PDA

View Full Version : E-V13 in Bulgarian Iron Age



Pages : [1] 2 3

eastara
08-21-2020, 01:03 AM
Recently came to my attention a few videos, which claim a new big project about testing old bones from different periods in Bulgaria. This will be between Dr.Reich's Harvard Lab and the Bulgarian Archaeological Institute.
It seems the Harvard lab has some unpublished results from the study The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe. They appear for a short time on the screen of this video (around 6:00 min) but are covered by the head and are a mirror image. I managed to see that all assigned haplogroups from the Bulgarian Iron age are some kind of E:
https://sedemosmi.tv/production/%d1%81%d1%82%d1%83%d0%b4%d0%b8%d0%be-%d1%85%d1%8a-%d1%81%d0%b2%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%be%d1%81%d0%bb%d0%b0%d 0%b2-%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%bc%d0%be%d0%b2-18-%d0%b0%d0%b2%d0%b3%d1%83%d1%81%d1%82-2020-%d0%b3/

There is one E1b1b1a1b1a - V13, 2 E1b1b1a1b1 - L618 and one given only as E. They are from Kapitan Andreevo-Svilengrad area, this is South East Bulgaria, close to the Turkish/Greek border. From this area is also the previous low coverage Thracian samples, worked out as M78. This is the hinterland of the Odrysian Thracian kingdom and there is a reason to believe that the Thracians from the Classical period are also predominantly V13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odrysian_kingdom

The guy on the video also mentioned that one Medieval sample from 9th c. Central Bulgaria has been proven Q1a2a. According to him, this must be some Old Bulgar, however not completely sure in not an Avar. He is paddling the Iran-Caucasus origin of the Old Bulgars, something most Bulgarians don't agree with. At any case more bones will be tested with this new project and the truth will be revealed at last.

Hawk
08-21-2020, 05:57 AM
Most of EBA are R1b, E-V13 appears in EIA, hmmm.

eastara
08-21-2020, 08:02 AM
He also mentioned about some new results from the Early Bronze age. The remains from Ezero culture, South East Bulgaria around 3000BC match those of the early layers of Troy. For now Dr.Reich was not sure if they came from the Balkans to Western Anatolia, or vice versa. There was also some matching of the Mycenaean with samples from Bulgaria.
Previously published results from Bulgarian Bronze age are predominantly I2a2 and R1a-Z93.
From the screen there are now R1b1a1b1a1, so probably L51. Previously among Yamnaya and other steppe protoIndoEuropeans was found Z2105 only.

Hawk
08-21-2020, 08:58 AM
From previous study, the Thracian from Svilengrad was revealed to be E-Z1919 only, maybe he was E-L168, no deeper clade than that. Autosomally he was mostly Sardinian-like.

It looks to me that E-V13 was a Central Balkan thing, Thracians, Paeonians, Dardanians, Macedonians, Epirotans, Illyrians from Albania will exhibit ~30-40% of it most likely.

etrusco
08-21-2020, 09:07 AM
He also mentioned about some new results from the Early Bronze age. The remains from Ezero culture, South East Bulgaria around 3000BC match those of the early layers of Troy. For now Dr.Reich was not sure if they came from the Balkans to Western Anatolia, or vice versa. There was also some matching of the Mycenaean with samples from Bulgaria.
Previously published results from Bulgarian Bronze age are predominantly I2a2 and R1a-Z93.
From the screen there are now R1b1a1b1a1, so probably L51. Previously among Yamnaya and other steppe protoIndoEuropeans was found Z2105 only.

So they found an R1b L51 sample from Yamnaya Bulgaria?

eastara
08-21-2020, 09:31 AM
So they found an R1b L51 sample from Yamnaya Bulgaria?

Unfortunately I can't see where the R1b samples are from. I know that pure Yamnaya was found occasionally only from kurgan type burials in Northern Bulgaria. Now I see EBA samples from Kran, Kazanlak, which is again South East Bulgaria. There is even a Thracian tomb from Kran as part of the Valley of the Kings. If the R1b-L51 samples are from Southern Bulgaria, they are from the "flat graves" connected to the Aegean culture. Is this the haplogroup of the Tojans as Svetoslav Stamov from the video was hinting, he does not reply when asked on the Bulgarian forums.

Hawk
08-21-2020, 09:58 AM
This is something i can find from Kapitan Andreevo.



This paper brings together old and new archaeobotanical evidence from 20 archaeological sites from Iron Age contexts spanning from the end of the 2nd millennium BC up to the end of the 4th century BC in northern Greece and southern Bulgaria. The sites are Karabournaki, Thessaloniki Toumba and Polichni in central Macedonia in northern Greece and Bresto, Malenovo, Dolno Cherkovishte, Kapitan Andreevo, Svilengrad and Dana Bunar in the region of south Bulgaria. A variety of cereals and pulses, already cultivated since Neolithic and Bronze Age times, are identified as potential culinary ingredients in both regions, yet the list of crops from northern Greece includes a wider diversity than that from the Bulgarian sites, especially regarding the fruit remains. Continuities and discontinuities of plant ingredients in space and time are discussed in relation to potential taphonomic biases. This new evidence from the region indicates that during the Iron Age this part of southeastern Europe shared common traditions in terms of the plant species consumed, with some differences already visible during the Late Bronze Age.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329144563_Iron_Age_Cultural_Interactions_Plant_Sub sistence_and_Land_Use_in_Southeastern_Europe_Infer red_from_Archaeobotanical_Evidence_of_Greece_and_B ulgaria


So, potentially we should expect Northern Greece to show E-V13 as well.

Kanenas
08-21-2020, 10:24 AM
Recently came to my attention a few videos, which claim a new big project about testing old bones from different periods in Bulgaria. This will be between Dr.Reich's Harvard Lab and the Bulgarian Archaeological Institute.
It seems the Harvard lab has some unpublished results from the study The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe. They appear for a short time on the screen of this video (around 6:00 min) but are covered by the head and are a mirror image. I managed to see that all assigned haplogroups from the Bulgarian Iron age are some kind of E:
https://sedemosmi.tv/production/%d1%81%d1%82%d1%83%d0%b4%d0%b8%d0%be-%d1%85%d1%8a-%d1%81%d0%b2%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%be%d1%81%d0%bb%d0%b0%d 0%b2-%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%bc%d0%be%d0%b2-18-%d0%b0%d0%b2%d0%b3%d1%83%d1%81%d1%82-2020-%d0%b3/

There is one E1b1b1a1b1a - V13, 2 E1b1b1a1b1 - L618 and one given only as E. They are from Kapitan Andreevo-Svilengrad area, this is South East Bulgaria, close to the Turkish/Greek border. From this area is also the previous low coverage Thracian samples, worked out as M78. This is the hinterland of the Odrysian Thracian kingdom and there is a reason to believe that the Thracians from the Classical period are also predominantly V13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odrysian_kingdom

The guy on the video also mentioned that one Medieval sample from 9th c. Central Bulgaria has been proven Q1a2a. According to him, this must be some Old Bulgar, however not completely sure in not an Avar. He is paddling the Iran-Caucasus origin of the Old Bulgars, something most Bulgarians don't agree with. At any case more bones will be tested with this new project and the truth will be revealed at last.

'Old Great Bulgaria' (6th century AD?) in the sources was placed almost exactly where the 'Royal Scythians' / 'Skoloti' were placed a 1000 years earlier.
I know that it is partially off topic but is important to see if there was genetic continuity there or replacement, or partial replacement and when. (In esscence if Bulgars had Royal Scythian lineages and also if these exist in Bulgaria and elsewhere in Europe)
Certainly, some names of the Bulgars seem Indo-European, like Asparukh. Imo, even Kubrat, if we assume a ku- prefix of some short.
Batbayan sounds more exotic but 'Batbayan' of modern scholarship is Βαιανος in most Greek sources. That points to a medieval Greek pronunciation Vajanos, with Bezmer, theoretically possible to have been the native name and that name also seems IE, the -mer part certainly is.

Riverman
08-21-2020, 10:46 AM
This is something i can find from Kapitan Andreevo.



So, potentially we should expect Northern Greece to show E-V13 as well.

That's for sure, the question is just in which time period the percentage increases :)

Hawk
08-21-2020, 10:53 AM
That's for sure, the question is just in which time period the percentage increases :)

EBA samples from Bulgaria on one side are dominated by R1b on the other side by R1a/I2a. So i would say the earliest it looks MBA, but mostly LBA/EIA.

capsian
08-21-2020, 11:30 AM
Recently came to my attention a few videos, which claim a new big project about testing old bones from different periods in Bulgaria. This will be between Dr.Reich's Harvard Lab and the Bulgarian Archaeological Institute.
It seems the Harvard lab has some unpublished results from the study The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe. They appear for a short time on the screen of this video (around 6:00 min) but are covered by the head and are a mirror image. I managed to see that all assigned haplogroups from the Bulgarian Iron age are some kind of E:
https://sedemosmi.tv/production/%d1%81%d1%82%d1%83%d0%b4%d0%b8%d0%be-%d1%85%d1%8a-%d1%81%d0%b2%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%be%d1%81%d0%bb%d0%b0%d 0%b2-%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%bc%d0%be%d0%b2-18-%d0%b0%d0%b2%d0%b3%d1%83%d1%81%d1%82-2020-%d0%b3/

There is one E1b1b1a1b1a - V13, 2 E1b1b1a1b1 - L618 and one given only as E. They are from Kapitan Andreevo-Svilengrad area, this is South East Bulgaria, close to the Turkish/Greek border. From this area is also the previous low coverage Thracian samples, worked out as M78. This is the hinterland of the Odrysian Thracian kingdom and there is a reason to believe that the Thracians from the Classical period are also predominantly V13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odrysian_kingdom

The guy on the video also mentioned that one Medieval sample from 9th c. Central Bulgaria has been proven Q1a2a. According to him, this must be some Old Bulgar, however not completely sure in not an Avar. He is paddling the Iran-Caucasus origin of the Old Bulgars, something most Bulgarians don't agree with. At any case more bones will be tested with this new project and the truth will be revealed at last.

hello you have source talking in English and thanks

Riverman
08-21-2020, 11:35 AM
EBA samples from Bulgaria on one side are dominated by R1b on the other side by R1a/I2a. So i would say the earliest it looks MBA, but mostly LBA/EIA.

I think the ultimate source will be, most likely, found in the Carpathian-Pannonian region, among steppe transformed people, paternal descendents of Tripolye and Baden. But probably its different, we will see, hopefully soon.

Moldovlah
08-21-2020, 01:40 PM
Ezero Culture 3300-2700 BC

39087

The Ezero culture is interpreted as part of a larger Balkan-Danubian early Bronze Age complex, a horizon reaching from Troy (Northwest Turkey) into Central Europe (Germany), encompassing the Baden of the Carpathian Basin and the Coţofeni culture of Romania. According to Hermann Parzinger, there are also typological connections to Poliochne (Greek Lemnos) and Sitagroi IV (Greek Thrace). Agriculture is in evidence, along with domestic livestock. There is evidence of grape cultivation. Metallurgy was practiced. Within the context of the Kurgan hypothesis, it would represent a fusion of native "Old European culture" and intrusive "Kurgan culture" elements. It could also represent an Anatolian-influenced culture, either coming from Anatolia (in Renfrew's hypothesis), or heading to Asia Minor.

Ezero follows the copper age cultures of the area Karanovo VI culture (Bulgaria), Gumelniţa culture (Romania), Kodzadjemen culture and Varna culture (Bulgaria), after a settlement hiatus in Northern Bulgaria. It bears some relationship to the earlier Cernavodă III culture to the north (Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria). Some settlements were fortified.

Hawk
08-21-2020, 02:32 PM
Maybe eastara can provide us more informations regarding Kapitan Andreevo site, what kind of site it is?

eastara
08-22-2020, 12:47 AM
Maybe eastara can provide us more informations regarding Kapitan Andreevo site, what kind of site it is?

Kapitan Andreevo was on a crossroad of migrations since ancient times. Most recently there were a large scale excavations connected to the building of the new highway to Turkey. A big sanctuary from Neolithic times around 5000BC was uncovered. Most interesting was an anthropomorphic vessel, which is thought to be the image of Mother-Goddess, which is unique in the world. Later there were some kind of ritual pits from the Iron Age connected to the Thracians. Nearby was passing the Roman road Via Diagonalis and lots of Roman and Byzantine remains.

https://stmost.info/obshtestvo/kultura/2906-ogromen-kultov-obekt-krai-kapitan-andreevo-otkriha-arheolozite.html

https://cdn.haskovo.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/arhe_201216_2.jpg

Riverman
08-22-2020, 10:02 AM
To me it always seemed more likely that E-V13 spread from within the first waves of steppe people which broke the defense of Tripolye-Cucuteni and moved on the Transylvania and Pannonia in a mixed form. The main reason why V13 is now so widespread in the Balkans is quite simply that the majority of them migrated South and their impact on the following waves from the steppe was there, especially in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age movements, but much smaller. So I'd expect it to have survived in a mixed culture of the first steppe expansion waves, derived from TCC most likely. But that's just my and one possible theory, I know that. It can only be proven by sufficient testing of the various ancient populations which are candidates.

Hawk
08-22-2020, 10:20 AM
To me it always seemed more likely that E-V13 spread from within the first waves of steppe people which broke the defense of Tripolye-Cucuteni and moved on the Transylvania and Pannonia in a mixed form. The main reason why V13 is now so widespread in the Balkans is quite simply that the majority of them migrated South and their impact on the following waves from the steppe was there, especially in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age movements, but much smaller. So I'd expect it to have survived in a mixed culture of the first steppe expansion waves, derived from TCC most likely. But that's just my and one possible theory, I know that. It can only be proven by sufficient testing of the various ancient populations which are candidates.

This article can explain the presence of E-V13 in Greece maybe? http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf4.pdf

For Illyrians i am pretty sure they had tones of E-V13, since the movements of these people come from the direction where historical Illyrians populated.

Riverman
08-22-2020, 10:50 AM
This article can explain the presence of E-V13 in Greece maybe? http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf4.pdf

Thanks for the article, was quite informative!

Indeed, I think among the old Greek tribes, E-V13 was simply more common among Dorians and later Macedonians. Dorians came under pressure and influenced by Illyrians the same time. Illyrians are a prime candidate for a higher V13 proportion and they spread especially within the Urnfield cultural sphere, and surely, the Greeks, even the local ones, didn't change to cremation burials for no reason, but there must have been an immigration and missionary religious movement. From the article you linked, this goes in the same direction:

A flange-hilted knife with a ring-end was found in tomb 15 of the cemetery at Ialysos on Rhodes.19 The type can be associ-ated with the Urnfield koine of weapons and implements. Parallels exist in Italy, east central Europe and the Northern Balkans. Therefore, the knife from Ialysos indicates a con-nection to the Adriatic region, which cannot be specified.

They also mention Naue II swords at least sometimes accompanying cremation burials:

Therefore, the cases of Elateia and Perati do not weaken the general validity of the observation that Naue II swords and cremation buri-als are both concentrated in the same regions of the Aegean. The Naue II swords and other bronze objects of Italian, or more generally Adriatic, inspiration strongly indicate that the new burial custom of cremation was introduced to the traditional Aegean chamber tomb cemeteries from Italy and not from Asia Minor.


For all these reasons, it can be deduced that the burial communities, who used the tumuli at Mycenae-Chania and Argos were groups of foreigners or were of foreign descent. It is almost impossible for a popu-lation group of foreign origin to leave more obvious marks in the archaeological record.

Compare for Naue swords:
https://www.facebook.com/1490676057876787/posts/the-naue-iithe-naue-ii-is-a-type-of-sword-within-the-class-of-flange-hilted-swor/2149798655297854/

Look at the map for the distribution:
https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36439470_2149795985298121_9039482677069086720_o.jp g?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=R4LiLGbOuL4AX8M7MPB&_nc_oc=AQmGfR1y0sFFwC5NvhhfKwZW1EBi5BRlAU8260QOgVB I2EvJAcsMOCZVaXnSYiW0ellZlNBRyeT6549_BaHxUW7h&_nc_ht=scontent-vie1-1.xx&oh=1e70a15124bb295bc5888703296ac6f8&oe=5F67E681

I think its possible that before the Celtic, Germanic and especially Slavic expansions, in the LBA-EIA in particular, the E-V13 centre might have been further North, close to Pannonia actually. Early Iron Age Celts are supposed to have V13 too, especially from the early transition to the Iron culture, but even among them it might be more associated, originally, with Illyrian and Thracian influences which just helped to form Iron Age Celts, by which way these lineages "became Celtic". So I expect V13, because of this, to appear among Celts and Germanics in low numbers from the Iron Age on. The same expansion moved South too, in various waves, but was more than just an small to moderate, but a massive influence.

However, the question remains where exactly the epicentre for V13 was, because like the article states, for the Mycenaean case the source region for the newcomers points to the Western Balkan, the Adriatic zone. Let's assume that to be true, which is reasonable, the question is how much was this zone restricted and how much further North did it reach? Or where are the ultimate origins. In the mixed Bell Beaker culture, like Cetina, which would be rather late, exclusively, or did related groups have a wider distribution, which I think is more likely.

Aspar
08-22-2020, 10:51 AM
Ok what I find interesting in this video is that Stamov when asked why Bulgaria, he says that Reich and his team choose Bulgaria because they think that the genesis of the Mycenaeans, the Troyans and the Hittites happened on the territory of modern Bulgaria.
What I don't get is how Stamov came to the conclusion that modern Bulgarians are around forty percent of old Bulgar heritage when he himself says that the old Bulgar sample from the time of Tzar Simeon can be modeled as part Central Asian(Turkic and Iranic elements) and part Caucasian. Even his Q haplogroup points to the well known theory of Turkic origin of the Old Bulgars. On the other hand the modern Bulgarians can hardly be modeled as forty percent Central Asian and Caucasian.
This is very contradicting to say the least...

Riverman
08-22-2020, 10:55 AM
Ok what I find interesting in this video is that Stamov when asked why Bulgaria, he says that Reich and his team choose Bulgaria because they think that the genesis of the Mycenaeans, the Troyans and the Hittites happened on the territory of modern Bulgaria.


I hope they get Cernavoda samples, finally! At least I know now that they don't missed it, they are working on it. The early steppe influenced cultures, especially Cernavoda, might be the single most important formation to finally close the PIE case, because Cernavoda related cultures can be directly linked to Troy and Proto-Anatolian probably. That wouild mean case closed. All IE groups being steppe derived, we just need to test it and since these groups were already highly mixed, before coming to Anatolia, one needs more samples to be sure.

Kanenas
08-22-2020, 10:59 AM
This article can explain the presence of E-V13 in Greece maybe? http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf4.pdf

For Illyrians I am pretty sure they had tones of E-V13, since the movements of these people come from the direction where historical Illyrians populated.

I don't think so. The introduction of cremation can be the result of movements directly from Italy, through the sea.

In Crete, at least, I see a concentration on the eastern part, where we also find some non-Greek and bilingual inscriptions later. Luuk de Ligt had supported the 'Eteocretan' language of the Dreros incription was Osco-Umbrian or something.

Other than that, I think based on Thucidides, it seems probable that there were some Etruscan settlers in Attica.

Aspar
08-22-2020, 11:00 AM
I think that the local origin theory of the Dorians will be refuted with archeaogenetics help. Even archaeologically some things point to Cetina and Urnfield connection but also there is one lineage of J-M241 that looks very Ancient Greek and Dorian but also connected with Cetina and the Urnfield systems later on: J-FGC55768 (https://yfull.com/tree/J-FGC55768/)
The branch has a Greek, a Sicilian from Messina(Dorian colony) and Aschkenazi Jews. And the TMRCA is 800 BCE at the time of the Greek colonization of Southern Italy. Upstream there is another Greek from Macedonia and many Central European samples.

eastara
08-22-2020, 01:44 PM
Ok what I find interesting in this video is that Stamov when asked why Bulgaria, he says that Reich and his team choose Bulgaria because they think that the genesis of the Mycenaeans, the Troyans and the Hittites happened on the territory of modern Bulgaria.
What I don't get is how Stamov came to the conclusion that modern Bulgarians are around forty percent of old Bulgar heritage when he himself says that the old Bulgar sample from the time of Tzar Simeon can be modeled as part Central Asian(Turkic and Iranic elements) and part Caucasian. Even his Q haplogroup points to the well known theory of Turkic origin of the Old Bulgars. On the other hand the modern Bulgarians can hardly be modeled as forty percent Central Asian and Caucasian.
This is very contradicting to say the least...

Yes, Stamov is trying to justify the Iranic/Caucausian origin of the Old Bulgars, which he has done before twisting other existing studies. For example, there were 2 samples in the old Longobard study, which somewhat resembled modern Bulgarians and he claimed that they are somehow members of the Alcek Bulgars, although they were classified as Avars from archaealogical data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek

Regarding this new sample it had also an autosomal test and it showed, that it is somehow connected to Sogdiana in Central Asia and Saltovo-Mayaki around Caucasus.
I am not convinced this is correct, or he just picked wrong populations as reference. At any case it had no or very little East Asian, despite the haplogroup. However the sample is from later period and Central Bulgaria and Stamov himself expressed some doubts he may be an Avar.
He also mentioned something I agree with, that the initial admixture between old Balkanians and Slavs in fact happened in Pannonia and they already came admixed in what is now Bulgaria and Mecedonia. The early settled Slavs in Northern Greece and Thrace Hellenised very quickly, and as subject of the Eastern Roman Empire never become Bulgarians again, but gave the Slavic admixture to the Continental Greeks. We are at least partially descending of those coming from Pannonia after the fall of the Avar state and this is the reason those early Avars resembled Bulgarians.

Kanenas
08-22-2020, 02:00 PM
I think that the local origin theory of the Dorians will be refuted with archeaogenetics help. Even archaeologically some things point to Cetina and Urnfield connection but also there is one lineage of J-M241 that looks very Ancient Greek and Dorian but also connected with Cetina and the Urnfield systems later on: J-FGC55768 (https://yfull.com/tree/J-FGC55768/)
The branch has a Greek, a Sicilian from Messina(Dorian colony) and Aschkenazi Jews. And the TMRCA is 800 BCE at the time of the Greek colonization of Southern Italy. Upstream there is another Greek from Macedonia and many Central European samples.

The Dorians could have been of partly Mycenaean origin and parly something else (Herodotus points to a movement from South Thessaly to Pindus mountains and then south), but there will not be an Urnfield connection, imo.
Cremation became common among Athenians, and, for example, in Eastern Crete where we find the so called 'Eteocretan' inscriptions later (which could have been Osco-Umbrian related, although that is a proposition not generally accepted).

Dorians had 3 tribes, Hyleis, Dymanes, Pamphyloi. The name of the third, I think implies that people of diverse origin were included in it.

Riverman
08-22-2020, 02:05 PM
The Dorians could have been of partly Mycenaean origin and parly something else (Herodotus points to a movement from South Thessaly to Pindus mountains and then south), but there will not be an Urnfield connection, imo.
Cremation became common among Athenians, and, for example, in Eastern Crete where we find the so called 'Eteocretan' inscription later (which could have been Osco-Umbrian related, although that is a proposition not generally accepted)

Two things:
1st read the paper I quoted from, new innovative weapons and cremation entered the scene from the North West in Greece. The Dorians might have been an alliance which was Greeks for the most part, but with other, especially Illyrian, influences working on them. Their migration is clearly linked to the North -> South pushes with Urnfield and the spread of pure cremation in this context, together with other material goods from Pannonia-Dalmatia, basically the region of what would be later the Hungarian kingdom, is too clear as to be seen as coincidential.
2nd even the Etruscans and their origin is not sufficiently researched yet. It is possible they too came from the Pannonian sphere and were actually part of Urnfield related movements of people.

Hawk
08-22-2020, 02:15 PM
Croatian and Hungarian Neolithic stil didn't had the E-V13 mutation, the actual mutation was found in Spain. So, E-V13 origin should be looked somewhere in between West Balkans and Spain. Northern Italy/Alpine region is the best bet so far (Germany, Italy has oldest E-V13 clades). Later during EBA spreading in Pannonian-Carpathian basis.

eastara
08-22-2020, 02:36 PM
I think E-V13 was only a minor haplogroup among Classical Greeks, the Roman study proves it. There is no E-V13 until Medieval times in whole Italy, while it is known Greeks settled not only Magna Grecia, but were a large proportions of Imperial Rome population.
Here is to say the Greeks themselves did not consider those in nowadays Northern Greece Hellene. True Greeks may have lived in the coastal colonies only. J2a and J1 were the main haplogroups, together with T1 and G2a, which points to at least partial Anatolian and not North Balkan origin.
So what is Reich and the other labs doing and testing everybody, but not the Classical Greeks?

Riverman
08-22-2020, 02:57 PM
I think E-V13 was only a minor haplogroup among Classical Greeks, the Roman study proves it. There is no E-V13 until Medieval times in whole Italy, while it is known Greeks settled not only Magna Grecia, but were a large proportions of Imperial Rome population.
Here is to say the Greeks themselves did not consider those in nowadays Northern Greece Hellene. True Greeks may have lived in the coastal colonies only. J2a and J1 were the main haplogroups, together with T1 and G2a, which points to at least partial Anatolian and not North Balkan origin.
So what is Reich and the other labs doing and testing everybody, but not the Classical Greeks?

Classical Greeks were already a mixture from different sources, more important is to test whether there is an early path from the steppe down to the Balkans and Aegean, from there into Anatolia. Classical Greeks had E-V13, no doubt that. Question is when exactly did it spread in the region.

Kanenas
08-22-2020, 03:19 PM
I think E-V13 was only a minor haplogroup among Classical Greeks, the Roman study proves it. There is no E-V13 until Medieval times in whole Italy, while it is known Greeks settled not only Magna Grecia, but were a large proportions of Imperial Rome population.
Here is to say the Greeks themselves did not consider those in nowadays Northern Greece Hellene. True Greeks may have lived in the coastal colonies only. J2a and J1 were the main haplogroups, together with T1 and G2a, which points to at least partial Anatolian and not North Balkan origin.
So what is Reich and the other labs doing and testing everybody, but not the Classical Greeks?

That is a misconception. It represents the views of many Athenians of the Classical Age. If we talk about Macedonia, Strabo says that Thracians were more numerous. That was the situation 2000 years ago, at least. But Illyrians proper were placed above Via Egnatia.

Thessaly, is for Herodotus the place of origin of both the Pelasgians and the Hellenes. Herodotus (who was of Dorian or Dorian/Karian ancestry) connects the name, Hellenes specifically with the Dorians.
The Dorians being presented as having retained more archaic customs, settling kata komas, in small towns / villages.

The use of the name Hellene as an ethnic name was a rather late development, being originally just a name of a tribe in South Thessaly, possibly Dorian related.

Hawk
08-22-2020, 04:10 PM
I don't buy this Thracians = 100% E-V13, and only source of it. It doesn't sum it up.

Riverman
08-22-2020, 04:14 PM
I don't buy this Thracians = 100% E-V13, and only source of it. It doesn't sum it up.

It doesn't even make sense, because a lot of people migrated through their later area, and many came from elsewhere, so anything which tells us "it was the Thracians" would just miss the point. They might have been heavy in V13, why not, but they were a later group coming from an earlier expansion already and this expansive movement brought it to other regions too, probably just at a lower percentage.

Aspar
08-22-2020, 06:32 PM
Yes, Stamov is trying to justify the Iranic/Caucausian origin of the Old Bulgars, which he has done before twisting other existing studies. For example, there were 2 samples in the old Longobard study, which somewhat resembled modern Bulgarians and he claimed that they are somehow members of the Alcek Bulgars, although they were classified as Avars from archaealogical data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek

Regarding this new sample it had also an autosomal test and it showed, that it is somehow connected to Sogdiana in Central Asia and Saltovo-Mayaki around Caucasus.
I am not convinced this is correct, or he just picked wrong populations as reference. At any case it had no or very little East Asian, despite the haplogroup. However the sample is from later period and Central Bulgaria and Stamov himself expressed some doubts he may be an Avar.
He also mentioned something I agree with, that the initial admixture between old Balkanians and Slavs in fact happened in Pannonia and they already came admixed in what is now Bulgaria and Mecedonia. The early settled Slavs in Northern Greece and Thrace Hellenised very quickly, and as subject of the Eastern Roman Empire never become Bulgarians again, but gave the Slavic admixture to the Continental Greeks. We are at least partially descending of those coming from Pannonia after the fall of the Avar state and this is the reason those early Avars resembled Bulgarians.

Yes, one of the samples is in the G25 spreadsheet. It's incredible how close he is to modern Bulgarians. It's the sample SZ1. This sample was described as a BA sample in the paper. I don't know what happened meanwhile but now in Davidski's spreadsheet is called "HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1". However the sample doesn't seem to have anything Slavic and it's closest to the 'Scythians' from Moldova who were probably just of local Daco-Getae origin.



Distance to: HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1
0.03511277 Scythian_MDA
0.04072557 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.04748066 DEU_MA_ACD
0.05089919 ITA_Rome_MA
0.05956560 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.05976801 HRV_IA
0.06076740 HRV_EBA
0.06134376 HUN_MA
0.06140063 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE
0.06247570 Bell_Beaker_CHE
0.06378553 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.06404054 ITA_Etruscan
0.06418025 ITA_Rome_Renaissance
0.06664828 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.06679122 Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL
0.06690162 Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES
0.06721824 HRV_MBA
0.06732598 HUN_Prescythian_IA
0.06764993 ITA_Collegno_MA
0.06784145 Scythian_HUN
0.06891147 HUN_MA_Szolad
0.06955609 IND_Roopkund_B
0.07145479 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.07192580 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.07244029 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA

Target: HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1
Distance: 1.4127% / 0.01412690 | ADC: 0.25x
54.6 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
23.4 HUN_Prescythian_IA
15.8 ITA_Collegno_MA_o2
4.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
0.8 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.8 ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o
0.6 Levant_Natufian

As for the medieval sample from Bulgaria I highly doubt it's an Avar because Stamov himself said it was an elite(dynastic) burial. Such a burial could only belong to the ruling class, which were the old Bulgars.

Yes, it does seem that huge chunk of the southern European admixture came from Pannonia or modern Romania however it can hardly be the only one especially for the Bulgarians and the Macedonians. Those Hungarian Medieval samples of southern European extraction we have in the spreadsheet are mostly Tuscan like. Many Bulgarians and Macedonians on the other hand require additional South Italian admixture and can not be modeled only as a Tuscan - Eastern European mixture. Plus Davidski made a hint some time ago that the early Slavs that arrived in Greece were Serb or Romanian like. So that's telling however for many Macedonians and Bulgarians you need something Greek or Albanian like because the Bulgarians and the Macedonians are not genetically like the Serbs. And the Romanians are very heterogeneous so I don't know what does Romanian like according to Davidski means however those from Wallachia and Dobrugia are the only ones really close to Bulgarians, all the others range from Serb like to Croatian like.
For example, modeling myself with IA Bulgaria who was mostly South italian like, the 'Slavic' Avar samples and the 'Scythians' from Moldova who were Tuscan like this is what I get:


Target: Aspar_scaled
Distance: 2.3904% / 0.02390362
46.4 BGR_IA
28.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
24.8 Scythian_MDA

Kanenas
08-22-2020, 07:25 PM
Yes, one of the samples is in the G25 spreadsheet. It's incredible how close he is to modern Bulgarians. It's the sample SZ1. This sample was described as a BA sample in the paper. I don't know what happened meanwhile but now in Davidski's spreadsheet is called "HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1". However the sample doesn't seem to have anything Slavic and it's closest to the 'Scythians' from Moldova who were probably just of local Daco-Getae origin.

[code]
Distance to: HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1
0.03511277 Scythian_MDA
0.04072557 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.04748066 DEU_MA_ACD
0.05089919 ITA_Rome_MA
0.05956560 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.05976801 HRV_IA
0.06076740 HRV_EBA
0.06134376 HUN_MA
0.06140063 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE
0.06247570 Bell_Beaker_CHE
0.06378553 Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.06404054 ITA_Etruscan
0.06418025 ITA_Rome_Renaissance
0.06664828 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.06679122 Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL
0.06690162 Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES
0.06721824 HRV_MBA
0.06732598 HUN_Prescythian_IA
0.06764993 ITA_Collegno_MA
0.06784145 Scythian_HUN
0.06891147 HUN_MA_Szolad
0.06955609 IND_Roopkund_B
0.07145479 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.07192580 UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.07244029 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA



Many labels used in that study were a little weird.

Before the Avars there were Longobards and Gepids in Pannonia, according to the sources. I think the mainstream view today is that the Longobards were speaking a West Germanic language, the Gepids en East Germanic one. Irrespective of if that is true, this sample certainly doesn't represent Avars, but possibly the people who inhabited the region before their arrival.

Early Slavs that arrived in Greece were likely Bosnian to Slovenian like, imo. I don't see a reason to assume they were Romanian-like, at all.

Hawk
08-22-2020, 07:31 PM
It doesn't even make sense, because a lot of people migrated through their later area, and many came from elsewhere, so anything which tells us "it was the Thracians" would just miss the point. They might have been heavy in V13, why not, but they were a later group coming from an earlier expansion already and this expansive movement brought it to other regions too, probably just at a lower percentage.

