PDA

View Full Version : E-V13: Second Iron Age Expansion and the Western Link through Hallstatt



Riverman
08-31-2021, 08:33 PM
E-V13: Second Iron Age Expansion and the Western Link through Hallstatt

As many might know my current best model for the spread of E-V13 goes like this:
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) -> Cardial-Impresso Ware -> Lengyel-Sopot (alternatively Tripolye-Cucuteni) -> (Baden?) -> Epi-Corded horizon -> Gáva-Holigrady culture (Proto-Thracians) -> Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon (Daco-Thracians) -> local cultures and influence on (primarily Eastern) Hallstatt culture.

This model explains most of the modern distribution in the core areas, but there are two issues which I thought about:
- Channelled Ware did influence more Western regions, it came even up to Central Germany with its ceramics and goods. But that was rather a small scale poking in. Considering all the later upheavals, this can't explain the modern distribution in more Western countries, even considering the low percentage. Also, the big clades with a split no younger than 1.000 BC can be explained that way, but wide geographical distributions of younger date, but clearly before the historical period, can't be easily deduced from that.
- Many subclades, especially the more Northern ones, have a second big regional split, following the initial LBA-EIA transition, rather from 900-400 BC. This needs an explanation, and the most logical conclusion was from the start the Hallstatt connection.

This is the reason I investigated the Hallstatt-connection, which some commenters questioned. I came to the conclusion that there was a constant gene flow from the main heir of Gáva, from Basarabi and its descendents, into the West, with three cultural layers:
1st Thraco-Cimmerian horizon (introduction of iron working, larger horsebreeds and new cavalry tactics to the West)
2nd Basarabi migrants (constant flow of elite and specialist migrants to the Eastern Hallstatt centres)
3rd The Geto-Scythian horizon (incursions and influence from the "Scythianised Thracians" on Hallstatt, introducing among other things trousers, new cavalry tactics and animal style - resulting in a new formation of the Celts, the La Tène culture)

What are the facts in favour of such a theory?

The first one is the actual distribution of E-V13, its main clades and subclades, plus the TMRCA between major regional groupings. There is a lot of regional overlap before 1.000 BC, and there is much less, but still, quite a lot of overlap up to 400 BC. But after that, we primarily deal with more recent migrations, from Slavs to modern time individual migrants. The real big branching events all date to either the LBA-EIA transition or the Hallstatt period.

The second being the fact that Basarabi is a direct heir of the Gáva tradition, from which it developed. So we have the direct continuity from Gáva, to the Basarabi-Bosut complex. This reads like this:

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.

The chronology:

The beginning is characterized by early Kalakača phase at the transition
from the 9th into the 8th century BC, Basarabi horizon according to generally
accepted opinion dates from the period between the 7th and 5th century
BC while the latest phase of this complex dates from the end of 5th and the
beginning of the 4th century BC

The transition from Gava to Basarabi didn't happen everywhere at the same time, which is very important to note:

It is obvious that Gava
culture developed in southwest Romania and in the Djerdap II area at the
same time when Kalakača phase of the Bosut-Basarabi complex occurred
in the west, in Srem. This fact explains relatively infrequent occurrence of
Kalakača pottery at the sites in the Djerdap I and II area. It is possible that
black burnished pottery decorated with channeled garlands, facets, bands
characteristic of the closing phase of the Gava culture in west Romania (e.g.
Medias or Susani tumulus) existed until the occurrence of the classic phase
of the Basarabi style. Consequently, it means that this ‘prolonged’ Gava
culture continued until as late as the 9th century BC.

The asynchronous appearance could be interpreted in some regions as an expansion from within the established Channelled Ware horizon, therefore would cause a more recent spread of lineages to some regions of the Balkan, postdating the initial spread with early Gava at the LBA-EIA transition. At the same time, some of these Basarabi lineages moved to the West, as I will show later.

Interestingly, the borderline between the Channelled Ware groups and the Hügelgräber/Tumulus culture to the West was quite strong, but later:


On the other hand, in the north and west regions of Bačka that in
the end of Bronze Age belonged to the other cultural milieu – Hügelgräber
complex – the beginning of Early Iron Age and its almost entire existence
is characterized by the Urnfield culture. It is best confirmed at long-lasting
necropolis Doroslovo near Sombor where we encountered burials from the
first centuries of the 1st millennium until the arrival of Scythians (Trajković
1977, 29; idem 1979, 258 sq.). It is interesting that pottery of Basarabi culture
was not encountered independently in this area whence originate large Val-
Dalj necropoles in western Srem, eastern Slavonia or south western Hungary.
The only exception are individual vessels from the necropolis Lijeva Bara
near Vukovar and finds from Šarengrad and Dalj (Vinski-Gasparini 1973,
122/9; Tasić 1996, 96-97, Abb. 1). But they including some other finds
(Postela and Borstek in Slovenia or sites in Austria – Frög in Carinthia, Bad
Fischau in Niederösterreich and Kleinklein in Steiermark) or well-known
find near Sopron in western Hungary belong to another cultural milieu.
The urns decorated with motifs similar to the Basarabi style have the shapes
of advanced Urnfield culture. These phenomena, as we said before, are
the result of the short intrusion or the consequence of economic contacts
between Basarabi complex and widely distributed Urnfield complex

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

I did investigate this appearance of Basarabi related influences on Austria and came across this article, which clearly points out:


Die besonders für die
entwickelte ältere Hallstattzeit typische Verknüpfung von
Elementen des Basarabi-Stils mit lokalen Gestaltungsmerkmalen der Keramik zu gänzlich eigenen, singulären Kompositionen zeigt ein hohes Maß der Aneignung
von Fremdem. Da es sich eben nicht um die Übernahme
eines ursprünglich fremden Gegenstandes oder einer
Gegenstandsgruppe in Form von Importen handelt,
sondern um eine offensichtlich bewusste kreative Umgestaltung handelt, ist hier von Appropriationsprozessen
auszugehen: Aus der Übernahme von neuen, fremden
Elementen entstand durch Aneignung eine ganz eigene,
neue Formsprache.

