PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

rafc
06-18-2021, 07:17 PM
"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.

As Aspar said, the argument of the article is that in the region above Doric Greek was spoken. The language of those that moved southward will be harder to discern. The region where Ruppenstein sees the Brnjica group moving roughly corresponds to the later Paeonian region, but there are centuries between that movement and the first mention of groups like Paeonians. Plus, it doesn't help all that much as there is no agreement of the language of Paeonians anyway. The region where Belegis expanded has some correspondence to where the Dardani lived, but again the time gap is huge and there is little agreement on their language.

I'm not sure about the relevance for V13, but given it's age I would not be surprised if it was already in this region by then, even if limited. And I would guess just about any group mentioned (including Brnjica, Belegis II) would have had certain subclades. Something like CTS9320 might not be unlikely to have come southward at this time with Belegis. For me these movements are more relevant to explaing younger subclades of V13 than V13 as a whole.

Johane Derite
06-18-2021, 08:13 PM
As Aspar said, the argument of the article is that in the region above Doric Greek was spoken. The language of those that moved southward will be harder to discern. The region where Ruppenstein sees the Brnjica group moving roughly corresponds to the later Paeonian region, but there are centuries between that movement and the first mention of groups like Paeonians. Plus, it doesn't help all that much as there is no agreement of the language of Paeonians anyway. The region where Belegis expanded has some correspondence to where the Dardani lived, but again the time gap is huge and there is little agreement on their language.

I'm not sure about the relevance for V13, but given it's age I would not be surprised if it was already in this region by then, even if limited. And I would guess just about any group mentioned (including Brnjica, Belegis II) would have had certain subclades. Something like CTS9320 might not be unlikely to have come southward at this time with Belegis. For me these movements are more relevant to explaing younger subclades of V13 than V13 as a whole.

Yes I know Doric Greek was spoken, but the people bearing that new intrusive northern culture could not have been speaking a Greek dialect.

This is why timing of trojan war becomes so important. In the Iliad, Paeonian capital is Amydon (southern Greek Macedonia). Implying they must have at least been there at the time of trojan war.

rafc
06-19-2021, 08:32 AM
Yes I know Doric Greek was spoken, but the people bearing that new intrusive northern culture could not have been speaking a Greek dialect.

This is why timing of trojan war becomes so important. In the Iliad, Paeonian capital is Amydon (southern Greek Macedonia). Implying they must have at least been there at the time of trojan war.

The Illiad only tells us something about the world its writer(s) lived. It means in the Homerical age Paeonians were already living in the same region as in the better documented classical age, not whether that was the case in the Bronze age.

Johane Derite
06-19-2021, 09:35 AM
The Illiad only tells us something about the world its writer(s) lived. It means in the Homerical age Paeonians were already living in the same region as in the better documented classical age, not whether that was the case in the Bronze age.

Right, they must have been in Amydon at least in the Homeric age (or possibly no longer there if it is an archaic recorded fact), but if there is a minimal historical core to the Iliad and the Epic Cycle, then the possibility that they were there at the time of the Trojan war also exists (why I used the word "imply").

The Iliad is composed in Homer's time, but many aspects of it date to the bronze age. There are some Iron age additions that were added on generation after generation, and by Homer himself, but there are things that date back far before the Homeric period.

Konstantinos for example argues that "Akagamunas, Great King of Ahhiyawa" ~1425-1400BC who appears in the Hittite records should be identified with Agamemnon, wanax of Achaeans.

In the Epic Cycle for example:

1. Euboea was independent, something that was valid only before 1300BC as later it was in dominion of Thebes
2. Miletus was an enemy of Achaeans, this was only valid before 1400BC as it was Ahhiyawa's bridgehead after that.
3. Idomeneus was wanax of Knossos, but Knossos ceased to have an operational palace after ~1375BC so this must have been earlier.

From this classicist about the dating of Trojan war here are just some issues:

"I posed the question of whether this discrepancy really matters — given that they lived up to 1000 years later, and that for 400–500 of those years there was complete illiteracy, with no textual transmission of any documents.

And now the answers. No, the imprecision doesn’t really matter; yes, the 400–500 year gap most definitely does matter.

Here’s a way of exposing the real problem. These writers weren’t just looking at which year Troy fell, but also at the calendar date; and most Hellenistic investigations put the date of Troy’s fall in the month of Thargelion, or less often, Panemon or Skirophorion. And it’s rather conspicuous that those are all months in the classical Athenian calendar.

Eratosthenes’ date isn’t based on secret archives from Babylon or anything like that. It’s a synthesis of the work of other Greek historians, most of them within the last hundred years, working without any special access to lost evidence, and making their estimates using a contemporary calendar. It was guesstimation by consensus. As far as Herodotus, Ephorus, or Eratosthenes were concerned, there was no documentary evidence from that era — other than Homer.

In other words: Eratosthenes carries no weight. He had far less evidence to work with than we do.

If we’re going to find any authentic memories of the Bronze Age in classical-era Greek texts, it’s going to be in Homer."

LINK: https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-trojan-war-2-homer.html

If there is a minimal historical core to the epic cycle, something I believe there is, then it will not be immediately accessible, rather it will have to be dug out from the myths and legends via rigorous scrutiny of every detail, like raw ore from the ground. This means there will be additions, exxagerations, innacuracies, impurities, but that in the core there is something real and valuable.

I think the big emotional resonance that this war had came from a real place, the signal through space and time is too powerful.

rafc
06-19-2021, 11:53 AM
Right, they must have been in Amydon at least in the Homeric age (or possibly no longer there if it is an archaic recorded fact), but if there is a minimal historical core to the Iliad and the Epic Cycle, then the possibility that they were there at the time of the Trojan war also exists (why I used the word "imply").

The Iliad is composed in Homer's time, but many aspects of it date to the bronze age. There are some Iron age additions that were added on generation after generation, and by Homer himself, but there are things that date back far before the Homeric period.

Konstantinos for example argues that "Akagamunas, Great King of Ahhiyawa" ~1425-1400BC who appears in the Hittite records should be identified with Agamemnon, wanax of Achaeans.

In the Epic Cycle for example:

1. Euboea was independent, something that was valid only before 1300BC as later it was in dominion of Thebes
2. Miletus was an enemy of Achaeans, this was only valid before 1400BC as it was Ahhiyawa's bridgehead after that.
3. Idomeneus was wanax of Knossos, but Knossos ceased to have an operational palace after ~1375BC so this must have been earlier.

From this classicist about the dating of Trojan war here are just some issues:

"I posed the question of whether this discrepancy really matters — given that they lived up to 1000 years later, and that for 400–500 of those years there was complete illiteracy, with no textual transmission of any documents.

And now the answers. No, the imprecision doesn’t really matter; yes, the 400–500 year gap most definitely does matter.

Here’s a way of exposing the real problem. These writers weren’t just looking at which year Troy fell, but also at the calendar date; and most Hellenistic investigations put the date of Troy’s fall in the month of Thargelion, or less often, Panemon or Skirophorion. And it’s rather conspicuous that those are all months in the classical Athenian calendar.

Eratosthenes’ date isn’t based on secret archives from Babylon or anything like that. It’s a synthesis of the work of other Greek historians, most of them within the last hundred years, working without any special access to lost evidence, and making their estimates using a contemporary calendar. It was guesstimation by consensus. As far as Herodotus, Ephorus, or Eratosthenes were concerned, there was no documentary evidence from that era — other than Homer.

In other words: Eratosthenes carries no weight. He had far less evidence to work with than we do.

If we’re going to find any authentic memories of the Bronze Age in classical-era Greek texts, it’s going to be in Homer."

LINK: https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-trojan-war-2-homer.html

If there is a minimal historical core to the epic cycle, something I believe there is, then it will not be immediately accessible, rather it will have to be dug out from the myths and legends via rigorous scrutiny of every detail, like raw ore from the ground. This means there will be additions, exxagerations, innacuracies, impurities, but that in the core there is something real and valuable.

I think the big emotional resonance that this war had came from a real place, the signal through space and time is too powerful.

I'm sure there is a minimal historical core in these stories, but I'm also fairly sure that this minimal core does not extend to details of where people lived who only played a very minor role in the story. That someone who is a main player like Agamemnon would have some historical base (even if that 'historical' Agamemnon was never involved in any war with Troy) is conceivable. But I don't expect a small detail like the location of the Paeonians to be based on centuries of oral storytelling. Even more so I don't believe the Illiad necessarily refers to one real-life event, and even if it did I don't believe the details in the Illiad can be used to date it. Vice-versa I don't believe that if you could date a warlike event based on archeology that this would allow you to draw conclusions on details in the Illiad.

Johane Derite
06-19-2021, 12:35 PM
I'm sure there is a minimal historical core in these stories, but I'm also fairly sure that this minimal core does not extend to details of where people lived who only played a very minor role in the story. That someone who is a main player like Agamemnon would have some historical base (even if that 'historical' Agamemnon was never involved in any war with Troy) is conceivable. But I don't expect a small detail like the location of the Paeonians to be based on centuries of oral storytelling. Even more so I don't believe the Illiad necessarily refers to one real-life event, and even if it did I don't believe the details in the Illiad can be used to date it. Vice-versa I don't believe that if you could date a warlike event based on archeology that this would allow you to draw conclusions on details in the Illiad.

The capital of a political body in a *16 state wide alliance (the Trojan alliance) is not a small detail. It is a tradition that is contained in the "Trojan Catalogue."

(The Assuwan confederation is 22, which some link to the tradition of the Trojan catalogue)

And, actually many conclusions can be drawn. Names of persons and places that find archaeological corroboration in inscriptions, etc, on the first hand establish that these places and people were not just invented.

Secondly, 1186 ships with an army embarked according to the tradition. This is a naval expedition. Territories and who rules them are of particular importance when it comes to this, and not a small detail.

The epic cycle goes to great lengths to list the names of 44 rulers of 28 states and 34 tribes on the Achaean side alone (and also Agamemnon who is the supreme ruler of all of them).

These traditions cannot just be discarded or given some tiny relevance.

Bruzmi
06-20-2021, 05:15 PM
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.


The discussion has progressed, so I won't quote every post but I do want to mention that the above quote is based on a reading of Jovanovich (1999) who spread the "Brnjica culture" pottery in all directions as a marker for the existence of wide "Brnjica culture". In newer excavations this taxonomy didn't make much sense as has been shown. Klucka is a necropolis near modern Skopje and Ulanci is a necropolis near Gradsko. The circulation of products from site to site in wide regions shows the opposite of what theories about compact material cultures in the mid 20th century tried to prove. There was widespread contact in large distances between diverse groups of people who then produced new cultural symbols.

What might be interesting for our discussion - regardless of old classifications - is the fact that there might have been indeed a migration from Northern Macedonia towards Epirus in the LBA and the transitional era as the possible links between some southern and northern ethnonyms might show. These groups couldn't have been Doric speakers originally. It would also explain why in Homer the only people described by name as living in Epirus are the Thesprotoi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesprotians).

But if this movement of people is linked to E-V13, then Epirus should have 1)a high diversity of E-V13 subclades 2)pre-classical antiquity links with other Balkan E-V13. That doesn't seem to be the case so far. On the other hand, if we assume that 1)this movement of people was only linked to tribes which later lived in southern Albania but not groups like the Molossians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molossians) (who don't seem to have been recorded as anything else other than Doric-speakers) 2)it carried E-V13 southwards then E-V13 should show up among people like the Atintanians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atintanians)- Tyntenoi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynteni). Without aDNA research, however, it's all just a working hypothesis.

Johane Derite
06-20-2021, 07:03 PM
Interesting to see new E-S2979* sample (E-S2979 TMRCA is 3600YBP) from Turkey on Yfull.

Riverman
06-20-2021, 10:42 PM
Interesting to see new E-S2979* sample (E-S2979 TMRCA is 3600YBP) from Turkey on Yfull.

At some point we might be able to identify and telling apart for example Sea People and Phrygian, Cimmerian-Iranian and Greek-Roman lineages in regions like Anatolia. I guess at least some remains of these settlements will be still alive today in the region.

Bruzmi
06-20-2021, 10:57 PM
At some point we might be able to identify and telling apart for example Sea People and Phrygian, Cimmerian-Iranian and Greek-Roman lineages in regions like Anatolia. I guess at least some remains of these settlements will be still alive today in the region.

I think that Turkey is a melting pot of many different populations from many different eras and it'll be very difficult to identify a sample's origin unless a background profile exists for each sample. The E-S2979 result is a Torbesh from Macedonia/Macedonian Turk. See #171 on "The genetic structure of the Turkish population (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pHvOMVZPtNDuwVabSXD7OxdFMTYQGvfjq7Z-L6IiII0/edit#gid=450884960)"

Under E-Y3183:
E-BY174450 (https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-BY174450/) is an Albanian (#205)
E-Y3183* is a Kurd (#227)

Riverman
06-21-2021, 01:13 AM
That makes sense. Interestingly Iranians like Kurds and Persians have a significantly higher frequency of E-V13 than Anatolian Turks going by these and other results. The percentage is pretty much the same as in Russians in all these people with about 4-5 percent on average.
This should date back to the BA and IA for the most part and Carparthian connections.

Johane Derite
06-22-2021, 12:01 PM
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.

Yes but this region in Macedonia is particularly interesting. It is impossible they brought a Greek dialect from the Carpathians, so some onomastic study to differentiate what language this group brought would be good. Brygian, Paeonian, Thracian, ? etc.

digital_noise
06-25-2021, 08:41 PM
any studies to look out for on the near horizon that will hopefully offer any E-V13 data? I seem to recall that there was a Balkan (I don’t recall exact modern countries) in the works?

Riverman
06-25-2021, 08:55 PM
any studies to look out for on the near horizon that will hopefully offer any E-V13 data? I seem to recall that there was a Balkan (I don’t recall exact modern countries) in the works?

There is the Pannonian study still in the pipeline, which has at least two E1b1b samples, of which one is likely but not safely E-V13. I hope its a good resolution sample of E-V13, but probably we all get disappointed.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21853-Prehistory-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-from-the-perspective-of-archeogenetics

There are the Bulgarian results, which too might be interesting especially if we can get subclades. But other than that I don't know of any study done on my, currently, favourite potential E-V13 spreader, which is Belegiš II–Gáva or the Gáva core zone. Which is also a problem because like most of the candidates they cremated their deads...

Riverman
06-28-2021, 01:53 PM
We have proof of Psenicevo in Bulgaria being heavily E-V13, based on the leak we got. So I tried to investigate whether they can be connected with my Channelled Ware horizon theory for E-V13, as for the whole Incised Pottery groups of the region:

Going deeper, I see the big impact of Fluted Ware (= Channelled Ware, "Cannelure Hallstatt" in this article), as its called for Bulgaria in particular, which is part of the Channelled Ware horizon and related, at least culturally, to the centre of Gava:

The Zimnicea-Novgrad is considered as “a totally different entity in comparison with the other groups”, i. e. the “Cannelure Hallstatt” community (Gumă 1995: 109), especially for its burial rite. But, the basic type of Zimnicea-Novgrad pottery ornamentation is cannelure, or fluted ornamentation (Alexandrescu 1978: 117-119; Gumă 1995: 131, pl. XIII). According to A. Alexandrescu, “the cannelures are regular décor” of Zimnicea-Novgrad cups (Alexandrescu 1978: 117). Also, these cups (or mugs) are the basic type of Zimnicea-Novgrad pottery; they have the form of truncated cone or hemisphere. M. Guma said that “the cups with higher and flat handles (of Zimnicea-Novgrad – A. R.), decorated by longitudinal flutes are similar with those from Vajuga representing the second stage of the Hinova-Mala Vrbica group” (Gumă 1995: 110).
So, in spite of presence of some incised ornamentation, it seems more plausible that Zimnicea-Novgrad culture belonged to the "cultures with fluted ornamentation of pottery". The first researcher of Zimnicea cemetery compared its ceramics with such cultures of "cannelure Hallstatt" as Vyrtop, Meri, Suseni (Alexandrescu 1978: 123).

But there was also this group:

But, Saharna-Solonceni culture is characterized by almost total absence of fluted ornamentation (Кашуба 2000: 313). Fluted ornamentation is very rare in the Kozia culture also (Laszlo 1972: 214-215; Iconomu 1996). Thus, we cannot suppose that Zimnicea-Novgrad took part in the genesis Saharna-Solonceni or Kozia cultures.


However:

The Sboreanovo group is defined usually as part of “Cultures with Stamped ornamentation of Pottery” of Northern Bulgaria. Fluted ornamentation of pottery, however, is also a typical or even dominant feature for Sboreanovo group (Гоцев, Шалганова 2004: 60-61; Czyborra 2005: 173). Besides, the main type of Sboreanovo vessel (Czyborra 2005: 99-101) is the so called ‘cantaros’ (as well as Zimnicea-Plovdiv pottery (Alexandrescu 1973: 77-78, 81)). The ‘cantaros’ is a big vessel with two handles and open mouth; this kind of vessel is found neither in Kozia, nor in Saharna-Solonceni.
Evidently, it looks more probable that the Vyrbitsa tradition of bronze axes production was brought into the Carpathian-Dniester region by some population belonging to the "cannelure Hallstatt" community. It could be the Hinova-Mala Vrbica group. It seems to be a more preferable idea, as we see some other metalware (bracelets and fibulas) in the Carpathian-Dniester region that seem to be associated with the coming of Hinova-Mala Vrbica population. The Hinova-Mala Vrbica group made a substantial contribution to the origin of Kishinev-Korlateni culture (Guma 1995: 108).

There is some other argument to this idea. As it follows from the mapping of V. A. Dergachev, the “axes with vertical lines” were spread in three areas chiefly: in central and western parts of Northern Bulgaria, in the Carpathian-Dniester region and in Transylvania – in the area of Gava culture (Dergacev 2002: 167-169, taf.123), The Gava culture is a “culture with fluted ornamentation of pottery” too.
It is really important that “axes with vertical lines” from the Carpathian-Dniester region and Transylvania have a special ring at the back side. This distinguishes them from the “Bulgarian” variant of “axes with vertical lines”. The “Bulgarian” variant of “axes with vertical lines” has no rings (as V. A. Dergachev points out, “isolated evidences” of axes “with ring” were found in Northern Bulgaria) (Dergacev 2002: 168, taf.123).
But “axes with vertical lines” from area of Hinova-Mala Vrbica group have this ring as well.
V. A. Dergachev suggested that these “axes with vertical lines and a special ring” appeared as a result of some synthesis of Transylvania and Northern Bulgaria metalwork traditions (Дергачев 1997: 58; Dergacev 2002: 168).
Where did this synthesis take place? We can suppose that it was the Hinova-Mala Vrbica area.
Thus, the “axes with vertical lines and a special ring” were spread in the “cultures with fluted ornamentation of pottery” mainly. And, as it results from the mapping (Dergacev 2002: taf. 123;


I think that all these facts bring the idea that sickles and axes of Vyrbitsa type spread in the Carpathian-Dniester region simultaneously. It was in the first half of Ha A1, when Noua culture was replaced by Kishinev-Korlateni (see: Дергачев, Бочкарев 2002: 236). And just the Kishinev-Korlateni people brought this tradition.



It was pointed out that an axe and a piece of casting-form of Vyrbitsa tradition were found in the Radovanu settlement (Uşurelu 2003: 216). The “Radovanu facies” (or “Late Koslogeny culture”, as many researchers refer to it) is supposed to be the ancestor of “Cultures with Incised Ornamentation of Pottery” community in the Lower Danube and Carpathian-Dniester regions (including such early groups as Sihleanu-Rimnicele, Tamaoani, Holerkani-Hanska, Balta). Thus, this is considered as evidence that early groups of “Cultures with Incised Ornamentation of Pottery” community in the Lower Danube region were a main and direct heir of the Vyrbitsa metalwork tradition (Uşurelu 2003: 217).



But more important is the fact that in Dobruja and Muntenia "the Late Bronze Age tradition of metal production came abruptly to the end simultaneously with the end of Koslogeny culture and with penetration of Pre-Babadag or Babadag I here" (Дергачев 1997: 50).
So, it looks like the Babadag culture was a newcomer in the Lower Danube area.


https://www.academia.edu/4338117/Axes_sickles_and_Incised_Pottery_entities_Ha_A_Ha_ B1_


A new period in Thrace, referred to as the Early Iron Age, started with general changes in many aspects of the local Late Bronze Age culture: pottery style, burial rites, and metal types. At the same time, all of the features of this period bear similarities to the previous period, supporting the theory of a gradual, though short transition between the two ages. The first phase of the Early Iron Age, called Fluted ware horizon, started with the LH IIIC period and continued through the Protogeometric period, according to Aegean periodisation. The LH IIIC is still the Late Bronze Age in the Aegean, and following the direction of the spread of iron technology from south to north, it would be more correct to consider this phase a transitional period than a real Iron Age. ‘The horizon of the fluted ware’ is characterised by decreased contacts with the Aegean region. Simultaneously Thrace became strongly dependent on the Carpatho-Danubian region because of its potential to provide metal sources. This development is most visible in the new pottery style that appeared throughout Thrace. At this time, limited traces of migration are visible in the archaeological records, both within Thrace (the cremation burial at Manole) and from Thrace (the site of Troia), with movement in the direction northwest to southeast. The real Iron Age starts with the next phase, called Psenicevo, when contacts with the Aegean were restored and became more evident than ever before. Thrace became part of the geometric koine, recalling the situation during the Late Bronze Age.


On the other hand, Psenicevo is very similar to the Ostrov, Basarabi and Babadag groups to the north and should be contemporary with them. In general, the first stage of Psenicevo should be synchronised with Ostrov and Babadag II, and the second stage with Basarabi and Babadag III. These pottery styles mark the geometric koine during the Early Iron Age, a result of restored contacts between the Balkans and the Aegean region, as well as the return of Greece and Anatolia to a leading role during this period.

https://www.academia.edu/7794465/Thrace_between_East_and_West_the_Early_Iron_Age_Cu ltures_in_Thrace

The issue is, that the Channelled Ware horizon encompassed practically all areas which later appear E-V13 heavy and gave birth to Incised Ware groups or at least heavily influenced them. Psenicova, with its proven presence of high levels of E-V13, just proves that "it happened" at that time already, which was a given, because the Fluted Ware horizon rolled over the country before. But this doesn't answer the question as to whether E-V13 was part of a Gava subgroup, a Belegis subgroup, or another one taking part in the Channelled Ware horizon. It just proves that after the Channelled Ware horizon, unlike before, E-V13 was present and strong in areas like Svilengrad, in groups like Psenicevo. That's like looking at post-Bell Beaker cultures and stating that R1b was now in Western Europe. My guess is that for most of the regions involved the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon and early Hallstatt were for E-V13 similar to Bell Beakers for R1b in Western Europe.

leonardus
07-15-2021, 08:36 PM
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.

Yes, I second that. My strong tough is that EV-13 started with Gava-Holigrady culture then expanded radially into the S of Balkans being the latter called 'thracians'.

leonardus
07-15-2021, 08:48 PM
One could argue this expansion has Thracianized the entire region in LBA/EIA.

I'm one of them. This is what was happened mostly.

Bruzmi
07-16-2021, 12:05 AM
Yes, I second that. My strong tough is that EV-13 started with Gava-Holigrady culture then expanded radially into the S of Balkans being the latter called 'thracians'.

The few E-V13 samples found in Thrace in the IA can't be called Thracian. Thracians were the northern neighbours of ancient Greeks. They were in the region since the Bronze Age. Any theory which proposes that Thracians were E-V13 heavy has to explain how the Thracian population was basically wiped out and replaced by E-V13 migrations but somehow the language remained the same. All E-V13 internet theories have the same problem, not just the "Thracian" one. E-V13 in all of them is just a label with no real cultural attributes except for some archaeological markers.

More interestingly, the Thracian identity throughout antiquity was further reduced to the east (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21442-E-V13-in-Bulgarian-Iron-Age&p=781864#post781864) and even there I don't know to what extent we can speak about the existence of a Thracian people in late antiquity.

https://i.ibb.co/tYbfpQ2/Moesia.jpg

In both Moesias, between 130-170 AD there's only one auxiliary unit which is identified as Thracian and even that is composed of Syriac settlers.

alchemist223
07-17-2021, 05:21 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've very well been any of the other 40 SNPs.

Funnily enough, there has been a new E-L618* sample on YFull, which is positive for only 36 out of the 41 SNPs which currently define that clade. This means that the rest of E-L618 will now fall under a new subclade, E-CTS10912. The sample comes from Minnesota in the United States

rafc
07-17-2021, 08:59 PM
Funnily enough, there has been a new E-L618* sample on YFull, which is positive for only 36 out of the 41 SNPs which currently define that clade. This means that the rest of E-L618 will now fall under a new subclade, E-CTS10912. The sample comes from Minnesota in the United States

The old Genographic data I could consult a few years ago suggested this split should exist, and I was amazed it never showed up in the many Big Y's we have. In the Genographic project there is also a Frenchman from Normandy, someone with German roots, an Italian from the Abruzzi and someone from Liechtenstein in the group that is L618+, CTS10912- (I noted it down as CTS1975-, but comes down to the same).

Riverman
07-17-2021, 09:12 PM
The old Genographic data I could consult a few years ago suggested this split should exist, and I was amazed it never showed up in the many Big Y's we have. In the Genographic project there is also a Frenchman from Normandy, someone with German roots, an Italian from the Abruzzi and someone from Liechtenstein in the group that is L618+, CTS10912- (I noted it down as CTS1975-, but comes down to the same).

That's of course pure speculation, but that sounds as if they could be close to the Michelsberger E1b1b finds?

leonardus
07-19-2021, 09:19 AM
The few E-V13 samples found in Thrace in the IA can't be called Thracian. Thracians were the northern neighbours of ancient Greeks. They were in the region since the Bronze Age. Any theory which proposes that Thracians were E-V13 heavy has to explain how the Thracian population was basically wiped out and replaced by E-V13 migrations but somehow the language remained the same. All E-V13 internet theories have the same problem, not just the "Thracian" one. E-V13 in all of them is just a label with no real cultural attributes except for some archaeological markers.


My thoughts is that there was (S of Danube and N of Greece) a proto-thracian population, the so-called palasgians. I also believe they were non-IE and threatened by the IE steppe peoples from east and west in the starting of the third millenium BC they moved S and N. To the north of Danube, avoiding the plains, settling mostly in mountains areas, passing throw what's now Transylvania (where they encounter a migratory non IE turkic people called agatarsi, excellent goldsmiths, where they learned the metalurgical skills), finally arriving to N carpathians, and there was the finality of their IEuropenization and now called (daco)thracians, founding the Gava-Holygradi culture. From there they started to migrate in opposite direction, now to the S. Peoples stayed in mountaneous areas N of Danube were called Dacians and others to the S of Danube were called Thracians.
But I have some questions here:
1. What happened with the palasgians migrating initially to South ? Did they cross into Greece and Anatolia and founded the 'phrygians' ?
2. What migratory pressure from who they were forced to leave Gava ?

Bruzmi
07-19-2021, 06:45 PM
They were not. Bronze Age inhabitants of the Eastern Balkans were not Thracians, were not Thracian speakers. They were a combination of Yamnaya elements, Iranic elements with possibly some Luwian elements.


Nope.

Greeks and Thracians. Geography and culture (2010) (http://books.openedition.org/pccj/pdf/666):

The story of how Greeks and Thracians developed irregular encounters into long-term relationships is much larger and more inclusive than the simple foundation stories hint at. The sometimes partisan accounts that were nurtured for their own adherents by one group or another, and which contributed so significantly to the creation of proud local histories in Hellenistic times, form components of a broader canvas, on which the legacy of earlier interactions during the second (not to mention the third) millennium BC should find a place, when direct contacts between the interior of the east Balkan landmass and Aegean sources can be traced via imported artefacts and imitations of Aegean objects. The number of actual imports (principally copper or copper alloy weapons) is small within the material assemblages in which they were found. Nevertheless, these individual items testify to a surprising degree of inter-regional ‘connectivity’, which can be revealed by studying less visible cultural and ecological links (Horden and Purcell 2000, 123-72 ; 346-8 ; 562-71)


Bonus round (https://www.academia.edu/36933704/_Ancient_Thrace_in_the_Modern_Imagination_Ideologi cal_Aspects_of_the_Construction_of_Thracian_Studie s_in_Southeast_Europe_Romania_Greece_Bulgaria_) about Thracian fan fiction vs. real research:

In general, the case of the Thracians is notable for the impressive number of far-reaching conclusions, ambitious hypotheses and speculations dedicated to them and the equally numerous deficiencies in our basic knowledge about them. To begin with, the ancient Thracian language is almost completely unknown, despite the exhausting exercises of etymology made by modern linguists. There are a number of Thracian words mentioned by ancient authors (glosses), toponyms of supposedly Thracian origin and personal names preserved in literary sources and on epigraphic monuments. But since the Thracians did not have their own script and, with certain exceptions, did not use the Greek or the Latin alphabets in their language either, there are almost no indigenous written documents. It is not even clear if all the populations labeled as “Thracian” in the ancient sources spoke the same tongue: in the 1950s appeared the theory of the existence of two paleo-Balkan languages (“Thracian” proper and “Daco-Moesian”) on the territory that was supposed to be “Thracian.” More recent research demonstrates the existence of four onomastic zones (“properly Thracian,” Daco-Moesian, “Western Thracian” and the Bithynian in northwestern Asia Minor)


Just more of your blabbering nonsense about V13. There is no theory involved with Thracians and E-V13. It is you who propose that V13 is Illyrian who needs to make up theories. There are no historical BA Illyrian samples out of 3.

In fact, I will say this: there is a considerable chance vast majority of Western Balkan E-V13 are Late Antiquity-Early Medieval time migrants from the Eastern Balkans, including most of Albanian E-V13.



There's literally no record of any migration from the eastern Balkans to the central and western Balkans in late antiquity or the early Middle Ages. In fact, the eastern Balkans throughout antiquity were repopulated by Illyrii proprie dicti, Dalmatae, Dardani, Pannoni and other tribes which in Roman antiquity collectively identified themselves as Illyriciani. From inscriptions to lists of military units, this mass movement of people from the western and central Balkans is extremely well-documented. I don't have to "prove" anything.

https://i.ibb.co/tYbfpQ2/Moesia.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/mDSgYjJ/notitiadignitarum.jpg

If we want to have a discussion based on facts, we will discuss about the real, documented movements of people from western/central Balkans to the eastern parts of the region. Everything else belongs to the realm of unfounded speculation.

Moderator
07-19-2021, 06:51 PM
A general and final warning: please keep this discussion civil. Ad hominem attacks and rude language are against our Terms of Service and will not be tolerated here. Ignoring this warning will result in more sanctions.

vettor
07-19-2021, 11:30 PM
Nope.

Greeks and Thracians. Geography and culture (2010) (http://books.openedition.org/pccj/pdf/666):

The story of how Greeks and Thracians developed irregular encounters into long-term relationships is much larger and more inclusive than the simple foundation stories hint at. The sometimes partisan accounts that were nurtured for their own adherents by one group or another, and which contributed so significantly to the creation of proud local histories in Hellenistic times, form components of a broader canvas, on which the legacy of earlier interactions during the second (not to mention the third) millennium BC should find a place, when direct contacts between the interior of the east Balkan landmass and Aegean sources can be traced via imported artefacts and imitations of Aegean objects. The number of actual imports (principally copper or copper alloy weapons) is small within the material assemblages in which they were found. Nevertheless, these individual items testify to a surprising degree of inter-regional ‘connectivity’, which can be revealed by studying less visible cultural and ecological links (Horden and Purcell 2000, 123-72 ; 346-8 ; 562-71)


Bonus round (https://www.academia.edu/36933704/_Ancient_Thrace_in_the_Modern_Imagination_Ideologi cal_Aspects_of_the_Construction_of_Thracian_Studie s_in_Southeast_Europe_Romania_Greece_Bulgaria_) about Thracian fan fiction vs. real research:

In general, the case of the Thracians is notable for the impressive number of far-reaching conclusions, ambitious hypotheses and speculations dedicated to them and the equally numerous deficiencies in our basic knowledge about them. To begin with, the ancient Thracian language is almost completely unknown, despite the exhausting exercises of etymology made by modern linguists. There are a number of Thracian words mentioned by ancient authors (glosses), toponyms of supposedly Thracian origin and personal names preserved in literary sources and on epigraphic monuments. But since the Thracians did not have their own script and, with certain exceptions, did not use the Greek or the Latin alphabets in their language either, there are almost no indigenous written documents. It is not even clear if all the populations labeled as “Thracian” in the ancient sources spoke the same tongue: in the 1950s appeared the theory of the existence of two paleo-Balkan languages (“Thracian” proper and “Daco-Moesian”) on the territory that was supposed to be “Thracian.” More recent research demonstrates the existence of four onomastic zones (“properly Thracian,” Daco-Moesian, “Western Thracian” and the Bithynian in northwestern Asia Minor)



There's literally no record of any migration from the eastern Balkans to the central and western Balkans in late antiquity or the early Middle Ages. In fact, the eastern Balkans throughout antiquity were repopulated by Illyrii proprie dicti, Dalmatae, Dardani, Pannoni and other tribes which in Roman antiquity collectively identified themselves as Illyriciani. From inscriptions to lists of military units, this mass movement of people from the western and central Balkans is extremely well-documented. I don't have to "prove" anything.

https://i.ibb.co/tYbfpQ2/Moesia.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/mDSgYjJ/notitiadignitarum.jpg

If we want to have a discussion based on facts, we will discuss about the real, documented movements of people from western/central Balkans to the eastern parts of the region. Everything else belongs to the realm of unfounded speculation.

Moesia is one of the 4 thracian provinces, it became more celtic from the 90000 bastarnae people ( a celtic-germanic mix of people ) who where invited there by philip the fifth of Macedonia and later also the, celtic Scordistic tribe , who settled there after a failed attempt to take Greece

The people who think these bastarnae are a scythian/germanic mix seem in error because the sycthian/sarmatian mix had not occurred at the time of the bastarnae

The units you mentioned are all AD times and does not reflect the original inhabitants pre Roman times

leonardus
07-20-2021, 06:52 PM
Moesia is one of the 4 thracian provinces, it became more celtic from the 90000 bastarnae people ( a celtic-germanic mix of people ) who where invited there by philip the fifth of Macedonia and later also the, celtic Scordistic tribe , who settled there after a failed attempt to take Greece

The people who think these bastarnae are a scythian/germanic mix seem in error because the sycthian/sarmatian mix had not occurred at the time of the bastarnae

The units you mentioned are all AD times and does not reflect the original inhabitants pre Roman times

About what bastarnae do you talk ? Also, bastarnae indeed were celto-germanic population but heavily influenced by the scythians. It's a fact.

Bruzmi
07-20-2021, 09:40 PM
Moesia is one of the 4 thracian provinces, it became more celtic from the 90000 bastarnae people ( a celtic-germanic mix of people ) who where invited there by philip the fifth of Macedonia and later also the, celtic Scordistic tribe , who settled there after a failed attempt to take Greece

The people who think these bastarnae are a scythian/germanic mix seem in error because the sycthian/sarmatian mix had not occurred at the time of the bastarnae

The units you mentioned are all AD times and does not reflect the original inhabitants pre Roman times

I mentioned these units in full knowledge that we are discussing about AD times. I think that this what we should be discussing about. If we want to infer meaningful information about the links of modern populations to ancient populations we have to trace human mobility from our era to the past. If want to explain haplogroup distribution today in the region, we have to understand how the region looked like in the immediate pre-Slavic era. What it looked like 1000 years before that isn't very helpful in my opinion. It might actually lead us to believe that X group lived in an area which wasn't inhabited by that group in the Roman Balkans. Or we might perceive a group in a way which only applies to a certain period of their prehistory.

Case in point: the Celtic Scordisci. The original Scordisci who arrived in the late Iron Age Balkans were indeed a Celtic people. But what about the Scordisci of the Roman era?

Pannonia and Upper Moesia by András Mócsy:
https://i.ibb.co/6vQq6rz/scordistae.jpg

If we think that the Roman era Scordisci were a Celtic people and we find E-V13 among remains from Scordisci settlements, we might be led to believe that these are E-V13 lineages spread by a Celtic population. Reality, however, might be very different.

rafc
07-24-2021, 02:48 PM
At least for the Dacians there are sources saying the migrated inland to Moesia when the Romans gave up the Dacian province, although it's unclear how big that migration was, and how many of those that migrated had Dacian roots (instead of being descendants of recent Roman colonists) . I can't think of any other sources but the lack of sources alone is not conclusive off course, it's possible migrations happened but were not recorded. From the 3rd century on Moesia was frequently invaded from the easts by Carpi, Goths, Sarmati,... To me it would not seem unlogical that people living close to the border would move westwards and southwards to safer places. Vice versa I would assume that in various periods where the threats were gone the border regions were repopulated from the west and south.

Recently there has been some discussion on S7461, this is quite an important branch of V13 and one of the only to show a quite different distribution across the Balkans. The fact that is much more common in the east might support the idea that there was no big movement from east to west. But it's also possible that S7461 was originally most common even more northeasterly, and so when moving westward/southward it couldn't get as far as clades that were already prominent in say Thracia.

We really need adna, and lot's of it, to clear up questions like these. Sadly all that is coming (according to rumors) are the Roman era samples, but at least it would be something.

leonardus
07-25-2021, 06:50 PM
Case in point: the Celtic Scordisci. The original Scordisci who arrived in the late Iron Age Balkans were indeed a Celtic people. But what about the Scordisci of the Roman era?

Pannonia and Upper Moesia by András Mócsy:
If we think that the Roman era Scordisci were a Celtic people and we find E-V13 among remains from Scordisci settlements, we might be led to believe that these are E-V13 lineages spread by a Celtic population. Reality, however, might be very different.
I agree only partially with Andras statements, sorry. How did he supposed that Celtic Scordisci formed only a thin upper class in 278 BC ???????????? I didn't imagine, when records from 180 years later describes Balkan nowadays Serbia scordisci as a very strong and a very 'celtic' people/tribe ?

Riverman
07-25-2021, 08:51 PM
I agree only partially with Andras statements, sorry. How did he supposed that Celtic Scordisci formed only a thin upper class in 278 BC ???????????? I didn't imagine, when records from 180 years later describes Balkan nowadays Serbia scordisci as a very strong and a very 'celtic' people/tribe ?

That's one of those questions which only ancient DNA will solve. They might have been ethnolinguistically clearly Celtic with or without a big Celtic demic input. But I too would suggest that we should not underestimate the historically attested migrations and their genetic impact anywhere.

23abc
08-04-2021, 06:13 AM
I was playing with the FTDNA haplotree recently and thought you guys might find the %'s of E-V13 vs. non-EV13 E1b1b interesting:

https://i.imgur.com/sDrcuu0.png

Can anyone explain why when accounting for non-EV13 E1b1b, Greece appears significantly lower than expected? Maybe there's some quirk with the FTDNA haplotree that I'm not aware of that leads to this?

dosas
08-04-2021, 06:18 AM
It would seem that E-V13 being dominant in Greece is based on overestimation?

bce
08-04-2021, 07:04 AM
Can anyone explain why when accounting for non-EV13 E1b1b, Greece appears significantly lower than expected? Maybe there's some quirk with the FTDNA haplotree that I'm not aware of that leads to this?

it's just because of an unrepresentative sample. In Bosnia there is only 15 E, and one of those is E-v12 instead of e-v13, so it gets overblown.
In Serbia the "non-V13" just didn't test deep enough, so they got placed as E-M78 and E-m35, but they are very likely E-V13 as well.

dosas
08-04-2021, 07:15 AM
it's just because of an unrepresentative sample. In Bosnia there is only 15 E, and one of those is E-v12 instead of e-v13, so it gets overblown.
In Serbia the "non-V13" just didn't test deep enough, so they got placed as E-M78 and E-m35, but they are very likely E-V13 as well.


Which is the representative sample so we can compare, can you link?

23abc
08-04-2021, 07:22 AM
it's just because of an unrepresentative sample. In Bosnia there is only 15 E, and one of those is E-v12 instead of e-v13, so it gets overblown.
In Serbia the "non-V13" just didn't test deep enough, so they got placed as E-M78 and E-m35, but they are very likely E-V13 as well.

Can you further elaborate why Greece has an unrepresentative sample? There are 694 testers on the tree, which is much more than you would see in Y-DNA studies AFAIK.

I'm also well aware that Greek migrants to the US, who are the most likely to test, have a more diverse origin than a small sampling of a single city in the Peloponnese would show for example. However, I wouldn't expect such a deviation just based on this alone. And, IMO, this sampling highlights that E-V13 is not a dominant haplogroup across the entirety of Greece as a whole, unlike what many have claimed in this thread. It may definitely have a high frequency in certain areas, but I am very doubtful that would hold true for the entire country if sampled equally.

bce
08-04-2021, 07:32 AM
Which is the representative sample so we can compare, can you link?

for example, Bosniak DNA project:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1OsAy-5BiJzGcHTEtF-00FYJsjwM&ll=43.0262511231849%2C19.97844456171878&z=8

257 E samples, only 5 are non-V13.

for countries without such a large-scale Y-dna project, you can find STR studies and check the haplotypes in a haplogroup predictor like this one:
https://www.nevgen.org/

e.g here in the supplementary data you can find Greek haplotypes (among others)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497314000842#sec0080

for Greece I got 40 E samples, 10 non-v13.

dosas
08-04-2021, 07:43 AM
The Greek DNA project above has n=766. E-V13 being one of the most dominant haplogroups in Greece seem to be one of those anthrofora myths perpetuated with no basis on an actual paradigm.

bce
08-04-2021, 08:06 AM
The Greek DNA project above has n=766. E-V13 being one of the most dominant haplogroups in Greece seem to be one of those anthrofora myths perpetuated with no basis on an actual paradigm.


Can you further elaborate why Greece has an unrepresentative sample? There are 694 testers on the tree, which is much more than you would see in Y-DNA studies AFAIK.

I'm also well aware that Greek migrants to the US, who are the most likely to test, have a more diverse origin than a small sampling of a single city in the Peloponnese would show for example. However, I wouldn't expect such a deviation just based on this alone. And, IMO, this sampling highlights that E-V13 is not a dominant haplogroup across the entirety of Greece as a whole, unlike what many have claimed in this thread. It may definitely have a high frequency in certain areas, but I am very doubtful that would hold true for the entire country if sampled equally.

hmm. the search bar says there's 274 Results from Greece, out of those 49 E. However, if I go to E-M96>country report, there's actually 112 E samples from Greece.

2 are non E-M35, and the rest is E-M35. out of those 54 are E-v13, 4 E-V22, 3 E-V12, 13 E-m34, and 3 E-PF2546, and the rest is tested only for E-M35 or E-M78.
If we ignore those wich aren't tested deep enough, there's 54 definite E-V13, and 25 definite non-E-V13. So there's around 70% V13 in E, which is similar to that STR study.

Aspar
08-04-2021, 08:26 AM
FTDNA's tree depends on many variables, such as different ethnicities, preference to test further, diaspora, activity of the administrators of different projects to persuade people to test further etc.
I am not taking anything out of their tree but simply looking at it you can't possibly know if all the testers are ethnic Greeks. Different thing is that many have preference to test SNPs or Big Y simply by already knowing of the broad haplogroup they belong based on their STRs.
10.35% R1a in Bulgarians and 11.24% of J1 in Greeks doesn't make any sense unless in this statistics there are included minorities such as Turks, Jews etc. Doesn't make sense because none of the available studies have reported such a big difference in this haplogroups among the Bulgarians and the Greeks. Neither Cyprus have that much of J1 as Greece does wich would mean there is quite a MENA y-dna in Greeks but that simply is not true.

Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179474)

This study have some good statistics based on this and different studies for Greeks from different regions and Cyprus.
In the supplementary tables pone.0179474.s014 and pone.0179474.s013 you will find the following results for E-M78(E-V13 + E-V22) in Greeks:

Population n E1b1b-M78
Greek Cypriots 344 12.8%
Turkish Cypriots 380 13.9%
Greeks Crete 369 6.5%
Greeks Peloponnese 179 30.2%
Greeks Central 199 18.6%
Greeks Thessaly 72 34.7%
Greeks Macedonia 142 19.9%
Greeks Thrace 41 17.1%
Greeks Asia Minor 105 14.3%

I agree there are peculiarities but that's what people were referring to when saying that E-V13 is one of the most numerous haplogroups in Greece.

Heraclides and Voskarides studies about the Greek Cypriots both reported 9.9% and 7.3% of E-V13 in Greek Cypriots with combined percentage of 8.2% out of 975 Greek Cypriots.

dosas
08-04-2021, 08:27 AM
hmm. the search bar says there's 274 Results from Greece, out of those 49 E. However, if I go to E-M96>country report, there's actually 112 E samples from Greece.



What, you think we're lying to you? Seriously? The country report designates the birthplace of your earliest known ancestor, not ethnicity. I have Bulgarian and Turkish flags as country reports because my great-grand-folks were born in Eastern Rumelia and the Ottoman Empire, respectively.

https://i.ibb.co/mHrb7mz/Screenshot-2021-08-04-at-11-20-30-Family-Tree-DNA-Genetic-Testing-for-Ancestry-Family-History-Geneal.png
https://i.ibb.co/6gP0BXf/Screenshot-2021-08-04-at-11-21-01-Family-Tree-DNA-Greek-DNA-Project.png

23abc
08-04-2021, 08:39 AM
hmm. the search bar says there's 274 Results from Greece, out of those 49 E. However, if I go to E-M96>country report, there's actually 112 E samples from Greece.

2 are non E-M35, and the rest is E-M35. out of those 54 are E-v13, 4 E-V22, 3 E-V12, 13 E-m34, and 3 E-PF2546, and the rest is tested only for E-M35 or E-M78.
If we ignore those wich aren't tested deep enough, there's 54 definite E-V13, and 25 definite non-E-V13. So there's around 70% V13 in E, which is similar to that STR study.

The search bar does not say how many testers there are, rather how many branches there are with somebody whose last known ancestor was from Greece. To know how many testers there are on FTDNA for each country, you need to view the the country report of the root node (A-PR2921).

https://imgur.com/oArBEqd.png

bce
08-04-2021, 08:42 AM
What, you think we're lying to you? Seriously? The country report shows birthplace of your earliest known ancestor, not ethnicity. I have Bulgarian and Turkish flags as country reports because my great-grand-folks were born in Eastern Rumelia and the Ottoman Empire, respectively.


23abc is talking precisely about the samples from the FTDNA's haplotree with a Greek flag, at least I was under that impression.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/A

The Greek project is a completely different topic. It could also include a bunch of different ethnicities, depends on who the admins allow to join.
Some projects allow literally anybody to join, some have a more strict administration.

anyway in the Greek project there's currently 26 V13 and 10 non-V13, which is also within the range of other sources.

23abc
08-04-2021, 08:51 AM
FTDNA's tree depends on many variables, such as different ethnicities, preference to test further, diaspora, activity of the administrators of different projects to persuade people to test further etc.
I am not taking anything out of their tree but simply looking at it you can't possibly know if all the testers are ethnic Greeks. Different thing is that many have preference to test SNPs or Big Y simply by already knowing of the broad haplogroup they belong based on their STRs.
10.35% R1a in Bulgarians and 11.24% of J1 in Greeks doesn't make any sense unless in this statistics there are included minorities such as Turks, Jews etc. Doesn't make sense because none of the available studies have reported such a big difference in this haplogroups among the Bulgarians and the Greeks. Neither Cyprus have that much of J1 as Greece does wich would mean there is quite a MENA y-dna in Greeks but that simply is not true.

Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179474)

This study have some good statistics based on this and different studies for Greeks from different regions and Cyprus.
In the supplementary tables pone.0179474.s014 and pone.0179474.s013 you will find the following results for E-M78(E-V13 + E-V22) in Greeks:

Population n E1b1b-M78
Greek Cypriots 344 12.8%
Turkish Cypriots 380 13.9%
Greeks Crete 369 6.5%
Greeks Peloponnese 179 30.2%
Greeks Central 199 18.6%
Greeks Thessaly 72 34.7%
Greeks Macedonia 142 19.9%
Greeks Thrace 41 17.1%
Greeks Asia Minor 105 14.3%

I agree there are peculiarities but that's what people were referring to when saying that E-V13 is one of the most numerous haplogroups in Greece.

Heraclides and Voskarides studies about the Greek Cypriots both reported 9.9% and 7.3% of E-V13 in Greek Cypriots with combined percentage of 8.2% out of 975 Greek Cypriots.

I do agree that having the last known ancestor come from Greece does not mean they are an ethnic Greek, but in general this will not have a large effect on the ending distributions for most countries. Countries with significant Ashkenazi testers will have the largest discrepancy. I don't think Greece should be a country with such an effect, or do you think Romaniote/Sephardic testers are so numerous they would skew the stats?

dosas
08-04-2021, 09:05 AM
23abc is talking precisely about the samples from the FTDNA's haplotree with a Greek flag, at least I was under that impression.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/A

The Greek project is a completely different topic. It could also include a bunch of different ethnicities, depends on who the admins allow to join.
Some projects allow literally anybody to join, some have a more strict administration.

anyway in the Greek project there's currently 26 V13 and 10 non-V13, which is also within the range of other sources.

I understand the limitations you are mentioning, but these apply to all projects, not just the Greek DNA project. Afaik, administrators told me that they accept people from other ethnic groups if they have oral tradition and/or know for a fact (ie documents) that their earliest known male ancestor was ethnically Greek. So you get other groups (ie Americans) with English names in the group, for example. I don't know if someone joins for malicious intent (ie to skew results), I don't think anyone can control this, but, like I said, this applies to every single DNA group there.

And 26 E-V13s in a total of 766 is nowhere near the ballpark of what is usually quoted, erroneously imo, which was my original point.

Aspar
08-04-2021, 09:07 AM
I do agree that having the last known ancestor come from Greece does not mean they are an ethnic Greek, but in general this will not have a large effect on the ending distributions for most countries. Countries with significant Ashkenazi testers will have the largest discrepancy. I don't think Greece should be a country with such an effect, or do you think Romaniote/Sephardic testers are so numerous they would skew the stats?

There is simply too much of J1, G and L in your Greece sample to find it reliable and representative for the ethnic Greeks. Just go over all the studies in which many Greek scientist also took participation and you will find big discrepancy between the numbers you reported from FTDNA and the available studies for ethnic Greeks.
I don't know the situation in Greece with the ethnic minorities but historically I know that Thessaloniki was the most Jewish city in the Balkans. And also many Turks have paternal origin from Greece, let's not forget them.

bce
08-04-2021, 09:12 AM
I do agree that having the last known ancestor come from Greece does not mean they are an ethnic Greek, but in general this will not have a large effect on the ending distributions for most countries. Countries with significant Ashkenazi testers will have the largest discrepancy. I don't think Greece should be a country with such an effect, or do you think Romaniote/Sephardic testers are so numerous they would skew the stats?

Depends on the country/ethnicity really. The Romanian project is apparently very biased towards the Romanian Jews. But that's just the public samples from the Romanian project. The tree also includes many non-public samples, so it could actually be less biased.

It's also possible that many Greeks with an ancestor from outside modern Greece just reported Greece as their location, so those also appear with a Greek flag in the tree.

Most precise will always be public projects with known surnames and locations. But those can often have a lack of samples.

dosas
08-04-2021, 09:15 AM
There is simply too much of J1, G and L in your Greece sample to find it reliable and representative for the ethnic Greeks. Just go over all the studies in which many Greek scientist also took participation and you will find big discrepancy between the numbers you reported from FTDNA and the available studies for ethnic Greeks.
I don't know the situation in Greece with the ethnic minorities but historically I know that Thessaloniki was the most Jewish city in the Balkans. And also many Turks have paternal origin from Greece, let's not forget them.


I don't understand why would J1s and Gs be weird results :confused:, the second even more so than the first. L1b2b* is quite common for Pontic Greeks, we think it's a native Colchian marker.

bce
08-04-2021, 09:17 AM
I understand the limitations you are mentioning, but these apply to all projects, not just the Greek DNA project. Afaik, administrators told me that they accept people from other ethnic groups if they have oral tradition and/or know for a fact (ie documents) that their earliest known male ancestor was ethnically Greek. So you get other groups (ie Americans) with English names in the group, for example. I don't know if someone joins for malicious intent (ie to skew results), I don't think anyone can control this, but, like I said, this applies to every single DNA group there.

And 26 E-V13s in a total of 766 is nowhere near the ballpark of what is usually quoted, erroneously imo, which was my original point.

Yes. Most of the scientific studies also test the general population of a country, and not just one ethnicity. Often from the big cities, which have more foreign immigrants than the rest of the country.

but given all sources, around 70/30 v13/non-V13 seems our best guess for Greece, do you agree?

dosas
08-04-2021, 09:36 AM
Yes. Most of the scientific studies also test the general population of a country, and not just one ethnicity.

