A new dataset has appeared online from a yet to be published paper titled
Cosmopolitanism in the depths of Barbaricum evidenced by archaeogenomic data from the Late Iron Age Goth community of the Masłomęcz group.
Most of these Gothic samples are clearly of Scandinavian origin, and very similar to present-day Swedes. Overall, however, they create a somewhat heterogeneous cluster that also overlaps with present-day Poles thanks to the presence of a few Balto-Slavic-related and possibly Roman-related individuals.
The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots below were produced with the excellent
Vahaduo G25 Global Views tool using the data
here.
Their Y-haplogroups more or less reflect the PCA results:
PL046 R-YP6228
PL048 I-PH833
PL049 I-A11537
PL052 R-Y48961
PL059 I-PH833
PL062 I-S15301
PL065 I-Y294193
PL066 R-FGC2555
PL067 R-S7759
PL070 I-CTS10028
PL071 I-BY316
PL076 I-S9318
PL082 I-Z2041
PL085 J-Z38241
PL086 I-FT29339
See also...
Early Slavs from Tribal Period Poland
Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin
High-resolution stuff
286 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 286 of 286^ ''have little directions '' should say 'little direct affinity with..''
Even considering what I said about the haplotypes present in Iraq on FTDNA "https://www.familytreedna.com/social/object/5345505", which derive from Yamnaya and were probably in Ukraine/Romania 5,000 years ago, the question of Euphratic and its connections with the Sumerian language needs to be explored again, at least due to the commonality of some roots. I, at the time, many years ago, noted connections not only with Indo-European but specifically with Latin. Therefore, thinking that Indo-European was the language of the Yamnaya R-L23-Z2103 is no longer absurd. Yamnaya explains both the commonality with Finno-Ugric and the predominant Caucasian agglutinative presences in Sumerian, which I have always connected with Himalayan languages such as Ladakhi, but perhaps the origin is more local with these aforementioned influences.
Here the discussion could be expanded and an attempt could be made to explain both my hypothesis of a connection between the number "6" in Indo-European *swek- and in Sino-Tibetan *druk from a reconstructed *dhlVk- that I wrote in my twenties and that was read by a friend of a friend, the Normale Superiore student and professor of glottology at the "Scuola Normale Superiore" in Pisa Prof. Romano Lazzeroni, as well as the known commonalities with Ugric-Finnic, as brought about by the continuous migrations of haplotypes of haplogroup R1 (a and b) from Europe to Asia, possibly also R-PH155, and the subsequent migrations with different phases of what will become the Indo-European of Yamnaya and why not of the Baltic R1a.
Rob: "The evidence for Phrygian is decent and it's fairly clear it has close similarities with Greek. A Greco-Phrygian clade is generally accepted but has received less 'media attention' than Greco-Armenian."
* Sure. To add a sub-addendum (that is also little-known), a Greco-Phrygian (Gr-Phr) linguistic clade is not in any way at odds with the generally-accepted Greco-Armenian clade (Gr-Arm). Because, while the exact historical relationship between the Phrygians and proto-Armenians is a matter of debate, Greco-Armenian in itself makes sense as either a subclade, or late phase of, Greco-Phrygian. That is, it's generally accepted that precursors of modern Armenian had profound contact with and influence from Hittite, non-Indo-European languages (e.g. Hurro-Urartian), and various Iranian languages.
The above can apply regardless of whether:
** a dialect of Phrygian hybridised with Hittite + non-IE language/s to form proto-Armenian, or;
** the reverse: the historical land of Phrygia experienced an ancient westward migration out of what is now Armenia, or;
** neither, i.e. proto-Armenian and proto-Phrygian resulted from historically separate waves of migration from the Balkans into Anatolia.
If only for the sake of parsimony/Occam's razor, it's also a relief that among linguists a consensus came round to the idea that "satemisation" was something like an undercurrent throughout "late (core) PIE", but was quickly stalled/halted and faded in some languages (e.g. Greek and Phrygian) while continuing (or later resurging) in Armenian.
@ Dospaises
Firstly, you're confusing BP with BC
https://imgur.com/a/ypkJ9Rc
'''It's wise to wait until more specimens are published, if they can find some, before blanket statements such as R-M269 is from Villabruna R-L761xP297''
I have not connected M269 specifically to Villabruna. I have clarified several times before what the significance of VB is, so you're either straw-manning or lack the ability to comprehend due to a lack of knowledge about prehistory / archaeology beyond simplistic SNP bean-counting.
There is only a finite set of realistic possibilities, your "SNP mutations'' cannot and won't be found in places which did not possess human beings at the time (northern Russia), or have now been sampled enough for us to exclude (Siberia). This is the advantage of understanding things holistically, you can put together a coherent, common-sense picture.
Feel free to wait until the next ancient R1b sample comes out, but I suspect yourself, RMS2, etc will still be explaining away reality when it does.
There's nothing further to discuss
@Dospaises
In other words, you waited for someone to check the sample before commenting on it in this forum. I'm glad you didn't get carried away by the euphoria of your comrades. I guess you've learned from other Kurganist fiascos. We've been discussing the same thing for 10 years, and the issue is very simple, to prove your theories, you have to demonstrate them conclusively; anything else is wishful thinking.
Please be happy, think that I was RIGHT in predicting that the sample is R1b-PH155.
You might find this advice useful: stay cautious, because more interesting surprises await you.
@ Grant
Linguists have not been able to come to a concensus about Greco-Armenian. For ex Clackson wrote an entire book about it - Clackson concluded that while Greek and Armenian share many lexical (vocabulary) innovations, they lack sufficient shared morphological or phonological evidence to definitively prove they formed a single subgroup after the split of Proto-Indo-European. Im aware Kroonen edited a book which had a chapter in support, but I have little confidence in Kroonen and the Copenhagen gang.
