Genetic Linkage Tree from 'The History and Geography Of Human Genes' by Cavalli-Svorza

[+Suomut+]

Attached are Cavalli-Sforza & Co.'s Occidental/European genetic distances for reference purposes. Citation: L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza; The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp 270.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

This is interesting but perhaps you could say whether there are any surprises here. For instance the distance between the English and the Dutch is 5 and this is probably what we would expect. In the other Cavalli-Sforza post you made concerning the Icelanders, could not the closeness of the Icelanders to the English not be own of direct relationship but of common origin? What I mean is that the modern English are usually assumed to be a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, etc with the original Keltic population. The Icelanders are always said to also be of somewhat mixed oirgin, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, and so on. Doesn't this "distance" evidence simply point out the common origin of both populations as a Germanic-Keltic mix but not necessarily a direct relationship between the Icelanders and the English?

[Vetinari]

This is interesting but perhaps you could say whether there are any surprises here. For instance the distance between the English and the Dutch is 5 and this is probably what we would expect. In the other Cavalli-Sforza post you made concerning the Icelanders, could not the closeness of the Icelanders to the English not be own of direct relationship but of common origin? What I mean is that the modern English are usually assumed to be a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, etc with the original Keltic population. The Icelanders are always said to also be of somewhat mixed oirgin, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, and so on. Doesn't this "distance" evidence simply point out the common origin of both populations as a Germanic-Keltic mix but not necessarily a direct relationship between the Icelanders and the English?

I think that you are confusing the standard errors and the genetic distances. The genetic distance between the Dutch and the English is 17, not 5.

[+Suomut+]

...In the other Cavalli-Sforza post you made concerning the Icelanders, could not the closeness of the Icelanders to the English not be own of direct relationship but of common origin?...

That's the only way to rationalize it, I suppose. Englishmen are indeed part Norse (see below); and, of course, Icelanders seem to be mostly Norse...so, I think the 'Norse factor' has something to do with it.

...What I mean is that the modern English are usually assumed to be a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, etc with the original Keltic population....

I maintain that the primary 'bulk element' for modern English folks is the namesake-tribe, the Angles. To this day, I still can't help but wonder if the Angles were really a Danish tribe (the Schleswig area in that time and just how 'Danish' it was then is pivotal in this determination), thus a potential there for stronger genetic ties to Scandinavia (subsequently to those in Norge who would latter descend and colonize Iceland). Along this vein, modern Eng. are also part Jutish and the Jutes were absolutely from Denmark; thus, the same deal applies to them as explained above about the Angles. Then, as you cite, there's Viking era in England (more Scand. genetic channels to the modern Eng. via Norse and Dansk Vikings). Additionally, the Normans (more Scand. {Norse & Dansk} blood into the modern Eng.; but also Celto-Gaulic too). Now, these following elements are where one would expert the modern Eng. and Icelanders to be divergent genetically: the, IMO, 2nd largest 'bulk element' are the Saxons (probably weak connections to Scand.); the BRITISH/WELSH element (prob. weak connections to Iceland and Scand.); & the Frankish element {via the initial invasions and the Normans} (surely very weak connections).

...The Icelanders are always said to also be of somewhat mixed oirgin, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, and so on....

Norway's the primary source, of course. Ireland provided part of their heritage, BUT, Denmark evidently provided even more than Ireland (see distances below). As for Swedes, they evidently had no more to do with Iceland and Icelanders than did Scots or Germans; but, anyway, Swedes were always oriented east (away from the North Sea/Atlantic).

...Doesn't this "distance" evidence simply point out the common origin of both populations as a Germanic-Keltic mix but not necessarily a direct relationship between the Icelanders and the English?

Again, I think so. After all, over time, Icelanders and English folks had few contacts probably. But both groups had mutual ties to Norway and Denmark, Iceland more so than the English, obviously. Here are the ethnicities genetically closest to Icelanders: Norse (74); Eng. (76); Bel. (78); Danes (88); Irish (99); Dutch (101); Swedes (106)/Germans (106); Scots (111); Swiss (115). All other European ethnicities are significantly distant genetically from Icelanders.

I think that you are confusing the standard errors and the genetic distances. The genetic distance between the Dutch and the English is 17, not 5.

Indeed. It's easy to do, though, looking at it all on a computer screen--far easier to see it all on hard copy.

Thanks for the interest, y'all!

[morfrain_encilgar]

Here is a genetic linkage tree from The History and Geography Of Human Genes by Cavalli-Svorza. It shows the overall relationships of breeding populations, but not the elements leading into them.

[Awar]

What's your opinion on the genetic distances calc. on racearchives?

[morfrain_encilgar]

What's your opinion on the genetic distances calc. on racearchives?

I dont know, I never looked at it properly before it went down, unless its working again.

I looked at the craniometric information though.

[Frans_Jozef]

It's difficult now that HRA is down to demonstrate why I suspect there is more to say on W.W. Howells craniometric of some world populations and this genetic dendrogram and where it tallies and why.
But when I gleaned over the data, I noticed that barring some exceptions which happen to conflict with my conjecture, population which somehow from afar or more directly could have absorbed Neanderthaler genes, had broader skulls, even if they still are sufficient narrow, than those populations where Neanderthaler influence is totally out of the question.
Like the Bushmen, who are extremely narrow-headed.

[Awar]

But, CI can change... I was always under the impression that cold weather adaptation leads to broader and larger heads.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

It's difficult now that HRA is down to demonstrate why I suspect there is more to say on W.W. Howells craniometric of some world populations and this genetic dendrogram and where it tallies and why.
But when I gleaned over the data, I noticed that barring some exceptions which happen to conflict with my conjecture, population which somehow from afar or more directly could have absorbed Neanderthaler genes, had broader skulls, even if they still are sufficient narrow, than those populations where Neanderthaler influence is totally out of the question.
Like the Bushmen, who are extremely narrow-headed.

I am not quite sure of the point you are making but according to, I think is was Morant, if viewed from the top of the skull downward, if the brow ridges of a typical Neanderthal skull were sliced off at the post-orbital constriction, the resulting skull would be brachycranial. In fact, Coon used this as evidence for Neanderthal-sapiens mixture in Borreby types.