Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations

A little update based on new information.

All haplogroups I are the indigenous people of Europe, the direct descendants of Cro-Magnon (it isn't R1b as previously thought). This is why I is found everywhere in Europe at low frequencies, except I1 which remained strong in Germanic countries. A pocket of I2a1a (M26) survived in Sardinia because of it's relative isolation. I2a1b (M423) seems to have adopted agriculture early on around the Carpathians and is thought to have migrated to the Dinaric Alps around 1000 BCE with the Illyrians, where it survives in over 50% of male lineages in most of Bosnia and Croatia.

Ancient Greeks

The Pelasgians (pre-Minoan Greeks, or Helladic Greeks) belonged to an admixture of I2, E1b1b, T and G2a. E-V13 and T probably arrived in Greece from the Levant (and ultimately from Egypt, hence the small percentage of T) in the early Neolithic, 8,500 years ago. G2a came from the Levant was picked up in Anatolia along the way by Levantine farmers and herders.

Minoan Greeks migrated from Mesopotamia via Anatolia. They were mostly J2 people, but probably had some E1b1b too.

Mycenaean Greeks arrived around 3,600 years ago from the Pontic steppes via the Balkans. They were an Indo-European people belonging to R1b-L23 and/or R1a. The Thracians, who emerged as a blend of Indo-European R1a and Neolithic I2a1b, are also responsible for the higher density of I2a1b and R1a in northern Greece.

Greece was invaded by the Dorians around 1200 BCE. Nobody knows who they were or where they came from, but the high percentage of R1b in the regions where they settled (Peloponese, Crete) strongly suggest that they were R1b people. The events are linked to the Sea Peoples (see below), who were probably R1b people from the north-east of the Black Sea, or early Celts from central Europe.

Greek historians sometimes mention that the Dorians were the descendants of the Trojans who came back to avenge their ancestors. The Trojans were an Indo-European people related to the R1b Hittites (see below). This would also explain why there is about the same percentage of R1b and R1a in modern Greece. Each correspond to a different wave of Indo-European invader. They only make up 12% of the population (each) because the Neolithic farmers (especially E1b1b) were already well-established and numerous by that time.

Ancient Anatolians

Southern Anatolia was colonised early by Neolithic farmers and herders from the Fertile Crescent (E1b1b, G2a, J1, J2, T).

The Indo-European invasions brought the Hittites (1750 BCE), the Lydians and Lycians (1450 BCE), Phrygians (1200 BE) and the Proto-Armenians (1200 BCE). All were probably predominantly R1b-L23, considering its high percentage in the regions they settled. R1b Indo-Europeans are thought to have originated on the north-eastern shores of the Black Sea, just north of the Caucasus. They could have invaded northern Anatolia by crossing the Caucasus, sailing across the sea, or going around via the steppes through the Bosphorus.

Later R1b were possibly (part of) the Sea Peoples that ravaged the ancient Near Eastern civilizations, from Greece to Egypt. Their advance military technology and sea-based culture make of them very good candidates.

The Cimmerians are probably the last wave of migration (around 700 BCE) from the Pontic Steppe. By that time the steppe would have been thoroughly overrun by R1a people, so that was probably the Cimmerians's main haplogroup. They are said to have be expelled from Anatolia and moved to Europe, where they joined the other R1b people. Germanic and Celtic people both claim (partial) Cimmerian ancestry.


Romans, Celts and Germans

Celtic, Italic and Germanic people are all descended from the same R1b-L11 stock. They split north of the Alps, in modern Germany. They also incorporated a sizeable minority of G2a3b1 and J2b2 lineages, especially the Celts and the Italics.

The Italic branch went south and mixed with the Terramare people who were I2a1a, G2a and E1b1b. Northern Italians have more Indo-European Celto-Italic blood, while southern Italian have more indigenous blood (the highest being Sardinia, then Basilicata).

The Germanic branch moved north and mixed with the indigenous I1 and I2a2 people, who had already mixed with R1a migrants from the Corded Ware (Battle Axe) culture. The new hybrid Germanic people retained the highest percentage of autochthonous haplogroup I.

Celtic people split in several groups : the Brythonic went to Britain and Ireland, the Gaulish to France, the Iberian to Spain and Portugal, and the Alpine remained around Austria, Switzerland, southern Germany, Eastern France and Belgium. All of them mixed with I2a1a, G2a and E1b1b people from the Megalithic cultures. The Alpine and Rhino-Danubian Celts also encountered I2a2 people.

It is likely that the language of the indigenous Europeans influenced the various Celtic, Italic and Germanic dialects. Germanic languages diverted the most from the original European R1b language because it assimilated a very large part of aborigines.

