PDA

View Full Version : E-V13 entered Greece with Illyrians and Dorian invasions



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

xripkan
11-30-2020, 08:08 PM
Ancient Macedonians were the very Barbarian version of Doric-northwest Greek speaking world. Genetically they would have been as You said between Bulgaria IA and The samples We got from Myceneans, so in Some way mostly EEF. The steppe-Iran N/CHG ratios would be a secondary issue. For attic-ionic Greeks everyone who did not belonged in this branch It was a Barbarian. Now what lineages they belonged to, thats a Hard thing to discuss here. Sadly, The banana republic that we live, does not have The money and power(or Even interestet I would say) for researches and issues related With genetics and archeology. We are going to discuss this subject for the next 10-15 years at least.

In my opinion the most possible scenario is that they were an ancient greek people. Due to geography they had developped a different political system than southern ancient Greeks (but not unique in Hellenic world since Thessalians had a similar political system) and they had more interactions with ancient Balkanic peoples which probably had a cultural impact.
Of course we need proves from archeaology and genetics as you said to be 100% sure. Based on our data we can't reject (neither adopt) the arguments that they were a branch under Graeco-Phrygians separated earlier from southern Greeks.
I agree that it's a pitty there is not an intensive research not only on this issue but also about Dorians, Sea peoples etc.

Hawk
11-30-2020, 08:17 PM
I think we should all agree that E-V13 entered Greece during Late Bronze Age, both subclade age and archeological data support this scenario.

Atleast Z5018/Z5017 subclades. Older subclades might have as well joined btw, we often forget how dynamic people are. Then we get surprised by aDNA.

Bane
11-30-2020, 08:37 PM
I think we should all agree that E-V13 entered Greece during Late Bronze Age, both subclade age and archeological data support this scenario.

Atleast Z5018/Z5017 subclades. Older subclades might have as well joined btw, we often forget how dynamic people are. Then we get surprised by aDNA.


I agree.

Johnny ola
11-30-2020, 08:46 PM
In my opinion the most possible scenario is that they were an ancient greek people. Due to geography they had developped a different political system than southern ancient Greeks (but not unique in Hellenic world since Thessalians had a similar political system) and they had more interactions with ancient Balkanic peoples which probably had a cultural impact.
Of course we need proves from archeaology and genetics as you said to be 100% sure. Based on our data we can't reject (neither adopt) the arguments that they were a branch under Graeco-Phrygians separated earlier from southern Greeks.
I agree that it's a pitty there is not an intensive research not only on this issue but also about Dorians, Sea peoples etc.

It seems like this.Also Macedonia,Northern Epirus,Northern Thessaly were never part of the Mycaenean culture-civilization.We don't know much..about what it was happened there during the BA period.It is very likely somewhere in the Pindus mountains or even in the region of northwest Macedonia to have been the Proto-Greek homeland.
Yes,it is very likely that Greeks,Thracians,Phrygians,Macedonians arrived all of them from a steppe related culture,prolly somewhere in modern southeast/eastern EU.KMK-Babyno or Catacomb is prolly the answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-cordoned_ware_culture

xripkan
11-30-2020, 09:04 PM
It seems like this.Also Macedonia,Northern Epirus,Northern Thessaly were never part of the Mycaenean culture-civilization.We don't know much..about what it was happened there during the BA period.It is very likely somewhere in the Pindus mountains or even in the region of northwest Macedonia to have been the Proto-Greek homeland.
Yes,it is very likely that Greeks,Thracians,Phrygians,Macedonians arrived all of them from a steppe related culture,prolly somewhere in modern southeast/eastern EU.KMK-Babyno or Catacomb is prolly the answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-cordoned_ware_culture

What do you think about E-V13? If it was a minor haplogroup in Greece then Proto-Thracians had different origin than Proto-Greeks and they belonged to different brances. Maybe Proto-Thracians were related to eastern Urnfield.

DgidguBidgu
11-30-2020, 09:28 PM
See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_settlement_of_the_Eastern_Alps)

Those Slavs brought predominantly, but not only, R1a (unlike Balkans where Slavs brought predominantly I-Y3120).

You gave me Wikipedia as the main reference with a poorly written text, supporting old unproven theories from the time of Romanticism. These are some total fabrications.
The nonsense about the "Slavs" and some big space migrations have long been denied by experts in scientific literature and have not been proven by DNA so far, and there are no real historical documents to prove them.
Funny Quotes: "The migration of Slavic peoples from their homeland began in roughly the late 4th to early 5th century, as Germanic peoples started moving into the territory of the Roman Empire."
"Many natives were enslaved by the Slavs"!?! "," Romanised aborigines" The more important question here is: What kind of language they spoke before to be attacked and enslaved by the Romans? Here I think the Wikipedia "author" must enter to the schizophrenic chronicle if we answer to this simple question.
How wordy and unscientific is this text , as if I were reading fiction. Apparently someone is trying to replace the real history with free essay. I am not impressed.
Apparently it doesn't matter who starts movement from where, who attacks whom and in whose lands he enters. It is not convenient to specify, but it is more convenient to write in a speculative tone and content that does not give any specifics, may be because they were part of "various tribal alliances".


About Slavic haplogroups: You want me to believe that these haplogroups appear for the first time in the 6th century at Europe?
Excuse me, but what stopped the movement of these people in Europe in any direction before the specified time? There was no such thing like migration before the 5th century in Europe?
Every DNA study so far refutes you, even the Tollense battle refutes you.




If you believe to these theories about the emergence of new nations, only due to the replacement of an old name with a new one, then by this logic there were no Germans, or there were no Iranians before their new names appeared.
In addition, we have significant works and old history sources proving my claims and not yours.


R.G. Latham: "The older the toponyms in Germany, the clearer their Slavic character" p.29.
I think the "Romanised aborigines" have something to say here too but maybe some other time.
R.G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus, Taylor, Walton and Marbely,
London, 1851;
We also have the statement of Theophylact Simokata, who says: Sclavini, or Getae because they were called so in antiquity.
Those R1a you are referring to, may not be old Slavs, but Slavonized Balts, for example.
Your theory is cracking from every scientific point of view - historical-documentary, linguistic, genetic.
The terminology for Slavs must be corrected: to clarify who really are the Slavs.
Whether old South Slavs or the new East and North Slavicized Finno-Ugric tribes , Balts...

Bane
11-30-2020, 09:42 PM
The terminology for Slavs must be corrected: to clarify who really are the Slavs.
Whether old South Slavs or the new East and North Slavicized Finno-Ugric tribes , Balts...

With this part I somewhat agree.
With everything else I have to say I don't agree. But this thread is neither the time nor the place to discuss Slavic migrations.

Johnny ola
11-30-2020, 10:18 PM
What do you think about E-V13? If it was a minor haplogroup in Greece then Proto-Thracians had different origin than Proto-Greeks and they belonged to different brances. Maybe Proto-Thracians were related to eastern Urnfield.

I think they share common origins but Thracians received a stronger Urnfield related influence, while in Greece this might happened mostly in the northern areas. But without samples we cannot say much. Thracians were prolly a combination of R1b-Z2103 and EV13.

Hawk
11-30-2020, 10:31 PM
I would say Illyrians like Autariates, Ardiaei and Dardanii had quite a lot of E-V13, especially Autariates, the ones who had the strongest Urnfield influence. Autariates were practicing cremation quite late until classical times.

DgidguBidgu
11-30-2020, 11:06 PM
I think they share common origins but Thracians received a stronger Urnfield related influence, while in Greece this might happened mostly in the northern areas. But without samples we cannot say much. Thracians were prolly a combination of R1b-Z2103 and EV13.

I believe that Thracians can not be represented only by R1b-Z2103 and EV13.
They were too many tribes covering a large area, including lands even outside Europe.

We must include J too here for the very good reasons:

"One of the haplogroup J subclades (J-M12) dis-plays frequency distribution similar to that of the aforementioned E-M35 sub-clade. This is probably, a consequence of the same microevolutionary event,namely, an expansion from South-Eastern to continental Europe following theDanube waterways during the Neolithic [14]. From archaeological point of view,this population can be associated with Vincha farmers. However, this haplogroupis widely distributed on the territory of Anatolia, Mideast Arab, Morocco, Su-dan and Ethiopia, Persia, Georgia, Armenia, Uzbek-Kazakhstan-Kirgizstan upto the Tarim River Valley, too. Thus this has to be a megapopulation in thattime. We hypothesized that it can be only the Thracian one – from West Balkan(Dardanians, Illyrians, Pelagonians, Macedonians, etc.), North Balkan (Bessians,Gateans, Dacians, Misians, Medians, Thracoiranian Cimmerians, Seenians, etc.),South Balkan (Brigians, Peonians, Triballians, Odrysians, Pelasgians, etc.), overall Anatolia (Vithinians, Frisians, Trojans) and at the East Black Sea coast(East Medians, Frigo-Armenians, Parthians, Massagetes, etc.), covering all NorthMesopotamia, Lebanon, Palestine and North Egypt (Mitanni, Phillistinians, So-uth-Pelasgians and many others). For Thracians Herodotus had written that theyare “. . . the greatest and most populous on Earth (after the Indians)”. Besidesthis, Herodotus accounted that the Greeks absorbed an earlier non-Greek popu-lation (Pelasgians) and that the Greek history is based on their traditions [5]."

Johnny ola
12-01-2020, 06:23 AM
I believe that Thracians can not be represented only by R1b-Z2103 and EV13.
They were too many tribes covering a large area, including lands even outside Europe.

We must include J too here for the very good reasons:

"One of the haplogroup J subclades (J-M12) dis-plays frequency distribution similar to that of the aforementioned E-M35 sub-clade. This is probably, a consequence of the same microevolutionary event,namely, an expansion from South-Eastern to continental Europe following theDanube waterways during the Neolithic [14]. From archaeological point of view,this population can be associated with Vincha farmers. However, this haplogroupis widely distributed on the territory of Anatolia, Mideast Arab, Morocco, Su-dan and Ethiopia, Persia, Georgia, Armenia, Uzbek-Kazakhstan-Kirgizstan upto the Tarim River Valley, too. Thus this has to be a megapopulation in thattime. We hypothesized that it can be only the Thracian one – from West Balkan(Dardanians, Illyrians, Pelagonians, Macedonians, etc.), North Balkan (Bessians,Gateans, Dacians, Misians, Medians, Thracoiranian Cimmerians, Seenians, etc.),South Balkan (Brigians, Peonians, Triballians, Odrysians, Pelasgians, etc.), overall Anatolia (Vithinians, Frisians, Trojans) and at the East Black Sea coast(East Medians, Frigo-Armenians, Parthians, Massagetes, etc.), covering all NorthMesopotamia, Lebanon, Palestine and North Egypt (Mitanni, Phillistinians, So-uth-Pelasgians and many others). For Thracians Herodotus had written that theyare “. . . the greatest and most populous on Earth (after the Indians)”. Besidesthis, Herodotus accounted that the Greeks absorbed an earlier non-Greek popu-lation (Pelasgians) and that the Greek history is based on their traditions [5]."


Yes,J2a was prolly another marker for the ethnogenesis of Thracians i believe.I think balkans would have been a combination of I2,G2a,J2a before the Steppe expansion and Urnfield related influences of the LBA/IA.

Johnny ola
12-01-2020, 09:34 AM
What do you think about E-V13? If it was a minor haplogroup in Greece then Proto-Thracians had different origin than Proto-Greeks and they belonged to different brances. Maybe Proto-Thracians were related to eastern Urnfield.

Also,keep in mind that places like Central Macedonia(Thessaloniki,Kilkis,Halkidiki) and eastern Macedonia like( Serres,Drama,Kavala),were probably areas that Thracians,Paeonians,Bryges etc used to inhabit.These areas started to becoming later part of the Macedonian Empire and adopting a more 'Hellenic' lets say identity.Macedonians are very likely to have their 'origins-roots' somewhere between modern northern Thessaly and Katerini.This is prolly their homeland,then they started expanded in northwest Macedonia and Centraleast where in some way assilimated the native tribes that we don't know much.Illyrians were prolly at northwest,while Thracians and Paeonians were at north and east.

Bane
12-01-2020, 11:32 AM
Yes,J2a was prolly another marker for the ethnogenesis of Thracians i believe.I think balkans would have been a combination of I2,G2a,J2a before the Steppe expansion and Urnfield related influences of the LBA/IA.

The thing is Thracian ethnogenesis did not happen in the Balkans. So I don't see why J2a should be considered as important in that sense?
Though I do accept other other haplogroups besides E-V13 were involved in the process.

Johnny ola
12-01-2020, 12:13 PM
The thing is Thracian ethnogenesis did not happen in the Balkans. So I don't see why J2a should be considered as important in that sense?
Though I do accept other other haplogroups besides E-V13 were involved in the process.

What you mean the ethnogenesis of Thracians do not happened in balkans?And where it happened?In Uganda?When i am saying Thracians i mean the populations that used to inhabit in modern Bulgaria,Romania,pretty much in the biggest part of North Macedonia and Southeast Europe in general.Thracians like Myceneans/Greeks, were mostly of EEF roots with additional steppe admixture(with maybe some west asian admixture Iran N/CHG).I am not talking here about Proto-Thracians or Daco-Thracians who spread from a steppe related culture.Thracians like Illyrians and other paleo-balkan people were mostly Anatolian farmers in autosomal DNA.Their steppe admixture would have been a secondary issue.So,yes you should expect lineages like I2,J2a,G2a,R1b and EV13 in the ethnogenesis of the paleo-balkan folks.

xripkan
12-01-2020, 01:27 PM
Yes,J2a was prolly another marker for the ethnogenesis of Thracians i believe.I think balkans would have been a combination of I2,G2a,J2a before the Steppe expansion and Urnfield related influences of the LBA/IA.

What about J2b-L283? It comes from Western Balkans I think.

Bane
12-01-2020, 01:40 PM
What you mean the ethnogenesis of Thracians do not happened in balkans?And where it happened?In Uganda?When i am saying Thracians i mean the populations that used to inhabit in modern Bulgaria,Romania,pretty much in the biggest part of North Macedonia and Southeast Europe in general.Thracians like Myceneans/Greeks, were mostly of EEF roots with additional steppe admixture(with maybe some west asian admixture Iran N/CHG).I am not talking here about Proto-Thracians or Daco-Thracians who spread from a steppe related culture.Thracians like Illyrians and other paleo-balkan people were mostly Anatolian farmers in autosomal DNA.Their steppe admixture would have been a secondary issue.So,yes you should expect lineages like I2,J2a,G2a,R1b and EV13 in the ethnogenesis of the paleo-balkan folks.


The origins of the Thracians remain obscure, in the absence of written historical records. Evidence of proto-Thracians in the prehistoric period depends on artifacts of material culture. Leo Klejn identifies proto-Thracians with the multi-cordoned ware culture that was pushed away from Ukraine by the advancing timber grave culture or Srubnaya. It is generally proposed that a proto-Thracian people developed from a mixture of indigenous peoples and Indo-Europeans from the time of Proto-Indo-European expansion in the Early Bronze Age[8] when the latter, around 1500 BC, mixed with indigenous peoples.[9] During the Iron Age (about 1000 BC) Dacians and Thracians began developing from proto-Thracians.[10]

I know you don't like Wikipedia, but I like Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians

Johnny ola
12-01-2020, 01:52 PM
I know you don't like Wikipedia, but I like Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians

Wikipedia does not writes something different from what i posted above.Paleobalkan people inclunding Greeks,were mostly of EEF+Steppe.If you mean Proto-thracians or Daco-thracians thats an other story.But during the LBA/IA Paleobalkan populations were already a mix of EEF+Steppe.I bet they would carry many lineages from R1b and EV13 to more neolithic clades like J2a,G2a,I2,T.You like it or not what we call,Greeks,Thracians,Macedonians,Illyrians,Dacian s,Paeonians,Phrygians were people mostly of 'EEF-ANF' origins.Steppe,Iran N/CHG would have been secondary admixtures and in lower %.

The Saite
12-01-2020, 02:14 PM
I believe that Thracians can not be represented only by R1b-Z2103 and EV13.
They were too many tribes covering a large area, including lands even outside Europe.

We must include J too here for the very good reasons:

"One of the haplogroup J subclades (J-M12) dis-plays frequency distribution similar to that of the aforementioned E-M35 sub-clade. This is probably, a consequence of the same microevolutionary event,namely, an expansion from South-Eastern to continental Europe following the Danube waterways during the Neolithic"

The Mentioned Haplogroup J-M12 do stands here for J2b actually not J2a. For J2b It's very unlikely for it's European J2b2 branches to have entered during the Neolithic but rather either EBA or LBA with additional Anatolian/Caucasian BA_like shift in the region. One might wonder about of which event(s) lead to such Mobile expansion of them (Since they were found reaching Italy and as long as the Nurgaic Islands as well in such short time window IMO).

Bane
12-01-2020, 03:26 PM
If you mean Proto-thracians or Daco-thracians thats an other story.

We can say that was what I had in mind.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 08:39 AM
Just to remind you guys what Harry Mountain thinks of Dacians. Dacians were already formed when they received their third layer, E-V13 Urnfield one (still disputed though, we are not entirely sure E-V13 is really the main Eastern Urnfield lineage, though a very good candidate).


Between BC 15th–12th century, the Dacian-Getae culture was influenced by the Bronze Age Tumulus-Urnfield warriors who were on their way through the Balkans to Anatolia.

Mountain, Harry (1998). The Celtic Encyclopedia. Universal.

rafc
12-02-2020, 08:58 AM
One issue I still have with the Urnfield theory: It can provide an elegant solution to the distribution of V13 clades and why some seem only present in Western Europe. But do we than assume that Urnfield was only V13? Because if other haplogroups were part of the urnfield culture, why don't we see them as dominant in the Balkans as V13? For example branches of P310, G or I2. It would be a bit strange that only V13 went north and south, while all others chose to only go north, no?

These kind of things make me wonder if we are not just blinded by the big difference in testing between NW-Europe and SE-Europe. In the paper I wrote a few years ago I predicted that in time Y16723, which is directly under BY3880 and was only known in the UK and Arabian countries, would be found in the Balkans with more testing. And indeed, today we have basal Y16723 samples from Macedonia and Bulgaria. I think the same is still possible for other clades that now seem exclusive to NW-Europe. The one part of the Balkans that is now very well tested is Albania. From those results I would guess BY3880 did not expand there. The logic alternative would then be Bulgaria. Currently I'm leaning to V13 piggybacking on the Yamnaya newcomers and being spread with them over SE-Europe during the 3 millenium BC, this would correspond to the first big expansion of V13 directly under CTS5856 and BY3880.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 09:01 AM
But, we have quite some results/leaks from Bulgarian EBA and not a single E-V13 there.

CopperAxe
12-02-2020, 09:43 AM
Why would it be necessary for the Urnfield cultural system to be predominantly E-V13 or for the Balkans to have a nice imprint of all the various Y-dna haplos carried in the multi-ethnic Urnfield culture system?

This is the European Bronze Age, with a never ending stream of founder effects on founder effects.

Johnny ola
12-02-2020, 10:00 AM
Another good question it would be where these J2b lineages in western balkans are coming from.As for Urnfield,there is no way to spread only EV13(and if EV13 is coming from there,and not from the east).There would have been other lineages like G2a,R1b without doubt.

rafc
12-02-2020, 10:21 AM
But, we have quite some results/leaks from Bulgarian EBA and not a single E-V13 there.

Well, no V13 in the Urnfield heartland either, and we have results from there too. Can you tell me which leaks there are for the Bulgarian EBA?

rafc
12-02-2020, 10:28 AM
Why would it be necessary for the Urnfield cultural system to be predominantly E-V13 or for the Balkans to have a nice imprint of all the various Y-dna haplos carried in the multi-ethnic Urnfield culture system?

This is the European Bronze Age, with a never ending stream of founder effects on founder effects.

A founder effect would explain one Iron age V13 group showing up only in the Balkans and not to the north, if the Urnfield system had multiple haplogroups. If a group of V13 had a founder effect within the urnfield system it explains going both directions. Now several groups of V13 were involved, groups that by the LBA/EIA were already a 1000 years apart. So if multiple V13 groups had this founder effect, and no others, it seems to imply Urnfield was V13. I don't see how you can reconcile multi-ethnic urnifield with the pattern of V13.

rafc
12-02-2020, 10:30 AM
Another good question it would be where these J2b lineages in western balkans are coming from.As for Urnfield,there is no way to spread only EV13(and if EV13 is coming from there,and not from the east).There would have been other lineages like G2a,R1b without doubt.

For J2b we actually have quite some ancient DNA. For them I think it's very likely that they made their way from the Steppe to the upper Danube and from there went both to Italy and the Balkans around 2200BC, explaining the connections in older lines between Northern Italy/Sardinia on one hand and the Western Balkans on the other.

Riverman
12-02-2020, 10:57 AM
One issue I still have with the Urnfield theory: It can provide an elegant solution to the distribution of V13 clades and why some seem only present in Western Europe. But do we than assume that Urnfield was only V13? Because if other haplogroups were part of the urnfield culture, why don't we see them as dominant in the Balkans as V13? For example branches of P310, G or I2. It would be a bit strange that only V13 went north and south, while all others chose to only go north, no?

Actually, that would be the least problematic aspect, because Urnfield seems to have been multi-ethnic religious-cultural phenomenon and can be divided in different cultural provinces. Like in the Southern Balticum, the spread of Christianity meant at some point "German", yet it obviously meant something different in Iberia ethnically, even though its the same religion. There is an ethnolinguistic continuum in the region, within the wider cremation horizon, from Celtic-Italic-Germanic-Illyrian-Thracian-Slavic. If you look at the South Eastern and Central groups, they should harbour E-V13, the Western and Northern probably much less so. Another issue is that most of the Central and Northern groups were later largely replaced, by Celts, Germanics and Slavs. So what they were looking like before, who knows.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6Y7NA0Eff9M/Vk4RVgON2JI/AAAAAAAALps/x7M8FXEGhko/s1600/Map1000BC_Cultures01_big.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tgRn55Cl1uA/VjuAXYOOJcI/AAAAAAAALCI/7gjApRtsrmM/s1600/Tartes.JPG

Both images from this article from BBB:
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2015/11/urnfield-radio-carbon-dates-capuzzo-2014.html

You can see that the South Eastern groups were very important and are likely to have influenced the remaining Urnfield horizon, with long lasting traditions of cremation Eastern Central-South Eastern Europe. So I guess the centre of the movement radiated out, but the centre was in the South East, and especially Gava is a prime candidate.
To the West this resulted not in large scale replacement, but only influences. So I would guess that priests, metal workers, traders and warriors made it to the West, influenced the Proto-Celts, but only as individuals or small clan groups, not as a mass migration like to the Carpathians, Pannonia and the Balkans, where some Illyrian and especially Thracian groups should have carried on most of it.


And indeed, today we have basal Y16723 samples from Macedonia and Bulgaria. I think the same is still possible for other clades that now seem exclusive to NW-Europe. The one part of the Balkans that is now very well tested is Albania. From those results I would guess BY3880 did not expand there. The logic alternative would then be Bulgaria. Currently I'm leaning to V13 piggybacking on the Yamnaya newcomers and being spread with them over SE-Europe during the 3 millenium BC, this would correspond to the first big expansion of V13 directly under CTS5856 and BY3880.

My main problem with a Southern origin was not that so many clades in the South are missing, but that the dating, the TMRCA don't fit to a much later spread than the Iron Age for both regions, suggesting that this was one big dispersion event, around the LBA-EIA transition, going in different directions in different magnitude. If you look at the Urnfield spread, the mass of the people really moved South into foreign territory, as conquerors, whereas within the proposed IE language continuum, it seems to have been more gradual and an influence by elites and specialists, no replacement. Like Proto-Celts themselves replaced other people in the West, it seems to me, but among themselves, it was for quite some time more kind of a cultural exchange in the Northern Urnfield horizon. Like uniting within and rather externalising expansive ambitions. Similar to the early phase of various religious movements I'd say and with the distinct possibility of even non-IE converting in some regions.


Why would it be necessary for the Urnfield cultural system to be predominantly E-V13 or for the Balkans to have a nice imprint of all the various Y-dna haplos carried in the multi-ethnic Urnfield culture system?

This is the European Bronze Age, with a never ending stream of founder effects on founder effects.

We have no results from Pannonia and the Balkan suggesting a massive increase of E-V13 between the EBA and EIA. From the EIA, there is relative continuity in many places, so it gets more difficult to explain such a massive shift in frequencies. This leaves only the MBA-EIA time frame for this massive replacement and the single best candidate, looking at both the prehistoric distribution and the modern one, working as an agent, is Urnfield-related groups.

The problem with the assumption of any group being not dominated by E-V13 makes the explanation for its later widespread distribution and high frequency between Pannonia and the Carpathains, from Noricum to Greece, even more difficult to explain. Looking at it in the crucial time, the whole region got filled with Urnfield- and EIA Eastern Hallstatt as well as Thracian influences. It would fit so nicely. But of course, that doesn't mean that Urnfield as a whole was E-V13 at all or that even the groups spreading the most like Proto-Thracian were exclusively E-V13, both not.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 11:08 AM
I have to agree with Riverman, we don't have evidences but using the logic of elimination/negation right now the Eastern Urnfield makes more sense, the use of extensive cremation would also explain the absence of E-V13 among ancient samples.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 11:11 AM
Well, no V13 in the Urnfield heartland either, and we have results from there too. Can you tell me which leaks there are for the Bulgarian EBA?

The first leak from Stamov had EBA results which were mostly R1b, R1a, I2a.

Then we have the second leak 1 month ago again from Stamov which has results from Late Neolithic Bulgaria and most of samples are G2a with one Chalcolithic R1b.

Again, none of which is E-V13.

Riverman
12-02-2020, 12:00 PM
The first leak from Stamov had EBA results which were mostly R1b, R1a, I2a.

Then we have the second leak 1 month ago again from Stamov which has results from Late Neolithic Bulgaria and most of samples are G2a with one Chalcolithic R1b.

Again, none of which is E-V13.

And the same being reported from Pannonia. And looking where massive immigration in the meantime, between the MBA-EIA, should have come from, there is practically no way for a population expansion that big to have affected Eastern Hallstatt, the Balkan and the Carpathian regions, which all seem to have harboured significant amounts of E-V13 in the Iron Age, plus the high likelihood of a fairly early, somewhat chaotic spread during the LBA-EIA up to the West, deep into later Celtic territory, like the E1b among the Gaulish samples.
There was just one sample from the wider Hungarian sphere, but unfortunately we don't know from where exactly. If it was from close to Slovakia, that's like a smoking gun for the association with later Southern Urnfield groups. If it was there and nowhere else.

CopperAxe
12-02-2020, 12:15 PM
We have no results from Pannonia and the Balkan suggesting a massive increase of E-V13 between the EBA and EIA. From the EIA, there is relative continuity in many places, so it gets more difficult to explain such a massive shift in frequencies. This leaves only the MBA-EIA time frame for this massive replacement and the single best candidate, looking at both the prehistoric distribution and the modern one, working as an agent, is Urnfield-related groups.

The problem with the assumption of any group being not dominated by E-V13 makes the explanation for its later widespread distribution and high frequency between Pannonia and the Carpathains, from Noricum to Greece, even more difficult to explain. Looking at it in the crucial time, the whole region got filled with Urnfield- and EIA Eastern Hallstatt as well as Thracian influences. It would fit so nicely. But of course, that doesn't mean that Urnfield as a whole was E-V13 at all or that even the groups spreading the most like Proto-Thracian were exclusively E-V13, both not.

Yes that is my point basically, there is not a need for the entire Urnfield cultural system to have been dominated or spearheaded by E-V13 to explain a high presence of E-V13 in Iron age Southeastern Europe by way of the Urnfield culture. The only requirement would be that the Urnfield related peoples which migrated into Southeastern Europe carried E-V13 to a respectable degree. And that isn't even a big requirement, as you could have an explosion of V13 clades several generations after the initial migrations, overriding any potentialdiversity of the initial migrations.

And there is plenty of room for such later explosions as founder effects seem to be the common theme amongst bronze age Indo-European communities.

CopperAxe
12-02-2020, 12:24 PM
A founder effect would explain one Iron age V13 group showing up only in the Balkans and not to the north, if the Urnfield system had multiple haplogroups. If a group of V13 had a founder effect within the urnfield system it explains going both directions. Now several groups of V13 were involved, groups that by the LBA/EIA were already a 1000 years apart. So if multiple V13 groups had this founder effect, and no others, it seems to imply Urnfield was V13. I don't see how you can reconcile multi-ethnic urnifield with the pattern of V13.

How can you look at the Urnfield cultural system, which encompasses (the ancestors of) Italic, Etruscan, Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Illyrian and Thracian ethnolinguistic groupings amongst ovarious and them come to the conclusion they were not multi-ethnic and that they all must've carried E-v13 to a high degree?

It's hard to say with a cultural zone that unanimously cremated their dead, but I think that for the most part most Urnfield culture groups were genetically quite close to their predecessor cultures, at least the Central Europeans variants.

The only thing it would imply is that the Urnfield related groups spreading into Pannonia and the Balkans had E-V13 clades in decent to high numbers, not that the entire Urnfield cultural system would've had so.

Bane
12-02-2020, 12:33 PM
Then we have the second leak 1 month ago again from Stamov which has results from Late Neolithic Bulgaria and most of samples are G2a with one Chalcolithic R1b.

This second leak, did it include some other results except the one from Late Neolithic Bulgaria ?

Hawk
12-02-2020, 12:47 PM
This second leak, did it include some other results except the one from Late Neolithic Bulgaria ?

You can check it here: https://youtu.be/KzAL0ssXwgc?t=971

He also posted the results on a website, but i forgot the URL address, Bulgarians perhaps can help here in finding the website.

Bane
12-02-2020, 01:05 PM
He also posted the results on a website, but i forgot the URL address, Bulgarians perhaps can help here in finding the website.

could be this: https://proizhod.nauka.bg/2020/10/06/news/

Hawk
12-02-2020, 01:14 PM
could be this: https://proizhod.nauka.bg/2020/10/06/news/

In the website it's claimed that the samples 69 and 70 from EBA Kazanlak are burials from Proto-Thracians. No Y-DNA is listed, perhaps they did it on intention, they don't want to reveal it yet?

https://proizhod.nauka.bg/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/res2.png


Samples from the Bronze and Iron Ages, Bulgaria.

The results of the Ezero culture, from Southeastern Bulgaria, which is from the early Bronze Age and which seems to connect the people of this culture with the future Hittites and Trojans. Some of these ancient groups from the Bronze Age in one way or another have survived to this day in our country, modern Bulgarians.

Samples 69 and 70 are from the supposed Thracian burials from the region of Kazanlak and are from the epoch of the appearance of the Thracians on the Balkan Peninsula. They show a close connection of the Thracian groups from the region of Kazanlak with the Indo-European groups from the Pontic steppe.

Support us to continue the study of Thracian DNA and to clarify the connection of the Thracians, Trojans and Hittites with modern Bulgarians! Our preliminary research shows an ancient contribution to the genomes of modern Bulgarians.

Bane
12-02-2020, 01:47 PM
could be this: https://proizhod.nauka.bg/2020/10/06/news/


I see this as one more step towards breaking connection of E-V13 with Anatolia and Near East.

Riverman
12-02-2020, 01:58 PM
In the website it's claimed that the samples 69 and 70 from EBA Kazanlak are burials from Proto-Thracians. No Y-DNA is listed, perhaps they did it on intention, they don't want to reveal it yet?

https://proizhod.nauka.bg/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/res2.png

That fun it is that exactly the samples 69 and 70 were not males or not high coverage enough to predict the haplotype. But if they are too heavily steppe shifted, I would assume they were rather part of the steppe contribution (Thraco-Cimmerian fusion), rather than Gava-representatives. But like with Germanics and Celts, the cremation horizon of the majority of continental IE is a big issue, because its like one big gap.


I see this as one more step towards breaking connection of E-V13 with Anatolia and Near East.

Eveything is a question of timing, but the options for a late entry into Europe, after the inital Neolithic settlement, get slim indeed, if you mean that. But it looked that way for quite some time. Anatolia was only a stopover for the ancestors and relatives of E-V13 when entering Europe.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 02:05 PM
The presence of E-L618 among some Levantines, Albanians/Northern-Greeks and from Cardial Farmers from Croatia is uncanny.

They came via maritime route and landed on Epirus and South Albania then colonized Croatia and the trajectory was toward Western Europe west to Spain where the actual E-V13 mutation was found.

That's a clear case in my opinion.

Riverman
12-02-2020, 02:09 PM
The presence of E-L618 among some Levantines, Albanians/Northern-Greeks and from Cardial Farmers from Croatia is uncanny.

They came via maritime route and landed on Epirus and South Albania then colonized Croatia and the trajectory was toward Western Europe west to Spain where the actual E-V13 mutation was found.

That's a clear case in my opinion.

That's true, but don't forget Lengyel-Sopot. I did look just recently more carefully at the variation of E1b in various places of Central Europe and its actually not like E-V13 was there alone at all. Related E1b1b clades are practically everywhere, just at a much lower frequency. But I guess that's in some places local survival of people like the Michelsberger and related people even. Probably unrelated to the more recent spread of E-V13, but who knows for sure without a detailed analysis.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 02:58 PM
That's true, but don't forget Lengyel-Sopot. I did look just recently more carefully at the variation of E1b in various places of Central Europe and its actually not like E-V13 was there alone at all. Related E1b1b clades are practically everywhere, just at a much lower frequency. But I guess that's in some places local survival of people like the Michelsberger and related people even. Probably unrelated to the more recent spread of E-V13, but who knows for sure without a detailed analysis.

Acording to Stephen Shennan, and his claims are very recent, from 2018, Michelsbergers were migrants from Mediterranean basin, South-West, so he probably means they were Cardial Farmers intruding further inland.

But, yes, logically speaking Sopot-Lengyel should be the first candidate for the birthplace of E-V13. The second one is North-East Spain => Michelsberger => following the Danube rivers => North Carpathians.

vasil
12-02-2020, 03:33 PM
The thing about Michelsberg is we have DNA from it and they were Haplogroup I and R1 and autosomaly they had a ridiculous amount of WHG. They were originaly probably subneolithic WHG leftovers hiding in the western alps and then either by choise or because they got pushed out by the Cardium pottery guys from the south they expanded very violently north into southern Germany.

rafc
12-02-2020, 03:34 PM
Actually, that would be the least problematic aspect, because Urnfield seems to have been multi-ethnic religious-cultural phenomenon and can be divided in different cultural provinces.
...
But of course, that doesn't mean that Urnfield as a whole was E-V13 at all or that even the groups spreading the most like Proto-Thracian were exclusively E-V13, both not.

Is it fair to summarize like this: V13 lives in border region of Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. Here it gets influenced by Urnfield culture of Central Europe during MBA/LBA and forms the Gava culture. At the LBA/EIA transition (1200BC) some event, maybe climatic, maybe arrival from other peoples from the east, causes the E-V13 population to move west and south in a way that mimicks the Slavic migration 1500 years later. Here they form the Dacian, Thracia, Getian, Moesian, ... ethnicities just like the Slavs would form Serbs, Croats, Bulgars etc. Their arrival displaces local peoples, mainly speakers of Greek-like languages who move on to Anatolia and Greece. The ones moving from Eastern-Europe to Central Europe might have been spread further by Celts, but the presence of V13 in Western Europe would probably be something of a later date?

Riverman
12-02-2020, 04:01 PM
Is it fair to summarize like this: V13 lives in border region of Romania, Moldova and Ukraine.

I would just add especially Eastern Slovakia, probably Southern Poland. Funnily their habitat might have been somewhat similar to that of later Vlach-Slavic people, which lived beside larger ethnicities as well. Compare with the Carpathian Rus or Rusyn:
https://cdn.britannica.com/46/185346-050-0621714A/Carpathian-Rus-Rusyn-homeland.jpg

That's actually not that far from the later proposed Gava central regions.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Quiles/publication/314216807/figure/fig31/AS:[email protected]/Diachronic-map-of-migrations-in-Europe-ca-1250-750-BC.ppm

If these Gava-core was Proto-Thracian, it would fit perfectly into the linguistic trees in which Thracian and Slavic are supposed to have been neighbours, because the direct neighbour was the Chernoles culture which is most likely Proto (Balto-) Slavic:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png/350px-Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png

They would have bordered both Proto-Slavs and Scythians/Iranians.


Here it gets influenced by Urnfield culture of Central Europe during MBA/LBA and forms the Gava culture.

I think its also possible that the Urnfield culture came up by a fusion of Carpathian and Eastern Central European traditions, so probably the role was more proactive, to put it that way.


At the LBA/EIA transition (1200BC) some event, maybe climatic, maybe arrival from other peoples from the east, causes the E-V13 population to move west and south in a way that mimicks the Slavic migration 1500 years later. Here they form the Dacian, Thracia, Getian, Moesian, ... ethnicities just like the Slavs would form Serbs, Croats, Bulgars etc. Their arrival displaces local peoples, mainly speakers of Greek-like languages who move on to Anatolia and Greece. The ones moving from Eastern-Europe to Central Europe might have been spread further by Celts, but the presence of V13 in Western Europe would probably be something of a later date?

I think the reason for the migrations was multi-causal, but we see it with the Bronze Age collapse and the Sea people, that people were on the move and one group pushed the other. They most certainly profited from technological progress made and the new social-ideological movements Urnfield represents. We have better Bronze product, high end sword types like Naue II and the quick adoption, improvement and distribution of iron working technologies. Actually Gava was at the core of these advancements, huge fortified settlements like Teleac prove this, they were among the first in Europe to begin the mass production of iron weapons. Nevertheless, Teleac was destroyed in an attack which might equal the situation of Troy in the Mediterranean. It must have been quite some siege and battle.
So there was pressure on their centres or internal disputes.

On the other hand I guess that E-V13 spread as early as that westward, but even more so later, with Eastern Hallstatt influencing, once again, in the developed Iron Age, to Western Hallstatt. Eastern Hallstatt should have more E-V13 than the Western, probably largely Proto-Celtic sphere. This was also because of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, which spread steppe and Carpathian ancestry directly to Pannonia and beyond, was instrumental for the formation of the Hallstatt culture, after this collapse ("Yurtification", nomadic inhabitants of Pannonia, older farmsites left).