If they did, then that would skew results in favor of Albanian clades, since they are the biggest migrant group in the country.

Aspar
08-04-2021, 09:42 AM
I don't understand why would J1s and Gs be weird results :confused:, the second even more so than the first. L1b2b* is quite common for Pontic Greeks, we think it's a native Colchian marker.

No, I am not saying that J1 and G are weird results. I am just saying that their percentages are overblown in FTDNA's statistics posted by 23abc. It doesn't go hand in hand with all the available DNA studies regarding the Greeks. Those are percentages that look alike to some West Asian country. I don't know, there might be over representation of Pontic Greeks in this sample of FTDNA :noidea:

Riverman
08-04-2021, 10:19 AM
I was playing with the FTDNA haplotree recently and thought you guys might find the %'s of E-V13 vs. non-EV13 E1b1b interesting:

Can anyone explain why when accounting for non-EV13 E1b1b, Greece appears significantly lower than expected? Maybe there's some quirk with the FTDNA haplotree that I'm not aware of that leads to this?

I think a basic problem which adds to the lack of deeper testing of so many with this statistic is that it doesn't distinguish between local ethnic groups and people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. The percentage of E1b1b of non-V13 background is surprisingly higher, much higher than I thought. But I would like to know how much of it, especially in countries like Moldova, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, which are very close to my proposed origin theory at the border of the steppe, probably from Tripolye-Cucuteni, belong to Jewish vs. non-Jewish testers for two reasons: Most Jewish testers have no older origin in the country and they do test at a significantly higher rate than the local non-Jewish people, which further distorts the results. I think the shift caused by this is particularly apparent in Poland, where E-V13 is much too low in comparison to other E1b1b, as well as the high percentage of J1 in Poland and Romania.

Compare the numbers for J1 in general with those from FTDNA:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml

22,8 in Moldova, 12 in Russia and 8,9 in Poland.

I think that's part of the distortion caused by the sampling bias with AJ testers. That doesn't mean there is no significant non-V13 E1b1b, because it is, but it seems the ratio being to high because of this?

Bruzmi
08-04-2021, 11:07 AM
I was playing with the FTDNA haplotree recently and thought you guys might find the %'s of E-V13 vs. non-EV13 E1b1b interesting:


Great job!

The results now look much closer to published studies for certain countries. Y-chromosome diversity of the three major ethno-linguistic groups in the Republic of North Macedonia (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497319301097) has E-M35 at 19% among Slavic Macedonians which is compatible with FTDNA's 17% E1b1b in total (13.64% E-V13, 3.41 non-E-V13)



for example, Bosniak DNA project:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1OsAy-5BiJzGcHTEtF-00FYJsjwM&ll=43.0262511231849%2C19.97844456171878&z=8

257 E samples, only 5 are non-V13.


The Bosniak DNA Project is not representative of Bosniaks as many of its samples are from Sandzak and much of E-V13 in that region can be traced back to 17th-18th century Albanian settlement. We can list with high precision the specific brotherhood and wider Albanian fis/tribe of many Sandzak E-V13.


The Greek DNA project above has n=766. E-V13 being one of the most dominant haplogroups in Greece seem to be one of those anthrofora myths perpetuated with no basis on an actual paradigm.

I've been thinking about this issue and I agree that the presence E-V13 in Greece is overblown. The high E-V13 in Greece is usually accompanied by a "theory" about "Thraco-Daco-Illyrian-whatever" impact on "Dorians" which seeks to explain it. I can't see any validity to this theory. Individuals from the Balkans migrated to ancient Greece and that is perfectly known but I'm becoming increasingly skeptical about the assignment of such high impact to them. And it gets more unrealistic if we assign this "E-V13 influx" to the middle ages. If we assign a 20%+ E-V13 to medieval Albanian migrations and nomadic Vlachs (Vlachs definitely carried wherever they went after the 10th century HGs linked to Slavic migrations), then what would follow is a bizarre scenario under which almost a plurality of Greeks from Greece comes from the post-antiquity Balkans. It makes no sense. Under these circumstances, I don't see E-V13 going beyond 15% in Greece in areas of high concentration.

In my opinion, E-V13 internet discussions are a classic case of either haplogroup fetishization or politicization. What's hopeful is that politicized theories and haplogroup fetishization are being increasingly abandoned, even on internet fora.

dosas
08-04-2021, 11:24 AM
No, I am not saying that J1 and G are weird results. I am just saying that their percentages are overblown in FTDNA's statistics posted by 23abc. It doesn't go hand in hand with all the available DNA studies regarding the Greeks. Those are percentages that look alike to some West Asian country. I don't know, there might be over representation of Pontic Greeks in this sample of FTDNA :noidea:


The Greek DNA project doesn't have an over presentation of Pontics, I counted 22 individuals with Pontic last names and/or Black Sea ancestral homes. in the n=766 total, hardly a number that would skew the results (they do own all the L1b* haplos, though). 23abc's collection probably doesn't represent Anatolian Greeks at all, seeing as they are probably wearing Turkish flags in their country report.

What I am saying is that there is a narrative being pushed that wants the Greek people to have a Balkan haplogroup of Carpathian origins (?) that we're not really seeing when crunching the numbers. What we see, instead, confirms what history tells us, that Greek people (Anatolian or non Anatolian) are firmly rooted in what some papers call as an East Med genetic continuity, not as some sort of Hellenised melting pot of Balkanite origins.

And I would like to point out that the constant attempt of certain groups of posters (not you, don't get me wrong) to separate Anatolian to non-Anatolian Greeks has a false premise, since these so-called Anatolian groups have been part of the Greek ethnos since antiquity and intermixing with one another, if one follows closely the prominence of those East Med haplogroups (phenomenon that you also noticed).

Riverman
08-04-2021, 11:28 AM
If we assign a 20%+ E-V13 to medieval Albanian migrations and nomadic Vlachs (Vlachs definitely carried wherever they went after the 10th century HGs linked to Slavic migrations), then what would follow is a bizarre scenario under which almost a plurality of Greeks from Greece comes from the post-antiquity Balkans. It makes no sense. Under these circumstances, I don't see E-V13 going beyond 15% in Greece in areas of high concentration.


That's exactly why a Thraco-Illyrian contribution to Dorians, followed by a constant trickling down from the Thracian tribes to Greece is necessary to explain that pattern. The numbers for E-V13 are at its lowest estimate still too big to explain the current distribution by Vlach/Albanian/Slavic medieval migration alone, or at least it seems so to me. Because these people were not exactly 100 percent E-V13, which means that large portions of modern Greeks would almost exclusively descend from these groups, but this is kind of extreme, considering the autosomal evidence and the historical accounts. On a regional level, it might be the case, but E-V13 is overall to widely distributed in Greeks for explaining it all with Medieval migrations. It should be both, ancient migrations with Dorians and trickling down from the Thraco-Illyrian sphere, as well as later migrations in Medieval times involving especially Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs, which all carried their fair share of E-V13.

bce
08-04-2021, 11:29 AM
The Bosniak DNA Project is not representative of Bosniaks as many of its samples are from Sandzak and much of E-V13 in that region can be traced back to 17th-18th century Albanian settlement. We can list with high precision the specific brotherhood and wider Albanian fis/tribe of many Sandzak E-V13.


I know, but that doesn't matter here, because we are talking about non-V13 E which is very rare in both Albanians and any group of Bosniaks.

Aspar
08-04-2021, 11:55 AM
@Bruzmi

I don't have a horse in the race, everyone can favor whatever haplogroup he wants but if I say that some unofficial FTDNA statistic, which is not really about an ethnic group but more about a country and self reporting origins, is more representative than the official DNA studies performed by geneticists pretty much will discredit me no matter I am only a hobbyist.

As for Slavic Macedonians, hardly a study that only had 103 samples of Slavic Macedonians can be the final conclusion in this regard, especially because the results of this study and the FTDNA statistic posted here for J2 haplogroup doesn't look similar at all. According to this FTDNA statistic, the Slavic Macedonians have 17.05% of J2. That's not truth. Relying only on one study that doesn't have at least 500 samples may skew the results. For example, I may very well rely on Genetic data for 17 Y-chromosomal STR loci in Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia (https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(11)00079-2/fulltext) from 2011, if I want to make a false picture of the percentage of E-M35 which reported more than 30% of this haplogroup among the Slavic Macedonians and makes it the most representitive haplogroup among the Slavic Macedonians. Moreover the sample is bigger here than in the study of Jankova, consisting of according to the study:
The DNA samplesoriginate from 262 unrelated males. In view of the fact that theRepublic of Macedonia is a multi-national country with inhabi-tants of various ethnic origins and religions, it would be worthnoting that the foregoing males are Orthodox Christians of Macedonian ethnicity from different geographical regions in theRepublic of Macedonia.

But as I said, you need a bigger sample if you want a more reliable statistics and here we can use all the available studies for the ethnic Macedonians so take a look here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20725-Y-dna-of-ethnic-Macedonians-from-four-DNA-studies&p=680787&viewfull=1#post680787

Out of 518 samples, E-M35 stands at 25.28%. I might have underestimation of E-V13 and overestimation of other E however because I relied on Nevgen's predictor which is not perfect but still, this are much more reliable statistics than FTDNA.

Or if you don't want to ask me as a project administrator of the Macedonian DNA Project then you might want to ask the administrators of Poreklo who had tested quite a lot of Slavic Macedonians in the past with one big project still ongoing if I am not mistaken.



What I am saying is that there is a narrative being pushed that wants the Greek people to have a Balkan haplogroup of Carpathian origins (?) that we're not really seeing when crunching the numbers. What we see, instead, confirms what history tells us, that Greek people (Anatolian or non Anatolian) are firmly rooted in what some papers call as an East Med genetic continuity, not as some sort of Hellenised melting pot of Balkanite origins.

And I would like to point out that the constant attempt of certain groups of posters (not you, don't get me wrong) to separate Anatolian to non-Anatolian Greeks has a false premise, since these so-called Anatolian groups have been part of the Greek ethnos since antiquity and intermixing with one another, if one follows closely the prominence of those East Med haplogroups (phenomenon that you also noticed).

Dosas, I understand what are you saying. Unfortunately this hobby and scientific field is very prone to nationalistic manipulations and naive theorization. It's also a personal thing like what one prefers. If someone doesn't want to feel close to Balkanites or with other East med people it's perfectly his own choice.
That's why I only brought the official DNA studies and not some unofficial FTDNA statistic by country. We don't even know the origin of E-V13 for sure. It might not be Balkanic at all originally and the Greeks might have had quite a bit of it since ancient times. It's not the only haplogroup shared by Greeks and other Balkanites, there are Greeks with J-L283, there are Greeks with R-Z2103 and even J2a doesn't have negligible percentage among the Balkanites, having been found around 6% among Slavic Macedonians and Bulgarians and up to 8% in South Albanians.

Riverman
08-04-2021, 12:04 PM
The Greek DNA project doesn't have an over presentation of Pontics, I counted 22 individuals with Pontic last names and/or Black Sea ancestral homes. in the n=766 total, hardly a number that would skew the results (they do own all the L1b* haplos, though). 23abc's collection probably doesn't represent Anatolian Greeks at all, seeing as they are probably wearing Turkish flags in their country report.

What I am saying is that there is a narrative being pushed that wants the Greek people to have a Balkan haplogroup of Carpathian origins (?) that we're not really seeing when crunching the numbers. What we see, instead, confirms what history tells us, that Greek people (Anatolian or non Anatolian) are firmly rooted in what some papers call as an East Med genetic continuity, not as some sort of Hellenised melting pot of Balkanite origins.

And I would like to point out that the constant attempt of certain groups of posters (not you, don't get me wrong) to separate Anatolian to non-Anatolian Greeks has a false premise, since these so-called Anatolian groups have been part of the Greek ethnos since antiquity and intermixing with one another, if one follows closely the prominence of those East Med haplogroups (phenomenon that you also noticed).

The different Greek groups matter, because we have to expect more impact of the Channelled Ware E-V13 people on North West Greeks, Dorics and those Ionians living close to Thracians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion#/media/File:AncientGreekDialects_(Woodard)_en.svg

Other Ionian and Pontic colonies might have just gotten much less of it. But not nothing, because its present in Anatolian derived Greeks too:

We also included nine E-V13 haplotypes from Anatolian Greeks—Phokaia and Smyrna [20] for a Greek comparison population.

On Cyprus its a newcomer, but mostly from Greeks supposedly:

Although, when using the entire set of Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies, the composition of Cyprus can be explained by contributions from Anatolia, Balkans, and Levant, the actual Greek contribution stood out for the Cypriot E-V13 (87 %), J2a-M67 (74 %), R1b-M269 (48 %), and G-P15 (17 %) components. Lastly, Levant contributed up to 30 % of the Cypriot R1b-M269 and to a lesser extent regarding the Cypriot J lineages (3–8 %).


The pattern of structural variation in Cyprus points towards a model comprising two stages of expansion: an earlier expansion of G2a-P15, J2a-M67, and R1b-M269 (range, 11,600–13,800 y BP with a slow YSTR mutation rate ω; 3800–4500 BP with a fast ω), subsequently followed later by the expansion of E-V13, I2-M423, and J2b-M12 (slow ω, 4400–6600 y BP; fast ω 1500–4500 y BP) (Table 3). However, times of divergence of these lineages from current Anatolian, Danubian, Greek, and Levantine Y-STRs appeared more recent. Pre-historical divergence was observed for Cypriot G-P15 with Greece (3600 y BP), I2-M423 with Anatolia (4200 y BP) and Levant (9400 y BP) and J2b-M12 with Danube Balkans (3,500 y BP) and Levant (5100 y BP). Divergence of E-V13, J2a-M67, and R1b-M269 would have taken place in modern times (range, 300–2.200 y BP).


E-V13 is common in the Balkans and may mark some of the Greek demographic input to Cyprus from the Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age [79]. Network analysis of 46 E-V13 haplotypes (Additional file 10: Figure S5) shows a discrete clustering of 15 samples suggestive of a sub-haplogroup (encircled with an oval). This cluster is characterized by DYS437 = 15 repeats not seen in the Anatolian Greek population, or in the Provence samples [20]. The remaining 31 samples overlap with the Anatolian Greek E-V13 lineages.

https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8

So do you really claim that all the Anatolian and Cypriotic lineages too came just with Medieval newcomers from outside the Greek speaking world? Rather not.

I spoke about the introduction of Channelled Ware and iron, but we can also look at the changes in burial practise in the Iron Age to grasp the impact from the North, which I would associate with E-V13 heavy newcomers:

The second important Early Iron Age phenomenon is the expansion of the use of secondary crema-
tion. The chronological development of this practice can be documented is the same way as in the rest
of Greece with a first more prominent reappearance around the 12th–11th centuries BCE, especially in
the north, at cemeteries such as Apsalos “Verpen”39 and Palio Gynaikokastro.40 These structures recall
those of the western Rhodopes near Nevrokopi41 or those found in the cremation cemeteries attribut-
ed to the so-called transitional period (end of the 12th–11th century BCE) identified further in the north
at cemeteries such as Klučka near Hippodrome of Skopje,42 considered as the heir of the Donja Brnjica
culture, which develops from the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE in the south of Serbia and in Kosovo
and which expands from the south Morava toward the southern Balkans.4

The "transitional period" = the main timing for the first and biggest E-V13 expansion down into the Balkans.


In
Greece, the development and origins of cremation after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces have
long been debated, with proponents of the Balkan and eastern origins or the role played by northern
Italy.45 Regarding the data, northern Greece seems to be on the crossroads of several traditions, show-
ing that there is not a single answer to this crucial issue


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

This relates directly to the corridor of Channelled Ware related, Early Iron Age expansions down from the Vojvodina and the Morava valley, note the map on p. 175:
http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debf3.pdf

The map again with other comments:
https://imgur.com/fogur6E

Especially changes in burial customs, which spread from the North and were clearly associated with Channelled Ware E-V13 people, should never be taken easily! This means the people from the North had a real impact on the Greek tribes, especially the Northern ones. Those coming down were already mixed from Belegis II-Gava, so not even the newcomers were just E-V13 for sure, but still its to me nearly unthinkable that this had no genetic impact on Greeks and brought no E-V13 in the LBA-EIA transition already.

Only ancient DNA can solve this, but the archaeological record gives us clear hints as to where to look at.

And the impact of the burial practises, new ceramic forms and iron weapons is a clear cut thing, and you just have to compare it with the date for the Dorians expanding:

The scholars were now faced with the conundrum of an invasion at 1200 but a resettlement at 950.

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

If Dorians would have really absolutely no E-V13, that would be such a big surprise to me, because they obviously were influenced and pushed by the Channelled Ware related people.

Its also noteworthy that these influences broke through with more effect to the Aegean than to the Dalmatian coast at first. Because some groups to the West, in the Western Balkans, never fully changed to cremation and stopped the Channelled Ware cultural movement at its borders!

rafc
08-04-2021, 07:11 PM
I was playing with the FTDNA haplotree recently and thought you guys might find the %'s of E-V13 vs. non-EV13 E1b1b interesting:

Can anyone explain why when accounting for non-EV13 E1b1b, Greece appears significantly lower than expected? Maybe there's some quirk with the FTDNA haplotree that I'm not aware of that leads to this?

V13 is not a haplogroup that is automatically predicted by FTDNA, so the number on the tree only represents those who are V13 (or downstream) tested. However, the number of E-M35 is everyone, Y12 included, that was predicted by FTDNA, which is far greater than the tested group. If you take V13 compared to all M35 it will indeed look too low.

rafc
08-04-2021, 07:30 PM
V13 is not a haplogroup that is automatically predicted by FTDNA, so the number on the tree only represents those who are V13 (or downstream) tested. However, the number of E-M35 is everyone, Y12 included, that was predicted by FTDNA, which is far greater than the tested group. If you take V13 compared to all M35 it will indeed look too low.

Apart from that I also want to remark that a large amount of Pontic Greeks living in Russia or Caucasus republics have been tested in a specific project, they are counted as Greek. They have little V13 and a lot of groups that are probably more typical of the Caucasus area than of Greece proper. So I think they might skew the FTDNA numbers away from V13: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/russiangreeks?iframe=yresults

Huban
08-04-2021, 08:19 PM
And 26 E-V13s in a total of 766 is nowhere near the ballpark of what is usually quoted, erroneously imo, which was my original point.

766 is the number of members of that project.

This number includes non-Greeks at the bottom, it includes females without the Y-DNA result. I've seen earlier you posted a list of hgs, that list had nowhere near 766 people..

I have a database of Greek results, which includes some hidden results. I haven't made additions for 6 months. And there is another Greek project, some are only there. My base says 375 ethnic Greeks of non-Pontic Greek origin, and 67 Pontic Greek results.

78/375 are E1b1b , 20.8 %
68/375 are E-V13, 18.1 %, this includes E-M35 people who are obviously V13 per STR's

Pontic Greeks have 55 % of J2a.

Aspar
08-04-2021, 08:46 PM
766 is the number of members of that project.

This number includes non-Greeks at the bottom, it includes females without the Y-DNA result. I've seen earlier you posted a list of hgs, that list had nowhere near 766 people..

I have a database of Greek results, which includes some hidden results. I haven't made additions for 6 months. And there is another Greek project, some are only there. My base says 375 ethnic Greeks of non-Pontic Greek origin, and 67 Pontic Greek results.

78/375 are E1b1b , 20.8 %
68/375 are E-V13, 18.1 %, this includes E-M35 people who are obviously V13 per STR's

Pontic Greeks have 55 % of J2a.

20.8% is precisely what the studies also show in regard of E-M35 in Greeks. I think Eupedia have rounded it at 21% and it used sample size of more than a thousand samples from different studies.

dosas
08-04-2021, 08:56 PM
766 is the number of members of that project.

This number includes non-Greeks at the bottom, it includes females without the Y-DNA result. I've seen earlier you posted a list of hgs, that list had nowhere near 766 people..

I have a database of Greek results, which includes some hidden results. I haven't made additions for 6 months. And there is another Greek project, some are only there. My base says 375 ethnic Greeks of non-Pontic Greek origin, and 67 Pontic Greek results.

78/375 are E1b1b , 20.8 %
68/375 are E-V13, 18.1 %, this includes E-M35 people who are obviously V13 per STR's

Pontic Greeks have 55 % of J2a.


Yes, I said that the project has people who have verbal tradition/knowledge of Greek male ancestry but who are obviously of other ethnicity.

The n=766 includes the mtDNA members, you are correct, the Y-DNA members are 323, out of which 35 are E-V13s or 10%, still. If I remove the foreign names that percentage climbs to 14%ish.

Your personal collection is non-verifiable and thus easily dismissed as hearsay.

Huban
08-04-2021, 09:21 PM
Yes, I said that the project has people who have verbal tradition/knowledge of Greek male ancestry but who are obviously of other ethnicity.

The n=766 includes the mtDNA members, you are correct, the Y-DNA members are 323, out of which 35 are E-V13s or 10%, still.

10 % of SNP confirmed V13+. V13 is very different from other clades, and most of your E-M35 samples are also E-V13. There are E-M35 samples with Y67 that can be predicted down to specific subclade easily, but they still remain officially M35. This must be adjusted for. There isn't just 10 % of V13, plain and simple.


Your personal collection is non-verifiable and thus easily dismissed as hearsay or numbers pulled out of thin air.

It is verifiable, and majority of samples are same. But I will not be sharing details publicly about samples that are now hidden from most people.. Except their hg maybe. Plus there is another Greek project (I think named Arcadia) and there are some samples from there too. Ofc there are some additional "hidden people" that I am unaware of as well.

I don't pull numbers out of thin air, you have my word as a longtime admirer of Bushido and various similar behavioral patterns. ;)

dosas
08-04-2021, 09:24 PM
10 % of SNP confirmed V13+. V13 is very different from other clades, and most of your E-M35 samples are also E-V13. There are E-M35 samples with Y67 that can be predicted down to specific subclade easily, but they still remain officially M35. This must be adjusted for. There isn't just 10 % of V13, plain and simple.



It is verifiable, and majority of samples are same. But I will not be sharing details publicly about samples that are now hidden from most people.. Except their hg maybe. Plus there is another Greek project (I think named Arcadia) and there are some samples from there too. Ofc there are some additional "hidden people" that I am unaware of as well.

I don't pull numbers out of thin air, you have my word as a longtime admirer of Bushido and various similar behavioral patterns. ;)


It is what it is, man. I trust your word on your good intentions.

I get you guys want to claim Dorics or whatever, but you're probably going to have to find another way to do it, E-V13 is not going to work out for you.

rafc
08-05-2021, 03:33 PM
To get back to V13 and it's origins. The new paper on the Daunians had 3 L283 and at least one (two?) R1b-Z2103. There is some discussion on where exactly the Daunians came from, but most people seem to agree it was the other side of the Adriatic. I can't help but wonder if movements across the Adriatic are connected to a domino effect, coming exactly from the arrival of new groups.

I always assumed V13 would be present in small numbers in all Balkanic/Italian groups from the BA on, and that by constant trickle effects the proportion generally rose to where it is now. But once again adna finds no V13 where you might expect it, and where it's relatively high today. So now I wonder if the trickle is realstic and it wasn't more of a binary effect, with no V13 being present before the LBA (I assume that preceding any migration there would have already been 'pioneers').

In any case the idea that PH1246 might be found in Cetina seems very unlikely now.

Riverman
08-05-2021, 04:23 PM
To get back to V13 and it's origins. The new paper on the Daunians had 3 L283 and at least one (two?) R1b-Z2103. There is some discussion on where exactly the Daunians came from, but most people seem to agree it was the other side of the Adriatic. I can't help but wonder if movements across the Adriatic are connected to a domino effect, coming exactly from the arrival of new groups.

That's most certainly the case, just like the Sea People too didn't just move out like that earlier. The main expansion phase for E-V13 was connected in all likelihood with the transitional phase (1.200-1.100 BC) in particular, the spread of cremation+channelled/fluted ware+iron, the timing is concentrated around 1.300-1.000 BC, but going on afterwards. If we look at when Daunians are supposed to have arrived:

Towards the late Bronze Age (11th-10th centuries BC), Illyrian populations from the eastern Adriatic arrived in Apulia.

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

The Balkan became pretty crowded when the Urnfielders moved down from various directions, with the main thrust I associate with E-V13 in the West Balkans coming from Belegis II-Gava, which influences and derived formations moved down from Vojvodina to the Aegean.


I always assumed V13 would be present in small numbers in all Balkanic/Italian groups from the BA on, and that by constant trickle effects the proportion generally rose to where it is now. But once again adna finds no V13 where you might expect it, and where it's relatively high today. So now I wonder if the trickle is realstic and it wasn't more of a binary effect, with no V13 being present before the LBA (I assume that preceding any migration there would have already been 'pioneers').

I would largely exclude the possibility of E-V13 being of any importance before the LBA in Italia and Sicily. From then on, it gets more complicated, because in the West Balkan, unlike the East Balkan, some ethnocultural formations seem to have blocked the cremation horizon and the groups associated with Channelled Ware, or being only marginally influenced by it. Triballi and Dardanians are very likely to have received a good dose of E-V13 from the North in the LBA-EIA transition, but for other groups its much less likely. For Dorians its likely (not proven yet), for the Dalmatian Illyrians unlikely (not completely disproven yet, sample size too small).

E-V13 reached the sea late, mostly via Greek-Dorian settlements and trickling down from the Thracians. On the Adriatic probably much later, but that's unknown, and while the Daunians might have none, groups closer related to the Venethi and Liburnians might have. Its possible that the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Eastern Hallstatt was a secondary spreader, after the Channelled Ware, and this would allow entry points around Venetia and Istria.

Western Thraco-Cimmerian horizon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian

Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt (very narrow definition):
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/ad/6e/5cad6ed61f85a266a11f31803e40686d.png

This means the exact timing of the departure of a people and their exact affiliation might make a big difference for whether or not they carried E-V13 in appreciable numbers or any at all. But this has to remain speculative.


In any case the idea that PH1246 might be found in Cetina seems very unlikely now.

I think its more likely that Cetina carried R1b clades beside Neolithic ones, from Bell Beaker and Yamnaya. We'll see.

BukeKrypEZemer
08-05-2021, 09:51 PM
That's most certainly the case, just like the Sea People too didn't just move out like that earlier. The main expansion phase for E-V13 was connected in all likelihood with the transitional phase (1.200-1.100 BC) in particular, the spread of cremation+channelled/fluted ware+iron, the timing is concentrated around 1.300-1.000 BC, but going on afterwards. If we look at when Daunians are supposed to have arrived:


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

The Balkan became pretty crowded when the Urnfielders moved down from various directions, with the main thrust I associate with E-V13 in the West Balkans coming from Belegis II-Gava, which influences and derived formations moved down from Vojvodina to the Aegean.



I would largely exclude the possibility of E-V13 being of any importance before the LBA in Italia and Sicily. From then on, it gets more complicated, because in the West Balkan, unlike the East Balkan, some ethnocultural formations seem to have blocked the cremation horizon and the groups associated with Channelled Ware, or being only marginally influenced by it. Triballi and Dardanians are very likely to have received a good dose of E-V13 from the North in the LBA-EIA transition, but for other groups its much less likely. For Dorians its likely (not proven yet), for the Dalmatian Illyrians unlikely (not completely disproven yet, sample size too small).

E-V13 reached the sea late, mostly via Greek-Dorian settlements and trickling down from the Thracians. On the Adriatic probably much later, but that's unknown, and while the Daunians might have none, groups closer related to the Venethi and Liburnians might have. Its possible that the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Eastern Hallstatt was a secondary spreader, after the Channelled Ware, and this would allow entry points around Venetia and Istria.

Western Thraco-Cimmerian horizon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian

Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt (very narrow definition):
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/ad/6e/5cad6ed61f85a266a11f31803e40686d.png

This means the exact timing of the departure of a people and their exact affiliation might make a big difference for whether or not they carried E-V13 in appreciable numbers or any at all. But this has to remain speculative.



I think its more likely that Cetina carried R1b clades beside Neolithic ones, from Bell Beaker and Yamnaya. We'll see.

Why is it unlikely that Dalmatian Illyrians had a good chunk of E-V13? IMO, E-V13 must have played a big role in the ethnogenesis of the Illyrians. There needs to be a differentiation between Proto-Illyrian and Illyrian. Proto Illyrians very likely did not carry any E-V13 but they mingled (at least I guess) with E-V13 coming down.

Riverman
08-05-2021, 09:57 PM
Why is it unlikely that Dalmatian Illyrians had a good chunk of E-V13? IMO, E-V13 must have played a big role in the ethnogenesis of the Illyrians. There needs to be a differentiation between Proto-Illyrian and Illyrian. Proto Illyrians very likely did not carry any E-V13 but they mingled (at least I guess) with E-V13 coming down.

True. It depends on whether they got influenced more or less strongly by the Channelled Ware Urnfielders, which were the main early spreader of E-V13. They didn't reach all Illyrians the same, some in the early phase almost not at all.

Riverman
08-07-2021, 11:55 AM
That article sums up what I did describe with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, which is absolutely key for understanding the spread of E-V13 with cremation and iron production:

Slightly biconical shaped bowls, the upper cone (rim and shoulder) of which is decorated with horizontal and slanted facets or slanted channels, as well as semi-globular bowls of inverted rim decorated with horizontal facets or slanted channels are characteristic of the end of Bronze Age and mark the beginning of Iron Age in many cultural groups within the Balkan Peninsula. Problem of their origin, chronology and distribution is present in archaeological literature for a long time. Many authors perceived the significance of this ceramic shape for the chronological, ethnic and cultural interpretation of the Late Bronze, that is, of the Early Iron Ages within the territory of the Balkans. Pottery from the burned layers in Vardina and Vardaroftsa sites in the north of Greece, among which there were bowls with inverted, slanted channeled rim, was designated way back by W. Heurtley as Danubian pottery or Lausitz ware, connecting its origin with the Danube Basin. Anumber of conclusions have been reached upon the study of finds of slightly biconical bowls and bowls of inverted rim, decorated with channels or facets, from several indicative sites from Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages within the Balkan Peninsula and south part of the Middle Europe. It has been stated that the bowls appear first within the southwest Slovakia and northwest Hungary in the Br D period, to spread very fast, already in the Br D/Ha A1 period, from its home territory to the east, to the northeast Hungary and northwest Romania. Namely, this first spreading wave into these territories brought along only variety Ia bowls, which were further distributed to the south, during the Ha A1 period, to the central parts of the Balkan Peninsula and consequently it can be concluded that these bowls are somewhat older than other varieties. In the period Br D - Ha A1, in north Hungary, under the influence of Gava Culture, on one hand, and Čaka Culture, on the other, appear also variety IIa bowls (turban dish), distributed to the east with a new migration wave, in the same manner as was the case with the first migration wave, but also to the south, along the Bakonjska Range, to the present day Croatia and Slovenia, where, in the Ha A1/A2 periods, were stated exclusively variety IIa bowls. Representatives of the variety Ia bowls remained in the Pomoravlje region and Južna Morava Basin, as confirmed by a large number of these bowls and also by other ceramic shapes of that stylistic and typological pattern, prevailing within this region in the Ha A1/A2 periods. First variety IIa bowls (Mediana, Kržince) appear only during the second migration wave coming from the north of the Balkans to the central part of the Balkan Peninsula (Ha A2 period). These bowls, however, are particularly characteristic of Macedonia and lower Povardarje, where variety Ia bowls were not stated at all. The second migration wave representatives, with turban dish bowls (variety IIa), were much more aggressive as witnessed by many burned settlements from that period in the Vranjska-Bujanovačka Valleys and Povardarje. During Ha B-C periods, bowls of both types (particularly variety IIa) became inevitable part of ceramic inventory of nearly all cultural groups in the Balkan Peninsula, which could be explained by the spread of cultural influence of the new stylistic trend, though, however, it could be possible that migrations, which at the time were numerous and of greater or lesser intensity, were one of the spreading causes of this ceramic shape into the east, south and west parts of the Balkan Peninsula in the Ha B period. Representatives of the mentioned migrations, which were carried out in at least two larger migration waves, bringing along bowls to the Balkan Peninsula, are protagonists of historically known migrations from that period, known under names of Doric and Aegean migrations. The assumed direction of these migrations coincides mainly with the distribution direction of bowl types I and II. Migrations spreading the bowl types I and II started in the south part of the Middle Europe, but were initiated by the representatives of the Urnenfelder cultural complex from the Middle Europe, as observed in certain ceramic shapes, stated together with type I bowls and originating from cultures of the Urnenfelder complex, and in numerous metal finds, which were produced in Middle European workshops. It is of interest to point out that bowl movements could be followed up to the northwest shores of the Aegean Sea, but they are not stated in the south Trace and in Troy, thus imposing conclusion that their representatives did not reach Troy. Consequently, their possible participation in destruction of VIIb2 layer settlements is utterly uncertain. The migrations, however, started chain reaction of ethnic movements in the Balkans, causing many ethnic and cultural changes within this territory which will lead to creation of new cultural groups to mark the developed Iron Age. To what extent bowls of this type, particularly variety IIa, left deep trace in the Iron Age Cultures in the central Balkans, is shown in the fact that survivals of this variety remained within these regions even several centuries later, in late phases of the Ha C period (VI/V century BC).

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/doaj/03500241/2009/00002009/00000059/art00005

Bruzmi
08-07-2021, 12:28 PM
That article sums up what I did describe with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon, which is absolutely key for understanding the spread of E-V13 with cremation and iron production:

Representatives of the mentioned migrations, which were carried out in at least two larger migration waves, bringing along bowls to the Balkan Peninsula, are protagonists of historically known migrations from that period, known under names of Doric and Aegean migrations.

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/doaj/03500241/2009/00002009/00000059/art00005

Yugoslav/Serbian archaeology is based on extreme overgeneralizations of very limited finds from the 1960s and obsolete analytical tools which should be avoided. Its theories exist only on internet fora today. The Yugoslav position basically claimed that because some types of pottery have been found in very limited amounts south of the central Balkans they must have been brought by large-scale migrations. Yugoslav archaeologists had no knowledge of the scale of BA trade networks. Archaeological knowledge has developed and it's known that there were extensive trade networks from the Aegean to the Baltic Sea. Much of the gold used in Mycenaean metallurgy probably came from Bulgaria, so the idea that pottery from the north could have arrived in Greece only via brutal migrations/invasions is irrational.

You will find no one, nowhere in the world today who supports the idea that the Dorians (a perfectly Greek-speaking population) came from the northern/central Balkans. The Doric dialects developed in the same region as other dialects which stemmed from Proto-Greek. Archaeological remains which can be confidently termed 'Dorian' were produced in the same natural environment as those in southern Greece.

Oliver Dickinson (2006), The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC:

Here it is necessary to return to theories already mentioned above which depend on the notion that the traditions of invasion by Dorians and other groups encapsulate historical fact, and that the Mycenaean centres were in fact destroyed and their territories conquered by other Greek-speaking peoples. Often their source has been suggested to be Epirus, particularly by Hammond (1932, 1975), although there is no warrant for this in the ancient traditions, which do not derive any of the supposedly incoming peoples from outside the boundaries of Classical Greece. As noted above, it has often been thought a difficulty that no major archaeological change can be associated with such an invasion, but this is much less of a problem if the Dorians and allied groups in fact came from within the area of Mycenaean culture.
...
The proposed distinction between Mycenaean and Submycenaean burial customs is far from clear-cut (see Chapter 6), for the vases and metalwork typical of the cist cemeteries can also appear in chamber tombs. Also, many of the best examples of cist cemeteries are found in Attica and Euboea, which according to the traditions were not successfully invaded by newcomers, whereas such cemeteries are notably lacking from classic Dorian areas such as the south Peloponnese (pit and cist graves are now report from Sparta and Amykla) and Crete. There are also significant variations in burial customs between different cist cemeteries, undermining the suggestion that they represent a homogeneous culture.


Jonathan Hall (2014), History of the Archaic Greek World:

There can be little doubt that the collapse of the political and economic system centered on the Mycenaean palaces provoked a climate of instability and insecurity and that some people – whether for reasons of safety or economic necessity – decided to abandon their former homes and seek a living elsewhere. But it is also clear that the developed literary narrative for the Dorian migration is the end product of a cumulative synthesis of originally independent traditions. As such, it need not reflect a dim and hazy memory of a genuine single movement of a population from north to south, even if it captures the general instability and mobility of this period

Guy D. Middleton (https://www.monash.edu/arts/philosophical-historical-international-studies/eras/past-editions/edition-three-2002-june/mycenaeans-greeks-archaeology-and-myth-identity-and-the-uses-of-evidence-in-the-archaeology-of-late-bronze-age-greece):

So, while it is evident that there is a break in the archaeological culture of Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Greece, there are also continuities which cannot be dismissed. The fact that they have so often been dismissed, or (consciously or otherwise) overlooked, can be seen to have come from this naming of the Mycenaeans, which has created a unity that exists only in terms of an archaeological culture. The break in material culture has also been artificially widened by the influence of myths, such as those of the Dorian invasion, which have directed thought to searching for sweeping population change. Cultures are most clearly seen in opposition and this is what has occurred with the Mycenaeans – they have been understood in contrast to both the Minoans and the later Greeks.

Riverman
08-07-2021, 12:56 PM
Yugoslav/Serbian archaeology is based on extreme overgeneralizations of very limited finds from the 1960s and obsolete analytical tools which should be avoided. Its theories exist only on internet fora today. The Yugoslav position basically claimed that because some types of pottery have been found in very limited amounts south of the central Balkans they must have been brought by large-scale migrations. Yugoslav archaeologists had no knowledge of the scale of BA trade networks. Archaeological knowledge has developed and it's known that there were extensive trade networks from the Aegean to the Baltic Sea. Much of the gold used in Mycenaean metallurgy probably came from Bulgaria, so the idea that pottery from the north could have arrived in Greece only via brutal migrations/invasions is irrational.

It depends on the context, because I noticed the generalisation as well, but its refreshing because the Western archaeology with its "pots no people" stance for immobilism did even dismiss some of the most obvious signs for migration. Like in the case of Bell Beakers, which was degraded to a "social phenomenon". In this case in particular its a whole bundle coming in, which can never be explained by local development without migration.


You will find no one, nowhere in the world today who supports the idea that the Dorians (a perfectly Greek-speaking population) came from the northern/central Balkans.

They came from local North Western Greeks, which in part seem to have infiltrated the Mycenaean world already before its downfall. So you won't hear me saying that Dorians came with Channelled Ware as a whole, but they got influenced and incorporated some of these Channelled Ware people, when actually pushing down.


The Doric dialects developed in the same region as other dialects which stemmed from Proto-Greek. Archaeological remains which can be confidently termed 'Dorian' were produced in the same natural environment as those in southern Greece.

Yes of course.


Oliver Dickinson (2006), The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC:

The appearance of, for the Aegean, unusual cremation burials, iron and channelled ware pottery can be observed and its clearly associated with an incoming people. No doubt about it and ancient DNA will prove it, sooner or later. That they cremated is a problem, but a simple "pre" and "post" comparison will suffice to prove the impact. Its however not those elements forming Northern Greek or Dorian, but only influencing it, and through this agent the whole Greek world.

Aspar
08-07-2021, 01:22 PM
It's dumb to deny the LBA/IA havoc and migrations that occurred in the Balkans and which even went all the way down to Greece and in some places in North Greece these new incomers introduced a whole new set of pottery at quantities bigger than the previous style. Such a change isn't just a sign of a cultural exchange. If that's not enough then the wholly new practice of cremation in urns all of a sudden appeared in Greece during the exact same period.
No one here said the Dorians migrated from the Carpathians, all we are discussing is the possibility for the E-V13 marker to have arrived exactly in LBA/IA period in Greece, which according to aDNA, does seem to be the case.
Then again, it's dumb to dislike a haplogroup and to lesser it's numbers despite the numerous modern studies showing the opposite, just because it occurs in big numbers in people and regions which doesn't seem suitable to someone's likings...

Aspar
08-07-2021, 01:37 PM
By the way, we can really dispose of the idea that Cetina was the home of E-V13 considering that none of the West Balkan aDNA until date showed up any E-V13. What's even more striking is that neither the Imperial Romans nor the Daunians had any E-V13 which further backs up the idea of non E-V13 Cetina and West Balkans or just negligible one if you want to stay on the safe side. The first E-V13 aDNA in Italy shows up in late antiquity.

On the other hand, I expected that the ancient Greeks would have had more West Balkan dna because of closer contacts with the West Balkans. But this is contradictory to the modern dna of the Greeks who have negligible percentage of J-L283 which seem to have been the main marker in the West Balkans. E-V13 is lot more present in the Greeks, whether in Cyprus, the Islands or the Mainland but also in Sicily and South Italy.

The most logical explanation in this case is that the ancient Greeks simply had more E-V13 than J-L283 which would meen that the LBA/IA migrations greatly affected the ancient Greeks.

Correct me if I am wrong...

Riverman
08-07-2021, 01:43 PM
Then again, it's dumb to dislike a haplogroup and to lesser it's numbers despite the numerous modern studies showing the opposite, just because it occurs in big numbers in people and regions which doesn't seem suitable to someone's likings...
If that is a reason for some to deny the influence, its absurd, because even modern studies, like the one quoted before about Cypriots, used E-V13 as a signal for mainland Greek influence on Anatolian and Cypriot Greeks.
Some of the highest frequencies of V13 are likely to appear in some Greek places.

Yet it was spread at the LBA-EIA transition. And then we have this massive movements of people and cultural innovations from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, with Channelled Ware, and no presence of the haplogroup before.
It's just the logical conclusion from the available evidence, or otherwise Greeks would almost completely descend from Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs paternally to get the modern numbers.
Its just these two alternatives:
- spread with Northern Greeks, Dorians and through Thracian contacts in Antiquity, with historical migrations adding up
Or
- near complete replacement in a lot of Greek regions in late Antiquity and Medieval times, all the way down to the islands and Anatolia.

I really see no other possible alternative.

That the Channelled Ware impact, which can be archaeologically proven, was a mere cultural transmission is extremely unlikely, because people do adopt new techniques and customs, yes, but not the whole package with an early patchy distribution.

This suggests newcomers lived at first in their own settlements and regions beside locals. My assumption is they later fused with each other and the Greek side assimilated them into their ethnos. Similar to the assimilated Slavs many centuries later, but with the Channelled Ware people transforming the Greeks too (especially cremation and iron weapons).

Aspar
08-07-2021, 01:54 PM
On the other hand, if E-V13 was really mediated to South Italy by the ancient Greeks and if you back up the idea of some people on the forum that the big shift of the Latin Romans is because of the big Hellenic influence from the south, you would expected to see it among the Imperial Romans, but that's NOT the case.

E-V13 does seem to have less frequency in Central Italy and Rome than South and North Italy.

If E-V13 indeed was carried by the ancient Greeks in South Italy then I am correct that the Imperial Romans were mostly mixture of Latins and mostly West Asian people with little ancient Greek input. At the end, it doesn't seem likely at all that the IA Latin element was completely diluted and eliminated by Greeks and West Asians.

Riverman
08-07-2021, 02:32 PM
On the other hand, if E-V13 was really mediated to South Italy by the ancient Greeks and if you back up the idea of some people on the forum that the big shift of the Latin Romans is because of the big Hellenic influence from the south, you would expected to see it among the Imperial Romans, but that's NOT the case.

Two issues:
Southern Italia surely was influenced by Greek colonisation, which did spread E-V13 as well, but this was not the only reason for the autosomal shift. There were later other migrants and slaves, which added up. Also, you have to prove that the migration from Magna Graecia, especially from the local Greek colonists, to Rome was that big. This is possible, but just an assumption in itself.
And if there was indirect spread to Rome, from Greek and Magna Graecia, of Greek V13 lineages, these surely could be concentrated in some quarters and must not have come in such big numbers, that the current sampling couldn't have overlooked them.


E-V13 does seem to have less frequency in Central Italy and Rome than South and North Italy.

To me that's logical, because in the
- North there was in succession: Urnfield, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, Hallstatt, Celts, Imperial migrations (incl. Hellenistic), Germanics, Slavs. All people and cultures which, when entering Northern Italia, did carry E-V13.
- South there was a succession: Urnfield, Illryian (some tribes might have been more E-V13 heavy), Greek colonisation, Hellenistic migrations, Imperial Roman slavery and migrations (incl. from Daco-Thracian territories), Late Roman and Byzantine resettlement, Albanian settlement, Germanic, (minor) Slavic and Balkan settlement.

Central Italia was more about Rome, yet the population of Rome largely crashed, as did most urban settlements, still E-V13 did make it, but in much lower numbers, because unlike in the North or South, there was no such "ethnic colonisation" of such a magnitude.


If E-V13 indeed was carried by the ancient Greeks in South Italy then I am correct that the Imperial Romans were mostly mixture of Latins and mostly West Asian people with little ancient Greek input. At the end, it doesn't seem likely at all that the IA Latin element was completely diluted and eliminated by Greeks and West Asians.

Imperial Romans most likely had all those influences and more. They were a really cosmopolitan people. With more sampling you might get something like a Thraco-Italic, a Germano-Syrian and a Greco-Celt too, with one quarter and settlement being somewhat different from the other, but on the long run all approaching some kind of panmixture, especially in the urban context, in much of the Empire.

Aspar
08-07-2021, 03:04 PM
@Riverman

That's what I am saying, South Italy was settled by ancient Greeks to large extend and if we are correct they had E-V13 in their ranks then it shouldn't be a surprise there is around 8-11% of E-V13 in Sicily and South Italy today.

But if the Imperial Romans did incorporated and got influenced by the ancient Greeks from the south then at least an E-V13 should have shown up in the aDNA record. That's NOT the case.

The Imperial Romans indeed had many influences as you said, but those influences wouldn't have been equally represented. By far the most notable elements in their make up were the IA Latins, Etruscans on one hand and something West Asian on the other which is best described with Alaklakh_MBA or ancient Antioch where the Seleucid Empire was mostly concentrated during it's last days. So you would expect haplogroups such as R-L151, J-L283, G2a, J2a etc. to show up among the Imperial Romans and that's exactly what we have. E-V13 hasn't been found neither among the IA Latins and Etruscans nor among the ancients from Alaklakh.

As I said, if the ancient Greek input was so great among the Romans, at least an E-V13 should have shown up.

It's very contradictory otherwise...

Bruzmi
08-07-2021, 03:09 PM
@Riverman @Aspar I'm only explaining what has been proven archaeologically and linguistically. I find all haplogroups interesting.

If you propose that a population from the northern Balkans impacted the Dorians, then it would show up archaeologically and linguistically. It doesn't. There's nothing non-Greek in Doric dialects. The idea that Dorians spread E-V13 in southern Italy should be treated it as just that, a hypothesis. And it becomes even more of a problem because the same argument says that E-V13 is lacking in Minor Asia because Dorians didn't form colonies in that region. They did though. Where's the E-V13 in Doric Hexapolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_Hexapolis)? Shouldn't the islands of Rhodes and Kos have an unusually high E-V13 % in comparison to other Greek islands? Or is there a reason which made the Dorians spread E-V13 to the west, but not to the east?

@Riverman you mentioned the Slavs:


My assumption is they later fused with each other and the Greek side assimilated them into their ethnos. Similar to the assimilated Slavs many centuries later, but with the Channelled Ware people transforming the Greeks too (especially cremation and iron weapons).

Even if we had no historical knowledge about Slavic migrations, there are Slavic placenames which have been preserved to this day wherever they went. Every "assimilated" population leaves its marks to the population which "assimilates" it (I'm using " " because no assimilation ever happened in the way assimilation theories usually describe). There are numerous Slavic placenames in Greece, but where are the non-Greek marks on Doric Greek?

23abc
08-07-2021, 03:43 PM
The idea that Dorians spread E-V13 in southern Italy should be treated it as just that, a hypothesis. And it becomes even more of a problem because the same argument says that E-V13 is lacking in Minor Asia because Dorians didn't form colonies in that region. They did though. Where's the E-V13 in Doric Hexapolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_Hexapolis)? Shouldn't the islands of Rhodes and Kos have an unusually high E-V13 % in comparison to other Greek islands? Or is there a reason which made the Dorians spread E-V13 to the west, but not to the east?


Yes, this is something that is often ignored. Mani, Crete and the Dodecanese islands are the most isolated areas of Greece and happen to have the lowest rates of E-V13. It just so happens that these areas also are known to have spoken the Doric dialect in antiquity. What these areas also have in common, is a high rate of J2a haplogroups, and more West Asian admixture compared to other areas in Greece. On the other hand, the least isolated areas in Greece, with many known recent population movements, are the ones with high rates of E-V13, and are the ones used for evidence of E-V13 being spread by Dorians.

To counter this anomaly it is claimed by some that the aforementioned isolated areas somehow were asymmetrically impacted by mysterious migration of foreign 'slaves' which somehow skips the rest of Greece and the only other area this 'slave migration' affects strongly is Southern Italy, another area with strong connections with Hellenic populations. :crazy:

Riverman
08-07-2021, 04:56 PM
Yes, this is something that is often ignored. Mani, Crete and the Dodecanese islands are the most isolated areas of Greece and happen to have the lowest rates of E-V13. It just so happens that these areas also are known to have spoken the Doric dialect in antiquity. What these areas also have in common, is a high rate of J2a haplogroups, and more West Asian admixture compared to other areas in Greece. On the other hand, the least isolated areas in Greece, with many known recent population movements, are the ones with high rates of E-V13, and are the ones used for evidence of E-V13 being spread by Dorians.

To counter this anomaly it is claimed by some that the aforementioned isolated areas somehow were asymmetrically impacted by mysterious migration of foreign 'slaves' which somehow skips the rest of Greece and the only other area this 'slave migration' affects strongly is Southern Italy, another area with strong connections with Hellenic populations. :crazy:

The way you describe it, it sounds idiotic indeed, but Southern Italia and even Greek Anatolia have E-V13, even more have the islands. What complicates the Greek case are different layers.
My current best model goes like that:
- Original Greeks without E-V13
- Channelled Ware influence at the LBA-EIA spreading V13 to some Greek regions and people
- Constant trickling down of Daco-Thracians in Antiquity
- Slavic, Vlach and Albanian migration, which caused a big increase

The open question is how much each of these flows did contribute and whether its possible to estimate that with subclades and ancient DNA samples in the future.

Like the Cypriot study which distinguished between different clusters. For example the clades shared between Anatolians and Cypriots being old Greek, many Balkan clades recently introduced.

Aspar
08-07-2021, 05:32 PM
@Bruzmi

I am not a linguist and I believe you aren't either.
The gene flow doesn't need to be complemented with a lexical flow. The modern Greeks have both Slavic and Albanian elements, assimilated through the Medieval and yet, there is little evidence of any Slavic or Albanian words in the Greek.
What I am saying is, you don't need a strong lexical change if population A was smaller and population B was more numerous and therefore population A took the language of population B.
This scenario happened many times in the history. The old Bulgars simply disappeared in the Slavic leaving no trace. Some Bulgarian words thought to be of Turkic origin are not even Bulgar but Ottoman, derived from Persian and others are with Cuman origin.
There are other examples as well.

I would rather look into phonetic, morphology and grammar for a foreign population converting into Greek because when a population A starts to speak the language of population B, they are using their old grammatical features. That's what happened with the old population in Bulgaria and North Macedonia, and that's why we have these Slavic languages in the Balkan Sprachbund today.

Usually a more numerous subordinated population get's lexical input by a more dominant population and not the other way around.

Aspar
08-07-2021, 06:02 PM
Yes, this is something that is often ignored. Mani, Crete and the Dodecanese islands are the most isolated areas of Greece and happen to have the lowest rates of E-V13. It just so happens that these areas also are known to have spoken the Doric dialect in antiquity. What these areas also have in common, is a high rate of J2a haplogroups, and more West Asian admixture compared to other areas in Greece. On the other hand, the least isolated areas in Greece, with many known recent population movements, are the ones with high rates of E-V13, and are the ones used for evidence of E-V13 being spread by Dorians.

To counter this anomaly it is claimed by some that the aforementioned isolated areas somehow were asymmetrically impacted by mysterious migration of foreign 'slaves' which somehow skips the rest of Greece and the only other area this 'slave migration' affects strongly is Southern Italy, another area with strong connections with Hellenic populations. :crazy:

So that leaves to option B as Riverman said previously, large percentage of the modern Greeks are basically of Vlach, Albanian and Slavic stock?

By the way, in Cyprus E-V13 is around 8% as quoted previously by the scientific studies. Are these Vlachs, Albanians or Slavs as well or something else?

P.S no one is claiming the damn Dorians even if they had some E-V13

23abc
08-07-2021, 08:51 PM
So that leaves to option B as Riverman said previously, large percentage of the modern Greeks are basically of Vlach, Albanian and Slavic stock?

