PDA

View Full Version : Why is E-V13 so confusing?



Pages : [1] 2

Aahmes
10-08-2020, 02:04 PM
Hello, I have done a bit of research on Y-DNA and I think I have a good grasp on the main concepts and ideas. But I have many questions about haplogroup E-V13.

Firstly: What is the actual modern frequency map of E-V13?
40112
40113

These are the two maps I see used the most. The first one from Wikipedia the second one from Eupedia. I saw that the one from Wikipedia is from a legitimate but old scientific study, while the one from Eupedia is more recent but I couldn't find how they got it. I feel like the Eupedian map is more accurate because it has British and Spanish regions. Is there no new and accurate map for E-V13? I don't know exactly how these maps are created though (I assume they use samples from populations).

My second question: Why is the Middle Eastern component of E-V13 ignored a lot in discussion and what can it tell us?

It seems that at around E-BY5786 the E-V13 samples become exclusively Arabian. This includes all the Druze E-V13 samples I was able to find on the FTDNA Druze Project. This haplogroup has a TMRCA of 3200 - 1750. In addition to this the FTDNA has a lot of Arabian samples that occur all around the European parts of E-V13.
I have heard people say that the Arabian E-V13 could be from Byzantine or Roman soldiers, how plausible is this?

Related to that is, how come E-V13 is mostly in Europe while all of it's sibling clades are mostly in the MENA region? E-V65, E-V22, and E-V12 all seem to be in the MENA region while E-V13 is in Europe. I don't know if it's just me but I feel like that is unusual.

My third question: Why is E-V13 not common in Afroasiatic speakers like the rest of E-M35?

I feel like E-V13 is an anomaly in some ways in Y-DNA, though I guess all haplogroups probably have their own quirks and mysteries.

Shanck
10-08-2020, 03:38 PM
Firstly: What is the actual modern frequency map of E-V13?
Eupedia map is more accurate here, for example as you already mentioned E-V13 is present in the isles and it accounts for 1-3% of men living in England, Wales and Ireland so the creator got it right here. Same for the near absence within the Basque regions.


My second question: Why is the Middle Eastern component of E-V13 ignored a lot in discussion and what can it tell us?
Because the diversity in Europe points to an origin from Europe. "Middle Easterners" who belong to E-V13 usually belong to young subclades, which usually go back to the Greco-Roman period in antiquity. A very small portion of E-V13 might be from the crusades especially in Lebanese and Palestinians.


Related to that is, how come E-V13 is mostly in Europe while all of it's sibling clades are mostly in the MENA region? E-V65, E-V22, and E-V12 all seem to be in the MENA region while E-V13 is in Europe. I don't know if it's just me but I feel like that is unusual.

My third question: Why is E-V13 not common in Afroasiatic speakers like the rest of E-M35?
The mystery everyone is discussing.
What we know so far is E-V13's entry to Europe seems to be Neolithic, as it was found in Spain and other places in the Neolithic. But the dispersal happened sometime in the Bronze age (5500 to 4000 years before present) from the Balkans or central Europe. But we really need more ancient DNA before being too certain about anything.

Grossvater
10-08-2020, 03:53 PM
This haplogroup has me puzzled, too. My great-grandfather, whose direct male ancestors lived in the woods a few miles north of Dresden in Saxony, carried the E-V13 haplogroup. How did this lineage end up in that part of Eastern Germany?

I sometimes wonder if the maps of the current distribution of a haplogroup actually do not reflect the true ancient distribution of a haplogroup. Could the current evidence simply reflect that the males of a particular lineage were just spectacularly successful in producing progeny in a certain area over the last millenium but the true history of the lineage lies elsewhere?

Riverman
10-08-2020, 03:56 PM
Eupedia is more correct, based on more recent results, whereas the older map is by far too schematic. I had a recent debate starting with Pannonian ancient DNA and what it means for E-V13, there we discussed possible scenarios.


My second question: Why is the Middle Eastern component of E-V13 ignored a lot in discussion and what can it tell us?

It seems that at around E-BY5786 the E-V13 samples become exclusively Arabian. This includes all the Druze E-V13 samples I was able to find on the FTDNA Druze Project. This haplogroup has a TMRCA of 3200 - 1750. In addition to this the FTDNA has a lot of Arabian samples that occur all around the European parts of E-V13.
I have heard people say that the Arabian E-V13 could be from Byzantine or Roman soldiers, how plausible is this?

Just look at the TMRCA and the closest clades within V13:
https://yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/

Its very clear this is a historical spread, most likely due to an individual or group of Greeks or Romans. The timing is perfect and at the root sits a North Italian. There were Roman soldiers and traders, many going beyond the borders of the Empire, some actually even fleeing from it.


Related to that is, how come E-V13 is mostly in Europe while all of it's sibling clades are mostly in the MENA region? E-V65, E-V22, and E-V12 all seem to be in the MENA region while E-V13 is in Europe. I don't know if it's just me but I feel like that is unusual.

That's easiest to explain, because not just E-V13 or its direct ancestor came to Europe, but a whole group of E's. You can see that with subclades and branches from the other E's having lived in Europe too. E-V13 was probably born in Europe and it spread the most successfully in and from Europe. Imagine this like a group of brothers emigrating to a new country, some die, some survive, but don't do well, but one of them becomes a billionaire. Same with V13, it survived the changes and expanded big time in the Bronze Age, whereas other clades either survived or died off.


My third question: Why is E-V13 not common in Afroasiatic speakers like the rest of E-M35?

Because the ANCESTOR of V13 moved to Anatolia or Europe, it didn't exist anywhere else but in Europe/Anatolia. M35 is very old diversified, which means its splits predate many major linguistic formations. Like when V13 was split from the Near Eastern clades, there was not even Indo-European around. It didn't exist, only some kind of precursor.


I feel like E-V13 is an anomaly in some ways in Y-DNA, though I guess all haplogroups probably have their own quirks and mysteries.

There are many such cases like E-V13, like in Europe I1 in particular, which, at one point in time, might have almost died out, but then used a chance to become very successful. Same here, V13 just used the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age transitions to spread beyond its small core zone, in which it might have barely survived before. But this is true for many lineages, some were successful and now they are dead, others almost died out and now they count hundreds of millions of carriers. That's population dynamics and biological as well as cultural selection at work. Those which don't adapt in time get replaced and those which can might expand big time, like R1a in India for example.


This haplogroup has me puzzled, too. My great-grandfather, whose direct male ancestors lived in the woods a few miles north of Dresden in Saxony, carried the E-V13 haplogroup. How did this lineage end up in that part of Eastern Germany?

I sometimes wonder if the maps of the current distribution of a haplogroup actually do not reflect the true ancient distribution of a haplogroup. Could the current evidence simply reflect that the males of a particular lineage were just spectacularly successful in producing progeny in a certain area over the last millenium but the true history of the lineage lies elsewhere?

Why? The region had three ancestral groups in particular:
- Incoming Western Germans (especially South West has significant E-V13)
- Migration period Germanics and Slavs (both had E-V13)
- Vlachs from the mountains (have E-V13).

So all major contributors to the local ancestry had V13.

Question is rather which subclade.

Hawk
10-08-2020, 04:31 PM
I think the origin was somewhere in Switzerland/Austria/Hungary triangle during Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age where it was sheltering in the Alps, previously coming from Western Mediterranean during Late Neolithic, because i believe E-V13 mutation happened more in the West while the E-L618 Balkan lineages didn't mutate to E-V13 and died out during Yamnaya invasion.

During Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age it massively expanded to Balkans and Carpathians.

Could be wrong though. It might also be that it was originally a South Balkans lineage exiled by R1b Z2103 Yamnayas. Everything could be possible when we know that single man living in Early Bronze Age is the forefather.

DgidguBidgu
10-08-2020, 04:51 PM
This haplogroup has me puzzled, too. My great-grandfather, whose direct male ancestors lived in the woods a few miles north of Dresden in Saxony, carried the E-V13 haplogroup. How did this lineage end up in that part of Eastern Germany?

I sometimes wonder if the maps of the current distribution of a haplogroup actually do not reflect the true ancient distribution of a haplogroup. Could the current evidence simply reflect that the males of a particular lineage were just spectacularly successful in producing progeny in a certain area over the last millenium but the true history of the lineage lies elsewhere?

Here is written about cohors II Thracum relocated from Germany to Britain.

“Thracian soldiers in Roman Britain. Epigraphic evidence for the presence of individual Thracian soldiers, as well as for Thracian military units of the Roman army, is found in several locations in Britain.... The cohors I Thracum eq. (mounted cohort of Thracian cavalry), is recorded on a tombstone in Cologne from the first century; this unit had moved to Britain by 122 and was still there under Severus (r. 193-211). The cohors II Thracum moved from Germany to Britain between the mid-first century and CE 103, perhaps as a result of the Bouddican revolt. Only one seventh cohort is known, the cohors VII Thracum. It was attested in Britain in 122 and 135 and in Brittania Inferior (corresponding to northern England, with its capital at York) in the third century. Among the alae (“wings” of cavalry), the ala I Thracum was attested in Britain in 103 and 124; tombstones from Colchester (about CE 45) and Cirencester (CE 62) attest to the unit’s presence in Britain in the mid-first century and an engraved trulla (washbasin or ladle), possibly Flavian….”

Riverman
10-08-2020, 05:19 PM
I think the origin was somewhere in Switzerland/Austria/Hungary
triangle during Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age where it was sheltering in the Alps, previously coming from Western Mediterranean during Late Neolithic, because i believe E-V13 mutation happened more in the West while the E-L618 Balkan lineages didn't mutate to E-V13 and died out during Yamnaya invasion.

During Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age it massively expanded to Balkans and Carpathians.

Could be wrong though. It might also be that it was originally a South Balkans lineage exiled by R1b Z2103 Yamnayas. Everything could be possible when we know that single man living in Early Bronze Age is the forefather.

I rather think that E-V13 was picked or just left alone as a folk of miners and metal workers in the Northern Carpathian region. Later it used the LBA changes first to expand and was ultimately even pushed South. That's why originally you don't find it in Pannonia or Thrace, but in the Iron Age its there. These are Illyro-Thracian people moving South at the LBA-EIA transition and V13 seems to have been, somehow, someway, been a big part of this people and their movements. With the iron metal work, again as specialists, they spread to the Celts too and some made it to Slavs and Iranians in a similar way.
But probably I'm wrong, we just need to test Teleac-Gava remains to find out:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21853-Prehistory-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-from-the-perspective-of-archeogenetics&p=707022&viewfull=1#post707022

Either they have it or not. But if not, I would be confused, because imho the Bosut-Basarabi complex must have had it already, because from there you have a direct tradition to the local Thracian and Illyrian tribes, which are supposed to have it.

Aahmes
10-08-2020, 06:41 PM
Its very clear this is a historical spread, most likely due to an individual or group of Greeks or Romans. The timing is perfect and at the root sits a North Italian. There were Roman soldiers and traders, many going beyond the borders of the Empire, some actually even fleeing from it.

The timings add up to this, but are there actual examples of this happening? How would they assimilate so effortlessly with arabs in 500 years time? Why would they even go to Arabia?

Hawk
10-08-2020, 06:46 PM
Most of E-V13 in the Balkans and in the Middle East is subsequently as a result of the Sea People invasion.

digital_noise
10-08-2020, 06:54 PM
Most of E-V13 in the Balkans and in the Middle East is subsequently as a result of the Sea People invasion.

What Sea peoples? I thought these Sea people are the unicorns of genetics, never being proven?

Hawk
10-08-2020, 07:06 PM
What Sea peoples? I thought these Sea people are the unicorns of genetics, never being proven?

There were various tribes collaborating between each other and bringing down the Bronze Age civilizations. I rather think E-V13 was part of this coalition. It's not coincidence IMO to have a massive expansion during exactly the same time and the same places.

Most of the previous Roman soldiers spread hypothesis are proven wrong. There are barely any post LBA/EIA connections between Central Europe and Balkans.

Riverman
10-08-2020, 07:13 PM
The Sea People are real, but I would rather look for Phrygians and Armenians.



The timings add up to this, but are there actual examples of this happening? How would they assimilate so effortlessly with arabs in 500 years time? Why would they even go to Arabia?

Yes, plenty of. From slaves to kings, many were brought to or fled to Persia and Arabia. Just read Xenophon, the rise and Fall of the Seleucids or Roman refugees and mercenaries.
Also, between the departure from Europe and the big spread among Arabs could be a long time. In this case up to thousand years. So plenty of time for a clan to grow of which nobody would remember how it came to this place.
But again, thousands of Greeks lived in the Middle East and in Hellenistic times they were the leaders. So there are a lot of possibilitites.

digital_noise
10-08-2020, 07:18 PM
There were various tribes collaborating between each other and bringing down the Bronze Age civilizations. I rather think E-V13 was part of this coalition. It's not coincidence IMO to have a massive expansion during exactly the same time and the same places.

Most of the previous Roman soldiers spread hypothesis are proven wrong. There are barely any post LBA/EIA connections between Central Europe and Balkans.
So in terms of the E-V13 origins question, how would sea people play in? The sea people technically had a home base on land, yet if they went by sea to various other areas, died and then were excavated, couldn’t this throw off some of us who are looking for the origins?

I your opinion, using modern borders/ country names where do you think they started out from?

Pribislav
10-08-2020, 07:43 PM
I rather think that E-V13 was picked or just left alone as a folk of miners and metal workers in the Northern Carpathian region. Later it used the LBA changes first to expand and was ultimately even pushed South. That's why originally you don't find it in Pannonia or Thrace, but in the Iron Age its there. These are Illyro-Thracian people moving South at the LBA-EIA transition and V13 seems to have been, somehow, someway, been a big part of this people and their movements. With the iron metal work, again as specialists, they spread to the Celts too and some made it to Slavs and Iranians in a similar way.
But probably I'm wrong, we just need to test Teleac-Gava remains to find out:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21853-Prehistory-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-from-the-perspective-of-archeogenetics&p=707022&viewfull=1#post707022

Either they have it or not. But if not, I would be confused, because imho the Bosut-Basarabi complex must have had it already, because from there you have a direct tradition to the local Thracian and Illyrian tribes, which are supposed to have it.

From a linguistic and archaeological perspective, Illyro-Thracian (people) isn't really a thing.

Hawk
10-08-2020, 07:46 PM
So in terms of the E-V13 origins question, how would sea people play in? The sea people technically had a home base on land, yet if they went by sea to various other areas, died and then were excavated, couldn’t this throw off some of us who are looking for the origins?

I your opinion, using modern borders/ country names where do you think they started out from?

I have already posted this before. Unless i am proven wrong by aDNA i tend to believe this scenario.

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

Shanck
10-08-2020, 08:13 PM
E-V13 could have been found in Hallstatt culture. Fun fact some might know the Rurik dynasty of Russia was E-V13. Or at least some branches were.

Riverman
10-08-2020, 08:14 PM
From a linguistic and archaeological perspective, Illyro-Thracian (people) isn't really a thing.

There were at least the Triballi, which are supposed to have influences from all these groups, also from Grava and Basarabi:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Triballi_territory.jpg/600px-Triballi_territory.jpg


The Triballi were a Thracian tribe that received influences from Celts, Scythians and Illyrians

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

Obviously the primary core group is supposed to be Thracians in the widest sense, but these influenced Illyrians to such a degree, especially in early Iron Age Eastern Hallstatt, that I wonder how clear a line can be drawn. Triballi serve as a known example. Thracians and Illyrians were intertwined in many ways. And even linguistically, which is not my main interest or field anyway, the situation is not as clear cut:


The linguistical hypothesis was especially current in the early 20th century, but after the 1960s it was seriously called into question. New publications argued that no strong evidence for Thraco-Illyrian exists, and that the two language-areas show more differences than correspondences (Vladimir Georgiev, Ivan Duridanov, Eric Hamp, et al.), whereas more recent linguists like Sorin Paliga have argued that based on the available data, Illyrian and Thracian were mutually intelligible or at very least formed a dialect continuum in a way comparable to Czech-Slovak and Spanish-Portuguese or Continental Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Illyrian

I think that's largely a splitter vs. lumper issue once more. Like some people even overestimate the differences between Dacian, Getae and Thracian. Illyrian is surely more differentiated, and also Pannonian can be looked at somewhat separately, but the relationship of those groups and large scale intersection of cultural substrates and influences is, from my perspective of limited knowledge, almost indisputable. How closely they are related or whether they were related before they became neighbours, I leave to others to decide. :)

@Hawk: I think your red circle is largely dead by now and should be placed up, above the Carpathians. I think however, that it can be lagely included in the Iron Age, so basically coming down from the Carpathians to Pannonia and the Southern Balkan at roughly the same time, at the LBA-EIA transition, related to Gava-Teleac findings. Actually I would bet on E-V13 being present in Teleac. It would absolutely no sense if not.

Hawk
10-09-2020, 07:38 AM
Riverman, i think placing it above Carpathians is even less likely theoretically. It doesn't make sense to be honest. It's probably an area right in between Dalmatia and North Italy, or even Alps.

Regarding Paleo-Balkan people, Illyrians/Thracians/Greeks, it just rose up in percentage during Early Iron Age replacing the previos Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 in mass.

Riverman
10-09-2020, 08:21 AM
Riverman, i think placing it above Carpathians is even less likely theoretically. It doesn't make sense to be honest. It's probably an area right in between Dalmatia and North Italy, or even Alps.

Regarding Paleo-Balkan people, Illyrians/Thracians/Greeks, it just rose up in percentage during Early Iron Age replacing the previos Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 in mass.

For rising in frequency, there needs to be a reason and the best reason are the LBA-EIA movements, for which we have prove from Central Europe and the North Carpathian. Even if assuming, what's possible, that it was more from an Italian-Alpine direction, which would make sense considering the origins of Bosut-Basarabi. Yet I think that in both cases its related to the Urnfield culture and Gava as well as Bosut-Basarabi are to the relative North. The Carpathians were the more protected region, whereas the Alpine zone was quite under Bell Beaker control from my point of view. So we can sum up:
- Dalmatian (Cetina)
- North Carpathian, (Gava, LBA-EIA)
- Alpine-Italian (EIA)

Any other suggestions?

Hawk
10-09-2020, 08:24 AM
For rising in frequency, there needs to be a reason and the best reason are the LBA-EIA movements, for which we have prove from Central Europe and the North Carpathian. Even if assuming, what's possible, that it was more from an Italian-Alpine direction, which would make sense considering the origins of Bosut-Basarabi. Yet I think that in both cases its related to the Urnfield culture and Gava as well as Bosut-Basarabi are to the relative North. The Carpathians were the more protected region, whereas the Alpine zone was quite under Bell Beaker control from my point of view. So we can sum up:
- Dalmatian (Cetina)
- North Carpathian, (Gava, LBA-EIA)
- Alpine-Italian (EIA)

Any other suggestions?

Fair enough, those three options are the most consistent.

We should add South/Central Balkans in any case. Who knows.

Riverman
10-09-2020, 08:45 AM
Fair enough, those three options are the most consistent.

We should add South/Central Balkans in any case. Who knows.

Any particular culture or movement?

There is also the Greek-Anatolian (Troyan?) option, especially with the Grey Ware:
http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/index.php?p=article&id_art=5

This is the only movement going in the opposite direction which could have been of significance in the critical time frame, but it might just have been superficial, cultural influence, only a few settlements. Even if more important, the lack of early Greeks and Anatolians having it, makes it less likely. But if doing a complete list, it should be mentioned, as long as nobody has decisive arguments against it.

Helves
10-09-2020, 09:12 AM
How common is E-V13 in the Middle East? If it occurs above 2-3% in many ethnicities then I find the Greek-Roman origin not so plausible considering we don’t really find other haplogroups that would’ve been spread by Romans or Greeks in the area.

Riverman
10-09-2020, 09:24 AM
How common is E-V13 in the Middle East? If it occurs above 2-3% in many ethnicities then I find the Greek-Roman origin not so plausible considering we don’t really find other haplogroups that would’ve been spread by Romans or Greeks in the area.

Its the TMRCA which is decisive. The upstream clade is E-BY3880 and its branches are all European and much older:
https://yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/

E-BY5786 is just a more recent daughter branch and even there we have, at the root, an Italian:
https://yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/

I checked on FTDNA too:
The origin is, if going upstream, even more definitely in Europe, with E-Y16729, with samples from Bulgaria, Macedonia, Russia and Italy. So quite clealry a Greek-Balkan connection.

Inside the group, at the starting point BY5784 is an Iraqi beside a Saudi, so the Babylonian region (!). So it looks very much like in the Iraqi-Saudi Arabian region a Greek-Balkan migrant founded a successful Arab clan.

There are other clades of V13 in the Middle East, which too have their own story. But for this one, its that, a Greek-Balkan person moving to the Near East. If all cases would be so clear, it would answer more questions to more people. Also, who says there are not more European haplotypes around, I think one just has to search for it - I can't come up with some ad hoc, but I found many already by chance, by just browsing through.

Hawk
10-09-2020, 09:26 AM
Yep, probably there are many J2's undetected that their subclade is Balkan-Aegean since J2 is very common in Northern Middle East.

Riverman
10-09-2020, 09:41 AM
Yep, probably there are many J2's undetected that their subclade is Balkan-Aegean since J2 is very common in Northern Middle East.

Even R1b-P312 made it too Saudi Arabia:
https://yfull.com/tree/R-A19725/

Lebanon:
https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y93543/

Egypt:
https://yfull.com/tree/R-U152/

Turkey:
https://yfull.com/tree/R-FGC32042/

This individual from antiquity just had a successful founder effect. I guess with more testing we will find more in Iraq, possibly Iran too. Hellenistic Greek or Thracian leading person is the most likely scenario, but there are many.

Aahmes
10-09-2020, 10:37 AM
Its the TMRCA which is decisive. The upstream clade is E-BY3880 and its branches are all European and much older:
https://yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/

E-BY5786 is just a more recent daughter branch and even there we have, at the root, an Italian:
https://yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/

I checked on FTDNA too:
The origin is, if going upstream, even more definitely in Europe, with E-Y16729, with samples from Bulgaria, Macedonia, Russia and Italy. So quite clealry a Greek-Balkan connection.

Inside the group, at the starting point BY5784 is an Iraqi beside a Saudi, so the Babylonian region (!). So it looks very much like in the Iraqi-Saudi Arabian region a Greek-Balkan migrant founded a successful Arab clan.

There are other clades of V13 in the Middle East, which too have their own story. But for this one, its that, a Greek-Balkan person moving to the Near East. If all cases would be so clear, it would answer more questions to more people. Also, who says there are not more European haplotypes around, I think one just has to search for it - I can't come up with some ad hoc, but I found many already by chance, by just browsing through.

Is it not possible that E-V13 originated in the Levant, spread to Europe where it had a strong founding father effect, and then went nearly extinct in the Middle East? The reason I ask is that even though E-V13 in Arabia is mostly in the one subclade you still find many Arabian samples all throughout E-V13 in Y-Full.

Hawk
10-09-2020, 10:55 AM
Is it not possible that E-V13 originated in the Levant, spread to Europe where it had a strong founding father effect, and then went nearly extinct in the Middle East? The reason I ask is that even though E-V13 in Arabia is mostly in the one subclade you still find many Arabian samples all throughout E-V13 in Y-Full.

Middle East is too East, even Eastern Europe is too east let alone Middle East.

If u check the chronology of this lineage, you see that from aDNA we have some E-L618 in Croatia and Hungary and then the only known example of actual confirmed E-V13 is from North-East Spain.

E-L618 might as well have been common in Greece around the Ionian Sea coast where the Cardial Culture started in Europe.

Riverman
10-09-2020, 11:09 AM
Is it not possible that E-V13 originated in the Levant, spread to Europe where it had a strong founding father effect, and then went nearly extinct in the Middle East? The reason I ask is that even though E-V13 in Arabia is mostly in the one subclade you still find many Arabian samples all throughout E-V13 in Y-Full.

The dating doesn't fit, but even if it would have come up in the Levante originally, or let's say Anatolia, to be more realistic, the specific group we're talked about (E-BY5786) would be first an immigration of a distant ancestor into Europe, then a diversification and spread there, and only afterwards, about 1.000-2.000 years later, followed a back migration. So this group in particular just proves a historical migration into the Levante-Arabia, regardless of the deeper (pre-) history of V13.
But everything considered, it seems E-L618 or even an older precursor moved into Europe, V13 came into existence on the continent and spread within and outside of it.

E-L618 is the ancestor:
https://yfull.com/tree/E-L618/

There we have a Lebanese and a Latvian, possibly Jewish (?), next clade an Italian. On FTDNA we have 2 Italians, 1 each from England, Sweden and France, so highly likely from the Neolithic colonisation, which we also know from the findings in Neolithic Europe where L618 appeared. So I'd say E-L618 came up in the Levante, immigrated to Europe in the Neolithic, spread there already successfully, V13 came up as one new branch, then there was the bottleneck most likely caused by the steppe immigration and after their survival on a low level started a slow recovery from Early to Middle Bronze Age, with a big expansion from LBA-EIA on.

Halgurd
10-09-2020, 12:37 PM
The Roman theories are a very unlikely scenario about why E-V13 is present in the Middle East. It might be attributable to some Middle Eastern E-V13 but not all or even most. One reason why the Druze have high levels of E-V13 is because many major Druze families claim Kurdish descent and the most notable is the Canpolat (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumblatt_family) family. We already have one Canpolat member tested and they are E-V13.

E-V13 is present in levels of around 5% in Iranians, Kurds and South Caucasians and the Romans certainly made little to no genetic impact on these groups. Lurs in particular have high E-M78 (the highest in Iran), but I'm unsure what portion of this would be E-V13. Iranic peoples were in dominant control of these lands for thousands of years, beginning with the Medes and ending with the Sassanians. In my opinion, in the Middle East it is an indicator of Iranic ancestry.

Hawk
10-09-2020, 12:42 PM
The Roman theories are a very unlikely scenario about why E-V13 is present in the Middle East. It might be attributable to some Middle Eastern E-V13 but not all or even most. One reason why the Druze have high levels of E-V13 is because many major Druze families claim Kurdish descent and the most notable is the Canpolat (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumblatt_family) family. We already have one Canpolat member tested and they are E-V13.

E-V13 is present in levels of around 5% in Iranians, Kurds and South Caucasians and the Romans certainly made little to no genetic impact on these groups. Lurs in particular have high E-M78 (the highest in Iran), but I'm unsure what portion of this would be E-V13. Iranic peoples were in dominant control of these lands for thousands of years, beginning with the Medes and ending with the Sassanians. In my opinion, in the Middle East it is an indicator of Iranic ancestry.

I have no knowledge on Middle Eastern E-V13 subclades, but the Roman presence in Central Europe and Britain doesn't hold water as well. They even have more basal E-V13 Z5018 clades than Balkanites.

Riverman
10-09-2020, 01:20 PM
The Roman theories are a very unlikely scenario about why E-V13 is present in the Middle East. It might be attributable to some Middle Eastern E-V13 but not all or even most. One reason why the Druze have high levels of E-V13 is because many major Druze families claim Kurdish descent and the most notable is the Canpolat (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumblatt_family) family. We already have one Canpolat member tested and they are E-V13.

E-V13 is present in levels of around 5% in Iranians, Kurds and South Caucasians and the Romans certainly made little to no genetic impact on these groups. Lurs in particular have high E-M78 (the highest in Iran), but I'm unsure what portion of this would be E-V13. Iranic peoples were in dominant control of these lands for thousands of years, beginning with the Medes and ending with the Sassanians. In my opinion, in the Middle East it is an indicator of Iranic ancestry.

E-V13 could have been present in Phrygians, Armenians and Iranians (including Kurds) from the beginning of their departure to the Near East. So I really referred only to this specific "Arabic" clade of E-V13 which has a very specific timing. Like I said, if all cases would be that clear, we wouldn't have to speculate as much about e.g. British E-V13, because it would be a clear thing. But other clades are much older and more diversified, more complex to reveal a clear pattern that easily.

Its really just about E-BY5786, this specific clade is Greek-Balkan -> Near East in Antiquity. Others are not. They can be older (Sintashta-Andronovo/Iranian related, Phrygian-Armenian) or younger (Europeans coming for Ottomans, slaves, crusaders, traders etc.).

That its a possible Iranian marker being also proven by E-V13 popping up as far as in Northern China. There was one tester from North China on Eupedia, and there was another one on YFull (now deleted?). Both have a clear European derived clade and the region in Northern China is known to have steppe influences, R1a appears there too in significant numbers. My assumption is that Proto-Iranians picked up some Carpathian V13 early on, and later steppe people did the same and some of those migrated as a minority group whereever Iranian tribes went.

Shanck
10-09-2020, 01:42 PM
Even R1b-P312 made it too Saudi Arabia:
https://yfull.com/tree/R-A19725/

Lebanon:
https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y93543/

Egypt:
https://yfull.com/tree/R-U152/

Turkey:
https://yfull.com/tree/R-FGC32042/

This individual from antiquity just had a successful founder effect. I guess with more testing we will find more in Iraq, possibly Iran too. Hellenistic Greek or Thracian leading person is the most likely scenario, but there are many.

This scene would become even more frequent with more testing. And R1b isn't the only haplogroup in this. For example Lebanese non-Druze are actually undertested, the majority of Lebanese on familytreeDNA are Druze.

Hawk
10-09-2020, 07:48 PM
This is the map of Danube river in Europe, it's a possibility the spread of E-V13 toward Balkans followed the path of Danube.

https://i.imgur.com/dCMQ4K4.jpg

Riverman
10-09-2020, 08:23 PM
Actually I think that this Danubian route is highly important, but probably in the opposite direction in the Iron Age, with a starting point in the Northern Carparthians.

Riverman
10-10-2020, 01:39 PM
Adding to that, a good candidate for a connection towards the Northern Carpathian region is actually Lengyel and Sopot possibly, for which we have proof of E-L618.


Lengyel pottery was found in western Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Austria, Poland, and in the Sopot culture of the northern parts of Former Yugoslavia. Influence in pottery styles is found even further afield, in parts of Germany and Switzerland.

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




The results of extensive investigations in Slovakia have shed considerable light on the problems of the emergence, development and cultural and chronological interconnections of the Neolithic Lengyel culture. This includes the economy and social structure of its bearers.

Typological methods make it easy to demonstrate a local origin for the Lengyel culture, defining clearly its innovative component which was introduced from the south, from the sphere of the Vinča culture (Vinča B2/C1), then in the process of transformation, carried to the territory of the nascent Lengyel culture by the Sopot culture (S. Dimitrijevič 1968; Pavúk 1981a; Kalicz 1988). The Lengyel culture emerged on the base of the Želiezovce cultural group which gave birth to the earliest stage of the former culture – Proto-Lengyel – under impulses from and with participation of the Sopot culture. Such a fusion of local and foreign elements may well be demonstrated in pottery, especially in the development of its shapes and decoration. This process is accompanied by a major paradox: continuous development of pottery is contradicted by the discontinuity in settlement sites. Not a single site excavated either in Slovakia or in Hungary has yielded a settlement with material both from the last stage of the Želiezovce group and from the early stages of the Lengyel culture (the Bíňa-Bicske group, Lužianky, Lengyel I) which could constitute evidence for local evolution.


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/lengyelculture-fortified-settlements-in-slovakia/EA1989CA6B404BB2938F405A1543B830

The possible vector could have been Neolithic Anatolia -> Vinca -> Sopot -> Lengyel -> ??? -> Gava -> Bosut-Basarabi.

Between Lengyel and Gava is a big gap on the one hand, but on the other, there could have been local continuity into the South Eastern Urnfield period, leading directly to Gava:
http://www.angelfire.com/sk3/quality/Stone_Age_and_Bronze_Age.html

This would bring E1b into the Urnfield horizon, probably even beyond Gava, but with it, being in the centre of the accumulation of V13. If that scenario would be true, it would be similar as with R1a, first moving out of the steppe, just to come back again. In the case of E1b just from the Balkans (Vinca) to the Carpathians and back again...

Shanck
10-10-2020, 02:57 PM
A valid hypothesis would be that E-V13 men would have assimilated with the Indo-Europeans of Corded Ware culture and spread with them, which is why it's present all over Europe, with the exception of some places such as Basque region and Finland.

Riverman
10-10-2020, 04:44 PM
A valid hypothesis would be that E-V13 men would have assimilated with the Indo-Europeans of Corded Ware culture and spread with them, which is why it's present all over Europe, with the exception of some places such as Basque region and Finland.

Either the E-V13 clan assimilated, or its was able to hold its position. Most likely as the specialists for mining (salt and ore) and metal working they seem to have been for most of their time. But the TMRCA and actual distribution rather speaks for only minor migrations from this centre up to the Late Bronze Age, whereever it was. Let's just say it was in the North Carpathian region, which would fit perfectly, they spread with the migrations of the South Eastern Urnfield groups (especially Gava might be it) towards Pannonia, the whole Carpathian region and down to the Balkans, even into Greece. So they didn't distribute randomly, or initially, after surviving the Corded Ware/steppe expansions, but primarily at the LBA-EIA transition. That's why we will find higher frequencies of E-V13, if at all, primarily in one quite limited space up to the LBA, but quite widely spread later. During Hallstatt they spread into the Celtic sphere too, probably even the Germanic as well, but that's less sure.

Farroukh
10-11-2020, 06:00 PM
E-V13 lines present even in non-IE-speaking groups, including Saami people of Scandinavia (Uralic) and so on.

Probably, "5 kyo bottleneck" of E-V13 and I1-M253 can be explained with IE invasion and subsequent total assimilation.

capsian
10-11-2020, 06:38 PM
Most of E-V13 in the Balkans and in the Middle East is subsequently as a result of the Sea People invasion.
Hawk

No not all
must reliance on TMRCA betwwen sample from Middle and Balkan
likely between Sea People to era Byzantine

Hawk
10-12-2020, 12:46 PM
Interesting.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241/


new

E-V13 > Z5018 > S2979 > L241* in Armenia

E-V13 > Z5018 > S2979 > L241 > E-Y142744* in Lithuania

Riverman
10-12-2020, 01:03 PM
Interesting.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241/


new

E-V13 > Z5018 > S2979 > L241* in Armenia

E-V13 > Z5018 > S2979 > L241 > E-Y142744* in Lithuania

The Armenian sample is interesting, so is the Hungarian one. But most of the Y142744 being Ashkenazi Jewish:
https://jewishdna.net/AB-011.html

Even more interesting are the many Austrian project members which being assigned on YFull. One at the older root:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16659*/

Another E-ZS1176:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-ZS1176*/

Beside all the other Austrian samples from E-BY3880:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/

If you think about how small this Austrian project sample was, and already we have 2 important new E-V13 samples which are fairly basal for their clades. Imagine a sample size like the one for Sardinian, Cagliari for Germans, Austrians, Czech, Slovakians, Hungarians and Romanians. I'm pretty sure that a lot would be detected for the (pre-) history of V13.

The Austrian project:
https://genomaustria.at/das-projekt/

Hawk
10-14-2020, 04:46 PM
We also have a new Hungarian tested in YSEQ in this branch: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S7461/

E-V13 is too widespread to have been a local Balkanite Y-DNA, the Roman soldiers spread made sense 10 years ago when our knowledge was limited, but seeing this most of the common shared origin is during MBA/LBA.

Riverman
10-14-2020, 05:24 PM
We also have a new Hungarian tested in YSEQ in this branch: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S7461/

E-V13 is too widespread to have been a local Balkanite Y-DNA, the Roman soldiers spread made sense 10 years ago when our knowledge was limited, but seeing this most of the common shared origin is during MBA/LBA.

I think its quite interesting how many V13 clades being present in Italy and on Sardinia, which too seem to have come at the LBA-EIA transition to the peninsula and its islands. I think for most of Europe North of the Alps an Urnfield and early Iron Age spread makes the most sense. I expect especially the Hallstatt culture to be particularly important for spreading E-V13 warriors, traders, metal working and mining specialists. A lot of the former V13 spread being now submerged by the Germanic and Slavic expansions, which too might have carried on a very minor V13 element, but much less so than the preceding people of a territory from Southern Germany to the Black Sea.

digital_noise
10-14-2020, 05:28 PM
I’m E-BY14160, hanging out with a Serbian in a paragroup. Because I’m PH1246+, that seems to jive with a southward migration into the Balkans. At what point we decided to go to Italy is anyone’s guess. Figuring that out would be my most prized DNA discovery.

Hawk
10-14-2020, 05:44 PM
I think its quite interesting how many V13 clades being present in Italy and on Sardinia, which too seem to have come at the LBA-EIA transition to the peninsula and its islands. I think for most of Europe North of the Alps an Urnfield and early Iron Age spread makes the most sense. I expect especially the Hallstatt culture to be particularly important for spreading E-V13 warriors, traders, metal working and mining specialists. A lot of the former V13 spread being now submerged by the Germanic and Slavic expansions, which too might have carried on a very minor V13 element, but much less so than the preceding people of a territory from Southern Germany to the Black Sea.

We already have one sample from La Tene E1b1b who we should reasonably expect to be E-V13.

I do agree, it looks quite likely connected to Urnfield expansion, unless somehow the spread is giving us an illusion. But, the odds are that it does indeed spread with this culture. Somehow it fits like gloves.

Dacians received Urnfield influence during MBA/LBA, same applies to Illyrians, Thracians and Greeks.

Riverman
10-14-2020, 05:45 PM
I’m E-BY14160, hanging out with a Serbian in a paragroup. Because I’m PH1246+, that seems to jive with a southward migration into the Balkans. At what point we decided to go to Italy is anyone’s guess. Figuring that out would be my most prized DNA discovery.

Actually I think https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14160/ is a good example for the pattern which can be observed in many E-V13 clades: The upstream clade is fairly old and points to a survival and revovery in a rather geographically limited zone during the EBA to MBA. Then, at the EIA, they radiate out, individuals of the same subclade move either up to the North, stay in Central Europe. go to Italy, Iberia or down to the Balkans and even beyond. Its like if they were dispersed from a centre of the EBA-MBA in the time of the LBA-EIA (Urnfield-Hallstatt in particular). Because if that pattern would just be observed in one clade of V13, it might have been by chane and caused by later migrations, but since its a common pattern for most clades, it seems to be real.
One possibility is that they were overrun, some tribes fled South as a whole, conquered new territories or allied up with locals, while others just dispersed in small clans and even individuals. Such things happened, as Teleac proves and the complex migration patterns of many archaeological cultures show. Magyars for example were defeated numerous times and pushed by others, until they consolidated their rule in Pannonia.

Hawk
10-14-2020, 07:17 PM
Interesting.........



Entangled Sea(faring): Reconsidering the Connection between the Ships of the Sea Peoples, the Aegean, and 'Urnfield' Europe


Abstract:

The naval battle representation on the walls of Ramesses III’s ‘mansion of a million years’ at Medinet Habu (ca. 1175 BCE) stands as one of the earliest, and certainly most detailed, depictions of ship–to–ship combat. It also depicts the only known vessels of Helladic galley type to be depicted with stem–and–stern avian decoration. As such, they have been called upon as evidence for the inclusion of Central Europeans (‘Urnfielders’) in the Sea Peoples coalition(s), and – more recursively – to bolster the view that the highly schematic designs on the stemposts of Helladic galleys were avian in nature. This paper addresses these conclusions and evaluates the evidence that has been presented for an ‘Urnfield’ connection to the Sea Peoples’ ships, along with some notes on the ostensibly avian nature of Helladic galleys’ finial decorations.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/emanuel/publications/entangled-seafaring-reconsidering-connection-between-ships-sea-peoples-aegean

Musashi
10-15-2020, 02:21 PM
I'm FT40236 (under S7461> BY5026 clade). According to what can be observed on the snp tracker website and other sources, it is a clade that spread to Italy coming from central Europe / northern Balkans in the late bronze age / early iron age, same time of arrival of the Italic tribes in Italy.