But yes, I think they spread pretty much like the Slavs later. Pretty much the same way and with the same consequences. Even the disruption in Pannonia being repeated: First Slavs move in, just for being subjugated by steppe people. Same happened with the Urnfield people which came under the "Thraco-Cimmerian" horizon. So I think Eastern pressures from the steppe were very real too, together with the technological advances and expansive ideology. Thracians were the result of this fusion. So this makes it even more likely that the South Eastern Urnfield groups were heavy in E-V13:
- The earlier inhabitants were not
- The Thracian migration was a replacement, but no complete one and with a strong steppe component most likely.

So if the numbers of the Urnfield groups moving into the Carpathians were poor in E-V13, it would be even harder to explain. Like Hawk said, without the smoking gun of actual samples showing high frequencies for E-V13, its still just an elimination game.

However, if the single E-V13 found in earlier Bronze Age times by the Hungarian project were close to the later Gava core zone, that would be helpful to know already, especially if it led to an important, surviving V13 lineage.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 04:50 PM
Romania/Moldavia/Ukraine is too east IMO. Low chances being the original homeland.

Riverman
12-02-2020, 05:01 PM
Romania/Moldavia/Ukraine is too east IMO. Low chances being the original homeland.

That's just where Gava was at home and its the Urnfield related group, centre of the "Fluted Ware" horizon, which influenced Thracians the most. Their original centre was rather more Western though indeed, Eastern Slovakia-Ruthenia, North Eastern Hungary, North Western Romania. To Moldova-Ukraine seems to have been more some kind of influence-expansion, which is why its also called Gáva-Holigrady.


The Gáva-Holigrady culture was a late Bronze Age culture of Eastern Slovakia, Western Ukraine (Zakarpats'ka Oblast and Dnister river basin), Northwestern Romania and Northeastern Hungary.

It is considered a subtype of the Urnfield culture.

Gava-Holigrady culture is named after an archaeological settlement Gava in Northeastern Hungary and an archaeological site Holigrady (Голігради) in Ukrainian Ternopil Oblast.

In Slovakia, the culture has originated in the early twentieth century BC.

Gáva people lived in settlements and castles that they built in the Slovakian and Transylvanian uplands.

Gava-Holigrad people are considered to be of Thracian ethnicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A1va-Holigrady_culture

They had the leverage because of their technological head start in the region. Let's put it differently, which region and group do you propose which did influence Basarabi culture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarabi_culture


The Basarabi culture in Rumania, which existed in the first half of the first millennium B.C., was characteristic of the Thracians. Its distinguishing features are polished black ware, including cups, bowls, and goblets, and settlements—both fortified and unfortified—of ground-level wooden buildings plastered with clay. The pottery, which reveals contact with the culture of local Bronze Age tribes, is decorated with fluting, with stamped and engraved geometric designs, and with white inlays.

During the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., Thracian art was influenced somewhat by Scythian culture. The Thracian animal style, which flourished from the sixth to third centuries, has characteristics that distinguish it from other animal styles. For example, the Thracians ornamented plaques and helmets of gold, silver, and bronze with naive and expressive generalized representations of birds, animals, and horsemen and depictions of fighting animals. They usually covered these designs with patterns of circles, dots, or short lines.

https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Thracian+culture

There were influences from the West on them, yes, but none which would reflect anything which could be a mass migration, like that of Gava-inspired Urnfield groups or the steppe intrusion. So if, like it seems to be, the Daco-Thracian sphere was the most strongly E-V13, I see a problem with another scenario. Its easy, considering how many migrations took place, to find an alternative for a single region, but looking at the wide later E-V13 distribution, this limits the options imho.

Any Western or Southern group would have had a massive, truly massive influence on Basarabi. And while I think Basarabi had a lot of Western influences, I'd say not replacement level.

But I'm open minded.

Edit: By the way, Bosut-Basarabi ceramic together with stronger horses, horse-gear and weaponry in the "Cimmerian style" made it even beyond Austria, up to Bohemia and Switzerland:

Entlang der Donau gelangte rei-
ternomadisches Zaumzeug „kimmerischer" Prägung bis in
die Schweiz (Zürich-Alpenquai) und nach Böhmen
(Krteno)

Also Italy and basically most of the later Hallstatt sphere was affected. Conclusion of the author, absolutely justified:


Das Modell „kimmerischer" und/oder skythischer Landnahme im
Karpatenbecken und entsprechender kriegerischer Vorstöße
weiter westwärts erscheint demnach nicht als „das historisch
Unwahrscheinliche" (H. Parzinger73) oder als „pseudohistorisches
Hilfskonstrukt" (C. Metzner-Nebelsick74), sondern darf
nach wie vor als durchaus wahrscheinliche Variante gelten.
Die gegenteilige Annahme, wonach ausschließlich
Rezeptionsvorgänge und Handelskontakte dafür verantwortlich
waren, dass „kimmerisch" und skythisch geprägte
Sachkultur nach Mitteleuropa gelangt sind,75 dürfte demgegenüber
erheblich zu kurz greifen

https://pdfslide.net/documents/rudolfinum20070015-0036.html

So improved iron weaponry and horsemanship came together to the West. It is quite clear to me that this wave of new innovations hit the Proto-Celts too in different times, again and again. First in Western Hallstatt, then again with La Tene. And in this context of steppe-Carpathian influences and the formation of Hallstatt, I'd assume E-V13 from the Carpathian sphere were moving to the West too, like mentioned, especially as traders, specialists, probably even elite and warriors.

Granary
12-02-2020, 05:28 PM
I'm not sure if I agree with the idea there was steppe pressure on Urnfield so early on, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, whatever it actually was, appeared centuries after.

Riverman
12-02-2020, 05:30 PM
I'm not sure if I agree with the idea there was steppe pressure on Urnfield so early on, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, whatever it actually was, appeared centuries after.

That's correct, I think the primary reason was that the Urnfield group used their advantages, the improved technology and expansive ideology, in their favour. Its not like you need a special additional motivation if getting such a chance in prehistorical times. This was really a time window in which they had the edge over their Southern neighbours. It wasn't always that way.

However, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon was very important. In my opinion Urnfield was a shift from North -> South, bringing Southern Urnfield groups into the Carpathians, Balkans and Pannonia. The Cimmerian push shifted rather from East -> West, brought mixed steppe-Carpathian groups of Thracian-related people to the West, like described before, minimum to Austria, probably as far as Bohemia and Switzerland.
So these are, actually, two different, independent pushes. What caused the first, we don't know, but I guess the opportunity for Northern tribes to grab rich and fertile new territories, getting away from tough neighbours, would be enough motivation anyway.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 06:19 PM
This is the Bronze Age cremation spread burials in Balkans.

https://www.orea.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/_processed_/9/a/csm_CBAB_Karte_14eba8635b.jpg

https://www.orea.oeaw.ac.at/en/research/urnfield-culture-networks/cremation-bronze-age-burials-cbab

Pribislav
12-02-2020, 06:41 PM
I would say Illyrians like Autariates, Ardiaei and Dardanii had quite a lot of E-V13, especially Autariates, the ones who had the strongest Urnfield influence. Autariates were practicing cremation quite late until classical times.

Why don't you back up these fairytales of yours with some actual facts from credible sources? Dardanians were not Illyrians, and won't become Illyrians no matter how many times you write the opposite. They descend from Donja Brnjica culture which was clearly distinct from the Illyrian Glasinac-Mati archaeological complex, and was in turn most closelly related to similar groups further north (Paraćin, Medijana, Belegiš, Dubovac-Žuto Brdo/Girla-Mare groups), which also almost exclusively practised cremation. Minor Illyrian element did exist among Dardanians, seen in some personal names, but that doesn't make them Illyrians. As for the nonsense that Autariatae "had the strongest Urnfield influence" and "were practising cremation untill classical times" (by the way, they were long gone as an entity by "classical times"):

Salmedin Mesihović, Historija Autarijata; Sarajevo 2014, p. 35-36


More significant migration, cultural and ethnic disturbances happened only in the 13th century BC (most likely in its second half) and during the transition to the 12th century BC, related to massive movements of Central European populations from the area of Urnfield culture. The bearers of Urnfield culture in the wider area of the middle Danube region replaced, suppressed or imposed themselves and mixed with populations which burried their dead under grave mounds (tumuli), which could be certainly described as proto-Illyrian. During this period, closely related "Podrinje cultural group", which stretched north of the area of Bronze Age Glasinac culture, suddenly disappeared, certainly as a result of the invasion of Urnfield tribes. The consequences of Urnfield migrations were most severe in the Danube, Sava and Morava river valleys, where migrational waves passed most frequently and where the highest level of general cultural and ethnic changes took place. This is best proven by the fact that in these areas, from the end of the late Bronze Age, cremation and burial of deceased in urns begins to dominate. During their movements, immigrants from Pannonia managed to settle in northern Bosnia, mixing with indigenous cultural groups. However, their further penetration deeper into the interior of Bosnia, especially towards the southeast, where communities of the Late Bronze Age Glasinac culture lived, was stopped. The ethnocultural communities of southeastern Bosnia have proved to be more resilient, and have shown more sense of survival during this great migration movements than many of their proto-Illyrian relatives and more civilized contemporaries, who, directly or indirectly, succumbed to Urnfield expansion. The autochthonous cultural and ethnic identity of the population of southeastern Bosnia was not significantly disturbed, but continued, which is confirmed by the material found, which shows a clear continuity of development during transition from Glasinac III-c (Late Bronze Age) to Glasinac IV-a (Early Iron Age).

Hawk
12-02-2020, 07:39 PM
Why don't you back up these fairytales of yours with some actual facts from credible sources? Dardanians were not Illyrians, and won't become Illyrians no matter how many times you write the opposite. They descend from Donja Brnjica culture which was clearly distinct from the Illyrian Glasinac-Mati archaeological complex, and was in turn most closelly related to similar groups further north (Paraćin, Medijana, Belegiš, Dubovac-Žuto Brdo/Girla-Mare groups), which also almost exclusively practised cremation. Minor Illyrian element did exist among Dardanians, seen in some personal names, but that doesn't make them Illyrians. As for the nonsense that Autariatae "had the strongest Urnfield influence" and "were practising cremation untill classical times" (by the way, they were long gone as an entity by "classical times"):

Salmedin Mesihović, Historija Autarijata; Sarajevo 2014, p. 35-36


And where are your sources?

Don't quote me Salmedin, Govedarica or whatever. There is quite a lot of mention among ancient writers that Dardanii are Illyrian people, how in the world you come to the conclusion they weren't is an enigma to me. Or atleast being so sure in it. You are putting lines for obvious reasons.

Strabo in his Geographica lists Dardani as part of Illyrian people.

It looks like Glasinac was using cremation and inhumation on a tumuli quite late, also their bronze items look quite Urnfield influenced.

From wikipedia


The Autariatae are a classic example of a "highland" people who also show all the characteristics of a "highland" mentality (i.e. preservation of old beliefs). Case in point, the Autariatae have strongly maintained their burial customs of burning the dead in tumuli, which did not change until the end of the Glasinac culture. Archaeological remains indicate that the religious life of the Autariatae was influenced by both their ancestor cult and the cult of their solar god. One can find the numerous evidence of the solar cult throughout the territories once controlled by the Autariatae. The Autariatae economy was based on cattle breeding, metalwork, handicraft and trade. Because of its need for Greek and Italic goods, this Illyrian tribe was one of the biggest trade partners of the western and central Balkans to both Greek and Italic traders between the 7th and 6th centuries BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autariatae


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/NHM_-_Bandin_Fahrzeug_mit_V%C3%B6geln.jpg/440px-NHM_-_Bandin_Fahrzeug_mit_V%C3%B6geln.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/W30g2rF.png

A wheeled chariot with avian motives, the Urnfield trademark, within the context it's called Glasinac chariot.

Johnny ola
12-02-2020, 07:42 PM
Top kek thread :rofl::laugh::bounce:

rafc
12-02-2020, 08:01 PM
Romania/Moldavia/Ukraine is too east IMO. Low chances being the original homeland.

I kind of like the idea of a very eastern homeland. I think it gives a neat explanation for some of the weirder distributions of V13. So for example S7461, which today is much more present in Bulgaria than the western Balkans, has also different branches with presence in Lebanese Druze and Iraqi's. We know Kurds have a percentage of V13 although we don't know which clades they are. Also Y16723 has an Arabian branch (next to Bulgarian/Macedonian basal samples). These groups could have been assimilated in the Cimmerians and dragged along when they crossed the Caucasus where they show up the places we later find these branches. It would likewise nicely explain our basal Ossetian CTS5856 branch. Let's not forget either that the oldest V13 adna found (except for the Spanish one who cannot be a fully formed V13) was found in Moldovia and belonged to a sister or basal branch of S7461.

My biggest issue with this remains what to make of the early expansion of branches of V13 which must have happened in the 3d millenium BC. Given the location of later Gava I could see the ancestors of V13 being part of Cucuteni-Tripolye (where indeed M78 adna was found). But what happened between CT (which ends about 2750BC) and Gava (starting 1200BC?)?

Hawk
12-02-2020, 08:02 PM
Anyway, aDNA has its last word, but i seriously doubt E-V13 was so confined to Eastern Balkans only and spread way latter in other parts.

As i already said, the presence in Cyprus and South Italy/Sicily cannot be explained with this scenario.

Bane
12-02-2020, 08:03 PM
There is quite a lot of mention among ancient writers that Dardanii are Illyrian people, how in the world you come to the conclusion they weren't is an enigma to me.

To me it seems possible Dardani were a ruling elite over people of different origin.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 08:12 PM
I kind of like the idea of a very eastern homeland. I think it gives a neat explanation for some of the weirder distributions of V13. So for example S7461, which today is much more present in Bulgaria than the western Balkans, has also different branches with presence in Lebanese Druze and Iraqi's. We know Kurds have a percentage of V13 although we don't know which clades they are. Also Y16723 has an Arabian branch (next to Bulgarian/Macedonian basal samples). These groups could have been assimilated in the Cimmerians and dragged along when they crossed the Caucasus where they show up the places we later find these branches. It would likewise nicely explain our basal Ossetian CTS5856 branch. Let's not forget either that the oldest V13 adna found (except for the Spanish one who cannot be a fully formed V13) was found in Moldovia and belonged to a sister or basal branch of S7461.

My biggest issue with this remains what to make of the early expansion of branches of V13 which must have happened in the 3d millenium BC. Given the location of later Gava I could see the ancestors of V13 being part of Cucuteni-Tripolye (where indeed M78 adna was found). But what happened between CT (which ends about 2750BC) and Gava (starting 1200BC?)?

I have a lot of questions even if we stick to Urnfield expansion theory solely. Though we don't have samples from Albania/Greece EBA, based on subclade TMRCA we can safely assume E-V13 was not living there. Let's see.

Riverman
12-02-2020, 09:00 PM
I have a lot of questions even if we stick to Urnfield expansion theory solely. Though we don't have samples from Albania/Greece EBA, based on subclade TMRCA we can safely assume E-V13 was not living there. Let's see.

Even more important, even if they lived there, you need to explain how they replaced all the R1 and I from the earliest steppe mixed people against one wave from the North and East after another. I don’t see a pathway for that.

What was between Lengyel-Sopot and TCC and Urnfield/Fluted Ware/Gava is a very interesting question, but there were many steppe mixed groups around the Carparthians about which we know, genetically, absolutely nothing. And every of which could have been dominated by different clans and lineages. This was a highly prized Bronze Age metallurgical centre, extremely volatile and hard fought for.
Different groups could even have contributed to Unetice and Sintashta among others. The Carparthian region was in the Bronze Age extremely important, also strategically.

rafc
12-02-2020, 10:22 PM
Anyway, aDNA has its last word, but i seriously doubt E-V13 was so confined to Eastern Balkans only and spread way latter in other parts.

As i already said, the presence in Cyprus and South Italy/Sicily cannot be explained with this scenario.

I've been thinking about this too. The presence of V13 in Southern Italy/Sicily seems at odds with a late entry into the Balkans. But I wonder if we cannot use the same reasoning and delay the arrival of V13. It seems in 7th century, as Slavs flooded the Balkans, many natives moved to Southern Italy and Sicily. I wonder if this is not the main source of V13 (and some related groups) there. It would explain why all subbranches are present there without much structure.

https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004425613/BP000007.xml

DgidguBidgu
12-02-2020, 11:04 PM
Didn't this happen a little earlier, for example with the Roman legions?

“Thracian soldiers in Roman Britain. Epigraphic evidence for the presence of individual Thracian soldiers, as well as for Thracian military units of the Roman army, is found in several locations in Britain.... The cohors I Thracum eq. (mounted cohort of Thracian cavalry), is recorded on a tombstone in Cologne from the first century; this unit had moved to Britain by 122 and was still there under Severus (r. 193-211). The cohors II Thracum moved from Germany to Britain between the mid-first century and CE 103, perhaps as a result of the Bouddican revolt. Only one seventh cohort is known, the cohors VII Thracum. It was attested in Britain in 122 and 135 and in Brittania Inferior (corresponding to northern England, with its capital at York) in the third century. Among the alae (“wings” of cavalry), the ala I Thracum was attested in Britain in 103 and 124; tombstones from Colchester (about CE 45) and Cirencester (CE 62) attest to the unit’s presence in Britain in the mid-first century and an engraved trulla (washbasin or ladle), possibly Flavian….”


“The area north of Saffron Walden and east of the Roman fort at Great Chesterford included several villas and the largest group of Roman burial tumuli in western Europe, located at Bartlow, just over the Cambridgeshire border from Essex (Bassett, 1982, pp. 2-12). These barrows originally numbered nine, and are the largest group of such burial mounds west of the Alps. Liversidge (1968, pp. 495-499) identified several Roman objects taken from these burial tumuli and noted, among other objects, a coin of Hadrian (r. CE 117-138) lying on top of the remains of one cremation that was placed in a glass jug. An illustration from 1845 by Knight (1845, Fig. 21, No. 18) provided an interior view of the largest of the tumuli, a sketch of the burial gallery of tumulus no. 3, accessed from the exterior originally by a hallway-like passage. In The Thracians, Hoddinott (1981, pp. 119-121, 124-126) described earthen burial tumuli very similar in appearance to the Bartlow tumuli, complete with hallways and burial galleries, throughout ancient Thracia.”

In his work, Steven Bird asks extremely interesting questions, the most important of which is whether the colonization waves of the Thracian population are due only to the dislocation of Thracians serving Rome, or whether it is about colonizations from different eras:
“Some relevant questions that must await better and more complete genetic sampling of E3b1a2 haplotypes in Britain and western Europe include: (a) whether E-M78 (putatively E-V13) haplotypes from the Northern Wales/Cheshire geographic cluster and from the southeastern England cluster are in fact from the same population, originating in the Balkan peninsula, or whether their arrival times and migration routes are substantially different; (b) what role (if any) J2-M12 has had in the Roman occupation and settlement of Britain; and, (c) could any E3b haplotypes located in the Rhine river region also have been the result of settlement and military occupation of Germania Inferior by soldiers of Balkan origin?”


“Semino et al. (2004) viewed E3b1a-M78, of which E3b1a2 is, by far, the most common subclade in Europe, as an indicator of the diffusion of people from the Balkans (along with a “companion” clade, J2b1-M12/M102) and therefore a candidate for a residual genetic signature of the Neolithic demic diffusion model.

Hawk
12-02-2020, 11:29 PM
For Riverman and Bane, interesting read:

https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/dgarasanin-the_bronze.htm

Bane
12-03-2020, 06:53 AM
For Riverman and Bane, interesting read:

https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/dgarasanin-the_bronze.htm


Thanks! Probably the most significant part:


Much more important, however, is the historical interpretation of the Mediana group. The importance of the Mediana group was already noticed in 1962, but true confirmation only took place after the extensive systematic excavations that took place in 1972 under the direction of M. Garasanin. This excavation offered the possibility with certainty, on the basis of the stratigraphy, to separate three distinct phases at Mediana I-III, The material culture of the first of these phases is very definitely related to the material culture found in Macedonia after the destruction of the Late Bronze Age settlement, winch marks the beginning of the Aegean Migration. On the basis of this we can infer that tribes emigrating from the Morava Lands area took place in the Aegean Migration. In any case they were only one of the component factors, that is to say, that they moved south down the Morava-Vardar Valley towards Greece and the Mycenaean world. On the other hand the tribes from Thrace and Dobrudza, played an important role in the destruction of Priam's Troy, which is reflected in the Homeric epics. It as also important to note that in Mediana during the period of the Aegean Migration that there are no traces of any settlement destruction over a large area, which would indicate that there were no incursions from the outside of any large extent. In other words, it is certain that some of the peoples from the Morava Lands area went south. They were most likely attracted by the riches of the Mycenaean world, and under the pressure of the other tribes that were moving south from further north. But it as evident that the cultural stream of events was not greatly disturbed. These are the archaeological facts that help to solve the historical problems that are so important for this period, and illuminate the significance of the Balkans in the Bronze Age.

rafc
12-03-2020, 07:26 AM
Didn't this happen a little earlier, for example with the Roman legions?

It's highly unlikely that V13 in Sicily and Southern Italy comes from Roman legions, these were not border areas. Roman legions can explain much of the V13 in other parts of Europe. And to come back to the original topic of the thread. Romanized population, especially the upper class and urban ones, fleeing the Southern Balkans when Slavs invaded could also explain a large part of V13 in Greece, where again there seems no structure in the distribution of subgroups. In that case it's fairly unlikely V13 had significant presence in ancient Greeks.

Aspar
12-03-2020, 07:49 AM
Slavs could have also brought assimilated E-V13 with them especially if the rumors that the early Slavs in the Balkans were serb-like are true.
Also another large scale migration of non-Greek people is that of the Vlachs and Albanians. Vlachs were present in Greece much earlier, recorded in Greece by the tenth century and even had their own province in Thessaly, called Great Vlachia.
In the 14th century however, there was another wave of migrations this time not only Vlachs but Albanians as well.
Most affected territories of these Vlach-Albanian migrations were Pelloponese, Epirus and Thessaly where we see the largest spike of E-V13 on the territory of modern Greece.

Hawk
12-03-2020, 07:59 AM
Then you have to explain how Arvanites and Vlachs don't exceed ~20% E-V13 themselves. Mathematically unlikely IMO.

The only logical explanation so far is that it was distributed around Balkans evenly with some variations more or less during LBA-EIA.

Aspar
12-03-2020, 08:38 AM
I don't think there is any study for the Greek Vlachs whatsoever... The Bosh study from 2006 is outdated and only tested 175 Aromuns from Albania, North Macedonia and Romania finding around 15% of haplogroup E-V13 among them. The Vlachs however have mixed origin and those from Greece are not necessarily the same as those from Albania. The Aromuns as a population aren't native in Greece. Even those living around Pindus are migrants from the territory of Albania from that second wave that came around the 14th century. I also said
about thosee earlier Vlachs mentioned in the 10-th century on the territory of Greece who by all means should have been hellenised since long time ago and who should not be mistaken with the modern Aromuns.
My point is that all these migrations brought E-V13 in Greece as well as very early migrants from more Northern areas when the Goths and the Huns first and Avars and the Slavs later started to raid and penetrate the northern provinces of the Roman Empire.
These very early migrations could have increased the level of E-V13 in the later Byzantine empire which also held South Italy. There were large migrations from south Balkans to South Italy during the Byzantine Empire and even as late as the Ottoman times and not all of these were Albanians.
Then again, modern frequencies could lead you into false assumptions. Modern frequencies could be the result of a founder effect. This is especially important because the STR variety of E-V13 in the Pelloponese is low...

Johnny ola
12-03-2020, 08:54 AM
EV13 it is getting weaker in areas where Dorians have settled like South Peloponnese,Crete and Islands.It is also there,where the autosomal DNA of Greeks it is somehow changes.South Peloponnesus is not so northern shifted genetically and they are affected much less compared to the rest of mainland.Cretans and Greek islanders as well.Southern Greece inclunding some islands are more likely to be Z2103.If such lineages did not arrived with Mycenaens-Achaeans then they arrived with a LBA/IA migration from the north.I am not sure if EV13 has anything to do with Greeks or later with migrations from the balkans but Z2103 is definitely associated either with Mycenaeans or with people arriving from the north during the LBA/IA.If proto-Greeks arrived from a R1a source,similar to Corded or KMK Babyno culture then these R1b lineages that we seeing in Greece have arrived during the LBA or IA period.The origins of Greeks and Dorians will remain unsolved,until we have more DNA from Mycenaeans and realize from what Steppe culture they come from.

The Saite
12-03-2020, 09:15 AM
For J2b we actually have quite some ancient DNA. For them I think it's very likely that they made their way from the Steppe to the upper Danube and from there went both to Italy and the Balkans around 2200BC, explaining the connections in older lines between Northern Italy/Sardinia on one hand and the Western Balkans on the other.

Not Up-to-Date following the new aDNA studies concerned about J2b2. Would you further explain the Steppe theory?

Bane
12-03-2020, 09:42 AM
I am not sure if EV13 has anything to do with Greeks or later with migrations from the balkans but Z2103 is definitely associated either with Mycenaeans or with people arriving from the north during the LBA/IA.

IMO the bold part should be plausible.
I've been convinced that R-Z2103 reached Balkans before E-V13 for quite a long time.

alan
12-03-2020, 09:50 AM
Cetina culture phase where it penetrates into Greece?

Hawk
12-03-2020, 09:53 AM
Cetina culture phase where it penetrates into Greece?

Which Y-DNA would you associate with Cetina?

Aspar
12-03-2020, 10:00 AM
EV13 it is getting weaker in areas where Dorians have settled like South Peloponnese,Crete and Islands.It is also there,where the autosomal DNA of Greeks it is somehow changes.South Peloponnesus is not so northern shifted genetically and they are affected much less compared to the rest of mainland.Cretans and Greek islanders as well.Southern Greece inclunding some islands are more likely to be Z2103.If such lineages did not arrived with Mycenaens-Achaeans then they arrived with a LBA/IA migration from the north.I am not sure if EV13 has anything to do with Greeks or later with migrations from the balkans but Z2103 is definitely associated either with Mycenaeans or with people arriving from the north during the LBA/IA.If proto-Greeks arrived from a R1a source,similar to Corded or KMK Babyno culture then these R1b lineages that we seeing in Greece have arrived during the LBA or IA period.The origins of Greeks and Dorians will remain unsolved,until we have more DNA from Mycenaeans and realize from what Steppe culture they come from.

I would say that J2a is even more important among the ancient Greeks although R1b was the original steppe marker. Many people at first got fooled by the large amount of E-M35 in Cyprus and assumed that most of it is E-V13. However Voskarides study about Cypriot yDNA revealed the following:

Overall, the E-M35 haplogroup totals to 23.1 % and contains various E-M78 sub-haplogroups including E-V13 (7.3 %) that is common in Greece [10, 18, 35] and E-V22 (3.5 %), that is frequent in Egypt [10] and Sudan [49]. Another E-M35 related haplogroup, E-M34, previously reported in Asia Minor [31], Southern Levant [50, 51], and the Balkans [35] also was observed in Cyprus (10.3 %).
So most of E-M35 in Cypriots is not of the European variant E-V13 but of MENA origin. Compared that also with the low amount of E-V13 in Crete, around 8%. The distribution of haplogroups in Greece is like a geological picture. The oldest ones, G, T, J2a, R1b, E1b(x E-V13) are to be found more in the islands and Cyprus as well as some isolated communities such as those from most Southern Pelloponese. Then you have increase of E-V13 in the other parts of Pelloponese and Epirus. While in North Greece we see the increase of the most recent haplogroups such as R1a and I-Y3120. And I wouldn't even prescribe all of E-V13 in Crete and the islands to the ancient Greeks. Some of it must have been the product of internal migrations from the times of the Roman Empire till the modern times.

rafc
12-03-2020, 11:27 AM
I'm kind of leaning towards a more eastern origin than Gava, which seems to have its roots in the Carpathian basin. I've been looking at Sabatinovka-Noua-Coslogeni, the western offshoot of Timber grave culture. This corresponds more or less to the former TCC area. More important, they practiced inhumation like the Thracians later would do. So I could see them as a semi-nomadic steppe group who would move into the (eastern) Balkans at the LBA/EIA transistion in the big chain of population movements.
If so, I wonder if the core Timber-Grave area is not the original homeland of the Armenians, if they moved south across the Caucasus from there they could have also dragged V13 along to the Anatolian highlands, creating the V13 in Armenians, Kurds, Iraqi's...
Still not sure how to fit the early expansion of V13 in all that though.

Riverman
12-03-2020, 11:50 AM
I'm kind of leaning towards a more eastern origin than Gava, which seems to have its roots in the Carpathian basin. I've been looking at Sabatinovka-Noua-Coslogeni, the western offshoot of Timber grave culture. This corresponds more or less to the former TCC area. More important, they practiced inhumation like the Thracians later would do. So I could see them as a semi-nomadic steppe group who would move into the (eastern) Balkans at the LBA/EIA transistion in the big chain of population movements.
If so, I wonder if the core Timber-Grave area is not the original homeland of the Armenians, if they moved south across the Caucasus from there they could have also dragged V13 along to the Anatolian highlands, creating the V13 in Armenians, Kurds, Iraqi's...
Still not sure how to fit the early expansion of V13 in all that though.

Interesting you say that. I still think that Urnfield is the best option, going by what we have right now. But if being asked about a second option, the steppe component which spread in the early Iron Age is the second best choice. So not just being a push factor, but the primary spreader themselves. I don't see how that pans out in detail, because I think the E-V13 needs a more "protected environment" to survive and grow all the turmoil, for which the Carpathian zone and the specialisation of the inhabitants as miners and metal workers would be ideal.
I'm also not sure the steppe group had the punch to spread it that far and wide, with such a lasting impact, and I think its also more difficult to reconcile with how they should have picked it up in the first place, but yeah, its kind of a possibility, among others.

Johnny ola
12-03-2020, 12:23 PM
I would say that J2a is even more important among the ancient Greeks although R1b was the original steppe marker. Many people at first got fooled by the large amount of E-M35 in Cyprus and assumed that most of it is E-V13. However Voskarides study about Cypriot yDNA revealed the following:

So most of E-M35 in Cypriots is not of the European variant E-V13 but of MENA origin. Compared that also with the low amount of E-V13 in Crete, around 8%. The distribution of haplogroups in Greece is like a geological picture. The oldest ones, G, T, J2a, R1b, E1b(x E-V13) are to be found more in the islands and Cyprus as well as some isolated communities such as those from most Southern Pelloponese. Then you have increase of E-V13 in the other parts of Pelloponese and Epirus. While in North Greece we see the increase of the most recent haplogroups such as R1a and I-Y3120. And I wouldn't even prescribe all of E-V13 in Crete and the islands to the ancient Greeks. Some of it must have been the product of internal migrations from the times of the Roman Empire till the modern times.



Yes this is pretty much the case.I am not sure about EV13 and R1b,i will wait for more ancient DNA but i tend to agree that EV13 and R1a in Crete are migrations from mainland.It is well known that mainland Greeks started to migrating to islands during the Ottoman times.Many important figures from Crete are actually half mainland Greeks in their origins.And many people have surnames that dosn't fit,or do not represent with Cretan roots.Also,if we take serious historical sources,i cannot remember any straightway Slavic migration to Crete or to Islands.It is actually the opposite,that Crete received repopulations and settlements from West Asia and more specific from Anatolia and the Levant.

mikulic33
12-03-2020, 03:35 PM
I'm kind of leaning towards a more eastern origin than Gava, which seems to have its roots in the Carpathian basin. I've been looking at Sabatinovka-Noua-Coslogeni, the western offshoot of Timber grave culture. This corresponds more or less to the former TCC area. More important, they practiced inhumation like the Thracians later would do. So I could see them as a semi-nomadic steppe group who would move into the (eastern) Balkans at the LBA/EIA transistion in the big chain of population movements.
If so, I wonder if the core Timber-Grave area is not the original homeland of the Armenians, if they moved south across the Caucasus from there they could have also dragged V13 along to the Anatolian highlands, creating the V13 in Armenians, Kurds, Iraqi's...
Still not sure how to fit the early expansion of V13 in all that though.

This is a very interesting question. Looking at the geographical distribution under E-V13 from a perspective at the eastern edges of such distribution, things become even more fuzzy. For example: there are 10 E-V13 Big-Ys in the Armenian project and 8 of them have a TMRCA node of under 3000 ybp. Of those 8 samples 5 share a nod with samples from the western edges of such distribution, mostly Portugal/Spain and the British Isles.

41540

There is one additional Armenian sample with 111 markers which very likely is under L17, an exclusively western subclade. Though the diversity under E-V13 is remarkable for such a small sample size, the range of TMRCAs in my opinion clearly hints to a simultaneous source-to-east and source-to-west direction of migration with a western leg which suspiciously often encompasses Iberia and the British Isles at the same time.

Riverman
12-03-2020, 04:07 PM
This is a very interesting question. Looking at the geographical distribution under E-V13 from a perspective at the eastern edges of such distribution, things become even more fuzzy. For example: there are 10 E-V13 Big-Ys in the Armenian project and 8 of them have a TMRCA node of under 3000 ybp. Of those 8 samples 5 share a nod with samples from the western edges of such distribution, mostly Portugal/Spain and the British Isles.

41540

There is one additional Armenian sample with 111 markers which very likely is under L17, an exclusively western subclade. Though the diversity under E-V13 is remarkable for such a small sample size, the range of TMRCAs in my opinion clearly hints to a simultaneous source-to-east and source-to-west direction of migration with a western leg which suspiciously often encompasses Iberia and the British Isles at the same time.

That would, too, fit in nicely with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, because it influenced Celts in the West and had, at the same time, connections to the very East, up to the Caucasus. There were Caucasian-Pontic steppe derived objects found very far to the West. And these were elites moving. So regardless of whether Urnfield was the original carrier, they at least became part of this movements, which could have brought them to both extremes, like Celts in the West, Iranians in the East, because this sphere seems to have been, in the Early Iron Age, interconnected, with kind of "exchange programs" of specialists, elites and whole clans and tribes moving from one end to the other. From the EIA on E-V13 should pop up much more often in this sphere, from Bohemia-Austria-Switzerland-Italy to Russia-Caucasus, from Poland to Greece, whenever larger samples being taken. Secondarily, late Urnfield groups, but especially Hallstatt and La Tene, should have brought the Celtic E-V13 to Gaul and Britain I'd say.
The Chinese samples would fit into this as well, entering Iranian/Scythian groups on their way East.

Should be easy to check by a direct comparison of the Thraco-Cimmerian sphere and finds with earliest E-V13:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Thraco-Cimmerian.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/NlwW7k6eDYwWAXXBNeZFSe1elICg2i9TkFADQJi5LIRYCbAyfi X6GV2wiIj8lwTfNwA_rsixdMvRSJ-f7jo7scGsfYq2jA
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/NlwW7k6eDYwWAXXBNeZFSe1elICg2i9TkFADQJi5LIRYCbAyfi X6GV2wiIj8lwTfNwA_rsixdMvRSJ-f7jo7scGsfYq2jA

Since I would primarily associate it with the Thracian part, which I would derive at least to a large degree from South Eastern Urnfield, this would also explain why to the West and South its stronger, while less frequent in the East where the Iranian-like lineages would have been dominant in this sphere.

mikulic33
12-03-2020, 04:55 PM
Looks like a nicely fitting explanation, I agree. But I still do think that the picture we see is highly skewed. One can easily do the over/under representation math by taking the population sizes of countries of origin and the corresponding numbers of SNP-tested samples from the public FTDNA tree. The average sample size from Balkan countries is 5 per 100,000 inhabitants. Ireland is at 195 (50 times higher), England at 20.8, Armenia at 18.7 and Portugal at 8.3. If we add the assumption that the Balkan diversity under E-V13 underwent a massive contraction 1500 years ago (Justinian plague and subsequent massive immigrations), we could explain the lacking diversity in the modern Balkans and all the suspicious bottlenecks in Balkan E-V13 subclades ending mostly between 1000 and 1500ybp.

rafc
12-03-2020, 05:08 PM
This is a very interesting question. Looking at the geographical distribution under E-V13 from a perspective at the eastern edges of such distribution, things become even more fuzzy. For example: there are 10 E-V13 Big-Ys in the Armenian project and 8 of them have a TMRCA node of under 3000 ybp. Of those 8 samples 5 share a nod with samples from the western edges of such distribution, mostly Portugal/Spain and the British Isles.

41540

There is one additional Armenian sample with 111 markers which very likely is under L17, an exclusively western subclade. Though the diversity under E-V13 is remarkable for such a small sample size, the range of TMRCAs in my opinion clearly hints to a simultaneous source-to-east and source-to-west direction of migration with a western leg which suspiciously often encompasses Iberia and the British Isles at the same time.

Thanks for the info. Can you convince that L17 guy to do a Big Y? :)

mikulic33
12-03-2020, 05:16 PM
It´s kit 173104 on the Armenian project (67 Markers). Nevgen gives him a 96.53% chance to be L17. I am sure Hovann would be delighted to ask if there is a sponsor ;-)

Riverman
12-03-2020, 05:19 PM
Looks like a nicely fitting explanation, I agree. But I still do think that the picture we see is highly skewed. One can easily do the over/under representation math by taking the population sizes of countries of origin and the corresponding numbers of SNP-tested samples from the public FTDNA tree. The average sample size from Balkan countries is 5 per 100,000 inhabitants. Ireland is at 195 (50 times higher), England at 20.8, Armenia at 18.7 and Portugal at 8.3. If we add the assumption that the Balkan diversity under E-V13 underwent a massive contraction 1500 years ago (Justinian plague and subsequent massive immigrations), we could explain the lacking diversity in the modern Balkans and all the suspicious bottlenecks in Balkan E-V13 subclades ending mostly between 1000 and 1500ybp.

That's true, but countries like Austria yielded with just a few quality samples from a single project basal clades for major E-V13 subclades. At the same time, the testing at NGS level is surely not much better in countries like Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova. Additionally, in these countries there was not just a contraction of the population, but a large scale replacement. Like in Austria minimum 50-75 percent of the average Roman times lineages being replaced by Germanic and Slavic newcomers. If you calculate from these numbers, you see a drastic rise of today not as common clades of E1b, G2, J, I2 and non-Germanic R1b. This really changes the region, which was rather at the Western transitional zone to the more R1b dominated sphere. And I don't think that the whole variation can be explained by Roman times movements, even less so for Czechia, where the numbers for the pre-Germanic/pre-Slavic lineages, even if assuming some E-V13 were coming with Germanic and Slavic, is not that fundamentally different. Yet it was outside of the Roman sphere and the same pattern just thins out to the North, there is no real cut off.

