Races of white people...

Lukasz 49 | 1746

2 Mar 2008 / #61

I1a :) it isn't sienctiefic deduction ... I just looked on map and thought ... "looks like Vikings job ;-)"

in wikipedia they write :

In human genetics, Haplogroup I (M170, P19, M258) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup.

Haplogroup I (the letter I, not the number 1) can be found in most present-day European populations, most commonly in Scandinavia, Sardinia, and the Slavic & Bulgarian populations of the Western Balkans in southeastern Europe.

from the other hand "our" r1a is consdered :

R1a1 carrying Vikings, settled in the British Isles, which accounts for the existence of it there. R1a1 is spread across the whole of Europe, with the highest concentrations found in Poland. The two main directional components of the spread are consistent with an East to West migration as well as a radial spread from the Balkans. The latter is claimed to be a trace of the re-population of Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum from the Ukrainian refuge area

Polson 5 | 1767

2 Mar 2008 / #62

Yeah wise deduction ^^ But strangely, Iceland is not that represented...it should be dark blue like in Norway...most of the Icelanders are of Norwegian and Danish descent ;)

southern 73 | 7059

2 Mar 2008 / #63

it looks like Poland is the most Slavic country in all over the world

Yes,I agree with that.The maps you showed make a lot of sense.I would tell the same based on phenotypic observations.The maps are very accurate.It is like what they describe,I understand what they tell.

osiol 55 | 3921

2 Mar 2008 / #64

of the Icelanders are of Norwegian and Danish descent

Chiefly Norwegian, a bit of Irish, British, and some of the other Scandinavians.

It seems the maps have been drawn up in a way that simplifies the data, and pulls together information that has not been sources uniformly across the areas studied. But as I can't access the site for more information, I can't say exactly how they did it.

Lukasz 49 | 1746

2 Mar 2008 / #65

Yeah wise deduction ^^ But strangely, Iceland is not that represented...it should be dark blue like in Norway...most of the Icelanders are of Norwegian and Danish descent ;)

I have checked r1a (our) is more viking I changed my prevous post.

southern 73 | 7059

2 Mar 2008 / #66

It is simple.
R1b:Western
R1a:Slavic
E3b:Mediteranean
I:Protoeuropean.People who lived in Europe before the other populations came.Same incidence in every european population.
The maps confirm my suspicion that Poland is the most homogenous slavic country with the least mixes.

Polson 5 | 1767

2 Mar 2008 / #67

yeah I have checked r1a (our) is more viking

Yeah i saw that article. Interesting ;)

Chiefly Norwegian, a bit of Irish, British, and some of the other Scandinavians

Norwegians i know, but when did the Irish and British settle ?...apart from priests...

Lukasz 49 | 1746

2 Mar 2008 / #68

Yeah i saw that article. Interesting ;)

Form me it is a bit strange. Vikings were Slavs ? I always considered them more Germanic ... I will read something about it and later I will bring news here ... ;-)

I think I1C is German ...

osiol 55 | 3921

2 Mar 2008 / #69

Norwegians i know, but when did the Irish and British settle ?...apart from priests

We're talking small numbers.
Vikings did a bit of trade in slaves, especially British and Irish ones. Vikings settles in Britain and Ireland. Norwegians in Ireland, Scotland and Northern England, Danes in Southern England. Some genes may have been picked up on their travels, mostlt that of the mtDNA variety.

Arien

2 Mar 2008 / #70

Vikings settles in Britain and Ireland.

Normandy aswell..

Polson 5 | 1767

2 Mar 2008 / #71

Vikings were Slavs ? I always considered them more Germanic ...

They were Germanic. Their ancestors came from current Poland but they were Germanic tribes (goths, wends, etc.). But they may be a mix of Germanic and Slavic people ;)

We're talking small numbers.
Vikings did a bit of trade in slaves

Yeah, then maybe Poles too...dunno. Among the Vikings we could find Poles cause Polish people were known to be brave, good warriors and good sailors, that's why the Vikings "hired" some of them. When the Vikings discovered America in 1000 AC, there may have been Poles with them...