From about 700 BCE, the Etruscans settled around Tuscany and the Greeks in southern Italy. Etruscans probably came from western Anatolia or some Aegean islands, and brought mostly haplogroups E1b1b, G2a, J2 and R1b-L23 with them. The Greeks in Italy brought a similar admixture, but with a higher proportion of E1b1b. The Romans progressively absorbed the Etruscans and Italian Greeks and mixed with them. By the time of Julius Caesar Roman citizens were probably composed of 45% of R1b, 20% of J, 15% of E1b1b, 15% of G2a and 5% of I2a1.

This is absolutely false since all ancient Greeks perished just as Romans did. You need DNA from fosiles.
 
The tartessos of what haplogroups were?
 
I'm impressed with the depth of your information, and most of it rings true with my 20 years of research, but you lost me here... and I strongly agree with Hag anus.
Theres a very obvious genetic type represented in Scandinavian, Denmark, Northwestern Germany and the Netherlands, and it shows virtually zero mongoloid admixture.. this is obvious to any remotely discerning eye, but also obvious in skull shape, hair/eye/skin color, height, lactose tolerance, and several other factors I could spend a great deal of time listing.
This idea of significant mongoloid mixture simply don't make any sense relative to my own totality of context, and I'm struggling to think the mental gymnastics that must be used to justify its being true.
I agree with other posters, traits simply don't change THAT fast.. the big wide round eyes found in these regions can't have been re-shaped overnight, nor the hair color or texture, nor the eye color, nor the skin tone, nor the stature...
 
Lastly on this, trying to say that the people of ancient Greece that achieved so much were ethnically different from those who live there today does not even reach the level of pseudo-science. I would not even lend dignity to those assertions by arguing against them. Offering maps upon maps and citations that are mostly irrelevant adds no credibility. todays Greeks are descended from the Indo European Greek tribes and those who did not get killed or driven off by them.

This is complete nonsense, I'm afraid, at the risk of offending Greek friends...
we have not only numerous exactingly-formed statues and artistic depictions showing a different type, but countless mentions of blond hair and blue eyes, especially among the Spartan element.
Populations don't remain static over millennia.. capable human capital tends to migrate where the wealth and power and influence lies, slowly but surely, which leads to a brain-drain effect. Immigration into a region has an even more profound effect (think of what Europe might look like in 20 years, relative to what it looked like 20 years ago).
Greece today is far more Turkic and misc than it was in the time of the Hellenes, just as northwest India looks completely different than it would have between 1500bc-500ad... the ruling caste is always subsumed and integrated over time, especially when the strict caste system is abandoned. They're definitely descendants, broadly speaking, but to assume they're the same people in a genetic or cultural sense doesn't seem to square with the information available.
 
Last edited:
The earlier IE people had probably strong mongoloid traits. Much more than they have now. This is my humble opinion.

What in the world are you basing this speculation on, I wonder?
Genetic data clearly shows the Yamnaya, for example, relate more closely to modern Scandinavians and northwestern Europeans than any other people.

I think several people on this board make the mistake that because IE peoples once existed in Asia, India, Turkey, etc, that those that migrated into Europe must also be part modern Asian, modern East-Indian, modern Turk... I couldn't disagree with this more strongly, nor could the data.
Everything about fair skin/hair/eyes is recessive.. it disappears over time, especially with any admixture.. it doesn't strengthen and become more pronounced.
 
So would Ghenkis Kan, Hanibal Barca, Miyamoto Misashi, Xiahou Dun fall under R1b too? :unsure:

Interestingly, for what its worth, Genghis was mentioned as having reddish hair, and blue/gray eyes, in the two depictions of his appearance. He also belonged to the 'Bourchikoun' clan, which means 'gray eyed'.
 
I think several people on this board make the mistake that because IE peoples once existed in Asia, India, Turkey, etc, that those that migrated into Europe must also be part modern Asian, modern East-Indian, modern Turk... I couldn't disagree with this more strongly, nor could the data.
Everything about fair skin/hair/eyes is recessive.. it disappears over time, especially with any admixture.. it doesn't strengthen and become more pronounced.

You might want to retake highschool biology.
 
You might want to retake highschool biology.

Are you saying recessive genetic traits become more pronounced within a people or nation over time, under usual circumstances?

I'd be far more inclined to think the prevalence of fair hair and eyes we see in Europe are directly connected to those peoples who were referred to these traits throughout history throughout (Scythians, Dorians, Tocharians, those who swept into India, etc), as opposed to developing by some exceptional genetic mutation in the past couple millennia in the forests of Europe.