So I think it doesn't matter that much that the current results are skewed in this respect, because the disadvantage for the Balkan region was surely much less important than in the remaining, more Northern regions of the former E-V13 distribution, where in some regions a near total replacement took place. Like if some Urnfield groups in Poland had higher rates of E-V13, just as a hypothetical example, so many groups rolled over them, that the question is what's supposed to have survived there anyway? The results are skewed for the British testing population however, that's for sure. Because from Britain we have almost everything, if any group would be that well tested, even Germans are at a much lower rate, things would be much more clear. Unfortunately we are a long way from that.

I think the Balkan situation being best described as a retracting of groups which tried to evade the incoming steppe nomads and Slavs in particular. Some of these groups united with Slavic incomers, that formed new Southern Slavic lineages, but others tried to evade the new Slavic rule by pushing themselves Southward or retreated to harder to access terrain, especially as mountain pastoralists.

mikulic33
12-03-2020, 06:04 PM
The countries you mentioned are within a range of 6 to 9 samples per 100,000 inhabitants (Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary), not that bad. Only Romania and Moldova are genetically really black holes (2.3 and 2.4 respectively). But your reference to the Genomaustria project underlines my point. Let´s take as comparison the Francalacci study with 1200 samples from Sardinia. This study resulted in 10 highly diverse E-V13 samples. My point is: If we would have a study of similar size for North Macedonia (nearly the same population size as Sardinia), the tree under E-V13 would immediately explode ;-) The only question would be whether the samples would cluster in some specific young subclades or would they be all over the place.

DgidguBidgu
12-03-2020, 06:10 PM
I think the Balkan situation being best described as a retracting of groups which tried to evade the incoming steppe nomads and Slavs in particular. Some of these groups united with Slavic incomers, that formed new Southern Slavic lineages, but others tried to evade the new Slavic rule by pushing themselves Southward or retreated to harder to access terrain, especially as mountain pastoralists.
What time period are you talking about here and do you have any data to support it? Are there any indications for
emergence of new people for Europe (genetically) for the specific period in addition to the ridiculous written theories dating back to the 18th century which are in complete contrast with the old historical sources?

digital_noise
12-03-2020, 06:13 PM
I know we are taking about E-V-3, but does anyone have any insight on the downstream cts5856 vs PH1246? I’m ph1246, paternal line from Calabria. I recall, but could be wrong that the majority v13 in south Italy and Sicily are on the 5856 branch. Does ph1246 in Italy just represent a more recent migration to Italy from somewhere else? It might not be worth much and I certainly can not confirm this, but Italian Wikipedia says the town my line is from was formed in mid-1400’s from “Greeks and Albanians” fleeing Constantinople after the ottoman overthrow. This sounds a bit too easy of an explanation and likely typical Wikipedia as I do t think there is a source but that’s all I have at this point.

Alain
12-03-2020, 06:14 PM
That would, too, fit in nicely with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, because it influenced Celts in the West and had, at the same time, connections to the very East, up to the Caucasus. There were Caucasian-Pontic steppe derived objects found very far to the West. And these were elites moving. So regardless of whether Urnfield was the original carrier, they at least became part of this movements, which could have brought them to both extremes, like Celts in the West, Iranians in the East, because this sphere seems to have been, in the Early Iron Age, interconnected, with kind of "exchange programs" of specialists, elites and whole clans and tribes moving from one end to the other. From the EIA on E-V13 should pop up much more often in this sphere, from Bohemia-Austria-Switzerland-Italy to Russia-Caucasus, from Poland to Greece, whenever larger samples being taken. Secondarily, late Urnfield groups, but especially Hallstatt and La Tene, should have brought the Celtic E-V13 to Gaul and Britain I'd say.
The Chinese samples would fit into this as well, entering Iranian/Scythian groups on their way East.

Should be easy to check by a direct comparison of the Thraco-Cimmerian sphere and finds with earliest E-V13:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Thraco-Cimmerian.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/NlwW7k6eDYwWAXXBNeZFSe1elICg2i9TkFADQJi5LIRYCbAyfi X6GV2wiIj8lwTfNwA_rsixdMvRSJ-f7jo7scGsfYq2jA
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/NlwW7k6eDYwWAXXBNeZFSe1elICg2i9TkFADQJi5LIRYCbAyfi X6GV2wiIj8lwTfNwA_rsixdMvRSJ-f7jo7scGsfYq2jA

Since I would primarily associate it with the Thracian part, which I would derive at least to a large degree from South Eastern Urnfield, this would also explain why to the West and South its stronger, while less frequent in the East where the Iranian-like lineages would have been dominant in this sphere.

As a second scenario, the E-V13 was also brought to China by Greek soldiers, Alexander and his troops advanced far to the east (Sogdia) and thus into the sphere of influence of China

rafc
12-03-2020, 06:28 PM
It´s kit 173104 on the Armenian project (67 Markers). Nevgen gives him a 96.53% chance to be L17. I am sure Hovann would be delighted to ask if there is a sponsor ;-)

I know that kit. I actually already discussed it in the past with Hovann. It's not possible to test it any further. I don't see any clear reason why Nevgen is so sure of L17. As far as I see his closest match is an Ashkenazi who is also not tested below V13. Maybe they have a profile in their database that is L17 tested, but I'm a bit skeptical.

Riverman
12-03-2020, 06:34 PM
As a second scenario, the E-V13 was also brought to China by Greek soldiers, Alexander and his troops advanced far to the east (Sogdia) and thus into the sphere of influence of China

The clades under which these Chinese were, if I remember correctly, point rather towards an origin from North of the Balkans and they appear in provinces which have little West Eurasian influence other than from the steppe, primarily R1a. Of course, a Hellenistic Greek or Thracian soldier could have made it to Central Asia and from there into an Iranian group, but I think that is less likely. Even more so since there seems to be some diversity within these Chinese haplotypes with E-V13, and like I said, in provinces or close to such with known steppe influence. So possible, but not more likely I'd say.

mikulic33
12-03-2020, 06:35 PM
I know that kit. I actually already discussed it in the past with Hovann. It's not possible to test it any further. I don't see any clear reason why Nevgen is so sure of L17. As far as I see his closest match is an Ashkenazi who is also not tested below V13. Maybe they have a profile in their database that is L17 tested, but I'm a bit skeptical.

Thx for the info. By the way, this other Armenian sample under BY5407 is clustered in the E-M35 project together with a Slovakian with only 12 STRs (GD=3). Is this Slovakian sample SNP-tested?

Alain
12-03-2020, 07:08 PM
The clades under which these Chinese were, if I remember correctly, point rather towards an origin from North of the Balkans and they appear in provinces which have little West Eurasian influence other than from the steppe, primarily R1a. Of course, a Hellenistic Greek or Thracian soldier could have made it to Central Asia and from there into an Iranian group, but I think that is less likely. Even more so since there seems to be some diversity within these Chinese haplotypes with E-V13, and like I said, in provinces or close to such with known steppe influence. So possible, but not more likely I'd say.

I think both scenarios are correct but that is definitely true. E-V13 would also be found in a Scytho-Sarmatian, as you also had extensive trade contacts (global players of your time) and were constantly mobile between the Pannonian Plain to the Eastern Eurasian steppe and the northern Chinese provinces, the Scythian absorbed E-V13 in the Balkans, and the Hellenistic soldier most likely inherited it through his Thracian ancestors and brought it to eastern Central Asia, and both fit well with the historical context and dynamism of the time

Hawk
12-04-2020, 10:33 AM
I don't know if they were Dorian or not, but i think it's clear-cut there was an invasion during LBA in Southern Balkans.

If we assume E-V13 is the one who spread within Urnfield horizon, then we can safely assume the entrance in the Southern Balkans during LBA. In Greece some of them came via Adriatic sea with ships, just as they landed on Southern Albania.


The evidence for cremation burials in the LH/LM IIIC period is re-evaluated. It can be concluded that the widely held view, according to which the custom of cremation was introduced to the Aegean from Asia Minor, no longer applies. It is necessary to differentiate between cremation as a minority rite in ordinary chamber tomb cemeteries and cremation as a majority rite in tumuli in order to understand the cultural affiliation of the custom. Cremation as a minority rite in chamber tomb cemeteries probably derives from Italian influence. The tumuli with inurned cremations in the Argolid seem to be connected to the Western Balkans. There was no direct or continuous development that led directly from the occasional LH IIIC cremation burials to cremation as the almost exclusively practiced type of burial in Attica and Euboea during the Early Iron Age. Cremations during the LH IIIC period and during the Early Iron Age are two separate phenomena, each having a different cultural and social background. Cremation was a very rare burial practice throughout the entire Aegean Bronze Age. Generally, this also applies to the 12th century BC, the time after the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces that was accompanied by the complete dissolution of the palatial political and economic system. This period is referred to as LH (Late Helladic) IIIC on the Greek mainland and LM (Late Minoan) IIIC on the island of Crete. However, some considerable changes occurred in the 12th century BC with regards to cremation burials. There were far more cemeteries with a few cremation burials in this period than in the preceding palatial era of the Mycenaean culture (LH IIIA–LH IIIB: ca. 1400–1200 BC). It is far from certain that cremation was practiced at all during the palatial period in the area of the MycenaeBrandbestattungen von der mittleren Donau bis zur Ägäis zwischen 1300 und 750 v. Chr. 186 an culture.1 Claims of cremation burials in chamber tomb cemeteries by archaeologists without any anthropological evidence or without cremation urns should be treated with extreme caution. This is because of the widespread, though still not generally noticed, practice of cleaning chamber tombs by purification fires,2 which could have resulted in the partial burning or smoking of bones from inhumation burials. These partly burned bones could easily be mistaken for genuine cremation burials by the non-specialist. There is not a single Mycenaean cremation burial of the palatial 1. One cemetery with a predominance of cremation burials was in use during the LM IIIA2–LM IIIB period on Crete: Olous in the eastern part of the island: Kanta 2001. The cremations were deposited mainly in pithoi. This unusual custom indicates that the cemetery at Olous represents an isolated phenomenon, which cannot be connected to the spread of cremation burials during the LM IIIC period. Other LM IIIA–LM IIIB cremations are unknown. 2. Morricone 1967, 31. – Cavanagh, Mee 1998, 112–113 and n. 83– 84. The custom was much more widespread than Cavanagh and Mee believe. – Gallou 2005, 120–123. – Jung 2007, 216 and n. 8; 229 and n. 89. Jung as well as Cavanagh and Mee surmise that the fires had a ritual background. – Paschalidis, McGeorge 2009, 104. period that is confirmed by anthropological analysis. Only two cases of LH IIIA–LH IIIB cremation urns have been asserted so far. One was found in Brauron in East Attica,3 the other in the Mycenaean type chamber tomb cemetery at Müskebi near Bodrum on the southwestern coast of Asia Minor.4 The possible cremation remains from chamber tomb A in the cemetery at Brauron were deposited in a small alabastron that was found next to a fireplace. According to the excavator‘s convincing interpretation this fireplace is the remains of a purification fire. This gives reason to speculate that the bones in the alabastron were burnt by the purification fire. Moreover, the greenish discoloration of the bones from their contact with bronze objects is more fitting for the inhumed than for cremated bones. Thus, the possible inurned cremation in Müskebi is the only reported case of a LH IIIA–LH IIIB cremation burial that can be accepted with some degree of confidence. However, even in this instance, the limited amount of information does not make it certain. 3. Lazaridis 1968, 99. 4. Boysal 1967, 79. Fig. 1. LH IIIC, LM IIIC and Subminoan cemeteries with cremation burials in the Aegean region. – 1. Elateia – 2. Perati – 3. Mycenae-Chania – 4. Argos – 5. Palaiokastro – 6. Agrapidochori – 7. Spaliareika – 8. Kallithea-Spentzes – 9. Achaea Klauss – 10. Cos, Langada – 11. Rhodes, Ialysos – For Crete see fig. 2 (F. Ruppenstein, prepared by M. Frauenglas). Cremation burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age: continuity or change? 187 Besides the few cremations in cemeteries with inhumation as a majority rite a small number of cemeteries, in which cremation was the prevailing burial practice, made their first appearance in the 12th century BC. A more distinctive change in the Greek burial customs happened at the very beginning of the Early Iron Age in the late 11th century BC. In some regions, notably in Attica and Euboea, cremation became the dominant, nearly exclusively practiced burial custom. These alterations in the burial customs and the reasons behind them have attracted scholarly interest for a long time and are still continuing to do so. In the following I will try to add some new thoughts to this ongoing discussion. Emphasis will be placed on the origins of the new burial rite in the 12th century BC and to the relationship between LH IIIC and Early Iron Age cremations. On the origins of the cremation burial rite in the 12th century Aegean When discussing the origins of cremation as a burial custom in the Aegean region it is not advisable to treat all LH/ LMIIIC cremations as a unity (cf. figs. 1–2). The cremation burials of this period can be divided into two groups according to the structure of the cemeteries to which they belong. The first group consists of the cremation burials in traditional Mycenaean chamber tomb cemeteries in which inhumations clearly dominated. The small number of cremations was placed in the same tombs as the numerous inhumations. Apparently, the people who practiced cremation in this way were fully integrated members of the respective local Mycenaean communities. Cemeteries with a predominance of cremation burials belong to the second group. Only three such cemeteries are known: at Argos5 and Mycenae-Chania6 on the Greek mainland and at Atsipades7 on Crete. The cremation burial cemeteries at Argos and Mycenae-Chania were established in other places to the usual chamber tomb cemeteries of the same settlements. Moreover, they differ from the customary Mycenaean cemeteries because the cremations were deposited in tumuli and not in chamber tombs. Thus, the communities who cremated their deceased members and buried them in tumuli clearly set themselves apart from the majority of the population. Therefore, it can be inferred that these communities were distinct groups, which were not fully integrated into the Mycenaean society. Firstly, the origin of cremation burials in chamber tombs will be investigated. Cremation burial as a minority rite in chamber tomb cemeteries It is still almost generally accepted that the custom of cremation was introduced to the Aegean from Asia Minor. This hypothesis was supported most forcefully by Spyros Iakovidis.8 However, Reinhard Jung and Oliver Dickinson have since argued that at least the cremation burials in Achaea could have been inspired by contacts with Italy9. Nevertheless, neither R. Jung nor O. Dickinson doubts the 5. Piteros 2001. 6. Palaiologou, this volume. 7. Agelarakis, Kanta, Moody 2001. 8. Iakovidis 1970, vol. 2, 56–57. 9. Jung 2007, 229. – Dickinson 2006, 73. Fig. 2. LM IIIC and Subminoan cemeteries with cremation burials on Crete. – 1. Atsipades-Pezoulos – 2. Phaistos-Liliana – 3. Tylissos – 4. Knossos, North Cemetery – 5. Kritsa – 6. Vrokastro – 7. Tourloti – 8. Myrsini – 9. Mesa Mouliana – 10. Krya – 11. Praisos-Photoula – 12. Epano Zakros-Palaimylos (F. Ruppenstein, prepared by M. Frauenglas). Brandbestattungen von der mittleren Donau bis zur Ägäis zwischen 1300 und 750 v. Chr. 188 importance of Anatolia as the place of origin for the custom of cremation in the Mycenaean culture. Yet there are significant reasons why it can be believed that the LH/LM IIIC cremations in the Aegean are not at all connected to Asia Minor: 1. If Asia Minor was indeed the source of inspiration for the introduction of cremation to the Aegean, one would have expected cremations of an early date and in comparatively large numbers in the regions of the Mycenaean cultural sphere next to Anatolia, especially on the Dodecanese. However, this is not the case. Just one possible cremation burial of the palatial period has been reported for Ialysos on Rhodes but it is far more likely that this is just a case of an inhumation that was smoked by a purification fire.10 The one possible inurned cremation in Müskebi can hardly be the reason for the spread of this custom to the Aegean. In LH IIIC cremation burials are well represented in the chamber tomb cemetery at Ialysos. According to Mario Benzi eight secure instances were found.11 A further example is known from the island of Kos.12 However, these numbers are not exceptionally high when compared to sites on the Greek mainland. In the cemetery of Perati in East Attica 18 cremated individuals were found.13 2. Regions with an extraordinarily high concentration of cemeteries with cremations show no particular connection to Asia Minor. This is particularly obvious in the case of the northwestern Peloponnese due to its geographical position. Yet even East Crete, that is much closer to Anatolia than the northwestern Peloponnese, exhibits no characteristics in its material culture, which reveal a close relationship with the indigenous cultures of LESS

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cremation-burials-in-Greece-from-the-Late-Bronze-to-Ruppenstein/eca7cc7bdb8fae04a07c64df7f827cd08ec99926

Johnny ola
12-04-2020, 11:21 AM
I don't know if they were Dorian or not, but i think it's clear-cut there was an invasion during LBA in Southern Balkans.

If we assume E-V13 is the one who spread within Urnfield horizon, then we can safely assume the entrance in the Southern Balkans during LBA. In Greece some of them came via Adriatic sea with ships, just as they landed on Southern Albania.

Another mystery it would be the infamous 'Sea People'.I am starting to believe they settled and assilimated in Greece and Albania while others prolly found a hideaway to western Anatolia.Isn't it a big mystery...to what exactly happened to these people?It is very likely these people to arrived from the north especially modern Albania.

CopperAxe
12-04-2020, 01:07 PM
Sea Peoples weren't really "a people" to begin with. Some have been identified as Sardinians, others as Sicilians, others as Luwians and others as Greeks.

It is basically a phenonemon, and Sea Peoples is even a bit of an unfortunate misnomer as many people basically imagine Bronze Age Vikings in the Mediterranaean when that wasn't what they were.

Likely you had a considerable involvement of mercenaries from the Central and Eastern Urnfield areas as well.

Johnny ola
12-04-2020, 01:41 PM
Sea Peoples weren't really "a people" to begin with. Some have been identified as Sardinians, others as Sicilians, others as Luwians and others as Greeks.

It is basically a phenonemon, and Sea Peoples is even a bit of an unfortunate misnomer as many people basically imagine Bronze Age Vikings in the Mediterranaean when that wasn't what they were.

Likely you had a considerable involvement of mercenaries from the Central and Eastern Urnfield areas as well.

I think they were Illyrians but they have picked up folks from various lands.Piracy was a frenquent phenomenon among Illyrians.

Hawk
12-04-2020, 01:50 PM
I think they were Illyrians but they have picked up folks from various lands.Piracy was a frenquent phenomenon among Illyrians.

IMO they were a mix of Tyrrhenian-like and Thraco-Illyrian. Let's see if i am wrong or right, this is just my opinion.

Dorian9
12-04-2020, 02:00 PM
I'd also add Scythians and Celtics

Johnny ola
12-04-2020, 02:32 PM
IMO they were a mix of Tyrrhenian-like and Thraco-Illyrian. Let's see if i am wrong or right, this is just my opinion.

If we take serious the Askhlelon samples they have come in contact With anatolians as well. Also It is Very likely western anatolia to have been One of their stronghold. From Egyptian texts With The name Lukka lands.

Alain
12-04-2020, 02:46 PM
I see the "Sea Peoples" more as a collection of different population groups of the Aegean Mediterranean area, which of course was also influenced by the Urnfield culture and certainly came from several peoples such as Luwians, Pelasgians, Mycenaeans, Minoans and population groups from the Hittite sphere of influence, Am At the end of the Bronze Age there were major political upheavals (from inside the lower class against the elites, poorly paid wages of the simple foot troops in times of peace / Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty ...),. , strong climatic fluctuations and the whole trading system collapsed, which ultimately led to the migration / partial invasion of the so-called "Sea Peoples" and also some of the Sea People the so-called Philistines (the name Palestine comes from the Philistines) went into the Canaanite population , everyone knows the story from the Bible of David and Goliath and this story reflects somewhat the turbulence at the end of the Bronze Age, the great empire of the Hittites collapses, the Minoan culture disappears and the Mycenaeans go under and Egypt( also in the ranks of the Egyptians certainly some have joined the „Sea peoples") is massive weakened and lots its heyday that it once had (power vacuum). But after the fall, new empires such as the Assyrian (middle Assyrian Empire) and Kingdom of Israel emerged and paved the way for Phoenicians and Greeks

Hawk
12-04-2020, 03:03 PM
I am trying to find the full paper, i think it should have valuable information to either affirm or negate our assumptions. And the paper is quite up to date, it's from 2019.



Entangled Sea(faring): Reconsidering the Connection between the Ships of the Sea Peoples, the Aegean, and 'Urnfield' Europe


The naval battle representation on the walls of Ramesses III’s ‘mansion of a million years’ at Medinet Habu (ca. 1175 BCE) stands as one of the earliest, and certainly most detailed, depictions of ship–to–ship combat. It also depicts the only known vessels of Helladic galley type to be depicted with stem–and–stern avian decoration. As such, they have been called upon as evidence for the inclusion of Central Europeans (‘Urnfielders’) in the Sea Peoples coalition(s), and – more recursively – to bolster the view that the highly schematic designs on the stemposts of Helladic galleys were avian in nature. This paper addresses these conclusions and evaluates the evidence that has been presented for an ‘Urnfield’ connection to the Sea Peoples’ ships, along with some notes on the ostensibly avian nature of Helladic galleys’ finial decorations.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/emanuel/publications/entangled-seafaring-reconsidering-connection-between-ships-sea-peoples-aegean

Hawk
12-04-2020, 03:06 PM
One more:


»THE PROTOURBAN ILLYRIANS IN THE LATE IRON AGE AND THEIR CONTACTS TO THE GREEK WORLD«
Public Lecture: emer.O.Prof. Dr. Andreas Lippert (University of Vienna)
8.11.2018, Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien

In the Southwest of the Balkans the first elements of the later Illyrian Culture turn up rather early. These are burial mounds with central graves, around which further graves of the wider familiy and adherents were placed. The burial custom of tumuli at the Adriatic coast is connected with the advance of steppe-populations from Southern Russia in Late Neolithic. At the same time some amount of nomadic life came into being.

Already in the Early and so more in the Middle amd Late Bronze Aegean ceramics and weapons are imported and imitated. But there is also a strong influrence from the Danubian Urnfield culture. Characteristic for the Late Bronze Age are large hilltop-settlements with wall fortifications. Since that age there is a continuity of the indigene material culture in the Southern Adriatic areas and the new cultural unity has been called Mat-Glasinac-Culture in reference to the North-Albanian river Mat and the tableland of Glasinac in the Herzegovina. In the Early Iron Age (11th - 8th cent. B.C.) the contacts to Greece increase steadily and reach a high level at the end of the Middle Iron Age in the 7th cent. with numerous imports of fine ware, ornaments and offensive as well as defensive arms, just as swords, helmets and greaves.

In the Late Iron Age (6th - 5th cent. B.C.), which is the protourban period of the Illyrians, Greek historians and geographs, just as Hekataios and Herodotos, describe for the first time the Illyrian tribes living in the nowadays countries of Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo and Southern Bosnia. At the same time Greek colonies were founded at the Albanian coast entailing an intensive trade with the Illyrian hinterland. These intensive trade connections are most probably the reason for the emergence of distinct hierarchical structures in the Illyrian society. The ruling caste of the Illyrians evidently have their centers in small, well fortified hilltop-settlements, where also craftsmen and merchants have their forum. Trade amd business relations reach out now also to the North and to the Danube regions.

In the middle of the 4th cent. B.C. the Southern Illyrians having adopted already much of Greek livestyle and urban civilisation founded large towns in the highlands behind the Adriatic coast. The Illyrian rulers are yet buried still in the traditional way in carefully built and furnished graves with rich adornments, arms, fine ceramics and metall ware. Sites of this kind are for example Belsh near Elbasan and Selca e Posthme just west of the Ohrid-Lake. In the 3rd and 2nd cent. B.C. not much is preserved from the old material culture of the Illyrians, only Illyrian prenames on tombstones in Albania or votiv-inscriptions at the sanctuary Grotta della Poesia in Lower Italy, near Otranto, written by Messapian sailors give witness of Illyrians, who now were extensively integrated in Greek and Roman culture.

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/public-relations/events/20181108-symposium-greek-and-roman-albania/20181108-symposium-greek-and-roman-albania/

TonyC
12-06-2020, 05:00 PM
I favor a Hellenistic origin for the lion share of post-Bronze Age Near Eastern ancestry in European Greeks, but I can't rule out earlier or later migrations.

It seems possible that Iron Age Greeks have differed regionally. All we've got right now to go on are Emporiotes. Maybe Greeks in the far north had more steppe ancestry while Greeks in southern areas already had some Near Eastern admixture. We have just learned that there was significant Aegean ancestry in Iron Age Phoenicia, despite no obvious archaeological explanation for why that would be. Gene flow between Mycenaean and Levantine/Anatolian type people might have been bidirectional; the Phoenicians were seafarers, after all. So we might see some Levantine ancestry already in Iron Age Magna Graecia, the Aegean, parts of Anatolia, and maybe even southern Greece itself (Peloponnesus or Attica) well before the time of Alexander.

Of course, all we can do is fantasize until we see the samples.

Another thing to consider among modern mainland Greeks is that there was most likely a good bit of North to South movement in the middle ages and even after the Revolution. The Peloponnese was cataclysmically depopulated during the latter stages of Ottoman rule including the ravagement of the Morea by Ibrahim Pasha. I believe the repopulation came from places like Epirus (In my case paternally) that’s why you find modern Peloponnesians so diverse.

rafc
12-06-2020, 09:46 PM
I've been looking a bit deeper into CTS9320. I think with the current results it's clear that most CTS9320 subclades spent the Iron age in the border region of Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Ukraine. As I see it now, the CTS9320 clades that expanded massively in the Balkans but are absent from Western-Europe (BY4459 and BY4280) are most likely Slavic and only entered the Balkans in the early middle ages from the North-East. This would be quite compatible with Riverman's suggestion of Gava, but not sure if it's valid for other groups than CTS9320.
For Z16988 I'm not sure it fits in that pattern.

Bane
12-06-2020, 10:34 PM
I've been looking a bit deeper into CTS9320. I think with the current results it's clear that most CTS9320 subclades spent the Iron age in the border region of Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Ukraine. As I see it now, the CTS9320 clades that expanded massively in the Balkans but are absent from Western-Europe (BY4459 and BY4280) are most likely Slavic and only entered the Balkans in the early middle ages from the North-East. This would be quite compatible with Riverman's suggestion of Gava, but not sure if it's valid for other groups than CTS9320.
For Z16988 I'm not sure it fits in that pattern.

I think I might see reasons for your assumption. For example age of subclades.
But IMO there is too much CTS9320 among non-Slavic people like Greeks and Albanians for it too be explained by Slavic migrations. There were probably some other (not so massive) migrations during IA and antiquity which could explain arrival of certain CTS9320 subclades. Actually, it is even hard to me to find some CTS9320 subclade for which I would be sure it arrived with Slavs.

rafc
12-06-2020, 11:04 PM
I think I might see reasons for your assumption. For example age of subclades.
But IMO there is too much CTS9320 among non-Slavic people like Greeks and Albanians for it too be explained by Slavic migrations. There were probably some other (not so massive) migrations during IA and antiquity which could explain arrival of certain CTS9320 subclades. Actually, it is even hard to me to find some CTS9320 subclade for which I would be sure it arrived with Slavs.

The main reason is actually that in many CTS9320 subclades samples from Eastern Hungary, Slovakia, Southern Poland and Western Ukraine and Russia keep popping up at the base, which points to an origin in this region. Especially since these are not regions that are 'oversampled' like NW-Europe. In fact there is very little CTS9320 from the 'oversampled' UK or Ireland. In the end there are also plenty of Slavic haplogroups among Greeks and Albanians. I agree some CTS9320 in the Balkans will be the results of earlier, smaller movements. But I suspect the big CTS9320 Balkanic clades will turn out Slavic in the end.

Michał
12-07-2020, 12:25 AM
The main reason is actually that in many CTS9320 subclades samples from Eastern Hungary, Slovakia, Southern Poland and Western Ukraine and Russia keep popping up at the base, which points to an origin in this region. Especially since these are not regions that are 'oversampled' like NW-Europe. In fact there is very little CTS9320 from the 'oversampled' UK or Ireland. In the end there are also plenty of Slavic haplogroups among Greeks and Albanians. I agree some CTS9320 in the Balkans will be the results of earlier, smaller movements. But I suspect the big CTS9320 Balkanic clades will turn out Slavic in the end.
I might be wrong but it seems to me that CTS9320 is more frequent among the Albanians than in any of the Slavic-speaking populations. Also, it seems that there is no commonly accepted Slavic subclade of similar age that would show similar or higher frequency among the Albanians (although the frequency of I-Y3120 in Albania is probably not much lower). Therefore, if I had to guess, I would probably say that CTS9320 was most likely one of the Dacian subclades that was relatively common among such tribes like the Costoboci or Carpi, so it could have been present among both the pre-Medieval Dacian and Early Medieval Slavic migrants from the North-Eastern Carpathian region (which includes the area around the Upper Dniester, among others).

Bane
12-07-2020, 09:14 AM
The main reason is actually that in many CTS9320 subclades samples from Eastern Hungary, Slovakia, Southern Poland and Western Ukraine and Russia keep popping up at the base, which points to an origin in this region. Especially since these are not regions that are 'oversampled' like NW-Europe. In fact there is very little CTS9320 from the 'oversampled' UK or Ireland. In the end there are also plenty of Slavic haplogroups among Greeks and Albanians. I agree some CTS9320 in the Balkans will be the results of earlier, smaller movements. But I suspect the big CTS9320 Balkanic clades will turn out Slavic in the end.


Could you please illustrate with a subclade example?

rafc
12-07-2020, 11:01 AM
Allright, this is from the new version of my paper which I worked on a bit the past days:

There is one Z17107* sample, a Russia who might have his roots in the Carpathian mountains, so close to the Balkans. All other Big Y tested samples belong to A19235 (a small Hungarian branch) and Y30991 (about 2500 years old). Y30991 has two branches: Y167028 (c. 2300 years old) which has a Bosnian branch and a Hungarian branch, and Z38456, a very big branch (c. 2200 years old). Under Z38456 we have one Swedish branch and the exclusively Balkans branch BY4459 (c. 1800 years ago).
All of this taken together is a clear sign that Z17107 originated in the Carpathian mountains, and resided on the left bank of the Danube during the Iron age. Very likely it's subclade Z38456 was part of the Slavic groups moving in to the Balkans in 6th century AD. This explains the big expansion of the BY4459 group in this period. Without that Slavic aspect, the Z17107 group would be very small.
Either at Z17107 or Y30991, but negative for Z38456 we find a Ukranian and a Hungarian, both from near the Carpathian mountains, which further confirms the origins of Z17107 in this region. Another good argument is the complete absence of Z17107 in other parts of Europe (the Swedish can easily be understood as having moved north from the Carpathian heartland, maybe during the period of the Rus-empire when there were close links between Scandinavia and Eastern-Europe). This makes sense if Z17107 was from the left bank of the Danube and so never in a region controlled by Romans, assuming they were responsible for much of the spread of V13 to Western Europe.
Also at Z17107 or Y30991, but negative for Z38456 are two clusters who likely have British origins, but keeping in mind the far greater testing level in people with British origins this doesn't dispell the above theory.

And on BY4526:

A somewhat smaller subclade of CTS9320. There is one BY4526* sample from Sweden, apart from that there is the S10743 clade with mainly Eastern European samples: (Western) Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary and (Southern) Poland, and the BY4552 clade with Polish and Ukrainian samples. The fourth branch is the biggest: BY4529 (c. 2800bp). BY4529* is a Swede, while all other belong to BY4523 (c. 2100BP). There is one Albanian BY4523*, and a branch with a Bulgarian and a Serb. The rest is in BY4543 which is likely not older than 1800 years. This clade contains another Swedish clade, and apart from them two clades with people who probably have German roots but no certain region of origin, and a clade with Canadian people with probable French roots, seemingly from Normandy. Taking all the evidence together it would seem that for BY4526 an origin to the east of the Danube seems likely, maybe even more easternly than Z17107. The BY4543 clade is a bit problematic. It is well known that Sweden is extremely well tested compared to the Balkans, so the large number of Swedish lines could be a coincidence. On the other hand it's not excluded BY4543 is the result of movement from Eastern Europe to Sweden, and the French and German samples represent later movement from Sweden to Western Europe. The supposed Normandic origin of the French Canadian BY4543's might support this possibility.

Riverman
12-07-2020, 11:11 AM
Thank you for your efforts. It really shows how complicated the whole E-V13 story is even downstream to the clades. It won't be solved with any certainty without a lot more ancient DNA samples I'm afraid. There are definitely more simple haplogroup distributions around ;)

Bane
12-07-2020, 11:55 AM
There is one Z17107* sample, a Russia who might have his roots in the Carpathian mountains, so close to the Balkans. All other Big Y tested samples belong to A19235 (a small Hungarian branch) and Y30991 (about 2500 years old). Y30991 has two branches: Y167028 (c. 2300 years old) which has a Bosnian branch and a Hungarian branch, and Z38456, a very big branch (c. 2200 years old). Under Z38456 we have one Swedish branch and the exclusively Balkans branch BY4459 (c. 1800 years ago).

What is your source for the ages of branches. They all differ from what is on YFull: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17107/

Y30991 - 2900 years old
Y167028 - 2800 years old
Z38456 - 2300 years old (this one is similar to yours)
BY4459 - 2200 years old

So if you put those ages 400 years back then they do not fit into Slavic expansion.

Regarding the second example which is BY4526, I can agree it is heavily Slavic but that is not valid for the BY4529 branch which appears in the Balkans. This branch separated from its "Slavic" relatives 2500 years ago. Which further means they were not Slavs at that moment, and even for several hundred years afterwards.

I also appreciate your effort, but what you show here does not support arrival of CTS9320 to the Balkans with Slavs. On the contrary.

Hawk
12-07-2020, 11:59 AM
Probably those subclades are found due to Slavicized Vlachs called Gorals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorals

Granary
12-07-2020, 12:10 PM
I favor a Hellenistic origin for the lion share of post-Bronze Age Near Eastern ancestry in European Greeks, but I can't rule out earlier or later migrations.

It seems possible that Iron Age Greeks have differed regionally. All we've got right now to go on are Emporiotes. Maybe Greeks in the far north had more steppe ancestry while Greeks in southern areas already had some Near Eastern admixture. We have just learned that there was significant Aegean ancestry in Iron Age Phoenicia, despite no obvious archaeological explanation for why that would be. Gene flow between Mycenaean and Levantine/Anatolian type people might have been bidirectional; the Phoenicians were seafarers, after all. So we might see some Levantine ancestry already in Iron Age Magna Graecia, the Aegean, parts of Anatolia, and maybe even southern Greece itself (Peloponnesus or Attica) well before the time of Alexander.

Of course, all we can do is fantasize until we see the samples.
In what way did so much Near Eastern ancestry get to Greece?

rafc
12-07-2020, 12:21 PM
What is your source for the ages of branches. They all differ from what is on YFull: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17107/

Y30991 - 2900 years old
Y167028 - 2800 years old
Z38456 - 2300 years old (this one is similar to yours)
BY4459 - 2200 years old

So if you put those ages 400 years back then they do not fit into Slavic expansion.

Regarding the second example which is BY4526, I can agree it is heavily Slavic but that is not valid for the BY4529 branch which appears in the Balkans. This branch separated from its "Slavic" relatives 2500 years ago. Which further means they were not Slavs at that moment, and even for several hundred years afterwards.

I also appreciate your effort, but what you show here does not support arrival of CTS9320 to the Balkans with Slavs. On the contrary.

I make my own estimations based on the FTDNA tree, since that's also what I base my text on. Some of them might be off, but the main one to see if Slavic expansion is a possibility is BY4459, which I put at 1800ybp. In fact I should have better taken the daughter clade BY4465, which has a date of 1700ybp at Yfull. That date seems very compatible with a Slavic expansion. For the other parts of Z17107 I'm not claiming they were part of the Slavic expansion to the Balkans, I just assume they are still more or less where Z17107 was in the Iron age, which I think is east of the Danube and around the Carpathians. So I think they did not move from the Balkan to Eastern-Europe, which is what you get when you put the origin of CTS9320 in the Balkans. Maybe I should also rephrase, because in the end it's maybe more accurate to say that BY4465 was part of the migrations to the Balkan together with the Slavs, as part of a large population dominated by Avars. In how far they would have thought of themselves as Slavs or have spoken a Slavic language when they moved across the Danube will never be known.

mikulic33
12-07-2020, 01:12 PM
Yes, the range of SNPs of Big-Y700s under BY4465 is between 17 and 26 = average 21,5*83y = 1784y. But, looking at I2a-Y3120 clades as perfect proxies for Slavic migrations into the Balkans one will see that there is no Balkan subclade which lacks an Eastern European sister clade within the time range of 1800y. Additionally, all these "Slavic" subclades show some kind of demographic expansion before entering the Balkans.

rafc
12-07-2020, 01:39 PM
Yes, the range of SNPs of Big-Y700s under BY4465 is between 17 and 26 = average 21,5*83y = 1784y. But, looking at I2a-Y3120 clades as perfect proxies for Slavic migrations into the Balkans one will see that there is no Balkan subclade which lacks an Eastern European sister clade within the time range of 1800y. Additionally, all these "Slavic" subclades show some kind of demographic expansion before entering the Balkans.

Maybe they don't have a clear Eastern European sisterclade because they were not part of the original Slavs and only got swept up in the ones going south together with the Avars. So they wouldn't have been in contact with the Slavs going north or east.

mikulic33
12-07-2020, 02:04 PM
Maybe they don't have a clear Eastern European sisterclade because they were not part of the original Slavs and only got swept up in the ones going south together with the Avars. So they wouldn't have been in contact with the Slavs going north or east.

This explanation implies that (i) there already were at least 3 sisterclades before the 6th century AD hiding in the northern Carpathians (Y161799, Y97307* and Y92017 - because all 3 are seperated by 1700y) and (ii) all 3 subclades came with the Slavic/Avar incursions to the Balkans and left no one behind and (iii) all 3 subclades were illyrianised over time. How does one call the opposite of Ockham´s razor? ;-)

Aspar
12-07-2020, 02:15 PM
Yes, the range of SNPs of Big-Y700s under BY4465 is between 17 and 26 = average 21,5*83y = 1784y. But, looking at I2a-Y3120 clades as perfect proxies for Slavic migrations into the Balkans one will see that there is no Balkan subclade which lacks an Eastern European sister clade within the time range of 1800y. Additionally, all these "Slavic" subclades show some kind of demographic expansion before entering the Balkans.

