PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Ricardo Canedo
11-09-2019, 12:09 AM
In https://www.quora.com/How-did-Haplogroup-G-enter-South-Asia/answer/Ygor-Coelho/comment/107903002, Ygor Coelho suggested to me that E-V13 arrived in Europe with Copper Age Anatolians, that, unlike the Neolithic ones, were already very mixed with Caucasians, Iranians and, to a lesser extent, Levantines. They got J2 from the Caucasians and Iranians and some E-M78 subclades from Levantines. Thus, they could have taken E-V13 to Europe. What do you think of this theory? I support it. Yes, I know that an E-V13 Neolithic skeleton was supposedly found in Catalonia in Spain but https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#V13_origins mentions that it's not certain that it was E-V13, that it may have been another E-M78 subclade. So, do you have any thoughts on this theory?

Kelmendasi
11-09-2019, 12:44 AM
In https://www.quora.com/How-did-Haplogroup-G-enter-South-Asia/answer/Ygor-Coelho/comment/107903002, Ygor Coelho suggested to me that E-V13 arrived in Europe with Copper Age Anatolians, that, unlike the Neolithic ones, were already very mixed with Caucasians, Iranians and, to a lesser extent, Levantines. They got J2 from the Caucasians and Iranians and some E-M78 subclades from Levantines. Thus, they could have taken E-V13 to Europe. What do you think of this theory? I support it. Yes, I know that an E-V13 Neolithic skeleton was supposedly found in Catalonia in Spain but https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#V13_origins mentions that it's not certain that it was E-V13, that it may have been another E-M78 subclade. So, do you have any thoughts on this theory?
I don't see much evidence which would support an origin from Copper Age Anatolia. Basal clades of E-V13 are all practically restricted to Europe, with the Balkans having the most. V13 is also most diverse in the Balkans. As for aDNA, The sample from Catalonia was V13+ by the looks of it https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=41.932302886701144%2C3.20230889134632&z=8. Even if the sample is V13-, it was still L618+ which is just upstream of V13. L618 has also been found in Neolithic Croatia and Hungary.

Based on the evidence we have, it's safe to assume that V13 probably originated in the Balkans sometime during the Neolithic. However, CTS1273 seems to have been picked up by Early Indo-European speakers during the Bronze Age somewhere around the Carpathians or western steppe and expanded with them across Europe.

Johane Derite
11-09-2019, 12:56 AM
"What is surprising with E-V13 is that it is as common in R1a-dominant as in R1b-dominant countries." Is this actually true? How did this come about

Ricardo Canedo
11-09-2019, 01:04 AM
I don't see much evidence which would support an origin from Copper Age Anatolia. Basal clades of E-V13 are all practically restricted to Europe, with the Balkans having the most. V13 is also most diverse in the Balkans. As for aDNA, The sample from Catalonia was V13+ by the looks of it https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=41.932302886701144%2C3.20230889134632&z=8. Even if the sample is V13-, it was still L618+ which is just upstream of V13. L618 has also been found in Neolithic Croatia and Hungary.

Based on the evidence we have, it's safe to assume that V13 probably originated in the Balkans sometime during the Neolithic. However, CTS1273 seems to have been picked up by Early Indo-European speakers during the Bronze Age somewhere around the Carpathians or western steppe and expanded with them across Europe.

Eupedia isn't 100% certain that the Catalonian sample was E-V13, it only mentions it as possible. As for the idea that E-V13 came to Europe with Copper Age, thing is, Neolithic Europeans had only very low frequencies of E-M78, literally only those 3 samples, that you mention, had it, out of more than 70 Neolithic European samples. It sounds somewhat unlikely that E-V13 would be most present in the Balkans that are right next to Anatolia, if it was a Neolithic European lineage. Neolithic Anatolians, that composed most of the Neolithic Europeans' DNA, were mostly G2a. E-M78 was far more associated with Levantines. Copper Age Anatolians were already mixed with Levantines and recent genetic studies suggest that they also migrated to Southeastern Europe. Thus, it sounds plausible for E-V13 to have come to Europe with them. An online map shows some E-V13 in Southern Anatolia, exactly where we would expect Levantine admixed Anatolians. What do you think, now?

Kelmendasi
11-09-2019, 01:21 AM
Eupedia isn't 100% certain that the Catalonian sample was E-V13, it only mentions it as possible. As for the idea that E-V13 came to Europe with Copper Age, thing is, Neolithic Europeans had only very low frequencies of E-M78, literally only those 3 samples, that you mention, had it, out of more than 70 Neolithic European samples. It sounds somewhat unlikely that E-V13 would be most present in the Balkans that are right next to Anatolia, if it was a Neolithic European lineage. Neolithic Anatolians, that composed most of the Neolithic Europeans' DNA, were mostly G2a. E-M78 was far more associated with Levantines. Copper Age Anatolians were already mixed with Levantines and recent genetic studies suggest that they also migrated to Southeastern Europe. Thus, it sounds plausible for E-V13 to have come to Europe with them. An online map shows some E-V13 in Southern Anatolia, exactly where we would expect Levantine admixed Anatolians. What do you think, now?
It wouldn't matter all that much either way considering that it is still L618+. E has been found in 6 samples from Neolithic Europe so far:
1) E-L618 from Zemunica cave, Dalmatia, Croatia 7,600-7,470ybp
2) E-V13 (possibly L618*) from Avellaner cave, Catalonia, Spain ~7,000ybp
3) E-M78 from Hungary 7,000-6,800ybp
4) E-L618 from Hungary 6,780-6,700ybp
5) E1b1b from Germany 6,250-5,650ybp
6) E-M78 from Verteba cave, Ukraine 6,000-5,600ybp

When it comes to Anatolia, there is only 1 ancient E sample and that sample dates back to the Neolithic (M35+ Barcin). Not even aDNA is in support of this theory based on the evidence we have. It is clear that E-V13 went through a boom during the Bronze Age (expansion of CTS1273) so the lower frequencies of E among Neolithic farmers is understandable. M78 itself is linked with North Africa (Iberomaurusians), not the Levant.

Which online map shows V13 samples in Southern Anatolia? Connecting these V13 guys with the Copper Age inhabitants of the region isn't the best idea since V13 clades in West Asia today seem to fall under clades which have a clear European origin and are more recent arrivals in the area. They aren't natives.

Ricardo Canedo
11-09-2019, 02:19 PM
It wouldn't matter all that much either way considering that it is still L618+. E has been found in 6 samples from Neolithic Europe so far:
1) E-L618 from Zemunica cave, Dalmatia, Croatia 7,600-7,470ybp
2) E-V13 (possibly L618*) from Avellaner cave, Catalonia, Spain ~7,000ybp
3) E-M78 from Hungary 7,000-6,800ybp
4) E-L618 from Hungary 6,780-6,700ybp
5) E1b1b from Germany 6,250-5,650ybp
6) E-M78 from Verteba cave, Ukraine 6,000-5,600ybp

When it comes to Anatolia, there is only 1 ancient E sample and that sample dates back to the Neolithic (M35+ Barcin). Not even aDNA is in support of this theory based on the evidence we have. It is clear that E-V13 went through a boom during the Bronze Age (expansion of CTS1273) so the lower frequencies of E among Neolithic farmers is understandable. M78 itself is linked with North Africa (Iberomaurusians), not the Levant.

Which online map shows V13 samples in Southern Anatolia? Connecting these V13 guys with the Copper Age inhabitants of the region isn't the best idea since V13 clades in West Asia today seem to fall under clades which have a clear European origin and are more recent arrivals in the area. They aren't natives.

Eupedia only mentioned the Catalan, Croatian and one of the Hungarian samples. The fifth sample doesn't matter much for this, as E1b1b is much older than E-M78 and its subclades. But, regardless of the details, it's still the case that Neolithic Europeans had only very low frequencies of E-M78. Doesn't it sound like too much of a coincidence that E-V13 is most present in the Balkans, right next to Anatolia, especially considering that recent research indicates a new wave of migration fron Anatolia to the Balkans in the Copper Age, this time by a population with much more Caucasian, Iranian and, to a lesser extent, Levantine admixture? I'm tempted believe that it was the Copper Age Anatolians that brought E-V13 to Europe. Also, see the map in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68#Subclades_of_M78 that shows E-V13 in Southern Anatolia and even in the Levant. E-M78 wasn't associated only with Iberomaurasians, it was also associated with Levantines, who were closely related to them. Remember that the Natufians had some Iberomaurasian like North African DNA.

Kelmendasi
11-09-2019, 05:12 PM
Eupedia only mentioned the Catalan, Croatian and one of the Hungarian samples. The fifth sample doesn't matter much for this, as E1b1b is much older than E-M78 and its subclades. But, regardless of the details, it's still the case that Neolithic Europeans had only very low frequencies of E-M78. Doesn't it sound like too much of a coincidence that E-V13 is most present in the Balkans, right next to Anatolia, especially considering that recent research indicates a new wave of migration fron Anatolia to the Balkans in the Copper Age, this time by a population with much more Caucasian, Iranian and, to a lesser extent, Levantine admixture? I'm tempted believe that it was the Copper Age Anatolians that brought E-V13 to Europe. Also, see the map in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68#Subclades_of_M78 that shows E-V13 in Southern Anatolia and even in the Levant. E-M78 wasn't associated only with Iberomaurasians, it was also associated with Levantines, who were closely related to them. Remember that the Natufians had some Iberomaurasian like North African DNA.
You shouldn't rely too much on Eupedia. Fact is that M78 has also been found in Ukraine (Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture) and Hungary (Sopot Culture). It is also a fact that E has been found in more aDNA samples from Europe than Anatolia, so Anatolia had an even lower frequency by the looks of it. Frequency doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to modern day populations since frequencies have fluctuated throughout history.

I already explained why you shouldn't use the V13+ in present day Anatolia as evidence of an Anatolian origin of V13. They are modern day samples and all fall under clusters which have European origin, they aren't representative of the Copper Age populations of the region. The origin of M78 is linked with Iberomaurasians, that was my point. The Natufians clearly got their M78 from a North African source.

Ricardo Canedo
11-10-2019, 01:32 AM
You shouldn't rely too much on Eupedia. Fact is that M78 has also been found in Ukraine (Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture) and Hungary (Sopot Culture). It is also a fact that E has been found in more aDNA samples from Europe than Anatolia, so Anatolia had an even lower frequency by the looks of it. Frequency doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to modern day populations since frequencies have fluctuated throughout history.

I already explained why you shouldn't use the V13+ in present day Anatolia as evidence of an Anatolian origin of V13. They are modern day samples and all fall under clusters which have European origin, they aren't representative of the Copper Age populations of the region. The origin of M78 is linked with Iberomaurasians, that was my point. The Natufians clearly got their M78 from a North African source.

Thing is, it sounds odd that out of all regions of Europe, E-M78 frequencies increased, specifically, in the Balkans, that are known to have received a new Anatolian migration wave in the Copper Age, this time, by a population much more mixed with Caucasians, Iranians and, to a lesser extent, Levantines. I know that Neolithic Levantines got E-M78 from North African ancestors, I was just saying that it was far more associated with them than with Neolithic Anatolians and Europeans. Regardless, the map also shows E-V13 in the Levant, look at the far bottom. That supports the idea that E-V13 originated in the Middle East, given the lack of European migrations to the Levant, at least in a big scale.

Kelmendasi
11-10-2019, 01:53 AM
Thing is, it sounds odd that out of all regions of Europe, E-M78 frequencies increased, specifically, in the Balkans, that are known to have received a new Anatolian migration wave in the Copper Age, this time, by a population much more mixed with Caucasians, Iranians and, to a lesser extent, Levantines. I know that Neolithic Levantines got E-M78 from North African ancestors, I was just saying that it was far more associated with them than with Neolithic Anatolians and Europeans. Regardless, the map also shows E-V13 in the Levant, look at the far bottom. That supports the idea that E-V13 originated in the Middle East, given the lack of European migrations to the Levant, at least in a big scale.
Maps of Y-DNA frequencies aren't all ways accurate, especially maps which are based on old data. Also, V13 went through a boom in frequency during the Bronze Age and not Copper Age so the Copper Age theory still seems inaccurate. Anyways, for this theory to work you would have to prove that V13 has had a presence in Anatolia since the Copper Age, you haven't done that, you're only making assumptions based on speculation.

Again, saying that the presence of V13 in the Levant and Anatolia today is evidence of an origin in the Middle East is very wrong. It is a fact that these V13 samples all fall under clades which have an origin in Europe (S7461, Z5018 etc), and so they are obviously not evidence of V13 being native to the region. If V13 was native then we would see high diversity and a presence of basal clades. But we don't.

Please provide evidence which would back your claims.

Ebizur
11-10-2019, 02:12 AM
Again, saying that the presence of V13 in the Levant and Anatolia today is evidence of an origin in the Middle East is very wrong. It is a fact that these V13 samples all fall under clades which have an origin in Europe (S7461, Z5018 etc), and so they are obviously not evidence of V13 being native to the region. If V13 was native then we would see high diversity and a presence of basal clades. But we don't.How about E-V13 Y-chromosomes among Iranians, Tajiks, and Turkmens? Is it already clear that they are descended from European forefathers?

Kelmendasi
11-10-2019, 02:15 AM
How about E-V13 Y-chromosomes among Iranians, Tajiks, and Turkmens? Is it already clear that they are descended from European forefathers?
What subclade do they fall under? I do know of some Kurds which have been classified as E-CTS1273* for now, so their V13 may have arrived earlier with IE speakers. There is also a CTS1273* (BY3880-) clade found in Ossetians which also seems to date back to the Bronze Age. Still, CTS1273 clearly originated in Europe and was definitely a part of the early IE expansions and chances are that these Iranians, Tajiks and Turkmens are CTS1273+.

Anyways, I was referring to the peoples from the Levant and Turkey. V13 samples from the Levant and Turkey belong to clades under S7461, Z5018, Z5017 etc which definitely came from a more recent European source.

rafc
11-16-2019, 01:00 PM
Eupedia isn't 100% certain that the Catalonian sample was E-V13, it only mentions it as possible. As for the idea that E-V13 came to Europe with Copper Age, thing is, Neolithic Europeans had only very low frequencies of E-M78, literally only those 3 samples, that you mention, had it, out of more than 70 Neolithic European samples. It sounds somewhat unlikely that E-V13 would be most present in the Balkans that are right next to Anatolia, if it was a Neolithic European lineage. Neolithic Anatolians, that composed most of the Neolithic Europeans' DNA, were mostly G2a. E-M78 was far more associated with Levantines. Copper Age Anatolians were already mixed with Levantines and recent genetic studies suggest that they also migrated to Southeastern Europe. Thus, it sounds plausible for E-V13 to have come to Europe with them. An online map shows some E-V13 in Southern Anatolia, exactly where we would expect Levantine admixed Anatolians. What do you think, now?

The Catalonian sample is certainly positive for V13, but the issue with the result is that they only tested single SNPs. Since the date of the skeleton seems far too early for V13 this sample likely represents a sidebranch of V13, which already had the V13 mutation but not yet all equivalent mutations of today's V13s.

Johane Derite
11-17-2019, 09:55 PM
Sesklo and Dimini might be important for origin of EV13, and how it relates to Proto-IE.

While a bit outdated, there is possibly relevant info that seems to have been forgotten in this paper on greek ydna (link at bottom).

We find the highest EV13 (35%, 20/57 samples), and also the highest J2b-m241 in Sesklo/Dimini. (page 3)

This site shows a warlike people that invades violently and begins fortifications around 5000BC.

The Dimini culture overtakes the Sesklo one, and the culture they bring has Danubian parallels.

It is also where Kretschmer argued the "Pelasgian" (Indo European as he argued) language came from:

https://i.imgur.com/b4Xj1Tp.jpg

LINK: https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1471-2148-11-69

Pillar_of_fire
11-25-2019, 06:18 AM
Lately I consider that E-V13 came to the Balkans from the North, picked up in somewhere in the Caucasus, as a travel partner of R1a and / or R1b. E-V13 is thinly split all across all Europe now. Have a look at YFULL tree.

Kelmendasi
11-27-2019, 06:05 PM
Lately I consider that E-V13 came to the Balkans from the North, picked up in somewhere in the Caucasus, as a travel partner of R1a and / or R1b. E-V13 is thinly split all across all Europe now. Have a look at YFULL tree.
The origin of E-V13 itself doesn't seem to have been north of the Balkans, if anything it was in the Balkans or some place nearby. I also doubt that it was picked up in the Caucasus, seems far more likely that it was picked up in the western steppe and expanded from there. I should clarify though that it seems CTS1273 is best associated with the expansion of IE speaking groups during the Bronze Age based on TMRCA, despite a probable origin in the Balkans.

Aspar
11-27-2019, 06:14 PM
The origin of E-V13 itself doesn't seem to have been north of the Balkans, if anything it was in the Balkans or some place nearby. I also doubt that it was picked up in the Caucasus, seems far more likely that it was picked up in the western steppe and expanded from there. I should clarify though that it seems CTS1273 is best associated with the expansion of IE speaking groups during the Bronze Age based on TMRCA, despite a probable origin in the Balkans.

There is more basal diversity of E-V13 and E-L618 north of the Balkans.
And even if so as you think, how would you explain the insignificant presence of E-V13 in the Romans?
The history of the Romans is interconnected with that of the Balkans, especially with the classic Greeks and Illyrians, much earlier than the late antiquity when the first E-V13 among the Romans shows up.

Kelmendasi
11-27-2019, 07:11 PM
There is more basal diversity of E-V13 and E-L618 north of the Balkans.
And even if so as you think, how would you explain the insignificant presence of E-V13 in the Romans?
The history of the Romans is interconnected with that of the Balkans, especially with the classic Greeks and Illyrians, much earlier than the late antiquity when the first E-V13 among the Romans shows up.
There isn't more basal diversity of V13 or L618 north of the Balkans. There are only 2 E-L618 (V13-) samples located north of the Balkans that I am aware of, one is a Dane who is L618>FGC11429 whilst the other is from Latvia (not sure if he is an ethnic Latvian) and belongs to L618>BY6578 which is shared with a Lebanese guy. The other L618 (V13-) samples are found in Saudi Arabia (L618>BY125469), Algeria (L618>BY125469) and Albania (L618>FT148887). As for V13, there are various basal clades under CTS1273 and Y39077 that are found in the Balkans. It is known that V13 itself is most diverse in the Balkans, especially around places such as Bulgaria iirc.

My post had nothing to do with the Romans, I don't see how your question is relevant to it. Anyways, just because the Romans seemingly had an insignificant amount of V13 doesn't mean that the ancient population of the Balkans also will, though I do think that V13 may not have been the dominant haplogroup among them. The vast majority of the clades found in the modern Balkans were there since the Late Bronze Age based on current data, though many went through bottlenecks during the Medieval.

My argument is that V13 itself probably originated in the Balkans or some place nearby, but CTS1273 and some other smaller clades were absorbed by IE speakers somewhere around the Western steppe and expanded during the Bronze Age across Europe, nothing to do with Romans. Though I do think that the Balkan legions did spread some V13 in Western Europe since there are clades present in Western Europe which are clearly of Balkan input.

Bane
11-27-2019, 07:29 PM
There isn't more basal diversity of V13 or L618 north of the Balkans. There are only 2 E-L618 (V13-) samples located north of the Balkans that I am aware of, one is a Dane who is L618>FGC11429 whilst the other is from Latvia (not sure if he is an ethnic Latvian) and belongs to L618>BY6578 which is shared with a Lebanese guy.


Actually, there are more than 2 as you can see here: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/E;name=E-L618
Sweden, France, England are labeled as home countries of these E-L618 (V13-) men.

Kelmendasi
11-27-2019, 07:46 PM
Actually, there are more than 2 as you can see here: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/E;name=E-L618
Sweden, France, England are labeled as home countries of these E-L618 (V13-) men.
I see. There is a L618 (V13-) Frenchman who is L618>BY6630 which is shared by an Italian and a Latvian (2 actually but both are from the same family, they also could be Jewish based on the surname), the sample from England seems to be BY28614+. I also forgot to mention the L618 (V13-) Sardinian sample from Cagiliari and a sample from Syria which is potentially L618*.

Aspar
11-27-2019, 10:45 PM
There isn't more basal diversity of V13 or L618 north of the Balkans. There are only 2 E-L618 (V13-) samples located north of the Balkans that I am aware of, one is a Dane who is L618>FGC11429 whilst the other is from Latvia (not sure if he is an ethnic Latvian) and belongs to L618>BY6578 which is shared with a Lebanese guy. The other L618 (V13-) samples are found in Saudi Arabia (L618>BY125469), Algeria (L618>BY125469) and Albania (L618>FT148887). As for V13, there are various basal clades under CTS1273 and Y39077 that are found in the Balkans. It is known that V13 itself is most diverse in the Balkans, especially around places such as Bulgaria iirc.

My post had nothing to do with the Romans, I don't see how your question is relevant to it. Anyways, just because the Romans seemingly had an insignificant amount of V13 doesn't mean that the ancient population of the Balkans also will, though I do think that V13 may not have been the dominant haplogroup among them. The vast majority of the clades found in the modern Balkans were there since the Late Bronze Age based on current data, though many went through bottlenecks during the Medieval.

My argument is that V13 itself probably originated in the Balkans or some place nearby, but CTS1273 and some other smaller clades were absorbed by IE speakers somewhere around the Western steppe and expanded during the Bronze Age across Europe, nothing to do with Romans. Though I do think that the Balkan legions did spread some V13 in Western Europe since there are clades present in Western Europe which are clearly of Balkan input.

If you check the Block Tree you can see exactly what I am talking about.
There is indeed more basal E-V13 diversity in countries like Germany and England than there is in the Balkans. Even Poland has more basal E-V13's than Greece does.
The thing is most E-V13's in the Balkans fall down in two of the most dominant basal clades of E-V13 like CTS5856, PH1246.
There is not many CTS5856- or PH1246- like there is in Northern and Western Europe.

I know that your post has nothing to do with the Romans, but if the E-V13 originated in the Balkans, it should had more basal clades of E-V13 in the Balkans and not mainly CTS5856 and PH1246.
And as such, it should have been visible in the Roman study, where the opposite was truth.
That's why I've mentioned the Greeks and the Illyrians because they had huge influence on the other side of the Adriatic.

You say, "most clades of E-V13 were in the Balkans since the BA based on the current data".
We can't really be sure about that.
Predicting ancient data based on modern distribution is wrong on many levels.
I know this is a touchy subject for many peoples in the Balkans but I am not really sure many modern clades were where they are now since most modern nations and people are product of the late Antiquity and early Medieval migrations.

