Genetically diverse and homogenous ethnicities of Europe

[Peterski]

Examples of genetically heterogenous large ethnic groups of Europe:

- French
- Italians
- Germans
- Greeks

Examples of genetically homogenous large ethnic groups of Europe:

- English
- Spanish
- Romanians
- Belarusians

Examples of intermediate (neither too diverse nor homogenous) ones:

- Russians
- Poles
- Ukrainians*
- Dutch

*Ukrainians would be homogenous if not for South-Western Ukrainians.

[J. Ketch]

Examples of genetically heterogenous large ethnic groups of Europe:

- French
- Italians
- Germans
- Greeks

Examples of genetically homogenous large ethnic groups of Europe:

- English
- Spanish
- Romanians
- Belarusians

Who are the most heterogenous/homogenous in each category in your view, and why?

[Peterski]

Who are the most heterogenous/homogenous in each category in your view, and why?

I would say that when it comes to large ethnic groups of Europe (let's say at least 10 million people each), the English are the most homogenous, because despite there being almost 50 million ethnically English people in the UK, when you make a European PCA plot (for example based on K36 results), you will see that English people occupy very little space there relative to their number (about as much space as, for example, Danish people, despite being much more numerous than Danish people).

The Spanish occupy a larger space in this PCA (especially if you include the Basques and Catalans).
And Romanians occupy a similar or perhaps slightly larger space, but they are much less numerous.

Belarusians seem to be even more homogenous than the English, but they are much less numerous.

The Irish are also even more homogenous than the English, but again, they are less numerous.

When it comes to the most heterogenous large ethnic group, this is harder to conclude.
Because France, Italy and Germany occupy similar amounts of space in this European PCA (France and Italy a bit more).
It depends if you add populations like Memelland for Germans, or Corsica for the French.

But when it comes to Germans, there seems to be no such a thing as a "Central German" in genetic sense - they are quite sharply divided into NW Germans, South Germans and East Germans, with very few areas plotting truly "in-between". In case of France and Italy it is different, as in both countries you can discern respectively Central French and Central Italian clusters.

So France and Italy occupy more PCA space than Germany, but at least they have "central" clusters, while Germany doesn't.

[Peterski]

As for the Spanish, it is believed that population movements during the Reconquista contributed to their “genetic homogenization.” At that time, there were large-scale migrations, especially from north to south, which led to significant mixing of populations between regions and, as a result, the homogenization of the genetic profile (the greatest differences in Spain are between the east and the west, and much smaller, for example, between the northeast and the southeast; precisely because the mixing of people during the Reconquista took place mainly along the meridian axis).

=====

EDIT:

Here is my K36-based PCA to illustrate the points which I'm making in this thread:
(please note that for example Memelland is not included in Germany in this PCA)
(this PCA is based on regions - each dot is a regional average, not an individual)

https://i.postimg.cc/Td9ZFPSW-/Europe-PCA-New.png

[J. Ketch]

I would say that when it comes to large ethnic groups of Europe (let's say at least 10 million people each), the English are the most homogenous, because despite there being almost 50 million ethnically English people in the UK, when you make a European PCA plot (for example based on K36 results), you will see that English people occupy very little space there relative to their number (about as much space as, for example, Danish people, despite being much more numerous than Danish people).

The Spanish occupy a larger space in this PCA (especially if you include the Basques and Catalans).
And Romanians occupy a similar or perhaps slightly larger space, but they are much less numerous.

Belarusians seem to be even more homogenous than the English, but they are much less numerous.

The Irish are also even more homogenous than the English, but again, they are less numerous.

If you contrast the neighbouring Dutch to the English (or British in general) it's remarkable, despite the Netherlands being about 1/3 the size of England and 1/3 the population they cover maybe 3x the genetic area, overlapping with Scandinavians in the North and French/Austrians in the South.

The main bulk of the Spanish are quite homogenous but not so much if you include the outliers of the Basques and Canarians.

