PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

vasil
11-06-2021, 01:48 PM
Interesting rumours from this thread:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24962-50-replacement-in-GB-Patterson-et-al-in-review&p=813756&viewfull=1#post813756



Where do you people get those rumours from? I'm missing them all the time... ;)
Anyway, what's Eastern Gáva supposed to mean? Do they mean the expansive Eastern Holigrady branch which extends into Moldova and the Dnister river basin?

If they would find additional E-V13 in the Eastern branch and the later Geto-Scythians, that would be spot on for the proof for a Gáva origin of all E-V13, which is so difficult because they usually cremated. A find from a cave could have been tested:



https://books.google.de/books?id=mIoFEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

Such finds in Verteba also point to the Northern Carpathians as the home of E-V13 within Lengyel and Tripolye-Cucuteni, transitioning into Epi-Corded, which had more Neolithic admixture in the region, and from there over Unetice, South Eastern Tumulus group in the Carpathians to South Eastern Urnfield (= Gáva and Kyjatice plus all their descendents in the Channelled Ware horizon).

We already have E from Tripolye so that could be it. It would be great if we could see some older samples tested again with newer methods.

Riverman
11-06-2021, 02:41 PM
We already have E from Tripolye so that could be it. It would be great if we could see some older samples tested again with newer methods.

I'm not sure, we will see.

Very interesting paper on how Hallstatt was influenced from the Pontic and Carpathian region, the major influences especially from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi:


The exceptional role of the Danube for European prehistory is known, latest since Childe’s „The Danube in Prehistory“. Since the Neolithic, people, things and ideas have either followed the river upstream to the west or downstream to the east. This contribution investigates the significance of the Danube route around 800 B.C. as Caucasian type harnesses, image representations and iron metallurgy more or less simultaneously spread throughout Central Europe. After ca. 800 B.C. and the nonpictoral Bronze Age, the sudden appearance of figural depictions of scenes in a particular cannon and similar style cannot be explained as the result of independent developments. At the same time, iron metallurgy was gradually becoming more known in Central Europe. The oldest examples, associated with the preceding European Urn Field Culture are to be found in the area around the Black Sea and from Transylvania. The oldest known iron smelting place in Central Europe at the Waschenberg, around 40 km south of the Danube in Austria, was equipped with pit ovens and bellows injectors, whose typological relations but chronological predecessors are to be found in western Georgia. The question as to the role of the Danube in the expansion of an age-naming innovation has become relevant. The simultaneous appearance of harnesses and other Caucasian type material culture, pictoral representations and iron metallurgy in the Danube region requires an investigation from a circumpontian perspective (translation by A. Metternich B.A.).


Halten wir fest: In den Jahrzehnten um 800 v. Chr., die in Mitteleuropa eine neue Epoche – die Eisenzeit – einläuteten, unterhielten „die Kulturgruppen im Karpatenbecken nicht nur untereinander, sondern auch mit entfernteren Regionen wie Venetien, Nordostböhmen, dem ukrainischen Vorkarpatengebiet und der unteren Donau enge Kontakte“ (Pare 1998, 427). Vom Schwarzen Meer bis ins Wiener Becken verliefen diese Kontakte entlang der Donau, welche als europäische Ost-West-Achse für die Weitergabe epochemachender Impulse bis nach Bayern sorgte, wobei Nebenflüsse wie Theiß, Drau oder Naab als Divertikel die Verbindungen auch seitwärts führen konnten. Vom Nordkaukasusvorland über Bulgarien bis Bayern und Baden-Württemberg liefen die Bahnen, auf denen sich nicht nur die Trensenknebel vom Typ Kamyševacha (Metzner-Nebelsick 2005, Abb. 4), sondern auch die in einem bestimmten Kanon figürlich verzierten Tongefäße entlang der Donau verbreitet haben.
Zur selben Zeit, als sich zusammen mit der Form des Kegelhalsgefäßes dieser Figurenstil zwischen unterer Donau und Bayern verbreitet hat, ist in Mitteleuropa nach und nach auch die Eisentechnologie bekannt geworden. Liegt es da nicht nahe, nach dem Weg zu fragen, auf dem die Kenntnis der Eisenmetallurgie nach Mitteleuropa gelangt ist?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331432514_Von_Basarabi_bis_Bayern_Die_Donau_als_Ac hse_zwischen_Pontikum_und_Mitteleuropa_wahrend_der _Hallstattzeit

Along the Danube, right into Central Europe and from there on westwards. Also the close relationship of Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi, which definition he sometimes criticises, being stressed. Clearly this was one larger sphere of cultural communication and possible common ancestry, from Psenichevo all the way to the Upper Danube. Similar finds from Baden-Wuerttemberg to Turkish Thrace, from Poland to the Veneti.
The connections between the Carpathian sphere and Southern Germany, Northern Italy, are so clear, that its unthinkable without at least individuals being on the move, which spread the technologies, style and knowledge.

Dorian9
11-06-2021, 04:07 PM
If I was well-versed in genetic softwares and statistics guys I would try to look for possible unique allele or a combination of them that could correlate with E-V13 expansion(or maybe a more basal or deeper E?) that could act as a signal that a population carries it even in samples(speaking of ancient ones) that don't belong to it. I'm not sure if anything like that is possible because that would assume that carriers of E-V13 will have a greater correlation with the signal than carriers of other haplos which probably doesn't happen ,that such signal exists or that it survives instead of getting diluted.
But I was thinking you would need to have a lot of E-V13 samples from the countries with the highest frequencies down to the low ones in remote areas and compare them not only with each other but along with other subpopulations of each country that share common ancestry with those that carry it but don't share the haplo or there's a big difference in their frequency.

rafc
11-06-2021, 04:41 PM
Can you tell us what is dark-green and what is flashy-green?

Dark green is 3000-2000, flashy-green 2000-1000. Source: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837

rafc
11-06-2021, 04:55 PM
Interesting rumours from this thread:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24962-50-replacement-in-GB-Patterson-et-al-in-review&p=813756&viewfull=1#post813756



Where do you people get those rumours from? I'm missing them all the time... ;)
Anyway, what's Eastern Gáva supposed to mean? Do they mean the expansive Eastern Holigrady branch which extends into Moldova and the Dnister river basin?

If they would find additional E-V13 in the Eastern branch and the later Geto-Scythians, that would be spot on for the proof for a Gáva origin of all E-V13, which is so difficult because they usually cremated. A find from a cave could have been tested:



https://books.google.de/books?id=mIoFEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

Such finds in Verteba also point to the Northern Carpathians as the home of E-V13 within Lengyel and Tripolye-Cucuteni, transitioning into Epi-Corded, which had more Neolithic admixture in the region, and from there over Unetice, South Eastern Tumulus group in the Carpathians to South Eastern Urnfield (= Gáva and Kyjatice plus all their descendents in the Channelled Ware horizon).

V13 in Verteba would be astonishing. There was a CCT sample in Verteba that was M78. I speculated (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=750201&viewfull=1#post750201) before that this sample might have been L618, and that CCT might have been the homeland (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=724906&viewfull=1#post724906) of V13, and that the expansion of the 3d millenium BC would have taken place in a post CCT-culture near the Carpathes. If V13 is found in Gava in that same Vertaba cave that would fit incredibly well.

Edit: I got a bit ahead of myself, the Gava-Verteba is not claimed to be V13.

Riverman
11-06-2021, 05:55 PM
Another highlight from the paper mentioned before. There are strong similarities in the form and visual depictions in the pottery, its style, techniques and scenes within the Basarabi-Hallstatt time frame, one piece from Nova Zagora, Bulgaria, the other from a tumulus in Schirndorf, Kallmüntz, Bavaria:
https://www.postleitzahl.org/bayern/kallm%C3%BCnz/schirndorf/
In between are similar finds in Sopron, Western Hungary:

Zwischen Schirndorf und Nova Zagora liegen über 1.300 km Luftlinie. Dazwischen liegt, in Mähren, der westlichen Slowakei, dem Osten Österreichs und Nordwestungarn, das Gebiet der Kalenderberg-Gruppe. Ein Kegelhalsgefäß, dessen Bruchstücke zusammen mit anderen zerschlagenen Gefäßen die Beigaben einer Urnenbestattung in Grabhügel 170 von Sopron-Várhely bildeten (Patek 1982, 138–140), trägt als Dekor mehrere aus schraffierten Dreiecken zusammengesetzte Superdreiecke. Punktlinien können das Superzeichen umrahmen (Abb. 2). Ein solches, von Punktlinien gesäumtes Superdreieck ist anhand der angefügten Beizeichen –Arme, Beine, kreisrunder Kopf – als menschliche Figur zu identifizieren. Auf diese Darstellungsart passt L. Nebelsicks treffendes Adjektiv „subfigürlich“ (Nebelsick 1992, 404). Die Soproner Figur nimmt dieselbe Haltung ein wie diejenigen aus Nova Zagora und Schirndorf. Die ikonographischen und stilistischen Übereinstimmungen sind groß genug, um Zufall auszuschließen. Konvergenz ist unwahrscheinlich: Die Analogien sind solcher Art, dass sie nicht überzeugend als Ergebnis unabhängiger Entwicklungen erklärt werden können. Grab 170 vertritt in Pateks Stufengliederung der Burgstall-Nekropole die Stufe IV. „Menschen- und Tierdarstellungen in Ritztechnik sind charakteristisch für die Phasen III–V“ (Patek 1982, 164), d.h. ebenfalls für die Stufen Ha C1b und Ha C2.

Google translate:

There are over 1,300 km as the crow flies between Schirndorf and Nova Zagora. In between, in Moravia, western Slovakia, eastern Austria and northwestern Hungary, lies the area of ​​the Kalenderberg Group. A conical neck vessel, the fragments of which, together with other broken vessels, formed the additions of an urn burial in burial mound 170 of Sopron-Várhely (Patek 1982, 138–140), is decorated with several super-triangles composed of hatched triangles. Dotted lines can frame the supersign (Fig. 2). Such a super triangle, lined with dotted lines, can be identified as a human figure by means of the attached symbols - arms, legs, circular head. L. Nebelsick's apt adjective “subfigural” fits this type of representation (Nebelsick 1992, 404). The Sopron figure adopts the same posture as those from Nova Zagora and Schirndorf. The iconographic and stylistic similarities are large enough to rule out coincidence. Convergence is unlikely: the analogies are such that they cannot be convincingly explained as the result of independent developments. In Patek's graded structure of the Burgstall necropolis, grave 170 represents level IV. "Depictions of people and animals in scratching technique are characteristic of phases III-V" (Patek 1982, 164), i.e. also for levels Ha C1b and Ha C2.

Many of these figurative depictions being seen the earliest in Gáva related sites and seem to have spread from Transylvania West within Urnfield, but even more so with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, firmly established with the Hallstatt culture. Especially in the Eastern Hallstatt groups Frög and Kalenderberg, but also reaching into Western Hallstatt territory, as can be seen.
This was no ethnic replacement further West, in the Western Hallstatt sphere, but rather a trickling in of individuals and small groups. About the Western and Eastern spheres of Hallstatt:


An dieser Stelle will ich mit wenigen Worten verdeutlichen, wie ich die Begriffe Westhallstattkultur, Kalenderberggruppe und Basarabikultur verstanden wissen will.
Unter Westhallstattkultur verstehe ich mit anderen jene von Ostfrankreich bis Schlesien verbreitete Kultur, deren Akteure während der Periode Ha C, im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr., die Schwertbeigabe geübt haben. Unter Osthallstattkultur verstehe ich die im Ost- und Südostalpenraum bis Slowenien und ins südliche Transdanubien verbreitete Kultur, wo mit Beginn der Periode Ha C die Schwertbeigabe ausläuft und als Nahkampfwaffe wie im östlichen Ober- und Mittelitalien das Beil beigegeben wird (Stary 1982). Ich folge W. Reinhard, der innerhalb der Schwertgräber-Koiné anhand der vorherrschenden Körperbestattung, des meist links getragenen Armrings, der Rasiermesserbeigabe und der geringen Anzahl der beigegebenen Gefäße eine West- von einer Ostprovinz unterscheidet (Reinhard 2003 39 f. Abb. 17; 18). Die Gräber im württembergischen und bayerischen Donaugebiet gehören alle zur Ostgruppe der Westhallstattkultur, wo die Brandgrabsitte herrscht, wo statt des Rasiermessers die Pinzette beigegeben wird und wo oftmals große Geschirrsätze ins Grab gegeben werden.
Die am Nordostalpenrand verbreitete Kalenderberggruppe gehört zur Ostprovinz der Westhallstattkultur. Sie wird geprägt durch die vorherrschende Brandbestattung in Brandgruben- oder Kammergräbern, die Beigabe von kleinen tönernen Feuerböcken, den sog. Mondidolen, und von Tongefäßen mit Warzen- und Leistenzier – sog. Kalenderbergware (Nebelsick et al. 1997, 20). In Frauengräbern findet sich die „Kalenderberg-Trias“ aus Feuerbock (Mondidol), Fußschale und Doppelgefäß (Teržan 1986, 228). Dazu gesellen sich Gefäße mit typischen Basarabi-Ornamenten (Nebelsick et al. 1997, 72 f. Abb. 25).
Problematisch ist der von A. Vulpe geprägte Begriff der Basarabikultur. Einzig definierend ist im Grunde die dunkle Keramik mit geglätteter Oberfläche und weiß inkrustierter Ritzverzierung, wie sie in der Nekropole von Basarabi, jud. Dolj (Dumitrescu 1968), später auch in Serbien, etwa in der Mehrperiodensiedlung „Gradina na Bosut“ bei Vašica (Tasić 1971; Medović 1978) zum Vorschein gekommen war (Vulpe 1986, 49–51). Hauptmotive sind S-Hakenbänder, Malteserkreuze und Spiralbänder; eine typische Gefäßform ist die Schale mit einwärts gebogenem, facettiertem Rand. Es handelt sich also um eine Keramikgruppe, die aus der stempelverzierten Keramik der Art Babadag II / Pšeničevo hervorgegangen ist. Ihr Kerngebiet soll nach A. Vulpe von der Vojvodina im Westen (BosutIIIb) bis ins südliche Moldawien im Osten, von Siebenbürgen im Norden bis an die Donau im Süden reichen (Vulpe 1986, 68 f. Abb. 19).
Die ältere Forschung war nicht nur in diesem Fall geneigt, eine bestimmte Tongefäßware, die in einem bestimmten Stil verziert ist, für die Hervorbringung einer bestimmten Kultur zu halten. Sie fühlte sich zu der Folgerung berechtigt, dass überall, wo diese Ware verbreitet war, dieselbe Gesittung zugrunde gelegen haben wird. Für die Basarabikeramik dürfte das aber kaum zutreffen. Denn abgesehen davon, dass C. Metzner-Nebelsick auf die regional unterschiedliche Kombination von Gefäßformen und Ziermustern aufmerksam gemacht hat (Metzner-Nebelsick 1992, 364; 369 f.), finden wir sie in Gebieten mit unterschiedlichem Totenritual. Sie kommt in Hügeln mit Rückenstreckerbestattungen ebenso vor wie in Brandgräbern, und südlich der Donau kennen wir sie unter anderem aus den Megalithgräbern Thrakiens.
Selbst wenn geläufige Kartierungen der Fundorte mit Basarabi-Keramik nördlich der Stara Planina enden, gibt es genügend Belege für den Basarabistil auch in Thrakien. Das gilt auch für den türkischen Teil der Region (Czyborra 2001, Taf. 30). Eine Wandscherbe aus Sülüklü Mevkii scheint sogar Arm und Kopf einer „Adorantenfigur“ zu tragen (Czyborra 2001, Fundort Nr. 345, Scherbe Nr. 4).

Google translate:


At this point I want to clarify in a few words how I want to understand the terms Westhallstatt culture, Kalenderberg and Basarabi culture.
By West Hallstatt culture I understand with others that culture spread from Eastern France to Silesia, whose actors during the period Ha C, in the 8th and 7th centuries BC. Who have practiced the gift of swords. By Osthallstattkultur I understand the culture that is widespread in the east and south-eastern Alps as far as Slovenia and southern Transdanubia, where swords are no longer used at the beginning of the Ha C period and the ax is added as a close combat weapon, as in eastern Upper and Central Italy (Stary 1982). I follow W. Reinhard, who distinguishes a western from an eastern province within the sword grave Koiné on the basis of the predominant body burial, the arm ring mostly worn on the left, the razor addition and the small number of added vessels (Reinhard 2003 39 f. Fig. 17; 18 ). The graves in the Wuerttemberg and Bavarian Danube region all belong to the eastern group of the West Hallstatt culture, where the cremation grave custom prevails, where tweezers are added instead of the razor and where large sets of dishes are often placed in the grave.
The Kalenderberg, which is widespread on the north-eastern edge of the Alps, belongs to the eastern province of the West Hallstatt culture. It is characterized by the predominant cremation in fire pits or chamber graves, the addition of small clay firebucks, the so-called moon idols, and clay vessels with warts and groin decorations - so-called calendar ware (Nebelsick et al. 1997, 20). In women's graves the “Kalenderberg triad” made up of a firebuck (Mondidol), a foot bowl and a double vessel (Teržan 1986, 228) can be found. These are joined by vessels with typical Basarabi ornaments (Nebelsick et al. 1997, 72 f. Fig. 25).
The term Basarabikultur, coined by A. Vulpe, is problematic. The only defining thing is basically the dark ceramics with a smooth surface and white incrusted incised decoration, as it is in the necropolis of Basarabi, jud. Dolj (Dumitrescu 1968), later also in Serbia, for example in the multi-period settlement “Gradina na Bosut” near Vašica (Tasić 1971; Medović 1978) (Vulpe 1986, 49–51). The main motifs are S-hook straps, Maltese crosses and spiral straps; A typical vessel shape is the bowl with an inwardly curved, faceted rim. It is therefore a ceramic group that emerged from the stamped ceramics of the Babadag II / Pšeničevo type. According to A. Vulpe, its core area should extend from Vojvodina in the west (BosutIIIb) to southern Moldova in the east, from Transylvania in the north to the Danube in the south (Vulpe 1986, 68 f. Fig. 19).
It was not only in this case that the older research tended to believe that a certain pottery, decorated in a certain style, was the product of a certain culture. She felt she was entitled to conclude that wherever these goods were widespread, the same ethics were the basis. But this is hardly likely to apply to bazaarabik ceramics. Because apart from the fact that C. Metzner-Nebelsick drew attention to the regionally different combination of vessel shapes and ornamental patterns (Metzner-Nebelsick 1992, 364; 369 f.), We find them in areas with different death rituals. It occurs in hills with dorsal burials as well as in cremation graves, and south of the Danube we know it from the megalithic graves of Thrace, among other places.
Even if the usual mapping of the sites with Basarabi pottery ends north of the Stara Planina, there is sufficient evidence for the Basarabi style in Thrace as well. This also applies to the Turkish part of the region (Czyborra 2001, plate 30). A shard of wall from Sülüklü Mevkii even seems to have the arm and head of an "adorant figure" (Czyborra 2001, location no. 345, shard no. 4)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331432514_Von_Basarabi_bis_Bayern_Die_Donau_als_Ac hse_zwischen_Pontikum_und_Mitteleuropa_wahrend_der _Hallstattzeit

This reach of Eastern Hallstatt influences up to Baden-Wuerttemberg is particularly noteworthy in the context of the modern E-V13 distribution up to this region. South of the Frög and Kalenderberg group is the Unterkrainer group of the Eastern Hallstatt sphere, which is more Illyrian influenced:
https://live.staticflickr.com/331/19533839060_e7fd3fb6fa_b.jpg

The Frög and Kalenderberg group could explain why Austria might have been in Celtic and Roman times so E-V13 heavy, because of the strong influences from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi.

Psenichevo-Basarabi is at the moment the safe anchor point for E-V13. These are the groups in E-V13 must have been dominant, regardless of where it was before, more North, more South, whatever. But that's safe. The most likely path is indeed from Gáva, but this needs to be proven. The main spreader to the West was the Basarabi-Hallstatt connection, most definitely.

Riverman
11-06-2021, 07:33 PM
Concerning the Daco-Thracian origin of E-V13 in Viminacium, this was posted on Eupedia:
https://wedaneushome.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/lviic.png
https://wedaneushome.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/lviic.png

If the assignment is correct, the relationship is absolutely clear.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41753-Ancient-DNA-of-Roman-Danubian-Frontier-and-Slavic-Migrations-(Olalde-2021)/page32?p=634383&viewfull=1#post634383

rafc
11-06-2021, 07:53 PM
Concerning the Daco-Thracian origin of E-V13 in Viminacium, this was posted on Eupedia:
https://wedaneushome.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/lviic.png
https://wedaneushome.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/lviic.png

If the assignment is correct, the relationship is absolutely clear.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41753-Ancient-DNA-of-Roman-Danubian-Frontier-and-Slavic-Migrations-(Olalde-2021)/page32?p=634383&viewfull=1#post634383

I would still be a bit careful, no-one really wanted to live near Viminacium, Romans typically lived in Colonies further south. Since legion soldiers were often recruited in the same military families many members of the legion came from these colonies. It doesn't necessarily mean that they had the ethnicity of the region where the colony was situated.

Riverman
11-06-2021, 07:56 PM
I would still be a bit careful, no-one really wanted to live near Viminacium, Romans typically lived in Colonies further south. Since legion soldiers were often recruited in the same military families many members of the legion came from these colonies. It doesn't necessarily mean that they had the ethnicity of the region where the colony was situated.

Yes, but I'm pretty confident simply because of the total frequency and how close they seem to be, as far as downstream information is available. That looks like a solid block of Balkan Iron Age inhabitants, not like a bunch of mercenaries and legionaries from somewhere else. If even the colonies from which the auxiliaries came from are that clear, and the whole districts around Viminacium are clear cases anyway, there is not much alternative. Even if Celts and Illyrians came to the area too, this is really a central point and stronghold for Daco-Thracians in the region, from Belegis II-Gáva.

Riverman
11-06-2021, 10:21 PM
About the Ligurians, I found this to be interesting:

In the early Iron Age, the
probable tomb of the chariot of Rocca delle Fene shows a
typical ritual area Hallstatt (Egg, Pare 1998), but also
widely available starting from VII century BC in
villanovian central Italy, and in Golasecca (Camerin,
1998). The presence of an “antennas” type sword, clearly
from transalpine area, suggests more of a warrior coming
from Hallstatt area. The tomb is almost contemporary of
the necropolis of Albenga and the most intense period of
the necropolis of Chiavari. This could be explained by the
coming and death in Liguria coming from a warrior chief
from Alpine area, which could be supported by the
presence of depictions of “antennas” type swords on
some of statue stelae of eastern Liguria, a case that would
not insulated. The reasons for this are, however, came
subject to different interpretations: military expedition,
the contraction of marriage, mercenary.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337893868_BETWEEN_ETRUSCAN_GREEKS_AND_CELTS_CHANGE MENT_IN_THE_GOOD_GRAVES_OF_THE_LIGURIAN_IRON_AGE_N ECROPOLIS

So they had elite warriors, some of which came probably directly from the alpine or transalpine area of Hallstatt. This is quite important because its got clear that the Eastern Hallstatt sphere being heavily influenced by Basarabi, especially the Frög and Kalenderberg group, but even beyond, down into Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria and in Italy at strong influences to the Veneti.
Would be interesting to know how common such warrior graves and weapons were in other parts of Northern Italy.

Riverman
11-06-2021, 11:03 PM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321539476/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Map-of-Danube-River-basin-and-Tisza-River-sub-basin-Source-authors-using-data-from.png
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321539476/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Map-of-Danube-River-basin-and-Tisza-River-sub-basin-Source-authors-using-data-from.png

Actually its the Tisza basin exclusively and you see that Gáva originate upwards, at the triangle of Slovakia-Hungary-Romania. From there they moved down the Tisza basin, this is exactly the pathway from the core to the Belegis II-Gáva expansion group. Probably its just chance, but major early central points, like Lăpuș were Gáva was probably "born", and high elites lived, with many well-equipped warriors, were early deserted, or much reduced in importance. It almost looks as if they "were gone." That's probably similar to what we see from some Germanic tribes, like the Langobards and Gepids: We have the archaeological record, we see them settling in Transylvania, Pannonia, Noricum - then they were largely gone, only rests remained.

And now the interesting part is, just down the Tisza basin, at the crossing of the Danube and Tisza, suddenly, largely out of nothing, new huge fortified settlements pop up, like Corneşti-Iarcuri, about which I wrote already, its highly important in this context:


The fortification in Cornesti, Timisoara - the largest prehistoric citadel that is known to archeologists so far

Interesting video about this huge fortified town which was part of the Gáva expansion (its relationship is clear, as the articles I posted before about Corneşti-Iarcuri prove):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxR_24bRtms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxR_24bRtms

https://www.imperialtransilvania.com/read-more/argomenti/places-of-interest-1/articolo/the-fortification-in-cornesti-timisoara-the-largest-prehistoric-citadel-that-is-known-to-archeolo.html

Its truly huge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qDdSs5eG_E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qDdSs5eG_E

Compare:

Three samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from burnt beams belonging to the
later construction. The results provide a clear indication of construction between 1450 and
1200 cal BC (Table 1 and Figure 9) combined to give a construction date of 1393–1314 (at
68.2% probability), and 1411–1270 (at 95.4%) (Figure 10).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273293618_Cornesti-Iarcuri_-_A_Bronze_Age_town_in_the_Romanian_Banat

It wasn't the only one. In my opinion whole tribes and especially elites with their warriors were on the move. They moved from regions of the relative North, like Maramureș down. This was right at the transition from the late Bronze to the Iron Age. The elite and people of Lăpuș lived from mining copper and probably even tin, as well as gold. They produced huge amounts of bronze weapons, sold them to much of Europe and some ended in extremely big and rich hoards. Their tumuli were among the biggest of their time and covered the entries to their valleys. They were also among the first to mass produce iron weapons and I think that's part of the reason behind this. They had first introduced improved Naue II slashing swords, and soon afterwards started to make them out of iron. They had close ties with the Mycenaean world, some of their warriors were sent there as mercenaries and later they joined the ranks of the Sea People. But their chiefs or even kings in the Carpathians still lived from the mines and bronze.
At the very transition, this seems to have resulted in a very dynamic and volatile environment and clearly, some tribes seem to have moved southward.

rafc
11-07-2021, 06:43 PM
This is the 4 V13's from the Patterson paper on a G25 ancient PCA, I highlighted some interesting samples. I speculated before that I18832 might be something Norhtern Balkan/Central European from Roman times, and it seems this is confirmed. The sample appears to plot in the 'Balkan IA cline' from the Olalde paper. It also seems the 3 other samples are something completely different:

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

rafc
11-07-2021, 07:06 PM
This is the same, but with all the J2b samples added. What is remarkable is that they all cluster in a relative small space, while the V13's are far apart, 2 V13's are to the left of all J2b, one V13 is to the right of all J2b. I marked the Slovenian IA J2b in yellow. I4998 also seems to belong to the 'Balkan IA cline'.

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

Riverman
11-07-2021, 09:18 PM
In my opinion the E-V13 expansion happened with different modes, to the West rather with elite warriors, specialists, especially artisans like smiths and potters, probably even priests and the retinue this rather higher social ranks had. To the South and East it was more a male dominated conquest. So in both cases, the E-V13 incoming individuals from Channelled Ware did mix early and heavily with local women, which means they quickly became autosomally whatever was typical for the region. Just in their primary domains, they are supposed to have a bigger impact autosomally. This would mean regions like the Banat/Vojvodina in particular, with its Belegis II-Gáva centres. Already to their South with groups like Paraćin down to Greece, they became more mixed. Its even visible in the record for areas like Brnjica, that it was no sudden full scale replacement anywhere. This usually means, even if most male lineages got replaced, what doesn't have to be, that they took local women, rather.

If this is correct:

I14465 E1b1b1a1b1a20~ E-BY4643
I16272 E1b1b1a1b1~ E-FGC11422*(xZ36787,BY5793,BY6349,FGC14093,L250,Y164 02,Z36882,S20250,A11798,Z36778)
I18527 E1b1b1a1b1~ E-FGC11422*(xL17,A2192,L252,Y17722,A783,S20250,Z2135 5,Z36778)
I18832 E1b1b1a1b1a E-PF2211*(xL17,BY4642,BY5791,BY6349,FGC14100,L250,Y1 6402,SK888,Z37880,Z21355,Z42778)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6496-Map-of-ancient-E-samples&p=812508&viewfull=1#post812508

It is quite interesting that I14465 is where I'd say Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt should plot. This would be really like "E-V13 on the move", considering that his closest relatives yDNA wise ended up in Scandinavian Vikings and British Celts.

The J2b's largely plot where expected, in the Pannonian-Illyrian and Eastern Hallstatt variation.

Modern variation:

Looks older, probably a Corded Ware - Neolithic mix?
Target: Celtic_paper:I14465
Distance: 2.6253% / 0.02625307 | R5P
50.6 Sardinian
37.2 Lithuanian_VA
12.2 Abkhasian

Definitely Celtic-like:
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 2.1904% / 0.02190421 | R5P
40.4 Orcadian
37.8 Lithuanian_PZ
20.0 Spanish_Soria
1.8 Australian

Target: Celtic_paper:I18527
Distance: 1.8709% / 0.01870861 | R5P
33.6 Basque_French
24.0 Spanish_Menorca
21.4 Lithuanian_SZ
17.6 Bulgarian
3.4 Roma_Balkans

Clear Balkan affinity:
Target: Celtic_paper:I18832
Distance: 2.7806% / 0.02780560 | R5P
55.6 Albanian
19.2 Greek_Laconia
18.8 Sardinian
6.4 Spanish_Soria

I also did my classic basic run for the Antiquity, and again, this is a clear Hallstatt/Celtic-like individual:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I18527
0.03613966 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.05726453 DEU_MA
0.06119596 CZE_Early_Slav
0.07741727 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
0.12529365 ITA_Rome_Imperial

This one is quite close to Germanics:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.03721365 DEU_MA
0.04632402 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.05023861 CZE_Early_Slav
0.12162772 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA

Not close to anyone - the sample with the subclade which ended up in the North, but probably very old (Epi-Corded - Neolithic?):
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I14465
0.06022000 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
0.06463709 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.08812298 CZE_Early_Slav
0.09048243 DEU_MA

In detail, we have two highly mixed more Balkan like, one probably more ancient, the other more recent, one Hallstatt/Celtic and one Germanic with Slavo-Celtic admixture probably:

Old sample (?), probably from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere:
Target: Celtic_paper:I14465
Distance: 3.5719% / 0.03571851
36.2 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
28.6 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
17.6 CZE_Early_Slav
17.6 ITA_Rome_Imperial

Germanic:
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 3.1456% / 0.03145579
46.2 DEU_MA
28.6 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
25.2 CZE_Early_Slav

Hallstatt/Celtic:
Target: Celtic_paper:I18527
Distance: 2.2138% / 0.02213783
51.2 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
24.8 CZE_Early_Slav
14.4 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
8.6 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.8 Berber_Tunisia_Chen
0.2 Yoruba

Newer Balkan:
Target: Celtic_paper:I18832
Distance: 3.4567% / 0.03456743
46.8 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
38.0 ITA_Rome_Imperial
15.2 CZE_Early_Slav

I know that the North European PCA is not always ideal, but I prefer it for making some comparisons, even with more Southern shifted groups. Note where they plot:

https://i.ibb.co/Jr97pT6/E-V13-British-Study-comments.jpg

https://ibb.co/XFqs5P0

I think its quite likely that they being separated by a lot in space and time. The oldest might be I14465, which, if his assignment is correct, lineage ended up quite early in the Centre and North of Europe, with relatives moving on to British Celts.

Pribislav
11-07-2021, 10:17 PM
I14465 is Y27158- C>G (1C), so not even CTS1273.

Riverman
11-07-2021, 10:39 PM
I14465 is Y27158- C>G (1C), so not even CTS1273.

Thank you. This would make an earlier sample even more likely. Probably its really the oldest sample.

Pribislav
11-07-2021, 11:09 PM
Thank you. This would make an earlier sample even more likely. Probably its really the oldest sample.

He clusters near some Mokrin, Vatya and new J2b2a samples, so if I had to guess he's likely EBA/MBA, probably somewhere from/near Pannonian basin. A real shame he has such a low coverage.

Riverman
11-07-2021, 11:28 PM
He clusters near some Mokrin, Vatya and new J2b2a samples, so if I had to guess he's likely EBA/MBA, probably somewhere from/near Pannonian basin. A real shame he has such a low coverage.

That's fitting, because like Mokrin he is steppe (Yamnaya/Corded Ware + Neolithic). I think its a fairly recent admixture, otherwise his modern admixture and distance would be different.
The question is whether its just a similar mixture or from the same context. Both is possible.
In any case, since you agree about the age and context, this might be the most important E-V13 sample found so far.

XXD
11-08-2021, 09:07 AM
This is the same, but with all the J2b samples added. What is remarkable is that they all cluster in a relative small space, while the V13's are far apart, 2 V13's are to the left of all J2b, one V13 is to the right of all J2b. I marked the Slovenian IA J2b in yellow. I4998 also seems to belong to the 'Balkan IA cline'.

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

Would you be so kind to post here the coords of all the E-V13 and J2b samples?

Bruzmi
11-08-2021, 10:25 AM
It is quite interesting that I14465 is where I'd say Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt should plot. This would be really like "E-V13 on the move", considering that his closest relatives yDNA wise ended up in Scandinavian Vikings and British Celts.

The J2b's largely plot where expected, in the Pannonian-Illyrian and Eastern Hallstatt variation.


You have to compare them with contemporaneous samples to get a useful reading, otherwise you'll get overlapping results.

Comparison to the EBA:

Target: I14465
Distance: 2.2577% / 0.02257737 | R4P
40.2 HRV_EBA
25.8 HRV_Vucedol
18.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
15.8 HUN_Mako_EBA

Target: I16272
Distance: 2.1907% / 0.02190742 | R4P
50.0 DEU_Singen_EBA
26.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
19.6 CZE_EBA
4.4 HRV_EBA

Target: I18527
Distance: 1.9084% / 0.01908428 | R4P
39.6 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
25.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
18.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
17.0 HRV_EBA

Target: I18832
Distance: 2.3839% / 0.02383929 | R4P
37.2 SVK_EBA
29.4 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
27.6 GRC_Helladic_EBA
5.8 HRV_Vucedol


For 2/4 E-V13, there is a certain placement within the western Balkan (Illyrian-Pannonian) cluster. The other two have other types of admixtures with an interesting HRV_EBA-like component, but then again they were migrants in another region so we don't really know what impacted their admixture during migration.

https://i.ibb.co/jyNSfN6/pca10.png

I really don't see how E-V13 won't primarily be associated with an expansion from the northwestern Balkans-Pannonian sphere based on these results.

Riverman
11-08-2021, 10:46 AM
I really don't see how E-V13 won't primarily be associated with an expansion from the northwestern Balkans-Pannonian sphere based on these results.

Well, if you say Pannonian, I'm fine, but it might go all the way to the Northern Carpathians with a centre in the Upper Tisza in particular. Its quite obvious that E-V13 in the Balkans first moved down the Tisza basin and that's exactly the movement of Gáva/Channelled Ware. Additionally, if you talk about ancients, you can't know how far similar autosomal genetic profiles were spread in the EBA-MBA and how much of the later autosomal profile of E-V13 carriers might be attributed to their mixture in situ, with local women they picked up.

The fits with moderns are quite telling, because I14465 is very likely indeed to have been EBA-MBA. The others might be significantly younger. Note he is the only one which gets a good regional composition from the regional elements, even with something surely involved in or picked up by Gáva, like Mako.

I18527 and I18832 are more difficult to place, they could be older (LBA) or younger (historical era). I made my bet (Hallstatt/Daco-Pannonian and provincial Roman, but could as well be Daco-Thracian).

Its very obvious, even from these few results, that the E-V13 males bred within different groups, like expected, after their initial dispersal and took local women. That means they will shift in whatever direction the region was before. The question is which is their true, original core component, but that might be quite tricky from the start, since Gáva and the region they expanded was fairly mixed from the start.

If I16272 is more recent, then he is just Germanic with Celtic and Slavic drift and that's where he plots, close to modern Central-Eastern Germans. But if he is from the Bronze Age instead, this would be a bomb:
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 1.5592% / 0.01559189 | R4P
38.0 CZE_Unetice_EBA
33.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
15.8 DNK_MN_B
13.2 Baltic_LVA_BA

But if he is ancient, the closest matches are similar to what Kyjatice got, so very Northern, his top matches are astonishing and highly important:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.02587514 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA
0.03152717 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA
0.03196382 VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA
0.03197782 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA
0.03221041 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
0.03254794 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA
0.03268734 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA
0.03319641 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA
0.03365558 DEU_Tollense_BA
0.03409277 VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA
0.03418643 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA
0.03432919 CZE_Unetice_C
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA
0.03486488 DEU_Unetice_EBA
0.03508099 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA
0.03531730 Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale
0.03604838 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA
0.03642078 VK2020_IRL_Dublin_VA
0.03648861 SWE_Ollsjo_BA
0.03665115 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA
0.03698556 VK2020_RUS_Gnezdovo_VA
0.03721365 DEU_MA_Baiuvaric

Because Füzesabony being an Epi-Corded/Unetice influenced group which lived in Pannonia, was replacing older layers of Otomani culture and were among the first to introduce typical ceramical elements of the Channelled Ware groups. They were later pushed to the Upper Tisza by the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture, and were probably very influential in the formation of Piliny, out of which Kyjatice and Gáva were in part formed, first with the very South Eastern Tumulus groups, later the starting of the Urnfield.
So if this unusual sample is old, it would be from the very Northern Gáva core and similar, but not the same, to BR2.

His closest matches individually:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.02790839 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.02882703 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
0.03163005 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK279
0.03163068 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036
0.03166446 VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK98
0.03174322 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK296
0.03179878 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531
0.03202261 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK443
0.03212158 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ22
0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA:I7949
0.03272543 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ12
0.03352056 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512
0.03373542 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK301
0.03373685 CZE_Unetice_EBA:I5044
0.03418326 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK275
0.03469065 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK433
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA:VK170
0.03501533 CZE_Unetice_preC:KNE003
0.03511269 VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK547
0.03519606 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK290
0.03520666 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK145
0.03526154 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK508
0.03547614 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK294

So he can be just Germanic with Celto-Slavic admixture or if he is older, if he is really dating to the Bronze Age, he would be from the Gáva core or even up North, most likely from Uneticians and Füzesabony(-Otomani). So his age is really, really crucial.
Thanks for pointing that out, because I missed before that he is THAT CLOSE to Uneticians and Füzesabony-Otomani, that would be huge if he is older.

Distribution of Füzesabony, right at the later core zone of Kyjatice-Gáva at the Upper Tisza basin:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katharina-Rebay-Salisbury/publication/249748421/figure/fig2/AS:[email protected]/Distribution-of-the-Encrusted-Ware-Vatya-and-Fuezesabony-Cultures.png
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katharina-Rebay-Salisbury/publication/249748421/figure/fig2/AS:[email protected]/Distribution-of-the-Encrusted-Ware-Vatya-and-Fuezesabony-Cultures.png


The landscape of the north-
eastern part of Hungary and south-east Slovakia, the setting for the Füzesabony
Culture, is again quite different. The highest mountains of Hungary are found
here in the foothills of the Carpathians along the Slovakian border. In the early
stages of the Füzesabony Culture, the valley of the river Hernád, north of the
Tisza-Bodrog confluence, seems to be an important centre. Later, the Füzesabony
Culture expanded south along the Tisza to the Körös, remaining mainly on the
left bank of the Tisza. In Middle Bronze Age II, the Füzesabony Culture almost
reached the Danube near Budapest and became a neighbour of the Vatya
Culture (Bóna 1975:146)


Füzesabony probably developed as a
successor to the Koštany Culture with influences from Hatvan and Otomani.


Bronze industry
flourished and is well documented by finds of moulds from sites such as Tiszafüred,
Tószeg and Füzesabony, including several moulds for heart-shaped pendants and
pins (Meier-Arendt 1992:198–199). In this region, a large quantity of decorative
bronzes has been found as hoards and in graves; these bronzes include objects to dec-
orate the person, such as pendants, small plates, and arm and leg spirals. The spiral
dominates the shape of the objects themselves and they can be highly decorative, at
the same time the surfaces of objects such as weapons are richly engraved with the
same spiral motifs. This motif is mirrored in the pottery, which is of a high quality,
well burnished and of elaborate shape.

They produced Channelled Ware (among the first in the Bronze Age!) and had a focus on metal working:

https://i.ibb.co/HDJHV6F/Landscapes-of-the-Dead-p57.jpg

https://ibb.co/27bkyxn

There are clear lines of tradition directly from them to Gáva.

It had on some sites a smooth transition from inhumation to cremation:


Cremation and inhumation burials share a number of common characteristics.
Addressing them merely as an opposing set of concepts therefore misses potentially
important similarities in the wide range of practices involving the body. For example,
the placing, orientation, and composition of objects as well as the body in graves 24
and 35 from Streda nad Bodrogom (Füzesabony Culture) are almost identical (Fig. 4).
Grave 35 is an inhumation with the body placed on the left side with the head to the
west. The rectangular pit of grave 24 is oriented the same way, but it contained a cre-
mation, which was similarly placed to the west of the pottery. In both cases the pot-
tery was placed at the ‘feet’. In addition, the set of pottery was organized similarly in
both graves, with a jug placed inside the bowl and a small cup, completing the set,
placed with the body (Polla 1960:311, 314, 353)

But overall inhumation prevailed, as well as this custom:


. A remarkable feature of the Füzesabony cemeter-
ies is the presence of so-called ‘symbolic graves’ (e.g. Streda nad Bodrogom: 9; Gelej:
16). They are usually grave pits similar in size and orientation to the rest of the
graves, and they frequently contain pottery sets, but there are no traces of a body.

https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/honorary/rebay-salisbury/publications-1/Sorensen%20Rebay%202009%20Landscapes.pdf

Füzesabony was in any case close to the Gáva core and had gene flow with it, whether it was the origin itself or not.

Bruzmi
11-08-2021, 11:15 AM
Well, if you say Pannonian, I'm fine, but it might go all the way to the Northern Carpathians with a centre in the Upper Tisza in particular. Its quite obvious that E-V13 in the Balkans first moved down the Tisza basin and that's exactly the movement of Gáva/Channelled Ware. Additionally, if you talk about ancients, you can't know how far similar autosomal genetic profiles were spread in the EBA-MBA and how much of the later autosomal profile of E-V13 carriers might be attributed to their mixture in situ, with local women they picked up.

The fits with moderns are quite telling, because I14465 is very likely indeed to have been EBA-MBA. The others might be significantly younger. Note he is the only one which gets a good regional composition from the regional elements, even with something surely involved in or picked up by Gáva, like Mako.
I16272 on the other hand, such a population didn't exist that early. He surely dates to a later period. He is either Germanic with Celtic and Slavic admixture, like a Germanic from Poland or Czechia, for example, or a Celtic mix from the same region.

I18527 and I18832 are more difficult to place, they could be older (LBA) or younger (historical era). I made my bet (Hallstatt/Daco-Pannonian and provincial Roman, but could as well be Daco-Thracian).

Its very obvious, even from these few results, that the E-V13 males bred within different groups, like expected, after their initial dispersal and took local women. That means they will shift in whatever direction the region was before. The question is which is their true, original core component, but that might be quite tricky from the start, since Gáva and the region they expanded was fairly mixed from the start.

I can maybe see an earlier expansion (not a center) towards central Europe, but I don't see it as a significant one which left a visible impact in the region (we've seen that much of E-V13 in that region represents newer migrations).

I14465 is positioned between MOK J-L283 and the HRV J-L283 cluster which is basically Mokrin + Balkan Neolithic admixture.

I18832 is closest to SCY197 from aDNA samples and typically Balkan (Albanians are the closest population among modern ones).

I18527 is a western-shifted MOK-like individual with some other types of admixture. He's close to the E-V13 from medieval Italy.

I16272 should be from a later era. It's interesting that he's not far from the "Viking" E-V13/J-L283

https://i.ibb.co/7n1bKPm/admx.png
red: E-V13
light green: J-L283

Riverman
11-08-2021, 11:40 AM
I16272 should be from a later era. It's interesting that he's not far from the "Viking" E-V13/J-L283


Well, the era is the real issue, see my edited post above. Thanks again for pushing me to check for alternatives, because such close distance values to Uneticians and Füzesabony are bombastic. Of course, this makes him similar to Germanics, because they too are very similar and partly descend from Uneticians, but that he is that close is really big if he is from the right context.
Because like described above, Füzesabony is among the top candidates for carrying E-V13 or being at least a direct neighbour to the main group. They occupied the Upper Tisza region, from which Kyjatice and Gáva were descending from, the river downwards.

