PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

Scythoslav
08-21-2021, 01:55 AM
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.

What is the homeland of Cardialware? Is it proven to be Levant or is that just what’s most likely? Because I’ve read other sources saying it could be related to both Neolithic Levantine and Neolithic North African groups.

In both of these cases, early cardialware should of had either increased Levantine admixture or NA admixture that the other EEF groups did not have. But European Cardialware is autosomally the same as any other EEF group, as well as being G2a dominant. So this doesn’t make sense to me because G2a clans clearly took this culture over if it was pred E-L618 early on, but they kept the Levantine/NA traditions?

vettor
08-21-2021, 02:19 AM
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.



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.

there are only 4 samples as per the paper of Daunians that came from Dalmatia/Liburnian lands.......they are ORD001, ORD004, ORD014 and SGR003 .............all other samples are from Italy

you need to include these 4 Dalmatians with the samples of the Croatia/Dalmatian paper .............................it is clear that the ancient proto-dalmatians/Dalmatian/Liburnians are G2a2 .

this marker In dalmatia is the ancestor of Otzi and he sits in their branch ( yfull stated yesterday they will not place Otzi in the yfull tree )

to Conclude ..............G2a2 of the Dalmatian branch is found from Dalmatia, through slovenia, North-Italy and into Tyrol Austria ...................I think we can finally conclude with the Daunian and Croatia papers this is what is clearly stated

excine
08-21-2021, 02:52 AM
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.


The Danish sample can be compared to modern populations because he lived in the Middle Ages.
Distance to: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
0.02087163 Austrian
0.02276444 Croatian
0.02473672 Bosnian
0.02508754 Hungarian
0.02616708 Slovenian
Target: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
Distance: 1.4717% / 0.01471674 | R4P
43.4 Macedonian
22.6 Lithuanian_VZ
19.2 Danish
14.8 Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre

Bruzmi
08-21-2021, 03:23 AM
The Danish sample can be compared to modern populations because he lived in the Middle Ages.
Distance to: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
0.02087163 Austrian
0.02276444 Croatian
0.02473672 Bosnian
0.02508754 Hungarian
0.02616708 Slovenian
Target: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
Distance: 1.4717% / 0.01471674 | R4P
43.4 Macedonian
22.6 Lithuanian_VZ
19.2 Danish
14.8 Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre


Yep. This person's ancestor did not live in northern or central Europe. He lived in the 11th century and his lineage was in the Balkans just a few generations before his birth. The idea that you can look at the TMRCA split of a clade on yfull and then say "oh this lineage must have migrated at the TMRCA date" is just wrong. A macrolineage can have great diversity and still be present in the same region for many centuries.

What this tells is that this person had mainly Balkan origin, local Danish origin and other ancestries his ancestors picked during their migration. The exact population labels used are not that meaningful per se. For example, this sample plots closely as a modern Macedonian because his main ancestry is native Balkan + some Balto-Slavic admixture and Macedonians tend to have the lowest Balto-Slavic admixture among South Slavs. If you remove Macedonians from the calculator and strip it down to Albanians + a population like Czechs, you'll get roughly the same total result.

R1219 (E-CTS1273) who died in Italy around 1500 AD:


Target: ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
Distance: 1.9290% / 0.01929025 | R4P
52.6 Danish
27.2 Macedonian
15.4 Spanish_Menorca
4.8 Lithuanian_VZ

Again, not a native of the area he died and you can see that he also had recent Balkan ancestry.

Target: ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
Distance: 1.9918% / 0.01991801 | R4P
49.2 Danish
22.8 Albanian
15.2 Czech
12.8 Spanish_Menorca


You can plot him as Albanian+Czech instead of Macedonian+Lithuanian_VZ (if you remove Macedonians from the modern averages calc) and the distance will be the same. Hence, the general descriptors don't matter and they can't really tell us his exact origin (nor does it matter in relation to our debate), but the point remains: these are samples from individuals who had recent Balkan ancestry. They're not part of some "ancient E-V13 expansion".

rafc
08-21-2021, 10:11 AM
I feel like some of the theories are getting increasingly outlandish. Is the idea now that there was no early V13 dispersal but samples outside the Balkans are recent arrivals? Sure, some of them are, we know that from genetics (i.e. Italian samples in recent Balkan branches), historical sources and in some cases even because the people kept customs/language. But if you believe recent arrivals explain the bulk of V13 outside the Balkans I would like to know why we see more V13 there than typical Slavic Balkan groups, while in the Balkans itself it's the other way around. The only sensible explanation is that V13 spread before the Slavic groups had arrived and mixed with V13. Also, I'm not an autosomal specialist, but it seems a bit odd to me that every V13 sample that has been found over a span of more than 1500 years is a recent arrival.

If we want to derive the origin of V13, let's start with L618. There we know it was part of the Neolithic population of Southern Europe. What always strikes me when I look at the different non-V13 L618 groups is how well they resemble the distribution of V13. This although they are separated by thousands of years. I think that is a good argument to assume that today's L618 all descend from a person in a Neolithic culture somewhere in Europe. They must have passed through a very severe bottleneck probably around 4000-3500BC, and at around 3500BC the three known subbranches started expanding a little again. The comparable TMRCA and distribution leads me to think that they were relatively close, as three survivors of a population that was probably pretty rich in L618. This does not mean L618 was a majority, afterall only 3 branches survived, and L618 would represent nothing today if not for the explosive V13 expansion. The same population might have more, but smaller, surviving branches in G, I, J etc. today.

What also strikes me as odd is that one of these non V13 L618-branches, BY28614, despite being very small, has a subbranch that splits in an Albanian branch and a Northern-African branch (which might have Arabian roots), while the other, BY6630, has a Lebanese. That would seem to be a very strong argument for an L618 genesis in the Western-Balkans (where we did find aDNA L618). However, the combination with Northern Africa is also odd, and not something we see in typical Western-Balkan V13 branches. You could equally say that taking into account the Arabian an Middle-Eastern branches of V13, that L618 would have originated somewhere in the levant, explaining why all these groups have members from around there. But then we have the very odd fact that two branches (V13 & BY28614) would have ended up in Albania, what are the odds?

I think the key lies in the V13-subclades, many old branches contain Arabian and/or Lebanese subgroups. Younger, populous groups like CTS9320 which are especially widespread in the Western-Balkans, don't have this at all. One of the best examples of the Arabian/Lebanese branches is FGC44169, which also has them more downstream. This branch is more prominent today in Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova than in the Western-Balkans. It is also the branch of Scy197, which was found in present day Moldova. You see the same with Y16729 which is present in Bulgaria and Macedonia. I think the non-V13 L618 branches conform best to this pattern, and so I would likely expect that we would need to search in this area for the origin and original expansion of V13. I don't understand yet why V13 here has a larger tendency to pop up in Lebanon and Arabia, but I guess the proximity of the black sea might play a role.

For me the most logical scenario is that L618 surviving today was part of the Neolithic Cucuteni-Tripolye culture. When that collapsed L618 branches were mostly eradicated except for the three remaining, and then V13 (mainy BY3880) boomed, probably in the region east of, and maybe in the Carpathian mountains. And it seems logical to me that some of the early V13's in the 3d millenium BC, and early second millenium BC, would get swept up in IE-migrations towards Western Europe, the Western Balkans, Italy and Greece, and make up a tiny part of the genetics there. So tiny it hasn't been detected yet. I think this explains some of the very early splits with groups that seem exclusively non-Balkan, but we'll see.

From there on I think the scenarios of Riverman make a lot of sense. I think that the more successful LBA/EIA groups are mainly the ones living on the Northwestern end (roughly the border area of present-day Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Ukraine). Here you would have had branches like CTS9320, FGC11450, L241 booming. They mixed own aspects with elements of Central-European Urnfield culture. The big success they seemed to have had might very well be connected to an access to ores and metallurgy as Riverman proposes. I think the branching strongly supports a movement down the Balkans, gradually increasing the V13 percentages. If this influenced as far as present day Romania and Bulgaria I think the arriving V13's would have been culturally and probably also linguistically very different from the V13's already living there, from whom they were separated more than a thousand years earlier. In this same period parts of these LBA/EIA branches also spread over parts of NW-Europe.

It's very well possible that more typically Western-Balkans groups like CTS9320 spread eastwards by Roman soldiers being posted at the borders and other mechanisms, while some of the 'old' V13 groups like S7461 went the other way around, creating the big mix of all different V13 branches we see today. At the same time Roman soldiers and later Barbarian invasions kept spreading V13 from different branches to other parts of Europe.

To me such a scenario is compatible with what we see in the branching and TMRCA's, and what we see in aDNA (and lack there off).

Bruzmi
08-21-2021, 10:48 AM
I feel like some of the theories are getting increasingly outlandish. Is the idea now that there was no early V13 dispersal but samples outside the Balkans are recent arrivals? Sure, some of them are, we know that from genetics (i.e. Italian samples in recent Balkan branches), historical sources and in some cases even because the people kept customs/language. But if you believe recent arrivals explain the bulk of V13 outside the Balkans I would like to know why we see more V13 there than typical Slavic Balkan groups, while in the Balkans itself it's the other way around. The only sensible explanation is that V13 spread before the Slavic groups had arrived and mixed with V13. Also, I'm not an autosomal specialist, but it seems a bit odd to me that every V13 sample that has been found over a span of more than 1500 years is a recent arrival.


Thanks for the effort to provide a more nuanced view than the typical western vs eastern debate!

The thing with the samples we have that is they really do point at a recent arrival in the regions their remains were found. Take for example the 11th century sample from Denmark:

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

We either have to explain his ancestry very simply as a recent migration as it's perfectly reasonable that a migrant from the Balkans would have varying degrees of HRV_EBA+GRC EBA and even some Kura Araxes or we have to hypothesize that this individual picked up this type of ancestry from different random sources and it just happens to fit a very specific profile found in the area in which E-V13 was mainly concentrated at the time he lived. The idea that this is not the descendant of a recent migrant forces us to choose the solution with the highest number of assumptions. Assumptions which are then multiplied because this person is unique in his environment, so we would have to explain why this local Danish person who is E-V13 has the same autosomal profile as E-V13 would have in the 11th century Balkans (setting aside the Slavic component which he may have picked up in the north as well) but nobody else has the same profile as he in Langeland, Denmark where his remains were found.

Or take Cl38 in Rome as an example:

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

Modern population approximation:
Target: ITA_Collegno_MA_o1:CL38
Distance: 2.2317% / 0.02231653 | R4P
46.4 Romaniote_Jew
22.2 Italian_Umbria
17.6 Armenian_Hemsheni
13.8 Greek_Laconia

We can say that this individual is the descendant of a recent migrant from a likely (?) Jewish community in Greece or Anatolia or we'll have to enter a labyrinth of conditions which would have to be satisfied in order for this individual to be a local E-V13 who has many different admixtures which at random then point to an existing autosomal profile east of Italy.

I'm not saying that we won't find early splits outside the Balkans. They definitely exist but these samples just don't satisfy the criteria for being representatives of these lineages.

EDIT:

The only other individual who has some Kura Araxes - like ancestry in Langeland is:

Target: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK274
Distance: 1.9511% / 0.01951086 | R5P
38.0 Wales_CA_EBA
37.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
17.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
5.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
2.2 RUS_Kurma_EBA

That the same person also has GRC EBA ancestry is not coincidental.

Riverman
08-21-2021, 11:48 AM
What is the homeland of Cardialware? Is it proven to be Levant or is that just what’s most likely? Because I’ve read other sources saying it could be related to both Neolithic Levantine and Neolithic North African groups.

In both of these cases, early cardialware should of had either increased Levantine admixture or NA admixture that the other EEF groups did not have. But European Cardialware is autosomally the same as any other EEF group, as well as being G2a dominant. So this doesn’t make sense to me because G2a clans clearly took this culture over if it was pred E-L618 early on, but they kept the Levantine/NA traditions?

One of the more commone theories I read state that they evaded the main land route by going on sea directly from a more Southern positon of the Levante-Anatolia. In that area, G2 could have been still present or even dominant, but probably it was more a mixed and border region between G2 and E1b, with the latter being common in the more Southern and Eastern Levante. For me that's the most likely theory, especially since archaeologically the predecessors look more Levantine-Anatolian too.


Yep. This person's ancestor did not live in northern or central Europe. He lived in the 11th century and his lineage was in the Balkans just a few generations before his birth. The idea that you can look at the TMRCA split of a clade on yfull and then say "oh this lineage must have migrated at the TMRCA date" is just wrong. A macrolineage can have great diversity and still be present in the same region for many centuries.


The TMRCA and subclades are relevent because we reach the point at which for every widespread subclade in let's say North Western Europe and the Southern Balkan, if the first descent from the latter in more recent times, we should espect some overlap and recent common ancestors. But so far there is practically no single one and the large majority of the Southern carriers belong to specific subclades. Crucial is the timing of the transition (core: 1.200-1.100 BC) and the Hallstatt culture spread (roughly: 800-500 BC). For a lineage to have a possible Southern origin, although its much more common more in the North, you have to find an overlap after that time, better in historical times. But that's extremely, extremely rare. Almost all overlaps, and there are many, predate the original main expansion even, no earlier than 1.000 BC. And that's significant, absolutely significant. There is, by the way, so far no E-V13 subclade which I would directly associate only with Northern Europe-Scandinavia at this point. There are some for Britain-France-Germany (Celtic), Russia-Poland-Germany-Scandinavia (Slavic, Southern or Eastern Germanic?), but none for Scandinavia directly. Even if a subclade of lets say E-L540 did make it to Scandinavia and Germanics early, especially in Scandinavia, it would be so rare, that even though iit might have present, chances are much higher to find a recent migrant.

That's like in a Western European region in which old R1a exists below the per mill level, finding a more recent clade from the North and East there, would be still more likely.


I think the key lies in the V13-subclades, many old branches contain Arabian and/or Lebanese subgroups. Younger, populous groups like CTS9320 which are especially widespread in the Western-Balkans, don't have this at all. One of the best examples of the Arabian/Lebanese branches is FGC44169, which also has them more downstream. This branch is more prominent today in Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova than in the Western-Balkans. It is also the branch of Scy197, which was found in present day Moldova. You see the same with Y16729 which is present in Bulgaria and Macedonia. I think the non-V13 L618 branches conform best to this pattern, and so I would likely expect that we would need to search in this area for the origin and original expansion of V13. I don't understand yet why V13 here has a larger tendency to pop up in Lebanon and Arabia, but I guess the proximity of the black sea might play a role.

I think the older branches in the Levante might be related to the Sea People, later Greek and Thracian migrants, as well as Roman era ones. In in the Gulf Arabs for example is almost certainly a Greek colonisaton phenomenon. The only odd thing for me is that in North Western Anatolia, in areas of the Thyni and Bithyni, we find no increased level of E-V13, since they were Thracians. But this could be local founder and assimilation effects combined with the fact that they had a bad survival rate over time.

In any case, none of the expansions outside of the core region predates anything before 1.300 BC as far as I can see, and the single older branches look like they were just taken with the other, younger ones, so their older TMRCA is just not the date of their expansion in the region, but only when they split at home, with no younger branches found so far.

Here is a map posted by Johane Derite on Eupedia:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9TanXwX0AAVnRt?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9TanXwX0AAVnRt?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41672-To-burn-or-not-to-burn-LBA-EIA-Balkan-case/page3?p=629361&viewfull=1#post629361

Concerning Troy and North Western Asia minor, the Thyni and Bithyni are supposed to have been of Thracian origin and all the groups of the map post by Johane are derived from Channelled Ware, essentially, and related to Daco-Thracians, like Babadag/Knobbed Ware is a direct descendent from the Channelled Ware groups. So they should consist almost exclusively of E-V13 and (Cimmerian-Scythian) R1a.

Also note the speed with which they spread! The main Gava expansion started no earlier than 1.400-1.300 BC, in most regions still later. So a large portion of the whole spread of this cultural formation happened within the transitional period, they appeared in Serbia, in Kosovo, down to Greece, in Poland, Ukraine down to the Anatolia. This spread of one interconnected and fairly unified cultural horizon happened largely within the lifetime of 2-4 generations! The grandfather of a clan which settled in the area of Troy could probably still tell his grandsons about their Carpathian homeland!
That's massive, it surely had an impact, because while the transition was more gradual in some areas, it was fairly abrupt in others. Such shifts with no possible explansion from within an older cultural layer are usually always ethnic, demic expansions and replacement events.

Like I wrote so often: If there wouldn't be E-V13, I would search for another haplogroup which profit big and had many successful branches created in that time period. Everyone can go through E-V13 clades and one date will appear all the time for major splits: 1.300-900 BC.

rafc
08-21-2021, 01:29 PM
I think the older branches in the Levante might be related to the Sea People, later Greek and Thracian migrants, as well as Roman era ones. In in the Gulf Arabs for example is almost certainly a Greek colonisaton phenomenon. The only odd thing for me is that in North Western Anatolia, in areas of the Thyni and Bithyni, we find no increased level of E-V13, since they were Thracians. But this could be local founder and assimilation effects combined with the fact that they had a bad survival rate over time.

In any case, none of the expansions outside of the core region predates anything before 1.300 BC as far as I can see, and the single older branches look like they were just taken with the other, younger ones, so their older TMRCA is just not the date of their expansion in the region, but only when they split at home, with no younger branches found so far.

There's just one problem with these old branches being taking along by younger ones, the young ones don't have any MENA/Arabian samples, per the Block-tree:
-FGC11450: 0/150 (I think the 150 is too high since the 63 unknowns seems to much, so probably closer to 100 or so)
-CTS9320: 0/524 (same remark, 258 unknow, so likely more about 300)
-L241: 1 tunisian/225 (same remark, likely about 125)
-A7136: 0/53 (rather 45 or so)

If they dragged the older clades along, where are they? Compare to:
-BY5022: 3 Lebanese, 2 Iraqis, a Yemenite, a Bahraini /92 (rather 80 or so), and they are in different subbranches
-Y145455: 1 Jordan, 1 Iraqi, 1 Libyan / 54 (rather 45 or so)
-Y16729: here it's better to look at the branches since the numbers would be hugely inflated by a recent Arabian branch, but there are Arabs in at least two different branches

It's hard to say for sure if the distinction is chronological, geographical, or both, but there is a clear difference in groups with these subbranches, and groups without. Note that while CTS9320 is by far the dominant group within Z5017, it does not have samples from MENA or Arabian regions, while at the Z5017 root we have an Arabian sample.

Trojet
08-21-2021, 01:54 PM
Just wanted to correct something with additional thoughts/comments.


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.

The new sample from Tuscany under J-FT289318 actually forms a recent subclade with the existing NA20763, as you can see in the live version: https://yfull.com/live/tree/J-L283/
So there isn't another "parallel" Z585 line in Tuscany.

Also, the new American sample, who by all indications is with origin from western Europe, splits the J-Z600 subclade. Combined with the fact that the brother clade J-YP91 doesn't have an ancient presence in Italy/Sardinia, everything is pointing out that these J-L283 clades expanded there from mainland Europe. We also expect another J-YP91* from south Germany, just north of the Alps. So my opinion is that these earliest J-L283>Z622 clades were likely in the triangle from eastern Alps to NW Balkans and western Hungary, before expanding into Italy/Sardinia and the western Balkans.


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.

This is all I'm saying, that there is circumstantial evidence J-L283 migrated North of Black Sea route and it became incorporated into I-E expansions at some point, maybe even in its earliest phase. Especially if that rumored "J2b" from Chalcolithic Moldova is confirmed as ~J-L283* where we may indeed be looking at Cernavoda or even Suvorovo culture (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvorovo_culture).

I never declared J-L283 in its earliest expansion as "Proto-Illyrian". Also, declaring it "Proto-Nuragic", as you did, is premature to say the least..

Riverman
08-21-2021, 02:50 PM
There's just one problem with these old branches being taking along by younger ones, the young ones don't have any MENA/Arabian samples, per the Block-tree:
-FGC11450: 0/150 (I think the 150 is too high since the 63 unknowns seems to much, so probably closer to 100 or so)
-CTS9320: 0/524 (same remark, 258 unknow, so likely more about 300)
-L241: 1 tunisian/225 (same remark, likely about 125)
-A7136: 0/53 (rather 45 or so)

If they dragged the older clades along, where are they? Compare to:
-BY5022: 3 Lebanese, 2 Iraqis, a Yemenite, a Bahraini /92 (rather 80 or so), and they are in different subbranches
-Y145455: 1 Jordan, 1 Iraqi, 1 Libyan / 54 (rather 45 or so)
-Y16729: here it's better to look at the branches since the numbers would be hugely inflated by a recent Arabian branch, but there are Arabs in at least two different branches

It's hard to say for sure if the distinction is chronological, geographical, or both, but there is a clear difference in groups with these subbranches, and groups without. Note that while CTS9320 is by far the dominant group within Z5017, it does not have samples from MENA or Arabian regions, while at the Z5017 root we have an Arabian sample.

The young clades you mentioned are all failry recent and radiated out, some probably just with Thraco-Cimmerian and Hallstatt rather than earlier Urnfield. Its possible you are right, but its interesting that the younger clades with no Near Eastern branch look like recent and very successful expansion, which might just be a slightly earlier wave, since its no old branching. They look not just younger, but also more successful.

If I look into
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT96373/

What strikes me again is that there is one very Northern and one very Southern branch, and the single Iraqi means something, considering how undersampled they are. It almost looks as if this was a pioneering lineage, which radiated out earlier indeed, but when exactly? They TMRCA suggests they split around 1.300 BC, no earlier! So this group is unlikely to have been that more Southern, but rather moving out, from the homeland, earlier and being probably not as successful as some others, the later ones, which profited already from iron production and later the new cavalry tactics and horse breeds.

1.300 BC is a regular date for E-V13, marking the start of the Channelled Ware expansion. One can easily imagine one marching down with a movement, becoming even involved with the Sea People, while the other moved North West or just stayed at home.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022/ is really very much in the South and Near East, that's an interesting case. But if there are enough samples to properly reconstruct the modern dispersion and a little bit of the phylogeny, look what appears:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y152872/

Albanian and Saudi. TMRCA = 1.300 BC

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A11182/

English and Lebanese (!). TMRCA = 1.100 BC

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y125215/

Major group in Lebanon and Israel - TMRCA = 1.100 BC (= Philistine!)

That looks to me related to Sea People and Philistines with the usual pattern of a split along the subclades around 1.300-900 BC. The E-V13 people did not move together along the old patrilinear tribes and clans. Some were just more present in specific movements. The whole pattern seems directly related to the pre-iron weapons expansion in the Late Bronze Age, this movement correlated particularly well with the Naue II swords und Urnfield:


Type H swords are associated with the Sea Peoples and were found in Anatolia (Pergamon[7]) and Greece. Contemporary with types E to H is the so-called Naue II type, imported from south-eastern Europe.


One of the most important, and longest-lasting, types of prehistoric European swords was the Naue II type, named for Julius Naue who first described them and also known as Griffzungenschwert or "grip-tongue sword". It first appears in c. the 13th century BC in Northern Italy (or a general Urnfield background), and survived well into the Iron Age, with a life-span of about seven centuries, until the 6th century BC. During its lifetime the basic design was maintained, although the material changed from bronze to iron. Naue II swords were exported from Europe to the Aegean, and as far afield as Ugarit, beginning about 1200 BC, i.e. just a few decades before the final collapse of the palace cultures in the Bronze Age collapse.[10] Naue II swords could be as long as 85 cm, but most specimens fall into the 60 to 70 cm range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword#Naue_II


The Sea Peoples are a purported seafaring confederation that attacked ancient Egypt and other regions of the East Mediterranean prior to and during the Late Bronze Age collapse (1200–900 BCE)

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

More on the association of the Sea Peoples with Naue II swords:


Its backbone is formed by
more than 1100 characteristic swords of so called ʻNaue
IIʼ type, a remarkably widespread weapon that was used in
temperate Europe, the Aegean and in the Near East from
the 14th to the 11th century BC.


The evidence for connectivity and mobility in Bronze Age
Europe and in the Mediterranean Basin is rich and diverse.
Nonetheless, it was the transition from the 13th to the 12th
century BC, when these relations became particularly
intense (cf. Bouzek 1985; Drews 1993; Harding 1984).
Many objects were traded and exchanged across long distances
at that time, but this contribution will concentrate on
a particular class of cut-and-thrust, flange-hilted swords,
also known as Naue II type (and belonging to the so-called
Griffzungenschwerter family of European swords). It is a
commonly held view that these swords originated in the
region of the Eastern Alps and the Carpathian Basin in the
13th century BC (Foltiny 1964).

E-V13 profited from this technology and new fighting tactics:


It has, therefore, been argued that the
appearance of Naue II swords, used for thrusting and cutting
and suitable for close-quarters hand-to-hand combat,
must have brought about a significant change in the fighting
techniques of the Late Bronze Age (cf. Drews 1993).

The Egyptians could beat the Sea Peoples only because they lured them into a trap and caught heavy losses by using long range weapons. In close quarter combat, they would have been slaughtered. Note different sword types being depicted by the Egyptians:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Medinet_Habu_Ramses_III._Tempel_Nordostwand_Abzeic hnung_01.jpg


In the Aegean, Naue II swords are known
from both hoards and burials but also from settlements
(three examples from Mycenae and one from Karphi on
Crete) and sanctuaries (Polis Cave on Ithaca and on Samos;
Bouzek 1985, 122, 127-128; Catling 1961, 120). One
example of a Catling I sword comes from the shipwreck of
Cape Gelidonya, dated to 1200 BC (Bass 1991, 69). Only
one sword that has been found in the Central European
sanctuary of Škocjan-Mušja Jama in Slovenia (Harding
1995, 51), and one from the settlement of Bălcešti near
Vilcea in Romania (Bader 1991, 87).

The map on p. 260, fig 2 shows as one of the centres of the Naue II distributions the centre of Gava and directly relates to the Channelled Ware horizon zone of distribution.

Into the Near East:

The Near Eastern swords
are later and date mainly to the 12th-10th centuries BC.

Sea Peoples carrying Naue II swords:

The Shardana were just one group
among so-called the Sea Peoples, that are often portrayed
as a confederacy of raiders who stepped into the light of
Mediterranean history around the 12th century BC. In the
case of the Sea Peoples, the links are particularly plain to
see: reliefs show them using Naue II type swords as well
as horned helmets and round shields, and correspondence
from Amarna explicitly mentions their services as hired
warriors (Drews 1993; Moran 1992).

Northern warriors from as far as Denmark could have been in Mycenaean service as mercenaries, so the Northern people knew perfectly well were to go:

it seems justifiable to interpret finds
of Greek armour in eastern Central Europe during the 14th
to 12th century BC as similar evidence of warriors returning
from Mycenaean service (where Central European and
also Italian flange-hilted swords testify to their presence
during the same period, cf. Jung and Mehofer 2008). Thus,
the exceptional richness of the Danish burial mounds may
have been more intimately linked with the political fate of
the Aegean, and the societies of Bronze Age Europe more
tightly connected, then is commonly acknowledged.

The map on p. 262, fig 4 shows the direct link of the Carpathians to the Aegeans via the Belegis II-Gava and downward expansion route of Channelled Ware. Obviously other people did adopt the same technology, especially allied people for which the smiths would have worked and weapons being shared, but the links is very, very obvious. E-V13 surely participated in this, no doubt about it.

The quotations from the paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292397599_The_Dissemination_of_Naue_II_swords_-_a_Case_Study_on_Long-distance_Mobility

Some of the earliest Urnfielders from the Channelled Ware and E-V13 dominated expansion groups which moved South partificipated in the raids and settlements of the Sea People, including the Philistines. I have little doubts about it. Especially the frequent appearance in Lebanon with the exact timing which fits, whereever there are enough samples from a subclade, makes this a clear case for me.

They brought new fighting techniques and weapons, especially Naue II swords, to the East Mediterranean. Probably among the fighters and prisoners depicted by the Egyptians, one of the tribes and costumes represented was the one they used in the Mediterranean. They were just part of a much larger federation of clans and tribes of course, but their impact is noticeable as the modern Near Eastern surviving lineages proof.

There are Near Eastern branches of the younger, more Northern clades too, but these usually date to the historical period even, to Hellenistic and Roman expansions rather.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16729/ is a curious case, because two branches ended up in Saudi Arabia, apparently with a common proven ancestor with the European clades about 1.800 BC or later. But the main Near Eastern subclade in this group is still rather young, dates to the historical age even. This needs to be clarified to be sure where it stands. On FTDNA are not too many samples I guess, probably because the Gulf Arabs tested elsewhere.

leonardus
08-21-2021, 04:47 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.

Things were fairly simply back than, but gives us now a lot of 'complexity'. Do you read post #522 ?
Simply, I think overall I'm right, and this is very consistent with your opinion, so let read it again:
''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 ? ''

Bane
08-21-2021, 05:05 PM
My thoughts is that there was (S of Danube and N of Greece) a proto-thracian population, the so-called palasgians.


Pelasgians North of Greece? That is rather dubious.
Plus attributing them as proto-Thracians??? :\
You should re-read whichever articles you got this from.

Riverman
08-21-2021, 06:05 PM
T
2. What migratory pressure from who they were forced to leave Gava ? ''

You mix up a lot of things. People, regions, chronology. Sorry, but its a mess. There were no Turkic people in the Carparthians and those you mentioned were later Scytho-Sarmatians. One of the groups which did fused with Daco-Thracians indeed, but that was after they had moved down to the Balkans already.

Concerning the reason as to why the expansion started, I don’t know. But it seems there were several reasons:
- the North was blocked by friendly or stronger fellow Urnfielders. The West too, largely. So the logical direction of sny conquest was southwards, to rich regions they already knew and were easy prey.
- the technological advancement and ordered society at the middle to later Bronze Age,the rich mines and metal production led to a massive increase in population density. Any disturbance like economic downturn or climatic worsening would instantly create the pressure to migrate and conquer
- ideologically the Urnfield religion and society seems to have been expansive and aggressive by default,especially against infidels
- last but not least, its about opportunities. Their people had the better weapons and organisation.

If a newly developed people experiences great success in war and is able to conquer, plunder and take what they want, including women for the young warriors, why should they stop?

The Sea Peoples did only stop in Egypt because they were caught in a trap and slaughtered. Or because of people acceptingthem peacefully and fusing with the newcomers, like what I expect for Northern Greeks and Sea Peoples itself.
They made an alliance with some tribes to conquer other, even richer lands. That's how the Sea Peoples came up.
By weaker groups forming an alliance to move away from the stronger competitors to achieve more in the East Mediterranean.
Apparently, some stayed, like the Philistines.

rafc
08-21-2021, 06:06 PM
The young clades you mentioned are all failry recent and radiated out, some probably just with Thraco-Cimmerian and Hallstatt rather than earlier Urnfield. Its possible you are right, but its interesting that the younger clades with no Near Eastern branch look like recent and very successful expansion, which might just be a slightly earlier wave, since its no old branching. They look not just younger, but also more successful.

If I look into
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT96373/

What strikes me again is that there is one very Northern and one very Southern branch, and the single Iraqi means something, considering how undersampled they are. It almost looks as if this was a pioneering lineage, which radiated out earlier indeed, but when exactly? They TMRCA suggests they split around 1.300 BC, no earlier! So this group is unlikely to have been that more Southern, but rather moving out, from the homeland, earlier and being probably not as successful as some others, the later ones, which profited already from iron production and later the new cavalry tactics and horse breeds.

1.300 BC is a regular date for E-V13, marking the start of the Channelled Ware expansion. One can easily imagine one marching down with a movement, becoming even involved with the Sea People, while the other moved North West or just stayed at home.

I (and I think most people) consider the Yfull dates to be a bit underestimated. I also think that the current calculation for Z5018 doesn't make a lot of sense for a subclade defined by 1 SNP. For what it's worth, the draft tree of Steve Fix put Y145455 at 4500BC, which would make E-FT96373 older (only 3 SNP's down from Y145455). BTW, on Yfull it's dated at 1600BC, not 1300BC. If you look upstream and parallel you will notice Romanian, Bulgarian and Greek samples. To me it seems clear Z17293 is more Eastern Balkans and is nearly absent from the Western Balkans and Central Europe.
Also, while I think population movements from Central Europe downwards caused a domino effect that also contributed to people living near shores to move by boat and be called "sea-peoples", I have a hard time seeing people going from Central Europe to Egypt or the Levant. But I guess V13 living near the Black sea coast could have been on the move at the LBA/EIA transition and could have ended up in the Levant.


https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022/ is really very much in the South and Near East, that's an interesting case. But if there are enough samples to properly reconstruct the modern dispersion and a little bit of the phylogeny, look what appears:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y152872/

Albanian and Saudi. TMRCA = 1.300 BC

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A11182/

English and Lebanese (!). TMRCA = 1.100 BC

Yes, as I said in my post above BY5022 also has these samples downstream. As I speculated the tendency to have connections to the Levant and Arabia might be linked to the closeness to the Black sea of these branches. That said, I believe these branches to be a bit older than what Yfull shows.



https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y125215/

Major group in Lebanon and Israel - TMRCA = 1.100 BC (= Philistine!)


This group split off the rest at 2100BC according to Yfull. I think the Aegean (Mycenaean) character of the Philistines is well proven, I doubt V13 would have been a large enough part of such a population to leave a sizable mark. Even if it did, this is still no explanation why some branches are so present in the Levant and Arabia, and others are not.

Riverman
08-21-2021, 07:07 PM
Also, while I think population movements from Central Europe downwards caused a domino effect that also contributed to people living near shores to move by boat and be called "sea-peoples", I have a hard time seeing people going from Central Europe to Egypt or the Levant. But I guess V13 living near the Black sea coast could have been on the move at the LBA/EIA transition and could have ended up in the Levant.

That more Northern people participated in the Sea Peoples phenomenon can be considered a proven fact, the question is just how many and from where exactly they departed. The Naue II swords are a clear indication and we have knowledge of people from up to Denmark being possibly linked to mercenaries in the Aegean. This means even if the tribes were not there yet, bands of warriors could have been called to participate in the campaign. Obviously, such a big endeveour would have called many warbands to join the adventure and its nearly impossilbe that the message didn't made it round in the whole regions. At that point, around 1.200 BC, they were already there, they didn't needed to move from somewhere up the Alps or Carpathians down, they were already there anywhere.


This group split off the rest at 2100BC according to Yfull. I think the Aegean (Mycenaean) character of the Philistines is well proven, I doubt V13 would have been a large enough part of such a population to leave a sizable mark. Even if it did, this is still no explanation why some branches are so present in the Levant and Arabia, and others are not

True, but the European sister branch dates to 1.700 BC and the long distance might be just because in this case really the whole branch moved out, rather than just parts of it, with no remaining survivors in Europe. I would bet on finding them among Philistines or Phoenicians with enough samples, as a signal of the Sea Peoples. I guess its pure chance and the other clades will be closer to each other, like ones shown above.
But this is really something for both more ancient and modern samples, to get the full picture.

Huban
08-21-2021, 07:15 PM
Just wanted to correct something with additional thoughts/comments.

The new sample from Tuscany under J-FT289318 actually forms a recent subclade with the existing NA20763, as you can see in the live version: https://yfull.com/live/tree/J-L283/
So there isn't another "parallel" Z585 line in Tuscany.

Also, the new American sample, who by all indications is with origin from western Europe, splits the J-Z600 subclade. Combined with the fact that the brother clade J-YP91 doesn't have an ancient presence in Italy/Sardinia, everything is pointing out that these J-L283 clades expanded there from mainland Europe. We also expect another J-YP91* from south Germany, just north of the Alps. So my opinion is that these earliest J-L283>Z622 clades were likely in the triangle from eastern Alps to NW Balkans and western Hungary, before expanding into Italy/Sardinia and the western Balkans.



This is all I'm saying, that there is circumstantial evidence J-L283 migrated North of Black Sea route and it became incorporated into I-E expansions at some point, maybe even in its earliest phase. Especially if that rumored "J2b" from Chalcolithic Moldova is confirmed as ~J-L283* where we may indeed be looking at Cernavoda or even Suvorovo culture (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvorovo_culture).

I never declared J-L283 in its earliest expansion as "Proto-Illyrian". Also, declaring it "Proto-Nuragic", as you did, is premature to say the least..

Thanks, I missed the Live tree.

Nevertheless there are J-L283 Nuragics in Sardinia and you can see their clade has high TMRCA there. If the J-L283 is the only new addition in Nuragic era as opposed to Pre-Nuragic Sardinia and if the bearers of Nuragic culture were migrants from Central Europe and Polada culture as proposed how is that not in favor of both J-L283 being involved with proto-Nuragics (proto-Nuragic is the one who brings the new culture) and Central European origin?

Nuragics being non-IE is no problem in this context as there are so many R1b Etruscans and R1b Basques..

Some other paths of arrival are Bell Beakers but J-L283 wasn't found among them yet..

Huban
08-21-2021, 07:28 PM
I (and I think most people) consider the Yfull dates to be a bit underestimated.


I don't agree with this at all.. It works great with many clades such as I-Y3120. Pushing the TMRCA back for V13 would have meant the initial Chalcolithic expansion and how does that fit with LBA movements.. It would mean chaos in sticking with dates.

Similarly for J-L283 what looks to be an early MBA expansion of J-Z597 to Balkan (TMRCA 4200 ybp) would have it's TMRCA pushed to 5000 ybp??

TMRCA of R-Z2103 is 5400 ybp. Yamnaya culture began 5300 ybp..

TMRCA of R-Z93 is 4500 ybp. Sintashta culture began 4400 ybp..

TMRCA of R-Z645 is 4900 ybp. Corded Ware culture began 4900 ybp..

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-BY23734/

Recently when we found that Daunians carry this clade it was again brought up how dates are underestimated. TMRCA of just 2100 ybp, but above J-CTS8364 is defined by 9 SNP's covering 1300 years, 144 years per SNP refers only for those in ComBED region so more realistic is 100 years per SNP, as it is at the FTDNA on average. Having 100 years would raise the TMRCA of J-CTS8364 and J-BY23734 to 2500 years.. Just at the J-CTS8364 level some samples happen to have less novels.. Clades vary one from another wildly with different mutation rates but when a sample is very large TMRCA becomes more realistic hence this near perfect TMRCA dates for the mentioned clades where they match the formation dates of their cultures.

Trojet
08-21-2021, 07:51 PM
Thanks, I missed the Live tree.

Nevertheless there are J-L283 Nuragics in Sardinia and you can see their clade has high TMRCA there.

That J-YP157 Sardinian TMRCA is probably not as high as you might think. All current J-YP157 samples are low-res sequences and the reason why there is "only 4 SNPs" at that level, even YFull hasn't assigned a TMRCA. My guess is we're looking at 3500-4000 ybp.


If the J-L283 is the only new addition in Nuragic era as opposed to Pre-Nuragic Sardinia and if the bearers of Nuragic culture were migrants from Central Europe and Polada culture as proposed how is that not in favor of both J-L283 being involved with proto-Nuragics (proto-Nuragic is the one who brings the new culture) and Central European origin?

Ok, fair enough. I thought in an earlier post you implied the whole J-L283 is "proto-Nuragic".

Michał
08-21-2021, 08:31 PM
TMRCA of R-Z2103 is 5400 ybp. Yamnaya culture began 5300 ybp..

TMRCA of R-Z93 is 4500 ybp. Sintashta culture began 4400 ybp..

TMRCA of R-Z645 is 4900 ybp. Corded Ware culture began 4900 ybp..

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-BY23734/

Actually, these are exactly the kind of data that additionally support my strong suspicion that the YFull age estimates are underestimates (by about 10-20%, on average, as suggested by some calculations I presented on this forum long time ago). If the TMRCA age of R1a-Z645 fits exactly the age of expansion of CWC, then how you will imagine the very start of that territorial expansion going on in different directions? Was it started by just one man (or by a man and his children with every one of those children going his own way and thus being able to "dominate" the huge territory encompassing about 1/3 of Europe)? Also, R1a-Z93 has recently been found in Fatyanovo, a culture that expanded about 2700 BC (or maybe even a bit earlier), thus about 200 years earlier than suggested by the Z93 TMRCA age produced by YFull.

This problem has been discussed on the Anthrogenica forum on multiple occasions, but here is a link to one od my old posts that explains my line of reasoning in more detail:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs&p=117447&viewfull=1#post117447

vettor
08-21-2021, 08:33 PM
The young clades you mentioned are all failry recent and radiated out, some probably just with Thraco-Cimmerian and Hallstatt rather than earlier Urnfield. Its possible you are right, but its interesting that the younger clades with no Near Eastern branch look like recent and very successful expansion, which might just be a slightly earlier wave, since its no old branching. They look not just younger, but also more successful.

If I look into
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT96373/

What strikes me again is that there is one very Northern and one very Southern branch, and the single Iraqi means something, considering how undersampled they are. It almost looks as if this was a pioneering lineage, which radiated out earlier indeed, but when exactly? They TMRCA suggests they split around 1.300 BC, no earlier! So this group is unlikely to have been that more Southern, but rather moving out, from the homeland, earlier and being probably not as successful as some others, the later ones, which profited already from iron production and later the new cavalry tactics and horse breeds.

1.300 BC is a regular date for E-V13, marking the start of the Channelled Ware expansion. One can easily imagine one marching down with a movement, becoming even involved with the Sea People, while the other moved North West or just stayed at home.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022/ is really very much in the South and Near East, that's an interesting case. But if there are enough samples to properly reconstruct the modern dispersion and a little bit of the phylogeny, look what appears:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y152872/

Albanian and Saudi. TMRCA = 1.300 BC

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A11182/

English and Lebanese (!). TMRCA = 1.100 BC

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y125215/

Major group in Lebanon and Israel - TMRCA = 1.100 BC (= Philistine!)

That looks to me related to Sea People and Philistines with the usual pattern of a split along the subclades around 1.300-900 BC. The E-V13 people did not move together along the old patrilinear tribes and clans. Some were just more present in specific movements. The whole pattern seems directly related to the pre-iron weapons expansion in the Late Bronze Age, this movement correlated particularly well with the Naue II swords und Urnfield:





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_sword#Naue_II



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

More on the association of the Sea Peoples with Naue II swords:





E-V13 profited from this technology and new fighting tactics:



The Egyptians could beat the Sea Peoples only because they lured them into a trap and caught heavy losses by using long range weapons. In close quarter combat, they would have been slaughtered. Note different sword types being depicted by the Egyptians:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Medinet_Habu_Ramses_III._Tempel_Nordostwand_Abzeic hnung_01.jpg



The map on p. 260, fig 2 shows as one of the centres of the Naue II distributions the centre of Gava and directly relates to the Channelled Ware horizon zone of distribution.

Into the Near East:


Sea Peoples carrying Naue II swords:


Northern warriors from as far as Denmark could have been in Mycenaean service as mercenaries, so the Northern people knew perfectly well were to go:


The map on p. 262, fig 4 shows the direct link of the Carpathians to the Aegeans via the Belegis II-Gava and downward expansion route of Channelled Ware. Obviously other people did adopt the same technology, especially allied people for which the smiths would have worked and weapons being shared, but the links is very, very obvious. E-V13 surely participated in this, no doubt about it.

The quotations from the paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292397599_The_Dissemination_of_Naue_II_swords_-_a_Case_Study_on_Long-distance_Mobility

Some of the earliest Urnfielders from the Channelled Ware and E-V13 dominated expansion groups which moved South partificipated in the raids and settlements of the Sea People, including the Philistines. I have little doubts about it. Especially the frequent appearance in Lebanon with the exact timing which fits, whereever there are enough samples from a subclade, makes this a clear case for me.

They brought new fighting techniques and weapons, especially Naue II swords, to the East Mediterranean. Probably among the fighters and prisoners depicted by the Egyptians, one of the tribes and costumes represented was the one they used in the Mediterranean. They were just part of a much larger federation of clans and tribes of course, but their impact is noticeable as the modern Near Eastern surviving lineages proof.

There are Near Eastern branches of the younger, more Northern clades too, but these usually date to the historical period even, to Hellenistic and Roman expansions rather.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16729/ is a curious case, because two branches ended up in Saudi Arabia, apparently with a common proven ancestor with the European clades about 1.800 BC or later. But the main Near Eastern subclade in this group is still rather young, dates to the historical age even. This needs to be clarified to be sure where it stands. On FTDNA are not too many samples I guess, probably because the Gulf Arabs tested elsewhere.

the Israeli dig of a couple of years ago on the philistines have confirmed they came from eastern Crete

on your sea-peoples ............I have heard of these scenarios
they came from
Crete
coastal asia minor after the fall of troy
Sicily
kaska people from crimea

Huban
08-21-2021, 09:15 PM
Actually, these are exactly the kind of data that additionally support my strong suspicion that the YFull age estimates are underestimates (by about 10-20%, on average, as suggested by some calculations I presented on this forum long time ago). If the TMRCA age of R1a-Z645 fits exactly the age of expansion of CWC, then how you will imagine the very start of that territorial expansion going on in different directions? Was it started by just one man (or by a man and his children with every one of those children going his own way and thus being able to "dominate" the huge territory encompassing about 1/3 of Europe)? Also, R1a-Z93 has recently been found in Fatyanovo, a culture that expanded about 2700 BC (or maybe even a bit earlier), thus about 200 years earlier than suggested by the Z93 TMRCA age produced by YFull.

This problem has been discussed on the Anthrogenica forum on multiple occasions, but here is a link to one od my old posts that explains my line of reasoning in more detail:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs&p=117447&viewfull=1#post117447

Soon after Corded Ware started expanding, you had Fatyanovo/Sintashta, Battle Axe ofshoots..

I don't think Z93 couldn't have originated (or at least much, maybe a century or two) prior to 2900 BC, if it did then the Battle Axe and European CWC would have been also loaded with it, rather it is an exclusive Indo-Iranian marker. The fact that Z93 shows such strong correlation to Sintashta, that R-Y2395 shows such strong correlation to Battle Axe means they basically founded these cultures. If you have them originating even 3500 BC that means these cultures would have been alot more mixed subclade-wise by 2900 BC.

You can see on the tree bulk of expansion happens under these mutations.. And these cultures separated from CWC very soon after CWC began existing itself.

Btw Z93 used to have higher TMRCA just recently.. All of these estimates must always be taken as rough.. Few hundred years up/down.

Also, having these diversify so much earlier, that would have meant that CWC was older.. Rather not it shows that prior to CWC they were a small group of people.. As they were by archeological records. Large Y-DNA expansions do mimic sudden and massive growths of cultures, often out of practically nothing i.e. small group became very numerous within a very short timespan..

Riverman
08-21-2021, 10:21 PM
I didnt suggest the majority of the Sea Peoples came from the Balkans (where E-V13 with Naue II swords were already) and probably more Northern areas too, but that they participated as well, probably some warbands.

As for the estimates: What Michal said is very true, because if in the Balkans there are probably 60 subclades (hypothetical number, I don’t know the exact one) of E-V13 with a TMRCA of 1.100 or earlier, its for sure that not the whole territory was conquered by 60, 100 or even just 200 males. These are just the lineages which survived and it would have been about grandfathers, fathers, bothers and cousins, at least dozens of warriors for every early lineage.
Otherwise in some regions 10 males would have crushed tribes which could muster hundreds or even thousands of warriors, which would be kind of ridiculous.
Because even with the best swords and tactics of their time and place, the others didn't just fall down before them.

It's true, if they spread e.g. 1.100-1.000 BC, the lineages which overrun an area from Vojvodina to Northern Greece must be older. Though some could be regional founders indeed. So one warrior which came to e.g. Kosovo founded a large family and successful new lineage in situ. Both is possible, we can't tell. And the estimates can't as well, because they are nowhere as precise as being able to predict one century more or less for such a time frame.
But generally speaking, they can't be all that young at the time of the expansion, many must be older.

Edit: One good hint for a rapid expansion is obviously if a lot of subclades have practically the same age, like major subclades with probably dozens to hundreds to even thousands of carriers which all come up within 1-3 generations. That's always massive and means that a very few males, brothers, cousins, even a single one, were true major founders with a lot of surviving offspring. In some extreme cases, this could even mean wife + concubines + female slaves = some sort of polygyny in the wider sense being practised. Because a single male can have a lot of sons, yes, but over a couple of generations it might be more than a monogamous reproduction indeed. That's not just about when exactly the major clade was founded, but that all the subclades have practically the same timing. Such cases exist for E-V13 lineages as well as for others.
Worth to note in that context that within the Channelled Ware groups, especially in the North, but other areas as well, gigantic elite burials of some sort of aristocracy were found. The effort for those elite burials was huge and very expensive. As were the big hoards which accompanied the Channelled Ware expansion. This could point to some sort of elite culture and aristocracy among them. In particular in the Gava central regions.

Huban
08-22-2021, 12:46 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.

Urnfield samples are Kyjatice sample (I1504), new Gava sample, most Hungarian Scythians, arguably Czech Hallstat samples are part of the similar spectrum. So yes showing affinities to Tollense.

It seems actually I was looking at the Vucedol Hungarian sample when I was mentioning that sample with "alien" profile that clusters with nobody.. A group of Urnfielders and this sample are marked with a very similar sign.. It would be weird to have an Urnfielder as very alien to the others. I have to find this E1b1b1a sample among the remaining ones. There are two candidates (I'm using his position on another PCA plot to find him on this PCA plot where there is no Y-DNA info). It seems many Urnfielders from this study are similar to Kyjatice, Gava, some are outliers and the E1b sample still might be the one.

F3 PCA plot has some very strange results especially in some EBA clusters of Neolithic-Steppe mixes.

By Pre-Gava I mean the area in the SE Hungary per this photo.
https://i.ibb.co/tmJC1DS/Gava-pre-Gava.jpg

Also when I said that Tumulus culture samples are not so Northern, that goes for only half of them, others are similar to Czech Bell Beakers.

Riverman
08-22-2021, 01:24 AM
We have no E1b from Hungary in general, but from Slovakia and the very North East. This alone is quite telling. Gava seems to have replaced more than it had roots in all of Pannonia. I think the E-V13 clans lived further in the North, in direct proximity and under the influence of the Unetice networks and when the regional Urnfield transition took place, they played an important role in this transition from Tumulus-Urnfield.
The autosomal profiles can be treacherous, because its possible that in 100-200 years almost nothing from the paternal ancestry remains.
And this expansion seems to have been rather male driven overall. We might never really know all the details because of the cremation horizon.
Probably there are lucky finds though.

The other alternative would be to sample the pre-cremation, pre-V13 populations on both sides of the Carparthians and compare those with the post and V13 rich people. Unfortunately there were other movements between these too, especially of the Cimmerian-Scythian groups.
But to compare the Hungarian with the Bulgarian V13 carriers will be already quite interesting, because that's still fairly early.

And New samples should come in from the Carparthian region. And probably we are lucky with the Bohemians too, who knows other than the authors.

The Channelled Ware will be similar to Tumulus. Fairly typical newcomers, mixed and pure locals.

Bruzmi
08-22-2021, 01:44 PM
I never declared J-L283 in its earliest expansion as "Proto-Illyrian". Also, declaring it "Proto-Nuragic", as you did, is premature to say the least..

By definition, none of these samples could have been Proto-Nuragic because all of them date to the 12th-11th centuries BC. Protonuraghe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protonuraghe) were built in Sardinia from 1700 BC to roughly 1400 BC when the first typical Nuraghe appear. In other words, when the ancestors of these J2b-L283 arrived in Sardinia, the core Nuraghic culture already existed. The misconception that somehow "Proto-Illyrian" J2b-L283 played a role in the foundation of the Nuraghic civilization was solely created in internet fora and spread via socia media graphics.

Anyone who looks at the dating of the samples and their autosomal ancestry will realize that these are the descendants of migrants from the northwestern Balkans and that they reached Sardinia in the same broad period as other migrations which formed the Illyrian Messapic communities in Italy.

ORC003 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3181&ybp=500000,0): 3181 ybp
ORC007 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3173&ybp=500000,0): 3173 ybp
ORC008 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3023&ybp=500000,0): 3023 ybp
I10553 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3110&ybp=500000,0): 3110 ybp

As for autosomal ancestry, we should compare them with averages from the preceding period (CA/EBA/MBA) to get a clear picture.


Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC003
Distance: 2.0467% / 0.02046745
97.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
3.0 HRV_Vucedol

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC007
Distance: 1.8624% / 0.01862386
76.6 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
23.4 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC008
Distance: 2.8572% / 0.02857174
80.2 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
18.2 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
1.6 HRV_Vucedol

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10553
Distance: 2.5828% / 0.02582834
78.4 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
13.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
4.4 UKR_Globular_Amphora
4.2 HRV_Vucedol

Sardinia_EBA represents local Neolithic ancestry (Sardinia _CA) which was not that distant from that of mainland northern Italy like Grotta Continenza. These samples score Grotta_Continenza_CA, however, and not just Sardinia_EBA because GC also has a Pannonian Neolithic (Sopot) component similar to Vucedol

Target: ITA _G rotta_Continenza_CA
Distance: 1.4880% / 0.01487962
Sources: 33 | Cycles: 9 | Time: 0.511 s
38.6 ITA_Sardinia_C
27.4 HRV_Sopot_MN
15.4 FRA_Occitanie_LN
15.0 HUN_Sopot_LN
3.6 ITA_Monte_San_Biagio_CA

Target: HRV_Vucedol
Distance: 3.0767% / 0.03076681
Sources: 35 | Cycles: 9 | Time: 0.711 s
45.6 HRV_Sopot_MN
25.4 GRC_Peloponnese_N
18.4 ITA_Sardinia_C
6.2 Iberia_Northeast_CA
3.2 HRV_Starcevo_LN
0.8 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.4 CHN_Yellow_River_LN

You can observe the same Sopot ancestry in the J-L283 sample from MBA Croatia (3519 ybp):

Target: HRV_ M BA:I4331
Distance: 1.7114% / 0.01711409
Sources: 35 | Cycles: 9 | Time: 0.651 s
31.4 GRC_Peloponnese_N
27.6 Corded_Ware_CHE
18.0 HUN_Sopot_LN
17.6 FRA_Hauts_De_France_LN
4.0 DEU_Karsdorf_LN
1.2 ITA_Sardinia_C
0.2 ITA_Monte_San_Biagio_CA

It's most certain that J2b-L283 carriers are descendants of migrants to Sardinia, which because of development as evidenced by archaeological excavations saw small scale migrations from diverse regions. Almost all Sardinian Nuragic samples have 80-90% local ancestry + a small component from continental Europe:


Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ISC001
Distance: 2.9300% / 0.02930008
97.8 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
2.2 RUS_Baikal_EBA

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:MA110
Distance: 2.9561% / 0.02956114
97.6 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
2.4 UKR_EBA

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:MA82
Distance: 1.9334% / 0.01933384
96.8 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
3.2 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA

rafc
08-22-2021, 08:17 PM
By definition, none of these samples could have been Proto-Nuragic because all of them date to the 12th-11th centuries BC. Protonuraghe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protonuraghe) were built in Sardinia from 1700 BC to roughly 1400 BC when the first typical Nuraghe appear. In other words, when the ancestors of these J2b-L283 arrived in Sardinia, the core Nuraghic culture already existed.

How do you know when the ancestors of these samples arrived?


The misconception that somehow "Proto-Illyrian" J2b-L283 played a role in the foundation of the Nuraghic civilization was solely created in internet fora and spread via socia media graphics.

It doesn't make sense when you use the term Proto-Illyrian. I see no reason why L283 could not play a role in the early stages of the Nuraghic civilization. Proto-Illyrian is a term that belongs later in the IA.


Anyone who looks at the dating of the samples and their autosomal ancestry will realize that these are the descendants of migrants from the northwestern Balkans and that they reached Sardinia in the same broad period as other migrations which formed the Illyrian Messapic communities in Italy

I commented before that it's a bit remarkable that according to you all V13 samples found over a large timespan would all coincidentally be recent arrivals. The same goes for L283.
To me it seems more logical that in the 3d millennium BC L283 was in upper Danube area, or not too far from there. From this location branches could wander off (in the 2nd millennium BC) into Italy, and ultimately Sardinia, and into the (western) Balkan.

Riverman
08-22-2021, 08:27 PM
I commented before that it's a bit remarkable that according to you all V13 samples found over a large timespan would all coincidentally be recent arrivals. The same goes for L283.
To me it seems more logical that in the 3d millennium BC L283 was in upper Danube area, or not too far from there. From this location branches could wander off (in the 2nd millennium BC) into Italy, and ultimately Sardinia, and into the (western) Balkan.

Expectedly, the Tumulus culture will be mostly R1b, but I guess somewhere in the Danubian area, J-L283 was picked up. From there on it could have easily spread within the networks of Upper and Middle Danubian Tumulus culture and succeeding Urnfield groups of the region, of which some indeed moved into Italy and others into Pannonia.
The Tumulus Culture from around the Middle Danube might have been ancestral to Illyrians in the Middle to later Bronze Age. Illyrians formed before the Iron Age I'd say. This is also what distinguishes them from the later Urnfield groups and especially Channelled Ware, which were fully or to large degree newcomers.
The most logical conclusion is J-L283 joined the Tumulus cultural formation at the Middle Danube. But where they did join is open to debate. They could have done so already in the Upper Danube and Alpine area, or in the Middle Danube, or closer to the Adriatic, when the Tumulus culture influenced the region. But my hunch is rather earlier and more Northern than later and more Southern.
From these groups they could have easily spread both to Adriatic Illyrians, as well as other people in Northern Italy which became influenced by the Pannonian region. Including Etruscans, which could have been from a similar source as well.

rafc
08-22-2021, 08:37 PM
Expectedly, the Tumulus culture will be mostly R1b, but I guess somewhere in the Danubian area, J-L283 was picked up. From there on it could have easily spread within the networks of Upper and Middle Danubian Tumulus culture and succeeding Urnfield groups of the region, of which some indeed moved into Italy and others into Pannonia.
The Tumulus Culture from around the Middle Danube might have been ancestral to Illyrians in the Middle to later Bronze Age. Illyrians formed before the Iron Age I'd say. This is also what distinguishes them from the later Urnfield groups and especially Channelled Ware, which were fully or to large degree newcomers.
The most logical conclusion is J-L283 joined the Tumulus cultural formation at the Middle Danube. But where they did join is open to debate. They could have done so already in the Upper Danube and Alpine area, or in the Middle Danube, or closer to the Adriatic, when the Tumulus culture influenced the region. But my hunch is rather earlier and more Northern than later and more Southern.
From these groups they could have easily spread both to Adriatic Illyrians, as well as other people in Northern Italy which became influenced by the Pannonian region. Including Etruscans, which could have been from a similar source as well.

I would not be surprised if the Tumulus culture contained some L283, but L283 is obviously a lot older than the Tumulus culture. It was already present in the Maros culture at the start of the second Millenium BC, and it also seems quite likely that a spread to Italy and Sardinia would predate the Tumulus culture.

Riverman
08-22-2021, 09:00 PM
I would not be surprised if the Tumulus culture contained some L283, but L283 is obviously a lot older than the Tumulus culture. It was already present in the Maros culture at the start of the second Millenium BC, and it also seems quite likely that a spread to Italy and Sardinia would predate the Tumulus culture.

Quite possible, agreed. I just wanted to stress that they had to participate at least in the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture groups or when these expanded South, because otherwise their spread in later Illyrians would be nearly impossible to explain.

Huban
08-22-2021, 11:43 PM
I would not be surprised if the Tumulus culture contained some L283, but L283 is obviously a lot older than the Tumulus culture. It was already present in the Maros culture at the start of the second Millenium BC, and it also seems quite likely that a spread to Italy and Sardinia would predate the Tumulus culture.


Quite possible, agreed. I just wanted to stress that they had to participate at least in the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture groups or when these expanded South, because otherwise their spread in later Illyrians would be nearly impossible to explain.

Dalmatian J-L283 find belongs to Posušje culture totally independent of Tumulus culture expansion into Pannonia which slightly predated the Posušje expansion. As Posušje culture had even direct links with Maros culture, J-L283 Maros find which is upstream of all Balkan J-L283 points to the vector of expansion unrelated to Tumulus culture.

This Pannonian study also contains an Early Maros sample that is a total outlier in comparison to other Maros samples. This sample seems to be a female and has something like 100 % of Yamnaya ancestry. As Maros was heavy with R-Z2103 probably that would have been haplogroup of this Maros variety. I think studying Maros is the best clue for the J-L283 out there. Genesis of this culture isn't straightforward but it seems some pure Z2103 element played big part in its early genesis. I'll try to find more info on this Maros site later.

PS. The sites in Pannonian study are falling one after another to me.. I have already identified 13 separate EBA/MBA localities in this study, including two early Tumulus culture (one is "very early" Tumulus culture site) sites. Combined with some earlier studies this study basically has the entire Hungarian BA.

vettor
08-23-2021, 01:22 AM
Dalmatian J-L283 find belongs to Posušje culture totally independent of Tumulus culture expansion into Pannonia which slightly predated the Posušje expansion. As Posušje culture had even direct links with Maros culture, J-L283 Maros find which is upstream of all Balkan J-L283 points to the vector of expansion unrelated to Tumulus culture.

This Pannonian study also contains an Early Maros sample that is a total outlier in comparison to other Maros samples. This sample seems to be a female and has something like 100 % of Yamnaya ancestry. As Maros was heavy with R-Z2103 probably that would have been haplogroup of this Maros variety. I think studying Maros is the best clue for the J-L283 out there. Genesis of this culture isn't straightforward but it seems some pure Z2103 element played big part in its early genesis. I'll try to find more info on this Maros site later.

PS. The sites in Pannonian study are falling one after another to me.. I have already identified 13 separate EBA/MBA localities in this study, including two early Tumulus culture (one is "very early" Tumulus culture site) sites. Combined with some earlier studies this study basically has the entire Hungarian BA.

Are you including the Daunian J-L283 sample ORD014 mtdna I5a2 as part of this ?

Huban
08-23-2021, 02:06 AM
Are you including the Daunian J-L283 sample ORD014 mtdna I5a2 as part of this ?

Indirectly, of course as he came from the W.Balkans and his distant ancestors also spread with the Posušje culture.

leonardus
08-23-2021, 11:26 AM
You mix up a lot of things. People, regions, chronology. Sorry, but its a mess. There were no Turkic people in the Carparthians and those you mentioned were later Scytho-Sarmatians. One of the groups which did fused with Daco-Thracians indeed, but that was after they had moved down to the Balkans already.
.
Yes, you're right here. Agatarsi appears there way later that my timeline opinion. Correct. Besides that, all other things are correct.

leonardus
08-23-2021, 11:34 AM
Pelasgians North of Greece? That is rather dubious.
Plus attributing them as proto-Thracians??? :\
You should re-read whichever articles you got this from.
yes, many things were dubious on the first glance but after they were proved correct. Yes, Pa(e)lasgians were north of Greece and in Greece, a vastly multihaplogroup people inhabited the (most of)whole Balkans before being IE. And for that fact they were the proto-proto- on the logical extent of the thracians. Those pallasgians migrated north and come back millenia after under the name of 'thracians'. I read almost all articles and most of them are contradictory. Besides that I don't 'make' my opinions just to be inline with others articles.

leonardus
08-23-2021, 02:25 PM
the Israeli dig of a couple of years ago on the philistines have confirmed they came from eastern Crete

on your sea-peoples ............I have heard of these scenarios
they came from
Crete
coastal asia minor after the fall of troy
Sicily
kaska people from crimea

Without any doubt, looking and interpreting the EXCELLENT egyptians illustrated scene we can find 2 CLEAR DIFFERENT peoples in the 'sea peoples' attack. Just look at theirs armament and mostly on their HELMET. Ones have the distinct FEATHERED HAT and the others (fewest) the REAL HELMET with 2 horns and NOTABLY the underchin strapping. Just ZOOM in the scene and you will be delighted. Also, just like Riverman said, CLEARLY were the Baue II swords and the trap of the egyptians who encircled the sea peoples fleet and purring down a hail of arrows. Notably the egyptians were depicted with theirs battle maces in majority.
Also ONE MORE notably HINT is the sea peoples UNIQUE GOOSE-like ship frontal decorations !!!!!!!!!!
So, finally we can largely point out who were those enigmatic 'sea peoples'.

Bruzmi
08-23-2021, 07:27 PM
How do you know when the ancestors of these samples arrived?


We know that these are the descendants of recent migrants because their autosomal ancestry shows that they have recent Balkan ancestry. If they were in Sardinia for 200+ years (7 generations), more likely than not they would have no autosomal ancestry which links them to the Balkans.

The same is true about every sample which has Balkan autosomal ancestry. Check R474 (600 BC -Central Italy) for example:


Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
Distance: 1.5535% / 0.01553540 | R5P
28.2 CZE_EBA
23.8 HRV_Vucedol
22.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
14.2 DNK_LN
11.8 DNK_BA

The patrilineal ancestor of an individual who has 40%+ Balkan autosomal ancestry as part of a specific profile which J-L283 samples in the Balkans have, can only be a recent migrant.



It doesn't make sense when you use the term Proto-Illyrian. I see no reason why L283 could not play a role in the early stages of the Nuraghic civilization. Proto-Illyrian is a term that belongs later in the IA.


We know that it didn't because J2b-L283 just wasn't there. All of the samples we have postdate the proto-Nuraghic era by about half a millenium.

The date of these samples is the same as that of the Illyrian migrations which reached Italy. They are simply called Illyrians because we know the language they spoke as their descendants wrote it in Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapic_language).



I commented before that it's a bit remarkable that according to you all V13 samples found over a large timespan would all coincidentally be recent arrivals. The same goes for L283.
To me it seems more logical that in the 3d millennium BC L283 was in upper Danube area, or not too far from there. From this location branches could wander off (in the 2nd millennium BC) into Italy, and ultimately Sardinia, and into the (western) Balkan.

I believe that we should restrict ourselves to a data-based approach to explain migrational routes. We can't infer anything by looking at the TMRCA of yfull branches. Individuals who tested and now have X flag may not have even been in X country 200 years ago.

When an E-V13 sample appears in 11th century Scandinavia and has 1/3 Balkan EBA autosomal ancestry and can be basically modeled as an individual with heavy modern Balkan admixture, the most viable and reasonable explanation which doesn't create the necessity to formulate multiple assumptions (Occam's razor) is that this person is the descendant of a recent migrant.

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


By the way, there's a J2b-L283 sample from Öland, Sweden from the same era as the E-V13 sample in Denmark.

Target: VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK346
Distance: 2.7680% / 0.02768014 | R5P
34.2 CZE_EBA
20.2 GRC_Helladic_EBA
17.0 Wales_CA_EBA
15.8 Baltic_EST_BA
12.8 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA

If a sample from a haplogroup mostly found in the Balkans appears in 10th-11th century Sweden as an outlier and he has about 20% Balkan autosomal ancestry along with other ancestries not usually found in medieval Scandinavia (Mallorca_EBA) then the most reasonable explanation is to say that he is the descendant of migrant.

Polska
08-23-2021, 10:35 PM
Actually, I think there’s some confusion here regarding L283 in Sardinia. The L283 found in Sardinia is downstream from older L283 branches not found in the Balkans, including a basal L283. See here https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-L283*/ As you move down the L283 tree, there is Z597. This would be the branch most closely associated with these proto Illyrian folk: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z597/. With the exception of one sample under Z38240, there are no Z597s found in Sardinia. Finding Z38240 in Sardinia is not surprising though, because this lineage is found throughout Italy and probably originated in the NW Balkans very close to present day Italy.

As far as the autosomal dna of L283 Sardinians is concerned, it differs substantially from published and unpublished ancient L283 found in the Balkans. Remember, when people first began to posit that L283 was somehow tied to early IE expansions across the PCS (in the case of L283, probably from NW Caucasus prior to Steppe), the autosomal composition of the L283 Sardinians was used to refute this claim because they had no discernible steppe ancestry and resembled local Sardinians who had been there for quite some time (high EEF, some WHG ancestry). These Sardinian studies tied L283 specifically to the Nuragic culture there. And it’s true: to have their autosomal profiles, they were very likely there in Sardinia north of 200 years, which places them well within the Nuragic era. These Nuragic people had ties to northern Italy and the Alps, where older L283 lineages are found. Going back in time I see Nuragic —>Bonnanaro —>Polada —> Unetice —> Eastern Bell Beaker —> Western Yamnaya —> Kemi Oba Culture —> Maykop.

Regardless, this is a great thread. One of the best on Anthrogenica. Lots of fresh perspectives and very interesting theories regarding the origins of E-V13. I’ve learned a lot from reading many of the posts here. Hopefully we can get a similar thread going in the L283 sub forum speculating about the path L283 took between 4000 - 2000 BC en route to Pannonia from area of NW Caucasus.

Huban
08-23-2021, 10:51 PM
When it comes to these newer samples that include V13, many of them are migrants indeed. This Viking sample already in a study when it came on their calculator had 34.6 % of Balkan ancestry and around 36.3 % of Polish ancestry and just 12.3 % of Danish component. And indeed choosing the most realistic approximates for him shows this, which is not what Bruzmi did here - it is methodologically wrong to go for very old EBA samples when there are samples much closer in time, who are actually indicative of various Iron Age-Late Antiquity populations even if it may show better "fit", because you are trying to guess his origins generations ago, not 5000 years ago..

Anyway taking right samples does show heavy Slavic and Balkan component, so in many ways VK362 resembles a Serb/Croat/Bosniak I suppose. And also to be noted there are other Viking samples with heavy Slavic auDNA component and even classic Slavic hg's..

However ofc there are V13 clades that aren't Late Antiquity and later migrants, and I know of such clades, for ex. a basal Z5017 clade with clear LBA presence in Scandinavia judging by multiple samples..
I know some non-Balkan clades that have very unique STR profiles and therefore I can predict based on thousands of Balkan V13 samples that such a clade is very unlikely to be found in the Balkans.

So all samples should be analyzed on a case by case basis.

Huban
08-23-2021, 10:56 PM
Actually, I think there’s some confusion here regarding L283 in Sardinia. The L283 found in Sardinia is downstream from older L283 branches not found in the Balkans, including a basal L283. See here https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-L283*/ As you move down the L283 tree, there is Z597. This would be the branch most closely associated with these proto Illyrian folk: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z597/. With the exception of one sample under Z38240, there are no Z597s found in Sardinia. Finding Z38240 in Sardinia is not surprising though, because this lineage is found throughout Italy and probably originated in the NW Balkans very close to present day Italy.

As far as the autosomal dna of L283 Sardinians is concerned, it differs substantially from published and unpublished ancient L283 found in the Balkans. Remember, when people first began to posit that L283 was somehow tied to early IE expansions across the PCP (in the case of L283, probably from NW Caucasus prior to Steppe), the autosomal composition of the L283 Sardinians was used to refute this claim because they had no discernible steppe ancestry and resembled local Sardinians who had been there for quite some time (high EEF, some WHG ancestry). These Sardinian studies tied L283 specifically to the Nuragic culture there. And it’s true: to have their autosomal profiles, they were very likely there in Sardinia north of 200 years, which places them well within the Nuragic era. These Nuragic people had ties to northern Italy and the Alps, where older L283 lineages are found. Going back in time I see Nuragic —>Bonnanaro —>Polada —> Unetice —> Eastern Bell Beaker —> Western Yamnaya —> Kemi Oba Culture —> Maykop.

Regardless, this is a great thread. One of the best on Anthrogenica. Lots of fresh perspectives and very interesting theories regarding the origins of E-V13. I’ve learned a lot from reading many of the posts here. Hopefully we can get a similar thread going in the L283 sub forum speculating about the path L283 took between 4000 - 2000 BC en route to Pannonia from area of NW Caucasus.

Indeed the autosomal results show a trace of some foreign ancestry so they must have been there for some time prior. And as their clade is quite distinct from clades which presumably expanded from the Maros sample, and as Nuragic clade is North of Maros sample, it does look clear that this clade had it's own path.

Btw there looks to be also an EBA 2000 BC J2b sample in Pannonian study and I don't think this is the old Maros sample.. I believe this sample "seals it" in favor of IE expansion of J-L283..

Riverman
08-23-2021, 11:01 PM
Indeed the autosomal results show a trace of some foreign ancestry so they must have been there for some time prior. And as their clade is quite distinct from clades which presumably expanded from the Maros sample, and as Nuragic clade is North of Maros sample, it does look clear that this clade had it's own path.

Btw there looks to be also an EBA 2000 BC J2b sample in Pannonian study and I don't think this is the old Maros sample.. I believe this sample "seals it" in favor of IE expansion of J-L283..

The Pannonian study might seal a lot of things, since Pannonia and the Carpathian region was absolutely instrumental in the Bronze Age and worked as a hub. A lot of what will pop up elsewhere later went through this hub, while at the same time some groups were just swallowed in this shark tank.

Trojet
08-23-2021, 11:20 PM
Btw there looks to be also an EBA 2000 BC J2b sample in Pannonian study and I don't think this is the old Maros sample.. I believe this sample "seals it" in favor of IE expansion of J-L283..

Since the dating is the same, it might be the Maros sample (MOK15). Sometimes they use samples from other studies for reference/comparisons.

What other details can you share about it (PM would be fine if you can't share here) and what makes you think it "seals it"? Given the location and dating, I don't see it having any more significance than MOK15 in this regard. While evidence points it was very likely incorporated into I-E expansions as some of us have been saying for years, to really "seal it", I think we'd need an EBA or older J-L283 sample from one of the Steppe or Steppe derived cultures (ex. the rumored Chalcolithic sample from Moldova).

Huban
08-24-2021, 12:58 AM
Since the dating is the same, it might be the Maros sample (MOK15). Sometimes they use samples from other studies for reference/comparisons.

What other details can you share about it (PM would be fine if you can't share here) and what makes you think it "seals it"? Given the location and dating, I don't see it having any more significance than MOK15 in this regard. While evidence points it was very likely incorporated into I-E expansions as some of us have been saying for years, to really "seal it", I think we'd need an EBA or older J-L283 sample from one of the Steppe or Steppe derived cultures (ex. the rumored Chalcolithic sample from Moldova).

Actually they do utilize no less than 5 old Maros samples from Serbia. But this site is not from Serbia. I assumed it is the site is from where old RISE373 and RISE374 Maros samples are (few km SE of Szeged) as on first glance they look very similar, but it seems I was wrong to assume that, by closer inspection this site is few km's NE of Szeged or about 7-8 km north from the old site..

Another clue is that per diagram this sample has 36.0 % of Yamnaya Samara derived ancestry, I don't think the old sample has that much, just tried G25 Barcin-Yamnaya comparison he gets 31.0, but ofc these cannot be translated literally if you take WHG in, G25 will prefer 30.6 of WHG and no Yamnaya ancestry for MOK15.. Also looking at the PCA plot with Serbian Mokrin samples, it doesn't look they get 36 % of Samara derived there.. Also there are no numerous R-Z2103 samples with him of the same age and auDNA and they dominated Mokrin.. Why did they choose just this one J2b sample of them all? It seems this is a new Maros culture site from Hungary.. So I guess likely scenario is that the J2b sample is from there (or it is MOK15) so nothing exceptionally new.. On their diagram where J2b sample is there I instantly recognize one IA sample from the older study and a lot of Neolithic samples so some older samples are there..

My dating seems generally correct, the old site has it at 2136-1619 BC avg. being 1877 BC, while mine is 1902 BC. About Early Maros outlier with a female of 100 % Yamnaya ancestry I have it at 2043 BC.

About "sealing" I thought he might be from some other area like maybe Czech republic or maybe NE Hungary at first glance, so my "seals it" has most to do with that.. But I guess that is not likely at all..

Btw. remember the Ljubljana culture that we used to talk about as being maybe related to J-L283? They even tested the Ljubljana culture from Slovenia here! My dating 2380 BC, not 100 % sure yet but it seems they carry R-Z2103 (logical as it is supposed to derive from Vučedol in big part), and with definitely a quite reduced Steppe level and more EEF admixture.. Ljubljana site is much older than J2b find so I guess any possibility of Ljubljana - J-L283 relation is out of the window..

Huban
08-24-2021, 02:15 AM
Another clue is that per diagram this sample has 36.0 % of Yamnaya Samara derived ancestry, I don't think the old sample has that much, just tried G25 Barcin-Yamnaya comparison he gets 31.0, but ofc these cannot be translated literally if you take WHG in, G25 will prefer 30.6 of WHG and no Yamnaya ancestry for MOK15.. Also looking at the PCA plot with Serbian Mokrin samples, it doesn't look they get 36 % of Samara derived there.. Also there are no numerous R-Z2103 samples with him of the same age and auDNA and they dominated Mokrin.. Why did they choose just this one J2b sample of them all? It seems this is a new Maros culture site from Hungary.. So I guess likely scenario is that the J2b sample is from there (or it is MOK15) so nothing exceptionally new.. On their diagram where J2b sample is there I instantly recognize one IA sample from the older study and a lot of Neolithic samples so some older samples are there..


Sorry used the wrong Barcin G25, C which is not purely EEf instead of Barcin N...

Older EIA sample present in this study is IR1, Cimmerian, in diagram he has 56.0 % of Samara derived ancestry.

His G25 on BarcinN-Samara

Target: HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
Distance: 5.8323% / 0.05832273
64.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
35.8 TUR_Barcin_N

In this study the bar is higher for Samara ancestry.. 8.2 % more in G25

now MOK15

Target: SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK15
Distance: 6.8521% / 0.06852106
57.0 TUR_Barcin_N
43.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

So similar to this J2b adjusted for differences as per IR1.. Many Mokrin samples get similar figures. So still it could be MOK15, on PCA plot Mokrin samples are there but also near them some unidentified "Hungary EBA_MBA" are there, so these could be from the new Maros site, as although Mokrin isn't marked, I find it hard to believe they wrongly marked other site instead of Mokrin, all other locations seem perfect..

Bruzmi
08-24-2021, 03:33 AM
These Sardinian studies tied L283 specifically to the Nuragic culture there. And it’s true: to have their autosomal profiles, they were very likely there in Sardinia north of 200 years, which places them well within the Nuragic era.

They all lived in the Nuragic era, but what I was replying to is the theory that they could have been Proto-Nuragic. Even if they arrived in the 13th-14th century BC in Sardinia, they found the Nuragic culture in its booming phase. Su Nuraxi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_Nuraxi_(Barumini)) was already standing since the 17th century BC.

Economic development in my opinion is what caused the arrival of their ancestors in the first place. All samples which have non-Sardinian ancestry have roughly the same levels of non-local ancestry as the J2b-L283 ones(5-20%), which suggests that their ancestors arrived in Sardinia in the same era.


When it comes to these newer samples that include V13, many of them are migrants indeed. This Viking sample already in a study when it came on their calculator had 34.6 % of Balkan ancestry and around 36.3 % of Polish ancestry and just 12.3 % of Danish component. And indeed choosing the most realistic approximates for him shows this, which is not what Bruzmi did here - it is methodologically wrong to go for very old EBA samples when there are samples much closer in time, who are actually indicative of various Iron Age-Late Antiquity populations even if it may show better "fit", because you are trying to guess his origins generations ago, not 5000 years ago..


It's a step-by-step backtracking process. I cross-referenced an EBA model with a contemporaneous model for each case and then I compared the EBA model with a Neolithic model. Available EBA sampling allow us to have to a model which covers the entire western Eurasian sphere in this era. Sampling from later eras doesn't cover such a large geographical region. By doing so, we can see which contemporaneous groups a sample most resembles and by checking their relation to EBA sampling we can get a much clearer picture about its ancestry and migrational routes in each era.



So all samples should be analyzed on a case by case basis.


Fully agreed. For modern individual samples, it means that we should rely more on searching for their historical background and less on their flag position on yfull.

ShpataEMadhe
08-24-2021, 10:10 PM
Why is no one talking about j2b in the correct section? Can we leave this discussion to v13 and go populate the j2b forum as it looks untouched

Riverman
08-25-2021, 01:57 PM
Here some numbers from the Turkish study for E-V13 by region:
Balkan: 3/35 = 8,57 %
West Anatolia: 3/45 = 6,67 %
North Anatolia: 3/92 = 3,26 %
South Anatolia: 1/40 = 2,5 %
Eastern Anatolia: 2/110 = 1,82 %
Central Anatolia: = 0 %

Thread about the study and links to the paper:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24591-The-genetic-structure-of-Turkey

Balkan and Western Anatolia being pretty close, the small sample size considered. There is in any case a clear trend from West to East, from areas settled by Greeks to the rest. And that's without the Anatolian Greeks, which were expelled, but appear on YFull occosionally as private testers, in which the frequency is supposed to have been still higher! Also don't forget the not that big, but still significant, especially in Western Anatolia, Turkic settlement. This leaves us with the conclusion that in pre-Turkic times Western Anatolia was most likely significantly more E-V13 than it is today.

Aspar
08-25-2021, 04:33 PM
Here some numbers from the Turkish study for E-V13 by region:
Balkan: 3/35 = 8,57 %
West Anatolia: 3/45 = 6,67 %
North Anatolia: 3/92 = 3,26 %
South Anatolia: 1/40 = 2,5 %
Eastern Anatolia: 2/110 = 1,82 %
Central Anatolia: = 0 %

Thread about the study and links to the paper:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24591-The-genetic-structure-of-Turkey

Balkan and Western Anatolia being pretty close, the small sample size considered. There is in any case a clear trend from West to East, from areas settled by Greeks to the rest. And that's without the Anatolian Greeks, which were expelled, but appear on YFull occosionally as private testers, in which the frequency is supposed to have been still higher! Also don't forget the not that big, but still significant, especially in Western Anatolia, Turkic settlement. This leaves us with the conclusion that in pre-Turkic times Western Anatolia was most likely significantly more E-V13 than it is today.

And this is the detailed yDNA picture of the Armenians, thanks to the Armenian DNA Project administrator who shared it with me a while ago:

https://i.postimg.cc/3wGkhqV7/Armenians-y-DNA.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Of course, the Armenians aren't an Anatolian population but a South Caucasian one, however this gives a good insight of the yDNA picture in the Near Eastern region and goes to show the way E-V13 progressively lessens as you go more and more to the East.

Bruzmi
08-25-2021, 04:36 PM
Here some numbers from the Turkish study for E-V13 by region:
Balkan: 3/35 = 8,57 %
West Anatolia: 3/45 = 6,67 %
North Anatolia: 3/92 = 3,26 %
South Anatolia: 1/40 = 2,5 %
Eastern Anatolia: 2/110 = 1,82 %
Central Anatolia: = 0 %

Thread about the study and links to the paper:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24591-The-genetic-structure-of-Turkey

Balkan and Western Anatolia being pretty close, the small sample size considered. There is in any case a clear trend from West to East, from areas settled by Greeks to the rest. And that's without the Anatolian Greeks, which were expelled, but appear on YFull occosionally as private testers, in which the frequency is supposed to have been still higher! Also don't forget the not that big, but still significant, especially in Western Anatolia, Turkic settlement. This leaves us with the conclusion that in pre-Turkic times Western Anatolia was most likely significantly more E-V13 than it is today.

First of all, it's wrong to group individuals into subgroups which aren't used by the study itself because it can create a narrative which isn't supported by the data. Secondly, it's arbitrary to propose that E-V13 presence was higher in antiquity or that it was spread by ancient Greeks based on these results.

In fact, E-V13 presence is so low (even lower than I-Y3120 presence in some areas) that it most certainly didn't expand with any mass population movement in antiquity.

Actual figures by the study spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pHvOMVZPtNDuwVabSXD7OxdFMTYQGvfjq7Z-L6IiII0)as they are being updated:

Eastern Black Sea:
E-M123: 2
E-V22:0
E-V13:0

Anatolia:
E-M123: 4
E-V22: 1
E-V13: 2

Eastern/Transcaucasian:
E-M123/V22/V13:0

Azerbaijan:
E-M123/V22/V13:0

Balkans:
E-M123:1
E-V22:0
E-V13:4

Albanians:
E-V13: 1

Kurds:
E-M123:6
E-V22:1
E-V13:3

Mixed:
E-V13:2 (one close to Azeris, the other has Balkan ancestry)

In other words, 50% of the samples which have been added so far (n=~450) are of recent Balkan ancestry. At this point, this % is not going to change, nor is the very low % of E-V13 in all regions going to increase.

I think that it's time to abandon any idea that E-V13 was brought to Anatolia by ancient Greek migrations. In fact, it never really reached Anatolia in antiquity as part of any mass movement.

Riverman
08-25-2021, 04:46 PM
First of all, it's wrong to group individuals into subgroups which aren't used by the study itself because it can create a narrative which isn't supported by the data.

What are you talking about? The spreadsheet you constantly refer to is being created by amateurs (which is great!), including the ethnic admixture estimates, while the spreadsheet I'm using comes from the actual study:
https://www.pnas.org/highwire/filestream/995866/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/pnas.2026076118.sd01.xlsx

The spreadsheet and the map (look into the thread) are from the study:
https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=46189&d=1629753457
https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=46189&d=1629753457

Did you even care to take a look into the actual paper? The assignment by admixture results is done by great amateurs, the data I'm using, including the number and region for the samples, are all from the study's spreadsheet.


Secondly, it's arbitrary to propose that E-V13 presence was higher in antiquity or that it was spread by ancient Greeks based on these results.


In the other thread I wrote that I don't know how it spread for sure (I might add here, probably not the same for all subclades), but that it spread in Antiquity, in the Greek settlement regions and not much beyond. Now you can guess around how that did happen, but its a fact. Another fact is that E-V13 must have been higher, because the samples from Anatolian Greeks suggest so and the Turkic replaced a portion of the total population, while introducing no E-V13. So by logical conclusion, its quite likely, unless there was a big migration of Balkan high E-V13 people into Anatolia, but only to those areas which were Greek before in bigger numbers, that V13 was higher before, in Antiquity.


In fact, E-V13 presence is so low (even lower than I-Y3120 presence in some areas) that it most certainly didn't expand with any mass population movement in antiquity.

The percentages are done from the numbers of the study and by the regions of the study.


Actual figures by the study spreadsheet as they are updated:

See above, the real numbers are those I'm using, take a look into the study's spreadsheet: https://www.pnas.org/highwire/filestream/995866/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/pnas.2026076118.sd01.xlsx

And check it for yourself.

Bruzmi
08-25-2021, 04:53 PM
In the other thread I wrote that I don't know how it spread for sure (I might add here, probably not the same for all subclades), but that it spread in Antiquity, in the Greek settlement regions and not much beyond. Now you can guess around how that did happen, but its a fact. Another fact is that E-V13 must have been higher, because the samples from Anatolian Greeks suggest so and the Turkic replaced a portion of the total population, while introducing no E-V13. So by logical conclusion, its quite likely, unless there was a big migration of Balkan high E-V13 people into Anatolia, but only to those areas which were Greek before in bigger numbers, that V13 was higher before, in Antiquity.

It's arbitrary to propose any of the above. There's no reason why we should assume that E-V13 "must have been higher in antiquity".

@Riverman we're using the same figures. The difference is that the spreadsheet I'm using is actually classifying them according to their ancestry and also includes their yfull id.

It means that we can see who is of Albanian, Pomak, Torbesh, Bulgarian, Bosnian etc ancestry. The spreadsheet you're using has no such information and that's a problem because it may lead anyone to believe that an Albanian/Torbesh/Pomak whose ancestor migrated to Anatolia is the descendant of an ancient Greek.

For example:

This individual (https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-BY174450/) is an Albanian. Not knowing his ancestry might lead to arbitrary conclusions just based on his geographical location.

Aspar
08-25-2021, 05:08 PM
It's arbitrary to propose any of the above. There's no reason why we should assume that E-V13 "must have been higher in antiquity".

@Riverman we're using the same figures. The difference is that the spreadsheet I'm using is actually classifying them according to their ancestry and also includes their yfull id.

It means that we can see who is of Albanian, Pomak, Torbesh, Bulgarian, Bosnian etc ancestry. The spreadsheet you're using has no such information and that's a problem because it may lead anyone to believe that an Albanian/Torbesh/Pomak whose ancestor migrated to Anatolia is the descendant of an ancient Greek.

For example:

This individual (https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-BY174450/) is an Albanian. Not knowing his ancestry might lead to arbitrary conclusions just based on his geographical location.

You are manipulating again as with the Viminacium case (where you said that the population of Viminacium according to the inscription was predominantly of Dardanian origin) where you thought no one was going to check the information you spread.

Now for your information, the Eurogenes K13 of the sample you claimed is an Albanian:

Kit QT4440675

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 24.99
2 West_Med 24.54
3 North_Atlantic 19.48
4 Baltic 14.33
5 West_Asian 12.13
6 Red_Sea 2.72
7 Amerindian 1.24
8 Siberian 0.56

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Greek_Thessaly 4.38
2 Central_Greek 7.3
3 West_Sicilian 7.86
4 Italian_Abruzzo 7.9
5 Tuscan 8.53
6 East_Sicilian 8.58
7 South_Italian 10.54
8 Bulgarian 11.54
9 Ashkenazi 11.87
10 North_Italian 12.72
11 Romanian 13.47
12 Algerian_Jewish 16.53
13 Italian_Jewish 16.77
14 Sephardic_Jewish 17.16
15 Serbian 17.61
16 Spanish_Extremadura 21.06
17 Tunisian_Jewish 21.1
18 Portuguese 21.13
19 Libyan_Jewish 21.48
20 Spanish_Andalucia 21.85

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 88.5% Greek_Thessaly + 11.5% Sardinian @ 2.2
2 77.5% Greek_Thessaly + 22.5% Tuscan @ 3.77
3 91.2% Greek_Thessaly + 8.8% Spanish_Andalucia @ 3.86
4 76.8% Greek_Thessaly + 23.2% West_Sicilian @ 3.86
5 94.8% Greek_Thessaly + 5.2% French_Basque @ 3.87
6 85.6% Greek_Thessaly + 14.4% North_Italian @ 3.88
7 93.4% Greek_Thessaly + 6.6% Spanish_Aragon @ 3.96
8 92.9% Greek_Thessaly + 7.1% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 3.99
9 84.6% Greek_Thessaly + 15.4% South_Italian @ 4
10 93.8% Greek_Thessaly + 6.2% Southwest_French @ 4.02
11 92.8% Greek_Thessaly + 7.2% Spanish_Valencia @ 4.03
12 93.6% Greek_Thessaly + 6.4% Spanish_Cantabria @ 4.03
13 92.5% Greek_Thessaly + 7.5% Spanish_Extremadura @ 4.05
14 93.2% Greek_Thessaly + 6.8% Spanish_Murcia @ 4.08
15 82.5% Greek_Thessaly + 17.5% Italian_Abruzzo @ 4.14
16 80.9% Greek_Thessaly + 19.1% Central_Greek @ 4.15
17 94.2% Greek_Thessaly + 5.8% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 4.15
18 94.3% Greek_Thessaly + 5.7% Spanish_Cataluna @ 4.16
19 93.9% Greek_Thessaly + 6.1% Portuguese @ 4.17
20 94.3% Greek_Thessaly + 5.7% Spanish_Galicia @ 4.18


MDLP K23b Oracle Rev 2014 Sep 16

Kit QT4440675

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 33.76
2 European_Early_Farmers 25.92
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 18.31
4 Near_East 8.53
5 South_Central_Asian 5.98
6 Ancestral_Altaic 2.77
7 North_African 2.64
8 Tungus-Altaic 0.8
9 East_Siberian 0.69
10 Paleo_Siberian 0.59

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Sicilian_West ( ) 5.01
2 Greek_Northwest ( ) 5.28
3 Sicilian_Trapani ( ) 5.86
4 Italian_Abruzzo ( ) 5.91
5 Kosovar ( ) 6.71
6 Sicilian_Agrigento ( ) 6.95
7 Italian_Tuscan ( ) 7.7
8 Maltese ( ) 7.71
9 Sicilian_Siracusa ( ) 8.05
10 Ashkenazi_Jew ( ) 8.15
11 Greek_Peloponnesos ( ) 8.76
12 Bulgarian ( ) 8.98
13 Montenegrian ( ) 9.08
14 Greek_Thessaly ( ) 9.2
15 Serb_Serbia ( ) 9.27
16 Italian_North ( ) 9.41
17 Macedonian ( ) 9.67
18 Albanian_Tirana ( ) 9.7
19 French_Jew ( ) 10.09
20 Italian_Piedmont ( ) 10.1

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 58.9% Greek_Islands ( ) + 41.1% Welsh ( ) @ 1.55
2 62.4% Greek_Islands ( ) + 37.6% Orcadian ( ) @ 1.57
3 58.9% Greek_Islands ( ) + 41.1% CEU ( ) @ 1.61
4 59.2% Greek_Islands ( ) + 40.8% British ( ) @ 1.69
5 57.9% Greek_Islands ( ) + 42.1% English_Cornwall_GBR ( ) @ 1.74
6 86.1% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 13.9% Tatar_Mishar ( ) @ 1.74
7 61.4% Greek_Islands ( ) + 38.6% Scottish_Argyll_Bute_GBR ( ) @ 1.78
8 82.3% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 17.7% Moksha ( ) @ 1.84
9 56.6% Greek_Islands ( ) + 43.4% English_Kent_GBR ( ) @ 1.87
10 64.1% Cretan ( ) + 35.9% French ( ) @ 1.91
11 84.6% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 15.4% Tatar-Kazan ( ) @ 1.96
12 82.1% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 17.9% Russian_Meshtchyora ( ) @ 1.97
13 83.7% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 16.3% Mordovian ( ) @ 1.97
14 55.4% Greek_Islands ( ) + 44.6% English ( ) @ 1.99
15 84% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 16% Erzya ( ) @ 2.03
16 59.9% Greek_Smyrna ( ) + 40.1% English_Kent_GBR ( ) @ 2.03
17 57.3% Greek_Islands ( ) + 42.7% North_European ( ) @ 2.05
18 82.9% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 17.1% Russian-Upper-Volga ( ) @ 2.05
19 84.9% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 15.1% Russian_Vologda ( ) @ 2.07
20 84.7% Italian_Abruzzo ( ) + 15.3% Tatar-Mishar ( ) @ 2.09

You thought no one is going to check?

If anything, this sample looks Greek, NOT Albanian according to Gedmatch!

Riverman
08-25-2021, 05:13 PM
It's arbitrary to propose any of the above. There's no reason why we should assume that E-V13 "must have been higher in antiquity".

There are lineages of Greeks which were expelled from Anatolia and those are E-V13, while we know that the incoming Turkic people had, in all likelihood, no E-V13 in their paternal mix. What do you conclude from these two facts? That it increased because people carrying V13 being expelled and new ones did immigrate which had a frequency of probably zero? Or what are you suggesting instead?


@Riverman we're using the same figures. The difference is that the spreadsheet I'm using is actually classifying them according to their ancestry and also includes their yfull id.

We don't use the same figures, because otherwise you wouldn't have posted 3 times that there is no E-V13 in Anatolia, going by the results of the study - which is wrong. The spreadsheet done by active amateur researchers is great, but its not the primary source and such admixture proportions aren't always reliable, especially in more mixed individuals.


It means that we can see who is of Albanian, Pomak, Torbesh, Bulgarian, Bosnian etc ancestry.

Yes, its nice that people are doing that, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote before. And I have big doubts that all Western Anatolian and especially Northern Anatolian samples (assignment by the study authors) will be from recent Balkan migrants.


The spreadsheet you're using has no such information and that's a problem because it may lead anyone to believe that an Albanian/Torbesh/Pomak whose ancestor migrated to Anatolia is the descendant of an ancient Greek.

We have 3 samples from Western Anatolia and 3 from the North. Unfortunately the spreadsheet didn't cover all of them, but some. Like this case below E-BY4600 from Northern Anatolia:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y90461/ = TR-N85 from the study = amateur analysis = Turk_Western_Central_Anatolia @ 4,980582 (matches from Kayseri)

Does he look like recent Balkan migrants to you? We can discuss every single sample if you like, there are not that many anyway.

Even the "unknown region" sample TR-U67 = SRS8752453 = E-Z16988* = Turk_Southern_Central_Anatolia @ 2,188584
So this unknown sample TR-U67 is in all likelihood an Anatolian Turk as well and no recent migrant, which adds to the total number of Anatolian E-V13.

The others are, as far as they are on YFull:

Balkan:
TR-B33 Male H1+152 E1b1b1a1b1a
TR-B34 Male H44b E1b1b1a1b1a
TR-B35 Male N1b1a E1b1b1a1b1a

Eastern Anatolia
TR-E105 Male J1d6 E1b1b1a1b1a9 = https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC94882*/ (Kurdish Iranian, related subclade from Iraq, upstream split between Iranian and Northern-Central European)
TR-E106 Male G2a2a E1b1b1a1b1a

Northern Anatolia (see comments above):
TR-N85 Male H1c13 E1b1b1a1b1a6~ = https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y90461/
TR-N86 Male HV1a1 E1b1b1a1b1a
TR-N87 Male HV1b3b E1b1b1a1b1a

Southern Anatolia:
TR-S39 Male J1c2e1 E1b1b1a1b1a

Western Anatolia:
TR-W50 Male V7a E1b1b1a1b1a6a1~ = https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988*/
TR-W51 Male H2a5b E1b1b1a1b1a
TR-W52 Male H6a1a2a E1b1b1a1b1a

Unkown:
TR-U67 Male HV4a2a E1b1b1a1b1a6a1~ = https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988*/ (Anatolian origin, see above)
TR-U68 Male H6a1a E1b1b1a1b1a10a2g~ = https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241*/ (Balkan origin, acc. to admixture analysis)

rafc
08-25-2021, 05:28 PM
Here some numbers from the Turkish study for E-V13 by region:
Balkan: 3/35 = 8,57 %
West Anatolia: 3/45 = 6,67 %
North Anatolia: 3/92 = 3,26 %
South Anatolia: 1/40 = 2,5 %
Eastern Anatolia: 2/110 = 1,82 %
Central Anatolia: = 0 %

Thread about the study and links to the paper:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24591-The-genetic-structure-of-Turkey

Balkan and Western Anatolia being pretty close, the small sample size considered. There is in any case a clear trend from West to East, from areas settled by Greeks to the rest. And that's without the Anatolian Greeks, which were expelled, but appear on YFull occosionally as private testers, in which the frequency is supposed to have been still higher! Also don't forget the not that big, but still significant, especially in Western Anatolia, Turkic settlement. This leaves us with the conclusion that in pre-Turkic times Western Anatolia was most likely significantly more E-V13 than it is today.

Thanks for posting this. I took a look at the samples:
Balkan:
SRS8752563: this sample gets classified as Albanian(?), that doesn't seem to make so much sense (distance also seems big). The haplogroup (E-BY174450) doesn't seem very Albanian, but more eastern-Balkan, which would fit ok with the location. Timing wise this clade is a bit difficult to pin down. Top down it would seem not younger than 2000BC, but bottom up it appears not much older than 1000BC.

SRS8752368: this sample gets classified as Eastern-Balkans, which fits the location. It sits at the root of BY5022, a group of which I commented before that it's Eastern-Balkans and has a sizable presence in Middle-East and Arabian countries.

?????????: there is one sample missing here (TR-B35). I guess some issue with the BAM file.

West-Anatolia:
?????????: there is one sample missing here that is Z16988 (TR-W50). I guess some issue with the BAM file.

SRS8752742: Also classified as Eastern Balkans. Shares a clade with a Greek from the Cyclades which would make sense. They splitted in late antiquity.

SRS8752650: classified as mixed (east+west Balkans). Sample seems to be L241*, so likely quite old split.

North Anatolia:
SRS8752440: classified as Anatolian Turk. Sample belongs to BY4600, hard to pin this one down.

SRS8752666: classified as mixed (but apparently closest to Azerbijani/Black sea). Is in Y167794 clade with a Serbian, would have splitted in the early middle ages. Might be a descendant of a Western Balkanite that was moved here by Byzantines to repopulate the area?

SRS8752468: classified as Kurd/Zaza. He's an Y3183*, so likely not a recent migrant. He would fit the bill of the old haplogroup in exotic population.

South-Anatolia:
SRS8752365: classified as Eastern Balkan. Maybe a recent movement from North(eastern) Turkey, or maybe these oracles aren't that good. He sits at the root of Y19508, which would fit perfectly for someone from Turkish Balkan. Note that Y19508 also has old Lebanese/Syrian branches.

Eastern-Anatolia:
SRS8752143: classified as Kurd/Zaza, Y145455, a clade I discussed earlier as having many Middle-Eastern/Arabian members.

SRS8752729: classified as Kurd/Zaza, BY6041, a subclade of BY5022, which I discussed earlier as having many Middle-Eastern/Arabian members.

Some observations: recent, very populous Balkan clades are completely missing (think BY4459 etc.). So this implies that if V13 came from the Balkans to Turkey, it did so before (or at best in) the Early Middle ages. Kurds have, as might be expected, older groups that we also find in the Middle east and Arabian countries.

23abc
08-25-2021, 05:37 PM
.

Gedmatch calculators are not a solid way to verify ancestry. Variation within even endogamous populations can have up to 10% distance between two samples which thereotically should be plotted as identical based on verified paper research. The correct method for determining recent ancestral roots is via relative matches, and if you bothered to check that kits matches with one-to-many, you would have seen the top matches are all Albanians.

Aspar
08-25-2021, 05:51 PM
Gedmatch calculators are not a solid way to verify ancestry. Variation within even endogamous populations can have up to 10% distance between two samples which thereotically should be plotted as identical based on verified paper research. The correct method for determining recent ancestral roots is via relative matches, and if you bothered to check that kits matches with one-to-many, you would have seen the top matches are all Albanians.

I did bother and his top 1 and top 3 matches aren't Albanians what so ever. In fact, if you check the matches of his first match, there are quite some many Turks, Greeks and Bulgarians. I've been in this staff for quite long and I didn't forgot the matches, that's the first thing I've checked. Plus, his yDNA doesn't have close Albanian matches although he has some in his autosomal. This might indicate that the individual is highly mixed and with probable roots from the Balkans...

23abc
08-25-2021, 06:15 PM
.

First match, common shared matches have surnames originating in Kosovo.

Second match, common matches include Albanian surnames.

Fourth/Fifth matches are Albanian.

Sixth match, common matches include Albanians.

...

Even if some of those samples aren't fully Albanian (which is my bad for not clarifying), they all can be connected through Albanian links via shared matches. Not to mention a bunch of Arbëreshë and Arvanite matches can be found on the top relatives list also (not via shared matches, but still important to consider), suggesting the connection between this sample and those matches is through Albanian ancestry.

Aspar
08-25-2021, 06:46 PM
First match, common shared matches have surnames originating in Kosovo.

Second match, common matches include Albanian surnames.

Fourth/Fifth matches are Albanian.

Sixth match, common matches include Albanians.

...

Even if some of those samples aren't fully Albanian (which is my bad for not clarifying), they all can be connected through Albanian links via shared matches. Not to mention a bunch of Arbëreshë and Arvanite matches can be found on the top relatives list also (not via shared matches, but still important to consider), suggesting the connection between this sample and those matches is through Albanian ancestry.

Did you even check the first match with kit M239916? What kind of Albanian matches you are talking about? This sample has matches with names such as Ercü; O.bozer; burcinkesik; which are clearly Turkish. And other matches with Bulgarian names such as valentina koceva; and bulgarian e-mails such as @abv.bg.

This is his/her K13:

Kit M239916

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 21.07
2 North_Atlantic 21.02
3 East_Med 20.98
4 West_Med 17.2
5 West_Asian 11.44
6 Red_Sea 3.43
7 East_Asian 2.86
8 Siberian 1.55
9 Oceanian 0.47

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 4.24
2 Romanian 5.81
3 Greek_Thessaly 7.51
4 Serbian 9.54
5 Italian_Abruzzo 13.45
6 Tuscan 13.61
7 Central_Greek 13.83
8 West_Sicilian 14.93
9 East_Sicilian 15.01
10 Moldavian 15.15
11 North_Italian 15.39
12 Ashkenazi 16.4
13 Hungarian 17.69
14 South_Italian 18.13
15 Croatian 18.21
16 Austrian 20.22
17 Portuguese 21.62
18 French 22.11
19 East_German 22.27
20 Spanish_Galicia 22.35

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 84.1% Greek_Thessaly + 15.9% La_Brana-1 @ 2.69
2 72% Central_Greek + 28% Finnish @ 2.74
3 96% Bulgarian + 4% Tu @ 2.81
4 96.2% Bulgarian + 3.8% Japanese @ 2.82
5 96% Bulgarian + 4% Xibo @ 2.83
6 96.3% Bulgarian + 3.7% Naxi @ 2.84
7 96.3% Bulgarian + 3.7% Yizu @ 2.84
8 96.1% Bulgarian + 3.9% Hezhen @ 2.86
9 72.6% Central_Greek + 27.4% East_Finnish @ 2.9
10 96.7% Bulgarian + 3.3% Tujia @ 2.91
11 96.7% Bulgarian + 3.3% Miaozu @ 2.94
12 96.8% Bulgarian + 3.2% She @ 2.95
13 72.4% Central_Greek + 27.6% Estonian @ 2.97
14 96% Bulgarian + 4% Tibeto-Burman_Burmese @ 2.97
15 75.9% Serbian + 24.1% Cyprian @ 2.97
16 96.7% Bulgarian + 3.3% Lahu @ 2.99
17 60.8% Moldavian + 39.2% Sephardic_Jewish @ 3
18 73.3% Central_Greek + 26.7% La_Brana-1 @ 3.04
19 60.9% Moldavian + 39.1% Italian_Jewish @ 3.05
20 65.4% Central_Greek + 34.6% Ukrainian @ 3.06

It's clear this is NOT an Albanian. This is most probably a Muslim from the Balkans but NOT of Albanian origin.


This is not even that important because the sample in question is obviously not an Anatolian Turk and we are getting out of the thread's purpose.
What's more important, the Cypriots are better example of a pre-Turkish Anatolian population than the current Turks and E-V13 among them varies between 7.3% and 9.9%.
These are the results for the Greek Cypriots from the two biggest studies conducted on them (Heraklides et al. and Voskarides et al.):

https://i.postimg.cc/s2zMCqRZ/Cyprus-y-DNA.png (https://postimg.cc/qNmJ8mqk)

rafc
08-25-2021, 06:56 PM
I think that it's time to abandon any idea that E-V13 was brought to Anatolia by ancient Greek migrations. In fact, it never really reached Anatolia in antiquity as part of any mass movement.

My previous post was written while the replies of others were posted and I had not yet seen them. I find it surprising that looking at the exact same data we come to completely opposite conclusions. I guess part of that is because we both tend to look at new data from the perspective we already have, the infamous tunnel vision. And yet I would like to believe my analysis was objective.