By the way, in Cyprus E-V13 is around 8% as quoted previously by the scientific studies. Are these Vlachs, Albanians or Slavs as well or something else?

P.S no one is claiming the damn Dorians even if they had some E-V13

My claim is that the % of E-V13 is overestimated, not that it does not exist at all. It clearly does, any Greek who has tested on 23andMe will see how many of their relatives have E-V13. However, from what I've seen, it is very likely the variation in distribution % fluctuates widely depending on geographical area, which is not made immediately obvious from the current studies. Yes, I maintain that the current statistics aren't representative of Greece as a whole.

Additionally, this study, as I am sure has already been posted in these types of threads before, makes it clear that E-V13 in modern Greece is not a good explanation of the E-V13 in Italy: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124 ... In fact, according to that, E-V13 in Corinth (and I assume the Peloponnese as a whole) shares a very strong signal with E-V13 in Albania, not Southern Italy.

So, in my opinion, what should be looked at is Ancient DNA for evidence, not modern DNA. It wasn't too long ago that people believed I2-Din was a native Balkan marker simply because of the modern distribution.

Riverman
08-07-2021, 09:13 PM
My claim is that the % of E-V13 is overestimated, not that it does not exist at all. It clearly does, any Greek who has tested on 23andMe will see how many of their relatives have E-V13. However, from what I've seen, it is very likely the variation in distribution % fluctuates widely depending on geographical area, which is not made immediately obvious from the current studies. Yes, I maintain that the current statistics aren't representative of Greece as a whole.

Additionally, this study, as I am sure has already been posted in these types of threads before, makes it clear that E-V13 in modern Greece is not a good explanation of the E-V13 in Italy: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124 ... In fact, according to that, E-V13 in Corinth (and I assume the Peloponnese as a whole) shares a very strong signal with E-V13 in Albania, not Southern Italy.

So, in my opinion, what should be looked at is Ancient DNA for evidence, not modern DNA. It wasn't too long ago that people believed I2-Din was a native Balkan marker simply because of the modern distribution.

Agreed with the ancient DNA, it always has the last word. But if you talk about Albanians, they are now among the better tested people of the world yDNA wise. I would wish Central Europeans would have tested half as much, especially some regions.
From the results we get the clear picture that the vast majority of Albanian E-V13 is, while participating in almost all major branches, largely restricted to specific, fairly young subclades.
Going by that, even from the currently available data, Greek V13 is surely not just coming from Albanians at all and might even represent some older variation too.
Also, since the Channelled Ware people, no other people other than Daco-Thracians ever reached such a high V13 frequency again. This means these people needed just to have an impact of about 10-20 percent on Greeks, to change the frequencies, but later people which brought V13, even if you take the lowest estimates, need to have had a way bigger replacement rate to get to the same numbers.
For many regions, we would be talking about 50 percent and more, especially if considering the additional Slavic contribution.
This would mean whole major regions, down to the Peleponnes, would have very little "old Greek".

Its possible, some even said so, but I'm still looking for alternative scenarios, and the best is native Greeks had since about 1.000 BC their own clades, brought in by Channelled Ware and Thracians for the most part.

Aspar
08-07-2021, 11:38 PM
My claim is that the % of E-V13 is overestimated, not that it does not exist at all. It clearly does, any Greek who has tested on 23andMe will see how many of their relatives have E-V13. However, from what I've seen, it is very likely the variation in distribution % fluctuates widely depending on geographical area, which is not made immediately obvious from the current studies. Yes, I maintain that the current statistics aren't representative of Greece as a whole.

Additionally, this study, as I am sure has already been posted in these types of threads before, makes it clear that E-V13 in modern Greece is not a good explanation of the E-V13 in Italy: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124 ... In fact, according to that, E-V13 in Corinth (and I assume the Peloponnese as a whole) shares a very strong signal with E-V13 in Albania, not Southern Italy.

So, in my opinion, what should be looked at is Ancient DNA for evidence, not modern DNA. It wasn't too long ago that people believed I2-Din was a native Balkan marker simply because of the modern distribution.

Sure, neither and I claim that E-V13 was an ancient Greek marker. In fact, I was among the first to reject that idea and to oppose those who claimed Dorians will be rich in E-V13 although still the aDNA will have the last word in this regard. I am just perplexed and can't get around the fact you are claiming that E-V13 is blown out of proportions in the DNA picture of the modern Greeks. First because all of the available official DNA studies of Greeks have shown large percentage of E-V13 among the modern Greeks with the lowest percentages found among the Greeks of Crete and Cyprus(6.5-8%) and largest in Central and Southern Greece of up to 30%:

Population Population code Meta-population n E1b1b-M78
Greek Cypriots Cypriots 344 12,8%
Greeks Crete Greeks 369 6,5%
Greeks Peloponnese Greeks 179 30,2%
Greeks Central Greece and Attica Greeks 199 18,6%
Greeks Thessaly Greeks 72 34,7%
Greeks Macedonia Gr_Mac Greeks 142 19,9%
Greeks Thrace Gr_Thra Greeks 41 17,1%

These numbers are from different studies lumped together. The supplementary can be found in this study (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179474).

So if you think there is something wrong with the numbers you can try and contact the authors.

Then again a Greek fellow of yours had made statistics (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20243-Y-DNA-of-the-Peloponnese/page22) for some regions in Peloponnese. I don't know if he still updates it but here are the numbers:

Sparta_N=44

EV13: 30%
I2a_M223: 16%
J2a: 14%
I2a Dinaric: 11%
R1b: 9%
J2b_L283: 5%
G: 2%
I1: 2%
J1: 2%
Other E clades: 2%

Laconia (N=62)

E-V13: 24%
J2a: 19%
R1b: 13%
I2a-M423: 13%
I2a-M223: 11%
R1a: 3%
J2b: 3%
I1: 3%
G2: 3%
Other E clades: 2%
H: 2%
J1: 2%
L: 2%

Arcadia (N=46)

E-V13: 19%
J2a: 11%
R1b: 17%
I2a-M423: 17%
I2a-M223: 0%
R1a: 2%
J2b: 11%
I1: 9%
G2: 2%
Other E clades: 2%
H: 2%
J1: 4%
L: 0%

So, yet again, those are big numbers. Then again, how much of the Greek population is of Mainland origin and how much of Cretan? If the majority is Cretan then those E-V13 numbers in the total Greek genepool are not that big but if the majority is of Mainland origin then we are talking about huge numbers.

You say E-V13 is overestimated but you back that up with some self made statistics that have FTDNA as source of which you don't have neither names nor ethnic origins but just the country as a navigation. Not really a great research if you ask me and that's why I can't take it serious.
Regions that had strong ancient Greek presence in the past but were devoted of large Balkanic and Slavic influence such as Sicily and Cyprus have around 8% of E-V13. Albanians, Vlachs or Slavs surely couldn't be the main factors behind the E-V13 there.

Your words are that E-V13 in Peloponnese have strong Albanian signal so indirectly you make them of Albanian origin. You understand this have big implications about the ethnogenesis of the Greeks do you?

Riverman
08-08-2021, 12:11 AM
Regions that had strong ancient Greek presence in the past but were devoted of large Balkanic and Slavic influence such as Sicily and Cyprus have around 8% of E-V13. Albanians, Vlachs or Slavs surely couldn't be the main factors behind the E-V13 there.


That's a very important element for my argumentation, because even if we take the lower estimates, which replacement rate from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere do we need to get there? There is no modern population with an E-V13 percentage of more than 50 percent and I highly doubt that any such existed by Medieval times. This would mean not just E-V13 has to come from this source group, for the increase of V13, but many other haplogroups as well, all in all, doubled, tripled, even quadruple numbers of the V13 frequency, depending on the exact source.
On the other hand, if we assume that ancient Greeks after about 1.000 BC had already a frequency of at least 10 percent, probably more and very different for exact region and group, introduced by Channelled Ware and Thracians, disseminated by Northern Greeks and Dorians in particular, things would look quite different. This would still mean that in many modern Greek subpopulations V13 is largely from non-Greeks from later times, but it would explain its widespread presence and would make the other paternal and autosomal contributions from Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs more feasible.

Are Cypriots really supposed to have 20-40 percent recent, non-Greek Balkan ancestry? Or Peleponnesians almost 90 percent? In Thessaly nothing old Greek at all? Even the lower estimates for E-V13 would result in near total replacement, even more so together with other recent Northern migrant haplogroups.

I mean its possible, we don't know for sure yet, but I don't think the replacement rates were that high. More data from ancient DNA, but also about the diversity and subclades of V13 in Greeks will help to solve this. So far I think a layer model is more realistic, than attributing everything to post-Antiquity migrations.

xripkan
08-08-2021, 02:15 AM
In my opinion it is absolutely clear that E-V13 existed in Greece before Vlach and Arvanite migrations. We often forget the fact that not only Thrace but a significant part of modern Greek Macedonia was inhabited by Thracians and other Balkan peoples. Some of them were assimilated before the Hellenistic era.

We also forget that Phrygians a people that settled western Anatolia had Balkan origin and was probably mostly E-V13. So E-V13 must have existed in Anatolia since LBA/EIA.

So there are two possible scenarios about E-V13 in modern Greece
a) It is from ancient Balkanic peoples (Thracians,Peonians) and Phrygians and medieval Balkan migrations (Arvanites and Vlachs).
b) Same with scenario a+ Dorians who had Bronze Age E-V13 influences because they were a northern Greek tribe. Maybe E-V13 came to southern Greece with Dorians due to some kind of founder effect.

dosas
08-08-2021, 08:15 AM
Your words are that E-V13 in Peloponnese have strong Albanian signal so indirectly you make them of Albanian origin. You understand this have big implications about the ethnogenesis of the Greeks do you?


What implications.

Riverman
08-08-2021, 10:59 AM
In my opinion it is absolutely clear that E-V13 existed in Greece before Vlach and Arvanite migrations. We often forget the fact that not only Thrace but a significant part of modern Greek Macedonia was inhabited by Thracians and other Balkan peoples. Some of them were assimilated before the Hellenistic era.

We also forget that Phrygians a people that settled western Anatolia had Balkan origin and was probably mostly E-V13. So E-V13 must have existed in Anatolia since LBA/EIA.

So there are two possible scenarios about E-V13 in modern Greece
a) It is from ancient Balkanic peoples (Thracians,Peonians) and Phrygians and medieval Balkan migrations (Arvanites and Vlachs).
b) Same with scenario a+ Dorians who had Bronze Age E-V13 influences because they were a northern Greek tribe. Maybe E-V13 came to southern Greece with Dorians due to some kind of founder effect.

On second thought, its even possible they spread without a specific Greek tribe, just like I said before, by moving in as small clans and tribes, which settled down on their own and just became assimilated later. We have the archaeological findings for concentrated, Northern influenced cremation burials in Greece in and shortly after the transitional period. Here is what to look for:


The tumuli with inurned cremations in the
Argolid seem to be connected to the Western Balkans. There
was no direct or continuous development that led directly
from the occasional LH IIIC cremation burials to crema-
tion as the almost exclusively practiced type of burial in
Attica and Euboea during the Early Iron Age.


Cremation was a very rare burial practice throughout
the entire Aegean Bronze Age. Generally, this also applies
to the 12th century BC, the time after the destruction of the
Mycenaean palaces that was accompanied by the complete
dissolution of the palatial political and economic system.
This period is referred to as LH (Late Helladic) IIIC on the
Greek mainland and LM (Late Minoan) IIIC on the island
of Crete.
However, some considerable changes occurred in the
12th century BC with regards to cremation burials. There
were far more cemeteries with a few cremation burials in
this period than in the preceding palatial era of the Myce-
naean culture (LH IIIA–LH IIIB: ca. 1400–1200 BC)

It is far from certain that cremation was practiced at
all during the palatial period in the area of the Mycenaean culture.


A more distinctive change in the Greek burial customs
happened at the very beginning of the Early Iron Age in the
late 11th century BC. In some regions, notably in Attica and
Euboea, cremation became the dominant, nearly exclusively
practiced burial custom.


Cemeteries with a predominance of cremation burials
belong to the second group. Only three such cemeteries
are known: at Argos5 and Mycenae-Chania6 on the Greek
mainland and at Atsipades7 on Crete. The cremation burial
cemeteries at Argos and Mycenae-Chania were established
in other places to the usual chamber tomb cemeteries of the
same settlements. Moreover, they differ from the customary
Mycenaean cemeteries because the cremations were depos-
ited in tumuli and not in chamber tombs. Thus, the com-
munities who cremated their deceased members and buried
them in tumuli clearly set themselves apart from the major-
ity of the population.


As mentioned above the communities that used tumuli
for the deposition of inurned cremations at Argos and at
Mycenae-Chania clearly detached themselves from the ma-
jority of the population. They achieved this by predomi-
nantly practicing cremation, using tumuli and not chamber
tombs and by establishing separate burial plots. Thus, they
were apparently not fully integrated members of the My-
cenaean society.


The Northwest Peloponnese and East Crete are the re-
gions with the highest concentration of cemeteries with cremation burials and Naue II swords in the Aegean region.1


The type can be associ-
ated with the Urnfield koine of weapons and implements.
Parallels exist in Italy, east central Europe and the Northern
Balkans.

And this is the direct evidence, the very direct connections to the Belegis II-Gava/Channelled Ware groups from the Northern Balkan:


For all these reasons, it can be
deduced that the burial communities, who used the tumuli
at Mycenae-Chania and Argos were groups of foreigners or
were of foreign descent. It is almost impossible for a popu-
lation group of foreign origin to leave more obvious marks
in the archaeological record. A first indication of the region
of their origin is provided by some grave goods from the
tumulus at Argos: a twisted arched fibula,25 two large arched
fibulae with two discs,26 a bronze ring with spiral terminals27
and some handmade pottery.28 All of these objects have no
Aegean pedigree and can be connected to the Adriatic re-
gion. The large cast arched fibulae with two discs are of par-
ticular interest because they have good parallels on Sicily29
as well as on the Croatian coast.30 Therefore, these fibulae
clearly demonstrate the close interaction between both sides
of the Adriatic and the Aegean during the 12th century B.C.

Klaus Kilian suggested that the tumulus at Mycenae-
Chania was erected by Dorians from the mountainous
regions of Northwestern Greece.3

Influenced by:


When searching for a possible place
of origin, an area where cremations in tumuli were a com-
mon burial custom has to be looked for. In fact, it is possible
to locate this region: it is the Western Balkans, the territory
of former Yugoslavia. The cemeteries of the Paraćin and
Donja Brnjica cultural groups compare especially well with
the tumuli in the Argolid. These two cultural groups flour-
ished in Southern Serbia and Kosovo mainly during the 13th
century BC (Br D, LH IIIB).35 The usual form of interment
was cremation burial, often in tumuli. The cremated remains
of the deceased were placed in urns, which were closed with
bowls. This practice can be paralleled to the inurned crema-
tions in the Argive tumuli.36 The Argive custom of placing
the small open vessel upside down on the urn finds its cor-
respondence in a grave in the cemetery of Paraćin.37 This
grave is dated to phase Paraćin II by Rastko Vasić that can
be equated to Br D2–Ha A1 and LH IIIB Late–LH IIIC
respectively.38 It is therefore roughly contemporary with the
tumuli at Argos and Mycenae-Chania


Vasić dates the grave because of the similarity of the urn with pot-
tery of the Belegiš II cultural group. Belegiš II is equated by Della
Casa to Bz D2–Ha A1.

The author argues for a local development, but that's not realistic, just look at the description of the phenomenon:

A marked change in the preference for cremations oc-
curred during the Submycenaean/Protogeometric tran-
sitional phase. 16 out of 28 burials in the Kerameikos are
cremations in this phase (see tab. 3).71 This corresponds to
a ratio of 57.1 % and a growth rate of more than 50 % com-
pared to the Submycenaean period. This striking change can
hardly be interpreted as a gradual development from one
phase to the next. This is even more evident when consid-
ering the fact that there was no increase in the number of
cremations during the course of the Submycenaean period.
The sharp increase in the number of cremations during the
transitional phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric
was apparently a sudden occurrence and therefore can-
not be explained with a culmination of a development that
started in the LH IIIC period. The reasons for the sudden
shift to cremation as the preferred burial custom in the Sub-
mycenaean/Protogeometric transitional phase are not ob-
vious. External stimuli are not recognizable and therefore
intra-societal developments may be assumed. It seems that
the Athenian society of the time was ready for a change and
innovations in various fields. It is also the time of the intro-
duction of iron weapons and thus corresponds to the begin-
ning of the Iron Age.7

http://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debf4.pdf

If that's not enough for at least considering Dorians being influenced by the Channelled Ware groups and testing it with going for modern and ancient E-V13 clade comparisons, I can't help.

Aspar
08-08-2021, 11:43 AM
That's a very important element for my argumentation, because even if we take the lower estimates, which replacement rate from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere do we need to get there? There is no modern population with an E-V13 percentage of more than 50 percent and I highly doubt that any such existed by Medieval times. This would mean not just E-V13 has to come from this source group, for the increase of V13, but many other haplogroups as well, all in all, doubled, tripled, even quadruple numbers of the V13 frequency, depending on the exact source.
On the other hand, if we assume that ancient Greeks after about 1.000 BC had already a frequency of at least 10 percent, probably more and very different for exact region and group, introduced by Channelled Ware and Thracians, disseminated by Northern Greeks and Dorians in particular, things would look quite different. This would still mean that in many modern Greek subpopulations V13 is largely from non-Greeks from later times, but it would explain its widespread presence and would make the other paternal and autosomal contributions from Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs more feasible.

Are Cypriots really supposed to have 20-40 percent recent, non-Greek Balkan ancestry? Or Peleponnesians almost 90 percent? In Thessaly nothing old Greek at all? Even the lower estimates for E-V13 would result in near total replacement, even more so together with other recent Northern migrant haplogroups.

I mean its possible, we don't know for sure yet, but I don't think the replacement rates were that high. More data from ancient DNA, but also about the diversity and subclades of V13 in Greeks will help to solve this. So far I think a layer model is more realistic, than attributing everything to post-Antiquity migrations.

We will see, aDNA will tell. However I am not a big fan of the layer model because different layers had different impacts and those layers that had bigger impacts were certainly not proto-Greek and I believe they were added in the Greek ethnos after Alexander the Great.

I agree with xripkan here, many are not aware that what is today North Greece was home of numerous Brygian, Thracian and Paeonian tribes. Even what later came to be known as Macedonians weren't just pure Doric tribe most probably but mixed with the other non-Greek tribes in the region. This all changed with Alexander the Great conquest of much of Thrace and Paeonia. Forced Hellenization policies might have been applied in order to subdue the fierce tribes that presented a threat to the Macedonian kingdom. Later events as described by Strabon give us a clue that Macedonia that was Hellas was now in the majority inhabited by Thracian tribes so there might have been migrations involving Thracian tribes to Macedonia. If that isn't enough, during the Roman Empire, the Greek language spread the most and according to the Czech linguist Jirecek, much of today Albania, North Macedonia and Bulgaria was Greek speaking. Once the Empire's borders collapsed, much of these Hellenized population found save heavens further south as is described in the Miracles of St.Demetrius.

So all these processes could have been crucial in adding E-V13 in Greece, not just the later Albanians and Vlachs. But I remain on that, E-V13 wasn't significant among the Greeks before Alexander the Great. Much of it actually became significant during the Roman Empire and probably this is the period we are looking when most of E-V13 arrived in Sicily and Cyprus.

What we are witnessing is the sheer influence the Thracians had in the Roman Empire. They have given several Emperors, many soldiers and legionnaires, administrators etc. And this is something which is totally neglected by the modern historiography.

In the Balkans the Vlachs are the true inheritors of the Romans. They call themselves Aromanians or Romanians which simply means a Roman and they happen to speak a Latin derived language. This means that the Balkan tribes were totally incorporated to the Roman Empire as citizens to the point they became totally assimilated. The Greeks also happened to call themselves Romans, Romaioi and their language Romaiika. In this complex environment, Balkan and Greek tribes mixed with each other, having no barriers between them as both were Romans and Christians, the two most important things in order to be a Roman. What was the Greek speaking part of the Balkans became the modern Greeks and the Latin speaking part became the modern Aromanians and Romanians.


What implications.

That big part of the modern Greek nation is of Albanian origin :crazy:

I personally don't believe that and I've given my explanation above of how most of E-V13 was incorporated among the Greeks.

Riverman
08-08-2021, 11:54 AM
We will see, aDNA will tell. However I am not a big fan of the layer model because different layers had different impacts and those layers that had bigger impacts were certainly not proto-Greek and I believe they were added in the Greek ethnos after Alexander the Great.


We'll see. Like in the quotations from above, for some Greek regions the cremation rite was introduced by South Eastern Urnfielders, coming from the West Balkans with the Belegis II-Gava derived corridor, which did reach the Aegean, as proven by the cremation rite as well as other artefacts and archaeological contexts. Of course that's speculative on my part, because we need to first prove that Belegis II-Gava was E-V13 heavy and then we have to prove their direct genetic impact via the transmissions through Paraćin and Brnjica, but that's my current working hypothesis, until more data comes in.

What's your position on the West Balkan Channelled/Fluted Ware groups (Belegis II-Gava, Paraćin and Brnjica)? To me its nearly impossible that these were no E-V13 spreaders, because this would create impossible models. And its proven these cultural formations did influence some Greek regions early on in the transitional phase, whether that had a significant genetic impact or not.

I don't question the impact of the processes you described, but I think there was an earlier layer nevertheless.

Aspar
08-08-2021, 12:23 PM
We'll see. Like in the quotations from above, for some Greek regions the cremation rite was introduced by South Eastern Urnfielders, coming from the West Balkans with the Belegis II-Gava derived corridor, which did reach the Aegean, as proven by the cremation rite as well as other artefacts and archaeological contexts. Of course that's speculative on my part, because we need to first prove that Belegis II-Gava was E-V13 heavy and then we have to prove their direct genetic impact via the transmissions through Paraćin and Brnjica, but that's my current working hypothesis, until more data comes in.

What's your position on the West Balkan Channelled/Fluted Ware groups (Belegis II-Gava, Paraćin and Brnjica)? To me its nearly impossible that these were no E-V13 spreaders, because this would create impossible models. And its proven these cultural formations did influence some Greek regions early on in the transitional phase, whether that had a significant genetic impact or not.

I don't question the impact of the processes you described, but I think there was an earlier layer nevertheless.

Most probably the earliest layer came as early as you described but how much of the modern Greek E-V13 is a product of that layer? I believe not much.

As for West Balkan Channelled/Fluted Ware groups (Belegis II-Gava, Paraćin and Brnjica), these very probably spread E-V13 in big part. Their intrusion in Greece is very similar to that of the Slavs. In fact, the period of LBA/IA collapse is very similar to the Late antiquity and Early Medieval upheaval and migrations.
In that sense, the deeper they penetrated, the least of their original genes and influence remained. They were mostly absorbed and assimilated to the point their original markers and signal were lost. The Slavs also penetrated all the way to Peloponnese but there is nothing that remains from them there in present.
The most influence these groups had closer to their original starting point and I would expect more of their influence to be visible in Macedonia and further north. But even in Macedonia, immediately after the LBA/IA collapse, the old customs prevailed and the inhumation totally replaced the incineration. The old pottery styles also replaced the new ones brought from further north which speaks enough that the old element prevailed.
Even some old Mycenaean funeral practices such as the burial masks happened to survive in Macedonia unlike in Greece: https://berberian11.tripod.com/vulich_trebenishte.htm

Riverman
08-08-2021, 12:37 PM
Most probably the earliest layer came as early as you described but how much of the modern Greek E-V13 is a product of that layer? I believe not much.

That's a good question which directly relates to the later replacement rates in the North and Peleponnes, more so than to the LBA impact probably.
But for evaluating that properly, we need way more modern and ancient high resolution data.

Otherwise we are in complete agreement it seems.

By the way, some V13 clades look to me like having Hallstatt time branching events from around 900-500 BC. I think the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and earlier Hallstatt could prove to be very important for the spread of V13, with an astonishingly wide geographial range for the splits.

vasil
08-08-2021, 01:00 PM
Essentialy if we think about it I-S20602 and E-V13 have essentialy the exact same history they were both minor lineages in the western part of Central Europe before moving to the eastern part in the region of the Carpathians and then spread from there in all directions very rapidly.

Bane
08-08-2021, 01:19 PM
Essentialy if we think about it I-S20602 and E-V13 have essentialy the exact same history they were both minor lineages in the western part of Central Europe before moving to the eastern part in the region of the Carpathians and then spread from there in all directions very rapidly.


I'd agree this view is close to being accurate, however, I'm not sure E-V13 arrived to the Carpathians region from Central Europe. If I would have to assume, I'd say the minor lineage from which E-V13 expanded later had probably dwelled in or close to Transylvania in the Early Bronze Age.
I didn't have enough time to follow the recent discussion here. Do others have similar view with vasil on how E-V13 moved in the Bronze age?

Bruzmi
08-08-2021, 01:44 PM
In my opinion it is absolutely clear that E-V13 existed in Greece before Vlach and Arvanite migrations. We often forget the fact that not only Thrace but a significant part of modern Greek Macedonia was inhabited by Thracians and other Balkan peoples. Some of them were assimilated before the Hellenistic era.

We also forget that Phrygians a people that settled western Anatolia had Balkan origin and was probably mostly E-V13. So E-V13 must have existed in Anatolia since LBA/EIA.

So there are two possible scenarios about E-V13 in modern Greece
a) It is from ancient Balkanic peoples (Thracians,Peonians) and Phrygians and medieval Balkan migrations (Arvanites and Vlachs).
b) Same with scenario a+ Dorians who had Bronze Age E-V13 influences because they were a northern Greek tribe. Maybe E-V13 came to southern Greece with Dorians due to some kind of founder effect.

And yet E-V13 in Anatolia is very low and E-V13 is not as high as "internet theories" make it to be in Greece. When high resolution sampling is generated in Greece, we'll see how it's linked to other E-V13 and under which circumstances it arrived in Greece.

All these theories about Thracians-Paeonians-Phrygians-Dorians lack basic argumentation and actual studies. No matter how many times the same theory is repeated as if it is what actually happened, it won't change the lack of hard facts. I don't mean to be dismissive (we're just having a discussion after all) but anyone who supports such theories should be more cautious.

A very revealing example of the mistakes this might lead to: on this very thread, a few weeks ago Riverman hypothesized about an E-S2979 (https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-S2979/) that:


At some point we might be able to identify and telling apart for example Sea People and Phrygian, Cimmerian-Iranian and Greek-Roman lineages in regions like Anatolia. I guess at least some remains of these settlements will be still alive today in the region.

At no point did anyone even suggest the least complicated & historically likely answer: that this is a Balkan migrant. Indeed, this person is a Torbesh from Macedonia. (See #192 on "The genetic structure of the Turkish population (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pHvOMVZPtNDuwVabSXD7OxdFMTYQGvfjq7Z-L6IiII0/edit#gid=450884960)")

I asked two questions which haven't been answered:
If E-V13 was spread by Dorians in the ancient Greek world:
- Where is the non-Greek impact on Doric Greek (morphologically, lexically, phonetically)?
- Where is the unusually high E-V13 % in the Doric Hexapolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_Hexapolis) including the islands of Rhodes and Kos?

Another question:
- Where is the unusually high E-V13 % in Bithynia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia) (massively settled and named after the Thracian Bithyni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithyni)) ?

dosas
08-08-2021, 01:56 PM
That big part of the modern Greek nation is of Albanian origin :crazy:

I personally don't believe that and I've given my explanation above of how most of E-V13 was incorporated among the Greeks.


What kinds of numbers we're talking here. We know of the Albanophones' presence in the historical context.

Also, your %s source from the Cypriot study mentions E-M78 not E-V13 specifically, what am I missing here?

xripkan
08-08-2021, 02:15 PM
snip

I don't think foreign, non-Greek tribes settled Greece during LBA/EIA period. We should have some linguistic evidence, or at least the introduction of foreign, non-Greek names of people and places.

I can't think a historical example of a group that dominated over a population and did not left any linguistic evidence. Even for Proto-Bulgarians, that Aspar mentioned, we know they had leaders with non-Slavic names (Asparukh for example).

Furthermore a linguistic assimilation does not happen instantaneously. It takes generations to be completed. I don't think that ancient Greek historians wouldn't have mentioned this event or some relevant consequeces at least.

In my opinion it is more possible that a northern Greek tribe with cultural and genetic Balkan influences settled southern Greece.

peloponnesian
08-08-2021, 02:42 PM
It depends on the context, because I noticed the generalisation as well, but its refreshing because the Western archaeology with its "pots no people" stance for immobilism did even dismiss some of the most obvious signs for migration. Like in the case of Bell Beakers, which was degraded to a "social phenomenon". In this case in particular its a whole bundle coming in, which can never be explained by local development without migration.

Isn't the Beaker phenomenon a good example of cultural transmission though? Initial Beaker folk in Iberia looked nothing like the later Beaker folk.

xripkan
08-08-2021, 02:45 PM
I asked two questions which haven't been answered:
If E-V13 was spread by Dorians in the ancient Greek world:
- Where is the non-Greek impact on Doric Greek (morphologically, lexically, phonetically)?
- Where is the unusually high E-V13 % in the Doric Hexapolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_Hexapolis) including the islands of Rhodes and Kos?

Another question:
- Where is the unusually high E-V13 % in Bithynia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia) (massively settled and named after the Thracian Bithyni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithyni)) ?

Questions 1 and 2 make me wonder as well.

However the low E-V13 in modern Anatolians makes sense in my opinion. When it was settled by Thracians, it was already a densely populated region and the demographic changes over the centuries were great.

Riverman
08-08-2021, 06:26 PM
Isn't the Beaker phenomenon a good example of cultural transmission though? Initial Beaker folk in Iberia looked nothing like the later Beaker folk.

Which Beakers were the first is disputed and the typical Bell Beaker culture and package is different, its defined by a whole set of characteristics visible in the archaeological record. The Beaker is just a pot, right, just like one single Gava Fluted Ware ceramic is just a pot, right too. But in both cases, we're talking about complete packages from burial rite, to ceramic, to weaponry and technology. That's more likely to be a demic diffusion than a single element on its own, which appears sporadically.

There is no general rule, but more often than not, if complete packages being transmitted, and this happened in Greece in the transitional phase also, we deal with foreign elements entering an area. Local people might adopt it, so its kinda both, demic and cultural diffusion, but not without groups of incoming people in this phase of prehistory. It is very clear if looking at Greece as a whole in this period, that we deal with incoming people. The question is how much of this was indirect transmission, like Northern Greeks and Dorians first, getting only a small dose of gene flow, then spreading it to the rest of the Aegean. Because even though Channelled Ware people did reach and influence Greece, its also clear this was a fringe area for their influence. How big their genetic impact was is impossible to say, even if the cultural influence and the appearance of settlements related to them is very obvious.
Like Aspar said, I too don't expect the V13 frequencies being as high as Belegis II-Gava, Paraćin and Brnjica. Actually the frequency might have already decreased along this corridor from Belegis II-Gava downwards. So V13 is supposed to have reached Greece with this, but the numbers are completely unknown.

Argos in particular shows strong influence from the cremating incomers according to the article I quoted. But which people can we compare to check this? We need ancient DNA from early ancient people from Argos and surrounds to know. Who wants to know for sure without having data from there?

Riverman
08-08-2021, 06:36 PM
I don't think foreign, non-Greek tribes settled Greece during LBA/EIA period. We should have some linguistic evidence, or at least the introduction of foreign, non-Greek names of people and places.

I can't think a historical example of a group that dominated over a population and did not left any linguistic evidence.

They didn't dominate in Greece, at best they dominated some places, which were however soon assimilated, or even came in already part-Greek with Northern Greeks/Dorians.

rafc
08-09-2021, 09:33 AM
And yet E-V13 in Anatolia is very low and E-V13 is not as high as "internet theories" make it to be in Greece. When high resolution sampling is generated in Greece, we'll see how it's linked to other E-V13 and under which circumstances it arrived in Greece.

These are numbers I have compiled for a paper.

Cruciani 2007 found for continental Greeks 17,7% (147 testees), Greeks from Crete 5,6% (215),Greeks from Aegean islands 15,5% (71) (Cruciani et al., Tracing past human male movements in northern/eastern Africa and western Eurasia: new clues from Y-chromosomal haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12, 2007). Battaglia 2009 had: Greeks from Athens 16,3% (92),Greeks from the Macedonia region in Greece 19,3% (57) (Battaglia et al., Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe, 2009). King 2011 tested people who had roots in two Western Asian cities: Smyrna (58) and Phokaia (31) and found V13 levels of respectively 12% and 19%. This seems to indicate a V13 level comparable to the Aegean islands and the Greek mainland. They also tested people from three mainland regions: Nea-Nikomodeia (thisvillage was actually populated by refugees from NW-Anatolia, but the authors state they only sampled people with ancestors from the region itself), Sesklo/Dimini, and Frantchi/Lerno. All three sites had 57 samples and yielded respectively 14%, 35% and 35% of V13. (King et al., The coming of the Greeks to Provence and Corsica: Y-chromosome models of archaic Greekcolonization of the western Mediterranean, 2011) Anagnostou 2011 tested populations from Euboa (96 samples) and Korinthia (110) and found respectively 17,7% and 22,7% of V13 (P. Anagnostou, The genetic signature of Neolithic in Greece, [Dissertation thesis], 2011). Tofanelli tested different regions from Greece. He found 25% of V13 in Corinthia (104 testees) and 17.2% on Euboea (93) (Tofanelli et al, The Greeks in the West: genetic signatures of the Hellenic colonisation in southern Italy and Sicily, 2015).

All of these are scientific studies and they find broadly comparable levels of V13 in Greece, I see no reason to doubt them.
I doublechecked the FTDNA counting that was posted here. On the haplotree there are 111 Greek samples in E-M35, 55 of those are V13, 23 are something else (4 V22, 3 V12, 16 Z827) while ten are undetermined at M78 level and 22 at M35 level. Unless V13's are genetically more inclined to do SNP testing there is no reason to assume those 33 who are not deeper tested would have less V13. Obviously the numbers in the table posted here are wrong.


I asked two questions which haven't been answered:
If E-V13 was spread by Dorians in the ancient Greek world:
- Where is the non-Greek impact on Doric Greek (morphologically, lexically, phonetically)?
- Where is the unusually high E-V13 % in the Doric Hexapolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_Hexapolis) including the islands of Rhodes and Kos?
Bithyni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithyni)) ?

I'm not a linguist, but to me it seems to me that Non-Greek should have an impact on Doric Greek. After all there was likely some local population living there when Greek speakers arrived. If Doric speakers indeed lived on the NW-edge of the Greek speaking world you would also expect some influence from bordering populations speaking non-Greek, more than on Greek speakers living more to the south. Just as I would expect some genetic influence from these bordering populations. People speaking the same language for centuries without influence from neighbors just doesn't seem realistic to me.
So the question for me is, if there was indeed this linguistic impact, could it be easily identified today? If not, there is no point in putting the bar there.

I'm also not sure it makes sense to draw a straight line from V13 in Doric speakers to unusually high V13 in Kos and Rhodes today. A small amount of V13 in Doric speakers would first be diluted when they mixed with the existing population already living in the south. When this population moved to Kos and Rhodes they mix with the locals already living there, and then you get nearly 3000 years of migrations, resettlements etc.
I would expect V13 on Kos and Rhodes (just like other haplogroups) to come from a combination of later events rather than from an original colonisation by Dorians.


Another question:
- Where is the unusually high E-V13 % in Bithynia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia) (massively settled and named after the Thracian Bithyni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithyni)) ?

Again, you draw a simple line over 3000 years, but Thracians were not 100% V13 (in fact probably far off), would have mixed in Bythnia with local populations, and the region has undergone numerous other events in those 3000 years, some of which would have brought V13, some of which would have diluted it.

Riverman
08-09-2021, 10:48 AM
These are numbers I have compiled for a paper.

I think this is particularly interesting, because its a rather protected position, probably not as much affected by later migrations and has a specific history:


Smyrna (58) and Phokaia (31) and found V13 levels of respectively 12% and 19%.


The ancient Greek geographer Pausanias says that Phocaea was founded by Phocians under Athenian leadership, ...

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


Geopolitically, Phocis was the country of the Phocians, who spoke their own version of Doric Greek, one of the three main dialects of ancient Greek. They were one of several small mountain states of Central Greece, whose dialects are classified as Northwest Doric.

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

Would be just great to know which subclades the V13 carriers from Phokaia got and how those relate to Southern Italians, Albanians, Bulgarians and other European V13 carriers.

Bruzmi
08-09-2021, 02:15 PM
They didn't dominate in Greece, at best they dominated some places, which were however soon assimilated, or even came in already part-Greek with Northern Greeks/Dorians.

Which are the "part-Greek" elements in Doric dialects? Can you point to any non-Greek morphology/phonology/vocabulary in Doric?


Like Aspar said, I too don't expect the V13 frequencies being as high as Belegis II-Gava, Paraćin and Brnjica.
What would count as "high E-V13 frequency" in Belegis II Gava and Paracin? I'm asking because we have 0 samples from any of those material cultures. Also, Belegis II and Gava-Holihrady are two different material cultures which didn't impact Bulgaria in the same way:

https://i.ibb.co/s2FnVTY/belegis-gava.jpg


Moreover, why would any material culture in the post-LBA consist of "one-haplogroup" populations? Everything we know points to complex societies of multiple different patrilineages.

Riverman
08-09-2021, 02:38 PM
Which are the "part-Greek" elements in Doric dialects? Can you point to any non-Greek morphology/phonology/vocabulary in Doric?


What would count as "high E-V13 frequency" in Belegis II Gava and Paracin? I'm asking because we have 0 samples from any of those material cultures. Also, Belegis II and Gava-Holihrady are two different material cultures which didn't impact Bulgaria in the same way:

https://i.ibb.co/s2FnVTY/belegis-gava.jpg


Belegis II-Gava is without a doubt a development of its own, but all these groups are part of the same Gava-related Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon. Belegis II-Gava was more influenced by local West Balkan elements in my opinion, therefore being more of a hybrid culture and that's even more true for the derived groups.


Moreover, why would any material culture in the post-LBA consist of "one-haplogroup" populations? Everything we know points to complex societies of multiple different patrilineages

We have now numerous samples from the Balkans and Pannonia of pre-LBA, pre-Channelled Ware times and none of them produced even just a single E-V13, not even any E1b1b at all! Directly after the South Eastern Urnfield expansion, which can be largely equated with Channelled Ware, E-V13 pops up in Thracian Bulgaria in high rates and we have direct and indirect proof of its presence in Pannonia and Serbia in Iron Age and Roman times.
There was no South -> North expansion which is able to explain the current distribution and no later event which can explain it neither. Also, we have the clades and subclades of E-V13, which all split exactly at the transitional time, with the big branches starting to radiate out between 1.300-900 BC and a second in the Iron Age, 900-500 BC, associated with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt. The distribution is clearly not just concentrated on the Balkans, but rather radiates out from the Carpathians in all directions, the weakest to the North, but West, South and East alike. No earlier or later expansion of that magnitude is available to explain this pattern.
There is no viable alternative left at this point, going by the archaeological record, the ancient DNA retrieved so far and the modern distribution.

You are right that we can assume they were not 100 percent E-V13, but some Channelled Ware groups must have had a very high frequency. We're talking about more than 70 percent for sure, considering the survival of local lineages after the expansion.

And we have various other groups with a clear dominance of just one lineage, especially in specific tribes. And in this case, we really deal with a small tribe multiplying and branching off at an extremely high level in a very short time, associated with innovations in metallurgiy and ideological shifts (Urnfield religion, Naue swords, iron weapons).

Aspar
08-09-2021, 02:43 PM
Which are the "part-Greek" elements in Doric dialects? Can you point to any non-Greek morphology/phonology/vocabulary in Doric?


What would count as "high E-V13 frequency" in Belegis II Gava and Paracin? I'm asking because we have 0 samples from any of those material cultures. Also, Belegis II and Gava-Holihrady are two different material cultures which didn't impact Bulgaria in the same way:

https://i.ibb.co/s2FnVTY/belegis-gava.jpg


Moreover, why would any material culture in the post-LBA consist of "one-haplogroup" populations? Everything we know points to complex societies of multiple different patrilineages.

I think you are bringing northing new and positive in this discussion. Yes, we don't have samples from those cultures but that doesn't stop us to bring theories forward. Nor stop us to say that E-V13 wasn't significant at all in the West Balkans and the Illyrians judging by the aDNA results from both sides of the Adriatic. So, you might be on point that a marker wasn't restricted only to a single culture but some cultures had lot more of it than others and that will become clear with future results.

As for any phonetic, morphologic and other evidences that the Doric dialects were different than the other Greek dialects, pls see the wikipedia section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language) for the Ancient Macedonian language:

A number of examples suggest that voiced velar stops were devoiced, especially word-initially: κάναδοι kánadoi, 'jaws' (< PIE *genu-); κόμβους kómbous, 'molars' (< PIE *gombh-); within words: ἀρκόν arkón (Attic ἀργός argós); the Macedonian toponym Akesamenai, from the Pierian name Akesamenos (if Akesa- is cognate to Greek agassomai, agamai, "to astonish"; cf. the Thracian name Agassamenos).

In Aristophanes' The Birds, the form κεβλήπυρις keblēpyris ('red head', the name of a bird, perhaps the goldfinch or redpoll) is found,[30] showing a Macedonian-style voiced stop in place of a standard Greek unvoiced aspirate: κεβ(α)λή keb(a)lē versus κεφαλή kephalē ('head').

E. Crespo wrote that "the voicing of voiceless stops and the development of aspirates into voiced fricatives turns out to be the outcome of an internal development of Macedonian as a dialect of Greek" without excluding "the presence of interference from other languages or of any linguistic substrate or adstrate", as argued also by M. Hatzopoulos.[31]

A number of the Macedonian words, particularly in Hesychius of Alexandria' lexicon, are disputed (i.e., some do not consider them actual Macedonian words) and some may have been corrupted in the transmission. Thus abroutes, may be read as abrouwes (αβρουϝες), with tau (Τ) replacing a digamma.[32] If so, this word would perhaps be encompassable within a Greek dialect; however, others (e.g. A. Meillet) see the dental as authentic and think that this specific word would perhaps belong to an Indo-European language different from Greek.

I am not convinced that the ancient Macedonian language was different than the other Greek dialects because of interference of other non-Greek languages but just posted this here, merely to show that there was indeed phonological and other differences.

CopperAxe
08-09-2021, 02:51 PM
Isn't the Beaker phenomenon a good example of cultural transmission though? Initial Beaker folk in Iberia looked nothing like the later Beaker folk.

The Iberian origin theory for the Bell Beaker horizon is built on extremely flaky grounds and was considered quite controversial by many archaeologists in Europe because of the lacking evidence anywhere else in the Beaker horizon. Surprisingly strong support from the anglosphere but I don't even think it was a consensus amongst archaeologists there even.

I remember something about the so called early Iberian Beakers being discussed here - maybe something akin to the beaker shards present at the site not actually being present in the archaeological layers.

You only see true Bell Beaker sites, that is with the entire cultural package and not just vaguely similar pottery, only show up when steppe ancestry and P312 lineages show up. That cultural package is what the actual Bell Beaker Culture is, and it was introduced to Iberia, not vice versa.

Dutch archaeologist Harry Fokkens had suggested quite a while back that in the Low Countries you can see the gradual shift from Single Grave to Bell Beaker style pots, which is hard to interpret as a sudden introduction of the Beaker culture, a pattern we do see in most other Beaker regions. Seems like ancient DNA has vindicated his model of Bell beaker origins and debunked the Iberian one - really not sure why they didn't up on that over at Reich Lab.

CopperAxe
08-09-2021, 03:00 PM
Its sad to see how certain topics always seem to end up in some sort of excercise for nationalism or whatever. Oh well I'm mostly just here for the archaeology articles shared by Riverman.

Aspar
08-09-2021, 03:23 PM
What kinds of numbers we're talking here. We know of the Albanophones' presence in the historical context.

Also, your %s source from the Cypriot study mentions E-M78 not E-V13 specifically, what am I missing here?

You might want to check my previous posts where I referred to a supplementary table showing E-V13 results for Greeks from Cyprus. Those the are the two biggest studies for Cyprus Greeks up to date.
One was showing 9.9% E-V13 and the other 7.1% I believe, with a median value of some 8%.

Sorry but I want care to post them all over again...

Bruzmi
08-09-2021, 04:13 PM
Cruciani 2007 found for continental Greeks 17,7% (147 testees), Greeks from Crete 5,6% (215),Greeks from Aegean islands 15,5% (71) (Cruciani et al., Tracing past human male movements in northern/eastern Africa and western Eurasia: new clues from Y-chromosomal haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12, 2007). Battaglia 2009 had: Greeks from Athens 16,3% (92),Greeks from the Macedonia region in Greece 19,3% (57) (Battaglia et al., Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe, 2009).

17.69% E-V13 for continental Greeks (Slavic Macedonians are 17.17%) is compatible with what many are now saying: in general, among Greeks E-V13 is ~12-15% and it peaks (for different reasons) in some areas. We should check the other E-V13 results from the same study (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6456300_Tracing_Past_Human_Male_Movements_in_North ernEastern_Africa_and_Western_Eurasia_New_Clues_fr om_Y-Chromosomal_Haplogroups_E-M78_and_J-M12):

Albanians 32.29%
Continental Greeks 17.69%
Macedonians 17.17%
Bulgarians 16.18%
Greeks from Aegean Islands 15.49%
Turkish Cypriots 10.87%
Romanians 7.17%
Greeks from Crete 5.58 %
Central Anatolia Turks 4.92%
Istanbul Turkish 2.86%
Southwestern Turkish 2.5%

So yes, I definitely accept the results of this study because they are compatible with other studies (Jankova et al (2019): ~19% E-V13 for Macedonians). On the other hand, the figures often discussed in this thread are not compatible with any study.




King 2011 tested people who had roots in two Western Asian cities: Smyrna (58) and Phokaia (31) and found V13 levels of respectively 12% and 19%. This seems to indicate a V13 level comparable to the Aegean islands and the Greek mainland. Tofanelli tested different regions from Greece. He found 25% of V13 in Corinthia (104 testees) and 17.2% on Euboea (93) (Tofanelli et al, The Greeks in the West: genetic signatures of the Hellenic colonisation in southern Italy and Sicily, 2015).

If we take into account that these are self-reported results of ancestry, that the sample size is small and that Smyrna continuously faced migrations from the Greek mainland, they do make sense. Of course I'm not saying that all E-V13 in Smyrna came from the Greek mainland, but I am saying that if E-V13 among some people who report ancestry from Smyrna is higher than that of their Turkish neighbours (who largely have the same local Byzantine Greek-speaking background), then the explanation should probably not be sought in ancient migrations.

Somewhat higher E-V13 in Corinthia and Euboea which have many settlements of Arvanite origin make sense (regardless of modern self-reported ancestry), but I'm not sure that 25% E-V13 in Corinth in comparison to 17.67% in general in mainland Greece shows something more than that.




Again, you draw a simple line over 3000 years, but Thracians were not 100% V13 (in fact probably far off), would have mixed in Bythnia with local populations, and the region has undergone numerous other events in those 3000 years, some of which would have brought V13, some of which would have diluted it.

I actually agree with you. I believe that we should investigate the background of each sample individually and we shouldn't assume 3000 year old continuity in its present location. However, theories which claim in this thread that E-V13 in Bulgaria comes from Thracians or that E-V13 in Anatolia spread with Phrygians do assume such continuity. I'm only taking their argumentation to its logical conclusion in order to show its many flaws. According to the internal logic of these theories, if Thracians were "heavily E-V13", they should have spread it to Bithynia.

My personal opinion is that E-V13 in Anatolia probably spread from many different individual sources across many different eras.

While we're on the subject of E-V13 in the Eastern Balkans and Minor Asia, we should check the new study about the genetic structure of the Turkish population (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pHvOMVZPtNDuwVabSXD7OxdFMTYQGvfjq7Z-L6IiII0/edit#gid=450884960). Six most frequent haplogroups for populations relevant to our discussion:

Eastern Balkans (Balkan Turk, Pomak, Torbesi, Vallahades) n=35 (I don't know why the Vallahades, a local Greek population from north-central Greece have been included in the "Eastern Balkans", but it is what it is):
R1a-M417 14.29%
I2a-Y3120 14.29%
J2-M410 11.43%
E-V13 11.43%
J2b-L283: 8.57%
R1b-Z2103: 8.57%

Anatolian Turks (West of the Euphrates-Trabzon line) n=125
J2a-M410 20%
R1b-M269 12% (R1b-Z2103 8%)
N-P43 11.2%
G2a 10.4%
R1a-M417 9.6%
J1-P58 8.8%
...
...
I2a-Y3120 3.2%
E-M123 3.2%
T1a 3.2%
Q1b-L245 1.6%
E-V13 1.6%


And again I have to ask based on the actual data: Where is the "Phrygian E-V13" or any E-V13 mass migration or any significant presence of E-V13 among Turks from the Eastern Balkans? It's not so much that Anatolia didn't see any population influx from Europe. It clearly did. It's just that E-V13 doesn't seem to be part of any such influx. So, if we want to discuss about the hgs which the Thracians/Phrygians or any ancient Balkan population might have brought to Anatolia, why are we discussing about the one haplogroup which doesn't seem to have been carried to Anatolia by any large scale migration?

Bruzmi
08-09-2021, 04:58 PM
Results about E-V13 in Italy from Cruciani et al., Tracing past human male movements in northern/eastern Africa and western Eurasia: new clues from Y-chromosomal haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12, 2007

Northern Italians n=94 5.32%
Central Italians n= 356 5.34%
Southern Italians n=141 8.51%
Sicilians n=153 7.19%
Sardinians n=374 1.07%

Apparently, actual E-V13 % is lower than what one would expect (according to internet theories) and I'm struggling to find anything which would suggest that E-V13 was brought by "Dorian colonies" and that its current frequency isn't just the result of many small or big migrations from the Balkans. It reminds me of the arguments in Lacan 2011 (https://www.pnas.org/content/108/45/18255):

According to Lacan et al. (2011), Neolithic skeletons (~7,000 years old) that were excavated from the Avellaner cave in Catalonia, northeastern Spain included a male specimen, which carried haplogroup E1b1b. This fossil belonged to the E1b1b1a1b (V13) subclade, and possessed identical haplotypes as found in modern European individuals (five Albanians, two Provence French, two Corsicans, two Bosnians, one Italian, one Sicilian, and one Greek). The presence of this haplogroup in Neolithic Spain suggests that it is associated with the Neolithic agricultural package.

If E-V13 reached Catalonia long before the Bronze Age, I don't see why E-V13 couldn't have first reached Sicily in such a late Neolithic setting.

rafc
08-09-2021, 05:14 PM
And again I have to ask based on the actual data: Where is the "Phrygian E-V13" or any E-V13 mass migration or any significant presence of E-V13 among Turks from the Eastern Balkans? It's not so much that Anatolia didn't see any population influx from Europe. It clearly did. It's just that E-V13 doesn't seem to be part of any such influx. So, if we want to discuss about the hgs which the Thracians/Phrygians or any ancient Balkan population might have brought to Anatolia, why are we discussing about the one haplogroup which doesn't seem to have been carried to Anatolia by any large scale migration?

I still don't see why we should see high levels of V13 here. The aim of this thread is to discuss the origins of V13. Maybe I missed them, but I didn't see claims that V13 was brought en masse to Anatolia by Thracians, Phrygians etc. I only see this point coming up in your posts. Your numbers are in line with what I compiled previously:

Cruciani 2007 tested several areas of Turkey for V13, but with low sample sizes, the results were: Istanbul 3%(35), SW-Turkey 2,5% (40), NE-Turkey 0% (41 testees), SE-Turkey 4% (24), Erzurum Turks 0%(25), Central Anatolian 5% (61), Turkish Cypriotes 11% (46). King 2011 found the following results: NW-Anatolia 12% (52), Mediterranean Anatolia 3% (33), Central Anatolia 1% (90),Western Anatolia 0% (30). Tofanelli found 6.8% in 44 Turks.

This is obviously lower than in Greeks from Asia Minor. V13 can have come and disappeared through various means, and it's hard to say which ones are correct and which ones are not. My best guess would be that some V13 was already there in the LBA, more come with Greek colonisation and the attraction big cities in Asia Minor had on the Balkan hinterland. And resettlement in 1000 years of Byzantine rule will also have added V13.

rafc
08-09-2021, 05:24 PM
Results about E-V13 in Italy from Cruciani et al., Tracing past human male movements in northern/eastern Africa and western Eurasia: new clues from Y-chromosomal haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12, 2007

Northern Italians n=94 5.32%
Central Italians n= 356 5.34%
Southern Italians n=141 8.51%
Sicilians n=153 7.19%
Sardinians n=374 1.07%

Apparently, actual E-V13 % is lower than what one would expect (according to internet theories) and I'm struggling to find anything which would suggest that E-V13 was brought by "Dorian colonies" and that its current frequency isn't just the result of many small or big migrations from the Balkans.

