~4500 words (upon first publishing)

Note: I’ll be updating this article as more studies are released. Tweet or email me if you think I missed something important. I’ll mark new studies with [New: Date] as I add them.



Contents

  1. Preamble
  2. Introduction
    2.1. Notes
    2.2. Something to bear in mind while reading these studies
  3. The Studies

Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans (Lazaridis et al., 2014)

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans (Raghavan et al., 2014)

Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al., 2015)

Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians (Mathieson et al., 2015)

Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia (Allentoft et al., 2015)

The Genetic History of Northern Europe (Mittnik et al., 2017)

Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (Lazaridis et al., 2017)

The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe (Olalde et al., 2018)

The genomic history of southeastern Europe (Mathieson et al., 2018)

The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia (Damgaard et al., 2018)

Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads (Krzewińska et al., 2018)

137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes (Damgaard et al., 2018)

The genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia (Jeong et al., 2019)

Ancient Genomes Reveal Yamnaya-Related Ancestry and a Potential Source of Indo-European Speakers in Iron Age Tianshan (Ning et al., 2019)

The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia (Narasimhan et al., 2019)

Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions (Järve et al., 2019)

Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean (Antonio et al., 2019)

Unraveling ancestry, kinship, and violence in a Late Neolithic mass grave (Schroeder et al., 2019)

Megalithic tombs in western and northern Neolithic Europe were linked to a kindred society (Sánchez-Quinto et al., 2019)

Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia (Marcus et al., 2020)



1. Preamble

This article is based on notes I made while reading studies on European genetics. At this point I’ve amassed a considerable collection, as well as a lot of graphics (PCAs, cluster analyses, etc.). Currently, they’re just sitting on my PC, doing nothing and being of no use to anyone (except myself), so I figured that I should share them. They’ve been very useful for me, so I’m sure they’ll be useful for someone else too.

The images are all in crisp HD. Some have extra labels that I added for my own benefit, and some are slightly re-arranged so that they’re easier to read, but none of the data is edited or altered.

Bear in mind that this article isn’t really novice-friendly. If you are new to genetics and race, I recommend that you first read the following article: What is “White?” A guide for complete novices

I recommend that you bookmark this article and use it as a sort of reference library (that’s what I’ll be doing).


2. Introduction

If you’re interested in a specific subject, time period, ethnic group, culture, etc., then CTRL+F it and you’ll probably find it.

Studies are listed in chronological order, and I’ve included layman’s explanations above images and summarized the studies where necessary. All sources are linked.

I’ve tried to include studies on every major European group, as well as groundbreaking studies, even if said studies are now somewhat out-dated. If you think I’ve missed any important studies, email me or DM me on Twitter.


2.1 Notes

  • Use www.sci-hub.tw to open any paper for free.
  • Studies label/date samples as follows:
    HG = Hunter-Gatherer
    N = Neolithic
    CA / ChL = Copper Age or Chalcolithic
    BA = Bronze Age
    IA = Iron Age
    Dates are modified with E/M/L for Early/Middle/Late, respectively.
    E.g.:
    EN = Early Neolithic
    EMBA= Early to Middle Bronze Age
    MLBA= Middle to Late Bronze Age
  • Since genetics moves quickly, some of the info in older studies has now been partially debunked or modified by newer studies. However, a lot of the older studies still contain predominantly valid and useful information.
  • Sometimes authors miss the “-related” suffix when labeling samples in these studies. For example, a lot of populations labeled ‘Yamnaya’ aren’t actually Yamnaya, but Yamnaya-related, which could be Repin, Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, and so on. “[Thing]-related” basically just means “a population that is likely to be [Thing] but we’re not sure if it actually is [Thing].” In modern terms, you could describe the Scottish as “Nordic-related.” Scots are very closely related to Nords, but they’re not Nords.


2.2 Something to bear in mind when reading these studies

Although these studies are “politically incorrect,” in that they validate a lot of forbidden pre-WW2 racial theories, much of the language used to label the populations featured in these studies still serves to “de-Europeanize” them (as Survive the Jive explains below). Thus, many of these studies still present a slightly politicized agenda; pro-globalist, pro-(modern)-immigration, anti-European.