In fact, I was saying ever since, even on other forums that E-V13 has very little to do with the Ancient Greeks when everyone else were quite euphoric about the distribution of E-V13 being ancient Greek product.
And with the available ancient Greeks we have as well as the Roman study, that theory can now be put to sleep.

I will now go even further and say that whatever clades the ancient people inhabiting the Balkans(when I say Balkans I mean only south of Danube), probably ended up in the gene pool of the modern Greeks, Turks and Southern Italians because of the places where the Roman people escaped during the great migrations.

Just my two cents,

Kelmendasi
11-27-2019, 11:20 PM
If you check the Block Tree you can see exactly what I am talking about.
There is indeed more basal E-V13 diversity in countries like Germany and England than there is in the Balkans. Even Poland has more basal E-V13's than Greece does.
The thing is most E-V13's in the Balkans fall down in two of the most dominant basal clades of E-V13 like CTS5856, PH1246.
There is not many CTS5856- or PH1246- like there is in Northern and Western Europe.

I know that your post has nothing to do with the Romans, but if the E-V13 originated in the Balkans, it should had more basal clades of E-V13 in the Balkans and not mainly CTS5856 and PH1246.
And as such, it should have been visible in the Roman study, where the opposite was truth.
That's why I've mentioned the Greeks and the Illyrians because they had huge influence on the other side of the Adriatic.

You say, "most clades of E-V13 were in the Balkans since the BA based on the current data".
We can't really be sure about that.
Predicting ancient data based on modern distribution is wrong on many levels.
I know this is a touchy subject for many peoples in the Balkans but I am not really sure many modern clades were where they are now since most modern nations and people are product of the late Antiquity and early Medieval migrations.

In fact, I was saying ever since, even on other forums that E-V13 has very little to do with the Ancient Greeks when everyone else were quite euphoric about the distribution of E-V13 being ancient Greek product.
And with the available ancient Greeks we have as well as the Roman study, that theory can now be put to sleep.

I will now go even further and say that whatever clades the ancient people inhabiting the Balkans(when I say Balkans I mean only south of Danube), probably ended up in the gene pool of the modern Greeks, Turks and Southern Italians because of the places where the Roman people escaped during the great migrations.

Just my two cents,
You're making it seem as if a large number of the V13 in Western Europe is CTS1273- or Y39077-, the vast majority of the clades there are still CTS1273+. Y39077 is fairly important when looking at the origin of V13, and this clade is best represented in the Balkans.The CTS1273- and Y39077- clade found in Western Europe is BY6550 which is very insignificant in terms of frequency and for all we know expanded with IE speaking groups west. The Yfull tree, as well as other Y trees, don't give a wholly accurate representation of what it's really like. People from Western Europe are highly represented whilst peoples from the Balkans aren't. Over representation is also a problem with other haplogroups, just look at Arabs and J1, Yfull and other trees makes it seem as if it's most diverse around Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations but we know for a fact that it isn't.

There is a high basal diversity of V13 in the Balkans, just look at the Y39077 clades for example. aDNA is also in support of an origin around the Balkans, especially within the Cardium Pottery Culture. The L618* sample from Dalmatia and the E-V13 sample from Catalonia both belonged to this culture. L618 has also been found in a sample from Hungary, belonging to the Lengyel Culture, which is fairly close to the Balkans. I don't see how for V13 to have originated in the Balkans, the Romans must have had it in a higher frequency. The Romans and the ancient population of the Balkans were separate peoples, sure they had close contacts but that doesn't always mean much. Also, I did state that E-V13 may not have been the dominant haplogroup in the Balkans at the time.

When I stated that many of the V13 clades in the Balkans have been present in the region since the Bronze Age, I was mainly referring to the clades found among Albanians. Based on TMRCA, basal clades and diversity it is fairly safe to say so. The only clade which can be safely associated with Slavs that I am aware of is S3003, and this is basically non-existent in any Balkan population. Sure some clades may have entered during Antiquity, but I doubt that many arrived during the Medieval.

As far as I know, most of the V13 clades present in modern day Greeks seem to have arrived from the north during the Iron Age based on TMRCA and where the basal clades are found. A large number also arrived with Arvanite and Vlach migrants during the Medieval.

Anyways, I agree that we need aDNA to clear this up. I am open to an origin from the north, but I'm a little skeptical as of now.

Aspar
11-29-2019, 11:03 AM
You're making it seem as if a large number of the V13 in Western Europe is CTS1273- or Y39077-, the vast majority of the clades there are still CTS1273+. Y39077 is fairly important when looking at the origin of V13, and this clade is best represented in the Balkans.The CTS1273- and Y39077- clade found in Western Europe is BY6550 which is very insignificant in terms of frequency and for all we know expanded with IE speaking groups west. The Yfull tree, as well as other Y trees, don't give a wholly accurate representation of what it's really like. People from Western Europe are highly represented whilst peoples from the Balkans aren't. Over representation is also a problem with other haplogroups, just look at Arabs and J1, Yfull and other trees makes it seem as if it's most diverse around Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations but we know for a fact that it isn't.

There is a high basal diversity of V13 in the Balkans, just look at the Y39077 clades for example. aDNA is also in support of an origin around the Balkans, especially within the Cardium Pottery Culture. The L618* sample from Dalmatia and the E-V13 sample from Catalonia both belonged to this culture. L618 has also been found in a sample from Hungary, belonging to the Lengyel Culture, which is fairly close to the Balkans. I don't see how for V13 to have originated in the Balkans, the Romans must have had it in a higher frequency. The Romans and the ancient population of the Balkans were separate peoples, sure they had close contacts but that doesn't always mean much. Also, I did state that E-V13 may not have been the dominant haplogroup in the Balkans at the time.

When I stated that many of the V13 clades in the Balkans have been present in the region since the Bronze Age, I was mainly referring to the clades found among Albanians. Based on TMRCA, basal clades and diversity it is fairly safe to say so. The only clade which can be safely associated with Slavs that I am aware of is S3003, and this is basically non-existent in any Balkan population. Sure some clades may have entered during Antiquity, but I doubt that many arrived during the Medieval.

As far as I know, most of the V13 clades present in modern day Greeks seem to have arrived from the north during the Iron Age based on TMRCA and where the basal clades are found. A large number also arrived with Arvanite and Vlach migrants during the Medieval.

Anyways, I agree that we need aDNA to clear this up. I am open to an origin from the north, but I'm a little skeptical as of now.

It's not me who is making it seem like that, it's the Block Tree and the tree only futures BigY participants, not those with an SNP pack.
You can see it by yourself if you have a Big Y done. So I am not talking about YFULL tree which has much less participants than Block Tree has.
The vast majority of E-V13 in the Balkans fall down in one or two major subclades of E-V13 while in Western Europe and Northern Europe there are substantial amount of E-V13 negative on those two major subclades.

I can't find this E-Y39077 clade your talking about neither on the Block Tree nor YFULL.
Most of the Cardium Pottery Culture was located in Italy and Western Europe, while a small part also in the Balkans, along the Adriatic coast.
So, E-V13 could have been born anywhere around there and as you yourself said, the oldest E-V13 up to date is found in Northeastern Spain, also part of Cardium Pottery Culture.

As I said, the current distribution of subclades of E-V13 among the modern people is not an indication that those subclades of E-V13 were in those places since the BA especially when you take into account the migrations that have taken place in late antiquity and early medievals.
S3003 is again CTS5856+ as are many modern caldes in the Balkans. Western and Northern Europe do have many people who are CTS5856-.

https://i.postimg.cc/Fs1dcP7n/E-V13.png (https://postimages.org/)

Kelmendasi
11-29-2019, 11:50 AM
It's not me who is making it seem like that, it's the Block Tree and the tree only futures BigY participants, not those with an SNP pack.
You can see it by yourself if you have a Big Y done. So I am not talking about YFULL tree which has much less participants than Block Tree has.
The vast majority of E-V13 in the Balkans fall down in one or two major subclades of E-V13 while in Western Europe and Northern Europe there are substantial amount of E-V13 negative on those two major subclades.

I can't find this E-Y39077 clade your talking about neither on the Block Tree nor YFULL.
Most of the Cardium Pottery Culture was located in Italy and Western Europe, while a small part also in the Balkans, along the Adriatic coast.
So, E-V13 could have been born anywhere around there and as you yourself said, the oldest E-V13 up to date is found in Northeastern Spain, also part of Cardium Pottery Culture.

As I said, the current distribution of subclades of E-V13 among the modern people is not an indication that those subclades of E-V13 were in those places since the BA especially when you take into account the migrations that have taken place in late antiquity and early medievals.
S3003 is again CTS5856+ as are many modern caldes in the Balkans. Western and Northern Europe do have many people who are CTS5856-.

https://i.postimg.cc/Fs1dcP7n/E-V13.png (https://postimages.org/)
Again, there is over representation of Western Europeans on these trees when it comes to E-V13. We will have to see what clade they actually fall under, for all we know they could all be BY6550+ which would actually mean that there is little diversity in the non CTS1273 (CTS5856) and Y30977 (PH1246) clades. I also see the Greek and Italian samples, would like to see what they end up as.

I was meant to type Y30977 and not Y39077, my bad. As for the Cardium Pottery Culture, this culture actually started off in the east and not the west. The oldest sites have been found in Corfu and the Epirus reigon of Greece, followed by some sites in Albania and the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. It would eventually expand into Italy and then the Iberian peninsula. So it is very likely that this V13 sample had paternal roots in the east, which is supported by the presence of L618 in Dalmatia and Hungary.

It's not only based on distribution, but also TMRCA and where basal clades are found. Anyways, this will just be a back and forth, so it's best to just wait for more aDNA.

Keqa
11-29-2019, 03:15 PM
Many Bronze Age sites in northern, eastern and western Europe have already been sampled and not even one V13 has shown up. You’re beating a dead horse there, bud.

Aspar
11-29-2019, 05:24 PM
How come???

If you follow archeogenetic news you would know about the oldest E-V13 up to date is found in Northeastern Spain!
Then, we have the four thousand years old sample from Moldova, which is CTS5856+!

So there are already two samples E-V13+ which are found outside the Balkans and not even one in the Balkans, even though we already have a decent amount of old samples from Greece, Bulgaria and Croatia!

Keqa
11-29-2019, 05:35 PM
How come???

If you follow archeogenetic news you would know about the oldest E-V13 up to date is found in Northeastern Spain!
Then, we have the four thousand years old sample from Moldova, which is CTS5856+!

So there are already two samples E-V13+ which are found outside the Balkans and not even one in the Balkans, even though we already have a decent amount of old samples from Greece, Bulgaria and Croatia!
The Neolithic sample from Spain is assumed to be V13+ based on STRs. I don’t think he was SNP verified as such.


What 4000 years old sample are you talking about?

Aspar
11-29-2019, 05:46 PM
The Neolithic sample from Spain is assumed to be V13+ based on STRs. I don’t think he was SNP verified as such.


What 4000 years old sample are you talking about?

scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE

This sample was first predicted as R1b but it turned out mistake and positive for CTS5856. Furthermore, the dating if right, is EBA and as such it means that this sample isn't a Scythian!

Aspar
11-29-2019, 05:59 PM
Again, there is over representation of Western Europeans on these trees when it comes to E-V13. We will have to see what clade they actually fall under, for all we know they could all be BY6550+ which would actually mean that there is little diversity in the non CTS1273 (CTS5856) and Y30977 (PH1246) clades. I also see the Greek and Italian samples, would like to see what they end up as.

I was meant to type Y30977 and not Y39077, my bad. As for the Cardium Pottery Culture, this culture actually started off in the east and not the west. The oldest sites have been found in Corfu and the Epirus reigon of Greece, followed by some sites in Albania and the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. It would eventually expand into Italy and then the Iberian peninsula. So it is very likely that this V13 sample had paternal roots in the east, which is supported by the presence of L618 in Dalmatia and Hungary.

It's not only based on distribution, but also TMRCA and where basal clades are found. Anyways, this will just be a back and forth, so it's best to just wait for more aDNA.

BY6550+ is not a subclade of E-V13, it's a parallel branch which has nothing to do with E-V13 apart from having a same ancestor.

These guys from Western Europe are E-V13+

Kelmendasi
11-29-2019, 05:59 PM
How come???

If you follow archeogenetic news you would know about the oldest E-V13 up to date is found in Northeastern Spain!
Then, we have the four thousand years old sample from Moldova, which is CTS5856+!

So there are already two samples E-V13+ which are found outside the Balkans and not even one in the Balkans, even though we already have a decent amount of old samples from Greece, Bulgaria and Croatia!
As I stated before, the Spanish sample was from a culture which had origins in the east and expanded from the Balkans into the Italian and Iberian peninsulas. So, it is very likely that he was of Balkan origin.

There is actually the Iron Age Thracian sample from Svilengrad, Bulgaria. The sample was confirmed for Z1919 though I have seen it being classified as V13+ http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis/E-M35/E-M35_ancient_DNA_on_the_YFull_6.01_tree.html. This makes sense given the time period, I highly doubt the sample was just Z1919* (L618- and V13-). But I may be wrong. We don't have a decent amount of Bronze Age or Iron Age Balkan samples, it is in this period that we should expect E-V13 to pop up. I don't think it's fair to compare the Balkans and Western/Eastern Europe when it comes to aDNA.

Kelmendasi
11-29-2019, 06:00 PM
BY6550+ is not a subclade of E-V13, it's a parallel branch which has nothing to do with E-V13 apart from having a same ancestor.

These guys from Western Europe are E-V13+
Don't know where you got that information from, https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6550/

Kelmendasi
11-29-2019, 06:05 PM
scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE

This sample was first predicted as R1b but it turned out mistake and positive for CTS5856. Furthermore, the dating if right, is EBA and as such it means that this sample isn't a Scythian!
The supplementary information from the paper stated that the carbon dating for this sample was incorrect and erroneous. If I recall correctly, the archaeological evidence seemed to suggest that the sample was a "Scythian" though it was closer to Balkan populations in terms of auDNA, so it was probably a Dacian or some other local of the area that was assimilated.

Aspar
11-29-2019, 06:06 PM
My mistake...

But nevertheless, those guys on the Block Tree all have done Big Y, and if they were positive on BY6550 it would have been confirmed. They are not BY6550+ however but only as E-V13+, which means BY6550- and CTS8814-, the two daughter clades of E-V13 on the Block Tree.

Most of the Balkan samples are CTS8814+, CTS5856+ and PH1246+

Kelmendasi
11-29-2019, 06:19 PM
My mistake...

But nevertheless, those guys on the Block Tree all have done Big Y, and if they were positive on BY6550 it would have been confirmed. They are not BY6550+ however but only as E-V13+, which means BY6550- and CTS8814-, the two daughter clades of E-V13 on the Block Tree.

Most of the Balkan samples are CTS8814+, CTS5856+ and PH1246+
We're gonna have to wait for more samples from the Balkans and aDNA from the region. All I can say it that, despite the low representation of Balkan samples, there is already a high level of diversity considering the frequency of both CTS1273 and Y30977 clades. We also shouldn't forget that CTS1273 and Y30977 are still very important when it comes to the origin of V13 and its expansion across Europe. There are also the L618 (V13-) samples in Albania.

Keqa
11-29-2019, 07:13 PM
scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE

This sample was first predicted as R1b but it turned out mistake and positive for CTS5856. Furthermore, the dating if right, is EBA and as such it means that this sample isn't a Scythian!
Yeah he is a Scythian from late Iron Age who autosomally resembles the most Albanians and mainland Greeks (emphasis on mainland). Coincidence? I think not.

Aspar
11-29-2019, 08:26 PM
Making conclusions based on modern populations is wrong.
The Scythians weren't a population from the Balkans, neither the territory of Moldova is considered as such.
Not to mention that the Iron Age samples we have so far from the Balkans, Bulgaria_IA; Empuries2_IA(greek colonists); Croatia_IA aren't at all like the modern Balkan populations.
Croatia_IA is most similar to modern Northern Italians while there is no modern population that resembles the genetic profile of Bulgaria_IA and Empuries2.
The Greeks and the Albanians being similar to iron age Scythian sample means only one thing, they have a north-eastern european dna to some extent.

Keqa
11-29-2019, 08:39 PM
Just keep beating that dead horse. Who knows, he might resurrect.

Kelmendasi
11-29-2019, 08:43 PM
Making conclusions based on modern populations is wrong.
The Scythians weren't a population from the Balkans, neither the territory of Moldova is considered as such.
Not to mention that the Iron Age samples we have so far from the Balkans, Bulgaria_IA; Empuries2_IA(greek colonists); Croatia_IA aren't at all like the modern Balkan populations.
Croatia_IA is most similar to modern Northern Italians while there is no modern population that resembles the genetic profile of Bulgaria_IA and Empuries2.
The Greeks and the Albanians being similar to iron age Scythian sample means only one thing, they have a north-eastern european dna to some extent.
The Scythians definitely weren't a Balkan population, I agree, they were an Iranic speaking group. However, the sample from Glinoe was most similar to modern day Balkan populations when it comes to auDNA. Based on this we can assume that he may have a been a local of the region and thus not an ethnic Scythian.

Saying that those samples "aren't at all like the modern Balkan populations" is an exaggeration. They are very close to modern day Albanians and Greeks, though some are also very close to Greek Islanders and Italians. They were basically like modern day Albanians and Greeks, but without the extra Slavic and East Med (some cases) input.

The E-CTS1273* Scythian wasn't similar to Albanians and Greek because "they have a north-eastern european dna to some extent", it's actually the opposite. This sample was very southern shifted considering where it was from.

Aspar
11-29-2019, 08:59 PM
@Kelmendasi


They were basically like modern day Albanians and Greeks

Now this is a real exaggeration my friend but I wan't really get involved anymore in this conversation as I see some people are very emotional when it comes to this..


The E-CTS1273* Scythian wasn't similar to Albanians and Greek because "they have a north-eastern european dna to some extent", it's actually the opposite. This sample was very southern shifted considering where it was from.

Ok, I understand, it's the other way around, all modern Greeks and Albanians were in Albania and Greece since the BA...

Kelmendasi
11-29-2019, 09:30 PM
@Kelmendasi



Now this is a real exaggeration my friend but I wan't really get involved anymore in this conversation as I see some people are very emotional when it comes to this..



Ok, I understand, it's the other way around, all modern Greeks and Albanians were in Albania and Greece since the BA...
Now you're just twisting things. You missed out this whole section "but without the extra Slavic and East Med (some cases) input."...

Emotional? I have admitted on several occasions that Albanians and Greeks have noticeable Slavic input when it comes to auDNA and Y-DNA, and it is only natural that we would have Slavic input considering the history of the region. It is virtually impossible for a population to remain exactly the same, even the Sardinians have some foreign input iirc.

eastara
11-30-2019, 10:25 AM
Yeah he is a Scythian from late Iron Age who autosomally resembles the most Albanians and mainland Greeks (emphasis on mainland). Coincidence? I think not.

According to Russian sources the assignment of many samples to Scythian population is a mistake:

Let's start with 2 obvious mistakes:
scy192* Glinoe Scythian 2863 - 2503 BCE XX H8c -
scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE XY U5a1a1 R1b1a1a2 YFull (E1b E-CTS1273)
Attribution to Scythians is a clear mistake, apparently, these are the remnants of the previous burial of the late Yamnaya or Catacomb time. According to genetic data, these people have nothing to do with the Scythians, this is a typical pre-Scythian population. It can be assumed that the burial of the Scythian time coincided with the older one, as indicated by radiocarbon dating.
Samples:
scy300* Glinoe Scythian 397 - 209 BCE XX H5b -
scy303* Glinoe Scythian 380 - 203 BCE XX U5a1a2b -
scy305* Glinoe Scythian 399 - 209 CE XY U5a2b R1b1a1a2 YFull (R1b R-Z2106)
are not Scythians, this is clearly the population of the Geto-Thracian circle, having both Balkan-Carpathian ties and related to the Thracian Hallstatt.

rafc
11-30-2019, 10:45 AM
There is actually the Iron Age Thracian sample from Svilengrad, Bulgaria. The sample was confirmed for Z1919 though I have seen it being classified as V13+ http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis/E-M35/E-M35_ancient_DNA_on_the_YFull_6.01_tree.html. This makes sense given the time period, I highly doubt the sample was just Z1919* (L618- and V13-). But I may be wrong. We don't have a decent amount of Bronze Age or Iron Age Balkan samples, it is in this period that we should expect E-V13 to pop up. I don't think it's fair to compare the Balkans and Western/Eastern Europe when it comes to aDNA.

I'm surprised with that V13* classification, as it seems the Thracian is S7465-. I wrote a mail asking for more info on their classification.

rafc
11-30-2019, 10:50 AM
According to Russian sources the assignment of many samples to Scythian population is a mistake:

Let's start with 2 obvious mistakes:
scy192* Glinoe Scythian 2863 - 2503 BCE XX H8c -
scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE XY U5a1a1 R1b1a1a2 YFull (E1b E-CTS1273)
Attribution to Scythians is a clear mistake, apparently, these are the remnants of the previous burial of the late Yamnaya or Catacomb time. According to genetic data, these people have nothing to do with the Scythians, this is a typical pre-Scythian population. It can be assumed that the burial of the Scythian time coincided with the older one, as indicated by radiocarbon dating.
Samples:
scy300* Glinoe Scythian 397 - 209 BCE XX H5b -
scy303* Glinoe Scythian 380 - 203 BCE XX U5a1a2b -
scy305* Glinoe Scythian 399 - 209 CE XY U5a2b R1b1a1a2 YFull (R1b R-Z2106)
are not Scythians, this is clearly the population of the Geto-Thracian circle, having both Balkan-Carpathian ties and related to the Thracian Hallstatt.


If this is true, it would mean a very early CTS5856, possibly associated with Yamnaya or Catacomb. I would be very happy to finally have some V13 adna, but seems too good to be true. Do you have more info on this attribution? I previously understood the carbon dating was wrong, and the first two should have been dated 200-400BCE.

eastara
11-30-2019, 11:53 AM
If this is true, it would mean a very early CTS5856, possibly associated with Yamnaya or Catacomb. I would be very happy to finally have some V13 adna, but seems too good to be true. Do you have more info on this attribution? I previously understood the carbon dating was wrong, and the first two should have been dated 200-400BCE.

Not sure what dating is the latest, this was published on the Russian forum Molgen soon after the publication.

