All Europeans are related back to 1000 years ago.

[Grubbe]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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), 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.

 

[al-kochol]

"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]

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]

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]

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), 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.

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

 

[kamani]

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]

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]

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]. 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]

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]. 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]

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]

What about religious differences and relatedness? I suppose not all Europeans are descendants of the prophet Muhammed or king David?

 

[james stock]

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]

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?