PDA

View Full Version : A theory about the origin of E-V13



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

Pribislav
05-29-2020, 09:06 PM
Out of curiosity, why are there so many "fringe" opinions on E-V13's origins? Obviously until we get ancient samples, its all speculation at this point but does anyone ever consider a not very exciting origin? Like, E-M35 forming roughly in Red Sea area, then E-L618 in the Levant and then E-V13 in Northern Greece or Thrace area? Geographically, I doubt it would go from the Levant (E-L618) all the way to Gibraltar. That just seems a bit far fetched to me.

Well, every opinion on E-V13 origin, including the "not very exciting one" you mentioned above, can be considered fringe, since there's not one ancient V13 or L618 sample outside of Europe yet. And it isn't even about V13 having exciting origin, at least in my case, it's about going along with currently available facts. And the facts are Taforalt M78 individuals are by far the closest lineage to the actual ancestor of Z1919 and L618 we have so far. But it seems some people are still in the 2000s, when we didn't have aDNA, and all we could do is guessing based on zero facts.

Bane
05-29-2020, 09:09 PM
Geographically, I doubt it would go from the Levant (E-L618) all the way to Gibraltar. That just seems a bit far fetched to me.

There is nothing to be doubted about multiple tested 15000 years old E-M78 results from present-day Morocco.
They are not E-L618, but I don't see ancient E-L618 in Levant also.
Besides that, there are significantly more ancient E-M78 in the Western Mediterranean compared to a single E-M78 from Levant which is btw negative for Z1919.

So, far fetched or not E-M78 was very close to Gibraltar 15000 years ago.
And I don't see a problem with Mesolithic scenario where a E-M78+Z1919+ crosses the narrow strait and enters Iberian peninsula.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 10:04 PM
There is nothing to be doubted about multiple tested 15000 years old E-M78 results from present-day Morocco.
They are not E-L618, but I don't see ancient E-L618 in Levant also.
Besides that, there are significantly more ancient E-M78 in the Western Mediterranean compared to a single E-M78 from Levant which is btw negative for Z1919.

So, far fetched or not E-M78 was very close to Gibraltar 15000 years ago.
And I don't see a problem with Mesolithic scenario where a E-M78+Z1919+ crosses the narrow strait and enters Iberian peninsula.


Actually at Tarforalt site one E-618 was found. This is literally nothing to be debated if no samples of it show up in Levant. “the Iberomaurusian fossils excavated at the Taforalt site were found to carry the Y-DNA haplogroups E-M78*(4/6; 66%), E-L618*(1/6; 16%), and E-M215*(1/6; 16%).

Bane
05-29-2020, 10:13 PM
Actually at Tarforalt site one E-618 was found. This is literally nothing to be debated if no samples of it show up in Levant. “the Iberomaurusian fossils excavated at the Taforalt site were found to carry the Y-DNA haplogroups E-M78*(4/6; 66%), E-L618*(1/6; 16%), and E-M215*(1/6; 16%).


the L618-level SNPs CTS1975 and CTS7273 are both transition SNPs, and their positive calls for TAF009 are both based on single reads, with both of the SNPs at the very end of their reads. So those positives are very likely to be false positives resulting from DNA damage.

source: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/03/18/y-snp-calls-from-the-iberomaurusian-culture/

Also according to YFull L618 should be younger than the Taforalt samples.

digital_noise
05-29-2020, 11:00 PM
Well, every opinion on E-V13 origin, including the "not very exciting one" you mentioned above, can be considered fringe, since there's not one ancient V13 or L618 sample outside of Europe yet. And it isn't even about V13 having exciting origin, at least in my case, it's about going along with currently available facts. And the facts are Taforalt M78 individuals are by far the closest lineage to the actual ancestor of Z1919 and L618 we have so far. But it seems some people are still in the 2000s, when we didn't have aDNA, and all we could do is guessing based on zero facts.

Im quoting a response you made in another thread so please forgive any confusion. From this thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11538-Genetic-origins-of-the-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans&p=269645&viewfull=1#post269645)
Most important question regarding V13 is when and from where its parent clade L618 came to Europe? Given the absence of E-M78-Z1919-L618 clades in Anatolian Neolithic (0/23), I think it's highly unlikely it came via Anatolia with early farmers. We do have one neolithic M35 sample from Barcin, but with no downstream clades tested, so we can't make any assumtions based on it. IMO L618 came to Europe directly from North Africa, more precisely from modern-day Tunisia (Algeria, Lybia) to Sicily, and from there to South Italy and Balkans. Similarities between North African Mesolithic Capsian culture and culture of Mesolithic population of Western Balkans (east Adriatic coast) have been observed by Yugoslavian archaeologist Borivoj Čović more than 40 years ago:


Its certainly an interesting theory, and what I mentioned earlier is purely based on geographics alone, nothing more. That said, there is a lot of talk about Greeks bringing E-V13 to Sicily and Southern Italy. Are you believing E-V13 was already there before the Greeks set out and established Magna Graecia?

drobbah
05-30-2020, 08:07 PM
Do you not believe that E split from D in West Asia then back migrated to Africa? Iberomaurusians had u6 mtDNA that they could have picked up only in Eurasia. Haplo E spread throughout Africa conquering and assimilating native SSA. It’s not a native African haplo like A and B
DE* originated in Africa and the most recent study found haplogroup D0 in three Nigerians.

I believe African E-M35 males mated with Eurasian females all over North Africa (NW and NE).Maternal haplogroups like M1,N1 and U6 were probably responsible for the initial West Eurasian admixture in Africa

Hawk
05-30-2020, 08:43 PM
DE* originated in Africa and the most recent study found haplogroup D0 in three Nigerians.

I believe African E-M35 males mated with Eurasian females all over North Africa (NW and NE).Maternal haplogroups like M1,N1 and U6 were probably responsible for the initial West Eurasian admixture in Africa

It's more complex than that as well. Don't forget the other-way around admixture. the E males mixing with Nilotic/Pygmy females in Sub-Sahara.

Johane Derite
05-30-2020, 08:47 PM
DE* originated in Africa and the most recent study found haplogroup D0 in three Nigerians.

I believe African E-M35 males mated with Eurasian females all over North Africa (NW and NE).Maternal haplogroups like M1,N1 and U6 were probably responsible for the initial West Eurasian admixture in Africa

D0 from the Middle East (Syria and Saudi Arabia) is older and more basal than D0 found in Africa. The most basal and older forms of E* have been likewise found in the Middle East (Asia), and the second oldest in Northeast Africa. Most likely that Nigerian DO came from Middle East.

But enough about this irrelevant issue. This thread is about how E-V13 came into europe, not about DE, which for now is most probably from back migration into Africa.

drobbah
05-30-2020, 09:10 PM
D0 from the Middle East (Syria and Saudi Arabia) is older and more basal than D0 found in Africa. The most basal and older forms of E* have been likewise found in the Middle East (Asia), and the second oldest in Northeast Africa. Most likely that Nigerian DO came from Middle East.

Not according to a recent study (https://www.genetics.org/content/212/4/1421) if anything considering the history of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.Those men (still unverified if their D0 is more basal) were probably of recent African origin.


In conclusion, sequencing of the D0 Y chromosomes and placement of them on a calibrated Y-chromosomal phylogeny identify the most likely model of Y-chromosomal exit from Africa: an origin of the DE lineage inside Africa and expansion out of the C, D, and FT lineages. It suggests an exit time interval that overlaps with the time of Neanderthal admixture estimated from autosomal analyses, and slightly refines it. These findings are consistent with a shared history of Y chromosomes and autosomes, and illustrate how study of Y lineages may lead to general new insights.






But enough about this irrelevant issue. This thread is about how E-V13 came into europe, not about DE, which for now is most probably from back migration into Africa.
Just came in to correct some of the E-V13 posters who want to present incorrect information on the origins E,E-M215 and E-M35.Anyways, I'll step out the thread and let my E-M78 distant cousins discuss in peace :)

dr.sparco
05-30-2020, 09:52 PM
Not according to a recent study (https://www.genetics.org/content/212/4/1421) if anything considering the history of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.Those men (still unverified if their D0 is more basal) were probably of recent African origin.





Just came in to correct some of the E-V13 posters who want to present incorrect information on the origins E,E-M215 and E-M35.Anyways, I'll step out the thread and let my E-M78 distant cousins discuss in peace :)

In all fairness the origin of E is still uncertain because nothing is yet really "settled " or "confirmed". The study you've mentioned presents 3 models (2 of them involve back-to-Africa migration) and backs the old theory of the African origin of E from Hammer 1997 and Underhill 2001. Bear in mind that they didn't take the more recent Farrell, Shi Yan and Cabrera Eurasian Origin and Back-Migration of L3 and DE papers into account. With that being said I tend to believe that hp E originated in East Africa rather than West Asia.

Scythoslav
05-31-2020, 02:00 AM
DE* originated in Africa and the most recent study found haplogroup D0 in three Nigerians.

I believe African E-M35 males mated with Eurasian females all over North Africa (NW and NE).Maternal haplogroups like M1,N1 and U6 were probably responsible for the initial West Eurasian admixture in Africa

First I don't believe this.

But,

What do you mean by African though? SSA? You do realize that not only blacks lived in Africa right.

This skelton from Epipaleolithic Egypt showed more affinity to basal eurasian cro-magnoids than modern negroids.

Nazlet Khater[1] is an archeological site located in Upper Egypt. Excavations at the Nazlet Khater 2 site (Boulder Hill) yielded the remains of two human skeletons. One of the skulls was that of a male subadult. The cranium was generally modern in form, but with very wide face, and evinced some archaic traits in the temple and mandible areas. Below the skull, the skeleton was robust but otherwise anatomically modern. Morphological analysis of the Nazlet Khater mandible indicates that the specimen was distinct from the examined Late Pleistocene and Holocene North African specimens.[2] The Nazlet Khater 2 skeleton possesses two plesiomorphic features in its mandible, which are not found among coeval anatomically modern humans. This suggests that the specimen's ancestors may have interbred with neighboring late archaic humans.[3] At Nazlet Khater 4 to the southeast, Upper Paleolithic axes, blades, burins, end scrapers and denticulates were also excavated. The site has been radiocarbon dated to between 30,360-35,100 years ago.[2] The similarities between NK2 and Upper Paleolithic European samples may indicate a close relationship between this Nile Valley specimen and European Upper Paleolithic modern humans.

digital_noise
05-31-2020, 02:53 AM
Im still of the opinion that E-V13 entered Europe via land, be it through Anatolia or the surrounding area. The E-M78's found in Morocco, as far as I know, have not been tested further, so there is just as good a chance that they would be some other North African subclade, not necessarily E-V13. Like predecessors to E-V65 or E-V12?
Regardless, I would love to see some progress made on solidifying the facts. As a fellow E-V13 in the more lonely E-PH1246 side of things, I'm hungry for some progress haha

Riverman
05-31-2020, 04:08 PM
Im still of the opinion that E-V13 entered Europe via land, be it through Anatolia or the surrounding area. The E-M78's found in Morocco, as far as I know, have not been tested further, so there is just as good a chance that they would be some other North African subclade, not necessarily E-V13. Like predecessors to E-V65 or E-V12?
Regardless, I would love to see some progress made on solidifying the facts. As a fellow E-V13 in the more lonely E-PH1246 side of things, I'm hungry for some progress haha
Completely agree. Its important to note that inside of Africa there was a lot of variation and the North East might have been closer to Basal Eurasian and more Caucasoid physically for quite some time. I would even consider the possibility that there was no clear cut border between North East Africa and the bordering Near East at all. Fact is, that Iberomaurusians were basically West Eurasian physically with Subsaharan admixture, influences, from the local population. These are much less pronounced physically and genetically practically absent in Natufians.

There were this sensationalist articles about race wars some years ago, which might point to the way by which E1b/West Eurasian ancestry spread in the North of Africa:

The identity of their killers is however less easy to determine. But it is conceivable that they were people from a totally different racial and ethnic group – part of a North African/ Levantine/European people who lived around much of the Mediterranean Basin.


The two groups – although both part of our species, Homo sapiens – would have looked quite different from each other and were also almost certainly different culturally and linguistically. The sub-Saharan originating group had long limbs, relatively short torsos and projecting upper and lower jaws along with rounded foreheads and broad noses, while the North African/Levantine/European originating group had shorter limbs, longer torsos and flatter faces. Both groups were very muscular and strongly built.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/saharan-remains-may-be-evidence-of-first-race-war-13000-years-ago-9603632.html

I know of no genetic tests done on the remains so far, but it seems quite obvious that the West Eurasian/Caucasoid people expanding South 13.000 years ago, like described in the article, were the ancestors of another wave from Egypt/Near East pushing on. I have little doubt that the uniparentals, if they test the West Eurasian remains, will reveal E1b, possibly combined with related Near East/East African haplotypes of West Eurasian affiliation.

It can really be limited to Egypt-Near East, either one region or both being interconnected at various times with more regular gene flow taking place.

My basic assumption is that (most) Subsaharan Africans, especially Niger-Kordofan/Bantu, were the result of an even earlier migration from the same source, but about 30.000 years earlier than the first E1b, more clearly Basal Eurasian and West Eurasian expansions. I doubt there will be any other y-haplogroups East and South of Egypt, but even less so in Subsaharan Africa, than A and B before the expansions from Egypt/Near East. The Shum Laka paper points in that direction. Even more archaic moderns with basal A didn't spread much earlier to some regions of e.g. West Africa, as the remains of Iwo Eleru prove. And East Africa further South, beyond the Nile, was only thinly populated, with the closest living moderns being the San.

Johane Derite
06-03-2020, 12:00 PM
FTDNA have one BigY E-V13 > CTS5856* kit, and he is from Switzerland. (According to user rafc on E forum)

Riverman
06-03-2020, 01:31 PM
There is a new paper out which proposes a big scale back migration to Africa spreading E to the continent:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.127555v1

I stick to the Near East or Egypt for the spread of "Basal-Basal-Eurasian" (E1a) and Basal Eurasian (E1b).

Ryukendo
06-03-2020, 01:42 PM
There is a new paper out which proposes a big scale back migration to Africa spreading E to the continent:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.127555v1

I stick to the Near East or Egypt for the spread of "Basal-Basal-Eurasian" (E1a) and Basal Eurasian (E1b).

This is not "migration back to Africa", but rather structure within Africa dating back to the Middle Paleolithic (~300-100kya). Of which one population, the one which gave rise to Eurasians, contributed strongly to the populations that gave rise to Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and to a lesser extent SAf HGs and CAf HGs within the last 100kya.

Riverman
06-03-2020, 02:00 PM
This is not "migration back to Africa", but rather structure within Africa dating back to the Middle Paleolithic (~300-100kya). Of which one population, the one which gave rise to Eurasians, contributed strongly to the populations that gave rise to Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and to a lesser extent SAf HGs and CAf HGs within the last 100kya.

From the paper:

We find that
the method infers high rates of migration from descendants of the OoA event (’non-Africans’) to Africans,
but not in the opposite direction, in the period 30–70kya corresponding to the Late Middle Paleolithic (Fig.
1). In populations from the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan language groups, comprising the majority
of the population on the African continent, the peak inferred migration rate from Eurasian populations
(2.5–3.0⇥10 and 3.5–4.0⇥10 in units of proportion of the target (ancestral African) population replaced
per generation) most frequently falls in the epochs spanning 35–45kya, while peak migration rates in the
opposite direction are substantially lower (0.5-1.0 ⇥ 10and occur earlier, in the epochs spanning 55–70kya
(Supplemental Fig. S1). Populations in the Afroasiatic language group show evidence of large amounts of
directional migration in the Holocene (Supplemental Fig. S2), which is consistent with previous findings of
relatively recent European introgression into these populations [32, 50].

I did write it carefully, but as things stand, its either from North East Africa (Nile valley) or the Levante, Near East. The paper's method can't deduce that from the data. What they however do say is that there was recent Holocene, clearly West Eurasian introgression in Afro-Asiatic populations, which corresponds to the expansion of E1b.

The only way to be sure about the source region is more profound testing of African samples. You can't say whether the spread of E(1a) and Basal-Basal-Eurasian was internal African structure (North East Africa vs. rest) or a true back migration from the Near East or a combination of this with gene flow between Egypt and the Near East taking place at various occasions. In any case its now almost impossible that haplogroup E and "Basal Basal" was actually Subsaharan.

rafc
06-03-2020, 04:00 PM
Just want to make one remark: Below L618 we have three branches, one of which is V13. As you know V13 is very present in the Balkans and among Albanians. The other two branches are extremely rare, but one of them is also found in Albania. This could be an extreme coincidence, or more likely mean that the mrca of L618 lived in or close to the Balkans. I say close because the Balkans was probably mostly depopulated during the 4th millenium BC. The population arriving at the end of the fourth millenium BC is thought to have a Baden background, so coming from central Europe. This fits with L618 (which could be partial V13) being found in the Neolithic Sopot-Lengyel culture. It could also have come from the east where M78 (which could be L618 or partial V13) was found in the Neolithic Cucuteni culture. Given the interactions between neighbouring Steppe cultures and Cucuteni this could maybe explain a bit why V13 is so abundant in a region that was clearly Indo-European speaking, while it's predecessors are associated with local Neolithic cultures. Coming from the south seems unlikely to me, but crossing the Adriatic from the west not. Finally L618 could have just survived somewhere in the Balkans itself. Any possiblilty has the difficulty of explaining why two very distant related L618-branches would have travelled together, or would have been the only two to survive where other, more broadly spread Neolithic lines dissapeared. We really need ancient DNA to better understand this.

Hawk
06-03-2020, 07:10 PM
There is no L618 or V13 among Cucuteni. No wonder that old branch was found in Albania, Cardium farmers first settled in Epirus then in Albania.

leonardus
06-07-2020, 06:44 PM
Archeological cultures do not represent areas of certain Y-DNA. I think quoting wikipedia makes sense in this case:
I highly agree with that. Most peoples here do again and again same mistake by automatic linking of cultures with Y-DNA, since I followed step by step this forum.

leonardus
06-07-2020, 06:55 PM
Just a note on this one - it seems less probable that E-V13 entered Europe.
E-V13 appears to have arisen inside Europe from the line of ancestors of which one of them most likely E-Z1919+(L618-, V22-) did enter Europe (in my opinion from Morocco). This further means that the first E-L618+ man was most probably also born in Europe.
That's my opinion also. And still don't know why all peoples here are sticking with the 'overused' anatolian route when was more logic, simple and fast for a group of seaside peoples to only jump a few kilometers over Mediterana from Tunis/Afrika via Lampedusa-Malta-Sicily or directly, in times when sea level was waaaay lower. A journey of only hours not millenia. Just a plain simple and correct route for a fishermen peoples.

leonardus
06-07-2020, 07:05 PM
Yes, a dead-end lineage (xL618,V22,V12,V65), also very likely not a fully developed M78 since it's CTS4138- (i.e. pre-M78), so it certainly couldn't have been the ancestor of L618. On the other hand, Taforalt samples had ~75% derived SNPs at M78 level, so by the following calculation:

(M78 formation date - TMRCA date) x (percentage of derived SNPs) = 6700 years x 0,75 = 5025 years

they should have been separated from the hypothetical ancestor of all living M78 ~5000 years after the formation of the clade, i.e. ~13000 BC. The sampled Taforalt individuals are dated 13150-11950 BC, which places them in the right time frame to belong to the lineage very closely related to the one to which the actual ancestor of all living M78 belonged.

I'm not saying there's no chance L618 came to the Balkans via Levant and Anatolia (or even via Gibraltar as Bane suggested), I'm just saying it's highly unlikely it originated in the Levant among Natufians. However, currently available aDNA samples from the Middle East don't go in favour of such a path for L618, so I'm still sticking to my Capsian pet theory that L618 came to Europe from the territory of modern Tunisia via Sicily and South Italy in the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic.
I highly believe that too. What could be more logic for that, than a very short route on the mediteranea sea from Tunis to Sicily. I agree that the ancestor of the EV-13 did take that path and not the overestimated anatolian one.

Johane Derite
06-21-2020, 09:01 PM
Did anyone consider the possibility that the E-V13's guys in the BA lived in a culture that practiced cremation?

I know the Urnfield culture practiced cremation but that was not a local phenomenon but imported one since the Urnfield culture ultimately developed out of the Tumulus culture that practiced Tumulus or Kurgan burials.

This is what is written about the Urnfield culture on wiki and is supported by citation:

To me this is a sign that pre Indo-European population survived that was able to carry it's burial practices way after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. The first half of the second millennium is the period of diversification of E-V13 and it's subclades exploding in all directions.
Nevertheless, the territory of Hungary, Romania and Moldova remain crucial for E-V13 and it's homeland. No surprise, E-L618 was found in the Lengyel culture of Hungary and I believe one E-M78 was found in the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture. The only ancient E-V13 sample we have so far that shares the MRCA with all modern E-V13 people is a "Scythian" from Moldova with highly likely local origin.

Both Lengyel and Cucuteni-Trypillia are connected with the EEF of the Thessalian Neolithic and not with the Cardium potery culture. As such I believe that E-V13 is a EEF lineage that arrived in Europe with the EEF from the Fertile crescent and not directly from North Africa as was proposed by some others. Not to mention that NA dna is not detected among the ancient E remains in Europe.

We still need lot more ancient samples but if you look for ancient E-V13 then you must look around or in the Carpathians, just my humble opinion.

I think there's something interesting in your idea of E-V13 introducing cremation to Proto-Urnfielders. Maybe old German / British-Isles branches could be from Urnfield/proto-Urnfield crematers. Since the oldest cremation is supposedly in Hungarian basin, it makes sense there were some E-v13's there that possibly had a role in this tradition.

I don't agree with Cucuteni though, I think for now E-v13 still does have a more west balkan distribution, and even Carpathian branches I would bet are more those in north west carpathians in border with Poland and via hungary rather than from the north east via ukraine.

Since we have two ~7000 year old E-L618's in Hungary, and older one on Croatian coast, maybe we can posit an entry from the adriatic into the hungarian basin (red) and then a re-expansion around 4000-3500 years ago (green) some west and some south.

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

Riverman
06-22-2020, 09:48 AM
I think there's something interesting in your idea of E-V13 introducing cremation to Proto-Urnfielders. Maybe old German / British-Isles branches could be from Urnfield/proto-Urnfield crematers. Since the oldest cremation is supposedly in Hungarian basin, it makes sense there were some E-v13's there that possibly had a role in this tradition.

I don't agree with Cucuteni though, I think for now E-v13 still does have a more west balkan distribution, and even Carpathian branches I would bet are more those in north west carpathians in border with Poland and via hungary rather than from the north east via ukraine.

Since we have two ~7000 year old E-L618's in Hungary, and older one on Croatian coast, maybe we can posit an entry from the adriatic into the hungarian basin (red) and then a re-expansion around 4000-3500 years ago (green) some west and some south.

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

We can still expect a lot of surprise, because who would have thought that Michelsberg was half-E1b? But it is, to me, quite clear that Pannonia was soon after the steppe people's breakthrough a central hub for E-V13, regardless from where exactly it came from this time. But Cucutenis is still the best bet to me, because it would offer the possibility of a Northern AND Southern path very early on, as well as strong position from which early steppe people could have assimilated/accepted some local allies/specialists among their ranks. I still think about the possibility that they had a special role in the steppe people's newly emerging society, like smiths or the like, because being spread in more directions than early R1b/R1a even for some regions. Like they became accepted as a minority element in many people at once - in some they stayed small, in others they rose to prominence. Like with Cardial and Michelsberg earlier, while being low in LBK - probably by pure chance and the success of some small scale male groups, even single males abilities and decision making.

Johane Derite
07-02-2020, 03:20 PM
Here are maps of E-V13 in Albania and which branches. If we can get similar maps for all Balkan and European regions, i think we will have a much clearer idea about E-V13's movements and origins.

E-V13

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7agBnU0AArWNJ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Johane Derite
07-02-2020, 03:21 PM
And the branches here:

E-V13>Z5018

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7aicMU0AAsoBM?format=jpg&name=4096x4096


E-V13>Z5017

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7aj_rU0AAt18y?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

leonardus
07-04-2020, 11:58 AM
''Here are maps of E-V13 in Albania and which branches. If we can get similar maps for all Balkan and European regions, i think we will have a much clearer idea about E-V13's movements and origins.''

No links are shown.

Kelmendasi
07-04-2020, 02:21 PM
Here are maps of E-V13 in Albania and which branches. If we can get similar maps for all Balkan and European regions, i think we will have a much clearer idea about E-V13's movements and origins.

E-V13

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7agBnU0AArWNJ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Nice map! There are also more samples on this site http://rrenjet.com/databaza-publike/, however the exact locations of the samples are private and some are present in both projects.

Johane Derite
07-04-2020, 03:10 PM
''Here are maps of E-V13 in Albania and which branches. If we can get similar maps for all Balkan and European regions, i think we will have a much clearer idea about E-V13's movements and origins.''

No links are shown.

Its not working for some people, but they are there for me and others. Try it both on a computer, and a phone.

Aspar
07-04-2020, 07:49 PM
I think there's something interesting in your idea of E-V13 introducing cremation to Proto-Urnfielders. Maybe old German / British-Isles branches could be from Urnfield/proto-Urnfield crematers. Since the oldest cremation is supposedly in Hungarian basin, it makes sense there were some E-v13's there that possibly had a role in this tradition.

I don't agree with Cucuteni though, I think for now E-v13 still does have a more west balkan distribution, and even Carpathian branches I would bet are more those in north west carpathians in border with Poland and via hungary rather than from the north east via ukraine.

Since we have two ~7000 year old E-L618's in Hungary, and older one on Croatian coast, maybe we can posit an entry from the adriatic into the hungarian basin (red) and then a re-expansion around 4000-3500 years ago (green) some west and some south.

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

It's an interesting idea which I thought of since a while, especially because many subclades under E-V13 show formation and TMRCA after the EBA, at the time when the cremation in many Balkan and Danubian cultures prevailed over inhumation.

We know that the Baden culture's funeral rite was cremation. Baden developed on the basis of LBK which practiced both cremation and inhumation.
Cucuteni-Tripolye culture is a little bit enigmatic because of lack of burials and human remains found by the archaeologists however judging by few discoveries it seems that the inhumation was the preferred method which is in harmony with the Sredny Stog culture that had great influence from Tripolye culture. However the archaeologists are on the opinion that the cremation was also practiced.
It should be mentioned that the cremation was not what the Aegean cultures such as the Minoans practiced. Probably this has something to do with the fact that the Minoans were not the direct cultural descendants of the earlier EF but of the later Anatolian newcomers who might have brought more CHG related dna.
In Gumelnița–Karanovo culture are found burials. Burials predominate in a twisted side position.
In Bubanj–Hum III culture burials predominate and cremations are rare.

So, of all these Balkan and Danubian cultures the one where the cremation was predominant was the Baden culture.

The following EBA cultures such as Usatovo or Vucedol all practiced inhumations. In Pannonia however it seems that the cremation funeral rites survived and even influenced the Bell Beakers who in turn were known to practice both inhumations and cremation. I would even dare to say that the Chalcolithic and EBA people who lived in Pannonia at the time influenced the Beakers genetically, hence the visible dinaricization of the Beaker's skulls. These practices survived in Pannonia even as late as the Kishaposhtag culture which was a Bell Beaker culture and whose primary funeral rite was the cremation.
What is interesting about the Kishaposhtag culture is that in many ways was a continuation of the culture of Vučedol, especially south of the lake Balaton. Although in Vucedol the inhumations were the norm, an interesting phenomenon was observed in it's latest stage where cremation burials under barrows were observed alongside inhumation. The Serbian archaeologist Nikola Tasic wrote in his "Eneolithic Cultures of Central and West Balkans" that this phenomenon can be interpreted as the beginning of the crisis provoked by the arrival of a new population in the Carpathian basin and the Balkans, a crisis that would eventually bring about the disintegration of the Vucedol culture.
Nevertheless much of the legacy of the Vucedol culture would continue living in the MBA Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture or the Inlaid Ceramics Culture that would form on the basis of the Kishaposhtag culture with the participation of populations from the Drava and Sava rivers , representing the traditions of the Vučedol-Zok culture.
The Encrusted Pottery culture influenced to a great extent the cultures of Gyrla Mare, Verbichoara and Tei and there was a migration event from this culture towards the Central Balkans. There is a BA site in North-West Bulgaria dated around 1600-1100 BC with pottery and urns (https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2015/11/05/encrusted-pottery-found-bulgaria-necropolis-excavations/#:~:text=Over%2040%20ceramic%20artefacts%20have%20 been%20unearthed&text=The%20settlement%20which%20is%20near,was%20ex cavated%20for%2018%20years.) belonging to the Encrusted Pottery culture.
This Vucedol influence on the Encrusted Pottery culture can be observed in urns in the form of birds that are very similar to the simbol of Vucedol, the Vucedol Dove:

https://i.postimg.cc/qv8Lq328/Vucedol-Culture-ceramic-dove.jpg (https://postimages.org/)


Urns in the form of birds found in Orsoya, North-West Bulgaria:

https://i.postimg.cc/CKv62wRP/201108135022430.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
https://i.postimg.cc/VshckT8P/201108133622116.jpg (https://postimages.org/)


It's worth mentioning also that in Greek Macedonia along the Vardar/Axios river are found artefacts belonging to Gyrla Mare Culture towards the end of phase D of the Bronze Age (about 1200 BC). The population of the Gyrla-Mare culture migrated (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tK6OAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=danubian+encrusted+pottery&source=bl&ots=YscZx-9PVR&sig=ACfU3U0HZ0qSO5GNFQGhDaELitg8wp0-VA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEvqTPwqXqAhWEgVwKHcQ1CRAQ6AEwD3oECAgQA Q#v=onepage&q=greek%20vardar%20valley&f=false) south, towards Mycenaean Greece , where the Bronze Age civilization was replaced by the period of the Dark Ages ( Heraclides , Dorian invasion ).

leonardus
07-05-2020, 10:16 AM
It's an interesting idea which I thought of since a while, especially because many subclades under E-V13 show formation and TMRCA after the EBA, at the time when the cremation in many Balkan and Danubian cultures prevailed over inhumation. In Pannonia however it seems that the cremation funeral rites survived and even influenced the Bell Beakers......

I'm thinking also to the ancient BA, dacians and getae together (very close with Pannonia and under Burebista even incorporated whole Pannonia), used extensively cremation over inhumation. Curious thing is that even in iron age they still practiced incineration, thus the scarcity of the human remains for the dacian era in Romania.
P.S. Please, use the complete words and not the abbreviation here, ex/ late bronze age and not LBA. Thank you.

leonardus
07-05-2020, 10:27 AM
The following EBA cultures such as Usatovo or Vucedol all practiced inhumations. In Pannonia however it seems that the cremation funeral rites survived and even influenced the Bell Beakers who in turn were known to practice both inhumations and cremation. I would even dare to say that the Chalcolithic and EBA people who lived in Pannonia at the time influenced the Beakers genetically, hence the visible dinaricization of the Beaker's skulls. These practices survived in Pannonia even as late as the Kishaposhtag culture which was a Bell Beaker culture and whose primary funeral rite was the cremation.
An extremely useful thing would be a synthetic/analytical approach of whole cultures, with a temporal axis coupled with location/geography and distinctive traits, especially for the not so pros in domain. Is any work available for that ?

Aspar
07-07-2020, 11:55 AM
I'm thinking also to the ancient BA, dacians and getae together (very close with Pannonia and under Burebista even incorporated whole Pannonia), used extensively cremation over inhumation. Curious thing is that even in iron age they still practiced incineration, thus the scarcity of the human remains for the dacian era in Romania.
P.S. Please, use the complete words and not the abbreviation here, ex/ late bronze age and not LBA. Thank you.

The problem with the Dacians and Getae is that we have limited information about them before the Greeks and the Romans first mentioned these people(5th century BC for the Getae and 1st century BC for Dacians).
During those times, both people were inhabiting places that were recognized by cultures spread by foreign people, in Transylvania La Tene culture initiated by the Celts and in the territory between the eastern Carpathians and the Black Sea we find Scythian culture.
And during that time as you said about the Dacians we have scarce burials and from what we have it appears they were practicing cremation.
As for the Getae, it seems that they were incorporated into the Scythian culture and inhumation was the usual funeral practice. That's how we have today a few 'Scythian' samples that appear to be genetically locals from the region between the Eastern Carpathians and the Black Sea and whom might be what was known as Getae by the Greeks back in the 5th century BC and among whom we find an E-V13 sample(scy197) that is not just E-V13 but shares the most recent common ancestor with all living descendants today, so not a dead end lineage.

Therefore, we have to look before these timelines and go beyond into the unknown.
And before the above mentioned cultures in those exact places we find the Basarabi culture that developed on the basis of the groups already present in Banat, Transylvania and Moldova in the Early Iron Age such as Gava-Holihradi and Belegis cultures. The ornaments of both cultures were characterized by the channeled pottery style and the cremation was the rule where the dust was deposited in urns. The only exception was in Dobrugia and Bulgaria where the channeled pottery was combined with incised and stamped decorations which shows influences from the Late Bronze Age cultures such as Vatina, Verbicioara, Gyrla-Mare etc.

Nonetheless, the rule was cremation and as such this influence came from further west as it was shown in my previous post that it spread from the Pannonian basin first towards south in the late Vucedol phase(2400-2200 BC) and in the phases BR A1, A2 and B1(1950-1600 BC) according to Reinacke it was already present in Cetina, Vatina and was slowly spreading east towards Transylvania and Dobrugia/Moldova by replacing the previous custom of inhumation practiced by the Ottomány and Wietenberg cultures and possibly a significant shift in population as well causing the disappearance of these cultures and south-east towards Oltenia with Gyrla-Mare or Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group as shown in my previous post.
At last this custom reached Dobrugia and Eastern Wallachia in the Late Bronze Age with the disappearance of the steppe culture of Coslogeni caused by the appearance of a new style ornaments, those of the Channel pottery style with possible further links to Gava-Holihrady culture which in turn was also in great part derived of elements from the Carpathian basin and whose primary funeral rite was the cremation.

This a very good map of the hotspots and places where the cremation ritual was practiced between the 14th and 9th century BC:

https://i.postimg.cc/q7VR3NkS/csm-CBAB-Karte-f057298fa3.jpg (https://postimg.cc/w12gKTRQ)

As you can see, by the Middle-Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age this custom was widespread in the Balkans, the Carpathian Basin and Northern Italy in particular and the source of spreading was the Carpathian Basin and Pannonia and what was common about all these places and groups is the similarity not only in the funeral rites but also ornaments with the Middle-Danube cultures.
In particular, for Northern Italy, we can observe a similarity with the Terramare Culture:

Comb-shaped pendants (Kammanhänger): (https://www.academia.edu/40913016/MIDDLE_BRONZE_AGE_ENCRUSTED_POTTERY_IN_WESTERN_HUN GARY)
These characteristic ornaments of the Encrusted Pottery culture have a cast, comb-like “body” with
a loop-shaped hanger as “head” and applied with a curving, arm-like middle part.
Comb-shaped pendants have been interpreted as stylized male representations.
All the known pieces of the comb-shaped pendants429 were recovered to the south of Lake Balaton:
a stray piece found at Bonyhád–Szöcske szántók (Pl. 63. 14), and the articles in the Zalaszabar hoard
(Pl. 62. 1–2). One comb-shaped pendant was found outside of Transdanubia alone: Ladislav Hájek
published a piece from Úherce, Czech Republic, representing a mix of variants a and c. Based on
this artefact, Hájek originates the comb-shaped pendants from the Aunjetitz culture, dating this
particular specimen (and its comparative example from Pusztasárkánytó) to the Aunjetitz period,
while he listed the one of Nagyhangos to the Koszider period.430 Amália Mozsolics – depending
on the shape of the hanger – distinguished two types of the comb-shaped pendants; relating these
artefacts closely to the Nagyhangos assemblage assigned to the BIIIb period. Bernhard Hänsel also
discussed the two types occuring in hoards and placed them to the end of the Danubian Early Bronze
Age (FD III); he pointed out that the references from Switzerland, quoted by Hájek previously,
belong to a much later period (Urnfield culture).431 The distribution of the comb-shaped pendants
and more importantly, the mould found at Lengyel – on the settlement associated with the Encrusted
Pottery culture – proves that these objects were produced locally; and thus the piece of Úherce must
be a local replica of the Transdanubian originals.
Another possible origin for the comb-shaped pendants was the Terramare culture432 – with
assumed Italian antecedents of the comb-shaped pendant type. However, a recent detailed study
of the Terramare settlements called attention to that this assumption is not certain either, as bone
pendants similar to variant c found in the Carpathian Basin appear later, in the 2nd phase of the
Italian Middle Bronze Age (Bronzo Medio). This correlates approximately with the Koszider period
in the Carpathian Basin, whereas the bronze versions in this area only become typical from the 3rd
phase.433
Concerning the original use of the comb-shaped pendants, Tibor Kovács collected their
representations on vessels and fi gurines among the material of the (Szeremle–) Dubovác and
the Cârna culture at the Lower Danube area.

What's interesting here is that the bearers of the Terramare culture in it's initial phases were practicing the inhumation burial and in it's later phase exactly when this comb-shaped pendants appear the cremation starts to be the norm. More recently, Italian archeologist Andrea Cardarelli has proposed (https://www.academia.edu/5808394/The_Collapse_of_the_Terramare_Culture_and_growth_o f_new_economic_and_social_System_during_the_late_B ronze_Age_in_Italy) re-evaluations of contemporaneous Greek accounts, such as that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and to link the Terramare culture to the Pelasgians – whom the Greeks generally equated with the Tyrrhenians and specifically, therefore, the Etruscans. This proposal in not without a base and as I've shown earlier, it can be correlated with the archaeological finds along the Vardar/Axios river in Greek Macedonia and who belong to the Trans-Danubian cultures and more specifically, Gyrla-Mare or Dubovac group from the Late Bronze Age. These finds in particular can't be associated with the Doric Greeks who only invaded the area in the 8th century BC, and by historical accounts from the Greeks themselves we know that in Greek Macedonia before the Doric Greeks, the Brygians and the Paeonians lived, especially in the area along the Vardar river.

So we see clear archaeological links between the people who the Greeks called Pelasgians/Brygians, Paeonians, Dacians and Thracians.
And not only that but we see links in the representation of these people by the Greeks and the Romans on the various vases and particularly what turns attention is the famous Phrygian cap:

The Phrygian god Attis and the Phrygian king Mithras wearing Phrygian cap:
https://i.postimg.cc/tCHNDhhk/Bust-Attis-Cd-M.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
https://i.postimg.cc/Prt8PKWg/mithras-slaying-the-bull-roman-relief-B10-MW1.jpg (https://postimg.cc/7bWLR3Q9)

Paeonian peltast as depicted on the Greek vases wearing Phrygian cap:
https://i.postimg.cc/SRJQLgR7/peltast.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

The Tracian god Bendis and Thracian peltast wearing Phrygian cap:
https://i.postimg.cc/hvBWvMxt/320px-Artemis-Bendis-Louvre-CA159.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
https://i.postimg.cc/Xvs029T2/377px-Trak-peltasta.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

It's important to note that the Greeks depicted the Phrygian cap as a foreign custom belonging to foreign or barbarous people.

The link can be established further with the fact that the Phrygians and the Thracians shared same gods among whom the supreme or the sky god Sabazios.

In Greece the custom of the cremation also came late, around the sunset of the Mycenaean civilization and the so called Doric migrations.
The Mycenaean Greeks practiced inhumation and especially important to note are the famous shaft graves.
The Doric Greeks on the other hand used cremation and some of the most famous burials are the cremation burials under tumulus as the Royal burials in Vergina.
These customs and many others such as the Illyrian spear or the shield-like hats connect the Doric Greeks with the Cetina culture rather than with the Trans-Danubian cultures.

Ionian with shield hat or kausia:
https://i.postimg.cc/sD0szkKV/320px-Xerxes-I-tomb-Ionian-with-petasos-or-kausia-soldier-circa-480-BCE-cleaned-up.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Labeatan Illyrian king Gentius:
https://i.postimg.cc/Vs25BbQ9/Face-of-King-Gentius-on-Ancient-Illyrian-coin.jpg (https://postimages.org/)



An extremely useful thing would be a synthetic/analytical approach of whole cultures, with a temporal axis coupled with location/geography and distinctive traits, especially for the not so pros in domain. Is any work available for that ?

There are many works, some are in English others are in other languages.
We are lucky enough that many of them can be found online:
The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronz Age (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XoxoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA974&lpg=PA974&dq=encrusted+pottery+italy&source=bl&ots=U_4bQKPI-L&sig=ACfU3U3cOs5TNGg9An_HmtjQ34TdRzhryQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiio6369rrqAhXluXEKHQlWBaYQ6AEwEHoECAoQA Q#v=onepage&q=encrusted&f=false)
Jugoslovensko Podunavlje i Susedne Oblasti U II Milenijumu P.n.e (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uyeDMO2T-icC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=basarabi+culture&source=bl&ots=5CK6D7oeye&sig=ACfU3U37GZZTejRjMI7B7pfuW4aPTWHPmw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBjbT44bnqAhULAcAKHc90DikQ6AEwBHoECAoQA Q#v=onepage&q=basarabi&f=false)
The Cambridge Ancient History (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vXljf8JqmkoC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=zimnicea+culture&source=bl&ots=QysiarDlOw&sig=ACfU3U28LVdXcrBr5opnakhjmir0c2VLJg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimpqW1lrnqAhUUecAKHYdnBR8Q6AEwBHoECAgQA Q#v=onepage&q=vatin&f=false)
Migrations in Balkan History (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tK6OAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=danubian+encrusted+pottery&source=bl&ots=YscZx-9PVR&sig=ACfU3U0HZ0qSO5GNFQGhDaELitg8wp0-VA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEvqTPwqXqAhWEgVwKHcQ1CRAQ6AEwD3oECAgQA Q#v=onepage&q=Verbichoara&f=false)
Eneolithic Cultures of Central and West Balkans (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m_mAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=vucedol+cremation&source=bl&ots=0x7z6IIXob&sig=ACfU3U1q4mA8BT5LoEd6LozI1iFXS7ytjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfpfSWmLTqAhURVBUIHeEuB-EQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=snippet&q=Verbichoara&f=false)

Riverman
07-07-2020, 12:42 PM
Interestingly, some types of hats, different shapes though, appear in Hallstatt culture too, together with the fashion of shaving both head and beard hair:
http://iza.zrc-sazu.si/Grafika/Dolenj/situla.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c1/e2/6a/c1e26a81daf5e37a131982db61125c79.jpg
https://regolinigalassi.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/certosa_situla_bologna_detail.jpg

The elite culture was quite peculiar and I'm assuming Thraco-Cimmerian early influences for the whole culture and Illyrian predominance in the Eastern sphere later, with strong Eastern Mediterranean/Greek influences in the Western Hallstatt centres. In some pieces of the situla art it almost looks like the higher social rank was shown off by larger hats.

The comparison of the Greek hats with the Hallstatt fashion is striking:
https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-isolated-vector-illustration-ancient-greek-young-hunter-holding-weapon-in-a-hat-based-on-antique-1169071492.jpg

The way a people wore their hair and beard too is something one shouldn't take lightly. It changed with new cults, social organisations and fashion trends, which shouldn't be confused with what we might understand now under "fashion", but it still could mean a lot. Just want to remind on the change from Hallstatt, to La Tene, to late Republican Roman to different Germanic tribes and groups, like the Suebian knot. It could be a decisive social and ethnic signal. Like among Thracians different hats were worn by different social classes according to some classical authors.

leonardus
07-08-2020, 09:25 AM
The problem with the Dacians and Getae is that we have limited information about them before the Greeks and the Romans first mentioned these people(5th century BC for the Getae and 1st century BC for Dacians).
I just don't know how to thank you for the vast reply.

Xisco
01-17-2021, 11:19 PM
Hello, I am an E-Y33577 from Mallorca. My subclade has nothing to do with the Roman auxiliary troops, if not the 14th century slave market that existed in Mallorca, many of them were of Greek and Balkan origin. a greeting.

Riverman
01-17-2021, 11:44 PM
Hello, I am an E-Y33577 from Mallorca. My subclade has nothing to do with the Roman auxiliary troops, if not the 14th century slave market that existed in Mallorca, many of them were of Greek and Balkan origin. a greeting.