Obviously, I’m not saying that all of the authors of these studies do this intentionally. I would wager that almost none of them do it intentionally. I’m also not saying that you shouldn’t trust the data in these studies — just be wary of the language surrounding it. These academics may be excellent geneticists, whose work has done wonders for our understanding of European history, but they’re still predominantly libt*rds, as every normie is by default. Nationalists don’t get to join the Harvard genetics team — don’t forget that.

Still, it’s a miracle that these studies get published at all, and we should be truly thankful that they do.


3. The Studies


Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans (Lazaridis et al., 2014)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13673

A useful PCA including modern West Eurasian (Caucasoid) populations and ancient European samples.

Some additional labeling.

This study also contained the huge genetic cluster analysis that I used for my article A Race-By-Race Breakdown of Human Genetic Diversity. The image below is a low res version. See article for HD images (too many to include here).


Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans (Raghavan et al., 2014)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12736

This is a study on the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who were Caucasoid (or proto-Europid) hunter-gathers from Paleolithic Siberia (which was within the Arctic Circle during the days of the ANE).

Every person in the Northern hemisphere has some degree of ancestry from the ANE, as shown in the graphics below. Amerindians have 14-38% ANE ancestry and modern Europeans have 7-25%. If I recall correctly, ANE ancestry is highest among Siberian populations, e.g., Kets have 30-40% ANE ancestry.

Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers were originally ANE who migrated west into Eastern Europe and mixed with Western European Hunter-Gatherers. (EHG = 75% ANE + 25% WHG). The Proto-Indo-Europeans, who were EHG that did some bride-stealing from other populations, were over 50% ANE. (PIE = 70% EHG).


Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al., 2015)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14317

A seminal study building on the work of Lazaridis et al (2014), genetically proving the validity of the Proto-Indo-European expansion, and that modern Europeans are a mixture of 3 main ‘races.’

  • Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG)
    Mesolithic
    Directly descended from the original Cro-Magnons of Europe.
  • Early European Farmers (EEF)
    Also known as Early Neolithic Farmers (ENF)
    Neolithic
    A mixture of Anatolian Farmers and WHG.
  • Western Steppe Herders (WSH)
    Also known as Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE)
    Bronze Age
    A mix of European Hunter-Gatherer men and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer women.

The cluster analysis below shows the change in ancient European genetics over time, as well as how much ancestry each modern European ethnic group inherits from each ancestral European race.

‘Modern’ ethnic groups are arranged according to % of Proto-Indo-European DNA. ‘Ancient’ ethnic groups are arranged according to date (newest to oldest).

The map below displays the migration routes of these three races. Map ‘b’ symbolizes the Middle Neolithic resurgence of Western Hunter-Gatherer ancestry in Europe (see samples labeled ‘_MN’ on the image above). Map is slightly inaccurate, since Early European Farmers came from Western Anatolia, not the Levant / Fertile Crescent, and it’s likely that the main source of Western Steppe Herder DNA in the Corded Ware population was the Sredny Stog, rather than the Yamnaya.

The PCA below shows the relation of various ancient European racial (or ethnic) groups to one another in terms of genetic distance.

The grayed out dots in the background are modern West Eurasian populations. The right side (top to bottom right) is Near Eastern and Central Asian, the left is European (where the ancient samples are), and the dots between the two clusters are Jews and some outlier Greeks.

A simplified phylogenetic tree showing the evolution of modern Europeans. Not sure what the dotted line means. Probably “some other un-included admixture invent occurred here.” ANE + WHG = Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG), which was known in 2015.

Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians (Mathieson et al., 2015)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16152

The cluster analysis below shows the same change in European genetics over time as above but splits into definitive eras, which is easier on the eyes. Note that the blue component in the central column is ‘Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer’ (CHG) not WHG. This study overestimates the amount of CHG ancestry in Steppe populations, perhaps because CHG was not known at this time, so they had to use an inaccurate proxy. The average was around 30%.

Below: Another useful principle component analysis, very similar to the analysis from the above study, but easier to read, in my opinion.

Side note:
Proto-Indo-European cultural stages are as follows. Each culture had a unique genetic makeup (as demonstrated above).

  • Archaic Proto-Indo-European
    Late Neolithic, Eneolithic, and Early Bronze Age
    Cultures: Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog, Anatolian (Hittite, etc.).
  • Early Proto-Indo-European
    Known in studies as “Steppe EMBA”
    Early Bronze Age
    Cultures: Repin, Afanasievo (Proto-Tocharian)
  • Late Proto-Indo-European
    Known in studies as “Steppe EMBA”
    Early-Middle Bronze Age
    Cultures: Yamnaya, etc.
  • Late Proto-Indo-European and Early Indo-European
    Known in studies as “Steppe MLBA”
    Middle-Late Bronze Age
    Cultures: Poltavka, Andronovo, Srubnaya, Sintashta, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, etc.