Vikings settles in Britain and Ireland.

Normandy aswell..

And Spain, and Italy, and...etc... ;)

lowfunk99 10 | 397

2 Mar 2008 / #72

No rednecks are from down south.

osiol 55 | 3921

2 Mar 2008 / #73

Vikings did get involved in just about anywhere they could reach by boat, so all the way round the Baltic from Finland and Estonia to northern Poland, they would have been doing their thing, then around the coast of Western Europe and even North Africa. Vikings from Sweden generally headed south and east, but let's not get into Russian history yet.

I had once heard that the phrase 'raping and pillaging' comes from an English text written in Latin. In translation to Modern English, it should be ravage and pillage, ie. destroy everything in their way and make away with the booty (not exactly the modern day 'booty;, although that may have come into it).

The Vikings did settle in all kinds of places, but Britain was settled much more extensively than other places.

editting more stuff into the same post:
The letter I mentioned that started the whole 'raping and pillaging' thing, I believe was a plea for help, from a Christian country under attack by pagans. The fact that at the time, the Vikings were not Christians meant that they had to be cast in as bad a light as possible. It is likely the Viking attacks were serious, but not as devastating as many historical sources have suggested.

Has anyone got any interesting stuff about Vikings hitting Poland?I'm not sure whether Poland had become Christianised by this stage in history.

southern 73 | 7059

2 Mar 2008 / #74

In my opinion the people of the former Hansa cities have distinct similarities.People in Holland,North Germany,Gdansk,Riga,Bergen etc share common characteristics.I would desribe them as aryan prototype or nordic.However I think it is just a category of the general anglogerman variety.

There are Romas,Jews,Hungro-Finns with maybe interesting origin,however the basic races in Europe are these three major(slavic,western,mediteranean) as haplotypes show.

You see in the map for example that Romania has very few slavic mix compared with the neighbour nations,which is normal and proves the latin,mediteranean origin of Romanians.

Lukasz 49 | 1746

2 Mar 2008 / #75

Has anyone got any interesting stuff about Vikings hitting Poland?I'm not sure whether Poland had become Christianised by this stage in history.

It is in Polish, shortly we had several contacts with Vikings our (Polish and Viking rulers had several maraiges) ... and we participated in some Viking "European trips" ...

Poland on Island was called "Pulinaland" and Poles were called "Polavi" and Poles are noticable in Viking legends ... This stories were always conisederd as stories for small kids ... but when we look on Island and Norwegian (30%) Slavic genotype ...

Polson 5 | 1767

2 Mar 2008 / #76

It is likely the Viking attacks were serious, but not as devastating as many historical sources have suggested.

People at that time were afraid of them, they used to tell stories to each other (those stories were wrong of course, for most of them) about how the Vikings attacked, raped, slaughtered and put everything on fire. They even invented the word "drakkar", with the double "k" to make it more "exotic" ;) The real name is "skip", actually it's the word for "ship" and it's pronounced the same.

Has anyone got any interesting stuff about Vikings hitting Poland?I'm not sure whether Poland had become Christianised by this stage in history

Poland became Christian in 966 (if i remember well).
Poles and Vikings have never been real enemies. Dunno if you know the Danish king Knut II ? He was one of the greatest king of that time, he ruled over Denmark, England, Norway...and maybe more. His mother was a Polish princess (at least it's what it's said...).

I read many things about the Vikings and never really find a thing about attacks in Poland...if that's what you wanted to know ;)

Lukasz 49 | 1746

2 Mar 2008 / #77

"Olav Tryggvason's Saga says like that about Jomsvikings' campaign to Norway: "They had 20 ships from Skania [souther Sweden] and 40 ships from Vendland [Pomerania and Poland]. The king of Vendland was in this time Burisleif" (Boleslaw the Brave of Poland). Saga says Boleslaw was the father-in-law as well Sigvald, the jarl of Jomsvikings, as Sven Forkbeard - the king of Denmark and later conqueror of England - and the most famous of them, Olav Tryggvason, the king of Norway."

heheh how to say it ... we have English on our list ;)

osiol 55 | 3921

2 Mar 2008 / #78

My favourite Viking would probably be Eric Bloodaxe. Mostly for the name.