Welcome :)

Your subclade is another example of the same pattern we can observe quite a lot within E-V13: The regional subclades have a TMRCA dating back to the LBA-EIA, not older, not younger. This leaves a lot of possibilities, especially a spread with Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene Celts to the West. Your next level shows this quite well:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11457/

There is practically no overlap of the geographical extremes dating to the historical period, the closest it gets is the Iron Age. In your particular case it might be a more recent origin from the Balkans, or something else, Celtic or related. Only more samples from ancient DNA, as well as your and related subclades can tell the story in the future.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 08:52 AM
If something characterized medieval Mallorcan society in relation to other Christian societies in modern Western Europe, it was undoubtedly the importance of slavery: it has been estimated that the slave population could constitute between 10 and 30% of the total population of Mallorca during the 14th century. In the fourteenth century the Greeks, Sardinians and Muslims predominated. In the 15th century it was divided into two groups defined by people of Eastern Europe: Russians, Abcasians, Tatars, Circassians, or those of Balkan origin: Bulgarians, and to a lesser extent Greeks, Albanians and Serbs.

Riverman
01-18-2021, 09:00 AM
If something characterized medieval Mallorcan society in relation to other Christian societies in modern Western Europe, it was undoubtedly the importance of slavery: it has been estimated that the slave population could constitute between 10 and 30% of the total population of Mallorca during the 14th century. In the fourteenth century the Greeks, Sardinians and Muslims predominated. In the 15th century it was divided into two groups defined by people of Eastern Europe: Russians, Abcasians, Tatars, Circassians, or those of Balkan origin: Bulgarians, and to a lesser extent Greeks, Albanians and Serbs.

Do you have a historical, genealogical proof for being a descendant of a slave? If not, you can't know what your case history was. In most regions slaves impact on the later total population was rather limited. There are regional exceptions, but generally speaking.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 09:02 AM
On the island there are several families that belong to E-V13 that are not in YFull or FTDNA. Two of them belong to Xueta families (Jews).

Riverman
01-18-2021, 09:05 AM
On the island there are several families that belong to E-V13 that are not in YFull or FTDNA. Two of them belong to Xueta families (Jews).

There are specific subclades known to be Jewish, but without a close relationship to each other and within gentile frameworks. So it seems the E-V13 Jewish subclades represent mostly early European converts, with some occasional later thrown in.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 09:09 AM
The Xueta are very old on the island, before the Muslim conquest.

Hawk
01-18-2021, 09:10 AM
In Xiscos case, it looks like his subclade could be as a result of historical migration, either Roman times or Byzantine times. Maybe Thracian/Paeonians?!

Xisco
01-18-2021, 09:15 AM
I have requested a BigY from a friend Xueta family who in a study by the UIB (University of the Balearic Islands) gave E-M78. I'm going to find out which branch it belongs to.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 09:21 AM
My family by paternal line is documented until the year 1469 of a Sardinian peasant from Cagliari who went to Mallorca to work and get married. Cagliari at that time belonged to the Crown of Aragon.42669

Aspar
01-18-2021, 09:41 AM
Hello, I am an E-Y33577 from Mallorca. My subclade has nothing to do with the Roman auxiliary troops, if not the 14th century slave market that existed in Mallorca, many of them were of Greek and Balkan origin. a greeting.

Welcome to the forum.

You are in a subclade with a Bulgarian guy with origins from Greek Macedonia, from a village with a characteristic Eastern Romance name although the population was a Slavic speaking.

Of course, your subclade might be the result of a Slave trade during the 14th century as you say however the slaves from the Balkans during that time as a result of a Muslim Ottoman slave trade were mostly women. And I doubt a male slave in Mallorca from the Balkans would have been able to free himself and even successfully integrate in the society and make a family. Second, you can only be sure that your subclade is a result of a slave trade if you form a subclade with Balkan people with a TMRCA in the Medieval times as 14th century is quite recent.

I believe that the TMRCA between you and the Bulgarian might be perfect for a subclade spread by the Romans. Let's assume that both of you descend from a Balkan man living in the 7th century BCE. This might even be the 4th century BCE as estimations for TMRCA based on SNPs might vary by 300-400 years. This Balkan man had few sons who also had few sons as well and were able to continue their male line all the way to Roman times. Then the Romans came in the second century BCE and conquered large parts of the Balkans. Their first recruits in the Roman legions from the Balkans come from Macedonia. Then in the third century AD there is a huge influx of Thracian soldiers in the Roman legions. I don't know the history of Iberia and Mallorca and which Roman legions served there but I believe the Roman presence in Mallorca was quite long and continued even during Byzantine times when Justinian managed to capture the islands back in Byzantine/Roman possession.

Other options might be Roman people again who came to the islands as administrators or workers and even slaves.

Or your subclade in Mallorca might be the result of movements of people way before the Romans. For example, within Hallstatt or La Tene culture zones of influence.

Whatever it is, I wish you luck in finding more about your subclade.

Edit: I've just seen you Sardinian story. E-V13 in Sardinia is mostly concentrated along the coast and might very well be of Roman origin according to Eupedia admin. I can't really say how reliable is that.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 09:59 AM
Welcome to the forum.

You are in a subclade with a Bulgarian guy with origins from Greek Macedonia, from a village with a characteristic Eastern Romance name although the population was a Slavic speaking.

Of course, your subclade might be the result of a Slave trade during the 14th century as you say however the slaves from the Balkans during that time as a result of a Muslim Ottoman slave trade were mostly women. And I doubt a male slave in Mallorca from the Balkans would have been able to free himself and even successfully integrate in the society and make a family. Second, you can only be sure that your subclade is a result of a slave trade if you form a subclade with Balkan people with a TMRCA in the Medieval times as 14th century is quite recent.

I believe that the TMRCA between you and the Bulgarian might be perfect for a subclade spread by the Romans. Let's assume that both of you descend from a Balkan man living in the 7th century BCE. This might even be the 4th century BCE as estimations for TMRCA based on SNPs might vary by 300-400 years. This Balkan man had few sons who also had few sons as well and were able to continue their male line all the way to Roman times. Then the Romans came in the second century BCE and conquered large parts of the Balkans. Their first recruits in the Roman legions from the Balkans come from Macedonia. Then in the third century AD there is a huge influx of Thracian soldiers in the Roman legions. I don't know the history of Iberia and Mallorca and which Roman legions served there but I believe the Roman presence in Mallorca was quite long and continued even during Byzantine times when Justinian managed to capture the islands back in Byzantine/Roman possession.

Other options might be Roman people again who came to the islands as administrators or workers and even slaves.

Or your subclade in Mallorca might be the result of movements of people way before the Romans. For example, within Hallstatt or La Tene culture zones of influence.

Whatever it is, I wish you luck in finding more about your subclade.

Edit: I've just seen you Sardinian story. E-V13 in Sardinia is mostly concentrated along the coast and might very well be of Roman origin according to Eupedia admin. I can't really say how reliable is that.

Only in the town of Pollensa 66 Slavs of Greek origin are registered. In Mallorca there were two brotherhoods of Greek freedmen. Most were men, captives of the Crown of Aragon in their possessions by Greece. In Majorca the slaves obtained freedom with their work. I invite you to search the Internet for a bit about slavery in Mallorca. a greeting

Bane
01-18-2021, 10:03 AM
My family by paternal line is documented until the year 1469 of a Sardinian peasant from Cagliari who went to Mallorca to work and get married. Cagliari at that time belonged to the Crown of Aragon.


The A11837 branch to which I belong is also present in Sardinia. Age of A11837 is very similar to the age of E-BY4914 branch (yours). So the story of your subclade and my cousin subclade could be virtually the same.
My own explanation for presence of A11837 in Sardinia is that it should be traced to the time of Greek colonization.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 10:04 AM
Only in the town of Pollensa 66 Slavs of Greek origin are registered. In Mallorca there were two brotherhoods of Greek freedmen. Most were men, captives of the Crown of Aragon in their possessions by Greece. In Majorca the slaves obtained freedom with their work. I invite you to search the Internet for a bit about slavery in Mallorca. a greeting

The slave market moved throughout the Mediterranean and the stopovers were Greece, Sicily, Sardinia, Majorca and Barcelona.42668

Xisco
01-18-2021, 10:07 AM
The A11837 branch to which I belong is also present in Sardinia. Age of A11837 is very similar to the age of E-BY4914 branch (yours). So the story of your subclade and my cousin subclade could be virtually the same.
My own explanation for presence of A11837 in Sardinia is that it should be traced to the time of Greek colonization.

it could be that they were.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 10:12 AM
The funny thing is that the family paternal lines are mine E-V13 and my mother's paternal line E-M81 and my wife's paternal line E-M81. It seems that we have gathered all the Haplogroups E.

Aspar
01-18-2021, 10:34 AM
Only in the town of Pollensa 66 Slavs of Greek origin are registered. In Mallorca there were two brotherhoods of Greek freedmen. Most were men, captives of the Crown of Aragon in their possessions by Greece. In Majorca the slaves obtained freedom with their work. I invite you to search the Internet for a bit about slavery in Mallorca. a greeting

I believe that the possessions of the Crown of Aragon in Greece were mostly in southern Greece, not in Macedonia where your match comes from and he is not of Greek origin btw.
But as you already mentioned of Sardinian family story, your subclade might have arrived to Mallorca with a slave from Sardinia during the 14th century.
However in more ancient times, there might be Balkan connection to the presence of your subclade in Sardinia if the Sardinian story is true and if your subclade is present in Sardinia at all. The Romans had presence in Sardinia, the ancient Greeks did not I believe.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 10:34 AM
We will be waiting for more current samples to come out. We have already contributed our grain of sand by contributing with new SNPs and that if others are found that are positive for them, we will move forward.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 10:45 AM
I believe that the possessions of the Crown of Aragon in Greece were mostly in southern Greece, not in Macedonia where your match comes from and he is not of Greek origin btw.
But as you already mentioned of Sardinian family story, your subclade might have arrived to Mallorca with a slave from Sardinia during the 14th century.
However in more ancient times, there might be Balkan connection to the presence of your subclade in Sardinia if the Sardinian story is true and if your subclade is present in Sardinia at all. The Romans had presence in Sardinia, the ancient Greeks did not I believe.

Have you ever heard The Battle of Apros that fought the Almogávares. The first squad of Almogávares faced the Alans and Turks, who were repelled and later fled, leaving the Byzantine infantry exposed on the left flank, which encountered the charge of the first squad of Almogávares and part of the cavalry, while the The rest of the Almogávares carried through the center. In front of the Almogávar onslaught, the infantry fell, finally fleeing. The Thracian and Macedonian cavalry was the only one that was able to maintain its position, facing the Almogávar cavalry and defending a squadron until it was overwhelmed by the rest of the Almogávars entering from the other flank and through the center. At that time they withdrew, with a great loss of troops. The defeat left the Byzantine Empire without an army and the Almogavars dominating most of Thrace. From there there were captives taken to the slave market.

Ruderico
01-18-2021, 10:48 AM
Hola Xisco, bienvenido!

Wasn't one of the Visigothic samples from Iberia a subclade under E-V13 as well? I fear Xisco's terminal subclade may be too recent to give us any certainties, and the closest parallel branch (with the Bulgarian) too distant - there's a huge gap, both in time and geography. We could find many possible explanations. How common are subclades under E-V13 in Sardinia?

I thought it was strange for an archipelago that was repopulated by Catalans during the Middle Ages to show a somewhat "un-Catalan" trend towards the central/eastern Mediterranean. The Roman/Byzantine presence could explain it, but on the other hand it would have been an older layer of ancestry that was partially replaced by Catalan-speaking individuals during the Reconquista, and looking at modern Catalans (and those two early Medieval ones) that doesn't seem to be their trend within Iberia. Your theory about a more recent presence of individuals from other areas of the Mediterranean explains this trend quite well, it's good to know, I had no idea that had been the case.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 10:49 AM
From there there were captives who were taken to the slave market.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 10:56 AM
Hola Xisco, bienvenido!

Wasn't one of the Visigothic samples from Iberia a subclade under E-V13 as well? I fear Xisco's terminal subclade may be too recent to give us any certainties, and the closest parallel branch (with the Bulgarian) too distant - there's a huge gap, both in time and geography. We could find many possible explanations. How common are subclades under E-V13 in Sardinia?

I thought it was strange for an archipelago that was repopulated by Catalans during the Middle Ages to show a somewhat "un-Catalan" trend towards the central/eastern Mediterranean. The Roman/Byzantine presence could explain it, but on the other hand it would have been an older layer of ancestry that was partially replaced by Catalan-speaking individuals during the Reconquista, and looking at modern Catalans (and those two early Medieval ones) that doesn't seem to be their trend within Iberia. Your theory about a more recent presence of individuals from other areas of the Mediterranean explains this trend quite well, it's good to know, I had no idea that had been the case.

Not only were they Catalans, there were a large number of Occitan French who were second in number, Genoese, Navarrese, Sardinian, Castilian, etc ...

Ruderico
01-18-2021, 10:57 AM
Not only were they Catalans, there were a large number of Occitan French who were second in number, Genoese, Navarrese, Sardinian, Castilian, etc ...

Only the Genoese, of those populations, trend towards the eastern Mediterranean genetically speaking.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 10:59 AM
Nuestra lengua era occitana, no catalana. Catalan was considered a dialect of Occitan until the end of the 19th century and is still its closest relative today.

Ruderico
01-18-2021, 11:09 AM
Nuestra lengua era occitana, no catalana.

Language aside, since I have limited knowledge of the Balearic islands' history, I suggest you read Bycroft's excellent study on Iberia. It's just a shame she didn't use ancient samples on her analysis, but rather other modern populations that make the models underwhelming.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w


You can see a cluster analysis done on co-ancestry, Balearic individuals were placed on a branch that split from the Catalan cluster.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-08272-w/MediaObjects/41467_2018_8272_Fig2_HTML.png?as=webp

Xisco
01-18-2021, 11:38 AM
Language aside, since I have limited knowledge of the Balearic islands' history, I suggest you read Bycroft's excellent study on Iberia. It's just a shame she didn't use ancient samples on her analysis, but rather other modern populations that make the models underwhelming.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w


You can see a cluster analysis done on co-ancestry, Balearic individuals were placed on a branch that split from the Catalan cluster.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-08272-w/MediaObjects/41467_2018_8272_Fig2_HTML.png?as=webp

I focus on population documentation and send an example sending the list of immigrants from the 15th century. In it you can see name, surname and place of origin. http://llinatgesdemallorca.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Immigrants_XV_2.pdf

Ruderico
01-18-2021, 11:45 AM
I focus on population documentation and send an example sending the list of immigrants from the 15th century. In it you can see name, surname and place of origin. http://llinatgesdemallorca.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Immigrants_XV_2.pdf

That's very interesting and invaluable information, have you traced your patrilinear genealogy back to this specific individual you see on the list?

Xisco
01-18-2021, 12:00 PM
Yes, I have made DNA samples to the other Aloy of French origin and its result is R-M207> M173> M343> L754> L389> P297> M269> L23> P310> L151> P312> ZZ11> DF27> Z195> Z274> Z209 . Our branch E-V13> CTS8814> CTS5856> BY3880> Z5018> S2979> FGC11457> FGC11451> DYS434 = 8> BY4914> BY19731. My family fought against the Crown of Aragon in the revolution of the Germanías.42671

Xisco
01-18-2021, 12:06 PM
That's very interesting and invaluable information, have you traced your patrilinear genealogy back to this specific individual you see on the list?

At present, few know that the lands that they tread today in Mallorca were the scene of very violent deaths.
«Majorcans have the right to know and learn more about their past, and public institutions have the duty to promote and disseminate it. This movement supposed a very numerous reduction of the population of the island. The Germanías were the bloodiest civil conflict of the Middle Ages on the island. The population of Mallorca, in addition to the virulent component and the ruthless repression of which it was subjected, followed by the imposition of very important punishments, executions and fines (composats in Majorcan pounds, the old currency of Mallorca). »
"Pac qui Deu" - "February 7, 1521."
This next February 7, 2021, it will be 500 years since the revolt of the Germanías, one of the most important episodes in the history of Mallorca. In memory of them, among whom were ancestors members of my family. "I am a descendant in my paternal line of an agermanat." That they are not forgotten.
Five hundred years after the start of the revolt of the Germanías de Mallorca. Directly related to that of the Valencians, the Majorcan agermanats took up arms in 1521 to obtain the radical reform of the public economy as well as the abolition of the census and other taxes that drowned farmers and craftsmen. In Majorca, almost the entire Part Forana - that is, all those who were from outside the capital - with the exception of the city of Alcudia and the castle of Santuari de Felanitx, sided with the revolutionary leaders. The armed clashes and even the open battles smiled in the first instance at the rebels. To the point that Viceroy Miguel de Gurrea had to take refuge in Ibiza, from where he requested troops from the crown to quell the Mallorcan rebellion. After a year of victories, the agermanats, led, as it is known, by Joanot Colom, saw an impressive royal army of professional soldiers disembark in Alcudia in October 1522, a city where the royalists had become strong. From there the counterrevolutionary forces were systematically attacking the main armed points of the Agermanats, defeating them inexorably one after another, in a path of blood and fire that led them towards Palma. At the end of the year the king's army encircled the Majorcan capital in the hands of the rebels. At the end of March 1523 they surrendered and the viceroy began a massive and fierce repression.


Are historical data, not political. That they are not used for that purpose.

Riverman
01-18-2021, 12:21 PM
Welcome to the forum.

You are in a subclade with a Bulgarian guy with origins from Greek Macedonia, from a village with a characteristic Eastern Romance name although the population was a Slavic speaking.

Of course, your subclade might be the result of a Slave trade during the 14th century as you say however the slaves from the Balkans during that time as a result of a Muslim Ottoman slave trade were mostly women. And I doubt a male slave in Mallorca from the Balkans would have been able to free himself and even successfully integrate in the society and make a family. Second, you can only be sure that your subclade is a result of a slave trade if you form a subclade with Balkan people with a TMRCA in the Medieval times as 14th century is quite recent.

I believe that the TMRCA between you and the Bulgarian might be perfect for a subclade spread by the Romans. Let's assume that both of you descend from a Balkan man living in the 7th century BCE. This might even be the 4th century BCE as estimations for TMRCA based on SNPs might vary by 300-400 years. This Balkan man had few sons who also had few sons as well and were able to continue their male line all the way to Roman times. Then the Romans came in the second century BCE and conquered large parts of the Balkans. Their first recruits in the Roman legions from the Balkans come from Macedonia. Then in the third century AD there is a huge influx of Thracian soldiers in the Roman legions. I don't know the history of Iberia and Mallorca and which Roman legions served there but I believe the Roman presence in Mallorca was quite long and continued even during Byzantine times when Justinian managed to capture the islands back in Byzantine/Roman possession.

Other options might be Roman people again who came to the islands as administrators or workers and even slaves.

Or your subclade in Mallorca might be the result of movements of people way before the Romans. For example, within Hallstatt or La Tene culture zones of influence.

Whatever it is, I wish you luck in finding more about your subclade.

Edit: I've just seen you Sardinian story. E-V13 in Sardinia is mostly concentrated along the coast and might very well be of Roman origin according to Eupedia admin. I can't really say how reliable is that.

Like most of the time I can only agree. However, considering Sardinia, almost the whole range of Western, Central, Southern and South Eastern Europe was covered by Sardinia, simply because they took a really big sample at high resolution.


In Xiscos case, it looks like his subclade could be as a result of historical migration, either Roman times or Byzantine times. Maybe Thracian/Paeonians?!

One thing is for sure, the island was not the source region :)
Other than that, we don't know, especially not in his larger group, because without source references from ancient DNA or close TMRCA's, how can anybody know? There are a lot of possibilities, yet I agree, a Daco-Thracian origin looks like a distinct possibility with an Iron Age Bulgarian sister subclade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4914/

But on the other hand about 700 BC leaves a lot of options, just like Aspar said.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 12:26 PM
Results of the project of the Surname Aloy de Mallorca: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Aloy?iframe=yresults

The Majorcan E-V13 branch is getting bigger and bigger. One more sample of the E-BY4914 subclade will enter. 5 samples in Mallorca.

All the Aloy of the town of Sencelles are in subclade of E-BY4914.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 01:03 PM
Like most of the time I can only agree. However, considering Sardinia, almost the whole range of Western, Central, Southern and South Eastern Europe was covered by Sardinia, simply because they took a really big sample at high resolution.



One thing is for sure, the island was not the source region :)
Other than that, we don't know, especially not in his larger group, because without source references from ancient DNA or close TMRCA's, how can anybody know? There are a lot of possibilities, yet I agree, a Daco-Thracian origin looks like a distinct possibility with an Iron Age Bulgarian sister subclade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4914/

But on the other hand about 700 BC leaves a lot of options, just like Aspar said.

In the Balkan origin there is no doubt, it is necessary to find out that great time that is left blank. More quality samples are needed to move forward. We are doing our best to enter new SNPs and see if someone joins them. We remain in the 14th century and until the 7th century BC there is much left.

Bane
01-18-2021, 01:19 PM
it could be that they were.

For E-A11837 and E-BY4914 to reach Sardinia through some northern route we would so far have to have some positive results in Western Europe. But we don't have them.
That is why I'm quite confident about the Southern Route. And the Greek Colonization fits well with the age of those clades and of course with the direction of migration.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 01:24 PM
For E-A11837 and E-BY4914 to reach Sardinia through some northern route we would so far have to have some positive results in Western Europe. But we don't have them.
That is why I'm quite confident about the Southern Route. And the Greek Colonization fits well with the age of those clades and of course with the direction of migration.

As long as a sample of E-BY4914 does not appear in the rest of Europe that says otherwise, the only possible route is the Mediterranean. We are negative on E-FGC11450, the majority subclade in Northern Europe.

Xisco
01-18-2021, 01:36 PM
E-FGC11457 has only been found on the island of Mallorca and a sample in Aragon throughout Spain. There are no more positive samples. It does not seem that it is a very old subclade in Spain to be of Roman auxiliary troops. With all this time they have not left any more genetic trace? I'd say they are due to more recent migrations. Time will give us the answer.

Ruderico
01-18-2021, 03:38 PM
There are two things you should consider independently for a moment.

1) DNA

According to FTDNA project there are 2 clusters who share the same surname, the larger Mallorcan one, and the French individual who's in a separate one.
These two groups belong to distinct haplogroups and do not share a paternal ancestor, despite both having the same surname. Naturally at least one of these got the yDNA/surname from a different source.

The Mallorcan cluster has a TMRCA of 125ybp. ybp is standardised to 1950CE, so all these Mallorcans are estimated to share a paternal ancestor who lived somewhen in the early 1800s. There's no DNA data that allows us to track back without going into pre-history. From 700BCE to 1800CE there's a massive time gap that could be explained by a myriad of reasons, but there's no data to analyse what could have been more likely.


2) Documented genealogy

Going by the information provided by the Aloy project members, the earliest documented ancestor was Pere Josep Aloy, b. 1797. None of the members have listed an earlier patrilinear ancestor. The earliest individual with the surname 'Aloy' (Joan Aloy) is documented in 1469CE, so there's a gap of over 300 years between this individual and the earliest documented ancestor of all these Aloy individuals.

While it's likely they are related, it still should be proven with documentation that they are all descended from Joan Aloy through the direct male line, rather than simply assumed based on surname. Until this is done, we should be careful about linking it to Sardinia.
I don't know how strict surname patrilinearism was in Mallorca since my experience was built with Portuguese records, but around here there's multiple discontinuities of a male-line surname, as well as adoption of surnames from a maternal line. My case, an unbroken chain of the same documented paternal surname dating back to the 1600s, is probably not the most common because of surname changes, adoptions, or simply because of child abandonment. My mother's patrilinear surname sprung out of the blue in mid-late 1700s, for example, and had changed twice since my earliest documented ancestor on that same male line.

Bane
05-31-2021, 06:10 AM
It is interesting that the estimated age of formation of E-V13 at YFull corresponds with the so called 8.2-kiloyear event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event

It is almost proved that G2a entered Europe as a consequence of this event. In their case they came from Anatolia.
May it be that E-V13 or its ancestor also entered Europe after the 8.2-kiloyear event? And from where (I still think it could be Gibraltar)?

Riverman
05-31-2021, 10:38 AM
It is interesting that the estimated age of formation of E-V13 at YFull corresponds with the so called 8.2-kiloyear event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event

It is almost proved that G2a entered Europe as a consequence of this event. In their case they came from Anatolia.
May it be that E-V13 or its ancestor also entered Europe after the 8.2-kiloyear event? And from where (I still think it could be Gibraltar)?

Chances are extremely high they spread from Natufians or a related Levantine group to ANE, as a minority element and either moved directly with those on the land route or by sea, which some might suggest for Cardial-Impresso settlers. From there they moved up the river and mountain systems, to reach the Northern Carpathians, possibly with Lengyel-Soport or Tripolye-Cucuteni. In the Northern Carpathian region they were early adapters to the initial steppe expansion, and survived there as skilled metal workers from the EBA tradition, up until the Urnfield cultural phenomenon, which brought their first major expansion, and the LBA-EIA transition, especially with Channelled Ware and a centre in Gava, they moved South and West primarily, but spread in all directions to some degree. To me that looks like the logical course of events.
In the Middle Neolithic E1b1b, including upstream variants of E-V13, were quite widespread in Europe, but rarely dominant in a region. Usually they appear in combination with G2 and I2. Its the steppe expansion and the transition to the metal age itself which brought E-V13 into a better position. There are two big winners among the pre-steppe lineages of Europe, which profited at least indirectly from the steppe expansion: E-V13 and I1. That was pure chance of course with the right guys in the right place at the right time so to say, whereas others, even some initial steppe lineages, were not as lucky.

The ancestors of E-V13 were present and spread with every major cultural transition: Mesolithic in the Levante, Neolithic in the Levante and Europe, Bronze Age and steppe expansion in Central-Eastern Europe, Early Iron Age in Central and South Eastern Europe. In every one of these steps some fellow travellers were left behind or these moved on at a lower rate. There is no need for finding a special path. Two examples: G2 and H2 in Neolithic Europeans. G2 would have had the better chances initially, being widers spread, and some G2 lineages actually made, just like E-V13 did, but many did not. H2 too could have had more luck in Europe, but it just didn't go that well for them. That was pure chance, because of their reaction and position towards the Middle and Late Neolithic transitions already.

Aspar
05-31-2021, 11:53 AM
It is interesting that the estimated age of formation of E-V13 at YFull corresponds with the so called 8.2-kiloyear event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event

It is almost proved that G2a entered Europe as a consequence of this event. In their case they came from Anatolia.
May it be that E-V13 or its ancestor also entered Europe after the 8.2-kiloyear event? And from where (I still think it could be Gibraltar)?

And what do you make of the fact that the direct ancestor of V13, L618 has been found in two Neolithic Balkan Cultures(Cardial Culture Croatia and Lengyel Hungary) and none in Spain or North Africa? Let alone the fact that E-V13 found in Neolithic Spain was part of the Cardial network of cultures that stretched from the Balkans to Spain with a clear connection to the Balkans and also the fact that the other male haplogroup found beside E-V13 was G2a, the most common EEF haplogroup. No any typical North African haplogroup detected neither y-dna nor mt-dna. And even the paper that brought Ave07 stated this:

For E1b1b1a1b, the link between this haplogroup and the Neolithic expansion could also be made. This haplogroup, which is the main European clade of haplogroup E, has been described as having spread into western Europe from the southern Balkans (10, 14, 23), but the exact period at which this expansion would be held is still debated. It has been previously related to several demographic events, such as the Neolithic dispersal in direction of the eastern Adriatic (10) or along the Vardar-Morava-Danube rivers into central Europe (24) or the migrations during the Bronze age (13, 23, 25). The presence of this haplogroup in an early Neolithic sample in Spain confirms, therefore, that this marker may be related to the Mediterranean Neolithic expansion, even if it does not permit quantification of the real importance of the Neolithization contribution in the spread of this haplogroup in western Europe. It confirms, furthermore, that the Neolithic dispersal was not a uniform movement from the Middle East but that it was more probably an arrhythmic phenomenon punctuated by rapid expansion phases and periods of breaks related to cultural changes like the one previously identified by archeologists in the Balkans area (26–28).

So we have a clear trail of ancient samples found, M78 in PPNB, M78 in Balkans(Sopot and Tryppilia), L618(Cardial Croatia and Lengyel Hungary), V13 in Cardial Spain with clear Neoilithic EEF connections to Europe and the Balkans.

This alone downplays any connection through Gibraltar based just on some 12000 years old finds of M78 in Taforalt.

By the way, the formation of E-V13 corelates with the so called 8.2-kiloyear event and also with the expansion of the EEF who by the way, came to Spain from the Balkans, not through Gibraltar.

Aspar
05-31-2021, 12:16 PM
Chances are extremely high they spread from Natufians or a related Levantine group to ANE, as a minority element and either moved directly with those on the land route or by sea, which some might suggest for Cardial-Impresso settlers. From there they moved up the river and mountain systems, to reach the Northern Carpathians, possibly with Lengyel-Soport or Tripolye-Cucuteni. In the Northern Carpathian region they were early adapters to the initial steppe expansion, and survived there as skilled metal workers from the EBA tradition, up until the Urnfield cultural phenomenon, which brought their first major expansion, and the LBA-EIA transition, especially with Channelled Ware and a centre in Gava, they moved South and West primarily, but spread in all directions to some degree. To me that looks like the logical course of events.
In the Middle Neolithic E1b1b, including upstream variants of E-V13, were quite widespread in Europe, but rarely dominant in a region. Usually they appear in combination with G2 and I2. Its the steppe expansion and the transition to the metal age itself which brought E-V13 into a better position. There are two big winners among the pre-steppe lineages of Europe, which profited at least indirectly from the steppe expansion: E-V13 and I1. That was pure chance of course with the right guys in the right place at the right time so to say, whereas others, even some initial steppe lineages, were not as lucky.

The ancestors of E-V13 were present and spread with every major cultural transition: Mesolithic in the Levante, Neolithic in the Levante and Europe, Bronze Age and steppe expansion in Central-Eastern Europe, Early Iron Age in Central and South Eastern Europe. In every one of these steps some fellow travellers were left behind or these moved on at a lower rate. There is no need for finding a special path. Two examples: G2 and H2 in Neolithic Europeans. G2 would have had the better chances initially, being widers spread, and some G2 lineages actually made, just like E-V13 did, but many did not. H2 too could have had more luck in Europe, but it just didn't go that well for them. That was pure chance, because of their reaction and position towards the Middle and Late Neolithic transitions already.

We have discussed this many times but judging by this new samples from MBA, LBA and IA Hungary (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21428-A-Minimally-Destructive-Protocol-for-DNA-Extraction-from-Ancient-Teeth&p=750990&viewfull=1#post750990), it becomes very difficult to connect the starting point of expansion of related E-V13 clades during LBA in South Poland. The new, possibly Ottomany or Hatvan Culture related sample from Fuzesbony, I20772, belongs to R-Z283 and is very 'northern' on the PCA. Furthermore, he clusters with other LBA and IA samples from Hungary which also don't belong to E-V13 and which seem to be quite close on the PCA with the samples from Tollense and with other ancient samples from Poland:
https://i.postimg.cc/28mHHFj7/fuzesbony.png (https://postimages.org/)

I believe Danube river is very important for the expansion of E-V13 related clades and as much you're getting away from it, that much your getting away from the source that spread E-V13 clades. Sure, Gava certainly played part in the spreading but it was probably indirect source and related through it's push southwards, not northwards. Therefore Belegish and other related phenomenon closer to Danube seems more realistic than the core center of Gava in the North Carpathians. Furthermore, the IA Bulgarian sample doesn't require anything related to the sample from Fuzesbony but something more MBA Croatia like. Which seems to suggest the source was more Balkan like than Corded Ware like. Also, Pannonian Serbia was probably drastically different than Hungarian Pannonia and it seems there was more EEF ancestry just south of Danube.

Riverman
05-31-2021, 12:24 PM
No doubt Belegiš-Gava was absolutely key for the initial spread of E-V13. The real question is where they got it from and whether there were more source groups in the Channelled Ware sphere. We'll see.

Bane
05-31-2021, 01:48 PM
One answer to both Riverman and Aspar. :)
I know from before you see differently how E-V13 entered Europe.

What triggered me to write the post is less about the route, more about the timeframe and the 8200 BP event. I've seen some articles and documentaries recently and this climate change event appears to really have great influence on behavior of people, that is, migrations.
So far I've never wanted to "attach" arrival of E-V13 to Europe to some particular period in history. But now I think I have a favorite.

Huban
05-31-2021, 02:02 PM
We have discussed this many times but judging by this new samples from MBA, LBA and IA Hungary (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21428-A-Minimally-Destructive-Protocol-for-DNA-Extraction-from-Ancient-Teeth&p=750990&viewfull=1#post750990), it becomes very difficult to connect the starting point of expansion of related E-V13 clades during LBA in South Poland. The new, possibly Ottomany or Hatvan Culture related sample from Fuzesbony, I20772, belongs to R-Z283 and is very 'northern' on the PCA. Furthermore, he clusters with other LBA and IA samples from Hungary which also don't belong to E-V13 and which seem to be quite close on the PCA with the samples from Tollense and with other ancient samples from Poland:
https://i.postimg.cc/28mHHFj7/fuzesbony.png (https://postimages.org/)

I believe Danube river is very important for the expansion of E-V13 related clades and as much you're getting away from it, that much your getting away from the source that spread E-V13 clades. Sure, Gava certainly played part in the spreading but it was probably indirect source and related through it's push southwards, not northwards. Therefore Belegish and other related phenomenon closer to Danube seems more realistic than the core center of Gava in the North Carpathians. Furthermore, the IA Bulgarian sample doesn't require anything related to the sample from Fuzesbony but something more MBA Croatia like. Which seems to suggest the source was more Balkan like than Corded Ware like. Also, Pannonian Serbia was probably drastically different than Hungarian Pannonia and it seems there was more EEF ancestry just south of Danube.

So... I was correct..;)


Belegiš II might be the key but for completely different reasons.

It seems we already have Gáva-Holigrady aDNA finds, in Y-DNA and autosomally. These finds demonstratively disqualify vast majority of E-V13 clades from having spread with the Gáva-Holigrady. And that, bar these younger expansive groups, E-V13 has nothing to do whatsoever with any sort of Urnfield culture. It seems E-CTS9320 and E-FCG11451 were involved with Gava in a secondary role, and it seems indeed Belegiš II is one of the keys. This is where genetically extremely Northern Gava presumably made contact with some Geto-Thracian like Southerners who then proceeded to spread some Gava ways (including the Thracian language quite possibly) and that includes the culture where we have already three E-V13 finds.

Due to this I believe we can now put the sign of equality between the Vatina, Verbicioara, Paraćin, Tei, Monteoru, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Mediana, Brnjica, secondarily Girla Mare-Dubovac cultures and the SNP E-BY3880.

Original home is Adriatic Neolithic element and subsequently proto-Cetina culture (whose remnants are E-Y37092).



Those Hungarian Scythians, they all descend of Gava culture! Even though they were politically Scythian great many of them were still cremated simultaneously. Gava urns were found at both archeological sites of those Hungarian Scythians and Gava urns were not all that common at that time in the region! I had to dig deep for this information but these people are some locals who surely are genetic and cultural descendants of Gava people, and presence of so many cremations there has also been explained by the authors as the indigenous Urnfield element rather than real Scythians.


One of these, DA197, is R1a-Z280>YP340 (xYP371,P278.2)
Most are very Northern, and we can see they carry R-YP340 which might be the explanation for the Baltic links of the Thracian. From some details I know it almost appears as if Thracian is an old dialect of Baltic.
Modern YP340 seem to have spread with the Slavs though. This is some extinct linage it seems.
DA198 is G-PF3378. He is the one who is South-eastern autosomally, similar to Thraco-Cimmerian find, Getae.

I suspect DA198 represents some (pre-Gava) Belegiš-like people, there at Belegiš II mingling occurred and even farther at Gornea-Kalakača which has links to Insula Banului which is where Pšeničevo culture (with 3 E-V13 finds) comes from.

It doesn't look this Northern Urnfield autosomal profile left some significant genetic imprint on the Balkans, otherwise Geto-Thracians would have looked totally differently. But it seems this is where some E-V13 just took over their traditions and I strongly suspect the language.


In addition to I20772 there is also I20771 labelled as Gava. And here in G25 among its closest autosomal matches are Hungarian "Scythians", i.e. Gava culture descendants along with Czech Hallstat and Kyjatice Urnfielders.. And no E-V13 there...

Distance to: HUN_Gava_BA:I20771
0.03157287 HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20743
0.03531882 Scythian_HUN: DA194 (Gava urns)
0.03760216 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK19A
0.04119769 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK30
0.04247336 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK313
0.04416746 Scythian_HUN: DA197 (R-YP340*, Gava urns)
0.04427605 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5525
0.04471150 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK28A
0.04490650 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany: DA112 (R1b)
0.04524963 DEU_Tollense_BA:WEZ15
0.04627580 HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20746
0.04675110 HUN_LBA:I1504 (BR2 , Kyjatice culture, Urnfield, J2a)
0.04690319 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7214
0.04791698 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7211
0.04856142 Scythian_UKR:scy009
0.04883339 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7213
0.04925464 HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20745
0.04996774 DEU_Singen_EBA:MX288
0.05017892 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.05024223 HUN_Mako_EBA:I1502
0.05068164 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7286
0.05084276 Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale:I0111
0.05122130 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK22
0.05162585 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK21A
0.05179586 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR31

One of whom, DA197, is also R1a-Z282, namely R-YP340*. So my call that Hungarian Scythians were direct descendants of Gava culture people based on archeological evidence was totally correct.. :)

Based on this we can say that most likely Gava carried no E-V13, initially. But also look at DA198 who is G-PF3378, and another one is a mix of DA198 and Northern ancestry. It seems these represent some indigenous Southern Belegiš etc element.

We do have 3 E-V13 Pšeničevo culture finds, we do have "Thraco-Kimmerian" find which belongs to the Babadag culture, sister culture to Pšeničevo, and their ultimate root is Insula-Banului where a contact of Gava and local Incrusted culture peoples was made. Nevertheless it looks autosomally, they were mostly Southern based on Incrusted pottery descended finds, MJ12 and also those Moldovan Scythians are not far off.

Incrusted culture people were of the Girla Mare culture, however this culture which wasn't IE speaking, was supposed to have arrived from the direction of the NW, Balaton lake, and there some of its supposed sister cultures were tested and they too looked Northern except they didn't look Steppe-like.

As Girla-Mare were "late Boomers" strong in LBA, it could be that they assimilated some of the surrounding elements packed with E-V13. Which they did archeologically, they became closer in material culture due to cohabitation. Y-DNA wise Incrusted pottery migrants from the Balaton lake totally fit into I-Y13336 found in Pomaks, and related clades were found in Mokrin as well as in these W.Hungarian cultures.

Here comes the question of the language. Were Gava culture people original Thracians? Who then in Belegiš-Insula Banului phase transferred the language to Danubian-Carpathian complex locals who then proceeded to spread it around with the Incrusted pottery. Because with these EIA cultures who were all related you could explain the entire Daco-Thracian EIA world. Not only Pšeničevo-Babadag, but also Basarabi and some others such as Saharna culture from Moldova which could be related to Moldovan "Scythians".

Or maybe the Thracian group was the language of the Carpatho-Danubian complex, (Verbicioara, Paraćin, Tei, Monteoru, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Mediana, Brnjica, Vatin should have been actually more Mokrin derived). If we go by archeological evidence, however some of these are actually those who invaded Troy. As I mentioned before, E-FGC44169, which did not diversify in LBA/EIA but earlier in its spread seems to mimic the Zimnicea-Plovdiv group and historical Phillisitines/Sea Peoples.

Insula Banului-Pšeničevo etc. people could be explained with the likes of CTS9320 (there is even a Greek CTS9320* near Svilengrad, and even some Asia Minor clades). Interestingly these are associated with Thracians and they also spent time at Troy after the Zimnicea-Plovdiv people. And also these people hugely influenced the Mediana-Brnjica group who did also migrate to Albanian areas (especially Southern) where you find some extra diversity of these younger clades such as CTS9320 and FGC11450. But interestingly Albanian V13, despite their best level of testing in the Balkans, fail to achieve the phylogenetic structure past the Late Antiquity and they generally have Bulgarian, Carpathian, Greek EIA/LBA relatives closer to them than other Albanian V13, which does suggest a migratory event.

Considering the links of Thracian with the Baltic these R-Z280 finds would seem to suggest Thracians were a younger group. In which case the Carpatho-Danubian complex was either some other IE of even of the Anatolian group, or non-IE. Incrusted pottery migrants from Balaton lake were possibly Etruscan. Earlier R-Z93 find from Bulgaria should not be taken seriously for proto-Thracians, they were most likely Iranic speakers, a dead-end group who migrated in MBA. Z93 SNP is firmly tied to Indo-Aryan group and Thracian doesn't fit there, except some influences here and there. There was a LBA Noua Iranic influence in the area.

Generally you see the Northern autosomal affinity in these Urnfield groups, Czech Hallstat DA112 R1b sample is also up there as is the J2a Kyjatice Culture sample. So already we have some of these and no E-V13..

Finally regarding the distant origins of E-V13, and my Cetina->Schneckenberg thesis, we have a recent sample from Bosnia which might indicate that there were such migrations
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC43622/

He split the Eastern Balkan/Carpathian Y5587. Though here this SNP is Homologous at the FTDNA he has few more. So It could be that E-V13 in EBA spread with Y5587. What should be noted that these MBA Carpatho-Danubian cultures such as Tei, Monteoru, Verbicioara formed on the basis of Schneckenberg supstrate.

Aspar
05-31-2021, 02:37 PM
So... I was correct..;)






In addition to I20772 there is also I20771 labelled as Gava. And here in G25 among its closest autosomal matches are Hungarian "Scythians", i.e. Gava culture descendants along with Czech Hallstat and Kyjatice Urnfielders.. And no E-V13 there...

Distance to: HUN_Gava_BA:I20771
0.03157287 HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20743
0.03531882 Scythian_HUN: DA194 (Gava urns)
0.03760216 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK19A
0.04119769 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK30
0.04247336 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK313
0.04416746 Scythian_HUN: DA197 (R-YP340*, Gava urns)
0.04427605 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5525
0.04471150 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK28A
0.04490650 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany: DA112 (R1b)
0.04524963 DEU_Tollense_BA:WEZ15
0.04627580 HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20746
0.04675110 HUN_LBA:I1504 (BR2 , Kyjatice culture, Urnfield, J2a)
0.04690319 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7214
0.04791698 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7211
0.04856142 Scythian_UKR:scy009
0.04883339 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7213
0.04925464 HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20745
0.04996774 DEU_Singen_EBA:MX288
0.05017892 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.05024223 HUN_Mako_EBA:I1502
0.05068164 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7286
0.05084276 Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale:I0111
0.05122130 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK22
0.05162585 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK21A
0.05179586 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR31

One of whom, DA197, is also R1a-Z282, namely R-YP340*. So my call that Hungarian Scythians were direct descendants of Gava culture people based on archeological evidence was totally correct.. :)

Based on this we can say that most likely Gava carried no E-V13, initially. But also look at DA198 who is G-PF3378, and another one is a mix of DA198 and Northern ancestry. It seems these represent some indigenous Southern Belegiš etc element.

We do have 3 E-V13 Pšeničevo culture finds, we do have "Thraco-Kimmerian" find which belongs to the Babadag culture, sister culture to Pšeničevo, and their ultimate root is Insula-Banului where a contact of Gava and local Incrusted culture peoples was made. Nevertheless it looks autosomally, they were mostly Southern based on Incrusted pottery descended finds, MJ12 and also those Moldovan Scythians are not far off.

Incrusted culture people were of the Girla Mare culture, however this culture which wasn't IE speaking, was supposed to have arrived from the direction of the NW, Balaton lake, and there some of its supposed sister cultures were tested and they too looked Northern except they didn't look Steppe-like.

As Girla-Mare were "late Boomers" strong in LBA, it could be that they assimilated some of the surrounding elements packed with E-V13. Which they did archeologically, they became closer in material due to cohabitation. Y-DNA wise Incrusted pottery migrants from the Balaton lake totally fit into I-Y13336 found in Pomaks, and related clades were found in Mokrin as well as in these W.Hungarian cultures.

Here comes the question of the language. Were Gava culture people original Thracians? Who then in Belegiš-Insula Banului phase transferred the language to Danubian-Carpathian complex locals who then proceeded to spread it around with the Incrusted pottery. Because with these EIA cultures who were all related you could explain the entire Daco-Thracian EIA world. Not only Pšeničevo-Babadag, but also Basarabi and some others such as Saharna culture from Moldova which could be related to Moldovan "Scythians".

