PDA

View Full Version : E-v13 got lucky, while other E1b in Europe starved out due to low percentage and IE



Crow
01-06-2021, 10:57 AM
E1b was an EEF haplogroup. There's no doubt it reached Europe via the Balkans. It was not the biggest ydna ad the time.

Somewhere north-east the balkans it's ancestor clade mutated into E-v13. There it got assimilated early by the indoeuropeans, in different percentages for each different groups (myceneans, celts, italics, germanics, etc).

Why got a haplogroup that was present in low pecentages more represented in the indoeuropeans than other ones? It probably just happened by chance. Maybe it has something to do with the elite, but this is something we don't know.

E-v13 appeared quite late, when it's ancestor clade was already widely spread in the continent. It's not plausible to think that E-v13 was widely spread in Europe before the indoeuropean wave.

The "oldest sample of "E-v13"" from Catalonia was actually not E-v13 and this is almost sure.

People overvalue the impact of the romans in the spread of E-v13, even though a low number can be attributed to them for sure, as can be imagined looking at the spread of E-v13 in areas like northern Africa.

In Greece mainland it likely became widespread due to the dorians, which probably were the indoeuropeans with the highest percentage of E-v13 among with thracians and illyrians.

Hawk
01-06-2021, 11:18 AM
The Catalonian Cardium remain was E-V13 instead.

Bane
01-06-2021, 03:50 PM
The "oldest sample of "E-v13"" from Catalonia was actually not E-v13 and this is almost sure.

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


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

ShpataEMadhe
01-14-2021, 07:49 PM
V13 was successful in preventing early "Europeans" from expanding south, the lack of Western R1b in Balkans is crazy.

And yes most V13 was spread into Western Europe through the Romans, though regions closer to balkans like Central Europe and even Germany would have had V13 before Roman conquest

Hawk
01-15-2021, 09:42 AM
V13 was successful in preventing early "Europeans" from expanding south, the lack of Western R1b in Balkans is crazy.

And yes most V13 was spread into Western Europe through the Romans, though regions closer to balkans like Central Europe and even Germany would have had V13 before Roman conquest

Most of Western European E-V13 are subclades within E-V13 Z5018 and downstream of Z5018 S2979 which are not even found in Balkans.

Riverman
01-15-2021, 10:32 AM
V13 was successful in preventing early "Europeans" from expanding south, the lack of Western R1b in Balkans is crazy.

And yes most V13 was spread into Western Europe through the Romans, though regions closer to balkans like Central Europe and even Germany would have had V13 before Roman conquest

Most of the Western spread happened from within the Urnfield, Hallstatt and later the Celtic sphere. You have it in pre-Roman Gauls. The Romans themselves might have had E-V13 early on, but most of the spread within the empire was done by Illyrians, Daco-Thracians and Greeks. Of which little reached the very North and North West, unlike via the Celtic exchange. The origin of this Celtic spread might have been, in part, also the Thraco-Commerian horizon expansion from the East in the EIA, and not just directly via earlier Urnfield.
The timing points to LBA to EIA as the major phase for the expansion, not earlier, not later.

ShpataEMadhe
01-16-2021, 12:37 PM
Most of Western European E-V13 are subclades within E-V13 Z5018 and downstream of Z5018 S2979 which are not even found in Balkans.

Have any v13 been found in BC Western Europe as of yet? I don't think we have enough ancient dna to determine when exactly v13 made its way to Western Europe

Not being found in Balkans today doesn't mean they didn't come from balkans at that time we need more ancient dna to confirm, could have been a minor line that became part of the roman legions and throughout many wars a lot of lives were lost from this line, it could never return

The lines that are in balkans today are those that survived, there could have been minor ones that were almost wiped out and assimilated into roman empire therefore not found in Balkans today. Also some v13 may have been in italy pre romans and been part of their early development

Riverman
01-16-2021, 12:48 PM
Have any v13 been found in BC Western Europe as of yet? I don't think we have enough ancient dna to determine when exactly v13 made its way to Western Europe

Not being found in Balkans today doesn't mean they didn't come from balkans at that time we need more ancient dna to confirm, could have been a minor line that became part of the roman legions and throughout many wars a lot of lives were lost from this line, it could never return

The lines that are in balkans today are those that survived, there could have been minor ones that were almost wiped out and assimilated into roman empire therefore not found in Balkans today. Also some v13 may have been in italy pre romans and became part of their early development

We know the TMRCA and the lineages split in the LBA-EIA, some went West, some stayed in the Carpathian region, others moved South into Pannonia, Thracia, eventually Greece and beyond. There is no overlap in TMRCA between the Balkan groups and the rest after the EIA. So the spread must have taken place, for the most part, in the time from LBA-EIA, with a higher diversity of the basal clades in the North, rather than in the Balkans. Everything considered the Carpathian region looks to me like the best candidate, with associated pottery styles and cultural provinces, especially Fluted Ware and in particular Gáva-Holigrady. To the West these Carpathian groups were more intermixed, which means that even in the case of a fairly massive migration and replacement during Urnfield, the impact would have been moderate to small, the further you move from the original centre.
The biggest push South with a lasting effect was that of the Thracians, in the Dacian sphere later steppe incursions might have at one hand diluted the original impact, on the other spread it, in the mix, West too, like with Urnfield before, this time in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and within Hallstatt. I expect Eastern Hallstatt to yield a signficiant portion of E-V13. Not necessarily in the absolute majority but surely very significant in the double digits and most likely higher than pre-Urnfield-Danubian-Thracian influenced Greece.