Google translate:

The especially for the
developed a typical connection of the older Hallstatt period
Elements of the Basarabi style with local design features of the ceramics to completely individual, singular compositions shows a high degree of appropriation
from strangers. Since it's not about the takeover
an originally foreign object or a
Subject group in the form of imports,
but rather an obviously conscious, creative redesign is here of appropriation processes
to assume: From the takeover of new, strangers
Elements were created by appropriating their own,
new design language.


Neben der figürlichen Zier ist innerhalb des Fröger Gefäßkanons vor allem die Machart des kleinen Kegelhalsgefäßes bemerkenswert. Seine glänzend schwarze Außenseite
wird im Inneren durch einen rötlich-hellbraunen Farbton
komplementiert (Abb. 3). Diese ungewöhnliche Farbgestaltung wird durch einen zunächst oxydierenden Brand
und anschließend reduzierendes Brennmilieu erzeugt.
Diese spezifische Brenntechnik ist ein charakteristisches
Merkmal von Keramik, die im östlichen Karpatenbecken
und an der unteren Donau verbreitet ist. Ihre Anfänge
liegen im 13. Jahrhundert v. Chr. in der oberen Theißregion in Nordostungarn und im nordwestlichen Rumänien und werden mit der Gáva-Kultur assoziiert (Abb. 4)
Allerdings bleibt die Technik vereinzelt bis in die frühe
Eisenzeit in Gebrauch und ist mehrfach auf Gefäßen der
präskythischen Füzesabony-Mezőcsát-Gruppe Ostungarns und angrenzender Regionen bezeugt sowie vereinzelt auch in der Babadag-Gruppe der stempelverzierten
Keramik verbreitet (Abb. 5)25. Die hier beispielhaft abgebildeten Gefäße sogenannter kannelierter Keramik
stammen aus der späten Bronzezeit des 13. Jahrhunderts
v. Chr. aus Nordwestrumänien (Abb. 4,1), der Belegiš
II-Gruppe aus dem nordostkroatischen Donaugebiet
(Abb. 4,2) sowie aus der jüngeren eponymen Siedlung
von Babadag bei Tulcea in Südostrumänien (Abb. 4,3)26.
Das Gefäß aus Frög steht in dieser Tradition2

Google Translate:

In addition to the figurative ornamentation within the Fröger vessel canon, the design of the small conical neck vessel is particularly noteworthy. Its glossy black exterior
is inside by a reddish-light brown hue
complemented (Fig. 3). This unusual color scheme is caused by an initially oxidizing fire
and then generated reducing combustion medium.
This specific firing technique is a characteristic one
Characteristic of pottery found in the Eastern Carpathian Basin
and is widespread on the lower Danube. Your beginnings
lie in the 13th century BC In the upper Tisza region in north-east Hungary and north-west Romania and are associated with the Gáva culture (Fig. 4)
However, the technology remains sporadic into the early morning
Iron Age in use and is found several times on vessels of the
Preskythic Füzesabony-Mezőcsát group of eastern Hungary and neighboring regions as well as occasionally in the Babadag group of the stamp-decorated group
Ceramic widespread (Fig. 5) 25. The vessels shown here are made of so-called fluted ceramics
date from the late Bronze Age of the 13th century
v. BC from north-west Romania (Fig. 4.1), the Belegiš
II group from the north-east Croatian Danube region
(Fig. 4,2) as well as from the younger eponymous settlement
from Babadag near Tulcea in south-eastern Romania (Fig. 4,3) 26.
The vessel from Frög follows this tradition2

One of the Vessels shows even the style of the knobs, very similar to the Channelled Knobbed Ware from the Aegean, associated with Thracian expansion around Troy and in Bithynia!

Basarabi style pottery was widespread in Frög and can be even associated with one of the founding burials of a male in the burial ground:

Betrachtet man die übrigen Grabhügelinventare in Frög,
die Gefäße mit aus dem Basarabi-Kulturkomplex entlehnten Zierweisen enthalten, so fällt die Identifikation echter
Importe ohne keramologische Untersuchungen nicht
immer leicht, was mich seinerzeit zu der Bezeichnung basaraboid veranlasst hatte. Leider sind alle Grabkontexte
mit dieser spezifischen Keramik in Frög unvollständig,
so dass sich kaum verlässliche Aussagen einer möglichen
geschlechtsspezifischen Wertigkeit dieser fremd inspirierten Keramik machen lassen. Eindeutig männlich und
zu einem Begründer der Nekropole von Frög gehörig, ist
das Inventar des Tumulus 70 (Alt K), das Gerhard Tomedi
ausführlich behandelt hat

Google translate:


If one looks at the other burial mound inventories in Frög,
If the vessels contain ornamental styles borrowed from the Basarabi cultural complex, the identification is more genuine
Imports without ceramological tests are not
always easy, which led me to use the name basaraboid at the time. Unfortunately, all are grave contexts
incomplete with this specific ceramic in Frög,
so that there are hardly any reliable statements of a possible
gender-specific value of these foreign-inspired ceramics. Definitely male and
belongs to one of the founders of the Frög necropolis
the inventory of Tumulus 70 (Alt K), the Gerhard Tomedi
has dealt with extensively

Many of the burials with Basarabi style ceramic could be interpreted as made by females, which possibly came with exogamy and marriage exchange to the region, but two things stick out:
- the female burials with the Basarabi ceramic are mostly elite
- there are also a lot of male burials in which are local grave goods as well, but many being buried with more Basarabi than local gear even!

Especially Frög sticks out, because other Hallstatt settlements seem to have had Basarabi communities, settlers among them, which sometimes were buried in a specific area of the cemetery, but in Frög:


Die Kontakte in den Basarabi-Kulturraum sind in Frög so
vielfältig und zahlreich, wie bislang in keiner anderen Nekropole des östlichen Hallstattraumes. Im Gegensatz zu
Kleinklein lassen sie sich auch nicht auf eine bestimmte
Region im Gräberfeld und damit möglicherweise Kontakte einer oder weniger Familien reduzieren. Dies gilt
bezogen auf die Keramik selbst dann, wenn man sich
noch einmal die von Alexandrine Eibner zusammengestellten Basarabi-Ziermotive auf osthallstättischer
Keramik vor Augen führt39. In Frög sind diese Kontakte
bereits ab einem frühen Ha C fassbar, und bleiben dann,
wie Tumulus 1983/6/120 zeigt, bis in die voll ausgeprägte ältere bzw. frühe jüngere Hallstattzeit erhalten. Dieses
lang andauernde Kommunikationsgefüge unterscheidet
sich insofern von Kleinklein (siehe oben), als es sich dort
nur um ein Nachleben einzelner Motive in lokaler Adaption, nicht jedoch um einen kontemporären Kontakt
handelt.