Exactly.
And there is no such identifiable E-CTS9320 clade although this doesn't deny the Carpathian origin of E-CTS9320 which according to the diversity in the Carpathian region of Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Hungary looks more and more probable, something I suspected long ago. And not only that but E-CTS9320 is probably the best subclade of E-V13 which can be associated with the LBA-EIA migrations into the Balkans and further to Anatolia. It probably can be the best associated with Gava-Holihrady culture. Some clades of E-CTS9320 such as E-Z17264 penetrated deepest into the Balkans and Anatolia and can be easily associated with the Thracians or the Phrygians who were known to have migrated to Anatolia. Although E-CTS9320 was the most prominent, there were obviously other subclades with similar history although less prominent such as E-A7135 that can be found both among the Armenians and among the Balkan people which would show that most of these subclades were part of the same people around the LBA before splitting away and the epicenter was most probably the Carpathian area.

Now, the subsequent Scythian, Germanic, Turkic and Slavic invasions of the area probably assimilated and helped spread these subclades further away in Europe and Asia. The Germanics especially were known to keep relations to their distant home although traveling far and wide so probably some of these subclades that appear in Scandinavia are results of such ventures.

The Slavs later would also help spread clades such as E-CTS9320 although after the serious devastations of the Carpathian area and the repeated invasions of Germanic, Iranic and Turkic people the land was probably largely depopulated. Another migration from the Carpathian lands to the Balkans that is often neglected is the evacuation of Dacia by the Romans. Some sort of pottery characteristic for the native Carpathian people appears as late as the Chernyakhov culture however it's largely missing in later dates when the Slavs appeared on the horizon. Nevertheless, I expect some E-V13 clade to show up in the feature that might have taken part in the Slavs making and ethnogenesis. Such clades exist in other haplogroups such as this one: R-Y14300 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y14300/), which shows parallel with other Uber Slavic clades such as TMRCA = 2000 ybp and which might confirm that some Carpathian tribes such as Carpi or others might have been involved in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. And this TMRCA = 2200-2000 should be noted because many Uber Slavic clades show such TMRCA.

Riverman
12-07-2020, 02:25 PM
The Slavs later would also help spread clades such as E-CTS9320 although after the serious devastations of the Carpathian area and the repeated invasions of Germanic, Iranic and Turkic people the land was probably largely depopulated. Another migration from the Carpathian lands to the Balkans that is often neglected is the evacuation of Dacia by the Romans. Some sort of pottery characteristic for the native Carpathian people appears as late as the Chernyakhov culture however it's largely missing in later dates when the Slavs appeared on the horizon. Nevertheless, I expect some E-V13 clade to show up in the feature that might have taken part in the Slavs making and ethnogenesis. Such clades exist in other haplogroups such as this one: R-Y14300 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y14300/), which shows parallel with other Uber Slavic clades such as TMRCA = 2000 ybp and which might confirm that some Carpathian tribes such as Carpi or others might have been involved in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. And this TMRCA = 2200-2000 should be noted because many Uber Slavic clades show such TMRCA.

The situation of Slavs and pre-Slavs especially in the Carpathian-Pannonian sphere seems to have been very complex. So I think that we might have had, even early on, mixed clans which turned Slavic and others becoming Hungarian, Vlach/Romanian, Albanian or Greek. Obviously some of these groups, both Vlachs and Slavs, moved on or expanded into new territoreis in Medieval times. Actually there is no other way than that to explain the rather wild distribution of various Slavic and pre-Slavic clades.

What about https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/ ?

Looks quite Germanic-Slavic, but are there any samples recorded between CTS1273 and L540 to make its position clear for the more distant past? Could be a candidate for something like a Lusatian survivor or Hallstatt culture bearer moving North?

This makes the lack of autosomal data, G25 and PCA for kra005 even worse.

mikulic33
12-07-2020, 03:14 PM
The situation of Slavs and pre-Slavs especially in the Carpathian-Pannonian sphere seems to have been very complex. So I think that we might have had, even early on, mixed clans which turned Slavic and others becoming Hungarian, Vlach/Romanian, Albanian or Greek. Obviously some of these groups, both Vlachs and Slavs, moved on or expanded into new territoreis in Medieval times. Actually there is no other way than that to explain the rather wild distribution of various Slavic and pre-Slavic clades.

What about https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/ ?

Looks quite Germanic-Slavic, but are there any samples recorded between CTS1273 and L540 to make its position clear for the more distant past? Could be a candidate for something like a Lusatian survivor or Hallstatt culture bearer moving North?

This makes the lack of autosomal data, G25 and PCA for kra005 even worse.

Yes, L540 pretty much resembles the timing (expansion around 2000ybp) and geographical distribution of a typical West-Slavic clade (including northern (Swedes) and western (Germans) offshots) like this one : https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP254/

Aspar
12-07-2020, 03:28 PM
The situation of Slavs and pre-Slavs especially in the Carpathian-Pannonian sphere seems to have been very complex. So I think that we might have had, even early on, mixed clans which turned Slavic and others becoming Hungarian, Vlach/Romanian, Albanian or Greek. Obviously some of these groups, both Vlachs and Slavs, moved on or expanded into new territoreis in Medieval times. Actually there is no other way than that to explain the rather wild distribution of various Slavic and pre-Slavic clades.

What about https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/ ?

Looks quite Germanic-Slavic, but are there any samples recorded between CTS1273 and L540 to make its position clear for the more distant past? Could be a candidate for something like a Lusatian survivor or Hallstatt culture bearer moving North?

This makes the lack of autosomal data, G25 and PCA for kra005 even worse.

Thinking of E-CTS9320 I totally forgot about E-L540, how stupid of me. Yes, E-L540 is a prime example of a Slavic haplogroup, TMRCA fits perfectly. I don't think that it's a Germanic in origin because the Germanics don't show such bottlenecks characteristic of the Slavs. And E-L540 is seriously bottlenecked. Although it's missing largely in the Balkans(found in a Serb however), I still think it's a good representation of a founding E-V13 subclade among Slavs. The Slavic part in south Slavs obviously stem from a small population that was quite rich in I-Y3120 unlike the rest where we see dominance of R1a and as such could have had overrepresentation of some original Slavic haplogroups over others.

I'm not sure that there are any samples in-between CTS5856 and L540, I believe not.

Riverman
12-07-2020, 03:41 PM
The Slavic part in south Slavs obviously stem from a small population that was quite rich in I-Y3120 unlike the rest where we see dominance of R1a and as such could have had overrepresentation of some original Slavic haplogroups over others.

I know that might sound somewhat blasphemic to some, but unless we have actual Proto-Slavic samples, more of, we don't know whether the Proto-Slavs were more diverse or not. I would be always careful in this respect, because sometimes fairly small groups can expand rapidly and gain diversity in a second run, whereas the original core group does not. Probably the Pannonian Slavs, which being now largely lost in history, took with them a lot of the original variation too. Who knows for sure. Its less likely than a totally R1a dominated Proto-Slav group probably, but who knows. Like I said, some branches can be more successful than others and this can totally skew the later distribution. Like the steppe people before the back migration of CW-related groups were quite different too, but the CWC derived lineages just became totally dominant.

They just need to get data from Komarów and Chernoles imho, then we might know what early (Balto-) Slavs looked like genetically and whether they were even more homogeneous than later (likely) or showed some diversity, of which parts got even lost in meantime.

Alf
12-07-2020, 03:49 PM
Thinking of E-CTS9320 I totally forgot about E-L540, how stupid of me. Yes, E-L540 is a prime example of a Slavic haplogroup, TMRCA fits perfectly. I don't think that it's a Germanic in origin because the Germanics don't show such bottlenecks characteristic of the Slavs. And E-L540 is seriously bottlenecked. Although it's missing largely in the Balkans(found in a Serb however), I still think it's a good representation of a founding E-V13 subclade among Slavs. The Slavic part in south Slavs obviously stem from a small population that was quite rich in I-Y3120 unlike the rest where we see dominance of R1a and as such could have had overrepresentation of some original Slavic haplogroups over others.

I'm not sure that there are any samples in-between CTS5856 and L540, I believe not.

See for example the recent discussion on L540 on the Haplozone: http://community.haplozone.net/index.php?topic=4665.0#msg42963

The S3003 node is just above L540.

Riverman
12-07-2020, 03:54 PM
See for example the recent discussion on L540 on the Haplozone: http://community.haplozone.net/index.php?topic=4665.0#msg42963

The S3003 node is just above L540.

What's the background of pgp89?

Edit: Found out, the lineage seems to have been Hungarian with a German background.

Compare:
http://www.openhumangenome.com/author/admin/

So rather one more point for a Germanic origin ;)

rafc
12-07-2020, 03:59 PM
What's the background of pgp89?

He's Hungarian. Just like those basal CTS9320's. :-)

Aspar
12-07-2020, 04:01 PM
See for example the recent discussion on L540 on the Haplozone: http://community.haplozone.net/index.php?topic=4665.0#msg42963

The S3003 node is just above L540.

Thanks for the information. Who is this subject (PGP89) negative for L540 but positive for S3003? And was he ancestral for L540 or were there no any reads?

Edit: I just saw rafc's answer. What do you think with this sample in question will be TMRCA of S3003?

Riverman
12-07-2020, 04:06 PM
He's Hungarian. Just like those basal CTS9320's. :-)

Yes, but highly likely of German origin (surname and distribution). Most likely from South Western Germany, so Celtic/Germanic.

https://forebears.io/de/surnames/sauter

Germans more often switched to Hungarian names or spellings, rather than in the opposite direction. The distribution in Hungary too looks "Schwäbisch" and the surname was very common among them.

http://www.donauschwaben.at/das%20totenbuch%20der%20donauschwaben.html

Interestingly there are some hits in Southern Germany for L540, like Baden-Württemberg and Bayern, to this day. So probably its still more likely Hallstatt-related with secondary expansions with Germanic and/or Slavic? Would depend on the timing.

Aspar
12-07-2020, 04:36 PM
Interestingly there are some hits in Southern Germany for L540, like Baden-Württemberg and Bayern, to this day. So probably its still more likely Hallstatt-related with secondary expansions with Germanic and/or Slavic? Would depend on the timing.

Something similar with I-Y3120 where we find parallel clades and older ones in the exact region around Baden-Württemberg. Could E-L540 and I-Y3120 have similar history? I suspect large Hallstatt influence on Baltic like people somewhere in Eastern Europe that might sparked the making of the Slavs.

Riverman
12-07-2020, 04:44 PM
Something similar with I-Y3120 where we find parallel clades and older ones in the exact region around Baden-Württemberg. Could E-L540 and I-Y3120 have similar history? I suspect large Hallstatt influence on Baltic like people somewhere in Eastern Europe that might sparked the making of the Slavs.

Actually even La Tene Celts reached the East and influenced Eastern Germanics later, quite importantly actually, especially the Goths. This initiated, in part, the "2nd Latinisation" among Germanics. I wrote about it here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22235-Langobard-study-has-S1194-U106-P312-migrating-from-Sth-Baltic-to-Italy-in-600AD&p=725683&viewfull=1#post725683

These Celtic-Germanic influences seem to have migrated with the Goths and other Germanic tribes. Compare with the widest influence of Celtic/La Tene people:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tgRn55Cl1uA/VjuAXYOOJcI/AAAAAAAALCI/7gjApRtsrmM/s1600/Tartes.JPG

Its actually even possible that, like so often, it was kind of a forth and back migration, like Westwards with Urnfield and Hallstatt, Eastwards with Celts and Germanics, West- and Southwards once more with Slavs.

Good map showing the historically known Celtic tribes: https://i.redd.it/gmjn8zxcogv31.jpg

As you can see, Celtic tribes reached far into Eastern, South Eastern Europe and even Anatolia.

Hawk
12-07-2020, 05:15 PM
https://i.imgur.com/W30g2rF.png


MYTHICAL WATER BIRDS

In the Bronze Age the peoples north of the Alps were still illiterate. As a result, their myths and legends have not been preserved. However, symbolic items like the bird chariot of Glasinac show that people had a wealth of mythical ideas over 2,500 years ago.
The chariot was discovered in 1880 in a burial hill on the Glasinac plain, east of Sarajevo, and was sent as a gift to Vienna, as the NHM inventory shows: “… Sent by I. Lexa, Lieutenant in the First Genie Regiment from Goraida, for the imperial and royal Court Museum to Privy Councillor Ferdinand von Hochstetter in March 1880.” It is cast in bronze, with only the axles made of iron. The rectangular chassis is decorated with two small bird figures and carries a bird-shaped kettle, with another bird forming the lid.
Judging by their beaks, the birds are ducks. Water birds were a popular decorative motif in central Europe in the Bronze Age, and can be seen as an indication of dominant religious ideas which are no longer accessible to us. Was it the observation that the birds could move on water, on land and in the air which fascinated the people of the time? Were they seen as particularly holy or lucky as a result?
In contrast to the diverse bird presentations, bird chariots are rare cult objects whose exact function is unknown. Possibly they served to set mythical tales in motion, making them more accessible through an impressive staging.


The Autariates, an Illyrian people who moved from Pannonia to more hinterland in Balkans were bearers of Glasinac Culture. They look like a mix of Urnfield and the previous Bronze Age culture to me.

Riverman
12-07-2020, 05:19 PM
The Autariates, an Illyrian people who moved from Pannonia to more hinterland in Balkans were bearers of Glasinac Culture. They look like a mix of Urnfield and the previous Bronze Age culture to me.

For E-L540 in particular its about a historical times expansion and looking at the overall distribution, I think its about assimilated Celts marching with Germanics, including Goths and some of these ending up in early Slavs and going with those once more. I also think that the Celtic migrations were not without consequences for the Balkan by the way. In many regions this was a real folk migration, not just some cultural exchange project.

Hawk
12-07-2020, 06:00 PM
For E-L540 in particular its about a historical times expansion and looking at the overall distribution, I think its about assimilated Celts marching with Germanics, including Goths and some of these ending up in early Slavs and going with those once more. I also think that the Celtic migrations were not without consequences for the Balkan by the way. In many regions this was a real folk migration, not just some cultural exchange project.

I agree about some of the subclades. But it's meaningless to talk when i think the majority in the Balkans, 80-90% of E-V13 subclades entered during MBA-LBA.

Alf
12-07-2020, 06:02 PM
Thanks for the information. Who is this subject (PGP89) negative for L540 but positive for S3003? And was he ancestral for L540 or were there no any reads?

Edit: I just saw rafc's answer. What do you think with this sample in question will be TMRCA of S3003?

I don't use YFULL dating(I find it typically underestimates the dates by a few hundred years) so you will have to calibrate these numbers yourself. Here are some typical TMRCA dates which might be helpful for this thread: CTS5856 node 4850 ybp, CTS9320 node 3770 ybp, S3003 node 4030 ybp, L540 node 2310 ybp. These estimates are average numbers so within plus or minus a few hundred years. For comparison YFULL estimates CTS9320 (which I have dated using both SNPs and STRs and found compatible) to be 3000 ybp (3300-2600). I refer you to the Haplozone for various discussions on SNP dating over the years.

broder
12-07-2020, 07:07 PM
Allright, this is from the new version of my paper which I worked on a bit the past days:


And on BY4526:

FYI, the Montenegrin A24066* fella above those Bosnians that has selected Pecheneg as his ethnicity, per his family tradition they identified with an Albanian clan, that's to some extent predominantly Serbian speaking now. So, they most probably hail from the Albanian tribal regions. As for A19235 Hungarians, there is an Albanian from central Albania above them on Yfull as well.

Regarding BY4526, the Y20805* Serb is with origin from Shkoder region, North Albania. Same thing with the Y20805* Albanian fella. There is another fella with origin from that region (Kuçi area) that identifies as Bosnian today (from Sanxhak) that will most definitely end up being Y20805* as well. So, you have three fellas from the same region sharing a tmrca of 2400ybp.

Definitely some variance in that zone with both subclades that in no way shape or form fits with the Slavic movements.

Riverman
12-07-2020, 09:40 PM
CTS9320 node 3770 ybp, S3003 node 4030 ybp, L540 node 2310 ybp. These estimates are average numbers so within plus or minus a few hundred years.

This case in particular shows how important the time frame is, because if an older date is more likely, it fits in perfectly with the La Tene expansion itself, so it makes it less of a problem to correlate it with that, which would be easier to manage than to go for the Germanic or the Slavic spread instead. If it was like CTS9320 = Urnfield -> S3003 = EIA/Hallstatt -> L540 = La Tene/Celts it would would be just perfect. Because this would only involve secondary spreads by Germanics and Slavs, which makes the fairly wide distribution easier to explain. But that becomes significantly more likely if its spread started some hundred years BC, and less likely if the spread happened 300-400 years later. It really matters for bringing it into an archaeological and historical context. Even a slightly earlier spread would make the La Tene scenario for L540 my favourite one, because it could easily explain, even in the limited time frame, how it came to various Germanic groups and even to some Slavs either early or later, when they in turn assimilated Germanics in the East.

Hawk
12-08-2020, 09:40 AM
For illustration.


Cremation burials in tumuli are also characteristic for the cemeteries of the Barice-Gređani group in the northern part of Bosnia-Herzogovina. Cemeteries of this type were in use from Br C until Ha A1. However, the cremated remains of the deceased were deposited directly in pits and not in urns in this cultural group.40 There is no other region in Southeast Europe where the combination between tumuli and cremation burials was so widespread and lasted for such a long period of time as the Western Balkans. Therefore, the tumuli at Argos and Mycenae-Chania are best related to this area. The contact between the Western Balkans and Greece, that led to the construction of the Argive tumuli, was probably conducted via the Adriatic because there are no tumuli with cremations of a 12th century date in Northern Greece. The finds of Naue II swords of the early standard type in Donja Brnjica and Tekija near Paraćin clearly show that the Donja Brnjica and Paraćin cultures were not isolated but in contact with the innovative centers of the period.41

http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf4.pdf

Bane
12-09-2020, 06:15 PM
Just a nice map:


https://i.imgur.com/SZrxP16.jpg

Hawk
12-09-2020, 08:25 PM
Maybe not fully related to the topic but:



Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. The Mushabian culture is suggested to have originated along the Nile Valley prior to migrating to the Levant, due to similar industries demonstrated among archaeological sites in both regions but with the Nile valley sites predating those found in the Sinai regions of the Levant. Accordingly Bar-Yosef posits, "The population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system."


https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/mushabian-culture-6135518380

I think E-L618 was the main Mushabian lineage.

Scythoslav
12-10-2020, 04:50 AM
Maybe not fully related to the topic but:



I think E-L618 was the main Mushabian lineage.

If that’s the case why wasn’t E-L618 found among the natufians?

Hawk
12-10-2020, 07:37 AM
If that’s the case why wasn’t E-L618 found among the natufians?

It will be found for sure albeit they will be in rather small numbers, those E-M35 Natufians were much probably descended from Ramonians not Mushabians. Even E-M35 split is too early for those E-M35 Natufians to be Mushabian newcomers, statistically it's impossible.

We have 2 Syrian/Lebanese who are E-L618, 2 Albanians, a Northern Greek, all related to PPNB => Cardium Pottery Culture.

Riverman
12-10-2020, 08:05 AM
It will be found for sure albeit they will be in rather small numbers, those E-M35 Natufians were much probably descended from Ramonians not Mushabians. Even E-M35 split is too early for those E-M35 Natufians to be Mushabian newcomers, statistically it's impossible.

We have 2-3 Syrians who are E-L618, 2 Albanians, a Northern Greek, all related to PPNB => Cardium Pottery Culture.

Let's wait for Paleolithic Levantine, Arabian and Egyptian-Sudan DNA, just hope it will come up soon. Right now its all guesswork. Since more detailed image from the video of the Hungarian science group were published, we can see two things: E1b1b1a appeared in Slovakia in the BA probably and again in the Iron Age, exactly when I would assume the spread of early Iron Age technology from the Gava-related centre. In both cases it appeared in people high in steppe ancestry, so most likely overwhelmingly with Corded Ware ancestry. Interestingly the Bronze Age individual has still a somewhat lower steppe ancestry, so probably points to an older local tradition from Lengyel-Sopot in particular or a Western migrated Tripolye-Cucuteni individual. I think that's it.
I can't see which exact group it was in the Bronze Age, but if its the Nitra culture, like Rafc suggested on Eurogenes, it would fit just perfectly. They seem to have been somewhat more farmer influenced and excelled in metallurgy. From there to related groups or a surviving tradition to Urnfield and especially Gáva-Holigrady, its just a small step. Archi in the same comment thread suggests that the "Scythian" from Moldova was an earlier Bronze Age find, which would, if true, point to a range from Slovakia to Moldova quite early on, which would fit in perfect, everything around a possible primary centre in Slovakia-Southern Poland-Northern Romania.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4123559132014627431&postID=5414092918548456289&isPopup=true&bpli=1

Seems it narrows down to an area between Austria and Moldova, definitely up further North than the Balkans and with a spread in the LBA-EIA, just like suggested. Other options become less likely. Let's hope they publish the Hungarian study's results in detail and its high coverage, so that the clades can be determined.

Hawk
12-10-2020, 09:13 AM
Let's wait for Paleolithic Levantine, Arabian and Egyptian-Sudan DNA, just hope it will come up soon. Right now its all guesswork. Since more detailed image from the video of the Hungarian science group were published, we can see two things: E1b1b1a appeared in Slovakia in the BA probably and again in the Iron Age, exactly when I would assume the spread of early Iron Age technology from the Gava-related centre. In both cases it appeared in people high in steppe ancestry, so most likely overwhelmingly with Corded Ware ancestry. Interestingly the Bronze Age individual has still a somewhat lower steppe ancestry, so probably points to an older local tradition from Lengyel-Sopot in particular or a Western migrated Tripolye-Cucuteni individual. I think that's it.
I can't see which exact group it was in the Bronze Age, but if its the Nitra culture, like Rafc suggested on Eurogenes, it would fit just perfectly. They seem to have been somewhat more farmer influenced and excelled in metallurgy. From there to related groups or a surviving tradition to Urnfield and especially Gáva-Holigrady, its just a small step. Archi in the same comment thread suggests that the "Scythian" from Moldova was an earlier Bronze Age find, which would, if true, point to a range from Slovakia to Moldova quite early on, which would fit in perfect, everything around a possible primary centre in Slovakia-Southern Poland-Northern Romania.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4123559132014627431&postID=5414092918548456289&isPopup=true&bpli=1

Seems it narrows down to an area between Austria and Moldova, definitely up further North than the Balkans and with a spread in the LBA-EIA, just like suggested. Other options become less likely. Let's hope they publish the Hungarian study's results in detail and its high coverage, so that the clades can be determined.

The peak was probably in between the Middle Danube group and Gava Culture with a peak on the Gava side. Or more like a triangle between Middle Danube group Lusatian Culture and Gava Culture.

They certainly didn't come from Tripyllian rather Dalmatian Cardial => Butmir Culture from Bosnia => Vucedol Culture => Bronze Age Nugarev culture in Hungary and related cultures around

https://i.stack.imgur.com/MlMLE.jpg

I think that the group who burned Mycenae were more related to later classical Illyrians, since burials in Argolis and Mycenae contain cremation on tumuli which has a parallel in Western Balkans. Probably E-V13 picked up R1b-Z2103 and J2b2 on Western Balkans and sailed down in Southern Albania and Peloponesse. While the other group who destroyed Hittite Empire was more related to Proto-Thracians, many E-V13 tribes settled on Thrace, while some others crossed the Bosphorus and invaded the Hittite Empire. Nicholas Hammond thinks the Bryges/Phrygians were members of the Lusatian Culture.

Their world was rather a cruel, world, working mainly as miners and metal-workers, their metal working skills and technology was unmatched by any living group, but their civilization was rather not rich culturally, the Iron Age they brought was rather detested and the past Bronze Age was praised for its colorfulness. But, they paved the way for a new era. The palatial civilizations were gone for good.

Johane Derite
12-10-2020, 09:31 AM
Just a nice map:


https://i.imgur.com/SZrxP16.jpg

Don't know who made it, and according to which period, and which sources, but it is full of inaccuracies.

Just focusing on Dardania for example, here are the borders according to different scholars, who all place it at least from Skopje to Nish:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbCP6NxXkAAXySf?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

And another with trade routes, roads, and different chronologies (Dardanian Kingdom vs Roman Dardania):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbCKAFJXsAA_1lg?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

rafc
12-10-2020, 10:30 AM
Let's wait for Paleolithic Levantine, Arabian and Egyptian-Sudan DNA, just hope it will come up soon. Right now its all guesswork. Since more detailed image from the video of the Hungarian science group were published, we can see two things: E1b1b1a appeared in Slovakia in the BA probably and again in the Iron Age, exactly when I would assume the spread of early Iron Age technology from the Gava-related centre. In both cases it appeared in people high in steppe ancestry, so most likely overwhelmingly with Corded Ware ancestry. Interestingly the Bronze Age individual has still a somewhat lower steppe ancestry, so probably points to an older local tradition from Lengyel-Sopot in particular or a Western migrated Tripolye-Cucuteni individual. I think that's it.
I can't see which exact group it was in the Bronze Age, but if its the Nitra culture, like Rafc suggested on Eurogenes, it would fit just perfectly. They seem to have been somewhat more farmer influenced and excelled in metallurgy. From there to related groups or a surviving tradition to Urnfield and especially Gáva-Holigrady, its just a small step. Archi in the same comment thread suggests that the "Scythian" from Moldova was an earlier Bronze Age find, which would, if true, point to a range from Slovakia to Moldova quite early on, which would fit in perfect, everything around a possible primary centre in Slovakia-Southern Poland-Northern Romania.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4123559132014627431&postID=5414092918548456289&isPopup=true&bpli=1

Seems it narrows down to an area between Austria and Moldova, definitely up further North than the Balkans and with a spread in the LBA-EIA, just like suggested. Other options become less likely. Let's hope they publish the Hungarian study's results in detail and its high coverage, so that the clades can be determined.

One one slide you can see the author says R1a dominates Nitra, in a second slide a group of samples from around 2000BC is circled, most of them R1a. So I assume the circle is meant to group Nitra samples. In that circle there is an E1b which would then be found in a Nitra context. There is no guarantee this E1b is V13, other branches of E1b are also possible. If it is V13 it would be nice to know if he was a local or came along with the R1a's who obviously came from further east. Indeed he has much lower Steppe than the average R1a.

Riverman
12-10-2020, 10:50 AM
One one slide you can see the author says R1a dominates Nitra, in a second slide a group of samples from around 2000BC is circled, most of them R1a. So I assume the circle is meant to group Nitra samples. In that circle there is an E1b which would then be found in a Nitra context. There is no guarantee this E1b is V13, other branches of E1b are also possible. If it is V13 it would be nice to know if he was a local or came along with the R1a's who obviously came from further east. Indeed he has much lower Steppe than the average R1a.

At least we can exclude a high frequency n Pannonia so far, unless they did a very selective sampling, which it doesn't look like. So this leaves rather the East or North as a source. And while his steppe ancestry was lower, it was still much too high for any very Southern or Neolithic shifted group. And the second LBA-EIA points in the same direction. I know it could be a non-V13 E1b too, but even if, this could point at least to a group in which V13 survived as well. Because even other E1b samples being rare for post-steppe Europe so far.

rafc
12-10-2020, 11:20 AM
At least we can exclude a high frequency n Pannonia so far, unless they did a very selective sampling, which it doesn't look like. So this leaves rather the East or North as a source. And while his steppe ancestry was lower, it was still much too high for any very Southern or Neolithic shifted group. And the second LBA-EIA points in the same direction. I know it could be a non-V13 E1b too, but even if, this could point at least to a group in which V13 survived as well. Because even other E1b samples being rare for post-steppe Europe so far.

Yes, if that map on the first slide is accurate they have samples from all over the Carpathian bassin. So logically V13 must have been on the other side of the Carpathians to be mosty missed. I think Southern Poland is less likely since it's quite well sampled, so east seems a bit more likely. But then we get to Western Ukraine, Moldova and eastern Romania which is more associated with Steppe peoples who always turn up R1b, R1a or I2. So there seems no room :-)
My best guess would then still be a CCT surviving population. There was a M78 sample there (although negative for CTS5856). From there a V13 could have been dragged along by the Nitra-warrior population going west (if indeed that sample is V13 and was found in Nitra context).

Riverman
12-10-2020, 11:26 AM
Yes, if that map on the first slide is accurate they have samples from all over the Carpathian bassin. So logically V13 must have been on the other side of the Carpathians to be mosty missed. I think Southern Poland is less likely since it's quite well sampled, so east seems a bit more likely. But then we get to Western Ukraine, Moldova and eastern Romania which is more associated with Steppe peoples who always turn up R1b, R1a or I2. So there seems no room :-)
My best guess would then still be a CCT surviving population. There was a M78 sample there (although negative for CTS5856). From there a V13 could have been dragged along by the Nitra-warrior population going west (if indeed that sample is V13 and was found in Nitra context).

I also think that Lengyel-Sopot and TCC are most likely. Some early steppe groups mixed most likely more with TCC than others.

Looking at the distribution of other E1b1b haplotypes in regions like Austria, you know the thread I linked for example, but also some on YFull, how's your opinion of related E-M35 clades living and marching with E-V13, just being at some point less successful and left behind in frequency? Would you say there are non-E-V13 haplotypes which are very closely correlated to E-V13, so close that they must have come from the same BA source? I'm unsure about that and found little debate about it.

Hawk
12-10-2020, 11:47 AM
E-L618 consisted quite a small percentage among Neolithic Europeans, so many scenarios are possible.

Johnny ola
12-10-2020, 12:04 PM
Did You guys see this?i am wondering If They can take sample...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9030787/Greek-helmet-buried-elite-warrior-laid-rest-2-000-years-ago.html

rafc
12-10-2020, 01:01 PM
I think non-L618 were generally absent from Neolithic/Copper Age Europe, and if they were present they probably dissapeared mostly like T, C, ... etc. groups. For L618 it's quite remarkable how non-V13 groups show the same distribution as V13, even though they splitted 3000 years before expanding. But non-V13 L618 is very rare.
I will see for the other clades. CTS1450 comes to mind with some very Western European clades, but also Balkans.

Riverman
12-10-2020, 01:19 PM
I think non-L618 were generally absent from Neolithic/Copper Age Europe, and if they were present they probably dissapeared mostly like T, C, ... etc. groups. For L618 it's quite remarkable how non-V13 groups show the same distribution as V13, even though they splitted 3000 years before expanding. But non-V13 L618 is very rare.
I will see for the other clades. CTS1450 comes to mind with some very Western European clades, but also Balkans.

Thanks, would be great if you can check. Because if they were sitting close together, shortly before V13 exploded, what seems to have been the case, it means we're not dealing with a single guy or family getting up again, but a surviving group, living most likely in one region, and when the E-V13 clan made it, those related were taken with to some places too I'd say. So I expect an E1b1b population "to hide" somewhere during the CA/EBA, probably exactly in or close to the Carpathians.

Hawk
12-10-2020, 03:58 PM
Did You guys see this?i am wondering If They can take sample...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9030787/Greek-helmet-buried-elite-warrior-laid-rest-2-000-years-ago.html


The Illyrian helmet was first used by ancient Greek Etruscans and Scythians and was later adopted by Illyrians - earning its well-known name.



It was never used either by Etruscans or Scythians lol.

Johnny ola
12-10-2020, 04:23 PM
It was never used either by Etruscans or Scythians lol.

Its prolly an Illyrian or a Greek.It would be nice to have a sample but I think that depends the type of skeleton. They can also test his lineage if he is EV13.

Riverman
12-10-2020, 04:29 PM
Its prolly an Illyrian or a Greek.It would be nice to have a sample but I think that depends the type of skeleton. They can also test his lineage if he is EV13.

Many Illyrians and Thracians fought for Greek states and campaigns, even in classical times. Its similar to Celtic mercenaries for Carthaginians and Germanic ones for Rome. Many came back as rich and important men and sometimes even whole groups of Illyrian and Thracian aristocrats went into Greek service as far as I know. Obviously, if coming back home again, they would have shown with pride what they brought back I guess. That's one option, the other is that a local elite warrior just bought himself the equipment.

Concerning Scythians, are you sure? Pretty similar helmets appeared in Scythian graves and many reconstructions show Scythians with at least very similar helmets.

Hawk
12-10-2020, 04:34 PM
Many Illyrians and Thracians fought for Greek states and campaigns, even in classical times. Its similar to Celtic mercenaries for Carthaginians and Germanic ones for Rome. Many came back as rich and important men and sometimes even whole groups of Illyrian and Thracian aristocrats went into Greek service as far as I know. Obviously, if coming back home again, they would have shown with pride what they brought back I guess. That's one option, the other is that a local elite warrior just bought himself the equipment.

Concerning Scythians, are you sure? Pretty similar helmets appeared in Scythian graves and many reconstructions show Scythians with at least very similar helmets.

There were Urnfield mercenaries in 14 century B.C fighting for Mycenaeans as well.



The Uluburun Shipwreck

Finds from the Uluburun shipwreck, dated to ca. 1320 B.C.E.,110 may indicate a
northern mercenary presence in the employ of high-ranking Mycenaeans. C. Pulak has
attributed a Thapsos-type sword, a fluted spearhead, and a stone scepter-axe (fig. 27),
with its closest parallels in Romania and Bulgaria, to this presence.111 Such axes were
non-utilitarian; rather, they may have represented the power of a tribal chief or a
priest.112 This fact has led Pulak to cast some doubt upon the mercenary theory;
however, it has been demonstrated that the Mycenaeans on board were also of unusually
110 Cemal Pulak, personal communication, October 1, 2003.
111Pulak 1997: 253-6; personal communication, October 1, 2003. 112 Buchholz 1999.
50
high status,113 and the cargo of extraordinary value.
Interestingly, the spearhead and possibly the IIa sword from the LH IIIB:2 find
from Cos has been traced by Sandars back to the Drajna de Jos bronze hoard from
Muntenia north of Bucharest (fig. 28).114 A bronze scepter-axe from this same hoard is
the “best parallel” to the Uluburun axe (fig. 29).115

https://nautarch.tamu.edu/Theses/pdf-files/Romey-MA2004.pdf


More about Uluburun shipwreck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluburun_shipwreck)

XXD
12-10-2020, 05:02 PM
Probably he is going to be a Greek (based on the associated artefacts), possibly mixed with Illyrians. So far, the few known Illyrian samples are R1b Z103 and J2b if I am not mistaken (e.g. HRV IA sample).

Hawk
12-12-2020, 12:49 PM
I somehow like Axel Kristinsson's theory.



The Etruscans lived in and around Tuscany (which is named after them) in Italy prior to Roman expansion. Unlike most well known European peoples they did not speak an Indo-European language which is probably the main reason why scholars have speculated so much about their origins.

There are two main theories, both of them with ancient proponents and modern defenders. Some say they came from Asia Minor, others consider them indigenous to their homeland in Etruria.

There is a third possibility that is seldom mentioned. In late prehistory, much of northern Italy was characterized by the Villanovan culture and since there is no discernable break in the archaeological record and the territorial correlation is almost perfect, it seems most reasonable to assume that people speaking early Etruscan were prominent within this culture; an argument often made by the proponents of the indigenous theory.

However, the origins of the Villanovan culture are linked with the Urnfield migrations (ca. 1300-1100 BC, see Axel Kristinsson, 2010, chapter 2) when strong influences from the eastern Alpine region appeared in northern Italy. Most scholars seem to think that the carriers of the Villanovan culture were Italic speaking newcomers from Central Europe and that the Etruscans either came later (from Asia Minor) or were the indigenous population who’s language eventually prevailed. Neither solution explains the remarkable correlation between the territories of the Villanovan culture and the Etruscan language and it is far simpler to assume that the Etruscans themselves brought the Villanovan culture to Italy.

Just because the Etruscans didn’t speak an Indo-European language doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have migrated from Central Europe. In fact, the poorly documented Raetian language of the eastern Alps, still surviving in Roman times, may have been closely related to Etruscan and would represent a residual population close to, or in the region where the Etruscans came from.

Tyrhenian languages
Tyrrhenian languages

Many scholars accept a Tyrrhenian (or Tyrsenian) language family including Etruscan, Raetian and Lemnian. The latter was spoken on the Greek island of Lemnos in the Aegean and was clearly related to Etruscan. Thucydides (IV, 109) mentions other small pockets of Tyrrhenians in the Aegean (in Attica and Acte) and the Greeks also applied this name to the Etruscans although some authorities believe that the term was used indiscriminately for non-Greek speakers.

These Tyrrhenians in the Aegean may be a residue from the great Urnfield migrations (above). This was a time of catastrophic collapse in Greece and Anatolia and of widespread troubles in the Near East. The root cause was probably an expansion cycle coming out of the Carpathian basin (Axel Kristinsson, 2010). This expansion may have involved several peoples speaking diverse languages and manifested itself in the spread of the Urnfield culture in Central Europe. It probably also brought speakers of Phrygian to Anatolia and Dorians to Greece.

This was also the time of the Sea Peoples who ravaged the eastern Mediterranean. Their origins are mysterious but they included several named ethnicities such as the Teresh who some have suggested were of Tyrrhenian (Tyrsenian) stock.

We can perhaps reconstruct the chain of events something like the following. Prior to the Urnfield expansion, which started around 1300 BC, a Tyrrhenian speaking population lived in the eastern Alpine region and some western parts of the Carpathian Basin. The expansion cycle caused large numbers of them to migrate. Most of the migrants would have gone to Italy where they created the Villanovan culture and introduced the Etruscan language but those that stayed close to home were later known as the Raetians. Some would have taken to the sea in the Adriatic and become part of the Sea Peoples and as such wrecked havoc in Greece and the Levant. The Aegean Tyrrhenians may be a residue from such maritime migrations although it also seems possible that they came overland, through the Balkans, and only took to the see as they entered the Aegean.

If the Tyrrhenians originally came from the Carpathian Basin and the Alpine region they might very well be the descendents of the first farming culture in Central Europe the Linear Pottery culture (and its successors Lengyel, Baden etc.).