Or maybe the Thracian group was the language of the Carpatho-Danubian complex, (Verbicioara, Paraćin, Tei, Monteoru, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Mediana, Brnjica, Vatin should have been actually more Mokrin derived). If we go by archeological evidence, however some of these are actually those who invaded Troy. As I mentioned before, E-FGC44169, which did not diversify in LBA/EIA but earlier in its spread seems to mimic the Zimnicea-Plovdiv group and historical Phillisitines/Sea Peoples.

Insula Banului-Pšeničevo etc. people could be explain with the likes of CTS9320 (there is even a Greek CTS9320* near Svilengrad, and even some Asia Minor clades). Interestingly these are associated with Thracians and they also spent time at Troy after the Zimnicea-Plovdiv people. And also these people hugely influenced the Mediana-Brnjica group who did also migrate to Albanian areas (especially Southern) where you find some extra diversity of these younger clades such as CTS9320 and FGC11450. But interestingly Albanian V13, despite their best level of testing in the Balkans, fail to achieve the phylogenetic structure past the Late Antiquity and they generally have Bulgarian, Carpathian, Greek EIA/LBA relatives closer to them than other Albanian V13, which does suggest a migratory event.

Considering the links of Thracian with the Baltic these R-Z280 finds would seem to suggest Thracians were a younger group. In which case the Carpatho-Danubian complex was either some other IE of even of the Anatolian group, or non-IE. Incrusted pottery migrants from Balaton lake were possibly Etruscan. Earlier R-Z93 find from Bulgaria should not be taken seriously for proto-Thracians, they were most likely Iranic speakers, a dead-end group who migrated in MBA. Z93 SNP is firmly tied to Indo-Aryan group and Thracian doesn't fit there, except some influences here and there. There was a LBA Noua Iranic influence in the area.

Generally you see the Northern autosomal affinity in these Urnfield groups, Czech Hallstat DA112 R1b sample is also up there as is the J2a Kyjatice Culture sample. So already we have some of these and no E-V13..

Finally regarding the distant origins of E-V13, and my Cetina->Schneckenberg thesis, we have a recent sample from Bosnia which might indicate that there were such migrations
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC43622/

He split the Eastern Balkan/Carpathian Y5587. Though here this SNP is Homologous at the FTDNA he has few more. So It could be that E-V13 in EBA spread with Y5587. What should be noted that these MBA Carpatho-Danubian cultures such as Tei, Monteoru, Verbicioara formed on the basis of Schneckenberg supstrate.

I will write more about it later.
As for the Incrusted pottery in Girls Mare, it's a direct influence from the Encrusted Pottery Transdanubian Culture dated between 2000 - 1600 ybp. We don't have yet samples from this culture nor close to the Balaton lakes where this culture originated. It's argued that south of lake Balaton this culture received heavy Vucedol related elements. It's also argued that this culture it's the result of a combination between Nagyrev and Vucedol related elements. And we do have some Nagyrev related samples, marked as HUN_EBA in G25 spreadsheet and they are quite 'southern' on the PCA, similar to HRV_MBA. Also the Bell Beakers from Hungary and the Mokrin samples from Serbia did have similar southern individuals in its ranks. And those Hungarian Bell Beakers were samples from around Budapest which would give a reason to think that the Danube was really the border where such individuals mixed with more northern types of people.
Anyway, the Incrusted pottery bearers had great influence in Central Macedonian and western Thrace, especially the Rodopian area. Some Greek archaeologists argued that these people were the ones that directly influenced the birth of the geometrical era in Greece. Nenova wrote that encrusted pottery appears in Bulgaria for the first time in the 16th century BCE which is about the time when the bearers of the encrusted pottery migrated southwards towards the Balkans.
I-Y13336 is also found in one Macedonian scientific sample and it's distribution, the Rodopes and Macedonia gives credence to what you say.

xlukex
05-31-2021, 03:34 PM
I think we have to be careful discarding Haplogroups when using such limited sample numbers when they come in at under 10% in such regions to begin with. Although, without finding such a haplogroup, there is of course no evidence. However, my main question was about the E-V13 haplogroups which are not part of BY3880. Do you think those also spread through or were contributors of the Vatin Culture?

Huban
05-31-2021, 04:43 PM
I think we have to be careful discarding Haplogroups when using such limited sample numbers when they come in at under 10% in such regions to begin with. Although, without finding such a haplogroup, there is of course no evidence. However, my main question was about the E-V13 haplogroups which are not part of BY3880. Do you think those also spread through or were contributors of the Vatin Culture?

Well recently CTS5856 level was broken up and now there are apparently two Italians as E-BY4877*. I waited for them to form their own clade but to no avail, it seems there are two separate Italian E-BY4877* branches.

E-BY6550 East Germany, Scotland and probably Italian from Calabria
E-Z1057>Y30977 this group resembles Cetina totally in spread and TMRCA
E-Z1057>CTS5856>Z16663 Strong in Western Balkans and Pannonian-Carpathian region, a cluster of Pontic Greeks/Armenians might point towards Carpathians more (as the LBA collapse begun there).
E-Z1057>CTS5856>BY4877* Italian from Sicily
E-Z1057>CTS5856>BY4877* Italian
E-Z1057>CTS5856>BY4877>L540 North/East/Central Europe
E-Z1057>CTS5856>BY4877>FT7781 Ossetia/Brazil, Turkish Jew, Lybia, it has great age so they only share one SNP.
E-Z1057>CTS5856>BY4877>BY3880 Central-Eastern Balkans has greatest basal diversity, serious diversity in Carpathians and Western Balkans.

I think Y30972 are Cetina remnants who were assimilated by the J-L283 incomers. They even failed to form any younger LBA/EIA clusters except the Carpathian-C.Balkan E-BY14150. CTS5856 Cetina (Italians, maybe Z16663), for the rest Ezero-Mihalič and Schneckenberg as the EBA spreaders as these had links with Cetina.

rafc
06-02-2021, 12:52 PM
I see that the L241 tree is now also broken up. Does anyone know where the L241* comes from? It seems he is not part of our project.

Huban
06-02-2021, 02:16 PM
I will write more about it later.
As for the Incrusted pottery in Girls Mare, it's a direct influence from the Encrusted Pottery Transdanubian Culture dated between 2000 - 1600 ybp. We don't have yet samples from this culture nor close to the Balaton lakes where this culture originated. It's argued that south of lake Balaton this culture received heavy Vucedol related elements. It's also argued that this culture it's the result of a combination between Nagyrev and Vucedol related elements. And we do have some Nagyrev related samples, marked as HUN_EBA in G25 spreadsheet and they are quite 'southern' on the PCA, similar to HRV_MBA. Also the Bell Beakers from Hungary and the Mokrin samples from Serbia did have similar southern individuals in its ranks. And those Hungarian Bell Beakers were samples from around Budapest which would give a reason to think that the Danube was really the border where such individuals mixed with more northern types of people.
Anyway, the Incrusted pottery bearers had great influence in Central Macedonian and western Thrace, especially the Rodopian area. Some Greek archaeologists argued that these people were the ones that directly influenced the birth of the geometrical era in Greece. Nenova wrote that encrusted pottery appears in Bulgaria for the first time in the 16th century BCE which is about the time when the bearers of the encrusted pottery migrated southwards towards the Balkans.
I-Y13336 is also found in one Macedonian scientific sample and it's distribution, the Rodopes and Macedonia gives credence to what you say.

My bad, actually Vatya culture has I-M223 subbranch not I-Y13336. Mokrin has.

Strictly speaking Pšeničevo culture E-V13 finds should mean that actually E-V13 should be totally related to the Incrusted pottery culture. In such a case E-V13 would need to stem from Vučedol elements, who pushed by the Tumulus culture formed the Girla-Mare/Dubovac culture. In this scenario E-V13 would be totally unrelated to the Carpatho-Danubian complex (Vatina, Verbicioara, Paraćin, Monteoru, Tei etc.) and in such a case it would have spread out around Central Balkans, Eastern Balkans and Carpatho-Wallachian areas in LBA/EIA, having arrived in MBA.

Some Russian archeologists considered the Dubovac, Transdanubian Incrusted pottery cultures as ancestors of the Greeks. I know of some Yugoslav views placing Vučedol as proto-Greeks.

It could be that some Greco-Etruscoids with Gava elements formed Thracians, while the others continued towards the South. In such a case there were no Thracians in MBA at all.. It would all be result of the E-V13 spread in LBA/EIA. Including a more SE autosomal profile.
Very interestingly Villanova urns most likely were Gava derived, so it seems proto-Estruscans were a result of some contacts involving Gava culture as well.
Interesting result, that might point towards Etruscan links
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY20077/

A Sicilian has formed a clade at FTDNA with this Russian, their TMRCA should be around 2500 ybp. So now there is an Italian EIA/LBA E-V13 clade..
EDIT: though they share only 5 SNPs they are 12/111 that would indicate a much closer relation of Italian and Russian.

The fact that views lean in favor of Vatin culture being mostly Maros/Mokrin (where no E-V13 was found) derived (other is Bubanj Hum III which is bit more distant geographically which authors use against its role in Vatins genesis) might be an indicator in that direction. On the other hand some of these Hungarian cultures have been tested, and they are not a good fit for E-V13 (such as Vatya, Mako, Nagyrev). Nevertheless Encrusted pottery people seem to have stemmed from the Vučedol migrants from the South, who lived between Sava and Drava rivers. Its not very hard to separate a proto-Cetina element and add it to the Vučedol.

I see now this as a realistic path, otherwise those Pčeničevo samples are people who were assimilated by the Incrusted Pottery incomers from upper Danube (Verbicioarans etc into Girla-Mare), and logic would suggest that if you have 3/3 it would mean they were the core group.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y145455a/

There is a new basal Greek sample there. Now Greeks have most diversity in E-Y145455. There are two other clusters, one scientific sample from Macedonia is E-BY191636, while there is another group under Y145455 involving Greeks from Santorini, and one Albanian is also close to them. I haven't heard of Arvanites in Santorini. This group also has Bulgarian, Carpathian links.

Also using another study involving that 17 STR Macedonian Greek sample, where there are 10 more STRs (that more often form clades because they are faster), I have been able to call several Greek as belonging to branches not previously discovered in the Balkans.

Riverman
06-02-2021, 02:31 PM
It could be that some Greco-Etruscoids with Gava elements formed Thracians, while the others continued towards the South. In such a case there were no Thracians in MBA at all.. It would all be result of the E-V13 spread in LBA/EIA. Including a more SE autosomal profile.
Very interestingly Villanova urns most likely were Gava derived, so it seems proto-Estruscans were a result of some contacts involving Gava culture as well.
Interesting result, that might point towards Etruscan links
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY20077/


I considered an Etruscan connection some years ago, but think that kind of link is particularly weak actually. So weak, that its not noteworthy. Also, we must consider the samples we have already, both from the Balkans, as well as even more coming in from Pannonia. In both regions, so far, there are no E1b1b and no E-V13 at all. We will see what the final version of the Pannonian paper will tell us, its been quite some time the preview was out. There is definitely something crucial missing which we might just overlook.

rafc
06-02-2021, 02:48 PM
I see that the L241 tree is now also broken up. Does anyone know where the L241* comes from? It seems he is not part of our project.

After seeing some other changes on the tree I suspect that FTDNA has also added the huge group of Turkish scientific samples and I suspect it's one of them.

Huban
06-02-2021, 03:03 PM
I considered an Etruscan connection some years ago, but think that kind of link is particularly weak actually. So weak, that its not noteworthy. Also, we must consider the samples we have already, both from the Balkans, as well as even more coming in from Pannonia. In both regions, so far, there are no E1b1b and no E-V13 at all. We will see what the final version of the Pannonian paper will tell us, its been quite some time the preview was out. There is definitely something crucial missing which we might just overlook.

Etruscan only Y-DNA find came from the Balkans (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-CTS6190/).

Proto-Etruscan urns related to Gava urns.

Autosomally, Etruscans also leaned in W.Balkan direction.

Judging by the samples we have its only the Carpatho-Danubian EBA/MBA complex, or the the Encrusted Ware EBA/MBA complex. In EBA/MBA terms. All of EIA Enctrusted pottery finds are E-V13, which is why the earlier TEW must be considered. Most of Thracian (including Geto-Dacian) EIA was Encrusted derived with some Gava and other influences.

Riverman
06-02-2021, 03:37 PM
Etruscan only Y-DNA find came from the Balkans (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-CTS6190/).

Proto-Etruscan urns related to Gava urns.

Autosomally, Etruscans also leaned in W.Balkan direction.

Judging by the samples we have its only the Carpatho-Danubian EBA/MBA complex, or the the Encrusted Ware EBA/MBA complex. In EBA/MBA terms. All of EIA Enctrusted pottery finds are E-V13, which is why the earlier TEW must be considered. Most of Thracian (including Geto-Dacian) EIA was Encrusted derived with some Gava and other influences.

I know the relations of Etruscans and I wouldn't wonder about single E-V13 carriers among them later, but they were not the formative part, rather just contacts I guess.

Johane Derite
06-02-2021, 03:58 PM
There is evidence Thracian as a language was already existing parallel to Mycenean Greek, so its source must be sought at least since middle bronze age:

"Given the scarcity of the material, it is extremely difficult to date Thracian as a language.

It seems however that one can claim with relative certainty that the language was spoken through the Iron Age and into the Roman Era.

There are examples of the Linear B forms from Crete which have been interpreted as Thracian names, cf. e.g. o-du-ru-we (Dat./Loc.sg.), (Gen.sg.) o-du-ru-wo apparently to Thrac. name Ὀδρύσαι, which might well point to the existence of Thracian as a separate linguistic unit in the chronology comparable to those of Mycenaean Greek."

Pg.790
Thracian
Paleohispanica
No. 20 (2020): Proceedings of the International Conference “Palaeoeuropean Languages and Epigraphic Cultures. Challenges and Research Approaches”
Wojciech Sowa

Johane Derite
06-02-2021, 04:28 PM
E-V13 has a positive correlation with Albanoid languages. Messapic having Albanoid affinities and EV13 distribution in Italy is the key to understanding this.

Founder effects/loss in diversity can happen because of an active colonisation or conquest (one male clan or group and his lineage grabs a territory and expands, spreading his particular branch greatly but with little diversity), but they can also happen because of contraction, the exact opposite, i.e. having your domain territory colonised/conquered by a group, being contracted into a smaller territory in which diversity is then lost.

This is what we already know happened to proto-Albanian speakers and Albanian speakers countless times over the centuries.

Given the tribal patriarchal organisation of Albanians, with the already known cases of being contracted by Greeks, Romans, Justinian plagues, Avars, Cumans, Medieval Bulgars, Medieval Serbs, Turks, Monarchic Serbs, Communist Yugoslavs, etc, we should expect founder effects and loss of diversity from each contraction/conquest event.

Albanians are a people that have had their territory conquered countless times over the last 3000 years, but that have been resilient and survived despite being up against some of histories most powerful and large empires as well as barbarians.

This is the fundamental source of Hubans misdiagnosis when he attributes the supposed lack of diversity in EV13 among (it is not as not diverse as he says) Albanians to a migration.

"When you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail."

He is assuming that Albanian TMRCA's of E-V13 spread in the same way that Slav I2a did, which is with an active migration/conquest.

Knowing the history specifically of Albanians, we should expect a great contraction of a larger Albanoid speaking territory with only a comparatively small proto-Albanian branch surviving. This is accelarated by the the tribal patriarchal organisation of Albanians and the codes like the Kanun associated with it.

E-V13 for me seems to be the Albanoid linguistic group (which is much larger than the Proto-Albanian group).

I mainly think this because of Messapic regions of Italy having the highest E-V13 distribution. . Also, it is important to make clear that Sicily, which is also high in E-V13, is where the Sicels come from, a group that was there before Greeks, and which some connect with the "Siculotae" tribe near Dardanians in Kosovo.

Messapic Calabria then has a connection to Dardanian Galabri in Kosovo.

E-V13 also seems to have a positive correlation with a special kind of patriarchal tribal structure resembling that of Albanians, which comes with a cultural package including blood feuding/vendettas, honour, etc. For example, we know that Messapics did not have a "king" per-se, but only in time of war, would unite under a common leader.

Martin Huld argues that the Albanoid linguistic group must have spread into the frontier with Balto-Slavic groups, since these groups loaned into them at a deep point in their antiquity the word "Vatra" from Albanian (according to him). This also explains old E-V13 branches in Slavic groups.

I think time will show that seeking out an Etruscan EV13 will be futile, and that understanding EV13 will require focussing on the Messapics, on the Sicels, on the Dardanians, etc.

Johane Derite
06-02-2021, 04:35 PM
E-V13 has a positive correlation with Albanoid languages.

We see this linguistically also in the case of non-Albanian language groups that have high E-V13. Bulgarian and Macedonian for example linguistically have Albanoid lexical and grammatical features:

"it is likely that Albanian is the source of the suffixed definite article in Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian, as this has been a feature of Albanian since ancient times."

Source: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-in-practice/project-presentations-archive/2008/old-albanian-living-legacy-of-a-dead-language

vasil
06-02-2021, 04:37 PM
There is evidence Thracian as a language was already existing parallel to Mycenean Greek, so its source must be sought at least since middle bronze age:

"Given the scarcity of the material, it is extremely difficult to date Thracian as a language.

It seems however that one can claim with relative certainty that the language was spoken through the Iron Age and into the Roman Era.

There are examples of the Linear B forms from Crete which have been interpreted as Thracian names, cf. e.g. o-du-ru-we (Dat./Loc.sg.), (Gen.sg.) o-du-ru-wo apparently to Thrac. name Ὀδρύσαι, which might well point to the existence of Thracian as a separate linguistic unit in the chronology comparable to those of Mycenaean Greek."

Pg.790
Thracian
Paleohispanica
No. 20 (2020): Proceedings of the International Conference “Palaeoeuropean Languages and Epigraphic Cultures. Challenges and Research Approaches”
Wojciech Sowa

My theory is Thracians pushed out the Pre-Myceneans out of the Eastern Balkans coming from the west and that explains why E-V13 magicaly appears in Bulgaria when previously it doesnt exist there in which case Thraco-Illyrian would have been some sort of dialect continuum which btw also explains R-Y5587/Thracians and R-BY611/Illyrians there is also some new sample from Bosnia that is basal to Y5587 - https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/R-FGC43622/

Huban
06-02-2021, 05:24 PM
E-V13 has a positive correlation with Albanoid languages.

No, the only haplogroup with positive correlation to Albanian language is R-Z2705. Albanians as a remnant group who formed in Late-Antiquity/Early medieval clearly were concentrated around this group. This is by far the most common and widespread Paleo-Balkan SNP found in Albanians. Found in both Ghegs and Tosks. In order to be proto-Albanian hg must be present in both of these groups otherwise there is no guarantee it was present prior to their separation. Only few clusters fulfill this, and among them some E-V13 clusters. Not yours for ex. which doesn't exist in Tosks as far as I know.



Messapic having Albanoid affinities and EV13 distribution in Italy is the key to understanding this.

I do not deny Messapic affinities of Albanian. Italian E-V13 distribution has to a large extent nothing to do with Albanoid language, they have more basal diversity under CTS5856 in Southern Italy than among Albanians. Those are most likely Cetina, and even Greek remnants. Italians from Syracuse have 15 % of V13, while not sporting Albanian clusters.



He is assuming that Albanian TMRCA's of E-V13 spread in the same way that Slav I2a did, which is with an active migration/conquest.

And what is the alternative? That E-V13 originated in modern day Albania?? Is that what you are claiming? Because judging by diversity it most definitely did not. And even if it did it would have meant they were just Etruscan-speaking farmers who adopted the Illyrian language. They would have no connection whatsoever to any Illyrians. So back to Etruscans.



E-V13 for me seems to be the Albanoid linguistic group (which is much larger than the Proto-Albanian group).

Unlikely. Evidence suggest E-V13 spread Thracian languages in core and Albanian is not Thracian, nor does it seem to be Illyrian proper. Most likely some Pšeničevo people who influenced Mediana and Brnjica proto-Dardanian cultures possibly migrated with proto-Messapics to the South. Along the way they adopted the Messapic language.
In the case E-V13 is tied to Carpatho-Danubian complex, where both Mediana and Brnjica fall in then surely some E-V13 clades do have a deeper connection to Albanoid language.



Messapic Calabria then has a connection to Dardanian Galabri in Kosovo.

I am not saying it doesn't. But most likely Messapic roots is the central Balkans. I am explaining a migration of central Balkan Messapic culture to Albania and you have a problem with that?



E-V13 also seems to have a positive correlation with a special kind of patriarchal tribal structure resembling that of Albanians, which comes with a cultural package including blood feuding/vendettas, honour, etc. For example, we know that Messapics did not have a "king" per-se, but only in time of war, would unite under a common leader.

Chechens have all of that, does it mean Albanians came from Caucasian Albania? :D


I think time will show that seeking out an Etruscan EV13 will be futile, and that understanding EV13 will require focussing on the Messapics, on the Sicels, on the Dardanians, etc.

Are you aware you belong to a non-IE haplogroup? And that Albanian is IE and Etruscan non-IE. It seems a bunch of you are not aware of this fact. Somebody has preserved the Etruscan language family. Assuming it is EEF derived, it must have been such an element. Only two such hg fit the term, G-L497 whose branch was found on Lemnos island, which was populated by the people who spoke Etruscan related language. And E-V13. This is taking the TMRCA into account.
Not sure about some WHG hg's around and whether they might also fit.


Do not forget that E-V13 is not a distinctly Albanian hg!! Those are R-Z2705 and J-L283! And J-L283 was found in one or two ancient proto-Illyrian skeletons already.. E-V13 has a high % in Albanians due to some bottleneck effects and due to low % of Slavic hg's. Lets remove the Slavic, Germanic, Byzantine/Roman, Celtic Y-DNA influence in the entire SE Europe and see what happens!! Rafc did that in his paper.

Huban
06-02-2021, 05:31 PM
continuum which btw also explains R-Y5587/Thracians and R-BY611/Illyrians there is also some new sample from Bosnia that is basal to Y5587 - https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/R-FGC43622/

It doesn't explain Thracians because judging by the current evidence progenitors of the Thracian language were R1a-Z280. It's a Yamnaya group that might expanded to the East from the West (already in EBA judging by the TMRCA), but they did not carry the Thracian linguistic group in any significant way. First they are uncommon to begin with with very weak Antiquity diversity. They are though a group with whom EBA E-V13 could have spread if they are connected to Carpatho-Danubian complex. If not, it is the E-V13 that has Thracianized them in LBA/EIA.

EDIT. there is no archeological evidence to suggest Thracians descend from the Western Balkans!! Those were J-L283 packed cultures very different to what MBA, LBA, EIA Bulgarian and C.Balkan cultures were. Evidence exists for Carpathian, Upper Danubian people coming in. No Thracians came to Bulgaria from the Western Balkans.

Johane Derite
06-02-2021, 05:44 PM
No, the only haplogroup with positive correlation to Albanian language is R-Z2705. Albanians as a remnant group who formed in Late-Antiquity/Early medieval clearly were concentrated around this group. This is by far the most common and widespread Paleo-Balkan SNP found in Albanians. Found in both Ghegs and Tosks. In order to be proto-Albanian hg must be present in both of these groups otherwise there is no guarantee it was present prior to their separation. Only few clusters fulfill this, and among them some E-V13 clusters. Not yours for ex. which doesn't exist in Tosks as far as I know.

.

I sincerely hope nobody actually thinks that you are informed in even the slightest when it comes to Albanian language and history, a topic which you should stop incessantly commenting about in light of this.

Proto-Albanian is not Albanoid.

Albanoid is to Proto-Albanian what "Germanic" is to Danish.

Proto-Albanian is one language branch of the much larger Albanoid language group.

Is this easier to understand?

The rest of that post is so full of false equivalences, non-sequitors, and other logical errors, all borne out of a wrong framework of understanding.

Nowhere did I even begin to try say E-V13 comes from Albania.

vasil
06-02-2021, 05:50 PM
judging by the current evidence progenitors of the Thracian language were R1a-Z280

I am not even going to say anything LOL

Johane Derite
06-02-2021, 06:10 PM
So my hypothesis about E-V13 being attached with Albanoid (not proto-Albanian) is that there would have been an East-Albanoid/West-Albanoid/North-Albanoid/South-Albanoid.

When I say Messapic is Albanoid, something linguists agree on, this claim is not that Messpic and Proto-Albanian are the same language, but that they both descend from the Albanoid group.

So pre-proto-Albanian and pre-messapic would have split a long long time ago, and Messapic could have been from the dialects of the North-West Albanoid group, while pre-Proto-Albanoid could have been the South-West Albanoid group, there is no expectation that proto-Albanian and Messapic be the same branches, but rather that they have a more further apart split from a common Albanoid parent.

The very fact that Messapic is Albanoid is the key to this puzzle. Sicels also very important. E-V13 being overattributed to Greeks in Italy is a mistake.

Johane Derite
06-02-2021, 06:18 PM
The very fact that Messapic is Albanoid is the key to this puzzle. Sicels also very important. E-V13 being overattributed to Greeks in Italy is a mistake.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1p0n0QXEAA0uKq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Huban
06-02-2021, 06:28 PM
I sincerely hope nobody actually thinks that you are informed in even the slightest when it comes to Albanian language and history, a topic which you should stop incessantly commenting about in light of this.

I do know basic Albanian, which might be more than how well you know "Yugoslavian". Also I know a bit extra about its grammar. You shouldn't be so bold talking to me about linguistics, when I proved that I can shut down a thesis published of an academic linguist with decades on experience published in an article based on linguistic grounds. I did this due to my knowledge in that field as I do have B1 level knowledge in Farsi and Ossetian and I have basic knowledge of Pashto and Wakhi as well, which has aided me at that time.. But if I choose, I could familiarize myself more with Albanian (though Thracian is my focus), and you'd be totally out of depth.. :) Which wouldn't be bad, someone needs to check your fountain of various often self-contradictory linguistic material..

Huban
06-02-2021, 06:34 PM
I am not even going to say anything LOL

Are you aware that Gava culture sample is R-YP340*??
Are you aware that Ottomany culture sample is R-Z282?
Are you aware what Gava culture is and its links to the Thracian ethnogenesis?
Are you aware of reputed close Baltic links of Thracian and Baltic?

It does not seem apparent these have living descendants, bar possibly one clade. But maybe some will appear in the future.

Scythoslav
06-02-2021, 06:35 PM
And what do you make of the fact that the direct ancestor of V13, L618 has been found in two Neolithic Balkan Cultures(Cardial Culture Croatia and Lengyel Hungary) and none in Spain or North Africa? Let alone the fact that E-V13 found in Neolithic Spain was part of the Cardial network of cultures that stretched from the Balkans to Spain with a clear connection to the Balkans and also the fact that the other male haplogroup found beside E-V13 was G2a, the most common EEF haplogroup. No any typical North African haplogroup detected neither y-dna nor mt-dna. And even the paper that brought Ave07 stated this:


So we have a clear trail of ancient samples found, M78 in PPNB, M78 in Balkans(Sopot and Tryppilia), L618(Cardial Croatia and Lengyel Hungary), V13 in Cardial Spain with clear Neoilithic EEF connections to Europe and the Balkans.

This alone downplays any connection through Gibraltar based just on some 12000 years old finds of M78 in Taforalt.

By the way, the formation of E-V13 corelates with the so called 8.2-kiloyear event and also with the expansion of the EEF who by the way, came to Spain from the Balkans, not through Gibraltar.


If E-V13 ancestors came into Anatolia from Natufians and then into Europe, that would be nothing short of a miracle. Why?
Because ZEROOOOO E-M78 was found among the natufians. It was found in Levant much later in PPNB, in an area associated with cardial culture which some propose came out of North Africa. If haplogroup E was indeed brought into Anatolia by natufians and later into Europe by EEF, then why don’t we see ANY of the more common Natufian subclades of E-Z827? That makes zero sense to me. If the more common Natufian subclades were found side by side with E-V13 ancestors then that would make sense.

Something is off here.

vasil
06-02-2021, 07:47 PM
Are you aware that Gava culture sample is R-YP340*??
Are you aware that Ottomany culture sample is R-Z282?
Are you aware what Gava culture is and its links to the Thracian ethnogenesis?
Are you aware of reputed close Baltic links of Thracian and Baltic?

It does not seem apparent these have living descendants, bar possibly one clade. But maybe some will appear in the future.

I am aware of the linguistic connections Albanian and Thracian have with Balto-Slavic but that simply means they had contact they dont have to be related genealogically like the balkan sprachbund where you have Slavic, Romance, Hellenic and Albanian having similarities and yet they are all from diferent Indo-European branches. And as far as waiting for Thracian R1a with the exception of some random Z93 i wish you all the luck.

Huban
06-02-2021, 08:25 PM
I am aware of the linguistic connections Albanian and Thracian have with Balto-Slavic but that simply means they had contact they dont have to be related genealogically like the balkan sprachbund where you have Slavic, Romance, Hellenic and Albanian having similarities and yet they are all from diferent Indo-European branches.

There are some details about Thracian that point toward a much closer relationship with the Baltic than just a distance affinity found in other IE groups. Some proven and explainable Gaetic toponyms point more toward a language that separated from the Baltic tree directly.. Slavic at different point in time and with significant amount of its innovations also separated from the same tree.


And as far as waiting for Thracian R1a with the exception of some random Z93 i wish you all the luck.

That Z93 was autosomally identical to Srubnaya where he is from, so I doubt he has something to do with Thracians. We don't have to find any R1a as we have Gava R1a and Ottomany R1a with a "northern" Urnfield autosomal makeup, as well as few Southerners in Gava. Gava developed on the Ottomany basis in good part.. We do have Gava-Belegiš and Gava-Insula Banului groups where Gava people coexisted with some supposedly more southern people, and we have their offshoots which have flooded the historical Daco-Thracian areas soon after.. One could argue this expansion has Thracianized the entire region in LBA/EIA.

Albanian likely fits into Messapic which in turn likely fits into original central Balkan Dardanians, part of whom migrated in LBA Collapse to southern areas including Albania. This fits into an older layer, Yamnaya derived (like BY611), that was subsequently both Thracianized and Illyrianized in their respective regions of influence.

vasil
06-02-2021, 09:19 PM
That Z93 was autosomally identical to Srubnaya where he is from, so I doubt he has something to do with Thracians.
Thats why i said random Z93 that guy probably came directly from the steppe and was some sort of high status individual but what i also meant is that Z93 could have been present at trace amounts say for instance in Scythia Minor/Dobrudzha but all of that is besides the point this thread is about E-V13 and from what we know from that leaked paper on Bulgaria haplgroup E is nowhere to be found and then it appears in huge numbers in the Iron Age as if it dropped from outer space so wherever they were Indo-Europeanised it wasnt in the Eastern Balkans and when you add the fact that just by looking at the tree its pretty obvious the V13 mutation occurred somewhere in Central Europe whether Southern Germany or the Western Carpathians i dont see how they didnt come from the Western Balkans.

Huban
06-02-2021, 11:05 PM
Thats why i said random Z93 that guy probably came directly from the steppe and was some sort of high status individual but what i also meant is that Z93 could have been present at trace amounts say for instance in Scythia Minor/Dobrudzha but all of that is besides the point this thread is about E-V13 and from what we know from that leaked paper on Bulgaria haplgroup E is nowhere to be found and then it appears in huge numbers in the Iron Age as if it dropped from outer space so wherever they were Indo-Europeanised it wasnt in the Eastern Balkans and when you add the fact that just by looking at the tree its pretty obvious the V13 mutation occurred somewhere in Central Europe whether Southern Germany or the Western Carpathians i dont see how they didnt come from the Western Balkans.

Well as I have posted here. No need to call those E-V13 EIA samples as just vaguely "Thracian, Bulgarian etc.". That unnecessarily opens up space for speculation. Those samples belong to Pšeničevo culture by the material culture including pottery, burials etc. As does the 15 year old sample from the nearby Svilengrad. So you have two separate studies in that area giving the same result.

Whereabouts of this culture are quite known and indeed it is not native to Bulgaria. Its origin is from the Insula Banului group from the Iron Gates area (NE Serbia/SW Romania) area. Not far in Viminatium we have strong E-V13 Late Antiquity presence. Insula Banului was a mix of Gava and Girla Mare. And as I have been saying further roots might be upwards to the NW going along Danube river. That is the case for the Girla Mare group. For Gava N.Carpathians.

Also seemengly leak shows single E sample from Late Iron Age Bulgaria, and a single Late Antiquity sample was also E-V13.

There was one strong Steppe Z93 culture in the area this was Noua-Coslogeni. Possible descendants are R-YP5275 and recent R-YP1451 samples.

Aspar
06-02-2021, 11:41 PM
My bad, actually Vatya culture has I-M223 subbranch not I-Y13336. Mokrin has.

Strictly speaking Pšeničevo culture E-V13 finds should mean that actually E-V13 should be totally related to the Incrusted pottery culture. In such a case E-V13 would need to stem from Vučedol elements, who pushed by the Tumulus culture formed the Girla-Mare/Dubovac culture. In this scenario E-V13 would be totally unrelated to the Carpatho-Danubian complex (Vatina, Verbicioara, Paraćin, Monteoru, Tei etc.) and in such a case it would have spread out around Central Balkans, Eastern Balkans and Carpatho-Wallachian areas in LBA/EIA, having arrived in MBA.

Some Russian archeologists considered the Dubovac, Transdanubian Incrusted pottery cultures as ancestors of the Greeks. I know of some Yugoslav views placing Vučedol as proto-Greeks.

It could be that some Greco-Etruscoids with Gava elements formed Thracians, while the others continued towards the South. In such a case there were no Thracians in MBA at all.. It would all be result of the E-V13 spread in LBA/EIA. Including a more SE autosomal profile.
Very interestingly Villanova urns most likely were Gava derived, so it seems proto-Estruscans were a result of some contacts involving Gava culture as well.
Interesting result, that might point towards Etruscan links
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY20077/

A Sicilian has formed a clade at FTDNA with this Russian, their TMRCA should be around 2500 ybp. So now there is an Italian EIA/LBA E-V13 clade..
EDIT: though they share only 5 SNPs they are 12/111 that would indicate a much closer relation of Italian and Russian.

The fact that views lean in favor of Vatin culture being mostly Maros/Mokrin (where no E-V13 was found) derived (other is Bubanj Hum III which is bit more distant geographically which authors use against its role in Vatins genesis) might be an indicator in that direction. On the other hand some of these Hungarian cultures have been tested, and they are not a good fit for E-V13 (such as Vatya, Mako, Nagyrev). Nevertheless Encrusted pottery people seem to have stemmed from the Vučedol migrants from the South, who lived between Sava and Drava rivers. Its not very hard to separate a proto-Cetina element and add it to the Vučedol.

I see now this as a realistic path, otherwise those Pčeničevo samples are people who were assimilated by the Incrusted Pottery incomers from upper Danube (Verbicioarans etc into Girla-Mare), and logic would suggest that if you have 3/3 it would mean they were the core group.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y145455a/

There is a new basal Greek sample there. Now Greeks have most diversity in E-Y145455. There are two other clusters, one scientific sample from Macedonia is E-BY191636, while there is another group under Y145455 involving Greeks from Santorini, and one Albanian is also close to them. I haven't heard of Arvanites in Santorini. This group also has Bulgarian, Carpathian links.

Also using another study involving that 17 STR Macedonian Greek sample, where there are 10 more STRs (that more often form clades because they are faster), I have been able to call several Greek as belonging to branches not previously discovered in the Balkans.

As per Nenova, the pottery characterized as encrusted/incised in Bulgaria disappeared from the record in the EIA with the appearance of the new channeled/fluted/knobbed ware of Gava and impressed ware of Pšeničevo-Babadag. Therefore, it's likely there was a turnover of population during the EIA in Bulgaria with the older elements of the incised/encrusted pottery migrating to Greece and further to Anatolia and the Middle East(Sea People?).
Most probably the bearers of both encrusted/incised and impressed pottery brought some E-V13 clades in Bulgaria in varying degree however whether the original source was the Encrusted Pottery Culture through Vučedol or whether the source was in the lower Danube(Verbičoara, Tei?) it's dificult to say.
If you remember, I was among the first who saw connections of E-V13 with the Encrusted Pottery Culture and was writing in another forum about it (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39697-E-a24066/page2?p=609502&viewfull=1#post609502). It's telling that Vučedol and the Encrusted Pottery might have been mediators of different E-V13 clades to Italy where we see great diversity of E-V13 subclades.
The only thing confusing me is how after so many ancient samples from Italy from almost every ancient period, we've got only two E-V13 samples and both from late antiquity?
Sure, we are not the luckiest haplogroup when it comes to ancient samples, our haplogroup seem to have been a shy one, an introvert one and it's in great contrast to how widespread is today. But still, it could be just because the Balkans are very sampled unlike other areas of Europe. The only two EBA Croatian samples we have(one of which is from Vučedol) are dated between 2900-2600 BCE. Considering that TMRCA for E-V13 is 2900 BCE, searching for E-V13 during the period of 2900-2600 BCE is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Sampling some late Vučedol or Encrusted Pottery Culture might give more answers however the 'small' problem is that the bearers of the Encrusted Pottery Culture practiced cremation.

One thing about these new Greek samples to consider is their place of origin. Pella was an exclusively Slavophone place almost a hundred years ago. Some notable people from there were Krste Petkov Misirkov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krste_Misirkov) etc. After the Balkan wars, the pro-Bulgarian population migrates to Bulgaria according to the exchange agreement between Greece and Bulgaria while the pro-Greek population remained there. After that, there were legit Greeks settled there mixing the population of the town. Nevertheless, if the tester has put Pella as his ancestor birthplace, it's very likely he is a descendant of a Slavophone and not of a migrant in 1928. Other thing to consider is that according to Strabon and other ancient authors, Macedonia before the beginning of the common era was inhabited mainly by Thracian population. There were also Greeks, Illyrians, Gauls etc.

Aspar
06-02-2021, 11:56 PM
If E-V13 ancestors came into Anatolia from Natufians and then into Europe, that would be nothing short of a miracle. Why?
Because ZEROOOOO E-M78 was found among the natufians. It was found in Levant much later in PPNB, in an area associated with cardial culture which some propose came out of North Africa. If haplogroup E was indeed brought into Anatolia by natufians and later into Europe by EEF, then why don’t we see ANY of the more common Natufian subclades of E-Z827? That makes zero sense to me. If the more common Natufian subclades were found side by side with E-V13 ancestors then that would make sense.

Something is off here.

And who said anything about the Natufians?
Natufian predated the Anatolian Farmers by large. PPNB on the other hand was contemporary, especially the sample (I1710), E-M78, middle MPPNB, is dated to 7900-7700 BCE. While the first Anatolian Farmers are thought to have arrived in Europe in 7000 BCE. And it seems these first farmers were exactly those who had more of this PPNB element in them. This is a quote from Mathieson 2017 et al:

A related question about the spread of farming into Europe concerns whether its initial arrival in present-day Greece and subsequent expansion was mediated by a single population migrating from Anatolia – as has been consistent with genetic data up until now9 – or whether there were multiple initial groups, as suggested by the archaeological record.45,46 We find that four southern Greek (Peloponnese) Neolithic individuals – three from Diros Cave and one from Franchthi Cave, plus one previously published individual from Diros27 – are not consistent with descending from the same source population as other European farmers. In PCA these individuals are outliers; shifted away from northwestern Anatolian and European Early Neolithic individuals, in a direction opposite from WHG. D-statistics (Supplementary Data Table 2) show that in fact, these “Peloponnese Neolithic” individuals have less WHG-related ancestry than Anatolia Neolithic ones, and that they form an outgroup relative to Anatolian and Balkans Neolithic populations, suggesting an independent migration into Europe from a population that split off from the ancestors of the northwest Anatolian individuals from which we have data. Admixture graph modeling (Supplementary Information, section 3) supports this interpretation, confirming that their Near Eastern ancestry is derived from a lineage that is close, or basal, to the non-WHG component of Anatolian Neolithic ancestry. One possibility is that this independent migration is related to an earlier Aceramic Neolithic in Greece that was derived from the pre-pottery Neolithic (PPNB) of Cyprus and the Levant46. Under this model, the earliest Neolithic populations in Greece migrated from the Levant, perhaps via the southwestern Anatolian coast as early as 7000 BCE,45,46 but the majority of Neolithic ancestry arrived around 500 years later via a route that passed through northwestern Anatolia. The predictions of this hypothesis could be further tested with genome-wide data of Early Neolithic individuals from Cyprus, Crete and southwest Anatolia. Populations related to the Peloponnese Neolithic potentially made a small contribution to the ancestry of other Mediterranean Neolithic populations like Early Neolithic Iberia and Neolithic farmers from northern Greece9 but we do not strongly reject models without such a contribution (Supplementary Information, section 3).

Scythoslav
06-03-2021, 01:21 AM
And who said anything about the Natufians?
Natufian predated the Anatolian Farmers by large. PPNB on the other hand was contemporary, especially the sample (I1710), E-M78, middle MPPNB, is dated to 7900-7700 BCE. While the first Anatolian Farmers are thought to have arrived in Europe in 7000 BCE. And it seems these first farmers were exactly those who had more of this PPNB element in them. This is a quote from Mathieson 2017 et al:


The Levant PPNB culture Y-DNA was still largely of Natufian E-Z827 descent. With others popping up Like T,H, and E-M78. So Levant PPNB is just Natufian+a outside North African and other Middle eastern cultures who mixed with them. Still largely of Natufian origin though. So the problem still remains, why is it that the MINORITY lineage, of E-M78 made it from these ancestors and their majority Y-DNA died off? That doesn’t make sense.

The only logical explanation of why E-M78 is the only branch of E that is found and survived in Europe is if a tribe of MAINLY E-M78 brought it into Europe.

A later entrance with Levant PPNB derived cultures either has to have E-M78 side by side with E-Z827, or again the miracle case where somehow E-M78 lineage is the only one that made it.

Riverman
06-03-2021, 10:52 AM
The Levant PPNB culture Y-DNA was still largely of Natufian E-Z827 descent. With others popping up Like T,H, and E-M78. So Levant PPNB is just Natufian+a outside North African and other Middle eastern cultures who mixed with them. Still largely of Natufian origin though. So the problem still remains, why is it that the MINORITY lineage, of E-M78 made it from these ancestors and their majority Y-DNA died off? That doesn’t make sense.

The only logical explanation of why E-M78 is the only branch of E that is found and survived in Europe is if a tribe of MAINLY E-M78 brought it into Europe.

A later entrance with Levant PPNB derived cultures either has to have E-M78 side by side with E-Z827, or again the miracle case where somehow E-M78 lineage is the only one that made it.

The density of samples and testing in the Near East is, overall, still very low. Even Natufians themselves being not sufficiently covered to exclude some wider variation. And obviously, with every cultural and technological shift, there is the potential of new clans emerging as the dominant force from among the locals or even new people coming in and replacing those before them. I'm nearly certain (not absolutely of course), that in this case, considering the diversity present already, more testing will reveal the direct ancestral line and group in the Near East. Little doubt about that.

Considering Gava-Belegiš, here too we have a similar issue. It was a fairly new formation under the strong influence of (relatively) Northern Gava, so either local lineages, present already, but probably not as dominant, might have rosen to a more prominent position, or new ones coming in. Such transitions, especially the one to the Iron Age, are absolutely key, because they give people the opportunity to spread and eliminate competitors in a way rather unlikely otherwise. This also means that before the Channelled Ware and the introduction of Iron technology via Gava, the E-V13 lineage might have been a smaller one in the North, or anywhere in between I'd say, unless we get to TMRCA or actual finds which make it more clear or such a scenario unlikely.

Johane Derite
06-03-2021, 11:11 AM
Because of E-V13 in Messapic regions being highest of Italy, the question of when and with which archaeological culture Messapic speakers arrived in Italy becomes of great relevance.

"On the basis of archaeological evidence, an Illyrian origin seems most probable (De Juliis 1988:10–15).

Certainly it is clear that the people of Daunia were in contact with those in the Balkans from Mycenaean times, and that a cultural affinity existed between the two regions (Nava 1990).

Many posit an influx of individuals themselves from across the Adriatic Sea in the late Bronze Age, a time in which significant population growth and settlement redistribution can be seen in Daunia, and it is possible that these were not the first from the Balkans to inhabit the area."