For a reason Bulgarians lately are starting to claim every E-V13 in the Balkans lol. They were accusing Albanians, but they were doing so to replace them. ��

Johnny ola
08-22-2020, 08:20 PM
Many labels used in that study were a little weird.

Before the Avars there were Longobards and Gepids in Pannonia, according to the sources. I think the mainstream view today is that the Longobards were speaking a West Germanic language, the Gepids en East Germanic one. Irrespective of if that is true, this sample certainly doesn't represent Avars, but possibly the people who inhabited the region before their arrival.

Early Slavs that arrived in Greece were likely Bosnian to Slovenian like, imo. I don't see a reason to assume they were Romanian-like, at all.

David said that the upcoming samples from medieval Greece will show that the Slavic input among Greek people it is Serbian/Romanian like.And btw modern Greeks do not have just medieval slavic admixture but also more recent from balkan wars/ww1(Bulgarian like).

J Man
08-22-2020, 08:24 PM
No way Thracians are 100% E-V13. Other haplogroups will certainly be present as more ancient samples are tested.

Kanenas
08-22-2020, 09:00 PM
David said that the upcoming samples from medieval Greece will show that the Slavic input among Greek people it is Serbian/Romanian like.And btw modern Greeks do not have just medieval slavic admixture but also more recent from balkan wars/ww1(Bulgarian like).

I don't take into account rumours.
I was talking about the first wave, not for the times of First Bulgarian Empire, Stefan Dusan, etc. and later.. I am not sure though..
But there are many parameters like where they were coming from, what made them migrate etc.

Btw, I don't have admxure from the 'balkan wars/ww1'. From the times of Stefan Dusan, yes, it is theoretically possible.

Kanenas
08-22-2020, 09:20 PM
I don't take into account rumours.
I was talking about the first wave, not for the times of First Bulgarian Empire, Stefan Dusan, etc. and later.. I am not sure though..
But there are many parameters like where they were coming from, what made them migrate etc.

Btw, I don't have admxure from the 'balkan wars/ww1'. From the times of Stefan Dusan, yes, it is theoretically possible.

Additon:
In Wikipedia we read:

Scholar Michel Kazanski identified the 6th-century Prague culture and Sukow-Dziedzice group as Sclaveni archaeological cultures, and the Penkovka culture was identified as Antes.[3] In the 530s, Emperor Justinian seems to have used divide and conquer and the Sclaveni and Antes are mentioned as fighting each other.[6]

I don't know what his reasoning was, but that was also my impression taking into account their physical features in the sources.

Johnny ola
08-22-2020, 09:27 PM
I don't take into account rumours.
I was talking about the first wave, not for the times of First Bulgarian Empire, Stefan Dusan, etc. and later.. I am not sure though..
But there are many parameters like where they were coming from, what made them migrate etc.

Btw, I don't have admxure from the 'balkan wars/ww1'. From the times of Stefan Dusan, yes, it is theoretically possible.

You clearly didn't get what i wanted to mean.Maybe my comment was bad.The first wave of Slavic invasions during middle ages is very well known from everyone in the genetic community.Regions like Macedonia,Thrace are way northern shifted compared to the rest of Greek mainland.The Slavic input in regions like the provinces outside of Thessaloniki(Liti,sohos,lagadas) is much more compared to the Slavic admixture in central Greece,Peloponnese,Epirus and even Thessaly.The reason for it,it has to do because of assilimations during balkan wars and later with ww1.These lands were inhabit by bulgarian like people talking also the bulgarian languange.Or you think that during Ottoman Empire the northern parts of Greece were mostly Greek speakers?Ofc not.The provinces of Macedonia and Thrace were clearly populated by bulgarians with many vlachophonous as well.Ofc there were locals speaking the Greek languange but the vast majority of the people there were bulgarian not only in their languange but also genetically.It is not by lack that modern Greek_Macedonia is much closer to Bulgaria and to North Macedonia than to Central Greece and even the southern parts(witch all of them have slavic influences from medieval periods).Thrace is also a very slavic admixed region with a significant native-local bulgarian speaking population.Many people calling them Gallides or Galloi.And ofc it is not by lack that the southern greeks calling northern greeks bulgarians especially with the famous joke la la li la la στο σχολειο δεν σας μαθαν να μιλατε ελληνικα la la la :DDDD.Northern Greece has bulgarian shift in genetics and it has nothing to do with Stefan Dusan or Bulgarian empire.They are people inhabit these lands from ottoman times and they assilimated later with balkan wars and ww1.And this thing happened also in Bulgaria with many people in the southern parts being Greeks or at least greek speaking.Also what David mention about the Serbian/Romanian like admixture in the medieval Slavs in Greece it is not a rumour.You will see it in the upcoming samples.These people that arrived during byzantine empire were genetically south slavic and not Polish-Ukrainian or Slovenian-Slovak.They were mixed with balkan folks.

Hawk
08-22-2020, 09:30 PM
DEATH AND BURIAL BETWEEN THE AEGEAN AND THE BALKANS
CULTURAL VARIABILITY AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION IN THE EARLY IRON AGE

Towards the beginning of the early Iron Age several transformations in the material culture of Greece are striking. Particularly the appearance of cremation and individual inhumation burials was long held as the main argument for numerous historical reconstruction of early Greek history, however, this phase has only rarely been viewed from a cultural anthropological angle.

Prothesis on an Attic krater, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (photo: S. Gimatzidis)
Prothesis on an Attic krater, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (photo: OeAW-OeAI/S. Gimatzidis)
Some changes in Greek culture dating to the 12th and 11th centuries BCE have been traditionally perceived as evidence for an invasion of people from the north to Greece. These transformations are particularly perceptible in the burial rites of southern Greece, e.g. the change from multiple burials in champer tombs to single inhumations in cist tombs and shortly afterwards the widespread practice of cremation. This change was often identified as the legendary >Dorian invasion< mentioned by some historiographers of the classical period. These tales developed into historical facts and formed the departure point for many reconstructions of the past in Greece and the Balkans.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS

The aim of this project is not to search for Dorians in the Greek and Balkan prehistory but instead to reanalyze the archaeological data that fully addresses the already mentioned changes in an up-to-date interpretation. The area of interest comprises Serbia, Kosovo, FYR of Macedonia, and northern Greece (especially Macedonia and Chalkidike, and Thessaly). In the past scholarly debate and exchange of knowledge was difficult for political reasons but the time has come to overcome national and ideological barriers and begin an international scientific discussion.

THE METHOD

In this project new archaeological data from recent excavations will be analyzed and presented. Recently published finds and contexts from the northern Aegean and the geographical ›hinterland‹, mainly the central Balkan, allow for comparative studies. Modern scientific methods will be used in order to define the biological sex as well as family and other kin relationships of individuals from selected necropoleis. Strontium isotope analyses aid in acquiring information about mobility and exogamy or migration of people (groups). Radiocarbon analyses, statistical, and additional historical analyses of the burial rites, individual finds, and contexts permit the reconstruction of the social organization of the local communities. Lead isotope analyses of the burial gifts made of lead will provide information on the exchange networks and trade relations.

THE AIM
The research is focused on the socio-cultural aspects of every necropolis and its micro-regions that function as case studies. In this way it is the foundation for a new narrative of the interregional interaction in the area of ideology and ritual. Finally, new archaeological data and modern bioarcharchaeological analyses will lead to a modernized reconstruction of the regional social relationships in Greece and the Balkan.

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/research/anthropology-and-necropoleis/death-and-burial-between-aegaean-and-the-balkans/


https://i.imgur.com/Ly21E6Y.png

Moldovlah
08-22-2020, 09:48 PM
You clearly didn't get what i wanted to mean.Maybe my comment was bad.The first wave of Slavic invasions during middle ages is very well known from everyone in the genetic community.Regions like Macedonia,Thrace are way northern shifted compared to the rest of Greek mainland.The Slavic input in regions like the provinces outside of Thessaloniki(Liti,sohos,lagadas) is much more compared to the Slavic admixture in central Greece,Peloponnese,Epirus and even Thessaly.The reason for it,it has to do because of assilimations during balkan wars and later with ww1.These lands were inhabit by bulgarian like people talking also the bulgarian languange.Or you think that during Ottoman Empire the northern parts of Greece were mostly Greek speakers?Ofc not.The provinces of Macedonia and Thrace were clearly populated by bulgarians with many vlachophonous as well.Ofc there were locals speaking the Greek languange but the vast majority of the people there were bulgarian not only in their languange but also genetically.It is not by lack that modern Greek_Macedonia is much closer to Bulgaria and to North Macedonia than to Central Greece and even the southern parts(witch all of them have slavic influences from medieval periods).Thrace is also a very slavic admixed region with a significant native-local bulgarian speaking population.Many people calling them Gallides or Galloi.And ofc it is not by lack that the southern greeks calling northern greeks bulgarians especially with the famous joke la la li la la στο σχολειο δεν σας μαθαν να μιλατε ελληνικα la la la :DDDD.Northern Greece has bulgarian shift in genetics and it has nothing to do with Stefan Dusan or Bulgarian empire.They are people inhabit these lands from ottoman times and they assilimated later with balkan wars and ww1.And this thing happened also in Bulgaria with many people in the southern parts being Greeks or at least greek speaking.Also what David mention about the Serbian/Romanian like admixture in the medieval Slavs in Greece it is not a rumour.You will see it in the upcoming samples.These people that arrived during byzantine empire were genetically south slavic and not Polish-Ukrainian or Slovenian-Slovak.They were mixed with balkan folks.

Romanians aren't Slavic, what that makes Serbs? If they are same clusters? In genetics

Bulgarians are not the Gauls they are native in that region fusing with Pontic Caspian invader cultures since beginning. This "slavic-shift" key term is comedic to be thrown as your false gold, because if you said truth you will said "they are like Bulgarians, they have a native shift or a northeast shift towards Greeks". What a northern shift? Bulgarians are not northern they are Bulgarians and Greeks can genetically overlap with Bulgarians because they live in Greece since before.

Johnny ola
08-22-2020, 09:53 PM
Romanians aren't Slavic, what that makes Serbs? If they are same clusters? In genetics

Bulgarians are not the Gauls they are native in that region fusing with Pontic Caspian invader cultures since beginning. This "slavic-shift" key term is comedic to be thrown as your false gold, because if you said truth you will said "they are like Bulgarians, they have a native shift or a northeast shift towards Greeks". What a northern shift? Bulgarians are not northern they are Bulgarians and Greeks can genetically overlap with Bulgarians because they live in Greece since before.

Gauls?Where i mention gauls?I said gallides and galloi its a nickname for people in Greek Macedonia who talk the bulgarian languange and others who speak a mix of greek and bulgarian.

Romanians are not slavic?Huh?

Bulgarians are half slavic and half native balkan(farmer) depends the region(southern parts less slavic).Serbs are also similar to Romanians genetically.North Macedonias are also close with Bulgarians being half native farmer and slavic(thought the southern parts are more farmer having less steppe).

Greek Macedonians are also close to them,but still depends the region.For example people in Xalkidiki or Katerini are not so slavic like the people in Thessaloniki or the provinces outside of Thessaloniki.Serres,Drama are also bulgarian like not only in genetics but also culturally and speaking.

Dorkymon
08-22-2020, 10:23 PM
He also mentioned something I agree with, that the initial admixture between old Balkanians and Slavs in fact happened in Pannonia and they already came admixed in what is now Bulgaria and Mecedonia.

Is this his personal opinion or do they have data to confirm this?

Moderator
08-22-2020, 10:35 PM
This is a general reminder to please keep your posts on topic and avoid one-on-one arguments. This thread is being monitored.

Sorcelow
08-22-2020, 10:40 PM
I agree with other members in this thread, that EV13 became a prominent lineage in Greece during the Iron Age.

xripkan
08-22-2020, 11:17 PM
David said that the upcoming samples from medieval Greece will show that the Slavic input among Greek people it is Serbian/Romanian like.And btw modern Greeks do not have just medieval slavic admixture but also more recent from balkan wars/ww1(Bulgarian like).

Upcoming samples from Medieval Greece? When?

eastara
08-23-2020, 12:10 AM
Is this his personal opinion or do they have data to confirm this?

He is describing this as per the data of the new study, but I am not sure if he is not misrepresenting it. Plain admixture is not a very good tool for analysis as we don't know where exactly it happened and how many times as a matter of fact.
For example Davidski likes to represent the Slavs as direct descendants of the steppe Yamnaya, and it is true if you take as reference only Western Hunter gatherers, Yamnaya and Anatolian Farmers. However Yamnaya itself is a mixture of a larger percent Eastern hunter gatherers, less Caucasian HG and a little Neolithic farmers. So the Slavs may have some direct ancestry from the Eastern hunter gatherers from the times they lived in the deep forests and not mixing that much with the steppe.

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 12:58 AM
For example Davidski likes to represent the Slavs as direct descendants of the steppe Yamnaya, and it is true if you take as reference only Western Hunter gatherers, Yamnaya and Anatolian Farmers. However Yamnaya itself is a mixture of a larger percent Eastern hunter gatherers, less Caucasian HG and a little Neolithic farmers. So the Slavs may have some direct ancestry from the Eastern hunter gatherers from the times they lived in the deep forests and not mixing that much with the steppe.

You keep making these strange statements that northern Slavs have significant extra EHG ancestry, even though there's no evidence for such a thing, and bringing me into it, as if I was biased and making things up.

In fact, Yamnaya is ~50% EHG, which means that you also need a specific ratio of CHG ancestry to mimic and inflate Yamnaya ancestry. This is basic maths and that's why it's fairly easy to test whether EHG ancestry is from the steppe rather than directly from the "deep forests". For example, this is a qpAdm model, not an Admixture analysis.

Polish
HUN_Koros_N_HG 0.127
RUS_Karelia_HG 0.000
TUR_Barcin_N 0.321
UKR_Yamnaya 0.552
chisq 7.554
tail prob 0.478197
Full output (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fKs65Q4K3Tc1wBOUVf6jKH2Hnz4weMYt/view?usp=sharing)

I assume you do understand what 0.000 means, right? And here's another similar effort with different outgroups that shows essentially the same thing.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E6uEo6QnCwWXSEPg1odkrMs6yAOnHB52/view?usp=sharing

On the flip side, you've claimed repeatedly that Dienekes' Admixture run from years ago is evidence that Northwest Europeans and Eastern Europeans acquired their steppe ancestry from different sources, because the so called Gedrosia cluster appears at higher levels in Northwest Europeans.

But, of course, since this is Admixture output, then it's affected heavily by recent drift. Indeed, the reason that the Gedrosia cluster appears in Northwestern Europeans is because the Northern European cluster is largely based on drift specific to Balts and northern Slavs, so the Admixture program has to correct this issue. One way that it does this is to give Northwestern Europeans minor Gedrosia admixture, because this makes Northwestern Europeans distinct from Balts, but also doesn't bring them too close to other European groups.

Of course, I don't expect you to understand any of this. I expect that you'll ignore it, like you always do, and go on your merry way pretending that the Gedrosia cluster is meaningful, while analyses based on formal statistics directly debunking your claims are meaningless.

So my comments are for the people reading this who are interested in the facts.

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 01:13 AM
Upcoming samples from Medieval Greece? When?

The Medieval samples that I've seen are from North Macedonia. They look like modern Balkan Slavs.

There's a huge genetic shift in Macedonia from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period to the Middle Ages, and it's obviously a Slavic-inspired shift.

But the Slavs are not like Poles or Ukrainians. They're most similar to Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians etc.

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 01:17 AM
Unfortunately I can't see where the R1b samples are from. I know that pure Yamnaya was found occasionally only from kurgan type burials in Northern Bulgaria. Now I see EBA samples from Kran, Kazanlak, which is again South East Bulgaria. There is even a Thracian tomb from Kran as part of the Valley of the Kings. If the R1b-L51 samples are from Southern Bulgaria, they are from the "flat graves" connected to the Aegean culture. Is this the haplogroup of the Tojans as Svetoslav Stamov from the video was hinting, he does not reply when asked on the Bulgarian forums.

Very amusing, but no, there's no L51 in BA western Anatolia. There's something else but I promised not to post about it.

By the way, there's a new sample from eastern Bulgaria actually labeled Proto-Yamnaya and it belongs to R1a-Z645. You'll love that when it's published.

xripkan
08-23-2020, 01:24 AM
The Medieval samples that I've seen are from North Macedonia. They look like modern Balkan Slavs.

There's a huge genetic shift in Macedonia from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period to the Middle Ages, and it's obviously a Slavic-inspired shift.

But the Slavs are not like Poles or Ukrainians. They're most similar to Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians etc.

Since when are these samples dated? 7th century or later?

Kanenas
08-23-2020, 01:25 AM
Very amusing, but no, there's no L51 in BA western Anatolia. There's something else but I promised not to post about it.

By the way, there's a new sample from eastern Bulgaria actually labeled Proto-Yamnaya and it belongs to R1a-Z645. You'll love that when it's published.

What does 'proto-Yamnaya' mean?

eastara
08-23-2020, 01:33 AM
You keep making these strange statements that northern Slavs have significant extra EHG ancestry, even though there's no evidence for such a thing, and bringing me into it, as if I was biased and making things up.

In fact, Yamnaya is ~50% EHG, which means that you also need a specific ratio of CHG ancestry to mimic and inflate Yamnaya ancestry. This is basic maths and that's why it's fairly easy to test whether EHG ancestry is from the steppe rather than directly from the "deep forests". For example, this is a qpAdm model, not an Admixture analysis.

Polish
HUN_Koros_N_HG 0.127
RUS_Karelia_HG 0.000
TUR_Barcin_N 0.321
UKR_Yamnaya 0.552
chisq 7.554
tail prob 0.478197
Full output (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fKs65Q4K3Tc1wBOUVf6jKH2Hnz4weMYt/view?usp=sharing)

I assume you do understand what 0.000 means, right? And here's another similar effort with different outgroups that shows essentially the same thing.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E6uEo6QnCwWXSEPg1odkrMs6yAOnHB52/view?usp=sharing

On the flip side, you've claimed repeatedly that Dienekes' Admixture run from years ago is evidence that Northwest Europeans and Eastern Europeans acquired their steppe ancestry from different sources, because the so called Gedrosia cluster appears at higher levels in Northwest Europeans.

But, of course, since this is Admixture output, then it's affected heavily by recent drift. Indeed, the reason that the Gedrosia cluster appears in Northwestern Europeans is because the Northern European cluster is largely based on drift specific to Balts and northern Slavs, so the Admixture program has to correct this issue. One way that it does this is to give Northwestern Europeans minor Gedrosia admixture, because this makes Northwestern Europeans distinct from Balts, but also doesn't bring them too close to other European groups.

Of course, I don't expect you to understand any of this. I expect that you'll ignore it, like you always do, and go on your merry way pretending that the Gedrosia cluster is meaningful, while analyses based on formal statistics directly debunking your claims are meaningless.

So my comments are for the people reading this who are interested in the facts.

No, I don't understand, this is manipulation only. If Yamnaia has 50% EHG, where it has taken it from, probably not from those in Karelia. The program just shifts all EHG to the Yamnaya and not Karelia. How the admixture will look like if there is only Karelia and no Yamnaya?

Dorkymon
08-23-2020, 01:36 AM
The Medieval samples that I've seen are from North Macedonia. They look like modern Balkan Slavs.

There's a huge genetic shift in Macedonia from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period to the Middle Ages, and it's obviously a Slavic-inspired shift.

But the Slavs are not like Poles or Ukrainians. They're most similar to Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians etc.

If the Slavs were already like Montenegrins/Serbs/Romanians prior to mixing with the local folk from North Macedonia to produce the modern North Macedonians, then that must mean that they are like 70-80% Slavic or so. This should indicate that instead of mixing with the locals, North Macedonia had an almost total population replacement.

https://i.imgur.com/p3z9CYQ.png

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 01:47 AM
No, I don't understand, this is manipulation only. If Yamnaia has 50% EHG, where it has taken it from, probably not from those in Karelia. The program just shifts all EHG to the Yamnaya and not Karelia. How the admixture will look like if there is only Karelia and no Yamnaya?

I'm obviously not manipulating anything. You are.

Of course, the model will fail with Karelia only and this is shown clearly in the full output.

tail prob = 0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fKs65Q4K3Tc1wBOUVf6jKH2Hnz4weMYt/view?usp=sharing

But obviously it makes no difference what arguments I put forward and the evidence that I show you, because you're totally immune to logic.

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 01:50 AM
What does 'proto-Yamnaya' mean?

It's a sample from an Eneolithic Usatovo culture burial. So I think proto-Yamnaya means basically that this guy is from the steppe population that also gave rise to Yamnaya.

Kanenas
08-23-2020, 01:51 AM
CWC and Yamnaya look different.

But both R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 and related linages seem to have existed among hunter-fishers, for example concerning the Comb Ceramic R1a5-YP1272:


The settlements were located at sea shores or beside lakes and the economy was based on hunting, fishing and the gathering of plants.

2/3 of the Usatovo R1a-Z93 samples are near the seashore, I think.

In Armenia the Late Chalcolithic R1bV1636 and the P297 sample later are around Lake Van.

...

Concerning Anatolia, in Kumtepe:

Kumtepe is the oldest permanent settlement in the Troas, the region in northwestern Anatolia, where later Troy was built. Kumtepe has four layers, Kumtepe IA, IB, IC and II. The last two have been largely disturbed in the twentieth century. The remaining and relatively undisturbed IA and IB are of special interest to the archaeologists, because these are older than other settlements in the region.

Around 4800 BC the first settlement in Kumtepe was founded. The inhabitants lived on fishing, and their diet included oysters. The dead were buried, but without grave gifts. Although Kumtepe belongs to Neolithic, the occupants used also copper. Around 4500 BC the settlement was abandoned.

Around 3700 BC new settlers came to Kumtepe. The people of this new culture, Kumtepe B, built relatively large houses with multiple rooms, sometimes a porch. They also practiced animal husbandry and agriculture. The main domestic animals were goats and sheep, bred not only for meat but for milk and wool as well. They knew lead and bronze along with copper. Shortly after 3000 BC Yassıtepe and Hisarlık (Troy) were colonized probably from Kumtepe.



That shows that there were other populations in northern Anatolia, apart from the 'Neolithic farmers'.

The Mossynoeci, for example are interesting. They were making some short of bread from nuts, and they were using dolphin fat instead of olive oil or some other type of oil. They were also described as very white, 'tattlooed with patters of flowers', while they were living in stilts of some shorts. (Dionysius of Halikarnassus draws a parallel between them and the Etruscans)

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 01:55 AM
CWC and Yamnaya look different.

Early CWC is very, very similar to Yamnaya. Come on you should know that by now.

eastara
08-23-2020, 01:58 AM
What does 'proto-Yamnaya' mean?

Yamnaya type burials are uncovered predominantly from North East Bulgaria. There was one recent find from Dobruja, one characteristic of these burials is the use of red ochre to cover the body, but otherwise very little grave goods. This one from around 3000BC was unusual with the extra tallness of the buried - 190cm. Old Neolithic farmers rarely were more than 165cm tall. The Golden men of Varna probably came to prominence with his 175cm.

https://bntnews.bg/news/ispolini-obitavali-zemite-na-dobruja-predi-5000-godini-1070305news.html?fbclid=IwAR32kSRsbI6YP_Z75A_24nt9 ignQV8iMgKxuJIKLQQOT-dLSUM5OT67bSAE

The good thing mentioned is that some samples are sent for a DNA test in a European lab as a part of a big project

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 01:59 AM
But both R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 and related linages seem to have existed among hunter-fishers, for example concerning the Comb Ceramic R1a5-YP1272:

And obviously R1a5-YP127 is not R1a-M417. There is no R1a-M417 in any hunter-fishers.

I'm gonna stop debating with you, because there's something not right here.

Kanenas
08-23-2020, 02:14 AM
And obviously R1a5-YP127 is not R1a-M417. There is no R1a-M417 in any hunter-fishers.

I'm gonna stop debating with you, because there's something not right here.

The Comb Ceramic sample may represent or at least approximate the original lifestyle of their common ancestor (unless you think their common ancestor was a pastoralist).
And if in NW Anatolia 6800 years ago there was a population with similar lifestyle before the arrival of the farmers in that particular location they could have been R1a1 of some short too.

xripkan
08-23-2020, 02:16 AM
If the Slavs were already like Montenegrins/Serbs/Romanians prior to mixing with the local folk from North Macedonia to produce the modern North Macedonians, then that must mean that they are like 70-80% Slavic or so. This should indicate that instead of mixing with the locals, North Macedonia had an almost total population replacement.

https://i.imgur.com/p3z9CYQ.png

The new samples indicate that the Slavs had already assimilated a percentage of the local population. They probably were more Northern shifted when they entered North Macedonia.

eastara
08-23-2020, 02:27 AM
I'm obviously not manipulating anything. You are.

Of course, the model will fail with Karelia only and this is shown clearly in the full output.

tail prob = 0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fKs65Q4K3Tc1wBOUVf6jKH2Hnz4weMYt/view?usp=sharing

But obviously it makes no difference what arguments I put forward and the evidence that I show you, because you're totally immune to logic.

Sorry, but this "stupid" logic is not mine. Breaking down Yamnaya into components for people with European ancesty has already been done. See how it looks like, for example from the study "Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland". It is more obvious from this video (from 10:00m)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB6LdirJJoA

Sorcelow
08-23-2020, 03:03 AM
So the medieval samples from North Macedonia we have are clearly mixed with the local population, cool. That’s what I would expect.

Moldovlah
08-23-2020, 03:31 AM
Yamnaya type burials are uncovered predominantly from North East Bulgaria. There was one recent find from Dobruja, one characteristic of these burials is the use of red ochre to cover the body, but otherwise very little grave goods. This one from around 3000BC was unusual with the extra tallness of the buried - 190cm. Old Neolithic farmers rarely were more than 165cm tall. The Golden men of Varna probably came to prominence with his 175cm.

https://bntnews.bg/news/ispolini-obitavali-zemite-na-dobruja-predi-5000-godini-1070305news.html?fbclid=IwAR32kSRsbI6YP_Z75A_24nt9 ignQV8iMgKxuJIKLQQOT-dLSUM5OT67bSAE

The good thing mentioned is that some samples are sent for a DNA test in a European lab as a part of a big project

190cm is average height.

ADW_1981
08-23-2020, 03:39 AM
Most of EBA are R1b, E-V13 appears in EIA, hmmm.

It could be that E-V13 rebounded from the south with the BA collapse? I suspect E-V13 was already in southern Italy and the western Balkans during the Neolithic, especially since it was found among Cardial ware pottery.

ADW_1981
08-23-2020, 04:05 AM
Recently came to my attention a few videos, which claim a new big project about testing old bones from different periods in Bulgaria. This will be between Dr.Reich's Harvard Lab and the Bulgarian Archaeological Institute.
It seems the Harvard lab has some unpublished results from the study The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe. They appear for a short time on the screen of this video (around 6:00 min) but are covered by the head and are a mirror image. I managed to see that all assigned haplogroups from the Bulgarian Iron age are some kind of E:
https://sedemosmi.tv/production/%d1%81%d1%82%d1%83%d0%b4%d0%b8%d0%be-%d1%85%d1%8a-%d1%81%d0%b2%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%be%d1%81%d0%bb%d0%b0%d 0%b2-%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%bc%d0%be%d0%b2-18-%d0%b0%d0%b2%d0%b3%d1%83%d1%81%d1%82-2020-%d0%b3/

There is one E1b1b1a1b1a - V13, 2 E1b1b1a1b1 - L618 and one given only as E. They are from Kapitan Andreevo-Svilengrad area, this is South East Bulgaria, close to the Turkish/Greek border. From this area is also the previous low coverage Thracian samples, worked out as M78. This is the hinterland of the Odrysian Thracian kingdom and there is a reason to believe that the Thracians from the Classical period are also predominantly V13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odrysian_kingdom

The guy on the video also mentioned that one Medieval sample from 9th c. Central Bulgaria has been proven Q1a2a. According to him, this must be some Old Bulgar, however not completely sure in not an Avar. He is paddling the Iran-Caucasus origin of the Old Bulgars, something most Bulgarians don't agree with. At any case more bones will be tested with this new project and the truth will be revealed at last.

From the video, it looks like one of the I2 is L701, the type in Yamnaya, another is I2a1a1b, which is found in Iron Gates up to BB, and one of the R1b is L52+, another is Z2103, and the last is M269+. One is just a generic I2a1b, but I suspect it would turn out to be something similar to YDNA found in pre-Bronze age central Europe. None of them are L11+, which is still consistent with our existing data, in particular a hypothesis of L11+ arising in northern-central Europe and its subclades deriving from SGC (if true).

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 05:42 AM
Sorry, but this "stupid" logic is not mine. Breaking down Yamnaya into components for people with European ancesty has already been done. See how it looks like, for example from the study "Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland". It is more obvious from this video (from 10:00m)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB6LdirJJoA

You can't even read a bar graph properly.

The clip you linked to shows that Balts and northern Slavs have ~50% steppe ancestry. It's the same one as this, where, for example, Ukrainians have more steppe ancestry than the English.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCbCNwZydcs/X0IBQQX7Z4I/AAAAAAAAJJo/ZIFVJlfxWporMnnhepwQl7oy-GMVMz89QCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Haak_et_al_Fig_3.png

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 05:59 AM
And if in NW Anatolia 6800 years ago there was a population with similar lifestyle before the arrival of the farmers in that particular location they could have been R1a1 of some short too.

Keep dreaming.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0u2IraQPBV8/Xxbsri0rciI/AAAAAAAAJCs/tRz2C0e4EFoM-oomS1YSWCL6eNcPa4CkQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ancient_Y-hg_R1a_v2.jpg

Hawk
08-23-2020, 07:28 AM
It could be that E-V13 rebounded from the south with the BA collapse? I suspect E-V13 was already in southern Italy and the western Balkans during the Neolithic, especially since it was found among Cardial ware pottery.

It was definitely in the Western Balkans, no reason to doubt it, (Cardial Ware is the only Early Neolithic Culture heavily influenced by a Natufian/Iberomaurusian-like culture, add that we have two Albanians and one Greek from Corfu as E-L618, Cardial Farmers survivors) but not in Southern Italy. I would have thought the same as you, but the TMRCA and subclades don't support that scenario. So, we will have no E-V13 anytime earlier than 2000 B.C in the Balkans.

It's a simple math, none of the Early Neolithic samples (Croatian Cardial, Sopot, Lengyel) had the actual mutation E-V13, but the Spanish Cardial did. So we should look somewhere along the shores of Northern Italy => Central Europe then during EBA Pannonian-Carpathian basin.

There is some people thinking the spread of E-V13 is related to Cetina Culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetina_culture


Cetina culture emerged early in the early Bronze Age on the eneolite substrate (Adriatic culture); its people belonged to the old Mediterranean population, which was partially Indoeuropeanized but was not Indo-European.


But, somehow it doesn't sum it up, still.

Aspar
08-23-2020, 07:53 AM
If the Slavs were already like Montenegrins/Serbs/Romanians prior to mixing with the local folk from North Macedonia to produce the modern North Macedonians, then that must mean that they are like 70-80% Slavic or so. This should indicate that instead of mixing with the locals, North Macedonia had an almost total population replacement.

https://i.imgur.com/p3z9CYQ.png

I think we should wait for the samples to be released and then to model ourselves because being Serb-like and modeling ethnic Macedonians with modern population such as the Serbs and an ancient one such as IA Bulgaria is two different things.
But even so, it's evident that a huge chunk of our ancestry is related to the pre-Slavic populations of the Balkans:


Target: Aspar_scaled
Distance: 2.3584% / 0.02358447
65.6 Serbian
34.4 BGR_IA
This is not surprise because even archaeologically it is evident that the pre-Slavic population survived on the territory of North Macedonia. What's interesting unlike in Greek Macedonia and elsewhere in Greece, our archaeologists can't find any Slavic related artifacts on the territory of North Macedonia up to the middle of the 9th century which coincides with the Bulgar invasion of Macedonia. It is thought that after the destruction of the Avar Khaganate, some Slavic tribes that were previously in it's realm, allied with the Bulgars and migrated southwards to the Balkans. That is reasonable because the Bulgars were not huge in numbers and after the series of wars against the Byzantines their numbers were even less so they needed fresh forces and settlers in the new conquered lands.
The absence of Slavic artifacts probably means that the mountainous terrain of North Macedonia wasn't attractive for the Slavic agriculturalists and they preferred more warmer and flat terrain of Greek Macedonia, Thessaly etc.
So probably these medieval samples from North Macedonia that Davidski gave a hint are also from the time period starting from the middle of the 9th century onward. Therefore all the mixing events probably occurred from that time period onward and I honestly doubt there was still population around that resembled the DNA profile of Bulgaria IA from the middle of the 9th century onward. As such we don't know whether there was 70% or 80% replacement as you say...