ShpataEMadhe
01-16-2021, 01:41 PM
We know the TMRCA and the lineages split in the LBA-EIA, some went West, some stayed in the Carpathian region, others moved South into Pannonia, Thracia, eventually Greece and beyond. There is no overlap in TMRCA between the Balkan groups and the rest after the EIA. So the spread must have taken place, for the most part, in the time from LBA-EIA, with a higher diversity of the basal clades in the North, rather than in the Balkans. Everything considered the Carpathian region looks to me like the best candidate, with associated pottery styles and cultural provinces, especially Fluted Ware and in particular Gáva-Holigrady. To the West these Carpathian groups were more intermixed, which means that even in the case of a fairly massive migration and replacement during Urnfield, the impact would have been moderate to small, the further you move from the original centre.
The biggest push South with a lasting effect was that of the Thracians, in the Dacian sphere later steppe incursions might have at one hand diluted the original impact, on the other spread it, in the mix, West too, like with Urnfield before, this time in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and within Hallstatt. I expect Eastern Hallstatt to yield a signficiant portion of E-V13. Not necessarily in the absolute majority but surely very significant in the double digits and most likely higher than pre-Urnfield-Danubian-Thracian influenced Greece.

Thanks

By travelling south they would have clashed with other cultures such as ancient Greeks, no v13 has been found in ancient Greece as of now and yet Greeks carry a fair amount today.

If we go with balkans in general there is a strong lack of Western R1b - there is R1b Z2103 but this has very little input in western Europe so it did not come from there - most of it was spread to western europe through roman conquest. There is little reason for v13 to survive amongst 90%+ R1b early Western Europeans - only way this would be possible is through conquest. It is impossible for v13 to have survived in Central Europe on a small line, it would have had early allies - the history of v13 in Europe is linked to another 1 or 2 lines that it would have spread alongside

More diversity in the North can be explained in multiple ways -

1. Less wars - less death of lines
2. Early splits - some south some north but later conquest from south into north and settling there would make more diversity in north than south.
3. Disease in South (a lot of these recorded in roman literature)
4. A late movement from North to South - not all moved but ultimately more diversity in North yet more density in South as the bulk settlement of the culture

We all say it but its true, we can't make early statements on anything without ancient dna so we just have to wait for more. I mostly use historical text to determine movements of people, it is fun to speculate what happened before Roman period but without ancient dna we have little truth to back up anything

Riverman
01-16-2021, 02:26 PM
Thanks

By travelling south they would have clashed with other cultures such as ancient Greeks, no v13 has been found in ancient Greece as of now and yet Greeks carry a fair amount today.

Dorians might have carried Urnfield-related ancestry and of course there was a constant influx from the Thracian sphere, just like later from the Slavs. If you look at the distribution of E-V13 in Greece, its the Greek Northern component, North of them are just the Slavs and Albanians. Obviously before the Slavic expansion, that should have been even more pronounced, so probably even higher rates in places like Thessaly, East Macedonia and Thracia obviously.


If we go with balkans in general there is a strong lack of Western R1b - there is R1b Z2103 but this has very little input in western Europe so it did not come from there

This is from the first steppe groups and Yamnaya related. The E-V13 spread was mostly coming from Epi-Corded groups to the North.


- most of it was spread to western europe through roman conquest.

No, it was not. The TMRCA's don't fit. If they came in Roman times, you would expect many more overlaps in historical times, but there's little to none. Actually I found a lineage which spread with Hellenes/Romans in historical times to the Near East, an important, widespread one. But so far not a single one in the North and North West! Not a single one!!! Yet for making the Balkan spread in Roman times real, most should have such a close relationship with Balkan clades!


There is little reason for v13 to survive amongst 90%+ R1b early Western Europeans

There was also little reason for R1a to survive in the sea of Yamnaya-R1b or the R1b-L51 to make it with Bell Beakers, or I1 to some up in the Nordic Bronze Age and Germanics. These were all founder effects! What's left of the super-dominant Yamnaya main lineages? Almost nothing in comparison, because later founder effects reduced them to a second tier level.


- only way this would be possible is through conquest. It is impossible for v13 to have survived in Central Europe on a small line, it would have had early allies - the history of v13 in Europe is linked to another 1 or 2 lines that it would have spread alongside

Really dominant it only was among Thraco-Dacians. That is the main branch, the group in which E-V13 really rose to the dominant group and for doing that, with the data available, the Urnfield horizon and mentioned archaeological groups are ideal. In other groups they spread the Urnfield and later early Iron Age innovations as a minority element. This is very obvious, they spread with Celts and some Pannonian-Illyrian groups among others.


We all say it but its true, we can't make early statements on anything without ancient dna so we just have to wait for more.

The question is just where exactly between the Eastern Alps, the Western steppe, Poland in the North, Dalmatia in the South. That's the possible range, unlikely more in any direction, most likely Northern Carpathians. Again, the TMRCA's are crucial, they tell the story. Because if the splits happened mostly around 1.600-800 BC, with rapid expansions to the South, its a clear cut picture. In that time frame there were massive movements from the North into the South, but not vice versa. Also just look at sites like Teleac, they give you an impression about what Gáva-Holigrady was about. They were pioneers and metal working specialists, especially for iron weaponry. The Carpathians were THE metallurgical centre for a very long time. These specialists made the weapons for the Indoeuropean elite for many generations and first with the Urnfield religious revolution, then the iron technology, they radiated out.

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Barbarians/Map1000BC_Cultures01_big.jpg

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Barbarians/Map1000BC_Cultures01_big.jpg

Aspar
01-16-2021, 03:41 PM
No, it was not. The TMRCA's don't fit. If they came in Roman times, you would expect many more overlaps in historical times, but there's little to none. Actually I found a lineage which spread with Hellenes/Romans in historical times to the Near East, an important, widespread one. But so far not a single one in the North and North West! Not a single one!!! Yet for making the Balkan spread in Roman times real, most should have such a close relationship with Balkan clades!