As per your NB #3- Genetics currently suggests that proto-Armenians moved into the southern Caucasus from the Black Sea region (probably near Moldova) c. 1600 BC, whilst Greeks moved into Greece c. 2300 BC from the Balkans. The Phrygians were likely Greek's northern cousins who remained in Macedonia/ the north Aegean hinterland, and they then entered western Anatolia in the wake of the LBA collapse. So, as Clackson suggests, we are left with the view that Armenian & Greco-Phrygian do not share any special 'drift' beyond what is shared by their Yamnaya ancestry, which btw, is not the exclusive source of steppe/ PIE ancestry (pr-Grk also has pre-Yamnaya ancestry, whilst pr-Arm. also has post-Yamnaya/ Srubnaya-related ancestry). But hey, maybe the Yamnaya ancestry which they do share can account for the *almost* cladal relationship evident in linguistics.
@Rob
FTDNA writes: "The R-P297 paternal line was formed when it branched off from the ancestor R-L389 and the rest of humankind around 15.000 BCE". BCE is Before Christian Era", i.e. Before Christ (BC), i.e. about 17000 Years ago (YBP = Years Before Present), but R-P297 is 13000 Years BCE, i.e. 15000 Years ago because the samples tested have the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) about 15000 Years ago or YBP.
YFull writes: "R-P297 YSC0000269/PF6475/S17 * CTS5577/PF6464 * MF48762/P297/PF6398+26 SNPs formed 15600 ybp, TMRCA 13300 ybp", thus a little changes between FTDNA and YFull. The difference between "formed" and the TMRCA is due just to a bottleneck full of SNPs when only a person (or a familial line) had descendants.
These are the SNPs of the bottleneck until R-L297* was formed and gave life to the descendants. Every samples who lacks even only one of these SNPS is either a new subclade or a dead end line:
R-P297 Y107 • FGC72 PF6524 PF6459 • S3848 PF6091 CTS9018 • PF6484 YSC0000269 • PF6475 • S17 MF48762 • P297 • PF6398 L752 • PF6483 PF6463 PF6440 PF6506 Y105 PF6401 L585 • PF6499 • MF51135 L502 • PF6487 A16336 • CTS8355 • PF6103 CTS11985 • PF6523 PF6498 PF6418 • YSC0000061 CTS3876 • PF6458 CTS10212 • PF6491 CTS7941 • PF6472 CTS7904 • PF6471 L320 • PF6092 • FGC69 Y94 • FGC78 Y97 • FGC46 Y407 • PF6094 • FGC73 CTS5577 • PF6464 Y417
from my good Full genome (I had 2: FGC and Dantelabs): neither one no call.
The question of the ages and of the trees is old and we debated that strongly. I also criticized the YFull tree for that, above alt the mt tree for the question of the heteroplasmies, so that I was banned from their fb page after hundreds or thousands of letters even though I have my account with many persons tested by me. Their ages are now in contrast with the aDNA, that frequently gets SNPs documented long before they were presupposed, but they cannot change the oldest fixed age and play with the most recent ones. The solution would be to build the tree from the beginning. Also the age of each SNP is questionable, thus I say that these trees should be taken with a grain of salt.
Target: Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LateC.AG:ALX002.AG__BC_3710__Cov_33.74%
Distance: 2.9293% / 0.02929252 | R3P
70.6 Georgia_Shomutepe-Shulaveri_LN
17.0 Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG
12.4 Israel_C.AG
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278416522000861
quote:
"The Late Chalcolithic Leilatepe “phenomenon” in the Southern Caucasus has often been regarded as the product of Mesopotamian incursions into the region for the purpose of acquiring metals and semi-precious stones for trade."
It seems that Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG+Israel_C are those very same Middle Eastern Mesopotamian migrants.
@Gioiello
I think the Indo-European branch R1b is not from Europe and not even from Eastern Europe, it is from the lower Volga, for example the Kairshak or Seroglazovskaya culture, and they were originally EHG, they were not Baltic HG, or Iron Gate HG, they came to the cattle breeders when they were in the EHG cluster, no question!
The Lower Volga is obviously in Eastern Europe.
definitely
@ Gio
''FTDNA writes:- The R-P297 paternal line was formed when it branched off from the ancestor R-L389 and the rest of humankind around 15.000 BCE". BCE ''
They've obviously made an error in the 'origins story' subsection, because their own calculations and YFull's stipulate that the time of formation of P297 is 15600-15000 BP.
These kinds of errors are common, a whole lot of their samples are mislabelled. E.g. a Mesolithic Norweigan is labelled as "Caucasian Shuvaleri culture" lol
@ Davidski
''The Lower Volga is obviously in Eastern Europe.'
Yes, but no qualifier required. Contrary to Arsen's claims, "Indo European R1b" (whatever that means) isn't from the Kairshak culture, which instead was probably the source of TTK ancestry from Caspian hunters rich in Y-hg Q.
These should be basic understandings by now
@Rob
I wrote: "FTDNA writes: "The R-P297 paternal line was formed when it branched off from the ancestor R-L389 and the rest of humankind around 15.000 BCE". BCE is Before Christian Era", i.e. Before Christ (BC), i.e. about 17000 Years ago (YBP = Years Before Present), but R-P297 is 13000 Years BCE, i.e. 15000 Years ago because the samples tested have the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) about 15000 Years ago or YBP.