Hawk
08-23-2020, 07:57 AM
And, the single most important event that created a vacuum for all this migrations and Arab expansion gets usually ignored:


The plague pandemic in 541–543 and successive outbreaks of the disease till the latter half of the 8th century caused a deep demographic crisis in the Eastern Roman Empire. The most important effects of the plague were a shortage of manpower and a growing importance of marginal barbarian populations, which had suffered less or not at all from the disease. Demographic, political and economic consequences of the pandemic likely caused or at least facilitated Slavic expansion in the Balkans between the 6th and 8th century. The Slavs began to raid intensively and then settle the European provinces of the Roman Empire soon after the first outbreak of the plague and available textual evidence suggests that this region was depopulated by the disease and neglected by the government. During the 7th century, the Empire’s administration and economy collapsed due to the effects of the plague and the existing system of land taxation and central provisioning of professional armies must have been replaced by regional organization of territorial troops recruited from free peasant farmers. In the new circumstances, the Slavs, who had in the meantime re-populated the Balkans, constituted an abundant source of manpower for a restored Empire.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270956735_The_plague_pandemic_and_Slavic_expansion _in_the_6th-8th_centuries


Justinian Plague killed around 50 million people in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Kaspias
08-23-2020, 08:50 AM
The guy on the video also mentioned that one Medieval sample from 9th c. Central Bulgaria has been proven Q1a2a. According to him, this must be some Old Bulgar, however not completely sure in not an Avar. He is paddling the Iran-Caucasus origin of the Old Bulgars, something most Bulgarians don't agree with. At any case more bones will be tested with this new project and the truth will be revealed at last.

If I understand correctly he thought this sample might be Avar just because they carry the same clade. (Q-L53 Bulgar one yet he predicts it is Q-L330, too. And Q-L330 AV7.) Am I right? Is there any other reason to think that he is an Avar?

These are the only Q-L330 samples found in Balkans except for the Romaniote community of Ioannina. The first two samples here are from the same study which they collected among modern individuals to make an ancient/modern comparison. The other three are self-tested individuals.

https://i.ibb.co/NVJjfvN/ydna.png

Provadia identifies as Balkan Turk, Nis identifies as Serbian.

BG-NW21 and B367323 probably(lack of 2 STR values in Y-12) matches. 411416 and 363189 matches.

eastara
08-23-2020, 09:10 AM
You can't even read a bar graph properly.

The clip you linked to shows that Balts and northern Slavs have ~50% steppe ancestry. It's the same one as this, where, for example, Ukrainians have more steppe ancestry than the English.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCbCNwZydcs/X0IBQQX7Z4I/AAAAAAAAJJo/ZIFVJlfxWporMnnhepwQl7oy-GMVMz89QCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Haak_et_al_Fig_3.png

Well, everybody knows this graph, The idea(not mine ) was to compare with the basal EHG and CHG and NOT Yamnaya, which is s composite of them. Something like this is given in the video, but just for the old Swiss population, and I am not sure if not just extrapolating the Yamnaya percent.
If current and more important old Slav(as Russians, Poles and especially Ukrainians have encounters with the steppe in more recent times) are compared with the basic hunter gatherers and somehow Slavs have MORE Eastern HG than the referent Yamnaya, then they may have inherited it from somewhere else.

Riverman
08-23-2020, 09:28 AM
For example Davidski likes to represent the Slavs as direct descendants of the steppe Yamnaya, and it is true if you take as reference only Western Hunter gatherers, Yamnaya and Anatolian Farmers.

He never did so, at least not recently, because he knows very well that all transalpine people too have significant Neolithic. Proto-Baltoslavs being the result of a backmigration from Central Europe and the Central European element was stronger in Protoslavs than Balts.


Romanians aren't Slavic, what that makes Serbs? If they are same clusters? In genetics

Bulgarians are not the Gauls they are native in that region fusing with Pontic Caspian invader cultures since beginning. This "slavic-shift" key term is comedic to be thrown as your false gold, because if you said truth you will said "they are like Bulgarians, they have a native shift or a northeast shift towards Greeks". What a northern shift? Bulgarians are not northern they are Bulgarians and Greeks can genetically overlap with Bulgarians because they live in Greece since before.

Todays Romania was heavily settled by Slavs. For a time Romania was in the archaeological record more Slavic than many regions of Europe which are now Slavic speaking. The main difference between Serbs & Bulgarians and Romanians is that for the former the Slavic side began to dominate and build the stronger ethnosocial units, whereas in the Romanian case it was the Vlach side which began to dominate the next level social structures. Its almost like flipping a coin. Though the Romanian case is curious, since the Slavs were actually more dominant originally in many Romanian regions than elsewhere. But the Vlach clans just got the upper hand eventually, even though the Romanians still used old Slavic in the church and administration for quite some time - of course mainly because of Bulgarian influence, but still:

The earliest contracts (zapis) to be written in Romanian rather than Slavonic date from 1575-1590 and by 1655–1660, all the administrative documents at the Princely Courts of both Wallachia and Moldavia were written in Old Church Slavonic.

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

An interesting question in this respect how much of the E-V13 was of local Vlach origin (most of it) and how much was present in Slavs already. First hints to Slavic V13 come from tested Medieval Slavs and lineages, including the sample from Northern Germany (Usedom) and Eastern Germany (Krakauer Berg) among others of early Slavic settlement origin:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=52.153714538055624%2C17.192300668701574&z=7

Looking at the timing, I don't think, though its possible, that this was a recent backflow, but rather that ancient Slavs already had a minority element of E-V13, latest when moving to the West, to todays Germany - they could have acquired it from other people, related to Illyrians and Thracians, or from Germanics, alternatively it was already there in Proto-Slavs. So I think one has to track back every single clade of E-V13, because nobody can say for sure which path they took. For example, even if it might be a very small minority in todays Serbs, Albanians and Greeks, its possible some V13 lineages were brought there with Slavs, instead of being just assimilated. Until we have a better picture and more complete ancient record, who can say for sure?

eastara
08-23-2020, 10:00 AM
I think we should wait for the samples to be released and then to model ourselves because being Serb-like and modeling ethnic Macedonians with modern population such as the Serbs and an ancient one such as IA Bulgaria is two different things.
But even so, it's evident that a huge chunk of our ancestry is related to the pre-Slavic populations of the Balkans:


Target: Aspar_scaled
Distance: 2.3584% / 0.02358447
65.6 Serbian
34.4 BGR_IA
This is not surprise because even archaeologically it is evident that the pre-Slavic population survived on the territory of North Macedonia. What's interesting unlike in Greek Macedonia and elsewhere in Greece, our archaeologists can't find any Slavic related artifacts on the territory of North Macedonia up to the middle of the 9th century which coincides with the Bulgar invasion of Macedonia. It is thought that after the destruction of the Avar Khaganate, some Slavic tribes that were previously in it's realm, allied with the Bulgars and migrated southwards to the Balkans. That is reasonable because the Bulgars were not huge in numbers and after the series of wars against the Byzantines their numbers were even less so they needed fresh forces and settlers in the new conquered lands.
The absence of Slavic artifacts probably means that the mountainous terrain of North Macedonia wasn't attractive for the Slavic agriculturalists and they preferred more warmer and flat terrain of Greek Macedonia, Thessaly etc.
So probably these medieval samples from North Macedonia that Davidski gave a hint are also from the time period starting from the middle of the 9th century onward. Therefore all the mixing events probably occurred from that time period onward and I honestly doubt there was still population around that resembled the DNA profile of Bulgaria IA from the middle of the 9th century onward. As such we don't know whether there was 70% or 80% replacement as you say...

It is well known that Northern Bulgaria was almost completely depopulated from the old Roman population around 6th century. It may have diminished during the plague, but the survivors fled to Thrace but only around the big fortresses where they could shelter from the constant raids. There are no archaeological evidence that old Bulgars ever lived in Thrace and even Macedonia.
However, there was some Balkan type population in Pannonia when the Avars arrived and also historical evidence that they herded Roman population during their raids below the Danube back to Pannonia to use as slaves or more likely tax payers. There were also some Slavs, who had higher status as allies of the Avar state. As Slavs were farmers and Avars herders (but mainly warrior-pillagers), the Romans were assigned among the Slavs, and this way actually Slavicised. When they had the chance to move back South of Danube, this was on predominantly vacant land and they did not have to mix with anyone. Vlachs survived in the mountain areas of the South Western Balkan and since they were not farmers as well, did not mix much with those Roman/Slavs until later times. As much of what is now Bulgaria ( Eastern Bulgaria and lowland Thrace) was almost completely Turkified during Ottoman rule, the remains of the Old Bulgars, if survived to that time are hard to find among Slavic Bulgarians. There was also some population movement starting from 17 c of Slavic enclaves moving from Macedonia, South Albania and Northern Greece to Eastern Bulgaria and European Turkey( back to Bulgaria after the Balkan wars).

td120
08-23-2020, 10:03 AM
If I understand correctly he thought this sample might be Avar just because they carry the same clade. (Q-L53 Bulgar one yet he predicts it is Q-L330, too. And Q-L330 AV7.) Am I right? Is there any other reason to think that he is an Avar?


After the demise of the Avar khaganate Avar units joined the Bulgarian army . They participated in the campaign against Nicephorus I and in the Battle of Varbitsa Pass. Stamov mentions "a military burial" ,carbon dated 880-920 AD.
The Avar influence on the clothing style in the First Bulgarian Empire is a well documented fact.

Riverman
08-23-2020, 10:17 AM
There were also some Slavs, who had higher status as allies of the Avar state.

The Avars seem to have had an almost pure, mostly East Asian derived upper class and below that commoners of different, especially Slavic, but also Pannonian "Roman" and Germanic ancestry. The people below them were oftentimes used like cattle and the Slavs pretty much hated the Avars for this, as is evident from the fact that a major reason for many Slavic expansions was that they tried to evade and fled from the Avars, as well as that there were numerous uprisings against their rule. In battle the Avars often used the Slavic foot soldiers as cannon fodder, putting them in the first ranks to lure the enemy and to take its missiles, to bind them in melee, before they themselves attacked with their elite cavalry units in a shock attack. The Avars were in Central Europe among the first to use stirrups:

by the late 6th or early 7th century AD, primarily due to invaders from Central Asia, such as the Avars, stirrups began spreading across Asia to Europe from China.[3] In terms of archaeological finds, the iron pear-shaped form of stirrups, the ancestor of medieval European types, has been found in Europe in 7th century Avar graves in Hungary

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

One of the first Slavic empires was founded with the help of a Frankish merchant, called Samo, who subsequently defeated both the Avars and the Franks with the united Slavic army of his rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo%27s_Empire

The bad relationship between Avars and Slavs also explains, in part, why "the Avars" largely disappear after their military defeat, namely because the Slavs were glad that they got rid of them, because they were regularly used as cannon fodder, pressed, pillaged and even raped by the Avars, which is all written down in the historical records of the Avar rule. And again, this was an important factor for the many Slavic tribes to move, because they wanted to get away from the Avars, beyond their reach.

Dorkymon
08-23-2020, 10:26 AM
The new samples indicate that the Slavs had already assimilated a percentage of the local population. They probably were more Northern shifted when they entered North Macedonia.

This isn't what I understood. I understood that they already looked like modern Serbs/Montenegrins/Romanians prior to mixing with locals, which resulted in a slight Southern-shift characteristic of modern Macedonians.

Kanenas
08-23-2020, 10:33 AM
Keep dreaming.

You don't understand. The point is not where R1a1-M417 or R1b1-M269 etc. originated but where they could have existed. And then where they adopted stockbreeding and from whom? Because there may be two separate events, in different geographical locations.

Therefore the initial spread can be associated with different languages.

You know that what I said was not wrong. The first inhabitants of Kumtepe (just an example) were different from the 'farmers', therefore they would have had different haplogroups from the 'farmers', even if they belonged to an extinct lineage. That was probably more common than what people think.

Now, the label 'proto-Yamnaya' for an R1a-Z645 sample in Bulgaria is a little weird.

Riverman
08-23-2020, 10:52 AM
This isn't what I understood. I understood that they already looked like modern Serbs/Montenegrins/Romanians prior to mixing with locals, which resulted in a slight Southern-shift characteristic of modern Macedonians.

That's correct: First they moved into todays Pannonia and Romania, from there into Serbia, and in these regions, they mixed with local inhabitants of mostly Pannonian/Celto-Illyro-Roman and Germanic ancestry, with which they formed regional Slavic groups. And from this already newly admixed Slavic people moved groups further to the South East, eventually reaching Greek speaking territories.

xripkan
08-23-2020, 11:21 AM
That's correct: First they moved into todays Pannonia and Romania, from there into Serbia, and in these regions, they mixed with local inhabitants of mostly Pannonian/Celto-Illyro-Roman and Germanic ancestry, with which they formed regional Slavic groups. And from this already newly admixed Slavic people moved groups further to the South East, eventually reaching Greek speaking territories.

So, you would say that Slavs who entered North Macedonia were already Serb-like? This means a huge demographic change. If we knew when exactly the samples are dated we could make safer conclusions.

Alain
08-23-2020, 11:23 AM
The Avars seem to have had an almost pure, mostly East Asian derived upper class and below that commoners of different, especially Slavic, but also Pannonian "Roman" and Germanic ancestry. The people below them were oftentimes used like cattle and the Slavs pretty much hated the Avars for this, as is evident from the fact that a major reason for many Slavic expansions was that they tried to evade and fled from the Avars, as well as that there were numerous uprisings against their rule. In battle the Avars often used the Slavic foot soldiers as cannon fodder, putting them in the first ranks to lure the enemy and to take its missiles, to bind them in melee, before they themselves attacked with their elite cavalry units in a shock attack. The Avars were in Central Europe among the first to use stirrups:


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

One of the first Slavic empires was founded with the help of a Frankish merchant, called Samo, who subsequently defeated both the Avars and the Franks with the united Slavic army of his rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo%27s_Empire

The bad relationship between Avars and Slavs also explains, in part, why "the Avars" largely disappear after their military defeat, namely because the Slavs were glad that they got rid of them, because they were regularly used as cannon fodder, pressed, pillaged and even raped by the Avars, which is all written down in the historical records of the Avar rule. And again, this was an important factor for the many Slavic tribes to move, because they wanted to get away from the Avars, beyond their reach.

The relationship between the Avars and Slavs was partly ampivalent, yes that with the stirrup is definitely correct, but with the rape, it was only a small elite of East Asian descent that the Slavs said over the course of time, so to speak, because of the later At that time, Slavs were also able to rise in the Avar power apparatus, as there was sometimes marriage between Avars and Slavic women and mixed descendants then also belonged to the narrower circle of Avars. At some point the Khaganate became unstable, partly from the inside, the remains of the Avars were partly absorbed by the local population or withdrawn to the steppe areas. There is an interesting book by Walter Pohl "The Avars"

Hawk
08-23-2020, 11:27 AM
I have the feeling that R1b and R1a split is too old for Indo-European, so either one of the deep subclades of these two haplogroups were the original bearers of Indo-European. I bet my money on R1b-M269.

Johnny ola
08-23-2020, 11:43 AM
That's correct: First they moved into todays Pannonia and Romania, from there into Serbia, and in these regions, they mixed with local inhabitants of mostly Pannonian/Celto-Illyro-Roman and Germanic ancestry, with which they formed regional Slavic groups. And from this already newly admixed Slavic people moved groups further to the South East, eventually reaching Greek speaking territories.

They found in Pannonia probably vlach subgroups mixed with them And then they moved to southern regions.

Aspar
08-23-2020, 11:47 AM
It is well known that Northern Bulgaria was almost completely depopulated from the old Roman population around 6th century. It may have diminished during the plague, but the survivors fled to Thrace but only around the big fortresses where they could shelter from the constant raids. There are no archaeological evidence that old Bulgars ever lived in Thrace and even Macedonia.
However, there was some Balkan type population in Pannonia when the Avars arrived and also historical evidence that they herded Roman population during their raids below the Danube back to Pannonia to use as slaves or more likely tax payers. There were also some Slavs, who had higher status as allies of the Avar state. As Slavs were farmers and Avars herders (but mainly warrior-pillagers), the Romans were assigned among the Slavs, and this way actually Slavicised. When they had the chance to move back South of Danube, this was on predominantly vacant land and they did not have to mix with anyone. Vlachs survived in the mountain areas of the South Western Balkan and since they were not farmers as well, did not mix much with those Roman/Slavs until later times. As much of what is now Bulgaria ( Eastern Bulgaria and lowland Thrace) was almost completely Turkified during Ottoman rule, the remains of the Old Bulgars, if survived to that time are hard to find among Slavic Bulgarians. There was also some population movement starting from 17 c of Slavic enclaves moving from Macedonia, South Albania and Northern Greece to Eastern Bulgaria and European Turkey( back to Bulgaria after the Balkan wars).

I am not aware with the situation in Bulgaria, I haven't read much archaeological material regarding the situation in the Early Medieval however from archaeological finds on the territory of North Macedonia it's a well known that there are artifacts that the Macedonian-Croatian archaeologist Ivan Mikulcic prescribed to the Bulgars of Kuber and the Sermesianoi, the Greco-Roman population which the Avars captured and brought in Pannonia. More on this here (http://macedonia.kroraina.com/im3/im_3.htm#32_21). However, later traces and accounts suggests that this mixed Bulgar-Roman population moved in south-western direction in what is now South Albania where the treasures of the Avar Khagan which Kuber took it with him were found.

Riverman
08-23-2020, 11:47 AM
So, you would say that Slavs who entered North Macedonia were already Serb-like? This means a huge demographic change. If we knew when exactly the samples are dated we could make safer conclusions.

I don't know how close they were to modern Serbs, because I don't have access to the data or the competence to judge it. I'm waiting, like most, for the results and their interpretation to come. However, I know which path they took, how the archaeological chronology looks like, so if the results would suggest they were mostly Serb-like, at least closer to modern Serbs than to say Belorussians or Northern Ukrainians, it would make sense.


They found in Pannonia probably vlach subgroups mixed with them And then they moved to southern regions.

I would rather say "Vlach-like", because not all Roman provincials should be equated with later Vlachs, even though they might have been quite similar.


The relationship between the Avars and Slavs was partly ampivalent, yes that with the stirrup is definitely correct, but with the rape, it was only a small elite of East Asian descent

This elite formed a people, an ethnicity apart. "The Avars" were these mostly East Asian derived elites, the "Avar time population" of Pannonia, the "Avar cultural horizon" however was dominated by Slavs, Roman provincials and Germanics living, for the most time, under the rule of this core Avar group.
And I did mention "rapes" deliberately, because there were incidences noted in which Slavic uprisings started, and they started regularly, because an Avar expedition not just took goods and humiliated the local Slavs, but also raped some of their women. This was one step too far for the Slavic leaders, which led to an uprising - again, one of many. So the Slavs had, quite often, to accept everything the Avars did to them, to start a rebellion, what they did regularly, or to try to move away from the Avar oppression, which many did too, even whole tribes which moved on, especially to the South. The Avars simply were a major push factor for the Slavic tribals to move on.


At that time, Slavs were also able to rise in the Avar power apparatus, as there was sometimes marriage between Avars and Slavic women and mixed descendants then also belonged to the narrower circle of Avars.

That's true, but like outlined above, the kind of marriage was oftentimes more an abduction by the Avars, similar to "The Rape of the Sabine Women", just from a dominant social position:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women

I can quote from a chronicle which you can find on Wikipedia:

Each year, the Huns [Avars] came to the Slavs, to spend the winter with them; then they took the wives and daughters of the Slavs and slept with them, and among the other mistreatments [already mentioned] the Slavs were also forced to pay levies to the Huns. But the sons of the Huns, who were [then] raised with the wives and daughters of these Wends could not finally endure this oppression anymore and refused obedience to the Huns and began, as already mentioned, a rebellion. When now the Wendish army went against the Huns, the [aforementioned] merchant Samo accompanied the same. And so the Samo’s bravery proved itself in wonderful ways and a huge mass of Huns fell to the sword of the Wends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars#Arrival_in_Europe


At some point the Khaganate became unstable, partly from the inside, the remains of the Avars were partly absorbed by the local population or withdrawn to the steppe areas. There is an interesting book by Walter Pohl "The Avars"

To me, everything which Pohl writes has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Yet what you write is basically correct, yes, but that doesn't change how this "Khaganate" worked from inside.

Aspar
08-23-2020, 11:54 AM
This isn't what I understood. I understood that they already looked like modern Serbs/Montenegrins/Romanians prior to mixing with locals, which resulted in a slight Southern-shift characteristic of modern Macedonians.

Well, Davidski didn't say from what period those Medieval Slavs are, so we don't know whether those are fresh migrants or are already mixed with the local population...

As I said earlier, the first archaeological traces related to the Medieval Slavs appear on the territory of North Macedonia in the middle of the 9th century, not earlier than that. And are related with the Bulgar invasion...

Hawk
08-23-2020, 12:02 PM
So, regarding E-V13. No E-V13 in EBA Bulgaria, no E-V13 in EBA North Serbia as well, very unlikely we will find in Greece (except some rare cases of E-L618). Where would the starting point be?

CyrylBojarski
08-23-2020, 12:20 PM
Gauls?Where i mention gauls?I said gallides and galloi its a nickname for people in Greek Macedonia who talk the bulgarian languange and others who speak a mix of greek and bulgarian.

Romanians are not slavic?Huh?

Bulgarians are half slavic and half native balkan(farmer) depends the region(southern parts less slavic).Serbs are also similar to Romanians genetically.North Macedonias are also close with Bulgarians being half native farmer and slavic(thought the southern parts are more farmer having less steppe).

Greek Macedonians are also close to them,but still depends the region.For example people in Xalkidiki or Katerini are not so slavic like the people in Thessaloniki or the provinces outside of Thessaloniki.Serres,Drama are also bulgarian like not only in genetics but also culturally and speaking.

Modern genetic studies are showing that modern Bulgarians are 50% Cypriot-like and 50% Polish-like. Greeks are 60% Cypriot-like and 40% Polish-like. Very similiar percentages. We can attribute Greeks to Slavs on the same principle that for example Wikipedia attributes Bulgarians to the Slavs, but genetically it is not very true

Riverman
08-23-2020, 12:22 PM
So, regarding E-V13. No E-V13 in EBA Bulgaria, no E-V13 in EBA North Serbia as well, very unlikely we will find in Greece (except some rare cases of E-L618). Where would the starting point be?

Dalmatia, Pannonia, Transylvania and generally the Carpathian region are the best candidates I'd say. The Carpathian zone was, in the late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, again very important. I even thought about some V13 clans moving to the West in particular as some kind of special social group, almost caste, like well versed blacksmiths, experts for iron work and metallurgy in general. I always thought its quite remarkable that a lot of V13 clans seem to have sticked together, and then suddenly, at the LBA-EIA transition, they seem to have split, radiated and moved out. But hardly as a block, even clans seem to have split. So if small clans, families, even individuals would have moved out, it would make sense I guess. Probably as part of a other people's movements. But if this would be true, one would have to get minimum to the resolution we had for the Lech valley. And even then it might be difficile work to uncover different social roles and occuptional habits, especially if the tools were not always present in the burial, if there are even regular burials for all social groups to begin with.
But regardless of what exact role they played in their societies, they spread on a big scale with the Iron Age transition I'd say. This might prove to be true even for Greece and the Dorians. Iron was a game changers too many people still seem to downplay too much. But I think that's mostly because we have still not enough Iron Age data with a sufficiently high resolution to distinguish even minor ethnic differences caused by migrations of already related, steppe derived people.

Alain
08-23-2020, 12:30 PM
I don't know how close they were to modern Serbs, because I don't have access to the data or the competence to judge it. I'm waiting, like most, for the results and their interpretation to come. However, I know which path they took, how the archaeological chronology looks like, so if the results would suggest they were mostly Serb-like, at least closer to modern Serbs than to say Belorussians or Northern Ukrainians, it would make sense.



I would rather say "Vlach-like", because not all Roman provincials should be equated with later Vlachs, even though they might have been quite similar.



This elite formed a people, an ethnicity apart. "The Avars" were these mostly East Asian derived elites, the "Avar time population" of Pannonia, the "Avar cultural horizon" however was dominated by Slavs, Roman provincials and Germanics living, for the most time, under the rule of this core Avar group.
And I did mention "rapes" deliberately, because there were incidences noted in which Slavic uprisings started, and they started regularly, because an Avar expedition not just took goods and humiliated the local Slavs, but also raped some of their women. This was one step too far for the Slavic leaders, which led to an uprising - again, one of many. So the Slavs had, quite often, to accept everything the Avars did to them, to start a rebellion, what they did regularly, or to try to move away from the Avar oppression, which many did too, even whole tribes which moved on, especially to the South. The Avars simply were a major push factor for the Slavic tribals to move on.



That's true, but like outlined above, the kind of marriage was oftentimes more an abduction by the Avars, similar to "The Rape of the Sabine Women", just from a dominant social position:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women

I can quote from a chronicle which you can find on Wikipedia:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars#Arrival_in_Europe



To me, everything which Pohl writes has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Yet what you write is basically correct, yes, but that doesn't change how this "Khaganate" worked from inside.

Thanks for the information, but I don't think that Slavs or Avars reflect ethnicity but rather social status, because no matter what origin you were, you could become "an Avars". The origin of this "steppe people" is clearly the East Asian region You should keep in mind that nomads were never homogeneous and actually very tolerant, yes at the beginning there were certainly differences, but then the social rank was more important than the ethnicity, but I agree with them 100%, the Avars were a push factor for the Slavs to migrate / expand further south but there are also other factors that play a role, the riches of the Byzantine Empire, land reclamation ...

Johnny ola
08-23-2020, 12:33 PM
Modern genetic studies are showing that modern Bulgarians are 50% Cypriot-like and 50% Polish-like. Greeks are 60% Cypriot-like and 40% Polish-like. Very similiar percentages. We can attribute Greeks to Slavs on the same principle that for example Wikipedia attributes Bulgarians to the Slavs, but genetically it is not very true

I really doubt that modern mainland Greeks are polish like. As For their west Asian influences you are correct. Even the most northern parts show influences form anatolia and the Levant Witch making them also east Med or Southeast if you want it.

Hawk
08-23-2020, 12:37 PM
Dalmatia, Pannonia, Transylvania and generally the Carpathian region are the best candidates I'd say. The Carpathian zone was, in the late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, again very important. I even thought about some V13 clans moving to the West in particular as some kind of special social group, almost caste, like well versed blacksmiths, experts for iron work and metallurgy in general. I always thought its quite remarkable that a lot of V13 clans seem to have sticked together, and then suddenly, at the LBA-EIA transition, they seem to have split, radiated and moved out. But hardly as a block, even clans seem to have split. So if small clans, families, even individuals would have moved out, it would make sense I guess. Probably as part of a other people's movements. But if this would be true, one would have to get minimum to the resolution we had for the Lech valley. And even then it might be difficile work to uncover different social roles and occuptional habits, especially if the tools were not always present in the burial, if there are even regular burials for all social groups to begin with.
But regardless of what exact role they played in their societies, they spread on a big scale with the Iron Age transition I'd say. This might prove to be true even for Greece and the Dorians. Iron was a game changers too many people still seem to downplay too much. But I think that's mostly because we have still not enough Iron Age data with a sufficiently high resolution to distinguish even minor ethnic differences caused by migrations of already related, steppe derived people.

To me, it looks like either Eastern Urnfield. No other attested culture during LBA/EIA archeologically making such an impact.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/UrnfieldCulture.jpg

Or we were hiding in the Pindus Mountains, and sneaking the R-s and J-s waiting for our opportunity to enter the game.:biggrin1:

CyrylBojarski
08-23-2020, 01:05 PM
I really doubt that modern mainland Greeks are polish like. As For their west Asian influences you are correct. Even the most northern parts show influences form anatolia and the Levant Witch making them also east Med or Southeast if you want it.

39129

Johnny ola
08-23-2020, 01:14 PM
39129

Some very northern regions like Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly might be Polish like indeed. But i think the medieval samples from balkans will be more accurate for the steppe admixture in modern mainland Greeks And ethnic groups like romanians, serbs, Bulgarians, Montenegrins,North Macedonians will be more representative.

Riverman
08-23-2020, 01:14 PM
Thanks for the information, but I don't think that Slavs or Avars reflect ethnicity but rather social status, because no matter what origin you were, you could become "an Avars". The origin of this "steppe people" is clearly the East Asian region You should keep in mind that nomads were never homogeneous and actually very tolerant, yes at the beginning there were certainly differences, but then the social rank was more important than the ethnicity, but I agree with them 100%, the Avars were a push factor for the Slavs to migrate / expand further south but there are also other factors that play a role, the riches of the Byzantine Empire, land reclamation ...

That's the talk of Walter Pohl et al., which deny ethnicity and ancestry as important categories altogether. Its called the "Vienna School of History":

The Vienna School of History is a revisionist[1] school of history based at the University of Vienna. It is closely associated with Reinhard Wenskus, Walter Pohl and Herwig Wolfram. Drawing upon increased skepticism towards primary sources and a rejection of previous scholarship, in favor of fresh theories of sociology and critical theory, scholars of the Vienna School have introduced the concept of ethnogenesis to deconstruct the ethnicity of Germanic tribes.

Criticism which I share:

Pohl's theories of the Germanic tribes not having any traditions or values of their own have been criticized by Wolf Liebeschuetz as "extraordinarily one-sided" and a form of ideological "dogmatism" evincing "a closed mind".[4] Shami Gosh accuses the Vienna School of resorting to "rather dubious sorts of evidence" to push their interpretation of the sources in a particular manner

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

So they tried to reinterpret (pre-) history from a Marxist, materialist point of view, by rejecting ethnicity as an important category instead of social class. Walter Pohl and his disciples even claimed that ethnicity is and always was a pure construct, with the shared mythical ancestors and genetic ancestry ("same blood") being an imagination. Needless to say they resorted almost exclusively to sociological interpretations of the record and refused to recognise the results from other fields, especially the natural sciences, to a large degree, especially physical anthropology was completely dismissed.

This is particularly important for the Avars, because we know how different the true Avars were from their remains, which pointed to them being primarily of clearly East Asian ancestry. Of course, they also, initially, rejected any genetic data, including ancient DNA, to resolve questions they themselves raised, like the continuity or discontinuity of Germanic ancestry in the migration period Lombards. Pohl and his disciples, like Helmut Reimitz, even went to go so far, as to claim that the Lombards were an "invented social group", with "an identity migrating". Sometimes you could even ask them how, because in the end, its always about people moving - "ideas of ethnicity" rarely move, and languages even less so in traditional societies in particular.
But all of that was denied by the "Vienna School" and they even tried to sabotage the cooperation of historical sciences with genetic research altogether. Just when they realised they can't evade it, the impact of this new research which can't be as easily villainised as physical anthropology was too big, they gave in and cooperated themselves. Like in the recent Lombard study for Pannonia and Northern Italy, where their teams contributed "historical insights". Thanks to their input, some headlines said that it was a multicultural group on the move, when in fact the core group was clearly Northern-Central European, of Germanic descent, after centuries of migration, and they had local allies, clients and servants, with which they mixed very late and not even initially.
Which is a clear rebuttal of everything people like Pohl and Reimitz said for years, because they claimed that no people from Northern Europe moved, as an ethnicity, through Europe to end up as historical Lombards, but just "an ethnic construct was on the move". Going by them, they should have had almost no remaining ancestry which made them different from the locals all, which is against all the evidence.

The same crap some said about "the Avars". It is true, to some degree, that mixture took place and local people rose to higher ranks, eventually, but this mostly happened in the late phase, when they had mixed in the described way with locals and were on the decline already. But to state that there was "no Avar ethnicity" is just wrong. At least everything you can see in the archaeological, physical remains and genetic record contradicts it, as do the historical accounts if you take them seriously, what they did not. Because for them everybody else "invents things", but themselves.


To me, it looks like either Eastern Urnfield. No other attested culture during LBA/EIA archeologically making such an impact.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/UrnfieldCulture.jpg

Or we were hiding in the Pindus Mountains, and sneaking the R-s and J-s waiting for our opportunity to enter the game.:biggrin1:

I think the Urnfield phenomenon was multi-ethnic, with many people involved and basically a religious movement which helped some ethnicities to spread and also facilitated new innovations. Let's assume some of the metallurgical innovations came from the East in the late phase, but the early already led to a domino effect. I'd say if the E-V13 guys were more concentrated at one place, in the regions I mentioned, somewhere between Dalmatia-Pannonia-Carpathian region, they were swept away a second time after the first steppe expansion and dispersed with the movements of other tribes, like said probably in special role, like blacksmiths.
So like the Slavs were probably fairly concentrated at one point, but when there were pull factors (Germanic neighbours leaving better lands) and push factors (overpopulation and steppe people attacking their territories), they moved out in all directions.
Similarily, I'd assume there probably was a higher concentration of E-V13 somewhere in these regions, and their unity was broken up during the big migrations, probably Urnfield indeed. But at that time it was not longer customary to execute or enslave all foreign males, but many tribes tried to increase their ranks by integrating warriors and specialists in particular. So some big groups started to move South and evaded the pressure, while others stayed behind or hooked to the newcomers, probably in a special role.