Pg 147
The Tribal Tattooing of Daunian Women
Camilla Norman
2011


So this is very important, a late bronze age movement from Balkans, but there seems to be evidence that it was not the first movement.

Riverman
06-03-2021, 11:18 AM
So this is very important, a late bronze age movement from Balkans, but there seems to be evidence that it was not the first movement.

There were constant movements from the Balkans to Southern Italy. This is just logical, if looking on a map, they are too close to each other. I would even say that E1b1b made it there, probably, with Cardial-Impresso settlers in the Neolithic. But the point is, when did the carriers of the surviving E-V13 subclades come in. And that's probably a completely different topic as to who sailed the same path before. But I agree that Illyrians should have had it and brought it over too.

To which other people's clades are the Southern Italian ones closer? Overall it seems that rather representive bunch of E-V13 guys moved almost everywhere, and only the later sub-subclades are more localised.

digital_noise
06-04-2021, 07:12 AM
I noticed under the PH1246 side of things that there are a couple new additions on Yfull, starting with a Turkish member SRS8752742 under E-37902. Previously it was just a Greek fellow. Im my group E-BY14160* there is a kit under review, SRS8752666. Thus far its been myself (Calabrian origins) and a Serbian guy so this is exciting.

Aspar
06-04-2021, 08:21 PM
The Levant PPNB culture Y-DNA was still largely of Natufian E-Z827 descent. With others popping up Like T,H, and E-M78. So Levant PPNB is just Natufian+a outside North African and other Middle eastern cultures who mixed with them. Still largely of Natufian origin though. So the problem still remains, why is it that the MINORITY lineage, of E-M78 made it from these ancestors and their majority Y-DNA died off? That doesn’t make sense.

The only logical explanation of why E-M78 is the only branch of E that is found and survived in Europe is if a tribe of MAINLY E-M78 brought it into Europe.

A later entrance with Levant PPNB derived cultures either has to have E-M78 side by side with E-Z827, or again the miracle case where somehow E-M78 lineage is the only one that made it.

Along with E-M78 in an EEF context of Neolithic Europe there are other PPNB lineages found such as H-P96 or T1a.
So these arrived to Europe together. You might as well ask yourself why the Beakers were overwhelmingly R-L51 when Yamnaya was mostly R-Z2103 or why the South Slavs are overwhelmingly I-Y3120 and not R-Z280 or R-M458, the two most common haplogroups in North Slavs and the early Slavic samples. The answer is simply because of a founder effect among different tribes as Riverman explained.
But then I can ask you the same thing. Why E-L19 which was found in Neolithic North Africa and which descendant E-M81 is the most common North African lineage today haven't appeared in Neolithic Europe if E-M78 came directly from North Africa to Europe?

Scythoslav
06-06-2021, 02:46 AM
Along with E-M78 in an EEF context of Neolithic Europe there are other PPNB lineages found such as H-P96 or T1a.
So these arrived to Europe together. You might as well ask yourself why the Beakers were overwhelmingly R-L51 when Yamnaya was mostly R-Z2103 or why the South Slavs are overwhelmingly I-Y3120 and not R-Z280 or R-M458, the two most common haplogroups in North Slavs and the early Slavic samples. The answer is simply because of a founder effect among different tribes as Riverman explained.
But then I can ask you the same thing. Why E-L19 which was found in Neolithic North Africa and which descendant E-M81 is the most common North African lineage today haven't appeared in Neolithic Europe if E-M78 came directly from North Africa to Europe?

Answer to first part: H and T wasn’t exclusive to PPNB though. So it could of come in from anywhere. Has there even been a sample of E-Z827 found inside of Europe?



Answer to 2nd part: Probably because E-M78 came into Europe during late Mesolithic from the Capsian culture of North Africa, this was before the Neolithic migrations of pastoralists from the Levant and North Eastern Africa bringing in the ancestors of E-M81. E-M78 was a minority lineage all over the southern coast of Europe.



However, I would rather wait for more samples before I say anything for sure.

My opinion on this is there is too much weight placed on current theories with very little conclusive evidence.

Bane
06-06-2021, 10:18 AM
Answer to first part: H and T wasn’t exclusive to PPNB though. So it could of come in from anywhere. Has there even been a sample of E-Z827 found inside of Europe?



Answer to 2nd part: Probably because E-M78 came into Europe during late Mesolithic from the Capsian culture of North Africa, this was before the Neolithic migrations of pastoralists from the Levant and North Eastern Africa bringing in the ancestors of E-M81. E-M78 was a minority lineage all over the southern coast of Europe.



However, I would rather wait for more samples before I say anything for sure.

My opinion on this is there is too much weight placed on current theories with very little conclusive evidence.


I second the whole post!

Riverman
06-06-2021, 11:02 AM
Answer to first part: H and T wasn’t exclusive to PPNB though. So it could of come in from anywhere. Has there even been a sample of E-Z827 found inside of Europe?



Answer to 2nd part: Probably because E-M78 came into Europe during late Mesolithic from the Capsian culture of North Africa, this was before the Neolithic migrations of pastoralists from the Levant and North Eastern Africa bringing in the ancestors of E-M81. E-M78 was a minority lineage all over the southern coast of Europe.



However, I would rather wait for more samples before I say anything for sure.

My opinion on this is there is too much weight placed on current theories with very little conclusive evidence.

I think you are right about the second part, but why the first part should be more likely is beyond me. Any kind of foraghers living as a minority on the fringes would have had much more troubles becoming a widespread, yet even dominant lineage in the Neolithic era. Its far more likely that Natufian related people -> PPN -> Levantine or Anatolian farmers jumped over, were part of the stream of colonists and made it in various regions because of successful transition management and solid strategies.
Of course, many scenarios are still possible, not falsified yet, but the Neolithic spread with Cardial-Impresso-colonisers is indeed the most likely by far and a lot.

Aspar
06-06-2021, 06:24 PM
Answer to first part: H and T wasn’t exclusive to PPNB though. So it could of come in from anywhere. Has there even been a sample of E-Z827 found inside of Europe?



Answer to 2nd part: Probably because E-M78 came into Europe during late Mesolithic from the Capsian culture of North Africa, this was before the Neolithic migrations of pastoralists from the Levant and North Eastern Africa bringing in the ancestors of E-M81. E-M78 was a minority lineage all over the southern coast of Europe.



However, I would rather wait for more samples before I say anything for sure.

My opinion on this is there is too much weight placed on current theories with very little conclusive evidence.

You keep parading with E-Z827 as if it's the crucial thing in the puzzle and you haven't answered why E-L19 wasn't found as well when it was the ultimate North African lineage, both in ancient and modern times.

Nevertheless, it seems we are back to that Capsian theory paraded around by some members.

The Taforalt individuals had the following haplogroups among them: y-dna(E-M78); mt-dna(U6a, M1b).
Have you seen any of these found in Mesolithic Europe or in WHG context in Neolithic Europe assuming these Taforalt individuals mixed with the WHG population? Me neither...
There is plenty of Mesolithic and Neolithic WHG aDNA from Iberia, France, Italy, the Balkans and so far we have: y-dna(I1, I2, R1b, C), mt-dna(K1a, H, T2, U5, U4, J1, N1, V, X2b). No E-M78, U6a and M1b whatsoever. How do you explain that?

At the same time, the most ancient E samples we have so far from South Europe are the Neoilithic Cardial/Impressed ware Dalmatian sample I3948(E-L618) and the Cardium/Impressed ware Iberian Ave07(E-V13). The Cardium Pottery Culture was a culture closely connected to the EEF and close cousins of the Anatolian Farmers. This is what Mathieson et al. said about these samples:

This study resolves two open questions about the initial spread of farming into Europe. The first is the question of whether the first farmers of the Danubian Route that brought agriculture to northern Europe along the Danube River valley, and those that spread along the Mediterranean coast to Iberia and other southern European locations, were derived from a single ancestral population or instead represent separate migrations from different Anatolian sources. A challenge in studying the relationship among Early Neolithic populations is the different proportions of hunter-gatherer ancestry they carry, which obscures the more subtle differences between their farmer ancestries. One approach to this problem is to explicitly model both sources of ancestry using an admixture graph (Supplementary Information, section 3). We confirm that Mediterranean populations, represented in our study by individuals of the Impressa complex from Croatia and the Epicardial Early Neolithic from Spain7, are closely related to the Danubian population represented by the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) from central Europe7,44 and show that both groups are closely related to the Balkan Neolithic population. These three populations form a clade with Northwest Anatolians as an outgroup, consistent with a single migration from a population closely related to the northwestern Anatolian Neolithic farming population into the Balkan peninsula, which then split into two populations that followed the Danubian and Mediterranean routes.

If you can understand anything of these it will become clear that these E-V13 and E-L618 samples were closely related to the Anatolian Farmers and quite different than the WHG population of the Balkans and Iberia. We do have WHG population from the Balkans(Korchula-Croatia and Iron Gates-Romania and Serbia) where you have I2, R1b, U5, U4 and no E samples or U6a, M1b for that matter. The same case is in Iberia where R1b, I2, I1, U5 have been found, therefore the chance some North Africans migrating to South Europe during the Mesolithic and mixing with the WHG is almost ZERO. Not to mention that if anything like that happened in a significant scale a Taforalt like dna would have been detected both uniparental and autosomal wise and yet we don't have such a thing.

Then again, the first Aceramic Anatolian Farmers as I already mentioned were the product of Anatolian HG and Levantine Farmers so the appearance of E-L618 or any other E samples in that matter is not a coincidence and these was very obvious for the most researchers and geneticists who already attributed the appearance of E-M78 in Europe to the first farmers who came from the Levant.

And it will eventually be shown that's the case because there were no any E samples among the Mesolithic Europeans nor any Taforalt like dna.

It's up to you to make a sense out of these arguments which shouldn't be too difficult but you never know. I don't have a horse in this race. For me it can't be more unimportant than caring whether the ancestor of E-V13 came through North Africa or the Levant. It's a matter of facts which until now give very little credibility of the idea for some Capsian migrants being responsible for the appearance of E-L618 and E-V13 among the Cardium/Impressa individuals of South Europe.

Riverman
06-06-2021, 07:30 PM
Also, the survival rates of pre-Neolithic patrilineages in Southern Europe was extremely bad and even the farmer lineages are pretty weak.
So even if some males from North Africa would have made it to Europe, this wouldnt make their success easy to explain. It would make the whole E-V13 story even less likely, less parsimonious.
While if E1b1b was widespread among farmers entering Europe, they got a better chance. No matter how you look at it, the direct leap from North Africa makes little sense.

Bane
06-06-2021, 08:18 PM
While if E1b1b was widespread among farmers entering Europe, they got a better chance.

The thing is, it is already obvious E1b1b was not widespread among farmers entering Europe. So if E-M78 was rare, the success of E-V13 would be even harder to explain (compared to maritime migration from Maghreb).

Aspar
06-06-2021, 08:35 PM
Also, the survival rates of pre-Neolithic patrilineages in Southern Europe was extremely bad and even the farmer lineages are pretty weak.
So even if some males from North Africa would have made it to Europe, this wouldnt make their success easy to explain. It would make the whole E-V13 story even less likely, less parsimonious.
While if E1b1b was widespread among farmers entering Europe, they got a better chance. No matter how you look at it, the direct leap from North Africa makes little sense.

That's true. The very first farmers in Greece the Balkans, Hungary and LBK have zero to very little WHG dna which would mean there was limited mixing with WHG and probably not very friendly relations between them. Mixing with WHG on a large scale only occurs later in Western Europe where you have mixed EEF/WHG societies and where lineages like E-M78 and I2a are found in a same context as has been in Michelsberg.

For example this is what admixture rates Mathieson et al. gives for the Balkan Neolithic Farmers, LBK and the Iberian Neolithic Farmers :
[url=https://postimages.org/]https://i.postimg.cc/mgs995jg/Neolithic-EEF.png

Balkan Neolithic Farmers = (97% Anatolian Farmers) + (3% UHG(where the UHG is a population closely related to Ukraine Mesolithic))
LBK = (95% Anatolian Farmers) + (5% WHG)
Iberian Neolithic Farmers = (89% Anatolian Farmers) + (11% WHG)

Therefor it's obvious that the EEF only received more WHG input ones they entered deeper in Europe. Furthermore, there is no Taforalt admixture in this modeling and if E-M78 haven't been detected among the WHG and Mesolithic Ukrainians where would have came from? Obviously from the Farmers that arrived from Anatolia. Well it's not that obvious for everyone, guys like Skythoslav and Bane still believe that E-V13 is a lineage of a Mesolithic North African origin transplanted in Europe through Gibraltar or other place in South Europe although there are no signs for any of that. Taforalt like dna was so distinctive that even mixing with WHG or EEF in the Balkans would have been easily detectable.

Riverman
06-06-2021, 08:38 PM
The thing is, it is already obvious E1b1b was not widespread among farmers entering Europe. So if E-M78 was rare, the success of E-V13 would be even harder to explain (compared to maritime migration from Maghreb).

It was widespread, just on a low level. We have it from Cardial in Croatia, Cardial in Iberia, Michelsberger in France-Germany, Lengyel-Sopot in Eastern Central Europe, Tripolye-Cucuteni and so on. This means it was very widespread in Neolithic Europe, but it was a minority element usually associated with G2 Neolithic communities. What kind of North African group could have spread it that far and wide? Whereas if it was present in various Cardial and probably even LBK groups, but probably at a level of around 10 percent on average, it would make perfect sense that it would:
- pup up here and there, but not with any great deal of regularity
- could have become a dominant lineage in specific clans and regions by chance, random and founder effects.

There was no wedge from North Africa, over Sicily, right through Italy, through the Alps to CEE-SEE, where E-V13 became a dominant lineage. Makes no sense. The whole stream of people and populations was going either from South Eastern Europe West and up, or from the North or East West and down. There was no huge associated expansion of any sort of technology or culture from North Africa. And even if there would have been, why weren't all these people in between dominated by E1b1b, but primarily the Balkan-CEE ones? In SEE-CEE there is an actual continuity from Cardial over Lengyel-Sopot. That's key.

Scythoslav
06-06-2021, 10:34 PM
You keep parading with E-Z827 as if it's the crucial thing in the puzzle and you haven't answered why E-L19 wasn't found as well when it was the ultimate North African lineage, both in ancient and modern times.



Ultimate North African lineage? Where is the proof of ancestors of E-L19 being the main lineage of North Africa during the Mesolithic or Paleolithic? By the samples we have I thought that was E-M78. E-L19 is directly descendant from the Natufian branch. The branch that was the main lineage in the homeland of the Cardials, yet 0 samples of it were found in Europe. So you asking me that is actually supporting my point, because that's exactly what I'm asking too lmao wtf?



"Then again, the first Aceramic Anatolian Farmers as I already mentioned were the product of Anatolian HG and Levantine Farmers so the appearance of E-L618 or any other E samples in that matter is not a coincidence and these was very obvious for the most researchers and geneticists who already attributed the appearance of E-M78 in Europe to the first farmers who came from the Levant."

NOOO! Not any other E sample. For fucks sake this is the whole problem. Levantine farmers were either exclusively or predominantly E-Z827, again ancestors to E-L19, based on all samples. We have circled back to the same problem. And the whole point of me making this post.

Either the main Levantine famer lineage died off and E-M78 was a minor lineage that made it among the EEFS. Which makes that a miracle. Or something else happened.

Aspar
06-07-2021, 01:02 AM
Ultimate North African lineage? Where is the proof of ancestors of E-L19 being the main lineage of North Africa during the Mesolithic or Paleolithic? By the samples we have I thought that was E-M78. E-L19 is directly descendant from the Natufian branch. The branch that was the main lineage in the homeland of the Cardials, yet 0 samples of it were found in Europe. So you asking me that is actually supporting my point, because that's exactly what I'm asking too lmao wtf?



"Then again, the first Aceramic Anatolian Farmers as I already mentioned were the product of Anatolian HG and Levantine Farmers so the appearance of E-L618 or any other E samples in that matter is not a coincidence and these was very obvious for the most researchers and geneticists who already attributed the appearance of E-M78 in Europe to the first farmers who came from the Levant."

NOOO! Not any other E sample. For fucks sake this is the whole problem. Levantine farmers were either exclusively or predominantly E-Z827, again ancestors to E-L19, based on all samples. We have circled back to the same problem. And the whole point of me making this post.

Either the main Levantine famer lineage died off and E-M78 was a minor lineage that made it among the EEFS. Which makes that a miracle. Or something else happened.

The samples IAM.4 and IAM.5 dated at around 5100 BCE from this study (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/191569v1.full) belong to E-L19*. They also belong to mt-dna U6a, the same one found among the Taforalt individuals while another IAM sample belongs to mt-dna M1b also found among Taforalt individuals.

Excerpt from the study:


Genetic analyses have revealed that the population history of modern North Africans is quite complex7. Based on our aDNA analysis, we identify an Early Neolithic Moroccan component that is restricted to North Africa in present-day populations7, which is the sole ancestry in IAM samples. We hypothesize that this component represents the autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry associated with Berber populations. This Maghrebi component was related to that of Epipaleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic people from the Levant. By 3,000 BCE, a European Neolithic expansion brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Our analyses demonstrate that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves. Future palaeogenomic efforts in North Africa will help further disentangle the complex history of migrations that forged the ancestry of many admixed populations we observe today.



West Eurasian populations can be modelled as admixture of four different ancestral components2: Eastern and Western European hunter-gatherers, Iranian and Levant Neolithic. We explored the placement of Moroccan and Southern Iberian Neolithic samples in this context, and compared their genetic affinities to ancient and present-day West Eurasian and Levant populations. Interestingly, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) reveals that IAM individuals are different from any aDNA sample studied to date (Figure 2; Supplementary Note 6). When projected, IAM samples are close to modern North Africans, in the Levantine corner of the PCA space (Figure 2). Southern Iberian Neolithic individuals from TOR and BOT cluster with Sardinians and with other Anatolian and European Neolithic samples. Moreover, KEB samples are placed halfway between the IAM and Anatolian/European farmer clusters, in close proximity to Levant aDNA samples. We further explored the genetic structure of these samples using the program ADMIXTURE16 (See Supplementary Note 7 for details), with values of K ranging between 2 and 8. At lower K values, IAM samples possess ~100% of a component partially shared by aDNA samples from the Middle East and Levant. At K=6, this IAM-like component is observed mainly in modern North Africa, following a west-to-east cline. TOR and other Early Neolithic samples from Iberia cluster together with farmers from Anatolia, the Aegean area and Europe. At K=8 the Early Neolithic individuals from Iberia differentiate from the Anatolian, Aegean and European Early Neolithic samples, and share their main component (purple) with Middle Neolithic/Chalcolitic samples (Figure 2). Finally, at low K values, KEB can be explained as having both IAM-like and European Neolithic components, suggesting an admixture process between IAM-like people and early farmers.


In short, these IAM individuals were Taforalt like and related to the Paleolithic populations from the Levant but NOT exactly like them. These were direct continuation of the Mesolithic North African population.
The other set of individuals called KEB and dated to around 3000 BCE were different than the IAM individuals in that they were a two way mix of IAM and Anatolian Farmers genetically speaking. Also they had different uniparentals hence the study says this:


Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups obtained for IAM (Moroccan Early Neolithic) and KEB (Moroccan Late Neolithic) indicate either a population replacement or an important genetic influx into Morocco between 5,000–3,000 BCE. IAM samples belong to the mtDNA haplogroups U6a and M1—both of which are associated with back migration to Africa13,14while KEB samples belong to haplogroups K1, T2 and X2, prominently found in Anatolian and European Neolithic samples2,15 (Supplementary Note 4). Regarding the paternal lineages, IAM individuals carry Y chromosomes distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup, while the Y chromosome from KEB belongs to the T-M184 haplogroup; though scarce and broadly distributed today, this haplogroup has also been observed in European Neolithic individuals16 (Supplementary Note 5)


The study concludes that the Anatolian Farmer admixture came from Iberia where other set of individuals called TOR were also studied and were found to be Balkan and Aegean Farmer like. The study goes on to say this:


To formally test this hypothesis, we used an admixture-f3 test17, using KEB as the test population, IAM as a reference population and one of the Anatolian and European Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations as the second reference population. All comparisons produced negative values of the f3-statistic, which suggests the KEB population can be modelled as a mixture of IAM and Anatolian/European Neolithic. These results also parallel archaeological findings in the region: Late Neolithic sites in North Africa contain pottery resembling that of the Andalusian Early Neolithic and Cardial cultures, and ivory tools distinctly associated with those of Iberian Neolithic sites (Supplementary Note 1).

TOR has more shared ancestry with Iberian Early Neolithic samples and other Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations from Europe. Archaeological work in southern Iberia, especially in the Nerja site, has pointed out that the Andalusian Early Neolithic culture, previous to the Cardial expansion, may have had connections to farmer traditions in the Maghreb18. However, we observe that TOR samples have a similar genetic composition to that of Cardial individuals from Iberia, evidencing a common origin.


In another words, Cardial Pottery traditions were spread in North Africa by Iberian Farmers that were identical to those the Cardial Pottery individuals from Iberia who were very similar to their Balkan and Aegean counterparts and NOT the other way around. This is the final nail in the coffin to the idea that individuals from North Africa spread Cardial Pottery traditions.

E-L618 and it's descendant E-V13 are Cardial Pottery lineages that have ultimately origin from the Levant where the oldest traditions in relation to the Cardium Pottery Culture are found.

End of story!!!

Scythoslav
06-07-2021, 01:42 AM
The samples IAM.4 and IAM.5 dated at around 5100 BCE from this study (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/191569v1.full) belong to E-L19*. They also belong to mt-dna U6a, the same one found among the Taforalt individuals while another IAM sample belongs to mt-dna M1b also found among Taforalt individuals.

Excerpt from the study:



In short, these IAM individuals were Taforalt like and related to the Paleolithic populations from the Levant but NOT exactly like them. These were direct continuation of the Mesolithic North African population.
The other set of individuals called KEB and dated to around 3000 BCE were different than the IAM individuals in that they were a two way mix of IAM and Anatolian Farmers genetically speaking. Also they had different uniparentals hence the study says this:


The study concludes that the Anatolian Farmer admixture came from Iberia where other set of individuals called TOR were also studied and were found to be Balkan and Aegean Farmer like. The study goes on to say this:


In another words, Cardial Pottery traditions were spread in North Africa by Iberian Farmers that were identical to those the Cardial Pottery individuals from Iberia who were very similar to their Balkan and Aegean counterparts and NOT the other way around. This is the final nail in the coffin to the idea that individuals from North Africa spread Cardial Pottery traditions.

E-L618 and it's descendant E-V13 are Cardial Pottery lineages that have ultimately origin from the Levant where the oldest traditions in relation to the Cardium Pottery Culture are found.

End of story!!!

5000 years ago is not "ancient" given the timelines we are talking about here. This perfectly coincides with Neolithic movements, not just later from Iberia, but earlier from the Levant and North Eastern Africa(Egypt/Lybia) with farmers and pastoralists spreading E-L19 throughout North Africa and wiping out the Iberomaurusian and Capsian E-M78 lines. And their greater affinity towards Levantines(which Natufians were already about 18-20 percent Taforalt like) further solidifies this point along with material evidence of a Neolithic migration into the Maghreb. Obviously they absorbed a great amount of Taforalt ancestry from assimilation. E-M78 will always be the Paleolithic and Mesolithic lineage of Maghreb. Not that this matters but just making this clear.


Also from your source, "Archaeological work in southern Iberia, especially in the Nerja site, has pointed out that the Andalusian Early Neolithic culture, previous to the Cardial expansion, may have had connections to farmer traditions in the Maghreb18." LOL.


"E-L618 and it's descendant E-V13 are Cardial Pottery lineages that have ultimately origin from the Levant where the oldest traditions in relation to the Cardium Pottery Culture are found."

Yes, and for some reason the extremely more common E-Z827 lineage present in Cardium Pottery homeland Levant PPNB just decided not to take that boat to Europe with E-L618. Or had a predisposition for dying out. I am not saying that some kind of founder effect wasn't possible, but I cant be convinced that is the answer.

Look I am not saying I know the answer but this is presents a significant hole in the Anatolian farmer route. And it is not conclusive yet, even if it sounds more likely.

Aspar
06-07-2021, 07:41 AM
The samples are from around 5300-5100 BCE, NOT bp. Pls read the study I quoted.

Johane Derite
06-07-2021, 08:19 AM
Some Russian archeologists considered the Dubovac, Transdanubian Incrusted pottery cultures as ancestors of the Greeks. I know of some Yugoslav views placing Vučedol as proto-Greeks.

Incrusted culture people were of the Girla Mare culture, however this culture which wasn't IE speaking,

I wouldn't be hasty with conclusions. Girla Mare is connected by some with Etruscans, thus "non-IE", because of bi-conical urns. But if we see the distribution of "house-urns" we see that we only find them in Etruscan and later Germanic areas. This possibly fits the finds of I1 in Etruscan areas, and maybe gives support to Etruscan being a cognate language of the "Germanic" substrate language.

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

Bane
06-07-2021, 08:26 AM
In another words, Cardial Pottery traditions were spread in North Africa by Iberian Farmers that were identical to those the Cardial Pottery individuals from Iberia who were very similar to their Balkan and Aegean counterparts and NOT the other way around.


If we remember results from the Avellaner cave - there were 5x G2a and one E-V13.
The way I see it - individuals who were spreading cardial pottery belong to G2a. And E-V13 was already there when cardial pottery people came. So maritime arrival of E-V13 from Maghreb does not contradict the study you quoted.

Johane Derite
06-07-2021, 08:29 AM
I wouldn't be hasty with conclusions. Girla Mare is connected by some with Etruscans, thus "non-IE", because of bi-conical urns.

But one thing we know about Etruscan history, according to myth, is that "Dardanoi" came to their lands, and according to linguistics, that "Illyrian" language people intermingled with them, which seems to match the former myt. So for example, Etruscans appear with Illyrian names. Etruscans were not Illyrians, but they seem to have had an injection of an Illyrian component. Therefore the biconical Girla-Mare urns can be connected with the Illyrian part potentially:

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

Johane Derite
06-07-2021, 08:59 AM
But what is the Girl-Mare culture best known for? It is best known for the finds of figurines wearing bell shaped dresses that have found their best parallel in the Albanian xhubleta, found in the North Albanian regions.

The most famous is the Klicevacki figure, but all of them, considered depictions of goddesses, wear bell shaped dresses that resemble the Xhubleta:

https://i.imgur.com/Ml1h71V.png

Riverman
06-07-2021, 09:41 AM
5000 years ago is not "ancient" given the timelines we are talking about here. This perfectly coincides with Neolithic movements, not just later from Iberia, but earlier from the Levant and North Eastern Africa(Egypt/Lybia) with farmers and pastoralists spreading E-L19 throughout North Africa and wiping out the Iberomaurusian and Capsian E-M78 lines. And their greater affinity towards Levantines(which Natufians were already about 18-20 percent Taforalt like) further solidifies this point along with material evidence of a Neolithic migration into the Maghreb. Obviously they absorbed a great amount of Taforalt ancestry from assimilation. E-M78 will always be the Paleolithic and Mesolithic lineage of Maghreb. Not that this matters but just making this clear.


Also from your source, "Archaeological work in southern Iberia, especially in the Nerja site, has pointed out that the Andalusian Early Neolithic culture, previous to the Cardial expansion, may have had connections to farmer traditions in the Maghreb18." LOL.


"E-L618 and it's descendant E-V13 are Cardial Pottery lineages that have ultimately origin from the Levant where the oldest traditions in relation to the Cardium Pottery Culture are found."

Yes, and for some reason the extremely more common E-Z827 lineage present in Cardium Pottery homeland Levant PPNB just decided not to take that boat to Europe with E-L618. Or had a predisposition for dying out. I am not saying that some kind of founder effect wasn't possible, but I cant be convinced that is the answer.

Look I am not saying I know the answer but this is presents a significant hole in the Anatolian farmer route. And it is not conclusive yet, even if it sounds more likely.

You just have to compare the situation with other, similar instances. Like the spread of the steppe people. Those too surely had different haplotypes of R1a, R1b and probably J from the start, yet with huge movements of people, almost exclusively one, like R1a, was associated, or a specific clade of R1b. This can mean something, like a later pick up, but usually doesn't have to be. We deal with branching events and founder effects for the most part.
And its no different for E1b1b. Its even more unlogical to assume that a spread from North Africa against the tide led to such a widespread lineage in Europe, among so many Neolithic cultures. That's not parsimonious at all. Whereas if they were with the majority groups, as a minority, but from the start, the distribution makes the most sense. And the big holes are not in Europe any more, but in the Near East. If you want to know why specific subclades of E1b1b made it, and others not, we need even more samples from Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levante. The European course of events is pretty clear in this respect and my guess is the change in frequency and the spread of E-L618 was associated with shifts happening before they actually entered Europe, or while doing so.

Talking about probabilities, the Levantine route is 90 : 10 vs. North Africa. So the latter is not completely out yet, but the odds are totally against it. Because at every stage, from start to finish (Mesolithic to Middle Neolithic distribution), an independent entry point from North Africa just complicates things. And the argument for the Iberian find being already there, well, the profile of the individual is just typical for a Cardium pottery one. And at the same time we have finds on the other end of the Mediterranean and shortly later in SEE-CEE. That doesn't fit with a presence only in Iberia or even Iberia-Italy from Mesolithic colonists coming directly from North Africa.


If we remember results from the Avellaner cave - there were 5x G2a and one E-V13.
The way I see it - individuals who were spreading cardial pottery belong to G2a. And E-V13 was already there when cardial pottery people came. So maritime arrival of E-V13 from Maghreb does not contradict the study you quoted.

Look at it that way: 6 individuals, one E1b1b = 16,7 %. Like I said, if they were about 10-20 percent in some Neolithic groups, the distribution we have would fit the pattern. How do you explain the appearance of H2 in the Neolithic context? There were more lineages involved in the Neolithic colonisation of Europe. That's it. Why of all Mesolithic European lineages exactly an North African minority one should be a better survivalist makes even less sense than assuming it was a minority group coming from the first PPN populations of the Levante and participating from the start. The Iberian find is just one, we have now many already which point to a widespread presence of E1b1b in Neolithic Europe, as a minority element among G2 farmers.

Aspar
06-07-2021, 09:43 AM
If we remember results from the Avellaner cave - there were 5x G2a and one E-V13.
The way I see it - individuals who were spreading cardial pottery belong to G2a. And E-V13 was already there when cardial pottery people came. So maritime arrival of E-V13 from Maghreb does not contradict the study you quoted.

It's better to read and to understand these valuable scientific papers rather than to write what you see without even quoting any relevant paper or source.
You can at lest read the excerpts I quoted from the relevant papers.
The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/135616v1.full)
Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/191569v1.full)
The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6432/1230)

https://i.postimg.cc/fyjY87wp/Neolithic-EEF.png (https://postimages.org/)


We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans are distinct from any other reported ancient individuals and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, indicating long-term genetic continuity in the region. Among ancient populations, early Neolithic Moroccans share affinities with Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (∼9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (∼6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (∼3,000 BCE) Moroccan remains, in comparison, share an Iberian component of a prominent European-wide demic expansion, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow. Finally, the Andalusian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ∼5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities of the Iberian Neolithic cultures with that of North African Neolithic sites further reinforce the model of an Iberian intrusion into the Maghreb.



Previous knowledge of the genetic structure of Mesolithic Iberia comes from three individuals from the northwest: LaBrańa1 (2), Canes1 (5), and Chan (5). We add LaBrańa2, who was a brother of the previously reported LaBrańa1 (figs. S1 and S2 and table S6), as well as Cueva de la Carigüela (fig. S10), Cingle del Mas Nou, and Cueva de la Cocina from the southeast. In northwest Iberia, we document a previously unappreciated ancestry shift before the arrival of farming (Fig. 2A, fig. S5, and table S7). The oldest individual Chan was similar to the ~19,000-year-old El Mirón, whereas the La Brańa brothers from ~1300 years later were closer to central European hunter-gatherers like the Hungarian KO1, with an even more extreme shift ~700 years later in Canes1. This likely reflects gene flow affecting northwest Iberia but not the southeast, where individuals remained close to El Mirón (Fig. 2A). More data from the Mesolithic period, especially from currently unsampled areas, would provide additional insight into the geographical impact and archaeological correlates of this ancestry shift.

For the Neolithic and Copper Age, we model populations as mixtures of groups related to Anatolian Neolithic, El Mirón, and KO1 (Fig. 2A and table S8). We replicate previous findings of the arrival of Anatolian Neolithic–associated ancestry in multiple regions of Iberia in the Early Neolithic (7, 8, 12); however, sampling from this period remains limited and studies of larger sample sizes and additional sites will be important to shed further light on the interaction between the incoming farmers and indigenous hunter-gatherers. For the Middle Neolithic and Copper Age, we reproduce previous reports of an increase of hunter-gatherer–related ancestry after 4000 BCE (6, 7, 12, 13), with higher proportions in groups from the north and center. Using our observations about population substructure in the Mesolithic as a reference frame, we show that the hunter-gatherer–related ancestry during those periods was more closely related to later northwestern (Canes1-like) hunter-gatherers than to the El Mirón–like hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2A), providing clues about the source of this ancestry.

Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras (14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusters with modern and ancient North Africans in the PCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCE Moroccans (8), can be well modeled as having ancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans (15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 and S10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparental markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique among Copper Age Iberians, including individuals from sites with many analyzed individuals such as Sima del Ángel, and point to a North African origin. Our genetic evidence of sporadic contacts with North Africa during the Copper Age fits with the presence of African ivory at Iberian sites (16) and is further supported by a Bronze Age individual (I7162) from Loma del Puerco in southern Iberia who had 25% ancestry related to individuals like I4246 (Fig. 1D and table S16). However, these early movements from North Africa had a limited impact on Copper and Bronze Age Iberians, as North African ancestry only became widespread in the past ~2000 years.

In short, North African dna is not detected in Mesolithic or Neolithic Iberia and it's first detected in Copper Age which is not relevant for the history of E-V13 and it's ancestor E-L618 which are first detected in Europe and in Iberia in the early Neolithic. In fact, Iberian Cardials migrated in North Afrca, not the other way around, spreading the Cardial traditions in North Africa and mixing with the early North African individuals. The Iberian Cardials were modeled as 89% EEF + 11% WHG and no visible Taforalt like dna by Mathieson et al. Furthermore no E-V13, E-L618 or any E y-dna are detected in pre-EEF people of Iberia but we have (I1, I2, R1b, C1a2, C6-V20) - source (https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#6/44.174/20.039)

Your view is without basis I'm afraid and if you don't back it up with some serious sources as I did then I'm afraid we will have fruitless discussion.

Riverman
06-07-2021, 09:50 AM
Furthermore no E-V13, E-L618 or any E y-dna are detected in pre-EEF people of Iberia but we have (I1, I2, R1b, C1a2, C6-V20)

This is for me a very big argument, because it means two things:
- We have already a longer list of Neolithic sites with E1b1b in Europe, from very different regions, only connected by Neolithic settlement and ancestry
- No Mesolithic E1b1b in Europe, especially not Western or South Western Europe.
- The survival rate of the Mesolithic lineages was, even at home, even in Iberia, pretty bad.

If E1b1b was present in Europe before the Neolithic, then too I would bet on the Balkans and Greece, rather than Iberia. But a Neolithic entry is just the most likely scenario.

Aspar
06-07-2021, 10:00 AM
This is for me a very big argument, because it means two things:
- We have already a longer list of Neolithic sites with E1b1b in Europe, from very different regions, only connected by Neolithic settlement and ancestry
- No Mesolithic E1b1b in Europe, especially not Western or South Western Europe.
- The survival rate of the Mesolithic lineages was, even at home, even in Iberia, pretty bad.

If E1b1b was present in Europe before the Neolithic, then too I would bet on the Balkans and Greece, rather than Iberia. But a Neolithic entry is just the most likely scenario.

Of course those are pretty strong arguments against a North African intrusion of E-V13 or it's ancestor as well as the conclusions of the relevant studies. It's not up to me to convince someone about my view but to convince him to read and understand these valuable studies which are relevant for the history of E-V13.

What is interesting is that the conclusion of the authors about the Iberian paper that North African dna first appears in the Copper Age goes hand in hand with some Bell Beaker finds in Iberia who had elevated North African ancestry and who also were positive for E-V1039 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V1039/). This is also a lineage we can call a North African one since it was found among some Punics in Sardinia as well.

It's all in the papers, one just have to read and understand. I didn't find anything new in particular, nor I'm the smartest one. All the arguments point of an EEF origin of E-V13 and arrival from the Levant.

Bane
06-07-2021, 12:58 PM
In short, North African dna is not detected in Mesolithic or Neolithic Iberia and it's first detected in Copper Age which is not relevant for the history of E-V13 and it's ancestor E-L618 which are first detected in Europe and in Iberia in the early Neolithic.

What does "North-African" exactly represent? From which period? With admixtures it is always relative...

Bane
06-07-2021, 01:05 PM
If E1b1b was present in Europe before the Neolithic, then too I would bet on the Balkans and Greece, rather than Iberia. But a Neolithic entry is just the most likely scenario.

I did correct my view so that I don't think modern E-V13 evolved from Iberia, but was in the Western Balkans at the beginning of the Neolithic. Simply as Scythoslav pointed out, different E-M78 branches should've been present all over Cardim/Impresso culture territories.

What is different is the route which in my case should be Tunisia->(South Italy maybe)->Balkans.

Johane Derite
06-07-2021, 02:48 PM
But what is the Girl-Mare culture best known for? It is best known for the finds of figurines wearing bell shaped dresses that have found their best parallel in the Albanian xhubleta, found in the North Albanian regions.

The most famous is the Klicevacki figure, but all of them, considered depictions of goddesses, wear bell shaped dresses that resemble the Xhubleta:



Scholars like Franz Nopcsa directly link the Albanian xhubleta with the Girla Mare figurines. Interestingly, the Dupljaja chariots of this culture are interpreted by some scholars as depicting Apollo and his swan chariot.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3SPI5JWYAoelVm?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3SWe_XX0AIDEs_?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Huban
06-07-2021, 06:36 PM
I bothered to find out details on the aDNA finds from Bulgaria. The results are quite clear.

1. That R1a-Z93 MBA Bulgarian find is related to Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Razkopanitsa complex and Tei culture.

2. There are already Ezero culture finds in all phases including the Mihalič phase when Yamnaya influence occurred. That "Bulgarian Yamnaya" find belongs to the Mihalič culture.

3. Glina III Scheckenberg was of Anatolian EBA origin (it was complex but this was a crucial ingredient), one late EBA Bulgarian J2a find is likely related to that EBA Anatolian influx.

No E-V13.
And again 3 Pshenichevo finds are E-V13. This culture is basically 3rd generation Girla-Mare culture. It is hard to imagine there was any E-V13 in Bulgaria, C.Balkans, Carpathians pre LBA (bar some isolated clades), but then a sea of E-V13 flooded the area.

In LBA large portion adopted Thracian language from the R-Z280 Gava people and spread it around the Thrace and Carpathians, Danube. This is the only strong IE link for V13, and it begins in LBA. Anything else is of secondary, tertiary importance (IE-wise). Autosomally though, they were far from being Steppe IE, with slight Steppe admixture.

Considering Cardial links of the Berbers, it makes sense Cardial Croatian could have spoken some AA dialect as well. As Cetina is the most likely source of V13, those views calling it non-IE carry more weight now.

In MBA and prior most E-V13 spoke a non-IE language, could be Etruscan. Essentially E-V13 is what it was forever suspected to be: "Pelasgian". One of very few peoples who successfully put up a fight against IE's. Bar Thracian link, one might as well call E-V13 an anti-IE haplogroup (in a way). And its EIA spread likely caused significant autosomal "Southernisation" of the Thrace and the Balkans, as well as contraction and elimination of various "native" lineages (especially under R-Z2103 which is why they hardly form basically any LBA/EIA age clusters).

Huban
06-07-2021, 09:54 PM
I wouldn't be hasty with conclusions. Girla Mare is connected by some with Etruscans, thus "non-IE", because of bi-conical urns. But if we see the distribution of "house-urns" we see that we only find them in Etruscan and later Germanic areas. This possibly fits the finds of I1 in Etruscan areas, and maybe gives support to Etruscan being a cognate language of the "Germanic" substrate language.

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

But isn't this map telling?? Two green cultures, with related urns. Red region is IE speaking. Green region, Western part is non-IE speaking. And Eastern part was also non IE-speaking in MBA/early LBA (i'm talking about Girla-Mare). Isn't that too much of a coincidence?? And btw Girla-Mare is not described as non-IE just because of urns, far from that. Those urns are of Gava (Northern and R1a) origin!! In Gava-Belegiš phase, in Gava-Insula Banului phase Girla Mare elements were coexisting with Gava. Actually even Belegiš at that point was rather far more Girla-Mare in nature than Vatin (original lineage of Belegiš).

Vatin per archeologists derives primarily from Maros (where we have plenty aDNA finds). Bulgarian MBA R-Z93 seems related to Zimnicea-Plovdiv/Razkopanitsa culture judging by the finds archeological features. Only analogy to it was surely part of that complex in the way pottery was used (placed under the jaw), in terms of the pottery itself it was totally typical of it, with some Tei IV links as well. So this Carpatho-Danubian complex doesn't seem to have been E-V13.

I was correct in terms of geography, its just that the Encrusted pottery people overlapped with the Carpatho-Danubian complex.

Riverman
06-07-2021, 10:12 PM
I bothered to find out details on the aDNA finds from Bulgaria. The results are quite clear.

1. That R1a-Z93 MBA Bulgarian find is related to Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Razkopanitsa complex and Tei culture.

2. There are already Ezero culture finds in all phases including the Mihalič phase when Yamnaya influence occurred. That "Bulgarian Yamnaya" find belongs to the Mihalič culture.

3. Glina III Scheckenberg was of Anatolian EBA origin (it was complex but this was a crucial ingredient), one EBA Bulgarian J2a find is likely related to that EBA Anatolian influx.

No E-V13.
And again 3 Pshenichevo finds are E-V13. This culture is basically 3rd generation Girla-Mare culture. It is hard to imagine there was any E-V13 in Bulgaria, C.Balkans, Carpathians pre LBA (bar some isolated clades), but then a sea of E-V13 flooded the area.

In LBA large portion adopted Thracian language from the R-Z280 Gava people and spread it around the Thrace and Carpathians, Danube. This is the only strong IE link for V13, and it begins in LBA. Anything else is of secondary, tertiary importance (IE-wise). Autosomally though, they were far from being Steppe IE, with slight Steppe admixture.

Considering Cardial links of the Berbers, it makes sense Cardial Croatian people spoke some AA dialect as well. As Cetina is the most likely source of V13, those views calling it non-IE carry more weight now.

In MBA and prior most E-V13 spoke a non-IE language, could be Etruscan. Essentially E-V13 is what it was forever suspected to be: "Pelasgian". One of very few peoples who successfully put up a fight against IE's. Bar Thracian link, one might as well call E-V13 an anti-IE haplogroup. And its EIA spread caused significant autosomal "Southernisation" of the Thrace and the Balkans, as well as contraction and elimination of various "native" lineages (especially under R-Z2103 which is why they hardly form basically any LBA/EIA age clusters).

From my current point of view there is no way to explain the spread of E-V13 without two elements: Channelled Ware and Belegiš-Gâva in particular, the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age in CEE and SEE. These two elements being connected and we have to focus on Belegiš-Gâva. The problem with this is, that they united different influences, coming from different directions and while we can say these cultural influences were present, we don't really know who was dominant genetically.
But we deal, in any case, with different layers which replaced each other over time, different people, probably mixing with the locals, primarily the local women, but replacing a large portion of the males, the patrilineages in the process, similar to Bell Beakers in Western Europe.

I think this quotation from an interesting article might be key:


If it is accepted that a part of the so-called groups of transition formed
on the basis of a direct contribution of the Cruceni-Belegiš populations, represents regionalizations of the phase II of the Cruceni-
Belegiš culture, in my opinion, these groups represent the third – and the
last - phase (Cruceni-Belegiš III). This phase constitutes, at the same time,
the period of transition towards the first Iron Ages whose beginning is
marked by the penetration of Gáva communities in Banat, on the brink of
the 2nd - 1st millennia BC. (1050/1000 BC)

This is exactly when most of the subclades of E-V13 which spread across Europe had their TMRCA, between the LBA and the Iron Age, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the beginning of Hallstatt. If you read on, what the, later heavily E-V13 penetrated areas, West and East of the Carpathians had in common are late Cruceni-Belegiš and Belegiš-Gâva influences on top of that of Girla-Mare.


