PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Johane Derite
03-25-2019, 02:12 AM
User Aspurg has made a monumental contribution with lots to reflect on.

Essentially, it seems to be the case that we will most likely not find EV13 in Myceneans, or not much at least, as almost all the EV13 in greeks today seems to have either entered in the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. The rest seems to be Arvanite/Vlach.

I will quote him below:

"Most of Greek V13's that are known today belong to younger clades whose ancestor in Mycenean times was located North of Greece.

I have isolated E-V13 clades that as of now occur in Greeks or can be certainly identified based on STR's, and based on diversity of clades and closeness and location of their their matches I added some of my clues about their likely ancestry:

E-V13>Z1057>Y30977>Y37092/BY14151* an isolated clade without matches found in Kyklades, likely arrived in Greece in EBA, likely/possibly with Cetina people. Ancient Greek.

E-V13>Z1057>Y30977>Y37092>BY14151* (very likely a parallel clade) One Greek from Argos area seems to possibly cluster with the Serbian Vasojevici clan (7/37), but hard to say without deeper tests how distant he is to them. So he could be either Ancient Greek or Vlach.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>S7461>BY5022>Y150909>Y150909a - Found in Arcadia. Ancient Greek. One Asia Minor sample likely clusters with him, and might have something to do with Myceneans, though with TMRCA 3000 it boomed later. S7461 has generally highest diversity in Thrace/Bulgaria so it ultimately derives from there.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>BY4684>Z19851>Z19851a - Found in a Greek from Aetolia, and based on STR's one from Pelopenesus in a study. Also found in Aromanians from Albania and Aromanian from Cogalniceanu Romania who has an identical haplotype. Certain Vlach origin.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>BY4684* - Found in two Greeks from Thessaly and Greek Thrace who cluster together. Also closely matching to them on STR's are 4 Basarabi individuals from Romania (Basarabi study). A more distant BY4684* is found around Balkan mountain in Bulgaria. Vlach ancestry for this clade seems certain.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377* - A Greek with a surname suggesting Vlach origin, clusetrs closely (4/37) with a Bulgarian from Central Balkan Mountains so he must be of Vlach ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z17264 - One of the most common E-V13 clades in Greece. 2 samples at YFull and also a Bulgarian sample also clusters with Greeks (dys439=9, dys448=19). Ancient Greek definitely but paternal CTS9320 has far greater diversity to the North so it likely arrived to Greece from the North in EIA. It is generally frequent in Asia Minor Greeks, Greek Macedonia, and Greek islanders. Found also on Cyprus.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z171 07>Z38456>BY4461>Y97307 Found in a number of Greeks from Greece in various locations: Asia Minor, Peloponnesus (study). Also a few of Turks cluster with Asia Minor Greeks and ultimately Albanians. Arvanite ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z169 88>A11837 An ethnic Greek from Southern Albania clusters closely with a Serb from Shop and a Croat. Vlach ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320* (Z16988-, Z17107-, Z17264-, S19928-) - One Greek from Greek Thrace, might be Ancient Greek or Thracian. He is not tested to some other newer parallel branches under CTS9320.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Y35953>PF6784 - Common in Pontic Greeks, yet also have two parallel clades in Poland and Slovakia at TMRCA of 3400, indicating it too arrived from the North in MBA/LBA. Ancient Greek.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>FGC33621>A10158 - Found in a Greek from Eastern Crete. Clusters with an American. Ancient Greek but parallel clades are found in Northern Albania as well as in Central Bulgaria. TMRCA of 2900 ybp suggests arrival to Greece from the North in EIA.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>FGC11451>FGC11450>Y146086 Found in a Greek from Aetolia and another Greek. They closely cluster with Albanians. Arvanite ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>FGC11451>FGC11450* (DYS458=14/DYS460=10) Found in a Greek from Euboia and one Greek from Phocaea. They closely cluster with Albanians. Arvanite ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>Y3183* - based on specific STR's found in a number of Greeks from Corinthia and Greek Macedonia. They cluster closely with a Macedonian (tested at Y37 and SNP confirmed as Y3183*), Romanian, Hungarian and a Bulgarian. Considering the diversity of Y3183 in Bulgaria they probably have Vlach ancestry, also some Aromanian samples might cluster with them, but Aromanians lack certain important STR's to assigned them to this clade with certainty.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>Y3183>S2972>Z 16661>S2978 - Found in several Greeks from Messinia, Peloponnesus. Likely Ancient Greek but considering diversity of Z16661 north of Greece it likely arrived to greece in LBA or EIA. Some Eastern and Sardinian samples might fit into Greek colonisation.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>Y3183>S2972>A 7135>A7136 - Found in a Greek from Laconia. Likely Ancient Greek, yet the high diversity of BY5430 (under A7135) in Central-Eastern Balkans clearly suggests the origin from the North (Eastern Balkans) and arrival to Greece in EIA.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>L241 - Two Greeks are L241+ but without deeper tests. One from Messinia and one from Arcadia (?). Likely Ancient Greeks had their own specific clades of L241. Additionally a significant percentage of Cypriot E-V13 from studies is certainly related to a Cypriot Greek who tested Y37 and who seems almost certainly L241. Based on some STR's they might belong to L241>Z38770 subclade. L241 has plenty of diversity in more Northern areas of the Balkan so it seems Greek L241 arrived to Greece in EIA.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Y16729* - One Greek clusters closely with a Macedonian and a number of Aromanians. Vlach ancestry.


Additionally
E-CTS1273* YF12550 is an ethnic Bulgarian from N.Greece, not a Greek.
E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Y19508* found in Malta might have something to do with Ancient Greeks.


Generally it seems most of Ancient Greek V13's arrived to Greece in LBA-EIA timeframe."

Johane Derite
03-25-2019, 02:13 AM
Obviously the LBA - EIA relates to the Dorian Invasion period:

https://i.imgur.com/3LLsUNL.jpg

Johane Derite
03-25-2019, 02:40 AM
Possibly outdated, but Coon noted Dinaricism in the "Dorian" zones of Greece:


https://i.imgur.com/t4Rgmrt.jpg

Pribislav
03-25-2019, 11:57 AM
E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z16988>A11837 An ethnic Greek from Southern Albania clusters closely with a Serb from Shop and a Croat. Vlach ancestry.

Not Croat, Serb from Šumadija region.

Johane Derite
03-31-2019, 06:26 PM
Why haven't these ancient macedonian tumuli been DNA tested? 300 tumuli in Piera, the Makedones' home according to Hesiod, shows that Illyrians & Phrygians ruled there until at least 650 BC. Pre-historic Macedonia archaeologically shows an invasion from "northern people" around 1150BC and little Mycenean influence.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2L5f6BX0AIyIG6.jpg:large

digital_noise
03-31-2019, 09:38 PM
man, im trying to pay attention to the Eupedia thread but like every other goddamned E-V13 thread, some old Albanian/Slav/Serb superiority bullshit rises up and it turns into pages of multiple paragraph responses of people saying the same shit over and over.

Anyways, I too look forward to some reports, particularly the ancient Greece and South Italian, whenever they are released.

Johane Derite
04-08-2019, 08:56 PM
More evidence that the Dorians were originally an Illyrian tribe

https://i.imgur.com/agO6Xqv.png

Johane Derite
04-08-2019, 09:05 PM
More evidence that the Dorians were originally an Illyrian tribe

Also this:

https://i.imgur.com/b2rY9zx.jpg

vettor
04-08-2019, 10:21 PM
User Aspurg has made a monumental contribution with lots to reflect on.

Essentially, it seems to be the case that we will most likely not find EV13 in Myceneans, or not much at least, as almost all the EV13 in greeks today seems to have either entered in the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. The rest seems to be Arvanite/Vlach.

I will quote him below:

"Most of Greek V13's that are known today belong to younger clades whose ancestor in Mycenean times was located North of Greece.

I have isolated E-V13 clades that as of now occur in Greeks or can be certainly identified based on STR's, and based on diversity of clades and closeness and location of their their matches I added some of my clues about their likely ancestry:

E-V13>Z1057>Y30977>Y37092/BY14151* an isolated clade without matches found in Kyklades, likely arrived in Greece in EBA, likely/possibly with Cetina people. Ancient Greek.

E-V13>Z1057>Y30977>Y37092>BY14151* (very likely a parallel clade) One Greek from Argos area seems to possibly cluster with the Serbian Vasojevici clan (7/37), but hard to say without deeper tests how distant he is to them. So he could be either Ancient Greek or Vlach.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>S7461>BY5022>Y150909>Y150909a - Found in Arcadia. Ancient Greek. One Asia Minor sample likely clusters with him, and might have something to do with Myceneans, though with TMRCA 3000 it boomed later. S7461 has generally highest diversity in Thrace/Bulgaria so it ultimately derives from there.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>BY4684>Z19851>Z19851a - Found in a Greek from Aetolia, and based on STR's one from Pelopenesus in a study. Also found in Aromanians from Albania and Aromanian from Cogalniceanu Romania who has an identical haplotype. Certain Vlach origin.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>BY4684* - Found in two Greeks from Thessaly and Greek Thrace who cluster together. Also closely matching to them on STR's are 4 Basarabi individuals from Romania (Basarabi study). A more distant BY4684* is found around Balkan mountain in Bulgaria. Vlach ancestry for this clade seems certain.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377* - A Greek with a surname suggesting Vlach origin, clusetrs closely (4/37) with a Bulgarian from Central Balkan Mountains so he must be of Vlach ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z17264 - One of the most common E-V13 clades in Greece. 2 samples at YFull and also a Bulgarian sample also clusters with Greeks (dys439=9, dys448=19). Ancient Greek definitely but paternal CTS9320 has far greater diversity to the North so it likely arrived to Greece from the North in EIA. It is generally frequent in Asia Minor Greeks, Greek Macedonia, and Greek islanders. Found also on Cyprus.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z171 07>Z38456>BY4461>Y97307 Found in a number of Greeks from Greece in various locations: Asia Minor, Peloponnesus (study). Also a few of Turks cluster with Asia Minor Greeks and ultimately Albanians. Arvanite ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z169 88>A11837 An ethnic Greek from Southern Albania clusters closely with a Serb from Shop and a Croat. Vlach ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320* (Z16988-, Z17107-, Z17264-, S19928-) - One Greek from Greek Thrace, might be Ancient Greek or Thracian. He is not tested to some other newer parallel branches under CTS9320.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Y35953>PF6784 - Common in Pontic Greeks, yet also have two parallel clades in Poland and Slovakia at TMRCA of 3400, indicating it too arrived from the North in MBA/LBA. Ancient Greek.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>FGC33621>A10158 - Found in a Greek from Eastern Crete. Clusters with an American. Ancient Greek but parallel clades are found in Northern Albania as well as in Central Bulgaria. TMRCA of 2900 ybp suggests arrival to Greece from the North in EIA.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>FGC11451>FGC11450>Y146086 Found in a Greek from Aetolia and another Greek. They closely cluster with Albanians. Arvanite ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>FGC11451>FGC11450* (DYS458=14/DYS460=10) Found in a Greek from Euboia and one Greek from Phocaea. They closely cluster with Albanians. Arvanite ancestry.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>Y3183* - based on specific STR's found in a number of Greeks from Corinthia and Greek Macedonia. They cluster closely with a Macedonian (tested at Y37 and SNP confirmed as Y3183*), Romanian, Hungarian and a Bulgarian. Considering the diversity of Y3183 in Bulgaria they probably have Vlach ancestry, also some Aromanian samples might cluster with them, but Aromanians lack certain important STR's to assigned them to this clade with certainty.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>Y3183>S2972>Z 16661>S2978 - Found in several Greeks from Messinia, Peloponnesus. Likely Ancient Greek but considering diversity of Z16661 north of Greece it likely arrived to greece in LBA or EIA. Some Eastern and Sardinian samples might fit into Greek colonisation.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>Y3183>S2972>A 7135>A7136 - Found in a Greek from Laconia. Likely Ancient Greek, yet the high diversity of BY5430 (under A7135) in Central-Eastern Balkans clearly suggests the origin from the North (Eastern Balkans) and arrival to Greece in EIA.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>L241 - Two Greeks are L241+ but without deeper tests. One from Messinia and one from Arcadia (?). Likely Ancient Greeks had their own specific clades of L241. Additionally a significant percentage of Cypriot E-V13 from studies is certainly related to a Cypriot Greek who tested Y37 and who seems almost certainly L241. Based on some STR's they might belong to L241>Z38770 subclade. L241 has plenty of diversity in more Northern areas of the Balkan so it seems Greek L241 arrived to Greece in EIA.

E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Y16729* - One Greek clusters closely with a Macedonian and a number of Aromanians. Vlach ancestry.


Additionally
E-CTS1273* YF12550 is an ethnic Bulgarian from N.Greece, not a Greek.
E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Y19508* found in Malta might have something to do with Ancient Greeks.


Generally it seems most of Ancient Greek V13's arrived to Greece in LBA-EIA timeframe."

Thracians also have E-V13 and there a 4 "thracian races "..
Proper thracian from bulgaria
Getae and Dacian thracians from romania and
Moesian thracians from serbia

Johane Derite
04-09-2019, 07:53 AM
There are also literary sources from ancient greece that connect the illyrians with the dorians.


" The barbarians called Lotus-eaters are the following: Hierastamnai, Boulinoi (Hyllinoi), coterminous with Boulinoi the Hylloi. And these say Hyllos son of Herakles settled them: and they are barbarians. And they occupy a peninsula a little lesser than the Peloponnese. And from peninsula parastonion* is upright: Boulinoi live beside this. And Boulinoi are an Illyric nation. "


The Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax (translated by graham shipley)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplus_of_Pseudo-Scylax

Bane
06-07-2020, 08:28 AM
Are there any estimations which clade E-Z5108 or E-Z5107 is more frequent in regions like Peloponnesus or Western Greece?

Aspar
06-07-2020, 11:12 AM
I will take this 'analyzes' with a grain of salt by the way.

This Aspurg guy relies too much on STR's which are very unpredictable generally for V13, and I can see in this 'analyzes' some predicted branches on a 7/37 difference. Almost certainly looks there a lot of mistakes in here.
Then again it looks like he is mixing a medieval and modern nations such as Vlachs and Albanians with ancient Greeks.
Ok, you can overlook the Albanian-ancient Greek mixing but when it comes to the Vlachs it's a little bit difficult because Vlachs are nothing but a Roman-Balkan mixture therefore whether their Balkan is Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, ancient Greek or even Celtic is a little bit harder to say.
Then out of thin air he puts etiquette for a certain marker as a 'Vlach' or other.
For example:
E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z169 88>A11837 An ethnic Greek from Southern Albania clusters closely with a Serb from Shop and a Croat. Vlach ancestry.
Do you really believe this is an analysis worth of discussion even? It's so superficial and without any arguments whatsoever. How close they cluster?? I mean what if this actual branch came to South Albania with the Serbs and their southern expansion in the 14th century? How many actual people with Aromanian ancestry are actually confirmed of this branch?

Or how about this one:
E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Y35953>PF6784 - Common in Pontic Greeks, yet also have two parallel clades in Poland and Slovakia at TMRCA of 3400, indicating it too arrived from the North in MBA/LBA. Ancient Greek.
Again a baseless prediction without any argumentation. Just by looking at YFULL tree, it's observable that the TMRCA of the Pontic Greeks with someone else from unknown place is 500 b.c. while the upstream matches are mostly Central European with TMRCA 900 b.c. A Visigoth from Spain was said to be positive on this branch however after close look in his BAM file it seems this is wrong prediction because the sample in question is ancestral for at least two SNP's on CTS1273 level. Anyway very late for any ancient Greeks this branch is and I can make a prediction as well that this branch among the Pontic Greeks arrived with the expansion of the La Tene Celts in Anatolia. It looks way more certainly than an ancient Greek origin with all due respect.

Then again this Aspurg guy seems to prefer rather than realistically observe origins something that he personally wrote on another forum.
He seems to have a fetish for Turkics by the way, giving his seemingly Balkan branch under CTS9320 a Turkic origin :crazy:

Johane Derite
06-07-2020, 11:44 AM
I will take this 'analyzes' with a grain of salt by the way.

This Aspurg guy relies too much on STR's which are very unpredictable generally for V13, and I can see in this 'analyzes' some predicted branches on a 7/37 difference. Almost certainly looks there a lot of mistakes in here.
Then again it looks like he is mixing a medieval and modern nations such as Vlachs and Albanians with ancient Greeks.
Ok, you can overlook the Albanian-ancient Greek mixing but when it comes to the Vlachs it's a little bit difficult because Vlachs are nothing but a Roman-Balkan mixture therefore whether their Balkan is Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, ancient Greek or even Celtic is a little bit harder to say.
Then out of thin air he puts etiquette for a certain marker as a 'Vlach' or other.
For example:
E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Z5017>Z5016>CTS6377>CTS9320>Z169 88>A11837 An ethnic Greek from Southern Albania clusters closely with a Serb from Shop and a Croat. Vlach ancestry.
Do you really believe this is an analysis worth of discussion even? It's so superficial and without any arguments whatsoever. How close they cluster?? I mean what if this actual branch came to South Albania with the Serbs and their southern expansion in the 14th century? How many actual people with Aromanian ancestry are actually confirmed of this branch?

Or how about this one:
E-V13>Z1057>CTS1273>Y35953>PF6784 - Common in Pontic Greeks, yet also have two parallel clades in Poland and Slovakia at TMRCA of 3400, indicating it too arrived from the North in MBA/LBA. Ancient Greek.
Again a baseless prediction without any argumentation. Just by looking at YFULL tree, it's observable that the TMRCA of the Pontic Greeks with someone else from unknown place is 500 b.c. while the upstream matches are mostly Central European with TMRCA 900 b.c. A Visigoth from Spain was said to be positive on this branch however after close look in his BAM file it seems this is wrong prediction because the sample in question is ancestral for at least two SNP's on CTS1273 level. Anyway very late for any ancient Greeks this branch is and I can make a prediction as well that this branch among the Pontic Greeks arrived with the expansion of the La Tene Celts in Anatolia. It looks way more certainly than an ancient Greek origin with all due respect.

Then again this Aspurg guy seems to prefer rather than realistically observe origins something that he personally wrote on another forum.
He seems to have a fetish for Turkics by the way, giving his seemingly Balkan branch under CTS9320 a Turkic origin :crazy:

I wasn't yet familiar with his tendencies, so I took his analysis in good faith. I agree his analysis needs to be taken with a grain of salt

Hawk
06-07-2020, 12:35 PM
What do u guys think of E-V13 S2979?

Bane
06-07-2020, 01:57 PM
I will take this 'analyzes' with a grain of salt by the way.


It is possible the analysis of Aspurg is not precise, but there are other arguments which would imply that a significant majority of E-V13 did arrive to Greece with Dorians. At least that is my opinion.
One of those is that even today the regions in Greece where E-V13 prevails seem to correspond to so called "Western Greek dialects".

https://i.imgur.com/JY95AUv.png

Aspar
06-08-2020, 07:21 PM
It is possible the analysis of Aspurg is not precise, but there are other arguments which would imply that a significant majority of E-V13 did arrive to Greece with Dorians. At least that is my opinion.
One of those is that even today the regions in Greece where E-V13 prevails seem to correspond to so called "Western Greek dialects".

https://i.imgur.com/JY95AUv.png

The problem is we don't know much about these so called Dorians. What we know is that when they appeared on the scene after the BA collapse, they were Greek speakers essentially. And, the Greek was attested in Greece earlier than the post BA collapse period, that is during the so called Mycenaean Greece widely known by the Linear B script which decipherment led to the discovery that Greek was already spoken in Greece in the 16th century B.C.

Therefore, it's very probable that these Dorians didn't arrive from way northern place in Southern Greece than the Prespa lakes so to say, and as such they were probably pushed further south by the proto-Illyrians who in their turn might have been pushed by other groups coming from the Urnfield core area. So these migrations and invasions could just have been a domino effect caused by Urnfield groups and not a single point migration and invasion from let's say Central Europe or the Carpathian basin to Southern Greece.
I am open to the possibility that these North-Western Greek groups and even other Greeks might have harbored some V13+ lineages but they were probably far from being the most dominant and numerous ones. If so, the North-Western Greek groups might have been unique in a way that they could have had some V13+ related ancestry from the Vucedol and later the Glasinac culture but also proto-Greek V13+ related ancestry from Sintashta and Catacomb subsequently. So some lineages such as E-Y37092 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y37092/) could have been the result of this Vucedol influence among the Greeks.

I am saying all this because I believe that the proto-Greek speakers came to Greece somewhere around 2000 B.C-1600 B.C from a North-Eastern route, from the Catacomb culture which shows many cultural elements with the Mycenaean Greeks and which probably was the result of the mixing between back migrating Corded Ware groups such as Sintashta and already present Yamnaya groups such as Poltavka and probably the shared Sintashta ancestry could explain the close links between the Indo-Iranian and the Greek language.

During that period, a daughter subclade of V13 Z1057, would have been only a thousand years old and it's granddaughter branch BY3880, under which the vast majority of V13+ people in Greece and the rest of the world are located, would have been old less than a thousand years. While CTS9320 which is the most dominant branch in Greeks wouldn't have been born yet. I believe that some of these V13+ branches were part of the proto-Greeks during their migration from the Catacomb culture to Greece through the territory of modern Bulgaria and others weren't and could have been located somewhere in Central Europe and the Carpathian basin already Indo-Europenized, possibly by a Corded Ware or Bell Beaker group for which evidence are probably some rare and old branches parallel to Z1057 such as E-BY6550 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6550/) found in Northern and Western Europeans and not present in the Balkans. That these early branches were located at a place close to the Carpathian basin evidence could be the current distribution of E-Y30977 and it's daughter subclades E-Y30976 and E-Y37092 that show great diversity in the Western Balkans(Vucedol?) but also Central and Northern Europe(possible Celtic connection?) and the Carpathian basin would have acted as a cross road for these lineages, one followed Danube up to Central Europe and the other down to the Balkans. Some E-CTS1273 lineages might have kept with other Corded Ware groups such as Sintashta in their eastern migration and invasion of the Yamnaya territory and possibly caused the disintegration of the Yamnaya and the formation of the Catacomb culture from where the proto-Greeks later will migrate to Greece. This can be further supported by some similar cultural elements between Sintashta and Catacomb. That CTS1273 in it's early stages was probably a part of the Sintashta group an evidence might be that there are some unique CTS1273* clusters among Ossetians, Kurds and Iranians but also in other groups in the Middle East.While other CTS1273 migrated or stayed behind in the Carpathian Basin from where they flooded Greece later on but came down to Greece as non-Greek speakers.

So to summarize it, E-V13 and some of it's older subclades might have been present in the proto-Greeks. Some other lineages were probably the result of an influence from some early contacts between the Glasinac culture and the Greek world and these contacts would have been more frequent in some Northern Greek groups such as the Dorians. Other young lineages such as E-CTS9320 which is the most numerous branch among the Greeks today and others who share TMRCA with other Europeans not older than the post-BA collapse, could not have been a Dorian addition and probably are the result of the Greek expansion to the north, both cultural and militaristic and the subsequent hellenization of various other groups but also the result of the many invasions of Greece from other northern people such as Illyrians, Dardanians, Scythians and Celts of the La Tene culture. With the Roman rule of Greece, everything seems to have changed. The Romans were notorious for enslaving a lot of people and resettling people to different parts of the empire. We can see a big change of the dna profile of the ancient people of the Balkans including the Greeks. We can observe a big shift towards the Levant from thereafter and later on many slaves, soldiers and other migrants from the Empire and especially from the non-Greek part of the Balkans were resettled in different parts of the Empire and Greece for different purposes, administration, guarding the roads etc. It seems that all other identities than the Roman one were dismissed especially after the Christian religion became dominant in the Empire and identifying as a Hellene was considered a Paganism. Whether someone was a Latin or a Greek speaking Roman wasn't of great importance after the spread of the Christianity so different people came to form a unique Eastern Roman identity united under the umbrella of the Christian religion out of which the modern Greek nation was born. Later on, some other V13+ lineages probably flooded Greece with the migration and the raids of the Goths and the Getae. I am also pretty sure some others came with the Slavs later on as well. The Slavs were known to extensively assimilate captured and enslaved people and soldiers. We have accounts how they treated the captured people with goodness and giving them option later on to either stay with them and assimilate in the Slavic people or return back home. Hell, some were even a 20th century addition. No provocation meant, I was just saying that assimilation is an ever going process...

digital_noise
06-08-2020, 09:11 PM
I know a lot of the foundation for "where did E-V13 come from" is still up in the air, but I came across something that might be of interest. I am E-Y30972-BY14160. My paternal side came from Cimina in Italy, which according to the Italian Wikipedia was formed by "Greeks and Albanians" fleeing Constantinople in the mid 1400's or whatever year the fall of Constantinople was. I know this is more recent on the E-V13 timeline, and I cannot verify my ancestry back that far, but i do know that my line was in that same town at least sine 1700, likely earlier. So this might be of interest as it puts a specific group of people and a specific location in the spotlight. Now, obviously this is not very verifiable but I found it interesting

vettor
06-08-2020, 09:15 PM
The problem is we don't know much about these so called Dorians. What we know is that when they appeared on the scene after the BA collapse, they were Greek speakers essentially. And, the Greek was attested in Greece earlier than the post BA collapse period, that is during the so called Mycenaean Greece widely known by the Linear B script which decipherment led to the discovery that Greek was already spoken in Greece in the 16th century B.C.

Therefore, it's very probable that these Dorians didn't arrive from way northern place in Southern Greece than the Prespa lakes so to say, and as such they were probably pushed further south by the proto-Illyrians who in their turn might have been pushed by other groups coming from the Urnfield core area. So these migrations and invasions could just have been a domino effect caused by Urnfield groups and not a single point migration and invasion from let's say Central Europe or the Carpathian basin to Southern Greece.
I am open to the possibility that these North-Western Greek groups and even other Greeks might have harbored some V13+ lineages but they were probably far from being the most dominant and numerous ones. If so, the North-Western Greek groups might have been unique in a way that they could have had some V13+ related ancestry from the Vucedol and later the Glasinac culture but also proto-Greek V13+ related ancestry from Sintashta and Catacomb subsequently. So some lineages such as E-Y37092 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y37092/) could have been the result of this Vucedol influence among the Greeks.

I am saying all this because I believe that the proto-Greek speakers came to Greece somewhere around 2000 B.C-1600 B.C from a North-Eastern route, from the Catacomb culture which shows many cultural elements with the Mycenaean Greeks and which probably was the result of the mixing between back migrating Corded Ware groups such as Sintashta and already present Yamnaya groups such as Poltavka and probably the shared Sintashta ancestry could explain the close links between the Indo-Iranian and the Greek language.

During that period, a daughter subclade of V13 Z1057, would have been only a thousand years old and it's granddaughter branch BY3880, under which the vast majority of V13+ people in Greece and the rest of the world are located, would have been old less than a thousand years. While CTS9320 which is the most dominant branch in Greeks wouldn't have been born yet. I believe that some of these V13+ branches were part of the proto-Greeks during their migration from the Catacomb culture to Greece through the territory of modern Bulgaria and others weren't and could have been located somewhere in Central Europe and the Carpathian basin already Indo-Europenized, possibly by a Corded Ware or Bell Beaker group for which evidence are probably some rare and old branches parallel to Z1057 such as E-BY6550 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6550/) found in Northern and Western Europeans and not present in the Balkans. That these early branches were located at a place close to the Carpathian basin evidence could be the current distribution of E-Y30977 and it's daughter subclades E-Y30976 and E-Y37092 that show great diversity in the Western Balkans(Vucedol?) but also Central and Northern Europe(possible Celtic connection?) and the Carpathian basin would have acted as a cross road for these lineages, one followed Danube up to Central Europe and the other down to the Balkans. Some E-CTS1273 lineages might have kept with other Corded Ware groups such as Sintashta in their eastern migration and invasion of the Yamnaya territory and possibly caused the disintegration of the Yamnaya and the formation of the Catacomb culture from where the proto-Greeks later will migrate to Greece. This can be further supported by some similar cultural elements between Sintashta and Catacomb. That CTS1273 in it's early stages was probably a part of the Sintashta group an evidence might be that there are some unique CTS1273* clusters among Ossetians, Kurds and Iranians but also in other groups in the Middle East.While other CTS1273 migrated or stayed behind in the Carpathian Basin from where they flooded Greece later on but came down to Greece as non-Greek speakers.

So to summarize it, E-V13 and some of it's older subclades might have been present in the proto-Greeks. Some other lineages were probably the result of an influence from some early contacts between the Glasinac culture and the Greek world and these contacts would have been more frequent in some Northern Greek groups such as the Dorians. Other young lineages such as E-CTS9320 which is the most numerous branch among the Greeks today and others who share TMRCA with other Europeans not older than the post-BA collapse, could not have been a Dorian addition and probably are the result of the Greek expansion to the north, both cultural and militaristic and the subsequent hellenization of various other groups but also the result of the many invasions of Greece from other northern people such as Illyrians, Dardanians, Scythians and Celts of the La Tene culture. With the Roman rule of Greece, everything seems to have changed. The Romans were notorious for enslaving a lot of people and resettling people to different parts of the empire. We can see a big change of the dna profile of the ancient people of the Balkans including the Greeks. We can observe a big shift towards the Levant from thereafter and later on many slaves, soldiers and other migrants from the Empire and especially from the non-Greek part of the Balkans were resettled in different parts of the Empire and Greece for different purposes, administration, guarding the roads etc. It seems that all other identities than the Roman one were dismissed especially after the Christian religion became dominant in the Empire and identifying as a Hellene was considered a Paganism. Whether someone was a Latin or a Greek speaking Roman wasn't of great importance after the spread of the Christianity so different people came to form a unique Eastern Roman identity united under the umbrella of the Christian religion out of which the modern Greek nation was born. Later on, some other V13+ lineages probably flooded Greece with the migration and the raids of the Goths and the Getae. I am also pretty sure some others came with the Slavs later on as well. The Slavs were known to extensively assimilate captured and enslaved people and soldiers. We have accounts how they treated the captured people with goodness and giving them option later on to either stay with them and assimilate in the Slavic people or return back home. Hell, some were even a 20th century addition. No provocation meant, I was just saying that assimilation is an ever going process...

interesting

Roman Historian Appian stated that the only Pelasgians are Epirotes...and they ( Epirotes ) are neither Greek nor Illyrian

https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L003.pdf

Where did these Dorians come from ......they needed to be by the sea to get to the islands of Crete and Rhodes ................my guess is that they are Epirote or Proto-Epirote

Johane Derite
06-08-2020, 10:09 PM
interesting

Roman Historian Appian stated that the only Pelasgians are Epirotes...and they ( Epirotes ) are neither Greek nor Illyrian

https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L003.pdf



Which page, i'm not finding where he said that

Greekscholar
06-08-2020, 11:40 PM
We can see a big change of the dna profile of the ancient people of the Balkans including the Greeks. We can observe a big shift towards the Levant from thereafter and later on many slaves, soldiers and other migrants from the Empire

Thanks for the post. I am interested in the bolded. Do you have any specific samples in mind that show this change? I would agree that by Roman Imperial times we start finding modern looking Greek Aegean island profiles, but I am not sure any samples of similar genetics have been found on the mainland from this era.

Modern mainland Greeks have less Eastern genetic input that Empuries_2

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.7372% / 0.02737175
74.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
11.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
9.8 GEO_CHG
2.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.6 Levant_Natufian

Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 2.3201% / 0.02320123
57.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
33.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.2 Baltic_LVA_HG
2.0 Levant_Natufian
1.8 GEO_CHG

Target: Greek_Central_Macedonia
Distance: 2.5255% / 0.02525525
56.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
34.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.4 Baltic_LVA_HG
3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.4 Levant_Natufian
0.4 GEO_CHG

Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 1.9206% / 0.01920593
59.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
29.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.4 GEO_CHG
2.4 Levant_Natufian
0.8 Baltic_LVA_HG

Aspar
06-09-2020, 08:26 PM
Thanks for the post. I am interested in the bolded. Do you have any specific samples in mind that show this change? I would agree that by Roman Imperial times we start finding modern looking Greek Aegean island profiles, but I am not sure any samples of similar genetics have been found on the mainland from this era.

Modern mainland Greeks have less Eastern genetic input that Empuries_2

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.7372% / 0.02737175
74.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
11.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
9.8 GEO_CHG
2.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.6 Levant_Natufian

Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 2.3201% / 0.02320123
57.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
33.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.2 Baltic_LVA_HG
2.0 Levant_Natufian
1.8 GEO_CHG

Target: Greek_Central_Macedonia
Distance: 2.5255% / 0.02525525
56.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
34.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.4 Baltic_LVA_HG
3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.4 Levant_Natufian
0.4 GEO_CHG

Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 1.9206% / 0.01920593
59.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
29.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.4 GEO_CHG
2.4 Levant_Natufian
0.8 Baltic_LVA_HG

Well I do have one from "Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria" (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/13/3494), albeit it's found in a land far from Greece and the Balkans however the general opinion circulating on the forums like this one was that it was a sample from Greece or the Balkans ultimately. I am thinking about STR_300, the one found in medieval Bavaria buried with artifacts associated with the Mediterranean.
From the study:



All males and females with normal skulls had estimated origins with north and central
Europe, apart from STR_300 and STR_502, with their most likely geographic origins being
Greece and Turkey respectively (Fig. S29).

https://i.postimg.cc/hvkPjcmc/str-300.png (https://postimages.org/)

Using the G25 tool I will try to model the sample in question using all the samples of the current spreadsheet with ancient scaled samples:

Target: DEU_MA_o
Distance: 3.2673% / 0.03267303 | ADC: 0.5x
56.6 BGR_IA
18.4 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
16.2 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
7.2 TUR_Isparta_EBA
1.6 ARM_Areni_C

STR_300 clearly is overwhelmingly of Balkan origin, whether this is an ancient Greek or Thracian or something else is very difficult to determine because of the similarity of those samples. In this model, the sample str_300 not only can be modeled mostly as of Thracian origin but it's also closest to the Iron Age sample from Bulgaria:

Distance to: DEU_MA_o
0.03732499 BGR_IA
0.04089265 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.04558788 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.05106671 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.05364110 GRC_Mycenaean
0.05461303 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.05645685 ITA_Collegno_MA_o1
0.05843966 ITA_Rome_MA
0.06062882 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.06143632 ITA_Sardinia_Late_Antiquity
0.06284889 BGR_Krepost_N
0.06415580 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.06455031 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
0.06464730 ITA_Sicily_LBA

What is interesting is that the model shows that str_300 harbored some 8.8% West Asian ancestry derived mostly from Anatolia and the Lesser Caucasus.
That the sample in question shifts towards West Asia when compared to his predecessors from the Balkans could be also demonstrated with PCA:

https://i.postimg.cc/43p8FgZq/str-300-pca.png (https://postimages.org/)

Of course, If you are picky you might say that the Levant and Anatolia-Caucasus are two different thing however I have no doubt that different samples could pick up different things including those coming from the Levant. It's pity that we don't have many samples from the Roman period Balkans and one sample could hardly prove a point however we can even cite the recent paper about Rome and in the authors in the paper came to the same conclusion that during the Imperial times there was a big shift of the Rome's population towards West Asia and the Middle East and we can't doubt that the the same didn't happen in the Balkans IMO. Not only because Greece and the Balkans are closer geographically to West Asia and the Middle East but also because the ancient dna profile of Empuries2 and BGR_IA still evident in the EM period witnessed by the dna profile of
HUN_MA_Szolad_o1 didn't survive in the modern populations of Greece and the Balkans and Slavic admixture only can't explain the current position on the PCA of these modern populations but you also need something West Asian or Levantine to effectively model them:

Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 1.2934% / 0.01293420
40.4 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
37.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
13.4 TUR_Isparta_EBA
8.4 Levant_LBN_Roman

Empuries2 Eastern genetic input is represented mostly by CHG which in turn comes from the BA native populations of Greece such as the Minoans. Empuries2 definitely has less "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N" and "Levant_Natufian" than modern mainland Greeks who when you take in consideration that they have additional ancestry from people of Northern and Eastern Europe with little or none West Asian and MENA admixture then it comes clear that some West Asian population also took a part in the making of the modern genetic profile of the mainland Greeks.