Run with Hungarian samples only:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.04836276 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I4178
0.05063912 HUN_LBA:I20771
0.05320501 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2365
0.05355098 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3529
0.05444726 HUN_LBA:I1504
0.06067116 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2786
0.06395714 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE484
0.06938301 HUN_Mako_EBA:I1502
0.07092779 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3528
0.08941707 HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
0.08962666 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE480
0.09037461 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2787
0.09684574 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE483
0.09698558 HUN_BA:I7043
0.09943624 HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1
0.10079216 HUN_BA:I7040
0.11279229 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE247
0.11493525 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I5015
0.12223336 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364
0.12948504 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7045
0.13020760 HUN_MBA_Vatya_o:RISE479
0.13180524 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044
0.13974116 HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA:I2788

Admixture without La Tene:
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 2.3272% / 0.02327212
38.8 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
34.8 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA
13.6 HUN_Mako_EBA
11.4 HUN_LBA
0.8 HUN_MBA_Vatya
0.6 HUN_Koros_N_HG

So he could be that ancient, he could be from Füzesabony, Piliny, Kyjatice or Northern Gáva. The fit is good and the composition would make sense. Doesn't have to be, could be younger, but its definitely possible.
Very noteworthy is the great distance of this sample and Füzesabony to Mako and Vatya. They have way more Epi-Corded/Unetician admixture, just like BR2 from Kyjatice had too.
If this sample is older, it could be the breakthrough. If not, its not that exciting of course, especially since the subclade couldn't be determined like in the others.

Riverman
11-08-2021, 01:18 PM
Others close to Füzesabony are:

Top:
Celtic_paper:I25525 0.02440513 (H-FT328400) (closest to Polish, plots close in the Germanic-Slavic continuum, still inside German range)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/H-FT328400/
Celtic_paper:I12106 0.02489549 (I-Y199009) (closest to Polish, plots close in the Germanic-Slavic continuum, outside German range)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y199009/
Celtic_paper:I17322 0.02893993 (J-Y16464) (closest to Swedish, 3rd is Polish, plots close in the Germanic-Slavic continuum, outside German range)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y16464/
Celtic_paper:I16272 0.03078742 (E-Z1057 / E-V13) (closest to Austrian and East German, plots in the Germanic-Slavic continuum, solidly in the German range)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z1057/

Also:

Celtic_paper:I7964 0.03253927 (G-M3146)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-M3146/
Celtic_paper:I11719 0.03283871 (H-M6344)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/H-M6344/
Celtic_paper:I18183 0.03398289 (CT)
Celtic_paper:I2448 0.03485399 (R-CTS6919)
Celtic_paper:I15646 0.03490963 (I-S6635)
Celtic_paper:I14188 0.03518577 (R-L2)
Celtic_paper:I5287 0.03563537 (R-Y30815)
Celtic_paper:I13780 0.03566515 (R-YP5267)
Celtic_paper:I14863 0.03593852 (R-L21)

That's a very high fraction of Neolithic yDNA in the top 6 results, especially of haplogroup H, based on the results teapean47 posted:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24962-50-replacement-in-GB-Patterson-et-al-in-review&p=812982&viewfull=1#post812982
Unfortunately some of the results might be not as reliable, since their coverage is rather low.

The top 4 in the Northern European plot:
https://i.ibb.co/pn8SYYJ/F-zesabony-like.jpg

https://ibb.co/CWZfRRh

They are also very close in their basic components:
https://i.ibb.co/XkHPNSm/Screenshot-2021-11-08-150157.jpg

https://ibb.co/tPR6k8y

rafc
11-08-2021, 01:21 PM
I16272 seems to be E-BY34236, he has negatives at BY3880 and CTS5856, making a PH1246 result likely, and no negatives upstream. However, it's only one SNP with one read...
On FTDNA we have Swedish, French and German members in this branch.

peloponnesian
11-08-2021, 01:42 PM
Or maybe most likely: the Celtic warrior elite was so small that they left little genetic impact, despite dominating the area for centuries. I have read that the Scordisi were Celtic, but very small in numbers, and that pretty soon they were basically Illyrians with a Celtic culture.

It's possible Celtic was primarily a cultural phenomenon rather than an ethnic one. I would take ancient Roman and Greek sources that cite impossible population numbers for various barbarian groups with a grain of salt. If Thracians, Scythians and Celts were so numerous as described, surely they'd have left a much bigger genetic impact than what we see.

Riverman
11-08-2021, 01:55 PM
It's possible Celtic was primarily a cultural phenomenon rather than an ethnic one. I would take ancient Roman and Greek sources that cite impossible population numbers for various barbarian groups with a grain of salt. If Thracians, Scythians and Celts were so numerous as described, surely they'd have left a much bigger genetic impact than what we see.

One big problem is that we don't know for every case who was who. Because Alpine Celts might very well have been high in E-V13 too. Who knows. If Eastern Hallstatt was heavily E-V13, Celtic Noricum was too. There might have been tribal differences.
What we know for sure is that Daco-Thracians were high in E-V13, because every Daco-Thracian group and people close to them brought up some E-V13, while it wasn't found in any other people in the Early Iron Age or in similarly high frequencies later.

Some Celtic groups had a lower impact than others, and these Balkan ones had a particularly low because they were no full tribal folk migrations, but rather mercenary and raider alliances. So they were more mixed from the start, than if one tribe was on the move, and they picked up others, surely other women, surely made alliances in the region. What's more, by looking at the crucial area around Viminacium, there was a gradual Latenisation in some areas, which is always a sign for acculturation and a cultural spread - or at least it can be. If the change is abrupt, like in the LBA-EIA in some regions, its much more likely a full scale tribal migration, which was the case with some Channelled/Fluted Ware groups, which presumably spread Daco-Thracian languages.

rafc
11-08-2021, 02:18 PM
I14465 is probably BY14150, he has a positive read for BY34247 and BY34248 (these are next to eachother, so doesn't say a lot), while a CTS5856 equivalent is negative. On FTDNA this group has members from Macedonia, Ukraine, England, Ireland, Germany, Saudi-Arabia, Spain and France.

rafc
11-08-2021, 02:22 PM
For 2/4 E-V13, there is a certain placement within the western Balkan (Illyrian-Pannonian) cluster. The other two have other types of admixtures with an interesting HRV_EBA-like component, but then again they were migrants in another region so we don't really know what impacted their admixture during migration.

I really don't see how E-V13 won't primarily be associated with an expansion from the northwestern Balkans-Pannonian sphere based on these results.

How do you know these people are migrants?

Riverman
11-08-2021, 02:25 PM
I14465 is probably BY14150, he has a positive read for BY34247 and BY34248 (these are next to eachother, so doesn't say a lot), while a CTS5856 equivalent is negative. On FTDNA this group has members from Macedonia, Ukraine, England, Ireland, Germany, Saudi-Arabia, Spain and France.

If that holds, its a pan-European clade of E-V13, not very specific. The Macedonian-Spanish being connected, could be Celtic or Roman era, or Greek colonisation. But there are other subclades all around, but with a strong presence in the Celto-Germanic sphere (British, Irish, French, German).

rafc
11-08-2021, 02:39 PM
If that holds, its a pan-European clade of E-V13, not very specific. The Macedonian-Spanish being connected, could be Celtic or Roman era, or Greek colonisation. But there are other subclades all around, but with a strong presence in the Celto-Germanic sphere (British, Irish, French, German).

I see this BY34247 is also positive in I18832 who is certainly not PH1246, so maybe the SNP isn't very reliable.

Bruzmi
11-08-2021, 03:10 PM
What we know for sure is that Daco-Thracians were high in E-V13, because every Daco-Thracian group and people close to them brought up some E-V13, while it wasn't found in any other people in the Early Iron Age or in similarly high frequencies later.

We don't know that because we have no samples which allow a description of the situation in Thrace or Dacia. We don't even know what the relation between Thracians and Dacians was.

In my opinion, the samples we keep getting, point to a northwestern Balkan-southern Pannonian geographical location very similar to the location of J-L283 in a pre-MBA era.



It's possible Celtic was primarily a cultural phenomenon rather than an ethnic one. I would take ancient Roman and Greek sources that cite impossible population numbers for various barbarian groups with a grain of salt. If Thracians, Scythians and Celts were so numerous as described, surely they'd have left a much bigger genetic impact than what we see.

This might just be the case because linguistically the Celts haven't left much of an impact in regions which they expanded outside their core regions in the Late IA. This wouldn't be something strange in any case. It just shows that antiquity wasn't that different from the modern world. Cultural-political identities rose and then vanished.

Riverman
11-08-2021, 04:00 PM
I did some plots with the cluster of samples which have a small distance to Füzesabony, all 6 from the British paper seem to have Neolithic haplogroups (I, H, E, J, G):
HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772,0.126344,0.132019,0.0641 11,0.060401,0.028928,0.026495,0.00893,0.006692,0.0 10635,-0.01385,-0.001624,-0.004946,0.005649,0.003441,0.010179,0.007558,-0.001825,-0.003927,-0.001006,0.008504,0.008735,0.002349,0.002711,-0.009278,-0.005149
Celtic_paper:I25525,0.124067,0.138112,0.072784,0.0 60724,0.039084,0.022869,0.00423,0.012692,0.007976,-0.009841,-0.000974,-0.003597,0.005946,0.007982,0.001357,0.001458,0.003 39,-0.000507,-0.008673,0.003502,0.006489,0,0.002835,-0.010242,-0.002275
Celtic_paper:I12106,0.12862,0.135065,0.075047,0.06 5246,0.038469,0.023706,0.007285,0.007154,0.006954,-0.018041,0.002436,0.00045,0.003271,0.006881,0.0073 29,0.00358,-0.008214,-0.007601,0.004399,0.006378,0.003743,-0.000618,-0.003821,-0.006507,0.003233
Celtic_paper:I17322,0.12862,0.129988,0.06939,0.070 414,0.036007,0.018686,0.000705,0.007384,0,-0.016948,-0.00747,0.005245,-0.00223,-0.000688,0.01045,0.010342,-0.008996,0.001267,0.000251,0.012506,0.001373,0.001 978,0.001479,-0.005663,-0.002275
Celtic_paper:I16272,0.125205,0.132019,0.062602,0.0 62985,0.041854,0.013945,-0.001175,-0.000923,0.008385,-0.005103,-0.012829,0.00015,0.000595,0.008808,0.012758,0.0059 67,-0.00339,-0.001267,0.000628,0.012631,-0.000499,0.004575,0.000246,-0.003735,-0.00491
Celtic_paper:I7964,0.122929,0.12491,0.056568,0.056 848,0.029236,0.024263,0.003055,0.003,-0.001227,-0.01713,-0.005846,-0.000749,-0.001189,-0.015276,0.018729,0.003182,-0.011213,0.002154,0.000126,0.010505,0.006988,0.002 597,0.001109,-0.001566,-0.003712
Celtic_paper:I11719,0.134311,0.126941,0.071653,0.0 64923,0.045547,0.020917,0.000705,0.008538,0.003886 ,-0.009112,-0.000812,0.00045,-0.000595,0.006744,0.002714,-0.00358,0.002347,-0.00114,0.001634,0.004252,0.015348,-0.00643,0.002958,-0.015062,-0.006347

They all have a similar ratio of basic components:
https://i.ibb.co/Bj0ndj0/F-zesabony-cluster.jpg

https://ibb.co/y5H4G5H

They form a cluster between Germanic and Slavic on every PC:

Northern Europe:
https://i.ibb.co/yWV940B/F-zesabony-cluster-Northern-Europe.jpg

https://ibb.co/f4QgDMG

Europe:
https://i.ibb.co/bX6wfhP/F-zesabony-cluster-Europe.jpg

https://ibb.co/BBfW1Dt

The basic sample itself is primarily Unetice = Epi-Corded/Bell Beaker:
Distance to: HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
0.02876167 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531
0.03025527 CZE_Unetice_C:MIS002.merged
0.03147418 Scythian_UKR:scy009
0.03278466 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352
0.03279856 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.03285587 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036
0.03289312 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512
0.03358343 VK2020_RUS_Gnezdovo_VA:VK273
0.03369533 Bell_Beaker_NLD:I5750
0.03433572 DEU_Unetice_EBA:I0116
0.03437188 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK443
0.03467189 VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK98
0.03484632 CZE_Bilina_BA:I7949
0.03524328 CZE_Unetice_C:MIB034
0.03529345 CZE_Unetice_C:CHL006.merged
0.03551632 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I7249
0.03560907 CZE_Unetice_EBA:I5044
0.03569301 CZE_Unetice_preC:PMI001.A0301
0.03606838 HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1
0.03608917 CZE_Unetice_C:I4892
0.03612679 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK275
0.03615840 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK491
0.03646893 VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK227
0.03661845 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK296
0.03710024 Bell_Beaker_England:I6679

Another interesting aspect: 4 of the 7 samples from this cluster get Scythian_UKR:scy009 as a close match beside the Uneticians and Germanics.

And yet another observation: They don't plot close to Vatya at all, but they do plot between the main cluster of Uneticians and Mako! Assuming there was a mixture of Epi-Corded coming down (like some suggest for Füzesabony, on the base of older Otomani groups) or Uneticians, and they mixed with locals from older Otomani and Mako, that's exactly where we should think they plot:

https://i.ibb.co/BqJcBRy/F-zesabony-cluster-Northern-Europe-Unetice-Mako.jpg

https://ibb.co/2grWdBv


Interestingly, in the Northern European PCA, the cluster also includes for the Unetician/Northern Pannonians around Füzesabony:
Celtic_paper:I13780:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP5267/

That's interesting because its a R-M458, even if the subclade is probably wrong? If its right that would imply a more recent origin for this sample (his distance to Füzesabony is not as good anyway, just similar position on one PCA).

Polska
11-08-2021, 05:05 PM
Have you guys looked into this Virovitice Group as it relates to E-V13’s possible trajectory into the Balkans? It has ties to Eastern Slovenia (I think) with links to Moravia and Slovakia prior to the Balkans. I was just reading about Virovitice in the following paper:

http://av.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/50/AV_50_Dular.pdf

rafc
11-08-2021, 05:18 PM
Would you be so kind to post here the coords of all the E-V13 and J2b samples?

Here you go, I also threw in the R1B-Z2103's, but note that the ones with codes < 1000 are re-sequenced old steppe samples, not newly reported ones.

Sample_name Hg Coords (scaled)
I16272 E1b1b1a1b1~ Celtic_paper:I16272,0.125205,0.132019,0.062602,0.0 62985,0.041854,0.013945,-0.001175,-0.000923,0.008385,-0.005103,-0.012829,0.00015,0.000595,0.008808,0.012758,0.0059 67,-0.00339,-0.001267,0.000628,0.012631,-0.000499,0.004575,0.000246,-0.003735,-0.00491
I18527 E1b1b1a1b1~ Celtic_paper:I18527,0.122929,0.142174,0.04714,0.02 7778,0.042162,0.003068,0.00094,0.004154,0.018612,0 .013303,-0.01494,0.003897,-0.008474,0.001376,-0.004207,-0.003978,0.000913,-0.0019,0.002388,-0.003252,-0.003119,0.004575,-0.000739,-0.012532,-0.007185
I18832 E1b1b1a1b1a Celtic_paper:I18832,0.121791,0.149283,0.019987,-0.024871,0.029852,-0.010319,-0.002585,-0.003,0.009817,0.030433,-0.002598,0.004946,-0.015758,-0.005367,-0.024294,0.002121,0.025295,0.006841,0.008296,-0.007379,-0.016471,0.000618,0,0.008555,-0.001916
I14465 E1b1b1a1b1a20~ Celtic_paper:I14465,0.132035,0.145221,0.041483,-0.004199,0.047393,-0.009761,-0.00564,0.006692,0.01084,0.02041,-0.005196,0.01094,-0.01115,0.00812,-0.009908,-0.009679,0.011995,0.000127,0.006662,0.009379,-0.004243,0.006801,0.000493,-0.021087,-0.001317
I22940 J2b2a1 Celtic_paper:I22940,0.124067,0.152329,0.036581,-0.00646,0.039392,0.002231,-0.001175,0.000692,0.017794,0.034078,0.004709,0.007 343,-0.023042,-0.002752,-0.0038,-0.023203,-0.01356,0.005954,0.006913,-0.000125,-0.006738,0.001731,-0.003451,-0.004217,0.002634
I24345 J2b2a1 Celtic_paper:I24345,0.122929,0.147252,0.064111,0.0 20672,0.035699,-0.021475,0.015746,0.009,-0.001841,0.016401,-0.007795,0.005995,-0.048463,-0.018029,-0.005836,0.001724,-0.028684,0.012542,0.00905,-0.016008,-0.010232,-0.004451,0.003451,-0.009881,0.003592
I5691 J2b2a1a1a~ Celtic_paper:I5691,0.129758,0.146236,0.043369,0.00 6783,0.044008,-0.000837,-0.002585,-0.000231,0.012885,0.028429,0.002761,0.008243,-0.016501,-0.011423,0.002443,-0.001989,0.004433,0.00228,-0.002137,0.002001,0.000374,0.006925,-0.000616,0.001687,0.000239
I26726 J2b2a1a1a1a1a Celtic_paper:I26726,0.121791,0.14319,0.029038,-0.013243,0.024928,-0.000837,-0.006345,-0.006461,0.007772,0.027518,0.013803,0.004796,-0.023191,-0.00289,-0.002172,-0.014452,-0.013951,0.003167,0.013575,-0.008129,-0.003743,0.008656,0.005546,0.003976,-0.000479
I23911 J2b2a1a1a1b~ Celtic_paper:I23911,0.126344,0.140143,0.032432,-0.005814,0.044316,-0.002231,-0.004935,0.002077,0.012271,0.038999,0.000325,0.010 94,-0.012042,-0.007432,0.005157,-0.005701,-0.001565,0.004687,0.011439,-0.004627,0.001872,0.001237,-0.002588,-0.002771,-0.005269
I24638 J2b2a1a1a1b~ Celtic_paper:I24638,0.129758,0.149283,0.033564,0.0 04845,0.038161,0.005857,0.00705,0.010846,0.011453, 0.028793,0.001949,0.011839,-0.020812,-0.008533,0.002172,-0.000796,0.002608,0.008108,0.006662,0.003001,-0.007612,-0.001978,0.002218,-0.012291,-0.003113
I24639 J2b2a1a1a1b~ Celtic_paper:I24639,0.124067,0.149283,0.028284,-0.002261,0.031083,0.000558,0.000705,0.005077,0.007 976,0.022962,0.001299,0.006594,-0.01115,-0.004542,-0.00475,-0.005171,-0.014342,-0.005574,0.004022,-0.005127,-0.0141,0.004822,0.003328,-0.006145,0.005987
I24882 J2b2a1a1a1b~ Celtic_paper:I24882,0.133173,0.146236,0.033941,0.0 01615,0.040931,-0.006972,-0.000235,0.000231,0.002863,0.019135,-0.000325,0.01169,-0.016204,-0.005367,-0.0019,0.00305,0.009257,-0.001014,0.007416,-0.006753,-0.003369,0.008285,0.001972,0.00976,-0.009101
I26742 J2b2a1a1a1b~ Celtic_paper:I26742,0.122929,0.148267,0.024136,-0.010013,0.034776,-0.003068,0.000705,0.000692,0.010431,0.032256,0.004 222,0.006444,-0.024083,-0.012524,-0.006515,0.00358,0.00691,0.00076,0.012947,-0.010255,-0.002496,0.001607,0.00419,0.011447,-0.006826
I4998 J2b2a1a1a1b~ Celtic_paper:I4998,0.118376,0.161469,0.016216,-0.022287,0.034776,-0.009203,-0.003525,0.001615,0.01268,0.028247,0.003573,0.0041 96,-0.019772,-0.008533,-0.010315,0.01074,0.025686,-0.004181,0.003897,0.011881,-0.002496,0.006677,0.007272,-0.000723,-0.008502
I23995 J2b2a1a1a1b2~ Celtic_paper:I23995,0.122929,0.146236,0.026021,0.0 01292,0.036007,0.002231,0.00564,0.000692,0.009204, 0.026242,-0.007795,0.009142,-0.014866,-0.00234,0.000271,0.001458,0.005476,0.007601,0.0084 22,0.004002,0.000125,-0.003215,-0.003574,-0.005061,0.000718
I0371 R1b1a1b1b Celtic_paper:I0371,0.124067,0.097491,0.041483,0.10 9821,-0.022158,0.04769,0.00846,0.000231,-0.050926,-0.067792,-0.002111,-0.003447,0.004906,-0.018992,0.027416,0.005834,-0.011604,0.00228,-0.002514,0.007128,-0.004367,0.003586,0.002095,0.020244,0.002994
I17312 R1b1a1b1b Celtic_paper:I17312,0.126344,0.125926,0.058454,0.0 31654,0.041854,0.016455,-0.004465,0.021691,0.009817,0.003098,0.000325,0.002 098,-0.000743,0.007294,0.007057,0.005436,0.006389,0.011 529,0.013827,0.005002,0.003993,0.009645,-0.007765,-0.001325,-0.002275
I0231 R1b1a1b1b3a Celtic_paper:I0231,0.119514,0.080227,0.043746,0.11 2405,-0.033237,0.053268,0,-0.006231,-0.055017,-0.074717,-0.001949,0.002398,0.003271,-0.023121,0.03203,0.019225,0.007302,-0.00152,-0.002765,0.012256,-0.005241,-0.004328,0.005053,0.011206,0.002754
I0438 R1b1a1b1b3a Celtic_paper:I0438,0.121791,0.085304,0.045254,0.11 9188,-0.030159,0.046854,0.002585,0.001846,-0.063402,-0.077633,0.001949,0.005245,-0.010258,-0.029314,0.030401,0.002121,0.004172,-0.005068,-0.008673,0.018884,0.002121,0.00643,0.014173,0.0231 36,-0.007664
I0440 R1b1a1b1b3a Celtic_paper:I0440,0.127482,0.091398,0.040352,0.11 079,-0.033237,0.045459,0.00705,0.004384,-0.05604,-0.077268,0.002273,0.001199,-0.002973,-0.013074,0.035966,0.005436,-0.011343,-0.005701,-0.010559,0.009505,-0.001747,0.002844,0.012202,0.022533,0.001317
I13467 R1b1a1b1b3a Celtic_paper:I13467,0.124067,0.122879,0.055814,0.0 84303,0.012002,0.032072,0.002585,0.006461,-0.015748,-0.037723,-0.001461,0.002548,-0.011893,-0.010872,0.029044,-0.009281,-0.017471,0.001267,0.003645,0.007128,0.002745,-0.001731,0.003204,0.010242,0.001078
I4996 R1b1a1b1b3a Celtic_paper:I4996,0.132035,0.145221,0.04978,0.022 61,0.044931,0.016176,0.00188,0.005538,0.01718,0.01 4579,-0.005521,0.006294,-0.007582,-0.006606,-0.003257,0.008618,0.002347,0.003041,0.010559,0.000 875,0,0.000866,0.008751,0.004699,0.001078
I14983 R1b1a1b1b3a1 Celtic_paper:I14983,0.127482,0.144205,0.056568,0.0 323,0.042777,0.008367,0.004465,0.004846,0.009613,0 .006743,-0.002923,0.005245,-0.013825,-0.012248,0.008007,0.005304,0.004303,0.003421,-0.002137,0.005628,0.018093,0.014838,0.007272,-0.000482,0.005987
I23207 R1b1a1b1b3a1a Celtic_paper:I23207,0.124067,0.153345,0.047517,0.0 10659,0.048624,0.001116,0.00188,0.001385,0.016362, 0.023508,0.002923,-0.001349,0.001338,0.00578,-0.0095,0.017369,0.02047,-0.003801,0.00264,0.005628,0.00287,0.007543,-0.006902,-0.016629,0.000359
I23209 R1b1a1b1b3a1a Celtic_paper:I23209,0.126344,0.149283,0.036958,-0.006137,0.042777,-0.010319,0.00141,0.001615,0.003272,0.024784,-0.003735,0.006744,-0.014866,-0.005918,-0.012622,0.006762,0.02047,0.001014,0.013198,0.0077 54,-0.010232,0.005935,-0.005423,-0.008917,0.003712

XXD
11-08-2021, 05:56 PM
Thanks so much for sending these samples!

Adamm
11-08-2021, 06:59 PM
Maybe a bit offtopic but a question for the E-V13 people, what is the oldest known sample positive for E-V13 found in Europe and the oldest positive E-V13 sample found outside Europe?

Bane
11-08-2021, 07:15 PM
Maybe a bit offtopic but a question for the E-V13 people, what is the oldest known sample positive for E-V13 found in Europe and the oldest positive E-V13 sample found outside Europe?

The oldest from Europe, SNP confirmed:

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

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68

The oldest one outside of Europe is approximately 5 years old. :) That is because there are no ancient E-V13 sample which are not from Europe.

Riverman
11-08-2021, 07:20 PM
The interesting part is that R1b overlaps with E-V13, but J2b does not, while we actually have J2a samples which do (Kyjatice):

https://i.ibb.co/5R0KQrg/Haplogroups-British-Paper2.jpg

https://ibb.co/NyvT09d

R1B-Z2103 started as pure steppe, became admixed over time, E-V13 started in the middle, between about 75 % Unetice and 25 % Vatya/Mako, going down towards the Balkan on. The starting point could have been Füzesabony-like.

This is even more evident if going by North European PCA:

https://i.ibb.co/D47dStX/Haplogroups-British-Paper.jpg

https://ibb.co/v1J9KH5

This means R-ZZ2103 started as pure steppe in the Bronze Age, E-V13 most likely intermediate (Füzesabony-like) and J2b was picked up in the Pannonian-Carpathian sphere. Note that some E-V13 end up more "Southern" or South Eastern than J2b, because they most likely mixed with Aegean elements early and their starting point is more Eastern, more "Balto-Slavic" like, just like Füzesabony and Kyjatice (BR2) was, because of the more Unetician and Epi-Corded, rather than Bell Beaker heritage.
The more Southern Bell Beaker trend being more pronounced in J2b, the earliest cluster with French (Auvergne, Swiss French).

Scythian_HUN and Scythian_UKR repeat the same variation as does E-V13 and R-Z2103. They completely overlap, they just have some outliers (in the direction of Mako and more exotic) and never reach the Balkan extreme. Scythian_MDA is the same variation, again, but they reach the Southern extreme. Why and how exactly is unknown, could be achieved in multiple ways.

The most interesting part is therefore the possible Northern Pannonian-Carpathian cluster from the Tisza, with Füzesabony. Now what's really interesting about this cluster is that it has ONLY Neolithic and rather exotic lineages:
I2, E-V13, H, G2, J.
This is absolutely striking. Its like a local Lengyel-Baden group, probably even with more Southern influences (Maritime Troy being suggested for J2a in Kyjatice, Aegean) picked up Epi-Corded/Unetice women. Then, from all those lineages, primarily E-V13 survived in the environment of the Tisza basin, within Channelled Ware groups, developed Gáva and expanded in all directions, first at the expense of the other Neolithic-Copper Age lineages.

I checked what BGR_IA is, and its simply an unmixed continuation of BGR_EBA on the same PCA - I know its not well-arranged, but the main point is were all the other Carpatho-Pannonian-Balkan plot and where BGR_IA is:

https://i.ibb.co/zHyqmxN/Haplogroups-British-Paper3.jpg

https://ibb.co/vv70cqD

Its easy to note the extreme position, even in comparison to Vatya and Mako, of BGR_IA. If even just a large portion of the Bulgarian/Lower Danube Fluted Ware groups descended from BGR_IA, let's say the majority of the women and a minority of men, they would already pull the whole Thracians much further South than the Illyrians, which being more influenced by a mix of Southern Bell Beaker-like plus Vatya-like probably. That's also why even the Central Balkan Daco-Thracians will be more Northern, than the Bulgarian Thracians.
The substrate was different!

But I absolutely don't expect the Thracian E-V13 carriers from Psenichevo/Svilengrad to cluster where BGR_IA, but rather where the more "Southern" E-V13 being positioned. Clearly, even if people which were Füzesabony-like would mix with BGR_EBA, they would plot much more South Eastern than all the Daco-Moesians, Illyrians and Pannonians. Even if this would have been a 50 : 50 mix. Just imagine where that would end up between Füzesabony and BGR_EBA.
Thracians are more South Eastern not because of E-V13, but because of the pre-E-V13 substrate effect. The cline in the Iron Age comes therefore more from the old substrate, than from the expanding Daco-Thracians and Pannonian-Illyrians, or Celts. Because as one can see, Vatya and Mako are just very different from the Bulgarian Bronze Age individuals. The only BGR_EBA which plot closer are those with heavy Yamnaya admixture, which existed too (like I2165).

I want to repeat that what the Svilengrad/Psenichevo just have to show, to prove the movement, is that the E-V13 carriers come closer to the Central Balkan samples than the EBA and the singular BGR_IA sample, and that's very likely, in my opinion. Because for being pulled there, they need additional steppe, just like Füzesabony got it.

ShpataEMadhe
11-08-2021, 09:00 PM
It's possible Celtic was primarily a cultural phenomenon rather than an ethnic one. I would take ancient Roman and Greek sources that cite impossible population numbers for various barbarian groups with a grain of salt. If Thracians, Scythians and Celts were so numerous as described, surely they'd have left a much bigger genetic impact than what we see.

Hundreds of thousands of celts moved into central europe, and during that time it would have been huge.

"From the 4th century BC, Celtic groups pushed into the Carpathian region and the Danube basin, coinciding with their movement into Italy. The Boii and Volcae were two large Celtic confederacies who generally cooperated in their campaigns. Splinter groups moved south via two major routes: one following the Danube river, another eastward from Italy. According to legend, 300,000 Celts moved into Italy and Illyria.[1]

By the 3rd century, the native inhabitants of Pannonia were almost completely Celticized.[2] La Tčne remains are found widely in Pannonia, but finds westward beyond the Tisza and south beyond the Sava are rather sparse.[2] These finds are deemed to have been locally produced Norican-Pannonian variation of Celtic culture. Nevertheless, features are encountered that suggest ongoing contacts with distant provinces such as Iberia. The fertile lands around the Pannonian rivers enabled the Celts to establish themselves easily, developing their agriculture and pottery, and at the same time exploiting the rich mines of modern Poland. Thus, it appears that the Celts had created a new homeland for themselves in the southern part of Central Europe; in a region stretching from Poland to the river Danube."

Looking at modern genetics it is likely that the celts were unable to expand south due to various tribes already there pushing them back up to pannonia

Then the germans, romans, huns, slavs etc came along and the celtic y dna was severely reduced in most of central europe too

ShpataEMadhe
11-08-2021, 09:12 PM
The oldest from Europe, SNP confirmed:


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68

The oldest one outside of Europe is approximately 5 years old. :) That is because there are no ancient E-V13 sample which are not from Europe.

Didnt the ancient v13 in spain turn out to be a different E line or am i mixing that up with another sample?

Riverman
11-08-2021, 09:20 PM
Didnt the ancient v13 in spain turn out to be a different E line or am i mixing that up with another sample?

Even if he is E-V13, we don't know how basal he was, most likely a dead end.
Best chances to find surviving lineages is, in that order:
Lengyel-Sopot
Baden
Michelsberger (Lengyel connection and mixed group in Southern Germany)
Tripolye-Cucuteni

ShpataEMadhe
11-08-2021, 09:39 PM
Even if he is E-V13, we don't know how basal he was, most likely a dead end.
Best chances to find surviving lineages is, in that order:
Lengyel-Sopot
Baden
Michelsberger (Lengyel connection and mixed group in Southern Germany)
Tripolye-Cucuteni

Maybe but all ancient samples are important for determining origin. North east spain was part of the cardium pottery culture at 5000bc

47368

47367

Riverman
11-08-2021, 09:42 PM
Have you guys looked into this Virovitice Group as it relates to E-V13’s possible trajectory into the Balkans? It has ties to Eastern Slovenia (I think) with links to Moravia and Slovakia prior to the Balkans. I was just reading about Virovitice in the following paper:

http://av.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/50/AV_50_Dular.pdf

I think this group could have had some E-V13, but being mostly related to the Pannonian-Illyrian sphere and closer to the Middle Danubian Urnfield group, rather than the South Eastern Urnfield (Kyjatice-Gáva). But that's just my first impression after reading this. Many aspects of this formation seem to be unclear also, and need further investigation, again going after that paper.

Riverman
11-08-2021, 09:46 PM
Maybe but all ancient samples are important for origins. North east spain was part of the cardium pottery culture at 5000bc

47368

47367

Yes, Impresso-Cardial is the most likely entry group, that's true. But I don't think it migrated West and back, but rather stayed in the West Balkan at first, then migrated up the Danube-Tisza, with Lengyel. So in a way, if the assumption Impresso-Cardial -> Lengyel-Sopot -> Epi-Corded -> Southern Unetice -> Füzesabony-Piliny -> Gŕva/South Eastern Urnfield is correct, it was kind of an migration first up the Tisza, then back down the Tisza. In both cases spreading westwards. Early with Lengyel along the Danube to Southern German Michelsberger, then much wider with Channelled Ware/Urnfield and Basarabi-Hallstatt.
It wouldn't be the first or only group experiencing something like this, if you think about R1a and its paths out of steppe and back to it, actually more than once.

Bane
11-08-2021, 09:49 PM
Didnt the ancient v13 in spain turn out to be a different E line or am i mixing that up with another sample?


There was a study which tested 6 samples for SNPs. Four of them were positive for G-P15 and one was positive for E-V13.
See here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215063/table/t03/?report=objectonly

ShpataEMadhe
11-08-2021, 09:52 PM
Yes, Impresso-Cardial is the most likely entry group, that's true. But I don't think it migrated West and back, but rather stayed in the West Balkan at first, then migrated up the Danube-Tisza, with Lengyel. So in a way, if the assumption Impresso-Cardial -> Lengyel-Sopot -> Epi-Corded -> Southern Unetice -> Füzesabony-Piliny -> Gŕva/South Eastern Urnfield is correct, it was kind of an migration first up the Tisza, then back down the Tisza. In both cases spreading westwards. Early with Lengyel along the Danube to Southern German Michelsberger, then much wider with Channelled Ware/Urnfield and Basarabi-Hallstatt.
It wouldn't be the first or only group experiencing something like this, if you think about R1a and its paths out of steppe and back to it, actually more than once.

Yes anything is possible, hopefully we know more within the next couple of years. Covid has now ended so archeologists are free to travel again without restrictions or delays

Riverman
11-08-2021, 10:52 PM
Yes anything is possible, hopefully we know more within the next couple of years. Covid has now ended so archeologists are free to travel again without restrictions or delays

One of the main problems is no longer that there are not the right samples there, but that the resolution is bad. There was a new method developed, the paper was posted here, also commented by me, about how the data for yDNA analysis can be enriched. The problem is, since better methods to capture the autosomal admixture are in the game, most studies concentrate on autosomal DNA and the uniparentals are only a byproduct. The study was able to distinguish different Neolithic migration and expansion paths by looking at the haplogroups, especially yDNA H, which was more common in Neolithic farmers.
As long as those better methods for yDNA sampling being not applied, there is a big problem, because the subclades are lacking. Like we have samples from Cardial, Lengyel, Michelsberger, Tripolye, soon probably from various Bronze Age groups, but we don't have the subclades. Especially for knowing which group brought the main lineages of E-V13 (and other haplogroups), and where they lived, you need the subclades for the Neolithic samples and be sure about their basal or more downstream positions. Just having E1b1b is not enough, especially if talking about an area from Iberia to the Black Sea.

Yupi
11-08-2021, 10:56 PM
It's possible Celtic was primarily a cultural phenomenon rather than an ethnic one. I would take ancient Roman and Greek sources that cite impossible population numbers for various barbarian groups with a grain of salt. If Thracians, Scythians and Celts were so numerous as described, surely they'd have left a much bigger genetic impact than what we see.

Especially for Scythians.

rafc
11-09-2021, 10:34 AM
Looking again at the distribution of those V13 and L283 it seems to broadly confirm what was already clear from previous studies. The NW-Balkans (assuming that's what the L283 cluster between HRV IA/MBA and Slovenian IA represents) had a lot of L283, but V13 was very minor. The reverse was likely true for the central and Eastern Balkans. Because while the Viminacium samples were probably not locals, they were from somewhere in the Balkans, and the results of this Patterson paper make it very unlikely it was from the NW Balkans.

Riverman
11-09-2021, 10:54 AM
Looking again at the distribution of those V13 and L283 it seems to broadly confirm what was already clear from previous studies. The NW-Balkans (assuming that's what the L283 cluster between HRV IA/MBA and Slovenian IA represents) had a lot of L283, but V13 was very minor. The reverse was likely true for the central and Eastern Balkans. Because while the Viminacium samples were probably not locals, they were from somewhere in the Balkans, and the results of this Patterson paper make it very unlikely it was from the NW Balkans.

Yes, that's just a confirmation, they aren't on the same cline. E-V13 is more on a BGR_BA/Vatya to Unetice cline, J2b on Vatya to Southern Bell Beaker.
What both may have in common is a varying degree of Vatya-like substrate.

What's more surprising for me is that R1b-Z2103 overlaps so much better with E-V13 than J2b.
After Mokrin, I wouldn't have anticipated that. Probably R1b-Z2103 is closer related to Daco-Thracians and Cimmerians than I thought or something else is going on here.
Will be very interesting to see what the Illyrian core, which used primarily inhumation, will bring us.
Especially whether J2b was more common in Southern Illyrians or some more Northern, coastal and Pannonian groups, and where R1b-Z2103 pops up in this context.

vasil
11-09-2021, 10:55 AM
Yes, Impresso-Cardial is the most likely entry group, that's true. But I don't think it migrated West and back, but rather stayed in the West Balkan at first, then migrated up the Danube-Tisza, with Lengyel. So in a way, if the assumption Impresso-Cardial -> Lengyel-Sopot -> Epi-Corded -> Southern Unetice -> Füzesabony-Piliny -> Gŕva/South Eastern Urnfield is correct, it was kind of an migration first up the Tisza, then back down the Tisza. In both cases spreading westwards. Early with Lengyel along the Danube to Southern German Michelsberger, then much wider with Channelled Ware/Urnfield and Basarabi-Hallstatt.
It wouldn't be the first or only group experiencing something like this, if you think about R1a and its paths out of steppe and back to it, actually more than once.

I wouldn't yet give up on the back migration from Western Europe because although what you are proposing is the more likely scenario we shouldn't forget Michelsberg is a Cardium pottery expansion from the French coast so that E is as likely to have been dragged along with I2a as it is to have been absorbed in place. Obviously that Michelsberg E and the one from Spain could also be connected to the basal L618>CTS10912 split where CTS10912 represents the branch that stayed in the Balkans and later diversified into the three branches one of which is V13 somewhere around the Carpathians with the only snag I can see being that the most basal V13 branches are somehow connected to Southern Germany.

Riverman
11-09-2021, 11:05 AM
I wouldn't yet give up on the back migration from Western Europe because although what you are proposing is the more likely scenario we shouldn't forget Michelsberg is a Cardium pottery expansion from the French coast so that E is as likely to have been dragged along with I2a as it is to have been absorbed in place. Obviously that Michelsberg E and the one from Spain could also be connected to the basal L618>CTS10912 split where CTS10912 represents the branch that stayed in the Balkans and later diversified into the three branches one of which is V13 somewhere around the Carpathians with the only snag I can see being that the most basal V13 branches are somehow connected to Southern Germany.

Going by the age and position, I think E1b1b in Michelsberger being the result of contact with Lengyel-Sopot. There was Lengyel colonisation in Southern Germany and there are fused Michelsberger-Lengyel groups.
Of course, I can't really know, but my bet so far is on Lengyel.

rafc
11-09-2021, 11:17 AM
Yes, that's just a confirmation, they aren't on the same cline. E-V13 is more on a BGR_BA/Vatya to Unetice cline, J2b on Vatya to Southern Bell Beaker.
What both may have in common is a varying degree of Vatya-like substrate.

What's more surprising for me is that R1b-Z2103 overlaps so much better with E-V13 than J2b.
After Mokrin, I wouldn't have anticipated that. Probably R1b-Z2103 is closer related to Daco-Thracians and Cimmerians than I thought or something else is going on here.
Will be very interesting to see what the Illyrian core, which used primarily inhumation, will bring us.
Especially whether J2b was more common in Southern Illyrians or some more Northern, coastal and Pannonian groups, and where R1b-Z2103 pops up in this context.

It's clear R1b-Z2103 has a steppe origin. It would certainly have been present in Bulgarian and Hungarian Yamnaya, but also be present more to the east, closer to the steppe, where V13 was also more numerous. So I guess some of it came quite far up to areas with a lot of L283, hence why we find it there, but a lot of Z2103 also landed in areas with a lot of V13.

Riverman
11-09-2021, 11:32 AM
It's clear R1b-Z2103 has a steppe origin. It would certainly have been present in Bulgarian and Hungarian Yamnaya, but also be present more to the east, closer to the steppe, where V13 was also more numerous. So I guess some of it came quite far up to areas with a lot of L283, hence why we find it there, but a lot of Z2103 also landed in areas with a lot of V13.

Going by the PCA, it almost looks R1b-Z2103 crashed into E-V13 in the Carpathians, and from then on a group of both went on together. I mean the V13 samples are few and we don't know the age, but thats how it looks to me with what we got.
Even more surprising is that while V13 and R1b-Z2103 completely overlap, there is on some PCA zero overlap with J2b. There is actually even a small but significant gap between them!
So again, by the currently available data, E-V13 and R1b-Z2103 would come from the same context, but the J2b samples from this paper definitely not. They are much more Western shifted, in the direction of Bell Beakers.
If that holds, R1b-Z2103 might have nothing to do with Illyrians. Probably the actual dates and context will falsify that claim, but right now that's how it appears to me.
E-V13 and R1b-Z2103 are both in for Daco-Thracians rather, up to this point.

rafc
11-09-2021, 03:09 PM
Going by the PCA, it almost looks R1b-Z2103 crashed into E-V13 in the Carpathians, and from then on a group of both went on together. I mean the V13 samples are few and we don't know the age, but thats how it looks to me with what we got.
Even more surprising is that while V13 and R1b-Z2103 completely overlap, there is on some PCA zero overlap with J2b. There is actually even a small but significant gap between them!
So again, by the currently available data, E-V13 and R1b-Z2103 would come from the same context, but the J2b samples from this paper definitely not. They are much more Western shifted, in the direction of Bell Beakers.
If that holds, R1b-Z2103 might have nothing to do with Illyrians. Probably the actual dates and context will falsify that claim, but right now that's how it appears to me.
E-V13 and R1b-Z2103 are both in for Daco-Thracians rather, up to this point.

It is remarkable that there is little Z2103 in that NW cluster, but to me it seems Z2103 was probably a bit everywhere, and nowhere really big.

Riverman
11-09-2021, 04:13 PM
It is remarkable that there is little Z2103 in that NW cluster, but to me it seems Z2103 was probably a bit everywhere, and nowhere really big.

The question is, was it first impact Yamnaya survival, or rather something later, like related to Daco-Thracians or Thraco-Cimmerians. Because so far, most old lineages didn't last for long if not forming or joining an successful ethnocultural formation. Looking at the Unetice inspired Pannonian cluster, of those Copper to EBA lineages only E-V13 seems to have done well.
A lot is thinkable, but R1b-Z2103 was rather part of "something" too.

Bane
11-09-2021, 04:51 PM
It is remarkable that there is little Z2103 in that NW cluster, but to me it seems Z2103 was probably a bit everywhere, and nowhere really big.

My opinion is that R-Z2103 was more widespread in the Balkans before E-V13 became predominant Y-DNA. But as you noticed not so much in the Western Balkans compared to other parts.
Specificaly from my point of view, R-Z2103 should be crucial for forming Hellenic peoples in the Bronze age. It can explain why Greek language or e.g. Hittite language are Indoeuropean.

Bruzmi
11-09-2021, 08:48 PM
https://i.ibb.co/MpJsfwT/PCAancient.png

E-V13 and J-L283 aDNA samples

Riverman
11-09-2021, 09:14 PM
What PCA did you use?

Here Europe1 one from: https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#Europe1

Note that J2b forms a cline from Northern French to Corsica, while E-V13 forms a cline from German to Italian Marche. A very different PCA from the other I Northern European posted before, which I think is more expressive, but still, you see the clusters, you see the gap. Note that these new samples might be significantly older and closer to the origin than all those we got so far. Interestingly, R-Z2103 and J2b meet in Veneto, Italy! That's interesting, because that's where various Pannonian influences met more Italic-Illyrian inspired ones.
Note also, again, the position of the Füzesabony, with all paternal lineages being Neolithic-Copper Age derived in it, even though its closest to Uneticians:

https://i.ibb.co/T2YcJp8/Haplogroups-British-Paper4.jpg

https://ibb.co/8sNMGT5

Another interesting aspect of this PCA: If the admixture in a Southern direction would have gone on, they both would have ended up in Italian Marche and Lazio. This is interestingly where most Balkan groups might have ended up. We'll see with the Balkan IA cluster from Viminacium and the samples from Timacum minus. The Eastern shift came with the Roman-Levantine admixture and especially the Slavic on top.

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#WestEurasia
On this West Eurasian PCA the most Southern shifted samples overlap, but the question is which is the source, is it the Southern Balkan, or the Füzesabony-like cluster, which being shifted in the direction of Uneticians/Epi-Corded, which is very apparent in this PCA:

https://i.ibb.co/9wTGywh/Haplogroups-British-Paper5.jpg

https://ibb.co/M8V9P8f

A lot depends on the age and context of the samples.

Depends on the age and context of the Unetician-like sample. Is it a modern Germanic-Slavic mix or not. But its unusual for such a modern mix to have such a fairly low distance to those ancient samples.