The difference between EMBA and MLBA Indo-Europeans is that MLBA had additional ancestry from Early European Farmers. Sredny Stog also had ~20% Early European Farmer admixture, despite being ‘Archaic Proto-Indo-European.’ So, genetically, they were very similar to the Late Proto-Indo-European cultures, such as the Corded Ware (who were probably their direct descendants).


Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia (Allentoft et al., 2015)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14507

Large study on 101 ancient Eurasians, dated ~3,000 to ~1,000 BC.

This study validated the theory that the Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, Unetice, and Scandanavian cultures of Bronze Age Northern Europe were basically identical to one another. It also disproved the Central Asian and Middle Eastern origin theories of the Sintashta (Proto-Indo-Iranian) peoples, who were also found to be almost genetically identical to the aforementioned cultures. As mentioned earlier, these groups fit into the “Steppe Middle-Late Bronze Age (MLBA)” cluster. In my opinion, we could refer to this cluster as a ‘racial’ group — ‘Bronze Age Northern Europeans’ would be a more fitting moniker than “Steppe Middle-Late Bronze Age,” since this racial makeup originated in Northern Europe, and not the Steppe.

there are many similarities between Sintasthta/Androvono rituals and those described in the Rig Veda and such similarities even extend as far as to the Nordic Bronze Age

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this study was the discovery that the Afanasievo, or Proto-Tocharians, were genetically indistinguishable from the Yamnaya. This validated the theory that the Afanasievans split from the Proto-Indo-European cluster sometime before 3,700 BC — which was proposed by many Indo-European scholars long before genetic evidence was available. The Afanasievans moved to South Siberia, founding the earliest known archaeological culture of the region. It’s very likely that they expanded and made a genetic contribution to later Tocharian peoples to their South, around the Gansu and Xinjiang (Tarim Basin) provinces of west and central China.

(I’m including some extra info on this subject because people often ask me about the mystery of the Tocharians):

Allentoft et al. (2015) suggested that “Afanasievo culture persisted in central Asia and, perhaps, Mongolia and China until they themselves were replaced by fierce warriors in chariots called the Sintashta (also known as the Andronovo culture).”

This theory was proven to be accurate via Hollard et al. (2018), who discovered that 100% of the Afanasievans sampled belonged to the R1b1a1a haplogroup, whereas 92% of the suspected-Tocharian Tarim mummies studied belonged to the R1a1a haplogroup. Additional archaeological evidence with regards to burial practices also supports this theory; see Yang (2019).

In simple terms, this haplogroup data indicates that the old Proto-Tocharian (Afanasievan) paternal lineages were replaced by invading Andronovo males, forming the later Tocharian population of Xinjiang and Gansu. For some reason, the previously East-Iranian-speaking Andronovo males chose to continue the Tocharian language, which lasted until around the 8th century AD. We know that Tocharian isn’t an Iranian language derivative due to its ‘Centum’ (Western European) linguistic characteristics. Why the Andronovo chose to do this is a complete mystery. Maybe they just thought it was a nice-sounding language?

Satem vs Centum is also basically R1a vs R1b.

Anyway, here’s some content from the Allentoft study:

This is a map of ancient samples and a timeline of ancient cultures.

The cluster analysis below seems slightly off to me (significant lack of South European ancestry in the various European populations), but I haven’t seen any other cluster analyses of Ancient North Eurasian samples, so I’m including it.


The Genetic History of Northern Europe (Mittnik et al., 2017)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1101/113241

A pretty useful PCA/cluster analysis combo that divided into Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age periods.


Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (Lazaridis et al., 2017)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14507

A study on the origins of the Greeks. Minoans were found to have been at least three-quarters EEF, descended directly from the first Neolithic farmers of Western Anatolia and the Aegean, with additional ancestry from a Caucasus-Hunter-Gatherer-related source. The Myceneans can be viewed as “Minoans who had 13-18% Bronze Age steppe DNA.” This study confirmed the theory that the Myceneans mark the introduction of Indo-European language, culture, and genetics into the Aegean region.