I think that's the best explanation for the observed pattern, because I don't think the epicentre was much further North than the Carpathian region and there were small migrations of V13 people before, but the big upheaval and spread was caused by the turmoil around the Urnfield phenomenon, Iron metalwork and the Cimmerian pressure from the East. That caused some groups to move or disperse, among these the main source of E-V13.
At least that's the best theory I could come up with right now.

CyrylBojarski
08-23-2020, 01:18 PM
Some very northern regions like Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly might be Polish like indeed. But i think the medieval samples from balkans will be more accurate for the steppe admixture in modern mainland Greeks And ethnic groups like romanians, serbs, Bulgarians, Montenegrins,North Macedonians will be more representative.

there were 14 samples from Thessaloniki and 6 samples from Athens

this image is showing that closest relatives to modern Bulgarians are probably Greeks ( and Macedonians of course )

Alain
08-23-2020, 01:34 PM
That's the talk of Walter Pohl et al., which deny ethnicity and ancestry as important categories altogether. Its called the "Vienna School of HIstory":


Criticism which I share:


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

So they tried to reinterpret (pre-) history from a Marxist, materialist point of view, by rejecting ethnicity as an important category instead of social class. Walter Pohl and his disciples even claimed that ethnicity is and always was a pure construct, with the shared mythical ancestors and genetic ancestry ("same blood") being an imagination. Needless to say they resorted almost exclusively to sociological interpretations of the record and refused to recognise the results from other fields, especially the natural sciences, to a large degree, especially physical anthropology was completely dismissed.

This is particularly important for the Avars, because we know how different the true Avars were from their remains, which pointed to them being primarily of clearly East Asian ancestry. Of course, they also, initially, rejected any genetic data, including ancient DNA, to resolve questions they themselves raised, like the continuity or discontinuity of Germanic ancestry in the migration period Lombards. Pohl and his disciples, like Helmut Reimitz, even went to go so far, as to claim that the Lombards were an "invented social group", with "an identity migrating". Sometimes you could even ask them how, because in the end, its always about people moving - "ideas of ethnicity" rarely move, and languages even less so in traditional societies in particular.
But all of that was denied by the "Vienna School" and they even tried to sabotage the cooperation of historical sciences with genetic research altogether. Just when they realised they can't evade it, the impact of this new research which can't be as easily villainised as physical anthropology, they gave in and cooperated themselves. Like in the recent Lombard study for Pannonia and Northern Italy, where their teams contributed "historical insights". Thanks to their input, some headlines said that it was a multicultural group on the move, when in fact the core group was clearly Northern-Central European, of Germanic descent, after centuries of migration, and they had local allies, clients and servants, with which they mixed very late.
Which is a clear rebuttal of everything people like Pohl and Reimitz said for years, because they claimed that no people from Northern Europe moved, as an ethnicity, through Europe to end up as historical Lombards, but just "an ethnic construct on the move".

The same crap some said about "the Avars". It is true, to some degree, that mixture took place and local people rose to higher ranks, eventually, but this mostly happened in the late phase, when they had mixed in the described way with locals and were on the decline already. But to state that there was "no Avar ethnicity" is just wrong, at least everything you can see in the archaeological, physical remains and genetic record contradicts it, as do the historical accounts if you take them seriously, what they did not. Because for them everybody else "invents things", but themselves.



I think the Urnfield phenomenon was multi-ethnic, with many people involved and basically a religious movement which helped some ethnicities to spread and also facilitated new innovations. Let's assume some of the metallurgical innovations came from the East in the late phase, but the early already led to a domino effect. I'd say if the E-V13 guys were more concentrated at one place, in the regions I mentioned, somewhere between Dalmatia-Pannonia-Carpathian region, they were swept away a second time after the first steppe expansion and dispersed with the movements of other tribes, like said probably in special role, like blacksmiths.
So like the Slavs were probably fairly concentrated at one point, but when there were pull factors (Germanic neighbours leaving better lands) and push factors (overpopulation and steppe people attacking their territories), they moved out in all directions.
Similarily, I'd assume there probably was a higher concentration of E-V13 somewhere in these regions, and their unity was broken up during the big migrations, probably Urnfield indeed. But at that time it was not longer customary to execute or enslave all foreign males, but many tribes tried to increase their ranks by integrating warriors and specialists in particular. So some big groups started to move South and evaded the pressure, while others stayed behind or hooked to the newcomers, probably in a special role.

I think that's the best explanation for the observed pattern, because I don't think the epicentre was much further North than the Carpathian region and there were small migrations of V13 people before, but the big upheaval and spread was caused by the turmoil around the Urnfield phenomenon, Iron metalwork and the Cimmerian pressure from the East. That caused some groups to move or disperse, among these the main source of E-V13.
At least that's the best theory I could come up with right now.

I don't get everything from Walter Pohl, of course the Avars had an ethnicity, no question about it, but when they stepped into the Pannoic Plain, things changed over time and there are also genetic finds of Avars. What I have just read about the "Germanic peoples" is disappointing by Walter Pohl, he claims that the Germanic culture is completely derived from the Roman culture because you get a headache, of course there are various influences, but the Germanic peoples also had their own tradition and values At the end of the Western Roman era, many people of Germanic origin were in Roman service and even controlled the fortunes of power in Rome, as in the example of Stilicho, but genetically speaking, the Germanic peoples were never homogeneous but nevertheless an independent culture!

Kanenas
08-23-2020, 01:49 PM
The Avars were according to Theophylact (according to the most logical interpretation of the account), from somewhere near Ufa.
I think, current data points to a more eastern origin but he also describes a west to east movement ("one thousand five hundred miles distant from those who are called Turks") of people related to them based on Gokturk accounts (both caused by the Gokturk expansion).

The Bulgars on the other hand were said to be essentially from the lower Don. It is very likely they would have had Classical Western Scythian admixture and paternal origins. If they could have had elites of more Eastern origin, that is another question.

Riverman
08-23-2020, 01:58 PM
@Alain: I was talking about the leitmotif of Walter Pohl et al. Regardless of what they touch, about what they write, be it Germanics or Avars, its always the same kind of Marxist inspired, revisionist intepretation of history. Other scholars have to beat them to accept, with irrefutable, hardest evidence, to what any normal human being with just common sense would have assumed in the first place. And they constantly criticise others for not accepting their point of view, yet when disproven themselves, they go on as if nothing happened. As if they wouldn't have been wrong about virtually everything before and they start again to defend the next element of their strictly ideological positioning. Unless you can beat them to accept it, with absolutely irrefutable evidence, they never give in and distort your words.


of course the Avars had an ethnicity, no question about it, but when they stepped into the Pannoic Plain, things changed over time and there are also genetic finds of Avars.

Well, when analysing the physical remains, it was clear that the rich burials being absolutely dominated by East Asian derived people. And now the genetic evidence points to that too:

A genetic study published in Scientific Reports in January 2020 examined the remains of twenty-six individuals buried at various elite Avar cemeteries in the Pannonian Basin dated to the 7th century AD.[50] The mtDNA of these Avars belonged mostly to East Asian haplogroups, while the Y-DNA was exclusively of East Asian origin and "strikingly homogenous", belonging to haplogroups N-M231 and Q-M242.[51] The evidence suggested that the Avars were a patrilineal and endogamous people who entered the Pannonian Basin through migrations from East Asia involving both men and women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars#Anthropology

Of course there is an "Avar period Pannonian population" and there are "Avars in the narrower sense". But the vast majority of the former never became Avars, you see it in the remains, not just that they were clearly European derived with practically no admixture, but also in their settlements and grave goods. They were just local inhabitants under a new rule and the rulers were the Avar minority, to which ranks, over time, some rose too. But there was no large scale Avar identity which encompassed them all. Which is why "the Avars" disappear almost completely from the record after defeat, just like that, while many local Slavic (R1a), Germanic (I1) and Roman provincial lineages (like E1b guys) might have survived up to this time, or at least into the Hungarian period.
In the Hungarian period something similar happened, but the Hungarians were more numerous, started with the integration of the locals earlier, and of course they formed a real state and adopted a Christian, writing culture, with a sophisticated, German helped administration and state. This resulted in their ability to transform the majority of the population to a Hungarian identity over time, but even then it needed time.
The Avars never managed to do that, they always kept their warrior-pillager lifestyle, which just pressed the majority of the locals into submission, with more booty coming from raids abroad, as long as they were winning. Their tools to gain this superiority was the stirrup and excellent horsemanship, as well as the political and financial contacts to the East, especially the Byzantines.
When their opponents adapted and the support from allies was lost, they were losing their position as well and had no roots in the regions.

Alain
08-23-2020, 02:13 PM
@Alain: I was talking about the leitmotif of Walter Pohl et al. Regardless of what they touch, about what they write, be it Germanics or Avars, its always the same kind of Marxist inspired, revisionist intepretation of history. Other scholars have to beat them to accept, with irrefutable, hardest evidence, to what any normal human being with just common sense would have assumed in the first place. And they constantly criticise others for not accepting their point of view, yet when disproven themselves, they go on as if nothing happened. As if they wouldn't have been wrong about virtually everything before and they start again to defend the next element of their strictly ideological positioning. Unless you can beat them to accept it, with absolutely irrefutable evidence, they never give in and distort your words.



Well, when analysing the physical remains, it was clear that the rich burials being absolutely dominated by East Asian derived people. And now the genetic evidence points to that too:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars#Anthropology

Of course there is an "Avar period Pannonian population" and there are "Avars in the narrower sense". But the vast majority of the former never became Avars, you see it in the remains, not just that they were clearly European derived with practically no admixture, but also in their settlements and grave goods. They were just local inhabitants under a new rule and the rulers were the Avar minority, to which ranks, over time, some rose too. But there was no large scale Avar identity which encompassed them all. Which is why "the Avars" disappear almost completely from the record after defeat, just like that, while many local Slavic (R1a), Germanic (I1) and Roman provincial lineages (like E1b guys) might have survived up to this time, or at least into the Hungarian period.
In the Hungarian period something similar happened, but the Hungarians were more numerous, started with the integration of the locals earlier, and of course they formed a real state and adopted a Christian, writing culture, with a sophisticated, German helped administration and state. This resulted in their ability to transform the majority of the population to a Hungarian identity over time, but even then it needed time.
The Avars never managed to do that, they always kept their warrior-pillager lifestyle, which just pressed the majority of the locals into submission, with more booty coming from raids abroad, as long as they were winning. Their tools to gain this superiority was the stirrup and excellent horsemanship, as well as the political and financial contacts to the East, especially the Byzantines.
When their opponents adapted and the support from allies was lost, they were losing their position as well and had no roots in the regions.

I try not to blame anyone, just it's disappointing that people, history, archeology and genetics use it for their political purposes. It is important to me that the truth just comes out and that all people get to know their and other history without any political tendency but unfortunately that doesn't always work, I know the paper from 2020, there is nothing wrong with it and of course everyone can make hypotheses, only if a scientific magazine refutes or agrees you have to look at it of course

Hawk
08-23-2020, 02:29 PM
Riverman will be happy to read this paper: https://www.academia.edu/588112/Ritual_Pit_Complexes_in_Iron_Age_Thrace_The_Case_S tudy_of_Svilengrad

It looks like these E-V13 guys were newcomers there, from Carpathian-Pannonian plain.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
08-23-2020, 02:31 PM
CWC and Yamnaya look different.

But both R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 and related linages seem to have existed among hunter-fishers, for example concerning the Comb Ceramic R1a5-YP1272:

There's also I4436 with R1b1a1a
https://amtdb.org/records/I4436
And Tamula3 with R1
https://amtdb.org/records/Tamula3

Johnny ola
08-23-2020, 02:34 PM
there were 14 samples from Thessaloniki and 6 samples from Athens

this image is showing that closest relatives to modern Bulgarians are probably Greeks ( and Macedonians of course )

I agree that northern greeks especially those from Macedonia and Thrace are closer to Bulgarians and N.Macedonians. But keep in mind that it depends the city/region. Those from Serres, Thessaloniki are more Slavic. Those from xalkidiki, katerini are not So Slavic.

Moldovlah
08-23-2020, 02:56 PM
I agree that northern greeks especially those from Macedonia and Thrace are closer to Bulgarians and N.Macedonians. But keep in mind that it depends the city/region. Those from Serres, Thessaloniki are more Slavic. Those from xalkidiki, katerini are not So Slavic.

Yes they are.

Greek 1

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 24.29
2 Baltic 20.2
3 West_Med 19.12
4 North_Atlantic 17.09
5 West_Asian 12.28
6 Red_Sea 5.47
7 Oceanian 0.99
8 South_Asian 0.55

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Greek_Thessaly 4.7
2 Bulgarian 7.39
3 Romanian 9.95
4 Central_Greek 10.32
5 East_Sicilian 11.42
6 Italian_Abruzzo 11.81
7 West_Sicilian 12.88
8 Ashkenazi 12.94
9 Tuscan 13.66
10 Serbian 13.94
11 South_Italian 14.83
12 North_Italian 17.17
13 Moldavian 18.87
14 Algerian_Jewish 19.56
15 Italian_Jewish 19.92
16 Sephardic_Jewish 19.94
17 Croatian 21.98
18 Hungarian 22.25
19 Tunisian_Jewish 23.02
20 Libyan_Jewish 23.35

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 81.3% Bulgarian + 18.7% Samaritan @ 2.56
2 52.7% Croatian + 47.3% Cyprian @ 2.66
3 79.9% Central_Greek + 20.1% Lithuanian @ 2.78
4 77.6% Central_Greek + 22.4% Estonian_Polish @ 2.81
5 76.2% Central_Greek + 23.8% Southwest_Russian @ 2.89
6 74.2% East_Sicilian + 25.8% Southwest_Russian @ 2.89
7 74.3% East_Sicilian + 25.7% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 2.91
8 77.4% Central_Greek + 22.6% Russian_Smolensk @ 2.93
9 82.2% Bulgarian + 17.8% Lebanese_Christian @ 2.93
10 78.1% East_Sicilian + 21.9% Lithuanian @ 2.95
11 78% Central_Greek + 22% Belorussian @ 2.97
12 75.5% East_Sicilian + 24.5% Russian_Smolensk @ 3.03
13 78.3% Bulgarian + 21.7% Cyprian @ 3.03
14 76.4% Central_Greek + 23.6% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.04
15 75.7% East_Sicilian + 24.3% Estonian_Polish @ 3.05
16 78.6% Central_Greek + 21.4% Erzya @ 3.15
17 82.1% Bulgarian + 17.9% Bedouin @ 3.16
18 76.6% East_Sicilian + 23.4% Erzya @ 3.17
19 56.6% Moldavian + 43.4% Cyprian @ 3.17
20 80.3% Bulgarian + 19.7% Syrian @ 3.21

Greek 2

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 34.7
2 West_Med 18.21
3 West_Asian 16.7
4 North_Atlantic 14.48
5 Baltic 12.29
6 Red_Sea 2.36
7 South_Asian 1.13
8 Oceanian 0.12

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Central_Greek 6.79
2 Ashkenazi 7.07
3 East_Sicilian 7.62
4 South_Italian 8.29
5 Italian_Abruzzo 10.3
6 Greek_Thessaly 10.81
7 West_Sicilian 11.35
8 Italian_Jewish 11.81
9 Sephardic_Jewish 11.98
10 Algerian_Jewish 12.28
11 Cyprian 14.17
12 Tunisian_Jewish 14.84
13 Libyan_Jewish 15.75
14 Tuscan 16.6
15 Lebanese_Muslim 17.4
16 Bulgarian 17.96
17 Turkish 18.15
18 Syrian 19.31
19 Lebanese_Druze 20.31
20 Romanian 20.42

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66.5% Greek_Thessaly + 33.5% Lebanese_Druze @ 3.99
2 56.3% Cyprian + 43.7% Bulgarian @ 4.25
3 59.7% Cyprian + 40.3% Romanian @ 4.35
4 70.6% Cyprian + 29.4% Hungarian @ 4.45
5 64.3% Cyprian + 35.7% Serbian @ 4.51
6 87.4% Ashkenazi + 12.6% Abhkasian @ 4.68
7 73.4% Cyprian + 26.6% East_German @ 4.69
8 86% Ashkenazi + 14% Adygei @ 4.73
9 86.8% Ashkenazi + 13.2% Georgian @ 4.73
10 72.2% Cyprian + 27.8% Austrian @ 4.79
11 53.3% Bulgarian + 46.7% Lebanese_Druze @ 4.79
12 74.9% Cyprian + 25.1% South_Polish @ 4.8
13 57.9% Greek_Thessaly + 42.1% Cyprian @ 4.8
14 87% Ashkenazi + 13% Lezgin @ 4.83
15 87.2% Ashkenazi + 12.8% North_Ossetian @ 4.89
16 87% Ashkenazi + 13% Chechen @ 4.91
17 71.2% Cyprian + 28.8% Croatian @ 4.95
18 84.8% Ashkenazi + 15.2% Kumyk @ 4.95
19 78.2% Cyprian + 21.8% Southwest_Finnish @ 4.97
20 86.6% Ashkenazi + 13.4% Balkar @ 5.03

1/2 Greek 1/2 Polish

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 34.97
2 North_Atlantic 22
3 West_Med 17.13
4 East_Med 16.42
5 West_Asian 5.22
6 Red_Sea 2.45
7 East_Asian 1.33
8 Amerindian 0.48

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Moldavian 7.53
2 Croatian 8.44
3 Serbian 9.04
4 Romanian 11.02
5 Bulgarian 11.76
6 Hungarian 11.9
7 Ukrainian_Lviv 13.38
8 Ukrainian 14.03
9 South_Polish 14.47
10 Austrian 15.95
11 East_German 16.35
12 Southwest_Russian 16.77
13 Polish 17.28
14 Ukrainian_Belgorod 17.37
15 Russian_Smolensk 18.69
16 Estonian_Polish 18.77
17 Belorussian 19.51
18 Greek_Thessaly 19.62
19 Kargopol_Russian 21.11
20 Erzya 22.13

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 65.7% Estonian_Polish + 34.3% Algerian_Jewish @ 4.41
2 72.4% Ukrainian + 27.6% Algerian_Jewish @ 4.49
3 59.8% Lithuanian + 40.2% Algerian_Jewish @ 4.49
4 51.2% Estonian_Polish + 48.8% Greek_Thessaly @ 4.61
5 67.7% Ukrainian + 32.3% Ashkenazi @ 4.7
6 55.1% Greek_Thessaly + 44.9% Lithuanian @ 4.73
7 66% Estonian_Polish + 34% Italian_Jewish @ 4.85
8 72.7% Ukrainian + 27.3% Italian_Jewish @ 4.87
9 65.9% Russian_Smolensk + 34.1% Algerian_Jewish @ 4.89
10 50.2% Belorussian + 49.8% Greek_Thessaly @ 4.94
11 60.5% Estonian_Polish + 39.5% Ashkenazi @ 4.95
12 60.1% Lithuanian + 39.9% Italian_Jewish @ 4.98
13 64.9% Belorussian + 35.1% Algerian_Jewish @ 4.98
14 62.9% Estonian_Polish + 37.1% South_Italian @ 5.05
15 60.1% Estonian_Polish + 39.9% East_Sicilian @ 5.06
16 54.3% Lithuanian + 45.7% Ashkenazi @ 5.13
17 59.2% Estonian_Polish + 40.8% Central_Greek @ 5.13
18 63.1% Bulgarian + 36.9% Estonian_Polish @ 5.19
19 59.2% Ukrainian + 40.8% Greek_Thessaly @ 5.22
20 51.3% Russian_Smolensk + 48.7% Greek_Thessaly @ 5.25

Montenegrin

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 28.86
2 North_Atlantic 24.07
3 West_Med 19.44
4 East_Med 15.53
5 West_Asian 7.3
6 Red_Sea 2.98
7 Northeast_African 1.35
8 Amerindian 0.47

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Serbian 5.09
2 Romanian 6.27
3 Bulgarian 7.65
4 Moldavian 8.08
5 Croatian 10.01
6 Hungarian 11.04
7 Austrian 13.9
8 East_German 15.13
9 Greek_Thessaly 15.27
10 Ukrainian_Lviv 16.44
11 South_Polish 17.31
12 Ukrainian 17.58
13 North_Italian 17.76
14 West_German 19.12
15 Tuscan 19.15
16 French 19.65
17 South_Dutch 20.43
18 Polish 20.55
19 Portuguese 21.06
20 Southwest_Russian 21.08

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 76.7% Croatian + 23.3% Algerian_Jewish @ 3.24
2 70.4% Croatian + 29.6% West_Sicilian @ 3.42
3 56.4% Ukrainian + 43.6% West_Sicilian @ 3.44
4 61.3% Croatian + 38.7% Greek_Thessaly @ 3.47
5 77.1% Croatian + 22.9% Italian_Jewish @ 3.59
6 71.3% Croatian + 28.7% East_Sicilian @ 3.64
7 57.7% Greek_Thessaly + 42.3% Polish @ 3.7
8 73.9% Croatian + 26.1% South_Italian @ 3.72
9 58.2% Ukrainian_Lviv + 41.8% West_Sicilian @ 3.8
10 53.7% Greek_Thessaly + 46.3% Ukrainian @ 3.84
11 52.5% Polish + 47.5% West_Sicilian @ 3.85
12 55.6% West_Sicilian + 44.4% Lithuanian @ 3.86
13 50.5% West_Sicilian + 49.5% Estonian_Polish @ 3.89
14 70.6% Croatian + 29.4% Central_Greek @ 3.93
15 67.1% Croatian + 32.9% Tuscan @ 3.96
16 79.2% Croatian + 20.8% Libyan_Jewish @ 4
17 72.8% Croatian + 27.2% Ashkenazi @ 4.02
18 77.5% Croatian + 22.5% Sephardic_Jewish @ 4.02
19 50.1% West_Sicilian + 49.9% Russian_Smolensk @ 4.02
20 52% Greek_Thessaly + 48% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 4.04

Alain
08-23-2020, 03:08 PM
The Avars seem to have had an almost pure, mostly East Asian derived upper class and below that commoners of different, especially Slavic, but also Pannonian "Roman" and Germanic ancestry. The people below them were oftentimes used like cattle and the Slavs pretty much hated the Avars for this, as is evident from the fact that a major reason for many Slavic expansions was that they tried to evade and fled from the Avars, as well as that there were numerous uprisings against their rule. In battle the Avars often used the Slavic foot soldiers as cannon fodder, putting them in the first ranks to lure the enemy and to take its missiles, to bind them in melee, before they themselves attacked with their elite cavalry units in a shock attack. The Avars were in Central Europe among the first to use stirrups:


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

One of the first Slavic empires was founded with the help of a Frankish merchant, called Samo, who subsequently defeated both the Avars and the Franks with the united Slavic army of his rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo%27s_Empire

The bad relationship between Avars and Slavs also explains, in part, why "the Avars" largely disappear after their military defeat, namely because the Slavs were glad that they got rid of them, because they were regularly used as cannon fodder, pressed, pillaged and even raped by the Avars, which is all written down in the historical records of the Avar rule. And again, this was an important factor for the many Slavic tribes to move, because they wanted to get away from the Avars, beyond their reach.

There is also a second theory about Samo's origins. Today, other interpretations are more secondary, but they are quite numerous. So, contrary to the information in the Fredegar Chronicle, Samo is seen as a Slav, mainly due to some information in the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum (see below the section on the geographical location). Recently, the word Samo has sometimes been viewed as an old Slavic title: Samo should mean “master” or “autocrat”, especially since “samo-” means “self-” in Slavic languages. But there are also already outdated views that Samo is an abbreviation of the Slavic name Samoslav. So some of them cannot exactly determine their origin, despite the Frankish ban, they delivered weapons to the Slavs, almost like a negotiator

Riverman
08-23-2020, 05:33 PM
I try not to blame anyone, just it's disappointing that people, history, archeology and genetics use it for their political purposes. It is important to me that the truth just comes out and that all people get to know their and other history without any political tendency but unfortunately that doesn't always work, I know the paper from 2020, there is nothing wrong with it and of course everyone can make hypotheses, only if a scientific magazine refutes or agrees you have to look at it of course

The paper is, overall, excellent work, especially the analysis of the burial ground, with the admixture proportions, the publication of the raw data, the reconstructed family networks, migration patterns (strontium analyses included) and the general interpretation. But I know where Pohl and his team is coming from and what he himself said in the past, about any kind of verfication of his own theories based biological analyses, be it physical classification and measurements, or genetic analyses. He was not searching for the truth, because truth seekers use any method which migt be able to verify or falsify their claims, what he refused for a very, very long time, and even dissuaded people from doing so. There were many like him in history and prehistory around, most with a rather Marxist view on history, which were quite "sceptical" about any usage of biological methods and refused to cooperate with geneticists. There are still more than enough of these around in academia, and he was one of them. So in a way, he improved, but only to keep his hands on the results and put his opinion into it.
His ideas of "Lombards" being an invented label for a gentes, which copied Roman ways and could have used any other label, without any real ancestral and cultural connection of importance to Northern Europe is just ridiculous. But he always made such absurd claims, that's just the leitmotif of the "Vienna School".

@Hawk: Yes, fits into the general picture. Especially this quotation is interesting:

Metal objects are rare in the Svilengrad pit complex. Among them figures an inter-esting iron instrument classified as a trunnion axe. Its shape allows its identification as a chisel of type III 1 C (Wesse). The distribution of this type is dated the period between the eleventh and seventh/sixth century BC and encompasses the western Balkans and the Carpathian basin; single finds are known from Slovenia and Middle Dnepr region.33 The finds of iron trunnion axes/chisels in Bulgarian territory are limited and mainly without clear provenance. Most of them were found in North Bulgaria. Only three samples are known south of the Haemus Mountains: from Omarchevo, Ada tepe and Dositeevo.

Alain
08-23-2020, 05:53 PM
The paper is, overall, excellent work, especially the analysis of the burial ground, with the admixture proportions, the publication of the raw data, the reconstructed family networks, migration patterns (strontium analyses included) and the general interpretation. But I know where Pohl and his team is coming from and what he himself said in the past, about any kind of verfication of his own theories based biological analyses, be it physical classification and measurements, or genetic analyses. He was not searching for the truth, because truth seekers use any method which migt be able to verify or falsify their claims, what he refused for a very, very long time, and even dissuaded people from doing so. There were many like him in history and prehistory around, most with a rather Marxist view on history, which were quite "sceptical" about any usage of biological methods and refused to cooperate with geneticists. There are still more than enough of these around in academia, and he was one of them. So in a way, he improved, but only to keep his hands on the results and put his opinion into it.
His ideas of "Lombards" being an invented label for a gentes, which copied Roman ways and could have used any other label, without any real ancestral and cultural connection of importance to Northern Europe is just ridiculous. But he always made such absurd claims, that's just the leitmotif of the "Vienna School".

@Hawk: Yes, fits into the general picture. Especially this quotation is interesting:

I can still imagine that there will still be some genetic investigations about the Avars so far there have been three (three papers), clearly the origin is East Asian but mixed individuals were found in some Hungarian graves, which probably heralds the later phase of the Avar period. The Lombards were an Elbe-Germanic tribe and had an influence on what is now northern Italy, as the name "Lombardy" reveals

Riverman
08-23-2020, 06:10 PM
Nobody claims they didn't mix with locals, actually I was quoting the chronicles which claimed they did, but first look at which way (by force quite often) and secondly that doesn't make the idea of an "Avar amalgamation" more true. There were just different ethnicities in the (true) Avar sphere of influence.

Alain
08-23-2020, 06:30 PM
Clearly in the Pannoic Plain there were also other population groups such as Provincial Romans, Gepids or Dacians ... Of course there were also violent confrontations, but we can never prove 100% how the political and social situation was without referring to Walter Pohl There are several views, even if the rich graves belonged to the "East Asian elite", could have arisen in a later time depending on the Slavs and Avars when the pressure from outside increased, of course there were also Slavs revolts against the Avars, or they often interacted and plundered the Byzantines Areas operated an ampivalent relationship, history has often shown that normally nomads interacted with other groups when it came to common interests and goals, when the riches beckon or other aspects.

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 09:26 PM
You don't understand. The point is not where R1a1-M417 or R1b1-M269 etc. originated but where they could have existed. And then where they adopted stockbreeding and from whom? Because there may be two separate events, in different geographical locations.

Therefore the initial spread can be associated with different languages.

You know that what I said was not wrong. The first inhabitants of Kumtepe (just an example) were different from the 'farmers', therefore they would have had different haplogroups from the 'farmers', even if they belonged to an extinct lineage. That was probably more common than what people think.

Now, the label 'proto-Yamnaya' for an R1a-Z645 sample in Bulgaria is a little weird.

My map shows where R1a existed before the Corded Ware expansion.

It didn't exist in western Anatolia. That's just your imagination.

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 09:30 PM
Well, everybody knows this graph, The idea(not mine ) was to compare with the basal EHG and CHG and NOT Yamnaya, which is s composite of them. Something like this is given in the video, but just for the old Swiss population, and I am not sure if not just extrapolating the Yamnaya percent.
If current and more important old Slav(as Russians, Poles and especially Ukrainians have encounters with the steppe in more recent times) are compared with the basic hunter gatherers and somehow Slavs have MORE Eastern HG than the referent Yamnaya, then they may have inherited it from somewhere else.

I've already explained to you that your theory is wrong.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21442-E-V13-in-Bulgarian-Iron-Age/page5&p=694471#post694471

CopperAxe
08-23-2020, 09:33 PM
Weren't there some samples who likely were Geto-Dacians but labeled as Scythians from that fiasco paper which claimed Scythians were not paternally related to other Scytho-Siberians? I think one of them had Z2103+, I'd expect that haplogroup to be relatively common amongzt Thracians, not just E-V13.

Dorkymon
08-23-2020, 09:51 PM
Weren't there some samples who likely were Geto-Dacians but labeled as Scythians from that fiasco paper which claimed Scythians were not paternally related to other Scytho-Siberians? I think one of them had Z2103+, I'd expect that haplogroup to be relatively common amongzt Thracians, not just E-V13.

scy192, scy197, scy300 and scy305

One of them was E-V13.

Dorkymon
08-23-2020, 10:57 PM
Very amusing, but no, there's no L51 in BA western Anatolia. There's something else but I promised not to post about it.

By the way, there's a new sample from eastern Bulgaria actually labeled Proto-Yamnaya and it belongs to R1a-Z645. You'll love that when it's published.

The Z93 guy from the quote below or is it really an earlier sample?


But we have results from the Ezero culture, from Southeastern Bulgaria, which is from the early Bronze Age and which seems to connect the people of this culture with the future Hittites and Trojans. This has been confirmed by archeology many times and has been known for at least half a century. But now we see the genetic parallels between the two. Some of these ancient groups from the Bronze Age in one way or another have survived to this day in our country Bulgarians, as we also carry a certain amount of blood and genes from these same people, perhaps in the range of between 5 and 10%, which connects us with the Hittites, ancient Anatolia and the Trojans. There is a huge processing of the results before they are published, but among them there are huge curiosities from now on. One of them is from the necropolis in Merichleri ​​from the Early Bronze Age and in another necropolis in Tsaribrod (the older of the two), these are mound necropolises from the Yamna culture in the Caucasus, of people who migrated here in Bulgaria and connected between you are. They came from the haplogroup R1A, namely Z-93, which is the haplogroup again of the Scythian, but more of the Indo-Aryan tribes, the future Indo-Aryans, who later conquered India. But one of the tribes of the Yamna culture seems to have strayed and arrived in the Balkans instead of going to India. And so by chance, because archaeologists and geneticists have chosen between 260 burial mounds from this period, they have chosen only 3-4 and have come across exactly this extremely ancient group, which is from the time before the Indo-European group was divided into Iranians, Indians and Slavs, they were still one people at the time with the same genomes. And yes, one of these groups is among what we call Thracian tribes, but these are not Thracians. We have results from both the Early Iron Age and the Late Bronze Age, which are possibly Thracian, but I will keep them a secret at this stage, as I do not want to provoke speculation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLyzjU88f_E

Generalissimo
08-23-2020, 11:12 PM
The Z93 guy from the quote below or is it really an earlier sample?


And so by chance, because archaeologists and geneticists have chosen between 260 burial mounds from this period, they have chosen only 3-4 and have come across exactly this extremely ancient group, which is from the time before the Indo-European group was divided into Iranians, Indians and Slavs, they were still one people at the time with the same genomes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLyzjU88f_E

Interesting quote there.

But the sample I'm talking about is from this burial, or at least from the same area, and not Z93, as far as I know.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270580096_Die_Idole_aus_den_Graberfeldern_von_Dura nkulak_-_In_H_Todorova_ed_Durankulak_Band_II_Tail_1_Sofia_ 2002

eastara
08-24-2020, 03:51 AM
I've already explained to you that your theory is wrong.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21442-E-V13-in-Bulgarian-Iron-Age/page5&p=694471#post694471

We are getting out of topic here, but leave out our previous argument about Gedrosia. I still can't understand how a population can be compared directly with WHG, but can't be compared with EHG, and according to you gives 0 affinity. And this is while it has 40% affinity to Yamnaya, which in turn is 50% EHG.