Secondly, it's arbitrary to propose that E-V13 presence was higher in antiquity or that it was spread by ancient Greeks based on these results.

In fact, E-V13 presence is so low (even lower than I-Y3120 presence in some areas) that it most certainly didn't expand with any mass population movement in antiquity.

I think modern day data does tell us something about the past, but caution is warranted. However, I cannot understand how you can say it's arbitrary to draw a conclusion on these data, and than go on to do exactly that. Evidently modern day percentages tell us nothing about the past, but the branches present can. I think a low percentage of V13 today is a very weak argument against a larger presence in the past or a participation in a mass population movement. ADNA tells us time and again that lineages that were very populous in the past, have now all but disappeared (i.e. Neolithic groups of G and T in the Balkans), why would V13 be an exception?


Actual figures by the study spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pHvOMVZPtNDuwVabSXD7OxdFMTYQGvfjq7Z-L6IiII0)as they are being updated:
In other words, 50% of the samples which have been added so far (n=~450) are of recent Balkan ancestry. At this point, this % is not going to change, nor is the very low % of E-V13 in all regions going to increase.

I don't follow you math here, and even it the numbers would add up, Balkan obviously doesn't mean what you say. It's not more than logical that Turks from the Balkans and regions close by would autosomically be Balkan like. That doesn't make them recent migrants from the Balkans.


I think that it's time to abandon any idea that E-V13 was brought to Anatolia by ancient Greek migrations. In fact, it never really reached Anatolia in antiquity as part of any mass movement.

So in your view all V13 in Anatolia, including those Kurds, came in the last, say 200 years?

Aspar
08-25-2021, 08:23 PM
Just a quick update on the subclade E-FT76098 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT76098/)

The Greek in this subclade is matching a Bulgarian with origins from Greek Macedonia, with 6 GD on 37 markers. However it seems the connection is valid since they are matching on some important markers.
Now I've just got an information that the Bulgarian has got a new match, an Aromanian with origins from Pindus, 4 GD out of 37 markers. The Bulgarian already has a match with a surname (which we suspect is an Italian) on that same distance by the way.
The existing Romanian in this branch coupled with the new Aromanian match of the Bulgarian makes me believe this whole branch is of Aromanian origin.

By now, looking at the Greek E-V13 samples on the tree, it becomes clear these are mostly of Balkan origin. Although some try to prescribe an exclusively Albanian origin, this doesn't seem to be the case as good amount of these seem to be of an Aromanian Vlach origin.

Bruzmi
08-25-2021, 09:46 PM
You are manipulating again as with the Viminacium case (where you said that the population of Viminacium according to the inscription was predominantly of Dardanian origin) where you thought no one was going to check the information you spread.


The most frequent places of origin for Viminacium are other military colonies which were settled primarily by Dardanians or Dardanian Scupi itself. So yes, it's a completely correct statement.


Gedmatch calculators are not a solid way to verify ancestry. Variation within even endogamous populations can have up to 10% distance between two samples which thereotically should be plotted as identical based on verified paper research. The correct method for determining recent ancestral roots is via relative matches, and if you bothered to check that kits matches with one-to-many, you would have seen the top matches are all Albanians.

Exactly. All samples have been classified via their matches, not via .... gedmatch calculators. Unless someone thinks that they can "classify" someone's exact ancestry based on a 4.0+ distance. Not to mention that the distances between groups like Albanians and Greek_mainland are generally low, so I don't know how feasible it is to even correctly display the difference for some samples.


Did you even check the first match with kit M239916? What kind of Albanian matches you are talking about? This sample has matches with names such as Ercü; O.bozer; burcinkesik; which are clearly Turkish. And other matches with Bulgarian names such as valentina koceva; and bulgarian e-mails such as @abv.bg.


Every person who has migrated to Turkey has had to change their surname to a Turkish one because of the Surname Law of 1934. Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%B1van%C3%A7_Tatl%C4%B1tu%C4%9F) is of Albanian paternal origin even though his surname is ... Tatlıtuğ. The same is true about most people from the Balkans who have migrated to Turkey.

Huban
08-25-2021, 10:24 PM
Based on information I have been reconstructing from the study and based on another source related to study I can say with 99 % of certainty that the LBA E1b1b1a sample is from the city of Pácin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1cin) at the Slovak border (also close to Ukrainian border). Dated little over 3000 ybp.

Most of that I knew before. But what was far more difficult..

Having identified all archeological sites in the study and having identified most of information from diagrams and having this data cross-referenced I believe the BA E1b1b1a sample is not of Nitra culture. I believe this sample is of the EBA Nyírség culture (http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/doku.php/kulturen/nyirseg_english_version) which was present in EBA NE Hungary, NW Romania and Eastern Slovakia. Possibly alongside R1a as well. Nyírség site in the study is also from NE Hungary.

It seems from the auDNA perspective the very Eastern Hungary radically differed from rest of Hungary. I suspected based on Hungarian Scythian DA198 that some more southern people were also present in the area.

South of Nyírség find in Eastern Hungary there is a find of Ottomany (Gyulavarsánd) and in MBA Fuzesabony culture. Based on dating of the site (EBA) it seems to date to the very early period when the Ottomany culture dominated (Hatvan influences also but early Ottomany is far more likely, its their site). These people look like 20 % Samara and 80 % Barcin like and having no WHG admixture. It seems J2a find belongs to this culture. I also considered this for the E1b1ba find but as this find is slightly later than the Nyirseg find, as there is a J2a EBA sample matching in profile this auDNA profile, and this J2a sample is also slightly later than the E1b1b1a find I think this is the right order, J2a for the Ottomany and E1b1b1a for Nyirseg.

Most of Hungary was dominated by the auDNA profile as seen in the recent Croatian study with heavy WHG admixture. Kisapostag, Encrusted pottery, Vatya (all mostly I2a), and to a great degree Füzesabony cultures also follow the same pattern. This sort of profile wasn't new and has parallels in Croatian EBA finds from this study as well as older Mako culture find. Even most Urnfielders inherit plenty of that ancestry. However in the very East there was a cline as represented by Nyirseg and Ottomany which lacked the WHG admixture. Precisely the elevated WHG admixture is the factor why EIA Thracians cannot be derived of such groups because their profile lacks or almost lacks WHG admixture (as opposed to MBA and EIA Western Balkan finds who do harbor a degree of it).

Gáva culture where E1b1b1a is from seems also to be lacking in this admixture so it looks like they will be far better a match for IA Thracians. Also interestingly one of them is actually DA198, Moldovan Scythian like. Not the E1b1b1a guy. In G25 on a Samara Barcin cline he would score 55 % of Samara and 45 % of Barcin. It looks he can be modelled as predominately typical Corded Ware with an EEF influx. It looks like E-V13 clades were associated with Eastern Gava, Holigrady elite. I think this should be the key, Eastern Gáva as Western Gava were more similar to Kyjatice and other Urnfielders with elevated WHG.

EBA E1b1b1a sample is around 47 % Samara and 53 % Barcin like. So none of these guys are anywhere near LBA or IA Balkanites nor some modern Balkan population. However as it seems Ottomany were quite EEF heavy, this most likely influenced the making of the later historical IA Daco-Thracian auDNA profile to what we see in IA Bulgaria, MJ12 and Moldovan Scythians.

As Gava sample fits well with clades such as CTS9320 or FGC11451 which is something many of us saw, I believe what looks to be Nyirseg find will be of far more use to various other clades which show EBA/MBA distances to their relatives. And is far more important for the V13 origin as it is a very old culture basically almost matching in TMRCA the E-V13. Nyirseg could easily explain the clades such as E-L540, or even E-Y37092 because Nyirseg had Vučedol connections. I have to admit I didn't think of this culture as a candidate before nor in general was it mentioned..

I'm quite convinced this study will come a long way of resolving the origins of E-V13. Though they mostly tested Western Hungary, had they focused more to the East, I think they would have found alot more E1b1b1a.

Bruzmi
08-25-2021, 10:32 PM
I think modern day data does tell us something about the past, but caution is warranted. However, I cannot understand how you can say it's arbitrary to draw a conclusion on these data, and than go on to do exactly that. Evidently modern day percentages tell us nothing about the past, but the branches present can. I think a low percentage of V13 today is a very weak argument against a larger presence in the past or a participation in a mass population movement. ADNA tells us time and again that lineages that were very populous in the past, have now all but disappeared (i.e. Neolithic groups of G and T in the Balkans), why would V13 be an exception?



E-V13, however, is not a Neolithic entry in Anatolia. So, we should compare it to post-Neolithic hgs. Did any of these hgs disappear from Anatolia? No, not really. Every single actual mass migration in Anatolia has acted as a layer upon other migrations. The people who were already there never disappeared. Sure, they changed language and culture but no lineage has been displaced. Anatolian Greeks and Armenians were brutally uprooted and displaced from their ancestral homelands, but the lineages held by Anatolian Greeks and Armenians were never displaced. They are still there under new identities (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y95829/).

E-V13 presence in Anatolia is even lower than I-Y3120 presence. But for some reason, in this thread, some theories ask us to assign the arrival of one of the very few hgs which doesn't form a population layer in Anatolia, to ancient Greek migrations.

By the way, we can't predict ancestry by looking at flag + TMRCA on yfull. Unless we know the historical background and ancestry of each sample, we can't equate its presence to a region with its formation date.




I don't follow you math here, and even it the numbers would add up, Balkan obviously doesn't mean what you say. It's not more than logical that Turks from the Balkans and regions close by would autosomically be Balkan like. That doesn't make them recent migrants from the Balkans.


If someone plots as 40% Bosnian + 60% Turkish Thrace, he is a recent migrant from the Balkans and the same is true for all samples because it's the most reasonable explanation which doesn't require from us to assume something which itself requires additional proof (Occam's razor again). There's no reason why we should assume that hgs which have a)their highest frequency in the Balkans and b)have recent Balkan ancestry aren't descendants of migrants from the Balkans.

There are of course some R-Z2705 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FT49932/) or I-Y3120 samples which are obviously of Balkan origin regardless of close matches or autosomal ties.

Finally, consider the numbers of individuals with Balkan ancestry in Turkey. There are 1.3 mil people of Albanian ancestry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians_in_Turkey) in Turkey, up to 2 mil of Bosniak ancestry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks_in_Turkey) and up to 600,000 of Pomak ancestry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians_in_Turkey). Not to mention all those who are of Balkan origin, but migrated in Turkey during the Ottoman era. So, a Balkan origin is not only reasonable because of autosomal ancestry/matches, it's also demographically and historically reasonable.

More than 3 million Turks are of Balkan ancestry and obviously E-V13 is part of that ancestry. But for some reason, the largest migration towards Turkey in the last 200 years is not being considered as the most plausible origin theory for E-V13 in Anatolia in this thread.



So in your view all V13 in Anatolia, including those Kurds, came in the last, say 200 years?

There are 12 E-V13 samples in the ancestry spreadsheet (others may be added as it gets updated, but the percentages will not change)

Of those 12 E-V13 samples in Anatolia, 6 are of recent Balkan ancestry which is a figure which confirms demographic history (mass migration from the Balkans to Turkey). The ancestors of these people migrated at the earliest in the late Ottoman era.

We don't have any further information about the ancestry of the Kurds, so anything is possible just as we don't have any information about the 3 other samples.

It's rather obvious that there's no basis for Phrygians = E-V13 and ancient Greeks = E-V13 theories with such extremely low figures. (That doesn't mean that ancient Greeks and Phrygians and Celts and many others aren't represented in modern Turkish lineages. It's just that they aren't E-V13)

Huban
08-25-2021, 10:42 PM
E-V13 presence in Anatolia is even lower than I-Y3120 presence.

Not quite true. This is one study, there are other older studies with greater sample (one for ex. 523) and there V13 is higher than I-Y3120. And I believe in that sample it was 12 % in NW Turkey around Sea of Marmara..

Riverman
08-25-2021, 10:57 PM
Interesting:

Here, we noted also border cases where we cannot decide whether they belong still to the Makó or already to the Nyírség culture. Nyírség and Sanislău are both characterised by cremation burials in urns which almost always occur singly or in small groups.

They seem to have been very mobile:

The economy is based on hunting (especially red deer and wild boar), fishing and stockbreeding (especially cattle and horse) which corresponds to the way the settlements were laid. However, some traces of cerealia were found (ibid.). The small number of animal bones per location shows the supposed short time the settlement was inhabited, just like the small number of finds in general (Dani 1999, 75).

And very close to Mako:

the Nyírség culture dates to the early Bronze Age II and succeeds, in contrary to former assumptions (cf. above) and despite lacking direct evidence, the Makó culture. Its oldest finds are therefore those which cannot be safely attributed to one of the two cultures (Dani 1997).

Incorporation into Otomani:

Since they occur until the Romanian phase Otomani II, however, only in the north of the Romanian Otomani distribution, everything points to the persistence of the heritage of the Sanislău group even after the begin of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. It forms a regional group of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture.

Relationship to Hatvan:

The genesis of the Hatvan culture is uncertain, however, it is probably impossible to derive it completely from the Nyírség culture (Bóna 1992, 21). This could be one of the reasons for the heterogenity of the material attributed to Hatvan. So, the Sanislău group is the easternmost neighbour of the Hatvan culture.

http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/doku.php/kulturen/nyirseg_english_version


I think this should be the key, Eastern Gáva as Western Gava were more similar to Kyjatice and other Urnfielders with elevated WHG.

Don't you think this could be due to mixture with locals? Like same source, but different females and allies picked up along the road? I like your argument for the East, but I think the Belegis II-Gava must fit into this as well, because they might be key for the overall distribution.

Nyírség seems to be a bit confusing at first sight, probably also because of the limited material and problems with differentation from some other groups at the beginning and end in particular, according to the article.

Bruzmi
08-25-2021, 11:06 PM
Not quite true. This is one study, there are other older studies with greater sample (one for ex. 542) and there V13 is higher than I-Y3120. And I believe in that sample it was 12 % in NW Turkey around Sea of Marmara..

I'm referring to this study, not to older studies.

You must be referring to Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-003-1031-4#citeas) (n=523). It tested for E-M78 in general (not E-V13 in itself) and E-M123 specifically. I believe that 26/523 were E-M78, which is not that different from E-V13 + E-V22 figures in this study.

Incidentally, the Sea of Marmara is where most Balkan people settled eventually.

That we're debating whether E-V13 is a bit lower or a bit higher than I-Y3120 is telling in itself, don't you think?

In my opinion, with your latest post you are moving away from "Brnjica theories" in practice because they don't really fit with what you're proposing now, so here's a question: if you take into account what you wrote above and the actual figures we're seeing right now, do you still consider it plausible that E-V13 reached Anatolia with mass migrations of Phrygians or ancient Greeks?

Riverman
08-26-2021, 12:58 AM
@Bruzmi: E-V13 is not supposed to have influenced Anatolian Greeks as much as Northern and Dorian Greeks. At the same time it is apparent that E-V13 reached Anatolia in Antiquity. The question is just at which rate, from which Greek or non-Greek people and at which times. Could have been assimilated Thracians too for example.

ShpataEMadhe
08-26-2021, 01:20 AM
First of all, it's wrong to group individuals into subgroups which aren't used by the study itself because it can create a narrative which isn't supported by the data. Secondly, it's arbitrary to propose that E-V13 presence was higher in antiquity or that it was spread by ancient Greeks based on these results.

In fact, E-V13 presence is so low (even lower than I-Y3120 presence in some areas) that it most certainly didn't expand with any mass population movement in antiquity.

Actual figures by the study spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pHvOMVZPtNDuwVabSXD7OxdFMTYQGvfjq7Z-L6IiII0)as they are being updated:

Eastern Black Sea:
E-M123: 2
E-V22:0
E-V13:0

Anatolia:
E-M123: 4
E-V22: 1
E-V13: 2

Eastern/Transcaucasian:
E-M123/V22/V13:0

Azerbaijan:
E-M123/V22/V13:0

Balkans:
E-M123:1
E-V22:0
E-V13:4

Albanians:
E-V13: 1

Kurds:
E-M123:6
E-V22:1
E-V13:3

Mixed:
E-V13:2 (one close to Azeris, the other has Balkan ancestry)

In other words, 50% of the samples which have been added so far (n=~450) are of recent Balkan ancestry. At this point, this % is not going to change, nor is the very low % of E-V13 in all regions going to increase.

I think that it's time to abandon any idea that E-V13 was brought to Anatolia by ancient Greek migrations. In fact, it never really reached Anatolia in antiquity as part of any mass movement.

This is correct.

If we look at the modern turkish and armenian results we can probably conclude that these regions had very little v13 (armenians only 1%!) in the middle ages. Looks like the ottoman took some v13 but even more south slavic men (i-3120 and some r1a) back to turkey last few hundred years. Some is also through migration over last 200 years from people like albanians (mostly kosovo albanians) and bosnians and maybe greeks

Off topic - i am shocked at how much z2103 armenians carry, anyone know if most of it is recent founder effect or is it truly one of the first layers of their genetics? They seem to have substantial mix of y dna with a lot of them coming in at 10%+ j2a, j1, g2, even T over 5% so i wonder how high/low z2103 was in that region its greatest extent. Is it possible spread of z2103 had something to do with thracians? Or it predates thracians? Which other culture can its spread be linked to when it had such an effect in regions like armenia??

DFSTFD
08-26-2021, 02:09 AM
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"

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.

Other arguments aside, this specific argument has been run through before in this thread but I'll mention it again since I can't go through much of the thread again right now. An issue with your position here is that all those Balkan-like Scythian/Cimmerian (scy192, scy197, scy300, scy305, MJ12) samples seem to have some sort of ENA+ANE-rich contemporary steppe ancestry. You can check it out by modelling them, while using all samples.

This might be a longstanding feature of these groups or it might be recent admixture (of course I don't know what those apparent samples that Huban brought up might look like so I'm talking about what I solely have access to) but the result is the same with regard to their distances to other samples and their position on the PCA. If you add that kind of Steppe_IA admixture, they'll be brought to the "northeast" and so closer to the more northern HRV_MBA-IA samples, compared to the more southern BGR_IA one.

If you use the non-single Distance modes on Vahaduo with the Scythian Moldovan group, you can see which populations the more eastern ones shift towards compared to the more western ones and vice versa. The more eastern ones shift towards Sarmatian-like groups relative to the western ones while the more western ones shift towards Balkan-like EEF-rich groups relative to the more eastern ones. As such, it might be the case that the hypothetical population before this further eastern admixture was a bit like this (https://i.imgur.com/a7gmh59.png), following the hull of the Moldovan group on the PCA.

Even then relative distances might not tell us anything more since all those ancient Balkan individuals seem to be the result of relatively HG-poor steppe-rich groups and relatively HG-poor EEF-rich groups. As such, I wouldn't be so sure that there's anything particularly "obvious" in this case, even discounting the particular argument above (though "more western location" is too broad an area, as has been mentioned). And we have very few samples overall to see what variation there might be, though the "northern Adriatic" group (HRV_MBA, HRV_IA, ITA_Proto-Villanovan, the Balkan part in ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b's ancestry) is relatively homogeneous so far at least.

Ancient Italic samples without Balkan-like admixture aren't that close to these eastern Balkan Scythians. Tuscans are more so because they've admixed with more eastern groups (Balkan, Aegean, Near Eastern like) since then and so have been brought to the "southeast" relative to the ancient, more "northwestern" Italic position.


The Pannonian study might seal a lot of things, since Pannonia and the Carpathian region was absolutely instrumental in the Bronze Age and worked as a hub. A lot of what will pop up elsewhere later went through this hub, while at the same time some groups were just swallowed in this shark tank.

Outside the Balkan and E-V13 issues, I'm honestly curious what linguistic affinities those weird, very HG-rich but with moderate-steppe compared to today's geographical overlapping groups, often rich in non-R1 Y-DNA too, from the Carpathian Basin and far eastern Germany/Poland (like Tollense) and probably close-by regions might have had. Maybe they're part of some of those hypothesized IE strata, like the supposed centum stratum into Slavic (Kortlandt I guess called at least a specific variant of it Temematic) and intermediate in geography between early Germanic and Balto-Slavic groups with the intermediate affinities we see them having (as has been discussed quite a bit by now) in north European PCA.

They certainly don't seem to lead to later populations from an autosomal perspective as a main contributor, with their interesting extremely "northwestern" position on the PCA and all, being apparently displaced by southern, western and eastern groups through time, though they might have contributed some ancestry locally.

Huban
08-26-2021, 03:11 AM
I'm referring to this study, not to older studies.

You must be referring to Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-003-1031-4#citeas) (n=523). It tested for E-M78 in general (not E-V13 in itself) and E-M123 specifically. I believe that 26/523 were E-M78, which is not that different from E-V13 + E-V22 figures in this study.

Incidentally, the Sea of Marmara is where most Balkan people settled eventually.

That we're debating whether E-V13 is a bit lower or a bit higher than I-Y3120 is telling in itself, don't you think?

I'm not saying E-V13 is a major Anatolian hg, but this new study doesn't show the full picture.. Not one of these clades matches the clades that have identified in Turks at FTDNA.. Which again tells us there needs to be alot more testing for some reliable picture.

There are some clades that do not appear Balkan at all. I know a number of Turks at FTDNA who belong to this clade
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y163740/

Guy with a Turkish flag is Pontic Greek, and there are a number of other Pontic Greeks close to him, yet their more distant relative is an Armenian not Greek.. And are Pontic Greeks who do not seem to possess much ancient Greek DNA..

Btw those Marmara Sea M78+ guys were all confirmed V13+ in another study about hg E later..




In my opinion, with your latest post you are moving away from "Brnjica theories" in practice because they don't really fit with what you're proposing now, so here's a question: if you take into account what you wrote above and the actual figures we're seeing right now, do you still consider it plausible that E-V13 reached Anatolia with mass migrations of Phrygians or ancient Greeks?

1) Originally I was backing Cetina -> expanding Eastwards for most V13 to become part of Carpatho-Danubian complex (where Brnjica falls in)

2) Then seeing some more serious diversity in Carpathians I moved to some Cetina people becoming part of Glina III Schneckenberg. Then from there most became part of EBA/MBA Carpatho-Danubian complex

3) Then I saw leaks from the Bulgarian study. Having seen that a culture related to Glina III was tested and had no V13, having seen V13 in Psenicevo, I moved away from Carpatho-Danubian complex as Psenicevo and related cultures are derived of Girla Mare - Gava mix <- known Gava finds were Northern = V13 ntot from there <- V13 came from presumably very Southern autosomally Encrusted pottery people. And again a group of Cetina people moved to become part of their culture in EBA..

4) Then one day before Croatian study came out, I decided to take a look at this upcoming Pannonian study Riverman was talking so much about. On PCA plot I found the Northern Transdanubian Encrusted pottery samples, with heavy WHG admixture and I2a, and I said to myself no way can E-V13 derive from these, then day after Southern Transdanubian Encrusted pottery results are out and they were with the same autosomal profile and no E-V13. Then temporary back to the old Cetina-Armenochori-Bubanj Hum III until I found out what I posted here...

Generally (especially Kosovo) Albanians lean towards heavily Southern option. Not all, admin of the Rrenjet said he didn't think there was any meaningful V13 on the Balkans prior to LBA, I didn't agree at the time, now I do..

So you see when I switched to no. 3 I moved away from Brnjica and that was some months ago I think.. Brnjica or "Brnjica" is closelly related to Zimnicea-Plodviv = MBA natives of Bulgaria. These people were not Urnfield and were actually running away from them.

I have to caution you and everyone else on making judgements based on modern haplgoroup placement.

MBA people of Hungarian Encrusted pottery cultures were numerous, flourishing before the Tumulus culture. They had descendants in Dubovac-Girla mare culture also managing to flourish before the Urnfield invasions...

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y13331/

And this is the only thing left of them Y-DNA wise... A handful of people.. They were surely many many times more numerous 3500 years ago (and what was the human population back then, so their numbers had more impact) than today..

My latest view is based on aDNA, that trumps everything else..

Phrygians and Greeks could have had some V13 picked up along the way but I wouldn't say that was important element among them. Of more consequence were likely some of these non-Greeks invading in LBA and becoming Greeks later..

I always believed Phrygians were dominantly R-Z2103 and I still do, which clade? Well Armenians have two major clades, one of them is I suspect Armenian the other Phrygian.. And these are also most dominant in Anatolia..

Huban
08-26-2021, 03:39 AM
I like your argument for the East, but I think the Belegis II-Gava must fit into this as well, because they might be key for the overall distribution.

Belegis II-Gava is surely a factor but Psenicevo-Babadag and related groups per literature do not derive bulk of their ancestry from it but rather from Insula Banului which also had crucial Gava input. Nevertheless difference is minor. Both are Gava related.



Interesting:
Don't you think this could be due to mixture with locals? Like same source, but different females and allies picked up along the road?

Gavans of Pacin are also autosomally heterogenous so some mixture there for sure. But him having most Steppe ancestry of any Urnfield sample to date I do not think is an accident at all.. Actually he looks as if he could have just arrived from the Steppes.. I totally didn't expect to see such profile..

​ I am aware also of some Gava groups on the Balkans that were very isolated i.e. they refused to mix with the locals.. So some Gava people were quite isolationist.

At that site of Pacin I have information that there are 3 Y-DNA finds, I have 100% certain information about their grave numbers and even numbers under which they will be published but I don't know which one is E1b. But based on diagram information I know E1b1b1a is one of them. I might look for info about their graves..

I think when we see the numbers of I-Y13331 today and we see some clades that look Gava derived we can understand what LBA world was like..



Nyírség seems to be a bit confusing at first sight, probably also because of the limited material and problems with differentation from some other groups at the beginning and end in particular, according to the article.

Nyírség is quite confusing, until few days ago I barely knew anything about it.. Two days ago I identified this culture find and I was just like "Nyirseg noted, move on to something else". Only after having identified all other cultures and samples in the study, having determined that our E1b1b1a guy couldn't possibly be from any other than two sites, Nyirseg or Ottomany, and Nyirseg being the last man standing.. did I start paying attention to this culture.. But logically it makes also perfect sense as it is from the same area as the LBA find..

PS. Why not Nitra?? Well simply the EBA E1b1b1a sample falls outside of the entire Nitra cluster autosomal range..

rafc
08-26-2021, 07:31 AM
E-V13, however, is not a Neolithic entry in Anatolia. So, we should compare it to post-Neolithic hgs. Did any of these hgs disappear from Anatolia? No, not really. Every single actual mass migration in Anatolia has acted as a layer upon other migrations. The people who were already there never disappeared. Sure, they changed language and culture but no lineage has been displaced. Anatolian Greeks and Armenians were brutally uprooted and displaced from their ancestral homelands, but the lineages held by Anatolian Greeks and Armenians were never displaced. They are still there under new identities (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y95829/).

How do you know all this? It's not like we have aDNA from post-neolithic groups in Anatolia that allows us to conclude they are still there, or am I mistaken? I know some people on this forum would give a lot for a decent sample of Hittites for example.


E-V13 presence in Anatolia is even lower than I-Y3120 presence. But for some reason, in this thread, some theories ask us to assign the arrival of one of the very few hgs which doesn't form a population layer in Anatolia, to ancient Greek migrations.

Now this is an interesting point. For the Balkan region of Turkey this is not such a big surprise, we know Slavs migrated there. The North and West is more interesting since there it would more likely come from deliberate attempts of the Byzantines to repopulate areas. V13 and I-Y3120 have 3 samples in the North while Y3120 has one more in the West (4 vs 3). You would indeed expect that a large part of V13 would then also be brought in the same movement (which would not be surprising), maybe with the caveat that if these movements were quite early, V13 and I-Y3120 would not have been as mixed yet, and it's conceivable Byzantines would have been more likely to move the Slavs to Anatolia than the previous, Romanized population. I'll need to dig in the exact branches of some Balkan groups in Anatolia to better understand. Still seems to me that the lack of typical Balkans V13 groups makes it unlikely that this V13 in Anatolia is of very recent origin.


By the way, we can't predict ancestry by looking at flag + TMRCA on yfull. Unless we know the historical background and ancestry of each sample, we can't equate its presence to a region with its formation date.

Off course you can predict it, it won't be 100% correct, but that's the case with every prediction. More info is always useful, but in absence of that the flag and additional data is our best guess for what ancestry the sample has.


It's rather obvious that there's no basis for Phrygians = E-V13 and ancient Greeks = E-V13 theories with such extremely low figures. (That doesn't mean that ancient Greeks and Phrygians and Celts and many others aren't represented in modern Turkish lineages. It's just that they aren't E-V13)

Well here we go again, no one is claiming what you write in the first phrase, and then you deduce something in the second phrase that is clearly wrong. Greeks, Phrygians and Celts were not groups consisting of just one Haplogroup. They were a mix created by millennia of different migrations and mixing. I see no argument in this data that tells us there was no V13 in any of these populations.

Aspar
08-26-2021, 08:40 AM
The most frequent places of origin for Viminacium are other military colonies which were settled primarily by Dardanians or Dardanian Scupi itself. So yes, it's a completely correct statement.



Exactly. All samples have been classified via their matches, not via .... gedmatch calculators. Unless someone thinks that they can "classify" someone's exact ancestry based on a 4.0+ distance. Not to mention that the distances between groups like Albanians and Greek_mainland are generally low, so I don't know how feasible it is to even correctly display the difference for some samples.



Every person who has migrated to Turkey has had to change their surname to a Turkish one because of the Surname Law of 1934. Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%B1van%C3%A7_Tatl%C4%B1tu%C4%9F) is of Albanian paternal origin even though his surname is ... Tatlıtuğ. The same is true about most people from the Balkans who have migrated to Turkey.

Now, what you are doing in this thread is called trolling...

I don't want to derail this thread but I already debunked your Dardanian majority Viminacium claim even with the help of your own sources: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24531-Anatolian-DNA-in-the-Balkans&p=792916&viewfull=1#post792916

As I said, inscriptions belonging to people from Daco-Moesian-Thracian inhabited places historically such as Remesiana, Raitaria, Sarmezegetusa, Nicopolis etc. outnumber the inscriptions belonging to people coming from historically Dardanian inhabited places such as Scupi.

Now do you want me to give you the exact numbers so we all can have good picture of the total number of inscriptions belonging to people from Daco-Moesian-Thracian places and from people coming from Dardanian places?

Even by matches, if you have read my discussion with 23abc, some of the top matches of the sample in question have no Albanian matches which knowing the recent founder effect and endogamy among the Albanians in the past they should have them.
The sample in question doesn't have an Albanian match with more than 30cM long segment which wouldn't have been the case if he was an Albanian.
Tell me, have you done an autosomal test? If so, what are the longest segments you share with your fellow Albanians?
I know the answer to that question but please tell uf for the others to know...

You are constantly putting words in the people's mouths such and falsely claim that the people here claim Dorians or Phrygians = E-V13.
Sufficient to say we haven't got any aDNA from those people and if some E-V13 have been spread by them, even a very small percentage, I don't see any strange discussing that.
You are falsely claim that E-V13's percentages among the modern Greeks are overblown and still ignoring the scientific studies presented to you while wholeheartedly accepting some amateurs work which probably haven't been done correctly even.
At the same time you are claiming the sample scy197 wasn't native of the area where it was buried, and ignoring the fact that this sample is younger than the IA Thracian samples that should be released in the feature and which have the same yDNA as scy197, which unfortunately for you hasn't been found in the West Balkans and yet still claiming scy197 is a migrant from the West Balkans when the only proof you are offering is a PCA which you don't know to properly interpret even.

Your self-confidence persistently shown here even when you're proven wrong is showing you are trolling and don't have good intentions here...

Bruzmi
08-26-2021, 11:19 AM
Now, what you are doing in this thread is called trolling...

I don't want to derail this thread but I already debunked your Dardanian majority Viminacium claim even with the help of your own sources: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24531-Anatolian-DNA-in-the-Balkans&p=792916&viewfull=1#post792916

As I said, inscriptions belonging to people from Daco-Moesian-Thracian inhabited places historically such as Remesiana, Raitaria, Sarmezegetusa, Nicopolis etc. outnumber the inscriptions belonging to people coming from historically Dardanian inhabited places such as Scupi.


Remesiana, Ratiaria, Viminacium all were imperial/military colonies and even Sarmizegetusa was refounded as a colony. The majority of people who lived in these colonies were settlers from other areas and population density in the lands of Moesi-Triballi-Scordistae was very low.

Timacum Minus in Moesia Superior—Centrality and Urbanism at a Roman Mining Settlement (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/126/htm):

As the present evidence does not hint at a considerably dense pre-Roman and Principate-times indigenous inhabitation of the Timok valley [50], recruitment in the area might not have been a major aspect to facilitate.


These settlements postdate any pre-Roman population and you can't group populations which had distinct identities into any "Daco-Moesian-Thracian" grouping.



Now do you want me to give you the exact numbers so we all can have good picture of the total number of inscriptions belonging to people from Daco-Moesian-Thracian places and from people coming from Dardanian places?



I have already done that here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24531-Anatolian-DNA-in-the-Balkans&p=792923&viewfull=1#post792923).
About 120 soldiers in Viminacium were born in Scupi, Remesiana, Ratiaria (roughly equal percentages for each settlement). There were 6 soldiers from Pannonian Sirmium, 5 from Thracian Nicopolis, 4 from Sarmizegetusa, 3 from Dalmatian Salona, 3 from Pautalia, 1 from Greek Thessalonica. So, for almost every soldier born in the eastern Balkans (regardless of their ethnicty), there was a Pannonian-Dalmatian in Viminacium.

Viminacium wasn't even in Moesian territory. It was in the territory of Scordisci.

Beyond the Borders: The Significance of Frontiers between Central Balkans’ Roman Provinces in the Context of Roman Art (http://actual-art.org/files/sb/09/Gavrilovic.pdf)

As the capital of Roman province Moesia Superior, Viminacium represented the biggest and the most urbanized centre in the Central Balkans’ area. It was an important military stronghold, where different cultural and artistic influences blended, mostly due to the mixing of the inhabitants of various origin and background. During the pre-Roman times, a tribe of Scordisci (consisting of mixed population of Celts and Illyrians) inhabited the territory of Roman Viminacium, and from the 1st century, Dacians are also present in the aforementioned centre, which is confirmed by epigraphic monuments, archaeological finds, burial customs, gravegoods etc. [22, pp. 17–23]. During the reign of Hadrian, Viminacium becomes a municipium and was considered the most prosperous political and economic centre in Moesia Superior. As such, it advances to the status of a colony under Gordian III in 239 A.D.

The monuments from Viminacium thus confirm strong artistic influence from the eastern parts of Dalmatia province, which was transferred from the coastal localities of Dalmatia to the interior of the province and then further to the major centres of Moesia Superior during the 2nd and the 3rd centuries. Onomastically too, migrants from mentioned parts of Dalmatia are confirmed in Viminacium and other localities of Central Balkans’ Roman provinces.

(In other sources, the Scordisci-Scordistae are described as conglomeration of Celts-Illyrians-Thracians)

What you should also be aware of is that there was a conscious effort from the Dardanian elite within the Eastern Roman Empire to expand the notion of Dardania to include much larger areas in what was considered previously to be part of Dardania as a means to increase Dardanian territory and prestige within the empire. On the other hand, there is no self-conscious attestation of any Moesian or Dacian identity in that era.


Justiniana Prima: an underestimated aspect of Justinian's church policy (https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/item/35392/turlej_justiniana_prima_an_underestimated_aspect_2 016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

The next fragment (IV 1, 31‒IV 1, 32), in keeping with its placement in the narrative, contains further data about the building of fortifications among the Dardanians on the Emperor’s orders: (text in Greek)

ἀλλὰ καὶ Σαρδικῆς καὶ Ναϊσουπόλεως, ἔτι μέντοι Γερμαῆς τε καὶ Πανταλείας διερρωγότα τῷ χρόνῳ τὰ τείχη εὑρὼν οἰκοδομησάμενός τε ξὺν τῷ ἀσφαλεῖ ἄμαχα τοῖς πολεμίοις διεπράξατο εἶναι. καὶ πολίχνια δὲ τούτων δὴ μεταξὺ ἐδείματο τρία, Κρατίσκαρά τε καὶ Κουιμέδαβα καὶ Ῥουμισίανα. οὕτω μεν οὖν τάσδε τὰς πόλεις ἐκ θεμελίων ἀνέστησε.

Without any introduction or explanation, Procopius simply goes on listing more cities where Justinian carried out building works.They included strengthening the walls of Serdica, Naissos, Germania, and Pautalia. The Emperor reportedly built three small cities from their foundations: Cratiscara, Quimedaba, and Remesiana. The former two do not appear in any sources other than this, whereas Remesiana is well attested as a city and bishopric in Late Antiquity.

All the cities listed by Procopius: Serdica, Naissos, Germania, Pautalia, and Remesiana described as a small fort, are very well-known as important urban centres in the province of Dacia Mediterranea. However, they were mentioned in the discussion of everything the Emperor built in his native land. This was probably not an accident or a mistake, but followed from the convention adopted. Procopius composed his account of Justinian’s fatherland presenting him as a Dardanian and using this key for presenting his material meant that in confrontation with the reality, i.e. with the location of Bederiana and the Emperor’s native land in the geographic region which did not overlap with the administrative boundaries of Dardania proper, it was necessary to broaden the context. It seems that Procopius decided to mention the ruler’s building activity in Dacia Mediterranea remembering the location of Bederiana and Justiniana Prima, which in terms of administrative division did not belong to Dardania. We could interpret this decision as the need to faithfully reflect the reality while adhering to the convention of presenting the Emperor’s ethnic origin in a positive light

Bruzmi
08-26-2021, 12:42 PM
At the same time you are claiming the sample scy197 wasn't native of the area where it was buried, and ignoring the fact that this sample is younger than the IA Thracian samples that should be released in the feature and which have the same yDNA as scy197, which unfortunately for you hasn't been found in the West Balkans and yet still claiming scy197 is a migrant from the West Balkans when the only proof you are offering is a PCA which you don't know to properly interpret even.


(the comment includes a reply to @DF)

Breaking ancestral components down to "basal" ancestries like EEF will not tell us much in my opinion because there are many different profiles which were created so in a span of several thousand years you can't really say that X EEF ancestry is derived from Y population, so it's better to cross-compare population profiles era-by-era (EBA to IA etc.)

@Aspar
That two samples may both be E-V13 is not evidence that they are related via the same lineage or that they come from the region they were found in. In this very thread, we've discussed samples which were found as far north as Denmark and they obviously were descendants of recent migrants from the Balkans. It's completely arbitrary to assume ancestral relation and geographical origin based on just the location of the remains and not the composition of every individual's ancestry.

Almost all post-antiquity E-V13 aDNA samples found so far outside the Balkans share specific similarities from Italy to Denmark (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=793833&viewfull=1#post793833)

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.

About half of the ancestry of HRV_EBA is Sopot Neolithic + more southern Balkan Neolithic ancestry. HRV_Vucedol has ~60%> Sopot + Balkan Neolithic ancestry.

The same ancestral components are found in J2b-L283 samples (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=794230&viewfull=1#post794230)

Some of these samples have GC-like ancestry, which is because Grotta Continenza has Sopot-like Neolithic ancestry:

Target: ITA _Grotta_Continenza_CA
Distance: 1.4880% / 0.01487962
Sources: 33 | Cycles: 9 | Time: 0.511 s
38.6 ITA_Sardinia_C
27.4 HRV_Sopot_MN
15.4 FRA_Occitanie_LN
15.0 HUN_Sopot_LN
3.6 ITA_Monte_San_Biagio_CA


It's this type of ancestry shared by all of them and SCY197 which creates these results:


Target: scy197
Distance: 2.4667% / 0.02466663
29.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
27.4 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
17.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
11.0 Baltic_EST_BA
6.8 HRV_Vucedol
5.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
2.8 RUS_Kurma_EBA
0.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

https://i.ibb.co/YDMLVrF/westbalkan.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/VT7w0d8/omd9YMb.png

and brings SCY197 closer to the Proto-Villanovan:

Target: ITA _ Proto-Villanovan:RM PR1
Distance: 2.3275% / 0.02327524
Sources: 33 | Cycles: 9 | Time: 0.624 s
23.6 DEU_Anselingen_FN
22.4 GRC_Peloponnese_N
19.8 HRV_Sopot_MN
17.2 FRA_Hauts_De_France_LN
12.4 DEU_BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN
2.6 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
2.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LN

Meanwhile, the "Cimmerian" has no such ancestry. In fact, what brings this sample closer to the southern samples is its partially more southern Balkan Neolithic ancestry, but there's no GC and no Sopot ancestry in this sample.

Target: UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
Distance: 3.2866% / 0.03286624
39.6 SVK_EBA
38.4 GRC_Peloponnese_N
15.6 TUR_Isparta_EBA
2.8 Yamnaya_UKR
2.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin
1.6 RUS_Kurma_EBA

The lack of HRV_EBA/Sopot ancestry or very low levels are present in BGR_IA too:

Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 1.6928% / 0.01692771
47.8 GRC_Peloponnese_N
17.2 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
10.8 Wales_CA_EBA
7.6 Yamnaya_UKR
7.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
4.6 HRV_Vucedol
2.8 TUR_Titris_Hoyuk_EBA
1.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
0.2 Levant_JOR_EBA

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

RMPR474b
Distance: 1.5687% / 0.01568715
16.4 Wales_CA_EBA
16.0 DEU_Lech_EBA
14.4 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
14.0 CZE_EBA
10.0 GRC_Peloponnese_N
9.4 HRV_Vucedol
8.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
3.4 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
2.8 POL_EBA
2.4 Baltic_EST_BA
1.6 GRC_Helladic_EBA
0.6 RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA
0.2 UKR_EBA


This type of ancestral profile did not exist in the eastern Balkans. It moved to the east from the (north)western Balkans. So when we get new E-V13 samples from Viminacium or elsewhere, it'll be very interesting to see what % of HRV_EBA/Vucedol and Sopot ancestry they have. I consider it likely that increased BGR_Beli_Breyag will indicate native Thracian ancestry. BGR_Beli_Breyag/N ancestry seems to represent in the eastern Balkans in this period at least what HRV_EBA and Sopot represent in the western Balkans.

Bruzmi
08-26-2021, 02:02 PM
Well here we go again, no one is claiming what you write in the first phrase, and then you deduce something in the second phrase that is clearly wrong. Greeks, Phrygians and Celts were not groups consisting of just one Haplogroup. They were a mix created by millennia of different migrations and mixing. I see no argument in this data that tells us there was no V13 in any of these populations.

Nobody said that any of these groups were single hg populations. I am against any theory which claims that any ancient population was a single hg group.

The burden of proof that any of these groups in antiquity were X % E-V13 is on those who claim it. Nobody has to prove that they weren't E-V13. On the contrary, those who claim that they were E-V13 have to also prove it.

If we accept that at least some correlation between hg frequencies and demographic history exists because of basic population continuity, then with such extreme low levels of E-V13 in Turkey, it doesn't look likely at all that any of these groups carried E-V13 in substantial levels. On the contrary, many R1b-M269 lineages have a substantial presence in modern Turkey, so as a working hypothesis, this might actually hint to ancestral links with people like the Phrygians, which were probably the most populous group in several areas of Anatolia.


This is correct.

If we look at the modern turkish and armenian results we can probably conclude that these regions had very little v13 (armenians only 1%!) in the middle ages. Looks like the ottoman took some v13 but even more south slavic men (i-3120 and some r1a) back to turkey last few hundred years. Some is also through migration over last 200 years from people like albanians (mostly kosovo albanians) and bosnians and maybe greeks

Yep. There are definitely E-V13/J2b-L283/R1b-M269/I-Y3120 lineages from the Balkans which reached Turkey in the early Ottoman era and today are autosomally indistinguishable from other Turks. See Arnavutköy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnavutk%C3%B6y): In 1468, Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror brought Albanians and installed them in the districts of Istanbul where among other places, they founded Arnavutköy, a place named after them meaning Albanian village.




Off topic - i am shocked at how much z2103 armenians carry, anyone know if most of it is recent founder effect or is it truly one of the first layers of their genetics? They seem to have substantial mix of y dna with a lot of them coming in at 10%+ j2a, j1, g2, even T over 5% so i wonder how high/low z2103 was in that region its greatest extent. Is it possible spread of z2103 had something to do with thracians? Or it predates thracians? Which other culture can its spread be linked to when it had such an effect in regions like armenia??

Some of it could definitely be related to Thracians like the Bithynians and if the hypothesis about Armeno-Phrygians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armeno-Phrygians) has any validity then Phrygians should be connected to its spread too.

Aspar
08-26-2021, 04:49 PM
Remesiana, Ratiaria, Viminacium all were imperial/military colonies and even Sarmizegetusa was refounded as a colony. The majority of people who lived in these colonies were settlers from other areas and population density in the lands of Moesi-Triballi-Scordistae was very low.

Timacum Minus in Moesia Superior—Centrality and Urbanism at a Roman Mining Settlement (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/126/htm):

As the present evidence does not hint at a considerably dense pre-Roman and Principate-times indigenous inhabitation of the Timok valley [50], recruitment in the area might not have been a major aspect to facilitate.


These settlements postdate any pre-Roman population and you can't group populations which had distinct identities into any "Daco-Moesian-Thracian" grouping.


But you apply the same logic when using Scupi as place of origin for some soldiers in Viminacium to prove your point that Viminacium was inhabited mostly by Dardanians and indirectly with that, Illyrians. Double standards much?

Scupi was a Roman colony, postdating the pre-Roman population and settlements in the area as well BTW.

You've been called out for your double standards in this thread and still doing the same.

As for the Dacian and Thracian populations, there are quite many linguistic, historical and even archaeological traces(Gava related mainly), that these were related people.

Btw, this is the detailed list of origin for the veterans in Viminacium who were part of Legion VII Claudia Pia Fidelis:
https://inscriptions.packhum.org/book/203?location=1641

Remesiana – 42
Scupi – 37
Ratiaria – 24
Sirmio – 8
Castris – 7
Salonis – 6
Sarmezigetusa – 4
Nicopolis – 4
Mursa – 3
Pautalia – 2
Ampelo – 2
Trimontio – 2
Thessalonika - 1
Pergamum - 1
Iadero - 1
Heraclea - 1
Phillipi - 1
Traianopolis - 1
Zerna - 1
Ancyra - 1
Romula - 1

75 names of castrum, colony or town are of unidentifiable origin.

Of the 150 identifiable names, 80(which are bolded) are names of castrums that were located on a land historically inhabited by Daco-Thracian tribes or just over 50% of the total.

Underlined are the names of castrums that were located on territories historically inhabited by Dardanians and in general Illyrians(although this is quite dubious because the general term Illyrian was applied to people who weren't closely related such as Liburnians and Dardanians as argued by some modern linguists and historians) and they are 55 overall or around 1/3 of the identifiable names.

The rest are mostly names of castrums located in territories inhabited by Greeks.

I will not waste my time and energy with you anymore however as you are blind from nationalism and severely biased. It's quite visible that you want to apply a West Balkan origin for the vast majority of E-V13 and ignoring the evidence we have got until now, just because of your Illyrian obsession. Ain't going to happen I am 'afraid'...

Aspar
08-26-2021, 05:12 PM
Much of the population in Remesiana and Ratiaria colonies was from Dardania. Hence, there's M(arcus) Aur(elius) Dassius from Scupi, but also a P(ublius) Ael(ius) Dassius from Ratiaria. About 120 soldiers in Viminacium were born in Scupi, Remesiana, Ratiaria (roughly equal percentages for each settlement).


You prescribe Dardanian origin for most of the population in Viminacium because you are counting Raitaria and Remesiana as 'Dardanian'? You think one guy from Scupi put an inscription there and all of a sudden this colony is of Dardanian origin?


RECRUITMENT AND IDENTITY
EXPLORING THE MEANINGS OF ROMAN SOLDIERS’ HOMES

Michael A. SPEIDEL



Different homes would also have helped the administrative services of legio VII Claudia to distinguish between C. Valerius Valens and his
namesake, both serving in the legion’s cohors III in the later second century, but one
hailing from Rat(iaria), the other from R(emesiana?)57. Similar cases are also known
from Vindolanda and Egypt58. Te need to unambiguously identify individuals may
therefore have been the true reason for the seemingly puzzling habit of adding names
of vici to the homes of Roman soldiers.
If correct, we must surely conclude from the evidence presented above that after
212CE, as a general rule, the names of villages were added to the indications of soldiers’
homes in the books both of the praetorian guard and in those of the fleet soldiers, as
well as, probably, in the books of the equites singulares Augusti59. The large number
of Marci Aurelii among the fresh recruits appears to have overstrained previous techniques to
distinguish between namesakes60. Vicus-indications may therefore eventually
also have been introduced in other branches of the Roman army after the constitutio Antoniniana
in order to conclusively identify individual soldiers61. However, this seems
not have been the case in all provinces. Tus, for instance, respective evidence from
North Africa is completely absent62. Remarkably, there is also a conspicuously small
number of Marci Aurelii among the known soldiers of North African legio III Augusta,
which corresponds to the low frequency of Marci Aurelii known from North Africa in
general63. By contrast, enfranchisement under Marcus Aurelius (creating mainly Marci,
but also Titi and Lucii Aurelii) and the constitutio Antoniniana produced countless
Marci Aurelii among the inhabitants of Rome’s most important recruiting fields on
the Middle and Lower Danube64. Significantly, it is precisely from the provinces of
Pannonia, Moesia, and Tracia that the bulk of vicus-indications has become known.
If these correlations are more than coincidence, they strongly support the notion that
references to villages primarily served to identify individual soldiers beyond doubt,
and that they played a particularly important role in the aftermath of the constitutio
Antoniniana of 212CE in the military records of units with high percentages of soldiers
from the Middle and Lower Danube. Perhaps the Roman army’s administration even
resorted to existing local Tracian traditions of expressing identity by reference to a
village (cf. e.g. IGBulg III 1, 1197; 1445; 1474. IGBulg III 2, 1690).

rafc
08-26-2021, 06:29 PM
Nobody said that any of these groups were single hg populations. I am against any theory which claims that any ancient population was a single hg group.

The burden of proof that any of these groups in antiquity were X % E-V13 is on those who claim it. Nobody has to prove that they weren't E-V13. On the contrary, those who claim that they were E-V13 have to also prove it.

If we accept that at least some correlation between hg frequencies and demographic history exists because of basic population continuity, then with such extreme low levels of E-V13 in Turkey, it doesn't look likely at all that any of these groups carried E-V13 in substantial levels. On the contrary, many R1b-M269 lineages have a substantial presence in modern Turkey, so as a working hypothesis, this might actually hint to ancestral links with people like the Phrygians, which were probably the most populous group in several areas of Anatolia.

I agree nobody has to prove these groups had 0% V13, which is why it's so remarkable you go to great lengths to prove they did. Until we have a very large sample of aDNA from Anatolia and the Balkans, which we may never have, a complete proof of early V13 will be difficult. Compare it to L151 in CWC, many people ridiculed it since it was not found in aDNA, but rational thinking said it should be there in small amounts. Once enough CWC was sampled, it turned up.

Your idea on phrygians seems odd. So somehow this small group moving into Anatolia has a great impact in Anatolian genetics today, but is small today in the Balkans? How did V13 became so much more populous than this group in the Balkans then? It boggles my mind.

Bruzmi
08-26-2021, 06:56 PM
But you apply the same logic when using Scupi as place of origin for some soldiers in Viminacium to prove your point that Viminacium was inhabited mostly by Dardanians and indirectly with that, Illyrians. Double standards much?

Scupi was a Roman colony, postdating the pre-Roman population and settlements in the area as well BTW.


Scupi is the expansion of a pre-existing Dardanian settlement and the most veterans who were stationed there were largely local. It's a very, very different situation from Viminacium. It's also one of the regions where the language of the locals was preserved unlike the multiethnic frontier colonies where Latin was the only language of communication and contributed to the romanization of the region.



As for the Dacian and Thracian populations, there are quite many linguistic, historical and even archaeological traces(Gava related mainly), that these were related people.


Douglas Adams, J.P. Mallory (1997), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Taylor & Francis:
https://i.ibb.co/P6vF5bt/Thracian.jpg

Ancient Thrace in the Modern Imagination: Ideological Aspects of the Construction of Thracian Studies in Southeast Europe (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria):

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)



Btw, this is the detailed list of origin for the veterans in Viminacium who were part of Legion VII Claudia Pia Fidelis:
https://inscriptions.packhum.org/book/203?location=1641


You linked a general list of inscriptions from Viminacium, dated and undated ... which is not what we're discussing. The list we're discussing is the Veterans' list (https://inscriptions.packhum.org/text/174440?hs=1614-1622) from 196 AD. Not that it changes the percentages in general, but the number of veterans from Remesiana in Viminacium is 35. It's the same Remesiana which ~300-350 years later Procopius includes in the lands of the Dardanians.


You prescribe Dardanian origin for most of the population in Viminacium because you are counting Raitaria and Remesiana as 'Dardanian'? You think one guy from Scupi put an inscription there and all of a sudden this colony is of Dardanian origin?


RECRUITMENT AND IDENTITY
EXPLORING THE MEANINGS OF ROMAN SOLDIERS’ HOMES

Perhaps the Roman army’s administration even
resorted to existing local Tracian traditions of expressing identity by reference to a
village (cf. e.g. IGBulg III 1, 1197; 1445; 1474. IGBulg III 2, 1690).
Michael A. SPEIDEL

You quoted something which happened throughout the Balkans. There's nothing unique about it.