Kelmendasi
11-30-2019, 12:03 PM
scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE XY U5a1a1 R1b1a1a2 YFull (E1b E-CTS1273)
Attribution to Scythians is a clear mistake, apparently, these are the remnants of the previous burial of the late Yamnaya or Catacomb time. According to genetic data, these people have nothing to do with the Scythians, this is a typical pre-Scythian population. It can be assumed that the burial of the Scythian time coincided with the older one, as indicated by radiocarbon dating.
[/I]
Based on auDNA, I don't think that it's likely that scy197 was from the Yamnaya or Catacomb cultures. The sample is far too southern shifted to be a part of those cultures. It makes more sense that there was a problem with the Carbon dating. Despite this, I do think that CTS1273 was picked up by the IE cultures of the western steppe.

Scy197
Distance: 3.6641%
63.4, Anatolia_Barcin_N
33.0, Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.0, WHG
0.6, GEO_CHG

Catacomb (Average)
Distance: 1.9509%
96.8, Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.8, GEO_CHG
0.4, Anatolia_Barcin_N


https://i.postimg.cc/900Nm1M8/image-2.png

rafc
11-30-2019, 01:02 PM
Can you check whether it is close to Cucuteni?

rafc
11-30-2019, 01:05 PM
I took another look at Scy197 after Eastara's comments. Turns out this sample is FGC44169*, it has negatives for at least some equivalents of A9723 and of the the sub S7461 branches (but no coverage on S7461). This might support the older age, but he also might have had a very rare clade.

Kelmendasi
11-30-2019, 01:25 PM
Can you check whether it is close to Cucuteni?
The Cucuteni-Trypillian samples have a high amount of Neolithic Farmer admix and low Steppe input, and so they are still very different from Scy197. The Trypillians also plot closest to Sardinians. Scy197 doesn't resemble any population from the region that I am aware of which lived during the EBA.

Scy197
Distance: 3.6641%
63.4, Anatolia_Barcin_N
33.0, Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.0, WHG
0.6, GEO_CHG

UKR_Trypillia
Distance: 4.5459%
76.8, Anatolia_Barcin_N
15.0, WHG
8.2, Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

https://i.postimg.cc/9MvDP6Q5/image-3.png

rafc
11-30-2019, 01:30 PM
Maybe Scy197 was a mix between Cucuteni and Catacomb/Yamnaya? This was a contact zone afterall. Would make sense that Cucuteni left some genetic footprint behind, so that there could be a population here with lower Anatolia farmer and higher Steppe.

Kelmendasi
11-30-2019, 01:38 PM
Maybe Scy197 was a mix between Cucuteni and Catacomb/Yamnaya? This was a contact zone afterall. Would make sense that Cucuteni left some genetic footprint behind, so that there could be a population here with lower Anatolia farmer and higher Steppe.
It is possible, but Scy197 does seem to plot rather close to samples such as Scy300 and Scy305. Scy300 and Scy305 are considered to have been Dacians.

Scy197
Distance: 3.6641%
63.4, Anatolia_Barcin_N
33.0, Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.0, WHG
0.6, GEO_CHG

Scy300
Distance: 3.4960%
64.2, Anatolia_Barcin_N
33.8, Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.0, WHG

Scy305
Distance: 3.8305%
59.0, Anatolia_Barcin_N
39.8, Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.0, GEO_CHG
0.2, WHG

https://i.postimg.cc/VvwdH22x/image-4.png

rafc
11-30-2019, 02:00 PM
Thanks, that seems to suggest Scy197 is likely a contemporary of these two, and so also a Dacian.

Keqa
11-30-2019, 06:11 PM
According to Russian sources the assignment of many samples to Scythian population is a mistake:

Let's start with 2 obvious mistakes:
scy192* Glinoe Scythian 2863 - 2503 BCE XX H8c -
scy197* Glinoe Scythian 2885 - 2632 BCE XY U5a1a1 R1b1a1a2 YFull (E1b E-CTS1273)
Attribution to Scythians is a clear mistake, apparently, these are the remnants of the previous burial of the late Yamnaya or Catacomb time. According to genetic data, these people have nothing to do with the Scythians, this is a typical pre-Scythian population. It can be assumed that the burial of the Scythian time coincided with the older one, as indicated by radiocarbon dating.
Samples:
scy300* Glinoe Scythian 397 - 209 BCE XX H5b -
scy303* Glinoe Scythian 380 - 203 BCE XX U5a1a2b -
scy305* Glinoe Scythian 399 - 209 CE XY U5a2b R1b1a1a2 YFull (R1b R-Z2106)
are not Scythians, this is clearly the population of the Geto-Thracian circle, having both Balkan-Carpathian ties and related to the Thracian Hallstatt.


SCY197 was confirmed later that he belongs to late Iron Age, 400-200 BC period. But yeah, I agree. He most definitely doesn't look like he was Scythian. Probably a local Thracian from a previous layer or a new recruiter that joined their ranks.

leonardus
01-03-2020, 08:19 PM
SCY197 was confirmed later that he belongs to late Iron Age, 400-200 BC period. But yeah, I agree. He most definitely doesn't look like he was Scythian. Probably a local Thracian from a previous layer or a new recruiter that joined their ranks.
So, to summarize the EV-13 directional migration dispute: this clade moved from western Balkans to the eastern. Tough the path was not a direct one, but with detours in the south. Whose for that ? I'm one.

Kelmendasi
01-03-2020, 08:35 PM
So, to summarize the EV-13 directional migration dispute: this clade moved from western Balkans to the eastern. Tough the path was not a direct one, but with detours in the south. Whose for that ? I'm one.
It seems that E-V13 itself originated in the western Balkans, however this isn't certain. We can assume though that certain clades under V13 did move east, such a clade is CTS1273. The TMRCA of CTS1273 (~4,500 ybp) and its distribution suggests an expansion during the Bronze Age with IE speakers. Suggesting that CTS1273 was picked up somewhere around Eastern Europe.

I too believe that the migration paths weren't direct, there most certainly was detours and back migrations with certain clades.

leonardus
01-04-2020, 06:36 PM
It seems that E-V13 itself originated in the western Balkans, however this isn't certain. We can assume though that certain clades under V13 did move east, such a clade is CTS1273. The TMRCA of CTS1273 (~4,500 ybp) and its distribution suggests an expansion during the Bronze Age with IE speakers. Suggesting that CTS1273 was picked up somewhere around Eastern Europe.

I too believe that the migration paths weren't direct, there most certainly was detours and back migrations with certain clades.
Looking at https://phylogeographer.com/mygrations/, input E haplogroup and refining the migrations only for EV-13 it shows the starting point somewhere central Europe, not west Balkans, tough.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-04-2020, 07:32 PM
Barcin is rather irrelevant. They're not ancestral to European farmers. European farmers came from Greece, via West Central Anatolia.

Kelmendasi
01-04-2020, 08:14 PM
Looking at https://phylogeographer.com/mygrations/, input E haplogroup and refining the migrations only for EV-13 it shows the starting point somewhere central Europe, not west Balkans, tough.
Phylogeographer uses Yfull samples as references, western and central Europeans are overrepresented on Yfull. As a result, those migrations aren't 100% accurate. Though there is a chance that E-V13, or certain clades under V13, did originate/expand out of central Europe.

The oldest V13+ sample discovered so far was from Catalonia and belonged to the Neolithic Cardium Pottery Culture, this culture expanded into the Iberian and Italian peninsulas from the east, most probably from the western Balkans based on archaeological evidence. The connection between V13 and the Cardium Pottery Culture is also supported by the fact that E-L618 was found in an older sample belonging to the same culture from Dalmatia. V13 itself is also pretty diverse in the western Balkans.

Bane
01-04-2020, 08:39 PM
The connection between V13 and the Cardium Pottery Culture is also supported by the fact that E-L618 was found in an older sample belonging to the same culture from Dalmatia.


I'd say that the recent paper with ancient DNA from Italy makes Cardium Pottery culture theory disputable. Namely, this paper implies that E-V13 came to what is today Italy quite late. The way Cardium Pottery culture is described requires much earlier connection between all three peninsulas in Southern Europe (Iberian, Apennine and Balkan).

I haven't seen anyone trying to explain this issue. And frankly, until I read a good explanation I will stick to my belief that E-V13 did not spread from the Balkans but from some region North of it.

Kelmendasi
01-04-2020, 09:20 PM
I'd say that the recent paper with ancient DNA from Italy makes Cardium Pottery culture theory disputable. Namely, this paper implies that E-V13 came to what is today Italy quite late. The way Cardium Pottery culture is described requires much earlier connection between all three peninsulas in Southern Europe (Iberian, Apennine and Balkan).

I haven't seen anyone trying to explain this issue. And frankly, until I read a good explanation I will stick to my belief that E-V13 did not spread from the Balkans but from some region North of it.
Not really considering that a V13+ sample from the Cardium Pottery Culture has already been discovered, confirming that the haplogroup was present in the culture. There is also the L618 sample from Dalmatia that I mentioned. The earliest Cardium Pottery Culture sites in Italy seem to have been found in Southern Italy and date back to ~6,000 BCE, for comparison the earliest sites discovered were dated back to 6,400-6,200 BCE and were found in Greece (Epirus and Corfu). There were also some sites found in Iberia that dated back to 5,500 BCE, the V13 sample dates back to ~4,981 BCE.

Also when it comes to aDNA, we have yet to find any V13+ or L618+ samples from Neolithic central or western Europe, and there are plenty of Neolithic samples from those regions. The only samples you could include are the E-L618 from Neolithic Hungary (Lengyel Culture) and E-V13 from Neolithic Spain (Cardium Pottery Culture). Though Hungary is pretty close to the Balkans and the Spanish sample likely has origin from the east.

I too believe that for the most part V13 did spread from north of the Balkans, likely from eastern Europe during the Bronze Age. However, when it comes to place of origin, that doesn't seem all that likely to me. Though it wouldn't surprise me all that much if V13 did indeed originate north of the Balkans given the limited data, I guess we need to wait for more aDNA.

Keqa
01-06-2020, 03:22 PM
I too believe that for the most part V13 did spread from north of the Balkans, likely from eastern Europe during the Bronze Age. However, when it comes to place of origin, that doesn't seem all that likely to me. Though it wouldn't surprise me all that much if V13 did indeed originate north of the Balkans given the limited data, I guess we need to wait for more aDNA.
It didn’t spread from the regions north of the Balkans or from Eastern Europe. We have many sample from different time periods coming from Hungary and Eastern Europe and not even one V13 so far. Most likely scenario here is that it expanded from the western Balkans (including western Bulgaria and Macedonia) during the Roman Empire through the Illyrian and Thracian legions.

leonardus
01-06-2020, 05:00 PM
Barcin is rather irrelevant. They're not ancestral to European farmers. European farmers came from Greece, via West Central Anatolia.
The only way to do this is by the sea route. Otherways european farmers came from Bulgaria and Romania, which is more plausible.

leonardus
01-06-2020, 05:04 PM
I too believe that for the most part V13 did spread from north of the Balkans, likely from eastern Europe during the Bronze Age. However, when it comes to place of origin, that doesn't seem all that likely to me. Though it wouldn't surprise me all that much if V13 did indeed originate north of the Balkans given the limited data, I guess we need to wait for more aDNA.
Eastern Europe is west Rusia, pal !

leonardus
01-06-2020, 05:08 PM
It didn’t spread from the regions north of the Balkans or from Eastern Europe. We have many sample from different time periods coming from Hungary and Eastern Europe and not even one V13 so far. Most likely scenario here is that it expanded from the western Balkans (including western Bulgaria and Macedonia) during the Roman Empire through the Illyrian and Thracian legions.
Personally I don't think so. Roman empire it's just too late to be considered.

ADW_1981
01-06-2020, 05:47 PM
R1b is the only one linked to a Bronze Age spread in northern Europe (west-central), and to some extent I1 (more north-central). It could be that modern E-V13 refluxed post Neolithic and Bronze collapse in the southern Balkans. Due to the paucity of E-V13 and J2b in modern west-central Europeans, it played a minor role during the Bronze Age spread west, probably because they are not the same group of people, but one absorbed the other in the periphery of the culture. I'm not sure why this is becoming such a "me too, me too", more so than the "me too" movement.

Keqa
01-06-2020, 06:14 PM
Personally I don't think so. Roman empire it's just too late to be considered.

When we get a Bronze Age or an Iron Age V13 example from those regions come and talk to me.

leonardus
01-06-2020, 07:02 PM
When we get a Bronze Age or an Iron Age V13 example from those regions come and talk to me.
We have a lot of pre Bronze Age, so what's we are talking about ?

Kelmendasi
01-06-2020, 07:04 PM
We have a lot of pre Bronze Age, so what's we are talking about ?
There's only 1 pre-Bronze Age E-V13 sample, and that was from Neolithic Spain.

leonardus
01-06-2020, 07:14 PM
. It could be that modern E-V13 refluxed post Neolithic and Bronze collapse in the southern Balkans. Due to the paucity of E-V13 and J2b in modern west-central Europeans, it played a minor role during the Bronze Age spread west, probably because they are not the same group of people, but one absorbed the other in the periphery of the culture. I'm not sure why this is becoming such a "me too, me too", more so than the "me too" movement.
Interesting and fairly correct statement, but I can't figure out who's you're talking about ''because they are not the same group of people''. And the last phrase is totally unknown to me, a newbie of the english language.

Keqa
01-06-2020, 10:34 PM
We have a lot of pre Bronze Age, so what's we are talking about ?

From where, what are you on about?

Chad Rohlfsen
01-07-2020, 01:28 AM
They did sail from Western Anatolia to Greece.

leonardus
01-07-2020, 11:34 AM
It didn’t spread from the regions north of the Balkans or from Eastern Europe. We have many sample from different time periods coming from Hungary and Eastern Europe and not even one V13 so far. Most likely scenario here is that it expanded from the western Balkans (including western Bulgaria and Macedonia) during the Roman Empire through the Illyrian and Thracian legions.
So, what's so special with those roman balkan auxiliaries vs. the others auxiliaries ? With your reasoning we must have other similar hg spreadings, but that's not the case.

SakaDo
01-07-2020, 03:11 PM
leonardus
And this is what really happened, since the Greeks are late infiltrators of their lands today in the testimonies of Herodotus, Strabo, Euripides, Pliny the Elder, Aeschylus...

leonardus
01-07-2020, 07:10 PM
leonardus
And this is what really happened, since the Greeks are late infiltrators of their lands today in the testimonies of Herodotus, Strabo, Euripides, Pliny the Elder, Aeschylus...
This demonstrate almost nothing.

rafc
01-08-2020, 11:22 AM
So, what's so special with those roman balkan auxiliaries vs. the others auxiliaries ? With your reasoning we must have other similar hg spreadings, but that's not the case.

I think you are mistaken here. Today there are a lot of Haplogroups present in NW-Europe that are never or very rarely found in the Bronze age and are not typical for the Balkans either. They will mostly be the result of Roman troops from places like North-Africa, Syria and other middle-eastern regions, parts of Spain and Italy. Think of groups like E-M35 apart of V13, J2 apart of L283 and J1. On the other hand auxiliaries from within NW-Europe will offcourse not stand out from local haplogroups and go mostly undetected. I think this effect is generally underestimated.

But even accounting for that there is a good reason why Balkan auxiliaries would still stand out. As you can check in literature the Balkan was the main source for these units, and by the second century AD they were also the main source for the Legions themselves. The Balkans were simply a good recruiting ground. Even in the early days of the Byzantine empire the troops used for border defense and deployed for the reconquest of Italy were mainly from the Balkans.

Trojet
01-08-2020, 12:34 PM
Yeah, many of V13 subclades that are found across Europe (such as CTS9320, L241, FGC11457, etc) are far too young to have dispersed there with Indo Europeans. They were already established in Central and Western Europe by 2000 BC, and the TMRCA of these subclades is less than that. More importantly, ancient DNA tells us the same thing (no V13 in Bronze Age Central and Western Europe). So I would agree that most V13 in these places only migrated there during the last 2500 year and mainly via the Balkans (Roman legions, Visigoth pick ups, perhaps some were picked up by the expanding Celts, etc).

Due to the lack of BA V13 aDNA, the harder question of course is where did V13 itself started expanding from. Currently I would lean towards NC Balkans (around the Danube).

Johnny ola
01-08-2020, 12:57 PM
Yeah, many of V13 subclades that are found across Europe (such as CTS9320, L241, FGC11457, etc) are far too young to have dispersed there with Indo Europeans. They were already established in Central and Western Europe by 2000 BC, and the TMRCA of these subclades is less than that. More importantly, ancient DNA tells us the same thing (no V13 in Bronze Age Central and Western Europe). So I would agree that most V13 in these places only migrated there during the last 2500 year and mainly via the Balkans (Roman legions, Visigoth pick ups, perhaps some were picked up by the expanding Celts, etc).

Due to the lack of BA V13 aDNA, the harder question of course is where did V13 itself started expanding from. Currently I would lean towards NC Balkans (around the Danube).

Vlachs probably played an important role for modern EV13 among Greeks and Albanians thought even if some subclades in Greece are probably of arvanite roots.It is obvious that EV13 in Greece spread by balkanic people(vlachs,aromanians,arvanites,slavobalkaners etc).That’s why Crete and Islands are not frenquent in EV13 and some people with such lineage have mainland background.

Trojet
01-08-2020, 01:26 PM
Vlachs probably played an important role for modern EV13 among Greeks and Albanians thought even if some subclades in Greece are probably of arvanite roots.It is obvious that EV13 in Greece spread by balkanic people(vlachs,aromanians,arvanites,slavobalkaners etc).That’s why Crete and Islands are not frenquent in EV13 and some people with such lineage have mainland background.

Some V13 in Greece is certainly of Arvanite origin. This can nicely be observed in subclades with TMRCAs of less than 2000 years that are most characteristic among Albanians and also found in Greece. Such examples are: E-FGC11450>Y146086, E-FGC11450>Y173822, E-Z38456>BY4461, E-Y84585. We don't have evidence that Vlachs contributed much V13 in Albanians, however. I think they played this role more in south Slavic nations.

But I do agree that a good part of V13 in Greece can be attributed to more recent migrations from further north, like Albanians, Vlachs/Aromanians, and other Balkanic people.

leonardus
01-08-2020, 03:00 PM
But even accounting for that there is a good reason why Balkan auxiliaries would still stand out. As you can check in literature the Balkan was the main source for these units, and by the second century AD they were also the main source for the Legions themselves. The Balkans were simply a good recruiting ground. Even in the early days of the Byzantine empire the troops used for border defense and deployed for the reconquest of Italy were mainly from the Balkans.
The official foundation of auxiliary system was 30BC. Till that romans only used cavalry (and cretan and syrian archers) as a support role, and from only a few geographic zones: Numidia and Gaul. No balkan auxiliaries before 30BC. So, you're quite wrong.

leonardus
01-08-2020, 03:01 PM
Yeah, many of V13 subclades that are found across Europe (such as CTS9320, L241, FGC11457, etc) are far too young to have dispersed there with Indo Europeans. Currently I would lean towards NC Balkans (around the Danube).
I agree with both, but not with roman army auxiliaries spreading theory

leonardus
01-08-2020, 03:08 PM
Vlachs probably played an important role for modern EV13 among Greeks and Albanians thought even if some subclades in Greece are probably of arvanite roots.It is obvious that EV13 in Greece spread by balkanic people(vlachs,aromanians,arvanites,slavobalkaners etc).That’s why Crete and Islands are not frenquent in EV13 and some people with such lineage have mainland background.
Vlach migrations are just too late to be the source of V-13 spreading

rafc
01-08-2020, 03:12 PM
The official foundation of auxiliary system was 30BC. Till that romans only used cavalry (and cretan and syrian archers) as a support role, and from only a few geographic zones: Numidia and Gaul. No balkan auxiliaries before 30BC. So, you're quite wrong.

How does anything you write here contradict what I said above?

Keqa
01-08-2020, 03:58 PM
So, what's so special with those roman balkan auxiliaries vs. the others auxiliaries ? With your reasoning we must have other similar hg spreadings, but that's not the case.

Do you read much history? They were crucial part of the Roman legions and even came to dominate the empire eventually, especially the Illyrian corpus. Diocletian, Constantine, Justianian etc. all became powerful emperors through the legions.

Anyway, I am not saying all of V13 was spread by these legions but I think they played a major role. Some odd subclades like L17 for example could have made their way into Central and Western Europe independently much earlier.

leonardus
01-08-2020, 04:51 PM
How does anything you write here contradict what I said above?
The EV-13 subclades, such as CTS9320, L241, FGC11457, etc, are older than 30BC. Much older.

Kelmendasi
01-08-2020, 05:54 PM
Vlach migrations are just too late to be the source of V-13 spreading
He was only referring to Greek and Albanian E-V13, not E-V13 as a whole. Greek V13, for the most part, does seem to be a result of migrations from the north during various points in time. Based on clades present in Greece it seems as if the Albanian/Arvanite and Vlach/Aromanian migrations during the Medieval did have a major impact. Trojet listed some of the subclades that can be confidently linked to the Albanian migrations.

As for Albanian E-V13, there isn't that much evidence to suggest that Vlach populations had much influence. Some clades may be linked to Vlachs, but most don't seem to be.

Johane Derite
01-08-2020, 06:43 PM
If we look at Z5018 (3900 Tmrca) and S2979 (3700 Tmrca) specifically we can see that it is spreadout through both north and south albanians:

http://www.gjenetika.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/E-Z5018.png



EV13 does seem to have a more hinterland spread though. Bulgarians and Macedonia has some more diverse clades right? So most likely these were Paeonian, Dardanian, Mysian lines?

Johnny ola
01-08-2020, 09:09 PM
He was only referring to Greek and Albanian E-V13, not E-V13 as a whole. Greek V13, for the most part, does seem to be a result of migrations from the north during various points in time. Based on clades present in Greece it seems as if the Albanian/Arvanite and Vlach/Aromanian migrations during the Medieval did have a major impact. Trojet listed some of the subclades that can be confidently linked to the Albanian migrations.

As for Albanian E-V13, there isn't that much evidence to suggest that Vlach populations had much influence. Some clades may be linked to Vlachs, but most don't seem to be.

I agree. I mention Vlachs because in Macedonia(Greece) we have some folks calling themselves arvanitovalchs/αρβανιτοβλαχοι.And they talk a mixed dialect between vlacho-albanian.I have no clue how that happened...!!!

Most vlachs in Thessaly are aromanians thought and they talk latin dialects.

leonardus
01-09-2020, 11:32 AM
Do you read much history? They were crucial part of the Roman legions and even came to dominate the empire eventually, especially the Illyrian corpus. Diocletian, Constantine, Justianian etc. all became powerful emperors through the legions.

Anyway, I am not saying all of V13 was spread by these legions but I think they played a major role. Some odd subclades like L17 for example could have made their way into Central and Western Europe independently much earlier.

Do you pay attention on what I said before ? There were not (balkan)auxiliaries before 30BC. TMRCA of those E-V13 subclades are MUCH OLDER !!!!!!!!!!!!