Sorcelow
06-09-2020, 09:20 PM
Well I do have one from "Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria" (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/13/3494), albeit it's found in a land far from Greece and the Balkans however the general opinion circulating on the forums like this one was that it was a sample from Greece or the Balkans ultimately. I am thinking about STR_300, the one found in medieval Bavaria buried with artifacts associated with the Mediterranean.
From the study:



Using the G25 tool I will try to model the sample in question using all the samples of the current spreadsheet with ancient scaled samples:

Target: DEU_MA_o
Distance: 3.2673% / 0.03267303 | ADC: 0.5x
56.6 BGR_IA
18.4 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
16.2 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
7.2 TUR_Isparta_EBA
1.6 ARM_Areni_C

STR_300 clearly is overwhelmingly of Balkan origin, whether this is an ancient Greek or Thracian or something else is very difficult to determine because of the similarity of those samples. In this model, the sample str_300 not only can be modeled mostly as of Thracian origin but it's also closest to the Iron Age sample from Bulgaria:

Distance to: DEU_MA_o
0.03732499 BGR_IA
0.04089265 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.04558788 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.05106671 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.05364110 GRC_Mycenaean
0.05461303 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.05645685 ITA_Collegno_MA_o1
0.05843966 ITA_Rome_MA
0.06062882 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.06143632 ITA_Sardinia_Late_Antiquity
0.06284889 BGR_Krepost_N
0.06415580 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.06455031 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
0.06464730 ITA_Sicily_LBA

What is interesting is that the model shows that str_300 harbored some 8.8% West Asian ancestry derived mostly from Anatolia and the Lesser Caucasus.
That the sample in question shifts towards West Asia when compared to his predecessors from the Balkans could be also demonstrated with PCA:

https://i.postimg.cc/43p8FgZq/str-300-pca.png (https://postimages.org/)

Of course, If you are picky you might say that the Levant and Anatolia-Caucasus are two different thing however I have no doubt that different samples could pick up different things including those coming from the Levant. It's pity that we don't have many samples from the Roman period Balkans and one sample could hardly prove a point however we can even cite the recent paper about Rome and in the authors in the paper came to the same conclusion that during the Imperial times there was a big shift of the Rome's population towards West Asia and the Middle East and we can't doubt that the the same didn't happen in the Balkans IMO. Not only because Greece and the Balkans are closer geographically to West Asia and the Middle East but also because the ancient dna profile of Empuries2 and BGR_IA still evident in the EM period witnessed by the dna profile of
HUN_MA_Szolad_o1 didn't survive in the modern populations of Greece and the Balkans and Slavic admixture only can't explain the current position on the PCA of these modern populations but you also need something West Asian or Levantine to effectively model them:

Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 1.2934% / 0.01293420
40.4 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
37.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
13.4 TUR_Isparta_EBA
8.4 Levant_LBN_Roman

Empuries2 Eastern genetic input is represented mostly by CHG which in turn comes from the BA native populations of Greece such as the Minoans. Empuries2 definitely has less "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N" and "Levant_Natufian" than modern mainland Greeks who when you take in consideration that they have additional ancestry from people of Northern and Eastern Europe with little or none West Asian and MENA admixture then it comes clear that some West Asian population also took a part in the making of the modern genetic profile of the mainland Greeks.

I agree with you that mainland Greece received ancestry from the Levant/Caucasus region that was lacking in the Mycenaean and Minoan samples, but I believe that your models are inflating the Slavic related ancestry by not including more northerly Balkan samples. We know that heavier amounts of steppe ancestry was lurking to the north of Greece and since geneflow in this part of Europe usually came from the north southward, I think steppe ancestry was continuing to trickle down into Greece after the Bronze Age to the point where the pre-Slavic migration inhabitants of Greece were Prenestini_O like. Prenestini_O contains a bit more steppe ancestry than the Mycenaeans and also shows subtle signs of ancestry from the near east.

If I use Prenestini_O as a proxy for mainland Greece prior to the migration, we have this tight model, which fits well for most mainland Greece. There may have been multiple migrations to Greece from the Near East during different periods of time, but for the sake of keeping the model simple, I'm using modern Syrians as a proxy for any near eastern input that entered Greece, considering that these migrants may have been from the Greek speaking Antioch region:

[1] "distance%=1.3114"

Greek_Central_Macedonia

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o,56
HUN_Avar_Szolad,32.6
Syrian,11.4

Aspar
06-09-2020, 10:21 PM
I agree with you that mainland Greece received ancestry from the Levant/Caucasus region that was lacking in the Mycenaean and Minoan samples, but I believe that your models are inflating the Slavic related ancestry by not including more northerly Balkan samples. We know that heavier amounts of steppe ancestry was lurking to the north of Greece and since geneflow in this part of Europe usually came from the north southward, I think steppe ancestry was continuing to trickle down into Greece after the Bronze Age to the point where the pre-Slavic migration inhabitants of Greece were Prenestini_O like. Prenestini_O contains a bit more steppe ancestry than the Mycenaeans and also shows subtle signs of ancestry from the near east.

If I use Prenestini_O as a proxy for mainland Greece prior to the migration, we have this tight model, which fits well for most mainland Greece. There may have been multiple migrations to Greece from the Near East during different periods of time, but for the sake of keeping the model simple, I'm using modern Syrians as a proxy for any near eastern input that entered Greece, considering that these migrants may have been from the Greek speaking Antioch region:

[1] "distance%=1.3114"

Greek_Central_Macedonia

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o,56
HUN_Avar_Szolad,32.6
Syrian,11.4

Well yeah, my model was only put forward to show the general picture and not to go in details. I've used it to show that there is some ancestry in modern mainland Greeks and not only them but also other Balkan people that comes from West Asia. While the Hun_Avar sample in this case is not only representative for Slavic ancestry but also for other Northern ancestry. Of course there is no perfect model however we agree for the extra West Asian and Levantine in modern mainland Greeks. On the other hand, I think that your usage of the Prenestini outlier is eating from the Levantine admixture because this sample was harboring significant Levantine ancestry as shown by Davidski in his blog. (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/11/open-analysis-and-discussion-thread.html?m=1)



ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.679±0.068
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2 0.321±0.068
chisq 7.222
tail prob 0.89033
Full output

Anyway this has nothing to do with E-V13 who in turn would have brought in Greece more ancestry associated with the Northern people rather than with the Levantines.

Sorcelow
06-09-2020, 10:46 PM
Well yeah, my model was only put forward to show the general picture and not to go in details. I've used it to show that there is some ancestry in modern mainland Greeks and not only them but also other Balkan people that comes from West Asia. While the Hun_Avar sample in this case is not only representative for Slavic ancestry but also for other Northern ancestry. Of course there is no perfect model however we agree for the extra West Asian and Levantine in modern mainland Greeks. On the other hand, I think that your usage of the Prenestini outlier is eating from the Levantine admixture because this sample was harboring significant Levantine ancestry as shown by Davidski in his blog. (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/11/open-analysis-and-discussion-thread.html?m=1)



Anyway this has nothing to do with E-V13 who in turn would have brought in Greece more ancestry associated with the Northern people rather than with the Levantines.

Yes, its eating up some of the near eastern admixture, but I'm not sure if it has as much as what is shown in Davidksi's analysis. G25 is showing it as roughly intermediate between Mycenaean and MJ12, with slight additional near eastern ancestry. Either way, I think most E-V13 entered Greece from the north.

Michalis Moriopoulos
06-10-2020, 03:02 AM
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.

Generalissimo
06-10-2020, 03:16 AM
It seems possible that Iron Age Greeks have differed regionally. All we've got right now to go on are Emporiotes.

Bronze Age Greeks differed regionally too.

The currently available Mycenaean samples are fairly representative overall, but you'll see more diversity when other Mycenaean samples are released, both with much more and less steppe ancestry.

Sorcelow
06-10-2020, 03:21 AM
Bronze Age Greeks differed regionally too.

The currently available Mycenaean samples are fairly representative overall, but you'll see more diversity when other Mycenaean samples are released, both with much more and less steppe ancestry.

Any idea when we will see more Greek samples released?

Johnny ola
06-10-2020, 05:42 AM
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.

The northern regions of Greece especially regions like Macedonia, Thrace and Northern Thessaly/Epirus were never part of the Mycenean culture. These regions were inhabit mostly by Thracian tribes.Greeks from Bronze Age and until the classical period have stayed pretty much the same. The later admixtures especially from Slavs-Vlachs and West Asians have to do mostly with Roman-Byzantium ages.Another possibility of the west Asian components could be also hellenization of locals from the west anatolian coast. The people there might have BA Anatolia shift, so its very likely intermarriages to gave a more east med vibe.

Johnny ola
06-10-2020, 05:45 AM
Bronze Age Greeks differed regionally too.

The currently available Mycenaean samples are fairly representative overall, but you'll see more diversity when other Mycenaean samples are released, both with much more and less steppe ancestry.

The current Mycenean samples are a joke. Thought I will agree with you I am waiting for R1a in the upcoming samples!!!

Most people bet on R1b thought...

Oreo
06-10-2020, 03:03 PM
I believe that old Greeks in the Classical Period had their regional differences but those differences were fairly minimal, if the Thracian sample that we have is the average.

vettor
06-10-2020, 06:56 PM
The northern regions of Greece especially regions like Macedonia, Thrace and Northern Thessaly/Epirus were never part of the Mycenean culture. These regions were inhabit mostly by Thracian tribes.Greeks from Bronze Age and until the classical period have stayed pretty much the same. The later admixtures especially from Slavs-Vlachs and West Asians have to do mostly with Roman-Byzantium ages.Another possibility of the west Asian components could be also hellenization of locals from the west anatolian coast. The people there might have BA Anatolia shift, so its very likely intermarriages to gave a more east med vibe.

Bithynia is named for the Thracian tribe of the Bithyni, ..............a permanent tribe in Anatolia , the only thracians in Anatolia

Epirus and Thessaly are on opposite coasts..........

Epirus, Epirote people ( 14 ancient tribes ) are mentioned as the only Pelasgian people alongside the Dorians by Roman historians .................clearly we have nationalistic propaganda by current nations in the area which say otherwise

Johane Derite
06-11-2020, 12:40 AM
[B]
Epirus, Epirote people ( 14 ancient tribes ) are mentioned as the only Pelasgian people alongside the Dorians by Roman historians .................clearly we have nationalistic propaganda by current nations in the area which say otherwise

Can you please link or provide the reference for who says that. I wasn't able to find it in the book you linked, do you have a page number or something?

Johnny ola
06-11-2020, 12:49 AM
Can you please link or provide the reference for who says that. I wasn't able to find it in the book you linked, do you have a page number or something?

I think northern Epirus was inhabit by illyrians.Correct me if i am wrong!!!

TonyC
06-11-2020, 01:34 AM
I agree with you that mainland Greece received ancestry from the Levant/Caucasus region that was lacking in the Mycenaean and Minoan samples, but I believe that your models are inflating the Slavic related ancestry by not including more northerly Balkan samples. We know that heavier amounts of steppe ancestry was lurking to the north of Greece and since geneflow in this part of Europe usually came from the north southward, I think steppe ancestry was continuing to trickle down into Greece after the Bronze Age to the point where the pre-Slavic migration inhabitants of Greece were Prenestini_O like. Prenestini_O contains a bit more steppe ancestry than the Mycenaeans and also shows subtle signs of ancestry from the near east.

If I use Prenestini_O as a proxy for mainland Greece prior to the migration, we have this tight model, which fits well for most mainland Greece. There may have been multiple migrations to Greece from the Near East during different periods of time, but for the sake of keeping the model simple, I'm using modern Syrians as a proxy for any near eastern input that entered Greece, considering that these migrants may have been from the Greek speaking Antioch region:

[1] "distance%=1.3114"

Greek_Central_Macedonia

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o,56
HUN_Avar_Szolad,32.6
Syrian,11.4

I've scoured books several books on Bronze Age Greece, Dark Ages, Classical and Hellenistic era have read nothing to indicate West Asian or Levantine input into the mainland after the Bronze age. Where/when could this source have arrived? Are you suggesting Byzantine era input? Just curious.

Sorcelow
06-11-2020, 02:01 AM
I've scoured books several books on Bronze Age Greece, Dark Ages, Classical and Hellenistic era have read nothing to indicate West Asian or Levantine input into the mainland after the Bronze age. Where/when could this source have arrived? Are you suggesting Byzantine era input? Just curious.

Theres no clear answer. It probably came from different sources over multiple periods of time. Probably some came during the Byzantine era.

vettor
06-11-2020, 02:15 AM
Can you please link or provide the reference for who says that. I wasn't able to find it in the book you linked, do you have a page number or something?

look it up.....see references

Plutarch (1st-2nd centuries AD) : ‘Historians tell us that the first king of the Thesprotians and Molossians (Epirote tribes, there are 14 tribes that are epirote) came into Epirus with PELASGIANS’ (Life of Pyrrhus 1.1) . That the Epirotes (Molossians, Chaonians, Thesprotians etc.) were indeed Pelasgian can be seen from the following quotation: ‘Many have likewise asserted that the nations of Epirus are Pelasgic, because the dominions of the Pelasgi extended into Epitote lands’ (Strabo ‘Geography’ 5.2.4)

blevins13
07-21-2020, 09:45 PM
Interesting

Bane
11-16-2020, 10:07 PM
Probably you will find issues with my next statement but I will write it in case there are people which see things in a similar way. So, the thing is I'm starting to see Dorians as hellenized Illyrians.
And of course, the hellenization would happen after the invasion.

Johnny ola
11-16-2020, 10:22 PM
Probably you will find issues with my next statement but I will write it in case there are people which see things in a similar way. So, the thing is I'm starting to see Dorians as hellenized Illyrians.
And of course, the hellenization would happen after the invasion.

You know that Dorians brought new customs,policies and pretty much a new dialect witch it wasn't exactly the same with the dialect of Achaeans-Mycaneans.The problem is,that during IA-Dark ages Greece faced a blackout.If Dorians are hellenized Illyrians then why they speak a different dialect from the already native-local Greek folks?

Bane
11-16-2020, 10:44 PM
If Dorians are hellenized Illyrians then why they speak a different dialect from the already native-local Greek folks?

I don't see that as a big problem. In East Germany there is significant number of people which are descendants of Slavs. At some point of history their ancestors were germanized and today they speak with a German dialect which is different from dialects in other parts of Germany.

Johnny ola
11-16-2020, 11:23 PM
I don't see that as a big problem. In East Germany there is significant number of people which are descendants of Slavs. At some point of history their ancestors were germanized and today they speak with a German dialect which is different from dialects in other parts of Germany.

Well,it is not only the Dorian dialect but 2 more dialects being also related to proto-Greek but ofc less IE influenced.The upcoming Greek dialects like Ionic,Aeolic,Doric are all less IE and more native(neolithic lets say).During IA we have a big change in the Greek demographics.If these people come from northwest.. they should have bring with them some type of dialect or
ioan-words related with Illyrians,Thracians,Celts or whatever.What we see.. after the collaspe of Mycaenean culture is 3 new dialects taking place,and all of them being less IE related compared to the Proto-Greek dialect.My point is...a population-group who come from north/northwest it should have been more IE related and not less IE.It dosn't making sense. The Dorian invasion witch btw is not an 100% confirmed hypothesis shows a big destruction,burning land and palaces and what these people(Myceneans-Greeks) have done.. it was to flied to mountainous areas or to islands to escape the truncation.Let me be clear.I do not disagree that EV13 lineages might arrived in Greece during the IA period but calling these people hellenized Illyrians sounds more like a nationalistic propaganda with a very retarted(allow me to say) bias/agenda.As for the Germanic dialect that you mention above..can you plss tell me witch one is this?

Bane
11-16-2020, 11:53 PM
Let me be clear.I do not disagree that EV13 lineages might arrived in Greece during the IA period but calling these people hellenized Illyrians sounds more like a nationalistic propaganda with a very retarted(allow me to say) bias/agenda.As for the Germanic dialect that you mention above..can you plss tell me witch one is this?

I assure you I don't have such agenda. Seems to me you are a bit offended so with this statement of yours we can call it even, if you agree?
It is obvious you know much more about Greek linguistics and most probably about Greek history, so I assume I would not be an appropriate counterpart for the discussion.

I will also try to clarify my motives. I'm Serb with ancestry from Southeast Serbia. One of my closest matches is a Greek from Gjirokaster, Albania. He hasn't done Big Y (or similar) but everything points to him being my branch. I think two of us are even mentioned in the beginning of this topic. Our branch is also present in areas of Northwest Bosnia.
If we go further, my A11837 branch is found in Sardinia, and I already have theory that it got there with Greek colonization in the Iron Age. So if I would bring it down to the basic goal - it is understand whether my line is either Dorian or Illyrian (or both)?
So when I wrote my post a couple of hours ago that was my (possibly retarded) agenda.

Regarding the Geman dialects you can read about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_Slavs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_dialects

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 12:24 AM
I assure you I don't have such agenda. Seems to me you are a bit offended so with this statement of yours we can call it even, if you agree?
It is obvious you know much more about Greek linguistics and most probably about Greek history, so I assume I would not be an appropriate counterpart for the discussion.

I will also try to clarify my motives. I'm Serb with ancestry from Southeast Serbia. One of my closest matches is a Greek from Gjirokaster, Albania. He hasn't done Big Y (or similar) but everything points to him being my branch. I think two of us are even mentioned in the beginning of this topic. Our branch is also present in areas of Northwest Bosnia.
If we go further, my A11837 branch is found in Sardinia, and I already have theory that it got there with Greek colonization in the Iron Age. So if I would bring it down to the basic goal - it is understand whether my line is either Dorian or Illyrian (or both)?
So when I wrote my post a couple of hours ago that was my (possibly retarded) agenda.

Regarding the Geman dialects you can read about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_Slavs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_dialects

Well,i am not offended and i don't care actually if Dorians(if these people existed for real lol) had been an Illyrian-Thracian or Celtic tribe.But calling them..without having proves or ancient DNA in general..hellenized Illyrians sounds a little bit odd.. i guess.I am telling you again,i am not avoiding this fact..that such lineages arrived in Greece with northern populations during the IA period.. but you forgot something.Greece,Albania,Serbia and the whole area of balkans were under the Roman and Byzantine empires.As you see from autosomal DNA most people from the balkans have mixed with Slavs.There were also Vlach movements who themselfes also come in contact with Slavs... so it is very hard to categorize a specific EV13 lineage to a specific tribe-subgroup or to a historical movement-migration.Since we lack ancient DNA we just guessworking here.As for your example.. it sounds okay(btw Greeks did not colonized Sardinia)but still you cannot know 100% why you and the guy from Gjirokaster sharing this lineage.It might be Illyrian,Greek,Vlach,Slav,Roman,Celt or whatever.Also modern Greeks and more specific mainland Greeks have origins from Albanian people(Arvanites),Vlachs(Aromanians),they have mixed with Slavs and they have raided by east Germanics and Celts.How we can know what lineages are native and what lineages coming from the north without having a single sample?The IA in general is a very dark and mysterious period especially for Greece.But the samples we got from classical Greeks does not showing big changes in terms of autosomal DNA, witch means even if Greece reveived a genetic flow from the north..it means these people did not had a big genetic impact to the natives.IMO,we have to do mostly with a mountainous group somewhere from Albania or Epirus(northwest Greece) that moved southern and that's all.They might have been influenced from central Europe and thus they brought some new weapons,customs and policies and thats why prolly the Spartans and people who used to speak the Doric dialect were more millitaristic and had a more warfare lifestyle.

Bane
11-17-2020, 12:29 AM
btw Greeks did not colonized Sardinia

Not significantly, but some did go there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbia#History

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 12:35 AM
Not significantly, but some did go there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbia#History

Well,do not taking wiki so serious when it comes to history especially(everyones can write whatever he likes).I don't think Greeks had a big impact to Sardinia than to what they have in South Italy.But thats not the point...since we don't have DNA from Greece proving that EV13 was a major yDNA we just guessworking and nothing else.Someone else can easily claim that is an Illyrian pirate lol, or a slave, or even a 'Sea people' Chad. :)

Bane
11-17-2020, 12:48 AM
Well,do not taking wiki so serious when it comes to history especially(everyones can write whatever he likes).I don't think Greeks had a big impact to Sardinia than to what they have in South Italy.But thats not the point...since we don't have DNA from Greece proving that EV13 was a major yDNA we just guessworking and nothing else.Someone else can easily claim that is an Illyrian pirate lol, or a slave, or even a 'Sea people' Chad. :)

Personally, I have no doubts that most of E-V13 came to South Italy including Sicily with the Iron Age Greek colonization.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 12:54 AM
Personally, I have no doubts that most of E-V13 came to South Italy including Sicily with the Iron Age Greek colonization.

My yDNA is also frenquent in Italy,Anatolia,Greece and it can be found in all over the east med area...but it means zero.Such lineages can easily be associated with Neolithic Farmers.EV13 can be found even among English/British folks what it means..that Spartans moved to Britain?You can't prove without ancient DNA...

Bane
11-17-2020, 01:04 AM
My yDNA is also frenquent in Italy,Anatolia,Greece and it can be found in all over the east med area...but it means zero.Such lineages can easily be associated with Neolithic Farmers.EV13 can be found even among English/British folks what it means..that Spartans moved to Britain?You can't prove without ancient DNA...

If everything "means zero" then why are you on this forum ?
I've learned a lot about history from genetic genealogy and ancient DNA. If I had the approach you are now showing the result would indeed be around zero.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 01:15 AM
If everything "means zero" then why are you on this forum ?
I've learned a lot about history from genetic genealogy and ancient DNA. If I had the approach you are now showing the result would indeed be around zero.

The diffrence between you and me.. is that i am talking with facts and ancient DNA.You on the other hand.. just guessing.Well,i am guessing as well sometimes,but at least i am not a dogmatic. It is good to have an opinion and believes about ancient DNA.. but the problem with you is that you puting labels like your previous post as 'Hellenized Illyrians'.Even historians and archeologist debating if the Dorian invasion existed for real and you found out who they were and what lineages they carried lel :lol:

Bane
11-17-2020, 01:19 AM
The diffrence between you and me.. is that i am talking with facts and ancient DNA.You on the other hand.. just guessing.Well,i am guessing as well sometimes,but at least i am not a dogmatic. It is good to have an opinion and believes about ancient DNA.. but the problem with you is that you puting labels like your previous post as 'Hellenized Illyrians'.Even historians and archeologist debating if the Dorian invasion existed for real and you found out who they were and what lineages they carried lel :lol:

Again a lot of talk, but no result.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 01:23 AM
Again a lot of talk, but no result.

That goes exactly for your situation.Υοu have not proven anything from your above statements lol.:lol:Let me guess?Apricity-Eupedia host?

Bane
11-17-2020, 01:25 AM
That goes exactly for your situation.Υοu have not proven anything from your above statements lol.:lol:Let me guess?Apricity-Eupedia host?

You got it. I also believe Earth is flat. I have to go to sleep.

Riverman
11-17-2020, 01:30 AM
The TMRCA of most important V13 lineages is too young for a Neolithic spread and we have ancient samples which lack it for the decisive time. So its practically for sure that most of E-V13 came to Southern Italy primarily with Greeks and secondarily with other Balkan people, especially Illyrians.

How it came to Greece in the first place is more of a mystery and indeed up to ancient DNA samples, but the most likely scenario is in my opinion a spread with the Urnfield-cremation horizon, either directly from Central Europe, the North Carparthians, or being picked up on the way in the Pannonian-Serbian region.

The Dorian phenomenon is directly related to this, as is the introduction of more advanced iron technology, like visible in Teleac, a major Gava fortress.

In any case, most modern v13 clades don’t fit into a model in which they spread to Southern Italy in the Neolithic. If ancient DNA would prove that, the whole cladism and timing estimates would be complete BS. And going by other haplogroups, it doesnt look that way.
Also, large portions of Magna Graecia were settled by Dorian derived colonists, unlike for example the Ionian coast, as the name suggests.

Is there any more general comparison of local Greek derived populations with respect to their yDNA and the supposed mother state in Greece? Could help, even before more aDNA arrives and might be useful afterwards.
All limitations and later replacements kept in mind.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 01:54 AM
The TMRCA of most important V13 lineages is too young for a Neolithic spread and we have ancient samples which lack it for the decisive time. So its practically for sure that most of E-V13 came to Southern Italy primarily with Greeks and secondarily with other Balkan people, especially Illyrians.

How it came to Greece in the first place is more of a mystery and indeed up to ancient DNA samples, but the most likely scenario is in my opinion a spread with the Urnfield-cremation horizon, either directly from Central Europe, the North Carparthians, or being picked up on the way in the Pannonian-Serbian region.

The Dorian phenomenon is directly related to this, as is the introduction of more advanced iron technology, like visible in Teleac, a major Gava fortress.

In any case, most modern v13 clades don’t fit into a model in which they spread to Southern Italy in the Neolithic. If ancient DNA would prove that, the whole cladism and timing estimates would be complete BS. And going by other haplogroups, it doesnt look that way.
Also, large portions of Magna Graecia were settled by Dorian derived colonists, unlike for example the Ionian coast, as the name suggests.

Is there any more general comparison of local Greek derived populations with respect to their yDNA and the supposed mother state in Greece? Could help, even before more aDNA arrives and might be useful afterwards.
All limitations and later replacements kept in mind.

I agree that Greece received a northern element from the north, prolly during the IA but it makes me wonder why these new immigrants did not brought new DNA in the region instead the samples we got from classical Greeks showing pretty much typical Myceanean DNA.I mean,if they come from Central Europe or somewhere from the western balkans,with exception lineages.. they should have brought a new DNA.EV13 in Greek mainland is the major yDNA.I am not sure..and i do not believe all these lineages among modern Greeks have to do with IA but it wouldn't be more reasonable to have seen a new genetic drift from these people who brought these lineages?Also why they have carried only EV13...and not R1b as well.. since they arrived from the central EU?

Principe
11-17-2020, 03:08 AM
I want to divert the attention and get a serious discussion, with the current structure of E-V13 are we able to guess which lines were Ancient Greek, Illyrian, Thracian, Moesian, Pannonian, Dacian and potentially Eastern Celtic?

From a non biased point of view, E-V13 looks to be critical to both the formation of the Balkans and Carpathian Range. Clearly we need Middle and Late Bronze Age samples from the area.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 03:19 AM
I want to divert the attention and get a serious discussion, with the current structure of E-V13 are we able to guess which lines were Ancient Greek, Illyrian, Thracian, Moesian, Pannonian, Dacian and potentially Eastern Celtic?

From a non biased point of view, E-V13 looks to be critical to both the formation of the Balkans and Carpathian Range. Clearly we need Middle and Late Bronze Age samples from the area.

Thats exactly what i am saying and i' been saying it for a long period about EV13 but people like Hawk,Riverman and some other posters have always beeing in a hurry(probably because of bias/agenda?) and trying to connect EV13 witch specific subgroups,tribes,migratons-movements and stuff.I agree in many things,like that it probably spread from somewhere central or central-east EU and ended up in the western balkans and not only but it is very hard to attribute a conclusion without samples from LBA/EIA and IA period in general.As i mention above the IA is the most dark period for Greece(and not only ofc) we have zero idea what happened even by historic terms...it is way harder when it comes to genetics and ancient DNA.What i said above,and i count only in DNA it is that Classical samples from Greek colonizers(Empuries2) are very Mycenean when it comes to autosomal DNA witch suggests that Greeks have stayed pretty much the same until the colonization period.Ofc 2 samples only are not enough,but i really doubt how different Greeks would have been during the 575 BC with their ancestors of the BA period.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 03:33 AM
Btw in Trabzon EV13 is 7% of the lineages,7% is also Z2103(R1b) branch....what people brought such lineages there?Dorians :lol:

Principe
11-17-2020, 03:41 AM
Btw in Trabzon EV13 is 7% of the lineages,7% is also Z2103(R1b) branch....what people brought such lineages there?Dorians :lol:

Was there any Doric colonies in Turkey or Black Sea? I know Megara founded Byzantion, I know there was a quite a few Ionian and maybe Achaean, was there Doric?

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 03:55 AM
Was there any Doric colonies in Turkey or Black Sea? I know Megara founded Byzantion, I know there was a quite a few Ionian and maybe Achaean, was there Doric?

Not really.Pontus hellenized mostly by western Anatolian Greeks who themselves were prolly hellenized first by people from the mainland(Attica).The first Greek colony in Pontus was Sinope,and colonized by people from Miletus(modern Aydin province).Western Pontus in general hellenized mostly by Miletians especially cities like Sinope,Amasya,Samsun,Ordu etc.The eastern parts(like Trabzon,Giresun,Rize,Gumushane) hellenized much later especially the deep regions,only the coastal parts hellenized quickly.The interior parts of Pontus have become Hellenic much later with the kingdom of Pontus and later with Roman-Byzantine empire.There are sources that Justinian I was the emperor who hellenized-christianicized the very isolated parts of eastern Pontus and killed even pagans who did not accepted Christianity.Eastern Pontus in general was inhabit by Colchian-Kartvelian tribes hence the high CHG input there.But coming to your question,no there wasn't any Doric colony in Pontus.Ancient Greeks did not left a big genetic impact in Pontus and its obvious from our autosomal DNA.

Just look how little Greek the average Trabzon scores in G25.


Target: Greek_Trabzon
Distance: 1.3512% / 0.01351152
50.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
31.2 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
9.2 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
6.6 Samaritan
2.2 RUS_Catacomb

Target: Greek_Trabzon
Distance: 1.1764% / 0.01176448
54.6 RUS_Maykop_Late
26.8 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
11.0 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
7.6 Samaritan


Target: Greek_Trabzon
Distance: 1.0360% / 0.01035963
47.2 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
38.2 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
7.2 Samaritan
6.8 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.6 RUS_Catacomb

Principe
11-17-2020, 04:01 AM
Not really.Pontus hellenized mostly by western Anatolian Greeks who themselves were prolly hellenized first by people from the mainland(Attica).The first Greek colony in Pontus was Sinope,and colonized by people from Miletus(modern Aydin province).Western Pontus in general hellenized mostly by Miletians especially cities like Sinope,Amasya,Samsun,Ordu etc.The eastern parts(like Trabzon,Giresun,Rize,Gumushane) hellenized much later especially the deep regions,only the coastal parts hellenized quickly.The interior parts of Pontus have become Hellenic much later with the kingdom of Pontus and later with Roman-Byzantine empire.There are sources that Justinian I was the emperor who hellenized-christianicized the very isolated parts of eastern Pontus and killed even pagans who did not accepted Christianity.Eastern Pontus in general was inhabit by Colchian-Kartvelian tribes hence the high CHG input there.But coming to your question,no there wasn't any Doric colony in Pontus.Ancient Greeks did not left a big genetic impact in Pontus and its obvious from our autosomal DNA.

Just look how little Greek the average Trabzon scores in G25.


Target: Greek_Trabzon
Distance: 1.3512% / 0.01351152
50.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
31.2 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
9.2 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
6.6 Samaritan
2.2 RUS_Catacomb

Target: Greek_Trabzon
Distance: 1.1764% / 0.01176448
54.6 RUS_Maykop_Late
26.8 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA
11.0 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
7.6 Samaritan

Thanks for the summary, so in other words were looking at 10-15% max of Ancient Hellenic input? Interesting that we Southern Italians have double to triple that, I think the Y dna can show up more than the autosomal dna, even a group like the Sarmatians themselves could have picked up Hellenic admix on the way, as they bordered many Greek colonies in the East and North.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 04:09 AM
Thanks for the summary, so in other words were looking at 10-15% max of Ancient Hellenic input? Interesting that we Southern Italians have double to triple that, I think the Y dna can show up more than the autosomal dna, even a group like the Sarmatians themselves could have picked up Hellenic admix on the way, as they bordered many Greek colonies in the East and North.

Yes 15-18% max,i am also 12-15% Greek admixed in my autosomal but i have not seen someone with more than 20% for example.


As for South Italians,they are by far the closest people to Ancient Greeks,no1s doubt about it.

Principe
11-17-2020, 04:18 AM
Yes 15-18% max,i am also 12-15% Greek admixed in my autosomal but i have not seen someone with more than 20% for example.


As for South Italians,they are by far the closest people to Ancient Greeks,no1s doubt about it.

Das right B), how do Western Anatolian Greeks and Cappadocian Greeks come out in terms of Ancient Greek? For the Y like I said adna from Greece can answer that.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 04:28 AM
Das right B), how do Western Anatolian Greeks and Cappadocian Greeks come out in terms of Ancient Greek? For the Y like I said adna from Greece can answer that.

Cappadocian Greeks are mostly Bronze Age Anatolian derived.Mostly this (TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA).They also have decent steppe DNA(probably from Hittites,Galatians,Phrygians etc).