The genesis of that cultural group, according
to I. Chicideanu, was due to some western influences of type Cruceni-
Belegiš, grafted on the local background Gârla Mare

There was no strong movement of people from the East to the West in that context, but in the opposite direction.


The influences exerted by the Cruceni-Belegiš communities in the
Zuto-Brdo-Gârla Mare culture, the final phase, determined the
appearance of Bistret-Isalnita cultural group that developed in parallel with the phase II of the Cruceni-
Belegiš134 culture.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325087393_THE_RELATIONS_OF_THE_CRUCENI-BELEGIS_CULTURE_WITH_THE_ZUTO_BRDO-GARLA_MARE_CULTURE

The big Gâva push, resulting in Belegiš-Gâva, just strengthened that trend and led to a massive flooding of the Eastern Carpathians by related Channelled Ware groups. Of course, there were movements and influences going in both directions, but if searching for a fairly massive spread of new elements on both sides of the Carpathians, there is no way around Belegiš and Gâva. I see no reason to associate this big push at the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age with anything else but E-V13 right now, until more data comes in.
If you look at distribution maps of Belegiš II-Gâva.

We need to have a movement of people on both sides of the Carpathians, and Belegiš II fits the bill better than any other group.

Johane Derite
06-07-2021, 10:16 PM
But isn't this map telling?? Two green cultures, with related urns. Red region is IE speaking. Green region, Western part is non-IE speaking.

Among Etruscans, you get alongside Etruscan names, also Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, Illyrian, and even Celtic names appearing.

Therefore you have to differentiate methodically which archaeological group gave which linguistic element.

The people who brought house urns could have spoken a totally different language to those who used those biconical urns in Girla-Mara (those bell shaped statues were also found inside such urns btw).

I have seen no inscriptions from Girla-Mare of a non-IE language so I will not assume that so surely. Also, the other regions listed there in italy with biconical urns didn't have Etruscan speakers.

We also have the goddess among the Veneti people wearing such a bell shaped dress, so again another IE language speaking group (Albanians, Veneti, Myceneans, related to this dress):

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

Aspar
06-08-2021, 11:01 AM
What does "North-African" exactly represent? From which period? With admixtures it is always relative...

I believe you are what I call haplogroupist. The main problem of the haplogroupists is neglect of auDNA. They think everything is about uniparentals however much of the ancient migrations and movements of populations can be better tracked with auDNA.

When I say 'North African DNA' I primarily mean about the autochthonous Paleolithic and Mesolithic component in Maghreb first detected in the individuals of Taforalt. I'm not going to go all over again but if you read the paper I quoted above, you will see that this component was still present in the IAM individuals merely unchanged. Therefore we have a clear continuation of the population between 12000 - 5000 BCE in Maghreb. These IAM individuals are in the G25 spreadsheet and you can check them by yourself:



Distance to: IAM.7
0.04995473 MAR_Taforalt
0.19418933 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.23976166 Canary_Islands_Guanche
0.24880851 Iberia_Central_CA_Afr
0.27598385 KEN_Early_Pastoral_N



Distance to: MAR_EN:IAM.5
0.02837857 MAR_Taforalt
0.20893370 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.25884985 Canary_Islands_Guanche
0.26688565 Iberia_Central_CA_Afr
0.28205073 KEN_Early_Pastoral_N


The closest ancient samples to them are the Iberomaurusians and everything else is quite distant. This autochthonous component is still easily detectable in modern times let alone in the Mesolithic or the Neolithic where you had very distinguishable populations such as WHG, EEF, AF, Natufians etc.
The first changes in the structure of the population in Morocco is detected in 3000 BCE with the KEB individuals which going by the paper can be modeled as a two way mix between Iberomaurusians and EEF or AF. The paper attributed this to an intrusion of a EEF population from Iberia to Maghreb which brought the Cardial Culture elements in North Africa and which brought major changes in the population of Maghreb between 5000-3000 BCE.
Just a little googling on internet would reveal that the Iberomaurusian population and culture was spread from Morocco to Libya in North Africa up until 9000 BCE and is succeeded by the Capsian culture In Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya in 8000 BCE until 2700 BCE. These Capsians whatever their origins were must have had a large Iberomaurusian element nevertheless, an element that is still present and visible in the modern population of Maghreb.

You said:

I did correct my view so that I don't think modern E-V13 evolved from Iberia, but was in the Western Balkans at the beginning of the Neolithic. Simply as Scythoslav pointed out, different E-M78 branches should've been present all over Cardim/Impresso culture territories.

What is different is the route which in my case should be Tunisia->(South Italy maybe)->Balkans.

If this scenario is correct what you propose now would mean that a population with a large Iberomaurusian component and without AF admixture settling in South Italy and the West Balkans at the rise of the Neolithic period which in South Europe begins between the period of 7000-6500 BCE.

I refer to you two papers:
Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708.full)
The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/135616v1)

Both of these papers examined samples from Italy and the West Balkans from the Mesolithic and the Neolithic period. There is ZERO Iberomaurusian auDNA detected in the West Balkans and in South Italy in the Mesolithic and the Neolithic period.

Excerpts from the papers:


We report new data from hunter-gatherers from France, Sicily and Croatia, as well as higher coverage data from three previously published hunter-gatherers from France and Germany.18 The Sicilian and Croatian individuals dating to 12,000 and 6100 BCE cluster closely with western hunter-gatherers, including individuals from Loschbour24 (Luxembourg, 6100 BCE), Bichon20 (Switzerland, 11,700 BCE), and Villabruna18 (Italy 12,000 BCE). These results demonstrate that the “western hunter-gatherer” population24 was widely distributed from the Atlantic seaboard of Europe in the West, to Sicily in the South, to the Balkan Peninsula in the Southeast, for at least six thousand years, strengthening the evidence that the western hunter-gatherers represent a population that expanded from a southeastern European refugium following the last Ice Age around 15,000 years ago–in the process displacing or admixing with the existing population of western Europe.18 38


Imaginary population that settled straight from Maghreb to South Europe and whose y-dna(E-M78) went to be so widespread in Europe, from the Cardial Culture in Croatia to Cardial Culture in North-East Iberia, to Mischelsberger in Germany and to Cucuteni-Trypillia in Ukraine and only during the Neolithic period sure must have left at least trace from it's original Iberomaurusian auDNA and yet there is none detected up until now.

You changed your original theory so easily and yet your still writing on the matter without having a read and get to know more about auDNA and how it works. And your still holding on your North African route as if holding for dear life although you haven't brought any real arguments on the table. I'm sorry but what you are doing is called grasping at straws.

As for the route from the Levant and Anatolia into Europe, pls refer to these papers:
The Demographic Development of the First Farmers in Anatolia (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com %2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982216308508%3Fshowall%3D true)
Late Pleistocene human genome suggests a local origin for the first farmers of central Anatolia (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6425003/)



Sedentary farming communities emerged in parts of the Fertile Crescent during the tenth millennium and early ninth millennium calibrated (cal) BC and had appeared in central Anatolia by 8300 cal BC [4]. Farming spread into west Anatolia by the early seventh millennium cal BC and quasi-synchronously into Europe, although the timing and process of this movement remain unclear. Using genome sequence data that we generated from nine central Anatolian Neolithic individuals, we studied the transition period from early Aceramic (Pre-Pottery) to the later Pottery Neolithic, when farming expanded west of the Fertile Crescent.



The evidence from Tepecik-Çiftlik indicates more substantial scale mixed farming relative to Boncuklu, although both hunting and gathering played a part in plant and animal exploitation. Both Boncuklu and Tepecik-Çiftlik show evidence of significant scale regional and inter-regional interactions, in the Tepecik-Çiftlik case especially with communities in the Fertile Crescent possibly related to the widespread distribution of obsidian [11, 15, 16]. The differences in subsistence patterns between these two settlements reflect a larger regional pattern seen in several other Aceramic and Pottery Neolithic sites in Anatolia [4, 13].



The low genetic diversity of the Boncuklu population, resembling the low diversity in European hunter-gatherers [5, 25] is interesting (Figures 2B and 2C). It suggests that the population sizes at the very early stages of the Neolithic were not different from those of hunter-gatherers. This accords well with the view of indigenous forager adoption of cultivation and possible local initiation of herding in central Anatolia [4, 11]. Nearly 1,500 years later, Tepecik-Çiftlik and Barcın, fully established Neolithic populations practicing mixed farming (and within 200 km east and 400 km northwest of Boncuklu, respectively), were significantly more diverse (Figure 2B). Part of this increased genetic diversity could be linked to (1) putative southern gene flow (Figure 3A) that could be related to the Aceramic Neolithic to Pottery Neolithic transition in the Neolithic Levant or could be related to widespread interactions in the late Aceramic Neolithic between central Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent in the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B [26]; (2) migration from the east related to similar factors of inter-regional exchanges (Figure S3D); and (3) admixture among local populations. Southern and eastern gene flow into Tepecik-Çiftlik is consistent with the site’s presumed role as an obsidian hub and its cultural links with the Levant and might have started already before the Pottery Neolithic [15, 16]. For Barcın, these results are also in line with archaeological evidence indicating cultural influx from central Anatolia [27]. This diverse Neolithic population most likely served as one of the sources for the well-documented wave of Neolithic migration to Europe [8, 9].



In contrast, we find that the later ACF individuals share more alleles with the early Holocene Levantines than AAF do, as shown by positive D(ACF, AAF; Natufian/Levant_N, Mbuti) ≥ 3.8 SE (Fig. 2b, Supplementary Figures 4, 5, and Supplementary Data 3). Ancient Iran/Caucasus populations and contemporary South Asians do not share more alleles with ACF (|D| < 1.3 SE). Likewise, qpAdm modeling suggests that the AAF gene pool still constitutes more than 3/4 of the ancestry of ACF 2000 years later (78.7 ± 3.5%; Supplementary Tables 4 and 7) with additional ancestry well modeled by the Neolithic Levantines (χ2p = 0.115) but not by the Neolithic Iranians (χ2p = 0.076; the model estimated infeasible negative mixture proportions) (Supplementary Tables 4 and 7). These results suggest gene flow from the Levant to Anatolia during the early Neolithic.



By analyzing genome-wide-data from pre-Neolithic and early Neolithic Anatolians and Levantines, we describe the demographic developments leading to the formation of the Anatolian early farmer population that later replaced most of the European hunter-gatherers and represents the largest ancestral component in present-day Europeans4,5.

We report a long-term persistence of the local AHG gene pool over seven millennia and throughout the transition from foraging to farming. This demographic pattern is similar to those previously observed in earlier farming centers of the Fertile Crescent6 and differs from the pattern of the demic diffusion-based spread of farming into Europe4,5. Our results provide a genetic support for archeological evidence3, suggesting that Anatolia was not merely a stepping stone in a movement of early farmers from the Fertile Crescent into Europe, but rather a place where local hunter-gatherers adopted ideas, plants, and technology that led to agricultural subsistence.

Interestingly, while we observe a continued presence of the AHG-related gene pool throughout the studied period, a pattern of genetic interactions with neighboring regions is evident from as early as the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene. In addition to the local genetic contribution from earlier Anatolian populations, Anatolian Aceramic farmers inherit about 10% of their genes from a gene pool related to the Neolithic Iran/Caucasus while later ACF derive about 20% of their genes from another distinct gene pool related to the Neolithic Levant.

Bane
06-08-2021, 01:58 PM
I believe you are what I call haplogroupist. The main problem of the haplogroupists is neglect of auDNA. They think everything is about uniparentals however much of the ancient migrations and movements of populations can be better tracked with auDNA.

Ok if you say so. :)
I do not underestimate auDNA. It's just that making conclusions based on Y-DNA, either ancient or modern, rarely let me down in the past.

Ok when I have time I will go through the papers you quoted. I respect the effort you put into the research.

Aspar
06-08-2021, 02:47 PM
Ok if you say so. :)
I do not underestimate auDNA. It's just that making conclusions based on Y-DNA, either ancient or modern, rarely let me down in the past.

Ok when I have time I will go through the papers you quoted. I respect the effort you put into the research.

Thanks.

You can also have read of these:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://d-nb.info/113609640X/34&ved=2ahUKEwir3cngoIjxAhW0DmMBHUz6A6kQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0OZHaOiinelqDTy_upUJ4M
Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans (https://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886)

The ancient Anatolian Farmer Bar11 was found to belong to E-M35. I can't find this sample in any aDNA deposit so I can't check it but I have the feeling the sample is not just E-M35*. It's a low coverage sample hence no readings for downstreams. It would be great if a DNA is taken again from the sample in question and tested for further analysis.

Nevertheless, the auDNA alone and the EEF context the oldest E-V13 and E-L618 samples are found in Europe are overwhelming evidence of dispersion of these markers with the first farmers that arrived from Anatolia and with deeper origins from the Levant. In fact, our marker could very well be the pioneer in the farming and dispersal of the same to Anatolia and Europe. Furthermore because the Anatolian Ceramic Farmers are characterised with an increased Levantine ancestry of up to 20%, our very ancient ancestor could be pioneer in production of Ceramic vessels. In other words, could have been part of the people who have sparked the very first components very important for the birth of the civilizations.

Scythoslav
06-08-2021, 09:32 PM
Thanks.

You can also have read of these:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://d-nb.info/113609640X/34&ved=2ahUKEwir3cngoIjxAhW0DmMBHUz6A6kQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0OZHaOiinelqDTy_upUJ4M
Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans (https://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886)

The ancient Anatolian Farmer Bar11 was found to belong to E-M35. I can't find this sample in any aDNA deposit so I can't check it but I have the feeling the sample is not just E-M35*. It's a low coverage sample hence no readings for downstreams. It would be great if a DNA is taken again from the sample in question and tested for further analysis.

Nevertheless, the auDNA alone and the EEF context the oldest E-V13 and E-L618 samples are found in Europe are overwhelming evidence of dispersion of these markers with the first farmers that arrived from Anatolia and with deeper origins from the Levant. In fact, our marker could very well be the pioneer in the farming and dispersal of the same to Anatolia and Europe. Furthermore because the Anatolian Ceramic Farmers are characterised with an increased Levantine ancestry of up to 20%, our very ancient ancestor could be pioneer in production of Ceramic vessels. In other words, could have been part of the people who have sparked the very first components very important for the birth of the civilizations.

Could this increased Levantine ancestry be detected among European Cardial ware samples?

digital_noise
06-08-2021, 09:37 PM
Anyone care to weigh in on this study? I did a half assed count on yfull and there seems to be close to 10 +/- samples under E-V13. I haven’t had the time to look into this so if it’s already been discussed, please excuse the duplicate.

I’m also not sure if these are ancient samples or
More recent.

Ok I’ve looked into it a bit. Looks like recent samples

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA674530

Huban
06-08-2021, 10:02 PM
Among Etruscans, you get alongside Etruscan names, also Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, Illyrian, and even Celtic names appearing.

Therefore you have to differentiate methodically which archaeological group gave which linguistic element.

The people who brought house urns could have spoken a totally different language to those who used those biconical urns in Girla-Mara (those bell shaped statues were also found inside such urns btw).

I have seen no inscriptions from Girla-Mare of a non-IE language so I will not assume that so surely. Also, the other regions listed there in italy with biconical urns didn't have Etruscan speakers.

We also have the goddess among the Veneti people wearing such a bell shaped dress, so again another IE language speaking group (Albanians, Veneti, Myceneans, related to this dress):

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

The strongest proponent of Girla-Mare being non-IE was Gimbutas. She was quite explicit in this. Milutin Garašanin in his article on Dubovac/Girla-Mare didn't mention the non-IE option for them, rather calling them probably Mysian due to the fact that they migrated to the Southeast including the Asia-Minor where Mysians were mentioned as having taken part in Trojan war as were the Thracians as well.

Ultimately in EBA Girla-Mare should stem from the Vučedol complex, which should have been generally IE in nature.

As I was saying the only certain Etruscoid speakers on the Balkans were Lemnians and there thus far two G2a EEF clades were found, including an isolated G-L497 clade.




This is exactly when most of the subclades of E-V13 which spread across Europe had their TMRCA, between the LBA and the Iron Age, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the beginning of Hallstatt. If you read on, what the, later heavily E-V13 penetrated areas, West and East of the Carpathians had in common are late Cruceni-Belegiš and Belegiš-Gâva influences on top of that of Girla-Mare.

Thraco-Cimmerian find, MJ12, it belongs to Babadag culture, sister culture to Pshenichevo (full of E-V13), autosomally we see that find was alot closer to Iron Age Bulgarian (which might also be of Pshenichevo origin, I remember searching for some clues and that was the closest approximation) and Moldovan Scythians than to most Gava people, bar DA198.

Thraco-Cimmerian horizon is related to Babadag and Basarabi cultures far far more than to Gava proper. This was known in archeology and it is confirmed in auDNA. MJ12 carried slight steppe Iranian admixture (Cimmerian?).



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325087393_THE_RELATIONS_OF_THE_CRUCENI-BELEGIS_CULTURE_WITH_THE_ZUTO_BRDO-GARLA_MARE_CULTURE

The big Gâva push, resulting in Belegiš-Gâva, just strengthened that trend and led to a massive flooding of the Eastern Carpathians by related Channelled Ware groups. Of course, there were movements and influences going in both directions, but if searching for a fairly massive spread of new elements on both sides of the Carpathians, there is no way around Belegiš and Gâva. I see no reason to associate this big push at the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age with anything else but E-V13 right now, until more data comes in.
If you look at distribution maps of Belegiš II-Gâva.

We need to have a movement of people on both sides of the Carpathians, and Belegiš II fits the bill better than any other group.

I don't think so. The big Gava push was nowhere nearly as strong as the Pshenichevo, Babadag, Basarabi push. And they came after, which means more of their influence was left. Had the Germanics expanded to the Balkans in 6th century and Slavs in 5th, today Germanics would likely have dominated the Balkans.
1. We have three Pshenichevo finds from Bulgaria, this is not channeled ware but stamped pottery (only with indirect channeled influence from an earlier time).
2. Stamped pottery cultures exerted significantly more influence on the Thrace than the chanelled ware. Same goes for Romania.

So in this game of Stamped/Encrusted vs Channeled in Daco-Thracian areas there is no contest. The former is considerably stronger, many times stronger. And as "last man standing" in the population movements it is the element that must have played more role in ethnogenesis of Thracians.

Gava pottery outside its native area, in SE Serbia, Bulgaria was isolated and its bearers were quite secluded from the environment. Only in Moldavia did Gava proper settle in stronger numbers. But even there also settled the Saharna people stemming from Babadag.

Years ago I made a prediction CTS9320 = Basarabi, even one Albanian admin agreed with me there. Then prompted by some "northern" CTS9320 finds I moved more towards Gava direction, but it seems my initial guess was more appropriate.

It may well be that some splits on the E-V13 tree will come to define some of these cultural splits.

Aspar
06-08-2021, 11:14 PM
Could this increased Levantine ancestry be detected among European Cardial ware samples?

The Cardium Pottery individuals from Croatia were modeled as 97% AF + 3% HG by Mathieson et al. The Levantine component was already embedded in the Anatolian Farmer genetics after an admixture event that happened in Anatolia as per the papers I already quoted.
In fact, even amateur tools such as G25 do good job detecting the Levantine component in the Anatolian Farmers and even among the Cardium Pottery samples from Croatia.

Let's try to model the Anatolian Farmers and the Cardium Pottery samples with this spreadsheet:


TUR_Pinarbasi_HG,0.113823,0.166547,0.029793,-0.082688,0.070782,-0.04016,-0.005875,0.001846,0.04745,0.079637,0.006008,0.0091 42,-0.021407,-0.009358,-0.042073,-0.003713,0.0442,-0.002787,0.008045,-0.001251,-0.013851,0.003339,-0.003451,-0.009278,-0.005628
RUS_Samara_HG,0.119514,0.048745,0.113513,0.206398,-0.008001,0.054384,-0.013161,-0.023537,-0.01309,-0.090936,0.01429,-0.018883,0.026164,-0.03647,0.020629,0.012994,-0.005867,-0.000507,-0.00729,0.009004,-0.011854,0.025102,0.009737,-0.02651,-0.009101
WHG,0.1246365,0.116278,0.184789,0.189279,0.1546445 ,0.0464355,0.0131605,0.0372675,0.0890705,0.017768,-0.0153455,-0.015811,0.0159065,-0.0030275,0.053338,0.0582065,0.00502,0.016343,-0.0093015,0.055589,0.0944585,0.0111905,-0.049607,-0.160866,0.0170045
MAR_Taforalt,-0.189857,0.0814452,-0.0242866,-0.085595,0.027636,-0.0552202,-0.0705968,0.0184146,0.155397,0.003499,0.0209156,-0.0318316,0.0747168,-0.0513334,0.0711988,-0.0363032,0.0052676,-0.066106,-0.1424162,0.0389938,-0.0376836,-0.1255322,0.0730118,-0.0137606,0.0164534
GEO_CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
Levant_Natufian,0.01935,0.135065,-0.039221,-0.135984,0.026774,-0.076137,-0.019036,-0.024691,0.100626,-0.008018,0.02858,-0.019633,0.067343,0.001651,0.022801,0.02612,-0.0103,0.006714,-0.018101,0.041395,-0.004118,-0.003215,-0.014297,-0.011206,0.011975


https://i.postimg.cc/SKdj76HG/example2.png (https://postimages.org/)

G25 basically replicated the admixture performed by this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7) which I quoted earlier:


Interestingly, while we observe a continued presence of the AHG-related gene pool throughout the studied period, a pattern of genetic interactions with neighboring regions is evident from as early as the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene. In addition to the local genetic contribution from earlier Anatolian populations, Anatolian Aceramic farmers inherit about 10% of their genes from a gene pool related to the Neolithic Iran/Caucasus while later ACF derive about 20% of their genes from another distinct gene pool related to the Neolithic Levant.


So the first Aceramic Anatolian Farmers from Boncuklu don't have Levantine admixture but have up to 10% admixture related to Neolithic Iran/Caucasus where G25 produced numbers of 7.4% which is stil; very close.
Then the later Ceramic Farmers from Tepecik Ciftlik are interesting because for the first time we observe the Levantine component, up to 20% according to the paper and up to 15.4% according to the G25 model.
As these Ceramic Farmers further advanced into North-Western Anatolia and Barcin, they admixed more and more with Anatolian HG further diluting the Levantine component which according to G25 is present at around 4.4%.
The Barcin Farmers then penetrated into the Balkans and had limited mixing with the HG, further diluting the Levantine component which was still visible in the samples from the Cardium Pottery Culture in Croatia, albeit only around 2.4%.

Note that the Iberomaurusian component although included in the spreadsheet wasn't detected, in accordance with the findings from the relevant papers.

Huban
06-08-2021, 11:26 PM
Ofc there is something else about Dubovac/Girla-Mare Aspar and Johane Derite do not want to see.:)

Russian wikipedia
Girla Mare - proto-Dorians?
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5

Encrusted pottery - ancestors of the Greeks ?

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_% D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1 %80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0% BA%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8

I see they generally use some Polish sources there.

Riverman
06-08-2021, 11:57 PM
The strongest proponent of Girla-Mare being non-IE was Gimbutas. She was quite explicit in this. Milutin Garašanin in his article on Dubovac/Girla-Mare didn't mention the non-IE option for them, rather calling them probably Mysian due to the fact that they migrated to the Southeast including the Asia-Minor where Mysians were mentioned as having taken part in Trojan war as were the Thracians as well.

Ultimately in EBA Girla-Mare should stem from the Vučedol complex, which should have been generally IE in nature.

As I was saying the only certain Etruscoid speakers on the Balkans were Lemnians and there thus far two G2a EEF clades were found, including an isolated G-L497 clade.




Thraco-Cimmerian find, MJ12, it belongs to Babadag culture, sister culture to Pshenichevo (full of E-V13), autosomally we see that find was alot closer to Iron Age Bulgarian (which might also be of Pshenichevo origin, I remember searching for some clues and that was the closest approximation) and Moldovan Scythians than to most Gava people, bar DA198.

Thraco-Cimmerian horizon is related to Babadag and Basarabi cultures far far more than to Gava proper. This was known in archeology and it is confirmed in auDNA. MJ12 carried slight steppe Iranian admixture (Cimmerian?).



I don't think so. The big Gava push was nowhere nearly as strong as the Pshenichevo, Babadag, Basarabi push. And they came after, which means more of their influence was left. Had the Germanics expanded to the Balkans in 6th century and Slavs in 5th, today Germanics would likely have dominated the Balkans.
1. We have three Pshenichevo finds from Bulgaria, this is not channeled ware but stamped pottery (only with indirect channeled influence from an earlier time).
2. Stamped pottery cultures exerted significantly more influence on the Thrace than the chanelled ware. Same goes for Romania.

So in this game of Stamped/Encrusted vs Channeled in Daco-Thracian areas there is no contest. The former is considerably stronger, many times stronger. And as "last man standing" in the population movements it is the element that must have played more role in ethnogenesis of Thracians.

Gava pottery outside its native area, in SE Serbia, Bulgaria was isolated and its bearers were quite secluded from the environment. Only in Moldavia did Gava proper settle in stronger numbers. But even there also settled the Saharna people stemming from Babadag.

Years ago I made a prediction CTS9320 = Basarabi, even one Albanian admin agreed with me there. Then prompted by some "northern" CTS9320 finds I moved more towards Gava direction, but it seems my initial guess was more appropriate.

It may well be that some splits on the E-V13 tree will come to define some of these cultural splits.

There is no doubt about Basarabi, but I think Belegiš-Gava made a huge impression. You are right, Gáva-Holigrady proper it was not, that was just the cultural centre from which the push came.
I also agree with you ob the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, but if talking about the time before all that, I just don’t see the big Girla-Marke to the West. But we simply don’t know without more data. Its still undecided.

Aspar
06-09-2021, 03:04 PM
Ofc there is something else about Dubovac/Girla-Mare Aspar and Johane Derite do not want to see.:)

Russian wikipedia
Girla Mare - proto-Dorians?
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5

Encrusted pottery - ancestors of the Greeks ?

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_% D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1 %80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0% BA%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8

I see they generally use some Polish sources there.

Lol, why is that, because of our earlier discussion where I didn't agree with your ideas that E-V13 was the main marker of the Dorians?
Well I still hold my ground and believe that E-V13 wasn't that important among the Doric Greeks.
You should also remember that we are are only speculating at this moment because we don't have any aDNA from Girla-Mare neither from Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture so we don't know how strong was E-V13 among their bearers.
Nevertheless, you can't simply identify the proto-Dorians with Girla-Mare because there is a chronological and geographical gap with the Mycenaean Greeks and because of the fundamental difference in culture, funeral rites and so on.

In fact, some archaeologists such as Demetrios Grammenos indeed attributed the appearance of the Geometric period in Greece to the bearers of the Incised/Encrusted Ware however this is all very different than making it as simple as Girla Mare = proto-Dorians, not to mention that in the Russian Wikipedia there aren't any sources claiming that!

The first appearance of the Incised/Encrusted Ware in Macedonia and Thrace dates to the beginning of the LBA and the period between 1600-1500 BCE. Here, the bearers of the Incised/Encrusted Ware coexisted peacefully with the older inhabitants of the region, the bearers of the Plain Burnished Ware who are thought to have been part of the larger Bubanj-Hum and Sitagroi cultural complexes with a Steppe influences that came from Cernavodă culture.
With the end of the first part of the LBA and the beginning of the second, new Mycenaean elements appear as evidenced in the matt-painted pottery, both authentic and locally made.

All these three elements were present in Greek Macedonia(Central and East), South-Western Bulgaria(Struma valley) and North Macedonia(Ulanci-Vardar group) producing an unique cultural environment different than let's say Thrace where the presence of the Incised/Encrusted ware was also evident but there was no Mycenaean influence. An environment where both cremation and inhumation burials in cysts were practiced.
And in this environment we should very likely trace the Dorians because Macedonia was and it is a crossroad where Danubian and Mediterranean elements met and mixed with each other. The very typical geometric symbols such as the solar symbol which was so typical for the Doric Greeks appear here with the Incised/Encrusted ware and later reproduced with matt-painting.
https://i.postimg.cc/W3wvNXph/incised-pottery.png (https://postimages.org/)

Disruption and destruction here only becomes visible in the transitional period where new lustrous or channeled ware appears. Many sites were destroyed and abandoned for good, with their inhabitants migrating south.

As you see, the things are lot more complex and not that simple as Girla-Mare = proto-Dorians. Influences from more than one culture and people were responsible for that complex environment. Nevertheless, the Incised/Encrusted bearers brought fundamental cultural inputs, however how much they changed the genetic landscape or the language is a different question altogether. They for sure brought many elements typical for the older non-Steppe Neolithic Danubian communities as evidenced by the Furchenstich style of pottery decoration that was very common for Bodrogkeresztúr culture culture in Hungary but also as evidenced by influences from other cultures such as Vučedol.
What is interesting is that the ethnonym of the Greeks, Ellines/Έλληνες stems from Hellene, the mythical founder whose name means a sun ray. This all very similat to the name of the Illyrians whose name is thought to be in relation with the Greek word for Sun - ήλιος(ilios) and the Albanian word for Star - yll. Some linguists think the Greek word is a borrowing from Albanian like Orel while others think it's from an old non Indo-European language. Nevertheless, it's interesting that the Greek ethnonym is a word of non Greek origin.

It happened many times in the history where different people mixed with each other and where the language was direct continuation of the more numerous ones and the name of the those who established control over the region. Whether is the case with the Bulgars and the Bulgarians, the Franks and the French or the Rus and the Russians.

etrusco
06-09-2021, 03:37 PM
Lol, why is that, because of our earlier discussion where I didn't agree with your ideas that E-V13 was the main marker of the Dorians?
Well I still hold my ground and believe that E-V13 wasn't that important among the Doric Greeks.
You should also remember that we are are only speculating at this moment because we don't have any aDNA from Girla-Mare neither from Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture so we don't know how strong was E-V13 among their bearers.
Nevertheless, you can't simply identify the proto-Dorians with Girla-Mare because there is a chronological and geographical gap with the Mycenaean Greeks and because of the fundamental difference in culture, funeral rites and so on.

In fact, some archaeologists such as Demetrios Grammenos indeed attributed the appearance of the Geometric period in Greece to the bearers of the Incised/Encrusted Ware however this is all very different than making it as simple as Girla Mare = proto-Dorians, not to mention that in the Russian Wikipedia there aren't any sources claiming that!

The first appearance of the Incised/Encrusted Ware in Macedonia and Thrace dates to the beginning of the LBA and the period between 1600-1500 BCE. Here, the bearers of the Incised/Encrusted Ware coexisted peacefully with the older inhabitants of the region, the bearers of the Plain Burnished Ware who are thought to have been part of the larger Bubanj-Hum and Sitagroi cultural complexes with a Steppe influences that came from Cernavodă culture.
With the end of the first part of the LBA and the beginning of the second, new Mycenaean elements appear as evidenced in the matt-painted pottery, both authentic and locally made.

All these three elements were present in Greek Macedonia(Central and East), South-Western Bulgaria(Struma valley) and North Macedonia(Ulanci-Vardar group) producing an unique cultural environment different than let's say Thrace where the presence of the Incised/Encrusted ware was also evident but there was no Mycenaean influence. An environment where both cremation and inhumation burials in cysts were practiced.
And in this environment we should very likely trace the Dorians because Macedonia was and it is a crossroad where Danubian and Mediterranean elements met and mixed with each other. The very typical geometric symbols such as the solar symbol which was so typical for the Doric Greeks appear here with the Incised/Encrusted ware and later reproduced with matt-painting.
https://i.postimg.cc/W3wvNXph/incised-pottery.png (https://postimages.org/)

Disruption and destruction here only becomes visible in the transitional period where new lustrous or channeled ware appears. Many sites were destroyed and abandoned for good, with their inhabitants migrating south.

As you see, the things are lot more complex and not that simple as Girla-Mare = proto-Dorians. Influences from more than one culture and people were responsible for that complex environment. Nevertheless, the Incised/Encrusted bearers brought fundamental cultural inputs, however how much they changed the genetic landscape or the language is a different question altogether. They for sure brought many elements typical for the older non-Steppe Neolithic Danubian communities as evidenced by the Furchenstich style of pottery decoration that was very common for Bodrogkeresztúr culture culture in Hungary but also as evidenced by influences from other cultures such as Vučedol.
What is interesting is that the ethnonym of the Greeks, Ellines/Έλληνες stems from Hellene, the mythical founder whose name means a sun ray. This all very similat to the name of the Illyrians whose name is thought to be in relation with the Greek word for Sun - ήλιος(ilios) and the Albanian word for Star - yll. Some linguists think the Greek word is a borrowing from Albanian like Orel while others think it's from an old non Indo-European language. Nevertheless, it's interesting that the Greek ethnonym is a word of non Greek origin.

It happened many times in the history where different people mixed with each other and where the language was direct continuation of the more numerous ones and the name of the those who established control over the region. Whether is the case with the Bulgars and the Bulgarians, the Franks and the French or the Rus and the Russians.

helios is a full fledged native greek term. Obviously of full fledged IE origin

sāwel-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "the sun." According to Watkins, the *-el- in it originally was a suffix, and there was an alternative form *s(u)wen-, with suffix *-en-, hence the two forms represented by Latin sol, English sun.

It forms all or part of: anthelion; aphelion; girasole; heliacal; helio-; heliotrope; helium; insolate; insolation; parasol; parhelion; perihelion; Sol; solar; solarium; solstice; south; southern; sun; Sunday.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit suryah, Avestan hvar "sun, light, heavens;" Greek hēlios; Latin sol "the sun, sunlight;" Lithuanian saulė, Old Church Slavonic slunice; Gothic sauil, Old English sol "sun;" Old English swegl "sky, heavens, the sun;" Welsh haul, Old Cornish heuul, Breton heol "sun;" Old Irish suil "eye;" Avestan xueng "sun;" Old Irish fur-sunnud "lighting up;" Old English sunne German Sonne, Gothic sunno "the sun."

Aspar
06-09-2021, 03:48 PM
helios is a full fledged native greek term. Obviously of full fledged IE origin

sāwel-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "the sun." According to Watkins, the *-el- in it originally was a suffix, and there was an alternative form *s(u)wen-, with suffix *-en-, hence the two forms represented by Latin sol, English sun.

It forms all or part of: anthelion; aphelion; girasole; heliacal; helio-; heliotrope; helium; insolate; insolation; parasol; parhelion; perihelion; Sol; solar; solarium; solstice; south; southern; sun; Sunday.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit suryah, Avestan hvar "sun, light, heavens;" Greek hēlios; Latin sol "the sun, sunlight;" Lithuanian saulė, Old Church Slavonic slunice; Gothic sauil, Old English sol "sun;" Old English swegl "sky, heavens, the sun;" Welsh haul, Old Cornish heuul, Breton heol "sun;" Old Irish suil "eye;" Avestan xueng "sun;" Old Irish fur-sunnud "lighting up;" Old English sunne German Sonne, Gothic sunno "the sun."

Ἕλλην

Ancient Greek

Etymology

Μost probably a derivation of Ἑλλοί (Helloí) or Σελλοί (Selloí), the Greek inhabitants of the area around the sanctuary of Dodona (Δωδώνη (Dōdṓnē)), itself of Pre-Greek Pre-Indo-European origin according to Beekes.[1]

^ Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010) Etymological Dictionary of Greek (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 10), with the assistance of Lucien van Beek, Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN

Aspar
06-09-2021, 04:33 PM
Also:

Ὕλλος

Ancient Greek

Etymology

Imported from Pre-Greek. Orel considers it to be from Proto-Albanian *h₁us-los meaning diety, or star, relating it to Albanian Bardhyll, which translates into "white star", encompassing the godlike role the stars held as viewed by early Albanians.[1]

References
1.^ Orel, Vladimir (1998) , “Bardhyll”, in Albanian Etymological Dictionary, Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill, →ISBN

Huban
06-09-2021, 10:40 PM
Copy of my comment from elsewhere. This is especially @Johane Derite. It fits into what you have been saying.


But cremation at Glasinac was introduced by the Urnielders. Based on what we know now, it is not likely V13 were among them. Most likely R-L51 and we do have some strong diversity of R-L51 in Bosnia/Serbia. It is more likely there were some local pre-Urnfield V13 among Glasinac people (such as the E-Y37092 clades, among them only BY14150 seems Thracian related).

Urnfielders used cremation but so did the Vatina, Garla-mare and related cultures. Enchelei are very interesting and quite possibly E-v13 related but their cremation traditions were probably of different origin to those at Glasinac. Also Glasinac people generally resisted the Urnfield wave.

Liburnian cremation again was of Western Urnfield origin. R1b likely Venetic speakers.

What you should rather focus is this
https://aegeobalkanprehistory.kreas.ff.cuni.cz/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/08/article_prehistoric-pottery_1-1024x918.jpg

Look at this map. Illyrians were divided in two groups archeologically. The Norhtern one (brown) was generally Glasinac related. Most likely dominately J-L283. And that is suggested by aDNA, Dalmatian J-L283 find (pre proto-Glasinac), rumored N.Albanian MBA/LBA J-L283 find.

Southern Albanian areas were dominated by the Matt-Painted pottery (yellow). This is where there is some very strong E-V13 diversity of clades having LBA relatives to the North, this is where there were migrations of Brnjica and Mediana types.

And you see this pottery dominates Messapian areas. Per Ratzinger Messapians and Glasinac Illyrians were not same. And Albanian language leans far more towards Messapian direction.

Possibly Southern Albania was populated prior to LBA by the Phrygians (likely R-Z2103, Armenian clades).

My proposal is
yellow - significant E-V13 % (Kuc i Zi etc., plenty of LBA/EIA migrants from the North)
brown - dominance of J-L283 (Glasinac-Mati)

Ofc some presence of the other hg in other areas.. Enchelei that you mention, and I agree with you there, fit ofc in yellow zone.

So actually J-L283 looks more Glasinac, but the Albanian language is more Messapian related and per this it shows more of E-V13 (and ofc likely R-Z2705) connection.

In this scheme E-V13 clades joined possibly the R-Z2705 carriers in Mediana III phase where Pshenichevo element dominated. We already know what hg Pshenichevo people belonged to mostly.

In this scheme J-L283 is Glasinac-Mati related (which it is surely), while E-V13 is Kuc i Zi and Messapian related. And therefore E-V13 is more Albanian than J-L283..

Btw these migrations to Southern Albania are just about the only way to explain the coming of E-V13 from an archeological POV. Anything else is
2) saying V13 was forever in Albania since the Neolithic and it spreads from there in BA, IA
3) V13 arrived to Albania in Late Antiquity/Early Medieval times.

So anybody can choose his favorite option. I'd choose no 1. for the majority.

Huban
06-09-2021, 11:35 PM
Lol, why is that, because of our earlier discussion where I didn't agree with your ideas that E-V13 was the main marker of the Dorians?
Well I still hold my ground and believe that E-V13 wasn't that important among the Doric Greeks.
You should also remember that we are are only speculating at this moment because we don't have any aDNA from Girla-Mare neither from Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture so we don't know how strong was E-V13 among their bearers.
Nevertheless, you can't simply identify the proto-Dorians with Girla-Mare because there is a chronological and geographical gap with the Mycenaean Greeks and because of the fundamental difference in culture, funeral rites and so on.

Agreed.

But on the bolded.

Draga Garašanin


Even though between the end of Vučedol and the beginning of the Transdanubian group there is a certain hiatus, all of these elements point towards its autochthonous ancestry from the Eneolithic groups of Pannonia. From this group, by spreading eastwards along the Danube, somewhat later developed the subsequent Dubovac-Žuto Brdo group. With its occurrence begins the long evolution which, combined with the further eastwards movement, goes through the Insula Banului group to the groups of Babadag and Pšeničevo.

Most simply consider the Pšeničevo and its related cultures as offshoots of Dubovac/Girla-Mare group. Such were the parallels.

I'm afraid the door has almost closed for E-V13. R-Z93 MBA from Bulgaria belongs to early Razkopanitsa VIII group, a very strong MBA group with strong links to the LBA Zimnicea-Plovdiv complex which dominated the pre Bronze Age collapse LBA Bulgaria.

Vatina per most views is more Maros related in its origins (no E-V13).

In EBA Bulgaria, all phases there are many finds, and no E-V13. So even though TMRCA would suggest EBA presence in Bulgaria that looks very unlikely. Basically there are Y-DNA finds of cultures I thought EBA Eastern V13 might be related to and they are not V13.

The only other theoretical option is Cetina->Bubanj Hum III, if Bubanj Hum III played more part in Vatina ethnogenesis, and not Maros, which is problematic. Based on current aDNA evidence one must assume Vatin culture was also more R-Z2103.

Besides when one combines Maros with Razkopanitsa-Asenovets R-Z93 find which is also likely Tei IV related they together make it all more unlikely for the V13.

It's me running around these finds and finding their exact archeological context (not an easy thing to do or find often) which is the first thing one should do. I did it for that J-L283 find and immediately everything was fitting in nicely.

Prior to few days ago I thought that R-Z93 find was some stray Iranian, but no, he is mainstream MBA (and likely LBA) Bulgarian. Even though it's bit of a surprise, such finds in Noua-Coslogeni group wouldn't be a surprise at all. That find was 100 % IE in auDNA.

What we see in Bulgaria is a wave of population replacements from the EBA to EIA.. Ofc same goes for the earlier time..

Those Bulgarian aDNA finds from Mathieson et al and the upcoming study were actually quite representative, well chosen. Just the MBA/LBA period has just one find, but it should be notied as authors ofthe upcoming study have, that there was a bit of hiatus in Bulgaria between the EBA and LBA. Indeed Bulgarian LBA/MBA cultural diversity was low.

In the middle and most of Bulgaria the Zimnicea-Plovdiv - Razkopanitsa VII dominated. In NE there was Noua-Coslogeni (again strongly suspected R-Z93). And in the NW a Girla-Mare variant on the territory of modern Bulgaria. That's it.

Some discrepancy in TMRCA of E-V13 might be sought in the fact that these "close-knit circle" cultures formed many isolated lineages prior to their massive expansion.

Johane Derite
06-09-2021, 11:39 PM
Btw these migrations to Southern Albania are just about the only way to explain the coming of E-V13 from an archeological POV. Anything else is
2) saying V13 was forever in Albania since the Neolithic and it spreads from there in BA, IA
3) V13 arrived to Albania in Late Antiquity/Early Medieval times.

So anybody can choose his favorite option. I'd choose no 1. for the majority.

CTS9320 does seem to have had a LBA-IA expansion. But Z5018 does not, its distribution in Albania suggests an expansion Middle Bronze Age, ~1600 BC, to me, that then underwent loss of diversity later on, but still has enough branches spread out to suggest such an expansion dating to that time.

Successive conquests one after the other after this expansion resulted in loss of diversity, either by being killed off, or being broken away from Albanian community via assimilation.

A proto-Albanian 1500 years ago that became a Vlach or Romanian for example, loaning into their language a few proto-Alb words, but taking with him a particular branch and thus reducing Alb Y-diversity.

In such political situations like this that create pressure to assimilate, those that do not assimilate are more likely to be killed off or economically and politically marginalized to the point of your line being extinct within a couple of generations anyway.

Thus you can be left with a situation where non-Albanians may have branches that were also speaking proto-Albanian, while Albanians may not, because that region where that branch survived may have only survived by assimilation into the hegemonic non-Albanian culture, and so cannot have made it into the proto-Albanian group that survived into Albanian.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7aicMU0AAsoBM?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Huban
06-10-2021, 09:54 PM
CTS9320 does seem to have had a LBA-IA expansion. But Z5018 does not, its distribution in Albania suggests an expansion Middle Bronze Age, ~1600 BC, to me, that then underwent loss of diversity later on, but still has enough branches spread out to suggest such an expansion dating to that time.

Successive conquests one after the other after this expansion resulted in loss of diversity, either by being killed off, or being broken away from Albanian community via assimilation.

A proto-Albanian 1500 years ago that became a Vlach or Romanian for example, loaning into their language a few proto-Alb words, but taking with him a particular branch and thus reducing Alb Y-diversity.

In such political situations like this that create pressure to assimilate, those that do not assimilate are more likely to be killed off or economically and politically marginalized to the point of your line being extinct within a couple of generations anyway.