Hawk
10-15-2020, 03:16 PM
I'm FT40236 (under S7461> BY5026 clade). According to what can be observed on the snp tracker website and other sources, it is a clade that spread to Italy coming from central Europe / northern Balkans in the late bronze age / early iron age, same time of arrival of the Italic tribes in Italy.

Where are you from?

Musashi
10-15-2020, 06:25 PM
Italy

Musashi
10-15-2020, 06:26 PM
Where are you from?

Italy

Hawk
10-15-2020, 07:03 PM
Italy

Cool.

I fall within E-V13 Z5018 S2979 subclade. It looks like we could be Central European Bronze Age lineage as well. Based on distribution.

Musashi
10-15-2020, 09:03 PM
Cool.

I fall within E-V13 Z5018 S2979 subclade. It looks like we could be Central European Bronze Age lineage as well. Based on distribution.

Yes, it could. According to what I have read about it, some clades of E-V13 were probably part of the proto Italo-Celtic (and illyrian,obviously) ethnogenesis.

digital_noise
10-15-2020, 09:14 PM
Italy

What part of Italy?

Granary
10-15-2020, 11:53 PM
Either the E-V13 clan assimilated, or its was able to hold its position. Most likely as the specialists for mining (salt and ore) and metal working they seem to have been for most of their time. But the TMRCA and actual distribution rather speaks for only minor migrations from this centre up to the Late Bronze Age, whereever it was. Let's just say it was in the North Carpathian region, which would fit perfectly, they spread with the migrations of the South Eastern Urnfield groups (especially Gava might be it) towards Pannonia, the whole Carpathian region and down to the Balkans, even into Greece. So they didn't distribute randomly, or initially, after surviving the Corded Ware/steppe expansions, but primarily at the LBA-EIA transition. That's why we will find higher frequencies of E-V13, if at all, primarily in one quite limited space up to the LBA, but quite widely spread later. During Hallstatt they spread into the Celtic sphere too, probably even the Germanic as well, but that's less sure.
Sorry if you explained this before, but what major lineages under E-V13 spread during the Late Bronze Age and Iron age transition?

alchemist223
10-15-2020, 11:56 PM
Just happened to find out that my great-grandmother's surname (from Calabria, Italy) had this haplogroup. Now I have a personal stake in figuring out this haplogroup's origin. ;)

Musashi
10-16-2020, 06:10 AM
What part of Italy?

South-east (Apulia). My oldest known direct male ancestor is Sansone Sansň, born in the late 16th century, who lived near Lecce. However, my subclade looks to have come in south Italy from central/north Italy, where it was living since the iron Age, between the Roman and the medieval ages. The clade today is present only in Italy and in Switzerland, where it arrived in the 13th century coming from central Italy (probably tuscany) (according to the FTDNA project I am part of).

Riverman
10-16-2020, 09:30 AM
Sorry if you explained this before, but what major lineages under E-V13 spread during the Late Bronze Age and Iron age transition?

Very clear cases are E-Z5017 and E-Z5018. If you look where most of the spread and diversification of their subclades happened, its between 1.600 to 600 BC.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z5017/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z5018/

For many of its subclades a date like 800-400 BC was the last point in time where highly diversified clades had a TMRCA, after that they spread out to very different regions of Europe and beyond.

Anther clear case is https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16729/

Being split into a basal Balkan branch, one Northern European and one Near Eastern. With more samples a trail will be found and more diversity, pointing again to the LBA-EIA original spread and most likely with Greeks into the Near East during Hellenistic times.

In general, most clades under E-CTS1273 seem to repeat this pattern, at least it seems so to me, especially if considering the range of the estimates and some intermediate samples lacking, it just fits:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/

The time up to 2000 BC was like a hiatus, "nothing happened", new clades might have emerged, but they didn't split or distribute on a grander scale. Then between 2.000-300 BC, with a peak between 1.600-600 BC, "most of the action took place". This really implies to me, that the major lineages of E-V13 lived together in one place up to about 2.000 BC, and dispersed on a grand scale in time from Urnfield to Hallstatt.

Another aspect of this is that this big "jumps", huge distances between samples from one clade also date, for the most part, to this time frame. Its not from before or later as much, like from Roman or late historical times. Of course, such tribal and individual migrations did occur, but most of the spread and splits date to the LBA-EIA.

capsian
10-16-2020, 12:26 PM
Very clear cases are E-Z5017 and E-Z5018. If you look where most of the spread and diversification of their subclades happened, its between 1.600 to 600 BC.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z5017/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z5018/

For many of its subclades a date like 800-400 BC was the last point in time where highly diversified clades had a TMRCA, after that they spread out to very different regions of Europe and beyond.

Anther clear case is https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16729/

Being split into a basal Balkan branch, one Northern European and one Near Eastern. With more samples a trail will be found and more diversity, pointing again to the LBA-EIA original spread and most likely with Greeks into the Near East during Hellenistic times.

In general, most clades under E-CTS1273 seem to repeat this pattern, at least it seems so to me, especially if considering the range of the estimates and some intermediate samples lacking, it just fits:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/

The time up to 2000 BC was like a hiatus, "nothing happened", new clades might have emerged, but they didn't split or distribute on a grander scale. Then between 2.000-300 BC, with a peak between 1.600-600 BC, "most of the action took place". This really implies to me, that the major lineages of E-V13 lived together in one place up to about 2.000 BC, and dispersed on a grand scale in time from Urnfield to Hallstatt.

Another aspect of this is that this big "jumps", huge distances between samples from one clade also date, for the most part, to this time frame. Its not from before or later as much, like from Roman or late historical times. Of course, such tribal and individual migrations did occur, but most of the spread and splits date to the LBA-EIA.
HI Riverman i saw a sample two months ago under E-Y154545 from China what do you think of his ancestors about any era are they migrated

Riverman
10-16-2020, 01:09 PM
HI Riverman i saw a sample two months ago under E-Y154545 from China what do you think of his ancestors about any era are they migrated

I know of 2 Chinese individuals testing for E-V13, both from the Northern provinces, in areas which have a signifiant impact of R1a and other steppe related haplogroups from the West Eurasian sphere. I can't say when they entered China, but everything from the Bronze Age to Medieval times is possible. Like R1a clades, they were present in various steppe and steppe-related people, that's for sure. The distribution of all steppe clades is primarily the North West of China, close to its heartland, but at the border to the steppe nevertheless. Provinces like Ningxia, Shaanxi. If there would be more data from China, we might know for sure, even without ancient DNA. Because if its an earlier intrusion, it should be spread all around China, down to the South, but if it came in later, when the Old Chinese already expanded South, it will sit primarily in the North and only low numbers elsewhere. To me it looks as both happened, but most came from after the foundation of old China. R1a is by far the most numerous haplogroup brought by steppe people, so its easier for tracing it down. Here an example for a farily recent spread, probably with Turkic people:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC66325/

Michał
10-16-2020, 01:10 PM
Very clear cases are E-Z5017 and E-Z5018. If you look where most of the spread and diversification of their subclades happened, its between 1.600 to 600 BC.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z5017/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z5018/

For many of its subclades a date like 800-400 BC was the last point in time where highly diversified clades had a TMRCA, after that they spread out to very different regions of Europe and beyond.

What is your take on E-L540 (known in FTDNA as E-S3003)? It shows an exceptionally long period (about 2500 years!) between the initial divergence from all remaining subclades under V13>>Z5017 (which happened about 2500 BC) and some moderate expansion in Central-Northern Europe in much more recent times (in Roman times or even later, if assuming that the territorial expansion started significantly later than the moderate demographic expansion).
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/

Riverman
10-16-2020, 01:15 PM
What is your take on E-L540 (known in FTDNA as E-S3003)? It shows an exceptionally long period (about 2500 years!) between the initial divergence from all remaining subclades under V13>>Z5017 (which happened about 2500 BC) and some moderate expansion in Central-Northern Europe in much more recent times (in Roman times or even later, if assuming that the territorial expansion started significantly later than the moderate demographic expansion).
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/

I mean that's totally speculative, but since you asked, my personal opinion would be it migrated at some point with a (Proto-) Celtic warrior or metallurgist to the Germanic sphere, established itself successfully and expanded in all directions with various Germanic tribes. Could have entered even in the formative phase of the Jastorf culture. Its at least possible and must have entered Northern Europe some generations before its spread.

capsian
10-16-2020, 01:19 PM
thanks you about this informatoin
so maybe are old in china

Riverman

Riverman
10-16-2020, 01:21 PM
thanks you about this informatoin
so maybe are old in china

They are old on the steppe, but how old in China I don't know, because the steppe worked like a highway, which means that people could migrate in just a few generations forth and back. But definitely with steppe tribals, originally Iranian-related, that's pretty sure.

capsian
10-16-2020, 01:33 PM
They are old on the steppe, but how old in China I don't know, because the steppe worked like a highway, which means that people could migrate in just a few generations forth and back. But definitely with steppe tribals, originally Iranian-related, that's pretty sure.

so very likely scythians are cause we know some scythians are E-V13 and E-Y31991

Riverman
10-16-2020, 01:43 PM
What is your take on E-L540 (known in FTDNA as E-S3003)? It shows an exceptionally long period (about 2500 years!) between the initial divergence from all remaining subclades under V13>>Z5017 (which happened about 2500 BC) and some moderate expansion in Central-Northern Europe in much more recent times (in Roman times or even later, if assuming that the territorial expansion started significantly later than the moderate demographic expansion).
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/

To add something to the last comment: Its possible that the missing link lived or still lives in so far understested regions of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria or Southern Germany, so in predominantely Celtic regions. Probably it didn't survive, but even if, going after the last results, a lot is missing from these places.

Michał
10-16-2020, 01:58 PM
I mean that's totally speculative, but since you asked, my personal opinion would be it migrated at some point with a (Proto-) Celtic warrior or metallurgist to the Germanic sphere, established itself successfully and expanded in all directions with various Germanic tribes. Could have entered even in the formative phase of the Jastorf culture. Its at least possible and must have entered Northern Europe some generations before its spread.
According to some preliminary (and unofficial) data, there are some E1b males among the Wielbark samples from Kowalewko and Masłomęcz in Poland. Unfortunately, we don't know yet whether these are E-V13 or some other subclades of E1b (like E-L791, recently found among the Viking-related samples in Gotland), but it seems that in case this is indeed E-V13, it could have potentially come to Poland first with the Tumulus people founding the Pre-Lusatian culture, then with the La Tene Celts, and finally with some Jastorf-derived Germanic people.

Riverman
10-16-2020, 02:01 PM
According to some preliminary (and unofficial) data, there are some E1b males among the Wielbark samples from Kowalewko and Masłomęcz in Poland. Unfortunately, we don't know yet whether these are E-V13 or some other subclades of E1b (like E-L791, recently found among the Viking-related samples in Gotland), but it seems that in case this is indeed E-V13, it could have potentially come to Poland first with the Tumulus people founding the Pre-Lusatian culture, then with the La Tene Celts, and finally with some Jastorf-derived Germanic people.

Yes, in this case its kind of a back migration, but it seems the Germanic branch was just more successful in this clade. Like the distribution and TMRCA points to Germanics. Like always, there are still so many gaps and lack of sampling, that we can only bridge the gaps with speculation, which might be right or not.

Granary
10-16-2020, 07:34 PM
Very clear cases are E-Z5017 and E-Z5018. If you look where most of the spread and diversification of their subclades happened, its between 1.600 to 600 BC.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z5017/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z5018/

For many of its subclades a date like 800-400 BC was the last point in time where highly diversified clades had a TMRCA, after that they spread out to very different regions of Europe and beyond.

Anther clear case is https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16729/

Being split into a basal Balkan branch, one Northern European and one Near Eastern. With more samples a trail will be found and more diversity, pointing again to the LBA-EIA original spread and most likely with Greeks into the Near East during Hellenistic times.

In general, most clades under E-CTS1273 seem to repeat this pattern, at least it seems so to me, especially if considering the range of the estimates and some intermediate samples lacking, it just fits:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/

The time up to 2000 BC was like a hiatus, "nothing happened", new clades might have emerged, but they didn't split or distribute on a grander scale. Then between 2.000-300 BC, with a peak between 1.600-600 BC, "most of the action took place". This really implies to me, that the major lineages of E-V13 lived together in one place up to about 2.000 BC, and dispersed on a grand scale in time from Urnfield to Hallstatt.

Another aspect of this is that this big "jumps", huge distances between samples from one clade also date, for the most part, to this time frame. Its not from before or later as much, like from Roman or late historical times. Of course, such tribal and individual migrations did occur, but most of the spread and splits date to the LBA-EIA.
You think that by the time of the start of the Tumulus culture and end of Unetice culture E-V13 had already spread beyond its Carpathian/Pannonian pocket? Because you only mentioned Eastern Urnfield before.

Riverman
10-16-2020, 08:21 PM
You think that by the time of the start of the Tumulus culture and end of Unetice culture E-V13 had already spread beyond its Carpathian/Pannonian pocket? Because you only mentioned Eastern Urnfield before.

Going by the recent results from Pannonia, I think Pannonia was not that important, but only the very North Eastern parts, especially around Slovakia, in the zone which became later the South Eastern Urnfield or Gava culture. At first their territory might have been quite restricted, up in the hills and mountains, providing precious metals to their new neighbours. This group became part of the large Urnfield horizon and might have had intensive contacts with other Urnfield groups in that time, which is related to its first small spread, then they were pushed Southward. We see incidents like the destruction of Teleac, which could shift and push whole tribal alliances out of their former homeland.
Due to the contacts with the direct Urnfield neighbours before, I agree with Lusatian having some importance as well, first because some lineages could have made it to this group, and second because it might have helped to push the South Eastern tribes South, into Pannonia, into the Balkans. During the Iron Age some of these came back again and moved especially West, along with the developed Iron technology. But the bulk was by then sitting in a large zone from Pannonia, over the Carpathians, down the Southern Balkan and into the Aegais.
For Gava, Belegiš and Vatin I would definitely assume high frequencies of E-V13. So it should be like that: No or very low levels of E-V13 before Urnfield in Pannonia and South of it, high levels after the Urnfield expansion and into the Iron Age, when inhumation appears again.

I mentioned Teleac more than once, but another important site might be Hisar Hill:

It is estimated that the metallurgy center in the settlement was operational at least between 1350 BC and 1100 BC and the remains have been found in the layer up to2 m (6 ft 7 in) thick. Iron ore, amorphous iron and vast amount of slag were discovered, but also remains of the grinding stones for crushing the ore (pogača), furnaces, charcoal piles, blowers and metal objects.

I'm pretty sure that V13 wasn't there in high frequency before Urnfield influences, but in the very early Iron Age, many inhabitants and metal working specialists must have been carriers of V13. They really spread with iron technology. Also interesting in this context:


Stojić hypothesizes that the development of metallurgy confirms the theory of the Dorian Invasion from the northern route. The discovery of iron and bronze objects from the 12th century BC, coincides with the invasion. The Dorians lived in the basin of the South Morava and the surrounding Central Balkans regions in the 13th century and, producing the iron weapons, with ease conquered the southern people in Greece.

The Dorians are sometimes said to have had Thraco-Illyrian inflluences.

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

More about the Gava horizon on in the Carpatho-Balkan zone, especially with referene to Hisar:

The Gava horizon, with channeled pottery, dated to a developed Late Bronze Age, was not documented in graves of the Brnjica group, but it certainly existed, as channeled pottery and typical bronzes from the Late Bronze Age, socketed axes, tweezers, pins etc., from the Hisar settlement testify.

http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf3.pdf

These groups were all interconnected after the Urnfield expansions and there were some of the earliest iron workers among these groups. This is highly important for understanding why the clans split so much and spread far beyond the core regions of their tribes. Most likely there were complete people, tribes, but also small clans and probably even individuals as specialised traders, iron workers and warriors around, which spread the new ways. That's how V13 spread even more into the Celtic, Germanic and Iranian territories. The closest relation I would see in the record is with the latest and highest level Bronze and early iron working technology.

garrett01
10-21-2020, 10:39 PM
Hi, need some help, Living Dna test came back E-V13, then I took the yseq E-V13 panel, results were, Most specific position CTS1273, A7730+ . A7730+ not listed on yfull, means you can't be any branch below CTS1273, any help in understanding this is greatly appreciated. Ancestors came from the Shropshire England area as far as I know, and came from France with William at Ironbridge.

digital_noise
10-22-2020, 12:38 AM
CTS1273 is equivalent to CTS5856 I believe. Its the more common branch below E-V13. Unfortunately I cannot offer any further advice, but some sort of Big Y700 or the Yseq equivalent is gonna be needed to find your terminal subclade. I dont think its worth the time or money to faff about with SNP packs in the long run. I do know that there are some specific subclades under E-V13 that made their way to the UK, so there's nothing odd about this

Granary
10-22-2020, 06:05 AM
Going by the recent results from Pannonia, I think Pannonia was not that important, but only the very North Eastern parts, especially around Slovakia, in the zone which became later the South Eastern Urnfield or Gava culture. At first their territory might have been quite restricted, up in the hills and mountains, providing precious metals to their new neighbours. This group became part of the large Urnfield horizon and might have had intensive contacts with other Urnfield groups in that time, which is related to its first small spread, then they were pushed Southward. We see incidents like the destruction of Teleac, which could shift and push whole tribal alliances out of their former homeland.
Due to the contacts with the direct Urnfield neighbours before, I agree with Lusatian having some importance as well, first because some lineages could have made it to this group, and second because it might have helped to push the South Eastern tribes South, into Pannonia, into the Balkans. During the Iron Age some of these came back again and moved especially West, along with the developed Iron technology. But the bulk was by then sitting in a large zone from Pannonia, over the Carpathians, down the Southern Balkan and into the Aegais.
For Gava, Belegiš and Vatin I would definitely assume high frequencies of E-V13. So it should be like that: No or very low levels of E-V13 before Urnfield in Pannonia and South of it, high levels after the Urnfield expansion and into the Iron Age, when inhumation appears again.

I mentioned Teleac more than once, but another important site might be Hisar Hill:

I'm pretty sure that V13 wasn't there in high frequency before Urnfield influences, but in the very early Iron Age, many inhabitants and metal working specialists must have been carriers of V13. They really spread with iron technology. Also interesting in this context:



The Dorians are sometimes said to have had Thraco-Illyrian inflluences.

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

More about the Gava horizon on in the Carpatho-Balkan zone, especially with referene to Hisar:


http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf3.pdf

These groups were all interconnected after the Urnfield expansions and there were some of the earliest iron workers among these groups. This is highly important for understanding why the clans split so much and spread far beyond the core regions of their tribes. Most likely there were complete people, tribes, but also small clans and probably even individuals as specialised traders, iron workers and warriors around, which spread the new ways. That's how V13 spread even more into the Celtic, Germanic and Iranian territories. The closest relation I would see in the record is with the latest and highest level Bronze and early iron working technology.
So E-v13 spread actually just by "luck"? I mean what I gather is that it was confined to a small area before the late 2nd millennium BCE and that it wasn't even necessarily at high frequencies in its own region but by happenstance it ended up having enough success to spread around, am I correct in this assessment?

Also another question, would you say that E-V13 had the similar kind of frequencies we see today in the Balkans or was it still relatively low frequency until later on? I imagine bottlenecking did happen during the migration period, so I wonder what the situation looked before.

Granary
10-22-2020, 06:10 AM
According to some preliminary (and unofficial) data, there are some E1b males among the Wielbark samples from Kowalewko and Masłomęcz in Poland. Unfortunately, we don't know yet whether these are E-V13 or some other subclades of E1b (like E-L791, recently found among the Viking-related samples in Gotland), but it seems that in case this is indeed E-V13, it could have potentially come to Poland first with the Tumulus people founding the Pre-Lusatian culture, then with the La Tene Celts, and finally with some Jastorf-derived Germanic people.

Is E-L791 around today? Outside E-v13 what other E lineages did survive in Europe after the 3rd millennium BCE?

Hawk
10-22-2020, 06:40 AM
So E-v13 spread actually just by "luck"? I mean what I gather is that it was confined to a small area before the late 2nd millennium BCE and that it wasn't even necessarily at high frequencies in its own region but by happenstance it ended up having enough success to spread around, am I correct in this assessment?

Also another question, would you say that E-V13 had the similar kind of frequencies we see today in the Balkans or was it still relatively low frequency until later on? I imagine bottlenecking did happen during the migration period, so I wonder what the situation looked before.

Based on Roman Serbia results it looks like E-V13 was even stronger than today among classical age Balkanites.

Michał
10-22-2020, 09:25 AM
Is E-L791 around today? Outside E-v13 what other E lineages did survive in Europe after the 3rd millennium BCE?
I wouldn't say it is uncommon in Europe, but it seems that it didn't have a chance to expand as much as E-V13, so it remains a less common, though quite widely spread subclade.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L791/
There is a relatively large (and of course very young) Jewish Ashkenazi subclade E-Y6938.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y6938/
It seems that this Ashkenazi subclade is actually deeply rooted in the Near East, with some not-so-old sister clades present in the Mediterranean region.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y6926/

As for the Viking-related sample VK474, I have just noticed that it is now assigned to a downstream subclade L791>Y4971 (encompassing the above mentioned Ashkenazi subclade E-Y6938). This is still a relatively old "Neolithic" clade with rare downstream subclades/lineages found both in Europe (including Poland) and in West Asia. It is worth mentioning that sample VK474 from Viking Gotland looks "very Slavic" autosomally - I would even say that it is 100% Slavic with no evident Scandinavian admixture, so he probably was a very recent newcomer (a settler, warrior or slave) from Northern Poland, although it is hard to rule out the remaining North Slavic populations.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y4971/

Riverman
10-22-2020, 09:38 AM
So E-v13 spread actually just by "luck"?

Well, depends on how you define it, because if you say an indvidual or clan used its chances and was successful, then all haplogroups spread by luck. None was that widely distributed originally. That's true for practially all clades, because that some clades of R1a and R1b became highly successful after mixing with the CHG-Iranian groups in Southern Russia is also kind of "luck" in comparison to their forager relatives further North which they annihilated. Every haplogroup started somewhere and E-V13 just started somewhat later with its main expansion, in the metal ages, same as with I1.


I mean what I gather is that it was confined to a small area before the late 2nd millennium BCE and that it wasn't even necessarily at high frequencies in its own region but by happenstance it ended up having enough success to spread around, am I correct in this assessment?

That's what I proposed, we will know for sure once we have a more complete sampling situation. Now many cultures and groups being left out, time and space not covered, both North and South of the Carpathians and in the Balkans.


Also another question, would you say that E-V13 had the similar kind of frequencies we see today in the Balkans or was it still relatively low frequency until later on? I imagine bottlenecking did happen during the migration period, so I wonder what the situation looked before.

I would guess that E-V13 was a major contributor among Illyrians, very dominant in Thracians in the wider sense, though the Northern groups (Dacians) are supposed to have more recent and Iranian-related steppe influences. Central European Celts from Hallstatt on will have significant low level V13, with a decreasing frequency from the Iron Age centres to the West and North. So much of Eastern Central Europe and South Eastern Europe should be heavy with E-V13 in the pre-migration period. Some clades might have made it to the early Slavs, including relatives of E-V13, like in VK474, dating back to the Urnfield and Lusatian culture probably, but still they had very low rates of E-V13, like most Germanics too, so I would suggest a peak in pre-Roman Iron Age and a decrease afterwards, with a drastic decrease for some regions in the migration period.

Granary
10-23-2020, 12:06 PM
Well, depends on how you define it, because if you say an indvidual or clan used its chances and was successful, then all haplogroups spread by luck. None was that widely distributed originally. That's true for practially all clades, because that some clades of R1a and R1b became highly successful after mixing with the CHG-Iranian groups in Southern Russia is also kind of "luck" in comparison to their forager relatives further North which they annihilated. Every haplogroup started somewhere and E-V13 just started somewhat later with its main expansion, in the metal ages, same as with I1.
By luck I mean it was not a direct consequence of any particular community that was mostly E-V13 spreading but rather that some members with E-V13 of said community were particularly successful.


I would guess that E-V13 was a major contributor among Illyrians, very dominant in Thracians in the wider sense, though the Northern groups (Dacians) are supposed to have more recent and Iranian-related steppe influences. Central European Celts from Hallstatt on will have significant low level V13, with a decreasing frequency from the Iron Age centres to the West and North. So much of Eastern Central Europe and South Eastern Europe should be heavy with E-V13 in the pre-migration period. Some clades might have made it to the early Slavs, including relatives of E-V13, like in VK474, dating back to the Urnfield and Lusatian culture probably, but still they had very low rates of E-V13, like most Germanics too, so I would suggest a peak in pre-Roman Iron Age and a decrease afterwards, with a drastic decrease for some regions in the migration period.
I wonder why E-V13 survived so much in modern South Slavs considering the high degree of replacement on the autosomal level.

Riverman
10-23-2020, 12:53 PM
I wonder why E-V13 survived so much in modern South Slavs considering the high degree of replacement on the autosomal level.


First, its possible that some Slavic tribes had more E-V13 than others, like if looking at Poland, there was a new study recently, showing that V13 is spread in all classic Slavic areas between 3-5 percent and the only regions where it lacks have more Baltic influences:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?709-New-DNA-Papers&p=712099&viewfull=1#post712099

Some of this can be attributed to more recent immigrations, as well as Germans and Jews, but most certainly only a minority of the total number if looking at the distribution.

That's one option for some clades, one has to look at more carefully. The other is, that the Southern Slavs had significant influences from the local population, minimum on par with what we see in Czechs and unlike what we see in Eastern Poland or White Russia. Actually, I would say that for some places it was close for Vlachs taking over, in other regions the Vlach clans survived for a very long time. The difference between Serbs and Romanians is primarily that in the first Slavs were able to keep the dominant position, in the second Vlachs did. Otherwise, they are quite similar. You could also ask, in the same manner, why Romanians speak now Romance, but Serbs don't and it would be a valid question.

So I'd say both played in: First, the Slavic tribes which came to the South had already originally higher V13, picked it up on the way through Pannonia and assimilated local people, even whole Vlach clans, which were not really subdued but just integrated into the new Slavic majority population, so their patrilineages survived.

Aspar
10-23-2020, 01:52 PM
It's funny when people are using such a generic term as South Slavs. The best is to pinpoint exactly which South Slavic speakers you have in mind because there is such a big difference even among neighbor groups. If G25 is anything to go with (bear in mind I trust the competence of Davidski) then all Serbs are more distant to me than all Albanians and mainland Greeks except maybe some isolated groups such as Maniots.

As for E-V13 I highly doubt that the proto-Slavs had any if at all. It's clear because most South Slavic E-V13's are yet to find a northern Slavic brother clade that dates from the end of before the common era such are some clades of I2a and R1a.
Probably most of E-V13 in Slavs are post proto-Slavic period or the period after migration from their initial homeland and are results of assimilation. Because there is not a single shared E-V13 clade among all Slavs which dates from the end of before common era and on, except maybe E-L540 for which I've read here that it was found in a Serb, then it's obvious to me that most E-V13 clades we're absorbed in various Slavic people in their post proto-Slavic homelands.

As to why E-V13 is that much present in South Slavs than other haplogroups that are presumed native Balkan first I believe E-V13 is not very significant in Slovenes while in Croats I believe is around 8-10% which is not that significant at all. If we speak about Bulgarians, keep in mind that G25 models some Bulgarians up to 25% Slavic only which is significantly less than Slovenes or Croats. Second it's obvious that some haplogroups such as J-L283 which was already found in BA Dalmatia didn't survived much outside some northern Albanians. It's less than ten percent among the south Albanians while it's insignificant among Greeks whose J2 is mostly J2a. Therefore there is no reason why this haplogroup would be as significant as E-V13 among south Slavs. R1b on other hand is significant among Slovenes and some Croats however the substructure would probably show that most R1b among Slovenes and Croats is of Germanic, Celtic and other non Balkan origin.

Riverman
10-23-2020, 06:24 PM
It's funny when people are using such a generic term as South Slavs. The best is to pinpoint exactly which South Slavic speakers you have in mind because there is such a big difference even among neighbor groups. If G25 is anything to go with (bear in mind I trust the competence of Davidski) then all Serbs are more distant to me than all Albanians and mainland Greeks except maybe some isolated groups such as Maniots.

As for E-V13 I highly doubt that the proto-Slavs had any if at all. It's clear because most South Slavic E-V13's are yet to find a northern Slavic brother clade that dates from the end of before the common era such are some clades of I2a and R1a.
Probably most of E-V13 in Slavs are post proto-Slavic period or the period after migration from their initial homeland and are results of assimilation. Because there is not a single shared E-V13 clade among all Slavs which dates from the end of before common era and on, except maybe E-L540 for which I've read here that it was found in a Serb, then it's obvious to me that most E-V13 clades we're absorbed in various Slavic people in their post proto-Slavic homelands.

As to why E-V13 is that much present in South Slavs than other haplogroups that are presumed native Balkan first I believe E-V13 is not very significant in Slovenes while in Croats I believe is around 8-10% which is not that significant at all. If we speak about Bulgarians, keep in mind that G25 models some Bulgarians up to 25% Slavic only which is significantly less than Slovenes or Croats. Second it's obvious that some haplogroups such as J-L283 which was already found in BA Dalmatia didn't survived much outside some northern Albanians. It's less than ten percent among the south Albanians while it's insignificant among Greeks whose J2 is mostly J2a. Therefore there is no reason why this haplogroup would be as significant as E-V13 among south Slavs. R1b on other hand is significant among Slovenes and some Croats however the substructure would probably show that most R1b among Slovenes and Croats is of Germanic, Celtic and other non Balkan origin.

From the paper quoted above, about the distribution of E in Poland:
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/567309/fgene-11-567309-HTML/image_m/fgene-11-567309-g002.jpg

I thought its interesting that there is no negative correlation with R1a, actually rather the contrary. Would be interesting if these, presumably mostly E-V13 clades could be assigned to the various subclades.

Aspar
10-23-2020, 09:46 PM
From the paper quoted above, about the distribution of E in Poland:
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/567309/fgene-11-567309-HTML/image_m/fgene-11-567309-g002.jpg

I thought its interesting that there is no negative correlation with R1a, actually rather the contrary. Would be interesting if these, presumably mostly E-V13 clades could be assigned to the various subclades.

It's interesting because both E and J have a hotspot in South Eastern Poland or the Carpathian region. I say it's interesting because from little I know about Poland this particular region is the most influenced by Vlach groups but also because this is a mountainous region which was probably inhabited by proto-Thracian people of Gava-Holigrady culture since BA times. I suspect that E-V13 is largely connected with the Carpathian mountains where it was able to survive.

Riverman
10-23-2020, 11:12 PM
It's interesting because both E and J have a hotspot in South Eastern Poland or the Carpathian region. I say it's interesting because from little I know about Poland this particular region is the most influenced by Vlach groups but also because this is a mountainous region which was probably inhabited by proto-Thracian people of Gava-Holigrady culture since BA times. I suspect that E-V13 is largely connected with the Carpathian mountains where it was able to survive.

Yes indeed, that's my opinion as well and that they might have spread in more Northern areas during Urnfield already, but in small numbers. However, after the Germanic and Slavic expansions, one could have assumed that their numbers would have decreased even more, yet there are parts of Central and Northern Poland with a frequency as high as in the mountainous South. I think that too needs an explanation. I would have expected a stronger concentration in the South, actually, than there is. Some Northern and Central samples had the same amount.

Many studies produce conflicting results, an older one showed a clear cline:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/figure/fig4/

Central Russia had back then more E than either the North or the South, comparable to these Polish results or slightly higher, compare table 2:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/

Michał
10-24-2020, 01:05 AM
However, after the Germanic and Slavic expansions, one could have assumed that their numbers would have decreased even more, yet there are parts of Central and Northern Poland with a frequency as high as in the mountainous South. I think that too needs an explanation. I would have expected a stronger concentration in the South, actually, than there is. Some Northern and Central samples had the same amount.

After the WW2, the Ukrainian (and Lemko) minority was forcefully resettled to the so-called Recovered Territories in today's Northern and Western Poland, so this may provide some explanation for what we see today regarding the frequency of haplogroup E. Actually, I'm afraid that most of those differences reported by Grochowalski et al. are not statistically significant (maybe except the exceptionally high frequency of haplogroup N in NE Poland), so we need much larger samples from all those subregions to get a better picture. Also, we should keep in mind that many modern Poles (especially in Western and Northern Poland) descend from people coming from former Eastern Poland (annexed by the Soviet Union), so some of the earlier inter-regional differences have been erased or significantly modified during the post-war period, and one won't be able to reconstruct the previous picture without focusing on people whose pre-war ancestors were of local origin.

https://www.techpedia.pl/app/public/files/28738.jpg
https://www.techpedia.pl/app/public/files/28738.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Curzon_line_en.svg/563px-Curzon_line_en.svg.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Curzon_line_en.svg/563px-Curzon_line_en.svg.png

Granary
10-24-2020, 06:34 AM
It's funny when people are using such a generic term as South Slavs. The best is to pinpoint exactly which South Slavic speakers you have in mind because there is such a big difference even among neighbor groups. If G25 is anything to go with (bear in mind I trust the competence of Davidski) then all Serbs are more distant to me than all Albanians and mainland Greeks except maybe some isolated groups such as Maniots.
There was no need to specify, I said South Slavs because even in the least Slavic admixed south Slavs the proportion of E-V13 is around 20-25% while their non Slavic admixture around 50-60%, which to me is weird given other examples where that kind of autosomal replacement implied an almost complete replacement on the male line.

Generally G25 says that Macedonians are closer to its northern neighbours, even Bosnians or Moldovans before any Albanians and Greeks, especially considering that that Greek samples they are closer to are in northern Greece and are clearly strongly Slavic admixed, in fact Macedonians appear closer to even non-Slavic admixed Northern Italians or Central European before insular Greeks.


Probably most of E-V13 in Slavs are post proto-Slavic period or the period after migration from their initial homeland and are results of assimilation. Because there is not a single shared E-V13 clade among all Slavs which dates from the end of before common era and on, except maybe E-L540 for which I've read here that it was found in a Serb, then it's obvious to me that most E-V13 clades we're absorbed in various Slavic people in their post proto-Slavic homelands.
Which is what I find weird, how can E-V13 alone compromise 20-25% of male lines in the least Slavic South Slavs when their autosomal admixture is still so Slavic? Especially considering all the other non Slavic y-dna lineages.


As to why E-V13 is that much present in South Slavs than other haplogroups that are presumed native Balkan first I believe E-V13 is not very significant in Slovenes while in Croats I believe is around 8-10% which is not that significant at all. If we speak about Bulgarians, keep in mind that G25 models some Bulgarians up to 25% Slavic only which is significantly less than Slovenes or Croats.
??? Even if you give G25 plenty Balkan or NW European references you cannot get to 25% Slavic admixture, that's too low. What kind of models are you using?

Michał
10-24-2020, 08:31 AM
I said South Slavs because even in the least Slavic admixed south Slavs the proportion of E-V13 is around 20-25% while their non Slavic admixture around 50-60%, which to me is weird given other examples where that kind of autosomal replacement implied an almost complete replacement on the male line.
I am not sure if I understand your point, but it seems that for some reasons that remain unknown to me you find it very "weired" that about the half of genetic ancestry of all modern Southern Slavs (or, more precisely, from about 55-65% in the East Balkan region to about 40-50% in the West Balkans) comes from some non-Slavic people assimilated by the Slavs (mostly from a local pre-Slavic substratum). Why do you find it so unexpected when knowing that the Balkan region was one of the most populous parts of Europe in those days, and even after the substantial depopulation caused by wars and plagues the local non-Slavic people could not have been eliminated completely (just take a look at how easily the Germanic newcomers were "diluted" among the local people in Lombardy, Iberia or France)?

Those numbers you provide indicate very clearly that E1b (mostly E-V13) constituted nearly 50% of the local pre-Slavic population in the Balkans, and there is nothing "weired" about it. Most importantly, this is perfectly consistent with the preliminary aDNA data from some Roman sites in Serbia (Viminacium, Timacum Minus and Lepenski Vir) where about 44% (or 17/39) of all male samples were members of haplogroup E.

Granary
10-24-2020, 10:40 AM
I am not sure if I understand your point, but it seems that for some reasons that remain unknown to me you find it very "weired" that about the half of genetic ancestry of all modern Southern Slavs (or, more precisely, from about 55-65% in the East Balkan region to about 40-50% in the West Balkans) comes from some non-Slavic people assimilated by the Slavs (mostly from a local pre-Slavic substratum).
The autosomal part is not odd to me, what is odd is that there is still so much apparently pre-Slavic Y-DNA around despite that autosomal shift. Maybe I'm expecting the migration to have been more male biased than it was.


Why do you find it so unexpected when knowing that the Balkan region was one of the most populous parts of Europe in those days, and even after the substantial depopulation caused by wars and plagues the local non-Slavic people could not have been eliminated completely (just take a look at how easily the Germanic newcomers were "diluted" among the local people in Lombardy, Iberia or France)?
In fact I think the exact opposite for the autosomal shift, if I didn't know anything about genetics I wouldn't have expected Slavs to have had such an impact not only among Eastern South Slavs but also among Albanians, Vlachs-Romanians and European Greeks, compared to the weaker effect Germanic people appear to have add in the West outside the limes and Britain. My comment was specifically about the ratio between non-Slavic Y-DNA and non-Slavic admixture.

Riverman
10-24-2020, 11:49 AM
The autosomal part is not odd to me, what is odd is that there is still so much apparently pre-Slavic Y-DNA around despite that autosomal shift. Maybe I'm expecting the migration to have been more male biased than it was.

I think you are right in finding it weird, but its easy to explain. In the Balkans the numbers of the locals were not just higher, but they were in some regions, especially the more mountainous ones, even fairly strong and able to resist. So the complete replacements happen, most of the time, if the conquerors make an "easy sweep" of a country, so especially where the land is flat and open, like on the steppe in particular. There you can have an almost complete "tabula rasa" with near complete paternal replacement rates. However, the situation is different if the locals have good strongholds and well-defended or even just hard to find places of retreat. Not just because they can endure the attack, but because, usually, after the initial onslaught, the incoming people settle down and soon afterwards the quarrels among themselves begin. So the new clans and local tribes search for allies and better relations with the local population, to gain the upper hand in their, let's say inner-Germanic or inner-Slavic fights. And that's the chance when especially the Vlach clans jumped in and became partners and allies on eye level. The same happened in Romania, where the Vlach clans, even though the Slavic influence was truly huge both genetically and culturally, took over as the leading element. That's why Romanians, Vlachs and Albanians survived, in the midst of Slavic, Magyar, Bulgar and German settlements. They just had a good position, especially in the mountainous and hilly regions.

Its even possible that E-V13 was in parts of Pannonia at the same or higher level, but there they got replaced early on, to a much higher degree than in the more protected places.

@Michal: You are right, its hard to extrapolate from the current data to the past. It might be more local continuity or not, we simply can't know without ancient DNA. Actually even early Medieval Polish might help a lot and look quite different, who knows until there are larger samples out.

Hawk
10-24-2020, 02:25 PM
There is a possibility that during Early Bronze Age E-V13 was a Southern Balkan which only few lineages survived and went into exile where they thrived in Urnfield complex during MBA/LBA.