As for Western Anatolian Greeks they are a combination of Greek islanders+Mainland Greeks.The samples we got have high Slavic admixture and high West Asian admixture witch shows clearly that these people have background both from mainland Greeks and also from the islands(Aegean islands etc).In general modern Greeks have received high northern input from Slavs,Vlachs,Albanians etc and if you subtract their high steppe DNA they coming like Anatolian Bronze Age...witch means that they received a west asian gene flow sometime that makes them more Anatolian related.But keep in mind that Greek islanders and Cretans have also decent amounts of Levantine admixture like South Italians and Sicilians.Something is telling me that during the Byzantine Empire Greek islands and South Italy have seen repopulations and demographic changes.In some way they become more Levant influenced.From what part of South Italy do you have origins????I think your yDNA is prolly Mycenean :)

Hawk
11-17-2020, 10:10 AM
Thats exactly what i am saying and i' been saying it for a long period about EV13 but people like Hawk,Riverman and some other posters have always beeing in a hurry(probably because of bias/agenda?) and trying to connect EV13 witch specific subgroups,tribes,migratons-movements and stuff.I agree in many things,like that it probably spread from somewhere central or central-east EU and ended up in the western balkans and not only but it is very hard to attribute a conclusion without samples from LBA/EIA and IA period in general.As i mention above the IA is the most dark period for Greece(and not only ofc) we have zero idea what happened even by historic terms...it is way harder when it comes to genetics and ancient DNA.What i said above,and i count only in DNA it is that Classical samples from Greek colonizers(Empuries2) are very Mycenean when it comes to autosomal DNA witch suggests that Greeks have stayed pretty much the same until the colonization period.Ofc 2 samples only are not enough,but i really doubt how different Greeks would have been during the 575 BC with their ancestors of the BA period.

I don't know why you mention my name without any context. We are free to discuss and give opinions, each one of us are posting publicly, so if u think i am wrong somewhere you can point it out. It was/is a surprise for each one of us that E-V13 could potentially lived so much up in North during MBA. I didn't believe it until recently.

Riverman
11-17-2020, 10:13 AM
I agree that Greece received a northern element from the north, prolly during the IA but it makes me wonder why these new immigrants did not brought new DNA in the region instead the samples we got from classical Greeks showing pretty much typical Myceanean DNA.I mean,if they come from Central Europe or somewhere from the western balkans,with exception lineages.. they should have brought a new DNA.EV13 in Greek mainland is the major yDNA.I am not sure..and i do not believe all these lineages among modern Greeks have to do with IA but it wouldn't be more reasonable to have seen a new genetic drift from these people who brought these lineages?Also why they have carried only EV13...and not R1b as well.. since they arrived from the central EU?

Even if the assumption of an origin in let's say Gava/Fluted Ware would be correct, which is just a hypothesis and might be wrong, if you look where they lived, they are not supposed to have been super-Northern from the start and mixing on the way. What's even more, for the Greek Dorians, it was just an influence, no replacement at all, unlike the Thracians. Otherwise they wouldn't have been Greeks to begin with. There are many possible scenarios, its even possible E-V13 was already in Greece, but got strengthened with new clades, or it was introduced that late. Both is possible. We need to find the original carrier cultures, especially for E-V13 which is so far very under-represented for the Bronze Age obviously. Once we have that, it might get easier and in any case, more haplogroups came to Greece at this time from the relative North, but not directly, but over the Balkan.


I want to divert the attention and get a serious discussion, with the current structure of E-V13 are we able to guess which lines were Ancient Greek, Illyrian, Thracian, Moesian, Pannonian, Dacian and potentially Eastern Celtic?

From a non biased point of view, E-V13 looks to be critical to both the formation of the Balkans and Carpathian Range. Clearly we need Middle and Late Bronze Age samples from the area.

I think that E-V13 spread big time with two phenomenons:
- New swords, fighting styles and the Urnfield-cremation horizon, especially in the East
- The iron working technology, as miners, smiths, traders, warriors and possible occasionally elites from the Carpathian metal working centres.

The Carpathians were for the Bronze Age the forge of the Indo-Europeans, but with the introduction of iron, by the very same miners and smiths, they reduced their own social safety and position, because iron was much more widespread and people began to mine and process more regionally than in the Bronze Age. At the same time, the big Gava fortresses in the Carpathians, the centre of the whole related Gava-Fluted Ware ceramic horizon, were conquered and finally abandoned. So I think this explains why E-V13 clades are so problematic to place: They didn't just split along big clans and tribes, they split down to families and probably even individuals. Like it looks that with clan A, members of clan C, D, E, F went too, while the majority of these went with B in a different direction.

This makes it so difficult, because I think, that if I'm right, some of the same clades split and one group moved West, the other to Pannonia, the next to Bulgaria and the last to Greece. Yet all these people migrated later too, so you have the huge challenge of these fairly young clades being dispersed in much of Europe by the EIA, but later migration taking place too. So the same clade might have moved directly to the West and a sister subclade followed in Roman times. For some a direct and only Northern distribution looks extremely likely, like https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/ which just looks Germanic-Slavic.
But many others are not. They have subclades which can be placed in Britain, but others which can be placed in the Balkans or even beyond. And my assumption is that some of these are Balkan and migrated North, whereas others split early and moved roughly at the same time (EIA) to both the West and the Balkans. They really seem to have dispersed down to the most downstream levels that existed at that time of their biggest expansion, so between let's say 2.000-800 BC primarily.
If you look at most clades, the really big splits which are hard to place and can't even be explained by later migrations usually occured in this time frame. There was of course later migration from the Balkan centre too, which just complicates things. To me E-V13 looks like one of the haplogroups with the most chaotic distribution in Europe and I'd say that's because of its big split in the EIA.

Concerning Anatolia and Pontus, especially cities like Sinope, I only have to read the Anabasis as a reference, to see how mixed the city must have been, both from its Greek sources, but also by its contacts with the locals. The Anatolian-Pontic colonisation got accelerated fairly late, that's why its so interesting to read the sources available then, they give a good impression, with some settlements being just recently founded and most being surrounded by foreign ethnic tribal groups. The strict splits along the tribal lines were not as important any more at this point in time. The differences for Magna Graecia might have been more pronounced and North Western Greeks and Dorians really predominated with their settlement activity:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia#/media/Datei:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-de.svg
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia#/media/Datei:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-de.svg

But there were also decisively Ionian Greek settlements. Would be just great to get results from different places over time, seeing whether it made a difference. Probably it didn't, we will see. Like Tarent, Akragas and Lokroi vs. Himera and Elea.

dosas
11-17-2020, 02:40 PM
Another interesting trivia tidbit.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/264524?seq=1

Letter from Areus I, Kings of the Spartans (one of the most prominent Doric groups) 309–265 BCE, to Onias II, son of Simeon, High Priest of the Jews in Judea:

Areus, King of the Lacedemonians, to Onias, sendeth greeting.
We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Jews and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just therefore that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demoteles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is four-square; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws.


Commentary of Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895.

Whence it comes that these Lacedemonians declare themselves here to be of kin to the Jews, as derived from the same ancestor, Abraham, I cannot tell, unless, as Grotius supposes, they were derived from Dores, that came of the Pelasgi. These are by Herodotus called Barbarians, and perhaps were derived from the Syrians and Arabians, the posterity of Abraham by Keturah. See Antiq. B. XIV. ch. 10. sect. 22; and Of the War, B. I. ch. 26. sect. l; and Grot. on 1 Macc. 12:7. We may further observe from the Recognitions of Clement, that Eliezer, of Damascus, the servant of Abraham, Genesis 15:2; 24., was of old by some taken for his son. So that if the Lacedemonians were sprung from him, they might think themselves to be of the posterity of Abraham, as well as the Jews, who were sprung from Isaac. And perhaps this Eliezer of Damascus is that very Damascus whom Trogus Pompeius, as abridged by Justin, makes the founder of the Jewish nation itself, though he afterwards blunders, and makes Azelus, Adores, Abraham, and Israel kings of Judea, and successors to this Damascus. It may not be improper to observe further, that Moses Chorenensis, in his history of the Armenians, informs us, that the nation of the Parthians was also derived from Abraham by Keturah and her children.

Principe
11-17-2020, 05:39 PM
Even if the assumption of an origin in let's say Gava/Fluted Ware would be correct, which is just a hypothesis and might be wrong, if you look where they lived, they are not supposed to have been super-Northern from the start and mixing on the way. What's even more, for the Greek Dorians, it was just an influence, no replacement at all, unlike the Thracians. Otherwise they wouldn't have been Greeks to begin with. There are many possible scenarios, its even possible E-V13 was already in Greece, but got strengthened with new clades, or it was introduced that late. Both is possible. We need to find the original carrier cultures, especially for E-V13 which is so far very under-represented for the Bronze Age obviously. Once we have that, it might get easier and in any case, more haplogroups came to Greece at this time from the relative North, but not directly, but over the Balkan.



I think that E-V13 spread big time with two phenomenons:
- New swords, fighting styles and the Urnfield-cremation horizon, especially in the East
- The iron working technology, as miners, smiths, traders, warriors and possible occasionally elites from the Carpathian metal working centres.

The Carpathians were for the Bronze Age the forge of the Indo-Europeans, but with the introduction of iron, by the very same miners and smiths, they reduced their own social safety and position, because iron was much more widespread and people began to mine and process more regionally than in the Bronze Age. At the same time, the big Gava fortresses in the Carpathians, the centre of the whole related Gava-Fluted Ware ceramic horizon, were conquered and finally abandoned. So I think this explains why E-V13 clades are so problematic to place: They didn't just split along big clans and tribes, they split down to families and probably even individuals. Like it looks that with clan A, members of clan C, D, E, F went too, while the majority of these went with B in a different direction.

This makes it so difficult, because I think, that if I'm right, some of the same clades split and one group moved West, the other to Pannonia, the next to Bulgaria and the last to Greece. Yet all these people migrated later too, so you have the huge challenge of these fairly young clades being dispersed in much of Europe by the EIA, but later migration taking place too. So the same clade might have moved directly to the West and a sister subclade followed in Roman times. For some a direct and only Northern distribution looks extremely likely, like https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/ which just looks Germanic-Slavic.
But many others are not. They have subclades which can be placed in Britain, but others which can be placed in the Balkans or even beyond. And my assumption is that some of these are Balkan and migrated North, whereas others split early and moved roughly at the same time (EIA) to both the West and the Balkans. They really seem to have dispersed down to the most downstream levels that existed at that time of their biggest expansion, so between let's say 2.000-800 BC primarily.
If you look at most clades, the really big splits which are hard to place and can't even be explained by later migrations usually occured in this time frame. There was of course later migration from the Balkan centre too, which just complicates things. To me E-V13 looks like one of the haplogroups with the most chaotic distribution in Europe and I'd say that's because of its big split in the EIA.

Concerning Anatolia and Pontus, especially cities like Sinope, I only have to read the Anabasis as a reference, to see how mixed the city must have been, both from its Greek sources, but also by its contacts with the locals. The Anatolian-Pontic colonisation got accelerated fairly late, that's why its so interesting to read the sources available then, they give a good impression, with some settlements being just recently founded and most being surrounded by foreign ethnic tribal groups. The strict splits along the tribal lines were not as important any more at this point in time. The differences for Magna Graecia might have been more pronounced and North Western Greeks and Dorians really predominated with their settlement activity:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia#/media/Datei:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-de.svg
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia#/media/Datei:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-de.svg

But there were also decisively Ionian Greek settlements. Would be just great to get results from different places over time, seeing whether it made a difference. Probably it didn't, we will see. Like Tarent, Akragas and Lokroi vs. Himera and Elea.

Thanks Riverman I completely agree, what prompted me to begin this discussion was the diversity of E-V13 in Sicily and Southern Italy, what complicates things are that not only were there Greek colonies but there was huge settlement of Illyrians in Puglia ie the Messapians, and during the Roman era as we saw in the Antonio et al. paper was the massive move of people throughout the Peninsula, so it very difficult to determine who brought what and when? Also all the peoples I mentioned in my first post had people definitely move to Roman Italy.

As an example you brought up E-L540 it could also be an Eastern Celtic branch, the reason I mentioned them is because some branches have a Northern distribution and I could see it as Carpathian or Northern Balkan influences in Halstatt.

Take a look at https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS9320/, I believe this is a Southern Balkan branch which likely existed amongst Illyrians and Greeks.

Riverman
11-17-2020, 06:08 PM
Thanks Riverman I completely agree, what prompted me to begin this discussion was the diversity of E-V13 in Sicily and Southern Italy, what complicates things are that not only were there Greek colonies but there was huge settlement of Illyrians in Puglia ie the Messapians, and during the Roman era as we saw in the Antonio et al. paper was the massive move of people throughout the Peninsula, so it very difficult to determine who brought what and when? Also all the peoples I mentioned in my first post had people definitely move to Roman Italy.

Even Celts, Germanics and Slavs moved to Italy, so without a very clear context, like a Greek colonist, there are almost infinite possibilities. Just assume for a moment the Fluted Ware horizon was Proto-Thracian for the most part, related groups to the West Illyrian and they were among the Iron Age pioneers with new inputs from the steppe accelerating the development. They did influence the Celts and related Centum-speakers to the West, which in turn influenced Germanics in Jastorf. Its all interconnected, so specialists in particular might have moved from one group to the next, selling their craftsmanship. Its noticeable that even among people like Jastorf, where we have such an egalitarian and very poor burial horizon, there might be hints for smith's graves, as a people in a special position. I think that's kind of remarkable and it being reflected in various religious mythologies and tales. Obviously, a "dynasty of smiths" too, would, at some point if surviving, being integrated into the greater society they lived in - or better their longer term descendents.
Hallstatt was what came out of the pioneer work of the Carpathian-Pannonian iron working fortresses I'd say, they are the altered and probably even defeated successors. But the knowledge and new ways survived and evolved on. The bulk of the people however, was pushed rather to the East and South from a more Northern home in earlier Urnfield, with Pannonia being very prone to replacement and conquest scenarios.



As an example you brought up E-L540 it could also be an Eastern Celtic branch, the reason I mentioned them is because some branches have a Northern distribution and I could see it as Carpathian or Northern Balkan influences in Halstatt.

Take a look at https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS9320/, I believe this is a Southern Balkan branch which likely existed amongst Illyrians and Greeks.

Its a good example for a clade which seems to have split and radiated out, with no clear geographic ties. To me, at a first look, it appears to be best related to Eastern Hallstatt, with some subclades remaining in the centre, some moving up to the North, but the biggest successes and highest survival rates on the Balkan. Its very remarkable how many Northern European, actually Scandinavian lineages survived. I think with more samples taken from places like Germany and the Czech Republic, you will get even more hits. Austrian samples are very rare, with the exception of this small genetic project, like here the AT-4 - yet many absolutely crucial clades of V13 being found in this extremely small Austrian sample. With more samples, more will appear and connect the North <-> Hallstatt <-> Balkan.

Take the clade with the Austrian as an example: Austrian at the root, subclades in Norway and the Balkans!
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z27131/

Funnily in Hordaland, so even in South Western Norway! Too bad there is no information about the other samples, but then again, a clear IA relation. Look at the TMRCA: 800 BC!

To me it looks basically rather Celtic-Illyrian, Hallstatt-related:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988/

One up you are at 1000 BC, beginning Iron Age, at the root a Hungarian and look at another one downstream, around 1000 BC a split into Germanic, Slavic and Balkan:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4526/

No link after 300 BC, at least on YFull.

The question is always: Are there clades which are closer in time - and in fact, most such big splits don't make it into history, not even the Roman period! In the Roman period, most of these clades seem to have split already, generations before. For E-BY4526, a Northern origin is as likely as a Southern Balkan one.

I tried to find very recent connections between the extreme ends, probably around 200-800 AD, like they existed in the Viking samples, but they are actually very rare among V13 samples, as far as I can tell. Probably others know better.

Principe
11-17-2020, 06:43 PM
Even Celts, Germanics and Slavs moved to Italy, so without a very clear context, like a Greek colonist, there are almost infinite possibilities. Just assume for a moment the Fluted Ware horizon was Proto-Thracian for the most part, related groups to the West Illyrian and they were among the Iron Age pioneers with new inputs from the steppe accelerating the development. They did influence the Celts and related Centum-speakers to the West, which in turn influenced Germanics in Jastorf. Its all interconnected, so specialists in particular might have moved from one group to the next, selling their craftsmanship. Its noticeable that even among people like Jastorf, where we have such an egalitarian and very poor burial horizon, there might be hints for smith's graves, as a people in a special position. I think that's kind of remarkable and it being reflected in various religious mythologies and tales. Obviously, a "dynasty of smiths" too, would, at some point if surviving, being integrated into the greater society they lived in - or better their longer term descendents.
Hallstatt was what came out of the pioneer work of the Carpathian-Pannonian iron working fortresses I'd say, they are the altered and probably even defeated successors. But the knowledge and new ways survived and evolved on. The bulk of the people however, was pushed rather to the East and South from a more Northern home in earlier Urnfield, with Pannonia being very prone to replacement and conquest scenarios.




Its a good example for a clade which seems to have split and radiated out, with no clear geographic ties. To me, at a first look, it appears to be best related to Eastern Hallstatt, with some subclades remaining in the centre, some moving up to the North, but the biggest successes and highest survival rates on the Balkan. Its very remarkable how many Northern European, actually Scandinavian lineages survived. I think with more samples taken from places like Germany and the Czech Republic, you will get even more hits. Austrian samples are very rare, with the exception of this small genetic project, like here the AT-4 - yet many absolutely crucial clades of V13 being found in this extremely small Austrian sample. With more samples, more will appear and connect the North <-> Hallstatt <-> Balkan.

Take the clade with the Austrian as an example: Austrian at the root, subclades in Norway and the Balkans!
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z27131/

Funnily in Hordaland, so even in South Western Norway! Too bad there is no information about the other samples, but then again, a clear IA relation. Look at the TMRCA: 800 BC!

To me it looks basically rather Celtic-Illyrian, Hallstatt-related:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988/

One up you are at 1000 BC, beginning Iron Age, at the root a Hungarian and look at another one downstream, around 1000 BC a split into Germanic, Slavic and Balkan:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4526/

No link after 300 BC, at least on YFull.

The question is always: Are there clades which are closer in time - and in fact, most such big splits don't make it into history, not even the Roman period! In the Roman period, most of these clades seem to have split already, generations before. For E-BY4526, a Northern origin is as likely as a Southern Balkan one.

I tried to find very recent connections between the extreme ends, probably around 200-800 AD, like they existed in the Viking samples, but they are actually very rare among V13 samples, as far as I can tell. Probably others know better.

The detailed response is appreciated, a lot of what you said is hard to refute I must agree, but here is the main issue, or rather a brings the discussion to a whole new level, let’s assume that some branches of E-V13 entered Urnfield culture at the critical time, what would this imply for its spread, also why would just E-V13 explode in the Balkans and not other clades such as I2 and R-U152? That’s the main issue i’m seeing here, but I think it could be a possible explanation.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 07:24 PM
The detailed response is appreciated, a lot of what you said is hard to refute I must agree, but here is the main issue, or rather a brings the discussion to a whole new level, let’s assume that some branches of E-V13 entered Urnfield culture at the critical time, what would this imply for its spread, also why would just E-V13 explode in the Balkans and not other clades such as I2 and R-U152? That’s the main issue i’m seeing here, but I think it could be a possible explanation.

And besides that,i think we should expect also a different genetic make up from these people who enterned balkans and Greece as well.

Riverman
11-17-2020, 07:42 PM
The detailed response is appreciated, a lot of what you said is hard to refute I must agree, but here is the main issue, or rather a brings the discussion to a whole new level, let’s assume that some branches of E-V13 entered Urnfield culture at the critical time, what would this imply for its spread, also why would just E-V13 explode in the Balkans and not other clades such as I2 and R-U152? That’s the main issue i’m seeing here, but I think it could be a possible explanation.

Slovakia-North West Romania was split into three zones, the Pannonian steppe related, the Northern and the South Eastern, which is the most mountainous one. I'd say that the most mountainous South Eastern one was the refuge area for all or at least many E-V13 clades in the Bronze Age. It spread out in the Urnfield, but a large portion was sitting there, until they began, as ethnic units, not just clans like in Urnfield, to migrate South. This had by far the biggest impact on Thracians, even more, the core group was probably even Proto-Thracian. Like I wrote in this thread and post https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=720455&viewfull=1#post720455

Thracian is peculiar, as it might be close to Balto-Slavs, had recent steppe influences, but also Balkan and possibly Illyrian relations at the same time, being very important in the very early IA transition. Now Gava as the centre of this peculiar ceramic and metallurgist elite movement bordered in the East the Černoles, which is one of the most likely Baltoslavic candidates. This gives a very good fit, everything considered, its position, spread and the biggest impact, it affected fused groups which moved as far South as Bulgaria and Greece - so not the Gava centre, but related groups. I think that in this context of related groups which pushed on and all were at least connected to Gava, there happened within the Urnfield-cremation horizon a true mass migration. This was the bulk of these people, specific tribes, which pushed on towards the South and beyond, so I'd assume its possible some Sea People and related groups harboured it too.

So that's the first part of the explanation, that while the Western Urnfield groups might have been infiltrated and influenced, the bulk was going South. The second explanation is that we don't even know what kind of haplogroups many of these cultures carried. If we look back on the Pannonian results, there is again a problem: Where did all the later E-V13 in Pannonia and Serbia came from? Its still possible we find it, like in groups like Vatin, but they don't make a better fit for the mass dispersion in the EIA transition. Rather, it seems that similar groups moved down to Pannonia and Serbia too, but not all of these, especially in Pannonia, had the same degree of lasting impact like in Thracians primarily Like the Dacians had the issue of more of the recent steppe influences, the Pannonians as well, later even added Celtic input, with a lower frequency, and so on. So the greatest continuity and early centre was most likely Thrace and people like the Triballi. If you think about later Roman history, there are many cases of tribes which did well, and others which were largely destroyed, So one group could profit from the others demise and vice versa. People could migrate and change their homes. So until there is more data, we just know that importants movements took place and they were most likely coming from the relative North.

Bane
11-17-2020, 08:09 PM
To me it looks basically rather Celtic-Illyrian, Hallstatt-related:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988/


I think when more people from Romania and Ukraine get tested this clade may shift a bit more towards East. I understand why you made relation with Hallstatt, but I would be a bit more careful. For example FTDNA has confirmed Z16988 from Moldova.

Riverman
11-17-2020, 08:27 PM
I think when more people from Romania and Ukraine get tested this clade may shift a bit more towards East. I understand why you made relation with Hallstatt, but I would be a bit more careful. For example FTDNA has confirmed Z16988 from Moldova.

The primary association in my hypothetical model is with Proto-Thracians snd the Fluted Ware horizon, with an early Gava centre. Oftentimes its named Gáva-Holigrady culture. The Holigrady Eastern flank extended into the Ukraine and Moldova was a centre of this group. Like I wrote before, Baltoslavic Cernoles was the neighbour.
So its great news for my hypothesis if they find a Moldovan connection.

Dont forget how Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt came up in the first place, with such influences and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon!

Hallstatt was born out of an injection of these metallurgists in combination with new steppe influences. It was spread by Hallstatt too in all directions, but the ultimate origin was the North Carparthians. Do you have more about this Moldovan samples?
I too think that its important to get Romanians tested, because at least some of the old Carparthian lineages could have survived.

Bane
11-17-2020, 08:36 PM
Do you have more about this Moldovan samples?

Not much, his ancestry is from Nicoreni, Moldova. You can see Moldovan flag on Z16988 level here: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/E;name=E-Z16988

Bane
11-17-2020, 08:42 PM
Take a look at https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS9320/, I believe this is a Southern Balkan branch which likely existed amongst Illyrians and Greeks.

E-BY4526 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4526/) is one of subclades under E-CTS9320. It is dominantly distributed among Eastern Slavs. This clade in particular is one of several arguments in favor of Carpathian area origin of whole E-CTS9320.
And story is similar with many other E-V13 branches.

Bane
11-17-2020, 08:47 PM
I agree that Greece received a northern element from the north, prolly during the IA but it makes me wonder why these new immigrants did not brought new DNA in the region instead the samples we got from classical Greeks showing pretty much typical Myceanean DNA.

Can you please give a bit more details about classical Greeks whose DNA is pretty much Myceanean?

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 08:48 PM
Can you please give a bit more details about classical Greeks whose DNA is pretty much Myceanean?

Check the Empuries2 samples from Catalonia.They are Greek colonizers!!!

Bane
11-17-2020, 08:57 PM
Check the Empuries2 samples from Catalonia.They are Greek colonizers!!!

I see. So theoretically it is possible these Greeks are not of Dorian origin, but lets say "Eastern Greek"? I'm not saying they are, just that we do not have this particular information.

Riverman
11-17-2020, 09:06 PM
Not much, his ancestry is from Nicoreni, Moldova. You can see Moldovan flag on Z16988 level here: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/E;name=E-Z16988

Ok, thank you. Nicoreni is closer to the Carpathian zone and the very East of Slovakia with Carpato-Ukraine/Ruthenia, North Eastern Hungary, North Western Romania and part of Moldova was the heartland. I mean after all those movements of people and changes, it would be a big, big, lucky hit if a surviving lineage is still there, and even more so if there are more. But who knows before having sampled them? Definitely one of the undersampled regions. But if you look at the timing and spread, it fits in perfectly into my model, with a big push from the steppe sweeping some of the metallurgists down into Pannonia, helping to create Eastern Hallstatt, probably on an Illyrian base, but these being more Urnfield and steppe influenced than their Southern brethren, which in turn influence even the Western Hallstatt and Northern Jastorf sphere possibly. Hallstatt is the Northern mode of distribution, the Southern is primarily Thracian, secondarily Illyrian and Dorian. If everything works out like that...

But such a big hit, Moldovan upstream, Austrian in the middle in as the next step, Scandinavians and Balkan expansions as downstream descendents. And everything in the IA time frame. That's a perfect match for the proposed relationship of expansion of the Fluted Ware/Gava within the cremation-Urnfield horizon (1300-1000 BC) -> Proto-Thracian (1000-800 BC) -> Thraco-Cimmerian (900-700 BC) -> early Hallstatt (800–600 BC) -> regional groups in the sphere of Hallstatt influence. Note that these are just rough numbers, don't take it seriously down to the year or even century and don't try to nail me down on it, but just to make the relative chronology more obvious.

Now the clades for E-Z16988, numbers are as relative and not taken all too seriously, especially since the Austrian is not even dated yet, he is alone on the branch, but again the relative chronology for the TMRCA of the subclades: Moldovan (E-Z16988, Thracian?) 900 BC -> Austrian (E-Z27131*, Hallstatt?) 800 BC -> Balkan <-> Scandinavian split around 0 AD (Celtic dispersals?). So even though this is very sketchy and speculative, it would be too good to be real ;)

But another one, https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y172786/ - French and Croatian! TMRCA of 400 BC! Looks good for a La Tene Celtic split.

I'm not saying its like that, but these are just interpretative examples, any new sample can change the picture drastically, like if you get many Greek https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y172786/ which are hard to explain with Celts, but rather with Greek colonists.

dosas
11-17-2020, 09:12 PM
I see. So theoretically it is possible these Greeks are not of Dorian origin, but lets say "Eastern Greek"? I'm not saying they are, just that we do not have this particular information.

Emporion was a Phocaean colony. They were part of the Ionian League but of Doric origin, originally.

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 09:13 PM
I see. So theoretically it is possible these Greeks are not of Dorian origin, but lets say "Eastern Greek"? I'm not saying they are, just that we do not have this particular information.

I have no idea what Dorian means by historical terms(Leave genetics).I told you in the first place that when Mycenean culture collapsed we have 3 new dialects all of them being Greek but less IE oriented compared to that dialect of Myceneans.I have no idea what happened in the IA period in Greece and to east med in general.I am not against that people from Albania or to northwest balkans arrived and brought new weapons,customs,policies,warfare culture and stuff(also EV13 lineages) but we have to wait for archeologists and genetistics first.What i dont understand,is why they did not brought with them different genetics.If they come from Eastern Hallstatt or somewhere close the reasonable is to have been closer to Celts or to Illyrians i guess.Maybe the northern admixture that we seeing in modern Greeks and Balkaners it is not necessary Slavic.Anyway,without samples and researches i can't say much and i will stop it here.Greece is unsampled like Albania is.We need more samples.

Bane
11-17-2020, 09:18 PM
Emporion was a Phocaean colony. They were part of the Ionian League but of Doric origin, originally.

I'm not sure I understand. If Ionians are considered separate ethnic group from Dorians, and Phocaea was part of Ionian League, how can they be of Doric origin?

dosas
11-17-2020, 09:20 PM
I'm not sure I understand. If Ionians are considered separate ethnic group from Dorians, and Phocaea was part of Ionian League, how can they be of Doric origin?

Time to read up.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocis_(ancient_region)


The groups are linquistic, first and foremost.

Aspar
11-17-2020, 09:29 PM
I agree that Greece received a northern element from the north, prolly during the IA but it makes me wonder why these new immigrants did not brought new DNA in the region instead the samples we got from classical Greeks showing pretty much typical Myceanean DNA.I mean,if they come from Central Europe or somewhere from the western balkans,with exception lineages.. they should have brought a new DNA.EV13 in Greek mainland is the major yDNA.I am not sure..and i do not believe all these lineages among modern Greeks have to do with IA but it wouldn't be more reasonable to have seen a new genetic drift from these people who brought these lineages?Also why they have carried only EV13...and not R1b as well.. since they arrived from the central EU?

I'm not so sure about that:


Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.6157% / 0.02615743 | ADC: 0.25x RC
63.4 GRC_Mycenaean
36.6 BGR_IA

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.8027% / 0.02802677 | ADC: 0.25x RC
87.2 GRC_Mycenaean
12.8 ITA_Proto-Villanovan

Closest populations to proto-Villanovan:
Distance to: ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03075080 HRV_IA
0.03624360 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03746699 Scythian_MDA
0.03974373 ITA_Etruscan
0.04016056 HRV_EBA
0.04072557 HUN_Avar_Period
0.04434199 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04554634 HRV_MBA
0.04622381 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE
0.04944543 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.05013207 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.05234602 ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA
0.05304396 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
0.05459198 DEU_Lech_MBA
0.05525409 CHE_IA
0.05574919 Bell_Beaker_CHE
0.05580430 ITA_Rome_Renaissance
0.05581585 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.05639356 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.05667855 Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES
0.05753478 DEU_Roman
0.05772276 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.05777666 HUN_BA
0.05933524 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
0.06002272 Scythian_HUN

rafc
11-17-2020, 09:35 PM
Since people mentioned V13 in Pontic Greeks I just wanted to mention that a lot of them belong to Z16663. They branch of from other Z16663>Z21371 in the LBA/EIA. The only two NGS tested samples up to now have TRMCA in the early middle ages. Based on the very distinctive marker it seems to be present also in Greeks from Phocaea, although they could also belong to the smaller FGC71980 branch.

Principe
11-17-2020, 09:36 PM
Since people mentioned V13 in Pontic Greeks I just wanted to mention that a lot of them belong to Z16663. They branch of from other Z16663>Z21371 in the LBA/EIA. The only two NGS tested samples up to now have TRMCA in the early middle ages. Based on the very distinctive marker it seems to be present also in Greeks from Phocaea, although they could also belong to the smaller FGC71980 branch.

There is also a cluster in the province of Messina in Sicily, which was settled by Ionic Greeks.

Bane
11-17-2020, 09:45 PM
I'm not so sure about that:


Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.6157% / 0.02615743 | ADC: 0.25x RC
63.4 GRC_Mycenaean
36.6 BGR_IA

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.8027% / 0.02802677 | ADC: 0.25x RC
87.2 GRC_Mycenaean
12.8 ITA_Proto-Villanovan


Thank you but I find Johnny's interpretation as being near to Mycenaean DNA acceptable. I would not dispute that.
What dosas wrote about Doric origin of Phocaeans also appears to be correct.

But I also find the fact that Phocaea is in Asia Minor significant.

So I understand why Johnny sees this as an argument in favor of no-population-replacement scenario for Western Greece with Peloponnesus, but for me personally this is not enough. Mostly because of location of Phocaea.

Aspar
11-17-2020, 10:06 PM
Thank you but I find Johnny's interpretation as being near to Mycenaean DNA acceptable. I would not dispute that.
What dosas wrote about Doric origin of Phocaeans also appears to be correct.

But I also find the fact that Phocaea is in Asia Minor significant.

So I understand why Johnny sees this as an argument in favor of no-population-replacement scenario for Western Greece with Peloponnesus, but for me personally this is not enough. Mostly because of location of Phocaea.

Sure, but it's not more important what you find acceptable that matters, but what tools show regarding the similarities of the classic age Greeks with the Mycenaean ones, at least from the perspective of the amateur tolls such as G25. At the end of the day, a discussion can only resolve under arguments and not just what we like or what we find acceptable without even spiting a small thought why is that so!

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 10:10 PM
I'm not so sure about that:


Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.6157% / 0.02615743 | ADC: 0.25x RC
63.4 GRC_Mycenaean
36.6 BGR_IA

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.8027% / 0.02802677 | ADC: 0.25x RC
87.2 GRC_Mycenaean
12.8 ITA_Proto-Villanovan

Closest populations to proto-Villanovan:
Distance to: ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03075080 HRV_IA
0.03624360 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03746699 Scythian_MDA
0.03974373 ITA_Etruscan
0.04016056 HRV_EBA
0.04072557 HUN_Avar_Period
0.04434199 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04554634 HRV_MBA
0.04622381 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE
0.04944543 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.05013207 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.05234602 ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA
0.05304396 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
0.05459198 DEU_Lech_MBA
0.05525409 CHE_IA
0.05574919 Bell_Beaker_CHE
0.05580430 ITA_Rome_Renaissance
0.05581585 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.05639356 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.05667855 Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES
0.05753478 DEU_Roman
0.05772276 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.05777666 HUN_BA
0.05933524 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
0.06002272 Scythian_HUN

2 way models with more than 2,5 fit?And why do you use the low_res Mycenean samples and not the classical Greek Empuries 2 who are also more recent?

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 10:15 PM
Thank you but I find Johnny's interpretation as being near to Mycenaean DNA acceptable. I would not dispute that.
What dosas wrote about Doric origin of Phocaeans also appears to be correct.

But I also find the fact that Phocaea is in Asia Minor significant.