I'd still claim that the UK is number 5 in the list of the world's most Viking countries.

The side of Viking history regarding their origins or goings-on closer to Scandinavia are not well known over here. They must have had a bit of practise before they crossed the North Sea.

edit: Finland might be 5. I'd be happy to settle for 6th place if anyone wants a fight about it. Helmets with horns would be essential in such combat.

Lukasz 49 | 1746

2 Mar 2008 / #79

I'd still claim that the UK is number 5 in the list of the world's most Viking countries.

It is good you are so proud because of your Polish and Sacndinavian ancestors ;-)

osiol 55 | 3921

2 Mar 2008 / #80

I'm not proud. But I do find it interesting. My ancestors were Celtic, Germanic, Roman, probably a few other things thrown into the mix, especially considering Romans were from all over the place, Insular Celts were unlikely to have been the same Celts who lived in Central Europe, Germanic could mean Anglo-Saxon and Viking, and Vikings probably included Slavs, Balts and Finns.

Some people are proud of 'ethnic purity'? Pah! Like being proud of all your family being inter-married cousins with an odd number of toes!

southern 73 | 7059

2 Mar 2008 / #81

Why do you mix things up?Take a look at the gene maps.The changes in gene pool can be radical or not.Some influences may completely vanish or prevail.For example the Normands who invaded England despite their few number managed to prevail in the gene pool after 200 years.

The viking influence was negligible and most probably has left very few remnants.
All these are pretty obvious,I do not understand the resisting.If we talked about dogs,you would never call a doberman a poodle.

Lukasz 49 | 1746

2 Mar 2008 / #82

There was question about races of White people. look on this map.

Poland is the most Slavonic country all over the world. Because of wars and cooperation with Vikings North Europe is under our DNAs strong influence. Italinans and Greeks are under Arab/Turk influence. Russians have a lot of mongoilans in their blood. Germans are more Slavic than Serbs ... Here we have races of White people ... Simple history books are one story and DNA is another ...

osiol 55 | 3921

2 Mar 2008 / #83

The viking influence was negligible and most probably has left very few remnants

Where?

Russians have a lot of mongoilans in their blood

The population of the Russian Federation or the Republic of Russia, or ethnic Russians?

Filios1 8 | 1336

2 Mar 2008 / #84

Greeks are under Arab/Turk influence

Care to elaborate?

osiol 55 | 3921

2 Mar 2008 / #85

I thought the Turks were more Greek than Turkic.

Lukasz 49 | 1746

2 Mar 2008 / #86

ulation of the Russian Federation or the Republic of Russia, or ethnic Russians?

I think both ...

Care to elaborate?

Haplogroup J1 appears at high frequencies among populations of the Middle East, North Africa, and Ethiopia (Thomas et al. 1999). J1 was spread by two temporally distinct migratory episodes, the most recent one probably associated with the diffusion of Muslims from Arabia since the 6th century CE.[1]

Haplogroup J1 is most frequent in Arabs of the southern Levant, i.e. Palestinian Arabs (38.4%) (Semino et al.) and Arab Bedouins (62% and 82% in Negev desert Bedouins). It is also very common among other Arabic-speaking populations, such as those of Algeria (35%), Syria (30%), Iraq (33%), the Sinai Peninsula, and the Arabian Peninsula. The frequency of Haplogroup J1 collapses suddenly at the borders of Arabic countries with mainly non-Arabic countries, such as Turkey and Iran, yet it is found at low frequency among the populations of those countries, as well as in Cyprus and Sicily.