The contacts in the Basarabi cultural area are like that in Frög
diverse and numerous, as in no other necropolis in the eastern Hallstatt area so far. In contrast to
They don't let themselves be too small either
Reduce the region in the burial ground and thus possibly the contacts of one or a few families. this applies
based on the ceramics even if you look
Once again the Basarabi decorative motifs compiled by Alexandrine Eibner on East Hallstatt
Shows ceramics39. These contacts are in Frög
already tangible from an early Ha C, and then remain,
as Tumulus 1983/6/120 shows, preserved into the fully developed older or early younger Hallstatt period. This
distinguishes long-lasting communication structures
insofar as small (see above), as it is there
only about an afterlife of individual motifs in local adaptation, but not about contemporary contact
acts.

These burials, as well as many tools and weapons produced locally in the clear Basarabi tradition, point to elite and specialist migrants moving from the Basarabi cultures territory to Eastern Hallstatt, into Austria and the Czech Republic. There was even an early, general layer of Basarabi influence at the beginning of Hallstatt, but in some regions it persisted, the ties weren't cut. This points to a large scale early, and a constant gene flow afterwards in my opinion. It was no replacement, but many new lineages, presumably E-V13 founder for the Hallstatt centre, were introduced.

The author argues for these influences being largely female mediated, which did happen as well, no doubt about that. Especially some elite burials of women clearly point in this direction. But that can't explain the early massive impact and the later constant communication fully, that's not possible. We're talking about local elites having contacts to the East and new female AND male migrants coming again and again.

Remarkable is: The whole flow of was running primarily from East -> West, the whole time of pre- and early Hallstatt!

Even the author, which prefers a more important role of female exogamy and cultural influence, has to say:


Gerade das Beispiel Frög macht deutlich, dass es
daneben jedoch auch von Männern der Elite verkörperte
Kontakte gegeben hat, und östliche Anregungen wie das
Reitwesen mit spezifischem Zaumzeug, aber auch östliche Waffentechnik und damit Kampfweise gerade zu
Beginn der Hallstattzeit eine enorme Faszination auf die
ostalpinen Eliten ausgeübt haben

Google translate:


The example of Frög makes it clear that it
but also embodied by men of the elite
Contacts and Eastern suggestions like that
Equestrian creatures with specific bridles, but also Eastern weapon technology and thus fighting style
Beginning of the Hallstatt period an enormous fascination for the
Eastern Alpine elites have exercised

https://www.academia.edu/41742668/Fremde_Frauen_in_Fr%C3%B6g

I always thought that especially Eastern Hallstatt might represent a stratified, hierarchical culture in which elites, possibly even foreign elite, ruled over locals. Going by the available evidence, this elite had at least very close ties to the Daco-Thracian sphere, was massively influenced by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi. And I think that this connection was the pathway for E-V13 migrating West, because even though it was no longer fully E-V13, but mixed, especially with Cimmerian elements, it must have been totally dominated by E-V13, which seems to have been true even up to later times, to the Scytho-Thracian/Geto-Scythian horizon.

This article was probably written by an amateur, but he delivers excellent arguments, great maps and illustrations. He names the main archaeological formations which descend from the Channelled Ware horizon/Gava and can be associated with Daco-Thracians:

Vorher, wo man schwer
bestimmte Stammesnamen fest machen kann, wird wieder der
Kulturbegriff wichtig, wie zum Beispiel die Babadag-Kultur
(Süddobrudscha), Pshenichevo-Razkopanitsa-Kultur (Südostbulgarien)
und die Basarabi-Kultur

He also brings great examples of Scythian and Thraco-Scythian influences in Hallstatt and how close their cultures became. We already know that the Getae-Scythians had E-V13 as well.

https://www.academia.edu/35966841/_Von_Thrakern_und_Kelten_Kontakte_und_Austausch_zw ischen_fr%C3%BChen_Thrakern_und_dem_%C3%B6stlichen _Hallstattkreis

From Psenichevo in Bulgaria we already know that E-V13 was present and had presumably a high frequency.

In ceramic, weaponry and direct contacts, the huge impact of Thracian-Basarabi elements on Eastern Hallstatt is absolutely undeniable and I'm sure that even if a large fraction of the migration would could be explained by female exogamy, which is rather unrealistic, but needs to be tested, there was male migration, especially of elites and specialists, involved as well. This is evident from the buriala and local production of copies from Basarabi weapons. Blacksmiths in particular must have been involved in the spread of these techniques and styles.

From my point of view, there can be no doubt that Eastern Hallstatt was the hub through which elements from Basarabi (Daco-Thracians, E-V13 heavy) were spread to the Western Hallstatt and Celtic sphere, as well as Northern Italy, where related cultural formations with close ties came into existence like Este, Golasecca etc.

Unfortunately most relevant burials in Frög, like the two elite women with Basarabi ceramic, were still cremated. So we need to check the later period and inhumation burials for hints, but at this point I have no doubt that Eastern Hallstatt in particular has to yield a significant frequency of E-V13 carriers.

The connection was running through the Pannonian steppe but especially along the Danube and its tributaries. Basarabi connected Serbia and South Western Romania directly with Central Europe.

Bane
08-31-2021, 09:13 PM
What would in your opinion be connection between Eastern Hallstatt and Illyrians? If you think there is a connection at all...

For the last few months I've had a view in which spread of E-V13 towards Western Europe came from the same "body" from which Illyrians would recieve/spread E-V13. This E-V13 "body" would be a bit shifted towards West compared to the Daco-Thracian Eastern position.
Maybe I'm wrong but that is what has made sense to me for quite some time.

peloponnesian
08-31-2021, 09:32 PM
To be honest I've not read every single theory about E-V13 and I'm not sure if it's consistent with the data but I had this thought even before the Danubian paper came out: maybe E-V13 expanded in the Balkans and spread in central Europe primarily with Roman-Balkan people (soldiers?) during the Illyrian Roman emperors' reign?