YFull writes: "R-P297 YSC0000269/PF6475/S17 * CTS5577/PF6464 * MF48762/P297/PF6398+26 SNPs formed 15600 ybp, TMRCA 13300 ybp", thus a little changes between FTDNA and YFull. The difference between "formed" and the TMRCA is due just to a bottleneck full of SNPs when only a person (or a familial line) had descendants".
Of course you are right: FTDNA 17.000/15.000 ybp / YFull 15.600/13.300. A difference of about 2.000 Years. They are all buffoons. This difference was due to the hypotheses about the origin of the haplogroup A00, just what was debated at the beginning. Huang Shi not only didn't believed to the "out of Afrca", but thought to another date.
So genetics becomes a mathematical question founded upon arbitrary axioms and the dates after are stretched.
I think it is still difficult to tell the immediate origin of R-M269 as Steppe eneolithic and descending cultures (Suvorovo) seem to show paternal lineages that appear associated with the northern Volga/forest zone, as well as those presumably from the lower Volga (and some from further west, as well).
All we can really say is that by 3700 BC it was already a lineage found in the standard piedmont steppe profile (NV3003). It shows up slightly earlier in KST001 but that has a more mixed profile and is more difficult to evaluate.
Are the formation and tmrca for R1a l657 recently updated on yfull?
L657 2300bce
R-M605 2300bce
R-Y4 2300bce
R-Y6 2300bce
R-Y907, R-M624, R-Y920 2300bce
R-Y928 2300bce
R-Y9 2300bce
R-Y7 1800bce
Unless we find R1a-l657 samples in future Andronovo samples, I think it will be end of linking andronovo to Indo aryans...Perhaps they reached India in middle of the mature harappan phase, 2500-2000bce...Might explain everything we have been pointing out for a decade now, like lack of archeological support and ignorant-biased readings of Rig veda itself.
Or just perhaps the route l657 took was different...came via caucasus, reached NW iranian-North Mesopotamia region and from there migrated to Sindh, Balochistan and Punjab.
Another point would be the star like spread...so various subclades of L657 with tmrca of 2300bce spread rapidly between 2300-2000bce within IVC or further east in the OCP region and then expanded further east towards the fag end of LBA into the eastern gangetic plains...?
And Y3 tmrca is 2500bce and Y3 and Y2 both have 2500bce formation date. The Srubnaya Y3 1800bce and Y2 scythians aren't that relevant from the paternalistic lineage POV but such groups may have contributed autosomal ancestry to South asian both direct and via intermediate groups.
@Ash
Unless we find R1a-l657 samples in future Andronovo samples, I think it will be end of linking andronovo to Indo aryans.
You're mentally retarded.
@ Ethan - its interesting- Cernavoda/ Kartal & Sredni Stog are autosomally very diverse, but almost all I2a-L701-
Usatavo is Y-hg very diverse, but autosomally fairly homogeneous
@ Gio - they just made a simple transcription error. It happens
We already have a Tianshan Saka with basal R-L657
CGG101222
Ancestor whose Y descends from the earliest R-Z2110*
https://www.exploreyourdna.com/sample/austria/cgg101222
The autosomal recessive lineage demonstrates several things:
1) the Northern Anatolian component (Barcin 55.1%), essentially the Mediterranean component common to populations on the northern shore, is very strong, while the Mediterranean component common to the southern Middle Eastern populations is practically nonexistent (Tepecik 1.1%).
2) the presence of WHG (13.1%), which may also derive from various sources, may also be a clue to the Y origin from the most ancient refuge in the Alpine zone.
@ Ethan
Usatavo looks like a stabilized local variant of the preceding 'Cernavoda-Sredni Stog horizon', before the expansion of 'core Yamnaya'.
Diverse Y-DNA, but homogenized genome-wide profile
Armenian R-Z2103 belongs to branches that are almost exclusively found in West Asia and have very old TMRCAs with R-CTS7822 (the branch we see in the Balkans), so it's very unlikely that proto-Armenians formed as a result of a rapid migration from the Balkans or western Ukraine. They probably descend from the North Caucasian variants of Yamnaya and Catacomb.
@Ash
Your IQ is significantly too low for this sort of hobby.
Try picking your nose and eating it to pass the time.
@Rob
I still don't know exactly what to make of each of Kartal A, Kartal B, or Usatovo, beyond vague observations like "they look like the residue of Suvorovo-Novodanilovka migrations, but from different starting points along the PC Steppe".
I still feel like IBD analysis could be really helpful for this type of question. They weren't included in the Nikitin/Lazaridis paper IBD analysis because of the Russia/Ukraine thing, and the Yediay 2024 preprint didn't include those samples in the data set used for IBD mixture modelling (it would be nice if the published paper did).
Y-DNA-wise we have:
I-L699>> I-S12195 in Kartal A which could be from either Ukrainian Sredni Stog or Berezhnovka.
R-V1636 in Kartal B (and possibly Usatovo, but that R1b is very upstream) which seems Piedmont Steppe if not Remontnoye-related.
A basal J1 clade in Usatovo which could have proximate origin in the North Caucasus zone (but could also relate to Mesolithic EHG J1 lineages).
An upstream R1a find in Usatovo which at this point in time seems associated with the more northern areas of the Don/Volga or forest zones.
It's all still very confusing. The Cernavoda thing is particularly weird (why are migrants from presumably very distinct parts of the Steppe (Kartal A and B) sharing the exact same material culture?).
A big challenge with the Armenian from the Balkans thing is that there is no trace of them in Anatolia itself immediately preceding or contemporaneous with Trialeti-Vanadzor.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of them representing some sort of reflux from more western Catacomb regions (i.e. Ukraine), through the caucasus, to help explain the I-L596.
@Rob
Another weird thing, and I really don't know if to believe it, but Usatovo shows an earlier formation date (4500BC) than Cernavoda (Kartal A being 4100BC, Kartal B being 4000BC) when using DATES.