I agree with you about Western Europe where most of the subclades under E-V13 do seem quite early spread there and not related with the Romans, however there are some that look like a Roman involvement and for the Near East most of the E-V13 does look like Roman/Hellenistic spread actually:
There are few lineages that look like a Roman involvement in the area and not just one:
E-BY14150 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/)
E-Y193398 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y193398/)
E-Y150909 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909/) => The Englishmen here might very well be descendants of Romans.
E-BY5786 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/)
E-BY4914 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4914/)
etc.

It's very important to remember also that even some of those sole Near Eastern samples downstream of subclades with TMRCA > 3000 doesn't necessarily indicate an earlier spread. We are actually way to behind, at the beginning of this era of populational genetics and very few people are only tested with high resolution tests. It will be mind blowing actually if there ever be mass testing. Many questions will be resolved and probably the TMRCA of many Near Eastern subclades but also Western European ones will go way ahead in time, probably during Roman times. An interesting pattern I see here however is the evident lack of Near Eastern E-CTS9320. And this one is today the most widespread Balkan subclade under E-V13 however. This leads me to think that this subclade was not in the reach of the Romans and the southern Balkans but probably it is a lineage which mainly occupied space north of Danube river apart for some of it's downstream's such as E-Z17264.

Riverman
01-16-2021, 05:24 PM
I agree with you about Western Europe where most of the subclades under E-V13 do seem quite early spread there and not related with the Romans, however there are some that look like a Roman involvement and for the Near East most of the E-V13 does look like Roman/Hellenistic spread actually:
There are few lineages that look like a Roman involvement in the area and not just one:
E-BY14150 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/)
E-Y193398 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y193398/)
E-Y150909 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909/) => The Englishmen here might very well be descendants of Romans.
E-BY5786 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/)
E-BY4914 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4914/)
etc.

Actually it would be really strange to nearly impossible if there are no Roman Age E-V13 subclades from the Balkans in the North and North West at all, but these samples are good examples for inconclusive cases, unless there are more samples in studies or on FTDNA around, with a closer TMRCA. Because they all fall within the Early Iron Age. A proof would be a TMRCA of about 100 BC-500 AD. And there's none I know of. Surely there will be, but that will just prove the case for the single subclade, there is none for a general spread.


It's very important to remember also that even some of those sole Near Eastern samples downstream of subclades with TMRCA > 3000 doesn't necessarily indicate an earlier spread. We are actually way to behind, at the beginning of this era of populational genetics and very few people are only tested with high resolution tests. It will be mind blowing actually if there ever be mass testing. Many questions will be resolved and probably the TMRCA of many Near Eastern subclades but also Western European ones will go way ahead in time, probably during Roman times. An interesting pattern I see here however is the evident lack of Near Eastern E-CTS9320. And this one is today the most widespread Balkan subclade under E-V13 however. This leads me to think that this subclade was not in the reach of the Romans and the southern Balkans but probably it is a lineage which mainly occupied space north of Danube river apart for some of it's downstream's such as E-Z17264.

Its an interesting question as to how many lineages entered the Roman Imperial zone at the end of the Roman Empire, with Dacians, Sarmatians, Slavs and Germanics, possibly with Lusatian derived lineages. But whatever will come up, if there would have been a big spread from the Balkans in the Roman era, spreading the majority of lineages, there would be plenty of evidence already for the clear majority of lineages in the North and West having a historical time TMRCA. But is actually not enough to account for the migrations which surely took place within Rome, even if not bieng the primary vector at all. I never believed the Roman story, but I'm actually, really suprised that the overlap with Balkan lineages is so far that low. I mean right now it looks like less than one quarter, probably no more than one tenth of the Western-Northern E-V13 dates to that period, unless something surprising comes up. They really "underperform" in the Roman context, to put it mildly. Considering how many Thracians and Greeks roamed within the empire, its below my expectations and I never thought this would be the primary source at all. I'm sure more will pop up, because not just in Roman times, but also later, people simply moved, they migrated, like a Croat moved up to the Balticum, a South Western Geman to Finland, a Bulgarian to England, a Hungarian to Spain. Such movements happened all the time.

So going after the currently available data, a spread from the Balkans in Roman times as the primary vector is so completely out of question, so absolutely impossible, its not even worth to discuss imho. Its like it is with a spread from the Balkans in the EBA, the Balkans should have been packed, oversaturated with E-V13 to make that possible, to expand against the tide of one Northern tribe after another coming down, from the North. But even on the contrary, so far no single one was discovered. If they would discover single ones, that would be nice, especially if these would be surviving lineages, but not enough. Because for moving against the tide, the source region must be absolutely packed and dominated, and that idea being completely falsified. There can be always backflow, even from a conquered people in a subdominant position, no doubt about that. But if the percentage in the defeated population is lower than in the winning one, you can guess the direction it was going. Surely not South -> North, that's being refuted by now.

ShpataEMadhe
01-16-2021, 06:19 PM
Dorians might have carried Urnfield-related ancestry and of course there was a constant influx from the Thracian sphere, just like later from the Slavs. If you look at the distribution of E-V13 in Greece, its the Greek Northern component, North of them are just the Slavs and Albanians. Obviously before the Slavic expansion, that should have been even more pronounced, so probably even higher rates in places like Thessaly, East Macedonia and Thracia obviously.



This is from the first steppe groups and Yamnaya related. The E-V13 spread was mostly coming from Epi-Corded groups to the North.



No, it was not. The TMRCA's don't fit. If they came in Roman times, you would expect many more overlaps in historical times, but there's little to none. Actually I found a lineage which spread with Hellenes/Romans in historical times to the Near East, an important, widespread one. But so far not a single one in the North and North West! Not a single one!!! Yet for making the Balkan spread in Roman times real, most should have such a close relationship with Balkan clades!



