DNA Differences Between Northern Southern Europe 2

What are the DNA differences between Northern and Southern Europeans, and how different are they? Now one of the first differences is the way Europeans look and physical traits, and this actually speaks to the genetics. For instance, there is a difference in average height across the continent. Northern Europeans, especially Dutch and Scandinavian populations, are among the tallest people in the world, with Northern Europeans generally taller than those in the South. The Dutch are the tallest people in the world, with men in the Netherlands averaging around 183-184 cm tall, or around 6 foot. When it comes to Dutch women on average, they are roughly 170 cm tall, or around 5 foot 7. Blonde hair is also much higher in Northern Europe as well of course. But why is this? Well we know that all Europeans are essentially descended from three major sources, as well as a little Neanderthal ancestry that goes way back. The three sources are hunter-gatherers, early European farmers from around Anatolia, and Bronze Age steppe peoples from north of the Black Sea, connected to the Yamnaya culture. And the different mixture of these three sources has had a lasting impact on Europe. Now in general, Northern Europeans tend to show higher levels of hunter-gatherer and steppe ancestry than Southern Europeans. And studies indicate that the Yamnaya steppe populations were themselves relatively tall, fuelled by a high-protein diet, a dairy-heavy diet. This means that higher steppe ancestry may partly contribute to height differences in Europe today. And this could be one explanation for why Northern Europeans are taller than Southern Europeans on average. Another explanation for the differences in height is Bergman's rule. This suggests that larger body sizes are more efficient at retaining heat in colder climates. A combination of both factors could explain this, as well as others like diet of course. Now levels of blonde hair is also connected to the type of ancient ancestry that Northern have. As many Northern Europeans have mixed hunter-gatherer ancestry. While many Europeans' hunter-gatherer ancestry comes from a group known as Western hunter-gatherers, famous for largely having blue eyes and dark hair. Places like Scandinavia and the Baltic states also have direct Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry as well. I should note that other Northern populations, such as the Finns, also carry an additional Siberian or East Eurasian ancestral component. And this matters, because we know that the likely origin of blonde hair in modern Europeans was around Siberia in the East. Now later steppe peoples then carried some of this Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry into Europe indirectly, as the genetics of the Yamnaya steppe people themselves was a mixture of Eastern hunter-gatherers and Caucasus hunter-gatherers. And if you look at this table, of the European countries with the highest levels of blonde hair today, the top countries either have this Siberian or Eastern hunter-gatherer component, or a mixture of the two. And this is not coincidental. Now other factors like sexual attractiveness also likely helped to increase the frequency of this trait over time as well, but ancient genetics likely played a major role. Southern Europeans on the other hand have higher levels of early farmer ancestry, known for having brown eyes and hair. Regions such as Greece, Southern and Italy, Iberia, and especially Sardinia still preserve a very strong Neolithic farmer signal today. So in broad terms, Northern Europeans have more hunter-gatherer and steppe ancestry, while Southern Europeans have more of a farmer-related ancestry. And this actually does influence physical traits still today. Now another key difference between Northern and Southern Europeans is skin tone, as Northern Europeans tend to have a lighter pigmentation in general. And a major driver of this is likely climate. We know of course that Northern Europe receives lower levels of ultraviolet radiation, and we know that lighter skin is more efficient at making vitamin D from sunlight. And this probably acted as a strong selective pressure over time. Now red hair is also common in more Northern parts of Europe, both to the West, in places like Britain and Ireland, and even on the European fringe in the East, such as the Udmurt people of Russia. Yet many of the MC1R variants linked to red hair are also associated with pale skin, freckles, and reduced tanning ability. Helping explain why red hair is most common in more Northern parts of Europe. Now genetic isolation and drift is likely also another factor. Along a similar vein as well, we know that eye colour is one of the key differences as well between Northern and Southern Europeans, with lighter eye colours, such as blue and grey, more common in Northern Europe. And I would argue again that climate played a role in this. Some studies have shown that blue eyes are better at seeing in low light conditions after a short adaption period, which could have had an evolutionary advantage in Northern Europe. Darker hair and eyes are more common in the South of the continent of course. And this probably partly reflects both adaption to sunnier climates and