Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
Which Celtic? I guess there would be something of that branch across the British Isles that is, in the areas where Celtic migrated. It is a mutation which is separated from southern Poland I2a I-Y3120 and reached Greece via Ukraine or Carpathian area. In the future it will be known more precisely. What we can say now (without archaeogenetic data) is that source of this mutation is in the area of later White Croatia.
It looks like E-V13 was the I2a2-Din of the Bronze Age.
As aforementioned, i view the I-Y18331 formation in association with the Celts of Tylis. Specifically i believe that following the invasion of Celts in Greece, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_settlement_of_Southeast_Europe#Invasions_of _Greece, and namely after the Battle of Lysimachia in 277 BCE, Celts under their leader Comontorius settled in Thrace and established the kingdom of Tylis in what is now western Bulgaria. The kingdom was destroyed by Thracians in 212 BCE, and it is my hypothesis that those Celtic inhabitants took refugee within Greek Macedonia, where some 100 years later (per YFull's Y-Tree) we have the formation of I-Y18331.Quote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...esinThrace.jpg
As for I-Z17855, I-Y4460, and I-S17250, which are predominantly Slavic, i believe Bastarnae do seem like a reasonable proxy of I-Y3120. Then again, i also find the Przeworsk culture (olive green) as a reasonable proxy of it (I-Y3120) likewise. More specifically, Przeworsk culture (green) > Zarubintsy culture (red) in the second image below.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_Iron_Age.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...sk_culture.png
As for I-Y3120, i believe it was formed in the region of southern Poland, which did have a Celtic presence. You can read more of the relative archaeology here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_in_antiquity#Celtic_peoples.
Prior of that, I-CTS10228 and its subclade I-Y3120 seem very rooted to the region of the prior Neolithic "Western Linear Pottery" culture. I am not saying that those clades were specifically associated with it since they arose later, but their I-L621 ancestor seems to have been part of it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hic-en.svg.png
@Demetrios, amazing, thank you!
EDIT: interestingly, on the Wikipedia article the Przeworsk culture mentioned as local with Celtic elements, but in the Hungarian archeological literature it's mentioned as Germanic / Vandal culture.
Yes, i have also read that it had Celtic elements, and that its also associated with Germanics and proto-Slavs. It seems the Celtic elements originate form the La Tène culture and the Germanic from the Jastorf and Pomeranian cultures. By the way, the Pomeranian culture has also been associated with Bastarnae. Bastarnae did have a Germanic element (along with the Celtic) as well, therefore i wouldn't exclude their association with it, at least in part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
There are no haplotypes within Croatian genetics which would showed links with the Celts.Quote:
Alternatively, I2-L621 lineages could have lived in relative isolation from the mainstream Proto-Indo-European society somewhere around Ukraine, Poland or Belarus, then as the centuries and millennia passed, would have blended with the predominantly R1a populations around them. The resulting amalgam would have become the ancestors of the Proto-Slavs.
Therefore if branch I-Y3120 has something to with the Celts that would be evident in the genetic of the Proto-Celts that is, in their descendants(England etc). There is no such evidence. Yfull also does not prove this, nor public autosomal results as far as Croats and Slavic peoples are concerned.Quote:
The Proto-Celtic haplogroup R1b-L21 is now known to have arrived in Ireland around 2000 BCE
Is there any Proto-Celts, Celts Y dna in Croats probably yes (some R1b branches), but it is a very weak connection.
Therefore, all mutations behind I-Y3120 have connections with southern Poland and southeastern Ukraine ie Proto-Slavs. For concrete confirmation we need archaeogenetics. And when the merger with the R1a Slavs in that area was, we still don't know.
We don't need any I-Y3120 in England. We have samples in YFull's Y-Tree from France and Germany belonging to I-Y3120's sister clade, namely I-Y81696, and we also have a I-Y3120* from southern Poland. To be precise, the French sample is from Bas-Rhin (northeastern France), the German sample from Baden-Württemberg (southwestern Germany), and the Polish sample is from Podkarpackie Voivodeship (southeastern Poland). This suggests that I-CST10228 (and its two aforementioned subclades) formed in central Europe between these two regions, and if combined with its TMRCA of 1400 BCE the most probable link between these two regions was the Celtic element, and as aforementioned in a prior comment southern Poland did have a Celtic presence (that can probably be traced back to the Urnfield culture dated 1300-750 BCE). This is also suggested by SNP tracker models shared in the previous two pages, where clades ancestral to I-Y3120 are shown located north of the Alps. You can also see it in the Y-Tree of I-P37 i shared today. Also, you cannot claim that I-Y3120 is purely Slavic, when one of its four subclades, namely I-Y18331, is evidently of southern Balkanic origin (largely Greek and Jewish in members). And judging by the formation and TMRCA of I-Y18331 and its main subclades, it precedes the Slavic migration in the Balkans (South Slavs) by some 600 years, while at the same time it compliments hypotheses that associate its arrival with either the Celtic invasion/migration of the southern Balkans or the Bastarnae. You can only claim proto-Slavic participation of I-Y3120 for its other three subclades, namely I-Z17855, I-Y4460, and I-S17250, and even this probably due to assimilation of I-Y3120. As for the autosomal aspect, you can easily explain absence of Celtic influence if you consider the evolution of I-Y3120 from a founder-effect perspective. Then again, i am not that familiar with the autosomal profiles of Slavs to rule out Celtic influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
Quote:It is not possible that Celts come to Britain and bring only one haplotype from where they coming. They must bring and other haplotypes if this other haplotypes exist among them , but this is not case.Quote:
We don't need any I-Y3120 in England. We have samples in YFull's Y-Tree from France and Germany belonging to I-Y3120's sister clade, namely I-Y81696
eupedia
If I-Y3120 mutation was from France or Germany then the Celts must have mutations in that branch, and even if they have that mutations what this have to do with I-Y3120 mutation which they do not have?Quote:
The Proto-Celtic haplogroup R1b-L21 is now known to have arrived in Ireland around 2000 BCE
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. if the Celts coming to southern Poland I guess they bring their main R1b genetic. For now, Croats do not have this genetics. As far as I know, Poles also have less of this R1b branches, and if they have, they exist more in the northern parts of Poland.Quote:
and we also have a I-Y3120* from southern Poland
For now, genetics does not show any connections.Quote:
To be precise, the French sample is from Bas-Rhin (northeastern France), the German sample from Baden-Württemberg (southwestern Germany), and the Polish sample is from Podkarpackie Voivodeship (southeastern Poland). This suggests that I-CST10228 (and its two aforementioned subclades) formed in central Europe between these two regions, and if combined with its TMRCA of 1400 BCE the most probable link between these two regions was the Celtic element, and as aforementioned in a prior comment southern Poland did have a Celtic presence (that can probably be traced back to the Urnfield culture dated 1300-750 BCE).
eupedia
Quote:
Alternatively, I2-L621 lineages could have lived in relative isolation from the mainstream Proto-Indo-European society somewhere around Ukraine, Poland or Belarus, then as the centuries and millennia passed, would have blended with the predominantly R1a populations around them.