Languages in Iron Age Italy
Languages in Iron Age Italy

Once in Italy, the Tyrrhenians interacted with Italic speakers. A linguistic map of Italy prior to Roman expansions shows the distribution of the two main groups of Italic languages: the Latino-Faliscan and the Osco-Umbrian. It is poorly understood how the Italic languages were brought to Italy from Central Europe but the distribution and the two different branches might suggest that they came in two waves. The first wave may have come to Italy several centuries before the Urnfield expansion and brought with it the dialects that were to form the Latino-Faliscan branch. During the Urnfield expansion, the Etruscans came and settled large parts of northern Italy. Finally, the second wave of Italic speaking migrants descended upon Italy, probably also during the Urnfield migrations. These spoke dialects of the Osco-Umbrian branch and pushed the Etruscans to the west and absorbed most of the earlier Italic speakers. Only those Latino-Faliscan speakers living on the southern border of the Etruscans survived, presumably because here, they were sheltered from the full force of the invasion.

Later on the Venetic speakers entered the extreme northeast of Italy and the Etruscans, in their own expansion cycle (Axel Kristinsson, 2010, pp. 112-114), spread out in the Po valley and elsewhere.

https://axelkrist.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/where-did-the-etruscans-come-from/

Riverman
12-12-2020, 01:20 PM
I somehow like Axel Kristinsson's theory.

Yes, could make sense, but I'm not sure how much this will prove to be related to E-V13, because the related regions and people don't seem to be as much. I guess if, only as a minority element.

Hawk
12-12-2020, 09:42 PM
Yes, could make sense, but I'm not sure how much this will prove to be related to E-V13, because the related regions and people don't seem to be as much. I guess if, only as a minority element.

If Etruscans show atleast 20-30% E-V13 then what Axel wrote fits as a glove.

rafc
12-12-2020, 09:51 PM
If Etruscans show atleast 20-30% E-V13 then what Axel wrote fits as a glove.

V13 is very low in Tuscany compared to North and South-Italy.

Johane Derite
12-12-2020, 09:59 PM
EV13 is highest in south east Italy in Apulia if I recall correctly, where there is densest Messapic toponyms.

Riverman
12-12-2020, 09:59 PM
V13 is very low in Tuscany compared to North and South-Italy.

I think Etruscans will just come up J2, R1b, I2 and G2 for the most part. Basically combining a Bell Beaker component with Pannonian-Dalmatian pre-BB, Baden-related probably, element, minor Yamnaya wouldn't be a surprise.


EV13 is highest in south east Italy in Apulia if I recall correctly, where there is densest Messapic toponyms.

The most interesting question, if its higher in Messapian territory than in Dorian Greek one?

TuaMan
12-12-2020, 10:35 PM
Does anyone know off the top of their head how derived the E-M78 Iberomaurusian samples were? As in, how many SNPs did they share in common with the current line that led to the tMRCA of E-M78?

Alf
12-12-2020, 11:57 PM
Does anyone know off the top of their head how derived the E-M78 Iberomaurusian samples were? As in, how many SNPs did they share in common with the current line that led to the tMRCA of E-M78? I assume you are talking about the samples from Grotte des Pigeons, Taforalt, Morocco, dated to 15,000 cal. yBP and attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. These actually extend into the PF2179 segment (M78>PF2179>Z1920) but how far cannot be known as there are no results for many of those equivalents. They are positive for one that I am aware of CTS2026. I am not sure YFULL has samples that show the M78 split so you will have to correlate their dates to mine: M78 segment around 21500 to 16700 ybp and the PF2179 segment from 16700 to around 14450 ybp give or take a few hundred years.

TuaMan
12-13-2020, 12:32 AM
I assume you are talking about the samples from Grotte des Pigeons, Taforalt, Morocco, dated to 15,000 cal. yBP and attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. These actually extend into the PF2179 segment (M78>PF2179>Z1920) but how far cannot be known as there are no results for many of those equivalents. They are positive for one that I am aware of CTS2026. I am not sure YFULL has samples that show the M78 split so you will have to correlate their dates to mine: M78 segment around 21500 to 16700 ybp and the PF2179 segment from 16700 to around 14450 ybp give or take a few hundred years.

Hmm, I'm a little confused now. YFull gives a formed date of E-M78 of 18,800 ybp (95% CI between 20,700-16,900 ybp) with 96+ SNPs leading to tMRCA of 13,000 ybp (95% CI 14,400-12,000 ybp).

According to YFull PF2179 is one of the defining SNPs of E-M78 that accumulated post-formation, but Z1920 appears to be a defining SNP of one of the primary branches Z1919.CTS2026 also looks like a defining SNP at the M78 level. Am I missing something here?

Also, does anyone know what's up with this Hungarian E-Y188009? Who would've thought a primary branch of E-M78 would turn up in Hungary of all places?

Johane Derite
12-13-2020, 09:59 AM
The most interesting question, if its higher in Messapian territory than in Dorian Greek one?

I am also very interested in this one, especially since Greeks and Messapics seem to have had conflicts. Among the Messapians, Diomedes supposedly vanquishes a people called the "Dardi" which
is most probably related to the Balkan Dardanians.

Many scholars like Papazoglu think the Balkan Dardanian tribe of Galabri and the Messapic Kalabrii, and the Balkan Dardanian tribe of the Thouna-tae with the Messapic Dauni are related to each other across the Adriatic.

"In another account he met with King Daunus of the Daunians and Diomedes was asked to aid in Daunus's war against the Messapians in payment of land and the marriage of his daughter, to which Diomedes acted accordingly and not only rerouted the Messapians but also vanquished the two nations known as Mondai and Dardi in the cities of Apina and Trica."

Hawk
12-13-2020, 12:46 PM
Should we really associate E-V13 solely with cremation?

I mean Kapitan Andreevo remains from Early Iron Age were clearly full of E-V13 and that culture didn't practice cremation. I think i have read from somewhere that archeologists consider burial customs divisions to be over-generalizations.

Riverman
12-13-2020, 01:19 PM
Should we really associate E-V13 solely with cremation?

I mean Kapitan Andreevo remains from Early Iron Age were clearly full of E-V13 and that culture didn't practice cremation. I think i have read from somewhere that archeologists consider burial customs divisions to be over-generalizations.

Well, to answer that we need to know where they originally came from. But even Gava derivatives did not always cremate, but a big impact had the "Cimmerian" steppe influence. Remind you, the later Daco-Thracians being the result of at least two or more strains of influence, Urnfield-related and new arrivals from the steppe. The latter seem to have been highly influential and introduced inhumation again. So its possible that some Urnfield related groups came down, but adopted inhumation again after being in contact or even subdued by the "Cimmerians" or "Scytho-Cimmerian" groups in the region.

Alf
12-13-2020, 04:20 PM
Hmm, I'm a little confused now. YFull gives a formed date of E-M78 of 18,800 ybp (95% CI between 20,700-16,900 ybp) with 96+ SNPs leading to tMRCA of 13,000 ybp (95% CI 14,400-12,000 ybp).

According to YFull PF2179 is one of the defining SNPs of E-M78 that accumulated post-formation, but Z1920 appears to be a defining SNP of one of the primary branches Z1919.CTS2026 also looks like a defining SNP at the M78 level. Am I missing something here?

Also, does anyone know what's up with this Hungarian E-Y188009? Who would've thought a primary branch of E-M78 would turn up in Hungary of all places? YFULL can only work with the results people send it. See FTDNA's Haplotree. It appears that what YFULL calls the E-Y188009 sub branch is what Haplotree calls E-V1133. Haplotree indicates that M78>PF2179>V1133. It also appears that there is a sub branch of this that Trombetta (2015) refers to as E-V1477 ie. M78>PF2179>V1133>V1477 but this needs to be confirmed by someone who has the raw data. The V1477 sub branch per Trombetta's paper was found among Tunisian Jews.

vettor
12-13-2020, 04:37 PM
I am also very interested in this one, especially since Greeks and Messapics seem to have had conflicts. Among the Messapians, Diomedes supposedly vanquishes a people called the "Dardi" which
is most probably related to the Balkan Dardanians.

Many scholars like Papazoglu think the Balkan Dardanian tribe of Galabri and the Messapic Kalabrii, and the Balkan Dardanian tribe of the Thouna-tae with the Messapic Dauni are related to each other across the Adriatic.

"In another account he met with King Daunus of the Daunians and Diomedes was asked to aid in Daunus's war against the Messapians in payment of land and the marriage of his daughter, to which Diomedes acted accordingly and not only rerouted the Messapians but also vanquished the two nations known as Mondai and Dardi in the cities of Apina and Trica."

The Daunians are the most numerous of the Iapyges

The Iapyges originate from modern north croatia, inland from where the Liburnians resided ................the Liburnians took these Iapyges to modern apulia in italy circa 1000BC ..........as the liburnian fleet dominated all of the adriatic sea up to Corfu ( they actually owned corfu until 700BC )

The Iapyges are made of 3 tribes in apulia ...The Daunians (Greek: Δαύνιοι, romanized: Daúnioi; Latin: Daunii) were an Iapygian tribe that inhabited northern Apulia in classical antiquity. Two other Iapygian tribes, the Peucetians and the Messapians, inhabited central and southern Apulia respectively. All three tribes spoke the Messapic language,

The Daunians are 50% of this Iapyges people that moved to Italy


The Messapics which where the most southern in Italy of the 3 where the only ones that had contact with the Greeks as Greek started settling in southern itlay

vettor
12-13-2020, 04:45 PM
in regards to Dorians

Do people know where they originate ...................some say Thessally on the Aegean sea ....others state modern south Albania on the coast ( basically where Epirotes come from ) ...............but, for the Dorians to take all the islands from myceneanes of crete, rhodes and other islands etc ....they needed a fleet , which means they should be on a coast

TuaMan
12-13-2020, 05:30 PM
YFULL can only work with the results people send it. See FTDNA's Haplotree. It appears that what YFULL calls the E-Y188009 sub branch is what Haplotree calls E-V1133. Haplotree indicates that M78>PF2179>V1133. It also appears that there is a sub branch of this that Trombetta (2015) refers to as E-V1477 ie. M78>PF2179>V1133>V1477 but this needs to be confirmed by someone who has the raw data. The V1477 sub branch per Trombetta's paper was found among Tunisian Jews.

Does Haplotree provide age estimates anywhere? I can't see any estimates, how did you come up with the "M78 segment around 21500 to 16700 ybp and the PF2179 segment from 16700 to around 14450 ybp give or take a few hundred years" range from?

Ultimately what I'm curious about is figuring out from where E-M78 diversified and expanded. Initially I figured it would have been from Epipaleolithic Egypt, and that the E-M78 in Taforalt represented a very early basal split in the lineage dating back to the original foundation of the IBM culture 23,000 ybp, with the IBMs not that closely related to living E-M78 lineages. However the formation date of E-M78 seems a bit too young and more imporantly if the IBM crew was truly PF2179 postive like you suggest and that mutation occurred 15,000ish years ago that seems to strongly suggest a center of origin and emanation from the Maghrebi area right?

Alf
12-13-2020, 06:31 PM
Does Haplotree provide age estimates anywhere? I can't see any estimates, how did you come up with the "M78 segment around 21500 to 16700 ybp and the PF2179 segment from 16700 to around 14450 ybp give or take a few hundred years" range from?

Ultimately what I'm curious about is figuring out from where E-M78 diversified and expanded. Initially I figured it would have been from Epipaleolithic Egypt, and that the E-M78 in Taforalt represented a very early basal split in the lineage dating back to the original foundation of the IBM culture 23,000 ybp, with the IBMs not that closely related to living E-M78 lineages. However the formation date of E-M78 seems a bit too young and more imporantly if the IBM crew was truly PF2179 postive like you suggest and that mutation occurred 15,000ish years ago that seems to strongly suggest a center of origin and emanation from the Maghrebi area right? At present Haplotree does not provide SNP dating estimates but it does provide the SNPs for the split of the M78 node. You will have to look at the SNP specifics to see what the differences there are between YFULL's tree and any other tree to understand the starting point of any discussion because what follows is based upon what is included in a particular node. SNP dating follows from that. I (and others) have been doing SNP dating prior to YFULL taking that up (see various discussions on the Haplozone on this subject). I find that YFULL underestimates the ages by a few hundred years from the method I prefer but they generally are not that far apart … remember these are estimates. I won't repeat the discussions on the Haplzone about the Taforalt samples etc. but at present I have no reason to believe that M78 didn't originated in East Africa but clearly spread along the northern coast of Africa as well as into the Middle East very early. The relationship of V1477 to the E-V1133 node is interesting and worth looking into if one has the raw data but if it is a sub branch of V1113 then from what I see that would not change the East Africa origin of M78. Since this is an E-V13 thread I suggest you open up a thread on this topic. Perhaps those with the data will add to the discussion.

Michalis Moriopoulos
12-13-2020, 06:41 PM
In what way did so much Near Eastern ancestry get to Greece?

We'll have to wait and see. Too many possibilities right now.

rafc
12-13-2020, 07:39 PM
Also, does anyone know what's up with this Hungarian E-Y188009? Who would've thought a primary branch of E-M78 would turn up in Hungary of all places?

It seems a little more complicated than that. Apart from Hungary, this family also lists Armenia and Iran as paternal ancestry, and indicates it's Jewish. This would seem a better fit for a basal M78 branch.

The Saite
12-14-2020, 04:58 PM
Also, does anyone know what's up with this Hungarian E-Y188009? Who would've thought a primary branch of E-M78 would turn up in Hungary of all places?

Well, actually apart from the Jewish Carriers of this basal clade, there are another early divergent E-M78 results (non Z1919 and Z1902) found among 2 Greek individuals from Athens. And Reported as E-M521 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M521/). Worth to remember The ancient PPNB Levantine aDNA findings which did have a kind of these Basal's as well, and whose E-L618 is being hypothesized to have reached the Balkans through.

Hawk
12-14-2020, 08:23 PM
Well, actually apart from the Jewish Carriers of this basal clade, there are another divergent E-M78 (non Z1919 and Z1902) found among 2 Greek individuals from Athens and reported as E-M521 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M521/). The ancient PPNB Levantine aDNA findings had a kind of these Basal's as well, where E-L618 is hypothesized to have reached the Balkans through.

They were Mushabians, and they moved in Levant with microburin technology along with the idea of proto-farming/organized grain collection.

Huban
01-03-2021, 07:22 PM
FYI, the Montenegrin A24066* fella above those Bosnians that has selected Pecheneg as his ethnicity, per his family tradition they identified with an Albanian clan, that's to some extent predominantly Serbian speaking now. So, they most probably hail from the Albanian tribal regions. As for A19235 Hungarians, there is an Albanian from central Albania above them on Yfull as well.

Regarding BY4526, the Y20805* Serb is with origin from Shkoder region, North Albania. Same thing with the Y20805* Albanian fella. There is another fella with origin from that region (Kuçi area) that identifies as Bosnian today (from Sanxhak) that will most definitely end up being Y20805* as well. So, you have three fellas from the same region sharing a tmrca of 2400ybp.

Definitely some variance in that zone with both subclades that in no way shape or form fits with the Slavic movements.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the E-A24066/A24070 subclade is in any way connected to the Kuchi tribal area in modern SE Montenegro and with the Albanian ethnicity. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that it isn't. Members of all Kuchi branches, be it Old Kuchi Mrnjavčići or New Kuchi Drekalovići turned out to belong to E-BY165837 who are 4400 years away from me. And it is not that few of them are tested either, 23 tested samples from the Kuchi area belong to this cluster whose age is estimated at 500 ybp.

There is an Albanian from Tirana upstream of them, and even before him there were Albanians both among commercially tested and in scietific studies who were E-BY165837. In 1485 half of their personal names were Albanian. As E-A24066 has very distinct STR profile it can be said that none exist in Albanians tested (over 1000) nor Albanians tested in scientific papers (over 1200 tested).

The tradition of Kuchi descend which was very vague was made up in recent times. 10 different haplogroups claim to descend from there as in the 18th/19th century it was popular to claim Kuchi descent. My surname is at least 400 years old and attested there, in a wealthy family (unusual for Christians in the Ottoman empire, based on this alone very unlikely to have migrated as pointed by others before me long time ago). Lutovac, the ethnographic authority on the region surely knew of this Kuchi fairy tale but for the same reason he did not group my family in that bracket but rather as "autochtonus/indigenous locals". Some decades ago it was discovered through some local inscriptions that my family is far older in the area, one branch of my family claimed to descent from the Kuchi branch that is 100 years younger than my family.. My family had no idea who this important person from inscriptions was, had no idea they have close genetic relatives nearby, and yet they have an idea that they descend of a family from another region whose ancestor lived century after our documented ancestor in our local area?? Sure... The oldest carrier of surname had a possibly Romanian name but most likely not as this name was very common there (and not common elsewhere) in late 16th/early 17th century, it does signify Peshter link. No genetic relatives in Aromanians/Greeks either. Rather closest genetic upstream cousins of mine are found in the Bulgarian language derived villages on the Peshter (Pešter itself is Bulgarian also) highlands to the North, farther relatives in Shop area are ethnic Serb, North Macedonian and Bulgarian while there is also an older 1000 years distant relative in Vojvodina of Serb/Hungarian/Romanian origin. As the only commercially tested Shop area Serb is from Pečenjevce founded by the Pechenegs, as the surname of Peshter descended Serb genetically very close to me is identical to the surname of the Pecheneg/Berendei family who settled the Pečenjevce, likely Pecheneg connection or at the very least strong possibility is a nobrainer.

My cluster most likely arrived with Bulgarian Army who invaded the Bijelo Polje in 1254. Bulgarian and Turkic onomastics on the Peshter as well as our presence there and our relatives in Bulgaria indicate that indeed that is the point of origin as does the Turkic-Bulgarian name of the oldest member of the Peshter clan which unites my family with the other Peshter families (which lack "Kuqi" tradition) and who lived in 15th century, this persons surname is unknown but his belonging to A24066 is basically a certainty based on clear evidence which will be made clearer soon as there are tons of unpublished documents. It's my own current nick: Huban, steming from "ghob" in Codex Cumanicus. Few times this name occurred in Medieval Bulgarians but in no Serbs or Albanians. It is a central Asian Iranic loan into Cuman (and also Mongol etc.). In fact there is evidence to suggest they spoke Bulgarian 500 years ago far away from Bulgaria. And for years I maintain this thesis and I still do. Chances are good it will be made factual in the coming times but ofc more samples are needed. STR evidence of my cluster (which cannot be older than 1000 years) is 100 % clear: I came from Shop area to Bijelo Polje, not the other way around. I am the only NGS of this cluster but it doesn't mean others do not exist..

The main "argument" against it is a canard "E-V13 cannot have any relation to those people, they are all from the Balkan etc".

But this canard is disproven by Hungarian besenyő who is E-V13/CTS9320, although not of my own cluster. The other Hungarian besenyő is I-Y125026. But many more are untested, and this is the only time such indications pop up in two distant geographical areas which is an indication of a legitimate link. Regarding the YFull there is nothing known about the Pecheneg language that I do not know and relatives of mine who are of "unknown origin" (so not migrants) and whose old surname looks more Turkic than anything else are from a village certainly founded by the Pechenegs, so I would say it is legitimate and appropriate to put the xpc as language at Yfull as I speak Turkish as well. It is also a message to those looking at the tree that I do not believe this cluster has local origin but that it rather migrated with the nomads across the Danube in Medieval times. The Bosniaks in the clade also have a recent genetic relative in Carpathians found in the Basarab study. Kulin the founder of the Bosnian state was of Pecheneg origin according to some historians, his name is without doubt Pecheneg.

There are also new E-Z17107* branches that are being profiled, one of them is Ukrainian branch with likely Uzbek genetic link. So I am eager to learn their position on the tree.

Z17107 is probably the most diverse E-V13 clade in Carpathians/East thus far.
Z17107>BY4467 , likely Y30991- Russian from Rostov
Z17107+, Z38456-, multiple Ukrainians (they will resemble E-Y41959 clade but with higher TMRCA), and a likely/possible Uzbek relative
Z17107+, Z38456-, Old Hungarian Medieval family, from Slovakia

All of these have distinct haplotypes and are very distant to each other.

At YFull E-Y81971 Hungarians in this clade. E-A24070* Hungarian in my clade whose surname is very Hungarian. E-FT192275 exists in Carpathians too.

Regarding the Albanian E-BY4465 clade. Which is found in both Ghegs and Tosks even though there are almost no Tosks at YFull. Are these of certain "Illyrian origin"? No. Though they can be ofc. They also have some relatives North of Danube. Serb from Vojvodina with a Romanian surname is E-BY4465 but he doesn't seem close to anyone, and also Hungarian Szekely seems to belong to E-Y161799 subclade. If these samples are basal/more distant, they would point towards Carpian or the like descent of the Albanian branch which is one of major thesis for the descent of Albanians, and this clade is among the most important proto-Albanian clades after R-Z2705. E-Y84585 Albanians also almost certainly have relatives in ethnic Bulgarians.

Albanians and Serbs are by far the best profiled ethnicities on the Balkans. At the same time they are homogenous, half of their population descends of few dozen men who lived within 1000 years ago. Which is why they test themselves alot more, as these tribes have a more patriarchal culture where patrilinear descend is all that counts. This is not the case with Bulgarians, Greeks etc, no to mention Romania. Most Carpathian/Eastern Z17107 are Americans who migrated there in the past 100 years. So the region is alot less profiled that the Balkans and yet shows more diversity.

I have responded to your "points" and debunked them. Respond to my points if you will directly or I will just remind you again and again to do so, I won't make any further points until my points are addressed. Your canary like repetition is not substantiated response, nor was this post where you claimed Albanian descend of a cluster even though you know it doesn't exist in Albanians.

But explaining this to a person such as you or Johane Derite who have claimed that Bulgarian E-V13 are mostly Albanian in origin is pointless. This is not your own proto-Albanian cluster of R-Z2705 with the TMRCA of 1500 years where all are proto-Albanians in Early medieval/Late Antiquity regardless whether they are ethnic Albanian or not. 1500 year old cluster and Iron Age and Bronze Age genetic links are not the same thing. The tribe in question is Early Bronze Age distance to me, while the closest ethnic Albanian samples are in the Early Iron Age range (2800-2900 ybp)

What is likely for me is what I had explained. Any other option is usual for various E-V13's in the area (latinized population Slavicized long ago or relation with proto-Vlachs). For Albanian ancestry there is no case at all. Long before I ever tested, as someone very knowledgeable in the Nomadic populations, this sort of thing is music to my ears and it is my obligation to make it 100 % factual if that's what it is.

__________________________________________________ ____________________

Regarding E-Y20805, in literature that Serb descends from "Drina river" I did not see Shkoder area being mentioned. Albanian E-Y20805 should be from Preshevo valley in Southeast Serbia or Eastern Kosovo? So I do not see any clear evidence of Shkodra connection other than "traditions".. Mythological "Shkoder area" traditions are indeed very commonly found.. So I am from Bijelo Polje and that is where I am from, Albanian E-Y20805 sample is from Podujevo, Kosovo, Llap Region in Kosovo claiming to have arrived from Shkoder region. You claimed I am "dishonest" while citing people who do not say the truth about their ancestry, and you take this unproven Shkoder claim as factual.

He can be from there when:
1. He finds genetic relatives from Shkoder
2. He has reliable documents proving his arrival from Shkoder, and I know this is unlikely to be the case.

If he is some other sample I take it back, but you said he is with origins, so it must be the old E-Y20805 sample. Sandzak family likely are descended of this Albanian I guess (TMRCA 200, 300 years?). But Serb is related to Bulgarian, and we do not know that Albanian is not someone picked up by the proto-Albanians in Western Shop area either.. Only if Sandzak family is more distant then more Western origin looks set in.

Derite quotes my own analysis of Greek E-V13 branches and somehow thinks he can lecture me on my own subclade. If you were so capable you would have come up with an analysis of your own.
You've read some books about ethnography. But by now you must know that literally half or more of traditions of both Albanian and Montenegrin clans are made up in recent centuries and have been proven to be pure fabrications. This was already known even before the Y-DNA. In cases where traditions are correct they indeed cluster closely within 300-600 years to people they are supposed to cluster with.

I know the ancestry of my own from various sides centuries into the past, there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else can come up with that I have not considered before I ever launched my thesis. Unlike some of you I am focused on reliable historical documents and facts and their interpretation, aided by the Y-DNA evidence in recent times. And you are simply not qualified, lacking general knowledge, understanding of interpretation, scientific methodology to even hold a discussion with me on such topics..

J Man
01-03-2021, 07:36 PM
There are also families in Bjelo Polje that claim to descend from the Kuci tribe but they belong to I2a. They are probably another example of families that claimed Kuci ancestry for prestige and status reasons instead of actually truly descending from Kuci.

broder
01-03-2021, 09:14 PM
Your family claiming to be Kuç is a fact. Just because you didn't end up in their major cluster doesn't mean that you can fabricate and alter their history. How that came to be is anyone's guess at the moment. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that they didn't come as Pechenegs or Bulgarians. What's relevant here for researches is the location and family history. End of story.

Yeah, you're so knowledgable. I remember like today you claiming Z2705 came from east during middle ages to Albania all based on few Bulgarian and Romanian low res haplotypes that ended up being under Y182782 and Y32147. While ignoring the mountain of evidence, frequency and diversity, from
western Balkans.

Albanian fella under Y20805 is from Llap but they came there from Gubetin, Prokuplje. His elders told them that they hail from 'Shkoder region'. They had no reason to lie. That's what I was told and that's what I am telling you. Serb guy said the same thing to us, from Shkoder lake area. Bosnian fella from Sanxhak told us similar thing, that his paternal ancestor came to Sanxhak from north Albania. Fis wise he wasn't sure, he mentioned Kelmend region. Serb ethnographers however have recorded them as Kuç as well.

Any Bulgarian tested positive for Y84585? Or did you find a haplotype somewhere resembling this cluster, perhaps a Y12 lol

I never claimed all V13 in Bulgarians is Albanian. I simply said that Bulgaria has a divers history population wise and each cluster should be looked with more caution because they could have ended up there during Byzantine or Ottoman empire. Like is the case without any doubt now with Z2705 samples, A18833 etc.

Huban
01-03-2021, 09:36 PM
There are also families in Bjelo Polje that claim to descend from the Kuci tribe but they belong to I2a. They are probably another example of families that claimed Kuci ancestry for prestige and status reasons instead of actually truly descending from Kuci.

Indeed, I know of one family who had a detailed and supposedly reliable tradition about descending from Old Kuči, but they are I-PH908. There is something unusual in that there are various Kuci traditions in the area of Bijelo Polje and Prijepolje, but almost no ortodox Kuci at all. However there are many muslim Kuci around there, so I wonder whether they had significant influence on propagation of Kuči traditions. Especially in 1737 when Kuci head Radonja Petrovic was instrumental in the large rebellion so such things made Kuci very popular in the eyes of many. And also Kuci were very organized and loyal to each other, so many families I suspect tried to add themselves to them. Peculiar is the case of various I-P109 from Prijepolje who claim Kuci descent. For some of these trolls only non-Slavic, non-Germanic haplogroups matter. Also we have people with Kuč surname on the Pešter highland who are a Slavic sub-branch of R-Z280. Believing all these fairytales really would have meant that the Kuci area is the most genetically diverse place on the planet, whereas in reality literally everyone tested from there came out as E-BY165837, and Old Kuci and New Kuci according to traditions were not supposed to be of same origin. Few other families came out as Kuci, namely the Albanian clan of Bankeq from Zatrijebac region. They did not have a tradition of Kuci descent!! Hoti considered them as cousins, and yet Hoti are J-Y21878. So their traditions are completely unreliable for their own narrow geographic region! And yet they will tell you their traditions are so "reliable".. But you have some people placing high value on them, not only Albanians but also Montenegrins. For me and for anyone objective documents take precedence to any tradition, and Ottoman census of 1485 actually tells us that there was a village Bankeq in Kuci nahiya in 1485, which does indicate that they were possibly related to Kuci.

Of the Kuci nahiya area, other than E-BY165837, there is evidence that Zatrijebac has some R-Z2705. There are some stories of Slavic hg carrying families about Kuci, some of them may be true and they might be connected to two Kuci villages which in 1485 had totally Slavic names. Other than that it is pure fantasy. But I will count various families of other hg's and branches that had such traditions, and see what is the number.

Long time ago I read a huge book about Kuci tribe, they literally wrote down every single family everywhere. Literally the only mention of my family in the book was a claim of someone from Brodarevo, it just said place of distant origin: Kuci. And actually it turned out it was this family of Brodarevo had a more elaborate tradition about descending of Vujadinovici branch of Drekalovici, he swore his father told him so and his father. 8 years ago I told him: sorry it is made up. They didn't put other branches of my family in this book and I already knew then, there is no Kuci link whatsoever.

But apparently one monk of my family served in a church in village called Trpez West of Bijelo Polje, in 17th century. In 1585 one person there had name Asen, The only time in history this name occurs in the Western Balkans I believe. What makes it clear regarding my own subclade, is that our village was held by the powerful Ottoman family in the area, at the same time it also belonged to the monastery we are connected to.
This Ottoman family is descended of Ahmed-Bey silahdar, who was Chief of the Palace Guards on the court of Mehmed II Fatih. Around 1470 he came to Bijelo Polje, Pešter area. He came to bring some order there.
He had five possessions, which he held directly in possession. For 4 out of 5 of them, there are clear connections with the A24066>A24049 cluster. One is mine, 4 are from Pešter highlands (in one our surname appears in 1604.) There is even explanation for the remaining. This village belonged to Zvornik Sanjak in 1485 and 1489. I have some close relative among Bosniaks from Tuzla as well which belonged to Zvornik sanjak. These were some Christian sipahis closely connected to Ahmed-bey and his descendants. Clearly they were one family. Only such people got to be benefactors of monasteries deep within the Ottoman controlled territory where almost all Christians had peasant status. My village was not settled in late 15th century nor in early 16th century, but it did carry our family name. It is laughable to think Ahmed-bey or his descendants would allow someone to settle there if they weren't connected to his family. And these voynuk sipahis were only such people. And the oldest member of their family carried this name of Huban. As there are lots of unpublished documents it's only a matter of time before we get the family tree for all of them.

The thing is the only Albanian connection I have is the fact that 300 years ago Albanian Kelmend and other tribes came to Pešter, settled some of our villages whereas my cousins had to migrate northwards to Central Serbia more than 200 years ago. After the Battle of Wiena in 1683, what existed of Christian sipahis ceased existing.

Kelmendasi
01-03-2021, 09:49 PM
A little correction in regards to the Trieshi-Kuçi relation, the Trieshi or Bankeqi brotherhood in specific so far are E-BY168279* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY168279*/) whilst the Kuçi are E-BY168279>BY165837 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY165837/), the relation between the two is ~1,350 ybp according to Yfull estimations.

Hawk
01-03-2021, 10:07 PM
Why did Kuqi claim to be part of Berisha? I mean both share E-V13 => S2979 but, it's from time immemorial.

My motherside for instance, i thought they are Berishas, but they claim to be Kuqi.

J Man
01-03-2021, 10:16 PM
Indeed, I know of one family who had a detailed and supposedly reliable tradition about descending from Old Kuči, but they are I-PH908. There is something unusual in that there are various Kuci traditions in the area of Bijelo Polje and Prijepolje, but almost no ortodox Kuci at all. However there are many muslim Kuci around there, so I wonder whether they had significant influence on propagation of Kuči traditions. In those days, especially in 1737 when Kuci head Radonja petrovic was instrumental in the large rebellion so such things made Kuci very popular in the eyes of many. And also Kuci were very organized and loyal to each other, so many families I suspect tried to add themselves to them. Peculiar is the case of various I-P109 from Prijepolje who claim Kuci descent. For some of these trolls only non-Slavic, non-Germanic haplogroups matter. Also we have people with Kuč surname on the Pešter highland who are a Slavic sub-branch of R-Z280. Believing all these fairytales really would have meant that the Kuci area is the most genetically diverse place on the planet, whereas in reality literally everyone tested from there came out as E-BY165837, and Old Kuci and New Kuci according to traditions were not supposed to be of same origin. Few other families came out as Kuci, namely the Albanian clan of Bankeq from Zatrijebac region. They did not have a tradition of Kuci descent!! Hoti considered them as cousins, and yet Hoti are J-Y21878. So their traditions are completely unreliable for their own narrow geographic region! And yet they will tell you their traditions are so "reliable".. But you have some people placing high value on them, not only Albanians but also Montenegrins. For me and for anyone objective documents take precedence to any tradition, and Ottoman census of 1485 actually tells us that there was a village Bankeq in Kuci nahiya in 1485, which does indicate that they were possibly related to Kuci.

Of the Kuci nahiya area, other than E-BY165837, there is evidence that Zatrijebac has some R-Z2705. There are some stories of Slavic hg carrying families about Kuci, some of them may be true and they might be connected to two Kuci villages which in 1485 had totally Slavic names. Other than that it is pure fantasy. But I will count various families of other hg's and branches that had such traditions, and see what is the number.

Long time ago I read a huge book about Kuci tribe, they literally wrote down every single family everywhere. Literally the only mention of my family in the book was a claim of someone from Brodarevo, it just said place of distant origin: Kuci. And actually it turned out it was this family of Brodarevo had a more elaborate tradition about descending of Vujadinovici branch of Drekalovici, he swore his father told him so and his father. 8 years ago I told him: sorry it is made up. They didn't put other branches of my family in this book and I already knew then, there is no Kuci link whatsoever.

But apparently one monk of my family served in a church in village called Trpez West of Bijelo Polje, in 17th century. In 1585 one person there had name Asen, The only time in history this name occurs in the Western Balkans I believe. What makes it clear regarding my own subclade, is that our village was held by the powerful Ottoman family in the area, at the same time it also belonged to the monastery we are connected to.
This Ottoman family is descended of Ahmed-Bey silahdar, who was Chief of the Palace Guards on the court of Mehmed II Fatih. Around 1470 he came to Bijelo Polje, Pešter area. He came to bring some order there.
He had five possessions, which he held directly in possession. For 4 out of 5 of them, there are clear connections with the A24066>A24049 cluster. One is mine, 4 are from Pešter highlands (in one our surname appears in 1604.) There is even explanation for the remaining. This village belonged to Zvornik Sanjak in 1485 and 1489. I have some close relative among Bosniaks from Tuzla as well which belonged to Zvornik sanjak. These were some Christian sipahis closely connected to Ahmed-bey and his descendants. Clearly they were one family. Only such people got to be benefactors of monasteries deep within the Ottoman controlled territory where almost all Christians had peasant status. My village was not settled in late 15th century nor in early 16th century, but it did carry our family name. It is laughable to think Ahmed-bey or his descendants would allow someone to settle there if they wasn't connected to his family. And these voynuk sipahis were only such people. And the oldest member of their family carried this name of Huban. As there are lots of unpublished documents it's only a matter of time before we get the family tree for all of them.

The thing is the only Albanian connection I have is the fact that 300 years ago Albanian Kelmend and other tribes came to Pešter, settled some of our villages whereas my cousins were had to migrate northwards to Central Serbia. After the Battle of Wiena in 1683, what existed of Christian sipahis ceased existing.

Very interesting information there thank you for sharing. I would say that within both Montenegro and Albania some of the core tribes certainly do have traditions of descending from common ancestors and the Y-DNA results back it up. Usually men with origins in a certain tribe who's paternal line ancestors came from the true traditional tribal regions match with other men from the same tribe quite well. The mismatches seem to come about mainly with people with origins in other areas outside of the core tribal areas that claim descent from certain tribes.

Huban
01-03-2021, 11:26 PM
Your family claiming to be Kuç is a fact. Just because you didn't end up in their major cluster doesn't meant that you can fabricate and alter their history. How that came to be is up to anyone's guess at the moment. But I can tell you with absolutely certainty that they didn't come as Pechenegs or as Bulgarians. What's relevant here for researches is the location and family history. End of story.

Some did, and they were wrong. End of story. Now many agree with me. I do not have to fabricate my history. Our family was wealthy 400 years ago. For many that's "good enough". These people who claimed this had no idea of that either! Had they knew that they would not have made it up.. At the time no Kuci lived in this region. That is a fact. Kuç is the one who is E-BY165837. In 1330 in a katun of Arbanasi (Albanians) a certain Petar Kuč was mentioned. According to information of some tested
https://www.poreklo.rs/2018/10/23/rod-kuca/

Kuci settled from the valley of river Cijevna to the later Kuci area in mid 15th century. They were all E-BY165837, some were R-Z2705 (Zatrijebac). Some vague evidence of certain Slavic haplogroups such as R-M458 exists and these are likely Slavic locals who were "overwhelmed" by the Kuchi arrival. Of course I do not reinterpret anything of Kuchi history and look at my post above, the Kuchi really never considered my family to be one of them.

Now regarding my family.

Attested in 1645. Member of family died then, so obviously he would have been active before.. Same surname. Surname is tied to a village. These are hard core facts. His personal name was Paun (might be Romanian but it any case it was very common on Peshter at the time).

Ottoman documents, unknown until few decades ago, still unknown to a large extent say this:
1. my village was uninhabited (former village) in Ottoman terminology mezra, in 1485, and still in 1530 but obviously it was inhabited in early 17th century.
2. was held by the Ahmed-bey silahdar in direct possession, also belonging to the monastery my family financed 400 years ago. These are very important legal facts.
3. was named Spoca second name Rakon. Second name in defters is exclusively tribal designation. So some tribe Rakon existed.

Our ancestors name was very common on Pešter highlands at the time.
Where are my relatives from Pešter? Raždaginja with surname derived from Čarovina. Ahmed-bey silahdar, the strongest Ottoman magnate in the area (who came from Instanbul) and his progeny were clearly tied to sipahi voynuk commanders from Pešter. There were 3 of them, in their timars were following villages:
1. Korutan/Janča - Ahmed-bey's main possession. You can see the relation here, he gave to Christian sipahi part of his own village.
2. Zaječić - a new village derived from Bulgarian zajek "hare" (as opposed to Serbian "zec"), in this community occurs the Rakon surname in 1604.
3. Baljen (old name Bal(i)nevo, of Bulgarian Balin), to Baljen belonged Čarovina so Čarovina was theirs.