Kelmendasi
01-09-2020, 11:49 AM
I agree. I mention Vlachs because in Macedonia(Greece) we have some folks calling themselves arvanitovalchs/αρβανιτοβλαχοι.And they talk a mixed dialect between vlacho-albanian.I have no clue how that happened...!!!

Most vlachs in Thessaly are aromanians thought and they talk latin dialects.
I believe they are the descendants of the Aromanians that migrated from Southern Albania into Greece alongside the Albanians/Arvanites during the 14th Century. This should explain why they call themselves Arvantinovlachs and why their dialect is influenced by Albanian. Or, they could just be Aromanians that migrated from Albania more recently, for example there are some Aromanians from Macedonia that originate from Voskopoje (Moscopole in Aromanian).

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NvR3jODOByQ/WPcDq_sZoLI/AAAAAAAY6NI/WtnDwQuIs4sxFmE1n14hXDfGD4dYzUvwgCLcB/s1600/tromaktiko17594.jpg

Kelmendasi
01-09-2020, 11:53 AM
Do you pay attention on what I said before ? There were not (balkan)auxiliaries before 30BC. TMRCA of those E-V13 subclades are MUCH OLDER !!!!!!!!!!!!
Could you provide examples of subclades found in Western and Central Europe that are too old for a Balkan origin? Bare in mind that these samples aren't L241*, CTS9320* etc, they belong to more recent subclades of those groups.

Trojet
01-09-2020, 12:30 PM
Could you provide examples of subclades found in Western and Central Europe that are too old for a Balkan origin? Bare in mind that these samples aren't L241*, CTS9320* etc, they belong to more recent subclades of those groups.

Even if they are L241* CTS9320*, we can assume they were not in Western Europe during the Bronze Age, unless someone thinks these subclades originated in Western Europe lol, so they migrated there later.

I'm not sure what is up with this guy, but to me it seems like some trolling...

Trojet
01-09-2020, 12:42 PM
EV13 does seem to have a more hinterland spread though. Bulgarians and Macedonia has some more diverse clades right? So most likely these were Paeonian, Dardanian, Mysian lines?

Yes, my impression is that V13 does have more of a central Balkan distribution, as compared to for example L283 which seems more western.

This can be seen in certain subclades with TMRCAs of ~3000 ybp which can be found in both western and central Balkans. Such examples are: E-FGC33614 (which contains Berisha-Sopi), E-CTS9320, E-L241, E-FGC11450. Whereas L283 subclades found in the western Balkans (J-Z38240, J-Y21045, J-Y23094) usually appear more in Italy, albeit with some representation in the central Balkans. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that some subclades of V13 can be clearly linked to the Illyrians, but this would suggest the above-mentioned ancient tribes might've been predominantly V13.

Johane Derite
01-09-2020, 01:00 PM
Yes, my impression is that V13 does have more of a central Balkan distribution, as compared to for example L283 which seems more western.

This can be seen in certain subclades with TMRCAs of ~3000 ybp which can be found in both western and central Balkans. Such examples are: E-FGC33614 (which contains Berisha-Sopi), E-CTS9320, E-L241, E-FGC11450. Whereas L283 subclades found in the western Balkans (J-Z38240, J-Y21045, J-Y23094) usually appear more in Italy, albeit with some representation in the central Balkans. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that some subclades of V13 can be clearly linked to the Illyrians, but this would suggest the above-mentioned ancient tribes might've been predominantly V13.

Yes it seems this is the case. I hope to see more public results from other balkan projects so we can map out ev13 a bit clearer.

leonardus
01-09-2020, 02:16 PM
Even if they are L241* CTS9320*, we can assume they were not in Western Europe during the Bronze Age, unless someone thinks these subclades originated in Western Europe lol, so they migrated there later.

I'm not sure what is up with this guy, but to me it seems like some trolling...
And I'm not sure what is up with this albanian 'party' replying one after another with same logic and preconceptions ? Seems like ruining all threads by some obscured opinion....

leonardus
01-09-2020, 02:49 PM
Could you provide examples of subclades found in Western and Central Europe that are too old for a Balkan origin? Bare in mind that these samples aren't L241*, CTS9320* etc, they belong to more recent subclades of those groups.

Let's take an example: the sample of Litovóď (Central Macedonia) and the sample from Sencelles, Mallorca are E-BY4914 and are 2800 ybp or around 800 BC. So, how the roman auxiliaries had spilled the E haplo in the Balkan when auxiliaries were taken into account only after 30BC ? I talk/interestesd about the EV-13 basal spreading in the Balkans, not the millenial younger subclades

leonardus
01-09-2020, 02:55 PM
Do you read much history? They were crucial part of the Roman legions and even came to dominate the empire eventually, especially the Illyrian corpus. Diocletian, Constantine, Justianian etc. all became powerful emperors through the legions.

Anyway, I am not saying all of V13 was spread by these legions but I think they played a major role. Some odd subclades like L17 for example could have made their way into Central and Western Europe independently much earlier.
Off course, me too I think romans could spread by auxiliaries the E subclades into Europe, but that's not what I'm interested for. My interest is exactly what you're said, the earlier subclades , the EV-13 basal ones, which can offer a picture on how the EV-13 spilled throw Europe from origin.

Kelmendasi
01-09-2020, 04:00 PM
Let's take an example: the sample of Litovóď (Central Macedonia) and the sample from Sencelles, Mallorca are E-BY4914 and are 2800 ybp or around 800 BC. So, how the roman auxiliaries had spilled the E haplo in the Balkan when auxiliaries were taken into account only after 30BC ? I talk/interestesd about the EV-13 basal spreading in the Balkans, not the millenial younger subclades
The BY4914* sample from Macedonia (Greece) seems to be of Bulgarian origin from Plovdiv. Just because they share a common ancestor ~2,800 years ago doesn't mean that this haplotype migrated west during that time frame. These Spanish BY4914>Y33577 samples all share a recent TMRCA of ~125ybp which suggest that they all come from the same (or related) family and that this clade "re-emerged" pretty recently, doesn't necessarily seem to be an old haplogroup of the region. Though we need more sample that are BY4914 to clear this up.

Still, it is being argued that the majority of the E-V13 in Western and Central Europe is a result of Balkan legions/auxiliaries stationed in those regions of Europe during Roman occupation. This is precisely because of the fact that most belong to recent clusters whose parent clades seem to have originated in the Balkans. Keqa even stated that the basal or rarer clades found in those regions could be a result of earlier migrations, and not Roman occupation.

leonardus
01-09-2020, 05:07 PM
The BY4914* sample from Macedonia (Greece) seems to be of Bulgarian origin from Plovdiv. Just because they share a common ancestor ~2,800 years ago doesn't mean that this haplotype migrated west during that time frame. These Spanish BY4914>Y33577 samples all share a recent TMRCA of ~125ybp which suggest that they all come from the same (or related) family and that this clade "re-emerged" pretty recently, doesn't necessarily seem to be an old haplogroup of the region. Though we need more sample that are BY4914 to clear this up.

Still, it is being argued that the majority of the E-V13 in Western and Central Europe is a result of Balkan legions/auxiliaries stationed in those regions of Europe during Roman occupation. This is precisely because of the fact that most belong to recent clusters whose parent clades seem to have originated in the Balkans. Keqa even stated that the basal or rarer clades found in those regions could be a result of earlier migrations, and not Roman occupation.

Finally, I realize what those peoples talking. Seems you cleared the picture. We're into a confusion. They are talking about the faaaaar late spreading of the E-V13 into central and western Europe via roman army (younger clades), which I highly believe too, and I'm talking about how the basal EV-13 has spread across balkans (much much old clades). Thanks. Probably it's our non-native english language problem.

Kelmendasi
01-09-2020, 05:30 PM
Finally, I realize what those peoples talking. Seems you cleared the picture. We're into a confusion. They are talking about the faaaaar late spreading of the E-V13 into central and western Europe via roman army (younger clades), which I highly believe too, and I'm talking about how the basal EV-13 has spread across balkans (much much old clades). Thanks. Probably it's our non-native english language problem.
Yeah, there seems to have been a misunderstanding in regards to the matter.

Keqa
01-09-2020, 06:14 PM
Do you pay attention on what I said before ? There were not (balkan)auxiliaries before 30BC. TMRCA of those E-V13 subclades are MUCH OLDER !!!!!!!!!!!!

You obviously are a novice at this and don’t really understand it well. TMRCA only represents the time of most recent common ancestor, not the time of migration.

leonardus
01-10-2020, 10:24 AM
You obviously are a novice at this and don’t really understand it well. TMRCA only represents the time of most recent common ancestor, not the time of migration.
Not so pro like many here, agreed. But obviously with some unorthodox angle of view. And I talk about ancient sample DNA and ,MOSTLY the FORMED age of the subclades, which are a good indicator of migrations. Anyway, thank you and please suggest some basic materials to understand better the concepts presented here.

Hawk
01-27-2020, 06:14 AM
Vlachs have more J2 and R1b than E-V13 between. People here are talking as if they were 100% E-V13. There is more probability that they acquired more percentage of their E-V13 by moving deeper in the Balkans than contributing to it considering that Romanians/Moldavians don't exceed 15% of E-V13.

Pribislav
01-27-2020, 11:44 AM
~30% of ancient Roman samples (0-400 AD) from Viminacium , and ~25% of Roman/Early Medieval samples (300-700 AD) from Timacum Minus are E-V13.

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


Viminacium or Viminatium was a major city (provincial capital) and military camp of the Roman province of Moesia (today's Serbia), and the capital of Moesia Superior.

The site is located 12 km (7.5 mi) from the modern town of Kostolac in Eastern Serbia. The city dates back to the 1st century AD, and at its peak it is believed to have had 40,000 inhabitants, making it one of the biggest cities of that time. It lies on the Roman road Via Militaris. Viminacium was devastated by Huns in the 5th century, but was later rebuilt by Justinian. It was completely destroyed with the arrival of Slavs in the 6th century.

Viminacium holds a distinction of having the largest number of graves discovered in any Roman archaeological site. As of 2018, 15,000 graves have been discovered.

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

Trojet
01-27-2020, 12:44 PM
~30% of ancient Roman samples (0-400 AD) from Viminacium , and ~25% of Roman/Early Medieval samples (300-700 AD) from Timacum Minus are E-V13.

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



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

Interesting. How do you know this, is this from an upcoming aDNA study or something like that?

Hawk
01-27-2020, 01:52 PM
Interesting. How do you know this, is this from an upcoming aDNA study or something like that?

Nowhere to be found officially.

Pribislav
01-27-2020, 02:55 PM
Interesting. How do you know this, is this from an upcoming aDNA study or something like that?

Yes, it's from an upcoming aDNA paper by Reich's team. Since most, if not all sequencing and subsequent analyses are done (autosomal, Y-DNA, mtDNA), I hope we'll see the paper published this year. As per usual, they didn't bother much with Y chromosome, so we'll have to wait BAM files to discover deeper subclades. There are also J2b2a-L283 and R1b-Z2103>CTS1450 samples from Timacum Minus, dated 300-500 AD.

Bane
01-27-2020, 03:01 PM
Yes, it's from an upcoming aDNA paper by Reich's team. Since most, if not all sequencing and subsequent analyses are done (autosomal, Y-DNA, mtDNA), I hope we'll see the paper published this year. As per usual, they didn't bother much with Y chromosome, so we'll have to wait BAM files to discover deeper subclades. There are also J2b2a-L283 and R1b-Z2103>CTS1450 samples from Timacum Minus, dated 300-500 AD.

Very interesting!
Could you tell us about the total number of sequenced aDNA samples?

Pribislav
01-27-2020, 03:25 PM
Very interesting!
Could you tell us about the total number of sequenced aDNA samples?

I see 75 samples, one of which is previously published Hun/Gepid sample Vim2b from Viminacium, so 74 new samples. Of those, 52 are from Viminacium (four necropoli: Pirivoj (100-400 AD) - 19; Rit (0-300 AD) - 13; Više Grobalja (0-300 AD) - 10 and Pećine (0-300 AD) - 10) and 17 from Timacum Minus (two necropoli: Slog (300-500 AD) - 11 and Kuline (400-700 AD) - 6). There are also 1 Roman and 1 Late Medieval sample from Lepenski Vir, 2 Gepid samples (300-500 AD) from Mediana (near Niš/Naisos) and 1 Medieval (850-950 AD) sample from Gomolava (this one belongs to I2-Din, so he's most likely Slavic).

36045

Keqa
01-27-2020, 03:39 PM
Yes, it's from an upcoming aDNA paper by Reich's team. Since most, if not all sequencing and subsequent analyses are done (autosomal, Y-DNA, mtDNA), I hope we'll see the paper published this year. As per usual, they didn't bother much with Y chromosome, so we'll have to wait BAM files to discover deeper subclades. There are also J2b2a-L283 and R1b-Z2103>CTS1450 samples from Timacum Minus, dated 300-500 AD.

Dang! This is the type of news I have been waiting for ;)

Kelmendasi
01-27-2020, 03:43 PM
~30% of ancient Roman samples (0-400 AD) from Viminacium , and ~25% of Roman/Early Medieval samples (300-700 AD) from Timacum Minus are E-V13.

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



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timacum_Minus
Interesting, so we can say for sure that E-V13 was found in pretty high frequencies in the Balkans (Central Balkans at least) during the Roman period and Early Medieval. Some info in regards to Viminacium https://www.academia.edu/2274871/Territory_of_Roman_Viminacium_From_Celtic_to_Slavi c_Tribes. From what I gathered, a number of the inhabitants originally came from other Balkan provinces such as Dalmatia, Pannonia, Thrace and Macedonia. Some even came from the Asian provinces such as Pontus and Syria. Most seem to have been Latin speaking locals.

Trojet
01-27-2020, 04:02 PM
Yes, it's from an upcoming aDNA paper by Reich's team. Since most, if not all sequencing and subsequent analyses are done (autosomal, Y-DNA, mtDNA), I hope we'll see the paper published this year. As per usual, they didn't bother much with Y chromosome, so we'll have to wait BAM files to discover deeper subclades. There are also J2b2a-L283 and R1b-Z2103>CTS1450 samples from Timacum Minus, dated 300-500 AD.

What about any Bronze to Iron Age samples? :)

Pribislav
01-27-2020, 04:20 PM
What about any Bronze to Iron Age samples? :)

I wish they've sequenced those also, but I'm not aware there will be Bronze and/or Iron Age samples featured in this paper.

SakaDo
01-27-2020, 05:09 PM
Interesting, so we can say for sure that E-V13 was found in pretty high frequencies in the Balkans (Central Balkans at least) during the Roman period and Early Medieval. Some info in regards to Viminacium https://www.academia.edu/2274871/Territory_of_Roman_Viminacium_From_Celtic_to_Slavi c_Tribes. From what I gathered, a number of the inhabitants originally came from other Balkan provinces such as Dalmatia, Pannonia, Thrace and Macedonia. Some even came from the Asian provinces such as Pontus and Syria. Most seem to have been Latin speaking locals.

It is evident even today that the local population never was
Latinized except for the very late violent Latinization in Romania.
Urfila translated holy Scripture for the Goths/Getae, they had
the right to profess their faith in their language.

“Accordingly he took the greatest care of them in many ways, and amongst others, he reduced their language to a written form, and translated into their vulgar tongue all the books of holy Scripture, with the exception of the Books of Kings.“
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philostorgius.htm
“There were other Goths also, called the Lesser, a great people whose priest and primate was Vulfila, who is said to have taught them to write. And to-day they are in Moesia, inhabiting the Nicopolitan region as far as the base of Mount Haemus” – Jord.(267)

Even nobles like Maximinus Thrakiec also known as Maximinus I, Roman Emperor from 235 to 238
whose father was a Goth spoke Latin badly :“This youth, half barbarian and scarcely yet master
of the Latin tongue, speaking almost pure Thracian…” – Hist. Aug. 2.5.

Justinian politics is a continuation of what is rightly given to the local population including their own Archbishopric /Archbishopric of Justiniana Prima and all Bulgaria.

Kelmendasi
01-27-2020, 05:43 PM
It is evident even today that the local population never was
Latinized except for the very late violent Latinization in Romania.
Urfila translated holy Scripture for the Goths/Getae, they had
the right to profess their faith in their language.

“Accordingly he took the greatest care of them in many ways, and amongst others, he reduced their language to a written form, and translated into their vulgar tongue all the books of holy Scripture, with the exception of the Books of Kings.“
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philostorgius.htm
“There were other Goths also, called the Lesser, a great people whose priest and primate was Vulfila, who is said to have taught them to write. And to-day they are in Moesia, inhabiting the Nicopolitan region as far as the base of Mount Haemus” – Jord.(267)

Even nobles like Maximinus Thrakiec also known as Maximinus I, Roman Emperor from 235 to 238
whose father was a Goth spoke Latin badly :“This youth, half barbarian and scarcely yet master
of the Latin tongue, speaking almost pure Thracian…” – Hist. Aug. 2.5.

Justinian politics is a continuation of what is rightly given to the local population including their own Archbishopric /Archbishopric of Justiniana Prima and all Bulgaria.
What do you mean by "it is evident even today"? The reason why the majority of the Balkans isn't speaking a Latin derived language today is due to the migrations that happened during the Medieval period, especially the Slavic migrations. Anyways, certain groups such as the Aromanians are still around. It's pretty clear that the populations living in cities and towns during the Roman period were Latin speaking for the most part.

SakaDo
01-27-2020, 05:53 PM
What do you mean by "it is evident even today"? The reason why the majority of the Balkans isn't speaking a Latin derived language today is due to the migrations that happened during the Medieval period, especially the Slavic migrations. Anyways, certain groups such as the Aromanians are still around. It's pretty clear that the populations living in cities and towns during the Roman period were Latin speaking for the most part.

Migration like Albanian like?!
If you think someone spoke Latin here before Romans to conquer these lands or after you must fire whole the historians and school teachers in your country. But that's not unexpected. When exactly your country was formed and on which land?!
What do you think "empire" means?! May be you should check that first...

Kelmendasi
01-27-2020, 06:00 PM
Migration like Albanian like?!
If you think someone spoke Latin here before Romans to conquer these lands or after you must fire whole the historians and school teachers in your country. But that's not unexpected. When exactly your country was formed and on which land?!
What do you think "empire" means?! May be you should check that first...
Honestly, I'm not too sure what you're on about.. Who mentioned Pre-Roman Latin speakers? I'd suggest re-reading my post with a bit more attention. I didn't attend school in Albania by the way, nor did I attend school in any other Balkan country.

Judging from your previous posts, I guess you're one of those South Slavs who believes in South Slavic autochthony in the Balkans, something that has been debunked.

SakaDo
01-27-2020, 06:11 PM
Honestly, I'm not too sure what you're on about.. Who mentioned Pre-Roman Latin speakers? I'd suggest re-reading my post with a bit more attention. I didn't attend school in Albania by the way, nor did I attend school in any other Balkan country.

Judging from your previous posts, I guess you're one of those South Slavs who believes in South Slavic autochthony in the Balkans, something that has been debunked.

I am from those who had the first ethnic state formed in Europe not only at Balkans! My language is not slavic but is the base for whole slavic languages.

Kelmendasi
01-27-2020, 06:13 PM
I am from those who had the first ethnic state formed in Europe not only at Balkans! My language is not slavic but is the base for whole slavic languages.
lol, if you say so..

SakaDo
01-27-2020, 06:26 PM
Honestly, I'm not too sure what you're on about.. Who mentioned Pre-Roman Latin speakers? I'd suggest re-reading my post with a bit more attention. I didn't attend school in Albania by the way, nor did I attend school in any other Balkan country.

Judging from your previous posts, I guess you're one of those South Slavs who believes in South Slavic autochthony in the Balkans, something that has been debunked.

and I have a news for you from the 19 century. Your claims are pure propaganda made from western "scientist".
But there are some real ones which do not play political games and wrote books about that like Obermueller at 1872...
He wrote that these people which named today slavs are the same people inhabited the
same lands and were called by the Greeks and Roman with many names like -Thracians,
getae, moesians, dacians...
He wrote and something else...the historical documents about that facts have been ignored
because they did not fit within the Pan-German and Pan-Slavic/Russian trendy history.
What the DNA speaks to you?! Who came from Asia, ha?!

SakaDo
01-27-2020, 06:31 PM
lol, if you say so..

It was Norman Davies, dude! I am just the messenger!
And the oldest European history and sources, because I am sure he is not a magician, but only a famous historian. So he must of read some...books or something :))))))

Hawk
01-27-2020, 06:48 PM
There is no doubt Balkan Slavs carry Thracian/Dacian/Illyrian ancestry.

But, Thracian/Dacian !=== Slavic.

Johane Derite
01-27-2020, 06:57 PM
My language is not slavic but is the base for whole slavic languages.

Let me guess, your language is a western bulgarian dialect which you call macedonian. I hate to break it to you but the Bulgarian dialects aren't even the base of their own language, let alone the other slavic languages.

Bulgarian has a serious non-slavic grammatical and lexical substrate, from an absorbed Albanoid population upon their arrival in the Balkans. Likewise Romanian has a non-latin grammatical and lexical substrate from the same thing.

The suffixed definite article in Bulgarian, Bulgaro-Macedonian, and Romanian is from Albanian:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO0ip4MX4AYTEBY?format=png&name=medium

Also many non-Christian and non-Slavic names that appear in Bulgarian personal names recorded in older times have obvious Albanian origin:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO0ip4GXsAIY-Qj?format=jpg&name=medium

SakaDo
01-27-2020, 07:04 PM
There is no doubt Balkan Slavs carry Thracian/Dacian/Illyrian ancestry.

But, Thracian/Dacian !=== Slavic.

Now you can answer to the same about Germans or Italians for compare! You Like it?
Here at least it's obvious who carry the thracian culture, custom, language, music and Genes.. .
Who gave the alphabet to Italians? I am sure you know it's not a local invention.
We have started from question about latin but someone feels uncomfortable to continue here, because have no ground for...

Johane Derite
01-27-2020, 07:06 PM
Please let's keep this thread about EV13 and not spam it with Bulgaro-macedonian propaganda.

SakaDo
01-27-2020, 07:08 PM
Let me guess, your language is a western bulgarian dialect which you call macedonian. I hate to break it to you but the Bulgarian dialects aren't even the base of their own language, let alone the other slavic languages.

Bulgarian has a serious non-slavic grammatical and lexical substrate, from an absorbed Albanoid population upon their arrival in the Balkans. Likewise Romanian has a non-latin grammatical and lexical substrate from the same thing.