By the way, are there coordinates available for BR2, the J2a supposedly Kyjatice sample? Debate about it:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/10/genetic-ancestry-online-store-to-be.html

There are 3 Hun_BA samples, but I don't know whether one of it could belong to this group and they all cluster closer to the J2b samples.

rafc
11-09-2021, 09:20 PM
My opinion is that R-Z2103 was more widespread in the Balkans before E-V13 became predominant Y-DNA. But as you noticed not so much in the Western Balkans compared to other parts.
Specificaly from my point of view, R-Z2103 should be crucial for forming Hellenic peoples in the Bronze age. It can explain why Greek language or e.g. Hittite language are Indoeuropean.

Yes, Z2103 would be a logical candidate for the Greek language, and maybe other Paleo-Balkan languages. I haven't seen anything on deeper classification of the Z2103's yet, would be nice to known some more details. But I fear that just like for V13 the 1240k has very little coverage.

bce
11-09-2021, 09:23 PM
What PCA did you use?

Here Europe1 one from: https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#Europe1

Note that J2b forms a cline from Northern French to Corsica, while E-V13 forms a cline from German to Italian Marche. A very different PCA from the other I Northern European posted before, which I think is more expressive, but still, you see the clusters, you see the gap. Note that these new samples might be significantly older and closer to the origin than all those we got so far. Interestingly, R-Z2103 and J2b meet in Veneto, Italy! That's interesting, because that's where various Pannonian influences met more Italic-Illyrian inspired ones.
Note also, again, the position of the Füzesabony, with all paternal lineages being Neolithic-Copper Age derived in it, even though its closest to Uneticians:

https://i.ibb.co/T2YcJp8/Haplogroups-British-Paper4.jpg

Another interesting aspect of this PCA: If the admixture in a Southern direction would have gone on, they both would have ended up in Italian Marche and Lazio. This is interestingly where most Balkan groups might have ended up. We'll see with the Balkan IA cluster from Viminacium and the samples from Timacum minus. The Eastern shift came with the Roman-Levantine admixture and especially the Slavic on top.

https://ibb.co/8sNMGT5

it's the Vahaduo custom PCA: https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/

Riverman
11-10-2021, 12:27 AM
it's the Vahaduo custom PCA: https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/

Thank you. I did play around with that too, but it turns out its really all about the age of the two Central European shifted samples, and the one in the Southern Balkan cluster - as well as their subclades, which we might never know, because they could be dead ends or without relevance for the majority of the modern carriers of these haplogroups.

In any case, the WHG shift some of the samples is interesting and if they are ancient, that would be a typical feature of the Pannonian sphere. Even in a very global, primary setting, the majority of J2b end up in their own cluster, with the funny part being the only E-V13 is not just in it, but goes beyond, presumably because he got a lot of BGR_EBA admixture. The R-Z2103 samples being clearly split in the original Yamnaya-like and the Balkan-admixed category, which just shows how misleading autosomal DNA couid be, without knowing the context.
The potential Füzesabony cluster overlaps mostly with modern Central Europeans on most PCA, so in theory they could be more modern, but going after their haplogroups, they are rather not. Which leads us back to the question of how old I16272 and I14465 are and from which context. In this PCA there are J2b in the same cluster, largely, as the E-V13 which are close to Füzesabony, but the bulk is still elsewhere, but all could have been admixed in this or that direction, but J2b, which position is fairly solid closer towards to the Neolithic reference:
https://i.ibb.co/7QRt6Nk/Haplogroups-British-Paper6.jpg

https://ibb.co/hcZFt1Y

On that PCA, the J2b sample which is close to the Unetician/Füzesabony cluster is I24882. Still to the left of the main two E-V13 which are more Central European. Again a comparison of these three more Northern shifted J2b and E-V13 samples, only the relevant BCE samples taken:
Distance to: J2B:I24882
0.02553878 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.02777536 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03101111 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR109
0.03189288 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK10B
0.03203852 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101
0.03237255 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.03306335 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK29A
0.03345776 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09538
0.03392020 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK26A
0.03431842 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.03435462 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.03455291 DEU_Lech_BBC:UNTA58_68Sk1
0.03462611 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR108
0.03488047 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03541587 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03550127 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94
0.03602340 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK14
0.03622285 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4885
0.03662921 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5520
0.03697531 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK27
0.03703984 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ27
0.03713174 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.03779579 HUN_BA:I7040
0.03783558 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03790343 ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1221


Note how close he is to Southern Bell Beakers and HRV_MBA (Middle Danubian Tumulus-related)

Now the two E-V13ers to his right, first the one closer to the Füzesabony/Uneticians, for comparison:
Distance to: EV13:I16272
0.02790839 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.02882703 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
0.03163005 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK279
0.03163068 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036
0.03166446 VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK98
0.03174322 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK296
0.03179878 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531
0.03202261 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK443
0.03212158 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ22
0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA:I7949
0.03272543 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ12
0.03352056 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512
0.03373542 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK301
0.03373685 CZE_Unetice_EBA:I5044
0.03418326 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK275
0.03469065 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK433
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA:VK170
0.03501533 CZE_Unetice_preC:KNE003
0.03511269 VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK547
0.03519606 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK290
0.03520666 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK145
0.03526154 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK508
0.03547614 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK294

Second the less clear one, which oscillates between Mokrin and the Hungarian Bronze Age:
Distance to: EV13::I14465
0.03548909 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK12
0.03594579 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03985902 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03985922 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.04024971 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK13
0.04064740 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK25A
0.04111966 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE480
0.04129588 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK27
0.04142847 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5524
0.04189682 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.04198434 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:HOP004.A0101
0.04213984 DEU_Lech_MBA:OTTM_151ind2_d
0.04300076 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK29A
0.04300706 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR105
0.04304478 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.04344422 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK33
0.04419069 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK10B
0.04438459 HUN_BA:I7040
0.04468141 CHE_IA:SX18
0.04499030 DEU_Roman:FN_2
0.04510409 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK9B
0.04554125 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE483
0.04597888 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR61
0.04606241 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101
0.04612385 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94

So even between these three, there is still a marked difference in the direction of the West Balkan-Upper Danube vs. Pannonia-Carpathians, though these are close and are very interesting.

Riverman
11-10-2021, 09:47 AM
To be sure, I did run many moderns and ancient candidates against Füzesabony and only one single German from my chosen candidate groups reached a distance below 0,032:
German:German76 0.03191012
Finnish:HG00350 0.03205930
German:German13 0.03386772
Czech:NA15724 0.03428785

I also checked, from all ancients, which are closest to Füzesabony:
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531 0.02876167
CZE_Unetice_C:MIS002.merged 0.03025527
Scythian_UKR:scy009 0.03147418
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352 0.03278466
VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509 0.03279856

Note one of the closest is among the "Southern shifted" individuals assigned to (Thraco-) "Scythians" once more!

There is currently no sample in the whole data base which is as close to Füzesabony as some of the new samples from the British study:
FuzesabonyCluster:I25525 0.02440513
FuzesabonyCluster:I12106 0.02489549
FuzesabonyCluster:I17322 0.02893993
FuzesabonyCluster:I16272 0.03078742
EV13:I16272 0.03078742
FuzesabonyCluster:I7964 0.03253927
FuzesabonyCluster:I11719 0.03283871

This means the Füzesabony cluster is very real. The individuals with Neolithic-Copper age haplogroups and a Unetician : Vatya/Mako mix seem to be a reasonable assumption. The EV13:I16272 has a slightly increased Vatya/Mako ancestry probably, but is still solidly within as one can see.

All the other ancients and moderns got a much worse fit. On the PCA, modern Polish, German and Swedish are closest to the Füzesabony cluster, but their distances are all worse, as you can see. Going by that, a close relationship of E-V13 carrier I16272 to a Füzesabony-like population from Pannonia are quite likely, from my point of view.

In a reduced custom PCA, the arrangement of the samples from the different haplogroups reproduces a very clear pattern, once more:
https://i.ibb.co/6039j3b/Haplogroups-British-Paper8.jpg

https://ibb.co/Zzn4qnK

Two E-V13 are in the Balkan cluster, two outside, with one being intermediate between Füzesabony/North Pannonian and Balkan. There is no single J2b outside of the Balkan cluster, but only E-V13 and R-Z2103. This means, in any case, that they are not part of the same cultural formation, because such a large sample of J2b with so few E-V13 means a lot. Its the final proof for the Illyrian : Daco-Thracian division in this respect. Its however possible, that a majority of E-V13 samples with a Balkan profile existed, but these were not tested, probably because they are from cultures using cremation, like expected, if they spread with Channelled Ware.

Single outliers of E-V13 in a Mokrin-like population could mean many things, we'll see how this ends up, but in any case, the important sample I16272 does look like belonging in the Bronze or Early Iron Age, rather and clusters with North Pannonians with a lot of Unetician-related ancestry like Füzesabony.

Bane
11-10-2021, 10:38 AM
Yes, Z2103 would be a logical candidate for the Greek language, and maybe other Paleo-Balkan languages. I haven't seen anything on deeper classification of the Z2103's yet, would be nice to known some more details. But I fear that just like for V13 the 1240k has very little coverage.

I would say that relation between R-Z2103 and other Paleo-Balkan languages is debatable.
I think other two possible candidates for this relation could be Brygian and Illyrian-Proper. But this does not seem to me as reliable as relation with Hellenic languages.

And when it comes to others, Thracian, Moesian, even for Dalmatian-Pannonian probability that R-Z2103 was important for their Indoeuropeanization is very low I would say. For example my view is rather that proto-Thracian was influenced by R-P312 people in their homeland around Northeastern Carpathians.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJVZyfXgAEyYx-.jpg:large

bce
11-10-2021, 11:14 AM
Yes, Z2103 would be a logical candidate for the Greek language, and maybe other Paleo-Balkan languages. I haven't seen anything on deeper classification of the Z2103's yet, would be nice to known some more details. But I fear that just like for V13 the 1240k has very little coverage.

The are many language groups which are sometimes linked to Z2103: Tocharian, Anatolian, Armenian, Greek, Illyrian, Daco-Thracian. All these are linguistically very diverse from each other.
Either some of these weren't originally Z2103, or there were multiple waves of Z2103 migrations, separated by thousands of years, and each mixing with a different substrate.

Aspar
11-10-2021, 11:27 AM
I would say that relation between R-Z2103 and other Paleo-Balkan languages is debatable.
I think other two possible candidates for this relation could be Brygian and Illyrian-Proper. But this does not seem to me as reliable as relation with Hellenic languages.

And when it comes to others, Thracian, Moesian, even for Dalmatian-Pannonian probability that R-Z2103 was important for their Indoeuropeanization is very low I would say. For example my view is rather that proto-Thracian was influenced by R-P312 people in their homeland around Northeastern Carpathians.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJVZyfXgAEyYx-.jpg:large

R-Z2103 is a haplogroup with a TMRCA of around 5400 ybp or 3400 BC. And here we are talking about people only attested from EIA on.
There is nothing wrong in the notion that R-Z2203 could have been the main spreader of the Paleo Balkan languages, it's just that there could of been different subclades of R-Z2103 involved in the spreading of these languages.

Riverman
11-10-2021, 11:30 AM
I would say that relation between R-Z2103 and other Paleo-Balkan languages is debatable.
I think other two possible candidates for this relation could be Brygian and Illyrian-Proper. But this does not seem to me as reliable as relation with Hellenic languages.

And when it comes to others, Thracian, Moesian, even for Dalmatian-Pannonian probability that R-Z2103 was important for their Indoeuropeanization is very low I would say. For example my view is rather that proto-Thracian was influenced by R-P312 people in their homeland around Northeastern Carpathians.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJVZyfXgAEyYx-.jpg:large

Agreed, and its a good map, though somewhat too late, since the area which being Celtic by then was not before - unfortunately the map wasn't visible until I did go for a reply and saw the link which I could follow.

What I want to add is, that I think Proto-Thracian was rather influenced by Epi-Corded and Unetician elements, rather than Bell Beakers. Though the latter is possible too. The direct neighbours in the Pannonian sphere and the main routes of communication along the Tisza Basin and Lower Danube were all going to the direct North. We're talking about groups like Piliny-Kyjatice, which were even part of the same South Eastern Urnfield, Channelled Ware horizon, and sometimes hard to separate anyway. Going back for earlier, pre-Unetician influences, I think we have to consider groups Epi-Corded groups like Nitra in particular:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343181326_Lithic_Arrowheads_of_the_Nitra_Culture_-_The_Use_of_Actual_and_Experimental_Use-Wear_Analyses_to_Identify_the_Differential_Effects _of_Quiver_Transportation

Nitra was strictly dominated by R1a and I think that also linguistically, Daco-Thracian is closer to Germanic and especially Balto-Slavic than the more Western Centum languages. Otomani-Füzesabony were directly influenced by these Epi-Corded groups and descended to a large degree, especially the Füzesabony late stage, from them. These were different trajectories from early times on, between the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture/Urnfield group and the Carpathian Tumulus Culture/South Eastern Urnfield group (Kyjatice-Gáva). They influenced each other, but the main route for gene flow and communication was a different one. That's why the latter were even closer to Lusatians.


R-Z2103 is a haplogroup with a TMRCA of around 5400 ybp or 3400 BC. And here we are talking about people only attested from EIA on.
There is nothing wrong in the notion that R-Z2203 could have been the main spreader of the Paleo Balkan languages, it's just that there could of been different subclades of R-Z2103 involved in the spreading of these languages.

Since Yamnaya was so widespread, they became part of many substrates. The question is whether the haplogroup or one of its subclades specifically became a dominant element, like J-L283 for Illyrians or E-V13 for Daco-Thracians, or I1+R-U106 for Germanics. I think for that the main candidate is indeed the Greeks and possibly Anatolians.
I considered them for Illyrians too, but going after these results from the British study, the overlap with J2b which is a safe starting position is rather too low imho, unless it was a very complicated transmission with a change of J-L283 largely replacing R-Z2103 from within or for specific tribes, which being better tested in this study.

bce
11-10-2021, 11:36 AM
I would say that relation between R-Z2103 and other Paleo-Balkan languages is debatable.
I think other two possible candidates for this relation could be Brygian and Illyrian-Proper. But this does not seem to me as reliable as relation with Hellenic languages.

And when it comes to others, Thracian, Moesian, even for Dalmatian-Pannonian probability that R-Z2103 was important for their Indoeuropeanization is very low I would say. For example my view is rather that proto-Thracian was influenced by R-P312 people in their homeland around Northeastern Carpathians.



There's quite a bit of R1a-Z93 finds from BA Romania and Bulgaria. I'm not sure if those can be called Thracians though.
The real Thracians are probably the E-V13 people which replaced these Z93 later, in the Iron age.

For Illyrians, It seems that they arose from a contact between R-Z2103 (Yamnaya) and J-L283 around the Iron gates area, forming Vučedol, and later Maros, and survived as such into the iron age.

Riverman
11-10-2021, 11:54 AM
For Illyrians, It seems that they arose from a contact between R-Z2103 (Yamnaya) and J-L283 around the Iron gates area, forming Vučedol, and later Maros, and survived as such into the iron age.

How do you explain the descendents of the Middle Danubian Tumulus and Urnfield groups being presumably Pannonian-Illyrian speakers? I think an assimilation of J-L283 from Bell Beaker or Tumulus Culture groups is as likely. Their Western shift makes this also a fitting scenario, as does their position. Illyrian seems to be mostly derived from Tumulus Culture groups which expanded southward, of which some forming later a Middle Danubian Urnfield branch, while others formed the "Illyrian proper" core while sticking to inhumation, incorporating more regional influences and transitioning into Glasinac-Mati.
Gimbutas was already very clear about that relationship - compare p. 330-331:
https://books.google.de/books?id=BvtRdigDtFoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

Its therefore much more likely to find J-L283 associated with Bell Beaker lineages and that's what we got in the Slovenia_IA samples.

Aspar
11-10-2021, 11:59 AM
Since Yamnaya was so widespread, they became part of many substrates. The question is whether the haplogroup or one of its subclades specifically became a dominant element, like J-L283 for Illyrians or E-V13 for Daco-Thracians, or I1+R-U106 for Germanics. I think for that the main candidate is indeed the Greeks and possibly Anatolians.
I considered them for Illyrians too, but going after these results from the British study, the overlap with J2b which is a safe starting position is rather too low imho, unless it was a very complicated transmission with a change of J-L283 largely replacing R-Z2103 from within or for specific tribes, which being better tested in this study.

Of course, and that's why I made a parallel between TMRCA of the said haplogroup and the attestation of the Paleo Balkan languages.
Substrates, assimilation and what not could have distorted the original yDna picture to that scale that could be even impossible to say what was the original spreader. E-V13, a haplogroup which is not considered Indo-European originally could have been the main spreader of one or more Paleo Balkan languages.

I have rather some picture in my head how this could have happened. I think the Indo-European languages first started to split off with the diversification of R-M269, that is some 6500 ybp or 4500 BCE. Languages associated with the Corded Ware were spread by groups rich in R-L51. Subclades under R-M198 probably were dragged along with R-L51 in some sort of alliance but I don't consider them originally Indo-European of simple reason they are missing in Yamnaya.

I'm quite confident that the main ancestral proto languages of languages such as Illyrian, Albanian, Thracian, Dacian etc originally were spread by Corded Ware. Further split off along those lines in the Corded Ware happened in it's later stages with one group consisted of Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Illyrian etc. and another group of Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Thraco-Dacian etc.

In this big picture, the Greek language should have split off earlier than the others along with Armenian because of the fact that the Indo-European groups that planted the seeds of these languages came from some post Yamnaya related cultures.

bce
11-10-2021, 12:09 PM
How do you explain the descendents of the Middle Danubian Tumulus and Urnfield groups being presumably Pannonian-Illyrian speakers? I think an assimilation of J-L283 from Bell Beaker or Tumulus Culture groups is as likely. Their Western shift makes this also a fitting scenario, as does their position. Illyrian seems to be mostly derived from Tumulus Culture groups which expanded southward, of which some forming later a Middle Danubian Urnfield branch, while others formed the "Illyrian proper" core while sticking to inhumation, incorporating more regional influences and transitioning into Glasinac-Mati.
Gimbutas was already very clear about that relationship - compare p. 330-331:
https://books.google.de/books?id=BvtRdigDtFoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Vučedol sample (R-Z2103) was autosomally pretty much like an Iron age Illyrian, already as "western" on a PCA.
We don't have a J-l283 find from Vučedol yet, however the Maros culture (which autosomally looks like a Mako+Vučedol mix) has it, alongside R-Z2103.

Urnfield doesn't seem to have brought any significant autosomal influence to this area. North of the Alps a "Scotland_N" drift begins (opposed to Barcin_N), which can be easily detected with G25. However, the Iron age Illyrian sample is still just Barcin_N.

It's not surprising, the Gava, which is a subgroup of Urnfield, was seemingly just an "alliance" of BA-Pannonians, Southern Balto-Slavs and proto Thracians, who didn't mix much, and later they split again, and each went their own way forming different cultures.

Riverman
11-10-2021, 12:12 PM
Of course, and that's why I made a parallel between TMRCA of the said haplogroup and the attestation of the Paleo Balkan languages.
Substrates, assimilation and what not could have distorted the original yDna picture to that scale that could be even impossible to say what was the original spreader. E-V13, a haplogroup which is not considered Indo-European originally could have been the main spreader of one or more Paleo Balkan languages.

I have rather some picture in my head how this could have happened. I think the Indo-European languages first started to split off with the diversification of R-M269, that is some 6500 ybp or 4500 BCE. Languages associated with the Corded Ware were spread by groups rich in R-L51. Subclades under R-M198 probably were dragged along with R-L51 in some sort of alliance but I don't consider them originally Indo-European of simple reason they are missing in Yamnaya.

I'm quite confident that the main ancestral proto languages of languages such as Illyrian, Albanian, Thracian, Dacian etc originally were spread by Corded Ware. Further split off along those lines in the Corded Ware happened in it's later stages with one group consisted of Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Illyrian etc. and another group of Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Thraco-Dacian etc.

In this big picture, the Greek language should have split off earlier than the others along with Armenian because of the fact that the Indo-European groups that planted the seeds of these languages came from some post Yamnaya related cultures.

I'm not even sure about Yamnaya having left any historical or modern descendents. We only have direct links for Corded Ware and Corded decorated groups. Like even the earliest splits, like Proto-Anatolian, seem to be rather Cernavoda-/Western steppe than Yamnaya related. Its not safe up to this point, since we have no Cernavoda remains, nor of the other related groups tested, but Yamnaya is at the moment only one candidate out of many for all known, attested Indoeuropean languages. There is no conclusive evidence for any direct descendency, up to this point.
Probably there will be one, probably its within this very papers samples, but up to this point, its just hypothetical, whereas the Western steppe groups were clearly involved. I also see Corded Ware as a descendent of Western Sredny Stog groups, closer related to Usatovo and Cernavoda than Yamnaya, which have however a common heritage from the early Sredny Stog horizon most likely.
But Illyrians might be a very drastic example, probably, in which original Bell Beaker lineages being largely replaced by J-L283 while the Tumulus Culture was still expanding. At least that's the scenario I currently have in mind.

Riverman
11-10-2021, 12:19 PM
The Vučedol sample (R-Z2103) was autosomally pretty much like an Iron age Illyrian, already as "western" on a PCA.
We don't have a J-l283 find from Vučedol yet, however the Maros culture (which autosomally looks like a Mako+Vučedol mix) has it, alongside R-Z2103.

Urnfield doesn't seem to have brought any significant autosomal influence to this area. North of the Alps a "Scotland_N" drift begins (opposed to Barcin_N), which can be easily detected with G25. However, the Iron age Illyrian sample is still just Barcin_N.

It's not surprising, the Gava, which is a subgroup of Urnfield, was seemingly just an "alliance" of BA-Pannonians, Southern Balto-Slavs and proto Thracians, who didn't mix much, and later they split again, and each went their own way forming different cultures.

I think that the Tumulus Culture spread into the Pannonian sphere was significant, but also more cultural. J-L283 joined, and spread it on, towards the South. We see with all these samples, those of R-Z2103 in particular, how quickly a haplogroup could "change its autosomal profile", because the majority population had a specific Balkan profile, and if intermixing with the locals, even if just with the women, they quickly shift in the same direction. J-L283 might have been local, but its real big push came when they joined the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture group. When, where and how exactly is completely open.

As for Balto-Slavs and Daco-Thracians, I think their point of departure is earlier, somewhere between Epi-Corded and Urnfield. Within Urnfield, Lusatian doesn't look Slavic to me, though it could be, probably, but its at least closer to Balto-Slavs than Gáva was. So they could have been neighbours, or with just one related group (Lusatians) in between, but not within Gáva. That however doesn't mean that individuals or warbands couldn't have been exchanged in both directions, that's certainly possible.

Aspar
11-10-2021, 12:30 PM
I'm not even sure about Yamnaya having left any historical or modern descendents. We only have direct links for Corded Ware and Corded decorated groups. Like even the earliest splits, like Proto-Anatolian, seem to be rather Cernavoda-/Western steppe than Yamnaya related. Its not safe up to this point, since we have no Cernavoda remains, nor of the other related groups tested, but Yamnaya is at the moment only one candidate out of many for all known, attested Indoeuropean languages. There is no conclusive evidence for any direct descendency, up to this point.
Probably there will be one, probably its within this very papers samples, but up to this point, its just hypothetical, whereas the Western steppe groups were clearly involved. I also see Corded Ware as a descendent of Western Sredny Stog groups, closer related to Usatovo and Cernavoda than Yamnaya, which have however a common heritage from the early Sredny Stog horizon most likely.
But Illyrians might be a very drastic example, probably, in which original Bell Beaker lineages being largely replaced by J-L283 while the Tumulus Culture was still expanding. At least that's the scenario I currently have in mind.

You might be right.
In which situation I would say the chances of some R1a subclade to have been the original proto Indo-European marker increase significantly.
However, where and when you will put the Greek language in this context? What kind of Corded Ware groups are responsible for it?
I don't see any other than Cerna Voda but this conflicts with the Anatolian theory then...

vasil
11-10-2021, 12:50 PM
You might be right.
In which situation I would say the chances of some R1a subclade to have been the original proto Indo-European marker increase significantly.
However, where and when you will put the Greek language in this context? What kind of Corded Ware groups are responsible for it?
I don't see any other than Cerna Voda but this conflicts with the Anatolian theory then...

This is in my opinion the most likely timeline for the the Eastern Balkans/Bulgaria:
Cernavoda > Anatolians
Ezero > Helleno-Phrygians
Multi-cordoned ware > BA Thracians/Armenians
Psenicevo > LBA/EIA Thracians
Antiquity
Penkovka/Ipotesti-Candesti > Anti
Bulgaria

bce
11-10-2021, 12:55 PM
I think that the Tumulus Culture spread into the Pannonian sphere was significant, but also more cultural. J-L283 joined, and spread it on, towards the South. We see with all these samples, those of R-Z2103 in particular, how quickly a haplogroup could "change its autosomal profile", because the majority population had a specific Balkan profile, and if intermixing with the locals, even if just with the women, they quickly shift in the same direction. J-L283 might have been local, but its real big push came when they joined the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture group. When, where and how exactly is completely open.

J-L283 looks like it migrated from the Caucasus into Sardinia (trough the Balkans?) sometime before the Steppe invasions, and took part in the Nuragic culture. It's unclear yet how it became associated with the western Balkans. In the Maros culture it's already there, and Maros looks like a mix of Vučedol and something Mako-related. Vučedol is a local EEF/Yamnaya mix, and Mako is a neolithic population originating somewhere from Eastern Europe.

J-L283 does seem very diverse on the East European plain, but it's low in numbers , and maybe never was high. Maybe that's just a result of slow diffusion from Balkan to the north trough 1000s of years.


As for Balto-Slavs and Daco-Thracians, I think their point of departure is earlier, somewhere between Epi-Corded and Urnfield. Within Urnfield, Lusatian doesn't look Slavic to me, though it could be, probably, but its at least closer to Balto-Slavs than Gáva was. So they could have been neighbours, or with just one related group (Lusatians) in between, but not within Gáva. That however doesn't mean that individuals or warbands couldn't have been exchanged in both directions, that's certainly possible.

I don't think Balto-Slavs as a whole took part in Urnfield/Gava, just a southern subgroup of Balto-Slavs (Slavs??)
I'm talking about that unpublished sample from the Verteba cave again.

And besides them, in Gava there were also the Pannonian-BA descendants, and an E-V13 group which was also autosomally different from the other 2. All this on such a small area.

Interestingly, later in Iron age Ukrainians (Scytians), we see a significant autosomal influence of all 3 groups (Pannonians, Thracians, Balto-Slavs), plus Srubnaya/Siberian/Iran-Caucasus influences from the east.
In the iron age Balkans, south of Gava, there's still just Steppe, Anatolian Farmer, and some more recent Anatolian.

Riverman
11-10-2021, 02:03 PM
This is in my opinion the most likely timeline for the the Eastern Balkans/Bulgaria:
Cernavoda > Anatolians

Agreed.


Ezero > Helleno-Phrygians
Multi-cordoned ware > BA Thracians/Armenians

I think Multi-Cordoned Ware is about the Proto-Greeks, rather, and Gŕva being Proto-Thracian/Daco-Thracian.
Rest agreed again.


J-L283 looks like it migrated from the Caucasus into Sardinia (trough the Balkans?) sometime before the Steppe invasions, and took part in the Nuragic culture. It's unclear yet how it became associated with the western Balkans. In the Maros culture it's already there, and Maros looks like a mix of Vučedol and something Mako-related. Vučedol is a local EEF/Yamnaya mix, and Mako is a neolithic population originating somewhere from Eastern Europe.

J-L283 does seem very diverse on the East European plain, but it's low in numbers , and maybe never was high. Maybe that's just a result of slow diffusion from Balkan to the north trough 1000s of years.

I don't think that's likely, because the direction of the flow is very clear: From the Middle Danube down. Later however, the Illyrians proper with inhumation burial rites, essentially centered around Glasinac-Mati, expanded again. So we might see a complex forth and backwards pushing of different groups. Pannonia is one of the most aggressive and volatile areas of the world. If you go through any period in prehistory and early history, it was constantly affected by new invaders from all sides. That's also what makes the earlier history of many of these Pannonian-Carpatho-Balkan haplogroups so difficult, they could be from almost anywhere else before entering that area.


I don't think Balto-Slavs as a whole took part in Urnfield/Gava, just a southern subgroup of Balto-Slavs (Slavs??)
I'm talking about that unpublished sample from the Verteba cave again.

Its noteworthy that Gáva definitely did expand into this area and not coming from it. This means they could have, just like in the Balkans, a different people with which they probably mixed or assimilated. If we assume, in theory, that it was the Gáva core, which is not safe to assume, because it could have been a more Southern Channelled Ware group, similar to the J-L283 case for the Tumulus culture, but let's just start hypothetically that way, then we have:
- An original Gáva population, which was mixed between Epi-Corded, Uneticians, Otomani, Vatya, Mako and other related groups, possibly some splinters of Bell Beakers, in Northern Pannonia, at the Upper Tisza. They might have been close to Füzesabony, or already more Southern shifted, but not too far away from it.
- This original Gŕva population began to expand in different ways (elites, specialists, tribal and folk migrations) in all directions and they must have taken up a great number of local women, to expand that rapidly, as the phylogeny proves too. They would have mixed with whatever people they encountered. Holigrady is an expansion into more Corded/steppe territory, Belegis II-Gáva into Vatya-like, and Fluted Ware horizon in Bulgaria mixed with BGR_EBA. Going by that alone, you end up with three very different daughter populations, which however, and this is important too, seem to have still communicated and had some exchange, probably gene flow with each other, but not, in this period, with other people outside the Channelled Ware horizon, orange in the map I map I made:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?25094-E-V13-Frequency-Maps-and-Data&p=813527&viewfull=1#post813527
These were therefore quite distinctive subpopulations.


And besides them, in Gava there were also the Pannonian-BA descendants, and an E-V13 group which was also autosomally different from the other 2. All this on such a small area.

If you read cursory on the Bronze Age prehistory of the Middle Danube and the Upper Tisza, what's the most striking is that there were barely a couple of generations without newcomers! Most of the time the pushes came from the North, downwards, but not always. Like in the earlier Bronze Age period, there were movements up too and its my hunch that its this way, that J2a ended up in Kyjatice, like some proposed, from e.g. Maritime Troy. But regularly, there were pushed from the steppe, Carpathians and Danube down.
And some groups were pushed or fled just southward, or were annihilated, while others territory just shrank. Like when Tumulus Culture expanded into Pannonia, many formerly widespread formations were pressed into fairly small areas, together. Imagine the situation: Deadly enemies for generations, or former peaceful neighbours, all of them pushed together into a fraction of their former territory. That's exactly what happened before Piliny. Otomani-Füzesabony for example was much wider spread before, and then pushed right into the Upper Tisza area and the Carpathians. In turn they displaced other groups, and among the ones pushed around were Incrusted Ware groups and so on.

Simple put: Its a mess!

If a new formation comes up by uniting influences from three regional cultures and one newly arrived one, how do you determine from which they got their main haplogroup without having all of them extensively tested? Right, its not possible, you can only guess who was probably more dominant in the given context.


Interestingly, later in Iron age Ukrainians (Scytians), we see a significant autosomal influence of all 3 groups (Pannonians, Thracians, Balto-Slavs), plus Srubnaya/Siberian/Iran-Caucasus influences from the east.
In the iron age Balkans, south of Gava, there's still just Steppe, Anatolian Farmer, and some more recent Anatolian.

Thraco-Cimmerian and Thraco-Scythian were real things. The Daco-Thracian element lost dramatically because of these invasions and raids, true massacres, but some group which acculturated and adopted the nomadic practises did not just survive, but spread beyond the original distribution areas, especially along the Danube and even down into Italy, as well as onto the steppe, in kind of a backflow movement.

Riverman
11-10-2021, 04:29 PM
https://i.ibb.co/mHjbrk9/Haplogroups-British-Paper10.jpg

https://ibb.co/BgpcHby

Interestingly the supposed Kyjatice and Gáva sample = HUN_LBA (I'm always somewhat sceptical since I haven't found something about the circumstances and context of the burial) plot exactly between the two more Northern shifted E-V13 samples from the new British paper and slightly more Southern than the Füzesabony cluster to which the most Northern E-V13 carrier belongs. There is a general cline from Yamnaya to Early Neolithics, but note the shift towards WHG in the whole Pannonian-Balkan spectrum, with Mako being the most extreme. These two more Northern E-V13 samples will be highly interesting.

I also found out where the Füzesabony sample is from:

Polgár Kenderföld, Hungary
4,300-3,600

The Gáva sample being:

Hajdúdorog-Szállásfold, Hungary
3,700-2,800

A description should be in this publication: Kolozsi 2007 = B. Kolozsi, Hajdúdorog, Szállásföld Közép 1. AIH 2006 (2007), 208-209.

But its also being touched here:

5. Hajdúdorog–Szállásföld közép (M3-51/A): a slightly bell-shaped pit with a burial-like, complete skeleton of a female (juv.-ad.) on the periphery of an open settlement (Kolozsi 2007, 208; Király
2011, 95).

https://www.academia.edu/2574962/A_biritual_cemetery_of_the_G%C3%A1va_culture_in_th e_Middle_Tisza_Region_and_some_further_notes_on_th e_burial_customs_of_the_LBA_EIA_in_Eastern_Hungary

Like expected, its no typical Gáva burial, of course it can't be, because they cremated. But she is in any case within the range of what I expect for them.

The other sample could be Gáva too if not being a Medieval sample which was found close by (the dating provided would fit with Gáva, being the same as the other):

I20751
I20773
https://docplayer-hu.translate.goog/106537420-A-gava-kultura-telepulese-korom-kapolna-dombon.html?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=nui,sc

Can anyone check why they weren't added to G25? That was a high level Gáva settlement.

Its an irregular burial of an female, but its at least from the same environment.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.19.256412v1

So both the Füzesabony and the Gáva sample are from around Miskolc, both fit into the general pattern, one E-V13 is closer to Füzesabony, another to Gáva. All of them are more WHG and Corded Ware pulled together, which, as a combination, is not as common otherwise in this time and the Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan sphere.
The Gáva sample also has some of the best distance values for the "Southern Scythians".

Bruzmi
11-11-2021, 10:15 AM
J-L283 looks like it migrated from the Caucasus into Sardinia (trough the Balkans?) sometime before the Steppe invasions, and took part in the Nuragic culture. It's unclear yet how it became associated with the western Balkans. In the Maros culture it's already there, and Maros looks like a mix of Vučedol and something Mako-related. Vučedol is a local EEF/Yamnaya mix, and Mako is a neolithic population originating somewhere from Eastern Europe.

In my opinion, the Nuragic J-L283 are descendants of migrants to Sardinia from the Balkans.

Distance to: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC008
0.02948300 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.03954917 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
0.06272558 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.07147425 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.07213134 HRV_Vucedol
0.08424457 BGR_N
0.09344070 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.09676123 BGR_EBA
0.10493459 GRC_Peloponnese_N
0.10583203 GRC_Helladic_EBA


Distance to: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC003
0.02058880 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.04100932 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
0.05964671 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.07088271 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.07300741 HRV_Vucedol
0.08224225 BGR_N
0.08868858 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.09084956 BGR_EBA
0.10423015 GRC_Peloponnese_N
0.10820225 GRC_Helladic_EBA

Distance to: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10553
0.02665895 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.03852222 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
0.05852517 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.07149649 HRV_Vucedol
0.07530554 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.08463100 BGR_N
0.08727652 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.09491182 BGR_EBA
0.10780532 GRC_Helladic_EBA
0.10830367 GRC_Peloponnese_N

Riverman
11-11-2021, 10:38 AM
In my opinion, the Nuragic J-L283 are descendants of migrants to Sardinia from the Balkans.

Distance to: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC008
0.02948300 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.03954917 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
0.06272558 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.07147425 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.07213134 HRV_Vucedol
0.08424457 BGR_N
0.09344070 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.09676123 BGR_EBA
0.10493459 GRC_Peloponnese_N
0.10583203 GRC_Helladic_EBA


Distance to: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC003
0.02058880 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.04100932 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
0.05964671 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.07088271 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.07300741 HRV_Vucedol
0.08224225 BGR_N
0.08868858 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.09084956 BGR_EBA
0.10423015 GRC_Peloponnese_N
0.10820225 GRC_Helladic_EBA

Distance to: ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10553
0.02665895 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.03852222 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
0.05852517 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.07149649 HRV_Vucedol
0.07530554 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.08463100 BGR_N
0.08727652 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.09491182 BGR_EBA
0.10780532 GRC_Helladic_EBA
0.10830367 GRC_Peloponnese_N

Possible, but these values don't prove it. The distance is much too high.

Bruzmi
11-11-2021, 10:51 AM
Possible, but these values don't prove it. The distance is much too high.

The values prove that they had some Balkan ancestry. How and when they acquired it, is debatable. But even if their male ancestors reached Sardinia a few generations before their era, it's not unlikely for them to have low Balkan ancestry if all their other recent ancestors were Sardinian locals.

What remains a fact in any case is that Sardinia did have an influx of Balkan newcomers in the LBA/EIA. To say that J-L283 may be a signal of this migration is quite likely in my opinion. Note how most Vucedol-like ancestry is in specific settlements.

https://i.ibb.co/m5NY1tz/sardinianur.png

Riverman
11-11-2021, 10:56 AM
You should add Southern Bell Beakers.

ShpataEMadhe
11-11-2021, 04:27 PM
How do you explain the descendents of the Middle Danubian Tumulus and Urnfield groups being presumably Pannonian-Illyrian speakers? I think an assimilation of J-L283 from Bell Beaker or Tumulus Culture groups is as likely. Their Western shift makes this also a fitting scenario, as does their position. Illyrian seems to be mostly derived from Tumulus Culture groups which expanded southward, of which some forming later a Middle Danubian Urnfield branch, while others formed the "Illyrian proper" core while sticking to inhumation, incorporating more regional influences and transitioning into Glasinac-Mati.
Gimbutas was already very clear about that relationship - compare p. 330-331:
https://books.google.de/books?id=BvtRdigDtFoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

Its therefore much more likely to find J-L283 associated with Bell Beaker lineages and that's what we got in the Slovenia_IA samples.

The problem with current samples is that they are heavily mixed with celts due to the geographical region and also cultures they were found in. I dont think illyrians had much to do with tumulus culture

Once we get illyrians proper from bosnia/montenegro/albania we can figure out which lines they actually belonged to

Riverman
11-11-2021, 04:44 PM
The problem with current samples is that they are heavily mixed with celts due to the geographical region and also cultures they were found in. I dont think illyrians had much to do with tumulus culture

Once we get illyrians proper from bosnia/montenegro/albania we can figure out which lines they actually belonged to

Well, the Tumulus culture rolled over them and being the primary marker for later "Illyrian proper" everywhere in the Balkans. So either they came with TC, or they joined early. Its different with Urnfield, because only the Pannonian, Middle Danubian groups joined. I guess they had a good amount of J-L283 too, but probably a lower frequency in comparison, similar to Slovenia IA samples, in close proximity to the Veneti, which were more R1b and received more E-V13 also probably.

ShpataEMadhe
11-11-2021, 09:28 PM
Well, the Tumulus culture rolled over them and being the primary marker for later "Illyrian proper" everywhere in the Balkans. So either they came with TC, or they joined early. Its different with Urnfield, because only the Pannonian, Middle Danubian groups joined. I guess they had a good amount of J-L283 too, but probably a lower frequency in comparison, similar to Slovenia IA samples, in close proximity to the Veneti, which were more R1b and received more E-V13 also probably.

Maybe there is a chance that italo celts/tumulus people moved into illyrian lands -

"According to legend, 300,000 Celts moved into Italy and Illyria."

But with these sorts of numbers it doesnt make sense for the lack of celtic r1b in south europe today. What are the chances that either j2b l283 or some v13 lines were actually italo celtic people/spread through tumulus culture? -

"Some scholars see Tumulus groups from southern Germany in this context as corresponding to a community that shared an extinct Indo-European linguistic entity, such as the hypothetical Italo-Celtic group that was ancestral to Italic and Celtic."

If it isnt a case of these being italo celtic lines then the clash between tumulus culture and people like illyrians/thracians etc needs to be looked into because it is possible that these tumuli were already in south europe before illyrians/thracians moved in. We still dont know exactly when illyrians or thracians settled in central/south europe but the thracians were actually also located in western balkans before being pushed or expanding eastward - im not sure which is correct. What if proto illyrians and thracians were related and carried the same lines since they were so close to one another at one point in time?

47410

Riverman
11-11-2021, 10:35 PM
Tumulus culture was like Urnfield multi-ethnic. A common origin of Thraco-Illyrian, if real, would rather date to the EBA, like the time of Mokrin and surely no later than earliest Tumulus.

Hanslim23
11-12-2021, 04:07 AM
Does anyone know anything and the V13 sub group E-FT40470?

Riverman
11-12-2021, 09:59 AM
Does anyone know anything and the V13 sub group E-FT40470?

On FTDNA it looks like its being quite Northern-Central European for a long time, just like its upstream branch E-FT39742. They split from the large Balkan-group in the Middle Bronze Age, before the major E-V13 expansion in the LBA started.

Riverman
11-12-2021, 11:36 AM
That's a fantastic article, with some faults, but still. Most interesting and important was the description how the tell-tale flame-shaped spearheads spread and related Carpathian spearhead forms. I finally have a direct connection of Channelled Ware people to the Ligurians!


The hoard inventory from Roško Polje also includes further types of bronze spearheads. Particularly noteworthy are some examples with a flame-shaped blade (Fig. 11,1).46 The spearheads with a flat flame-shaped blade already have a long tradition in the Carpathian Basin. Here, spearheads of the classical flame shape were most frequently found in hoards of the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Bz D/Ha A1 or the 13th/12th centuries BCE).47 Further Late Bronze Age examples (Fig. 12 ) came to light in settlements from the northwestern Balkans as well as from northern Italy. In the Carpathian Basin and the northwestern Balkans, a longer time span for this spear shape must be assumed. Here, the shape still sporadically occurs in hoards of the period Ha B1 or in the 10th century BCE (Fig. 12 [white triangles]). From the region of central Dalmatia mainly known are single finds of flame shaped spearheads without exact dating.48 [B]In central and southern Italy the flame-shaped spearheads come, without exception, from Early Iron Age graves and cemeteries whose origins must be searched in the 10th century BCE (Fig. 12 [white circles]). Thus, we can observe a connection in time between the Carpathian-northwestern Balkan and the central as well as southern Italian items in the 10th century BCE.49 This mainly suggests contacts across the central Adriatic Sea, bypassing northeastearn Italy.

Note how well this timing would fit with the Sardinian-Genuese known subclades! Most important is always whether there was a local production.


The pointed out trans-Adriatic contacts are supported by the distribution of another original Carpathian spear shape, which is characterized by its distinctive ribbed socket (Fig. 13). The main distribution area of these spearheads comprises the Carpathian Basin as well as bordering regions of the northwestern and eastern Balkans. It is a very long-lasting spear shape that in the northeastern Carpathian Basin appeared already at the end of the Early Bronze Age and continued in different types and variants up to the period Ha B1 or the 10th century BCE.55 In areas west of the Balkan-Carpathian region, only a few pieces reached the Alps. The area between Garda Lake and Po Plain, which is otherwise rich in Late Bronze Age metal artefacts, is free of finds. On the other hand, however, single pieces of local production occur in Final Bronze Age and Early Iron Age find contexts in Tyrrhenian Italy.56 In the Carpathian Basin as well as in the northern Balkans the blades of these spearheads are frequently designed in the form of laurel leaves.57 A single spearhead with a distinctive ribbed socket and a laurel leave-shaped blade is recorded in the surrounding area of Sinj in central Dalmatia (Fig. 13,1). A central Italian example from an Early Iron Age grave find of Veio-Quattro Fontanili58 in southern Etruria finds its best prototypes in northwestern Balkan spearheads with a special narrow flame-shaped blade and a distinctive ribbed socket. In particular, such pieces came to light in the cave of Škocjan59 in western Slovenia and in Mostarsko Blato in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Fig. 13,2), which again points to cultural contacts across the central or upper Adriatic.

The centre of the distribution is Belegis II-Gáva:

https://i.ibb.co/txtnM3b/Flame-Shaped-Spearheads-Pabst.jpg

https://ibb.co/D8ymDL7

Flame shaped spearheads are one of the primary signals for Channelled Ware peoples migrations and influences. The map is disproportionate insofar, as further up we find those spearheads too, even in Transcarpathia. The Vojvodina area just produced more, not earlier, and being better researched imho.


The first emergence of flame-shaped and other foreign spearheads on the Apennine peninsula at
the transition from the Final Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age is accompanied by the massive adoption
of original Carpathian-northwestern Balkan costume elements, like spiral fibulae and bow fibulae with
a spiral foot.60 Furthermore, this generally corresponds with the frequent appearance of hoards with
mixed composition61 and large cremation burial cemeteries of the Carpathian model on the Apennine
Peninsula at the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age.62 Thus, the archaeological
finds of the 11th/10th centuries BCE do not only attest to trans-Adriatic influences on jewellery and
weapon craft. They point to religious and intellectual influences too. Chiefly, that should be connected
to the large-scale migration of foreign (Carpathian and/or northwestern Balkan) population groups
across the Adriatic at the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition during the 11th/10th centuries BCE.63

https://www.academia.edu/43656713/Late_Bronze_Age_and_Early_Iron_Age_Central_Dalmati a_in_the_Sphere_of_Interaction_between_the_Carpath ian_Basin_the_Apennine_Peninsula_and_the_Aegean

That the possibly Illyrian groups have single finds means they acquired it or Gáva elements were already among them. But more important is, whether such spearheads were also produced locally or buried in hoards. And interestingly, that's primarily the case in Northern Italy it seems.