Other possessions of Ahmed-bey were
4. Rakon (my village), not settled in late 15th, early 16th, settled in early 17th c. by my family. this can be diminutive but only if it has -a at the end. In 1485 it seems it doesn't so, well this can be also related to one of the most common Pecheneg names: Urkon/Orkon.. (there are some similar developments). The thing is similar surnames do not really exist or are very rare in Serbs.
5. Raždaginja - clearly Bulgarian

Why would Ahmed-bey silahdar allow anyone else other than people who give money to monastery whose property Rakon is to settle there?? To voynuks he clearly has close ties to. Remember I am talking about my own village where my family lives for 400 years!!!

He could have been ours genetically too. There are some cases where some Chriatians had a priviledged status, and their muslim relative was also on the court of sultan.

Another more distant family tested is from Boroštica on Pešter, another Bulgarian etymology.

So the earliest man with my surname has a Pešter highlands personal name and he descends from Kuci where there are no genetic relatives of his but doesn't come from Pešter from where are his close genetic relatives?? Clearly laughable.. And on top of that these families lack any Kuci tradition.. It seems canary like repetition Kuc, Kuc Kuc..

Check the Karachanak et al. and see that I do have close relative in ethnic Bulgarians in Sofia. 100 %.

Yes, they came as Bulgarian bolyars in Bulgarian invasion of Bijelo Polje of 1254. My relatives are Čarovič from the Pešter highlands. The only such surname in Serbs. It could mean the son of wizard, but then nobody uses wizards or magic in their surnames... However we Čaroviči do happen to have relatives in the clan of Dugeyin (Tokay - strong in balk. ?) from Pečenjevce , strongest family in the village but of "unknown origin", so no migration traditions in literature.. What about this place? Literally everyone agrees of historians this village is where the Pechenegs settled. And in immediate vicinity we have confirmations. Basically part of Pečenjevce: Čekmin. They were written down together already in 1498. What could possibly Čekmin signify?? Was there a person with such name?? Is it something Pecheneg related?? There is only one person with such name in history: he was Chekman son of Chagr together with his brothers mentioned in 1167 who was khan of Berendei? Who were Berendei? They are fist mentioned in 1106, some have suggested they are related to Bayandur tribe, but according to newer evidence and opinions, according to archeological evidence, Berendei were just a branch of surviving Pechenegs as traits of their material culture were identical to Pechenegs and different to that of Uzi. Berendei together with Uzi and Pechenegs were remnants of Black Hats federation.

Near Pečenjevce there is also Čagrovac. Now that you use Albanian letter derived from Turkish, This is actually clear indication Çağroviç Berendei settled the Pečenjevce!! Only one Çekman in history, who is son of Çağr, and there were only two Çağrı, this one, the other was Selcuk Çağrı-bey. Voiced velar fricative ğ/ɣ is is lost in modern Turkish except at the end of word where it lengthens the preceding wovel. In Slavic languages it either mutates into "h" or "g". "h" gets lost in Serbian rather extremely easily. So the only Serb family Çaroviç no more than around 500 years away from me is no less than 800 but no more than 1000 years distant from a family 200 km to the East where Çağroviç settled!!

If I belonged to some more "Eastern haplogroup" this would be sufficient grounds to say one is very likely descended of those Çağroviç themselves.. I cannot claim that but I can claim based on genetic results that they most likely at least dragged themselves with them across the Danube. Even if I totally hated this scenario (and I don't), I would have to admit it is the likely one. Huban Çaroviç most definitely should have something to do with Çağroviç around Pečenjevce and these weren't Serbs, Albanians, Slavs nor really ethnically (Slavic) Bulgarians either..

In 1217 exiled Bulgarian claimant Ivan Asen II brought some Berendei with him to overthrow Boril. There are also some Berende villages not far across the border. In one of them Ivan Asen II was ktetor of monastery (same thing was my ancestor 400 years ago) which does indicate he was connected to them. It seems actually that Pečenjevce stems from then, and not 1090s when Pechenegs were defeated (because of Čekmin and Čagrovac). His son in 1254 invaded Bijelo Polje. There is even village Bolyare on the Pešter. They were Bulgarians (likely bolyars) of very recent Berendei origin and that is seen in some very unusual onomastics in the area. Žilindar mountain "snakes" in Kazakh, Kyrghiz which absolutely has no other parallels I can think of. Christians named Togan, Okor (Bulgar Okorsis), Kopon (Pecheneg tribe), Dorman, Huban, possibly Gostun (Bulgar), Yarmen etc. Turkic-Bulgarian onomastics in Southern Pešter indicates someone of that background settled there. Probably Serbs left them to live there as they pleased in exchange for some service.

There is some unusual exotic DNA in the area too, C-M48, D.. But they aren't a match for these Bulgarian places nor are they found there. Of course these could be some recent arrivals. And I think in the case of C-M48 they have multiple such matches.
Maybe they are related to Cumans, as we also have monastery of Kumanica nearby (C-M48 are rather near that monastery). Also Cumans were serving the 2nd Bulgarian Empire at the time.

The 1254 Bulgarian invasion involved the Zachumlia and its ruler Radoslav and Ragusans. It was about moving the seat of bishopric from Ston to Bijelo Polje. Actually near Ston there is toponym Čarovići.. Pečenjevce was at the time Westernmost part of Bulgaria and it makes sense people from there would be involved in invasion of Serbia.

These are facts, and my interpretation of them. Ethnic wise my cluster is clearly connected to these Bulgarian traces, and not connected to places where Vlachs or people in Vlach status lived, nor to any Albanian traces..

And why don't you for a change stop confusing apples and oranges. Apples are Kuchi who are E-BY165837, and who have no relatives in Shop area at all..

Oranges is the cluster A24066>A24049 etc which has lots of people from Shop area in it. Already that is a huge difference between these clusters which suggests these two are two completely different populations.. Nothing to do with each other..
Refer to Karachanak et al. study of Bulgarians, Jankovski et al. for North Macedonians. Though these are scientific papers and low-res A24066 resembles more V12 and sticks out like a sore thumb, and several of these Shop haplotypes in a study with more STR's in addition have our triple back mutation on a slow STR so they are all 100 % closely related to me (by that I mean 1000 ybp at most). Ofc there is some distant Vojvodina person, if he not Serb (and large % of people from that study weren't) but Hungarian then it's 100 % my scenario already.

As one of most important mutations is H4 one, I can say that North Macedonian and Bulgarian are pretty distant to each other (High Medieval). And same goes for others. Absolutely 100 % I came from Shop area not so long ago.

These are not commercially tested people but I am working on obtaining those as well. Only then I will know 100 %. Fortunately for me there are many people of such likely origins, almost none are tested commercially.

Kelmendasi
01-04-2021, 12:08 AM
Why did Kuqi claim to be part of Berisha? I mean both share E-V13 => S2979 but, it's from time immemorial.

My motherside for instance, i thought they are Berishas, but they claim to be Kuqi.
Most probably due to a wide range reasons such as shared traditional ancestral homelands or old alliances. Many Kuçi from Kosovo refer to themselves as Berisha e Kuqe or "Red Berisha", this is based on the tradition that the Kuçi stem from that branch of Berisha, though this claim is more common among the Albanian members of this tribe. The Montenegrin or Serbian Kuči on the other hand considered the Berisha to be an off-shoot of the Kuči/Kuçi. However, so far the Albanian Kuçi from the Drenica Valley of central Kosovo have tested as E-L241 rather than E-BY165837, so it's most likely that they adopted this tradition.

In Kosovo it was also common for more minor Albanian tribes to begin to identify as being a part of a larger tribe that according to tradition shared common origin with them. For example, there are cases of brotherhoods or families with origin from Toplana identifying as being a part of Gashi.

Huban
01-04-2021, 12:36 AM
A little correction in regards to the Trieshi-Kuçi relation, the Trieshi or Bankeqi brotherhood in specific so far are E-BY168279* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY168279*/) whilst the Kuçi are E-BY168279>BY165837 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY165837/), the relation between the two is ~1,350 ybp according to Yfull estimations.

Bankeq? I know he is from Tirana. He is not of albanian bloodlines project. He is from Tirana for 3-4 generations, and prior to that no exact clue. That doesn't sound to me like a Bankeq.
I would expect Bankeq to be close to Kuchi as they are geographically nearby.



Yeah, you're so knowledgable. I remember like today you claiming Z2705 came from east during middle ages to Albania all based on few Bulgarian and Romanian low res haplotypes that ended up being under Y182782 and Y32147. While ignoring the mountain of evidence, frequency and diversity, from
western Balkans.

Albanian fella under Y20805 is from Llap but they came there from Gubetin, Prokuplje. His elders told them that they hail from 'Shkoder region'. They had no reason to lie. That's what I was told and that's what I am telling you. Serb guy said the same thing to us, from Shkoder lake area. Bosnian fella from Sanxhak told us similar thing, that his paternal ancestor came to Sanxhak from north Albania. Fis wise he wasn't sure, he mentioned Kelmend region. Serb ethnographers however have recorded them as Kuç as well.

Any Bulgarian tested positive for Y84585? Or did you find a haplotype somewhere resembling this cluster, perhaps a Y12 lol

I never claimed all V13 in Bulgarians is Albanian. I simply said that Bulgaria has a divers history population wise and each cluster should be looked with more caution because they could have ended up there during Byzantine or Ottoman empire. Like is the case without any doubt now with Z2705 samples, A18833 etc.

Well at the time it looked there were some older Z2705 in Romania and Bulgaria. And guess what? I was correct. They are R-Y182782 which is the earliest branch off from the Z2705 tree.

The thing is about R-Z2705, there is some basal diversity of R-CTS1450 in the East, and I see now there is one Albanian R-FT61900, that must be the one with weird haplotype from long ago.
Also there is some Bulgarian R-CTS1450*, so with R-Z2705 because your cluster is so young, there is a chance of something appearing that is little more distant and that can at any time change the storyline for R-Z2705..

There some Hungarians who look like Z2705 or basal at that level, why don't you research those.. They look like some distant Z2705.

There are various other problems about ethnogenesis of Albanians. Scerdilaidas is an Illyrian name which goes against Albanian phonetic rules. sk-> h change in proto-Albanian is an Early change. Based on linguistics, any "sc" starting name is not proto-Albanian.

Albanians once their Slavic autosomal influence is adjusted for (which they do have as they score more Baltic than even Paleo-Balkan finds which are more Northern than Albanians) basically do not cluster with Illyrians, with Thracians nor with Getae.

I suspect they cluster more closely to something which existed in the central Balkans, but there are no samples from there yet.

According to archeological evidence the Paeonians were related to proto-Dardanians who were a non-Illyrian, non-Thracian population. And I think Albanian language derives probably much of its traits of such groups.
And such people did mirgate to South Albania too 3000 years ago, so Illyrians of Southern regions might have been partially Illyrianized proto-Dardanians.

I actually searched Gubetini in literature and couldn't find clues of any Albanians from there, that is deeper in Serbian territory. I trust in their tradition, but Shkodra is far from there. Serb claims indeed Shkoder area, but literature says they came "from Drina river basin". That does not suggest Shkoder.

You did try to relativize Bulgarian E-V13 diversity, Derite was more specific. However what I see there is huge diversity and plenty of people who do not cluster with anyone. Whereas in Albania or Montenegro one sees plenty of bottlenecks. Some of these bottlenecks demographically explode and you have your increased percentage.

And in the upcoming Bulgarian study basically all Iron Age Thracians are E-V13, not only those Early IA, but also LIA from another site.
That E-V13 "Scythian" of 300 BC is also Getae. Zero Scythian autosomal and close to Early-Getae sample of 800-700 BC. Those various "Scythians" who were not Scythian genetically are proxy for some pre-proto Slavs, Getae and pre-Scythian Pannonian basin population.

Huban
01-04-2021, 01:13 AM
Any Bulgarian tested positive for Y84585? Or did you find a haplotype somewhere resembling this cluster, perhaps a Y12 lol


BM024 Bulgaria BUG General population 13 24 13 10 16-19 11 12 12 13 11 30 16 14 21 11 18 10 22 E-V13

Low res but still BY20093 is defined by dys456=18 which is what they all share with the German sample. Albanian Y84585 is defined by dys448=21, slow STR. And CTS9320 among other things by dys458=16. At the very least he is a very serious candidate for E-Y84585 and they are his GD matches. As I've said Bulgaria is far from being an ideally profiled place, because of high STR diversity there.

broder
01-04-2021, 01:29 AM
Well at the time it looked there were some older Z2705 in Romania and Bulgaria. And guess what? I was correct. They are R-Y182782 which is the earliest branch off from the Z2705 tree.
Regardless, even then it was pretty clear from few scientific papers and the commercially tested samples that diversity lied in the western balkans. Considering we had 393=12/392=11 and 393=12/392=13 samples. The former being a younger mutation, obviously. I remember like today you labeling us that we didn't agree with you as biased.


I actually searched Gubetini in literature and couldn't find clues of any Albanians from there, that is deeper in Serbian territory. I trust in their tradition, but Shkodra is far from there. Serb claims indeed Shkoder area, but literature says they came "from Drina river basin". That does not suggest Shkoder
Gubetini was an Albanian settlement belonging to Gashi. Serbs in the late 1800s burned it down, massaccared and displaced its inhabitants. The ones that survived that ordeal, ended up in Kosove as 'muhaxhers' like thousands of other families from that region. Hence why they carry their old village name as a last name to this day. Many families from around there preserved their family traditions regarding their origin. Some of course could have been locals that Albanians absorbed but in all such cases I have come across they don't know much about their background. Mentinoing Shkodra is too specific so we can't just brush that off. As for the Serb fella, still Drin basin is within the geographical boundary I encircled.



You did try to relativize Bulgarian E-V13 diversity, Derite was more specific. However what I see there is huge diversity and plenty of people who do not cluster with anyone. Whereas in Albania or Montenegro one sees plenty of bottlenecks. Some of these bottlenecks demographically explode and you have your increased percentage.

Albania and Montenegro combined actually have more diversity and structure with organic growth that you would expect than Bulgaria as a whole. Most of Bulgarian V13's are loners, no growth or structure. Some cluster that do show some growth have relatively young tmrca's (400/500 ybp).

Kelmendasi
01-04-2021, 01:41 AM
Bankeq? I know he is from Tirana. He is not of albanian bloodlines project. He is from Tirana for 3-4 generations, and prior to that no exact clue. That doesn't sound to me like a Bankeq.
I would expect Bankeq to be close to Kuchi as they are geographically nearby.
Yes the sample on Yfull is from Tirana, but the Trieshi-Bankeqi whom have tested are not BY165837+ like the Kuçi. I remember being told that the TMRCA between them and Kuçi should be ~1,100 ybp. So no, they are not closely related. A couple samples from the Gruda also belong to this cluster with the Trieshi.

There are however Albanians from the Kuçi in Montenegro that do belong to E-BY165837, same goes for some anas or local brotherhoods from Koja e Kuçit.

broder
01-04-2021, 01:54 AM
BM024 Bulgaria BUG General population 13 24 13 10 16-19 11 12 12 13 11 30 16 14 21 11 18 10 22 E-V13

Low res but still BY20093 is defined by dys456=18 which is what they all share with the German sample. Albanian Y84585 is defined by dys448=21, slow STR. And CTS9320 among other things by dys458=16. At the very least he is a very serious candidate for E-Y84585 and they are his GD matches. As I've said Bulgaria is far from being an ideally profiled place, because of high STR diversity there.

Hard to say if he is Y84585+ on that resolution. 448 not that stable in this cluster, at least not as defining as 456. One of them actually differs from the others on 448.

Huban
01-04-2021, 01:54 AM
Regarding the E-V13 origin and spread.

I said it before. And I will say it again. I think almost all E-V13 initially spread with the Glina III-Schneckenberg culture. This culture had some archeological ties with the Dalmatian neolithic surviving element over 4500 years ago. And in Dalmatia 1 of 3 samples is E-L618. Diversity of some CTS1273+ , BY3880- clades points to that. So that CTS1273 went from Dalmatia to Carpathian area. It could have, these visitors were nomadic, and they didn't stay forever there.

For Urnfield, CTS9320 Eastern Urnfield, clades such as L241 and FGC11450 show some such connections. These represent 44 % of all E-V13 samples in one list of mine. It may well be some majority are connected to urnfield but not in initial spread, TMRCA of E-V13 is way past the Urnfield.

Second point to make is that Urnfield had a very small influence on the ethnogenesis of Illyrians. Western Urfnielders were Venetic speaking. Illyrian language was propagated by the J-L283 heavy cultures. In particular J-Z631 which is probably related to Glasinac culture expansion. It is actually a matter of fact that all Pannonain Illyrian tribes were Illyrianized late around 600-500 BC by the Glasinac wave coming from the South. This was suggested by some historians, and this is what archeology confirms. Urnfielders did invade 1000 BC, but later they wee the ones who were overwhelmed by the Glasinac people.

This is why linguistically Illyrians proper were Southern, Delmato-Pannonian group actually showed deviations in Venetic direction. If Urnfielders were true Illyrians then the Delmato-Pannonian group should have been "purer" Illyrians, because in those areas Urnfield influence was much stronger. But that is not the case, because southerners were more "real Illyrians" and they expanded later and Illyrianized Urnfielders.

In Albania Urnfield influence was very small. In fact the only such examples aI know of is the fact that proto-Dardanians of Brnjica culture did migrate to southern Albania due to Urnfield invasions (and there were at least 3 waves), but also among invaders were some Gava culture people so this is how some E-V13 clades ended up there.

I think E-Z5018 is most likely connected to Danubian archeological complex, with Vatina, Verbicoara, Mediana, Paraćin and related cultures. It's spread and TMRCA and correlate to that. Mediana were precursors of Brnjica proto-Dardanians. These are non-Illyrian and also non-Thracian populations that were later assimilated, and it seems only Paeonians were left of them who were in turn also heavily influenced by the others.

E-CTS9320 most likely stems from Gava culture. Theoretically it can be other way around, from Glasinac but it does not fit with TRMCA or the spread and diversity, it makes no sense for Glasinac to have such diversity in NE. For some CTS9320 clades it is obvious these are of NE Carpathian origin. There were some strong Eastern Thraco-Cimmerian influences in Western Balkans as well in the Iron Age so some of it might be of that extraction.

According to some views of especially Russian/Ukrainian archeologists, Gava culture people were the original proto-Thracians and they basically Thracianized the whole area which was known in Antiquity as Thracian. Even though one MBA sample from Bulgaria was R-Z93 and there were some Srubnaya cultures there, they explicitly deny that they had big influence in formation of Thracians, rather that they were assimilated by the proto-Thracians in LBA/EIA. Something similar did the Glasinac people who around 600 BC managed to spread the Illyrian language far beyond its original borders. They Illyrianized Pannonia, Dardania etc.

Dubovac-Žuto Brdo/Girla Mare is the culture which had some close parallels with the Villanovan culture that is proto-Etruscans. However this culture although surrounded by the Danubian complex, (and therefore it adopted some of their ways) was of different origin, it came from the Western Pannonia and it seems from direction of some cultures there which showed almost zero Steppe admixture. It had plenty of unique elements, including mother Goddess worship etc. I don't think this culture is related to E-V13. Rather some I2a, G2a branches found already there in the region.

vettor
01-04-2021, 03:31 AM
Regarding the E-V13 origin and spread.

I said it before. And I will say it again. I think almost all E-V13 initially spread with the Glina III-Schneckenberg culture. This culture had some archeological ties with the Dalmatian neolithic surviving element over 4500 years ago. And in Dalmatia 1 of 3 samples is E-L618. Diversity of some CTS1273+ , BY3880- clades points to that. So that CTS1273 went from Dalmatia to Carpathian area. It could have, these visitors were nomadic, and they didn't stay forever there.

For Urnfield, CTS9320 Eastern Urnfield, clades such as L241 and FGC11450 show some such connections. These represent 44 % of all E-V13 samples in one list of mine. It may well be some majority are connected to urnfield but not in initial spread, TMRCA of E-V13 is way past the Urnfield.

Second point to make is that Urnfield had a very small influence on the ethnogenesis of Illyrians. Western Urfnielders were Venetic speaking. Illyrian language was propagated by the J-L283 heavy cultures. In particular J-Z631 which is probably related to Glasinac culture expansion. It is actually a matter of fact that all Pannonain Illyrian tribes were Illyrianized late around 600-500 BC by the Glasinac wave coming from the South. This was suggested by some historians, and this is what archeology confirms. Urnfielders did invade 1000 BC, but later they wee the ones who were overwhelmed by the Glasinac people.

This is why linguistically Illyrians proper were Southern, Delmato-Pannonian group actually showed deviations in Venetic direction. If Urnfielders were true Illyrians then the Delmato-Pannonian group should have been "purer" Illyrians, because in those areas Urnfield influence was much stronger. But that is not the case, because southerners were more "real Illyrians" and they expanded later and Illyrianized Urnfielders.

In Albania Urnfield influence was very small. In fact the only such examples aI know of is the fact that proto-Dardanians of Brnjica culture did migrate to southern Albania due to Urnfield invasions (and there were at least 3 waves), but also among invaders were some Gava culture people so this is how some E-V13 clades ended up there.

I think E-Z5018 is most likely connected to Danubian archeological complex, with Vatina, Verbicoara, Mediana, Paraćin and related cultures. It's spread and TMRCA and correlate to that. Mediana were precursors of Brnjica proto-Dardanians. These are non-Illyrian and also non-Thracian populations that were later assimilated, and it seems only Paeonians were left of them who were in turn also heavily influenced by the others.

E-CTS9320 most likely stems from Gava culture. Theoretically it can be other way around, from Glasinac but it does not fit with TRMCA or the spread and diversity, it makes no sense for Glasinac to have such diversity in NE. For some CTS9320 clades it is obvious these are of NE Carpathian origin. There were some strong Eastern Thraco-Cimmerian influences in Western Balkans as well in the Iron Age so some of it might be of that extraction.

According to some views of especially Russian/Ukrainian archeologists, Gava culture people were the original proto-Thracians and they basically Thracianized the whole area which was known in Antiquity as Thracian. Even though one MBA sample from Bulgaria was R-Z93 and there were some Srubnaya cultures there, they explicitly deny that they had big influence in formation of Thracians, rather that they were assimilated by the proto-Thracians in LBA/EIA. Something similar did the Glasinac people who around 600 BC managed to spread the Illyrian language far beyond its original borders. They Illyrianized Pannonia, Dardania etc.

Dubovac-Žuto Brdo/Girla Mare is the culture which had some close parallels with the Villanovan culture that is proto-Etruscans. However this culture although surrounded by the Danubian complex, (and therefore it adopted some of their ways) was of different origin, it came from the Western Pannonia and it seems from direction of some cultures there which showed almost zero Steppe admixture. It had plenty of unique elements, including mother Goddess worship etc. I don't think this culture is related to E-V13. Rather some I2a, G2a branches found already there in the region.

In regards to Illyrian language......none has been found , the closest would be Messapic , spoken by Daunani and Peucati who are all Iapygian tribe from next to Liburnia
The Iapygian, or more commonly, Messapian (Messapic) language is known from a considerable series of public funerary, votive, monetary, and other inscriptions written in the Greek alphabet and found in the Apulian area, especially in the Salentine Peninsula, from words reported by the ancient writers, and from toponomastic (local place-name) data. Messapian is without doubt an Indo-European language, distinct from Latin and from the Umbro-Sabellian dialects, with Balkan and central European analogies. This confirms the overseas provenance of the Iapyges from the Balkans, the more so because there existed in Illyria a tribe called the Iapodes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liburnia#/media/File:Liburnia_5th_BC.png
As per all italian papers both older and newer ones , the Picene and Apuli ( messapic areas ) all came via Liburnia people and there neighbours the Iapodes ..................there is a lot of papers on this subject.

To conclude, since Liburnians brought the Iapodes to Apulia circa 1000BC ( same time as the Liburnians colonise the Picene area of modern marche region Italy, then one must assume that the Messapic language must be a mix of Liburnian and local ancient Italian tribes they conquered /absorbed into Apuli society

So, are the Liburnians Illyrian People?......the Roman think they belong to Illyricum along with the Dalmatians and Pannonians to name some others

Hawk
01-04-2021, 04:23 AM
Here is what Gimbutas says about Glasinac

https://i.imgur.com/apaSNse.png

broder
01-04-2021, 04:45 AM
There is only one Bulgarian from Sofia in Karachanak that seems to resemble you, but I don't know man. He has only 15 markers, and not sure what to make of that GATAH4=13...

Hawk
01-04-2021, 06:35 AM
So, Huban/Ubaviot your Cetina/Dalmatian => Central Balkans might be sort of truth but you cannot make sense of earlier splits of E-V13 in Central Europe. I rather think that during EBA E-V13 were mountain dwellers between East Alps and North/West Carpathians.

Riverman
01-04-2021, 03:51 PM
Regarding the E-V13 origin and spread.

I said it before. And I will say it again. I think almost all E-V13 initially spread with the Glina III-Schneckenberg culture. This culture had some archeological ties with the Dalmatian neolithic surviving element over 4500 years ago. And in Dalmatia 1 of 3 samples is E-L618. Diversity of some CTS1273+ , BY3880- clades points to that. So that CTS1273 went from Dalmatia to Carpathian area. It could have, these visitors were nomadic, and they didn't stay forever there.

For Urnfield, CTS9320 Eastern Urnfield, clades such as L241 and FGC11450 show some such connections. These represent 44 % of all E-V13 samples in one list of mine. It may well be some majority are connected to urnfield but not in initial spread, TMRCA of E-V13 is way past the Urnfield.

Second point to make is that Urnfield had a very small influence on the ethnogenesis of Illyrians. Western Urfnielders were Venetic speaking. Illyrian language was propagated by the J-L283 heavy cultures. In particular J-Z631 which is probably related to Glasinac culture expansion. It is actually a matter of fact that all Pannonain Illyrian tribes were Illyrianized late around 600-500 BC by the Glasinac wave coming from the South. This was suggested by some historians, and this is what archeology confirms. Urnfielders did invade 1000 BC, but later they wee the ones who were overwhelmed by the Glasinac people.

This is why linguistically Illyrians proper were Southern, Delmato-Pannonian group actually showed deviations in Venetic direction. If Urnfielders were true Illyrians then the Delmato-Pannonian group should have been "purer" Illyrians, because in those areas Urnfield influence was much stronger. But that is not the case, because southerners were more "real Illyrians" and they expanded later and Illyrianized Urnfielders.

In Albania Urnfield influence was very small. In fact the only such examples aI know of is the fact that proto-Dardanians of Brnjica culture did migrate to southern Albania due to Urnfield invasions (and there were at least 3 waves), but also among invaders were some Gava culture people so this is how some E-V13 clades ended up there.

I think E-Z5018 is most likely connected to Danubian archeological complex, with Vatina, Verbicoara, Mediana, Paraćin and related cultures. It's spread and TMRCA and correlate to that. Mediana were precursors of Brnjica proto-Dardanians. These are non-Illyrian and also non-Thracian populations that were later assimilated, and it seems only Paeonians were left of them who were in turn also heavily influenced by the others.

E-CTS9320 most likely stems from Gava culture. Theoretically it can be other way around, from Glasinac but it does not fit with TRMCA or the spread and diversity, it makes no sense for Glasinac to have such diversity in NE. For some CTS9320 clades it is obvious these are of NE Carpathian origin. There were some strong Eastern Thraco-Cimmerian influences in Western Balkans as well in the Iron Age so some of it might be of that extraction.

According to some views of especially Russian/Ukrainian archeologists, Gava culture people were the original proto-Thracians and they basically Thracianized the whole area which was known in Antiquity as Thracian. Even though one MBA sample from Bulgaria was R-Z93 and there were some Srubnaya cultures there, they explicitly deny that they had big influence in formation of Thracians, rather that they were assimilated by the proto-Thracians in LBA/EIA. Something similar did the Glasinac people who around 600 BC managed to spread the Illyrian language far beyond its original borders. They Illyrianized Pannonia, Dardania etc.

Dubovac-Žuto Brdo/Girla Mare is the culture which had some close parallels with the Villanovan culture that is proto-Etruscans. However this culture although surrounded by the Danubian complex, (and therefore it adopted some of their ways) was of different origin, it came from the Western Pannonia and it seems from direction of some cultures there which showed almost zero Steppe admixture. It had plenty of unique elements, including mother Goddess worship etc. I don't think this culture is related to E-V13. Rather some I2a, G2a branches found already there in the region.

I considered most of these aspects before and think everything you describe is at least possible to likely. With many arguments I completely agree. However, I still have a problem with the origin of E-V13 in Pannonia and South of it, like with Vatin. The later cultures of the region might have had Central European-North Carpathian influences of significance. Vatin is indeed the only option for a somewhat more Southern origin, but I doubt it. I think the tradition goes from a epi-Corded culture in the Carpathian to North Alpine region.

Hawk
01-04-2021, 03:58 PM
From the Apuglia thread: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11853-Puglia-Y-DNA&p=733999#post733999

4 E-Y3183, 1 E-L17 and 1 E-FGC11457. All E-V13 are E-V13 Z5018 subclades with most of them within S2979 and R-PF7563 to my surprise.

So, the E-V13 contributors are either the Dorians or Illyrians. Or from a 3rd population that contributed to both Dorians and Illyrians.

Kelmendasi
01-04-2021, 08:00 PM
Yes the sample on Yfull is from Tirana.
I have been contacted by one of the admins of the Rrënjët project and the E-BY168279* sample on Yfull is actually from Fushë-Krujë which is a town just to the west of Kruja, and is located to the north of the Durrës County. He is not from Tirana. On the project's public results page it can also be seen that there is a E-Y3183+ sample from the ethnographic region and district of Kurbin, which is located to the south of Lezha, he likely belongs to this cluster.

Huban
01-04-2021, 09:09 PM
There is only one Bulgarian from Sofia in Karachanak that seems to resemble you, but I don't know man. He has only 15 markers, and not sure what to make of that GATAH4=13...

He has 17 STR's, GATAH4 like in almost all studies in relation to FTDNA is -1! He has 13 in the study so he has 12 in FTDNA order.

Me 13 24 13 10 17-17 13 13 11 29 16 14 20 11 17 11 22
Sofia 13 24 13 10 16-17 13 13 11 29 16 14 20 12 17 11 22

There are two differences, GATAH4=12 as you know is modal for all Y30991. Bosnians have it ofc too etc.. This is not some random E-V13 clade, rather this clade is alot more peculiar than R-Z2705 dys392=11, dys438=11 + dys389b=29, that's instant non-relation to 99 % of E-V13..

There is a cluster defined by mutations in this order:
1) dys385b=17 back mutation, all of us share it
2) backmutation аt H4 to modal 11 (for V13), all of us bar the Sofia Bulgarian, Pečenjevce Serb and Vojvodina do not share it, Serb from "somewhere around Pirot" is here, Macedonian is here and this more distant Pešter family as well, who has a same haplotype as Macedonian but I dout they are that close
3) mutation at dys576, my cluster shares it with one Serb from Vranje area, not shared by one Pešter Serb whose short haplotype is identical to a Macedonian, but I doubt they are that close at higher resolution, because Pešterian must be connected to me in terms of any migration.
4) mutation dys385a=17, shared by my family, Pešter family and Tuzla family. Of course we have all above. These are only found in Western Balkans, obviously youngest mutation.

In addition to these STR's we have numerous other unusual STR's, my cluster 6 at only 17 STR's, there are various clades who do not have so many defining STR's at Y111. And two of these from a study with more STR's have triple back mutation on an STR not covered at FTDNA, this means 100 % relation and 100 % there is a cluster defined firstly (among others ofc at Y111/Y700) by back-mutation on dys385b.

Older haplotypes which did not develop backmutation on H4 are from Sofia, Pečenjevce and Vojvodina. So Pečenjevce guy is not close to Vranje guy nor Macedonian. Sofia guy the same, not close to Pirot area guy either, and also Pirot area guy and Vranje area guy are also not close to each other. I might be little closer to Vranje guy than he is to all others. On low resolution it is impossible to determine the relation between Sofia, Pečenjevce and Vojvodina guys as their haplotypes are same. But Sofia guy will not be related surely to Vojvodina guy (there were very few Bulgarians there). And already Vojvodina person is not related to 4 out of 5 Shop people (to 3 of H4=11 and Sofia guy). Theoretically only if some Serb from Pečenjevce migrated to Vojvodina, I'm not aware of that. If he is Serb, if not discussion is pointless. The thing is of these people, for only the Pečenjevce person I know who they are, where they are from and some extra information about them. Some of these Serbian samples can be from Bosilegrad or something like that. Eventually these will pop up.

Serbs from Dinaric areas/Montenegro test, Croats from Dinaric areas, Sandzak Bosniaks, Gheg Albanians, all more patriarchal people test. I know initially very few Tosks were tested, because they have less interest in that.

It's good that you looked at the study at last..

Remember regarding my own village which had special status (different from most other villages being held by Ottoman magnate and church/monastery we financed). It is a fact that my family were more "well off" at the time, and it is also a fact that the family of Ahmed-bey silahdar only had close relations to named Pešter Christian sipahis of all more notable Christian families. As explained that goes in line with genetic finds from there matching them. And these are facts, not my speculation or interpretation. ;)

Huban
01-04-2021, 11:20 PM
Points made long ago about Illyrians..


Francis H. Eterovich, ‎Christopher Spalatin · 1964

THE ILLYRIAN LANGUAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS

In classical times Illyrian-speaking peoples lived in the region under discussion. Their language, which was Indo-European, is known from only a few names and brief inscriptions. The problem now confronting us is which of the cultures to connect with the Illyrian language. One school believes that the people of Vučedol and related cultures were Illyrians. This thesis can hardly be accepted, since the Italian Apennine Culture, which originated to some extent at least in the Vučedol Culture, occupied most of Italy, and yet the Illyrian language has been identified only on the eastern coast of Italy. Another school holds that the Illyrians came much later, in the beginning of the Iron Age. This is also difficult to accept, because the Glasinac Culture, according to Alojz Benac's and Borivoj Čović's detailed studies, does not show any break at this time. A third school, which seems to be in the majority, connects the Illyrians with Urnfield Cultures, such as the Pannonian and even the Lausitz Culture in eastern Germany. However, if the Glasinac people, who inhumed their dead, were Illyrians, one can hardly see how the Pannonians and even the distant Lausitz peoples, who cremated their dead, could also have been Illyrians. In addition to the style of burial , there were other sharp cultural differences between these two groups , which indicates that only one of them could have been Illyrian.. A fourth possibility remains, to connect the Illyrians and the Tumulus Cultures . Glasinac and , to a lesser degree , Castellieri in Istria had tumuli under which skeletons had been buried. The difference was that at Glasinac the bodies were extended while in Istria they were flexed. Ancient writers state that Illyrian was spoken on both the eastern and western coast of the Adriatic. A few inscriptions were preserved at Picenum in northern Italy , which show that the language was related to Illyrian . The Roman writer Pliny explicitly stated that the Picenes were of Illyrian origin. The tribes of Japyges , who occupied the area further south, in Apulia , are also thought to have been of Illyrian origin. They spoke Messapic. This language , of which some two hundred inscriptions have been found , is believed to have been related to Illyrian. Both groups came from the eastern Adriatic after 1000 B.C. , and both buried their dead in a flexed position under tumuli as in Istria. Other archaeological remains also show strong trans - Adriatic connections. Therefore , the facts would indicate that the Illyrians should be connected with the Tumulus rather than the Urnfield Culture. The Veneti on the north Adriatic coast cremated their dead , and therefore could hardly be Illyrian speaking or of Illyrian origin as it is usually thought. For all these reasons it does not seem possible to connect even the Urnfield sites in Croatia with the Illyrians. The archaeological remains show similarities to Urnfield cultures in northern Italy and Pannonia. It may be that, after the first invasion of the Urnfield people into Illyrian territory ended, the Illyrians began to expand back, and the increasing inhumation in such sites as Donja Dolina and in Istria would tend to substantiate this view. It is therefore possible that most of the sites with mixed burials were , by the time of the Celtic invasion , again populated by Illyrian-speaking people. The Celtic invasion, however, temporarily halted Illyrian expansion. The Illyrians later tried to occupy their lost territories. The Japudes , a mixture of Illyrians and Celts , according to classical writers , were probably Illyrian speaking , since the name Japodi , Japudes , and Japyges was found both in Illyrian speaking Picenum and in Apulia . This Illyrian expansion was permanently stopped by the Romans .

Donja Dolina site belonged to the Pannonian Oseriates tribe, and indeed it shows later Glasinac influence. The same pattern is repeated on various other Pannonian sites. That is how Delmate-Pannonian linguistic group came to be Illyrian pasted over Venetic (Urnfield).

broder
01-04-2021, 11:28 PM
Has been a while since I looked at them so forgot they use NIST standard. His DYS19 is 13 as well, not 10. Perhaps a typo.

Problem is there are other clusters that share those odd values, for example E-BY95428 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY95428/) (Bulgarian and that flagless Albanian). The only thing makes me think he could be in your cluster on that resolution is 389, but even then you can never know.

Huban
01-05-2021, 12:03 AM
Has been a while since I looked at them so forgot they use NIST standard. His DYS19 is 13 as well, not 10. Perhaps a typo.

Problem is there are other clusters that share those odd values, for example E-BY95428 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY95428/) (Bulgarian and that flagless Albanian). The only thing makes me think he could be in your cluster on that resolution is 389, but even then you can never know.

Yes a typo of my own.. No there aren't any defined clusters sharing those values.

E-BY95428 is defined by H4=10, also dys385a=14 of these YFiler STR's. No 438, 389 (except one of them I think) There is also a Greek with Vlach surname who should be above these two.

Far from being 389.. What about dys438?? We all have 11, V13 modal is 10. 438 is among the slowest STR's out there. Also we have mutation at dys439.

But yes there are convergences. There is a Hungarian E-BY4518 from Cumania with those values, and I totally expected him to join the A24066, but actually he does not share some A24070 defined values we share with Hungarian A24070.. If only that haplotype was A24066 would have been game over in my favor long ago..

Other than him, there is nothing that even begins to resemble the A24066 in any other E-V13 subclade. Some of his convergence may not be that old as these are old in our clade..

On low res the distinction are the mutations that define my own cluster A24066>A24049 and E-FT192275. And luckily these are present in studies as well..

However still I repeat two of those five Shop 385=16-17 haplotypes possess dys627=25, triple back mutation (or quadruple as it happened once at the Y30991 level it seems), one of defining STR's of E-A24070 and so all of these dys385=16-17 haplotypes from the Shop area are surely A24066... One can't converge on triple/quadruple back-mutations..

