View Full Version : What is the dominant subclade of E-V13 in the Balkans?

07-22-2021, 07:44 PM
Or is there too great of diversity for this question to be answered?

07-22-2021, 10:17 PM
There are two predominant E-V13 subclades in the Balkans:
The same is valid for the whole Eastern Europe in general. On the other hand Western Europe has a single predominant subclade and it is E-V13->Z1057->CTS1273->BY3880->Z5018. Though IMO the diversity in Western Europe is not low.

When it comes to the Balkans a few more subclades are present there. But if we take into account number of clades under BY3880 which haven't been found in the Balkans (so far), I think we can't say that the diversity is high.

07-22-2021, 10:20 PM
Slovakia could be a region with disproportionally high diversity compared to frequency.

07-23-2021, 12:27 AM
Or is there too great of diversity for this question to be answered?

The reality looks like if a representative variation of all main subclades which existed around 1300-800 BC in one major source group got split and the ethnic-tribal branches which came up due to this did not split along patrilinear clans of age.
So those staying in the (original?) North group of Slovakia-Southern Poland-Northern Romania-Western Ukraine had all the major clades, those going South West too and the branch going South East as well.
Even those moving into Celtic or Iranian territory, which was more kind of a trickling of clan groups and even individuals was still extremely diverse.

The result of this is that most E-V13 groups of significance have their own subclades of every major E-V13 clade with a common ancestor and age not older than 1300-800 BC. E-V13 has in most regions no history before the Iron Age.
That's true for the Balkans as well.

The ratio for Z5017 vs Z5018 for example is not very skewed anywhere.
For most of their subclades you can find North Western branches AND Balkan ones.

Again, the main reason for this is that when the E-V13 people split, whoever they originally were, they did not split along patrilinear clans. Its more like as if they wanted that in every group representatives of every clan were included, it looks almost as if it was a deliberate decision and partition.
Like if they had clan u, v, x, y, z and didn't wanted that just one clan had to go in a direction, but a representative of every lineage should go, together, being part of the migrating tribe, specialists or whatever they were.

That's why people got so much trouble reading anything out of the distribution of the major clades. Its impossible, because members of all major clans moved in all directions and the regional diversification started only later, when they settled down, oftentimes among a foreign people majority. They were the missionaries of iron working and weapons in many European regions.
That some major clades are missing in some key regions or the ratios being sometimes skewed, I would most of the time attribute to regional extinction, founder and replacement effects.
Obviously not all survived in all regions, even if they were originally present. Like any group of modern settlers, after a couple of generations and a rough start, some surnames will be more common, others will get lost.

Its like with surnames in other respects as well: You can only trace them back once they exist. And for most areas there is no regional diversification or regional SNP before 1300-1100 years, sometimes even later, not before Hallstatt in which they played a role as well. Everybody can check that on FTDNA and YFull, the clear regional branching events are all younger.