The EEF Minoans (3000 – 1100 BC) of Crete created the first advanced civilization in Europe. It featured sewage systems, written language (which is as of yet undeciphered), incredible architecture, and a huge variety of vibrant artwork.



The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe (Olalde et al., 2018)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25738

A key paper on the genetic formation of modern Northwest European populations, focused on the Beaker Culture of Western Europe.

It demonstrated a clear genetic distinction between North/Central and Southern European Beakers, with Iberian and Italian Beakers clustering close to Early European Farmers, and British and Central European Beakers clustering closer to the Corded Ware population.

The study also documented the near-total population replacement of British Early European Farmers by an invasion of Indo-European Bell Beakers over 4000 years ago, which formed the basis of the modern British population.


The genomic history of southeastern Europe (Mathieson  et al., 2018)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25778

A study focusing on Southeastern Europe and Early European Farmer migrations. It discovered that EEF of Northern and Western Europe moved through Southeast Europe without much intermixing with European hunter-gatherers, but that the EEF groups which remained in Southeastern Europe mixed extensively with hunter-gatherers, without sex-bias. This sex-unbiased mixture later continued in Northern and Western Europe.


The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia (Damgaard et al., 2018)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7711

A study on the Indo-European expansion into South East Asia, specifically dealing with the Indo-Aryan invasion. The study concluded that Bronze Age European pastoralists had a limited impact on the present genetic composition of Central and South Asia. Present-day Indians and Iranians (Iranians of Iran, not ‘Iranic’ people in general) derive 0-30% and 10-20% of their DNA from European pastoralists, respectively.

‘The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia’ (Narasimhan et al., 2019) provides a detailed analysis of this period and region.

The study also demonstrated that populations of the Steppe during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age were basically “Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer + whatever other local population.” (See the cluster analysis / map combo below)

European Western Steppe (Europe: Russia and Ukraine)
Over 50% EHG + 20-30% EEF + 20-30% CHG

Asian Western Steppe (Central Asia: Kazakhstan)
60-85% EHG + 15-40% East Asian

Eastern Steppe (East Asia: China, Mongolia, Siberia)
5-20% EHG + 80-95% East Asian.


Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads (Krzewińska et al., 2018)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat4457

This PCA plots the relationship between Proto-Indo-European, Bronze Age Indo-European, and Iron Age Indo-European ethnic groups, with a particular focus on Iranic Scythian groups; Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians. It demonstrates that all of the Proto-Indo-Iranian and Early Indo-Iranian ethnic groups (Srubnaya, Sintashta, Andronovo, etc.) cluster with Northern Europeans of both the Bronze Age and the present-day. It also shows that Scythian groups (which are most likely Srubnaya-derived) drifted away from the main Northern European cluster as they mixed with various Eastern Eurasian nomads from the Iron Age onward.

The cluster analysis below shows admixture levels of Scythian populations relative to other European populations. The main thing to note here is that most Scythians had small amounts of East Asian DNA (less than 10%) and around 10% additional ‘Neolithic and modern Near Eastern’ DNA. However, a small number of Scythians had a lot of East Asian DNA (up to 40%). One “Scythian” sampled is clearly just an East Asian of some variety.

The following study, ‘137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes’ (Damgaard et al., 2018), contains a cluster analysis that is specifically focused on Iron Age far-eastern Scythians, known as Sakas.


137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes (Damgaard et al., 2018)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0094-2

An excellent, detailed study on the populations of the Steppe, mainly focusing on the Central and Eastern Steppe. It deals with eastern Indo-European populations, such as the Andronovo, Wusun, Kangju, Tagars, and Sakas, as well as non-Indo-European nomads, such as the Huns and Xiongnu.

This map shows the burial locations of samples used, and the time period to which the samples’ culture/ethnic group belonged.

Ethnic expansions over the Steppe.

PCA of Steppe populations. Focused on Central and East Asia.

Cluster analyses of Steppe populations during the Iron Age and Hun Period.

A few things to note:

  • The green ‘East-Asian-Siberian’ component in these cluster analyses also includes Ancient North Eurasians, who were Caucasoid, so the actual percentage of EAST ASIAN (Mongoloid) ancestry may be lower than implied in this analysis.
  • Iron Age and Hun Period Tian Shan Sakas (Far-Eastern Scythians) had approximately 25% East-Asian-Siberian ancestry (a similar level to modern Udmurts and Saami). Central Sakas had slightly more, presumably because Tian Shan is mountainous and difficult to access.

