Polish and Russian DNA?

Hello guys.

I tried looking for a thread on here that I remember reading to about Polish and Russian similarities in terms of DNA.

I wanted to know, scientifically, which ethnic group/slavic group is closest link to the Poles?

Some say its the Germans, some say Belorussians, some say other groups. And I'm not just talking about language, although that's interesting to note as well!

I'd like to know if anyone can provide some links to studies...especially in terms of Russian and Polish similarities (scientifically speaking). I'm half Polish and half Russian myself and I find it quite fascinating, but would like to read more.

And also, where did both originate from? How closely linked are they?

:) Hope to see some interesting responses!

quote from

Wenedowie?

??? Never heard of that term...

google it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti

The Sorbs.

The Wends, the Sorbs or in Russian Венеды, Лужицкие сербы (who are considered the closest existing folk to proto-Slavs, our common forefathers).

Different genetic studies gives us different results. From my perspective/from what I learnt Russians (here this means "Russians" by nationality, not citizenship if this makes sense) and Bielorussians are two closest nations to Poles. If you can read Russian you may as well read that Scracth Russian - get a Pole.


As was said they both originate from Wends. Although you should also keep in mind there was significant impact of Swedes, Germans, Balts, Ukrainians and Finns (in Russian case).

McCoy
But exactly how do we differentiate so much from other slavic groups then? I still don't understand...we are slavic, and since we are so close to Russians and belorussians in DNA, how then are we distinctively different at the same time?

hi viola. i cant give you a satisfying answer cause im not an expert. i just quoted the interview i read recently. heres the link to the whole story: gniazdo.rodzimowiercy.pl/tekst.php?tekstid=642

and some more
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polacy_a_Wandalowie
google pochodzenie polaków and search for more.

You are different because you mixed a bit with Germanics while Russians mixed a bit with Tatars.This is the difference.

It is obvious to anyone travelling to Poland that Poles carry significant resemblance to Russians,Ukrainians and Czechs.After all a Pole abroad is much more likely to be confused for a russian than for a german.

But Poles seem more germanic than Ukrainians in face and Czechs seem even more germanic than Poles.For example during the route Lvov-Katowice-Ostrava you see the faces changing to gradually more germanic shapes although the basic slavic phenotype remains.

I'm pretty new here, so I'm wondering:

Does Espana ever post anything constructive or can I just ignore his comments across the board?

As for the topic at hand, I would have to agree (visually) with the idea that Poles are slightly Germanic in feature, naturally due to proximity and cultural exchange with Germany. I don't have any scientific data to back that up, but what I've observed.

Poles and Russians as well as other Slavs are closely related to each other with a predominance of haplotype R1 a1 which makes them also related to people living in Tajikistan, Iran, Northern India, Scandinavia and to some extent Scotland.

What always puzzles me is how do they define what is "Russian" DNA or "English" DNA etc. Doesn't this assume that a DNA is actually nationalistic?


This depends where you are... of course, maybe it is the Germans who are more Polish in features, considering large areas of North Germany were colonised by Slavs and also there must have been a fair bit of interbreeding over the years, especially with all the Germanic settlements in Eastern Europe too. (cue Bratwurst Boy's screams of indignation!)

Nop, genes are not nationalistic. The term Swede, Pole is used for identification as a matter of conveneicne, but the concept of nation is a recent concept and has to do with culture not genetics. Genetic markers show you who is related to whom. For example the R1a1 haplotype is associated with the orginal Indo-Europeans and the map shows more or less where they lived in Europe. This haplotype appears at very low levels in France and Spain and Ireland for example but the above-mentioned people adopted Indo-European language and culture or were forced to by means of conquest.

Yes exactly, good post.

Why are Górals so different in speech and culture from the Poles of Podlasie? Distance, topography (mountains, rivers), state borders, wars, conquests, occupations, partitions, etc. often lead to independent development. If the partitions had never occurred, there may have been greater pressure on the Górals to standarise and assimialate to the rest of the country. The fact that they ended up in the Austrian parttion zone probably petrified their folklore to some extent (which of course is good, because it may not have survived down to the present otherwise).