Bane
11-12-2021, 12:10 PM
They split from the large Balkan-group in the Middle Bronze Age, before the major E-V13 expansion in the LBA started.


This is a bit new? You would place E-V13 of the Middle Bronze Age in the Balkans?

vasil
11-12-2021, 12:14 PM
Maybe there is a chance that italo celts/tumulus people moved into illyrian lands -

"According to legend, 300,000 Celts moved into Italy and Illyria."

But with these sorts of numbers it doesnt make sense for the lack of celtic r1b in south europe today. What are the chances that either j2b l283 or some v13 lines were actually italo celtic people/spread through tumulus culture? -

"Some scholars see Tumulus groups from southern Germany in this context as corresponding to a community that shared an extinct Indo-European linguistic entity, such as the hypothetical Italo-Celtic group that was ancestral to Italic and Celtic."

If it isnt a case of these being italo celtic lines then the clash between tumulus culture and people like illyrians/thracians etc needs to be looked into because it is possible that these tumuli were already in south europe before illyrians/thracians moved in. We still dont know exactly when illyrians or thracians settled in central/south europe but the thracians were actually also located in western balkans before being pushed or expanding eastward - im not sure which is correct. What if proto illyrians and thracians were related and carried the same lines since they were so close to one another at one point in time?

47410

I have tought about Thraco-Illyrian from the west in the past but it doesnt seem to be a thing because Thracian and Illyrian languages seem to be very distant with Thracian probably forming a node with Balto-Slavic and Illyrian being some sort of Yamnaya derived group. How Thracian forms a node with Balto-Slavic without R1a but with Z2103 and V13 is a mistery.

Riverman
11-12-2021, 12:40 PM
This is a bit new? You would place E-V13 of the Middle Bronze Age in the Balkans?

Actually, where to place E-V13 is still open to debate, but the main question for E-V13, from my point of view, is, where the main rapid expansion started from. And that seems to be the North of Pannonia, Northern Tisza basin, in the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, associated with groups like Füzesabony, Piliny, Suciu de Sus and Lăpuș. From Piliny emerged Kyjatice, Gáva is more mysterious, but a relationship to Piliny likely, but also and more directly from Suciu de Sus out of which Lăpuș emerged.

These are all groups which are in the Northern and Eastern parts of Pannonia, while the Middle Danubian Tumulus and later Urnfield groups were more oriented towards Austria-Czechia, up the Danube, being stronger in the Western half and expanding to the West Balkan. Now I can imagine some kind of connection between these two lasting to the Tumulus Culture, but then, when they split into the Middle Danubian TC and later the Carpathian groups adopted TC elements too, with a Carpathian-Trannsylvanian group, this is still in the MBA, this is when they definitely are people apart. So its not I'm assuming Thraco-Illyrians lived as long together, but that's the latest point in time thinkable.

Before all of that, before these groups in the Upper Tisza area emerged, we can't say where E-V13 was lurking around, probably in multiple places, probably from a Mokrin like mix. I'd say they were further up the North since Lengyel, but that's what I think at the moment, its not proven at all. And its also possible that some small groups or even just individuals will pop up further South earlier, that's even more likely. However, the bulk of the group is supposed to have formed in the formations which produced Gáva and that's where the major expansion started.
This is particularly likely because E-V13 seems to have spread on both sides of the Carpathians and as the latest post proves, into Northern Italy from Belegis II-Gáva. And the Belegis II-Gáva branch split from the Northern and Eastern branch fairly early in the transitional phase, that's why so many splits are around 1.300-1.000 BC in the E-V13 phylogeny. This means both the Central-Western Balkan and the East Balkan-Northern group need to have a last common source population before in my opinion, which is core Gáva itself:
However, I think even for Bulgaria Gáva being central, by spreading the Channelled Ware horizon, and this was the main reason I think that E-V13 became dominant in Gáva and spread from there:

In the Dobrudja, Bulgaria and, somewhat later in parts of Moldova, the channelled pottery may be combined with stamped and incised decoration (Babadag, Catalka, Psenichevo, Cozia, Saharna), which may represent the origin of the widespread later Basarabi culture. Interestingly, the Bulgarian channelled pottery, apart from the generally common features, displays connections to Gáva-Holihrady group of the north, rather than to the immediately neighbouring Belegis II types of southern Romania. Traces of these elements may also be found further south in Troy VIIb or in the so-called 'Barbarian Ware' of Greece.

Seems in Bulgaria they were not very interested in Urnfield remains which prove the intrusion (?) or just lack the resources to do it:

Cremation graves are also mentioned for the pottery with channelled and stamped/incised ware from Bulgaria, but none has been excavated professionally.

Also interesting for more samples:

Inhumation in large typical Gáva-Holihrady vessels is also known, but again only in few cases. Several inhumation graves in settlement pits, crouched or extended on the back, have been excavated in Babadag sites, but it is not clear whether this was the regular burial practice.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258343824_Nikolaus_Boroffka_Romania_Moldova_and_Bu lgaria_In_Harry_Fokkens_Anthony_Harding_eds_The_Ox ford_Handbook_of_the_European_Bronze_Age_Oxford_Un iversity_Press_Oxford_2013_pp_877-897

My assumption is also that it was in the Northern Carpathians before, with Lengyel, into Epi-Corded and Southern Unetician-related groups. But that's less safe.
The safest starting point we have right now, and this is actually proven, is that Psenichevo-Basarabi being heavily E-V13. But while its possible, its much harder to explain the modern spread with them alone, its much easier if assuming Gŕva as a whole was dominated by E-V13, which is however just my working hypothesis, to put it that way.


I have tought about Thraco-Illyrian from the west in the past but it doesnt seem to be a thing because Thracian and Illyrian languages seem to be very distant with Thracian probably forming a node with Balto-Slavic and Illyrian being some sort of Yamnaya derived group. How Thracian forms a node with Balto-Slavic without R1a but with Z2103 and V13 is a mistery.

Not if they were assimilated by Epi-Corded groups, related to R1a heavy Nitra group. Note that Kyjatice-Gáva both need Epi-Corded/Unetician ancestry to be modelled correctly! So it seems that a allied clans, tribal formations of mostly Neolithic-Yamnaya lineages (R-Z2103, I2, G2, H, E-V13, J2a being found so far) being culturally assimilated and entered a marriage network with Epi-Corded groups in the North Pannonian-Carpathian zone.
Because latest since the EBA, they always being connected to Slovakia-Moravia and Poland, to Epi-Corded groups. This is still true for Gáva which was very much Lusatian oriented. And Lusatians in turn are a good candidate for having influened Balto-Slavs. We need their Eastern groups sampled.

Riverman
11-15-2021, 09:33 PM
The paper on Verteba cave is out, some samples show indeed increased WHG affinity.

As for the LBA individual:

Individual VERT-114, dated around the LBA, showed a genetic position close to Bell-Beaker populations in PCA and ADMIXTURE. This individual shows a higher influx of ancestry from WHG than from EHG populations f4(Mbuti, VERT-114; WHG, EHG) -0.002, Z score=-8,64), similar to the results obtained for the aggregate group of 22 Verteba individuals. qpAdm results for this individual show that a single model with a Bell_Beaker population as a single source works (Fig. 4). Many of the two-way models involve populations related to Ukraine_Globular_Amphora and to steppe populations, with approximately 60% of ancestry from the former and the rest from the latter.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1044480/v1

I guess it will be closer to Gáva and Kyjatice, probably Füzesabony, rather than Beakers, but let's see. They didn't compare with those single samples, but they used Mako too, which being not mentioned and wouldn't fit anyway, because its too WHG. The individual is a female, mtDNA T2.

Looking at which Beakers she is closest too, its clear, its going in a Gáva direction:

Verteba_LBA* Poland_Southeast_BellBeaker
Verteba_LBA* Hungary_EBA_BellBeaker


That's not British Beakers of course...

I would interpret all the results as mounting evidence for a local continuity of a WHG heavy Neolithic population around the Carpathians and Pannonia, which was later fusing with Epi-Corded/Beaker groups to create the North Pannonian clusters which emerged with Gáva, Kyjatice and Füzesabony/late Otomani.

bce
11-15-2021, 09:43 PM
The paper on Verteba cave is out, some samples show indeed increased WHG affinity.

As for the LBA individual:


https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1044480/v1

I guess it will be closer to Gáva and Kyjatice, probably Füzesabony, rather than Beakers, but let's see. They didn't compare with those single samples, but they used Mako too, which being not mentioned and wouldn't fit anyway, because its too WHG. The individual is a female, mtDNA T2.

Looking at which Beakers she is closest too, its clear, its going in a Gáva direction:


That's not British Beakers of course...

I would interpret all the results as mounting evidence for a local continuity of a WHG heavy Neolithic population around the Carpathians and Pannonia, which was later fusing with Epi-Corded/Beaker groups to create the North Pannonian clusters which emerged with Gáva, Kyjatice and Füzesabony/late Otomani.

one sample is I-M423, it will be interesting to see how it relates to the modern Slavic subclade.

Riverman
11-15-2021, 10:16 PM
one sample is I-M423, it will be interesting to see how it relates to the modern Slavic subclade.

Another is I2c, which I rarely saw and yet another I-M284 if I'm not mistaken. The local element seems to have been still dominated by G2 obviously:

These are the haplogroups:
G2a2b2a3
G2a2b2a3
G2a2a1
C1a
G2a2a1a
I2a2a1
G2a2a1a
G2a2b2a3
G2a2a1a3~
I2a1a2a
I2c

ShpataEMadhe
11-16-2021, 12:36 PM
I have tought about Thraco-Illyrian from the west in the past but it doesnt seem to be a thing because Thracian and Illyrian languages seem to be very distant with Thracian probably forming a node with Balto-Slavic and Illyrian being some sort of Yamnaya derived group. How Thracian forms a node with Balto-Slavic without R1a but with Z2103 and V13 is a mistery.

There is no way it is related to balto slavic, thracians moved from west to east - proto thracians had very little contact with balto-slavic. They probably picked up some r1a and loan words from scythians later on

Thracian and Illyrian likely emerged out of a similar paleobalkan european root language before receiving loan words from various groups they contacted along the way

Riverman
11-16-2021, 12:41 PM
There is no way it is related to balto slavic, thracians moved from west to east - proto thracians had very little contact with balto-slavic. They probably picked up some r1a and loan words from scythians later on

Thracian and Illyrian likely emerged out of a similar paleobalkan european root language before receiving loan words from various groups they contacted along the way

Well, probably we will know soon whether Gáva, with an origin in the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, was the origin of the Proto-Thracians/Daco-Thracians. If it was, it might have been a close neighbour of Balto-Slavs. Linguistically most put Daco-Thracians dialects closest to Balto-Slavic, which just makes sense. Even if Daco-Thracians wouldn't have originated in Northern Pannonia-Carpathians, which seems likely by now, they bordered them later and where in close proximity before. Daco-Thracians did expand in all directions, the least to the North, because there were culturally related and powerful neighbours, the Lusatians. And its these Lusatians, or their Eastern groups, which either might have been Balto-Slavs or just influenced those.

Bruzmi
11-16-2021, 02:13 PM
https://i.ibb.co/GThbKv8/custom15.png

I added I7498 to the J-L283/E-V13 PCA + other samples.

I7498 found in Spain plots extremely close to HRV_IA and 2 J-L283 (HRV_MBA, Etruscan). Another E-V13 sample found out of the Balkans but with a very distinctive western Balkan origin (along with other admixture points).

POP39 from CA Popova Zemlja (https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-021-94932-9/MediaObjects/41598_2021_94932_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp), Croatia is extremely close to SCY197 and I8832 (both E-V13).

The more data we get, the more likely a movement from the northwestern Balkans/southern Pannonia in the same general population as J-L283 looks for E-V13.

Riverman
11-16-2021, 02:27 PM
https://i.ibb.co/GThbKv8/custom15.png

I added I7498 to the J-L283/E-V13 PCA + other samples.

I7498 found in Spain plots extremely close to HRV_IA and 2 J-L283 (HRV_MBA, Etruscan). Another E-V13 sample found out of the Balkans but with a very distinctive western Balkan origin.

POP39 from CA Popova Zemlja (https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-021-94932-9/MediaObjects/41598_2021_94932_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp), Croatia is extremely close to SCY197 and I8832 (both E-V13).

The more data we get, the more likely a movement from the northwestern Balkans/southern Pannonia in the same general population as J-L283 looks for E-V13.

I7498 is from Medieval Spain, he is essentially an Iberian Bell Beaker with additional Celto-Germanic, Italic and North African admixture. That's how his whole group, which have the best distance to him, looks like - they all have more Basque and Celto-Germanic, but especially North African ancestry, none of the J2b samples from the Balkan-Pannonian sphere has North African:

https://i.ibb.co/4fbWhwV/Iberia-J2b-Balkan-Comparison.jpg

https://ibb.co/j5Chn9r

The position on the PCA is pure chance, he is completely different. Plotting close on the PCA is not everything!
Like described here also, his lineage seems to have come with Celts or Germanics (Goths?) most likely:

Admixture:
Target: Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE:I7498
Distance: 0.7388% / 0.00738780 | R4P
40.4 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
26.0 TUR_Ikiztepe_LC
24.0 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic
9.6 MAR_Taforalt

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3821-Albanian-DNA-Project&p=815516&viewfull=1#post815516

ShpataEMadhe
11-16-2021, 02:32 PM
I7498 is from Medieval Spain, he is essentially an Iberian Bell Beaker with additional Celto-Germanic, Italic and North African admixture. That's how his whole group, which have the best distance to him, looks like - they all have more Basque and Celto-Germanic, but especially North African ancestry, none of the J2b samples from the Balkan-Pannonian sphere has North African:

https://i.ibb.co/4fbWhwV/Iberia-J2b-Balkan-Comparison.jpg

https://ibb.co/j5Chn9r

The position on the PCA is pure chance, he is completely different. Plotting close on the PCA is not everything!
Like described here also, his lineage seems to have come with Celts or Germanics (Goths?) most likely:

Admixture:
Target: Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE:I7498
Distance: 0.7388% / 0.00738780 | R4P
40.4 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
26.0 TUR_Ikiztepe_LC
24.0 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic
9.6 MAR_Taforalt

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3821-Albanian-DNA-Project&p=815516&viewfull=1#post815516

The north african input is either from roman empire or from moors depending on the exact year, this is a medieval sample after all. The j2b found in bronze age balkans werent part of the roman empire yet nor regionally near the moors so have no reason to mix with north african.

How can you suggest its normal for this iberian to be bell beaker with north african input? V13 hasnt been found amongst bell beakers and they had zero north african input

Bruzmi
11-16-2021, 02:43 PM
The position on the PCA is pure chance, he is completely different. Plotting close on the PCA is not everything!
Like described here also, his lineage seems to have come with Celts or Germanics (Goths?) most likely:

Admixture:
Target: Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE:I7498
Distance: 0.7388% / 0.00738780 | R4P
40.4 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
26.0 TUR_Ikiztepe_LC
24.0 ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic
9.6 MAR_Taforalt

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3821-Albanian-DNA-Project&p=815516&viewfull=1#post815516

I didn't say that he didn't have a broad admixture, I just showed where he stands compared to Balkan aDNA samples. I'm perfectly aware of the differences in different modes of investigation which are normal because they examine different aspects of someone's ancestry. This has been true for all samples regardless of their haplogroup. If you don't try models with contemporaneous samples, you'll get skewed overlapping results. Unfortunately, for many samples no good contemporaneous coverage exists (~3.7%):
Target: Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE:I7498
Distance: 3.7084% / 0.03708383 | R4P
52.0 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
22.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
19.0 HRV_EBA
7.0 Baltic_LVA_BA


The broader point doesn't change. There's no reason to create a theory which requires many, many assumptions to be true instead of just saying that someone who a)does have Balkan ancestry b)belongs to a lineage with a very high frequency among natives of the Balkans is c)of relatively recent Balkan ancestry and not the descendant of an ancient migration.

EDIT: For every sample found so far, we've had the same debate. All of them show some recent Balkan ancestry. There is a pattern of recent Balkan ancestry + additional admixture from the area they were found.

Riverman
11-16-2021, 02:52 PM
The north african input is either from roman empire or from moors depending on the exact year, this is a medieval sample after all. The j2b found in bronze age balkans werent part of the roman empire yet nor regionally near the moors so have no reason to mix with north african.

How can you suggest its normal for this iberian to be bell beaker with north african input? V13 hasnt been found amongst bell beakers and they had zero north african input

You just misunderstood me. I think he is a Gothic-local mix. Look at the admixture run, he has one of the lowest North African and the lowest Basque component. His Celto-Germanic and Roman provincial being increased. So I guess he is a mixed Germanic Goths, like some were found with E-V13 already, coming from Pannonian and Italian provincials.

The J2b don't have anything to do with those, that was my point. That they plot close on the PCA means little, which is exactly what I wanted to express with this post, because Bruzmi made it look like they have something in common, just because they plot close. They don't.

Bruzmi
11-16-2021, 02:53 PM
POP39 from CA Popova Zemlja (https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-021-94932-9/MediaObjects/41598_2021_94932_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp), Croatia is extremely close to SCY197 and I8832 (both E-V13).

The more data we get, the more likely a movement from the northwestern Balkans/southern Pannonia in the same general population as J-L283 looks for E-V13.

Location of POP39:

https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-021-94932-9/MediaObjects/41598_2021_94932_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp

Comparison with modern populations doesn't matter much but it's nevertheless interesting:

Distance to: HRV_Pop_CA:POP39
0.02986396 French_Corsica
0.03110478 Italian_Tuscany
0.03145161 Italian_Piedmont
0.03443976 Italian_Umbria
0.03499122 Swiss_Italian
0.03511649 Italian_Bergamo
0.03611625 Albanian
0.03660018 Italian_Veneto
0.03687846 Greek_Thessaly
0.03696671 Italian_Lombardy
0.03833558 Italian_Marche
0.03935501 Italian_Lazio
0.03943354 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.04012644 Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.04142507 Greek_Peloponnese
0.04301753 Italian_Molise
0.04340262 Italian_Liguria
0.04411297 Rumelia_East
0.04452128 Greek_Macedonia
0.04466058 Macedonian
0.04503662 Italian_Abruzzo
0.04525387 Italian_Northeast
0.04618896 Spanish_Baleares
0.04644926 Greek_Laconia
0.04678655 Greek_Izmir

Riverman
11-16-2021, 03:06 PM
I8832 is the most Southern E-V13 in the new British paper and he's being pulled towards BGR_EBA. His closest matches are indeed Moldovan "Scythians" (Geto-Scythians), which plot very similar. Another Scythian from Hungary, DA198, being as close.
The closest J2b being I4998, which is form a different sampling group than the other J2b's. Note the sampling number. In my opinion I4998 is from Geto-Scythians like those in Moldova, Bulgaria or the Central Balkans, probably even further South.

Bruzmi
11-16-2021, 03:19 PM
I8832 is the most Southern E-V13 in the new British paper and he's being pulled towards BGR_EBA. His closest matches are indeed Moldovan "Scythians" (Geto-Scythians), which plot very similar. Another Scythian from Hungary, DA198, being as close.
The closest J2b being I4998, which is form a different sampling group than the other J2b's. Note the sampling number. In my opinion I4998 is from Geto-Scythians like those in Moldova, Bulgaria or the Central Balkans, probably even further South.

There are no Geto-Scythians. SCY197 (E-V13) and the others of the southern cluster are not from the eastern Balkans and SCY197 overlaps J-L283 samples.

The statement "I8832 is being pulled towards BGR_EBA" is not correct.

Distance to: E-V13:I18832

0.02939570 HRV_Pop_CA: POP39
0.03939319 J-L283:HRV_MBA: I4331
0.04124583 BGR_IA:I5769
0.04419755 Scythian_HUN: DA198
0.04442533 J-L283:ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.04588170 E-V13:scy197
0.05008369 HRV_IA:I3313
0.05042144 E-V13:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107
0.05072948 HRV_EBA:I3499
0.05374537 BGR_EBA:I2520
0.05745476 J-L283:I5696
0.05852259 J-L283:ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR54
0.05897557 BGR_EBA:I2175

ShpataEMadhe
11-16-2021, 03:41 PM
There are no Geto-Scythians. SCY197 (E-V13) and the others of the southern cluster are not from the eastern Balkans and SCY197 overlaps J-L283 samples.

The statement "I8832 is being pulled towards BGR_EBA" is not correct.

Distance to: E-V13:I18832

0.02939570 HRV_Pop_CA: POP39
0.03939319 J-L283:HRV_MBA: I4331
0.04124583 BGR_IA:I5769
0.04419755 Scythian_HUN: DA198
0.04442533 J-L283:ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.04588170 E-V13:scy197
0.05008369 HRV_IA:I3313
0.05042144 E-V13:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107
0.05072948 HRV_EBA:I3499
0.05374537 BGR_EBA:I2520
0.05745476 J-L283:I5696
0.05852259 J-L283:ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR54
0.05897557 BGR_EBA:I2175

It just points to j-l283 and e-v13 being found amongst paleobalkan people in varying frequencies. It is impossible for proto scythians to have carried v13 as it seems to have a west to east trajectory, they would received it from the dacians when they moved east

Riverman
11-16-2021, 04:01 PM
There are no Geto-Scythians. SCY197 (E-V13) and the others of the southern cluster are not from the eastern Balkans and SCY197 overlaps J-L283 samples.

The statement "I8832 is being pulled towards BGR_EBA" is not correct.

Distance to: E-V13:I18832

0.02939570 HRV_Pop_CA:POP39
0.03939319 J-L283:HRV_MBA:I4331
0.04124583 BGR_IA:I5769
0.04419755 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.04442533 J-L283:ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.04588170 E-V13:scy197
0.05008369 HRV_IA:I3313
0.05042144 E-V13:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107
0.05072948 HRV_EBA:I3499
0.05374537 BGR_EBA:I2520
0.05745476 J-L283:I5696
0.05852259 J-L283:ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR54
0.05897557 BGR_EBA:I2175

I was speaking about the PCA, there he's being pulled towards the BGR_EBA. But you are correct, he is closest to the Croatian Neolithic-Copper Age samples:
Distance to: EV13:I18832
0.02774579 ZEM39:ZEM39
0.02939570 HRV_Pop_CA:POP39
0.03678129 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03766141 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.03939319 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.04109574 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101
0.04114909 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.04124583 BGR_IA:I5769
0.04147532 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111
0.04154520 Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.04232541 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.04307090 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.04341596 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287
0.04353991 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
0.04356894 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ40
0.04380870 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.04419755 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.04442533 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.04476558 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.04512065 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK17A
0.04549719 TUR_IA_low_res:MA2197
0.04585037 DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2:NIEcap3c
0.04588170 Scythian_MDA:scy197
0.04592289 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR969
0.04592850 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK13

He is also clsoe to Bulgarian samples, but very close to the Croatian ones. Interesting. I did miss this for that one. His closest match is from Zemunica, ZEM39, which is a complete outlier! A second outlier of the Zemunica sample is even more Yamnaya. ZEM39 doesn't fit into the rest of the sample, that's why I missed it before. He is the ONLY one closer to BGR_IA and the Thraco-Scythians out of all these samples - probably an early individual from somthing like:

Pop39 is interesting indeed and Vučedol makes some sense, considering the possible trajectory from Mokrin/Maros for some of the Neolithic lineages ending up in the North Pannonian cluster, including the other E-V13 samples from the new paper.

That's an early steppe admixed group, similar to the later Mokrin. ZEM39 is obviously steppe admixed and belongs in the same category as POP39. Plots also similar to Pannonian Szolad samples and Thraco-Scythians too, as well as Mokrin, like expected. So there is some general continuity. Its the J2b cluster which got additional Bell Beaker ancestry from the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture in the MBA.

Distance to: HRV_Pop_CA:POP39
0.01653389 ZEM39:ZEM39
0.03105186 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101
0.03153227 Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.03246423 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03364679 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK31
0.03517081 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03518587 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
0.03561707 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.03564044 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03574774 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.03598813 Scythian_MDA:scy300
0.03695757 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.03713857 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.03715819 DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2:NIEcap3c
0.03720181 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03776904 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287
0.03813682 Scythian_MDA:scy197
0.03872257 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.03880201 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.03890247 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.03946307 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK13
0.03952542 HUN_BA:I7040
0.03961387 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111
0.03965203 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.04012710 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK17A

General PCA:
https://i.ibb.co/qRys7vm/Haplogroups-British-Paper15.jpg

https://ibb.co/7GYWjqr

Going by the timings, this could make a movement of E-V13 from Lengyel - Vučedol/Maros - Füzesabony/Otomani late - Gáva possible. But this is highly speculative, yet the closeness to the two samples (ZEM39 outlier and POP39) is intriguing. This points too, however, to a more Pannonian origin and even more so later distribution, with later migration towards more coastal Balkan areas. Its possible it migrated one times up the Tisza (earlier BA) and down again (Channelled Ware). Going by these samples alone, its a possibility.

bce
11-16-2021, 04:56 PM
I was speaking about the PCA, there he's being pulled towards the BGR_EBA. But you are correct, he is closest to the Croatian Neolithic-Copper Age samples:
Distance to: EV13:I18832
0.02774579 ZEM39:ZEM39
0.02939570 HRV_Pop_CA:POP39
0.03678129 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03766141 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.03939319 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.04109574 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101
0.04114909 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.04124583 BGR_IA:I5769
0.04147532 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111
0.04154520 Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.04232541 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.04307090 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.04341596 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287
0.04353991 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
0.04356894 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ40
0.04380870 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.04419755 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.04442533 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.04476558 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.04512065 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK17A
0.04549719 TUR_IA_low_res:MA2197
0.04585037 DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2:NIEcap3c
0.04588170 Scythian_MDA:scy197
0.04592289 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR969
0.04592850 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK13

He is also clsoe to Bulgarian samples, but very close to the Croatian ones. Interesting. I did miss this for that one. His closest match is from Zemunica, ZEM39, which is a complete outlier! A second outlier of the Zemunica sample is even more Yamnaya. ZEM39 doesn't fit into the rest of the sample, that's why I missed it before. He is the ONLY one closer to BGR_IA and the Thraco-Scythians out of all these samples - probably an early individual from somthing like:

Pop39 is interesting indeed and Vučedol makes some sense, considering the possible trajectory from Mokrin/Maros for some of the Neolithic lineages ending up in the North Pannonian cluster, including the other E-V13 samples from the new paper.

That's an early steppe admixed group, similar to the later Mokrin. ZEM39 is obviously steppe admixed and belongs in the same category as POP39. Plots also similar to Pannonian Szolad samples and Thraco-Scythians too, as well as Mokrin, like expected. So there is some general continuity. Its the J2b cluster which got additional Bell Beaker ancestry from the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture in the MBA.

Distance to: HRV_Pop_CA:POP39
0.01653389 ZEM39:ZEM39
0.03105186 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101
0.03153227 Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.03246423 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03364679 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK31
0.03517081 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03518587 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
0.03561707 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.03564044 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03574774 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.03598813 Scythian_MDA:scy300
0.03695757 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.03713857 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12
0.03715819 DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2:NIEcap3c
0.03720181 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03776904 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287
0.03813682 Scythian_MDA:scy197
0.03872257 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.03880201 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.03890247 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.03946307 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK13
0.03952542 HUN_BA:I7040
0.03961387 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111
0.03965203 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.04012710 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK17A

General PCA:
https://i.ibb.co/qRys7vm/Haplogroups-British-Paper15.jpg

https://ibb.co/7GYWjqr

Going by the timings, this could make a movement of E-V13 from Lengyel - Vučedol/Maros - Füzesabony/Otomani late - Gáva possible. But this is highly speculative, yet the closeness to the two samples (ZEM39 outlier and POP39) is intriguing. This points too, however, to a more Pannonian origin and even more so later distribution, with later migration towards more coastal Balkan areas. Its possible it migrated one times up the Tisza (earlier BA) and down again (Channelled Ware). Going by these samples alone, its a possibility.

ZEM39 and POP39 are the same sample, from the recent study on Croatia.

Riverman
11-16-2021, 05:01 PM
ZEM39 and POP39 are the same sample, from the recent study on Croatia.

Ah, ok. Funny he still gets a good distance, probably because the coverage is not ideal between the two samples. 0.01653389 is not high by any means, but for the same specimen, its still quite a gap. On the PCA the Southern V13 is closer than its own second sampling... Also something to learn from I guess.

Riverman
11-16-2021, 06:22 PM
Concerning the exact position of POP39, going after the paper itself:

We grouped the new Copper Age individual, POP39, with a previously published cladal individual, I3499
(Supplementary Table S2, Supplementary Table S6), who originates from the same site and time period (Croatia_
Pop_CA). This group is shifted further up along PC2 and clusters with three previously reported Bronze Age
samples from coastal Dalmatia (Croatia_Dal_BA), falling within the wide distribution of Bulgarian and Hungarian
Bronze Age genomes and present-day southern Europeans in PCA space (Fig. 2) suggesting the presence
of steppe-related ancestry. Indeed, distal admixture modelling with qpAdm estimates a contribution of 71 ± 8%
from Anatolia_N and a further 29 ± 8% from Yamnaya_Samara, representing steppe-related ancestry absent in
the Neolithic but found widely among Eurasian Copper and Bronze Age populations.(Fig. 3a, Supplementary
Fig. S4, Supplementary Fig. S6, Supplementary Table S4). We obtained a feasible two-way admixture model
with the more proximal, broadly contemporaneous pre-steppe group Croatia_North-East_CA (64 ± 8%) and
Yamnaya_Samara (36 ± 8%) (Fig. 3b, Supplementary Table S4).

Also relevant: The WHG- and steppe increased ancestry visible in Füzesabony (most Corded), Gáva, Kyjatice and Mako (most WHG) arrived in Croatia too in the MBA:


Croatia_Jag_MBA contrastingly falls to the left of present-day
genomes from Hungary, Germany, Czech Republic and Croatia, indicating a Central European genetic signature.
Other ancient genomes in this cloud also include individuals from the Carpathian Basin belonging to Makó
EBA, Vatya MBA, and an LBA individual.
The excess WHG-related ancestry present in Middle Bronze Age Jagodnjak suggests that this group descends
from populations harbouring additional WHG-related ancestry that is lacking in the preceding Croatian Copper
Age or Dalmatian Bronze Age, consistent with qpAdm modelling (Fig. 3b, Supplementary Table S4). Archaeological
evidence points to exchange networks between the Middle Bronze Age communities of eastern Croatia and
other cultural groups further north29.
Based on its date and core distribution in the Carpathian Basin32, as well
as its clustering with Croatia_Jag_MBA in UMAP and PCA space, we considered Hungary_Makó_EBA the most
suitable candidate source of ancestry. This choice is further supported by Hungary_Makó_EBA sharing similar
amounts of drift with WHG to Croatia_Jag_MBA (Supplementary Fig. S7, Supplementary Table S3). We indeed
obtained feasible models with Hungary_Makó_EBA, either as a two-way model with 35 ± 11% contribution from
Croatia_Pop_CA or as a single source (Fig. 3b, Supplementary Table S4).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353975662_Reconstructing_genetic_histories_and_soc ial_organisation_in_Neolithic_and_Bronze_Age_Croat ia

bce
11-16-2021, 06:31 PM
Concerning the exact position of POP39, going after the paper itself:


Also relevant: The WHG- and steppe increased ancestry visible in Füzesabony (most Corded), Gáva, Kyjatice and Mako (most WHG) arrived in Croatia too in the MBA:



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353975662_Reconstructing_genetic_histories_and_soc ial_organisation_in_Neolithic_and_Bronze_Age_Croat ia

interesting, they connect the increased WHG to Encrusted pottery from the MBA, and imply it spread north to south, from Hungary into Croatia.

I don't think this is correct. The Pannonian study will include samples from Croatia and Serbia which are from an earlier period (EBA) and have more WHG than Mako, or even the Vatya outlier.

Bruzmi
11-16-2021, 06:37 PM
Going by the timings, this could make a movement of E-V13 from Lengyel - Vučedol/Maros - Füzesabony/Otomani late - Gáva possible. But this is highly speculative, yet the closeness to the two samples (ZEM39 outlier and POP39) is intriguing. This points too, however, to a more Pannonian origin and even more so later distribution, with later migration towards more coastal Balkan areas. Its possible it migrated one times up the Tisza (earlier BA) and down again (Channelled Ware). Going by these samples alone, its a possibility.


Concerning the exact position of POP39, going after the paper itself:


Now all you have to do is to remove it from any relation to "Daco-Thracians" because if E-V13 was geographically Pannonian/northwestern Balkan, it certainly wasn't related to any Dacian or Thracian population.

https://i.ibb.co/p2RHFQM/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-2.png

POP39, HRV_EBA/MBA/IA and all the overlapping E-V13 and J-L283 samples form a clear cluster.

BGR_EBA/IA form a parallel, distinct cluster.

JAG_MBA is an outlier to both.

Riverman
11-16-2021, 06:40 PM
interesting, they connect the increased WHG to Encrusted pottery from the MBA, and imply it spread north to south, from Hungary into Croatia.

I don't think this is correct. The Pannonian study will include samples from Croatia and Serbia which are from an earlier period (EBA) and have more WHG than Mako, or even the Vatya outlier.

I think the WHG will just constantly decrease, because the source dried out. Simple put, with every new wave of steppe-Neolithic migrations into the region, it got lower. Its clearly visible on the PCA I posted here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=816081&viewfull=1#post816081

Mako being lower than the Copper Age Romanian and Vatya outlier. Kyjatice, Gáva, Scythian Hungary all being pulled towards the cline of Bulgarian EBA-Yamnaya. They still being pulled towards WHG, but it got reduced. And it will be shown that it gets reduced in all groups, with some pockets having just more of it still. The source of this WHG rich group seems to have been more Northern, closer to the Carpathians, but like I said, it dried out over time, but not before spilling its influence far and wide, especially in the Urnfield period. But then it lost its power and Urnfield/Channelled Ware was in the region a huge homogeniser. So I don't expect to see too much of it much later, because it should have been mostly soaked up by that time.


Now all you have to do is to remove it from any relation to "Daco-Thracians" because if E-V13 was geographically Pannonian/northwestern Balkan, it certainly wasn't related to any Dacian or Thracian population.


Timing is everything, you know. Daco-Thracians most likely came from Gáva, the relation is very clear and Gáva originated largely from the Northern Pannonian-Carpathian sphere, with close ties all the way up and down the Tisza basin. The Bulgarian Channelled Ware groups seem to have originated from the Gáva core to the North, not the Belegis II-Gáva centre of the Tisza basin and Danube. This means, if Psenichevo was E-V13 dominated, where do you think they got it from, if their communication route was primarily on the Eastward side of the Carpathians towards Moldova?

And J-L283 equally might have a related origin, but became dominant in the Western sphere, the Illyrian. The branching event and separation will remain valid, what they share is probably an earlier common source and substrate ancestries. As you can see in most of the papers if you read them: Its practically a succession of closely related cultural formations in all those regons. Its not being restricted to the "North West Balkan".

As for the PCA, I had a different one which makes it clearer.

The maximum you could prove, if you prove the early distribution of E-V13 West, is the common paternal origin of Illyrians and Daco-Thracians. If they would be that close, that you find E-V13 West and J-L283 East, expanding in the MBA, it would suggest a common origin of these groups. But you won't be able to separate E-V13 from Thracians, regardless of what comes next, because that's fixed, Psenichevo/Svilengrad made that clear.

Bruzmi
11-16-2021, 07:05 PM
The maximum you could prove, if you prove the early distribution of E-V13 West, is the common paternal origin of Illyrians and Daco-Thracians. If they would be that close, that you find E-V13 West and J-L283 East, expanding in the MBA, it would suggest a common origin of these groups. But you won't be able to separate E-V13 from Thracians, regardless of what comes next, because that's fixed, Psenichevo/Svilengrad made that clear.

E-V13 was present in the western Balkans and much of it likely migrated from the western Balkans. This is indicated by all available samples.

We'll see what the Psenichevo samples are when they get published. The problem with the theory that Psenichevo E-V13 definitely represented IA Thracians has to do with the fact that we've found E-V13 much further than Bulgaria and they just represent HRV_EBA/MBA/western Balkan signals. When no E-V13 samples existed anywhere, finding a few E-V13 in Bulgaria was something which might just be attributed to something more than simply migration from another area. But now we have E-V13 from as far north as areas related to movements to Britain. If E-V13 carriers could travel throughout central and northern Europe, I'm certain that at least one clan could go from Croatia to eastern Bulgaria. I'm waiting for their publication and their autosomal files for conclusive remarks.

bce
11-16-2021, 07:57 PM
I think the WHG will just constantly decrease, because the source dried out. Simple put, with every new wave of steppe-Neolithic migrations into the region, it got lower. Its clearly visible on the PCA I posted here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=816081&viewfull=1#post816081

Mako being lower than the Copper Age Romanian and Vatya outlier. Kyjatice, Gáva, Scythian Hungary all being pulled towards the cline of Bulgarian EBA-Yamnaya. They still being pulled towards WHG, but it got reduced. And it will be shown that it gets reduced in all groups, with some pockets having just more of it still.


It does look like that. The biggest decrease of WHG was somewhere in the MBA, between Mako and Kyjatice. After this, it persists for a long time, even in the Iron age Vekerzug Scythians. The next big decrease was in the Roman period, the Szolad outliers are precisely like a Imperial Roman + Hungary Scythian mix.



The source of this WHG rich group seems to have been more Northern, closer to the Carpathians, but like I said, it dried out over time, but not before spilling its influence far and wide, especially in the Urnfield period. But then it lost its power and Urnfield/Channelled Ware was in the region a huge homogeniser. So I don't expect to see too much of it much later, because it should have been mostly soaked up by that time.

It might seem logical, but It doesn't look like these people took the north to south route from the Carpathians into Pannonia.

The route was almost certainly Cotofeni>Kostolac>Vučedol>Mako. These are the archaeological and genetic traces which point to this:

1)
Cotofeni (ROU_C_o) spreads from Romania into Serbia, and forms Cotofeni-Kostolac.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270464670_Cotofeni-Kostolac_culture_on_the_territory_of_north-eastern_Serbia

The settlement of the territory of north-eastern Serbia by the representatives of the Coţofeni culture began during the second half of the IV millennium, probably under the pressure of invading tribes from Euroasian steppe. This territory extended over Transylvania, Banat, Oltenia and Muntenia (Map 2). On the territory of Serbia they settled from the Djrerdap gorge up to the Mlava river to the west, and through Kučajske mountains, Bor, Zaječar and further to the south, up to Niš. Aspecific symbiosis occurred on the territory of Serbia between the Coţofeni and the Kostolac cultures.

2)
Vučedol forms at the Croatia-Serbia border (The samples will be like ROU_C_o but with less WHG).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334234666_The_Vucedol_culture_Vucedolska_kultura

their pottery is inherited from Baden and Kostolac:


The Vučedol culture originated from the territory of Slavonia and Syrmia and later spread all over Eu-rope. Its emergence in Slavonia and Syrmia sparked the migration and suppression of the late Kostolac Culture. This unique cultural occurrence from the very end of the Copper Age is fascinating for several reasons. Within it, it is possible to see relics of the past, as well as traces of the future. It accepted in-fluences and innovations from outside and incorpo-rated some older traditions that it adjusted to the spirit of the time in which it emerged. Its repertoire of pottery clearly displays influences from the Kostolac and Baden cultures and, through them, indi-rectly also those from the Sopot and Vinča cultures. By accepting the influences of its predecessors, the Vučedol culture would leave an equally strong mark in numerous cultures of the Early Bronze Age that it interacted with during a period when its ho-mogeneity shattered into numerous regional vari-ants on a wide geographical area

except this, the only other influence they have is from the Kurgan people (Yamnaya). An outdated text, but it's all I could find.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1993.11435900


The Baden-Vucedol culture in the Middle Danube Basin and the
Ezero culture in central Bulgaria of the second half of the 4th millennium B.C. are eloquent examples of an amalgam of indigenous and
alien elements. Among the Kurgan elements, with good parallels in the
North Pontic area, are the use of vehicles, oxen team and plough (the
latter known from engravings and burials), horse-riding, animal sacrifices with human burials, the predominance of solar decorated pottery, especially braziers, the appearance of a complex of drinking
vessels used primarily by males, as well as the power wielded by males
and the importance of hillforts.


However, genetically, the main cluster of Vučedol will be Kostolac-Cotofeni derived. There are Baden and Yamnaya influenced individuals too, but those will be outliers after the new samples are published.

At this same time, Yamnaya also starts to expand into the Hungarian steppe, the immediate neighbourhood of Vučedol.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-all-Yamnaya-burial-mounds-excavated-on-the-territory-of-present-day-countries-of_fig7_344726460

Vučedol had defensive structures surrounding all their settlements! I'm not sure how typical this is for the Chalcholithic/EBA. I think it's Yamnaya they were defending from.


Settlements are mostly located on elevated loess terraces near rivers, and, already in the earliest phase, it is possible to discern the de-fensive character of Vučedol settlements, i.e. forti-fications made up of ditches and palisades.


This hillfort site is about 20m tall and is on a naturally elevated oval plateau that was once surrounded by a forest and a stream (Dimitrijević 1979: 282). Surrounded by a forest, and situated on the highest point between Đakovo and Vukovar, this position must have been a very important strategic point.

3)
Vučedol has a sudden expansion across a large teritorry:
https://repozitorij.hrstud.unizg.hr/islandora/object/hrstud%3A1654/datastream/PDF/view


At the end of the classical and the beginning of the late type of Vucedol culture, the population experiences a sudden
growth, and in parallel with the increase in population there is a need for more living
space. Therefore, it was necessary to find better conditions for the economy, and thus more abundant
ore. Precisely for these reasons, the culture as it existed until then is being broken down, migrations are creating numerous subtypes, and it is difficult to speak of the Vučedol culture as a unique

They migrate north into Hungary, onto a territory where Yamnaya and Baden were clashing, and form the Mako-Kosihy-Čaka culture, also called "The Mako subtype of Vučedol" by many sources.
https://zir.nsk.hr/islandora/object/unipu%3A4817/datastream/PDF/view


Then the culture is maximally spread but uniquely cultural
physiognomy breaks down into a number of regional types. So we have the Slavonian-Srijem type
(Opatovac, Sotin), West Bosnian or Hrustovac type (Hrustovača, Zecovi), Slovene.
(Ljubljansko Barje), South Bosnian or Debelo brdo type and Šumadija type in Serbia. Beyond
borders of the former state of Yugoslavia, the Mako type and the Nyirseg type developed in the Carpathian Basin
and in the Czech Republic.8


The available Mako (and Vatya) sample already has much less WHG than those unpublished Vučedolians.

The increased WHG in Hungary all derives from this migration. After this it only slowly decreases, with inflence of low WHG populations from the surroundings.

The "source" (the Vučedol core) was also connected to what was happening in Hungary, and they also recieved these low-WHG influences, as the Jagodnjak and Mokrin samples show.

The mystery is what happened to the earlier source (Transylvania), when did it "dry out"? And how do Balto-Slavs relate to all of this.

Riverman
11-16-2021, 08:48 PM
E-V13 was present in the western Balkans and much of it likely migrated from the western Balkans. This is indicated by all available samples.

We should speak about Western, Central and Eastern Balkans. Western Balkans was Illyrians, Central Balkan mixed, but already more Dacian, the East Balkan Thracian - Pannonia again divided, Carpathians Dacians. Slovenia and Southern Croatia, most of Bosnia, was Illyrian, but the more central region of Serbia was not. Channelled Ware expanded down the Tisza basin into the Central Balkans, from there moving down the Morava valley in particular:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Morava_river.PNG


The problem with the theory that Psenichevo E-V13 definitely represented IA Thracians has to do with the fact that we've found E-V13 much further than Bulgaria and they just represent HRV_EBA/MBA/western Balkan signals. When no E-V13 samples existed anywhere, finding a few E-V13 in Bulgaria was something which might just be attributed to something more than simply migration from another area. But now we have E-V13 from as far north as areas related to movements to Britain. If E-V13 carriers could travel throughout central and northern Europe, I'm certain that at least one clan could go from Croatia to eastern Bulgaria. I'm waiting for their publication and their autosomal files for conclusive remarks.


You need to realise that areas like Viminacium, all the districts around it, but also cultural formations like Psenichevo, being
a) Interconnected
b) Largely descendents from Channelled Ware cultures

If we find on both sides a dominance of E-V13, both in the area of Western Channelled Ware groups at the Danube and Belegis II-Gáva, as well as in Psenichevo, then the only explanation for this drastic shift is Channelled Ware. Even if E-V13 would have been present before, you need to take the replacement phenomenon into consideration.


...
the Mako type and the Nyirseg type developed in the Carpathian Basin
and in the Czech Republic.