So I understand why Johnny sees this as an argument in favor of no-population-replacement scenario for Western Greece with Peloponnesus, but for me personally this is not enough. Mostly because of location of Phocaea.



The Emporio Samples are not that different from the Minoan-Mycenean samples(thought the Myceneans are low garbage samples).

Check the samples in this analysis.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a5byEejcptHST6X2L6Exb60uGXnyI6tZYI7HWG-EkkE/edit#gid=0

Aspar
11-17-2020, 10:27 PM
2 way models with more than 2,5 fit?And why do you use the low_res Mycenean samples and not the classical Greek Empuries 2 who are also more recent?

Anything bellow 3 is actually a good fit. A two way model is also a good thing. Whenever you do modeling with G25 you should not exceed the source populations by more than four or five which should be enough to give you good model. G25 is a tool that can only give you a general picture about someone's ancestry, can't depict your ancestry 100%, no available tool does actually. You can reed more about modeling with G25 at Davidski's blog here (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/modeling-genetic-ancestry-with-davidski.html).
In our case, two way model was enough to prove that the classical age Greeks require something 'northern' when compared to Mycenaean Greeks. I'm not sure why should I have to use Empuries2 as a source population when these are classical age Greeks who lived past the BA-IA transition and if there were any changes regarding the dna of the ancient Greeks during that time, the classical age Greeks's dna would show it! And of course I will use Mycenaeans as a source populations because these lived before the IA and I hear for the first time that these are low resolution samples. There is nothing of that sort in the spreadsheet...

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 10:39 PM
Anything bellow 3 is actually a good fit. A two way model is also a good thing. Whenever you do modeling with G25 you should not exceed the source populations by more than four or five which should be enough to give you good model. G25 is a tool that can only give you a general picture about someone's ancestry, can't depict your ancestry 100%, no available tool does actually. You can reed more about modeling with G25 at Davidski's blog here (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/modeling-genetic-ancestry-with-davidski.html).
In our case, two way model was enough to prove that the classical age Greeks require something 'northern' when compared to Mycenaean Greeks. I'm not sure why should I have to use Empuries2 as a source population when these are classical age Greeks who lived past the BA-IA transition and if there were any changes regarding the dna of the ancient Greeks during that time, the classical age Greeks's dna would show it! And of course I will use Mycenaeans as a source populations because these lived before the IA and I hear for the first time that these are low resolution samples. There is nothing of that sort in the spreadsheet...


Well,i think anything above 2,5 is a little bit distant but whatever.Personally i don't see huge diffrences between the Mycenean samples and the samples we got from the classical Greeks of Spain.In my analysis above you can also see how they coming with ancient refrences-admixtures(steppe ratios pretty much the same..).Also,allow me to show you a PCA.As you can see below,the PCA shows very clear how close and related they are.Its the orange lines.They plot pretty close.And Bulgaria IA is not something crazy xD,its probably a Thracian sample and its very close as well to the Myceneans.

https://imgur.com/TmRb7Ua

23abc
11-17-2020, 10:42 PM
Anything bellow 3 is actually a good fit. A two way model is also a good thing. Whenever you do modeling with G25 you should not exceed the source populations by more than four or five which should be enough to give you good model. G25 is a tool that can only give you a general picture about someone's ancestry, can't depict your ancestry 100%, no available tool does actually. You can reed more about modeling with G25 at Davidski's blog here (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/modeling-genetic-ancestry-with-davidski.html).
In our case, two way model was enough to prove that the classical age Greeks require something 'northern' when compared to Mycenaean Greeks. I'm not sure why should I have to use Empuries2 as a source population when these are classical age Greeks who lived past the BA-IA transition and if there were any changes regarding the dna of the ancient Greeks during that time, the classical age Greeks's dna would show it! And of course I will use Mycenaeans as a source populations because these lived before the IA and I hear for the first time that these are low resolution samples. There is nothing of that sort in the spreadsheet...

Target: GRC_Mycenaean
Distance: 2.5906% / 0.02590640
85.8 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
14.2 RUS_Catacomb

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.1713% / 0.02171289
85.8 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
14.2 RUS_Catacomb

Johnny ola
11-17-2020, 10:49 PM
Personally i see all of them being closer to South Italians.Anyway,Greek Genetics need more testing and we lack DNA from Albania as well.So,these theories about Dorians and stuff will remain in darkness...

Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.04874822 Italian_Calabria
0.04900044 Italian_Campania
0.05010230 Italian_Basilicata
0.05109016 Italian_Apulia
0.05207824 Greek_Kos
0.05363381 Sicilian_East
0.05459550 Italian_Abruzzo
0.05492416 Italian_Molise
0.05519596 Italian_Lazio
0.05645161 Greek_Peloponnese
0.05648832 Italian_Jew
0.05656878 Greek_Izmir
0.05745490 Ashkenazi_Germany
0.05798062 Greek_Crete
0.05800636 Italian_Umbria
0.05855226 Maltese
0.05898728 Romaniote_Jew
0.06088739 Italian_Marche
0.06130159 Sicilian_West
0.06280744 Sephardic_Jew
0.06364937 Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.06461693 Ashkenazi_Poland
0.06568100 Italian_Tuscany
0.06589818 French_Corsica
0.06601508 Ashkenazi_Lithuania

Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.04473500 Italian_Calabria
0.04595238 Sicilian_East
0.04814068 Italian_Apulia
0.04896344 Italian_Campania
0.04930462 Italian_Basilicata
0.05112824 Sicilian_West
0.05179310 Maltese
0.05202210 Italian_Molise
0.05207647 Italian_Abruzzo
0.05610266 Italian_Umbria
0.05613522 Greek_Crete
0.05623299 Italian_Marche
0.05677128 Italian_Jew
0.05687943 Italian_Lazio
0.05729354 Ashkenazi_Germany
0.05733890 Greek_Izmir
0.05763647 Ashkenazi_Poland
0.05772429 Ashkenazi_Ukraine
0.05783853 Sephardic_Jew
0.05925758 Greek_Kos
0.06015514 Ashkenazi_Russia
0.06023657 Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.06033223 Greek_Peloponnese
0.06130705 Ashkenazi_Lithuania
0.06138004 Italian_Tuscany

Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.07051792 Italian_Jew
0.07065491 Italian_Calabria
0.07116767 Greek_Kos
0.07129528 Italian_Campania
0.07258124 Romaniote_Jew
0.07320377 Sicilian_East
0.07383856 Ashkenazi_Germany
0.07396523 Italian_Basilicata
0.07415641 Italian_Apulia
0.07680007 Maltese
0.07727302 Greek_Crete
0.07775331 Italian_Abruzzo
0.07779062 Sephardic_Jew
0.07806447 Italian_Lazio
0.07816047 Greek_Izmir
0.07843632 Italian_Molise
0.07896230 Sicilian_West
0.07911327 Greek_Peloponnese
0.07924917 Cypriot
0.08162722 Italian_Umbria
0.08385604 Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.08388151 Sardinian
0.08399028 Ashkenazi_Poland
0.08429889 French_Corsica
0.08453023 Moroccan_Jew

Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.05959369 Greek_Kos
0.06007139 Italian_Calabria
0.06167989 Italian_Campania
0.06315615 Italian_Apulia
0.06340946 Italian_Basilicata
0.06577764 Greek_Crete
0.06593021 Greek_Izmir
0.06599721 Greek_Peloponnese
0.06658523 Sicilian_East
0.06677538 Italian_Abruzzo
0.06750483 Italian_Jew
0.06823682 Italian_Molise
0.06870713 Ashkenazi_Germany
0.06931972 Romaniote_Jew
0.06968350 Italian_Lazio
0.07085564 Italian_Umbria
0.07132538 Maltese
0.07221247 Cypriot
0.07239465 Sephardic_Jew
0.07359124 Italian_Marche
0.07384472 Greek_Central_Anatolia
0.07472913 Sicilian_West
0.07561499 Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.07598087 Ashkenazi_Poland
0.07704099 Ashkenazi_Lithuania

Distance to: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215
0.04754349 Italian_Campania
0.04775060 Italian_Apulia
0.04848198 Italian_Basilicata
0.04888284 Italian_Calabria
0.05129486 Italian_Molise
0.05142589 Italian_Abruzzo
0.05178696 Italian_Lazio
0.05267918 Greek_Izmir
0.05277553 Greek_Kos
0.05313540 Greek_Peloponnese
0.05328736 Sicilian_East
0.05462346 Italian_Umbria
0.05577928 Greek_Crete
0.05612553 Italian_Marche
0.05781820 Italian_Jew
0.05831554 Ashkenazi_Germany
0.05882278 Maltese
0.06065999 Sicilian_West
0.06214319 Italian_Tuscany
0.06230459 French_Corsica
0.06287359 Romaniote_Jew
0.06332901 Ashkenazi_Poland
0.06369849 Sephardic_Jew
0.06394372 Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.06459868 Greek_Thessaly

Distance to: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8208
0.05613572 Sicilian_East
0.05715079 Italian_Apulia
0.05753055 Italian_Campania
0.05772763 Italian_Calabria
0.06012552 Italian_Jew
0.06013187 Italian_Basilicata
0.06128621 Greek_Crete
0.06245745 Greek_Kos
0.06251479 Sephardic_Jew
0.06323534 Romaniote_Jew
0.06341878 Italian_Abruzzo
0.06487458 Italian_Molise
0.06571707 Ashkenazi_Germany
0.06636178 Maltese
0.06640316 Italian_Lazio
0.06648583 Sicilian_West
0.06828749 Greek_Izmir
0.06863941 Italian_Marche
0.06903517 Ashkenazi_Poland
0.07014865 Cypriot
0.07089668 Ashkenazi_Ukraine
0.07110384 Italian_Umbria
0.07149019 Greek_Peloponnese
0.07293829 Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.07296793 Ashkenazi_Russia

Riverman
11-17-2020, 11:09 PM
Target: GRC_Mycenaean

If we assume an influx from the Northern Balkan, indirectly even from Pannonia or the North Carpathians, one basic problem with this is we don't have the right samples yet. We simply don't. So something like Bulgarian IA is not the source, but only a possible approximation. I think Aspars model is reasonable, it proves that such relations are possible. However, it doesn't tell us what really happened, because for that we need more actual Mycenaean Greek and later Greek, as well as surrounding populations' samples. There are just too many gaps left to say what really happened. But I think your model too is an extreme, because I doubt that pure Catacomb or related steppe people moved directly, unmixed, to Greece. Its possible, but I don't think so. And there might have been significant differences between the various Greek tribes and cities.

23abc
11-17-2020, 11:47 PM
If we assume an influx from the Northern Balkan, indirectly even from Pannonia or the North Carpathians, one basic problem with this is we don't have the right samples yet. We simply don't. So something like Bulgarian IA is not the source, but only a possible approximation. I think Aspars model is reasonable, it proves that such relations are possible. However, it doesn't tell us what really happened, because for that we need more actual Mycenaean Greek and later Greek, as well as surrounding populations' samples. There are just too many gaps left to say what really happened. But I think your model too is an extreme, because I doubt that pure Catacomb or related steppe people moved directly, unmixed, to Greece. Its possible, but I don't think so. And there might have been significant differences between the various Greek tribes and cities.

The point is there seems to be zero difference in the main components. This two way model also has much better distances than the other one. Empuries samples would have higher steppe if the admixture was changed since Bronze Age. GRC_Mycenaean average has larger distances only because it's an average of noisy samples. In fact it scores Yoruba and other odd percentages easily.

For this thread, if Dorian ethnos are bearers of E-V13 and Steppe into Greece then why is it that the places that spoke Doric dialect do not have higher incidence of Steppe and E-V13 than other areas in Greece? Do Tsakonians and Maniots have a large degree of E-V13 haplogroups? There is another thread here about the Peloponnese Y-DNA and the Maniots seem to be mainly being in the J2 haplogroups. Other areas associated with the Doric dialect in the Classical Age are Crete, the Dodecanese, and the Carian region of Asia Minor. These areas have among the lowest E-V13 out of all Greek areas. So if Dorians were these people with higher steppe admixture and E-V13 do you think the Dorians only had a cultural impact and not a genetic one to these areas that spoke the pure Doric dialect? Or do you think they had a genetic impact but it did not last and because of bad luck there is zero evidence of this genetic impact?

Granary
11-18-2020, 02:04 AM
I have no idea what Dorian means by historical terms(Leave genetics).
An ethnic and linguistic group, some people try to argue away Dorians but the fact remains that Greeks used the term with an actual meaning and that individual polis had people in them of clear Doric origin with Doric identity and the difference between Doric and non-Doric identities had an important role in some of said cities.

Granary
11-18-2020, 02:09 AM
For this thread, if Dorian ethnos are bearers of E-V13 and Steppe into Greece then why is it that the places that spoke Doric dialect do not have higher incidence of Steppe and E-V13 than other areas in Greece?
Why would they? More than 2 millennia of internal migration within Greece, Roman era MENA influence in Greece, Slavic migrations, resettlement of Byzantine Anatolians in the 9th century, post-WW1 population exchanges etc.

There is no obvious reason why the ancient distribution would survive today.

Greekscholar
11-18-2020, 02:26 AM
Well,i think anything above 2,5 is a little bit distant but whatever.Personally i don't see huge diffrences between the Mycenean samples and the samples we got from the classical Greeks of Spain.In my analysis above you can also see how they coming with ancient refrences-admixtures(steppe ratios pretty much the same..).Also,allow me to show you a PCA.As you can see below,the PCA shows very clear how close and related they are.Its the orange lines.They plot pretty close.And Bulgaria IA is not something crazy xD,its probably a Thracian sample and its very close as well to the Myceneans.

https://imgur.com/TmRb7Ua

Yes, BGR_IA clusters with other Mycenaean-like ancient samples. I think trying a two way model with it and Mycenaean for the Empuries sample will lead to overfitting, .

Distance to: BGR_IA
0.03166708 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.03688391 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.03732499 DEU_MA_o
0.03943257 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04009300 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.04095196 GRC_Mycenaean
0.04471000 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.04525620 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04752908 ITA_Rome_MA
0.04792557 IND_Roopkund_B
0.04921491 BGR_EBA
0.05204554 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.05331754 HUN_BA
0.05345864 ITA_Sardinia_MA
0.05491338 ITA_Sicily_LBA
0.05565666 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.05654271 BGR_Krepost_N
0.05663875 ITA_Sardinia_Late_Antiquity
0.05665996 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.05681584 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.05686448 HRV_EBA
0.05718183 ITA_Collegno_MA_o1
0.05777852 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.05800374 HRV_MBA
0.05849170 HRV_IA

Empuries and Mycenaean are nearly identical when modeling with neolithic components. BGR_IA has more Steppe (rumor has it that we will see Mycenaean samples with more Steppe when more papers become available) but otherwise is pretty typical EEF + a little eastern admixture. You can model modern Greeks very well with that sample too, FWIW.

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.7372% / 0.02737175
74.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
11.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
9.8 GEO_CHG
2.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.6 Levant_Natufian

Target: Mycenaean
Distance: 1.7876% / 0.01787554
73.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
11.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
7.6 GEO_CHG
5.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.0 Levant_Natufian

Target: BGR_IA
Distance: 2.5000% / 0.02499952
72.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
24.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.6 GEO_CHG

xripkan
11-18-2020, 02:47 AM
I'm not so sure about that:


Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.6157% / 0.02615743 | ADC: 0.25x RC
63.4 GRC_Mycenaean
36.6 BGR_IA

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.8027% / 0.02802677 | ADC: 0.25x RC
87.2 GRC_Mycenaean
12.8 ITA_Proto-Villanovan

Closest populations to proto-Villanovan:
Distance to: ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03075080 HRV_IA
0.03624360 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03746699 Scythian_MDA
0.03974373 ITA_Etruscan
0.04016056 HRV_EBA
0.04072557 HUN_Avar_Period
0.04434199 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04554634 HRV_MBA
0.04622381 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE
0.04944543 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.05013207 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.05234602 ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA
0.05304396 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
0.05459198 DEU_Lech_MBA
0.05525409 CHE_IA
0.05574919 Bell_Beaker_CHE
0.05580430 ITA_Rome_Renaissance
0.05581585 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.05639356 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.05667855 Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES
0.05753478 DEU_Roman
0.05772276 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.05777666 HUN_BA
0.05933524 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
0.06002272 Scythian_HUN

We get better distance using DEU_MA_o

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.2799% / 0.02279912
63.2 GRC_Mycenaean
36.8 DEU_MA_o

I know this sample is from 5th century AD but my opinion is that it is a Northern/highly Steppe admixed Greek. It plots between Bgr_IA and Empuries Greeks. I find possible that Dorians had such genetic profile.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 06:40 AM
An ethnic and linguistic group, some people try to argue away Dorians but the fact remains that Greeks used the term with an actual meaning and that individual polis had people in them of clear Doric origin with Doric identity and the difference between Doric and non-Doric identities had an important role in some of said cities.

After the collapse of the Mycenean culture We have 3 New Greek speaking people. Dorians, Aeolians, Ionians. If Dorians come from northwest what about the others? All of them are Greek speaking related(thought less IE related and more native influenced). If Dorians come from somwhere in Central EU they should have bring with them a dialect related wirh Illyrians,Celts, Thracians or Whatever? I mean, they come in Greece... Dominated and being responsible for the collapse of the Mycenean culture... and after all, they adopted the dialect of the local people? Usually people who conquer bring With them a New language. The Doric Greek is indeed a more Barbarian dialect Witch is making It less Greek at least in phonology(Tsakonian is an a good example) but Overall Doric and the related northwest Greek dialects are Greek based and for Some reason less IE compared to what Achaeans used to speak Witch It was by far a very IE based language.IMO there were Greek tribes inhabit somwhere in modern South Albania/Epirus or somewhere in Northwest Macedonia and prolly they influenced by other Barbarian people of that period. Some of them might indeed mixed and adopted new customs, policies, warfare culture etc.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 06:52 AM
The point is there seems to be zero difference in the main components. This two way model also has much better distances than the other one. Empuries samples would have higher steppe if the admixture was changed since Bronze Age. GRC_Mycenaean average has larger distances only because it's an average of noisy samples. In fact it scores Yoruba and other odd percentages easily.

For this thread, if Dorian ethnos are bearers of E-V13 and Steppe into Greece then why is it that the places that spoke Doric dialect do not have higher incidence of Steppe and E-V13 than other areas in Greece? Do Tsakonians and Maniots have a large degree of E-V13 haplogroups? There is another thread here about the Peloponnese Y-DNA and the Maniots seem to be mainly being in the J2 haplogroups. Other areas associated with the Doric dialect in the Classical Age are Crete, the Dodecanese, and the Carian region of Asia Minor. These areas have among the lowest E-V13 out of all Greek areas. So if Dorians were these people with higher steppe admixture and E-V13 do you think the Dorians only had a cultural impact and not a genetic one to these areas that spoke the pure Doric dialect? Or do you think they had a genetic impact but it did not last and because of bad luck there is zero evidence of this genetic impact?

Are you joking? Dodecanese Greeks main Y-DNA is E-V13 (one Greek member here from Dodecanese is E-V13), it reaches around 32.5%, rafc posted somewhere after gathering data from national geographic or some other projects.

dosas
11-18-2020, 06:56 AM
I ran the optimafit function of Genoplot (Oracles) of both Empuries2 (avg) and GRC_Myc (avg) for your reading pleasure (scaled, pen=0):

Empuries2:

41238
41239
41240
41241

optimafit nmonte run:
sample: Iberia Northeast Empuries2:Average
distance: 2.5484
Sardinian: 44
Greek_Trabzon: 24.4
Italian_Apulia: 17
Cypriot: 14.6

dosas
11-18-2020, 06:58 AM
GRC_MYC


41243
41244
41245
41246

optimafit nmonte run:

sample: GRC Mycenaean:Average
distance: 2.2909
Sardinian: 45.4
Cypriot: 24
Greek_Trabzon: 16.2
Greek_Kos: 14.4

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 07:35 AM
Are you joking? Dodecanese Greeks main Y-DNA is E-V13 (one Greek member here from Dodecanese is E-V13), it reaches around 32.5%, rafc posted somewhere after gathering data from national geographic or some other projects.

Greek islanders inclunding Cretans and Cypriots are highly J2a. I have no idea where have you seen that these people are Ev13(without saying that such lineages do not exist there). Even South Peloponnesus is J2a First and then anything else.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 07:44 AM
Greek islanders inclunding Cretans and Cypriots are highly J2a. I have no idea where have you seen that these people are Ev13(without saying that such lineages do not exist there). Even South Peloponnesus is J2a First and then anything else.

I am talking only about Dodecanese not about other Greek Islands which are indeed mainly J2a. But Dodecanese do seem to have E-V13.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 08:37 AM
I am talking only about Dodecanese not about other Greek Islands which are indeed mainly J2a. But Dodecanese do seem to have E-V13.

Most Dodecanese people We have seen So far(inclunding Some members here) are J2a. Crete and Kos do not have a Huge diffrence in their autosomal and ydna seems Also related. Islands and southern Greece in general, have more West Asian associated lineages/clades Witch is normal since they are by far more West Asian admixed.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 09:37 AM
The point is there seems to be zero difference in the main components. This two way model also has much better distances than the other one. Empuries samples would have higher steppe if the admixture was changed since Bronze Age. GRC_Mycenaean average has larger distances only because it's an average of noisy samples. In fact it scores Yoruba and other odd percentages easily.

For this thread, if Dorian ethnos are bearers of E-V13 and Steppe into Greece then why is it that the places that spoke Doric dialect do not have higher incidence of Steppe and E-V13 than other areas in Greece? Do Tsakonians and Maniots have a large degree of E-V13 haplogroups? There is another thread here about the Peloponnese Y-DNA and the Maniots seem to be mainly being in the J2 haplogroups. Other areas associated with the Doric dialect in the Classical Age are Crete, the Dodecanese, and the Carian region of Asia Minor. These areas have among the lowest E-V13 out of all Greek areas. So if Dorians were these people with higher steppe admixture and E-V13 do you think the Dorians only had a cultural impact and not a genetic one to these areas that spoke the pure Doric dialect? Or do you think they had a genetic impact but it did not last and because of bad luck there is zero evidence of this genetic impact?

Actually there are minimum two influences, one Illyrian (with Thracian?) directly on Dorians, this could even mean an increase of J2, since so far especially the coastal Illyrian core seems to have it (?), secondly a Northern broadscale infiltration even up to historical times, directly with Thracians, which should be more directly E-V13. Another way to see the latter would be like a general North -> South infiltration which was later pushed South itself or overlaid by even more recent, especially Slavic expansion. How the more Western, in the broadest sense Illyrian related, and the more Eastern, in the broadest sense more Thracian related, influences play in together and influence each other will be very interesting to investigate, as is whether E-V13 was probably even present in Greece earlier, which is possible of course.
Other than that, the results so far are very meagre and who knows what kind of individuals these were? Especially in the colonies, you have interesting people floating around, like adventurers, the son of a citizen with a slave, other traders or local people, what not. I'm not say that's the case, but that number of samples in a highly complex society like the Greek is not really to be considered representative. Its actually quite poor considering how important the Greeks were. You need many samples from the various Greek tribes and city states at best, like always, a net of samples taken, then we can rush to conclusions, especially with the right outside references. Now, its just too early and we can just say that a large scale more Northern shifted impact seems less likely.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 09:51 AM
Actually there are minimum two influences, one Illyrian (with Thracian?) directly on Dorians, this could even mean an increase of J2, since so far especially the coastal Illyrian core seems to have it (?), secondly a Northern broadscale infiltration even up to historical times, directly with Thracians, which should be more directly E-V13. Another way to see the latter would be like a general North -> South infiltration which was later pushed South itself or overlaid by even more recent, especially Slavic expansion. How the more Western, in the broadest sense Illyrian related, and the more Eastern, in the broadest sense more Thracian related, influences play in together and influence each other will be very interesting to investigate, as is whether E-V13 was probably even present in Greece earlier, which is possible of course.
Other than that, the results so far are very meagre and who knows what kind of individuals these were? Especially in the colonies, you have interesting people floating around, like adventurers, the son of a citizen with a slave, other traders or local people, what not. I'm not say that's the case, but that number of samples in a highly complex society like the Greek is not really to be considered representative. Its actually quite poor considering how important the Greeks were. You need many samples from the various Greek tribes and city states at best, like always, a net of samples taken, then we can rush to conclusions, especially with the right outside references. Now, its just too early and we can just say that a large scale more Northern shifted impact seems less likely.

Tosk/South Albanians don't have significant level of J2b2, it doesn't exceed ~8%. Probably J2b2 was confined to Illyrians from Northern Montenegro and Dalmatian regions more.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 10:02 AM
Tosk/South Albanians don't have significant level of J2b2, it doesn't exceed ~8%. Probably J2b2 was confined to Illyrians from Northern Montenegro and Dalmatian regions more.

I think so too, since they were those more influenced by older layers of Balkanics and earlier Tumulus waves, whereas the more Northern Illyrian-related groups and Thracians were more influenced by Urnfield and Fluted Ware horizons (wider sense). Its not just possible, but even likely, that among the different tribes and clans different haplogroups predominated at that point in time.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 10:08 AM
Tosk/South Albanians don't have significant level of J2b2, it doesn't exceed ~8%. Probably J2b2 was confined to Illyrians from Northern Montenegro and Dalmatian regions more.

There are J2b lineages in Greek mainland as well.Albanians in general have the trinity of EV13+R1b+J2a and J2b.Now what lineages are native balkan and what lineages are associated with Slavs and Vlachs(Aromanians) i have no idea.Some I2din and R1a thought are probably more associated with Slavic settlement.

23abc
11-18-2020, 10:23 AM
Are you joking? Dodecanese Greeks main Y-DNA is E-V13 (one Greek member here from Dodecanese is E-V13), it reaches around 32.5%, rafc posted somewhere after gathering data from national geographic or some other projects.

Any scientific studies done on Y-DNA of Dodecanese?

I'm mainly going off my 23andMe relatives the majority of which are Dodecanese islanders. Among those, E-V13 is confined mostly to distant mainland matches. Out of those from the Dodecanese, most with E-V13 are coming from the island of Symi. So each island probably has a different haplogroup distribution.

Here is the distribution among my 23andMe matches whose paternal line is Greek:


J2a 21.63% 53
G1 13.06% 32
R1b 13.06% 32
I2 11.02% 27
E1b1b 10.20% 25
R1a 9.80% 24
J1 7.76% 19
G2 6.53% 16
I1 4.90% 12
T 2.04% 5

Many of those E1b1b aren't E-V13 either. And if I filtered out mainlanders it would be much smaller. The only thing probably inflated in this is G1 due to a G-CTS11562 clade being a major founding lineage in Kalymnos where most of my matches come from.

Take this with a grain of salt of course, but if E-V13 is so high in the Dodecanese it certainly skipped the places my ancestors came from. It would be good to see a proper study on the haplogroup distributions for Rhodes and Kos, to see how it differs from this. I personally expect most Dodecanese islands to be most similar to Crete in the distributions, although you may be right and on average E-V13 could be more popular there than what I've seen.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 10:54 AM
I think so too, since they were those more influenced by older layers of Balkanics and earlier Tumulus waves, whereas the more Northern Illyrian-related groups and Thracians were more influenced by Urnfield and Fluted Ware horizons (wider sense). Its not just possible, but even likely, that among the different tribes and clans different haplogroups predominated at that point in time.

Well, i quoted once a piece of text from Albanian archeologists, they think the LBA Urnfielders cam via ships directly in South Albania where the influence was heavier, for instance South Albanians like Labs who are more pure South Albanians have like ~33% of E-V13 and they all belong within this clade: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11450/ or some specific E-V13>Z5018 if the rrenjet.com project is right about it.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 10:58 AM
Well, i quoted once a piece of text from Albanian archeologists, they think the LBA Urnfielders cam via ships directly in South Albania where the influence was heavier, for instance South Albanians like Labs who are more pure South Albanians have like ~32% of E-V13 and they all belong within this clade: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11450/ if the rrenjet.com project is right about it.

That's exactly the kind of "chaotic distribution" we might expect coming from the EIA expansions too, like one tribe or clan having a high frequency of E-V13, another of J2 and so on. Not saying that what you describe is the direct consequence of such a direct journey, but its of course possible. Like in other people too, same thing in Iranians and Germanics for example. Different tribes and clans are likely to have different haplotypes, especially after dispersion.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 11:06 AM
That's exactly the kind of "chaotic distribution" we might expect coming from the EIA expansions too, like one tribe or clan having a high frequency of E-V13, another of J2 and so on. Not saying that what you describe is the direct consequence of such a direct journey, but its of course possible. Like in other people too, same thing in Iranians and Germanics for example. Different tribes and clans are likely to have different haplotypes, especially after dispersion.

Yeah, i think you are right. Balkans have been hit from Justinian Plague and later on migrations reducing E-V13 and probably some specific subclades which didn't survive.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 11:43 AM
Any scientific studies done on Y-DNA of Dodecanese?

I'm mainly going off my 23andMe relatives the majority of which are Dodecanese islanders. Among those, E-V13 is confined mostly to distant mainland matches. Out of those from the Dodecanese, most with E-V13 are coming from the island of Symi. So each island probably has a different haplogroup distribution.

Here is the distribution among my 23andMe matches whose paternal line is Greek:


J2a 21.63% 53
G1 13.06% 32
R1b 13.06% 32
I2 11.02% 27
E1b1b 10.20% 25
R1a 9.80% 24
J1 7.76% 19
G2 6.53% 16
I1 4.90% 12
T 2.04% 5

Many of those E1b1b aren't E-V13 either. And if I filtered out mainlanders it would be much smaller. The only thing probably inflated in this is G1 due to a G-CTS11562 clade being a major founding lineage in Kalymnos where most of my matches come from.

Take this with a grain of salt of course, but if E-V13 is so high in the Dodecanese it certainly skipped the places my ancestors came from. It would be good to see a proper study on the haplogroup distributions for Rhodes and Kos, to see how it differs from this. I personally expect most Dodecanese islands to be most similar to Crete in the distributions, although you may be right and on average E-V13 could be more popular there than what I've seen.

This G1 looks very mysterious. Wondering how It ended up there. Btw keep in mind that some lineages there coming from mainland Greeks. Its very well known that Greek islands received a mainland migration at Ottoman times.During Ottoman period there were migrations of Greek mainlanders to Anatolia(Smyrna, Poli etc) and to the Greek islands as well. That probably explains IMO the Slavic/Balkanic input in Crete and to Greek islands especially Dodecanese. I don't think there were Barbarian migrations and movements who arrived straightway to islands and Crete. That is Also the case with Anatolian Greeks who are a combination of Mainland Greeks and Greek islanders.

rafc
11-18-2020, 12:58 PM
This is the breakdown I calculated years ago based on the now defunct Genographic project. Samples sizes for some regions are small, but it gives an idea:
41252
Note that E-M215 contains other groups than V13. I can see if I can find back data on V13 specifically (but the pool will be bit smaller)

Riverman
11-18-2020, 01:14 PM
This is the breakdown I calculated years ago based on the now defunct Genographic project. Samples sizes for some regions are small, but it gives an idea:
41252
Note that E-M215 contains other groups than V13. I can see if I can find back data on V13 specifically (but the pool will be bit smaller)

I went through some samples on FTDNA and YFull and think its remarkable how many Armenians being tested for many of the major V13 clades. I wrote about it here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=720880&viewfull=1#post720880

They also mention that the majority of Armenian E1b is not E-V13, but a minority is, and it seems to be EIA related too, like most clades are no matter where. What's your take on Armenians, primarily Greek derived, due to sampling bias with more Armenians getting tested, or is there more to it, like a common source in the IA?

Bane
11-18-2020, 01:55 PM
I am not against that people from Albania or to northwest balkans arrived and brought new weapons,customs,policies,warfare culture and stuff(also EV13 lineages) but we have to wait for archeologists and genetistics first.

In my opinion arrival of E-V13 to Greece in EIA did not go through Albania, but through what is today North Macedonia.

I base this assumption on drop in E-V13 frequency among Tosks, compared to both Ghegs (North of them), and Epirotes (South of them). Tosks also have higher frequencies of pre-E-V13 haplogroups like G-P15 or J-M410, compared to Ghegs. So it looks like there is no continuity of E-V13 when going through Albania and Epirus.
On the other hand, Northern Macedonians have significant frequency of E-V13, which means it was even higher before the Slavs came in Early Middle Ages.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 01:58 PM
In my opinion arrival of E-V13 to Greece in EIA did not go through Albania, but through what is today North Macedonia.

I base this assumption on drop in E-V13 frequency among Tosks, compared to both Ghegs (North of them), and Epirotes (South of them). Tosks also have higher frequencies of pre-E-V13 haplogroups like G-P15 or J-M410, compared Ghegs. So it looks like there is no continuity of E-V13 when going through Albania and Epirus.
On the other hand, Northern Macedonians have significant frequency of E-V13, which means it was even higher before the Slavs came in Early Middle Ages.

The main Tosk Y-DNA is E-V13. Probably it was even higher if not the assimilation of I2a/R1a/I1 Slavs.

Bane
11-18-2020, 02:05 PM
The main Tosk Y-DNA is E-V13. Probably it was even higher if not the assimilation of I2a/R1a/I1 Slavs.

I agree E-V13 is more frequent compared to other haplogoups among Tosks.
But when compared to Ghegs and Epirotes, E-V13 in Tosks is notably lower. I'm aware of Slavic influence on Tosks but it does not change my overall impression.

Principe
11-18-2020, 03:49 PM
Tosk/South Albanians don't have significant level of J2b2, it doesn't exceed ~8%. Probably J2b2 was confined to Illyrians from Northern Montenegro and Dalmatian regions more.

Absolutely, you also have L283 who moved to Italy via our Etruscan sample, I can't see how J-Z2507 wasn't confined to the Western Balkans.

Principe
11-18-2020, 03:57 PM
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y3183/

Is another branch that I think is relevant to this thread

Hawk
11-18-2020, 04:03 PM
Absolutely, you also have L283 who moved to Italy via our Etruscan sample, I can't see how J-Z2507 wasn't confined to the Western Balkans.

I wonder if J2b2 was an Indo-European marker.

Maybe Etruscan? Or the guy was assimilated by Etruscans because weird enough Etruscans are descended from Urnfield as well. In fact starting from EIA, from all Urnfield related people Etruscans were the most powerful in the beginning.

Though, we need to be cautious since Urnfield is classified as complex and it did have people with different origins.