Or, Cetina makes sense, some Cetinas went into Italy, some way down to Greece and some of the Cetina became part of Urnfield complex.

North Carpathians is not convinceable IMO.

Aspar
10-24-2020, 04:14 PM
There was no need to specify, I said South Slavs because even in the least Slavic admixed south Slavs the proportion of E-V13 is around 20-25% while their non Slavic admixture around 50-60%, which to me is weird given other examples where that kind of autosomal replacement implied an almost complete replacement on the male line.

Generally G25 says that Macedonians are closer to its northern neighbours, even Bosnians or Moldovans before any Albanians and Greeks, especially considering that that Greek samples they are closer to are in northern Greece and are clearly strongly Slavic admixed, in fact Macedonians appear closer to even non-Slavic admixed Northern Italians or Central European before insular Greeks.

Ok, this is a simple model I've made with G25 for the Bulgarian average, the individual Bulgarian samples and me included:

https://i.postimg.cc/433jpjDX/vahaduo-bulgarians.png (https://postimages.org/)

I've tried the model to be late antiquity or early medieval focused so to depict the most reasonable modeling however we are lacking early medieval Balkan samples so I've used BGR_IA here. HUN_Avar_Szolad should represent early Slavs, HUN_MA_Szolad should represent mixed Germanic and Pannonian ancestry while RUS_MA_Nomad should represent proto-Bulgar ancestry.
The results are in line with "Garrett Hellenthal et al",
In the publication by Hellenthal et al., based on a database of 94 modern populations, the authors inferred over 40% of the total autosomal make-up of the Bulgarians to a legacy of the "Slavic (500-900CE)" expansion.

I will not discuss the ethnic Macedonian's average in G25 because there are samples outliers included in the average which are Macedonians by nationality but are NOT ethnic Macedonians, more specifically the sample 'Macedonian3' that appears to be member of the Bosniak or Serbian minority in North Macedonia. This sample is on dictance with me at 0.06431678 and is further away from me than all Serb samples in the spreadsheet and even further away than some Ashkenazi Jews. Laughable to say the least...
Here are my coordinates, you can check for yourself:

Aspar_scaled,0.121791,0.144205,0.026398,-0.012597,0.024928,-0.005578,0.00094,-0.001846,0.001636,0.006925,-0.002923,-0.002997,-0.000595,0.011423,-0.014794,0.010607,0.013299,0.000127,0.010182,-0.006753,-0.006239,0.006677,0.007641,0.002169,-0.000958

So if we take the argument that on average the Bulgarians are 40% Slavic, this goes hand in hand with their combined I2a + R1a results from "Karacanak 2013" plus a small percentage of other lineages considering that proto-Slavs were most probably not only I2a + R1a but had a small percentage of something else as well:

https://i.postimg.cc/2y2j9fW0/bulgarians-y-dna.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

E among Bulgarians is at 22.1% while E-V13 alone is at 18.1%. This puts the E lineages comfortably in the zone of what might have to be considered 'native Balkan lineages'. Plus there is no discrepancy in the correlation between the auDNA and yDNA but pure linearity and proportionality.


Which is what I find weird, how can E-V13 alone compromise 20-25% of male lines in the least Slavic South Slavs when their autosomal admixture is still so Slavic? Especially considering all the other non Slavic y-dna lineages.

Refer to what I've said above about Bulgarians, the autosomal dna correlated with the Slavs is around 40% which is in line with their I2a + R1a percentages plus few percentages of something else...


??? Even if you give G25 plenty Balkan or NW European references you cannot get to 25% Slavic admixture, that's too low. What kind of models are you using?

The model above has one Bulgarian at 34% Slavic ancestry however the G25 spreadsheets don't include all the differentiality among the Bulgarians. Especially are lacking results of most south eastern Bulgarians whose results I've seen on Eurogenes K13 and I still have them on my computer. One of them is my 4000 years distant y-dna bulgarian match. This Thracian Bulgarians can be modeled up to around 25% Slavic admixture with K13. Their K13 values:


Bulgarian:Bulgarian_Burgas,17.87,17.95,17.56,13.49 ,22.08,3.01,3.93,2.18,1.07,0,0.86,0,0
Bulgarian:Bulgarian_Burgas2,16.58,21.19,20.72,12.1 4,25.80,1.49,1.54,0,0.53,0,0,0,0
Bulgarian:Bulgarian_Burgas3,16.82,20.54,20.60,11.9 9,26.09,1.53,1.78,0,0.66,0,0,0,0

Imesmouden
10-24-2020, 07:30 PM
Ok, this is a simple model I've made with G25 for the Bulgarian average, the individual Bulgarian samples and me included:

https://i.postimg.cc/433jpjDX/vahaduo-bulgarians.png (https://postimages.org/)

I've tried the model to be late antiquity or early medieval focused so to depict the most reasonable modeling however we are lacking early medieval Balkan samples so I've used BGR_IA here. HUN_Avar_Szolad should represent early Slavs, HUN_MA_Szolad should represent mixed Germanic and Pannonian ancestry while RUS_MA_Nomad should represent proto-Bulgar ancestry.
The results are in line with "Garrett Hellenthal et al",

I will not discuss the ethnic Macedonian's average in G25 because there are samples outliers included in the average which are Macedonians by nationality but are NOT ethnic Macedonians, more specifically the sample 'Macedonian3' that appears to be member of the Bosniak or Serbian minority in North Macedonia. This sample is on dictance with me at 0.06431678 and is further away from me than all Serb samples in the spreadsheet and even further away than some Ashkenazi Jews. Laughable to say the least...
Here are my coordinates, you can check for yourself:


So if we take the argument that on average the Bulgarians are 40% Slavic, this goes hand in hand with their combined I2a + R1a results from "Karacanak 2013" plus a small percentage of other lineages considering that proto-Slavs were most probably not only I2a + R1a but had a small percentage of something else as well:

https://i.postimg.cc/2y2j9fW0/bulgarians-y-dna.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

E among Bulgarians is at 22.1% while E-V13 alone is at 18.1%. This puts the E lineages comfortably in the zone of what might have to be considered 'native Balkan lineages'. Plus there is no discrepancy in the correlation between the auDNA and yDNA but pure linearity and proportionality.



Refer to what I've said above about Bulgarians, the autosomal dna correlated with the Slavs is around 40% which is in line with their I2a + R1a percentages plus few percentages of something else...



The model above has one Bulgarian at 34% Slavic ancestry however the G25 spreadsheets don't include all the differentiality among the Bulgarians. Especially are lacking results of most south eastern Bulgarians whose results I've seen on Eurogenes K13 and I still have them on my computer. One of them is my 4000 years distant y-dna bulgarian match. This Thracian Bulgarians can be modeled up to around 25% Slavic admixture with K13. Their K13 values:

please the study name of E among Bulgarians

DgidguBidgu
10-24-2020, 08:02 PM
please the study name of E among Bulgarians

The figure posted by Aspar is from this research:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/

Granary
10-25-2020, 04:01 AM
Ok, this is a simple model I've made with G25 for the Bulgarian average, the individual Bulgarian samples and me included:
IMO you should have some MENA reference too or at least Greek, both are preferable given how readily it is accepted and makes sense given what happened in Italy too. Adding either does elevate Slavic ancestry generally by 5%.


I've tried the model to be late antiquity or early medieval focused so to depict the most reasonable modeling however we are lacking early medieval Balkan samples so I've used BGR_IA here. HUN_Avar_Szolad should represent early Slavs, HUN_MA_Szolad should represent mixed Germanic and Pannonian ancestry while RUS_MA_Nomad should represent proto-Bulgar ancestry.
Wouldn't using DEU_MA and HRV_IA be a more direct way to differentiate Illyrian-Pannonian ancestry and Germanic one?


The results are in line with "Garrett Hellenthal et al",

I will not discuss the ethnic Macedonian's average in G25 because there are samples outliers included in the average which are Macedonians by nationality but are NOT ethnic Macedonians, more specifically the sample 'Macedonian3' that appears to be member of the Bosniak or Serbian minority in North Macedonia. This sample is on dictance with me at 0.06431678 and is further away from me than all Serb samples in the spreadsheet and even further away than some Ashkenazi Jews. Laughable to say the least...
Here are my coordinates, you can check for yourself:
Well regardless of what you do you do get an average at around 40-45%, so it doesn't really change, but I believe the 25% minimum you find on those eurogenes k13 samples are quite an outlier considering how mainland Greek and Albanian samples both score in terms of Slavic ancestry.



So if we take the argument that on average the Bulgarians are 40% Slavic, this goes hand in hand with their combined I2a + R1a results from "Karacanak 2013" plus a small percentage of other lineages considering that proto-Slavs were most probably not only I2a + R1a but had a small percentage of something else as well:

E among Bulgarians is at 22.1% while E-V13 alone is at 18.1%. This puts the E lineages comfortably in the zone of what might have to be considered 'native Balkan lineages'. Plus there is no discrepancy in the correlation between the auDNA and yDNA but pure linearity and proportionality.

Refer to what I've said above about Bulgarians, the autosomal dna correlated with the Slavs is around 40% which is in line with their I2a + R1a percentages plus few percentages of something else...

But why should it be in line? In England you have a overrepresentation of Germanic Y-DNA lineages compared to the estimated admixture and same goes for the Indo-European expansion.

Michał
10-25-2020, 11:15 AM
In England you have a overrepresentation of Germanic Y-DNA lineages compared to the estimated admixture

Is this overrepresentation of Germanic Y-DNA in England really so strong? It seems that the autosomal contribution of the Anglo-Saxons in England is about 30-35% on average, so this is more or less what the combined frequency of R1b-U106 (about 20%) and I1a (about 14%) is, and we should also keep in mind that some of those Germanic Y-DNA lineages could have been brought to England with the more recent migrations (including the Vikings and the Normans).


and same goes for the Indo-European expansion.
This is indeed a case when the impact on the level of Y-DNA was much stronger, especially in nearly all regions dominated by the Bell Beaker folks, like Britain or Iberia, but not so much in places like Greece or the Balkans, so I don't think we should expect that the same mechanisms associated with the cultural dominance of the Bell Beaker/Corded Ware people should be automatically transferred to all migrations in ancient Europe, not to mention that both the population density and the social structures were very different in the Late Neolithic Europe when compared to the Late Roman times.

Riverman
10-25-2020, 01:28 PM
There is a possibility that during Early Bronze Age E-V13 was a Southern Balkan which only few lineages survived and went into exile where they thrived in Urnfield complex during MBA/LBA.

Or, Cetina makes sense, some Cetinas went into Italy, some way down to Greece and some of the Cetina became part of Urnfield complex.

North Carpathians is not convinceable IMO.

I wasn't very confident about the North Carpathian origin before the Bronze Age results from Pannonia. The reason is simple, because I see no feasible large scale replacement from the Balkans going North and taking Pannonia and even beyond after the Middle Bronze Age. Yet if looking at the later distribution, the Pannonian and Carpathian region is expected to be heavily E-V13 by the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, because both Pannonian-Illyrian and Thracian groups seem to have had very high E-V13 frequencies. What this means is, that V13 was not from the local assimilated people, which according ot the recent study were dominated by R1b, R1a and I from EBA to MBA, but came with Urnfield-related groups down in the LBA-EIA transition. And this fits perfectly with an origin around Slovakia, North Carpathians, Southern Urnfield and specific horizons like Gava. Because from where else should both Illyrian and Thracian, Urnfield related groups came down South spreading E-V13 in LBA and EIA?
The Eastern Alpine zone is a candidate too, yes, but while the Balkans seems to have not enough penetration in the LBA-EIA to turn Pannonia in my opinion, the Eastern Alpine expansions related to Illyrian groups seem to have not enough punch to penetrate the Southern Balkans.

I think one should look at any such scenario for an expansion of patrilineages like this: Which migration, cultural shift or expansive culture overlaps with the proposed spread. If we do so, we have to include all known later spreaders, like in this case it seems to affect Thracians the most, Illyrians second, Greeks (Dorians?) third and Celts fourth. Looking for a source which affects all of these and beyond, we don't get around Urnfield, especially with the evidence from Pannonia which seem to strongly indicate that this region was taken by an E-V13 heavy people in the LBA-EIA and I see absolutely no indication for this coming from the South. The strongest candidate must be a South Eastern Urnfield group. I might be wrong, but we will see. The Pannonian results really nailed it in my opinion, but that's of course just my current opinion. There could have been a large scale infiltration without a massive migration from the Southern Balkans, its certainly possible, but became just much more unlikely after these results:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21853-Prehistory-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-from-the-perspective-of-archeogenetics

Granary
10-25-2020, 05:32 PM
Is this overrepresentation of Germanic Y-DNA in England really so strong? It seems that the autosomal contribution of the Anglo-Saxons in England is about 30-35% on average, so this is more or less what the combined frequency of R1b-U106 (about 20%) and I1a (about 14%) is, and we should also keep in mind that some of those Germanic Y-DNA lineages could have been brought to England with the more recent migrations (including the Vikings and the Normans).
I believe some I2a lineages and Scandinavian R1a would boost it further as well as other lineages of R1b that are not present in France but are in Northern Germany/Netherlands. I can't find specific studies as precise as the Bulgarian or Polish one though.



This is indeed a case when the impact on the level of Y-DNA was much stronger, especially in nearly all regions dominated by the Bell Beaker folks, like Britain or Iberia, but not so much in places like Greece or the Balkans, so I don't think we should expect that the same mechanisms associated with the cultural dominance of the Bell Beaker/Corded Ware people should be automatically transferred to all migrations in ancient Europe, not to mention that both the population density and the social structures were very different in the Late Neolithic Europe when compared to the Late Roman times.
I mean they are still similar on the autosomal front, of course we can point at some general differences but male bias in migrations is something quite common that's why I'm looking into this further.

Michał
10-25-2020, 06:38 PM
I believe some I2a lineages and Scandinavian R1a would boost it further as well as other lineages of R1b that are not present in France but are in Northern Germany/Netherlands.
I strongly doubt any I2a and R1a lineages were very common among the migrating Anglo-Saxons, not to mention that these haplogroups are relatively rare in England today. For example, the frequency of R1a in England is only about 4% and most of it is Z284 that likely came with the Norwegian Vikings rather than with the Anglo-Saxons or Jutes. Most of the English L664 could have been indeed brought there with the Frisians, but L664 constitutes less than 0.5% of all Y-DNA in England, so its contribution was certainly negligible when compared to other Germanic haplogroups. And again, we need to keep in mind that at least some of the English I1a and R1b-U106 is likely of Viking and Norman origin, so when taking all this into account I cannot see any data suggesting that the Germanic Y-DNA is strongly overrepresented in England when compared to the Germanic autosmal DNA.


I can't find specific studies as precise as the Bulgarian or Polish one though.

And this is another reason we should avoid such bold statements about the putative overrepresentation of Germanic Y-DNA in England.


I mean they are still similar on the autosomal front, of course we can point at some general differences but male bias in migrations is something quite common that's why I'm looking into this further.
Could you please show just one secure example of such a significant male bias for any migration taking place during the Great Migrations Period in Europe? It seems to me that all the data we have so far point to a much more balanced sex ratio for all Early Medieval migrations of different Germanic and Slavic tribes.

Granary
10-26-2020, 06:46 AM
I strongly doubt any I2a and R1a lineages were very common among the migrating Anglo-Saxons, not to mention that these haplogroups are relatively rare in England today. For example, the frequency of R1a in England is only about 4% and most of it is Z284 that likely came with the Norwegian Vikings rather than with the Anglo-Saxons or Jutes.
There weren't that many Norwegians in England so the point doesn't really work, the R1a could have been Anglo-Saxon given it's present in Denmark too at about 15% and its presence in England doesn't correlated with Norwegian settlements or even Danish.



Most of the English L664 could have been indeed brought there with the Frisians, but L664 constitutes less than 0.5% of all Y-DNA in England, so its contribution was certainly negligible when compared to other Germanic haplogroups.
Other non U152, U106 or L21 could be investigated too.


And again, we need to keep in mind that at least some of the English I1a and R1b-U106 is likely of Viking and Norman origin, so when taking all this into account I cannot see any data suggesting that the Germanic Y-DNA is strongly overrepresented in England when compared to the Germanic autosmal DNA.
For the Normans you would have to make a big assumption on whether the Normans that came over had overall more Germanic Y-DNA than the locals which given all the non-Norman French that came over is doubtful, in fact there is a stronger argument for the opposite being true, that Normans reduced the proportion of Germanic Y-Dna even if by little.

And for the Norse influence I still don't get whether we have somehow been able to divide Anglo-Saxon ancestry from Norse ancestry so doing the same for Y-DNA seems pointless.



And this is another reason we should avoid such bold statements about the putative overrepresentation of Germanic Y-DNA in England.
Well evidence I see points to that direction:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6154-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Percentages-and-maps-for-England-Source-FTDNA-Y-DNA-projects

Even if we exclude I2 totally, which is unwarranted given at least some I2 came with Germanic(given it's present where Anglo-Saxons came from too), you end up with some degree overrepresentation if we don't start nitpick everything one way.



Could you please show just one secure example of such a significant male bias for any migration taking place during the Great Migrations Period in Europe? It seems to me that all the data we have so far point to a much more balanced sex ratio for all Early Medieval migrations of different Germanic and Slavic tribes.
Norse expansion in Iceland and Faroes:

https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fsj.ejhg.5201578/MediaObjects/41431_2006_Article_BF5201578_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sara_Goodacre/publication/7920315/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Map-showing-the-proportions-of-Scandinavian-and-British-Irish-ancestry-for-mtDNA-Mt-and.png

Also Ashkenazi have more Levantine Y-DNA compared to mtDNA and they also originate from this period.

Also let me flip the question, can you show the same kind of mtDna replacement or recent expansions we see with Slavic ydna lineages?

If we actually just compare R1b-U106+I1 for Germanic migrations and R1a+I2a for Slavs we end up seeing some discrepancies, in England it might correlate 1:1 with Anglo-Saxon admixture(if Anglo-Saxon admixture is indeed 30-40% all over England) but for Serbia or other south Slavic countries you end up with underrepresentation of 0.8:1, maybe there is a simple general reason( but in any case there is a difference if you look it at this angle.

We don't have many cases to go through anyway, other than the 4 examples here what other cases do you have where we can reasonably guess y-dna to autosomal admixture ratios or even mtdna to y-dna ratios? To me viewing the migraiton era in isolation seems arbitrary, there is nothing to suggest that the Slavic and Germanic migrations ought to have been more like each other than to other events in other times periods or even other continents.

Riverman
10-26-2020, 10:42 AM
@Granary:

Vikings had a significant influence on the Isles, there can be no doubt about it.


For the Normans you would have to make a big assumption on whether the Normans that came over had overall more Germanic Y-DNA than the locals which given all the non-Norman French that came over is doubtful, in fact there is a stronger argument for the opposite being true, that Normans reduced the proportion of Germanic Y-Dna even if by little

I wouldn't say that at all and if anything, for the British very much is about the local Bell Beaker population and any later continental influence, with Normans being predominantely Germanic influences which reduced the local Celtic one, and that should be measurable as well. The majority of those coming with the Normans were actual Norman lineages, Bretons, Flemish and French.

However, speaking about, what I found interesting that in Wikipedia they also name Gascon, so Basque, and an old book about the Anglo-Norman armies mentioned Aquitanians in the Army of William too. I wonder whether some clearly Basque lineages in Britain came with the Norman conquest?

VladimirTaraskin
10-26-2020, 02:13 PM
Germany, Saxony 1058-1254 AD. Medieval cemetery.
7 males were sequenced :
3 individuals - R1a-L1029
1 person - I1a-CTS7362
1 person - I2a-Y3120
1 person - E1b-V13
1 person - J2b-Z638

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75163-w#Tab4

Granary
10-26-2020, 04:04 PM
@Granary:

Vikings had a significant influence on the Isles, there can be no doubt about it.
But R1a is not limited to places where Norwegian or Danish vikings were, nor is particularly more common there, so at least that lineage can date back to the Anglo-Saxons too. The recent paper suggests only around 8% or so overall Viking admixture in England which again I'm not sure how that lines up with previous papers given they always mention the difficulty in distinguishing Anglo-Saxon from Viking ancestry.


I wouldn't say that at all and if anything, for the British very much is about the local Bell Beaker population and any later continental influence, with Normans being predominantely Germanic influences which reduced the local Celtic one, and that should be measurable as well. The majority of those coming with the Normans were actual Norman lineages, Bretons, Flemish and French.
Normans replaced mostly the nobilty and when you compare the Anglo-Saxon nobilty with the Norman newcomers, can you really say that the Normans had more R1b-U106, I1 or other GermanicY-DNA lineges compared to the local Anglo-Saxon nobilty?

You would need to assume that the Germanic ydna in the Norman and Flemish newcomers was big enough and that the Breton and French contribution was small enough and personally I don't see how that's possible, so actually I'm more prone to say that the Normans if they had any long term impact would have decreased Germanic Y-DNA a bit.


However, speaking about, what I found interesting that in Wikipedia they also name Gascon, so Basque, and an old book about the Anglo-Norman armies mentioned Aquitanians in the Army of William too. I wonder whether some clearly Basque lineages in Britain came with the Norman conquest?
It's possible but I wonder if we have something more concrete after the conquest, is there any historical record of any kind migration between Gascony and England during the 2 1/2 centuries of "English control"?

Aspar
10-26-2020, 04:30 PM
IMO you should have some MENA reference too or at least Greek, both are preferable given how readily it is accepted and makes sense given what happened in Italy too. Adding either does elevate Slavic ancestry generally by 5%.
Wouldn't using DEU_MA and HRV_IA be a more direct way to differentiate Illyrian-Pannonian ancestry and Germanic one?


Large scale MENA migrations and contributions to south-east Europeans's gene pool hasn't been historically recorded and archaeology wise such migration hasn't been detected ever since the Neolithic and the AF. Which led me to think that this MENA signal in south-east Europeans is actually a signal of Roman contribution having in mind the Imperial Romans and the last paper in relation to them which detected strong MENA signal and stretch of samples who plotted on the PCA from the Italian peninsula to the Middle East. Now how this MENA dna made it's way to the Romans is a totally different question.
As per your suggestion I've made a different model with DEU_MA as a proxy for Germanic, UKR_Cimmerian_O as a proxy for Getae people considering that for East Balkanites this is more reasonable ancestry than Pannonian and ITA_Rome_Imperial for South European - MENA ancestry:

https://i.postimg.cc/vHMjbvHN/G25-bulgarians-ancients.png (https://postimages.org/)

This didn't change much regarding Slavic ancestry albeit the distances are better now.


Well regardless of what you do you do get an average at around 40-45%, so it doesn't really change, but I believe the 25% minimum you find on those eurogenes k13 samples are quite an outlier considering how mainland Greek and Albanian samples both score in terms of Slavic ancestry.

There is a cline in a population dna and plotting everywhere. 40% average for the Bulgarians doesn't mean that every Bulgarian will be around 40% Slavic or that Albanians and Greeks are all the same. I don't think this should be a shock to someone but the Bulgarians living at the southern provincies close to the Greek border are genetically very similar to their Greek neighbors over the border who don't have recent ancestry from somewhere else or who are not immigrants from somewhere else. And this cline continues which means that the northern Greeks along the Bulgarian border would be more similar to their neighbors than to their countryman from the very south. You also have to keep in mind that the Slavic ancestry is strongest in the central areas of the Southern Balkans. That would be Western Bulgaria, while as you go to the peripheral areas of the country, the Slavic ancestry is getting low, where the lowest is in the south-east. The same model with mainland Greeks and Albanians:
https://i.postimg.cc/9X4MhFT9/G25-greeks-ancients.png (https://postimg.cc/G9CrPRX3)
https://i.postimg.cc/3xmpFzvL/G25-greeks-albanians-ancients.png (https://postimg.cc/mPZtbXVM)

It's no surprise that the most 'Slavic' Greeks are those from Macedonia and Thrace and I can imagine who my neighbors are just looking at their values and how close they are to me. The least 'Slavic' of these Macedonian Greeks would be those from the peripheral areas or Western Macedonia while those from Central Macedonia would be the most 'Slavic' ones. The same applies to our Thracian Bulgarians but these is not really important anymore regarding E-V13 and it's relation to the pre-Slavic inhabitants of the Balkans.


But why should it be in line? In England you have a overrepresentation of Germanic Y-DNA lineages compared to the estimated admixture and same goes for the Indo-European expansion.

The same demographic changes and rules do not apply everywhere. I am not really knowledgeable about the Y-DNA of the English people but if it is as you say than that would imply that the invaders, the Germanics, really made sure to spread their seed. When such situation is observable that might imply that the invaders either killed the males from the other populations they encountered or discriminated them in various ways such is 'the right of the first night' and so on. Now when we talking about Bulgaria or North Macedonia we have to take some things into account.
First, do we know if the Slavic invaders were pure proto-Slavs or already admixed with Pannonian or Dacian/Getae people considering that the Slavs had significant presence on the territory of modern Romania before migrating to more southern areas? I think we don't have the answer to this question however by some rumors on this forum, the Medieval Slavs in the Balkans were Serbian or Romanian like. Now I don't know to which timeline of the Medieval this rumor applies but if it's as early as Early Medieval than that would mean that the Slavs were heavily admixed with Balkan like people.
Second, both North Macedonia and Bulgaria were heavily inhabited by Eastern Romance speakers during the past going by historical accounts and yet these people today are linguistically dead. However they didn't vanished without trace but were assimilated into Bulgarian ethnos. This is quite visible both linguistically and culturally. The Bulgarian language is part of the 'Balkan Sprachbund' unlike all the other Slavic languages. The'Balkan Spracbund' is a term applied to a group of Balkan languages(Bulgarian, Albanian, Eastern or Balkan Romance and Greek). To small degree here can be added the Balkan Roma language and the Torlakian dialect. What this means is that grammatical features, quite distant from the proto-Slavic were added to Bulgarian and this features are shared with other Balkan non-Slavic languages. Every linguist in the world will tell you that the grammar is the backbone of a language and unlike the lexicon who can be changed quite easily and without assimilation of different people, the grammar can't be changed so easily and can only be added to a language if a group of people for various reasons start speaking another language however in doing so, they apply their native language's grammar to the new language. And this is exactly what happened in North Macedonia and Bulgaria where after the turbulent early Medieval the older inhabitants started appearing in the history after insurgence in numbers having to that moment been quite isolated. However when they start appearing, the Slavic states in the Balkans were already organized with state and church institutions where the main language was the Old Church Slavonic. And after the insurgence, these non-Slavic people were heavily involved in the institutions of the Bulgarian Empire and were even nobility as were Kaloyan and Asen which would mean that these people were not conquered people or discriminated so the situation was not the same as in England. However, Involvement of the part of the Vlach nobility in the reconstruction of the Slavic Bulgarian state may indicate its progressive Slavisation. Although the second Bulgarian Empire, like other medieval states, was not a nation-state, there are indications that some Bulgarian tsars led the Slavisation actions among the Vlachs on purpose. Paisii of Hilandar mentions that Kaloyan of Bulgaria forced the Vlachs to use the Slavonic language in church. So you have a situation here where a Bulgarian tsar, Vlach by origin, forces the Vlachs to use the Old Church Slavonic. And probably these people were heavy contributors of E and other non I-Y3120 or R1a lineages.

So, all in all, having in mind that Bulgarians have heavy Balkan, non Slavic contribution, this doesn't imply that this contribution is only female related which if I understood you correctly you try to imply. The demographic mechanisms I've mentioned above doesn't suggest that neither does the correlation of Bulgarian E lineages with northern Slavs. Apart from Carlos Quiles who if you think is a reliable source, no one really connected E-V13 with the Slavs.

Granary
10-26-2020, 06:38 PM
So, all in all, having in mind that Bulgarians have heavy Balkan, non Slavic contribution, this doesn't imply that this contribution is only female related which if I understood you correctly you try to imply.
No I did not imply that even closely, I was just expecting to see something like Slavic y-DNA being a bit higher than the autosomal contribution, simply because of the various patterns we see elsewhere. I know the Slavic migration involved whole people and was not a mostly elite conquest like the Goths so I certainly do not think it was only males that migrated. Even if the Slavic migration involved a perfectly equal amount of male and females you still could expect more y-dna from the new population given polygyny and the more varied reproductive success of males compared to females as a general trend, I guess for some reason it doesn't apply here.


The demographic mechanisms I've mentioned above doesn't suggest that neither does the correlation of Bulgarian E lineages with northern Slavs. Apart from Carlos Quiles who if you think is a reliable source, no one really connected E-V13 with the Slavs.
Well if South Slavs were already mixed before crossing the Danube some E-V13 could have entered their community already, but I'm not sure it can be identified it that were the case.


Second, both North Macedonia and Bulgaria were heavily inhabited by Eastern Romance speakers during the past going by historical accounts and yet these people today are linguistically dead.
Wasn't Macedonia south of the Jirecek line anyway? In any case Aromanians and Megleno Romanians are still alive?


Every linguist in the world will tell you that the grammar is the backbone of a language and unlike the lexicon who can be changed quite easily and without assimilation of different people, the grammar can't be changed so easily and can only be added to a language if a group of people for various reasons start speaking another language however in doing so, they apply their native language's grammar to the new language.
I think this is a bit skewed, we don't have much evidence of Koine Greek or Late Romance being the origin of most the Balkanism and it's hard to argue for a native paleo-Balkan and Albanian contribution without knowing how those languages looked in detail, my understanding is that the Sprachbund was created through contact, borrwing and mixing, not primarily by Slavic speakers retaining Greek/Romance/Albanian features because otherwise why would Greek, Romanian and Albanian share features with each other by means of a substratum.



And after the insurgence, these non-Slavic people were heavily involved in the institutions of the Bulgarian Empire and were even nobility as were Kaloyan and Asen which would mean that these people were not conquered people or discriminated so the situation was not the same as in England. However,
I mean that happened in England too eventually but Germanization was more thorough and I believe had less blurred zones, maybe why Celtic had little to no influence on Old English.

DgidguBidgu
10-26-2020, 09:10 PM
No I did not imply that even closely, I was just expecting to see something like Slavic y-DNA being a bit higher than the autosomal contribution, simply because of the various patterns we see elsewhere. I know the Slavic migration involved whole people and was not a mostly elite conquest like the Goths so I certainly do not think it was only males that migrated. Even if the Slavic migration involved a perfectly equal amount of male and females you still could expect more y-dna from the new population given polygyny and the more varied reproductive success of males compared to females as a general trend, I guess for some reason it doesn't apply here.


Well if South Slavs were already mixed before crossing the Danube some E-V13 could have entered their community already, but I'm not sure it can be identified it that were the case.


Wasn't Macedonia south of the Jirecek line anyway? In any case Aromanians and Megleno Romanians are still alive?


I think this is a bit skewed, we don't have much evidence of Koine Greek or Late Romance being the origin of most the Balkanism and it's hard to argue for a native paleo-Balkan and Albanian contribution without knowing how those languages looked in detail, my understanding is that the Sprachbund was created through contact, borrwing and mixing, not primarily by Slavic speakers retaining Greek/Romance/Albanian features because otherwise why would Greek, Romanian and Albanian share features with each other by means of a substratum.



I mean that happened in England too eventually but Germanization was more thorough and I believe had less blurred zones, maybe why Celtic had little to no influence on Old English.


What do you mean by "something like Slavic y-DNA"?
My Second question would be: Do you have any proof that this is the real source for Slavic languages?

Granary
10-26-2020, 09:14 PM
What do you mean by "something like Slavic y-DNA"?
My Second question would be: Do you have any proof that this is the real source for Slavic languages?
I'm not going to entertain your ideas about Slavic originating in the Balkans...

Generalissimo
10-26-2020, 09:18 PM
What do you mean by "something like Slavic y-DNA"?
My Second question would be: Do you have any proof that this is the real source for Slavic languages?

There is such a thing as Balto-Slavic DNA, and it spread into the Balkans during the Middle Ages.

Duh.

DgidguBidgu
10-26-2020, 09:22 PM
And you think that until then another language was spoken in the Balkans?

DgidguBidgu
10-26-2020, 09:25 PM
And I'm not buying your Baltic theories, because even official history doesn't support such fantasies.

Riverman
10-26-2020, 09:26 PM
And you think that until then another language was spoken in the Balkans?

Before the Slavs came, Latin dialects, Albanian-related languages, Greek and Germanic, probably even remnants of Old Bakanic dialects here and there. Coming back to the original topic, before the Thraco-Illyrians spread with Urnfield related groups, other dialects were spoken on the Balkan too.

Actually I'd assume that the spread of E-V13 was pretty similar to the spread of the Slavic languages much later. They both took the same pathways around the Carpathians and through Pannonia. In both cases Pannonia was probably taken first, but also lost first, because its an open and highly vulnerable area.

DgidguBidgu
10-26-2020, 09:35 PM
Before the Slavs came, Latin dialects, Albanian-related languages, Greek and Germanic, probably even remnants of Old Bakanic dialects here and there. Coming back to the original topic, before the Thraco-Illyrians spread with Urnfield related groups, other dialects were spoken on the Balkan too.

Actually I'd assume that the spread of E-V13 was pretty similar to the spread of the Slavic languages much later. They both took the same pathways around the Carpathians and through Pannonia. In both cases Pannonia was probably taken first, but also lost first, because its an open and highly vulnerable area.


Where do you read these things? What kind of Albanian, if Albanians have not officially come to the Balkans yet? Do you have any idea of European history, especially Balkan ones? According to what you write, you are far from this discipline.
What does Latin have to do with the local Balkan languages, to which Bulgarian is included?
Your runaround over uncomfortable topics will not change the facts and the written history about Slavic languages and which Kingdom bring them to other people.

DgidguBidgu
10-26-2020, 10:18 PM
Actually I'd assume that the spread of E-V13 was pretty similar to the spread of the Slavic languages much later. They both took the same pathways around the Carpathians and through Pannonia. In both cases Pannonia was probably taken first, but also lost first, because its an open and highly vulnerable area.

About Pannonia, please explain these down here and why Pannonians are not connected to some other Slavs, more closer there? Has any other Slavic ethnic group been mentioned in this time period?

In the Historia Langobardorum Paulus Diaconus describes a clash between Bulgarians and Lombards in Pannonia. This happened somewhere in the second half of the 5th century.
(Ch. Kingsley, Roman and the Theuton, p.104)
The Bulgarians are not in Pannonia by chance and for a short period of time. In his work Geography, Orosius Paul (375-418) placed the lands of the Bulgarians between Carinthia (Austria) and Greece (R.G. Latham, The Germania, XXIV). Pannonia is located exactly in this area. Even if we assume that Orosius wrote his work at the end of his life, this means that the Bulgarians inhabited Central Europe as early as the IV-V century.
Not only Paul the Deacon and Orosius Paul connect the Bulgarians with ancient Pannonia. So does John Zonara. In one of his dictionaries he called the Bulgarians by the name of the Pannonians -Πανόνιοι οἱ Βούλγαροι. And Bulgaria itself as Pannonia -Πανονία ἡ Βουλγαρία

Riverman
10-26-2020, 11:55 PM
About Pannonia, please explain these down here and why Pannonians are not connected to some other Slavs, more closer there? Has any other Slavic ethnic group been mentioned in this time period?

In the Historia Langobardorum Paulus Diaconus describes a clash between Bulgarians and Lombards in Pannonia. This happened somewhere in the second half of the 5th century.
(Ch. Kingsley, Roman and the Theuton, p.104)
The Bulgarians are not in Pannonia by chance and for a short period of time. In his work Geography, Orosius Paul (375-418) placed the lands of the Bulgarians between Carinthia (Austria) and Greece (R.G. Latham, The Germania, XXIV). Pannonia is located exactly in this area. Even if we assume that Orosius wrote his work at the end of his life, this means that the Bulgarians inhabited Central Europe as early as the IV-V century.
Not only Paul the Deacon and Orosius Paul connect the Bulgarians with ancient Pannonia. So does John Zonara. In one of his dictionaries he called the Bulgarians by the name of the Pannonians -Πανόνιοι οἱ Βούλγαροι. And Bulgaria itself as Pannonia -Πανονία ἡ Βουλγαρία

First of all, I'd assume there was a Slavic continuum at this early time, so no clear distinction between West, South and East Slavs, with Pannonia being really not that easily to assign to any particular group or grouping. However, your definition of "Bulgarian" is over the top. That's like using "Goth" for every Germanic South of Denmark, it makes absolutely no sense. You write about Carinthia, but while the Carantanians were surely Slavs, I never ever heard anybody calling them "Bulgarians", even more, what kind of Bulgarian are you even talking about in the IV-V century?
There was surely a continuum from the ancestors of Moravians and Slovaks, down to Carantanians and so on. We hear of the Slavs under the Avars and in Samos "empire" later. I won't list all tribes and search for them, there was a large scale Slavic migration coming ahead of the Avars, those evading their rule, and under their rule. A lot of the Slavic migrations was directly and indirectly associated with first the Germanic migrations and second the Avar intrusion.

Aspar
10-27-2020, 07:36 AM
No I did not imply that even closely, I was just expecting to see something like Slavic y-DNA being a bit higher than the autosomal contribution, simply because of the various patterns we see elsewhere. I know the Slavic migration involved whole people and was not a mostly elite conquest like the Goths so I certainly do not think it was only males that migrated. Even if the Slavic migration involved a perfectly equal amount of male and females you still could expect more y-dna from the new population given polygyny and the more varied reproductive success of males compared to females as a general trend, I guess for some reason it doesn't apply here.

Well I already answered in my previous post. The Slavs had the upper hand until the tenth century when the First Bulgarian Empire collapsed. From then on, we observe historical accounts of Eastern Roman and Albanian speakers which we didn't have until that moment. It seems there was some resurgence of these people and after the favourable conditions (collapse of the First Bulgarian Empire), they spread far and wide. So there was some resurgence of pre-Slavic people much like in BA when there was also resurgence of pre-Indo-European people in the Balkans after the massive Indo-European invasions.


Well if South Slavs were already mixed before crossing the Danube some E-V13 could have entered their community already, but I'm not sure it can be identified it that were the case.

Most probably some were assimilated among the Slavs, probably Dacian/Getae and Pannonian people.


Wasn't Macedonia south of the Jirecek line anyway? In any case Aromanians and Megleno Romanians are still alive?

Most of North Macedonia was indeed south of Jirecek line however the northern part and cities such as Scupi/Skopje or Kalenidin/Vinica were Latin administrated and were located north of the Jirecek line. Plus the Jirecek line applies only for the civilized city life and it was drawn according to discovered inscriptions either on Greek or Latin. Although the Greek inscriptions predominate south of this line, Latin inscriptions are not rarity either. However, what about the mountain dwellers who lived by herding? This line would hardly applied to them not to mention that there never was a border customs to stop Eastern Romance speaking people moving with their herds south of that line... That's why we shouldn't look at Jirecek line as some strong dividing line between the Romance and Greek world. And that's why there are no records of Eastern Romance speakers migrating to Greece as there are for the Slavs although several Medieval Greek writers did mention that the Vlachs were descendants of the Bessi and the Dacians. The Meglen Vlachs are barely alive. There are no Meglen Romanians. Meglen Romanians is a propagandistic term applied by Gustav Weigand first. The Meglen Vlachs are largely assimilated into Bulgarian speakers today. I say Bulgarian because the dialect spoken in north-central Greece and south-eastern North Macedonia is closer to Bulgarian dialects of south-west and south-central Bulgaria than they are to 'Macedonian' standardized language based on central-west dialects of North Macedonia. Basically most people of south-east North Macedonia have Meglen Vlach ancestry among who and I. However the Eastern Romance speakers once lived on much wider area than it is now as witnessed by historical accounts which would suggest that most were already Bulgarized long ago. The Aromanians did survived however they are mostly recent settlers in North Macedonia apart from the south-west of the country where they have longer presence.