When we find out in which period R1a exactly occurs in southern Poland then we will be able to say something more about the Greek branch as well, whether it has anything to do with the Slavs, etc.Quote:
This is also suggested by SNP tracker models shared in the previous two pages, where clades ancestral to I-Y3120 are shown located north of the Alps. You can also see it in the Y-Tree of I-P37 i shared today. Also, you cannot claim that I-Y3120 is purely Slavic, when one of its four subclades, namely I-Y18331, is evidently of southern Balkanic origin (largely Greek and Jewish in members).
wiki
For now Greek branch is formed 2100 ybp. That person probably leaves before the arrival of the R1a tribes to that area. However, it is still one of the relatives of Croatian ancestors. Considering that Croatian name is mentioned in the 3th century(Azov), there is a possibility that our common ancestor, 300 or 400 years earlier also called himself a Croat, since there were later White Croats or Croats in that area.Quote:
The Proto-Slavic homeland is the area of Slavic settlement in Central and Eastern Europe during the first millennium AD,
This mutation could come with anyone to Greece and the Balkans but still it has its source in the area where later White Croats ie Croats live. For now, archaeologists or historians do not mention that White Croats would have connection with Celts or Bastarnaes.Quote:
And judging by the formation and TMRCA of I-Y18331 and its main subclades, it precedes the Slavic migration in the Balkans (South Slavs) by some 600 years, while at the same time it compliments hypotheses that associate its arrival with either the Celtic invasion/migration of the southern Balkans or the Bastarnae.
Quote:
You can only claim proto-Slavic participation of I-Y3120 for its other three subclades, namely I-Z17855, I-Y4460, and I-S17250, and even this probably due to assimilation of I-Y3120.
I-S17250 branch is brother mutation of I-Y18331, since the Croats do not have it apparently that person had moved from one common house, and given that data from YFull show Ukraine and Russia it is probably and possible direction of movement to Greece.
Demetrios,
While many scenarios can exist, we have to keep in mind, Y3120, has a TMRCA of 2100ybp.
Alot of people forget that this doesn't mean some Y3120 are more distant than others.
All Y3120 men share the same exact ancestor around 100BC.
While the line could have slipped into different cultures(which I do think is the case with Y18331), there cannot be that many different tribes for Y3120 to descend directly within such a period between the late antiquity and early medieval.
I just dont see how one man around 100BC could possibly give birth to sons that are supposedly descended from ancient Celts, Germans and Slavs.
If Y3120 had a much older TMRCA I could see that being a distinct possibility.
Hopefully an ancient sample comes up with Y18331 around 100BC to get a better idea.
I, similarly belong to a Albanian branch of L1029 not found elsewhere. Though, the branch is suspected between 1100-1200ybp. May go up or down after my 2 distant matches do Dante. Maybe somewhere there's one with a more distant branch.
In all probability it still arrived with Proto Slavs or maybe a assimilated guy into Goths.
An advice.. I see around some forums a bunch of people who clearly haven't got a clue about Y-DNA, they discovered the YFull, and voila they are some experts over night... YFull's tree is not the whole picture, it is missing plenty of results... In this instance this I-Y3120* (I-FT76511) Pole has relatives in Serbs. They share 6 SNP's at FTDNA, most likely their distance is migration period. The two Serbs in I-FT256359 share 3 SNP's, while having plenty of private novels so they separated over a 1000 years ago..
FTDNA introduced a charge for downloading the raw BAM file so discrepancy increased, these Serbs refused to upload to YFull, because they didn't see the benefit for extra money..
Y18331 has high basal diversity in Greece, so carrier of Y18331 must have been a Greek, of some foreign origin, probably Bastarnae.
To add, I see another new clade, Lithuanian I-V19, parallel to the others. So that again clearly indicates Northern origins. This Greek clade too has Northern origins but due to TMRCA it can't be Slavic.
Proto-Celts were not exclusively R1b or predominately R1b necessarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
I don't know about specific subclades and I don't care that much but at least there is I2a-P37 in Ireland, for example and it is higher in Southwest, where, for example Ogham inscriptions were also more common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogham_...:Ogham_map.png
Strabo makes a distinction between Kelti and the 'people of Britain'. How the 'people of Britain' are described?
"The men of Britain are taller than the Celti, and not so yellow-haired, although their bodies are of looser build. The following is an indication of their size: I myself, in Rome, saw mere lads towering as much as half a foot above the tallest people in the city, although they were bandy-legged and presented no fair lines anywhere else in their figure. Their habits are in part like those of the Celti, but in part more simple and barbaric — so much so that, on account of their inexperience, some of them, although well supplied with milk, make no cheese; and they have no experience in gardening or other agricultural pursuits. And they have powerful chieftains in their country. For the purposes of war they use chariots for the most part, just as some of the Celti do. The forests are their cities; for they fence in aspacious circular enclosure with trees which they have felled,
and in that enclosure make huts for themselves and also pen up their cattle — not, however, with the purpose of staying a long time."
See below the list of Irish cheeses. How many are from County Cork and how many are from other regions of Ireland?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_cheeses
There may be some archaic elements in Insular Celtic imo but, from a typological standpoint they have many innovations while Slavic languages, for example, seem to be the most conservative typologically all things considered. Is that a coincidence? In the borders of Croatia and Slovenia (?) there are dialects that retain the dual? Also Sorbian does it? Why there is no equally conservative language in the West?