Ukrainian Z17107+, Z38456- have mostly H4=12 so they should be Y30991+, they are defined by dys438=9. That is the only V13 clade defined by such value (I think I saw one private mutation or two in others). Like my clade they seem to have a higher mutation rate, if they come up as A24070+ I'm sure there were several mutations on dys438..

broder
01-05-2021, 01:27 AM
You're right about BY95428, I confused him with another guy that shares those values (they have the same last name). Albanian guy under this cluster has 385a=13, H4=10 etc. so makes sense.

The other guy does share those values on that resolution except 438 and 389b. He is only Y37 so not sure where he would end up. But yes, 438 combined with 389 it does make it likely that he is in your cluster. Only that sample though, not sure what to say about the rest.

DYS627, on the same study? Karachanak.

Scythoslav
01-05-2021, 08:15 PM
From where and when did ancestors of E-V13 enter Europe?

This still hasn’t been answered. Any new findings/resources?

Hawk
01-05-2021, 08:33 PM
From where and when did ancestors of E-V13 enter Europe?

This still hasn’t been answered. Any new findings/resources?

We have discussed this before and it's impossible for them to have come from Tunisia and surroundings via Sicily or Iberia directly to Europe. Atleast the Y-DNA pattern and aDNA doesn't comform this.

We also have a Copt which is E-L618, Syrians, Albanians/Greeks. And we also have aDNA to back us. It was a minor, very minor Y-DNA among Southern Natufians and Anatolian Farmers.

Scythoslav
01-05-2021, 08:54 PM
We have discussed this before and it's impossible for them to have come from Tunisia and surroundings via Sicily or Iberia directly to Europe. Atleast the Y-DNA pattern and aDNA doesn't comform this.

We also have a Copt which is E-L618, Syrians, Albanians/Greeks. And we also have aDNA to back us. It was a minor, very minor Y-DNA among Southern Natufians and Anatolian Farmers.


Not really all that impossible. The sail from Tunisia to Europe is an easy one. Even on primitive boats. I mean “refugees” sail this journey all the time hahahah.

The aDNA doesn’t confirm an entrance through levant either. As no samples of E-M78 have been found among Anatolian farmers, or even natufians for that matter. So when you claim it was a small part of that culture. No samples yet prove this. That E-M78 sample from Levant doesn’t prove anything because it is a younger sample and could have come from North Africa later on and not descended from Natufians. Nothing is settled about this question. That’s why I’m asking if there are any new samples available.

Huban
01-05-2021, 11:06 PM
No, two of my cluster are in Zgonjanin et al. from 2017.
https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(17)30155-2/fulltext

This is YFiler Plus with 27 STR's. Newer studies use Powerflex Y23 or YFiler Plus. Karachanak is from 2013, and back then YFiler 17 STR's was still the norm. In early 2000s Y9 was most common. In YFiler Plus they added some STR's not in FTDNA's Y111 such as dys627 and dys518 but as it can be seen at YFull they also define branches.


Zgonjanin also did the study of 185 Vojvodina males in 2007, YFiler, where I also have relative. There is also one R-Y182782 there, more likely to be an ethnic Romanian as these are more common in Romanians than in Serbs. Various German, Hungarian, Roma, Romanian, Ruthenian haplotypes missing in Serbs can be spotted there. It seems to me they deliberately tested minorities without stating ethnicity. 5 Roma H-M52's, or to be more precise H-PH124. Also one Roma J-Y18402.

There are 2.19 % of self-declared Roma in Vojvodina. In this sample 3.2 % of Roma Y-DNA.

IN Karachanak 808 Bulgarians were tested but STR's were done for only 250. For the rest just SNP's and ofc nothing under E-V13..

Hawk
01-05-2021, 11:09 PM
Not really all that impossible. The sail from Tunisia to Europe is an easy one. Even on primitive boats. I mean “refugees” sail this journey all the time hahahah.

The aDNA doesn’t confirm an entrance through levant either. As no samples of E-M78 have been found among Anatolian farmers, or even natufians for that matter. So when you claim it was a small part of that culture. No samples yet prove this. That E-M78 sample from Levant doesn’t prove anything because it is a younger sample and could have come from North Africa later on and not descended from Natufians. Nothing is settled about this question. That’s why I’m asking if there are any new samples available.

Let's agree there is no conclusive evidence so far.

broder
01-06-2021, 02:08 AM
No, two of my cluster are in Zgonjanin et al. from 2017.
https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(17)30155-2/fulltext

This is YFiler Plus with 27 STR's. Newer studies use Powerflex Y23 or YFiler Plus. Karachanak is from 2013, and back then YFiler 17 STR's was still the norm. In early 2000s Y9 was most common. In YFiler Plus they added some STR's not in FTDNA's Y111 such as dys627 and dys518 but as it can be seen at YFull they also define branches.


Zgonjanin also did the study of 185 Vojvodina males in 2007, YFiler, where I also have relative. There is also one R-Y182782 there, more likely to be an ethnic Romanian as these are more common in Romanians than in Serbs. Various German, Hungarian, Roma, Romanian, Ruthenian haplotypes missing in Serbs can be spotted there. It seems to me they deliberately tested minorities without stating ethnicity. 5 Roma H-M52's, or to be more precise H-PH124. Also one Roma J-Y18402.

There are 2.19 % of self-declared Roma in Vojvodina. In this sample 3.2 % of Roma Y-DNA.

IN Karachanak 808 Bulgarians were tested but STR's were done for only 250. For the rest just SNP's and ofc nothing under E-V13..

I see 43 from central Serbia and 194 from southern Serbia. Based on those limited markers they actually look really close to you, meaning they could just be relatives of yours that dispersed around. Knowing how Montenegrins spread around it's most likely what we're looking at lol

Huban
01-06-2021, 03:49 AM
I considered most of these aspects before and think everything you describe is at least possible to likely. With many arguments I completely agree. However, I still have a problem with the origin of E-V13 in Pannonia and South of it, like with Vatin. The later cultures of the region might have had Central European-North Carpathian influences of significance. Vatin is indeed the only option for a somewhat more Southern origin, but I doubt it. I think the tradition goes from a epi-Corded culture in the Carpathian to North Alpine region.

Well I mention Vatin as part of so called Danubian complex, and closely archeologically genetically (and surely literally by Y-DNA to a significant degree) related to other cultures, more Southern and more Northern, with the origin point being in the North..

I posted recently on poreklo that while Urnfield was LBA, these cultures practiced cremation and deposition of remains in runs long before the LBA, in EBA/MBA, MBA. And although I didn't research it in detail I speculated that it might have been them who originated the Urnfield traditions to begin with.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tgRn55Cl1uA/VjuAXYOOJcI/AAAAAAAALCI/7gjApRtsrmM/s1600/Tartes.JPG

This map that you posted completely aligns with that. Now when you consider that within this white circle denoting early Urnfields there are Vatin, Verbicioara, Tei and other cultures whose origin is on the basis of previous Glina supstrate, and that Glina-Scheckenberg for the most part falls within this circle, how can that not be in favor of my thesis? Also Glina culture practiced cremation with inhumation in its time.. Also there in Transylvania we have Wittenberg culture (2200-1600 BC) which also practiced cremation with urns and this culture originated in Usatovo, Cucuteni dominated by Yamnaya incomers.

Within the Western part of this circle also we have Encrusted pottery culture (of which Girla Mare of SW Romania/NE Serbia descends from they were of different origin compared to neighbors) where also cremation in urns was practiced. Encrusted pottery arose on Kisapostag basis same as Vatya culture which also practiced cremation in Urns..

Despite that we have some samples of Vatya culture.
Hungary_Vatya.SG RISE247.SG I2a2a1 Százhalombatta-Földvár 1746-1611 calBCE
Hungary_Vatya.SG RISE254.SG I Százhalombatta-Földvár 3969
Hungary_Vatya.SG RISE479.SG I2a2a1a2a Erd 4 3700

This same clade dominates in Maros culture Mokrin. Some of their likely descendants https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y13331/

Look at their autosomal

Distance: 2.9512% / 2.95121150
Target: RISE247_Hungary_Vatya.SG_3629_ybp
46.6 I1908_Hungary_Balaton_Lasinja_CA_6050_ybp
20.5 I2440_Poland_Globular_Amphora_4950_ybp
20.0 Khvalynsk_EHG_merged_I0122_I0124_I0433_
6.6 I0112_Germany_Bell_Beaker_4250_ybp
6.3 I2433_Poland_Globular_Amphora_4950_ybp


Distance: 3.1698% / 3.16982246
Target: RISE483_Hungary_Vatya.SG_3700_ybp
56.2 I1908_Hungary_Balaton_Lasinja_CA_6050_ybp
23.1 I0112_Germany_Bell_Beaker_4250_ybp
12.5 Khvalynsk_EHG_merged_I0122_I0124_I0433_
8.2 Kunila1_Estonia_Corded_Ware.SG_4400_ybp


Distance: 4.7847% / 4.78468735
Target: RISE480_Hungary_Vatya.SG_3550_ybp
56.8 I1908_Hungary_Balaton_Lasinja_CA_6050_ybp
38.9 Khvalynsk_EHG_merged_I0122_I0124_I0433_
4.3 I0112_Germany_Bell_Beaker_4250_ybp


It seems the Neolithic Lasinja (and GA) like element is the strongest and is there is some non-IE EHG influence which makes Vatya not as Southern genetically. But this Northern element does not appear to be Steppe (IE). It seems IE proper element was small (Corded and most of BB).

It may be that proto-Etruscans originate there if one is to connect them with Urnfield. These are not connected to E-V13, no E-V13 finds there, and no E-V13 clade in Italy that would suggest Etruscan disposition. E-V13 should be related with the Eastern portion of the Early Urnfield white circle.

So you see the cremation in urns in the region is far older than LBA/EIA Urnfield. As is the TMRCA of E-V13.

rafc mentioned Yamnaya, Western Yamnaya.. Well that is what Glina-Schneckenberg is to a great extent.. Even though it has not been well researched until recently.

Huban
01-06-2021, 04:49 AM
I see 43 from central Serbia and 194 from southern Serbia. Based on those limited markers they actually look really close to you, meaning they could just be relatives of yours that dispersed around. Knowing how Montenegrins spread around it's most likely what we're looking at lol

That makes sense as one finds Bjelopavlici in Vojvodina (and one at YFull is from there). But that won't be the case here..

Three branches of my family were tested and our TMRCA is no less than 350 years or so by the documentary evidence and we all sport dys385=17-17. Despite for example me being 2/23 with my family branch which is 300 or 350 years away from me so some STR difference develops..

These have back mutation on 385b but not the 385a mutation. Additionally Peshter highlands descended family (or families) also share this with us, and prior to DNA test, my family had no idea these were their cousins, nor did they claim to be related to us! So 385a=17 must be at least a 100/150 years older than that... So no they don't descend of my family. And while there are attested migrations of my family to Central Serbia, there were no such migrations to southern Serbia. "Southern Serbia" in this study is Kosovo plus the part to the East. Poreklo tested almost 500 Kosovo families and and this cluster wasn't there, so this guy is not from Kosovo, he's from the "Vranje broader region" in the Shop area. Central Serbia guy can be from anywhere except Vojvodina, Kosovo and SE Serbia south of Pirot. But as SE is less tested, and as others are found there I suppose he shouldn't be too far from them. Also Tuzla guy has 17-17 so he is closer to me than any of these, and as no Serbs from Bosnia or Croats have these haplotypes and as they are majority there it must be a Bosniak again.

Yes close they are, but it seems our relation is in Medieval range. And if you take a closer look at them, they aren't that close to each other on these STR's: 458, 449, 456, 576, 518. With 194 I am only 3/25, and we share 576=18, and Tuzla guy. But with 43 I am 6/25 or even 7 (518 it seems is +4 or +5 compared t oYFull, 627 is actually -6 in the study, this is similar to H4 issue). 43 is most likely something like 700 or 800 years away from me or 194. And then figure that 43 developed backmutation on H4, and that despite being distant he is still closer to me than either of us is is to these H4=12 guys from Sofia, Pečenjevce, Vojvodina etc.. there is a bunch of people with Medieval distance to each other, looking at the closeness of their haplotypes I'd say the TMRCA of all shouldn't be above 1000 years, but not under 800 or so.. Don't forget one North Macedonian from a study too, he has H4=11, so he is distant to Bulgarian from Sofia who has the old H4=12. And well most of N.Macedonians should be connected to Bulgarians ethnically as they speak the related language.. So you have Bulgarian and N.Macedonian in this cluster whose ancestor lived in Medieval times.. No chance closer than 700-800 years or so I would say.
Serbo-Croatian is genetically closer to Slovenian than to Bulgarian/Macedonian. It's just that the Serbian Nemanjic state expansion to the East brought this Western group to the Shop and created the Bulgarian-Serbian mixture dialects..

PS check this Montenegrin sample of 404
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20091845/

Two of my cousins, and expectedly 385=17-17 so these are my family ofc. And the "diversity" of my clade there.

On the other hand, one finds 7 E-BY4465, some of them must be Albanians, some aren't (one or two were Montenegrins already found).
Of most common are:
27 Kuci E-BY165837
21 Vasojevic E-Y126722
13 Bjelopavlic E-Z13591
7 Mataruge E-A18844

Of others 24 are Ozrinici I-BY93199 (Djokovic is of those). So Kuci are the most numerous single cluster in Montenegro. 6.7 % of population.

Huban
01-06-2021, 06:01 AM
7 Mataruge E-A18844


Long time ago tested Bratic from Herzegovina, with them remained the old tradition that they are real descendants of the old Mataruga tribe. And others around them claimed that. Bjelice and all others have come up with some other traditions and would vehemently deny any link with Mataruge. However apparently during processing of their STR's there was a mistake so some STR's were not read properly, after this was rectified, it turned out that indeed they are E-A18844, as I always suspected these are Mataruge proper.

broder told me long ago that an Italian Mataranga was actually I-CTS10228. That may be but I of any E-V13 Arberesh E-Y172393 is by far the most common. Unsure whether they are E-A18844 or E-FT146201 (which has Albanians). Because E-A18844 are Mataruge, possibly E-A18844.

ISN15 ARB_CAL POL_AREA 13 25 13 10 17-18 11 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 17 10 24 E-V13(xV12,V22)
ALB18* ARB_CAL POL_SW 13 25 13 10 17-18 11 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 17 10 23 E-V13(xV12,V22)
ALB40 ARB_CAL POL_SW 13 25 13 10 17-18 11 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 17 10 24 E-V13(xV12,V22)
ALB8* ARB_CAL POL_SW 13 25 13 10 17-18 11 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 17 10 23 E-V13(xV12,V22)
ALB9 ARB_CAL POL_SW 13 25 13 10 17-18 11 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 17 10 23 E-V13(xV12,V22)
ISN57 ARB_CAL POL_SW 13 25 13 10 17-18 11 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 17 10 23 E-V13(xV12,V22)

broder
01-06-2021, 04:46 PM
That makes sense as one finds Bjelopavlici in Vojvodina (and one at YFull is from there). But that won't be the case here..

Three branches of my family were tested and our TMRCA is no less than 350 years or so by the documentary evidence and we all sport dys385=17-17. Despite for example me being 2/23 with my family branch which is 300 or 350 years away from me so some STR difference develops..

These have back mutation on 385b but not the 385a mutation. Additionally Peshter highlands descended family (or families) also share this with us, and prior to DNA test, my family had no idea these were their cousins, nor did they claim to be related to us! So 385a=17 must be at least a 100/150 years older than that... So no they don't descend of my family. And while there are attested migrations of my family to Central Serbia, there were no such migrations to southern Serbia. "Southern Serbia" in this study is Kosovo plus the part to the East. Poreklo tested almost 500 Kosovo families and and this cluster wasn't there, so this guy is not from Kosovo, he's from the "Vranje broader region" in the Shop area. Central Serbia guy can be from anywhere except Vojvodina, Kosovo and SE Serbia south of Pirot. But as SE is less tested, and as others are found there I suppose he shouldn't be too far from them. Also Tuzla guy has 17-17 so he is closer to me than any of these, and as no Serbs from Bosnia or Croats have these haplotypes and as they are majority there it must be a Bosniak again.

Yes close they are, but it seems our relation is in Medieval range. And if you take a closer look at them, they aren't that close to each other on these STR's: 458, 449, 456, 576, 518. With 194 I am only 3/25, and we share 576=18, and Tuzla guy. But with 43 I am 6/25 or even 7 (518 it seems is +4 or +5 compared t oYFull, 627 is actually -6 in the study, this is similar to H4 issue). 43 is most likely something like 700 or 800 years away from me or 194. And then figure that 43 developed backmutation on H4, and that despite being distant he is still closer to me than either of us is is to these H4=12 guys from Sofia, Pečenjevce, Vojvodina etc.. there is a bunch of people with Medieval distance to each other, looking at the closeness of their haplotypes I'd say the TMRCA of all shouldn't be above 1000 years, but not under 800 or so.. Don't forget one North Macedonian from a study too, he has H4=11, so he is distant to Bulgarian from Sofia who has the old H4=12. And well most of N.Macedonians should be connected to Bulgarians ethnically as they speak the related language.. So you have Bulgarian and N.Macedonian in this cluster whose ancestor lived in Medieval times.. No chance closer than 700-800 years or so I would say.
Serbo-Croatian is genetically closer to Slovenian than to Bulgarian/Macedonian. It's just that the Serbian Nemanjic state expansion to the East brought this Western group to the Shop and created the Bulgarian-Serbian mixture dialects..

PS check this Montenegrin sample of 404
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20091845/

Two of my cousins, and expectedly 385=17-17 so these are my family ofc. And the "diversity" of my clade there.

On the other hand, one finds 7 E-BY4465, some of them must be Albanians, some aren't (one or two were Montenegrins already found).
Of most common are:
27 Kuci E-BY165837
21 Vasojevic E-Y126722
13 Bjelopavlic E-Z13591
7 Mataruge E-A18844

Of others 24 are Ozrinici I-BY93199 (Djokovic is of those). So Kuci are the most numerous single cluster in Montenegro. 6.7 % of population.

Not just Bjelopavlici, you also have Vasojevici (that Roma guy comes to mind). I only have those markers of yours that you shared here. Haven't seen those Bosnians yet or your distant cousins from Peshter, besides what's on Yfull.

Yeah I mean closely related as within 400/500ybp, at least with 194. 43 is probably more distant. 385 is not that stable, that mutation is probably no more than 350 years old max among your family. I see such variations in our clans that have similar tmrca's. Kelmendi for example sport 17-17, 17-18 and 18-18 all within 450/500ybp. But it does depend how rapid the expansion was to some extent. 449 is not that stable either but when factoring in 43's other differences like 456 and 458 he might push that a bit, so I agree. Only one Bulgarian guy appears as close as 194 if you don't factor in his H4. The rest don't share 438, except one, but they have other odd difference that don't look like they are in your cluster. The two Serbs seem solid with their 627=25.

Can you post the Macedonian, Pecenjevce and the fella from Vojvodina?


Anyway, as it stands this group overall seems more prominent in the western Balkans, between you, Bosnians and those Serbs.

Yes, saw that few years ago. Quite few BY611 there as well, as expected. At least five should be Y32147+.

Hawk
01-06-2021, 07:40 PM
Well I mention Vatin as part of so called Danubian complex, and closely archeologically genetically (and surely literally by Y-DNA to a significant degree) related to other cultures, more Southern and more Northern, with the origin point being in the North..

I posted recently on poreklo that while Urnfield was LBA, these cultures practiced cremation and deposition of remains in runs long before the LBA, in EBA/MBA, MBA. And although I didn't research it in detail I speculated that it might have been them who originated the Urnfield traditions to begin with.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tgRn55Cl1uA/VjuAXYOOJcI/AAAAAAAALCI/7gjApRtsrmM/s1600/Tartes.JPG

This map that you posted completely aligns with that. Now when you consider that within this white circle denoting early Urnfields there are Vatin, Verbicioara, Tei and other cultures whose origin is on the basis of previous Glina supstrate, and that Glina-Scheckenberg for the most part falls within this circle, how can that not be in favor of my thesis? Also Glina culture practiced cremation with inhumation in its time.. Also there in Transylvania we have Wittenberg culture (2200-1600 BC) which also practiced cremation with urns and this culture originated in Usatovo, Cucuteni dominated by Yamnaya incomers.

Within the Western part of this circle also we have Encrusted pottery culture (of which Girla Mare of SW Romania/NE Serbia descends from they were of different origin compared to neighbors) where also cremation in urns was practiced. Encrusted pottery arose on Kisapostag basis same as Vatya culture which also practiced cremation in Urns..

Despite that we have some samples of Vatya culture.
Hungary_Vatya.SG RISE247.SG I2a2a1 Százhalombatta-Földvár 1746-1611 calBCE
Hungary_Vatya.SG RISE254.SG I Százhalombatta-Földvár 3969
Hungary_Vatya.SG RISE479.SG I2a2a1a2a Erd 4 3700

This same clade dominates in Maros culture Mokrin. Some of their likely descendants https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y13331/

Look at their autosomal


It seems the Neolithic Lasinja (and GA) like element is the strongest and is there is some non-IE EHG influence which makes Vatya not as Southern genetically. But this Northern element does not appear to be Steppe (IE). It seems IE proper element was small (Corded and most of BB).

It may be that proto-Etruscans originate there if one is to connect them with Urnfield. These are not connected to E-V13, no E-V13 finds there, and no E-V13 clade in Italy that would suggest Etruscan disposition. E-V13 should be related with the Eastern portion of the Early Urnfield white circle.

So you see the cremation in urns in the region is far older than LBA/EIA Urnfield. As is the TMRCA of E-V13.

rafc mentioned Yamnaya, Western Yamnaya.. Well that is what Glina-Schneckenberg is to a great extent.. Even though it has not been well researched until recently.

Marija Gimbutas thought that Pelasgians/Philistines had origin around Vatina Culture. And that Ancient Greek writers were simply confused. What if she was right, have you ever thought about this?

What if E-V13 was partially Tyrrhenian speakers partially IE.

vettor
01-06-2021, 09:39 PM
From the Apuglia thread: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11853-Puglia-Y-DNA&p=733999#post733999

4 E-Y3183, 1 E-L17 and 1 E-FGC11457. All E-V13 are E-V13 Z5018 subclades with most of them within S2979 and R-PF7563 to my surprise.

So, the E-V13 contributors are either the Dorians or Illyrians. Or from a 3rd population that contributed to both Dorians and Illyrians.

My guess is Dorians.............one must assume that since the Dorians conquered all Mycenae lands including Rhodes and Crete and many other islands that where late Mycenaen holdings, then one must assume that the Dorians lived next to the sea ( to have a fleet ) ..................the NW Greece/southern Albanian areas would be the ideal place as the homeland of the Dorians , also considering that no mention of Epirotes is noted while Dorians are mentioned in their Greek/mycenaean invasion

Riverman
01-06-2021, 09:42 PM
It seems the Neolithic Lasinja (and GA) like element is the strongest and is there is some non-IE EHG influence which makes Vatya not as Southern genetically. But this Northern element does not appear to be Steppe (IE). It seems IE proper element was small (Corded and most of BB).

It may be that proto-Etruscans originate there if one is to connect them with Urnfield. These are not connected to E-V13, no E-V13 finds there, and no E-V13 clade in Italy that would suggest Etruscan disposition. E-V13 should be related with the Eastern portion of the Early Urnfield white circle.

So you see the cremation in urns in the region is far older than LBA/EIA Urnfield. As is the TMRCA of E-V13.

rafc mentioned Yamnaya, Western Yamnaya.. Well that is what Glina-Schneckenberg is to a great extent.. Even though it has not been well researched until recently.

It looks to me like up to Pannonia E-V13 was up to the Middle Bronze Age rather rare. This excludes for me, a direct relationship with Vatin, unless one would prove otherwise. Rather it seems to me that Vatin was an input, at least culturally, probably even genetically, but highly unlikely to be the spreader. This means for me it seems to be more likely that the higher concentration of E-V13 started in the Northern Carpathians and from Slovakia upwards, into Poland, possibly with an extension to West. The most clear correlation, ethnolinguistically, is with Daco-Thracian in my opinion. But I agree in their possible formative role for Urnfield, the spread from the Carpathian zone onewards, but not with replacement, but rather partial colonisation and primarily missionary activity, like conversion for different people. This means E-V13 is likely to appear in the Lusatians and to the West in Urnfield Celts, but especially in the latter only as a small minority.

Looking at the Nitra culture samples, among which might have been an early E-V13 carrier, they were indeed mixed Corded Ware-Neolithic. I guess that among those clans which came from the epi-Corded world, there was just one TCC/Lengyel derived which survived and expanded on, keeping some older traditions of the Carpathian region alive, but being part of the IE and Corded Ware derived sphere. But going by the finds so far, I think this won't be much more South than the Northern Carpathians or South of the Alps, at least not the decisive formation.

Hawk
01-06-2021, 09:59 PM
Note that we still don't have enough aDNA from Bronze Age, who would have thought we will find E-M78 for the first time in a group somewhere in Late Neolithic France. And it was the first time we saw E-M78 in bigger numbers not as loners. Let's wait.

Huban
01-06-2021, 10:38 PM
Not just Bjelopavlici, you also have Vasojevici (that Roma guy comes to mind). I only have those markers of yours that you shared here. Haven't seen those Bosnians yet or your distant cousins from Peshter, besides what's on Yfull.

Yeah I mean closely related as within 400/500ybp, at least with 194. 43 is probably more distant. 385 is not that stable, that mutation is probably no more than 350 years old max among your family. I see such variations in our clans that have similar tmrca's. Kelmendi for example sport 17-17, 17-18 and 18-18 all within 450/500ybp. But it does depend how rapid the expansion was to some extent. 449 is not that stable either but when factoring in 43's other differences like 456 and 458 he might push that a bit, so I agree. Only one Bulgarian guy appears as close as 194 if you don't factor in his H4. The rest don't share 438, except one, but they have other odd difference that don't look like they are in your cluster. The two Serbs seem solid with their 627=25.

Can you post the Macedonian, Pecenjevce and the fella from Vojvodina?


Anyway, as it stands this group overall seems more prominent in the western Balkans, between you, Bosnians and those Serbs.

Yes, saw that few years ago. Quite few BY611 there as well, as expected. At least five should be Y32147+.

I only claimed that Bulgarian no.2 from Sofia. In an old study from 2001 one has 389b=29 + 385b=17 but only Y9, so he can be something else such as one of their S7461 (who have 389b=29 but not this 385b).

385 can be unstable indeed, but in your clade it isn't.. And obviously all of us share backmutation on 385b which is not what the Bosnian clade has (modal 16-18) so for sure there some stability on 385b.

And as I've said Bulgarian H4=12 is no difference that actually makes Bulgarian certain A24066 (combined with other STRs ofc), as I used to have 12 as well as all Y30991..

Generally A24066 are rare everywhere. There might be up to 10 tested in Serbs/Montenegrins (few have same surname) but also important to note, the sample is 7000 (poreklo + studies).
10/7000
1/850 Romania
1/900 Bulgaria (not all on their project have Y-DNA)
1/550 North Macedonian
4/600 Bosniaks (from Bosnia, not inlcuding Sanjak Bosniaks here)

Little more common in Bosnia. And I think A24066 is a Medieval Bosnian haplogroup. Before the YF73441 was even SNP tested I knew his Y37 and I predicted he was going to form subclade below A24066 defined by dys393=14 and dys458=17. And they did, and they are defined by these.
RO283 from Cluj 14 24 13 10 16-18 11 12 13 13 11 29 18 14 20 12 18 11 22
Bosnian modal 14 24 13 10 16-18 11 12 13 13 11 29 17 14 20 12 17 11 22

He has 18 but you are more likely to get to 18 from 17 than from 16, but 393 is the main point, and by GD he is similar to both Bosnians 3/19 with both, they are 2/19 on these STR's. You know this STR defines your clade very reliably as it is very slow. And it does define other V13 clades reliably.

True, Shop only has diversity in my branch, Western Balkans has more general diversity. But basal Vojvodina relative of my own, RO283 and Hungarian A24070* indicate that the overall diversity of A24070 is greatest above Danube in Eastern Medieval Hungarian areas..

Lack of E-FT192275 in Shop and in Serbs indicates there is instantly some problem with the Vlach theory, as Bosniaks especially from Central Bosnia have no direct Vlach ancestry to begin with. That's why they called Serbs Vlachs, because as 400-500 years ago almost all Serbs were in Vlach status legally (because it was better than peasant status so great many crossed over), and ofc the Vlach status in Serbs started spreading from an old core which was of Vlach origin, and you see that in DNA as Serbs have more of Paleo-Balkan hg's than Bosniaks (their E-V13 is about 10 %). Way over 1000 Serbs (or 2000) from Bosnia and Croatia were tested and no E-FT192275. Nor is any Vlach migration from Bosnia into Romania attested, such migrations make sense for Central/Eastern Balkans..

What is attested are numerous Hungarian incursions, and some central Bosnian proto-Magyar N-M2019, and Alan G-PH1780 (found in Jaszsag) are indeed likely indications of that.

And so E-FT192275 have closest relatives also in Transylvania.

There is no Early Medieval tribe called Bosnians, and Bosnia is first mentioned in 10th century. It derives of old Illyrian river Bathinus. Though some were connecting it to the Hungarian name of Pechenegs, Bessenyei.

First Bosnian ruler was Borić, of foreign origin, some say Bulgarian (Borić related to Boris etc.). After him Kulin had a Pecheneg name and because of that Kulin is considered by some historians to have been of Pecheneg origin.

It is possible that the original "Bosnians" as a separate people were detachments of Magyar-Pecheneg etc. groups who settled central Bosnia in 10th, 11th centuries.. There were no "Bosnians" earlier..
Other than Kulin some old Medieval Bosnian families had Tatar-like names and surnames..

A Bosnian mufti years ago launched theories that Bosnians = Pechenegs.. He refers to this person "to have first determined that Bosnians are Pechenegs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_al-Ghazi_Bahadur

I see again our TMRCA jumped a little like with everyone to 1950 ybp (usedto be 1800), its probably closer to 1500 as we have clearly a higher mutation rate. I have same number of novel SNP's below A24066 (and I share 14 SNPs above) in ComBED region as Albanian E-A19247 has below A19247.. Bosnians have 11 and 10..

So for those reasons in addition to my cluster I think it is either recent North of Danube origin for A24066 or some late Antiquity Romanized locals who are not connected to Vlachs.. As I said to my Bosnian cousin: it should be Bathinus or Bessenyei for us.. (two things people have connected Bosnia to etymologically).

So Bosniaks have very recent links with Medieval East Hungarian areas in form of N-M2019, G-PH1780, E-FT192275, and R-U106>Z330 as well it seems.

Anyhow the main point is that clearly it is far from the whole picture, what you see on YFull. This cluster is very rare, and it is overrepresented already, for ex. only 2 Vasojevici who are at least 10 times more common.

Some people tried to get info on people from studies, it doesn't work unless one has some serious connections with authors..

---

On Montenegro, yes actually 26 R-Z2705 so 6.4 % of R-Z2705 in MNE. Good part of them are Piperi. There is one weird haplotype:
12 25 14 10 11-11 12 13 13 30 16 16 19 11 16 12 23

he has various slow STR off-modals, 393=12, 390=25, 391=10, 437=16.. He could be Y32147 who backmutated on dys393. If not, and these off-modals might suggest that, then he is probably BY38894-.

Montenegrins have significant Albanian influence. That's true. And personally I have been more inclined to Albanians than Vlach/Arman because of stronger tribal culture. Albeit many Vlachs have had strong tribal culture too. Actually when I talk about my DNA research in real life with somebody I often mention that I have lots of distant relatives in Albania (E-BY4459)..

Huban
01-06-2021, 11:03 PM
Marija Gimbutas thought that Pelasgians/Philistines had origin around Vatina Culture. And that Ancient Greek writers were simply confused. What if she was right, have you ever thought about this?

What if E-V13 was partially Tyrrhenian speakers partially IE.

I did. I think what Gimbutas meant was Dubovac Žuto Brdo or Girla Mare culture next to Vatina and Verbicioara, this culture took some elements of them but certainly was of different origin. It was the Girla-Mare urns that Villanovan urns resembled most closely.

There were Phillistines as Sea People who did migrate to Levant and that was their name. Not Pelasgians. Pelasgians looks to be how Greeks called various non-Greeks. So Greek name must be a corruption.

Phillistines according to some evidence about them were IE speaking. And one of those Phillistines was R-M269.. I think pre-Thracian name of Strymon river, the Palaistinos does indicate they came from those areas. Are some E-V13 related to Philistines? I think yes.

Regarding Pelasgians of Lemnos, they spoke language related to Etruscan, but their archeological remains I believe indicate Mycenean like population. Some have suggested these are Etruscan traders. It may well be there were some Etruscan speaking groups stemming from Girla Mare culture. It doesn't look to me they were E-V13 largely. There is no single Italian clade of E-V13 that resembles Etruscans..

With regards to non-IE speakers of the Balkans I definitely believe one should focus on Lemnos.
Thus far there are four samples from Lemnos:
G-CTS11562
G-FGC477 BY27899-
G-M201>L91
I1

Something going on here with G, as one could expect.. one G1, one is I1 but I heard Etruscan will show I1 as well, so who knows.. The other two are likely remnants of those Pelasgians IMO. But no E-V13..

Huban
01-06-2021, 11:25 PM
It looks to me like up to Pannonia E-V13 was up to the Middle Bronze Age rather rare. This excludes for me, a direct relationship with Vatin, unless one would prove otherwise. Rather it seems to me that Vatin was an input, at least culturally, probably even genetically, but highly unlikely to be the spreader. This means for me it seems to be more likely that the higher concentration of E-V13 started in the Northern Carpathians and from Slovakia upwards, into Poland, possibly with an extension to West. The most clear correlation, ethnolinguistically, is with Daco-Thracian in my opinion. But I agree in their possible formative role for Urnfield, the spread from the Carpathian zone onewards, but not with replacement, but rather partial colonisation and primarily missionary activity, like conversion for different people. This means E-V13 is likely to appear in the Lusatians and to the West in Urnfield Celts, but especially in the latter only as a small minority.

Looking at the Nitra culture samples, among which might have been an early E-V13 carrier, they were indeed mixed Corded Ware-Neolithic. I guess that among those clans which came from the epi-Corded world, there was just one TCC/Lengyel derived which survived and expanded on, keeping some older traditions of the Carpathian region alive, but being part of the IE and Corded Ware derived sphere. But going by the finds so far, I think this won't be much more South than the Northern Carpathians or South of the Alps, at least not the decisive formation.

Well actually I just mentioned the E-Z5018 as being related to Vatin and related cultures. Z5017 is a bit more tricky and it is older judging by its current TMRCA. Also Vatin culture is one with several elements influencing it, it was not that "pure", so I surely think some other hg's were there..

I do not think E-V13 was that common in Pannonia at any point, surely not prevalent... We have actually four LBA/EIA/MIA samples from Eastern Pannonia.
IR1.SG G2a1 N-Y6503 980-830 calBCE Ludas-Varju-Dulo Ludas
BR2.SG K1a1a J2a1 1270-1110 calBCE Hungary_LBA.SG Ludas-Varju-Dulo Kyjatice Culture
DA197 Hungarian Scythian 2336 R1 H2a2a1
DA198 Hungarian Scythian 2342 G-PF3378 H2a2a

Ludas sample is Cimmerian. J2a is of one Urnfield culture: Kyjatice Culture. Two Hungarian politically "Scythians" (no Scythian ancestry similar to those Getae and even some Slavoid Ukrainian Scythians) are some Urnfield locals. So no E-V13 in more recent times there thus far either. Statistically this indicates E-V13 was 15 % and less there.. I think this also indicates it must have been heavy Eastwards, and most Hungarian samples are from the Eastern part.

I do think E-V13 was very important in Daco-Thracian genesis but how old is that genesis is also open to debate. In any case I think the great bulk of E-V13 started spreading from the Carpathian area yes.

oz
01-07-2021, 01:38 AM
I only claimed that Bulgarian no.2 from Sofia. In an old study from 2001 one has 389b=29 + 385b=17 but only Y9, so he can be something else such as one of their S7461 (who have 389b=29 but not this 385b).

385 can be unstable indeed, but in your clade it isn't.. And obviously all of us share backmutation on 385b which is not what the Bosnian clade has (modal 16-18) so for sure there some stability on 385b.

And as I've said Bulgarian H4=12 is no difference that actually makes Bulgarian certain A24066 (combined with other STRs ofc), as I used to have 12 as well as all Y30991..

Generally A24066 are rare everywhere. There might be up to 10 tested in Serbs/Montenegrins (few have same surname) but also important to note, the sample is 7000 (poreklo + studies).
10/7000
1/850 Romania
1/900 Bulgaria (not all on their project have Y-DNA)
1/550 North Macedonian
4/600 Bosniaks (from Bosnia, not inlcuding Sanjak Bosniaks here)

Little more common in Bosnia. And I think A24066 is a Medieval Bosnian haplogroup. Before the YF73441 was even SNP tested I knew his Y37 and I predicted he was going to form subclade below A24066 defined by dys393=14 and dys458=17. And they did, and they are defined by these.
RO283 from Cluj 14 24 13 10 16-18 11 12 13 13 11 29 18 14 20 12 18 11 22
Bosnian modal 14 24 13 10 16-18 11 12 13 13 11 29 17 14 20 12 17 11 22

He has 18 but you are more likely to get to 18 from 17 than from 16, but 393 is the main point, and by GD he is similar to both Bosnians 3/19 with both, they are 2/19 on these STR's. You know this STR defines your clade very reliably as it is very slow. And it does define other V13 clades reliably.

True, Shop only has diversity in my branch, Western Balkans has more general diversity. But basal Vojvodina relative of my own, RO283 and Hungarian A24070* indicate that the overall diversity of A24070 is greatest above Danube in Eastern Medieval Hungarian areas..

Lack of E-FT192275 in Shop and in Serbs indicates there is instantly some problem with the Vlach theory, as Bosniaks especially from Central Bosnia have no direct Vlach ancestry to begin with. That's why they called Serbs Vlachs, because as 400-500 years ago almost all Serbs were in Vlach status legally (because it was better than peasant status so great many crossed over), and ofc the Vlach status in Serbs started spreading from an old core which was of Vlach origin, and you see that in DNA as Serbs have more of Paleo-Balkan hg's than Bosniaks (their E-V13 is about 10 %). Way over 1000 Serbs (or 2000) from Bosnia and Croatia were tested and no E-FT192275. Nor is any Vlach migration from Bosnia into Romania attested, such migrations make sense for Central/Eastern Balkans..