Its quite obvious that later Epi-Corded groups and Neolithic elements fused with those, like from Füzesabony to Kyjatice and Gáva. That's the (autosomal) connection, how the uniparentals turn out will be seen.


The mystery is what happened to the earlier source (Transylvania), when did it "dry out"? And how do Balto-Slavs relate to all of this.

I think that was just part of the constant movements, active and passive, which went out and in over time.

rafc
11-16-2021, 09:09 PM
https://i.ibb.co/GThbKv8/custom15.png

I added I7498 to the J-L283/E-V13 PCA + other samples.

I7498 found in Spain plots extremely close to HRV_IA and 2 J-L283 (HRV_MBA, Etruscan). Another E-V13 sample found out of the Balkans but with a very distinctive western Balkan origin (along with other admixture points).

POP39 from CA Popova Zemlja (https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-021-94932-9/MediaObjects/41598_2021_94932_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp), Croatia is extremely close to SCY197 and I8832 (both E-V13).

The more data we get, the more likely a movement from the northwestern Balkans/southern Pannonia in the same general population as J-L283 looks for E-V13.

Can also you plot the non-V13 Southeast-Iberian samples on that PCA? I have been wondering how you make these PCA's since they look so different from others. The normal way to make these is to create a PCA based on a large number of samples from one time-period on which you then project the sample(s) you are interested in. However, it seems you calculate a PCA from scratch based on a small set of samples from very different time periods, correct?

bce
11-16-2021, 09:12 PM
Its quite obvious that later Epi-Corded groups and Neolithic elements fused with those, like from Füzesabony to Kyjatice and Gáva. That's the (autosomal) connection, how the uniparentals turn out will be seen.

That Epi-Corded influence was probably that last big shift which defined their autosomal for the rest of the Bronze and Iron age.

In the Vučedol period I expect them to be overwhelmingly G2a and I2a, like Jagodnjak and partly Mokrin/Maros were. We know in the EBA they already had a lot of R1b, both Z2103 from Yamnaya and L51 from Bell beakers.
With the Epi-Corded also a lot of R1a gets introduced, and the G2a and I2a fall to low levels, as can be seen in the leaked info (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?25165-Where-did-Bronze-age-Hungarians-come-from&p=814768&viewfull=1#post814768)



I think that was just part of the constant movements, active and passive, which went out and in over time.

I think in Panonnia we are able reconstruct one of these movements in great detail, because it's a very thoroughly tested area.

It's much harder to reconstruct what was happening in Poland and the Baltic states, with the current samples.

Megalophias
11-16-2021, 11:18 PM
We already have 3 probable Vucedol samples: POP39, I3499, and I2747. (The 2 samples from Bel Manastir are 75 km away from Vucedol type site and from same time period.) None of them has high WHG or any BSD. They are a mix of Yamnaya and Danubian EEF as far as I can tell (not sure about I3499).

So I don't know, pending new samples seems to me like north to south spread of Mako/Kisapostag/whatever will fit.

Riverman
11-16-2021, 11:30 PM
Can also you plot the non-V13 Southeast-Iberian samples on that PCA? I have been wondering how you make these PCA's since they look so different from others. The normal way to make these is to create a PCA based on a large number of samples from one time-period on which you then project the sample(s) you are interested in. However, it seems you calculate a PCA from scratch based on a small set of samples from very different time periods, correct?

Yes, the PCA plots look sometimes unusual. The whole Iberian group he is from clusters fairly close with the Levantine outlier, but the E-V13 is among the more Northern shifted (top 3). They are still in the J2b-cluster range. But the real issue is, that's with their about one quarter North African ancestry! This means their European ancestry is actually more North Western in comparison. They are also much less WHG shifted than 3 of the 4 E-V13 samples in the British paper. So the E-V13 is clearly more related to this Mako-influenced and more WHG riched groups in the Pannonian-Carpathian and Balkan sphere, with the Southern shifted exception.

bce
11-16-2021, 11:30 PM
We already have 3 probable Vucedol samples: POP39, I3499, and I2747. (The 2 samples from Bel Manastir are 75 km away from Vucedol type site and from same time period.) None of them has high WHG or any BSD. They are a mix of Yamnaya and Danubian EEF as far as I can tell (not sure about I3499).

So I don't know, pending new samples seems to me like north to south spread of Mako/Kisapostag/whatever will fit.

The highest WHG groups are "Croatia_EBA", "Serbia_Iron_Gates_BA" and "Hungary_EBA_MBA_2". Mako and Kisapostag have less WHG and are (probably) from a later era than these.

Megalophias
11-16-2021, 11:43 PM
The highest WHG groups are "Croatia_EBA", "Serbia_Iron_Gates_BA" and "Hungary_EBA_MBA_2". Mako and Kisapostag have less WHG and are (probably) from a later era than these.
Are these unpublished samples you are referring to? (I can't keep up with this thread!)

bce
11-16-2021, 11:45 PM
Are these unpublished samples you are referring to?

Yes, from the upcoming big Pannonian study.

Megalophias
11-16-2021, 11:48 PM
Ah okay, looking forward to that.

rafc
11-17-2021, 06:21 AM
Yes, from the upcoming big Pannonian study.

Any idea when it will be published?

Riverman
11-17-2021, 08:20 AM
Any idea when it will be published?

I guess you would have to ask her:

Prehistory of the Carpathian Basin from the perspective of archaeogenetics
by Anna Szécsényi-Nagy

When: Wednesday 26 Aug - 18:30 - 19:30

This talk is about prehistoric population history based on the current state of archaeogenetic research of the Carpathian Basin. The research of ancient human DNA is closely related to several co-disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, demography and many subfields of genetics (e.g. population genetic, evolutionary genetic, forensic sciences). It has exponential grown over the last decade as whole genome or genome-wide DNA sequencing has become available.

I present results of international archaeogenetic projects, large collaborations that have aimed to study and reveal population changes or population dynamic events behind the archaeological cultural changes of the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age epochs of the Carpathian Basin. The study region as a cultural hub of East-Central Europe was connected through many ways to remote regions and populations, but also served as a melting-pot for people of different origins. These connections and admixture events are discussed here, using the records of ancient human DNA.

https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA2020virtual/Programme.aspx?WebsiteKey=79538f04-4210-43d4-90c1-704213a00c84&hkey=e5eed11c-a2ea-404a-86f3-482344cb3829&Program=7

In this context, here is a short but quite telling video about the Carpathian Late Bronze Age - no ancient DNA, but important hints nevertheless:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0duSqW6aHQo

There is also a graph showing the cultural formations by period up to the Late Bronze Age:

https://i.ibb.co/sChCwdf/Gava-OF-INCINERATION-BURIALS-AND-FUNERARY-METALS-DURING-LBA-IN-THE-EASTERN-CARPATHIAN.jpg

https://ibb.co/T1Z18xf

Screenshot from: OF INCINERATION BURIALS AND FUNERARY METALS DURING THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN THE EASTERN CARPATHIAN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0duSqW6aHQo

Berkesz-Demecser, also sometimes included Csorva and Suciu de Sus, being among the "pre-Gáva" cultural formations and Lăpuș II being basically seen as Gáva so we have this group of cultures out of which Gáva and Channelled Ware in the wider sense develops concentrated in the Upper Tisza and North Western Transyvlanian, generally North Pannonian-Carpathian zone. Very important notes from this lecture are the richness of Lăpuș in particular as well as the very early MBA-LBA usage of iron in these groups.

Note that all early iron finds he brought up in the lecture come from the region of Gáva, with sites like Demecser, Igrita and Lăpuș! They were definitely among the pioneers which used iron in this whole macro-region. The only exception was the site of Bobda.

Bobda being part of the so called Corva-Bobda I type:


Following the geographical disposing of the archaeological sites, in concordance with the evolution phases of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture, there were noticed few spreading directions. The causes of that movement of populations of Cruceni-Belegiš type were, probably, of economic order (the contacts with the Mycennean world) and they were maybe the result of a pressure coming from the Pannonian Plain (the so-called „elements of Csórva-Bobda I type”

https://de.scribd.com/document/84907405/THE-RELATIONS-OF-THE-CRUCENI-BELEGI%C5%A0-CULTURE-WITH-THE

So the only more Southern iron find being because of an intrusive element coming down from the Pannonian plain.

Here another depiction showing clealry how Gáva was a homogenisation and expansion event, uniting a whole macro-region, with a clear centre at the Upper Tisza-Northern Pannonian-Carpathian zone, at the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania:

https://i.ibb.co/Gvm5sLx/Gava-Early-Hallstatt-Period.jpg

https://ibb.co/SXS3Q8s

From this highly interesting publication: https://1lib.at/book/3044792/9cbe5d As one can see, Berkesz ("pre-Gáva") and Lăpuș reached the developed Gáva status the earliest in this scheme.

About a more generalised view:


The earliest urnfields are observable in the north-eastern area. No Tumulus cultures existed on these territories in the Middle Bronze Age, or were only a marginal expression of the cultural and historical development, for example in the upper Tisza Basin, south-central Slovakia, and the hilly areas of northern Hungary. As far as geography and chronology are concerned, the south-eastern urnfields can be divided into western and eastern parts, and earlier and later phases. The western region saw the rise of the Piliny and Kyjatice cultures, while the Suciu de Sus, Berkesz-Demecser, and Gáva cultures occupied the eastern part.
If we ignore the earlier cremation burials of Vatya and Hatvan cultures, the Piliny culture is the earliest Urnfield culture in central Europe, running from Bz B1 to Ha A1.
[...]

Taking into account both settlements (Vcelince) and cemeteries (Tornala) of the early period (Bz B1, the Otomani-Piliny horizon), the area over which the culture crystallised was small.

https://books.google.de/books?id=hefUAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bruzmi
11-17-2021, 01:14 PM
They are still in the J2b-cluster range. But the real issue is, that's with their about one quarter North African ancestry!

Yep, Vahaduo's custom PCA is basically "plug&play". On these PCAs, I use all available J-L283 & E-V13 samples because I want to see how they plot to each other. My impression is that additional ancestries are the result of admixture. I7498 doesn't have uncommon NA ancestry. Others have more than ~18%. What sets him apart is that he has accumulated many types of admixture. He's the descendant of a long chain of migrations from region to region.

Vatya MBA samples (c. 1700 BCE) plot close to both J-L283 and E-V13 samples. Mako_EBA is not close to the cluster.

Bruzmi
11-17-2021, 01:23 PM
Possible carriers of early J-L283/E-V13/specific R-M269 lineages in Hungary:

The Azali (Ancient Greek: Ἄζαλοι) were a tribe that inhabited Brigetio (now Szőny) in Noricum, transported there during the Roman conquest from southern Pannonia. They had been deported after the 6–9 AD rebellion. They, along with the Eravisci, inhabited the Fejér County during the Marcomannic Wars (166–180).

HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM (http://www.ace.hu/curric/elte-archeometria/irodalom/Hungarian_archeology.pdf)

Brigetio was the garrison of the legio I adiutrix from the close of the 1st century to the very end of the Roman occupation. Its name can be derived from Celtic brig-, meaning ‘fort’. The Romans organized the Celticized Azalus tribe of Illyrian stock living in this area into the civitas Azaliorum. An urban settlement, a canabae legionis surrounded the Brigetio fort, but since the settlement had been established in a military territory, it was not granted urban rank. Residential buildings provided with floor heating and decorated with lavish wall paintings were uncovered on its territory; a sacred precinct with the cult place of Jupiter Dolichenus and Mithras lay in the western part. An inscription suggests the presence of a temple dedicated to Apollo Grannus nearby. The sacred precinct also incorporated a medicinal spring (fons Salutis). Pottery and brick kilns and workshops were uncovered in other parts of the canabae. The amphitheatre was built west of the legionary fort. According to the description of Richard Pococke, an English traveller, its remains were still visible in the 18th century. Other visitors to the area mention a partly aboveground aqueduct that carried drinking water to Brigetio from the direction of Tata. Little is known about the layout, topography and internal structure of the town lying 2 km west of the military fort. The civilian settlement was granted the status of municipium under Caracalla, when Brigetio was administratively annexed to Pannonia inferior (214); the town was soon promoted to the rank of colonia. Its extent can in part be reconstructed from the assumed line of the one-time town wall and the cemeteries between the canabae and the colonia. The internal layout is little known in the lack of excavations. The investigation of this Roman town was begun in 1992, in the marketplace (Vásártér) of Szőny that according to local tradition overlay the forum of the Roman town. The rooms of the building found during the excavation were decorated with magnificent frescos (Figs. 29–30). It would seem that life in the canabae legionis ceased sometime in the late Roman period and that its area was subsequently used as a cemetery. The earliest Christian graves lie in this area. The walls and the defenceworks of the legionary fort were renovated and rebuilt for the last time during the last major military construction project of the Danubian frontier. The historian Ammianus Marcellinus records that Fig, 27. Construction inscription dedicated to Dea Syria from the civilian town at Aquincum Fig. 28. Tombstone with a wreath 230 The Roman period Valentinian I who launched this construction project died in the fort of Brigetio in 375. The excavations conducted to date have not provided any clues as to when the inhabitants abandoned the town. The observations made during the excavations in the marketplace would suggest that the building unearthed there was abandoned in the mid-3rd century. Its former occupants systematically emptied the rooms since no vessel sets have been found, and neither could traces of an unexpected destruction be noted; on the contrary, the archaeological record reflects the slow decay of the houses (the collapse of the roof and of the walls)

Riverman
11-17-2021, 02:39 PM
Vatya MBA samples (c. 1700 BCE) plot close to both J-L283 and E-V13 samples. Mako_EBA is not close to the cluster.

Vatya is one of the main elements, but signfiicantly closer to the J2b cluster than the E-V13 one - even with the outlier in the Southern group, which is closer to Neoithic/BGR_EBA! Both E-V13 and Gáva being pulled towards WHG and steppe, away from Vatya. And this suggests the influence of a steppe and WHG richer element, being more pronounced in the E-V13 and R-Z2103 sample, as well as others with Neolithic ancestry, than the more Southern Bell Beaker + Vatya-like Illyrian J2b cluster.
It should be noted however that even the small Vatya sample itself is as mixed, almost like E-V13. First, there is an outlier, which plots even more WHG than Mako (RISE479) and secondly there is one (RISE484) which plots close to an E-V13 (I18527) and one R-Z2103 (I4996) sample, and both being close to Kyjatice. These are either more Yamnaya shifted Mokrin-like samples or admixed Füzesabony, later Thraco-Scythians.
This shows how variable Vatya already was and that there must have been different influences and admixtures in it. The core was close to the J2b cluster, later Illyrians, but some outliers could be at a very different position.

I think what Vatya is showing, and in that respect they are very similar to the E-V13 and mixed R-Z2103 spread, is that they were not homogenised yet and included fairly distinct ancestries. The J2b-Illyrian cluster on the other hand is fairly homogeneous, more or equally so as modern small and middle scale, fairly homogeneous populations.
This could be either due to the greater variability of E-V13, or because of the timing, because some of the E-V13 look older (more Mokrin-like), others younger (more Pannonian LBA-IA).

What's also noteworthy is that the Scythian groups in the IA seem to have been connected: While the core groups being quite homogeneous (Hungary Pannonian, Moldova more BGR_IA), there are respective outliers in the other direction. So there seems to have been movement between these spheres, from the Pannonian Thraco-Scythians to those in Moldova and Ukraine and vice versa.

Riverman
11-17-2021, 09:21 PM
Which ancient population was abundant with E-V13. Thracians, Illyrians and Ancient Greeks?

Going by the currently available evidence, the primary spreaders seem to have been Proto-Thracians/Daco-Thracians. From this core group, which led the expansion in the MBA-LBA, it spread secondarily to Pannonians-Illyrians, Alpine Celtic and other people in the Hallstatt network, like Ligurians, possibly Veneti and Greeks.
Then to almost all other people of Europe and beyond.
Slavs and Germanics had, at least from the migration period on, also some carriers.
But in many these cases the first appearance in a people is still a matter of debate.
E.g. in the Greeks, one of the people with the highest frequencies, we still don't know when it spread to them the first time and which expansion was more important.
Like is a lot from the LBA already, or came most of it with later Albanian, Vlach and Slavic settlers.

At this point for many cases there is just a time frame which is safe. Like many Irish V13 lineages have branching events with the continent and massive founder effects.
Like the last proven common ancestor lived in the LBA, the massive founder effect with preceding local branches dates to Early Medieval times.
So their V13 ancestors could have come to the Island anywhere between these two anchor points.
Only more data from ancient and modern DNA can make it certain.

Like if you test your whole genome or do a BigY, which is the best, you may help to place yourself and others, probably complete branches, better in this phylogenetic framework.
Every BigY tester which provides solid genealogical information is another piece for the puzzle which helps to better answer such questions.
With many more samples, ancient and modern, most lineages can be easily traced back in time, with their migration paths reconstructed. At this point its still a lot of guesswork.

digital_noise
11-17-2021, 09:34 PM
At this point, do modern populations help at all in terms of origins? I mean, every data point helps I guess but seeing as to how far removed many of us are from our ancestral paternal lineage, I'm having a hard time imagining how this adds any info to the big picture? I am fortunate enough to know substantial info about my direct Y lineage, so I guess with a few assumptions I can surmise an overall "path" but those who have no idea their paternal side and are just given an E-XxXxXx, it seem kind of meaningless...My paternal side immigrated to the US fairly recently, but those who have been here for hundreds of years and are E-V13 are kinda up sh*t creek

Riverman
11-17-2021, 10:20 PM
At this point, do modern populations help at all in terms of origins? I mean, every data point helps I guess but seeing as to how far removed many of us are from our ancestral paternal lineage, I'm having a hard time imagining how this adds any info to the big picture? I am fortunate enough to know substantial info about my direct Y lineage, so I guess with a few assumptions I can surmise an overall "path" but those who have no idea their paternal side and are just given an E-XxXxXx, it seem kind of meaningless...My paternal side immigrated to the US fairly recently, but those who have been here for hundreds of years and are E-V13 are kinda up sh*t creek

Well, most people which know at least a European country and ethnicity of origin add valuable information, because they represent data points. Like if we have a main clade which is spread in Central Europe, with a subclade which is common in South Western Germany and a few dots close by - it really depends on how many data points you got, because at some point in the phylogeny, it becomes extremely unlikely that the origin of this haplogroup was outside of a given limit. The branching events, the branches and their lineages, draw the limits.

Take for example the Irish case I mentioned, if there are only British Isles testers, upstream already, well, this can be misleading, but why? Because many other Europeans haven't tested! If all Europeans would have tested as much and more as the British and Albanians, things would be much more clear already. Because in one such case there was a massive founder effect with dozens of branches in Ireland!

A concrete example is E-BY182564: It has a long, very long time without any other branches outside of the British Isles. Where did the paternal ancestor which led to the two Irish main branches E-BY207049 and E-FTA86211 live in that time? We're talking about thousands of years. If suddenly samples in Albania and Greece would pop up, which would form new subclades for E-BY182564, this would change the complete phylogeny and predictions for the time in between. Now, it looks like it is very old on the Isles and then there were two lineages, which experienced one moderate and one bigger founder effect (E-BY207049 and E-FTA86211).
That these two lineages being Irish from Medieval times on is without a doubt, because just look at the time frame the SNP data provides already.

Upstream at E-S24513 is an unknown tester, no background information provided. Obviously it would help to know whether his ancestors came from Britain too or not, and if not, from where else. I doubt its Britain, because its so old, but who knows.

At level E-BY183689 there is an Bulgarian sample, so this is the time frame we got at this point:
E-BY183689 at the 57 SNP level (!), this predates the main spread of E-V13, its very old, even if its not really at 57 SNP counts, which is yet another problem, that some obviously related branches end up with different counts. But thanks to those others, it can be calibrated.
E-BY207049 and E-FTA86211 at the 15 SNP level which are clearly Irish, Medieval founders.

What's in between? The unknown samples would already help a bit. Having more from Britain and the continent would help a lot, having ancient samples for that lineage would make it sure thing.
If getting other branch members of E-S24513 from the continent, like say from Germany and France, parts which were Celtic in Antiquity, this would help, obviously. It would not just help to create dots on the map, but also to calculate the TMRCA between those continentals and the Irish lineages.

https://i.ibb.co/f9s06fT/E-S24513.jpg

https://ibb.co/W0LK8ZR

Look at E-BY207049 and E-FTA86211, that's how proper testing looks like, its conclusive evidence. If there are just single samples here and there, seperated by thousands of years, well, that's better than nothing, but its not what this is really about.

Riverman
11-17-2021, 11:26 PM
The two main cultural formations securely associated with E-V13 are Basarabi-Bosut and Psenichevo, which show combinations of traits from Channelled Ware and Encrusted Ware. But overall, if looking at the whole Daco-Thracian network, to which they surely belonged, the Channelled Ware influence prevailed. This means I think some of Encrusted Ware elements survived, more female than males, but I don't think they are the more likely case for E-V13. This publication, which I already recommended before and showed a table for the cultural framework in the macro-region, is really helpful to get through this mess:
https://1lib.at/book/3044792/9cbe5d

Its a mess because we're most certainly deal with fusions. However, it was primarily a fusion in specific areas, whereas the Channelled Ware reached further, and this greater reach is more parsimonious, easier to allign with the actual spread of E-V13, than if it would have been "only" Encrusted Ware and "only" the Basarabi-Psenichevo group. But even if Basarbi-Psenichevo is the main thing, and it might suffice, we still would need to explain how they eliminated the far wider spread, better connected and more dominant Channelled Ware people?
Because it was the Middle Danubian Urnfielders and Channelled Ware which pushed them down the Danube in the first place and actually did catch them there.

Very important is the transition of Channelled Ware to the Kalakača-Gornea horizon and Insula Banului.


This chronology is based primarily on M. Garašanin’s sequence, as described in his Prehis- tory on the territory of Serbia:4
– Iron Age I (Belegiš II – Gava and horizon of hoards: 1200–1000 BC)
– Iron Age II (Insula Banului – Kalakača and Basarabi: 1000–600 BC)
– Iron Age III (Zlot and Ferigile groups: 600–350 BC)
– Iron Age IV (La Tčne Culture: 350 BC – 100 AD).


Its important to note that even in the archaeological context of the region, the local element did survive and either adopted Latenisation completely or in part, with some groups living on like their earlier Iron Age ancestors. Sometimes full Celts live side by side with local people I would describe as Channelled Ware people/Daco-Thracians.

The relationship of Channelled Ware and Encrusted Pottery groups is quite complex however:


As the number of systematic and rescue excava-
tions increased, it became clear that graves and
finds from the Žuto Brdo – Girla Mare and Gava
cultures appeared side by side also in the sites the
right bank of the Danube River.
Moreover, it has been assumed that the Žuto
Brdo – Girla Mare culture emerged on the terri-
tory of Serbia during the later phases of the Mid-
dle Bronze Age, influenced by Transdanubian in-
crusted pottery.5 It is interesting that the sites of
the Žuto Brdo – Girla Mare culture in Serbia are
identified only in Southern Banat, exclusively on
the banks of the Danube, while no settlements or
burial places have been found in the river’s hin-
terland. According to the current chronologies,
the Žuto Brdo – Girla Mare culture lasted until
the beginning Late Bronze Age (14/13th century
BC) although there are some isolated arguments
in favour of its end in the late 12th century BC.6
Contrary 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.

We know that the later cultural formations, being the result of a fusion, the question is just, who was more dominant. And here again, the support goes for Channelled Ware.


The finds of
pottery of different origins and production tech-
niques in a burial point to exchange of objects
and techniques between the two groups, which
is not an isolated case in the Iron Gates region.
The co-occurrence of the ceramic finds from
these two cultures was also noticed in the stra-
tigraphy of the Livade – Mala Vrbica site as well
as the necropolis in Konopište (located 9 km east
of Kladovo) (Figure 1, 3).


The last example of a close relationship be-
tween the Žuto Brdo – Girla Mare and Gava
finds is demonstrated in the necropolis of Pećine
in the vicinity of Kostolac (Figure 1, 1).19 The ex-
cavator D. Jacanović observed that in all undis-
turbed contexts (or stratigraphic units) the Žuto
Brdo – Girla Mare, Hügelgräber and Gava typical
ceramic forms were found together.20 This par-
ticularly applies to the four cremated burials with
incrusted and burnished pottery found together
in same context. A similar mix was documented
in 13 pits, most probably dedicated to ritual at
this site.

These should be testable probably, because while I don't know, many were buried in pits with their intact body, not cremated. But unless they significantly deviate from the known Incrusted samples, it won't help a lot, because this is: A mixed context.

Obviously this can only be, finally, solved by ancient DNA. But the distribution and "network power" of Encrusted Ware seems to me to be too weak. That's why I think mixed Gáva-Encrusted Pottery groups are key, but E-V13 was coming from the stronger part of this fusion. Again, the early distribution too is much easier to explain from Channelled Ware, than from the rather limited phenomenon. That doesn't mean that all Channelled Ware groups had to be E-V13 dominated, especially not as totally as the Southern ones. This could be a regional founder effect.

The real question is therefore: Was Psenichevo-Basarabi Channelled Ware with Encrusted pottery influences or Encrusted Pottery with Channelled Ware influences... Its in any case too late for the earlier distribution and founder effects, so the main spread of E-V13 can't be attributed to both, even if they would have both had "some" E-V13, which is possible, because they were "neighbours" in Pannonia already and went down on similar ways.

For the later period, we can test:


Second, in course of the developed Iron Age
or Iron Age II in the territory of Serbia, only a
small number of inhumation burials has been
discovered. The burials suggest the transition
from cremation of the deceased, characteristic
for the Late Bronze Age (Belegiš I, Žuto Brdo –
Girla Mare cultures) and the following Gava cul-
tural complex. In the subsequent Kalakača phase
(9th/ 8th century BC),37 inhumation burials prevail


It should be stressed that the all metal
finds from these graves have been dated to the
Basarabi phase.25 This closely related co-occur-
rence of two culturally and chronologically dif-
ferent pottery styles correlates with the change in
burial rites as there is a shift from flexed inhuma-
tion, which prevailed during the Kalakača phase,
to inhumation in extended position, characteris-
tic of the Basarabi culture.

https://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god47/5-Aleksandar%20Kapuran.pdf

If we find E-V13 in Füzesabony/Gáva and then Basarabi, it makes Channelled Ware the prime candidate, but a good proof would have been a phylogenetic relationship. If E-V13 pops up among Encrusted Ware groups, it would turn the tide in favour of this scenario. I think the British papers samples might help a lot, but not as much as they could have, with better yDNA sampling & enrichment.

Riverman
11-18-2021, 12:22 AM
In the new Iberian paper is an E-L618 sample (BAS025), which doesn't deviate from the R1b samples from the same site with his Yamnaya-Neolithic ancestral composition. So he seems to have been from a paternal lineages which was incorporated into the Bell Beaker group at least some generations earlier.
Dated to Argar 2nd phase (2000 - 1750 cal BCE)
BAS025 (Arc. ID: BA76): Infantile male burial directly dated to 2132-1949
cal BCE (3653 ± 21, MAMS-47168).

His mtDNA is also interesting:

We briefly described here the ones which
have not been reported yet. We determined the haplogroups H105a [...] (BAS025...).

The authors seem to connect him to backflow from the Mediterranean islands:

Only one subadult male individual (BAS025) was assigned to E1b1b1a1b1. He
was dated to the 2nd phase of El Argar (2000 - 1750 cal BCE), being one of the very few and late
non-R1b-M269 males in the Iberian BA. Y-Haplogroup E1b1b1a was reported from Sardinia
Chalcolithic, E1b1b1b2 in Early Medieval Sardinia (51), and E1b1b1a1b1 in Medieval Sardinia
(52).

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7038#F3

ShpataEMadhe
11-18-2021, 02:01 AM
In the new Iberian paper is an E-L618 sample (BAS025), which doesn't deviate from the R1b samples from the same site with his Yamnaya-Neolithic ancestral composition. So he seems to have been from a paternal lineages which was incorporated into the Bell Beaker group at least some generations earlier.
Dated to Argar 2nd phase (2000 - 1750 cal BCE)
BAS025 (Arc. ID: BA76): Infantile male burial directly dated to 2132-1949
cal BCE (3653 ± 21, MAMS-47168).

His mtDNA is also interesting:


The authors seem to connect him to backflow from the Mediterranean islands:


https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7038#F3

Could he have been a cardium pottery remnant? Mtdna H was also the most common line in late cardium pottery

Riverman
11-18-2021, 02:46 AM
Could he have been a cardium pottery remnant? Mtdna H was also the most common line in late cardium pottery

I think he came with BB to Iberia, but from where is hard to tell. Could be from Mediterranean islands, Italy, Central-Western Europe, like Lengyel or Michelsberger.

Bruzmi
11-18-2021, 11:53 AM
Going by the currently available evidence, the primary spreaders seem to have been Proto-Thracians/Daco-Thracians. From this core group, which led the expansion in the MBA-LBA, it spread secondarily to Pannonians-Illyrians, Alpine Celtic and other people in the Hallstatt network, like Ligurians, possibly Veneti and Greeks.


A "Proto-Thracian" spread looks very unlikely from all available data because E-V13 overlaps to a great degree with J-L283 with similar geographical ancestry. More simply: If someone claims that E-V13 was "Proto-Thracian", based on available data, then they have to claim the same thing for J-L283 and then they have to claim that "Proto-Thracians" came to Thrace from the northwestern Balkans/southern Pannonia. This doesn't look like a viable scenario. The more samples we get, the more unlikely any core presence of E-V13 in the eastern Balkans becomes, but we'll get more published samples in the next years and we'll get a better view.

Vatya MBA plots very close to several J-L283 and E-V13 samples. Mako EBA is distant.

https://i.ibb.co/st0XmGS/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-1.png

Riverman
11-18-2021, 01:37 PM
A "Proto-Thracian" spread looks very unlikely from all available data because E-V13 overlaps to a great degree with J-L283 with similar geographical ancestry. More simply: If someone claims that E-V13 was "Proto-Thracian", based on available data, then they have to claim the same thing for J-L283 and then they have to claim that "Proto-Thracians" came to Thrace from the northwestern Balkans/southern Pannonia. This doesn't look like a viable scenario. The more samples we get, the more unlikely any core presence of E-V13 in the eastern Balkans becomes, but we'll get more published samples in the next years and we'll get a better view.

Vatya MBA plots very close to several J-L283 and E-V13 samples. Mako EBA is distant.

https://i.ibb.co/st0XmGS/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-1.png

I posted some PCA plots which make the pull towards Mako for Füzesabony, Gava, Kyjatice at least 2 of 4 E-V13 and some R-Z2103, but no J2b, clear.
Also, E-V13 spread to Bulgaria with Channelled Ware most likely and Encrusted Ware less likely. Psenichevo-Basarabi is clearly from this fused horizon which dominated AT LEAST from Viminacium, Timacum minus to Svilengrad.
So all older E-V13 areas were completely covered, not just directly, but everything many miles in every direction. There is absolutely no doubt about this!
As for its origin, Bulgaria got colonised from two sides, one more directly connected to Gava core areas, with closest ties to Moldovan groups, the other coming from the North West, from Belegis II-Gava. The early influence on Bulgaria Was mostly from the Eastern Carpathians, but the fused Belegis II-Gava plus Encrusted Ware came from the North West, so exactly from Southern Pannonia-Banat, the area of Serbia.
One of the important sites to look at is Insula Banului.

So yes, the Thracians came either from groups more distantly related to the Banat groups via Gava, or directly from those.
The most likely reason for their autosomal deviation is that the expanding Gava and later Stempel pottery/ Basarabi groups seem to have incorporated locals and there was extensive mixture, probably female mediated for the most part. Similar to what happened in Southern Iberia, in El Argar.
Channelled Ware was dominated by male elites, specialists and warriors. Of course we don't have that data, but by the looks of it from the archaeological perspective: The further down the Danube, the more mixed with locals and possibly the more skewed the male : female ratio.
Historically and archaeologically, some spread of Basarabi and Psenichevo was a "backflow" event to the North also.
In any case, Psenichevo-Basarabi is at the core of the Iron Age presence of E-V13 and Daco-Thracians at the same time.

ShpataEMadhe
11-18-2021, 02:36 PM
A "Proto-Thracian" spread looks very unlikely from all available data because E-V13 overlaps to a great degree with J-L283 with similar geographical ancestry. More simply: If someone claims that E-V13 was "Proto-Thracian", based on available data, then they have to claim the same thing for J-L283 and then they have to claim that "Proto-Thracians" came to Thrace from the northwestern Balkans/southern Pannonia. This doesn't look like a viable scenario. The more samples we get, the more unlikely any core presence of E-V13 in the eastern Balkans becomes, but we'll get more published samples in the next years and we'll get a better view.

Vatya MBA plots very close to several J-L283 and E-V13 samples. Mako EBA is distant.

https://i.ibb.co/st0XmGS/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-1.png

A thracian spread towards the east is certainly likely. However, v13 (or direct ancestor cts10912) looks to have early presence in paleobalkan people - likely spread through cardium pottery from the west

4000bc end of cardium pottery - v13, g2a, i2 etc in western balkans and italy

3500bc - r1b z2103 (and maybe pf7562?) moves to central/south europe from yamnaya and spreads european language - fusing the language with v13/other neolithic lines in the region

Riverman
11-18-2021, 02:59 PM
A thracian spread towards the east is certainly likely. However, v13 looks to have early presence in paleobalkan people - likely spread through cardium pottery from the west

4000bc end of cardium pottery - v13, g2a, i2a etc in western balkans and italy

3500bc - r1b z2103 (and pf7562) moves to central/south europe from yamnaya and spreads european language - fusing the language with v13/other neolithic lines in the region

I think Impresso-Cardial Was the initial spreader, but then followed others. We have E1b1b from Pannonian Lengyel-Sopot and Rhenish Michelsberger, which got connections Lengyel.
Note that most haplogroups found in the E1b1b groups had no successful later expansions, some even went extinct!
Same goes for presumably many other E1b1b clades, even of E-V13 subclades.
Its just one specific E-V13 lineage from the Bronze Age which had a major expansion and series of founder effects.
We have now various haplogroups from Encrusted Ware, one from Kyjatice, presumably some from Füzesabony. They seem to be autosomally not that far away, but most of this lineages are now rare!
So the expansion events for E-V13 are time, space on phylogeny very specific and if looking which group rolled over all others and homogenised the region of which we know it was largely Daco-Thracians or their substrate, we clearly end up with Channelled Ware first and Psenichevo-Basarabi second, for which we have data already.
What really matters is therefore the clades of E-V13 which "made it". Like a dead end forager R1b subclade from North Eastern Europe doesn't tell you how Bell Beaker R1b spread.
Same here: Not every E-V13 is equally important, ghose which survived and had big founder effects are key.
And those needed a leverage to achieve that.
Like how did they eliminate all the other haplogroups in the Füzesabony cluster, in Pannonia?
The most likely explanation is a specific founder effect in Pannonian subgroup which rose to dominance in Gava.
They need to be distinct already in the MBA the latest.
This means we're not just searching for a single individual in the midst of other haplogroups, but a cultural formation of the MBA which was completely dominated by E-V13.

This is what everybody has to understand. Because they really replaced and pushed back a lot of other lineages in a fairly wide territory, that's not possible, with this phylogeny, from within, but only by one E-V13 dominated group replacing others between the MBA-LBA-EIA. First formation in the MBA, then massive expansion in the LBA-EIA.
The data of ancient samples plus the modern distribution and tree doesn't allow anything else.

ShpataEMadhe
11-18-2021, 03:17 PM
I think Impresso-Cardial Was the initial spreader, but then followed others. We have E1b1b from Pannonian Lengyel-Sopot and Rhenish Michelsberger, which got connections Lengyel.
Note that most haplogroups found in the E1b1b groups had no successful later expansions, some even went extinct!
Same goes for presumably many other E1b1b clades, even of E-V13 subclades.
Its just one specific E-V13 lineage from the Bronze Age which had a major expansion and series of founder effects.
We have now various haplogroups from Encrusted Ware, one from Kyjatice, presumably some from Füzesabony. They seem to be autosomally not that far away, but most of this lineages are now rare!
So the expansion events for E-V13 are time, space on phylogeny very specific and if looking which group rolled over all others and homogenised the region of which we know it was largely Daco-Thracians or their substrate, we clearly end up with Channelled Ware first and Psenichevo-Basarabi second, for which we have data already.
What really matters is therefore the clades of E-V13 which "made it". Like a dead end forager R1b subclade from North Eastern Europe doesn't tell you how Bell Beaker R1b spread.
Same here: Not every E-V13 is equally important, ghose which survived and had big founder effects are key.
And those needed a leverage to achieve that.
Like how did they eliminate all the other haplogroups in the Füzesabony cluster, in Pannonia?
The most likely explanation is a specific founder effect in Pannonian subgroup which rose to dominance in Gava.
They need to be distinct already in the MBA the latest.
This means we're not just searching for a single individual in the midst of other haplogroups, but a cultural formation of the MBA which was completely dominated by E-V13.

This is what everybody has to understand. Because they really replaced and pushed back a lot of other lineages in a fairly wide territory, that's not possible, with this phylogeny, from within, but only by one E-V13 dominated group replacing others between the MBA-LBA-EIA. First formation in the MBA, then massive expansion in the LBA-EIA.
The data of ancient samples plus the modern distribution and tree doesn't allow anything else.

The point i was making was that v13 was present in south europe through cardium pottery before a couple lines started expanding in the middle bronze age, like you suggest. In my opinion current ancient dna points to cardium pottery being the origin of v13

The middle bronze age is a good time for its spread (the lines that survived) but it doesnt look like it was pure v13 as lot of samples overlap with r1b z2103. Middle bronze age was the time when most "powerful" tribes/clans formed such as illyrians, thracians, ancient greeks so it is possible that v13 and r1b z2103 (+ maybe other yamnaya r1b) played a role in the formation of these people in south europe as they all spoke an indo european language

The massive expansion you suggest in the late bronze age and iron age was only towards the east through the thracians. You cannot possibly suggest the thracians spoke indo european yet carried pure v13 (non indo european line). The proto thracians would have formed out of indo european lines

Riverman
11-18-2021, 03:46 PM
The point i was making was that v13 was present in south europe through cardium pottery before a couple lines started expanding in the middle bronze age, like you suggest. In my opinion current ancient dna points to this being the origin of v13

The middle bronze age is a good time for its spread (the lines that survived) but it doesnt look like it was pure v13 as lot of samples overlap with r1b z2103. Middle bronze age was the time when most "powerful" tribes/clans formed such as illyrians, thracians, ancient greeks so it is possible that v13 and r1b z2103 (+ maybe other yamnaya r1b) played a role in the formation of these people in south europe as they all spoke an indo european language

The massive expansion you suggest in the late bronze age and iron age was only towards the east through the thracians. You cannot possibly suggest the thracians spoke indo european yet carried pure v13 (non indo european line) when proto thracians would have been in direct contact with indo european lines

These movements didn't start in the Balkans, but in the Alpine-Pannonian-Carpathian sphere.
Both Encrusted Ware and Gava, came the Danube and Tisza down. Encrusted first, Gava later, on top of them.
And we know from all available samples that before they came E-V13 was not dominant, so far not even present, and if present a very small minority within. And we can already say that Encrusted Ware as a whole was not dominated by E-V13, and had the worse networks to account for the whole spread.
Naturally, that's how we end up with Gava.
Now Gava doesn't need to be 100 percent E-V13 at all, but it needs to have grown within and became dominant latest within Belegis II-Gava, but rather already in the Northern core.
We have candidate samples with other haplogroups and a similar autosomal profile, but their distribution and phylogenies don't fit.
This means they might have been in a related macro-group, but they were not part of the same people and founder effect.

As for E-V13 becoming the primary spreader of the Proto-Thracian tongue: Its the same as with Proto-Germanic I1, just more extreme!
It was a replacement event from within. Very likely the original dialect was spread by Epi-Corded R1a people or less likely Yamnaya related R-Z2103, but E-V13, starting from probably just a Clan in the EBA, begann to replace other lineages.
That's fairly easy to imagine, looking at how turbulent Pannonia was in that era.
It also seems to have happened in stages:
Frist a mixed Epi-Corded plus WHG shifted Neolithic group got dominated by a whole range of non-R1a, like E-V13, R-Z2103, J2a, I2, possibly even G2 and H.
Then, when this group collapsed, primarily E-V13 remained. I think this happened in the early MBA, when Tumulus Culture expanded into Pannonia and crushed into Füzesabony/late Otomani and Encrusted Ware.
That's when there was a bottleneck for this more variable group and primarily/only the E-V13 tribe did well.
J2b was so far not found in related groups, but could have been present too. However, J-L283 seems to have joined and profited exactly from this Tumulus culture expansion the most. They led the raid which caused the pressure and changes which, ultimately, led to Gava and the expansion of E-V13.
So both J-L283 and E-V13 were in different groups which expanded at the expense of others (like R1a, I2, G2, J2a, H) by leading very expansive groups into the Balkans.
That's independent from a possible earlier presence on a much lower level.

ShpataEMadhe
11-18-2021, 04:39 PM
It doesnt add up, tumulus culture was primarily celtic r1b which is near non existant in balkans today even with movements of celtic people well after urnfield into balkans! I would suggest looking at a different source for v13 expansion in balkans - tumulus looks highly unlikely and already tisza and cucuteni have turned out 0 v13 so far. Right now, your theory is just a theory until we get actual results, same case with the rest of us

It is not possible to tie indo european language in balkans to urnfield with lack of celtic r1b, it goes back to yamnaya and early spread of r1b z2103. It looks like urnfield didnt have much impact in balkans unlike italy. R1b z2103 is the main line that links the ancestors of illyrians, thracians and dacians to indo european language

Riverman
11-18-2021, 05:17 PM
It doesnt add up, tumulus culture was primarily celtic r1b which is near non existant in balkans today even with movements of celtic people well after urnfield into balkans! I would suggest looking at a different source for v13 expansion in balkans - tumulus looks highly unlikely so far and already tisza and cucuteni have turned out 0 v13 so far. So far your theory is just a theory until we get actual results

It is not possible to tie indo european in balkans to urnfield with lack of celtic r1b, it goes back to yamnaya and early spread of r1b z2103. That is the main line that links the ancestors of illyrians, thracians and dacians to indo european language

E-V13 was not spread by the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture, they were probably cornered at the Upper Tisza by them and did better than the other lineages there, in that triangle between Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. They adopted some TC elements, forming the Carpathian groups, but were never part of TC proper.
It was primarily J-L283 which profited big time from the TC, regardless of were exact they joined. The Alpine connection alk the way down to Albania is very obvious in Illyrians.
The question is just when and where exactly J-L283 hopped on the Middle Danubian TC train.
But J-L283 used this dynamic to replace others in the region. Look what's left of the earlier Neolithics.
And that didn't just happen recently, but from the MBA to the EIA.
Same for E-V13, which main expansion was however later, in the LBA-EIA transition.

I wouldn't wonder if J-L283 was in Cetina, because that way they could be early connected to Bell Beakers and later TC.

E-V13 was more to the North East-East in comparison.

Bruzmi
11-18-2021, 05:46 PM
I posted some PCA plots which make the pull towards Mako for Füzesabony, Gava, Kyjatice at least 2 of 4 E-V13 and some R-Z2103, but no J2b, clear.
.

There is no "pull" towards Mako for any E-V13.


Distance to: HUN_Mako_EBA
0.06425621 E-V13:I18527
0.06693992 J-L283:I5689
0.06938301 E-V13:I16272
0.07241512 J-L283:SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK15
0.07265430 E-V13:VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
0.07401654 J-L283:ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR116
0.07404449 E-V13: DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA: KRA005
0.07595522 E-V13:Migration_LIB:LIB11
0.07775802 E-V13:ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
0.07837066 J-L283:I5690
0.07862389 J-L283:VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK346
0.08115820 E-V13:I14465
0.08584986 J-L283:I5691
0.09852014 J-L283:ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.09991873 J-L283:I5696
0.10562053 J-L283:HRV_MBA:I4331
0.11872655 E-V13:scy197
0.12346887 E-V13:I18832
0.13762967 E-V13:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107
0.15245947 J-L283:ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR54
0.16154525 J-L283:ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:I10553
0.16163949 J-L283:ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC003
0.16262790 J-L283:ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic:ORC008
0.17295209 E-V13:ITA_Collegno_MA_o1:CL38

The *one* sample which Füzesabony plots moderately close to is far away from all other E-V13 samples. It's his admixture which makes him land at a reasonable distance to Fuzesabony (but not a very close one). But it's obvious that this occurred from a secondary admixture as this sample is an outlier to the main cluster. Vatya MBA on the other hand is very close to the E-V13 and J-L283 cluster.

ShpataEMadhe
11-18-2021, 05:52 PM
Yes, we have seen even genetically that j2b l283 played a part in tumulus but this does not mean the illyrians descended from tumulus culture. We need more y dna from tumulus/urnfield to understand more but it was mostly italo celtic r1b which will turn out to be u152 -

R1b1a1a2a1a2b1-U152>L2:
Sample RISE471, Untermeitingen, Middle Bronze Age Tumulus Culture.

U152 is super rare in balkans and whatever there is, its most likely post roman input

Riverman
11-18-2021, 07:03 PM
There is no "pull" towards Mako for any E-V13.