Probably Etruscans swaped genes a lot with Latins and autosomally they were almost identical.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 04:10 PM
In my opinion arrival of E-V13 to Greece in EIA did not go through Albania, but through what is today North Macedonia.

I base this assumption on drop in E-V13 frequency among Tosks, compared to both Ghegs (North of them), and Epirotes (South of them). Tosks also have higher frequencies of pre-E-V13 haplogroups like G-P15 or J-M410, compared to Ghegs. So it looks like there is no continuity of E-V13 when going through Albania and Epirus.
On the other hand, Northern Macedonians have significant frequency of E-V13, which means it was even higher before the Slavs came in Early Middle Ages.

Could be like this Yes. But when It Comes to autosomal DNA Tosks and the Albanian samples We got in G25 are not that different from mainland Greeks. Gheghs usually plot northern than Tosks do. Personally i believe South Albanians have come in contact With Greeks and the region of Epirus was the meeting(and also mixing point) between Illyrians and Epirote(northwest Greek speaking) tribes. And ofc Arvanites and Souliotes who settled in Greece were Tosk related people.

Principe
11-18-2020, 04:12 PM
I wonder if J2b2 was an Indo-European marker.

Maybe Etruscan? Or the guy was assimilated by Etruscans because weird enough Etruscans are descended from Urnfield as well. Probably Etruscans swaped genes a lot with Latins and autosomally they were almost identical.

I remember seeing that if you look at G25 the Etruscan samples always prefer a Balkan source and the Latins preferred a French like source which might be telling, we have 1 sample at the moment, we definitely need more to be certain it could be the Etruscans might be a remanent of either LBA Italians or they were the newcomers, I think its impossible that both Italics and Etruscans came in together and brought two separate languages. As for J-L283, initially it wasn't as it was a Chalcolithic Caucasus branch and you can see the upstream branches carried by the Nuragics which didn't speak an IE language, but when it comes to J-Z615, I am fairly certain, this has to be a associated with Steppe>Balkans migration and brought some IE language, we have the Mokrin sample and the MBA Dalmatian sample to prove it.

vettor
11-18-2020, 04:25 PM
Could be like this Yes. But when It Comes to autosomal DNA Tosks and the Albanian samples We got in G25 are not that different from mainland Greeks. Gheghs usually plot northern than Tosks do. Personally i believe South Albanians have come in contact With Greeks and the region of Epirus was the meeting(and also mixing point) between Illyrians and Epirote(northwest Greek speaking) tribes. And ofc Arvanites and Souliotes who settled in Greece were Tosk related people.

The" meeting point" between "illyrians" and the 14 x Epirote tribes is in modern Montenegro .................If you consister Epirotes as Greek is another matter, but Greek see Epirotes as Barbarians ...............

Epirotes would "merge/transform" in some part into the tosk Albanians ........while the Gheg Albanians derive from ancient Dardanians ( area of modern Kosovo ) ,....moesia ( modern serbia ) was always involved with the dardanians as the land was rich for crops, but Moesia is one of the 4 x thracian group of races that make up the huge thracian populace ( others being dacians, Getae and Odrysians ).....the Odrysians being the only thracians supporting the macedonians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odrysian_kingdom

Hawk
11-18-2020, 04:26 PM
I remember seeing that if you look at G25 the Etruscan samples always prefer a Balkan source and the Latins preferred a French like source which might be telling, we have 1 sample at the moment, we definitely need more to be certain it could be the Etruscans might be a remanent of either LBA Italians or they were the newcomers, I think its impossible that both Italics and Etruscans came in together and brought two separate languages. As for J-L283, initially it wasn't as it was a Chalcolithic Caucasus branch and you can see the upstream branches carried by the Nuragics which didn't speak an IE language, but when it comes to J-Z615, I am fairly certain, this has to be a associated with Steppe>Balkans migration and brought some IE language, we have the Mokrin sample and the MBA Dalmatian sample to prove it.

But them living more on North than Latins would be strange for them to be autochtounous and the incoming Latins to just locate immediately south of Etruscans. But you never know.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 04:31 PM
But them living more on North than Latins would be strange for them to be autochtounous and the incoming Latins to just locate immediately south of Etruscans. But you never know.

Illyrians, Slavs, Greeks and Phoenicians all came by sea. Also, there is this tendency for a newcomer to circle around a stronghold or strong opponent. Like the Celts too were not conquering every mountain tribe on their ways, but rather just took the passage or went around them. So possible it certainly is. A bigger problem comes from the fact that the Etruscans were the more developed and more Eastern Mediterranean people culturally. This is something they could have just picked up in Italy later, or they had some kind of connections before. The Vatin culture for example had close ties even to the Myceneans before, so had other Pannonian people of that time.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 04:33 PM
Illyrians, Slavs, Greeks and Phoenicians all came by sea. Also, there is this tendency for a newcomer to circle around a stronghold or strong opponent. Like the Celts too were not conquering every mountain tribe on their ways, but rather just took the passage or went around them. So possible it certainly is. A bigger problem comes from the fact that the Etruscans were the more developed and more Eastern Mediterranean people culturally. This is something they could have just picked up in Italy later, or they had some kind of connections before. The Vatin culture for example had close ties even to the Myceneans before, so had other Pannonian people of that time.

These one Y-DNA reveal are more harming than revealing. It leaves so much space for speculation.

Principe
11-18-2020, 04:33 PM
But them living more on North than Latins would be strange for them to be autochtounous and the incoming Latins to just locate immediately south of Etruscans. But you never know.

There is still a lot of issues with the Etruscans, for example their language is still a mystery, plus we have their cousins the Rhaetians too who would have been part of the same language family, The Etruscans were strategically placed maybe that's the reason for their location. They could both be new comers but I don't think it would have been the same people, the Italics at the moment we know were R-U152 strong, if the rumours of the upcoming Etruscans samples remains true there is going to be R-U152 in Etruscan samples too and will cause confusing which migration brought?

Principe
11-18-2020, 04:37 PM
These one Y-DNA reveal are more harming than revealing. It leaves so much space for speculation.

Absolutely, what would be nice would be a paper with Etruscan samples, Rhaetian samples and Lemnian samples, essentially a paper on the Tyrsenian speakers.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 04:44 PM
Absolutely, what would be nice would be a paper with Etruscan samples, Rhaetian samples and Lemnian samples, essentially a paper on the Tyrsenian speakers.

Because, i was speculating before if E-V13 originally spoke a Tyrrhenian language (if they were neolithic farmers survival and not Chalcolithic Anatolian migrants), but could be wrong though, it could well be that Etruscans had R1b in their ranks, but who was the original Etruscan lineage? That would be interesting to know. It could be J2b2 as well.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 04:48 PM
The" meeting point" between "illyrians" and the 14 x Epirote tribes is in modern Montenegro .................If you consister Epirotes as Greek is another matter, but Greek see Epirotes as Barbarians ...............

Epirotes would "merge/transform" in some part into the tosk Albanians ........while the Gheg Albanians derive from ancient Dardanians ( area of modern Kosovo ) ,....moesia ( modern serbia ) was always involved with the dardanians as the land was rich for crops, but Moesia is one of the 4 x thracian group of races that make up the huge thracian populace ( others being dacians, Getae and Odrysians ).....the Odrysians being the only thracians supporting the macedonians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odrysian_kingdom

That is your own theory and it dosn't making any sense!!!
Ionic-Attic Greeks and more specific Athenians considered even Macedonians as barbarians...does it making them non Greek?Northwest Greek speaking Epirote tribes are considered Greeks from all the historians.

Principe
11-18-2020, 04:50 PM
Because, i was speculating before if E-V13 originally spoke a Tyrrhenian language (if they were neolithic farmers survival and not Chalcolithic Anatolian migrants), but could be wrong though, it could well be that Etruscans had R1b in their ranks, but who was the original Etruscan lineage? That would be interesting to know. It could be J2b2 as well.

You know a good Guesstimate without any proof at the moment would actually be G-L497, because its relatively high frequency in the Alps and diversity in Italy, because even the Etruscan sample's branch is related to the Dalmatian L283, so the initial ancestor likely spoke some IE dialect in BA, if G-L497 is the key we can assume the Northwestern corner of the Balkans is where the Etruscans ancestors were. E-V13 could have been found amongst them, if J-CTS6190 appeared I don't see why a branch of E-V13 couldn't be.

Not sure if E-V13's ancestors spoke Tyrrhenian, I think by BA E-V13 became fully IE'zed. Unless we might be talking early branch off than its possible.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 04:54 PM
That is your own theory and it dosn't making any sense!!!
Ionic-Attic Greeks and more specific Athenians considered even Macedonians as barbarians...does it making them non Greek?Northwest Greek speaking Epirote tribes are considered Greeks from all the historians.

That kind of Greek vs. Barbarian was based on cultural norms. Obviously going by that definition, their own ancestors were Barbarians too, which is not that far from the truth anyway, especially if you define it as being "civilised, urban people with specific laws, customs, ways of speaking and living in general".

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 05:01 PM
That kind of Greek vs. Barbarian was based on cultural norms. Obviously going by that definition, their own ancestors were Barbarians too, which is not that far from the truth anyway, especially if you define it as being "civilised, urban people with specific laws, customs, ways of speaking and living in general".

The term 'barbarian' is a creation of Ionic-Attic speaking Greeks mostly.To them, even 'Spartans-Laconians' were somehow barbarians and all the people and tribes who used to speak the Doric/northwest Greek/Macedonian dialects.But this has nothing to do with them being Illyrians,Thracians,Dacians,Celts or whatever.The term 'barbarian' used also later with the Macedonian empire and its campaing's in middle east,but it become even stronger later with the Roman and Byzantine empire who for them,the 'non-Roman' world was uncivilized and cruel.

alan
11-18-2020, 05:07 PM
I've been reading up on Greece c. 3000-800BC, Especially about 2700-1600BC. Its very tricky to understand the migration-ethnic side of things in Bronze Age Greece. The impression I get is that elites rose and fell a few times in ancient Bronze Age Greece. One phase of elite rule by people who looked east to Anatolia ruled around 2700-2200 or 2000BC then that fell. I think the elites of that period may have spoken Anatolian IE personally. It interesting to see some linguists see Anatolian as preceding Greek in Greece. That would make sense to me.

There is then a lot of change and contacts with the Adriatic Balkans and elsewhere c. 2200-2000BC or so. Its out of fashion to explain as new population movements but personally I suspect there was movement from the north and north-west at this time. I suspect that phase did see the arrival of the ancestors of the Greek IE branch.

Its really hard to make sense of the era c. 2000-1600BC (Middle Helladic) running up to the Mycenaean culture. I would personally see it as an era of tension between Anatolia-focused elites who were somewhat diminished and rivals who perhaps were proto-Greeks. Its messy though so its hard to work out. Personally I dont think the Mycenaean phase represents a break in an ethnic sense. Shaft and cist graves etc have considerably deeper roots and are not new to the Mycenaean era. It looks to me simply that the proto-Greek groups took advantage of events to extend their control and became wealthy by taking over a wide area of trade control. Personally, in order to do that, I think the proto-Greeks must have been familiar with maritime life and skilled in it for a significant period prior to the Mycenaean era. I dont think any non-maritime group could possibly rule Greece and its trading.

So my model would be:
1. Anatolian IE speaking elites in Greece from 2700BC-2200/2000BC.
2. Arrival of proto-greeks c. 2200-2000BC or so.
3. Confusing period of tension or rivalry between the two c. 2000BC-1600BC.
4. Seizing of power over the trade networks by the proto-Greeks c. 1600BC.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 05:19 PM
The term 'barbarian' is a creation of Ionic-Attic speaking Greeks mostly.To them, even 'Spartans-Laconians' were somehow barbarians and all the people and tribes who used to speak the Doric/northwest Greek/Macedonian dialects.But this has nothing to do with them being Illyrians,Thracians,Dacians,Celts or whatever.The term 'barbarian' used also later with the Macedonian empire and its campaing's in middle east,but it become even stronger later with the Roman and Byzantine empire who for them,the 'non-Roman' world was uncivilized and cruel.

Of course, ethnically they were all Greek. My assumption is that before the big push from Central Europe and the steppe Greek-related people were living much further North actually. Thracians and Illyrians replaced them in many regions over time, while just influencing others. Greeks themselves had pushed the Proto-Anatolians East or subdued them, these in turn are highly likely to have come with Cernavoda or related groups.

vettor
11-18-2020, 05:20 PM
There is still a lot of issues with the Etruscans, for example their language is still a mystery, plus we have their cousins the Rhaetians too who would have been part of the same language family, The Etruscans were strategically placed maybe that's the reason for their location. They could both be new comers but I don't think it would have been the same people, the Italics at the moment we know were R-U152 strong, if the rumours of the upcoming Etruscans samples remains true there is going to be R-U152 in Etruscan samples too and will cause confusing which migration brought?

how do you fit the etruscan samples with Rhaeti and Lemnos samples ?...................there is 300 plus years difference between etruscan and rhaeti ( etruscan being the older ) and more than 500 years difference between etruscan and Lemnos ( lemnian ) with lemnian being the younger

Clearly it all points to etruscan migration

alan
11-18-2020, 05:24 PM
There is still a lot of issues with the Etruscans, for example their language is still a mystery, plus we have their cousins the Rhaetians too who would have been part of the same language family, The Etruscans were strategically placed maybe that's the reason for their location. They could both be new comers but I don't think it would have been the same people, the Italics at the moment we know were R-U152 strong, if the rumours of the upcoming Etruscans samples remains true there is going to be R-U152 in Etruscan samples too and will cause confusing which migration brought?

Its curious that the other non-IE language inferred from geography and culture shortly prior to their historic iron age location to be urnfield linked - the Iberians - is apparently unrelated to Etruscan in its features. This has made me strongly suspect the urnfield phenomenon was not generally a language spreading one. Or if it was it was complex with secondary spreads involving non-IE 'converts'. My Occams Razor take is that both Iberian and Etruscan languages are indigenous to their general localities as earliest recorded and were not due to urnfield.

Principe
11-18-2020, 05:30 PM
how do you fit the etruscan samples with Rhaeti and Lemnos samples ?...................there is 300 plus years difference between etruscan and rhaeti ( etruscan being the older ) and more than 500 years difference between etruscan and Lemnos ( lemnian ) with lemnian being the younger

Clearly it all points to etruscan migration

It's really impossible to know, Lemnian could be Etruscan migrants, as for Rhaetians they likely split the linguistic branch with Etruscans.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 05:32 PM
It's really impossible to know, Lemnian could be Etruscan migrants, as for Rhaetians they likely split the linguistic branch with Etruscans.

The Rhaetian culture was much more tribal and less developed. So if anything, they prove that a lot of the more advanced Etruscan culture was picked up later, on the spot, and the Etruscan-Rhaetian group as a whole was once much more simple-tribal, pretty much like the other ethnic groups around.

Principe
11-18-2020, 05:34 PM
Its curious that the other non-IE language inferred from geography and culture shortly prior to their historic iron age location to be urnfield linked - the Iberians - is apparently unrelated to Etruscan in its features. This has made me strongly suspect the urnfield phenomenon was not generally a language spreading one. Or if it was it was complex with secondary spreads involving non-IE 'converts'. My Occams Razor take is that both Iberian and Etruscan languages are indigenous to their general localities as earliest recorded and were not due to urnfield.

I would imagine its hard to know, if it wasn't a language spreading one that it complicates everything, who was the ancestors of the Celto-Italic branch? I can see that with your occam razor point, I was initially very big on the Etruscans were from the Aegean and adna seems to have killed that theory, so let's say urnfeld didn't bring the Etruscans could maybe Apennine Culture? Also we are in the dark with Terramare Culture, we have 1 sample and its under R-Z2118.

Principe
11-18-2020, 05:36 PM
The Rhaetian culture was much more tribal and less developed. So if anything, they prove that a lot of the more advanced Etruscan culture was picked up later, on the spot, and the Etruscan-Rhaetian group as a whole was once much more simple-tribal, pretty much like the other ethnic groups around.

That was pretty much what I was alluding to, that Rhaetians likely represent the most archaic branch of the Tyrrhenian family.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 05:40 PM
Of course, ethnically they were all Greek. My assumption is that before the big push from Central Europe and the steppe Greek-related people were living much further North actually. Thracians and Illyrians replaced them in many regions over time, while just influencing others. Greeks themselves had pushed the Proto-Anatolians East or subdued them, these in turn are highly likely to have come with Cernavoda or related groups.

Yes,northwest Greek speaking people and Macedonians were very close and in contact with Thracians,Illyrians,Paeonians,Bryges etc.They influenced each other besides their rivals.It is also well known that the Mycenaen culture did not reached the northern areas of Greece.We have no idea what type of people used to inhabit these lands during the Mycenean period and before its collapse.Also, if these lands were inhabit by people?Who really knows.The balkans and the aegean during the BA was a very chaotic place.And with the BA collapse many things happened that we dont't know and prolly we will never learn.Btw i will agree with a poster from Eurogenes(Archi) that Greeks,Thracians, arrived in northern Greece or to modern North Macedonia by the Bambyno culture.Some tribes settled down to Greece forming the Mycenaen culture while other's stayed behind in the mountainous areas of northern Greece moving down during the bronze age collapse.Thracians moved to northeast in modern Bulgaria.While Albania and North Macedonia was the meeting and mixing point of Thracians and Illyrians or what later some historians will call Paeonians.Phrygians can be also inclunded in this spectrum(thought the language is not exactly the same with the Thracian).

Riverman
11-18-2020, 06:00 PM
Yes,northwest Greek speaking people and Macedonians were very close and in contact with Thracians,Illyrians,Paeonians,Bryges etc.They influenced each other besides their rivals.It is also well known that the Mycenaen culture did not reached the northern areas of Greece.We have no idea what type of people used to inhabit these lands during the Mycenean period and before its collapse.Also, if these lands were inhabit by people?Who really knows.The balkans and the aegean during the BA was a very chaotic place.And with the BA collapse many things happened that we dont't know and prolly we will never learn.Btw i will agree with a poster from Eurogenes(Archi) that Greeks,Thracians, arrived in northern Greece or to modern North Macedonia by the Bambyno culture.Some tribes settled down to Greece forming the Mycenaen culture while other's stayed behind in the mountainous areas of northern Greece moving down during the bronze age collapse.Thracians moved to northeast in modern Bulgaria.While Albania and North Macedonia was the meeting and mixing point of Thracians and Illyrians or what later some historians will call Paeonians.Phrygians can be also inclunded in this spectrum(thought the language is not exactly the same with the Thracian).

Possible for Greek, but probably more problematic for Thracian. Don't forget that Thracians have closer relations to more Northern groups like the Dacians and more recent steppe connections. And I also think that Thracian is closer to Slavic than to Greek overall, which would fit better into a North Carpathian origin, since the neighbours of the Fluted Ware/Gava groups were the Černoles Baltoslavs and the Cimmerians and Iranians respectively, which heavily influenced Thracians and Northern (Pannonian) Illyrians. I also wonder what Vatin was, because it was to the relative North East of the cultural centre, but heavily influenced by Myceneans:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Vatin_culture.png

It was, probably, the last big push South -> North into the area which was later Urnfield and especially Belegiš and Gava. So elements could have moved up and down more than once actually. Like when iron was introduced, the developments and movements too moved into various directions, sometimes forth and back. But the real bigh push into the whole of the later E-V13 centre on the Balkans-Carpathians came with Urnfield-cremation horizon related groups and Fluted Ware in particular.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 06:17 PM
Possible for Greek, but probably more problematic for Thracian. Don't forget that Thracians have closer relations to more Northern groups like the Dacians and more recent steppe connections. And I also think that Thracian is closer to Slavic than to Greek overall, which would fit better into a North Carpathian origin, since the neighbours of the Fluted Ware/Gava groups were the Černoles Baltoslavs and the Cimmerians and Iranians respectively, which heavily influenced Thracians and Northern (Pannonian) Illyrians. I also wonder what Vatin was, because it was to the relative North East of the cultural centre, but heavily influenced by Myceneans:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Vatin_culture.png

It was, probably, the last big push South -> North into the area which was later Urnfield and especially Belegiš and Gava. So elements could have moved up and down more than once actually. Like when iron was introduced, the developments and movements too moved into various directions, sometimes forth and back. But the real bigh push into the whole of the later E-V13 centre on the Balkans-Carpathians came with Urnfield-cremation horizon related groups and Fluted Ware in particular.

All cases are open.Personally, i am seeing proto-Greeks coming from Catacomb or KMK-Babyno culture.It is going to be,a really big rival between R1a vs R1b.Also keep in mind that Thrace is a place with Z2103.Bulgarians,Turks and Greeks with ancestry from there belong to this clade,witch to me..it seems Thracian.Dosas belongs to this clade btw and he is Thracian Greek.Other Greek members with ancestry from eastern Thrace belonged to Z2103 witch suggests possibilities for Thracian or Greek ancestry IMO...because such lineages arrived in south and southeast EU prolly during the BA period.But i do not want to be dogmatic or absolute,such lineages might be responsible for anatolian or armenian migration into these lands.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 06:19 PM
This is how Naue II sword might have looked like. Fine piece of metallurgy.

Apparently Mycenean blacksmiths tried to mimick it but failed to create a prototype.

https://i.imgur.com/4MJseQW.jpg

Principe
11-18-2020, 06:33 PM
The big Key to the Mycenaeans would be find another culture that wore Boar Tusk helmets and you got your answer to which group is ancestral.

There appears to be one in Mariupol, Ukraine 4000 years ago.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 06:57 PM
Greek EIA sword Xiphos, the cut-thrust sword was inspired by the Urnfield model.

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

Riverman
11-18-2020, 07:07 PM
All cases are open.Personally, i am seeing proto-Greeks coming from Catacomb or KMK-Babyno culture.It is going to be,a really big rival between R1a vs R1b.Also keep in mind that Thrace is a place with Z2103.Bulgarians,Turks and Greeks with ancestry from there belong to this clade,witch to me..it seems Thracian.Dosas belongs to this clade btw and he is Thracian Greek.Other Greek members with ancestry from eastern Thrace belonged to Z2103 witch suggests possibilities for Thracian or Greek ancestry IMO...because such lineages arrived in south and southeast EU prolly during the BA period.But i do not want to be dogmatic or absolute,such lineages might be responsible for anatolian or armenian migration into these lands.

I have litlte doubts about that haplogroups presence among Thracians and they seem to have, in part, spread on similar pathways. But yes, details need to be worked out. Mind you, a large portion of the Southward movement in the LBA-EIA was coming from Central Europe-North Carpathian which met, later on, with a new wave of steppe people, just let us call them Cimmerians, so we have a name for them. How these two intermingled, it seems they did, will be also very interesting to explore, as is the apparent fusion and mixture with older Balkan groups which might relate to Greeks (wider sense) and Anatolians alike in the Eastern Balkan.


The big Key to the Mycenaeans would be find another culture that wore Boar Tusk helmets and you got your answer to which group is ancestral.

There appears to be one in Mariupol, Ukraine 4000 years ago.

I think it was wider spread in the early Western IE groups, but you are right, its one part of the evidence in favour of the steppe origin of Greeks among so many others. Another question is whether Greeks spread with chariots or before. The chariots from Sintashta had, probably, a big impact and accelerated the collapse of Unetice. This is interesting insofar, as in the time between 1700-1500 a lot seems to have happened which might be related to this. Like in the Near East the spread of the Mitanni:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni


In general, it appears that during the first centuries (16th–14th century BC) chariots were used as a fighting vehicle while later in the 13th century BC their role was limited to a battlefield transport.

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

The first impact of chariots seems to have been huge, while later on, other people simply adopted it or adapted their tactics to fight it off. But the initial impact, when it first appeared, seems to have been huge everywhere. Considering how important it was in Mycenaean stories and art, I have no doubt that it made a big impression and difference in Greee, initially, too.

This is also one of these crucial timings, spread of the Indo-Iranians, chariots and developed horsemanship with bronze technology. The next big step was already Naue II, Urnfield and the LBA-EIA transition with the introduction of iron weapons. I guess both made a big impression on Greece. The chariot period might even have helped to "make Greece Greek". They surely adopted the technology in the region first I guess.

Aspar
11-18-2020, 07:14 PM
Well,i think anything above 2,5 is a little bit distant but whatever.Personally i don't see huge diffrences between the Mycenean samples and the samples we got from the classical Greeks of Spain.In my analysis above you can also see how they coming with ancient refrences-admixtures(steppe ratios pretty much the same..).Also,allow me to show you a PCA.As you can see below,the PCA shows very clear how close and related they are.Its the orange lines.They plot pretty close.And Bulgaria IA is not something crazy xD,its probably a Thracian sample and its very close as well to the Myceneans.

https://imgur.com/TmRb7Ua


Target: GRC_Mycenaean
Distance: 2.5906% / 0.02590640
85.8 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
14.2 RUS_Catacomb

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.1713% / 0.02171289
85.8 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
14.2 RUS_Catacomb


We get better distance using DEU_MA_o

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 2.2799% / 0.02279912
63.2 GRC_Mycenaean
36.8 DEU_MA_o

I know this sample is from 5th century AD but my opinion is that it is a Northern/highly Steppe admixed Greek. It plots between Bgr_IA and Empuries Greeks. I find possible that Dorians had such genetic profile.

Sample I8208 is identical to some Mycenaean Greeks however sample I8215 is a little bit different and it's shifted towards BGR_IA which is also visible in the PCA posted by Johnny:

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215
Distance: 2.3177% / 0.02317672
52.0 BGR_IA
48.0 GRC_Mycenaean

Distance wise, he is also closer to BGR_IA than he is to Mycenaean average:

Distance to: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215
0.02239145 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.03041607 BGR_IA
0.03144718 GRC_Mycenaean
0.03465425 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.03962671 DEU_MA_o
0.04291818 BGR_Krepost_N
0.04307468 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.05206371 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.05318556 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.05388951 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.05392061 IND_Roopkund_B
0.05413318 ITA_Collegno_MA_o1
0.05544675 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.05619321 ITA_Sicily_LBA
0.05687937 TUR_Buyukkaya_EC
0.05754936 ITA_Sardinia_Late_Antiquity
0.05770978 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.05789803 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
0.05866098 ITA_Sicily_MBA
0.05872745 GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res
0.06008506 TUR_Isparta_EBA
0.06145618 ITA_Sardinia_MA
0.06250010 TUR_Barcin_C
0.06265739 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
0.06314039 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

Yes, BGR_IA wasn't much different than the Mycenaeans but it's quite clear that this sample wasn't Greek, clearly more steppe influenced and found on a territory never ever considered as a part of ancient Greece.

Probably one sample won't prove much, we clearly need lot more classical age Greek samples however I8215 definitely shows something else rather than being pure Mycenaean like!

Principe
11-18-2020, 07:42 PM
I have litlte doubts about that haplogroups presence among Thracians and they seem to have, in part, spread on similar pathways. But yes, details need to be worked out. Mind you, a large portion of the Southward movement in the LBA-EIA was coming from Central Europe-North Carpathian which met, later on, with a new wave of steppe people, just let us call them Cimmerians, so we have a name for them. How these two intermingled, it seems they did, will be also very interesting to explore, as is the apparent fusion and mixture with older Balkan groups which might relate to Greeks (wider sense) and Anatolians alike in the Eastern Balkan.



I think it was wider spread in the early Western IE groups, but you are right, its one part of the evidence in favour of the steppe origin of Greeks among so many others. Another question is whether Greeks spread with chariots or before. The chariots from Sintashta had, probably, a big impact and accelerated the collapse of Unetice. This is interesting insofar, as in the time between 1700-1500 a lot seems to have happened which might be related to this. Like in the Near East the spread of the Mitanni:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni



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

The first impact of chariots seems to have been huge, while later on, other people simply adopted it or adapted their tactics to fight it off. But the initial impact, when it first appeared, seems to have been huge everywhere. Considering how important it was in Mycenaean stories and art, I have no doubt that it made a big impression and difference in Greee, initially, too.

This is also one of these crucial timings, spread of the Indo-Iranians, chariots and developed horsemanship with bronze technology. The next big step was already Naue II, Urnfield and the LBA-EIA transition with the introduction of iron weapons. I guess both made a big impression on Greece. The chariot period might even have helped to "make Greece Greek". They surely adopted the technology in the region first I guess.

Excellent points, I think they could have left with chariots already, Mycenaeans seem to have arrived around 3700 ybp as an example there is the warrior from the Aegina, Minoans were also hiring Mycenaeans at Thera to protect from pirates, unfortunately Helladic period pre Mycenaeans is not as well documented, but based on what is currently known within 100 years they managed to take over Central Greece, the Islands, the Peloponnese and Crete. My honest opinion, I think Mycenaeans might have been in Northern Greece maybe 100-200 years earlier, or they directly came South, maybe related groups to the Mycenaeans helped play the downfall of Unetice, the Amber route was important to them so maybe a clue.

I took an entire Bronze Age Greece course, I’ll check my notes and fix upon this post.

I am still looking for the notes of that particular class but found another one on just archaeology, and one thing to consider is the Cycladic culture, they did manage to colonize a bit of the mainland, so we can assume pre Mycenaean Greece might have been a clinal mix of EEF and Iran Neo, with some areas being entirely Minoan like genetically.

xripkan
11-18-2020, 08:38 PM
Sample I8208 is identical to some Mycenaean Greeks however sample I8215 is a little bit different and it's shifted towards BGR_IA which is also visible in the PCA posted by Johnny:

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215
Distance: 2.3177% / 0.02317672
52.0 BGR_IA
48.0 GRC_Mycenaean

Distance wise, he is also closer to BGR_IA than he is to Mycenaean average:

Distance to: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215
0.02239145 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.03041607 BGR_IA
0.03144718 GRC_Mycenaean
0.03465425 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.03962671 DEU_MA_o
0.04291818 BGR_Krepost_N
0.04307468 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.05206371 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.05318556 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.05388951 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.05392061 IND_Roopkund_B
0.05413318 ITA_Collegno_MA_o1
0.05544675 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.05619321 ITA_Sicily_LBA
0.05687937 TUR_Buyukkaya_EC
0.05754936 ITA_Sardinia_Late_Antiquity
0.05770978 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.05789803 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
0.05866098 ITA_Sicily_MBA
0.05872745 GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res
0.06008506 TUR_Isparta_EBA
0.06145618 ITA_Sardinia_MA
0.06250010 TUR_Barcin_C
0.06265739 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
0.06314039 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

Yes, BGR_IA wasn't much different than the Mycenaeans but it's quite clear that this sample wasn't Greek, clearly more steppe influenced and found on a territory never ever considered as a part of ancient Greece.

Probably one sample won't prove much, we clearly need lot more classical age Greek samples however I8215 definitely shows something else rather than being pure Mycenaean like!

Do you find possible that I8208 is like I8215 with some extra native Anatolian input and that's why plots closer to Mycenaeans?


Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8208
Distance: 3.9929% / 0.03992887
48.6 GRC_Mycenaean
28.4 BGR_IA
23.0 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8208
Distance: 3.7795% / 0.03779531
52.4 GRC_Mycenaean
32.0 DEU_MA_o
15.6 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 08:47 PM
I have litlte doubts about that haplogroups presence among Thracians and they seem to have, in part, spread on similar pathways. But yes, details need to be worked out. Mind you, a large portion of the Southward movement in the LBA-EIA was coming from Central Europe-North Carpathian which met, later on, with a new wave of steppe people, just let us call them Cimmerians, so we have a name for them. How these two intermingled, it seems they did, will be also very interesting to explore, as is the apparent fusion and mixture with older Balkan groups which might relate to Greeks (wider sense) and Anatolians alike in the Eastern Balkan.



I think it was wider spread in the early Western IE groups, but you are right, its one part of the evidence in favour of the steppe origin of Greeks among so many others. Another question is whether Greeks spread with chariots or before. The chariots from Sintashta had, probably, a big impact and accelerated the collapse of Unetice. This is interesting insofar, as in the time between 1700-1500 a lot seems to have happened which might be related to this. Like in the Near East the spread of the Mitanni:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni



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

The first impact of chariots seems to have been huge, while later on, other people simply adopted it or adapted their tactics to fight it off. But the initial impact, when it first appeared, seems to have been huge everywhere. Considering how important it was in Mycenaean stories and art, I have no doubt that it made a big impression and difference in Greee, initially, too.

This is also one of these crucial timings, spread of the Indo-Iranians, chariots and developed horsemanship with bronze technology. The next big step was already Naue II, Urnfield and the LBA-EIA transition with the introduction of iron weapons. I guess both made a big impression on Greece. The chariot period might even have helped to "make Greece Greek". They surely adopted the technology in the region first I guess.



Τhracians were definetly rich in R1b and its obvious also from modern northwest Turks who are largerly R1b(under Yamnaya like clades).The regions of Bithynia and Paphlagonia were inhabit by Thracian and Phrygian tribes.I don't know if it was the dominant yDNA but it was without doubt a major marker for the ethnogenesis of the Thracian populations.Also,i do not agree with the connection of Balto-Slavs and Thracians or even Thraco-Dacians.This specific hypothesis needs more testing IMO and it is not well based.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 09:14 PM
Τhracians were definetly rich in R1b and its obvious also from modern northwest Turks who are largerly R1b(under Yamnaya like clades).The regions of Bithynia and Paphlagonia were inhabit by Thracian and Phrygian tribes.I don't know if it was the dominant yDNA but it was without doubt a major marker for the ethnogenesis of the Thracian populations.Also,i do not agree with the connection of Balto-Slavs and Thracians or even Thraco-Dacians.This specific hypothesis needs more testing IMO and it is not well based.

I know Wikipedia doesn't always have the last word, but I never saw any reasonable theory claiming Thracian and Dacian were not part of one family, how close or in which exact relation, that's up to everyone's best guess, but close for sure:


Dacian was a dialect of the extinct Thracian language, or vice versa, e. g. Baldi (1983) and Trask (2000).
Dacian was a language distinct from Thracian but closely related to it, belonging to the same branch of the Indo-European family (a "Thraco-Dacian", or "Daco-Thracian" branch has been theorised by some linguists).[3]
Dacian, Thracian, the Baltic languages (Duridanov also adds Pelasgian) formed a distinct branch of Indo-European, e.g. Schall (1974), Duridanov (1976), Radulescu (1987) and Mayer (1996).[4][5][6][7]
The theory of Georgiev (1977) Daco-Moesian was the ancestor of Albanian, belonging to a branch other than Thracian, but closely related to Thracian and distinct from Illyrian.[8][9]

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

The Thracian is really distinct idea is rather in the minority, or was so in the past I'd say. The the immobilists and nativists came also the splitters. No big horizons, no large ethnic unities any more, but everything being cut into pieces and torn apart, without good reason in my opinion.