It seems reasonable to think that Insular Celtic was likely transformed by the non-IE (or at least non-Celtic) language spoken by the L21 people.
Are the Kelti of Strabo in any way similar culturally to proto-Slavs? Modern Croats? What would you think?
Quote:Characteristic of the Celts is R1b, whether they have some other genetics probably yes, but they do not have mutations in I-Y3120 branch which proves that there was no mixing.Quote:
Proto-Celts were not exclusively R1b or predominately R1b necessarily.
I don't know about specific subclades and I don't care that much but at least there is I2a-P37 in Ireland, for example and it is higher in Southwest, where, for example Ogham inscriptions were also more common.
Quote:
Strabo makes a distinction between Kelti and the 'people of Britain'. How the 'people of Britain' are described?
Quote:
See below the list of Irish cheeses.
Quote:
There may be some archaic elements in Insular Celtic imo but, from a typological standpoint they have many innovations while Slavic languages
Quote:
for example, seem to be the most conservative typologically all things considered. Is that a coincidence?
This has nothing to do with the Y dna.Quote:
In the borders of Croatia and Slovenia (?) there are dialects that retain the dual? Also Sorbian does it? Why there is no equally conservative language in the West?
The language has nothing to do with Y dna. If Y dna in this case have something about it, this must be seen in genetics. You can see that in Croat case. I2a non-Indo-European genetics and tribe became a speaker of the Indo-European language (White Croats). And it is visible in R1a genetics. If there was any mixing of I2a I-Y3120 peoples with Celts it must be seen in genetics. Therefore, it is not visible and the case is closed for now.Quote:
It seems reasonable to think that Insular Celtic was likely transformed by the non-IE (or at least non-Celtic) language spoken by the L21 people.
It is a question which has nothing to do with Y genetics. At this point we need stick to the genetic data that we know and the historical sources which we have. There is also archeology that shows no connection. For now there is simply no such evidence and we must accept that.Quote:
Are the Kelti of Strabo in any way similar culturally to proto-Slavs? Modern Croats? What would you think?
It's not a matter of having brought more haplotypes and trying to identify them. I-Y3120 was one that increased considerably in frequency through a founder-effect phenomenon. Now, trying to identify haplogroups that might not have had the same luck is irrelevant to me. We already know there have been historical movements of Celts and Bastarnae both towards eastern Europe and the southern Balkans. It's not something we are trying to prove through haplogroups.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
I didn't write that I-Y3120 is from France/Germany. I have written already that i consider it to have formed in southern Poland, based on the available data that i can evaluate.
How do you jump from ancient southern Poland to modern Croats, and assume that the same haplogroups brought there by the Celts or the Bastarnae would also be found in modern Croats in any noticeable frequency if at all? You should view I-Y3120 independently and try to explain it using the available data. The main question is who is the most likely population that could have expanded I-Y3120 to eastern Europe and at the same time have carried it all the way to Greece, during approximately the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE? I still believe Celts and Bastarnae are the most probable original carriers, that were eventually assimilated by the people they travelled to.
That Eupedia quote is from Maciamo. He simply shares suggestions (not just the one you cropped) about the presence of I-L621 during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. Furthermore, that Wikipedia quote you also cropped and excluded the second part. Here it is whole, "The Proto-Slavic homeland is the area of Slavic settlement in Central and Eastern Europe during the first millennium AD, with its precise location debated by archaeologists, ethnographers and historians.". I agree with that quote, why would i disagree?
This mutation could come with anyone to Greece and the Balkans, yes, and that anyone was probably either the Celts or the Bastarnae, judging from the relevant dates, the current distribution of the samples, and the actual recorded history.
From Wikipedia (citing the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World), "Bastarnae were settled in a vast arc stretching around the northern and eastern flanks of the Carpathians from south-east Poland to the Danube Delta. The larger group inhabited the northern and eastern slopes of the Carpathians and the region between the Prut and Dnieper rivers (modern-day Moldova/western Ukraine), while a separate group (the Peucini, Sidoni and Atmoni) dwelt in and north of the Danube Delta region.". How do you find it difficult then that it could have been picked up or assimilated by proto-Slavs or White Croats?
Last, concerning the samples of Ukraine and Russia that are shown in YFull, you should know that the Russian sample is not Slavic, but belongs to the ethnic group of Chuvash, a Turkic ethnic group from the Volga region, and of course shares his clade with some other Greek samples. I know the guy and have exchanged a number of emails with him. I also know his autosomal profile, and it shows that he clusters with Chuvash. The clade where that Ukrainian sample belongs to though is the only that it demands some more attention, considering that this clade also has a Russian sample from Siberia that isn't visible in YFull (only in FTDNA), but even here we have Greeks as well (you can read some about it in this following article by the admins of the I-P37 project in FTDNA - http://i2aproject.blogspot.com/2018/...ew-branch.html, as well as in YFull). That clade can easily be explained if we go with the Bastarnae hypothesis. For example, Bastarnae carrying I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 could have settled in Greek Macedonia after the Dardanian-Bastarnae War of 179-175 BCE, and a member of that family belonging to the second or third generation could have chosen to move back to his forefather's homeland (between the Carpathian Mountains and the river Dnieper chiefly) alone, while the rest remained in Greece. It seems very reasonable to me.
I know that the current TMRCA of I-Y3120 is 2100 ybp mate. But you should take those dates with a grain of salt, they aren't absolute. Hence why we are suggesting models that can be complimented by historical events as well. To be precise, the current TMRCA of YFull for I-Y3120, as established by their mathematical formula, is 2131 ybp, and through the rounding of numbers that they do they list 2100 ybp. Nonetheless you should know that this date has changed over the years. We used to have 2300 ybp as a TMRCA (as is visible here - https://lundiak.wordpress.com/2015/0...ka-i-cts10228/ - it shows up at least until 30th July 2017). These dates are simply age estimations and fluid. The mathematical formula YFull uses (it's more than one actually) is based on an assumed mutation rate of 144.41 years, and an assumed age of 60 years for living providers of YFull samples, among other calculations (more about them here - https://www.yfull.com/faq/how-does-y...-tmrca-and-ci/ and here - https://www.yfull.com/faq/what-yfull...n-methodology/). I believe it does leave room for assuming earlier dates as well, especially when you consider that those earlier dates were not very long ago also part of their Y-Tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibran
But i didn't write that there were many tribes that spread I-Y3120, such as Celts, Germans, and Slavs. It was obviously originally part of one group, during the last three centuries of the 1st millennium BCE. I personally think that it was either the Celts or the Bastarnae (they had both Celtic and Germanic elements themselves). These would have been eventually assimilated by the Slavs (among others), and remain there or expand elsewhere with them.