Generalissimo
08-24-2020, 04:15 AM
We are getting out of topic here, but leave out our previous argument about Gedrosia. I still can't understand how a population can be compared directly with WHG, but can't be compared with EHG, and according to you gives 0 affinity. And this is while it has 40% affinity to Yamnaya, which in turn is 50% EHG.

That's because these are ancestry proportions, not genetic affinity. The EHG that Poles have was mediated via a steppe population very similar to Yamnaya, along with CHG-related ancestry.

Poles don't have any EHG that they didn't get from their steppe ancestors, or they have so little of it that it doesn't register when Yamnaya is one of the reference populations.

This is really basic stuff and of course it makes perfect sense, considering that steppe populations totally replaced EHG populations in much of Eastern Europe. You're the one arguing against the academic consensus, data and logic, and I strongly urge you to stop making a fool of yourself in public.


Importantly, the archaeological cultures are clearly differentiated between the areas. What is more, it has been suggested that the Fatyanovo Culture people admixed with the local Volosovo Culture HG after their arrival in European Russia 6,17,36 . Our results do not support this as they do not reveal more HG ancestry in the Fatyanovo people compared to other CWC groups or any visible change in ancestry proportions during the period covered by our samples (2,900–2,050 BC).

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kLtueODMsOk/XwBdy5dfCGI/AAAAAAAAI_U/89OWg6Bif-k2iU66O8zmc8vAskRu0n9ugCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Saag_2020_Fig_1.jpg

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.184507v1

eastara
08-24-2020, 04:17 AM
Durankulak is famous for its neolithic culture. This is late neolithic-chalcholithic connected to the Hamandgia culture and Varna, We already saw with Varna from the previous study that there is some Yamnaya type admixture. However it existed even in the early neolithic Malak Preslavetz, so could be some mixing with people from the steppe, who had nothing to do with Yamnaya expansion in the Bronze age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamangia_culture
However Hamandgia was connected culturally to Anatolia and many archaeologists think that there was a second wave of neolithic farmers from there coming along Thrace and the Black sea coast. They were not connected to the first wave, which came through Greece and Western Bulgaria towards Central Europe.
Besides that there are some remains in Durankulak from the Bronze period, hope this will be cleared with precise dating.

Generalissimo
08-24-2020, 04:25 AM
Durankulak is famous for its neolithic culture. This is late neolithic-chalcholithic connected to the Hamandgia culture and Varna, We already saw with Varna from the previous study that there is some Yamnaya type admixture. However it existed even in the early neolithic Malak Preslavetz, so could be some mixing with people from the steppe, who had nothing to do with Yamnaya expansion in the Bronze age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamangia_culture
However Hamandgia was connected culturally to Anatolia and many archaeologists think that there was a second wave of neolithic farmers from there coming along Thrace and the Black sea coast. They were not connected to the first wave, which came through Greece and Western Bulgaria towards Central Europe.
Besides that there are some remains in Durankulak from the Bronze period, hope this will be cleared with precise dating.

The R1a sample at Durankulak comes from an Usatovo grave.

Usatovo is a Yamnaya-related culture, representing one of the pre-Yamnaya migration waves from the steppe, and this sample has a lot of steppe ancestry.

You can read about that here.

https://erenow.net/ancient/the-horse-the-wheel-and-language/14.php

eastara
08-24-2020, 04:26 AM
That's because these are ancestry proportions, not genetic affinity. The EHG that Poles have was mediated via a steppe population very similar to Yamnaya, along with CHG-related ancestry.

Poles don't have any EHG that they didn't get from their steppe ancestors, or they have so little of it that it doesn't register when Yamnaya is one of the reference populations.

This is really basic stuff and of course it makes perfect sense, considering that steppe populations totally replaced EHG populations in much of Eastern Europe. You're the one arguing against the academic consensus, data and logic, and I strongly urge you to stop making a fool of yourself in public.



https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kLtueODMsOk/XwBdy5dfCGI/AAAAAAAAI_U/89OWg6Bif-k2iU66O8zmc8vAskRu0n9ugCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Saag_2020_Fig_1.jpg

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.184507v1

At least I will be a fool together with the scientists from the Swiss study, who have already broken down Yamnaya in their admixture. However, I admit that the Poles may have complete ancestry from Central Europe and are no way connected to the previous people before the Bronze age there as you demonstrate above.

Generalissimo
08-24-2020, 04:34 AM
At least I will be a fool together with the scientists from the Swiss study, who have already broken down Yamnaya in their admixture.

There's nothing in the Swiss paper that backs up what you're arguing here.

Breaking down Yamnaya ancestry into EHG and CHG is possible, but this doesn't mean that the EHG in Poles is not from the steppe.

Why don't you e-mail some of the scientists at Harvard with your highly imaginative tales and see what they say about them, if they reply to your nonsense that is.

Hawk
08-24-2020, 06:39 AM
There is nothing to indicate these E-V13 were Thracian, Thracians were already formed in 1500 B.C by all archeologists. These guys archeological remains indicate that they came during LBA from the region encompassing Western Balkans regions and further North/West, Pannonia.

I suspect they were part of the Sea People, who latter during classical times were assimilated into Thracians. It cannot be coincidence at the same time in Greece we see new people coming from West Balkans.

Dorkymon
08-24-2020, 07:40 AM
There is nothing to indicate these E-V13 were Thracian, Thracians were already formed in 1500 B.C by all archeologists. These guys archeological remains indicate that they came during LBA from the region encompassing Western Balkans regions and further North/West, Pannonia.

I suspect they were part of the Sea People, who latter during classical times were assimilated into Thracians. It cannot be coincidence at the same time in Greece we see new people coming from West Balkans.

Sea People is like saying that they were humans. Sea People were not a tribe or ethnicity, but a rebellious group formed from people from all over Europe and beyond.


https://youtu.be/aq4G-7v-_xI

Kanenas
08-24-2020, 10:26 AM
My map shows where R1a existed before the Corded Ware expansion.

It didn't exist in western Anatolia. That's just your imagination.

That is not the point.

The point is 1) there were other people apart from the 'Anatolian farmers' even in Anatolia. In some places, like Kumtepe the settlements of other people predate those of the 'farmers'.

Also, culturally CWC has more in common with the 'farmers' who were really agropastoralists than with the hunter-fisher groups that are probably associated with the first wave of expansion of R1 lineages, possibly from Europe but towards almost every direction.

xripkan
08-24-2020, 10:55 AM
I have a question about Balkan subclades of E-V13. Has any of them been found in Spain so far? I believe that some of them could have arrived with Visigoths.

Riverman
08-24-2020, 11:06 AM
I have a question about Balkan subclades of E-V13. Has any of them been found in Spain so far? I believe that some of them could have arrived with Visigoths.

I saw various subclades of E-V13 which are present in Iberia, but I think one has to look at each, to come to sensible conclusions. Some might have come with the Iron Age Celts, others with Greeks and Romans, including soldiers from many provinces, again others with Germanics, Sarmatians or even later Italians and French or Sephardic people. You can check on YFull yourself, which is of course no complete inventory, but there you find Iberians in many clades:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/
Basically any movement of people from the East could have brought more E-V13 in theory. For many, like Celts, Greeks, Romans and Germanics, its already proven.

Aspar
08-24-2020, 11:29 AM
I have a question about Balkan subclades of E-V13. Has any of them been found in Spain so far? I believe that some of them could have arrived with Visigoths.

There is some interesting connection between Bulgaria/Macedonia and Iberia. Many Bulgarians/Macedonians form branches with Iberians.
So far some identified ones are:
E-BY14150 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/) - The Spaniard here forms his own branch with a Bulgarian from Macedonia who unfortunately didn't upload his results to YFULL.
E-BY4914 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4914/) - This Bulgarian is also with origins from Macedonia.
E-A7135 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A7135/) - Again a Bulgarian/Macedonian - Iberian connection.

There are also some others that show older BA connection unlike the ones above that show IA connection:
E-BY5022 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022/)
E-Y16729 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16729/) - There is a Brazilian with Portuguese origin positive for my own clade but he is SNP panel tested unfortunately so I can't say how distant he is to me.

What's interesting this connection shows up with other haplogroups as well:
R-Y5586 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y5586/) - This is especially interesting connection because while the Bulgarians are distant to the Spaniard, connection dated to BA period, the Spaniard here shows Early Medieval connection with an Ossetian. We know that the Ossetians are descendants of the Medieval Alan's so this is probably direct genetic evidence of an Alanic migration to Iberia which is by the way well attested historically migration to Iberia along with the Vandals.

However I won't necessarily say that all E-V13 branches between Bulgarians/Macedonians are because of the Goths. Many of these are certainly very old, BA connections, others are Urnfield and La Tene related migrations and many are Roman meddiated, legionaries from the Balkans.

Dorkymon
08-24-2020, 11:36 AM
I have a question about Balkan subclades of E-V13. Has any of them been found in Spain so far? I believe that some of them could have arrived with Visigoths.

I'm not sure about subclades, but there are two E-V13 from the 11-12th centuries in Iberia who are labelled as Iberia Muslims (I7498 and I7457).

Riverman
08-24-2020, 11:45 AM
I'm not sure about subclades, but there are two E-V13 from the 11-12th centuries in Iberia who are labelled as Iberia Muslims (I7498 and I7457).

Those usually have Berber-clades, not E-V13.

Hawk
08-24-2020, 11:55 AM
Those usually have Berber-clades, not E-V13.

He is right, those are classified as Muslims, likely Iberian/Visigothic converts.

Riverman
08-24-2020, 12:24 PM
He is right, those are classified as Muslims, likely Iberian/Visigothic converts.

Those existed too of course, some Visigothic converted lineages even moved to Morocco and beyond, to other Maghrebine countries. But the majority of haplogroup E Muslims from Iberia is from Berber lineages.

xripkan
08-24-2020, 12:29 PM
There is some interesting connection between Bulgaria/Macedonia and Iberia. Many Bulgarians/Macedonians form branches with Iberians.
So far some identified ones are:
E-BY14150 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/) - The Spaniard here forms his own branch with a Bulgarian from Macedonia who unfortunately didn't upload his results to YFULL.
E-BY4914 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4914/) - This Bulgarian is also with origins from Macedonia.
E-A7135 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A7135/) - Again a Bulgarian/Macedonian - Iberian connection.

There are also some others that show older BA connection unlike the ones above that show IA connection:
E-BY5022 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022/)
E-Y16729 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16729/) - There is a Brazilian with Portuguese origin positive for my own clade but he is SNP panel tested unfortunately so I can't say how distant he is to me.

What's interesting this connection shows up with other haplogroups as well:
R-Y5586 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y5586/) - This is especially interesting connection because while the Bulgarians are distant to the Spaniard, connection dated to BA period, the Spaniard here shows Early Medieval connection with an Ossetian. We know that the Ossetians are descendants of the Medieval Alan's so this is probably direct genetic evidence of an Alanic migration to Iberia which is by the way well attested historically migration to Iberia along with the Vandals.

However I won't necessarily say that all E-V13 branches between Bulgarians/Macedonians are because of the Goths. Many of these are certainly very old, BA connections, others are Urnfield and La Tene related migrations and many are Roman meddiated, legionaries from the Balkans.


I saw various subclades of E-V13 which are present in Iberia, but I think one has to look at each, to come to sensible conclusions. Some might have come with the Iron Age Celts, others with Greeks and Romans, including soldiers from many provinces, again others with Germanics, Sarmatians or even later Italians and French or Sephardic people. You can check on YFull yourself, which is of course no complete inventory, but there you find Iberians in many clades:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V13/
Basically any movement of people from the East could have brought more E-V13 in theory. For many, like Celts, Greeks, Romans and Germanics, its already proven.

You are right. A common haplogroup between Balkanic peoples and Iberians could be related with many different peoples and migration routes. A more extensive research is required. However I believe that a part of E-V13 in Iberia is native Balkan.
Very interesting the Alan clade that @Aspar posted. It must have arrived in Spain with the early Medieval migrations of Alans and Goths, the same way probably that my own clade moved from Balkans to Spain which has been also found in Cantabria, Northern Spain.

Aspar
08-24-2020, 12:45 PM
You are right. A common haplogroup between Balkanic peoples and Iberians could be related with many different peoples and migration routes. A more extensive research is required. However I believe that a part of E-V13 in Iberia is native Balkan.
Very interesting the Alan clade that @Aspar posted. It must have arrived in Spain with the early Medieval migrations of Alans and Goths, the same way probably that my own clade moved from Balkans to Spain which has been also found in Cantabria, Northern Spain.

Forgot to say that while YFULL gives an TMRCA estimation of 1270 ybp or 1250 ybp rounded, this probably Alan connection is older than that because we know that the Alans migrated to Iberia in the early 5th century. If so, then it's another confirmation among the others that YFULL'S TMRCA estimations are probably underestimated.

Riverman
08-24-2020, 12:57 PM
Forgot to say that while YFULL gives an TMRCA estimation of 1270 ybp or 1250 ybp rounded, this probably Alan connection is older than that because we know that the Alans migrated to Iberia in the early 5th century. If so, then it's another confirmation among the others that YFULL'S TMRCA estimations are probably underestimated.

Besides, we should never dismiss more modern movements of people. "El Greco" being just one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Greco

There are Croatians moving to the Baltics, Greeks to Spain and Italians to England in Medieval times, this happened all the time, not just in one period. Unless we have a good time estimation for most clades, subclades, individual lineage and relevant ancient DNA anchor points, there are almost always different possible scenarios.

xripkan
08-24-2020, 01:02 PM
Forgot to say that while YFULL gives an TMRCA estimation of 1270 ybp or 1250 ybp rounded, this probably Alan connection is older than that because we know that the Alans migrated to Iberia in the early 5th century. If so, then it's another confirmation among the others that YFULL'S TMRCA estimations are probably underestimated.

The TMRCA is between 2400 until 600 years before with probability 95%. 1250 is just the average. We should check the given set of values. So in this case the estimation is right.

Johane Derite
08-24-2020, 04:07 PM
If E-v13 is appearing in LBA/EIA in Thrace then it is possible it is Dardanian. One of the old names of SamoThrace was Dardania (Pausanius).

The path Dardanians took from the Balkans into Troy (around a 100 years before reign of Priam, aka Trojan war, according to Grace Harriet Maccurdy).

She specifically mentions "An old caravan route from Dardania-Paeonia as far as Aenos and connecting with Troy". This would be from Kosovo/South Serbia regions, from Naissus (Nish) to the Hellespont.

https://i.imgur.com/j85TVRV.jpg

Johane Derite
08-24-2020, 04:34 PM
I even thought about some V13 clans moving to the West in particular as some kind of special social group, almost caste, like well versed blacksmiths, experts for iron work and metallurgy in general. I always thought its quite remarkable that a lot of V13 clans seem to have sticked together, and then suddenly, at the LBA-EIA transition, they seem to have split, radiated and moved out.

Interesting that you note this. Dardanians in the Iliad seem to have some sort of religious prestige, and Maccurdy argues they introduced the "mysteries" in Samothrace and then Troy (on the path of their migration from the balkans).

She attributes the mysteries to their introduction of certain metal working and mining practices. Even in the Roman period, the balkan dardanians were still renowned as miners.

https://i.imgur.com/i5HgZfx.png

https://i.imgur.com/wLDVjp3.png

Johane Derite
08-24-2020, 05:22 PM
Dardanians and Mysians are referred to as allies of Hittites in the battle of Kadesh (1270BC).

So their incursions into Troy, and through Thrace on the way is feasible as having happened in this LBA period.

Hawk
08-24-2020, 06:58 PM
Anyone knows if those MIchelsbergers E-M78 were negative to E-L618 or we don't know it?

Interesting that Michelsbergers are not considered LBK native in Central Europe, they were intruders, one part from Paris Basis the other part from further South/West in Mediterranean, that means Iberia.

Leper
08-24-2020, 08:36 PM
He is describing this as per the data of the new study, but I am not sure if he is not misrepresenting it. Plain admixture is not a very good tool for analysis as we don't know where exactly it happened and how many times as a matter of fact.
For example Davidski likes to represent the Slavs as direct descendants of the steppe Yamnaya, and it is true if you take as reference only Western Hunter gatherers, Yamnaya and Anatolian Farmers. However Yamnaya itself is a mixture of a larger percent Eastern hunter gatherers, less Caucasian HG and a little Neolithic farmers. So the Slavs may have some direct ancestry from the Eastern hunter gatherers from the times they lived in the deep forests and not mixing that much with the steppe.

Hm, are you the same person who also claims that Proto-Bulgars were Iranic and not Turkic on other forums and etc.?

DgidguBidgu
08-24-2020, 09:11 PM
Hm, are you the same person who also claims that Proto-Bulgars were Iranic and not Turkic on other forums and etc.?

"Svetoslav Stamov (MA master of arts), Duke University, independent researcher and Todor Chobanov Ph.D., assistant professor, University of Library Science and Information Technology."
They do not have the education and the capacity to draw any conclusions.
These are scammers from what I read about them. Тhey are trying, on the basis of one sample, to bring to life a dead theory that has been denied by a number of large-scale studies before.

digital_noise
08-24-2020, 09:37 PM
That single E-V13 (or was he E-L618 only? I don’t recall). Is sure causing some confusion!! There are a few members here that seem to think because of this sample that V13 came across from Morocco into Europe. I don’t buy that, however I don’t dismiss it entirely only because I have no idea haha. Anyways, that sample found I. Spain, is there anyway to autosomally model them? I have no idea what is available for this sample really so who knows if that is even possible.

Hawk
08-24-2020, 09:47 PM
That single E-V13 (or was he E-L618 only? I don’t recall). Is sure causing some confusion!! There are a few members here that seem to think because of this sample that V13 came across from Morocco into Europe. I don’t buy that, however I don’t dismiss it entirely only because I have no idea haha. Anyways, that sample found I. Spain, is there anyway to autosomally model them? I have no idea what is available for this sample really so who knows if that is even possible.

There is no confusion here.

The E-V13 mutation happened somewhere 7800 ybp.

The E-L618 Dalmatian Cardial Neolithic find is estimated from 7600 - 7490 ybp

The actual E-V13 mutation that was found in Spanish Cardial Neolithic is 7000 ybp.

The pattern is uncanny.

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

Potentionally, our actual E-V13 ancestor might come somewhere from here.

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

digital_noise
08-24-2020, 09:53 PM
Ahh, I was not aware of the Spanish samples timeframe. Thanks

Hawk
08-24-2020, 09:56 PM
Ahh, I was not aware of the Spanish samples timeframe. Thanks

5 millenium B.C = 7000 ybp, and he was E-V13 definitely.


The impact of the Neolithic dispersal on the western European populations is subject to continuing debate. To trace and date genetic lineages potentially brought during this transition and so understand the origin of the gene pool of current populations, we studied DNA extracted from human remains excavated in a Spanish funeral cave dating from the beginning of the fifth millennium B.C. Thanks to a “multimarkers” approach based on the analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (autosomes and Y-chromosome), we obtained information on the early Neolithic funeral practices and on the biogeographical origin of the inhumed individuals. No close kinship was detected. Maternal haplogroups found are consistent with pre-Neolithic settlement, whereas the Y-chromosomal analyses permitted confirmation of the existence in Spain approximately 7,000 y ago of two haplogroups previously associated with the Neolithic transition: G2a and E1b1b1a1b. These results are highly consistent with those previously found in Neolithic individuals from French Late Neolithic individuals, indicating a surprising temporal genetic homogeneity in these groups. The high frequency of G2a in Neolithic samples in western Europe could suggest, furthermore, that the role of men during Neolithic dispersal could be greater than currently estimated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215063/

Dorkymon
08-24-2020, 10:04 PM
"Svetoslav Stamov (MA master of arts), Duke University, independent researcher and Todor Chobanov Ph.D., assistant professor, University of Library Science and Information Technology."
They do not have the education and the capacity to draw any conclusions.
These are scammers from what I read about them. Тhey are trying, on the basis of one sample, to bring to life a dead theory that has been denied by a number of large-scale studies before.

So, do you think that David Reich and David Anthony are amateurs and didn't run a thorough check on their capabilities, before beginning to work with them? Let's not be ridiculous here.

This is the quote from the description of the YouTube video of this project (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLyzjU88f_E):



Bulgarian Archaeologists in collaboration with geneticists from Harvard University study the origin of the Bulgarians - in the video we present the first results. The Bulgarian scientific organization is NIM (National Archaeological Institute with Museum at BAS), and on the American side are Professor David Reich from the Archaeogenetics Laboratory at Harvard and the famous archaeologist Dr. David Anthony with the assistance of Svetoslav Stamov.

Hawk
08-24-2020, 10:05 PM
This thread is about E-V13 in Balkans, not about Bulgars, Turks, R1a, Q or R1b. We have enough threads about those.

And yes, that Q1a sample is definitely Bulgar and they were Turkic/Altaic people, let it go.

Dorkymon
08-24-2020, 10:07 PM
This thread is about E-V13 in Balkans, not about Bulgars, Turks, R1a, Q or R1b. We have enough threads about those.

It's about E-V13 in Iron Age Bulgaria, and what I linked is the video about the study that published this preliminary info. The study is not looking only at the Iron Age period.

Kanenas
08-24-2020, 10:19 PM
Hm, are you the same person who also claims that Proto-Bulgars were Iranic and not Turkic on other forums and etc.?

The Bulgars, Old Great Bulgaria etc. were placed on Lower Don. That was were the Royal Scythians were placed during the Classical Antiquity. So, even if they were speaking a Turkic language of some short, they could have been largely native and with Iranian elements. (I am against considering everything on the steppes 'Iranian' and I am always sceptical about the linguistic affinities of any group mentioned in ancient or medieval and even early modern sources in general but that is in my opinion fairly clear)

A population with a similar sounding name are the Balkars and they speak Kipchak, not Oghuric and their ancestry seems to be mostly from Caucasus, I think.

Personally, I agree with Petar Dobrev, mostly (though I don't assume any movements from anywhere like the Pamir mountains or Iran ofc).

In the calendar, even the words that are very similar to modern Turkic ones like dilom for 'serpent', do not sound similar to the correspondent Chuvash words, so where is the view that they were speaking Oghuric based exactly?

There is a way to test it. Sample Iron Age 'Royal Scythians' from lower Don, and people from the same location during the 7th centrury AD.

alexfritz
08-24-2020, 10:31 PM
Anyone knows if those MIchelsbergers E-M78 were negative to E-L618 or we don't know it?

Interesting that Michelsbergers are not considered LBK native in Central Europe, they were intruders, one part from Paris Basis the other part from further South/West in Mediterranean, that means Iberia.

in the 2015 Szécsényi-Nagy dissertation there were also two M78+ from 5,000-4,300 calBC Sopot and Lengyel cultures each; not sure if further downstream was tested

urgon
08-24-2020, 10:35 PM
"Svetoslav Stamov (MA master of arts), Duke University, independent researcher and Todor Chobanov Ph.D., assistant professor, University of Library Science and Information Technology."
They do not have the education and the capacity to draw any conclusions.
These are scammers from what I read about them. Тhey are trying, on the basis of one sample, to bring to life a dead theory that has been denied by a number of large-scale studies before.

I can't say much about Stamov as I'm unaware of anything he's published on the so called "Proto-Bulgars". Chobanov, however, is a well-respected archaeologist with multiple publications on the subject, so he certainly isn't "a scammer".

Riverman
08-24-2020, 10:37 PM
The Bulgars, Old Great Bulgaria etc. were placed on Lower Don. That was were the Royal Scythians were placed during the Classical Antiquity. So, even if they were speaking a Turkic language of some short, they could have been largely native and with Iranian elements. (I am against considering everything on the steppes 'Iranian' and I am always sceptical about the linguistic affinities of any group mentioned in ancient or medieval and even early modern sources in general but that is in my opinion fairly clear)

A population with a similar sounding name are the Balkars and they speak Kipchak, not Oghuric and their ancestry seems to be mostly from Caucasus, I think.

Personally, I agree with Petar Dobrev, mostly (though I don't assume any movements from anywhere like the Pamir mountains or Iran ofc).

In the calendar, even the words that are very similar to modern Turkic ones like dilom for 'serpent', do not sound similar to the correspondent Chuvash words, so where is the view that they were speaking Oghuric based exactly?

There is a way to test it. Sample Iron Age 'Royal Scythians' from lower Don, and people from the same location during the 7th centrury AD.

The problem with this idea is, that we don't deal with one layer of people in between, but many. So that "Royal Scythian" descendents were around is not impossible, but that their lineages were still dominant in the region is almost impossible.

Hawk
08-24-2020, 10:39 PM
in the 2015 Szécsényi-Nagy dissertation there were also two M78+ from 5,000-4,300 calBC Sopot and Lengyel cultures each; not sure if further downstream was tested

Yes, they were E-L618. Which further makes me think the birthplace of E-V13 is somewhere around here.

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

CopperAxe
08-24-2020, 10:48 PM
I'd expect the original Bulgars to be mainly Sarmatian like (Scythian with extra Caucasian affinities) but with elevated levels of East Asian ancestry in comparison to Sarmatians, who generally have less than 20% If I'm not mistaken. I'm imagining a population autosomally similar to what we see at Pazyryk and Aldy-Bel but Oghuric speaking with y-hgs Q1a1, Q1a2 and Z93 and lots of Siberian/Baikal ancestry migrating westwards and mixing with the Sarmatian tribes of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes, as well as the peoples along the peripheries of the steppes. Genetically similar to Sarmatians, but with a higher amount of East Asian and perhaps Caucasian ancestry. Just expectations though, I might be very wrong here lol.

Kanenas
08-24-2020, 10:53 PM
The problem with this idea is, that we don't deal with one layer of people in between, but many. So that "Royal Scythian" descendents were around is not impossible, but that their lineages were still dominant in the region is almost impossible.

Maybe, but it is worth checking. To clarify: Theophanes places them on Kuban river and essentially presents them as displaced by the Khazars. What I said about Lower Don is based on other sources.
It is important for their autosomal profile. Where they simlar to Balkars, for example? Where is the idea that they were speaking Oghuric based?

Johnny ola
08-24-2020, 11:18 PM
I'd expect the original Bulgars to be mainly Sarmatian like (Scythian with extra Caucasian affinities) but with elevated levels of East Asian ancestry in comparison to Sarmatians, who generally have less than 20% If I'm not mistaken. I'm imagining a population autosomally similar to what we see at Pazyryk and Aldy-Bel but Oghuric speaking with y-hgs Q1a1, Q1a2 and Z93 and lots of Siberian/Baikal ancestry migrating westwards and mixing with the Sarmatian tribes of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes, as well as the peoples along the peripheries of the steppes. Genetically similar to Sarmatians, but with a higher amount of East Asian and perhaps Caucasian ancestry. Just expectations though, I might be very wrong here lol.

Seems crazy that Proto-Bulgars didn't left any genetic impact to modern Bulgarians.With exception autosomal DNA,is there any yDNA-Mtdna to confirm their existence in balkans besides histrorical facts?

xlukex
08-24-2020, 11:34 PM
It was definitely in the Western Balkans, no reason to doubt it, (Cardial Ware is the only Early Neolithic Culture heavily influenced by a Natufian/Iberomaurusian-like culture, add that we have two Albanians and one Greek from Corfu as E-L618, Cardial Farmers survivors) but not in Southern Italy. I would have thought the same as you, but the TMRCA and subclades don't support that scenario. So, we will have no E-V13 anytime earlier than 2000 B.C in the Balkans.

It's a simple math, none of the Early Neolithic samples (Croatian Cardial, Sopot, Lengyel) had the actual mutation E-V13, but the Spanish Cardial did. So we should look somewhere along the shores of Northern Italy => Central Europe then during EBA Pannonian-Carpathian basin.

There is some people thinking the spread of E-V13 is related to Cetina Culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetina_culture



But, somehow it doesn't sum it up, still.

Actually, E1b1b1a1 has been found in a sample from the Neolithic Lengyel Culture (5,000-3400 B.C.) Therefore, it appears that it was in that region before 2,000 B.C.
https://d-nb.info/1072530740/34

Riverman
08-25-2020, 12:08 AM
Yes, they were E-L618. Which further makes me think the birthplace of E-V13 is somewhere around here.

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

The problem with this area is, that while E1b1b was surely present there and probably even strong, the Michelsberg-remains prove it, these regions became so completely overwhelmed by Bell Beakers, that I don't think too much of the local pre-steppe or even just pre-BB paternal ancestry survived. Whereas we know that further East, in Dalmatia, into Pannonia and the Carpathian region, other mixed groups steppe derived communiteis with Chalcolithic inhabitants, which had a much stronger position relative to your proposed region, existed.
I won't say Bell Beakers caused a tabula rasa, but I don't see the strong centre for E-V13 groups there to have survived as easily. The Bell Beaker R1b lineages would have crushed it. But in the mentioned regions, they didn't, Cetina is just one possible example, so is the Baden cultural sphere and its descendents, or the early mixes of steppe with local in the Carpathian-Tranylvanian region. In some of these more protected places of early mixture with a higher pre-steppe input, where locals got more to say, I think we have the best chances to detect a population with a high E-V13 percentage.

And if they were metallurgical experts from the former Tripolye-Cucuteni or general Balkan-Carpathian sphere, it would just fit in nicely. Because specialist miners and smiths the steppe people definitely needed. I once read about a presumably Celtic tribe which was largely defeated by his Germanic and Sarmatian neighbours, almost in the same region by the way, but did survive and was largely left alone because they were renowned miners and smiths. Such things happened, actually, often enough. If a people, even in defeat, could occupy an important niche, they were left alone, whereas direct competitors with no special skills were just finished off.

The wider Carpathian region was, throughout the Bronze Age, one of the centres of metallurgical production in Europe. At the same time it was a very heterogenous region, so its possible it harboured, through the ages, different ethnicities living side by side in the fissured terrain. So we have an excellent metallurgical expertise in the region, probably people were more specialised in mining and processing of metals. They influenced important expansive cultures like Sintashta, but then came the very Late Bronze and Iron Age. And this was a break, because the former connections and relations, the relative heterogenity and old customs were left behind with Urnfield and the Iron Age transition. Probably some clans which lived well from their position in the region came under pressure both by migration of other people, but also because they had, with their expertise, to look for new opportunities. Because iron made the whole production chain much more regional, it was no longer a few centres which produced the best objects with imports of copper and tin, but it was, where possible, local ore mining and processing of the iron to tools and weapons. This changed the Bronze Age relations of the European people once more.

So there were plenty of reasons for a people which survived well, in a fortified position somewhere in the Carpathian region, to move out, both by being forced to, and in search for new opportunities at about the the LBA-EIA transition. And in the meantime this surviving specialised tribal groups of the mountain zone could have, very well, by drift and factors unknown to us, become very V13 heavy after a founder effect post-steppe expansion.

eastara
08-25-2020, 02:13 AM
Hm, are you the same person who also claims that Proto-Bulgars were Iranic and not Turkic on other forums and etc.?

No, I personally think that the Old Bulgars are similar to all other Early medieval steppe people - originally East Asian, but admixed with old Scythian/Iranic and Caucasian/Alan before entering Europe. However the Iranic theory among Bulgarians is on decline and the "authocthonic" everything Thracian is getting momentum. According to this the proto Thracians first moved North East (as the IndoEuropeans who reached the Tarim Basin) and South East - Anatolia , Troy, etc, and later with Alexander to Iran and Central Asia. Then they only returned(very little admixed) as Old Bulgars to unite with their relatives the Tharcians.

eastara
08-25-2020, 02:38 AM
Stamov is making the claim that the Bulgarians are 40% descending from the old Bulgars on the basis of the Caucasian/West Asian admixture(as we don't have any East Asian if they were proto Turks). He was trying to prove this in the article with Chobanov. However he did not include the possibility that it may have come through Anatolia and that the Greeks and even South Italians have more from it. It is similar among other Balkan ethnicities, which could not have any Bulgar connection. It is also true if we have in mind the only Bulgaria_IA sample. It proves, that this admixture in modern Bulgarians is even diluted since then.

Moldovlah
08-25-2020, 06:53 AM
I'd expect the original Bulgars to be mainly Sarmatian like (Scythian with extra Caucasian affinities) but with elevated levels of East Asian ancestry in comparison to Sarmatians, who generally have less than 20% If I'm not mistaken. I'm imagining a population autosomally similar to what we see at Pazyryk and Aldy-Bel but Oghuric speaking with y-hgs Q1a1, Q1a2 and Z93 and lots of Siberian/Baikal ancestry migrating westwards and mixing with the Sarmatian tribes of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes, as well as the peoples along the peripheries of the steppes. Genetically similar to Sarmatians, but with a higher amount of East Asian and perhaps Caucasian ancestry. Just expectations though, I might be very wrong here lol.

Bulgars the ancient ones that assimilated will be similar with modern Uygurs.