I don't see the contradiction, if V13 was brought by many small or big migrations from the Balkans, why is it so unlikely some of came from migrations from Greece?



It reminds me of the arguments in Lacan 2011 (https://www.pnas.org/content/108/45/18255):

According to Lacan et al. (2011), Neolithic skeletons (~7,000 years old) that were excavated from the Avellaner cave in Catalonia, northeastern Spain included a male specimen, which carried haplogroup E1b1b. This fossil belonged to the E1b1b1a1b (V13) subclade, and possessed identical haplotypes as found in modern European individuals (five Albanians, two Provence French, two Corsicans, two Bosnians, one Italian, one Sicilian, and one Greek). The presence of this haplogroup in Neolithic Spain suggests that it is associated with the Neolithic agricultural package.

If E-V13 reached Catalonia long before the Bronze Age, I don't see why E-V13 couldn't have first reached Sicily in such a late Neolithic setting.

I was not expecting that in 2021 I would still have to convince people that V13 is not a Neolithic haplogroup. Just look at the TMRCA on the Yfull tree or on the excellent draft tree by Steve Fix, and see why that is impossible.

Riverman
08-09-2021, 05:36 PM
I think one basic argument for the Greek percentages is that even on the islands in Western Anatolia the frequencies are too high to be explained by later Balkan migrations only. And V13 is present in all Greeks with an actual "Greek autosomal profile" and rather decreases or disappears with together with actual Greek autosomal ancestry.

But nothing like that can really prove the point, but only indicate this or that hypothesis to be more likely. We actually need subclade and individual comparisons and ancient DNA. If we would, e.g., know all the Phokaian terminal V13 SNPs, any conclusion would be way more robust.

However, which kind of people should have brought almost 20 percent E-V13 to Phokaia? This would suggest that not just in the LBA, but in Medieval times there existed an migration from the Balkans which was exclusively E-V13. If criticising the idea that the LBA-EIA Channelled Ware groups were overwhelmingly V13, for which there seems to be enough indirect evidence available by now, how can the same people claim its realistic that in Medieval times, when there definitely was not people with more than 75 percent V13 left any more, the same could happen? I don't get it, but that would be the only way out if assuming "no layers" of V13 in Greece from the transitional phase, over the classical period, to Hellenistic and Roman, Late Antiquity, early Medieval.
If Balkan people would have introduced V13 that late to places like Phokaia, the whole yDNA spectrum would have been replaced. I don't think that's more likely, its simple maths and a comparison of the general profile.

The future will prove that not just in Greece, but many regions of Europe and beyond, V13 did come in more than one time, sometimes even with different people. But Greeks got it, in all likelihood, since the transitional phase of LBA-EIA. In some places of Northern Greeks it might be that V13 Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs replaced Greek V13 carriers. So every region and subclade needs to be investigated.

Bruzmi
08-09-2021, 05:56 PM
I don't see the contradiction, if V13 was brought by many small or big migrations from the Balkans, why is it so unlikely some of came from migrations from Greece?



I was not expecting that in 2021 I would still have to convince people that V13 is not a Neolithic haplogroup. Just look at the TMRCA on the Yfull tree or on the excellent draft tree by Steve Fix, and see why that is impossible.

1)I think that it's reasonable to say that "some of it might have come from migrations from Greece in different eras". The problem begins when someone arbitrarily picks the Dorians (why the Dorians specifically?) and says that this exact era is when E-V13 first entered Sicily and that most of it comes from that era. If some E-V13 did come from Greece to Italy and at what % can only be answered by actual studies.

2)I didn't claim that E-V13 is necessarily the result of Neolithic continuity in the Balkans. But it (or its ancestor) did spread in the Neolithic era outwards from the Balkans and of course it might have disappeared later and re-entered the Balkans in the LBA.




I still don't see why we should see high levels of V13 here. The aim of this thread is to discuss the origins of V13. Maybe I missed them, but I didn't see claims that V13 was brought en masse to Anatolia by Thracians, Phrygians etc. I only see this point coming up in your posts.


We also forget that Phrygians a people that settled western Anatolia had Balkan origin and was probably mostly E-V13. So E-V13 must have existed in Anatolia since LBA/EIA. So there are two possible scenarios about E-V13 in modern Greece
a) It is from ancient Balkanic peoples (Thracians,Peonians) and Phrygians and medieval Balkan migrations (Arvanites and Vlachs).
b) Same with scenario a+ Dorians who had Bronze Age E-V13 influences because they were a northern Greek tribe. Maybe E-V13 came to southern Greece with Dorians due to some kind of founder effect.


This comment was written just yesterday in this thread. So if Thracians/Phrygians did carry E-V13 in significant levels, we should be seeing it in Anatolia. But it's not there.



This is obviously lower than in Greeks from Asia Minor.
Are there any studies about Asia Minor Greeks? It'd be interesting to compare the results to Anatolian Turks:
J2a-M410 20%
R1b-M269 12% (R1b-Z2103 8%)
N-P43 11.2%
G2a 10.4%
R1a-M417 9.6%
J1-P58 8.8%
...
...
I2a-Y3120 3.2%
E-M123 3.2%
T1a 3.2%
Q1b-L245 1.6%
E-V13 1.6%

Riverman
08-09-2021, 06:12 PM
Are there any studies about Asia Minor Greeks? It'd be interesting to compare the results to Anatolian Turks:
J2a-M410 20%
R1b-M269 12% (R1b-Z2103 8%)
N-P43 11.2%
G2a 10.4%
R1a-M417 9.6%
J1-P58 8.8%
...
...
I2a-Y3120 3.2%
E-M123 3.2%
T1a 3.2%
Q1b-L245 1.6%
E-V13 1.6%

In cases like these the frequency might be less important, considering all the demographic turnovers, than the exact subclades. We have the results from Phokaia and Smyrna, as well as others. But even more important, now I say it the third time in this thread, is that the study on Cypriots found V13 clades shared between Anatolian Greeks and Cypriots, which were distinct from the Balkan Greeks. This doesn't mean the variants from the mainland Greeks were all not old Greek, that's unknown, but I think its particularly noteworthy that two such groups, which got much less of the Daco-Thracian, Vlach, Albanian and Slavic influence, share specific V13 haplotypes. That's something which needs to investigated with high resoluton samples and terminal clades.

vettor
08-09-2021, 06:21 PM
1)I think that it's reasonable to say that "some of it might have come from migrations from Greece in different eras". The problem begins when someone arbitrarily picks the Dorians (why the Dorians specifically?) and says that this exact era is when E-V13 first entered Sicily and that most of it comes from that era. If some E-V13 did come from Greece to Italy and at what % can only be answered by actual studies.

2)I didn't claim that E-V13 is necessarily the result of Neolithic continuity in the Balkans. But it (or its ancestor) did spread in the Neolithic era outwards from the Balkans and of course it might have disappeared later and re-entered the Balkans in the LBA.






This comment was written just yesterday in this thread. So if Thracians/Phrygians did carry E-V13 in significant levels, we should be seeing it in Anatolia. But it's not there.


Are there any studies about Asia Minor Greeks? It'd be interesting to compare the results to Anatolian Turks:
J2a-M410 20%
R1b-M269 12% (R1b-Z2103 8%)
N-P43 11.2%
G2a 10.4%
R1a-M417 9.6%
J1-P58 8.8%
...
...
I2a-Y3120 3.2%
E-M123 3.2%
T1a 3.2%
Q1b-L245 1.6%
E-V13 1.6%

when you say Asia Minor ...you refer to the correct terminology area of Coastal Turkey and not all Turkey ( anatolia )

you are not referring to the Near East which is the term where Ottomans border began in the balkans

is this what you mean ?

Bruzmi
08-09-2021, 06:37 PM
In cases like these the frequency might be less important, considering all the demographic turnovers, than the exact subclades. We have the results from Phokaia and Smyrna, as well as others. But even more important, now I say it the third time in this thread, is that the study on Cypriots found V13 clades shared between Anatolian Greeks and Cypriots, which were distinct from the Balkan Greeks. This doesn't mean the variants from the mainland Greeks were all not old Greek, that's unknown, but I think its particularly noteworthy that two such groups, which got much less of the Daco-Thracian, Vlach, Albanian and Slavic influence, share specific V13 haplotypes. That's something which needs to investigated with high resoluton samples and terminal clades.

We don't have results from Smyrna and Phokaia. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks lived in the Smyrna region before 1922. The Anatolian coast was one of the regions with the highest mobility in the Ottoman Empire. We can't draw conclusions from 55 people from Greece who have self-reported ancestry from Smyrna (12% E-V13). They are just 6-7 people. Each new sample increases or decreases the frequency by 1.81%

E-V13 as a significant haplogroup among Daco-Thracians has to be proven by studies, not hypothesized. Because anyone can draw attention to many examples which exclude Thracians from spreading E-V13. The lesson in my opinion is not that E-V13 didn't expand in Thrace (in particular, in the borderlands between the later Illyricum and Thracia), but that Thracians weren't E-V13 and E-V13 lineages explicitly reduced the area called Thrace by Roman antiquity.

By the way, in my opinion you might want to refactor this comment:


And V13 is present in all Greeks with an actual "Greek autosomal profile" and rather decreases or disappears with together with actual Greek autosomal ancestry.

~85% of Greeks are not E-V13 and I definitely don't think that "actual Greek autosomal ancestry" exhibits such high correlation with E-V13 that E-V13 increases or decreases depending on "actual Greek autosomal ancestry".

Riverman
08-09-2021, 06:45 PM
~85% of Greeks are not E-V13 and I definitely don't think that "actual Greek autosomal ancestry" exhibits such high correlation with E-V13 that E-V13 increases or decreases depending on "actual Greek autosomal ancestry".

E-V13 is definitely one of the major Greek haplogroups - I'm speaking about modern Greeks, not archaic Greeks, for which I'm assuming it, but don't claim it that vehemently. The only Greek communities with virtually no E-V13 deviate also otherwise from the mainland and island Greeks, that's a fact. Every region with proven Greek ethnic settlement seems to have it, as far as I know. You can correct me if I'm wrong, because that's just what I saw so far, I might have overlooked something of course.


We don't have results from Smyrna and Phokaia. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks lived in the Smyrna region before 1922. The Anatolian coast was one of the regions with the highest mobility in the Ottoman Empire. We can't draw conclusions from 55 people from Greece who have self-reported ancestry from Smyrna (12% E-V13). They are just 6-7 people. Each new sample increases or decreases the frequency by 1.81%


I would be happy if there would be better studies available. I'd say, until we get more results, this is better than nothing and points in any case to the presence of E-V13 in the local population. On FTDNA there are many "self-reported" ethnic groups from Central Europe, and most of the time their self-reported ancestry, especially for the paternal heritage, is correct. Like we can say that ethnic Germans from East Prussia have increased haplogroup N frequencies for example - everything self reported.

If you have something better to draw conclusions from, I would be happy to take a look into it.

Interesting find:

On this occasion, special attention is given to the Tomb of the Warriors (Tomb 1) in which 6 warriors were buried together with their complete military armor. The tomb (dimensions: 5.50 x 4.50 m) was built with a row of larger limestone blocks, and after the cremation burial it was filled with amorphous stones and earth, shaping a low mound-like structure. The pyre was set in the central part of the tomb, and around it, embedded and arranged in a specially brought lake sand, were the military attributes: 6 bronze helmets, 11 greaves, and 15 iron spears, with features suggesting some military subordination or simply warriors who have died in a battle being “the Leader and his comrades.


The tomb represents an initial base for discussions that would contribute to the further shedding of light about the individual “princes’ tombs” of the Trebeništa necropolis that are still insufficiently “illuminated”. This tomb construction is in close proximity to two more Late Archaic tombs: one with a cremated deceased person (Tomb 132) and the other with an inhumed deceased person – a child (Tomb 167) – a parallel occurrence of inhumation and cremation, ...

https://pebasite.wordpress.com/peba-2020/representations-of-power-an-ancient-macedonian-elite/

One important question in this context is, whether the people being cremated or buried with inhumation being always the same, or whether in a multi-ethnic environment the different burials customs might differentiate them. That's another problem which can't be generalised I'm afraid.

rafc
08-09-2021, 06:57 PM
This comment was written just yesterday in this thread. So if Thracians/Phrygians did carry E-V13 in significant levels, we should be seeing it in Anatolia. But it's not there.

I think it's reasonable to assume V13 would be present in Phrygians, but I would not use the term 'mostly'. I agree with the statement that V13 would have been present in Anatolia since the LBA/EIA (in fact, I think some would have even come earlier). But again you draw a straight line from a migration that happened over 3000 years ago to Y-DNA distributions today. I don't see that comment claiming that V13 has high proportions today, just that V13 could have come to Anatolia with the Phrygians.

Which haplogroup(s) do you think the Prygians had?

23abc
08-09-2021, 06:58 PM
I would be happy if there would be better studies available. I'd say, until we get more results, this is better than nothing and points in any case to the presence of E-V13 in the local population.

As posted many times around this forum, Izmir essentially had a non-existent population (size of 2000) around the year 1600, and due to encouragement of Ottoman Empire saw massive waves of migration from mainland Greece and the Northern Aegean, so much so that the population just 40 years after was 40,000 (20x increase) and by the late 1800s 200,000. Essentially, if you're trying to use this as evidence for E-V13 existing in large numbers in Asia Minor prior to the Turkish invasion you're hard out of luck.

But I do agree that the frequencies do not matter at the end of the day, what matters is how the various clades fit on the haplotree. If there are many deep testers from isolated Greek communities and Cyprus we could have a better idea about your theories. But using the frequencies in modern Greece, using the frequencies in Southern Italy, doesn't really mean anything. AFAIK the Griko communities in Southern Italy don't have a large deviation in E-V13 compared to the average Southern Italian, nor does the study I posted find a strong connection between E-V13 being a marker of Greek migration in Southern Italy.

rafc
08-09-2021, 07:08 PM
Because anyone can draw attention to many examples which exclude Thracians from spreading E-V13.
Can you give us these examples?


The lesson in my opinion is not that E-V13 didn't expand in Thrace (in particular, in the borderlands between the later Illyricum and Thracia), but that Thracians weren't E-V13 and E-V13 lineages explicitly reduced the area called Thrace by Roman antiquity.

Well aDNA certainly points the other way with the Moldovan sample. An expansion from west to east also doesn't fit well with the modern distribution of FGC44169 to which this sample belongs. I'm curious for your arguments in favor of an expansion there and a movement eastwards. I would have the same question as with Phrygians, if you think Thracians weren't E-V13, which haplogroup(s) do you think they were?

Riverman
08-09-2021, 07:15 PM
As posted many times around this forum, Izmir essentially had a non-existent population (size of 2000) around the year 1600, and due to encouragement of Ottoman Empire saw massive waves of migration from mainland Greece and the Northern Aegean, so much so that the population just 40 years after was 40,000 (20x increase) and by the late 1800s 200,000. Essentially, if you're trying to use this as evidence for E-V13 existing in large numbers in Asia Minor prior to the Turkish invasion you're hard out of luck.

But I do agree that the frequencies do not matter at the end of the day, what matters is how the various clades fit on the haplotree. If there are many deep testers from isolated Greek communities and Cyprus we could have a better idea about your theories. But using the frequencies in modern Greece, using the frequencies in Southern Italy, doesn't really mean anything. AFAIK the Griko communities in Southern Italy don't have a large deviation in E-V13 compared to the average Southern Italian, nor does the study I posted find a strong connection between E-V13 being a marker of Greek migration in Southern Italy.

I can't possibly dissent from your comment, even though I think the available facts suffice to give us a good indication in a specific direction. But that's no proof of course.

The problem with E-V13 is that it split extremely irregular, much more so than many other subclades of major European haplogroups. Like I wrote some time ago, its almost as if from the original E-V13 population units were send in every direction in which members of each original clan were included. You can play that game on YFull and FTDNA, for every major clade of E-V13, they all participated everywhere. That's even more striking, if you consider that just by chance some might have been overlooked by current sampling or died out on the long run. The regional diversification practically never starts before the transitional period, before 1.200-1.100 (extended 1.300-800) BC. Before that time at the LBA-EIA transition, you have almost no meaningful regional branches anywhere.

That also means that if any sort of study or private sampling doesn't go down to the recent subclades or even better terminal SNPs, the explanatory power will remain low to non-existent. Its good it was done for the Albanian population, largely, because this just proves they have members in all major clades, but the regional subclades are young and specific, with little to no overlap outside of the narrower Balkan sphere. This also means people having such subclades can be easily connected with Albanians.
The same can't be that easily done for all other people, because many seem to have older and more diverse V13 clades, but on the long run it could be done too. Southern Italians with their very, very limited samples already point to an older and more diverse V13 population, which can't be explained by recent Balkan migration alone. How much of this can be attributed to Greek colonists has to turn out.


Well aDNA certainly points the other way with the Moldovan sample. An expansion from west to east also doesn't fit well with the modern distribution of FGC44169 to which this sample belongs. I'm curious for your arguments in favor of an expansion there and a movement eastwards. I would have the same question as with Phrygians, if you think Thracians weren't E-V13, which haplogroup(s) do you think they were?

I would add the complementary question for Bruzmi: Which culture and ethnicity spread E-V13 primarily and which expansive cultural movement can be associated with this phenomenon?

I'm very curious to hear the alternative scenarios, because I tried to play them through one by one, with worse results and explanatory power.

Bane
08-09-2021, 08:03 PM
Greek topics seem to be predominant in the discussion. Here is one more statement based on Greek mythology - Bruzmi assigned him self a Sisyphean task.
E-V13 did not expand from the Western Balkans. It is what it is.

Bruzmi
08-09-2021, 08:20 PM
@Riverman @rafc I'll be writing a full post about your questions , but for now I do want to write a short comment about the Moldovan sample.


Well aDNA certainly points the other way with the Moldovan sample. An expansion from west to east also doesn't fit well with the modern distribution of FGC44169 to which this sample belongs. I'm curious for your arguments in favor of an expansion there and a movement eastwards.

The Moldovan sample is "scy197" from Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/10/eaat4457.full.pdf) According to the final version of the paper (after dating revisions):

1) "Scy197" comes from Glinoe (400-170 BCE) (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/suppl/2018/10/01/4.10.eaat4457.DC1/aat4457_SM.pdf): The Glinoe site is located in the Slobodzeya district, in the southeastern part of Moldova (46.6684°N, 29.8001°E). Ten of the excavated individuals were included in present study; K103B1, sample: scy192; K75B1, sample: scy193; K50B1S1, sample: scy197; K89B3S2, sample: scy300; K89B1, sample: scy301; K75B2, sample: 303; K81B1S1, sample: scy304; K87B1, sample: scy305; K43B1, sample: scy311; K65B1, sample: scy332.

2)This was an individual who had a large Neolithic component and the authors of the paper explicitly write that: A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European populations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster

If anything (which one sample can't really do, but let's do so for the sake of the argument), scy197 indicates migration from the west and south to the east and north in a late period and can't be cited to imply the opposite for a much older period.

Indeed, 3/4 (scy192, scy197, scy300) plot closest to Albanians and 1/4 (scy305) plots closest to Greeks from Thessaly and Central Macedonia. (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=641278&viewfull=1#post641278) There's no information about the hg of scy192 and scy300, but scy305 was R1b-Z2106 downstream, possibly (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Y_Haplotree_Var iant&searchfor=R-S19901*&ybp=500000,0) R1b-S19901 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S19901/)

The conclusion is that some southerners and their descendants who plot close to Albanians (3) and Greeks (1) had settled in modern Moldova.


EDIT: When you compare them on G25 Modern Averages, the modern Albanian average isn't even the top result. The margin is very small of course so the main point I was trying to get across is still the same but it's interesting:

Distance to: Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03508769 Italian_Piedmont
0.03581699 Italian_Lombardy
0.03589006 Albanian
0.03589914 Greek_Thessaly
0.03630896 Italian_Liguria
0.03750384 Italian_Tuscany
0.03832955 Italian_Bergamo

Compare that to the BGR_IA:

Distance to: Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.03716518 Italian_Lazio
0.03973669 Italian_Molise
0.04002928 Italian_Apulia
0.04080540 Italian_Abruzzo
0.04080752 Italian_Umbria
0.04130677 Italian_Basilicata
0.04130794 Italian_Marche
0.04180586 Greek_Laconia

Riverman
08-09-2021, 11:16 PM
Here another piece of the puzzle, linking the spread of E-V13 with Daco-Thracians and an early migration into Greece. Like I wrote earlier:
Dardani = Brnjica (Channelled Ware related cremating group) = more E-V13
Triballi = Early Iron Age culture of the Velika Morava valley = more E-V13

Now more about the Brnjica group of the Urnfield Channelled Ware horizon in the Balkans:

The Dardani (/ˈdɑːrdənaɪ/; Ancient Greek: Δαρδάνιοι, Δάρδανοι; Latin: Dardani) were a Paleo-Balkan tribe, which lived in a region which was named Dardania after their settlement there.[1][2] The eastern parts of the region were at the Thraco-Illyrian contact zone. In archaeological research, Illyrian names are predominant in western Dardania (present-day Kosovo), and occasionally appear in eastern Dardania (present-day south-eastern Serbia), while Thracian names are found in the eastern parts, but are absent from the western parts. Thus, their identification as either an Illyrian or Thracian tribe has been a subject of debate; the ethnolinguistic relationship between the two groups being largely uncertain and debated itself as well.[3][4] The correspondence of Illyrian names, including those of the ruling elite, in Dardania with those of the southern Illyrians suggests a "thracianization" of parts of Dardania.

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

In my current best model, they would be primary spreaders of E-V13 in the region.


The cultural group formed out of this culture is the Thracian tribe of Moesi. It is also the non-Illyrian component in the Dardanian ethnogenesis.[1]

The culture is characterized by several groups:[1]

Kosovo with Raska and Pester
South and West Morava confluence zone
Leskovac-Nis
South Morava-Pcinja-Upper Vardar

Brnjica type pottery has been found in Blageovgrad, Plovdiv, and a number of sites in Pelagonia, Lower Vardar, the island of Thasos and Thessaly dating to 13th and 12th century BC.

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


In stratum III, the S–profiled bowls are scarce,
while the share of other ceramic forms, characteristic
of the two oldest strata, is significantly diminished,
with a sudden enhancement of the share of cannelured
ceramics of Iron Age I b type of the Morava basin
The last, IV stratum, is thin and except for the 1999
trial excavation, it is found only in certain parts of the
site. A predominance of cannelured ceramics is charac-
teristic for stratum IV, with sporadic finds of Brnjica
ceramics typical for strata I and II at the Hisar site.

So Channelled Ware of the type known from the Morava basin, which was a primary centre of the Channelled Ware cultural diffusion and settlement. This could be interpreted as:


hat already in the second phase
(strata II–Brnjica I b phase) contacts were made with
the cultural complex Iron Age I a from the lower
Morava basin, manifested in the cannelured ceramics
characterizing to the greatest extent the cultural groups
of the complex; the predominance of the cannelured
ceramics in the III stratum (Brnjica II cultural group
phase) can be explained by the influx of the ethnic
element from the North (Morava basin I b phase) and
its mingling with the autochthonous population, while
the thin and poor IV stratum is the obvious reflection
of the situation in the wider region of the Morava basin
(Morava basin I c phase) and central Balkans – the
consequence of the sudden population decrease.


On the terrace, where the first excavations were
carried out in 1999, a ferrous metallurgy center was
discovered with evidence of iron production as well as
of ferrous objects manufacture from the first two pha-
ses of the Brnjica cultural group.1


For instance, the novelties, such
as the cannelured vessels, emerging under the influen-
ce of the Velika Morava basin within the Iron Age I
period, do not appear in the graves. The appearance of
such artefacts in the necropolises meant an essential
change of the ethnic and cultural identity, which was
not the case with the Kosovo necropolises. Thus, doubt
remains whether the Brnjica community in Kosovo
lasted as long as the one in the Ju`na Morava basin or
shorter, the latter being more plausible.

There is a clear North -> South transmission of cultural elements, with the influence and actual pressure from the North, from the Morava valley Channelled Ware groups, increasing over time, until they begin to even partly replace the older elements completely.


Within the Ju`na Morava and Zapadna Morava con-
fluence zones there are eleven Brnjica ceramics sites.
Three kinds of sites are characteristic: (1) sites with
Brnjica ceramics exclusively, (2) sites characterized
by mixed Brnjica ceramics and Para}in cultural group
ceramics (Para}in I) and (3) sites in which the Brnjica
ceramics are mixed with the cannelured ceramics of
the Iron Age I type in the Morava basin.2

For Macedonia and the Vardar valley:


In strata 18–9 on Kastanas, in the lower Vardar
basin, there are numerous and diverse ceramics rather
similar to the Brnjica ceramics from the Ju`na Morava
basin sites; in strata 19–18 (ca. 1600–1400 BC)30; in
strata 17–15 (ca. 1400–1190 BC)31, in strata 14–11
(1190–1000 BC)32, strata 10–8 (ca. 1000–900 BC)33.
Some ceramic forms such as cone vessels with faceted
rim appear on Kastanas much later, as is the case with
the cannelured ceramics.

The possible role of iron processing:


All the cultural groups (Belegi{, Para}in, Brnjica)
on the one-time territory of the Vatin complex had iron
objects at their disposal.45 Namely, there are undoubted
proofs that the Belegi{ and Para}in cultural groups used
iron objects, while it is known for the Brnjica com-
munity that it produced iron in its earliest development
phase (in the 14th century BC) and made objects from
this metal.46 Iron – »the royal metal« or Homer’s »metal
dearer than gold«, as with the Hittites, was produced
within the Brnjica community under the auspices of
the largest and strongest fortification – on the Hisar hill
in Leskovac, in the very core of the Brnjica territory.
There is no proof that the Mycenaean world produced
iron, but it used it.4

Population movements into Greece, caused by a domino effect with the Channelled Ware groups being the main cause:

Relatively numerous sites in which ceramics of
Brnjica type were found in the Vardar basin as well as
in the north of Greece up to Thessaly, point to popu-
lation movements from the central Balkans towards
the Mycenaean territory at the time when the Brnjica
community flourished, reached its peak and, like others,
developed ferrous metallurgy, but neglected the pro-
tection of the northern regions of its territory. Under
such conditions, the cultural group from the Iron Age I b
phase in the Morava basin found ways to leave the
Velika Morava valley and reach the Ju`na Morava basin
up to the Grdelica Gorge, undoubtedly causing move-
ments further to the south in response. The powerful
advance of cultural groups from the north (from the
Serbian Danube valley and the Velika Morava basin) is
proved not only by the cannelured ceramics of the Iron
Age I type, but also by bronze artefacts (decoration need-
les, axes-kelts, razors, bracelets) from the Hisar site in
Leskovac. From that moment on, the archaeological
material of the Ju`na Morava basin north of Grdelica
Gorge is characterized by a mixture of the material
culture of the Iron Age I community in the Morava
basin with traditional forms of the Brnjica population
in proportionally 10: 1 during the Brnjica I b phase, up
to 5 : 1 during the Brnjica II a phase, and 1: 4 in the last
phase of this cultural group.4


rom the above, the conclusion can be reached that
the impressively numerous Brnjica community from
the 13th century BC, populating an enormous territory
from the Pe{ter and Ra{ka regions in the west up to
Struma in the east and from the Ju`na and Zapadna
Morava confluence zone in the north down to the Taor
Gorge in the south, took part in the events designated
as the Aegean Migration, which, inter alia, caused the
destruction of the Mycenaean civilization and the great
upheavals in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 13th and
the beginning of the 12th centuries BC. This community
knew the ferrous metallurgy, it developed craftsman-
ship based on iron, and had contacts with the Mycenaean
civilization. One must wonder whether this very popu-
lation initiated events which fatally reflected them-
selves on Mycenaean civilization, shifting communities
from the north of Greece towards the south or did this
population only use the opportunity to expand into the
territory of the communities which had earlier moved
towards Attica and Peloponnesus.

At the end the author becomes somewhat speculative:


The question arises whether one of the two booms
in ferrous metallurgy, the initial one in the 14th and 13th
centuries BC or the one at the beginning of the last mil-
lennium BC, could perhaps be connected to the Dorian
migration and their iron weapons. It is generally accep-
ted that the Dorians came from the north and northwest
in the 11th century BC, conquered Peloponnesus and
destroyed the remains of the Mycenaean civilization.

The »north« and the »northwest« could be identified
with the very territory in Greece for which evidence
exists of a connection with the Brnjica tradition.

This seems to be reasonable:

The most recent results of archaeological research
confirm the opinion given by M. Gara{anin on »Dako-
–Moesian elements« in the ethnicity of the Brnjica
cultural group, but exclude any Illyrian component.

http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0241/2006/0350-02410656073S.pdf

Overall a very interesting article with many interesting archaeological details and observations.

xlukex
08-10-2021, 12:24 AM
45993

Yfull has E-BY4877 with an estimated formation date around 2,700 BC and a most recent common ancestor at 2,200 BC. Brnjica Culture sounds promising, but that was not around until 1400-700 BC. All in all I think the Brnjica Culture was just too late and too localized to explain all the spread, but that does not mean it didn't play a major impact on other branches.

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 12:48 AM
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0241/2006/0350-02410656073S.pdf
Overall a very interesting article with many interesting archaeological details and observations.

A Brnjica culture never existed. It 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 a construction in Serbian archaeology for various "ideas".

The hypothesized "core" 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). 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.

Literally, there's nothing at all to present as the catalogued artifacts of the "Brnjica culture" and Hisar is a separate 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). So, if the Bërnica site isn't fundamentally different from other sites in western and central Dardania, what may this mean? In my opinion, it likely means that the Dardani (a tribal people who may indeed have been E-V13 carriers) were also carriers of other major haplogroups. In other words, it was a group which didn't have just one haplogroup. We shouldn't be expecting to find "one haplogroup" populations in the post-LBA era.

I want to get back to the paper cited by Riverman and ask users who know ancient Greek or are Greeks (clarification: thus native speakers of Greek) about their opinion about its conclusion (which is really the raison d'être for all Brnjica speculations):



It is generally accepted that the Dorians came from the north and northwest in the 11th century BC, conquered Peloponnesus and destroyed the remains of the Mycenaean civilization. The »north« and the »northwest« could be identified with the very territory in Greece for which evidence exists of a connection with the Brnjica tradition. Generally speaking, the same people known under the name of the Dorians, who reached the Peloponnesus and had at their disposal ferrous arms and superior military organization, had influenced crucially the life revival in the north at the end of the 10th or at the beginning of the 9th century BC in certain regions of the central. Balkans. Do the ethnonyms, Dorians and Dardanians, which sound quite similar, designate one and the same people?

If anyone read the highlighted sentence on someone's blog, they would rightly consider it pure speculation which shows basic lack of understanding of linguistics. This what Yugoslav archaeology used to promote as "credible theories" for decades. Nowhere in the world today will anyone find any publication which asks its readers to take seriously as part of its conclusion the idea that because "Dorians" and "Dardanians" both start with "D" (not even that is accurate but let's set it aside for a moment), we should consider the former to be migrants from the same area as the latter as part of a common ancestral hypothetical "ethnicity" based on an equally hypothetical material culture.

Riverman
08-10-2021, 01:11 AM
First off, like even the quoted article states, we deal with a more hybrid culture which surely was mixed and unlikely to have been exclusively V13.
Whether or not we actually do recognise it as a separate archaeological culture is beyond the point I was making, because we have numerous finds from a similar context which prove the movement of Urnfield groups down the corridor from Vojvodina, with a central hub in the Morava valley. A central element of this formation became the the cannelure or channelled or fluted ware, inspired from the Gáva-Holigrady culture and later transitioning into incised pottery also.
They constructed large fortresses like Teleac, which were also centres of early iron production.

The general outline and chronology is correct, only the exact dates for iron production could be debated, but those from this horizon were in any case among the first in the world.

The push described did take place, whether one uses this term or another one, or none at all.

vettor
08-10-2021, 01:28 AM
@Riverman @rafc I'll be writing a full post about your questions , but for now I do want to write a short comment about the Moldovan sample.



The Moldovan sample is "scy197" from Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/10/eaat4457.full.pdf) According to the final version of the paper (after dating revisions):

1) "Scy197" comes from Glinoe (400-170 BCE) (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/suppl/2018/10/01/4.10.eaat4457.DC1/aat4457_SM.pdf): The Glinoe site is located in the Slobodzeya district, in the southeastern part of Moldova (46.6684°N, 29.8001°E). Ten of the excavated individuals were included in present study; K103B1, sample: scy192; K75B1, sample: scy193; K50B1S1, sample: scy197; K89B3S2, sample: scy300; K89B1, sample: scy301; K75B2, sample: 303; K81B1S1, sample: scy304; K87B1, sample: scy305; K43B1, sample: scy311; K65B1, sample: scy332.

2)This was an individual who had a large Neolithic component and the authors of the paper explicitly write that: A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European populations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster

If anything (which one sample can't really do, but let's do so for the sake of the argument), scy197 indicates migration from the west and south to the east and north in a late period and can't be cited to imply the opposite for a much older period.

Indeed, 3/4 (scy192, scy197, scy300) plot closest to Albanians and 1/4 (scy305) plots closest to Greeks from Thessaly and Central Macedonia. (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=641278&viewfull=1#post641278) There's no information about the hg of scy192 and scy300, but scy305 was R1b-Z2106 downstream, possibly (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Y_Haplotree_Var iant&searchfor=R-S19901*&ybp=500000,0) R1b-S19901 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S19901/)

The conclusion is that some southerners and their descendants who plot close to Albanians (3) and Greeks (1) had settled in modern Moldova.


EDIT: When you compare them on G25 Modern Averages, the modern Albanian average isn't even the top result. The margin is very small of course so the main point I was trying to get across is still the same but it's interesting:

Distance to: Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03508769 Italian_Piedmont
0.03581699 Italian_Lombardy
0.03589006 Albanian
0.03589914 Greek_Thessaly
0.03630896 Italian_Liguria
0.03750384 Italian_Tuscany
0.03832955 Italian_Bergamo

Compare that to the BGR_IA:

Distance to: Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.03716518 Italian_Lazio
0.03973669 Italian_Molise
0.04002928 Italian_Apulia
0.04080540 Italian_Abruzzo
0.04080752 Italian_Umbria
0.04130677 Italian_Basilicata
0.04130794 Italian_Marche
0.04180586 Greek_Laconia

you think they are greek or Albanian ............their markers are

scy192:
mtDNA: H8c

scy197:
mtDNA: U5a1a1
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2

scy300:
mtDNA: H5b

scy301:
mtDNA: U5b2a3
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2

scy303:
mtDNA: U5a1a2b

scy305:
mtDNA: U5a2b
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2

scy311:
mtDNA: T2b

capsian
08-10-2021, 01:30 AM
you think they are greek or Albanian ............their markers are

scy192:
mtDNA: H8c

scy197:
mtDNA: U5a1a1
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2

scy300:
mtDNA: H5b

scy301:
mtDNA: U5b2a3
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2

scy303:
mtDNA: U5a1a2b

scy305:
mtDNA: U5a2b
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2

scy311:
mtDNA: T2b

scy197 it s E-V13 not R-M269

vettor
08-10-2021, 01:38 AM
scy197 it s E-V13 not R-M269

I have seen others mark these as others markers ...like


scy009* Starosillya Scythian 770 - 415 BCE XY J2b1a6 R1b-P312
scy193* Glinoe Scythian ND XY U5a2a1 R1a
scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE XY U5a1a1 E1b
scy301 Glinoe Scythian 392 - 204 BCE XY U5b2a3 I2a
scy304 Glinoe Scythian 361 - 172 BCE XY U4* R1b-Z2103
scy305* Glinoe Scythian 399 - 209 BCE XY U5a2b R1b-Z2106


but I have never seen any link, ...................can you supply ?

vettor
08-10-2021, 01:39 AM
this is from the paper/s

chy001 Cherniy Yar Late Sarmatian 55 - 140 CE XX H2a1 -
chy002 Cherniy Yar Late Sarmatian 65 - 220 CE XY T1a1 R1a1a
tem001 Temyaysovo Late Sarmatian 135 - 320 CE XX U5b2b -
tem002 Temyaysovo Late Sarmatian 125 - 240 CE XY D4q R1b1a1a2
tem003 Temyaysovo Late Sarmatian 130-320 CE XY U5b2b R1b1a1a2?
scy006* Starosillya Scythian ND XX D4j2 -
scy009* Starosillya Scythian 770 - 415 BCE XY J2b1a6 R1b1a1a2
scy010* Starosillya Scythian 790 - 540 BCE XX N1b1a -
scy011* Nesterivka Scythian 355 - 115 BCE XX A -
scy192* Glinoe Scythian 2863 - 2503 BCE XX H8c -
scy193* Glinoe Scythian ND XY U5a2a1 R1b1a1a2?
scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE XY U5a1a1 R1b1a1a2
scy300* Glinoe Scythian 397 - 209 BCE XX H5b -
scy301 Glinoe Scythian 392 - 204 BCE XY U5b2a3 R1b1a1a2
scy303* Glinoe Scythian 380 - 203 BCE XX U5a1a2b -
scy304 Glinoe Scythian 361 - 172 BCE XY U4* R1b1a1a2
scy305* Glinoe Scythian 399 - 209 BCE XY U5a2b R1b1a1a2
scy311* Glinoe Scythian 389 - 204 BCE XX T2b -
scy332* Glinoe Scythian 248 - 391 CE XX M10a1a1a -
cim357 Glinoe Sad Cimmerian 914 - 805 BCE XY H9a R1b1a
cim358 Glinoe Sad Cimmerian 936 -809 BCE XY C5c (50%) Q1a1
cim359 Mokra Cimmerian 1008 - 838 BCE XX R -
kzb001 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1735 - 1565 BCE XX U4b1a1a1 -
kzb002 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1875 - 1665 BCE XY J1c3a R1a1a1
kzb003 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1765 - 1630 BCE XY H R1a1a1
kzb004 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1750 - 1620 BCE XX U5b2a2 -
kzb005 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1880 - 1690 BCE XY HV0a R1a1a1
kzb006 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1745 - 1620 BCE XX U2e2a1a2 -
kzb007 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1755 - 1630 BCE XY U5a1 R1a1a1
kzb008 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1880 -1690 BCE XY HV0a R1a1a1
kzb009 Kazburun 1 Srubno-alakulskaya 1745 - 1620 BCE XX U4b1a1a1 -
mur001 Muradym 8 Srubno-alakulskaya ND XX H2a1 -
mur002 Muradym 8 Srubno-alakulskaya ND XY K1a4b ?
mur003 Muradym 8 Srubno-alakulskaya 1880 - 1685 BCE XY T2a1 R1a1a1?
mur004 Muradym 8 Srubno-alakulskaya 1885 - 1695 BCE XX J1c5e -

excine
08-10-2021, 01:45 AM
@Riverman @rafc I'll be writing a full post about your questions , but for now I do want to write a short comment about the Moldovan sample.



The Moldovan sample is "scy197" from Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/10/eaat4457.full.pdf) According to the final version of the paper (after dating revisions):

1) "Scy197" comes from Glinoe (400-170 BCE) (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/suppl/2018/10/01/4.10.eaat4457.DC1/aat4457_SM.pdf): The Glinoe site is located in the Slobodzeya district, in the southeastern part of Moldova (46.6684°N, 29.8001°E). Ten of the excavated individuals were included in present study; K103B1, sample: scy192; K75B1, sample: scy193; K50B1S1, sample: scy197; K89B3S2, sample: scy300; K89B1, sample: scy301; K75B2, sample: 303; K81B1S1, sample: scy304; K87B1, sample: scy305; K43B1, sample: scy311; K65B1, sample: scy332.

2)This was an individual who had a large Neolithic component and the authors of the paper explicitly write that: A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European populations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster

If anything (which one sample can't really do, but let's do so for the sake of the argument), scy197 indicates migration from the west and south to the east and north in a late period and can't be cited to imply the opposite for a much older period.

Indeed, 3/4 (scy192, scy197, scy300) plot closest to Albanians and 1/4 (scy305) plots closest to Greeks from Thessaly and Central Macedonia. (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=641278&viewfull=1#post641278) There's no information about the hg of scy192 and scy300, but scy305 was R1b-Z2106 downstream, possibly (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Y_Haplotree_Var iant&searchfor=R-S19901*&ybp=500000,0) R1b-S19901 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S19901/)

The conclusion is that some southerners and their descendants who plot close to Albanians (3) and Greeks (1) had settled in modern Moldova.


EDIT: When you compare them on G25 Modern Averages, the modern Albanian average isn't even the top result. The margin is very small of course so the main point I was trying to get across is still the same but it's interesting:

Distance to: Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03508769 Italian_Piedmont
0.03581699 Italian_Lombardy
0.03589006 Albanian
0.03589914 Greek_Thessaly
0.03630896 Italian_Liguria
0.03750384 Italian_Tuscany
0.03832955 Italian_Bergamo

Compare that to the BGR_IA:

Distance to: Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.03716518 Italian_Lazio
0.03973669 Italian_Molise
0.04002928 Italian_Apulia
0.04080540 Italian_Abruzzo
0.04080752 Italian_Umbria
0.04130677 Italian_Basilicata
0.04130794 Italian_Marche
0.04180586 Greek_Laconia

This indicates to be confirmation that E-V13 has been moving from more western Balkan areas to more eastern Balkan locations at least since the 5th century BC. It's interesting to note that the "south European cluster" is closest to Italians, Albanians, and Greeks, but not to Romanians, Bulgarians, or Moldovans. If E-V13 was embedded in "Daco-Thracians" as a population, rather than as a single migrant like scy197, we should be finding considerably closer autosomal connections with modern-day populations from the eastern Balkans. Instead, we have Albanians and Greeks.

On G25 Modern & Ancient Averages scaled, scy197 plots closer to Croatian HRV_EBA, HRV_MBA, HRV_IA and Greek MBA than the so-called Thracian BGR_IA. If the autosomal profile of the 5th century BCE E-V13 sample from Moldova is closer to a coastal Balkan sample from the Adriatic than a sample from Bulgaria, then autosomally it can't be argued that E-V13 belonged to a Daco-Thracian population in the Iron Age.

Distance to: Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03508769 Italian_Piedmont
0.03581699 Italian_Lombardy
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03589006 Albanian
0.03589914 Greek_Thessaly
0.03630896 Italian_Liguria
0.03750384 Italian_Tuscany
0.03832955 Italian_Bergamo
0.03878050 Italian_Marche
0.03915111 French_Corsica
0.03941045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03992968 Swiss_Italian
0.04004753 Greek_Macedonia
0.04056858 Italian_Umbria
0.04087332 Italian_Veneto
0.04097041 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.04104697 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04164636 Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.04173509 Scythian_MDA
0.04183150 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04207668 HRV_IA
0.04208470 Greek_Peloponnese
0.04208711 ITA_Etruscan
0.04305593 Rumelia_East
0.04370819 Italian_Lazio
0.04478563 Italian_Molise
0.04549894 Macedonian:Central
0.04651286 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04653805 Italian_Abruzzo
0.04654187 HRV_EBA
0.04720026 Migration_LIB:LIB3
0.04747629 Italian_Northeast
0.04754611 HRV_MBA
0.04828395 Macedonian:Southeast
0.04955002 Greek_Izmir
0.04969625 HUN_BA
0.04975185 Macedonian:Pelagonia1
0.04982042 Gagauz
0.04994660 Spanish_Menorca
0.05012724 Macedonian:East2
0.05021852 Italian_Apulia
0.05025215 Macedonian:Northwest
0.05049301 BGR_IA
0.05073025 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE
0.05125460 Bulgarian

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 01:57 AM
scy197 it s E-V13 not R-M269

Capsian is correct. These samples have been redated and reassigned. @vettor check the updated dataset (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Country&searchfor=Moldova&ybp=500000,0)

xripkan
08-10-2021, 02:19 AM
This comment was written just yesterday in this thread. So if Thracians/Phrygians did carry E-V13 in significant levels, we should be seeing it in Anatolia. But it's not there.



Do you really expect a migration that took place 3000 years ago in a region like Anatolia to have left a significant impact until nowadays?
If my comment is correct and the Phrygians were rich in E-V13 it was decrased very quickly because they probably mixed with the locals.
Not to mention all these demographic changes that took place since then.

Riverman
08-10-2021, 02:24 AM
Modern Romanians are half Slavic and there were even "Scythians" with real Greek ancestry, so everybody should be careful with single samples.
Let's wait how the actual Thracian V13 and the very early E1b1b from Slovakia score. We know these samples exist from the Pannonian and Bulgarian studies previews, they are just not out yet, unfortunately.
Also the Roman era Serbian samples should prove to be interesting and hopefully more samples from both sides of the Carparthians from a Channelled Ware derived context and msny more, including early Iron Age Greeks will follow.
E-V13 went through a massive expansion phase right around the transition phase between the LBA-EIA, including an early Western Central European and Eastern Balkan one.
There is hardly a better candidate out there than Channelled Ware.

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 02:48 AM
This indicates to be confirmation that E-V13 has been moving from more western Balkan areas to more eastern Balkan locations at least since the 5th century BC. It's interesting to note that the "south European cluster" is closest to Italians, Albanians, and Greeks, but not to Romanians, Bulgarians, or Moldovans. If E-V13 was embedded in "Daco-Thracians" as a population, rather than as a single migrant like scy197, we should be finding considerably closer autosomal connections with modern-day populations from the eastern Balkans. Instead, we have Albanians and Greeks.

On G25 Modern & Ancient Averages scaled, scy197 plots closer to Croatian HRV_EBA, HRV_MBA, HRV_IA and Greek MBA than the so-called Thracian BGR_IA. If the autosomal profile of the 5th century BCE E-V13 sample from Moldova is closer to a coastal Balkan sample from the Adriatic than a sample from Bulgaria, then autosomally it can't be argued that E-V13 belonged to a Daco-Thracian population in the Iron Age.



Distance to: Albanian
0.03221231 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy305
0.03310280 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.03589006 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03971338 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy300
0.05178807 Thracian:BGR_IA_I5769


The SE cluster in Moldova and Albanians are quite close in general. The "Thracian" BGR_IA not so much. But here's the thing: despite the obvious bigger distance, Bulgarians are also closer to the SE cluster than to the "Thracian" BGR_IA

Distance to: Bulgarian
0.04530586 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy305
0.04785325 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.05125460 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.05704861 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy300
0.07818019 Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769

We shouldn't theorize too much based on a few samples (and we should theorize even less when we have 0 samples), but this seems to suggest that BGR_IA contributed in modern Bulgarians much less than a later western/central Balkan population which included E-V13.

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 03:47 AM
This indicates to be confirmation that E-V13 has been moving from more western Balkan areas to more eastern Balkan locations at least since the 5th century BC. It's interesting to note that the "south European cluster" is closest to Italians, Albanians, and Greeks, but not to Romanians, Bulgarians, or Moldovans.
[B]Distance to: Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03508769 Italian_Piedmont
0.03581699 Italian_Lombardy
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03589006 Albanian
0.03589914 Greek_Thessaly
0.03630896 Italian_Liguria
0.03750384 Italian_Tuscany
0.03832955 Italian_Bergamo


And yet we can further break that down to two components which may suggest something more. The SE cluster and our E-V13 protagonist scy197 are close to Italians from Piedmont and Lombardy who have a distance to the SE cluster which is close to that of Albanians...

Distance to: Italian_Piedmont
0.03508769 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03528716 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.03599986 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy300
0.03707080 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy305
0.05128939 Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769

Distance to: Italian_Lombardy
0.03581699 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03946982 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy300
0.04224413 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy305
0.04431036 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.05689945 Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769


...but Italians from Calabria and Campania are closer to BGR_IA

Distance to: Italian_Calabria
0.04699819 Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.05185905 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy300
0.05201735 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.05461187 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy305
0.06104371 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197

Distance to: Italian_Campania
0.04274486 Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.04696851 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy300
0.04727592 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.05110343 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy305
0.05653179 Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197

Scy197 is also close to the Proto-Villanovans which were concentrated in northern Italy and their Urnfield "cousins" lived in the northern/northwestern Balkans. Could this indicate that Scy197's ancestors had autosomal links with the Proto-Villanovans and were part of an E-V13 group which moved southwards along the western/central Balkans in the LBA? Only new samples will tell the full story, but one thing looks very likely: Scy197 and BGR_IA are not part of the same population and their ancestors did not follow the same migratory and settlement patterns in the Balkans.

bce
08-10-2021, 05:48 AM
@Riverman @rafc I'll be writing a full post about your questions , but for now I do want to write a short comment about the Moldovan sample.



The Moldovan sample is "scy197" from Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/10/eaat4457.full.pdf) According to the final version of the paper (after dating revisions):

1) "Scy197" comes from Glinoe (400-170 BCE) (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/suppl/2018/10/01/4.10.eaat4457.DC1/aat4457_SM.pdf): The Glinoe site is located in the Slobodzeya district, in the southeastern part of Moldova (46.6684°N, 29.8001°E). Ten of the excavated individuals were included in present study; K103B1, sample: scy192; K75B1, sample: scy193; K50B1S1, sample: scy197; K89B3S2, sample: scy300; K89B1, sample: scy301; K75B2, sample: 303; K81B1S1, sample: scy304; K87B1, sample: scy305; K43B1, sample: scy311; K65B1, sample: scy332.

2)This was an individual who had a large Neolithic component and the authors of the paper explicitly write that: A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European populations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster

If anything (which one sample can't really do, but let's do so for the sake of the argument), scy197 indicates migration from the west and south to the east and north in a late period and can't be cited to imply the opposite for a much older period.

Indeed, 3/4 (scy192, scy197, scy300) plot closest to Albanians and 1/4 (scy305) plots closest to Greeks from Thessaly and Central Macedonia. (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=641278&viewfull=1#post641278) There's no information about the hg of scy192 and scy300, but scy305 was R1b-Z2106 downstream, possibly (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Y_Haplotree_Var iant&searchfor=R-S19901*&ybp=500000,0) R1b-S19901 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S19901/)

The conclusion is that some southerners and their descendants who plot close to Albanians (3) and Greeks (1) had settled in modern Moldova.


EDIT: When you compare them on G25 Modern Averages, the modern Albanian average isn't even the top result. The margin is very small of course so the main point I was trying to get across is still the same but it's interesting:

Distance to: Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03508769 Italian_Piedmont
0.03581699 Italian_Lombardy
0.03589006 Albanian
0.03589914 Greek_Thessaly
0.03630896 Italian_Liguria
0.03750384 Italian_Tuscany
0.03832955 Italian_Bergamo

Compare that to the BGR_IA:

Distance to: Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.03716518 Italian_Lazio
0.03973669 Italian_Molise
0.04002928 Italian_Apulia
0.04080540 Italian_Abruzzo
0.04080752 Italian_Umbria
0.04130677 Italian_Basilicata
0.04130794 Italian_Marche
0.04180586 Greek_Laconia

why would there be settling involved? the Moldovan Scythians plot as you would expect them, in between the Ukrainian Scythians and something with slightly higher steppe than BGR_IA. , i.e. the Dacians.

the MJ-12 sample from this region which is a few hundred years older is also like this.

rafc
08-10-2021, 08:37 AM
Only new samples will tell the full story, but one thing looks very likely: Scy197 and BGR_IA are not part of the same population and their ancestors did not follow the same migratory and settlement patterns in the Balkans.

I'm not a specialist in autosomal DNA, but it seems to me that comparing DNA of a sample that is more than 2000 years old to modern populations doesn't make a lot of sense. The comparison to broadly contemporary samples is interesting, but hard to read into. But I don't believe that two samples that are 700KM and a few hundred of years apart should be expected to have the same autosomals.

What stands out for me is that Scy197 is the only real V13 found before the Roman age up to now, and it's found in a very north-easterly location. I used to think V13 expanded more westward, but no aDNA has been found. Either we are very unlucky, or we have to assume V13 was not important in the Western Balkans in the BA/IA. We do see L283 was. Look for example at the Daunians, who are thought to have come from the other side of the Adriatic. Several L283, and no V13. That doesn't match well with V13 being important in the Western Balkans.
To me that excludes that it expanded from there. It would make no sense that all these V13 lines, by the IA separated by 2000 years, would move eastwards, and that other groups like L283 would stay behind.