Bane
08-31-2021, 09:46 PM
To be honest I've not read every single theory about E-V13 and I'm not sure if it's consistent with the data but I had this thought even before the Danubian paper came out: maybe E-V13 expanded in the Balkans and spread in central Europe primarily with Roman-Balkan people (soldiers?) during the Illyrian Roman emperors' reign?

This and similar theories have been abandoned a few years ago.

Riverman
08-31-2021, 11:38 PM
What would in your opinion be connection between Eastern Hallstatt and Illyrians? If you think there is a connection at all...

Two facts are worthwhile to note in this context.
The first being that the Illyrians moved for a reason over the Adriatic to Italy, and one of the main reasons might have been pressure from the North and East.
The second is that the Illyrians were not as much penetrated by the Thraco-Cimmerian and Daco-Thracian influences. This happened primarily in the Northern regions, which were not even Illyrian in the narrower sense (Pannonian). Later, their groups were incorporated into the Eastern Hallstatt networks to some degree. But not all the same. So some Illyrians are supposed to have received quite a lot of admixture, especially those which were Urnfielders before, even if from a more Western source, others probably very little to none.

Compare two maps:
1st The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian#/media/File:Thraco-Cimmerian.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian#/media/File:Thraco-Cimmerian.png

Not that the core Illyrian areas were practically not affected at all. Northern Italy and Saxony were way more affected than the Dalmatian coastline! That is really significant.

For the later Eastern Hallstatt provinces look into the article I linked above, p. 3, Abb. 3:
https://www.academia.edu/35966841/_Von_Thrakern_und_Kelten_Kontakte_und_Austausch_zw ischen_fr%C3%BChen_Thrakern_und_dem_%C3%B6stlichen _Hallstattkreis

The Frög group is very much to the West, it connects all provinces, it connects all cardinal points, Western Hallstatt with Basarabi sphere. Its interesting that exactly these very Western Eastern Hallstatt groups, Frög and Kalenderberg, show just the more clearly Basarabi influence. They were all affected. In the South the influence was in part by far not as strong, and it did reach the Venethi and Liburnians more than the core Illyrian zone even in the Iron Age.


For the last few months I've had a view in which spread of E-V13 towards Western Europe came from the same "body" from which Illyrians would recieve/spread E-V13. This E-V13 "body" would be a bit shifted towards West compared to the Daco-Thracian Eastern position.
Maybe I'm wrong but that is what has made sense to me for quite some time.

I think you are right, but the question is when did this body detach from the main groups, and my opinion is that happened primarily in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Early to Middle Hallstatt. However, I also think that there was a lot of later migration to the then Illyrian areas, because regions like Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary were more affected by these movements than the Illyrian core at first. Things were quite volatile then. The Celts too, with their migration to the East, while assimilating large portions of the locals, surely shifted more to R1b on average again and did cause massive movements.


To be honest I've not read every single theory about E-V13 and I'm not sure if it's consistent with the data but I had this thought even before the Danubian paper came out: maybe E-V13 expanded in the Balkans and spread in central Europe primarily with Roman-Balkan people (soldiers?) during the Illyrian Roman emperors' reign?

The main branches split lattest about 1.100 into the main modern subclades, that is why Gava-Channelled Ware is so important. Hallstatt just led to a further dissemination and in the Balkans to another moment of shuffle for the lineages.

Bruzmi
09-01-2021, 09:27 AM
@Bane By whom were they abandoned? There's no theory which doesn't include some form of Illyrian soldiery migrations and in fact all E-V13 samples we have outside of the Balkans have western/central Balkan ancestry .

@Peloponnesian this is a post I prepared a while ago about E-V13 samples outside the Balkans.



I wanted to see how some existing E-V13 samples compare to EBA ancestral populations. It's become obvious that unless we check the autosomal profile of a sample but rely only on the location it was found in order to formulate further theories, we may get very misleading results.



ID
CL38 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_map.php?searchcolumn=Object_ID&searchfor=CL38&ybp=500000,0)
R107
LIB11
R1219
VK362
KRA005



Location
Collegno, Italy
Crypta Balbi, Italy
Břeclav – Líbivá, Czech Republic
Cancelleria, Italy
Langeland, Germany
Krakau, Germany


Y-DNA
E-BY3880
E-Y19527 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z38770*/)
E-L241* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241*/)
E-CTS1273 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/)
E-CTS1273 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/)(xZ16663 (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_map.php?searchcolumn=Object_ID&searchfor=VK362&ybp=500000,0))
E-L540 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/)


mtDNA
X2
T2h

H11a
V7b
H23


Mean Age (ybp)
1345
1450
1500
508
1000
736


Historical notes
Italy - Longobard Kingdom
Italy - Late Antiquity Rome
Czech Republic - Moravia Antiquity
Italy - Rome_Medieval/EarlyModern
Denmark - Viking
Germany - Medieval




Target: ITA_Collegno_MA_o1:CL38
Distance: 1.9303% / 0.01930250 | R5P
57.4 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
13.6 GRC_Peloponnese_N
11.0 Wales_CA_EBA
9.4 Yamnaya_UKR
8.6 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR107
Distance: 2.2957% / 0.02295691 | R5P
27.2 HRV_EBA
27.2 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
25.6 ITA_Sicily_EBA
11.2 Baltic_EST_BA
8.8 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: Migration_LIB:LIB11
Distance: 2.6203% / 0.02620257 | R5P
42.0 Baltic_EST_BA
32.2 HRV_EBA
16.4 Wales_CA_EBA
5.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
3.6 Levant_JOR_EBA

Target: ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
Distance: 2.0244% / 0.02024373 | R5P
29.6 Wales_CA_EBA
25.2 CZE_EBA
18.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
14.0 HRV_EBA
12.8 Baltic_LVA_BA

Target: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
Distance: 1.6156% / 0.01615557 | R5P
35.2 DEU_Lech_EBA
29.0 Baltic_EST_BA
17.6 HRV_EBA
15.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

Target: DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA:KRA005
Distance: 2.6933% / 0.02693339 | R5P
49.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
15.2 HRV_EBA
15.0 England_CA_EBA
12.2 Iberia_Mallorca_EBA
8.0 Yamnaya_BGR


