PDA

View Full Version : E-BY3880 vs Old Bavarians



Riverman
04-28-2021, 01:52 PM
When going through my matches on all levels, I did notice something strange on FTDNA, which is a big hole exactly in the area which was settled by the old Bavarians, there true core zone. It doesn't really matter in which direction you move, every neighbouring tribe and country has a good amount of samples, no matter whether its North, East, South or West. Usually I would consider some sort of testing bias, but some of the regions and groups considered don't really have a better level of testing as far as I know.

I will post a map which shows the pattern (can't right now, attachments don't work for me) with the largely E-BY3880 free zone marked, its largely identical to the old Bavarian core settlement area. Like some regions in Austria had more Slavic and Frankish input in comparison. The comparison with the countries and tribes to the West, especially the Allemannic groups and Rhenish Franks, is striking. Its even more clealry visible with the larger data base on FTDNA and no matter in which direction one moves from the Bavarian core zone away, more samples pop up.

Compare - just look at the samples, the coloring is worthless in this case, because it gives green shades to Bavarian areas where not a single sample being present so far:
https://phylogeographer.com/scripts/heatmap.php

If this holds up, one might consider it one case of late Germanic tribal differentiation, in which Bavarians had, even though they surely assimilated Celts, Romance speakers, Slavs and others too, a different patrilinear make up which simply included less E-V13 in general and some clades in particular. I'm pretty sure there is no reason why Bavaria should have been always different in this respect, even if one might argue with the Roman legions, because these alone can't explain it, but that the Bavarians themselves, by settling the region the way they did, reduced some and increased other haplotypes frequencies.

I know some studies might contradict this, probably the impression is wrong, but at least going by public data bases and especially FTDNA, this is quite striking. In the M35 project, half of the testers from Bavaria are so far E-V22, which makes the situation even more extreme. The North and West of Bavaria, which are more Frankish-Slavic and Swabian respectively, have a higher frequency again. So its not about the Bavarian state as a whole, but specifically the Bavarian settlement core. The Allemannic settlement area on the contrary being strongly associated with a much higher frequency, so even though both are in the South, and had a Celto-Roman history, they differ a lot by what I saw.

Probably someone knows facts contradicting my hypothesis.

capsian
04-28-2021, 04:23 PM
When going through my matches on all levels, I did notice something strange on FTDNA, which is a big hole exactly in the area which was settled by the old Bavarians, there true core zone. It doesn't really matter in which direction you move, every neighbouring tribe and country has a good amount of samples, no matter whether its North, East, South or West. Usually I would consider some sort of testing bias, but some of the regions and groups considered don't really have a better level of testing as far as I know.

I will post a map which shows the pattern (can't right now, attachments don't work for me) with the largely E-BY3880 free zone marked, its largely identical to the old Bavarian core settlement area. Like some regions in Austria had more Slavic and Frankish input in comparison. The comparison with the countries and tribes to the West, especially the Allemannic groups and Rhenish Franks, is striking. Its even more clealry visible with the larger data base on FTDNA and no matter in which direction one moves from the Bavarian core zone away, more samples pop up.

Compare - just look at the samples, the coloring is worthless in this case, because it gives green shades to Bavarian areas where not a single sample being present so far:
https://phylogeographer.com/scripts/heatmap.php

If this holds up, one might consider it one case of late Germanic tribal differentiation, in which Bavarians had, even though they surely assimilated Celts, Romance speakers, Slavs and others too, a different patrilinear make up which simply included less E-V13 in general and some clades in particular. I'm pretty sure there is no reason why Bavaria should have been always different in this respect, even if one might argue with the Roman legions, because these alone can't explain it, but that the Bavarians themselves, by settling the region the way they did, reduced some and increased other haplotypes frequencies.