Aspar
08-10-2021, 09:22 AM
The thread is getting polluted because of nationalistic driven purposes. It's beyond me how can someone use a modern auDNA to make conclusions that scy197 is a West Balkan migrant when so much happened since that guy was alive. I guess someone needs to tell these guys that the Slavic migrations had quite an impact in the Balkans, especially in the regions that today are Slavic speaking and thus, populations like Bulgarians are far removed from the auDNA make up of the people that lived there before the Slavic migrations.
Look, scy197 is closest by distance to North Italians. That's it, it must have came from North Italy :ranger:

I have said many times, I have no horse in this race. It doesn't matter for me where did E-V13 started it's expansion. In fact, I would have been fine with the West Balkans. But emotions aside, my reasoning tells me that no aDNA E-V13 has been found in the BA/IA West Balkans or Italy up to date. Even if we take those informations some Albanians spread around about aDNA coming from Albania, it has been spread about R-PF7562 and J-L283 not about E-V13. Then again, the most ancient E-V13 we have up to date is scy197 in IA Moldova with other IA E-V13 samples on their way from IA Bulgaria in a still unpublished study.

Are we going to argue against the facts now?

Edit: Just for the sake of this discussion, Channeled/Fluted ware and Encrusted pottery cultures had more impact in the East and Central Balkans and minimal to none in the West Balkans where native cultures such as the Glasinac-Mati prevailed in the south and newcomers from Central Europe such as the Urnfield culture prevailed in the North. This is again an important argument that these two cultures or just one had an important role in the spreading of E-V13 in the East Balkans at least.

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 11:34 AM
What stands out for me is that Scy197 is the only real V13 found before the Roman age up to now, and it's found in a very north-easterly location. I used to think V13 expanded more westward, but no aDNA has been found.


Then again, the most ancient E-V13 we have up to date is scy197 in IA Moldova with other IA E-V13 samples on their way from IA Bulgaria in a still unpublished study.


The authors of the paper explicitly write that: A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European populations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster


I simply followed what the authors of the paper wrote. We can't draw absolute conclusions from comparisons of aDNA samples to modern populations, but these comparisons are always used as semi-proxies for understanding broader events. This is done for all samples so why shouldn't the samples from Moldova be compared to modern populations? I didn't say that "scy197 came from northern Italy", but I did say that the fact that scy197's distance is very close and roughly the same to some parts of northern Italy, Albanians and Greeks from Thessaly/Central Macedonia does indicate a more western location in the Balkans for his origin.

I didn't hypothesize anything that doesn't show up in the comparison of aDNA samples.

According to the uploaded data on haplotree, scy197 has been dated to 2225 ybp and BGR_IA to 2550 ybp. Real dates are rarely so precise, but we should assume that they lived ~300 years apart.

Distance to:Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.03166708 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.03688391 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.03732499 DEU_MA_o
0.03943257 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04009300 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.04095196 GRC_Mycenaean
0.04471000 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.04525620 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04746712 BGR_EBA


Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03941045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.04104697 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04183150 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04207668 HRV_IA
0.04208711 ITA_Etruscan
0.04651286 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04654187 HRV_EBA

Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy300
0.03376338 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03464761 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.03670217 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04167179 HRV_IA
0.04225398 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.04257270 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04380978 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04475572 ITA_Etruscan_o2
0.04580359 HRV_MBA

Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy305
0.03432858 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03773868 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.03832709 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03959387 HUN_Avar_Period
0.03961547 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04023663 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04557936 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.04598255 HRV_IA
0.04609114 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance


Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.03480045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03490269 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.03703073 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.03898991 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.03949569 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.04008332 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.04151083 ITA_Etruscan_o2
0.04262147 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04517544 IND_Roopkund_B
0.04627815 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.04652411 HRV_EBA
0.04840297 HRV_IA
0.04866041 HRV_MBA
0.05106970 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.05270973 BGR_IA
0.05448261 ITA_Etruscan


scy197 is closer to HRV_IA while BGR_IA has the same distance to BGR_EBA as scy197 to HRV_EBA. It's obvious that scy197/SE Cluster and BGR_IA belong to different populations.

Aspar
08-10-2021, 11:49 AM
In this dissertation (https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10042028/1/Nenova_10042028_thesis_volume1_redacted.pdf) there are some interesting maps of archaeological cultures and their influence in Thrace and Macedonia:
https://i.postimg.cc/CMHwQ9TN/Nenova.png (https://postimages.org/)

The are where E-V13 is found at big numbers, that is Kapitan Andreevo in Thrace, was settled very early on at the beginning of the LBA by a population representative of the Encrusted/Incised pottery culture.
Here the authors say that the appearance of this culture was sudden and the first pottery of this type shows up in the 16th century BC. Can we apply in such a case 'pottery NOT people'? I think not because what can drive the existing population all of a sudden to switch to a entirely new and different type of pottery? The answer for me is obvious, a new population must have arrived in the region.
What's even more interesting, the site where Kapitan Andreevo is located, the blue color on the map, is representative of the so called ‘furchenstich’ type of Incised/Encrusted decoration, that is piercing and dragging the sharp tool along the surface. While the yellow color on the same map is representative according to the author of
relatively wide incisions with U-shaped section, which from now on will be referred to as just ‘incised’ for simplicity’s sake. So she makes distinction between ‘furchenstich’ and incised type with the later being more representative for Macedonia and the Western Rhodopes while the former one for Thrace.
According to the author these are two different schools and traditions and should be distinguished. The author goes on to say
The two main types, on the other hand, furchenstich and pure incised lines suggest spatial variations. The latter is more evenly distributed with a slight preference towards the west and the north, while the furchenstich incisions are clearly preferred in the east and the southeast corner of the study area. The fact that there is no matt-painted pottery beyond the West Thrace is an indicator of
the local, Macedonian origin of this type of ware, probably as a consequence of the spread of the Mycenaean-style imports from the south, supported also by the overlap
of the two types (see Horejs 2007 and Hochstetter 1984).

Although this doesn't have to be entirely correct especially because I see some mistakes in the map C, where the author says that Brnjica type pottery spread to south in the 14-13 century BC. This isn't correct as far as I have read materials on the subject because the first Brnjica related pottery appears in Macedonia with the destruction of Ulanci-Vardar cultural group at the beginning of the 12th century BC.

But if the first map is correct and if the dates are correct, then the Encrusted pottery culture of the 'furchenstich' type could be the first potential spreader of E-V13 lineages in the East Balkans with later spreads by other advancing cultures as well. Also the direction of incoming in Thrace is the Carpathians, if this is correct, what initial culture this migration can be related with? Wietenberg culture could be a good candidate IMO...

Aspar
08-10-2021, 12:07 PM
I simply followed what the authors of the paper wrote. We can't draw absolute conclusions from comparisons of aDNA samples to modern populations, but these comparisons are always used as semi-proxies for understanding broader events. This is done for all samples so why shouldn't the samples from Moldova be compared to modern populations? I didn't say that "scy197 came from northern Italy", but I did say that the fact that scy197's distance is very close and roughly the same to some parts of northern Italy, Albanians and Greeks from Thessaly/Central Macedonia does indicate a more western location in the Balkans for his origin.


Your assumption for a West Balkan origin is out of question because you are comparing apples with oranges. It is the same if I claim that I-Y3130 was an ancient Balkan marker just because it's found in big numbers in the Balkans today.
The same, just because the Albanians, the Greeks and the Italians have more of the AF component in them which makes them similar to the make up of scy197 doesn't necessarily imply that this component wasn't at same rates or even higher in the population of the East Balkans prior to the arrival of the Slavs. In this context, scy197 doesn't need to have West Balkan origin at all..

Riverman
08-10-2021, 12:32 PM
Your assumption for a West Balkan origin is out of question because you are comparing apples with oranges. It is the same if I claim that I-Y3130 was an ancient Balkan marker just because it's found in big numbers in the Balkans today.
The same, just because the Albanians, the Greeks and the Italians have more of the AF component in them which makes them similar to the make up of scy197 doesn't necessarily imply that this component wasn't at same rates or even higher in the population of the East Balkans prior to the arrival of the Slavs. In this context, scy197 doesn't need to have West Balkan origin at all..

How would you describe the relationship of the Incised and Channelled Ware groups? I read they were closely related if not producing each other:


The Sboreanovo group is defined usually as part of “Cultures with Stamped ornamentation of Pottery” of Northern Bulgaria. Fluted ornamentation of pottery, however, is also a typical or even dominant feature for Sboreanovo group (Гоцев, Шалганова 2004: 60-61; Czyborra 2005: 173). Besides, the main type of Sboreanovo vessel (Czyborra 2005: 99-101) is the so called ‘cantaros’ (as well as Zimnicea-Plovdiv pottery (Alexandrescu 1973: 77-78, 81)). The ‘cantaros’ is a big vessel with two handles and open mouth; this kind of vessel is found neither in Kozia, nor in Saharna-Solonceni.
Evidently, it looks more probable that the Vyrbitsa tradition of bronze axes production was brought into the Carpathian-Dniester region by some population belonging to the "cannelure Hallstatt" community. It could be the Hinova-Mala Vrbica group. It seems to be a more preferable idea, as we see some other metalware (bracelets and fibulas) in the Carpathian-Dniester region that seem to be associated with the coming of Hinova-Mala Vrbica population. The Hinova-Mala Vrbica group made a substantial contribution to the origin of Kishinev-Korlateni culture (Guma 1995: 108).

There is some other argument to this idea. As it follows from the mapping of V. A. Dergachev, the “axes with vertical lines” were spread in three areas chiefly: in central and western parts of Northern Bulgaria, in the Carpathian-Dniester region and in Transylvania – in the area of Gava culture (Dergacev 2002: 167-169, taf.123), The Gava culture is a “culture with fluted ornamentation of pottery” too.
It is really important that “axes with vertical lines” from the Carpathian-Dniester region and Transylvania have a special ring at the back side. This distinguishes them from the “Bulgarian” variant of “axes with vertical lines”. The “Bulgarian” variant of “axes with vertical lines” has no rings (as V. A. Dergachev points out, “isolated evidences” of axes “with ring” were found in Northern Bulgaria) (Dergacev 2002: 168, taf.123).
But “axes with vertical lines” from area of Hinova-Mala Vrbica group have this ring as well.
V. A. Dergachev suggested that these “axes with vertical lines and a special ring” appeared as a result of some synthesis of Transylvania and Northern Bulgaria metalwork traditions (Дергачев 1997: 58; Dergacev 2002: 168).
Where did this synthesis take place? We can suppose that it was the Hinova-Mala Vrbica area.
Thus, the “axes with vertical lines and a special ring” were spread in the “cultures with fluted ornamentation of pottery” mainly. And, as it results from the mapping (Dergacev 2002: taf. 123;



I think that all these facts bring the idea that sickles and axes of Vyrbitsa type spread in the Carpathian-Dniester region simultaneously. It was in the first half of Ha A1, when Noua culture was replaced by Kishinev-Korlateni (see: Дергачев, Бочкарев 2002: 236). And just the Kishinev-Korlateni people brought this tradition.


It was pointed out that an axe and a piece of casting-form of Vyrbitsa tradition were found in the Radovanu settlement (Uşurelu 2003: 216). The “Radovanu facies” (or “Late Koslogeny culture”, as many researchers refer to it) is supposed to be the ancestor of “Cultures with Incised Ornamentation of Pottery” community in the Lower Danube and Carpathian-Dniester regions (including such early groups as Sihleanu-Rimnicele, Tamaoani, Holerkani-Hanska, Balta). Thus, this is considered as evidence that early groups of “Cultures with Incised Ornamentation of Pottery” community in the Lower Danube region were a main and direct heir of the Vyrbitsa metalwork tradition (Uşurelu 2003: 217).


But more important is the fact that in Dobruja and Muntenia "the Late Bronze Age tradition of metal production came abruptly to the end simultaneously with the end of Koslogeny culture and with penetration of Pre-Babadag or Babadag I here" (Дергачев 1997: 50).
So, it looks like the Babadag culture was a newcomer in the Lower Danube area.

https://www.academia.edu/4338117/Axes_sickles_and_Incised_Pottery_entities_Ha_A_Ha_ B1_

Its kind of complicated to keep these groups separated in the region, because they obviously overlap and influence each other. The most direct evidence for an intrusive element being the cannelure/channelled/fluted ware groups imho. Incidently their sphere of influence covers really all areas which show a significantly elevated V13 frequency.

More of this some pages earlier in the thread:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=781583&viewfull=1#post781583

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 12:52 PM
Your assumption for a West Balkan origin is out of question because you are comparing apples with oranges. It is the same if I claim that I-Y3130 was an ancient Balkan marker just because it's found in big numbers in the Balkans today.

If someone compared modern haplogroup frequency & distribution to make broad overgeneralizations about a sample's origin, it would be obviously wrong. But nobody is doing that. All comparisons are G25-related and include comparisons between ancient samples not just between ancient samples vs. modern averages, which is what everyone is doing for all aDNA samples.


The same, just because the Albanians, the Greeks and the Italians have more of the AF component in them which makes them similar to the make up of scy197 doesn't necessarily imply that this component wasn't at same rates or even higher in the population of the East Balkans prior to the arrival of the Slavs. In this context, scy197 doesn't need to have West Balkan origin at all..

I strongly believe that we should re-orientate the discussion in this thread to a data-based approach. Scy197 plots closely to western Balkan aDNA samples (HRV_IA, HRV_EBA) and is more distant to BGR_IA who unsurprisingly doesn't share the same affinity to the western Balkans but instead is closer to BGR_EBA. The data-based conclusion is that Scy197 is indeed from the western/central Balkans, from a location definitely much more southern than Moldova, which is really what the paper itself is saying.

Distance to:Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.03166708 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.03688391 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.03732499 DEU_MA_o
0.03943257 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04009300 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.04095196 GRC_Mycenaean
0.04471000 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.04525620 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04746712 BGR_EBA


Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03941045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.04104697 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04183150 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04207668 HRV_IA
0.04208711 ITA_Etruscan
0.04651286 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04654187 HRV_EBA

Riverman
08-10-2021, 01:19 PM
If Channelled Ware was the primary spreader, they moved down on both sides of the Carparthians, similar to later Slavs and colonised the Central and Eastern Balkan, but with fringe hybrid groups in the West snd South = Greece.
This largely happened from 1.300-800 BC.
The Scythian is from a different context hundreds of years later. Your approach is debatable, but even if you would be right and he would be from an Western branch, so what?
You prove exactly zero for the situation in the East Balkan. And you haven't proved his West Balkan origin anyway.

The only important proof can come from Early Iron Age remains and the preview we got says V13 was present and strong in IA Bulgaria.

I'm assuming gene flow snd exchange between the Balkan groups in this period and a presence of V13 since the transitional phase on both sides anyway.

Central Balkan has Belegiš-Gava, Morava and Paracin, East Balkan its own Fluted Ware, cannelure horizon and incised pottery. They were, imho, sons from the same V13 stock. Daco-Thracian is the most direct and obvious ethnolinguistic affiliation. But because of the iron technology distribution, probably already with Urnfield, it was spread beyond since about 1.200 BC.

Aspar
08-10-2021, 01:23 PM
@Riverman
I will come back later to your interesting question when will have more time. It seems to me that the Incised pottery bearers had more of the Neolithic element in them while the Fluted group was more northern influenced, perhaps from Lusatian and Lausitch group which is obvious by the involvement in the Urnfield system of groups.


If someone compared modern haplogroup frequency & distribution to make broad overgeneralizations about a sample's origin, it would be obviously wrong. But nobody is doing that. All comparisons are G25-related and include comparisons between ancient samples not just between ancient samples vs. modern averages, which is what everyone is doing for all aDNA samples.

Whether is yDNA or auDNA you are still doing the same mistake. auDNA from 2500 years before and today is not the same, especially after all the demographic changes and migrations.



I strongly believe that we should re-orientate the discussion in this thread to a data-based approach. Scy197 plots closely to western Balkan aDNA samples (HRV_IA, HRV_EBA) and is more distant to BGR_IA who unsurprisingly doesn't share the same affinity to the western Balkans but instead is closer to BGR_EBA. The data-based conclusion is that Scy197 is indeed from the western/central Balkans, from a location definitely much more southern than Moldova, which is really what the paper itself is saying.

Distance to:Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.03166708 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.03688391 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.03732499 DEU_MA_o
0.03943257 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04009300 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.04095196 GRC_Mycenaean
0.04471000 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.04525620 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04746712 BGR_EBA


Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03941045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.04104697 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04183150 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04207668 HRV_IA
0.04208711 ITA_Etruscan
0.04651286 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04654187 HRV_EBA

Again, BGR_IA is a sample from Central Bulgaria while scy197 is a sample from Moldova. Different latitudes and longitudes. I don't understand why do you expect them to be the same. But I wonder, how did you miss the Thraco-Cimmerian MJ12 who was unearthed not that far away from scy197 and was much older. It had the same composition as scy197.

rafc
08-10-2021, 01:48 PM
scy197 is closer to HRV_IA while BGR_IA has the same distance to BGR_EBA as scy197 to HRV_EBA. It's obvious that scy197/SE Cluster and BGR_IA belong to different populations.

If there are four of the SE cluster, and one BGR_IA, what makes you think BGR_IA is not the outlier? Maybe Balkan populations from east to west were quite alike at that time, and the BGR_IA had some recent ancestry from the south. Isn't the normal way of testing that building models to show what the inputs of SE and BGR_IA are? I would try it if I knew how :-)

Riverman
08-10-2021, 01:59 PM
If there are four of the SE cluster, and one BGR_IA, what makes you think BGR_IA is not the outlier? Maybe Balkan populations from east to west were quite alike at that time, and the BGR_IA had some recent ancestry from the south. Isn't the normal way of testing that building models to show what the inputs of SE and BGR_IA are? I would try it if I knew how :-)

Bulgaria was at the crossroads, with influences from the North West (Channelled Ware), South (Greeks, Anatolians) and East (Cimmerians, Iranians). Also, I don't care what any kind of Bulgarian sample had, I care the most for those with a high frequency of E-V13, like Pșenicevo. Its like it will be with Hallstatt finds, its not any kind of Hallstatt sample, but only the very early ones with E-V13 which will point in the right direction. Between the initial spread and the earliest sample we have at the moment being centuries. Not just two generations, but centuries!

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 02:35 PM
Again, BGR_IA is a sample from Central Bulgaria while scy197 is a sample from Moldova. Different latitudes and longitudes. I don't understand why do you expect them to be the same. But I wonder, how did you miss the Thraco-Cimmerian MJ12 who was unearthed not that far away from scy197 and was much older. It had the same composition as scy197.

MJ12 does not have the same composition as scy197 and he's not much older (2847 ybp) and we have no information about his haplogroup. This is a sample from the 9th century BC. Mobility all across Europe was at an all time high in his era.

Distance to: UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.03949569 Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.04294361 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.04462828 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111
0.04512999 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.04648672 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.04850308 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
0.04887789 IND_Roopkund_B:I3404
0.04916615 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ40
0.04972746 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR970
0.05005633 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.05035594 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.05040285 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5017
0.05058459 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR969
0.05083093 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.05092859 Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.05170976 Scythian_MDA:scy300
0.05233163 Scythian_MDA:scy197

His closest match scy192 (but still quite distant):

Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.03480045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03490269 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.03703073 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.03898991 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.03949569 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.04008332 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.04151083 ITA_Etruscan_o2
0.04262147 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04517544 IND_Roopkund_B
0.04627815 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.04652411 HRV_EBA
0.04840297 HRV_IA
0.04866041 HRV_MBA


Geographical distance doesn't correlate with ancestry divergence. Scy197 is much more distant geographically to the Dalmatian coast and the southern Balkans than to central Bulgaria and yet he is consistently closer to them than to BGR_IA. Hence what this shows is that by the 6th century BC, E-V13 was present in at least two clearly different populations in the Balkans. Nothing at all is controversial or unexpected about this conclusion. No "one haplogroup" culture existed in Europe in that era.

Compare the distances of MJ2, Scy197 and BGR_IA to a)Proto-Villanovan b)HRV_IA c) Helladic_MBA

Proto-Villanovan:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.03586429
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.06229619
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05772276


HRV_IA:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.04207668
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.05849170
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05834312

Helladic_MBA:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.04104697
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.06052057
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05320363

excine
08-10-2021, 03:38 PM
Compare the distances of MJ2, Scy197 and BGR_IA to a)Proto-Villanovan b)HRV_IA c) Helladic_MBA

Proto-Villanovan:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.03586429
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.06229619
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05772276


HRV_IA:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.04207668
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.05849170
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05834312

Helladic_MBA:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.04104697
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.06052057
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05320363

Given the fact that MJ12 is non-EV13 and BGR IA being EV13, it appears that they share similar ancestry from eastern Europe/Balkans, while SCY197, as a late arrival ("southern cluster"), appears to be distinct from both of them. Perhaps future results will reveal that E-V13 in Bulgaria was an early offshoot of EV13, which was rapidly absorbed by the natives. Nevertheless, SCY197 appears to have belonged to a western group which settled in the east.

rafc
08-10-2021, 05:12 PM
Geographical distance doesn't correlate with ancestry divergence. Scy197 is much more distant geographically to the Dalmatian coast and the southern Balkans than to central Bulgaria and yet he is consistently closer to them than to BGR_IA. Hence what this shows is that by the 6th century BC, E-V13 was present in at least two clearly different populations in the Balkans. Nothing at all is controversial or unexpected about this conclusion. No "one haplogroup" culture existed in Europe in that era.

While I agree that by 6th century BC V13 would have been present over a large area, I think I missed something here. which would be the second population V13 was present in? I have no knowledge of an Adna sample apart from Scy197.

Huban
08-10-2021, 05:27 PM
The Moldovan sample is "scy197" from Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads According to the final version of the paper (after dating revisions):

1) "Scy197" comes from Glinoe (400-170 BCE): The Glinoe site is located in the Slobodzeya district, in the southeastern part of Moldova (46.6684°N, 29.8001°E). Ten of the excavated individuals were included in present study; K103B1, sample: scy192; K75B1, sample: scy193; K50B1S1, sample: scy197; K89B3S2, sample: scy300; K89B1, sample: scy301; K75B2, sample: 303; K81B1S1, sample: scy304; K87B1, sample: scy305; K43B1, sample: scy311; K65B1, sample: scy332.

2)This was an individual who had a large Neolithic component and the authors of the paper explicitly write that: A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European populations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster

If anything (which one sample can't really do, but let's do so for the sake of the argument), scy197 indicates migration from the west and south to the east and north in a late period and can't be cited to imply the opposite for a much older period.

Indeed, 3/4 (scy192, scy197, scy300) plot closest to Albanians and 1/4 (scy305) plots closest to Greeks from Thessaly and Central Macedonia. There's no information about the hg of scy192 and scy300, but scy305 was R1b-Z2106 downstream, possibly R1b-S19901

The conclusion is that some southerners who plot close to Albanians (3) and Greeks (1) had settled in modern Moldova.

Neither modern day Albanians nor Greeks are a good proxy for comparison with auDNA ancient results.

1. Albanians carry a heavy dose of Slavic ancestry, estimated at 20-25 %.
1.1 Albanians in K13 and various other calculators (not seen well in G25 because of the coordinates based system) carry an amount of Baltic component much higher than in any Paleobalkan find. This sort of ancestry was the primary ancestral block in Early Slavic finds.

2. Proto-Albanians without Slavic ancestry do not cluster with Moldovan Scythian results.

3. Even more pronounced for Greeks, who have Slavic and other ancestries.


20-25 % of Slavic ancestry. This brings Albanians closer than they objectively are to these Moldovan samples.

In addition most modern Balkan peoples possess a dose of something similar to modern day Cappadocian Greeks i.e. Byzantine/Roman migrants.

In fact when we model Albanians taking proto-Illyrian MBA, Illyrian IA, Bulgarian Thracian IA, and these finds we get:

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.4342% / 0.01434204 , distance is very good at 1.43
42.2 BGR_IA
25.4 HUN_Avar_Szolad AV2
18.2 Greek_Cappadocia
13.4 Scythian_MDA
0.8 HRV_IA


Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.4317% / 0.01431735
40.6 BGR_IA
25.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad AV2
19.0 Greek_Cappadocia
12.4 Scythian_MDA
2.8 HRV_MBA
0.2 HRV_IA

Albanians are a mixture of Slavic and Paleobalkan component. Paleobalkan component is dominated by Bulgarian Iron Age ancestry, followed by Getae and only a miniscule dose of Illyrian ancestry. Which brings us to the topic why modern day ethnic Albanians have so much of Thracian ancestry as espoused by a Thracian E-V13 hg?

Maybe it has something to do with a certain gentlemen called Gottfried Schramm?

When we remove the Cappadocian Greek result is still similar

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.9431% / 0.01943127
46.6 BGR_IA
33.4 Scythian_MDA
20.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad AV2

Again no IA or MBA Croatian samples, and they are there for G25 to pick them up as preferable block of ancestry..


Presence of E-V13 in Glinoe is consistent with an expansion of Pshenischevo-Babadag group whose one sub-culture Saharna Solonceni brought this sort of ancestry to Moldova as explained by the A.I.Melyukova and others.

Finds of a Gava culture variant were closer to Glinoe so it is possible it derives from that side as well.

Glinoe is surrounded by Getae settlements of 4th-3rd century BC, some of them just few km away..

https://i.ibb.co/HDhcTbY/IV-III-BC-Mold.jpg

Squares are Getae settlements of IV-III century BC, semi-circles Getic burial grounds, IV-III century BC. Marked by myself dark red is Getic settlement of Hradenytsi, same timeframe. Light blue is Glinoe itself. I can add more..

There were some Greek colonies nearby. On the left bank of Dniestr in 6th century BC, Greek settlements with Getic material have been registered.

Moldovan Scythian samples do not cluster with aDNA samples which by all available data represent proxy to how Greeks looked like.

Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.04758913 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.05270973 BGR_IA:I5769
0.06883960 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.07137498 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.07926436 GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.08405803 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8208
0.08693789 GRC_Mycenaean:I9010

So none of these samples appears Greek. And considering a whole range of Getic settlements nearby from the same time-period they can be nothing other than Getae. To suggest anything else is a baseless pseudoscientific concept with no basis in any sort of archeological or historical material. And archeological evidence regarding this region is quite clear and represents more of a primary source than historical sources.

Almost certainly a group of Getae became politically Scythian. Like the same happened with Hungarian Scythians, where clear evidence exists for their earlier origin.

Any mention of any recent "Western Balkan" ancestry here is indefensible from a historical-archeological POV and does constitute promotion of Pseudoscience.



I strongly believe that we should re-orientate the discussion in this thread to a data-based approach. Scy197 plots closely to western Balkan aDNA samples (HRV_IA, HRV_EBA) and is more distant to BGR_IA who unsurprisingly doesn't share the same affinity to the western Balkans but instead is closer to BGR_EBA.

Your approach is unscientific and you compare aDNA to modern populations. Modern populations that received various sorts of admixture, as shown above. Geneticists in studies based on blocks of autosomal ancestry derive aDNA samples from other aDNA samples, not from modern populations, except in rare cases.

In this instance Bulgarian Iron Age sample is primarily distinguishable by the Levantine MBA input as well as Minoan like input. Bulgarian sample is an outlier, nevertheless that doesn't mean it wasn't widespread in Thrace, as a Late Antiquity sample shows it was. Except that Bulgarian sample does actually show similar ancestry to the Getae and Babadag samples once this Near Eastern ancestry is removed. So It may be postulated that a Pshenichevo or other group has received additional Anatolian BA and Levantine BA input in Bulgaria.

Old E-Z1919 Pshenichevo sample, which has even a V13+ level call from what I know and ofc the fact that we have V13+ Pshenichevo find just indicates the inevitable, albeit on lower res in a scientific study shows similar component makeup to I5769. Which does imply E-V13 is also related to this sort of profile.



Mobility all across Europe was at an all time high in his era.

What are you implying with "high mobility in the era"? Similarly “soft spoken” initial playing with presence of V13 in Asia Minor has went from an initial doubt to you denying established genetic facts that E-V13 was found in Thracians, arguably already 15 years ago, and in the upcoming study and that therefore they did spread E-V13.

This is flagrant promotion of pseudoscience on your part.

Are you implying that MJ12 got there independently of scy197 ad this cluster? Obviously you do otherwise why mention alternative modes of "getting there", if you do not please correct me, nevertheless you could have expressed yourself more precisely but you didn't..

Obviously EIA presence of that auDNA component in that region denies your unsubstantiated view that Moldovan Scythians settled there "not much earlier" so you have to make up an alternative way of this sample getting there independently..

It is completely irrational and contradictory to all facts to even consider let alone accept any such "reasoning".. We all know what that emotional reasoning truly is, E-V13 = Illyrian, an unsubstantiated laughable postulation without basis in any facts whatsoever..


MJ12 does not have the same composition as scy197 and he's not much older (2847 ybp).

MJ12, 700-800 BC, is of known Cartal (known to me at least) archeological site. A known Babadag culture site, in this phase as well. So this find belongs to the Babadag culture. Note that find was placed there in a grave made a generation or two for the people of he same culture.

In auDNA it has Steppe Iranian or Cimmerian element.
Target: UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
Distance: 4.0799% / 0.04079873
74.8 BGR_IA
22.6 UKR_Cimmerian
2.6 Scythian_HUN

I can substantiate classification of this find as Babadag from a whole range of material, please attempt to deny it. Any such attempt is clear pseudoscientific endeavor, and that is forbidden on this board as far as I know. I believe rules should apply to non-Albanians and Albanians the same, or you seem to disagree?

What these finds show is that Getae of Moldova descended of Saharna-Solonceni branch of the Babadag culture genetically cluster with the most of Babadags ancestry (non-Stepe Iranian), confirming the northwards expansion of this group.

As the primary block of ancestral component is also similar to IA Bulgarian sample a Y-DNA connection in the expansion of the entire Incised Ware complex is clear.

Pshenichevo culture, dominated by E-V13, was a genetic close relative of the Babadag culture of Romania. Pshenishevo may have received Levantine and Anatolian influx in Bulgaria, as indicated by some archeological finds..

The origin of all these groups goes to Middle Danube, Insula Banului group, and ultimately to Gava-Holigrad and Dubovac/Žuto Brdo/Girla Mare cultures.

All written here is an established archeological facts, denial of this does represent promotion of pseudoscience.

Association of these cultures with the hg E-V13 is more than obvious and it is impossible to construct any scenario from an archeological point of view implicating E-V13 with the ethnogenesis of Illyrians in any meaningful or significant way. Which indeed has yielded recent aDNA results of 8 Daunians, of whom majority are migrants as having no E-V13..

Your implicit or explicit postulation that scy192/scy197/scy305/scy300 and MJ12 got there independently of each in separate migrations of each other is impossible to defend from any logical POV, as archeological and genetic facts point towards the opposite. And these are migration events which did occur as per archeological evidence.

Western Balkan aDNA and Eastern Balkan aDNA ancestry blocks are easily distinguishable. Western Balkan had some detectible WHG ancestry while Eastern Balkan had noticeably higher CHG ancestry. This is also observed in Maros culture where a basal J-L283 was found, and from where presumably J-L283 expanded to the Western Balkans brining some of this profile along the way..
These were two in many ways similar yet distinct autosomal profiles whose spread was matched by the dominant Y-DNA haplogroups, J-L283 in the West and E-V13 in the East i.e. per all available evidence and logic these represent the division between the IA Illyrians and Thracians..


The fact that you find it "interesting" that Geto-Thracians show similarity with modern day Italians, also to Albanians and Greeks shows how out of sync you are, sky is blue and grass is green. You didn't say anything new.. This has been long known to anyone involved in aDNA research.

Huban
08-10-2021, 05:39 PM
Given the fact that MJ12 is non-EV13 and BGR IA being EV13, it appears that they share similar ancestry from eastern Europe/Balkans, while SCY197, as a late arrival ("southern cluster"), appears to be distinct from both of them. Perhaps future results will reveal that E-V13 in Bulgaria was an early offshoot of EV13, which was rapidly absorbed by the natives. Nevertheless, SCY197 appears to have belonged to a western group which settled in the east.

MJ12 was a female, of course she is not E-V13... I clicked report post but it say only for spamming and other misbehavior. Persistent posting of false information may be deemed as spamming...

Nevertheless you should have known whether MJ12 is male or female prior to posting and basing your argument on it (your statement "given the fact") is a clear pseudoscientific construct. You haven't cited any archeologists or historians to support your POV.

PS. MJ12 belonged to Babadag culture, sister culture to Pshenichevo which is loaded with (as far as we know atm only) E-V13. So if she was a male, chances are 80 % + "she" would have been E-V13..

vettor
08-10-2021, 06:00 PM
MJ12 does not have the same composition as scy197 and he's not much older (2847 ybp) and we have no information about his haplogroup. This is a sample from the 9th century BC. Mobility all across Europe was at an all time high in his era.

Distance to: UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.03949569 Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.04294361 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.04462828 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111
0.04512999 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.04648672 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.04850308 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
0.04887789 IND_Roopkund_B:I3404
0.04916615 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ40
0.04972746 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR970
0.05005633 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.05035594 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.05040285 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5017
0.05058459 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR969
0.05083093 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.05092859 Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.05170976 Scythian_MDA:scy300
0.05233163 Scythian_MDA:scy197

His closest match scy192 (but still quite distant):

Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy192
0.03480045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03490269 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.03703073 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.03898991 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.03949569 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.04008332 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.04151083 ITA_Etruscan_o2
0.04262147 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04517544 IND_Roopkund_B
0.04627815 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.04652411 HRV_EBA
0.04840297 HRV_IA
0.04866041 HRV_MBA


Geographical distance doesn't correlate with ancestry divergence. Scy197 is much more distant geographically to the Dalmatian coast and the southern Balkans than to central Bulgaria and yet he is consistently closer to them than to BGR_IA. Hence what this shows is that by the 6th century BC, E-V13 was present in at least two clearly different populations in the Balkans. Nothing at all is controversial or unexpected about this conclusion. No "one haplogroup" culture existed in Europe in that era.

Compare the distances of MJ2, Scy197 and BGR_IA to a)Proto-Villanovan b)HRV_IA c) Helladic_MBA

Proto-Villanovan:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.03586429
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.06229619
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05772276


HRV_IA:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.04207668
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.05849170
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05834312

Helladic_MBA:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.04104697
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.06052057
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05320363


To continue with your bottom samples and trying to establish what is the goal here.......................


Proto-Villanovian is sample ID: R1 a female born in Liburnia ( Nis ) and died in Liburnian Picene lands ( Marche region italy ) ....................I have seen some who found her paternal line ( not sure if this is legit ) of o2a2 from east kazak lands ....................her marker U5a2b ...........

R1 (Protovillanovan from Martinsicuro Marche - 930-839 BCE)

Eye colour : blue
Hair colour : dark
Hair type : straight
Skin colour : light


.................................................. ......


HRV_IA is sample I3313 a Dalmatian, another female ...............Bronze Age, 1500-900 BCE ................marker HV0e


............................................
Another which you left out is SZ1 which should be associated with the above 2 ..............SZ1:

mtDNA: J1b
Y-DNA: R1a1a1b2a2a(Z2123)

further breakdown
Sample: SZ1
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Study Information: The skeletal remains from an individual dating to the Bronze Age 10 m north of the cemetery.
Age: Bronze Age
Y-DNA: R-Y20746
mtDNA: J1b

Riverman
08-10-2021, 06:42 PM
Pshenichevo culture, dominated by E-V13, was a genetic close relative of the Babadag culture of Romania. Pshenishevo may have received Levantine and Anatolian influx in Bulgaria, as indicated by some archeological finds..

When I went through the cultures, pottery styles and movements of people in the region, which could be associated with a spread of E-V13, I came across the Grey Ware. It was clear to me that this kind of pottery style and cultural movement could never be the agent for E-V13, but it could have spread ancestry from Anatolia to the Balkans probably.


Fine wheel-made (or handmade) burnished grey wares keep occurring in and around the Aegean area throughout the second millennium, but also in the preceding third and in the following first millennium B.C. What may (or may not) be just a coincidence, has often been interpreted as evidence for something: movement of people, development of culture, chronological cross-links. Whereas in some cases it is clear that grey and grey is not always the same, there are other instances, which have kept archaeological discourse busy for well over a century now. This contribution intends to present a kind of entrée into the study of Aegean and Anatolian grey wares, on the background of the history of research, with an open eye also to the neighbouring regions, such as Bulgaria, Georgia and the Levant. Grey wares have received only a few monothematic studies and were mostly dealt with site by site, along with other types of pottery.

http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/index.php?p=art_list&id_reg=3&id_war=1

Otherwise I completely agree with you and would add that if E-V13 was spread to the Western Balkan too, early on, it was mainly by cultures closely related to and currently classified as being related to the Daco-Thracians, like mentioned before, like its the case for the Channelled and Incised Ware, which has counterparts in the West (or better Central) and the East Balkan sphere, presumably from the same source.

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 06:54 PM
(As in other times, I have chosen to not reply to Huban extensively because we are dealing again with 0 sample assumptions about which populations were "E-V13 heavy". If someone has something to contribute it should be done with quantifiable data, not assumptions presented as facts. As for using calculators in a way which tries to force a particular result by using 3 populations as proxies, it's really problematic, it doesn't move the discussion forwards and it can be deconstructed by comparing Albanians and any other Balkan population with ancient averages scaled to see their closest matches without any "calculator filtering".)

Distance to: Albanian
0.02652242 ITA_Rome_MA
0.02964690 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.03105090 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.03155528 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.03277406 Scythian_MDA
0.03609949 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03832062 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.03905921 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04001548 HRV_EBA
0.04111939 IND_Roopkund_B
0.04209984 HRV_MBA
0.04303196 HRV_IA
0.04489471 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.04636891 Migration_POH:POH27
0.04797284 Migration_LIB:LIB3
0.04843233 ITA_Etruscan_o2
0.04864631 ITA_Etruscan
0.05028890 HUN_Avar_Period
0.05178807 BGR_IA )

That MJ12, Scy197 and BGR_IA don't belong to the same population is obvious:

Again, compare the distances of MJ2, Scy197 and BGR_IA to a)Proto-Villanovan b)HRV_IA c) Helladic_MBA

Proto-Villanovan:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.03586429
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.06229619
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05772276


HRV_IA:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.04207668
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.05849170
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05834312

Helladic_MBA:
Scy197 (2225 ybp): 0.04104697
BGR_IA (2550 ybp): 0.06052057
MJ2 (2847 ybp): 0.05320363
)

But let's get back to what is factual and what isn't: the Moldovan sample in this discussion was first cited as an example which supposedly showed east-to-west migration). It doesn't. The paper is clear: the sample belongs to a southern cluster. We have maybe a handful a E-V13 samples and one of them is undoubtedly a person (or his descendant) who migrated from the west to the east.


To continue with your bottom samples and trying to establish what is the goal here.......................


What I'm trying to investigate is how and why Scy197 is linked to western aDNA samples. As we're exploring links between population profiles, autosomal links are more useful than y-dna ones

Two interesting samples close to SCY197 are HRV_IA:I3313 and DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b.

First, we should examine the differences between Croatian MBA and Croatian IA

Distance to: HRV_MBA:I4331
0.02832770 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.02842100 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03036609 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.03125560 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03250899 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03342391 HRV_IA:I3313

HRV_MBA has close links to Etruscans, which might be a proxy result for a population which was linked with the later Etruscans. Indeed, related groups to the Proto-Villanovans were present in the north-western Balkans. See how HRV_IA changes from HRV_MBA:

Distance to: HRV_IA:I3313
0.03075080 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.03333304 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL36
0.03342391 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.03388409 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287

In my opinion, this shows strong links with more northern populations in this era.


The closeness to NIEcap3b is partially based on a similar background:


Distance to: DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b
0.02015643 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.02895506 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37
0.02909921 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log04
0.03180790 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL23
0.03245792 Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.03457686 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.03556110 HRV_IA:I3313

vettor
08-10-2021, 07:00 PM
What I'm trying to investigate is how and why Scy197 is linked to western aDNA samples. As we're exploring links between population profiles, autosomal links are more useful than y-dna ones

Two interesting samples close to SCY197 are HRV_IA:I3313 and DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b.

First, we should examine the differences between Croatian MBA and Crotia IA

Distance to: HRV_MBA:I4331
0.02832770 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.02842100 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03036609 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.03125560 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03250899 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03342391 HRV_IA:I3313

HRV_MBA has close links to Etruscans, which might be a proxy result for a population which was linked with the later Etruscans. Indeed, related groups to the Proto-Villanovans were present in the north-western Balkans. See how HRV_IA changes from HRV_MBA:

Distance to: HRV_IA:I3313
0.03075080 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.03333304 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL36
0.03342391 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.03388409 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287

In my opinion, this shows strong links with more northern populations in this era.


The closeness to NIEcap3b is partially based on a similar background:


Distance to: DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b
0.02015643 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.02895506 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37
0.02909921 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log04
0.03180790 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL23
0.03245792 Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.03457686 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.03556110 HRV_IA:I3313

Ok .....I will have a look

but I can see Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b. as a German in the service of the Byzantines ................with close connection with Liguria and Lombardia regions of Italy


I link strongly with all below except Log02 ( no where to be seen for myself )
CL23 is the same Ydna as myself


Distance to: DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b
0.02015643 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.02895506 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37
0.02909921 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log04
0.03180790 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL23
0.03245792 Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.03457686 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.03556110 HRV_IA:I3313

bce
08-10-2021, 07:20 PM
If someone compared modern haplogroup frequency & distribution to make broad overgeneralizations about a sample's origin, it would be obviously wrong. But nobody is doing that. All comparisons are G25-related and include comparisons between ancient samples not just between ancient samples vs. modern averages, which is what everyone is doing for all aDNA samples.



I strongly believe that we should re-orientate the discussion in this thread to a data-based approach. Scy197 plots closely to western Balkan aDNA samples (HRV_IA, HRV_EBA) and is more distant to BGR_IA who unsurprisingly doesn't share the same affinity to the western Balkans but instead is closer to BGR_EBA. The data-based conclusion is that Scy197 is indeed from the western/central Balkans, from a location definitely much more southern than Moldova, which is really what the paper itself is saying.

Distance to:Thracians:BGR_IA_I5769
0.03166708 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.03688391 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.03732499 DEU_MA_o
0.03943257 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04009300 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
0.04095196 GRC_Mycenaean
0.04471000 ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.04525620 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04746712 BGR_EBA


Distance to:Getae:Scythians_MDA_scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03941045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.04104697 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04183150 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04207668 HRV_IA
0.04208711 ITA_Etruscan
0.04651286 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04654187 HRV_EBA

Single distances, outside of context, tell us very little.

here's a PCA showing the Moldovan Scythians in the context of other Iron age samples:
https://i.imgur.com/omd9YMb.png

Firstly, MDA_Scythians are nothing like the Iron age population of Greece and Italy (and likely Albania too.) Them being very similar to modern Greeks, Italians and Albanians is just a curiosity. it doesn't tell us about their origins, of course.

MDA_Scythians plot in an elongated cluster stretching between Scythians (the Scythian sample from nearby South Ukraine fits the best) and Balkan IA samples. MJ12 clusters with them too.
This plotting makes sense, because these samples were taken at the very border of Getae/Dacians and Scythians.

also, BGR_IA is very different from BGR_EBA, which was Italic-like. It looks like a complete population replacement took place at some point in Bulgaria, involving a lot of input from Greece.
i'm not sure how is this supported by archaeology. keep in mind that BGR_IA is from Northern Bulgaria, separated from Greece by the Balkan mountains.

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 07:37 PM
Single distances, outside of context, tell us very little.

Agreed, which is why we should compare multiple samples for multiple proxies etc.


here's a PCA showing the Moldovan Scythians in the context of other
Here's the problem with the PCA: As far as I know, Scythian_MDA has been created by using all samples from the study to construct an average, but the study is clear: A group of the samples (including SCY197) do not belong to the same cluster as the other ones

Scythian_MDA:scy305
Scythian_MDA:scy311
Scythian_MDA:scy301
Scythian_MDA:scy197
Scythian_MDA:scy192
Scythian_MDA:scy300

So, the average is an average of two different groups. If you could plot them separately that would be interesting.

By the way, even by comparing MJ12 and BGR_IA to Proto-Villanovans, HRV_IA, Helladic_MBA, it strongly suggests that they have common ancestry.

Edit: I didn't say that BGR_IA is in general close to BGR_EBA. I said that BGR_IA is closer to BGR_EBA than Scy197. Scy197, on the other hand, is much closer to HRV_ samples than to BGR_ samples

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 07:47 PM
Agreed, which is why we should compare multiple samples for multiple proxies etc.


Here's the problem with the PCA: As far as I know, Scythian_MDA has been created by using all samples from the study to construct an average, but the study is clear: A group of the samples (including SCY197 do not belong to the same cluster as the other ones)

Scythian_MDA:scy305
Scythian_MDA:scy311
Scythian_MDA:scy301
Scythian_MDA:scy197
Scythian_MDA:scy192
Scythian_MDA:scy300


So how different is the southern cluster (scy192, scy197, scy300, scy305) from scy301, scy311?

Very different (distance from individual ancient samples):

SCY197:
Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.03658023 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.03662024 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02

SCY305:
Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.03004477 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37
0.03245792 DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b
0.03797396 IND_Roopkund_B:I3404


SCY301:
Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy301
0.04360554 Scythian_UKR:MJ34
0.04607712 HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
0.04798198 DEU_MA_ACD:STR_328

SCY311:
Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy311
0.05804598 DEU_MA_ACD:STR_328
0.06057295 Scythian_UKR:MJ34
0.06071538 HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1

rafc
08-10-2021, 08:35 PM
But let's get back to what is factual and what isn't: the Moldovan sample in this discussion was first cited as an example which supposedly showed east-to-west migration). It doesn't. The paper is clear: the sample belongs to a southern cluster. We have maybe a handful a E-V13 samples and one of them is undoubtedly a person (or his descendant) who migrated from the west to the east.

That is not what the paper says, it clusters the Scythian samples based on affinities to modern populations, just as a way to subgroup them. Since those four plot between modern Southern European samples on a PCA they are called the Southern European (SE) cluster. It doesn't imply the sample came from the south. In fact, what they write on this cluster is the following: "We identified four different clusters within our geographically continuous sample set, which likely represent a varying gradient of different genetic components: the Northern cluster, SC, CC, and SE cluster. The latter was characterized by the presence of the NEN component representing local semi-nomadic Scythians with clear genetic uptake from the locals and possibly from other settlers such as the Greeks around the Black Sea region."

bce
08-10-2021, 08:41 PM
Agreed, which is why we should compare multiple samples for multiple proxies etc.


Here's the problem with the PCA: As far as I know, Scythian_MDA has been created by using all samples from the study to construct an average, but the study is clear: A group of the samples (including SCY197 do not belong to the same cluster as the other ones)

Scythian_MDA:scy305
Scythian_MDA:scy311
Scythian_MDA:scy301
Scythian_MDA:scy197
Scythian_MDA:scy192
Scythian_MDA:scy300

So, the average is an average of two different groups. If you could plot them separately that would be interesting.

I am aware of this.
here is how they acually grouped the samples:

(i) A group of three in-dividuals (scy009, scy010, and scy303) showed genetic affinity to north European populations, hereafter referred to as a north European (NE) cluster.
(ii) A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European pop-ulations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster.
(iii) A group of three individuals (scy006, scy011, and scy193) located be-tween the genetic variation of Mordovians and populations of the North Caucasus, hereafter referred to as a steppe cluster (SC). In ad-dition, one Srubnaya-Alakulskaya individual (kzb004), the most recent Cimmerian (cim357), and all Sarmatians fell within this cluster. In contrast to the Scythians, and despite being from opposite ends of the Pontic- Caspian steppe, the five Sarmatians grouped close together in this cluster.
(iv) A group of three Scythians (scy301, scy304, and scy311) formed a discrete group between the SC and SE and had ge-netic affinities to present- day Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, and Turkish populations, hereafter referred to as a central cluster (CC). All PCA results were consistent with outgroup f3 statistics (table S6 and figs. S3 and S4, B and D).
(v)Finally, one individual from a Scythian cultural context (scy332) is positioned outside of the modern West Eurasian genetic variation (Fig.1C) but shared genetic drift with East Asian populations (table S6 and fig. S4B)

I bolded the ones I included on my PCA. (except 304 which isn't in G25)
On my PCA, group II are the ones clustering close to MJ12, and group IV are those 2 closer to Scythian_UKR_South.

As you can see on my PCA, when put into context of their era, both these groups are just Scythian shifted IA-Balkanians, and they aren't really that distinct as it may seem from the study.
Also they are both from the same archeological site, and this is a too low number of samples to divide them into so many subgroups, imo.



By the way, even by comparing MJ12 and BGR_IA to Proto-Villanovans, HRV_IA, Helladic_MBA, it strongly suggests that they have common ancestry.

again, this is viewing them out of their context.

TargetDistance•Corded_Ware_Baltic_earlyKura-AraxesTUR_Barcin_NWHG
HRV_IA:I33130.02173059•39.40.058.91.7
ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR10.02208395•39.92.655.91.6
GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log040.02089958•43.66.350.10.0
GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log020.01619190•31.77.759.11.5
BGR_IA:I57690.01860343•19.614.365.11.0
Average0.01990189•34.86.257.81.2

Helladic_MBA is steppe + pre-IE Greeks (eef+Anatolian influence)

HRV_IA and Proto-Villanovan are steppe + NW Balkan farmers (pure EEF, little or no Anatolian.)

BGR_IA is something which formed with later migrations, it doesn't descend from the local neolithic population, look at the high Kura-araxes.

at their core all these are roughly 50/50 steppe/eef, so they are similar to each other, but it's the small difference which are important.

MJ12 and MDA Scythians also formed later, with Scythian influence:

TargetDistance•Balkan_IA/MBAScythian_UKR_MJ46
Scythian_MDA:scy3010.04198093•35.264.8
Scythian_MDA:scy3110.04249610•41.059.0
Scythian_MDA:scy3050.02818110•78.022.0
Scythian_MDA:scy1920.02976452•82.617.4
UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ120.04505837•85.714.3
Scythian_MDA:scy3000.03343024•92.97.1
Scythian_MDA:scy1970.02834584•93.16.9
Average0.03560816•72.627.4

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 08:47 PM
That is not what the paper says, it clusters the Scythian samples based on affinities to modern populations, just as a way to subgroup them. Since those four plot between modern Southern European samples on a PCA they are called the Southern European (SE) cluster. It doesn't imply the sample came from the south. In fact, what they write on this cluster is the following: "We identified four different clusters within our geographically continuous sample set, which likely represent a varying gradient of different genetic components: the Northern cluster, SC, CC, and SE cluster. The latter was characterized by the presence of the NEN component representing local semi-nomadic Scythians with clear genetic uptake from the locals and possibly from other settlers such as the Greeks around the Black Sea region."

I'm not sure where we disagree on anything here because they way to subgroup them is based on how they cluster. You can see the same differences in comparison to ancient sample averages too because it's not just that Scy305 or Scy197 plot closer to modern "southerners", they are consistently radically different from the people like Scy311 in comparison to ancient samples:

SCY305:
Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.03432858 ITA_Rome_MA
0.03773868 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.03832709 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03959387 HUN_Avar_Period
0.03961547 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04023663 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04557936 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.04598255 HRV_IA
0.04609114 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04936729 IND_Roopkund_B
0.05045842 HRV_EBA
0.05092859 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.05134240 HRV_MBA

SCY311:
Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy311
0.05256318 DEU_MA_ACD
0.06071538 HUN_Avar_Period
0.06672551 HUN_Prescythian_IA
0.06692601 HUN_MA
0.06911968 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
0.06914699 DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine
0.06937720 UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky
0.06946754 Scythian_UKR
0.07014227 UKR_Cimmerian_o

SCY197:
Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.03941045 ITA_Rome_MA
0.04104697 GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.04183150 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04207668 HRV_IA
0.04208711 ITA_Etruscan
0.04651286 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.04654187 HRV_EBA
0.04720026 Migration_LIB:LIB3
0.04754611 HRV_MBA

bce
08-10-2021, 08:58 PM
here's all ancient Y-DNA from modern-day Moldova:

I11926_I11927_I11928N-FT352925https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-FT352925/4,000-1,000 ybpMoldova BA
cim358Q-Y558https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-Y558/971-808 calBCE (2730±35 BP, Poz-91085)Cimmerian
cim357R-Z2123https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2123/916-804 calBCE (2705±35 BP, Poz-91084)Cimmerian
scy197E-BY6357*https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6357*/400-150 BCEWestern Scythian
scy301I-Y7219https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y7219/390-202 calBCE (2240±30 BP, Poz-91092)Western Scythian
scy304R-Y16852https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y16852/367-155 calBCE (2185±30 BP, Poz-91116)Western Scythian
scy305R-S19901*https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S19901*/396-207 calBCE (2265±30 BP, Poz-91118)Western Scythian
scy193R-YP4079https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP4078/400-150 BCEWestern Scythian

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 09:17 PM
As you can see on my PCA, when put into context of their era, both these groups are just Scythian shifted IA-Balkanians, and they aren't really that distinct as it may seem from the study.
Also they are both from the same archeological site, and this is a too low number of samples to divide them into so many subgroups, imo.