Some remarks:
1)All samples have local ancestry from the regions they were located.
2)All samples have additional Balkan-like southern European ancestry.
3)5/6 have HRV_EBA-like ancestry, 4/6 have GRC_EBA/Pel_N-like ancestry, 3/6 have HRV_EBA+GRC_EBA/Pel_N-like ancestry. It ranges from ~10% to 30%+ of their total ancestry.
4)This type of ancestry is not at all common in the regions they were found. For example, DNK_Viking has 17.6% HRV_EBA-like ancestry. Among 22 individuals, only 3 others have some HRV ancestry. KRA005 is one of two individuals who have HRV_EBA ancestry in a group of ten. The only other individual who has HRV_EBA is also the only individual who has Levantine_JOR_EBA ancestry.
5)These individuals have no BGR_N-like or BGR_EBA-like ancestry, although it does exist in several of the sites they were found in. For example, KRA004 has 14.2% BGR_N-like ancestry. This indicates that western/central Balkan ancestry for these samples is much more likely than an eastern Balkan ancestry.
5)All of these elements combined may indicate that these individuals trace descent from the Balkans in not so distant generations from the time of their birth.

Riverman
09-01-2021, 09:51 AM
E-V13 was spread so rapidly that both before and after its main expansion, they swiftly became like the locals. The ultimate question is since when they were in which place - or in some cases how long. Because e.g. in many regions of Pannonia, they were first with Lengyel-Sopot, then they were replaced, by newcomers from the steppe in the region and later came back from the Carpathians to conquer and settle Eastern Pannonia once more. E-V13 is in this respect not exceptional, something similar can be observed for other haplogroups as well. Like Corded Ware R1a was replaced from the Western steppe, was running in circles in CEE and then came back with new innovations and in larger numbers to take the Western steppe once more. Just for being later in many parts of it replaced again and coming back as Russians as of late.

Bane
09-01-2021, 10:32 AM
There's no theory which doesn't include some form of Illyrian soldiery migrations and in fact all E-V13 samples we have outside of the Balkans have western/central Balkan ancestry.

It is the other way around - Balkan admixture has certain amount of E-V13 ancestry which was outside of the Balkans.
This is exactly why I don't like conclusions based on autosomal references. I know Aspar called me out as "haplogroupist" (whatever that is) for that reason, but this kind of "reversed" admixture conclusions are why I rely on other indicators to make conclusions.

Riverman
09-01-2021, 10:52 AM
It is the other way around - Balkan admixture has certain amount of E-V13 ancestry which was outside of the Balkans.
This is exactly why I don't like conclusions based on autosomal references. I know Aspar called me out as "haplogroupist" (whatever that is) for that reason, but this kind of "reversed" admixture conclusions are why I rely on other indicators to make conclusions.

Indeed. Just imagine someone would try to decipher how N-M178 spread by just looking at Estonians. The Late Bronze Age populations which once existed, among which E-V13 lived, don't exist any more. They all mixed and fused a lot of times, even in the time of the Roman Empire, they were for 1.300 years in the process of mixing with other Balkan-Carpathian people and beyond. After 4 generations a similar ancestry is, roughly speaking, no longer traceable. So it won't really help, unless you find "the original nest".
Lengyel-Sopot was for E-V13 just one stage, the one before or afterwards might have been quite different.

Bruzmi
09-01-2021, 11:38 AM
Indeed. Just imagine someone would try to decipher how N-M178 spread by just looking at Estonians. The Late Bronze Age populations which once existed, among which E-V13 lived, don't exist any more. They all mixed and fused a lot of times, even in the time of the Roman Empire, they were for 1.300 years in the process of mixing with other Balkan-Carpathian people and beyond. After 4 generations a similar ancestry is, roughly speaking, no longer traceable. So it won't really help, unless you find "the original nest".
Lengyel-Sopot was for E-V13 just one stage, the one before or afterwards might have been quite different.

Target: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
Distance: 1.6156% / 0.01615557 | R5P
35.2 DEU_Lech_EBA
29.0 Baltic_EST_BA
17.6 HRV_EBA
15.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin


We've been over this before. The only reason why an 11th century E-V13 sample found in Denmark would have 1/3 Balkan ancestry, an extremely unusual ancestry in northern Europe, is because his recent ancestry is from the Balkans.

Simply assuming that a sample's paternal ancestry derives from the same broad area it was buried in is not based on any data, especially for haplogroups like E-V13.

Riverman
09-01-2021, 01:02 PM
Target: VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
Distance: 1.6156% / 0.01615557 | R5P
35.2 DEU_Lech_EBA
29.0 Baltic_EST_BA
17.6 HRV_EBA
15.4 GRC_Helladic_EBA
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin


We've been over this before. The only reason why an 11th century E-V13 sample found in Denmark would have 1/3 Balkan ancestry, an extremely unusual ancestry in northern Europe, is because his recent ancestry is from the Balkans.

Simply assuming that a sample's paternal ancestry derives from the same broad area it was buried in is not based on any data, especially for haplogroups like E-V13.

Did I say something else for this concrete sample? Of course not, he is a migrant from CEE presumably. Probably Slavic related, probably even a South Slav. He wasn't from an E-V13 rich group though, which is the main thing to consider. So he's not just an outlier autosomally, but also haplogroup-wise. That's different from the archaeological groups I have in mind. Channelled Ware horizon and Basarabi will harbour way more E-V13 than anything else.

Bruzmi
09-01-2021, 01:16 PM
Did I say something else for this concrete sample? Of course not, he is a migrant from CEE presumably. Probably Slavic related, probably even a South Slav. He wasn't from an E-V13 rich group though, which is the main thing to consider. So he's not just an outlier autosomally, but also haplogroup-wise. That's different from the archaeological groups I have in mind. Channelled Ware horizon and Basarabi will harbour way more E-V13 than anything else.

He couldn't have moved originally from CEE because he wouldn't have local Balkan ancestry 30%+ otherwise, which strongly suggests that he picked additional ancestries (including Slavic) on the way north. In that sense, his paternal ancestor in the Balkans was Albanian or Romanian (Vlach) like the overwhelming number of E-V13 individuals in the Balkans in the 8th-11th centuries.