Hawk
08-25-2020, 07:17 AM
The problem with this area is, that while E1b1b was surely present there and probably even strong, the Michelsberg-remains prove it, these regions became so completely overwhelmed by Bell Beakers, that I don't think too much of the local pre-steppe or even just pre-BB paternal ancestry survived. Whereas we know that further East, in Dalmatia, into Pannonia and the Carpathian region, other mixed groups steppe derived communiteis with Chalcolithic inhabitants, which had a much stronger position relative to your proposed region, existed.
I won't say Bell Beakers caused a tabula rasa, but I don't see the strong centre for E-V13 groups there to have survived as easily. The Bell Beaker R1b lineages would have crushed it. But in the mentioned regions, they didn't, Cetina is just one possible example, so is the Baden cultural sphere and its descendents, or the early mixes of steppe with local in the Carpathian-Tranylvanian region. In some of these more protected places of early mixture with a higher pre-steppe input, where locals got more to say, I think we have the best chances to detect a population with a high E-V13 percentage.

And if they were metallurgical experts from the former Tripolye-Cucuteni or general Balkan-Carpathian sphere, it would just fit in nicely. Because specialist miners and smiths the steppe people definitely needed. I once read about a presumably Celtic tribe which was largely defeated by his Germanic and Sarmatian neighbours, almost in the same region by the way, but did survive and was largely left alone because they were renowned miners and smiths. Such things happened, actually, often enough. If a people, even in defeat, could occupy an important niche, they were left alone, whereas direct competitors with no special skills were just finished off.

The wider Carpathian region was, throughout the Bronze Age, one of the centres of metallurgical production in Europe. At the same time it was a very heterogenous region, so its possible it harboured, through the ages, different ethnicities living side by side in the fissured terrain. So we have an excellent metallurgical expertise in the region, probably people were more specialised in mining and processing of metals. They influenced important expansive cultures like Sintashta, but then came the very Late Bronze and Iron Age. And this was a break, because the former connections and relations, the relative heterogenity and old customs were left behind with Urnfield and the Iron Age transition. Probably some clans which lived well from their position in the region came under pressure both by migration of other people, but also because they had, with their expertise, to look for new opportunities. Because iron made the whole production chain much more regional, it was no longer a few centres which produced the best objects with imports of copper and tin, but it was, where possible, local ore mining and processing of the iron to tools and weapons. This changed the Bronze Age relations of the European people once more.

So there were plenty of reasons for a people which survived well, in a fortified position somewhere in the Carpathian region, to move out, both by being forced to, and in search for new opportunities at about the the LBA-EIA transition. And in the meantime this surviving specialised tribal groups of the mountain zone could have, very well, by drift and factors unknown to us, become very V13 heavy after a founder effect post-steppe expansion.

There is 400 - 500 years gap between the Croatian Cardial Neolithic E-L618 and Spanish Cardial E-V13. Chances that E-V13 was present among Cucuteni-Trypillia are 0%, or from furthern inland Balkans Neolithic are still 0%, chances that we come from Dalmatian Neolithic surviving during Chalcolithic/Bronze Age are somewhat possible but highly unlikely. Chances that we descend from Central European Neolithic, an area encompassing the one i circled are likely, being pushed more east into Pannonian Basin during Chalcolithic. :)

Riverman
08-25-2020, 09:27 AM
There is 400 - 500 years gap between the Croatian Cardial Neolithic E-L618 and Spanish Cardial E-V13. Chances that E-V13 was present among Cucuteni-Trypillia are 0%, or from furthern inland Balkans Neolithic are still 0%, chances that we come from Dalmatian Neolithic surviving during Chalcolithic/Bronze Age are somewhat possible but highly unlikely. Chances that we descend from Central European Neolithic, an area encompassing the one i circled are likely, being pushed more east into Pannonian Basin during Chalcolithic. :)

Its of course possible that some groups from the West were eventually pushed, by other clans mainly from the I2a sphere, to the East and into Pannonia, but what I meant was the survival of the steppe expansion, where they did, so to say, hibernate, while one steppe group after another moved East -> West -> East and up and down. Also, its not about V13 being present, possibly, elsewhere, but from where could the main surviving lineages come and spread during the LBA-EIA transition. And that's what I tried to explain with a possible (not proven) scenario.

A good way to prove it would be to find V13 precursors in the Carpathian-Balkan metallurgical province, their survival in the region and a later spread for example in the Hallstatt culture, where, from an Illyrian centre, they could have been the leading experts for ore mining and iron processing, which would explain how, exactly with the Iron Age transition, they spread at a low percentage East -> West and South -> North, against their main flow of that time North -> South. So I'd expect V13 to pop up in the early centres of iron production in particular.

Hawk
08-25-2020, 09:30 AM
https://i.imgur.com/aOpngDA.png

Riverman
08-25-2020, 10:15 AM
https://i.imgur.com/aOpngDA.png


The extraordinary non-ferrous mineral wealth of the Intra-Carpathian region has often been remarked upon in the literature. The overwhelming number of finds of copper, bronze, silver and gold products is hard to equal in prehistoric Europe. For instance, no other limited prehistoric space is known to have contained two large deposits dating from the same short range of time (Halstatt A1). Uioara de Sus, accidentally found in 1909, contained 5827 items weighing approximately 1,100 kg, while Şpalnaca II 1,000 paces away, in the year 1887, totaling a weight of 1,000 – 1,200 kg, was composed similarly of thousands of items. In addition to Şpalnaca I, Şpalnaca II, a deposit dated Hallstatt B1, was discovered a short distance away in the year 1881 and consisted of 120 bronze items.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Transylvania#Noua_culture

Also:


201The Hillfort of Teleac and Early Iron in Southern EuropeTh e large hillfort of Teleac, commanding the Mureş River valley, the principal East-West connecting axis in the Carpathian Basin, was likely built in the second half of the 11th century BC and occupied until the end of the 10th or the early 9th century BC. The fortification wall was destroyed around 920 BC, according to recent investigations. More than 40 iron objects were discovered in the fortified complex. These iron finds viewed together with numerous other iron finds from other sites signify that Transylvania was an early centre of the implementation of iron and presumably iron production. Thereby, the use of iron for producing weapons probably stood in the foreground. This is indicated by corresponding grave fi nds in Greece that contain a sword as off ering, but also iron swords found in Slovenia and Romania.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339435554_The_Hillfort_of_Teleac_and_Early_Iron_in _Southern_Europe#pf13

So once more, like in the Copper to early Bronze Age, the Carpathian region was one of the main metal processing centres of Europe and spread both export weapons of iron, as well as the knowledge how to do it. For the kind of low level infiltration I seem to recognise in the spread of E-V13 lineages in the LBA-EIA transition, this would fit in perfectly. Because for example the Western Hallstatt core clearly got his knowledge and techniques from the East and this is at the heart of the development, the Carpathian region.
And how many samples do we have from the Carpathian sphere so far? Especially for the late Bronze and early Iron Age?

From the Teleac paper:

In the Bronze Age (and still today) mineral raw materials were rare goods, whose exploitation was organised and con-trolled to varying extent. During the Bronze and Early Iron Ages there were large organised copper mines, for example the Mitterberg mining district, but also presumably smaller ore outcrops which were extracted seasonally by small communities.


Yet, during the late 11thand 10th centuries BC this region evidently gained in economic and strategic importance, a standing that justifi ed the construction of such a large forti-fi cation. Th us, it seems reasonable to associate this advance with the onset of the extraction and pro-duction of iron. Moreover, it was the time of the technological transition from the use of bronze to iron as the material employed to make weapons and tools. The comparatively large amount of iron finds in Transylvania in general and in Teleac in particular imply that iron extraction and production played an important role early on.

Expert miners and smiths were probably in very high demand in the early iron age, when the technologies and knowledge first spread. An ideal scenario for that kind of expansion without a massive ethnic upheaval, but from one existing community and network to another. I would really bet on V13 being present in this community. Not necessarily alone at all, but in a fairly high percentage. There must have been that kind of hub and booster to spread it in the transitional phase, these master of iron mining and processing created a network of the early iron production throughout much of Central and South Eastern Europe. Those tribes which allied with them had a decisive advantage, since they had earlier iron weapons and tools, which in turn made them expansive in their respective region, while others, with worse connections to the East, would have lagged behind. This was almost like a race towards full scale iron production being developed. Any tribe to the West would have looked out to get their experts from the early centres which were especially dense and concentrated in the Carpathian region.

The iron production started between the 12th-10th century BC in the Carpathian region, again I refer to the Teleac paper and this might prove to be a crucial time for the spread of E-V13. Their centres became, without a doubt, the Illyrian and Thracian sphere, but they radiated out early on much beyond it and the best chance for achieving that result would be to move with the spread of Iron technology.

So I largely agree with your red circle, but would expand it somewhat to the East, because the Carpathian zone might be the most important part of it.

DgidguBidgu
08-25-2020, 11:47 AM
Seems crazy that Proto-Bulgars didn't left any genetic impact to modern Bulgarians.With exception autosomal DNA,is there any yDNA-Mtdna to confirm their existence in balkans besides histrorical facts?


You are right about the contradiction in history written in the 18th century and the reality.
The reality is a bit different, these are not historical facts, but speculations because they contradict old authors and the oldest written European history based again over classics. It is unnecessary to mention the linguistic parallels with oldest European toponyms as well as the cultural ones most prominent and colorful among the Bulgarians even today. We can actually find classics connecting the Bulgarians with the Moesi, Paeonians, Scythians, Huns, Thracians, Myrmidons ... but there is no ancient source doing this with the Albanians. Maybe here is the problem and the need to send the Bulgarians somewhere to the east...


And this is something that was well known at XIX century in scientific literature but somehow forgotten again today at XXI.

Zunächst scheint dem , sonst in
den osteuropäischen Sprachen gut bewanderten Verfasser der „ romä


nischen Studien “ der Satz noch völlig unbekannt, dass diejenigen Völker,
welche man seit dem Schluss der Völkerwanderung mit dem Ausdrucke
„ Slaven “ bezeichnet, lediglich nichts anderes sind , als die Ueberreste
der früher schon in den betreffenden Ländern ansässig gewesenen, von
Griechen und Römern in langen Namensverzeichnissen aufgeführten Völker, also der Thraken , Geten, Mösier, Daken , Agathyrsen u . S. W .,


und zweitens, dass diese Völker, als der Hauptsache nach medischen
Stammes, Verwandte der Kelten in Spanien, Frankreich, Britannien ,
Belgien und Deutschland sein mussten .
https://books.google.bg/books?id=_xmNvgAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=bg&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0&fbclid=IwAR2U1hEhCDLNRcM7wVvmdGkfyyO17UsIkC1HDUH3M qbtLr4ctnTIbPm3rTE#v=onepage&q=agath&f=false

Kanenas
08-25-2020, 12:14 PM
The reality is a bit different, these are not historical facts, but speculations because they contradict old authors and the oldest written European history based again over classics. It is unnecessary to mention the linguistic parallels with oldest European toponyms as well as the cultural ones most prominent and colorful among the Bulgarians even today. We can actually find classics connecting the Bulgarians with the Moesi, Paeonians, Scythians, Huns, Thracians, Myrmidons ... but there is no ancient source doing this with the Albanians. Maybe here is the problem and the need to send the Bulgarians somewhere to the east...


And this is something that was well known at XIX century in scientific literature but somehow forgotten again today at XXI.

Zunächst scheint dem , sonst in
den osteuropäischen Sprachen gut bewanderten Verfasser der „ romä


nischen Studien “ der Satz noch völlig unbekannt, dass diejenigen Völker,
welche man seit dem Schluss der Völkerwanderung mit dem Ausdrucke
„ Slaven “ bezeichnet, lediglich nichts anderes sind , als die Ueberreste
der früher schon in den betreffenden Ländern ansässig gewesenen, von
Griechen und Römern in langen Namensverzeichnissen aufgeführten Völker, also der Thraken , Geten, Mösier, Daken , Agathyrsen u . S. W .,


und zweitens, dass diese Völker, als der Hauptsache nach medischen
Stammes, Verwandte der Kelten in Spanien, Frankreich, Britannien ,
Belgien und Deutschland sein mussten .
https://books.google.bg/books?id=_xmNvgAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=bg&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0&fbclid=IwAR2U1hEhCDLNRcM7wVvmdGkfyyO17UsIkC1HDUH3M qbtLr4ctnTIbPm3rTE#v=onepage&q=agath&f=false

Some things are clear in the sources. For example, the migration of Croats associated with an invitation from Heraclius to fight the Avars. And the movement was from somewhere within the 'Holy Roman Empire' (irrespectively of where the ultimate place of origin was and if there was also an Eastern Croatia or not). And I think that is consistent with their autosomal profile.

The narrative in De Administrando Imperio is 'Romani' (=Roman settlers in Dalmatia during the reign of Diocletian, 284-305 ΑD) being displaced by the Avars and Avars of Dalmatia being exterminated almost by the Croats. That doesn't have to be exactly correct.

But I haven't seen scholars taking that into account usually.

Hawk
08-25-2020, 12:39 PM
No, I personally think that the Old Bulgars are similar to all other Early medieval steppe people - originally East Asian, but admixed with old Scythian/Iranic and Caucasian/Alan before entering Europe. However the Iranic theory among Bulgarians is on decline and the "authocthonic" everything Thracian is getting momentum. According to this the proto Thracians first moved North East (as the IndoEuropeans who reached the Tarim Basin) and South East - Anatolia , Troy, etc, and later with Alexander to Iran and Central Asia. Then they only returned(very little admixed) as Old Bulgars to unite with their relatives the Tharcians.

Do you really believe this? This is nonsense.

Dorkymon
08-25-2020, 01:33 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Transylvania#Noua_culture

Also:



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339435554_The_Hillfort_of_Teleac_and_Early_Iron_in _Southern_Europe#pf13

So once more, like in the Copper to early Bronze Age, the Carpathian region was one of the main metal processing centres of Europe and spread both export weapons of iron, as well as the knowledge how to do it. For the kind of low level infiltration I seem to recognise in the spread of E-V13 lineages in the LBA-EIA transition, this would fit in perfectly. Because for example the Western Hallstatt core clearly got his knowledge and techniques from the East and this is at the heart of the development, the Carpathian region.
And how many samples do we have from the Carpathian sphere so far? Especially for the late Bronze and early Iron Age?


Yes, but the bearers of Noua and Coslogeni culture are derived from Sabatinovka, so I doubt they had significant E-V13, if any.

Hawk
08-25-2020, 03:25 PM
Can we safely assume the samples from Ada Tepe are mostly E-V13 aswell?

Archeologically, if i am not wrong, Kapitan Andreevo and Ada Tepe are strikingly similar.

https://www.orea.oeaw.ac.at/en/research/mediterranean-economies/bronze-age-gold-road-of-the-balkans-ada-tepe-mining/

Riverman
08-25-2020, 06:08 PM
Yes, but the bearers of Noua and Coslogeni culture are derived from Sabatinovka, so I doubt they had significant E-V13, if any.

The newcomers, yes, but I don't think that in this time and context there was such an overwhelming replacement like with Bell Beakers. On the contrary, a lot of the newcomers were, in my opinion, rather welcoming the local experts for mining and metal works. Honestly, I don't see why, unless you want to have a monopoly, like the Bell Beakers, you should do that kind of work yourself, if you are in a dominant position. You might want to control the mines and smiths, but not do it yourself. So this is really, even in times of defeat, an excellent opportunity for a specialised population to survive many upheavals.

Hawk
08-25-2020, 06:46 PM
I don't think miners and blacksmiths can increase in population. I rather think we should expect a more complex picture related to LBA Bronze Age collapse.

Dorkymon
08-25-2020, 06:56 PM
The newcomers, yes, but I don't think that in this time and context there was such an overwhelming replacement like with Bell Beakers. On the contrary, a lot of the newcomers were, in my opinion, rather welcoming the local experts for mining and metal works. Honestly, I don't see why, unless you want to have a monopoly, like the Bell Beakers, you should do that kind of work yourself, if you are in a dominant position. You might want to control the mines and smiths, but not do it yourself. So this is really, even in times of defeat, an excellent opportunity for a specialised population to survive many upheavals.

Perhaps, but in any case I don't see E coming from the steppe. It's either introduced from Central or Southeast Europe.

Riverman
08-25-2020, 08:35 PM
I don't think miners and blacksmiths can increase in population. I rather think we should expect a more complex picture related to LBA Bronze Age collapse.

That was the minor spread, the trickling to the West and North, which is observable. The main spread was of course with the Illyro-Thracians, starting with Urnfield, but largely from the Carpathian sphere.


Perhaps, but in any case I don't see E coming from the steppe. It's either introduced from Central or Southeast Europe.

True, it wasn't coming from the steppe, but it moved onto it before, presumably from the Carpathian region again, possible even with the Sintashta connection, but latest with the rise of the Scythians - even to the Far East. We have E-V13 in Northern China, with a high probability of being steppe derived, in regions which have a significant portion of R1a.

So there are two ways which led to the expansion of E-V13: Real folk migration, this is mainly related to Illyro-Thracian people, which picked carriers up while expanding and moving through the Pannonian-Carpathian regions, and a second one, partly derived from this, which led to a trickling into various people West, North and East, much beyond the reach of the more massive impact, mainly caused, possibly, by specialist and small communities moving, primarily as miners and smiths probably.

eastara
08-26-2020, 12:34 AM
Do you really believe this? This is nonsense.

Well, there is some truth in this. For example, there must have been many Thracians in old Persia and the following Hellenistic states. The reason is the the Thracians were a major part in the mercenary armies from that period. Thracians were warrior type people as described in old chronicles, they did not like farming and often raided and pillaged their neighbours. However since the Persians became active on the Balkans ( Thrace was even officially a Persian province) they started hiring as mercenaries with the Persian army. They further joined Alexander and must have been like the Greeks on both sides of the conflict. Those who took part in the Asian expedition returned very rich with the looted Persian gold. Thracians did not have an economy which could make them so rich to waist kilos of gold for their tombs - war was one of their main sources of income. Many found treasures like gold rhytons with ram heads were crafted in Persia - either looted or as mercenary payment.
As I mentioned before even Reich is contemplating that Trojans during Early Bronze age are migrant from the Balkans.
However this in no way makes the old Bulgars Thracians.

Hawk
08-26-2020, 06:18 AM
I bet it's somewhere in Danubian EBA/Alpine EBA.

https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/bronze-age-polada-proto-apennine.jpg

Hawk
08-26-2020, 06:19 AM
Well, there is some truth in this. For example, there must have been many Thracians in old Persia and the following Hellenistic states. The reason is the the Thracians were a major part in the mercenary armies from that period. Thracians were warrior type people as described in old chronicles, they did not like farming and often raided and pillaged their neighbours. However since the Persians became active on the Balkans ( Thrace was even officially a Persian province) they started hiring as mercenaries with the Persian army. They further joined Alexander and must have been like the Greeks on both sides of the conflict. Those who took part in the Asian expedition returned very rich with the looted Persian gold. Thracians did not have an economy which could make them so rich to waist kilos of gold for their tombs - war was one of their main sources of income. Many found treasures like gold rhytons with ram heads were crafted in Persia - either looted or as mercenary payment.
As I mentioned before even Reich is contemplating that Trojans during Early Bronze age are migrant from the Balkans.
However this in no way makes the old Bulgars Thracians.

Even Roman Republic didn't have a proper economy, they heavily depended on systematic looting, putting to slavery every conquered people and putting them in the mines of Italy for life. Anyway, regarding the Thracians going to Asia and latter wanting to join their long lost brothers doesn't make sense to be honest.

Riverman
08-26-2020, 09:22 AM
I bet it's somewhere in Danubian EBA/Alpine EBA.

https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/bronze-age-polada-proto-apennine.jpg

In my personal opinion, no way. Exactly because of what I said above, the Danubian EBA cultures, like Adlerberg, Straubing etc. are core areas of Bell Beaker survival. There were more non-BB movements and influences in Unetice than in the Danubian sphere. Both by uniparentals and physical anthropology it would have happened completely under the radar. So a bad spot for a concentration building up. The Carpathian EBA on the other hand showed the characteristics I mentioned, was more diversified, fissured and is so far massively undertested. The Carpathain EBA has also the advantage of being not just a technological impulse driver, but being also interconnected with the Balkan and generally Southern regions. So an expansion from the Northern groups into that direction would have been just natural. At the same time they constantly exchanged with the West too and the Danubian EBA was soon overturned by new influences from the East, possibly related to Sintashta and the chariot complex. I don't see E-V13 as a major player in the subsequent Tumulus culture, nor that a splitter group from the Danubian-Alpine zone could have been the main vector for V13. I mean we can never know for sure, through drift and unknown factors strange things can happen, but I just say its fairly unlikely and the Carpathian EBA is the better candidate.

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 12:23 AM
In my personal opinion, no way. Exactly because of what I said above, the Danubian EBA cultures, like Adlerberg, Straubing etc. are core areas of Bell Beaker survival. There were more non-BB movements and influences in Unetice than in the Danubian sphere. Both by uniparentals and physical anthropology it would have happened completely under the radar. So a bad spot for a concentration building up. The Carpathian EBA on the other hand showed the characteristics I mentioned, was more diversified, fissured and is so far massively undertested. The Carpathain EBA has also the advantage of being not just a technological impulse driver, but being also interconnected with the Balkan and generally Southern regions. So an expansion from the Northern groups into that direction would have been just natural. At the same time they constantly exchanged with the West too and the Danubian EBA was soon overturned by new influences from the East, possibly related to Sintashta and the chariot complex. I don't see E-V13 as a major player in the subsequent Tumulus culture, nor that a splitter group from the Danubian-Alpine zone could have been the main vector for V13. I mean we can never know for sure, through drift and unknown factors strange things can happen, but I just say its fairly unlikely and the Carpathian EBA is the better candidate.

I've looked today at the regional Y-DNA profile in Romania, and I'm more confident than not that E-V13 doesn't belong to Carpathian cultures.
Basically the deeper one goes into the mountains, the ratio of J2 to E-V13 moves in favour of J2.

For example in Maramures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maramure%C8%99_County), which is considered the most traditional region of Romania and is situated deep into the Carpathians, 31% of the samples belong to J2 compared to 3% E-V13.
Mehedinti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehedin%C8%9Bi_County) is another county in the Carpathians, but on the other end of the country at the border with Serbia, and here too J2 tips over E-V13 (21% to 14%). They have more E-V13 than those in Maramures, but that's perhaps due to being closer to the Balkans.
Suceava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suceava_County) is another mountainous county in the Carpathians where 14% of the available samples are J2 and none E-V13.

Hence from what I'm seeing for now, the deeper one moves into the mountains, the more diminished the occurrence of E-V13 gets.
Mountains were the territory of transhumance for Vlach shepherds. Since J2 seems to be very popular among the Vlachs South of the Danube (25% out of 208 samples), perhaps they could have introduced it, because in the plains the rate of J2 decreases noticeably.
E-V13 on the other hand seems to fare better in plains, especially once we get closer to Bulgaria. So that could have been the direction from where E-V13 was introduced, perhaps via those alleged Thracians from this study in OP's video.

What we are going to see in Carpathian EBA is probably a lot of I2.

ADW_1981
08-27-2020, 01:26 AM
What we are going to see in Carpathian EBA is probably a lot of I2.

That seems to be the case in the video doesn't it? Central Bulgaria in EBA has lots of I2 and it seems to come from a settlement, which would imply it dates back before the EBA, to the Copper or Neolithic period.

Hawk
08-27-2020, 05:53 AM
I've looked today at the regional Y-DNA profile in Romania, and I'm more confident than not that E-V13 doesn't belong to Carpathian cultures.
Basically the deeper one goes into the mountains, the ratio of J2 to E-V13 moves in favour of J2.

For example in Maramures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maramure%C8%99_County), which is considered the most traditional region of Romania and is situated deep into the Carpathians, 31% of the samples belong to J2 compared to 3% E-V13.
Mehedinti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehedin%C8%9Bi_County) is another county in the Carpathians, but on the other end of the country at the border with Serbia, and here too J2 tips over E-V13 (21% to 14%). They have more E-V13 than those in Maramures, but that's perhaps due to being closer to the Balkans.
Suceava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suceava_County) is another mountainous county in the Carpathians where 14% of the available samples are J2 and none E-V13.

Hence from what I'm seeing for now, the deeper one moves into the mountains, the more diminished the occurrence of E-V13 gets.
Mountains were the territory of transhumance for Vlach shepherds. Since J2 seems to be very popular among the Vlachs South of the Danube (25% out of 208 samples), perhaps they could have introduced it, because in the plains the rate of J2 decreases noticeably.
E-V13 on the other hand seems to fare better in plains, especially once we get closer to Bulgaria. So that could have been the direction from where E-V13 was introduced, perhaps via those alleged Thracians from this study in OP's video.

What we are going to see in Carpathian EBA is probably a lot of I2.

What is your opinion, where will we find the hotspot of E-V13 during Chalcolithic/EBA?

Consider this fact:

The samples from Lengyel, Sopot which are E-L618 and negative for E-V13, Sopot and Lengyel are close to Dalmatia and they are dated 4800 B.C. The actual Spanish E-V13 is dated 5000 B.C.

Aspar
08-27-2020, 06:50 AM
I've looked today at the regional Y-DNA profile in Romania, and I'm more confident than not that E-V13 doesn't belong to Carpathian cultures.
Basically the deeper one goes into the mountains, the ratio of J2 to E-V13 moves in favour of J2.

For example in Maramures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maramure%C8%99_County), which is considered the most traditional region of Romania and is situated deep into the Carpathians, 31% of the samples belong to J2 compared to 3% E-V13.
Mehedinti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehedin%C8%9Bi_County) is another county in the Carpathians, but on the other end of the country at the border with Serbia, and here too J2 tips over E-V13 (21% to 14%). They have more E-V13 than those in Maramures, but that's perhaps due to being closer to the Balkans.
Suceava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suceava_County) is another mountainous county in the Carpathians where 14% of the available samples are J2 and none E-V13.

Hence from what I'm seeing for now, the deeper one moves into the mountains, the more diminished the occurrence of E-V13 gets.
Mountains were the territory of transhumance for Vlach shepherds. Since J2 seems to be very popular among the Vlachs South of the Danube (25% out of 208 samples), perhaps they could have introduced it, because in the plains the rate of J2 decreases noticeably.
E-V13 on the other hand seems to fare better in plains, especially once we get closer to Bulgaria. So that could have been the direction from where E-V13 was introduced, perhaps via those alleged Thracians from this study in OP's video.

What we are going to see in Carpathian EBA is probably a lot of I2.

I think that it doesn't make sense to make parallels of the modern Romanian y-dna distribution with that of the Carpathian BA. Excuse me, but it's still debated whether the Romanian language was brought to Romania south of Danube and let's not forget what Riverman said or at least pretend to have not seen. The modern Romanian territory during the Medieval was largely inhabited by Slavs and other people who came from the North. Even archaeologically it seems that Romania was depopulated before the Slavs settled in, although we have also historical accounts from Romans themselves who speak of evacuation of Dacia and transfer of it's population south of Danube. It's very clear and even if you believe that some nomadic Vlachs survived in the mountains, they still have to descend down in the plains during the winter, otherwise they and their animals would have died. But in the plains there was another danger...
So probably is better to not make conclusions about E-V13 in BA Romania based on the modern Romanian y-dna when there are too many questions in the air about the ethnogenesis of the Romanians themselves.
Also, let's not forget that we have what it seems a DNA from Getae. If it was not for that sorry paper, we would wouldn't have to guess what they were or what y-dna they carried but thankfully, some of us have the right tools in hand and as it seems these samples not only were local Getae samples but also carried haplogroups such as E-V13 while the other one was R-Z2103.

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 07:38 AM
I think that it doesn't make sense to make parallels of the modern Romanian y-dna distribution with that of the Carpathian BA. Excuse me, but it's still debated whether the Romanian language was brought to Romania south of Danube and let's not forget what Riverman said or at least pretend to have not seen. The modern Romanian territory during the Medieval was largely inhabited by Slavs and other people who came from the North. Even archaeologically it seems that Romania was depopulated before the Slavs settled in, although we have also historical accounts from Romans themselves who speak of evacuation of Dacia and transfer of it's population south of Danube. It's very clear and even if you believe that some nomadic Vlachs survived in the mountains, they still have to descend down in the plains during the winter, otherwise they and their animals would have died. But in the plains there was another danger...
So probably is better to not make conclusions about E-V13 in BA Romania based on the modern Romanian y-dna when there are too many questions in the air about the ethnogenesis of the Romanians themselves.
Also, let's not forget that we have what it seems a DNA from Getae. If it was not for that sorry paper, we would wouldn't have to guess what they were or what y-dna they carried but thankfully, some of us have the right tools in hand and as it seems these samples not only were local Getae samples but also carried haplogroups such as E-V13 while the other one was R-Z2103.

South of the Danube where a part of the population was resettled by the Romans is literally on the border, in the modern Timoc and Vojvodina areas of Serbia.

Modern Romanians score noticeable amount of East Asian/Siberian compared to everyone South of the Danube or West in Central Europe. They are only rivaled by Szeklers. So to me that offers a hint that the ethnogenesis happened on the modern territory, which saw waves upon waves of steppe migrations (Cumans, Pechenegs, Huns, Tatars, Mongols).

The E-V13 guy from Moldova originates on the Southern tip of the country and one can get pretty easily from Thrace in Bulgaria to there. There aren't any significant geographic barriers afaik.

Aspar
08-27-2020, 08:28 AM
South of the Danube where a part of the population was resettled by the Romans is literally on the border, in the modern Timoc and Vojvodina areas of Serbia.

Modern Romanians score noticeable amount of East Asian/Siberian compared to everyone South of the Danube or West in Central Europe. They are only rivaled by Szeklers. So to me that offers a hint that the ethnogenesis happened on the modern territory, which saw waves upon waves of steppe migrations (Cumans, Pechenegs, Huns, Tatars, Mongols).

The E-V13 guy from Moldova originates on the Southern tip of the country and one can get pretty easily from Thrace in Bulgaria to there. There aren't any significant geographic barriers afaik.

Yes, probably the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people happened on the territory of modern Romania but that doesn't mean that these steppe people who settled in Romania encountered a Vlach population there. Infact, modern Wallachia was known as Cumania up to the beginning of the 13th century when the Mongols invaded the territory of modern Romania and the Cumans had to flee in all directions in order to save their lives. Funny thing, only then the word Wallachia and Vlachs start to appear in modern Wallachia. What you say might be true, and that the Vlachs who entered Wallachia came not from far away places but from the territory of modern Serbia and Timoc area if we take in consideration Gesta Hungarorum who speaks of Vlachs in those places. But then again, we have rumors of an upcoming paper about Roman Serbia and those regions around Viminacium where again according to rumors there was plenty of E-V13, up to 1/3 of all lineages. And it's unlikely there was expansion of Thracians who brought E-V13 to those places rather E-V13 probably started expanding from around the Carpathian Basin area.

As for the samples from Moldova, I am pretty sure you have analysed as I did. It's pretty clear that these weren't recent migrants from Thrace but most probably locals because they form a distinctive cluster, distant from the IA Bulgaria. Infact, the EIA 'Cimmerian' sample from the lower Danube mouth who was most probably a Getae also ends up in this cluster. Some other Medieval sames from Hungary also appear in this cluster which means there was some wider Daco-Getae genetic cluster that was distinct from the Thracians proper in Bulgaria. Also, it seems that the Thracians came from the North and not from the South so if anything the Daco-Getae people were closer to what it meant original Thracian while the Thracians proper were heavily mixed with Mycenaean like people. This can be seen archaeologically as well as it seems the Gava culture played a big part in the forming of the Thracian people. Gava culture itself had it's origin in the Carpathian Basin.

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 08:51 AM
Yes, probably the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people happened on the territory of modern Romania but that doesn't mean that these steppe people who settled in Romania encountered a Vlach population there. Infact, modern Wallachia was known as Cumania up to the beginning of the 13th century when the Mongols invaded the territory of modern Romania and the Cumans had to flee in all directions in order to save their lives. Funny thing, only then the word Wallachia and Vlachs start to appear in modern Wallachia. What you say might be true, and that the Vlachs who entered Wallachia came not from far away places but from the territory of modern Serbia and Timoc area if we take in consideration Gesta Hungarorum who speaks of Vlachs in those places. But then again, we have rumors of an upcoming paper about Roman Serbia and those regions around Viminacium where again according to rumors there was plenty of E-V13, up to 1/3 of all lineages. And it's unlikely there was expansion of Thracians who brought E-V13 to those places rather E-V13 probably started expanding from around the Carpathian Basin area.

As for the samples from Moldova, I am pretty sure you have analysed as I did. It's pretty clear that these weren't recent migrants from Thrace but most probably locals because they form a distinctive cluster, distant from the IA Bulgaria. Infact, the EIA 'Cimmerian' sample from the lower Danube mouth who was most probably a Getae also ends up in this cluster. Some other Medieval sames from Hungary also appear in this cluster which means there was some wider Daco-Getae genetic cluster that was distinct from the Thracians proper in Bulgaria. Also, it seems that the Thracians came from the North and not from the South so if anything the Daco-Getae people were closer to what it meant original Thracian while the Thracians proper were heavily mixed with Mycenaean like people. This can be seen archaeologically as well as it seems the Gava culture played a big part in the forming of the Thracian people. Gava culture itself had it's origin in the Carpathian Basin.

There's no point in going back and forth over this. It will be a never-ending loop, as good arguments can be made on both sides. Thus, I'm not going to stir this pot any longer.