The suffixed definite article in Bulgarian, Bulgaro-Macedonian, and Romanian is from Albanian:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO0ip4MX4AYTEBY?format=png&name=medium

Also many non-Christian and non-Slavic names that appear in Bulgarian personal names recorded in older times have obvious Albanian origin:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO0ip4GXsAIY-Qj?format=jpg&name=medium

Oh, please spare me your nonsense. Bulgarian has nothing to do with Albanian according exactly to grammar. Who are you exactly, when you came and what you gave when it's obvious your language is amalgama from many. Not local, not unique.

Johane Derite
01-27-2020, 07:12 PM
I see 75 samples, one of which is previously published Hun/Gepid sample Vim2b from Viminacium, so 74 new samples. Of those, 52 are from Viminacium (four necropoli: Pirivoj (100-400 AD) - 19; Rit (0-300 AD) - 13; Više Grobalja (0-300 AD) - 10 and Pećine (0-300 AD) - 10) and 17 from Timacum Minus (two necropoli: Slog (300-500 AD) - 11 and Kuline (400-700 AD) - 6). There are also 1 Roman and 1 Late Medieval sample from Lepenski Vir, 2 Gepid samples (300-500 AD) from Mediana (near Niš/Naisos) and 1 Medieval (850-950 AD) sample from Gomolava (this one belongs to I2-Din, so he's most likely Slavic).

36045

Great news, I hope the Reich team looks to Albania, Kosovo, and Greece and does the same.

SakaDo
01-27-2020, 07:23 PM
Please let's keep this thread about EV13 and not spam it with Bulgaro-macedonian propaganda.

This is not a spam but answers to questions.
Your message now it's a spam, with albanian propaganda.
Mine was at the beggining just correction about wrong claim.
It's important because Latin never was native here and here
we cant observe process of latinization of the native people.

Dorkymon
01-27-2020, 08:14 PM
Off course, me too I think romans could spread by auxiliaries the E subclades into Europe, but that's not what I'm interested for. My interest is exactly what you're said, the earlier subclades , the EV-13 basal ones, which can offer a picture on how the EV-13 spilled throw Europe from origin.

Wait, I'm not familiarised with the history of E-V13, but aren't the local sub-branches in Southeast Europe mainly local? Are you guys arguing that they were brought over by non-Balkan Roman soldiers, or am I misunderstanding this?

IMO, before the time of the Romans, the local sub-branches of E-V13 were probably be quite spread around Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria; J2a around Greece and J2b along the Adriatic.

Hawk
01-27-2020, 08:23 PM
E-V13 is a Pan-Balkan lineage IMO.

J2b2 has so far, to some degree only reasonable percentage among Gheg Albanians.

Kelmendasi
01-27-2020, 08:29 PM
Wait, I'm not familiarised with the history of E-V13, but aren't the local sub-branches in Southeast Europe mainly local? Are you guys arguing that they were brought over by non-Balkan Roman soldiers, or am I misunderstanding this?

IMO, before the time of the Romans, the local sub-branches of E-V13 were probably be quite spread around Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria; J2a around Greece and J2b along the Adriatic.
I believe it was being argued if the V13 branches in Western Europe arrived via Roman troops of Balkan origin, or via earlier migrations.

This upcoming paper does suggest a high frequency of V13 in the Central Balkans, though it only covers the Roman and Early Medieval period so we can't say for sure if this was the case in Antiquity or the Iron Age. But I'd expect similar frequencies from those time periods. Certain V13 clusters are pretty diverse in the Western Balkans, so it's possible that we will see significant numbers there as well as in the Central and Eastern Balkans.

Hawk
01-27-2020, 08:46 PM
Wait, I'm not familiarised with the history of E-V13, but aren't the local sub-branches in Southeast Europe mainly local? Are you guys arguing that they were brought over by non-Balkan Roman soldiers, or am I misunderstanding this?

IMO, before the time of the Romans, the local sub-branches of E-V13 were probably be quite spread around Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria; J2a around Greece and J2b along the Adriatic.

The name of Decebalus brother was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diegis

Is it correct that Diegis meant burnt in Dacian?

rafc
01-27-2020, 09:26 PM
Great to see that a lot of adna V13 is coming, but dissapointed that it will not be older than Roman era. I really hope we get some Bronze and Iron age samples soon.

Keqa
01-27-2020, 10:40 PM
We won’t get any from Bronze Age unless they target the Balkans. Iron Age maybe, but it’s a stretch. Balkans now remains the most under-tested region within Europe as far as aDNA goes.

Dorkymon
01-27-2020, 11:10 PM
@Kelmendasi



Now this is a real exaggeration my friend but I wan't really get involved anymore in this conversation as I see some people are very emotional when it comes to this..


I took the full scaled spreadsheet of moderns plus Southeast Euro Anthrogenica users and ran them against those "Scythians" from Moldova, the Thracian from Bulgaria, the one on the border of Ukraine/Romania, the Iron Age individual from Croatia and one of the "Scythians" from Hungary.



Distance to:
Scythian_MDA:scy192


0.03390347
Albanian:AL29


0.03705477
Albanian:AL98


0.03771876
Albanian:ALB202


0.03791560
Albanian:AL12


0.03992681
U_Vushaj


0.04056472
Albanian:AL9


0.04074635
Macedonian:Macedonian8


0.04077521
Albanian:ALB213


0.04108558
Albanian:ALB230


0.04179578
Albanian:ALB212


0.04250004
Dibran


0.04284895
MarkoK


0.04372552
Albanian:ALB220


0.04403755
Albanian:AL82


0.04469064
Ashkenazi_Russia:Ashk_RU_RU_5


0.04477352
Bulgarian:BulgarianD6


0.04547208
Albanian:ALB191


0.04619171
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_10


0.04656281
Albanian:AL17


0.04671149
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_12


0.04723872
Aspar


0.04795397
Bulgarian:Bulgaria1


0.04854199
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_6


0.04866238
Bulgarian:BulgarianH2


0.04904122
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_25





Distance to:
Scythian_MDA:scy197


0.03593386
Albanian:ALB212


0.03755154
U_Vushaj


0.03953480
Albanian:AL29


0.04073868
Albanian:AL82


0.04211000
Albanian:AL9


0.04233119
Albanian:ALB230


0.04253988
Albanian:AL17


0.04310465
Albanian:ALB202


0.04347306
Albanian:AL12


0.04464785
Macedonian:Macedonian8


0.04504604
Albanian:ALB220


0.04511488
Albanian:ALB213


0.04642605
Bulgarian:BulgarianD6


0.04687744
Bulgarian:BulgarianH2


0.04728513
Dibran


0.04758926
MarkoK


0.04828395
Aspar


0.04844274
Albanian:ALB191


0.04972554
Albanian:AL98


0.05394890
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_10


0.05442945
Bulgarian:Bulgaria1


0.05545672
Ashkenazi_Ukraine:Ashk_UA_UA_12


0.05578406
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_11


0.05596810
Ashkenazi_Russia:Ashk_RU_RU_5


0.05708015
Andrei






Distance to:
Scythian_MDA:scy300


0.04002407
Albanian:AL29


0.04058145
Albanian:AL9


0.04173486
Ashkenazi_Ukraine:Ashk_UA_UA_12


0.04230333
Albanian:ALB212


0.04302798
U_Vushaj


0.04426561
Macedonian:Macedonian8


0.04522125
Ashkenazi_Russia:Ashk_RU_RU_5


0.04525906
MarkoK


0.04534482
Albanian:AL82


0.04603481
Albanian:ALB213


0.04606065
Albanian:ALB230


0.04655961
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_4


0.04660124
Aspar


0.04670566
Albanian:AL12


0.04676235
Albanian:AL17


0.04741590
Albanian:ALB202


0.04771869
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_10


0.04796299
Albanian:ALB220


0.04887108
Ashkenazi_Lithuania:Ashk_LT_LT_11


0.04924799
Ashkenazi_Lithuania:Ashk_LT_LT_3


0.04953269
Ashkenazi_Russia:Ashk_RU_RU_3


0.04981007
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_4


0.05001350
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_11


0.05020305
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_7


0.05020661
Dibran






Distance to:
Scythian_MDA:scy305


0.03113344
Greek_Thessaly:GreeceNE162


0.03346811
Greek_Thessaly:GreeceNE126


0.03563307
Greek_Central_Macedonia:GreeceNE11


0.03638492
Greek_Central_Macedonia:GREEKGRALPOP5


0.03688657
Greek_Central_Macedonia:GREEKGRALPOP11


0.03698873
French_Provence:S_34


0.03720376
Greek_Central_Macedonia:GREEKGRALPOP14


0.03805104
Greek_Thessaly:GreeceNE144


0.03868480
Greek_Central_Macedonia:GREEKGRALPOP4


0.03871536
Greek_Peloponnese:GreeceNE252


0.03951881
Greek_Izmir:GreeceF28k


0.04003813
Greek_Central_Macedonia:GREEKGRALPOP18


0.04021100
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo19


0.04027959
Italian_Abruzzo:Alp162


0.04044527
Gagauz:GAG-215


0.04077689
Gagauz:GAG-220


0.04116181
Italian_Apulia:ITS7


0.04118687
Greek_Izmir:GreecePhokaia60


0.04150134
Greek_Central_Macedonia:GREEKGRALPOP8


0.04151020
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo22


0.04155032
Greek_Izmir:GreeceSmyrna58


0.04173955
Greek_Peloponnese:GreeceNE209


0.04193899
Greek_Central_Macedonia:GREEKGRALPOP3


0.04226666
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo15


0.04252272
French_Corsica:CorsicaS04208






Distance to:
BGR_IA:I5769


0.04099188
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H


0.04437515
Albanian:ALB212


0.04565361
Albanian:AL29


0.04576255
Dibran


0.04808358
Albanian:AL17


0.04976347
U_Vushaj


0.05106883
Albanian:AL12


0.05225389
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_5


0.05336013
Ashkenazi_Ukraine:Ashk_UA_UA_9


0.05367028
Albanian:ALB220


0.05528241
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_22


0.05565636
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_12


0.05573470
Ashkenazi_Ukraine:Ashk_UA_UA_21


0.05585627
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_29


0.05599669
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_10


0.05670424
Ashkenazi_Russia:Ashk_RU_RU_11


0.05678416
MarkoK


0.05699939
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_27


0.05706378
Albanian:AL98


0.05734339
Ashkenazi_Ukraine:Ashk_UA_UA_12


0.05749432
Ashkenazi_Russia:Ashk_RU_RU_5


0.05764616
Ashkenazi_Lithuania:Ashk_LT_LT_3


0.05767151
Ashkenazi_Germany:Ashk_DE_DE_2


0.05769373
Ashkenazi_Germany:Ashk_DE_DE_4


0.05784816
Ashkenazi_Ukraine:Ashk_UA_UA_3






Distance to:
UKR_Thraco-Cimmerian:MJ12


0.02885889
Albanian:AL12


0.03091113
Albanian:AL98


0.03462801
Dibran


0.03984713
Macedonian:Macedonian2


0.04139989
Albanian:AL29


0.04260563
Albanian:ALB220


0.04350133
Aspar


0.04490214
Albanian:AL9


0.04702782
Albanian:ALB213


0.04740072
Bulgarian:BulgarianD6


0.04813120
Bulgarian:Bulgaria1


0.04835008
Albanian:ALB191


0.04896861
Albanian:ALB202


0.04921594
U_Vushaj


0.05213463
Albanian:ALB212


0.05505882
Albanian:ALB230


0.05573621
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_1


0.05611382
karakartal


0.05658420
Thracian


0.05681575
Ashkenazi_Russia:Ashk_RU_RU_5


0.05723969
Burak


0.05807100
Bulgarian:BulgarianE2


0.05948475
Albanian:AL17


0.05988901
MarkoK


0.05992964
Albanian:AL82






Distance to:
HRV_IA:I3313


0.03475331
Swiss_Italian:Swiss_Italian3


0.03838511
U_Vushaj


0.04190214
Albanian:ALB212


0.04208465
Albanian:AL82


0.04364112
Albanian:ALB230


0.04479873
Bulgarian:BulgarianD6


0.04692789
Albanian:AL9


0.04751660
Albanian:AL29


0.04772081
Albanian:AL17


0.04824068
Albanian:AL12


0.04954577
Albanian:ALB213


0.04962902
Albanian:ALB202


0.05183354
Aspar


0.05265197
MarkoK


0.05280019
Dibran


0.05358558
Albanian:ALB220


0.05403922
Bulgarian:BulgarianH2


0.05716335
Austrian:Austria10


0.05728129
Albanian:ALB191


0.05767606
Andrei


0.05866668
Austrian:Austria4


0.05875933
DacoCeltic


0.05887228
Bulgarian:Bulgaria1


0.05909199
Belgian:Belgium25


0.06095937
Basque_French:HGDP01364






Distance to:
Scythian_HUN:DA198


0.03331448
U_Vushaj


0.03536115
Albanian:ALB212


0.04000910
Albanian:AL29


0.04129247
Albanian:AL17


0.04616696
Macedonian:Macedonian8


0.04619692
Albanian:ALB230


0.04695500
Albanian:AL9


0.04743349
Albanian:AL82


0.05104040
Albanian:AL12


0.05115650
MarkoK


0.05228657
Dibran


0.05351761
Albanian:ALB213


0.05378798
Bulgarian:BulgarianH2


0.05400996
Albanian:ALB202


0.05525243
Aspar


0.05547272
Albanian:ALB220


0.05561731
Bulgarian:BulgarianD6


0.05741685
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_11


0.05825342
Albanian:AL98


0.05859958
Albanian:ALB191


0.05909881
Ashkenazi_Lithuania:Ashk_LT_LT_3


0.05912019
Ashkenazi_Poland:Ashk_PL_PL_4


0.05997642
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_5


0.06042762
Ashkenazi_Ukraine:Ashk_UA_UA_12


0.06097003
Ashkenazi_Belarussia:Ashk_BY_BY_10

Dorkymon
01-27-2020, 11:34 PM
The name of Decebalus brother was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diegis

Is it correct that Diegis meant burnt in Dacian?

No idea, I think we have less than 50 Dacian words surviving in Romanian.

leonardus
01-29-2020, 12:16 PM
I believe it was being argued if the V13 branches in Western Europe arrived via Roman troops of Balkan origin, or via earlier migrations.
This upcoming paper does suggest a high frequency of V13 in the Central Balkans, though it only covers the Roman and Early Medieval period so we can't say for sure if this was the case in Antiquity or the Iron Age. But I'd expect similar frequencies from those time periods. Certain V13 clusters are pretty diverse in the Western Balkans, so it's possible that we will see significant numbers there as well as in the Central and Eastern Balkans.
Whooops ! You go too far (late I mean) away. Not that is the main debate, but how the ev-13 spread from into Balkans and from where. This is the million dollar question, because solving this will automatically solve subsequent a dozen debates.

Kelmendasi
01-29-2020, 03:16 PM
Whooops ! You go too far (late I mean) away. Not that is the main debate, but how the ev-13 spread from into Balkans and from where. This is the million dollar question, because solving this will automatically solve subsequent a dozen debates.
What am I too far away on? I was simply stating what was being debated and what the upcoming paper suggests.

Dibran
01-29-2020, 04:03 PM
Seems like I'm closest to MJ12 from all the ancients.

Kelmendasi
01-29-2020, 04:22 PM
Seems like I'm closest to MJ12 from all the ancients.
I seem to be closest to one of the Scythian samples from Hungary (DA198), I doubt this sample was an actual ethnic Scythian due to how close it is to Balkan populations. Perhaps it was a Dacian speaker. I am also the closest Balkanite to the Iron Age Croatian sample (potentially an Illyric speaker) which is interesting.

leonardus
01-29-2020, 04:52 PM
What am I too far away on? I was simply stating what was being debated and what the upcoming paper suggests.

I mean we are talking about far late period for the thread subject ''A theory about the origin of E-V13''. We arrived to talk about clades too distant from the original EV-13.

Kelmendasi
01-29-2020, 04:55 PM
I mean we are talking about far late period for the thread subject ''A theory about the origin of E-V13''. We arrived to talk about clades too distant from the original EV-13.
Well, It wasn't me who first posted about the upcoming paper. It's still relevant to V13 though, and is the most we will get for a while when it comes to aDNA.

leonardus
01-29-2020, 05:07 PM
Well, It wasn't me who first posted about the upcoming paper. It's still relevant to V13 though, and is the most we will get for a while when it comes to aDNA.

Sure, that's not a critique. still we must know from where started the original EV-13, not the subsequent clades, the expansion throw balkans. Is somebody knowing something about that ?

Hawk
01-29-2020, 05:30 PM
I seem to be closest to one of the Scythian samples from Hungary (DA198), I doubt this sample was an actual ethnic Scythian due to how close it is to Balkan populations. Perhaps it was a Dacian speaker. I am also the closest Balkanite to the Iron Age Croatian sample (potentially an Illyric speaker) which is interesting.

MJ12 is close to Iron Age Croatian too.

leonardus
01-31-2020, 10:41 AM
I seem to be closest to one of the Scythian samples from Hungary (DA198), I doubt this sample was an actual ethnic Scythian due to how close it is to Balkan populations. Perhaps it was a Dacian speaker. I am also the closest Balkanite to the Iron Age Croatian sample (potentially an Illyric speaker) which is interesting.
A very interesting fact in supposition that thracians had predominantly the E haplogroup, is the historic source of Strabon in Geografia:VII,3,11, saying that the holy dacian grand master priest Dekeneus was an egyptian: 'To help him secure the complete obedience of his tribe he had as his coadjutor Decaeneus, a wizard, a man who not only had wandered through Egypt, but also had thoroughly learned certain prognostics through which he would pretend to tell the divine will; and within a short time he was set up as god (as I said when relating the story of Zamolxis)'. So, knowing the E haplo originate in Egypt is another proof that E came from there; but how and throw what it is to be discovered. Personally i think by the sea, first into Greece islands, and later spreading into Blakans (but always having the option throw Bosphorus strait directly into the Black Sea, action that will be repeated by the later greeks). I think those E were 'by nature', a sea people and were the protogreeks.

Dorkymon
01-31-2020, 11:23 AM
So, knowing the E haplo originate in Egypt is another proof that E came from there;

Egyptians would have been E-V12 and not E-V13. And by the time the Dacian culture formed, E-V13 would have been present in Europe for at least 7000 years.

leonardus
01-31-2020, 04:37 PM
Egyptians would have been E-V12 and not E-V13. And by the time the Dacian culture formed, E-V13 would have been present in Europe for at least 7000 years.
And what i was said ? Si eu ce dracu spuneam ? Ca asta poate certifica in plus originea egipteana a tracilor/dacilor (in masura procentajului haplo E)

Kelmendasi
01-31-2020, 04:47 PM
A very interesting fact in supposition that thracians had predominantly the E haplogroup, is the historic source of Strabon in Geografia:VII,3,11, saying that the holy dacian grand master priest Dekeneus was an egyptian: 'To help him secure the complete obedience of his tribe he had as his coadjutor Decaeneus, a wizard, a man who not only had wandered through Egypt, but also had thoroughly learned certain prognostics through which he would pretend to tell the divine will; and within a short time he was set up as god (as I said when relating the story of Zamolxis)'. So, knowing the E haplo originate in Egypt is another proof that E came from there; but how and throw what it is to be discovered. Personally i think by the sea, first into Greece islands, and later spreading into Blakans (but always having the option throw Bosphorus strait directly into the Black Sea, action that will be repeated by the later greeks). I think those E were 'by nature', a sea people and were the protogreeks.
I don't see how the fact that an Egyptian in Dacia would mean that the Daco-Thracian peoples were predominantly E. For starters it states that this Decaeneus had only "wandered through Egypt", it doesn't state that he was an Egyptian. The Egyptians also weren't E-V13, but rather E-V12 and E-V22. Both of these haplogroups are pretty insignificant in Europe. It's also likely that E itself originated around the Horn of Africa and not Egypt.

I don't see how you could link these "sea people" to the Proto-Greeks, an IE group who inhabited lands more inland. The arrival of E in Europe pre-dates the IE migrations by quite some time.

Dorkymon
01-31-2020, 05:05 PM
And what i was said ? Si eu ce dracu spuneam ? Ca asta poate certifica in plus originea egipteana a tracilor/dacilor (in masura procentajului haplo E)

The rate of haplogroup E in a given population doesn't mean that they are E% Egyptian. We were all newbies at some point, just keep on reading and you will eventually understand.

Tz85
01-31-2020, 06:00 PM
Egyptians are E-V12*, with up to 80% of the population with this sub-clade. E-V13 has no connection to Egypt.

leonardus
02-01-2020, 12:46 PM
Egyptians are E-V12*, with up to 80% of the population with this sub-clade. E-V13 has no connection to Egypt.
OK, to say it other way: E-V12 is E ? OK. E-V13 is E ? OK. So, is EV12 related with EV-13. OK. Thank you.

leonardus
02-01-2020, 12:50 PM
I don't see how the fact that an Egyptian in Dacia would mean that the Daco-Thracian peoples were predominantly E. For starters it states that this Decaeneus had only "wandered through Egypt", it doesn't state that he was an Egyptian. The Egyptians also weren't E-V13, but rather E-V12 and E-V22. Both of these haplogroups are pretty insignificant in Europe. It's also likely that E itself originated around the Horn of Africa and not Egypt.

I don't see how you could link these "sea people" to the Proto-Greeks, an IE group who inhabited lands more inland. The arrival of E in Europe pre-dates the IE migrations by quite some time.
In romanian language, al sources translate it by 'being an egyptian'. Sorry, I see my point isn't understanded, mostly. Put the problem in another way. Assuming Dekeneus was an egyptian E haplo, what he was doing there in north Balkans 100BC, or around ?

Kelmendasi
02-01-2020, 12:53 PM
In romanian language, al sources translate it by 'being an egyptian'. Sorry, I see my point isn't understanded, mostly.
Can you post the actual sources please, so that I can read them?

Still, I don't see what your point actually is.

Tz85
02-01-2020, 01:00 PM
OK, to say it other way: E-V12 is E ? OK. E-V13 is E ? OK. So, is EV12 related with EV-13. OK. Thank you.

Sub-Saharans are also E, but that doesnt mean they're connected to the region of Egypt. Your logic is trash.

Tz85
02-01-2020, 01:07 PM
Undifferentiated E-V12* lineages (not E-V32 or E-M224, so therefore named "E-V12*") peak in frequency among Southern Egyptians (up to 74.5%).