Haplogroup J2 It is composed of several sub-Haplogroups representing several different countries like Turkey, Iraq, Kurdistan, Lebanon, Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Aegean, Balkan, Italy. One sub Haplogroup M172* is mainly found in the Northern Fertile Crescent, the Mediterranean, Iran, Central Asia, and Southern Europe. Is is thought to have originated in Anatolia (Turkey and in the province of Kurdistan) ie North Mesopotamia, and spread to Europe and to other Middle countries like Lebanon Palestine Iraq, Syria. J2 subclades are also found in the South Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan), Iran, Central Asia

aplogroup J2 was used to be considered a genetic marker of Anatolian Neolithic agriculturalists. It is also very frequent in the Balkans (Greeks 20.6%, Albanians 19.6%) and in southern Italy (16.7-29.1%). Its frequency rapidly drops in the Carpathian basin (Croatians 6.2%, Hungarians 2.0%, Ukrainians 7.3%) and in Southeastern Iranian-speaking areas

Ok I am not expert ;-) In race issues ... as I said at the begining ;) beter move forward and forget about races ;-) heheh btw I haven't know than sience moved forward so strong.

I think (again) way of thinking and behaviour is much more the result of enviroment, history, culture of nation than blood ...

btw I feel better ;-) because I discovered that maybe some Slavic Polish Vikings were participating in discovering America ;) ... and now we need visa to go to USA ;-) lol

JuliePotocka 5 | 188

2 Mar 2008 / #87

I like the graph - shows thousands of years nicely.

Magdalena 3 | 1827

3 Mar 2008 / #88

I get the feeling that you are making a genetic differentiation here between vikings and Scandinavians... I know nothing about genetics, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always laboured under the impression that the term viking is not the name of a nation or racial group, however understood, but a common term for seafaring warriors/traders/adventurers hailing from the coastlines of the Scandinavian peninsula and all the way down the Baltic to Denmark, incl. the sea coast of what is present-day Poland.

I also think that you should not confuse vikings with the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, who settled all over Europe incl. Portugal (a major Visigoth kingdom during the early middle ages) and Russia (founded it, actually, those Ostrogoths), and along the coast of northern Africa. They are related, of course, all being Germanic, but I'm not sure they would have shaken hands and sat down to dinner at the same table ;-)

Why are you so hell-bent on tracing all the different genetic bits and pieces making up the wonderful patchwork that is Europe? This does not make us different races, it can at best make us different tribes ;-)

I think that nobody really knows where most of the different peoples of Europe came from in the first place. And as they arrived in waves, each incoming group messed up the existing genetic pool real fine. Trying to unpick it seems pointless to me... Just my humble opinion.

Lukasz 49 | 1746

3 Mar 2008 / #89

Magdalena

I just discovered that it is possible to chceck "origin" by using DNA and I find it bit funny, I would never think so many Iceland citizens have Slavicon origin. Or that it looks that our contacts with Vikings were much stronger than I thought ... Some sterotypes are true and some are not. I would never think we are the most Slavic nation in all over the world (so many wars on Polish soil long history of multicultural society) or that North Itlians are in some way right when they describe south one. Or that Scotish warriors are similar to us. Or that Scandinavians are so Slavic (all in all Htlers theory was Slav=sleave) I don't know if this maps in Polands exaple are 100% true. Btw it is good hitler hadn't this technology becuase results would be horrible ...

southern 73 | 7059

3 Mar 2008 / #90

I would never think we are the most Slavic nation in all over the world

I would think that.I have written that Poles and western Ukrainians are the most pure Slavs.(Czechs have at least 30% german mix,Russians have mixed with Tatars,Bulgarians is absolute mix with Mongols,Mediteraneans,Serbs have mixed with Mediteraneans and Slovaks with Hungarians).

or that North Itlians are in some way right when they describe south one.

Everybody in Italy knows that.Also that South Italians,Greeks,etc are genetically close,which is normal since Greeks settled in Sicely.
Also that there are genetic siilarities all over Mediteranean folks.Think a little.Greeks settled in South Italy,Sicely,Asia Minor Coast,South Ukraine Coast,Syria,Libya and you find some common haplotypes in these areas.It is not difficult to understand why.

Arabs came to Sicely as well.I am sure they have left their traces too.
DNA analysis shows what is already known by history.