I think this is a bit skewed, we don't have much evidence of Koine Greek or Late Romance being the origin of most the Balkanism and it's hard to argue for a native paleo-Balkan and Albanian contribution without knowing how those languages looked in detail, my understanding is that the Sprachbund was created through contact, borrwing and mixing, not primarily by Slavic speakers retaining Greek/Romance/Albanian features because otherwise why would Greek, Romanian and Albanian share features with each other by means of a substratum.

This is not skewed especially because we have evidence of the Old Church Slavonic and there was no features of the Sprachbund in it. Plus no other Slavic languages share these features. So the Slavs didn't bring these features for sure. But who did? If Eastern Romance, Albanian and to lesser degree Greek share this features then the answer is clear. I am not sure that Coine Greek had this features either. I believe that these features in Greek appear because of assimilation of non-Greek originally Eastern Romance and Albanian speaking people as it's the case with the Bulgarian speakers. I didn't say that the Slavs retained this features but that Eastern Romance speakers who started speaking Bulgarian for some reason, applied these features and later spread across Bulgaria and North Macedonia.

Hawk
10-27-2020, 07:55 AM
Where do you read these things? What kind of Albanian, if Albanians have not officially come to the Balkans yet? Do you have any idea of European history, especially Balkan ones? According to what you write, you are far from this discipline.
What does Latin have to do with the local Balkan languages, to which Bulgarian is included?
Your runaround over uncomfortable topics will not change the facts and the written history about Slavic languages and which Kingdom bring them to other people.

Albanian and Greek are the only languages we have from Paleo-Balkan languages. In case of Albanian we are 100% sure it's a Paleo-Balkan language but we are not sure whether it is Illyrian-like or Thracian-like.

Let it go.

Aahmes
10-28-2020, 12:21 AM
How come it is hypothesized that E-V13 was born in Europe, and that it brought with it neolithic agriculture, when E-V13 was formed 7800 years ago while agriculture was brought to europe 6000 years ago? Is it assuming a margin of error, or is there something I am misunderstanding about the theory?

Farroukh
10-28-2020, 04:23 AM
All living downstreams traced to one E-V13 male who lived ~5 kya. Later than "Neolithic distributions inc."

But if you talking about E-V13 "the Progenitor" : yes, he was born in Balkan/Anatolian region more than 7 kya. It was before so called "Black Sea deluge" and Balkan and Asia Minor was the whole area (no Bosphorus/Dardanell)

Bane
11-04-2020, 09:30 PM
I missed this discussion here. It was an interesting one.
I would just add that more detailed insight into E-V13 branches of present day Romanians would be quite significant for better understanding of distribution of E-V13 in whole Europe.
Unfortunately Romania has remained undertested for years now.

Hawk
11-06-2020, 01:59 PM
Romanians are too east to be the source of E-V13. Dacians-Getae were already formed when in Late Bronze Age E-V13 intruded into them, just as they intruded among Illyrians and Greeks.


Between BC 15th–12th century, the Dacian-Getae culture was influenced by the Bronze Age Tumulus-Urnfield warriors who were on their way through the Balkans to Anatolia

Mountain, Harry (1998). The Celtic Encyclopedia. Universal. ISBN 978-1581128901.

Riverman
11-06-2020, 02:21 PM
Romanians are too east to be the source of E-V13. Dacians-Getae were already formed when in Late Bronze Age E-V13 intruded into them, just as they intruded among Illyrians and Greeks.

I don't think so, even more, these are the same people and its the same problem. We have to look at the exact timing for Pannonia and the Northern Balkans. Before the Middle-Late Bronze Age, there was no E-V13. The exact timing matters a lot.

DgidguBidgu
11-06-2020, 03:27 PM
Albanian and Greek are the only languages we have from Paleo-Balkan languages. In case of Albanian we are 100% sure it's a Paleo-Balkan language but we are not sure whether it is Illyrian-like or Thracian-like.

Let it go.
You are kidding, right? It is well known fact Greek and Albanian are Isolates in the group of Indo-European languages ​​and this is for a reason.
The source for IE languages CAN NOT be an isolate but just the opposite and the fact is the existing of the IE group by itself.
Greek was not IE, has a non-Indo-European substrate and has been Indo-Europeanized under the influence of the local population and mixing with it for several millennia and Albanian has nothing to comment on here.
It has nothing to do with local ancient languages ​​but the amount of loan words give the wrong impression that it is a Balkan language. We know that the Latin borrowings in it are not old, ie it fits very accurately with the late appearance of the Albanians in this territory according to the OFFICIAL HISTORY and documents.

Hawk
11-06-2020, 04:10 PM
You are kidding, right? It is well known fact Greek and Albanian are Isolates in the group of Indo-European languages ​​and this is for a reason.
The source for IE languages CAN NOT be an isolate but just the opposite and the fact is the existing of the IE group by itself.
Greek was not IE, has a non-Indo-European substrate and has been Indo-Europeanized under the influence of the local population and mixing with it for several millennia and Albanian has nothing to comment on here.
It has nothing to do with local ancient languages ​​but the amount of loan words give the wrong impression that it is a Balkan language. We know that the Latin borrowings in it are not old, ie it fits very accurately with the late appearance of the Albanians in this territory according to the OFFICIAL HISTORY and documents.

Read Matzinger, Albanian is in fact a Central Balkans language, influenced by both Illyrian, Thracian but essentially it was part of Albanoid group family (Illyrian, Albanian, Messapian).

Riverman
11-06-2020, 05:17 PM
Greek was not IE, has a non-Indo-European substrate and has been Indo-Europeanized under the influence of the local population and mixing with it for several millennia and Albanian has nothing to comment on here.

Greek is a clearly IE language, it just has older IE and non-IE substrate influences, like many other IE languages too.

Hawk
11-07-2020, 03:11 PM
@Riverman, so this explanation in historyfiles somehow is similar to your theory.


There they swiftly became dominant over the local Neolithic farmers of 'Old Europe', and then over Minoan Crete, while also occupying many of the Greek isles and possibly even the Anatolian coast in the form of the Ahhiyawa. It is fairly common for a newly-arrived warrior culture to impose a fresh layer of ruling nobility on any existing society, and Indo-Europeans seemed especially good at this when the preceding culture was Neolithic. Their last hurrah seemingly came with the conquest of Troy, calculated here to have taken place around 1183 BC. By then climate-induced drought had not only resulted in tremendous political instability in the entire eastern Mediterranean region (making the attack on Troy possible in the first place), it had also brought about the fall of the Hittite empire (Troy's major ally), and triggered migrations by the West-Indo-European settlers along the Danube and the South-West Indo-European settlers of Romania and - by now - the northern Balkans. They began pushing southwards in a tremendous wave of advance, perhaps as early as about 1250 BC. The possibility exists that the rise of the Urnfield culture from around 1300 BC (locally represented by the Gava culture - see map below) could also have been instrumental in initiating this migration.

These people were in the process of forming into historically-recognisable tribes by this time, or at least did so as a result of their migrations. The proto-Illyrians (not a single homogenous group in itself, but seemingly all sorts of odds-and-ends from the Danubian communities) and proto-Epirotes soon occupied the entire western Balkan coast north of Greece itself. The former perhaps did not find enough land or resources, as they soon spilled over the Adriatic and into south-western Italy in the form of the Iapyges (seemingly between the eleventh and tenth centuries BC). The proto-Thracians took the south-eastern corner of the Balkans, everything between the Balkans Mountains (which run through the centre of modern Bulgaria) and the area around Thessalonica. The proto-Dacians - closely related to the Thracians at least - took (or remained in) territory to the north of the Thracians, in Romania and Moldova. The proto-Phrygians took a similar route but carried on going until they had crossed into Anatolia - in fact they may have begun this movement as early as 1450 BC. The story for proto-Armenians is far less certain, but they were also part of this general grouping at some point. The proto-Macedonians took the bulk of the mountainous territory between the Thracians and the Epirotes, while the proto-Dorians, Aeolians, and Ionians continued on into Mycenaean Greece and the islands of the Aegean, seemingly in superior numbers and with aggression enough to see off even the Mycenaeans.

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianBalkans.htm

Riverman
11-07-2020, 05:31 PM
@Riverman, so this explanation in historyfiles somehow is similar to your theory.

Yes, I can just agree with most of what he wrote. I might add that with the newest results coming in from ancient DNA, there is little opportunity for any other scenario working out for the spread of E-V13 in close relation with Thraco-Illyrian expansions under Urnfield. If E-V13 expanded from the South Balkans or even more South Eastern, they should have arrived in signfiicant numbers in Pannonia and the Balkans by the Middle Bronze Age, but going by all results we have so far, they did not. After that period you mainly have bigh pushes from the Eastern Alpine and North Carpathian zone coming with Urnfield and after that, things stabilised at least to such a degree, that large scale replacments within the historical known people are quite unlikely. So the logical consequence is that huge tribal alliances moved from the North Carpathian regions through and around the Carpathian mountains at the LBA-EIA transition with Urnfield-related cultures, especially the Gava horizon.

I guess that even among Greeks E-V13 might have became big primarily with the Illyrian push which affected Dorians and Macedonians in particular. This means before Dorian expansion only low E-V13 or none at all among Mycenaeans, but afterwards, pockets and settlements heavy in V13 among Greeks. What I liked in particular is this map, which sums it up perfectly:

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Europe/Map_EasternEurope1200BC_full.jpg

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Europe/Map_EasternEurope1200BC_full.jpg

Hawk
11-08-2020, 09:51 AM
East Alpine => North Carpathian is what i envision.

They intruded the original Thraco-Illyrians who belonged to mostly R1b-Z2103 probably, and took their language.

I always thought South Balkans origin makes the most sense, but lately that theory doesn't make sense anymore. The earlier branch-offs are in Central Europe. Balkans is exclusively E-V13 Z5017/Z5018 with some early branches like Vasojevichi one who might be early Hellenic/Mycenean since Greeks from Cyclades belong to that as well.

Granary
11-08-2020, 06:00 PM
Yes, I can just agree with most of what he wrote. I might add that with the newest results coming in from ancient DNA, there is little opportunity for any other scenario working out for the spread of E-V13 in close relation with Thraco-Illyrian expansions under Urnfield. If E-V13 expanded from the South Balkans or even more South Eastern, they should have arrived in signfiicant numbers in Pannonia and the Balkans by the Middle Bronze Age, but going by all results we have so far, they did not. After that period you mainly have bigh pushes from the Eastern Alpine and North Carpathian zone coming with Urnfield and after that, things stabilised at least to such a degree, that large scale replacments within the historical known people are quite unlikely. So the logical consequence is that huge tribal alliances moved from the North Carpathian regions through and around the Carpathian mountains at the LBA-EIA transition with Urnfield-related cultures, especially the Gava horizon.

I guess that even among Greeks E-V13 might have became big primarily with the Illyrian push which affected Dorians and Macedonians in particular. This means before Dorian expansion only low E-V13 or none at all among Mycenaeans, but afterwards, pockets and settlements heavy in V13 among Greeks. What I liked in particular is this map, which sums it up perfectly:

In the realm linguistic what does this suggest iron age paleo-Balkan languages looked like? Should we expect them to be close to Celtic or Italic rather than Greek? I know this is almost pure speculation but at this point I don't know what else we can do if we don't find new inscriptions...

Pribislav
11-08-2020, 06:39 PM
I might add that with the newest results coming in from ancient DNA, there is little opportunity for any other scenario working out for the spread of E-V13 in close relation with Thraco-Illyrian expansions under Urnfield.

I keep seeing people mentioning the term Thraco-Illyrian, so I'd like to know what are the sources for such claims? What are historical, archaeological, linguistic or genetic connections between the two?

Aspar
11-08-2020, 08:31 PM
East Alpine => North Carpathian is what i envision.

They intruded the original Thraco-Illyrians who belonged to mostly R1b-Z2103 probably, and took their language.

I always thought South Balkans origin makes the most sense, but lately that theory doesn't make sense anymore. The earlier branch-offs are in Central Europe. Balkans is exclusively E-V13 Z5017/Z5018 with some early branches like Vasojevichi one who might be early Hellenic/Mycenean since Greeks from Cyclades belong to that as well.

That's rather a bald statement. It's impossible to know which lineages brought what from this time distance but almost all parameters show that if anything, the Thracian language which is a close relative to the proto-Balto-Slavic one, was a late comer to the Balkans. Late in the sense that it split from the proto-Balto-Slavic one rather later than the initial split of the proto-Indo-European which gave rise of languages such as Greek, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Celtic and so on, and as such it couldn't have been present in the Balkans before the Greek one who was probably introduced in the Balkans with the arrival of the Mycenaeans in the 18th-16th century BC. And probably the first Indo-European languages that were spoken in the Balkans were proto-Anatolian ones including the Armenian amongst others. And I suspect that many R-Z2103 were either already in the Balkans before the arrival of the Thracian language and might have been speakers of other languages such as Greek, Phrygian, Armenian but also other now extinct Indo-European languages. In that sense, why couldn't the expansion of E-V13 be the factor that brought the Thracian language in the Balkans? Yes, we know that E-V13 wasn't originally a lineage associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages but was probably assimilated somewhere in Europe, if I had to guess, I would say the northern Carpathian region. However later during the LBA it was probably a major Indo-European player and if I had to guess which language most of the E-V13 lineages were associated with I would guess with the Thracian language.

The Balkans are NOT exclusively Z5017/Z5018 or that non CTS1273 clade present mostly in the Western Balkans you mentioned. I'm Y16729, a clade directly downstream of BY3880 which is quite diverse in the Balkans and South Italy. There are already BY3880* clusters found among Macedonians and Bulgarians with origins from North Macedonia and Greek Macedonia. E-FGC44169 is another major clade downstream of BY3880 which is quite diverse in Bulgaria where both S7461 and BY6537, clades downstream of it have been found. The 'Scythian' of local origin going by his autosomal DNA which was probably a Getae was found positive for E-FGC44169.

Hawk
11-09-2020, 08:45 AM
That's rather a bald statement. It's impossible to know which lineages brought what from this time distance but almost all parameters show that if anything, the Thracian language which is a close relative to the proto-Balto-Slavic one, was a late comer to the Balkans. Late in the sense that it split from the proto-Balto-Slavic one rather later than the initial split of the proto-Indo-European which gave rise of languages such as Greek, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Celtic and so on, and as such it couldn't have been present in the Balkans before the Greek one who was probably introduced in the Balkans with the arrival of the Mycenaeans in the 18th-16th century BC. And probably the first Indo-European languages that were spoken in the Balkans were proto-Anatolian ones including the Armenian amongst others. And I suspect that many R-Z2103 were either already in the Balkans before the arrival of the Thracian language and might have been speakers of other languages such as Greek, Phrygian, Armenian but also other now extinct Indo-European languages. In that sense, why couldn't the expansion of E-V13 be the factor that brought the Thracian language in the Balkans? Yes, we know that E-V13 wasn't originally a lineage associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages but was probably assimilated somewhere in Europe, if I had to guess, I would say the northern Carpathian region. However later during the LBA it was probably a major Indo-European player and if I had to guess which language most of the E-V13 lineages were associated with I would guess with the Thracian language.

The Balkans are NOT exclusively Z5017/Z5018 or that non CTS1273 clade present mostly in the Western Balkans you mentioned. I'm Y16729, a clade directly downstream of BY3880 which is quite diverse in the Balkans and South Italy. There are already BY3880* clusters found among Macedonians and Bulgarians with origins from North Macedonia and Greek Macedonia. E-FGC44169 is another major clade downstream of BY3880 which is quite diverse in Bulgaria where both S7461 and BY6537, clades downstream of it have been found. The 'Scythian' of local origin going by his autosomal DNA which was probably a Getae was found positive for E-FGC44169.

Your only Thracian propaganda together with your Balkan Slavs gangs occassionally accompaniyed by Romanians for political propaganda is annoying. :)

I highly doubt E-V13 spoke IE during MBA. And you'll get the answer soon enough.

Aspar
11-09-2020, 09:11 AM
Your only Thracian propaganda together with your Balkan Slavs gangs occassionally accompaniyed by Romanians for political propaganda is annoying. :)

I highly doubt E-V13 spoke IE during MBA. And you'll get the answer soon enough.

Your answer is actually pure propaganda. I didn't expect a serious answer knowing your capacity(being suspended from this forum for the same reason) and dislike for Slavic speakers but hey, we can't actually disappear in thin air just because you don't like our opinions. I believe this is not the right forum for you, Apricity and it's nationalistic and racists followers will suit you much better I believe.

Which part of my answer you didn't like?
I bet it's the one with the Balto-Slavic relationship of the Thracian language. Poor you, all these Slavs in the Balkans that invade your God given lands since eternity, how do they dare to think of any ancient staff, they only belong to Pripyat!!

And what language did they speak? Afro-Asiatic one?
All the ancient E-V13's starting with scy197, the 'Scythian' Getae, and the unofficial results of the IA Thracians confirm that they were heavy in E-V13.

Non Indo-European languages during MBA? Probably some isolated pockets that survived in the form of Etruscans. But than again, of the little amount of Etruscan results we have, there doesn't appear E-V13 but J-L283, a lineage strongly associated with the Gheg Albanians...

Hawk
11-09-2020, 09:36 AM
Your answer is actually pure propaganda. I didn't expect a serious answer knowing your capacity(being suspended from this forum for the same reason) and dislike for Slavic speakers but hey, we can't actually disappear in thin air just because you don't like our opinions. I believe this is not the right forum for you, Apricity and it's nationalistic and racists followers will suit you much better I believe.

Which part of my answer you didn't like?
I bet it's the one with the Balto-Slavic relationship of the Thracian language. Poor you, all these Slavs in the Balkans that invade your God given lands since eternity, how do they dare to think of any ancient staff, they only belong to Pripyat!!

And what language did they speak? Afro-Asiatic one?
All the ancient E-V13's starting with scy197, the 'Scythian' Getae, and the unofficial results of the IA Thracians confirm that they were heavy in E-V13.

Non Indo-European languages during MBA? Probably some isolated pockets that survived in the form of Etruscans. But than again, of the little amount of Etruscan results we have, there doesn't appear E-V13 but J-L283, a lineage strongly associated with the Gheg Albanians...

Your scape-goat arguments and imagination are ridiculous. I don't participate in Apricity and i am not a nationalist and racist, you trying to project those at me is just you trying to gain attention of the administrators here.

Can you post serious scholarship that Thracian is related to Balto-Slavic? You obviously cannot, it is just a hypothesis which you biasedly want to support. Let me tell you that Thracian is a very poorly attested language to attribute any relationship with Balto-Slavic, and yet even if it had relationship with Balto-Slavic making a very early relationship between E-V13 and Thracian language is totally unconvincing as it is for any Indo-European language from the Balkans which they should have been heavily R1b-Z2103, and yes not E-V13 and not J2b2-L283 as some push it. It's unconvincing.

Of course Thracians will be heavy E-V13, just as Illyrians and Iron Age Greeks because from all archeological records the Balkans was overrun by Danubian Urnfield culture, and it looks like it cannot be attributed exclusively to Thracians as you hiddenly want to point out because by that time LBA the classical Thracians were still not formed, it looks like more and more that E-V13 was a third layed on top of existing Indo-Europeans and it's quite possible that they integrated into these tribes proto-Illyrians/proto-Thracians/proto-Greeks and latter on during classical times due to founder effects their numbers grew in size.

We still don't have enough samples, especially not for Illyrians and Greeks.

Aspar
11-09-2020, 10:57 AM
Your scape-goat arguments and imagination are ridiculous. I don't participate in Apricity and i am not a nationalist and racist, you trying to project those at me is just you trying to gain attention of the administrators here.

Can you post serious scholarship that Thracian is related to Balto-Slavic? You obviously cannot, it is just a hypothesis which you biasedly want to support. Let me tell you that Thracian is a very poorly attested language to attribute any relationship with Balto-Slavic, and yet even if it had relationship with Balto-Slavic making a very early relationship between E-V13 and Thracian language is totally unconvincing as it is for any Indo-European language from the Balkans which they should have been heavily R1b-Z2103, and yes not E-V13 and not J2b2-L283 as some push it. It's unconvincing.

Of course Thracians will be heavy E-V13, just as Illyrians and Iron Age Greeks because from all archeological records the Balkans was overrun by Danubian Urnfield culture, and it looks like it cannot be attributed exclusively to Thracians as you hiddenly want to point out because by that time LBA the classical Thracians were still not formed, it looks like more and more that E-V13 was a third layed on top of existing Indo-Europeans and it's quite possible that they integrated into these tribes proto-Illyrians/proto-Thracians/proto-Greeks and latter on during classical times due to founder effects their numbers grew in size.

We still don't have enough samples, especially not for Illyrians and Greeks.

Well you bring the attention to you yourself braking the rules of this forum:

3.14 Anthrogenica encourages its members to participate in discussions in a topic-focused manner. Personalization of discussions is completely prohibited at all times. This includes (and is not limited to) direct personal attacks, accusations, insinuations and false disclosures. Additionally, discussions that degenerate into inconsequential flaming or inanity will be deleted without prior notice. Note that this discussion policy also applies to Anthrogenica's Private Messaging and Visitor Message functions.

As for the Balto-Slavic relationship, most of the overwhelming evidence in form of onomastics, phrases etc. show Balto-Slavic or mostly Baltic connection and most linguists agree on this including the Lithuanian polymath Jonas Basanavičius listed 600 identical words of Balts and Thracians and was the first to investigate similarities in vocal traditions between Lithuanians and Bulgarians, the Bulgarian linguist Ivan Duridanov who claimed that:

the Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the 'Pelasgian' languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant.
Also, the Russian philologist Oleg Trubachev claimed that certain isoglosses, particularly lexical ones, in Balkan Slavic languages have cognates in Baltic, but not in East Slavic languages.
Also the American linguist Harvey Mayer writes:

Finally, I label Thracian and Dacian as East Baltic ... The fitting of special Dacian and Thracian features (which I identified from Duridanov's listings) into Baltic isogloss patterns so that I identified Dacian and Thracian as southeast Baltic. South Baltic because, like Old Prussian, they keep unchanged the diphthongs ei, ai, en, an (north Baltic Lithuanian and Latvian show varying percentages of ei, ai to ie, and en, an to ę, ą (to ē, ā) in Lithuanian, to ie, uo in Latvian). East Baltic because the Dacian word žuvete (now in Rumanian spelled juvete) has ž, not z as in west Baltic, and the Thracian word pušis (the Latin-Greek transcription shows pousis which, I believe, reflects -š-.) with zero grade puš- as in Lithuanian pušěs rather than with e-grade *peuš- as in Prussian peusē. Zero grade in this word is east Baltic, e-grade here is west Baltic, while the other word for "pine, evergreen", preidē (Prussian and Dacian), priede (Latvian), is marginal in Lithuanian matched by no *peus- in Latvian.

As for E-V13, I believe that it managed to survive somewhere around the North Carpathians where later the Gava-Holihrady culture thrived during LBA. This would explain the relationship with the Baltio-Slavic languages because of the proximity with the Komarov culture considered to have been in connection with the proto-Slavs.

Yes, we don't have enough samples but of those that we have whether officially or unofficially, the ancient Greeks turned J2a, R1b and G. Ancient Dalmatian was J-L283 while E-V13 only appears among the Getae and the Thracians...

Hawk
11-09-2020, 11:05 AM
Well you bring the attention to you yourself braking the rules of this forum:


As for the Balto-Slavic relationship, most of the overwhelming evidence in form of onomastics, phrases etc. show Balto-Slavic or mostly Baltic connection and most linguists agree on this including the Lithuanian polymath Jonas Basanavičius listed 600 identical words of Balts and Thracians and was the first to investigate similarities in vocal traditions between Lithuanians and Bulgarians, the Bulgarian linguist Ivan Duridanov who claimed that:

Also, the Russian philologist Oleg Trubachev claimed that certain isoglosses, particularly lexical ones, in Balkan Slavic languages have cognates in Baltic, but not in East Slavic languages.
Also the American linguist Harvey Mayer writes:


As for E-V13, I believe that it managed to survive somewhere around the North Carpathians where later the Gava-Holihrady culture thrived during LBA. This would explain the relationship with the Baltio-Slavic languages because of the proximity with the Komarov culture considered to have been in connection with the proto-Slavs.

Yes, we don't have enough samples but of those that we have whether officially or unofficially, the ancient Greeks turned J2a, R1b and G. Ancient Dalmatian was J-L283 while E-V13 only appears among the Getae and the Thracians...

I will not continue further considering that Thracian is poorly attested language, and no convincing relationship has been set up with Balto-Slavic, it's just up in the air.

As for E-V13, we have E-V13 in South Italy, in North Italy as well, Albanians, Greeks. Not all of them descend from Getae and Thracians. And Thracians should have R1b-Z2103 and J2a and/or J2b2 as well, we should definitely expect that. So far, we can firmly say that we can be prone of sampling bias.

Johane Derite
11-09-2020, 11:13 AM
Baltic connection and most linguists agree on this including the Lithuanian polymath Jonas Basanavičius listed 600 identical words of Balts and Thracians and was the first to investigate similarities in vocal traditions between Lithuanians and Bulgarians, the Bulgarian linguist Ivan Duridanov who claimed that:

Also, the Russian philologist Oleg Trubachev claimed that certain isoglosses, particularly lexical ones, in Balkan Slavic languages have cognates in Baltic, but not in East Slavic languages.

Also the American linguist Harvey Mayer writes:

Harvey Mayer argues there is no such thing as "Balto-Slavic" but rather that "Slavic" is just an ancient balticised Albanian dialect group (he compares to English as a partially Romanised Germanic dialect).

So he cannot be used as an argument for balto-slavic thracians but rather only possibly Baltoidic.

Ivan Duridov claims Thracian formed close with Baltic and Pelasgian? What does he mean by Pelasgian? What inscriptions or even names do we have of Pelasgian language group that supposedly matches with Baltic and Thracian? Seems like an outdated possibly bulgarian nationalist author.

Johnny ola
11-09-2020, 11:35 AM
Harvey Mayer argues there is no such thing as "Balto-Slavic" but rather that "Slavic" is just an ancient balticised Albanian dialect group (he compares to English as a partially Romanised Germanic dialect).

So he cannot be used as an argument for balto-slavic thracians but rather only possibly Baltoidic.

Ivan Duridov claims Thracian formed close with Baltic and Pelasgian? What does he mean by Pelasgian? What inscriptions or even names do we have of Pelasgian language group that supposedly matches with Baltic and Thracian? Seems like an outdated possibly bulgarian nationalist author.

Prolly the pre-IE dialects of South EU.Maybe like the Tyrsenian familly group i guess.

Hawk
11-09-2020, 11:43 AM
Prolly the pre-IE dialects of South EU.Maybe like the Tyrsenian familly group i guess.

What if those Tyrrhenian/Lemnians were remnants of the Sea People related to Etruscans which they continued/migrated living in Aegean after LBA turmoil?

Johane Derite
11-09-2020, 11:48 AM
Prolly the pre-IE dialects of South EU.Maybe like the Tyrsenian familly group i guess.

Yes, although there are differing mentions. Epirus, Dodona is reffered to as a Pelasgian place for exampel, and there is no known non-IE people there.

What i mean is how could a linguist say so surely that baltic, thracian, and pelasgian form a group when we have no pelasgian linguistic material. If pelasgian is tyrsenian that isnt even IE so it reflects badly on the linguist and whether he should be taken with a grain of salt.

Johnny ola
11-09-2020, 12:18 PM
Yes, although there are differing mentions. Epirus, Dodona is reffered to as a Pelasgian place for exampel, and there is no known non-IE people there.

What i mean is how could a linguist say so surely that baltic, thracian, and pelasgian form a group when we have no pelasgian linguistic material. If pelasgian is tyrsenian that isnt even IE so it reflects badly on the linguist and whether he should be taken with a grain of salt.

I understand what you mean.I don't agree either with the Thracian relation towards to Balto-Slavic because its indeed not very well recorded...but this dosn't necessary mean that the Thracian dialect it is not a combination of IE with native EEF affinities.Greek is also a similar case.The problem with Greek dialects is that the first Greek language of 'Myceneans' it was by far more IE related.What happened at the IA and after its completely a mystery.The upcoming new Greek dialects that took place with the infamous Dorian invasion were not so IE related.Attic-Ionic,Dorian, Aeolic etc are less IE related compare to the first Greek dialect of the Mycenean Greece.Also, i am not avoiding the fact that the Greek language during Mycenean times used to speak only by elite people and only inside the palaces.The plebs and other local folks without elite-upper class roots would have been speakers of native dialects.

Aspar
11-09-2020, 12:37 PM
Harvey Mayer argues there is no such thing as "Balto-Slavic" but rather that "Slavic" is just an ancient balticised Albanian dialect group (he compares to English as a partially Romanised Germanic dialect).

So he cannot be used as an argument for balto-slavic thracians but rather only possibly Baltoidic.

Ivan Duridov claims Thracian formed close with Baltic and Pelasgian? What does he mean by Pelasgian? What inscriptions or even names do we have of Pelasgian language group that supposedly matches with Baltic and Thracian? Seems like an outdated possibly bulgarian nationalist author.

But other linguists also argue that there is no Balto-Slavic but only Baltic and view Slavic as a Baltic dialect. In both cases, whether Balticized or Albanized, Irinicized or Germanized, Slavic is closest to the Baltic languages which are found the most similar to Thracian.
Harvey Mayer bases his bombastic title on mainly some phonological and lexical features shared between Albanian and Slavic languages which according to him date since long time ago, when Indo-European syllabic nasals n, m, n, m became vowels plus nasals.

The same arguments can be used the other way around, that Slavic was initially a southern Baltic dialect that was spoken in close proximity to an Albanoid language and influenced phonologically and lexically by it.

Who says it's outdated and nationalistic? Are you a linguist?
Your arguments are not very convincing especially when Ivan Duridanov was one of the most prominent linguists in the world, and great authority when it comes to the Thracian language. Trying to debunk him just because you don't find his opinion likable or because he was a Bulgarian without quoting any serious linguists is not even up for discussion.

As for Pelasgian, it was analysed the same way as any other extinct and not much attested ancient language, with the help of onomastics and phrases written by ancient Greek authors mostly.

Riverman
11-09-2020, 01:04 PM
In the realm linguistic what does this suggest iron age paleo-Balkan languages looked like? Should we expect them to be close to Celtic or Italic rather than Greek? I know this is almost pure speculation but at this point I don't know what else we can do if we don't find new inscriptions...

Thracian and Illyrian for the most part, both in the widest sense.


I keep seeing people mentioning the term Thraco-Illyrian, so I'd like to know what are the sources for such claims? What are historical, archaeological, linguistic or genetic connections between the two?

- There are linguists which suggest a very close relationship of these two language (groups). I know this is no consensus now, but it was proposed in the past and being still promoted by some. In any case their relationship seems to be close in a general language continuum from Celtic-Italic-Germanic-Illyrian-Thracian-Slavic. So my position is they were at least neighbours when starting south, which relates to
- Both seem to have expanded at roughly the same time from the Urnfield horizon, coming from related people
- Even if somone denies both, and says they came at different times, by different routes, from different sources, in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere (widest sense), they overlapped and influenced each other heavily and its especially in their overlapping zone, E-V13 seems to have risen to particularly high numbers incidently. I'm speaking about the so called Triballi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi

Also, going by later Iron and Roman age samples, both Thracians and Illyrians seem to have harboured the highest frequencies of E-V13 - in both regions after their arrival, after Urnfield-related expansions like Gava, not before.


That's rather a bald statement. It's impossible to know which lineages brought what from this time distance but almost all parameters show that if anything, the Thracian language which is a close relative to the proto-Balto-Slavic one, was a late comer to the Balkans. Late in the sense that it split from the proto-Balto-Slavic one rather later than the initial split of the proto-Indo-European which gave rise of languages such as Greek, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Celtic and so on

That's correct, in my proposed model they lived side by side with Slavs as their closest relatives in the pre-Urnfield expansion time, directly in the North Carpathians. They departed, moved into the Carpathian and Balkan zone, forming Dacians, Getae and Thracians proper. My idea is they were positioned, both geographically and linguistically, between Illyrian and Slavic. The Proto-Illyrians (again widest sense, language group) moved as a bulk directly South, into Pannonia, the Thracians rather into the Carpathain mountains and around them Eastwards. So you can see them as two wings of the Northern Urnfield expansion, Illyrian West through Pannonia, Thracian South, through what is now Eastern Romania. Both with Urnfield in the LBA to EIA.


Your only Thracian propaganda together with your Balkan Slavs gangs occassionally accompaniyed by Romanians for political propaganda is annoying. :)

I highly doubt E-V13 spoke IE during MBA. And you'll get the answer soon enough.

Nobody knows for sure, so there remain a lot of different optional scenarios, but I think its nearly impossible they spoke no IE in the Middle Bronze Age. They were sitting with other patrilineages North of the Carpathians or in the East Alpine zone, but they were already IE and speakers of Proto-Illyrian and Proto-Thracian for the most part, though radiating out to their direct neighbours probably. If, like I think they did, the E-V13 lineages spread big time in the LBA-EIA from the relative North, they spread, very directly, Thracian first and Illyrian second. To associate them yet another time with non-IE makes absolutely no sense in this context, because the horizon which expanded with them was surely the dominant one, and considering the later numbers, they invaded in some regions at replacement level, meaning whatever was there before was largely replaced, by them. Even more so if considering that it is rather unlikely they were exclusively E-V13 at any point, so we rather should look at possible candidates which expanded with them, in the same time, around the LBA-EIA, from the regions North of the Adriatic and North of the Carpathians into Pannonia and the Balkans.

Johane Derite
11-09-2020, 01:30 PM
.Trying to debunk him just because you don't find his opinion likable or because he was a Bulgarian without quoting any serious linguists is not even up for discussion.

As for Pelasgian, it was analysed the same way as any other extinct and not much attested ancient language, with the help of onomastics and phrases written by ancient Greek authors mostly.

I don't personally find his opinion unlikable. The point i'm making is we dont actually have pelasgian onomastics like we do for other dead languages. We dont have pelasgian glosses or names, and no classification can be made either way. Especially since some supposed pelasgian idioms arent even IE.

Vladimir Orel found Albanian many Baltic - Albanian isoglosses, and Eric Hamp placed Albanian as a language coming from a proto-balto-albano-slavic group, so I am not objecting on unlikability as i have shared those opinions myself to have in mind.

E-v13 doesn't seem to be associated with baltic or slavic though so this problematizes the matter. Some might say it does match up with "Albanoid" idioms.

Riverman
11-09-2020, 05:44 PM
E-v13 doesn't seem to be associated with baltic or slavic though so this problematizes the matter. Some might say it does match up with "Albanoid" idioms.

I think its fair to say that Albanian is the sole survivor of the whole Thraco-Illyrian spectrum (widest sense) and as we all know, these language groups were once much wider spread and covered large portions of Eastern Central and South Eastern Europe. At the end they shared the same fate as their predecessors on the Balkans, because the major pushes, latest after the Middle Bronze Age, came from North -> South. Especially the direction from the North and Eastern Carpathian region is particularly important, because most major intrusions started from there, the Roman conquest was probably one big exception, the other is Neolithics, both for obvious reasons. Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Germanics, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, to just name the most important groups which moved from these directions, through and around the Northern and Eastern Carpathians, into Pannonia and the Balkans. My assumption is that Proto-Anatolian took just the same path, forming Cernavoda and related groups, moving on to Troy and Western Anatolia. It was a succession of people moving in from the direction of Poland and the Ukraine.

Granary
11-09-2020, 06:45 PM
Thracian and Illyrian for the most part, both in the widest sense.
From what we know of Illyrian does it look closer to which branch? And if we don't have enough evidence would you say it's fair to assume that it was closer to Italic before any Greek influenced kicked in?


My assumption is that Proto-Anatolian took just the same path, forming Cernavoda and related groups, moving on to Troy and Western Anatolia. It was a succession of people moving in from the direction of Poland and the Ukraine.
How does Phrygian fit in that view? Was it a pre-Urnfield language spoken in the Balkans that was pushed or just moved into Anatolia and was eventually replaced by Thracian and Greek colonies?

I don't personally find his opinion unlikable. The point i'm making is we dont actually have pelasgian onomastics like we do for other dead languages. We dont have pelasgian glosses or names, and no classification can be made either way. Especially since some supposed pelasgian idioms arent even IE.

Vladimir Orel found Albanian many Baltic - Albanian isoglosses, and Eric Hamp placed Albanian as a language coming from a proto-balto-albano-slavic group, so I am not objecting on unlikability as i have shared those opinions myself to have in mind.

E-v13 doesn't seem to be associated with baltic or slavic though so this problematizes the matter. Some might say it does match up with "Albanoid" idioms.
Did anyone ever try to reconstruct or work on a pre-Latinate Albanian lexicon to try to get at how paleo-Balkan languages could have looked like? Surely modern Albanian is a good source to complement the sparse inscriptions we have.

Hawk
11-09-2020, 06:49 PM
Nevertheless, would be quite interesting if we get data from ancient Balkans both West and East and Greece. We will scope it down quite nicely then.

But considering that Ligurians, some North Italians and South Italians as well carry E-V13, we should get more complicated picture than solely/exclusively Daco-Thracian when we know for sure Daco-Thracians never had contact with South Italy or Liguria.

DgidguBidgu
11-09-2020, 07:01 PM
I think its fair to say that Albanian is the sole survivor of the whole Thraco-Illyrian spectrum (widest sense) and as we all know, these language groups were once much wider spread and covered large portions of Eastern Central and South Eastern Europe. At the end they shared the same fate as their predecessors on the Balkans, because the major pushes, latest after the Middle Bronze Age, came from North -> South. Especially the direction from the North and Eastern Carpathian region is particularly important, because most major intrusions started from there, the Roman conquest was probably one big exception, the other is Neolithics, both for obvious reasons. Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Germanics, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, to just name the most important groups which moved from these directions, through and around the Northern and Eastern Carpathians, into Pannonia and the Balkans. My assumption is that Proto-Anatolian took just the same path, forming Cernavoda and related groups, moving on to Troy and Western Anatolia. It was a succession of people moving in from the direction of Poland and the Ukraine.

A cursory reference in Albanian and Thracian words will show that you are writing untrue things, to put it mildly.
It will be interesting to see how you would explain the etymology of Thracian deities
through Albanian. LOL

Johnny ola
11-09-2020, 07:14 PM
Nevertheless, would be quite interesting if we get data from ancient Balkans both West and East and Greece. We will scope it down quite nicely then.

But considering that Ligurians, some North Italians and South Italians as well carry E-V13, we should get more complicated picture than solely/exclusively Daco-Thracian when we know for sure Daco-Thracians never had contact with South Italy or Liguria.

I think even some Anglos have EV13.

ADW_1981
11-09-2020, 07:36 PM
I think even some Anglos have EV13.

Yes, some of my relatives do, and I've noticed some Scottish names in there too. Not sure about Irish though, which if not, would more likely make them lowland Scots.

Johane Derite
11-09-2020, 07:53 PM
Did anyone ever try to reconstruct or work on a pre-Latinate Albanian lexicon to try to get at how paleo-Balkan languages could have looked like? Surely modern Albanian is a good source to complement the sparse inscriptions we have.

The most thorough people doing this currently are Austrian linguist Joachim Matzinger and Stefan Schumacher.