There was also little reason for R1a to survive in the sea of Yamnaya-R1b or the R1b-L51 to make it with Bell Beakers, or I1 to some up in the Nordic Bronze Age and Germanics. These were all founder effects! What's left of the super-dominant Yamnaya main lineages? Almost nothing in comparison, because later founder effects reduced them to a second tier level.



Really dominant it only was among Thraco-Dacians. That is the main branch, the group in which E-V13 really rose to the dominant group and for doing that, with the data available, the Urnfield horizon and mentioned archaeological groups are ideal. In other groups they spread the Urnfield and later early Iron Age innovations as a minority element. This is very obvious, they spread with Celts and some Pannonian-Illyrian groups among others.



The question is just where exactly between the Eastern Alps, the Western steppe, Poland in the North, Dalmatia in the South. That's the possible range, unlikely more in any direction, most likely Northern Carpathians. Again, the TMRCA's are crucial, they tell the story. Because if the splits happened mostly around 1.600-800 BC, with rapid expansions to the South, its a clear cut picture. In that time frame there were massive movements from the North into the South, but not vice versa. Also just look at sites like Teleac, they give you an impression about what Gáva-Holigrady was about. They were pioneers and metal working specialists, especially for iron weaponry. The Carpathians were THE metallurgical centre for a very long time. These specialists made the weapons for the Indoeuropean elite for many generations and first with the Urnfield religious revolution, then the iron technology, they radiated out.

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Barbarians/Map1000BC_Cultures01_big.jpg

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Barbarians/Map1000BC_Cultures01_big.jpg

If we say that v13 was a minor lineage amongst indo Europeans how did it separate from all Western European R1b branches when it travelled South? With this theory we should have more Western Europe R1b in Balkans today than V13 but it is almost nonexistant. V13 was assimilated into Western Europeans not the other way round. You mention thracians but how did it become a thracian majority branch? What are the other confirmed y dna of thracians? Where is the evidence that thracians wiped out rest of balkans to spread v13

As for dorians we can only speculate on what y dna they carried but without ancient dna it's pointless. Looking at modern greeks having so many different lines it's best to investigate each one, dorians could just as likely be m223 as v13. Like I said no v13 has been found in ancient Greece for now, only north of it

The history of i1 is likely they moved down from North Scandinavia and clashed with r1b in North Europe, some r1b ended up becoming germanic after this (probably u106)

"So far the earliest evidence of I1 in Scandinavia dates from the Nordic Bronze Age, with a single sample from Sweden dating from circa 1400 BCE"

If you can give me some r1b evidence that would be great, I would like to know which was first in that proto german region i1 or r1b

The tmrcas we have as of now rely on small amounts of data, we need more ancient dna. A lot of dna testing has been done in Western Europe but not enough elsewhere

Kale
01-16-2021, 06:22 PM
If we say that v13 was a minor lineage amongst indo Europeans how did it separate from all Western European R1b branches when it travelled South?

I think the idea is that it is was a minor lineage for a while, but in some small group it became the major lineage due to random drift and that group expanded.

Riverman
01-16-2021, 06:42 PM
If we say that v13 was a minor lineage amongst indo Europeans how did it separate from all Western European R1b branches when it travelled South? With this theory we should have more Western Europe R1b in Balkans today than V13 but it is almost nonexistant. V13 was assimilated into Western Europeans not the other way round. You mention thracians but how did it become a thracian majority branch? What are the other confirmed y dna of thracians?

The history of i1 is likely they moved down from North Scandinavia and clashed with r1b in North Europe, some r1b ended up becoming germanic after this (probably u106)

"So far the earliest evidence of I1 in Scandinavia dates from the Nordic Bronze Age, with a single sample from Sweden dating from circa 1400 BCE"

If you can give me some r1b evidence that would be great, I would like to know which was first in that proto german region i1 or r1b

The tmrcas we have as of now rely on small amounts of data, we need more ancient dna. A lot of dna testing has been done in Western Europe but not enough elsewhere

First of, I1 didn't move down, it rose to prominence in the Nordic Bronze Age, either by being brought in from Unetice, or by one local lineage rising on its own when the transition to the Bronze Age took place. It further increased during the EIA in the Germanic core.

The story of E-V13 is similar, yet its even more clear to me that they were embedded in a protected small group. Their history is pretty much the same as that of Proto-Slavs, which too weren't that prominent before, but expanded rapidly when they got the chance too. E-V13 is unlikely to have been in a strictly R1b context, rather its associated with R1a and Epi-Corded Ware groups. We have Lengyel and Tripolye-Cucuteni, both in the region we're talking about. When the Indoeuropeans came in, they might have not been able to subdue all local lineages, or they incorporated some. Either way, they survived in a mixed Corded-Neolithic context. One of the first possible samples might come, we are waiting for the data from the Pannonian study, Nitra culture. These were Corded Ware-Neolithic mixed people, with a more sedentary, more farmer oriented lifestyle. I don't think Nitra was the carrier, most of them were R1a anyway, but that points in the direction. Between Nitra and later main Urnfield to the West, Cernoles Proto-Slavs to the East is the centre of Gáva-Holigrady. So R1b, but mainly R1a to the West, mainly R1a to the East. In between some of these Corded-Neolithic hybrid groups.

This study might be a first important hint, once the data comes out:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21853-Prehistory-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-from-the-perspective-of-archeogenetics

And its quite telling that the whole of Pannonia was full of R1b and R1a at that time, but almost no E. Only at the fringe to the North, one sample. But if it would have migrated up, against the tide, it should have been there, at a high frequency, yet it wasn't.