If you can explain to me how nature achieves the recessive skin/hair/eye color traits of, say, a modern Swede, from a genetic background containing significant mongoloid (or darker) skin/hair/eye color influences, I'd love to hear your theory.
 
Are you saying recessive genetic traits become more pronounced within a people or nation over time, under usual circumstances?

I'd be far more inclined to think the prevalence of fair hair and eyes we see in Europe are directly connected to those peoples who were referred to these traits throughout history throughout (Scythians, Dorians, Tocharians, those who swept into India, etc), as opposed to developing by some exceptional genetic mutation in the past couple millennia in the forests of Europe.

If you can explain to me how nature achieves the recessive skin/hair/eye color traits of, say, a modern Swede, from a genetic background containing significant mongoloid (or darker) skin/hair/eye color influences, I'd love to hear your theory.

Riddle me this: how did the blond populations you refer to become blond?
 
Riddle me this: how did the blond populations you refer to become blond?

Didn't you know? Aliens made them and dropped them out of spaceships.
 
AETA of the Philippines
Ydna P*, P1, P2, K2
Mtdna B, B4, M, M7
Same as Melanesians, some Aetas are born with Blond Hair
 
Interestingly, for what its worth, Genghis was mentioned as having reddish hair, and blue/gray eyes, in the two depictions of his appearance. He also belonged to the 'Bourchikoun' clan, which means 'gray eyed'.

That's true, he probably did have natural red hair, but he still obviously would have looked Mongoloid.
 
This is complete nonsense, I'm afraid, at the risk of offending Greek friends...
we have not only numerous exactingly-formed statues and artistic depictions showing a different type, but countless mentions of blond hair and blue eyes, especially among the Spartan element.
Populations don't remain static over millennia.. capable human capital tends to migrate where the wealth and power and influence lies, slowly but surely, which leads to a brain-drain effect. Immigration into a region has an even more profound effect (think of what Europe might look like in 20 years, relative to what it looked like 20 years ago).
Greece today is far more Turkic and misc than it was in the time of the Hellenes, just as northwest India looks completely different than it would have between 1500bc-500ad... the ruling caste is always subsumed and integrated over time, especially when the strict caste system is abandoned. They're definitely descendants, broadly speaking, but to assume they're the same people in a genetic or cultural sense doesn't seem to square with the information available.
Wroooong!!!!! W-R-O-N-G WRONG WRONG WRONG!
stormfront is thataway buddy---->
 
This is not an opinion of the Bulgarians, but of 99% of the ethnologists in the world in the 20th century
 
This is your opinion, and not of the people that live out there. Bulgarians were constantly trying to repress the use of Serbian language and Serbian names in those areas. Bulgarians are also infamous to ethnic related crimes during WWII and WWII ...
This is not an opinion of the Bulgarians, but of 99% of the ethnologists in the world in the 20th century. And you Serbs are far more infamous to ethnic crimes in the latest story. It is hypocritical to raise the topic.
 
This is complete nonsense, I'm afraid, at the risk of offending Greek friends...
we have not only numerous exactingly-formed statues and artistic depictions showing a different type, but countless mentions of blond hair and blue eyes, especially among the Spartan element.
Populations don't remain static over millennia.. capable human capital tends to migrate where the wealth and power and influence lies, slowly but surely, which leads to a brain-drain effect. Immigration into a region has an even more profound effect (think of what Europe might look like in 20 years, relative to what it looked like 20 years ago).
Greece today is far more Turkic and misc than it was in the time of the Hellenes, just as northwest India looks completely different than it would have between 1500bc-500ad... the ruling caste is always subsumed and integrated over time, especially when the strict caste system is abandoned. They're definitely descendants, broadly speaking, but to assume they're the same people in a genetic or cultural sense doesn't seem to square with the information available.

Greece today is not more Turkic. It is more Balkanic due to the balkan migrations during the middle-ages. Most mainland Greeks have balkanic admixture while many Anatolian Greeks descend from ancient indigenous populations of Anatolia. But to a significant extent Greeks descend from ancient Greeks. I can show you my gedmatch results which are representative for southern mainland Greeks.
Proto-Greeks were a steppe tribe so I suppose they were blonde with blue eyes. When they arrived in Greece during Bronze Age they mixed with the local neolithic mediterranean populations and they created the ancient Greek people. Haplogroups of the majority of the modern Greeks are from those neolithic populations. There were not only blonde ancient Greeks many of them had brown hair and eyes like Greek people today.
 

This thread has been viewed 703215 times.

Back
Top