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279186127

Kelmendasi
02-01-2020, 01:09 PM
Assuming Dekeneus was an egyptian E haplo, what he was doing there in north Balkans 100BC, or around ?
Well his role was as a counselor of the Dacian King Burebista, he was also the high priest of Dacia at the time. These two facts make it pretty likely that he was not an Egyptian, but rather a local. His name also seems to be of IE (Dacian or Celtic) etymology. Even if he was an Egyptian, why would that be relevant? As was stated prior, the Egyptians were primarily E-V12 and E-V22. E-V12 only shares M78 in common with V13, which would mean that they only shared a common ancestor ~13,400 years ago. As for E-V22, it shared a common ancestor (Z1919) with V13 ~11,900 years ago. Considering that the dominant E clade in this region is E-V13, it makes no sense to connect the E in the region to Egyptians. This group has been in Europe for at least 8,000-7,000 years.

leonardus
02-02-2020, 10:35 AM
Well his role was as a counselor of the Dacian King Burebista, he was also the high priest of Dacia at the time. These two facts make it pretty likely that he was not an Egyptian, but rather a local. His name also seems to be of IE (Dacian or Celtic) etymology. Even if he was an Egyptian, why would that be relevant? As was stated prior, the Egyptians were primarily E-V12 and E-V22. E-V12 only shares M78 in common with V13, which would mean that they only shared a common ancestor ~13,400 years ago. As for E-V22, it shared a common ancestor (Z1919) with V13 ~11,900 years ago. Considering that the dominant E clade in this region is E-V13, it makes no sense to connect the E in the region to Egyptians. This group has been in Europe for at least 8,000-7,000 years.
You're correct. But it is stated clearly he was not a local, but a foreigner, an egyptian. All what i wanted to point is that the E from Balkans have a strong evidence that the lineage came from Egypt. That's all.

leonardus
02-02-2020, 10:38 AM
Sub-Saharans are also E, but that doesnt mean they're connected to the region of Egypt. Your logic is trash. Most of the researchers assumed that the most probably E haplo came from Egypt (to Balkan). Throw Anatolia or by the sea, this is still debated. Please show us your 'untrashed' conception about this. Maybe you will reveal a ...garbage.

Aspar
02-02-2020, 10:49 AM
You're correct. But it is stated clearly he was not a local, but a foreigner, an egyptian. All what i wanted to point is that the E from Balkans have a strong evidence that the lineage came from Egypt. That's all.

You are obviously a noob.

Although it has been explained several times that E in the Balkans is overwhelmingly E-V13 and has no connection to Egypt, you are still blabbering Egypt around.

E-V13 most likely didn't come from Egypt, at least there is no evidence that's the case, but was born in Europe itself. It's parent clade was found in many places in Europe therefore the only question is not if E-V13 is European but where does E-L618 or E-M78 come from and whether the parent clade of E-V13 came in Europe during the Neolithic or the Mesolithic period.

There's no evidence that the parent clade came from Egypt either...

Kelmendasi
02-02-2020, 12:14 PM
You're correct. But it is stated clearly he was not a local, but a foreigner, an egyptian. All what i wanted to point is that the E from Balkans have a strong evidence that the lineage came from Egypt. That's all.
The thing is that it isn't clearly stated that he was an Egyptian. I searched up the sources that reference him, and all refer to him as a Dacian. The only reference made to Egypt was by Strabo, who stated that he had "wandered through Egypt", not that he was an Egypt.

I don't see how that would be evidence of Balkan E coming from Egypt.

Johnny ola
02-02-2020, 03:09 PM
The thing is that it isn't clearly stated that he was an Egyptian. I searched up the sources that reference him, and all refer to him as a Dacian. The only reference made to Egypt was by Strabo, who stated that he had "wandered through Egypt", not that he was an Egypt.

I don't see how that would be evidence of Balkan E coming from Egypt.

He is trolling around and you guys pinch...

Hawk
02-02-2020, 03:20 PM
The parent of E-V13 was probably from Stone Age Egypt. But, E-V13 was formed in Europe, SouthEast Europe more precisely. The connection with Egypt ~7 thousand years ago when hypotetically the E-V13 mutation was born would be 5 thousand years of time difference which is rather ridiculous lol.

Johnny ola
02-02-2020, 03:40 PM
The parent of E-V13 was probably from Stone Age Egypt. But, E-V13 was formed in Europe, SouthEast Europe more precisely. The connection with Egypt ~7 thousand years ago when hypotetically the E-V13 mutation was born would be 5 thousand years of time difference which is rather ridiculous lol.

Even if we say hypothetically that EV13 comes from Egypt still it means ZERO.The most important is autosomal and as we know all the Balkanic groups with EV13(and not only) have zero connection with modern or even ancient Egyptians.E1b1 is founded among Natufian culture, EV13 might split thousands of years before and travelled maybe from anatolia(marmara region) or maybe from Caucasus and settled somewhere in Pontic Steppe or somewhere to southeast eu(romania,moldova etc) who knows.We have to be patient ..!!!

Hawk
02-02-2020, 03:43 PM
Even if we say hypothetically that EV13 comes from Egypt still it means ZERO.The most important is autosomal and as we know all the Balkanic groups with EV13(and not only) have zero connection with modern or even ancient Egyptians.E1b1 is founded among Natufian culture, EV13 might split thousands of years before and travelled maybe from anatolia(marmara region) or maybe from Caucasus and settled somewhere in Pontic Steppe or somewhere to southeast eu(romania,moldova etc) who knows.We have to be patient ..!!!

Romanians/Moldavians have insignificant amount of E-V13, not to that degree it's propagated by some groups cherrypicking subclades. I highly doubt even Dacian E-V13 would exceed ~20%.

IMO, Cardial Pottery is the safest bet.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cardial_map.png

Johnny ola
02-02-2020, 03:48 PM
Romanians/Moldavians have insignificant amount of E-V13, not to that degree it's propagated by some groups cherrypicking subclades. I highly doubt even Dacian E-V13 would exceed ~20%.

IMO, Cardial Pottery is the safest bet.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cardial_map.png



I mention Romania,Moldova because if i a not mistaken(i would check it later better) Ev13 has be founded in Cucuteni–Trypillia culture.I think it was a neolithic culture from Eastern Europe with Ev13 individual.

Cardial Pottery is western neolithic culture(different wave farmer).They travelled from Thessaly,Greece and went in southwest eu,i am not sure if we have EV13 there.

Hawk
02-02-2020, 03:52 PM
I mention Romania,Moldova because if i a not mistaken(i would check it later better) Ev13 has be founded in Cucuteni–Trypillia culture.I think it was a neolithic culture from Eastern Europe with Ev13 individual.

Cardial Pottery is western neolithic culture(different wave farmer).They travelled from Thessaly,Greece and went in southwest eu,i am not sure if we have EV13 there.

Trypillians were mostly G2a, only one example of E-M78 was found.

Johnny ola
02-02-2020, 03:56 PM
Trypillians were mostly G2a, only one example of E-M78 was found.

Yep,you are right.I thought we had Ev13 during neolithic from eastern europe but it is E-M78.

Hawk
02-02-2020, 04:01 PM
Yep,you are right.I thought we had Ev13 during neolithic from eastern europe but it is E-M78.

So far, the only E-V13 is to be found in Spanish Neolithic, i am not sure but i think it was part of Cardial Pottery.

Tz85
02-02-2020, 06:32 PM
Anybody wanna trade haplogroups? Hahah

leonardus
02-03-2020, 09:34 AM
Romanians/Moldavians have insignificant amount of E-V13, not to that degree it's propagated by some groups cherrypicking subclades. I highly doubt even Dacian E-V13 would exceed ~20%.

IMO, Cardial Pottery is the safest bet.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cardial_map.pngFrom this diagram there is no anatolian EV-13. So, they migrate from middle east to cyprus and directly south balkans, obvious by the sea. I highly doubt this scenario.

Hawk
02-05-2020, 08:24 PM
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/135616v1

Cardium Pottery sample from Croatia was E1b1b1a1b1, parent lineage to E-V13.

From wikipedia.


Older Neolithic cultures existed already at this time in eastern Greece and Crete, apparently having arrived from the Levant, but they appear distinct from the Cardial or impressed ware culture. The ceramic tradition in the central Balkans also remained distinct from that along the Adriatic coastline in both style and manufacturing techniques for almost 1,000 years from the 6th millennium BC.[8] Early Neolithic impressed pottery is found in the Levant, and certain parts of Anatolia, including Mezraa-Teleilat, and in North Africa at Tunus-Redeyef, Tunisia. So the first Cardial settlers in the Adriatic may have come directly from the Levant. Of course it might equally well have come directly from North Africa, and impressed pottery also appears in Egypt. Along the East Mediterranean coast impressed ware has been found in North Syria, Palestine and Lebanon.[9]

It's a high possibility that they mingled with Anatolian Farmers, if not E1b1b introduced farming in Anatolia, since E-M35 lineage is highly linked with proto-agrarian societies.

leonardus
02-06-2020, 12:27 PM
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/135616v1

Cardium Pottery sample from Croatia was E1b1b1a1b1, parent lineage to E-V13.
It's a high possibility that they mingled with Anatolian Farmers, if not E1b1b introduced farming in Anatolia, since E-M35 lineage is highly linked with proto-agrarian societies.
The most probable scenario in my opinion. But who where and from, the first cardial settlers in the Adriatic ?

Kelmendasi
02-06-2020, 01:13 PM
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/135616v1

Cardium Pottery sample from Croatia was E1b1b1a1b1, parent lineage to E-V13.
This sample is the oldest L618+ sample found thus far that I am aware of, interestingly the V13+ sample from Neolithic Spain also belonged to the Cardium Pottery Culture. I think it's safe to assume that there is a link between V13 and the Cardium Pottery Culture.

Should also note though that L618 was also found in a Neolithic sample from Hungary that belonged to the Lengyel Culture. It is dated to have lived ~6,780-6,700 years ago, the L618 sample from Croatia in contrast is dated to ~7,600-7,470ybp.

Kelmendasi
02-06-2020, 04:19 PM
The most probable scenario in my opinion. But who where and from, the first cardial settlers in the Adriatic ?
It's hard to say exactly where this group originally expanded from, but I'd say that North Africa or the Levant are the safest bets. Early impressed types of pottery associated with this culture have been found in North Africa (Tunisia and Egypt) as well as the Levant (particularly around Lebanon and Syria). Some have also been found in Anatolia, though I don't think it's that likely that this culture spread from Anatolia as closest links are to the Levant and there has been only 1 M35+ sample found in Neolithic Anatolia.

leonardus
02-06-2020, 04:46 PM
It's hard to say exactly where this group originally expanded from, but I'd say that North Africa or the Levant are the safest bets. Early impressed types of pottery associated with this culture have been found in North Africa (Tunisia and Egypt) as well as the Levant (particularly around Lebanon and Syria). Some have also been found in Anatolia, though I don't think it's that likely that this culture spread from Anatolia as closest links are to the Levant and there has been only 1 M35+ sample found in Neolithic Anatolia.
Yea, the most 'logic' route is via Anatolia for a numerous reasons, but the lack of evidences point maybe for North Afrika expansions by the sea. I don't know why this hypothesis mesmerize me.

Johane Derite
02-07-2020, 12:17 PM
Hm. This would seem to indicate that there wasn't some sort of "neolithic" unity of one farmer type in Europe, but different types of farmers. With such high E present in balkans, we should expect some big non-IE substrate, which is what used to be believed, but now most of the substrate in Greek and Alb is considered anatolian IE.

Hawk
02-14-2020, 05:43 PM
Perrin, T., Dachy, T., Guéret, C., Lubell, D., Chaďd-Saoudi, Y., & Green, W. (n.d.). PRESSURE KNAPPING AND THE TIMING OF INNOVATION: NEW CHRONO-CULTURAL DATA ON PREHISTORIC GROUPS OF THE EARLY HOLOCENE IN THE MAGHREB, NORTHWEST AFRICA. Radiocarbon, 1-51. doi:10.1017/RDC.2019.157


The early Holocene in North Africa remains a poorly known period, documented unequally by region. Eastern Algeria and Tunisia have the greatest number of deposits, but most were excavated decades ago without the controls and recording required for modern interpretation. The chronological framework is based on radiocarbon (14C) dates that are also old, for the most part. Recent work on Mesolithic lithic industries of Western Europe has enabled us to revive the hypothesis of the existence of contacts between the northern and southern shores of the western Mediterranean at least by the 6th millennium cal BC. A collective research program was conducted in 2016–2017 to test this hypothesis with a particular focus on documenting the technological traditions in the lithic industry and situating them precisely in time. We have 46 new radiocarbon dates that were recently carried out on previously excavated Algerian sites, some of which contain several levels, allowing the construction of Bayesian models. These new measures reinforce the hypothesis of contacts between Europe and Africa by demonstrating the contemporaneity of similar technological processes. Above all, they make it possible to accurately refine the chronology of the main cultural entities of the Maghreb at the beginning of the Holocene.

Hawk
02-16-2020, 11:25 AM
I wonder if the Barcin E-M35 sample was actually downstream E-V13. After Sardinians, Albanians and Peloponessian Greeks have the most Barcin admixture.

Kelmendasi
02-16-2020, 01:00 PM
I wonder if the Barcin E-M35 sample was actually downstream E-V13. After Sardinians, Albanians and Peloponessian Greeks have the most Barcin admixture.
If I recall correctly the sample was only positive for M35, and negative for all downstreams. https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2017/100001355/pdf/100001355.pdf.

Hawk
02-16-2020, 01:12 PM
If I recall correctly the sample was only positive for M35, and negative for all downstreams. https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2017/100001355/pdf/100001355.pdf.

Yeah, who knows.

I was playing with the ancient model, and it's interesting that Albanians have such high percentage of Barcin_N, only Sardinians and perhaps Peloponessian_Greeks have higher amount.

Kanenas
02-16-2020, 03:45 PM
Hm. This would seem to indicate that there wasn't some sort of "neolithic" unity of one farmer type in Europe, but different types of farmers. With such high E present in balkans, we should expect some big non-IE substrate, which is what used to be believed, but now most of the substrate in Greek and Alb is considered anatolian IE.

I have the solution. You know there is the view of Kortlandt that PIE was an Indo-Uralic dialect transformed under the influence of a 'Caucasian' substrate.

The solution is that the farmers were speaking an Indo-Uralic diect and that it was transformed under the influence of an Afroasiatic (?) (ANA related) adstrate.

I am not saying that completely seriously but I believe that the Late PIE development of a female gender from a collective suffix can be explained in that way. And it would be at least funny to try to find arguments to support it.

leonardus
02-18-2020, 05:45 PM
Hm. This would seem to indicate that there wasn't some sort of "neolithic" unity of one farmer type in Europe, but different types of farmers.
Highly probable. I bet on 2 routes for them; a land one via Anatolia to east Balkans and by the sea from north Afrika to Sicily, next south Italy and west Balkans. Back than there was less than 30km of sea, Sicily was perfectly visible from Tunis, not to mention in-between Lampedusa island. I don't see any reason why not migrate in this way. Probably 2 different kind of farmers, as you said.

TomasV
05-13-2020, 04:37 PM
L618 formed at the last glacial maximum.
Sea level was 120 m below today, Caspian was huge because all rivers were flowing from north to south and Black was closed.
When the ice started to retreat, the Alpine glaciers were still a huge obstacle so that the easiest migration road was through the Balkans.
It seems natural that when the L618 decided to move some 11 kybp, he went to Anatolia and then to the Balkans so that the V13 origin should be with a high probability in southern Balkans .

Johnny ola
05-13-2020, 09:46 PM
Yeah, who knows.

I was playing with the ancient model, and it's interesting that Albanians have such high percentage of Barcin_N, only Sardinians and perhaps Peloponessian_Greeks have higher amount.

Albanians are Mostly EEF+Steppe... Their West asian/Levant natufian admixture is limited to almost none.

Bane
05-28-2020, 07:30 PM
If we take this into consideration:

15000 ybp E-M78 from Morocco
7000 ybp E-V13 from Spain
6000 ybp E-M78 from France

I have only a little doubt that the ancestor of E-V13 entered Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Adamm
05-28-2020, 07:52 PM
If we take this into consideration:

15000 ybp E-M78 from Morocco
7000 ybp E-V13 from Spain
6000 ybp E-M78 from France

I have only a little doubt that the ancestor of E-V13 entered Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Maybe they migrated from NW Africa to the Near East, through Anatolia and then into the balkans?

Hawk
05-28-2020, 07:59 PM
Maybe they migrated from NW Africa to the Near East, through Anatolia and then into the balkans?

Nahh, leave him. He is part of a group who wish and push for that unlikely scenario.

When we'll have ancient DNA from Early Neolithic Greece and Albania where the first settlements of Cardium settlers happened then everything will be clear.

Those Taforalt/Iberomaurusians were migrants from the East. And they didn't leave descendants.

Bane
05-28-2020, 08:04 PM
Maybe they migrated from NW Africa to the Near East, through Anatolia and then into the balkans?

And then from the Balkans to France and Spain? :) Why simple when it can be complicated.

In my opinion reasons for which people connect Near East and Balkans with the history of E-V13 are not rational.
E-V13 started spreading in Europe approximately 5000 years ago. From a single ancestor which lived then. There is nothing which would indicate that the history of E-V13 should be connected to Eastern Mediterranean before 3000 BCE.

I don't know if I was clear when I wrote "I have only a little doubt that the ancestor of E-V13 entered Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar"? It means I believe ancestor of E-V13 did enter Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Bane
05-28-2020, 08:06 PM
Nahh, leave him. He is part of a group who wish and push for that unlikely scenario.

When we'll have ancient DNA from Early Neolithic Greece and Albania where the first settlements of Cardium settlers happened then everything will be clear.

Those Taforalt/Iberomaurusians were migrants from the East. And they didn't leave descendants.

Based on what - modern frequency of E-V13? All I can say is that is not serious way of thinking.

Hawk
05-28-2020, 08:10 PM
Based on what - modern frequency of E-V13? All I can say is that is not serious way of thinking.

We have clear cut archeological evidences that Cardium Neolithic were related with Natufians and Iberomaurusians.

We have clear cut evidences that Cardium farmers started in Epirus, then spread to Albania then to Croatia where the ancestor of E-V13 was found, then Italy and lastly Spain where the actual mutation of E-V13 was found in a Cardium settlement. Cardium farmers could still be dominated by G2a but heavily influenced by E-M78.

We cannot miss this pattern.

Bane
05-28-2020, 08:15 PM
Archeological cultures do not represent areas of certain Y-DNA. I think quoting wikipedia makes sense in this case:


An archaeological culture is a recurring assemblage of artifacts from a specific time and place that may constitute the material culture remains of a particular past human society

Hawk
05-28-2020, 08:23 PM
Then, sooner or later we shall find.

Aspar
05-28-2020, 10:19 PM
If we take this into consideration:

15000 ybp E-M78 from Morocco
7000 ybp E-V13 from Spain
6000 ybp E-M78 from France

I have only a little doubt that the ancestor of E-V13 entered Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar.

It's not that it matters for me where from v13 entered Europe, far more important for me is where the MRCA of all living v13 men was living and which culture was part of when started it's expansion and diversification, however I don't think that what you say is true particularly because what you say would imply a hunter gatherer origin of V13 that somehow got incorporated in the EEF people.
However both discoveries of v13 in Spain and France were of EEF Neolithic type and not of HG type and the EEF in both Spain and France did come from the Balkans and Anatolia, not from North Africa.
Furthermore, I don't think that any papers until now have detected a NA autosomal influence in any of the EEF samples from both Spain and France but they were largely described as a two way mix of Anatolian farmers and WHG.
Saying that there is nothing which would indicate that the history of E-V13 should be connected to Eastern Mediterranean before 3000 BCE is not correct from archeogenetics point of view.
Precursors of V13 have been found among the Natufians, among one sample of the Anatolian farmers from Barcin, and also in Neolithic Croatia and Hungary, exactly the places where the EEF in Spain and France came from.
What we need is actually a lot more Neolithic samples from cultures around Danube with excellent coverage and I am sure that V13 will pop out sooner or later...

Kelmendasi
05-28-2020, 10:55 PM
It's not that it matters for me where from v13 entered Europe, far more important for me is where the MRCA of all living v13 men was living and which culture was part of when started it's expansion and diversification, however I don't think that what you say is true particularly because what you say would imply a hunter gatherer origin of V13 that somehow got incorporated in the EEF people.
However both discoveries of v13 in Spain and France were of EEF Neolithic type and not of HG type and the EEF in both Spain and France did come from the Balkans and Anatolia, not from North Africa.
Furthermore, I don't think that any papers until now have detected a NA autosomal influence in any of the EEF samples from both Spain and France but they were largely described as a two way mix of Anatolian farmers and WHG.
Saying that there is nothing which would indicate that the history of E-V13 should be connected to Eastern Mediterranean before 3000 BCE is not correct from archeogenetics point of view.
Precursors of V13 have been found among the Natufians, among one sample of the Anatolian farmers from Barcin, and also in Neolithic Croatia and Hungary, exactly the places where the EEF in Spain and France came from.
What we need is actually a lot more Neolithic samples from cultures around Danube with excellent coverage and I am sure that V13 will pop out sooner or later...
Only the Neolithic sample from Spain that belonged to the Cardium Pottery culture was V13+, the samples from eastern France belong to the Michelsberg culture and are only labelled as E-M78 for now.

As for the Natufians, I'm pretty sure they all belong to clusters under M35>Z8237 and not M35>M78.

Aspar
05-28-2020, 11:25 PM
Only the Neolithic sample from Spain that belonged to the Cardium Pottery culture was V13+, the samples from eastern France belong to the Michelsberg culture and are only labelled as E-M78 for now.

As for the Natufians, I'm pretty sure they all belong to clusters under M35>Z8237 and not M35>M78.

I don't think that negates what I said actually which was the point I tried to bring in the discussion.
I know about the samples of France haven't been classified as V13 however I was too lazy to edit my comment and still my point would have remain valid for the EEF origin of v13 form the Eastern Mediterranean.
As for the Natufians, that's why i have said the precursors which in their case would be M35 and which in turn would indicate a longer presence of M35 in the Levant.
Of course, nothing is still confirmed, any option is in play, even the entry around Spain, however my bet is still with the Levant-Anatolia-Europe...

Bane
05-29-2020, 08:13 AM
It's not that it matters for me where from v13 entered Europe...

Just a note on this one - it seems less probable that E-V13 entered Europe.
E-V13 appears to have arisen inside Europe from the line of ancestors of which one of them most likely E-Z1919+(L618-, V22-) did enter Europe (in my opinion from Morocco). This further means that the first E-L618+ man was most probably also born in Europe.

Aspar
05-29-2020, 08:50 AM
Just a note on this one - it seems less probable that E-V13 entered Europe.
E-V13 appears to have arisen inside Europe from the line ancestors of which one of them most likely E-Z1919+(L618-, V22-) did enter Europe (in my opinion from Morocco). This further means that the first E-L618+ man was most probably also born in Europe.