Riverman
09-02-2021, 04:23 PM
From the samples used in the new study on Serbian Roman settlements, we know, thanks to Huban, that the Slovenian EIA samples are more Northern shifted and might harbour not E-V13. At the same time, Slovenians have an extremely low level of E-V13 and Central and Southern mainland and the Dalmatian Croats as well, contrary to Serbs and some of the Dalmatian islands. The Slovenian samples are unlikely to have been all original Celts, since that area was part of the Eastern Hallstatt cultural sphere, which was, generally speaking, rather Pannonian-Illyrian, with Daco-Thracian, Thraco-Cimmerian and later Geto-Scythian influences, as well as those from the Etruscans and Greeks, mainly culturally.
At the same time we know that Eastern Austria, Czechia, Hungary, all areas of the same Eastern Hallstatt sphere, have more E-V13 than Slovenians, even though there was more replacements by Germanics and Slavs in these regions.

The first thing I checked was the local Hallstatt culture which dominated Slovenia and this is the Krain group of Eastern Hallstatt. At first this might have been a problem for my theory of the Eastern Hallstatt hub for the spread of E-V13 to the West, but then I came across an excellent paper and this quote:

Darin zeigt sich eine hohe Bedeutung der Ab-
stammung. Weil im Gegensatz zu Kärnten oder zur Stei-
ermark herausragende Gräber fehlen, wird an eine olig-
archische Gesellschaftsstruktur gedacht, in der die An-
führer einzelner Familien (patres familias) das Sagen
hatten. Da sich ähnlicher Grabbrauch in Dalmatien, Al-
banien und Makedonien abzeichnet, darf man von einem
illyrischen Grabbrauch sprechen.

Google translate:

This shows the great importance of the
ancestry. Because in contrast to Carinthia or
if there are no outstanding graves, an olig-
archic social structure in which the
leaders of individual families (patres familias) are in charge
had. Since there are similar grave customs in Dalmatia, Al-
Bania and Macedonia can be seen from one
Talking about Illyrian funerary customs.

This particular group of Hallstatt, located in Slovenia, favoured the Illyrian burial tradition and social organisation!

The Daco-Thracians, but also Hallstatt groups like Frög, very strongly influenced by it, had a distinguished elite with a retinue of warriors, forming specific military units. The elite was on horse and swords, the common warriors axes and lances. Interestingly, this kind of military organisation and social differentiation is something which could be observed in the Early Bronze Age already, namely in the core regions of Unetice!

At the beginning, and this is also highly important, the local Frög and core Eastern Hallstatt groups made rich burials primarily for the male elite. Widows were killed and buried with their man. This too points to an either old Indoeuropean, or already Indo-Iranian tradition, like coming from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and spread, which was absolutely formative for the early Hallstatt culture and Basarabi alike.
The grave goods and much of the weaponry, especially the horse-gear, was pretty much a copy of Cimmerian, Thraco-Cimmerian artifacts. The elite was like Thraco-Cimmerians and they both bought and locally produced Basarabi (Gava-Channelled Ware derived) pottery. The Gava pottery itself was ideologically loaded, it had a metallic appearance and there was in the Channelled Ware people a cult of metal and weapons, like both the pottery, but also the weapon hoards, gifts for the gods, prove. The "holy black metal" = iron. The iron sword was the symbol of power, even divine for them. And this tradition being developed on in Eastern Hallstatt.

However, the Krain group in Slovenia, like shown above, shows no more, but rather less, of these Daco-Thracian influences not just than the Frög group, but even than the Venethi people to their South West! So just based on this archaeological situation, I would guess that people like the Venethi in Italy are more likely to have E-V13, than the Krain group in Slovenia. The Krain group also sticks out because of their huge number and density of fortresses! Much more than in any period before or afterwards to Medieval times! The reason seems to be, quite obviously, their need for a strong defense. But from whom did they need protection? I guess they just kept their independence, unlike the more Northern groups, when the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon appeared. The others were conquered or pushed, they stood their ground, but just adopted cultural influences on their own terms, largely. This is why they were different and also less likely to harbour a lot of E-V13 and R1a, but rather R1b and J-L283.

Even the Venethi show the close relationship to Thraco-Cimmerian, Basarabi and Geto-Scythians:

In den Gräbern der Elite der Veneter finden sich Bern-
steinperlen genauso wie vom Donauraum her geprägtes
Tongeschirr (sog. Basarabi-Keramik). Seit der Zeit um
650 v. Chr. tauchen in reichen Männergräbern auch Hin-
weise auf Reitpferde auf. Die Reiterkrieger trugen im
6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. zudem kostbare Dolche.

About the strong influence of Thraco-Cimmerian, Basarabi and Geto-Scythian influences on Eastern Hallstatt groups like especially Frög for showing how different they were from the Illyrian Krain group. Contrary to those, they show princes, elite warriors with their retinue, or military unit under their control:


Schwertträger gehören auch' im Südostalpenraum
während der beginnenden Hallstattkultur zur obersten
sozialen Schicht bei den Männern. Aus Frög wurde das
Fragment eines eisernen Schwertes als Streufund be-
kannt. Als hochrangiges soziales Element galten während
der älteren Hallstattkultur zudem Pferde bzw. darauf
symbolisch verweisend deren Zaumzeug in den Krieger-
gräbern (Reiterkrieger). Zu ihrer Ausstattung zählen zu-
dem kostbare Geschirrsätze und Herdgerät zur Bewir-
tung, worin sich Gefolgschaftswesen andeutet. Ihnen
folgten in der Regel Frauen in den Tod (Witwentoten-
folge).
Als Waffen erscheinen weiters Streitaxt und Lanze,
zunächst aus Bronze und später aus Eisen. Die 16 Gräber
mit Streitaxt enthielten in nur fünf Fällen auch Lanzen.
Fünf Gräbern mit Schwert bzw. Reiterausstattung stehen
viermal so viele Gräber, nämlich 20, mit Streitaxt/Lanze
gegenüber. Inwieweit man hierin drei Kategorien von
Kriegern sehen darf oder die Lanzen- und/oder Streitaxt-
krieger im Wesentlichen als gleichrangig einzustufen hat,
muss dahingestellt bleiben.

This is like an echo from Unetice!