Last, it couldn't have arrived with proto-Slavs when you consider the scarcity of Slavic samples in that branch. If i count correctly (by considering both YFull and FTDNA) i believe there are only three Slavic samples. One is from North Macedonia and shares the subclade with a number of other Greek samples and a single Albanian as well, therefore i would say that he is assimilated. And the other two are an Ukrainian and a Russian from Siberia, both belonging to I-Y158862/BY182587 along with two other Greek samples. Other than that, Greek samples are to be found in every branch (with the exception of the Jewish ones) of I-Y18331, which shows the greatest variance. And there is also a Greek I-Y18331*.
I agree with what you write, and to tell you the truth i myself begin to incline more towards the Bastarnae hypothesis with this last small exchange i had. As i wrote to @hrvat22, that I-Y158862/BY182587 subclade can easily be explained through the Bastarnae, with them carrying I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 in Greek Macedonia after the Dardanian-Bastarnae War of 179-175 BCE, and a member of the second or third generation choosing to move back to his forefathers' homeland (between the Carpathian Mountains and the river Dnieper chiefly) alone, while the rest remained in Greece. Then again, considering that their TMRCA is 1150 ybp, i wouldn't personally exclude Greek influence. Take note that Ukraine never ceased having a Greek presence, and even today is home to a Greek minority of 91,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Ukraine), although they are mostly Pontic Greeks. I would need to establish contact with those individuals and see whether i can extract any meaningful information from them. I haven't even contacted the Greek members of their clade yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspurg
As for the other clades you mention, namely I-FT76511 and I-V19. So, we are now looking at a total of six I-Y3120 branches? Have i understood correctly?
There is no reason to think that if I-Y3120 is not found in the British isles then it can not be an indication of the Celtic movement across Europe. I-Y3130 alone indicates of a movement in an Eastern direction therefore you can't looking for it in Western Europe. However a quick check in the various projects I can see an Irishman I-CTS10228 positive. This guy most probably didn't test a single snp but SNP panel or Big-Y therefore he is probably negative to all branches downstream of I-CTS10228. The presence of I-CTS10228 alone in the British isles indicates spread of this haplogroup with the continental Celts because it's far more diverse on the continent, particularly the area of Baden-Wurtemberg which was at the hearth of the La-Tene culture. Plus in the Armenian project I can see some that are predicted I-CTS10228. It will be interesting to test these and if they turned to be basal CTS10228 or Y3120 then it might indicates a Celtic involvement, particularly because they were present in Anatolia.
As for I-Y18331, the very presence of a Jewish branch indicates that this branch was born in the Roman Empire. I have read that the conversion of Greco-Romans to Jews was particularly strong in Hellenistic and Roman times up to the Jewish-Roman wars between 66 and 135 CE when it stoped completely. The very TMRCA of the Jewish branch indicates no later conversion but before the Jewish-Roman wars. Whoever were the people who brought this mutation in the Roman Empire is a different question but as a whole I-CTS10228 and even I-Y3120 are a direct legacy of the La Tene Celtic movement across Europe and judging by its diversity in the Celtic La Tene heartland I would say a direct Celtic genetic legacy.
Quote:
Demetrios
Yes, and the Goths also passed through Poland, Ukraine and the Balkans. It is possible that I1 which Croats etc have is from them. And that's it, but I-Y3120 mutations have nothing to do with Celts. Whether some branch came with Bastarnae what does that have to do with I-Y3120 mutation?Quote:
It's not a matter of having brought more haplotypes and trying to identify them. I-Y3120 was one that increased considerably in frequency through a founder-effect phenomenon. Now, trying to identify haplogroups that might not have had the same luck is irrelevant to me. We already know there have been historical movements of Celts and Bastarnae both towards eastern Europe and the southern Balkans. It's not something we are trying to prove through haplogroups.
I know that too, but what this mutation have to do with the Celts? One son cannot be a Celt, second Slav, and third German, and they all live in the same house.Quote:
I didn't write that I-Y3120 is from France/Germany. I have written already that i consider it to have formed in southern Poland, based on the available data that i can evaluate.
I-Y18331 is mutation on experimental tree, and we will know the final age of that mutation when all mutations be found in that branch. Then we will also know the direction of movement, however and for that we will need archaeogenetics as a confirmation. We must not take data from YFull as final, it will be for 5-10 years. For now we know that this mutation was formed 2100 ybp and probably leaving southern Poland at that time. However, other mutations occur at this time I-Z17855, I-Y4460, I-S17250, we do not know if there are also and R1a mutations(Z280). And if someone goes from that area they probably carry and these mutations as well.Quote:
The main question is who is the most likely population that could have expanded I-Y3120 to eastern Europe and at the same time have carried it all the way to Greece, during approximately the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE?
wiki
Let’s say this is true, it is 1st century AD , but then mutation I-Y18331 exist in this area she didn't leave, however, Croats do not have this mutation and they come from the same area. The fact that Croats do not have this mutation means that this mutation does not exist 1st century AD there, and therefore neither Bastarnae could live there if mutation I-Y18331 is characteristic of Bastarnaes.Quote:
Batty argues that Greco-Roman sources of the 1st century AD locate the Bastarnae homeland on the northern side of the Northern Carpathian mountain range, encompassing south-east Poland and south-west Ukraine (i.e. the region traditionally known as Galicia)
Mutation I-Y18331 probably comes from the direction of Ukraine to Greece and possibly through the Greek colonies by the Black Sea.
If the migration goes from one point then all the haplotypes go together, and R1b Celtic branches and brother I-S17250 branches. A single mutation cannot be a characteristic of one tribe especially a Celtic one.Quote:
I still believe Celts and Bastarnae are the most probable original carriers, that were eventually assimilated by the people they travelled to.
