Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations

Maciamo,
You say:
"The new hybrid Germanic people retained the highest percentage of aboriginal haplogroup I."
Could you please elaborate about the ' aboriginals'.
 
Maciamo,
You say:
"The new hybrid Germanic people retained the highest percentage of aboriginal haplogroup I."
Could you please elaborate about the ' aboriginals'.

These would be good places to start (unless you have a more specific question) : haplogroup I1 and haplogroup I2
 
Honestly, you guys are making a way too big of a deal out of Haplogroups. After all, they just give genetic information for 1 out of hundreds/thousands possible ancestors. Although populations might have different haplogroups, they are almost indistinguishable. Or the other way around. For example, the guy who mentioned Albanians and Greeks. Although similar in haplogroups, central Albanians look a lot different than Greeks. They tend to have medium brown hair compared to black hair with greeks. Or take the example of Sardinians. They might have completely different haplogroups, but they're virtually indistinguishable from Italians with regards to phenotypes.

These maps are an extremely superficial way of understanding ancient cultures. Molecular anthropology has its place in history, but looking at history solely through the lens of y-chromosomal frequencies, is at best a pseudo-science. Genetics is an extremely complex field, and by saying this place has this much of this haplogroup, so they might look like this, or come from here is childish.

Its ok to infer in some different cases from these findings, but when you infer on the inference of an other inference, theres something called propagation of error that makes all these theories futile.
 
Honestly, you guys are making a way too big of a deal out of Haplogroups. After all, they just give genetic information for 1 out of hundreds/thousands possible ancestors. Although populations might have different haplogroups, they are almost indistinguishable. Or the other way around. For example, the guy who mentioned Albanians and Greeks. Although similar in haplogroups, central Albanians look a lot different than Greeks. They tend to have medium brown hair compared to black hair with greeks. Or take the example of Sardinians. They might have completely different haplogroups, but they're virtually indistinguishable from Italians with regards to phenotypes.

These maps are an extremely superficial way of understanding ancient cultures. Molecular anthropology has its place in history, but looking at history solely through the lens of y-chromosomal frequencies, is at best a pseudo-science. Genetics is an extremely complex field, and by saying this place has this much of this haplogroup, so they might look like this, or come from here is childish.

Its ok to infer in some different cases from these findings, but when you infer on the inference of an other inference, theres something called propagation of error that makes all these theories futile.

While I agree with you on some ponits, genetics are far more accurate way than hair or eye colour distinguishing anything ( this is completly useless science in determing race) or linguistic knowledge ( another silly assumption ) or the bardic fairytales where bards mixed up multitudes of stories ..I mean, don't you find it amusing and silly that just because some people in areas speak slavic , then they are slavic :LOL::confused:...its utterly stuipid, , its the same as If i say that the people that speak english regardless of where they live must be english culture.
 
While I agree with you on some ponits, genetics are far more accurate way than hair or eye colour distinguishing anything ( this is completly useless science in determing race) or linguistic knowledge ( another silly assumption ) or the bardic fairytales where bards mixed up multitudes of stories ..I mean, don't you find it amusing and silly that just because some people in areas speak slavic , then they are slavic :LOL::confused:...its utterly stuipid, , its the same as If i say that the people that speak english regardless of where they live must be english culture.

I completely agree. For example, Hungarians are the largest group of Uralic speakers, but yet somehow they only have 1% of the "uralic" haplogroup N. Or like how eastern Europe has R1a, so it MUST be a slavic gene, because there's slavic countries in eastern europe.

Or even grouping people by language, like Germanic people or Italic people. What the hell do Romanians have to do with the Portuguese? or Austrians with Norwegians? or Nigerians with Frenchmen? Yes, they speak related languages but they're not closely genetically affiliated. Stop tying languages to Haplogroups.

Again, genetic studies have their place, but inference based solely on haplogroups is ridicoulous. Cameroonians, Indians and Welshmen all have R1b so they must closely related!!
 
Just a possible correction to the original post:
The poet Xenophanes (around 400 BC) describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired.So they must
have been very R1b, since red hair is recessive and needs both parents to have the red-gene, in order to show.
This possibly makes them related to the nearby celts and illyrians, who possibly shared
R1b-M269.
 
Just a possible correction to the original post:
The poet Xenophanes (around 400 BC) describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired.So they must
have been very R1b, since red hair is recessive and needs both parents to have the red-gene, in order to show.
This possibly makes them related to the nearby celts and illyrians, who possibly shared
R1b-M269.

i read green eyed and red haired and obtained the red hair by buying females from the levant who had red hair.

the thracians where very much into women for sale

they where R1a in majority especially the northern ones.
 
i read green eyed and red haired and obtained the red hair by buying females from the levant who had red hair.

the thracians where very much into women for sale

they where R1a in majority especially the northern ones.

an R1a population with red hair sounds a bit far fetched. Scotland has the highest proportion of redheads; and still only 13% of the population has red hair. And Scotland is 77% R1b.
 