Pre-Roman Remesiana may not have even a Thracian settlement but the last Dardanian outpost to the east:


The Provincial at Rome: And, Rome and the Balkans 80BC-AD14 (https://books.google.com/books?id=dy1pAAAAMAAJ):

In the direction of Serdica the last Dardanian settlement was Remesiana

Late Roman Remesiana was consciously presented as Dardanian in the official imperial discourse.


Justiniana Prima: an underestimated aspect of Justinian's church policy (https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/item/35392/turlej_justiniana_prima_an_underestimated_aspect_2 016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

The next fragment (IV 1, 31‒IV 1, 32), in keeping with its placement in the narrative, contains further data about the building of fortifications among the Dardanians on the Emperor’s orders: (text in Greek)

ἀλλὰ καὶ Σαρδικῆς καὶ Ναϊσουπόλεως, ἔτι μέντοι Γερμαῆς τε καὶ Πανταλείας διερρωγότα τῷ χρόνῳ τὰ τείχη εὑρὼν οἰκοδομησάμενός τε ξὺν τῷ ἀσφαλεῖ ἄμαχα τοῖς πολεμίοις διεπράξατο εἶναι. καὶ πολίχνια δὲ τούτων δὴ μεταξὺ ἐδείματο τρία, Κρατίσκαρά τε καὶ Κουιμέδαβα καὶ Ῥουμισίανα. οὕτω μεν οὖν τάσδε τὰς πόλεις ἐκ θεμελίων ἀνέστησε.

All the cities listed by Procopius: Serdica, Naissos, Germania, Pautalia, and Remesiana described as a small fort, are very well-known as important urban centres in the province of Dacia Mediterranea. However, they were mentioned in the discussion of everything the Emperor built in his native land. This was probably not an accident or a mistake, but followed from the convention adopted. Procopius composed his account of Justinian’s fatherland presenting him as a Dardanian and using this key for presenting his material meant that in confrontation with the reality, i.e. with the location of Bederiana and the Emperor’s native land in the geographic region which did not overlap with the administrative boundaries of Dardania proper, it was necessary to broaden the context. It seems that Procopius decided to mention the ruler’s building activity in Dacia Mediterranea remembering the location of Bederiana and Justiniana Prima, which in terms of administrative division did not belong to Dardania. We could interpret this decision as the need to faithfully reflect the reality while adhering to the convention of presenting the Emperor’s ethnic origin in a positive light

So, the Remesiana the Slavs found when they arrived in the Balkans was not called "Thracian", "Dacian" or anything similar but simply Imperial Roman and Dardanian.

Huban
08-26-2021, 06:58 PM
As well as deal with the epigraphic evidence on Viminatium that will launch Bruzmi's "opinions" into the orbit of Jupiter.

Part I.

196 AD inscription in Viminatium

As analyzed by prof. dr. Miroslava Mirković (https://aiegl.org/newsreader/prof-miroslava-mirkovic-1933-2020.html) in the very paper where this information that you are all quoting was published.


Scupi 31 soldiers

2 carry Illyrian names
2 carry Thracian names
2 carry Paeonian names, clearly non Thracian/Illyrian, quite possibly part of the old Mediana (and Brnjica) culture descended element.
1 carries a name which might be either Illyrian or Thracian, it was attested in Dacians not far while similar names were common among Illyrians, so I will not count him.

estimated ethnicity
10 Illyrians
10 Thracians
10 Paeonians



Remesiana 35 soldiers
3 Thracian names
2 Illyrian names
1 unclear name, could be both, will not count him

20 Thracians
14 Illyrians



Ratiariaria 31 ,
5 Thracian names, 2 Celtic names, 1 Illyrian name

19 Thracians
8 Celts
4 Illyrians


Trimontium 3
2 Thracian names

3 Thracians


Pautalia 2
1 Thracian name

2 Thracians


Heraclea
1 Thracian name.

1 Thracian

Nicopolis 4
2 Greek names
4 Greeks



Sirmium 5 names
1 Illyrian
5 Illyrians



Thessalonica
1 Greek name

1 Greek

Sarmizegetusa 4, no indegenous names, presumed Dacian/Thracian

Salonis 3, no indegenous names, presumed Illyrian

Romula 1, not an indegenous name, presumed Dacian/Thracian

Zerna 1, not an indegenous name, presumed Dacian/Thracian

+ 1 Thracian name without location


Number of Soldiers of estimated ethnicity: 121
Thracian predicted 62
Illyrian predicted 36
Paeonian predicted 10
Celtic predicted 8
Greek predicted 5

Of course a number of soldiers from these places with Latin names are of non-indigenous origin as evidenced by various Near eastern, Sarmatian haplogroups found at Viminatium. And later Germanic as well.

DFSTFD
08-26-2021, 06:59 PM
@Bruzmi, my point is that I think you're overinterpreting those results a bit, especially since we're dealing with populations that come from quite similar overall sources. Also the southern Scythian Moldovan group seems to have some sort of contemporary ENA-ANE-rich steppe ancestry, as I said, so the issue is that if that's the case it will depress distances to the more northern HRV/northern Adriatic group compared to the BGR_IA sample. As you show in your PCA too, those more EEF-rich samples (especially if projected even more "southwest") fall somewhere between HRV_IA and BGR_IA, so it seems hard to make any specific conclusions. HRV_Sopot_MN for example is also quite close to all sorts of other Balkan Neolithic groups, so I kinda doubt we can be that specific about it.

Considering that the samples themselves seem to come from around the edge of where those Balkan-like populations likely lived, a relative migration from somewhere in the west/southwest is probably the case but I don't see why you're comparing them to samples all the way from the Adriatic.

This is irrespective of the whole Y-DNA discussion, just to be clear.

Huban
08-26-2021, 07:06 PM
Scupi is the expansion of a pre-existing Dardanian settlement and the most veterans who were stationed there were largely local. It's a very, very different situation from Viminacium. It's also one of the regions where the language of the locals was preserved unlike the multiethnic frontier colonies where Latin was the only language of communication and contributed to the romanization of the region.


As you invoked trouble you got it.:) I have posted the situation at Viminatium, what you or anyone else says is of no consequence... Also we get to see the situation at your Scupi, with Illyrian names being a minority which mirrors the Glasinac-Mati J-L283 minority which dragged itself to Dardania in the Middle Iron Age and brought the Illyrian language there which was non-existent in the area prior to that point..

DFSTFD
08-26-2021, 07:13 PM
Checking the shift of HRV_IA and BGR_IA compared to a Steppe_EBA source (https://i.imgur.com/30dV3Za.png). While clearly, as in clear on the PCA too, HRV_IA prefers somewhat more HG-rich EEF sources compared to BGR_IA on average there's still considerable overlap. Unless we get a lot of samples from both the west and east Balkans and they form clearly different relatively homogeneous clusters that don't form somewhat longer clines and overlap each other too, it seems hard to make that kind of argument.

Bruzmi
08-26-2021, 07:16 PM
Your idea on phrygians seems odd. So somehow this small group moving into Anatolia has a great impact in Anatolian genetics today, but is small today in the Balkans? How did V13 became so much more populous than this group in the Balkans then? It boggles my mind.

I'm not sure that I follow your argument, so I apologize beforehand if I'm misinterpreting it.

I explicitly said that I don't believe that the Phrygians were E-V13 based on what we're seeing from the frequencies of lineages brought via the Balkans/southern Europe to Turkey and the <1% E-V13 among Armenians. I'm confident that they belonged to R1b-M269 lineages just like Proto-Armenians.

Huban
08-26-2021, 07:16 PM
Checking the shift of HRV_IA and BGR_IA compared to a Steppe_EBA source (https://i.imgur.com/30dV3Za.png). While clearly, as in clear on the PCA too, HRV_IA prefers somewhat more HG-rich EEF sources compared to BGR_IA on average there's still considerable overlap. Unless we get a lot of samples from both the west and east Balkans and they form clearly different relatively homogeneous clusters that don't form somewhat longer clines and overlap each other too, it seems hard to make that kind of argument.

Indeed that is one fundamental difference that defines the East Balkans- West Balkans cline, the other is elevated CHG ancestry in the Eastern Balkans and that includes the Moldovan Scythians as well. This clearly points that the EEF source blocks taking part in their genesis were not the same and that we should not derive one from the other.

Bruzmi
08-26-2021, 07:22 PM
Part I.

196 AD inscription in Viminatium

As analyzed by prof. dr. Miroslava Mirković (https://aiegl.org/newsreader/prof-miroslava-mirkovic-1933-2020.html) in the very paper where this information that you are all quoting was published.



It's Viminacium.

Also, I'm not going to reply to any discussion based on writings from local Kosovo Serb authors from the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. If you want to, you can list the names and we can discuss with independent sources about them (otherwise I can definitely bring up Kosovo Albanian authors who consider every name to be Illyrian). Thanks :)

EDIT: Many archaeologists from all over Yugoslavia were involved in the publication of Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure.

EDIT 2: The reason why I avoid most Yugoslav authors is because they always add their own ideological interpretations to the results.

The last Yugoslav/Serbian author who was cited in this thread actually implied that the Dorians were Central Balkan migrants to Greece.

DFSTFD
08-26-2021, 07:27 PM
Indeed that is one fundamental difference that defines the East Balkans- West Balkans cline, the other is elevated CHG ancestry in the Eastern Balkans and that includes the Moldovan Scythians as well. This clearly points that the EEF source blocks taking part in their genesis were not the same and that one should not derive one from the other.

Right, but to be cautious, some of that "CHG"-like we see in the Scythian Moldovan cluster might also come from the more eastern/steppe_IA/"Sarmatian"-like part of their ancestry. BGR_IA itself doesn't seem to necessarily have that much extra CHG (while in the Mycenaeans/Empuries2 it's much more clearly there), though its overall EEF source in a 2-way model looks relatively HG-poor at least. Could be a more HG-rich source and an HG-poor, more CHG-rich source combining to give that effect though. Wouldn't be weird considering we already have the one Krepost sample and even the pre-Slavic ancestry in the modern Balkans seems more CHG-rich in the east than the west, though that could be due to later waves too.

The Z2103 HRV_EBA:I3499 from northeast Croatia also seems to potentially show some extra CHG (however he got it) and these kinds of early R1b-rich populations might have had an important role to play throughout the Balkans.

Ideally, we'd get a few more samples from the east Balkans than the one we have and the "projected" Scythian Moldovan ancestry that seems to fall somewhere between HRV_IA and BGR_IA like individuals. Until then I wouldn't guess too much about what these kinds of Balkan models for overall quite similar groups so far can tell us, though I certainly don't see the need for those "Adriatic" connections that Bruzmi is making.

Riverman
08-26-2021, 07:47 PM
Right, but to be cautious, some of that "CHG"-like we see in the Scythian Moldovan cluster might also come from the more eastern/steppe_IA/"Sarmatian"-like part of their ancestry.

It did, that's why there was the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon: Daco-Thracians largely fused with incoming Cimmerians, creating their new version we know from the Iron Age, even more pastoralist, more mobile at first, with improved horsebreeds and horsmanship. The point is, the Cimmerians had direct relations to the Caucasus, this is also evident by the spread of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the artefacts it produced. The Cimmerians too brought Caucasian ancestry with them. The Scythians too had relations to that region.
So its definitely possible, especially for individuals, that they had increased CHG ancestry because of Scytho-Cimmerian influences on the region.

DFSTFD
08-26-2021, 07:48 PM
Some more models with more proximal pre-BA sources and 4-pop reduction in Vahaduo (https://i.imgur.com/Kp4dJtj.png). Some probable CHG in the east (via "Minoan-Helladic" like groups) per above, but they all pick Balkan C sources. Maybe we can interprent HRV_IA as a recent immigrant from the east (45% BGR_C) instead, though we'd still be overintepreting the choice between similar Balkan C sources there too. Also the obvious Steppe_IA in the southern Moldovan group that the others don't pick up.


It did, that's why there was the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon: Daco-Thracians largely fused with incoming Cimmerians, creating their new version we know from the Iron Age, even more pastoralist, more mobile at first, with improved horsebreeds and horsmanship. The point is, the Cimmerians had direct relations to the Caucasus, this is also evident by the spread of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the artefacts it produced. The Cimmerians too brought Caucasian ancestry with them. The Scythians too had relations to that region.
So its definitely possible, especially for individuals, that they had increased CHG ancestry because of Scytho-Cimmerian influences on the region.

Yes, definitely not discounting that some of that eastern/CHG-like ancestry is also from these groups. Check the models above too for fun though!

Bruzmi
08-26-2021, 07:49 PM
Ideally, we'd get a few more samples from the east Balkans than the one we have and the "projected" Scythian Moldovan ancestry that seems to fall somewhere between HRV_IA and BGR_IA like individuals. Until then I wouldn't guess too much about what these kinds of Balkan models for overall quite similar groups so far can tell us, though I certainly don't see the need for those "Adriatic" connections that Bruzmi is making.

The reason why I'm comparing them with samples which got to Italy from the Balkans is because the origin of J2b-L283 samples is from the same area (broadly speaking) where HRV_EBA/Sopot Neolithic ancestry is derived. As J2b-L283-heavy migrations reached Italy and Sardinia, they did bring ancestry which didn't exist before their arrival in regions like Sardinia:

Target: Sardinian
Distance: 1.0112% / 0.01011214 | R6P
62.8 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
13.8 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
9.2 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
7.0 TUR_Isparta_EBA
4.4 HRV_Vucedol
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

What's interesting to me is that on yfull for some reason ~10/27 E-V13 samples from Italy are from Sardinia. That certainly constitutes an over-representation of E-V13 in Sardinia, doesn't it? The other thing is that while I'm against assumptions about individual samples based on present location, it's quite strange that many of them have a TMRCA in the same era when the J2b-L283 migrations to Italy occurred. I'm not saying that this is the answer, I'm just saying that it's something which should be further explored.

E-PF6784 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF6784*/)
E-BY6527 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6527/)
E-Y150909 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909*/)
E-FT79653 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT79653/)
E-PH1173 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173/)
E-Z21340 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z21340/)
E-FGC11450 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11450/)
E-L241* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241*/)
E-S2972* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2972/)
E-S2978* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2978/)

Huban
08-26-2021, 08:20 PM
It's Viminacium.

It's both apparently.

Quote from wiki
Viminacium[1] (Viminacium[2]) or Viminatium was a major city (provincial capital) and military camp
Latter seems to me more in nature of Latin language.



Also, I'm not going to reply to any discussion based on writings from local Kosovo Serbian authors from the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia.

Character assassination without any basis in reality. She cannot be quoted because she is a Kosovo Serb? Has anyone published a paper denying what she said? On this topic there is absolutely nothing to deny and actually she is rather more pro-Illyrian as were many Yugoslav authors because they view Illyria as their space of operation. In fact I judged against her view that Thamarcus is of "unknown" origin per view of Romanian authors and some finds from Bulgaria.

Character assassination attempt, victimology, guilt by association all so typical of what most Albanians are like, what so many Serbs are, Bosniaks, Croats, Greeks, "x" are..

I am relative of some people who were in prison in communist Yugoslavia. I am not capable of being into Albanian or Serbian or whatever victimology based nationalism. As I am of those who take it on the chin and live to fight.. I don't care who says something, I care what they say..


If you want to, you can list the names and we can discuss with independent sources about them (otherwise I can definitely bring up Kosovo Albanian authors who consider every name to be Illyrian). Thanks :)

Vast majority of the names are without any doubt blatantly with stated ancient ethnic associations, in fact regarding the Paeonian name I also referred to others such as Papazoglu. Of course we can but the mere fact that you are unaware of what Illyrian, Thracian names look like, as they are there to be seen by those who do know that, shows you do not know that much, otherwise you would have recognized them at first sight.

Btw the most common Illyrian name is Dassius. Looks to be probably a variant of Illyrian Dazo, Dazas, per Matzinger derives of PIE *deḱ-, "to take" and Albanian is marr, I don't see anything derived of *deḱ-.. Please show me if there is an alternative Albanian word. I've been looking, if Orel doesn't have it it doesn't exist.

I quoted an author involved with Viminatium directly and you are "threatening" you will invoke some psychiatry cases in your support.. :confused:


The last Yugoslav/Serbian author who was cited in this thread actually implied that the Dorians were Central Balkan migrants to Greece.

A wild speculation indeed. Then how come you do not understand what have you been doing here in this topic? The same..

rafc
08-26-2021, 08:23 PM
I'm not sure that I follow your argument, so I apologize beforehand if I'm misinterpreting it.

I explicitly said that I don't believe that the Phrygians were E-V13 based on what we're seeing from the frequencies of lineages brought via the Balkans/southern Europe to Turkey and the <1% E-V13 among Armenians. I'm confident that they belonged to R1b-M269 lineages just like Proto-Armenians.

My point is, today R1b-M269 is small in the Balkans (except for a specific recent branch) and large in Anatolia. This seems the opposite of what I would expect if a group moves from the Balkans to Anatolia. I think generally it's thought I1 is a good indicator of Viking/German spread since it's large in their homeland, and small where they moved. Same story for U106 between the continental areas where they came from and the parts of England where Anglo-Saxons moved. So if you see the R1b-M269 as a result of Phrygian migration this migration must have been massive, while at a later time somehow this very R1b-M269 rich population on the Balkans was replaced by a V13 rich population from an unkown other location. I find that a very convoluted scenario.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion.

rafc
08-26-2021, 08:45 PM
What's interesting to me is that on yfull for some reason ~10/27 E-V13 samples from Italy are from Sardinia. That certainly constitutes an over-representation of E-V13 in Sardinia, doesn't it? The other thing is that while I'm against assumptions about individual samples based on present location, it's quite strange that many of them have a TMRCA in the same era when the J2b-L283 migrations to Italy occurred. I'm not saying that this is the answer, I'm just saying that it's something which should be further explored.

E-PF6784 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF6784*/)
E-BY6527 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6527/)
E-Y150909 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909*/)
E-FT79653 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT79653/)
E-PH1173 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173/)
E-Z21340 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z21340/)
E-FGC11450 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11450/)
E-L241* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241*/)
E-S2972* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2972/)
E-S2978* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2978/)

The reason is simply that an Italian study (by Francalacci) analyzed 1000 genomes from Sardinia, and they were included on the Yfull tree. If a scientific study would test the same proportion of the population in other parts of Italy the Sardinian results would be dwarved. Anyway, since we don't now when the L283 migrations to Italy happened, we cannot say it's in the same period as the TMRCA of these samples. It is very likely though based on the TMRCA's that V13 generally came later than L283. At the earliest in urnfield expansions, but likely also later, even in Roman times.

Bruzmi
08-26-2021, 09:01 PM
...


That's interesting. The original form would have been Viminacium>Viminacio which in the Late Latin era produced Viminatium>Viminatio same as Dyrrhachium>Dyrrhatio>Durrazo and Durrës.

Let me explain why I avoid such literature.

You wrote that:


Remesiana 35 soldiers
3 Thracian names
2 Illyrian names
1 unclear name, could be both, will not count him

20 Thracians
14 Illyrians


These are the names:

C(aius) Val(erius) Valens d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Lic(inius) Longinus       R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Valens         R(emesiana?)
P(ublius) Ael(ius) Vitalis         R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Dolens d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
L(ucius) Minic(ius) Verissim(us) d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
T(itus) Val(erius) Valentin(us)    R(emesiana?)
[․ A]el(ius) Ingenuus         R(emesiana?)
[M(arcus) Ulp(ius)] Valens    R(emesiana?)
[․ Aur(elius)] Mucco d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
[․ Val(erius)] Valens op(tio) R(emesiana?)
[C(aius) V]ạ[l(erius)] Ṿalens int(erpres) R(emesiana?)
[C(aius) Iusti]en(us) Sequens  R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Ulp(ius) Magnio         R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Valens          R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Ulp(ius) Ianuar(ius)    R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Albanus         R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Ant(onius) Valens       R(emesiana?)
[․] Did(ius) Valens              R(emesiana?)
[․ ․․c.8․․․] eq(ues) R(emesiana?)
80 [․ ․․c.8․․․]s        R(emesiana?)
[․ ․․․ D]assius tub(icen) R(emesiana?)
[․ Au]r(elius) Taurus R(emesiana?)
[․] Aur(elius) Andio  R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Surus   R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Auluzon  R(emesiana?)
C(aius) All(ius) Crescens c(ustos) a(rmorum) R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) [A]ur(elius) Provincial(is) R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Severus d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
L(ucius) Apul(eius) Iustus sig(nifer) R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Marcus   R(emesiana?)
T(itus) Fl(avius) Longinus  R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Val(erius) Valens b(ene)f(iciarius) tr(ibuni)  R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Mucatra l(ibrarius)   R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Victorin(us)   R(emesiana?)

As you can see for yourself, there is nothing in the names of most which is indicative of their origin. So the source you cited basically classified 3 names as Thracian, 2 as Illyrian and then projected the 3/2 ratio to all other individuals. That's very unscientific. It's not that I'm dismissing her work just because she was active academically in a very dark era. It's that Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav studies are full of totally unscientific "conclusions".

dosas
08-26-2021, 09:09 PM
I always believed Phrygians were dominantly R-Z2103 and I still do, which clade? Well Armenians have two major clades, one of them is I suspect Armenian the other Phrygian.. And these are also most dominant in Anatolia..


Which one clade is which, according to your opinion?

Huban
08-26-2021, 09:42 PM
That's interesting. The original form would have been Viminacium>Viminacio which in the Late Latin era produced Viminatium>Viminatio same as Dyrrhachium>Dyrrhatio>Durrazo and Durrës.

Let me explain why I avoid such literature.

You wrote that:



These are the names:

C(aius) Val(erius) Valens d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Lic(inius) Longinus       R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Valens         R(emesiana?)
P(ublius) Ael(ius) Vitalis         R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Dolens d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
L(ucius) Minic(ius) Verissim(us) d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
T(itus) Val(erius) Valentin(us)    R(emesiana?)
[․ A]el(ius) Ingenuus         R(emesiana?)
[M(arcus) Ulp(ius)] Valens    R(emesiana?)
[․ Aur(elius)] Mucco d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
[․ Val(erius)] Valens op(tio) R(emesiana?)
[C(aius) V]ạ[l(erius)] Ṿalens int(erpres) R(emesiana?)
[C(aius) Iusti]en(us) Sequens  R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Ulp(ius) Magnio         R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Valens          R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Ulp(ius) Ianuar(ius)    R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Albanus         R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Ant(onius) Valens       R(emesiana?)
[․] Did(ius) Valens              R(emesiana?)
[․ ․․c.8․․․] eq(ues) R(emesiana?)
80 [․ ․․c.8․․․]s        R(emesiana?)
[․ ․․․ D]assius tub(icen) R(emesiana?)
[․ Au]r(elius) Taurus R(emesiana?)
[․] Aur(elius) Andio  R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Surus   R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Auluzon  R(emesiana?)
C(aius) All(ius) Crescens c(ustos) a(rmorum) R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) [A]ur(elius) Provincial(is) R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Severus d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)
L(ucius) Apul(eius) Iustus sig(nifer) R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Marcus   R(emesiana?)
T(itus) Fl(avius) Longinus  R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Val(erius) Valens b(ene)f(iciarius) tr(ibuni)  R(emesiana?)
M(arcus) Aur(elius) Mucatra l(ibrarius)   R(emesiana?)
C(aius) Iul(ius) Victorin(us)   R(emesiana?)

As you can see for yourself, there is nothing in the names of most which is indicative of their origin. So the source you cited basically classified 3 names as Thracian, 2 as Illyrian and then projected the 3/2 ratio to all other individuals. That's very unscientific. It's not that I'm dismissing her work just because she was active academically in a very dark era. It's that Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav studies are full of totally unscientific "conclusions".

Clear Thracian names
Mucatra l (ibrarius)   R(emesiana?)
Auluzon  R(emesiana?)
Dolens d(onis) d(onatus) R(emesiana?)

Clear Illyrian
Andio  R(emesiana?)
Dassius

Surus is unclear, can be both.

I missed Didius maybe as another Paeonian. Dida is Paeonian and I even mentioned it in another topic as being maybe related to Albanian Deda.


Did(ius) Valens R(emesiana?)

Some good archeological evidence connects proto-Paeonians and original pre-Illyrian, pre-Thracian Dardanians..

That's only a handful of names but its best we can get for estimating their ethnicity, of course those Latin named people include people of Neareastern and Roman origin in their ranks. Alternatively one may just count these names individually. I do not understand how my method is unscientific, we have 30 soldiers, a fifth or so carry indigenous names, if one is to do an estimation on most of them, others from the same area are the only reference..

Your methodology of debate that is a mixture of communist and a religious missionary will not yield results as I have plenty of experience with this sort of people. You refuse to answer to facts presented before you in a manner of a real religious missionary.

Also dude, you (nor vast majority of people) do not want to discuss things linguistics related with someone like me, I guarantee you that..;)

Huban
08-26-2021, 09:58 PM
Which one clade is which, according to your opinion?

That's a very difficult and interesting question. Looking at the Armenian FTDNA project, their R-L584 is 11.6 % while R-Y4364 is at 7.5 %. But I guess Armenians are not too crucial here because they are more confined to an area, unless ofc great many of them are with recent origin from rather distant places (like I know many are).. I think one should look at the new NGS Turkish study and see in which areas of Anatolia is one or the other more prevalent, and if this fits with the historical Phrygia..

In case both are actually equally proto-Armenian, that really makes it hard to imagine the proto-Phrygian hg.. And it's also a bit unusual as both clades are very basal on Z2103 tree. New study also yielded some new Turkish results under R-PF331.

Huban
08-26-2021, 11:52 PM
I will post more information on Moldovan Scythian samples i.e. Moldovan Scythians of clear Getae origin.

Part II.

As written by archeologists Telynov and Sinika in an article from 2012 "Thracian influence on material culture and funerary rite of Scythians of the 3rd-2nd century BC on the left bank of lower Dniestr."

Thracian/Getic details regarding Scythian Glinoe pottery finds.

Kurgan K103 B1 sample: scy192
Getic inwardly curved rims in bowls and cups
Getic ribbed cups
..with Getic festoons on cups
Getic festoons on the rims of bowls and cups

Getic cup found next to scy192
https://i.ibb.co/Bw7xDgp/103-1.jpg

Kurgan 50B1S1, sample: scy197
This find had no archeological material, just a 4-5 year old boy. Quite possibly the reason for the lack of finds..

Kurgan 89 B3S2, sample: scy300
no Thracian influence in this one but there is in another tested burial from this kurgan, scy301.

Kurgan 87 B1, sample: scy305
Getic horizontal beads on bowl rims


non-Southern cluster
Kurgan 89B1, sample: scy301
Getic Horizontal beads on bowl rims

Kurgan 65B1, sample: scy332
Getic inwardly curved rims in bowls and cups


Kurgan 75B2, sample: 303
Getic ribbed cups


As evidenced in majority of burials there is Thracian/Getic influence. Most details present in scy192, so when one calculates this there is inclination towards Southern cluster. Also it occurs in all kurgans (K89 not the Southern guy but the other guy) bar the burial of a small boy carrying V13..

Quote from the author
"Analogous ornamental elements are known from a whole range of Thracian sites, in particular burial sites Hanska I and Hanska-Luteria, in a burial near the village Mologa as well as in the settlements of Kartal (MJ12 is from there) and Novoselskoe, Solonceni-Hlinaia, Saharna-Mare.."

The Getic influence on Scythians reflects itself also in weaponry:
1- a unique double edged axe found in Kurgan 14, burial 2 Glinoe, extremely rare in Scythians but a typical Thracian weapon in origin connected to local bronze prototypes. In particular bronze double edged axes were found in sites of Ferigile and Bârsești.

There are some various other ornamental Getic influences in Glinoe Scythians. And remember that they are immediately next to Getic settlements.

There is heavy Getic influence on Glinoie Scythians, and finds point towards these being of Saharna-Solonceni group and with even Babadag area connections.. It is obvious this cluster should have origin of this group..




Now something about autosomal DNA. Here is a G25 run with four ancestral components.
- Average of Mokrin samples to represent the dominant ancestral block for the IA and MBA Croatian samples and they are supposed to have arrived from Mokrin direction judging by the dominant W.Balkan hg J-L283, and J-L283 Mokrin find MOK15, upstream of all Balkan J-L283..
- IR1 Mezőcsát culture sample, Cimmerian, to represent something more Steppe-heavy. Note: upcoming Gava culture LBA E1b1b1a sample is actually rather close to him on PCA plot, and looks like IR1 with little extra EEF direction..
- Lasinja Neolithic sample to represent more Western EEF, with some WHG
- Starcevo to represent a less WHG, more "original" EEF sample.

https://i.ibb.co/zsWP8K5/Glinoe-Scyt-cl.jpg

Why is it that Western Balkan samples clearly seem to derive much more ancestry from a Mokrin source, preferring it to IR1, as well as far more from a Lasinja source in comparison to these Scythian samples who prefer no Mokrin whatsoever practically, and they clearly totally prefer in comparison the IR1. Even Iron Age Bulgarian in this scheme prefers zero Mokrin and Lasinja elements.. And of course here you clearly see that all of these Scythians are all alike and not like W.Balkan samples..

Superficially all populations with comparable levels of EEF/Steppe ancestry will be similar.. But these were different populations that do not derive of each other. What DFSTFD and I have been discussing, the difference in WHG level/CHG level ratios in Western as opposed to Eastern samples is what creates this sort of result.. Plain and simple. And at the end the V13 clade in question is heavily Eastern in general and I do not understand how can someone even come up with an idea that it originated in the IA Western Balkans..

Anyway, I dealt with Pannonian study in a way that reveals alot more information, and as I promised I delivered the information concerning Viminacium ethnic makeup and Glinoe Scythians. I have no intention of going in circles in these talks with individuals arguing from a Marxist and religious missionary POV and methodology with predetermined "conclusions" that constitute their set of quasi-religious beliefs..

dosas
08-27-2021, 07:12 AM
The trend I see in this and other threads:

"Greeks have E1b>E-V13 as their highest marker", moving to "Greeks have at least 15-20% E-V13", moving to "Greeks have around 10% E-V13", which was exactly the point 23abc and I were making.

Also, Anatolia not having a lot of it is not a good sign of it being a major Doric speaking marker, bros; there were several Doric colonies in Asia Minor and Macedonians, a Doric group, expanded massively into Anatolia, maybe all the Doric lineages there were wiped out, who knows.

And I'd like to point out that Armenians are historically both a South Caucasus and an Anatolian (Eastern half+Cilicia) group.

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 07:54 AM
Anyway, I dealt with Pannonian study in a way that reveals alot more information, and as I promised I delivered the information concerning Viminacium ethnic makeup and Glinoe Scythians. I have no intention of going in circles in these talks with individuals arguing from a Marxist and religious missionary POV and methodology with predetermined "conclusions" that constitute their set of quasi-religious beliefs..

You provided a Yugoslav hypothesis which classified 3 names as Thracian and 2 names as Illyrian and then projected this ratio to everyone else in Remesiana. This is an obviously wrong methodology.

There's really nothing to say about your "conclusions" about the Glinoe site. You interpreted the fact one of the individuals buried there had ornaments from the region... as something which makes him a local. We don't have to hypothesize anything burial iterms because we have data about his ancestry and it's definitely not local.

But let's get to your calculator results.

A few days ago you tried to criticize the fact that I compared medieval individuals with EBA samples as "methodologically wrong" because there is a big time span between (even though I cross-reference every sample with contemporaneous ones). What you did here is that you picked 4 random sources from 4 wildly different periods and then you tried to infer conclusions by comparing these wildly different eras.

For a model to be reliable, your sources must be from roughly the same period because otherwise there might be overlap between them and you have to include sources which cover a wide geographical region otherwise the model might be forced to classify samples as having links to samples with which they have little in common.

HRV_Starcevo_LN is a mistaken label because the sample comes an era long after Starcevo. It has been dated to ~3421 BC (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=5421&ybp=500000,0)
Balaton_Lasinja MCA samples date to ~4100 BC
SRB_Mokrin_EBA samples date to ~1886 BC (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3886&ybp=500000,0)
HUN_Prescythian dates to ~849 BC (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=2849&ybp=500000,0)

It's obvious to everyone who understands the basics of how calculators function that you shouldn't include in your sources samples which have a separation of thousands of years in eras during which radical changes occurred. If those sources overlap geographically, then the methodological issues are even bigger. And the biggest problem of all: this is a reductive calculator because it assumes that all the samples have origins from just this small region, so the calc is forced to assign all non-HRV/HUN/SRB origins to the available sources which has even the smallest of links to other ancestries not covered by the model.

For anyone reading this, what immediately betrays the many errors of this model is the big distance between targets and sources all close to or 3> or even 3.5> With the model I've been using, almost all distances are <3 and many are <2.

When you model these samples based on distances with EBA samples, this is what you get:

Target: scy192
Distance: 1.6647% / 0.01664731 | R6P
41.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
37.6 SVK_EBA
9.0 BGR_N
9.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin
2.6 RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.4793% / 0.02479322 | R6P
32.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
29.8 GRC_Helladic_EBA
16.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
11.4 Baltic_EST_BA
6.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
3.0 RUS_Kurma_EBA

Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 1.6966% / 0.01696579 | R6P
48.8 GRC_Peloponnese_N
17.8 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
11.2 Wales_CA_EBA
10.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
7.8 Yamnaya_UKR
3.8 HRV_Vucedol

Target: HRV_MBA
Distance: 1.2804% / 0.01280420 | R6P
33.4 GRC_Peloponnese_N
28.2 SVK_EBA
15.0 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
14.4 Wales_CA_EBA
9.0 GRC_Cycladic_EBA

As everyone can see the distances are much smaller because the model has enough available sources which allow it to model samples accurately. But what made Huban's calc move samples "close" (if anyone can call 3> "close") to the Prescythian one? First of all, it's a contemporaneous sample so comparing them to him doesn't show ancestry from him but common ancestral links. Secondly, if there is no other available source, then the model will be forced to plot someone as X % Prescythian and then show that the distance is too big so we shouldn't rely on this result. Not to mention that HRV_MBA is older than Prescythian by about 700-900 years. To get an answer, we have to compare HUN_Prescythian with EBA sources:


Target: HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
Distance: 2.3000% / 0.02300016 | R6P
32.0 Wales_CA_EBA
26.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
25.6 GRC_Minoan_EBA
9.6 RUS_Kurma_EBA
6.4 Baltic_LTU_BA


The Prescythian (as would be expected by the descendant of a nomadic population) has ancestry from many different sources including WHG (which he obviously didn't get anywhere in eastern Europe), 25% Yamnaya and 25% southern Balkan Neolithic ancestry which plots as GRC_Minoan-like. So, the Prescythian sample has a heavy admixture itself. In a model which has no way to display southern Balkan Neolithic ancestry and almost no way to display WHG or even Yamnaya ancestry properly because HRV_Neolithic samples have 0% Yamnaya what happens is that it's forced to use Prescythian as a proxy for many different ancestral components and then display a big distance as a warning for the validity of the results...which reveal severe data filtering. Nothing more, nothing less.

A final comment: At some point if this thread continues to operate in the same way as it is now, mods should interfere and close it once more. It's a sub-standard thread which is closer to "discussions" with wild theories and personal comments which are being "freely" debated in other fora (if we can even call them proper fora).

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 08:21 AM
The trend I see in this and other threads:

"Greeks have E1b>E-V13 as their highest marker", moving to "Greeks have at least 15-20% E-V13", moving to "Greeks have around 10% E-V13", which was exactly the point 23abc and I were making.

Also, Anatolia not having a lot of it is not a good sign of it being a major Doric speaking marker, bros; there were several Doric colonies in Asia Minor and Macedonians, a Doric group, expanded massively into Anatolia, maybe all the Doric lineages there were wiped out, who knows.

And I'd like to point out that Armenians are historically both a South Caucasus and an Anatolian (Eastern half+Cilicia) group.

Exactly. The debate about E-V13 figures started with some wild speculations about 20-25%+ E-V13 among Greeks and high diversity. Then it moved to "yeah, but still 15-20% and high diversity is very important" and the idea that we will definitely see increased E-V13 in Anatolia. Then it moved to "10-15% is still high".

Then we got results from Anatolia and Turkey in general and the debate moved to explanations as to why out of potentially 14 E-V13 samples (out of hundreds of samples) of which 6 are from the Balkans and 3 are Kurdish, the remaining E-V13 might just be explained by ancient Greek colonization.

Then it devolved even further to debating whether the miniscule E-V13 presence in Anatolia is higher or lower than the very low in general but higher than E-V13, I-Y3120 %.


At no point did anyone say "ok, our suggestions/estimations were wrong". Nope. The only thing that happened was that the goalpost kept getting moved.

By the way, these are the arguments in the other (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=707112&viewfull=1#post707112) thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=707338&viewfull=1#post707338) about Armenians (0.9% E-V13!)

Riverman
08-27-2021, 08:56 AM
The trend I see in this and other threads:

"Greeks have E1b>E-V13 as their highest marker", moving to "Greeks have at least 15-20% E-V13", moving to "Greeks have around 10% E-V13", which was exactly the point 23abc and I were making.

Also, Anatolia not having a lot of it is not a good sign of it being a major Doric speaking marker, bros; there were several Doric colonies in Asia Minor and Macedonians, a Doric group, expanded massively into Anatolia, maybe all the Doric lineages there were wiped out, who knows.

And I'd like to point out that Armenians are historically both a South Caucasus and an Anatolian (Eastern half+Cilicia) group.

It depends on time and region. Are you talking about modern Greeks, then yes, they have a much higher frequency. Are you talking about modern Northern Greeks, they have an even higher one.
But if talking about ancient Greeks, we lack the samples and even more so sample size from the right places to come to a conclusion. For early Greeks we don't know how much they were impacted by the Channelled Ware Urnfielders. Probably not at all (unlikely), somewhat (very likely), probably in appreciable numbers but as a minority in Northern Greeks and possibly Dorians (likely) and of course due to contacts with Daco-Thracians (extremely likely). The North and Peleponnes is supposed to have received more early on than Anatolia, so any percentage which reached regions far away from any Channelled Ware and Daco-Thracians means more, if looking old and local. Like that of the Cappadocian Greek and some of the new Turkish samples do. They might be more recent, but there is no proof for that because they have no recent autosomal admixture and no recent TMRCA with any known non-Turkis, non-Greek Balkan people. Same goes for Armenians and even more so for the Kurds, in which some of the carriers seem to have taken a Northern, Iranian derived route.
It matters a lot whether we can really attribute subclades to let's say Janissaries from South Slavs or Albanian migrants and Bulgarian converts, or not. Like one of the unknown samples has a South Slavic ancestral profile and a clearly European subclade. That's a good example for an individual for which don't need to debate a lot: He is interesting in itself, but not for the Greek and Anatolian debate.

A couple of others on the other hand are a different matter.

@dosas: What do you think about the Cappadocian Greek and the Turk from Samsun with E-V13 in one clade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173/

The Cappadocian Greek has no match after the main expansion of E-V13 in the transitional period (1.200-1.100 BC +/- 200). He could be from anywhere, but looks independent from the other branches so far.

The Turkish samples from Samsun is now in a clade in the Iron Age/Greek colonisation, but unfortunately his counterpart has not provided any background information, like many testers do. He has a Bulgarian match, which is good, but again, its from the expansion phase, so this tells us nothing about the later ethnic affiliation from archaic times on.
A third sample from Armenia has more recent matches, but look from where they are coming from and the time frame is still Iron Age.

Do you really claim without further evidence that Greek speakers like the Cappadocian all must have more recent Balkan ancestry?

rafc
08-27-2021, 09:01 AM
Exactly. The debate about E-V13 figures started with some wild speculations about 20-25%+ E-V13 among Greeks and high diversity. Then it moved to "yeah, but still 15-20% and high diversity is very important" and the idea that we will definitely see increased E-V13 in Anatolia. Then it moved to "10-15% is still high".

Then we got results from Anatolia and Turkey in general and the debate moved to explanations as to why out of potentially 14 E-V13 samples (out of hundreds of samples) of which 6 are from the Balkans and 3 are Kurdish, the remaining E-V13 might just be explained by ancient Greek colonization.

Then it devolved even further to debating whether the miniscule E-V13 presence in Anatolia is higher or lower than the very low in general but higher than E-V13, I-Y3120 %.

At no point did anyone say "ok, our suggestions/estimations were wrong". Nope. The only thing that happened was that the goalpost kept getting moved.

By the way, these are the arguments in the other (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=707112&viewfull=1#post707112) thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=707338&viewfull=1#post707338) about Armenians (0.9% E-V13!)

Some things are getting hard to understand. There are people here in this thread who are genuinely interested in discussing V13, and how it got where it is now. Is it only OK to discuss how a certain haplogroup got into Greece or Anatalia if it is above a certain % threshold? Because I want to discuss all of V13, no matter where it is and how small, it's all part of the bigger puzzle.

Honestly, I think it would be easier if we had another thread where people can reject scientific numbers on % of V13, replace them with their own inventions, and discuss based on that.
Than we can use this thread to analyze studies like the Turkish one with an open mind to see if it can help us understand the origin and spread of V13.

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 09:04 AM
The reason is simply that an Italian study (by Francalacci) analyzed 1000 genomes from Sardinia, and they were included on the Yfull tree. If a scientific study would test the same proportion of the population in other parts of Italy the Sardinian results would be dwarved. Anyway, since we don't now when the L283 migrations to Italy happened, we cannot say it's in the same period as the TMRCA of these samples. It is very likely though based on the TMRCA's that V13 generally came later than L283. At the earliest in urnfield expansions, but likely also later, even in Roman times.

We know when J2b-L283 migrations first occurred (approximately) because there are aDNA samples from LBA/EIA Sardinia:

Sardinia:
ORC003 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3181&ybp=500000,0): 3181 ybp
ORC007 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3173&ybp=500000,0): 3173 ybp
ORC008 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3023&ybp=500000,0): 3023 ybp
I10553 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3110&ybp=500000,0): 3110 ybp

It's the same broad era as the TMRCA of E-V13.

Again, I'm not proposing a particular theory, we're just gathering data at this point but it's interesting how J2b-L283 arrival in Sardinia is in the same broad era as the TMRCA of the Sardinian E-V13.

Riverman
08-27-2021, 09:18 AM
We know when J2b-L283 migrations first occurred (approximately) because there are aDNA samples from LBA/EIA Sardinia:

Sardinia:
ORC003 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3181&ybp=500000,0): 3181 ybp
ORC007 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3173&ybp=500000,0): 3173 ybp
ORC008 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3023&ybp=500000,0): 3023 ybp
I10553 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3110&ybp=500000,0): 3110 ybp

It's the same broad era as the TMRCA of E-V13.

Again, I'm not proposing a particular theory, we're just gathering data at this point but it's interesting how J2b-L283 arrival in Sardinia is in the same broad era as the TMRCA of the Sardinian E-V13.

Late Bronze Age to Iron Age transition. You have these dates even for Proto-Slavic clades of I2 and R1a, because that was, in many regions of Europe, a major turning point in which some people, clans and lineages almost disappeared and others took their place in massive founder effects. Obviously lineages like E-V13, J-L283 and R-M458 did profit from it, while others lost and got almost annihilated. Not all subclades profited the same, like if you go through R-M458, you can really see which did expand in the transitional period:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M458/

And which earlier or later. For E-V13 in particular those events were just way more important, but you see it throughout Europe, and a lot being associated with different branches of Urnfielders.

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 09:29 AM
Honestly, I think it would be easier if we had another thread where people can reject scientific numbers on % of V13, replace them with their own inventions, and discuss based on that.


The figures of E-V13 % are extremely low in Turkey and as miniscule as 0.9% among Armenians.

The figures about E-V13 % among Greeks as claimed in this thread are about 20-25%. It doesn't match real figures. From the study we were debating (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=790770&viewfull=1#post790770):

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%

EDIT: @rafc We can definitely discuss the origin of every hg regardless of its distribution. What is being objected here is the use of overblown estimations.



A couple of others on the other hand are a different matter.

@dosas: What do you think about the Cappadocian Greek and the Turk from Samsun with E-V13 in one clade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173/

The Cappadocian Greek has no match after the main expansion of E-V13 in the transitional period (1.200-1.100 BC +/- 200). He could be from anywhere, but looks independent from the other branches so far.

The Turkish samples from Samsun is now in a clade in the Iron Age/Greek colonisation, but unfortunately his counterpart has not provided any background information, like many testers do. He has a Bulgarian match, which is good, but again, its from the expansion phase, so this tells us nothing about the later ethnic affiliation from archaic times on.
A third sample from Armenia has more recent matches, but look from where they are coming from and the time frame is still Iron Age.

Do you really claim without further evidence that Greek speakers like the Cappadocian all must have more recent Balkan ancestry?


You can't infer from just looking at the flags of two samples, their location thousands of years ago or even a few hundreds years ago or that this is the result of ancient Greek colonization and you certainly can't infer that this one sample is representative of ancient Greek colonization when we know that E-V13 in Anatolia is extremely low.

Dosas (or anyone else) doesn't have to prove anything about the timeline this E-V13 branch entered Anatolia. It could have entered the region in many different eras in many different ways. It doesn't even have to be the result of some historical event. "Recent Balkan ancestry" and "ancient Greek colonization" are not the only options. The burden of proof for any ancient Greek colonization event is on those who claim it. Nobody else has to disprove an assumption which is not based on any data or other evidence.

You have repeatedly claimed (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=707338&viewfull=1#post707338)that "E-V13 could have been present in Phrygians, Armenians and Iranians (including Kurds) from the beginning of their departure to the Near East."

E-V13 is 0.9% among Armenians and extremely low in historically Phrygian areas .

I'm not asking you to "retract your statements" or anything like that. We're just having a discussion but we can't keep going in circles about this subject every week or so. E-V13 is just not there. There's nothing wrong with that.

Riverman
08-27-2021, 09:51 AM
The figures of E-V13 % are extremely low in Turkey and as miniscule as 0.9% among Armenians.

The figures about E-V13 % among Greeks as claimed in this thread are about 20-25%. It doesn't match real figures. From the study we were debating (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=790770&viewfull=1#post790770):

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%




You can't infer from just looking at the flags of two samples, their location thousands of years ago or even a few hundreds years ago or that this is the result of ancient Greek colonization and you certainly can't infer that this one sample is representative of ancient Greek colonization when we know that E-V13 in Anatolia is extremely low.

Dosas (or anyone else) doesn't have to prove anything about the timeline this E-V13 branch entered Anatolia. It could have entered the region in many different eras in many different ways. It doesn't even have to be the result of some historical event. "Recent Balkan ancestry" and "ancient Greek colonization" are not the only options. The burden of proof for any ancient Greek colonization event is on those who claim it. Nobody else has to disprove an assumption which is not based on any data or other evidence.

You have repeatedly claimed (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=707338&viewfull=1#post707338)that "E-V13 could have been present in Phrygians, Armenians and Iranians (including Kurds) from the beginning of their departure to the Near East."

E-V13 is 0.9% among Armenians and extremely low in historically Phrygian areas .

I'm not asking you to "retract your statements" or anything like that. We're just having a discussion but we can't keep going in circles about this subject every week or so. E-V13 is just not there. There's nothing wrong with that.

The way you write someone taking at look at your posts, he could mean you write about Finland or Mongolia and not Greece and Anatolia. Western and Northern Anatolia have 3-7 % of E-V13 after Greeks having been expelled and Turki people moved in. I'd say that is significant, even more so if they have clades and autosomal profiles (majority) which don't point to a recent Balkan origin. And do you know how many Anatolian Greeks did test at all? Everyone of them on YFull means a lot, considering the low numbers. That doesn't mean its representative, it can't be with such low numbers, but you should be careful and also consider the Cypriot study which argues directly in favour of an old Greek E-V13 network between Cypriots and Anatolians. Just re-read it.

Concerning the Kurds, I never claimed that E-V13 being that important in them, but two remarks on the issue:
- Eastern Anatolia is a much larger region and sample, its not the same as just sampling Kurds. From other sources we know that Kurds have more E-V13 rather than less.
- The Kurdish samples are significant because they rather point to non-Balkan derived lineages, possibly coming through the Caucasus with Iranian speakers, the ancestors of the Kurds
- This being indeed further strengthened by finds of E-V13 in Northern India, Central Asia and especially Northern China, in close association with increased R1a, so clearly Iranian derived

I would never say that these are major lineages in the respective Kurdish people, even less in the Northern Chinese, but they are there and point to contacts from the Carpathians, over the steppe, to these people and its about E-V13 lineages which travelled on this steppe highway too, even if just as a very small minority of course.

But I'm curious as to what you have to say once the Bulgarian and Pannonian results come out and make the Daco-Thracian correlation of E-V13 absolutely clear and irrefutable. How do you want to twist the data after these revelations? Probably you're still working on it, because you must have realised it by this point.

dosas
08-27-2021, 09:53 AM
@dosas: What do you think about the Cappadocian Greek and the Turk from Samsun with E-V13 in one clade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173/



The cultural/linguistic profile of Western Pontus is different to Eastern Pontus (cut off line in Giresun roughly). From various historical and ethnographic sources, it is generally believed that Western Black Sea Pontics (Rumlari/Rums) are a Cappadocian-and/or-Isaurian-derived group.

The Samsun (West Pontus proper) sample matching Cappadocia would make sense historically from this perspective.

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 11:03 AM
The way you write someone taking at look at your posts, he could mean you write about Finland or Mongolia and not Greece and Anatolia. Western and Northern Anatolia have 3-7 % of E-V13 after Greeks having been expelled and Turki people moved in.
This figure exists nowhere in any study. Also, we've seen that pre-Ottoman hgs carried by Greeks from Anatolia are also carried by Turks from Anatolia. There's no reason why we should assume a theory under which only one hg (E-V13) gets displaced but all others are still there.



I would never say that these are major lineages in the respective Kurdish people, even less in the Northern Chinese, but they are there and point to contacts from the Carpathians, over the steppe, to these people and its about E-V13 lineages which travelled on this steppe highway too, even if just as a very small minority of course.

You're assuming that it points to contacts with the Carpathians because you're hypothesizing that E-V13 spread from the Carpathians, but that is not shown in the data and looking at autosomal results of many samples, well, it doesn't look likely at all.



But I'm curious as to what you have to say once the Bulgarian and Pannonian results come out and make the Daco-Thracian correlation of E-V13 absolutely clear and irrefutable. How do you want to twist the data after these revelations? Probably you're still working on it, because you must have realised it by this point.

Implying that burial location = ancestry is methodologically wrong and nobody has done that so far for any study. We'll compare the autosomal data with aDNA samples and we'll get some results. Geographical origin can't be guessed by burial location otherwise we would have to say that J2b-L283 spread from Italy since most aDNA samples so far have been found in Italy and only one MBA sample has been found in Croatia. We do know, however, that J2b-L283 spread from the western Balkans to Italy because we can observe it in their autosomal ancestry and we can correlate it with its diversity in the western Balkans. So we know that J2b-L283 will appear when aDNA studies focus on the western Balkans.

If E-V13 samples anywhere east of the central Balkans, have HRV_Sopot-like or similar ancestry (like (almost) all E-V13 aDNA so far), then more likely than not E-V13 spread from the west to the east. It'll be shown in autosomal data. There's no reason for us to hypothesize anything at all. We'll get the files and we'll observe all that can be observed.

Riverman
08-27-2021, 11:17 AM
This figure exists nowhere in any study.

These are the numbers extracted from the new Turkish study we're talking about. These are the actual numbers.


Also, we've seen that pre-Ottoman hgs carried by Greeks from Anatolia are also carried by Turks from Anatolia. There's no reason why we should assume a theory under which only one hg (E-V13) gets displaced but all others are still there.

Reduced in numbers.


You're assuming that it points to contacts with the Carpathians because you're hypothesizing that E-V13 spread from the Carpathians, but that is not shown in the data and looking at autosomal results of many samples, well, it doesn't look likely at all.

Did you care to compare the diversity of the few samples from the respective regions with that of the Southern Balkans? Going by ancient DNA, it was an elimination process, because V13 wasn't there before the LBA in significant numbers, but dominated with a cultural horizon with obvious origins from the Carpathian region, both in the East and the Central Balkans, in which these South Eastern Urnfielders dominated. You can deny it, but that won't change it.


Implying that burial location = ancestry is methodologically wrong and nobody has done that so far for any study.

Just because of the "pots not people" dogma some don't, but I quoted a couple of archaeologists which are more outspoken, I don't search for it once more, but the basic conclusion was very clear for one (analogously): "There is no way to make an ethnic replacement more obvious in the archaeological record."
The geneticists which obviously don't really care were E-V13 is from that much, will state something like that only when the evidence by ancient DNA became irrefutable. But we won't have to wait forever to come to this point, probably it will be reached with the combination of the Pannonian study and the Bulgarian one. Should suffice.


We'll compare the autosomal data with aDNA samples and we'll get some results. Geographical origin can't be guessed by burial location otherwise we would have to say that J2b-L283 spread from Italy since most aDNA samples so far have been found in Italy and only one MBA sample has been found in Croatia. We do know, however, that J2b-L283 spread from the western Balkans to Italy because we can observe it in their autosomal ancestry and we can correlate it with its diversity in the western Balkans. So we know that J2b-L283 will appear when aDNA studies focus on the western Balkans.