I think the main difference between Dacian and Thracian is, that Dacian got more recent steppe (Cimmerian-Scythian related) plus Urnfield influences and Thracian proper more old Balkanic (related to Greek and Anatolian) ones, but basically they had the same components and the same make up, coming from the same root, close to Baltoslavic (Černoles) to the East and other Tumulus-Urnfield relatives (Illyrian related, Germanic close by) to the West.

Hawk
11-18-2020, 09:20 PM
This is the breakdown I calculated years ago based on the now defunct Genographic project. Samples sizes for some regions are small, but it gives an idea:
41252
Note that E-M215 contains other groups than V13. I can see if I can find back data on V13 specifically (but the pool will be bit smaller)

That's quite consistent spread actually. Even though it might contain non E-V13, they will consist maximum ~3% of it, so no big difference.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 09:26 PM
That's quite consistent spread actually. Even though it might contain non E-V13, they will consist maximum ~3% of it, so no big difference.

Well, the situation changes to the East. Anatolia is a transitional zone in this respect. E-V13 is primarily in Europe that dominant among E1b.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 09:34 PM
I know Wikipedia doesn't always have the last word, but I never saw any reasonable theory claiming Thracian and Dacian were not part of one family, how close or in which exact relation, that's up to everyone's best guess, but close for sure:


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

The Thracian is really distinct idea is rather in the minority, or was so in the past I'd say. The the immobilists and nativists came also the splitters. No big horizons, no large ethnic unities any more, but everything being cut into pieces and torn apart, without good reason in my opinion.

I think the main difference between Dacian and Thracian is, that Dacian got more recent steppe (Cimmerian-Scythian related) plus Urnfield influences and Thracian proper more old Balkanic (related to Greek and Anatolian) ones, but basically they had the same components and the same make up, coming from the same root, close to Baltoslavic (Černoles) to the East and other Tumulus-Urnfield relatives (Illyrian related, Germanic close by) to the West.

Thracian dialect was always a strong debate and will remain like this IMO.The problem with the paleo-balkan languages is that they lack successor.We don't have any related language or dialect coming straightway from these people and this is making it even harder.The Latin and Slavic influences(and even Ottoman i would say) are very strong into to modern Balkanic languages-dialects especially to Albanian and Vlach who in some way coming closer.Hellenization,Romanization and Slavicization progress sadly killed these old languages.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 09:55 PM
Thracian dialect was always a strong debate and will remain like this IMO.The problem with the paleo-balkan languages is that they lack successor.We don't have any related language or dialect coming straightway from these people and this is making it even harder.The Latin and Slavic influences(and even Ottoman i would say) are very strong into to modern Balkanic languages-dialects especially to Albanian and Vlach who in some way coming closer.Hellenization,Romanization and Slavicization progress sadly killed these old languages.

Well, if, just if, we see a strong movement from the North Carpathian at the base of the foundation of Thracian, like I said, Gava was a direct neighbour of Černoles, this would give the relationship a solid fundament. Similarly, if there is a common horizon of genetic influences from this source, Southern Urnfield related, from the Northern Carpathians and Dacian strongholds, down to Thrace. So the E-V13 origin debate might play a big part for the solution of this quest. Similarly, if E-V13 was indeed closely related to the iron technology in general, can be linked with Gava fortresses and iron smiths, it could become almost like a genetic marker, trace, for the first big spread of it.

But so far they don't even released the results from the Pannonian study. I would really like to know if they have a good classification downstream for the single E-V13 they found and where it was coming from. Like if it was a surviving lineage from North Eastern Hungary, South Eastern Slovakia, this could be a first big hint for my hypothesis being correct. If it was a dead one from the South, it would tell us nothing, with every possible situation in between.

Johnny ola
11-18-2020, 10:23 PM
Well, if, just if, we see a strong movement from the North Carpathian at the base of the foundation of Thracian, like I said, Gava was a direct neighbour of Černoles, this would give the relationship a solid fundament. Similarly, if there is a common horizon of genetic influences from this source, Southern Urnfield related, from the Northern Carpathians and Dacian strongholds, down to Thrace. So the E-V13 origin debate might play a big part for the solution of this quest. Similarly, if E-V13 was indeed closely related to the iron technology in general, can be linked with Gava fortresses and iron smiths, it could become almost like a genetic marker, trace, for the first big spread of it.

But so far they don't even released the results from the Pannonian study. I would really like to know if they have a good classification downstream for the single E-V13 they found and where it was coming from. Like if it was a surviving lineage from North Eastern Hungary, South Eastern Slovakia, this could be a first big hint for my hypothesis being correct. If it was a dead one from the South, it would tell us nothing, with every possible situation in between.


Might be the case.Αgain all scenarios are open for me.Thought,i will agree with your previous post that Βalkans in general... received gene flow both from the 'central-centraleast' EU but also from eastern-southeast EU, making their ethnogenesis kinda complex and confusing.For Thracians i would suggest major markers EV13 and R1b(Z2103).

alan
11-19-2020, 01:04 AM
I see the end of the Early Helladic c. 2200-2000 as the most likely fall phase of previously overwhelmingly eastward focused (probably Anatolian speaking) elites in Greece. The Middle Helladic is afterwards a complex mixture of both new elements that could (though hard to prove) come from the NW and west as well as continuing links eastwards. I strongly suspect that the ancestors of the Greeks arrived in Greece around 2200-2000BC and were part of a complex mix of rival elements in Greece from 2000-1600BC. I dont think 1600BC and the Mycenean culture is a major ethnic or cultural change. Its more of a period of great enrichment and taking over of the trade roots south and east by early Greeks. But I suspect from the fact that much of Mycenean culture has roots in the preceeding Middle Helladic era that the ancestors of the Greeks were there already but not yet as expanded or dominating the ancient southern and eastern trade routes or as wealthy. The interesting thing is Proto-Greek is only usually thought to date a century or two before Linear B records its fairly immediate descendants and a date of around 1700BC has been suggested. That is perhaps 3-500 years after when I suspect the most likely archaeological scenario for the arrival of the ancestors of the Greeks is. So, I would raise the possibility that proto-Greek never existed outside Greek and the ancestors of the Greeks actually arrived at least a few centuries prior to proto-Greek, possibly still speaking some sort of late PIE or some sort of Balkans branch in an early undifferentiated phase.

A lot of this process is hidden because much of Greece was illiterate until Cretan connections led to the Mycenaean developing linear B. You should never assume a language or people arrive at a time dictated by its first historical written records. Personally I think 2700-2200BC and probably to a declining extent afterwards, that Anatolian IE was spoken by at least some wealthy elites in some areas of Greece. I think there was probably then a period where both an ancestor of proto-Greek and an Antatolian IE language existed in Greece c. 2200-1600BC before Mycenaean Greek really spread throughout.

alan
11-19-2020, 01:15 AM
Also I think the idea a previously landlocked steppe pastoralist group just arrived c. 1650BC and took over this largely maritime trading empire is daft. There is no way that this could have happened without a long adapting period of generations or centuries to a maritime way of life. As I do not see any great options of maritime steppe groups I suspect the ancestors of the Greeks had been living a coastal life for centuries prior to 1650BC.

At the other end of Europe, this is also an argument for a dutch type model of beaker emerging from north coastal CW/single grave groups who had lived on the northern shores and river mouths for 300-400 years before beaker, giving them a long period of adapting to maritime conditions. The alternative model of P312 spreading east to west through central Europe within the beaker era itself is hard to believe as it requires us to believe a landlocked group could become a seapower capable of settling the isles almost immediately.

My own hunch is there was an Adriatic Balkans element in the genesis of the proto-Greeks as the Cetina culture clearly shows a short-lived but striking maritime network stretching from an epicentre in Dalmatia (I think) to touch Adriatic Italy, Albania and Greece c. 2200-2000BC.

Riverman
11-19-2020, 01:42 AM
Also I think the idea a previously landlocked steppe pastoralist group just arrived c. 1650BC and took over this largely maritime trading empire is daft. There is no way that this could have happened without a long adapting period of generations or centuries to a maritime way of life. As I do not see any great options of maritime steppe groups I suspect the ancestors of the Greeks had been living a coastal life for centuries prior to 1650BC.

At the other end of Europe, this is also an argument for a dutch type model of beaker emerging from north coastal CW/single grave groups who had lived on the northern shores and river mouths for 300-400 years before beaker, giving them a long period of adapting to maritime conditions. The alternative model of P312 spreading east to west through central Europe within the beaker era itself is hard to believe as it requires us to believe a landlocked group could become a seapower capable of settling the isles almost immediately.

My own hunch is there was an Adriatic Balkans element in the genesis of the proto-Greeks as the Cetina culture clearly shows a short-lived but striking maritime network stretching from an epicentre in Dalmatia (I think) to touch Adriatic Italy, Albania and Greece c. 2200-2000BC.

Honestly I think you should not overestimate the sea factor, because there are many examples of people adapting fairly quickly and building or just using boats in a big way. Like the Romans, Arabs, Mongols or Ottomans.
Its not like people can't learn and adapt and what's even more, Greek was always considered being a heavily substrate influenced language. Interestingly especially some terms related to the sea. Also, they are among the Indo-Europeans with a fairly strong substrate influence genetically, most likely even a fusion, to some degree at the elite level.
So they certainly could use the artisans and seafarers of the region once their tribal groups got the upper hand.

I'm not saying its impossible they came in earlier, but I think the sea aspect is no compelling argument, especially in the Greek case. Whatever happened in Greece, they made no tabula rasa.

Like the early IE didnt cleanse the mines and forges of the Carparthian metallurgists, which might have been for E-V13 the pathway for survival and later success.

The Proto-Greeks certainly knew the land, probably they had local allies even. If they knew there are rich islands to take, they had every reason to let the local boat builders and seafarers alive, so they could help and teach them.
Even some terms possibly, though thats not a must.

Aspar
11-19-2020, 07:24 AM
Do you find possible that I8208 is like I8215 with some extra native Anatolian input and that's why plots closer to Mycenaeans?


Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8208
Distance: 3.9929% / 0.03992887
48.6 GRC_Mycenaean
28.4 BGR_IA
23.0 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8208
Distance: 3.7795% / 0.03779531
52.4 GRC_Mycenaean
32.0 DEU_MA_o
15.6 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

I don't. I don't think we can observe any significant Anatolian admixture in this sample postdating the Neolithic migrations. However if my model is correct and shows significant admixture related to Northern people such were BGR_IA, then we can assume that along with the admixture there must have been presence of E-V13 as well among the classical age Greeks, probably more significant among the northern Greeks than among the southern ones. Because going by latest rumors, E-V13 was found among the Thracian people from Kapitan Andreevo so the border zones of the Greek world should have received such influence on bigger scale. The ancient Macedonians in that regard show a lot of Thracian similarities:

This chapter focuses on elements of a shared royal ideology between the Argeads of Macedonia and at least some of their Thracian counterparts. The Thracians had a significant influence on the early Macedonian ideology of kingship. Argead kings appeared as heroes necessary for the preservation of the health and well‐being of all of their subjects, just as anecdotal evidence suggests was the prevailing thought among at least some of the Thracian kingdoms. So alien were the political structures of these northern kingdoms and the heroic status of their ruling families, that the Greeks of the Classical period often considered the Macedonians in general to be un‐Greek, despite the fact that from the time of Alexander I, individual Argead monarchs were permitted to participate in Greek‐only athletic contests. - Chapter 22, Thracian and Macedonian Kingship, William S. Greenwalt

Couple that with the fact that Greeks had trouble understanding ancient Macedonian and vice versa("Greeks at any rate could not understand “Macedonian”"- (Curtius Rufus, VI 9, 34–36); "at a critical moment Alexander gives orders to his guards in “Macedonian” because he is not going to run the risk of something getting “lost in translation”" - (Plutarch, Alexander, 51 —)). Also some Macedonian onomastics were of non-Greek Thracian origin, and even some Thracian gods and heroes such as the Thracian horseman were part of their pantheon unlike the Greeks proper. Plus, a notable sound-law is that the Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirates (/bʰ, dʰ, gʰ/) sometimes appear as voiced stops /b, d, g/, (written β, δ, γ), whereas they are generally unvoiced as /pʰ, tʰ, kʰ/ (φ, θ, χ) elsewhere in Greek, which is another ancient Macedonian - Thracian common feature as well, we get an idea why the ancient Macedonians were viewed as barbarians by the Greeks.

In that regard, I view E-V13 as a non-Greek lineage, and insignificant among the ancient Greeks, probably more in a connection with the people whom the ancient Greeks called barbarians. And as such, higher on the barbarian scale would mean more E-V13 as well. Even if this sounds a little bit comical, I think it's not far from the truth.

Riverman
11-19-2020, 09:50 AM
Because going by latest rumors, E-V13 was found among the Thracian people from Kapitan Andreevo so the border zones of the Greek world should have received such influence on bigger scale.

Since you mentioned Kapitan Andreevo, I tried to read up on the site and Thracian customs of the time and found something about "ritual pits" in which sometimes humans were buried, but their profane use is otherwise unknown:
https://de.calameo.com/read/0042837477150531e933b

That ringed a bell, because we know from pits with unknown purpose from Gava settlements! This is actually yet another connection to the Fluted/Gava horizon from the North, apparently even many archaeologists have overseen. Because I just read some archaeological summaries on Gava in which these pits were seen as "not categorisable" - well, that might change once they find genetic evidence for a migration, if they do, since then they might be more inclined to search for parallels. Its amazing how this could be overlooked - there are also similarities with in house burials, in Thracians especially for infants.


During the Early Iron Age, after the great Aegean migrations, a new ethnical picture came into being on the Balkans. The Basarabi culture was spread almost all over the territory of Romania, but mostly along the northern bank of the Danube. Basarabi culture appeared 800-550 B C. There burial rite included cremation as well as inhumation. Burned bones and ashes were placed in urns or simple pits which were not piled up. The inhumations were performed in stretched position on back under a mound of stones or in a grave dug into the solid soil without piling up a mound. The most important monument of the period is the pit sanctuary in the locality of Bagachina, Stalijska mahala. The first ritual pit was dug there during the Late Bronze Age into a Thracian cult centre. In Bonevs opinion the first of all the pits which characterize this specific Thracian religious ritual had once been dug exactly at Bagachina, from where the ritual spread over the rest of the Thracian land, the cult pit is an element of major importance for characterization of Thracian civilization.

https://www.academia.edu/14283299/Thracian_graves_5th_2nd_c_BC

Bagachina is in Montana county, in North Western Bulgaria, fairly close to the Danube and Romania by the way.

There are of course many cultures with a Pannonian-Carpathian connection in Bulgaria, which being mentioned in this article and others as formative for later Bulgarians, actually most are related to Tumulus and Urnfield groups and even those which predate Gava/Fluted ware, have usually some kind of relation to it. Might be just a coincidence, but I don't think it is. Such cults, and the Daco-Thracian cults were quite specific, usually have a specific background also.

Hawk
11-19-2020, 10:46 AM
The Japodes, an Illyrian tribe from modern Bosnia practiced cremation as well.

From wikipedia: Romans said of the Iapydes that they were a warlike race addicted to plundering expeditions, but other archaeological documentation confirms their main economical activity was the mining and metallurgy.

Roman perspective and actual archeological data show how much biased and subjective can humans be.

Japodes are connected to Iapygians: Messapians, Daunians from South-East Italy.

Riverman
11-19-2020, 11:20 AM
The Japodes, an Illyrian tribe from modern Bosnia practiced cremation as well.

From wikipedia: Romans said of the Iapydes that they were a warlike race addicted to plundering expeditions, but other archaeological documentation confirms their main economical activity was the mining and metallurgy.

Roman perspective and actual archeological data show how much biased and subjective can humans be.

Japodes are connected to Iapygians: Messapians, Daunians from South-East Italy.

Well, one doesn't have to contradict the other. There were high level, productive people, which nevertheless went out for regular raids and plunder. That was actually a common thing among many tribals, Indo-European and others. Among Germanics too it was often more honourable to conquer and take with the sword, than earning it by work and sweat. Like the Latins themselves were no different. Many terms for luck, wealth, money and profit come from raiding and looting the animals of the foe, in Latin, but many other, IE and non-IE languages alike. If they had good steel, like the Norics, they surely used it for their campaigns too.

Hawk
11-19-2020, 02:29 PM
This is rather interesting.


Before focusing on the Early Iron Age, it seems relevant to have a quick look at the Late Bronze Age burial
customs. They are documented by a limited number of sites located mostly in the southern part of the
region, along the middle course of the Haliakmon river, as well as in Pieria and east of the Strymon river
(Fig.1). To briefly summarize, the cemeteries display up to eight main funerary features: collective tumulus
or flat cemetery, stone enclosure, inhumation, secondary cremation, simple pit grave, slab cist, boulder
cist, and ash urn (Fig. 2). As we shall see, this is much less than in cemeteries of the Early Iron Age. Most of
the tombs of the Late Bronze Age have been found in organised cemeteries.17 As in the rest of Greece, the
use of secondary cremation has already been known since the Neolithic, and the custom spread widely

during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, especially in the Chalcidice and Western Macedonia,18 followed
by a decline in the Late Bronze Age along with the abandonment of cemeteries that were in use during
the preceding periods. However, it becomes popular again at the end of the Late Bronze Age especially
east of the Strymon River, where tumuli and collective structures, mostly associated with ash-urns, are
predominant.19 In the rest of the region inhumations in individual graves prevail.20 The architecture of the
graves varies from a simple pit to a more elaborated cist graves lined with boulders or slabs,21 primarily
located in southern Pieria,22 and along the middle course of the Haliakmon river.23 Tombs with inhumations are organized in flat cemeteries or are grouped under tumuli in a few cases.24 The identification of


https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02902269/document

alan
11-19-2020, 05:22 PM
Honestly I think you should not overestimate the sea factor, because there are many examples of people adapting fairly quickly and building or just using boats in a big way. Like the Romans, Arabs, Mongols or Ottomans.
Its not like people can't learn and adapt and what's even more, Greek was always considered being a heavily substrate influenced language. Interestingly especially some terms related to the sea. Also, they are among the Indo-Europeans with a fairly strong substrate influence genetically, most likely even a fusion, to some degree at the elite level.
So they certainly could use the artisans and seafarers of the region once their tribal groups got the upper hand.

I'm not saying its impossible they came in earlier, but I think the sea aspect is no compelling argument, especially in the Greek case. Whatever happened in Greece, they made no tabula rasa.

Like the early IE didnt cleanse the mines and forges of the Carparthian metallurgists, which might have been for E-V13 the pathway for survival and later success.

The Proto-Greeks certainly knew the land, probably they had local allies even. If they knew there are rich islands to take, they had every reason to let the local boat builders and seafarers alive, so they could help and teach them.
Even some terms possibly, though thats not a must.

True but the examples you cite are empire sized entities not the likely small scale political units of the middle bronze age. Generally speaking land based and sea communities are very good at living separately from each other even when adjacent and in a lot of communities land and sea people next door to each other would never intermarry. I know one side of my family were like that and never married outside the fishing community across parish records from c. 1550AD to 1940. Most of them married people from the same tiny fishing village. When they did marry out it was to the next fishing village along the coast, not the farmer's daughter 10 minutes walk inland. In simple societies its incredibly difficult for a landlubber to get to know the sea and skills involved to a high standard. I think modern people with a lot of spare time, money and technology dont really understand how in previous times the sea was essentially the domain of a closed society of specialists that were being schooled in the life from infancy.

Probably, as you suggested, they would have needed to find allies among coastal people who were skilled at sea travel etc if they didnt have them themselves. I just pointed out the Cetina network because it was an example of a fairly briefly lived but striking maritime network that extended down both sides of the Adriatic and into the Aegean c. 2200-2000BC at the very time the Early Helladic elites (Anatolian speakers IMO) hit some sort of collapse. Its an example of opportunism iMO. They temporarily filled a vacuum. I still believe sea power was essential. The Mycenaean Greek Achaeans appear to be mentioned by Hittites implying impact on western Anatolia and Egyptian records appear to mention them among the 'Sea Peoples'. So they were apparently associated with sea power in Mycenaean times. This is not surprising given the clear evidence of wide maritime contacts in the material culture.

Riverman
11-19-2020, 05:43 PM
True but the examples you cite are empire sized entities not the likely small scale political units of the middle bronze age. Generally speaking land based and sea communities are very good at living separately from each other even when adjacent and in a lot of communities land and sea people next door to each other would never intermarry. I know one side of my family were like that and never married outside the fishing community across parish records from c. 1550AD to 1940. Most of them married people from the same tiny fishing village. When they did marry out it was to the next fishing village along the coast, not the farmer's daughter 10 minutes walk inland. In simple societies its incredibly difficult for a landlubber to get to know the sea and skills involved to a high standard. I think modern people with a lot of spare time, money and technology dont really understand how in previous times the sea was essentially the domain of a closed society of specialists that were being schooled in the life from infancy.

Probably, as you suggested, they would have needed to find allies among coastal people who were skilled at sea travel etc if they didnt have them themselves. I just pointed out the Cetina network because it was an example of a fairly briefly lived but striking maritime network that extended down both sides of the Adriatic and into the Aegean c. 2200-2000BC at the very time the Early Helladic elites (Anatolian speakers IMO) hit some sort of collapse. Its an example of opportunism iMO. They temporarily filled a vacuum. I still believe sea power was essential. The Mycenaean Greek Achaeans appear to be mentioned by Hittites implying impact on western Anatolia and Egyptian records appear to mention them among the 'Sea Peoples'. So they were apparently associated with sea power in Mycenaean times. This is not surprising given the clear evidence of wide maritime contacts in the material culture.

I don't disagree in principle, but I just see enough opportunities for incoming Balkan-steppe people to make up for it, especially in the Greek case. Large scale mixture and alliances are, imho, not just hypothetical for Greeks, they are extremely likely. The real sea power of the region seems to have been, for quite some time, Crete. The Myceneans didn't conquer it immediately, they needed some time and probably even exploited an opportunity after the Minoans were hit by natural disaster. But however they managed to capture it, they didn't completely replace the Minoans, neither genetically nor culturally. I guess this was a recipe you will find on the mainland too. So everything you said I can agree with, though I wouldn't see it that extreme, but it doesn't mean a later arrival of Proto-Greeks doesn't fit. That alone is not conclusive as an argument.

Hawk
11-19-2020, 05:54 PM
True but the examples you cite are empire sized entities not the likely small scale political units of the middle bronze age. Generally speaking land based and sea communities are very good at living separately from each other even when adjacent and in a lot of communities land and sea people next door to each other would never intermarry. I know one side of my family were like that and never married outside the fishing community across parish records from c. 1550AD to 1940. Most of them married people from the same tiny fishing village. When they did marry out it was to the next fishing village along the coast, not the farmer's daughter 10 minutes walk inland. In simple societies its incredibly difficult for a landlubber to get to know the sea and skills involved to a high standard. I think modern people with a lot of spare time, money and technology dont really understand how in previous times the sea was essentially the domain of a closed society of specialists that were being schooled in the life from infancy.

Probably, as you suggested, they would have needed to find allies among coastal people who were skilled at sea travel etc if they didnt have them themselves. I just pointed out the Cetina network because it was an example of a fairly briefly lived but striking maritime network that extended down both sides of the Adriatic and into the Aegean c. 2200-2000BC at the very time the Early Helladic elites (Anatolian speakers IMO) hit some sort of collapse. Its an example of opportunism iMO. They temporarily filled a vacuum. I still believe sea power was essential. The Mycenaean Greek Achaeans appear to be mentioned by Hittites implying impact on western Anatolia and Egyptian records appear to mention them among the 'Sea Peoples'. So they were apparently associated with sea power in Mycenaean times. This is not surprising given the clear evidence of wide maritime contacts in the material culture.

Cetina people according to Yugoslav archeologists were descended from Cardial Ware farmers influenced by Bell Beakers but not Indo-Europeanized. They are an interesting case, it has been proposed by rafc in his Argonaut paper that Cetina was the beginning of the early E-V13 expansion. Only tested bones can show what Y-DNA they did carry.

alan
11-20-2020, 12:32 AM
Greece is a very good example of a place where archaeology and the movement of people and language change are not easy to correlate. I think the spread of the Neolithic farmers, Corded Ware and the bell beaker spread are exceptions to the rule in that they were phases of profound population replacement. Fairly straight forward. However, I think most human movements and language changes in prehistory are far harder archaeologically as they were only partial replacements and the process was much more complex.

Riverman
11-20-2020, 01:38 AM
Greece is a very good example of a place where archaeology and the movement of people and language change are not easy to correlate. I think the spread of the Neolithic farmers, Corded Ware and the bell beaker spread are exceptions to the rule in that they were phases of profound population replacement. Fairly straight forward. However, I think most human movements and language changes in prehistory are far harder archaeologically as they were only partial replacements and the process was much more complex.

Especially without historical accounts and if lets say about three migrations are possible in the potential time frame. Its easier if the options are more limited. In the Balkans, for Greeks and Thracians, its not a lack of options, rather the list is too long.

alan
11-20-2020, 02:21 PM
Especially without historical accounts and if lets say about three migrations are possible in the potential time frame. Its easier if the options are more limited. In the Balkans, for Greeks and Thracians, its not a lack of options, rather the list is too long.

I would be confident the Greeks arrived sometime between 2200BC and 1650BC but that is over half a millennium time slot. One observation I would make is that it doesn’t look to me that the language initially arrived via trade networks. The trade networks tend to most strongly link Mainland Greece with areas that are highly implausible as source populations for bringing the Greek language. It may be that when you strip away the east Med/Aegean prestige goods part of Mycenaean culture that the actual core ‘Proto Greek’ slightly pre Mycenaean contribution is only represented by stuff like cist burials, tumuli etc. That could happen if they arrived without women and a material culture they themselves wanted to quickly substitute with that which they found in Greece. Personally I think they moved into Greece and brought the tumuli tradition that we see in the middle Helladic at the same time as the Anatolian focussed early Helladic culture falters. I think the middle Helladic might have been a time when neither element fully had the upper hand as you see a mix.

Bane
11-21-2020, 06:31 PM
Probably you will find issues with my next statement but I will write it in case there are people which see things in a similar way. So, the thing is I'm starting to see Dorians as hellenized Illyrians.
And of course, the hellenization would happen after the invasion.

Ok I'm taking this back. :)
Just to be clear, I still believe E-V13 did arrive from the North with Dorians. I think I made a mistake when I wanted to label Illyrians as the main carriers of E-V13 in the Balkans. My opinion now is that it was the other well known group of people. Aspar, Johnny ola, Riverman (maybe others too) will understand who I have in mind, because they considered it before I did.

rafc
11-23-2020, 12:16 PM
Ok I'm taking this back. :)
Just to be clear, I still believe E-V13 did arrive from the North with Dorians. I think I made a mistake when I wanted to label Illyrians as the main carriers of E-V13 in the Balkans. My opinion now is that it was the other well known group of people. Aspar, Johnny ola, Riverman (maybe others too) will understand who I have in mind, because they considered it before I did.

If V13 arrived with the Dorians it would have been quite an important haplogroup within the Dorians given the later percentages in Greece and Sicily/Southern Italy. Since we know that the Dorians spoke a Northwestern variant of Greek, I wonder how this V13 population got "Hellenized". For Greece proper the idea is often that a small elite with Steppe (R1b) roots dominated a much larger local (J2a) population from a limited number of strongholds: the Mycenaean citadels. And maybe outside of those seats of power other languages were still spoken.
But the newcomers from the northwest seem to speak only Greek and be Greeks culturally. How and when did they become Greeks then? Since Dorians were presumably pushed southwards by other (urnfield) groups moving southwards, some form of Greek was spoken in a very large area in the north, probably including southern parts of current Albania, and most of North-Macedonia. Certainly if we still have to find room there for the speakers of Prhygian who are supposed to come from there.
I don't know what current thinking is. Did these regions become Greek directly from the steppe in the MBA, together with the arrival of Greeks in the South of Greece? Or were they thoroughly Hellenized by Myceneans in the LBA so that the non-Greek population (V13?) became Greeks themselves and used this language when moving south at the LBA/EIA transition?

Riverman
11-23-2020, 12:43 PM
If V13 arrived with the Dorians it would have been quite an important haplogroup within the Dorians given the later percentages in Greece and Sicily/Southern Italy. Since we know that the Dorians spoke a Northwestern variant of Greek, I wonder how this V13 population got "Hellenized". For Greece proper the idea is often that a small elite with Steppe (R1b) roots dominated a much larger local (J2a) population from a limited number of strongholds: the Mycenaean citadels. And maybe outside of those seats of power other languages were still spoken.
But the newcomers from the northwest seem to speak only Greek and be Greeks culturally. How and when did they become Greeks then? Since Dorians were presumably pushed southwards by other (urnfield) groups moving southwards, some form of Greek was spoken in a very large area in the north, probably including southern parts of current Albania, and most of North-Macedonia. Certainly if we still have to find room there for the speakers of Prhygian who are supposed to come from there.
I don't know what current thinking is. Did these regions become Greek directly from the steppe in the MBA, together with the arrival of Greeks in the South of Greece? Or were they thoroughly Hellenized by Myceneans in the LBA so that the non-Greek population (V13?) became Greeks themselves and used this language when moving south at the LBA/EIA transition?

I don't know the answers, I would like, but I don't, but my current best interpretation of the situation is like this: Early Greeks came with chariots directly from the steppe and met probably Anatolian and non-IE people on the Balkans and in Greece. They did take the North of Greece, actually its quite likely and just logical that this was the original early Greek centre. Like every people coming down from the steppe to the Balkans in the way Proto-Greeks did could only have taken two paths: Into Pannonia-Transylvania, secondary expansion down to Greece, or around the Eastern Carpathians, down through Romania and Bulgaria. In both cases, its just logical that they took the easier to take - for steppe people - open land. Especially if using horses and chariots.
Then the Urnfield expansion took place, again a two-pronged expansion, Illyrian-related groups through Pannonia, the Daco-Thracians along the the Carpathians. Both reached, like Slavic tribes much later, the borderland of Greece and most certainly must have met the Northern Greek tribes, among which we may assume the ancestors of the Dorians.

What we know is that the Dorians had close contacts to these people and even adopted some technology and tactics from them. That is, from my point of view, a certainty. And there are these more than a century old speculations about Dorians being a tribal alliance which included non-Greek elements. I would compare it with Allemanns of the Germanic migration, because Allemannic just referred to "all men" (who could fight) - so probably it was an alliance of different tribes and people which evolved into a more ethnic tribe. I think the Dorians were quite similar, like early Northern Greeks uniting with first contact Urnfield-people, form an alliance to take new, safe lands in Greece, probably under pressure from newly incoming, like Thracian and steppe (Thraco-Cimmerian) people. I can't say it was like that with high certainty, but for me it seems to be the most likely scenario. This would mean that not all Dorian groups were dominated by one single haplogroup, but some were. Like many such alliances, after achieving their goal, began to split up and settle down based on their ethnic-clan affinities or some practical considerations, or depending on troop leaders decisions and so on.

Its a weak argument, but even the etymology of the term Dorian supports such a scenario, because the two most commonly used explanations refer to either spears or woodlands, so a specific kind of military weapon and alliance, or the origin from the wild, forested lands (to the North) of Greece proper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorians

In a way I think the situation for the early Greeks was similar to Celts and Ireland. Greek proper is fairly unlikely to have been the original centre of the early Greeks, but was surely harder to conquer and expanded in over time. This leaves us also the opportunity that Proto-Greeks came earlier, even before the first chariots, and only managed to take Greece later, with additional pushes happening with every respective push from the steppe and new technologies provided, like chariots, better horses for riders, improved bronze swords (like Naue II) and finally the introduction of iron - who got it first is open to debate, but mass production might have been more efficient for the Dorians, more with a North -> South expansion, which would also bring in the more Carpathian and Thraco-Illyrian elements into the mix.

(Disclaimer: Thraco-Illyrian in this context means just the Western and Eastern Urnfield related expansions reaching the Balkans and Greece, it doesn't imply they were the same people and their exact relationship needs to be investigated :) )

Hawk
11-23-2020, 01:12 PM
To me there is still a lot of question marks.

rafc
11-23-2020, 02:10 PM
I don't know the answers, I would like, but I don't, but my current best interpretation of the situation is like this: Early Greeks came with chariots directly from the steppe and met probably Anatolian and non-IE people on the Balkans and in Greece. They did take the North of Greece, actually its quite likely and just logical that this was the original early Greek centre. Like every people coming down from the steppe to the Balkans in the way Proto-Greeks did could only have taken two paths: Into Pannonia-Transylvania, secondary expansion down to Greece, or around the Eastern Carpathians, down through Romania and Bulgaria. In both cases, its just logical that they took the easier to take - for steppe people - open land. Especially if using horses and chariots.
Then the Urnfield expansion took place, again a two-pronged expansion, Illyrian-related groups through Pannonia, the Daco-Thracians along the the Carpathians. Both reached, like Slavic tribes much later, the borderland of Greece and most certainly must have met the Northern Greek tribes, among which we may assume the ancestors of the Dorians.

Good points. Indeed, coming from the Steppe the most likely route seems to be along the Aegean coast to current Greek Macedonia. That's also the place where Slavs first arrived and settled en masse. If the proto Greeks stopped there for a while, some groups could have continued south into Greece proper, other might have followed the Axios river to the North-East, and I guess some might have gone all the way west where they could have mixed with remnants of Cetina groups who might have carried (early lines of) V13.

Riverman
11-23-2020, 02:29 PM
Good points. Indeed, coming from the Steppe the most likely route seems to be along the Aegean coast to current Greek Macedonia. That's also the place where Slavs first arrived and settled en masse. If the proto Greeks stopped there for a while, some groups could have continued south into Greece proper, other might have followed the Axios river to the North-East, and I guess some might have gone all the way west where they could have mixed with remnants of Cetina groups who might have carried (early lines of) V13.

Whether it was Cetina or a later migration from the North, the Northern Greeks (including Dorians) were more likely to get more influenced. Cetina however seems to have lacked "the punch" to turn the Daco-Thracian sphere in the way it should have - even more so Pannonia. Unless it took part in Vatin big time, but even then, the East is missing, the path North not strong enough I guess.

