-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
European Haplogroups
- Thread starter Maciamo
- Start date
All Europeans genetically close
Looking up the Genetic history of Europe on Wikipedia, I found a surprising fact. Despite its apparent diversity, the European continent is more genetically homogenous than any other continent (I wonder if that includes the pre-Colombian Americas).
Another unintuitive fact is that Scandinavia is less homogenous than many could believe. Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as a Germanic ethnicity covering all culturally Germanic countries, even the old Scandinavian homeland of Germanic languages. Y-DNA hapolgroups have shown that Scandinavian people were divided more or less equally between the I, R1a and R1b groups. The British, Irish or Spanish, despite their mixed heritage are more homogenous from this point of view.
Even from an anthropological point of view, Scandinavia is far from homogenous. People in Gotland, for instance, have clear Mongoloid feature, like the Finns (broad face, short nose). The people of South-West Norway (between Stavanger and Bergen) are darker haired and have more "German" feature than other Scandinavians. Those of the Trondheim region, on the contrary, have more obvious Nordic features, although different from those of the rest of Scandiavia (e.g. long and narrow faces). The Danes are broader headed and stockier than their northern neighbours.
Many Swedes and Norwegians have mixed Sami blood. This is more obvious among women, who are often shorter, darker haired and less typically Germanic than their Danish, German, Dutch, Belgian or English counterparts.
Looking up the Genetic history of Europe on Wikipedia, I found a surprising fact. Despite its apparent diversity, the European continent is more genetically homogenous than any other continent (I wonder if that includes the pre-Colombian Americas).
Wikipedia said:
Another unintuitive fact is that Scandinavia is less homogenous than many could believe. Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as a Germanic ethnicity covering all culturally Germanic countries, even the old Scandinavian homeland of Germanic languages. Y-DNA hapolgroups have shown that Scandinavian people were divided more or less equally between the I, R1a and R1b groups. The British, Irish or Spanish, despite their mixed heritage are more homogenous from this point of view.
Even from an anthropological point of view, Scandinavia is far from homogenous. People in Gotland, for instance, have clear Mongoloid feature, like the Finns (broad face, short nose). The people of South-West Norway (between Stavanger and Bergen) are darker haired and have more "German" feature than other Scandinavians. Those of the Trondheim region, on the contrary, have more obvious Nordic features, although different from those of the rest of Scandiavia (e.g. long and narrow faces). The Danes are broader headed and stockier than their northern neighbours.
Many Swedes and Norwegians have mixed Sami blood. This is more obvious among women, who are often shorter, darker haired and less typically Germanic than their Danish, German, Dutch, Belgian or English counterparts.
EdZiomek
Regular Member
X Haplotype
Maciamo...
Again, another wonderful thread.
I am interested in the X Haplotype, of which is descended from the N Haplotype.
What I find curious is the divergence of geographic location, from the N to the X. For example, the origin of the N Haplotype is generally shown in the mideast area, and the emergence of the X descendant is shown in the Scandinavian countries, and in North America in relatively small numbers and specific locations.
But doesn't that also mean that X could have been everywhere in between and just mutated into the modern haplotypes? I am sure I have seen a progression chart... maybe from you...showing earliest haplotypes, progressing to N, progressing to X, etc. It seems to me that X is just a remnant of an ancient strain that was isolated enough not to mutate, but where it wasn't isolated, may have mutated into modern day popular strains.
Your thoughts?
Maciamo...
Again, another wonderful thread.
I am interested in the X Haplotype, of which is descended from the N Haplotype.
What I find curious is the divergence of geographic location, from the N to the X. For example, the origin of the N Haplotype is generally shown in the mideast area, and the emergence of the X descendant is shown in the Scandinavian countries, and in North America in relatively small numbers and specific locations.
But doesn't that also mean that X could have been everywhere in between and just mutated into the modern haplotypes? I am sure I have seen a progression chart... maybe from you...showing earliest haplotypes, progressing to N, progressing to X, etc. It seems to me that X is just a remnant of an ancient strain that was isolated enough not to mutate, but where it wasn't isolated, may have mutated into modern day popular strains.
Your thoughts?
Thanks. I am always glad to hear that some people appreciate my articles.
First of all, you have to know that two thirds of the mtDNA haplogroups (not haplotype, which is another thing) descend from N, wich itself descend from L3, which descends from L2, and itself from L1. Haplogroups L and N originated in Africa, so they preceded or coincided with the spread of modern humans. In fact, hpg N can still be found among Australian aborigines, although it has probably disappeared from Africa. I say "probably" because too few people have been tested to be conclusive.
Haplogroup X came into existence about 30,000 years ago, during the Ice Age, and before humans crossed over to the American continent. It might have originated around the Caucasus, then spread in various directions from there, including Siberia, where it is still found. One group migrated to the Americas. Others to the Near East, Mediterranean Europe and Northern Europe.
Because it happened so long ago, humans have had time to move to very remote parts of the globe since then. MtDNA haplogroups are usually less useful than Y-DNA to determine one's geographic origins, because in ancient times, in case of invasions, the victors killed the men, but kept the women. That is why Y-DNA groups are more homogeneously spread, and many mdDNA groups are found almost anywhere in Eurasia.
I1b is the old denomination. Now it is I2a, and actually I2a2 in Eastern Europe. Its highest incidence is actually in Croatia (42% nationwide, but up to 70% in central Croatia). This website has a table with the percentages of each haplogroup for all European countries.
Thank you for this link.There is also a study with slight different numbers in google:'Review of Croatian genetic heritage as revealed by mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomal lineages',in which r1a is 25%.
I2a reaches over 70% among Croats in Bosnia,not in central Croatia
similar levels can be found on Islands also,and Dalmatian coast and hinterland haven't been specially observed,but they probably have similar numbers.
I2a reaches over 70% among Croats in Bosnia,not in central Croatia
similar levels can be found on Islands also,and Dalmatian coast and hinterland haven't been specially observed,but they probably have similar numbers.
secherbernard
Elite member
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Antony, France
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-L21
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U6a7a1
U6 is not found only in Iberia. U6 is found in Italy, France, England, Germany, Ukraine, Belgium, etc...
Bernard
Bernard