First of all thanks for going through a lengthy explanation for your work. I really appreciate it.

About SCY197 et al, what I've been saying is that we are dealing with an individual who plots closer to Proto-Villanovans (PV) and HRV_IA, which had influence from PV than to someone who clusters together with BGR_IA. The position of the samples in your visualization shows this simple fact and the rest is open to debate.

In my opinion, I think that it's reasonable to discuss as more likely the possibility that he/his ancestor ultimately came from a more central/western location in the Balkans to Moldova.

https://i.ibb.co/VT7w0d8/omd9YMb.png

bce
08-10-2021, 09:39 PM
First of all thanks for going through a lengthy explanation for your work. I really appreciate it.

About SCY197 et al, what I've been saying is that we are dealing with an individual who plots closer to Proto-Villanovans (PV) and HRV_IA, which had influence from PV than to someone who clusters together with BGR_IA. The position of the samples in your visualization shows this simple fact and the rest is open to debate.

In my opinion, I think that it's reasonable to discuss as more likely the possibility that he/his ancestor ultimately came from a more central/western location in the Balkans to Moldova.

https://i.ibb.co/VT7w0d8/omd9YMb.png

It's possible, but notice that if you substract the Scythian admixture from the MDA Scythians, they would all end up either between BGR_IA and HRV_IA/PV, or closer to HRV_IA/PV.

197 could actually be a migrant, but are other MDA Scythians a mix of Illyrian migrants and Scythians then?

Huban
08-10-2021, 09:49 PM
About SCY197 et al, what I've been saying is that we are dealing with an individual who plots closer to Proto-Villanovans (PV) and HRV_IA, which had influence from PV than to someone who clusters together with BGR_IA. The position of the samples in your visualization shows this simple fact and the rest is open to debate.


All of these four must be viewed together and preferably united in a Moldovan Scythian cluster. Any differences between them should only be attributed to regional variation, as seen in great many other samples. Modern tested people do not end up on same PCA axis, parents and children do not end up on same PCA axis.

It is not open to debate that there is any archeological or historical migration of phantom migrating Illyrians to the core Getae territory in Moldova in 4th, 3rd century BC. And logically any such migration would have brought the dominant Western Balkan Y-DNA lineage the J-L283, not the lineage which wasn't found there..

CopperAxe
08-10-2021, 10:00 PM
I am aware of this.
here is how they acually grouped the samples:

(i) A group of three in-dividuals (scy009, scy010, and scy303) showed genetic affinity to north European populations, hereafter referred to as a north European (NE) cluster.
(ii) A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European pop-ulations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster.
(iii) A group of three individuals (scy006, scy011, and scy193) located be-tween the genetic variation of Mordovians and populations of the North Caucasus, hereafter referred to as a steppe cluster (SC). In ad-dition, one Srubnaya-Alakulskaya individual (kzb004), the most recent Cimmerian (cim357), and all Sarmatians fell within this cluster. In contrast to the Scythians, and despite being from opposite ends of the Pontic- Caspian steppe, the five Sarmatians grouped close together in this cluster.
(iv) A group of three Scythians (scy301, scy304, and scy311) formed a discrete group between the SC and SE and had ge-netic affinities to present- day Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, and Turkish populations, hereafter referred to as a central cluster (CC). All PCA results were consistent with outgroup f3 statistics (table S6 and figs. S3 and S4, B and D).
(v)Finally, one individual from a Scythian cultural context (scy332) is positioned outside of the modern West Eurasian genetic variation (Fig.1C) but shared genetic drift with East Asian populations (table S6 and fig. S4B)

I bolded the ones I included on my PCA. (except 304 which isn't in G25)
On my PCA, group II are the ones clustering close to MJ12, and group IV are those 2 closer to Scythian_UKR_South.

As you can see on my PCA, when put into context of their era, both these groups are just Scythian shifted IA-Balkanians, and they aren't really that distinct as it may seem from the study.
Also they are both from the same archeological site, and this is a too low number of samples to divide them into so many subgroups, imo.



again, this is viewing them out of their context.

TargetDistance•Corded_Ware_Baltic_earlyKura-AraxesTUR_Barcin_NWHG
HRV_IA:I33130.02173059•39.40.058.91.7
ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR10.02208395•39.92.655.91.6
GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log040.02089958•43.66.350.10.0
GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log020.01619190•31.77.759.11.5
BGR_IA:I57690.01860343•19.614.365.11.0
Average0.01990189•34.86.257.81.2

Helladic_MBA is steppe + pre-IE Greeks (eef+Anatolian influence)

HRV_IA and Proto-Villanovan are steppe + NW Balkan farmers (pure EEF, little or no Anatolian.)

BGR_IA is something which formed with later migrations, it doesn't descend from the local neolithic population, look at the high Kura-araxes.

at their core all these are roughly 50/50 steppe/eef, so they are similar to each other, but it's the small difference which are important.

MJ12 and MDA Scythians also formed later, with Scythian influence:

TargetDistance•Balkan_IA/MBAScythian_UKR_MJ46
Scythian_MDA:scy3010.04198093•35.264.8
Scythian_MDA:scy3110.04249610•41.059.0
Scythian_MDA:scy3050.02818110•78.022.0
Scythian_MDA:scy1920.02976452•82.617.4
UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ120.04505837•85.714.3
Scythian_MDA:scy3000.03343024•92.97.1
Scythian_MDA:scy1970.02834584•93.16.9
Average0.03560816•72.627.4

Not sure if it makes a big difference or not, but out of the Scythians from Unterlander you have one sample that doesn't seem to have any (more westernly) european admixture and that is MJ15. This probably is the closest thing we have to an average proper scythian nomad in the classical period, as he doesn't look like an early Sarmatian or whatever. Unless I'm not remembering it correctly MJ46 is one of those samples with quite a bit of European admixture.

CopperAxe
08-10-2021, 10:04 PM
All of these four must be viewed together and preferably united in a Moldovan Scythian cluster. Any differences between them should only be attributed to regional variation, as seen in great many other samples. Modern tested people do not end up on same PCA axis, parents and children do not end up on same PCA axis.

It is not open to debate that there is any archeological or historical migration of phantom migrating Illyrians to the core Getae territory in Moldova in 4th, 3rd century BC. And logically any such migration would have brought the dominant Western Balkan Y-DNA lineage the J-L283, not the lineage which wasn't found there..

Well its more periphery than core region I'd say, but that would make his argument even weaker. Why would an archaeological site with fairly clear indications of Getae-Dacian and Greek presence on the periphery of the Scythian steppes be packed with Illyrians?

Aspar
08-10-2021, 10:08 PM
All of these four must be viewed together and preferably united in a Moldovan Scythian cluster. Any differences between them should only be attributed to regional variation, as seen in great many other samples. Modern tested people do not end up on same PCA axis, parents and children do not end up on same PCA axis.

It is not open to debate that there is any archeological or historical migration of phantom migrating Illyrians to the core Getae territory in Moldova in 4th, 3rd century BC. And logically any such migration would have brought the dominant Western Balkan Y-DNA lineage the J-L283, not the lineage which wasn't found there..

Correct...

There is in even more variation and deviation in the Mycenaeans than there is between the Scythians from the southern cluster and MJ12:

Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.04472474 GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.04648729 GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.05392974 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033

Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.05392974 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.06091210 GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.07227553 GRC_Mycenaean:I9010

Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.04162484 GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.04648729 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.07227553 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033

Distance to: GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.04162484 GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.04472474 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.06091210 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033


This is now becoming just so unnecessary and prolonged to debate about the origins of scy197 when he was clearly nothing special and obviously clustering closely with other samples from the same place:

Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.03658023 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.03662024 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.03831479 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.03836598 DEU_MA_Alemannic_o1:NIEcap3b
0.03841593 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03954362 DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2:NIEcap3c
0.04043489 Scythian_MDA:scy300
0.04071754 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287
0.04073244 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.04132602 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK17A
0.04207668 HRV_IA:I3313
0.04219677 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.04232477 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL36
0.04233458 Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.04257681 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.04288972 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR121
0.04378197 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
0.04431470 Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.04471751 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ32
0.04551219 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1285
0.04553316 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.04594416 IND_Roopkund_B:I3404
0.04598774 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37
0.04645528 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL23

Notice how scy300 is even closer to scy197 than HRV_IA is. But that's not even that important when the distance with the other Scythians from the southern cluster is not even that deviating but in the limit and the borders of the usual local variation. I don't understand also why the Helladic samples from Greece are in this debate when these samples are from the MBA(2000 BCE) and hardly a local native group but judging by their high steppe very likely recent migrants.

vettor
08-10-2021, 10:20 PM
All of these four must be viewed together and preferably united in a Moldovan Scythian cluster. Any differences between them should only be attributed to regional variation, as seen in great many other samples. Modern tested people do not end up on same PCA axis, parents and children do not end up on same PCA axis.

It is not open to debate that there is any archeological or historical migration of phantom migrating Illyrians to the core Getae territory in Moldova in 4th, 3rd century BC. And logically any such migration would have brought the dominant Western Balkan Y-DNA lineage the J-L283, not the lineage which wasn't found there..

They are not illyrians that went to Moldova......they are Celts from Halsatt area who travel to moldova/Getae lands/romania and the black sea.

Another Celtic group went to take Athens, failed and then settled down in modern Serbia.

Riverman
08-10-2021, 10:22 PM
In any case its important to stress that Dacians and Getae people, but even Thracians down in the Balkans, got significant Cimmerian and Scythian or generally Iranian and recent steppe related admixture. Its evident from the time after the transitional period. So on top of that movement from the North, mainly with Urnfield-Channelled Ware, with which I would associate the E-V13 spread, came an Eastern influx of Cimmerians and Scythians which once again transformed the cultural landscape and surely had a genetic impact. If some of the Dacians, Getae and Thracians come out as R1a in particular, they could have gotten it from the Epi-Corded context, from earlier migrations to the Balkans or from the most recent Iranian-related pastoralist admixture. This makes any higher frequency of E-V13 in the Daco-Thracian sphere just the more important, because we know they had other influences too, but the local elements before had no V13 and those later brought other lineages, like Iranians and La Tene Celts. Its only, really only in this phase between the LBA to the EIA, that the E-V13 dissemination could have happened, which being also supported by the yDNA and V13 phylogeny, the known branches and their timings. Everything fits together, whereas all the alternative scenarios which ignore this Carpathian and Daco-Thracian, later Thraco-Cimmerian and Hallstatt connection, led, so far, nowhere. That's true for other expansion scenarios for patrilineages, like that of the Slavs as well. The timing, the TMRCA and diversity of the branches is not irrelevant. The yDNA gives us a framework, as crude as it might be, with which people have to start and work with. If someone tries to take Daco-Thracian out of the equation, you get in a whole lot of trouble. I'm not saying other people didn't get V13 in appreciable numbers early on, because I think they did, but while most other ethnolinguistic formations could be taken out of the equation, Daco-Thracian not. That would be for E-V13 like taking Slavic out of the equation for the main spread of R-M458. Doesn't work, even if it would have been, at some point, not Proto-Slavic. But it was spread with the early Slavs, or most clades were, no doubt about that.

If the Channelled Ware groups were not heavily E-V13, I see no viable model for the current distribution, with most alternative paths being already blocked by the ancient DNA results we got. Any thinkable alternative would have affected the very same networks and connections, just through a different unknown agent which was surfing on the transition caused by the Channelled Ware Urnfield expansion. That's the furthest I can go for an alternative at the moment.


They are not illyrians that went to Moldova......they are Celts from Halsatt area who travel to moldova/Getae lands/romania and the black sea.

Another Celtic group went to take Athens, failed and then settled down in modern Serbia.

Celts played a big role on the Balkans, but they rather did reduce the frequency of E-V13 and at least most of their expansions definitely date to the La Tene period. From then on E-V13 was rather in decline, after having grown from Urnfield to Hallstatt big time. Regionally and with some groups it still expanded, but the main expansion phase was over, because the new pushes from the North and South were largely coming from different people which oftentimes had their own V13 lineages from the preceding phase (like Celtic and possibly even Slavic and Germanic lineages), but not the same numbers and frequency in total. A possible exception could have been Greeks with their colonisation, but that's open to debate and depends on their percentages, which is still unknown.

vettor
08-10-2021, 10:25 PM
They are not illyrians that went to Moldova......they are Celts from Halsatt area who travel to moldova/Getae lands/romania and the black sea.

Another Celtic group went to take Athens, failed and then settled down in modern Serbia.

Later authors such as Dio Cassius (3rd c. AD – Dio LI.23.3, 24.2) and Zosimus (late 5th/early 6th c. AD – Zosimus I.34) define the Bastarnae as ‘Scythians’, and to a great extent this is true. By the late Roman period the Bastarnae tribes had been living in the region vaguely referred to as ‘Scythia’ for over half a millennium, and mixing with the local tribes (‘mixed marriages are giving them to some extent the vile appearance of the Sarmatians’ – Tac. Ger. 46). Thus, they were by this stage indeed Scythians, in the same way, for example, the Celtic Scordisci in Thrace are referred to in Roman sources as ‘Thracians’, having inhabited the region of Thrace for a number of centuries. However, as with the latter case, geographical situation by no means indicates ethnic origin.

The other ancient authors are clear on the ethnic origin of the Bastarnae. The earliest source, Polybius (200-118 BC; XXIV 9,13) refers to them as Celtic (Galatians), while Livy (59 BC – 17 AD) tells us that they had the same customs and spoke the same language as the Celtic Scordisci, and also mentions close military and political ties between the Bastarnae and Scordisci (Livy 40:57). Plutarch (46 – 120 AD; Aem. 9.6) refers to them as ‘Gauls on the Danube who are called Bastarnae’.


This article (in: Материалы по Археологии и Истории Античного и Средневекового Крыма Археология, история, нумизматика, сфрагистика иэпиграфика. (Moscow State University) Севастополь Тюмень Нижневартовск 2015. pp. 50-58.) provides an overview of the latest linguistic, numismatic and archaeological evidence pertaining to the expansion of the La Tene culture into the area of modern Ukraine and the North Pontic region from the 3rd century BC onwards. A distinction is observed between the situation in western Ukraine where the process of Celtic migration / colonization is reflected in the archaeological evidence, and further east where the presence of Celtic “warrior bands” / mercenary groups has been identified. Testimony in ancient sources to the emergence of mixed Celto-Scythian populations in this area and their ultimate contribution to the complicated ethnogenesis of the early medieval peoples



From the beginning of the 3rd century BC the territory of today’s Ukraine, previously defined by the Scythians of the North Pontic steppes and Hellenistic influences from the Black Sea zone, was supplemented by the Celtic culture from the west. The influence of the latter can be roughly divided into 2 separate spheres — the area of today’s Western Ukraine, where comprehensive evidence of Celtic migration/settlement is to be observed, and the central/eastern part where La Têne material testifies to the presence of small Celtic groups, and the development of a Celto-Scythian (Bastarnae) population, well attested to in ancient historical sources.
Western Ukraine
Celtic presence in Ukraine is best recorded on the Tisza river, where their arrival is marked by new building, pottery making and metal-working techniques, and the emergence of new economic and political centres (Eremenko 1997; Kazakevich 2012). From the middle of the 3rd century BC, the La Tène culture was dominant in the upper Tisza area, where Celtic economic, cultural and iron production centres,

Major finds of Celtic coinage in this area include those registered at the Gut and Mala Kopanya sites. In the occupation layers at the Celtic settlement at Gut (Garazdivka, Beregivs’ kyj district) over 100 Celtic coins of the “Philip II type” were discovered in a ceramic vessel, among them examples of the Huşi-Vorieşti type attributed to the Celto-Scythian Bastarnae (Mac Gonagle 2014). The latter type have recently been discovered in hoards along with other Celtic coins at sites such as Pelczyska in southern Poland (Rudnicki 2003), and the examples from Gut are further evidence of the close political and economic links between the Bastarnae and Celtic tribes north of the Carpathians. Noteworthy also is the chance discovery of a pottery vessel at Mala Bigan, in the same Beregivs’kyj district, which contained small figurines of a boar and a man, a bronze ankle ring and a La Têne (C1) glass arm ring (Bidzilya 1971: 21—30; 46; Kazakevich 2012)

Aspar
08-10-2021, 10:31 PM
here's all ancient Y-DNA from modern-day Moldova:

I11926_I11927_I11928N-FT352925https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-FT352925/4,000-1,000 ybpMoldova BA
cim358Q-Y558https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-Y558/971-808 calBCE (2730±35 BP, Poz-91085)Cimmerian
cim357R-Z2123https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2123/916-804 calBCE (2705±35 BP, Poz-91084)Cimmerian
scy197E-BY6357*https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6357*/400-150 BCEWestern Scythian
scy301I-Y7219https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y7219/390-202 calBCE (2240±30 BP, Poz-91092)Western Scythian
scy304R-Y16852https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y16852/367-155 calBCE (2185±30 BP, Poz-91116)Western Scythian
scy305R-S19901*https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S19901*/396-207 calBCE (2265±30 BP, Poz-91118)Western Scythian
scy193R-YP4079https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP4078/400-150 BCEWestern Scythian

Where did you get that info from?

I've looked in the scy197 raw data and there isn't any readings for BY6357 so there is no way he can be assigned as E-BY6357*. He is E-FGC44169 rather...

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 10:32 PM
Well its more periphery than core region I'd say, but that would make his argument even weaker. Why would an archaeological site with fairly clear indications of Getae-Dacian and Greek presence on the periphery of the Scythian steppes be packed with Illyrians?



All of these four must be viewed together and preferably united in a Moldovan Scythian cluster. Any differences between them should only be attributed to regional variation, as seen in great many other samples. Modern tested people do not end up on same PCA axis, parents and children do not end up on same PCA axis.

It is not open to debate that there is any archeological or historical migration of phantom migrating Illyrians to the core Getae territory in Moldova in 4th, 3rd century BC. And logically any such migration would have brought the dominant Western Balkan Y-DNA lineage the J-L283, not the lineage which wasn't found there..


I think that starting the debate from a position in which the validity of results is questioned based on our expectations (whatever they may be) about what people in particular sites should look like is not a good guide to gaining more knowledge. On the contrary, it may well lead us to cases of confirmation bias. Each one of us should "combat" their own confirmation bias and look at the results as what they are and not try to explain them away when they don't fit particular theories.

From a historical perspective, people from the western Balkans had long been travelling across the region by the 5th century BCE. That someone from the western/central Balkans traveled to Moldova is not a rare event.

What's open or not to debate is determined by the data. Even if it doesn't fit one particular hypothesis presented in this thread, the fact remains that SCY197 doesn't cluster with BGR_IA and clusters closer to Proto-Villanovans/HRV_IA.

It is what it is so it may require a reorientation of certain hypothetical scenarios because this sample definitely doesn't fit any of them. This is the foundation of the debate:

https://i.ibb.co/VT7w0d8/omd9YMb.png

bce
08-10-2021, 10:35 PM
Not sure if it makes a big difference or not, but out of the Scythians from Unterlander you have one sample that doesn't seem to have any (more westernly) european admixture and that is MJ15. This probably is the closest thing we have to an average proper scythian nomad in the classical period, as he doesn't look like an early Sarmatian or whatever. Unless I'm not remembering it correctly MJ46 is one of those samples with quite a bit of European admixture.

MJ46 is among the more proto-Scythian shifted ones, something like 50-60%, I would say. He is also only one from the real steppe, while other UKR Scythians are from the forest-steppe if i'm not mistaken. This seems to be the type of Scythians which bordered the Dacians. Most of the MDA Scythians are actually pulled towards something slightly more eastern than MJ46 , if you look at my PCA.

bce
08-10-2021, 10:37 PM
Where did you get that info from?

I've looked in the scy197 raw data and there isn't any readings for BY6357 so there is no way he can be assigned as E-BY6357*. He is E-FGC44169 rather...

Carlos Quiles' spreadsheet:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FNQNLQs93tmsX5_G728zE4DTIS0WUsXR

Bruzmi
08-10-2021, 11:04 PM
It's possible, but notice that if you substract the Scythian admixture from the MDA Scythians, they would all end up either between BGR_IA and HRV_IA/PV, or closer to HRV_IA/PV.

I think that E-V13 will be found in many different Balkan people which will have other haplogroups as well, so it doesn't seem odd to me that just as SCY197 is more western, other samples will be more eastern.


197 could actually be a migrant, but are other MDA Scythians a mix of Illyrian migrants and Scythians then?




Good question!

SCY305 was R-S19901* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S19901/) (according to his haplotree data entry (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/samples.php?searchcolumn=mtDNA_haplogroup&searchfor=U5a2b&ybp=500000,0), which points again to a more western origin)

If the dating is accurate, people from SE cluster lived in the 3rd century BCE, which is in the Hellenistic era, the period with the highest mobility in pre-Roman antiquity. We really can't know if anyone else came the western Balkans, but what's interesting is that they share some common ancestry between them and not just with the native population.

Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy305
0.03004477 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37
0.03245792 DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b
0.03797396 IND_Roopkund_B:I3404
0.03831772 Scythian_MDA:scy300
0.03832709 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.03887376 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.03959387 HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1
0.04282630 DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3c
0.04285793 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.04297010 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287
0.04305940 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02

He has some origin which brings him closer to PV/HRV, some native ancestry and a closeness to IND_Roopkund (which SCY197 doesn't have) It's just a working hypothesis, but this might show an intermarriage pattern between migrants-natives and migrants-migrants. In this framework, PV/HRV could be part of SCY305's origin but he may have also acquired it via intermarriage of his ancestor with SCY197's family.

Riverman
08-10-2021, 11:12 PM
I think that E-V13 will be found in many different Balkan people which will have other haplogroups as well, so it doesn't seem odd to me that just as SCY197 is more western, other samples will be more eastern.

This is correct for the later times. But you have to account for the early, rapid and massive expansion, largely from 1.300-800 and a second, less massive from 800-500 BC. These need to come from one unified, cultural and ethnic group, originally. Because all major clades participated in the movements in all direction. From one source, in different directions, along different pathways, settling down and multiplying rapidly from the start, in between, and in their new home. Some random distribution between different groups can never explain that pattern and the expansion beyond the Balkans. Absolutely key are the Eastern Urnfield networks, only those could provide this kind of expansion, for some regions on a very high replacement level.

CopperAxe
08-10-2021, 11:37 PM
MJ46 is among the more proto-Scythian shifted ones, something like 50-60%, I would say. He is also only one from the real steppe, while other UKR Scythians are from the forest-steppe if i'm not mistaken. This seems to be the type of Scythians which bordered the Dacians. Most of the MDA Scythians are actually pulled towards something slightly more eastern than MJ46 , if you look at my PCA.

Yeah it is interesting but many of these Scythian samples that are clearly quite admixed with Europeans still have an amount of Siberian ancestry that is comparable and in some cases higher than 'unadmixed' Sarmatians. They all score quite high Siberian (and thus Proto-Scythian) ancestry and MJ15 has more than all historical Sarmatian samples, so his ancestry can't really be explained by eastern neighbours.

But yeah I do remember that the other samples had ancestry from Slavic like peoples, while MJ46 has something more southern than that.

But keep in mind that MJ15 and some of these other samples are closeby to Kharkiv, which has tons of very wealthy, genuine Scythian kurgans. Although I don't think it relates to this site in particular, Herodotus describes a tradition of Royal Scythian burial rites where each tribe under the rule of the royal Scythians delivers the body to the rest ultimately reaching the final tribes under their control.

MJ46 on the other hand comes from an a simple grave with no mound, and is close to the urban centers of Scythia which had all sorts of peoples present, so I wouldn't automatically assume that his more southern location on the steppes means that his ancestry characterizes the core ancestry of the Scythians.

Which references did you use as "Proto-Scythian"? Karasuk or early Cimmerians?

Huban
08-11-2021, 03:31 AM
From a historical perspective, people from the western Balkans had long been travelling across the region by the 5th century BCE. That someone from the western/central Balkans traveled to Moldova is not a rare event.

Rare or common it requires one or both of:

1. Historians attestation
2. Archeological evidence

I am aware of both, and I am unaware of anybody from Western Balkans moving to Moldova. I am aware of some groups moving to Iron Gates area.

Learn something about auDNA before posting silly analysis. Whether someone inherited something from other samples in recent times is determined via sharing segments of sufficient size.. Not through G25 distance, as I have said results of close relatives vary, while still staying close in this scheme. As Aspar showed you Myceneans showed more mutual diversity, and no one made any crackpot theories on how some of them were of non-Mycenean origin.

Everything I have been saying agrees that those 4 samples are of Western origin. Archeologists agree as well. But as they say, Thracians were of Western origin..

Superficial similarity with Protovillanovan sample is interesting but needs more analysis. I have been saying long ago what archeologists have been saying that proto-Villanova urns were related to Gava urns. So potentially proto-Estruscans could have arrived from Pannonia (just don't say that on Eupedia), but this is far from being conclusive, although it is unusual that proto-Villanovans show similarity to people alot more distant than other Urnfielders. Is V13 related to Etruscan speakers? Not very likely as there doesn't seem to be an E-V13 cluster that is very Italian, like there is for J-L283. J-CTS6190, thus far only Etruscan Y-DNA find is a Western Mediterranean cluster in general that has been there for a long time, but it obviously moved from the East.

On Limnos island we have some interesting Y-DNA results, but no E-V13. Some rare EEF G2a clades, including a G-L497 distant from the others. I would say G2a clades likely preserved this language (if it is an EEF language), be it in C.Europe or Pannonia (where there are some G2a aDNA finds).

Everything I have been saying points to expansion of E-V13 from the area of Danube in LBA starting with Iron Gates. And that prior to that there was hardly any V13 in the Balkans, or Moldova for that matter.

I do not work with 0 sample cultures. In this instance I operate on a sample of three of Psenichevo, one old and two upcoming ones that have been leaked. Not too much but there are cultures with one or two samples.. The nature of leak is such that hard evidence does exist, and it was leaked unintentionally.

We have some Albanian BA leaks, intentional, and their level of confidence due to evidence presented is nowhere nearly as high as these Bulgarian leeks yet I gladly accept them albeit with a reserve.

vettor
08-11-2021, 04:08 AM
Rare or common it requires one or both of:

1. Historians attestation
2. Archeological evidence

I am aware of both, and I am unaware of anybody from Western Balkans moving to Moldova. I am aware of some groups moving to Iron Gates area.

Learn something about auDNA before posting silly analysis. Whether someone inherited something from other samples in recent times is determined via sharing segments of sufficient size.. Not through G25 distance, as I have said results of close relatives vary, while still staying close in this scheme. As Aspar showed you Myceneans showed more mutual diversity, and no one made any crackpot theories on how some of them were of non-Mycenean origin.

Everything I have been saying agrees that those 4 samples are of Western origin. Archeologists agree as well. But as they say, Thracians were of Western origin..

Superficial similarity with Protovillanovan sample is interesting but needs more analysis. I have been saying long ago what archeologists have been saying that proto-Villanova urns were related to Gava urns. So potentially proto-Estruscans could have arrived from Pannonia (just don't say that on Eupedia), but this is far from being conclusive, although it is unusual that proto-Villanovans show similarity to people alot more distant than other Urnfielders. Is V13 related to Etruscan speakers? Not very likely as there doesn't seem to be an E-V13 cluster that is very Italian, like there is for J-L283. J-CTS6190, thus far only Etruscan Y-DNA find is a Western Mediterranean cluster in general that has been there for a long time, but it obviously moved from the East.

On Limnos island we have some interesting Y-DNA results, but no E-V13. Some rare EEF G2a clades, including a G-L497 distant from the others. I would say G2a clades likely preserved this language (if it is an EEF language), be it in C.Europe or Pannonia (where there are some G2a aDNA finds).

Everything I have been saying points to expansion of E-V13 from the area of Danube in LBA starting with Iron Gates. And that prior to that there was hardly any V13 in the Balkans, or Moldova for that matter.

I do not work with 0 sample cultures. In this instance I operate on a sample of three of Psenichevo, one old and two upcoming ones that have been leaked. Not too much but there are cultures with one or two samples.. The nature of leak is such that hard evidence does exist, and it was leaked unintentionally.

We have some Albanian BA leaks, intentional, and their level of confidence due to evidence presented is nowhere nearly as high as these Bulgarian leeks yet I gladly accept them albeit with a reserve.

There is a very high % of G-L497 in Tyrol austria

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23948323/

https://www.blutspendezurich.ch/fileadmin/pdf/Wissenschaft/Publikationen/2013/High%20resolution%20mapping%20of%20Y%20haplogroup% 20G.pdf

Huban
08-11-2021, 04:14 AM
Well its more periphery than core region I'd say, but that would make his argument even weaker. Why would an archaeological site with fairly clear indications of Getae-Dacian and Greek presence on the periphery of the Scythian steppes be packed with Illyrians?

It wasn't.. There is one attested migration of MBA Illyrians to Iron Gates region, and these people eventually assimilated into Getae, yet the nature of the culture in question is such that it clearly indicates again dominance of J-L283. Nevertheless I do leave it open that some V13 ended up migrating in opposite direction, as for example there was Basarabi influence in pottery in proto-Autariatae.

Speaking of leaks.

Viminatium - 28 Late Antiquity. Viminatium was in Moesia.

E-V13/E-L618 - 9 32.1 % (ofc those preliminary L618 are all V13 once BAM's are out).
J-L283 - 0 0 %

If it's true what Bruzmi has been saying that Late Antiquity "Illyricani" brought V13 to Eastern Balkan, question is where is "Illyrican" linage present in 45 % of BA, IA Illyrians?? Surely on 28 tested there must have been some "true Illyricani", there are even two R-Z93, there are 5 G2a samples.. :lol:

Huban
08-11-2021, 04:22 AM
Btw people have been speaking of Thracian Bithynians as if there were necessarily relevant to V13 or Thracians in general, and that we should judge V13 by them.. Per historical records Bythinians were from the Strymon river area. Strymon rivers old name was Palaistinos. Many have connected this to the Phillistines and Peleset, totally justified... As this was a pre-Thracian name, we may postulate that in this area old Bronze Age pre LBA population survived in greater numbers. Quite likely ancestors of the Phillistines. The only seemingly "legitimate" Phillistine Y-DNA find was R-M269..

There is a matter of some other cultures in Thrace in IA. In particular Rhodope area, Strymon included was home to people who carried over some MBA, LBA Bulgaria traditions. People different to Pshenichevo people. There has been a suggestion that some of them moved in LBA from NW Bulgaria to SW Bulgaria.

Bythinians may not have had E-V13 as an important haplogroup at all, same might go for a whole range of Thracian tribes of similar traditions. Thrace was more heterogenous, unlike for example Dobruja. Babadag people were newcomers and prior to their arrival little was left of previous inhabitants..

rafc
08-11-2021, 07:21 AM
Carlos Quiles' spreadsheet:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FNQNLQs93tmsX5_G728zE4DTIS0WUsXR

The information in the spreadsheet is a bit mangled, but after checking I see FTDNA now has a second SNP at BY6357 level, which is positive in Scy197: BY90238.
I will be checking FT27407 branch also, I guess it was not there when I made the original FGC44169 assessment.

Edit: I checked and the FT27407 SNP's all appear to be negative (or not covered). I am seeing if I can contact the person who made the BY6357* call.

Archetype0ne
08-11-2021, 10:03 AM
Neither modern day Albanians nor Greeks are a good proxy for comparison with auDNA ancient results.

1. Albanians carry a heavy dose of Slavic ancestry, estimated at 20-25 %.
1.1 Albanians in K13 and various other calculators (not seen well in G25 because of the coordinates based system) carry an amount of Baltic component much higher than in any Paleobalkan find. This sort of ancestry was the primary ancestral block in Early Slavic finds.

2. Proto-Albanians without Slavic ancestry do not cluster with Moldovan Scythian results.

3. Even more pronounced for Greeks, who have Slavic and other ancestries.


20-25 % of Slavic ancestry. This brings Albanians closer than they objectively are to these Moldovan samples.

In addition most modern Balkan peoples possess a dose of something similar to modern day Cappadocian Greeks i.e. Byzantine/Roman migrants.

In fact when we model Albanians taking proto-Illyrian MBA, Illyrian IA, Bulgarian Thracian IA, and these finds we get:

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.4342% / 0.01434204 , distance is very good at 1.43
42.2 BGR_IA
25.4 HUN_Avar_Szolad AV2
18.2 Greek_Cappadocia
13.4 Scythian_MDA
0.8 HRV_IA


Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.4317% / 0.01431735
40.6 BGR_IA
25.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad AV2
19.0 Greek_Cappadocia
12.4 Scythian_MDA
2.8 HRV_MBA
0.2 HRV_IA

Albanians are a mixture of Slavic and Paleobalkan component. Paleobalkan component is dominated by Bulgarian Iron Age ancestry, followed by Getae and only a miniscule dose of Illyrian ancestry. Which brings us to the topic why modern day ethnic Albanians have so much of Thracian ancestry as espoused by a Thracian E-V13 hg?

Maybe it has something to do with a certain gentlemen called Gottfried Schramm?

When we remove the Cappadocian Greek result is still similar

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.9431% / 0.01943127
46.6 BGR_IA
33.4 Scythian_MDA
20.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad AV2

Again no IA or MBA Croatian samples, and they are there for G25 to pick them up as preferable block of ancestry..


Presence of E-V13 in Glinoe is consistent with an expansion of Pshenischevo-Babadag group whose one sub-culture Saharna Solonceni brought this sort of ancestry to Moldova as explained by the A.I.Melyukova and others.

Finds of a Gava culture variant were closer to Glinoe so it is possible it derives from that side as well.

Glinoe is surrounded by Getae settlements of 4th-3rd century BC, some of them just few km away..

https://i.ibb.co/HDhcTbY/IV-III-BC-Mold.jpg

Squares are Getae settlements of IV-III century BC, semi-circles Getic burial grounds, IV-III century BC. Marked by myself dark red is Getic settlement of Hradenytsi, same timeframe. Light blue is Glinoe itself. I can add more..

There were some Greek colonies nearby. On the left bank of Dniestr in 6th century BC, Greek settlements with Getic material have been registered.

Moldovan Scythian samples do not cluster with aDNA samples which by all available data represent proxy to how Greeks looked like.

Distance to: Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.04758913 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.05270973 BGR_IA:I5769
0.06883960 GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.07137498 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.07926436 GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.08405803 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8208
0.08693789 GRC_Mycenaean:I9010

So none of these samples appears Greek. And considering a whole range of Getic settlements nearby from the same time-period they can be nothing other than Getae. To suggest anything else is a baseless pseudoscientific concept with no basis in any sort of archeological or historical material. And archeological evidence regarding this region is quite clear and represents more of a primary source than historical sources.

Almost certainly a group of Getae became politically Scythian. Like the same happened with Hungarian Scythians, where clear evidence exists for their earlier origin.

Any mention of any recent "Western Balkan" ancestry here is indefensible from a historical-archeological POV and does constitute promotion of Pseudoscience.




Your approach is unscientific and you compare aDNA to modern populations. Modern populations that received various sorts of admixture, as shown above. Geneticists in studies based on blocks of autosomal ancestry derive aDNA samples from other aDNA samples, not from modern populations, except in rare cases.

In this instance Bulgarian Iron Age sample is primarily distinguishable by the Levantine MBA input as well as Minoan like input. Bulgarian sample is an outlier, nevertheless that doesn't mean it wasn't widespread in Thrace, as a Late Antiquity sample shows it was. Except that Bulgarian sample does actually show similar ancestry to the Getae and Babadag samples once this Near Eastern ancestry is removed. So It may be postulated that a Pshenichevo or other group has received additional Anatolian BA and Levantine BA input in Bulgaria.

Old E-Z1919 Pshenichevo sample, which has even a V13+ level call from what I know and ofc the fact that we have V13+ Pshenichevo find just indicates the inevitable, albeit on lower res in a scientific study shows similar component makeup to I5769. Which does imply E-V13 is also related to this sort of profile.




What are you implying with "high mobility in the era"? Similarly “soft spoken” initial playing with presence of V13 in Asia Minor has went from an initial doubt to you denying established genetic facts that E-V13 was found in Thracians, arguably already 15 years ago, and in the upcoming study and that therefore they did spread E-V13.

This is flagrant promotion of pseudoscience on your part.

Are you implying that MJ12 got there independently of scy197 ad this cluster? Obviously you do otherwise why mention alternative modes of "getting there", if you do not please correct me, nevertheless you could have expressed yourself more precisely but you didn't..

Obviously EIA presence of that auDNA component in that region denies your unsubstantiated view that Moldovan Scythians settled there "not much earlier" so you have to make up an alternative way of this sample getting there independently..

It is completely irrational and contradictory to all facts to even consider let alone accept any such "reasoning".. We all know what that emotional reasoning truly is, E-V13 = Illyrian, an unsubstantiated laughable postulation without basis in any facts whatsoever..



MJ12, 700-800 BC, is of known Cartal (known to me at least) archeological site. A known Babadag culture site, in this phase as well. So this find belongs to the Babadag culture. Note that find was placed there in a grave made a generation or two for the people of he same culture.

In auDNA it has Steppe Iranian or Cimmerian element.
Target: UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
Distance: 4.0799% / 0.04079873
74.8 BGR_IA
22.6 UKR_Cimmerian
2.6 Scythian_HUN

I can substantiate classification of this find as Babadag from a whole range of material, please attempt to deny it. Any such attempt is clear pseudoscientific endeavor, and that is forbidden on this board as far as I know. I believe rules should apply to non-Albanians and Albanians the same, or you seem to disagree?

What these finds show is that Getae of Moldova descended of Saharna-Solonceni branch of the Babadag culture genetically cluster with the most of Babadags ancestry (non-Stepe Iranian), confirming the northwards expansion of this group.

As the primary block of ancestral component is also similar to IA Bulgarian sample a Y-DNA connection in the expansion of the entire Incised Ware complex is clear.

Pshenichevo culture, dominated by E-V13, was a genetic close relative of the Babadag culture of Romania. Pshenishevo may have received Levantine and Anatolian influx in Bulgaria, as indicated by some archeological finds..

The origin of all these groups goes to Middle Danube, Insula Banului group, and ultimately to Gava-Holigrad and Dubovac/Žuto Brdo/Girla Mare cultures.

All written here is an established archeological facts, denial of this does represent promotion of pseudoscience.

Association of these cultures with the hg E-V13 is more than obvious and it is impossible to construct any scenario from an archeological point of view implicating E-V13 with the ethnogenesis of Illyrians in any meaningful or significant way. Which indeed has yielded recent aDNA results of 8 Daunians, of whom majority are migrants as having no E-V13..

Your implicit or explicit postulation that scy192/scy197/scy305/scy300 and MJ12 got there independently of each in separate migrations of each other is impossible to defend from any logical POV, as archeological and genetic facts point towards the opposite. And these are migration events which did occur as per archeological evidence.

Western Balkan aDNA and Eastern Balkan aDNA ancestry blocks are easily distinguishable. Western Balkan had some detectible WHG ancestry while Eastern Balkan had noticeably higher CHG ancestry. This is also observed in Maros culture where a basal J-L283 was found, and from where presumably J-L283 expanded to the Western Balkans brining some of this profile along the way..
These were two in many ways similar yet distinct autosomal profiles whose spread was matched by the dominant Y-DNA haplogroups, J-L283 in the West and E-V13 in the East i.e. per all available evidence and logic these represent the division between the IA Illyrians and Thracians..


The fact that you find it "interesting" that Geto-Thracians show similarity with modern day Italians, also to Albanians and Greeks shows how out of sync you are, sky is blue and grass is green. You didn't say anything new.. This has been long known to anyone involved in aDNA research.

I go to great extent to substantiate my views and posts with data and facts, but I see plenty of members here do not. It must stop. And rules are there to be applied for all, supposedly..

First of all I will say I am disapointed after seeing this post. The whole discussion has gotten so partisan, where we no longer agree on the facts and argue the details and interpretations but have to take and defend templates. Now since all here have spent substantial time researching genetic anthropology, we all are very invested, but lets be mindful of our biases.

A model might fit our biases, but this neither means that our biases fit reality, neither that said model is the best fit for reality.

First let me point some flaws regarding your 25% Albanian Slavic component/admixture. This is flat out wrong. This would mean for the population with the higheat IBD in Europe, with a bottleneck and founder effect of 900 years, 1/4 ancestors is of pure "slavic" stock. Least I remind you Greeks who are the 2nd population with least slavic admixture in the Balkans have that level, and they accepted and integrated the firat waves of Slavs since the 6th century. I doubt Greeks have such a high Slavic component let alone Albanians.

But you tell me: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23595-New-Samples-from-Migration-Era-and-Early-Medieval-Moravia&p=790982&viewfull=1#post790982
https://m.imgur.com/RU3z2u0
https://m.imgur.com/PpypFSY
https://m.imgur.com/VjdAPdW
https://m.imgur.com/lQspeOw
(I tried embeding the images with great difficulty and effort,on vacation and on the phone, so apologies)


Now, as I mentioned, a model might fit your bias, but not necesarily reality. You took Avar SZ, and I will bet you 20$ that if you take some of the other SZ samples that you will see in my closest ancient samples below, you will get a better fit,both nominally and realistically.

http://imgur.com/a/8ef7q4m

But beyond that. Taking the Avar sample as proof of Albanian slavic admixture is like saying: the wheel, is a component of the car, and since bikes have wheels, then the car makes up part of the bike. But my bet stands. I can't run the calcs on the phone.

Off to the other point I feel you missrepresented.
If Albanians get close autosomal proximity to these "scythians" due to as you say "25%" slavic admix? Why don't Romanians or Bulgarians? Surely they are in closer proximity and have real slavic amidx. Why do North Italians? Guess they must have some 25% Slavic admix too?

But the real question here, how would Slavic admix bring either Albanians and Greeks close to these 300 BC samples? When these samples don't even plot with Slavs, and miss the Slavic timeline by like 1000 years...

Anyway.

Lets forget personal biases. Lets get to the truth of the matter we can all agree on.
What are the facts?
V13,Z2103 Found in the same site in "Scythian" context around 300BC.
These South European plotting Scythians plot closest to BA/IA HRV, Helladic etc among ancient populations.
They also plot closest to N Italians, Albanians and Greeks among modern pooulations.

We have no Western Balkan V13 among ancient samples.
Lack of V13 W. Balkans samples could be indicative, but it is a fact, that it is not a fact to the historical lack of such Y Haplo in the region, just circumstantial supporting evidence.

These are the facts.

Now we can discuss interpretations.
Maybe there was V13 in Western Balkans related to cremation cultures and only reason we found V13 among these Scythians is assimilation and burial in a Scythian context.

IMO, the lack of V13 in the rumored N Albania BA site where R1b and L283 are supposedly found together, the lack of V13 in Maros where Z2103 and L283 are found together and the lack of V13 among Daunians and ancient Greeks so far, points to high likeliehood, that V13 and L283 were present in different cultural and population spheres, that V13 likely practiced cremation given ita diversification of clades and TMRCA along with lack of Ancient samples outside BG and Moldova.

Beyond the facts and the basic interpretation, everything else is speculation.

I was dissapointed that some people I highly respect thanked that comment. Hence, why I feel we should not make such discussions partizan, and for the sake of harvesting the wheat, accept the weeds within such comments.

Riverman
08-11-2021, 10:33 AM
But the real question here, how would Slavic admix bring either Albanians and Greeks close to these 300 BC samples? When these samples don't even plot with Slavs, and miss the Slavic timeline by like 1000 years...


I can't say for sure who is right on that, but just to make a direct comparison: I often get Celtic as my closest match, yet I have actually less Celtic than the German average and way more actual Germanic and even Slavic than Celtic ancestry. Yet my mixture ends up on the same spot in a very general North : South comparison. So if that axis being in the foreground, I'm "Celtic-like", even without actual ancestry of that kind.

These "Scythians", Getae or whatever they were, seem to have been a mixture too, basically a Balkan like population with steppe-related admixture. Just like Albanians are an (old) Balkan population with Slavic admixture (I'm agnostic on the exact amount of it, but its there). That's the pattern. Not every general similarity based on a general comparison is based on real genetic relatedness and ancestry.

I'm not saying I know for sure in this case, but it should be always kept in mind.

Archetype0ne
08-11-2021, 11:06 AM
The limitations of 2d PCAs without Z axis.


I personally score 20% Baltic, most of it can be modeled Baltic BA. Now since my ancestors are from the North, lets test the hypothesis that Serbian population is the proxy. The highest Baltic I have seen on Serbian auDNA was ~50%, and this was a hardcore outlier. For me to get 20% Baltic, I would need 40% of my autosomal coming from Serbian population(probably much more, if I did not take this high scoring outlier)
Thats 2/5~1/2.5 ancestors. My family graveyard is enough proof that in the last 8 generations this did not happen. Futhermore 2/5 ancestors with Serbian auDNA would have brought not only these Baltic component but also the rest of their autosomal, which can not be found.

Bit drunk on Gin, so I might have made some lapsus, yet I doubt it.

Edit:Furthermore, all the maps I have provided use G25 coordinates which should not suffer heavily from the 2d PCA issue. As you might be aware. On k15/13 I might get up to 20% Baltic, but if you see ph2ters map based on my coordinates : https://m.imgur.com/XhpSwYL you will get what I mean.

Riverman
08-11-2021, 11:41 AM
I personally score 20% Baltic, most of it can be modeled Baltic BA. Now since my ancestors are from the North, lets test the hypothesis that Serbian population is the proxy. The highest Baltic I have seen on Serbian auDNA was ~50%, and this was a hardcore outlier. For me to get 20% Baltic, I would need 40% of my autosomal coming from Serbian population(probably much more, if I did not take this high scoring outlier)

That's the wrong way to look it, because Serbians and Albanians are "post-Slavic" people in the sense of both having older Balkan and newer Slavic ancestry. Take a look at Romanians, we can't argue modern Romanians have 70 percent (didn't test it, just a hypothetical number) Ukrainian admixture, instead they have probably about 25-45 percent old Slavic admixture. There were living Vlachs and Slavs side by side, out of which the modern Romanians emerged, and it wasn't even for sure that the Romance language would prevail in at least two times in their prehistory and history.
Same here for the Balkan. Modern Albanians are the result of a local Balkan people prevailing and incorporating some of the old Slavic clans or just individuals into their ethnicity. That way, you don't need to have 40 percent Serbian ancestry, but just about 20-30 percent Slavic ancestry back in Early Medieval times.
We can play the same game in a lot of regions, because there can be always two models, one with the original core group of let's say Germanic or Slavic, and one with the later, modern people. The Germanic impact on the French could be completely differently modelled, depending on which kind of Germanic speaking reference population you pick. If you pick Alsatians, well, that would change a lot. But the most ancient Germanic Franconians were not exactly like the modern Alsatians. And the earliest incoming Slavs to Albania were also unlikely to have been like modern Serbs, which got a significant amount of non-Slavic, mainly provincial Roman, generally Vlach, admixture.

23abc
08-11-2021, 11:53 AM
The limitations of 2d PCAs without Z axis.


I personally score 20% Baltic, most of it can be modeled Baltic BA. Now since my ancestors are from the North, lets test the hypothesis that Serbian population is the proxy. The highest Baltic I have seen on Serbian auDNA was ~50%, and this was a hardcore outlier. For me to get 20% Baltic, I would need 40% of my autosomal coming from Serbian population(probably much more, if I did not take this high scoring outlier)
Thats 2/5~1/2.5 ancestors. My family graveyard is enough proof that in the last 8 generations this did not happen. Futhermore 2/5 ancestors with Serbian auDNA would have brought not only these Baltic component but also the rest of their autosomal, which can not be found.

Bit drunk on Gin, so I might have made some lapsus, yet I doubt it.

Edit:Furthermore, all the maps I have provided use G25 coordinates which should not suffer heavily from the 2d PCA issue. As you might be aware. On k15/13 I might get up to 20% Baltic, but if you see ph2ters map based on my coordinates : https://m.imgur.com/XhpSwYL you will get what I mean.

I have no opinion of the exact proportion of Slavic ancestry in Albanians and Greeks (other than it most certainly exists to some degree), but knowing 8 generations of your family means nothing in regards to how much Slavic ancestry you could potentially possess, because the admixture events occurred over 30 generations ago. Additionally, saying it's impossible because Albanians have high IBD sharing is not a legitimate reason. Ashkenazi Jews have an even higher proportion of IBD sharing, and most people wouldn't dispute that they do indeed possess a mixed European / Levantine ancestry that has existed for probably as long, if not longer, than the modern Balkan admixture profiles today.

The exact proportions of Pre-Slavic ancestry to Slavic ancestry for the entire Balkans will hopefully be determined by future studies, because as it stands there really isn't enough information available to determine it with high certainty. Pre-Slavic Balkans will most likely have some sort of eastern Byzantine component along with the Paleo-Balkan and we don't have enough Balkan samples from the relevant time frame (0 - 500 AD) to compare modern Balkan samples to.

Archetype0ne
08-11-2021, 11:56 AM
This is a very deep rabbithole. It is nowhere close to Germans and French. Kingdom of the Franks, common proto elements, history etc. The better example would be English vis a vis French and even then, to a more extreme level. When we get autosomalDNA from the upcoming Albanian studies as well as some Medieval Arber auDNA you will understand what I mean, if my suspicions hold true. Areas such as Sandzak are the closest thing I can relate to what you are proposing. But having any basic understanding of medieval Arber really would change your opinions. The key are Montenegrins, and comparing Montenegrin YDNA, auDNA vis a vis Serbia will be enough for you to catch my drift.

Riverman
08-11-2021, 12:07 PM
This is a very deep rabbithole. It is nowhere close to Germans and French. Kingdom of the Franks, common proto elements, history etc. The better example would be English vis a vis French and even then, to a more extreme level. When we get autosomalDNA from the upcoming Albanian studies as well as some Medieval Arber auDNA you will understand what I mean, if my suspicions hold true. Areas such as Sandzak are the closest thing I can relate to what you are proposing. But having any basic understanding of medieval Arber really would change your opinions. The key are Montenegrins, and comparing Montenegrin YDNA, auDNA vis a vis Serbia will be enough for you to catch my drift.

23abc is right: We need ancient references to be sure, because we have two big uncertainties for Albanians:
- We don't know how the Slavs with which they mixed looked like. They could have been like Krakauer Berg samples, or they could have been much closer to modern Serbs at the time the gene flow took place. Even more likely from my point of view: The earliest Slavs mixing in were like old Slavs, but there was later gene flow taking place, complicating the whole story.
- We also don't know how the Balkan population from which the Albanian core group descended from looked like. It could have been more Eastern shifted, like in the direction of Imperial Roman samples, or rather fairly Northern. They even could have received some Sarmatian, generally speaking European Iranian-like admixture, which would have pulled them closer to Slavs even before those came to the region. Not that likely, but who knows for sure?

Without being able to correctly model the source populations, its hard to come to meaningful conclusions. But from my personal point of view, there is a minimum old level of Old Slavic admixture the Albanians received, and this being also supported by the yDNA evidence I'd say. And I would also stress that the majority of the admixture happened, most likely, from a population which was more Proto-Slavic-like than modern Serbians.

I know about the gene flow between Montenegrins and Albanians, but you surely know better. However, just keep in mind that regardless of all that, a general similarity doesn't always equal same ancestry and origin.

Riverman
08-11-2021, 02:19 PM
The place and timing might be of interest:

The Eastern Slovakia Museum in Košice has presented two unique bronze helmets from the late Bronze Age. A mushroom picker found them last year near the village of Trhovište in Michalovce county.


Discoveries of helmets from the Bronze Age are rare not only in Slovakia but in the whole of Europe, according to Gašaj. The helmets from Trhovište are western European style made from two shaped bronze plates. The decorated sides are connected with a central three-toothed comb that has a hole for attaching a decorative plume. Other holes at the sides and at the bottom edge are to attach the protective cheek pads.



The origin of the helmets from Trhovište remains unclear. They were probably traded objects imported for the highest society elite – military chiefs. The helmets were used and repaired. They were more a symbol of the status of the bearer, a symbol of his position and power than protective equipment.


Similar helmets have been found in Lúčky, Spišská Belá and Žaškov but they were made only from one sheet of bronze. They originated between the 12th and 10th century BC.

https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/09/bronze-age-helmets-found-in-eastern.html

There were other relations to the West, especially the ceramic style of Gava vs. Proto-Villanova, even though the style being now called rather "Pseudo-Protovillanova", because the similarity might be more superficial:

Auf die Besonderheit der Keramik, was wir heute der Gava-Kultur zuschreiben, wurde schon vor Mozsolics als „Protovillanova-Urnentyp“, mit Hinweis auf die Ähnlichkeit mit den frühen Villanova - Urnen aus Italien von Vasile Pârvan
2, Gordon Childe und Gero vom Mehrhart hingewiesen


In demselben Jahr der Namengebung von Mozsolics, 1957 sprach schon M. Šolle über dem„Gava -Typ“ und betonte die „Protovillanova-Elemente“. Er führte eigentlich den Namen „Gava-Kultur“in die slowakische Literatur ein und beschrieb die wichtigsten, kennzeichnenden Keramiktypen dieserKultur (Šolle 1957, 235 ff).