They did complete study of Old Albanian texts and have created a lexicon of Old Albanian verbs with etymologies that most of the time include reconstructions until PIE with intermediate phases. Their publications are of the last 10 years and most people are still not really familiar with them.

Matzinger's position is that Albanian is not a direct descend of the Illyrian language on the Adriatic coast, but a slightly more hinterland adjacent dialect:

"Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and Messapic"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmD_A8xX0AAjmGh?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Hawk
11-09-2020, 08:25 PM
Depictions of birds are overrepresented in the Dolenjska Hallstatt culture, and appear on over a quarter of artefacts depicting animals. A wide variety of artefacts with birds have been found primarily in graves, and crosscut gender, status, and age. However, poor preservation of zooarchaeological remains has made reconstructions of lived human-bird interactions difficult. This study uses ecological and ethological data, combined with local imagery, to provide insight into prehistoric human-bird interfaces in this area, and the cultural conceptions surrounding these interactions. Birds would have been a constant presence in the lives of Dolenjska Hallstatt people; however, human relationships with them were based more on observation than direct interaction. Birds were ubiquitous in imagery, and it is proposed that this stemmed from Dolenjska Hallstatt conceptions of birds as important observers of human actions, ritual mediators, and possibly guides or guardians. Their differences from humans and other animals distinguished them – they were set apart, and depictions highlighted non-normative behaviours. Birds in the Dolenjska Hallstatt worldview were more than animals, ascribed extraordinary capabilities that made them ritually potent and richly symbolic creatures.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14614103.2018.1435981?journalCode=yenv20



The naval battle representation on the walls of Ramesses III’s ‘mansion of a million years’ at Medinet Habu (ca. 1175 BCE) stands as one of the earliest, and certainly most detailed, depictions of ship–to–ship combat. It also depicts the only known vessels of Helladic galley type to be depicted with stem–and–stern avian decoration. As such, they have been called upon as evidence for the inclusion of Central Europeans (‘Urnfielders’) in the Sea Peoples coalition(s), and – more recursively – to bolster the view that the highly schematic designs on the stemposts of Helladic galleys were avian in nature. This paper addresses these conclusions and evaluates the evidence that has been presented for an ‘Urnfield’ connection to the Sea Peoples’ ships, along with some notes on the ostensibly avian nature of Helladic galleys’ finial decorations.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/emanuel/publications/entangled-seafaring-reconsidering-connection-between-ships-sea-peoples-aegean


8 - Creativity in Middle and Late Bronze Age Bird-Shaped and Bird-Ornamented Ceramic Objects in the Carpathian Basin and the Lower Danube Region

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/creativity-in-the-bronze-age/creativity-in-middle-and-late-bronze-age-birdshaped-and-birdornamented-ceramic-objects-in-the-carpathian-basin-and-the-lower-danube-region/059BBD864D000F7A4A630FAB2B16E566

Riverman
11-09-2020, 08:29 PM
I think even some Anglos have EV13.

E-V13 made it via Illyrian/East Hallstatt -> West Hallstatt and early Celtic -> Germanic. So it came to Britain in many waves, but I'd assume not before the LBA to Iron Age (Celts) and with any subsequent people which entered the island.


From what we know of Illyrian does it look closer to which branch? And if we don't have enough evidence would you say it's fair to assume that it was closer to Italic before any Greek influenced kicked in?

We don't have enough evidence afaik, probably some linguistic experts (anyone?) disagree, but my impression is it was closer to Italic than Greek. Would make even more sense if looking at its Central European and Urnfield relations.


How does Phrygian fit in that view? Was it a pre-Urnfield language spoken in the Balkans that was pushed or just moved into Anatolia and was eventually replaced by Thracian and Greek colonies?

Phrygians are an early offshot from the Thracian branch, which might have been influenced by Greek and Anatolian substrate in my opinion. In any case they were part of this same movement which brought Thracians-Illyrians to the Balkans, they just hopped over the Bosporus so to say.






The most thorough people doing this currently are Austrian linguist Joachim Matzinger and Stefan Schumacher.

They did complete study of Old Albanian texts and have created a lexicon of Old Albanian verbs with etymologies that most of the time include reconstructions until PIE with intermediate phases. Their publications are of the last 10 years and most people are still not really familiar with them.

Matzinger's position is that Albanian is not a direct descend of the Illyrian language on the Adriatic coast, but a slightly more hinterland adjacent dialect:

"Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and Messapic"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmD_A8xX0AAjmGh?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

This is a reasonable position, even more so since the coastal zone was largely Roman and Greek in the time of the Roman empire, Albanian surely survived in the more mountainous hinterland, like Basque or later Vlachs/Romanians after the collapse of the empire. This also means that a possibly richer language was somewhat shrunken in this period of retreat in refuges.

Hawk
11-09-2020, 08:47 PM
Those at Medinet Habu which fought Ramsess III, were of South Balkan groups type( the mix of Mycenean type of ship and Urnfield avian styling is uncanny) recently descended from Urnfield migrants probably.



The Problem of the Sea Peoples Ship Depiction

How, then, to explain at Medinet Habu a Mycenaean galley that looks like a
bronze Urnfield vogelbarke sprung to life?

It is widely acknowledged that cultures often adopt foreign ships for their own
uses.20 Wachsmann suggests that in this case, the artists at Medinet Habu chose for their
prototype ship a vessel manned by a crew “that held religious beliefs consistent with
those of the Urnfield culture.” He emphasizes that the appearance of this ship in the
naval battle relief does not indicate that all—or even a number of—ships of the Sea
Peoples coalition were of similar crew composition or appearance. The artists of the
Medinet Habu naval battle relief may have chosen to depict this particular Sea Peoples
vessel precisely because it was so unique. 21

This thesis will examine what possibility—if any—existed for a Central
European presence in the Late Bronze Age Sea Peoples coalition. It will attempt to
synthesize a vast and often highly disparate corpus of scholarship dealing with issues of
Bronze Age contact between Europe and the Aegean, the destruction of Mycenaean
Greece, and the ethnic composition of the Sea Peoples.

In order to evaluate the argument for Central European participation in the Sea
Peoples coalition, it is necessary to first put in context the Bronze Age relationship
between Central Europe and that of it closest neighbor, Mycenaean Greece—a culture
whose population is generally considered to have played a role in the Sea Peoples
20 See Casson 1995, 141-2 for an example of Rome’s adaptation of the liburnian.
21 Wachsmann 2000, 122-3.
12
coalition.

Next, this paper will take a closer look at the origins and significance of the
vogelbarke. There is a question of whether Bronze Age Central European bird-head
motifs influenced Aegean Bronze Age bird-head representations, or vice-versa. This
issue must be addressed if we are to examine that possibility that the Medinet Habu Sea
Peoples vessel may have an ultimately “European” origin.

Included among the myriad theories regarding the destruction of the Mycenaean
palaces in the LH IIIB/C period are variations on the “northern invasion” theme, which
posits that large groups of well-armed barbarians swept down from the Balkans and laid
waste to mainland Greece, then perhaps continuing on to Cyprus, the Levant, and,
ultimately, a conflict with Ramesses III.

https://nautarch.tamu.edu/Theses/pdf-files/Romey-MA2004.pdf


https://www.mdpi.com/arts/arts-08-00165/article_deploy/html/images/arts-08-00165-g040.png

Johnny ola
11-09-2020, 08:50 PM
Yes, some of my relatives do, and I've noticed some Scottish names in there too. Not sure about Irish though, which if not, would more likely make them lowland Scots.

It seems so.Lyndon Baines Johnson the 36th USA president was EV13.Taking serious his surname must be of 'Anglo' roots. His grandfather was this man:

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

vettor
11-09-2020, 10:14 PM
E-V13 made it via Illyrian/East Hallstatt -> West Hallstatt and early Celtic -> Germanic. So it came to Britain in many waves, but I'd assume not before the LBA to Iron Age (Celts) and with any subsequent people which entered the island.



We don't have enough evidence afaik, probably some linguistic experts (anyone?) disagree, but my impression is it was closer to Italic than Greek. Would make even more sense if looking at its Central European and Urnfield relations.



Phrygians are an early offshot from the Thracian branch, which might have been influenced by Greek and Anatolian substrate in my opinion. In any case they were part of this same movement which brought Thracians-Illyrians to the Balkans, they just hopped over the Bosporus so to say.







This is a reasonable position, even more so since the coastal zone was largely Roman and Greek in the time of the Roman empire, Albanian surely survived in the more mountainous hinterland, like Basque or later Vlachs/Romanians after the collapse of the empire. This also means that a possibly richer language was somewhat shrunken in this period of retreat in refuges.

you do realise that the messapic are the smallest of the Iapygian group of tribes and the Daunians the largest who settled around Foggia Italy ................these Iapygian people originate in modern croatia

The Iapygians or Apulians (Greek: Ἰάπυγες, Ĭāpyges; Latin: Iapyges, Iapygii) were an Indo-European people, dwelling in an eponymous region of the southeastern Italian Peninsula named Iapygia (modern Apulia) between the beginning of the first millennium BC and the first century BC. They were divided into three tribes: the Daunians, Peucetians and Messapians.
The region was known to the Greeks of the 5th century BC as Iapygía ('Ιαπυγία), and its inhabitants as the Iápyges ('Ιάπυγες).[1] It was probably the term used by the indigenous peoples to designate themselves.[1] The name 'Iapyges' has also been compared to that of the 'Iapydes', an Illyrian tribe of northern Dalmatia.[2]

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

They arrived in Italy in the late bronze age .......these Daunians from other papers doubled the other 2 tribes in number ..............but I assume they would have been the first to mix with the samnites and so over time loose to a degree their ethnicity

The Daunians also had tatooing, like their illyrian countrymen in the northern balkans who must have learnt it from the celts , their northern neighbours

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/146195711798369328?journalCode=yeja20

https://www.academia.edu/33341054/Illyrian_Vestiges_in_Daunian_Costume_tattoos_strin g_aprons_and_a_helmet

https://www.academia.edu/20352171/Daunian_Women_costume_and_actions_commemorated_in_ stone

Riverman
11-10-2020, 01:56 AM
The Daunians also had tatooing, like their illyrian countrymen in the northern balkans who must have learnt it from the celts , their northern neighbours


Never heard about that, but tattoos are fairly widespread among many IE, actually many people around the world. Anyway, what would be really interesting is to get some more of those tested :)

Bane
11-10-2020, 07:24 PM
@Riverman I like many elements of your hypothesis about expansion of E-V13. It resolves multiple questions and it is composed of numerous sensible arguments. Though I'm a bit skeptical about the timeframe. I have no solid arguments, it just feels a bit "late". I also disagree with Anatolia as the European entrance point of E-V13 (or its ancestor). But lets not go that way, that is another story.

However, there is one circumstance which is in your favor but you did not mention it in a way it deserves - it is the Late Bronze Age collapse. If we follow the scenario(s) you suggest would you agree that E-V13 people actually used the vacuum which emerged after the collapse of multiple societies in Eastern Mediterranean at the end of Bronze Age? To me the collapse seems like an excellent prelude for what is to happen with E-V13.

Riverman
11-11-2020, 11:09 AM
@Riverman I like many elements of your hypothesis about expansion of E-V13. It resolves multiple questions and it is composed of numerous sensible arguments. Though I'm a bit skeptical about the timeframe. I have no solid arguments, it just feels a bit "late". I also disagree with Anatolia as the European entrance point of E-V13 (or its ancestor). But lets not go that way, that is another story.

However, there is one circumstance which is in your favor but you did not mention it in a way it deserves - it is the Late Bronze Age collapse. If we follow the scenario(s) you suggest would you agree that E-V13 people actually used the vacuum which emerged after the collapse of multiple societies in Eastern Mediterranean at the end of Bronze Age? To me the collapse seems like an excellent prelude for what is to happen with E-V13.

I wasn't digging deeper into this, because its a disputed deeper going debate, but my personal opinion is that the events I described and associated with the expansion of E-V13 were actually directly causal for the Bronze Age collapse. This is for two reasons:
- The E-V13 clans seem to be best associated with the spread of early iron processing technologies, they were metal working specialists for their time, what happened in their settlements was state of the art back then. This transition to iron and more advanced new technological provinces even before were directly related to the Bronze Age collapse.
- We see in the course of this major upheavals in the zone I think of being central for the spread of E-V13, in the Northern Carpathians to Northern Balkans, I just refer to Teleac once more, because its a real big thing, both the size of the settlement, the technology and production it harboured, as well as the siege and destruction, which needs real armies at work.
- The last point is simple, the same movements which brought new technologies and change first to the Carpathian region, reached later the Balkans, West Anatolia, even the Levante.

Its basically one big chain of events, like whole people and populations moving and pushing each other - we don't know all the reasons, but we can see the big technological leap forward for the Northerners, directly associated with the Urnfield expansion, and we see that they were on the move. Take for example Mycenaean collapse and the Dorian invasion theory: They conquered them with iron weapons, that was the classic view on the issue.

Then came people like this:
Drews 1993, p. 63:

The old view — that the Dorian invasion proceeded from the central Balkans and that it occurred ca. 1200 — is now maintained by only a few archaeologists and against increasing evidence to the contrary.

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

Like in many other cases, genetics might bring things back into the realm of logic and facts. The whole spread of Dorian and associated signals without the movement of people never made any sense at all. Archaeologists just developed an issue with the term "invasion", yet it was clear from ancient accounts and the modern work on the problem, that the Dorians were for many places newcomers and they brought new influences, even technological inputs, to the region. And part of their influences seem to have been directly derived from the Thraco-Illyrian realm of things, which then again created Eastern Hallstatt in the next step of the development. Its all connected.

Recently I read that what might be called Dorian was present before, as mercenaries, soldiers, guards and people around the urban centres. Well that wouldn't make any difference, because its like Semites, or to be concrete Akkadians living around Sumerian places, knocking on the door for long. When they took over, it was still a conquest and it was still accompanied by even more people coming, by whole tribes moving. And the same happened at the end of the Bronze Age. Basically it was the Northern Bronze Age cultures getting mature, while the old centres getting senile.

E-V13 might actually be like the red flag for the whole process and the events unfolding, like where it appeared, it might be directly related by people from the relative North entering the scene, beginning the downfall of the old urban centres, with their large and well equipped armies, tribes and alliances, starting to tear down the walls. That doesn't mean V13 was as a whole involved in this, or an exclusive marker, not at all, but it might be the new kid on the block in this period of time for the Southern Balkan, Aegean and Levante. I won't go as far as to directly associate it with single tribes moving with the Sea people, though its certainly possible it was involved there as well. But probably, even more likely, they were primarily those which pushed them, reaching not as far, but settling down as Illyrians, Thracians and as an element of Dorians primarily, with radiation beyond, Celts primarily, but also Germanics and steppe people.

I would really look for the early iron production, this is very, very important:


The 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 finds in Greece that contain a sword as offering, but also iron swords found in Slovenia and Romania.

http://141.2.140.22/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/year/2020/docId/53995

The introduction of iron weapons was a complete game changer. I remember reading how Mycenaeans might have reacted, when they were attacked by Dorians and the iron weapons pierced their armour on which they relied. The effect must have been devastating everywhere it occured. The Naue II sword was important, iron was important. Both together created a completely new way of fighting it out. Between 1600-600 there were technological advancements in weapon technology in a row, like Sögel swords, chariots, Naue II swords and iron weapons. Just look at the sword types found. And almost every big change lead to new constellations, shifts and replacements.


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

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

Imagine a large army of Northern warriors with Naue II iron swords coming into contact with people which were not used to this, or even if they knew it, because they bought such items before and used some of these people as mercenaries, how could they deal with it? The lesson which will be taught, probably in some years from now: They couldn't, they just crumbled in the face of it. What came out of this was in Greece for example the hoplite warrior:

Dark age warfare transitioned into hoplite warfare in the 8th century BC. Historians and researchers have debated the reason and speed of the transition for centuries. So far 3 popular theories exist:

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

The reason is clear: A well ordered wall of spears and shields is probably the best (defensive) tactic against sword swinging people, which were probably even one head taller. The even better or as good method is the Roman shield wall, by using shields both for protection and the attack, while cutting and thrusting the belly and legs of the sword swinger. This was the reaction, the initial problem was the sword swinging tribal warrior, for which there was no good counter before.

Instructive is also how the Egyptians defeated the Sea people:


After defeating the Sea Peoples on land in Syria, Ramesses rushed back to Egypt where preparations for the invaders' assault had already been completed. Ramesses enticed the Sea Peoples and their ships into the mouth of the Nile, where he had assembled a fleet in ambush. Ramesses also lined the shores of the Nile Delta with ranks of archers who were ready to release volleys of arrows into the enemy ships if they attempted to land. Once within range, Ramesses ordered the archers fire at the enemy ships, pushing them back towards the fleet of Ramesses now coming in to cut off the Sea Peoples' escape route. This Egyptian fleet pushed the Sea Peoples' boats towards shore. Then archers and infantrymen both on land and on the ships devastated the enemy. The Sea People's ships were overturned, many were killed and captured and some even dragged to the shore where they were killed. In the inscriptions, Ramesses proclaims:

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

They were lured into a trap and overwhelmed by massive volleys of arrows. Actually quite similar to Tollense, but probably that's just a coincidence...

The Battle of the Delta is also interesting because the Egyptians emphasized one warrior, one style for the invaders - sword fighters with big shields:

https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/BattleoftheDelta.jpg

https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/BattleoftheDelta.jpg

https://historycollection.com/incredible-ancient-naval-battles/2/

The Egyptians themselves were primarily equipped with spears. So they noticed the emphasis on sword fighters, even if the ratio might have been much lower in reality.

In any case, in this framework happened the spread of E-V13, and they were at the centre of it, because it seems they can be best associated, as clans and individuals, with the spread of early iron technology, which was the ball which brought the whole East of Europe to roll, and those for which there was not space left in Europe jumped over to Anatolia, the Levante and tried even for Egypt. Its all interconnected, one big sequence of events, which just end, for some time, with the Iron Age stabilisation, until Celts and Scythians started the next round, Germanics and Romans the next...

New archaeology wanted to concentrate on processes and economy, but in this case the most important economical aspect was that the Urnfield related groups could afford to produce massive amounts of well-made swords, with which they seem to have cut a lot of throats. And its not by chance Egypt, even if weakened and in crisis, survived, but the other states did not. That's because it could resist, simple as that.

Hawk
11-11-2020, 02:40 PM
I already made a post before: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=718522&viewfull=1#post718522

Wherever Urnfield people are present decorations with avian motive is present, so birds were quite a symbol within the Eastern Urnfield horizont. The ships of Medinet Habu are very specific in that they are typical Mycenean Aegean ships but adjusted, they have a very specific avian/bird-like shape in front. So probably the Urnfield newcomers took the Mycenean way of building ships and added their own styling on top of that.

Riverman
11-11-2020, 03:58 PM
I already made a post before: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21898-Why-is-E-V13-so-confusing&p=718522&viewfull=1#post718522

Wherever Urnfield people are present decorations with avian motive is present, so birds were quite a symbol within the Eastern Urnfield horizont. The ships of Medinet Habu are very specific in that they are typical Mycenean Aegean ships but adjusted, they have a very specific avian/bird-like shape in front. So probably the Urnfield newcomers took the Mycenean way of building ships and added their own styling on top of that.

I think the Sea People were even more kind of a mixed bunch, which means they incorporated different ethnic and tribal elements in some sort of "campaign alliances". That's why they largely disappeared soon afterwards, those which survived settled down or retreated with their people or in smaller scale.

Hawk
11-11-2020, 06:12 PM
I think the Sea People were even more kind of a mixed bunch, which means they incorporated different ethnic and tribal elements in some sort of "campaign alliances". That's why they largely disappeared soon afterwards, those which survived settled down or retreated with their people or in smaller scale.

Probably many tribes/kingdoms from West Anatolian Arzawa like Lycians were part of the coalition.

Bane
11-11-2020, 07:33 PM
In any case, in this framework happened the spread of E-V13, and they were at the centre of it, because it seems they can be best associated, as clans and individuals, with the spread of early iron technology, which was the ball which brought the whole East of Europe to roll, and those for which there was not space left in Europe jumped over to Anatolia, the Levante and tried even for Egypt.

Quoting this sentence only but I have the whole post in mind. Again the thesis is very nicely written but I suppose you will understand when I say that supporting it would be a bit too much. :)

On the other hand, I'm keeping appreciation for your general hypothesis about expansion of E-V13.

Granary
11-12-2020, 01:25 PM
Stuff
When and how did iron get to Pannonia/Carpathians? Did it came from Anatolia or generally the south and if so in what fashion?

Riverman
11-12-2020, 02:03 PM
When and how did iron get to Pannonia/Carpathians? Did it came from Anatolia or generally the south and if so in what fashion?

Some of the earliest written records of iron products exist from Hittite texts and some even speculated they tried to keep a monopoly on it, but it didn't work out on the long run obviously. A lot of the details of its spread and early importance are heavily disputed, from the article about Teleac, which I strongly recommend for a read:


The introduction of iron technology has still not been sufficiently elucidated; yet, without doubt Anatolia was an early centre. Iron is fi rst mentioned only sporadically in Hittite texts of the 18th century BC, whereas in texts of the 14th and 13th centuries BC weapons made of iron are named ever more frequently.17 Th e oldest object made of iron found in Europe – a knife or sickle – comes from Ganovce, district of Poprad, Slovakia, in a fortifi ed settlement of the Otomani culture.18 Nevertheless, this episode seems to have remained sporadic as such. It is the 11th century BC that fi rst marks the transition from bronze to iron technology, with bronze swords replaced by those made of iron, in Southern Europe and especially in Greece. Th e introduction of iron technology in various regions of western Asia and Europe cannot be assessed in detail yet.

For Eastern and South Eastern Europe, the Gava culture was particularly important:

Th ere proved to be diff erences in the production of the broad commodity of pottery: Th e technically de-manding, black-polished pottery of the Gáva cul-ture decorated with garland patterns or channels displays an unmistakable metallic aspect

This is very important for the whole debate:


Outside of Greece, in Southeast Europe, the east Carpathian Basin was without doubt a centre of early iron technology. Th ere a signifi cant increase in iron fi nds can be noted in the 10th century BC.
Their appearance even earlier in Transylvania, in the 12th century BC, is a subject of controversy. Whereas N. Boroffk a dates the earliest iron fi nds to the 12th century BC, C. Pare considers early evi-dence for the use of iron there as insecure; he pos-tulates instead that the picture changed substan-tially only aft er the middle of the 10th century BC with iron fi nds from Cernat (jud. Covasna), Hida (jud. Sălaj) and Cîţcău (jud. Cluj)


Later excava-tions brought forth even more iron objects, which now can be clearly dated to the 10th century BC. In light of recent investigations, the dating of fi nds from older excavations should be reviewed. Proof of far-reaching connections point to the Caucasus as well. For example, a 40-cm long Caucasiandagger with an iron blade and bronze grip was dis-covered in Pănade, a site located north of Teleac. And it can be dated to the 10th/9th century BC, too.8
The connections to Greece since the 11th/10thcentury BC are ultimately confi rmed by the spec-trum of iron forms, in particular, the typifying double axes, the trunnion axes and the swords.

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

The Caucasian connection is particularly interesting from the perspective of a proposed Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and rather early connections to the steppe and Caucasus.

A great problem is the lack of sufficient absolute chronology and the fact that early iron weapons seem to have been reforged over and over again, since iron was just to precious to be wasted. Both concerning the early spread of iron technology, the sites in the Carpathian, Balkan and Aegean region need further investigation and of course for the whole time frame the ancient DNA sampling is so far absolutely insufficient to get any clear picture of what really happened and who moved where.

rafc
11-12-2020, 08:57 PM
Many interesting contributions here. I think LBA is a bit late for V13 expansion. V13 clearly had two big expansions, a first one with CTS5856 and it's subranches, especially under BY3880. The second one happened about 1000 years later with a few branches that still dominate V13 today: CTS9320 (TMRCA 3000BP according to Yfull), L241 (2800bp) and FGC11457 (3200bp). I think the expansion of those three is certainly connected to events in the LBA/EIA. But I also think the first expansion is so big, and the lines are so widespread on the Balkans that it must already have been happening there.

Looking at parallels with L283 and the fact that there are quite some basal V13 clades with a pure Western-European distribution I think the case for early Indo-Europenization is quite strong now. I would not be surprised if the earliest V13 groups had lived somewhere near the Danube and some of them were dragged along to Western Europe, while others went south, probably near the end of the 3d millenium BC when lot's of things were moving.

Riverman
11-12-2020, 09:20 PM
Many interesting contributions here. I think LBA is a bit late for V13 expansion. V13 clearly had two big expansions, a first one with CTS5856 and it's subranches, especially under BY3880. The second one happened about 1000 years later with a few branches that still dominate V13 today: CTS9320 (TMRCA 3000BP according to Yfull), L241 (2800bp) and FGC11457 (3200bp). I think the expansion of those three is certainly connected to events in the LBA/EIA. But I also think the first expansion is so big, and the lines are so widespread on the Balkans that it must already have been happening there.

Looking at parallels with L283 and the fact that there are quite some basal V13 clades with a pure Western-European distribution I think the case for early Indo-Europenization is quite strong now. I would not be surprised if the earliest V13 groups had lived somewhere near the Danube and some of them were dragged along to Western Europe, while others went south, probably near the end of the 3d millenium BC when lot's of things were moving.

I did think this was the more likely explanation too, but its the recent results from Western Europe, Pannonia and the Balkans which changed my mind. If they would have expanded earlier in signficant numbers, they would have been highly likely to appear in greater numbers in EBA-MBA Western Europe, Central Europe-Pannonia and the the Balkans in particular, but they did not. I have a big problem with this in general:


But I also think the first expansion is so big, and the lines are so widespread on the Balkans that it must already have been happening there.

After all the ancient DNA revelations, this is no longer a valid argument any more - I mean its a valid argument, but its no proof for anything. Because just assuming that E-V13 grew big in the North Carpathian region, was big probably in larger portions of the early Eastern and Southern Urnfield horizon, what would this mean in the described context, if the biggest chunk of these people moved, as a whole, as whole tribes and people, like in the migration period, down through the mountains and into Pannonia and the Balkan region? It would just mean they took most of the diversity with them. Their former homeland underwent multiple later changes and shifts, all of big magnitude, so that its a wonder if anything signficant, especially paternally, survived there from the LBA at all.

Look at the EBA-MBA variation in Pannonia and how little importance it has for the current population:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21853-Prehistory-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-from-the-perspective-of-archeogenetics

I mean I can't know, probably it was an earlier expansion into the Balkans. But I think its also possible that there was a major shift, a "transplantation" of people from the North to the South possible. Actually, from the records we have, it seems like it just happened, whether it was E-V13 or not. V13 is just, currently, one of the best associated candidates. The Urnfield-related expansions into Pannonia and South Eastern Europe were really big, nothing to underestimate at all. So if having a situation of "we search and don't find" before, but it "surely was present later" - well, the most parsimonious position might be to assume it was introduced with the shift. But this might be wrong of course, yet the more ancient samples come back with a lack of significant V13 numbers from the region, the more likely it becomes. Because the time window for its spread without the LBA-Urnfield expansions gets narrower and narrower.

Actually I think even the recent Slavic samples might play in favour of this scenario, because they too would make it more likely that even the Eastern-Central European Lusatian people were just different from later Slavs and largely replaced later. This leaves a lot of opportunities to put them into a different context, related to their Urnfield relatives to the West, South and South East, especially Illyrians and Thracians. Probably the very old prehistorical maps were not that wrong after all with their large scale distribution of Illyrian and Thracian related people in the Early Iron Age.


I would not be surprised if the earliest V13 groups had lived somewhere near the Danube and some of them were dragged along to Western Europe, while others went south, probably near the end of the 3d millenium BC when lot's of things were moving.

An early IE, at least partial one, is extremely likely by now, actually anything else doesn't make any sense at all. Yet its interesting that the ritual cremation burial has a long tradition in the Carpathian region, going even back to the TCC. The more I think about it, the more I think that the role of a partial IEised people with a good expertise in metal working and their own cultural trademarks played an important role first for Unetice, but secondly, and much more so, for Urnfield and that among those people was E-V13 in fairly high numbers.

The time window for an early expansion in signfiicant numbers is closing though, its just that its supposed to have happened already by the MBA imho. I see no comeback from the Balkans with a later timing. Its unfortunate that not all the samples from the links thread report being released by now. It would also have been very interesting to see where the probably single V13 individual came from. Could also give us a hint. Like if it came from close to Slovakia, this would nail it already, whereas a more Balkan shifted one would leave everything more open or shifting things to a more likely Balkan origin even, especiailly if it would be a high quality sample with a NGS level assignment.

rafc
11-12-2020, 10:29 PM
I did think this was the more likely explanation too, but its the recent results from Western Europe, Pannonia and the Balkans which changed my mind. If they would have expanded earlier in signficant numbers, they would have been highly likely to appear in greater numbers in EBA-MBA Western Europe, Central Europe-Pannonia and the the Balkans in particular, but they did not. I have a big problem with this in general:



After all the ancient DNA revelations, this is no longer a valid argument any more - I mean its a valid argument, but its no proof for anything. Because just assuming that E-V13 grew big in the North Carpathian region, was big probably in larger portions of the early Eastern and Southern Urnfield horizon, what would this mean in the described context, if the biggest chunk of these people moved, as a whole, as whole tribes and people, like in the migration period, down through the mountains and into Pannonia and the Balkan region? It would just mean they took most of the diversity with them. Their former homeland underwent multiple later changes and shifts, all of big magnitude, so that its a wonder if anything signficant, especially paternally, survived there from the LBA at all.

Look at the EBA-MBA variation in Pannonia and how little importance it has for the current population:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21853-Prehistory-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-from-the-perspective-of-archeogenetics


I've seen that slide, and it's quite remarkable. But in Western/Northern Europe EBA/MBA adna matches well with groups known from later periods, and even current distributions. So maybe Pannonia just got overrun more during history and has less genetic continuity? Don't forget no old languages survived there, but two did more to the south (Albanian and Greek). Although language =/= genes, it does seem reasonable that survival of those languages suggests some genetic continuity.



I mean I can't know, probably it was an earlier expansion into the Balkans. But I think its also possible that there was a major shift, a "transplantation" of people from the North to the South possible. Actually, from the records we have, it seems like it just happened, whether it was E-V13 or not. V13 is just, currently, one of the best associated candidates. The Urnfield-related expansions into Pannonia and South Eastern Europe were really big, nothing to underestimate at all. So if having a situation of "we search and don't find" before, but it "surely was present later" - well, the most parsimonious position might be to assume it was introduced with the shift. But this might be wrong of course, yet the more ancient samples come back with a lack of significant V13 numbers from the region, the more likely it becomes. Because the time window for its spread without the LBA-Urnfield expansions gets narrower and narrower.


Do you have some studies/books that reference the southern spread of Urnfield, especially to the southern Balkans?

Btw, I recently read an article that might be interesting for you since it touches on movements at the end of the LBA in the Balkans. It's titled "Migration events in Greece at the end of the second millenium BC and their possible Balkanic background". The author argues that the "Dorian" dialects came south at the end of the LBA from the (current) regions of Epirus, (Greek) Macedonia and Southern Albania. He sees a domino effect where these people were pushed on by people who previously lived in current North Macedonia (Ulanci group). These had been pushed on by people who originally lived in Southern Serbia & Kosovo (Brnjica group). Finally the Brnjica group had been replaced by the Belegis II group from the Serbian Danube basin whose reason for moving is not so clear. I'm no specialist, but his evidence sounded quite convincing.

Riverman
11-13-2020, 01:08 AM
I've seen that slide, and it's quite remarkable. But in Western/Northern Europe EBA/MBA adna matches well with groups known from later periods, and even current distributions. So maybe Pannonia just got overrun more during history and has less genetic continuity? Don't forget no old languages survived there, but two did more to the south (Albanian and Greek). Although language =/= genes, it does seem reasonable that survival of those languages suggests some genetic continuity.

Pannonia is part of the steppe habitat and prone to be exchanged between different people. Yet the problem I see is that the time window for an expansion from the South ended largley with the MBA, because the next big impact was already the Urnfield expansion, which went all down to Serbia, to Bulgaria, reached even Greeks. And what we see with this result is, V13 was not there before, we have this huge Northern impact and suddenly, in the Iron Age, the whole region from Slovakia over Pannnonia, the Carpathians down to the Balkans and even Aegean sea is packed with V13. There is no South -> North expansion of this magnitude which can explain it, and its Illyrians and Thracians which came with these layers from the North into the region. So the most likely explanation is just that V13 came to the Balkan with Thracians and with Illyrians, from Central Europe, from the North Carpathian, not vice versa.

I completely agree with the genetic continuity: The only people which survived with a high degree of genetic continuity from the Iron Age might be Albanians and Greeks, and both have relatively high V13, as do Vlachs and related people with their fair share of these Thraco-Illyrian horizon. But that's exactly what I'm saying: It was Urnfield related groups which brought these ethnicities and influenced Greeks in the first place. One of the major lines of evidence for this is that both Illyrians and Thracians seem to have been heavy with V13, not just in the South, but also in Pannonia and the Carpathians. It now appears as if the bulk always lived South, because that are the strongholds which remained, after Romans, Iranians, Germanics, Slavs, Magyars and Bulgars took their share of the pool in many of those places. We already have the Serbian samples, Pannonians are there and more will follow. It was not just the Southern tip which got more V13 then than it has now, it was the whole macro-region, down from the - by me - supposed centre around the North Carpathians-Slovakia.


Do you have some studies/books that reference the southern spread of Urnfield, especially to the southern Balkans?

I did link some already, its in this thread. There was not just one, but a succession of waves coming in, with Teleac being an important part of the bigger story, like a hub for some time which came itself under pressure. This was posted by Hawk some days ago, its a good summary of some of the most important aspects:
https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianBalkans.htm

The Gava culture is instrumental for the spread of V13:
https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Europe/Map_EasternEurope1200BC_max.jpg

Its important to note that it was not the last wave coming in, and it was submerged by new ones from more Western Urnfield groups to some degree, especially in the sphere which became Illyrian later. But its a nice link between the Thracian and Illyrian sphere, with Illyrians getting more, additional, more Western influences. But this expansion might be directly and best related with E-V13. Considering its position and early role as avantgarde for metal works and smithery, it wasn't able to keep up on the long run and was thinned out to the West. This is ideal for the patchy and thinned out distribution to the West, which I assume is associated with single individuals and small groups spreading new ways and customs, especially metal work technology, to the West and North, while the tribal, united groups went South. Teleac and a whole chain of fortresses were conquered and in part destroyed later, I'd assume by the next push from the North, probably already from a different, but related people.


Btw, I recently read an article that might be interesting for you since it touches on movements at the end of the LBA in the Balkans. It's titled "Migration events in Greece at the end of the second millenium BC and their possible Balkanic background". The author argues that the "Dorian" dialects came south at the end of the LBA from the (current) regions of Epirus, (Greek) Macedonia and Southern Albania. He sees a domino effect where these people were pushed on by people who previously lived in current North Macedonia (Ulanci group). These had been pushed on by people who originally lived in Southern Serbia & Kosovo (Brnjica group). Finally the Brnjica group had been replaced by the Belegis II group from the Serbian Danube basin whose reason for moving is not so clear. I'm no specialist, but his evidence sounded quite convincing.

That's exactly what I was talking about, it was one big domino effect, once the new ways and technologies spread, the old order and stability was questioned, every incidence could have triggered it. And it caused a migration period which was minimum as important and far reaching as the one in Late Antiquity. The only problem is, we don't have written records for the centre of it, nothing at all. But if you search for a reason why a haplogroup which was once confined to a fairly limited region around the North Carpathians spread rapidly in all directions, with one huge push South, that's where you have to look at.


Phase I, also named Belegiš – Cruceni, because of parallels in Rumanian Banat, is dated to the later part of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, and Phase II, named Belegiš – Gava, after the channelled Gava pottery spread over a large ter-ritory, is dated to the advanced Late Bronze Age.2


At the end of the Early Bronze Age and for the greater part of the Middle Bronze Age the Vatin culture was a domi-nant cultural phenomenon in the Central Balkans. Towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age various groups emerged in this area, partly bound to the Vatin tradition, but contain-ing new elements, too: The Belegiš group in South Vojvodi-na and North Serbia, the Paraćin group in the middle Middle Morava valley and the Brnjica group in the South. All these groups practised cremation as the main burial ritual. The end of the Bronze Age marks the end of the development of these cultures, the appearance of the Kalakača horizon and the prevalence of inhumation. In some parts of this area, however, cremation remained in use.

Its important to note that with Belegiš and Basarabi but even more so with the succeeding cultures and cultural provinces appearing after the Urnfield intrusion, we deal with branches already and it might even be possible to assign them to specific haplotypes, in this case to specific clades of E-V13. My position is clear: Before the Urnfield it is unlikely to find large numbers of E-V13 in the Balkans, then we have cremation and if we test the remains of buried bodies from the time afterwards, suddenly you will see a drastic raise in the frequency of E-V13. These cultural provinces also begin to develop directly into the Iron Age, historically known regional ethnicities. Before Urnfield we now know E-V13 wasn't there, afterwards we know it was there, in the Iron Age, and in between the main direction of large scale movements was North -> South, with Urnfield related groups.

From the paper:

41123


The Gava horizon, with channeled pottery, dated to a developed Late Bronze Age, was not documented in graves of the Brnjica group, but it certainly Cremation burials in the Morava valley between 1300 and 750 BC 179existed, as channeled pottery and typical bronzes from the Late Bronze Age, socketed axes, tweezers, pins etc., from the Hisar settlement testify


To sum up, when speaking of burial rituals in the period from 1350 to 750 BC in our region, one can say that, after a period of mixed burial practice in the Middle Bronze Age, cremation prevails from the Middle Bronze Age to the be-ginning of the Iron Age. In the beginning of the Early Iron Age inhumation began to dominate, but in some areas cre-mation also continued to be practiced through this period.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv8d5tfn.14?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Gava has its origins in the North Carpathian.


The causes of that movement of populations of Cruceni-Belegiš type were, probably, of economic order (the contacts with the Mycennean world) and they were maybe the result of a pressure coming from the Pannonian Plain (the so-called „elements of Csórva-Bobda I type”).

Compare also with the chronology of the Gava culture, again with Teleac in the focus:
https://www.academia.edu/3076569/The_Chronology_of_the_Gava_Culture_in_Transylvania


The time at the end of 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, i.e. Bronze to Iron Age transition, is determined by strong economic, social, cultural and by all appearances also by paleoethnic changes. It had not been characterized only by introduction of new metal, iron, for production of weapons, tools and jewelry but also by using new techniques and occurrence of new stylistic traits in the material culture. Almost synchronously, in the beginning of the 1st millennium, there appeared strong influences onautochthonous Bronze Age cultures in the Serbian Danube valley that arrived from two directions. On the one hand these are influences coming fromthe area of the final phase of the Gava culture, from the south Carpathian zone (Gava-Holihrady or the final phase of Gava culture, Gava-Medias asit was identified by M. Guma) and on the other hand these are influencesfrom the central Europe, western regions of the Pannonian plain, that via some variants of Early Urnfield culture reached Baranja, north Bačka and western Srem. The eastern influences are associated with occurrence ofblack burnished channeled pottery, which covered, in the period of Bronze-Iron Age transition, rather large area from the middle Tisa basin over large areas of the Carpathian basin (Laszlo 1994, Smirnova 1990) and across the Carpathians reached Moldavia and even further to the Prut river. Thispottery is known in archaeological literature under many different names:Graniceşti or Corlateni-Chisinaŭ and so on. Of particular interest for the ethnic identification of its bearers is the opinion expressed by G. Smirnovain the end of the 20th century. She thinks that early Gava culture (Mahala III) is of Thracian origin.