@alex
It is logical that in the migration of R-L23-Z2103-Z2110 westward from Yamnaya before arriving in Italy it passed through the Balkans, but some subclades have more of an orientation towards Central Europe, but the higher percentage of R-Z2110 in Albania than in Italy must be considered in light of the founder effect. A large number of Albanian descendants of R-Z2110 (which is also my haplogroup) descend from R-Z2705, which has an MRCA in the medieval era, and upstream specimens are in Italy and Iberia and there is no evidence that the ancestor, after a bottleneck from 2900 to 1500 ybp, lived in the Balkans or elsewhere.
@Rob
@ Gio - they just made a simple transcription error. It happens
A clerical error? But all the trees are "clerical error" if aDNA demonstrates (and I posted many samples) that supposed SNPs dates are wrong when those SNPs have been found long before in aDNA...
@alex
Yes, you are absolutely right. They arrived in the Armenian Highlands already mixed with representatives of the Kura–Araxes culture, possibly in a proportion of about two-thirds when they came to the Highlands. After arriving there, they mixed further with the local Kura–Araxes population. Later, additional migrations from the Near East and Mesopotamia during the Iron Age of Armenia — including influences from Urartu and the Hittites — almost completely diluted their steppe genetic profile.
As a result, Armenians preserved their male lineage and their language, but they almost entirely lost the steppe genetic component.
However, their language still preserves this ancient Nakh-Dag substrate to this day.
@Alex
What interests me is something else: often in models for proto-armenians (lchashen-metsamor or trialeti-vanadzor), it’s not pure “yamnaya”, but comes with admixtures from globular amphora and corded ware from czechia. why is that? i can’t understand it.
@ Ethan
I think DATES is fine for estimating formation/ admixture times of hunter-gatherers and early Neolithic folks, which might be 2-way scenarios, but when we're dealing with Chalcolithic and beyond, as mixtures of mixtures of mixtures, it get's difficult, so its preferable to rely on 'hard data'. But im certainly not dismissing the DATES off hand
According to traditional established chronology, Usatavo should follow Cernavoda I, beginning to c. 3500 bc , established via C14 dates and pottery similarities to Tripolje C2. But the Majaki En. individuals from Penske date as early as 4200 BC. Niktin & Ivanova wrote that this is likely due to a (fresh-water) high-fish diet R.E.
''The Cernavoda thing is particularly weird (why are migrants from presumably very distinct parts of the Steppe (Kartal A and B) sharing the exact same material culture?).''
Because they were still in the process of mixing, with wide variations in EEF ancestry being the main driver of differentiation. Curiously, the R1b-V1636 from Kartal-5 is from the EEF_high group. Hence Usatavo might indeed be later, because after a few hundred years, they had homogenized.
''I still don't know exactly what to make of each of Kartal A, Kartal B, or Usatovo, beyond vague observations like "they look like the residue of Suvorovo-Novodanilovka migrations, but from different starting points along the PC Steppe".''
I dont think there was a a uniform S-N migration. - it might have been a few different wavelets separated by couple hundred years & people of different cultural origins, For ex. the Csongrad & Suvorovo (Y-hg Q of probable TTK deep affinities) individuals look like to be from the lower Volga, whilst the R1b-M269 individual from Smyadovo is different, incl a very different burial form.
Whatever the case, this early wavelet died off, at least at the extremes of their range (Transylvania & Bulgaria). The main movement is instead associated with Cernavoda I, and despite their autosomic diversity the link seems to be a core group of I2a-L702 males, with the KTL5 R1b-V1636 individual being rel. late (3700BC). After another little while, we observe the arrival of a handful of Majkop / Caucasus related lineages in a corner of the Budzhak steppe (E.g J2b-L283 & J2b -Z1827). We might be getting some more En steppe data c. 2027
@ Alex - Armenian R-Z2103 belongs to branches that are almost exclusively found in West Asia and have very old TMRCAs with R-CTS7822 (the branch we see in the Balkans), so it's very unlikely that proto-Armenians formed as a result of a rapid migration from the Balkans or western Ukraine. They probably descend from the North Caucasian variants of Yamnaya and Catacomb.''
@ Ethan- ''A big challenge with the Armenian from the Balkans thing is that there is no trace of them in Anatolia itself immediately preceding or contemporaneous with Trialeti-Vanadzor.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of them representing some sort of reflux from more western Catacomb regions (i.e. Ukraine), through the caucasus, to help explain the I-L596.''
I agree with Ethan. Just because R1b-Z2103 derives from Yamnaya, it doesn't mean that the Armenian/ south Caucasian sub-groups are a linear , local descandants of 'north Caucasian Catacomb groups'. In fact, contrary to the claims published the Reich & Allentoft Labs, copied by Kroonen & Anthony, (& every internet 'genome blogger'), Catacomb fails as a source of steppe ancestry in early Armenians [the publications got 'pass' because of a weak pRight list]. The best source is KMK culture from Moldova, or a Catacomb groups plus Srubnaya. The abovementioned publications also chose to ignore the I2c-L596 , which is found as frequently or more than the Z2103 branch. No clear smoking gun, but the clearest older link is from Potocani chalcolithic Croatia. So a west Ukraine origin from proto-Armenian seems probable.
Anyone know who runs this account? https://x.com/MiroCyo/status/2025003983597969645?s=20
Been seeing it pop up a lot lately with some solid pushback against mainstream narratives. Noticed a few academics engaging with it too. Also seems like they have access to unpublished samples somehow?
Is it Davidski or someone else from the community?