On the other hand they showed similarities to the later Scythian ceramic:


Zu den ersten Funden der Kultur in Ungarn gehören, die in den Jahren 1869, 1902 und 1912im Ort Gava entdeckte Urnen, veröffentlicht viel später von Istvan Foltiny (Foltiny 1968, Abb. 3,3). Danndie Urnen aus dem Gräberfeld von Szőreg, die schon Foltiny in die Bronzezeit und in die frühe Eisenzeit setzte. Er hat schon in seiner Zeit diese Gefäße als Grundlage für die ähnliche präskytische und skytische Keramiktypen betrachtet

About Gava on the modern territory of Serbia (compare Belegis II-Gava in many works):

Aus den zahlreichen Publikationen von den serbischen Autoren möchte ich heute nur eine wichtige Monographie der kanne-lierten Keramik der „Gava-Komplexen“ im serbischen Banat von Ljubomir Bukvić, veröffentlicht 2000 in Novi Sad erwähnen. Seine Arbeit stützt sich auf 68 Fundorten der Kultur, Siedlungen und Gräberfelder,davon erwähnen wir nur einige die wichtigsten, wie Jabukova-Leva, Ivano-D. Djerdja und zwei Nekropolen von Vojloviva-Raffnerie (N. 2) und Opovo-Beli Berg. 34 Hortfunden kann man mit dem Gava-Komplex verbinden. Der Autor datierte die Gava-Kultur in Banat in die „Spät-Bronzezeit (Bz D –Ha A
2),was in absoluten Daten die Zeit von 1200 bis 900 Jahre v. Chr.

The author dates the culture in the region to 1200-900 BC, that's exactly the time frame for the thrust of Channelled Ware down to Greece and its also the exact same time frame for the major splits and expansion of E-V13. Its directly related to the Urnfield-Channelled ware related corridor going down to the Morava valley and further to Thessaly.
There are many opinions about the origin of the Gava culture, most are rather inconclusive, but this comment caught my interest:

...das Keramikmaterial vom Brandgräberfeld der Suciu des Sus-Kultur in Zemplínske Kopčany zeigt anschaulich, dass sich vor allem aus den Amphoren aus den jüngsten Grabverbändenbereits deutlich charakteristische Merkmale des Töpferwesens der Gava-Kultur abzeichnen, eine Beobachtung, die auch von ausländischen Forschern bestätigt wird und die daher die Anfänge der Gava- Kultur im Verlauf bzw. in der zweiten Hälfte der Stufe BD ansetzen.

https://www.academia.edu/3060312/Changes_in_the_settlement_history_of_the_Late_Bron ze_and_Iron_Age_K%C3%B6r%C3%B6s_Region._Hydrology_ Reliefs_and_settlements

From another article about those cultures:

The small number of burials in
relation to settlements is remarkable. The burial mounds of
Lăpuş, Suciu de Sus-Troian and Bicaz are burial places of
elites, which emerged thanks to the rich ore deposits of the
region.


Die Urnengräber von Suciu de Sus gehören zur zweiten Phase der Kultur. Diese Phase hatte eine lange Entwicklung, deren Anfänge mit der mittelbronzezeitlichen
Wietenberg III-Phase gleichzeitig sind. Es scheint aber angesichts der zurzeit vorhandenen Daten, dass die Suciu de
Sus-Gemeinschaften erst am Beginn der Spätbronzezeit in
die Lăpuş-Niederung eingedrungen sind. Das bedeutet, dass
das Flachgräberfeld von Suciu de Sus der Phase 1 der Spätbronzezeit zugeschrieben werden muss.

About the early spread of Channelled Ware on both sides of the Carpathians, note the timing once more and how closely it matches the earliest spread and branching events of E-V13:

Die aus dem Hügel 26 gewonnenen 14C-Daten37 deuten
darauf hin, dass die kannelierte Keramik vor dem 12. Jh.
v. Chr. bereits im späten 14. und 13. Jh. v. Chr. vorkam.38
Neben den Daten von Lăpuş gestatten auch andere publizierte und unpublizierte Daten beiderseits der Karpaten39
die Schlussfolgerung, dass zumindest im Karpatenumkreis
mit der Genese der kannelierten Keramik bereits ganz zu
Beginn der Spätbronzezeit nach mitteleuropäischem Verständnis gerechnet werden muss.

The associated tumuli and hoards (bronze depots with more than 1.000 kg) are huge, they among the largest known from that period in the whole macro-region, with a depth of more than 5 meter for the pit and above it a tumulus of up to 8 m and 40 m width. So we deal with an hierarchical elite culture. It seems that the vast majority of the local population is missing from the burial record, whilst the elite was buried in monumental tumuli.

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debec.pdf

Archetype0ne
08-11-2021, 02:23 PM
Feel like my point was missed.
1.How would Slavic admix pull Albanians and Greeks and North Italians(?) closer to the Scythian samples, while pulling the much closer and confirmed Slavic input Romanian and Bulgarian samples away, when the Scythian samples I am referencing do not even show affinity with Slavs?
2.https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23595-New-Samples-from-Migration-Era-and-Early-Medieval-Moravia&p=790982&viewfull=1#post790982
https://m.imgur.com/RU3z2u0
https://m.imgur.com/PpypFSY
https://m.imgur.com/VjdAPdW
https://m.imgur.com/lQspeOw

Now please, at least pretend to take these arguments seriously.

<As for Albanian genetics, I will be surprised if any of the areas I have ancestry from, Mirditê, Dibër, Skrapar will have more than 10% Slavic contribution. Check my posts, you will find my k13,15, and G25 and knock yourselves modeling. Just make some honest attempts, not like the guy taking Av2 when 5 other SZ samples can be used for a better fit. And remember the bike, wheel and car analogy, otherwise its pointless.>
Ps. It is more realistic to have 2/5 ancestors in the last 8 generations as half bred Balts. Than 2/5 ancestors, on average ad memoriam. Especially when it is not the case for your own reference population to have such an high average(albeit only on k13, k15 it drops to 10%, further pointing to calculators being limited rather than anything else) But again this seemed to have been lost on some.

Riverman
08-11-2021, 02:38 PM
The influences of Channelled Ware reached down to Troy over Bulgaria:

The striking similarity of the channelled horn-like knobs from south-eastern Europe with the
so-called Knobbed or „Buckelware” of Troy VIIb-2 is remarkable (Fig. 5).
The connections of the „Buckelware” from Troy with the Iron Age pottery of the area south of
the Lower Danube, mainly in modern Bulgaria, have been discussed repeatedly24. It was Bernhard Hänsel (1976) who for the first time differentiated several cultural groups in the area of the Lower Danube
and suggested a comparative chronological system, which is still accepted today, more than 35 years after
its publication. The best parallels of the Troy „Buckelware” or Knobbed Ware are found in the Bulgarian
Coastal Group (Hänsel 1976, Pl. 29) or the Babadag Group (Hänsel 1976, 44–48).


Some 14C-measurements of material from Troia VII b2-contexts associated with Knobbed Ware
have produced several dates; the most convincing are 938–906 cal. B.C. and 984–961 cal. B.C. (Koppenhöfer 1997, 314)26. This makes the „Buckelware” or Knobbed Ware contemporary with the channelled


horn-like knobs in central Transylvania or even Srem (Kalakača), which are independently dated.
I would like to stress again what I have tried to show in this article: in central Transylvania
the presence of channelled pottery with horn-like knobs is dated to a later Gáva horizon (Gáva II) and
can very likely be regarded as the result of a cultural contact in what so ever form with the areas of the
Knobbed Ware’s origin, such as the Lăpuş and Suciu Valleys in Northwest Transylvania. The similarity of
the Bulgarian vessels some of which are characterised by channelled knobs (i. e., Hänsel 1976, Pl. 25/15;
29/13; 69/5 and Fig. 6/3) with the Troy finds is so striking that the question of immigration was raised
almost immediately after the Knobbed ware horizon Troy VII b2 was discovered (Blegen et al. 1958;
Pintér 2005).

Locally they transitioned to inhumation probably, if these were no locals which just got incorporated, which I doubt:


One of the most interesting find spots on the distribution map of channelled horn-like knobs
(Fig. 4) is the barrow cemetery of Sborjanovo north of Razgrad in Bulgaria, which was published in a
monograph by Totko Stojanov in 199727. Sborjanovo is remarkable for various reasons; one of the most
striking features is the use of different pottery forms for different aspects of the burial ritual.
The burial in tumulus I (Fig. 7/1; Stojanov 1997, 13, plan 1) contained the inhumation of a
warrior, who was buried with an iron spear and a knife (Fig. 7/4–5). Outside the stone setting surrounding the inhumation another small stone ring was uncovered, which contained a deep bowl in which a
two-handled cup was placed (Fig. 7/6–7). They probably were meant as the containers for the food and/
or drink grave goods especially for the deceased. South of the burial, but still underneath the tumulus,
an area with pottery depositions with intentionally smashed pots was found. The same pattern of pottery depositions apart from the actual inhumations can be observed in all the published graves. Vessels
which were deposited close to the inhumation burials were left intact whereas the pottery depositions
in a distance from the burial or at the periphery of the mounds were intentionally destroyed (Stojanov
1997). In barrow II five burials were discovered. One of which, inhumation 5 of a women is particularly
interesting, since she was adorned with two doubled looped bow fibulae (Fig. 8/2-3; Stojanov 1997, Pl.
13; 19/129-130; 20) which can be dated into the late 10th and 9th centuries B.C. The importance of the
fibulae from Sborjanovo for the chronology of the Lower Danube region as a whole has recently been
emphasised by Maja Kašuba (2006, 231, fig. 13)28. The latest examples of related fibula types date to the
time around 800 B.C.

If they sample a couple of those warrior burials, I'm pretty sure E-V13 will pop up.

About the religious-ideological meaning of the knobs and how they fused with encrusted ware:


A well known vessel with a conical neck and white incrusted ornamentation (Fig. 6; Catalogue
Berlin 1981, fig. 66) from Nova Zagora in Bulgaria clearly shows a special connotation of horned knobs
since the neck of the vessel is decorated with an exceptional scene of human figures in an adoration pose
with raised arms. This scene is a further argument for interpreting the horn-like knobs as religiously
denoted symbols.


From the conclusion of the author, which shows the remarkable spread and importance of this characteristic feature of the ceramic vessels:


Originally these knobs were narrowly defined as one of the specific traits of the Gáva pottery
prototype or so called Gáva „urn”. As I hope to have shown, horn-like knobs or specifically channelled
horn-like knobs must indeed be seen in a much wider perspective.
As far as we can say today, the origin of this attribute lies somewhere between the Nyír plain in
northeast Hungary, the Lăpuş valley in northwest Transylvania (now in Maramureş county) and probably the Maramureş depression itself.
In the case of Lăpuş it could be shown that channelled horn-like knobs have a tradition decorating ritually connotated vessels. They played a significant role in the manifold burial practises of this
unique site at the foot of the ore rich Ţibleş mountains.
The concept behind this form and symbol subsequently spread in variations further south to
the Banat, Srem and Bačka, to groups also producing channelled pottery like the Ticvani-Karaburma IIIgroup29, were it can however be dated to the 12th to 10th centuries B.C. with the pit from Beška-Kalakača
as the so far latest example30.
In central Transylvania the knobs are also found later in the so-called Gáva II (in Romanian
terminology or after Kemenczei 1982c) or the classic Gáva phase in the definition of V. Szabó (1996),
which dates to HaA2/HaB1 period (Ciugudean 2009; Pankau 2004).
At the same time the pottery symbol of the fluted horn is found as a characteristic feature of
the „Buckelware” or „Knobbed ware” of Troy VII b2 and the contemporary related cultural groups of the
Lower Danube, Bulgaria and Turkish Thrace (appendix to Fig. 4). At least in Bulgaria this pottery style
seems to have a long life-cycle lasting until the 9th c. B.C.

https://www.academia.edu/3060312/Changes_in_the_settlement_history_of_the_Late_Bron ze_and_Iron_Age_K%C3%B6r%C3%B6s_Region._Hydrology_ Reliefs_and_settlements

So we have two pushes down on both sides of the Carpathians, one with the Belegis II-Gava group and its zone of influence, down to Brnjica and the Aegean, and on the other side the Fluted Ware horizon which reached the Bosporos and Troy. How much this was patrilinear expansion will be shown, but the timing and spatial distribution fits perfectly to the E-V13 phylogeny, the modern distribution and timing for its branches.

Riverman
08-11-2021, 02:40 PM
Feel like my point was missed.
1.How would Slavic admix pull Albanians and Greeks and North Italians(?) closer to the Scythian samples, while pulling the much closer and confirmed Slavic input Romanian and Bulgarian samples away, when the Scythian samples I am referencing do not even show affinity with Slavs?


If you read my two last posts, you will note that the "Scythian culture" in much of the region was Channelled Ware/Gava derived to a large degree, both genetically and culturally! Funnily, Romanians and Bulgarians might have too much Slavic input for being similar enough, while Albanians have "just enough" to land on a similar spot. And yes, they are related, in a way, because Albanians got a big dose from the same direct ancestry, Belegis II-Gava, Paracin, Brnjica - people like the Triballi, Dardani, those played their role. On the other side of the Carpathians however, very similar people were living, just with more Iranian and Northern ancestry, making them more like modern Balkan people with a dose Slavic.

Archetype0ne
08-11-2021, 03:11 PM
Didn't get the chance
Was typing that reply while you had posted. Checking it out rn. But you do realize how Hubans comment made little to no sense . And why I got so confused how it was well recieved in a forum people should know better, given the daily updated threads about the ancestries discussed so far.

Ps. From what I gather most Albanian Slavic input seems into S Albania, and Bulgarian (Samoil) related(there is very trace amounts in the North, Diber and Kukes but mostly among distinct bilingual ethnicities). Given what we know about Bulgarian auDNA, when one would break the component into proto Slavic like based on the above thread I shared it would come out pseudo trace like, given if we infer percentages on YDNA it does not pass 15% in the higher areas in S Albania, befote factoring the non Slavic component in Bulgarians.

Riverman
08-11-2021, 03:24 PM
I also want to add to the last two large posts about Gava and Knobbed Ware one comment from Gimbutas, which also wrote about the rich elite and metallurgist culture of Gava (in her terminoloby Tisza culture):


In the amount of metal objects it produced, the Tisza group was unequalled in Europe. Within its confines lay the most creative metallurgical center of central Europe from which the basic forms of weapons, tools and ornaments spread in all directions.


Marija Gimbutas, Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, p. 328.

That's the pathway for many clans and individuals which, as specialists which were in high demand, beside the main expansion routes to the South and South West from the Gava centre, moved in all directions as kind of developmental helpers, to spread the newest innovations from the metallurgical centre. That way they could even move beyond the Daco-Thracian ethnic sphere of influence, deep into Celtic and other territories.

The mobility of craftsmen being also followed in an article from Oliver Dietrich. The map on p. 223, fig 2 shows impressively how big the influence of a founder could have been, proven by the shape of the moulds, he comes to the conclusion:


To sum up, both the finds from Mediaş/Cernat and Pleniţa show influences from several different regions. The moulds from Mediaş and Cernat open up the possibility of an at least temporal/
periodical mobility for Late Bronze Age metalworkers. Maybe the Pleniţa moulds hint at a metalworker
travelling southern Transylvania and the western Danube-Tisza-area much as his Bronze D forerunner
did travel in the Carpathian basin and maybe in the upper Tisza region. As well, there is evidence, that
metalworkers were important agents in the collection and distribution of information and influences in
material culture.

https://www.academia.edu/3060312/Changes_in_the_settlement_history_of_the_Late_Bron ze_and_Iron_Age_K%C3%B6r%C3%B6s_Region._Hydrology_ Reliefs_and_settlements

Basically these metalworkers travelled through the whole wider Channelled Ware sphere and beyond, which would explain the migrations of individual specialists and small clan groups in the context of the Urnfield world.

vettor
08-11-2021, 06:12 PM
This is a very deep rabbithole. It is nowhere close to Germans and French. Kingdom of the Franks, common proto elements, history etc. The better example would be English vis a vis French and even then, to a more extreme level. When we get autosomalDNA from the upcoming Albanian studies as well as some Medieval Arber auDNA you will understand what I mean, if my suspicions hold true. Areas such as Sandzak are the closest thing I can relate to what you are proposing. But having any basic understanding of medieval Arber really would change your opinions. The key are Montenegrins, and comparing Montenegrin YDNA, auDNA vis a vis Serbia will be enough for you to catch my drift.

Montenegro history is complex

It was the Roman province of Praevalitana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praevalitana

It was settled by some Goths and Celts ( before the Goths )

In ancient times only one Illyrian tribe was living there , the Docleati ........it was supplanted by the Ardiaei coming from the mountains that border Serbia

Montenegro is a Venetian word ...........Monte = Mountain and Negro = Black ..............Black Mountains, so named because venetians could not seen the the ground because of all the trees , and it looked black from their ships.

Venetians held the coast as well as old area held by the Docleati ie Rhizon ( Risan )

and the interior was held by Serbs from the 13th century called the principality of Zeta

later the interior became ottoman...while the coast stayed in venetian hands until 1797......when France and Austria took over

It was the border of West roman empire under Rome and east Roman empire under Byzantium

good luck trying to work it out

Riverman
08-11-2021, 06:29 PM
Montenegro history is complex
[...]
good luck trying to work it out

On the positive side of things, Montenegro is one of the regions of Europe with relatively more sampling and private surname projects, even with a public site for ethnic Serbians with a focus on it:
https://www.poreklo.rs/2019/06/12/y-dna-haplogroups-of-ethnic-serbs/

vettor
08-11-2021, 06:55 PM
On the positive side of things, Montenegro is one of the regions of Europe with relatively more sampling and private surname projects, even with a public site for ethnic Serbians with a focus on it:
https://www.poreklo.rs/2019/06/12/y-dna-haplogroups-of-ethnic-serbs/

Montenegro fell under the administration of the "general of the sea " territories and was called Venetian Albania , because part of north albania was involved

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

Venice held zero Albanian lands south of Durres
Venice used the term "Venetian Albania" for its initial possessions that stretched from the southern borders of the Republic of Ragusa to Durrës in coastal Albania


Corfu and the Ionian islands under venice was under a different "general of the sea" ............as was Dalmatia also different ...................and Istria different again

Bruzmi
08-11-2021, 07:30 PM
In ancient times only one Illyrian tribe was living there , the Docleati ........it was supplanted by the Ardiaei coming from the mountains that border Serbia


The Labeatae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeatae)lived in southern Montenegro around Lake Shkodra (Lacus Labeatis)
The Ardiaei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardiaei) lived coastally in northwestern and northern Montenegro.
The Delmatae since the 2nd century AD (https://www.archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/DMS/BDEE6B92D674408388B2B590B40C72A5/9781789699135-sample.pdf) lived around the modern town of Pljevlja (today north-eastern part of Montenegro), where several native communities of the Delmatae from the coastal interior of province Dalmatia were transferred because Romans needed working force for mines and agriculture

Kelmendasi
08-11-2021, 07:50 PM
In ancient times only one Illyrian tribe was living there , the Docleati ........it was supplanted by the Ardiaei coming from the mountains that border Serbia
The Docleatae were only one of the various Illyrian tribes and groups living in the territory of modern Montenegro, they settled west of the Morača and were centred around the city of Doclea located to the immediate north of modern Podgorica. the tribe itself also seems to have been heterogeneous and was likely a tribal conglomeration of various different Illyrian tribes such as the Endirudini and Sasaei. As for the claim that they were superseded by the incoming Ardiaei later in history, I personally do not find it likely. The Ardiaei are recorded in modern Montenegro since the mid-third century BCE while the Docleatae as far as I am aware are recorded by Pliny the Elder (ca. 23/24-79 CE).

Other tribes include the Autariatae and Pirustae, with the former having inhabited the Lim and Tara river valleys of north-eastern Montenegro and western Serbia and the latter being centred around modern Pljevlja in northern Montenegro.

Bruzmi
08-11-2021, 08:45 PM
The sample we're investigating has been dated to 2225 ybp. He or his ancestor didn't travel to Moldova in the post-LBA. This is a Hellenistic era sample and wherever the Thracians came from they definitely didn't migrate to Thrace in the 3d century BCE.



These were two in many ways similar yet distinct autosomal profiles whose spread was matched by the dominant Y-DNA haplogroups, J-L283 in the West and E-V13 in the East i.e. per all available evidence and logic these represent the division between the IA Illyrians and Thracians..




Everything I have been saying agrees that those 4 samples are of Western origin. Archeologists agree as well. But as they say, Thracians were of Western origin..




Bythinians may not have had E-V13 as an important haplogroup at all, same might go for a whole range of Thracian tribes of similar traditions. Thrace was more heterogenous, unlike for example Dobruja. Babadag people were newcomers and prior to their arrival little was left of previous inhabitants..

Thracians can't a)have "western origins" (whatever that may mean) and be closer to PV/HRV_IA than BGR_IA like SCY197 (the E-V13 sample from Moldova) and represent via E-V13 a clear division from IA Illyrians and be more heterogeneous in their core area, Thrace.

If all these statements were equally correct, then the term "Thracians" would be an empty vessel which would mean everything and nothing at all.

The simplest and obviously correct answer if E-V13 is found in different contexts is to assign it to different ancient groups, depending on autosomal ancestral links just like everybody is doing with every other haplogroup.


I
Speaking of leaks.

Viminatium - 28 Late Antiquity. Viminatium was in Moesia.

E-V13/E-L618 - 9 32.1 % (ofc those preliminary L618 are all V13 once BAM's are out).
J-L283 - 0 0 %

If it's true what Bruzmi has been saying that Late Antiquity "Illyricani" brought V13 to Eastern Balkan, question is where is "Illyrican" linage present in 45 % of BA, IA Illyrians?? Surely on 28 tested there must have been some "true Illyricani", there are even two R-Z93, there are 5 G2a samples.. :lol:

Discussions on the basis of "leaks" are not a good guide in my opinion. When samples are published and we get to compare their autosomal ancestry to other samples, we'll know where they came from. If someone just read SCY197's label "E-V13" and location "Moldova", depending on their personal theories they might have been tempted to assign him to an eastern Balkan population but he's not an eastern Balkan sample.

The most frequently recorded place of origin of soldiers in 196 AD in Viminacium was Scupi in Dardania, other military colonies along the frontier or other settlements (including Dalmatian ones). Very indicative of the situation is that in Viminacium more soldiers came from Pannonian Sirmium than Dacian Sarmizegetusa (https://inscriptions.packhum.org/text/174440?hs=1614-1622). If E-V13 samples from Viminacium or any of the Roman frontier colonies are like SCY197 then those who subscribe "Thracian theories" we'll have to distance themselves from them because we know for a fact that Dalmatians massively settled as far as Dacia (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/8/1/1/htm): The invocation of deities of border and nature may well express an inherent unease about the ‘frontier’ position of this unique community, distant from the settlements of legionary camps or coloniae and municipia created elsewhere in Dacia. Perhaps the high number of altars set up by soldiers and Dalmatians to Iupiter Optimus Maximus, the god of the state to whom the emperor was likened, and the altar to Iupiter Depulsor, the god who kept the barbarians at bay, might have occurred in response to these anxieties and expressed the dependency on the emperor and the imperial administration—not only for the provision of security, but for the legal framework, and, more importantly, the right to mine. The propensity for what appears to be ‘Roman’ gods by the Dalmatians has also been read as a sign for their self-imagination as ‘Roman’ in a wild and unknown environment.

J2b-L283 will come up either in Viminacium or other frontier colonies eventually but if even as far as the Dalmatian community of Alburnus Maior in the heartland of Dacia, E-V13 is not more locally-shifted then E-V13 localization will have to be grounded in the central and western Balkans.

vettor
08-11-2021, 09:19 PM
The Labeatae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeatae)lived in southern Montenegro around Lake Shkodra (Lacus Labeatis)
The Ardiaei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardiaei) lived coastally in northwestern and northern Montenegro.
The Delmatae since the 2nd century AD (https://www.archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/DMS/BDEE6B92D674408388B2B590B40C72A5/9781789699135-sample.pdf) lived around the modern town of Pljevlja (today north-eastern part of Montenegro), where several native communities of the Delmatae from the coastal interior of province Dalmatia were transferred because Romans needed working force for mines and agriculture


this below is the census of "Illyrian" men of fighting age circa 15 BC .......................this montenegrian group or further south made up less than 15% of what Romans classified as "illyrian" ...BTW , Romans never said the term Illyrians, they noted different tribes in Illyricum province ................which did not cover modern Albania and that was called Epirus Nova

Narona is Neretva

Salona is Split


https://i.postimg.cc/Dyg1DJvb/illyrian-revolt.png (https://postimages.org/)

the 3 areas in the link does not cover the other "illyrian" of Liburnians and Histrians as they where no part of the issue in question

All other correspondence in tribes does not fit what the Roman knew of the area .....BTW, the Romans took northern Albania from the Macedonians at the start of the Hannibal wars , where macedonia was allied with hannibal .............the Roman never let this Albania Durres area go

Aspar
08-11-2021, 09:26 PM
The polluting of this thread keeps going it seems. I can't wait for that Thracian study to come out. What will be next, all E-V13 Thracians are migrants from the west? Hilarious

Meanwhile, the BAMs for the Etruscan study are already out and guess what, not even one E-V13 from quite a lot of sample. Well, that J-L283 keeps occurring which is witnessed by the Balkan ties and contacts of the Etruscans. I wonder, where is E-V13 if it was in the western Balkans all that time :noidea:

Riverman
08-11-2021, 09:57 PM
The most frequently recorded place of origin of soldiers in 196 AD in Viminacium was Scupi in Dardania, other military colonies along the frontier or other settlements (including Dalmatian ones). Very indicative of the situation is that in Viminacium more soldiers came from Pannonian Sirmium than Dacian Sarmizegetusa (https://inscriptions.packhum.org/text/174440?hs=1614-1622). If E-V13 samples from Viminacium or any of the Roman frontier colonies are like SCY197 then those who subscribe "Thracian theories" we'll have to distance themselves from them because we know for a fact that Dalmatians massively settled as far as Dacia (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/8/1/1/htm): The invocation of deities of border and nature may well express an inherent unease about the ‘frontier’ position of this unique community, distant from the settlements of legionary camps or coloniae and municipia created elsewhere in Dacia. Perhaps the high number of altars set up by soldiers and Dalmatians to Iupiter Optimus Maximus, the god of the state to whom the emperor was likened, and the altar to Iupiter Depulsor, the god who kept the barbarians at bay, might have occurred in response to these anxieties and expressed the dependency on the emperor and the imperial administration—not only for the provision of security, but for the legal framework, and, more importantly, the right to mine. The propensity for what appears to be ‘Roman’ gods by the Dalmatians has also been read as a sign for their self-imagination as ‘Roman’ in a wild and unknown environment. J2b-L283 will come up either in Viminacium or other frontier colonies eventually but if even as far as the Dalmatian community of Alburnus Maior in the heartland of Dacia, E-V13 is not more locally-shifted then E-V13 localization will have to be grounded in the central and western Balkans.

The solution to this is simply that the Channelled Ware groups expanded along two corridors on both sides of the Carpathians. The Dardanians will have in all likelihood a significant level of E-V13, the Dalmatians probably later, but not very early on. If I'm right about the Channelled Ware connection, and that model has by now the highest probability in comparison, the Carpathian, Pannonian, Central Balkan and Eastern Balkan will have originally been dominated by E-V13 after the LBA-EIA transitional period. Fringe areas with some influx of significance, but on a low level will be the West Balkans and Greece in particular, with the range becoming wider latest with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt.
The Central Balkan being heavily shifted is no problem, for a variety of reasons:
- the samples from Viminacium
- Channelled Ware horizon (Belegis II-Gava and its sphere of influence)
- Even Daco-Thracian, Daco-Moesian influences

The very West Balkan is no source but at best a fringe area. Like there were contacts:


Such a definition established the south-eastern border of the Urnfield
culture of Middle Danubian features, which passed through northern Croatia, bordering on the Belegiš group during its
second phase (Belegiš II) (Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 549).


Recent investigations have shed light on the contacts in the communication area across the Đakovo-Vinkovci plateau, where the
Virovitica, Barice-Gređani and Belegiš II groups meet at the level of local communications (Ložnjak Dizdar 2011, 26-32). An
interesting feature is that the same area provides evidence of regional contacts, for instance, the presence of Kurd type
buckets in the Bizovac hoard, but also in northern Bosnia (Vinski-Gasparini 1968, 16, Fig. 1).


P. Pavlin divided the
Uioara type sickles from the settlement in Slavonski Brod into subtypes that he marked as type 3. A. 1 Nr. 1. 1c and type 3.
A. 0. Nr 1. 1a (Pavlin 2010, Map 124, Map 77), whose distribution maps clearly show the intensive distribution and exchange
in the area between Syrmia, the Posavina region around Brod, and Osijek, that is, in the territory of the Barice-Gređani and
Belegiš II groups.

Note especially the different cremating Urnfield-related groups, but in particular the most important of them for the debate, the two Channelled Ware groups Belegis II and NW Srbija /Sava valley group on the map on p. 239, fig 2 of the article.

Together with the comment:


The south-eastern edge of the Urnfield culture is prominent in this area, not only towards the area of the Dinaric Alps,
which is characterised by an entirely different relief that conditioned the different position of the communications, and
consequently also the identity of the communities, but also towards the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, as the distribution area of groups of fluted ware, where there were no obvious natural barriers, except the presumed marshes, based
on the present landscape and maps of the Balkans prior to land reclamation (Medović 2011, Abb. 269). The fluted-ware
community includes also the Belegiš II group, the eastern neighbour of the Barice-Gređani and Virovitica groups.

https://www.academia.edu/11080753/South_Eastern_Periphery_of_the_Urnfield_Culture_Th e_Croatian_Perspective_Northern_Croatia_at_the_cro ssroads_at_the_beginning_of_the_Urnfield_culture

That was one connected community on both sides of the Carpathians and they all show at least Daco-Thracian influences in later times. Remind you on the Dardani and Triballi in particular. There is absolutely no contradiction if one states that E-V13 was common in areas like Pannonian Sirmium and in Thrace. The differences between Pannonia-Vojvodina, even down to Greece, and the very Western Balkan, the Adriatic coast, were for some times and regions bigger!
I too don't doubt that we will find all kinds of haplogroups in all these places, but early on, in the LBA-EIA, primarily the Channelled Ware settled zones will be E-V13 heavy with little else, and this will change over time, with gene flow and exchange, new conquests and colonisations, taking place.

Huban
08-12-2021, 04:29 AM
The sample we're investigating has been dated to 2225 ybp. He or his ancestor didn't travel to Moldova in the post-LBA. This is a Hellenistic era sample and wherever the Thracians came from they definitely didn't migrate to Thrace in the 3d century BCE.

The sample is in cluster with a Babadag culture sample from Dobruja. Confirming the existence of such auDNA profile in the region at 800 BC. Considering samples in question are in the immediate vicinity of proven Getic settlements from the same area, what other conclusion one can draw other than they are either Greeks or of Getae origin. Greeks they are not. That leaves the Getae. Getae in the area arrived in 5th century BC from Central Moldova, ultimately being connected to the Early Iron Age Babadag culture whose sample proves and basically indicates and gives a first glimpse of what was the auDNA profile of the Getae themselves.

These connections are long ago archeologically proven, explained, migratory patterns which shaped the early Getae of Moldova are known.

My deduction is based on a synchronized combination of Y-DNA, auDNA, archeological facts paired with common sense and logic.

Yours is logicall fallacy where you have assumed your premise is correct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) (E-V13 is Illyrian), and to further it you offered 3rd rate auDNA "analysis" which has been refuted by bce. Not once have you answered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics)#Question_dodging) any of my questions and points.




Thracians can't a)have "western origins" (whatever that may mean)

Of they can and they do according per various PhD archeologists. "Western" in this instance does not mean "Western Balkans" but literally Western in comparison to Moldova or even Bulgaria. Carpathians are West of Moldova, Danube is West/Southwest of Moldova, Danube is Northwest/North of Bulgaria.



and be closer to PV/HRV_IA than BGR_IA like SCY197 (the E-V13 sample from Moldova) and represent via E-V13 a clear division from IA Illyrians and be more heterogeneous in their core area, Thrace.

If all these statements were equally correct, then the term "Thracians" would be an empty vessel which would mean everything and nothing at all.

Thracians in their core area South of Danube are per archeological evidence more heterogenous than in their other regions.. I have talked about it and can even more. "Thrace"/Bulgaria is an area where proto-Thracians expanded into, area which had other pre-Thracian cultures in a considerably higher degree of preservation than Wallachia or Moldova. So Thracians must have been more heterogenous and for that we have actually already some genetic evidence which indicates that this sort of ancestry, "Southern" or I would call it "Southeastern" as even Moldovans and MJ12 are SE, Illyrians were SW, replaced earlier ancestry which was more Northern.

As explained IA Bulgaria can derived also from a very similar component to Moldovan Scythians, except it has additional admixture..



The simplest and obviously correct answer if E-V13 is found in different contexts is to assign it to different ancient groups, depending on autosomal ancestral linksjust like everybody is doing with every other haplogroup.

Indeed, autosomal links of Moldovan Scythians are Thraco-Cimmerians of the Babadag culture. Moldovan Scythians had E-V13, Babadags sister culture in Bulgaria, Pshenichevo, had E-V13 (or will but I can argue that the old sample is also V13). And so an ideal link between Y-DNA, auDNA and firmly set archeological evidence has been established.




Discussions on the basis of "leaks" are not a good guide in my opinion.

Circumstances surrounding the event of leakage are such that do not indicate any sort of malicious desire to "fool" the public.

1. It was obviously unintentional. Attempt to "fool the public" or "prove Albanians/Bruzmi" wrong obviously needs to be intentional because any such such attempt requires conscious decision to bring a consequence of "fooling the public".

2. It contained some information from an earlier study. A common feature in many papers as older samples from previous studies that in some way are connected or helpful are usually brought for comparison/reference.

A verdict in this case can be reached that judging by the circumstances of the event, information appears very reliable.

The arguments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) and motivation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest) of doubters can only be dismissed.



When samples are published and we get to compare their autosomal ancestry to other samples, we'll know where they came from.

That is ideal ofc, to have all, until then we make it with what we have.



If someone just read SCY197's label "E-V13" and location "Moldova", depending on their personal theories they might have been tempted to assign him to an eastern Balkan population but he's not an eastern Balkan sample.

Understood in a Thracian continuum then he is an eastern Balkan sample autosomally. Only literally he is not from Balkan peninsula.




The most frequently recorded place of origin of soldiers in 196 AD in Viminacium was Scupi in Dardania, other military colonies along the frontier or other settlements (including Dalmatian ones). Very indicative of the situation is that in Viminacium more soldiers came from Pannonian Sirmium than Dacian Sarmizegetusa (https://inscriptions.packhum.org/text/174440?hs=1614-1622). If E-V13 samples from Viminacium or any of the Roman frontier colonies are like SCY197 then those who subscribe "Thracian theories" we'll have to distance themselves from them because we know for a fact that Dalmatians massively settled as far as Dacia (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/8/1/1/htm): The invocation of deities of border and nature may well express an inherent unease about the ‘frontier’ position of this unique community, distant from the settlements of legionary camps or coloniae and municipia created elsewhere in Dacia. Perhaps the high number of altars set up by soldiers and Dalmatians to Iupiter Optimus Maximus, the god of the state to whom the emperor was likened, and the altar to Iupiter Depulsor, the god who kept the barbarians at bay, might have occurred in response to these anxieties and expressed the dependency on the emperor and the imperial administration—not only for the provision of security, but for the legal framework, and, more importantly, the right to mine. The propensity for what appears to be ‘Roman’ gods by the Dalmatians has also been read as a sign for their self-imagination as ‘Roman’ in a wild and unknown environment.

More of false assumptions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question):
1. Dardanians while being Illyrian in mid Antiquity per archeological evidence were an Illyrianized group by a Westward expansion of the Glasinac culture. They retained significant Thracian and even pre-Thracian stratum as evidenced by the archeological and epigraphic evidence. In fact it would appear Illyrians were just a conquering elite in Dardania and may have been the least numerous group. As Glasinac culture has strong archeological ties to MBA J-L283 find and other sites in Albania we have the likely hg of this expanding group.

2. Sirmium is a complex region where an Illyrian element is newest and invasive. Sirmium is a home to a variant of Getic Basarabi culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosut_culture). So obviously in addition to Amantini this component has to be counted in the area. Amantini were Urnfielders with some Glasinac influence i.e. Pannonians or likely Illyrianised speakers of some Italic related dialect, or maybe Illyrians proper if the J-L283 people spoke spoke Nuragic or Etruscan in MBA in the Balkans to be illirianised in LBA. :D.

I haven't looked into details on the epigraphic evidence but I can. But I know archeologists also postulated that there have been plenty of locals from there in the population as well..



J2b-L283 will come up either in Viminacium or other frontier colonies eventually but if even as far as the Dalmatian community of Alburnus Maior in the heartland of Dacia, E-V13 is not more locally-shifted then E-V13 localization will have to be grounded in the central and western Balkans.

It has appeared in another site but I was mentioning Viminatium. If it does it won't represent anything as it will require 40/50 samples for one find, as it already failed to produce one one 28.

Bruzmi
08-12-2021, 12:47 PM
Understood in a Thracian continuum then he is an eastern Balkan sample autosomally. Only literally he is not from Balkan peninsula.
.

You're assigning Thracian as general name with no traits of its own and you're assuming which populations will or won't be E-V13. If you think that SCY197 is in "continuum" with Thracians, then not a single sample in the eastern Balkans is or will be Thracian because SCY197 is closer to Proto-Villanovans and HRV_IA than to BGR_IA.

https://i.ibb.co/VT7w0d8/omd9YMb.png

Another sample which should be compared to SCY197, MJ12, BGR_IA, HRV_IA is RMPR474b. These individuals all lived within a few hundred years of each other. RMPR474b is an Etruscan J2b sample from Civitavecchia dated to 700-600 BCE. There are two possible routes for this J2b carrier to Italy. The first is via intermarriage of Proto-Villanovans with their southern neighbours, the second is via the Illyrian migrations (ca. 1000 BCE). In both scenarios, his ancestor arrived in Italy 300+ years before RMPR474b's timeline.

Distance to: RMPR474b
0.03580748 HRV_IA:I3313
0.04027628 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.04257681 scy197
0.04262325 scy300
0.04865831 scy305
0.04985581 scy192
0.05005633 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.06134841 BGR_IA:I5769
0.09148718 scy301

Distance to: scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.04043489 scy300
0.04207668 HRV_IA:I3313
0.04233458 scy192
0.04257681 RMPR474b
0.04431470 scy305
0.05049301 BGR_IA:I5769
0.05233163 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.09205060 scy301

Riverman
08-12-2021, 01:20 PM
You're assigning Thracian as general name with no traits of its own and you're assuming which populations will or won't be E-V13. If you think that SCY197 is in "continuum" with Thracians, then not a single sample in the eastern Balkans is or will be Thracian because SCY197 is closer to Proto-Villanovans and HRV_IA than to BGR_IA.


Actually, considering the geographical separation, they are all pretty close. And you do realise that Northern and steppe people constantly moved into the Eastern Carparthians and Balkan without causing complete replacement, but significant group and individual variation?
These incursions however can't be compared with the impact Channelled Ware and its networks had, even though they didn't cause a complete replacement themselves, but made E-V13 the dominant haplogroup.

The correlation of Eastern Urnfield-Channelled Ware + Daco-Thracians + E-V13 is so obvious, I don’t get how you can ignore or deny it. Add the introduction of iron metallurgy and its spread with Thraco-Cimmerians, then Hallstatt and craftsmen on their own and you have more than 90 percent of the early V13 spread.

You named the list of people and regions with V13 known so far yourself. What connection do they have?
Cremation before, Channelled Ware, Daco-Thracians and early iron weapons.
Nothing you said contradicts that scenario at all.

Illyrians got it too, just like Greeks and Celts, as well as Iranians, through secondary expansions and individual migrations already in the Early Iron Age.
Concerning Proto-Villanova and Illyrians in general, these are related people sharing the same substrate also. Its just E-V13 was spread by South Eastern Urnfielders in particular, not West Balkan groups originally.

Bruzmi
08-12-2021, 01:48 PM
The correlation of Eastern Urnfield-Channelled Ware + Daco-Thracians + E-V13 is so obvious, I don’t get how you can ignore or deny it.

I think that what is being ignored is how existing samples are linked to each other. You can hypothesize a "Daco-Thracian" connection, but the E-V13 sample we've got from Moldova (3rd century BCE) is not closer to a possibly Daco-Thracian background, but to PV/HRV_IA and even an Etruscan J2b carrier. You have the right to support a Daco-Thracian hypothesis, but it's wrong to just assume that it is correct even when samples show something else. At the very least, you have to modify it. I've never said that western/central Balkan populations ("Illyrians", a very broad term just like "Thracians") spread all E-V13 lineages, but looking at the Moldovan E-V13 autosomal links you have to consider that at least a part of E-V13 spread from the western/central Balkans.

Distance to: RMPR474b
0.03580748 HRV_IA:I3313
0.04027628 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.04257681 scy197
0.04262325 scy300
0.04865831 scy305
0.04985581 scy192
0.05005633 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.06134841 BGR_IA:I5769
0.09148718 scy301

Distance to: scy197
0.03586429 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.04043489 scy300
0.04207668 HRV_IA:I3313
0.04233458 scy192
0.04257681 RMPR474b
0.04431470 scy305
0.05049301 BGR_IA:I5769
0.05233163 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.09205060 scy301

Riverman
08-12-2021, 02:04 PM
Probably I should specify what elements they had in common:
- general Tumulus-Urnfield
- Baden and Pannonian culture

The South Eastern Urnfielders are just expected to be somewhat more Eastern shifted and they did pick up regional Balkan and steppe ancestry also, but fundamentally, Illyrians and Daco-Thracians are supposed to be fairly close or at least having ancestral components in common.
They just happened to get dominated by different haplogroups, which at some point might even have shared a common source population in a specific phase. Considering the rapid patrilinear expansion of E-V13, the autosomal side can't really solve the issue anyway, even less in the context of related people.

At this point there is no single early V13 outside the sphere of influence I described, so the burden of proof is not on me.

Bruzmi
08-12-2021, 05:32 PM
Illyrians and Daco-Thracians are supposed to be fairly close or at least having ancestral components in common.

The distance between Illyrians and "Daco-Thracians" will be shown by the data. It can't be assumed.

You have to prove that they were close, but judging by the distance between HRV_IA and BGR_IA, they were not close. If SCY197 is closer to PV, HRV_IA and RMPR474b than BGR_IA and other samples from the region, then the likeliest explanation is because his ancestor came from the western/central Balkans.

It can't be explained away by saying "oh it must be because Illyrians and Daco-Thracians were close to each other".

Riverman
08-12-2021, 06:13 PM
The distance between Illyrians and "Daco-Thracians" will be shown by the data. It can't be assumed.

You have to prove that they were close, but judging by the distance between HRV_IA and BGR_IA, they were not close.

Oh, suddenly you choose the single Bulgarian which is probably an outlier or the result of extensive admixture with locals. All the time before you spoke about how close the "Scythian", most likely a Getae of Daco-Thracian stock for the most part, was. And the whole region there was largely a continuation of the Gáva-Holigrady people under Cimmerian and later Scythian influence.


If SCY197 is closer to PV, HRV_IA and RMPR474b than BGR_IA and other samples from the region, then the likeliest explanation is because his ancestor came from the western/central Balkans.

Wait for the Pannonian studies results, they will show you the continuum of the region from the Carpathians down to Dalmatia on the one and the Aegean and Black Sea on the other hand. However, the whole Thraco-Illyrian sphere will be largely split along the inhumation vs. cremation, Western Balkan Tumulus and Danubian Urnfield on the one, South Eastern Urnfield of the Gáva network with Channelled Ware on the other hand. They might mix, they might overlap, but the West will be more J2, the East more V13, the Central Balkans being largely on the V13, but there was overlap and mixed groups, like the Dardanians.


It can't be explained away by saying "oh it must be because Illyrians and Daco-Thracians were close to each other".


The difference in patrilineages will exceed those of the autosomal profile for the Central Balkan people of Illyrian and Daco-Thracian tongue, you will see.

vasil
08-12-2021, 08:09 PM
I've never said that western/central Balkan populations ("Illyrians", a very broad term just like "Thracians") spread all E-V13 lineages, but looking at the Moldovan E-V13 autosomal links you have to consider that at least a part of E-V13 spread from the western/central Balkans.

I think the problem here is you are equating Medieval spreading of E-V13 with LBA/EIA spreading of E-V13. No one that knows anything about Balkan history and genetics will deny that some part of the current dna of Eastern Bulgaria, Wallachia and Moldova has a medieval origin in the Central or Western Balkans but that doesnt mean that E-V13 originates there and the E-V13 that we find in the Eastern Balkans during earlier times is from there.

Bruzmi
08-12-2021, 08:31 PM
I think the problem here is you are equating Medieval spreading of E-V13 with LBA/EIA spreading of E-V13. No one that knows anything about Balkan history and genetics will deny that some part of the current dna of Eastern Bulgaria, Wallachia and Moldova has a medieval origin in the Central or Western Balkans but that doesnt mean that E-V13 originates there and the E-V13 that we find in the Eastern Balkans during earlier times is from there.

I'm not saying that we won't find E-V13 the eastern Balkans in antiquity. To me, that's equally impossible to saying that we won't E-V13 in the Iron Age western Balkans .

What I'm saying is that this sample (SCY197) who lived in the Hellenistic era when compared to his near contemporaries is closer to people from the western Balkans and beyond than to samples from the eastern Balkans. This indicates that at least a part of E-V13 in antiquity lived in a more western/central Balkan location and moved eastwards towards places like Moldova. It's a pretty ordinary statement based on what we're seeing.

Riverman
08-12-2021, 08:52 PM
I'm not saying that we won't find E-V13 the eastern Balkans in antiquity. To me, that's equally impossible to saying that we won't E-V13 in the Iron Age western Balkans .

What I'm saying is that this sample (SCY197) who lived in the Hellenistic era when compared to his near contemporaries is closer to people from the western Balkans and beyond than to samples from the eastern Balkans. This indicates that at least a part of E-V13 in antiquity lived in a more western/central Balkan location and moved eastwards towards places like Moldova. It's a pretty ordinary statement based on what we're seeing.

They lived further North and moved down on both sides of the Carpathians with the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon. That's it. The Central Balkan was part of that movement, early on, the Western Balkan only indirectly and later. You said yourself you are assuming that the Dardani will have V13, which is most likely correct. Just look at the Channelled Ware groups nearby, Belegis II-Gava and related cultural formations. They are the key to understand the distribution. The Dalmatian coast had no such connection and will therefore yield only later and less V13, its as simple as that. Just like the ancient DNA record shows for now:

- Illyrians and Pannonians with little to no influence from the Channelled Ware groups = No E-V13 (samples: Illyrians, Daunians and leaked Pannonian study)
- Bulgaria and Greece before the Channelled Ware LBA-EIA transition = No E-V13
- Pannonians and Thraco-Illyrians in Pannonia and the Central Balkan with a strong Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gava influence = E-V13 (Roman Age Serbia-Pannonia)
- Geto-Scythian with a base from the Channelled Ware/Gáva-Holigrady people = E-V13 ("Scythian Moldova")
- Thracians from Pșenicevo, which was influenced by the Bulgarian Fluted Ware horizon = E-V13 (leaked Bulgarian IA study)

You see the pattern?

When we follow the Thraco-Cimmerian and Hallstatt spread, as well as iron working in general, the pattern will become even more interesting, you'll see.

Riverman
08-13-2021, 04:24 PM
I'm pretty sure these studies will shed new light on the E-V13 origin, prehistorical, historical and modern distribution debate. And be it just by falsifying some theories and assumptions or finding and determining some local clades:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(TITLES-ABSTRACTS-ONLY)&p=791947&viewfull=1#post791947

Like whether Nitra had more regularly an miniscule E1b1b minority or not at all:

The Nitra culture followed epi-Corded Ware traditions in many ways, and most of the burials showed emphasis on highlighting the gender and social status of the buried individuals. The homogeneity of the male lineages of the Nitra culture’s population, the detected distinct ancestry components and the comparison of the male and female admixture signals all contribute to a new way of understanding of the social changes at the dawn of the Bronze Age in East-Central Europe.

https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=1894

From the leak of the Pannonian study we already know the Nitra clans were mostly R1a, but possibly with an E1b1b stray find.

This study could help to evaluate whether there were any Michelsberger E1b1b survivors around or how far they spread:


Here, in the framework of the collaborative project INTERACT (ANR/DFG), we present new genome-wide data from 101 individuals from 12 sites covering today’s France and Germany from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic (7000-3000 BCE).

https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=1931

Also the presence and survival of E1b1b in the Carpathian basin-Pannonia in Late Antiquity and Early Medieval times:

Here we analyze new genome-wide data of 66 Early Medieval period individuals from present-day Hungary. Part of them were uncovered from Avar period elite burials located in the Danube-Tisza region, the primary power center of the Avar empire. The remaining were retrieved from different archeological contexts in the immediate surrounding areas from the IV-VIII. centuries. Our results reveal striking patterns of genetic structuring, mirroring geography and social stratification of the both culturally and genetically heterogeneous population of the Avar empire.

https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=1884

Since they speak about genetic structuring and I think some V13 clades survived in the region from Antiquity, it would be great to get some high resolutoin samples of yDNA to compare dates, regions and subclades with. I hope most of these papers will be published and data released in September.

Scythoslav
08-16-2021, 04:14 AM
The polluting of this thread keeps going it seems. I can't wait for that Thracian study to come out. What will be next, all E-V13 Thracians are migrants from the west? Hilarious

Meanwhile, the BAMs for the Etruscan study are already out and guess what, not even one E-V13 from quite a lot of sample. Well, that J-L283 keeps occurring which is witnessed by the Balkan ties and contacts of the Etruscans. I wonder, where is E-V13 if it was in the western Balkans all that time :noidea:


When is the Thracian study supposed to be coming out?

Riverman
08-17-2021, 09:35 PM
When is the Thracian study supposed to be coming out?

Nobody seems to know but the authors, and probably not even these if they want to make it peer reviewed and appear in a big journal.

I came across a great article about the Channelled Ware complex in the Central Balkans which is very outspoken and absolutely clear about its ethnocultural affiliation:


Aus der vorgelegten Übersicht ergeben sich folgende Schlüsse: die Mediana-
Gruppe ist eine regionale Erscheinung des mittleren Balkans. Sie hat sich aus den
vorangegangenen bronzezeitlichen Gruppen dieses Gebietes entwickelt, allerdings mit
Einwirkungen aus Südpannonien und von der unteren Donau. In ihrer Stufe II wird die
völlig in den Komplex mit gerillter Keramik eingegliedert. Dabei ist vor allem auf
kulturelle und wirtschaftliche Einwirkungen aus dem Karpatenraum mit seiner ho
chentwickelten Metallurgie zu denken. Dagegen sind für Kastanas eher mehrere aufei
nanderfolgende Zuströme innerbalkanischer Gemeinschaften anzunehmen, deren
unmittelbarer Ausgangspunkt nicht sicher zu erfassen ist, wie dies von Hänsel trefflich
dargestellt wurde. Der Beginn der Gruppe ist um den Beginn des 12. Jahrhunderts
anzusetzen, sie endet dann in der beginnenden Früheisenzeit (Hallstatt B1). Zuletzt
muß noch betont werden, daß der neulich vorgenommene Versuch, den Komplex mit
kannelierter Keramik den Illyrern zuzuschreiben restlos abzulehnen ist. Durch sys
tematische interdisziplinäre Forschungen im ehemaligen Jugoslawien konnte das Ent
stehungsgebiet der Illyrer auf dem westlichen Balkan, mit einer völlig anderen
kulturellen Entwicklung näher umrissen werden. Am mittleren Balkan und an der
unteren Donau kann nur an Vorläufer der Dako-Mysier, bzw. Der Nordthraker gedacht
werden.

The new DNA finds just confirm the differentiation - J2 for the West Balkan = Illyrian core; E-V13 in Eastern Pannonia, the Carpathian-Moldovan region, the Central and Eastern Balkan = Daco-Thracian core + expansion territory.

