All Europeans are related back to 1000 years ago.

[Grubbe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Isn't that a post-medieval myth?

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

 

[Boss]

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]

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]

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

 

[adamo]

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]

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]

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

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

(a) R1b-S21 (U106) in Europe

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" -

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]

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]

sorry, I believe my P312 would be named S116...

 

[MOESAN]

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]

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.