How much more differentiation can be expected between neighbouring nations separated not only by distance and geographic obstacles but also by religion, language and alphabet, but none of this has anything to do with genes.

You heard me!

If you run a google search for "genetic map of europe", you'll see some fascinating graphs.

Also, you can look up the following papers:

Nature 456, 98-101 (6 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature07331; Received 30 May 2008; Accepted 12 August 2008; Published online 31 August 2008
"Genes mirror geography within Europe"

and
European Journal of Human Genetics (2008) 16, 1413-1429; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.210
"Investigation of the fine structure of European populations with applications to disease association studies".

Short answer - yes, it looks like the Poles and the Russians are very close genetically.

EDIT:


DNA is not nationalistic, it is ethnographic.

or ethnocentric?

No, DNA is a bunch of stuff floating in the core of a cell. And it's wet out there. And spooky. It's a micro-organism eat micro-organism world. Don't go there.

But this is my point. If you say "these are Russian genes" then doesn't it run the risk of someone taking it a bit further and saying only those who have those genes are "real Russians". Example: A book I was reading about Saami culture in Scandinavia refers to historians saying "The first Norwegians" but they are talking about pre-historic humans who existed long before the first concept of "Norway". As the writers point out, the people may have been related to Saami, but by claiming they are "The first Norwegians" they suggest that Norwegians existed in the area before Saamis.

The twentieth century saw nationalism raised from culture to race, involving eugenics, ethnic cleansing etc... How long before someone uses the term "Russian DNA" as a marker for deciding who the "real" ones are?

poles and russians have the same DNA
...

Rrr, my fingers sliped: it's ethnoGEOgraphic.

A particular ethnic group that lives in a particular geographic region for a long enough period of time develops a particular genetic make-up. Seems pretty straightforward, no?


"Russian genes" (statistically) exist whether you like it or not, and the science can break it down for you in terms of haplogroups, frequences, and all that.

What's wrong with that? It's a scientific fact.

We shouldn't discriminate against those who don't have "real Russian" genes when dealing with citizens of Russian Federation. They all have equal rights, be they ethnic Russian, Tatar, Yakut or whatever. I don't see a contradiction here.

I mean, we all have eyes, right? So we could always see when someone is Russian or not. The science just came up with a quantitative instrument to determine if someone is Russian. What difference is it going to make? IMHO, we are just back where we started, and the only solution is to treat every citizen as an individual, without prejudice.

Like all real germans have blue eyes, blonde hair and a particular length of nose, and Polish children that have the same must really be German... (and that was 'scientifically proven' too).

My brother-in-law has a bone defect in his hand which apparently comes from the vikings. Allegedly the racial make up of his part of England is strongly viking (although his father is welsh). So, does he now have right to claim health benefits from Sweden?

Not germans!! we are not close to german.

We share much more common dna too russia, bialorussia etc

Well maybe Poles have a little bit of German in them. Afterall the borders of Poland kept shifting all over the place historically and there are some who say Poles can have a little bit of the nationalities of the countries near them as do the nations near them have a little bit of Polish/Slavic in them.

I am Polish and many people have told me I look German.

I just love these constant attempts to deny any link to Humanity, by claiming to be only realted to such-and-so, or someone was not (whatever ethnicity s/he actaully was) - Poles are realted to Eskimos, Bushmen, Aborigionese and Germans - but much, much closer to Germans - and, as some of you wisely pointed out, more than once, there are mixtures.

Ethnogeographic: I like that word.
Don't loose sight of other factors that make one Polish, or Russian, like religion, language, culture, et c.
But, to be blunt, there's a reason for the Biblical admonition agianst pride: it makes one foolish.

Indeed, a person's nationality or ethnicity comprises both congenital and acquired elements. The congential (DNA) cannot be changed, whilst the acquired can (raise a Finn as an Irishman and you get a DNA Finn with Irish cultural traits).

If a Pole mixes with a Russian the offspring will look like belarus?