What is attested are numerous Hungarian incursions, and some central Bosnian proto-Magyar N-M2019, and Alan G-PH1780 (found in Jaszsag) are indeed likely indications of that.

And so E-FT192275 have closest relatives also in Transylvania.

There is no Early Medieval tribe called Bosnians, and Bosnia is first mentioned in 10th century. It derives of old Illyrian river Bathinus. Though some were connecting it to the Hungarian name of Pechenegs, Bessenyei.

First Bosnian ruler was Borić, of foreign origin, some say Bulgarian (Borić related to Boris etc.). After him Kulin had a Pecheneg name and because of that Kulin is considered by some historians to have been of Pecheneg origin.

It is possible that the original "Bosnians" as a separate people were detachments of Magyar-Pecheneg etc. groups who settled central Bosnia in 10th, 11th centuries.. There were no "Bosnians" earlier..
Other than Kulin some old Medieval Bosnian families had Tatar-like names and surnames..

A Bosnian mufti years ago launched theories that Bosnians = Pechenegs.. He refers to this person "to have first determined that Bosnians are Pechenegs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_al-Ghazi_Bahadur

I see again our TMRCA jumped a little like with everyone to 1950 ybp (usedto be 1800), its probably closer to 1500 as we have clearly a higher mutation rate. I have same number of novel SNP's below A24066 (and I share 14 SNPs above) in ComBED region as Albanian E-A19247 has below A19247.. Bosnians have 11 and 10..

So for those reasons in addition to my cluster I think it is either recent North of Danube origin for A24066 or some late Antiquity Romanized locals who are not connected to Vlachs.. As I said to my Bosnian cousin: it should be Bathinus or Bessenyei for us.. (two things people have connected Bosnia to etymologically).

So Bosniaks have very recent links with Medieval East Hungarian areas in form of N-M2019, G-PH1780, E-FT192275, and R-U106>Z330 as well it seems.

Anyhow the main point is that clearly it is far from the whole picture, what you see on YFull. This cluster is very rare, and it is overrepresented already, for ex. only 2 Vasojevici who are at least 10 times more common.

Some people tried to get info on people from studies, it doesn't work unless one has some serious connections with authors..

---

On Montenegro, yes actually 26 R-Z2705 so 6.4 % of R-Z2705 in MNE. Good part of them are Piperi. There is one weird haplotype:
12 25 14 10 11-11 12 13 13 30 16 16 19 11 16 12 23

he has various slow STR off-modals, 393=12, 390=25, 391=10, 437=16.. He could be Y32147 who backmutated on dys393. If not, and these off-modals might suggest that, then he is probably BY38894-.

Montenegrins have significant Albanian influence. That's true. And personally I have been more inclined to Albanians than Vlach/Arman because of stronger tribal culture. Albeit many Vlachs have had strong tribal culture too. Actually when I talk about my DNA research in real life with somebody I often mention that I have lots of distant relatives in Albania (E-BY4459)..

You're talking all kinds of nonsense. Borić and Kulin have nothing to do with Bulgaria. Bosnians originate from Pechenegs? No. They don't originate from them or from Avars and they're not mixed with Turkish Ottomans either. Genetics have swiftly debunked any kind of theories and propaganda that Bosnians have anything to do genetically with any kind of Turks. In fact they're the least Turk-like people in all of East Europe. Our history of Islam and Ottoman culture has nothing to do with Turkic or Turkish admixture, because there is none.

I have to correct you even though this isn't the thread to discuss Bosnian history and genetics and I suggest you stop spamming it with theories that aren't supported with any substantial evidence.

Riverman
01-07-2021, 01:44 AM
Note that we still don't have enough aDNA from Bronze Age, who would have thought we will find E-M78 for the first time in a group somewhere in Late Neolithic France. And it was the first time we saw E-M78 in bigger numbers not as loners. Let's wait.

Well, we have E1b1b in many early Neolithic groups, so there was no reason why they shouldn't become prominent at one point and in a specific formation. The problem with E-V13 is a different one, namely that you have to explain the wide spread in a time when we know that most movements were going from the North -> South and not vice versa. And the main spreading events happened in the LBA-EIA transition. These two factors alone limit the options. Like I said before, for a South -> North expansion which explains the later distribution, there must have been a massive movement through Pannonia in the EBA-MBA upwards, but there was none! That's why the Pannonian study is so important and even more significant is that the only find might be from the Northern fringe, from an epi-Corded context in the wider sense. This speaks volumes and laid many other options practically to rest. Well, they might be still alive, but barely so and became very unlikely going by the current evidence.

The specific pottery and cultural elements from around the Carpathians, encrusted pottery and fluted ware, Gáva-Holigrady in particular, well, that's a completely different thing. From my impression Vatin will be found to be more Danubian shifted, probably I2 and G2 enriched, but no good candidate for a northward movement of E-V13, in no form or province. Rather they came into contact with the epi-Corded mountain groups which were E-V13 enriched already and that way the first individuals and clans might have to started to mix with them and move South.

Hawk
01-07-2021, 01:41 PM
I did. I think what Gimbutas meant was Dubovac Žuto Brdo or Girla Mare culture next to Vatina and Verbicioara, this culture took some elements of them but certainly was of different origin. It was the Girla-Mare urns that Villanovan urns resembled most closely.

There were Phillistines as Sea People who did migrate to Levant and that was their name. Not Pelasgians. Pelasgians looks to be how Greeks called various non-Greeks. So Greek name must be a corruption.

Phillistines according to some evidence about them were IE speaking. And one of those Phillistines was R-M269.. I think pre-Thracian name of Strymon river, the Palaistinos does indicate they came from those areas. Are some E-V13 related to Philistines? I think yes.

Regarding Pelasgians of Lemnos, they spoke language related to Etruscan, but their archeological remains I believe indicate Mycenean like population. Some have suggested these are Etruscan traders. It may well be there were some Etruscan speaking groups stemming from Girla Mare culture. It doesn't look to me they were E-V13 largely. There is no single Italian clade of E-V13 that resembles Etruscans..

With regards to non-IE speakers of the Balkans I definitely believe one should focus on Lemnos.
Thus far there are four samples from Lemnos:
G-CTS11562
G-FGC477 BY27899-
G-M201>L91
I1

Something going on here with G, as one could expect.. one G1, one is I1 but I heard Etruscan will show I1 as well, so who knows.. The other two are likely remnants of those Pelasgians IMO. But no E-V13..

I rather think the intruders into Middle Bronze Age Romanian Cultures from the West was E-V13 instead. It doesn't make sense for E-V13 to have such an early Eastern European dispersal. The split must have been somewhere where Riverman hypothetizes.

Huban
01-07-2021, 11:18 PM
You're talking all kinds of nonsense. Borić and Kulin have nothing to do with Bulgaria. Bosnians originate from Pechenegs? No. They don't originate from them or from Avars and they're not mixed with Turkish Ottomans either. Genetics have swiftly debunked any kind of theories and propaganda that Bosnians have anything to do genetically with any kind of Turks. In fact they're the least Turk-like people in all of East Europe. Our history of Islam and Ottoman culture has nothing to do with Turkic or Turkish admixture, because there is none.

I have to correct you even though this isn't the thread to discuss Bosnian history and genetics and I suggest you stop spamming it with theories that aren't supported with any substantial evidence.

An article from Stjepan Antoljak, renowned Croatian historian. I translated it.
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stjepan_Antoljak


Of what origin could ban Kulin be??

Nobody around here has thus far dealt directly with this question, rather only indirectly. So for ex. Milobar holds that "Honiat and Kinan archbishop Bankin" who fought against Emanuel Komnin is ban Kulin.

Before we deal with the problem of descent of this Bosnian ruler, let us take a look which other sources mention this name. So John Skylitzes narrates of Kulin son of Kegen, leader of the Pechenegs. At the end of 12th century this name appears in our sources. So in the contract of ban Kulin with the Ragusans from 1189 in latin language "banus Culinus Bosene" is mentioned, and in cyrilic immediately below the text it says "ban of Bosnia Kulin".
After this only in 13th and 14th century in local sources appears again the name Koulin. Namely in chrysobulos of Stephan of Serbia and his son Radoslav for the benefit of monastery Žiča (1222-1228) among the names of the Vlachs who were given to the Church appear names: Kouman, Milobrat, Čonč. .. Loubota, Koulin, Velimir. .. Miroš. . . Boukor. and in the charter of the kinf Stefan Uroš Milutin where ge donates villages and men in Zeta to monastery Hilandar (1293-1303) the names in succession are . .Koukor. . . Dod.. Deso. . Bodin, Koulin. .. Lala. .. Kumanic. . . Krsta. . . Radomir. . .

According to this source material it can be concluded that the ban Kulin was of Pecheneg or Vlach origin. As the Kulin in sources was far earlier designated as Pecheneg, it can be postulated that this ruler more likely belonged to this people.

Today it is assumed that Kulin, who could have been descended of that Pecheneg ruling house, became the ban probably as Byzantine protegee in the service of Emmanuel Komnin. Therefore it can be concluded that this ruler, whose dominion included Bosnia, set in the ban's chair Kulin, Pecheneg by origin, or maybe of Vlach origin which is less likely.


According to experts on Pechenegs the Pecheneg personal name name Kulin means "foal". Kulin son of Kegen son of Belchen.. Mentioned in 1050, long before Kulin of Bosnia. And those Vlach katuns, you see they also had the names Kuman/Kumanic so obviously they had some Turkic influence too.

You descend from East Bosnia or North Bosnia. Most of my ancestry is from Central Bosnia, and where it isn't I do have relatives there by Y-DNA. My mother (Bosniak 100 %) was born in Vratnik Sarajevo, and my maternal ancestors were of Bey origin, living for centuries in Sarajevo. 100 % of Central Bosnia. It is the people of Central Bosnia who are descended of "original" Bosnians the most. So I am far more adept than you regarding this region.

It is a lie that there is none.
Turkish origin stories are very common, my cousin has it. My mothers family, maternal grandmothers family, except there may be some truth there. For example my greatuncle claimed his greatgrandfather was a Turkish soldier. And my grandfathers family due to their origins and some details might as well. Where I got my mtdna from ancestry is of Ottomans from Timisoara after they had lost Timis in 1717.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/I1a1a/

Of my greatgrandmother, family comes from Ottoman Slavonia again from 300 years ago. So I myself have heavy Ottoman extra-Bosnian ancestry.. Most Bosniaks tested are from villages, the urban descended people are less tested, and as such I know ancestry from those sides 300 years back. Usually Bosniaks from villages know far less.. Few are R-Z93 for example etc. Also some Eastern Balkans lineages could have been some locals from there assimilated there and having arrived to Bosnia recently. One example is E-A9739 found in few Bosniaks
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A9739/

Bulgarians in this clade have high TMRCA.

One known sipahi/Bey family from Neretva area is J2a-M67 etc..
And there is nothing bad (you using typical "propaganda" terms) about that. Last time I checked it was the Ottoman Turks who conquered the Balkans (and plenty of other areas), not the Balkanites..

Borić was not from Bosnia but Slavonia. One historian postulated that he was the same person as Boris son of Koloman, but that is probably not correct.

My "nonsense" is backed up with references from authorities. So I suggest you to provide references disputing that clearly ban Kulin had a distinct Pecheneg name. I don't think you can, and I don't think this can be disputed at all..

I never said Bosnians descend of Pechenegs, but tiny minority. One of ruling minorities. Beginning with Kulin.
And then also the Bosnian Medieval house of Sabančić.

here the mufti's text
http://sbk.eu.com/izdvojeno/porijeklo-bosnjaka/

Of course it's not very realistic lol, but I wonder how would he react if he knew this about Kulin?

oz
01-07-2021, 11:41 PM
An article from Stjepan Antoljak, renowned Croatian historian. I translated it.
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stjepan_Antoljak



According to experts on Pechenegs the Pecheneg personal name name Kulin means "foal". Kulin son of Kegen son of Belchen.. Mentioned in 1050, long before Kulin of Bosnia. And those Vlach katuns, you see they also had the names Kuman/Kumanic so obviously they had some Turkic influence too.

You descend from East Bosnia or North Bosnia. Most of my ancestry is from Central Bosnia, and where it isn't I do have relatives there by Y-DNA. My mother (Bosniak 100 %) was born in Vratnik Sarajevo, and my maternal ancestors were of Bey origin, living for centuries in Sarajevo. 100 % of Central Bosnia. It is the people of Central Bosnia who are descended of "original" Bosnians the most. So I am far more adept than you regarding this region.

It is a lie that there is none.
Turkish origin stories are very common, my cousin has it. My mothers family, maternal grandmothers family, except there may be some truth there. For example my greatuncle claimed his greatgrandfather was a Turkish soldier. And my grandfathers family due to their origins and some details might as well. Where I got my mtdna from ancestry is of Ottomans from Timisoara after they had lost Timis in 1717.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/I1a1a/

Of my greatgrandmother, family comes from Ottoman Slavonia again from 300 years ago. So I myself have heavy Ottoman extra-Bosnian ancestry.. Most Bosniaks tested are from villages, the urban descended people are less tested, and as such I know ancestry from those sides 300 years back. Usually Bosniaks from villages know far less.. Few are R-Z93 for example etc. Also some Eastern Balkans lineages could have been some locals from there assimilated there and having arrived to Bosnia recently. One example is E-A9739 found in few Bosniaks
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A9739/

Bulgarians in this clade have high TMRCA.

One known sipahi/Bey family from Neretva area is J2a-M67 etc..
And there is nothing bad (you using typical "propaganda" terms) about that. Last time I checked it was the Ottoman Turks who conquered the Balkans (and plenty of other areas), not the Balkanites..

Borić was not from Bosnia but Slavonia. One historian postulated that he was the same person as Boris son of Koloman, but that is probably not correct.

My "nonsense" is backed up with references from authorities. So I suggest you to provide references disputing that clearly ban Kulin had a distinct Pecheneg name. I don't think you can, and I don't think this can be disputed at all..

I never said Bosnians descend of Pechenegs, but tiny minority. One of ruling minorities. Beginning with Kulin.
And then also the Bosnian Medieval house of Sabančić.

here the mufti's text
http://sbk.eu.com/izdvojeno/porijeklo-bosnjaka/

Of course it's not very realistic, but I wonder how would he react if he knew this about Kulin?

No it's not some tiny ruling minority either, these are all bullshit myths for dumb gullible people.

Kulin could come from the word kula one of the words for fortress in Bosnian or whatever you translate it to. Borić from the word borba, borit= to fight, borac warrior. There's your explanation no need to look for explanations in some mythological, hypothesized Turkic populations.

BukeKrypEZemer
01-08-2021, 10:44 AM
So I have some words to say, as now I am getting the feeling this is going a bit in the wrong direction. I am the Albanian E-Y20805* that broder already described the history of. We used to be in Gubetin next to Prokuplje. In 1877 we had to leave that region, as Serbian forces with support of Russia invaded the whole area and causing a massive massacre. Also about my ancestors, it is said only a few survived and managed to escape to Kosovo. Serbian literature confirms this. But what you can further find in literature is that the area around Prokuplje was inhabited by a big chunk of catholics, especially coming from Ragusa/Dubrovnik. The oral tradition we hail from Shkodra is not 100% confirmed so far, as you say. But in several books it is said that there were several catholic Albanian families moving to that region from Pult as well . Pult back in that time used to stretch almost over whole northern Albania. ( check that pic, this is from Kerkime Onomastike, where they refer to Pjeter Mazreku)
42393
We surely need some more samples, but we have now a pretty much western balkan presence of my clade with a current TMRCA of 2800 years. The samples below E-BY4573 is one Serbian guy, who also has oral tradition to be from Shkodra Lake area and moreover telling me some interesting stuff regarding his ancestors used to be called Kelmend and not speaking Serbian that well. Also a bunch of autosomal Albanian matches. I would say he has no reason to be Serbian and claim this if it is not right. From a ethnic point of view, saying things like this would be even disadvantageous for him (bullying mentality, but at least I know he is a though guy who can stand this ;) ). The Bosnian guy whose BigY is (hopefully) soon in process, as was said refers to Kuci tribe and origin from Rozhaje is confirmed, farer origin is also noted in books to be from Zakamenje next to Podgorica. Then let us get to the Bulgarian guy. He is from Staliyska mahala, near lom. There was an Albanian community in chiprovci, moving there for mineworking. They moved to Vidin and Lom after Chiprovci uprise in 1688. So this could easily explain the presence of E-BY4573 there. I was pretty lost at first, because I did not have too many people in the clade. But let us see what will happen within the next year. Maybe some more will pop up ;)

In Z37530 , there are also two other people from Albania in the subclade of the Hungarian likely (S10743). One is from an old, noble Albanian family in the south, the other one claims Vlach origin. A good candidate for the eastern movement is E-Y41959.

Huban
01-08-2021, 11:40 PM
So I have some words to say, as now I am getting the feeling this is going a bit in the wrong direction. I am the Albanian E-Y20805* that broder already described the history of. We used to be in Gubetin next to Prokuplje. In 1877 we had to leave that region, as Serbian forces with support of Russia invaded the whole area and causing a massive massacre. Also about my ancestors, it is said only a few survived and managed to escape to Kosovo. Serbian literature confirms this. But what you can further find in literature is that the area around Prokuplje was inhabited by a big chunk of catholics, especially coming from Ragusa/Dubrovnik. The oral tradition we hail from Shkodra is not 100% confirmed so far, as you say. But in several books it is said that there were several catholic Albanian families moving to that region from Pult as well . Pult back in that time used to stretch almost over whole northern Albania. ( check that pic, this is from Kerkime Onomastike, where they refer to Pjeter Mazreku)
42393
We surely need some more samples, but we have now a pretty much western balkan presence of my clade with a current TMRCA of 2800 years. The samples below E-BY4573 is one Serbian guy, who also has oral tradition to be from Shkodra Lake area and moreover telling me some interesting stuff regarding his ancestors used to be called Kelmend and not speaking Serbian that well. Also a bunch of autosomal Albanian matches. I would say he has no reason to be Serbian and claim this if it is not right. From a ethnic point of view, saying things like this would be even disadvantageous for him (bullying mentality, but at least I know he is a though guy who can stand this ;) ). The Bosnian guy whose BigY is (hopefully) soon in process, as was said refers to Kuci tribe and origin from Rozhaje is confirmed, farer origin is also noted in books to be from Zakamenje next to Podgorica. Then let us get to the Bulgarian guy. He is from Staliyska mahala, near lom. There was an Albanian community in chiprovci, moving there for mineworking. They moved to Vidin and Lom after Chiprovci uprise in 1688. So this could easily explain the presence of E-BY4573 there. I was pretty lost at first, because I did not have too many people in the clade. But let us see what will happen within the next year. Maybe some more will pop up ;)

In Z37530 , there are also two other people from Albania in the subclade of the Hungarian likely (S10743). One is from an old, noble Albanian family in the south, the other one claims Vlach origin. A good candidate for the eastern movement is E-Y41959.

I think we met before when there was only you and Bulgarian in that clade. Back then based on your location I told you you might be Triballian. New results might push you more SW, if these narratives are true.. Depending also where Bosniak guy ends up.. Anyhow your clade does seem to have older Balkan presence. Just the question is is it Central Balkan (where all samples are from). Or more SW. The main thing SW about you thus far are "traditions"..

Serb guy told me that apparently there was a mistake in a text on his village on poreklo, there were two families with that surname mentioned, one of them being from Drina river basin by origin. However there is a third family with the same surname, and that is his family. Yes, he told me of those nicknames of his family, one being "Klimentiye" (other "Tsigani"). In the literature "they have no idea about their origin".


About Z37530 in South Albania. E-S10743 does not have only this single Hungarian. It has a whole lot of people in the cluster. Lemko's from Poland, Ukrainians, Moldavian, another Hungarian from Slovakia. This cluster is very strong in Ruthenians from a paper.

They all seem to form a cluster whose TMRCA seems advanced Medieval (700-1000 ?). 4/67 to 9/67

However there is a Russian from Eastern areas who also seems to belong there but upstream, he is 12/67 and more while sharing various of their distinct STR's..


I am aware of that Albanian family. But of course there is something you and other Albanians expectedly won't mention. They are an old noble Medieval (?) family sharing a surname with a bunch of Hungarians.

Such noble Hungarian families are attested in 14th and even 13th century Hungary. If they are close to these E-S10743 haplotypes they should be of Medieval Hungarian origin.

Huban
01-08-2021, 11:55 PM
No it's not some tiny ruling minority either, these are all bullshit myths for dumb gullible people.

Kulin could come from the word kula one of the words for fortress in Bosnian or whatever you translate it to. Borić from the word borba, borit= to fight, borac warrior. There's your explanation no need to look for explanations in some mythological, hypothesized Turkic populations.

For Borić I agree, for Kulin your interpretation is not supported by linguistic science and evidence. And generally forts are not used as personal names around the world. This name other than him had Pecheneg (earlier) and Vlachs with Turkic admixture (Kuman etc.).. No Slavs proper..

vasil
01-09-2021, 12:36 AM
In Northwestern Bulgaria Kula is an old female name meaning tower but i dont know of it being used in males dont know if that helps or mudies the waters more.

td120
01-09-2021, 09:49 AM
There must have been a Bulgarian Boyar called Kulin , the village of Kulina Voda is said to have been in his domain:
https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%BE% D0%B4%D0%B0

One notable figure from the Bulgarian North West , knez Ivan Kulin has ancestry from a village in Zaječar region called Kulina (probably long gone).
https://chitanka.info/text/39695-istorija-na-selo-medkovets/51

Кулинов (Kulinov) is also a Bulgarian family name (although very rare).

BukeKrypEZemer
01-13-2021, 12:24 AM
Today we got another interesting result in E-BY4573. A greek guy from Peloponnes joined the club.

Bane
01-15-2021, 01:11 PM
The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations (https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?study=ERP121113)


The Cycladic, the Minoan, and the Helladic (Mycenaean) cultures define the Bronze Age (BA) of Greece. Urbanism, complex social structures, craft and agricultural specialization, and the earliest forms of writing, characterize this iconic period. We sequenced six early to middle BA whole genomes, along with 11 mtDNA genomes, sampled from the three BA cultures of the Aegean Sea. The Early BA (EBA) genomes are homogeneous and derive most of their ancestry from Neolithic Aegeans, contrary to earlier hypotheses that the Neolithic-EBA cultural transition was due to massive population turn-over. EBA Aegeans were shaped by relatively small-scale migration from East of the Aegean, as evidenced by the Caucasus-related ancestry also detected in Anatolians. In contrast, Middle BA (MBA) individuals of northern Greece differ from EBA populations in showing ~50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. Such gene flow events during the MBA contributed towards shaping present-day Greek genomes.

Riverman
01-15-2021, 01:53 PM
The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations (https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?study=ERP121113)

Did they determine yDNA haplogroups?

Bane
01-15-2021, 02:10 PM
Did they determine yDNA haplogroups?

As far as I understand the paper has not been published yet. So we can't know yet.
Unless there is someone able to analyse the available raw data.

Huban
01-15-2021, 05:50 PM
Did they determine yDNA haplogroups?

One Serb admin (not Pribislav ;)) looked at the raw files:
Pta08 Minoan-Petras-EBA 2849-2621 calBCE G2a-P15>L1259>L30>CTS574>CTS2488G>P303>CTS796>PF3337 , L140-
Kou01 Cycladic-Koufonisi-EBA 2464-2349 calBCE J2a-M410>PF4610>L26>Z6064>Z6055>Z6057>Y7013>Y7010>Y13128>Z36834

Others are females apparently.

Huban
01-15-2021, 05:53 PM
Today we got another interesting result in E-BY4573. A greek guy from Peloponnes joined the club.

And he is negative for 7 SNP's that Serb and Bulgarian share.. They are now E-BY4570.. He doesn't look Arvanite, as their TMRCA is past that, plus closest link to you is Late Iron Age I believe. New sandzak Bosniak will likely be close to you as so many of them are close to Albanians. If not, his result would be more interesting.

broder
01-15-2021, 07:34 PM
The sandxhak Bosnian guy is not close to him at all. He has some interesting differences on some markers like 389, 464 and CDY. Based on 456 and 570 he actually resembles more the BY4573 cluster (only on the Y37 I have seen).

Chances are he will just be a parallel branch.

Huban
01-15-2021, 08:16 PM
The sandxhak Bosnian guy is not close to him at all. He has some interesting differences on some markers like 389, 464 and CDY. Based on 456 and 570 he actually resembles more the BY4573 cluster (only on the Y37 I have seen).

Chances are he will just be a parallel branch.

Albanian has very low 456, his own private mutation. What defines BY4570 on Y37 is 458=17 and 570. He might be away from the others, that would definitely make it more diverse in the area.

Huban
01-15-2021, 08:24 PM
A Serb from Bosnia (his tradition is origin from Zadar, Croatia) was tested as PH1246+, his SNP Pack being in progress at YSEQ. He is not part of Vasojevići cluster and has no close links with others apparently. It will be very interesting to see where he ends up. If he is another isolated PH1246 that definitely goes in favor of connection between Cetina and V13 (or PH1246) in which case I think it is almost a certainty that the earliest E-V13 expansion began from the surviving remnant of Dalmatian Cardials, which is what I still maintain. rafc also proposed this in his article a while ago.

Hawk
01-15-2021, 08:31 PM
A Serb from Bosnia (his tradition is origin from Zadar, Croatia) was tested as PH1246+, his SNP Pack being in progress at YSEQ. He is not part of Vasojevići cluster and has no close links with others apparently. It will be very interesting to see where he ends up. If he is another isolated PH1246 that definitely goes in favor of connection between Cetina and V13 (or PH1246) in which case I think it is almost a certainty that the earliest E-V13 expansion began from the surviving remnant of Dalmatian Cardials, which is what I still maintain. rafc also proposed this in his article a while ago.

It's Middle Danube expansion instead.

Cetina is unlikely.

Huban
01-15-2021, 08:45 PM
It's Middle Danube expansion instead.

Cetina is unlikely.

Read some of my previous posts. One of very important elements in formation of Cetina is from across the Danube.. Cetina was formed by the fusion of this element, surviving Cardial element in the form of Middle Adriatic Ljubljana culture and some Bell Beaker element.

This element whose home was far from Dalmatia took the CST1273 with them and they expanded from (Middle-Lower) Danube.. Before Cetina had even formed.. So Cetina should be only PH1246+, not CTS1273. That PH1246 is rare fits as there is no archeological evidence to suggest that some Cetina-proper derived groups continued their independent cultural existence into the MBA (they were assimilated).

ShpataEMadhe
01-16-2021, 12:44 PM
One Serb admin (not Pribislav ;)) looked at the raw files:
Pta08 Minoan-Petras-EBA 2849-2621 calBCE G2a-P15>L1259>L30>CTS574>CTS2488G>P303>CTS796>PF3337 , L140-
Kou01 Cycladic-Koufonisi-EBA 2464-2349 calBCE J2a-M410>PF4610>L26>Z6064>Z6055>Z6057>Y7013>Y7010>Y13128>Z36834

Others are females apparently.

I always had a feeling g2a (alongside j2a) played a part in ancient greece

BukeKrypEZemer
01-17-2021, 04:25 PM
Late iron age means 300 BC or what?
Let us see where Dedeic (the sanxhak guy) will end up. His BigY sample arrived in US.

Huban
02-08-2021, 03:12 AM
A Serb from Bosnia (his tradition is origin from Zadar, Croatia) was tested as PH1246+, his SNP Pack being in progress at YSEQ. He is not part of Vasojevići cluster and has no close links with others apparently. It will be very interesting to see where he ends up. If he is another isolated PH1246 that definitely goes in favor of connection between Cetina and V13 (or PH1246) in which case I think it is almost a certainty that the earliest E-V13 expansion began from the surviving remnant of Dalmatian Cardials, which is what I still maintain. rafc also proposed this in his article a while ago.

Indeed. He came out as BY14151*, negative for 1 SNP a t the Y126722 and BY34236 levels, however one of his STR's on low res defines the BY34236 (also shared by more distant German and French who are not at YFull) so I think there is a solid chance he might belong there. Could be something else too..

Carpathian E-BY14150 and (very likely) E-Y81468 fit nicely into some Northwards migration with the Basarabi culture, though the latter can still be a more recent migrant.

And it is not that plenty of Y37092 are expected in Bulgaria, Romania, even Albania, as Y37092 defining 389 is always there even on lowest of resolutions. On the other hand in Croatia plenty of such short haplotypes are found in a 1100 strong Croatian sample.. So one has to explain this discrepancy between Y37092 in the West and CTS1273 in the East/Northeast and I already stated what seems to be the only explanation for that..

Riverman
02-08-2021, 09:51 AM
Indeed. He came out as BY14151*, negative for 1 SNP a t the Y126722 and BY34236 levels, however one of his STR's on low res defines the BY34236 (also shared by more distant German and French who are not at YFull) so I think there is a solid chance he might belong there. Could be something else too..

Carpathian E-BY14150 and (very likely) E-Y81468 fit nicely into some Northwards migration with the Basarabi culture, though the latter can still be a more recent migrant.

And it is not that plenty of Y37092 are expected in Bulgaria, Romania, even Albania, as Y37092 defining 389 is always there even on lowest of resolutions. On the other hand in Croatia plenty of such short haplotypes are found in a 1100 strong Croatian sample.. So one has to explain this discrepancy between Y37092 in the West and CTS1273 in the East/Northeast and I already stated what seems to be the only explanation for that..

The Basarabi culture is already a stabilised regional culture after the turnover. So its expected to be heavy in E-V13, that's almost for sure and it would be very strange to me if not. But its origin lies in the movements of the periods before and I say it got heavily influenced by the Urnfield sphere from the relative North which introduced E-V13 as the dominant haplogroup in the first place.

Hawk
02-08-2021, 12:41 PM
The Basarabi culture is already a stabilised regional culture after the turnover. So its expected to be heavy in E-V13, that's almost for sure and it would be very strange to me if not. But its origin lies in the movements of the periods before and I say it got heavily influenced by the Urnfield sphere from the relative North which introduced E-V13 as the dominant haplogroup in the first place.

There was a movement during Middle Bronze Age from the West, this movement from the West heavily influenced Dacians as well, as attested by Harry Mountain, there was no movement from the North, not i am aware of. I have a more complex scenario in mind but let's see, the scarcity of aDNA deeper in Balkans should be beared in mind but i really doubt E-V13 mutations, especially Z5017/Z5018 was present anywhere in Balkans prior to Middle Bronze Age.

Riverman
02-08-2021, 01:16 PM
There was a movement during Middle Bronze Age from the West, this movement from the West heavily influenced Dacians as well, as attested by Harry Mountain, there was no movement from the North, not i am aware of. I have a more complex scenario in mind but let's see, the scarcity of aDNA deeper in Balkans should be beared in mind but i really doubt E-V13 mutations, especially Z5017/Z5018 was present anywhere in Balkans prior to Middle Bronze Age.

On the latter part we both agree, but I don't get why a movement from the West should have had the most clear and massive impact in the East? Small impact movements don't suffice and I see more massive movement coming rather from around Slovakia-Poland-Romania-Moldova-Ukraine rather than anywhere in the West to the Basarabi zone.

Hawk
02-08-2021, 03:21 PM
On the latter part we both agree, but I don't get why a movement from the West should have had the most clear and massive impact in the East? Small impact movements don't suffice and I see more massive movement coming rather from around Slovakia-Poland-Romania-Moldova-Ukraine rather than anywhere in the West to the Basarabi zone.

I have in mind Tumulus Culture from around the Alps. Hypothetical at this stage.

https://i.imgur.com/gc0JLpg.jpg


The Velebit necropolis, located in the southern Carpathian Basin remains to this day an unpublished archaeological site, although it has been known for almost 50 years. It represents the only systematically-investigated Tumulus (Hügelgräber) culture necropolis in the territories of Serbia and Vojvodina which has not been completely published so far. Bi-ritual burial rites from the Bronze Age perspective of the Velebit necropolis are not so rare in the Tumulus Culture commonwealth (Central Europe, Carpathian Basin and Transdanubian region), but the equal representation of both burial customs is quite uncommon. Graves from the undisturbed contexts at the Velebit necropolis show some differences in Koszider bronze and pottery burial gifts, gender and maybe social differentiation in communities. Certain artefacts possibly indicate economic stratification and the presence of craftsmen (metallurgists) in these Middle Bronze Age communities, which is considered one of the more significant traits of the Tumulus culture.

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Aleksandar-Kapuran/dp/1407323784

Aspar
02-08-2021, 03:28 PM
Indeed. He came out as BY14151*, negative for 1 SNP a t the Y126722 and BY34236 levels, however one of his STR's on low res defines the BY34236 (also shared by more distant German and French who are not at YFull) so I think there is a solid chance he might belong there. Could be something else too..

Carpathian E-BY14150 and (very likely) E-Y81468 fit nicely into some Northwards migration with the Basarabi culture, though the latter can still be a more recent migrant.

And it is not that plenty of Y37092 are expected in Bulgaria, Romania, even Albania, as Y37092 defining 389 is always there even on lowest of resolutions. On the other hand in Croatia plenty of such short haplotypes are found in a 1100 strong Croatian sample.. So one has to explain this discrepancy between Y37092 in the West and CTS1273 in the East/Northeast and I already stated what seems to be the only explanation for that..

Of course we can spot this discrepancy but I'm not sure that CTS1273 moved from West Balkans to East as you was saying before. Otherwise how would you explain the existence of E-BY6550 in North-Western Europe and none in the Balkans? It's very probable that this lineage was part of the CWC expansion and this didn't took place through the Balkans but rather from the western outskirts of the PC steppe, upwards following the eastern slopes of the Carpathians into the Baltic region and Poland. So it's very probable that E-BY6550 was assimilated somewhere on that path, somewhere around the Carpathians. In that sense, I think of E-V13 as an ultra Carpathian haplogroup, it was somewhere around the Carpathians when it was assimilated by CWC groups, not Yamnaya as you was suggesting before. Yamnaya was more like the ancestor of the first groups of Indo-Europeans in the Balkans that gave birth of the Anatolian, Greek, Armenian languages. As we all start to agree that E-V13 was very represented among the Thracian-Getae-Dacian groups and we already have seen published samples of some of these and heard rumors of unpublished yet samples, we get a clear picture of E-V13 as an ultra Carpathian group in accordance with the places inhabited by Dacians-Getae-Thracians people. What little we know about the Thracian language there is no doubt it was a close relative of the Baltic languages which of course should be descendants of some earlier CWC language that was spoken by some CWC groups. According to Ivan Duridanov, of about 200 reconstructed Thracian words, most cognates (138) appear in the Baltic languages, mostly in Lithuanian, followed by Germanic (61). Therefore we can assume that Thracian language was the language of some CWC people and E-V13 was most probably indo-europenized by CWC groups, NOT Yamnaya ones who should have been the ancestors of the proto-Greeks, Anatolians and Armenians.

This is the situation of MBA Carpathians:
https://i.postimg.cc/xT1nJSQV/MBA-Europe.png (https://postimages.org/)

And this is the situation of LBA Carpathian:
https://i.postimg.cc/XqzSjY7J/LBA-Europe.png (https://postimages.org/)

Trzciniec was probably the ancestral culture of Balto-Slavic people. We also see that it was in close proximity to the Carpathians. However the many cognates of Thracian with Germanic probably suggests that Thracian was spoken west of Trzciniec, or the Lusatian culture which also was present in the Northern Carpathian. Probably it's not a coincidence that artifacts of both Gava Culture as a LBA Carpathian culture and the Lusatian Culture were found in the Balkans. This is what Nicholas Hammond wrote about the Lusatian finds in the Balkans:

What can be established, despite an extremely slight archaeological record (especially along the slopes of Mt. Vermion), is that two streams of Lusatian peoples moved south in the later Bronze Age, one to settle in Hellespontine Phrygia, the other to occupy parts of western and central Macedonia."

These finds were the reason why some maps of Thracians living up to the Baltic shores circulated on internet. Maps such as this one:
https://i.postimg.cc/dVJQ9Trp/Thracians.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Therefore IMO CTS1273 never moved from the West Balkans to the East but rather the ancestor of Y37092 moved to the West Balkans from an area around the Carpathians. Y37092 was probably born in the West Balkans but it's ancestor wasn't native there.

Riverman
02-08-2021, 03:29 PM
I can't exclude it completely, but I think the Tumulus culture was too much dominated by classical PIE markers, especially R1b, to have that kind of impact exactly on the area of the cultures of Basarabi, I don't see the transmission to work out. But we'll see.

Riverman
02-08-2021, 03:44 PM
Yamnaya was more like the ancestor of the first groups of Indo-Europeans in the Balkans that gave birth of the Anatolian, Greek, Armenian languages.

You are absolutely right about Proto-Thracian being born out of an epi-Corded environment and Lusatian and Gáva-Holigrady culture were closely related, intertwined formations. They influenced each other and there was surely at least limited genetic exchange, with alliances and warrior groups moving down to Pannonia and the Balkans together. What I don't agree with is that Yamnaya was the likely candidate for any big known IE group. Because Proto-Anatolian was most likely Cernavoda and others were rather more impactful as well, like Usatovo-Cotofeni.

Aspar
02-08-2021, 03:59 PM
You are absolutely right about Proto-Thracian being born out of an epi-Corded environment and Lusatian and Gáva-Holigrady culture were closely related, intertwined formations. They influenced each other and there was surely at least limited genetic exchange, with alliances and warrior groups moving down to Pannonia and the Balkans together. What I don't agree with is that Yamnaya was the likely candidate for any big known IE group. Because Proto-Anatolian was most likely Cernavoda and others were rather more impactful as well, like Usatovo-Cotofeni.

Probably you are right about proto-Anatolian as an earlier split. But proto-Greek and proto-Armenian are very likely descendants of a language spoken in Catacomb Culture which in turn was a Yamnaya derived culture. All three, Cernavoda, CWC and Yamnaya were probably derived from the earlier Sredny Stog because if CWC was directly descended from Yamnaya we would have seen a closer relationship uniparental markers wise but that's not the case so it's an earlier split from Sredny Stog IMO. Although I'm not sure how much archaeologically accountable is that as I never had such a big interest for the earliest Indo-European issue.