Sure, I was just quoting you...
As for V13 having been born in Europe seems very likely.
But what you say about the entry of it's ancestor from Morocco seems unlikely because that would indicate Mesolithic presence of Z1919 in Europe and I am not aware of any E Mesolithic finds in Europe.
I am pretty sure that all of the E finds in Europe until now are of Neolithic EEF origin.
Plus I don't remember that any North African autosomal influence is detected among any Mesolithic or Neolithic samples from Europe?
Those points still are great obstacle to your theory...

Ruderico
05-29-2020, 09:06 AM
Sure, I was just quoting you...
As for V13 having been born in Europe seems very likely.
But what you say about the entry of it's ancestor from Morocco seems unlikely because that would indicate Mesolithic presence of Z1919 in Europe and I am not aware of any E Mesolithic finds in Europe.
I am pretty sure that all of the E finds in Europe until now are of Neolithic EEF origin.
Plus I don't remember that any North African autosomal influence is detected among any Mesolithic or Neolithic samples from Europe?
Those points still are great obstacle to your theory...

https://populationgenomics.blog/2019/03/30/potential-extra-iberomaurusian-related-gene-flow-into-european-farmers/

Aspar
05-29-2020, 09:25 AM
[/B]

https://populationgenomics.blog/2019/03/30/potential-extra-iberomaurusian-related-gene-flow-into-european-farmers/

Thanks for this.
I am not to familiar with this blog but it produced nothing extraordinary.
It tries to connect the dots by following a logic that E-M78 came directly from NA however it contradicts itself with those graphics showing no more than 2-3% iberomaurusian influence among some EEF which doesn't prove anything substantial.

Furthermore he wrote this:


While these results are providing nothing that one might consider mind-blowing, it does open up a few options. With the only ancient instances of E-M78 being in ancient NW Africa, it is hard to say what was going on between there and the Levant in the Neolithic, as pastoral societies began to emerge. Direct flow from around Morocco or Algeria to the Balkans might be a bit harder to imagine that coming from potentially earlier Neolithic groups in Libya or possibly Egypt.

REPORT THIS AD

There is also the chance that the Levantines that mixed into the ancestors of European farmers may have had extra contacts with North Africans before going to Anatolia. Not having an ancient population that looks like a good fit as a direct source to Europe makes this a little harder to decipher.

The clear lack of Y-DNA E throughout Anatolia, but not in Europe is suggestive of extra contacts. The D-stats and graphs to point to potential contacts between the early farmers of Europe and North Africans. Nothing is really conclusive here with regards to how that flow happened, but the uniparentals and specific drift with Iberomaurusians came from somewhere outside of current potential sources, other than the Iberomaurusians themselves.


Not to say that there are some mistakes in the article like saying there are no E samples among the Anatolian farmers and that V13 had been found in Neolithic Croatia.

Bane
05-29-2020, 09:26 AM
Sure, I was just quoting you...

This is what I wrote:


I have only a little doubt that the ancestor of E-V13 entered Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Ruderico
05-29-2020, 09:38 AM
Thanks for this.
I am not to familiar with this blog but it produced nothing extraordinary.
It tries to connect the dots by following a logic that E-M78 came directly from NA however it contradicts itself with those graphics showing no more than 2-3% iberomaurusian influence among some EEF which doesn't prove anything substantial.

Furthermore he wrote this:



Not to say that there are some mistakes in the article like saying there are no E samples among the Anatolian farmers and that V13 had been found in Neolithic Croatia.

The blog is made by one of our users, Chad Rohlfsen, but keep in mind that the article is from March 2019. That said there are only 2 ydna E samples from Anatolia according to Passa's map https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=34.2158459371028%2C36.6023911095568&z=7 one of which is E-M34>M84 which is a totally different branch than V13. E-L618 was found in Croatia, but I don't know whether he's also positive for V13 or not.

That said I'm a bit sceptical the ancestor or E-V13 arrived from NW Africa to Iberia then further east.

Aspar
05-29-2020, 09:39 AM
This is what I wrote:

Correct, I missed the word ancestor...

Bane
05-29-2020, 09:46 AM
E-L618 was found in Croatia, but I don't know whether he's also positive for V13 or not.

I3948 L618+ from Croatia is negative for CTS1975 and PF2252 which are on the L618 level. It is also confirmed negative for V13 and bunch of other SNPs on the V13 level.

alejandromb92
05-29-2020, 09:52 AM
Is there a big difference between E-V13 and E-V12?

Ruderico
05-29-2020, 10:23 AM
Is there a big difference between E-V13 and E-V12?

Their common ancestor should have been alive some 13000 years ago, so they are only very distantly related

Riverman
05-29-2020, 10:59 AM
Actually it seems to be much more likely that E1b came to North and North West Africa from North East Africa and the Near East, with Iberomaurusians being the result of regional mixture in more Western Northern Africa. Natufians are a much better fit for the direct ancestors of E1b in Europe than anything from North Africa. If E1b came from Africa originally at all, it was from North East Africa I'd say, especially Egypt, where the archaeological situation is very complicated along the Nile, where they might have lived. But its not even safe to say where E came from originally, could very well have expanded from the Near East back to Africa.

Pribislav
05-29-2020, 11:37 AM
Natufians are a much better fit for the direct ancestors of E1b in Europe than anything from North Africa.

No they're not. Clade E-L618>V13, which is dominant among European populations, descended from clade M78 found in Iberomaurusians (maybe not directly from these sampled Taforalt individuals, but likely from some closely related population), and not from clade Z830, which seems to have been dominant among Natufians.

Hawk
05-29-2020, 11:54 AM
I3948 L618+ from Croatia is negative for CTS1975 and PF2252 which are on the L618 level. It is also confirmed negative for V13 and bunch of other SNPs on the V13 level.

It makes total sense. Only about 1 thousand years later Cardial farmers expand into Italy and Spain after their initial Eastern Adriatic landing.

Aspar
05-29-2020, 12:04 PM
No they're not. Clade E-L618>V13, which is dominant among European populations, descended from clade M78 found in Iberomaurusians (maybe not directly from these sampled Taforalt individuals, but likely from some closely related population), and not from clade Z830, which seems to have been dominant among Natufians.

M78 is found in Neolithic Jordan:

E-P147-P177-P2-M215-M35-V68-M78-CTS675/PF2104


Genetiker

Y-SNP calls for I1710

Below are the Y-SNP calls for I1710, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sample from the site of ‘Ain Ghazal in Jordan. Positive calls are in bold, and negative calls are in non-bold.

The calls show that I1710 belonged to Y haplogroup E1b1b1a1-CTS675.

Riverman
05-29-2020, 12:38 PM
No they're not. Clade E-L618>V13, which is dominant among European populations, descended from clade M78 found in Iberomaurusians (maybe not directly from these sampled Taforalt individuals, but likely from some closely related population), and not from clade Z830, which seems to have been dominant among Natufians.

It was present in the Near East too, as Aspar has pointed out already. Whereever Natufians and Iberomaurusians came from, they are both from the same source population, but rather unlikely that one descends from the other anyway, yet if there is a descendency, it goes from the Natufian-related -> Iberomaurusians and not the other way around. I think we can narrow the origin of the source population down to Egypt vs. Southern Near East. From there (Egypt or Near East, probably both) a heavily West Eurasian, paternally E1b population moved into North and North Western Africa, mixed with locals, which produced Iberomaurusians, but didn't end there, because new waves with even more cultural innovations followed, which reduced the regional ancestral component still strong in IM.

Bane
05-29-2020, 12:38 PM
M78 is found in Neolithic Jordan:

E-P147-P177-P2-M215-M35-V68-M78-CTS675/PF2104


Which is much more likely Z1902+ than Z1919+.

Aspar
05-29-2020, 12:58 PM
Which is much more likely Z1902+ than Z1919+.

Which is besides the point as I was pointing to the presence of M78 in the Near East opposing the view of the guy whom I replied who was making points based on the presence of M78 in the Iberomaurusians.

I am getting repetitive which I don't want to be but I already mentioned in the previous posts why it's very unlikely that the ancestor of the modern bearers of V13 came from NA through Iberia plus Riverman explained very well why is that unlikely...

Aspar
05-29-2020, 01:17 PM
Plus I think that the discovery of M78 in PPNC is significant because it was from the period just before the migration of the farmers from the Fertile Crescent.
Farmers from PPNC were probably the initiators of the migration in which Anatolian farmers also took part because of the extreme climate conditions that effected their way of life in the Fertile Crescent.
It's worth reading about PPNC and how it was connected to Natufians and Iberomaurusians.
It all makes sense with the migration of E from NE Africa to Levant and to Europe.

Pribislav
05-29-2020, 01:29 PM
M78 is found in Neolithic Jordan:

E-P147-P177-P2-M215-M35-V68-M78-CTS675/PF2104

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

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

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

I'm not saying there's no chance L618 came to the Balkans via Levant and Anatolia (or even via Gibraltar as Bane suggested), I'm just saying it's highly unlikely it originated in the Levant among Natufians. However, currently available aDNA samples from the Middle East don't go in favour of such a path for L618, so I'm still sticking to my Capsian pet theory that L618 came to Europe from the territory of modern Tunisia via Sicily and South Italy in the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic.

drobbah
05-29-2020, 01:36 PM
Is there a big difference between E-V13 and E-V12?
Yes there's a big difference!

E-V13 -> E-L618 -> E-Z1919 -> E-M78
E-V12 -> E-Z1902 -> E-M78

Besides being diverged for a significant period of time V13 is mostly in Europe and parts of the Middle East while V12 is mostly in NE Africa with it's most successful subclade (V32) dominating the Horn

Riverman
05-29-2020, 02:33 PM
I'm not saying there's no chance L618 came to the Balkans via Levant and Anatolia (or even via Gibraltar as Bane suggested), I'm just saying it's highly unlikely it originated in the Levant among Natufians. However, currently available aDNA samples from the Middle East don't go in favour of such a path for L618

The real problem in this case is quite obviously the lack of available samples. Spread and diversity in the Near East speak for itself.


so I'm still sticking to my Capsian pet theory that L618 came to Europe from the territory of modern Tunisia via Sicily and South Italy in the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic.

Possible, but certainly not more likely by now.


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

I thought about that too and its remotely possible, but the real problem is that this should have been recognisable with IM being quite peculiar. Rather IM came into existence through the expansion of the source population which led to both IM and Natufian, whether its from Egypt or the Levante/Southern Near East. This boils down to samples being found and taken. How can people discuss the Maghreb big time and ignore Egypt, the Nile region and the Levante, Southern Near East? That's like the focus of some researchers on South Africa for early Homo sapiens. Its just the easy access to well preserved samples which makes this sites interesting at all. They are dead ends if looking at the regions and populations from a bigger perspective.
In the Maghreb you had small bands of people which had what they brought with when coming in from the population centres in the Nile valley and the Levante. They were swept away with the next wave coming in. So even if some made it to the Northern Mediterranean, they had not the pressure and tools to leave a big impression. E1b was, probably, already present in SEE, but they clearly expanded with Cardial and possibly LBK and even later Neolithic groups from Western Anatolia and the Balkans. That's their path and this connects V13 very well with its E1b relatives. In theory E1b could have even been picked up by Cardial and expanded from within, but the route is more from Eastern Anatolia to the West and its ancestors ultimately back to a Natufian-related people living in the Levante.
Among moderns, I know this is not decisive, but still, L618 is found in Europeans and Near Easterners, the brother group E-V22 is clearly Near Eastern and European too. Taforalt is, in my opinion, just an offshot from the Near East coming in probably just a few generations before. If there is a better time transect for the region in the future, you will find successive waves of incoming E-carriers in Northern Western Africa, coming in from Egypt or the Near East. Its a similar situation as it was with R1b - it pops up in Western Europe among Bell Beakers, but everything points to an Eastern origin. Same thing here, Taforalt is not the source but the endpoint of an expansion.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 04:00 PM
The real problem in this case is quite obviously the lack of available samples. Spread and diversity in the Near East speak for itself.



Possible, but certainly not more likely by now.



I thought about that too and its remotely possible, but the real problem is that this should have been recognisable with IM being quite peculiar. Rather IM came into existence through the expansion of the source population which led to both IM and Natufian, whether its from Egypt or the Levante/Southern Near East. This boils down to samples being found and taken. How can people discuss the Maghreb big time and ignore Egypt, the Nile region and the Levante, Southern Near East? That's like the focus of some researchers on South Africa for early Homo sapiens. Its just the easy access to well preserved samples which makes this sites interesting at all. They are dead ends if looking at the regions and populations from a bigger perspective.
In the Maghreb you had small bands of people which had what they brought with when coming in from the population centres in the Nile valley and the Levante. They were swept away with the next wave coming in. So even if some made it to the Northern Mediterranean, they had not the pressure and tools to leave a big impression. E1b was, probably, already present in SEE, but they clearly expanded with Cardial and possibly LBK and even later Neolithic groups from Western Anatolia and the Balkans. That's their path and this connects V13 very well with its E1b relatives. In theory E1b could have even been picked up by Cardial and expanded from within, but the route is more from Eastern Anatolia to the West and its ancestors ultimately back to a Natufian-related people living in the Levante.
Among moderns, I know this is not decisive, but still, L618 is found in Europeans and Near Easterners, the brother group E-V22 is clearly Near Eastern and European too. Taforalt is, in my opinion, just an offshot from the Near East coming in probably just a few generations before. If there is a better time transect for the region in the future, you will find successive waves of incoming E-carriers in Northern Western Africa, coming in from Egypt or the Near East. Its a similar situation as it was with R1b - it pops up in Western Europe among Bell Beakers, but everything points to an Eastern origin. Same thing here, Taforalt is not the source but the endpoint of an expansion.


Wait a minute. How did natufians bring E1 to North Africa/Taforalt when Taforalt and Iberomaurusians predate natufians?....

Aspar
05-29-2020, 04:24 PM
Yes, a dead-end lineage (xL618,V22,V12,V65), also very likely not a fully developed M78 since it's CTS4138- (i.e. pre-M78), so it certainly couldn't have been the ancestor of L618. On the other hand, Taforalt samples had ~75% derived SNPs at M78 level, so by the following calculation:

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

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

I'm not saying there's no chance L618 came to the Balkans via Levant and Anatolia (or even via Gibraltar as Bane suggested), I'm just saying it's highly unlikely it originated in the Levant among Natufians. However, currently available aDNA samples from the Middle East don't go in favour of such a path for L618, so I'm still sticking to my Capsian pet theory that L618 came to Europe from the territory of modern Tunisia via Sicily and South Italy in the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic.

Of course anything is possible until is narrowed down with the help of archeogenetics.
In this case mathematical or not both M78 are dead ends.
However one big problem I find with your theory is the lack of substantial NA dna in the Neolithic samples from the Balkans and South Italy which in the case of Sicily were Sardinian like...
Then another problem is that such Caspian migration is poorly attested unlike the very well known migration of farmers from the Fertile Crescent.
Of course what the Yugoslav archeologists brought in light should be further explored.


Wait a minute. How did natufians bring E1 to North Africa/Taforalt when Taforalt and Iberomaurusians predate natufians?....

I think that Riverman said a source population contributing both to IM and Natufians not that the Natufians predated the IM...

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 04:40 PM
Of course anything is possible until is narrowed down with the help of archeogenetics.
In this case mathematical or not both M78 are dead ends.
However one big problem I find with your theory is the lack of substantial NA dna in the Neolithic samples from the Balkans and South Italy which in the case of Sicily were Sardinian like...
Then another problem is that such Caspian migration is poorly attested unlike the very well known migration of farmers from the Fertile Crescent.
Of course what the Yugoslav archeologists brought in light should be further explored.



I think that Riverman said a source population contributing both to IM and Natufians not that the Natufians predated the IM...

The source is Ancestral North African thats where E comes from. Natufians aren’t mostly ANA as Iberomaurusians were and had local Levant admixture with CT hunter gatherers. And E spread from West to East not the opposite as he claims. That’s the picture real physical samples paint so far not online theories. Until an older E is found anywhere else besides north west Africa that can’t be changed.

Riverman
05-29-2020, 04:43 PM
Wait a minute. How did natufians bring E1 to North Africa/Taforalt when Taforalt and Iberomaurusians predate natufians?....

I was speaking of the same source or "Natufian-related", definitely not that IM descend from Natufians. The unmixed source population is expected to be closer to Natufians than to IM, which have a regional North African admixture not present or at least not as strong elsewhere. The source population is most likely from Egypt or the Southern Near East and the predecessor of L618 lived, together with the ancestor of V22, in the Near East, from where they expanded to the Northern Levant, Anatolia and SEE, where V13 came into existence.

E1b came to the Western parts of North Africa (West of Egypt) with new people, cultures and technology. The aboriginal people were closer to Subsaharans, but an independent population. I think the Shum Laka paper is fairly informative and a start for exploring North (Western) Africa, which was more of a sink than a source for anything. The only important source possible in North Africa will be from the Nile Valley, where the cultural development was quicker and the population more dense. I'm not sure whether the initial input was from the Near East, there was a connection between the Nile valley and the Levante, or the Nile valley was the big source. That's up to future research.

@Scythoslav: Of course, its not proven yet 100 percent, but that's just because of the preservation status. Like with South Africa and early Homo sapiens. If people find in regions with optimal preservation status good samples which prove a branch was there, that's nice and all, but it tells you zero about the deeper origin of the branch. There is no proof that anything Iberomaurusian contributed big time to Natufians, whereas the opposite can be modelled with a regional North African branch predating the West Eurasian colonisation.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 04:44 PM
Of course anything is possible until is narrowed down with the help of archeogenetics.
In this case mathematical or not both M78 are dead ends.
However one big problem I find with your theory is the lack of substantial NA dna in the Neolithic samples from the Balkans and South Italy which in the case of Sicily were Sardinian like...
Then another problem is that such Caspian migration is poorly attested unlike the very well known migration of farmers from the Fertile Crescent.
Of course what the Yugoslav archeologists brought in light should be further explored.



I think that Riverman said a source population contributing both to IM and Natufians not that the Natufians predated the IM...

Only 1 sample was E-V13 among 69 from Neolithic samples. So E-V13 doesn’t seem to have been that common in Neolithic, Balkans or not. That’s the mystery. So looking for NA mix in Neolithic Balkan samples makes 0 sense.

Riverman
05-29-2020, 04:55 PM
Only 1 sample was E-V13 among 69 from Neolithic samples. So E-V13 doesn’t seem to have been that common in Neolithic, Balkans or not. That’s the mystery. So looking for NA mix in Neolithic Balkan samples makes 0 sense.

E1b is the second most common haplogroup of the early Neolithic so far, with continuity from PPN. E-V13 itself is a late bloomer anyway and I doubt that a lot of the E1b in Michelsberg survived the following transitions. But that doesn't matter, like its the same e.g. with I1, even with R1a for that matter. They all came from a source group harbouring different, but closely related haplotypes and at some point one lineage managed to expand more successfully than their fellows.

I mentioned the brother clade V22 for that matter, which is clearly centered around the Near East and Europe too, as is V13 and its predecessor L618. Its possible that a lineage got lost in its original home, it happened often enough, but for E-V13 there is no reason to assume that, since its very well embedded in a cultural and genetic framework, with all its father and brother clades between the Levante and Europe.

drobbah
05-29-2020, 05:01 PM
The source is Ancestral North African thats where E comes from. Natufians aren’t mostly ANA as Iberomaurusians were and had local Levant admixture with CT hunter gatherers. And E spread from West to East not the opposite as he claims. That’s the picture real physical samples paint so far not online theories. Until an older E is found anywhere else besides north west Africa that can’t be changed.

E1b1b (E-M215) originated in East Africa, these E-M215 men migrated north and became E-M35.It's clear that this E-M78 originated in NE Africa and not the Maghreb

Johane Derite
05-29-2020, 05:04 PM
So far there are zero DNA samples from Albania from any period. Neolithic until now. So there is a big blind spot in making any statements about what neolithic mediterrenean was like.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 05:04 PM
I was speaking of the same source or "Natufian-related", definitely not that IM descend from Natufians. The unmixed source population is expected to be closer to Natufians than to IM, which have a regional North African admixture not present or at least not as strong elsewhere. The source population is most likely from Egypt or the Southern Near East and the predecessor of L618 lived, together with the ancestor of V22, in the Near East, from where they expanded to the Northern Levant, Anatolia and SEE, where V13 came into existence.

E1b came to the Western parts of North Africa (West of Egypt) with new people, cultures and technology. The aboriginal people were closer to Subsaharans, but an independent population. I think the Shum Laka paper is fairly informative and a start for exploring North (Western) Africa, which was more of a sink than a source for anything. The only important source possible in North Africa will be from the Nile Valley, where the cultural development was quicker and the population more dense. I'm not sure whether the initial input was from the Near East, there was a connection between the Nile valley and the Levante, or the Nile valley was the big source. That's up to future research.

@Scythoslav: Of course, its not proven yet 100 percent, but that's just because of the preservation status. Like with South Africa and early Homo sapiens. If people find in regions with optimal preservation status good samples which prove a branch was there, that's nice and all, but it tells you zero about the deeper origin of the branch. There is no proof that anything Iberomaurusian contributed big time to Natufians, whereas the opposite can be modelled with a regional North African branch predating the West Eurasian colonisation.

What is this source population modeled as? Because natufians are “In terms of autosomal DNA, these Natufians carried around 50% of the Basal Eurasian (BE) and 50% of Western Eurasian Unknown Hunter Gather (UHG) components” the UHG component was the CT hunter gatherer adxmiture. So around 50 percent of their ancestry comes from a definitely not E population.

There is also proof of NA migration and influence to the Levant via Mushabians but none of reverse.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 05:05 PM
E1b1b (E-M215) originated in East Africa, these E-M215 men migrated north and became E-M35.It's clear that this E-M78 originated in NE Africa and not the Maghreb

Samples? Physical proof?