Italy was for most of its time, wih the exception of early expanding Rome, always more a sink than a source. Nothing new for me.


If E-V13 samples anywhere east of the central Balkans, have HRV_Sopot-like or similar ancestry (like (almost) all E-V13 aDNA so far), then more likely than not E-V13 spread from the west to the east. It'll be shown in autosomal data. There's no reason for us to hypothesize anything at all. We'll get the files and we'll observe all that can be observed.

Oh, now you accept that Lengyel-Sopot might be key? Yes it is, but that's about the distant ancestor, not the modern clades. That's like saying mammoth hunters conquered Europe in the Bronze Age, if talking about steppe derived R1a. They are connected, yes, but the spread which led to the modern distribution is in the LBA-EIA, at that time Lengyel-Sopot was no more, but the E-V13 clans which came back had some of it, from their distant ancestors, and picked up even more along the way, while displacing the lineages the recent studies have shown for Pannonia.
If you want, they came back after having left the Balkan with Naue II swords, iron weapons, new channelled ceramic, increased steppe ancestry and soon afterwards better horsebreeds too.

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 11:49 AM
These are the numbers extracted from the new Turkish study we're talking about. These are the actual numbers.
They're not. We've already been over the fact that 6 of the samples are from the Balkans, 3 are Kurds and the rest form a very low percentage.



Did you care to compare the diversity of the few samples from the respective regions with that of the Southern Balkans?

First of all you're comparing modern locations of E-V13 which we don't know how they got there so you should be more careful. The other thing of course is that I have to ask about what you're defining here are "Northern" as compared to "Southern"? The historical reality of Romania for example is that Proto-Romanian speakers (as opposed to other Latin speakers who definitely lived in Roman Dacia) moved there from modern eastern Serbia after they shifted from Proto-Albanian or a language close to it to Balkan Latin.




Just because of the "pots not people" dogma some don't, but I quoted a couple of archaeologists which are more outspoken, I don't search for it once more, but the basic conclusion was very clear for one (analogously): "There is no way to make an ethnic replacement more obvious in the archaeological record."
The geneticists which obviously don't really care were E-V13 is from that much, will state something like that only when the evidence by ancient DNA became irrefutable. But we won't have to wait forever to come to this point, probably it will be reached with the combination of the Pannonian study and the Bulgarian one. Should suffice.


What dogma? Pots are not people and as trade networks expanded, movement of goods less and less meant movement of people.

When we examine the origin of a sample, we compare its autosomal data with other aDNA samples. It's what we do for every single sample and it's what we'll do for E-V13 samples.



Italy was for most of its time, with the exception of early expanding Rome, always more a sink than a source. Nothing new for me.


What's a "sink" or a "source" depends on the era and the historical circumstances. What you should take from this example is that the area where we find samples early on (because of lack of sampling in the area it spread) is not necessarily the region from which it actually spread. It's true for J2b-L283 and it can be true for every hg. The data will show whether it is accurate or not for E-V13 as well.



Oh, now you accept that Lengyel-Sopot might be key? Yes it is, but that's about the distant ancestor, not the modern clades. That's like saying mammoth hunters conquered Europe in the Bronze Age, if talking about steppe derived R1a. They are connected, yes, but the spread which led to the modern distribution is in the LBA-EIA, at that time Lengyel-Sopot was no more, but the E-V13 clans which came back had some of it, from their distant ancestors, and picked up even more along the way, while displacing the lineages the recent studies have shown for Pannonia.
If you want, they came back after having left the Balkan with Naue II swords, iron weapons, new channelled ceramic, increased steppe ancestry and soon afterwards better horsebreeds too.

I never said anything about Neolithic cultures and certainly considered north-west Neolithic cultures an area for early E-V13. By the way, not Lengyel, just Sopot so just Pannonia (broadly speaking). Sopot ancestry is a constant in (almost) all aDNA E-V13 samples regardless of era. The same area from which J2b-L283 samples derive autosomal ancestry as well. This is autosomal ancestry which as we go the east is greatly diminished but not as we go to the west.

rafc
08-27-2021, 12:17 PM
We know when J2b-L283 migrations first occurred (approximately) because there are aDNA samples from LBA/EIA Sardinia:

Sardinia:
ORC003 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3181&ybp=500000,0): 3181 ybp
ORC007 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3173&ybp=500000,0): 3173 ybp
ORC008 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3023&ybp=500000,0): 3023 ybp
I10553 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=MeanYBP&searchfor=3110&ybp=500000,0): 3110 ybp

It's the same broad era as the TMRCA of E-V13.

Again, I'm not proposing a particular theory, we're just gathering data at this point but it's interesting how J2b-L283 arrival in Sardinia is in the same broad era as the TMRCA of the Sardinian E-V13.

All the aDNA samples tell you is a date 'ante quem'. You are really comparing apples and oranges when you compare TMRCA dates to C14 dating. If you look on Yfull you will see that the vast majority of the Sardinian L283 split off from others before 3000BC. But as you have correctly remarked most Sardinian V13 split off others in 1500-1000BC. This clearly points to a spread in vastly different timeframes. I would be interested to hear your explanation for this difference.

Riverman
08-27-2021, 12:18 PM
They're not. We've already been over the fact that 6 of the samples are from the Balkans, 3 are Kurds and the rest form a very low percentage.

That's trolling behaviour, I posted the links at least two times, these are the actual study samples, not the selection done by the active amateur community.


First of all you're comparing modern locations of E-V13 which we don't know how they got there so you should be more careful.

We know where most clades didn't come from, namely the Balkans, because despite larger numbers, the regional samples have no higher diversity.


The other thing of course is that I have to ask about what you're defining here are "Northern" as compared to "Southern"?

The Carpathian mountains and the Middle Danube are the borderline for this case.


What dogma? Pots are not people and as trade networks expanded, movement of goods less and less meant movement of people.

Yes over time, but in the prehistoric time, it meant people more often than not. Especially if its about complete package. So not just an element of a burial rite or an element of a pottery decoration, but a whole package with new:
- burial custom with cremation in urns and different graveyards
- new weapons like Naue II swords and iron swords, new type of axes and daggers, all copied from Northern variants
- exact copies of metal products, evidence for smiths moving in the network
- new pottery style, like channelled/fluted/knobbed pottery
- hoards of weapons being positioned deliberately
- typical hill fortresses and settlements
- new pieces of jewelry, shared with Northern groups
- evidence for intensified contacts with the North, with the Northern Urnfielders

At the same time the local assemblages either gradually or swiftly, in any case within a fairly short period of time, at most 3 generations, largely disappeared or fused. In some areas like being erradicated. There is one region where this didn't happen, and that's the South West Balkan, where inhumation prevails and the people keep up, develop from an older tradition or being influenced by Middle Danubian-Alpine Urnfield groups. And, what a surprise, its exactly these people spared from the influence which were later Illyrian speakers, the core group, and show so far only J-L283. What a coincidence this is, isn't it?!

rafc
08-27-2021, 12:27 PM
The figures of E-V13 % are extremely low in Turkey and as miniscule as 0.9% among Armenians.

The figures about E-V13 % among Greeks as claimed in this thread are about 20-25%. It doesn't match real figures. From the study we were debating (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=790770&viewfull=1#post790770)

Indeed I posted those numbers from scientific studies. If you exclude Crete, you could put it at 15-25% based on those studies. If you prefer 15-20% because you think that sounds a lot different, that's perfectly fine by me, or even 5-25% if you include Crete and Corinth. What interests me much more is how you think it got there. Given your great interest in V13, could you tell me when and where (roughly) you think the V13 common ancestor lived, and how it got spread to areas like Greece, Italy, the Middle East, Arabian regions and Western Europe?

mikulic33
08-27-2021, 12:48 PM
I know that the following is only loosely connected to the E-V13 issue but it could maybe be of interested for E-V13s in the British isles.

In the following presentation by David Reich he speaks about a 50% population replacement in Britain which happened around 900BC (16:00 - 17:06). He thereby refers to a paper in review, Patterson et al.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXsNKNZtdM0

Has someone heard something about the content of this paper?

rafc
08-27-2021, 12:55 PM
I know that the following is only loosely connected to the E-V13 issue but it could maybe be of interested for E-V13s in the British isles.

In the following presentation by David Reich he speaks about a 50% population replacement in Britain which happened around 900BC (16:00 - 17:06). He thereby refers to a paper in review, Patterson et al.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXsNKNZtdM0

Has someone heard something about the content of this paper?

I have not hear about the contents, but it seems something that the R1b crowd would discuss, maybe they know more. I think this would confirm that indeed there was still a great mobility in the Bronze age after the arrival of BB. While that offers a mechanism for early entry of V13 in Britain, as we have long expected, it's no guarantee. In general I think it will be very useful to understand the history of V13 if we have a lot of samples from the 2nd millennium BC being tested.

Riverman
08-27-2021, 01:00 PM
I have not hear about the contents, but it seems something that the R1b crowd would discuss, maybe they know more. I think this would confirm that indeed there was still a great mobility in the Bronze age after the arrival of BB. While that offers a mechanism for early entry of V13 in Britain, as we have long expected, it's no guarantee. In general I think it will be very useful to understand the history of V13 if we have a lot of samples from the 2nd millennium BC being tested.

Actually E-V13, even if being present among Celts, just like I2 and G2a among others, would be stronger in the more Eastern Hallstatt non-Celtic and only a minority in the core Western Hallstatt zone. It could have entered Britain with the Iron Age Urnfield-Hallstatt replacement or just later, with La Tene, even if coming with Celts. And if it did, it surely was a minority, so even if testing from every period 100 males and extracting yDNA, chances would be still not 100 percent to get it, even if it was there.

Additionally, the early Iron Age exchange seems to have been also more female based and in any case resulted in an increase in EEF. That's the interesting thing about the Urnfield expansion from the centre of Europe. In the Balkans it increased steppe ancestry, among Proto-Slavs, Germanics and even more in Western Europe, the pre-Celts, it did increase EEF instead. It was a movement from the centre to the fringes.

mikulic33
08-27-2021, 01:23 PM
Given the definitiness of Reich´s statement, this paper should have lots of samples shortly before and shortly after 900BC. Lets wait and see.

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 01:31 PM
That's trolling behaviour, I posted the links at least two times, these are the actual study samples, not the selection done by the active amateur community.

The spreadsheet you're referring to has no information about their ancestry. The other spreadsheet uploaded information about their broad ancestry. 6 are of Balkan origin, 3 of Kurdish origin and very few others cluster with Turks. Unless you're actually claiming that for some reason samples of Balkan origin are actually Anatolians (which you have to prove with data), there's no reason why we should assume the exact opposite of what their files show.


All the aDNA samples tell you is a date 'ante quem'. You are really comparing apples and oranges when you compare TMRCA dates to C14 dating. If you look on Yfull you will see that the vast majority of the Sardinian L283 split off from others before 3000BC. But as you have correctly remarked most Sardinian V13 split off others in 1500-1000BC. This clearly points to a spread in vastly different timeframes. I would be interested to hear your explanation for this difference.


Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC003
Distance: 2.0467% / 0.02046745
97.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
3.0 HRV_Vucedol

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC007
Distance: 1.8624% / 0.01862386
76.6 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
23.4 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC008
Distance: 2.8572% / 0.02857174
80.2 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
18.2 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
1.6 HRV_Vucedol

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10553
Distance: 2.5828% / 0.02582834
78.4 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
13.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
4.4 UKR_Globular_Amphora
4.2 HRV_Vucedol

All of them have some Sopot Neolithic ancestry which means that their ancestors reached Sardinia in the last 200-250 years from their birth. Similar ancestry is not observed in many other samples. The ancestors of these people reached Sardinia in the same broad era during which Illyrian migrations formed the Iapygian groups of southern Italy. (I'll get to your other question later)

Huban
08-27-2021, 03:08 PM
You provided a Yugoslav hypothesis which classified 3 names as Thracian and 2 names as Illyrian and then projected this ratio to everyone else in Remesiana. This is an obviously wrong methodology.

I did not say it's perfect. If one is to get an idea what all of them were ethnically, assuming they were indigenous ofc, this is the only way forward. It's not perfect, it is the next best thing.. And whatever it is, it is far superior to your "methodology" which included, spurious statements and wild speculations on massive movements of Illyrians into Thrace and replacement of Thracians by the Illyricani. Relativization of "Thracianness" by invoking soldiers from Dardania.. Well you are the one who called for analysis of those names.

And yes my methodology is the closest thing to a determination of their ethnicity that exits or can exist. There are 30 something soldiers from there, what those 6 are is a measuring stick for the others. And nothing will ever provide a better measuring stick..

Btw. you are correct about Illyrian movement into Dacia. But all of those people were evacuated in Roman withdrawal from Dacia and what was left behind was mostly eliminated by the incoming Free Dacians, Sarmatians who immediately moved in. There might be an odd survivor here and there of those Illyricani..

I am glad the mainstream Albanian "interpretation" of hg E-V13 has finally popped out of closet for all to see.. The main reason why I have been talking to you as others had no guts and wits to talk such nonsense in public..

Yet you choose the denial phase when many Albanians have positively reacted to the Cognitive dissonance effect caused by the Daunian study.




There's really nothing to say about your "conclusions" about the Glinoe site. You interpreted the fact one of the individuals buried there had ornaments from the region... as something which makes him a local. We don't have to hypothesize anything burial iterms because we have data about his ancestry and it's definitely not local.

One? One had many. And majority of the 10 tested (6) had some..

Obviously archeological evidence and Moldovan Scythians clustering with the earlier MJ12 Babadag sample, them having archeological relations as explained by archeologists with the very same site from where MJ12 is, does make these Moldovan Scythians Scythians of recent Getae origin. Period. :P

And what can make him Illyrian?? Archeologically nothing. And you have quoted nothing because there is nothing to quote.

Simply from this POV, one needs a very serious archeological evidence to suggest Illyrians in Moldova and there is none.


My model was primarily designed to indicate fundamental differences between the samples.
Your model:
Target: scy192
Distance: 1.6647% / 0.01664731 | R6P
41.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
37.6 SVK_EBA
9.0 BGR_N
9.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin
2.6 RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.4793% / 0.02479322 | R6P
32.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
29.8 GRC_Helladic_EBA
16.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
11.4 Baltic_EST_BA
6.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
3.0 RUS_Kurma_EBA

Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 1.6966% / 0.01696579 | R6P
48.8 GRC_Peloponnese_N
17.8 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
11.2 Wales_CA_EBA
10.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
7.8 Yamnaya_UKR
3.8 HRV_Vucedol

Target: HRV_MBA
Distance: 1.2804% / 0.01280420 | R6P
33.4 GRC_Peloponnese_N
28.2 SVK_EBA
15.0 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
14.4 Wales_CA_EBA
9.0 GRC_Cycladic_EBA

Which is what yout model does as well to a degree. No Kura Araxes in HRV_MBA. There is in Easterners, what I have been saying, noticeable CHG in the Moldova nd Bulgaria.



The Prescythian (as would be expected by the descendant of a nomadic population) has ancestry from many different sources including WHG (which he obviously didn't get anywhere in eastern Europe), 25% Yamnaya and 25% southern Balkan Neolithic ancestry which plots as GRC_Minoan-like.

If one is to seriously model IR1 it is via Steppe Iranian element which is what he is dominantly he clusters with them. The fact that you utilize "dead end since long time ago" populations such as Caucasus Yamnaya shows how inadequate your model is. And, no WHG was also part of those groups.

Btw. you salad of samples is also inadequate, what is Wales CA sample doing there?? Also why do you need 3 different Kura Araxes samples.. :lol:

I simply took the two Neolithic elements one more mainstream, other more Eastern and mixed them up with much newer EBA and EIA samples, justified especially as W.Balkan samples do derive ancestry of Mokrin samples.




A final comment: At some point if this thread continues to operate in the same way as it is now, mods should interfere and close it once more.

I don't care if its closed. I have posted the most relevant facts..


It's a sub-standard thread which is closer to "discussions" with wild theories and personal comments which are being "freely" debated in other fora (if we can even call them proper fora).

If this was a very serious forum, you would not get away with rampant flooding of unsubstantiated matter. But many Albanians do on some fora (and ofc I know generally why, esp. on another forum ;) ) I always substantiate what I say.

If we cannot be rational i.e. substantiate what we say let us not try masking and replacing the substantiated talk with fake politeness.

To that some of us "steel" people actually people prefer fora filled with rampant impoliteness... :biggrin1:

rafc
08-27-2021, 03:22 PM
The spreadsheet you're referring to has no information about their ancestry. The other spreadsheet uploaded information about their broad ancestry. 6 are of Balkan origin, 3 of Kurdish origin and very few others cluster with Turks. Unless you're actually claiming that for some reason samples of Balkan origin are actually Anatolians (which you have to prove with data), there's no reason why we should assume the exact opposite of what their files show.




Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC003
Distance: 2.0467% / 0.02046745
97.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
3.0 HRV_Vucedol

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC007
Distance: 1.8624% / 0.01862386
76.6 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
23.4 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC008
Distance: 2.8572% / 0.02857174
80.2 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
18.2 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
1.6 HRV_Vucedol

Target: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10553
Distance: 2.5828% / 0.02582834
78.4 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
13.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
4.4 UKR_Globular_Amphora
4.2 HRV_Vucedol

All of them have some Sopot Neolithic ancestry which means that their ancestors reached Sardinia in the last 200-250 years from their birth. Similar ancestry is not observed in many other samples. The ancestors of these people reached Sardinia in the same broad era during which Illyrian migrations formed the Iapygian groups of southern Italy. (I'll get to your other question later)

I'm not sure what you mean with the Sopot, it's not in the models above? All I see is samples that are clearly very much alike to Sardinian EBA samples. To me that indicates they have been there for a long time. Don't forget 4/7 samples there were L283. How do you explain the dilution of their Balkan autosomals? Either by consequently marrying local females for many generations, or maybe they didn't have Balkan autosomals in the first place, but something more close to Sardinian_EBA (like Grotta Continenza).

Riverman
08-27-2021, 03:38 PM
The spreadsheet you're referring to has no information about their ancestry. The other spreadsheet uploaded information about their broad ancestry. 6 are of Balkan origin, 3 of Kurdish origin and very few others cluster with Turks. Unless you're actually claiming that for some reason samples of Balkan origin are actually Anatolians (which you have to prove with data), there's no reason why we should assume the exact opposite of what their files show.


The authors of the study put the samples in the respective group, and its just by chance that in the amateur spreadsheet not many of the samples being included which are E-V13. But some are, and most are clearly Anatolian. That's all semantics and if you don't stop to claim "Anatolia has zero E-V13", when the study delivered the data that it has, in an appreciable frequency of 3-7 percent in West and Northern Anatolia, then you are just lying and trolling. I refer to the actual study and you talk about something completely different. There are not many of the V13 samples in the amateur spreadsheet, for whatever reasons. But those which were put into it and were part of the Northern or Western regions, even one from the unknown group, are mostly Anatolian, so legitimate, even by the analysis of the ancestral components you prefer.

By the way, this private analysis is very close to most studies on the Peleponnes, and his sample size is reasonable as well:

These are the stats from my 23andMe paternally Peloponnesian male matches:

n=46

E-M183: 1 (2.2%)
E-V13: 11 (23.9%)
G2a: 5 (10.9%)
Ι2: 8 (17.4%)
J1: 1 (2.2%)
J2: 5 (10.9%)
R1a: 6 (13%)
R1b: 8 (17.4%)
R1 unspecified (R-M173): 1 (2.2%)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20243-Y-DNA-of-the-Peloponnese&p=795772#post795772

peloponnesian
08-27-2021, 03:57 PM
By the way, this private analysis is very close to most studies on the Peleponnes, and his sample size is reasonable as well:


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20243-Y-DNA-of-the-Peloponnese&p=795772#post795772

Just want to point out that my sample isn't representative of the Peloponnese as a whole, it's skewed towards the interior areas where my grandparents came from:

Arcadia: 14
Laconia: 11
Argolis: 6
Messinia: 6
Corinthia: 4
Elis: 1
unknown: 4

It's also skewed by the fact that many Greek-Americans are from Arcadia (although it certainly looks like I have a decent amount of ancestry from there).

I posted it for fun, because I'd already made an excel with all my paternally Greek male relatives and their haplos. I don't have a horse in the E-V13 race :P

Riverman
08-27-2021, 04:07 PM
Just want to point out that my sample isn't representative of the Peloponnese as a whole, it's skewed towards the interior areas where my grandparents came from:

Arcadia: 14
Laconia: 11
Argolis: 6
Messinia: 6
Corinthia: 4
Elis: 1
unknown: 4

It's also skewed by the fact that many Greek-Americans are from Arcadia (although it certainly looks like I have a decent amount of ancestry from there).

I posted it for fun, because I'd already made an excel with all my paternally Greek male relatives and their haplos. I don't have a horse in the E-V13 race :P

Do your relatives show differences in their relationship to Greeks, Aromunians/Vlachs, Albanians and Bulgarians/Slavs?

Going by this ethnographic map, the central portions of Arcadia being less influenced by Albanians:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvaniten#/media/Datei:Pelopones_ethnic.JPG

But this might be misleading. I honestly don't know.

peloponnesian
08-27-2021, 04:25 PM
Do your relatives show differences in their relationship to Greeks, Aromunians/Vlachs, Albanians and Bulgarians/Slavs?

Going by this ethnographic map, the central portions of Arcadia being less influenced by Albanians:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvaniten#/media/Datei:Pelopones_ethnic.JPG

But this might be misleading. I honestly don't know.

I think the sample size is too small and biased to draw any meaningful conclusions. FWIW, E-V13 breakdown is 5 from Arcadia, 2 from Messinia, 1 from Argolis, 1 from Corinthia, 1 from Laconia and 1 unknown.

Most of the E-V13s I have in my spreadsheet have common Greek names (i.e. not of obvious foreign origin). There is one with the surname Vlachos who is E-V13 and another with the surname Arvanitis who's E-V13 but these aren't included in the Peloponnesian results I posted because they haven't specified a place of origin.

Riverman
08-27-2021, 04:43 PM
I think the sample size is too small and biased to draw any meaningful conclusions. FWIW, E-V13 breakdown is 5 from Arcadia, 2 from Messinia, 1 from Argolis, 1 from Corinthia, 1 from Laconia and 1 unknown.

Most of the E-V13s I have in my spreadsheet have common Greek names (i.e. not of obvious foreign origin). There is one with the surname Vlachos who is E-V13 and another with the surname Arvanitis who's E-V13 but these aren't included in the Peloponnesian results I posted because they haven't specified a place of origin.

Note how similar your table is that posted before by another user:

Here are some updates for Laconia and Arcadia. They are the regions I have the most results for.

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%

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20243-Y-DNA-of-the-Peloponnese&p=741446&viewfull=1#post741446

E-V13 is also present and strong in Maniots. From Tsakonians I heard nothing so far. But however it came to Greece, the numbers for the Peleponnes, studies and private, seem to be quite consistent with E-V13 about 20-25, give or take 1-4 at max percent.

rafc
08-27-2021, 04:51 PM
I think the sample size is too small and biased to draw any meaningful conclusions. FWIW, E-V13 breakdown is 5 from Arcadia, 2 from Messinia, 1 from Argolis, 1 from Corinthia, 1 from Laconia and 1 unknown.

Most of the E-V13s I have in my spreadsheet have common Greek names (i.e. not of obvious foreign origin). There is one with the surname Vlachos who is E-V13 and another with the surname Arvanitis who's E-V13 but these aren't included in the Peloponnesian results I posted because they haven't specified a place of origin.

Thanks. For what it's worth, a few years ago I did an analysis of the Genegraphic data. Of 71 samples in the Peloponnese 15 (21%) were E-V13. Again not a representative sample, but same ballpark as your number. In this date the numbers were highest in the south of the Peloponnese, but when you look at these subregions the samples become very small, so hard to say if that means anything.

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 07:39 PM
I'm not sure what you mean with the Sopot, it's not in the models above? All I see is samples that are clearly very much alike to Sardinian EBA samples. To me that indicates they have been there for a long time. Don't forget 4/7 samples there were L283. How do you explain the dilution of their Balkan autosomals? Either by consequently marrying local females for many generations, or maybe they didn't have Balkan autosomals in the first place, but something more close to Sardinian_EBA (like Grotta Continenza).

They all have Balkan autosomal ancestry. What you're observing is the same dilution that is observed in every minor population which enters a larger population. In time, it gets integrated via intermarriage in the existing autosomal profile of that region. It's telling that almost all J2b-L283 in Sardinia come from one site. Sopot is represented via GC and Vucedol both of which have Sopot ancestry. That's the difference between GC and Sardinian Neolithic. Sopot ancestry is the reason why SCY197 is modeled close to GC as well.


Target: ITA _Grotta_Continenza_CA
Distance: 1.4880% / 0.01487962
Sources: 33 | Cycles: 9 | Time: 0.511 s
38.6 ITA_Sardinia_C
27.4 HRV_Sopot_MN
15.4 FRA_Occitanie_LN
15.0 HUN_Sopot_LN
3.6 ITA_Monte_San_Biagio_CA

I have given you the same information a few days ago (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=794230&viewfull=1#post794230).

J2b-L283 migrations are a part of the introduction of HRV_Vucedol-like (that is Sopot and Balkan in general) ancestry in modern Sardinians

Target: Sardinian
Distance: 1.0112% / 0.01011214 | R6P
62.8 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
13.8 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
9.2 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
7.0 TUR_Isparta_EBA
4.4 HRV_Vucedol
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

The question is: who else brought such ancestry in Sardinia? J2b-L283 population movement by itself doesn't suffice for its introduction.

Bruzmi
08-27-2021, 07:44 PM
Just want to point out that my sample isn't representative of the Peloponnese as a whole, it's skewed towards the interior areas where my grandparents came from:

Arcadia: 14
Laconia: 11
Argolis: 6
Messinia: 6
Corinthia: 4
Elis: 1
unknown: 4

It's also skewed by the fact that many Greek-Americans are from Arcadia (although it certainly looks like I have a decent amount of ancestry from there).

I posted it for fun, because I'd already made an excel with all my paternally Greek male relatives and their haplos. I don't have a horse in the E-V13 race :P


I think the sample size is too small and biased to draw any meaningful conclusions. FWIW, E-V13 breakdown is 5 from Arcadia, 2 from Messinia, 1 from Argolis, 1 from Corinthia, 1 from Laconia and 1 unknown.

Most of the E-V13s I have in my spreadsheet have common Greek names (i.e. not of obvious foreign origin). There is one with the surname Vlachos who is E-V13 and another with the surname Arvanitis who's E-V13 but these aren't included in the Peloponnesian results I posted because they haven't specified a place of origin.

Yeah, surnames in the Balkans are very difficult to trace back to an earlier stage than few generations back (unless we're dealing with a tribe (fis) so then it might be easier).

If you can find out the villages for each sample, we could search for the history of each village. Is any of the Arcadian E-V13 samples from a Tsakonian-speaking area? (I am interested in Tsakonian samples in general as well)

rafc
08-27-2021, 08:47 PM
They all have Balkan autosomal ancestry. What you're observing is the same dilution that is observed in every minor population which enters a larger population. In time, it gets integrated via intermarriage in the existing autosomal profile of that region. It's telling that almost all J2b-L283 in Sardinia come from one site. Sopot is represented via GC and Vucedol both of which have Sopot ancestry. That's the difference between GC and Sardinian Neolithic. Sopot ancestry is the reason why SCY197 is modeled close to GC as well.

Exactly I would expect such a dilution to take time, certainly if the L283's were concentrated in one area. This means the arrival would logically predate the archeological date by centuries. If they arrived more recently, they cannot have come directly from the Balkans (this doesn't imply that if they arrived earlier this would be directly from the Balkans).
I fail to see how a Chalcolitic Italian source as Grotta Continenza could represent LBA Balkans input. I also suspect Sopot represents a certain type of ancestry rather than a certain region. In other words, if LBA Sardinians need a bit of a Neolithic source on top of EBA Sardinians, doesn't it just mean Sardinia got an input of Neolithic (EEF) genes between EBA and LBA, regardles of where it came from?



J2b-L283 migrations are a part of the introduction of HRV_Vucedol-like (that is Sopot and Balkan in general) ancestry in modern Sardinians

Target: Sardinian
Distance: 1.0112% / 0.01011214 | R6P
62.8 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
13.8 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
9.2 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
7.0 TUR_Isparta_EBA
4.4 HRV_Vucedol
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

The question is: who else brought such ancestry in Sardinia? J2b-L283 population movement by itself doesn't suffice for its introduction.

Again, I suspect the components above do not directly represent sources of migration, I don't think Kura-Araxes people migrated to Sardinia.

peloponnesian
08-28-2021, 01:14 PM
Yeah, surnames in the Balkans are very difficult to trace back to an earlier stage than few generations back (unless we're dealing with a tribe (fis) so then it might be easier).

If you can find out the villages for each sample, we could search for the history of each village. Is any of the Arcadian E-V13 samples from a Tsakonian-speaking area? (I am interested in Tsakonian samples in general as well)

I don't think I've found any matches who're paternally from a Tsakonian-speaking area. The E-M183 is from Astros and 1 E-V13 is from Stolos which are in North Kynouria (Tsakonian-speakers are in South Kynouria). All the other Arcadian samples are more central.

rafc
08-28-2021, 07:10 PM
So I took another look at the Kurdish V13 samples, we have:
E-BY6041
E-Y3183*
E-FGC94882*
We could look at it as a coincidence, but earlier studies also showed surprisingly high percentages of V13 in Kurds (albeit still being a very minor haplogroup off course).
From FTDNA there are two samples that are supposed to be Kurdish:
-a CTS5856* from the V13 SNP pack, he will be something more downstream, but will not belong to a big recent clade
-BY5090 (this one is from Lebanon, but supposed to be Kurdish).

BY5090 and BY6041 are both under FGC44177, but this is probably a coincidence since there are Middle eastern/Arabian samples in other Branches of BY5022 too.

Hard to understand how it got there. I think it's very likely the origin of these groups is more in the Eastern Balkans, but the timing is harder to pin down.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-28-2021, 07:24 PM
Sorry to chime in here and so late into the conversation. Demands of work and single-parenting have consumed the last few months for me.

I've noticed some things in the Early and even Late Neolithic Balkans. There are at least 3 separate groups entering Europe and possibly a fourth into the late Neolithic of Serbia, Croatia, and even CT. There is a big pull to the Northern Levant, SE Anatolia, while also showing an increased affinity to Iron Gates. So, trying to figure out just when or who is responsible for modern V13 might be impossible to sort without samples into the several hundreds or more.

Riverman
08-28-2021, 07:46 PM
In any case we have two groups very close to the Northern Carpathians from where the cultures which spread E-V13 seem to have originated: Lengyel-Sopot and Tripolye-Cucuteni. We also know who spread it in the Dalmatian area before, its Cardial-Impresso Neolithic farmers.
The open questions are mainly how E-L618 made it into Cardial, imho from PPN from the Levante, Natufians before that.
And how it survived the steppe expansion and could establish itself in an Epi-Corded environment from LS or TC, before developing into Gava or one of its main branches.

Since I think there were Hallstatt associated expansions of V13, I would like to get a lot of Hallstatt samples and related cultures like Golasecca. Some important clades die expand in many directions, possibly in the Early Iron Age, beginning Hallstatt it seems to me. Including into Northern Italy and more Western central Europe.

Bane
08-28-2021, 08:21 PM
I've noticed some things in the Early and even Late Neolithic Balkans. There are at least 3 separate groups entering Europe and possibly a fourth into the late Neolithic of Serbia, Croatia, and even CT. There is a big pull to the Northern Levant, SE Anatolia, while also showing an increased affinity to Iron Gates. So, trying to figure out just when or who is responsible for modern V13 might be impossible to sort without samples into the several hundreds or more.

IMO those should mostly be associated with arrival of G2a to the Balkans.

Early Neolithic is the final time limit for E-V13 to enter Europe. No later than that. It may have reached some parts of Southern Europe even in the Mesolithic.
As Riverman wrote the main question is from where. Most of the people would say Anatolia (though there are some like me which still consider Maghreb as the potential source).

Riverman
08-28-2021, 08:52 PM
IMO those should mostly be associated with arrival of G2a to the Balkans.

Early Neolithic is the final time limit for E-V13 to enter Europe. No later than that. It may have reached some parts of Southern Europe even in the Mesolithic.
As Riverman wrote the main question is from where. Most of the people would say Anatolia (though there are some like me which still consider Maghreb as the potential source).

The other is directly from the East Mediterranean, the Levante:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cardial_map.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cardial_map.png

Here an even better map:
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20170515105921892-0558:9781316550328:14740fig5_1.png?pub-status=live
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20170515105921892-0558:9781316550328:14740fig5_1.png?pub-status=live

The sea route of E-L618 could be proven by testing ancient DNA from Cyprus and possibly Crete for the predecessors of Cardial-Impresso Ware. Proto-Sesklo could be one of the first steps into Europe.

A more Levantine sea route connection or network would explain why Cardial-Impresso colonists had E1b1b, LBK probably not? Though even that is not for sure. Cardial had also ties to North Africa, so while I don't think that is the likely route, its possible that the Cardial networks connected the Levantine, Northern Eastern Mediterranean and North African coastal groups, through which some could have taken a South -> North path. I don't think that this happened, but its an option. However they came into the Cardial-Impresso colonisation, that's how they landed in Europe in all likelihood.

One argument against this is that while they were related culturally, possibly even genetically, they had no close ties to E-V13:

Regarding the paternal lineages, IAM individuals carry Y chromosomes distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup, while the Y chromosome from KEB belongs to the T-M184 haplogroup; although scarce and broadly distributed today, this haplogroup has also been observed in European Neolithic individuals (16) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 5). Both mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages (K1, J2, and T2 haplogroups and G-M201 haplogroup, respectively) for samples from TOR (Iberian Early Neolithic) are similar to those observed in Europe during Neolithic times (21).

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6774

The chronology is not in favour of such a scenario as well, so its very unlikely.

Here is yet another interesting article on the spread LBA-EIA cultures and transformations in the Balkans, from the article:

in favour of its end in the late 12th century BC.6Contrary to the situation with the Žuto Brdo – Girla Mare culture, the Gava culture complex, identified through the presence of the channelled and burnished pottery, is in the Serbian archae-ology considered as the trigger of the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age.

https://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god47/5-Aleksandar%20Kapuran.pdf

Indeed, they were the ones with iron metallurgy and weapons, among the first in Europe and the whole world, especially if considering mass production (like in Teleac).

Also noteworthy: I think that some of the Pannonians and more Northern Illyrian groups were rather fused and therefore both culturally and genetically influenced by Channelled Ware people, just like the Girla-Mare finds suggest as well for some regions. Unfortunately Urnfielders don't make it easy to trace them back, with their dead being cremated.
Basarabi, Pšeničevo – Babadag, Insula Banului groups and Kalakača horizon, all should yield some E-V13 with enough samples. For Pšeničevo we know it, the others need to be tested and some other groups as well, like the Triballi associated one: "Rača – Ljuljaci culture in Central Serbia is generally associated" with these the article states.


https://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god47/5-Aleksandar%20Kapuran.pdf

rafc
08-29-2021, 05:01 PM
So I took another look at the Kurdish V13 samples, we have:
E-BY6041
E-Y3183*
E-FGC94882*
We could look at it as a coincidence, but earlier studies also showed surprisingly high percentages of V13 in Kurds (albeit still being a very minor haplogroup off course).
From FTDNA there are two samples that are supposed to be Kurdish:
-a CTS5856* from the V13 SNP pack, he will be something more downstream, but will not belong to a big recent clade
-BY5090 (this one is from Lebanon, but supposed to be Kurdish).

BY5090 and BY6041 are both under FGC44177, but this is probably a coincidence since there are Middle eastern/Arabian samples in other Branches of BY5022 too.

Hard to understand how it got there. I think it's very likely the origin of these groups is more in the Eastern Balkans, but the timing is harder to pin down.

I've still been thinking about the reason of these old clades in Arabian & Middle Eastern samples, and in some of these Anatolian ones. One thing we had discussions about before is the arrival of the Greek-speakers in Greece. The aDNA study of earlier this year showed that by the mid-3d millenium BC a Steppe-rich population was living in northern Greece, which seems in line with archeological data which shows a destruction layer and simpler buildings in more or less that period. Greek speakers arrived in Southern Greece at the earliest at the end of the 3d millenium BC. The question is than whether it was this relatively nearby Steppe-rich population that moved southwards, or whether there was a large distance movement from the Catacomb-culture on the Pontic Steppe (which many see as a source of Greek language and culture because of resemblance between Mycenaean culture and Catacomb).

If the second is correct, than the Steppe-rich population in Northern Greece (and presumably adjacent areas) must represent something else. I think one option could be that Anatolian speakers were still in the Balkans at this moment and were this population. Presumably they would be dominated by clades of R1B-Z2103. They could have been pushed from the Balkans to Anatolia exactly by pressure from the Pontic Steppe at the end of the 3d millennium BC. Since old V13 subclades would have presumably been somewhere nearby, for example east of or in the Carpathians, some could have been dragged along in this movement. I think this period had great mobility, just like the LBA/EIA transition a thousand years later.

Bruzmi
08-29-2021, 05:22 PM
It's been established by the relative study that the samples from Moldova are much closer to southern Europeans than eastern regions, but this is also mentioned in the study about Daunians (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.30.454498v1.full#ref-20):

The geographic location of Apulia, a narrow peninsula stretching out in the sea at the South of Italy, has made this region an important Mediterranean crossroads connecting Western Europe, the Balkans, the Aegean, and Levant worlds. This is reflected in the PCA where IAA individuals are closely related to other Iron Age populations from the Mediterranean and surrounding areas (e.g., Montenegro, Bulgaria and Sardinia) (Figure 1C and Figure S4). Nomadic or cosmopolitan groups scatter like IAA: three Punic individuals from Sardinia (Italy_Sardinia_IA_Punic3), three Moldova Scythians already reported to be genetically similar to Southern Europeans, Spanish individuals from the Hellenistic and the Romans periods21 and an individual from the 12th century Iron Age Ashkelon22 which clusters with ORD001.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 05:28 PM
I've still been thinking about the reason of these old clades in Arabian & Middle Eastern samples, and in some of these Anatolian ones. One thing we had discussions about before is the arrival of the Greek-speakers in Greece. The aDNA study of earlier this year showed that by the mid-3d millenium BC a Steppe-rich population was living in northern Greece, which seems in line with archeological data which shows a destruction layer and simpler buildings in more or less that period. Greek speakers arrived in Southern Greece at the earliest at the end of the 3d millenium BC. The question is than whether it was this relatively nearby Steppe-rich population that moved southwards, or whether there was a large distance movement from the Catacomb-culture on the Pontic Steppe (which many see as a source of Greek language and culture because of resemblance between Mycenaean culture and Catacomb).

I'm pretty sure it was a long distance movement and involved chariot warfare in particular. Its however possible that the Proto-Greeks were already in the Balkans, got influenced by this newcomers from the North with chariots, and the fused people conquered all or the rest of Greece together. That's something the new study which will be hopefully published soon points out, that a huge portion of the steppe ancestry arrived fairly late in Greece, in the Late Bronze Age. Basically this would mean the Proto-Greeks came, possibly with chariots, from the relative North, 500 years before the Channelled Ware people came down.

The relevant abstract is here:

Our results indicate multi-phased genetic shifts in the Aegean populations since the early Neolithic that can be traced to populations related to Anatolia and then, during the Late Bronze Age, to Central-Eastern Europe.

https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2323


I think one option could be that Anatolian speakers were still in the Balkans at this moment and were this population. Presumably they would be dominated by clades of R1B-Z2103. They could have been pushed from the Balkans to Anatolia exactly by pressure from the Pontic Steppe at the end of the 3d millennium BC.

I think Proto-Anatolians can be identified in Cernavoda or a related early steppe influenced culture from the Corded decorated horizon in the Balkans.


Since old V13 subclades would have presumably been somewhere nearby, for example east of or in the Carpathians, some could have been dragged along in this movement. I think this period had great mobility, just like the LBA/EIA transition a thousand years later.

That's right, just the timing. But if we think about it, the Greek and general chariot expansion horizon dates to about 2000 BC onwards. It may have caused the collapse of Unetice, it may have brought Greeks into the Aegean:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitwagen#/media/Datei:Chariot_spread.png
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitwagen#/media/Datei:Chariot_spread.png

If the Proto-Greeks lived somewhere in Eastern Central Europe, and a lot of people became mobile or where on the move at that time, its for sure possible that some very early E-V13 people could have been picked up, on the way, by Proto-Greeks or some Indo-Iranian, Sintashta related group around the Carpathians, where they were, most likely, at home and dragged with them. That would be a timing of around 1.800-1.300 BC. So before the transitional LBA-EIA period, before Channelled Ware. Are there any known branches older than 2.000 BC/4.000 BP out of Europe?

Bane
08-29-2021, 06:04 PM
It's been established by the relative study that the samples from Moldova are much closer to southern Europeans than eastern regions, but this is also mentioned in the study about Daunians (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.30.454498v1.full#ref-20):

Well that makes sense because quite a number of his "relatives" migrated to the Southern Europe. Most of them moved southwards before the period in which he lived.

rafc
08-29-2021, 06:11 PM
I think Proto-Anatolians can be identified in Cernavoda or a related early steppe influenced culture from the Corded decorated horizon in the Balkans.

The Cernavoda culture as vector for Anatolian languages makes sense. That puts the introduction of (proto)Anatolian languages to the Balkans at around 4000BC. They are only present with certainty in Anatolia from about 2000BC. So the question is when they got from the Balkans to Anatolia. A late entry could explain some things.


If the Proto-Greeks lived somewhere in Eastern Central Europe, and a lot of people became mobile or where on the move at that time, its for sure possible that some very early E-V13 people could have been picked up, on the way, by Proto-Greeks or some Indo-Iranian, Sintashta related group around the Carpathians, where they were, most likely, at home and dragged with them. That would be a timing of around 1.800-1.300 BC. So before the transitional LBA-EIA period, before Channelled Ware. Are there any known branches older than 2.000 BC/4.000 BP out of Europe?

The Catacomb culture, where Greek speakers maybe originated, is associated with the Pontic steppe. Sintashta was even more eastwardly (their closeness explains some shared features between Greek, Iranian and Armenian, the last of which was presumably also living nearby, probably closer to the Caucasus). I don't see a lot of possibililty for V13 to be picked up by Sintashta given the distance, and there is very little to no V13 in Indo-Iranian populations (with the exception of the small percentage in Kurds, but that is probably more due to there very westward living area).
If Greek speakers (and maybe speakers of other Paleo-Balkan languages) entered the Balkans around 2000BC it would indeed make sense that V13 would have moved a bit due to the upheaval.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 06:21 PM
I'd mostly agree but the connection to the chariot complex is rather Babino culture, which is much closer to Sintashta.
They rolled over Catacomb culture, while assimilating parts of it. That's how Yamnaya lineages and ancestry made it with them to the Balkan.

rafc
08-29-2021, 06:26 PM
I'm not so sure about the chariot connection. It originated far in the east, and it was picked up fast by other populations. Chariots also seems to put the entry of Greek speakers very late.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 06:34 PM
I'm not so sure about the chariot connection. It originated far in the east, and it was picked up fast by other populations. Chariots also seems to put the entry of Greek speakers very late.

Chariots were used in Greece latest in the 16th century BC. The paper argues for gene flow from "Central Europe" in the late Bronze Age. That looks like a close match to me.
Also note the Unetice collapse and the spread of Indo-Iranians.
Just like Naue II swords and iron, the chariots caused upheavals and replacements.
Even if the Greeks just picked the technology up from neighbours, that seems to have been their breakthrough in the Aegean.

rafc
08-29-2021, 06:46 PM
Chariots were used in Greece latest in the 16th century BC. The paper argues for gene flow from "Central Europe" in the late Bronze Age. That looks like a close match to me.
Also note the Unetice collapse and the spread of Indo-Iranians.
Just like Naue II swords and iron, the chariots caused upheavals and replacements.
Even if the Greeks just picked the technology up from neighbours, that seems to have been their breakthrough in the Aegean.

Late bronze age is really too late for an arrival of Greek speakers. While Greek is attested fairly late in the Mycenaean period, there is no reason to assume the language was introduced later than the Mycenaean civilization itself. I think the gene flow from central Europe that they mention is connected to the end of Mycenaean period, not the start.

Aspar
08-29-2021, 06:47 PM
The Armenochori-Pelagonia group was found to have exhibited great influence from Cernavodă culture, that is, a distinguished future of it's pottery was the decoration made with cord. Also an unique artifact found here is a "horse-head" scepter of the Suvorovo type which again closely resembles these most earlier Steppe related cultures from north-east of the Balkans. In another words, Armenochori-Pelagonia group exhibits traits from the very first Steppe-related cultures and influences that penetrated into the Balkans.
This Armenochori-Pelagonia group was located in North-Western Greece and the Pelagonia region of North Macedonia. The Maliq group in South Albania is also somewhat related to Armenochori-Pelagonia in some pottery shapes and styles.

If we take the assumptions that Cernavodă culture is ancestral for the proto-Anatolian language for granted, than these very first Steppe related groups in North Greece during the 3rd millennium BCE can NOT represent some proto-Greek people but only some proto-Anatolian remnants in the Balkans.

On the other hand, Armenochori-Pelagonia was also clearly descended from Bubanj-Hum III as well, showing clearly related traits such as the two-handled beaker also found in sites belonging to Bubanj-Hum III and Maroš, so we have influence coming from the Beaker complex as well.

I would say that the Greek language as a Centum language fits well with the penetration of the Beaker influence coming from cultures such as Cetina where related traits were found all the way to Southern Greece however as Rafc said, it seems the proto-Greeks are better corelated with the Catacomb group, not only because it displays striking similarities with the later Mycenaeans but also because geographically would explain the connection the Greek have with the Armenian which is accepted by many linguists, a connection which is closer to any other Indo-European language, even the Albanian. The Catacomb culture would also explain the isoglosses shared between the Greek, Armenian and the Indo-Iranian languages as the Catacomb culture was nearby some of the cultures thought to be ancestral to the Indo-Iranians such as Poltavka culture while the very Sintashta culture is believed to have came into existence with the merge of Poltavka and Catacomb elements.

What's interesting is that Armenochori-Pelagonia disappears roughly around the same time with the appearance of the Mycenaeans for the first time, around the 17th century BCE. What's the connection between the two is not very clear at present.

How is this relevant to E-V13? My opinion is, not very much. Even some of these older clades that appear in the Middle East could have came later, during the LBA/EIA. Just because we don't find closer relatives to some of them in the Balkans doesn't mean much because later disturbances and migrations could have reduced the variety of E-V13 clades in the Balkans. We also don't find many Eastern European R-L151 relatives of the Western Europeans however there is no doubt now that R-L151 migrated to Western Europe from Eastern Europe. But some E-V13 older clades that do have closer connections to the Balkans make it clear that the connection is not the EBA but probably LBA/EIA at earliest while others came later:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF6784/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y152872/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17293/

To me one thing becomes clear, and that is, the fate of E-V13 is connected with regions more to east than previously thought and much of these Middle Eastern clades might be related with some Iranian group that expanded from Srubnaya culture having previously picked up E-V13 clades around the Carpathians. Then, it's no wonder that we find E-V13 among the Scythians since these local people whatever you call them, Getae or Dacians, were interconnected with Iranian and Scythian groups from the very earliest stage of their ethnogenesis. Therefore some similarities in the names of Getae - Massagetae could not be that coincidental at all. The ancient Greeks many times lumped all these people under the umbrella of the Scythians again displaying the close relationship of the locals with the Scythians. The Persians called the Thracian lands - "Scudra", which seems related to the Scythian name.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 06:57 PM
Late bronze age is really too late for an arrival of Greek speakers. While Greek is attested fairly late in the Mycenaean period, there is no reason to assume the language was introduced later than the Mycenaean civilization itself. I think the gene flow from central Europe that they mention is connected to the end of Mycenaean period, not the start.

I don't think so, Late Bronze Age in Greece = Mycenaean period:

The Mycenaean civilization flourished in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1700-1100 BCE), peaking from the 15th to the 13th century BCE. The Mycenaeans extended their influence throughout the Peloponnese in Greece and across the Aegean from Crete to the Cycladic islands.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Mycenaean_Civilization/

So it runs parallel with the introduction of chariots and the influx of Central Europeans according to the study - or we might say just people from North of Greece with a higher steppe ancestral component. We'll see when the samples arrive.

rafc
08-29-2021, 07:09 PM
How is this relevant to E-V13? My opinion is, not very much. Even some of these older clades that appear in the Middle East could have came later, during the LBA/EIA. Just because we don't find closer relatives to some of them in the Balkans doesn't mean much because later disturbances and migrations could have reduced the variety of E-V13 clades in the Balkans. We also don't find many Eastern European R-L151 relatives of the Western Europeans however there is no doubt now that R-L151 migrated to Western Europe from Eastern Europe. But some E-V13 older clades that do have closer connections to the Balkans make it clear that the connection is not the EBA but probably LBA/EIA at earliest while others came later:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF6784/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y152872/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17293/

Yes, there were certainly later connections also. Maybe we will find more recent connections for those other groups also, but than there must be a geographical factor involved. For example the recent matches could be in undersampled regions in the Eastern Balkans. For now I still think some of the branching really happened very early.

Bruzmi
08-29-2021, 07:17 PM
Well that makes sense because quite a number of his "relatives" migrated to the Southern Europe. Most of them moved southwards before the period in which he lived.

That's not what the study says and it's not what his autosomal profile shows:

Nomadic or cosmopolitan groups scatter like IAA: three Punic individuals from Sardinia (Italy_Sardinia_IA_Punic3), three Moldova Scythians already reported to be genetically similar to Southern Europeans, Spanish individuals from the Hellenistic and the Romans periods21 and an individual from the 12th century Iron Age Ashkelon which clusters with ORD001.

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.5303% / 0.02530264 | R5P
39.2 GRC_Helladic_EBA
27.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
21.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
9.2 Baltic_EST_BA
2.8 RUS_Kurma_EBA

It's clear that GRC_EBA-like ancestry reached from Moldova from the southern Balkans and not the other way around.

EDIT:

I'm using GC in my source list, but if GC is removed:

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.6363% / 0.02636257 | R5P
39.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
26.4 HRV_Vucedol
18.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
13.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
2.6 RUS_Kurma_EBA

Balkan Neolithic remains unaffected but GC gets replaced by HRV_Vucedol (an expression of Sopot Neolithic ancestry in many ways)

Riverman
08-29-2021, 07:24 PM
Yes, there were certainly later connections also. Maybe we will find more recent connections for those other groups also, but than there must be a geographical factor involved. For example the recent matches could be in undersampled regions in the Eastern Balkans. For now I still think some of the branching really happened very early.

I guess its one of those "impossible to know for sure" cases which need more evidence. So far it looks like a later entry is probably somewhat more likely, but an older branching event is always possible. Probably we will never know, because some small minority lineage migrating with e.g. Proto-Iranians into the Near East might have left little behind and having no close living relatives. Rare lineages could have migrated without a trace and without leaving traces behind. But if we can prove a later arrival with Iranians for some clades, it would make a later arrival for the rest more likely at least. Not 100 percent sure, but more likely.

By the way, I came across this older study and the numbers for E-V13 are interesting:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2008249.pdf?origin=ppub

Do Croats on average really just have about 7 percent E-V13? That would be in the range of Austrians and Czechs, with Slovenians having less than Western and Northern Turkish going by new results. Bosnian Serbs on the other hand are supposed to have one of the highest numbers in Europe.

rafc
08-29-2021, 07:30 PM
That's not what the study says and it's not what his autosomal profile shows:

Nomadic or cosmopolitan groups scatter like IAA: three Punic individuals from Sardinia (Italy_Sardinia_IA_Punic3), three Moldova Scythians already reported to be genetically similar to Southern Europeans, Spanish individuals from the Hellenistic and the Romans periods21 and an individual from the 12th century Iron Age Ashkelon which clusters with ORD001.

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.5303% / 0.02530264 | R5P
39.2 GRC_Helladic_EBA
27.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
21.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
9.2 Baltic_EST_BA
2.8 RUS_Kurma_EBA

It's clear that GRC_EBA-like ancestry reached from Moldova from the southern Balkans and not the other way around.

EDIT:

I'm using GC in my source list, but if GC is removed:

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.6363% / 0.02636257 | R5P
39.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
26.4 HRV_Vucedol
18.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
13.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
2.6 RUS_Kurma_EBA

Balkan Neolithic remains unaffected but GC gets replaced by HRV_Vucedol (an expression of Sopot Neolithic ancestry in many ways)

I think this discussion will go on endlessly, you are convinced of your point, but since it's so unlogical no one believes it. I think it would really help if you would it put it in a bigger picture, a history of V13 from it's origin to the period that Scy197 lived. If you can present a logical story that can explain why Scy197 would come from the Western Balkans it would strongly support your point.

rafc
08-29-2021, 07:37 PM
Do Croats on average really just have about 7 percent E-V13? That would be in the range of Austrians and Czechs, with Slovenians having less than Western and Northern Turkish going by new results. Bosnian Serbs on the other hand are supposed to have one of the highest numbers in Europe.