I know some studies might contradict this, probably the impression is wrong, but at least going by public data bases and especially FTDNA, this is quite striking. In the M35 project, half of the testers from Bavaria are so far E-V22, which makes the situation even more extreme. The North and West of Bavaria, which are more Frankish-Slavic and Swabian respectively, have a higher frequency again. So its not about the Bavarian state as a whole, but specifically the Bavarian settlement core. The Allemannic settlement area on the contrary being strongly associated with a much higher frequency, so even though both are in the South, and had a Celto-Roman history, they differ a lot by what I saw.

Probably someone knows facts contradicting my hypothesis.
i think there is a reason it was found in these regions because of the early Slavs

Riverman
04-28-2021, 04:33 PM
i think there is a reason it was found in these regions because of the early Slavs

That's true, I'd say so too. But I think some subclades will turn out to be Celtic or Celto-Germanic and in early Medieval times strongly associated with some Frankish, Hessian and especially Allemannic groups. Right at and across the border between Bavarian and Allemannic there is a really steep increase going by the currently available results. You can draw the ethnolinguistic border largely by just drawing a line from one sample to another. South Western Germany and German Swiss have a good number. More samples would be great like always of course, because sampling bias can distort things somewhat.

Bane
04-28-2021, 05:57 PM
Very nice observation Riverman.
There is one more haplogroup which has steep increase when going from Bavarian to Alemannian region. It is R-U152.
In my opinion there is a good explanation for such distribution of these two haplogroups. I think it must've crossed your mind. :) So if you don't write it I will write it later this evening.

Kanenas
04-28-2021, 06:25 PM
And which haplogroups are common in the core settlement area?

Riverman
04-28-2021, 07:40 PM
Very nice observation Riverman.
There is one more haplogroup which has steep increase when going from Bavarian to Alemannian region. It is R-U152.
In my opinion there is a good explanation for such distribution of these two haplogroups. I think it must've crossed your mind. :) So if you don't write it I will write it later this evening.

Concerning E-BY3880, more testing down to the sub- and terminal clades might solve a lot. Because if looking at the bigger picture now, we get pretty much the same variation left and right of Bavaria, with the Bavarian core zone being like a wedge going right through it. The question is how old is the split between areas like Alsace, Switzerland and Baden-Württemberg on the one hand and Saxony, Bohemia-Moravia and Austria on the other. To which period does it date. I'm pretty sure its no older than the Late Urnfield and early Hallstatt period, but it may be significantly younger. Its also possible its a combination, like some subclades were present in the LBA-EIA, others entered with Celts, again others with Romans and so on. We'll see.

Bane
04-28-2021, 07:44 PM
I think the reason why E-BY3880 and R-U152 are lower in Bavarian compared to Alemannian region is due to the more massive settlement of Germanic tribes in Old Bavaria. Specifically Suebians. I know Swabia got its name from Suebi tribe but this does not have to point to higher number of settlers. So before limes germanicus broke tribes which dwelled north of Danube were Suebian tribes. After it broke they moved South and pushed previous population away from what is today Bavarian region. This is how I see it.

https://www.midgardswoelfe.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Germanic_Groups_ca._0CE-1.jpg

Riverman
04-28-2021, 07:58 PM
I think the reason why E-BY3880 and R-U152 are lower in Bavarian compared to Alemannian region is due to the more massive settlement of Germanic tribes in Old Bavaria.

I'd say so too, though its not true for all Allemannic areas, some might have an even as strong or stronger Germanic contribution, but this is more fine scaled. Also, Bavarians too seem to have a variation of haplogroups, including clearly non-Germanic ones, its just less E-BY3880 and R-U152 which might be more associated with Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene/Celts in Southern Germany. Would be interesting to check the relationship of I1 + R1b-U106 vs. the frequency of E-BY3880 + R-U152 down to the district. But that's not possible, at least not for me.