You don't see it that way, because its not the main component and the other elements pull them over. If you do a PCA right, with WHG being present, you get this:

https://i.ibb.co/GvJyyTR/Haplogroups-British-Paper10.jpg

https://ibb.co/jv5mmRD

Note that even the J2b cluster being pulled somewhat in that direction, because they have Pannonian ancestry as well and being not on a pure Neolithic to Yamnaya cline. All modern Europeans have it, but some Pannonian samples in particular got more of it, including 2 of 4 E-V13, with the one being closest to a more Neolithic composition, like BGR_EBA, being the outlier. But still, even with this outlier, the E-V13 average plots closer to the Kyjatice-Gáva and closer to Mako. So yes, they being pulled in that direction.

The E-V13 samples have both more WHG and more steppe ancestry than the J2b cluster. The J2b cluster is in this respect closer to other more Neolithic-steppe shifted groups, including some BGR samples. Just to put that into perspective. The earlier Neolithics, without the additional Yamnaya and Bell Beaker ancestry, like the Tumulus Culture influenced J2b got it, plot way more upwards, being quite different.
Vatya is another matter, because they being from Pannonia and being admixed in a similar way, yet they were quite heterogeneous. Vatya:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tuende-Horvath/publication/262691929/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Area-of-the-Vatya-culture-middle-Bronze-Age-in-the-Carpathian-Basin.jpg
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tuende-Horvath/publication/262691929/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Area-of-the-Vatya-culture-middle-Bronze-Age-in-the-Carpathian-Basin.jpg

Vatya was fairly close to Encrusted Ware and Gáva anyway. The later cultures just developed out of them, fused with them, or rolled over them respectively, depending on which group you look.


Yes, we have seen even genetically that j2b l283 played a part in tumulus but this does not mean the illyrians descended from tumulus culture. We need more y dna from tumulus/urnfield to understand more but it was mostly italo celtic r1b which will turn out to be u152 -

R1b1a1a2a1a2b1-U152>L2:
Sample RISE471, Untermeitingen, Middle Bronze Age Tumulus Culture.

U152 is super rare in balkans and whatever there is, its most likely post roman input

Tumulus culture was multi-ethnic!

Note that Cetina was an independent group but heavily influenced by Bell Beakers. You could say "Beakerised" Copper Age people. That way they could have kept their language, but being in the networks which created Tumulus, being early participants.
Note also, that when Füzesabony/late Otomani and other groups got cornered in the Upper Tisza area by the TC groups advancement, they kind of made a "peace offer" or adapted to them, adopting Tumulus Culture elements. So they became part of TC, half-way at least, too, but remained otherwise clearly independent. And its from these groups, which got clumped together in a much smaller area than they covered before, that Kyjatice-Gáva and some of the most important impulses for Urnfield came up. That's obviously not chance and was at the same time the opportunity of formerly weaker tribes to gain much more influence than they had before, when this shrunken and cornered group got major innovations and began to first homogenise, then expand outwards. That's Channelled Ware and how E-V13 made it.
The old structure of the Pannonian-Carpathian sphere got completely ruined and altered by TC, this dynamic environment gave the survivors of these failry high developed Pannonian groups excellent chances, once they came to terms with the invaders.

You see it on this graph too, there "Hügelgräber" (= Tumulus culture) written over the pre-Gáva/Channelled Ware groups in the North of Pannonia-Carpathians:

https://i.ibb.co/sChCwdf/Gava-OF-INCINERATION-BURIALS-AND-FUNERARY-METALS-DURING-LBA-IN-THE-EASTERN-CARPATHIAN.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/sChCwdf/Gava-OF-INCINERATION-BURIALS-AND-FUNERARY-METALS-DURING-LBA-IN-THE-EASTERN-CARPATHIAN.jpg

Berkesz-Demeszer is being considered the main pre-Gáva group. Their case makes it very clear, its the same as with Urnfield, a people could adopt the package, or at least many elements of it and join the network. Urnfield kind of is the backflow from this group, once it was part of the network, which changed everything once more. They kind of "taught" the TC their religion and some of their ways, as well technical innovations. So first they were pushed and cornered by TC, dominated in Pannonia-Illyria presumably by J-L283 and R1b-BB, then, in this dynamic, highly competitive environment E-V13 became dominant within those Pannonian groups which adopted TC elements, in the third stage they influenced the whole TC network which resulted in a chain reaction, which is Urnfield.
Tumulus Culture and Urnfield being multi-ethnic, primarily religious phenomena. It depends on the exact group and archaeological province which ethnicity they belong to. And the Middle Danubian TC seems to have been Illyrian, the Carpathian TC (of these Pannonians which adopted TC elements) Proto-Thracian.

ShpataEMadhe
11-18-2021, 07:24 PM
With that do you suggest a small group of v13 was absorbed into the italo celtic tumulus culture then somehow adoped the tumulus indo european language + culture before expanding in much bigger numbers and thus becoming the proto thracians? This doesnt make any sense to me without a significant mix in y dna from tumulus, the proto thracians would never have been pure v13 in this scenario as you said tumulus and urnfield were multi ethnical so the proto thracians that emerged would have carried mutliple different lines from the off

You keep suggesting they do not need any tumulus y dna to carry an indo european language from the tumulus but for me that is crazy for that period, especially if the group literally expanded within the urnfield network! It is just not possible. So we have to find out which other lines the proto thracians carried from tumulus and we will find that out with ancient dna - if they emerged from tumulus

Until we get adna to support your theory, it is super hard to believe. We know the thracians spoke an indo european language and yamnaya r1b z2103 (non tumulus) is currently the likeliest scenario for giving the proto thracians an indo european language, some samples have even overlapped with v13 already

Riverman
11-18-2021, 08:45 PM
With that do you suggest a small group of v13 was absorbed into the italo celtic tumulus culture then somehow adoped the tumulus indo european language + culture before expanding in much bigger numbers and thus becoming the proto thracians?

No. IE they were already much longer, since their contact with Epi-Corded and Yamnaya groups in Pannonia. They didn't adopt the language, just elements of the rites, customes and allies of the Tumulus Culture, which first pushed them East. In that sense they were "Proto-Thracians" much longer obviously and never Italo-Celts.
Tumulus culture was not Italo-Celtic, Urnfield not Celtic. These were both more religious, political and economic spheres than ethnic ones. The ethnic category is important were specific carriers of a specific province of TC/UF move into the territory of other people, like Gava along the Tisza basin and Eastward, expanding on both sides of the Carpathians. Or Celts moving deeper into what is now France etc.

Just read up on Channelled Ware and Gáva. Kyjatice and Gáva emerged from the Carpathian groups, which were partly considered TC, because they only adopted some elements of it. And you see that Urnfield is primarily religious because some Pannonian Illyrians adopted the new religion, the Illyrian core did not and sticked to the old TC culture and rite, like in Glasinaci Mati. So you both have different ethnicities following this rite (Urnfield) and you have the same ethnicity of which some tribes adopted it, others not. Those Pannonian-Illyrians which adopted Urnfield are also more likely to have higher levels of E-V13, by the way. They being also closer connected to the Thraco-Cimmerian expansion and the Basarabi-Hallstatt network. So there are connections between Daco-Thracians and specific (Pannonian) Illyrians, which lasted since Urnfield. At the same time Illyrians influenced Daco-Thracians.

TC and UF being more like joining a cult and confession, but gaining political importance, allies and trade patners through it. No serious scholar says that Urnfield was one ethnicity and Tumulus culture too shows marked differences. The Middle Danubian Urnfield province most likely was Illyrians, others were Italic, again others Celtic in the West and those which just adopted some elements, those were Proto-Thracian, leading to Gáva.


We know the thracians spoke an indo european language and yamnaya r1b z2103 (non tumulus) is currently the likeliest scenario for giving the proto thracians an indo european language, some samples have even overlapped with v13 already

Proto-Thracians indeed came up NOT from the TC groups which invaded Pannonia, but from those locals which adopted some elements of TC when being cornered. Like you have the tumuli burials from Lăpuș, but they are very different people, much closer to Igrita and Berkesz Demeczer, than the Middle Danubian TC groups which were probably Illyrians which had relations to Baierdorf–Velatice.

Look up those sites and their relations, they both have TC elements, but are completely different, different ancestry, context, future. The Illyrian related Middle Danubian group with connections to e.g. Baierdorf–Velatice were much more Western oriented.

The main problem is that Gáva usually cremated, like most of their predecessor groups too. So we mostly have irregular burials, which connection to the community could be questioned (outsiders, foreigners etc.). However, probably we are lucky and one got tested, who knows how they fit:


Based upon the inhumed, “irregular” burials of the Gáva culture from Northern Hungary, the
open rings found in graves no. 2 and no. 4 (Fig. 4.6–16; Fig. 5.1–3, 10–11) could have served
as ornaments of the head or the hair, maybe earrings,107or even neckrings, as seen on the
clay gurine found in Ludas-Varjú-dulo.108 Similar artefacts were discovered in the tumulus
no. 3 in Bakonyjákó and tumulus no. 1 of Ugod109 as well as in graves no. 2 and no. 13 in
Sárbogárd-Tringer-tanya.110

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307764674_Cemetery_of_the_late_Tumulus_-_early_Urnfield_period_at_Balatonfuzfo_Hungary

If exactly those have more Middle Danubian gear, however, they might indeed be foreigners.

Riverman
11-19-2021, 12:39 PM
Transcarpathia is of particular interest because its one of the more Northern regions with a significantly increased E-V13 percentage. It is well known that it had a Daco-Thracian substrate, as well as stronger Germanic, German, West Slavic and Daco-Roman/Vlach/Romanian influences, more so than other regions of the Ukraine. This being nicely shown by the coordinates which can be assigned to the region:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15594-Ethnic-history-of-the-Eastern-Slavs&p=816769&viewfull=1#post816769

bce
11-19-2021, 01:12 PM
With that do you suggest a small group of v13 was absorbed into the italo celtic tumulus culture then somehow adoped the tumulus indo european language + culture before expanding in much bigger numbers and thus becoming the proto thracians? This doesnt make any sense to me without a significant mix in y dna from tumulus, the proto thracians would never have been pure v13 in this scenario as you said tumulus and urnfield were multi ethnical so the proto thracians that emerged would have carried mutliple different lines from the off

You keep suggesting they do not need any tumulus y dna to carry an indo european language from the tumulus but for me that is crazy for that period, especially if the group literally expanded within the urnfield network! It is just not possible. So we have to find out which other lines the proto thracians carried from tumulus and we will find that out with ancient dna - if they emerged from tumulus

Until we get adna to support your theory, it is super hard to believe. We know the thracians spoke an indo european language and yamnaya r1b z2103 (non tumulus) is currently the likeliest scenario for giving the proto thracians an indo european language, some samples have even overlapped with v13 already

The period when pure steppe R1a/R1b tribes were conquering neolithic tribes and imposing IE languages onto them was around 3000 BC.

This is a much later period, 2000 BC and later. In that time everybody around the Carpathians was already IE speaking, and had steppe autosomal admixture, no matter what's their Y-DNA.

There's no reason why a small E-V13 clan in the Carpathians couldn't have a demographic explosion and spread their specific IE language around.

By the time they reached Bulgaria they probably already assimilated some R1a and R1b lineages too, but this has nothing to do with their language.

leonardus
11-19-2021, 05:45 PM
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

It's a long time since I've heard such nonsenses.

Riverman
11-20-2021, 02:33 AM
ph2ter was so nice to create these maps for a comparison of E-Z5018 vs. E-Z5017 based on the FTDNA data:

https://i.imgur.com/K3En1gF.png
https://i.imgur.com/CgBNxNV.png

Since I know how closely the main clades of E-V13 overlap, its all the more interesting to see that there seems to be some structure and clearly different focal points nevertheless. This kind of visualisations for the main clades and subclades of E-V13 can be sometimes quite revealing. The problem with the maps based on YFull is that they are even more skewed by over- and undersampling of various ethnicities and world regions than those based on data from FTDNA.

He also created a general E-V13 map:

https://i.imgur.com/c3rPHI0.png

Which, once more, reproduced a space of lower E-V13 presence in core Bavarian (archaeological, historical, tribal, dialectal) and a relatively higher one in Central and especially Allemannic Germany. More sampling and better representation of various European regions would of course help a lot to make it more meaningful and reliable, but even with the current data at least some patterns to emerge.

ShpataEMadhe
11-20-2021, 12:29 PM
ph2ter was so nice to create these maps for a comparison of E-Z5018 vs. E-Z5017 based on the FTDNA data:


Since I know how closely the main clades of E-V13 overlap, its all the more interesting to see that there seems to be some structure and clearly different focal points nevertheless. This kind of visualisations for the main clades and subclades of E-V13 can be sometimes quite revealing. The problem with the maps based on YFull is that they are even more skewed by over- and undersampling of various ethnicities and world regions than those based on data from FTDNA.

He also created a general E-V13 map:


Which, once more, reproduced a space of lower E-V13 presence in core Bavarian (archaeological, historical, tribal, dialectal) and a relatively higher one in Central and especially Allemannic Germany. More sampling and better representation of various European regions would of course help a lot to make it more meaningful and reliable, but even with the current data at least some patterns to emerge.

Based on those maps the spread of 5017 and 5018 look nearly identical. 5018 looks to have had more impact in the roman empire as it has greater frequency in italy, tunisia, portugal, england

If you look at roman empire timeline, places like tunisia were occupied before thrace. Therefore the v13 in tunisia is illyrian (native italian is unlikely looking at the frequency of 5018)

Riverman
11-20-2021, 01:45 PM
Based on those maps the spread of 5017 and 5018 look nearly identical. 5018 looks to have had more impact in the roman empire as it has greater frequency in italy, tunisia, portugal, england

If you look at roman empire history, places like tunisia were occupied before thrace. Therefore the v13 in tunisia is illyrian (native italian is unlikely looking at the frequency of 5018)

You have to consider especially two things:
- sampling bias, because of regional over- and undersampling
- post-Iron Age movements of people, especially Romans, Germanics and the most impactful: Slavs.

If you consider the very high sampling rate in Albanians, plus the fact that the Slavs replaced a lot of the regional lineages in the migration and Early Medieval period, its astonishing that not just the diversity in other regions is so high, but also the relative frequency.

Consdiering the Rhenish region, you have to consider that pockets and places of high frequency go on in Switzerland and into North Italy, whereas the Bavarian and Slovenian core are more like a wedge into higher E-V13 territory. This distribution suggests therefore that the whole Alpine-Rhenish region was settled more completely by E-V13 rich people in the Iron Age, rather than just pockets of it on the Limes borderzone. Some differences are fairly subtle, but in Northern Italy the borderline between Ligurian influenced vs. other Northern and Central Italian regions is absolutely stricking. In the neighbouring provinces of Liguria/Genua the frequency is higher always in those areas, which were Ligurian in ancient times.
As you can see too, especially for E-Z5018, even though the sampling is not sufficient, is that there is a continuous line going from a centre of the Southern Daco-Thracian (Psenichevo-Basarabi) core right along the Danube and its tributaries up, into the Alpine zone, only interrupted by the Bavarian core, than rising again in all areas that remained with continuous Iron Age populations of Southern German Celts, Ligurians, Veneti etc. The Ligurian and Romanian-Moldovan cases also prove that sites like FTDNA, but of yours even YFull all the more so, can be misleading. There are just more Germans in that region of E-V13 distribution, and more of those Germans tested, yet the relative frequency is higher in Ligurians.

For this reason, centres of high frequency outside of well- to oversampled regions (Britain, Albania, parts of South Western Germany) are all the more important. This is particularly true for Eastern Slovakia-Transcarpathia-South Eastern Poland, the Northern fringe region of both ancient Daco-Thracians and later Romanians/Vlachs, as well as Thrace/Bulgaria.

As for the difference between E-Z5017 vs. E-Z5018, the first thing I noticed is that the modern central-southern core regions being clearly shifted: E-Z5017 has a centre in Montenegro-Albania rather, whereas E-Z5018 has a centre in Macedonia-Kosovo.This is only true for Central Balkan region, but there its striking, because E-Z5017 is more common in Montenegro and Albania, whereas E-Z5018 is more common in Kosovo and Macedonia.
Interestingly, in Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria, the absolute numbers are much more balanced, with a slight overweight of E-Z5017 in Bulgaria and E-Z5018 in Greece, but that's a really, really small difference and in no way statistically significant.
These could be recent founder effects though in Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia and Kosovo respectively. The numbers are also too small to draw too many conclusions.
Much more obvious is that E-Z5018 took a more Northern route more often, because E-Z5018 is much more common in England, and still 50 % more common in Germany. The difference is much more pronounced in Britain than in Germany, which I would tend to associate with specific Celtic, Germanic and later continental movements.

This might be a good case for the early Northern distribution which caused this: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L17/
Looks decisively Urnfield-Hallstatt and Celtic-related both on YFull and FTDNA.

ShpataEMadhe
11-20-2021, 08:40 PM
E-L17 does look likely to have moved with celtics but why is it also in portugal and even moved to brazil - must be quite common in the portuguese? We cant yet rule out roman settlement however urnfield does look possible. The 5018 in places like tunisia are surely of illyrian stock though, i cant think of another reason for that line to be found there

As for albanian 5017 vs 5018, 5018 is actually twice as common. It would be interesting how it is in bulgaria and greece - if 5017 is a lot more common in bulgarians and 5018 a lot more common in greeks we can almost divide the two lines between thracians and illyrians if they even had such a split. We do need ancient dna first to confirm/deny anything

Riverman
11-20-2021, 08:56 PM
E-L17 does look likely to have moved with celtics but why is it also in portugal and even moved to brazil - must be quite common in the portuguese? We cant rule out roman movement however urnfield does look possible.

Urnfield, Celtic and Para-Celtic groups reached Iberia as well as Britain. One example:

The Celtici (in Portuguese, Spanish, and Galician languages, Célticos) were a Celtic tribe or group of tribes of the Iberian peninsula, inhabiting three definite areas: in what today are the regions of Alentejo and the Algarve in Portugal; in the Province of Badajoz and north of Province of Huelva in Spain, in the ancient Baeturia; and along the coastal areas of Galicia. Classical authors give various accounts of the Celtici's relationships with the Gallaeci, Celtiberians and Turdetani.

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


The 5018 in places like tunisia are surely of illyrian stock though, i cant think of another reason for that line to be found there

Greeks, Roman settlers, Vandals etc. Many people reached Tunisia.


As for albanian 5017 vs 5018, 5018 is actually twice as common

Good example of sample bias even within a region, probably because of specific surname projects or the like.

FTDNA:
E-Z5017: 19 5.44%
E-Z5018: 10 1.79%

vs.

YFull:
E-Z5017: 28
E-Z5018: 35

ShpataEMadhe
11-20-2021, 09:13 PM
Urnfield, Celtic and Para-Celtic groups reached Iberia as well as Britain. One example:


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



Greeks, Roman settlers, Vandals etc. Many people reached Tunisia.



Good example of sample bias even within a region, probably because of specific surname projects or the like.

FTDNA:
E-Z5017: 19 5.44%
E-Z5018: 10 1.79%

vs.

YFull:
E-Z5017: 28
E-Z5018: 35

How many samples of albanians are on ftdna and yfull? Ftdna numbers seem insignicant so results are obviously skewed

I was using the figures from rrenjet which has 1300 samples. On there z5018 is twice as common as z5017

EDIT: trying to find some data on tunisians but cant seem to find any i1 (vandal input?) - i did come across an r1b z2103 though so again could be more illyrian (or greek?) input along with the z5018 frequency

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/

Riverman
11-20-2021, 09:29 PM
How many samples of albanians are on ftdna and yfull? Ftdna numbers seem insignicant so results are obviously skewed

I was using the figures from rrenjet which has 1300 samples. On there z5018 is twice as common as z5017

I know that rrenjet is much bigger and statistically reliable in comparison to FTDNA BigY testers. There are of course much more Albanian samples on FTDNA, but these are the ones under these clades which did a BigY.
And the Albanian numbers aren't low at all, other people have even much less BigY testers per million people.

Riverman
12-03-2021, 03:59 PM
I came across this age estimate for E-V13 in Italy which corresponds nicely with the start of the expansion within and from Eastern Urnfield:

https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pone.0065441/1/pone.0065441.t002.PNG_L?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20211203%2Fauto%2Fs torage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20211203T154530Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=53d99fe6b28494887f6660a57ae8fb8c5d4bfd56 e6ef9333f566e922cb1357592879cf20a8c6011283f42f7bed bd515ea0d605ae67057f33f1f4775b54e2135abc6d1be51fa3 0b73d9ca801db4d287c7c31bb7347d437edff9dc67da33f8bc dadfeac1b9461a9e0d32a6e8c8c0010aa34432b29cb9d99888 2263656a327034c74a6786813829e72e75f20b0e98c9fe5193 c3f732854b5c72ea49784aaf7b7c1426bad791cda7415e78ee e3c9c41100d63748ddf4d6b3654b7424eb13c0c7d85f1dd6a7 1e2910477ce4c400a1b98f2d31ceda046359f4bb0bd4f13f19 435853729c5a61f3e9b6715f54798635bf057890e094d44206 65cd8a371d18f56bf0aac5

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#s6

Estimate of 3662 BP.

Most of the other main haplogroups are significantly older, with two exceptions:
R-U152 (3432 BP)
R-L2 (3242 BP)

But they have older clusters, whereas the only cluster of E-V13 is even younger, at 3488 BP. Corresponds in any case nicely with an Urnfield expansion timing up to the LBA-EIA transition. E-V13 appears as the youngest of these haplogroups in Italy.

vettor
12-03-2021, 07:16 PM
ph2ter was so nice to create these maps for a comparison of E-Z5018 vs. E-Z5017 based on the FTDNA data:


Since I know how closely the main clades of E-V13 overlap, its all the more interesting to see that there seems to be some structure and clearly different focal points nevertheless. This kind of visualisations for the main clades and subclades of E-V13 can be sometimes quite revealing. The problem with the maps based on YFull is that they are even more skewed by over- and undersampling of various ethnicities and world regions than those based on data from FTDNA.

He also created a general E-V13 map:


Which, once more, reproduced a space of lower E-V13 presence in core Bavarian (archaeological, historical, tribal, dialectal) and a relatively higher one in Central and especially Allemannic Germany. More sampling and better representation of various European regions would of course help a lot to make it more meaningful and reliable, but even with the current data at least some patterns to emerge.

the maps look like it could be a connection between Bulgaria and Albania from the bulgarian rule over Albania from circa 700AD under Kuber

With the arrival of the Bulgars in the region during the 7th century, one Bulgar group led by Kuber settled in Macedonia and eastern Albania.[2]

It seems that the Bulgarians in Albania where replaced by the Byzantines in 1020AD

Bruzmi
12-03-2021, 08:53 PM
the maps look like it could be a connection between Bulgaria and Albania from the bulgarian rule over Albania from circa 700AD under Kuber

With the arrival of the Bulgars in the region during the 7th century, one Bulgar group led by Kuber settled in Macedonia and eastern Albania.[2]

It seems that the Bulgarians in Albania where replaced by the Byzantines in 1020AD

No. Kuber was a leader of the Sermesianoi, a people of mixed Balkan and Slavic origin who migrated from Pannonia to Macedonia because 60 years before that era their ancestors had been captured by the Avars and brought to Sirmium.

The Sermesianoi didn't settle in eastern Albania. That's not what the site where you copied that sentence from says.

A hoard (treasure) which might be from the Sermesianoi, although it is usually attributed to the Avars, was found buried in Albania. It's the Avar Treasure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_Treasure). As all items are from the Byzantine Empire, it is hypothesized that during a retreat of the Avar army they buried the hoard hastily.

Bruzmi
12-03-2021, 08:56 PM
But they have older clusters, whereas the only cluster of E-V13 is even younger, at 3488 BP. Corresponds in any case nicely with an Urnfield expansion timing up to the LBA-EIA transition. E-V13 appears as the youngest of these haplogroups in Italy.

This corresponds to LBA-EIA migrations from the (north)western Balkans to Italy via land routes and the Adriatic. I believe that we might eventually find some E-V13 in Proto-Villanovan remains.

Riverman
12-03-2021, 09:46 PM
This corresponds to LBA-EIA migrations from the (north)western Balkans to Italy via land routes and the Adriatic. I believe that we might eventually find some E-V13 in Proto-Villanovan remains.

That's possible, the Ceramic and other items, including weapon production, connect the sphere of Channelled Ware/Gava with Proto-Villanovan. This goes as far as when Western archaeologists first encountered Gava pottery, they actually described it as Proto-Villanovan, which style was already known. So there are indeed great cultural similarities. Whether they point to gene flow has to be seen, but typically E-V13 has areas of high frequencies rather to the North and the South, rather than Central Italy.

vettor
12-04-2021, 03:03 AM
No. Kuber was a leader of the Sermesianoi, a people of mixed Balkan and Slavic origin who migrated from Pannonia to Macedonia because 60 years before that era their ancestors had been captured by the Avars and brought to Sirmium.

The Sermesianoi didn't settle in eastern Albania. That's not what the site where you copied that sentence from says.

A hoard (treasure) which might be from the Sermesianoi, although it is usually attributed to the Avars, was found buried in Albania. It's the Avar Treasure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_Treasure). As all items are from the Byzantine Empire, it is hypothesized that during a retreat of the Avar army they buried the hoard hastily.

ok

But Bulgaria still ruled macedonia and albania for over 400 years

ShpataEMadhe
12-07-2021, 10:29 PM
ok

But Bulgaria still ruled macedonia and albania for over 400 years

No, albania was about 100 years -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bulgarian_Empire

Macedonia though a lot longer as bulgaria had control over it also during the first bulgarian empire - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire

rafc
12-22-2021, 07:18 PM
So we have our answer on the context of the four V13's from the Patterson study:
400-200 BCE Czech_IA_LaTene
320-200 BCE Hungary_IA_LaTene_oEast
320-180 BCE Hungary_IA_LaTene
650-500 BCE Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug

As feared they are quite young, but still shows V13 was present in central Europe. The Hungary-Slovakia area has been suggested as an area where the boom of V13 in the LBA/EIA took place, this does not speak against that.

rafc
12-22-2021, 07:36 PM
In every of the locations V13 is heavily outnumbered by other groups (mainly R1b), so obviously none of them is a candidate for some sort of V13 'homeland'. However all of the locations in Czech, Hungary and Slovakia are located in the very west of those countries.

It's conceivable the small V13 here points to a larger presence in a neighbouring region, being part of a 'slope'.
I think based on the large existing sampling the west or north (S-Germany, S-Poland) is unlikely. We also get a lot of samples from the south here (Slovenia and Croatia), and V13 is completely absent. I hope we can now finally put the idea to rest that V13 came from this region. There is a deluge of J2b in both of them though.
In my eyes the only viable theory is a larger presence to east. Can be more eastern parts of Hungary and Slovakia, and/or Ukraine and Romania.

Riverman
12-22-2021, 10:09 PM
In every of the locations V13 is heavily outnumbered by other groups (mainly R1b), so obviously none of them is a candidate for some sort of V13 'homeland'. However all of the locations in Czech, Hungary and Slovakia are located in the very west of those countries.

It's conceivable the small V13 here points to a larger presence in a neighbouring region, being part of a 'slope'.
I think based on the large existing sampling the west or north (S-Germany, S-Poland) is unlikely. We also get a lot of samples from the south here (Slovenia and Croatia), and V13 is completely absent. I hope we can now finally put the idea to rest that V13 came from this region. There is a deluge of J2b in both of them though.
In my eyes the only viable theory is a larger presence to east. Can be more eastern parts of Hungary and Slovakia, and/or Ukraine and Romania.

Czech_LT I16272 E-Z1057 (Celtic, Celticised Eastern Urnfield/Eastern Hallstatt)
Hungary_LT_o_East I18832 E-BY3880 (= Geto-Scythian)
Hungary_LT I18527 E-BY3880 (Celtic, Celticised Eastern Urnfield/Eastern Hallstatt)
Slovakia_Vekerzug I14465 E-V13 (= Thraco-Scythian)

The Channelled Ware/Gáva spread through Basarabi into Hallstatt, throughout Eastern Central Europe and with persistence into the La Tene Celtic and Scythian period in Central Europe and beyond gained a lot of credibility I guess.
Too bad that a lot of samples can't be really used to test some theories, like how much influence the local population had on the paternal side in the Thraco-Cimmerian core groups, like the 8 samples from Prescythian-Mezocsat, which could have added to the single N already available. Yet there is no single male among them.
Similarly, the very interesting Srem group, just one sample, one female.

The reason for their significant but not dominant participation is that these areas and samples are largely:
- Outside of the Channelled Ware/Gáva core zone
- Being from a time and context after which the original ethnic unity being largely broken down in most areas, but the very Daco-Thracian core regions - most likely even reduced there.

I think its just possible that Gáva-Kyjatice had a strong E-V13 element, but the frequency got even larger due to founder effects in the Southern expansion zone, especially with Belegis II-Gáva and the Southern Fluted Ware horizon along the Danube. Its pretty clear that after the Cimmerians cut through their territory like a wedge, the central groups got mixed and weakened. There were two strongholds by then: The Northern Carpathians-Transcarpathia and the Southern Carpathian-Danubian sphere, where much larger numbers lived and survived.
We also see the spread of Channelled Ware elements along the Danube, the Alpine paths and as an influence over the Adriatic into Italy. This is no complete, large scale replacement of the locals, but rather a spreading out of a formerly more concentrated group. If we would test Belegis II-Gáva, they might turn out close to 100 and at least 75 % plus E-V13. But they did cremate and there being no sampled included. But the earlier samples prove once more: It most likely arrived in the LBA-EIA, not before. And that's why we have to look at Gáva, because the E-V13 clans were either the primary founders to begin with or the most successful passengers from a specific station onwards, to put it that way.
The Sea People connection too is not out of question, even on the contrary, for some of the earliest splinters which reached the Aegais.

Tora_sama
12-22-2021, 10:14 PM
I16272 Czech_II18527 Hungary_IA_LaTene 2200 E-BY3880 E1b1b1a1b1 H3
A_LaTene 2250 E-Z1057 E1b1b1a1b1 J1c2e
I18832 Hungary_IA_LaTene_oEast 2210 E-BY3880 E1b1b1a1b1 U5a1b
I14465 Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug 2525 E-V13 E1b1b1a1b1 U5a2b1b

Riverman
12-23-2021, 01:01 AM
Obviously we can't make a reliable statistic from it, but its still interesting nevertheless, where they land.
Vekerzug Western Slovakia: 16.67 %
La Tene Czechia: 3.03 %
La Tene Hungary: 10.52 %

It we would take this face value, it would mean that Hungary had a significantly higher percentage than Bohemia in the developed pre-Roman Iron Age (no surprise) and both La Tene and Vekerzug are not supposed to be any sort of "pure representative" for the former E-V13 core. It would be also expectable that there was a decrease from Vekerzug (more Thraco-Scythian) to La Tene (more Celtic influx from the West).
The Hallstatt sample is very diverse and within Hallstatt I would expect groups like Frög and Kalenderberg to have more E-V13 than others, because they had much closer ties to the Basarabi/Daco-Thracian world and were the hub for influences from the East to the West.
The important position of these central groups reduced by the rise of La Tene Celts in the West and Scythians in the East, which largely destroyed that system. So what we see in Vekerzug are just the remains. Its also worth to stress that the site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chot%C3%ADn
is well outside of the core region of Channelled Ware/Kyjatice-Gáva, but at best at its fringes. Channelled Ware-related groups were much stronger at the opposite end of the country throughout the Bronze and Iron Age. The Tumulus and Middle Danubian Urnfielders had a much stronger influence there then to the East.

That's the other non-R haplogroup find in this Vekerzug sample:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-S15656/

There might be another E-V13 from La Tene Southern France (Le Cailar), but that's unsure because of the low resolution.

Bruzmi
12-23-2021, 08:57 AM
Czech_LT I16272 E-Z1057 (Celtic, Celticised Eastern Urnfield/Eastern Hallstatt)
Hungary_LT_o_East I18832 E-BY3880 (= Geto-Scythian)
Hungary_LT I18527 E-BY3880 (Celtic, Celticised Eastern Urnfield/Eastern Hallstatt)
Slovakia_Vekerzug I14465 E-V13 (= Thraco-Scythian)


What "Thraco-Scythian" or "Geto-Scythian"? None of these samples have anything to do with anything related to eastern Europe. Did you check their ancestral components or who they plot with? The "Daco-Thracian-Scythian-Getian" stuff makes no sense at all because it is applied to wildly different samples. Instead of applying speculative groupings and confining ourselves to labels which didn't even exist historically, we should be checking the samples themselves.

Comparison with EBA samples/averages only:


Czech_LT_I16272,0.125205,0.132019,0.062602,0.06298 5,0.041854,0.013945,-0.001175,-0.000923,0.008385,-0.005103,-0.012829,0.00015,0.000595,0.008808,0.012758,0.0059 67,-0.00339,-0.001267,0.000628,0.012631,-0.000499,0.004575,0.000246,-0.003735,-0.00491
Slovakia_Vekerzug_I14465,0.132035,0.145221,0.04148 3,-0.004199,0.047393,-0.009761,-0.00564,0.006692,0.01084,0.02041,-0.005196,0.01094,-0.01115,0.00812,-0.009908,-0.009679,0.011995,0.000127,0.006662,0.009379,-0.004243,0.006801,0.000493,-0.021087,-0.001317
Hungary_LT_I18527,0.122929,0.142174,0.04714,0.0277 78,0.042162,0.003068,0.00094,0.004154,0.018612,0.0 13303,-0.01494,0.003897,-0.008474,0.001376,-0.004207,-0.003978,0.000913,-0.0019,0.002388,-0.003252,-0.003119,0.004575,-0.000739,-0.012532,-0.007185
Hungary_LT_o_East_I18832,0.121791,0.149283,0.01998 7,-0.024871,0.029852,-0.010319,-0.002585,-0.003,0.009817,0.030433,-0.002598,0.004946,-0.015758,-0.005367,-0.024294,0.002121,0.025295,0.006841,0.008296,-0.007379,-0.016471,0.000618,0,0.008555,-0.001916


Target: Czech_LT_I16272
Distance: 2.1907% / 0.02190742 | R4P
50.0 DEU_Singen_EBA
26.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
19.6 CZE_EBA
4.4 HRV_EBA

Target: Slovakia_Vekerzug_I14465
Distance: 2.2529% / 0.02252876 | R4P
39.0 HRV_EBA
32.0 HRV_Vucedol
21.4 Baltic_EST_BA
7.6 UKR_EBA

Target: Hungary_LT_I18527
Distance: 1.9081% / 0.01908129 | R4P
40.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
25.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
18.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
16.4 HRV_EBA

Target: Hungary_LT_o_East_I18832
Distance: 2.3839% / 0.02383929 | R4P
37.2 SVK_EBA
29.4 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
27.6 GRC_Helladic_EBA
5.8 HRV_Vucedol

They are not from the area they were found in, they have different admixtures to each other and for many of them these admixtures point to the western/northwestern Balkans.

Bruzmi
12-23-2021, 09:12 AM
I'm also posting distances to modern populations to the two Hungarian samples, not in order to imply that these samples are related to the ancestors of all these modern populations but to show the impossibility of any of these people having any relation to central/eastern European groups or any of the groupings mentioned.

Distance to: Hungary_LT_o_East_I18832
0.03669567 Albanian
0.03756488 French_Corsica
0.03801436 Italian_Tuscany
0.03867023 Italian_Umbria
0.04010198 Greek_Central_Macedonia

Distance to: Hungary_LT_I18527
0.03374446 Swiss_German
0.03377995 French_Auvergne
0.03440101 French_Alsace
0.03571872 French_Nord
0.03441967 French_Occitanie

I believe that it's pretty obvious that they weren't locals. Unless somebody wants to imply that Hungary in the 4th century BC was populated by an Albanian-like people.

Tora_sama
12-23-2021, 12:14 PM
They belong to modern populations:
https://b.radikal.ru/b02/2112/6c/5455fef19835.jpg (https://radikal.ru)
https://c.radikal.ru/c42/2112/0c/8953cc4f622b.jpg (https://radikal.ru)
https://b.radikal.ru/b30/2112/a9/a310c21b3d93.jpg (https://radikal.ru)
https://b.radikal.ru/b30/2112/c1/f29bdea770eb.jpg (https://radikal.ru)

ShpataEMadhe
12-23-2021, 12:44 PM
1 italian, 1 german, 1 swiss/eastern french and 1 albanian

All of these regions had some contact with illyrians, either directly or through their descendents, why do we not see any romania, bulgaria or even turkey? Thracian regions

Either way even if these v13 are not illyrian, they are not thracian either. Maybe they are celtic and were spread through urnfield but either way these people all have input from bronze age western balkans if you look at bruzmi's post above and one of them in particular is very southern

Riverman
12-23-2021, 02:42 PM
1 italian, 1 german, 1 swiss/eastern french and 1 albanian

All of these regions had some contact with illyrians, either directly or through their descendents, why do we not see any romania, bulgaria or even turkey? Thracian regions

Either way even if the v13 found here is not illyrian, it is not thracian either. Maybe it is celtic and was spread through urnfield but either way these people all have input from bronze age western balkans if you look at bruzmi's post above and one of them in particular is very southern

They being all Celticised or Scythianised Daco-Thracians and the only "Southern" sample has a Geto-Scythian profile, just like one other Geto-Scythian from Moldova, who, "by chance", was E-V13 as well.

Bruzmi
12-23-2021, 03:01 PM
They being all Celticised or Scythianised Daco-Thracians and the only "Southern" sample has a Geto-Scythian profile, just like one other Geto-Scythian from Moldova, who, "by chance", was E-V13 as well.

What "Scythianised Daco-Thracians"? The Glinoe sample is not a local as is explicitly explained in the paper. There are other fora were you can engage in such "theories".


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


There's nothing "Scythianised" or "Daco-Thracian" in any of these samples. There are plenty of indications however about their ancestry from Late Neolithic (north)western Balkans.

Riverman
12-23-2021, 03:10 PM
What "Scythianised Daco-Thracians"? The Glinoe sample is not a local as is explicitly explained in the paper. There are other fora were you can engage in such "theories".

There's nothing "Scythianised" or "Daco-Thracian" in any of these samples. There are plenty of indications however about their ancestry from Late Neolithic (north)western Balkans.

He plots like the other Geto-Scythian Moldovans, Glinoe is no big outlier in this context at all. We have a whole range of Pannonian Thraco-Scythians (one more this time with the Vekerzug sample) plus the Geto-Scythians. Genetically they are mostly Daco-Thracian indeed, but from two different clusters, one Pannonian, one Moldovan. These are no outliers, that's just how they plot, because this ancestry is not and never was restricted to the Western Balkans.

rafc
12-23-2021, 05:25 PM
What "Scythianised Daco-Thracians"? The Glinoe sample is not a local as is explicitly explained in the paper. There are other fora were you can engage in such "theories".

There's nothing "Scythianised" or "Daco-Thracian" in any of these samples. There are plenty of indications however about their ancestry from Late Neolithic (north)western Balkans.

As I explained before, this is not what the paper says. The sample is part of what the authors call a "Southern European Cluster" (SE cluster), because on a West-Eurasia PCA they plot where modern Southern Europeans plot. It is not a statement on the origin of the samples, simply a label for a cluster. In fact, what the paper explicitly says on the SE-cluster is this:


The [SE Cluster] was characterized by the presence of the NEN component representing local semi-nomadic Scythians with clear genetic uptake from the locals and possibly from other settlers such as the Greeks around the Black Sea region.

I'm not saying the authors are right, but they clearly consider this cluster as a mix of (local) Scythians and (other) locals. You keep repeating a claim in numerous posts that is in no way supported by the paper.

Feel free to read for yourself: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aat4457

Aspar
12-23-2021, 06:00 PM
Obviously we can't make a reliable statistic from it, but its still interesting nevertheless, where they land.
Vekerzug Western Slovakia: 16.67 %
La Tene Czechia: 3.03 %
La Tene Hungary: 10.52 %

It we would take this face value, it would mean that Hungary had a significantly higher percentage than Bohemia in the developed pre-Roman Iron Age (no surprise) and both La Tene and Vekerzug are not supposed to be any sort of "pure representative" for the former E-V13 core. It would be also expectable that there was a decrease from Vekerzug (more Thraco-Scythian) to La Tene (more Celtic influx from the West).
The Hallstatt sample is very diverse and within Hallstatt I would expect groups like Frög and Kalenderberg to have more E-V13 than others, because they had much closer ties to the Basarabi/Daco-Thracian world and were the hub for influences from the East to the West.
The important position of these central groups reduced by the rise of La Tene Celts in the West and Scythians in the East, which largely destroyed that system. So what we see in Vekerzug are just the remains. Its also worth to stress that the site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chot%C3%ADn
is well outside of the core region of Channelled Ware/Kyjatice-Gáva, but at best at its fringes. Channelled Ware-related groups were much stronger at the opposite end of the country throughout the Bronze and Iron Age. The Tumulus and Middle Danubian Urnfielders had a much stronger influence there then to the East.

That's the other non-R haplogroup find in this Vekerzug sample:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-S15656/

There might be another E-V13 from La Tene Southern France (Le Cailar), but that's unsure because of the low resolution.

What we can get from this is that Hallstatt and it's descendant culture La Tene harboured good amount of E-V13. Obviously this adds up to the idea that there was some kind of communication network within the Urnfield systems ranging Western Europe and all the way to the Carpathians. Probably an ancient realm that incorporated different ethnicities and languages which were all connected through the Urnfield system and acted as one. In this kind of environment E-V13 profited big time, spreading in all directions. But the Urnfield network wasn't the only vector of spreading for E-V13. It's expansion was also helped by some Iranic people possibly who weren't part of the Urnfield network, people such as the Cimmerians. Perhaps the term Thraco-Cimmerian within the world of the archeology now can get better association through an yDna marker which is of course E-V13.
The LBA/EIA Dark period was very alike to the Great Migrations period of the Late Antiquity and Early Medieval. It's just that it's very distant in the past and we don't know much about it as we do for the Early Medieval but for sure the aforementioned period was a big thing with many 'earthquakes' that destroyed a lot of civilizations, the Mycenaean civilization on top of all as one of the most advanced and in all of this one of the main protagonists was the E-V13 yDna marker.

This also goes hand in hand with the findings of the British paper about an increase of EEF dna from the LBA on. We already know that EEF dna survived the most in South-Eastern Europe and Italy unlike in North, Central and Western Europe where the Steppe people dominated.

What I would like to see in the future is papers about EBA and MBA Romania. I definitely believe E-V13 was somewhere on the territory of Romania during those times!

rafc
12-23-2021, 06:10 PM
I don't think having the samples of the Olalde paper will convince those who believe V13 comes from the Western Balkans, they will just claim they are recent migrants. But I think the Lazaridis paper will be the final blow. I hoped we would get it in 2021, but seeing that the Patterson paper took 1 year between submitting and publishing, we are more likely looking at August 2022 :\

Bruzmi
12-23-2021, 06:28 PM
I don't think having the samples of the Olalde paper will convince those who believe V13 comes from the Western Balkans, they will just claim they are recent migrants. But I think the Lazaridis paper will be the final blow. I hoped we would get it in 2021, but seeing that the Patterson paper took 1 year between submitting and publishing, we are more likely looking at August 2022 :\

And yet the data indicates just that.

https://i.ibb.co/L5x49Xz/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA.png

J-L283 and E-V13 samples from the study and other aDNA J-L283/E-V13 samples. They are part of the same population.

Bruzmi
12-23-2021, 06:38 PM
As I explained before, this is not what the paper says. The sample is part of what the authors call a "Southern European Cluster" (SE cluster), because on a West-Eurasia PCA they plot where modern Southern Europeans plot. It is not a statement on the origin of the samples, simply a label for a cluster. In fact, what the paper explicitly says on the SE-cluster is this:


They don't say that this cluster is a "mix of locals and other locals". SCY197 clusters as such with southern modern populations because he has the same ancestral components as them and in all PCAs with ancient samples, he clusters in the western Balkans. It can't get any simpler than that.

I can't find your other post about E-V13 in Hungary and the archaeological context being La Tene. The archaeological context doesn't characterize the population. "Archaeological context" refers to the site's features. In LT Hungary, J-L283 was also found and if you compare I8832 (one of the E-V13 from LT Hungary) with all other samples from the study his closest distance is to...

Distance to: HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832
0.03473345 HUN_IA_La_Tene_o:I4998
0.04051750 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11721
0.04116147 HUN_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup:I18259
0.04265769 HUN_La_Tene:I18493
0.04369392 SRB_BA_Maros:I23209
0.04411479 SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:I23208
0.04424772 HRV_EIA:I26742
0.04442846 HRV_EIA:I23904
0.04499078 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11722
0.04629635 SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:I23205
0.04830142 HUN_EIA:I25507
0.05109779 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12105
0.05207979 HUN_LBA_EIA:I11683
0.05217655 HUN_La_Tene:I18491
0.05226268 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12098
0.05382428 SVN_EIA:I5692
0.05387961 HUN_IA_La_Tene:I18529
0.05419276 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12097
0.05481445 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I12099
0.05523634 HRV_EIA:I23995
0.05667136 HRV_LIA_La_Tene:I26735
0.05736588 HUN_IA_La_Tene:I25510
0.05809864 HUN_IA_La_Tene:I25512
0.05817779 HRV_EIA:I24882
0.05955863 CZE_LBA_Knoviz_o3:I15961

... the J-L283 from La Tene Hungary.

