not a recent migration the women line come from the paleolithic as in Spain or the Basque era : the ausomal DNA has turned to brown skin and black eyes in some and many of them so it is a nice mixture sometimes for cute girls :heart:
Big lips as in africans ? sure. Dude you are troll or what ?
 
Blond Finns are south-west Finns, who are mostly I1a and R1a. They are most likely the descendants of Bronze Age Swedes (before R1b reached Sweden).
But Lithuanians, Lativians and Estonians have also a good amount of N1c, and they don't have as much swedish blood as Finns. And they have lots of blondism too.

MtDNA lineages in Spain are mostly Paleolithic. The high frequency of Spanish and Basque R1b are most likely due to a fast replacement of male lineages as explained here.
So, Iberians were haplogroups I2 ? It is rarely found in Catalonia, about 4%
 
But Lithuanians, Lativians and Estonians have also a good amount of N1c, and they don't have as much swedish blood as Finns. And they have lots of blondism too.

They have a very high percentage of R1a.

So, Iberians were haplogroups I2 ? It is rarely found in Catalonia, about 4%

Yes, they were. North-eastern and central Iberians are still predominantly I2 if you remove all the R1b, R1a and G2a3b1a.
 
You wrote that a lot of Poles and Russians have fair hair and light eyes.
When I was in Poland and Russia, I saw especially in Russia and Ukrainia
many people with black eyes. Some times I believe that real Slave have
dark eyes and dark hair, maybe mongoloid or Tartarian admixture.
 
Yes, Poland and Russia are predominantly dark-haired. As an example, the Polish national team (all ethnic polaks) :

poland21024x768.jpg
 
Yes, they were. North-eastern and central Iberians are still predominantly I2 if you remove all the R1b, R1a and G2a3b1a.
So, in the case of Catalonia, this R1b replacemet when that would be ? During the Urnfield Culture wave of indo-europeans ? The Celts of the western Peninsula ? Because the Celtic remains of Catalonia are scarce, at least when compared with overwhelming remains of the western part of Iberia.
 
Poland has a fair percentage of light haired people but the large majority are dark.
 
R1b1b2 is not even found in North Africa. Saying that dark-hair is of north-african origin in Europe is ridiculously ignorant.

Big lips as in africans ? sure. Dude you are troll or what ?

Not big as Africans hahaha I never said that ;) ! Anyway this is not a joke I know personally very well all Brittany country side and "Vend?e" a region in south of Brittany . If you have the opportunity to travel there you will see a mixture of people some are brown and some are white and blond as I said now I know the explanation according Maciamo .
 
Last edited:
Poland has a fair percentage of light haired people but the large majority are dark.

But they (the Polish people ) are Y-DNA R1a at very high level no ? are the women come from the paleolithic ?
 
Last edited:
Yes, Poland and Russia are predominantly dark-haired. As an example, the Polish national team (all ethnic polaks) :

poland21024x768.jpg

They really look the French : a mixture ..
 
Last edited:
You wrote that a lot of Poles and Russians have fair hair and light eyes.
When I was in Poland and Russia, I saw especially in Russia and Ukrainia
many people with black eyes. Some times I believe that real Slave have
dark eyes and dark hair, maybe mongoloid or Tartarian admixture.

It really depends where you go. Around Belarus and St Petersburg, people have far more blond hair and blue eyes than in southern Russia. But Southern Russian nowadays are a completely different people than the Bronze Age steppe people.
 
I read several times that the Indo-Germanic tribes (haplogroups
R 1a and R1 b) have exterminated all most of the Neolithic men
(haplogroups E, I and J). It is a difficult thing to believe it.
Were mass graves found? It was a primitive society, they had not
extermination weapons at disposal. For example: Caesar wrote
that he exterminated the Eburones (a Belgium/Germanic tribe),
of course he murdered a lot of them, but others escaped to the
marshes between the Waal and Rhine (Netherlands).

Most areas were thinly populated, for example Norway and Sweden.
There were inaccessible mountains and woods. A lot of survivors
of the ancient Mesolithic and Neolithic ages must have taken their
refuge in Scandinavia and Finnland. For example the haplogroups
R1a and R1 b are rare in Finnland.
 
I read several times that the Indo-Germanic tribes (haplogroups
R 1a and R1 b) have exterminated all most of the Neolithic men
(haplogroups E, I and J). It is a difficult thing to believe it.
Were mass graves found? It was a primitive society, they had not
extermination weapons at disposal. For example: Caesar wrote
that he exterminated the Eburones (a Belgium/Germanic tribe),
of course he murdered a lot of them, but others escaped to the
marshes between the Waal and Rhine (Netherlands).

Good that you mention Julius Caesar. He exterminate an estimated 1 million Gauls and enslaved one more million during his campaigns. This is out of a population of 5 million Gauls at the time.

Caesar is said to have killed more than half of the individuals in the Helvetii tribe. This alone is incredible given that Gauls had a roughly equivalent military technology to the Romans (although they were less organised and disciplined).

So imagine what it must have been when the Indo-Europeans arrived with bronze weapons almost as good as the Roman ones and fighting against Neolithic farmers who had nothing better than tiny stone hatchets or wood and stone spears. The inequality was so huge that Neolithic people would have been massacred on a battlefield. It's not sure this is what happened. They could indeed have fled to mountainous and marshy areas. But that would have had a similar consequence on their numbers in the long term. Deprived of all the good agricultural land, they would have suffered starvation at first, until their population decreased to a fraction of what they used to be. During that time, the Indo-European population would boom thanks to all the newly acquired land.

Most areas were thinly populated, for example Norway and Sweden.
There were inaccessible mountains and woods. A lot of survivors
of the ancient Mesolithic and Neolithic ages must have taken their
refuge in Scandinavia and Finnland. For example the haplogroups
R1a and R1 b are rare in Finnland.

That's right. I think that it is because Sweden and Finland were so forested, cold and inhospitable that the indigenous populations survived in greater number. But southern Scandinavia was undeniably taken over by the Indo-Europeans from the Corded Ware/Battle-Axe culture.
 

This thread has been viewed 69025 times.

Back
Top