Thus you can be left with a situation where non-Albanians may have branches that were also speaking proto-Albanian, while Albanians may not, because that region where that branch survived may have only survived by assimilation into the hegemonic non-Albanian culture, and so cannot have made it into the proto-Albanian group that survived into Albanian.


Albanians have great diversity of Z5018 and their TMRCA is in MBA, however most of those subclades of Z5018 themselves have LBA/EIA TMRCA and Albanians in those clades have no relatives closer than LBA/EIA. Invoking supposed loss of diversity due to invasion events cannot be used as a valid argument as same invasions left alot more imprint to the North and so would have caused even more of depletion among Z5018 lineages there.

There are some widespread Albanian clusters that have 1000-1500 ybp relatives in Romanians for ex. and those are examples of what you are invoking. But one cannot use the same argument for Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek etc relatives whose TMRCA with Albanians is EIA/LBA range. Such chaotic makeup in other haplogroups suggests (often hasty and chaotic) migration events.

Despite great Albanian diversity, Bulgarians on a smaller sample have more Z5018 diversity than Albanians, which combined with aDNA finds speaks totally against what you are proposing. Using you analogy btw one could easily postulate I-Y3120 is of Balkan origin and not Slavic.

There is no archeological support for some E-V13 MBA migration event into Albania. In fact there exists evidence to point that this yellow area in Southern Albania was populated by the Phrygians before LBA. You already touched this topic when you invoked Bryges and some toponyms, and you tried to connect E-V13 with them. That doesn't seem possible and they should have been mostly R-Z2103. Northern part of Albania was dominated by the cultures which descend from the Dalmatian culture where J-L283 was found. Hence this new rumored MBA/LBA J-L283 find in N.Albania. So there is no reasonable path towards some strong MBA E-V13 presence in Albania judging by the current modern and aDNA evidence.

Why don't you talk to mr. Riverman and explain to him how his ancestors ended up in Germans from proto-Albanians 1000-1500 years ago.. As he is too Z5018+..

Riverman
06-11-2021, 08:09 AM
Albanians have great diversity of Z5018 and their TMRCA is in MBA, however most of those subclades of Z5018 themselves have LBA/EIA TMRCA and Albanians in those clades have no relatives closer than LBA/EIA. Invoking supposed loss of diversity due to invasion events cannot be used as a valid argument as same invasions left alot more imprint to the North and so would have caused even more of depletion among Z5018 lineages there.

There are some widespread Albanian clusters that have 1000-1500 ybp relatives in Romanians for ex. and those are examples of what you are invoking. But one cannot use the same argument for Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek etc relatives whose TMRCA with Albanians is EIA/LBA range. Such chaotic makeup in other haplogroups suggests (often hasty and chaotic) migration events.

Despite great Albanian diversity, Bulgarians on a smaller sample have more Z5018 diversity than Albanians, which combined with aDNA finds speaks totally against what you are proposing. Using you analogy btw one could easily postulate I-Y3120 is of Balkan origin and not Slavic.

There is no archeological support for some E-V13 MBA migration event into Albania. In fact there exists evidence to point that this yellow area in Southern Albania was populated by the Phrygians before LBA. You already touched this topic when you invoked Bryges and some toponyms, and you tried to connect E-V13 with them. That doesn't seem possible and they should have been mostly R-Z2103. Northern part of Albania was dominated by the cultures which descend from the Dalmatian culture where J-L283 was found. Hence this new rumored MBA/LBA J-L283 find in N.Albania. So there is no reasonable path towards some strong MBA E-V13 presence in Albania judging by the current modern and aDNA evidence.

Why don't you talk to mr. Riverman and explain to him how his ancestors ended up in Germans from proto-Albanians 1000-1500 years ago.. As he is too Z5018+..

Individuals can always have different ancestral pathways, including myself, so who knows. But whole populations don't and Albanians look like a complex, diverse, but fairly late subset from the E-V13 trunk. Its almost like if they had a gathering and decided every tenth man from the E-V13 populatoin had to go, to Albanians, the same for other regions. What this suggests to me is that it was a subset of a greater E-V13 population which diverged late. Similar diversity can be shown up to Western Europe, so the same thing, a selection of males from diverse clan groups, patrilineages, happened not just once or twice, but more often than that. An EIA distribution, splits and branching events, look therefore the most likely, but even then its strange why they didn't split along the main clades, but down to the very subclade. So either they had no clan based structure, there where no patrilinear based tribes, or it was one, unified and fairly small group which demographically exploded in a rapid expansion event. Again, the only plausible scenario for such an event is the Iron Age transition, better tools, better weapons, valuable knowledge and goods. If this scenario is right, we might have still one unified, fairly homogeneous, rather small population in the LBA primarily in one, clearly defined, geographical area. This has, for the current density of ancient DNA sampling, something of looking for a needle in a haystick. Even worse, people cremated, which makes a lot of samples undetectable.
But right now I still think this is the best explanation, a very, very late (for the older theories) rapid demographic and geogrpaphic expansion from a fairly small, geographically comfined population which profited from the Bronze to Iron Age transition big time. And this again leads to Teleac & Co and at least a subset of Gava or Gava-Belegis.
The E-V13 ethnicity, whatever it was, most likely closest related to Proto-Thracian, needed some sort of leverage, a big advantage. Like R1a/R1b with the steppe and EBA package. Such an event and outcome is not self-explanatory, by just pointing to some potential ancestors. We need to find the mechanism which allowed this rapid expansion and spread and I would bet on the Iron technology, most definitely. E-V13 were probably the first big time iron workers and users in European prehistory, but for sure they were among the first, or just used it the most efficiently. This also means they had to spread, not by replacement, but on a high level, within Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt.
We'll see, because that should be testable.


Rrenjet/Gjergj can correct me if I'm wrong. However, if memory serves, from a prior post about subject; the supposed upcoming finds for Albania which have MBA J2b-L283 and R1b(can't recall the clade) have E-V13 only appearing either in the LBA Albania and or Iron Age period.

That's actually significant, for what I said above: Did they come directly with the introduction of iron working? I would guess so.

You have to read up on how iron weapons smashed Bronze ones. Its interesting to imagine. Two sword fighters, one with an iron sword, the other with a bronze one. Good luck for the bronze sword guy...

But this advantage had expiration date. People could only surf on that wave until the technology spread, including by their own people which sold their knowledge and products on the market. Like even in times of war between Europeans and natives, there were always people selling guns for those paying the right price.

Johane Derite
06-11-2021, 05:43 PM
Why don't you talk to mr. Riverman and explain to him how his ancestors ended up in Germans from proto-Albanians 1000-1500 years ago.. As he is too Z5018+..


I never claimed this, so I don't understand why you have to bring other users in, is the purpose to instigate fights or what? Very low level of conduct as usual.

My belief is that E-V13 is connected to the Albanoid linguistic group, of which proto-Albanian is one descendant of (the only surviving one). In the middle bronze age, Albanoid would have had far more descendants that died off generation after generation.

My comment specifically stated that a middle bronze age expansion seemed to be suggested, not 1000-1500 years ago. That range was mentioned to try give one example about a period in which loss of diversity would have occurred. There were many other periods since the middle bronze age, not just 1500 years ago.

One period could have also been the instability of the late-bronze age, in which CTS9320 expanded. Likewise instability in the Iron Age would also have lost some diversity.


Despite great Albanian diversity, Bulgarians on a smaller sample have more Z5018 diversity than Albanians, which combined with aDNA finds speaks totally against what you are proposing.

So? That is irrelevant since we know that there is no positive correlation with the slavic linguistic branch, and that Bulgarian E-V13 for the major part must have been speaking a non-Bulgarian language. The language which this E-V13 in Bulgarians must have been speaking is Albanoid considering Bulgarian and Macedonian have Albanoid grammatical features not shared by other Slavic languages to the same extent.

The MBA expansion of Z5018 was not only to Albania. I believe it was far more reaching, and will build my case on this in later posts.


Using you analogy btw one could easily postulate I-Y3120 is of Balkan origin and not Slavic.

It would be a false equivalence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence?oldformat=true

Albanian ethnicity and language did not spread in the same way as Slavic ones. You cannot apply an explanatory model that works for Slavic to it. It works for I-Y3120 since that is the way it spread, and it positively correlates to Slavic language presence.

Albanian ethnicity/language can be compared to the Jewish religion/ethnicity in that for the most part we did not "proselytize" or try to "convert" people to our ethnicity or language, in the same way that Jewish religion for the most part does not proselytize like Christians or Muslims. Whereas the history of the 19-20th century for Albanians outside of the borders of Albania was that of foreign national language schools like Serbian, Greek, Turkish, etc, trying to assimilate them linguistically and ethnically, majority successfully so.


There is no archeological support for some E-V13 MBA migration event into Albania. In fact there exists evidence to point that this yellow area in Southern Albania was populated by the Phrygians before LBA. You already touched this topic when you invoked Bryges and some toponyms, and you tried to connect E-V13 with them.

Brygians in ancient sources appear in the Durres area, in Pelagonia, and bordering the Thesprotians. The "lausitz ware" which others argued was Brygian/Phrygian in Macedonia, was argued by Garasanin to be from Mediana, Dardanian according to his scheme (which I still am not really sold on entirely).

So again, these arguments are heavily contested and fragmentary, but I believe there is something there. It is yet to be entirely untangled.

I trust the TMRCA, and that Z5018 had an expansion in the middle bronze age. I suspect some of this will have made it to Italy, some to Greece, and some to Troy. Possibly some to Germany also. I believe this group was Albanoid.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3l7F2aX0AAj2vy?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3l7G2IXMAAEKh9?format=jpg&name=large

Johane Derite
06-12-2021, 12:23 PM
Copy of my comment from elsewhere. This is especially @Johane Derite. It fits into what you have been saying.



In this scheme E-V13 clades joined possibly the R-Z2705 carriers in Mediana III phase where Pshenichevo element dominated. We already know what hg Pshenichevo people belonged to mostly.

In this scheme J-L283 is Glasinac-Mati related (which it is surely), while E-V13 is Kuc i Zi and Messapian related. And therefore E-V13 is more Albanian than J-L283..

Btw these migrations to Southern Albania are just about the only way to explain the coming of E-V13 from an archeological POV. Anything else is
2) saying V13 was forever in Albania since the Neolithic and it spreads from there in BA, IA
3) V13 arrived to Albania in Late Antiquity/Early Medieval times.

So anybody can choose his favorite option. I'd choose no 1. for the majority.

This is a linguistic issue first, so we need to be secure which linguistic element travelled with which pottery. Pots not people scenarios also exist. There were Myceneans in South Italy also.

Messapic Kalabria is where the densest Messapic inscriptions are found, yet this map doesn't suggest Matt ware there. If we compare the biggest Messapic tribal names, they majorly point to Dardanians:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3rdQYZXoAcPf7S?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3rdR-CWYAYyUP4?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Huban
06-13-2021, 02:05 AM
This is a linguistic issue first, so we need to be secure which linguistic element travelled with which pottery. Pots not people scenarios also exist. There were Myceneans in South Italy also.

Messapic Kalabria is where the densest Messapic inscriptions are found, yet this map doesn't suggest Matt ware there. If we compare the biggest Messapic tribal names, they majorly point to Dardanians:


Those rough approximations where Messapians might have dwelled are secondary to archeological evidence. Their pottery has been identified and it is Matt-painted pottery with parallels in Southern Albania. Alojz Benac wrote on this when he weighted whether there wes a supposed connection between Iapodes and Messapians. His conclusion was that there wasn't. Later Liburnians during their domination of the seas when they reached S.Italy carried some Messapian elements to their native area.



I never claimed this, so I don't understand why you have to bring other users in, is the purpose to instigate fights or what? Very low level of conduct as usual.

If you can talk the talk (like claiming elsewhere that all Bulgarian V13 descended from Early Medieval migrants from Albania) then walk the walk and substantiate what you claim. Yes there should be fights when laughable things are claimed. Idiotic claims shouldn't go unanswered. There is a difference between claims that are disputable and though unlikely they have a case and claims that are 100 % wrong.



My belief is that E-V13 is connected to the Albanoid linguistic group, of which proto-Albanian is one descendant of (the only surviving one). In the middle bronze age, Albanoid would have had far more descendants that died off generation after generation.

Albanians are mentioned apr. 1000 years ago as a people in historical sources. It is reasonable to assume the ethnogenesis of proto-Albanians occurred few centuries before and that therefore expansive lineages that are 1000-1500 years old most likely formed the bulk of proto-Albanians. Additionally such linages should be found in both Ghegs and Tosks. Such lineages exist among the V13. They comprise 3-4 % in Albanians. Yet the most widespread seemingly proto-Albanian clade is not E-V13 or J-L283, it is R-Z2705.

Is it not a bit odd that a Steppe descended R-Z2103 clade that is 1500 years old has managed to reach up to 15 % in Ghegs and 10 % in Tosks, and has had far more success than any other hg for no reason?? No. it is logical to assume proto-Albanian speakers were at one point in time almost exclusively R-Z2705. And that compared to R-Z2705 all other clades are less proto-Albanian. Many E-V13 and J-L283 clades try and fail to achieve such strength yet a single R-Z2103 does. Because this is the proto-Albanian clade??



My comment specifically stated that a middle bronze age expansion seemed to be suggested, not 1000-1500 years ago. That range was mentioned to try give one example about a period in which loss of diversity would have occurred. There were many other periods since the middle bronze age, not just 1500 years ago.

One period could have also been the instability of the late-bronze age, in which CTS9320 expanded. Likewise instability in the Iron Age would also have lost some diversity.

Even if there was a MBA expansion, it is still not likely it arrived to Albania at that time but during the subsequent LBA/EIA period. Because some archeological evidence points to that. While being convinced of strong "Albanoid"-E-V13 connection it seems as if you are not satisfied with the supposed EIA/LBA continuity and you try to extend it further. Reminiscent of Protochronists who are never satisfied with the supposed age of their precious ethnicity, so it has be be older and older..



So? That is irrelevant since we know that there is no positive correlation with the slavic linguistic branch, and that Bulgarian E-V13 for the major part must have been speaking a non-Bulgarian language. The language which this E-V13 in Bulgarians must have been speaking is Albanoid considering Bulgarian and Macedonian have Albanoid grammatical features not shared by other Slavic languages to the same extent.

The MBA expansion of Z5018 was not only to Albania. I believe it was far more reaching, and will build my case on this in later posts.

Z5018 does look to have had an initial MBA expansion and some centuries after that many of its clades had a LBA/EIA expansion.

I am aware of some Bulgaro-Macedonian features that make them closer to Albanian, but I do not think this is due to some Illyrian-derived connection. It must be rather Thracian or Dardanian-related. Yes Bulgarian E-V13 spoke mostly another language, much if was Eastern Balkan Romance/proto-Romanian, and also remember that Bessian language was attested as a living language in 5th century AD. No such attestation exists for the Illyrian (part of Schramms thesis about Bessian proto-Albanians).



Brygians in ancient sources appear in the Durres area, in Pelagonia, and bordering the Thesprotians. The "lausitz ware" which others argued was Brygian/Phrygian in Macedonia, was argued by Garasanin to be from Mediana, Dardanian according to his scheme (which I still am not really sold on entirely).

So again, these arguments are heavily contested and fragmentary, but I believe there is something there. It is yet to be entirely untangled.

I trust the TMRCA, and that Z5018 had an expansion in the middle bronze age. I suspect some of this will have made it to Italy, some to Greece, and some to Troy. Possibly some to Germany also. I believe this group was Albanoid.


I agree that Brygians have their place somewhere. This Matt-painted pottery has been attributed to them also, other than Messapians, even Dorians. Possibly during the Bronze Age collapse movements some of these traits expanded to other groups involved in migrations.

Theories about proto-Bryges actually involve claims that the Armenochori and Maliq III a-b cultures were the proto-Brygians. These cultures are Early Bronze Age Southernmost extensions of a complex that included even the Cetina culture in many respects. Rafc in his paper about EBA expansion of V13 included the Armenochori group as one vector of EBA E-V13 expansion from Cetina. Posibly this still holds some truth. I still am convinced that E-V13 began in proto-Cetina phase. There are some clades such as E-CTS5856* (not tested for BY3880) in Western Albania and Macedonians who are E-BY3880*, so Balkan clades without relatives closer than 4400/4500 years might be related to these cultures.

And so that in the EBA the Shkumbin river was the border between the proto-Brygian to the South and proto-Illyrian elements to the North. "Proto-Illyrian" here being the southernmost extensions of the Posušje culture where J-L283 was found. And where I strongly suspect this new LBA/MBA Albanian J-L283 is from.

If this is true then the Brygians would have occupied the area south of Shkumbin river, in LBA/EIA there was a migration of Brnjica group to this area which is one likely vector of how some E-V13 (younger) clades arrived to the area.

Matt-painted pottery per Garašanin descends from S.Albania, so this could be a Brygian invention that was adopted by the proto-Messapian (Brnjica/Mediana related) migrants.

And even Kuc i Zi complex has been attributed to them as well. These are some possible Brygo-Messapian connections, even though I believe they were quite distinct peoples.

In any case people to the north and south of Shkumbin river were different people by origin, even though in Antiquity both areas were "Illyrian".

Huban
06-13-2021, 02:23 AM
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/4c/97/8f/4c978f799d0eeafba32aecf835dfa42c--cap-dagde.jpg

Phrygian cap was ultra typical of Thracians and Dacians. Maybe this has a longer history. If these claims about Armenochori being proto-Bryges are true, it could be that this was the original identity of V13 in EBA (Cetina phase). And as the Thracians came to be in LBA/EIA some old traditions were maybe passed on.

Huban
06-13-2021, 03:06 AM
Indeed archeologists say that Matt-painted pottery develops out of Matt-painted pottery from Maliq IIId2, so it should be local. EBA Maliq III does have Cetina connections, and we do know that Posušje culture from Dalmatia expanded to Northern Albania, presumably bringing the J-L283 to Albania. We also know that Cetina and Dinara people were different, and of different origins. So surely their cousins to the North and to the South of Shkumbin were also very different in Y-DNA etc. Eleonora Petrova claims that only in Southern Albania existed the more coherent Brygian territory after their cultural cohesion was slowly broken up since the 8th century BC.

I guess the main Phrygian hg was R-L584 (there are still some Balkan subclades), elements active in EBA Adriatic that played part in genesis of Cetina culture were the older Yamnaya, and it stands to reason they could have been basal R-Z2103 clades. Especially as R-CTS7556 were still in Maros culture, so they may not have descended still to the coast in the very EBA.

In any case I do think this proposed parallel between Southern Albania and Brygians holds significant ground.

Dorkymon
06-13-2021, 05:21 AM
Glad I don't have to invent tales to cope with the origin of my haplo. Hopefully things will become clearer for E-V13 in the future

Scythoslav
06-13-2021, 05:54 AM
Glad I don't have to invent tales to cope with the origin of my haplo. Hopefully things will become clearer for E-V13 in the future

Lol what tales? Its simple at this point. It’s either of Levantine origin brought there by toforalt related mushabians from Nile valley and then into Europe via Anatolia, or it came directly from North African Toforalt related culture. Either way it’s African, but African does not equal modern sub Saharan negroid. Nile valley remains of Khazer and mechtoid-Afalou show closer relations craniometrically to paleo Euros than they do to negroids. So what is there to cope about? I personally think its actually cool to be descendants of such a unique population. Anyone coping needs to find their African pride lmao

Johane Derite
06-13-2021, 09:14 AM
Those rough approximations where Messapians might have dwelled are secondary to archeological evidence. Their pottery has been identified and it is Matt-painted pottery with parallels in Southern Albania. Alojz Benac wrote on this when he weighted whether there wes a supposed connection between Iapodes and Messapians. His conclusion was that there wasn't. Later Liburnians during their domination of the seas when they reached S.Italy carried some Messapian elements to their native area.

These are not "rough approximations". This is the map of the exact find spots of all the Messapic inscriptions, the language which is Albanoid. The highest density is in the region of the Kalabri. There is nothing rough about tribal ethnicity and language.


It is much harder to adopt a language and tribal name than it is to import pots. The strait of otranto favours imports coming from south Albania directly into south italy because it is the closest distance, so there can easily be a situation created by the economic conditions in which they just imported pots/potmakers from southern albania because it was cheaper.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ez4wkQxWUAEorjG?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Johane Derite
06-13-2021, 09:23 AM
Albanians are mentioned apr. 1000 years ago as a people in historical sources. It is reasonable to assume the ethnogenesis of proto-Albanians occurred few centuries before and that therefore expansive lineages that are 1000-1500 years old most likely formed the bulk of proto-Albanians. Additionally such linages should be found in both Ghegs and Tosks. Such lineages exist among the V13. They comprise 3-4 % in Albanians. Yet the most widespread seemingly proto-Albanian clade is not E-V13 or J-L283, it is R-Z2705.

Is it not a bit odd that a Steppe descended R-Z2103 clade that is 1500 years old has managed to reach up to 15 % in Ghegs and 10 % in Tosks, and has had far more success than any other hg for no reason?? No. it is logical to assume proto-Albanian speakers were at one point in time almost exclusively R-Z2705. And that compared to R-Z2705 all other clades are less proto-Albanian. Many E-V13 and J-L283 clades try and fail to achieve such strength yet a single R-Z2103 does. Because this is the proto-Albanian clade??

Sincerely, yet again, I am not talking about proto-Albanian. I am talking about Albanoid. I do not deny anywhere that proto-Albanian expansion and R-Z2103 are connected.

I am talking about the wider Albanoid group and believe that E-V13 is the one, because of the shared features in both Bulgarian, Macedonian, but also Messapic.

I see E-V13 as the mediator of Albanoid features.


"Schumacher and Matzinger believe Albanian came into existence separately from Illyrian, orginating from the Indo-European family tree during the second millennium BC, somewhere in the northern Balkans.

The language’s broad shape resembles Greek. It appears to have developed lineally until the 15th century, when the first extant text comes to light.

“One thing we know for sure is that a language which, with some justification, we can call Albanian has been around for at least 3,000 years,” Schumacher says. “Even though it was not written down for millennia, Albanian existed as a separate entity,” he added."

Joachim Matzinger & Stefan Shumacher. 2011


"Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and Messapic (a language spoken in Southern Italy in antiquity but originally of Balkan origin), which is why Albanian in some instances may shed light on the explanation of Messapic as well as Illyrian words"

Joachim Matzinger
2018

Johane Derite
06-13-2021, 10:14 AM
While being convinced of strong "Albanoid"-E-V13 connection it seems as if you are not satisfied with the supposed EIA/LBA continuity and you try to extend it further. Reminiscent of Protochronists who are never satisfied with the supposed age of their precious ethnicity, so it has be be older and older..


Recently an Albanian archaeologist had a lecture in which he showed carbon dating evidence that Durrës had been found earlier than the Greek founding myth. Straight away, he was accused by some of the other present people of Albanian nationalism.

This is the situation of projection, in which a nationalist or false narrative is so normalised, that immediately if you see evidence that counters it some knee-jerk reactionaries get ready to project their own nationalism back at you.

Likewise, you are wrong in projecting your BS on to me. I am not trying to make my "precious ethnicity older and older". I am going by the evidence. Dardanian mercenaries appear already in 1270BC. This means Dardanians must have already been formed at least by 1300BC. Anatolian Dardania and Balkan Dardani are without a doubt most likely related. Albanian most likely comes from Dardanian. Do the math.

Johane Derite
06-13-2021, 10:21 AM
Because of the central importance of Messapic and Dardanii and Albanian relation, the Dardanoi of Anatolia also become relevant in constructing the phylogeny of Albanoid (which I believe had main E-V13 component). Thus also the dating of the Trojan war here becomes crucial.

Here is a well detailed lecture and argument that the Trojan war occurred ~1400BC.

https://www.blod.gr/lectures/the-trojan-war-based-on-archaeological-findings/

Aspar
06-13-2021, 10:51 AM
Lol what tales? Its simple at this point. It’s either of Levantine origin brought there by toforalt related mushabians from Nile valley and then into Europe via Anatolia, or it came directly from North African Toforalt related culture. Either way it’s African, but African does not equal modern sub Saharan negroid. Nile valley remains of Khazer and mechtoid-Afalou show closer relations craniometrically to paleo Euros than they do to negroids. So what is there to cope about? I personally think its actually cool to be descendants of such a unique population. Anyone coping needs to find their African pride lmao

What is African about E-V13?
Any paper I have read about E-V13 says it was probably born in Europe and most likely in the Balkans. I never heard that E-V13 is African or anything of that.
Even E-L618 could have been born in Europe as well going by the ancient samples which are all found in an European context thus far. Even by modern diversity, L618 doesn't reveal any other origin than European. Some MENA E-L618(xV13) samples share BA MRCA with Europeans and it's rather obvious these are the result of some ancient European migrations to the ME and NA.
TMRCA of E-L618 is 8100 ybp according to YFULL or 6100 BCE. This is the time when the AF already migrated in Europe and so the origins of E-L618 are most likely in Europe as well. The formation date of E-L618 is taken by the TMRCA date of it's ancestor E-Z1919 but this is rather speculative and not as precise as the TMRCA dating hence it's not reliable. In other words, it's very possible that the formation date of E-L618 is the same or close to it's TMRCA dating.
Which means that only non European would be some E-Z1919(xL618) ancestor that most probably moved in Europe with the early farmers.

So, what does African in origin mean to you?
If we go enough back in time all haplogroups originate from an A haplogroup ancestor that was born in Africa hence by that logic we can say that all haplogroups are African in origin. Well, Homo Sapiens did migrate out of Africa, right? So we are all Africans then. Time for Africans to claim all the humankind as they are the oldest...

But, if we going to argue who had the most recent African ancestors out of all haplogroups, then yeah, we can confirm that E-V13 would be among those haplogroups. And with TMRCA of 8100 ybp of it's ancestor E-L618, V13 is more European than many other present day European haplogroups by the way.

Which leaves us to either E-Z1919 or E-M78 or both being African in origin. E-Z1919 with TMRCA of 11900 ybp is split in two major haplogroups, E-V22 and E-L618. E-V22 is overwhelmingly Middle Eastern and Egyptian while E-L618 overwhelmingly European. Which brings the center of gravity closer to the Meadle Eastern and Levantine origin for E-Z1919 rather than an African.
Anyhow, we can comfortably say that E-V13 and it's ancestors have been out of Africa already during the period between 11900 - 8100 ybp.

Anyway, constantly writing here about some non verifiable North African migration and some African origin of E-V13 makes me think you are either stuck in 2010 and haven't kept much with the flow since then or either just a troll...

Aspar
06-13-2021, 01:31 PM
I agree that Brygians have their place somewhere. This Matt-painted pottery has been attributed to them also, other than Messapians, even Dorians. Possibly during the Bronze Age collapse movements some of these traits expanded to other groups involved in migrations.

Theories about proto-Bryges actually involve claims that the Armenochori and Maliq III a-b cultures were the proto-Brygians. These cultures are Early Bronze Age Southernmost extensions of a complex that included even the Cetina culture in many respects. Rafc in his paper about EBA expansion of V13 included the Armenochori group as one vector of EBA E-V13 expansion from Cetina. Posibly this still holds some truth. I still am convinced that E-V13 began in proto-Cetina phase. There are some clades such as E-CTS5856* (not tested for BY3880) in Western Albania and Macedonians who are E-BY3880*, so Balkan clades without relatives closer than 4400/4500 years might be related to these cultures.

And so that in the EBA the Shkumbin river was the border between the proto-Brygian to the South and proto-Illyrian elements to the North. "Proto-Illyrian" here being the southernmost extensions of the Posušje culture where J-L283 was found. And where I strongly suspect this new LBA/MBA Albanian J-L283 is from.

If this is true then the Brygians would have occupied the area south of Shkumbin river, in LBA/EIA there was a migration of Brnjica group to this area which is one likely vector of how some E-V13 (younger) clades arrived to the area.

Matt-painted pottery per Garašanin descends from S.Albania, so this could be a Brygian invention that was adopted by the proto-Messapian (Brnjica/Mediana related) migrants.

And even Kuc i Zi complex has been attributed to them as well. These are some possible Brygo-Messapian connections, even though I believe they were quite distinct peoples.

In any case people to the north and south of Shkumbin river were different people by origin, even though in Antiquity both areas were "Illyrian".

https://m.facebook.com/AlbanianArchaeology/posts/tumulus-burial-in-albania-and-epirusdecades-of-60-and-70-of-the-past-century-saw/584076255311798/

According to this article, the Albanian and other archaeologists date the appearance of the Matt painted pottery in Maliq during the phase Maliq IIId which itself in the context of Aegean chronology is defined as LBA. Thus there is no way how this style would have been spread to Greece from South Albanian when the Minoans already decorated their pottery with Matt paint already during the Middle Helladic period (2000-1550) BCE. In other words, the Mycenaean Matt painted pottery has its origins in the Middle Helladic Minoan period.
If you have read some of my previous posts about archaeological finds of the Ulanci-Vardar group then you would have seen that Mycenaean Matt painted pottery and other Mycenaean related finds appeared there during the second phase of the LBA or approximately the same time as in Maliq.
In other words, both Epirus and South Albania and Macedonia were part of the same cultural process that was mainly characterised by Mycenaean Matt painted pottery, in the case of South Albania and West Macedonia(Maliq IIId and Servia) polychrome and monochrome handmade Matt painted pottery and in the case of Central Macedonia(Ulanci-Vardar-Kastania) monochrome handmade Matt painted pottery. Both of these cultural groups were also characterised by Incised and Encrusted Pottery which had it's appearence in the beginning of the LBA and just before the Matt painted pottery. Thus it's obvious that both these cultural groups were overwhelmed by both Danubian and Mycenaean influences. Although the Albanian archaeologists do say that the appearance of the Matt painted pottery in South Albania is not the result of Mycenaean migration in South Albania but the result of a local production, something similar to what Macedonian archaeologists say about the Ulanci-Vardar group and the only migration that happened they attributed to a group from the Danubian area(Incised Encrusted Pottery).

Before the LBA the other significant changes in Maliq happened with appearance of Armenochori group artifacts and corded ware Pottery around 2100 BCE as a result of a Steppe related intrusion in the South Balkans.

Out of this I would say that the appearance of Incised Encrusted Pottery correlates most closely with the appearance of E-V13 in the South Balkans for the first time. Later waves of E-V13 related subclades probably appeared with the invasion of Brnjica and Gava-Belegis people.

After the transitional period and with the invasion of people from Brnjica and Gava-Belegis Cultures the Ulanci-Vardar group disappeared however in South Albania, West Macedonia and Epirus there was a clear continuation of the previous cultural traits such as the Matt painted pottery and so on. This was clearly the zone where the Doric Greek-Macedonian-Brygian population survived and which was able to expand after the Dark ages.

Pribislav
06-13-2021, 03:23 PM
The formation date of E-L618 is taken by the TMRCA date of it's ancestor E-Z1919 but this is rather speculative and not as precise as the TMRCA dating hence it's not reliable. In other words, it's very possible that the formation date of E-L618 is the same or close to it's TMRCA dating.

What you suggested can't be further away from very possible. Except if by "same or close" you mean 3500-4000 years at least, since there are more than 40 SNPs at L618 level.

Aspar
06-13-2021, 04:42 PM
What you suggested can't be further away from very possible. Except if by "same or close" you mean 3500-4000 years at least, since there are more than 40 SNPs at L618 level.

Sure.

Do you know the chronological order of those SNPs?

Is E-L618 the oldest out of those SNPs?

Pribislav
06-13-2021, 05:52 PM
Sure.

Do you know the chronological order of those SNPs?

Is E-L618 the oldest out of those SNPs?

Chronological order is not relevant to this discusion. I was just responding to your unrealistic statement that the formation and TMRCA dates of a clade that contains more than 40 SNPs could be "same or close".

Aspar
06-13-2021, 06:28 PM
Chronological order is not relevant to this discusion. I was just responding to your unrealistic statement that the formation and TMRCA dates of a clade that contains more than 40 SNPs could be "same or close".

How is that not relevant?

What if some day a sample appears on the tree, negative for L618 but positive for let's say 30 of those SNPs?

There will be a new branch under Z1919 formed between the new sample* and L618.

Will the formation date for E-L618 be the same as before?

Riverman
06-13-2021, 07:51 PM
How is that not relevant?

What if some day a sample appears on the tree, negative for L618 but positive for let's say 30 of those SNPs?

There will be a new branch under Z1919 formed between the new sample* and L618.

Will the formation date for E-L618 be the same as before?

While that is true, E-L618, as it is currently defined, has a longer history based on dozens of SNPs.
But surely, it might be broken up into different regional branches of younger age eventually.
Currently not even the birth place of E itself is known for sure, so everything is conjecture.

Pribislav
06-13-2021, 08:21 PM
How is that not relevant?

What if some day a sample appears on the tree, negative for L618 but positive for let's say 30 of those SNPs?

There will be a new branch under Z1919 formed between the new sample* and L618.

Will the formation date for E-L618 be the same as before?

I'm not talking about what-ifs, I'm talking about how things are. L618 level currently has 41 SNPs and it is beyond ridiculous to claim it could have the same or close formation and TMRCA dates. And that goes for any level of comparable size in any haplogroup. It's just basic math/logic.

Aspar
06-13-2021, 09:23 PM
I'm not talking about what-ifs, I'm talking about how things are. L618 level currently has 41 SNPs and it is beyond ridiculous to claim it could have the same or close formation and TMRCA dates. And that goes for any level of comparable size in any haplogroup. It's just basic math/logic.

We are probably going around and around but since you replied to me and called my response unrealistic and ridiculous, I will ask you again, do you know the chronology of all those SNPs?
I know you've done your homework therefore I'm sure you are pretty well aware that all those SNPs can't occur at once.
So, what's the oldest and what's the youngest out of all those SNPs?

The tree currently doesn't back up your claim that things are as you say they are because all the current modern samples are positive for every single one of those SNPs. Once a sample appears (whether ancient or modern) that isn't positive for all those SNPs, the things will become more obvious.

Until then, the only chronology we have is the most ancient E-L618 up to date, the Croatian Cardial sample and based on that E-L618 shouldn't be younger than 5500 BCE or 7500 ybp.

Aspar
06-13-2021, 09:38 PM
While that is true, E-L618, as it is currently defined, has a longer history based on dozens of SNPs.
But surely, it might be broken up into different regional branches of younger age eventually.
Currently not even the birth place of E itself is known for sure, so everything is conjecture.

This might be confusing but this is how I understand:

All the SNPs currently listed besides E-L618 are the mutations that occured from TMRCA of E-Z1919 and all the way to TMRCA of the people that are positive for all those SNPs. Where does L618 stands in that chronological period is a question we don't really know because we have no idea when exactly all those SNPs occured since a mutation occurres once in every generation or couple of generations because can vary and the current NGS tests such as BIG Y can read mutations per every 80-140 years depending whether you've tested with BIG Y-500 or 700.

Huban
06-13-2021, 09:42 PM
These are not "rough approximations". This is the map of the exact find spots of all the Messapic inscriptions, the language which is Albanoid. The highest density is in the region of the Kalabri. There is nothing rough about tribal ethnicity and language.


It is much harder to adopt a language and tribal name than it is to import pots. The strait of otranto favours imports coming from south Albania directly into south italy because it is the closest distance, so there can easily be a situation created by the economic conditions in which they just imported pots/potmakers from southern albania because it was cheaper.


Mentioned archeologist was aware of those names and yet Matt-painted pottery has been attributed to Messapians. Find a quote of another archeologist disputing that and then we can talk. I don't think you can find that easily. You are here disputing my statement because I said it, not because its wrong. :crazy::crazy:

These pots came from Southern Albania probably because Messapians came from Southern Albania i.e. it came with the Messapians. And only Southern Albania has some migratory events dating to LBA/EIA which might explain some V13 clades there. Northern Albania was together with Dalmatia, Montenegro culturally uniform since the MBA and these people were J-L283 as indicated by aDNA.


Thus also the dating of the Trojan war here becomes crucial.

Has been dated long ago.


Dardanian mercenaries appear already in 1270BC. This means Dardanians must have already been formed at least by 1300BC. Anatolian Dardania and Balkan Dardani are without a doubt most likely related.

Garasanin tried to find evidence connecting Dardanians of Mediana culture to Troy but the only connections were far more generalized and in no way typical of Mediana culture.


Because of the central importance of Messapic and Dardanii and Albanian relation, the Dardanoi of Anatolia also become relevant in constructing the phylogeny of Albanoid (which I believe had main E-V13 component).

This is the problem with you. You first make a conclusion about something, and then you go on to fit existing facts with your narrative ignoring the other facts. This methodology is not scientific. In this instance you made a pre-conclusion that E-V13 is "Albanoid" (a term you invented).




Here is a well detailed lecture and argument that the Trojan war occurred ~1400BC.

https://www.blod.gr/lectures/the-trojan-war-based-on-archaeological-findings/

Thank you for proving once again that you are into revisionist pseudo-scientific nonsense, in this instance the point is what? You are not satisfied with the age of Dardanians at Troy being 1200 BC, so it must be extended to 1300, 1400 BC?? It seems you are attempting to match Dardanians with the TMRCA of Z5018.. In order to support your fore conclusion which has "determined" that "Albanoids" are Dardanians of Troy and they are E-V13/E-Z5018.. Invoking pseudo-science to support a pseudo-scientific "conclusion". Well done.




I am talking about the wider Albanoid group and believe that E-V13 is the one, because of the shared features in both Bulgarian, Macedonian, but also Messapic.

I see E-V13 as the mediator of Albanoid features.


"Schumacher and Matzinger believe Albanian came into existence separately from Illyrian, orginating from the Indo-European family tree during the second millennium BC, somewhere in the northern Balkans.

The language’s broad shape resembles Greek. It appears to have developed lineally until the 15th century, when the first extant text comes to light.

“One thing we know for sure is that a language which, with some justification, we can call Albanian has been around for at least 3,000 years,” Schumacher says. “Even though it was not written down for millennia, Albanian existed as a separate entity,” he added."

Joachim Matzinger & Stefan Shumacher. 2011


"Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and Messapic (a language spoken in Southern Italy in antiquity but originally of Balkan origin), which is why Albanian in some instances may shed light on the explanation of Messapic as well as Illyrian words"

Joachim Matzinger
2018

https://balkaninsight.com/2011/03/25/austrian-scholars-leave-albania-lost-for-words/


Viennese researchers upset traditionally minded Albanians by pouring cold water on the theory that the Albanian language has its roots in Ancient Illyria.

Like a couple of detectives searching for clues, Stefan Schumacher and Joachim Matzinger are out to reconstruct the origins of Albanian – a language whose history and development has received remarkably little attention outside the world of Albanian scholars.

“You’ll find the doctrine about the Illyrian origin of Albanians everywhere,” Matzinger muses, “from popular to scientific literature and schoolbooks. “There is no discussion about this, it’s a fact. They say, ‘We are Illyrians’ and that’s that,” he adds.

Speaking during a conference in November organised by the Hanns Seidel Foundation, where Pani presented Schumacher’s and Matzinger’s findings, she defended the linkage of Albanian and Illyrian, saying it was not based only on linguistic theory.

“Scholars base this hypothesis also on archeology,” Kore said. Renowned scholars who did not “subscribe blindly to the ideology of the [Hoxha] regime” still supported the idea, she insisted.

One of the key problems in working out the linguistic descendants of the Illyrians is a chronic shortage of sources.

The Illyrians appears to have been unlettered, so information on their language and culture is highly fragmentary and mostly derived from external sources, Greek or Roman.

Matzinger points put that when the few surviving fragments of Illyrian and Albanian are compared, they have almost nothing in common.

“The two are opposites and cannot fit together,” he says. “Albanian is not as the same as Illyrian from a linguistic point of view.”

Schumacher and Matzinger believe Albanian came into existence separately from Illyrian, orginating from the Indo-European family tree during the second millennium BC, somewhere in the northern Balkans.

Even though your methodology has plenty of pseudo-science, you are still way above most of Albanians whose views on Albanians and Illyrians are more befitting of a cult or religion.:D

Johane Derite
06-13-2021, 10:24 PM
This is the problem with you. You first make a conclusion about something, and then you go on to fit existing facts with your narrative ignoring the other facts. This methodology is not scientific. In this instance you made a pre-conclusion that E-V13 is "Albanoid" (a term you invented).


A term I invented? This is a term used by linguists like Eric Hamp, Martin Huld, etc. I didn't invent it. Just goes to show how full of hot air you are.

It is very simple. Dardanoi of Anatolia in Trojan tradition appear in the Egyptian records of the Battle of Kadesh, dated 1270 BC. So it is impossible that their origin comes from a culture from 1200 BC. Plain and simple, it must be a culture older than at least 1270 BC.

Johane Derite
06-13-2021, 10:37 PM
Thank you for proving once again that you are into revisionist pseudo-scientific nonsense, in this instance the point is what? You are not satisfied with the age of Dardanians at Troy being 1200 BC, so it must be extended to 1300, 1400 BC?? It seems you are attempting to match Dardanians with the TMRCA of Z5018.. In order to support your fore conclusion which has "determined" that "Albanoids" are Dardanians of Troy and they are E-V13/E-Z5018.. Invoking pseudo-science to support a pseudo-scientific "conclusion". Well done.

There is nothing pseudoscientific about the lecture. The Dardanoi in Anatolia, the Dardi in Messapi, and the Dardani in the Balkans, have plenty of evidence to have a phylogenetic relationship, i.e, descending from a common ancestor. Because we know from egyptian sources that they must have at least already been in the Troad in 1270 BC, this means the phylogenetic ancestor of the Dardi/Dardanoi/Dardani must have at least had its expansion a hundred or couple of hundred years earlier than 1270 BC.

You are the one that is obsessed with supporting your fore conclusions, based on incomplete data and personal projections based on your own strange obsessions which are apparent to anybody that has seen more than a few of your comments.

You are so quick to give your "opinions" on what others' motivations supposedly are, but have never stopped to question yourself and interrogate yourself and why you are so obsessed with certain things you always comment about... I'll spare you the humiliation as it is obvious to anybody with eyes to see.

Bruzmi
06-13-2021, 10:59 PM
Girla Mare - proto-Dorians?
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5


Like the previous thread about the "origins of E-V13" (which moderators rightfully closed) this one has descended into "alternative theories" without any (bio)archaeological or linguistic evidence. That the papers being cited (in the few rare instances that papers are actually being cited) were published 40+ years ago is telling in itself. Unfortunately, internet fora are still being used as a hub for "alternative theories" and it seems that only strong moderation stops such phenomena. Setting aside the "conclusions" about large areas based on 1-2 aDNA samples for periods of hundreds of years, I want to focus once more on the "Dorian" theories.

About the latest "Dorian" theory, I'll repeat what is obvious to anyone who doesn't engage in the production of "alternative theories". There never was a "Brnjica culture" (see here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions/page93&p=753205#post753205), no cluster of sites can be identified as part of a single "Brnjica group") but for the sake of argument let's assume that the site of Brnjica belonged to the Hisar group, just north of Kosovo.

Dorians spoke Doric Greek, a dialect which emerged from Proto-Greek in close geographical relation to other dialects which emerged from Proto-Greek. For the ancestors of the Dorians to have been anywhere close to Brnjica or the wider Hisar group, Mycenaean-speakers and Aeolic-speakers (influenced by both Mycanean and Doric Greek) must have been in Kosovo, North Macedonia etc. That is not the case. These dialects evolved both in contact and divergence on the Greek mainland, nowhere north of Macedonia proper. Richardo Janko (2013) has written an interesting chapter in Studies in Ancient Greek Dialects: From Central Greece to the Black Sea (https://books.google.com/books?id=XXFLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT142) about Proto-Doric, Proto-Mycenaean, Proto-Aetolic:

45158


45157

The only reason why the Dorians are displaced to the central Balkans (and proto-Dorians to the ... Romania-Bulgaria border) from their historical homeland in these "alternative theories" is because the people who spread such "theories" want to find a convenient way to explain how E-V13 appeared in Greece since it hasn't been found in BA samples so far. Unfortunately, reality (as always) is not so simple. E-V13 was not brought by the Dorians in one massive invasion (which never happened (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=753458#post753458)) .