The tmrcas we have as of now rely on small amounts of data, we need more ancient dna. A lot of dna testing has been done in Western Europe but not enough elsewhere

Like I said, we will find SOME for sure, which prove that SOME subclades might ultimate be derived from the Balkans in Roman times. But if the majority of E-V13 would have, the data we have would point to it, the TMRCA's would fit, we already have enough data to say that. It can't be enough any more, regardless of how much people test. Because if the density would be there, the samples we have would be enough. If we have to search so carefully, with extensive testing, to find even some lineages with such a history, what does that tell you? Surely not that this is the pattern we have to expect for the majority, not at all.
Decisive are post Early Iron Age TMRCA's, overlaps of timing for the Roman times. This would be omnipresent already if being the main vector. It was just a subordinate one.

In patriarchal, patrilinear societieis, like those of the Indoeuropeans, but not just, a clan which rose to prominence could easily replace competing lineages in a fairly short period of time. This is what R1a, R1b-L51, I1 and E-V13 did, and all where associated with a specific cultural, material archaeological phenomenon. It will be proven that the Urnfield and LBA-EIA transition was the factor for E-V13. There are just too much coincidences. To put it that way, if it wouldn't be about E-V13, I would search for another lineage which profited from this transition, the way it took place, because I simply would expect one. That the timing of E-V13 fits ideally is just the best way to explain both.

ShpataEMadhe
01-16-2021, 07:36 PM
First of, I1 didn't move down, it rose to prominence in the Nordic Bronze Age, either by being brought in from Unetice, or by one local lineage rising on its own when the transition to the Bronze Age took place. It further increased during the EIA in the Germanic core.

The story of E-V13 is similar, yet its even more clear to me that they were embedded in a protected small group. Their history is pretty much the same as that of Proto-Slavs, which too weren't that prominent before, but expanded rapidly when they got the chance too. E-V13 is unlikely to have been in a strictly R1b context, rather its associated with R1a and Epi-Corded Ware groups. We have Lengyel and Tripolye-Cucuteni, both in the region we're talking about. When the Indoeuropeans came in, they might have not been able to subdue all local lineages, or they incorporated some. Either way, they survived in a mixed Corded-Neolithic context. One of the first possible samples might come, we are waiting for the data from the Pannonian study, Nitra culture. These were Corded Ware-Neolithic mixed people, with a more sedentary, more farmer oriented lifestyle. I don't think Nitra was the carrier, most of them were R1a anyway, but that points in the direction. Between Nitra and later main Urnfield to the West, Cernoles Proto-Slavs to the East is the centre of Gáva-Holigrady. So R1b, but mainly R1a to the West, mainly R1a to the East. In between some of these Corded-Neolithic hybrid groups.

This study might be a first important hint, once the data comes out:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21853-Prehistory-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-from-the-perspective-of-archeogenetics

And its quite telling that the whole of Pannonia was full of R1b and R1a at that time, but almost no E. Only at the fringe to the North, one sample. But if it would have migrated up, against the tide, it should have been there, at a high frequency, yet it wasn't.



Like I said, we will find SOME for sure, which prove that SOME subclades might ultimate be derived from the Balkans in Roman times. But if the majority of E-V13 would have, the data we have would point to it, the TMRCA's would fit, we already have enough data to say that. It can't be enough any more, regardless of how much people test. Because if the density would be there, the samples we have would be enough. If we have to search so carefully, with extensive testing, to find even some lineages with such a history, what does that tell you? Surely not that this is the pattern we have to expect for the majority, not at all.
Decisive are post Early Iron Age TMRCA's, overlaps of timing for the Roman times. This would be omnipresent already if being the main vector. It was just a subordinate one.

In patriarchal, patrilinear societieis, like those of the Indoeuropeans, but not just, a clan which rose to prominence could easily replace competing lineages in a fairly short period of time. This is what R1a, R1b-L51, I1 and E-V13 did, and all where associated with a specific cultural, material archaeological phenomenon. It will be proven that the Urnfield and LBA-EIA transition was the factor for E-V13. There are just too much coincidences. To put it that way, if it wouldn't be about E-V13, I would search for another lineage which profited from this transition, the way it took place, because I simply would expect one. That the timing of E-V13 fits ideally is just the best way to explain both.

Zero i1 have been found in unetice thus far. I1 clearly clashed with r1b but isn't from north more likely? - how else do you explain the highest amounts of i1 being in North Scandinavia where it outnumbers r1b?

I am not so well studied on all the timelines of these cultures, if you can post some ancient r1b in germanic regions with a potential date that would be great. I1 was found in Sweden around 1400BC. When we go so far back in time we have little knowledge of how much population each culture had at any point in time, only thing we can rely on now is ancient dna to tell us the people that were at that place at that time

Until we get more dna we can only speculate which cultures v13 spread with. Like you said pannonia having only r1b and r1a is exactly my point, in my opinion v13 was in the South alongside something else and made its mark all the way to Central europe. At this doorway where two cultures clashed is where some v13 would have assimilated into western european people. Which branch of r1b and r1a did you find in pannonia?

Riverman
01-16-2021, 08:55 PM
We don’t have any details from the Pannonian study. The problem is like explained that there was no later South to North movement later to explain it. Yet in the Iron Age E-V13 was already in Gaul.

Concerning I1, it simply became more dominant in the Nordic Bronze Age, regardless of whether it was in the North before or came with Unetice.
The NBA however got influenced heavily by Unetice and the big leap forward in the North took place directly when Unetice was falling apart. Both because of pressure from fringe groups in the West, as well as external pressure from the Eastern steppe chariot groups, plus internal deficits.

Aspar
01-16-2021, 10:12 PM
Actually it would be really strange to nearly impossible if there are no Roman Age E-V13 subclades from the Balkans in the North and North West at all, but these samples are good examples for inconclusive cases, unless there are more samples in studies or on FTDNA around, with a closer TMRCA. Because they all fall within the Early Iron Age. A proof would be a TMRCA of about 100 BC-500 AD. And there's none I know of. Surely there will be, but that will just prove the case for the single subclade, there is none for a general spread.