Google translate:

Sword-bearers also belong in the southeastern region
during the beginning Hallstatt culture to the top
social class among men. That became Frög
Fragment of an iron sword as a scattered find
knows. While were considered a high-ranking social element
the older Hallstatt culture also horses or on them
symbolically referring to their bridle in the warrior
graves (cavalry warriors). Their equipment includes
the precious crockery sets and stove for serving
tion, which implies allegiance. them
usually women followed in their deaths (widow dead
episode).
A battle ax and a lance also appear as weapons,
first of bronze and later of iron. The 16 graves
with battle ax contained lances in only five cases.
There are five graves with swords or equestrian equipment
four times as many graves, namely 20, with battle ax / lance
opposite to. To what extent there are three categories of
Warriors or the lance and / or battle ax
warrior has to be classified as essentially equal,
must remain open.

Full article in German:
https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Rudolfinum_2002_0035-0064.pdf

Frög was for centuries a transregional central place for a princely, aristocratic elite. If one combines these articles, its very clear that the Hallstatt groups were politically independent, possibly representing different tribes and political organisation. The Noric Celts are supposed to have been largely Celticised local people, same for many Balkan groups. There was a Celtic migration and impact, but this was rarely population replacement.
I don't think that the find of LIB11 was a mere coincidence, and I also think that a large portion of the current variation of E-V13 dates back to the Iron Age in Central Europe. The case of the Krain Group, the Iron Age samples from Slovenia and the modern frequency, all support that Illyrians being originally not associated with E-V13.

E-V13 was mainly spread by Gava/Channelled Ware people and their successors, first Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, Basarabi-Eastern Hallstatt, then Geto-Scythians to the end of the Hallstatt period, which was caused by "real Celts" coming from the West, from the Western Hallstatt sphere, in which the La Tene true Celtic culture developed. But the spread of E-V13 before, also, presumably, into some Celtic tribes, happened via Eastern Hallstatt.

There is concrete evidence for Eastern Hallstatt elites, warriors and specialists, to have migrated West, within the greater Hallstatt sphere. One example being:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23783996

Eastern Hallstatt, usually non-Celtic elites, moved to Western Hallstatt provinces and remained in high status. This is the path E-V13 took to spread into Western Hallstatt and the later La Tene civilisation of the Celts. They assimilated into them, coming from Eastern Hallstatt.

The only question remains, why are some Dalmatian islands having a higher E-V13 frequency? I came across the fact that the islands had a different settlement history. Most of the islands harboured Greek and early Greco-Roman colonies. In later times, migrants and refugees were resettled to the islands from other places. Same under the later Byzantine and Venetian rule. This could explain the differences and it will depend on the subclades, whether they came with Greeks or other Balkan people which settled there.

In any case, the modern distribution of E-V13 largely mirrors the spread of iron weapons and Channelled Ware/Daco-Thracian cultural influences, which included, as proven for Frög group of Hallstatt, actual migrants from the East. The Illyrians on the other hand, even if living close by, show, unless they have heavily mixed and fused with a Daco-Thracian population element, like the Dardanians, a strongly decreased level of E-V13. This is even true for modern populations in Central and Sout Eastern Europe to this day.

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 05:29 PM
Lets wait for actual ancient dna from balkans before making up nonsense

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 05:33 PM
He couldn't have moved originally from CEE because he wouldn't have local Balkan ancestry 30%+ otherwise, which strongly suggests that he picked additional ancestries (including Slavic) on the way north. In that sense, his paternal ancestor in the Balkans was Albanian or Romanian (Vlach) like the overwhelming number of E-V13 individuals in the Balkans in the 8th-11th centuries.

Did romania really have a lot of v13 10 centuries ago? In studies ive seen they only have about 7% today.

Riverman
09-02-2021, 05:35 PM
Lets wait for actual ancient dna from balkans before making up nonsense

We have ancient DNA and that's the framework in which its distribution took place. Additional samples will just largely refine and adjust the general scheme, but hardly change it significantly. The available combined evidence from archaeology, history, ancient and modern DNA already limits the options.


Did romania really have a lot of v13 10 centuries ago? In studies ive seen they only have about 7% today.

They surely have more than 7 percent, that's ridiculous. Ukrainians have more E-V13. After all those other migrations which followed, Romania on average is still about 14 % E1b1b, of which most will be V13:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

There is no way that Bosut-Basarabi wasn't still packed with E-V13, even if they got additional haplotypes from Cimmerians and Scythians in particular. But the spread happened obviously earlier, mostly in the Late Bronze and early Iron Age.

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 05:52 PM
We have ancient DNA and that's the framework in which its distribution took place. Additional samples will just largely refine and adjust the general scheme, but hardly change it significantly. The available combined evidence from archaeology, history, ancient and modern DNA already limits the options.



They surely have more than 7 percent, that's ridiculous. Ukrainians have more E-V13. After all those other migrations which followed, Romania on average is still about 14 % E1b1b, of which most will be V13:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

There is no way that Bosut-Basarabi wasn't still packed with E-V13, even if they got additional haplotypes from Cimmerians and Scythians in particular. But the spread happened obviously earlier, mostly in the Late Bronze and early Iron Age.

Ive seen 4% in ukranians but small source
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:RUGE.0000021635.80528.2f

Do you have any studies with the actual results? Even on here ukrainian v13 looks very very low https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ukraine?iframe=yresults

Maldovia very low v13 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053731

Show me 3 ancient v13 from 700bc - 100ad

Riverman
09-02-2021, 06:25 PM
Ive seen 4% in ukranians but small source
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:RUGE.0000021635.80528.2f

Do you have any studies with the actual results? Even on here ukrainian v13 looks very very low https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ukraine?iframe=yresults

Maldovia very low v13 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053731

Show me 3 ancient v13 from 700bc - 100ad

Pshenicevo, Geto-Scythian and not that far away LIB11 from Moravia. All are on track.

I did post another study earlier in which Ukrainians had 7,9 percent E-V13. Don't have it at hand ad hoc.

Riverman
09-02-2021, 06:43 PM
In Frög, Carinthia, Austria, a central Eastern Hallstatt group, elite males were buried with their wives, so they were killed upon their death. Apparently, this seems to have been a Thracian, possibly steppe derived (Scytho-Cimmerian?) tradition, after the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon had transformed them the latest.