If the transition era Dorians carried some E-V13, it was already present in northern Greece or a few clans from the fringes of the Greek mainland joined them. This is unknown for now, but unlikely in my opinion. What is more likely is that E-V13 gradually spread to mainland Greece with migrations throughout antiquity to today. After all, the only real individual who we know for a fact that he was named Illyros (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/supplementum-epigraphicum-graecum/seg-29-743-mytilene-gladiator-relief-undated-a29_743?s.num=17499&s.start=17480) was a gladiator in Mytilene and there have been found far more people who identified in ancient Greek as Dardaneus/issa in ancient Athens, than in Dardania itself. But semi-mythic "warriors" are always much more appealing subjects for "alternative theories" than simple Paleo-Balkan migrants.

Huban
06-13-2021, 11:20 PM
A term I invented? This is a term used by linguists like Eric Hamp, Martin Huld, etc. I didn't invent it.

OK, I see they mentioned it. Take that back. But regarding the Albanian I read only Orel and Matzinger, as I should.


There is nothing pseudoscientific about the lecture. The Dardanoi in Anatolia, the Dardi in Messapi, and the Dardani in the Balkans, have plenty of evidence to have a phylogenetic relationship, i.e, descending from a common ancestor. Because we know from egyptian sources that they must have at least already been in the Troad in 1270 BC, this means the phylogenetic ancestor of the Dardi/Dardanoi/Dardani must have at least had its expansion a hundred or couple of hundred years earlier than 1270 BC.

Troyan war did not happen in 1400 BC. Although such connections between all those groups were proposed, archeologically there were problems.


You are so quick to give your "opinions" on what others' motivations supposedly are,

I am, and I am mostly correct. B)


but have never stopped to question yourself and interrogate yourself and why you are so obsessed with certain things you always comment about... I'll spare you the humiliation as it is obvious to anybody with eyes to see.

I comment on the origin of my hg. And I do possess vastly superior knowledge of genetics in comparison to you. You have been posted as an admin on the DNA project for ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and Macedonia, despite the fact that you wouldn't know how to distinguish V22 from V13 or V12. You know absolutely nothing of DNA, be it Y-DNA, auDNA etc..

Pribislav
06-13-2021, 11:29 PM
Ok, which one of your statements is false, because they contradict each other?


In other words, it's very possible that the formation date of E-L618 is the same or close to it's TMRCA dating.

or


I know you've done your homework therefore I'm sure you are pretty well aware that all those SNPs can't occur at once.

Huban
06-13-2021, 11:55 PM
Like the previous thread about the "origins of E-V13" (which moderators rightfully closed) this one has descended into "alternative theories" without any (bio)archaeological or linguistic evidence. That the papers being cited (in the few rare instances that papers are actually being cited) were published 40+ years ago is telling in itself. Unfortunately, internet fora are still being used as a hub for "alternative theories" and it seems that only strong moderation stops such phenomena. Setting aside the "conclusions" about large areas based on 1-2 aDNA samples for periods of hundreds of years, I want to focus once more on the "Dorian" theories.

About the latest "Dorian" theory, I'll repeat what is obvious to anyone who doesn't engage in the production of "alternative theories". There never was a "Brnjica culture" (see here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions/page93&p=753205#post753205), no cluster of sites can be identified as part of a single "Brnjica group") but for the sake of argument let's assume that the site of Brnjica belonged to the Hisar group, just north of Kosovo.

Dorians spoke Doric Greek, a dialect which emerged from Proto-Greek in close geographical relation to other dialects which emerged from Proto-Greek. For the ancestors of the Dorians to have been anywhere close to Brnjica or the wider Hisar group, Mycenaean-speakers and Aeolic-speakers (influenced by both Mycanean and Doric Greek) must have been in Kosovo, North Macedonia etc. That is not the case. These dialects evolved both in contact and divergence on the Greek mainland, nowhere north of Macedonia proper. Richardo Janko (2013) has written an interesting chapter in Studies in Ancient Greek Dialects: From Central Greece to the Black Sea (https://books.google.com/books?id=XXFLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT142) about Proto-Doric, Proto-Mycenaean, Proto-Aetolic:

45158


45157

The only reason why the Dorians are displaced to the central Balkans (and proto-Dorians to the ... Romania-Bulgaria border) from their historical homeland in these "alternative theories" is because the people who spread such "theories" want to find a convenient way to explain how E-V13 appeared in Greece since it hasn't been found in BA samples so far. Unfortunately, reality (as always) is not so simple. E-V13 was not brought by the Dorians in one massive invasion (which never happened (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=753458#post753458)) .

If the transition era Dorians carried some E-V13, it was already present in northern Greece or a few clans from the fringes of the Greek mainland joined them. This is unknown for now, but unlikely in my opinion. What is more likely is that E-V13 gradually spread to mainland Greece with migrations throughout antiquity to today. After all, the only real individual who we know for a fact that he was named Illyros (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/supplementum-epigraphicum-graecum/seg-29-743-mytilene-gladiator-relief-undated-a29_743?s.num=17499&s.start=17480) was a gladiator in Mytilene and there have been found far more people who identified in ancient Greek as Dardaneus/issa in ancient Athens, than in Dardania itself. But semi-mythic "warriors" are always much more appealing subjects for "alternative theories" than simple Paleo-Balkan migrants.

Mr. Bruzmi AKA "Brnjica doesn't exist".

We've been through this already. Obviously there is a tendency of some modern Kosovo Albanian authors to disprove of Brnjica existence because that violates the phantom non-existent 3000 year Kosova/Dardania continuity. There isn't 300 years of continuity for majority, and that continuity is owing to the chaos in the Ottoman empire which allowed the Ottoman Albanians to spread. There were some Arbanas katuns serving monasteries 700 years ago, most of them of course migrated from the South. So one has to take a more deep look to discern facts from this Albanian proto-Chronist tendency. Not condemning anything/anyone, those are various strings of historical events, just its pointless to seek such a continuity.

You also when I mentioned the Southern Albanian Devolli group gave examples of some Iron Age Glasinac influences in the area, trying to imply there was no difference between the two. Ofc those were subsequent Mati related invaders who likely spread their language to the South. Your motivation here is again to oppose any idea that on ethnic Albanian territory there is some plurality of different cultures.

Different archeologists have said something about two cultures that even have migratory connections (Brnjica-Devolli) and you deny their existence. What do these have in common? They spoil the uniform Illyrian Glasinac-Mati picture. So the only logical explanation is that you consider an affront (to Albanian unity) some cultural heterogeneity in the area. No, the Albanian people are unchanged completely since the LBA, no MBA, they are the most ancient people in the universe.. Lets get to the point, instead of wasting time going in circles.. It is blatantly clear what is your background here. And you are of the same kind that has "expelled" Matzinger out of Albania in this instance I posted.

You are a proto-Chronist or Nativist. I do not (want to) understand you proto-Chronists (or Nativists) which is due to ideological differences. I find it dishonorable to even mention such a thing let alone invoke it. Most are not like that ofc..

Let's say there is no Brnjica group. Then, I say most Albanian V13 arrived to Albania 1000-1500 as Bessoi of Gotftried Schramm. Plenty of such candidates in Albanians already. You'd prefer that? Be my guest.

You once though mentioned Enchelei as some hub for E-V13. Is it not odd Enchelei were suppoosed to be around that Southern group whose distinctiveness you also denied.

I didn't mention Dorians as serious contenders. Just mentioned half-jokingly something from wikipedia. Much of what you say here makes sense. That Dorians were not migrants from that far to the North etc.

Good thing actually is that Pshenichevo finds which are ofc implicitly Girla-Mare finds, make things very very difficult for "Illyrian V13". The only thing E-V13 seems related to is whatever Girla-Mare was (Etruscan? whatever etc.) and Thracian. Anything else is just an incident.

Aspar
06-14-2021, 06:00 AM
Ok, which one of your statements is false, because they contradict each other?



or

They don't contradict each other because I'm not talking specifically about the subclade defined by the SNP L618 and 41 other SNPs as per YFULL.

I'm talking specifically about the SNP defined as L618 and for which at least two Neolithic EEF samples were found positive.

Unless you think L618 and all the other 41 SNPs that represent the time between TMRCA of the subclade they define and TMRCA of their parent subclade E-Z1919 occured at once?
Of course that's not possible because:
TMRCA(subclade Z1919 + 5 other SNPs) - TMRCA(subclade L618 + 41 other SNPs) = Bottleneck between L618 and the other 41 SNPs, or

11900 - 8100 = 3800 , or

L618 and the other 41 SNPs that define the subclade shortly known as just E-L618 represent a Bottleneck of 3800 years or the period between 11900 ybp and 8100 ybp.

So, when did the mutation or the SNP known as L618 occured or formed exactly and what's contradictory in what I said?

If you can't answer that question then restrain from replying just for the sake of it otherwise we are not having very productive conversation.

Riverman
06-14-2021, 08:35 AM
If the transition era Dorians carried some E-V13, it was already present in northern Greece or a few clans from the fringes of the Greek mainland joined them. This is unknown for now, but unlikely in my opinion. What is more likely is that E-V13 gradually spread to mainland Greece with migrations throughout antiquity to today. After all, the only real individual who we know for a fact that he was named Illyros (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/supplementum-epigraphicum-graecum/seg-29-743-mytilene-gladiator-relief-undated-a29_743?s.num=17499&s.start=17480) was a gladiator in Mytilene and there have been found far more people who identified in ancient Greek as Dardaneus/issa in ancient Athens, than in Dardania itself. But semi-mythic "warriors" are always much more appealing subjects for "alternative theories" than simple Paleo-Balkan migrants.

I think that no one claimed that all or even the total majority of Dorians must have been E-V13. What I myself suggested was that with Dorians came the first clans and larger numbers of E-V13 too Greece most likely. That there was a constant exchange and gene flow after this initial event at the LBA-EIA transition, is evident and that a lot of the E-V13 in modern Greeks came with other people, but especially Thracians, also. That Dorians carried some E-V13 and did so more than preceding or other Greek mainland-island people before is a reasonable hypothesis, but nothing more. Without more data there won't be a final verdict.
What we do know based on the available ancient DNA already is that E-V13 appeared in most of the Balkans and Greece not before the LBA-EIA transition. This means we are in search of potential candidates among the known archaeological cultures which could explain such a fairly rapid and massive replacement event, which is just a logical conclusion for the most likely scenario.

Johane Derite
06-14-2021, 10:31 AM
Arkwright believed the -nth- in some Greek place names (ascribed to "pre-greek") is of a Messapic language:

"For in Messapian, -t- before -i- turns to -θ-"

Messapic. Brentium -> Brenthe
Messapic. Salentini -> Salynthos
Phrygian. Berekyntia -> Berekynthos

Both the Arcadia region and Zakynthos have traditions of being ruled or founded by Dardanus, or the son of Dardanus (Zakynthos).

And apart from Arcadia, the majorly coastal distribution of these -nth- toponyms suggest colonisation by sea, not any deep inland presence.

So specifically Arcadia, who has this tradition of being ruled by Dardanians is the only one with a more inland presence of these toponyms.

So yet again, Dardanians, and their expansion left a resounding impact that echoes in the myths and legends around the balkans, troy, and italy.

And they seem to be linked with Messapics. The truth fits together across many domains. E-V13 is related to Dardanus.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E31dZLDXEAIy9YS?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E31daQyWUAEQUbB?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Johane Derite
06-14-2021, 10:44 AM
Arkwright believed the -nth- in some Greek place names (ascribed to "pre-greek") is of a Messapic language:

"For in Messapian, -t- before -i- turns to -θ-"

Messapic. Brentium -> Brenthe
Messapic. Salentini -> Salynthos
Phrygian. Berekyntia -> Berekynthos

Both the Arcadia region and Zakynthos have traditions of being ruled or founded by Dardanus, or the son of Dardanus (Zakynthos).

And apart from Arcadia, the majorly coastal distribution of these -nth- toponyms suggest colonisation by sea, not any deep inland presence.

So specifically Arcadia, who has this tradition of being ruled by Dardanians is the only one with a more inland presence of these toponyms.

So yet again, Dardanians, and their expansion left a resounding impact that echoes in the myths and legends around the balkans, troy, and italy.

And they seem to be linked with Messapics. The truth fits together across many domains. E-V13 is related to Dardanus.

This may also be further explanation for autosomal affinities between Albanians and Peloponnese Greeks. It may not be just due to the high medieval Arvanite populations, but might even have deeper structure, related to Dardanian colonists.

Pribislav
06-14-2021, 02:21 PM
They don't contradict each other because I'm not talking specifically about the subclade defined by the SNP L618 and 41 other SNPs as per YFULL.

I'm talking specifically about the SNP defined as L618 and for which at least two Neolithic EEF samples were found positive.

So, when did the mutation or the SNP known as L618 occured or formed exactly and what's contradictory in what I said?

So you're saying all this time you were talking about L618 SNP, and not about the L618 clade/level? Why would you talk about formation and TMRCA dates of a single SNP, in a clade with 40 more SNPs at the same level? Since they are all currently at the same level, by definition we can't know their chronological order. And it's beyond me why are you singling out L618, it is just one randomly picked SNP to name a subclade, it could've very well been any of the other 40 SNPs.

Bruzmi
06-14-2021, 03:37 PM
Mr. Bruzmi AKA "Brnjica doesn't exist".




We've been through this already. Obviously there is a tendency of some modern Kosovo Albanian authors to disprove of Brnjica existence because that violates the phantom non-existent 3000 year Kosova/Dardania continuity.




Different archeologists have said something about two cultures that even have migratory connections (Brnjica-Devolli) and you deny their existence.


What you don't understand is that a material culture or a group exists when a set of sites exhibit similar structural features which separate them from other sites to a degree that can justify their classification as part of the same group (not just the regional variant of a wider group). The "Brnjica culture" hypothesis was proposed at a time when no actual excavation projects existed in the proposed sites. As of 2020, basic classification has disproven the hypothesis and these sites can't be grouped as part of a "Brnjica material culture" simply because no archaeological taxonomy can be applied in a way which would result in such a classification. Archaeological taxonomy can be very complex and/or problematic in itself. (Reconciling material cultures in archaeology with genetic data requires robust cultural evolutionary taxonomies (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0260-7))



They spoil the uniform Illyrian Glasinac-Mati picture. So the only logical explanation is that you consider an affront (to Albanian unity) some cultural heterogeneity in the area.

There is no "uniform" Glasinac-Mati because no material culture is uniform. Every settlement will be at the very least slightly different than another one inhabited by people who speak the same language and have the same ancestors. Furthermore, material cultures are not the same as linguistic cultures or kin groups. The same kin group can create different material cultures and people from different kin groups can be part of the same material culture. The idea that some users on internet fora have according to which material culture = linguistic culture = kin group culture = patrilineal relations is absurd.

Cycladic culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycladic_culture) is classified as different than the material culture (later known as Minoan) which developed in Crete, but it's pretty obvious nowadays that these were the same people and probably spoke related languages. The people of EBA Mokrin "belonged" to the Maros culture but men from three hgs (I2a, R1b, J2b (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89090-x/tables/1)) have been found in Mokrin so far.





Let's say there is no Brnjica group. Then, I say most Albanian V13 arrived to Albania 1000-1500 as Bessoi of Gotftried Schramm. Plenty of such candidates in Albanians already. You'd prefer that? Be my guest.

Schramm's theory was effectively dead from the very beginning because it can't explain 1)why the Latin substratum in Albanian evolved both in contact with Dalmatian and Eastern Balkan Romance 2)why Albanian has Doric Greek loanwords if it was spoken far away from places like Dyrrhachium 3)why Messapic and Proto-Albanian have so many cognates 4)how Albanian became integral in the formation of the Balkan Sprachbund. These issues made Schramm's theory basically impossible and something which is mostly discussed on internet fora.

New generations of linguists focus on the features of Proto-Albanian and the formation of the Balkan Sprachbund in order to locate Proto-Albanian. The three core languages of the Balkan Sprachbund are: Albanian, Aromanian, Macedonian Slavic because these are the only three languages which have been in constant contact to each other despite the fact that Bulgarian also shows some Balkan Sprachbund features. This effectively rules out any heavy Proto-Albanian presence east of eastern Serbia (Nish). (That in all plausible theories Dardania is a core area where Proto-Albanian was spoken should be obvious by now.)

Eric Prendergast (2017), The Origin and Spread of Locative Determiner Omission in the Balkan Linguistic Area (http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~mikkelsen/papers/ucbdissertation-prendergast.pdf) :

Despite these difficulties, scholars versed in the literature have made suggestions about possible paleo-Balkan lineages for Albanian, which would clarify the timeline and geographical range of the earliest contact between Albanian and Late Latin (later to become Balkan Romance). Illyrian or Thracian are forwarded as the primary candidates (Çabej 1971:42), with Illyrian having some scholarly consensus (Thunmann 1774:240, Kopitar 1829:85, Katičić 1976:184-188, Polomé 1982:888)—but there is a significant lack of verified inscriptions (Çabej 1971:41, Woodard 2004:11, Mann 1977: 1) and it is unclear whether ‘Illyrian’ as a term used in Roman records even referred to a single common language from which modern Albanian could descend (Hamp 1994). There is, however, evidence that Albanian was spoken over a broader territory in the Balkans than the
contemporary range of territory occupied by its speaker community today (Çabej 1971:41, Demiraj 2004:98, 104). A number of important toponyms in Macedonia, southern Serbia, and Kosovo show reflexes of Albanian phonological developments; e.g. Astibos > Albanian Shtip, Slavic Štip (in eastern Macedonia), Naissus > Albanian Nish, Slavic Niš (in southern Serbia) (Pulaha 1984:11). The toponym Dobreta, because of its greater distance as mentioned above places, the potential range of the predecessor to Albanian up to the banks of the Danube. This was also the range of significant Latin influence (north of the Jireček Line, which is recognized as the customary division of a northern zone of Latin language influence and from a southern zone of Greek language influence, [Jireček 1911, Friedman 2001b:29]) and corresponded to the area inhabited by pastoral speakers of Balkan Romance well into the Middle Ages. This fits well with a theory forwarded in particular by Hamp (1994) that Albanian is the result of an autochthonous Balkan language that has undergone partial Romanization, while Balkan Romance represents a full language shift, whereby the early form of this Balkan language (its “proto-Albanian” linguistic predecessor) was fully absorbed into Late Latin.

https://i.ibb.co/M2QBPBp/protoalb.jpg

(To be continued)

Aspar
06-14-2021, 04:47 PM
So you're saying all this time you were talking about L618 SNP, and not about the L618 clade/level? Why would you talk about formation and TMRCA dates of a single SNP, in a clade with 40 more SNPs at the same level? Since they are all currently at the same level, by definition we can't know their chronological order. And it's beyond me why are you singling out L618, it is just one randomly picked SNP to name a subclade, it could very well been any of the other 40 SNPs.

Why shouldn't I? I was talking about the possibility of thea birth of this SNP marker in Europe and that it's possible to have been near TMRCA of the subclade defined by it and other 40+ SNPs mostly because this SNP L618, has been found entirely in an European context until now.

As for the rest, I'm pretty well aware about my haplogroup and it's origins and firm believer that it was born in Europe while it's ancestors came with the first farmers through the Levant and Anatolia. I think I was quite clear on that and mentioned it many times therefore I certainly don't think that a clade that defines TMRCA of it's ancestor of 11900 ybp was already present in Europe by that time.

I think we discuss unnecessarily long about this and you've been just picky for some reason...

Aspar
06-14-2021, 05:23 PM
Despite these difficulties, scholars versed in the literature have made suggestions about possible paleo-Balkan lineages for Albanian, which would clarify the timeline and geographical range of the earliest contact between Albanian and Late Latin (later to become Balkan Romance). Illyrian or Thracian are forwarded as the primary candidates (Çabej 1971:42), with Illyrian having some scholarly consensus (Thunmann 1774:240, Kopitar 1829:85, Katičić 1976:184-188, Polomé 1982:888)—but there is a significant lack of verified inscriptions (Çabej 1971:41, Woodard 2004:11, Mann 1977: 1) and it is unclear whether ‘Illyrian’ as a term used in Roman records even referred to a single common language from which modern Albanian could descend (Hamp 1994). There is, however, evidence that Albanian was spoken over a broader territory in the Balkans than the contemporary range of territory occupied by its speaker community today (Çabej 1971:41, Demiraj 2004:98, 104). A number of important toponyms in Macedonia, southern Serbia, and Kosovo show reflexes of Albanian phonological developments; e.g. Astibos > Albanian Shtip, Slavic Štip (in eastern Macedonia), Naissus > Albanian Nish, Slavic Niš (in southern Serbia) (Pulaha 1984:11). The toponym Dobreta, because of its greater distance as mentioned above places, the potential range of the predecessor to Albanian up to the banks of the Danube.

There is also the mountain Maleš in Eastern Macedonia. I find it interesting that these toponyms that could of been transferred to the Slavic speakers by Albanophone ones occur mainly in North-Eastern Macedonia and South-Eastern Serbia which by itself wasn't an Illyrian territory. West of that line the toponyms seem to not have been learned through an Albanophone agent. For example Skopje probably comes from the Greek Σκόπια/Skopja and not the Albanian Škupi, Skadar as well doesn't seem to come through an Albonophone agent, let alone other toponymy throughout Albania that has distinct Latin(Драч/Drach), Greek(Ѓирокастро/Gjirokastro) or entirely Slavic(Вајуса/Vajusa) derivation.
In that sense, it seems that the Slavic speakers only met Albanophone speakers in North-East Macedonia and South-Eastern Serbia or what was once Dacia Mediterranea.

Bruzmi
06-14-2021, 07:52 PM
There is also the mountain Maleš in Eastern Macedonia. I find it interesting that these toponyms that could of been transferred to the Slavic speakers by Albanophone ones occur mainly in North-Eastern Macedonia and South-Eastern Serbia which by itself wasn't an Illyrian territory. West of that line the toponyms seem to not have been learned through an Albanophone agent. For example Skopje probably comes from the Greek Σκόπια/Skopja and not the Albanian Škupi, Skadar as well doesn't seem to come through an Albonophone agent, let alone other toponymy throughout Albania that has distinct Latin(Драч/Drach), Greek(Ѓирокастро/Gjirokastro) or entirely Slavic(Вајуса/Vajusa) derivation.
In that sense, it seems that the Slavic speakers only met Albanophone speakers in North-East Macedonia and South-Eastern Serbia or what was once Dacia Mediterranea.

I believe that toponyms of large imperial Roman cities aren't necessarily helpful in research because 1)prestige language use was widespread in them regardless of the local language of the surrounding rural area as a result of which b)it is very difficult to figure out via which language each toponym was transmitted. Shkupi and Skop(l)je are examples of parallel developments. Albanian does continue Roman-era Scupi and Slavic-speakers got Skopje from a later Byzantine Greek source. I say "later Byzantine Greek source" because all inscriptions from the city and the area in antiquity use the form Scupi (https://inscriptions.packhum.org/search?patt=Scupi). It's also not necessary that the toponym entered Slavic languages via direct contact with the local population as they used an /u/ form (attested in epigraphy as late as the 3rd century AD) but from contacts with the Byzantine Greek administration elsewhere in Thrace.

About the toponym "Skadar", it is known that Slavic-speakers got it from native Dalmatian-speakers who called the town "Skudra". This form doesn't exclude Shkodër in Albanian as a parallel form and it also explains the close proximity which Albanian must have had to Dalmatian-speakers. The toponym Drac/Durrazo/Durrës has a very complex history which doesn't exclude any theory (aka Albanian Durrës may have evolved independently from Dyrrhachium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durr%C3%ABs#Etymology) while Slavic-speakers may have gotten Drac it via a Romance language) It's because of these issues which ultimately will never be fully known linguistically, but will definitely be clarified via aDNA research, that I think that we should focus more on non-settlement toponyms.

About the northwesternmost presence of the Albanian language, Lim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lim_(river)), Montenegro (from Proto-Albanian *lum: diese Ortsnamen auf slavischer Seite auf das onomastische Feld beschränkt sind , auf albanischer dagegen nicht selten vielfach semantische Beziehungen zum nichtonomastischen Wortschatz , zur appellativischen Lexik aufweisen . So ist der Flussname lim „ Flußschlamm , Anschwemmung , von einem Fluß mit sich geführte Ablagerungen “ , das zu lyej „ beschmiere “ gehört (https://books.google.com/books?id=aLAWAQAAMAAJ)). In southern Kosovo, Šar among Slavic-speakers could only be produced from Sc(i)ardus via Alb. Sharr. Katicic (https://books.google.com/books?id=ysVhAAAAMAAJ) also adds Ohrid as one of those toponyms which presuppose development via Albanian. ("On the other hand Niš from Naďocós , Štip from " Aotißos , Šar from Scardus , and Ohrid from Lychnidus presuppose the sound development characteristic for Albanian")

Johane Derite
06-14-2021, 08:37 PM
Eric Prendergast (2017), The Origin and Spread of Locative Determiner Omission in the Balkan Linguistic Area (http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~mikkelsen/papers/ucbdissertation-prendergast.pdf) :



This part especially demonstrates how non-factual any "Thracian" or "illyrian" substrates/ assimilation theories from South Slavs are, and that the vast majority of the native input is from later medieval assimilation of Albanians or Vlachs:

"While Late Latin and proto-Albanian must have been in contact immediately from the introduction of Latin into the Balkans, as evidenced by toponyms, shared vocabulary, and deep grammatical convergences, Slavic arrived much later, and yet Balkan Slavic exhibits the full range of Balkanisms (Wahlström 2015:13).

These grammatical features were not present in Slavic at the time of its first documentation in the Balkans, from the 10th century onwards.

The earliest attestations of Old Church Slavonic preserve Late Common Slavic grammatical inheritances such as a synthetic case system, a where/whither distinction, separate marking for dative and genitive case.

Only later did Balkan Slavic develop its grammatical commonalities with Albanian and Balkan Romance (Lindstedt 2000:235).

A paleo-Balkan language could not have served as a substrate for the grammatical changes in Balkan Slavic."


It is so evident, that all these people arguing about "ideological" motivations, are desperate to bypass any sort of Albanian ancestry, which is so obvious, and so they seek to create a narrative of directly Slavicized Thracians, Cumans, etc.

Johane Derite
06-14-2021, 09:21 PM
"Proto-Albanian and Late Latin were in a situation of extensive multilingualism very early in the period when Late Latin was developing into Balkan Romance.

Albanian shows traces of deep, sustained Latin influence in both its grammar and lexicon, and innovations from Late Latin to modern Balkan Romance show convergence toward core grammatical properties of Albanian.

The most persuasive proposal, following Hamp (1989), is that modern Albanian is the result of proto-Albanian speakers undergoing partial shift into Latin, while Balkan Romance is the outcome of a full shift of Albanian speakers into the Roman, Late Latin-speaking settlement community, resulting in a form of Balkan Latin that shared many grammatical and some lexical properties with Albanian."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E33ywrRWEAEfSf6?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Huban
06-15-2021, 03:05 PM
What you don't understand is that a material culture or a group exists when a set of sites exhibit similar structural features which separate them from other sites to a degree that can justify their classification as part of the same group (not just the regional variant of a wider group). The "Brnjica culture" hypothesis was proposed at a time when no actual excavation projects existed in the proposed sites. As of 2020, basic classification has disproven the hypothesis and these sites can't be grouped as part of a "Brnjica material culture" simply because no archaeological taxonomy can be applied in a way which would result in such a classification. Archaeological taxonomy can be very complex and/or problematic in itself.

Show me non-Albanian source claiming that. Because Albanian sources have conflict of interest. (in it in their interest of "autochthonism" to deny this culture which why you react so much when its mentioned).



There is no "uniform" Glasinac-Mati because no material culture is uniform. Every settlement will be at the very least slightly different than another one inhabited by people who speak the same language and have the same ancestors. Furthermore, material cultures are not the same as linguistic cultures or kin groups. The same kin group can create different material cultures and people from different kin groups can be part of the same material culture. The idea that some users on internet fora have according to which material culture = linguistic culture = kin group culture = patrilineal relations is absurd.

Cycladic culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycladic_culture) is classified as different than the material culture (later known as Minoan) which developed in Crete, but it's pretty obvious nowadays that these were the same people and probably spoke related languages. The people of EBA Mokrin "belonged" to the Maros culture but men from three hgs (I2a, R1b, J2b (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89090-x/tables/1)) have been found in Mokrin so far.

There are very strong indications towards high degree of genetic uniformity in many if not most cultures. Those examples are just exceptions. Maros culture was completed in origin, as evidenced by the fact that their anthropological makeup was highly heterogenous.



1)why the Latin substratum in Albanian evolved both in contact with Dalmatian and Eastern Balkan Romance

Albanian contacts with Dalmatian postdate proto-Romanian-proto-Albanian cohabitation.



2)why Albanian has Doric Greek loanwords if it was spoken far away from places like Dyrrhachium

Because Dorians came from Bulgaria?? :) Is this why you went to study Dorians?? Because you perceive the Dorian invasion as a threat to Albanian nativeness??



3)why Messapic and Proto-Albanian have so many cognates

Maybe because Messapians came from Shop area with Brnjica migrants?



4)how Albanian became integral in the formation of the Balkan Sprachbund.

Balkan Sprachbund doesn't include Serbian/Croatian. Eastern Romance speakers whose ancestry is far more Thracian than Illyrian in that group speak in favor of Albanian belonging there ultimately (to the East/Shop).



These issues made Schramm's theory basically impossible and something which is mostly discussed on internet fora.

Schramm also brought another point. Albanian "besa". People say "I swear by God, I swear by my mother etc". It's something "dear", so Besa is not a divinity, not a relative. It was a Thracian tribe, and therefore Albanians swear by their Bessian ancestry..




About the northwesternmost presence of the Albanian language, Lim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lim_(river)), Montenegro (from Proto-Albanian *lum: diese Ortsnamen auf slavischer Seite auf das onomastische Feld beschränkt sind , auf albanischer dagegen nicht selten vielfach semantische Beziehungen zum nichtonomastischen Wortschatz , zur appellativischen Lexik aufweisen . So ist der Flussname lim „ Flußschlamm , Anschwemmung , von einem Fluß mit sich geführte Ablagerungen “ , das zu lyej „ beschmiere “ gehört (https://books.google.com/books?id=aLAWAQAAMAAJ)).

Per Geography of Ptolemy and this is accepted by Popović, Loma etc. modern river Lim was considered an upper stream of Drina, and lat. Drinus referred to modern Lim. So this is not an Antiquity term but a later Albanian adstrate.



In southern Kosovo, Šar among Slavic-speakers could only be produced from Sc(i)ardus via Alb. Sharr. Katicic (https://books.google.com/books?id=ysVhAAAAMAAJ) also adds Ohrid as one of those toponyms which presuppose development via Albanian. ("On the other hand Niš from Naďocós , Štip from " Aotißos , Šar from Scardus , and Ohrid from Lychnidus presuppose the sound development characteristic for Albanian")

There is no Sc(i)ardus, there is -Skard, by Albanian phonological rules -> Hard.

Albanians could have adopted it from another IE language though.

This is a topic about E-V13 in an archaeogenetic sense, not Albanian language. Johane is trying to derail it because he is incapable of contributing something on Y-DNA or archeology. I think you have topics dealing with Albanian language.

Huban
06-15-2021, 03:34 PM
This part especially demonstrates how non-factual any "Thracian" or "illyrian" substrates/ assimilation theories from South Slavs are, and that the vast majority of the native input is from later medieval assimilation of Albanians or Vlachs:


Why would anyone in Medieval times want to assimilate anything from a non-prominent, relatively confined and small population that were the Albanians???? :lol:

Albanians began around Mat river. First mention of Albanians is 1000 years ago. The onomastics of the area packed with Albanian toponyms indicates Albanian began spreading around there. First Albanian state was still under the Byzantines. Later the Albanian feudal lords controlled the area. In no way was the ethnic Albanian element in any sort of position to make significant expansion nor were there any significant Albanians outside Arbanon to assimilate. Even those early katuns mentioned in Herzegovina, etc. were migrants from the Arbanon. Arvanites were migrants. Some katuns served monasteries on Kosovo. They as part of their lifestyle migrated to there, and that was a common arrangement for both Vlachs (which included some Slavic descended katuns) and the Arbanas to be in their service at the time.

The majority of non-Slavic ancestry in peoples like Serbs, Macedonians etc is of Byzantine and Vlach extraction not Albanian. Also Byzantine, non-Vlach component might be even higher than the Vlach speaking component! And also to note, certainly plenty of paleo-Balkan ancestry in Albanians is also of Byzantine extraction, of various peoples who were Albanized by the the Principality of Arbanon, by the Albanian feudal lords.

And of course by the Albanians in the Ottoman times. In the Ottoman times Albanians achieved highest expansion. This Albanian academic explains those times more. He says many Albanians have Circassian ancestry?? Are they testing??:)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhb4SaECGbk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3xu_v-MIE

Last video I can understand, in analogy with some modern definitions and some past events concerning those who promulgated those definitions he means that Skenderbey has committed an act of terrorism against the Ottoman state?? :)

Kelmendasi
06-15-2021, 03:49 PM
Huban, you criticise Johane Derite for derailing the thread but yet make follow up posts and replies that are completely off-topic, actively derailing the thread as well.

Huban
06-15-2021, 03:59 PM
Huban, you criticise Johane Derite for derailing the thread but yet make follow up posts and replies that are completely off-topic, actively derailing the thread as well.

I'd be pleased if all the off-topic stuff was deleted. :) I posted the last thing only so I could post Olsi Jazexhi. I know Johane Derite follows him. :)

My core point has already been posted. I did an analysis of some Y-DNA finds, their archeological context and possible implications, and these are bigger contributions than anyone has made on this topic by any objective measure.

excine
06-15-2021, 04:08 PM
As much as I disagree with what is going on, I recommend that we stay on subject and, in particular, that we refrain from sharing the naďve Olsi Jazexhi. Instead, I advise that we continue the prior discussion.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 04:11 PM
Show me non-Albanian source claiming that. Because Albanian sources have conflict of interest. (in it in their interest of "autochthonism" to deny this culture which why you react so much when its mentioned).

This is a topic about E-V13 in an archaeogenetic sense, not Albanian language. Johane is trying to derail it because he is incapable of contributing something on Y-DNA or archeology. I think you have topics dealing with Albanian language.

Conflict of interest? Your main source is Garashanin, a person who literally was part of SANU, the faculty that took part in the SANU Memorandum, instrumental in dictator Milosevic's ethnic cleansing project of Yugoslavia.

This topic is "A theory about the origin of E-V13." And there is plenty of evidence for anybody that wants to see that it is associated with spread of Albanian and Albanian related languages.

There is no "derailing" here. We are not talking about haplogroup Q1 here. You cannot ask to ethnically cleanse Albanian from a haplogroup it is obviously attached to.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 04:13 PM
Schramm also brought another point. Albanian "besa". People say "I swear by God, I swear by my mother etc". It's something "dear", so Besa is not a divinity, not a relative. It was a Thracian tribe, and therefore Albanians swear by their Bessian ancestry..


Albanian. Besë comes from Albanian. Be (oath). You are lacking even the utter basics on Albanian subject, only a superficially filtered absorbtion of authors you have seen on wiki, and with such a shallow level of insight you are provoking users with evil creepy attacks all the time. You need serious help.

Riverman
06-15-2021, 04:22 PM
As much as I disagree with what is going on, I recommend that we stay on subject and, in particular, that we refrain from sharing the naďve Olsi Jazexhi. Instead, I advise that we continue the prior discussion.

I just hope this thread won't be closed yet another time for too detailed and personal debates, because the topic of the thread itself needs to be covered and is an ongoing research, with new, probably decisive results coming in every coming month. The linguistic aspect is important, but I feel Albanian is not that important for the spread of E-V13, but rather the origin of E-V13 might reveal something about the origin of Albanians and the Albanian language, simply by following the ancestral path.
But for that to be done, we need to get a lot more ancient samples of E-V13, from MBA to Medieval times.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 04:25 PM
And of course by the Albanians in the Ottoman times. In the Ottoman times Albanians achieved highest expansion. This Albanian academic explains those times more. He says many Albanians have Circassian ancestry?? Are they testing??:)

"Albanian academic expert". This guy is a Turkish Alex Jones-style Q-ANON conspiracy theorist. The fact that Serbian media invites him to do interviews is hilarious, and that you think he is an actual academic is even funnier. You are the blaring case of "conflict of interest" here.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 04:28 PM
The linguistic aspect is important, but I feel Albanian is not that important for the spread of E-V13, but rather the origin of E-V13 might reveal something about the origin of Albanians and the Albanian language, simply by following the ancestral path.
But for that to be done, we need to get a lot more ancient samples of E-V13, from MBA to Medieval times.

The grammatical and lexical commonalities shown between Albanian, Balkan romance, some Balkan Slavic dialects like Macedonian and Torlak, Messapic, aswell as different Albanoid ethnographic shared factors which I wont post here now, point to E-V13 as the common denominator.

Riverman
06-15-2021, 04:51 PM
The grammatical and lexical commonalities shown between Albanian, Balkan romance, some Balkan Slavic dialects like Macedonian and Torlak, Messapic, aswell as different Albanoid ethnographic shared factors which I wont post here now, point to E-V13 as the common denominator.

Probably rather Daco-Thracian or even Thraco-Illyrian, we'll see. Yes I think that is fairly well established by now, Daco-Thracian being linked to the spread of E-V13 one way or another for sure, Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian mixed and Pannonian tribes probably, secondarily influenced people like early Celts as well. I think its strange to call that Albanoid though, because clearly Albanians might have a very specific history, with a very specific branching event and very specific influences working on them, which might not have been shared by other descendents of Daco-Thracians directly and even less by those which just got influenced via the spread of Iron technology, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and early Hallstatt in particular. I wouldn't call Celts or even all people influenced by Celts "Welshoid" as well. The relationship of the Welsh with Polish or Anatolian Celts might have been a fairly distant one. Similar things can be said about the relationship of Albanian and the whole sphere of influence of Daco-Thracian and Thraco-Cimmerian/early Iron cultures of CEE. Actually even the time frame might be similar, because soon afterwards, with some Western Hallstatt groups, Celts spread their language, culture and genes.
So between the first big expansion of E-V13, probably even before Daco-Thracian was formed, to the time we can speak of something identifiable with Albanians, there are thousands of years, so many cultures, so many people in between. My best guess is that Albanian indeed came from this Thraco-Illyrian sphere, but how the dots might get connected is yet another thing, and again, Albanian is more like Welsh is to Celtic at best to this sphere, rather than ancestral or decisive at its trunk.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 05:00 PM
Probably rather Daco-Thracian or even Thraco-Illyrian, we'll see. Yes I think that is fairly well established by now, Daco-Thracian being linked to the spread of E-V13 one way or another for sure, Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian mixed and Pannonian tribes probably, secondarily influenced people like early Celts as well. I think its strange to call that Albanoid though, because clearly Albanians might have a very specific history, with a very specific branching event and very specific influences working on them, which might not have been shared by other descendents of Daco-Thracians directly and even less by those which just got influenced via the spread of Iron technology, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and early Hallstatt in particular. I wouldn't call Celts or even all people influenced by Celts "Welshoid" as well. The relationship of the Welsh with Polish or Anatolian Celts might have been a fairly distant one. Similar things can be said about the relationship of Albanian and the whole sphere of influence of Daco-Thracian and Thraco-Cimmerian/early Iron cultures of CEE. Actually even the time frame might be similar, because soon afterwards, with some Western Hallstatt groups, Celts spread their language, culture and genes.

Albanian has linguistic changes that must have happened deep deep in the past. The group which first had these changes is the Albanoid linguistic group. Albanian is the only surviving paleo-balkan language which has living speakers, and actual texts, so the group of Albanian related dialects that are of its phylogeny will be called Albanoid.

Danish isn't German, yet it is a Germanic language. Eric Hamp, Martin Huld, and other linguists that work in this field have already delineated the Albanoid linguistic group, so it is here to stay. Replacing it with "Daco-thracian" is less scientific, given that these are languages only attested in Greek or Latin third person reports heavily transliterated, or in toponyms written in alphabets made for non-"Daco-Thracian" languages.

So a more thorough scientific model will have to delineate where the Albanoid languages (like Messapic) begin and where they end in time and space.

Riverman
06-15-2021, 05:08 PM
Albanian has linguistic changes that must have happened deep deep in the past. The group which first had these changes is the Albanoid linguistic group. Albanian is the only surviving paleo-balkan language which has living speakers, and actual texts, so the group of Albanian related dialects that are of its phylogeny will be called Albanoid.

Danish isn't German, yet it is a Germanic language. Eric Hamp, Martin Huld, and other linguists that work in this field have already delineated the Albanoid linguistic group, so it is here to stay. Replacing it with "Daco-thracian" is less scientific, given that these are languages only attested in Greek or Latin third person reports heavily transliterated, or in toponyms written in alphabets made for non-"Daco-Thracian" languages.

So a more thorough scientific model will have to delineate where the Albanoid languages (like Messapic) begin and where they end in time and space.

Agreed. Also, it can't be replaced by Daco-Thracian, simply because the connection was not made so far by concrete evidence. But this connection might prove to be crucial for whether or not Proto-Albanian comes directly from the E-V13 expansion or not, because for Daco-Thracians, the correlation seems to be proven by now, for the Illyrian sphere its still more confusing I'd say.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 05:11 PM
Agreed. Also, it can't be replaced by Daco-Thracian, simply because the connection was not made so far by concrete evidence. But this connection might prove to be crucial for whether or not Proto-Albanian comes directly from the E-V13 expansion or not, because for Daco-Thracians, the correlation seems to be proven by now, for the Illyrian sphere its still more confusing I'd say.

I think the Dacian dialects are more related to the Late-Bronze-Age/Early-Iron Age clades, while the MBA branches are related to the Messapic, Dardanian, and possibly Brygian, western branches.

Riverman
06-15-2021, 05:13 PM
I think the Dacian dialects are more related to the Late-Bronze-Age/Early-Iron Age clades, while the MBA branches are related to the Messapic, Dardanian, and possibly Brygian, western branches.

Don't you think the overlap between the periods is too big? So far I mainly see EIA branching events of significance.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 05:55 PM
Don't you think the overlap between the periods is too big? So far I mainly see EIA branching events of significance.

You mean the Lba-EIA part? I think it tilts more to the EIA yes, iron having a role in expansion makes sense.

Riverman
06-15-2021, 06:05 PM
You mean the Lba-EIA part? I think it tilts more to the EIA yes, iron having a role in expansion makes sense.

Yes. Also, there are single branches which look older, but that doesn't mean they are older in situ, in the Balkans. Most look like they migrated later, with LBA-EIA migrants, rather than independent migrations in the MBA. Because in all regions where E-V13 is common, its fairly diverse and not restricted to any older clade.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 06:20 PM
Yes. Also, there are single branches which look older, but that doesn't mean they are older in situ, in the Balkans. Most look like they migrated later, with LBA-EIA migrants, rather than independent migrations in the MBA. Because in all regions where E-V13 is common, its fairly diverse and not restricted to any older clade.

I personally do not think that the MBA-LBA branches are groups that just piggybacked the EIA wave. I think there was earlier expansion.

Maybe I might have to open a dedicated thread for the reasons why I believe this.

Pribislav
06-15-2021, 06:33 PM
The grammatical and lexical commonalities shown between Albanian, Balkan romance, some Balkan Slavic dialects like Macedonian and Torlak, Messapic, aswell as different Albanoid ethnographic shared factors which I wont post here now, point to E-V13 as the common denominator.

No they don't, it's just your imagination. Nonsense like "E-V13 for me seems to be the Albanoid linguistic group" disqualified you from any serious discusion on the subject. You are clearly a haplogroupist, extremely biased and uncapable to accept any fact that doesn't conform to your already established "truth". You trying to force the usage of the term Albanoid is hilarious, but no sane person will take the bait. Not to mention you also displayed chauvinistic behaviour on multiple occasions, discrediting several Serbian archaeologists only because they were Serbs, without even reading any of their work, so that says a lot about you.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 06:58 PM
No they don't, it's just your imagination. Nonsense like "E-V13 for me seems to be the Albanoid linguistic group" disqualified you from any serious discusion on the subject. You are clearly a haplogroupist, extremely biased and uncapable to accept any fact that doesn't conform to your already established "truth". You trying to force the usage of the term Albanoid is hilarious, but no sane person will take the bait. Not to mention you also displayed chauvinistic behaviour on multiple occasions, discrediting several Serbian archaeologists only because they were Serbs, without even reading any of their work, so that says a lot about you.

1. I am not a haplogroupist. I am sure there will also be a autosomal signal to corroborate this hypothesis, but the data is not yet here. Haplogroups are here and ready to work with in a much more accessible way.