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-BY44400/tree
The diffusion of the R-BY44400 subclade shows how already at the time of Yamnaya these groups of R-Z2103 were in present-day Ukraine and Romania and spread towards Mesopotamia (R-FT263500 > FT263602; R-BY44399 > BY45541) bringing the Indo-European phase which will be the Euphratic, but also towards central Europe (R-FTG93709; R-BY44399; R-FTB59054) and Italy (R-BY132259) bringing Latin towards the Adriatic, a language connected with the Adriatic pile-dwellers and directed towards Lazio and possibly Sicily with the Siculo, but also towards Scandinavia (R-BY132259 > FT291598) and Iberia (R-BY132259 > BY103532). Naturally, the long bottlenecks could also indicate other intermediate pathways. Therefore, further verification with intermediate haplotypes both present today and in ancient DNA is awaited.
The discovery of the SNP BY132259 at Kam'yana Mohyla 20975 and the SNP BY103532 at Smeeni 12823 and Smeeni 12825 demonstrate that the tree calculation is incorrect and the migration in various directions occurred at the same time.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FGC24444/tree
Probably not by chance the migration happened in 4200 ybp, like the supposed migration of hg J to the Levant, and this screenshot could answer the Rob's question too: the presence of two separated subclades in Armenia and Greece at the level of R-SK2097 (even thought the dates are younger here) could mean that the expansion happened from the same places (Ukraine/Romania) and that also reinforce my hypothesis that my ancestor R-FGC24444 was with the Latins to Italy.
We have discussed a lot about the origin of the Y of Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleone Buonaparte) E-PH3893, largely present in Lunigana, Italy, and tested by my friend Marco Grassi. We thought to an Armenian origin 2800 Years ago or even a Longobard one in the Middle Ages, but this hg E is present in Europe for thousands of Years and it might have had the same vicissitudes of our hg R1 (a and b).
It's even the case that North Cauc. Catacomb groups are a dead end due to the local population collapse c. 1700 BC, the setttlement dynamics of whic were outlined in Ghaliachi, Reinhold et al supplement.
Moreover, the N.C. Catb. admixed with post-Majkop groups to form the so-called North Caucasus MBA group. They lie on a different cline to the MBA Armenians.
So proto-Armenians were very European, not only due to their Yamnaya ancestry, but another layer on top (EEF, I2c). Pretty much conquered most of the southern Caucasus and parts of eastern Turkey.
Alex's point abut different Z2013 clades further highlightes that Gr & Arm. dont share any specific forms of ancestry. In fact, proto-Greeks are associated with R1b-Pf7562 (and the single I2a-L702), which are probably pre-Yamnaya. The Balkan Z2103,- R-CTS7822- R-CTS7556 looks to be the proto-Illyrian marker.
As for somethign differrent, it is clear that western Ukraine & moldova are the PIE homeland. 99.9% of normies won;t understand this 'because steppe En. ancestry = big"
On a side note, wouldn't it be possible to convert to G25 these samples of 18th century France ?
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB65913
YRDNA_Ancestry_YRGD5JC6FN_Recent%20(1).pdf
Mi sa che Davidski
farà i soldi,
donne e whisky,
e noi
seghe e gazzose.
Has anything post 2020 been published about the pre-Greek substrate? Is it a valid theory still?
Usatovo's material culture should be younger than Cernavoda, although I actually have more confidence that it's a simple admixture of something resembling Piedmont Steppe and Trypillia. I would be curious about a proposal involving Usatovo's genetic profile forming a fair bit earlier than its material manifestation (but still around the same time as Cernavoda).
I think more sampling of SuNo is still needed. I am expecting there to be more diversity than has previously been suggested from just the Giuergliesti and Csongrad samples.
Rob
Omitting Poland in the context of the PIE homeland is risky, because the core of the first certain Indo-European population, i.e. the CWC, was the Polish GAC.
@ambron Come on man. Nobody doubts that late PIE was spoken by corded ware in Poland but clearly you can't explain Anatolian branch by any Polish subpops. Better to look at steppe movements through the Balkans into Anatolia and follow I-L699 and maybe R-V1636
@rozbójnik
I'm not familiar with anything in depth.
Substrate languages in Greek are a valid theory still yes.
If you mean an Anatolian substrate in Greek, there is no real evidence for that, although I've seen support for Greek and Anatolian sharing the same substrate to explain why certain toponyms have similar suffixes (ss-/-ssa-/-ssos etc).
@rozbójnik:
Probably multiple substrata. There's 2 articles in the "Sub-Indoeuropean Europe" volume, available here:
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111337920/html
''Has anything post 2020 been published about the pre-Greek substrate? Is it a valid theory still?''
Genetically, mainland Greece c. 2400bc was basically split into 2- the southern/southeast littoral with surviving original Greek N. mixing in with some chalcolithic Anatolians, which formed the Minoan and Cycladic civilizations.
In theory, this southern group might have spoken "Pelasgian' (as in 'pre-Greek'), however there is nothing to say that they only spoke one language, they could have spoken 2 or more (going on basic components). The entire "Pelasgian' premise relies on historians believing Herodotus & Thucydides who were writing almost 2,000 years after the fact, so they were an early historic group being back-projected by the imaginations of modern scholars in the days before propper arcahaeology and DNA, so they have to let their imagination run wild a bit from scarps of historical text.
Linguists can't even agree on whether some toponyms are pre-IE, or have a Luwian influence, etc. Much of the most recent linguistics work is from 1990s and early 2000s (Finkelberg, Coleman, Woudhuizen, Chadwick, Drews); some recent PhD on recent historic Pelasgian 'identity'.