Just a possible correction to the original post:
The poet Xenophanes (around 400 BC) describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired.So they must
have been very R1b, since red hair is recessive and needs both parents to have the red-gene, in order to show.
This possibly makes them related to the nearby celts and illyrians, who possibly shared
R1b-M269.

That population, or remnants of it exist even today in same area isolated as it can be by them but due to religion mixed with Non Thracian population recently, I have wrote about them in Threads about Thracians, they share typical genetical all of them about. but seems to have Green eyes as majority, and second the blue and brown. I have not a source, but they seem to be R1a population, with Arabian mix.
the % of some East mediterenean heritage is strong among them, meaning that either happened what Zanipolo tell us about Levant women, either they came from south parts of Anatolia, I wonder if the had same mother land the one Tocharians had,
and to be clear we speak about one the many Thracian tribes, not Paiones, Tribaldi and Odrysse, the ones we mainly think when we speak about Thracians,
 
Just a possible correction to the original post:
The poet Xenophanes (around 400 BC) describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired.So they must
have been very R1b, since red hair is recessive and needs both parents to have the red-gene, in order to show.
This possibly makes them related to the nearby celts and illyrians, who possibly shared
R1b-M269.

I would have thought "homogeneous R1b" people (if it ever existed) to be more Brownish (eyes and hairs); Fairness being more pre-indoeuropean. Just a guess based on actual geographical overlap between phenotypes and haplotypes.
 
I would have thought "homogeneous R1b" people (if it ever existed) to be more Brownish (eyes and hairs); Fairness being more pre-indoeuropean. Just a guess based on actual geographical overlap between phenotypes and haplotypes.

The original Europeans most likely didn't develop fairness, since fairness seems to be prominent wherever the Indo-Europeans went.
 
The original Europeans most likely didn't develop fairness, since fairness seems to be prominent wherever the Indo-Europeans went.

I think Blondism has to do with Baltics, a blond woman was considered as an exotic fruit,

The mania with Baltic R1a can be healed by discovering R1a pop of India, what fairness,
simply in Europe, after the Danube they went North so they mixed with Blond female population of Baltic,
even the red hair is a strange case cause seems to connected with Armenia and Romania than steppe people,

consider that from ancient times to today blond women are considered as an exotic fruit,

Some blond-lovers even make Alexander blond.
 
The mania with Baltic R1a can be healed by discovering R1a pop of India, what fairness,
simply in Europe

There are blondes in all places settled by Indo-Europeans, its just that they left the largest genetic print in sparsely populated places, such as Europe. India, Persia, and Anatolia were all ancient agricultural center which had vast populations. A few nomads couldn't have changed their average phenotype significantly, but you can still find some light featured individuals in those places, and especially if they are in the higher castes.
 
Blonde hair seemed to have originated around 11000 BC near the end of the last age, somewhere in europe around Lithuania. The gene spread through sexual selection supposedly, because men prefered blondes. Around 3000 BC it was the predominant color in northern europe. My opinion is that it spread really fast around 3500-3000 BC with the coming of the bronze age and metal weapons which intensify wars and population mixing.
 
Blonde hair seemed to have originated around 11000 BC near the end of the last age, somewhere in europe around Lithuania. The gene spread through sexual selection supposedly, because men prefered blondes. Around 3000 BC it was the predominant color in northern europe. My opinion is that it spread really fast around 3500-3000 BC with the coming of the bronze age and metal weapons which intensify wars and population mixing.

That was the old theory, but the new ones suggest that it arose in the Eurasian steppe. Either Ukraine/South-Western Russia or Central Asia.
 
Blonde hair seemed to have originated around 11000 BC near the end of the last age, somewhere in europe around Lithuania.
If it happened 11k BC or later, then it is right. If blond hair happened during ice age then it had to be farther south around the ice belt, from France to Caspian sea. I do believe it was adaptation to climatic conditions, though I think that blond hair was a side effect of some genes associated with white skin and light eyes. Blond hair might have helped hunters to blend into terrain in winter, but not sure if it's a pig effect, otherwise all northern populations would have been blond already.
So maybe Baltic climate is very specific. Sun is rather low most of the year and half days are cloudy and gloomy. They needed all the help they could get to produce vitamin D3. The same conditions might have existed around ice belt from France to Caspian sea during Ice Age. Farther in steppes in Asia climate is and was rather dryer and sunnier all year round. Therefore I don't think it happened in Central Asia. I think the proof of it is Mongol population. They received genes for blondism long time ago, but it didn't spread fast like around Baltic Sea. There are blond Mongols but few and between, and I'm not talking about albino mutation. Looks like the blond advantage is not there.
 