But I will point that Gava culture and the Getae are not related. Gava-Holihrady are believed to be the ancestral culture of the Dacians (so the Carpathian population), while Cozia-Brad of the Getae and Moesians (plain population in Moldova, Wallachia and Northeastern Bulgaria).

Regarding the paper on Moesia in Serbia, which indicates an elevated E-V13 presence, those guys could simply turn out to be related to the plain population, instead of those in the Carpathians.
If you consider the Roman records about the resettlements, you will see that a larger part of the population derives from the plains rather than mountains. Furthermore, the Getae are specifically mentioned to have been resettled in Moesia, while for Dacians they don't specify where exactly South they were brought.

"In the 1st century AD, Lentulus and Aelius Catus moved over 50k Dacians from the mountains to South of the Danube and established garrisons North of the Danube. The purpose of the garrisons was to stop Dacians from descending from the mountains in winter to pass the frozen Danube and raid the territories South of the Danube, some of which were Roman provinces.

In years 66-67 AD, governor of Moesia Tib. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus resettled over 100k Transdanubians to Moesia as a workforce and also tribute. This population comes from the intersection of the Danube between Southern Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. Thus, this population was likely a mix of Getae, Bastarnae and Sarmatians."

I should also point that there is no mention of the Dacians, and only the Getae are recorded to have rebelled alongside Thracians against a diadochi after Alexander the Great's death. I don't know if their political interests simply aligned here or if that indicates that they were close, perhaps sharing population movements between the two territories.

"According to Tucidide, the Getae are neighbouring the Scythians with whom they share the same weapons and are all mounted archers.
After the death of Alexander the Great, the Thracian domain rebelled against the new diadochi - Lysimach. The Getae, who lived in Wallachia and Northeastern Bulgaria were led by Dromichaites.
Sboryanovo in Bulgaria, believed to be the Getic residence of Dromichaites. The architectural elements, together with the paintings suggest strong ties with the Greek world.

Most common iconographic themes: men riding horses, hunting scenes, men and women riding war chariots, sacrifices, winged feminine divinities, hierogamy, animal fights, animal processing, fantasy animals, mythical heroes (Herakles)."

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 11:40 AM
The actual Spanish E-V13 is dated 5000 B.C.

I see only one Spanish E-L618 from the Avellaner Cave in 5000BC and no E-V13 appears in Spain earlier than the Middle Ages.
My data is from here: https://haplogroup.info/

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 12:01 PM
I see only one Spanish E-L618 from the Avellaner Cave in 5000BC and no E-V13 appears in Spain earlier than the Middle Ages.
My data is from here: https://haplogroup.info/

Does anyone have the bug where you can't save your post after editing it? In any case, I'm putting the second part below.


The actual Spanish E-V13 is dated 5000 B.C.

There is also this thread where some people checked the calls: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20521-Y-Chromosome-Haplogroup-assignments-for-2500-ancient-samples

There aren't any updates for E-L618, but from what I can see, these are the new E-V13 folk (from about 500AD +) that I wasn't aware of:

R107.SG Italy_LateAntiquity.SG E1b1b1a1b1a
R1219.SG Italy_Medieval_EarlyModern.SG E1b1b1a1b1a
I12031 Iberia_Girona_Visigoth E1b1b1a1b1a

Hawk
08-27-2020, 12:13 PM
I see only one Spanish E-L618 from the Avellaner Cave in 5000BC and no E-V13 appears in Spain earlier than the Middle Ages.
My data is from here: https://haplogroup.info/

He is E-V13 definitely. Oldest fully formed mutation of E-V13 found. After this Spanish Neolithic, now we find it in the opposite side of Mediterranean Europe, in Iron Age Bulgaria lol.

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 01:18 PM
He is E-V13 definitely. Oldest fully formed mutation of E-V13 found. After this Spanish Neolithic, now we find it in the opposite side of Mediterranean Europe, in Iron Age Bulgaria lol.

Why is that definite if nobody identified him as E-V13? That's basically pub talk at this point.

J Man
08-27-2020, 01:24 PM
I've looked today at the regional Y-DNA profile in Romania, and I'm more confident than not that E-V13 doesn't belong to Carpathian cultures.
Basically the deeper one goes into the mountains, the ratio of J2 to E-V13 moves in favour of J2.

For example in Maramures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maramure%C8%99_County), which is considered the most traditional region of Romania and is situated deep into the Carpathians, 31% of the samples belong to J2 compared to 3% E-V13.
Mehedinti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehedin%C8%9Bi_County) is another county in the Carpathians, but on the other end of the country at the border with Serbia, and here too J2 tips over E-V13 (21% to 14%). They have more E-V13 than those in Maramures, but that's perhaps due to being closer to the Balkans.
Suceava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suceava_County) is another mountainous county in the Carpathians where 14% of the available samples are J2 and none E-V13.

Hence from what I'm seeing for now, the deeper one moves into the mountains, the more diminished the occurrence of E-V13 gets.
Mountains were the territory of transhumance for Vlach shepherds. Since J2 seems to be very popular among the Vlachs South of the Danube (25% out of 208 samples), perhaps they could have introduced it, because in the plains the rate of J2 decreases noticeably.
E-V13 on the other hand seems to fare better in plains, especially once we get closer to Bulgaria. So that could have been the direction from where E-V13 was introduced, perhaps via those alleged Thracians from this study in OP's video.

What we are going to see in Carpathian EBA is probably a lot of I2.

Interesting! Is the J2 in Maramures mostly J2a or J2b do you know?

Hawk
08-27-2020, 01:30 PM
Why is that definite if nobody identified him as E-V13? That's basically pub talk at this point.

You can find in the forum in one E-V13 thread, that sample is confirmed as E-V13, also by the paper itself.

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 02:00 PM
You can find in the forum in one E-V13 thread, that sample is confirmed as E-V13, also by the paper itself.

It's identified as E1b1b1a1b or Z1919 in the paper, which is upstream from L618 or two clades up from V13. Where do they confirm E-V13 in the paper itself?

"Maternal haplogroups found are consistent with pre-Neolithic settlement, whereas the Y-chromosomal analyses permitted confirmation of the existence in Spain approximately 7,000 y ago of two haplogroups previously associated with the Neolithic transition: G2a and E1b1b1a1b."

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2011/05/25/1100723108.DCSupplemental/pnas.201100723SI.pdf

But in any case, people have checked him downstream afterwards and all the people whom I trust to be professional at calling are saying L618.

If you don't trust them, because you believe that as foreigners they have an agenda against E folk, then you can also see that the fellow forum member from Albania who specialises in calling E clades is also leaning towards L618 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=618410&viewfull=1#post618410).

J Man
08-27-2020, 02:05 PM
Yes, probably the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people happened on the territory of modern Romania but that doesn't mean that these steppe people who settled in Romania encountered a Vlach population there. Infact, modern Wallachia was known as Cumania up to the beginning of the 13th century when the Mongols invaded the territory of modern Romania and the Cumans had to flee in all directions in order to save their lives. Funny thing, only then the word Wallachia and Vlachs start to appear in modern Wallachia. What you say might be true, and that the Vlachs who entered Wallachia came not from far away places but from the territory of modern Serbia and Timoc area if we take in consideration Gesta Hungarorum who speaks of Vlachs in those places. But then again, we have rumors of an upcoming paper about Roman Serbia and those regions around Viminacium where again according to rumors there was plenty of E-V13, up to 1/3 of all lineages. And it's unlikely there was expansion of Thracians who brought E-V13 to those places rather E-V13 probably started expanding from around the Carpathian Basin area.

As for the samples from Moldova, I am pretty sure you have analysed as I did. It's pretty clear that these weren't recent migrants from Thrace but most probably locals because they form a distinctive cluster, distant from the IA Bulgaria. Infact, the EIA 'Cimmerian' sample from the lower Danube mouth who was most probably a Getae also ends up in this cluster. Some other Medieval sames from Hungary also appear in this cluster which means there was some wider Daco-Getae genetic cluster that was distinct from the Thracians proper in Bulgaria. Also, it seems that the Thracians came from the North and not from the South so if anything the Daco-Getae people were closer to what it meant original Thracian while the Thracians proper were heavily mixed with Mycenaean like people. This can be seen archaeologically as well as it seems the Gava culture played a big part in the forming of the Thracian people. Gava culture itself had it's origin in the Carpathian Basin.

Have you heard about the presence of any other Y-DNA haplogroups from Roman era Serbia other than E-V13?

Hawk
08-27-2020, 03:07 PM
It's identified as E1b1b1a1b or Z1919 in the paper, which is upstream from L618 or two clades up from V13. Where do they confirm E-V13 in the paper itself?

"Maternal haplogroups found are consistent with pre-Neolithic settlement, whereas the Y-chromosomal analyses permitted confirmation of the existence in Spain approximately 7,000 y ago of two haplogroups previously associated with the Neolithic transition: G2a and E1b1b1a1b."

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2011/05/25/1100723108.DCSupplemental/pnas.201100723SI.pdf

But in any case, people have checked him downstream afterwards and all the people whom I trust to be professional at calling are saying L618.

If you don't trust them, because you believe that as foreigners they have an agenda against E folk, then you can also see that the fellow forum member from Albania who specialises in calling E clades is also leaning towards L618 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=618410&viewfull=1#post618410).

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=621635&viewfull=1#post621635

Pribislav
08-27-2020, 03:15 PM
It's identified as E1b1b1a1b or Z1919 in the paper, which is upstream from L618 or two clades up from V13. Where do they confirm E-V13 in the paper itself?

"Maternal haplogroups found are consistent with pre-Neolithic settlement, whereas the Y-chromosomal analyses permitted confirmation of the existence in Spain approximately 7,000 y ago of two haplogroups previously associated with the Neolithic transition: G2a and E1b1b1a1b."

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2011/05/25/1100723108.DCSupplemental/pnas.201100723SI.pdf

But in any case, people have checked him downstream afterwards and all the people whom I trust to be professional at calling are saying L618.

If you don't trust them, because you believe that as foreigners they have an agenda against E folk, then you can also see that the fellow forum member from Albania who specialises in calling E clades is also leaning towards L618 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=618410&viewfull=1#post618410).

Sample Ave07 is confirmed as E-V13+ in the paper. He couldn't have been identified as Z1919 or L618 because they genotyped only four Y-SNPs: E-M35, E-V13, G-M287 and G-P15. So there are no reads for any other SNP except these four.

39200

Riverman
08-27-2020, 03:31 PM
I don't think that E-V13 was alone, initially, but in the Neolithic, it came especially with G2, H and other clades of E. Its just by chance that we found L618/V13 in Iberia, like we have different E1b clades in Western-Central Europe, like in the Michelsberger and possible sprinkled in the Carpathian and Tripolye sphere, surely in all of the Cardial-Impresso sphere too.
Its just by chance that one group, clan or tribe became more strongly V13 and expanded especially in the LBA-EIA. Now the modern distribution tells us practically nothing, because I'm almost certain that from the early Iron Age to the Roman period most of Pannonia, the Carpathians and the Balkans had a high V13 percentage, basically the whole Illyro-Thracian sphere with radiation to Celts, Greeks, possible also Germanics, Slavs and Iranians. Not every tribe even in the Illyro-Thracian sphere, but tribes and clans in every of these region. The presumable former core regions in Pannonia and the Carpathian region were transformed not just once and espcially from Late Antiquity to High Medieval times. Just think about the fact that during the times I described above, the mines and metal production almost never ceded to exist in the region, even while all kind of steppe groups marched through it, but in early Medieval times, much of country was either emptied or downgraded to a more tribalistic state which was left before in the Chalcolithic already.
Taken that together with the fact of a massive colonisation by Slavs and Vlachs, again presumably from different regions, based on different founding clans and tribes, I wouldn't give too much. More important than the modern percentage is probably where we find the upstream roots of the most important clades today. Yet even that is of much lower importance than one single ancient DNA find.

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 03:44 PM
Sample Ave07 is confirmed as E-V13+ in the paper. He couldn't have been identified as Z1919 or L618 because they genotyped only four Y-SNPs: E-M35, E-V13, G-M287 and G-P15. So there are no reads for any other SNP except these four.

39200

I see, now I am wondering why he is being typed as L618 by others.

Pribislav
08-27-2020, 04:19 PM
Have you heard about the presence of any other Y-DNA haplogroups from Roman era Serbia other than E-V13?

Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 13 (L618 x 6; L618>V13 x 3; Z830 x 1; Z830>M123 x 1; Z1902 x 1; M96 x 1)

G x 5 (PF3148 x 1; PF3148>L91 x 1; P303 x 1; L497 x 1; L497>Z1815 x 1)

R1b x 3 (Z2103 x 1; U106 x 1; U152>L2>Z367 x 1)

R1a x 2 (Z2124>Z2122 x 1; Z2124>Z2123 x 1)

J x 2 (M304 x 1; L24 x 1)

T x 1 (M184)

I1 x 1 (M253)

I2 x 1 (L596)


Timacum Minus, Slog necropolis - 10 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 3 (M35 x 1; L618 x 1; L618>V13 x 1)

J x 3 (M304 x 1; M410 x 1; M241 x 1)

R1b x 2 (Z2103 x 1; Z2103>CTS1450 x 1)

G x 1 (CTS342>FGC12126)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):

I2 x 2 (M423 x 2)

E x 1 (L618)

J x 1 (M304)

R1b x 1 (P312>DF99)


Lepenski Vir - 2:

E x 1 (M35) - Serbia_Roman

J x 1 (M102) - Serbia_Medieval


Mediana - 2 (labeled Serbia_Gepid):

G x 1 (P287)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Gomolava - 1 (labeled Serbia_Medieval):

I2 x 1 (M423>L621>CTS4002)

J Man
08-27-2020, 04:27 PM
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 13 (L618 x 6; L618>V13 x 3; Z830 x 1; Z830>M123 x 1; Z1902 x 1; M96 x 1)

G x 5 (PF3148 x 1; PF3148>L91 x 1; P303 x 1; L497 x 1; L497>Z1815 x 1)

R1b x 3 (Z2103 x 1; U106 x 1; U152>L2>Z367 x 1)

R1a x 2 (Z2124>Z2122 x 1; Z2124>Z2123 x 1)

J x 2 (M304 x 1; L24 x 1)

T x 1 (M184)

I1 x 1 (M253)

I2 x 1 (L596)


Timacum Minus, Slog necropolis - 10 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 3 (M35 x 1; L618 x 1; L618>V13 x 1)

J x 3 (M304 x 1; M410 x 1; M241 x 1)

R1b x 2 (Z2103 x 1; Z2103>CTS1450 x 1)

G x 1 (CTS342>FGC12126)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):

I2 x 2 (M423 x 2)

E x 1 (L618)

J x 1 (M304)

R1b x 1 (P312>DF99)


Lepenski Vir - 2:

E x 1 (M35) - Serbia_Roman

J x 1 (M102) - Serbia_Medieval


Mediana - 2 (labeled Serbia_Gepid):

G x 1 (P287)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Gomolava - 1 (labeled Serbia_Medieval):

I2 x 1 (M423>L621>CTS4002)

Awesome thank you!

Moldovlah
08-27-2020, 05:17 PM
Seems crazy that Proto-Bulgars didn't left any genetic impact to modern Bulgarians.With exception autosomal DNA,is there any yDNA-Mtdna to confirm their existence in balkans besides histrorical facts?

No is simple, we are very old narod that was never conquered, I am speaking of Old Great Bulgaria the second state, and also the first state that is a continuity in Balkans and Central Europe. Before we lived behind Ottoman Empire or even Polish Commonwealth, Russian Empire or even Austro Hungarian Empire briefly these westerners did not encounter our ancestors, but they still write in historical chronicles we are Turkic from Altai, possibly related to Seljuk Turks when we are Iranic from Balhara (Tajikistan and Afghanistan) and conquered and incorporated many Turkics and others in our 26 centuries of migratory and settlement history.

One case that applies to your quote above is this statement on the power of the Bulgarian army "They are the only ones Alexander III of Macedon couldn't captivate after many attempts, they pushed him few times and he decided to make a peaceful agreement. Something very interesting - he married 10 thousands of his soldiers with 10 thousands of Balharian women." This was done to create the Vlach race when the I2 Mycenaean Greeks (known as Dragoviti in the Slavosphere, inhabiting Macedonia and Thessaly in ancient times) inherit the Irano Turkic womans of the Asian Bulgars to make Vlach population in the Balkans. These can be confirmed by the I2 Vlachs living in Greek and Macedonian mountains and the I2 populace strong in all the Bulgarian Empire lands until this modern days. Also there you have Yugoslavians (some with PH908) who can be those descendants of Mycenaean Greeks population of Central Balkans known as Dacians, that couldn't resist the Romans and were not skilled in mountain warfare for generations to come as those within the Bulgarosphere who resisted their opponents with stronger defense always.

What they don't teach in western history is that Mycenaeans could have been Slavic or Bulgaric but they teach people who cluster with island Greeks to write fake history about us all the time, in a textbook or a chatroom is all the same.

Aspar
08-27-2020, 05:40 PM
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 13 (L618 x 6; L618>V13 x 3; Z830 x 1; Z830>M123 x 1; Z1902 x 1; M96 x 1)

G x 5 (PF3148 x 1; PF3148>L91 x 1; P303 x 1; L497 x 1; L497>Z1815 x 1)

R1b x 3 (Z2103 x 1; U106 x 1; U152>L2>Z367 x 1)

R1a x 2 (Z2124>Z2122 x 1; Z2124>Z2123 x 1)

J x 2 (M304 x 1; L24 x 1)

T x 1 (M184)

I1 x 1 (M253)

I2 x 1 (L596)


Timacum Minus, Slog necropolis - 10 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 3 (M35 x 1; L618 x 1; L618>V13 x 1)

J x 3 (M304 x 1; M410 x 1; M241 x 1)

R1b x 2 (Z2103 x 1; Z2103>CTS1450 x 1)

G x 1 (CTS342>FGC12126)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):

I2 x 2 (M423 x 2)

E x 1 (L618)

J x 1 (M304)

R1b x 1 (P312>DF99)


Lepenski Vir - 2:

E x 1 (M35) - Serbia_Roman

J x 1 (M102) - Serbia_Medieval


Mediana - 2 (labeled Serbia_Gepid):

G x 1 (P287)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Gomolava - 1 (labeled Serbia_Medieval):

I2 x 1 (M423>L621>CTS4002)

Are these SNP confirmed or just predicted from STR markers?

Moldovlah
08-27-2020, 06:02 PM
Yes, probably the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people happened on the territory of modern Romania but that doesn't mean that these steppe people who settled in Romania encountered a Vlach population there. Infact, modern Wallachia was known as Cumania up to the beginning of the 13th century when the Mongols invaded the territory of modern Romania and the Cumans had to flee in all directions in order to save their lives.

Where did you claim the Cumans dispersed? Provide a source of Cumans defeat to Mongols in Europe and there dispersion afterwards, what was the end result of their dispersion and were they even defeated or did they migrate into Bulgaria for another reason. You did not provide any source so who knows what you are claiming.

Ok here is something to counter your story that you were telling, "Groups of the Cumans settled and mingled with the local populations in regions of the Balkans, those Cumans that settled in the Balkans, were the founders of three successive Bulgarian dynasties Asenids, Sismanids, Terterids. And the Wallachian dynasty, Basarabids. But in the case of the Basarab and Asenid dynasties, medieval documents refer to them as Vlach or Romanian, dynasties." And you know who is Basarabid Vlach, actually who cares who is Basarabid Vlach but he knows alot about the history.

Content debasing certain ethnic groups has been deleted.

Pribislav
08-27-2020, 07:15 PM
Are these SNP confirmed or just predicted from STR markers?

All samples were 1240K sequenced at Reich Lab, so they are SNP confirmed. They obviously haven't paid much attention to Y-haplogroups, so we'll have to wait for paper to be published to check the BAM files for downstream SNPs.

Pribislav
08-27-2020, 08:08 PM
One more thing, I've only seen samples from Serbia, but this paper should be massive, with hundreds of samples from all across the Roman Empire, so we can expect samples from other Balkan countries as well. I'm pretty sure there will be samples from Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Greece and Hungary, but I'm hoping there will also be some from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegowina, Montenegro, Albania and Romania.

digital_noise
08-27-2020, 08:12 PM
One more thing, I've only seen samples from Serbia, but this paper should be massive, with hundreds of samples from all across the Roman Empire, so we can expect samples from other Balkan countries as well. I'm pretty sure there will be samples from Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece and Hungary, but I'm hoping there will also be some from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegowina, Montenegro, Albania and Romania.

Do you happen to know the title of the paper so I can follow along?

Hawk
08-27-2020, 08:23 PM
Almost ~45-50% E-V13 from Viminacium.

Pribislav
08-27-2020, 08:24 PM
Do you happen to know the title of the paper so I can follow along?

I have no idea what will be the title of the paper, nor when will it be published. I only know it will be huge (if the information I got is correct).

Dorkymon
08-27-2020, 09:11 PM
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 13 (L618 x 6; L618>V13 x 3; Z830 x 1; Z830>M123 x 1; Z1902 x 1; M96 x 1)

G x 5 (PF3148 x 1; PF3148>L91 x 1; P303 x 1; L497 x 1; L497>Z1815 x 1)

R1b x 3 (Z2103 x 1; U106 x 1; U152>L2>Z367 x 1)

R1a x 2 (Z2124>Z2122 x 1; Z2124>Z2123 x 1)

J x 2 (M304 x 1; L24 x 1)

T x 1 (M184)

I1 x 1 (M253)

I2 x 1 (L596)


Timacum Minus, Slog necropolis - 10 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 3 (M35 x 1; L618 x 1; L618>V13 x 1)

J x 3 (M304 x 1; M410 x 1; M241 x 1)

R1b x 2 (Z2103 x 1; Z2103>CTS1450 x 1)

G x 1 (CTS342>FGC12126)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


By chance or not, 30% of the samples could belong to E-V13 at both Roman sites (9 out of 28 at Viminacium and 3 out of 10 at Timacum). It's also interesting to see both J2a and J2b.

oz
08-27-2020, 11:33 PM
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 13 (L618 x 6; L618>V13 x 3; Z830 x 1; Z830>M123 x 1; Z1902 x 1; M96 x 1)

G x 5 (PF3148 x 1; PF3148>L91 x 1; P303 x 1; L497 x 1; L497>Z1815 x 1)

R1b x 3 (Z2103 x 1; U106 x 1; U152>L2>Z367 x 1)

R1a x 2 (Z2124>Z2122 x 1; Z2124>Z2123 x 1)

J x 2 (M304 x 1; L24 x 1)

T x 1 (M184)

I1 x 1 (M253)

I2 x 1 (L596)


Timacum Minus, Slog necropolis - 10 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 3 (M35 x 1; L618 x 1; L618>V13 x 1)

J x 3 (M304 x 1; M410 x 1; M241 x 1)

R1b x 2 (Z2103 x 1; Z2103>CTS1450 x 1)

G x 1 (CTS342>FGC12126)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):

I2 x 2 (M423 x 2)

E x 1 (L618)

J x 1 (M304)

R1b x 1 (P312>DF99)


Lepenski Vir - 2:

E x 1 (M35) - Serbia_Roman

J x 1 (M102) - Serbia_Medieval


Mediana - 2 (labeled Serbia_Gepid):

G x 1 (P287)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Gomolava - 1 (labeled Serbia_Medieval):

I2 x 1 (M423>L621>CTS4002)

Nice to see I1 again in Roman and Medieval times. I'd like more information on who these people were or might have been. I see there's a Gepid but it's Z58 and a G which are not too common in Serbia today. Maybe some of these I1 will be Z63 and good coverage to test for deeper snps. If not, I'll be salty AF!

eastara
08-28-2020, 04:23 AM
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 13 (L618 x 6; L618>V13 x 3; Z830 x 1; Z830>M123 x 1; Z1902 x 1; M96 x 1)

G x 5 (PF3148 x 1; PF3148>L91 x 1; P303 x 1; L497 x 1; L497>Z1815 x 1)

R1b x 3 (Z2103 x 1; U106 x 1; U152>L2>Z367 x 1)

R1a x 2 (Z2124>Z2122 x 1; Z2124>Z2123 x 1)

J x 2 (M304 x 1; L24 x 1)

T x 1 (M184)

I1 x 1 (M253)

I2 x 1 (L596)


Timacum Minus, Slog necropolis - 10 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 3 (M35 x 1; L618 x 1; L618>V13 x 1)

J x 3 (M304 x 1; M410 x 1; M241 x 1)

R1b x 2 (Z2103 x 1; Z2103>CTS1450 x 1)

G x 1 (CTS342>FGC12126)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):

I2 x 2 (M423 x 2)

E x 1 (L618)

J x 1 (M304)

R1b x 1 (P312>DF99)


Lepenski Vir - 2:

E x 1 (M35) - Serbia_Roman

J x 1 (M102) - Serbia_Medieval


Mediana - 2 (labeled Serbia_Gepid):

G x 1 (P287)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Gomolava - 1 (labeled Serbia_Medieval):

I2 x 1 (M423>L621>CTS4002)


Thank you very much, this is good information. However, the question is are those haplogroups representative of the previous local population or just for the Roman military class and colonists. I know of a Bulgarian study Ethnic and Social Composition of the Roman Army IN MOESIA INFERIOR

https://www.academia.edu/5484643/Ethnic_and_Social_Composition_of_the_Roman_Army_%D 0%95%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0% B8_%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0% B5%D0%BD_%D1%81%D1%8A%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0% BD%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8 2%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%92_%D0% A2%D1%8A%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%A4%D0%B 0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80_2013_442_pages

The author tried to work out the ethnicity from Roman necropolises around the Danube limes according to the names on the tombstones.

The summarized information from the examination of the tombstones of Roman veterans and soldiers of actual military service allows us to outline the following
trends related to the origin of the servicemen in the Lower Moesian army in the period I - beginning of IV century:
- in the I century most of the soldiers are of western origin, and some of them
originate from the Italian peninsula;
- by the end of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd century, Italians were no longer registered, and those
originating from Gaul, Spain, North Africa and Germany continued to predominate;
- in the first century there was a significant presence of soldiers from Macedonia
or other areas with old Romanization;
- as early as the second half of the first century, recruits from the
Asia Minor and eastern provinces of the empire began to enter . This process
continued in the first half of the second century;
- among the soldiers from the auxiliary troops from the second half of the I - first
half of the II century are registered soldiers from the places of initial
recruitment of the military unit - Germans, Gauls, Anatolians, etc .;
- As early as the beginning of the 2nd century, soldiers of local
origin began to be registered . This process intensified over time and at the end of the second
half of the third half of the third century the soldiers of local origin became the dominant
part of the servicemen in the Lower Moesian army;
- in the second century, "local" origin should be understood as soldiers who are
born in the countryside. In many cases, these are the heirs of veterans who started
their families in these lands, or the heirs of a previously Romanized
population that came to the province as early as the first or second century from the Balkan or Asia Minor provinces of the empire;
- in the second half of the 2nd century, initially in the auxiliary troops, and from the end of the
century - in the legions, the Thracian ethnic element began to be felt more and more ;
- in the time of the Severs and decades after that the soldiers of Thracian origin entered widely in the Lower Moesian army;
- at the end of the 2nd century and throughout the 3rd century, persons with
Italian and Eastern (of Greek origin) names, who are probably
heirs of the deeply Romanized and Hellenized population in the province;
- the tombstones from the province remain open the question of the
ratio between the local Thracian and the local non-Thracian population in the army of the province;
- towards the end of the 3rd - the beginning of the 4th century the Thracian names (preserved in the 3rd century as
cognomen) began to disappear from the inscriptions. The process illustrates the
deep processes of Romanization among the Thracian population, which
gradually led not only to their full-fledged, but also to their full inclusion in the political, economic and cultural life of the empire;
- at the end of the 3rd - beginning of the 4th century they started to appear in the tombstones
and the first names of Gothic origin, which illustrate the changes in the ethnic composition of the Lower Danube provinces. The tendency
of a Gothic ethnic element to join the army will continue throughout the 4th century and will change its composition by the end of the century.

Riverman
08-28-2020, 09:18 AM
Thank you for that summary. I asked the same question, but it will obviously depend on the burial context, whether we can assume they were locals or not. So the archaeological background of the samples might be of importance.

Dorkymon
08-28-2020, 10:04 AM
Thank you very much, this is good information. However, the question is are those haplogroups representative of the previous local population or just for the Roman military class and colonists.

Dacians and Getae practiced cremation instead of inhumation, but maybe that practice changed in Viminacium as they kept climbing the social ladder and tried to integrate into the Roman society.

Kelmendasi
08-28-2020, 11:42 AM
Thank you very much, this is good information. However, the question is are those haplogroups representative of the previous local population or just for the Roman military class and colonists. I know of a Bulgarian study Ethnic and Social Composition of the Roman Army IN MOESIA INFERIOR

https://www.academia.edu/5484643/Ethnic_and_Social_Composition_of_the_Roman_Army_%D 0%95%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0% B8_%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0% B5%D0%BD_%D1%81%D1%8A%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0% BD%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8 2%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%92_%D0% A2%D1%8A%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%A4%D0%B 0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80_2013_442_pages

The author tried to work out the ethnicity from Roman necropolises around the Danube limes according to the names on the tombstones.

The summarized information from the examination of the tombstones of Roman veterans and soldiers of actual military service allows us to outline the following
trends related to the origin of the servicemen in the Lower Moesian army in the period I - beginning of IV century:
- in the I century most of the soldiers are of western origin, and some of them
originate from the Italian peninsula;
- by the end of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd century, Italians were no longer registered, and those
originating from Gaul, Spain, North Africa and Germany continued to predominate;
- in the first century there was a significant presence of soldiers from Macedonia
or other areas with old Romanization;
- as early as the second half of the first century, recruits from the
Asia Minor and eastern provinces of the empire began to enter . This process
continued in the first half of the second century;
- among the soldiers from the auxiliary troops from the second half of the I - first
half of the II century are registered soldiers from the places of initial
recruitment of the military unit - Germans, Gauls, Anatolians, etc .;
- As early as the beginning of the 2nd century, soldiers of local
origin began to be registered . This process intensified over time and at the end of the second
half of the third half of the third century the soldiers of local origin became the dominant
part of the servicemen in the Lower Moesian army;
- in the second century, "local" origin should be understood as soldiers who are
born in the countryside. In many cases, these are the heirs of veterans who started
their families in these lands, or the heirs of a previously Romanized
population that came to the province as early as the first or second century from the Balkan or Asia Minor provinces of the empire;
- in the second half of the 2nd century, initially in the auxiliary troops, and from the end of the
century - in the legions, the Thracian ethnic element began to be felt more and more ;
- in the time of the Severs and decades after that the soldiers of Thracian origin entered widely in the Lower Moesian army;
- at the end of the 2nd century and throughout the 3rd century, persons with
Italian and Eastern (of Greek origin) names, who are probably
heirs of the deeply Romanized and Hellenized population in the province;
- the tombstones from the province remain open the question of the
ratio between the local Thracian and the local non-Thracian population in the army of the province;
- towards the end of the 3rd - the beginning of the 4th century the Thracian names (preserved in the 3rd century as
cognomen) began to disappear from the inscriptions. The process illustrates the
deep processes of Romanization among the Thracian population, which
gradually led not only to their full-fledged, but also to their full inclusion in the political, economic and cultural life of the empire;
- at the end of the 3rd - beginning of the 4th century they started to appear in the tombstones
and the first names of Gothic origin, which illustrate the changes in the ethnic composition of the Lower Danube provinces. The tendency
of a Gothic ethnic element to join the army will continue throughout the 4th century and will change its composition by the end of the century.
There's this interesting paper that covers the burials of soldiers in Viminacium; https://www.academia.edu/6897483/SOLDIER_BURIALS_WITH_WEAPONS_AT_VIMINACIUM_CEMETER Y. It is stated that legionary soldiers were an active part of the population of this city and that the majority of these legionaries were from the Legio VII Claudia; which was based in Viminacium from AD 58 till the 4th century, possibly replacing the older Legio IV Scythica. The city also hosted the Legio IV Flavia Felix for some time. As for the ethnic origins of these legionaries, it seems to have been rather mixed between locals of the Balkans and soldiers from the other Roman provinces (with some even coming from the Near East). During the 2nd and 3rd centuries in particular, more troops were recruited from the Balkan provinces of Thracia, Moesia Superior, Macedonia etc.

As for the more general population of the city, this paper does touch on that: https://www.academia.edu/2274871/Territory_of_Roman_Viminacium_From_Celtic_to_Slavi c_Tribes. Typical Dacian ceramics and pottery seem to have been an important element from the 2nd century BC and into the 3rd century AD, all of which were likely locally produced, suggesting a significant Dacian ethnic or cultural element in the city. Though in later periods there seems to have been an influx of migrants, especially from the Greek cultural sphere, into the city as it was flourishing in regards to trade. Interestingly it is mentioned that the more wealthy and luxurious burials are attributed to a wealthy class of migrants from Asia Minor, and that inhumation in general may have been the result of eastern cultural influence. Germanic burials also begin to show up in the 5th and 6th centuries AD.