2. I am not forcing any usage. This is what professional non-Albanian linguists use to denote the wider Albanoid linguistic group.

3. I don't dismiss archaeologists outright, even if from politically antagonistic groups, as they can always have a sliver of truth even underneath propaganda. But there is a clear problem with archaeologists that were part of the SANU memorandum, the beginning of the ethnic cleansing of Albanians from Kosovo. This is like taking Nazi archaeology in good faith on the question of Jews.

The commenter Huban up there literally said he only wants non-Albanian sources on Albanian countries, while he uses almost exclusively Serbian sources on Albania, as if this country which attempted a genocide against Albanians 22 years ago has no "conflict of interest".

Riverman
06-15-2021, 07:28 PM
I personally do not think that the MBA-LBA branches are groups that just piggybacked the EIA wave. I think there was earlier expansion.

Maybe I might have to open a dedicated thread for the reasons why I believe this.

Good idea. I don’t say its not possible, I just say I see no evidence in favour of earlier migrations and currently deem it more likely they just travelled together with the younger ones. But that might change with a new result every day.

Huban
06-15-2021, 07:52 PM
The commenter Huban up there literally said he only wants non-Albanian sources on Albanian countries, while he uses almost exclusively Serbian sources on Albania, as if this country which attempted a genocide against Albanians 22 years ago has no "conflict of interest".

No, I want it on this particular topic. A very controversial claim from Bruzmi that an archeological culture, identified, and written on by multiple authors does not exist.. Besides his claim goes against your own ideas on E-V13 so theoretically you should oppose him, but don't because you identify with your fellow co-ethnic. How touching of you..

What source am I suppose to choose? Those available. That source was also quoted by international archeological authorities. So let us see this supposed claim being quoted by such sources.

Bulk on the matter was written before the Yugoslav Wars, so it is not of much relevance to any events from those times.

Granary
06-15-2021, 08:21 PM
This part especially demonstrates how non-factual any "Thracian" or "illyrian" substrates/ assimilation theories from South Slavs are, and that the vast majority of the native input is from later medieval assimilation of Albanians or Vlachs:

"While Late Latin and proto-Albanian must have been in contact immediately from the introduction of Latin into the Balkans, as evidenced by toponyms, shared vocabulary, and deep grammatical convergences, Slavic arrived much later, and yet Balkan Slavic exhibits the full range of Balkanisms (Wahlström 2015:13).

These grammatical features were not present in Slavic at the time of its first documentation in the Balkans, from the 10th century onwards.

The earliest attestations of Old Church Slavonic preserve Late Common Slavic grammatical inheritances such as a synthetic case system, a where/whither distinction, separate marking for dative and genitive case.

Only later did Balkan Slavic develop its grammatical commonalities with Albanian and Balkan Romance (Lindstedt 2000:235).

A paleo-Balkan language could not have served as a substrate for the grammatical changes in Balkan Slavic."


It is so evident, that all these people arguing about "ideological" motivations, are desperate to bypass any sort of Albanian ancestry, which is so obvious, and so they seek to create a narrative of directly Slavicized Thracians, Cumans, etc.

Where exactly would Albanian(or its ancestor however you call it) have been spoken from the Roman conquest(starting with the first Illyrian war) and until the Slavic migrations(starting around 600 CE)? Can you give a rough region?

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 08:30 PM
Where exactly would Albanian have been spoken from the Roman conquest(starting with the first Illyrian war) and until the Slavic migrations(starting around 600 CE)? Can you give a rough region?

I believe that transhumant shepherd proto-Albanian speakers should have been the only ones living in the mountains of Dardania, North Albania/Montenegro, South Albania, whereas the plains and towns could have been more complicated with bilingualism.

Pribislav
06-15-2021, 08:33 PM
3. I don't dismiss archaeologists outright, even if from politically antagonistic groups, as they can always have a sliver of truth even underneath propaganda. But there is a clear problem with archaeologists that were part of the SANU memorandum, the beginning of the ethnic cleansing of Albanians from Kosovo. This is like taking Nazi archaeology in good faith on the question of Jews.

Wow, you just keep digging the hole you're in. Do you even know what SANU stands for? It means Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, which translates to Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. So it's only natural some of the most esteemed Serbian archaeologists would be members of SANU. SANU memorandum on the other hand was just one document created by 16 members of SANU (of which none were archaeologists), which among other things brought to public attention the continious Albanian genocide against Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, from Ottoman times to Albanian Nazi colaborationists during WWII. Neither Garašanin nor any other Serbian archaeologist participated in creation of SANU memorandum, so you are caught in a lie once again.


The commission consisted of 16 Serb intellectuals: Pavle Ivić, Antonije Isaković, Dušan Kanazir, Mihailo Marković, Miloš Macura, Dejan Medaković, Miroslav Pantić, Nikola Pantić, Ljubiša Rakić, Radovan Samardžić, Miomir Vukobratović, Vasilije Krestić, Ivan Maksimović, Kosta Mihailović, Stojan Ćelić i Nikola Čobeljić.

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

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 08:44 PM
So it's only natural some of the most esteemed Serbian archaeologists would be members of SANU. SANU memorandum on the other hand was just one document created by 16 members of SANU (of which none were archaeologists), which among other things brought to public attention the continious Albanian genocide against Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, from Ottoman times to Albanian Nazi colaborationists during WWII. Neither Garašanin nor any other Serbian archaeologist participated in creation of SANU memorandum, so you are caught in a lie once again.

I know what SANU is, and I will try find where I saw that. I am not a liar, if I made a mistake, I will own it. Nonetheless, it is still obviously a problem to your objectivity.

There was never any "Albanian genocide against Serbs" in Kosovo.

This was the justification that the Milosevic dictatorship covered its ethnic cleansing policies with, the same that the Nazis used in that the Jews were supposedly commiting a secret genocide against Germans. But Albanians were under Yugoslavian dictatorship during both Kingdom period and Communist period.

They did not have their own state, and there were widespread Yugoslav colonization programs during the 20th Century. These are all false claims and hysterias that produced some of the most horrible crimes in the 90s by the Serbian paramilitary and military units. Ratko Mladic was just yet again ruled guilty of genocide.

This is not the thread for this discussion. Every country in Yugoslavia had the same problem with Serbia, and not enough propaganda and revionism will cover up the truth this time. It is time to come live in the real world.

Granary
06-15-2021, 08:54 PM
I believe that transhumant shepherd proto-Albanian speakers should have been the only ones living in the mountains of Dardania, North Albania/Montenegro, South Albania,
But before Romanization do you think Albanian would have been spoken on the coast too?


whereas the plains and towns could have been more complicated with bilingualism.
My impression is that Latin/Greek speakers would have dominated the coastal areas by the time Slavs came given how Latinized the nautical terminology in Albanian is.
Maybe a good guess is too say that Albanian was confined West of the Vardar/Morava axis, given the lowlands that surrund those rivers, and it was also confined West by the coastal plains, but how north/south would Albanian have extended?

https://i.imgur.com/Ki3Rkhn.png

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 08:58 PM
But before Romanization do you think Albanian would have been spoken on the coast too?


My impression is that Latin/Greek speakers would have dominated the coastal areas by the time Slavs came given how Latinized the nautical terminology in Albanian is.
Maybe a good guess is too say that Albanian was confined West of the Vardar/Morava axis, given the lowlands that surrund those rivers, and it was also confined West by the coastal plains, but how north/south would Albanian have extended?

https://i.imgur.com/Ki3Rkhn.png

My father was a farmer in his youth, and yet I do not know any farming words for tools, etc, that he does. If proto-Albs were on the coast that were then pushed into the mountains by latins, then we should expect them after centuries to lose the sea vocabulary anyway. I think the drawing you have done for now is safe enough.

Granary
06-15-2021, 09:08 PM
My father was a farmer in his youth, and yet I do not know any farming words for tools, etc, that he does. If proto-Albs were on the coast that were then pushed into the mountains by latins, then we should expect them after centuries to lose the sea vocabulary anyway. I think the drawing you have done for now is safe enough.
Do you think the southern end is fine? Because my impression is that the Greek loanwords are numerically less than Latin loanwords and given the Jirecek line and the fact Greek should have had more time to loan stuff to potentially neighbouring Albanians would mean that the Albanian ancestor probably would have been concentrated more on the northern part(Dardania/Kosovo and North-Western Paeonia/modern N.Macedonia) rather than directly bordering ancient Macedonia(upper or lower) and Epirus, I'd have to look into the region specifically tho.

excine
06-15-2021, 09:08 PM
But before Romanization do you think Albanian would have been spoken on the coast too?


My impression is that Latin/Greek speakers would have dominated the coastal areas by the time Slavs came given how Latinized the nautical terminology in Albanian is.
Maybe a good guess is too say that Albanian was confined West of the Vardar/Morava axis, given the lowlands that surrund those rivers, and it was also confined West by the coastal plains, but how north/south would Albanian have extended?

https://i.imgur.com/Ki3Rkhn.png

yeah this is more or less what linguists propose, some being more north than others

Bruzmi
06-15-2021, 09:18 PM
Because Albanian sources have conflict of interest.


There's nothing to deny because nothing exists. It's not about what authors have to say or not. These sites have been excavated and have been classified (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions/page93&p=753205#post753205). There's no "Brnjica culture". The three identified sites which were hypothesized decades ago as part of a "Brnjica culture" are:
1)Trudë (Bërnicë e Poshtme cremation site): 11th-7th centuries BC. No metallic objects found at Trudë. A sword and few other metallic objects were found at Bërnicë e Poshtme (hence the name Brnjica culture).
2)Gracanicë-Glladnicë (Badovc and Ulpiana cremation sites): Neolithic to Middle Ages (Ulpiana was built on top of the ancient site area). No metallic objects found at the site. This was a settlement which existed long before the transitional phase and used cremation in the 11th-9th centuries.
3)Rixhevë (Gllarevë cremation site/Zabërgjë tumuli): MBA to 4th century BC. No metallic objects found at Rixhevë. The population of Rixhevë practiced tumuli burial but in the transitional phase practiced cremation. This site is unique because it has both a tumuli "necropolis" and a cremation site.

No classification scheme can be applied to them in order to include them in a separate "Brnjica culture". Literally, there's nothing at all to present as the catalogued artifacts of the "Brnjica culture". The Bërnica (Trudë) site itself has no features which radically differentiate it from other sites in the region and they weren't even founded in the same transitional era. And even at the time when the "Brnjica culture" hypothesis was proposed, the only thing the hypothesis relied on was a single pin (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=753508&viewfull=1#post753508).




There are very strong indications towards high degree of genetic uniformity in many if not most cultures. Those examples are just exceptions. Maros culture was completed in origin, as evidenced by the fact that their anthropological makeup was highly heterogenous.

There's no necessary correlation between material culture and Y-DNA origin. Each material culture has to be investigated in itself. What is expressed as "y-dna uniformity" in many cases may just be the uniformity of the ruling elite which unsurprisingly came from one patrilineally formed clan after the Neolithic era. EBA Mokrin burials shows no Y-DNA uniformity because its society was obviously not organized under a system of hierarchical patrilineality (aka no exclusionary burial site).




Albanian contacts with Dalmatian postdate proto-Romanian-proto-Albanian cohabitation.


No. In the same period of late antiquity, Latin /ct/ became /jt/ in Dalmatian and /ft/ in Balkan Romance. In Albanian, it exhibits both developments. Hence, *drēctus became drejtë (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drejt%C3%AB)in Albanian and drat (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drat#Dalmatian) in Dalmatian. That Albanian has preserved the archaic phonology /ct/>/jt/, but Dalmatian hasn't, is indicative of their development via the same process. A later borrowing wouldn't preserve an archaic feature which doesn't exist in the borrowed term. Dalmatian, of course, also shows features of Balkan Romance, so there's no strict geographical separation Dalmatian/West vs. Balkan Romance/Central, East.



Girla Mare - proto-Dorians?
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5




I didn't mention Dorians as serious contenders. Just mentioned half-jokingly something from wikipedia. Much of what you say here makes sense. That Dorians were not migrants from that far to the North etc.




Because Dorians came from Bulgaria?? :) Is this why you went to study Dorians?? Because you perceive the Dorian invasion as a threat to Albanian nativeness??


No. The Huban account is repeating "alternative theories" about Romania, Kosovo, Bulgaria etc. Apparently, the Dorians can be transported anywhere in the Balkans except for their historical homeland. Doric developed nowhere north of Macedonia proper. (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=778115&viewfull=1#post778115)

https://i.ibb.co/Jzj3R1t/Janko.jpg





Balkan Sprachbund doesn't include Serbian/Croatian. Eastern Romance speakers whose ancestry is far more Thracian than Illyrian in that group speak in favor of Albanian belonging there ultimately (to the East/Shop).

No. Native Eastern Romance speakers are largely the result of Proto-Albanian speakers who shifted to Late Latin in Roman antiquity. There's nothing to be discussed about Thracians or Illyrians in relation Balkan Romance speakers.

"Proto-Albanian and Late Latin were in a situation of extensive multilingualism very early in the period when Late Latin was developing into Balkan Romance.

Albanian shows traces of deep, sustained Latin influence in both its grammar and lexicon, and innovations from Late Latin to modern Balkan Romance show convergence toward core grammatical properties of Albanian.

The most persuasive proposal, following Hamp (1989), is that modern Albanian is the result of proto-Albanian speakers undergoing partial shift into Latin, while Balkan Romance is the outcome of a full shift of Albanian speakers into the Roman, Late Latin-speaking settlement community, resulting in a form of Balkan Latin that shared many grammatical and some lexical properties with Albanian." Eric Prendergast (2017), The Origin and Spread of Locative Determiner Omission in the Balkan Linguistic Area (http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~mikkelsen/papers/ucbdissertation-prendergast.pdf)




Per Geography of Ptolemy and this is accepted by Popović, Loma etc. modern river Lim was considered an upper stream of Drina, and lat. Drinus referred to modern Lim. So this is not an Antiquity term but a later Albanian adstrate.


When the Slavs arrived in the Balkans, the population they got the toponym Lim from, was speaking Late Proto-Albanian in that region. What it is called in Ptolemy's Geographia - itself a copy of older works in many ways - is irrelevant.




There is no Sc(i)ardus, there is -Skard, by Albanian phonological rules -> Hard.


No. Sk>>H only in certain circumstances. About Scardus (Latin), Skardon (ancient Greek), it is hypothesized that it was spelled Sc(i)ardus in Proto-Albanian, hence Sharr > Šar. It is partially why Katicic wrote that "On the other hand Niš from Naďssós , Štip from "Astißos , Šar from Scardus , and Ohrid from Lychnidus presuppose the sound development characteristic for Albanian". If Šar wasn't mediated via Proto-Albanian, it would follow the same development as Skradin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skradin) (Skardon in ancient Greek) in Serbo-Croatian.

Johane Derite
06-15-2021, 09:19 PM
Do you think the southern end is fine? Because my impression is that the Greek loanwords are numerically less than Latin loanwords and given the Jirecek line and the fact Greek should have had more time to loan stuff to potentially neighbouring Albanians would mean that the Albanian ancestor probably would have been concentrated more on the northern part(Dardania/Kosovo and North-Western Paeonia/modern N.Macedonia) rather than directly bordering ancient Macedonia(upper or lower) and Epirus, I'd have to look into the region specifically tho.

Albanian has doric greek dialect loanwords from pre-Latin phase. So it must have been in contact with doric speaking greeks. This area more or less would place them in contact with doric greeks.

vasil
06-15-2021, 09:49 PM
This part especially demonstrates how non-factual any "Thracian" or "illyrian" substrates/ assimilation theories from South Slavs are, and that the vast majority of the native input is from later medieval assimilation of Albanians or Vlachs:

"While Late Latin and proto-Albanian must have been in contact immediately from the introduction of Latin into the Balkans, as evidenced by toponyms, shared vocabulary, and deep grammatical convergences, Slavic arrived much later, and yet Balkan Slavic exhibits the full range of Balkanisms (Wahlström 2015:13).

These grammatical features were not present in Slavic at the time of its first documentation in the Balkans, from the 10th century onwards.

The earliest attestations of Old Church Slavonic preserve Late Common Slavic grammatical inheritances such as a synthetic case system, a where/whither distinction, separate marking for dative and genitive case.

Only later did Balkan Slavic develop its grammatical commonalities with Albanian and Balkan Romance (Lindstedt 2000:235).

A paleo-Balkan language could not have served as a substrate for the grammatical changes in Balkan Slavic."


It is so evident, that all these people arguing about "ideological" motivations, are desperate to bypass any sort of Albanian ancestry, which is so obvious, and so they seek to create a narrative of directly Slavicized Thracians, Cumans, etc.

It is fairly obvious that Southeast Slavic/Bulgarian was influenced during the Middle Ages after the Slavic settlement by a Balkan language that made it into what it is today a language that is Slavic at its base but heavily influenced by a non Slavic language but that was for sure not Albanian the only plausible culprits are North Vlachs/Romanians and whatever leftovers there were of Balkan Romance speakers in more mountainous areas so whatever shared features there are with Albanian its either that they came from Balkan Romance interacting with Proto-Albanian or some other language that also shared them.

Granary
06-15-2021, 09:50 PM
Albanian has doric greek dialect loanwords from pre-Latin phase. So it must have been in contact with doric speaking greeks. This area more or less would place them in contact with doric greeks.
Weren't the Doric Greek colonies on the coast anyway? Corcyra, Epidamnos, Apollonia and maybe Lissos were Doric AFAIK.

Maybe let's approach the question differently, how much Koine Greek influence is there in Albanian compared to both Doric and Latin influence? The less there is the more likely Albania was north of the Jirecek line.

vasil
06-15-2021, 10:36 PM
Weren't the Doric Greek colonies on the coast anyway? Corcyra, Epidamnos, Apollonia and maybe Lissos were Doric AFAIK.

Maybe let's approach the question differently, how much Koine Greek influence is there in Albanian compared to both Doric and Latin influence? The less there is the more likely Albania was north of the Jirecek line.

From the Pella curse tablet we know that Macedonian Greeks probably also spoke a Doric dialect so the influence is most likely from them.

Granary
06-15-2021, 10:43 PM
From the Pella curse tablet we know that Macedonian Greeks probably also spoke a Doric dialect so the influence is most likely from them.
I'd rather think it's from Epirus given that imagine Paeonians were not the ancestor of Albanians but rather Dardanians and neighboring smaller tribes were.

Johane Derite
06-16-2021, 12:26 AM
No, I want it on this particular topic. A very controversial claim from Bruzmi that an archeological culture, identified, and written on by multiple authors does not exist.. Besides his claim goes against your own ideas on E-V13 so theoretically you should oppose him, but don't because you identify with your fellow co-ethnic. How touching of you..

.

I openly disagreed with him on many matters a month or two ago. I am not fully convinced either of his arguments against Brnjica as Brnjica seems to at least have a unique pottery style, but I also understand some of his critiques.

But I agree fully with the paper by Pedergast that he shared, since it is something that not just one linguist, but many others have already more or less stated.

Bruzmi
06-16-2021, 01:32 AM
I openly disagreed with him on many matters a month or two ago. I am not fully convinced either of his arguments against Brnjica as Brnjica seems to at least have a unique pottery style, but I also understand some of his critiques.

But I agree fully with the paper by Pedergast that he shared, since it is something that not just one linguist, but many others have already more or less stated.

What Huban doesn't seem to understand is that a Brnjica culture was never identified, it was hypothesized and then introduced for decades in Yugoslav archaeology in various schemes which counted Hisar sites as "Brnjica" sites and that eventually ended up being pseudo-scientific nonsense. "Brnjica culture" ended up being a construction in Serbian archaeology for various outlandish ideas. But there's no Brnjica culture because an identified material culture requires excavations and cataloguing, not vague surveys and weird theories about pottery classification.

The fact is that this 2006 paper (http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0241/2006/0350-02410656073S.pdf) published in Serbia would never - ever - be published anywhere else outside of Serbia. And because times change, such papers are avoided in Serbian academia as well in our times.

Do the ethnonyms, Dorians and Dardanians,which sound quite similar, designate one and the same people? Do the toponyms in Troada, the town at the foot of Ida on the Hellespont (between Ilion and Abid), the former name of the island of Samotraki, and the name of the straits between the Sea of Marmora and the Aegean, reflect the recollection of a powerful people whose roots most probably lay in the Morava basin? The most recent results of archaeological research confirm the opinion given by M. Garasanin on »Dako-–Moesian elements« in the ethnicity of the Brnjica cultural group, but exclude any Illyrian component.


It's an even larger absurdity when one thinks that Garasanin's "Daco-Moesian elements" theory was based on just one single (5 cm) pin (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=753508&viewfull=1#post753508)!

When I read that someone actually wrote in a paper which a journal actually accepted the sentence "Do the ethnonyms, Dorians and Dardanians,which sound quite similar, designate one and the same people?" I think two things: 1)that Balkan academia has progressed and such things rarely get published now 2) that the person who wrote that sentence really had no knowledge of ancient Greek, let alone ancient Greek literature, epigraphy or archaeological anthropology.

And that really amazes me. People who don't know ancient Greek or Latin in the past used to write down expansive theories because somehow two completely foreign to each other words sounded to them "quite similar".

Aspar
06-16-2021, 05:44 AM
@Bruzmi

Ok, if what you say is true and Brnjica Culture never really existed as a separate entity, what culture does the pottery identified as of the Brnjica type and found in South Serbia and Kosovo belong to?

https://i.postimg.cc/zGKJSyfM/Screenshot-20210616-064124-Drive.jpg (https://postimg.cc/tsRQ9CWt)

Johane Derite
06-16-2021, 07:56 AM
What Huban doesn't seem to understand is that a Brnjica culture was never identified, it was hypothesized and then introduced for decades in Yugoslav archaeology in various schemes which counted Hisar sites as "Brnjica" sites and that eventually ended up being pseudo-scientific nonsense. "Brnjica culture" ended up being a construction in Serbian archaeology for various outlandish ideas. But there's no Brnjica culture because an identified material culture requires excavations and cataloguing, not vague surveys and weird theories about pottery classification.

The fact is that this 2006 paper (http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0241/2006/0350-02410656073S.pdf) published in Serbia would never - ever - be published anywhere else outside of Serbia. And because times change, such papers are avoided in Serbian academia as well in our times.

Do the ethnonyms, Dorians and Dardanians,which sound quite similar, designate one and the same people? Do the toponyms in Troada, the town at the foot of Ida on the Hellespont (between Ilion and Abid), the former name of the island of Samotraki, and the name of the straits between the Sea of Marmora and the Aegean, reflect the recollection of a powerful people whose roots most probably lay in the Morava basin? The most recent results of archaeological research confirm the opinion given by M. Garasanin on »Dako-–Moesian elements« in the ethnicity of the Brnjica cultural group, but exclude any Illyrian component.

.

But this is published by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, and the argument seems to be built more on a uniform pottey style than a pin. I am aware of the general serbian academic position when it comes to the "daco-moesian" theory, and generally take it with the appropriate grain of salt.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv8d5tfn.14?seq=11#metadata_info_tab_contents

Johane Derite
06-16-2021, 08:09 AM
This guy argues for example that Brnjica ended due to chanelled ware and that Dardani are actually somehow migrants from Anatolia that came to kosovo in 8th century BC

https://www.academia.edu/4104746/%D0%9A%D0%9E_%D0%A1%D0%A3_%D0%91%D0%98%D0%9B%D0%98 _%D0%94%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%94%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%A6%D0%98_ Who_Were_the_Dardani


In this paper the same dude then argues, that brnjica cultures earliest burials are inhumations because of "contact" with the illyrian groups, but this is not convincing. The inhumations also seem quite interesting in themselves.

https://www.academia.edu/39499733/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8_%D0%B8% D0%BD%D1%85%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0 %B8%D1%85_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%98%D0%BD%D0% B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%83_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%80%D0% BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D1%8 0%D1%9A%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB %D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5_Graves_of_the_Inhumed_Dec eased_at_the_Necropolis_of_the_Brnjica_Culture

Bruzmi
06-16-2021, 11:44 AM
But this is published by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, and the argument seems to be built more on a uniform pottey style than a pin. I am aware of the general serbian academic position when it comes to the "daco-moesian" theory, and generally take it with the appropriate grain of salt.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv8d5tfn.14?seq=11#metadata_info_tab_contents

The 2013 article was written by a different author than the 2006 article. But it's interesting to compare them. One published in 2006 in Serbia, the other in 2013 in Austria (with access to more or less the same data as yearly excavations campaigns started after 2010)

STOJIC (2006):

The archaeological excavations in Leskovac gave the key to identification of the Brnjica finds in other museums in the Morava basin; through classification of material and intensive identification, trial and protective excavations, fifty-four Brnjica cultural group sites have been designated, of which ten are in the Vranje region (...)

See how he mixes up surveys, classification and "protective excavations" (rudimentary excavations before industrial activities on endangered sites. They aren't considered to be actual excavation campaigns) to "designate" 54 sites!

VASIC (2013):

The Brnjica group, which to some opinions also contains a Vatin component, was spread mainly in South Serbia and Kosovo. The main sites are necropolises Donja Brnjica, which gave the name to the group and Grastica near Pristina, Donja Toponica and Gornja Strazava near Prokuplje, Vrpce near Leskovac, as well as the settlement Hisar in Leskovac.


As we've said by 2020, even the main sites after further excavations can't be grouped together as a separate material culture. Contacts with Hisar are of course well documented and require a wider discussion. Such a thing isn't something unusual. Proposed material culture groups come and go every 10 years as excavations progress. Vasic (2013) about the "Vatin culture" (also thrown around as a concept in various fora):

Generally, it is considered that cremation was in use in the Vatin culture, but in fact we do not know much about Vatin necropolises. Some 25 years ago N. Tasić listed that what was believed to belong to the Vatin cemeteries, and came to the conclusion that just a few graves can really be considered as Vatin. The situation has not improved in the meantime. There are many graves which contain Vatin pottery, particularly characteristic goblets with two handles (Fig. 1), but none of them can be marked as Vatin in the strict sense of the word. All of them contain other features which are not Vatin and which, in many cases, differ among them (Fig. 2). Thus, one gets the impression that Vatin pottery, spread everywhere in that period, became part of the material culture of various groups, which did not belong to the same cultural entity. In other words, the term Vatin should only designate a pottery phenomenon, which was present at a certain time over a large territory, embracing several different groups.

I think that Brnjica pottery will likely be considered in the same way as Vatin in the near future. (To be continued with Aspar's interesting question)

Johane Derite
06-16-2021, 03:33 PM
modern Albanian is the result of proto-Albanian speakers undergoing partial shift into Latin, while Balkan Romance is the outcome of a full shift of Albanian speakers into the Roman, Late Latin-speaking settlement community, resulting in a form of Balkan Latin that shared many grammatical and some lexical properties with Albanian."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E33ywrRWEAEfSf6?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

I wonder. What would an equivalent situation of Albanoid speakers fully shifting into Greek, (in a time before latin presence in balkans) look like?

Riverman
06-16-2021, 06:48 PM
I have no strong and barely any decisive opinion on the issue as such, but I noted some comment of yours:


See how he mixes up surveys, classification and "protective excavations" (rudimentary excavations before industrial activities on endangered sites. They aren't considered to be actual excavation campaigns) to "designate" 54 sites!

And what's the problem with that? Real excavation campaigns, what do you mean by that? Those are pretty rare overall and the vast majority of excavations are trial & protective, bringing up no less valid data and material. They constitute a huge portion of all the European excavations and brought up a huge portion of the available archaeological material. Even many Bell Beaker finds of significance, to just name one example, came up that way. There is nothing wrong with excavations of this category. The question is rather whether he classified the sites correctly and what arguments you or others have to question their status.
That's a valid debate, but saying only material coming from big excavation campagins is significant is wrong. Usually protective excavations being done carefully with all scientific considerations, unless there is a true pressure on the archaeologists to hurry. Nothing wrong with those.

Bruzmi
06-16-2021, 08:33 PM
And what's the problem with that? Real excavation campaigns, what do you mean by that? Those are pretty rare overall and the vast majority of excavations are trial & protective, bringing up no less valid data and material. They constitute a huge portion of all the European excavations and brought up a huge portion of the available archaeological material.

The excavations whose reports are published as papers are very rarely rescue excavations, while field surveys are considered preliminary research and may be used to propose designated sites. Rescue excavations may result in the finding of artifacts which can be later used as a starting point for actual excavation campaigns. They are mostly surveys with very limited surface excavation options in a very tight timetable. Often the people involved in them (with the exception of the overseer) aren't even archaeologists, so a rescue excavation may even cause damage to a site if the number of archaeologists involved is very small. Findings from rescue excavations are stored in warehouses and they may not even be fully catalogued because no proper site information was produced. That's why the person who wrote that there have been identified 54 sites would never be able to propose such a thing in an international paper and obviously the number of proposed sites in the 2013 paper is much, much smaller and by 2020 even the remaining sites didn't share structural similarities which separate them from other sites. What I suspect that the 2006 author did in reality, is that he identified the spread of Brnjica pottery as indication of a "Brnjica site".

PS: I've been arguing about the "Brnjica culture" or the "Vatin culture" not because I have attached their (non-)existence to a theory but because on internet fora material cultures are treated as social cultures. They aren't actual cultures. When we say "Glasinac-Mati culture", it's not a reference to an ethno-cultural group. It's a theoretical label about the similar ways in which people in a given area interacted with their material surroundings. It doesn't mean that all people of "Glasinac-Mati" necessarily shared the same origin or that people who shared the same origin with some of them didn't interact with their material surroundings in other ways. Some material culture features were transmitted via migrations, others were transmitted via trade and cultural diffusion and others developed independently via contact between different peoples.

Riverman
06-16-2021, 08:47 PM
The excavations whose reports are published as papers are very rarely rescue excavations, while field surveys are considered preliminary research and may be used to propose designated sites. Rescue excavations may result in the finding of artifacts which can be later used as a starting point for actual excavation campaigns. They are mostly surveys with very limited surface excavation options in a very tight timetable. Often the people involved in them (with the exception of the overseer) aren't even archaeologists, so a rescue excavation may even cause damage to a site if the number of archaeologists involved is very small. Findings from rescue excavations are stored in warehouses and they may not even be fully catalogued because no proper site information was produced. That's why the person who wrote that there have been identified 54 sites would never be able to propose such a thing in an international paper and obviously the number of proposed sites in the 2013 paper is much, much smaller and by 2020 even the remaining sites didn't share structural similarities which separate them from other sites. What I suspect that the 2006 author did in reality, is that he identified the spread of Brnjica pottery as indication of a "Brnjica site".

I think you are right and wrong the same time. Because yes, many finds from rescue and protective excavations being just later or never fully processed, but I myself participated in some and can, at least from my experience, say that there was a full scale documentary of everything. Sometimes such rescue excavations end up revealing whole cemeteries or settlements, with many significant finds. And some experts oftentimes get news and material from their colleagues, which they can consider for making up their mind and creating hypothesis, even long before the material being in any catalogue or other publication. In my personal opinion, the whole peer reviewed and international paper stuff being truly blown up, primarily from the American side, for creating standards a few institutions control. Its not always about better quality first, and you can read up what kind of crap being published in renowned publications all the time, or how networks of writers control the content of major publications. Its all there, the last years brought up a lot of that stuff to the public, fortunately.
So this too, is no argument in itself. The only real argument is whether or not the author is correct, whether his interpretation of the facts is closer to the truth or a better explanation for the observed pattern. He might be proven wrong, but nothing you said does it. It might just mean his theories are not that well established, at this point in time, as they should be to take it as safe, proven fact. But that doesn't have to mean he is just wrong, either. Rather on the contrary, he might be one of the few people with better insights from his own experience and the knowledge of his co-workers and colleagues. Of course, this could just be his pet theory, like many archaeologists have one, which they create from their main subject of interest. I can't tell.


PS: I've been arguing about the "Brnjica culture" or the "Vatin culture" not because I have attached their (non-)existence to a theory but because on internet fora material cultures are treated as social cultures. They aren't actual cultures. When we say "Glasinac-Mati culture", it's not a reference to an ethno-cultural group. It's a theoretical label about the similar ways in which people in a given area interacted with their material surroundings. It doesn't mean that all people of "Glasinac-Mati" necessarily shared the same origin or that people who shared the same origin with some of them didn't interact with their material surroundings in other ways. Some material culture features were transmitted via migrations, others were transmitted via trade and cultural diffusion and others developed independently via contact between different peoples.

We often don't know for sure what those archaeological cultures and provinces are, but more often than not, they represent some kind of ethnic, linguistic or political category and are, especially for that time period, very rarely arbitrary trade networks. At that time, people just didn't copy everything from each other just like that, they didn't do it. Distinct ethnosocial units used different codes, interpreted new innovations differently. Then again, we don't know for sure in every case, but more often than not, different material cultures mean different ethnicities. And be it just another tribe of the same ethnolinguistic group. But, usually its about packages. So single finds of single goods and products are not enough, that's true.

Johane Derite
06-18-2021, 10:10 AM
Bouzek argues that groups from the North-West Carpathians arrived at least to Macedonia in the 1200-1050BC period.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4KB6PaXEAEmZSb?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4KB7jLWEAkw4N8?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4KB9B5WEAA2HoQ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Riverman
06-18-2021, 10:20 AM
Bouzek argues that groups from the North-West Carpathians arrived at least to Macedonia in the 1200-1050BC period.

Actually, there were various waves of Northerners moving down roughly around that period, both from the Middle Danube and the Carpathian sphere. I personally still favour a connection from Gáva-Holigrady to Belegiš II-Gava as the main vector. One of the reasons is that the Channelled Ware related groups, and especially Belegiš II-Gava, had a huge impact on both sides of the Carpathians, which I think is mandatory for the explanation of the E-V13 phenomenon. If Gáva-Holigrady wasn't the ultimate genetic source itself, it could have been many other things, but most certainly picked up on the Pannonian-Danubian area then. I still favor the Carpathians though, mainly because of the glimpse on the Pannonian study, in which E-V13 only popped up in the very North, around Nitra.

rafc
06-18-2021, 02:27 PM
Regardless of whether it would have involved V13 or not I think the article "Migration Events in Greece at the End of the Second Millenium BC and Their Possible Balkanic Background" by Florian Ruppenstein deserves some attention in the above discussion. I'll post some excerpts:

He starts off with:

It is always problematic to talk about migration and to use archeological data as evidence of this. This is because the archaeological record is never unambiguous and is open to different interpretations. Furthermore, the discussion about migration and archeology is ideologically and sometimes also emotionally charged. However, archeologists cannot avoid addressing this issue, because mobility, including migration, has always been an integral part of human behavior. Otherwise human beings would still exclusively live in Africa.

A bit further he defines criteria to identify migration:

As noted above, the archeological record can always be interpreted in different ways, but a certain combination of circumstances make migration a plausible explanation for cultural change that is witnessed by archeologically visible testimonies. These are: 1. There should be a set of cultural novelties; 2. These innovations should appear in a certain area quite suddenly at approximately the same time; 3. A region of origin of the cultural novelties should be known. […] Innovations in different cultural and societal areas make the case for a migration especially strong.

He also writes a bit on linguistics, I only put the conclusion:

It can be concluded that the linguistic evidence alone is strong enough to clearly suggest migrations to central and southern Greece at some point after 1200BC. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the number of people involved in these migrations was quite substantial, because otherwise the marked change of dialectal geography of Greece could hardly be explained.

Then he lists what he sees as novelties in central and southern Greece after 1200BC:

From the early Mycenaean period until the end of LH IIIC, multiple interments constituted by far the most common burial practice, and the chamber tomb was the most usual grave type. This centuries-old tradition came to a sudden end in the Submycenaean period and was completely replaced by single burials. […] The new predominant grave type was the stone cist.
[…]
The most important new type of dress accessory is the bronze pin. […] Bronze pins were not in use in central and southern Greece during the palatial and post-palatial periods of the Mycenaean culture.
[…]
a few new types of handmade pottery without precursors in the Handmade burnished Ware of LH IIIC appeared in the Submycenaean phase. Among these, globular pyxides with pierced lugs on the rim and correspondingly pierced lids are especially noteworthy. Not only the shape but also the incised and fluted decoration of the pyxides constitutes a new element without Mycenaean ancestry.

And he says:

For all the above-mentioned cultural novelties which appeared in central and southern Greece in the 11th century BC, parallels can be found in an area that comprises Epirus, western Greek Macedonia, southern Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia.

He then goes on to list the parallels with references to sites, except pottery where he says:

Chronologically fitting exact parallels from the northern periphery are, however, unknown. Nevertheless, there are some indications for a northern origin of this group of handmade vessels. […] The fluted decoration in combination with the dark surface of the handmade pyxides is, however a feature that did not originate in Macedonia, bur further north in the area of the Belegis II cultural group.

To be continued with his views on the reasons of this movement.

rafc
06-18-2021, 03:35 PM
Second part:


The evidence presented in the preceding chapter clearly shows that all cultural novelties which appeared in south and central Greece in the Submycenaean phase can be connected to cultural groups that inhabited North Macedonia, Wester Greek Macedonia, Epirus and south Albania in the Late Bronze Age.
[…]
At this point, the possible reasons for the assumed migration to central and southern Greece can be examined. The name of the cultural group that populated North Macedonia during the Late Bronze Age was coined by Dragi Mitrevski after its most important site at Ulanci. As was shown in the preceding section, stone cist and pit grave cemeteries with individual inhumations are characteristic of the Ulanci cultural group. In the 12th and early 11th centuries BC these cemeteries were no longer used and the settlement of Ulanci that belonged to the cemetery was destroyed and abandoned. According to Mitrevski’s convincing hypothesis, the disintegration of the Ulanci cultural group was caused by a migration of population groups belonging to the Brnjica cultural group. This assumption is based on the foundation of Brnjica type cremation cemeteries in North Macedonia.
[…]
The core region of the Brnjica cultural group […] is Kosovo and south Serbia. […] Period IIa is dated to the 11th century BC (Ha A2). In this phase fluted pottery of the Belegis II type became prevalent and the Brnjica cultural group in the proper sense disintegrated. […] Because the core are of the Belegis II cultural group was the Serbian Danube basin, it seems unlikely that fluted pottery of the Belegis II type appeared earlier in Macedonia than in south Serbia. Therefore one could argue that the beginning of the phase Brnjica IIa should probably be dated to not later than the middle of the 12th century BC. […] Though the community that founded the cremation cemetery in Klucka can clearly be associated with the Brnjica cultural group, it had probably also come in contact with the Belegis II cultural group. This is indicated by the presence of fluted pottery of the Belegis II type in the cemetery.
[…]
The Southwesternmost cremation cemetery of the Brnjica type was excavated some 200 kilometers distant from Klucka at Palio Gynaikokastro near Kilkis in central Greek Macedonia. Its foundation can be dated with the help of regionally produced pottery of Mycenaean type, to the years around 1100BC. […] The presence of 85 inhumations in stone cist and earth pit graves next to the overwhelming majority of 542 cremation urns signifies the existence of a group of people within the burial community of Palio Gynaikokastro that maintained the burial practice of the Ulanci and related cultural groups which inhabited Macedonia in the late bronze age.

He goes on to mention how the Brnjica cultural group was replaced by Belegis II, and says:


Accordingly, there is a broad consensus among scholars who are working in Southern Serbia that these changes were caused by a migration of communities that originated from the core area of the Belegis II cultural group in the Serbian Danube basin. […] The reasons for the migration of population groups belonging to Belegis II cultural group to the south are not obvious and cannot be discussed in this paper. It is clear enough, however, that this migration was a major stimulus for communities belonging to the Brnjica group to migrate from Kosovo and south Serbia to Macedonia. […] On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that the migration to central and southern Greece in the early 11th century BC can indeed be understood as the last act of diverse interconnected migration events that effected large parts of the Balkan peninsula at the end of the second millennium BC.

Johane Derite
06-18-2021, 05:01 PM
Regardless of whether it would have involved V13 or not I think the article "Migration Events in Greece at the End of the Second Millenium BC and Their Possible Balkanic Background" by Florian Ruppenstein deserves some attention in the above discussion. I'll post some excerpts:

He starts off with:


A bit further he defines criteria to identify migration:


He also writes a bit on linguistics, I only put the conclusion:


Then he lists what he sees as novelties in central and southern Greece after 1200BC:


And he says:


He then goes on to list the parallels with references to sites, except pottery where he says:


To be continued with his views on the reasons of this movement.

Really really interesting. Do you possibly have a link or pdf of this you wouldn't mind sending me?

Riverman
06-18-2021, 05:51 PM
Second part:

Accordingly, there is a broad consensus among scholars who are working in Southern Serbia that these changes were caused by a migration of communities that originated from the core area of the Belegis II cultural group in the Serbian Danube basin. […] The reasons for the migration of population groups belonging to Belegis II cultural group to the south are not obvious and cannot be discussed in this paper.


That's a good one and is in line with what I read about the successive waves of Northerners pushing down. Belegiš II-Gava and Channelled/Fluted Ware in general wasn't the first, but it was one of the latest big ones affecting both sides before the stabilisation after transition to the Iron Age. And they brought, apparently, superiour metal working and fighting tactics with them. Looking at the crucial site of Teleac, we're dealing with the beginning of the mass production of iron weapons and large scale military campaigns, including sieges of fortification which were almost undefeatable before. The pressure and competition in the North seems to have been immense, that was a competitive environment from which even the losers would be winners some km south of their home. And that's what we see, its one after another pushing down and down and Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean is simply the end of the land route they could take. There is no way to evade the Northern pressure other than by moving to the islands and sailing over the sea, and, again apparently, that's what they did during the big Bronze Age collapse.
Belegiš II-Gava on the other hand came to stay and they left their impression especially on the whole region North of Greece, but with infiltrations into Greece and beyond also. It might be debatable how E-V13 came into Belegiš II-Gava, probably not from the Northern centre of Gava or a small clan and province from it, but that Belegiš II-Gava was loaded with E-V13...well, if not, it would be a huge surprise for me. Because the question would be, what other haplotypes were introduced by their huge scale migration, conquest and colonisation of the Balkans? Its not just its convenient for E-V13, but its also a good way to measuring their impact, because these events can hardly have taken place without large scale patrilinear replacement rates. We're dealing with real, big scale and well organised conquests, colonisations, alliances which changed the landscape of the whole macro-region.

Johane Derite
06-18-2021, 05:59 PM
That's a good one and is in line with what I read about the successive waves of Northerners pushing down. Belegiš II-Gava and Channelled/Fluted Ware in general wasn't the first, but it was one of the latest big ones affecting both sides before the stabilisation after transition to the Iron Age. And they brought, apparently, superiour metal working and fighting tactics with them. Looking at the crucial site of Teleac, we're dealing with the beginning of the mass production of iron weapons and large scale military campaigns, including sieges of fortification which were almost undefeatable before. The pressure and competition in the North seems to have been immense, that was a competitive environment from which even the losers would be winners some km south of their home. And that's what we see, its one after another pushing down and down and Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean is simply the end of the land route they could take. There is no way to evade the Northern pressure other than by moving to the islands and sailing over the sea, and, again apparently, that's what they did during the big Bronze Age collapse.
Belegiš II-Gava on the other hand came to stay and they left their impression especially on the whole region North of Greece, but with infiltrations into Greece and beyond also. It might be debatable how E-V13 came into Belegiš II-Gava, probably not from the Northern centre of Gava or a small clan and province from it, but that Belegiš II-Gava was loaded with E-V13...well, if not, it would be a huge surprise for me. Because the question would be, what other haplotypes were introduced by their huge scale migration, conquest and colonisation of the Balkans? Its not just its convenient for E-V13, but its also a good way to measuring their impact, because these events can hardly have taken place without large scale patrilinear replacement rates. We're dealing with real, big scale and well organised conquests, colonisations, alliances which changed the landscape of the whole macro-region.

"For all the above-mentioned cultural novelties which appeared in central and southern Greece in the 11th century BC, parallels can be found in an area that comprises Epirus, western Greek Macedonia, southern Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia."

What language we thinking here, cause I don't think it is Greek.

Aspar
06-18-2021, 06:41 PM
Much of what is said above already has been discussed previously...

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=777040&viewfull=1#post777040
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=778031#post778031

I believe that Macedonia(both Greek and North Macedonia), Epirus and South Albania was the home of the so called Dorians in the LBA.

I don't know how relevant is this for E-V13, probably some specific and older clades arrived to South Greece from the area of Macedonia and South Albania but the bulk and especially some younger clades like CTS9320, L241 etc. must have arrived from more northern places...