If it happened 11k BC or later, then it is right. If blond hair happened during ice age then it had to be farther south around the ice belt, from France to Caspian sea.

But north Siberia and north-central Russia was also ice free during LGM.

I do believe it was adaptation to climatic conditions, though I think that blond hair was a side effect of some genes associated with white skin and light eyes. Blond hair might have helped hunters to blend into terrain in winter, but not sure if it's a pig effect, otherwise all northern populations would have been blond already.
So maybe Baltic climate is very specific. Sun is rather low most of the year and half days are cloudy and gloomy. They needed all the help they could get to produce vitamin D3. The same conditions might have existed around ice belt from France to Caspian sea during Ice Age. Farther in steppes in Asia climate is and was rather dryer and sunnier all year round. Therefore I don't think it happened in Central Asia. I think the proof of it is Mongol population. They received genes for blondism long time ago, but it didn't spread fast like around Baltic Sea. There are blond Mongols but few and between, and I'm not talking about albino mutation. Looks like the blond advantage is not there.

But true blondes can tan quite well compared to red haired and even some brunettes. I believe north Siberia an central Russia during LGM were less cloudy than regions closer to the ocean, but perhaps snowyer. In this case, bright hair and a moderate ability to tan during summer could represent an adaptation to such regions with much snow and varying sunshine (sunny summers).
 
But north Siberia and north-central Russia was also ice free during LGM.



But true blondes can tan quite well compared to red haired and even some brunettes. I believe north Siberia an central Russia during LGM were less cloudy than regions closer to the ocean, but perhaps snowyer. In this case, bright hair and a moderate ability to tan during summer could represent an adaptation to such regions with much snow and varying sunshine (sunny summers).

I don't know exactly why blond is centered around Baltic Sea, but it is. It also has to be a reason why blond genes didn't spread around the globe in moderate to sub Arctic zone, if it is beneficial trait for these conditions. It tried for sure, because at least 4k years ago it reached China, as per Tarim Bay mummies. Knowing that blond genes are the recessive ones, we understand that they can't survive for too long (competing with black hair) unless they bring a strong survival advantage to the equation. Knowing these facts, it can point us to the clues and understanding why this blond mutation gave our ancestors survival advantage around Baltic sea, in spite of being a recessive trait from it's beginning.
 
I don't know exactly why blond is centered around Baltic Sea, but it is. It also has to be a reason why blond genes didn't spread around the globe in moderate to sub Arctic zone, if it is beneficial trait for these conditions. It tried for sure, because at least 4k years ago it reached China, as per Tarim Bay mummies. Knowing that blond genes are the recessive ones, we understand that they can't survive for too long (competing with black hair) unless they bring a strong survival advantage to the equation. Knowing these facts, it can point us to the clues and understanding why this blond mutation gave our ancestors survival advantage around Baltic sea, in spite of being a recessive trait from it's beginning.

It could simply be because the Baltic was one of the most underpopulated areas of Europe, and therefore the influence of the recessive Indo-European light features were the most prominent there. The Baltic is also fairly flat. Compare that to Southern Europe which was already heavily settled by that time. Or compare it to places with rough terrain such as the Alps. Dark hair remained in both of those places dominant.
 
Surally, they must have moved into underpopulated Baltic area right after Ice Age. The question still stands, why these recessive blond genes took hold and survived till today, as majority, only in this area?
Whole North around the globe was underpopulated 10,000 years ago, white hair should have had advantage in all these places. Till now most of North is dominated by black hair and eyes.

One of the most interesting aspects of blond dominance in Europe north is how it really started. Was the change gradual, from Black to brown to red to blond? Maybe from brown to blond with blue eyes in one individual? If he was a prince he could have given the gene to hundreds of kids... Ney, most likely it was gradual accumulation of fairer skin, hair, eye genes till full blond.
However it happened, it happened by natural selection. All individuals with whitest skin survived in greater numbers than darker siblings. And after many generations they were mostly blond.
For this to happen it is important to live in right environment. So far all clues point into specific climatic conditions around Baltic Sea area. From top of my head I would say it is mostly cloudy, foggy area, it was mostly forested back then, and forest adds extra cover from the sun. It is in huge contrast with big open sunny steppes of Asia.
 

This thread has been viewed 713625 times.

Back
Top