Pribislav
08-28-2020, 08:47 PM
Here are two papers on Timacum Minus, the first one has detailed descriptions of most of the graves from which are sequenced individuals:

Military Graves from the Late Roman Necropolis at Slog in Ravna (Timacum Minus) (https://www.academia.edu/9853696/Military_Graves_from_the_Late_Roman_Necropolis_at_ Slog_in_Ravna_Timacum_Minus_Starinar_64)

Votive Altar of Lucius Petronius Timachus (https://www.academia.edu/9853963/Votive_Altar_of_Lucius_Petronius_Timachus)

Kelmendasi
08-28-2020, 09:28 PM
Here are two papers on Timacum Minus, the first one has detailed descriptions of most of the graves from which are sequenced individuals:

Military Graves from the Late Roman Necropolis at Slog in Ravna (Timacum Minus) (https://www.academia.edu/9853696/Military_Graves_from_the_Late_Roman_Necropolis_at_ Slog_in_Ravna_Timacum_Minus_Starinar_64)

Votive Altar of Lucius Petronius Timachus (https://www.academia.edu/9853963/Votive_Altar_of_Lucius_Petronius_Timachus)
Very interesting read. I have also found this paper on Timacum Minus: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/126/htm. Here both Legio V Macedonica and Legio IV Scythica were temporarily encamped on their way to the Danube, though under Vespasian the presence of troops in the area became more permanent. Vespasian initially relocated the auxiliary Cohors I Thracum Syriaca from the province of Syria to Timacum Minus, however under the rule of Marcus Aurelius they also were replaced by the Cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum in AD 169. As the name suggests, this cohort was made up of auxiliaries from the Roman province of Dardania. What I find especially interesting about this is how J2b-M241 (most certainly L283+) and R1b-CTS1450 show up alongside E-V13.

Also a paper on the auxiliary cohorts stationed in Moesia Superior: https://www.academia.edu/38650516/Auxilia_Moesiae_Superioris.

Ruderico
08-28-2020, 10:23 PM
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 13 (L618 x 6; L618>V13 x 3; Z830 x 1; Z830>M123 x 1; Z1902 x 1; M96 x 1)

Is it possible to know more about this sample? The clade parallel to mine has one individual from Bulgaria and another possible one from western Serbia, both Vlachs

Pribislav
08-28-2020, 10:40 PM
Is it possible to know more about this sample? The clade parallel to mine has one individual from Bulgaria and another possible one from western Serbia, both Vlachs.

This is everything I have:

I15526; 0-300 AD; Viminacium, Vise Grobalja Necropolis; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; E1b1b1b2a1d-Z830>M123; mt: H13a2b2; skeletal ID: G-2307

Kelmendasi
08-28-2020, 10:47 PM
This is everything I have:

I15526; 0-300 AD; Viminacium, Vise Grobalja Necropolis; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; E1b1b1b2a1d-Z830>M123; mt: H13a2b2; skeletal ID: G-2307
Is there any information on the J2b-M241, R1b-CTS1450 and E-V13 samples from Timacum Minus?

Pribislav
08-28-2020, 11:20 PM
Is there any information on the J2b-M241, R1b-CTS1450 and E-V13 samples from Timacum Minus?

I15551; 350-380 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase I; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; R1b1a1a2a2-Z2103; mt: T1a; Grave No. 91

I15553; 350-380 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase I; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; E1b1b1a1b1a-V13; mt: T2b25; Grave No. 99

I15544; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; E1b1b1a1b1-L618; mt: HV9; Grave No. 15

I15548; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; J2b2a-M241; mt: W+194; Grave No. 28

I15552; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II Serbia; Serbia_Roman; R1b1a1a2a2c1a1a-CTS1450; mt: H1c; Grave No. 97

39225

eastara
08-29-2020, 12:08 AM
One of the main questions Balkanians are asking is when I2a-Dinaric became prevailing here. It is obvious from those results that it is absent from the Roman era population. However did it arrive predominantly with Slavs or other ethnicities like Goths are involved?
Prebislav, could you, please share more details about:
Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):
I2 x 2 (M423 x 2) Could it be Dinaric???
Gomolava - 1 (labeled Serbia_Medieval):
I2 x 1 (M423>L621>CTS4002)

My brother is haplogroup I2-L596 Balkan cluster, common in a small area of Western Bulgaria and Eastern Serbia, so my theories it was brought from Anatolia in Roman times may be correct:
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):
I2 x 1 (L596)

J Man
08-29-2020, 12:28 AM
I15551; 350-380 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase I; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; R1b1a1a2a2-Z2103; mt: T1a; Grave No. 91

I15553; 350-380 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase I; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; E1b1b1a1b1a-V13; mt: T2b25; Grave No. 99

I15544; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; E1b1b1a1b1-L618; mt: HV9; Grave No. 15

I15548; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; J2b2a-M241; mt: W+194; Grave No. 28

I15552; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II Serbia; Serbia_Roman; R1b1a1a2a2c1a1a-CTS1450; mt: H1c; Grave No. 97

39225

How about the J2a samples?

Pribislav
08-29-2020, 12:51 AM
One of the main questions Balkanians are asking is when I2a-Dinaric became prevailing here. It is obvious from those results that it is absent from the Roman era population. However did it arrive predominantly with Slavs or other ethnicities like Goths are involved?
Prebislav, could you, please share more details about:
Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):
I2 x 2 (M423 x 2) Could it be Dinaric???
Gomolava - 1 (labeled Serbia_Medieval):
I2 x 1 (M423>L621>CTS4002)

My brother is haplogroup I2-L596 Balkan cluster, common in a small area of Western Bulgaria and Eastern Serbia, so my theories it was brought from Anatolia in Roman times may be correct:
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):
I2 x 1 (L596)

I think it's likely both M423 samples from Timacum Minus and one sample from Gomolava are I2-Din, but we'll see if they'll have enough downstream SNPs since Y3120 and downstream subclades are poorly covered by 1240K.

39227

Pribislav
08-29-2020, 01:02 AM
How about the J2a samples?

Only one J2a from Slog necropolis:

I15546; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; J2a-M410; mt: L2a1+143+16189+16192; Grave No. 26


mt-haplogroup is the most interesting thing about this sample:

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2a1-a2/ (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2a1-a2/)

EDIT:

There are a Serb and a Croat further downstream:

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2a1k1/ (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2a1k1/)

eastara
08-29-2020, 01:43 AM
Thank you, Pribislav,
However this anthropological study of Early Medieval Kulne necropolis, does not identify the ethnicity of the buried. It is mentioned only that they were warrior type people from the times of Great migrations and were involved in battles like light horsemen. Does this describe the Avars?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341702099_Ranosrednovekovna_nekropola_na_lokalitet u_Timacum_Minus_-_Kuline_Early_Medieval_necropolis_on_the_site_Tima cum_Minus_-_Kuline

eastara
08-29-2020, 01:57 AM
Only one J2a from Slog necropolis:

I15546; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; J2a-M410; mt: L2a1+143+16189+16192; Grave No. 26


mt-haplogroup is the most interesting thing about this sample:

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2a1-a2/ (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2a1-a2/)

EDIT:

There are a Serb and a Croat further downstream:

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2a1k1/ (https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L2a1k1/)

There are also 2 Bulgarians form Western Bulgaria, One has full mito with FTDNA and is an exact match to the Serb L2a1k1

Hawk
08-29-2020, 10:21 AM
Based on current data i can speculate that in Balkans, these Y-DNA were present and/or came during

Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic: G2a, I2a, J2a, E-L618

Early Bronze Age/Middle Bronze Age: + R1b, +R1a, + J2b2

Late Bronze Age: +E-V13

Riverman
08-29-2020, 11:02 AM
Thank you, Pribislav,
However this anthropological study of Early Medieval Kulne necropolis, does not identify the ethnicity of the buried. It is mentioned only that they were warrior type people from the times of Great migrations and were involved in battles like light horsemen. Does this describe the Avars?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341702099_Ranosrednovekovna_nekropola_na_lokalitet u_Timacum_Minus_-_Kuline_Early_Medieval_necropolis_on_the_site_Tima cum_Minus_-_Kuline

Rather Sarmatians, which lived in the region for a long time, were allies of the Romans at times and being military service men quite often. So its possible that these individuals:


I15551; 350-380 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase I; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; R1b1a1a2a2-Z2103; mt: T1a; Grave No. 91

I15553; 350-380 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase I; Serbia; Serbia_Roman; E1b1b1a1b1a-V13; mt: T2b25; Grave No. 99

were Sarmatian?

Grave 97 even more likely so:


I15552; 380-410 AD; Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis, phase II Serbia; Serbia_Roman; R1b1a1a2a2c1a1a-CTS1450; mt: H1c; Grave No. 97

Notice the relationship of the R1b-detected in 91 and 97. I generally think that at that time, a large portion of the inhabitants was from Sarmatians, but these Sarmatians in turm might have assimilated local Danubian people too.

Kelmendasi
08-29-2020, 12:00 PM
Rather Sarmatians, which lived in the region for a long time, were allies of the Romans at times and being military service men quite often. So its possible that this individual:



was a Sarmatian?
In regards to phase I of the Late Roman Slog necropolis, which sample I15553 belonged to, the paper (https://www.academia.edu/9853696/Military_Graves_from_the_Late_Roman_Necropolis_at_ Slog_in_Ravna_Timacum_Minus_Starinar_64) linked by Pribislav suggests this:

"Although the grave finds from phase I of the Slog necropolis do not essentially differ from those from graves of the subsequent phase (Pl. II–III), the component of the regular Roman army is more prominent, which is reflected in the finds of crossbow fibulae (Pl. II, 1, 6) and bronze belt sets (Pl. III, 1-2). Generally, it is possible that they are members of the same military unit, pseudocomitatenses Timacenses auxiliarii or officers of the II Aurelia Dardanorum equestrian cohort, which unquestionably made up the Timacum Minus garrison from the middle of the 2nd to the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century, that is to the Battle of Hadrianopolis in 378. However, what what should not be ruled out are the equestrian units of Numeri Dalmatorum, testified to by stamps on bricks from the 4th phase of the fortification reconstruction, during the period of the reign of Valentinian I and Valens (364-375). That they were really warriors is also confirmed by, among other things, a cut inflicted by a sharp blade, most likely a sword or knife, on the mentum and a fissure of the right tibia (grave 91), an injury on the right femur (grave 99) and a myositis ossificans traumaticanoted on the left tibia (grave 141)."

Out of those equestrian units, the pseudocomitatenses Timacenses auxiliarii are especially mentioned as having an "Alano-Hunnic steppe component". However it's just as likely that these grave burials belonged to the II Aurelia Dardanorum or Numeri Dalmatorum who likely were made up of a more local Balkan component.

Riverman
08-29-2020, 12:30 PM
In regards to phase I of the Late Roman Slog necropolis, which sample I15553 belonged to, the paper (https://www.academia.edu/9853696/Military_Graves_from_the_Late_Roman_Necropolis_at_ Slog_in_Ravna_Timacum_Minus_Starinar_64) linked by Pribislav suggests this:

"Although the grave finds from phase I of the Slog necropolis do not essentially differ from those from graves of the subsequent phase (Pl. II–III), the component of the regular Roman army is more prominent, which is reflected in the finds of crossbow fibulae (Pl. II, 1, 6) and bronze belt sets (Pl. III, 1-2). Generally, it is possible that they are members of the same military unit, pseudocomitatenses Timacenses auxiliarii or officers of the II Aurelia Dardanorum equestrian cohort, which unquestionably made up the Timacum Minus garrison from the middle of the 2nd to the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century, that is to the Battle of Hadrianopolis in 378. However, what what should not be ruled out are the equestrian units of Numeri Dalmatorum, testified to by stamps on bricks from the 4th phase of the fortification reconstruction, during the period of the reign of Valentinian I and Valens (364-375). That they were really warriors is also confirmed by, among other things, a cut inflicted by a sharp blade, most likely a sword or knife, on the mentum and a fissure of the right tibia (grave 91), an injury on the right femur (grave 99) and a myositis ossificans traumaticanoted on the left tibia (grave 141)."

Out of those equestrian units, the pseudocomitatenses Timacenses auxiliarii are especially mentioned as having an "Alano-Hunnic steppe component". However it's just as likely that these grave burials belonged to the II Aurelia Dardanorum or Numeri Dalmatorum who likely were made up of a more local Balkan component.

Grave 97 is almost certainly a Sarmatian, p. 111-112:

The burial with weapons in grave 97 belongs to
phase II of the Slog necropolis, that is to the period after
the Battle of Hadrianopolis, in the last decades of the 4th
and first decade of the 5th century, when the fortification’s
garrison consisted of an equestrian unit of pseudocomitatenses
Timacenses, an auxiliary unit of light
cavalry of the “Alanic type” (Pl. V, G. 97, Pl. VII, 5).90
Devastated grave 27 also belongs to the same phase of
the necropolis, in which dislocated bones of an adult
male individual and a child of about 10 years of age
were discovered, along with parts of a bronze belt set
and the conical shank of a leaf-shaped arrowhead (Pl.
V, G. 27, Pl. VI, 3, Pl. VII, 3). The influence of barbarians
recruited to the aforementioned cavalry unit is
not only reflected in the material culture of this period
of the fortification but also in the grave finds, such as
iron belt buckles with a frame in the shape of the Latin
letter B and a prong that exceeds the frame (Pl. VI, 1,
Pl. VII, 1, 4), a bronze belt buckle of the “Crimean
type”, with a rectangular plate, circular frame and a
prong with a zoomorphic thickening on the tip, which
exceeds the frame (Pl. VI, 3, Pl. VII, 3) and a fluted
glass goblet of a conical shape (Pl. VI, 4), characteristic
of the late phase of the Chernyakhov – Sântana de
Mureº culture.91
Furthermore, in grave 97, in the region of the chest
of the buried individual, an animal bone, part of the
pelvis of a goat or a sheep, was found. This was a remnant
of a posthumous feast, given as an offering to the
deceased. The placement of meat into the grave is not
a part of the Roman burial ritual, whilst posthumous
feasts are characteristic of the funerary cult of the late
phase of the Chernyakhov – Sântana de Mureº culture.92
It is therefore fair to assume that the buried men were
newcomers, most probably recruited from within the
ranks of the Danube foederati. In addition, the type of
the weaponry points to the Gothic foederati from the
Lower Danube, the majority of which made up the
infantry, but also the equestrian units formed under the
influence of Sarmatian tribes, primarily the Alans.

In my opinion, grave 97 is a "fresh Sarmatian" with Gothic influences, while grave 99 represents a more assimilated one - similarly 91, with both having injuries on their legs, more likely for horsemen and stress markers going in the same direction. About them, p. 114:

The warriors buried in the Late Roman Slog necropolis
belonged to an equestrian unit, which is confirmed
by the characteristic stress markers on the osteological
material, particularly in the cases of the deceased buried
in graves 15, 76, 91, 100, 102, 108, 123 and 141. Most
likely these were light cavalry archers (graves 15, 25,
76, 91, 99, 100, 102, 108, 123 and 141) who could
engage similar barbarian units. This is evident in both
the injuries of the individuals from graves 15, 26, 76,
91, 99, 100, 102, 108 and 123, and the weapons placed
in graves 27, 97 and 102. In the case of the deceased
from graves 27 and 97, these are tri-bladed and leafshaped
arrowheads (Pl.VI, 5, Pl. VII, 3, 5–6).

It happened often enough that the Romans recruited similar units from "Barbarians" as the ones they were facing. In the first phase, when Rome was still strong, the new recruits largely assimilated and adopted a lot of the Roman gear, in later times, when the Empire was already disintegrating, whole clans, bands and tribes were coming in as mercenaries and foederati. These did no longer adapt and assimilate as much, but kept their customs and gear completely.
I think it is very likely that at least a large portion of the unit pseudocomitatenses Timacenses were Sarmatians. Its a safe call for 97 and likely for 91 and 99. That doesn't mean, by the way, that the Sarmatians completely annihilated the local Danubian population even beyond the border and likely integrated some of them in their ranks.

R1b-CTS1450 is an interesting clade. Some of its subclades can't be more obviously linked to Sarmatians, like:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-BY71456/

And its quite likely that a large portion of the Gothic V13 too came from Roman provincials, but also Sarmatians, and be it just assimilated Pannonian and Roman provincials. But at the time of the burials, these were "ethnic Sarmatians".

eastara
08-29-2020, 02:25 PM
Rather Sarmatians, which lived in the region for a long time, were allies of the Romans at times and being military service men quite often. So its possible that these individuals:



were Sarmatian?

Grave 97 even more likely so:


Notice the relationship of the R1b-detected in 91 and 97. I generally think that at that time, a large portion of the inhabitants was from Sarmatians, but these Sarmatians in turm might have assimilated local Danubian people too.

I don't think those from Kuline are Sarmathians, which were from much earlier time. This necropolis is indirectly dated after 443, when the Timacum Minus was sacked and destroyed by the Huns. Later the fortress was deserted and the new cemetery was out of the walls.
Who else than the Avars were horse riding nation around that time? Another candidate are the Kutrigurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutrigurs
However they are considered of Turkic and possible East Asian origin, while the buried have European haplogroups on the male and female side. Could be Gepids - from those, who joined the Avars and possibly imitated their lifestyle, or early Slavs doing the same.

Taratorchec
08-29-2020, 02:25 PM
Guys, sorry for the off-topic, but I just can't resist asking as I'm following your posts in the thread. I'm from Bulgaria and recently got my test results that show haplogroup R-P312. I know that it's a broad subclade and I'll take a more specialized Y test in the future, but what is my best bet for the ancient ancestor that brought it here? Romans, Celts or some other group that migrated here? My father is from Knezha( https://www.google.com/maps/place/5835+Knezha/@43.3971164,23.4309174,8z/ ) and we both look way more South-Eastern than Western European, if that helps.

Johnny ola
08-29-2020, 02:50 PM
Guys, sorry for the off-topic, but I just can't resist asking as I'm following your posts in the thread. I'm from Bulgaria and recently got my test results that show haplogroup R-P312. I know that it's a broad subclade and I'll take a more specialized Y test in the future, but what is my best bet for the ancient ancestor that brought it here? Romans, Celts or some other group that migrated here? My father is from Knezha( https://www.google.com/maps/place/5835+Knezha/@43.3971164,23.4309174,8z/ ) and we both look way more South-Eastern than Western European, if that helps.

Ydna has little to do with 'Looks'. It would be better to post something related with your autosomal DNA. Bulgarians genetically are southeast.. It is normal to have a look related with people from southeast Europe.

Riverman
08-29-2020, 02:54 PM
I don't think those from Kuline are Sarmathians, which were from much earlier time. This necropolis is indirectly dated after 443, when the Timacum Minus was sacked and destroyed by the Huns. Later the fortress was deserted and the new cemetery was out of the walls.
Who else than the Avars were horse riding nation around that time? Another candidate are the Kutrigurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutrigurs
However they are considered of Turkic and possible East Asian origin, while the buried have European haplogroups on the male and female side. Could be Gepids - from those, who joined the Avars and possibly imitated their lifestyle, or early Slavs doing the same.

Grave 97 was a Sarmatian, there can be little doubts about that. The haplogroups (paternal & maternal) fit into that too, most likely Sarmatian, otherwise local Pannonian-Balkan origin, no hint for a Hunnic connection. You possibly can connect it to the Huns insofar, as it was Germanics and Sarmatians fleeing from the Hunnic onslaught. The whole cultural context is Gothic & Sarmatian.

Taratorchec
08-29-2020, 02:55 PM
Ydna has little to do with 'Looks'. It would be better to post something related with your autosomal DNA. Bulgarians genetically are southeast.. It is normal to have a look related with people from southeast Europe.

My autosomal results show 87% East Balkans, 11% Northeast Europe and 2% Levant.

Sorry again for the off-topic. I created a thread about it in the R-P312 subforum, but no one answered :unsure:

Johnny ola
08-29-2020, 03:09 PM
My autosomal results show 87% East Balkans, 11% Northeast Europe and 2% Levant.

Sorry again for the off-topic. I created a thread about it in the R-P312 subforum, but no one answered :unsure:

You can also post your k13-k15 from gedmatch, and ofc to buy G25 coordinates from Eurogenes store.

eastara
08-29-2020, 03:34 PM
Grave 97 was a Sarmatian, there can be little doubts about that. The haplogroups (paternal & maternal) fit into that too, most likely Sarmatian, otherwise local Pannonian-Balkan origin, no hint for a Hunnic connection. You possibly can connect it to the Huns insofar, as it was Germanics and Sarmatians fleeing from the Hunnic onslaught. The whole cultural context is Gothic & Sarmatian.

I was talking about the potentially I2a Dinaric from the Kuline necropolis, not Stog. Kuline are only generally dated 450-700, while Stog are precise from the Roman period.

Taratorchec
08-29-2020, 03:36 PM
You can also post your k13-k15 from gedmatch, and ofc to buy G25 coordinates from Eurogenes store.

Here are results from k13

West_Asia 17.46 Pct
NE_Europe 35.17 Pct
Americas 0.27 Pct
Siberia 1.51 Pct
Oceania 0.83 Pct
South_Asia -
NE_Asia 0.69 Pct
East_Africa -
SE_Asia -
SW_Europe 32.75 Pct
SW_Asia 10.45 Pct
West_Africa 0.85 Pct
South_Africa -

and K15

S_Indian 0.16 Pct
Mediterranean 33.53 Pct
Siberian 0.72 Pct
Wht_Nile_River -
Amerindian 0.12 Pct
S_African -
E_Asian -
Caucasian 14.88 Pct
NE_European 42.72 Pct
Omo_River -
W_African 0.89 Pct
Horn_Of_Africa 0.60 Pct
Oceanian 0.39 Pct
Beringian -
SW_Asian 5.96 Pct

Didn't know about this G25 coordinates thingy. I'll check it out.

Johnny ola
08-29-2020, 03:58 PM
Here are results from k13

West_Asia 17.46 Pct
NE_Europe 35.17 Pct
Americas 0.27 Pct
Siberia 1.51 Pct
Oceania 0.83 Pct
South_Asia -
NE_Asia 0.69 Pct
East_Africa -
SE_Asia -
SW_Europe 32.75 Pct
SW_Asia 10.45 Pct
West_Africa 0.85 Pct
South_Africa -

and K15

S_Indian 0.16 Pct
Mediterranean 33.53 Pct
Siberian 0.72 Pct
Wht_Nile_River -
Amerindian 0.12 Pct
S_African -
E_Asian -
Caucasian 14.88 Pct
NE_European 42.72 Pct
Omo_River -
W_African 0.89 Pct
Horn_Of_Africa 0.60 Pct
Oceanian 0.39 Pct
Beringian -
SW_Asian 5.96 Pct

Didn't know about this G25 coordinates thingy. I'll check it out.

You can have a talk with the Bulgarian members, they will help you with both gedmatch and G25.

driM7
08-30-2020, 12:00 PM
I've looked today at the regional Y-DNA profile in Romania, and I'm more confident than not that E-V13 doesn't belong to Carpathian cultures.
Basically the deeper one goes into the mountains, the ratio of J2 to E-V13 moves in favour of J2.

For example in Maramures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maramure%C8%99_County), which is considered the most traditional region of Romania and is situated deep into the Carpathians, 31% of the samples belong to J2 compared to 3% E-V13.
Mehedinti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehedin%C8%9Bi_County) is another county in the Carpathians, but on the other end of the country at the border with Serbia, and here too J2 tips over E-V13 (21% to 14%). They have more E-V13 than those in Maramures, but that's perhaps due to being closer to the Balkans.
Suceava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suceava_County) is another mountainous county in the Carpathians where 14% of the available samples are J2 and none E-V13.

Hence from what I'm seeing for now, the deeper one moves into the mountains, the more diminished the occurrence of E-V13 gets.
Mountains were the territory of transhumance for Vlach shepherds. Since J2 seems to be very popular among the Vlachs South of the Danube (25% out of 208 samples), perhaps they could have introduced it, because in the plains the rate of J2 decreases noticeably.
E-V13 on the other hand seems to fare better in plains, especially once we get closer to Bulgaria. So that could have been the direction from where E-V13 was introduced, perhaps via those alleged Thracians from this study in OP's video.

What we are going to see in Carpathian EBA is probably a lot of I2.
Your comment on "J2 seems to be very popular among the Vlachs South of the Danube (25% out of 208 samples)" - does this mean it is in Bulgaria only and if Serbia is included? Any information on this study as it would be nice to see other haplogroups for these Vlachs, as well as any atDNA data? Thanks

Dorkymon
08-30-2020, 12:08 PM
Your comment on "J2 seems to be very popular among the Vlachs South of the Danube (25% out of 208 samples)" - does this mean it is in Bulgaria only and if Serbia is included? Any information on this study as it would be nice to see other haplogroups for these Vlachs, as well as any atDNA data? Thanks

You can come here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21513-Haplogroup-Distribution-in-Romania-and-Republic-of-Moldova), if you want to discuss this topic. I don't want to derail this thread.
This (http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/5fa/Bosch%202006%20Paternal%20and%20maternal%20lineage s%20in%20the%20Balkans%20show%20a.pdf) is the source for Vlachs/Aromanians. They are from several locations in Albania, North Macedonia and one in Romania. The ones from Romania were brought over by Romanian authorities from Greece and North Macedonia following the Greco-Turkish war in the early 20th century (their original villages in the Balkans were Veria, Vedena, Meglenia and Caterina).
There are autosomal results of Vlachs on the updated K13, and they look like Albanians and Greeks.

driM7
08-30-2020, 01:21 PM
Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):
I1 x 1 (M253)

Timacum Minus, Slog necropolis - 10 (labeled Serbia_Roman):
I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)

Mediana - 2 (labeled Serbia_Gepid):
I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


This is very exciting news! Thank you Pribislav. My I1 haplogroup recently confirmed by FTDNA BigY the following M253 clade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z58/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3568/
to be set under this subclade which currently include 6 matches all from Greece (3 from.Poloponnese):
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-BY206800/

Ir seems to be in parallel with those 3 above findings.
Coincidentally, my family to this day lives close to all of these locations...
Have visited Viminacium in 2015.

Do you have any further details about these results or/direct me to other similar results/papers, etc.?
Thanks!:)

driM7
08-30-2020, 01:59 PM
You can come here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21513-Haplogroup-Distribution-in-Romania-and-Republic-of-Moldova), if you want to discuss this topic. I don't want to derail this thread.
This (http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/5fa/Bosch%202006%20Paternal%20and%20maternal%20lineage s%20in%20the%20Balkans%20show%20a.pdf) is the source for Vlachs/Aromanians. They are from several locations in Albania, North Macedonia and one in Romania. The ones from Romania were brought over by Romanian authorities from Greece and North Macedonia following the Greco-Turkish war in the early 20th century (their original villages in the Balkans were Veria, Vedena, Meglenia and Caterina).
There are autosomal results of Vlachs on the updated K13, and they look like Albanians and Greeks.
Thanks a lot Dorkymon. You read my mind, been wanting to connect to such group. I will connect there and introduce myself.
Cheers

Velislav
08-30-2020, 06:28 PM
Here are results from k13

West_Asia 17.46 Pct
NE_Europe 35.17 Pct
Americas 0.27 Pct
Siberia 1.51 Pct
Oceania 0.83 Pct
South_Asia -
NE_Asia 0.69 Pct
East_Africa -
SE_Asia -
SW_Europe 32.75 Pct
SW_Asia 10.45 Pct
West_Africa 0.85 Pct
South_Africa -

and K15

S_Indian 0.16 Pct
Mediterranean 33.53 Pct
Siberian 0.72 Pct
Wht_Nile_River -
Amerindian 0.12 Pct
S_African -
E_Asian -
Caucasian 14.88 Pct
NE_European 42.72 Pct
Omo_River -
W_African 0.89 Pct
Horn_Of_Africa 0.60 Pct
Oceanian 0.39 Pct
Beringian -
SW_Asian 5.96 Pct

Didn't know about this G25 coordinates thingy. I'll check it out.

Your results are quite normal for Bulgaria, maybe more in line with the Western parts of the country. Can you also post the Eurogenes K13 and 15 as they are more universally acclaimed?

Taratorchec
08-30-2020, 08:13 PM
Your results are quite normal for Bulgaria, maybe more in line with the Western parts of the country. Can you also post the Eurogenes K13 and 15 as they are more universally acclaimed?

Yeah, my parents and all my grandparents that I know are Bulgarians. I just got very surprised by the R-P312 haplogroup. Here are the results from the calculators :

Eurogenes K13

North_Atlantic 24.56 Pct
Baltic 24.74 Pct
West_Med 16.64 Pct
West_Asian 8.09 Pct
East_Med 22.62 Pct
Red_Sea 1.36 Pct
South_Asian -
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.80 Pct
Amerindian -
Oceanian 1.19 Pct
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

and K15

North_Sea 15.24 Pct
Atlantic 16.63 Pct
Baltic 17.85 Pct
Eastern_Euro 8.31 Pct
West_Med 12.19 Pct
West_Asian 8.05 Pct
East_Med 19.20 Pct
Red_Sea 1.61 Pct
South_Asian -
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.89 Pct
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

eastara
08-31-2020, 01:22 AM
Yeah, my parents and all my grandparents that I know are Bulgarians. I just got very surprised by the R-P312 haplogroup.
-

If LivingDNA has assigned you to P312 only, this means you are some highly unusual branch in this already over-tested haplogroup. Could be something old on he Balkans and not coming with Celts, etc.
Today is the last day of the FTDNA sale. Order at least 37 STR to see who are your matches.

Velislav
08-31-2020, 02:11 AM
Yeah, my parents and all my grandparents that I know are Bulgarians. I just got very surprised by the R-P312 haplogroup. Here are the results from the calculators :

Eurogenes K13

North_Atlantic 24.56 Pct
Baltic 24.74 Pct
West_Med 16.64 Pct
West_Asian 8.09 Pct
East_Med 22.62 Pct
Red_Sea 1.36 Pct
South_Asian -
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.80 Pct
Amerindian -
Oceanian 1.19 Pct
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

and K15

North_Sea 15.24 Pct
Atlantic 16.63 Pct
Baltic 17.85 Pct
Eastern_Euro 8.31 Pct
West_Med 12.19 Pct
West_Asian 8.05 Pct
East_Med 19.20 Pct
Red_Sea 1.61 Pct
South_Asian -
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.89 Pct
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

Yes, just normal Bulgarian Gedmatch results.

R-P312 however is a broad term - you will have to test it further if you are interested and you wish to invest in that. But never forget that the Y-chromosome is only a small fraction of your DNA and does not contribute to your autosomal DNA (which is let say what Gedmatch is showing you). If you had a single foreign ancestor, his DNA contribution to you will disappear in 6-7 generations. So the haplogroup may be the sole survivor of his legacy. If that foreign ancestor arrived with a tribe or multiple kinsmen, then the autosomal impact will be present for way more than 6-7 generations. You can check your local village/region history.

Taratorchec
08-31-2020, 10:21 AM
Yes, just normal Bulgarian Gedmatch results.

R-P312 however is a broad term - you will have to test it further if you are interested and you wish to invest in that. But never forget that the Y-chromosome is only a small fraction of your DNA and does not contribute to your autosomal DNA (which is let say what Gedmatch is showing you). If you had a single foreign ancestor, his DNA contribution to you will disappear in 6-7 generations. So the haplogroup may be the sole survivor of his legacy. If that foreign ancestor arrived with a tribe or multiple kinsmen, then the autosomal impact will be present for way more than 6-7 generations. You can check your local village/region history.

Nice. Proud to be Bulgarian!

Yeah, I'll most likely take a Y test in the future. Didn't know that the ancient ancestor's contribution disappears in a few generations. Still, the Y haplogroup is an interesting information about the fatherline's beginnings. The thing with my father's town history is that there was a Roman settlement, but also according to the Wiki page, there were migrations of Celts and Illyrians(who as far as I know also have some Celtic admixture). Guess that for now I'll just make a very raw assumption that my fatherline's beginning was Roman, since I'm kind of a Roman fanboy myself :biggrin1:

Thank you everyone for the help! :)

Velislav
08-31-2020, 11:40 AM
Nice. Proud to be Bulgarian!

Yeah, I'll most likely take a Y test in the future. Didn't know that the ancient ancestor's contribution disappears in a few generations. Still, the Y haplogroup is an interesting information about the fatherline's beginnings. The thing with my father's town history is that there was a Roman settlement, but also according to the Wiki page, there were migrations of Celts and Illyrians(who as far as I know also have some Celtic admixture). Guess that for now I'll just make a very raw assumption that my fatherline's beginning was Roman, since I'm kind of a Roman fanboy myself :biggrin1:

Thank you everyone for the help! :)

That's very interesting but one quick note - haplogroups may also disappear in a long time period - no boys born in the family, wars and other disasters - so my suggestion would be to check the more recent history as well, i mean from the Middle ages to XIX century. Btw for the early medieval period the best book would be Dimitar Angelov's "Obrazuvane na Bulgarskata narodnost", where he describes the known ethnic contributions to the formation of our state. You can find legal pdf uploaded on the internet.