His second closest individual is also interesting:

Distance to: SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11721
0.02676870 HRV_MBA
0.02804994 HRV_Pop_CA
0.03248766 GRC_Logkas_MBA
0.03462053 SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean
0.03789805 ITA_Rome_MA

This is a population whose ancestry was found in the western and northwestern Balkans.

Huban
12-23-2021, 08:06 PM
And yet the data indicates just that.
J-L283 and E-V13 samples from the study and other aDNA J-L283/E-V13 samples. They are part of the same population.

If they were we wouldn't have to wait for them to be found together only in Late Antiquity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) due to Romans erasing the strong barriers between them, and partly due to the character of one region in question-Dardania which was already mixed before Romans in all likelihood. All evidence says that they have nothing to do with each other, and as J-L283 is ultra-Illyrian E-V13 is ultra un-Illyrian as indeed indicated by the aDNA V13 finds.

All of the ancient Balkanites had a solid overlap amongst each other. And various modern Italians are better proxies than any modern Balkan population.

Also, there is plenty of autosomal overlap between ancient Italy and the Balkans, but no one would suggest that the ancient Italics/Etruscans are importantly derived from the Balkans. They just mainly ended up with comparable EEF-Steppe ratios due to factors independent of each other.

How many archeological proto-Illyrian and Illyrian sites do we have now? Alot. And more than people think actually.

[Personalisation of discussion removed by Moderator]

Bruzmi
12-23-2021, 08:15 PM
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance"]I haven't been here for months and your posts are still about the same thing... despite the new samples..

The new samples show exactly what many have been saying every time new samples come out. The reason why I mention the data is because for some reason in all "Daco-Thracian theories" the first thing that gets ignored is the data. I definitely wouldn't want people who check the fora but don't check the data to get the wrong impression.

https://i.ibb.co/ZzNPqSy/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-2.png

The outlier cluster from La Tene Hungary is 1 E-V13 and 1 J-L283 who have significant HRV_CA ancestry. There is a very good historical explanation for this event.

And it doesn't involve Daco-Thraco-Geto-Scythians or whatever term has been invented this week online.

vettor
12-23-2021, 08:47 PM
And yet the data indicates just that.

https://i.ibb.co/L5x49Xz/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA.png

J-L283 and E-V13 samples from the study and other aDNA J-L283/E-V13 samples. They are part of the same population.

what is Hungarian La Tene ?

Halstatt phase 1 = 1000BC in east Austria
Halstatt phase 2 = 800BC

La Tene phase 1 = 450BC in switzerland

Tora_sama
12-23-2021, 08:53 PM
I16272 Czech_II18527 Hungary_IA_LaTene 2200 Е-BY3880 Н3
A_LaTene 2250 Е-Z1057 J1c2e
I18832 Hungary_IA_LaTene_oEast 2210 Е-BY3880 U5a1b
I14465 Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug 2525 Е-V13 1 U5a2b1b
Comment from YFull:
The second and third are probably.
The fourth one will definitely not hit the tree.

Bruzmi
12-23-2021, 09:17 PM
what is Hungarian La Tene ?

Halstatt phase 1 = 1000BC in east Austria
Halstatt phase 2 = 800BC

La Tene phase 1 = 450BC in switzerland

The E-V13 samples from Hungary date from 320 to 200/180 BC.

Aspar
12-25-2021, 04:57 PM
One thing needs to be said tho, especially regarding E-V13 in the Western Balkans during the BA - IA. How many samples do we have now from the western Balkans from that period, maybe over thirty? We do have those MBA/LBA Dalmatians, we do have those those Croatian samples from the Encrusted Pottery culture and we do have the recent IA Croatian samples. NOT EVEN ONE E-V13! We have all those ancient Italian samples on top of that, especially because Italy was influenced from the Western Balkans. We can very confidently reject the idea that E-V13's origins and history was very similar to that of J-L283 as well as the idea that E-V13 is a Western Balkan marker from where started it's expansion. There is nothing of that.
In fact, we now have 5 E-V13 IA samples in total, 2 from Hungary, 1 from Czechia, 1 from Slovakia and 1 from Moldova, basically from East-Central Europe to the eastern fringe of the Carpathians. However, in none of these places E-V13 was in majority and thus, these places aren't the hotspot and the place from where E-V13 started it's expansion. In Slovakia, 1 out of 9 male samples was E-V13. That makes around 11% and that's around the same or very similar percentage of the modern E-V13 frequency for the region. Therefore I'm also pretty sure Slovakia isn't the origin place for E-V13. I think Transylvania is a very good candidate, especially because it was the center of important mine activity since the ancient times and perhaps E-V13's history is in connection with the mining, something Riverman was speculating since long ago.

bce
12-25-2021, 05:03 PM
What "Thraco-Scythian" or "Geto-Scythian"? None of these samples have anything to do with anything related to eastern Europe. Did you check their ancestral components or who they plot with? The "Daco-Thracian-Scythian-Getian" stuff makes no sense at all because it is applied to wildly different samples. Instead of applying speculative groupings and confining ourselves to labels which didn't even exist historically, we should be checking the samples themselves.

Comparison with EBA samples/averages only:


Target: Czech_LT_I16272
Distance: 2.1907% / 0.02190742 | R4P
50.0 DEU_Singen_EBA
26.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
19.6 CZE_EBA
4.4 HRV_EBA

Target: Slovakia_Vekerzug_I14465
Distance: 2.2529% / 0.02252876 | R4P
39.0 HRV_EBA
32.0 HRV_Vucedol
21.4 Baltic_EST_BA
7.6 UKR_EBA

Target: Hungary_LT_I18527
Distance: 1.9081% / 0.01908129 | R4P
40.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
25.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
18.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
16.4 HRV_EBA

Target: Hungary_LT_o_East_I18832
Distance: 2.3839% / 0.02383929 | R4P
37.2 SVK_EBA
29.4 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
27.6 GRC_Helladic_EBA
5.8 HRV_Vucedol

They are not from the area they were found in, they have different admixtures to each other and for many of them these admixtures point to the western/northwestern Balkans.

The first 3 are typical for their time and area. Only the third one looks like a Thracian migrant, on a PCA he plots between the MDA Scythians and BGR_IA.

Bruzmi
12-25-2021, 07:53 PM
The first 3 are typical for their time and area. Only the third one looks like a Thracian migrant, on a PCA he plots between the MDA Scythians and BGR_IA.

He doesn't plot between MDA Scythians and BGR_IA. He plots close to the southern cluster of Glinoe which itself is not of local origin but very close to ancestral components of LN/EBA/MBA Croatia. His closest sample is the J-L283 from La Tene Hungary and he definitely isn't a Thracian migrant. Both cluster close to HRV_MBA and BGR_IA is visibly distanced

https://i.ibb.co/Jj80hnV/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-5.png

This is a migrant indeed. But a migrant from the northwestern Balkans, just like the J-L283 person from La Tene Hungary. Historiography calls these populations Illyrians.

La Tene Samples projected on EBA/MBA/IA sources:

https://i.ibb.co/ZzNPqSy/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-2.png

1 E-V13 and 1 J-L283 form an outlier cluster with links to the northwestern Balkans. Whatever we call the E-V13, this is what the J-L283 should be called too.

Aspar
12-25-2021, 08:13 PM
He doesn't plot between MDA Scythians and BGR_IA. He plots close to the southern cluster of Glinoe which itself is not of local origin but very close to ancestral components of LN/EBA/MBA Croatia. His closest sample is the J-L283 from La Tene Hungary and he definitely isn't a Thracian migrant. Both cluster close to HRV_MBA and BGR_IA is visibly distanced

https://i.ibb.co/Jj80hnV/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-5.png

This is a migrant indeed. But a migrant from the northwestern Balkans, just like the J-L283 person from La Tene Hungary. Historiography calls these populations Illyrians.

La Tene Samples projected on EBA/MBA/IA sources:

https://i.ibb.co/ZzNPqSy/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-2.png

1 E-V13 and 1 J-L283 form an outlier cluster with links to the northwestern Balkans. Whatever we call the E-V13, this is what the J-L283 should be called too.

There is no any indication that the E-V13 sample from Moldova is from the North-Western Balkans, he clusters closely with another three samples forming a cluster with them. The other Scythians who don't cluster with them have visibly more Asian dna while the aforementioned cluster has zero or very little Asian dna, clear indication of a local origin.
The author's of the study also didn't have any remark on the local origin of the sample in question. This is entirely your interpretation which is flawed in every way because there was very similar DNA profile ranging from North Italy and all the way to Moldova in ancient times. Your logic is so flawed that if hypothetically the scientist examine DNA from the modern Kosovo Albanians and the Greek Thessalians, you would fail to tell who is who and where they come from just because of the fact that the Kosovo Albanians and the Greek Thessalians have similar genetic profiles.

We now have plenty of aDna from Croatia and Slovenia so the idea that the E-V13 sample from Moldova and E-V13 in general were migrants from the West Balkans can be put to sleep, forever.

Bruzmi
12-25-2021, 08:19 PM
The first 3 are typical for their time and area.

The reply is about the Vekerzug samples which I've had the chance to check on a PCA.

When we use the term "typical" a common implication is that the term "typical" is an indication of homogeneity. The Vekerzug samples are not homogeneous. They belong to several clusters.

And if you project the Vekerzug samples on EBA/MBA sources, their non-homogeneity becomes visible.

https://i.ibb.co/LYcf4dh/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA.png

Check the position of the one E-V13 sample.

He's not an outlier in the sense that there are other samples which share the same drift, but it's part of a cluster which is shifted towards the northwestern Balkans (HRV_CA/MBA).

The interesting part is that we can see the west/east Balkan differentiation because there are samples which are closer to BGR_EBA which means that HRV_CA/EBA/MBA is not a proxy for generic Paleo-Balkan ancestry.

bce
12-25-2021, 08:21 PM
He doesn't plot between MDA Scythians and BGR_IA. He plots close to the southern cluster of Glinoe which itself is not of local origin but very close to ancestral components of LN/EBA/MBA Croatia. His closest sample is the J-L283 from La Tene Hungary and he definitely isn't a Thracian migrant. Both cluster close to HRV_MBA and BGR_IA is visibly distanced

https://i.ibb.co/Jj80hnV/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-5.png

This is a migrant indeed. But a migrant from the northwestern Balkans, just like the J-L283 person from La Tene Hungary. Historiography calls these populations Illyrians.

I will repeat my opinion: Northern Thracians and southern Dacians were autosomally similar to HRV_IA. They simply originate from a similar type of EEFs, and received a similar amount of Steppe admixture.
Except the MDA Scythians, the samples pointing towards this are: MJ12, Viminacium locals, Proto-Villanovans (found in Italy, but they originated somewhere close to Thracians) and high-EEF samples from IA eastern Hungary (it had archaeological links to Thracians).

The MDA_Scythians are simply from the border of Dacia and Scythia, so they have a lot of Scythian influence. If the samples were taken a bit to the west, they would be even more similar to HRV_IA, and even less Scythian.

Bruzmi
12-25-2021, 08:37 PM
I will repeat my opinion: Northern Thracians and southern Dacians were autosomally similar to HRV_IA.

I respect your opinion, however, the data don't show a similar DNA profile all the way from northern Italy to Moldova.

Those who were from the western Balkans cluster around or are shifted towards HRV_CA/MBA sources and those were from the eastern Balkans cluster around or are shifted towards BGR_EBA/ROU_CA and other such sources in relation to their Neolithic and pre-MBA ancestry. In the Viminacium samples, we see the same division of clusters. There is a western and an eastern half.

If you examine BGR_IA and assume that this sample maybe has Greek admixture, comparison with EBA sources still shows that this sample has a lot of local BGR_EBA ancestry.

Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 1.9827% / 0.01982716 | R4P
56.0 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
27.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
8.8 Yamnaya_UKR
8.2 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA

The implication is that if you hold the opinion that people in Romania were just like HRV_MBA and J-L283 associated populations , then the very first conclusion you should reach is that there were at least two very different peoples in Thrace and Dacia.

EDIT:

PS. Merry Christmas :)

Riverman
12-25-2021, 08:56 PM
By the way, some of the samples coming probably closest to Gáva/Channelled Ware and early Daco-Thracians are the new Thraco-Cimmerian samples, they plot exactly between Kyjatice, Gáva and the E-V13 from La Tene Hungary and the J2b cluster. So just a little bit North/North East of them, even though they might have some real Cimmerian admixture, they still are primarily local Daco-Thracians and many of the Hungarian "Scythians" plot just like the Gáva sample still, as the most North Eastward variation of these people, similar to Füzesabony:
https://i.ibb.co/x7mph9t/Prescythian-Mezocsat-Thraco-Cimmerian.jpg

https://ibb.co/71gwvMd

So even the late and probably admixed Daco-Thracians from Pannonia, from the Thraco-Cimmerian core group, can score pretty similar to the J2b/Illyrian cluster. There is just a general overlap of basic components ratio here.

Some examples of how these Thraco-Cimmerians score in comparison to a selection of some other relevant Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan samples:

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18211___Date:-775___Coverage_65.63%
0.03645638 Hungary_LT:I18527
0.03790514 Scythian_HUN:I20746
0.03798084 BGR_EBA:I2165

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18213___Date:-775___Coverage_65.63%
0.03287116 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.03354655 Hungary_LT:I18527
0.03896735 J2B::I5691

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18239___Date:-775___Coverage_66.49%
0.03081740 R1bZ:I23207
0.03118333 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.03327847 J2B::I5691
0.03686988 Slovakia_Vekerzug:I14465

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18245___Date:-775___Coverage_68.31%
0.02904312 R1bZ:I4996
0.03069460 Scythian_HUN:I20746
0.03153734 Scythian_HUN:DA197
0.03248499 Hungary_LT:I18527
0.03542056 HUN_LBA_Kyjatice:I1504

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I18246___Date:-775___Coverage_67.64%
0.02714464 Hungary_LT:I18527
0.03007541 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.03852494 Slovakia_Vekerzug:I14465
0.03884865 R1bZ:I23207
0.03909868 Scythian_HUN:DA195
0.03915274 Scythian_HUN:DA197



Also note the reasonable fits, all below 0,04!

The J2b Illyrian cluster is close indeed and gets into the range quite often, but even more often samples from Pannonia and the Carpathian sphere top them. That's even easier to recognise if there is an actual Illyrian outlier! This individual looks like coming from the Illyrians:

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat_o3:I11683___Date:-775___Coverage_69.72%
0.03123643 J2B:I24639
0.03497661 J2B:I22940
0.03584851 J2B::I23911
0.03590331 J2B:I23995
0.03827002 J2B:I26726
0.03865594 Scythian_HUN:DA198
0.03979095 Slovakia_Vekerzug:I14465

Only in this sample all the top samples are from the J2b Illyrian cluster and it also plots in the midst of the J2b cluster on my PCA! That's a striking difference to the more typical Thraco-Cimmerians with a more clearly Pannonian cluster. Also check how low the distance is, even lower than for the others, which proves the homogeneity of the Illyrians. This individual was probably an Illlyrian bride, brought to the Thraco-Cimmerian centre.
Its just such a pity that they haven't sampled a dozen or so Mezocsat males, because looking at these samples autosomal make up, I'm pretty sure some E-V13 would have popped up among them.

What really sets the Pannonians apart though is the increased WHG and lowered Neolithic ancestry:

https://i.ibb.co/VwDZdck/Mezocsat-Prescythian.jpg

https://ibb.co/sWQGhdX

Note the Illyrian outlier with much lowered WHG, increased Neolithic. The Eastern oulier among the LT samples from Hungary with E-V13 is even much below the Illyrians for his Yamnaya and WHG share. He is simply very mixed with more Eastern and Southern elements, going in the direction of Bulgarian EBA/IA.

Both the Mezocsat and E-V13 La Tene samples are not fundamentally different from Illyrians, just somewhat more Northern shifted. Also note that they have nearly zero East Asian admixture, unlike other "Cimmerians". They are genetically with high probability overwhelmingly Daco-Thracians.
The more Northern Pannonians main feature is the increased WHG ancestry. The Illyrians have as much or more Yamnaya, but on average less WHG, while there is still no clear cut border, but just a fluent transitioning between them.

bce
12-25-2021, 09:34 PM
I respect your opinion, however, the data don't show a similar DNA profile all the way from northern Italy to Moldova.

Those who were from the western Balkans cluster around or are shifted towards HRV_CA/MBA sources and those were from the eastern Balkans cluster around or are shifted towards BGR_EBA/ROU_CA and other such sources in relation to their Neolithic and pre-MBA ancestry. In the Viminacium samples, we see the same division of clusters. There is a western and an eastern half.

If you examine BGR_IA and assume that this sample maybe has Greek admixture, comparison with EBA sources still shows that this sample has a lot of local BGR_EBA ancestry.

Target: BGR_IA:I5769
Distance: 1.9827% / 0.01982716 | R4P
56.0 GRC_Cycladic_EBA
27.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
8.8 Yamnaya_UKR
8.2 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA

The implication is that if you hold the opinion that people in Romania were just like HRV_MBA and J-L283 associated populations , then the very first conclusion you should reach is that there were at least two very different peoples in Thrace and Dacia.

EDIT:

PS. Merry Christmas :)

Thanks, same to you!

Populations have ranges. Freely intermarrying ones like Mokrin or Vekerzug have huge ranges as you noticed, and Illyrians and Thracians have smaller ones. The Viminacium samples, which I consider Thracians, ranged from samples similar to BGR_IA to ones more similar to HRV_IA, and this is a pretty small range for a BA/IA European population, and there's no need to involve West Balkan influence. But, lets wait for real Iron age Thracian and Dacian samples, and see what they'll show.

rafc
12-25-2021, 09:50 PM
The first 3 are typical for their time and area. Only the third one looks like a Thracian migrant, on a PCA he plots between the MDA Scythians and BGR_IA.

Seems you're right, this is the classical West-Eurasian PCA:

https://i.imgur.com/wNeYx1g.png

The La Tčne V13 and L283 look like they will fall right in the 'IA Balkan Cline' from the Olalde paper, with the L283 a bit closer to Western Balkans and the V13 a bit closer to the eastern Balkans. I guess given the geographic location of the samples this can make sense.

In fact some more samples from this study fall in this cline: I25507 (R-S1161), described as Hungary EIA, and three of the Vekerzug samples, all female. One of the Vekerzugs and the Hungarian is in the Western part of the cline, the two other Vekerzugs are in the Eastern part. The two La Tčnes fall between them.

Surprisingly all of the new Croatian IA, LBA and MBA samples fall west of the known HRV_IA sample. So outside of the cline at Viminacium. It makes it all the more frustrating we have only one Bulgarian IA sample, it's impossible to know how representative it is.

Edit: I changed the graph to include all the samples I mentioned

Riverman
12-25-2021, 10:06 PM
Surprisingly all of the new Croatian IA, LBA and MBA samples fall west of the known HRV_IA sample. So outside of the cline at Viminacium. It makes it all the more frustrating we have only one Bulgarian IA sample, it's impossible to know how representative it is.

Looking at the available samples close to the Eastern Carpathian and Lower Danubian range, it seems the Eastern flank got more admixed with a very "Southern", very Neolithic population than Belegis II-Gáva. Because it can't a coincidence that the Moldovan Geto-Scythians score much more Southern and Neolithic than the Pannonian ones. At first look, this makes little sense. The only explanation is they mixed with a yet unknown and very strongly Neolithic shifted population in the East itself and formed a network of their own. It was noted by various archaeologists before that there was an Eastern Carpathian network, going from the Gáva core into Moldova, and from there directly South into Bulgaria. And this network was parallel to the one in Belegis II-Gáva, which was firmly within the Pannonian networks range. These were two independent to interdependent branches of the Channelled Ware cultural formation.
Probably one of the reasons for the Eastern group to have acquired so much more Neolithic ancestry is because they mixed more heavily with Encrusted pottery and local Lower Danubian-Aegean people, with a signficant "backflow" to the North. Or, there was yet another unknown very highly Neolithic shifted population around.

This also shows how geography can be misleading, because the Southern Pannonians appear still significantly more Northern than the Moldovan group, however they acquired this Neolithic shift.

Trojet
12-25-2021, 10:13 PM
For what's worth, I was able to classify I4998, Hungary_IA_LaTene, to J-L283>>Z38240>BY161113>BY162321 (https://yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/). So, based on that phylogeny, he most definitely came from the western or NW Balkans.

Bruzmi
12-25-2021, 11:34 PM
Seems you're right, this is the classical West-Eurasian PCA:


And if you included HRV_MBA, HRV_IA, HRV_CA, and the J-L283 sample from La Tene Hungary (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=822621&viewfull=1#post822621) you would see that he's in the same cluster as them. He's not just close to them. He's in the same cluster. By just following the data without any outside theory or personal prediction all we can say is that this person is roughly the same as MBA Croatia.




Surprisingly all of the new Croatian IA, LBA and MBA samples fall west of the known HRV_IA sample. So outside of the cline at Viminacium. It makes it all the more frustrating we have only one Bulgarian IA sample, it's impossible to know how representative it is.


Ok, but why is that surprising?

These J-L283 are mostly from contact regions of Iapodian Illyrians and Liburnians. In many ways, they are exactly what we would expect them to be.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Iron_Age_Italy.svg/800px-Iron_Age_Italy.svg.png


Thanks, same to you!

Populations have ranges. Freely intermarrying ones like Mokrin or Vekerzug have huge ranges as you noticed, and Illyrians and Thracians have smaller ones. The Viminacium samples, which I consider Thracians, ranged from samples similar to BGR_IA to ones more similar to HRV_IA, and this is a pretty small range for a BA/IA European population, and there's no need to involve West Balkan influence. But, lets wait for real Iron age Thracian and Dacian samples, and see what they'll show.

From the historical information we have for Viminacium, the people from the Balkans came from many different areas from the west, central and eastern Balkans. The Aegean-like individuals may represent Roman Greeks, so the deep south of the Balkans was also represented in Viminacium. The cline from HRV_IA to the Aegean-like samples, east of BGR_IA represents the entire Balkans. Where each sample fits will indicate which is which.


For what's worth, I was able to classify I4998, Hungary_IA_LaTene, to J-L283>>Z38240>BY161113>BY162321 (https://yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/). So, based on that phylogeny, he most definitely came from the western or NW Balkans.

I agree and to that I would add that this migration is a very recent one because autosomally he's in the HRV_CA/EBA/MBA cluster.

Riverman
12-25-2021, 11:46 PM
From the historical information we have for Viminacium, the people from the Balkans came from many different areas from the west, central and eastern Balkans. The Aegean-like individuals may represent Roman Greeks, so the deep south of the Balkans was also represented in Viminacium. The cline from HRV_IA to the Aegean-like samples, east of BGR_IA represents the entire Balkans. Where each sample fits will indicate which is which.


There are surely individuals from many regions, but that's not what the majority is about. The majority is about two groups:
- local Balkan Iron Age population
- non-local Greco-Roman/Roman imperial migrants

The third being all degrees of mixture between those main two groups. If you want a comparison, its like looking at US Amerians with varying degrees of European and Subsaharan admixture. That doesn't make them Egyptians, Sudanese or Ethiopians, even if they plot similar on a PCA.

Bruzmi
12-25-2021, 11:58 PM
There are surely individuals from many regions, but that's not what the majority is about. The majority is about two groups:
- local Balkan Iron Age population
- non-local Greco-Roman/Roman imperial migrants

The third being all degrees of mixture between those main two groups. If you want a comparison, its like looking at US Amerians with varying degrees of European and Subsaharan admixture. That doesn't make them Egyptians, Sudanese or Ethiopians, even if they plot similar on a PCA.

Viminacium didn't exist before the Roman era. The pre-Roman cemetery was Celtic and Illyrian but it doesn't matter much for the history of the Roman city itself which was populated by people from all over the Balkans. We don't have to get into a prediction discussion because we'll get their files and we'll have a chance to compare them then.

Riverman
12-26-2021, 12:04 AM
Viminacium didn't exist before the Roman era. The pre-Roman cemetery was Celtic and Illyrian but it doesn't matter much for the history of the Roman city itself which was populated by people from all over the Balkans. We don't have to get into a prediction discussion because we'll get their files and we'll have a chance to compare them then.

The paper and the archaeological research speak of a local continuity. Especially in this area the Latenisation was mainly a local phenomenon with little replacement anyway. And where did most of the inhabitants of such a settlement come from? From the neighbouring areas and since this was a Channelled Ware epicentre, with loads of finds and massive expansions from this place to other regions, with little to no other groups surviving, you could march even in Roman times in every direction you want and would just meet the same kind of people for hundreds of kilometers.

These are the signature finds of Channelled Ware people, like Reutlingen swords, flame shaped spearheads:

https://i.ibb.co/VCTwZB8/The-Morava-Valley-in-the-Late-Bronze-and-Early-Iron-Age.jpg

https://ibb.co/94WZLYj

From:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330321590_The_Morava_Valley_in_the_Late_Bronze_and _Early_Iron_Age_-_changes_in_topography_and_material_culture

You could do that map with other finds too, and it would be pretty much the same, like with black burnished, fluted/channelled ceramic, hoards and specific cremation burials in combination. There was nothing else all around. More about this:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3821-Albanian-DNA-Project&p=822519&viewfull=1#post822519

Viminacium is right in that area with a cluster of finds. Actually, many of the signature finds for Gáva/Channelled Ware are practically from the site! The Roman settlement was just build on top/nearby, like you want to put it, doesn't matter, you can read about that here, I showed it to you at least 4 times already:


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


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


The decorated spindle whorls C-1287 (Pl. 8/7) and C-1288 (Pl. 8/8)
are analogous to the spindle whorls recorded at the site of Bosut (Gradina),20 and the channeled
pottery (Pl. 8/5-6) is characteristic for the ceramic production of the Early Iron Age
in the area of Viminacium.

The authors after decades of research stress the huge impact of the transitional period, but a large scale continuity afterwards:


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 means it is extremely likely that Channelled Ware people founded settlements in the area which were meant to stay. They weren't replaced up to Roman times by any other people, but at the same time, the Channelled Ware people themselves turned the area upside down in the transitional period.

The Scordisci were mainly a small elite, not a tribal migration like the Boii for example. And Latenisation started there with the local population even earlier. You can only choose between local Daco-Thracians, nearby mixed Pannonians and Celts. These were the main groups around the site of "local origin".

Bruzmi
12-26-2021, 12:29 AM
The paper and the archaeological research speak of a local continuity.

Local continuity in a very broad IA Balkan context. Pre-Roman Viminacium:

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.


We'll see who is who when we get the samples.

vettor
12-26-2021, 12:46 AM
The paper and the archaeological research speak of a local continuity. Especially in this area the Latenisation was mainly a local phenomenon with little replacement anyway. And where did most of the inhabitants of such a settlement come from? From the neighbouring areas and since this was a Channelled Ware epicentre, with loads of finds and massive expansions from this place to other regions, with little to no other groups surviving, you could march even in Roman times in every direction you want and would just meet the same kind of people for hundreds of kilometers.

These are the signature finds of Channelled Ware people, like Reutlingen swords, flame shaped spearheads:

https://i.ibb.co/VCTwZB8/The-Morava-Valley-in-the-Late-Bronze-and-Early-Iron-Age.jpg

https://ibb.co/94WZLYj

From:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330321590_The_Morava_Valley_in_the_Late_Bronze_and _Early_Iron_Age_-_changes_in_topography_and_material_culture

You could do that map with other finds too, and it would be pretty much the same, like with black burnished, fluted/channelled ceramic, hoards and specific cremation burials in combination. There was nothing else all around. More about this:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3821-Albanian-DNA-Project&p=822519&viewfull=1#post822519

Viminacium is right in that area with a cluster of finds. Actually, many of the signature finds for Gáva/Channelled Ware are practically from the site! The Roman settlement was just build on top/nearby, like you want to put it, doesn't matter, you can read about that here, I showed it to you at least 4 times already:







The authors after decades of research stress the huge impact of the transitional period, but a large scale continuity afterwards:




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338655388_EARLY_IRON_AGE_HORIZON_AT_THE_SITE_OF_NA D_KLEPECKOM

This means it is extremely likely that Channelled Ware people founded settlements in the area which were meant to stay. They weren't replaced up to Roman times by any other people, but at the same time, the Channelled Ware people themselves turned the area upside down in the transitional period.

The Scordisci were mainly a small elite, not a tribal migration like the Boii for example. And Latenisation started there with the local population even earlier. You can only choose between local Daco-Thracians, nearby mixed Pannonians and Celts. These were the main groups around the site of "local origin".

I doubt the Scordisci where a small elite ..............they where the remnants of the failed Celtic invasion of Greece ..........this beaten Celtic army decided to settle in Moesia

Riverman
12-26-2021, 01:42 AM
I doubt the Scordisci where a small elite ..............they where the remnants of the failed Celtic invasion of Greece ..........this beaten Celtic army decided to settle in Moesia

That was my point, they were a beaten army on retreat, not a folk settlement like Boii. That's a major difference, because the latter brought women and children, a complete folk, and were numerous and powerful, whereas the Scordisci were a more heterogeneous bunch of warbands, which came to terms with the locals, which were already on the way to Latenisation on their own and had close contacts to La Tene centres. So this was by all means no replacement events, contrary to some folk migrations which caused actual replacement events, including Channelled Ware people in the transitional period.

Riverman
12-26-2021, 01:43 AM
Coming back to the very origin of E-V13, the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania is the key region, at least for the cultural side of the movement, probably even the genetic, that will be seen. I brought up some papers dealing with that specifically. The Middle Danubian expansion had nothing to do with the Channelled Ware ceramic and customs. If talking about the name giving ceramic alone, the predecessors all belong to the Pannonian local cultures which were pushed by the invading Tumulus culture. Like Otomani-Füzesabony. Also the very direct predecessors of Channelled Ware groups, like Berkesz and Piliny. You can read up on those, they had nothing to do with the TC invaders. Even when they themselves joined the TC network, probably under pressure, when being forced to the Upper Tisza region, where all the refugees and locals amalgamated to something new = Channelled Ware. For this process and development, the Middle Danubian TC groups were rather a push factor, but not the creators themselves.
Surely they influenced each other, but for Gáva-Kyjatice its more about groups like Füzesabony and the direct ancestors Piliny -> Kyjatice and Berkesz-Demecser -> Gáva.

If you go back in time, important cultures are always Füzesabony-late Otomani and even older Nyírség, the latter occupy exactly the later Gáva core region:

Almost all locations of the Nyírség culture lie in the north-east Hungarian lowlands and the neighbouring regions in north-west Romania and east Slovakia.

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

The sites in question for the earliest phase of Berkesz, Nyírség and Demecser are all very close in the North East of Hungary, in the classical triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. And they being connected with Proto-Thracians even before:

1. the life of the Felsőszőcs culture fills the phase between the Füzesabony culture and that of Wietenberg or the Gáva culture, i.e.
В IV period according to Mozsolics' chronology ;
2. the chiefs of the Felsőszőcs culture were buried under tumuli and
3. the types of metallurgy of the culture are represented by the metal finds of the NyírkarászGyulaháza tumulus.


A. Mozsolics made an important statement according to which the finds of Nyírkarász—Gyulaháza are cíosely linked with the material of the areas east of the Carpathian Basin by the tumulus burials and by a few bronze types (e. g. wart-necked pin, the socketed celt of the Transylvanian type) and the parallels of several bronze finds from Nyírkarász—Gyulaháza occur in the hoards coming to light in Eastern Hungary. 8 These results are supported by several proofs in her article evaluating the hoard of Opályi. According to her final conclusions numerous hoards were put into the earth in the second half of the В IV period mainly in Szabolcs-Szatmár County (Hungary), in the Carpathian Ukraine and in the area of Northern Transylvania which included several objects in common and the material from the tumulus of Nyírkarász (Felsőszőcs culture) 9 provide important aid in dating those finds. According to I. Bona the eastern forms appearing in the pottery and metallurgy of the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin in the 12th century was the result of the immigration from the East which affected the whole area of Transylvania and the Great Hungarian Plain. (With the exception of the daggers of eastern type he treats these only in general.) In his opinion, in a „transitory period" — a term he coined for Late Bronze Age 3 — (R BD — HA,) a Thracian population (the ethnic group represented by the cemeteries of Muhi, Berkesz, Demecser) invading from the East culturally superseded the Egyek cultural group. It is important for us that he by collecting parallels determined the age and eastern origin of the dagger found at Berkesz —Csonkásdűlő. 1 0 In brief, from the quoted opinions it is clear that both Mozsolics and Kalicz noted that some of the finds of the Felsőszőcs culture (called by Kalicz the Felsőszőcs group) is younger than the Felsőszőcs pottery with deeply incised decorations, but they still treated as part of one cultural unit the material which in reality was only genetically related. The cause of this seems that Mozsolics did not take into consideration several assemblages of finds from the Nyírség (in particular those typical of Berkesz — Demecser) while Kalicz discussed only those pieces of these assemblages of finds which closely resemble in form the Felsőszőcs types. Thus he neglected those which primarily prove that the inheritace of other ethnic components is traceable in the material of several cemeteries (e. g. Berkesz, Demecser, Nyíregyháza— Bujtos).
A. Mozsolics and I. Bona also emphasized the eastern relations or origin of the Felsőszőcs culture (on the basis of the Nyírkarász—Gyulaháza finds) or that of the Thracian ( ?) population indicated by the Muhi— Berkesz — Demecser cemeteries.



The territorial distribution of the finds shows that the centre of the Berkesz-Demecser ethnic group was the Nyírség (according to recent data the sites are rather rare in the Upper
Tisza region and in the northern part of the Hajdúság) [...]
Bearing in mind the results of our research and topographical examination up to now, we presume as a hypothesis that the motive force of events related to the development of the Berkesz-Demecser ethnic group must be found in the invasion of a new population (coming from the east) to North-Eastern Hungary.
[...]
No settlements of the people of the tumulus culture is known from the Upper Tisza region. Only a few pits occurred in the singlelevelled settlement of the population of the early tumulus culture at Bag (to which the people of the
Egyek group were genetically the most closely related).



The available records of the burials at Berkesz, Demecser and Nyírkarász present a basis for the examination of the burial rites. According to
A. Jósa's description, urn burials came to light at Berkesz Csonkás-dűlő and Demecser-Borzsovapuszta. The peoples of both the Felsőszőcs
and Egyek groups cremated their dead.



The examination of the burial rites resulted in two important data
: 1. a considerable majority of the local (Egyek, Felsőszőcs)
inhabitants did not migrate after the interruption of their indepentent cultural development
; 2. the appearance of a burial rite in North-Eastern Hungary unknown to the inhabitants of
the Carpathian Basin in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages proves the settling of a new population.


In the material of the Berkesz (Fig.
11) and Demecser (Figs. 12, 13)cemeteries forming the core of the discussed finds, the forms equally occur which are closely related to the pottery of the local people
(Egyek, Felsőszőcs) and to that of those living in areas to the east (Komarovo and Noa cultures).
7 8 The latter constitute such a high percentage (approximately 40 % of the types has no local ties) that it cannot be attributed merely to the cultural relation existing between the peoples of the two areas. This in itself may serve as an important proof of the ethnic influx.


On the other hand the finds of the Berkesz-Demecser type, clearly distinguishable even typologically from the material of the two mentioned groups, can be found throughout North-Eastern Hungary
(cf. Fig.19). Approximately 40% of this pottery are types of alien origin. The tumulus burials at Nyírkarász—Gyulaháza
and the metal objects of eastern and Transylvanian types prove with certainty that at the end of the Late Bronze Age a new people settled in North-Eastern Hungary.

Exactly for such a case ancient DNA is desperately needed, but unfortunately they mostly cremated, but probably there are some lucky finds eventually:

The foreign features of the Berkesz-Demecser ethnic group are the most closely related to the Komarovo culture existing north-east of the Carpathians. Each of the eastern types of our material occurs among the finds of the Komarovo culture with the exception of the bronze objects of the Transylvanian type. The rite of tumulus burial is common in this culture. 9
8 Still, previous to the publication of I. K. Svesnikov's study on the Komarovo culture and of that of E. A. Balaguri on the Noa culture of Carpathian Ukraine we cannot trace the route of the population settling in the
Nyírség from the east and its ethnic composition. We can only presume from the scanty proofs that the population separated from the Komarovo culture (coming into contact with the territory of the Nora culture
?) reached North-Eastern Hungary. The available finds are insufficient to strictly describe how the relation of the local population and the new ethnic group developed.


We have several data supporting the chronological position of the finds of the Berkesz-Demecser type.
1. The discussed material as a whole is clearly distinguishable from the finds of the Gáva
culture easily datable by hoards to the R HA period (according to Mozsolics' chronology to the В V period) and from
the Egyek and Felsőszőcs groups dated to the second phase of the Late Bronze Age.



The fact that those hoards which mark the end of the life of the Berkesz-Demecser ethnic group 106 were hidden in the earth indicates an outside attack. As it is commonly held, the inheritance of the invaders are the finds of the
Gáva 107 type among which several ceramic forms occur which have their roots in local development. 108 Among the hoards which were buried in the Early Iron Age there are also several metal types of local origin. This indicates that a considerable part of the population did not move. It can be surmised that the path of those compelled to flee is traceable in the material of a few graves unearthed in the cemetery on the outskirts of Soldanesti.

https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/FoliaArchaeologica_18/?pg=29&layout=s

The picture is complex, but there is no way around that triangle for Channelled Ware/Gáva. It also proves why there were no finds of E-V13 in the Early and Middle Bronze Age from most of Pannonia, but, if we are lucky, only from the very North East, at the end of the period: Because they came there just late probably.

Cultural formations which should be remembered, also for future sampling, are Berkesz, Demecser, Egyek group, Nyírség group among others. All pretty much in the same region of the triangle, all related sites and groups, but with newcomers influencing and transforming them in part or fully, which is not yet fully understood, just like the true origin of Gáva in this context remains elusive.

Riverman
12-26-2021, 02:17 AM
Another interesting paper:


Gáva pottery has been a constant preoccupation for specialists of the
Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin and the neighboring areas. The main
reason for the persistent interest in the topic is perhaps the wide geographical
diffusion of several stylistic and technological elements that constitute the
common basis of the Gáva pottery style. The literature in the field most often
postulates that Gáva pottery is a unitary phenomenon spread across a vast
area1.


At the same time, the use of different denominations suggests
the presence of a “cultural complex” made up of several
groups scattered over a vast area: the central and northern
part of the Tisza Plain, Transylvania, northern Banat,
Moldavia, the Republic of Moldova, and southern Ukraine.
Chronologically speaking, most specialists agree on the early
emergence of the Gáva pottery, or proto/pre-Gáva pottery,
in the north of the Tisza Plain and north-western Romania,
as early as around 1400-1200 BC, gradually spreading to the
south of Ukraine and north-western Moldavia.


Besides the stylistic features of the ceramic ware,
we explored several aspects related to the firing technique,
chiefly the one by which the bi-chrome effect was achieved
(black exterior and red interior), because this was an
essential criterion in defining the Gáva pottery.


When comparing the 14C data from the investigated
contexts in Pecica with other available data, we see that they
are not without the limits of the time span determined for
the contexts associated with Gáva, namely Proto/Pre-Gáva
pottery. At the same time, we notice a lengthy evolution
of this ceramic style (Fig. 18-19). In terms of absolute
chronology, it seems that the respective pottery style has
emerged during the 14th-13th century BC and is being used
until the 9th century BC, a long evolution extending over
almost 6 centuries. However, an overall analysis of the
available data without taking into consideration regional
aspects can lead to misinterpretations. Therefore we should
mention that the earliest contexts, dating back to the
14th-13th century BC, have been found in Polgár, Siret and
Pecica, namely Upper Tisza River, northern Moldavia and
Lower Mureș River (Fig. 18). The site in Lăpuș should be
added here as data indicate that it is contemporary with
the aforementioned early sites57, but the available pieces
of information do not allow us to clearly specify whether
the pottery found in Lăpuș is Gáva or only displays some
elements that define the respective ceramic style58. Later on,
during the 13th-12th century BC, the Gáva potery spreads in
Transylvania and is being used during the 10th century BC,
perhaps even during the 9th century BC given the late dating
of Vlaha-Pad, cx. 0055 (Fig. 18).

https://jaha.org.ro/index.php/JAHA/article/view/642

Probably ancient DNA can help to solve that puzzle eventually.

rafc
12-26-2021, 07:17 AM
And if you included HRV_MBA, HRV_IA, HRV_CA, and the J-L283 sample from La Tene Hungary (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=822621&viewfull=1#post822621) you would see that he's in the same cluster as them.

I hope you can finally make me understand what you do with these graphs. I'm not a great specialist on autosomals, but here is my understanding of how it is done:
-A PCA is created based on modern samples with good coverage, the PCA represents the two major axis of variation among the samples, so depending on which modern samples you choose, the PCA will look different.
-In a second phase ancient samples, with less coverage, are projected on this PCA, so we can see their difference along these axes of variation.

As I understand it the G25 coordinates are a set of 25 principal component selected by Davidski to capture the variation in global populations. So they are PCA coordinates in themselves. It's possible to project them on a PCA using tools like https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/
With this you can recreate the West-Eurasian PCA that is used in scientific publications on Ancient DNA. for example this one from the Olalde paper:

https://i.imgur.com/MgHU7wI.png

On the graphs you produce, what do you actually do? Do you project the first two components of the G25 on both axes? Or do you make a PCA of a PCA, meaning you project along the two axis of most variation among the G25 coordinates of the samples you select?

Bruzmi
12-26-2021, 02:44 PM
As I understand it the G25 coordinates are a set of 25 principal component selected by Davidski to capture the variation in global populations. So they are PCA coordinates in themselves. It's possible to project them on a PCA using tools like https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/

It's the same tool: https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/

The difference is that G25views has a preset of "sources" on which you project samples, while Custom PCA allows you to add them yourself from the start and then add the projected samples.

Riverman and I posted two PCAs from "Custom PCA" which include the Vekerzug sample. We apparently wanted to check for different links so we didn't use exactly the same dataset. But the distance between samples from the same dataset for both PCAs is the same. E-V13 Vekerzug stands at the same distance from the two BGR_EBA samples. To make things visually easier for the readers, custom pca may flip the X/Y axes or zoom out/in the downloadable png file if the dataset is too large or too small, but the distances are the same.

https://i.ibb.co/LYcf4dh/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA.png
https://i.ibb.co/x7mph9t/Prescythian-Mezocsat-Thraco-Cimmerian.jpg

rafc
12-26-2021, 03:29 PM
It's the same tool: https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/

The difference is that G25views has a preset of "sources" on which you project samples, while Custom PCA allows you to add them yourself from the start and then add the projected samples.

Thx. Which samples do you use as a source then?

Riverman
12-26-2021, 03:41 PM
Thx. Which samples do you use as a source then?

The second PCA Bruzmi posted is mine, which I posted earlier in this thread. I use
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
WHG
TUR_Barcin_N
IRN_Wezmeh_N

For ancient European samples. What are yours Bruzmi?

Bruzmi
12-26-2021, 04:32 PM
The second PCA Bruzmi posted is mine, which I posted earlier in this thread. I use
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
WHG
TUR_Barcin_N
IRN_Wezmeh_N

For ancient European samples. What are yours Bruzmi?

You don't really have to go all the way back to Barcin/WHG/Yamnaya components because all samples are built from these basic components, hence the absolute values of the distances won't change. And that's why we get the same distance between E-V13 Vekerzug and BGR_EBA and a close distance to some J2b for both PCAs. For this PCA as I explained when I posted it, it is a comparison (projection) of the Vekerzug samples to EBA sources (listed on the vertical bar).