Its an interesting question as to how many lineages entered the Roman Imperial zone at the end of the Roman Empire, with Dacians, Sarmatians, Slavs and Germanics, possibly with Lusatian derived lineages. But whatever will come up, if there would have been a big spread from the Balkans in the Roman era, spreading the majority of lineages, there would be plenty of evidence already for the clear majority of lineages in the North and West having a historical time TMRCA. But is actually not enough to account for the migrations which surely took place within Rome, even if not bieng the primary vector at all. I never believed the Roman story, but I'm actually, really suprised that the overlap with Balkan lineages is so far that low. I mean right now it looks like less than one quarter, probably no more than one tenth of the Western-Northern E-V13 dates to that period, unless something surprising comes up. They really "underperform" in the Roman context, to put it mildly. Considering how many Thracians and Greeks roamed within the empire, its below my expectations and I never thought this would be the primary source at all. I'm sure more will pop up, because not just in Roman times, but also later, people simply moved, they migrated, like a Croat moved up to the Balticum, a South Western Geman to Finland, a Bulgarian to England, a Hungarian to Spain. Such movements happened all the time.

So going after the currently available data, a spread from the Balkans in Roman times as the primary vector is so completely out of question, so absolutely impossible, its not even worth to discuss imho. Its like it is with a spread from the Balkans in the EBA, the Balkans should have been packed, oversaturated with E-V13 to make that possible, to expand against the tide of one Northern tribe after another coming down, from the North. But even on the contrary, so far no single one was discovered. If they would discover single ones, that would be nice, especially if these would be surviving lineages, but not enough. Because for moving against the tide, the source region must be absolutely packed and dominated, and that idea being completely falsified. There can be always backflow, even from a conquered people in a subdominant position, no doubt about that. But if the percentage in the defeated population is lower than in the winning one, you can guess the direction it was going. Surely not South -> North, that's being refuted by now.

I was recently reading Procopius and his "Buildings" (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Procopius/Buildings/4B*.html), a work about Justinian's public works projects throughout the empire. Some of the fortifications and forts bear distinguishable Slavic and even Sarmatian names:

Βρατζιστα(Vračišta)
Δουρβουλιανα(Dərvljāne)
Βαβας(Baba)
Βηρος(Vir)
Σαρματες(Sarmates) etc.

Here is a map about the Slavonic place names in the first half of the sixth century south of Danube from this work (http://www.kroraina.com/vg/vg.html) of the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev:
https://i.postimg.cc/BnsRGTq1/slavonic-settlements-georgiev.jpg (https://postimg.cc/zVtxCRHJ)

What we can see here is that the Slavs started entering on the territory of the Byzantine Empire during the first half of the sixth century. Some of them entered in the service of the Byzantine Empire and some the forts build by Justinian clearly had Slavic names and were probably guarded by Slavic people. Some others were clearly Sarmatian and so on. These Slavic place names were mainly concentrated in the central part of the Balkans close to the Danube river. So very clearly some Slavic and Sarmatian people entered into Byzantine service but I doubt they brought many E-V13 lineages.

The German ethnographer Gustav Weigand was on the opinion that the renaming of some provinces south of Danube as Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea was a clear sign that there was a massive migration of people from the original Dacia north of Danube. And we do have accounts that the Romans during their withdrawal from Dacia evacuated all the Roman people there. Probably this evacuation was quite extensive and it really did involved mass migration of people. Regarding that, E-V13 must have been significant among these migrants I believe, especially E-CTS9320.

Although I'm on the same opinion that the Romans as a primary vector for spreading lineages of E-V13 is not really the case. If you look for Roman involvement, then probably the Near Eastern and Levantine E-V13 lineages are probably the ones brought there with the Romans or the Hellenes. There is a Roman contribution in Western Europe as well however the situation there is more complicated because of other major factors such as the Hallstatt culture.

ShpataEMadhe
01-16-2021, 11:15 PM
We don’t have any details from the Pannonian study. The problem is like explained that there was no later South to North movement later to explain it. Yet in the Iron Age E-V13 was already in Gaul.

Concerning I1, it simply became more dominant in the Nordic Bronze Age, regardless of whether it was in the North before or came with Unetice.
The NBA however got influenced heavily by Unetice and the big leap forward in the North took place directly when Unetice was falling apart. Both because of pressure from fringe groups in the West, as well as external pressure from the Eastern steppe chariot groups, plus internal deficits.

Do you have a link for that Gaul v13? Sounds interesting, Roman conquests started mid 2nd century in Gaul so would be interesting to know if the adna was dated well before that

As for unetice as far as I know only i2 have been found. I know i1 became more dominant in the bronze age but I am asking whether it pushed r1b out of Scandinavia or did r1b infiltrate much later? For example a couple of i1 guys amidst a huge sea of R1b 2/100 will never become the dominant line like it ultimately did, only way that is possible is through violence or mass exile

As far as I'm aware the ostrogoths carried much more i1 into balkans than r1b (but I think r1a was potentially likely too) - it was almost a pure i1 movement and they moved out from Sweden in early AD

Riverman
01-17-2021, 01:14 PM
Do you have a link for that Gaul v13? Sounds interesting, Roman conquests started mid 2nd century in Gaul so would be interesting to know if the adna was dated well before that

I don't have the reference, just remember it being mentioned once.


As for unetice as far as I know only i2 have been found.

It doesn't matter what they found so far, considering how few it was, but Unetice was an amalgam of Bell Beakers with Epi-Corded Ware groups, including influences from the Carpathian region. It will be one of the first major formations with a wide range of yDNA-variation, for which a handful of samples from one specific province won't be representative.


I know i1 became more dominant in the bronze age

The Bronze Age was the time when hierarchical societies with a true elite became really important. If a group which just represents 5 percent of the poulation of that time comes up, they can spread like wildfire.


but I am asking whether it pushed r1b out of Scandinavia or did r1b infiltrate much later?