Yes, V13 is rather low in Croats. As with all Balkan populations it's very hard to say whether this is because V13 was lower before Slavs arrived, or whether there was a larger replacement of the Roman era population by Slavs. Looking at other groups I think the higher replacement is more likely.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 07:55 PM
Yes, V13 is rather low in Croats. As with all Balkan populations it's very hard to say whether this is because V13 was lower before Slavs arrived, or whether there was a larger replacement of the Roman era population by Slavs. Looking at other groups I think the higher replacement is more likely.

Interesting is how it decreases:
Bosnian Serbs - Bosniaks - Osijek-Croats - Croats - Slovenians.

Poles (4 in this study) have still double the number of Slovenians and Ukrainians more (7,6 in this study). This means Croats have on average the same frequency of E-V13 like Ukrainians going by this study. Will be interesting to see which subclades were brought to the Balkan with Slavs (either from the Urheimat or on the way) and which were assimilated in situ, mostly from provincial Romans/Vlachs I guess.

Bruzmi
08-29-2021, 08:09 PM
I think this discussion will go on endlessly, you are convinced of your point, but since it's so unlogical no one believes it. I think it would really help if you would it put it in a bigger picture, a history of V13 from it's origin to the period that Scy197 lived. If you can present a logical story that can explain why Scy197 would come from the Western Balkans it would strongly support your point.

I merely posted what the study is saying and it's not really something which is up for debate. If data-based research says they are "genetically similar to southern Europeans" then it is what is. I posted it so that readers of this thread know what academic research has to say on the matter.

In my opinion, it's problematic that the question even exists in this thread about whether it is rational to call "genetically similar" to southern Europeans an individual whose ancestry is 65%+ GRC_EBA/HRV_Vucedol-like.


Target: scy197
Distance: 2.6363% / 0.02636257 | R5P
39.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
26.4 HRV_Vucedol
18.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
13.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
2.6 RUS_Kurma_EBA

This profile has similar ancestry to HRV and GRC MBA samples. Balkan Neolithic ancestry did not exist in Moldova or Romania. It arrived there with migrants from locations south and west of these areas.

This is what post-EBA Croatia and Greece look like:

Target: HRV_MBA:I4332
Distance: 1.9782% / 0.01978172 | R5P
34.2 SVK_EBA
24.2 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
16.2 HRV_Vucedol
13.8 GRC_Helladic_EBA
11.6 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA

Target: HRV_MBA:I4331
Distance: 1.7615% / 0.01761523 | R5P
36.0 GRC_Peloponnese_N
20.6 DEU_Lech_EBA
18.2 SVK_EBA
16.4 Wales_CA_EBA
8.8 GRC_Cycladic_EBA

Target: GRC_Helladic_MBA
Distance: 1.8978% / 0.01897821 | R5P
44.6 GRC_Helladic_EBA
22.2 HRV_EBA
15.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
11.4 Baltic_LTU_BA
6.2 Wales_CA_EBA

And this is what post-EBA Romania and Bulgaria look like:

Target: ROU_BA:S11955
Distance: 2.6552% / 0.02655237
69.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
17.6 DEU_Unetice_EBA
7.2 Yamnaya_BGR
5.4 RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA
0.6 Baltic_LTU_BA

Target: BGR_MLBA:I2163
Distance: 1.9337% / 0.01933673 | R5P
28.6 Bell_Beaker_England_EBA
28.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
15.8 DEU_Lech_EBA
15.8 Yamnaya_UKR
11.8 POL_EBA

The differences are obvious.

rafc
08-29-2021, 08:35 PM
I merely posted what the study is saying and it's not really something which is up for debate. If data-based research says they are "genetically similar to southern Europeans" then it is what is. I posted it so that readers of this thread know what academic research has to say on the matter.

In my opinion, it's problematic that the question even exists in this thread about whether it is rational to call "genetically similar" to southern Europeans an individual whose ancestry is 65%+ GRC_EBA/HRV_Vucedol-like
I don't agree that we should not debate statements from studies, but that's not the point here. No one denies these four samples resemble Southern Europeans. Your insistence that they are recent migrants from the Western Balkans is not what they are saying. I explained before that the term 'Southern Europeans' is purely used to indicate they fall on a PCA in the same region as modern day Southern Europeans. This has nothing to do with 4000 year old ancestries.

Bane
08-29-2021, 08:38 PM
Yes, V13 is rather low in Croats. As with all Balkan populations it's very hard to say whether this is because V13 was lower before Slavs arrived, or whether there was a larger replacement of the Roman era population by Slavs. Looking at other groups I think the higher replacement is more likely.

I would also say that replacement is what happened.
When talking about arrival of Slavs to the Balkans, there is a visible gradation in East-to-West direction. That is because the major power in the Balkans at that time was Byzantine Empire with Constantinople as capital city. So there like was like a principle - the more an area is distant from Constantinople, the more Slavs settled there. That is why there is significantly more Slavic ancestry in Central Croatia than in Central Bulgaria.

Bruzmi
08-29-2021, 08:48 PM
Interesting is how it decreases:
Bosnian Serbs - Bosniaks - Osijek-Croats - Croats - Slovenians.

Poles (4 in this study) have still double the number of Slovenians and Ukrainians more (7,6 in this study). This means Croats have on average the same frequency of E-V13 like Ukrainians going by this study. Will be interesting to see which subclades were brought to the Balkan with Slavs (either from the Urheimat or on the way) and which were assimilated in situ, mostly from provincial Romans/Vlachs I guess.

There are 9 samples from Croatia on yfull:

1 under E-BY15410 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY15410/) (formed 1850 ybp). Upstream E-BY15406* is a Mexican. If more becomes known about his origin, it might offer some more information. Its upstream clade E-Y35953 in the Balkans is found among Albanians and Bosnian Serbs.

1 under E-FT192275 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT192275/). E-A24066* is from Bijelo Polje/Montenegro.

2 under E-Y48420 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y48420/) (formed 1100 ybp). E-BY4455* are a Bosnian Serb and a Romanian and all upstream samples are Albanian (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y161799/).

1 under E-FT12534>Y172786 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y172786/). E-FT12534* (formed 2800 ybp) is an Albanian.

2 under E-BY155704 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY155704/)>BY176411 (formed 2000 ybp). Under its sister clade E-Y133830* (formed 2000 ybp) is an Albanian.

2 under E-BY157133 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY157133/) (formed 550 ybp). Its sister clade includes a Bosnian and a Jamaican. This is a very young branch in general. Upstream there are 3 North Macedonians under E-BY5423 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5423/)>BY83158 (formed 900 ybp). E-BY5423* is an Albanian.

Most seem to be local clades which entered Croat lineages in the Balkans and are linked to Albanians (some more distantly, some more closely).

EDIT:

Albanians were found under E-Y128213 (1 Croat under E-Y128213>Y129143>BY157133)


An Albanian from Lume who recently completed a high resolution test has split the E-V13 subclade E-BY5423 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5423/), now estimated 1450 ybp by YFull, an age typical of paleo-Balkan lineages. Furthermore, an old Albanian family from Shtime/Lipjan area, has also tested positive for this branch through an YSEQ Panel, finally being classified further downstream under E-Y128213 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y128213/) (xY129143). This is one of the rarest subclades for Albanians, as until now, we only have these two confirmed results there, although there should be some more.

The "fatherly" subclade E-BY5430 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5430/), is one of the older E-V13 branches with a clear Balkan diversity peak (YFull TMRCA=2500 ybp). The English samples' distance to the Bulgarian suggests an expansion during the Roman period.

On the FTDNA Block Tree there is a Puerto Rican result next to these two branches, and an Italian just upstream.

Bruzmi
08-29-2021, 08:55 PM
No one denies these four samples resemble Southern Europeans. Your insistence that they are recent migrants from the Western Balkans is not what they are saying

They resemble southern Europeans because that is their ancestry and if someone's ancestry is mostly similar to western/southern Balkans, then the most probable and rational answer is that this is the descendant of recent migrant and there's no reason to doubt it. Everything else requires multiple unlikely scenarios. It's what we were discussing about the E-V13 sample in Denmark. For his ancestor to not have been a recent migrant (which he was as were many others including J2b-L283 in Sweden) many, many other scenarios would have to hold true. It's an Occam's razor issue.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 09:25 PM
I would also say that replacement is what happened.
When talking about arrival of Slavs to the Balkans, there is a visible gradation in East-to-West direction. That is because the major power in the Balkans at that time was Byzantine Empire with Constantinople as capital city. So there like was like a principle - the more an area is distant from Constantinople, the more Slavs settled there. That is why there is significantly more Slavic ancestry in Central Croatia than in Central Bulgaria.

If that would be true, Croatians from Dalmatia should have more E-V13 than Croatians from places like Osijek. Yet Croatians from Osijek have more E-V13 than the Croatian average, they are in this respect more similar to Hungarians and Romanians in comparison. I guess there is more to it, like either reflecting old distribution patterns, or more Vlach-related ancestry. The Byzantine rule couldn't even stop Albanian, Slavic and Vlach clades entering en masse Greece itself. On the long run it might be shown that some Slavic tribes either early or later, had already more E-V13 than others. And that in some regions Vlachs played a more important role, than in others.

Rrenjet.
08-29-2021, 09:27 PM
There are 9 samples from Croatia on yfull:

1 under E-BY15410 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY15410/) (formed 1850 ybp). Upstream E-BY15406* is a Mexican. If more becomes known about his origin, it might offer some more information. Its upstream clade E-Y35953 in the Balkans is found among Albanians and Bosnian Serbs.

1 under E-FT192275 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT192275/). E-A24066* is from Bijelo Polje/Montenegro.

2 under E-Y48420 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y48420/) (formed 1100 ybp). E-BY4455* are a Bosnian Serb and a Romanian and all upstream samples are Albanian (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y161799/).

1 under E-FT12534>Y172786 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y172786/). E-FT12534* (formed 2800 ybp) is an Albanian.

2 under E-BY155704 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY155704/)>BY176411 (formed 2000 ybp). Under its sister clade E-Y133830* (formed 2000 ybp) is an Albanian.

2 under E-BY157133 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY157133/) (formed 550 ybp). Its sister clade includes a Bosnian and a Jamaican. This is a very young branch in general. Upstream there are 3 North Macedonians under E-BY5423 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5423/)>BY83158 (formed 900 ybp). E-BY5423* is an Albanian.

Most seem to be local clades which entered Croat lineages in the Balkans and are linked to Albanians (some more distantly, some more closely).

EDIT:

Albanians were found under E-Y128213 (1 Croat under E-Y128213>Y129143>BY157133)

There is also the Argentinian sample under E-PH2180 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH2180/), originally from the Dalmatian islands, which we mentioned a few days ago. Some of the Croatian flags on YFull are Serbs from Croatia though. Btw Croatians are severely undertested in high resolution.

Bane
08-29-2021, 09:39 PM
If that would be true, Croatians from Dalmatia should have more E-V13 than Croatians from places like Osijek. Yet Croatians from Osijek have more E-V13 than the Croatian average, they are in this respect more similar to Hungarians and Romanians in comparison.

Strictly geographically Osijek is in Pannonia not in the Balkans. :) Plus Pannonia was not controlled by Byzantine empire at that time.
But I would agree with you it is not as simple as one simple rule.

Bane
08-29-2021, 09:45 PM
Strictly geographically Osijek is in Pannonia not in the Balkans. :) Plus Pannonia was not controlled by Byzantine empire at that time.
But I would agree with you it is not as simple as one simple rule.

Another aspect it that there were two major routes for arrival of Slavs. One was followed predominantly by I-Y3120 (eastern), another predominantly by R1a (western).
The story gets more complicated as we go deep, but the existince of Byzantine Empire in my view does explain why some regions were less or more settled by Slavs. That is in the Balkans.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 09:46 PM
There are 9 samples from Croatia on yfull:

Let's take a look:


1 under E-BY15410 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY15410/) (formed 1850 ybp). Upstream E-BY15406* is a Mexican. If more becomes known about his origin, it might offer some more information. Its upstream clade E-Y35953 in the Balkans is found among Albanians and Bosnian Serbs.

Looks Hallstatt-related. Upstream is transitional period.


1 under E-FT192275 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT192275/). E-A24066* is from Bijelo Polje/Montenegro.

Same, is a regional clade of Hallstatt Age. The Albanian subclade from upstream is new and restricted.


2 under E-Y48420 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y48420/) (formed 1100 ybp). E-BY4455* are a Bosnian Serb and a Romanian and all upstream samples are Albanian (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y161799/).

They are not all Albanian, that's not true, but it looks like a regional clade in the Balkans, in any case very strong in Albanians. But the TMRCA is shallow, like usual. Around Late Roman period. Upstream timing is Hallstatt/Iron Age again.


1 under E-FT12534>Y172786 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y172786/). E-FT12534* (formed 2800 ybp) is an Albanian.

2 under E-BY155704 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY155704/)>BY176411 (formed 2000 ybp). Under its sister clade E-Y133830* (formed 2000 ybp) is an Albanian.

Interesting that of the few Croatians more than just form subclades with French! Could be indeed not just Hallstatt timing but Hallstatt spread!

In any case many interesting Albanian subclades below https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988/

But overlaps with other people in the Common Era being largely restricted to Montenegrines and Serbs. The TMRCA with Croatians, French, Poles etc. is never younger than Hallstatt - or only very rarely so.


2 under E-BY157133 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY157133/) (formed 550 ybp). Its sister clade includes a Bosnian and a Jamaican. This is a very young branch in general. Upstream there are 3 North Macedonians under E-BY5423 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5423/)>BY83158 (formed 900 ybp). E-BY5423* is an Albanian.

That's a young branch indeed, but look if we go upstream, into Hallstatt period, Russians, British, Irish, Armenian - never before Hallstatt:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y18360/

In this case we can't say: Did Albanians assimilate into Slavs or vice versa. Or was it a Vlach lineage assimilating in both? Hard to tell from these samples alone, but they are closely related indeed.

But an impressive demonstration that its impossible to derive the vast majority of E-V13 in Europe North of the Balkans from the Balkan. Absolutely no overlap before the Hallstatt period. Thanks for the examples.

Riverman
08-29-2021, 09:52 PM
Another aspect it that there were two major routes for arrival of Slavs. One was followed predominantly by I-Y3120 (eastern), another predominantly by R1a (western).
The story gets more complicated as we go deep, but the existince of Byzantine Empire in my view does explain why some regions were less or more settled by Slavs. That is in the Balkans.

I think the modern distribution is impossible to explain if the Slavs themselves didn't carry on some E-V13 clades early on. That's really evident from a lot of comparisons and the data we have for Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs etc. The other aspect is that after the Slavic settlement started, regardless of how they made it up to this point, some E-V13 clades seem to have expanded on their own, especially in Vlachs-Romanians and Albanians. So its kind of a rebound after the first impact. The Vlachs and Albanians as warlike pastoralists themselves could bring themselves in a good position, especially after the Slavs had settled down.
But there surely is more to it, because some subclades seem to have expanded on the way, on the route the Slavs were taking. If that was the case, they must have been on board from the start or joined fairly early on, like in the Carpathian zone.

rafc
08-30-2021, 05:09 AM
They resemble southern Europeans because that is their ancestry and if someone's ancestry is mostly similar to western/southern Balkans, then the most probable and rational answer is that this is the descendant of recent migrant and there's no reason to doubt it. Everything else requires multiple unlikely scenarios. It's what we were discussing about the E-V13 sample in Denmark. For his ancestor to not have been a recent migrant (which he was as were many others including J2b-L283 in Sweden) many, many other scenarios would have to hold true. It's an Occam's razor issue.

There is so much here that doesn't make sense, that I'll just give up. On the V13 in Denmark I agree his ancestor must have come from elsewhere in the previous 200 years. But to me it seems more likely he came from Central Europe than the Balkans directly.

rafc
08-30-2021, 05:24 AM
But an impressive demonstration that its impossible to derive the vast majority of E-V13 in Europe North of the Balkans from the Balkan. Absolutely no overlap before the Hallstatt period. Thanks for the examples.

Yes, I was also impressed by how much Croatians are dominated by CTS9320 and some other recent Western Balkan clades. I will check later if we have additional Croats in our project.

Edit:
I see these additional in our project (people who self report country as Croatia):
-https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY169463/
-https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-YP4806/
-One Croatian is in the cluster that also contains the 'Vasojevici' under https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y37092/
-Two Croatians very likely belong to the Balkan wide clade https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y172393/

On a side note: it would be really interesting if people with good knowledge of the Balkans and it's history had ideas on clades like Y172393. Did these guys take advantage of Slav expansions to boom? Are they Vlachs? I wonder how they grew so fast and spread so wide.
But to come back at the topic of Croatian V13. When adding these results it would reinforce the idea that either V13 was not all that present in Croatia in Roman times, or that it saw a larger population turnover, wiping out much V13.

mikulic33
08-30-2021, 09:08 AM
The overall percentage of E-V13 in the Dinaric area (Dalmatia and Herzegovina) is around 6%. Most of the samples could be attributed to 3 different migration events.

1. First Vlach migrations between 1200-1400 from the southern Balkan areas (around North-Macedonia). These migrations were thus far only described in Yugoslav ethnographic literature (especially Bogumil Hrabak) and deducted from the first “Vlach” related toponyms and onomastic evidence related to Dalmatian Vlachs and increasingly attested in the 14th century. But now a lot of Y-DNA lineages corroborate these assumptions.

2. Mass migrations during the Ottoman period from around 1450 to 1700 involving mostly Serbs from eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and western Montenegro and Serbia.

3. Migrations between 1500 and 1800 within the Venetian commonwealth from Albanian and Greek Territories. A good example is the Arbereshe settlement in the vicinity of Zadar but there were a lot of individual migrations too, especially by Albanian and Greek soldiers in Venetian service.

IMO, the overall impact of these migrations should at least explain up to 80% of the modern E-V13 presence in Dalmatia. This means In turn that there hardly is a E-V13 lineage in Dalmatia which was present there 1000 years ago.

Riverman
08-30-2021, 09:45 AM
The overall percentage of E-V13 in the Dinaric area (Dalmatia and Herzegovina) is around 6%. Most of the samples could be attributed to 3 different migration events.

1. First Vlach migrations between 1200-1400 from the southern Balkan areas (around North-Macedonia). These migrations were thus far only described in Yugoslav ethnographic literature (especially Bogumil Hrabak) and deducted from the first “Vlach” related toponyms and onomastic evidence related to Dalmatian Vlachs and increasingly attested in the 14th century. But now a lot of Y-DNA lineages corroborate these assumptions.

2. Mass migrations during the Ottoman period from around 1450 to 1700 involving mostly Serbs from eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and western Montenegro and Serbia.

3. Migrations between 1500 and 1800 within the Venetian commonwealth from Albanian and Greek Territories. A good example is the Arbereshe settlement in the vicinity of Zadar but there were a lot of individual migrations too, especially by Albanian and Greek soldiers in Venetian service.

IMO, the overall impact of these migrations should at least explain up to 80% of the modern E-V13 presence in Dalmatia. This means In turn that there hardly is a E-V13 lineage in Dalmatia which was present there 1000 years ago.

That's kind of strange if correct, because on all sides, West, North and East, E-V13 has an older and minimum as high presence. Would you attribute that rather to the Illyrian core region? Because the Slavic settlement was not more intensive in Dalmatia than in let's say Osijek, not even than Serbians probably. The Slavic replacement can't explain that, with most other Slavic regions having an older V13 presence of their own at a similar and higher level. What's your take on that?

mikulic33
08-30-2021, 10:22 AM
One should not put too much significance in small percentage differences like 6% E-V13 in Dalmatia and 11% in Slavonia. Slavonia and Vojvodina were constantly and massively colonised by settlers from the Dinaric area within the last 300 years. I can demonstrate that using my own example.

The SNP E-Y128213 correlates to a very specific and identifiable STR-profil even on 17 markers which formed between 800 and 1000AD. Thus, it can be used to assign 17-STR results from the Mršić et al. (2012) paper (1100 samples) to my lineage.

From 14 E-V13 samples in South Croatia (out of 220) 1 belongs to a lineage under Y128213. In turn, 4 out of 25 E-V13 samples (also out of 220) in East Croatia belong under Y128213. These East Croatian samples are clearly the result from Dalmatian/Herzegovinian migrations to Slavonia subsequent to the initial migrations I described above. If you only deduct these 4 samples from the Croatia East results the E-V13 percentage drops under 10%.

Riverman
08-30-2021, 10:29 AM
One should not put too much significance in small percentage differences like 6% E-V13 in Dalmatia and 11% in Slavonia. Slavonia and Vojvodina were constantly and massively colonised by settlers from the Dinaric area within the last 300 years. I can demonstrate that using my own example.

The SNP E-Y128213 correlates to a very specific and identifiable STR-profil even on 17 markers which formed between 800 and 1000AD. Thus, it can be used to assign 17-STR results from the Mršić et al. (2012) paper (1100 samples) to my lineage.

From 14 E-V13 samples in South Croatia (out of 220) 1 belongs to a lineage under Y128213. In turn, 4 out of 25 E-V13 samples (also out of 220) in East Croatia belong under Y128213. These East Croatian samples are clearly the result from Dalmatian/Herzegovinian migrations to Slavonia subsequent to the initial migrations I described above. If you only deduct these 4 samples from the Croatia East results the E-V13 percentage drops under 10%.

Yes, if sample sizes are not that big, such small effects can change the percentages quite a lot. Thanks for the insight.

Bruzmi
08-30-2021, 11:01 AM
The overall percentage of E-V13 in the Dinaric area (Dalmatia and Herzegovina) is around 6%. Most of the samples could be attributed to 3 different migration events.

1. First Vlach migrations between 1200-1400 from the southern Balkan areas (around North-Macedonia). These migrations were thus far only described in Yugoslav ethnographic literature (especially Bogumil Hrabak) and deducted from the first “Vlach” related toponyms and onomastic evidence related to Dalmatian Vlachs and increasingly attested in the 14th century. But now a lot of Y-DNA lineages corroborate these assumptions.

2. Mass migrations during the Ottoman period from around 1450 to 1700 involving mostly Serbs from eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and western Montenegro and Serbia.

3. Migrations between 1500 and 1800 within the Venetian commonwealth from Albanian and Greek Territories. A good example is the Arbereshe settlement in the vicinity of Zadar but there were a lot of individual migrations too, especially by Albanian and Greek soldiers in Venetian service.

IMO, the overall impact of these migrations should at least explain up to 80% of the modern E-V13 presence in Dalmatia. This means In turn that there hardly is a E-V13 lineage in Dalmatia which was present there 1000 years ago.

That's more or less my reading of the situation. J2b-L283 is even lower than E-V13 in Croatia (J2b including J2b-M205 is <4%), which shouldn't be the case if there existed a significant local population at the time the ancestors of the Croats settled in the Balkans. Testing descendants of Dalmatian Italians who are of local Dalmatian-speaking origin would be interesting to check for any traces of non-Italic, local Balkan lineages.

Vlachs from Macedonia are about 18-20% E-V13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians#Genetic_studies) so they also brought more typically Slavic and other lineages in Croatia.

To pre-1400 migrations, I would add movement from central and northern Albania to Dubrovnik/Ragusa (see On the trails of the noble Ragusan families of Albanian origin (https://www.academia.edu/40997205/N%C3%AB_gjurm%C3%AB_t%C3%AB_familjeve_fisnike_ragu zane_me_origjin%C3%AB_nga_trojet_shqiptare_On_the_ trails_of_the_noble_Ragusan_families_of_Albanian_o rigin_)), the movement of Albanian tribes from Old Herzegovina/Montenegro (see Burmazi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmazi)) and general coastal migration around big cities like Dubrovnik/Ragusa (see the first mention of the Albanian language in Ragusa in 1285: Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca (https://books.google.com/books?id=8i0lDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA554))

Serb migrations from Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo definitely also brought E-V13 in Croatia. Given that among Krajina Serbs, about 10%> are E-V13, they're also a source for E-V13 in the region.

Such migrations explain a large part of the situation but some islands with high frequencies are left out: Vis (23.4%), Mljet (15.4%), Dugi Otok (15.9%), Ugljan (13.2%), Krk (6.8%). Are there any individuals from these islands who have been tested?

Riverman
08-30-2021, 11:12 AM
Another interesting aspect would be the seemingly fairly high frequency of E-V13 in Bosnian Serbs. Any historical migrations and insights on that?

bce
08-30-2021, 11:31 AM
The overall percentage of E-V13 in the Dinaric area (Dalmatia and Herzegovina) is around 6%. Most of the samples could be attributed to 3 different migration events.

1. First Vlach migrations between 1200-1400 from the southern Balkan areas (around North-Macedonia). These migrations were thus far only described in Yugoslav ethnographic literature (especially Bogumil Hrabak) and deducted from the first “Vlach” related toponyms and onomastic evidence related to Dalmatian Vlachs and increasingly attested in the 14th century. But now a lot of Y-DNA lineages corroborate these assumptions.

2. Mass migrations during the Ottoman period from around 1450 to 1700 involving mostly Serbs from eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and western Montenegro and Serbia.

3. Migrations between 1500 and 1800 within the Venetian commonwealth from Albanian and Greek Territories. A good example is the Arbereshe settlement in the vicinity of Zadar but there were a lot of individual migrations too, especially by Albanian and Greek soldiers in Venetian service.

IMO, the overall impact of these migrations should at least explain up to 80% of the modern E-V13 presence in Dalmatia. This means In turn that there hardly is a E-V13 lineage in Dalmatia which was present there 1000 years ago.

To me it seems that most in the hinterland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_Hinterland) and Dubrovnik regions descend from Bosnian Croats, who brought their low E-V13 with them.

On the Dalmatian coast and islands there's more E-V13, 10-15%

bce
08-30-2021, 12:08 PM
Another interesting aspect would be the seemingly fairly high frequency of E-V13 in Bosnian Serbs. Any historical migrations and insights on that?

as per Serbian DNA project it's around 10-15% in Western Serbia, Western Montenegro and Bosnian Serbs too. In Central/South/East Serbia it's 20-25%, and around 35% in the Zeta-Raška region of Montenegro.

mikulic33
08-30-2021, 12:23 PM
Another interesting aspect would be the seemingly fairly high frequency of E-V13 in Bosnian Serbs. Any historical migrations and insights on that?

Hard to tell. the best we have is the 23-marker database of the Serbian DNA Project. From the territory of Bosnia and Hercegovina we have 98 E-V13 samples. The single most present lineages consists of samples under L241 (L241, Y142744 and PH2180) with 25 samples. On the second place is the relatively young clade A18844 with 22 samples. In sum, these both groups make up 50% of the overall sample size.

Bane
08-30-2021, 12:37 PM
Another interesting aspect would be the seemingly fairly high frequency of E-V13 in Bosnian Serbs. Any historical migrations and insights on that?

There is no significant deviation from frequency of E-V13 among Serbs in general.
Regarding migrations, during the Ottoman rule Serbs did migrate towards West, Northwest and Northeast from what was the territory of Medieval Serbia. So probably we could say E-V13 had more Southeastern presence in the Western Balkans before arrival of Ottomans.

Riverman
08-30-2021, 01:02 PM
as per Serbian DNA project it's around 10-15% in Western Serbia, Western Montenegro and Bosnian Serbs too. In Central/South/East Serbia it's 20-25%, and around 35% in the Zeta-Raška region of Montenegro.

Ok, in the old study mentioned before it was almost 20 % for the Bosnian Serbs:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2008249.pdf?origin=ppub

And another study puts E1b1b (not differentiated) in all Bosnians at 17 %:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80495777.pdf

The decrease from Bosnian Serbs -> Bosniaks -> Croatians is really interesting, considering how close they lived and being all South Slavic speakers. Serbians are not as well represented on YFull, but those which are seem to be fairly diverse at first glance. On YFull are just 11 people with Serbia as a country, which is a joke considering their central position. Albanians on the other hand have 65 samples, and that's without those with another country flag or unknowns. Central Europeans are even worse, yet I know from some matches and discussions that e.g. in Germany are dozens of E-V13 on FTDNA alone, they just don't go for the BigY or YSEQ.

This one looks like the Turkish sample being from a janissary or convert lineage from Serbia:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y167794/

Slavic migrant to Albania or Vlach to Slovakia?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY28623/

Good example for a most likely Slavic (less likely Germanic) expansion lineage in Serbia:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A783*/

Riverman
08-30-2021, 01:29 PM
Hard to tell. the best we have is the 23-marker database of the Serbian DNA Project. From the territory of Bosnia and Hercegovina we have 98 E-V13 samples. The single most present lineages consists of samples under L241 (L241, Y142744 and PH2180) with 25 samples. On the second place is the relatively young clade A18844 with 22 samples. In sum, these both groups make up 50% of the overall sample size.

E-PH2180 looks pretty much Albanian so far, with the single Argentinian with Dalmatian roots which might be derived from Albanians too. But deeper its hard to pin down, so far upstream only one Czech, but new samples in progress.
E-Y142744 looks pretty much Slavic (?), with an early Jewish convert lineage.
E-A18844 looks upstream like an early expansion lineage into the Balkans (LBA), E-18844 is just a secondary expansion, with the siblings so far unsampled or went extinct. On FTDNA its an impressive Balkan lineage with 44 SNPs, that's rather rare in this clarity. Probably a pioneer lineage from Belegis II-Gava or the Fluted Ware groups with no close relatives in other regions being sampled so far. If they appear, most likely no closer than 1.100 BC. Could be a good candidate for a regional bottleneck and re-expansion scenario after the Slavic impact.

I think its possible that the Serb E-V13 can be split in locals and newcomers, the latter primarily with Slavs, in the near future. LIB11 geographical position might have been no coincidence. Upstream of L241 is an Austrian. The Czech samples are quite often upstream rather, even more extreme for the Austrians, but that might be also due to their samples from whole genome sequencing. If not, it would be quite remarkable and point to a strong early branch in Central Europe or even a migration from there.

Kelmendasi
08-30-2021, 01:49 PM
This one looks like the Turkish sample being from a janissary or convert lineage from Serbia:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y167794/
Sample YF18895 from the Raška District, Serbia, I believe is in fact from the village of Kremiće (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kremi%C4%87e,+Serbia/@43.3506701,20.6671708,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x475639d3def6d431:0xc40bb 3c1499943d0!8m2!3d43.3522578!4d20.6889481) just to the north of Kosovo. They descend from the Rajovići brotherhood which according to oral tradition is from the Kuči (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku%C4%8Di_(tribe)) tribe of eastern Montenegro and celebrate the Slava of Nikoljdan (St. Nicholas). They claim to have moved from their homeland in Kuči to the the village of Sinajë (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sinaj%C3%AB/@42.6791382,20.4476381,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x13531786df616aef:0x357b0ab85da35 c3e!8m2!3d42.791872!4d20.5237805) in north-western Kosovo and from there they fled to Kneževići (https://mapcarta.com/14015928) in Sandžak due to a blood feud. The brotherhood would then settle in different villages of Raška such as Žunjeviće (https://www.google.com/maps/place/%C5%BDunjevi%C4%87e,+Serbia/@43.0301472,19.9434895,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x13532e3ef6ac0221:0xdba47994e26fe 404!8m2!3d43.036728!4d20.5004935).

Of course it is clear that they are not patrilineal descendants of the Kuči considering that the lineage of the tribe is E-BY165837 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY165837/). This is another case of a minor and smaller brotherhood or community being absorbed into a larger and more powerful neighbouring tribal community.

Aspar
08-30-2021, 01:56 PM
1. First Vlach migrations between 1200-1400 from the southern Balkan areas (around North-Macedonia). These migrations were thus far only described in Yugoslav ethnographic literature (especially Bogumil Hrabak) and deducted from the first “Vlach” related toponyms and onomastic evidence related to Dalmatian Vlachs and increasingly attested in the 14th century. But now a lot of Y-DNA lineages corroborate these assumptions.


Can you provide the source for these Vlach migrations from Macedonia to the Dinaric areas?
I ask because I am not aware of any such Vlach migrations from Macedonia to the Dinaric areas so I would like to know more about it.

Are there any close links between the Aromanians and the people from the Dinaric areas regarding yDNA that can confirm such migrations?

To me it seems that some other groups of Vlachs more related to Romanians were living close to the Dinaric areas since the early Medieval judging by some Eastern Romance toponyms in Bosnia, Montenegro, West and South-East Serbia. It's very unlikely these migratory Vlachs in the 1200-1400 to have met no people there and to have named those places during that time while the Slavic people to have had no terminology for those mountains and other places and to have accepted the Vlach terminology. That would be a paradox since in the South Balkans where the Aromanians live and where you suggest the migratory people to have came from there are not many toponyms that can be derived directly from the Eastern Romance but the Aromanians have accepted mostly Greek and Slavic related terminology.

It's knows to many that there are many Eastern Romance derived toponyms in Serbia and North-West Bulgaria and some propose that the expansion of the Vlach people started from those places.

In other words, why the Vlachs would have migrated all the way from Macedonia to the Dinaric areas when the most logical conclusion in this case would be that the Vlachs in the Dinaric areas probably migrated from the same source area in Serbia and Bulgaria?

Bruzmi
08-30-2021, 02:03 PM
This one looks like the Turkish sample being from a janissary or convert lineage from Serbia:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y167794/

Slavic migrant to Albania or Vlach to Slovakia?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY28623/

Good example for a most likely Slavic (less likely Germanic) expansion lineage in Serbia:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A783*/

1)It's a sample from wider Sandzak/Raska under E-BY14160. E-BY14160* has been found in Calabria. It has two sister clades: one includes Albanians (* is Swedish), the other three samples from Spain, Saudi Arabia and Ireland.

2)It has one Albanian and one Slovakian. It's under E-PF6784. E-PF6784* has been found in Bosnia (near Banja Luka) and Sardinia. Sister clades have a wide geographical spread. Based on its spread, more likely than not it spread from the Balkans to Slovakia in my opinion. We can't know if he came from a directly (Proto-)Albanian source, but more likely (again: we can't really know, we're listing working hypotheses) in opinion is an arrival in Slovakia via the Proto- or Early Romanian migrations which formed Moravian Wallachia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Wallachia)

3)This is a sample from north Kosovo and is under E-Y7026 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y7026/) (formed 2000 ybp). Given its formation date and the fact that E-V13 KRA005 had recent Balkan ancestry, I can see a migration from the Balkans as equally likely, but we'll figure it out when we get more samples.

Something else that I was thinking is that just in the last 150 years, there have been many bottleneck events in the history of the Balkans which have definitely reduced hg diversity. I'd say that future aDNA research should equally focus on aDNA from the last two centuries.

Bane
08-30-2021, 02:09 PM
Good example for a most likely Slavic (less likely Germanic) expansion lineage in Serbia:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A783*/

That is not so obvious to me.
This subclade was commented in Serbian forum and there are people which support your view.
But, knowing geographic distribution of some Serbian branches, and I mean not just E-V13, if E-A783 would be Slavic I would expect its more Western position than it actually is. In my opinion this subclade reached Balkans a couple of centuries before arrival of the Slavs.

Kelmendasi
08-30-2021, 02:12 PM
E-PH2180 looks pretty much Albanian so far, with the single Argentinian with Dalmatian roots which might be derived from Albanians too.
In my opinion, considering that the Argentinian has direct ancestry from Dalmatia, it is most likely that his paternal ancestors were from the Arbanasi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbanasi_people#:~:text=Arbanasi%20(Arbanasi%3A%20 Arb%C3%ABnesh%C3%AB)%20is,is%20a%20suburb%20of%20Z adar.) (Arbëneshë) community that mainly settled around Zadar having arrived primarily from the ethno-geographic territory of Shestani-Kraja (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skadarska_Krajina) in south-eastern Montenegro between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. There is also a Romanian sample under E-PH2180>FT178289 (FT176420-) (https://yfull.com/tree/E-FT178289/) which is interesting considering that a number of Albanians settled in the Romanian polities especially upon the ascension of the Ghica (Gjika) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghica_family) family in the seventeenth century. There is also the historic contacts between the Proto-Albanians and Proto-Romanians.

mikulic33
08-30-2021, 02:16 PM
Can you provide the source for these Vlach migrations from Macedonia to the Dinaric areas?
I ask because I am not aware of any such Vlach migrations from Macedonia to the Dinaric areas so I would like to know more about it.

Are there any close links between the Aromanians and the people from the Dinaric areas regarding yDNA that can confirm such migrations?

To me it seems that some other groups of Vlachs more related to Romanians were living close to the Dinaric areas since the early Medieval judging by some Eastern Romance toponyms in Bosnia, Montenegro, West and South-East Serbia. It's very unlikely these migratory Vlachs in the 1200-1400 to have met no people there and to have named those places during that time while the Slavic people to have had no terminology for those mountains and other places and to have accepted the Vlach terminology. That would be a paradox since in the South Balkans where the Aromanians live and where you suggest the migratory people to have came from there are not many toponyms that can be derived directly from the Eastern Romance but the Aromanians have accepted mostly Greek and Slavic related terminology.

It's knows to many that there are many Eastern Romance derived toponyms in Serbia and North-West Bulgaria and some propose that the expansion of the Vlach people started from those places.

In other words, why the Vlachs would have migrated all the way from Macedonia to the Dinaric areas when the most logical conclusion in this case would be that the Vlachs in the Dinaric areas probably migrated from the same source area in Serbia and Bulgaria?

An older work is from Bogumil Hrabak "Naseljavanje Hercegovackih i Bosanskih Vlaha u Dalmatinsku Zagoru u XIV XV i XVI Veku". You can find it on Scribd.

The newest most comprehensive study on early Vlach movements is the doctoral thesis from Marko Pijovic:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/197910206.pdf

Riverman
08-30-2021, 02:21 PM
3)This is a sample from north Kosovo and is under E-Y7026 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y7026/) (formed 2000 ybp). Given its formation date and the fact that E-V13 KRA005 had recent Balkan ancestry, I can see a migration from the Balkans as equally likely, but we'll figure it out when we get more samples.


It is for sure from the North. Most likely a Slavic spread, but whether it was picked up from Germanics, Celts or other people from the Carpathians is of course unkown, because before its formation is a long gap. But regardless of where the lineage lived in the Iron Age, in Slavic times it was up in the North. A late Balkan spread is not possible. If it spread from the Balkans, it had to much earlier than 0 AD.

Aspar
08-30-2021, 02:37 PM
An older work is from Bogumil Hrabak "Naseljavanje Hercegovackih i Bosanskih Vlaha u Dalmatinsku Zagoru u XIV XV i XVI Veku". You can find it on Scribd.

The newest most comprehensive study on early Vlach movements is the doctoral thesis from Marko Pijovic:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/197910206.pdf

I had a quick look into the link you posted. I haven't read it all but will do it later. However, it seems my reasoning was right and even the author himself basically says the same:


Najranije znane Vlaške populacije u Srbiji, one iz kasnog 12. st., treba zamišljati kao raspršene po dijelovima današnjeg Kosova (posebno zapadnog dijela, tj. Hvosna),156 zatim južne i jugoistočne Srbije, možda i po dijelovima krajnjeg sjevera Albanije (na samoj granici s Kosovom, sjeverno od Drima), te po krajnjem sjeverozapadu Makedonije.157 Upravo su iz tih istočnih i jugoistočnih dijelova ranonemanjićke Srbije Vlasi postupno kretali, pod okolnostima o kojima će biti riječi, prema zapadu. 158 Pritom su oni postupno pod raznim uvjetima “usisavali” u svoje zajednice i dio lokalnih populacija, što stočarskih, što ratarskih, koje su također postajale dio vlaške kategorije stanovništva, da bi ugrubo sredinom 13. st. stigli i do današnje Istočne i Stare Hercegovine

From this I gather that the core area of this Vlach population that migrated in the Dinaric areas of the Balkans was South Serbia, Kosovo...

rafc
08-30-2021, 03:24 PM
It is for sure from the North. Most likely a Slavic spread, but whether it was picked up from Germanics, Celts or other people from the Carpathians is of course unkown, because before its formation is a long gap. But regardless of where the lineage lived in the Iron Age, in Slavic times it was up in the North. A late Balkan spread is not possible. If it spread from the Balkans, it had to much earlier than 0 AD.

Yes, S3003/L540 must have boomed somewhere in the North with West-Slavic people. There is a sample that is upstream from all known S3003 (negative for L540) in the PGP dataset, coming from Hungary, but hard to say what that means.

ShpataEMadhe
08-30-2021, 04:01 PM
But you apply the same logic when using Scupi as place of origin for some soldiers in Viminacium to prove your point that Viminacium was inhabited mostly by Dardanians and indirectly with that, Illyrians. Double standards much?

Scupi was a Roman colony, postdating the pre-Roman population and settlements in the area as well BTW.

You've been called out for your double standards in this thread and still doing the same.

As for the Dacian and Thracian populations, there are quite many linguistic, historical and even archaeological traces(Gava related mainly), that these were related people.

Btw, this is the detailed list of origin for the veterans in Viminacium who were part of Legion VII Claudia Pia Fidelis:
https://inscriptions.packhum.org/book/203?location=1641

Remesiana – 42
Scupi – 37
Ratiaria – 24
Sirmio – 8
Castris – 7
Salonis – 6
Sarmezigetusa – 4
Nicopolis – 4
Mursa – 3
Pautalia – 2
Ampelo – 2
Trimontio – 2
Thessalonika - 1
Pergamum - 1
Iadero - 1
Heraclea - 1
Phillipi - 1
Traianopolis - 1
Zerna - 1
Ancyra - 1
Romula - 1

75 names of castrum, colony or town are of unidentifiable origin.

Of the 150 identifiable names, 80(which are bolded) are names of castrums that were located on a land historically inhabited by Daco-Thracian tribes or just over 50% of the total.

Underlined are the names of castrums that were located on territories historically inhabited by Dardanians and in general Illyrians(although this is quite dubious because the general term Illyrian was applied to people who weren't closely related such as Liburnians and Dardanians as argued by some modern linguists and historians) and they are 55 overall or around 1/3 of the identifiable names.

The rest are mostly names of castrums located in territories inhabited by Greeks.

I will not waste my time and energy with you anymore however as you are blind from nationalism and severely biased. It's quite visible that you want to apply a West Balkan origin for the vast majority of E-V13 and ignoring the evidence we have got until now, just because of your Illyrian obsession. Ain't going to happen I am 'afraid'...

From what i can see so far z2103 is more likely thracian than v13 and some old balkan r1a, sure may have carried some v13 as well but nowhere near as much. In terms of frequency the biggest amounts of v13 in places like bulgaria today look related to south slavic v13 which moved there after they settled the balkans. Then they took over bulgaria and changed the language in the region. Obviously v13 had nothing to do with south slavs but they were diminished and outnumbered after the south slavic invasion and therefore assimilated as south slavs. After looking at modern armenian dna it is impossible to claim v13 were thracian when armenians carry almost 0%, especially since we have no ancient dna to prove it anyway

ShpataEMadhe
08-30-2021, 04:35 PM
All the aDNA samples tell you is a date 'ante quem'. You are really comparing apples and oranges when you compare TMRCA dates to C14 dating. If you look on Yfull you will see that the vast majority of the Sardinian L283 split off from others before 3000BC. But as you have correctly remarked most Sardinian V13 split off others in 1500-1000BC. This clearly points to a spread in vastly different timeframes. I would be interested to hear your explanation for this difference.

3000bc has nothing to do with illyrians, j2b in sardinia is sardinian not illyrian unless they also have newer lines that came from the east

Aspar
08-30-2021, 04:39 PM
From what i can see so far z2103 is more likely thracian than v13 and some old balkan r1a, sure may have carried some v13 as well but nowhere near as much. In terms of frequency the biggest amounts of v13 in places like bulgaria today look related to south slavic v13 which moved there after they settled the balkans. Then they took over bulgaria and changed the language in the region. Obviously v13 had nothing to do with south slavs but they were diminished and outnumbered after the south slavic invasion and therefore assimilated as south slavs. After looking at modern armenian dna it is impossible to claim v13 were thracian when armenians carry almost 0%, especially since we have no ancient dna to prove it anyway

Are you sure your post is directed to the right person?
But since you poked me, I must say much of what you wrote doesn't make any sense...
Neither R-Z2103 NOR E-V13 are "Thracian" simply because these haplogroups are too old to be considered exclusively some IA people such as the Thracians. But if we are talking about which region of the Balkans in the ancient past had bigger share of E-V13 related subclades and diversity, then many here among whom me as well will agree that region is the Carpathians and the Eastern Balkans, mainly the regions that in historical accounts are mentioned as the home of Dacian and Thracian population. You are of course welcomed to disagree and present some good reasoning why is that the case as many of us have done for the opposite.

Now, I don't know where to begin with you other blabbering that doesn't make any sense:
In terms of frequency the biggest amounts of v13 in places like bulgaria today look related to south slavic v13 which moved there after they settled the balkans. Then they took over bulgaria and changed the language in the region. Obviously v13 had nothing to do with south slavs but they were diminished and outnumbered after the south slavic invasion and therefore assimilated as south slavs

Your perspective needs to be changed vigorously in regards of haplogroups and ethnicities if you want you to be taken seriously...
Haplogroups and ethnicities are not like oil and water, they do mix well however one thing you need to remember, ethnicity can change, haplogroup however can't. Now, if you look from my perspective then you would realize that many E-V13 related clades even before the Slavs came in, whatever their tribal or ethnic belonging was, would have had underwent the same process as with the Slavs, two hundred, five hundred, one thousand or two thousand years ago. That's why we have so many E-V13 related subclades around the world and in different ethnicities. That is, your clearly biased and nonsensical idea about the E-V13 and the Slavs is simply that because you can't prescribe an ethnicity to a certain haplogroup or a subclade but can only serve your nationalistic ideas. We can discuss the theories about the Albanian language and of which ancient Balkan language it stems from and that's it, you can't prescribe or corelate that with broad haplogroups or subclades. Otherwise, much of the Albanian genepool all of a sudden could become foreign following your logic because the proto-Albanians from 2000 BCE if they ever were such during that time, or in 100 BCE would have had different yDNA structure from the modern Albanians and many clades that the modern Albanians posses are/came to be through assimilation processes, yes even some J-L283 or E-V13 clades.

Otherwise, whether the Bulgarian E-V13 came there with the Slavs or was there, refer to what I said above. If you think that Bulgaria was totally depopulated during the Medieval and was entirely populated by Slavs then I am afraid your point is based on no evidence and can be applied the other way around for other ethnicities too, if I want to and if I think with my backside and not with my brain. Luckily, many of us here try to be as reasonable as possible and try not to think with our backsides...

ShpataEMadhe
08-30-2021, 04:50 PM
Are you sure your post is directed to the right person?
But since you poked me, I must say much of what you wrote doesn't make any sense...
Neither R-Z2103 NOR E-V13 are "Thracian" simply because these haplogroups are too old to be considered exclusively some IA people such as the Thracians. But if we are talking about which region of the Balkans in the ancient past had bigger share of E-V13 related subclades and diversity, then many here among whom me as well will agree that region is the Carpathians and the Eastern Balkans, mainly the regions that in historical accounts are mentioned as the home of Dacian and Thracian population. You are of course welcomed to disagree and present some good reasoning why is that the case as many of us have done for the opposite.

Now, I don't know where to begin with you other blabbering that doesn't make any sense:

Your perspective needs to be changed vigorously in regards of haplogroups and ethnicities if you want you to be taken seriously...
Haplogroups and ethnicities are not like oil and water, they do mix well however one thing you need to remember, ethnicity can change, haplogroup however can't. Now, if you look from my perspective then you would realize that many E-V13 related clades even before the Slavs came in, whatever their tribal or ethnic belonging was, would have had underwent the same process as with the Slavs, two hundred, five hundred, one thousand or two thousand years ago. That's why we have so many E-V13 related subclades around the world and in different ethnicities. That is, your clearly biased and nonsensical idea about the E-V13 and the Slavs is simply that because you can't prescribe an ethnicity to a certain haplogroup or a subclade but can only serve your nationalistic ideas. We can discuss the theories about the Albanian language and of which ancient Balkan language it stems from and that's it, you can't prescribe or corelate that with broad haplogroups or subclades. Otherwise, much of the Albanian genepool all of a sudden could become foreign following your logic because the proto-Albanians from 2000 BCE if they ever were such during that time, or in 100 BCE would have had different yDNA structure from the modern Albanians and many clades that the modern Albanians posses are/came to be through assimilation processes, yes even some J-L283 or E-V13 clades.

Otherwise, whether the Bulgarian E-V13 came there with the Slavs or was there, refer to what I said above. If you think that Bulgaria was totally depopulated during the Medieval and was entirely populated by Slavs then I am afraid your point is based on no evidence and can be applied the other way around for other ethnicities too, if I want to and if I think with my backside and not with my brain. Luckily, many of us here try to be as reasonable as possible and try not to think with our backsides...

I didnt say bulgaria was completely depopulated by south slavs but their most frequent v13 lines are actually similar to south slavs. In order for south slavs to change the language of bulgaria they had to outnumber the existing males. If we look at romania they only carry 7% v13 and kept hold of their latin language (from the romans), less south slavic lines influenced romania than they did bulgaria and it is obvious due to the completely different languages the 2 speak. I would be interested to know how much r1b z2103 romanians carry today

Im not even talking about modern albanians here but you absolutely cannot claim thracians were mostly v13 when armenians have almost 0% of it. When it comes to modern albanians, i am still skeptical at the frequencies of j2b, the most consistant lines in albanians look like v13, r1b pf7563 and r1b z2705 - j2b looks like a weird outlier in terms of the spread and a lot of ancient j2b has been found in ancient italy. These puzzles will never be solved until people actually care enough to find ancient dna in balkans and anatolia

Kelmendasi
08-30-2021, 05:38 PM
Im not even talking about modern albanians here but you absolutely cannot claim thracians were mostly v13 when armenians have almost 0% of it. When it comes to modern albanians, i am still skeptical at the frequencies of j2b, the most consistant lines in albanians look like v13, r1b pf7563 and r1b z2705 - j2b looks like a weird outlier in terms of the spread and a lot of ancient j2b has been found in ancient italy. These puzzles will never be solved until people actually care enough to find ancient dna in balkans and anatolia
I do not see how the frequency of E-V13 in modern-day Armenians has anything to do with its historical presence in the Thracians and related groups. They are two different and largely unrelated Indo-European groups. Linguistically, Armenian shows a number of affinities with the Hellenic group while Thracian does not show this relation.

J2b-L283 lineages are found across Albanian-speaking territories, present in both Geg-speakers and Tosk-speakers, show very high diversity and have TMRCAs similar to other Paleo-Balkan lineages that greatly expanded during the medieval period. It is clear that these lineages played an extremely important role in the ethnogenesis of the Albanians and even Proto-Albanians for that matter. The ancient DNA in fact suggests that the lineages discovered in Italy arrived from the Balkans or to the east. Etruscan sample (R474) comes under J2b-Y45181 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y45181/) which is a cluster under Z38240 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/) discovered in a Bronze Age sample from Croatia (I4331) which lived in a time fairly close to the TMRCA suggesting origin in the area rather than an arrival from the Italian Peninsula. The J2b-L283 lineages discovered in the territory of historical Daunia also arrived from the Balkans, specifically Illyria, as can be inferred by the linguistic and historical evidence.

ShpataEMadhe
08-30-2021, 08:24 PM
I do not see how the frequency of E-V13 in modern-day Armenians has anything to do with its historical presence in the Thracians and related groups. They are two different and largely unrelated Indo-European groups. Linguistically, Armenian shows a number of affinities with the Hellenic group while Thracian does not show this relation.

J2b-L283 lineages are found across Albanian-speaking territories, present in both Geg-speakers and Tosk-speakers, show very high diversity and have TMRCAs similar to other Paleo-Balkan lineages that greatly expanded during the medieval period. It is clear that these lineages played an extremely important role in the ethnogenesis of the Albanians and even Proto-Albanians for that matter. The ancient DNA in fact suggests that the lineages discovered in Italy arrived from the Balkans or to the east. Etruscan sample (R474) comes under J2b-Y45181 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y45181/) which is a cluster under Z38240 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/) discovered in a Bronze Age sample from Croatia (I4331) which lived in a time fairly close to the TMRCA suggesting origin in the area rather than an arrival from the Italian Peninsula. The J2b-L283 lineages discovered in the territory of historical Daunia also arrived from the Balkans, specifically Illyria, as can be inferred by the linguistic and historical evidence.

Thracians were widespread from romania to anatolia. Armenians having near 0% v13 is a clear signal that thracians had little to do with v13, if that isnt enough you can also look at the tiny percentage in turkey

J2b l283 is still unsolved, most ancient dna has been found in italy, we need more from balkans to determine potential sources. The j2b found in balkans is too early to be determined illyrian, it is dated more along the lines of earlier civilisations such as butmir or cetina cultures, maybe even urnfield though urnfield doesnt predate illyrians by much

ShpataEMadhe
08-30-2021, 08:35 PM
The authors of the study put the samples in the respective group, and its just by chance that in the amateur spreadsheet not many of the samples being included which are E-V13. But some are, and most are clearly Anatolian. That's all semantics and if you don't stop to claim "Anatolia has zero E-V13", when the study delivered the data that it has, in an appreciable frequency of 3-7 percent in West and Northern Anatolia, then you are just lying and trolling. I refer to the actual study and you talk about something completely different. There are not many of the V13 samples in the amateur spreadsheet, for whatever reasons. But those which were put into it and were part of the Northern or Western regions, even one from the unknown group, are mostly Anatolian, so legitimate, even by the analysis of the ancestral components you prefer.