genetics, with early European farmer ancestry of course higher in Southern Europe, and they were known for their brown eyes and their brown hair. And even lactose tolerance is higher in Northern Europe than in the South. This trait is often linked to steppe ancestry, because Bronze Age steppe peoples relied heavily on cattle herding and dairy, although other factors could be involved as well. So the different mixtures of ancient ancestry in Northern vs Southern Europe does actually explain some of the differences we still see in European peoples today, but the genetic story of Europe goes far beyond just physical traits. Now another key difference between the North and the South is the level of North African and Eastern Mediterranean ancestry, which is higher in Southern Europe. In the Iberian Peninsula, this is largely a legacy of the Moorish period and earlier Roman era migrations. Now North African ancestry is anywhere between 0 and 11% depending on the region. Sicily and Southern Italy also show significant West Asian and Levantine-like shifts, due to their position at the crossroads of the Mediterranean, influenced by Phoenicians, Greeks and later Islamic expansions. These components are much lower in Northern Europe, which remained isolated from these Mediterranean exchange networks to a large degree. We also know that the Roman Empire never really had a meaningful genetic impact on Britain for instance, something I have made a video on. Now when it comes to the Roman Imperial period, we know that the genetics of the city of Rome itself shifted more towards the Eastern Mediterranean, according to a major study from Stanford researchers. So there has been this pull towards the Eastern Mediterranean in many parts of Southern Europe. Yet I should note that there has been many instances of crossover between North and South. The Norman conquest of Southern Italy lasted from 999 to 1194 for instance, and it likely brought a small Northern European genetic layer into certain regions, although the overall impact was small. Greece and the Balkans also experienced repeated interaction with Anatolia, the Caucasus and the Eastern Mediterranean, creating stronger West Asian connections than those seen in Northern Europe. So in general then, Southern Europe is more genetically diverse on average, given all But what about haplogroups? Well on the male side, Northern Europe is strongly associated with haplogroups such as I1, R1a and branches of R1b. Haplogroup I1 is especially characteristic of Scandinavia, and likely originated in Northern Europe after the last ice age. R1a is elevated in Eastern and Baltic populations and strongly linked to steppe ancestry. Now North-Western Europe also carries high frequencies of R1b branches such as L21 and U106, connected to Celtic and Germanic ancestry. Haplogroup M1c is also found chiefly in North-Eastern Europe, particularly amongst the Sami people, Finland and the Baltic countries. Now as R1b is the most common marker in Europe overall, it is also found in Southern Europe such as R1b, DF27 in Iberia and U152 high in parts of Northern Italy. Yet Southern Europe also has more Mediterranean haplogroups in general. Haplogroups J2 and E1b1b are more common around Greece, Southern Italy and the Balkans, reflecting long-term Mediterranean and Near Eastern connections. If you look at this map, you can see that haplogroup J2 is associated with the spread of agriculture and maritime trade from the Near East and the Levant, while haplogroup E1b1b moved from North Africa and the Levant into the Balkans and Italy. Then there's haplogroup G2a. This was the primary lineage of the original Neolithic farmers, and it survives in its highest frequencies today in the mountains of Sardinia and the Caucasus, but was largely wiped out in the North by Bronze Age invaders. I should note as well that haplogroup I2 is found across the continent, a very old lineage common in Western hunter-gatherers, especially I2a. But it peaks in the south-east of the continent today, in the Balkans, especially Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. This region acted as a refuge during the last Ice Age, which is one reason why it is so high here today, while founder effects and population expansions increased its frequency. Now mitochondrial DNA on the female side is more uniform across Europe than Y-DNA. This suggests that female movement was more fluid or male-mediated conquests were more biologically aggressive. However, subtle differences remain. Haplogroup H is the European queen overall, present in around 40% of all Europeans, with H1, H3 and H5 common subclades. The north shows higher frequencies of haplogroup U5, however, an ancient hunter-gatherer lineage that is one of the oldest in Europe. So while all Europeans share a similar foundation, the impact of migrations, invasions and selective drivers has not always been uniform, giving different regions unique characteristics, which makes it all the more interesting. Yeah there has been plenty of overlap and mixing as well. But what are the differences between English and French DNA? Well to find out, please click here. Thanks for watching, please let me know your thoughts in the comments below and what your ancestry is, and I'll see you next time.