    Some Saami, for reference:
  • Hunnic period Tagars (Siberian Scythians) had notably less East Asian admixture, at around 7.5% — a similar level to modern Morodovians, Veps, and some Finnish people. They also had more Ancient-North-Eurasian-like ancestry than other Scythians (9%), and the highest amount of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry of all Scythians.
  • This study validates the theory that the Scythians were not a homogeneous population, but a confederation of distinct-but-related ethnic groups that formed via the invasion of Steppe MLBA peoples into Central Asia, and the subsequent intermixing with local Central Steppe populations.
  • Hunnic period Wusun and Kangju had slightly more East-Asian-Siberian admixture than a modern Russian, at around 5-10%. Note: the Wusun were possibly Indo-Aryans, and the Kangju were likely Sogdians or a very similar Eastern Iranic people.
  • This study has confirmed that the Wusun, whose ethnic origin was a long-contested mystery, were White Indo-Europeans. They inhabited Western Gansu, located in north-central China.
  • ‘Western Xiongnu’ had around ~50% Western Eurasian (Steppe) admixture. Regular Xiongnu, on the other hand, were just East Asian / Siberian.
  • The Huns of this study are genetically similar to Sakas. The main difference appears to be higher East Asian ancestry among Huns. The ethnogenesis of the Hunnic peoples was likely a conquest of far-eastern Sakas by the Xiongnu.
  • The racial description of the ethnic Huns (Mongoloid features with dark brown and black hair and brown eyes) does not match that of the ethnic Sakas (tall, pale Caucasoids with European features, blond/red hair, and blue/green eyes).



The genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia (Jeong et al., 2019)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0878-2

The cluster analysis below shows the levels of East Asian (Siberian, Mongoloid) admixture among present-day Europeans. As per this study, East Asian admixture is lowest among Hungarians (~4%) and peaks among Udmurts, Saami, and Chuvash at ~25%. Morodovians have ~12%, and Finns ~8%. Western Europeans have none (or inconsiderable trace amounts).

Interestingly, the Udmurts are the most red-haired people in the world.

Some people would debate the “Whiteness” or “Europeanness” of the Udmurts, but I say “close enough.”

Plus, they have more Indo-European Steppe DNA than half of Europe.


Ancient Genomes Reveal Yamnaya-Related Ancestry and a Potential Source of Indo-European Speakers in Iron Age Tianshan (Ning et al., 2019)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.06.044

A study conducted on 10 samples from an Iron Age site in Shirenzigou. It supports the idea that Indo-European DNA was brought into South Siberia by Yamnaya-related peoples. However, the study claims that the Shirenzigou samples were Tocharians. This is incorrect. They were mixed-race Hunnic people; their Indo-European admixture likely came via populations that they absorbed while expanding.

Still, the study provides some good information — i.e., the fact that people with Yamnaya/Afanasievo-related ancestry lived in the territory of the Tocharians a few hundred years before the Tocharian language appears in archaeological record via Buddhist texts. It also includes this interesting PCA, which unquestionably demonstrates that ancient Proto-Indo-Iranians, Indo-Iranians, and early Eastern Iranians (early Scythians, etc.) genetically cluster with modern Northern Europeans (specifically Northeastern Europeans). This version contains a lot of additional labeling, see below for unedited version.


The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia (Narasimhan et al., 2019)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7487

Another study dealing with the Aryan invasions of Iran and India. It contains a lot of useful information on Indo-European expansion in general, as well as some interesting factoids. For example, the population that contributed genetic material to South Asia was genetically 90% European (60% Yamnaya-related + 30% Early European Farmer) plus 10% Central Steppe Hunter-Gatherer [Source]. So, the people who brought Indo-European culture, language, and religion to India were indeed tall, predominantly blond, Eastern Europeans [see here and here].

Map showing the dispersal of WSH/PIE ancestry around Eurasia:

Below: the genetic makeup of Eurasia pre-Indo-European expansion.

It’s important to note that Central Asia, which is now overwhelmingly populated by Mongoloids, was almost entirely Caucasoid at this point in time. The eastern population of the Central Steppe, West Siberian Hunter-Gatherers, had some East Asian Siberian admixture, but were Caucasoidal in appearance. They were approximately 20% East Asian Siberian, 50% Ancient North Eurasian, and 30% Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (who themselves were 75% ANE + 25% WHG).