In my opinion at this point in time its no longer advisable to concentrate too much on the major haplogroups, but rather look at the details. The BE-IA was when groups like R1b-U106 really spread. Others did so before with Bell Beakers up to Norway. R1a with Battle Axe and so on. There were internal shifts in the NCE sphere with emerging elites, dominant tribes, new technologies and migration patterns.


For example a couple of i1 guys amidst a huge sea of R1b 2/100 will never

They can, though. If they are the first to have access to high level Bronze Age technology from the Unetice sphere, they can. Like an Niger-Kordofan tribe which first got access to European guns could exploit and replace, or enslave and sell, those living further inland, without access to that technological-cultural advantage. The rise and fall of ancient clans and lineages followed similar patterns. Including religious, ideological, societal differences giving one side the edge over another. A small clan or tribe could become, over time, the dominant force in a sea of others. That was, by the way, the story of PIE as a whole.


As far as I'm aware the ostrogoths carried much more i1 into balkans than r1b (but I think r1a was potentially likely too) - it was almost a pure i1 movement and they moved out from Sweden in early AD

And if a neighbouring clan from Scandinavia would have moved, they would have been R1b probably, we can't know for sure.

ShpataEMadhe
01-17-2021, 10:58 PM
I don't have the reference, just remember it being mentioned once.



It doesn't matter what they found so far, considering how few it was, but Unetice was an amalgam of Bell Beakers with Epi-Corded Ware groups, including influences from the Carpathian region. It will be one of the first major formations with a wide range of yDNA-variation, for which a handful of samples from one specific province won't be representative.



The Bronze Age was the time when hierarchical societies with a true elite became really important. If a group which just represents 5 percent of the poulation of that time comes up, they can spread like wildfire.



In my opinion at this point in time its no longer advisable to concentrate too much on the major haplogroups, but rather look at the details. The BE-IA was when groups like R1b-U106 really spread. Others did so before with Bell Beakers up to Norway. R1a with Battle Axe and so on. There were internal shifts in the NCE sphere with emerging elites, dominant tribes, new technologies and migration patterns.



They can, though. If they are the first to have access to high level Bronze Age technology from the Unetice sphere, they can. Like an Niger-Kordofan tribe which first got access to European guns could exploit and replace, or enslave and sell, those living further inland, without access to that technological-cultural advantage. The rise and fall of ancient clans and lineages followed similar patterns. Including religious, ideological, societal differences giving one side the edge over another. A small clan or tribe could become, over time, the dominant force in a sea of others. That was, by the way, the story of PIE as a whole.



And if a neighbouring clan from Scandinavia would have moved, they would have been R1b probably, we can't know for sure.

It would be important to have that ancient v13, if anyone can find please link

I understand the point of elites dominating a group due to having better weapons + more wealth = choice of women etc but it is not as simple as that especially when guns weren't a thing back then, if you mistreat a couple of peasants it could turn ugly. The peasants will also not stick around if there are no women for them, they are likely to backstab the elites with nothing to lose

Do you think r1b spread in Western Europe by keeping i2 people in their group? What good is that with lack of communication between 2 different languages, how can they trust a bunch of strangers when they close their eyes? A lot of people were wiped out, assimilation become more and more common as people advanced and had steady civilizations but I doubt there was much of this in early i1 vs r1b conflict. It was more a case of i1 people multiplying in a particular region and then as they got a big enough group moved to another area but ended up finding other people there. What followed would have likely been violent, kill or be killed. How else are they going to protect their wives and kids?

One group wins, the other is either wiped out or runs off. The winning group now has another region to live in and continue to multiply until they clash with another group. Rinse and repeat. What may have happened at times is, they found women and kids left behind - some of these would have also been killed due to not being able to trust them and not communicate with them but sometimes they would have kept some as wives and even the kids depending on their age (though it can prove to be an error years later)

Riverman
01-17-2021, 11:59 PM
It would be important to have that ancient v13, if anyone can find please link

I understand the point of elites dominating a group due to having better weapons + more wealth = choice of women etc but it is not as simple as that especially when guns weren't a thing back then, if you mistreat a couple of peasants it could turn ugly. The peasants will also not stick around if there are no women for them, they are likely to backstab the elites with nothing to lose

Do you think r1b spread in Western Europe by keeping i2 people in their group? What good is that with lack of communication between 2 different languages, how can they trust a bunch of strangers when they close their eyes? A lot of people were wiped out, assimilation become more and more common as people advanced and had steady civilizations but I doubt there was much of this in early i1 vs r1b conflict. It was more a case of i1 people multiplying in a particular region and then as they got a big enough group moved to another area but ended up finding other people there. What followed would have likely been violent, kill or be killed. How else are they going to protect their wives and kids?

One group wins, the other is either wiped out or runs off. The winning group now has another region to live in and continue to multiply until they clash with another group. Rinse and repeat. What may have happened at times is, they found women and kids left behind - some of these would have also been killed due to not being able to trust them and not communicate with them but sometimes they would have kept some as wives and even the kids depending on their age (though it can prove to be an error years later)

Some clans can cooperate, others might be hard to defeat. If you look at the known stories from early Indoeuropean people, what is a topic which comes over and over again, is that at some point competing Indoeuropean clans needed allies. So just imagine at first Indoeuropeans just chased the GAC people, from here to there, until only some strongholds remained. But at some point the relationship stabilises, they know each other as neighbours, and suddenly there is some kind of conflict either between regional Indoeuropean clans or newly incoming ones. They need allies, they make an agreement with their neighbouring clan of the surviving pre-Indoeuropean people, and so it goes on. It can also be about subjugated and enslaved people, but not always, especially not in the Paleolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age context, because then, workforce and slaves were not as wanted and needed. It was about self-sufficient clans in the North, and that's where such founder effects took place for the most part. In the South, with large productive communities of farmers, which can be used by an elite, the Indoeuropean impact was much smaller, exactly because of that. They didn't replace the farmers as often, though they did sometimes, but set themselves on top.