There is no evidence for this, neither archaeological, historical records, nor does genetics prove it.Quote:
This mutation could come with anyone to Greece and the Balkans, yes, and that anyone was probably either the Celts or the Bastarnae, judging from the relevant dates, the current distribution of the samples, and the actual recorded history.
I explained above.Quote:
How do you find it difficult then that it could have been picked up or assimilated by proto-Slavs or White Croats?
You will know this when the YFull tree finally identify all mutations in this branch, and when some archaeogenetic data come. For now we have no genetic evidence of such migrations(up and down) that is, I have not seen it yet.Quote:
Bastarnae carrying I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 could have settled in Greek Macedonia after the Dardanian-Bastarnae War of 179-175 BCE, and a member of that family belonging to the second or third generation could have chosen to move back to his forefather's homeland (between the Carpathian Mountains and the river Dnieper chiefly) alone, while the rest remained in Greece. It seems very reasonable to me.
I totally agree with what you write. The I-CTS10228 Irishman you mention is something i was unfamiliar with but pleasantly come to learn. The Armenian samples are also interesting. Can't wait to learn more of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspar
Also, your Jewish analysis in relation to the clade is on point. I did mention my related hypothesis in post #1516. I believe this scenario makes sense for I-A10959 and it would explain the inclusion of all its diverse (ostensibly) members.
Let me ask you something. Are you aware of any Celtic community that has survived in either central or eastern Europe? No. Then how can you be treating only people from the British Isles as descendants of Celts. Obviously many Celts were assimilated in the 1st millennium CE.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
You also bring the argument of Celt/Slav/German/etc.. I write again that i never wrote anything like that. I wrote of a Celtic/Bastarnae origin for the clade that was eventually assimilated. And therefore the original clade was Celtic/Bastarnae, while future generations gradually became assimilated by Slavic, Germanic, and other speakers. You don't have a Celtic son, a Slavic son, and a Germanic son all in the same household as you write. You have a Celtic/Bastarnae origin of the clade that was eventually assimilated by other people and today identify with their new identities.
I and others, don't associate only I-Y18331 with Celts/Bastarnae, but all I-Y3120 subclades. Furthermore, Bastarnae could have carried basal I-Y3120 to the southern Balkans and Greece, where it could have formed, not necessarily I-Y18331 and individual subclades of it. Hence why it is largely absent from eastern Europe (aside of the downstream Ashkenazim Jews). To me this makes more sense because if they brought I-Y18331, it would mean that it had already formed in eastern Europe, and you would need to have much more variance of I-Y18331 clades there, but you don't. This is exactly one of the reasons I-Y18331 seems to have formed in Greece, and in order for this to have happened, someone must have brought I-Y3120 with them, not I-Y18331.
If it came from Greek colonies of the Black Sea as you suggest, then it means it was already formed in Ukraine, along with its major subclades. If that was the case, you would expect to see a bigger variance of I-Y18331 in Ukraine, but you don't.
Please, forget R1b branches and review I-Y3120 alone. Just because I-Y3120 branches are today very frequent in eastern Europe through a founder-effect phenomenon, that doesn't require R1b branches related to the Celts to also be frequent.
There is no recorded history of Bastarnae being invited by Philip V of Macedon, with the plan to eventually settle them in the region as a counterweight against Roman expansion and Dardanians? Ofcourse there is. Or you question the validity of Bastarnae presence in eastern Europe? Bastarnae stayed for 4 years south of the Danube, and some could have easily settled in Macedon, which was the one that invited them after all and was their ally. And genetics do seem to favor it as well through the current distribution, since it's one of the few possible links between the proto-Slavic homeland (from where the three other main subclades of I-Y3120 expanded) and the southern Balkans (where I-Y18331 seems to have formed) during the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE. Bastarnae arrival in the southern Balkans also better compliments the current date of I-Y18331 formation and TMRCA per YFull. It's only 44-48 years apart to be exact.
Last, do pay close attention to what @Aspar mentioned above regarding a I-CTS10228* Irish sample. I myself wasn't aware of this, but it doesn't surprise me, and of course further compliments what i and others have been writing.
In the end, we may agree to disagree mate. But just know i am not being dogmatic about any of these, simply trying to be rational.
Quote:
If they are assimilated then those who assimilated them are not Celts. If you think that they become Bastarnae after assimilation, still they should have part of Celts genetics. Assimilation may have happened but for now it has not happened in the area of the White Croats.Quote:
Let me ask you something. Are you aware of any Celtic community that has survived in either central or eastern Europe? No. Then how can you be treating only people from the British Isles as descendants of Celts. Obviously many Celts were assimilated in the 1st millennium CE.
Cannot be assimilated because that mutation does not exist in Celts. If it had been part of the Celts, it would have developed among the Celts and it wouldn't be isolated in the Carpathians.Quote:
You also bring the argument of Celt/Slav/German/etc.. I write again that i never wrote anything like that. I wrote of a Celtic/Bastarnae origin for the clade that was eventually assimilated. And therefore the original clade was Celtic/Bastarnae, while future generations gradually became assimilated by Slavic, Germanic, and other speakers.
eupedia
Quote:
Alternatively, I2-L621 lineages could have lived in relative isolation from the mainstream Proto-Indo-European society somewhere around Ukraine, Poland or Belarus,
Quote:
. The minority of I2a1b-L621 individuals negative for L147.2 are all found around eastern Poland, Belarus and western Ukraine, suggesting that this is where this lineage survived since the Chalcolithic.
I2a has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans, this mutation is in Carpatians when R1b and R1a tribes coming to that area. Celts have their language and customs, the Slavs have their language and customs. People with I-Y3120 mutation and subbranches are mixed and assimilated into the Slavs. We don't know yet when that happened. Whether I-Y3120 people before assimilation into the Slavs were assimilated Celts certainly not because they would have a lot of R1b genetics which Celts have. Same as Croats and other Slavs who have a mixture of R1a and I2a mutations. This is assimilation, in this case into Slavs.Quote:
You don't have a Celtic son, a Slavic son, and a Germanic son all in the same household as you write. You have a Celtic/Bastarnae origin of the clade that was eventually assimilated by other people and today identify with their new identities.