capsian
09-14-2021, 07:56 PM
Hello i see cordonnais remians scy197 in G25 have high Balkan
Scythian_MDA:scy197,0.122929,0.140143,0.029415,-0.023902,0.023081,-0.012829,0.015511,-0.005307,0.00225,0.035172,-0.005846,-0.001349,-0.01115,0.000275,-0.010586,-0.0118,0.001434,-0.000127,0.013324,-0.010255,-0.004742,-0.000989,0.003328,-0.002771,-0.008981

46575

capsian
09-14-2021, 08:13 PM
When going through my matches on all levels, I did notice something strange on FTDNA, which is a big hole exactly in the area which was settled by the old Bavarians, there true core zone. It doesn't really matter in which direction you move, every neighbouring tribe and country has a good amount of samples, no matter whether its North, East, South or West. Usually I would consider some sort of testing bias, but some of the regions and groups considered don't really have a better level of testing as far as I know.

I will post a map which shows the pattern (can't right now, attachments don't work for me) with the largely E-BY3880 free zone marked, its largely identical to the old Bavarian core settlement area. Like some regions in Austria had more Slavic and Frankish input in comparison. The comparison with the countries and tribes to the West, especially the Allemannic groups and Rhenish Franks, is striking. Its even more clealry visible with the larger data base on FTDNA and no matter in which direction one moves from the Bavarian core zone away, more samples pop up.

Compare - just look at the samples, the coloring is worthless in this case, because it gives green shades to Bavarian areas where not a single sample being present so far:
https://phylogeographer.com/scripts/heatmap.php

If this holds up, one might consider it one case of late Germanic tribal differentiation, in which Bavarians had, even though they surely assimilated Celts, Romance speakers, Slavs and others too, a different patrilinear make up which simply included less E-V13 in general and some clades in particular. I'm pretty sure there is no reason why Bavaria should have been always different in this respect, even if one might argue with the Roman legions, because these alone can't explain it, but that the Bavarians themselves, by settling the region the way they did, reduced some and increased other haplotypes frequencies.

I know some studies might contradict this, probably the impression is wrong, but at least going by public data bases and especially FTDNA, this is quite striking. In the M35 project, half of the testers from Bavaria are so far E-V22, which makes the situation even more extreme. The North and West of Bavaria, which are more Frankish-Slavic and Swabian respectively, have a higher frequency again. So its not about the Bavarian state as a whole, but specifically the Bavarian settlement core. The Allemannic settlement area on the contrary being strongly associated with a much higher frequency, so even though both are in the South, and had a Celto-Roman history, they differ a lot by what I saw.

Probably someone knows facts contradicting my hypothesis.


i have seen even in Gobal G25 this remains have high autsomal farmer comparison from people Moldavian and ukrainians
46576

Riverman
09-14-2021, 08:20 PM
i have seen even in Gobal G25 this remains have high autsomal farmer comparison from people Moldavian and ukrainians
46576

He might be a Geto-Scythian, but we need more samples to get a better impression. The reason for the high EEF is not E-V13 though, but the generally stronger preservation in the Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan zone of this ancestry before.

capsian
09-14-2021, 08:35 PM
He might be a Geto-Scythian, but we need more samples to get a better impression. The reason for the high EEF is not E-V13 though, but the generally stronger preservation in the Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan zone of this ancestry before.

but why Steppe is become high comparison EEF in Balkans or i m wrong

Riverman
09-14-2021, 09:07 PM
but why no Steppe is become high comparison EEF in Balkans or i m wrong

The main reason was that in Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan sphere Neolithic groups like Baden and GAC were stronger and fused with Western steppe people and Yamnaya, while Corded Ware and Bell Beakers had much less of an impact. So they got steppe admixture early on, but it stayed low, for two reasons: The local agro-pastoralists were stronger (Baden and GAC), plus the incoming steppe people were often more Yamnaya-pastoralists, with less of a demographic impact, and more of the local farmers did survive, probably in already socially stratified societies in the Balkans.