Google translate with minor corrections to make the important part readable:

The following conclusions can be drawn from the overview presented: the Mediana
Group is a regional phenomenon of the middle Balkans. She got out of the
earlier Bronze Age groups in this area developed, but with
Effects from southern Pannonia and the lower Danube. In their stage II they will die
fully integrated into the complex with grooved ceramics. It is mainly on
cultural and economic influences from the Carpathian region with its ho
to think about advanced metallurgy. On the other hand, for Kastanas there are more likely to be several
to accept successive influxes of inner-Balkan communities, their
The immediate starting point cannot be grasped with certainty, as Hansel did admirably
was shown. The group started around the beginning of the 12th century
it ends in the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Hallstatt B1). Last
It must be emphasized that the recent attempt to use the complex
of Fluted [Channelled] pottery to be attributed to the Illyrians is to be completely rejected. Through systematic interdisciplinary research in the former Yugoslavia enabled us to define the
territory of the Illyrians in the western Balkans, with a completely different
cultural development being outlined in more detail. In the middle Balkans and on the
Lower Danube, the cultures [Channelled Ware] can only be thought of as a forerunner of the Daco-Mysians or the North Thracians.


https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3976

Riverman
08-18-2021, 01:05 PM
Concerning a potential early presence of E-V13 in Greeks, I found yet another subclade which might fit:
E-Y193398/E-BY192424 almost for sure, with 2-3 samples, one of from Greece, one from Turkey (Gümüşhane, probably derived from the Greek "silver house", Argyroupólis „silver city", because of the mines nearby and is close to the Greek Pontic settlements, like Trabzon) and another one from Armenia. The clade was formed right around the transitional period (1.200-1.100 BC) of the LBA-EIA, like so many of E-V13, and seems to have spread first into and then from Greeks fairly early. I can't be absolutely sure at this point, but I would expect more Greek samples popping up once the Greek V13 people get tested enough.
If I'm right, this could be evidence for a West -> East migration with the Greek colonisation and in Roman times. Anyone disagrees or has additional information for that subclade or the samples?

More promising candidates for early Greek subclades come from this one:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173/

The branch split, again in the transitional period, when Channelled Ware-Eastern Urnfield expanded, apparently with different branches which look more Czech or Greek respectively, as well as other ethnic affiliations.

But there are in this group 2 promising Greek related samples, at least and one ending up in Armenia again. One Turkish from Samsun, with a split upstream with a Bulgarian in the transitional period (what else) and another from a Cappadocian Greek from Kayseri.

For https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17293/ are many Greeks listed, but their exact relations to Balkan populations are less clear and could be younger, like for one very obvious case within the genealogical time frame.

Aspar
08-18-2021, 03:26 PM
A new study about Neolithic and MBA Croatia is out: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9

Interesting is that they managed to sample remains that belonged to the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture even though the people of this culture practiced cremation most of the time.

Again disappointing for all us E-V13rs, as it seems all of the samples from the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture belonged to various clades of G2a. What's even more interesting these guys were very North-West European like which might point to Central European origin of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture.

Riverman
08-18-2021, 03:45 PM
A new study about Neolithic and MBA Croatia is out: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9

Interesting is that they managed to sample remains that belonged to the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture even though the people of this culture practiced cremation most of the time.

Again disappointing for all us E-V13rs, as it seems all of the samples from the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture belonged to various clades of G2a. What's even more interesting these guys were very North-West European like which might point to Central European origin of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture.

For me that's great news actually, because I'm now convinced of Channelled Ware being truly the main spreader of E-V13 in the transitional period. Just two hours ago I came across an article which showed to me that there is no continuation or tradition from Encrusted Pottery to Channelled Ware. This is the article:


The Vatin population was driven out by the Encrusted Pottery people descending from the central and western Pannonian Plain. [...] At the end of the Middle and in the Late Bronze AGe, in Srem, the BAnat and around the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers a new culture emerged, marked by large necropolises containing cremation burials. In its expansion it covered the territory previously inhabited by Encrusted Pottery peoples. At the same time, northern Vojvodina became occupied by the Hügelgräber culture penetrating down the Tisa and Danube rivers. In the final phase of the Bronze Age there appeared black burnished pottery attributable to the widespread eastern Gava complex. In western Vojvodina this complex confronted the central-European, sub-Alpine and west-Pannonian varieties of the Urnenfelder culture. This confrontation, as well as numerous hoards dated to Ha A1 - A2 C, mark the end of the Bronze Age in these regions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250151226_Historical_picture_of_development_of_Bro nze_Age_cultures_in_Vojvodina

Two different Urnfield groups pushed South, with the South Eastern one being largeley equivalent to Channelled/Fluted Ware. And this marks the territory of the E-V13 carriers, it was an ethnic, tribal expansion. Also just recently I read various articles on the Getae and Dacians and their respective Iron Age transition. It is very clear, in the whole region the only really significant continuity being from the very Late Bronze Age, from the Channelled Ware horizon onwards. The other elements either fused or came in from other regions. A larger, ethnic formations, only the Channelled Ware was still standing in the Central and Eastern Balkans and up to the Carpathians, Western Pannonia, with a sphere of influence down to Eastern Germany.
And whereever we have later news from the ethnicity of the tribes living in this region, unless there were other incursions from later times, like the expansion of Illyrians into some Central Balkan zones or Scythians, we deal with Daco-Thracians and no one else. To me the case is absolutely clear and probably closed before the first ancient DNA brings up the final proof. The only thing I'm still not sure of is how the whole Channelled Ware horizon which expanded on both sides of the Carpathians became dominated by E-V13 in the first place. But from what I read on that matter, the strongest continuity being in an area which can be desribed as Eastern Slovakia and North Western Romania, probably up to the Carpathian regions of Poland and the Carpatho-Ukraine. It will be interesting to trace it back there, because even before the truly massive expansion southward, this was no longer a small population at the time of about 1.400 BC.

Kelmendasi
08-18-2021, 04:04 PM
A new study about Neolithic and MBA Croatia is out: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9

Interesting is that they managed to sample remains that belonged to the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture even though the people of this culture practiced cremation most of the time.

Again disappointing for all us E-V13rs, as it seems all of the samples from the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture belonged to various clades of G2a. What's even more interesting these guys were very North-West European like which might point to Central European origin of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture.
Interesting to see that sample POP23 (Roman period, 260-402 CE, Beli Manastir (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beli+Manastir,+Croatia/@45.5708817,17.6518627,8.44z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x475d28654d16270f:0x400ad50862bc9 80!8m2!3d45.7728664!4d18.6107524)) turned out to be R1a-F1345 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-F1345/). Sample R1548 (27 BCE-300 CE, Monterotondo (https://www.google.com/maps/place/00015+Monterotondo,+Metropolitan+City+of+Rome,+Ita ly/@41.9524399,12.3654298,7.99z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x132f6e3bba219395:0x8e159d1098f15 a3a!8m2!3d42.0517785!4d12.6202874)) from the Roman study also turned out to be under F1345>F1019 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-F1019/). There are also some Greeks under F1345>YP4768 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP4768/). It seems possible that R1a-F1345 may have expanded during the period of Roman imperialism although with an ultimate source among the Iranic-speaking tribes.

Riverman
08-18-2021, 04:19 PM
Interesting to see that sample POP23 (Roman period, 260-402 CE, Beli Manastir (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beli+Manastir,+Croatia/@45.5708817,17.6518627,8.44z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x475d28654d16270f:0x400ad50862bc9 80!8m2!3d45.7728664!4d18.6107524)) turned out to be R1a-F1345 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-F1345/). Sample R1548 (27 BCE-300 CE, Monterotondo (https://www.google.com/maps/place/00015+Monterotondo,+Metropolitan+City+of+Rome,+Ita ly/@41.9524399,12.3654298,7.99z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x132f6e3bba219395:0x8e159d1098f15 a3a!8m2!3d42.0517785!4d12.6202874)) from the Roman study also turned out to be under F1345>F1019 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-F1019/). There are also some Greeks under F1345>YP4768 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP4768/). It seems possible that R1a-F1345 may have expanded during the period of Roman imperialism although with an ultimate source among the Iranic-speaking tribes.

The Sarmatians in particular surely must have left a mark. They lived in Pannonia and surrounding areas for many centuries and often came in various ways into the Roman provinces, like as soldiers, captives and slaves respectively.

Concerning the earlier samples, the Sopot culture looks really mixed. I still hold to the theory that its possible, just possible, that Northern Lengyel-Sopot groups did carry E-V13 and it survived from there in the Carpathians or even made it to Tripolye-Cucuteni. We'll see. But so far no new sample for E1b1b. But probably these were more Northern from the Middle Neolithic already. Also bad that the single J sample wasn't classifiable downstream. Kind of disappointing, but it shows, together with the C and the earlier finds of E1b1b, the wide range of yDNA in the group.
One carrier of lactase persistence and a possibly light eyed minority is also notable.

Bruzmi
08-18-2021, 04:55 PM
And whereever we have later news from the ethnicity of the tribes living in this region, unless there were other incursions from later times, like the expansion of Illyrians into some Central Balkan zones or Scythians, we deal with Daco-Thracians and no one else.

I don't know how Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery would even fit into any plausible theory for the expansion of E-V13.

"Daco-Thracians" is a term that you are using and of course you have the right to do so, but I must tell you that it has been largely abandoned today because it looks like we're dealing with two quite different populations which didn't even speak the same macrolanguage (like in the case of Illyrian spoken by Illyrii proprie dicti, Dardani, Delmati).

Douglas Adams, J.P. Mallory (1997), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Taylor & Francis:

https://i.ibb.co/P6vF5bt/Thracian.jpg

We'll see with which populations E-V13 samples will cluster autosomally and the results will indicate the direction of their migration and the subgroups part of which they were. (Personally, I think that Dardani Roman-era spread is responsible for the spread of E-V13 east of modern Kosovo.)

So far E-V13 seems to be closer to western/central Balkans than to samples from the eastern Balkans. In the case of the people of Thrace and Dacia, I believe that we'll find several distinct populations in both regions.

Riverman
08-18-2021, 05:30 PM
I don't know how Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery would even fit into any plausible theory for the expansion of E-V13.

"Daco-Thracians" is a term that you are using and of course you have the right to do so, but I must tell you that it has been largely abandoned today because it looks like we're dealing with two quite different populations which didn't even speak the same macrolanguage (like in the case of Illyrian spoken by Illyrii proprie dicti, Dardani, Delmati).

Douglas Adams, J.P. Mallory (1997), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Taylor & Francis:


Opinions on such linguistic matters are just that, opinions, even if being raised by experts. In the past, there were more lumpers, many recent scientists became splitters. Fine. But that won't change anything as two things are clearly:
- They are linguistically extremely close, whether all scientists group them together into one language group or not. A lot still do.
- The ancestral and archaeological signal is largely the same in the whole Daco-Thracian sphere. Gava connects the Getae with the Thracians, the Dacians with Moesians and the Triballi.


We'll see with which populations E-V13 samples will cluster autosomally

Only the earliest V13 and more Northern samples of V13 will really matter, most likely, for an autosomal profile of the original people. Because such a rapid expansion could have been mostly paternally driven and we know how quickly an autosomal profile can get diluted in the course of such an expansion.


and the results will indicate the direction of their migration and the subgroups part of which they were. (Personally, I think that Dardani Roman-era spread is responsible for the spread of E-V13 east of modern Kosovo.)


The Dardanians surely will have their fair share, but they won't have much more of it than the people to their North and East, rather the contrary will be true. The whole Carpathian and Lower Danubian region was more affected actually. There we deal with a near complete replacement in the LBA-EIA transition possibly, with most non-E-V13 attributed to later contacts and migrations. The Brnjica territory changed not that rapidly, but steadily, so more fusion, more mixture with locals is possible there, as well as in some Thracian areas. The Geto-Dacian territory is more likely to have been primarily affected by later Cimmerian-Scythian admixture than non-Channelled Ware people. So they will be, probably, largely E-V13 + R1a+b. We'll see.


So far E-V13 seems to be closer to western/central Balkans than to samples from the eastern Balkans. In the case of the people of Thrace and Dacia, I believe that we'll find several distinct populations in both regions.

Huban
08-19-2021, 10:01 PM
I will post more information on Moldovan Scythian samples i.e. Moldovan Scythians of clear Getae origin. As well as deal with the epigraphic evidence on Viminatium that will launch Bruzmi's "opinions" into the orbit of Jupiter.

But first I have to comment on new Croatian study. This study tested people of Southern Transdanubian Incrusted pottery culture. Dominated by G2a but also possessing a very distinct autosomal profile. Incidentally yesterday I was analyzing some information from the unpublished Hungarian study where they tested more Northern samples of the same culture, and interestingly they show same tendencies. Again no E-V13 there either..

E-V13 heavy IA groups descend from a mixture of Incrusted pottery descendants and an Eastern Urnfield variant. With these finds I believe it is impossible to connect E-V13 with the Transdanubian Incrusted pottery.

Unpublished Hungarian study has two "E-L539" samples with just very preliminary SNP calls (there is Z2103/P312 distinction but all other hg's are very basal). One is from 2000 BC, other is from 1100 BC from the very NE Hungary. The autosomal information about this sample with heavy Steppe element seems to be such that it aligns with all IA samples that we may connect with Daco-Thracian groups.

Even these R1a Gava samples don't, Incrusted culture samples don't, nothing else does. Only this E-L539 LBA outlier does. Ofc there are no V65, V22, V12 clades that look even remotely IE in age and spread, so you shouldn't be expecting this guy to be anything other than V13..

I believe this is sufficient grounds to say that the proto-Thracian Indoeruopean Steppe core somehow was likely totally dominated by E-V13 in percentages likely exceeding 80%+. Second most important hg being R-Z280 from where the E-V13 picked up the language. And linguistically of what is known about Thracian, most evidence indicates Baltic connections.

Cetina culture where I actually tried to fit the Incrusted pottery culture, that some Cetina migrated to Pannonia, thesis should be dropped and E-V13 is more likely related to some Ukrainian Cardial/Impresso groups described by some archeologists.

I am trying to figure out what is this LBA culture with E-L539. Something very similar to Gava or more distinct, as Gava samples are not quite like it genetically.. And indeed when you try to fit autosomally IA Geto-Thracians with Gava it doesn't work..

Bruzmi
08-19-2021, 10:18 PM
But first I have to comment on new Croatian study. This study tested people of Southern Transdanubian Incrusted pottery culture. Dominated by G2a but also possessing a very distinct autosomal profile. Incidentally yesterday I was analyzing some information from the unpublished Hungarian study where they tested more Northern samples of the same culture, and interestingly they show same tendencies. Again no E-V13 there either..
.

The same study showed no J2b-L283 in Croatia either. Are we to assume that J2b-L283 never existed in Croatia? Obviously not.

They did, however, confirm I-M223 (Sopot Culture) which was also found among Daunians and strongly indicates that I-M223 is a local lineage.


I will post more information on Moldovan Scythian samples i.e. Moldovan Scythians of clear Getae origin. As well as deal with the epigraphic evidence on Viminatium that will launch Bruzmi's "opinions" into the orbit of Jupiter.

There's nothing at all that is "Getae" in the southern cluster of the samples from Moldova. They're not "Scythians" and they're not from the "eastern Balkans".

From ph2ter's new IA-Roman-Medieval PCA of samples from Europe:

https://i.ibb.co/YDMLVrF/westbalkan.jpg

No single reasonable theory would ever try to call SCY197 a "Scythian", "Getae" or really anything from the eastern Balkans.

Huban
08-19-2021, 10:39 PM
The same study showed no J2b-L283 in Croatia either. Are we to assume that J2b-L283 never existed in Croatia? Obviously not.

J-L283 was found in a similar timeframe in another important culture from Croatia, and why should it be found in an Incrusted pottery culture when these were distinct and unrelated. And importantly it was found in Maros. Nevertheless J-L283 is likely not a Steppe lineage (how interesting that most internet Albanians are trying to "Steppize" J-L283 while trying to "Un-steppisize" the E-V13) i.e. proto-Nuragic speakers that were assimilated by IE groups in Pannonia and subsequently they spread to Western Balkans as proto-Illyrians.

In Sardinia and Tuscany there are four separate J-L283 lineages including the Nuragic one, that are less related to each other than the Mokrin sample is to all modern Balkan J-L283 (OK, bar one), and Mokrin and Balkan J-L283 are not close to each other. So even if J-L283 did come from Caucasus North of Black Sea, the Steppeless proto-Nuragics are still the best indicators of the affinity of it's pre-Mokrin carriers. And there is no R-M269 in Nuragics either. Notwithstanding the rampant Etruscan J-L283. If J-L283 is from the Steppe it is far more likely originally related to some older stratum that predates even the Yamnaya.

We know now for a fact that E-V13 is very unrelated to Etruscans.


They did, however, confirm I-M223 (Sopot Culture) which was also found among Daunians and strongly indicates that I-M223 is a local lineage.

I-M223 is most definitely not a "local" lineage in general terms. I-P78 seem to be because it has large diversity on the Balkans and aDNA. Learn the difference between SNP's that are 15 k years old and 5 k years old.



There's nothing at all that is "Getae" in the southern cluster of the samples from Moldova. They're not "Scythians" and they're not from the "eastern Balkans".

From ph2ter's new IA-Roman-Medieval PCA of samples from Europe:

No single reasonable theory would ever try to call SCY197 a "Scythian", "Getae" or really anything from the eastern Balkans.

Scy197 is a Scythian, without quotes, of Getae origin, without quotes.

You're new to this, and I have among other things extensive experience in autosomal DNA that goes 10 years back. You do not know what you are talking about as you will learn in due time.. :)

Huban
08-19-2021, 10:54 PM
No single reasonable theory would ever try to call SCY197 a "Scythian", "Getae" or really anything from the eastern Balkans.

Too add quickly without explaining. Actually autosomal data clearly proves you totally wrong. Look at scientific papers and see how ancestry is derived. Minute differences make what is plausible on PCA plot impossible in reality and that is also the case here. So PCA plots are useful to a point. It is also totally unacceptable to separate these 4 samples of "Southern" cluster, it is part of their diversity. Only radically different samples from the same site and timeframe should be viewed separately. And indeed even these Scythians have other interesting samples.

Also from the anthropological data on Getic groups from Moldova it is known that the Mediterranean type was strongest, as mirrored by these autosomal facts.. Ofc it seems original E-V13 carriers were to a degree more Northern shifted.

Bruzmi
08-19-2021, 10:59 PM
I-M223 is most definitely not a "local" lineage in general terms. I-P78 seem to be because it has large diversity on the Balkans and aDNA. Learn the difference between SNP's that are 15 k years old and 5 k years old.



Specific I-M223 lineages are local lineages in the Balkans. There's no need to relativize that fact. Most macrolineages are not found today in the same area they emerged.

Specific I-M223 presence in the Balkans is continuous from the Neolithic era. That makes it local.





Scy197 is a Scythian, without quotes, of Getae origin, without quotes.



If SCY197 is "Scythian" of "Getae" origin then so are many Italic samples and apparently the autosomal profile of modern Tuscany is similar to that of the "Scythian Getae"

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.4770% / 0.02476980
33.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
29.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
16.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
11.2 Baltic_EST_BA
4.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
3.0 RUS_Kurma_EBA
2.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.6 GRC_Minoan_EBA


If we are to accept this theory, then "Scythian Getae" of the 3rd century BCE in Moldova had Neolithic-derived ancestry similar to Grotta Continenza, Central Italy in the Copper Age and to Helladic EBA.

It's obvious that this person was the descendant of a recent migrant from a more western location.

Huban
08-19-2021, 11:09 PM
If SCY197 is "Scythian" of "Getae" origin then so are many Italic samples and apparently the autosomal profile of modern Tuscany is similar to that of the "Scythian Getae"

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.4770% / 0.02476980
33.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
29.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
16.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
11.2 Baltic_EST_BA
4.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
3.0 RUS_Kurma_EBA
2.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.6 GRC_Minoan_EBA


If we are to accept this theory, then "Scythian Getae" of the 3rd century BCE in Moldova had Neolithic-derived ancestry similar to Grotta Continenza, Central Italy in the Copper Age and to Helladic EBA.

The information showing a clear Thracian nature of this and other samples is there above except you can't see it.. :) Or you don't want to see it.




It's obvious that this person was the descendant of a recent migrant from a more western location.

There is no archeological evidence for any such late migration. Whereabouts of Moldovan Scythians of Getae origin from Glinoe are very clear based on archeological evidence. However migration of proto-Thracian groups in Early Iron Age from a more "Western" position relative to Moldova are attested as is ofc presence of such a Mediterranean autosomal profile in the region via the MJ12 sample of a closely related Babadag culture.

Nevertheless the LBA Carpathian E-L539 sample clearly shows that proto-Thracians, along the way mixed with some more Southern locals and produced this autosomal profile more superficially similar to some EIA Western groups. More extensive mixing in Bulgaria produced the Iron Age Bulgarian sample's profile. Nevertheless clearly both groups derive the core of their ancestry from Carpathians judging by current auDNA data.

Riverman
08-19-2021, 11:48 PM
I will post more information on Moldovan Scythian samples i.e. Moldovan Scythians of clear Getae origin. As well as deal with the epigraphic evidence on Viminatium that will launch Bruzmi's "opinions" into the orbit of Jupiter.

But first I have to comment on new Croatian study. This study tested people of Southern Transdanubian Incrusted pottery culture. Dominated by G2a but also possessing a very distinct autosomal profile. Incidentally yesterday I was analyzing some information from the unpublished Hungarian study where they tested more Northern samples of the same culture, and interestingly they show same tendencies. Again no E-V13 there either..

E-V13 heavy IA groups descend from a mixture of Incrusted pottery descendants and an Eastern Urnfield variant. With these finds I believe it is impossible to connect E-V13 with the Transdanubian Incrusted pottery.

Unpublished Hungarian study has two "E-L539" samples with just very preliminary SNP calls (there is Z2103/P312 distinction but all other hg's are very basal). One is from 2000 BC, other is from 1100 BC from the very NE Hungary. The autosomal information about this sample with heavy Steppe element seems to be such that it aligns with all IA samples that we may connect with Daco-Thracian groups.

Even these R1a Gava samples don't, Incrusted culture samples don't, nothing else does. Only this E-L539 LBA outlier does. Ofc there are no V65, V22, V12 clades that look even remotely IE in age and spread, so you shouldn't be expecting this guy to be anything other than V13..

I believe this is sufficient grounds to say that the proto-Thracian Indoeruopean Steppe core somehow was likely totally dominated by E-V13 in percentages likely exceeding 80%+. Second most important hg being R-Z280 from where the E-V13 picked up the language. And linguistically of what is known about Thracian, most evidence indicates Baltic connections.

Cetina culture where I actually tried to fit the Incrusted pottery culture, that some Cetina migrated to Pannonia, thesis should be dropped and E-V13 is more likely related to some Ukrainian Cardial/Impresso groups described by some archeologists.

I am trying to figure out what is this LBA culture with E-L539. Something very similar to Gava or more distinct, as Gava samples are not quite like it genetically.. And indeed when you try to fit autosomally IA Geto-Thracians with Gava it doesn't work..

These are great news, because a very North Eastern position Hungary is the only reasonable location for the later time. Concerning Gava: The Gava created a whole horizon of Channelled Ware which derives from it, most likely with numerous founder effects and assimiliations along the road. But for the E-V13 to work out, it needs to have been onboard from the start or joining very early, close to the source group. That doesn't mean all Gava groups must be the same and there were in any case at least two R1a/b rich groups which influenced the Channelled Ware E-V13 expansion:
1. The Eastern Urnfield networks, especially the Lusatians.
2. Later first the Cimmerians, then the Scythians from the steppe.

The second influence starts after the first big expansion with Channelled Ware, it affects with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and all cultures afterwards. These influences changed the culture of the Channelled Ware people quite drastically, as they adopted a more nomadic, more pastoralist lifestyle, more sophisticated and aggressive horsemanship with larger breeds of horses, plus the fully developed Iron Age, with a larger production of iron tools and weapons than before. The Daco-Thracians were therefore heavily influenced and altered by the later steppe influence.

Concerning the deeper origin of the E-V13 clans before they joined the Channelled Ware expansion, I just recently wrote this in another thread about upcoming samples from Bohemia:

I'm not sure there is any E1b1b and even less confident about E-V13. That's because E-V13 might have a more Eastern origin around Slovakia,South Eastern Poland, Northern Romania, in the area of the Northern Carparthians or close by.
Its however possible because Baden is in part a heir of Lengyel and Lengyel did occupy this potential homeland zone and already showed some E1b1b. Unfortunately the resolution was rather bad if I remember correctly.
We have new results from the sister group Sopot from further South and they were quite diverse, but dominated by G2 and I2. But earlier Lengyel-Sopot finds from further North had E1b1b too. I2 should pop up a lot, because it might have dominated both Baden and GAC in Bohemia as well.

There is however a different option for E-V13, namely to come from Tripolye-Cucuteni, being assimilated by Corded Ware and becoming a minority element in the Epi-Corded horizon of the region. E1b1b was present TCC and it was probably in Nitra culture as well, if we interpreted it correctly.

Which brings me to the least surprising conclusion that the local CW was most likely strongly R1a, just like the daughter group Nitra, which might have been more mixed on the female side and here and there some local male lineages made it too = path for E-V13. But more than 90 percent was R1a, which makes it likely for all CW groups of the region. If E-V13 was extremely rare but present in Nitra, it could also mean the V13 guys came from a neighbouring clan and there was just marriage exchange and trade between them. But then which neighbour could it be? Would bring us back to a Baden derived-related culture...

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24561-Bohemia-Dynamic-changes-in-genomic-and-social-structures-in-3rd-millennium-BCE-centr&p=793508&viewfull=1#post793508

I'm assuming that E-V13 came up from an Epi-Corded network and ultimately being from Northern Lengyel groups, alternatively Tripolye-Cucuteni. I think these two cultures were the most influential on the early steppe people when they expanded and being in the right position, as metallurgists, to prove their value for the newcomers. As well as being in a defendable position close to the Carpathians. They might have transitioned from Lengyel to Baden, which had already significant steppe influences from Cotofeni and Yamnaya. Cotofeni is particularly interesting, because it seems likely to me they fused with local, metal producing elements of the Carpathian zone.
What language the people from the Baden culture spoke is unknown of course, so they could already have shifted to an IE idiom or being assimilated later. E-V13 could have been picked up earlier than Baden from Lengyel- or Tripolye related groups, but not much later than Baden in my opinion.
The expansion of Channelled was so swift, yet in some regions more gradual (like Brnjica), so its possible their autosomal profile did change on the way, or a different people than those from the Gava core were picked up and carried it on. Just like its possible the Bell Beaker were produced by other people earlier, but "the Bell Beaker people" just integrated it in their package when moving on themselves. Something like this could have happened there as well, but we need more samples to clarify this, since it seems to be less likely than
E-V13 coming from Cardial-Impresso -> Northern Lengyel-Sopot -> Cotofeni/Baden? -> Epi-Corded -> Unetice-related -> South Eastern Urnfield/Gava-related -> Channelled Ware horizon -> regional cultures of the Carpathian and Balkan sphere, some "Scythicised" and (especially the Eastern) Hallstatt sphere.
The alternative route goes from Tripolye-Cucuteni instead of Lengyel-Sopot with the rest being the same.

Isn't the one from 2000 BC from Nitra culture, which was totally R1a dominated? If so, this would be the fairly Northern Epi-Corded context from which it spread later. I don't expect Nitra to have a lot, but this cultural group was not that far away and could have had contacts with the ones being more E-V13 heavy.

Bruzmi
08-19-2021, 11:57 PM
The information showing a clear Thracian nature of this and other samples is there above except you can't see it.. :) Or you don't want to see it.



If you actually believe that this is how a Thracian would be modelled, I really have nothing else to add to that.

https://i.ibb.co/YDMLVrF/westbalkan.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/VT7w0d8/omd9YMb.png

Everyone can judge for themselves.



There is no archeological evidence for any such late migration.


What late migration?

This is one individual whose ancestor moved there in the context of the Hellenistic trade networks which flourished in that era. Individuals migrated freely and extensively throughout antiquity.

Mass migrations of population groups are a whole other thing.



However migration of proto-Thracian groups in Early Iron Age from a more "Western" position relative to Moldova are attested as is ofc presence of such a Mediterranean autosomal profile in the region via the MJ12 sample of a closely related Babadag culture.

SCY197 is a sample from the 3rd century BCE. It's not an EIA sample and his autosomal ancestry solidly shows that his ancestors were not in the region for more than 1-2 generations.



More extensive mixing in Bulgaria produced the Iron Age Bulgarian sample's profile. Nevertheless clearly both groups derive the core of their ancestry from Carpathians judging by current auDNA data.

Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 1.7011% / 0.01701078 | R5P
51.6 GRC_Peloponnese_N
19.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
12.0 Wales_CA_EBA
10.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
7.0 Yamnaya_UKR


Target: HRV_IA:I3313
Distance: 2.2333% / 0.02233285
30.8 Wales_CA_EBA
23.0 Yamnaya_BGR
17.6 GRC_Helladic_EBA
15.2 GRC_Peloponnese_N
9.2 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
3.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
0.4 RUS_Kurma_EBA


Target: UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
Distance: 3.2867% / 0.03286654
37.8 SVK_EBA
34.2 GRC_Peloponnese_N
18.6 TUR_Isparta_EBA
4.2 Yamnaya_UKR
3.2 BGR_N
1.6 RUS_Kurma_EBA
0.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin


Meanwhile in central Italy, 600 BCE:

Target: RMPR473
Distance: 2.0929% / 0.02092941
34.6 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
29.4 Wales_CA_EBA
20.4 HRV_EBA
13.0 GRC_Minoan_EBA
2.6 Baltic_LTU_BA

Different populations, different profiles.

Trojet
08-19-2021, 11:58 PM
J-L283 was found in a similar timeframe in another important culture from Croatia, and why should it be found in an Incrusted pottery culture when these were distinct and unrelated. And importantly it was found in Maros. Nevertheless J-L283 is likely not a Steppe lineage (how interesting that most internet Albanians are trying to "Steppize" J-L283 while trying to "Un-steppisize" the E-V13) i.e. proto-Nuragic speakers that were assimilated by IE groups in Pannonia and subsequently they spread to Western Balkans as proto-Illyrians.

In Sardinia and Tuscany there are four separate J-L283 lineages including the Nuragic one, that are less related to each other than the Mokrin sample is to all modern Balkan J-L283 (OK, bar one), and Mokrin and Balkan J-L283 are not close to each other. So even if J-L283 did come from Caucasus North of Black Sea, the Steppeless proto-Nuragics are still the best indicators of the affinity of it's pre-Mokrin carriers. And there is no R-M269 in Nuragics either. Notwithstanding the rampant Etruscan J-L283. If J-L283 is from the Steppe it is far more likely originally related to some older stratum that predates even the Yamnaya.

Don't be so quick to jump into any conclusions "Mr. J-L283 expanded from Sardinia" (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34165-J2b2-L283-(proto-illyrian)/page6?p=534324&viewfull=1#post534324) :lol:

The jury is still out, but given the available data (ex. ancient KDC001), it likely went North of Black Sea route, and I think it likely "Indo-Europeanised" early on somewhere within or not far from Steppe populations, given the archeogenetic finds in EBA Maros and MBA Dalmatia.

PS. I see Davidski/Eurogenes has deleted (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/how-did-y-haplogroup-j2b-get-to-europe.html?m=1) his blog post arguing that it came through sea from the eastern Mediterranean ;)

Now I hope this doesn't turn into a J-L283 debate...

Riverman
08-20-2021, 08:50 AM
If you actually believe that this is how a Thracian would be modelled, I really have nothing else to add to that.


Me neither to your proposition, if you look at your own PCA and where the Thraco-Cimmerian (!!!) plots. Also, I hope you do realise, that a potential relationship of the Proto-Villanovans too could be bi-directional, since they all being connected by the Pannonian hub and central sphere? Even the Gava-people moving down, I mean the core Gava people, not the whole Channelled Ware horizon, surely mixed with the locals, and be it just with the females they could grab while rolling over them, just like with Corded Ware in Bohemia and Slovakia, while they made a more regulary exogamic marriage exchange which stood strong or came to term with them.
The whole Channelled Ware sphere has elements which being considered "Pseudo-Proto-Villanova". So there are similarities, which are probably superficial, or probably not, between these two cultures. The first researchers even thought it might be a direct Villanova influence.
But in any case, they were both influenced by the general Urnfield horizon too and also part of the Steppe : Neolithic mixed groups, with a lower proportion of steppe ancestry. At least when moving out of the core region, before they might have been intermediate and the new steppe influenced might have made them more varied again.


Don't be so quick to jump into any conclusions "Mr. J-L283 expanded from Sardinia" (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34165-J2b2-L283-(proto-illyrian)/page6?p=534324&viewfull=1#post534324) :lol:

The jury is still out, but given the available data (ex. ancient KDC001), it likely went North of Black Sea route, and I think it likely "Indo-Europeanised" early on somewhere within or not far from Steppe populations, given the archeogenetic finds in EBA Maros and MBA Dalmatia.

PS. I see Davidski/Eurogenes has deleted (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/how-did-y-haplogroup-j2b-get-to-europe.html?m=1) his blog post arguing that it came through sea from the eastern Mediterranean ;)

Now I hope this doesn't turn into a J-L283 debate...

I think you are right and its possible the fate of E-V13 and J-283 in the Bronze Age was quite similar, regardless of when it entered the steppe gene pool originally. Because they both were rather "niche" up to the point of a (second) expansion under rather similar circumstances. Possibly by being in an Central Eastern European root group or by hopping on the train when it took on speed (for J-283 Southern Tumulus and South Western Urnfield possibly, for E-V13 South Eastern Urnfield and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon).

But I also think that J-283 deserves its own thread :)

Bruzmi
08-20-2021, 10:23 AM
Me neither to your proposition, if you look at your own PCA and where the Thraco-Cimmerian (!!!) plots. Also, I hope you do realise, that a potential relationship of the Proto-Villanovans too could be bi-directional, since they all being connected by the Pannonian hub and central sphere? Even the Gava-people moving down, I mean the core Gava people, not the whole Channelled Ware horizon, surely mixed with the locals, and be it just with the females they could grab while rolling over them, just like with Corded Ware in Bohemia and Slovakia, while they made a more regulary exogamic marriage exchange which stood strong or came to term with them.
The whole Channelled Ware sphere has elements which being considered "Pseudo-Proto-Villanova". So there are similarities, which are probably superficial, or probably not, between these two cultures. The first researchers even thought it might be a direct Villanova influence.


SCY197, the E-V13 sample doesn't plot with the Thraco-Cimmerian and if you plot other samples (ph2ter) as well you can see the population distance between SCY197 and the more eastern Balkan samples.

https://i.ibb.co/KwZKVh2/interwesteast.jpg


So what drifts some samples from the southern cluster towards an intermediate position?


Target: scy192
Distance: 1.6489% / 0.01648860
32.6 GRC_Minoan_EBA
26.0 SVK_EBA
19.0 BGR_N
8.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
4.8 TUR_Isparta_EBA
4.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin
2.4 Baltic_EST_BA
2.4 RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA


Target: scy300
Distance: 2.4558% / 0.02455759
21.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
19.2 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
15.8 Wales_CA_EBA
15.0 GRC_Minoan_EBA
6.6 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
6.4 Bell_Beaker_England_EBA
5.0 Yamnaya_UKR
3.4 RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA
2.8 SVK_EBA
2.2 TUR_Isparta_EBA
1.2 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
1.0 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
0.4 Levant_JOR_EBA

In addition to more southern Neolithic-derived ancestry, they have local/eastern Balkan Neolithic admixture.

Bruzmi
08-20-2021, 11:22 PM
I wanted to see how some existing E-V13 samples compare to EBA ancestral populations. It's become obvious that unless we check the autosomal profile of a sample but rely only on the location it was found in order to formulate further theories, we may get very misleading results.



ID
CL38 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_map.php?searchcolumn=Object_ID&searchfor=CL38&ybp=500000,0)
R107
LIB11
R1219
VK362
KRA005



Location
Collegno, Italy
Crypta Balbi, Italy
Břeclav – Líbivá, Czech Republic
Cancelleria, Italy
Langeland, Germany
Krakau, Germany


Y-DNA
E-BY3880
E-Y19527 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z38770*/)
E-L241* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241*/)
E-CTS1273 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/)
E-CTS1273 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/)(xZ16663 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_map.php?searchcolumn=Object_ID&searchfor=VK362&ybp=500000,0))
E-L540 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/)


mtDNA
X2
T2h

H11a
V7b
H23


Mean Age (ybp)
1345
1450
1500
508
1000
736


Historical notes
Italy - Longobard Kingdom
Italy - Late Antiquity Rome
Czech Republic - Moravia Antiquity
Italy - Rome_Medieval/EarlyModern
Denmark - Viking
Germany - Medieval




Target: ITA_Collegno_MA_o1:CL38
Distance: 1.9303% / 0.01930250 | R5P
57.4 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
13.6 GRC_Peloponnese_N
11.0 Wales_CA_EBA
9.4 Yamnaya_UKR
8.6 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107
Distance: 2.2957% / 0.02295691 | R5P
27.2 HRV_EBA
27.2 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
25.6 ITA_Sicily_EBA
11.2 Baltic_EST_BA
8.8 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: Migration_LIB:LIB11
Distance: 2.6203% / 0.02620257 | R5P
42.0 Baltic_EST_BA
32.2 HRV_EBA
16.4 Wales_CA_EBA
5.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
3.6 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
Distance: 2.0244% / 0.02024373 | R5P
29.6 Wales_CA_EBA
25.2 CZE_EBA
18.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
14.0 HRV_EBA
12.8 Baltic_LVA_BA

Target: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
Distance: 1.6156% / 0.01615557 | R5P
35.2 DEU_Lech_EBA
29.0 Baltic_EST_BA
17.6 HRV_EBA
15.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

Target: DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA005
Distance: 2.6933% / 0.02693339 | R5P
49.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
15.2 HRV_EBA
15.0 England_CA_EBA
12.2 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
8.0 Yamnaya_BGR


Some remarks:
1)All samples have local ancestry from the regions they were located.
2)All samples have additional Balkan-like southern European ancestry.
3)5/6 have HRV_EBA-like ancestry, 4/6 have GRC_EBA/Pel_N-like ancestry, 3/6 have HRV_EBA+GRC_EBA/Pel_N-like ancestry. It ranges from ~10% to 30%+ of their total ancestry.
4)This type of ancestry is not at all common in the regions they were found. For example, DNK_Viking has 17.6% HRV_EBA-like ancestry. Among 22 individuals, only 3 others have some HRV ancestry. KRA005 is one of two individuals who have HRV_EBA ancestry in a group of ten. The only other individual who has HRV_EBA is also the only individual who has Levantine_JOR_EBA ancestry.
5)These individuals have no BGR_N-like or BGR_EBA-like ancestry, although it does exist in several of the sites they were found in. For example, KRA004 has 14.2% BGR_N-like ancestry. This indicates that western/central Balkan ancestry for these samples is much more likely than an eastern Balkan ancestry.
5)All of these elements combined may indicate that these individuals trace descent from the Balkans in not so distant generations from the time of their birth.

Riverman
08-21-2021, 12:11 AM
None of this samples comes even remotely close to the pre-expansion timing. The Lengyel-Sopot samples might be the closest before the ancestors became part of the steppe population and its cultural sphere.

Huban
08-21-2021, 12:53 AM
Don't be so quick to jump into any conclusions "Mr. J-L283 expanded from Sardinia" (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34165-J2b2-L283-(proto-illyrian)/page6?p=534324&viewfull=1#post534324) :lol:

The jury is still out, but given the available data (ex. ancient KDC001), it likely went North of Black Sea route, and I think it likely "Indo-Europeanised" early on somewhere within or not far from Steppe populations, given the archeogenetic finds in EBA Maros and MBA Dalmatia.

PS. I see Davidski/Eurogenes has deleted (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/how-did-y-haplogroup-j2b-get-to-europe.html?m=1) his blog post arguing that it came through sea from the eastern Mediterranean ;)

Now I hope this doesn't turn into a J-L283 debate...

I knew you'd respond. :) Well as you can see there is some new sample from Tuscany at YFull in addition to old Tuscan from the study, and Nuragic clade and second Sardinian clade. So that makes it four basal clades in Italy north of Mokrin/Maros sample which somehow has to be explained.

Yes J-L283 could have arrived from the West to Pannonia. Back then, I assumed Ljubljana culture was the likely carrier of J-L283 and some archeoloogists supported the notion that Bell Beaker group with influences from N.Italy migrated to the East.

Nevertheless Hungarian basal sample, and that rumored J2b sample from Moldavia do bring Pannonia more into focus.

Bottom line, even though J-L283 was found in Maros alongside various R1b's, there is no evidence of Steppe R1b in ancient Sardinia. This would imply that J-L283 in it's earliest expansion is not related to R1b.

Going by Steppe expansion, how could one explain this? I think this might be the only way
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S12195/

There was I-L699 in Yamnaya, Balkan Yamnaya but also in Ezero culture which is supposed to be non-Yamnaya, proto-Anatolian. As you can see there are such samples in Sardinia, and as far as I know I-L699 wasn't yet found in ancient Sardinia, so arrival of J-L283 to Sardinia could potentially be related to I-L699 arrival, assuming this hg is entirely Steppe related which is justifiable based on aDNA.

It seems I-L699 is both Yamnaya and non-Yamnaya IE (Anatolian), and so it might be even pre-Anatolian IE which is supposed to be represented by the Cernavoda culture. J-L283 is relatively old and its TMRCA matches the end of Cernavoda culture (just before at 3200 BC). Moldovan find is Chalcolitic from what I know making it quite old.

I didn't say that archaeogenetic finds in Maros and Posusje are not relevant, in fact I said many times it does indicate expansion with what looks to be are proto-Illyrians. here we are talking about pre-proto-Illyrian J-L283 which is surely everything North of Mokrin sample on the tree.. It is very unlikely any of these are proto-Illyrian, including the sole basal Albanian sample, which might be even of Shkia origin.

To be noted is that these EBA and LBA E1b1b1a samples from Carpatho-Pannonian basin have more Steppe ancestry than either the Mokrin or Vanik sample.:)

Btw in this unpublished Hungarian study there is again a new J2b from IA Northwestern Hungary, 400 BC. There is also from the same site R-L51 from 500 BC. This J2b looks to be related to IA Glasinac expansion Northwards, albeit this is more to the North of any Pannonian tribes. J2b is autosomally more Northern than MBA Vanik, though not as Northern as R-L51 sample. This might be the case of Glasinac related J-L283 people mingling with Urnfield descendants in Pannonia creating historical Pannonian tribes.

Because I have actually looked at archeological finds of various Pannonian Illyrian tribes and they show similar pattern, Glasinac people coming from the South and mingling with Urnfield descendants.

Scythoslav
08-21-2021, 01:08 AM
These are great news, because a very North Eastern position Hungary is the only reasonable location for the later time. Concerning Gava: The Gava created a whole horizon of Channelled Ware which derives from it, most likely with numerous founder effects and assimiliations along the road. But for the E-V13 to work out, it needs to have been onboard from the start or joining very early, close to the source group. That doesn't mean all Gava groups must be the same and there were in any case at least two R1a/b rich groups which influenced the Channelled Ware E-V13 expansion:
1. The Eastern Urnfield networks, especially the Lusatians.
2. Later first the Cimmerians, then the Scythians from the steppe.

The second influence starts after the first big expansion with Channelled Ware, it affects with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and all cultures afterwards. These influences changed the culture of the Channelled Ware people quite drastically, as they adopted a more nomadic, more pastoralist lifestyle, more sophisticated and aggressive horsemanship with larger breeds of horses, plus the fully developed Iron Age, with a larger production of iron tools and weapons than before. The Daco-Thracians were therefore heavily influenced and altered by the later steppe influence.

Concerning the deeper origin of the E-V13 clans before they joined the Channelled Ware expansion, I just recently wrote this in another thread about upcoming samples from Bohemia:

I'm not sure there is any E1b1b and even less confident about E-V13. That's because E-V13 might have a more Eastern origin around Slovakia,South Eastern Poland, Northern Romania, in the area of the Northern Carparthians or close by.
Its however possible because Baden is in part a heir of Lengyel and Lengyel did occupy this potential homeland zone and already showed some E1b1b. Unfortunately the resolution was rather bad if I remember correctly.
We have new results from the sister group Sopot from further South and they were quite diverse, but dominated by G2 and I2. But earlier Lengyel-Sopot finds from further North had E1b1b too. I2 should pop up a lot, because it might have dominated both Baden and GAC in Bohemia as well.

There is however a different option for E-V13, namely to come from Tripolye-Cucuteni, being assimilated by Corded Ware and becoming a minority element in the Epi-Corded horizon of the region. E1b1b was present TCC and it was probably in Nitra culture as well, if we interpreted it correctly.

Which brings me to the least surprising conclusion that the local CW was most likely strongly R1a, just like the daughter group Nitra, which might have been more mixed on the female side and here and there some local male lineages made it too = path for E-V13. But more than 90 percent was R1a, which makes it likely for all CW groups of the region. If E-V13 was extremely rare but present in Nitra, it could also mean the V13 guys came from a neighbouring clan and there was just marriage exchange and trade between them. But then which neighbour could it be? Would bring us back to a Baden derived-related culture...

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24561-Bohemia-Dynamic-changes-in-genomic-and-social-structures-in-3rd-millennium-BCE-centr&p=793508&viewfull=1#post793508

I'm assuming that E-V13 came up from an Epi-Corded network and ultimately being from Northern Lengyel groups, alternatively Tripolye-Cucuteni. I think these two cultures were the most influential on the early steppe people when they expanded and being in the right position, as metallurgists, to prove their value for the newcomers. As well as being in a defendable position close to the Carpathians. They might have transitioned from Lengyel to Baden, which had already significant steppe influences from Cotofeni and Yamnaya. Cotofeni is particularly interesting, because it seems likely to me they fused with local, metal producing elements of the Carpathian zone.
What language the people from the Baden culture spoke is unknown of course, so they could already have shifted to an IE idiom or being assimilated later. E-V13 could have been picked up earlier than Baden from Lengyel- or Tripolye related groups, but not much later than Baden in my opinion.
The expansion of Channelled was so swift, yet in some regions more gradual (like Brnjica), so its possible their autosomal profile did change on the way, or a different people than those from the Gava core were picked up and carried it on. Just like its possible the Bell Beaker were produced by other people earlier, but "the Bell Beaker people" just integrated it in their package when moving on themselves. Something like this could have happened there as well, but we need more samples to clarify this, since it seems to be less likely than
E-V13 coming from Cardial-Impresso -> Northern Lengyel-Sopot -> Cotofeni/Baden? -> Epi-Corded -> Unetice-related -> South Eastern Urnfield/Gava-related -> Channelled Ware horizon -> regional cultures of the Carpathian and Balkan sphere, some "Scythicised" and (especially the Eastern) Hallstatt sphere.
The alternative route goes from Tripolye-Cucuteni instead of Lengyel-Sopot with the rest being the same.

Isn't the one from 2000 BC from Nitra culture, which was totally R1a dominated? If so, this would be the fairly Northern Epi-Corded context from which it spread later. I don't expect Nitra to have a lot, but this cultural group was not that far away and could have had contacts with the ones being more E-V13 heavy.



Is the association of cardial-impresso ware and E-V13 just based on the two E-V13 samples found in Croatia and Spain? Cardial ware were still predominantly G correct? And is the Spanish Cardial E-V13 a dead end lineage?

Bruzmi
08-21-2021, 01:13 AM
None of this samples comes even remotely close to the pre-expansion timing. The Lengyel-Sopot samples might be the closest before the ancestors became part of the steppe population and its cultural sphere.

Target: ITA_Collegno_MA_o1:CL38
Distance: 1.9303% / 0.01930250 | R5P
57.4 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
13.6 GRC_Peloponnese_N
11.0 Wales_CA_EBA
9.4 Yamnaya_UKR
8.6 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107
Distance: 2.2957% / 0.02295691 | R5P
27.2 HRV_EBA
27.2 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
25.6 ITA_Sicily_EBA
11.2 Baltic_EST_BA
8.8 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: Migration_LIB:LIB11
Distance: 2.6203% / 0.02620257 | R5P
42.0 Baltic_EST_BA
32.2 HRV_EBA
16.4 Wales_CA_EBA
5.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
3.6 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
Distance: 2.0244% / 0.02024373 | R5P
29.6 Wales_CA_EBA
25.2 CZE_EBA
18.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
14.0 HRV_EBA
12.8 Baltic_LVA_BA

Target: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
Distance: 1.6156% / 0.01615557 | R5P
35.2 DEU_Lech_EBA
29.0 Baltic_EST_BA
17.6 HRV_EBA
15.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

Target: DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA005
Distance: 2.6933% / 0.02693339 | R5P
49.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
15.2 HRV_EBA
15.0 England_CA_EBA
12.2 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
8.0 Yamnaya_BGR

What their autosomal profiles show is that not a single one of the ancestors of these samples lived in western/northern Europe until a few generations before their birth. This is a migration of individuals a few generations before the mean age (ybp) of the samples, not a historical population expansion.

Huban
08-21-2021, 01:26 AM
Possibly by being in an Central Eastern European root group or by hopping on the train when it took on speed (for J-283 Southern Tumulus and South Western Urnfield possibly, for E-V13 South Eastern Urnfield and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon).


There are Tumulus culture finds from Hungary in this Hungarian study. They seem to be dominated, expectedly, by R-L51. Autosomally not as Northern as I expected, more Western than Maros culture. So neither J-L283 nor E-V13 are, again expectedly, related to the Tumulus culture expansion into Pannonia.

Btw. I tried to create G25 and K13 profile for this E-L539 LBA sample based on PCA plot from the study and result is unacceptable, in both cases, plotting with Czech Bell Beakers. There are Czech BB's here, presumably from older study (as well as Serbian Mokrin and other older samples) and this sample is clearly away from them.. But I have some other ideas..

Also what is greatest surprise to me, taking also this new Croatian study is how the Encrusted pottery people and Gava people are similar and sharing the same basic ancestry! They along various other cultures in the area are bastion of some elevated WHG ancestry. I read that pre-Gava elements do come from Pannonia. And in general most Unrfielders plot there.. But E-L539 LBA find looks to be also from Early Gava areas but he is nothing like them autosomally so it seems E-V13 (or significant portions of V13, such as E-CTS9320, FGC11451 etc) is related genetically to something totally outside of mainstream Urnfelder profile.

You asked about older E-L539 sample, he is from the same time as Nitra samples, could be from there but also some from few other sites.. I have been simply utilizing the leaked information via some more advanced tools and therefore extracting more information. For LBA sample it was much easier to identify him and locate him because he is an outlier and there are fewer samples and sites from that era.

It seems you posting info from this study might have lead the author to make her video private and unavailable. I might try asking her, I think I know someone who conversed with her.

Huban
08-21-2021, 01:36 AM
Is the association of cardial-impresso ware and E-V13 just based on the two E-V13 samples found in Croatia and Spain? Cardial ware were still predominantly G correct? And is the Spanish Cardial E-V13 a dead end lineage?

They carried indeed more of G2a. And even in Danilo culture in Dalmatian Neolithic, dated after the Early Neolithic E-L618 find there was again a G2a.. Nevertheless the association of Cardial ware with E-L618 seems to be clear taking into account how rare is E-L618 in Neolithic Europe.. And even Lengyel and Sopot cultures where we have E-L618/E-M78 again have Cardial influxes. There is an E-M78 Trypillian, and though it escaped my attention, there were some Cardials in Ukraine as well.. It is actually plausible that Cardials were mostly E-L618 initially. Atm of the Dalmatian Neolithic we have C-V20, G2a and E-L618 so it seems in this region G wasn't as strong.

Spanish V13 is almost certainly a dead end lineage, otherwise one would have to derive modern V13 from it, and that seems impossible.

Riverman
08-21-2021, 01:49 AM
There are many unanswered questions indeed, but I think E-V13 and some elements of Gáva-Holigrady came from the North, others from the South. The opinion on various influential cultures seems to be divided and just recently I read that Otomani might have been largely replaced. But even if so, by whom and from where did they come from?

Where are your Urnfield references from? If you say Welzin and Tollense, I don’t think they are right that late and to the East.

In the region in question and for pre-Gava, I could imagine something more Unetice like? Would fit with a similarity to BB from CZ. Unetice was influenced by the Carparthian region as well and seems to have been split in different groups with a wider range of haplogroups.
If the first V13 related groups in the Gava sphere would be between those and the typical local Pannonians, that would be more expected.