For now, there is no genetic evidence which prove that.Quote:
I and others, don't associate only I-Y18331 with Celts/Bastarnae, but all I-Y3120 subclades. Furthermore, Bastarnae could have carried basal I-Y3120 to the southern Balkans and Greece, where it could have formed, not necessarily I-Y18331 and individual subclades of it
I-Y3120 mutation is characteristic of a one person somewhere in southern Poland. One person cannot be in two places at the same time. The same person cannot have three sons in Poland and one in Greece. At least not at that time.Quote:
To me this makes more sense because if they brought I-Y18331, it would mean that it had already formed in eastern Europe, and you would need to have much more variance of I-Y18331 clades there, but you don't. This is exactly one of the reasons I-Y18331 seems to have formed in Greece, and in order for this to have happened, someone must have brought I-Y3120 with them, not I-Y18331.
We don't know that yet( formed in Ukraine), this is my opinion. But diversity in Greece means nothing for now. It can also mean a Greek source, but it can also mean that people with this mutation in Greece explore their genetics better. Archaeogenetic data would be the most accurate, but we do not have them.Quote:
If it came from Greek colonies of the Black Sea as you suggest, then it means it was already formed in Ukraine, along with its major subclades. If that was the case, you would expect to see a bigger variance of I-Y18331 in Ukraine, but you don't.
This haplotype is characteristic of the Celts and must be also part of every Celtic tribe.Quote:
Please, forget R1b branches and review I-Y3120 alone. Just because I-Y3120 branches are today very frequent in eastern Europe through a founder-effect phenomenon, that doesn't require R1b branches related to the Celts to also be frequent.
I respect your opinion, but unfortunately we do not have genetic confirmation for that.Quote:
There is no recorded history of Bastarnae being invited by Philip V of Macedon, with the plan to eventually settle them in the region as a counterweight against Roman expansion and Dardanians? Ofcourse there is. Or you question the validity of Bastarnae presence in eastern Europe? Bastarnae stayed for 4 years south of the Danube, and some could have easily settled in Macedon, which was the one that invited them after all and was their ally.
It is possible that this mutation separated earlier and arrive to Balkans with someone but it has nothing to do with his fraternal and ancestral mutations. Those mutations are still related toQuote:
And genetics do seem to favor it as well through the current distribution, since it's one of the few possible links between the proto-Slavic homeland (from where the three other main subclades of I-Y3120 expanded) and the southern Balkans (where I-Y18331 seems to have formed) during the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE.
the Slavs ie White Croats.
Yes, they could have come with them and they couldn’t. In any case I-Y3120(etc) are not Celtic.Quote:
Bastarnae arrival in the southern Balkans also better compliments the current date of I-Y18331 formation and TMRCA per YFull. It's only 44-48 years apart to be exact.
Some mutation in I-CTS10228 branch. If that person has no recent connection with Western Europe it is possible migration to the Britain or Ireland with Celts migration from Germany or that area. In any case it has nothing to do with I-Y3120. Otherwise between I-CTS10228 and I-Y3120 is two thousand years. So there could be a more mutations between them. YFull is experimental tree, it is not the final state.Quote:
Last, do pay close attention to what @Aspar mentioned above regarding a I-CTS10228* Irish sample. I myself wasn't aware of this, but it doesn't surprise me, and of course further compliments what i and others have been writing.
That's why we are on the forum to say something. Surely one day we will know 100% exactly but unfortunately it will take a long time because things are going slowly.Quote:
In the end, we may agree to disagree mate. But just know i am not being dogmatic about any of these, simply trying to be rational.
Yes, he is snp tested and confirmed as I-CTS10228. In the dna project however the administrator predicted him further downstream to S20602/YP196 which is equivalent to Y3120 on YFULL. He is tested on 67 markers so I've used Nevgen to try predict him and the tool gives him as a basal Y3120. You can find him in the I2a project under ID: 310350. It will be interesting if this sample ever do a Big-Y test and uploads at YFULL. There are few others with such specific haplotypes along this Irishman with DYS393=14 in Western and Central Europe that are SNP tested as I-CTS10228.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
I did read your post, interesting stuff. As for the sample from North Macedonia, he is a Macedonian with origins from the Western part, an ethnographic region known as "Брсјачки" which many ethnographers and historians connect with Sclavinia Berzitia known from Medieval Byzantine accounts that was supposed to be attacked by the Bulgar ruler Telerig and to transfer it's population to Bulgaria around 774 AD. As for where this 'Berzitia' might have been located it is not quite clear however some connect Berzitia with Sclavinia Belzetia known from account of Theophanes the Confessor that has been located in Thessaly and which archon Akameros made a plot with the local Hellenes from the theme of Hellas against the Byzantine Empress Irene around 799 AD. That Berzitia might actually have been initially located in Thessaly and not in modern North Macedonia could further support the archaeological work of the archaeologist Ivan Mikulcic who doesn't find any Slavic related artifacts on the territory of modern N.Macedonia up to the middle 9th century which coincides with the Bulgar invasion of the region and also by an account in the 'Miracles of Saint Demetrius' about the Bulgars of Kuber and the Sermesianoi who were permitted to settle in the Keramisian(Pelagonian) plain around 682-685 AD by the Byzantines who ordered the closest Sclavinia to them, that of Drougoubitai who lived just north of Thessaloniki, to supply them with food. That last account alone tells us that there were no Berzites in modern western N.Macedonia around the time Kuber and his people settled in Pelagonia because the closest Sclavinia was that of Drougoubitai who lived in modern Greek Macedonia. Therefore Sclavinia Berzitia and the Berzites probably lived initially in Thessaly before moving further north at some point.
So, the Macedonian from N.Macedonia positive to I-Y66192 who happened to be with origins from the heartland of Berzitia in N.Macedonia could be that link to Thessaly and the south of Greece. It's interesting that he is not that close to those guys from Greek Macedonia but is closer to people from Peloponnese. In fact, he is closest to a guy from Sterea Ellada or Central Greece who appears as his only Big-Y match however this Central Greek didn't upload his results with YFULL. The TMRCA with the Peloponnesians is about the time of the Slavic migrations in Greece which probably means that the incorporation of this y-dna line in the tribe of Berzites happened at that time.
Interesting stuff nevertheless...