There was even an up and down of steppe ancestry in parts of the region, especially Pannonia. Pastoralists coming in, agro-pastoralists fused with them or pushed back - next wave of pastoralists, next push-back and so on...

My current best model goes like that: In one of these movements, a very Northern Lengyel-Sopot or Baden group got largely surrounded by Epi-Corded settlers and was largely assimilated between about 2.900-2.500 BC. From 2.500 BC on the surviving E-V13 operated from within the Epi-Corded cultural environment somewhere between Silesia-Carpathian Poland-Eastern Slovakia-North Western Romania probably. It participated in Unetice, while the more EEF shifted Pannonian-Balkan groups lived to the South and had, going by the available evidence so far, little to no E-V13 at all. After the break up of Unetice and when Urnfield began to develop, they became one of the dominant elements or the most dominant element in Pre-Gava around 1.700-1.400 BC. They became in any case dominant within the Southern Gava-Channelled Ware groups as they pushed down the Carpathians and Danube, in the LBA-EIA transition, between 1.300-1.000 BC. And they were the dominant element in Psenichevo-Basarabi, through which they influenced both Western and Eastern people, as well as Greeks. Western people, Illyrians-Pannonians and Celts, primarily through the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, Eastern Hallstatt and Thraco-/Geto-Scythians, with the latter having an impact on La Tene it seems.

As for the exact genetic profile of the pre-Gava group which was E-V13 heavy, I don't know, but I would assume they were somewhere between Unetice and Pannonian EEF heavy groups positioned. Their contribution in many regions was male biased and the autosomal influence probably not as strong everywhere, even in regions where E-V13 rose above 75 percent. But all of that needs to be investigated.

capsian
09-14-2021, 10:48 PM
The main reason was that in Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan sphere Neolithic groups like Baden and GAC were stronger and fused with Western steppe people and Yamnaya, while Corded Ware and Bell Beakers had much less of an impact. So they got steppe admixture early on, but it stayed low, for two reasons: The local agro-pastoralists were stronger (Baden and GAC), plus the incoming steppe people were often more Yamnaya-pastoralists, with less of a demographic impact, and more of the local farmers did survive, probably in already socially stratified societies in the Balkans.

There was even an up and down of steppe ancestry in parts of the region, especially Pannonia. Pastoralists coming in, agro-pastoralists fused with them or pushed back - next wave of pastoralists, next push-back and so on...

My current best model goes like that: In one of these movements, a very Northern Lengyel-Sopot or Baden group got largely surrounded by Epi-Corded settlers and was largely assimilated between about 2.900-2.500 BC. From 2.500 BC on the surviving E-V13 operated from within the Epi-Corded cultural environment somewhere between Silesia-Carpathian Poland-Eastern Slovakia-North Western Romania probably. It participated in Unetice, while the more EEF shifted Pannonian-Balkan groups lived to the South and had, going by the available evidence so far, little to no E-V13 at all. After the break up of Unetice and when Urnfield began to develop, they became one of the dominant elements or the most dominant element in Pre-Gava around 1.700-1.400 BC. They became in any case dominant within the Southern Gava-Channelled Ware groups as they pushed down the Carpathians and Danube, in the LBA-EIA transition, between 1.300-1.000 BC. And they were the dominant element in Psenichevo-Basarabi, through which they influenced both Western and Eastern people, as well as Greeks. Western people, Illyrians-Pannonians and Celts, primarily through the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, Eastern Hallstatt and Thraco-/Geto-Scythians, with the latter having an impact on La Tene it seems.

As for the exact genetic profile of the pre-Gava group which was E-V13 heavy, I don't know, but I would assume they were somewhere between Unetice and Pannonian EEF heavy groups positioned. Their contribution in many regions was male biased and the autosomal influence probably not as strong everywhere, even in regions where E-V13 rose above 75 percent. But all of that needs to be investigated.