What do you say about the timing for the Greek V13 subclades? Unfortunately there are not too many tested, but from thow we do have, they look very much Iron Age related too, like for example:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17264/

Are there any earlier and clearly pre-EIA Greek haplotypes? Proto-Greeks should have entered Greece no later than 1500 BC, that's the absolute maximum. In fact, any much earlier Greek related spread should be even older and in my opinion more clearly Greek-linked. But even from other clades of V13, and there are many with Greek and Greek-related members on FTDNA, I rather see the "chaotic picture" related to the LBA-EIA rapid and diverse dispersal event, rather than anything earlier and clearly Greek. Like some subclades just happened to end up in Greece, around the EIA, rather than coming out of it.

How many pre-Urnfield expansions do we have for E-V13 at all? And which clades would you put in this category?

rafc
11-23-2020, 04:33 PM
In terms of timing it is clear there was a first big expansion in the Early Bronze Age (Balkan definition, or EBA IIb/EBIII in Greece). At this point there was a rapid branching. If you would count SNP's down from V13 and keep track of the number of new branches with each 'SNP generation' you see that the first 10 SNP generations (800-1000 years?) growth is extremely modest. But then it goes fast, in the 11th generation 3 new branches, in the 12th 17 new branches, in the 13th 13 new branches, in the 14th 14 new branches, and in the 15 not 15 but an astonishing 33. So in a period of maybe 200-300 years V13 went from an endangered species to one with no risk of disappearing.

The million dollar question is off course where this happened. The fact that several branches directly or two/three SNP's beneath BY3880 are exclusively Western European suggests that the boom happened at a place where early V13's could go to both Western-Europe and Southern Europe. To me the northern part of the Carpathian basin makes most sense. There some branches could have easily moved into Central Europe and be part of movements to Western Europe (L17, the western branches of Y19509 and Y16723) while others could have moved downwards. I think Z5017 mainly moved southwards, while FGC44169 an Y145455 mainly moved to the (south)east. Z16663 probably went far south or east also.

Some groups that might already have been swept up in migrations coming from the Steppe would be Z16663, some groups of S7461 (PF4666 for example), but given that it's impossible to point to any clearly "Greek" R1b while they would have been far more numerous than any early V13 in Greece, there is probably little point in guessing. If V13 was present in Cetina it seems PH1246 would be a good candidate, and maybe also Z16663.
I would guess that Z5017 derived groups like Z19851 and CTS9320 would have been present in the Southern Balkans and might have been "Hellenized" in the LBA and moved southwards with other groups as the "Doric speakers". But with so little data to go on, it remains difficult.

Riverman
11-23-2020, 05:31 PM
Probably the simplest solution will be, that Dorians and Greeks as a whole assimilated many Thracians, at different times, just like they did assimilate Albanians and Slavs later. The real question for the Greeks is whether E-V13 was already there before the LBA, in Greece, and as things stand and if looking at most candidates, the current best answer is a simple No. This could however change with any new samples taken and it does also mean, that by the time of classical Greece culture, a lot of Thracian-related and E-V13 heavy ancestry was already fully Greek. It just wasn't 1.000 years earlier.
The historical accounts report the opposite, like Greeks living among Thracians, as well as many other people. Most cities also had the custom of having free, but non-citizen inhabitants, like perioikoi and of course slaves.
So I'm pretty sure Dorians got more of it than the Mycenaean Greeks, but also wouldn't wonder if the number would have increased, over time later as well.
The main problem with that theory is, that one could ask which lineages remain as "the original Proto-Greek" and how much of these survived at all?

Johnny ola
11-23-2020, 06:04 PM
Most Greek historians and other scholars-archeologists agreeing that the Proto-Greek homeland is somewhere in modern 'Epirus-Thessaly' and 'South Albania'.These areas where also not part of the Mycenaen culture.But what happened during the LBA collapse..and with the Greek-dark ages is completely a mystery.Also,to remind you..that it is not just Dorians but another 2 'tribes-people' that will rise.And ofc, none of them had an exactly a similar dialect with that of Achaeans.Myceneans used a very 'IE' based dialect,while the later tribes will speak dialects less 'IE' and more influenced from the native citizens.I will insist that Mycenaen language was rare or even absent among the plebs and non-elite groups.It is more likely to be used among the Elite especially inside the palaces.

Riverman
11-23-2020, 06:37 PM
Most Greek historians and other scholars-archeologists agreeing that the Proto-Greek homeland is somewhere in modern 'Epirus-Thessaly' and 'South Albania'.These areas where also not part of the Mycenaen culture.But what happened during the LBA collapse..and with the Greek-dark ages is completely a mystery.Also,to remind you..that it is not just Dorians but another 2 'tribes-people' that will rise.And ofc, none of them had an exactly a similar dialect with that of Achaeans.Myceneans used a very 'IE' based dialect,while the later tribes will speak dialects less 'IE' and more influenced from the native citizens.I will insist that Mycenaen language was rare or even absent among the plebs and non-elite groups.It is more likely to be used among the Elite especially inside the palaces.

Considering the culture of the Myceneans, that sounds just likely.

Hawk
11-23-2020, 06:42 PM
It's crazy how the earliest E-V13 splits are from Germany and Scotland: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6550/

Then this person from USA who potentially could be some from British descend: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y30976*/

and Armenia and Poland.

Riverman
11-23-2020, 07:07 PM
It's crazy how the earliest E-V13 splits are from Germany and Scotland: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6550/

Then this person from USA who potentially could be some from British descend: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y30976*/

and Armenia and Poland.

I guess, like I said before, when they migrated as part of larger pack and later as specialists into the West, they were not that much different from other lineages. There was no exclusively E-V13 replacement or elite. However, when some tribes moved into the Balkans, it seems to have been different and in some regions the V13 clans must have been quite numerous and leading in the newly formed population. Its like it is R1b in many places after the steppe expansion, but its dominance in Iberia, where the steppe people not even contributed disproportionally autosomally or culturally, what making it even crazier. But it was a large scale founder effect. I assume the same for Balkan V13 in the LBA-EIA transition.

Johnny ola
11-23-2020, 07:38 PM
I guess, like I said before, when they migrated as part of larger pack and later as specialists into the West, they were not that much different from other lineages. There was no exclusively E-V13 replacement or elite. However, when some tribes moved into the Balkans, it seems to have been different and in some regions the V13 clans must have been quite numerous and leading in the newly formed population. Its like it is R1b in many places after the steppe expansion, but its dominance in Iberia, where the steppe people not even contributed disproportionally autosomally or culturally, what making it even crazier. But it was a large scale founder effect. I assume the same for Balkan V13 in the LBA-EIA transition.

How frenquet EV13 is in Austria btw?Some pages suggesting Hitler was EV13.

hartaisarlag
11-23-2020, 07:53 PM
How frenquet EV13 is in Austria btw?Some pages suggesting Hitler was EV13.

I don't know if anyone ever got proof re: which variety of E-M35 Hitler was, but I could be wrong. I've always assumed people just guessed it was E-V13.

Johnny ola
11-23-2020, 08:25 PM
I don't know if anyone ever got proof re: which variety of E-M35 Hitler was, but I could be wrong. I've always assumed people just guessed it was E-V13.

He was from Braunau am Inn.I am wondering how people from this area coming in terms of autosomal DNA.Most kits and samples i have seen from Austrians, are in some way Slavic admixed.Kinda ironic if you ask me.Being E-M35 and have also some Slavic DNA lol.

Hawk
11-23-2020, 08:42 PM
I don't know if anyone ever got proof re: which variety of E-M35 Hitler was, but I could be wrong. I've always assumed people just guessed it was E-V13.

Statistically speaking it makes sense he was E-V13, unless he was of paternal Jewish descend or some rare E-M123 clade as Napoleon. But, he was likely E-V13.

rafc
11-23-2020, 08:49 PM
I guess, like I said before, when they migrated as part of larger pack and later as specialists into the West, they were not that much different from other lineages. There was no exclusively E-V13 replacement or elite. However, when some tribes moved into the Balkans, it seems to have been different and in some regions the V13 clans must have been quite numerous and leading in the newly formed population. Its like it is R1b in many places after the steppe expansion, but its dominance in Iberia, where the steppe people not even contributed disproportionally autosomally or culturally, what making it even crazier. But it was a large scale founder effect. I assume the same for Balkan V13 in the LBA-EIA transition.

Exactly, and I think that is what makes it difficult to pin down. The Bell Beaker - R1b connection was supported by many people since it seemed to fit so well. A culture showing up all over Europe with clear steppe influences seemed tailor made for a group expected to be from the Steppe. But for the early V13 there is not such a clear cut example. Or maybe there is and it's just obscured by the mind-boggling complexity of archeological cultures in the Balkans. Cetina was probably not the starting point, even if it's possible it had V13. If it's more northern something like Vucedol could fit, but the two samples tested from Vucedol were not V13.
I'll throw in a crazy suggestion: maybe oldest V13 was involved in Western Yamnaya. It could bring PH1246 to the tumuli in Montenegro, and leave some branches in Bulgaria Romania and others to Serbia/Hungary, and from Northern Hungary get dragged along with BB movements to Western-Europe. But while Western Yamnaya has not been tested, the expected haplogroup Z2103 was found in neighbouring Vucedol and in contact with BB, so again no V13. Like I said, crazy.

Riverman
11-23-2020, 09:06 PM
How frenquet EV13 is in Austria btw?

From what I read so far between 8-12 percent for the whole country, but with significant regional differences. Austria is genetically not that homogeneous. The small Austrian genetic project brought up various E-V13 samples, which is kind of significant, considering how few males were tested. But like with all small samples, this might not be representative.


Some pages suggesting Hitler was EV13.

The descendants of a relative were tested and they were E-M35. Chances he was E-V13 are 10 : 1 I guess, if that result is valid. But 10 : 1 or even a higher ratio is no certainty. Like his chances of being E-V13 in the first place was 1 : 10, so odds are no certainties.


He was from Braunau am Inn.I am wondering how people from this area coming in terms of autosomal DNA.Most kits and samples i have seen from Austrians, are in some way Slavic admixed.Kinda ironic if you ask me.Being E-M35 and have also some Slavic DNA lol.

He was born there, but his ancestry was from Lower Austria for the most part. He wasn't particularly fond of his ancestry from simple farmers in the Waldviertel. Under his rule most of his ancestral villages were evacuated for giving space to a military training ground. The houses were not destroyed because of him, but still. The training ground is still active, its Truppenübungsplatz Allentsteig. Its known among Austrian soldiers for being one of the coldest and harshest training places in Eastern Austria.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truppen%C3%BCbungsplatz_Allentsteig

The Waldviertel has a poor soil overall, the climate is colder and many settlements from Medieval times were left soon afterwards, became deserted. To this day its probably the poorest part of Lower Austria. Beautiful landscape, but a weak economy and agriculture.

Turning back to genetics, the region of the Waldviertel is not very Slavic in the Austrian comparison, though certainly more so than the regions West of the Enns or the very Western parts of Salzburg and Upper Austria in particular, which are core Bavarian areas. The most closely related Slavic people, from which admixture could have come, would have been Southern Czechs, and these are themselves not very Slavic. So chances are he and his family was much less Slavic than most Germans East of the Elbe and fairly Bavarian overall. But in many Lower Austrian regions, there are differences down to the marriage group and villages, because some had more Slavic ancestry, others were settled with newly incoming people from Bavaria and Franks. It really depends and you can't tell without having people tested.

The situation is somewhat different in the countries of Burgenland, Styria and Carinthia. Especially Carinthia is more Slavic and Italian-Balkan admixed. If you get 10 Upper Austrians or 10 Tyrolean or 10 Vorarlberger or 10 Carinthians, you will get very different genetic profiles for each group in such a small country.

You can compare the numbers with those from the Czech Republic where the average is about 6-7 percent for E1b:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20915-Czech-Population-Genetics-and-Regional-Differences

For Austria we have these numbers:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21093-Austrian-Y-DNA-haplogroups

Lower Austria is not included, but I guess it will range in the higher numbers, more than Upper Austria, from what I saw. But I don't really know. In any case E-V13 is very diverse in the core Austrian zone, that's for sure.

hartaisarlag
11-23-2020, 09:10 PM
Statistically speaking it makes sense he was E-V13, unless he was of paternal Jewish descend or some rare E-M123 clade as Napoleon. But, he was likely E-V13.

More likely than anything else, sure. But every variety of E-M35's been found in Europe; I don't think it's an open-and-shut case.

Johnny ola
11-23-2020, 09:32 PM
From what I read so far between 8-12 percent for the whole country, but with significant regional differences. Austria is genetically not that homogeneous. The small Austrian genetic project brought up various E-V13 samples, which is kind of significant, considering how few males were tested. But like with all small samples, this might not be representative.



The descendants of a relative were tested and they were E-M35. Chances he was E-V13 are 10 : 1 I guess, if that result is valid. But 10 : 1 or even a higher ratio is no certainty. Like his chances of being E-V13 in the first place was 1 : 10, so odds are no certainties.



He was born there, but his ancestry was from Lower Austria for the most part. He wasn't particularly fond of his ancestry from simple farmers in the Waldviertel. Under his rule most of his ancestral villages were evacuated for giving space to a military training ground. The houses were not destroyed because of him, but still. The training ground is still active, its Truppenübungsplatz Allentsteig. Its known among Austrian soldiers for being one of the coldest and harshest training places in Eastern Austria.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truppen%C3%BCbungsplatz_Allentsteig

The Waldviertel has a poor soil overall, the climate is colder and many settlements from Medieval times were left soon afterwards, became deserted. To this day its probably the poorest part of Lower Austria. Beautiful landscape, but a weak economy and agriculture.

Turning back to genetics, the region of the Waldviertel is not very Slavic in the Austrian comparison, though certainly more so than the regions West of the Enns or the very Western parts of Salzburg and Upper Austria in particular, which are core Bavarian areas. The most closely related Slavic people, from which admixture could have come, would have been Southern Czechs, and these are themselves not very Slavic. So chances are he and his family was much less Slavic than most Germans East of the Elbe and fairly Bavarian overall. But in many Lower Austrian regions, there are differences down to the marriage group and villages, because some had more Slavic ancestry, others were settled with newly incoming people from Bavaria and Franks. It really depends and you can't tell without having people tested.

The situation is somewhat different in the countries of Burgenland, Styria and Carinthia. Especially Carinthia is more Slavic and Italian-Balkan admixed. If you get 10 Upper Austrians or 10 Tyrolean or 10 Vorarlberger or 10 Carinthians, you will get very different genetic profiles for each group in such a small country.

You can compare the numbers with those from the Czech Republic where the average is about 6-7 percent for E1b:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20915-Czech-Population-Genetics-and-Regional-Differences

For Austria we have these numbers:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21093-Austrian-Y-DNA-haplogroups

Lower Austria is not included, but I guess it will range in the higher numbers, more than Upper Austria, from what I saw. But I don't really know. In any case E-V13 is very diverse in the core Austrian zone, that's for sure.

There are poors in Austria?Where the hell this world is going...

Riverman
11-23-2020, 09:38 PM
There are poors in Austria?Where the hell this world is going...

Well, poor is always relative. ;)
But a major problem for the people there is that the women are moving out. There is just a lack of modern opportunities, especially for women, out there. So generally speaking, large portions of the Waldviertel are dying out, people move to the cities or abroad, with the exception of some central or very favourable places and around larger companies on which whole communities depend, which is no good thing, on the long run, either. Both the birth rate and the migration balance is very negative for the region. It also never fully recovered from the fact that it was cut off from the the Bohemian-Moravian regions, which would have been its natural economic partner regions.

Hawk
11-23-2020, 09:46 PM
I have posited my opinion before that very early E-V13 clades came from South-Western Europe instead during Late-Neolithic/Chalcolithic period.

Johnny ola
11-23-2020, 09:50 PM
Well, poor is always relative. ;)
But a major problem for the people there is that the women are moving out. There is just a lack of modern opportunities, especially for women, out there. So generally speaking, large portions of the Waldviertel are dying out, people move to the cities or abroad, with the exception of some central or very favourable places and around larger companies on which whole communities depend, which is no good thing, on the long run, either. Both the birth rate and the migration balance is very negative for the region. It also never fully recovered from the fact that it was cut off from the the Bohemian-Moravian regions, which would have been its natural economic partner regions.

I see.Austrians are good people in general.In Greece we have to do a lot with Austrians...as they picking us for tourism.Also familly oriented and more traditional than other Germanics.

Riverman
11-23-2020, 10:13 PM
I have posited my opinion before that very early E-V13 clades came from South-Western Europe instead during Late-Neolithic/Chalcolithic period.

You know, we have E-V13 in Cardial-Impresso Ware, most likely in Vinca, in the Michelsberger, in Lengyel-Sopot - I think the latter is most likely, since they were exactly in place in the Carpathian region. But of course, we don't know for sure yet and since only a small number might have survived the steppe expansion originally, there are a lot of options for a small group doing better than others, somewhere.

However, you have always to explain the extremely likely high frequency of E-V13 in the Daco-Thracians, with a decreasing but strong influence from there, through Pannonia, into Central Europe and into Greece. This is no problem with Urnfield and the Carpathian zone, which is ideal for such a spread. But if assuming it came from the West, you need not just to explain why E-V13 is now more common in the South than the North, but also why its more common in the East, than the West of its distribution zone. So that's kind of more complicated, especially since the time frame is rather limited and at least in the EBA, Pannonia was still largely free from E-V13 dominance. So it can't be earlier than MBA and no later than EIA with its typical distribution and a highly likely Thracian centre. This reduces options quite a lot I'd say.

alan
11-24-2020, 01:02 AM
I wonder if instead of looking to direction links to Sintashta etc to explain some Greek links to Indo-Iranian, we should maybe look at Greeks being in contact at some time and culture upstream of Sintashta etc. Fatyanovo is as far back as that chain can be chased without hitting the problem of the origin of Fatyanovo. The old entries you see on Wiki etc linking Fatyanovo to being some sort of offshoot of Middle Dnieper has not been substantiated. Indeed the most up to date attempts to date both these cultures seem to indicate that Fatyanovo is older than Middle Dnieper. Papers I looked at recently pointed to Fatyanovo having links both south in that direction and west towards the east and south Baltic CW but didnt exactly come down on anything certain regarding an origin point. Fatyanovo is less steppe and more mixed with farmer DNA - making it kind of similar to beaker and later CW. Im wondering about this because the origins of Greek could ultimately be down to a group that were ancestral to Fatyanovo. The centum nature of Greek strongly suggests a neighbour not a direct offshoot of the latter as does (IMO) the likelihood that the steppe culture they ultimately derived from was likely a Z2103 dominated one, not an R1a or L51 dominated ones. So perhaps the distant ancestors of the Greeks were a Z2103 heavy group to the south of the CW ancestor of the Fatyanovo group c. 2800BC. Certainly it is hard to see the ancestors of the Greeks being in the CW zone c. 2800BC. I wonder if they could be from a Yamnaya type group who were effected linguistically by contact with CW people from the same part of the CW horizon that sent out the offshoot that formed Fatyanovo. who migrated towards Ukraine. There are some interesting contact points between CW groups coming south-eastwards from Poland and Yamnaya Groups in the Rivers between the east flank of the Carpathians and the Dnieper.

alan
11-26-2020, 12:31 AM
One major confounding thing about tracking down the ancestry of the Greeks is they did a hell of a lot of networking and trading with people they had no ethnic or linguistic links. So, portable material culture and anything that can arrive purely by trade links and friendly relations becomes unreliable indicators of origin or affinity. Usually I think when you have that situation, you need to strip away as much of the portable material culture and just look at the baseline traits like subsistence, settlement patterns, indicators of the structure of the society and burial traditions. Even that is not infallible but it is probably the best approach. I often see the chariot cited as a key indicator but the truth is the chariot spread throughout Euroasia and crossed many linguistic and cultural borders without (in a lot of cases) changing the language or displacing peoples. I suspect the chariot could have been spread very easily by small numbers of fighting men and craftsmen employed by local kings of many ethnicities, followed by those skills being absorbed and copied afterwards. Mycenaean Greece had trade contacts with areas where the chariot was known. Its easy to envisage the chariot, the skills and the crafts making their way to Greece without a change in people or language. The shaft grave existed in pre-Mycenean Greece too. The thing about face masks is a very tenuous parallel too.

Most importantly, it would be a big surprise if the Greek language turned out to have been initially spread by a Z93 type R1a group. It seems much more likely that the Greeks language arose among a Z2103 group IMO. There is of course at least one centum group who featured Z2103 - the Afansievo group (assuming they were Tocharians) and some of the other Balkans groups might have been. The greeks were not saetimised so that is a curious thing when you consider alleged language similarities with Indo-Iranian etc. So, maybe that indicates the roots of the Greeks lay close to but not within the ultimate root of the Fatyanovo-Abashevo etc type cultural chain and had moved outside the zone where/when satemisation occurred. Satemisation must have occurred fairly early for it to have effected both the ancestors of the Balto-Slavic people and Info-Iranians as well as some Balkans originated groups like Albanians (Dacians??) and Armenians. It looks to me like the Albanians and Armenians must have lain between the Greeks and that CW derived chain of R1a dominated cultures who headed east into Asia. I tend to weigh this all up and feel that the pre-proto-Greeks were likely somewhere like Ukraine c. 3000BC and by 2800BC they were in the Balkans or south Carpathians kind of area. I suspect that they were in the western half of the Balkans to the north of Greece by 2500BC or so and in parts of western Greece by 2200BC.

I see two pre-adaptions of importance to making a success of living in Greece. Firstly experience of life in a fairly mountainous and fairy dry part of Europe. Secondly some maritime ability would be very useful in much of Greece except the north-central part. An rugged hilly environment is of course present in a lot of the Balkans north of Greece and the Carpatians too. Maritime skills would of course be present in areas north of Greece like the Adriatic Balkans or the western coast of the Black sea in eastern Bulgaria and eastern Romania. It seems to me that the ancestors of the Albanians (who I believe lived in Dacia) and the ancestors of the Armenians lived east of the ancestors of the Greeks, forming a buffer between them and groups further east of the Slavic and Indo-Iranian types. I am pretty sure the Balto-Slavic homeland is going to transpire to be in the middle Dnieper to Pripit area of NW Ukraine and southern Belarus - the Dnieper route beyond them giving contact c. 2750BC with the Fatyanovo groups to the north. Both are R1a satem groups of course and both with eastern CW links. It seems likely to me that the ancestors of the Greeks, Armenians and Albanians were further south and more likely Yamnaya derived. So a location for the Albanians and Armenians after 3000BC seems likely to have been the west end of the steppes perhaps between the Lower half of the Dnieper and Lower half of the Dniester ( or even the serit) with CW derived groups just upstream of them and in contact. Greeks seem likely to me to have been a directly to the west of them in the Balkans or south Carpathians area.

Hawk
11-26-2020, 03:58 AM
There is a new Syrian E-L618.

This just reinforces that the Mushabians who introduced microburin technology and potentially the idea of proto-farming from Mesolithic Egypt were likely E-L618.

A part of this group formed the Cardium Pottery maritime farmers.

rafc
11-26-2020, 07:53 AM
One major confounding thing about tracking down the ancestry of the Greeks is they did a hell of a lot of networking and trading with people they had no ethnic or linguistic links. So, portable material culture and anything that can arrive purely by trade links and friendly relations becomes unreliable indicators of origin or affinity. Usually I think when you have that situation, you need to strip away as much of the portable material culture and just look at the baseline traits like subsistence, settlement patterns, indicators of the structure of the society and burial traditions. Even that is not infallible but it is probably the best approach. I often see the chariot cited as a key indicator but the truth is the chariot spread throughout Euroasia and crossed many linguistic and cultural borders without (in a lot of cases) changing the language or displacing peoples. I suspect the chariot could have been spread very easily by small numbers of fighting men and craftsmen employed by local kings of many ethnicities, followed by those skills being absorbed and copied afterwards. Mycenaean Greece had trade contacts with areas where the chariot was known. Its easy to envisage the chariot, the skills and the crafts making their way to Greece without a change in people or language. The shaft grave existed in pre-Mycenean Greece too. The thing about face masks is a very tenuous parallel too.

I agree, people are always looking for parallels between Mycenaean Greece and other groups to track down ancestry, but most parallels can simply be the result of exchange of prestige goods. Looking for such origins only makes sense if the Greeks arrived right before the Mycenaean age. If they arrived 500 years before, than any similarity to another group in the Mycenaean age is flimsy proof.



I suspect that they were in the western half of the Balkans to the north of Greece by 2500BC or so and in parts of western Greece by 2200BC.


I have also come to suspect this period. Based on the Sitagroi data it does seem likely Greek speakers might have been there by 2700/2600BC (clearly a new populaton with simpeler houses and pottery)



I see two pre-adaptions of importance to making a success of living in Greece. Firstly experience of life in a fairly mountainous and fairy dry part of Europe. Secondly some maritime ability would be very useful in much of Greece except the north-central part. An rugged hilly environment is of course present in a lot of the Balkans north of Greece and the Carpatians too. Maritime skills would of course be present in areas north of Greece like the Adriatic Balkans or the western coast of the Black sea in eastern Bulgaria and eastern Romania. It seems to me that the ancestors of the Albanians (who I believe lived in Dacia) and the ancestors of the Armenians lived east of the ancestors of the Greeks, forming a buffer between them and groups further east of the Slavic and Indo-Iranian types. I am pretty sure the Balto-Slavic homeland is going to transpire to be in the middle Dnieper to Pripit area of NW Ukraine and southern Belarus - the Dnieper route beyond them giving contact c. 2750BC with the Fatyanovo groups to the north. Both are R1a satem groups of course and both with eastern CW links. It seems likely to me that the ancestors of the Greeks, Armenians and Albanians were further south and more likely Yamnaya derived. So a location for the Albanians and Armenians after 3000BC seems likely to have been the west end of the steppes perhaps between the Lower half of the Dnieper and Lower half of the Dniester ( or even the serit) with CW derived groups just upstream of them and in contact. Greeks seem likely to me to have been a directly to the west of them in the Balkans or south Carpathians area.

In the second half of the 4th millenium BC most of southeastern-Europe was resettled by groups who belonged to the Baden complex. It's not clear if this implies they shared a genetic origin, but the Baden samples that were tested had indigenous Y-haplogroups and no Steppe admixture. If the people that settled at Sitagroï in 2700/2600BC were Greek speakers, it seems to me there is only one option. They must have been descendants of the Yamnaya people moving into the Danube-valley. I think the Yamnaya there gradually took over elements from the lifestyle of the local population and lost there pure nomadic character, changing more to a mobile, pastoral society that did build houses. It would make sense for them to imitate they houses they could see. These were the typical Balkanian Apsidal houses that they would later build in Greece. I think this mixed population was the one showing up in Sitagroï at 2700/2600BC, probably spreading along the Axios valley to the northwest. Only in a second step did they move southwards, after a period in which there were already some contacts (which explains some traits showing up in Greece even before EHIIb/EHIII. You could wonder how much of non-IE influence on things like religion were actually picked up before they went into Greece rather than in Greece, as is commonly assumed.

Riverman
11-26-2020, 09:38 AM
There is a new Syrian E-L618.

This just reinforces that the Mushabians who introduced microburin technology and potentially the idea of proto-farming from Mesolithic Egypt were likely E-L618.

A part of this group formed the Cardium Pottery maritime farmers.

Good to know. I think it doesn't prove a North East African origin, though that's a likely scenario, but it makes Nile Valley and/or the Southern Levante/Near East the place of origin. Which one exclusively or more so, we will see. In any case, whereever it came from, it makes the route through the Levante and then the Eastern Mediterranean and/or Anatolia the most likely and it connects, like it was always the most likely scenario, Natufians with the spread of the E1b, including the ancestors of E-V13. So we can largely concentrate on Natufian origins to get a better picture. And to assess that, we either need ancient DNA from the Nile Valley, Southern Near East, Yemen and Saudia Arabia, or even Palestine-Syria, the Levante, from pre-Natufian populations. If, for example, in Palestine and Syria, the pre-Natufian inhabitants were quite different, it would strengthen an origin from either the Nile Valley or Southern Arabia. If one region is more problematic, one can exclude the others. In any case we need more samples, like always.

But every such find makes any other route than through the Levante much less likely, that's the takeaway for me.

Hawk
11-26-2020, 10:38 AM
Good to know. I think it doesn't prove a North East African origin, though that's a likely scenario, but it makes Nile Valley and/or the Southern Levante/Near East the place of origin. Which one exclusively or more so, we will see. In any case, whereever it came from, it makes the route through the Levante and then the Eastern Mediterranean and/or Anatolia the most likely and it connects, like it was always the most likely scenario, Natufians with the spread of the E1b, including the ancestors of E-V13. So we can largely concentrate on Natufian origins to get a better picture. And to assess that, we either need ancient DNA from the Nile Valley, Southern Near East, Yemen and Saudia Arabia, or even Palestine-Syria, the Levante, from pre-Natufian populations. If, for example, in Palestine and Syria, the pre-Natufian inhabitants were quite different, it would strengthen an origin from either the Nile Valley or Southern Arabia. If one region is more problematic, one can exclude the others. In any case we need more samples, like always.

But every such find makes any other route than through the Levante much less likely, that's the takeaway for me.

In my opinion the Natufian E-M123 were the Ramonian Levantines while various E-M78 clades the most prominent being E-L618 were the Mushabian newcomers bringing with them

proto-farming idea, microburin technology and Proto Afro-Asiatic language.

We know from ages that Cardial farmers were different from others in having Natufian-like/Iberomarusian-like affinities. Their starting point was Turkey/Syria border, so PPNB area most likely.

Hawk
11-26-2020, 12:12 PM
Just found out some details about the Glasinac Culture, the people who beared this culture were known as Autariate one of the three most powerfull Illyrian tribes which much probably were Urnfield/Hallstatt descended.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Glasinac_culture.png

They burned their dead on tumuli.

They had items with typical Urnfield avian theme.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/NHM_-_Bandin_Fahrzeug_mit_V%C3%B6geln.jpg/220px-NHM_-_Bandin_Fahrzeug_mit_V%C3%B6geln.jpg

Hawk
11-26-2020, 02:50 PM
Again, interesting.

The other very powerful Illyrian tribe Ardiae have a name derived from ardea/herons a sea bird. Again sea birds are the main East-Urnfield recurring theme.

Aspar
11-26-2020, 03:58 PM
Funny how people are still discussing Illyrians and Doric Greeks when till date, the only relevant E-V13 samples before the common era are those associated with the Eastern Balkan. Let's not forget that much of the modern Greeks E-V13 might not be of ancient Greek extraction at all. To back up this I will cite the ancient Greek historian Strabo:

Moreover, the barbarian origin of some is indicated by their names—Cecrops, Godrus, Aïclus, Cothus, Drymas, and Crinacus. And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians—Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes—Epeirotic tribes.
So it seems that during the time Strabo lived, many tribes of Thracian and Illyrian extraction moved deep into Greek lands. Of course, during this time, the vast control of the Balkan lands was under Roman control.

I'm still on opinion that E-V13 hasn't got anything to do with ancient Greeks and if any would be found at all, that would rather indicate a non-Greek input in some Greek tribes.

rafc
11-26-2020, 04:29 PM
I'm still on opinion that E-V13 hasn't got anything to do with ancient Greeks and if any would be found at all, that would rather indicate a non-Greek input in some Greek tribes.

I think that is basically what is being argued, that V13 was not originally Greek, hence mostly absent in Greece before the Iron age, but that they mixed on the northern fringes and went southwards with Northwest-Greek tribes.

If you believe V13 has nothing to do with ancient Greeks, how do you explain high V13 presence in Sicily and Southern Italy, but also on islands like Creta and Cyprus? You see this as a result of later migrations or by a different vector than Greek colonisation?

Hawk
11-26-2020, 04:49 PM
I think that is basically what is being argued, that V13 was not originally Greek, hence mostly absent in Greece before the Iron age, but that they mixed on the northern fringes and went southwards with Northwest-Greek tribes.

If you believe V13 has nothing to do with ancient Greeks, how do you explain high V13 presence in Sicily and Southern Italy, but also on islands like Creta and Cyprus? You see this as a result of later migrations or by a different vector than Greek colonisation?

The same wave hit the three groups at the same time during LBA: Proto-Greeks/Proto-Thracians/Proto-Illyrians, some more some less.

Aspar
11-26-2020, 06:03 PM
I think that is basically what is being argued, that V13 was not originally Greek, hence mostly absent in Greece before the Iron age, but that they mixed on the northern fringes and went southwards with Northwest-Greek tribes.

If you believe V13 has nothing to do with ancient Greeks, how do you explain high V13 presence in Sicily and Southern Italy, but also on islands like Creta and Cyprus? You see this as a result of later migrations or by a different vector than Greek colonisation?

I believe that the Greek influence on South Italy is vastly exaggerated. Sure, the ancient Greeks did colonize some parts but they were mostly coastal because the ancient Greeks were mostly sea people, not much of inland dwellers. Of course, there were other people from the Balkans that also colonized parts of Italy such as the Lapygians. The problem is that unlike the Greeks, most people during those early times didn't have written history. But of course, that doesn't mean that the Greeks were gods that could easily overcome other people and impregnate women wherever they went.
Another thing is that we don't know much what happened during the LBA-EIA transition in Europe but all evidence speaks of a massive turmoil and high scale migrations taking place possibly initiated by movements in Central Europe in connection with the Urnfield culture.. I would compare this to what happened during Early Medieval although not as documented as EM. In that context I agree that much of E-V13 is somehow connected with the Eastern Hallstatt zone. Now sporadically some movements directly from the Eastern Hallstatt could have brought E-V13 in South Italy, others might have arrived there earlier, probably with seafarers from the Cetina culture. What's interesting also is that some toponyms in South Italy have connection to some Dacian and Thraco-Illyrian tribes such as Apuli (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apuli) or Galabri (https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/9087136).
And others, I would say did arrive with the Romans which were known to transfer people from other parts of their Empire to another. Spartacus, the famous gladiator was a member of the Thracian tribe Maedi who lived nearby the river Strymon or modern Struma. So yeah, some came as slaves, others as soldiers and etc.
The history of South Italy is complex and can't be explained just by ancient Greek colonization. At the and of the day South Italians speak Latin language, not Greek one, although with Greek influences of course.
The presence of E-V13 on Crete is not significant. In fact, it's probably less than R1a going by some studies. Anyway, it can be explained fairly easily, people migrate. Otherwise how can we explain the presence of Balto-Slavic R1a and I-Y3120? It's mostly connected not with the older and Ancient history of Crete but with more recent one, that of the Roman Empire that would be known as Byzantine today. The other smaller islands are settled and resettled so many times during the history, especially from the mainland and from other bigger islands like Crete who served as reservoir.