Yes, those who assimilated them are not Celts obviously. But i am not referring to Bastarnae, since they were Celto-Germanic in elements. I am referring to later populations. I have already shared a quote describing the presence of Bastarnae in antiquity (which includes areas of White Croats as well). These Bastarnae (and other Celts proper that weren't mentioned), were either massacred out of existence or assimilated. I believe the second is more likely. Furthermore, you also provided a quote by Batty, stating a similar thing about their presence in southeastern Poland and southwestern Ukraine, the region traditionally known as "Galicia". Bastarnae aside, what does "Galicia" remind you of? Celtic Gauls. And supposedly that is the core region of White Croats if i have understood correctly, because there are a number of maps on the internet. Do read the history of the region in Wikipedia, where it describes Celto-Germanic and Celtic proper presence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galici...urope)#History, "In Roman times, the region was populated by various tribes of Celto-Germanic admixture, including Celtic-based tribes – like the Galice or "Gaulics" and Bolihinii or "Volhynians" – the Lugians and Cotini of Celtic, Vandals and Goths of Germanic origins (the Przeworsk and Púchov cultures). During the Great Migration period of Europe (coinciding with the fall of the Roman Empire), a variety of nomadic groups invaded the area, but overall, the East Slavic tribes White Croats and Tivertsi dominated the area since the 6th century until were annexed to Kievan Rus' in the 10th century.". Bastarnae aren't mentioned though. I believe it is evident that the region had a Celtic presence.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
You also mention again the genetics of the assimilated, presumambly referring to Celtic clades of R1b. Again, you shouldn't be absolute in this and instead focus on just I-Y3120 independently. Nonetheless, these maps showing clades such as R-S28 and R-L21 that relate to the Celts, do show the former expanded in eastern Europe, Galatia (Turkey), and elsewhere, while the latter being seemingly absent. And take note that both have similar formation dates at 500 BCE.
https://cache.eupedia.com/images/con...up-R1b-S28.gif
https://cache.eupedia.com/images/con...up-R1b-L21.png
Of course it could be just a mutation present in eastern Celts (who don't exist any more as an ethnic group), it doesn't require it to have been part of western Celts in order to have been Celtic. Your mistake is that you only treat as Celtic the populations of the British Isles, while it is known that most Celts were eventually assimilated and prior to that encompassed vast regions of Europe (east, central and west).
That quote from Eupedia seems outdated, because in YFull there are a number of I-L621 individuals negative for I-L147.2 (CTS10228) in central and western Europe, https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L621/, seemingly most. Don't know if there are any additional in FTDNA.
I know that I2a is from the Palaeolithic in Europe (it formed there after all), and that I-CTS10228 was also obviously assimilated by Indo-Europeans such as the Celts. As for R1b haplogroups, again consider the founder-effect phenomenon of I-Y3120, as well as R-S28 (present) and R-L21 (absent or very minuscule) mentioned above.
There is no genetic evidence for Bastarnae bringing I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 since we lack ancient relative samples, yes, but it is suggestive and it is the scenario that makes the most sense, along with Celts proper if we account for an earlier TMRCA.
I-Y3120 is characteristic of one ancestor from the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE somewhere in southern Poland, yes, it seems so. But he could have descendants in Poland and Greece at the same time if we are to consider the Celtic proper origin of I-Y18331 in Greece and a TMRCA of the 3rd century BCE (like it used to be some years ago in YFull). He could also have descendants in the Carpathian region and the southern Balkans or Greece if we are to consider the Bastarnae origin of I-Y18331 in Greece and a TMRCA of the 2nd century BCE (like it is currently in YFull). Both of those two centuries which are associated with the TMRCA of I-Y3120 include migrations of Celtic populations to the southern Balkans and Greece as well, therefore there is nothing out of place in this scenario.
You write, "but it can also mean that people with this mutation in Greece explore their genetics better.". I highly doubt that mate. I am actually one of the few interested in the matter here in Greece. Even many Greeks who have tested themselves are from the Greek diaspora. This is probably due to lack of interest and knowledge in the matter along with the high prices of the tests, considering the average wage of approximately 650 EUR (judging from experience) per month after the crisis, ironically higher than Ukraine. Furthermore, the Ukrainian DNA project in FTDNA lists 1861 members, while the Greek one 724 members.
Archaeogenetic data would indeed be more ideal and hopefully we will see Bastarnae and eastern Celts being examined sometime soon, i hope.
I-Y3120 could be Celtic, don't be so absolute. It could just be characteristic of eastern Celts as aforementioned, who no longer exist since they have been assimilated.
TMRCA of I-CTS10228 is currently 1357 BCE to be exact. Therefore a little more than a 1000 year difference, not 2000. Other than that, we also have those French and German I-CTS10228 samples that are negative for I-Y3120 and belong to its sister clade, I-Y81696. An Irish I-CTS10228* is really unsurprising, and if he is validated as basal I-Y3120 that would be very exciting news. At the same time, the I-Y3120* Polish sample isn't basal per what @Aspurg writes. This would suggest that even though MRCA could be from the broader region between southern Poland and southwestern Ukraine, formation could be more to the west, closer to where its sister clade I-Y81696 is currently located.
I agree, for the moment these are all hypotheses. In the future we will surely know more and we will be able to draw safer conclusions.
It would be extremely interesting if that Irishman turns out basal I-Y3120 after all. The Armenian aforementioned samples are a little confusing, although they can be associated with the Celts of Galatia in central Turkey. Then again, they could likely belong to downstream clades and be of Slavic or even Greek origin, judging from some I-CTS10228 samples in the "Pontic & Anatolian Greeks DNA" project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspar
As for the other stuff, very interesting as well. What you describe also makes sense. I was a little confused with that North Macedonian sample because in YFull it states he is from Plasnica, which has a predominantly (97.8% per census of 2002) Turkish population. I was unaware of the historical information you shared, so thanks.