We need more samples

Riverman
09-14-2021, 11:29 PM
We need more samples

Yes. The problem is though, that a lot of the people in question did cremate. Jordanow (Lengyel-derived) in Bohemia did oftentimes cremate, and the samples they retrieved in the latest Bohemian study, if they are Lengyel-derived to begin with, are almost all females. But we have the samples from Roman era Serbia and they are crystal clear: We know from the same region in the EBA-MBA: No E-V13. But in the Roman era, with those lineages being mostly local Iron Age inhabitants, they were packed with E-V13. What was in between and large enough to explain it? Its Belegis II-Gava/Channelled Ware. In the local archaeological project of the region, they too wrote about the major turnover in the LBA-EIA and the relative continuity from Basarabi on. There can be no doubt who brought it to Viminacium.
But we don't know whether all Gava-Channelled Ware people were heavily E-V13. I'd say so, but we don't know for sure. Basarabi-Psenichevo is without doubt though, as are the Geto-Scythians in a Gava/Channelled Ware tradition. They all being linked through Channelled Ware.
Pre-Gava has a strong local tradition in its core zone, South Eastern Poland, Eastern Slovakia, North Western Romania, Carpatho-Ukraine, that area. So in this region E-V13 survived the Corded Ware expansion, recovered, expanded first slowly and then rapidly with Gava-Channelled Ware.

capsian
09-14-2021, 11:49 PM
Yes. The problem is though, that a lot of the people in question did cremate. Jordanow (Lengyel-derived) in Bohemia did oftentimes cremate, and the samples they retrieved in the latest Bohemian study, if they are Lengyel-derived to begin with, are almost all females. But we have the samples from Roman era Serbia and they are crystal clear: We know from the same region in the EBA-MBA: No E-V13. But in the Roman era, with those lineages being mostly local Iron Age inhabitants, they were packed with E-V13. What was in between and large enough to explain it? Its Belegis II-Gava/Channelled Ware. In the local archaeological project of the region, they too wrote about the major turnover in the LBA-EIA and the relative continuity from Basarabi on. There can be no doubt who brought it to Viminacium.
But we don't know whether all Gava-Channelled Ware people were heavily E-V13. I'd say so, but we don't know for sure. Basarabi-Psenichevo is without doubt though, as are the Geto-Scythians in a Gava/Channelled Ware tradition. They all being linked through Channelled Ware.
Pre-Gava has a strong local tradition in its core zone, South Eastern Poland, Eastern Slovakia, North Western Romania, Carpatho-Ukraine, that area. So in this region E-V13 survived the Corded Ware expansion, recovered, expanded first slowly and then rapidly with Gava-Channelled Ware.

thank for this informatoin so in your opinion haplogroup E-V13 after bottleneck is formed Carpathian Mountains and immigration to south
but i this haplgroup PreE-V13 was widespread in Balkan

Riverman
09-15-2021, 12:08 AM
thank for this informatoin so in your opinion haplogroup E-V13 after bottleneck is formed Carpathian Mountains and immigration to south
but i this haplgroup PreE-V13 was widespread in Balkan

It most likely came with Impresso-Cardial early Neolithics. That's at least what the finds from Dalmatia and Iberia suggest.
But later on they moved into more Northern regions, along the Danube (Northern Sopot-Lengyel) and the Rhine (Michelsberger).
So already before the bottleneck, their centre had moved North, latest in the Middle Neolithic.
It doesn’t look like they really dominated the Balkan at any point before the LBA.
I guess the had a fairly big founder event with Lengyel already, but not as big as later and almost nothing survived from this first spread along the Danube and Rhine. But its clear from the ancient DNA that it happened.
Interestingly, Basarabi-Hallstatt expanded the same way. The Danube is just the logical pathway in both directions. Same goes for Celts, Romans, Germanics and Slavs.
The Balkan seems to have been rather a transit zone in the Neolithic than a centre for E-L618 on its way to E-V13. The new Southern Sopot samples suggest so as well.