Similarly, in the Bronze Age, you have to imagine such a founder effect not necessarily as one elite ruling over Scandinavia, but rather one clan growing with its leading lineages to a new tribe, this new tribe growing to an alliance, and this alliance replacing other societal structures and replacing paternal lineages and genetic ancestry at the same time. This is not restricted to this time, but later, in historical times, you can often read that a farily small and originally unimportant clan just grew, over time, to something bigger. And depending on how many foreign males, which were not part of the same male group, were allowed, the more or less diversity you had. Unetice for example had way more diversity than Bell Beakers. They are not even comparable. If you ask why, its clear as day, Unetice was closer to principalities, even kingdoms, with a strictly hierarchical structure. That was also the reason why it could collapse so easily disappear, once defeated. It was not homogeneous from one end to the other. Bell Beakers, in their best day, were all descendents from just a few, originally all closely related lineages, but their society was much more flat, less complex, less developed in comparison. Unetice was produced probably some of the first societal formations of the North which can be described as states or at least proto-states.

Tumulus culture on the other hand is like falling back to a more primordial social organisation at its beginnings and Urnfield is a like a religious-religious movement, which transports ideological, cultural, technological innovations, encompassing different clans, tribes, ethnicities, languages. You alway have to consider the context. In the Nordic Bronze Age, I would guess that regional elites rose within their ethnic framework to prominence and eliminated competitors. So its not an elite on top, but a related male kin group, which outcompetes others. Same with Gáva-Holigrady and the spread of E-V13, though they used different modes to spread in different regions. Like in some being the dominant group, in others just participants of a larger, ethnic, religious and technological movement. That's how they contributed to Celts, whereas in Daco-Thracians I expect them to be present in whole, fairly homogeneous kin groups.

Hawk
01-23-2021, 11:55 AM
Some clans can cooperate, others might be hard to defeat. If you look at the known stories from early Indoeuropean people, what is a topic which comes over and over again, is that at some point competing Indoeuropean clans needed allies. So just imagine at first Indoeuropeans just chased the GAC people, from here to there, until only some strongholds remained. But at some point the relationship stabilises, they know each other as neighbours, and suddenly there is some kind of conflict either between regional Indoeuropean clans or newly incoming ones. They need allies, they make an agreement with their neighbouring clan of the surviving pre-Indoeuropean people, and so it goes on. It can also be about subjugated and enslaved people, but not always, especially not in the Paleolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age context, because then, workforce and slaves were not as wanted and needed. It was about self-sufficient clans in the North, and that's where such founder effects took place for the most part. In the South, with large productive communities of farmers, which can be used by an elite, the Indoeuropean impact was much smaller, exactly because of that. They didn't replace the farmers as often, though they did sometimes, but set themselves on top.

Similarly, in the Bronze Age, you have to imagine such a founder effect not necessarily as one elite ruling over Scandinavia, but rather one clan growing with its leading lineages to a new tribe, this new tribe growing to an alliance, and this alliance replacing other societal structures and replacing paternal lineages and genetic ancestry at the same time. This is not restricted to this time, but later, in historical times, you can often read that a farily small and originally unimportant clan just grew, over time, to something bigger. And depending on how many foreign males, which were not part of the same male group, were allowed, the more or less diversity you had. Unetice for example had way more diversity than Bell Beakers. They are not even comparable. If you ask why, its clear as day, Unetice was closer to principalities, even kingdoms, with a strictly hierarchical structure. That was also the reason why it could collapse so easily disappear, once defeated. It was not homogeneous from one end to the other. Bell Beakers, in their best day, were all descendents from just a few, originally all closely related lineages, but their society was much more flat, less complex, less developed in comparison. Unetice was produced probably some of the first societal formations of the North which can be described as states or at least proto-states.

Tumulus culture on the other hand is like falling back to a more primordial social organisation at its beginnings and Urnfield is a like a religious-religious movement, which transports ideological, cultural, technological innovations, encompassing different clans, tribes, ethnicities, languages. You alway have to consider the context. In the Nordic Bronze Age, I would guess that regional elites rose within their ethnic framework to prominence and eliminated competitors. So its not an elite on top, but a related male kin group, which outcompetes others. Same with Gáva-Holigrady and the spread of E-V13, though they used different modes to spread in different regions. Like in some being the dominant group, in others just participants of a larger, ethnic, religious and technological movement. That's how they contributed to Celts, whereas in Daco-Thracians I expect them to be present in whole, fairly homogeneous kin groups.

What do you think of this?


Around the time of the Thera eruption important transformations occurred in the Carpathian Basin, today covering
Hungary and parts of Austria, Slovakia, the Ukraine, Romania, Serbia and Croatia (Fig. 1). This is the so-called Koszider
Period, which corresponds to the last phase of the Middle
Bronze Age (MBA) according to the Hungarian terminology,
and represents a transition to the Late Bronze Age (LBA).
The assessment of the period has been controversial among
both Hungarian and central European scholars.
The eponymous bronze hoards that had been found in
the uppermost layers of the tell settlement of DunaújvárosKosziderpadlás were published by A. Mozsolics and I. Bóna
in the 195os together with other hoards of similar composition. The burial of the hoards – based on the traditional concept of culture and then dated to 135o B.C. – was connected
to the attack of the mobile pastoralist warriors of the
»Tumulus Culture« from southern Germany, whose appearance brought an end to the flourishing »Tell Cultures« of the
Danube and Tisza regions1. Accordingly, the Koszider
Period was considered a short, war-ridden and turbulent phase.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18406091.pdf

Marija Gimbutas was sure part of Illyrian ancestors came from Koszider Horizont.