All these investigations confirmed with slightamendments the classification already published in Praistorija Vojvodine. Something that could be of significance for the origin of this complex isthe confirmed connection between the end of Bronze and the beginningof Early Iron Age. At Kalakača, settlement dating from the earliest phase of the Bosut culture there was encountered in some pits the black burnished pottery with stylistic traits of the Gava culture (Medović 1988). There is also confirmation of contacts of these two cultures – Belegiš-Gava and early Bosut culture - in the vertical stratigraphy of Gomolava. Furthermore, typological analysis of the pottery from the collective tomb especially one discovered in 1954 suggests gradual transformation into the new culture.


Moreover, pottery from the most of sites in Serbia to the south of the Danube is related to the intrusion of the pottery of Bosut I (Kalakača, Gornea) type. Certain amount of specimens of ‘Basarabi style’ was recorded in Zlotska pećina, at Lanište and Panjevački Rit near Jagodina and at some other sites (Stojić 1996, 119 sq.) In spite of that, it seems that it was just a short-lasting intrusion, influence comingfrom the central areas of the Bosut-Basarabi complex. In the same way could be explained the appearance of pottery with ‘S’ ornament and other ‘Basarabi motifs’ at the sites in Austria, part of Slovenia and western regions of Hungary


It is often quoted in literature that bearers of the Basarabi style inSerbian Danube basin and especially in the Morava valley were the tribes of Triballian stock. It is difficult to draw such conclusions for the Basarabistyle even more so as Bosut-Basarabi pottery only brushes the area where the Triballi lived in the middle of the 1st millennium BC according to the historical data (Papazoglu 1969, 11 sq.) It is more appropriate to attribute to the Triballi the pottery occurring in the Morava valley synchronously with the Basarabi culture and characterized by ‘tremolo’ ornament.

http://www.balkaninstitut.com/pdf/izdanja/balcanica/balcanica%2035/01%20Tasic.pdf

All this goes in one direction: From the Urnfield horizon Illyrians and Thracians split, and one of the best candidates for its spread is the Gava horizon. It just fits. There is nothing which would explain Illyrians and Thracians plus E-V13 with a South -> Northern expansion, nothing. But a whole lot of impulses which brought new people from the North to the region, to best explain a shift in patrilineages, culture and language. These groups were newcomers like the Celts with La Tene or the Germanics or the Sarmatians. They came down to Pannonia and Southern Romania and made contact with the Greek world.

So yes, of the Iron Age Balkan people Albanians and Greeks might show the greatest degree of continuity, but its a continuity dating from the beginning Iron Age, not the Neolithic or even Middle Bronze Age. This was the big time of the E-V13 spread:


I Phase characterized by at one hand merging of the final phase of Belegiš (Belegiš-Bobda) pottery with finds of the earliest phase of the EarlyIron Age in this area as it confirms the stratigraphy of Gradina on the Bosutand finds from Kalakača, Feudvar and other sites. It was, so to say, a dramatic transition from one chronological period to the other, from Bronze to the Iron Age that left as evidence exceptionally large number of bronze hoardswithin the entire area of Srem, Banat, in Serbia south of the Danube (e.g. vicinity of Požarevac) and of course in the most parts of Pannonian plain, in Transylvania and Romanian Banat. From the chronological point of view this turbulent times are dated in the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.

And this is exactly when most of the upper stream E-V13 clades split from each other, when they radiated out in all directions. By now only the exact source group and course of events remains to be elucidated. There remains a slim chance that in these complexes, some Southern group with an advantage by Aegean technology, could take part and spread V13. I don't think it was case, but it remains a possibility, as unlikely as it seems. But the most likely explanation is that E-V13 was a big player in the Urnfield culture, especially its South Eastern flank and the Gava horizon.

Looking back at my post about the Bronze Age Collapse: I repeat yes, it was all interconnected, because obviously, if such masses of people were on the move, one group pushed the other. Territories were conquered, taken and colonised the size of modern states. This was huge. Yes it was not all brutal slaughter, some fused and combined, but still, looking at the sheer magnitude, this must have exerted huge pressures on the Southern Balkan groups and even down into Italy and of course beyond the Mediterranean.

Pribislav
11-13-2020, 03:29 AM
Riverman,

while I find your hypothesis about the connection between Urnfield-related expansions and certain E-V13 clades very reasonable, you should really check your facts before using the expressions like "Thraco-Illyrian". Thracians and Illyrians were two clearly distinct groups of peoples, with different ethnocultural and ethnogenetic processes leading to their formation. While Urnfield undoubtedly had significant impact on Thracians (probably through Gava culture), it didn't have nearly as important impact on Illyrians. By the way, (Proto-)Illyrian ethnogenesis started in the East Adriatic coast long before Urnfield, but I don't have the time right now to write about that in detail. Here's what Serbian archaeologist Dragoslav Srejović said about the differences between Paleo-Balkan peoples in his book "Illyrians and Thracians", and why "Thraco-Illyrian horizon" you're constantly mentioning doesn't make any sense:

p. 218-220


It is immediately noticeable that in relatively large areas, the way of burying the dead was unique, that is, that three large ethnocultural areas can be clearly distinguished in the Balkan Peninsula, namely:

- an area whose population predominantly practised inhumation

- an area whose population predominantly practised cremation

- an area where the dead are inhumed and cremated in approximately the same frequency

The area with inhumation graves is limited in the east by the Drim, Lim and Drina rivers, in the north by Posavina (area around Sava river), in the west by Kupa river, and in the southwest and south by the Adriatic Sea. East of this area is a zone with cremation graves, this zone clearly separates the western area, with the inhumation graves, from the eastern area, where inhumation and cremation of the dead were practiced with equal frequency. The uniformity of funeral rituals in the vast territories shows that from the middle of 8th century BC we must take in consideration three different ethnocultural areas in the Balkan Peninsula.

In the inhabitants of the area where both funeral rituals are practiced we can easily recognize the Thracians, because not only that Thracian nature of this territory has never been disputed, but Herodotus also testifies that the Thracian tribes inhumed and burned their dead in equal frequency.

On the other hand, the territory with inhumation graves is undoubtedly Illyrian; it was inhabited by tribes that ancient writers readily include among the Illyrians, and it was also the territory where Illyrian state was later formed.

Spacious zone with cremation graves shows, however, that a distinct ethnocultural entity must have existed in the central areas of the Balkan Peninsula, which was more closely related to the peoples inhabiting the areas north of the Danube and some areas to the south (in modern Greece) than to the nearby Illyrian and Thracian tribes. Ethnocultural peculiarity of this population can be seen in archeological findings, as well as in linguistic data. The cultural unity of this vast area was ancient, but it became especially evident starting from the 8th century BC. It is certainly no coincidence that it was a territory whose inhabitants have been mentioned in ancient sources as distinctive peoples, like Dardani, Triballi, Moesi and Dacians, usually clearly separated from the Illyrians and Thracians. On the other hand, the linguistic material from this area enabled V. Georgijev to establish the existence of a special "Daco-Moesian" language family, that is, to include the Triballi and Dardani in the "Daco-Moesians". This special ethnocultural entity mostly hasn't been taken into account in the reconstructions of complex events in the Balkan Peninsula during the Iron Age, and that is why Illyrians and Thracians were often given an excessively large role in the literature.

About Dardani:

p. 207-208


Tries to resolve problems about the origin, ethnicity and the territory of the Dardani were based mainly on linguistic and historical data in the past. Most researchers considered them to be Illyrians, but archaeological documentation doesn't support such conclusion. The available archaeological material from the territory that belonged to the Dardani in the historical period has unique features, completely different from those that characterize Illyrian culture. According to the burial tradition (cremation), the design of graves (tholoid stone constructions) and accessories (ceramics, jewelry, tools), pre-Roman necropolises from the Dardanian territory are closely related to the simultaneous necropolises that are discovered in the area north of the confluence of South and West Morava rivers, in the middle Danube area and Oltenia, i.e. in the territories of Triballi, Moesi and Dacians, respectively.
.................................................. .................................................. ...........................
From the archaeological point of view, it is obvious that Dardani are ethnically far more closely related to the Triballi, Moesi and Dacians, than to the Illyrians and Thracians. According to the linguistic criteria they belong to a distinct family of peoples, the "Daco-Moesians", which occupied the central areas of the Balkan Peninsula and are clearly separated from the Illyrians in the west and Thracians in the east.

rafc
11-13-2020, 08:11 AM
I completely agree with the genetic continuity: The only people which survived with a high degree of genetic continuity from the Iron Age might be Albanians and Greeks, and both have relatively high V13, as do Vlachs and related people with their fair share of these Thraco-Illyrian horizon. But that's exactly what I'm saying: It was Urnfield related groups which brought these ethnicities and influenced Greeks in the first place. One of the major lines of evidence for this is that both Illyrians and Thracians seem to have been heavy with V13, not just in the South, but also in Pannonia and the Carpathians. It now appears as if the bulk always lived South, because that are the strongholds which remained, after Romans, Iranians, Germanics, Slavs, Magyars and Bulgars took their share of the pool in many of those places. We already have the Serbian samples, Pannonians are there and more will follow. It was not just the Southern tip which got more V13 then than it has now, it was the whole macro-region, down from the - by me - supposed centre around the North Carpathians-Slovakia.
So do you think the Greek and Albanian languages were brought by the urnfield expansion? Linguistically I find this a bit odd. I though Urnfield was more associated with the spread of Italo-Celtic languages.


Its important to note that with Belegiš and Basarabi but even more so with the succeeding cultures and cultural provinces appearing after the Urnfield intrusion, we deal with branches already and it might even be possible to assign them to specific haplotypes, in this case to specific clades of E-V13. My position is clear: Before the Urnfield it is unlikely to find large numbers of E-V13 in the Balkans, then we have cremation and if we test the remains of buried bodies from the time afterwards, suddenly you will see a drastic raise in the frequency of E-V13. These cultural provinces also begin to develop directly into the Iron Age, historically known regional ethnicities. Before Urnfield we now know E-V13 wasn't there, afterwards we know it was there, in the Iron Age, and in between the main direction of large scale movements was North -> South, with Urnfield related groups.

Although the lack of V13 adna has been frustrating, there hasn't been that much testing either in its current heartland. It might turn out to be a case like L151. For years people did not believe it could come from Corded ware since all Corded Ware was R1a. And then suddenly L151 was found in Corded Wared. Maybe a new round of Bronze age adna from the right places will show V13.
As for LBA/EIA, do you have suggestions on which subgroups of V13 might be connected to which groups?

Thanks for the links you provided, I will read them in detail and come back on them.

Hawk
11-13-2020, 08:34 AM
So do you think the Greek and Albanian languages were brought by the urnfield expansion? Linguistically I find this a bit odd. I though Urnfield was more associated with the spread of Italo-Celtic languages.


Italo-Celtic was associated with the Western hemisphere of Urnfield, Etruscan was in the middle (during LBA and EIA Etruscans were more powerful than Italics and Celtics) and probably yet unidentified Eastern Urnfielders on the east (according to Riverman, this eastern part was the core and most important during LBA).

My personal assumption is that these invaders didn't left a linguistic legacy, they were a third layer on top of Proto-Illyrians/Proto-Greeks/Proto-Thracians, they had better metallurgy, armor and weapons, but were less in numbers and didn't have more advanced civilization as those Balkan IE groups, so they just merged with them.


Between BC 15th–12th century, the Dacian-Getae culture was influenced by the Bronze Age Tumulus-Urnfield warriors who were on their way through the Balkans to Anatolia.

Mountain, Harry (1998). The Celtic Encyclopedia. Universal. ISBN 978-1581128901.


Harry Mountain already noted that Dacian-Getae culture was already formed when Urnfield warriors affected them.

There was a time when the term Illyrian was intercheangebly used with Lusatian Culture, though no one was quite sure, it's probably members of Lusatian Culture invaded the Proto-Illyrians and latter on sub-merged with them to become the classical Illyrians.

Riverman
11-13-2020, 08:59 AM
Riverman,

while I find your hypothesis about the connection between Urnfield-related expansions and certain E-V13 clades very reasonable, you should really check your facts before using the expressions like "Thraco-Illyrian". Thracians and Illyrians were two clearly distinct groups of peoples, with different ethnocultural and ethnogenetic processes leading to their formation. While Urnfield undoubtedly had significant impact on Thracians (probably through Gava culture), it didn't have nearly as important impact on Illyrians. By the way, (Proto-)Illyrian ethnogenesis started in the East Adriatic coast long before Urnfield, but I don't have the time right now to write about that in detail. Here's what Serbian archaeologist Dragoslav Srejović said about the differences between Paleo-Balkan peoples in his book "Illyrians and Thracians", and why "Thraco-Illyrian horizon" you're constantly mentioning doesn't make any sense:

I have the main issue with two aspects of your quotation, the first is space:

The area with inhumation graves is limited in the east by the Drim, Lim and Drina rivers, in the north by Posavina (area around Sava river), in the west by Kupa river, and in the southwest and south by the Adriatic Sea.

This is clearly defined province, yet what do you make out of it? Especially the borderline to the North is interesting, as it would cut off the Illyrians by this narrow definition completely from the Pannonian sphere and related groups in the Eastern Hallstatt culture. This is the narrow definition of Illyrian.

The second is time:


The uniformity of funeral rituals in the vast territories shows that from the middle of 8th century BC we must take in consideration three different ethnocultural areas in the Balkan Peninsula.

If you read the quotes from me above, you will see that I mentioned the inhumation horizon appearing too and quoting from papers about it. The issue is however that this was postdating the Urnfield expansion, I never questioned that they were actually different people, I just wanted to imply a common ground for both people. You said:

By the way, (Proto-)Illyrian ethnogenesis started in the East Adriatic coast long before Urnfield

Of course it did, because Urnfield broke newly into the Eastern zone, where it formed Thracian, but related Central European groups, like among others people of the Tumulus culture, moved South even before. Yet these two were affected by Urnfield, received influx and changed to cremation in many places and for some time. Is that what you mean?

However, looking at the very narrow definition of Illyrian proposed, I assume you put the Pannonians into a different category as well? Rightfully so, but fundamentally different, not having received related ancestry and cultural inputs? Probably not.

I don't claim Thraco-Illyrian is a ethnic homogeneous reality in the Iron Age, I'm just saying both came from the relative North, from Central Europe, were a related people or at least related branches from the same tree and shared some common layers of LBA-EIA influences. If you like, since it doesn't matter for that debate, Illyrians received influences from the Thracian (widest sense) horizon, which might have spread E-V13 among them (too) and even reached the West. I'm actually more agnostic about the zone described in your quotation, concerning the spread of E-V13, than in the Thracian and Pannonian region, which must have been heavily affected. There is enough space in the course of events for exactly the zone described to be out of it, even though that's not my position, but there is zero space for the Thracian and Pannonian sphere being out. This is not possible. So the areas with a stronger (to put it that way) Urnfield related influence, especially Gava, seem to be more affected and more V13 heavy than those which were less affected. The primary relation is therefore with the Thracian side (widest sense, so at least including the Daco-Moesian group), Illyrian second, Dorian third and everything else as part of the Iron Age radiation, especially Celtic.

Alain
11-13-2020, 09:11 AM
Sorry Riverman your mailbox is full

Riverman
11-13-2020, 09:33 AM
So do you think the Greek and Albanian languages were brought by the urnfield expansion? Linguistically I find this a bit odd. I though Urnfield was more associated with the spread of Italo-Celtic languages.

Not Greek of course, that would be insane. Greek was there long before, coming from a much earlier expansion from the steppe. The assumption is rather twofold:
- Dorians received a lot of Northern influences, resulting in a higher frequency in some of its groups
- Thracians intermixed on a large scale with Greeks

Both taken together could explain a rise of V13 in Greeks and the fact that they were not to the same degree replaced like the people in the now Slavic and Romanian zone explains the higher frequency. The assumption by me is, however, that directly North to them the frequencies were even much higher, especially in the Thracian core zone which got the least influenced by other people - Dacians I expect to have received for example more later steppe influences - Thracians being primarily a mixture of old Balkanic (pre-steppe), earlier steppe groups (like Cernavoda remains among many others) and newly arriving Urnfield-related groups (like with Gava), with the later bringing in the largest proportion of E-V13.



Although the lack of V13 adna has been frustrating, there hasn't been that much testing either in its current heartland.

Fine, but the problem is the distribution to the North: It isn't there, so if assuming it was sitting in the South, you need a huge movement of people, an expansion of cultures which brought it to relative North. But there is nothing to explain it! So if the Pannonian study is robust, which people did move and replace the Pannonian and Carpathain sphere? From the MBA the vast majority of movements were going in the opposite direction. So its actually easy to explain how a lineage came down to the South, but its far more difficult to explain the opposite for the time frame. That they didn't found it even in the proposed original source and centre region is just devastating. If it moved South -> North, for which there is no evidence at all, it should have been big, really big in the South. Not like, "oh, it might hide in some small group behind the next mountain". No, it would have to be so big, that you practically don't find anything else there!
So even if they find it now, in a low frequency, in some isolated group, it would prove nothing, unless its a very important and today extremely widespread clade, because even that wouldn't be enough. You need to explain the wide distribution in the Iron Age and that's easy if you assume they spread with Urnfield, its nearly impossible otherwise.


It might turn out to be a case like L151. For years people did not believe it could come from Corded ware since all Corded Ware was R1a. And then suddenly L151 was found in Corded Wared. Maybe a new round of Bronze age adna from the right places will show V13.

I totally agree with the example, but not the conclusion. It is indeed the same as with L151, with many people believing, to the bitter end, that "it must have been in the West before the steppe expansion". Actually, Corded Ware is still not completely safe in the classic definition, its not like it spread in all branches and the like. What's safe however is to say it spread with steppe people. That is beyond any doubt by this point, but it wasn't, just some years ago! And the same here: People don't want to believe such huge expansions took place. For that matter, its not that important if you find R1b, I1 or E-V13 here and there before, really important is with which culture and people it spread. Because some clades of I2 were wider spread in the past, they are old, they are widespread, but they never had 2nd large expansion, they just survived on a low level. That's not the case for R1b-L151, for I1 or for E-V13. All three have in common that they barely survived, but came to prominence in a fairly small group which rexpanded rapidly. And all three did so in a specific time window, with specific advantages, a technological-cultural shift and in an ethnic constellation.
What's the supposed alternative for E-V13? Just infiltrating the rest of the Balkan, creeping up the Carpathians and into Pannonia under the radar? That's not likely, not for that time, not in this context. You need a big movement of people and a shift taking place, to explain its spread. And as it seems by now, it was the LBA-EIA transition within the Urnfield horizon, with a clear centre in the North Carpathians and sites like Teleac being extremely important.


As for LBA/EIA, do you have suggestions on which subgroups of V13 might be connected to which groups?

Well, I read some suggestions, but I'm no expert on it. There are some clear groups, you know them too, like with Germanic-Slavic, or with Illyrian-Thracian, but on the whole the picture of many clades is very complicated. And the reason for this is, that I think especially the Northern group was split at the transition, lost its ethnic cohesion, and was spread and thinned out to some degree. They seem to have really radiated out, like in some sort of special role, like priests, warriors, traders and smiths in particular, which spread the new ways, which played a role in the societies they entered. Because I always wondered about the inconsistencies, like fairly small clades, not that numerous, being really spread out over 5 major ethnolinguistic groups, which are usually much more homogeneous than that. And the most likely reason is the special role of the core zone in the EIA transition, in this case really "infiltrating" on a small scale, probably even just indviduals and core families, which brought something to their hosts which was "in demand".

That's really different from what we see in Pannonia, Carpathians and the Balkans, where there seems to have been a truly mass movement, tribal people on the march. And I think this is directly related to the formation and spread of Hallstatt, even with the formaton of Proto-Celtic, which was local people receiving new inputs in the West. That's why it is so difficult to pinpoint a lot of the, especially Northern, clades. They are not strictly tribal, they spread over huge distances and cultural borderlines, because they were part (not exclusive) of a East -> West spread of new ways in the EIA.

Riverman
11-13-2020, 09:36 AM
Italo-Celtic was associated with the Western hemisphere of Urnfield, Etruscan was in the middle (during LBA and EIA Etruscans were more powerful than Italics and Celtics) and probably yet unidentified Eastern Urnfielders on the east (according to Riverman, this eastern part was the core and most important during LBA).

My personal assumption is that these invaders didn't left a linguistic legacy, they were a third layer on top of Proto-Illyrians/Proto-Greeks/Proto-Thracians, they had better metallurgy, armor and weapons, but were less in numbers and didn't have more advanced civilization as those Balkan IE groups, so they just merged with them.

Harry Mountain already noted that Dacian-Getae culture was already formed when Urnfield warriors affected them.

There was a time when the term Illyrian was intercheangebly used with Lusatian Culture, though no one was quite sure, it's probably members of Lusatian Culture invaded the Proto-Illyrians and latter on sub-merged with them to become the classical Illyrians.

Basically I can agree with that for Greeks and think its possible to likely for Illyrians, yes, but not Thracians. On which arguments is Henry Mountains view based and where does he see the origins of the Thracian group (wider sense, Dacians included) as a whole?

Hawk
11-13-2020, 10:07 AM
Basically I can agree with that for Greeks and think its possible to likely for Illyrians, yes, but not Thracians. On which arguments is Henry Mountains view based and where does he see the origins of the Thracian group (wider sense, Dacians included) as a whole?

I don't know on what argument Henry Mountains bases his statement, but it looks it's generally agreed upon that Thracians were already formed by 1500 B.C from different cultural groups than Urnfielders who were a layer on top of already existing (Indo-European steppe people and native Balkan farmers). That's from archeological point of view.

Also, there is a weird thing going on with Kapitan Andreevo, there is no clear indication that culture was exclusively Thracian, informations are too vague. All we got is some distant North-Western Balkans/Pannonian connections, and similarities with Early Iron Age North Greece cultures. Nothing more than that.

Riverman
11-13-2020, 11:18 AM
Because Greece and the Greeks were debated before, here we have the concrete evidence for foreign influences from ceramics, related to the Belegis/Gava expansions:

A characteristic group of the Late Helladic III C period is the so-called "Barbarian" ware. This group includes inartistic hand-made vases with simple shapes which are not related to the known shapes of the preceding and their contemporary Mycenaean production. Their clay has been left unpainted with its natural brown-red colour. Sometimes these vases were decorated with incised or plastic rope patterns. These are simple articles of domestic use and their diffusion has been indicated in many regions of mainland Greece, in Crete and the Ionian islands, while it seems that they had an earlier tradition in Epirus.

It is claimed that this type of pottery is a product of the foreign population which entered the mainland after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces. However, later evidence proved that this ceramic type was in use already from the Late Helladic IIIA period and continued to exist during the Dark Ages. The fact that it occurs in exactly the same form also in other countries, Albania, Roumania and Italy, leads to the assumption that this pottery is related with movement of population which had started several centuries before the decline of the Mycenaean power.

http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/02/mainland/en/mg/technology/pottery/index4.html

The context of this "Barbarian ware":

41127

From the The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, p. 890.

https://books.google.de/books?id=6ZQeAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&hl=de&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Another input for the Thracian sphere and beyond into the East Mediterranean:

The new pottery style replaced that of the Late Bronze Age within quite a short period within the first Early Iron Age stage and kept being conservative for the entire Early Iron Age. The prototypes of the new shapes and the fluted decoration are to be found in the Urnfield cultures of the central part of Eastern Europe. The fluted decoration evolved first in the final stages of the Lower Danube Culture with Incrusted Pottery in the Ha A1 period, under influences from the Middle and Lower Danube. Slightly later it became popular over nearly all of Thrace and it is much more likely to represent a new fashion than a major migration. The reasons could be found in a general reversal of the direction of contacts in Thrace from south/southeast to north-west. It looks very probable that Thrace fell strongly under the influence of the cul-tures from the Carpathian basin, because of their potential to provide sufficient metal sources. This trend may even have strengthened during the time of the general crisis that hit the Eastern Mediterranean region. A similar trend is marked for the contacts of Troia — imports from the East Mediterranean that are numerous in the Troia VI layers cease in the following layer, Troia VIIb, where they are mainly of northwestern origin.

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

They try to explain this big shifts by stationary people and local cultural evolution with new trading contacts, and while I can't exclude this for every single case, the general pattern suggests otherwise and refutes the immobilists: There was a major, big migration taking place which affected the whole of the South East. In some places this was just an influence, in others a fusion, again in others a large scale replacement. Only with ancient DNA we can assess the true extent of this. If there is population continuity: I'm wrong. If there is population change and a large scale shift: I'm right. That doesn't need to be replacement, but a significant impact, probably comparable to Bell Beakers in Iberia and in similar way E-V13 plus allied patrilineages were spread in the Balkans.

The crucial point is: We have the direct evidence of a massive North -> South movement of people in this context, in the LBA-EIA time frame. We have samples from Pannonia and the Dacian-Getae sphere which suggest a strong presence of V13, and nothing comparable explaining it by an expansion going in the opposite direction. Greeks were influenced by this, but they were, as a people, present and existing before. Less sure I am about Thracians (wider sense). Dacians and Getae seem to have got additional steppe influences which were less influential for the Southern Thracians proper.

Hawk
11-13-2020, 04:50 PM
I think non Z5017/Z5018 E-V13 lineages were already present in the Balkans, and probably came with the Indo-European or some other wave of 2000 B.C, Proto-Greek and similar.

For the LBA invasion we are talking exclusively about E-V13 Z5018 and E-V13 Z5017, especially the subclade within E-V13 > Z5018 > S2979 which had a more widespread dispersal.

Pribislav
11-13-2020, 05:02 PM
This is clearly defined province, yet what do you make out of it? Especially the borderline to the North is interesting, as it would cut off the Illyrians by this narrow definition completely from the Pannonian sphere and related groups in the Eastern Hallstatt culture. This is the narrow definition of Illyrian.

If you read the quotes from me above, you will see that I mentioned the inhumation horizon appearing too and quoting from papers about it. The issue is however that this was postdating the Urnfield expansion, I never questioned that they were actually different people, I just wanted to imply a common ground for both people. You said:

Of course it did, because Urnfield broke newly into the Eastern zone, where it formed Thracian, but related Central European groups, like among others people of the Tumulus culture, moved South even before. Yet these two were affected by Urnfield, received influx and changed to cremation in many places and for some time. Is that what you mean?

However, looking at the very narrow definition of Illyrian proposed, I assume you put the Pannonians into a different category as well? Rightfully so, but fundamentally different, not having received related ancestry and cultural inputs? Probably not.

I don't claim Thraco-Illyrian is a ethnic homogeneous reality in the Iron Age, I'm just saying both came from the relative North, from Central Europe, were a related people or at least related branches from the same tree and shared some common layers of LBA-EIA influences. If you like, since it doesn't matter for that debate, Illyrians received influences from the Thracian (widest sense) horizon, which might have spread E-V13 among them (too) and even reached the West. I'm actually more agnostic about the zone described in your quotation, concerning the spread of E-V13, than in the Thracian and Pannonian region, which must have been heavily affected. There is enough space in the course of events for exactly the zone described to be out of it, even though that's not my position, but there is zero space for the Thracian and Pannonian sphere being out. This is not possible. So the areas with a stronger (to put it that way) Urnfield related influence, especially Gava, seem to be more affected and more V13 heavy than those which were less affected. The primary relation is therefore with the Thracian side (widest sense, so at least including the Daco-Moesian group), Illyrian second, Dorian third and everything else as part of the Iron Age radiation, especially Celtic.


I'm not saying Pannonian tribes, and some other tribes from the northwestern part of the Balkans (Liburnians, Japodes) weren't Illyrian, or at least Illyrian-related, I just wanted to point out that the bulk of Illyrian tribes we know from historical sources stem from the "core" Illyrian area in the mountanious regions of the western Balkans, which was almost unaffected by the Urnfield expansions. In fact, those core regions had practically uninterrupted ethnocultural (and likely ethnogenetic) development from the earliest phases of the Middle Bronze Age all the way to the Roman conquest of Illyricum. So while I don't dispute that Pannonian tribes, Liburnians and Japodes were affected by Urnfield (it's a fact, proven by numerous archaeological findings), it is clear that the dominant ethnic element among Illyrians as a whole wasn't derived from Urnfield, and is in fact much more ancient.

Illyrian ethnogenesis started long before Urnfield, with the earliest phase (pre-proto-Illyrian) beginning in the latest phase of EBA and/or earliest phase of MBA (roughly 1900-1700 BC). This period is characterized by the appearance of new distinctive elements in the archaeological record of the East Adriatic coast, coming from the north/northwest, which resulted in the formation of new archaeological culture, called Posuška or Dinarska culture. Some of these new elements had their closest parallels in the Northern Italy (Polada culture) and Pannonian basin (Nagyrev and related cultures), as has been pointed out by Blagoje Govedarica. For example:

B. Govedarica; Early Bronze Age in the East Adriatic; p.165-166


Handles of the "anse ad ascia" type are best documented in the Apennine Peninsula and in southeastern France. Their mass appearance has been linked to the proto-Apennine culture ("Protoapenninico B"), the dating of which is not fully resolved, but is most often placed in the period corresponding to the younger phase of the Early Bronze Age in the South German chronology, that is stage Br. A2. In this sense, especially indicative is the typological development of "ansa ad ascia" in the territory of Sardinia and northern Italy, established by M. Ceccanti. In his opinion, this type of handle evolved from "ansa a gomito" of the Bell Beaker-pre-Bonnanaro type, and he distinguishes the following three phases in its development:

- The first phase (type 1) corresponds to the handles of the "gomito" shape, which are present in Sardinia, as well as in the sites of the Polada culture in Trentino area and in the wider area of northern Italy.

- The formation of the "ascia" shape (type 2) occurs in the following developmental stage. According to Ceccanti, it is a time of the developed Polada culture, i.e. the end of Early Bronze Age and transition to the Middle Bronze Age.

- The third type of "ax-like" handle ("canonico" type) with a large extension, already belongs to the Middle Bronze Age.

Presented evolution of ax-like handles is in agreement with the previous dating by M. A. F. Delpino and other Italian authors, where it is presented as a typical product of development within the Western Mediterranean cultural circle. Specimens found in the area of Posuška/Dinarska culture correspond best to Ceccanti's type 2, and within it not to the Sardinian, but to the northern Italian variant, found at the sites of Palidoro, Scoglietto and others. Individual "pseudobrassarda" findings from the territory of Posuška/Dinarska culture also have their best analogies in the late Polada culture of northern Italy.

During the first phase of the Posuška/Dinarska culture, we are seeing for the first time elements which indicate a stronger connection of the lower Adriatic area with the wider Balkan hinterland and Pannonia. In this sense, particularly indicative are flat-botom vessels, with short curved neck and four banded handles, which were found in the tumuli at sites Rupe near Skradin and Đelalije near Šibenik. Vessels of this type were very numerous within the Nagyrev culture. The closest analogies to vessels found in the area of Posuška/Dinarska culture were found in the Mokrin necropolis, where this type lasted for a very long period. Analogies found in the area of Hatvan culture should also be mentioned, where these forms are considered as a typical Nagyrev element.

It's almost uncanny how some already published aDNA samples support archaeological findings mentioned above. We have:

- J2b2a-L283 sample from Posuška/Dinarska culture, dated 1631-1521 BC (Veliki Vanik in modern Croatia)

- several J2b2a-L283 samples from Sardinia dating to the Nuragic period (1400-1000 BC), which developed from the earlier Bonnanaro culture, which was in turn (at least partially) developed from the Polada culture of Northern Italy

- J2b2a-L283 sample from the Mokrin necropolis, dated 2100-1800 BC, belonging to Maros/Perjamos culture, which was developed from the earlier Nagyrev culture

I would argue that even proto-Thracian ethnogenesis started several centuries before Urnfield. Just as the dominant ethnic element of proto-Illyrians ultimately originated in the EBA Pannonia and/or Northern Italy, the dominant ethnic element of proto-Thracians and their distant cousins proto-Daco-Moesians ultimately most likely originated in the post-Catacomb cultural area in the western Pontic Steppes (Babino, Noua, Monteoru, Coslogeni, Gava, Sabatinovka cultures). Both proto-Thracians and proto-Daco-Moesians were strongly influenced by proto-Iranian tribes of the Srubna culture. That's why many authors argue Thracian language belonged to the satem group, or was at least partially satemized. And in the end, that's why the expression Thraco-Cimmerian was introduced in the first place.

rafc
11-13-2020, 05:02 PM
Fine, but the problem is the distribution to the North: It isn't there, so if assuming it was sitting in the South, you need a huge movement of people, an expansion of cultures which brought it to relative North. But there is nothing to explain it! So if the Pannonian study is robust, which people did move and replace the Pannonian and Carpathain sphere? From the MBA the vast majority of movements were going in the opposite direction. So its actually easy to explain how a lineage came down to the South, but its far more difficult to explain the opposite for the time frame. That they didn't found it even in the proposed original source and centre region is just devastating. If it moved South -> North, for which there is no evidence at all, it should have been big, really big in the South. Not like, "oh, it might hide in some small group behind the next mountain". No, it would have to be so big, that you practically don't find anything else there!
So even if they find it now, in a low frequency, in some isolated group, it would prove nothing, unless its a very important and today extremely widespread clade, because even that wouldn't be enough. You need to explain the wide distribution in the Iron Age and that's easy if you assume they spread with Urnfield, its nearly impossible otherwise.
I agree with you that movement on the Balkans was generally Westward and Southward, and so V13 going from Southern Balkans to the north doesn't make a lot of sense. In fact you might have convinced me on that point since it does solve a lot of issues. I still have one difference though. I believe there was a first North to South movement around 2200-1900BC which spread the basal clades of V13 to the southern Balkans, and a second one which happened about 1000 years later. I looked at the clades booming around 1200BC and tried to see which ones fit. Now this is stepping on thin ice since and it might be disproven by new test results, but this is what I see based on current results. CTS9320 seems really to be connected to more southern parts of the Balkan, there are no branches that only appear outside of the Balkans, and Balkan samples seem to be at the root of CTS9320 and its subbranches. If I had to guess I would think CTS9320 was an important branch in the Belegis II moving southward at the LBA/EIA transition. L241 and FGC11457 (or FGC11451 if you use FTDNA terminology) have several branches that show purely Western- or Northern-European branches. This might be a coincidence, or it might mean they were in a more northern location where they could move in different directions. So they would have been part of whatever Carpathian/Pannonian population that pushed Belegis II southward, but was also involved in northward movements. I like this because Z5017 (the great-grandparent of CTS9320) does seem to have a more Balkan distribution given it also contains the Z19851 group.

I will also explain why I believe there must have been a first expansion around 2200BC. Take the S7461 group, which behind Z5018 and Z5017 is the most populous V13 branch. It is clearly quite old and had a rapid expansion not so long after BY3880. Today it's nearly absent in the Western Balkans but very present in Bulgaria. Apart from that it's also remarkable for it's Middle-Eastern and Arabian branches (these are also present in basal V13, but completely absent in the largest subbranches, CTS9320, L241 and FGC11451, and these branches contain many time the number of samples of S7461 and Basal V13). So if the current distribution of S7461 was the result of a LBA/EIA expansion it would mean S7461 branches had stayed together for 1000 years and decided to move together and on a seperate path than the rest of V13. To me this seems weird (but I admit I have been surprised before by how haplogroups spread according to aDNA). If there was only the LBA/EIA urnfield spread I would expect a mix of S7461 and the other groups in both the Eastern and Western Balkans. Because this is not the case, I think S7461 already moved to present Bulgaria around 2200BC. This also seems coherent with the TMRCA's on Yfull, which are not that much younger than L151, and we now from adna that this was spreading all over Europe by 2500BC.

rafc
11-13-2020, 05:14 PM
I'm not saying Pannonian tribes, and some other tribes from the northwestern part of the Balkans (Liburnians, Japodes) weren't Illyrian, or at least Illyrian-related, I just wanted to point out that the bulk of Illyrian tribes we know from historical sources stem from the "core" Illyrian area in the mountanious regions of the western Balkans, which was almost unaffected by the Urnfield expansions. In fact, those core regions had practically uninterrupted ethnocultural (and likely ethnogenetic) development from the earliest phases of the Middle Bronze Age all the way to the Roman conquest of Illyricum. So while I don't dispute that Pannonian tribes, Liburnians and Japodes were affected by Urnfield (it's a fact, proven by numerous archaeological findings), it is clear that the dominant ethnic element among Illyrians as a whole wasn't derived from Urnfield, and is in fact much more ancient.

Illyrian ethnogenesis started long before Urnfield, with the earliest phase (pre-proto-Illyrian) beginning in the latest phase of EBA and/or earliest phase of MBA (roughly 1900-1700 BC). This period is characterized by the appearance of new distinctive elements in the archaeological record of the East Adriatic coast, coming from the north/northwest, which resulted in the formation of new archaeological culture, called Posuška or Dinarska culture. Some of these new elements had their closest parallels in the Northern Italy (Polada culture) and Pannonian basin (Nagyrev and related cultures), as has been pointed out by Blagoje Govedarica. For example:

B. Govedarica; Early Bronze Age in the East Adriatic; p.165-166



It's almost uncanny how some already published aDNA samples support archaeological findings mentioned above. We have:

- J2b2a-L283 sample from Posuška/Dinarska culture, dated 1631-1521 BC (Veliki Vanik in modern Croatia)

- several J2b2a-L283 samples from Sardinia dating to the Nuragic period (1400-1000 BC), which developed from the earlier Bonnanaro culture, which was in turn (at least partially) developed from the Polada culture of Northern Italy

- J2b2a-L283 sample from the Mokrin necropolis, dated 2100-1800 BC, belonging to Maros/Perjamos culture, which was developed from the earlier Nagyrev culture

I would argue that even proto-Thracian ethnogenesis started several centuries before Urnfield. Just as the dominant ethnic element of proto-Illyrians ultimately originated in the EBA Pannonia and/or Northern Italy, the dominant ethnic element of proto-Thracians and their distant cousins proto-Daco-Moesians ultimately most likely originated in the post-Catacomb cultural area in the western Pontic Steppes (Babino, Noua, Monteoru, Coslogeni, Gava, Sabatinovka cultures). Both proto-Thracians and proto-Daco-Moesians were strongly influenced by proto-Iranian tribes of the Srubna culture. That's why many authors argue Thracian language belonged to the satem group, or was at least partially satemized. And in the end, that's why the expression Thraco-Cimmerian was introduced in the first place.

Yes, the L283 are very lucky that they have so many aDNA samples. It seems very clear that L283 was in central Europe at the start of the 3d millenium BC and by 2200 spread to Northern Italy and the Banat, and I assume from there southwards. I think V13 was comparable, but probably the bulk of early V13 followed a more eastern path arriving more in the eastern Balkans than the Western.

Hawk
11-13-2020, 05:23 PM
This is a piece of text regarding Urnfield influence in Albania.


The next sizable population movement took place at the end of the second millennium B.C., which some have called Doric invasion, some others Illyrian invasion, and others have used other names. The invaders were a group of people that are identified to have brought urnfield culture south. Krahe (1955) had indicated that the Illyrians were the bearers of this culture which had developed by the fusion of the Danubian Yamnaya cultures. Elements of this civilization, reached Albania towards the end of the Bronze Age. (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part 1, 2008, p. 228) The well known Albanian archeologist Frano Prendi summarized the evidence and the scope of impact of settlemets at the end of Bronze Age that Albanian territories had faced.