In the north came the proto-Greeks, with different mix of steppe + Balkan F. In fact, just before steppe admixture came, archaeologists (e.g. Coleman) have proposed some kind of Baden-Cotofeni migration ~ 3000bc, but Im not seeing it as yet in aDNA.
The proto-Greeks then moved further south and mixed, thus two main groups then formed - coastal Arcado-Cypriot (Mycenean) and inland northwest Greek (less admixed). The Myceneans then require additional 'CHG-rich Anatolian' over what was present in the early Helladic SE Mainland, Anatolia and Minoans are an appropriate source.
@Rob
I found very interesting what you wrote about the Greek ancestry, in fact I was surprised by the MTA answer to my ancestry: very close links with the Minoan Lasithi (mt hgs: H2c1, U5a1, H5, H1bm; Y J2a1a1a2b1b/M319) and no link with the Minoan Moni Odigitria (mt L3'4, X2h; Y G2a2b2a (P303/PF3340/S135/Z765)). It is by chance but they could belong to two different groups. The oldest genetic component is predominantly Greco-Illyrian, as the supposed tracking from Yamnaya would suggest. However, with the Y lineage, one could go much further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ3qUqsRk44
I think you've correctly and comprehensively illustrated the possible origins of the Napoleonic Y. The Lombard hypothesis retains all its plausibility, both due to the presence in Lunigiana of other undoubtedly Lombard haplogroups, and due to the family traditions and even the names they bore. However, as *blasonariocremonese also rightly observed, precisely because of his own personal history, this does not mean that the Y was in the original Lombard group, since they incorporated many along the way of their migration, especially in Italy, where their journey ended and lasted the longest, so much so that the autosomal recessive pattern of their descendants is now uniform with the populations to which they belong.
Another possibility now opens up, but it is made more difficult by the history of other haplogroups such as our R1b-L23*, before the bifurcation between Z2103 (mine) or L51 (yours), because haplogroup E is so ancient that, although predominantly African, it has been widespread throughout the world since ancient times. Interestingly, this E-M34 subclade is proving to be purely European after a 2,800-year bottleneck between 5,400 and 2,600 years ago, according to YFull, but according to the FTDNA tree, it was already purely European after E-Y4970 and also from E-K257. These are the recent Levantine subclades that derive from Europe, like those of R-Z2103 from Yamnaya. In between, this haplogroup E experienced the same fate as other European haplogroups like I and R. Regarding their possible presence among the Armenians 2,600 years ago, their European origin from the Ukraine-Romania area should not be ruled out, as is also the case with a recent exchange between Rob and me on the "Eurogenes blog" with some good arguments.
In short, a possible migration from the Caucasus could date back to E-Y4971 around 5,500 years ago, but the upstream subclades also have had a predominantly European distribution since at least the Mesolithic. The widespread Jewish subclade appears to be a post-exilic introgression from E-Y6923, and the presence in Italy of the upstream E-Y6936 could refer to Imperial Rome. We therefore await the emergence of ancient DNA from around 5,500 years ago. Furthermore, I believe an ancient Italian origin for the Napoleonid haplogroup cannot be ruled out, but more data is needed, both in ancient DNA and on modern distribution. Napoleon's ancestors in the 13th century were likely, and considered themselves, Lombards, like the ancestors of *blasonariocremnese, although with a likely very ancient Y in Pannonia or perhaps even in Italy.
This is the meaning of every ethnic origin.
@ Ambron
I guess in a deep deep way, Hittites might have Polish origins ;)
@ Gio
Have you noted any other Balkan -specific lineages of Z2103?
Rob
Generally, I was referring to Allentoft's words, that the steppe ancestry spread across Europe as a mixture with the Polish GAC. And since we don't know of any Indo-European language from before this spread, WSH plus GAC, i.e. CWC, should be considered the first certain Indo-European population.
@Rob
The presence of R-Z2103* in Viminacium 15515 may have various origins, but multiple presences in Bulgaria.
R-M12149 in Ravna 15551, but they are always part of an early starlike expansion. Ravna 15552 is also present, but we are at RZ2110-CTS699-FTA27460, but Castel di Decima 1016 is older, and my friend Emanuele Infantino from Sicily has a separate haplotype from 4,600 years ago.
I would say that the most notable specimens in ancient DNA are those of Mokrin 19A, 22, but the problem remains, as I have raised on other occasions, in letters from over 10 years ago, that Mokrin seemed archaeologically linked to the Eastern Alps also due to the presence of R-Z2118.
The confirmed presence in the Balkans is with R-CTS7556 (Dimov Grob 7231, Ostoijicevo 23209, Mokrin 23297, and also R-FT139559 from Mokrin 27, Mokrin 24A), then R-CTS9219, older specimens in the Iron Age, and they seem to come from Central Europe rather than directly from the East.
Regarding R-Y2705, I mentioned that there is no evidence that its ancestor was ancient in the Balkans. At most, perhaps he too was Iron Age. You know that I consider Illyrian nationalism very dangerous, and especially the claim that those who are there today are the true descendants of the Illyrians. Given my linguistic knowledge, I highly appreciate the Albanian language among the Indo-European languages, but I also know that it is composed of 40% Latin, 20% Greek, Slavic and much more, and perhaps the Indo-European heritage does not go beyond 10%.
To summarize Michał Golubiński's work, evidence for the biological continuity of the Polish population can be seen in:
in the cladistic results of the f3 statistic, in which medieval Poles share the closest common ancestors with the population inhabiting Polish lands during the Bronze Age
in the f4 statistic, in which the population of the Masłomęcz group, located exactly in the middle of the Bronze Age-modern times timeline, shares exactly the same amount of origin with the population inhabiting Polish lands during the Bronze Age as with contemporary Poles
in the MOBEST geostatistics results, showing the origins of most Masłomęcz individuals, including those genetically Slavic, as local to Polish lands during the Roman period
@ambron
Well the earliest attestations of IE languages are thousands of years after their dispersal. At the very least Anatolian and Tocharian seem to predate this mixture, although I suppose those would be Indo-Anatolian if you only count extant branches and Indo-European in the strictest sense.