Bane
11-26-2020, 06:10 PM
In that context I agree that much of E-V13 is somehow connected with the Eastern Hallstatt zone. Now sporadically some movements directly from the Eastern Hallstatt could have brought E-V13 in South Italy, others might have arrived there earlier, probably with seafarers from the Cetina culture.

I would disagree due to significant decline of E-V13 frequency in Central Italy.
I support your early connection of Thracians with E-V13, but denying Greek contribution of E-V13 to South Italy is IMO not sensible.

Aspar
11-26-2020, 06:41 PM
I would disagree due to significant decline of E-V13 frequency in Central Italy.
I support your early connection of Thracians with E-V13, but denying Greek contribution of E-V13 to South Italy is IMO not sensible.

What is that you disagree and can you show any figures about the numbers of E-V13 in South and Central Italy?
I don't think I ever said some lineages of E-V13 couldn't have arrived with the Greeks. All I said is all other possibilities that E-V13 lineages could have arrived in South Italy.
Or do you really think that most of it arrived with the ancient Greeks?

Hawk
11-26-2020, 06:45 PM
The only reason Thracians received heavy E-V13 is because Thrace was a crossroad toward Anatolia were these Eastern Urnfielders were heading and consequently destroying Hittite Empire.

Many of them settled and remained in Thrace.

Bane
11-26-2020, 06:54 PM
What is that you disagree and can you show any figures about the numbers of E-V13 in South and Central Italy?

I disagree with both Eastern Hallstatt and Cetina as areas from which E-V13 came to South Italy. Both of these potential sources are contradicted with lower E-V13 in Central Italy. See here: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/genetic-structure-and-different.html



Or do you really think that most of it arrived with the ancient Greeks?

I do think that most of E-V13 arrived to South Italy with ancient Greeks.

Bane
11-26-2020, 06:56 PM
The only reason Thracians received heavy E-V13 is because Thrace was a crossroad toward Anatolia were these Eastern Urnfielders were heading and consequently destroying Hittite Empire.

Many of them settled and remained in Thrace.

I disagree with this too. If I correctly understood Riverman he argues for North to South route of E-V13. There is a number of his posts explaining this. I support such view in this case.

Bane
11-26-2020, 07:04 PM
To be clear (if anyone is interested :) ), my view of expansion of E-BY3880 in Eastern Europe, Balkans and South Italy is rather simple. Though it should not mean it is shallow. :)
So IMO expansion of E-BY3880 in the mentioned territories can mostly be connected with two ancient tribes, Thracians and Dorians. I know it looks primitive way of thinking but there are number of arguments which support it.

Western Europe including Northern Italy is a different story. Eastern Hallstatt could indeed have significant role there.

Bane
11-26-2020, 07:08 PM
So before Slavs came to Balkans, central Balkans was region inside the Balkans where frequency of E-V13 was peaking. It would be between the two red lines. When Slavs came they pushed E-V13 further Southwest, and that is why E-V13 is today high in region which corresponds to ancient Illyria.

https://i.imgur.com/55dm1cf.png

Bane
11-26-2020, 07:11 PM
Morava-Vardar valley is well known easiest route through the central Balkans. It is the case today, it was when Slavs came, it was when E-V13 was coming.

Bane
11-26-2020, 07:13 PM
Finally, I find this work ingenious: http://groznijat.tripod.com/vg/vg.html

Aspar
11-26-2020, 10:45 PM
I disagree with both Eastern Hallstatt and Cetina as areas from which E-V13 came to South Italy. Both of these potential sources are contradicted with lower E-V13 in Central Italy. See here: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/genetic-structure-and-different.html

I do think that most of E-V13 arrived to South Italy with ancient Greeks.

I don't understand your reasoning behind it and why Central Italy would be a factor alone for LBA migrations from Eastern Hallstatt. Especially because archaeologically wise, there are certain North Balkan elements in the Villanovan culture. And it's naive to believe that there was no population replacement on the Italian peninsula that involved migrations from north to south Italy. Especially because the invasions most of the time were north-south direction as were in the Balkans as well. And in that context it's naive to think that the modern distribution of haplogroups in Italy is the same as it was in ancient times. Furthermore, the figures you posted show that C.Italy is 6.5%, S.Italy is 10.6% and Sicily 7.1% of e1b1b1a2. Now, I don't know what nomenclature they used because I think E-V13 is e1b1b1a1b, so probably some older one, which makes me think that these are percentages for the marker E-V68. As such, South Italy is not only E-V13 but also other E-V68 lineages which are mostly of MENA origin. And as such, the real figure of E-V13 in South Italy would be even lower. But then again, E-V13 is simply too old to prescribe it mostly to one single event such is the ancient Greek coastal colonization of Southern Italy. We have seen already how the Visigoths brought and carried some untypical lineages for Germanic people such as E-V13. Sure, it could have been picked up along the way but nevertheless, it ended up in Spain as a Visigoth. So there are many other ways lineages of E-V13
to have arrived in South Italy and I don't see why the Greeks would have
been the main factor when there is no any ancient Greek aDNA with E-V13 neither officially nor unofficially.

Also there is this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124) from 2015 which investigated the association of E-V13 as a marker of Greek colonization and came to some interesting conclusions:

These findings suggest a poor association between the Y haplogroup E-V13 and the East-to-West GC migratory waves. The effects of more recent gene flow or sampling bias, may have masked the original E-V13 signal from Greece. At any rate, our results caution against the use of specific lineage-based approaches to test for hypothesised population contributions and underline the need for a more targeted approach to explain the occurrence of given haplotypes within a population, providing tests of alternative hypotheses, a wide spectrum of reference samples and mutation-limited inference methodology.

Riverman
11-27-2020, 12:12 AM
I don't understand your reasoning behind it and why Central Italy would be a factor alone for LBA migrations from Eastern Hallstatt. Especially because archaeologically wise, there are certain North Balkan elements in the Villanovan culture. And it's naive to believe that there was no population replacement on the Italian peninsula that involved migrations from north to south Italy. Especially because the invasions most of the time were north-south direction as were in the Balkans as well. And in that context it's naive to think that the modern distribution of haplogroups in Italy is the same as it was in ancient times. Furthermore, the figures you posted show that C.Italy is 6.5%, S.Italy is 10.6% and Sicily 7.1% of e1b1b1a2. Now, I don't know what nomenclature they used because I think E-V13 is e1b1b1a1b, so probably some older one, which makes me think that these are percentages for the marker E-V68. As such, South Italy is not only E-V13 but also other E-V68 lineages which are mostly of MENA origin. And as such, the real figure of E-V13 in South Italy would be even lower. But then again, E-V13 is simply too old to prescribe it mostly to one single event such is the ancient Greek coastal colonization of Southern Italy. We have seen already how the Visigoths brought and carried some untypical lineages for Germanic people such as E-V13. Sure, it could have been picked up along the way but nevertheless, it ended up in Spain as a Visigoth. So there are many other ways lineages of E-V13
to have arrived in South Italy and I don't see why the Greeks would have
been the main factor when there is no any ancient Greek aDNA with E-V13 neither officially nor unofficially.

Also there is this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124) from 2015 which investigated the association of E-V13 as a marker of Greek colonization and came to some interesting conclusions:

Interesting in this context might be to evaluate where clearly more Greek derived lineages are standing in comparison to E-V13. Like do have Italian regions with mroe E-V13 also have more of the rather Greek and Balkan specific J2b and R1b clades or not? Because if it was Greek, even if assuming different tribes and cities had different frequencies, there should be some sort of correlation with other haplogroups on a regional level.
Looking at that, I didn't do it in detail, but there seems to be some sort of "broken correlation", so rather a "can, but must not", making me believe that Greeks brought some E-V13 especially to South Italy, but the Greek colonisation as such only explains a fraction of it in Italy as a whole - and even in some Southern provinces. But probably someone did it in more detail.

Bane
11-27-2020, 09:31 AM
Now, I don't know what nomenclature they used because I think E-V13 is e1b1b1a1b, so probably some older one, which makes me think that these are percentages for the marker E-V68. As such, South Italy is not only E-V13 but also other E-V68 lineages which are mostly of MENA origin.

E-V13 is clearly labeled by the authors:
https://i.imgur.com/pua7mNB.png


One more thing, though my following remark is not directly related to your post. But generally...
It is strange how modern distribution of younger clades in this case E-BY3880 can't be considered as an argument for discussing ancient migrations. And on the other side, very old clades like E-M78 can be an argument to claim that E-V13 entered Europe from Anatolia.
Double standards...

alan
11-27-2020, 09:56 AM
There is a lot of sense in your summary. Its a tricky tricky one to interpret but I am not convinced the start of the Myceanean period represents the first arrival of Greeks speakers in Greece. I think too many of their baseline traits are seen centuries before that era and I strongly suspect they were an element (perhaps not the dominant one) in Greece for several centuries before the usual c. 1600BC date. I think Greek basically evolved in some area of Greece c. 1800BC or even before. Presumably from an offshoot of some sort of upstream Balkans branch off of late PIE. I think their linguistic traits that have been linked to contact with other groups further east and north might pre-date Greek as a distinct language and therefore date back to 2800-2500BC and be some sort of very ancient contact along the Dnieper root. I was actually think one of the traditional views of the origins of the Greeks is most likely: some overspill of Catacomb culture or a direct into the Lower Danube/east or north Balkans in SE of Europe as has been suggested for some of the burial styles in Kurgans in the area. Catacomb had contacts with Abashevo, Fatyanovo and Middle Dnieper etc presumably using the Dnieper as the main path of contacts between the zones in the middle third of the 3rd millennium BC. I am not aware of radiocarbon dates for suggested Catacomb kurgans west of the Black Sea/Lower Danube but I imagine most fall c. 2500-2200BC.

Riverman
11-27-2020, 10:31 AM
E-V13 is clearly labeled by the authors:
https://i.imgur.com/pua7mNB.png


One more thing, though my following remark is not directly related to your post. But generally...
It is strange how modern distribution of younger clades in this case E-BY3880 can't be considered as an argument for discussing ancient migrations. And on the other side, very old clades like E-M78 can be an argument to claim that E-V13 entered Europe from Anatolia.
Double standards...

I don't think that's a double standard, because its about probabilites. One major argument, actually the only one, against a Levantine and/or Anatolian entry point for the ancestors of E-V13 was that it was supposedly rare to non-existent in the Levante. But this is done, and will be completely refuted. I'm actually not sure about the exact entry point, I think both Anatolian land route and Levantine sea route is possible, considering the origins of Cardial-Impresso Ware. What this makes much less likely however, is any kind of direct leap from North Africa to Europe, because the problem with that view was always: With which culture, which group had that kind of impact?

Its simply much more parsimonious to assume it was a minority element among Anatolian and Levantine farmers, entered ICC and possibly also LBK-related groups as well either directly or indirectly. So the presence of ancestral forms in the Near East for its own doesn't prove that route, but it disproves the only reasonable argument against it.

The Saite
11-27-2020, 10:49 AM
If you believe V13 has nothing to do with ancient Greeks, how do you explain high V13 presence in Sicily and Southern Italy, but also on islands like Creta and Cyprus? You see this as a result of later migrations or by a different vector than Greek colonisation?
Also in Cyrenaica of Libya. In such scenario of a late arrival of E-V13 subclades among Greeks, it will be still likely it entered before Strabo's times and his historical quote mentioned earlier

Riverman
11-27-2020, 11:55 AM
Also in Cyrenaica of Libya. In such scenario of a late arrival of E-V13 subclades among Greeks, it will be still likely it entered before Strabo times and his historical quote mentioned earlier

That's a certainty. The question is rather which clades and at which frequency.

Bane
11-27-2020, 03:10 PM
Its a tricky tricky one to interpret but I am not convinced the start of the Myceanean period represents the first arrival of Greeks speakers in Greece.

Who argued in favor of that?

Hawk
11-27-2020, 04:44 PM
A strong point is the presence of E-V13 in South-Italy/Sicily/Cyprus, places with 0% Daco-Thracian presence.

We should not forget that Liguria has 17.5% E-M35, i am pretty sure ~98% of the subclades are E-V13. Again, a place with 0% Daco-Thracian presence. There is much more movements involved to E-V13 rather than scoping down to Daco-Thracians.

Riverman
11-27-2020, 05:25 PM
A strong point is the presence of E-V13 in South-Italy/Sicily/Cyprus, places with 0% Daco-Thracian presence.

We should not forget that Liguria has 17.5% E-M35, i am pretty sure ~98% of the subclades are E-V13. Again, a place with 0% Daco-Thracian presence. There is much more movements involved to E-V13 rather than scoping down to Daco-Thracians.

Very true, its rather Thracians were the most likely to have been dominated by E-V13 early on, but it spread much wider with the Urnfield expansion and Hallstatt in particular.

Hawk
11-27-2020, 10:03 PM
Very true, its rather Thracians were the most likely to have been dominated by E-V13 early on, but it spread much wider with the Urnfield expansion and Hallstatt in particular.

I already mentioned that Illyrian tribe of Autariates had continuation of Urnfield customs way more and late until classical times than any other people. They are a potential people with high E-V13 as well.

Aspar
11-29-2020, 07:41 AM
Anyway, I forgot to mention one thing about E-V13 and why must have been insignificant haplogroup among the ancient Greeks. We see a lot of evidence that western Jews seem to have a lot of ancient Greek ancestry. It's visible autosomally, and also by uniparental markers. And they have a lot of variety of any kind of y-dna in connection with south-eastern Europe. Some is strictly Greek as seen by I-A2512 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-A2512/) and the Jews are some of the most tested people with a huge representation on the YFULL tree. And yet, there is not a single one clearly Jewish subclade of E-V13. On the projects however I've seen some Jews positive for E-Z17264 and E-L241 but nevertheless, it's striking how E-V13 is so insignificant among the western Jewish population which by all means seem to have Ancient Greek ancestry. I'm not aware of any extensive analysis about the western Jews E1b lineages but I've read that most of it falls under E-M123 and also found this comment by a Jewish member stressing out the insignificance of E-V13 among the western Jews: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9403-Jewish-Discussion-Thread&p=207185&viewfull=1#post207185

Riverman
11-29-2020, 01:33 PM
Anyway, I forgot to mention one thing about E-V13 and why must have been insignificant haplogroup among the ancient Greeks. We see a lot of evidence that western Jews seem to have a lot of ancient Greek ancestry. It's visible autosomally, and also by uniparental markers. And they have a lot of variety of any kind of y-dna in connection with south-eastern Europe. Some is strictly Greek as seen by I-A2512 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-A2512/) and the Jews are some of the most tested people with a huge representation on the YFULL tree. And yet, there is not a single one clearly Jewish subclade of E-V13. On the projects however I've seen some Jews positive for E-Z17264 and E-L241 but nevertheless, it's striking how E-V13 is so insignificant among the western Jewish population which by all means seem to have Ancient Greek ancestry. I'm not aware of any extensive analysis about the western Jews E1b lineages but I've read that most of it falls under E-M123 and also found this comment by a Jewish member stressing out the insignificance of E-V13 among the western Jews: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9403-Jewish-Discussion-Thread&p=207185&viewfull=1#post207185

There are actually quite a lot of E-V13 Jews around:
https://jewishdna.net/E1b-V13.html

Most look to me like Roman or Greek converts. I think one of the reasons why E-V13 is at least lower among Jews is, that early Greek speaking Judeo-Christians were the most widespread not in the Greek core regions, todays Greece, but in Anatolia and the Levante, as well as in Italia, there especially in and around Rome. And Greek speaking people from the mainland were not the primary element of European conversion, though it must have happened, as the Jewish E-V13 carriers prove. Some of the converts might actually have been even Slavs, Franks/French or Germans too and converted only in Medieval times. But the more commonly distributed look like having converted either in the Judeo-Christian period or in Roman provinces. Whether there are some which could come from Near Eastern, pre-Greek clades, like Sea People and other Indoeuropeans, I don't know, but I saw no prove for that. Probably some others like our Jewish genealogists know more about it, or anybody else?

But the site I linked to is a good starting point.

xripkan
11-29-2020, 08:45 PM
I don't. I don't think we can observe any significant Anatolian admixture in this sample postdating the Neolithic migrations. However if my model is correct and shows significant admixture related to Northern people such were BGR_IA, then we can assume that along with the admixture there must have been presence of E-V13 as well among the classical age Greeks, probably more significant among the northern Greeks than among the southern ones. Because going by latest rumors, E-V13 was found among the Thracian people from Kapitan Andreevo so the border zones of the Greek world should have received such influence on bigger scale. The ancient Macedonians in that regard show a lot of Thracian similarities:
- Chapter 22, Thracian and Macedonian Kingship, William S. Greenwalt

Couple that with the fact that Greeks had trouble understanding ancient Macedonian and vice versa("Greeks at any rate could not understand “Macedonian”"- (Curtius Rufus, VI 9, 34–36); "at a critical moment Alexander gives orders to his guards in “Macedonian” because he is not going to run the risk of something getting “lost in translation”" - (Plutarch, Alexander, 51 —)). Also some Macedonian onomastics were of non-Greek Thracian origin, and even some Thracian gods and heroes such as the Thracian horseman were part of their pantheon unlike the Greeks proper. Plus, a notable sound-law is that the Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirates (/bʰ, dʰ, gʰ/) sometimes appear as voiced stops /b, d, g/, (written β, δ, γ), whereas they are generally unvoiced as /pʰ, tʰ, kʰ/ (φ, θ, χ) elsewhere in Greek, which is another ancient Macedonian - Thracian common feature as well, we get an idea why the ancient Macedonians were viewed as barbarians by the Greeks.

In that regard, I view E-V13 as a non-Greek lineage, and insignificant among the ancient Greeks, probably more in a connection with the people whom the ancient Greeks called barbarians. And as such, higher on the barbarian scale would mean more E-V13 as well. Even if this sounds a little bit comical, I think it's not far from the truth.

These people were very similar genetically. BGR_IA had just a bit more Steppe ancestry and lacked the Chalcolithic/EBA Anatolian-like ancestry which existed in Mycenaeans and Minoans as well.
Our data indicate that there was a genetic continuum in ancient Balkans and Macedonians were probably bridging the small gap between Thracians and lower Steppe-admixed Greek groups. Based on that I am wondering why E-V13 even if it peaked in Thracians and Central Balkans it did not exist in Ancient Greece. Am I missing anything?

Furthermore I don't think we have enough data to consider ancient Macedonians a non-Greek people. They definitely had cultural interactions with Thracians and different political structures than Southern Greeks. Possibly this is the reason why there are opposing sources on how Macedonians were viewed by Southern Greeks. But still we do not have a proof they were not a Greek people.The fact that southern Greeks did not understand the Macedonian language is not enough to prove it was not part of the Hellenic languages. I don't understand when Pontic Greeks or Greek Cypriots or even worse Tsakonians speak in their own dialect.

rafc
11-29-2020, 09:01 PM
Since Dinaric I2 is nearly absent in Sicily and Southern Italy it's clear V13 must have arrived there before the Slavic migrations to the Balkans. I think something like Cetina is too early since we should really see difference between Southern Italian clades and the ones from the Balkans if it splitted so early. If V13 arrived in between those two Greek colonisation makes by far the most sense. Scientific studies give numbers ranging from 7.7 to 13.6% in Southern Italians and 4.4 to 7.2% on Sicily. The fact that it's lower on Sicily than Southern Italy is maybe odd, but still fits Greek colonisation best I think.

Riverman
11-29-2020, 09:42 PM
Since Dinaric I2 is nearly absent in Sicily and Southern Italy it's clear V13 must have arrived there before the Slavic migrations to the Balkans. I think something like Cetina is too early since we should really see difference between Southern Italian clades and the ones from the Balkans if it splitted so early. If V13 arrived in between those two Greek colonisation makes by far the most sense. Scientific studies give numbers ranging from 7.7 to 13.6% in Southern Italians and 4.4 to 7.2% on Sicily. The fact that it's lower on Sicily than Southern Italy is maybe odd, but still fits Greek colonisation best I think.

To put that into perspective, its lower or at the same level as in countries like Bavaria, Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic. Another question would be whether its more diverse, which I think it won't be. What do you say?

Aspar
11-30-2020, 09:21 AM
There are actually quite a lot of E-V13 Jews around:
https://jewishdna.net/E1b-V13.html

Most look to me like Roman or Greek converts. I think one of the reasons why E-V13 is at least lower among Jews is, that early Greek speaking Judeo-Christians were the most widespread not in the Greek core regions, todays Greece, but in Anatolia and the Levante, as well as in Italia, there especially in and around Rome. And Greek speaking people from the mainland were not the primary element of European conversion, though it must have happened, as the Jewish E-V13 carriers prove. Some of the converts might actually have been even Slavs, Franks/French or Germans too and converted only in Medieval times. But the more commonly distributed look like having converted either in the Judeo-Christian period or in Roman provinces. Whether there are some which could come from Near Eastern, pre-Greek clades, like Sea People and other Indoeuropeans, I don't know, but I saw no prove for that. Probably some others like our Jewish genealogists know more about it, or anybody else?

But the site I linked to is a good starting point.

Yes, I've seen that website. Actually, many of those haplotypes are only predicted and by further inspection some of them look non E-V13. I still maintain my view that E-V13 is nonsignificant lineage among the western Jews until someone show's me otherwise.

Aspar
11-30-2020, 09:34 AM
These people were very similar genetically. BGR_IA had just a bit more Steppe ancestry and lacked the Chalcolithic/EBA Anatolian-like ancestry which existed in Mycenaeans and Minoans as well.
Our data indicate that there was a genetic continuum in ancient Balkans and Macedonians were probably bridging the small gap between Thracians and lower Steppe-admixed Greek groups. Based on that I am wondering why E-V13 even if it peaked in Thracians and Central Balkans it did not exist in Ancient Greece. Am I missing anything?

Furthermore I don't think we have enough data to consider ancient Macedonians a non-Greek people. They definitely had cultural interactions with Thracians and different political structures than Southern Greeks. Possibly this is the reason why there are opposing sources on how Macedonians were viewed by Southern Greeks. But still we do not have a proof they were not a Greek people.The fact that southern Greeks did not understand the Macedonian language is not enough to prove it was not part of the Hellenic languages. I don't understand when Pontic Greeks or Greek Cypriots or even worse Tsakonians speak in their own dialect.

Well, the Thracians and the Greeks were two fundamentally different people, with different languages and different lifestyles. If they were genetically similar, that would probably mean a shared substratum, a population already living in the Balkans that would mix with a new migrant population that would give birth to the Thracians. And that new population was probably the one that was rich with E-V13.

The ancient Macedonian were probably people coming from the same Indo-European branch as the Greeks. In that sense the linguist Vladimir Georgiev was probably right and in that family we can also include Phrygian. So to simplify things, English and German are both Germanic languages but English is not a German dialect, right?

Couple that with the fundamentally different lifestyles, state organization and many other things among whom the most important are some different phonological developments in their language as explained by Georgiev, you get the point why the ancient Macedonians weren't ordinary Greeks, however a very close kin to ancient Greeks.

Today's Greek is the only descendant of that supposed Greek-Macedonian-Phrygian Indo-European branch.

rafc
11-30-2020, 10:24 AM
To put that into perspective, its lower or at the same level as in countries like Bavaria, Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic. Another question would be whether its more diverse, which I think it won't be. What do you say?

I have no numbers for Bavaria, Switzerland and Austria, do you have a source? for Czech republic I find 0-4.9%. It is higher though in some neighbouring countries: Hungaria: 7.5-9.4%, Slovakia 8.3%. Slovenia only has 2.7-2.9%, but I guess that's due to the very high replacement by Slavs there. I know V13 on Sicily is quite diverse, but it's hard to say wether more or less diverse than in Central-Europe. It would be helpful if we had more downstream results.
One thing I'm been waiting for a long time is the Y-results of the Sarno-study on 511 Southern Italians, Sicilians, and Balkans people. They were tested with the Geno chip which is not ideal, but at least the last version of that chip covered some important V13 branches. It could help clarify some issues. The autosomal data was published in 2017. I asked the author at the time about the Y data availability since I know the chip covers it, but she said it would not be made public until she finished a publication on it. I have asked from time to time about the progress on that study, but I get no replies (I just mailed a co-author to see if I get a reply from him :-)).

Riverman
11-30-2020, 11:09 AM
I have no numbers for Bavaria, Switzerland and Austria, do you have a source? for Czech republic I find 0-4.9%.

Czechs:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20915-Czech-Population-Genetics-and-Regional-Differences

Austrians:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21093-Austrian-Y-DNA-haplogroups

Salzburg and Upper Austria can be considered close to Bavaria and I saw similar numbers suggested for Southern Germany. For South Western Germany as well and the FTDNA testers seem to show a strong trend, with clusters in Baden-Württemberg, but unfortunately only a few did NGS testing. The same applies to Swiss Germans.


It is higher though in some neighbouring countries: Hungaria: 7.5-9.4%, Slovakia 8.3%. Slovenia only has 2.7-2.9%, but I guess that's due to the very high replacement by Slavs there.

Slovenians are the most Slavic Southern Slavs and closest to Western Slavs. Before the Bavarian colonisation, we can assume there was a continuous Slavic settlement in the region. What's interesting is that in Austria you don't just find E-V13, but a whole variety of E-haplotypes. It really shows that E-V13 was just the most successful in the region, but not alone. If we assume that the original Germanics had a much lower number of E-V13 carriers, even though I would assume a presence, this makes the Czech-Austrian-Hungarian sphere even more E1b heavy for Roman times.


I know V13 on Sicily is quite diverse, but it's hard to say wether more or less diverse than in Central-Europe. It would be helpful if we had more downstream results.

Like always :)


One thing I'm been waiting for a long time is the Y-results of the Sarno-study on 511 Southern Italians, Sicilians, and Balkans people. They were tested with the Geno chip which is not ideal, but at least the last version of that chip covered some important V13 branches. It could help clarify some issues. The autosomal data was published in 2017. I asked the author at the time about the Y data availability since I know the chip covers it, but she said it would not be made public until she finished a publication on it. I have asked from time to time about the progress on that study, but I get no replies (I just mailed a co-author to see if I get a reply from him :-)).

Well, that would be great, but 2017? That's some time which went by...I hope they didn't drop the project altogether and it never gets published. Sounds like that. But I hope you get an answer, keep me posted. :thumb:

Bane
11-30-2020, 11:29 AM
Slovenians are the most Slavic Southern Slavs and closest to Western Slavs. Before the Bavarian colonisation, we can assume there was a continuous Slavic settlement in the region. What's interesting is that in Austria you don't just find E-V13, but a whole variety of E-haplotypes. It really shows that E-V13 was just the most successful in the region, but not alone. If we assume that the original Germanics had a much lower number of E-V13 carriers, even though I would assume a presence, this makes the Czech-Austrian-Hungarian sphere even more E1b heavy for Roman times.

We should not forget R-P312 had probably been quite frequent in this region. I haven't compared the data recently, but R-P312 should've been more frequent than E-V13.

rafc
11-30-2020, 11:29 AM
Czechs:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20915-Czech-Population-Genetics-and-Regional-Differences

Austrians:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20915-Czech-Population-Genetics-and-Regional-Differences


You linked the same thread twice, I guess the info on Austrians is in another thread? Thanks for the numbers on Czechs. It lacks a bit of resolution, but if E is at 7% I would estimate V13 at 3-6%, roughly in line with the numbers from scientific studies.

Riverman
11-30-2020, 11:37 AM
You linked the same thread twice, I guess the info on Austrians is in another thread? Thanks for the numbers on Czechs. It lacks a bit of resolution, but if E is at 7% I would estimate V13 at 3-6%, roughly in line with the numbers from scientific studies.

Yes, about 5 I'd say, if it has the same ratio as in Austria.

For Austria: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21093-Austrian-Y-DNA-haplogroups


We should not forget R-P312 had probably been quite frequent in this region. I haven't compared the data recently, but R-P312 should've been more frequent than E-V13.

Unfortunately, the subclades of R1b were not mentioned in the thread for all regions, but even for Reutte/Tyrol, where it was made by the poster, in which we would assume a higher survival rate of local R1b vs. Germanic, R-U106 is in comparison quite dominant:

R1b R-M173 1 0.38%
R1b R-U106 54 20.69%
R1b R-M269 35 13.41%
R1b R-U152 32 12.26%
R1b 1 0.38%

East Tyrol is probably somewhat more Slavic influenced:

R1b R-U106/S21 51 18.89%
R1b R-L23/S141* 5 1.85%
R1b R-M412/S167* 13 4.81%
R1b R-U152/S28 34 12.59%
R1b R-L11/S127* 2 0.74%
R1b R-S116* 8 2.96%
R1b M73 1 0.37%

My assumption is also that a lot of the other R1b came in with Bavarian-Frankish settlements, from theri core regions. But it's being said especially for Bohemia, were pre-Germanic R1b might have had a higher survival rate than in Austria if I remember correctly.

xripkan
11-30-2020, 04:20 PM
Well, the Thracians and the Greeks were two fundamentally different people, with different languages and different lifestyles. If they were genetically similar, that would probably mean a shared substratum, a population already living in the Balkans that would mix with a new migrant population that would give birth to the Thracians. And that new population was probably the one that was rich with E-V13.

The ancient Macedonian were probably people coming from the same Indo-European branch as the Greeks. In that sense the linguist Vladimir Georgiev was probably right and in that family we can also include Phrygian. So to simplify things, English and German are both Germanic languages but English is not a German dialect, right?

Couple that with the fundamentally different lifestyles, state organization and many other things among whom the most important are some different phonological developments in their language as explained by Georgiev, you get the point why the ancient Macedonians weren't ordinary Greeks, however a very close kin to ancient Greeks.

Today's Greek is the only descendant of that supposed Greek-Macedonian-Phrygian Indo-European branch.

So you mean that it was the Proto-Thracians who were rich in E-V13 while Graeco-Phrygians were of different origin not related to Urnfield culture people. This explains why most of E-V13 clades in modern Greece are considered of Balkan origin. However I find possible that few E-V13 clades have existed in ancient Greece as well even as a founder effect.

As for ancient Macedonian ethnic identity there are opposing views. In my opinion things get more complicated because even if they were a separate branch of the Graeco-Phrygians they became (relatively early) part of the ancient Greek world. I have read sources that support both scenarios. This is what I was meaning above, I think we need more data to make a safe conlcusion if they were proper ancient Greeks or a close related but distinct people ( I had read somewhere the term "semi-Greeks"!).

Bane
11-30-2020, 05:08 PM
My assumption is also that a lot of the other R1b came in with Bavarian-Frankish settlements, from theri core regions. But it's being said especially for Bohemia, were pre-Germanic R1b might have had a higher survival rate than in Austria if I remember correctly.

I apologize but I really can't remember my source for Hungary since my following point regarding R-P312 is based on my recollection of Hungary data.
The thing if we focus on R1a and R1b in Hungary, unlike one may expect when starting from Southeast R1a increases towards Northwest. Similarly R1b is higher in Eastern Hungary than in the Western Hungary.

Reason for such distribution is arrival of Slavs through Moravian gate, which as a consequence had that the genetic picture was more changed in Western part of the Pannonian basin than in its Eastern part.
This is also supported by data from Western Transylvania: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21513-Haplogroup-Distribution-in-Romania-and-Republic-of-Moldova

My point is, if we want to understand how did Western part of the Pannonian basin look like before Slavs came, it may make most sense to make speculations based on frequencies from Eastern part of the Pannonian basin.

Riverman
11-30-2020, 05:14 PM
I apologize but I really can't remember my source for Hungary since my following point regarding R-P312 is based on my recollection of Hungary data.
The thing if we focus on R1a and R1b in Hungary, unlike one may expect when starting from Southeast R1a increases towards Northwest. Similarly R1b is higher in Eastern Hungary than in the Western Hungary.

Reason for such distribution is arrival of Slavs through Moravian gate, which as a consequence had that the genetic picture was more changed in Western part of the Pannonian basin than in its Eastern part.
This is also supported by data from Western Transylvania: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21513-Haplogroup-Distribution-in-Romania-and-Republic-of-Moldova

My point is, if we want to understand how did Western part of the Pannonian basin look like before Slavs came, it may make most sense to make speculations based on frequencies from Eastern part of the Pannonian basin.

The problem though is, that the Eastern part was even more subject to replacements and migrations. Probably the best way to evalute it is to subtract the more obvious Germanic and Slavic more recent incomers?

Johnny ola
11-30-2020, 06:36 PM
So you mean that it was the Proto-Thracians who were rich in E-V13 while Graeco-Phrygians were of different origin not related to Urnfield culture people. This explains why most of E-V13 clades in modern Greece are considered of Balkan origin. However I find possible that few E-V13 clades have existed in ancient Greece as well even as a founder effect.

As for ancient Macedonian ethnic identity there are opposing views. In my opinion things get more complicated because even if they were a separate branch of the Graeco-Phrygians they became (relatively early) part of the ancient Greek world. I have read sources that support both scenarios. This is what I was meaning above, I think we need more data to make a safe conlcusion if they were proper ancient Greeks or a close related but distinct people ( I had read somewhere the term "semi-Greeks"!).

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.

DgidguBidgu
11-30-2020, 06:41 PM
I apologize but I really can't remember my source for Hungary since my following point regarding R-P312 is based on my recollection of Hungary data.
The thing if we focus on R1a and R1b in Hungary, unlike one may expect when starting from Southeast R1a increases towards Northwest. Similarly R1b is higher in Eastern Hungary than in the Western Hungary.

Reason for such distribution is arrival of Slavs through Moravian gate, which as a consequence had that the genetic picture was more changed in Western part of the Pannonian basin than in its Eastern part.
This is also supported by data from Western Transylvania: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21513-Haplogroup-Distribution-in-Romania-and-Republic-of-Moldova

My point is, if we want to understand how did Western part of the Pannonian basin look like before Slavs came, it may make most sense to make speculations based on frequencies from Eastern part of the Pannonian basin.

Arrival of which "Slavs"? What time period and what new DNA you are suggesting has appeared ? Who were the local representatives then before these "new" people and do you think the oldest local toponyms support your theory?

Bane
11-30-2020, 06:52 PM
Arrival of which "Slavs"? What time period and what new DNA you are suggesting has appeared ? Who were the local representatives then before these "new" people and do you think the oldest local toponyms support your theory?


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).