In this transitional period which was to last some three centuries with each century providing new elements in its material culture, several components are discernible: the autochthonous tradition, elements of sub-Mycenaean and Proto-Geometric civilization, and elements of Cental European origin which were spread through Albania by the second wave of the Pannono-Balkan migration (end of the twelfth and the eleventh centuries B.C.). This wave, unlike the first, had a marked influence on Albania, although only in some areas.
Of the number of cultural objects which spread from the north in all directions, there are swords with a tongue-shaped hilt (see Plates Vol.), flame-shaped spear-heads and socketed axes, which become fairly common in this period, and also pins with conical or vase-shaped heads (Vasenkopfnadeln), simple arched fibulae with or without buttons, whose origin, in all likelihood, is from the Liburno-Dalmatian coast, and so on. The earliest examples of this type with its many variants are recorded so far in the regions bordering southern Albania, as for example, at Dukat in Vlore, and are completely absent in the interior, as far as we know. This phenomenon suggests a purely maritime circulation of these eleventh and tenth century fibulae via the Adriatic.

In spite of the special influence of the Urnfield civilization which played an important role in the enrichment of the Early Iron Age civilization in Albania, especially in the south, one must emphasize that it did not impose any essential difference on the autochthonous foundation of Albanian civilization, and even less on the ethnic structure of the population. This can be seen most clearly in the uninterrupted practice of burial rites in tumuli, the customary inhumation in the Illyrian manner being in the contracted position. The small number of urn-burials, for instance in the Bare tumuli, can be associated with the influence of the second wave of the Pannono- Balkan migration in Albania, but the objects found in them are with a few exceptions typically Illyrian objects. The pottery particularly is derived without stylistic modifications from the Late Bronze Age. Thus, for example, in the Korce basin and the adjoining areas, the pottery of the first era of the Iron Age is almost identical in technique, shape and decoration with the Late Bronze Age painted pottery of Maliq, so that it is often difficult to distinguish between them. This is an important factor in demonstrating the continuity of the tradition of the’ Devollian’ pottery from the Late Bronze Age period into the Early Iron Age and even down to the sixth century B.C.

Thus, according to the Albanian archaeologists it would be wrong to identify the XIII-IX invasions as Illyrian, and magnify the effect of this invasion on Albanian territories. Their findings were in direct contradiction to the view that had taken hold with some historians and focused on the assumption that XIII-IX B.C. invasions from the north had overwhelmed western Balkans.

The bolded part is interesting, from another archeological paper on Late Bronze Age Greece, the same scenario is presented, the invaders came via Adriatic with ships.

Aspar
11-13-2020, 07:22 PM
Yes, the L283 are very lucky that they have so many aDNA samples. It seems very clear that L283 was in central Europe at the start of the 3d millenium BC and by 2200 spread to Northern Italy and the Banat, and I assume from there southwards. I think V13 was comparable, but probably the bulk of early V13 followed a more eastern path arriving more in the eastern Balkans than the Western.

Aren't you one of the administrators of the E-V13 project?

How would you comment that there aren't enough E-V13 test results of ethnicities where previous scientific studies showed that E-V13 is quite present among them if not the single most widespread haplogroup?

For example E-V13 is quite prominent among the Greeks, more so than J-L283 and yet there are only three Greek genuine samples uploads at YFULL's tree without any scientific samples and at the same time there are four J-L283 Greek genuine samples. By genuine I mean ethnic Greeks and not other ethnicities from Greece. And even if you look at the Greek DNA Project(not a member however) it seems to me that there is a lack of E-V13 results and you have a situation where you have more I-M438 results than E-M35 as a whole?

Also I remember you did mention somewhere a while ago that you are working on a new article regarding E-V13, an update of "Argonauts of the West Balkans"?
Any update about this would be highly appreciated...

rafc
11-13-2020, 08:16 PM
Aren't you one of the administrators of the E-V13 project?
No, but I'm one of the co-admins at the E-M35 project at FTDNA, which has a lot of V13-members.



How would you comment that there aren't enough E-V13 test results of ethnicities where previous scientific studies showed that E-V13 is quite present among them if not the single most widespread haplogroup?

For example E-V13 is quite prominent among the Greeks, more so than J-L283 and yet there are only three Greek genuine samples uploads at YFULL's tree without any scientific samples and at the same time there are four J-L283 Greek genuine samples. By genuine I mean ethnic Greeks and not other ethnicities from Greece. And even if you look at the Greek DNA Project(not a member however) it seems to me that there is a lack of E-V13 results and you have a situation where you have more I-M438 results than E-M35 as a whole?

I have no idea, but I think such a small Yfull sample is no reason to doubt scientific studies. A few years ago I did an analysis on Greek Genographic samples, and there V13 also seemed larger than L283. If I look at the total number of Greeks in the L283 project it just seems a very large proportion of them did Big Y, while it's the other way around in M35. If you know how I can convince more of our Greek members to do Big Y I will be very interested :-)


Also I remember you did mention somewhere a while ago that you are working on a new article regarding E-V13, an update of "Argonauts of the West Balkans"? Any update about this would be highly appreciated...

Yes, I should really get back to that. This thread has given me some inspiration.

Aspar
11-13-2020, 09:24 PM
No, but I'm one of the co-admins at the E-M35 project at FTDNA, which has a lot of V13-members.



I have no idea, but I think such a small Yfull sample is no reason to doubt scientific studies. A few years ago I did an analysis on Greek Genographic samples, and there V13 also seemed larger than L283. If I look at the total number of Greeks in the L283 project it just seems a very large proportion of them did Big Y, while it's the other way around in M35. If you know how I can convince more of our Greek members to do Big Y I will be very interested :-)



Yes, I should really get back to that. This thread has given me some inspiration.

I feel you...
Tbh, the Greeks leave me impression that they aren't much interested in genealogy. Probably the diaspora is more interested for obvious reasons but the ordinary Greek not that much. I think the Greeks are too confident about themselves and they don't bother much about this.
They are not tribalistic in the way some other people in the Balkans are, as the Albanians and the Serbs who are among the most tested people not only in the Balkans but wider. Because of this I believe that a Greek would much better handle the psychological stress of finding out that he belongs to some undesired haplogroup than some other ethnicities in the Balkans would :D
Probably the best bet are those diaspora Greeks but who knows, I'm not a Greek myself and probably a Greek member here can give you more useful information.

Great, I'm waiting for your new work, would love to read more of what you have to say...

Pribislav
11-13-2020, 09:33 PM
In the previous posts I mentioned Posuška culture as one of the crucial phases in the Illyrian ethnogenesis. Its area spanned roughly from the Zrmanja river in the north, to the modern western Montenegro in the south. But closely related cultures existed even more to the southeast, in the rest of modern Montenegro and north and central Albania:

B.Čović; Posuška culture; Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja 44; p. 97


It has already been said that there was a certain degree of similarity between some of the previously known and newly discovered sites in Montenegro, and those of the Posuška culture. But even more to the southeast, in a significant part of Albania, approximately between Skadar Lake and Mati River, many forms similar to those of Posuška culture can be found in the Early and Middle Bronze Age. This applies especially to layers IIIb and IIIc in Nezirova cave (Shpella e Nezirit) in the Mati basin; to the part of the prehistoric layers from the town of Skadar, to some finds from tumuli in northern Albania and finds from layers II and III at Gajtan hillfort, not far from Skadar. These similarities were pointed out by F. Prendi and Zh. Andrea, and more recently by B. Govedarica, who gave a precise revision of the chronology of individual layers at Gajtan, emphasizing also their connection with the Eneolithic and Bronze Age in the hinterland of the middle Adriatic.

The similarity is, indeed, quite pronounced, but it would be necessary to wait until the findings from some key sites (such as Skadar and Nezirova cave) are more thoroughly researched, so that the precise correlations between Posuška culture and Bronze Age cultures of northern Albania can be determined with more certainty. At the moment, it could be stated that, in all likelihood, there is a synchronicity of the layers Nezirova cave IIIb and IIIc, and Gajtan II, with the Nečajno and Sovići phases of Posuška culture, and that layer Gajtan III, and probably also Beltoje I, could approximately correspond to the Gagrice-Hatelji phase of Posuška culture. The coincidence of some forms is evident, and more importantly, the developmental tendencies are similar. Therefore, it could be argued that spacious cultural zone existed in the area between Zrmanja and Mati rivers in the Bronze Age, and that Posuška culture was an important part of that zone.

These parallel developmental processes continued during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (proto-Illyrian phase):

D. Srejović; Illyrians and Thracians; p. 31-32


Only from the end of the 8th century BC integration processes begin on all Illyrian territories, that lead to the formation of several large ethnocultural entities, clearly visible only in the 6th-5th century BC. In this period the first Greek colonies on the southeastern coast of the Adriatic were founded - Epidamno (= Dyrrachium, today Durres), founded by Corcyra and Corinth around 627 BC, and Apollonia, founded by Corinth around 588 BC; they strongly influenced Illyrian tribes in the hinterland and introduced Illyrians into written history. In the territory south of of the Shkumbin river, Kuči-i-Zi culture was formed, while more to the north a well-integrated culture developed, in which several regional variants can be observed: Mati culture (central Albania), Kukes-Drilon culture (northeastern Albania and Metohija), Lisijevo polje culture (northern Montenegro) and Glasinac culture (southeastern Bosnia).

In the area of Kuči-i-Zi culture tumuli with more than a hundred graves have been excavated, which points to the existence of a large tribal communities. Jewelry from these graves has connections mainly with Macedonian and Greek workshops. Archaeological finds from tumuli in the northern areas are noticeably different. Mati culture graves contain a variety of jewelry, and Kukes-Drilon and Glasinac cultures - weapons and warrior equipment. Already from 7th century BC in the entire northern Illyrian area the number of warrior graves is constantly increasing, and among them the graves of tribal leaders stand out; they contain precious warrior equipment, bronze utensils and amber jewelry. It seems that integrative processes which are observed in this culture during 7th-5th century BC began first in the area where rich warrior graves first appeared, and that is the area of Glasinac culture. Weapons and jewelry of the bearers of this culture were accepted by all neighboring communities, i.e. carriers of the Lisije polje, Mati and Kukes-Drilon cultures. These cultures were probably formed by certain tribes, known from later historical sources, namely: Glasinac culture - Autariatae, Lisijevo polje culture - Ardiaei, Mati culture - Taulantii, Kukes-Drilon culture - Illyrians in the narrow sense, and Kuchi-i-Zi culture, which is otherwise significantly different from the others, Enchelei or Bryges, i.e. a separate people who were later assimilated by Illyrians.

I would add to this list of "core" Illyrian tribes Dalmatae, whose territory almost perfectly overlaps with the territory of earlier Posuška culture, and Desitiates of central Bosnia, who are said to be more closely related to Dalmatae than to the neighbouring Autariatae from Glasinac culture.

Hawk
11-13-2020, 09:39 PM
I read that there was widely accepted by linguists/archeologists that those late Urnfield invaders were ancestors of Illyrians, one of the proponents was Hammond. Albanian archeologists refuse this because of obvious reasons, they simply support the ~2000 B.C Tumuli-Kurgan invaders theory.

Johnny ola
11-13-2020, 09:49 PM
I feel you...
Tbh, the Greeks leave me impression that they aren't much interested in genealogy. Probably the diaspora is more interested for obvious reasons but the ordinary Greek not that much. I think the Greeks are too confident about themselves and they don't bother much about this.
They are not tribalistic in the way some other people in the Balkans are, as the Albanians and the Serbs who are among the most tested people not only in the Balkans but wider. Because of this I believe that a Greek would much better handle the psychological stress of finding out that he belongs to some undesired haplogroup than some other ethnicities in the Balkans would :D
Probably the best bet are those diaspora Greeks but who knows, I'm not a Greek myself and probably a Greek member here can give you more useful information.

Great, I'm waiting for your new work, would love to read more of what you have to say...

Greece and Greeks are typical westernized folks. They care only about fashion, Instagram, lifestyle and having an easy and relaxed life. They don't give a shit about their origins, roots, ancestry, their genes, where their surnames originate and much more that i am bored to explain. I think you are wrong that diaspora Greeks care more or they are the most tested. Diaspora Greeks are millions of times worse than local Greeks. Most of them do not even speak Greek, and they have no idea about Greek history. It's specific some Greek-Americans who taking tests and this has to do because it is very frenquent and popular in USA. Those from EU and Asia have assilmated into the local societies. But it is not only Greeks fault but also our govrement's fault.A poor country with bad unis who don't give a dmn shit about genetics and archeology. Probably the most unsampled state in West Eurasia and its a big shame for a country with such rich history. The reason why balkans and eastern Europeans are more tested is simply because they are less westernized and ofc way more conservative. All the western countries care less when it comes to DNA and genetics in general. It's not only Greeks. Look at Germanics for example.

Pribislav
11-13-2020, 09:50 PM
I read that there was widely accepted by linguists/archeologists that those late Urnfield invaders were ancestors of Illyrians, one of the proponents was Hammond. Albanian archeologists refuse this because of obvious reasons, they simply support the ~2000 B.C Tumuli-Kurgan invaders theory.

That is out of the question, as I said, (proto-)Illyrians in their core areas practised almost exclusively inhumation during all periods of their existence, from the Middle Bronze Age to the Roman conquest. Cremation was practised along with inhumation only in easily accessible areas in the Pannonian basin and nortwestern parts of the Balkans, so it was clearly an intrusive burial tradition.

Hawk
11-14-2020, 06:16 AM
That is out of the question, as I said, (proto-)Illyrians in their core areas practised almost exclusively inhumation during all periods of their existence, from the Middle Bronze Age to the Roman conquest. Cremation was practised along with inhumation only in easily accessible areas in the Pannonian basin and nortwestern parts of the Balkans, so it was clearly an intrusive burial tradition.

Let me reiterate myself, only Albanian Communist archeologists and Yugoslav archeologists are staunch supports of this, most of foreign Western archeologist think the LBA was a massive game changer.

There was a big thing going on in LBA for sure. It's not a coincidence the Iapyges and even the Siculii(though disputed) moved during LBA-EIA in Italy. And probably they moved by sea.

Now, probably it is as you said the tumuli-people were Proto-Illyrian, but who were this Urnfield newcomers? They weren't Thracian for sure, since Thracians were formed even earlier than Illyrians, and their composition was Indo-European comers pushed by Srubnaya and Balkan farmers mix. So in all three Paleo-Balkan people, Illyrians/Thracians/Greeks during LBA/EIA we see inhumation practices and cremation. It looks like a new population was spread around in Balkans.

Hawk
11-14-2020, 09:06 AM
Greece and Greeks are typical westernized folks. They care only about fashion, Instagram, lifestyle and having an easy and relaxed life. They don't give a shit about their origins, roots, ancestry, their genes, where their surnames originate and much more that i am bored to explain. I think you are wrong that diaspora Greeks care more or they are the most tested. Diaspora Greeks are millions of times worse than local Greeks. Most of them do not even speak Greek, and they have no idea about Greek history. It's specific some Greek-Americans who taking tests and this has to do because it is very frenquent and popular in USA. Those from EU and Asia have assilmated into the local societies. But it is not only Greeks fault but also our govrement's fault.A poor country with bad unis who don't give a dmn shit about genetics and archeology. Probably the most unsampled state in West Eurasia and its a big shame for a country with such rich history. The reason why balkans and eastern Europeans are more tested is simply because they are less westernized and ofc way more conservative. All the western countries care less when it comes to DNA and genetics in general. It's not only Greeks. Look at Germanics for example.

To be honest, most of Albanians don't even care about DNA stuff as far as i have realized. Most of the tested Albanians come from Kosovo mainly, and the reason for that is because of political disputes which brought massive online debate over Illyrians/Thracians etc, etc, etc.

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 11:56 AM
To be honest, most of Albanians don't even care about DNA stuff as far as i have realized. Most of the tested Albanians come from Kosovo mainly, and the reason for that is because of political disputes which brought massive online debate over Illyrians/Thracians etc, etc, etc.

Albania is like Greece.. very unsampled. At least Greece had 1/2 papers because of Lazaridis. From Albania We havent seen anything. Unis playing an important role and both countries have low budget Unis, so dont expect much. Most sampled countries have cooperation between their Unis and Labs or With archeology teams etc.

Riverman
11-14-2020, 12:30 PM
I think the debate got now really interesting and its good to get different views, new perspectives and in some cases even corrections by people more knowledgeable on their regional archaeology. We really need to fact check every idea about folk migrations and the spread of associated patrilineages. By now I think its much easier to say which people were no major spreaders of E-V13, because their timing, spread and later survival doesn't fit, rather than telling with any certainty who was it. To sum it up, I see with the currently available evidence practically no way around the Urnfield expansion and EIA being the major spreading events, that's for me the No. 1 conclusion based on the available facts in the bigger picture. Its not safe by now, there are other possibilities still out there, but given the current evidence, its just the most likely scenario out of all I'm aware of.

Two similar inputs:

I think non Z5017/Z5018 E-V13 lineages were already present in the Balkans, and probably came with the Indo-European or some other wave of 2000 B.C, Proto-Greek and similar.

In detail:

I still have one difference though. I believe there was a first North to South movement around 2200-1900BC [...] Take the S7461 group, which behind Z5018 and Z5017 is the most populous V13 branch. It is clearly quite old and had a rapid expansion not so long after BY3880. Today it's nearly absent in the Western Balkans but very present in Bulgaria. Apart from that it's also remarkable for it's Middle-Eastern and Arabian branches

A problem with these clades is, at least if starting from yFull, you surely know better, that we don't have clearly defined branches on the regoinal level for many of the important clades. However, where we do have those, we get something like this again:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909/

A TMRCA of about 1000 BC and three completely different, diversified and geographically very distant branches. This is again an Iron Age timing and spread scenario, exactly in the manner described.

Next one, with an absurd composition of Italy, Bahrain and Spain:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022b/

If its not Jewish, but an old regional one, again look at the TMRCA: About 1.600 BC.

At the same time it harbours https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44175/ a clearly Northern branch, TMRCA? Again 1.700 BC!

All these branches of the E-S7461 tree point to one single issue: Urnfield and the LBA-EIA transition. My best guess for the Near Eastern haplotypes is, that they were brought there by Sea People. I mean you know the clades better, you can say whether such a scenario is possible, but with my very limited knowledge, just looking at the distribution and clades, its looks to me like this is a viable option. It doesn't contradict and early Balkan scenario at all, but such a scenario would make the distribution rather more difficult to explain, rather than solving anything. Of course they could have started their movement in the LBA-EIA from the Balkans, why not. But its in no way a contradiction (again with my limited knowledge on the issue) to the scenario proposed, even on the contrary, if looking at the Northern branch with a TMRCA of about 1.600 BC.


Yes, the L283 are very lucky that they have so many aDNA samples. It seems very clear that L283 was in central Europe at the start of the 3d millenium BC and by 2200 spread to Northern Italy and the Banat, and I assume from there southwards. I think V13 was comparable, but probably the bulk of early V13 followed a more eastern path arriving more in the eastern Balkans than the Western.

That's where we completely agree. The reason is actually quite simple. There are two large cultural phenomenons of great importance which show traits of non-IE tribal, but more advanced metal age character. The first is Unetice, the second is Urnfield. Both have elements in their culture which point to the South East. With South East I don't mean the Balkan necessarily though, actually the Balkan was different, but the Carpathian region, which played a pivotal role even for Sintashta and the Indo-Iranians, for the whole of the Indo-Europeans. And one of the reason for its importance was, in my opinion, that it was the single most important centre of Indo-European mining and metal working. It was their primary mine and forge. When the steppe people came, they could eliminate farmers, no problem, they could just take the wives they wanted and get rid of the rest, or forming a layer above and letting them work, or allying up on more equal terms. This were all viable options, the victor can decide.

But the mines and forges in the Balkans, these were really too important to destroy and rebuild. That was no logical option in my opinion. Even on the contrary, it was always the prize for the strongest steppe people to take. And its in this context E-V13 survived all the turmoil. And its interesting that Gava was not just pracisting cremation, but also burying the dead at home. There is something about Urnfield as a whole which says its about new old traditions spreading. And the Carpathian zone played a very, very important part in this. Gava and related groups surely had more impact on the Eastern sphere than on the Western and Adriatic one, no doubt about it.

Interestingly there was a second push coming, related to more direct steppe influences, which affected both Thrace and Pannonia, but interesting Pannonia more so. And this one was a combination of Thracian plus steppe, really pushing to the West, like the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. You see in large parts of Hungary what archaeologists called "yurtification":

The environmentally determinist view suggests that the resulting abandonment of
areas of flooded arable land created substantial advantages to an increased scale of animalkeeping
(Bökönyi 1974). However, not only does this correlation fail to explain the
‘yurtification’ of the farmers and the minimal artefact discard but the ecological interactions
between forest clearance and flooding are more complex.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229792878_Contrasting_subsistence_strategies_in_th e_Early_Iron_Age_-_New_results_from_the_Alfold_Plain_Hungary_and_the _Thracian_Plain_Bulgaria/link/5dca8b8c92851c8180472b6c/download

So this is no minor issue, there was a massive steppe influences going down to Thrace and Pannonia. So explaining the ethnolinguistic affinities might be even more difficult than telling which group is likely to have brought E-V13. Because that E-V13 came directly and in such large numbers from the steppe is hardly possible, but that this impact changed the language and culture of a people much more so.


That is out of the question, as I said, (proto-)Illyrians in their core areas practised almost exclusively inhumation during all periods of their existence, from the Middle Bronze Age to the Roman conquest. Cremation was practised along with inhumation only in easily accessible areas in the Pannonian basin and nortwestern parts of the Balkans, so it was clearly an intrusive burial tradition.

Actually this position would solve how the "core Illyrians" got only limited amounts of E-V13, while the wider Illyrian sphere and down to Greek got a lot of it, because the Urnfield influences were much stronger in the remaining parts of South Eastern Europe and there was a secondary expansion from the Proto-Thracian core zone. Most of the Illyrian sphere and what later became Eastern Hallstatt got obviously heavily influenced both by Urnfield and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. So where does this leave us?

Looking at this map, a large portion of the zone you described was outside of the narrower scope of Eastern Hallstatt:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/ad/6e/5cad6ed61f85a266a11f31803e40686d.png

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/ad/6e/5cad6ed61f85a266a11f31803e40686d.png

And obviously Hallstatt as a whole was multi-ethnic, there is no way around this. However, the Eastern Hallstatt sphere is best explained along a mixed Illyrian-Thracian ground with heavier steppe influences (weaponry and tools are clearly pointing towards this as well).

So I'd assume that both Eastern Hallstatt and Thracians (widest sense) got a lot of Urnfield influences, and a lot of E-V13.

Hawk
11-14-2020, 12:35 PM
Albania is like Greece.. very unsampled. At least Greece had 1/2 papers because of Lazaridis. From Albania We havent seen anything. Unis playing an important role and both countries have low budget Unis, so dont expect much. Most sampled countries have cooperation between their Unis and Labs or With archeology teams etc.

Yes, the unsampling of Albania and Greece is worrying to be honest. Apparently we will have samples from the archeological site of Maliq, Albania.

But archeologists from Albania have phobia regarding the Urnfield expansion, and they will do anything to dismiss it. Because it was widespread among linguists/archeologists that Illyrians were the most affected by this, so far as to use the name of Lusatian Culture (part of Urnfield) intercheangably with the term Illyrian. There is also other sides disputing this ofcourse, atleast disputing the degree of influences.

To me it's impressing how 12 years ago Dienekes Pontikos in his blog explained how E-V13 is related to Late Bronze Age expansion: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07/expansion-of-e-v13-explained.html

It's just that he couldn't explain where was the starting point, of course due to lack of samples. In his STR analysis Greeks from Nea Nikomedea (Central Macedonia) have the oldest TMRCA clades of E-V13 in the Balkans. Again the Kapitan Andreevo site full of E-V13 had close ties and similarities with Northern Greek EIA sites. Probably both of them had Urnfield influences.

Who knows, eventually we will have the right answer.

dosas
11-14-2020, 12:52 PM
In his STR analysis Greeks from Nea Nikomedea (Central Macedonia) have the oldest TMRCA clades of E-V13 in the Balkans.


New Nicomedia is a village that was settled by Anatolian Greek exchangees from Nicomedia (Izmit) in the Marmara region, in Turkey.

Is that addressed in his conclusion?

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 01:02 PM
Yes, the unsampling of Albania and Greece is worrying to be honest. Apparently we will have samples from the archeological site of Maliq, Albania.

But archeologists from Albania have phobia regarding the Urnfield expansion, and they will do anything to dismiss it. Because it was widespread among linguists/archeologists that Illyrians were the most affected by this, so far as to use the name of Lusatian Culture (part of Urnfield) intercheangably with the term Illyrian. There is also other sides disputing this ofcourse, atleast disputing the degree of influences.

To me it's impressing how 12 years ago Dienekes Pontikos in his blog explained how E-V13 is related to Late Bronze Age expansion: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07/expansion-of-e-v13-explained.html

It's just that he couldn't explain where was the starting point, of course due to lack of samples. In his STR analysis Greeks from Nea Nikomedea (Central Macedonia) have the oldest TMRCA clades of E-V13 in the Balkans. Again the Kapitan Andreevo site full of E-V13 had close ties and similarities with Northern Greek EIA sites. Probably both of them had Urnfield influences.

Who knows, eventually we will have the right answer.

I hope so.We have only one Illyrian sample from Croatia.I am not sure if Illyrians from Albania would have been identical...or maybe Illyrians in southern Albania might have been closer to Myceneans while Illyrians from the northern parts might have been like the HRV_IA sample.Αs for Nea Nikomedea this village is inhabit mostly by Pontic Greeks while the secondary folks are of Vlach roots if i am not mistaken.Pontic Greeks rarely have EV13 or they have it in limited %.So,the Greeks from there might have been a Vlach related subgroup or something.Imathia in general has a decent Vlach minority.

Hawk
11-14-2020, 01:18 PM
Quoting this paper......


This paper is concerned with the nature of the relationship that existed between Central Europe and the Aegean area in the early 1st millennium B.C. Interest in Aegean-continental connections has been strong for a considerable time, but has been intensified, particularly from the continental standpoint, in the past fifteen years. Although some of these studies have been concerned with the contacts between 2nd millennium (Late Bronze Age) Greece and the north, others have examined in detail the evidence for the links between the Urnfield culture and Greece during the 10th, 9th and 8th centuries. For Greece, this is an utterly different period from the preceding one; the evidence for foreign contacts suddenly becomes scarce and that for military disasters is virtually non-existent. Yet some scholars have reached very similar conclusions, involving the transmission of objects and of the people who carried them from Central Europe into Greece, for this period as for the preceding Late Bronze Age. Such arguments have a recent exponent in Professor W. Kimmig, whose paper Seevölkerbewegung und Urnenfelderkultur ranges over the whole period from about 1200 to 700. His list of objects and practices in this period, which he considers to have been donated by the Danube-Balkan peoples to the Mediterranean world, is comprehensive indeed: it would include bronze shields and body armour, the equipment of Goliath, the knobbed ware of Troy VII B, the practice of cremation in the Iron Age, the ritual spoliation of weapons in graves, iron swords, spears, knives, bits, lugged axes, spits, fire-dogs, bronze personal objects generally, clay idols, the maeander pattern and the swans of Apollo

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/barbarian-europe-and-early-iron-age-greece/868B5A15BD59C57DADCFD31B9CD345B0

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 01:24 PM
I think the debate got now really interesting and its good to get different views, new perspectives and in some cases even corrections by people more knowledgeable on their regional archaeology. We really need to fact check every idea about folk migrations and the spread of associated patrilineages. By now I think its much easier to say which people were no major spreaders of E-V13, because their timing, spread and later survival doesn't fit, rather than telling with any certainty who was it. To sum it up, I see with the currently available evidence practically no way around the Urnfield expansion and EIA being the major spreading events, that's for me the No. 1 conclusion based on the available facts in the bigger picture. Its not safe by now, there are other possibilities still out there, but given the current evidence, its just the most likely scenario out of all I'm aware of.

Two similar inputs:


In detail:


A problem with these clades is, at least if starting from yFull, you surely know better, that we don't have clearly defined branches on the regoinal level for many of the important clades. However, where we do have those, we get something like this again:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909/

A TMRCA of about 1000 BC and three completely different, diversified and geographically very distant branches. This is again an Iron Age timing and spread scenario, exactly in the manner described.

Next one, with an absurd composition of Italy, Bahrain and Spain:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022b/

If its not Jewish, but an old regional one, again look at the TMRCA: About 1.600 BC.

At the same time it harbours https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44175/ a clearly Northern branch, TMRCA? Again 1.700 BC!

All these branches of the E-S7461 tree point to one single issue: Urnfield and the LBA-EIA transition. My best guess for the Near Eastern haplotypes is, that they were brought there by Sea People. I mean you know the clades better, you can say whether such a scenario is possible, but with my very limited knowledge, just looking at the distribution and clades, its looks to me like this is a viable option. It doesn't contradict and early Balkan scenario at all, but such a scenario would make the distribution rather more difficult to explain, rather than solving anything. Of course they could have started their movement in the LBA-EIA from the Balkans, why not. But its in no way a contradiction (again with my limited knowledge on the issue) to the scenario proposed, even on the contrary, if looking at the Northern branch with a TMRCA of about 1.600 BC.



That's where we completely agree. The reason is actually quite simple. There are two large cultural phenomenons of great importance which show traits of non-IE tribal, but more advanced metal age character. The first is Unetice, the second is Urnfield. Both have elements in their culture which point to the South East. With South East I don't mean the Balkan necessarily though, actually the Balkan was different, but the Carpathian region, which played a pivotal role even for Sintashta and the Indo-Iranians, for the whole of the Indo-Europeans. And one of the reason for its importance was, in my opinion, that it was the single most important centre of Indo-European mining and metal working. It was their primary mine and forge. When the steppe people came, they could eliminate farmers, no problem, they could just take the wives they wanted and get rid of the rest, or forming a layer above and letting them work, or allying up on more equal terms. This were all viable options, the victor can decide.

But the mines and forges in the Balkans, these were really too important to destroy and rebuild. That was no logical option in my opinion. Even on the contrary, it was always the prize for the strongest steppe people to take. And its in this context E-V13 survived all the turmoil. And its interesting that Gava was not just pracisting cremation, but also burying the dead at home. There is something about Urnfield as a whole which says its about new old traditions spreading. And the Carpathian zone played a very, very important part in this. Gava and related groups surely had more impact on the Eastern sphere than on the Western and Adriatic one, no doubt about it.

Interestingly there was a second push coming, related to more direct steppe influences, which affected both Thrace and Pannonia, but interesting Pannonia more so. And this one was a combination of Thracian plus steppe, really pushing to the West, like the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. You see in large parts of Hungary what archaeologists called "yurtification":


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229792878_Contrasting_subsistence_strategies_in_th e_Early_Iron_Age_-_New_results_from_the_Alfold_Plain_Hungary_and_the _Thracian_Plain_Bulgaria/link/5dca8b8c92851c8180472b6c/download

So this is no minor issue, there was a massive steppe influences going down to Thrace and Pannonia. So explaining the ethnolinguistic affinities might be even more difficult than telling which group is likely to have brought E-V13. Because that E-V13 came directly and in such large numbers from the steppe is hardly possible, but that this impact changed the language and culture of a people much more so.



Actually this position would solve how the "core Illyrians" got only limited amounts of E-V13, while the wider Illyrian sphere and down to Greek got a lot of it, because the Urnfield influences were much stronger in the remaining parts of South Eastern Europe and there was a secondary expansion from the Proto-Thracian core zone. Most of the Illyrian sphere and what later became Eastern Hallstatt got obviously heavily influenced both by Urnfield and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. So where does this leave us?

Looking at this map, a large portion of the zone you described was outside of the narrower scope of Eastern Hallstatt:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/ad/6e/5cad6ed61f85a266a11f31803e40686d.png

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/ad/6e/5cad6ed61f85a266a11f31803e40686d.png

And obviously Hallstatt as a whole was multi-ethnic, there is no way around this. However, the Eastern Hallstatt sphere is best explained along a mixed Illyrian-Thracian ground with heavier steppe influences (weaponry and tools are clearly pointing towards this as well).

So I'd assume that both Eastern Hallstatt and Thracians (widest sense) got a lot of Urnfield influences, and a lot of E-V13.

So,you don't see Thracians coming from Bambino or any other KMK related culture?

Hawk
11-14-2020, 02:46 PM
What time period is the Maliq archeological site that they will sample?

I wonder if we will get any YDNA sampling of the Komani Culture. That would be quite interesting as well given its transition and time period.

I don't know exactly, it's either Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age, or from both periods.

My assumption is that we will see G2a and R1b-Z2103 from the Early Bronze Age period.

Riverman
11-14-2020, 02:47 PM
So,you don't see Thracians coming from Bambino or any other KMK related culture?

I just have the time for a short answer right now, but to sum it up, I see three options for the crucial time:
- local people (already steppe-derived)
- Central European influences (Urnfield-related)
- more recent steppe influences

All three played a role in the ethnogenesis of the Thracians and I'm not able to determine which of these three elements involved brought the language. However, I'm pretty confident about one issue, that Fluted Ware/Gava and generally North Carpathian/Central European groups brought E-V13 down, fused with the locals and got important steppe influences on top of it. If you look at the Thracians in the later phase, they underwent a phase of more pastoralist and low level economic activity, so anything but what we see in Teleac and related settlements which I would associate with this LBA-EIA E-V13 spread. This is even more pronounced in Hungary, where the nomadic ways really took over, as the article I linked above points out, than in the Thracian sphere, but its recognisable in both spheres.


What is similar in both study areas is the massive human impact on the first
millennium BC forests, brought about by scattered farming communities who surely suffered
from the unanticipated ecological effects brought in its train. But the story for the Thracian
Plain is rather different, in at least three key respects. There is no need to invoke the
‘yurtification’ of the local populations, since ‘settlements’ have been identified from surface
pottery scatters and confirmed by excavation. Secondly, the increasing scale of structured
deposition at pit-sites indicates that a new arena of social power (Chapman 1994) has been
developed, generally between individual farmsteads, as places where group political and
exchange relations can be negotiated – a differentiation of place not yet found in the Alföld.
Thirdly, the influence of Pontic steppe nomads hardly reaches further into Bulgaria than the
Black Sea zone, in such elite burials as Belogradets (Toncheva 1980; Gergova 1986). A major
issue in Thrace concerns the gap between the low-level differentiation of the EIA and the far
greater social complexity and monumentality of the Thracian period in the fifth century BC
and after.

What had this regions (Alföld and Thrace) in common?


Located north of the Aegean world and at the westernmost extent of the world of the steppe
nomads (Fig. 1), EIA communities in the Balkans and Hungary clearly played an important part
in the inter-regional exchange networks of metal (Kristiansen 1998; Pare 2000) and prestige
ceramics (e.g. the Gáva black burnished fine wares that provided a direct link between the Alföld
and Thrace at this time

So especially for the core Thracian sphere, its not decisive enough to decide who had the upper hand. These three influences were in my opinion present and the most important. but even such highly important phenomenons like the Basarabi culture might be more complex in their nature as it seems at first sight. In any case, the Urnfield penetration of the whole of Eastern Central and South Eastern Europe was so big, that it was, as a single process, the most likely candidate to spread out E-V13.

I might also add that it could have contributed, even early on, but surely in Hallstatt, to the spread of E-V13 West and even North, but all of this needs to be investigated and proven in detail, by ancient DNA samples. What we can say for quite sure is, however, that the Eastern branches of Urnfield seem to have had a high probability of being heavy in E-V13, but the Western once much less so and most of the later spread can be rather attributed to secondary expansions in the EIA, the infiltrations with specialists from the South East.

Hawk
11-14-2020, 03:17 PM
Reading all of your viewpoint i learned a lot regarding Bronze Age Cultures, it looks quite more dynamic and complex than initially thought.

Riverman
11-14-2020, 03:24 PM
Reading all of your viewpoint i learned a lot regarding Bronze Age Cultures, it looks quite more dynamic and complex than initially thought.

That's actually the problem about it, because some of the later widespread cultures were the result of different cultural and genetic groups fusing. In such cases, its often very hard to tell who survived or just adapted, who got the upper hand and gave the language. That was always a problem for phenomenons like "Dorians" in particular, if looking at Greece again. If you read the classical literature, you will got a whole lot of claims about its origin. And that's the great thing about ancient DNA, it can help to solve some of these disputes with relatively high certainty which archaegology can't. Like if the females did the ceramic production, and foreign males conquered them, even ceramic continuity in the first generations might just hide a much bigger shift. Archaeologists will just see continuity if going by ceramics, when there was a big change. Similarly, they can only see a change in customs, but can't tell for sure whether this was local people adopting or foreign people bringing it. And especially in the Balkans the picture was always more patchy, because a tabula rasa phenomenon happened less frequently, at least some remains of the preceding people were quite often incorporated, even in the large scale replacement scenarios.

dosas
11-14-2020, 03:45 PM
Quoting this paper......

I hunted down the King et al. (2008) paper from where those oldest E-V13 samples, you mentioned, are from. It would seem that the people (also judging from the Dienekes post you mentioned) were of Aromanian origin?

Hawk
11-14-2020, 03:56 PM
I hunted down the King et al. (2008) paper from where those oldest E-V13 samples, you mentioned, are from. It would seem that the people (also judging from the Dienekes post you mentioned) were of Aromanian origin?

And what about those from Lerna Franchthi Attica, Aromanians again? Come on dude. Aromanians are listed there separately.

dosas
11-14-2020, 04:08 PM
And what about those from Lerna Franchthi Attica, Aromanians again? Come on dude. Aromanians are listed there separately.

I am talking about the Nea Nicomedia sampling. Please, demonstrate, by all means. I am just explaining the demographics of the village, I have no horse in this race, no need for salt.

Edit:

I must be referring to a different paper, this is the one I was referring to:

King et al. (2007)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BM1B1A9NHKcEJqXPsHaxA1pQqG0s3k1Z?usp=sharing

Quote:


A further 171 males were sampled from three areas in Greece in villages near known Initial Neolithic [IN] and Early Neolithic [EN] sites (Figure 1). These comprised Central Macedonia near the site of Nea Nikomedeia (n = 57); Thessaly within the southeast Larissa basin (n = 30) and near Sesklo/Dimini (n = 27); and in the NW Peloponnese, near the Franchthi Cave (n = 21) and Lerna (n =36). Only individuals whose paternal grandfather was from the designated areas were sampled.

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 04:23 PM
And what about those from Lerna Franchthi Attica, Aromanians again? Come on dude. Aromanians are listed there separately.

The village of Nea Nikomedia is in Imathia.The people there are mostly Pontians/Anatolian Greeks and some Vlachs.

The village is mostly Pontian and Aromanian-Vlach.

EV13 in Greece can be from many sources.From IA period to hellenistic and medieval times with the arrival of Arvanites,Vlachs and Slavs in general.

JoeyP37
11-14-2020, 04:38 PM
I don't know if E-V13 is particularly confusing, it seems to be a pan-European line (one of my Acadian ancestors was E-V13 and about half of my 23andMe relatives who are E-V13 are his male-line descendants), and to me seems to have expanded well from Pannonia, south with the Illyrians and later Dorians into Greece, and also up and down the Danube, with this river being the main route of E-V13, mostly via Celtic people, into Western Europe.