When it comes to the most heterogenous large ethnic group, this is harder to conclude.
Because France, Italy and Germany occupy similar amounts of space in this European PCA (France and Italy a bit more).
It depends if you add populations like Memelland for Germans, or Corsica for the French.

But when it comes to Germans, there seems to be no such a thing as a "Central German" in genetic sense - they are quite sharply divided into NW Germans, South Germans and East Germans, with very few areas plotting truly "in-between". In case of France and Italy it is different, as in both countries you can discern respectively Central French and Central Italian clusters.

So France and Italy occupy more PCA space than Germany, but at least they have "central" clusters, while Germany doesn't.

To me it makes the status of these as proper ethnic nations (based around a single genetic/ancestral community) questionable, or at least the status of outlier groups within them. Cultural empires vs proper nations, there should be a distinction made.

[rothaer]

If you contrast the neighbouring Dutch to the English (or British in general) it's remarkable, despite the Netherlands being about 1/3 the size of England and 1/3 the population they cover maybe 3x the genetic area, overlapping with Scandinavians in the North and French/Austrians in the South.

The main bulk of the Spanish are quite homogenous but not so much if you include the outliers of the Basques and Canarians.


To me it makes the status of these as proper ethnic nations (based around a single genetic/ancestral community) questionable, or at least the status of outlier groups within them. Cultural empires vs proper nations, there should be a distinction made.

Why a „proper ethnic nation“ should just be when it’s „based around a single genetic/ancestral community“ seems a little bit unclear. What if it’s based on two, three or four main components? An ancestral community for centuries or more will regularly have existed anyhow.

Would the English not fulfil this criteria if the incoming Germanics in ancestry would just make up 40% of the English gene pool?

[rothaer]

If you contrast the neighbouring Dutch to the English (or British in general) it's remarkable, despite the Netherlands being about 1/3 the size of England and 1/3 the population they cover maybe 3x the genetic area, overlapping with Scandinavians in the North and French/Austrians in the South.

The main bulk of the Spanish are quite homogenous but not so much if you include the outliers of the Basques and Canarians.


To me it makes the status of these as proper ethnic nations (based around a single genetic/ancestral community) questionable, or at least the status of outlier groups within them. Cultural empires vs proper nations, there should be a distinction made.

In the G25 North Europe PCA the Dutch/Flemish do overlap abt. 90% with the English. There is no overlap with Scandinavians etc.

[J. Ketch]

Why a „proper ethnic nation“ should just be when it’s „based around a single genetic/ancestral community“ seems a little bit unclear. What if it’s based on two, three or four main components? An ancestral community for centuries or more will regularly have existed anyhow.

Would the English not fulfil this criteria if the incoming Germanics in ancestry would just make up 40% of the English gene pool?

The idea is that those ancient components are common to the whole population, because they all come from the same early medieval mixture that homogenised. If a nation doesn't have unique common origins (at least a majority of ancestry in common) surely it's more of a cultural entity than a racial one.

In the G25 North Europe PCA the Dutch/Flemish do overlap abt. 90% with the English. There is no overlap with Scandinavians etc.

Is that not because you arbitrarily excluded Frisians? If you consider them ethnically distinct that supports the point about some nations being less proper.

[Opie]

If you contrast the neighbouring Dutch to the English (or British in general) it's remarkable, despite the Netherlands being about 1/3 the size of England and 1/3 the population they cover maybe 3x the genetic area, overlapping with Scandinavians in the North and French/Austrians in the South.

The main bulk of the Spanish are quite homogenous but not so much if you include the outliers of the Basques and Canarians.


To me it makes the status of these as proper ethnic nations (based around a single genetic/ancestral community) questionable, or at least the status of outlier groups within them. Cultural empires vs proper nations, there should be a distinction made.

Source? I don’t remember seeing some part of the Dutch cluster overlapping with Austria.

[Varda]

Serbs are homogenous genetically.