By the way, this private analysis is very close to most studies on the Peleponnes, and his sample size is reasonable as well:


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20243-Y-DNA-of-the-Peloponnese&p=795772#post795772

Such a silly post

First of all there are only 46 results here (not enough to study) and it has a huge amount of i2 and r1a which likely means some of that v13 also came with that potentially 30% south slavic. Not to mention some v13 in greece is also recent from their neighbours above - you need to provide deeper clades

rafc
08-31-2021, 08:51 PM
So the Viminiacum paper is out! https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1

As rumored a lot of V13, but we will have to wait for BAMs for subclades. They model the local population as 67% Aegean Bronze and rest Slovenian IA, which could support a northern input at some point, but could also point at lack of decent source as we have so little BA ad IA dna from the Balkans.

Riverman
08-31-2021, 08:58 PM
So the Viminiacum paper is out! https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1

As rumored a lot of V13, but we will have to wait for BAMs for subclades. They model the local population as 67% Aegean Bronze and rest Slovenian IA, which could support a northern input at some point, but could also point at lack of decent source as we have so little BA ad IA dna from the Balkans.

Great news, hope some subclades can be determined.
Danubian Serbia Was important for Eastern Hallstatt with the Basarabi-Bosut complex.
I dedicated a new thread to that:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24659-E-V13-Second-Iron-Age-Expansion-and-the-Western-Link-through-Hallstatt

I expect Hallstatt age connections to West European subclades to pop up.

Trojet
08-31-2021, 09:02 PM
So the Viminiacum paper is out! https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1

As rumored a lot of V13, but we will have to wait for BAMs for subclades. They model the local population as 67% Aegean Bronze and rest Slovenian IA, which could support a northern input at some point, but could also point at lack of decent source as we have so little BA ad IA dna from the Balkans.

I see two of them have deeper subclade assignments:


I15537, Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis, is E-Z5017>Y3762 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y3762/)
I15495, Viminacium, Pirivoj Necropolis, is E-Z5017>Y3762>CTS9320 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS9320/)

Riverman
09-01-2021, 12:01 AM
I think its also noteworthy that in the Balkan IA cluster is
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L20/

This is most likely from the Celts, which colonised and fused with various tribes of the region and there is J-L283, presumably from the Illyrians of the region:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z1043/

Rather from the Pannonian sphere, more Northern distribution, Hallstatt timing and while being present among Albanians, its not that frequent probably.

This one is in the Slavic cluster:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y3762/

Contrary to the R1b guys not even an outlier. Will be interesting to see how much non-Slavic ancestry he shows. The paper states:

n light of these results, we
modeled the ancestry of the Kuline individuals as a mixture of 56% deriving from the local
Balkan Iron Age substratum and 44% deriving from Northeastern European Iron Age groups,
and obtained a good statistical fit (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.8).

Two Slavs are I2, but another one is https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y7010/

If that holds, it rather speaks for local Vlach clans being stronger in some regions than originally thought, but the yDNA distribution doesn't favour that this much I guess:

Interestingly, we found sex bias when modeling the X
chromosome of the individuals of this necropolis (Supplementary section 12.8). Perhaps the
immigrant groups were constituted by a higher number of women, who therefore impacted more
greatly in the demographics of the post-Roman Balkans. However, these findings have only
been observed in the Kuline individuals with North-European related ancestry (n=5), we suggest
more data will be needed to obtain more evidence Slavic sex bias in the Balkans.

I hope people can get more out of it. But the ancestral profile for the different layers and population elements will be also interesting to analyse.

From the paper, before Romanisation cremation prevailed and it remained common until Christianisation:

Viminacium necropoli followed a bi-ritual mortuary rite
where some dead were buried, and some were cremated. During the 1st century until the first
half of the 3rd century cremations where more common, however this changed from the 3rd
onwards when inhumations prevailed 19. We caution that if there was a systematic ancestry
difference between the population that buried and the one that burnt its dead, we would of
course be obtaining a biased representation of ancestry through ancient DNA analysis.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1.full.pdf

This means the total percentage of E-V13 could have been even higher in some samples, because many of the non-locals, especially from certain regions of the Near East, were less likely to cremate their dead.

Bruzmi
09-01-2021, 09:53 AM
This one is in the Slavic cluster:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y3762/


I don't particularly like theories which label aDNA samples according to modern population groups, but when we do, we have to be somewhat accurate.

Two samples under E-Y3762 and downstream clades were found:

I15495 Viminacium, Pirivoj Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762,E-CTS6377,E-CTS9320 H49

Samples from Pirivoj date to 1-500 CE.

The other one was found in Kuline (900-1000 CE).

I15537 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762 H13a2a


Other E-V13 samples from Timacum Minus, Slog (1-500 CE):

I15544 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 HV9
I15553 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273 T2b25
I15554 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 H

It's very likely that if further analysis was possible they would fall under E-Y3762 and downstream clades.

E-Y3762+ clades existed in the Balkans long before Slavic migrations. They're not part of any "Slavic cluster".

Riverman
09-01-2021, 10:08 AM
I don't particularly like theories which label aDNA samples according to modern population groups, but when we do, we have to be somewhat accurate.

Two samples under E-Y3762 and downstream clades were found:

I15495 Viminacium, Pirivoj Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762,E-CTS6377,E-CTS9320 H49

Samples from Pirivoj date to 1-500 CE.

The other one was found in Kuline (900-1000 CE).

I15537 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762 H13a2a


Other E-V13 samples from Timacum Minus, Slog (1-500 CE):

I15544 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 HV9
I15553 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273 T2b25
I15554 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 H

It's very likely that if further analysis was possible they would fall under E-Y3762 and downstream clades.

E-Y3762+ clades existed in the Balkans long before Slavic migrations. They're not part of any "Slavic cluster".

I just meant Slavic ancestral cluster (significant Slavic ancestry) by that time. I made that clear in the comment I hope. E-Y3762 doesn't look particularly Slavic shifted, like e.g. E-L540 obviously.

Rather E-Y3762 is an old LBA-EIA expansion group, with many regional branches. A potential candidate for more Northern branches can be found way more downstream, like:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4526/
And even those have no overlap after Hallstatt/Basarabi. The 3.100 BP date marks Channelled Ware branches. From this example its clear that any regional designation for E-V13 can only come from the very subclade and terminal SNP. Anything upstream is most of the time non-informative in this respect, because before about 400 BC, they were still moving in the Channelled Ware and later Basarabi-Hallstatt networks up and down it seems.

Riverman
09-01-2021, 07:18 PM
I think this conclusion from the C14 dates of earliest Gava pottery finds is relevant as well:

The widespread societal collapse that occurred in the Lower Mureș Basin in the Late Bronze Age following the destruction of mega-sites during the 13th century BC is largely mirrored in the dwindling number of settlements, prestige goods, and metal finds. The same period is also associated with the spread of Gáva pottery. Apparently, the respective pottery style has been subject to thorough investigation; however, ceramic analyses and 14C data are quite scarce. We are publishing here a pottery assemblage from contexts located in the Lower Mureș Basin, where Gáva pottery style was discovered. Besides illustrating representative potsherds, we have analyzed their style and added 14C data when available. The results of the study proper and comparative analyses with other assemblages suggest a different perspective from certain approaches to Gáva culture as a unitary phenomenon. Starting from the stylistic features of the pottery, we have attempted at offering a regional perspective without overlooking the distinctive characteristics of a much wider area. Moreover, 14C data and previous studies on LBA II pottery enable us to argue that several well-known features of the Gáva pottery style can be identified, at least in the Lower Mureș Basin, as early as the 14th-13th century BC and even earlier, with some dating back to the 15th century BC.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353449107_THE_LATE_BRONZE_AGE_GAVA_POTTERY_FROM_TH E_LOWER_MURES

This means we deal with a growing phenomenon and culture since at least the 15th century BC. I found clades which date back earlier than the expansion phase in the transitional period, but it gets smaller the further back one goes. Practically nothing before 2.000 BC and only a little first upturn of significance about 1.600 BC. I think they really grew with the culture and as their leading ethnosocial element.

Huban
09-01-2021, 08:45 PM
I'll move it to here..



So where is the Aegean Mediterranean-like ancestry in modern Albanians? Nowhere because

Apparently Albanians are rampant with such ancestry.

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.3400% / 0.01339957
25.4 GRC_Mycenaean
23.2 Scythian_MDA_scy305
21.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
19.2 BGR_IA
10.4 Scythian_MDA_scy192

There are Croatian MBA and IA samples there, but G25 doesn't want to take them. G25 says Albanians are 0 % Illyricani in these scheme.

What happens when I remove Mycenaean?

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.5625% / 0.01562480
36.2 BGR_IA
29.8 Scythian_MDA_scy305
18.4 Scythian_MDA_scy192
15.6 HUN_Avar_Szolad

Nothing too significant.. This more southern Ancestry is just replaced by the almost equally Southern Bulgarian IA.. Slavic input is reduced.

This study also projects high Slavic auDNA influence for Albanians. Higher than is likely but nevertheless just confirms what we know, that Albanian are Slavic admixed, that is why they are outside of the Balkan Iron Age cluster.



E-V13-heavy groups didn't have such significant ancestry and as such groups who are related to them didn't inherit it.

Denial, projection, denial, projection... there is old Pshenichevo E-Z1919 (=V13) sample with a similar profile. And additional V13 Pshenichevo samples on the way.. E-V13 did spread such ancestry in EIA..




We'll see when the sample files are released, but there's nothing here about "Daco-Thracians". Two E-V13 cluster in the NE cluster. Should we say that E-V13 is from Anatolia?

E-V13 spread with a group that had noticeable MBA Anatolian ancestry. This group were the Daco-Thracians. Not Illyrians who lacked noticeable CHG ancestry and whose EEF component was more Western like (having a little extra of WHG).

We do know that a lot of Antiquity people are like Bulgarian IA, we know two are like Croatian IA. That means both of these single samples (and Croatian IA is just an extension of Croatian BA) were very widespread in the Iron Age Balkans. They were the norm and common. Also one Szolad Roman sample is Bulgaria IA-like so I sucpected this sort of ancestry was common. And Viminacium study confirms it.

And yet no Illyrian auDNA in Albanians.. Cry me a river..
Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.3400% / 0.01339957
25.4 GRC_Mycenaean
23.2 Scythian_MDA_scy305
21.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
19.2 BGR_IA
10.4 Scythian_MDA_scy192

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.5625% / 0.01562480
36.2 BGR_IA
29.8 Scythian_MDA_scy305
18.4 Scythian_MDA_scy192
15.6 HUN_Avar_Szolad

These results are due to extra CHG in Albanians. Lets take Cappadocian Greeks who might be a proxy for Roman Near Eastern migrants.

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.2664% / 0.01266395
30.0 BGR_IA
20.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
16.4 Greek_Cappadocia
13.4 Scythian_MDA_scy305
8.6 HRV_MBA
6.8 Scythian_MDA_scy192
4.8 Scythian_MDA_scy197

With Cappadocian Greeks taking away some CHG, Albanians become a good proxy for some Croatian IA/BA ancestry..

Do all Balkanites actually inherit plenty of Near Eastern Byzantine/Roman ancestry?

Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.4007% / 0.01400749
49.4 HUN_Avar_Szolad
17.6 BGR_IA
11.8 HRV_MBA
11.4 Greek_Cappadocia
7.2 Scythian_MDA_scy305
2.6 Scythian_MDA_scy192

EDIT: Daunians might change some things so that more of Albanian ancestry is derived from such source, but Daunians have nothing to do with E-V13.. (except your "view" that Daunian underclass was in fact heavy with E-V13 :rofl:)

Huban
09-01-2021, 09:06 PM
I did not say it's perfect. If one is to get an idea what all of them were ethnically, assuming they were indigenous ofc, this is the only way forward. It's not perfect, it is the next best thing.. And whatever it is, it is far superior to your "methodology" which included, spurious statements and wild speculations on massive movements of Illyrians into Thrace and replacement of Thracians by the Illyricani. Relativization of "Thracianness" by invoking soldiers from Dardania.. Well you are the one who called for analysis of those names.

And yes my methodology is the closest thing to a determination of their ethnicity that exits or can exist. There are 30 something soldiers from there, what those 6 are is a measuring stick for the others. And nothing will ever provide a better measuring stick..


To add. Lets say various Illyrian, Gaulic what have you not regions have a number of anthroponyms. Lets say there is a hundred of them. Historians take these hundred and project based on that the ethnic affinity of the locals, combined with other evidence. As the population is in hundreds of thousands, millions, maybe a 100 names go at a million, thats a ratio of 1:10.000. Here I used 5 names to guess ethnicity of 25, ratio 1:5, far more favorable. The only reason Bruzmi doesn't like it is because of results.. Had I just mentioned just several Illyrian names, he would have "thanked" such a post. I should have done that actually, to post just Illyrian names initially and then lure him in later.. B)

Bruzmi
09-01-2021, 09:18 PM
I'll move it to here..



It's obvious that you're using samples in such a way which causes data filtering and overlapping of ancestries (because the sources are from different eras) which is extremely wrong methodologically.

In an actual PCA which doesn't selectively try to force samples to provide a specific result Albanians, Bulgarians etc etc don't plot close to BGR_IA but on the other side just as the Viminacium study shows:

https://i.ibb.co/nDDB0nM/west.jpg

Apparently we're supposed to think that somehow E-V13 groups were close to Aegeans and Cretans and so are Albanians. This is beyond impossible.

If you want to plot Albanians or anyone else as aDNA averages/samples, use samples which are from roughly the same era. As usual, you'll get a better fit and much more accurate and reasonable result:

Target: Albanian
Distance: 0.9806% / 0.00980597 | R5P
48.2 GRC_Peloponnese_N
20.2 Baltic_EST_BA
12.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
10.2 Yamnaya_BGR
9.2 TUR_Titris_Hoyuk_EBA

Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 1.0863% / 0.01086296 | R5P
28.0 Baltic_EST_BA
23.0 GRC_Peloponnese_N
20.4 ITA_Sicily_EBA
15.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
13.0 TUR_Titris_Hoyuk_EBA

Meanwhile, on the Aegean side of things:

Target: Greek_Dodecanese
Distance: 1.0659% / 0.01065898 | R5P
30.2 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
26.6 GRC_Minoan_EBA
15.8 Levant_JOR_EBA
15.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
12.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan

Target: Greek_Crete
Distance: 0.9746% / 0.00974587 | R5P
36.0 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
32.8 GRC_Helladic_EBA
11.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
11.4 Baltic_EST_BA
8.0 Levant_JOR_EBA


This is why half of the Balkan_IA cluster is close to modern Aegean people and Cretans and the other half is close to Albanians and Bulgarians. It's also obvious that some samples from Roman Viminacium cluster close to BGR_IA and thus are closer to Cretans than to any person from the Balkans has nothing to do with "Daco-Thracians" .

Bruzmi
09-01-2021, 09:23 PM
To add. Lets say various Illyrian, Gaulic what have you not regions have a number of anthroponyms. Lets say there is a hundred of them. Historians take these hundred and project based on that the ethnic affinity of the locals, combined with other evidence. As the population is in hundreds of thousands, millions, maybe a 100 names go at a million, thats a ratio of 1:10.000. Here I used 5 names to guess ethnicity of 25, ratio 1:5, far more favorable. The only reason Bruzmi doesn't like it is because of results.. Had I just mentioned just several Illyrian names, he would have "thanked" such a post. I should have done that actually, to post just Illyrian names initially and then lure him in later.. B)

You do realize that the study which was just published showed how mistaken it was to project a 3 Thracian/2 Illyrian names ratio to all citizens of Viminacium, right?

Many of these people weren't even from the Balkans and of those who were from the Balkans 50% had heavy non-local admixture and yet you tried to project a 3:2 Thracian/Illyrian ratio and proclaim that Viminacium was a city with a "Daco-Thracian majority".

Huban
09-01-2021, 09:38 PM
You do realize that the study which was just published showed how mistaken it was to project a 3 Thracian/2 Illyrian names ratio to all citizens of Viminacium, right?

Many of these people weren't even from the Balkans and of those who were from the Balkans 50% had heavy non-local admixture and yet you tried to project a 3:2 Thracian/Illyrian ratio and proclaim that Viminacium was a city with a "Daco-Thracian majority".

I said there were many people of other origin, which is why there were so many Roman names to begin with. Neareastern/Anatolian descended Romans wouldn't carry Thracian or Illyrian names, and as they were buried more often in wooden coffins this indicates they had on avg. higher social status..

Btw. the ratio was little higher in favor of Thracians than 3:2, few were also Greek and even Paeonian. Those 5 were just soldiers from Remesiana. Nevertheless natives were also numerous, so one could postulate that there was partial romanization of natives, and that they kept their old names in a solid %. And ofc. they were not recruited forcefully as they were able to receive full citizenship after 20-25 years so most enrolled with enthusiasm..

Bruzmi
09-01-2021, 09:59 PM
These results are due to extra CHG in Albanians. Lets take Cappadocian Greeks who might be a proxy for Roman Near Eastern migrants.

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.2664% / 0.01266395
30.0 BGR_IA
20.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
16.4 Greek_Cappadocia
13.4 Scythian_MDA_scy305
8.6 HRV_MBA
6.8 Scythian_MDA_scy192
4.8 Scythian_MDA_scy197

With Cappadocian Greeks taking away some CHG, Albanians become a good proxy for some Croatian IA/BA ancestry..


Just so that the readers of the thread understand the extreme errors in this methodology, I'll explain what happened here.

Huban took an average from MBA, a sample from the IA, 3 samples from the Hellenistic era, 1 average from the early Middle Ages and a last one from modern times. Can we create a model with samples from many different eras and expect to infer actual information which doesn't include overlapping of ancestries and assignment of ancestries which don't exist in the model as something else because it can't display them properly? The simple answer is no.


Target: Greek_Cappadocia
Distance: 1.1818% / 0.01181777 | R5P
33.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
31.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
17.2 TUR_Titris_Hoyuk_EBA
9.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
8.6 Levant_JOR_EBA

Albanians without any population reduction:

Target: Albanian
Distance: 0.7517% / 0.00751691
28.2 GRC_Peloponnese_N
20.6 Baltic_EST_BA
11.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
10.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
9.2 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
7.4 TUR_Titris_Hoyuk_EBA
6.4 Wales_CA_EBA
3.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
1.2 RUS_Kurma_EBA
1.2 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
0.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

Titris_Hoyuk can be modeled as about 7% Kura-Araxes (which is better modeled as a standalone), so in total it's about 1.1 Kura-Araxes among Albanians. This is Huban's "extra CHG" through the lens of data filtering in a model which doesn't even display basic Balkan Neolithic ancestry properly.

PS Kura-Araxes was about 30-40% CHG, but it's the next best thing to a proxy close to EBA. So that means about ~0.5 CHG in Albanians which is exactly what the ultimate ancient components calculator shows:

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.6003% / 0.01600321
59.2 Early_European_Farmer
29.2 Steppe_Pastoralist
5.2 Iran_Neolithic
4.6 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer
1.2 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
0.6 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer

Huban
09-01-2021, 10:27 PM
Just so that the readers of the thread understand the extreme errors in this methodology, I'll explain what happened here.

Huban took an average from MBA, a samples from the IA, 3 samples from the Hellenistic era, 1 average from the early Middle Ages and a last one from modern times. Can we create a model with samples from many different eras and expect to infer actual information which doesn't include overlapping of ancestries and assignment of ancestries which don't exist in the model as something else because it can't display them properly? The simple answer is no.

I took Cappadocian Greeks because they seem to be a proxy for some Byzantine/Roman era influx. And I am not the only one to do that. On other fora where people are more versed in auDNA they do that commonly.
Well I suppose that MJ12 could replace the Moldovan Scythians as an example of some EIA ancestry from there.

Scythians out MJ12 in. So little bit more Croatian MBA (or actually this is LBA Croatia, not MBA).

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.3662% / 0.01366152
35.2 BGR_IA
23.6 HUN_Avar_Szolad
21.8 Greek_Cappadocia
12.8 HRV_MBA
6.6 UKR_Cimmerian_o

Lets remove Cappadocians as you propose. You see?? They help you score at least some Illyrian..
Target: Albanian
Distance: 2.1650% / 0.02165012
59.2 BGR_IA
23.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
17.6 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.2 HRV_IA





Titris_Hoyuk can be modeled as about 7% Kura-Araxes (which is better modeled as a standalone), so in total it's about 1.1 Kura-Araxes among Albanians. This is Huban's "extra CHG" through the lens of data filtering in a model which doesn't even display basic Balkan Neolithic ancestry properly.

PS Kura-Araxes was about 30-40% CHG, but it's the best next thing to a proxy close to EBA. So that means about ~0.5 CHG in Albanians which is exactly what the ultimate ancient components calculator shows:

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.6003% / 0.01600321
59.2 Early_European_Farmer
29.2 Steppe_Pastoralist
5.2 Iran_Neolithic
4.6 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer
1.2 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
0.6 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer

What about this 5.2 % of Iran Neolithic?? Where is this from?? Realistically one can't have these ancient components standing because they are too ancient to have existed as such even in Iron Age!! There were no Scandinavian Hunter gatherers, EHG's CHG's in Bronze Age either. What resembles them was part of some other autosomal component.. Which is what I'm saying Thracians do have little extra of this CHG/IN.. CHG and Iran Neolithic were to a significant degree related. Illyrians don't.. Ofc there were no pure CHG populations 3000, 4000 years ago, there were some Anadolian populations with an increased %.

Anatolian MLBA, two Neolithic components and two Steppe (Yamnaya and CWC).

Target: Scythian_MDA:scy305
Distance: 3.3226% / 0.03322628
40.4 Corded_Ware_CZE_early
25.8 HRV_Sopot_MN
24.2 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
9.6 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N


Target: Scythian_MDA:scy300
Distance: 3.0131% / 0.03013115
34.6 Corded_Ware_CZE_early
31.6 HRV_Sopot_MN
20.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
13.8 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N


Target: Scythian_MDA:scy197
Distance: 3.2018% / 0.03201771
30.6 Corded_Ware_CZE_early
28.8 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
24.6 HRV_Sopot_MN
13.2 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
2.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara


Target: Scythian_MDA:scy192
Distance: 2.4822% / 0.02482229
36.8 HRV_Sopot_MN
32.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
16.4 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
14.2 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA


Target: UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
Distance: 3.7746% / 0.03774639
58.2 HRV_Sopot_MN
39.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA


Target: HRV_MBA:I4332
Distance: 2.7657% / 0.02765680
60.8 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
28.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
10.6 HRV_Sopot_MN
0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA


Target: HRV_MBA:I4331
Distance: 2.3924% / 0.02392360
37.8 HRV_Sopot_MN
23.2 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
21.4 Corded_Ware_CZE_early
17.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA


Target: HRV_IA:I3313
Distance: 2.8072% / 0.02807194
52.6 HRV_Sopot_MN
46.0 Corded_Ware_CZE_early
1.4 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA


Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 2.2548% / 0.02254782
32.6 HRV_Sopot_MN
28.4 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
21.6 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
17.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

MJ12 scores here only little, but he is heavy on CHG too, thats why in him Yamnaya is there (more CHG) instead of CWC, partly because he may have some actual Steppe ancestry.

Btw one should keep these runs with as few components as possible (here I used just 5), otherwise it gets watered down to a point where no real conclusions could be reached.

Huban
09-01-2021, 10:47 PM
Btw. all this talk about differences in likely E-V13 related autosomal components in Iron Age Balkans is a moot point. We have incoming Northern Carpathian LBA and EBA samples who are basically certainly E-V13 (we saw how it went with a V12 Viminatium samples, you think there were Steppe heavy V12, V22 in Carpathians?? :nono:), and they are quite different genetically from the Iron Age Balkanites, especially the Gava sample, so E-V13 is not related originally to the Iron Age Western Balkan, Eastern Balkan or Aegean autosomal profile. This comes largely from the women E-V13 carriers took..

Bruzmi
09-01-2021, 10:47 PM
@Huban I'm trying to explain to you why you shouldn't create models which contain samples from wildly different eras and you created a Sopot Mid Neolithic + TUR MLBA + Corded Ware. Such a model can't given you any meaningful information, hence you get distances 3.0>

Iran_Neolithic ancestry existed in the Balkans when IE groups arrived in the region and it is not CHG ancestry. It's archaeologically linked to the Final Neolithic migrations.

Target: GRC_Helladic_EBA
Distance: 1.7818% / 0.01781784
86.6 Early_European_Farmer
6.0 Iran_Neolithic
5.6 Steppe_Pastoralist
1.0 Iberomaurusian
0.8 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer


I won't explain anymore why models which contain samples from very different areas can't be used for anything meaningful. It's abundantly clear in itself by now. Trying to fit samples in models with 3.2 distances is not going to work out. SCY197 with basal components:

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.3420% / 0.02342020
61.6 Early_European_Farmer
32.8 Steppe_Pastoralist
3.2 Western_Hunter-Gatherer
2.4 Northeastern_Asia_Neolithic

Just like HRV samples, he has WHG ancestry, which later populations lack. It's not about Iran_Neolithic or CHG.

As to why 50% of Balkan samples from Viminacium are close to Albanians and the other 50% are closer to Dodecanesians, the answer is not surprisingly very simple:

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.6003% / 0.01600321
59.2 Early_European_Farmer
29.2 Steppe_Pastoralist
5.2 Iran_Neolithic
4.6 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer
1.2 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
0.6 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer

Target: Greek_Dodecanese
Distance: 1.3285% / 0.01328534
55.8 Early_European_Farmer
15.8 Iran_Neolithic
14.8 Steppe_Pastoralist
7.4 Early_Levantine_Farmer
6.2 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer

It's the same reason why they're closer to Near Eastern individuals and why two E-V13 are actually part of that cluster. They have plenty of Near Eastern admixture.

vettor
09-02-2021, 06:19 AM
The overall percentage of E-V13 in the Dinaric area (Dalmatia and Herzegovina) is around 6%. Most of the samples could be attributed to 3 different migration events.

1. First Vlach migrations between 1200-1400 from the southern Balkan areas (around North-Macedonia). These migrations were thus far only described in Yugoslav ethnographic literature (especially Bogumil Hrabak) and deducted from the first “Vlach” related toponyms and onomastic evidence related to Dalmatian Vlachs and increasingly attested in the 14th century. But now a lot of Y-DNA lineages corroborate these assumptions.

2. Mass migrations during the Ottoman period from around 1450 to 1700 involving mostly Serbs from eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and western Montenegro and Serbia.

3. Migrations between 1500 and 1800 within the Venetian commonwealth from Albanian and Greek Territories. A good example is the Arbereshe settlement in the vicinity of Zadar but there were a lot of individual migrations too, especially by Albanian and Greek soldiers in Venetian service.

IMO, the overall impact of these migrations should at least explain up to 80% of the modern E-V13 presence in Dalmatia. This means In turn that there hardly is a E-V13 lineage in Dalmatia which was present there 1000 years ago.

Statioti ( albanian light cavalry ) where only employed under venice from 1450 until after the battle of fornovo ( 1497 ).........they then in majority went under the service of the kingdom of naples.........the 1000 or so who stayed under Venice served in Argos Greece ( Nauplion ) ( Kondylis, 2006, p. 171: "Οι Αλβανοί του Ναυπλίου ήταν εγκατεστημένοι έξω από την πόλη, ανάμεσα στο ανατολικό τείχος και στο λόφο του Παλαμηδίου, περιοχή που ονομαζόταν «teraglio et sasso»" [The Albanians of Nauplion settled outside of the city..) ..............their service under venice was basically non existent from about 1540

the term stratioti was continued , but in crete it was made up of cretan cavalry under Venice ................or also in the Morea Greece by greek soldiers under Venice .

I have seen no E-v13 in the latest 2 Croatians papers in august ................the 2 papers cover a period from 4790BC to 300BC and only have these ancient ydna samples
5 x G2a2
3 x R1b
3 x J2b2
3 x I2a
1 x I1
1 x R1a
1 x C1



the most famous of the Albanian Statioti leader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercurio_Bua

although an albanian born in Morea Greece he was also noted as an Epirote

rafc
09-02-2021, 07:37 AM
It's the same reason why they're closer to Near Eastern individuals and why two E-V13 are actually part of that cluster. They have plenty of Near Eastern admixture.

I have been thinking about this also. The spread of the Balkan IA on the PCA is really impressive, and it would seem unlikely that this can represent a discrete local population. It covers a comparable or even bigger area than the NE-cluster, which presumably came from places far apart as Armenia and Syria.

One thing I thought about is that maybe the local populations were still clearly divided in Iron age groups like Celts, Illyrians and Thracians, but then you would expect that the qpWave classification would pick this up, no? The other possibility, as you say, is that these guys were already heavily admixed with different populations, but I have trouble seeing that. The cluster at the right bottom of Balkans IA is pulled right to the NE compared to the samples at the left, but also downwards, which makes no sense.
My best guess is that the cosmopolitan aspect of Viminiacum means these locals are not locals. They are people from all over the Balkans that were drawn to this big city and the possibilities it presented (like Paris or London attracted people from all over the country). Since all of the Balkans would have been a mix of the same sources but in different proportions I can see the population being spread out over a large cline. In this case it seems logical to think that indeed the people at the bottom right were coming from the eastern part of the Balkans given the affinity with the Bulgarian IA sample, and the people on the left were more from the Western parts, although I think there is also a second effect, where people from more south on the Balkans would also tend to plot more to the right than people from the norther parts.

DFSTFD
09-02-2021, 08:17 AM
Albanians without any population reduction:

Target: Albanian
Distance: 0.7517% / 0.00751691
28.2 GRC_Peloponnese_N
20.6 Baltic_EST_BA
11.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
10.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
9.2 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
7.4 TUR_Titris_Hoyuk_EBA
6.4 Wales_CA_EBA
3.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
1.2 RUS_Kurma_EBA
1.2 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
0.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

Yamnaya_Caucasus has extra CHG ancestry, it's not completely part of the main Yamnaya cluster. A couple of the individuals in it overlap the Steppe Piedmont Eneolithic populations. So in your model you're assuming that Albanians have more CHG-related ancestry than even in a model of mainstream Yamnaya-Aegean-Central Anatolia. It's true that the spread of extra CHG into the Balkans should be clarified more though. But was it almost Aegean-Anatolian like in the IA? The BGR_IA sample so far has apparent, extra CHG but even that one not as much.


I have been thinking about this also. The spread of the Balkan IA on the PCA is really impressive, and it would seem unlikely that this can represent a discrete local population. It covers a comparable or even bigger area than the NE-cluster, which presumably came from places far apart as Armenia and Syria.

One thing I thought about is that maybe the local populations were still clearly divided in Iron age groups like Celts, Illyrians and Thracians, but then you would expect that the qpWave classification would pick this up, no? The other possibility, as you say, is that these guys were already heavily admixed with different populations, but I have trouble seeing that. The cluster at the right bottom of Balkans IA is pulled right to the NE compared to the samples at the left, but also downwards, which makes no sense.
My best guess is that the cosmopolitan aspect of Viminiacum means these locals are not locals. They are people from all over the Balkans that were drawn to this big city and the possibilities it presented (like Paris or London attracted people from all over the country). Since all of the Balkans would have been a mix of the same sources but in different proportions I can see the population being spread out over a large cline. In this case it seems logical to think that indeed the people at the bottom right were coming from the eastern part of the Balkans given the affinity with the Bulgarian IA sample, and the people on the left were more from the Western parts, although I think there is also a second effect, where people from more south on the Balkans would also tend to plot more to the right than people from the norther parts.

What you're saying is reasonable especially since we know Viminacium during the Roman period drew individuals from various parts of the Balkans, even some from the southern Greek-speaking parts. The more interesting question that you bring up is whether local clines existed at all even in the pre-Roman IA in parts of the Balkans. HRV_MBA-IA-Adriatic Proto-Villanovan, Adriatic-admixed Etruscan is relatively homogeneous for example. But even in other parts of Europe at the time (e.g. France_IA) we see variation. It's probably hard to tell exactly what someone represents unless we somehow get relatively distinct but homogenous groups from different parts of the Balkans or if finer methods are used.

rafc
09-02-2021, 08:25 AM
I have been thinking about this also. The spread of the Balkan IA on the PCA is really impressive, and it would seem unlikely that this can represent a discrete local population. It covers a comparable or even bigger area than the NE-cluster, which presumably came from places far apart as Armenia and Syria.

One thing I thought about is that maybe the local populations were still clearly divided in Iron age groups like Celts, Illyrians and Thracians, but then you would expect that the qpWave classification would pick this up, no? The other possibility, as you say, is that these guys were already heavily admixed with different populations, but I have trouble seeing that. The cluster at the right bottom of Balkans IA is pulled right to the NE compared to the samples at the left, but also downwards, which makes no sense.
My best guess is that the cosmopolitan aspect of Viminiacum means these locals are not locals. They are people from all over the Balkans that were drawn to this big city and the possibilities it presented (like Paris or London attracted people from all over the country). Since all of the Balkans would have been a mix of the same sources but in different proportions I can see the population being spread out over a large cline. In this case it seems logical to think that indeed the people at the bottom right were coming from the eastern part of the Balkans given the affinity with the Bulgarian IA sample, and the people on the left were more from the Western parts, although I think there is also a second effect, where people from more south on the Balkans would also tend to plot more to the right than people from the norther parts.

One interesting question is whether in fact this Balkan cline is so continuous as it looks on the PCA, or whether the middle samples are actually the left ones, but admixed with NE-ancestry (or even E-Balkans), this pulls them right, but still within the Balkans IA cluster.

Riverman
09-02-2021, 10:08 AM
Also, we might miss a lot with a lange portion of the locals still cremating in pre-Christian times. I hope they get some Basarabi samples someday. This could be an eye opener.

rafc
09-02-2021, 10:27 AM
In a sense it's a missed opportunity that they chose to only model the clusters. I think modeling of the individuals could have been more informative to understand the origins of the different people.

mikulic33
09-02-2021, 10:46 AM
Statioti ( albanian light cavalry ) where only employed under venice from 1450 until after the battle of fornovo ( 1497 ).........they then in majority went under the service of the kingdom of naples.........the 1000 or so who stayed under Venice served in Argos Greece ( Nauplion ) ( Kondylis, 2006, p. 171: "Οι Αλβανοί του Ναυπλίου ήταν εγκατεστημένοι έξω από την πόλη, ανάμεσα στο ανατολικό τείχος και στο λόφο του Παλαμηδίου, περιοχή που ονομαζόταν «teraglio et sasso»" [The Albanians of Nauplion settled outside of the city..) ..............their service under venice was basically non existent from about 1540

the term stratioti was continued , but in crete it was made up of cretan cavalry under Venice ................or also in the Morea Greece by greek soldiers under Venice .

the most famous of the Albanian Statioti leader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercurio_Bua

although an albanian born in Morea Greece he was also noted as an Epirote


I am not quite sure what your point is. The Venetian commonwealth connected the eastern adriatic shores from Istria down to Corfu thereby reallocating resources and personell from one place to another. We have a complete census from Zadar around 1500, very cosmopolitic and lots of Albanians. We have lots of attested Albanians joining the Uskoks in Senj around 1600. We have lists of seamen serving on Venetian and Ragusian ships with lots of Albanians. We have enlistment documents for specific troops like the Croati a cavallo from the 18th century, again, lots of Albanians. I will quote the summary from a scientic paper dealing with Albanians in those troops:

"Lovorka Čoralić
Albanian Soldiers in the Venetian Land Army across the Adriatic
(18th Century)
Summary
During the Early Modern Period and especially the Venetian-Ottoman wars in the 17th and 18th centuries, the axis of the Venetian land army across the Adriatic were the troops known
as Fanti oltramarini and Croati a cavallo (Cavalleria Croati). They were primarily manned with soldiers and officers originating from the Venetian lands, from Istria to Albania and
Greece, but there were also many soldiers from other areas, mostly those bordering on the Venetian territories. This paper focuses on the soldiers from Venetian Albania (Albania
Veneta) and their role in these troops. It is based on an analysis of original documents preserved at the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, more precisely the collection of Inquisitori
sopra l’amministrazione dei pubblici ruoli – a magistracy in charge of recruiting soldiers and sending them to the wider area controlled by Venice, from Veneto to Greece. The documents include lists of officers, commanders, and common soldiers, made at regular intervals during the recruitment or supervision of troops. At this stage of research, 75 Albanian soldiers have been identified in the Venetian infantry and cavalry during the 18th century.
The sources refer to them as d’Albania or Albanese, only rarely mentioning their exact place of origin. Albanians were present in infantry and cavalry throughout the 18th century (especially its fi rst half) and mostly served in infantry troops. A considerable number occupied prominent posts (colonels, lieutenants, captains, and so on), but in most cases they were common soldiers. The regiments and companies manned by Albanians were primarily under the command of offi cers from Dalmatia and Boka (occasionally by Albanians), mostly from noble families that had been supplying high officers to the Serenissima for generations.

The troops were stationed along the Venetian territories in the Eastern Adriatic (Dalmatia, Boka Kotorska), in the cities and fortresses all over Veneto, as well as in Greece. According
to the available documents, an average Albanian soldier in the 18th-century Venetian army was a foot soldier, 26 years old, or a cavalryman in his mid-forties; in a number of examples,
there were officers and common soldiers from the same families (Ginni, Giuroi, Mirdita, and others). Their military service could last for several decades. As for their physical features, which are occasionally mentioned in the lists, Albanian soldiers were mostly of a middle stature and brown-haired, which is a stereotype used to describe most soldiers originating from the Eastern Adriatic. It may be concluded that the total number of Albanian officers, commanders, and soldiers in the Venetian army was considerable, and that their role in the military history of the Eastern Adriatic and the Venetian Republic as a whole was appreciated and acknowledged. Th is paper is an attempt to use the unpublished and so far barely analysed archival sources to present the relevant evidence and arguments to the scholarly community and the broader public. Although it may be expected that some future
research will add new names to the list of Albanian soldiers serving in the Venetian army, it will probably not signifi cantly change the picture outlined here."

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 11:01 AM
I have been thinking about this also. The spread of the Balkan IA on the PCA is really impressive, and it would seem unlikely that this can represent a discrete local population. It covers a comparable or even bigger area than the NE-cluster, which presumably came from places far apart as Armenia and Syria.

One thing I thought about is that maybe the local populations were still clearly divided in Iron age groups like Celts, Illyrians and Thracians, but then you would expect that the qpWave classification would pick this up, no? The other possibility, as you say, is that these guys were already heavily admixed with different populations, but I have trouble seeing that. The cluster at the right bottom of Balkans IA is pulled right to the NE compared to the samples at the left, but also downwards, which makes no sense.
My best guess is that the cosmopolitan aspect of Viminiacum means these locals are not locals. They are people from all over the Balkans that were drawn to this big city and the possibilities it presented (like Paris or London attracted people from all over the country). Since all of the Balkans would have been a mix of the same sources but in different proportions I can see the population being spread out over a large cline. In this case it seems logical to think that indeed the people at the bottom right were coming from the eastern part of the Balkans given the affinity with the Bulgarian IA sample, and the people on the left were more from the Western parts, although I think there is also a second effect, where people from more south on the Balkans would also tend to plot more to the right than people from the norther parts.

I would propose a combined reading of the situation. I see them both as people who are from different parts of the Balkans originally and that they have Aegean and/or NE admixture with other urban populations who moved to Viminacium. Historically, the hypothesis that they were not from Viminacium is correct because it was founded as a military colony which later became an imperial city. The new information shown in the study is that the "locals" were not just of local Balkan origin. Unfortunately, most samples are from a developed phase in the city's history. As such, admixture events would have been happening for at least a hundred years, which makes it very hard to see ancestral groups and might explain why some E-V13 individuals are part of the NE cluster.

It'll be interesting to see admixture differences with Timacum Minus, a much less "cosmopolitan" area than Viminacium.

The other significant question is whether admixture events are pre-Roman or post-Roman, BGR_IA definitely has ancestry which shows highly increased pre-Roman admixture events, but SCY197 is not part of these events. The other "southern cluster" samples, however, show varying degrees of such ancestry despite still being quite distant to BGR_IA. So we see a similar gradation of ancestry from a western/central Balkan group to populations closer to the Aegean world. The difference is that these people would still be more distant to the Aegean world than BGR_IA and the eastern half of the Viminacium study.

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.5303% / 0.02530264 | R5P
39.2 GRC_Helladic_EBA
27.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
21.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
9.2 Baltic_EST_BA
2.8 RUS_Kurma_EBA

Target: scy192
Distance: 1.6672% / 0.01667231 | R5P
41.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
37.8 SVK_EBA
9.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin
8.8 BGR_N
2.4 RUS_Baikal_EBA

Target: scy300
Distance: 2.5361% / 0.02536116 | R5P
40.4 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
30.0 GRC_Helladic_EBA
14.8 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
11.8 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
3.0 RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA

Target: scy305
Distance: 2.4408% / 0.02440770 | R5P
48.8 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
27.0 Wales_CA_EBA
11.4 Baltic_LTU_BA
7.8 TUR_Titris_Hoyuk_EBA
5.0 RUS_Kurma_EBA

Based on the above, I'd say that there was some spread throughout the Balkans of this type ancestry before the Roman era but it increased significantly during the imperial period in particular areas. Trade might have been what propelled it. The inland areas between the Dalmatian hinterland and eastern Serbia received less, but areas with developed trade nodes had more contacts with the "outside world". I might have mentioned this before, but Thrace provided much of the gold for Mycenaean metallurgy. There was a very developed network between Thrace and Mycenaean Greece since the MLBA.

The question is how representative of the general population such ancestry in Viminacium is because if most people lived in villages or small inland towns, then it's not. It might be the case that the western half (as shown by its closeness to modern Balkan populations) shows a population of more rural origins, while the eastern half an urban population with economic, cultural and additional ancestral ties to the Mediterranean world.

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 11:42 AM
Yamnaya_Caucasus has extra CHG ancestry, it's not completely part of the main Yamnaya cluster. A couple of the individuals in it overlap the Steppe Piedmont Eneolithic populations. So in your model you're assuming that Albanians have more CHG-related ancestry than even in a model of mainstream Yamnaya-Aegean-Central Anatolia. It's true that the spread of extra CHG into the Balkans should be clarified more though. But was it almost Aegean-Anatolian like in the IA? The BGR_IA sample so far has apparent, extra CHG but even that one not as much.

I agree that Yamnaya_Caucasus had a bit more CHG ancestry, but the model doesn't pick it for extra CHG , but other components. As you can see, Yamnaya_Caucasus has just 7.4% CHG.

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
Distance: 1.1548% / 0.01154834
76.2 Steppe_Pastoralist
8.0 Iran_Neolithic
7.6 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
7.4 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer
0.6 Ancient_American
0.2 Africa_Mesolithic

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.6003% / 0.01600321
59.2 Early_European_Farmer
29.2 Steppe_Pastoralist
5.2 Iran_Neolithic
4.6 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer
1.2 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
0.6 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer

Even in the BGR_IA, CHG is not that much really but Kura-Araxes themselves weren't mostly CHG themselves, so we can't really say how it got there, but some of it was already present in the Balkans before MBA-LBA.

Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 1.9166% / 0.01916641 | R4P
72.0 Early_European_Farmer
25.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
2.4 Iran_Neolithic
0.6 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer

See HRV_EBA as an example, although existing HRV_MBA and HRV_IA samples didn't inherit such ancestry

Target: HRV_EBA:I3499
Distance: 2.0023% / 0.02002341
59.2 Early_European_Farmer
31.6 Steppe_Pastoralist
4.0 Ancient_Iberian_Hunter-Gatherer
3.8 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer
1.0 Iberomaurusian
0.4 Western_Hunter-Gatherer

Target: HRV_IA:I3313
Distance: 2.1776% / 0.02177573
60.2 Early_European_Farmer
36.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
3.8 Western_Hunter-Gatherer

Target: HRV_MBA:I4332
Distance: 2.0596% / 0.02059597
58.2 Early_European_Farmer
34.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
7.8 Western_Hunter-Gatherer



What you're saying is reasonable especially since we know Viminacium during the Roman period drew individuals from various parts of the Balkans, even some from the southern Greek-speaking parts. The more interesting question that you bring up is whether local clines existed at all even in the pre-Roman IA in parts of the Balkans. HRV_MBA-IA-Adriatic Proto-Villanovan, Adriatic-admixed Etruscan is relatively homogeneous for example. But even in other parts of Europe at the time (e.g. France_IA) we see variation. It's probably hard to tell exactly what someone represents unless we somehow get relatively distinct but homogenous groups from different parts of the Balkans or if finer methods are used.

That's the biggest problem right now in my opinion. As most studies are focusing on "cosmopolitan" Roman cities, we get to learn about fascinating migration stories from places as far as East Africa, but we learn very little about the local populations which are actually representative of the demographic history of the Balkans.

rafc
09-02-2021, 12:11 PM
I would propose a combined reading of the situation. I see them both as people who are from different parts of the Balkans originally and that they have Aegean and/or NE admixture with other urban populations who moved to Viminacium. Historically, the hypothesis that they were not from Viminacium is correct because it was founded as a military colony which later became an imperial city. The new information shown in the study is that the "locals" were not just of local Balkan origin. Unfortunately, most samples are from a developed phase in the city's history. As such, admixture events would have been happening for at least a hundred years, which makes it very hard to see ancestral groups and might explain why some E-V13 individuals are part of the NE cluster.

It'll be interesting to see admixture differences with Timacum Minus, a much less "cosmopolitan" area than Viminacium.

The question is how representative of the general population such ancestry in Viminacium is because if most people lived in villages or small inland towns, then it's not. It might be the case that the western half (as shown by its closeness to modern Balkan populations) shows a population of more rural origins, while the eastern half an urban population with economic, cultural and additional ancestral ties to the Mediterranean world.

The NE-admixture is certainly there. But the Aegean is hard to argue since no samples were found with a clear Aegean ancestry. For this to work the samples at the bottom right would have to be Aegeans, but why are they then shifted compared to the Aegean BA/IA (and why is it not visible in Y-groups?)? It would make more sense that those bottom right samples represent a part of the Balkans.
One possibility could be that it's an Aegean population that was already slightly admixed due to a long separation from the homeland. So something like Greek/Hellenes living in coastal towns on the Adriatic or Black sea, and then migrating to Viminiacum, but that seems convoluted, no? And again it doesn't match the Y-groups.
Btw, I think the left part is closer to modern populations, because Slavic admixture pulled the modern populations to the left, I don't think it's a rural/urban divide.

vettor
09-02-2021, 04:07 PM
I am not quite sure what your point is. The Venetian commonwealth connected the eastern adriatic shores from Istria down to Corfu thereby reallocating resources and personell from one place to another. We have a complete census from Zadar around 1500, very cosmopolitic and lots of Albanians. We have lots of attested Albanians joining the Uskoks in Senj around 1600. We have lists of seamen serving on Venetian and Ragusian ships with lots of Albanians. We have enlistment documents for specific troops like the Croati a cavallo from the 18th century, again, lots of Albanians. I will quote the summary from a scientic paper dealing with Albanians in those troops:

"Lovorka Čoralić
Albanian Soldiers in the Venetian Land Army across the Adriatic
(18th Century)
Summary
During the Early Modern Period and especially the Venetian-Ottoman wars in the 17th and 18th centuries, the axis of the Venetian land army across the Adriatic were the troops known
as Fanti oltramarini and Croati a cavallo (Cavalleria Croati). They were primarily manned with soldiers and officers originating from the Venetian lands, from Istria to Albania and
Greece, but there were also many soldiers from other areas, mostly those bordering on the Venetian territories. This paper focuses on the soldiers from Venetian Albania (Albania
Veneta) and their role in these troops. It is based on an analysis of original documents preserved at the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, more precisely the collection of Inquisitori
sopra l’amministrazione dei pubblici ruoli – a magistracy in charge of recruiting soldiers and sending them to the wider area controlled by Venice, from Veneto to Greece. The documents include lists of officers, commanders, and common soldiers, made at regular intervals during the recruitment or supervision of troops. At this stage of research, 75 Albanian soldiers have been identified in the Venetian infantry and cavalry during the 18th century.
The sources refer to them as d’Albania or Albanese, only rarely mentioning their exact place of origin. Albanians were present in infantry and cavalry throughout the 18th century (especially its fi rst half) and mostly served in infantry troops. A considerable number occupied prominent posts (colonels, lieutenants, captains, and so on), but in most cases they were common soldiers. The regiments and companies manned by Albanians were primarily under the command of offi cers from Dalmatia and Boka (occasionally by Albanians), mostly from noble families that had been supplying high officers to the Serenissima for generations.

The troops were stationed along the Venetian territories in the Eastern Adriatic (Dalmatia, Boka Kotorska), in the cities and fortresses all over Veneto, as well as in Greece. According
to the available documents, an average Albanian soldier in the 18th-century Venetian army was a foot soldier, 26 years old, or a cavalryman in his mid-forties; in a number of examples,
there were officers and common soldiers from the same families (Ginni, Giuroi, Mirdita, and others). Their military service could last for several decades. As for their physical features, which are occasionally mentioned in the lists, Albanian soldiers were mostly of a middle stature and brown-haired, which is a stereotype used to describe most soldiers originating from the Eastern Adriatic. It may be concluded that the total number of Albanian officers, commanders, and soldiers in the Venetian army was considerable, and that their role in the military history of the Eastern Adriatic and the Venetian Republic as a whole was appreciated and acknowledged. Th is paper is an attempt to use the unpublished and so far barely analysed archival sources to present the relevant evidence and arguments to the scholarly community and the broader public. Although it may be expected that some future
research will add new names to the list of Albanian soldiers serving in the Venetian army, it will probably not signifi cantly change the picture outlined here."

You are mixing up centuries

firstly venice still held what you said , plus the Ionion island ie itahaca etc, crete a few spots in the morea, Santa Irena ( santorini ) and many other places in the the aegean.

venice held no more albanian lands after Durres fell to the ottomans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_War_(1537%E2%80%931540)

Any albanians at that time who fought for Venice was purely mercenaries and not part of the Venetian republican troops.......Venice also had many german kingdoms supply them troops as well as some french ones .............every nation hired mercenaries from one kingdom or another ...............look at Hessian history

next, the Uskok wars was a drawn out war between Venice and the Austrian hapsburgs and their ally Spain..........the dutch and English fought alongside venice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uskok_War


Fanti =infantry oltramarini = marines


yes and Venice still retained east Lombardy up to Switzerland, parto of South tyrol, North east italy, Istria, Croatia/Dalmatia, Corfu, Montenegro coastal, Ionion Islands and a few others in 1797 ....whats your point here ?

Do not confuse mercenaries as being part of any Kingdom/Republic ......there is no logic to this


Venetia-Albania is only a name for a administration area run by a General at arms ( these Generals where rotated every 3 years ) .............it does not mean only albanians....the area comprised of only lands from Ragusa( modern Dubrovnik ) ( not venetian owned ) including coastal Montenegro up to Durres while they still held it ..................after losing Durres in 1540, the others lands where still named under the administration title of Venetia-Albania

I am surprised you make an issue of this for less than 100 men ...........................we might as well include the 3000 English men who where hired by Venice to stay in istria after the Uskok war was over ........some never went home

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 04:59 PM
I'll move it to here..



Apparently Albanians are rampant with such ancestry.

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.3400% / 0.01339957
25.4 GRC_Mycenaean
23.2 Scythian_MDA_scy305
21.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
19.2 BGR_IA
10.4 Scythian_MDA_scy192

There are Croatian MBA and IA samples there, but G25 doesn't want to take them. G25 says Albanians are 0 % Illyricani in these scheme.

What happens when I remove Mycenaean?

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.5625% / 0.01562480
36.2 BGR_IA
29.8 Scythian_MDA_scy305
18.4 Scythian_MDA_scy192
15.6 HUN_Avar_Szolad

Nothing too significant.. This more southern Ancestry is just replaced by the almost equally Southern Bulgarian IA.. Slavic input is reduced.

This study also projects high Slavic auDNA influence for Albanians. Higher than is likely but nevertheless just confirms what we know, that Albanian are Slavic admixed, that is why they are outside of the Balkan Iron Age cluster.



Denial, projection, denial, projection... there is old Pshenichevo E-Z1919 (=V13) sample with a similar profile. And additional V13 Pshenichevo samples on the way.. E-V13 did spread such ancestry in EIA..




E-V13 spread with a group that had noticeable MBA Anatolian ancestry. This group were the Daco-Thracians. Not Illyrians who lacked noticeable CHG ancestry and whose EEF component was more Western like (having a little extra of WHG).

We do know that a lot of Antiquity people are like Bulgarian IA, we know two are like Croatian IA. That means both of these single samples (and Croatian IA is just an extension of Croatian BA) were very widespread in the Iron Age Balkans. They were the norm and common. Also one Szolad Roman sample is Bulgaria IA-like so I sucpected this sort of ancestry was common. And Viminacium study confirms it.

And yet no Illyrian auDNA in Albanians.. Cry me a river..
Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.3400% / 0.01339957
25.4 GRC_Mycenaean
23.2 Scythian_MDA_scy305
21.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
19.2 BGR_IA
10.4 Scythian_MDA_scy192

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.5625% / 0.01562480
36.2 BGR_IA
29.8 Scythian_MDA_scy305
18.4 Scythian_MDA_scy192
15.6 HUN_Avar_Szolad

These results are due to extra CHG in Albanians. Lets take Cappadocian Greeks who might be a proxy for Roman Near Eastern migrants.