DorianTA
11-14-2020, 04:39 PM
Nikomidia is far from Pontus , they should be something close to/in between Western Asia Minor & Eastern Thrace Greeks ..

dosas
11-14-2020, 04:47 PM
Nikomidia is far from Pontus , they should be something close to/in between Western Asia Minor & Eastern Thrace Greeks ..

I get the impression that they did not mean to sample Pontic Greeks or Anatolian Marmara Greeks, to be fair, and maybe they didn't, lol. The details seem a bit vague on the matter, it's the fault of the sampling team for not being explicit when such questions would almost certainly arise (as they did, in this case).


PS. Any time you see a village/town with the prefix (Neo/Nea)=New, it means that it's an Anatolian/Pontic/Thracian Greek exchangee settlement, for future reference, and you will almost certainly be able to find the non-"new" equivalent place of origin in Turkey/Bulgaria.


Edit: I just realized, if the paper in 2007 mentions that the 25-30 yr olds were sampled based on the fact that their grandparent was from that place, then that means that the numbers almost line up perfectly for that grandparent to maybe have been an exchangee Pontic/Anatolian Greek, lol.

What a mess.

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 04:50 PM
Nikomidia is far from Pontus , they should be something close to/in between Western Asia Minor & Eastern Thrace Greeks ..

Nea Nikomidia trace its roots from refugees who arrived in Greece from Izmit(modern Kocaeli).It has nothing to do with Western Asia Minor or eastern Thrace.It is in northwest Anatolia(Marmara province).

DorianTA
11-14-2020, 04:59 PM
Nea Nikomidia trace its roots from refugees who arrived in Greece from Izmit(modern Kocaeli).It has nothing to do with Western Asia Minor or eastern Thrace.It is in northwest Anatolia(Marmara province).

I know ,what I'm trying to say is that "E-V13" wouldn't be something off for their geography ,it's not necessarily local..from coasts and Eastern Thrace down to Cappadocia there were all kinds of movements from Mainland/Aegean Greece in (relatively) recent times.

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 05:05 PM
I know ,what I'm trying to say is that "E-V13" wouldn't be something off for their geography ,it's not necessarily local..from coasts and Eastern Thrace down to Cappadocia there were all kinds of movements from Mainland/Aegean Greece in (relatively) recent times.

I am not sure the origins of this specific EV13 or the EV13 in general for Greece and Greeks.I am just guessworking here.But Anatolian Greeks/Pontic Greeks are not so frenquent to have such lineages compared to native-local Greeks.This specific village is inhabit mostly by Pontians/Anatolian Greeks and the locals there are mostly Aromanian-Vlachs.Imathia in general has a strong minority of Aromanian Vlachs.

DorianTA
11-14-2020, 05:27 PM
Greece and Greeks are typical westernized folks. They care only about fashion, Instagram, lifestyle and having an easy and relaxed life. They don't give a shit about their origins, roots, ancestry, their genes, where their surnames originate and much more that i am bored to explain. I think you are wrong that diaspora Greeks care more or they are the most tested. Diaspora Greeks are millions of times worse than local Greeks. Most of them do not even speak Greek, and they have no idea about Greek history. It's specific some Greek-Americans who taking tests and this has to do because it is very frenquent and popular in USA. Those from EU and Asia have assilmated into the local societies. But it is not only Greeks fault but also our govrement's fault.A poor country with bad unis who don't give a dmn shit about genetics and archeology. Probably the most unsampled state in West Eurasia and its a big shame for a country with such rich history. The reason why balkans and eastern Europeans are more tested is simply because they are less westernized and ofc way more conservative. All the western countries care less when it comes to DNA and genetics in general. It's not only Greeks. Look at Germanics for example.

This applies to most world ,it's not an issue of Greek mentality..the problem is that there's not much awareness about DNA-related stuff ,If there was I'm sure we'd be much more tested.Εven those that do test they won't dig further and literally interpret commercial test categories as their ancestry like they will think they're Italian etc and it ends there for them.
Also unis don't care because they're run by leftists ,them along with politicians they would just prefer If we kept perpetuating certain past theories about these issues instead of researching.Two examples so you can understand what I mean about politicians .. http://alexander-hellas.blogspot.com/2014/02/blog-post_26.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6kqQWmtr4c

Anyways went off-topic..

Hawk
11-14-2020, 05:37 PM
The village of Nea Nikomedia is in Imathia.The people there are mostly Pontians/Anatolian Greeks and some Vlachs.

The village is mostly Pontian and Aromanian-Vlach.

EV13 in Greece can be from many sources.From IA period to hellenistic and medieval times with the arrival of Arvanites,Vlachs and Slavs in general.

This is the composition of Vlachs in Balkan Peninsula.

R1b = 21%

R1a = 10.1%

I = 20.67%

E-V13 = 16.5%

J2 = 25%

G = 3.37%

Source:



Bosch, E.; Calafell, F.; González-Neira, A.; Flaiz, C; Mateu, E; Scheil, HG; Huckenbeck, W; Efremovska, L; et al. (2006). "Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns". Annals of Human Genetics. 70 (Pt 4): 459–87. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2005.00251.x. PMID 16759179. S2CID 23156886.

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 05:38 PM
This applies to most world ,it's not an issue of Greek mentality..the problem is that there's not much awareness about DNA-related stuff ,If there was I'm sure we'd be much more tested.Εven those that do test they won't dig further and literally interpret commercial test categories as their ancestry like they will think they're Italian etc and it ends there for them.
Also unis don't care because they're run by leftists ,them along with politicians they would just prefer If we kept perpetuating certain past theories about these issues instead of researching.Two examples so you can understand what I mean about politicians .. http://alexander-hellas.blogspot.com/2014/02/blog-post_26.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6kqQWmtr4c

Anyways went off-topic..

Yes unis are full of left-wings and anarchists,so we should not expect much.

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 05:41 PM
This is the composition of Vlachs in Balkan Peninsula.

R1b = 21%

R1a = 10.1%

I = 20.67%

E-V13 = 16.5%

J2 = 25%

G = 3.37%

Source:

I am pretty sure the Nikomedia EV13 are associated with balkanic people.Now Vlachs-Aromanians,Arvanito-Vlachs,Slavo-Vlachs,Slavs or whatever they all look the same to me xD.I am not avoiding the fact Thraco-Illryrian or Macedonian roots as well but we need ancient samples to confirm it.

Hawk
11-14-2020, 06:02 PM
I am pretty sure the Nikomedia EV13 are associated with balkanic people.Now Vlachs-Aromanians,Arvanito-Vlachs,Slavo-Vlachs,Slavs or whatever they all look the same to me xD.I am not avoiding the fact Thraco-Illryrian or Macedonian roots as well but we need ancient samples to confirm it.

The reason why i put those percentages is just to remind you guys because if every E-V13 Greek is Vlach in origin then that's weird because it looks like they magically absorbed only E-V13 ignoring R1b, J2, I and G.

Johnny ola
11-14-2020, 06:08 PM
The reason why i put those percentages is just to remind you guys because if every E-V13 Greek is Vlach in origin then that's weird because it looks like they magically absorbed only E-V13 ignoring R1b, J2, I and G.

Sorry but you misunderstanding me.I never said all of EV13's in Greece have to do with Vlachs.I told you about the specific village(Nea Nikomedia).This village with exception Pontic/Anatolian Greeks who come from modern Turkey.The rest of natives-local folks have Vlach-Aromanian roots.Thus,i am guessing these EV13 lineages are connected with them,because simply Pontics and Anatolian Greeks rarely belong to such lineages.Ev13 is the most frenquent yDNA in mainland Greece i have no idea where it is coming from,thought i can say for sure that some lineages-clades exist also among Vlachs,Albanians,North Macedonians etc.

DgidguBidgu
11-14-2020, 06:10 PM
I just have the time for a short answer right now, but to sum it up, I see three options for the crucial time:
- local people (already steppe-derived)
- Central European influences (Urnfield-related)
- more recent steppe influences

All three played a role in the ethnogenesis of the Thracians and I'm not able to determine which of these three elements involved brought the language. However, I'm pretty confident about one issue, that Fluted Ware/Gava and generally North Carpathian/Central European groups brought E-V13 down, fused with the locals and got important steppe influences on top of it. If you look at the Thracians in the later phase, they underwent a phase of more pastoralist and low level economic activity, so anything but what we see in Teleac and related settlements which I would associate with this LBA-EIA E-V13 spread. This is even more pronounced in Hungary, where the nomadic ways really took over, as the article I linked above points out, than in the Thracian sphere, but its recognisable in both spheres.



What had this regions (Alföld and Thrace) in common?



So especially for the core Thracian sphere, its not decisive enough to decide who had the upper hand. These three influences were in my opinion present and the most important. but even such highly important phenomenons like the Basarabi culture might be more complex in their nature as it seems at first sight. In any case, the Urnfield penetration of the whole of Eastern Central and South Eastern Europe was so big, that it was, as a single process, the most likely candidate to spread out E-V13.

I might also add that it could have contributed, even early on, but surely in Hallstatt, to the spread of E-V13 West and even North, but all of this needs to be investigated and proven in detail, by ancient DNA samples. What we can say for quite sure is, however, that the Eastern branches of Urnfield seem to have had a high probability of being heavy in E-V13, but the Western once much less so and most of the later spread can be rather attributed to secondary expansions in the EIA, the infiltrations with specialists from the South East.

I didn't understand why someone outside had to bring the language there?
Where do you draw your conclusions from?
German, Greek, Albanian, Baltic languages... have a non-Indo-European substrate while Slavic languages ​​do not have.
Where did the German come from to the Germans? Who brought it to them?
Only to the Slavs someone else must have brought in their language, right?
The German, for example, has undergone Europeanization, but this does not make it IE by origin. He just took a vocabulary. Even after external influence, each language retains its base characteristics if it is not completely replaced, of course, but even then, there will be grammatically differences. We observe this in real time.
If you are proposing the entry of a new language for Europe, you should at least mention which is such a topical and influential language more widespread than the Slavic language group directly related to the Thracian toponymy.
What has he brought to the local community so useful for their everyday life that they forget their language?
Even the Romans and Turks failed to change the local language. Who is this special messenger, perhaps someone who brought stone axes and bear teeth from the East, which had to change the language of millennia, a language adequate to the highly developed culture and the oldest attested local proto-writing in the world.
Тhis local society has already inhabited huge settlements for its time, structured in a hierarchical system with developed crafts and metallurgy. Will they change their language because of some savages from the East with necklaces of teeth?
In the Balkans with small exceptions such as Albania, for example, there is cultural continuity like nowhere else in Europe, what prevents it from including continuity in language?
There is really no other place in Europe where we can look forward to preserving an ancient language. Northwestern Europe is unreasonable in this case.

broder
11-14-2020, 06:39 PM
Map where the samples are coming from, including Albania. 7000+ already in the lab:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5-rvA6IqHuE/Xb5t7hGmiTI/AAAAAAAAITs/KTUkvHFZJRUOZSDqn9y687kjQHuPcipAgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ancient_samples.jpg

Riverman
11-14-2020, 07:29 PM
I didn't understand why someone outside had to bring the language there?
Where do you draw your conclusions from?
German, Greek, Albanian, Baltic languages... have a non-Indo-European substrate while Slavic languages ​​do not have.

First of all, this idea of Slavic having no substrate influences at all can be questioned, secondly the main reason for this is not that they were sitting in the Balkans, but that they were staying in a region in which other people's impulses reached them, and in which they assimilated low numbers of culturally more backward natives, but they didn't met any large, coherent group on a higher level. Proto-Baltoslavs were sitting in the very North East. Just compare with the latest post from David:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/11/fatyanovo-as-part-of-wider-corded-ware.html

Proto-Baltoslavs are highly likely to have been sitting, after the backmigration from the North Carpathian zone in the EBA, somewhere between Fatyanovo and the Baltic region:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1rgM3Ia8t5E/X68skad65uI/AAAAAAAAJbE/-3WJJetcWgMEFThXeR0mLscHUoa4klaDQCLcBGAsYHQ/s948/Fatyanovo_Figure_11.jpg

They received impulses, but had no significant substrate, because before IE came there, only rather primitive forager groups lived there. That's the exact opposite to Germanic, Celtic and Greek, which met people on a high cultural level, in some cases even above themselves in some respects. Proto-Baltoslavs only received IE impulses after the Corded-derived establishment.


Where did the German come from to the Germans? Who brought it to them?

That's the wrong question, because nobody can bring German to the Germans, but only Germans can come to what is now Germany. I'd assume that there were no Germanics proper before the Jastorf culture and its origin might be more complicated actually.


Only to the Slavs someone else must have brought in their language, right?

Depends on the region. Slavic was hardly as widespread in the Bronze Age as it is now. If you claim otherwise, it would be delusional. So some regions can claim relative continuity, at least to general Balto-Slavic, especially Belorussians I'd say, while others can't.


If you are proposing the entry of a new language for Europe, you should at least mention which is such a topical and influential language more widespread than the Slavic language group directly related to the Thracian toponymy.

I you read my posts some pages back, I said I really think that Slavs were part or at least neighbours of the very Eastern Urnfield groups and that their direct neighbour, in a language continuum, was Thracian. The language continuum in which centre was the Urnfield culture in the LBA, was like this: Celtic-Italic-Germanic-Illyrian-Thracian-Slavic-Baltic.

With Thracians moving down to the Central Carpathians and Balkans, the link between Germanic and Slavic was gone. I'd assume that Illyrian and Thracian might be put, on the general IE tree between Germanic and (Balto-) Slavic.


What has he brought to the local community so useful for their everyday life that they forget their language?

That's like asking any people which got defeated about why they accept a foreign rule and dominance? Why did Roman provincials, Germanics and Greeks, turn to Slavic? Because they got overwhelmed in the migration period and their old societal and economic system was broken, simple as that.


Even the Romans and Turks failed to change the local language.

Where they really wanted to change it, they did it. Only in remote provinces in which this was no priority, they did "not succeed". But that was, to a large degree, because they didn't even tried "to achieve it" in the first place. If they wanted, they could have.


In the Balkans with small exceptions such as Albania, for example, there is cultural continuity like nowhere else in Europe, what prevents it from including continuity in language?

Talk about cultural continuity in places in which only isolated shepherds in huts remained in Medieval times where once cities and legions lived in a high cultural environment.


There is really no other place in Europe where we can look forward to preserving an ancient language. Northwestern Europe is unreasonable in this case.

Completely different subject.

Hawk
11-14-2020, 07:50 PM
I think we really need to test remains from Cetina culture, to check if they were the ultimate source of E-V13.

Cetina travelled a lot with ships around Italy and Greece, maybe a group of them migrated more north toward Hungary during early 3 millenium B.C?

https://i.imgur.com/eF0DSY8.png

Riverman
11-14-2020, 08:18 PM
I think we really need to test remains from Cetina culture, to check if they were the ultimate source of E-V13.

Cetina travelled a lot with ships around Italy and Greece, maybe a group of them migrated more north toward Hungary?


I considered Cetina as a viable option among others, but rather don't do any more. The reason is simple its timing and distribution. It corresponds the best with "Illyrian in the narrower sense" as discussed with Pribislav, but you have to consider this:
- its timing. If they would have expanded Northward and even further to the East, the samples taken from Pannonia and the Balkans should have taken it up. To create the E-V13 frequencies of the IA, it would have had to have a big impact on the whole macro-region in an earlier phase.
- If the centre was the later Illyrian core region, why is especially this centre even in the IA not as heavily E-V13? How could Cetina push upwards, to Pannonia and the Balkans? Especially in the MBA-EIA timeframe, in which most pushes came from Central Europe and the steppe, rather than the opposite way?

That doesn't mean its not possible, I'm just saying its not as likely. What the Cetina people with their strong Bell Beaker cultural input really were like, I guess nobody really knows right now. But everything considered, its not my first best alternative. Probably the second, if the Urnfield scenario completely fails, but I mainly promote the Urnfield spread because I think we're running out of other viable options. The E-V13 origin debate became an elimination game, and honestly, from my perspective, there are not too many plausible alternatives left which fit the archaeological evidence.

I wonder about an archaeological-cultural pathway from Cetina to later cultures forming the Thracian sphere?

Hawk
11-14-2020, 08:30 PM
I considered Cetina as a viable option among others, but rather don't do any more. The reason is simple its timing and distribution. It corresponds the best with "Illyrian in the narrower sense" as discussed with Pribislav, but you have to consider this:
- its timing. If they would have expanded Northward and even further to the East, the samples taken from Pannonia and the Balkans should have taken it up. To create the E-V13 frequencies of the IA, it would have had to have a big impact on the whole macro-region in an earlier phase.
- If the centre was the later Illyrian core region, why is especially this centre even in the IA not as heavily E-V13? How could Cetina push upwards, to Pannonia and the Balkans? Especially in the MBA-EIA timeframe, in which most pushes came from Central Europe and the steppe, rather than the opposite way?

That doesn't mean its not possible, I'm just saying its not as likely. What the Cetina people with their strong Bell Beaker cultural input really were like, I guess nobody really knows right now. But everything considered, its not my first best alternative. Probably the second, if the Urnfield scenario completely fails, but I mainly promote the Urnfield spread because I think we're running out of other viable options. The E-V13 origin debate became an elimination game, and honestly, from my perspective, there are not too many plausible alternatives left which fit the archaeological evidence.

I wonder about an archaeological-cultural pathway from Cetina to later cultures forming the Thracian sphere?

The only reason i say so, is because according to Yugoslav archeologists Cetina were one of the few descendants of Cardial farmers to survive in a more pure form during Bronze Age.

But you are right, unless we are getting illusions of spread, Urnfield looks the safest bet so far. I think from the French paper the La Tene (Late Hallstatt) had some R1b samples and one of them was E1b1b (highly likely E-V13).

Riverman
11-14-2020, 09:08 PM
The only reason i say so, is because according to Yugoslav archeologists Cetina were one of the few descendants of Cardial farmers to survive in a more pure form during Bronze Age.

But you are right, unless we are getting illusions of spread, Urnfield looks the safest bet so far. I think from the French paper the La Tene (Late Hallstatt) had some R1b samples and one of them was E1b1b (highly likely E-V13).

I think its like the last straw for a more Southern origin story. Yet even if V13 was present, it might be a similar story to the Michelsberger, with little of whatever they were remaining and being and having little lasting impact. Especially since they would not just need to survive where the culture spread in the EBA,but expand from that core against the Northern groups. Just worse odds I'd say.

rafc
11-14-2020, 09:17 PM
A problem with these clades is, at least if starting from yFull, you surely know better, that we don't have clearly defined branches on the regoinal level for many of the important clades. However, where we do have those, we get something like this again:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909/

A TMRCA of about 1000 BC and three completely different, diversified and geographically very distant branches. This is again an Iron Age timing and spread scenario, exactly in the manner described.

Next one, with an absurd composition of Italy, Bahrain and Spain:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5022b/

If its not Jewish, but an old regional one, again look at the TMRCA: About 1.600 BC.

At the same time it harbours https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44175/ a clearly Northern branch, TMRCA? Again 1.700 BC!

All these branches of the E-S7461 tree point to one single issue: Urnfield and the LBA-EIA transition. My best guess for the Near Eastern haplotypes is, that they were brought there by Sea People. I mean you know the clades better, you can say whether such a scenario is possible, but with my very limited knowledge, just looking at the distribution and clades, its looks to me like this is a viable option. It doesn't contradict and early Balkan scenario at all, but such a scenario would make the distribution rather more difficult to explain, rather than solving anything. Of course they could have started their movement in the LBA-EIA from the Balkans, why not. But its in no way a contradiction (again with my limited knowledge on the issue) to the scenario proposed, even on the contrary, if looking at the Northern branch with a TMRCA of about 1.600 BC.

While I agree that some V13 in Western Europe did not come from the Balkan but from a common source in central-Europe, I still believe most V13 in Western Europe comes from Roman soldiers recruited on the Balkans. This can explain the combination of very diverse groups under S7461. On Yfull you can see that the closest neighbour of the "Northern branch" is a group of Lebaneze Druze and an Israeli, again that does not scream Urnfield to me.

Hawk
11-14-2020, 09:29 PM
While I agree that some V13 in Western Europe did not come from the Balkan but from a common source in central-Europe, I still believe most V13 in Western Europe comes from Roman soldiers recruited on the Balkans. This can explain the combination of very diverse groups under S7461. On Yfull you can see that the closest neighbour of the "Northern branch" is a group of Lebaneze Druze and an Israeli, again that does not scream Urnfield to me.

Recently we got a Hungarian tested in under a certain S7461 branch, he posted in FTDNA group. The Lebanese and Arab can be easily explained by the Sea People remnants due to the connection being too distant for classifying it as Roman or Byzantine soldiers.

So the Hungarian falls within: E-V13 > CTS8814 > CTS5856 > BY3880 > FGC44169 > S7461 > BY5022 > FGC44154 > FGC44177 => https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44177/

Riverman
11-14-2020, 10:03 PM
While I agree that some V13 in Western Europe did not come from the Balkan but from a common source in central-Europe, I still believe most V13 in Western Europe comes from Roman soldiers recruited on the Balkans. This can explain the combination of very diverse groups under S7461. On Yfull you can see that the closest neighbour of the "Northern branch" is a group of Lebaneze Druze and an Israeli, again that does not scream Urnfield to me.

I can't know of course, but its at least possible that it was brought to the Near East either at the LBA-EIA transition or afterwards. We know of E-V13 branches which expanded to the Levante and Near East, which came in later, even in Hellenistic and Roman times. We had this in this thread already. Concerning migrations in Roman and Medieval times, again a lot of things are possible, like we have seen in the Viking samples. But again, there is a difference in the distribution between the different clades a lot of V13 look more Northern shifted by default, rather than latecomers. Surprises are always possible of course.

My position on the issue is, that V13 played a real Iron Age "fertiliser role" which led to a big splitting down to the downstream clades around 1.600-800 BC. I imagine it like one group of priests, smiths and warriors going West, one North, one South West. But the main route on the flight was South and South East. So far I see little to no proof for an earlier splitting of importance which can't be explained otherwise, but the final proofs in either way are simply still outstanding.


Recently we got a Hungarian tested in under a certain S7461 branch, he posted in FTDNA group. The Lebanese and Arab can be easily explained by the Sea People remnants due to the connection being too distant for classifying it as Roman or Byzantine soldiers.

Indeed, and the only cases which are clearly Balkan-Aegean related are usually younger, like https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/

If we go on level higher, what do we get again?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16729/

A TMRCA for the whole group of around or younger than 1.800-1.600 BC. So far I see no definitive proof for any real and large scale expansion of E-V13 any time earlier. There wasn't that much happening before 2000 BC, that seems to be evident.

Hawk
11-15-2020, 01:06 PM
Very interesting, are they suggesting people from the Aegean moved in Central Europe during Middle Bronze Age and influenced Urnfield then during Late Bronze Age they just returned back?


Sprockhoff saw a shared source for both the Bronze Age Central European and
Greek bird boat traditions reflected in the Dupljaja chariot and later Greek legends of the
Hyperborean Apollo, who returns on a sacred swan from the frozen expanses of the
north every spring.80 This idea of the water-bird as transport of gods may have
ultimately had its origins in the Aegean world, and was carried north into Europe by the
same people who influenced the Mycenaeanizing weapons and jewelry found in Middle
Bronze Age contexts there.81 Once in Central Europe, it was modified to suit regional
tastes, evolving into what became in the Bz D the central symbol of Urnfield religious
symbology: the vogelbarke. There is also, of course, the possibility that the Aegean
world adopted the static bird iconography that developed in the north and breathed a
new, dynamic life into it.8

https://nautarch.tamu.edu/Theses/pdf-files/Romey-MA2004.pdf

Riverman
11-15-2020, 01:56 PM
Very interesting, are they suggesting people from the Aegean moved in Central Europe during Middle Bronze Age and influenced Urnfield then during Late Bronze Age they just returned back?

This is a reality, however, it was, as far as I know, no mass movement, so rather like the Greek influences on Hallstatt in general. This could have resulted in single lineages here and there, but it wouldn't been able to penetrate the Pannonian-Carpathian zone in the way necessary.

DgidguBidgu
11-15-2020, 02:34 PM
First of all, I'd assume there was a Slavic continuum at this early time, so no clear distinction between West, South and East Slavs, with Pannonia being really not that easily to assign to any particular group or grouping. However, your definition of "Bulgarian" is over the top. That's like using "Goth" for every Germanic South of Denmark, it makes absolutely no sense. You write about Carinthia, but while the Carantanians were surely Slavs, I never ever heard anybody calling them "Bulgarians", even more, what kind of Bulgarian are you even talking about in the IV-V century?
There was surely a continuum from the ancestors of Moravians and Slovaks, down to Carantanians and so on. We hear of the Slavs under the Avars and in Samos "empire" later. I won't list all tribes and search for them, there was a large scale Slavic migration coming ahead of the Avars, those evading their rule, and under their rule. A lot of the Slavic migrations was directly and indirectly associated with first the Germanic migrations and second the Avar intrusion.



" your definition of "Bulgarian" is over the top" It is not mine I am naming here the OFFICIAL HISTORICAL SOURCES.
There is no other Slavic state at the time when Bulgaria existed and developed its policy by spreading the Cyrillic alphabet and the Bulgarian Christian literature, the first "Slavic" literature at all.
Even the Arab authors have used the terms Slavic and Bulgarian as unambiguous and interchangeable.
If you have a problem with that take your complaints to the authors. :)
Your comparison with the Goths and Germans is quite inappropriate, since the Goths are NEVER connected by historical sources with the Germans. Not even ONE source!!!
No need for you to hear everything,this is not in the capacity of any man, so just go to some library and check for your self.
It's not kind to twist what is written, I have written the area in question.
The Pannonians are called Bulgarians and I have clearly written this and gave the sourse. Zonara: "Πανόνιοι οἱ Βούλγαροι". And Bulgaria itself as Pannonia -"Πανονία ἡ Βουλγαρία"
After all we have and some new authors confirm the above:
"The older the toponyms in Germany, the clearer their Slavic character" [11] p.29.
R.G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus, Walton and Marbely, London, 1851
The Bulgarians founded the first ethnic state in Europe (Norman Davies) and Bulgarian language is the basis of all Slavic languages ( S. Derzhavin ).
"Compared to the Russian language,the modern Bulgarian language is distinguished by the archaicness of its lexical composition and grammatical structure.
"This applies in comparison with all other Slavic languages in the group.This are the facts and this is the official history for Europe and the opinion of names in their field. I don't care if you like it or not.

Riverman
11-15-2020, 02:37 PM
" your definition of "Bulgarian" is over the top" It is not mine I am naming here the OFFICIAL HISTORICAL SOURCES.
There is no other Slavic state at the time when Bulgaria existed and developed its policy by spreading the Cyrillic alphabet and the Bulgarian Christian literature, the first "Slavic" literature at all.
Even the Arab authors have used the terms Slavic and Bulgarian as unambiguous and interchangeable.

You mean like the French called Germans "Allemannic", Hungarians "Saxons" and Serbians "Svabo"? Everyone after the neighbouring or just best known tribe?

Hawk
11-16-2020, 09:56 PM
https://i.imgur.com/OZCwLsL.png

Hawk
11-16-2020, 10:34 PM
Vogelbarke, from National Museum in Belgrade

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSkgX-3XkAAMQuO.jpg

Medinet Habu ship prototype.

https://www.mdpi.com/arts/arts-08-00165/article_deploy/html/images/arts-08-00165-g040.png

Riverman
11-16-2020, 11:26 PM
Who's primitive if your whole culture is based over the culture and language and religion of the Balkan people?


I was speaking about forest hunters in Northern Russia before the Corded Ware people came there and spread pastoralism and agriculture, because that's the place some generations later the ancestors of the Proto-Slavs might have lived, West of Fatyanovo. They got an impulse from the Carpathian region too, which reached as far as Sintashta. I don't know why you wrote what you did, seems to be a misunderstanding. Bulgaria had a completely different history. Thracians might have been a related people to Slavs, in some way, see next paragraph, but not the same, simple as that.

Concerning possible South -> North migrations, the last phase which could have happened would be Vatin, but it doesn't seem to have been. Was the last chance however and it would be, in any case, great to get Vatin culture samples. Its one of these complicated cultures which might have fused various influences. However, I don't think it spread E-V13 primarily and still think that the Urnfield-cremation horizon of the centre and East is pretty safe, with the best candidate in detail being the Fluted Wares with Gava as a prime first level candidate. Interestingly, Gava did border Černoles culture at some point, which would close the gap for my continuum in the North to the Baltoslavic sphere. So it seems to fit very nicely, especially if expanding from Gava in the narrower sense to the whole complex of the Fluted Ware ceramics and related cultures of the Southern Urnfield sphere. Then there is almost no way around it, because it penetrated the whole macro-region and is the single best candidate for a big shift.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 12:22 PM
Another example for the usual pattern in E-V13, starting with a clear Balkan group like https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A18833/ with a TMRCA of about 1750 BP, so clearly spreading within the Balkans in the Roman Age.
At the next level is a North Italian however: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z19851a/
One up most sister clades, only single samples so far, look rather Celtic or Germanic: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z19851/
One up with France and Bulgaria: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y18556/ so the wide-split distribution like expected.

Generally within E-Z5017 too, a clear tendency towards a fairly late split down to the subclades in the EIA.

Most more recent splits and TMRCA are related already to just one grouping, like Celtic or Balkan. Celtic-La Tene looks for example:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4518/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17264/ is interesting, like no overlap between the extremes after 800 BC - nothing later. The extremes usually overlap only before the developed Iron Age and almost never make it into historical or Roman Age.

Like https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4289/ uniting Portugal and Armenia, but look at the TMRCA: 900 BC.

I'm really searching how many clades are there at all which would point to a historical or even later Roman dispersal? These surely must have existed, considering Illyrian and Thracian soldiers for Rome, Greek traders and teachers etc., to just name the stereotypes. But overall, it seems they are not that important for the North Alpine dispersal. Most seems to date to the EIA, which would be in favour of a Urnfield/North Carpathian origin.

What I find interesting is the quite solid number of Caucasians popping up recently, especially Armenians. This too needs to be explained, with a Greek connection, with a steppe one - the Cimmerians and Thraco-Cimmerian horizon seems to have had a Caucasian connection, but that seems not sufficient. Also I think that actual Celtic dispersals could have brought (back?) some V13 Balkan lineages too, unless its a massive sampling bias.

Really there is little proof for any sort of massive Balkan -> North European migration based on YFull results, not at all. Because most Balkan lineages seem to be postdating the LBA, also starting in the EIA and spread primarily regionally - not much beyond.

Even more suprising is a fairly close connection to the Caucasus, especially Armenians dated to the Iron Age. Anyone with suggestions on that, going beyond of what I already wrote? We know from the Chinese samples that V13 made it to East Asia, at which time is unknown, but surely coming from the steppe. Yet I don't have it on the radar for the steppe people in general, but rather specific groups. The Caucasian connection might prove to be more important, I didn't read anything about it so far?

That was before NGS-testing:


Gardman, Lake Van and Sasun, respectively) in the four Armenian populations consists almost entirely of haplogroup E1b1b1c1*-M34. However, a small number of individuals from Lake Van belong to the E1b1b1a*-M78 (0.9%), E1b1b1a2-V13 (1.9%) and E1b1b1a3-V22 (0.9%) branches that have been implicated as signals of Greek influence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2011192

Armenians seem to be more diverse:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject?iframe=yresults

Probably there is more to it than just later Greek influences, or is it just because they are better tested than Greeks?

Hawk
11-18-2020, 12:40 PM
Also, E-V13 FGC33621 might have a clear connection to Urnfield. The Greek is from Crete, but it's noted that there are Macedonian Greeks belonging to FGC33621 as well.

https://i.imgur.com/8jNr9IT.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/UrnfieldCulture.jpg

Farroukh
11-18-2020, 01:42 PM
Dear Riverman, most of tested Armenians traced to eastern areas of Anatolia and therefore they have relatively high percentage of E-V13.

E-V13 is extremely rare in all ethnic groups of Transcaucasia.

Riverman
11-18-2020, 01:50 PM
Dear Riverman, most of tested Armenians traced to eastern areas of Anatolia and therefore they have relatively high percentage of E-V13.

E-V13 is extremely rare in all ethnic groups of Transcaucasia.

Ok, so the study was right about the Lake Van samples being more V13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Van

Otherwise the Lake Van Armenians are not that different from other Armenian samples going after the old Nature study.

Hawk
12-20-2020, 10:30 AM
So, rafc how is the new paper going, when are you going to publish your updated viewpoint?

Riverman
12-29-2020, 01:28 PM
I think the data from the study on the Germanisation of the German Eastern provinces is highly interesting, because it lists some haplogroups frequencies. For general E the percentages are:

East Prussia 2,2
West Prussia 6,7
Pomerania 3,1
Poznań/Posen region 5,8
Silesia 8,7
Brandenburg 5,1
Mecklenburg 3,6
Saxony 11,7
Thuringia 8,8
Saxony (Prussian) 6,5
Schleswig-Holstein 4,4
Lower Saxony 4,2
Franconia 6,6

Total 5,8

From: https://www.academia.edu/44787816/THE_EARLY_MEDIAEVAL_SLAV_GERMAN_BORDER_LIMES_SORAB ICUS_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_RESEARCH_INTO_Y_CHROMOSOME_PO LYMORPHISM_IN_CONTEMPORARY_AND_HISTORICAL_GERMAN_P OPULATIONS

I thought its interesting that, according to these numbers, there is quite some concentration of haplogroup E in the Central regions of Thuringia, Silesia and Saxony, comparable to the numbers reported from Austria and the Czech Republic. And I guess the proportion of E-V13 will be 2:1 to 3:1 within haplogroup E for these regions.

I wrote about the Central German groups, probably para-Celtic or independent, unknown IE, between Germanic Jastorf and La Tene Celts. Looking at all the numbers I wonder whether these Central German groups and the Eastern Celts had higher numbers for E1b, both. Interestingly the distribution of E1b is largely independent from direct Roman settlement and the R1b/I1 : R1a ratio and also no clear one to J. The best correlation is with G actually. So its looks, to me, and at first look, rather "old autochthonous". But of course, only ancient DNA and more complete analyses with higher resolutions can help in this respect.

EDIT: The author used FTDNA as a source:

Source: author’s own elaboration on the basis of FTDNA data

So not sure how reliable it is in detail, whether he checked all the ethnicities.

Aahmes
12-29-2020, 03:49 PM
What about Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg? I think since they make up southern germany they are very important to include as they likely have higher e % since more e is in southern europe

Hawk
12-29-2020, 04:14 PM
The problem with E-V13 is that during the whole Neolithic up until Middle Bronze Age both his ancestors E-L618 and E-V13 was relatively present at very low percentages, which didn't contribute into European genepoole more than ~1-2%, that changes in Middle Bronze Age though. The problem is to find the origin of expansion, it's very tough. I agreed before on Southern Balkan origin, but looks to me unlikely. I still have room to expect E-V13 in the Balkans but i very much doubt it, and it looks like majority of people are agreeing in this.

E-V13 appeared in North/Central Balkans during Middle Bronze Age and in Southern Balkans mainly during Late Bronze Age. But, what is the zero point of starting of the expansion, that's unknown so far. The spread within Urnfield cultural complex during LBA makes sense.

Riverman
12-29-2020, 06:47 PM
What about Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg? I think since they make up southern germany they are very important to include as they likely have higher e % since more e is in southern europe

Unfortunately, there was no data provided. I can just say that going by the data from FTDNA, E-V13 is very diverse in Baden-Württemberg. How much of this was Celtic, Roman, Imperial Roman from various provinces or Germanic is hard to determine at this point. But I think a large portion will be found among early Celts already. Especially German Switzerland might prove to be an interesting place and investigation too, the percentage and diversity looks high at first glance, but that might be misleading without more data.

armalite
01-05-2021, 02:04 PM
Hello!
Im new here!
I was tested at ysec and my result is E-FGC44177. I am still researching my paternal ancestors with great force, but I have very little information about them. For the time being, it is only certain that my grandfather was entirely Hungarian, born in Fibis in Transylvania in 1916, which is part of the Banat region.

Riverman
01-05-2021, 02:29 PM
Hello!
Im new here!
I was tested at ysec and my result is E-FGC44177. I am still researching my paternal ancestors with great force, but I have very little information about them. For the time being, it is only certain that my grandfather was entirely Hungarian, born in Fibis in Transylvania in 1916, which is part of the Banat region.

I would recommend you to upload to YFULL.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44177*/

So far there are three branches it seems, one Near Eastern-Jewish, one Germanic or Germanic-Slavic and one Romane or Romance-Germanic if interpreting it very freely.

crazyladybutterfly
01-05-2021, 02:32 PM
Eupedia map is more accurate here, for example as you already mentioned E-V13 is present in the isles and it accounts for 1-3% of men living in England, Wales and Ireland so the creator got it right here. Same for the near absence within the Basque regions.


Because the diversity in Europe points to an origin from Europe. "Middle Easterners" who belong to E-V13 usually belong to young subclades, which usually go back to the Greco-Roman period in antiquity. A very small portion of E-V13 might be from the crusades especially in Lebanese and Palestinians.


The mystery everyone is discussing.
What we know so far is E-V13's entry to Europe seems to be Neolithic, as it was found in Spain and other places in the Neolithic. But the dispersal happened sometime in the Bronze age (5500 to 4000 years before present) from the Balkans or central Europe. But we really need more ancient DNA before being too certain about anything.

That haplogroup is anything but roman/Latin .
I agree on greek.

Riverman
01-05-2021, 03:44 PM
That haplogroup is anything but roman/Latin .
I agree on greek.

Only Greek mediated for some lineages, originally closest related to Proto-Daco-Thracian, but early spreads into Illyrian, Celtic and possibly Greek, most likely through Urnfield expansions, with a substantial presence in Eastern Hallstatt.

armalite
01-05-2021, 05:46 PM
Thank you very much for your advice! But unfortunately I can't upload my results because ysex didn't give raw data. And I don’t belong to any of the threads mentioned because they all became negative for me. If you know what I mean.

armalite
01-05-2021, 05:47 PM
I would recommend you to upload to YFULL.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44177*/

So far there are three branches it seems, one Near Eastern-Jewish, one Germanic or Germanic-Slavic and one Romane or Romance-Germanic if interpreting it very freely.

Thank you very much for your advice! But unfortunately I can't upload my results because ysex didn't give raw data. And I don’t belong to any of those threads because they all became negative to me. If you know what I mean.

Riverman
01-05-2021, 07:14 PM
Thank you very much for your advice! But unfortunately I can't upload my results because ysex didn't give raw data. And I don’t belong to any of those threads because they all became negative to me. If you know what I mean.

Can you expand to analyse your private SNP's? Because honestly, that's the most interesting part, since you can found a new lineage or explore closer matches. Most of the established subclades are, especially for E-V13, quite old and beyond historical ethnicities for the most part.

armalite
01-05-2021, 08:01 PM
Can you expand to analyse your private SNP's? Because honestly, that's the most interesting part, since you can found a new lineage or explore closer matches. Most of the established subclades are, especially for E-V13, quite old and beyond historical ethnicities for the most part.

Yes it will be possible to order a full phologenetic analysis but it is quite expensive. It is my intention because it is very important and I am very interested in it, but I have to save so much money.
My huge desire is to be able to connect the archaeological ages with the migration of my paternal bloodline. To determine what kind of culture they belonged to in a given historical period and when and when they became part of the Hungarian society in Transylvania
But as a first step, I would really like to know if the current E-ft44177 was really created in Asia Minor.
And did my ancestors, indeed, belong to the community of sea peoples of this or some other culture?
These questions are very interested for me for now.