Yes it would be, especially because all the patterns speak of a spread from west to east not the other way around therefore some crucial new samples that will bring light upon I-Y3120 might start appearing in the west. The history of I-Y3120 should really be understood much better than it is now especially because it's such an important subclade for the Balkans as we see that played a part in the history of the Balkans since the Hellenistic times as witnessed by it's predominantly Greek branch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
That village is actually a 'Torbesh', it's how the local Christian people calls the Muslms who speak the same dialect. So these people are not really Turks however there is a tendency among them to call themselves Turks although most of them don't know any Turkish but speak the local Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect. This village up to the beginning of 20th century was a mixed Christian/Muslim village with predominantly Muslim population while today there are no Christian families left in the village and it's mostly Muslim. Our testee is a Macedonian Christian and his family was one of the last Christian families in the village as told by him. He doesn't know of any family story of arrival from somewhere else plus the village of Plasnitsa is first mentioned in an Ottoman defter of 1467/68 so they are probably very old in the region. We still need lot more results however his results give a link to the hypothesis I've already explained about Bersites and their arrival from Thessaly although different scenarios might well have taken place and his lineage might have been assimilated by the Slavs on the territory of North Macedonia. However this scenario is a little doubtful because as I already explained no archaeological finds of early Slavs up till the 9th century on the territory of North Macedonia are found to date. Most artifacts up to the middle of the 9th century speak for presence of local non-Slavic populations on the territory of North Macedonia as well as finds that speak for presence of nomadic populations that the archaeologist Mikulcic connects with the Bulgars of Kuber.
You go too wide. For now, we barely know that mutation I-S17250 is from south Poland. It is connected to Croatian ancestors. And who earlier passed there, stayed, etc is even harder to guess. Celts have influence and in that area, they also had an influence on the territory of today's Slovenia and Croatia. But very little is seen in Croatian genetics.Quote:
Bastarnae aside, what does "Galicia" remind you of? Celtic Gauls. And supposedly that is the core region of White Croats if i have understood correctly, because there are a number of maps on the internet. Do read the history of the region in Wikipedia, where it describes Celto-Germanic and Celtic proper presence,
For now Croats don't have much Celts genetic, do they have any Germanic haplotypes possible, but and this haplotypes and branches are in small percentages.Quote:
Bastarnae aren't mentioned though. I believe it is evident that the region had a Celtic presence.
Celts are Indo-Europeans, I2a people are not Indo-Europeans. Was there any interference between these groups, possible. But you are going too far into the past. Let's say that Celts go to Britain, part of the Celts remain and they mix with I2a peoples. Again, this interference must be seen in genetics, unfortunately it can not be seen.Quote:
Your mistake is that you only treat as Celtic the populations of the British Isles, while it is known that most Celts were eventually assimilated and prior to that encompassed vast regions of Europe (east, central and west).
eupedia
If they are assimilated by the Celts, then Celtic European R1b genetics was also isolated together with I2-L621 lineages. And R1b genetics also must be developed after Slavic assimilations. But as we know this is not the case. Croats have 6-7% of R1b, part is probably of Balkan origin and part of Western European origin. However, I don't know percentage of R1b which would come to Balkans with the White Croats. Let it be 1-2%. in Croatians. It's actually nothing, and since they (White Croats) are close to the Germanic tribes it is probably from them.Quote:
Alternatively, I2-L621 lineages could have lived in relative isolation from the mainstream Proto-Indo-European society somewhere around Ukraine, Poland or Belarus, then as the centuries and millennia passed, would have blended with the predominantly R1a populations around them.
However, it is possible that Croats do not have any R1b which coming with them from White Croatia.
This means that older mutations have a source in central and western Europe and probable from there someone coming to south Poland (5,000 ybp)Quote:
That quote from Eupedia seems outdated, because in YFull there are a number of I-L621 individuals negative for I-L147.2 (CTS10228) in central and western Europe, https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L621/, seemingly most. Don't know if there are any additional in FTDNA.
You go too far into the past, if there is assimilation then it must be seen in genetics. Assimilation or mixing with the Celts is not seen. If you see it, show me genetic data which prove this. Then I'll answer you.Quote:
I know that I2a is from the Palaeolithic in Europe (it formed there after all), and that I-CTS10228 was also obviously assimilated by Indo-Europeans such as the Celts. As for R1b haplogroups, again consider the founder-effect phenomenon of I-Y3120, as well as R-S28 (present) and R-L21 (absent or very minuscule) mentioned above.
Unfortunately I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 has nothing to do with Celts , nor does current genetics prove this. Regarding Bastarnaes, whether they bring I-Y18331 or not to Balkans future will tell. What we know for now is South Poland as a source, later there exist White Croatia and probably from there begin Slavic migrations to the Balkans.Quote:
There is no genetic evidence for Bastarnae bringing I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 since we lack ancient relative samples, yes, but it is suggestive and it is the scenario that makes the most sense, along with Celts proper if we account for an earlier TMRCA.
Do you understand that Celts have their own genetics and it is R1b. I-Y18331 mutation went somewhere, and where we don't know yet. We will know this (based on living genetics) in a couple of years. Migrations up and down make no sense.Quote:
I-Y3120 is characteristic of one ancestor from the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE somewhere in southern Poland, yes, it seems so. But he could have descendants in Poland and Greece at the same time if we are to consider the Celtic proper origin of I-Y18331 in Greece and a TMRCA of the 3rd century BCE (like it used to be some years ago in YFull). He could also have descendants in the Carpathian region and the southern Balkans or Greece if we are to consider the Bastarnae origin of I-Y18331 in Greece and a TMRCA of the 2nd century BCE (like it is currently in YFull). Both of those two centuries which are associated with the TMRCA of I-Y3120 include migrations of Celtic populations to the southern Balkans and Greece as well, therefore there is nothing out of place in this scenario.
Return of someone from Greece to Belarus? Therefore in the future it will be shown that Ukraine is a probable source of this mutation.Quote:
You write, "but it can also mean that people with this mutation in Greece explore their genetics better.". I highly doubt that mate. I am actually one of the few interested in the matter here in Greece. Even many Greeks who have tested themselves are from the Greek diaspora. This is probably due to lack of interest and knowledge in the matter along with the high prices of the tests, considering the average wage of approximately 650 EUR (judging from experience) per month after the crisis, ironically higher than Ukraine. Furthermore, the Ukrainian DNA project in FTDNA lists 1861 members, while the Greek one 724 members.
We will see.Quote:
Archaeogenetic data would indeed be more ideal and hopefully we will see Bastarnae and eastern Celts being examined sometime soon, i hope.