@Rob
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-CTS699/tree
The subclade R-Z2110-CTS699 has descendants in Armenia: YF082241 and R-FTA27460 separated 5100 yer ago, and that is in line with the first migration from Yamnaya.
This last one has two aDNA at Castel di Decima 1016 and Ravna 15552 with no surviving samples so far, but they could demonstrate the path through the Balkans to Italy.
Another subclade has two descendants in Sardinia from the Francalacci et al. paper of 2103/2015 with a MRCA at the SNP R-Z29827. Another subclade has descendants in Middle East / Asia with the recent SNP R-B7. Another subclade R-Y36455 has one sample in Italy and one in Colombia and demonstrates the direction of the first wave to Italy and later to Iberia. That separated at the SNP R-Y86387: one to England but the other, present only in YFull, is my friend Emanuele Infantino from Sicily tested through Dantelabs and separated as to YFull 4600 Years ago, and I should understand if he has some SNP in common with this Englishman, but unfortunately he isn't in any project. Other two samples (one in Apulia and the other is Bosnia and Herzegovina), separated at the level of the SNP R-BY106492 about 1400 ybp. Usually many would think that the Apulian did come from the Balkans, but with this data don't you think that probably the other way around happened? I remember you that Alberto Stasi, from an Apulian father, of the Garlasco case, is, through 23 markers I checked from the acts of this case, a J2b present in caves of Apulia and Abruzzi 5000 Years ago and, being he linked to the apical SNPs, even 7000 or 9000 Years ago.
I think that perhaps Emanuele Infantino might have come from the Siculi people linked probably with the Latins of Latium as to the Language and migrated to Sicily later.
Aryans are from India saaar
It turns out we have more than 11 Mesolithic-era skeletons from Azerbaijan — from the Gobustan Mesolithic culture. I’m wondering why their aDNA hasn’t been studied?
Norfern
The proto-language common to Hittite and Tocharian may simply have been one of the PIE dialects.
Returning to Michał Golubiński's study... Contrary to the expectations of proponents of the Dnieper theory, each subsequent genetic study demonstrates the continuity of the Polish population at least since the Bronze Age. This was also the case with Gretzinger's study, which found that medieval Poles shared 80% of relative value common ancestors with the population inhabiting Polish lands during the Bronze Age and over 70% with the population inhabiting those lands during the Roman period.
@ Arsen- apparently they are
@Rob
Why might this be interesting? Because these monuments are located right at the southeasternmost point of the main Caucasus ridge, which directly borders the Caspian Sea. These people were hunters and fishermen.
https://i.ibb.co/KrPhqj6/2.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/rf25zVKh/1771846801119.jpg
On the first map, the area marked with the Roman numeral I indicates the distribution of the Gobustan culture — it extended as far north.
A very interesting culture.
Hai inviato
Even said that, it seems to me that your "canaanite" ancestry is too high for what I know about European Jews, and 23andMe (there was Poznic at the autosome tests, a great geneticists, and he is a "Jew") puts the Ashkenazim in an European cluster, easily identifiable because due to a mix of pretty much 2000 years and I think they came from the Imperial Rome, with many intakes, but 70% of the Erfurt Jews 1350 AD and 68% from the last paper of Lerca-Jaso were "Italians". About the Phioenician ancestry all the last papers deny that there is Phoenician ancestry in the Mediterranean coasts, as I have been saying for 20 years.
Ig
Yeah iyeah i remember you told me
Ig
There is also a research about it
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12226237/
Punic people were genetically diverse with almost no Levantine ancestors
The maritime Phoenician civilization from the Levant transformed the entire Mediterranean during the first millennium BCE1–3. However, the extent of human movement between the Levantine Phoenician homeland and Phoenician-Punic settlements in the ...
Ig
Waste of money ): you know what they say : the curiosity killed the cat (and i am the cat)
Ig
I knew you are the right friend to show him . Graci
Hai inviato
Thus it is a fraud if they use the supposed Phoenician ancestry for true levantine origin. This is the Marco Grassi's test...
Through an examination of the Napoleonid haplotype on YHRD, it seems that the solution to the origin is becoming clearer. Y9 is present in five specimens: three in Eurasia and two in East Asia, later specified in China. The European specimens are in Kosovo and North Macedonia and the other in Altaic Eurasia (Kazakhstan). At this point, we therefore have two possibilities: since from the previous analysis I concluded that this haplogroup has been present in Europe for at least 10,000 years, either it too migrated to East Asia like other subclades of the R1 haplogroup and returned recently with the Turkish migration, or it was present in Asia since very ancient times. Since the specimens found have DYS385=16,16 and none have the values 14,14 of Arrighi, I think at this point that an attempt on an upstream SNP of Arrighi should be made, because it could be a haplotype distant from the others and give us further indications.
@ Arsen
Indeed, samples from 'Gobustan' will be phenomenal if succesfully analysed & published. Firstly, the C14 dating would help clarify local chronologies. Then one should conduct diet isotope analysis, to confirm if they were hunter-fisherman.
The Genetic interest will be huge - how do they fit in within the broader CHG-Zagros-ANE cline; what is their role in forming Shuvaleri-Shomu & steppe groups.
@Rob It is quite possible
With DYS385=15.16, we find one specimen in Germany and one in Iran.