Bruzmi
12-26-2021, 05:14 PM
E-V13:CZE_IA_La_Tene:I16272,0.125205,0.133034,0.0637 33,0.05814,0.041238,0.01255,0,0.001154,0.005931,-0.004556,-0.010068,0.003147,0.000149,0.007019,0.012893,0.003 05,-0.002608,-0.001647,0.001885,0.010005,-0.001996,0.005317,-0.001109,-0.001205,-0.004431
E-V13:SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I14465,0.135449,0.149283,0.035 826,-0.007429,0.04924,-0.011156,-0.003995,0.008077,0.010431,0.019499,-0.00682,0.009142,-0.007582,0.006881,-0.010993,-0.008353,0.01356,0.003674,0.006285,0.01013,-0.008735,0.010263,0.003328,-0.022292,-0.002634
E-V13:HUN_IA_La_Tene:I18527,0.125205,0.136081,0.0426 15,0.027778,0.040315,0.006414,0.000235,0.007384,0. 017589,0.012939,-0.015752,0.002847,-0.006541,0.001927,-0.008143,-0.003447,0.002608,-0.002534,0.003897,-0.00075,-0.000125,0.002473,-0.001725,-0.016749,-0.003952
E-V13:HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832,0.125205,0.148267, 0.018102,-0.028101,0.029236,-0.016176,0.00141,-0.003231,0.008999,0.03262,0.005846,0.005095,-0.017691,-0.007844,-0.027551,0.003978,0.027772,0.005448,0.008547,-0.004877,-0.015473,0.004204,0.003328,0.006025,-0.00012
E-V13:Migration_LIB:LIB11,0.1161,0.142174,0.05242,0. 041667,0.046162,0.010877,0.011045,0.001154,0,-0.020046,0.002111,0.001948,0.00773,0.016652,-0.0057,-0.003978,-0.004303,-0.012162,-0.003771,-0.002751,0.001622,-0.00779,0.013434,-0.002048,-0.001557
E-V13:ITA_Collegno_MA_o1:CL38,0.101303,0.144205,-0.018856,-0.055556,0.007386,-0.016455,-0.00846,-0.008538,-0.004704,0.014397,0.004709,0.009591,-0.00996,-0.005643,-0.014251,0.000928,0.010561,0,-0.002263,0.001251,0.001123,0.006306,-0.002095,0.010001,0.008023
E-V13:ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107,0.119514,0.149 283,-0.004525,-0.031654,0.022773,-0.02008,-0.00893,-0.004615,0.010226,0.021322,-0.000325,0.005545,-0.00223,0.00578,-0.007872,-0.007425,0.009127,-0.00038,-0.000251,0.007504,-0.003993,-0.001607,0.010106,0.00012,-0.00012
E-V13:VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362,0.127482,0.13709 6,0.053174,0.026809,0.034776,0.008646,0.00517,0.01 3384,-0.000614,0.003098,-0.001949,0.000749,-0.003568,0.007569,-0.002307,-0.002387,0.010561,-0.00228,0.002765,0.003752,-0.004243,-0.000989,0.002835,0.001325,-0.010538
E-V13:DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA005,0.120652,0.137096, 0.071276,0.071706,0.049548,0.01004,0.01081,0.01453 8,-0.009408,-0.018041,-0.00341,-0.001499,0.003419,0.018717,0.00285,-0.004773,0.003129,-0.002154,0.005154,0.004502,-0.009858,-0.004946,0.008381,-0.007591,0.001796
E-V13:ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219,0.122929,0.14217 4,0.046763,0.031654,0.036314,0.009761,0.004465,0.0 08077,0.008795,0.002005,-0.004222,0.001349,-0.015907,0.00812,0.007329,0.002519,0.001956,0.0003 8,0.004902,0.000375,0.007986,0.007914,0.007518,0.0 07953,-0.005029
E-V13:SCY197_Glinoe_MLD,0.122929,0.140143,0.029415,-0.023902,0.023081,-0.012829,0.015511,-0.005307,0.00225,0.035172,-0.005846,-0.001349,-0.01115,0.000275,-0.010586,-0.0118,0.001434,-0.000127,0.013324,-0.010255,-0.004742,-0.000989,0.003328,-0.002771,-0.008981

All E-V13 G25 coords for easy use (including the updated coords from the new paper about Britain)

Tora_sama
12-26-2021, 05:22 PM
в процессе..

rafc
12-26-2021, 06:59 PM
You don't really have to go all the way back to Barcin/WHG/Yamnaya components because all samples are built from these basic components, hence the absolute values of the distances won't change.

I'm not sure that is the case. When you run a PCA on modern West-Eurasian samples these four components pop up at more or less opposite ends (but not completely). However, if you run a PCA on a subset of EBA samples, do you expect the same result? I think the result would reflect the biggest variability of that subset, and if those source samples are quite alike in some dimension it could exaggerate other dimensions. We can off course test this by projecting those four components on your custom PCA and on the classical West-Eurasia PCA, I flipped the axes of the custom one to get closest to the West-Eurasia one:

https://i.imgur.com/ti8btv7.png
https://i.imgur.com/411ZxOd.png

While the shape is comparable you can see the components don't relate in the same way, especially EEF.


And that's why we get the same distance between E-V13 Vekerzug and BGR_EBA and a close distance to some J2b for both PCAs. For this PCA as I explained when I posted it is a comparison (projection) of the Vekerzug samples to EBA sources (listed on the vertical bar).

I can imagine that on a very fine level (as inside the Balkan cline) differences between custom and 'classical' are so small as to be undetectable, but if you compare the distance Barcin-Iran to Barcin-Yamnaya on both graphs, you will see there is a clear distortion of distances between the samples. So on a small scale it might not make to much difference, but you do introduce deviations by taking different sources than the classical PCA (and I think the fact that these sources are Adna and so don't have perfect coverage doesn't help either).

I understand the need for a custom PCA if you want to show variability in a population that is not available pre-made, but if the goal is to show the classical components, it makes sense to use the classical graph. This also makes comparing to graphs from scientific literature easier.

Bruzmi
12-26-2021, 07:07 PM
I understand the need for a custom PCA if you want to show variability in a population that is not available pre-made, but if the goal is to show the classical components, it makes sense to use the classical graph. This also makes comparing to graphs from scientific literature easier.

Fully agree with you for that aspect. If you want to show intra-European variation, you really have to use more limited datasets to see the differences from HRV to BGR because on a scale which displays genetic distance from IRN_N to WHG and Barcin and the zoom out which is required to see the samples with the maximum distances, you're not going to get (much) information for what happens on a smaller scale.

rafc
12-26-2021, 09:15 PM
Fully agree with you for that aspect. If you want to show intra-European variation, you really have to use more limited datasets to see the differences from HRV to BGR because on a scale which displays genetic distance from IRN_N to WHG and Barcin and the zoom out which is required to see the samples with the maximum distances, you're not going to get (much) information for what happens on a smaller scale.

I'm not sure I grasp this last point. The zoom is not related to the size of the dataset, are am I missing something?

Bruzmi
12-27-2021, 12:14 PM
I'm not sure I grasp this last point. The zoom is not related to the size of the dataset, are am I missing something?

I consider it better to use a dataset which doesn't include a very large maximum distance between samples because the final file will have to zoom out at a distance where you can't really see the qualitative differences.

https://i.ibb.co/QYZrKVd/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-3.png

Very basic PCA: EBA + SCY197 (E-V13) projected on basic components. You can see that SCY197 is close to HRV_EBA but you can't really assess it in a meaningful way. Everything doesn't look that far to each other because the PCA has to display a maximum distance between WHG-Barcin-IRN_Ganj.

To get a better visualization you have too zoom in (same PCA-no data changed) and take a snapshot of just this small area.

https://i.ibb.co/NpwPpW8/Vahaduo-Custom-PCA-4.png

Riverman
12-27-2021, 02:11 PM
@Bruzmi: That's no argument because the basic components (Yamnaya, WHG, Neolithic, Iranian) just grasp the best the basic European variation, whereas any too regional framework might be misleading. As for the E-V13 samples, on the North European PCA which I like very much because of its clear European geographical pattern, the E-V13 samples so far available have an odd characteristic: They split cleanly into a Northern and a Southern group, with nothing in between. And both groups are obviously admixed with local other populations, so no way to tell where the original carriers belonged to. Where they in the middle? Or at a different position? Impossible to tell.
We really need EBA-MBA samples from a relevant context which led to a surviving, widespread Iron Age cultural formation and the No 1 candidate still standing is Gáva/Channelled Ware. And if the sample from the Pannonian study is real, this one could be pretty steppe-shifted and Gáva received an Eastern/North Eastern pulese from Noua/Komarov possibly.
Still, everything is open, and not even the Pannonian study with yet another low resolution sample might solve it, but it might give us a strong indication if that's the oldest sample from a relevant context. We need samples from EBA-MBA Romania, Eastern Slovakia, Eastern Hungary and Western Ukraine to Southern Poland.
That's the key area to look at. I hope we get the data from the Pannonian study soon, it might help a lot, even if its not the final blow - the Bulgarian Thracians might help too of course. So its not like there is nothing, we already have good indications and it will be very telling to compare those BA-IA samples with those from Vimanacium and Timacum minus, which, however, being obviously autosomally mixed with local pre-Channelled Ware people and "Imperial Romans".

rafc
12-27-2021, 03:18 PM
Someone also mentioned the Lazaridis paper would be published before Christmas, but no such luck. I think it could be really helpful, but probably it will not have have the samples we need, as usual :-)

rafc
12-27-2021, 03:28 PM
I consider it better to use a dataset which doesn't include a very large maximum distance between samples because the final file will have to zoom out at a distance where you can't really see the qualitative differences.

I don't see the zoom as a real issue, I would think it's better to create the best possible PCA (I assume that's the classical, since that's what academics use), and zoom in on the detail you need (which is also what is done in scientific literature, for example in the Viminacium paper).

Pribislav
12-27-2021, 03:58 PM
Someone also mentioned the Lazaridis paper would be published before Christmas, but no such luck. I think it could be really helpful, but probably it will not have have the samples we need, as usual :-)

Oh, I think it will. Most recent info I got about said paper is we'll see samples from Croatia (~80), Bosnia & Herzegovina (1), Montenegro (~20), Serbia (~10), Albania (?), North Macedonia (~20), Bulgaria (?) and Greece (?).

levantino II
12-27-2021, 04:23 PM
Oh, I think it will. Most recent info I got about said paper is we'll see samples from Croatia (~80), Bosnia & Herzegovina (1), Montenegro (~20), Serbia (~10), Albania (?), North Macedonia (~20), Bulgaria (?) and Greece (?).

Can you be more specific, what we should expect?

Pribislav
12-27-2021, 05:27 PM
Can you be more specific, what we should expect?

Bronze to Iron Age samples.

rafc
12-27-2021, 05:29 PM
Oh, I think it will. Most recent info I got about said paper is we'll see samples from Croatia (~80), Bosnia & Herzegovina (1), Montenegro (~20), Serbia (~10), Albania (?), North Macedonia (~20), Bulgaria (?) and Greece (?).

Montenegro and Macedonia seem promising, but the some of the question marks scare me :-)
Just hope it's not a paper with 80 Croatian samples from Dalmatia and then a few very early EBA from other parts of the Balkans, leaving the whole BA-evolution an open question.

rafc
12-27-2021, 05:41 PM
In the meantime I dug a little deeper in the Croatian samples from the Patterson paper, to better understand their wide divergence. I put them on a map and indicated where they fall on the West-Eurasia PCA

https://i.imgur.com/LzY9xSt.png

Some observations:

-The spread in the MBA now seems more like two different populations: one in Southern Dalmatia with more EEF, and one from the northern part of Croatia with less EEF. It's this southern part that plots close to the 'Balkan IA cline'.
-I think that makes it unlikely this northern part had anything to do with the Balkan IA cline. On the other hand I think it keeps open the possibility that V13 was already present in an area more southern (Montenegro, Albania) since you would expect some more EEF there, so falling in the 'Balkan IA cline'. The two known samples in that southern part are J2b, but I guess with such a number we could consider V13 simply unlucky. It would also imply the Daunians would be connected to that northern group (if not V13 would be unrealistically unlucky).

Pribislav
12-27-2021, 05:42 PM
Montenegro and Macedonia seem promising, but the some of the question marks scare me :-)
Just hope it's not a paper with 80 Croatian samples from Dalmatia and then a few very early EBA from other parts of the Balkans, leaving the whole BA-evolution an open question.

I don't have any more details, except ~30 of those 80 Croatian samples will be from the same cave as that weird I2a-Din sample.

Riverman
12-27-2021, 07:11 PM
In the meantime I dug a little deeper in the Croatian samples from the Patterson paper, to better understand their wide divergence. I put them on a map and indicated where they fall on the West-Eurasia PCA

https://i.imgur.com/LzY9xSt.png

Some observations:

-The spread in the MBA now seems more like two different populations: one in Southern Dalmatia with more EEF, and one from the northern part of Croatia with less EEF. It's this southern part that plots close to the 'Balkan IA cline'.
-I think that makes it unlikely this northern part had anything to do with the Balkan IA cline. On the other hand I think it keeps open the possibility that V13 was already present in an area more southern (Montenegro, Albania) since you would expect some more EEF there, so falling in the 'Balkan IA cline'. The two known samples in that southern part are J2b, but I guess with such a number we could consider V13 simply unlucky. It would also imply the Daunians would be connected to that northern group (if not V13 would be unrealistically unlucky).

The Northern group had just increased Tumulus Culture/Middle Danubian Urnfield admixture, presumably because they were part of the same network. The more South you go, the less of it reached the local population. Even more so since the Southern group largely cut itself off from the Urnfielders and were sticking to inhumation, tried to block them.
But I don't see a realistic chance for E-V13 and its vast spread from the LBA on to have happened from an area South of the Danube-Tisza cross. Those Southern groups were just pushed, they had not the power and network to spread out that quickly, to gain such an advantage and we already know how these locals looked like, roughly, they were more diverse, but we need an agent which led to E-V13 replace those.

This doesn't mean there couldn't have been some E-V13 or more general E1b1b there, probably it even came from a more Southern region before moving up the Tisza basin, but in the MBA-LBA, anything South of the Tisza basin is too Southern:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321539476/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Map-of-Danube-River-basin-and-Tisza-River-sub-basin-Source-authors-using-data-from.png

In Bulgaria there was a replacement event, with E-V13 spreading on top of the earlier Neolithic to Bronze Age variation. We already know that from the results of the Svilengrad samples. And there are primarily two candidates for Psenichevo, Encrusted Pottery and Channelled Ware - both came from more Northern areas, from Pannonia, and Encrusted Ware samples don't look like that, were not influential enough, being considered by most papers to be not the dominant part in this fusion. So its just Channelled Ware standing and this cultural phenomenon can't be from South of Tisza basin in the LBA, no way. Its a clear North -> South movement.

I made a map, green shows the Tumulus culture push which caused the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture to expand East and South, the white and black arrows represent Gáva and Channelled Ware expansions:

https://i.ibb.co/Y0wm0wx/Expansions.jpg

https://ibb.co/5KwmKwP

The Middle Danubian Tumulus culture influence prevailed in the MBA, pushing various Pannonian groups, including Füzesabony, eastward. In the very late Bronze Age to Iron Age transiton, Channelled Ware being more influential in most regions, but there was still influence in both directions, but rather from the successor of the Middle Danubian TC, the Middle Danubian Urnfield group, whereas the Southern inhumation groups of the Illyrians got more isolated.

The real question for the study is do they have Urnfield remains (can be only special context), or from some of the intermediate horizons, which exact relationship is unclear (Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, the Kalakača horizon etc.) and the longer term succeeding cultures like Bosut-Basarabi in particular. It would be really great to get some Bosut-Basarabi samples, because if they being heavily E-V13, what I expect, this would connect the whole Psenichevo-Basarabi group to the Daco-Thracian later core and from there we can trace this back, most likely to Gáva/Channelled Ware.

Bruzmi
12-27-2021, 08:04 PM
In Bulgaria there was a replacement event, with E-V13 spreading on top of the earlier Neolithic to Bronze Age variation. We already know that from the results of the Svilengrad samples. And there are primarily two candidates for Psenichevo, Encrusted Pottery and Channelled Ware - both came from more Northern areas, from Pannonia, and Encrusted Ware samples don't look like that, were not influential enough, being considered by most papers to be not the dominant part in this fusion. So its just Channelled Ware standing and this cultural phenomenon can't be from South of Tisza basin in the LBA, no way. Its a clear North -> South movement.


What replacement event?

We literally have no data for Thrace.

Bruzmi
12-27-2021, 08:26 PM
In the meantime I dug a little deeper in the Croatian samples from the Patterson paper, to better understand their wide divergence. I put them on a map and indicated where they fall on the West-Eurasia PCA

https://i.imgur.com/LzY9xSt.png

Some observations:

-The spread in the MBA now seems more like two different populations: one in Southern Dalmatia with more EEF, and one from the northern part of Croatia with less EEF. It's this southern part that plots close to the 'Balkan IA cline'.
-I think that makes it unlikely this northern part had anything to do with the Balkan IA cline. On the other hand I think it keeps open the possibility that V13 was already present in an area more southern (Montenegro, Albania) since you would expect some more EEF there, so falling in the 'Balkan IA cline'. The two known samples in that southern part are J2b, but I guess with such a number we could consider V13 simply unlucky. It would also imply the Daunians would be connected to that northern group (if not V13 would be unrealistically unlucky).

My general overview is roughly the same. Some of these regions are outlier areas of western Balkan expansion. J-L283 samples there show indeed a Balkan-like origin but are also more western shifted, likely a marker that this was a contact zone between Illyrii-Liburni-Eneti. It will be very interesting to see what the Liburni looked like.

High EEF components need an explanation for the western Balkans. If J-L283 and R-M269 and related mtDNA lineages came as part of Yamnaya groups, then another population provided the EEF component which already in the late MBA made someone 55-60~ Barcin-like.

Target: HRV_MBA:I4331
Distance: 2.6548% / 0.02654803
60.4 TUR_Barcin_N
34.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.2 WHG

I think that E-V13 and other EEF lineages may have lived in the more inland regions of Croatia, Pannonia and Bosnia. E-V13 is my main working hypothesis because it's the one which is closer to earlier Croatian Neolithic components.

Riverman
12-27-2021, 08:50 PM
What replacement event?

We literally have no data for Thrace.

There are Neolithic and EBA samples from Bulgaria and then there is E-V13 in the IA, its a clear cut case:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21442-E-V13-in-Bulgarian-Iron-Age

You might say its not published yet, but there is no reason to doubt it, considering the context the data leaked by Stamov comes from. There are also the Mokrin samples, now even more from the British paper, which repeat a similar variation and largely disappear with the Iron Age.
This means we have data points for the whole lower Middle and Lower Danubian basin, which point to a massive spread of E-V13 by replacing local Neolithic and Bronze Age lineages. The end result looks like in IA Thrace or the Balkan IA cluster of Viminacium.


I think that E-V13 and other EEF lineages may have lived in the more inland regions of Croatia, Pannonia and Bosnia. E-V13 is my main working hypothesis because it's the one which is closer to earlier Croatian Neolithic components.

We haven't sampled a larger number of source samples for E-V13 yet, but only later, mixed descendents. Even the Bulgarian Thracians are likely mixed with Moldovan and Bulgarian MBA populations. There is little we can say about the autosomal profile of the original E-V13 bearers, but a origin from Pannonia-Carpathain Basin, especially the Upper Tisza region, is likely for the LBA in particular, regardless of where they were coming from before.

Bruzmi
12-27-2021, 10:35 PM
There are Neolithic and EBA samples from Bulgaria and then there is E-V13 in the IA, its a clear cut case:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21442-E-V13-in-Bulgarian-Iron-Age

You might say its not published yet, but there is no reason to doubt it, considering the context the data leaked by Stamov comes from.


A replacement event presupposes that:

a)we know the Neolithic/EBA profile of Bulgaria

b)we know the MBA profile of Bulgaria

c)we know the IA profile and it is very different from the MBA one.

What do we know?

We have some samples about the Neolithic/EBA profile, we have no data about the MBA (not counting the MLBA likely outlier) and we have 1 published sample from the IA (BGR_IA)

The BGR_IA profile is a continuation of BGR_EBA with some more southern influence.


I don't doubt that we will get a few E-V13 from IA Bulgaria, but we also have IA E-V13 from La Tene Hungary and Viminacium. Finding E-V13 may have been seen as a unique event in 2019, but in 2022 it's not uncommon.

And if the few E-V13 in Bulgaria are closer to HRV_EBA/MBA than BGR_EBA and if we also find many other samples which are closer to BGR_EBA, then what we'll learn is that native Thracians were what we would expect them historically to be: Yamnaya+local EEF. These E-V13 may end up as the representatives of a clan which settled in an area which was populated by local Thracians.

It's better to wait for the samples to know who is who.

XXD
12-27-2021, 11:59 PM
The Northern group had just increased Tumulus Culture/Middle Danubian Urnfield admixture, presumably because they were part of the same network. The more South you go, the less of it reached the local population. Even more so since the Southern group largely cut itself off from the Urnfielders and were sticking to inhumation, tried to block them.
But I don't see a realistic chance for E-V13 and its vast spread from the LBA on to have happened from an area South of the Danube-Tisza cross. Those Southern groups were just pushed, they had not the power and network to spread out that quickly, to gain such an advantage and we already know how these locals looked like, roughly, they were more diverse, but we need an agent which led to E-V13 replace those.

This doesn't mean there couldn't have been some E-V13 or more general E1b1b there, probably it even came from a more Southern region before moving up the Tisza basin, but in the MBA-LBA, anything South of the Tisza basin is too Southern:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321539476/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Map-of-Danube-River-basin-and-Tisza-River-sub-basin-Source-authors-using-data-from.png

In Bulgaria there was a replacement event, with E-V13 spreading on top of the earlier Neolithic to Bronze Age variation. We already know that from the results of the Svilengrad samples. And there are primarily two candidates for Psenichevo, Encrusted Pottery and Channelled Ware - both came from more Northern areas, from Pannonia, and Encrusted Ware samples don't look like that, were not influential enough, being considered by most papers to be not the dominant part in this fusion. So its just Channelled Ware standing and this cultural phenomenon can't be from South of Tisza basin in the LBA, no way. Its a clear North -> South movement.

I made a map, green shows the Tumulus culture push which caused the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture to expand East and South, the white and black arrows represent Gáva and Channelled Ware expansions:

https://i.ibb.co/Y0wm0wx/Expansions.jpg

https://ibb.co/5KwmKwP

The Middle Danubian Tumulus culture influence prevailed in the MBA, pushing various Pannonian groups, including Füzesabony, eastward. In the very late Bronze Age to Iron Age transiton, Channelled Ware being more influential in most regions, but there was still influence in both directions, but rather from the successor of the Middle Danubian TC, the Middle Danubian Urnfield group, whereas the Southern inhumation groups of the Illyrians got more isolated.

The real question for the study is do they have Urnfield remains (can be only special context), or from some of the intermediate horizons, which exact relationship is unclear (Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, the Kalakača horizon etc.) and the longer term succeeding cultures like Bosut-Basarabi in particular. It would be really great to get some Bosut-Basarabi samples, because if they being heavily E-V13, what I expect, this would connect the whole Psenichevo-Basarabi group to the Daco-Thracian later core and from there we can trace this back, most likely to Gáva/Channelled Ware.

Assuming that your interpretation of these archaeological cultures and their migrations are correct, then we have the following neat subdivision:

Tumulus culture = proto-Illyrian, with Central European/Celtic influences?

Gava Eastern group = proto-Thracian

Gava core zone/Belegis = proto-Dacian?

There is a debate as to whether Dacian and Thracian are a single language or two different dialects/related languages. The purple-blue areas of your map mirrors almost perfectly the distribution of Dacian and Thracian toponyms respectively, which is fascinating.

Are my interpretations correct?

So far, the Patterson et al. 2021 samples make complete sense with regards to the Balkan IA cline: the Illyrian groups form a gradient between increased Slovenian IA and southern Balkan ancestries. I am sure that the Southern Arc paper is going to only further demonstrate the validity of this cline.

XXD
12-28-2021, 12:06 AM
Based on Georgiev's (1966) map:


47862

Riverman
12-28-2021, 12:48 AM
A replacement event presupposes that:

a)we know the Neolithic/EBA profile of Bulgaria

b)we know the MBA profile of Bulgaria

c)we know the IA profile and it is very different from the MBA one.

What do we know?

We have some samples about the Neolithic/EBA profile, we have no data about the MBA (not counting the MLBA likely outlier) and we have 1 published sample from the IA (BGR_IA)

The BGR_IA profile is a continuation of BGR_EBA with some more southern influence.


I don't doubt that we will get a few E-V13 from IA Bulgaria, but we also have IA E-V13 from La Tene Hungary and Viminacium. Finding E-V13 may have been seen as a unique event in 2019, but in 2022 it's not uncommon.

And if the few E-V13 in Bulgaria are closer to HRV_EBA/MBA than BGR_EBA and if we also find many other samples which are closer to BGR_EBA, then what we'll learn is that native Thracians were what we would expect them historically to be: Yamnaya+local EEF. These E-V13 may end up as the representatives of a clan which settled in an area which was populated by local Thracians.

It's better to wait for the samples to know who is who.

We have 3 sites within an area which was clearly in the Daco-Thracian realm, based on Channelled Ware people's expansion, and all three being dominated by E-V23: Viminacium, Timacum minus, Svilengrad. What is so important about Svilengrad?
a) E-V13 being not just present but dominant at this important Iron Age Thracian site
b) Psenichevo is a direct to indirect descendant of Channelled Ware and closely connected to Bosut-Basarabi, as well as Eastern Hallstatt.
c) All the current early E-V13 finds being in the territory of Channelled Ware and the Psenichevo-Basarabi sphere of influence
d) In the core Illyrian/Southern Tumulus culture area, even though we have way more samples than from other Balkan people at this point, we find almost exclusively J2b plus some Bell Beaker/Tumulus Culture/Western Urnfield lineages

Even in the Geto-Scythian area, regardless of how you assign the individual samples, we now have at least 1-2 E-V13 samples. At this point the association of E-V13 with Daco-Thracian/Proto-Thracian people is indisputable, as is the rather Illyrian character of J-L283. These are two fairly "ethnic" haplogroups. Obviously, they did intermix heavily, form the LBA on the latest, probably even before. But the epicentres being clearly distinct from each other.
If all those finds would have been pure chance, that would be like winning a lottery.


Assuming that your interpretation of these archaeological cultures and their migrations are correct, then we have the following neat subdivision:

Tumulus culture = proto-Illyrian, with Central European/Celtic influences?

Both the Tumulus culture and the Urnfield culture being multi-ethnic phenomenons. I go with Gimbutas on this and she thought, that the Illyrians being the result of these migrations Tumulus culture/Urnfield migrations from Central Europe. But in all likelihood, J2b was there before. For me its simply a passenger scenario. They were in the borderzone (Slovenia-Croatia?) and managed to ally up with the incoming R1b dominated Tumulus Culture groups. From then on they constantly spread with the expansion of first TC, then the Middle Danubian Urnfielders - in Pannonia as one element out of others, same in the borderzone of Southern Austria-Slovenia, but with founder effects along the Adriatic southward where they became dominant.



Gava Eastern group = proto-Thracian

Gava core zone/Belegis = proto-Dacian?

The Proto-Thracian/Daco-Thracian core seems to have emerged from Channelled Ware, but whether it was Gáva itself or one of its descendants, like especially the Belegis II-Gáva group or the Southern Fluted Ware and Knobbed Ware groups is so far not clear yet, but I think that Gáva itself was the Proto-Thracian/Daco-Thracian core and out of the Southern Fluted Ware group emerged the early Thracians, from Belegis II-Gáva the Dacians and Moesians.


There is a debate as to whether Dacian and Thracian are a single language or two different dialects/related languages. The purple-blue areas of your map mirrors almost perfectly the distribution of Dacian and Thracian toponyms respectively, which is fascinating.

However their relation, both Channelled Ware and Daco-Thracians largely moved along the river system of the Danube basin. As you can see, Moldovans being connected to Bulgaria in this system more so than to the West and its very interesting that we find exactly in Moldova a fairly high proportion of Neolithic/BGR_EBA like ancestry. Most likely this was coming by first assimilating locals all the way and then backflow/gene flow in between.

Geography is an important factor in this. There was, this is particularly important, no big migration from the South -> North in the crucial LBA-EIA phase. The only slight uncertainty is the Kalakača horizon, which sticks out somewhat, but doesn't seem to have been able to revert or replace Channelled Ware people once they settled down. But which influences exactly, other than Channelled Ware and Encrusted Ware people might have played into that transitional phase is somewhat mysterious.
However, out of it emerged Bosut and Basarabi, and from Bosut we also have inhumation burials, which could be tested.

Bruzmi
12-28-2021, 04:34 PM
Even in the Geto-Scythian area, regardless of how you assign the individual samples, we now have at least 1-2 E-V13 samples.

The assignment is the subject of DNA studies. If we could safely assign individuals based on the archaeological context of the burials, there would be no need for aDNA.

That we have 2 DNA samples from La Tene 3rd century Hungary doesn't make them locals. We have 1 J-L283 from the same region. He is the closest sample to one of the E-V13 and they both share HRV_CA/EBA ancestry which makes them outliers of the La Tene samples.




At this point the association of E-V13 with Daco-Thracian/Proto-Thracian people is indisputable, as is the rather Illyrian character of J-L283.

At this point we know nothing about Dacians, Thracians or Proto-Thracians because we have extremely few or no samples at all.

J-L283 is called Illyrian by many because a. it has been found in samples from the northwestern Balkans to eastern Serbia b. many of the J-L283 samples have an autosomal profile which shows that they have Yamnaya + local EEF (Neolithic Croatia-like) ancestry. The autosomal profile provides a validation of the archaeological record.

We have 0 Proto-Thracian E-V13 samples and 0 Proto-Thracian autosomal profiles. Proto-Thracian = LBA Thrace (~1200 BC)

We have 0 E-V13 in Dacia and 0 Dacian autosomal profiles. We have one E-V13 from Hellenistic Moldova (not part of Dacia) and he just looks like a typical person from the western Balkans with plenty of ancestry similar to late Neolithic Croatia. I wrote above about Bulgaria.

You're calling "indisputable" a theory which is based on no samples. It is a theory and you are free to follow and support your theory, but if I were in your position I wouldn't go around calling "indisputable" something which doesn't have any scientific foundation.

That's my point to you. I'm not trying to convince you about anything. It wouldn't be scientific if I tried to do so ... because we have no samples.

vasil
12-28-2021, 04:45 PM
The assignment is the subject of DNA studies. If we could safely assign individuals based on the archaeological context of the burials, there would be no need for aDNA.

That we have 2 DNA samples from La Tene 3rd century Hungary doesn't make them locals. We have 1 J-L283 from the same region. He is the closest sample to one of the E-V13 and they both share HRV_CA/EBA ancestry which makes them outliers of the La Tene samples.



At this point we know nothing about Dacians, Thracians or Proto-Thracians because we have extremely few or no samples at all.

J-L283 is called Illyrian by many because a. it has been found in samples from the northwestern Balkans to eastern Serbia b. many of the J-L283 samples have an autosomal profile which shows that they have Yamnaya + local EEF (Neolithic Croatia-like) ancestry. The autosomal profile provides a validation of the archaeological record.

We have 0 Proto-Thracian E-V13 samples and 0 Proto-Thracian autosomal profiles. Proto-Thracian = LBA Thrace (~1200 BC)

We have 0 E-V13 in Dacia and 0 Dacian autosomal profiles. We have one E-V13 from Hellenistic Moldova (not part of Dacia) and he just looks like a typical person from the western Balkans with plenty of ancestry similar to late Neolithic Croatia. I wrote above about Bulgaria.

You're calling "indisputable" a theory which is based on no samples. It is a theory and you are free to follow and support your theory, but if I were in your position I wouldn't go around calling "indisputable" something which doesn't have any scientific foundation.

That's my point to you. I'm not trying to convince you about anything. It wouldn't be scientific if I tried to do so ... because we have no samples.

The problem is you keep repeating the same lie about having no Proto-Thracian V13. Whether the samples are officially released or leaked doesnt matter they wont just disapear at some point in time. On the Autosomal stuff you are right we dont know what they looked like because the one iron age sample we have from Bulgaria is very suspiciously pulling to the Aegean.

Riverman
12-28-2021, 04:48 PM
The assignment is the subject of DNA studies. If we could safely assign individuals based on the archaeological context of the burials, there would be no need for aDNA.

He is no big outlier for the local Geto-Scythian cluster and the minor deviation could be explained many ways, by minor admixture.


That we have 2 DNA samples from La Tene 3rd century Hungary doesn't make them locals. We have 1 J-L283 from the same region. He is the closest sample to one of the E-V13 and they both share HRV_CA/EBA ancestry which makes them outliers of the La Tene samples.

They come from the Middle Danubian zone in which Middle Danubian Urnfielders and Channelled Ware people fused, in the transitional period, and where, at the time of the sampling, Latenised. That's it. The similarity to HRV comes from the fact that they have increased BB ancestry and this Middle Danubian zone was connected to HRV since the MBA the latest.


At this point we know nothing about Dacians, Thracians or Proto-Thracians because we have extremely few or no samples at all.

More than a dozen of samples from their core areas (Viminacium, Timacum minus, Svilengrad) and sphere of influence (Glinoe, Vekerzug, La Tene Czechia and Hungary) and they all yield E-V13, yet none from the Illyrian core (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Illyrian Italy). That's what we know.


We have 0 Proto-Thracian E-V13 samples and 0 Proto-Thracian autosomal profiles. Proto-Thracian = LBA Thrace (~1200 BC)

That's true and very annoying, but we have data for the earlier Neolithic and EBA and then from the IA and Roman era: Before, no E-V13, afterwards: E-V13 everywhere.


It wouldn't be scientific if I tried to do so ... because we have no samples.

Let's put it that way: We are now at 80 %, for 100 % we need more direct evidence, which is however much harder to get than for the Illyrian core, simply because the Proto-Thracians all cremated. However, if the samples from Kyjatice and Gáva come close to the former core, they give an indication, and the Thraco-Cimmerians (Prescythian Mezocsat). They are currently the best stand in we have for Pannonian Daco-Thracians/Channelled Ware people.
From those samples to most others its a short distance, the main outlier is indeed the Glinoe from a Geto-Scythian context. So the real problem lies elsewhere than you suggest, the real open question is how the Eastern groups got so much more Neolithic (Moldova, Bulgaria) than the Western ones in Pannonia.
Was this just a mere pick up of locals and mixture with Greek colonists or someting along these lines, or is there more to it, is it a more fundamental difference. That's for me the biggest unknown at this point, but its completely unrealted to the North Western Balkan on the one hand, but relates to it on another: The latter Daco-Thracian like samples might very well fit into a mixture of the Thraco-Cimmerian profile with local Illyrian-like profile, with further reduced WHG, almost the same Yamnaya proportion.
Its really the Eastern groups which trouble me more, if talking about doubts and unknowns.

Bruzmi
12-28-2021, 05:22 PM
@Riverman

From SCY197 to SCY301 it's a big distance. My opinion is that this is an outlier individual.

My opinion is that we'll see in Dacia and Thrace, the same process as in the northwestern Balkans: (mostly) Yamnaya+ local EEF (ROU or BGR-like). BGR_IA with its almost 1/3 BGR_EBA ancestry might indicate such a profile. There were distinct profiles which followed a cline from the western to the eastern Balkans. Just as we have SCY197 with an "HRV-like profile" in Glinoe, we're also going to get eventually someone with "ROU-like" profile in Croatia. It's the nature of small-scale migration. But in relation to the autosomal profiles of most samples in a region, we'll get distinct average profiles. Dacians are not going to be sort of like the northwestern Balkans.

You have called Roman Viminacium samples Daco-Thracian, but they're not that. First, they're from the Roman era, so they're not useful to determine a pre-Roman profile. Viminacium was a multi-ethnic city where people came from many areas of the Balkans, Anatolia and apparently even Africa. Dacian samples = pre-Roman samples from Dacia etc.

You've written your theory and I respect that it's your theory, but now it's time to wait for samples.

Bruzmi
12-28-2021, 05:59 PM
The problem is you keep repeating the same lie about having no Proto-Thracian V13. Whether the samples are officially released or leaked doesnt matter they wont just disapear at some point in time. On the Autosomal stuff you are right we dont know what they looked like because the one iron age sample we have from Bulgaria is very suspiciously pulling to the Aegean.

Why is it incorrect?

Proto-Thracians = LBA Thrace (~1500-1200BC)

We can even extend our research focus to the LBA/EIA transition (1100-900 BC)

Do we have any E-V13 samples from Thrace in that period? No.

The unpublished Psenichevo samples are hundreds of years younger.

LBA Thrace:

https://i.ibb.co/LvC8nhm/LBAThrace.png

Source: Nenova, Denitsa Nikolaeva; (2018) The dynamics of isolation and interaction in Late Bronze Age Thrace

Riverman
12-28-2021, 06:31 PM
@Riverman

From SCY197 to SCY301 it's a big distance. My opinion is that this is an outlier individual.

My opinion is that we'll see in Dacia and Thrace, the same process as in the northwestern Balkans: (mostly) Yamnaya+ local EEF (ROU or BGR-like). BGR_IA with its almost 1/3 BGR_EBA ancestry might indicate such a profile. There were distinct profiles which followed a cline from the western to the eastern Balkans. Just as we have SCY197 with an "HRV-like profile" in Glinoe, we're also going to get eventually someone with "ROU-like" profile in Croatia. It's the nature of small-scale migration. But in relation to the autosomal profiles of most samples in a region, we'll get distinct average profiles. Dacians are not going to be sort of like the northwestern Balkans.

The main feature of the Tisza basin populations from which Gáva emerged seems to be an increased WHG admixture. No longer like Mako or even the earlier Romanian outlier sample, but still elevated WHG. That doesn't mean that the ancestors of Gáva must have had it too, but in any case they did pick it up in the Carpathian basin.


You have called Roman Viminacium samples Daco-Thracian, but they're not that. First, they're from the Roman era, so they're not useful to determine a pre-Roman profile. Viminacium was a multi-ethnic city where people came from many areas of the Balkans, Anatolia and apparently even Africa. Dacian samples = pre-Roman samples from Dacia etc.

If they would be so diverse, their patrilineages wouldn't have been as dominated by just one haplogroup, E-V13. Especially if considering that many locals still cremated and you can all but ignore the Near Eastern shifted Imperial Romans for the comparison. What remains is an, if not local, at least regional Balkan IA cluster dominated by people descending from Belegis II-Gáva = Daco-Thracian.

As for transitional period samples: We might never get enough and ideal ones, because they cremated! We can primarily go for pre- and post samples and horizons which introduced inhumation for longer or shorter periods, like Thraco-Cimmerian (see, they fit, unfortunately only females), Scythian customs (like the Geto-Scythians) and phenomenons like Kalakača. From Bosut there are quite direct links on the one hand to Belegis II-Gáva, on the other to Psenichevo. These are all interconnected sites and elements, with E-V13 patrilineages being one big thing in common.

vasil
12-28-2021, 07:55 PM
Why is it incorrect?

Proto-Thracians = LBA Thrace (~1500-1200BC)

We can even extend our research focus to the LBA/EIA transition (1100-900 BC)

Do we have any E-V13 samples from Thrace in that period? No.

The unpublished Psenichevo samples are hundreds of years younger.

LBA Thrace:

https://i.ibb.co/LvC8nhm/LBAThrace.png

Source: Nenova, Denitsa Nikolaeva; (2018) The dynamics of isolation and interaction in Late Bronze Age Thrace

Bulgaria_EIA Kapitan Andreevo E1b1b1a1b1a
Bulgaria_EIA Kapitan Andreevo E1b1b1a1b1
The unreleasead samples are from the very earliest iron age, I have seen estimations for the iron age layer in Kapitan Andreevo arround 10th century bc but there is no carbon dating as far as i am aware so its in the general vicinity 10th/9th century ie exactly the right period for Rivermans theories. On the other hand I have said before the Multi-Cordoned Ware derived group in Middle Bronze Age Bulgaria is probably something else related to groups like the Armenians/Bithyni and Helleno-Phrygians. Actually the paper with those samples was supposed to get released this December but there seems to be some sort of delay anyway we will get it very soon.

XXD
12-28-2021, 08:18 PM
I don't have any more details, except ~30 of those 80 Croatian samples will be from the same cave as that weird I2a-Din sample.

This is extremely exciting, but lets hope that they are not taphonomically misplaced like the I2-din sample that you said might even be from WWII!

XXD
12-28-2021, 08:33 PM
@Riverman

From SCY197 to SCY301 it's a big distance. My opinion is that this is an outlier individual.

You have called Roman Viminacium samples Daco-Thracian, but they're not that. First, they're from the Roman era, so they're not useful to determine a pre-Roman profile. Viminacium was a multi-ethnic city where people came from many areas of the Balkans, Anatolia and apparently even Africa. Dacian samples = pre-Roman samples from Dacia etc.

You've written your theory and I respect that it's your theory, but now it's time to wait for samples.

On what evidence do you claim that the Viminacium samples are not Daco-Thracian? The authors of Olalde et al. certainly disagree with you, and the Balkan Iron Age Cline that they describe is corroborated by the samples of the Patterson et al. 2021 paper. In previous posts of mine, I have also shown that based on funerary epigraphic data, the vast majority of the soldiers stationed in Viminacium were locals.

You seem to dismiss the archaeological context as unimportant. However, every archaeologist/biologist learn in the first month of their undergraduate courses that the 1) location 2) stratigraphy 3) and the associated cultural artifacts are absolutely essential for any biological sample. So Riverman's focus on the cultural and archaeological context of the samples is correctly placed, and very helpful indeed.

I repeat, so far, there is no evidence that E-V13 has anything to do with Illyrians, and we are starting to accumulate considerable evidence that suggests that E-V13 came from the Central Balkans.

As a descendant of Albanians, I personally have no stake in this debate - whether my line is Illyrian or Daco-Thracian (by the way, a standard term in paleo-Balkan linguistics), I am equally cool with that. Both cultures were very interesting and influential, yet severely understudied.

If E-V13 proves to be West Balkan, I will be truly surprised and I will admit my error, yet this does not seem to be the case at the moment.

Bruzmi
12-28-2021, 09:08 PM
Bulgaria_EIA Kapitan Andreevo E1b1b1a1b1a
Bulgaria_EIA Kapitan Andreevo E1b1b1a1b1
The unreleasead samples are from the very earliest iron age, I have seen estimations for the iron age layer in Kapitan Andreevo arround 10th century bc but there is no carbon dating as far as i am aware so its in the general vicinity 10th/9th century ie exactly the right period for Rivermans theories. On the other hand I have said before the Multi-Cordoned Ware derived group in Middle Bronze Age Bulgaria is probably something else related to groups like the Armenians/Bithyni and Helleno-Phrygians. Actually the paper with those samples was supposed to get released this December but there seems to be some sort of delay anyway we will get it very soon.

No.

And I would ask you to use sources next time. We can't have a discussion without sources.

When IA Andreevo was built is not relevant to the date of the samples.

The samples themselves have been dated to 550 BC (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Country&searchfor=Bulgaria&ybp=500000,0&orderby=MeanYBP&ascdesc=DESC)

They are contemporaneous to BGR_IA

Riverman
12-28-2021, 09:40 PM
No.

And I would ask you to use sources next time. We can't have a discussion without sources.

When IA Andreevo was built is not relevant to the date of the samples.

The samples themselves have been dated to 550 BC (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Country&searchfor=Bulgaria&ybp=500000,0&orderby=MeanYBP&ascdesc=DESC)

They are contemporaneous to BGR_IA

Decisive is which changes did take place in the meantime and if there was not enough, we can assume continuity. The site itself is in the tradition of Channelled Ware related ritual pits which appear frequently, some of the earliest in the Tisza basin. As for the Bulgarian ritual pits:


...the earliest dated in the last phase of the early Iron Age by Svilengrad, VIII-VI c. BC. Other two complexes from Thrace come from the classical period from the site near Malko Tranovo, dated in the V c. BC and the latest complex from the area of South East Bulgaria by Kapitan Andreevo.

https://de.calameo.com/read/0042837477150531e933b

The situation is therefore similar to Viminacium, with a regional continuity and no indication for a significant later influx. At the same time, we have the data from the earlier Neolithic and Bronze Age, from both areas (Viminacium and Bulgaria) to show us the absence of E-V13, or if not complete absence, no dominance. But many of the earlier haplogroups seem to disappear or get reduced, while E-V13 drastically increases, which speaks for itself.
E-V13 as the dominant haplogroup from three sites of the Psenichevo-Basarabi territory being a mere coincidence? Rather not.
And all the other sites fit in too. Just look at the distribution:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=51.738946409335725%2C-7.931156112500041&z=4

And compare it with J-L283 in particular. The difference is absolutely striking. The one and only E1b1b in Croatia dates to the initial Neolithic colonisation, nothing from later periods. Quite telling.

By the way, does anybody know whether some of the samples being from the older Svilengrad site too? Probably there are some among them and it would be great to have samples from different sites and times, even if these two sites are very close to each other.

Bruzmi
12-28-2021, 10:01 PM
On what evidence do you claim that the Viminacium samples are not Daco-Thracian? The authors of Olalde et al. certainly disagree with you, and the Balkan Iron Age Cline that they describe is corroborated by the samples of the Patterson et al. 2021 paper.

The authors don't call them Daco-Thracian: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1

They call them local IA Balkan in a broad context

The Balkan IA model: Individuals from the first cluster fall on an area of the PCA delimited by the “Balkan Iron Age cline” (Figure 1A). Consistent with this, we model the ancestry of this Balkans Iron Age Cluster as predominantly deriving from Iron Age (IA) groups from nearby areas in the Balkans, with 67% Aegean Bronze Age-related ancestry and the remainder Slovenia Iron Age-related ancestry
(Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.1).



About 120 soldiers in Viminacium who were given land as veterans (https://inscriptions.packhum.org/text/174440?hs=1614-1622) were born in Scupi or Remesiana or 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. A very diverse group.

Pre-Roman Viminacium 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.


Viminacium was a diverse imperial city where many people from the Balkans lived: western, central, eastern. The Balkan IA cline from HRV to BGR covers all of them.


Decisive is which changes did take place in the meantime and if there was not enough, we can assume continuity.


Assuming is not a tool of scientific research.

You can't assume anything. These are 6th century samples, just a couple of centuries older than the La Tene ones. We'll evaluate them exactly for what they are based on their autosomal profiles.



Sooo, to recap the conversation:

1)There are no Proto-Thracian or EIA Thracian samples.

2)The E-V13 from Andreevo are from the mid 6th century same as BGR_IA.

3)Pre-Roman Viminacium wasn't Dacian and Roman Viminacium was a Balkan cosmopolitan city.