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.2664% / 0.01266395
30.0 BGR_IA
20.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
16.4 Greek_Cappadocia
13.4 Scythian_MDA_scy305
8.6 HRV_MBA
6.8 Scythian_MDA_scy192
4.8 Scythian_MDA_scy197

With Cappadocian Greeks taking away some CHG, Albanians become a good proxy for some Croatian IA/BA ancestry..

Do all Balkanites actually inherit plenty of Near Eastern Byzantine/Roman ancestry?

Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.4007% / 0.01400749
49.4 HUN_Avar_Szolad
17.6 BGR_IA
11.8 HRV_MBA
11.4 Greek_Cappadocia
7.2 Scythian_MDA_scy305
2.6 Scythian_MDA_scy192

EDIT: Daunians might change some things so that more of Albanian ancestry is derived from such source, but Daunians have nothing to do with E-V13.. (except your "view" that Daunian underclass was in fact heavy with E-V13 :rofl:)

What utter horseshit. Compare south slavic y dna and albanian y dna and you see its completely different, north albanians carry under 9% south slavic y dna except for kosovo albanians that have a bit more, south albanians less than 18%. Meanwhile south slavs, especially serbs carry more y dna that is common in albanians

Bulgarians and south slavs on the other hand are brothers not just genetically but also tied through language

Northern Adriatic
09-02-2021, 05:07 PM
You are mixing up centuries

firstly venice still held what you said , plus the Ionion island ie itahaca etc, crete a few spots in the morea, Santa Irena ( santorini ) and many other places in the the aegean.

venice held no more albanian lands after Durres fell to the ottomans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_War_(1537%E2%80%931540)

Any albanians at that time who fought for Venice was purely mercenaries and not part of the Venetian republican troops.......Venice also had many german kingdoms supply them troops as well as some french ones .............every nation hired mercenaries from one kingdom or another ...............look at Hessian history

next, the Uskok wars was a drawn out war between Venice and the Austrian hapsburgs and their ally Spain..........the dutch and English fought alongside venice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uskok_War


Fanti =infantry oltramarini = marines


yes and Venice still retained east Lombardy up to Switzerland, parto of South tyrol, North east italy, Istria, Croatia/Dalmatia, Corfu, Montenegro coastal, Ionion Islands and a few others in 1797 ....whats your point here ?

Do not confuse mercenaries as being part of any Kingdom/Republic ......there is no logic to this


Venetia-Albania is only a name for a administration area run by a General at arms ( these Generals where rotated every 3 years ) .............it does not mean only albanians....the area comprised of only lands from Ragusa( modern Dubrovnik ) ( not venetian owned ) including coastal Montenegro up to Durres while they still held it ..................after losing Durres in 1540, the others lands where still named under the administration title of Venetia-Albania

I am surprised you make an issue of this for less than 100 men ...........................we might as well include the 3000 English men who where hired by Venice to stay in istria after the Uskok war was over ........some never went home
Partially OT... but I'd love to see croats, montenegrini and albanians embrace more the venetian tradition. For a few centuries have been forgotten or even partially denied because of the sick nationalism from both sides of the Adriatic. The cool thing of Venice though, it was that many 'non-Italian/Venetian' speakers contributed to her greatness. The winged lion is a 'multicultural' symbol of the whole Adriatic, for which many dalmatians fought regardless of their ethnicity.

The same could partially apply to Greece, although I would understand that historically the 4th crusade is difficult to forget. Still, a bit chunk of history is common and it should be celebrated in my opinion.

Kelmendasi
09-02-2021, 05:25 PM
venice held no more albanian lands after Durres fell to the ottomans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_War_(1537%E2%80%931540)

Any albanians at that time who fought for Venice was purely mercenaries and not part of the Venetian republican troops.......Venice also had many german kingdoms supply them troops as well as some french ones .............every nation hired mercenaries from one kingdom or another ...............look at Hessian history
Not really. A number of Albanian families that affiliated themselves with the Venetians (primarily as soldiers) were resettled from their ancestral homes in Albania or Albanian-speaking territories to Venetian holdings elsewhere, such as Zadar on the Dalmatian coast of Croatia and Koper in modern Slovene Istria. So despite the Venetians losing their core Albanian holdings to the Ottomans during the sixteenth century, the Venetians still drew upon a source of Albanian manpower from the communities and enclaves that they helped established in their other territories. They were not only hired as mercenaries. As the paper referenced by mikulic33 states, the number and significance of Albanian soldiers serving under Venice, especially in the eastern Adriatic, was rather substantial and not limited to a couple of hundred individuals.

Many Albanian families that initially entered Venetian service as soldiers, mercenaries or even refugees became ennobled and were integrated into Venetian society, playing key and important roles in the expansion and possibly even the function of the state to a degree. Such examples include the Bruni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruni_family), Bruti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruti_family), Docaini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukagjini_family) and Gjini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjini_family) families.

vettor
09-02-2021, 05:38 PM
Partially OT... but I'd love to see croats, montenegrini and albanians embrace more the venetian tradition. For a few centuries have been forgotten or even partially denied because of the sick nationalism from both sides of the Adriatic. The cool thing of Venice though, it was that many 'non-Italian/Venetian' speakers contributed to her greatness. The winged lion is a 'multicultural' symbol of the whole Adriatic, for which many dalmatians fought regardless of their ethnicity.

The same could partially apply to Greece, although I would understand that historically the 4th crusade is difficult to forget. Still, a bit chunk of history is common and it should be celebrated in my opinion.

ok

The 2 columns in saint marks square

The winged lion on the column has a Hittite lions head.......does it mean anything?

The other column is the crocodile of ancient Egypt

mikulic33
09-02-2021, 05:44 PM
Not really. A number of Albanian families that affiliated themselves with the Venetians (primarily as soldiers) were resettled from their ancestral homes in Albania or Albanian-speaking territories to Venetian holdings elsewhere, such as Zadar on the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. So despite the Venetians losing their core Albanian holdings to the Ottomans during the sixteenth century, the Venetians still drew upon a source of Albanian manpower from the communities and enclaves that they helped established in their other territories. They were not only hired as mercenaries. As the paper referenced by mikulic33 states, the number and significance of Albanian soldiers serving under Venice, especially in the eastern Adriatic, was rather substantial and not limited to a couple of hundred individuals.

Many Albanian families that initially entered Venetian service as soldiers or mercenaries became ennobled and were integrated into Venetian society, playing key and important roles in the expansion and possibly even the function of the state to a degree. Such examples include the Bruni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruni_family), Bruti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruti_family) and Gjini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjini_family) families.

Exactly, thank you. There are extended analyses of the churchbooks of Zadar from the second half of the 16th century and roughly 5% of the population were Albanians. I give you an example of the entries for the famous Renessi family in Zadar:

Renessi Zuane mes. 1579.
Todoro 1579.
„ Zorzi cap. 1580.
„ Zorzi stradiotto 1603.
„ Marietta 1582 vj. za Rosa Simon.
„ Helena (rel. qu. Zorzi) 1687.
„ Nadal cap. 1596.
„ Gontin cap. 1597.
„ Nico cap. 1597.
„ Isabella (Zorzi kavalier) vj. za Begna Pietro 1597.
„ Margareta (qu. Zuane) 1598 vj. za Metcovich Zorzi da Trau.
„ Giorgi governador 1599.
„ Bosichio kavalier cap. 1604 vj. sa Soppe Alisetta (qu. Franc).
„ Pietro (qu. Todoro cap.) 1605.
„ Francesco (figlio di cavalier) 1609, 610.
„ Francesco (Zorzi governador) 1611 vj. sa Rosa Isabella (qu. Alexandro).

Additionally, there are reports from the Venetian captains of the Gulf explaining why the Albanian soldiers do not like to fight the Uskoks. Here is a quote from 1615 in Italian (can easily be translated with Google translate):

"Gli Albanesi poi che pare tiene assoldati Vostra Serenitŕ sono stati da mč nelle occasioni tutte conosciuti pronti e valorosi, amatory della disciplina militare e dell´honore, conditioni tutte che per antichitŕ sono proprie di quella natione. Č vero che anco in questo numero ve ne sono alcuni che patiscono il diffetto dei Croati; et la causa č questa; che essendo qualche numero di essi fatti casalini cioč habitanti di Dalmatia dove hanno moglie e beni, sebene per natura e per volonta sono e buoni servitor di questo stato, e nemici dÚscocchi, tutta via per accidenti puonno riuscire simili a`Croati nell`stenersi di far danni a gli Uscocchi, per tema che questi, irritati, vadino a`danni de`beni, delle case a parenti loro in Dalmatia."

vettor
09-02-2021, 05:45 PM
Not really. A number of Albanian families that affiliated themselves with the Venetians (primarily as soldiers) were resettled from their ancestral homes in Albania or Albanian-speaking territories to Venetian holdings elsewhere, such as Zadar on the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. So despite the Venetians losing their core Albanian holdings to the Ottomans during the sixteenth century, the Venetians still drew upon a source of Albanian manpower from the communities and enclaves that they helped established in their other territories. They were not only hired as mercenaries. As the paper referenced by mikulic33 states, the number and significance of Albanian soldiers serving under Venice, especially in the eastern Adriatic, was rather substantial and not limited to a couple of hundred individuals.

Many Albanian families that initially entered Venetian service as soldiers or mercenaries became ennobled and were integrated into Venetian society, playing key and important roles in the expansion and possibly even the function of the state to a degree. Such examples include the Bruni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruni_family), Bruti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruti_family) and Gjini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjini_family) families.

why we mentioning this...of course Venetian republic took in many different ethnic people ........they had German merchant families for over 700 years living in Venice, they had Greeks, Albanians, Croats, french, Swiss, English, dutch , aragonese, Catalans, Portuguese etc.................is it relevant to the discussion?
Every monarchy or republic took in other ethnicities ..............I am at odds what you are trying to get at..............is it that albanians are some super race?

The numbers you speak about are irrelevant

what Venice held , 8 years before napoleon attacked Venice
https://i.postimg.cc/zv3KtQ3X/Venice-1789.png (https://postimg.cc/D4kSmBqt)

vettor
09-02-2021, 05:50 PM
Exactly, thank you. There are extended analyses of the churchbooks of Zadar from the second half of the 16th century and roughly 5% of the population were Albanians. I give you an example of the entries for the famous Renessi family in Zadar:

Renessi Zuane mes. 1579.
Todoro 1579.
„ Zorzi cap. 1580.
„ Zorzi stradiotto 1603.
„ Marietta 1582 vj. za Rosa Simon.
„ Helena (rel. qu. Zorzi) 1687.
„ Nadal cap. 1596.
„ Gontin cap. 1597.
„ Nico cap. 1597.
„ Isabella (Zorzi kavalier) vj. za Begna Pietro 1597.
„ Margareta (qu. Zuane) 1598 vj. za Metcovich Zorzi da Trau.
„ Giorgi governador 1599.
„ Bosichio kavalier cap. 1604 vj. sa Soppe Alisetta (qu. Franc).
„ Pietro (qu. Todoro cap.) 1605.
„ Francesco (figlio di cavalier) 1609, 610.
„ Francesco (Zorzi governador) 1611 vj. sa Rosa Isabella (qu. Alexandro).

Additionally, there are reports from the Venetian captains of the Gulf explaining why the Albanian soldiers do not like to fight the Uskoks. Here is a quote from 1615 in Italian (can easily be translated with Google translate):

"Gli Albanesi poi che pare tiene assoldati Vostra Serenitŕ sono stati da mč nelle occasioni tutte conosciuti pronti e valorosi, amatory della disciplina militare e dell´honore, conditioni tutte che per antichitŕ sono proprie di quella natione. Č vero che anco in questo numero ve ne sono alcuni che patiscono il diffetto dei Croati; et la causa č questa; che essendo qualche numero di essi fatti casalini cioč habitanti di Dalmatia dove hanno moglie e beni, sebene per natura e per volonta sono e buoni servitor di questo stato, e nemici dÚscocchi, tutta via per accidenti puonno riuscire simili a`Croati nell`stenersi di far danni a gli Uscocchi, per tema che questi, irritati, vadino a`danni de`beni, delle case a parenti loro in Dalmatia."

why are we discussing John Renessi family ? ..............

Zorzi = George .........also used as a surname

Uskoks are pirates , they where egged on my the austrians to cause havoc on venetian shipping, because the Venetian fleet would not let the austrian fleet out of Trieste

Trieste was never ever under Venice, but spoke the Venetian language ..............language means zero to ethnicity

mikulic33
09-02-2021, 05:58 PM
why are we discussing John Renessi family ? ..............

Zorzi = George .........also used as a surname

Because to exemplify what my starting point was. The only thing I said was that one has to distinguish several migration events within the last 1000 years which might have brought E-V13 lineages from further South to Dalmatia. The third one was what I described as constant flow of Albanians from Venetian Albania to Venetian Dalmatia between 1500 and 1800, starting with families like the Renessi and ending with the Arbanasi settlement near Zadar. This was not a one-off event but characteristic for that time-period and facilitated by trade and military networks within the Venetian commonwealth. That is all, not more and not less.

excine
09-02-2021, 06:20 PM
Some interesting quotes from "Serbs & Albanians: Their Symbiosis in the Middle Ages" - Milan Šufflay

The Latin notoriate in Durres was in no way different from that in Ulcinj and Bar. But was essentially different from that of the Dalmatian cities, where the further north one went, the more advanced was the notariate. The Albanian-Doclean notariate preserved archaic features. While in Trogir notaries are counted among the "officials from abroad", in Split they were not allowed to come from the province of Dalmatia. Meanwhile in Bar, Ulcinj, Shkodra, and Drisht not only the first notaries of whom we know but also the last mentioned are native citizens. In Dubrovnik Italian notaries were exclusively working there, and in Kotor priests were forbidden from performing notary service, whereas in the Doclean cities notaries were native patricians, priests, and canons. Only sporadically did Italian notaries appear here and there. The ancient chanceries of the Dubrovnik counts on the islands of Mljet and Lokrum in the 14th and 15th centuries were directed by Albanian priests, mostly from Bar.

Refugees are mentioned in Recanati (1437), large Albanian colonies in Ancona (1458 and Venice (1444). Mingling with Slavs from the mixed northern zone and with the southern Dalmatians (1419), from all Albania (1442, 1467, 1478) there began to flow a veritable river of humanity into Apulia and Calabria.

On May 4th, 1360 the city sent its chancellor to the Pope to "request an archbishop for the Dubrovnik church." The following passage can be found in the instructions to the envoy: "And if the situation should arise, that some Dalmatian, Albanian, Venetians or someone from our Dubrovnik land should want to obtain our archbishopric, oppose him together with our friends in every way."

A the pirate called Bogdan Petrovich Albanensis de Budua in Dubrovnik (1427)

~~

An old surname Drançolli. According to the historian Jahja Drançolli (65 years old, from Peja / Prishtina), the surname Drançolli appears in medieval documents in the form, Dranço (in Chrisobula of Deçan, 1330); Drançi (in the Venetian Cadastre of Shkodra, 1416/17); Drancis (in a document of the Dubrovnik office, 1496),

In Ragusa, is also documented the family of Albanian origin Gozulo (Gazulli). Jirecek mentions them as Gasulus, Gaçolus, Slav. Gazul, who were Ragusan citizens, of who lived in Ragusa mainly during the 15th century, and who were Albanian originating from Zadrima of Lezha, where in 1416 there was another village called Gasoli (Gazulli). They should not be confused with noble Ragusa family with very similar name Gauzoli, Gauzolo,Gauçolo, who were also part of the Ragusa nobility from 1239 to 1326 (Nobiles von Ragusa 1239-1326).

Huban
09-02-2021, 08:23 PM
@Huban I'm trying to explain to you why you shouldn't create models which contain samples from wildly different eras and you created a Sopot Mid Neolithic + TUR MLBA + Corded Ware. Such a model can't given you any meaningful information, hence you get distances 3.0>

Iran_Neolithic ancestry existed in the Balkans when IE groups arrived in the region and it is not CHG ancestry. It's archaeologically linked to the Final Neolithic migrations.

Target: GRC_Helladic_EBA
Distance: 1.7818% / 0.01781784
86.6 Early_European_Farmer
6.0 Iran_Neolithic
5.6 Steppe_Pastoralist
1.0 Iberomaurusian
0.8 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer


I won't explain anymore why models which contain samples from very different areas can't be used for anything meaningful. It's abundantly clear in itself by now. Trying to fit samples in models with 3.2 distances is not going to work out. SCY197 with basal components:

Target: scy197
Distance: 2.3420% / 0.02342020
61.6 Early_European_Farmer
32.8 Steppe_Pastoralist
3.2 Western_Hunter-Gatherer
2.4 Northeastern_Asia_Neolithic

Just like HRV samples, he has WHG ancestry, which later populations lack. It's not about Iran_Neolithic or CHG.

Who is Steppe pastoralist here? Yamnaya. Yamnaya ancestry fits in general worse for Moldovan Scythians and Croatian IA/BA samples than Corded Ware like ancestry. That is why in every single model i ever use I have these two as separate. So if the actual Steppe ancestry better fitting for Scy197 is of CWC type, it will leave extra CHG/IN for scy197.

Also. When trying to guess what the ancient samples origins are, I think both archeological evidence must be taken into account, in addition to preferably samples slightly or more than slightly preceeding the sample.

For example. Croatian IA/BA (=Illyrians) do seem to fit well with a model that includes the Maros culture ancestry where the older J-L283 was found. So in any model it is imperative to include the Maros culture. There is also an issue of context. After the MBA expansion that took place in Croatia/Bosnia by the J-L283 heavy group and up until the historical times, bar limited Urnfield influence, there were no archeological disruptions in the area. Which means this ancestry was left untouched. However in other regions, Thracian regions as well, we have seen a far more serious disruption in LBA/EIA period, so in those areas actually EIA samples are a far better fit for the LIA historical populations.

Distance of 3 isn't bad though it isn't preferred. Nevertheless taking Wales BA, Lithuanian BA, Czech BA, even Greek samples to model Illyro-Thracians is totally inappropriate regardless of distance. This just for curiosity's sake.
Now, for the reasons above Maros is a must to have. I have been including some other sources for supposed proto-Thracian steppe source, CWC which is not the real deal but in general its a better fit for IA Balkans than Yamnaya. And once such run I posted clearly showed Illyrians/Croatians do prefer a Maros like source to something more Eastern which is what Thracian area samples prefer. And presumably once Maros culture people settled in the Western Balkans they mixed with some more Neolithic heavy people which produced the IA/BA Croatian profile. For that reason I have been including Neolithic samples, all Barcin like but having a variation of heir own, with more of WHG (C.European Neolithic) or less and even some later Anatolian ancestry (Helladic Greece, Minoans).

So quite simple, with as few samples as possible and point was not to show a perfect match but to stack all IA Balkanites against some criteria and see tendencies among them. You salad of samples will not achieve any such thing.

Btw there is Scythian Moldavian cluster for G25, as there should be. Mycenean samples show more diversity amongst each other, and there isn't anyone making crackpot theories on how some of those were of non-Mycenean origin..

So you make an effort for absolutely nothing, other than trying to avoid being defeated in a debate. Scy197 does not come from Western Balkans paternally (his clade alone disqualifies this notion), he is a local since Early Iron Age in the area.. And your and other Albanians useless crackpot theories about the proto-Thracian haplogroup that is somehow Illyrian is only getting more and more smashed to bits against the wall of facts.. :P Many Albanians accepted the truth, you are still in denial ("no, no it has nothing to do with Thracians") and projection phases ("it is actually totally an Illyrian hg").

Regarding the CHG/IN, I have been running Minoan samples against both and CHG is preferred of the two. And it really makes no sense that an undiluted Iran Neolithic ancestry managed to reach Balkans. CHG and IN are related, in many studies they are used interchangeably to model populations. But they are different ofc.



from very different areas can't be used for anything meaningful

Says somebody who uses samples from Wales for modelling IA Balkanites.:doh: If I use samples from another region it is based on archeological evidence. Pure Steppe samples are there to indicate the Steppe-EEF ratio and type (Yamnaya or CWC derived)



As to why 50% of Balkan samples from Viminacium are close to Albanians and the other 50% are closer to Dodecanesians, the answer is not surprisingly very simple:


1. Albanians are not part of the cluster. They are north of it.
2. Albanians carry Slavic admixture
3. Once stripped of this Slavic admixture proto-Albanians are in big part a Mycenean like people, with other more "northern" IA Balkan contributions.
4. What modern day Slavic admixed Albanians are is far from very relevant (here you use Albanians as some sort of indication of ancestry based on location of modern day Albanians when it isn't even clear what Albanians are descended from, Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians, Paeonian related Dardanians etc.).


What utter horseshit. Compare south slavic y dna and albanian y dna and you see its completely different, north albanians carry under 9% south slavic y dna except for kosovo albanians that have a bit more, south albanians less than 18%. Meanwhile south slavs, especially serbs carry more y dna that is common in albanians

Bulgarians and south slavs on the other hand are brothers not just genetically but also tied through language

But they carry alot more of Slavic auDNA, 20-25 %. These two are not necessarily related to each other. In fact often they aren't. Southern Albanians also carry alot more Slavic Y-DNA. In Ghegs tribal divisions has caused the bottleneck effects which increased the number of non-Slavic Y-DNA.

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 08:54 PM
Who is Steppe pastoralist here? Yamnaya. Yamnaya ancestry fits in general worse for Moldovan Scythians and Croatian IA/BA samples than Corded Ware like ancestry. That is why in every single model i ever use I have these two as separate. So if the actual Steppe ancestry better fitting for Scy197 is of CWC type, it will leave extra CHG/IN for scy197.

Also. When trying to guess what the ancient samples origins are, I think both archeological evidence must be taken into account, in addition to preferably samples slightly or more than slightly preceeding the sample.

For example. Croatian IA/BA (=Illyrians) do seem to fit well with a model that includes the Maros culture ancestry where the older J-L283 was found. So in any model it is imperative to include the Maros culture. There is also an issue of context. After the MBA expansion that took place in Croatia/Bosnia by the J-L283 heavy group and up until the historical times, bar limited Urnfield influence, there were no archeological disruptions in the area. Which means this ancestry was left untouched. However in other regions, Thracian regions as well, we have seen a far more serious disruption in LBA/EIA period, so in those areas actually EIA samples are a far better fit for the LIA historical populations.

Distance of 3 isn't bad though it isn't preferred. Nevertheless taking Wales BA, Lithuanian BA, Czech BA, even Greek samples to model Illyro-Thracians is totally inappropriate regardless of distance. This just for curiosity's sake.
Now, for the reasons above Maros is a must to have. I have been including some other sources for supposed proto-Thracian steppe source, CWC which is not the real deal but in general its a better fit for IA Balkans than Yamnaya. And once such run I posted clearly showed Illyrians/Croatians do prefer a Maros like source to something more Eastern which is what Thracian area samples prefer. And presumably once Maros culture people settled in the Western Balkans they mixed with some more Neolithic heavy people which produced the IA/BA Croatian profile. For that reason I have been including Neolithic samples, all Barcin like but having a variation of heir own, with more of WHG (C.European Neolithic) or less and even some later Anatolian ancestry (Helladic Greece, Minoans).

So quite simple, with as few samples as possible and point was not to show a perfect match but to stack all IA Balkanites against some criteria and see tendencies among them. You salad of samples will not achieve any such thing.

Btw there is Scythian Moldavian cluster for G25, as there should be. Mycenean samples show more diversity amongst each other, and there isn't anyone making crackpot theories on how some of those were of non-Mycenean origin..

So you make an effort for absolutely nothing, other than trying to avoid being defeated in a debate. Scy197 does not come from Western Balkans paternally (his clade alone disqualifies this notion), he is a local since Early Iron Age in the area.. And your and other Albanians useless crackpot theories about the proto-Thracian haplogroup that is somehow Illyrian is only getting more and more smashed to bits against the wall of facts.. :P Many Albanians accepted the truth, you are still in denial ("no, no it has nothing to do with Thracians") and projection phases ("it is actually totally an Illyrian hg").

Regarding the CHG/IN, I have been running Minoan samples against both and CHG is preferred of the two. And it really makes no sense that an undiluted Iran Neolithic ancestry managed to reach Balkans. CHG and IN are related, in many studies they are used interchangeably to model populations. But they are different ofc.



Says somebody who uses samples from Wales for modelling IA Balkanites.:doh: If I use samples from another region it is based on archeological evidence. Pure Steppe samples are there to indicate the Steppe-EEF ratio and type (Yamnaya or CWC derived)



1. Albanians are not part of the cluster. They are north of it.
2. Albanians carry Slavic admixture
3. Once stripped of this Slavic admixture proto-Albanians are in big part a Mycenean like people, with other more "northern" IA Balkan contributions.
4. What modern day Slavic admixed Albanians are is far from irrelevant (here you use Albanians as some sort of indication of ancestry based on location of modern day Albanians when it isn't even clear what Albanians are descended from, Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians, Paeonian related Dardanians etc.).



But they carry alot more of Slavic auDNA, 20-25 %. These two are not necessarily related to each other. In fact often they aren't. Southern Albanians also carry alot more Slavic Y-DNA. In Ghegs tribal divisions has caused the bottleneck effects which increased the number of non-Slavic Y-DNA.

No they dont, each individual carries a different amount in autosomnal. There is absolutely zero chance any north albanian carries over 20% south slavic, only an exotic rare kosovo albanian would have that much

How can you give more priority to autosomnal when its a bunch of nonsense based on historical guesses. Y dna is how you determine who is actually related to who and overall based on modern testing albanians carry very little south slavic y dna. Tribal divisions didnt increase the number of non slavic y dna it stopped their and everyone elses intrusion, not sure why you word it like some sort of excuse. They purposely didnt want anything to do with south slavs. It would be interesting to know where youre from by the way

As for j2b found in ancient croatia, it predates illyrians by hundreds of years. We need more ancient dna in 800bc - 200ad to confirm what illyrians carried

Riverman
09-02-2021, 09:22 PM
From the research group of Viminacium:


Numerous Early Iron Age finds, which were obtained after a series of excavation
in the near past, originate from the area of Viminacium. Those finds are primarily represented
by potsherds and metal artifacts, while remains of architecture such as economic or
residential buildings and graves, were recorded to a lesser degree. Finds belonging to the
first phase of the Early Iron Age, i.e. the transition between the 2nd and the 1st millennium
BC, are attributed to the bearers of the Channeled pottery culture (Belegiš II-Gava culture).
The finds originate from the enclosed contexts, the so-called ꞌꞌritual pitsꞌꞌ at the site
of Pećine,1 in which those were recorded together with the pottery of the Dubovac-Žuto
Brdo culture. The finds attributed to the Belegiš II-Gava culture have also been recorded
at the site of Drmno-Lugovi (black-burnished and channeled pottery and one fibula of the
ꞌꞌPeschiera typeꞌꞌ).2 Out of numerous sites in the wider area of Mlava and Danube confluence,
on which the Early Iron Age pottery was recorded, we highlight the site of Selište
on the right bank of the former course of Mlava River, and the site of Rudine, located in
Viminacium itself.3 These sites should be complemented with the sites of Obala Dunavca,
Čair, and Drmno-Lugovi.4 The younger phases of the Early Iron Age are registered at the
sites of Stari Kostolac-Mali Grad, Pećine and Drmno Nad Lugom.5 The collection of finds
which originate from the wider area of the Braničevo District indicate the intensification
of settlement in that area during the 1st millennium BC, and a certain cultural continuity
which is confirmed by finds from all of the phases of the Early Iron Age: the Transitional
period, the penetration of the Channeled pottery culture, early phase of the Bosut culture
(Kalakača, Basarabi), and the Rača-Ljuljaci cultural group, followed by the first settling of
Celtic populations during the 4th century BC.6

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338655388_EARLY_IRON_AGE_HORIZON_AT_THE_SITE_OF_NA D_KLEPECKOM

This is as good as direct evidence for Channelled Ware people. These are their descendents, at least on the paternal side. Because according to the records from above, as well as the archaeological context, we know that whereever they went, they took local women as their wives, and they often had more than one per man. Those of their elite were buried in princely graves with at least one of their favoured wive (widow death). In the early phase, just like with Corded Ware or Indo-Aryans, they didn't give women rich burials or no burials at all. In my opinion, this is more common in newly founded ethnicities by male warbands, in which a lot of the women in the community were of foreign descent. This is evident from Austria (Frög Eastern Hallstatt, widow death in elite burials), to Dardanians (suggested widow death).
When they settled down and the differences between males and females were no more and they came under the influence of the Etruscan and Greek world, they started to give women more jewelry, there were hoards with jewelry, and also female rich, elite burials. But this just started about 150-300 years after their expansion in some regions!

After reading that article, I think its done, that's as good as having tested Belegiš II-Gáva and Bosut-Basarabi itself, because these are their direct, paternal descendents.

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 10:05 PM
If you want to talk about history instead of actual dna, how do you explain this?

Based on the archaeological findings, the history of the Triballi can be divided in four periods: Proto-Triballian (1300–800 BC), Early Triballian (800-600 BC), Triballian (600–335 BC) and period from 335 BC until Roman conquest.[6]

In 424 BC, they were attacked by Sitalkes, king of the Odrysae, who was defeated and lost his life in the engagement.[7] They were pushed to the east by the invading Autariatae, an Illyrian tribe; the date of this event is uncertain.

Yet there has never been a historical mention of thracians invading and pushing illyrians west, why?

Bane
09-02-2021, 10:19 PM
Yet there has never been a historical mention of thracians invading and pushing illyrians west, why?

Probably Illyrians where a rulling class which together with the land got other people too (Thracians).

Riverman
09-02-2021, 10:20 PM
If you want to talk about history instead of actual dna, how do you explain this?

Based on the archaeological findings, the history of the Triballi can be divided in four periods: Proto-Triballian (1300–800 BC), Early Triballian (800-600 BC), Triballian (600–335 BC) and period from 335 BC until Roman conquest.[6]

In 424 BC, they were attacked by Sitalkes, king of the Odrysae, who was defeated and lost his life in the engagement.[7] They were pushed to the east by the invading Autariatae, an Illyrian tribe; the date of this event is uncertain.

Yet there has never been a historical mention of thracians invading and pushing illyrians west, why?

Actually, a large portion of the conquest by Illyrians and Daco-Thracians happened parallel. They surely fought with each other, but there was going a borderline directly through the Central Balkan. Both did, roughly in a similar time span, eliminate and assimilate (often by just taking the women) the local Bronze Age cultures, which were still dominated by Neolithic and Yamnaya lineages respectively. You could compare it with the French and the British both conquering and settling North Eastern America. So their primary target, the primary "victim" of their expansion was not Illyrian or Daco-Thracian, respectively, but the largely unknown people which lived there before.
You have them in the Pannonian study, in the Bulgarian and Serbian Mokrin study. These were the people which lived there before they came.
Also, where they did push each other, most of it happened in prehistory. There are no written records about any of this, except for the Sea people and some migrations in the course of the Bronze Age collapse. When the historical records started, you are right, some Illyrian groups pushed the Daco-Thracians or assimilated large parts of them. One possible example would be the Dardanians, which were, in all likelihood, a fused Illyrian - Daco-Moesian people.

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 10:52 PM
Actually, a large portion of the conquest by Illyrians and Daco-Thracians happened parallel. They surely fought with each other, but there was going a borderline directly through the Central Balkan. Both did, roughly in a similar time span, eliminate and assimilate (often by just taking the women) the local Bronze Age cultures, which were still dominated by Neolithic and Yamnaya lineages respectively. You could compare it with the French and the British both conquering and settling North Eastern America. So their primary target, the primary "victim" of their expansion was not Illyrian or Daco-Thracian, respectively, but the largely unknown people which lived there before.
You have them in the Pannonian study, in the Bulgarian and Serbian Mokrin study. These were the people which lived there before they came.
Also, where they did push each other, most of it happened in prehistory. There are no written records about any of this, except for the Sea people and some migrations in the course of the Bronze Age collapse. When the historical records started, you are right, some Illyrian groups pushed the Daco-Thracians or assimilated large parts of them. One possible example would be the Dardanians, which were, in all likelihood, a fused Illyrian - Daco-Moesian people.

"Although the Thracians originally occupied territory as far west as the Adriatic Sea, they were driven eastward by the Illyrians in approximately the 13th century B.C. The Thracians cultivated land and raised livestock, especially horses. They also engaged in mining and metalworking and made pottery. By the early Iron Age, that is, the first half of the first millennium B.C., the dissolution of the primitive communal system had begun, and slavery had been introduced. The process of class formation proceeded with particular intensity among the southeastern group called the Odrysae."

If thracians predated illyrians in western balkans it is still possible j2b or r1b z2103 (more likely) is actually a thracian line as these have been found prior to 1300bc in western balkans

With that is is likely illyrians were north of thracians prior to pushing them east and then mixed with thracian women which as always makes a mess of autosomnal results

Riverman
09-03-2021, 12:03 AM
"Although the Thracians originally occupied territory as far west as the Adriatic Sea, they were driven eastward by the Illyrians in approximately the 13th century B.C. The Thracians cultivated land and raised livestock, especially horses. They also engaged in mining and metalworking and made pottery. By the early Iron Age, that is, the first half of the first millennium B.C., the dissolution of the primitive communal system had begun, and slavery had been introduced. The process of class formation proceeded with particular intensity among the southeastern group called the Odrysae."

If thracians predated illyrians in western balkans it is still possible j2b or r1b z2103 (more likely) is actually a thracian line as these have been found prior to 1300bc in western balkans

With that is is likely illyrians were north of thracians prior to pushing them east and then mixed with thracian women which as always makes a mess of autosomnal results

The first problem of that idea is that Daco-Thracians did not predate the Illyrians in all likelihood, but they came later or about the same time. At 1.300 BC their first vanguard just reached the Balkan in larger numbers. You can observe the transition in Brnjica for example. There is no way J2b can be the original Proto-Thracian and for R-Z2103 chances are slim also, because that's an EBA Yamnaya clade for the most part. The main haplogroups which wlll be associated with Daco-Thracians are E-V13 before anything else, then most likely R1a (Eastern) and R1b (Northern, Unetice-Bell Beaker related). It depends on whether there was a Pre-Gava stage in which E-V13 was not yet dominant or not. I think such a stage did not exist for Pre-Gava and they became dominant when the culture was formed, which is about 1.600-1.400 BC in the Northern Carpathians (especially South Eastern Slovakia and North Western Romania).
The impact of the Channelled Ware horizon was so big, that it must have resulted in an ethnic shift. So if they wouldn't be the Proto-Thracians, there would be a need for an even later group having brought the language! But that's highly unlikely, especially since most of Channelled Ware tradition persisted, with alterations, up into historical times. When the first historical records mention the Daco-Thracian tribes, the archaeological culture shows still the persistence of Gava-derived traditions. But those from earlier times, with some regional exceptions, were no more. The only culture uniting the whole sphere is Channelled Ware. Nothing before, nothing afterwards.

vettor
09-03-2021, 12:51 AM
"Although the Thracians originally occupied territory as far west as the Adriatic Sea, they were driven eastward by the Illyrians in approximately the 13th century B.C. The Thracians cultivated land and raised livestock, especially horses. They also engaged in mining and metalworking and made pottery. By the early Iron Age, that is, the first half of the first millennium B.C., the dissolution of the primitive communal system had begun, and slavery had been introduced. The process of class formation proceeded with particular intensity among the southeastern group called the Odrysae."

If thracians predated illyrians in western balkans it is still possible j2b or r1b z2103 (more likely) is actually a thracian line as these have been found prior to 1300bc in western balkans

With that is is likely illyrians were north of thracians prior to pushing them east and then mixed with thracian women which as always makes a mess of autosomnal results

true that the thracians where on the Adriatic Sea ........but only around modern Montenegro area.

vettor
09-03-2021, 12:54 AM
No they dont, each individual carries a different amount in autosomnal. There is absolutely zero chance any north albanian carries over 20% south slavic, only an exotic rare kosovo albanian would have that much

How can you give more priority to autosomnal when its a bunch of nonsense based on historical guesses. Y dna is how you determine who is actually related to who and overall based on modern testing albanians carry very little south slavic y dna. Tribal divisions didnt increase the number of non slavic y dna it stopped their and everyone elses intrusion, not sure why you word it like some sort of excuse. They purposely didnt want anything to do with south slavs. It would be interesting to know where youre from by the way

As for j2b found in ancient croatia, it predates illyrians by hundreds of years. We need more ancient dna in 800bc - 200ad to confirm what illyrians carried

don't we already know from the two Croatians/Dalmatians papers in august that the bulk of Illyrians where G2a2 ............

vettor
09-03-2021, 12:58 AM
The first problem of that idea is that Daco-Thracians did not predate the Illyrians in all likelihood, but they came later or about the same time. At 1.300 BC their first vanguard just reached the Balkan in larger numbers. You can observe the transition in Brnjica for example. There is no way J2b can be the original Proto-Thracian and for R-Z2103 chances are slim also, because that's an EBA Yamnaya clade for the most part. The main haplogroups which wlll be associated with Daco-Thracians are E-V13 before anything else, then most likely R1a (Eastern) and R1b (Northern, Unetice-Bell Beaker related). It depends on whether there was a Pre-Gava stage in which E-V13 was not yet dominant or not. I think such a stage did not exist for Pre-Gava and they became dominant when the culture was formed, which is about 1.600-1.400 BC in the Northern Carpathians (especially South Eastern Slovakia and North Western Romania).
The impact of the Channelled Ware horizon was so big, that it must have resulted in an ethnic shift. So if they wouldn't be the Proto-Thracians, there would be a need for an even later group having brought the language! But that's highly unlikely, especially since most of Channelled Ware tradition persisted, with alterations, up into historical times. When the first historical records mention the Daco-Thracian tribes, the archaeological culture shows still the persistence of Gava-derived traditions. But those from earlier times, with some regional exceptions, were no more. The only culture uniting the whole sphere is Channelled Ware. Nothing before, nothing afterwards.

According to scholars from Cambridge university .............Celtic, Italic and Illyrian where all one unit before splitting apart circa 2400BC .......this unit/group resided between the northern-Balkans and central-Europe

Riverman
09-03-2021, 01:29 AM
According to scholars from Cambridge university .............Celtic, Italic and Illyrian where all one unit before splitting apart circa 2400BC .......this unit/group resided between the northern-Balkans and central-Europe

Unetice - Tumulus Culture - Urnfield. All three of this major cultural formations were interconnected and in part descend from each other. Its about founder effects and local assimilations which caused massive shifts. One could explain it like surfing on a cultural-replacement wave. Both J-L283 might have been close before, and they came close afterwards. They were, however, surfing on different cultural waves so to put it. J-L283 with Southern Tumulus, E-V13 with South Eastern Urnfield/Gava and Eastern Hallstatt. Just like R1a was going with Corded Ware, obviously.

Kelmendasi
09-03-2021, 10:10 AM
don't we already know from the two Croatians/Dalmatians papers in august that the bulk of Illyrians where G2a2 ............
The samples you are referring to were not related to the Illyrians but rather belonged to the pre-Illyrian and even pre-Indo-European cultures of the area such as the Sopot culture and southern variation of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture (successors of Neolithic males). The only published male sample obtained from Croatia that may have belonged to a culture that took part in the formation of the Illyrians is I4331 under J2b-Z38240 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/) which likely was from the Posušje culture. Then there are the Daunian samples under J2b-L283, R1b-M269 and R1b-M269>Z2103.

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 11:05 AM
The first problem of that idea is that Daco-Thracians did not predate the Illyrians in all likelihood, but they came later or about the same time. At 1.300 BC their first vanguard just reached the Balkan in larger numbers. You can observe the transition in Brnjica for example. There is no way J2b can be the original Proto-Thracian and for R-Z2103 chances are slim also, because that's an EBA Yamnaya clade for the most part. The main haplogroups which wlll be associated with Daco-Thracians are E-V13 before anything else, then most likely R1a (Eastern) and R1b (Northern, Unetice-Bell Beaker related). It depends on whether there was a Pre-Gava stage in which E-V13 was not yet dominant or not. I think such a stage did not exist for Pre-Gava and they became dominant when the culture was formed, which is about 1.600-1.400 BC in the Northern Carpathians (especially South Eastern Slovakia and North Western Romania).
The impact of the Channelled Ware horizon was so big, that it must have resulted in an ethnic shift. So if they wouldn't be the Proto-Thracians, there would be a need for an even later group having brought the language! But that's highly unlikely, especially since most of Channelled Ware tradition persisted, with alterations, up into historical times. When the first historical records mention the Daco-Thracian tribes, the archaeological culture shows still the persistence of Gava-derived traditions. But those from earlier times, with some regional exceptions, were no more. The only culture uniting the whole sphere is Channelled Ware. Nothing before, nothing afterwards.

I am not talking about daco thracians though, i am talking about the original thracians which actually lived in western balkans before illyrians pushed them east. Daco thracians are mentioned 1 thousand years later to thracians in western balkans. With that it is possible that illyrian y dna is found among daco thracians whos ancestors were pushed east previously

It is not possible to conclude which y dna illyrians carried since the data we currently have from western balkans greatly predates illyrians

Northern Adriatic
09-03-2021, 11:08 AM
why we mentioning this...of course Venetian republic took in many different ethnic people ........they had German merchant families for over 700 years living in Venice, they had Greeks, Albanians, Croats, french, Swiss, English, dutch , aragonese, Catalans, Portuguese etc.................is it relevant to the discussion?
Every monarchy or republic took in other ethnicities ..............I am at odds what you are trying to get at..............is it that albanians are some super race?

The numbers you speak about are irrelevant

what Venice held , 8 years before napoleon attacked Venice
https://i.postimg.cc/zv3KtQ3X/Venice-1789.png (https://postimg.cc/D4kSmBqt)
Again OT... used the neutrality of Venice to pass through it to attack the Austrians. However when the French soldiers misbehaved as occupiers and the Venetian population and soldiers reminded them that they were tolerated guests and not occupiers, they've used the huge advantage of already being inside the Republic of Venice (in strategic locations as Verona) to "attack" it from within.

A fatal mistake from the Republic of Venice. Even bigger the mistake if we consider that despite its diplomacy was still one of the best in the world, at the Congress of Wien re-establishing the Venetian State was dismissed as an option because it was a Republic and not a Kingdom. Or at least that's the excuse they've used; the Austrians at the time were happy to become dominant in the Adriatic sea through the absorbtion of Venice and Dalmatia and to connect its dominion of Milan, Modena, Tuscany through the Serenissima.

A fatal mistake by Austria itself that sparked a huge nationalistic response from the occupied lands (with, as a result, 3 wars against Italian States, France, Prussia + Italians allied with France, Britain and the US in WW1) and, a bit more in topic, changed the landscape of Dalmatia for ever (bringing the first big migrations of Venetians from the Oriental Adriatic which wasn't included in the Regno Lombardo Veneto, making it a goal of ultra-nationalists to eventually reconquer those lands and creating a big conflict of interest between South Slavs and Italians nationalists). Shame, because from Trieste to Dulcigno we could have a multicultural area with influxes from Italians (Venetians), South Slavs (Croatians first, but also Slovenians, Serbs, Montenegrini), Germanics (Austrians) and Albanians too.

And we would've probably avoided, among many tragedies, the destruction of Zara/Zadar too.

Riverman
09-03-2021, 11:17 AM
I am not talking about daco thracians though, i am talking about the original thracians which actually lived in western balkans before illyrians pushed them east. Daco thracians are mentioned 1 thousand years later to thracians in western balkans. With that it is possible that illyrian y dna is found among daco thracians whos ancestors were pushed east previously

There is no evidence for Thracians before the transitional period, when the Channelled Ware people conquered Eastern Pannonia, the Central Balkan down to the Aegean and the Eastern Carpathian-Balkan zone from their centre in South Western Slovakia and North Western Romania. The people living in the area before were most likely not even Indoeuropeans, but even if they were, of an unknown IE group which language did not survive to the historical period. The Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian results before Gava/Channelled Ware show predominantely Neolithic and early steppe lineages.
Mokrin for example is in the centre of what later became Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gava in the Central Balkan LBA. There was no E-V13 in the samples. They were no Illyrians, no Daco-Thracians:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89090-x

Its the very same region, just in the EBA, long before Channelled Ware expanded into it. We also have samples from Pannonia in the MBA, so directly before Channelled Ware expanded into much of Pannonia, and again, no E-V13.


It is not possible to conclude which y dna illyrians carried since the data we currently have from western balkans predates illyrians

Concerning the yDNA of Illyrians, we surely don't have the full spectrum of their variability yet, so nobody can't say whether Illyrians did indeed harbour some E-V13 early on. But then again, the samples we have from Croatia and Italy point to J-L283, not E-V13. And the distribution in both antiquity and modern times mirrors the Channelled Ware people and their descendents, not Illyrians. Also, Illyrians are clearly closer related to the local Hügelgräber/Tumulus Culture groups than the cremating cultures. Especially not with Gava/Channelled Ware.

peloponnesian
09-03-2021, 11:21 AM
That's the biggest problem right now in my opinion. As most studies are focusing on "cosmopolitan" Roman cities, we get to learn about fascinating migration stories from places as far as East Africa, but we learn very little about the local populations which are actually representative of the demographic history of the Balkans.

There was a recent paper on a rural Imperial Roman cemetery outside of Rome and they also turned out to be East Med-like. I haven't seen any proof that the rural populations were not impacted by the East Med shift in the long term. And for Italy at least, this impact is seen in every modern individual from South and Central Italy. So I don't buy this theory of "migrants that left no genetic trace" in the Roman Empire and I'm puzzled by the paper characterising it as a "veneer" (sensitive about European/Italian sensibilities?).

We'll see if it was any different in the Balkans, but the Balkan BA + Slavic models don't work for modern Balkanites, we know that already.

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 11:24 AM
The samples you are referring to were not related to the Illyrians but rather belonged to the pre-Illyrian and even pre-Indo-European cultures of the area such as the Sopot culture and southern variation of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture (successors of Neolithic males). The only published male sample obtained from Croatia that may have belonged to a culture that took part in the formation of the Illyrians is I4331 under J2b-Z38240 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/) which likely was from the Posušje culture. Then there are the Daunian samples under J2b-L283, R1b-M269 and R1b-M269>Z2103.

Algeria 1700bc, Italy 1700bc, Norway 1600bc, Portugal 1300bc?

Looking at the data we have now not sure how you can claim this line is definitely illyrian, it doesnt match the expansion of illyrians. Looks more like a sea traveller - possibly phoenician?

"In the twelfth century B.C., Phoenicians arrived on the west coast of the Iberian Peninsula in search of metals and founded trading posts at Cádiz, Málaga, and Seville. They traded with the peoples of the interior, taking out silver, copper, and tin and bringing in eastern trade goods."

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 11:48 AM
There is no evidence for Thracians before the transitional period, when the Channelled Ware people conquered Eastern Pannonia, the Central Balkan down to the Aegean and the Eastern Carpathian-Balkan zone from their centre in South Western Slovakia and North Western Romania. The people living in the area before were most likely not even Indoeuropeans, but even if they were, of an unknown IE group which language did not survive to the historical period. The Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian results before Gava/Channelled Ware show predominantely Neolithic and early steppe lineages.
Mokrin for example is in the centre of what later became Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gava in the Central Balkan LBA. There was no E-V13 in the samples. They were no Illyrians, no Daco-Thracians:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89090-x

Its the very same region, just in the EBA, long before Channelled Ware expanded into it. We also have samples from Pannonia in the MBA, so directly before Channelled Ware expanded into much of Pannonia, and again, no E-V13.



Concerning the yDNA of Illyrians, we surely don't have the full spectrum of their variability yet, so nobody can't say whether Illyrians did indeed harbour some E-V13 early on. But then again, the samples we have from Croatia and Italy point to J-L283, not E-V13. And the distribution in both antiquity and modern times mirrors the Channelled Ware people and their descendents, not Illyrians. Also, Illyrians are clearly closer related to the local Hügelgräber/Tumulus Culture groups than the cremating cultures. Especially not with Gava/Channelled Ware.

Except it was illyrians who cremated https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japodian_burial_urns

And

"In the Iron Age, during the late 6th and early 5th century BC, the increase in cremation graves in the Glasinac culture has been interpreted as a possible collapse of the tribal structure which led to changes in the prevailing religious beliefs.[150] The shift from inhumation to cremation is thought to be an evidence of the arrival of new people from the north.[151] In fact, cremation became a more common rite among northern Illyrians, while inhumation persisted as the dominant rite in the south.[152] The gradual transition from the rite of cremation to that of inhumation during the Roman period can be interpreted as a sign of greater concern for the afterlife.[152] The rich spectrum in religious beliefs and burial rituals that emerged in Illyria, especially during the Roman period, is an indicator of the variation in cultural identities in this region."

According to this people from the north (illyrians) moved down and practised cremation - the southern people referred here seem unrelated

Bruzmi
09-03-2021, 11:50 AM
There is no evidence for Thracians before the transitional period, when the Channelled Ware people conquered Eastern Pannonia, the Central Balkan down to the Aegean and the Eastern Carpathian-Balkan zone from their centre in South Western Slovakia and North Western Romania. The people living in the area before were most likely not even Indoeuropeans, but even if they were, of an unknown IE group which language did not survive to the historical period. The Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian results before Gava/Channelled Ware show predominantely Neolithic and early steppe lineages.
Mokrin for example is in the centre of what later became Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gava in the Central Balkan LBA. There was no E-V13 in the samples. They were no Illyrians, no Daco-Thracians:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89090-x

Its the very same region, just in the EBA, long before Channelled Ware expanded into it.

Concerning the yDNA of Illyrians, we surely don't have the full spectrum of their variability yet, so nobody can't say whether Illyrians did indeed harbour some E-V13 early on. But then again, the samples we have from Croatia and Italy point to J-L283, not E-V13. And the distribution in both antiquity and modern times mirrors the Channelled Ware people and their descendents, not Illyrians.



It is not possible to conclude which y dna illyrians carried since the data we currently have from western balkans predates illyrians

We have:
- 1 MBA J2b-L283 sample from Dalmatia.
- 3 IA J2b-L283 from Daunia.
- 3 Roman era J2b-L283 from eastern Dardania.
- 3 Roman era E-V13 from eastern Dardania.
-Viminacium is a Roman construction, so we'll see from the published files what posible origins individuals there had
-I-M223 has been found in Sopot culture and Daunia, but further analysis is required for definite conclusions.

We have very few samples, but the same is true about the territories of Thrace and Dacia

All Paleo-Balkan groups are attested in IA ancient Greek texts, but they existed before that era. Ancient Greek texts refere to events which include Paleo-Balkan people before the EIA. The conflict which involved Troy happened around 1300-1200 BC and Thracians are mentioned in the Iliad, so Thracians were a well-established people in historical Thrace before the LBA. This is also attested archaeologically. The people who constituted the core Thracian-speaking population already lived in Thrace and were numerous.

The Dynamics of Isolation and Interaction in Late Bronze Age Thrace (https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10042028/1/Nenova_10042028_thesis_volume1_redacted.pdf)


The Iliad contains the very first known historical record of the indigenous inhabitants of Thrace, where the “Thracians” are defined as allies of the Trojans against the Greeks, “all those whom the strong stream of the Hellespont encloses” (II.844 ff.; cf. X.434; Boardman et al. 1970: 836). The earliest real documentation of interaction with Thrace comes with the beginning of Greek colonisation in the area (Theodossiev 2011). Greek and Roman texts contain essential information and provide an observer’s insight into the distinctiveness of Thrace. What is thought-provoking is that here, as well as in the works of some seminal Classical Greek authors, the term “Thrace” is used to describe an area located to the north of Ancient Greece, but in fact they do not address the territory per se, but rather its human population (Boardman et al.
1970: 53).

https://i.ibb.co/bmqvPhM/LBA.jpg


Cremation and inhumation practices are also not a good indication for population movements because more often than not they were cultural practices which were adopted or abandoned from time to time:


LBA tumuli are the earliest burials of this type in the Rhodope Mountains. They are usually combined in groups, with from 2 to 20 contemporary burial mounds in a single
cemetery. It seems also noteworthy that there is a considerable degree of topographic continuity with later periods like the IA and Roman, resulting in the accumulation of
tumuli (sometimes up to 200 mounds) in large cemeteries. Furthermore, cremation, which is typical of the LBA, is almost entirely replaced by inhumation at the beginning
of the EIA. In Upper Thrace, on the other hand, the opposite trend is observable: LBA inhumation dies out with the end of the period and is replaced by cremation in ‘knobbed’ urns.


Thracians were already there. If E-V13 entry in Thrace is a transitional era development, then by defintion it's not of Thracian origin. On the other hand, we don't know the exact sources of E-V13 in modern Bulgaria, nor its pre-Roman distribution in that country. We'll have to see for results from more sites to see what represents a broader phenomenon and what an isolated. If someone tested just the site where J2b-L283 was concentrated in Sardinia, we would think today that it was a significant part of EIA Sardinia. By the way, the new study in Croatia found no J2b-L283, so even though early testing showed J2b-L283 in Dalmatia, newer testing somewhats limits its presence in the region.

It has become a cliche, but in my opinion we should hypothesize less and wait for more studies.