Pribislav
05-29-2020, 05:13 PM
I thought about that too and its remotely possible, but the real problem is that this should have been recognisable with IM being quite peculiar. Rather IM came into existence through the expansion of the source population which led to both IM and Natufian, whether its from Egypt or the Levante/Southern Near East. This boils down to samples being found and taken. How can people discuss the Maghreb big time and ignore Egypt, the Nile region and the Levante, Southern Near East? That's like the focus of some researchers on South Africa for early Homo sapiens. Its just the easy access to well preserved samples which makes this sites interesting at all. They are dead ends if looking at the regions and populations from a bigger perspective.
In the Maghreb you had small bands of people which had what they brought with when coming in from the population centres in the Nile valley and the Levante. They were swept away with the next wave coming in. So even if some made it to the Northern Mediterranean, they had not the pressure and tools to leave a big impression. E1b was, probably, already present in SEE, but they clearly expanded with Cardial and possibly LBK and even later Neolithic groups from Western Anatolia and the Balkans. That's their path and this connects V13 very well with its E1b relatives. In theory E1b could have even been picked up by Cardial and expanded from within, but the route is more from Eastern Anatolia to the West and its ancestors ultimately back to a Natufian-related people living in the Levante.
Among moderns, I know this is not decisive, but still, L618 is found in Europeans and Near Easterners, the brother group E-V22 is clearly Near Eastern and European too. Taforalt is, in my opinion, just an offshot from the Near East coming in probably just a few generations before. If there is a better time transect for the region in the future, you will find successive waves of incoming E-carriers in Northern Western Africa, coming in from Egypt or the Near East. Its a similar situation as it was with R1b - it pops up in Western Europe among Bell Beakers, but everything points to an Eastern origin. Same thing here, Taforalt is not the source but the endpoint of an expansion.

While I do agree Iberomaurusians ultimately originated from the population coming from modern Egypt/Northeast Africa/Levant, that (back)migration is much older than you seem to suggest, since Iberomaurusian starts around 20000 BC at the latest, and probably a couple thousand years earlier. That's very close in time to the divergence of clade M35 into two daughter subclades, L539 and Z827 (~22000 BC according to YFull). So it makes sense to assume L539 went west to the Maghreb bringing Iberomaurusian culture, while Z827 stayed in Northeast Africa, most likely as a part of Mushabian culture. We should also take M78's rare sister subclade V1039 in consideration, as it is found mostly in Northwest Africa and Southwest Europe, and is virtually non-existent in the Levant. It has also been found in two Chalcolithic individuals with great amounts of Maghreb_EN/LN ancestry in Central Iberia and Sardinia.

Your last sentence saying "Taforalt is not the source but the endpoint of an expansion" is absolutelly baseless, so I'll say again: given their AMS radiocarbon dating, lineage to which Taforalt individuals belonged must have been phylogenetically speaking really close to the lineage to which the actual ancestor of all living M78 belonged. In fact, it seems practically impossible that the two weren't part of the same broader Iberomaurusian population. So, saying that at the same time there was a lineage ancestral to Z1919 and L618 developing in the Levant as a part of Natufian culture doesn't make any sense.

Bane
05-29-2020, 05:25 PM
While I do agree Iberomaurusians ultimately originated from the population coming from modern Egypt/Northeast Africa/Levant, that (back)migration is much older than you seem to suggest, since Iberomaurusian starts around 20000 BC at the latest, and probably a couple thousand years earlier. That's very close in time to the divergence of clade M35 into two daughter subclades, L539 and Z827 (~22000 BC according to YFull). So it makes sense to assume L539 went west to the Maghreb bringing Iberomaurusian culture, while Z827 stayed in Northeast Africa, most likely as a part of Mushabian culture. We should also take M78's rare sister subclade V1039 in consideration, as it is found mostly in Northwest Africa and Southwest Europe, and is virtually non-existent in the Levant. It has also been found in two Chalcolithic individuals with great amounts of Maghreb_EN/LN ancestry in Central Iberia and Sardinia.

Your last sentence saying "Taforalt is not the source but the endpoint of an expansion" is absolutelly baseless, so I'll say again: given their AMS radiocarbon dating, lineage to which Taforalt individuals belonged must have been phylogenetically speaking really close to the lineage to which the actual ancestor of all living M78 belonged. In fact, it seems practically impossible that the two weren't part of the same broader Iberomaurusian population. So, saying that at the same time there was a lineage ancestral to Z1919 and L618 developing in the Levant as a part of Natufian culture doesn't make any sense.

Sometimes it is ungrateful to be precise. People just don't seem to care.
I praise what you wrote here.

Johane Derite
05-29-2020, 05:47 PM
Unless Cardium culture originated originated in Tunisia, I don't see an archaeological horizon that matches a Tunisian origin for E-L618.

Cardial pottery fits best with geographical and temporal distribution of L618 for now.

I am yet to see the evidence of some Capsian culture movement into Europe. I welcome it if it is there.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 05:51 PM
Unless Cardium culture originated originated in Tunisia, I don't see an archaeological horizon that matches a Tunisian origin for E-L618.

Cardial pottery fits best with geographical and temporal distribution of L618 for now.

I am yet to see the evidence of some Capsian culture movement into Europe. I welcome it if it is there.

Almost half of Neolithic farmers in the Balkans were I2a. Was I2a spread to Europe by Neolithic farmers? The presence of L618 among Cardium culture says nothing about where it came from.

Johane Derite
05-29-2020, 05:59 PM
Almost half of Neolithic farmers in the Balkans were I2a. Was I2a spread to Europe by Neolithic farmers? The presence of L618 among Cardium culture says nothing about where it came from.

We are discussing if it came from levant with cardium culture. This fits better currently than any Capsian model.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 06:00 PM
We are discussing if it came from levant with cardium culture. This fits better currently than any Capsian model.

How? If we are discussing things based purely on physical evidence it’s parent clade was never found in the Levant but was found in North Africa. And why is Capsian in particular? My belief is that E-78 entered Europe via Gibraltar in late Mesolithic.

Johane Derite
05-29-2020, 06:05 PM
L618 so far have been found in modern South Albanians (Epirus was early cardial settlements). The geographical distribution of ancient L618 matches cardial culture, which has a levant origin. This suggests L618 came to Europe from there. Where it was before that is a different subject. So with more tests we should expect to find it there, if this cardial model is correct.

drobbah
05-29-2020, 06:08 PM
Samples? Physical proof?



Within this clade, the posterior probability (0.97) strongly favors an eastern African placement for the origin of the E-M215 diversity, as previously suggested by Semino et al. (2004) and Gebremeskel and Ibrahim (2014), whereas a northern African location is favored for the node defining the M78 subclade (posterior probability = 0.76), supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al. (2007).
Despite we assigned most previous deep E-M35 eastern African clades to a single haplogroup (E-V1515), our phylogeographic analysis slightly favors an eastern African origin for E-M35 (posterior probability = 0.64). We found a new clade, defined by V1515 mutation, which originated and differentiated in eastern Africa (posterior probability = 0.99), and expanded southward in recent times as a single terminal clade (E-M293


Gebremeskel, E. I., & Ibrahim, M. E. (2014). Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22(12), 1387-1392.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 06:10 PM
L618 so far have been found in modern South Albanians (Epirus was early cardial settlements). The geographical distribution of ancient L618 matches cardial culture, which has a levant origin. This suggests L618 came to Europe from there. Where it was before that is a different subject. So with more tests we should expect to find it there, if this cardial model is correct.

Like I said the only thing it proves is that it was present in Southern Europe. Until they find it or parent clade where Cardium culture came from this is just a theory with no physical evidence.

Bealfire
05-29-2020, 06:15 PM
Gebremeskel, E. I., & Ibrahim, M. E. (2014). Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22(12), 1387-1392.
(2004) that's outdated and not regarded anymore.
Oldest EM215* is in North Africa.

Johane Derite
05-29-2020, 06:15 PM
Nonetheless, as a working model, Cardial currently fits available evidence more parsimoniously.

Scythoslav Straits of Gibaltrar theory: currently doesn't have an archaeoligcal horizon to explain L618 in ancient Adriatic, Hungary

Pribislav Capsian Tunisia theory: currently lacks evidence of Capsian movement into the regions mentioned above.

If there is archaeological evidence of this type, post it here, im not against it, sounds interesting in fact.

drobbah
05-29-2020, 06:26 PM
(2004) that's outdated and not regarded anymore.
Oldest EM215* is in North Africa.
Yet all the other E1b lineages are found in East Africa and the brother clade E-P2 also originated in East Africa.Only those with a sinister interest to distance E-M215 from it's SSA origins and brother clades would disregard this information.


Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.



Trombetta, Beniamino; Cruciani, Fulvio; Sellitto, Daniele; Scozzari, Rosaria (2011), MacAulay, Vincent (ed.), "A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms"

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 06:27 PM
Nonetheless, as a working model, Cardial currently fits available evidence more parsimoniously.

Scythoslav Straits of Gibaltrar theory: currently doesn't have an archaeoligcal horizon to explain L618 in ancient Adriatic, Hungary

Pribislav Capsian Tunisia theory: currently lacks evidence of Capsian movement into the regions mentioned above.

If there is archaeological evidence of this type, post it here, im not against it, sounds interesting in fact.

Lol and your theory lacks any E-L618 in the region where it supposedly came from.

My theory makes most sense because if they came in late Mesolithic it’s consistent with all other samples found.

Your theory has a red x right at the origin point because no physical evidence.

Riverman
05-29-2020, 06:28 PM
What is this source population modeled as? Because natufians are “In terms of autosomal DNA, these Natufians carried around 50% of the Basal Eurasian (BE) and 50% of Western Eurasian Unknown Hunter Gather (UHG) components” the UHG component was the CT hunter gatherer adxmiture. So around 50 percent of their ancestry comes from a definitely not E population.

My assumption is that E was the Basal Eurasian haplogroup, at that point they were mixed of course.


There is also proof of NA migration and influence to the Levant via Mushabians but none of reverse.

The movements between the North East Africa and the Levant are not clarified yet. That's why I won't pin it down and said Egypt is just as likely. Unfortunately we have very little from Egypt.


While I do agree Iberomaurusians ultimately originated from the population coming from modern Egypt/Northeast Africa/Levant, that (back)migration is much older than you seem to suggest, since Iberomaurusian starts around 20000 BC at the latest, and probably a couple thousand years earlier. That's very close in time to the divergence of clade M35 into two daughter subclades, L539 and Z827 (~22000 BC according to YFull). So it makes sense to assume L539 went west to the Maghreb bringing Iberomaurusian culture, while Z827 stayed in Northeast Africa, most likely as a part of Mushabian culture. We should also take M78's rare sister subclade V1039 in consideration, as it is found mostly in Northwest Africa and Southwest Europe, and is virtually non-existent in the Levant. It has also been found in two Chalcolithic individuals with great amounts of Maghreb_EN/LN ancestry in Central Iberia and Sardinia.

Agreed, I was speaking of more than one wave coming from the East to the West. Of course, the West Eurasian influence is fairly old in North West Africa, that's something which was known from the physical remains already. What I think did not happen was IM expanding West in any significant manner.


Your last sentence saying "Taforalt is not the source but the endpoint of an expansion" is absolutelly baseless, so I'll say again: given their AMS radiocarbon dating, lineage to which Taforalt individuals belonged must have been phylogenetically speaking really close to the lineage to which the actual ancestor of all living M78 belonged. In fact, it seems practically impossible that the two weren't part of the same broader Iberomaurusian population. So, saying that at the same time there was a lineage ancestral to Z1919 and L618 developing in the Levant as a part of Natufian culture doesn't make any sense.

The IM were a diverged population with regional North African admixture and I make a comparison again: You can find R1b in the Caucasus and in Western Europe in the Bronze Age, yet the ultimate source is in neither of these places. Same goes for the Taforalt and Natufian samples, with the Natufians being definitely closer to what entered Europe than IM.

You said yourself that we deal with a time frame, and you said that the Taforalt sample does fit, roughly, in that time frame and could be the ancestor of V13. But that's it, it could fit, but there is no real link present. And while there were earlier migrations of West Eurasians to North West Africa, it makes no sense to state that this particular lineage found in Taforalt is strictly local and no recent newcomer.

For this speaks the fact that IM had Subsaharan affinities, while Natufians had not:

A two-way admixture model, comprising Natufian and sub-Saharan African populations, does not significantly deviate from our data (χ2 P ≥ 0.128), with 63.5% Natufian and 36.5% sub-Saharan African ancestry, on average (table S8). Adding Paleolithic European lineages as a third source only marginally increased the model fit


These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/548

I know the North African situation is more complicated than such a simplified model, but the fact remains that we deal with a recent mixture of a Natufian-like population and a local North African one, probably even based on subsequent admixture events of a similar kind, with one pulse from North East African/Near East after another reaching Northern Africa.

So its easy to model Taforalt as a recent mix of North Africans with West Eurasians, the same can't be said for Natufians. And the reason for this is not the UHG admixture in Natufians, but the non-West Eurasian in IM.

With the results from the Shum Laka paper I'd say that an even earlier wave from North East Africa or the Near East introduced E1a and replaced local lineages (primarily A and B ) with the expansion of Niger-Kordofan/Bantu languages. North West and West Africa will therefore be, in the future, being best modeled as an arrangement of layers, with an archaic population, probably best represented by Eleru, at the bottom, and subsequent immigrations from the North East of the continent and the Near East introducing new ancestral components and cultural innovations.

From the Shum Laka paper:

Results are shown including ancient individuals from Taforalt in Morocco
associated with the Iberomaurusian culture, with the Shum Laka individuals
modelled as having a mixture of ancestry related to western Central African
hunter-gatherers plus two additional components: one from within the main
portion of the West African clade, and one that splits at nearly the same point as
one of the sources that contributes ancestry to the Taforalt individuals.

I'm still not sure about how that pans out in the end, but my current best guess is that the regional North African component the West Eurasians met when producing IM, was originally E1a and a related branch contributed on a large scale to modern Subsaharans, especially Niger-Kordofan/Bantu speakers. If significantly older North African samples will be used, they won't be ancestral to E1b and the samples from Taforalt, but a different, divergent lineage. First A and B, then E1a and only after that E1b entered the scene with Iberomaurusians and West Eurasian ancestry proper.
You don't say that Iberomaurusians had any role to play for Natufians or do you?

Kelmendasi
05-29-2020, 06:28 PM
L618 so far have been found in modern South Albanians (Epirus was early cardial settlements). The geographical distribution of ancient L618 matches cardial culture, which has a levant origin. This suggests L618 came to Europe from there. Where it was before that is a different subject. So with more tests we should expect to find it there, if this cardial model is correct.
It should be noted that an Algerian has turned out to be E-L618>BY125469, so there are other L618 (V13-) clusters that are also present in North Africa. There is also an Arab from Saudi Arabia. The Albanian is BY125469>FT148887.

Though it is also important to note that L618>BY6578 shows up in Lebanon and that there is a potential L618* (V13- V22-) sample from Syria, so there are also L618 clusters in the Levant. Interestingly the Lebanese sample belongs to the same cluster as a guy from Latvia. There are other L618 clusters in Western Europe and even Scandinavia (Denmark).

Bealfire
05-29-2020, 06:31 PM
Yet all the other E1b lineages are found in East Africa and the brother clade E-P2 also originated in East Africa.Only those with a sinister interest to distance E-M215 from it's SSA origins and brother clades would disregard this information.



Trombetta, Beniamino; Cruciani, Fulvio; Sellitto, Daniele; Scozzari, Rosaria (2011), MacAulay, Vincent (ed.), "A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms"
Outdated and off-topic.

Oldest EM215* is in North Africa.

Hawk
05-29-2020, 06:33 PM
So, we have two big questions.

How the parent of E-V13 entered Europe?

And the origin of most common recent ancestor of modern E-V13, from where did it start to spread in Bronze Age?

Hopefully, we have the answers soon.

drobbah
05-29-2020, 06:34 PM
Outdated and off-topic.

Oldest EM215* is in North Africa.

It appeared out of thin air in North Africa.Got it!

Pribislav
05-29-2020, 06:38 PM
Unless Cardium culture originated originated in Tunisia, I don't see an archaeological horizon that matches a Tunisian origin for E-L618.

Cardial pottery fits best with geographical and temporal distribution of L618 for now.

I am yet to see the evidence of some Capsian culture movement into Europe. I welcome it if it is there.

Keep in mind we might be talking about very small population, maybe just a several dozen male individuals, of which only one L618 guy that lived ~6000 BC left descendants. That small population could've been assimilated in the Balkans or South Italy into the more advanced and more numerous Cardial farmers, so both their material culture and genome-wide ancestry would've been practically unrecognizable in as little as 10 generations. And cultural contacts between Tunisia and Sicily definitely existed, we'll just have to wait for study by Fromentier et al. to see if those contacts also involved gene flow.


Characterizing the mesolthic to neolthic transition in central and southern Italy using genome-wide data from 10,000 to 6,000-year-old individuals

A. Fromentier, C. Theves, E. Crubezy, N. Valdeyron

The Mesolithic period in Italy stretches from ~9,000 BC to ~6,200 BC and consists of two main phases, both characterized by different technologies: Mesolithic I (Sauveterrian, ~9,000 BC to ~6,800 BC ) and Mesolithic II (Castelnovian, ~6,800 BC to ~6,200 BC). While the archaeological record in northern Italy is abundant and follows a standard transition from Mesolithic I to II, the record from Central/Southern Italy is much more scarce. Additionally, many Mesolithic sites found in the Center/South still display Paleolithic features, and are immediately followed by the Neolithic originating in the Fertile Crescent, which reached the Adriatic coast around 6,200 BC before spreading quickly in the Italian peninsula. Overall, the Paleolithic/Mesolithic/Neolithic transitions within Central/Southern Italy remains poorly understood. In particular, the existence of both possible contacts between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers and possible exchanges between Sicily and Tunisia, as suggested from cultural evidence, remain unclear. In order to answer these questions, we have developed a project aimed at collecting genome-wide sequence data from multiple individuals of the Mesolithic and Neolithic archaeological sites in Central/Southern Italy and Tunisia.

Hawk
05-29-2020, 06:47 PM
Farming was an idea initially spread by E-M35 lineages. Archeologically Mesolithic Egypt is way more advanced than Mesolithic Anatolia or Europe or Asia.

Even Iberomaurusians were advanced for their age.

Cardial farmers are archeologically notoriously noted to have Natufian/Iberomaurusian influences.

Ruderico
05-29-2020, 06:47 PM
It should be noted that an Algerian has turned out to be E-L618>BY125469, so there are other L618 (V13-) clusters that are also present in North Africa. There is also an Arab from Saudi Arabia. The Albanian is BY125469>FT148887.

Though it is also important to note that L618>BY6578 shows up in Lebanon and that there is a L618 (V13- V22-) sample from Syria, so there are also L618 clusters in the Levant. Interestingly the Lebanese sample belongs to the same cluster as a guy from Latvia. There are other L618 clusters in Western Europe and even Scandinavia (Denmark).

Not disagreeing, but we should be a bit careful when analysing modern distributions. My clade (E-Y31991) has more branches in modern Europeans than Levantines, yet no one in his right mind would suggest it arose in Europe (formed 17700 ybp, TMRCA 10300 ybp)

Kelmendasi
05-29-2020, 06:51 PM
Not disagreeing, but we should be a bit careful when analysing modern distributions. My clade (E-Y31991) has more branches in modern Europeans than Levantines, yet no one in his right mind would suggest it arose in Europe (formed 17700 ybp, TMRCA 10300 ybp)
Yes I agree, I was just pointing out that L618 (V13-) clusters show up in West Asia and North Africa, as well as across Europe. We can potentially use this to give us a hint as to where L618 itself arose and expanded from, however it will all just be pretty vague guesswork without actual aDNA samples.

Scythoslav
05-29-2020, 07:04 PM
It appeared out of thin air in North Africa.Got it!

Do you not believe that E split from D in West Asia then back migrated to Africa? Iberomaurusians had u6 mtDNA that they could have picked up only in Eurasia. Haplo E spread throughout Africa conquering and assimilating native SSA. It’s not a native African haplo like A and B

Hawk
05-29-2020, 07:04 PM
https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum/reader/download/202/202-30-76688-1-10-20170119.pdf

We have evidences of chert mining in Paleolithic/Mesolithic Egypt. Chert mining is essential in later development of farming.

The idea initially was spread from North-East Africa > Levant > Anatolia > Europe.

digital_noise
05-29-2020, 08:35 PM
Out of curiosity, why are there so many "fringe" opinions on E-V13's origins? Obviously until we get ancient samples, its all speculation at this point but does anyone ever consider a not very exciting origin? Like, E-M35 forming roughly in Red Sea area, then E-L618 in the Levant and then E-V13 in Northern Greece or Thrace area? Geographically, I doubt it would go from the Levant (E-L618) all the way to Gibraltar. That just seems a bit far fetched to me.

Hawk
05-29-2020, 08:41 PM
Out of curiosity, why are there so many "fringe" opinions on E-V13's origins? Obviously until we get ancient samples, its all speculation at this point but does anyone ever consider a not very exciting origin? Like, E-M35 forming roughly in Red Sea area, then E-L618 in the Levant and then E-V13 in Northern Greece or Thrace area? Geographically, I doubt it would go from the Levant (E-L618) all the way to Gibraltar. That just seems a bit far fetched to me.

Exactly, up to the point.

Riverman
05-29-2020, 08:47 PM
It should be noted that an Algerian has turned out to be E-L618>BY125469, so there are other L618 (V13-) clusters that are also present in North Africa. There is also an Arab from Saudi Arabia. The Albanian is BY125469>FT148887.

There are various samples from the Near East and the Saudi is in the potential core zone of the Basal Eurasians, with the Algerian could be local or of later Afro-Asiatic, even fairly recent Arab descent.


Though it is also important to note that L618>BY6578 shows up in Lebanon and that there is a potential L618* (V13- V22-) sample from Syria, so there are also L618 clusters in the Levant. Interestingly the Lebanese sample belongs to the same cluster as a guy from Latvia. There are other L618 clusters in Western Europe and even Scandinavia (Denmark).

So various samples of L618 is in the Near East, and only one sample from Algeria which might be of more recent Near Eastern origin as well. Not saying this is conclusive, but I fail to see a support for a North (West) African origin, even on the contrary.


https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum/reader/download/202/202-30-76688-1-10-20170119.pdf

We have evidences of chert mining in Paleolithic/Mesolithic Egypt. Chert mining is essential in later development of farming.

The idea initially was spread from North-East Africa > Levant > Anatolia > Europe.

The best pieces I read about the relations between North East Africa and the Levante/Near East were from Ofer Bar-Yosef and about the region in which Natufians later emerged, which I consider absolutely crucial:

The climatic improvement after 14,500 B.P. seems to have been respon-sible for the presence of more stable human occupations in the steppic and desertic belts. Groups moved into areas that were previously uninhabited,from the Mediterranean steppe into the margins of the Syro-Arabian desert. Others came from the Nile valley,creating an interesting social mosaic.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdf

How the exact relationship of the Kebaran to the Mushabian pans out from the genetic and demographic perspective is still debatable imho, still speculative without more samples. But I agree that the Mushabian is the single best candidate for a spread from the Nile Valley/North East Africa, if there is a North African origin of Natufians and E1b in the Near East.

We need definitely more data from Egypt.