This study further confirmed the close genetic relationship between Late Proto-Indo-European Corded Ware and the Indo-Iranian Sintashta populations.

The image below may be slightly confusing for novices, but I’ll include it anyway. It shows which Eurasian groups made genetic contributions to subsequent Eurasian groups. It has a Central/Southeast Asian focus (since that was the focus of the study), but contains useful info about Europe.


Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions (Järve et al., 2019)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08220-8

This study sheds some light on Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG) and the Caucasus region in general. CHG women contributed around 30% to the DNA of the Western Steppe Herders (Proto-Indo-Europeans)… probably via being bride kidnapped.

I’m not sure about the genetic continuity between CHG and modern North Caucasus populations (I know there’s some extra Mongoloid in there from Turkic invasions), but below is a video of some Georgian girls singing a song. Your great-great-great-great-etc grandmother may have looked something like this:

West Eurasian phylogenetic tree:

Genetic cluster analysis.

Male and female haplogroups of the Steppe and Caucasus.

PCA with a lot of ancient West Eurasian samples from various ages, plus modern populations.

Additional labeling on above PCA by Eurogenes Blog.

Bronze Age cultural regions of the Steppe and Europe.


Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean (Antonio et al., 2019)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay6826

An extensive study covering 10,000 years of Central Italian (Roman) DNA. This is a particularly useful study, as it demonstrates how an empire’s geopolitical affiliations can affect the genetic makeup of its capital city.

Timeline of Italy with historical and genetic events:

Below: PCAs alongside maps of Roman territory demonstrate how the genetics of the Rome shifted as the empire expanded. The events are described above, but the TL;DR is as follows:

A: Early European Farmers
B: Latin Indo-Europeans dominate Italy
C: Influx of Middle and Near Easterners with Roman Empire
D: Influx of Germanic invaders during collapse
E: Further Germanic migration during Holy Roman Empire
F: Present-day Rome

PCA + genetic cluster analysis by era.

Dominant haplogroup by era.


Unraveling ancestry, kinship, and violence in a Late Neolithic mass grave (Schroeder et al., 2019)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820210116

Study conducted on a mass grave belonging to the Globular Amphora culture (GAC), located in Southern Poland.

Most importantly, this study conclusively proved that the nuclear family has been an aspect of European social organization for thousands of years (and not a modern “capitalist” invention, as claimed by Leftists today).

“From the careful positioning of the bodies in the grave, it is clear that both nuclear and extended family relations were key to how people organized their lives, and that these relations represented major, normative values in Globular Amphora communities of this period. Although it has often been suggested that nuclear and/or extended family structures were important in many prehistoric societies, the archaeological and genomic data we have presented here provide actual proof that this was indeed the case.”

The study also discovered that the GAC people had ~30% Western European Hunter-Gatherer and ~70% Neolithic Farmer ancestry and that some of the population had blond hair.

A clean PCA/cluster analysis combo featuring major populations of ancient Europe.


Megalithic tombs in western and northern Neolithic Europe were linked to a kindred society (Sánchez-Quinto et al., 2019)

Source: http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818037116

A study conducted on the Early European Farmer megalith builders of West and Northwestern Europe.

Although some megaliths were used for ritual (i.e., Stone Henge in the UK), the majority of the megaliths built by the Western EEF were tombs. The study noted an over-representation of male burials, as well as a close kinship relation among individuals within burials. This evidence, combined with recurring male haplogroups, indicates that EEF society was ruled by a patrilinear elite. In other words, it indicates that they had a kingship system and patriarchal royal lineages.

This is a particularly important study, as it further emphasized that EEF societies were socially stratified and patriarchal, disproving the feminist/feminized view of European Neolithic history that has, unfortunately, besmirched the EEF for many decades.

TL;DR: The EEF were not matriarchal cucks.

The study also provided evidence of a genetic connection between Scandinavian, British, and Irish EEF populations.


Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia (Marcus et al., 2020)

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14523-6

This study validates the theory that Sardinians remained genetically isolated from the rest of Europe after the initial peopling of the island by Early European Farmers, receiving no genetic input from Steppe-derived populations.

present-day Sardinian individuals have retained an exceptionally high degree of EEF ancestry and so they still cluster with several mainland European Copper Age individuals such as Ötzi, even as they are shifted from ancient Sardinian individuals of a similar time period.


FIN

That’s all for now. I’ll be adding more later.