It's conceivable that DYS385=16.16 of the Napoleonids and DYS385=14.14 of Arrighi, who tested positive for the SNP PH3893 at Yseq, could presuppose a DYS385=14.16 with two different RechLOHs, but there are no matches with DYS385=14.16 or even 15.15, but there is a specimen with 16.17 in Italy. We need to see if it belongs to the Napoleonids haplogroup. Let's see.
Total 13: Admixed 1; East Asian 2: Chinese 2; Afro-Asiatic 2; Eurasian 7, Western Europe 3: Italy 1.
DYS438=10 are 9
DYS438=9 are 4
H4=12 are 7
DYS439=12 are 5
DYS635=22 are 0
DYS635=21 are 3
DYS456=15 are 2
DYS458=15 are 0, =16 are 0, =17 is 1 Worldwide, =18 are 0, =19 are 0, =14 the Italian one, and of course all the other haplotypes have DYS458 fractioned and don't belong to the E haplogroup but to J. Perhaps DYS458=17 belongs to this haplogroup.
The haplotype with DYS458=17 belongs to an Australian Aboriginal and is very likely introgressed from Europe.
2 new samples sequenced from Lothal (IVC site), dates are being worked at. Following are the key points.
• PCA: Lothal individuals fall within the South Asian genetic cline, closest to present-day Gujarati and Indo-Aryan populations, and clearly separated from West Eurasian groups.
• f3-statistics: Subtle intra-site variation—LT1 shows slightly higher affinity to Iran-related ancestry, while LT3 aligns more with southern and eastern South Asian populations.
• f4-statistics: Both individuals cluster firmly with South Asians and show strong genetic proximity to present-day Gujaratis, with no significant West Eurasian affinity.
• qpAdm (LT3): Admixture patterns are typical of Bronze Age South Asia, dominated by AASI- and Iran-related ancestry with limited group-specific variation.
Source: Dr Niraj Rai IITGN presentation.
Engraved signs on the Adorant and other Stone Age artifacts constitute a 40,000-year-old writing system predating the Mesopotamian one
https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2026/02/engraved-signs-on-the-adorant-and-other-stone-age-artifacts-constitute-a-40000-year-old-writing-system-predating-the-mesopotamian-one/
@Ash
Present-day Gujarati and Indo-Aryan populations obviously have a lot of R1a and Sintashta ancestry (even though they're clearly separated from West Eurasian groups) you fucking moron.
Some wonderful "continuity" in Poland:
https://gyazo.com/9ef3c3ff4833d9cffebcb46b90803d3e
The difference becomes even more stark using a Baltic source:
https://i.gyazo.com/bce4352e9b63736939145baf9d1d7f27.png
Apparently the 12k snp Sanauli sample is modeled similar to central_steppe_EMBA (kumsay) like by the lead researcher. If in future they are able to extract higher quality DNA and confirm it, would have interesting implications.
Basically would show an independent pastrolist population with horse culture migrating into Western_UP by 2000bce.
@Ash
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
12k is quite low, especially when dealing with distinguishing populations that on the broader scale share a lot of common components
Anyways here's some samples from The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans paper that hadn't received coordinates.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/5e46k21vg5hfuf6/Lazaridis_2025.zip/file
EthanR
Niemcza was built by the Czechs in the 9th century and conquered by the Poles in the 10th century. It's no wonder, then, that the Czechs (Knoviz) were replaced by Poles (Trzciniec).
🤗Take it easy, man
Napoleon's haplogroup E-PH3893>Y58796>BY36877>E-BY36878
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY36878/tree
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y58897/
Copium about AIT is irrelevant against the broader problem that many adna publications still read like Grift jobs. Then, a legion of low IQ attention-seekers disseminate this nonsense as fact , often due to petty bribes (notorious offenders- the creatures @ GeneArchivist, Rizdib khan, etc)
@Mr Shomu-Tepe
"Napoleon's haplogroup E-PH3893>Y58796>BY36877>E-BY36878
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY36878/tree
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y58897/"
We (Marco Grassi and me) have been studying these persons, both genealogically and genetically, for more than 20 years and the persons were tested by Marco Grassi in his region. I paid for the SNP PH3893 on Arrighi, who was thought out of this haplotype but he was through a Yseq test. Unfortunately we hadn't the money to test him at least for a Big Y, but I wrote also about the hypothesis of the recent and old origin (10000 years ago) of this haplogroup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ3qUqsRk44&t=4s
@Norfern
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zcHEPBdVWZMrU3ST3SoAl5CmiYqayX9f/view?usp=sharing
@Davidski
Thanks!
The Shatrovo-1 sample seems pretty interesting, the archaeological attribution of the site seems to be LBA to EIA. The genome leans on the EIA side, might be Sargat or might be something slightly earlier too.
@Gioiello
New DNA from a cave in Italy (not Villarbuna), two female individuals, probably mother and daughter, 12,000 years old
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260217005754.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“ Probably multiple substrata. There's 2 articles in the "Sub-Indoeuropean Europe" volume, available here:
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111337920/html”
Kroonens compendiums are very hit & miss. According to him & the Copenhagen dorks, the third millennium BC migrations into Anatolia were “Phrygians”, a group known to have migrated in only after 1200 BC
So I’d say their knowledge of Balkan, Aegean, Anatolian history is poor as Reichl’s Lab
@ Mr Shomu-tepe
I thank you, but I did know the news through a newspaper article. The most important news was this. "Alfredo Coppa of Sapienza University of Rome, who also co-led the study, says: "We believe her survival would have required sustained support from her group, including help with food and mobility in a challenging environment".
Unfortunately I didn't find any uniparental marker, and they hadn't the Y of course. If I remember well, they lived in Sicily.
Post a Comment