From Eupedia, I got this quotation:
https://i.imgur.com/bqMOOVs.png
https://i.imgur.com/bqMOOVs.png

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41753-Ancient-DNA-of-Roman-Danubian-Frontier-and-Slavic-Migrations-(Olalde-2021)/page6?p=629977&viewfull=1#post629977

Note that they were also living polygynous! That would help to explain how their elite could spread the haplogroups so swiftly, even in areas in which they, apparently, mixed with the locals and fused with them.

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 08:04 PM
Pshenicevo, Geto-Scythian and not that far away LIB11 from Moravia. All are on track.

I did post another study earlier in which Ukrainians had 7,9 percent E-V13. Don't have it at hand ad hoc.

Well, we need to see sources. What dates were those 3 v13 given?

Looks like ukraine has a potential of 6.7% v13, it doesnt say if its v13 just the parental clade, 759 results. Download S1 file in the article under supporting information https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820#pone.0135820.s007

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 08:37 PM
Pshenicevo, Geto-Scythian and not that far away LIB11 from Moravia. All are on track.

I did post another study earlier in which Ukrainians had 7,9 percent E-V13. Don't have it at hand ad hoc.

SCY197 is labeled as part of the 'southern cluster' and his ancestry is from the western/central Balkans. The samples from Viminacium showed even more clearly that he is not from anywhere in the eastern Balkans.

All aDNA samples found so far out of the Balkans preserve some recent Balkan ancestry. Of course, we will find samples which don't have recent Balkan ancestry, but the ones we have are not such samples. In my opinion, as more samples are found it'll become more and more clear that much of E-V13 presence in the rest of Europe occurred at a quite late date from Balkan migrations. The reason why for every country we've discussed so far actual E-V13 figures are much lower than what some people expect is precisely because E-V13 is not a pan-European haplogroup.

The same is true for LIB11. This individual is not from Moravia. This is someone with very recent Balkan ancestry within 1-2 generations. The study from Viminacium showed that even his GRC_Minoan ancestry was present in late antiquity northern Balkans.

Target: Migration_LIB:LIB11
Distance: 2.6203% / 0.02620257 | R5P
42.0 Baltic_EST_BA
32.2 HRV_EBA
16.4 Wales_CA_EBA
5.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
3.6 Levant_JOR_EBA



Sources for Ukrainian E-V13 include among others:
-Early medieval Romanian migrations. See Bolokhovians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolokhovians). The Bolokhovians brought in Ukraine even Proto-Albanian-derived terms like barzij (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Albanian/bardza)
-18th century Albanian migrations. See Albanians in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians_in_Ukraine)

But in general, there's very little E-V13 in Ukraine.

The study you're referring to didn't study E-V13 but E-M35 in general:

Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820) (2015) (Table K in S1 file)

https://i.ibb.co/Y0Prspm/ukra.jpg

Depending on the region, it's about ~7%. I don't know why someone would assume that a substantial part of that figure would be E-V13 because most E-M35 from Ukraine are Jews in the same lineages as Lithuanian and Polish Jews, most of them E-M123. We can't know the exact percentages for all downstream lineages but we can check Ukrainians under E-M35 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/e-m35/) on yfull. 7/46 are E-V13 (15.2% of E-M35 in Ukraine) and as expected the overwhelming majority are under E-M123 (Jewish origin).

There's just ~1.06% E-V13 in Ukraine

Huban
09-02-2021, 08:53 PM
SCY197 is labeled as part of the 'southern cluster' and his ancestry is from the western/central Balkans. The samples from Viminacium showed even more clearly that he is not from anywhere in the eastern Balkans.

His ancestry is local and derived of Early Iron Age Moldova, related to Babadag culture MJ12.

The examples from Viminacium, half are around IA Bulgaria, and plenty look to head in Moldovan Scythian direction. So these are likely part of the Geto-Triballian or Daco-Mysian spectrum as opposed to a more Southern Bulgarian IA aereal.

Only 2 are Western Balkan like (which gives us a hint what those people were like in 2-3 rd century AD and Albanian-like they most definitely were not), and 1 approaches somewhat IA Slovenia.



The same is true for LIB11. This individual is not from Moravia. This is someone with very recent Balkan ancestry within 1-2 generations. The study from Viminacium showed that even his GRC_Minoan ancestry was present in late antiquity northern Balkans.

Target: Migration_LIB:LIB11
Distance: 2.6203% / 0.02620257 | R5P
42.0 Baltic_EST_BA
32.2 HRV_EBA
16.4 Wales_CA_EBA
5.8 GRC_Minoan_EBA
3.6 Levant_JOR_EBA

He is from there, and there is a chance that sort of ancestry was present in the area. But I know from archeological records from where the sample should be from. And he is not from the Balkan. "Southern" ancestry wasn't only existent in IA Balkan peninsula. Despite your and other Albanians futile crackpot attempt to prove E-V13 = Neolithic farmer slaves who eagerly accepted to be rear ended by the Illyrians. No, on occasion in IA they slapped around the poor J-L283 ridden Illyrians. But the J-L283 also had their moments such as Eastward expansion.




But in general, there'slittle E-V13 in Ukraine.

That's just ~1.06% E-V13 in Ukraine

Justifying your cherry-picking "methodology".. There is alot more than 1 % of E-v13 in Ukraine. And per some scientific samples it can even go over 10 % in Carpathian Ukraine (mostly courtesy of Getae ofc).

Huban
09-02-2021, 08:57 PM
From the samples used in the new study on Serbian Roman settlements, we know, thanks to Huban, that the Slovenian EIA samples are more Northern shifted and might harbour not E-V13. At the same time, Slovenians have an extremely low level of E-V13 and Central and Southern mainland and the Dalmatian Croats as well, contrary to Serbs and some of the Dalmatian islands. The Slovenian samples are unlikely to have been all original Celts, since that area was part of the Eastern Hallstatt cultural sphere, which was, generally speaking, rather Pannonian-Illyrian, with Daco-Thracian, Thraco-Cimmerian and later Geto-Scythian influences, as well as those from the Etruscans and Greeks, mainly culturally.

The Basarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian incursion into the area is well attested, and the cultures tested from Slovenia, especially the Dolenjska group with, might even yield some evidence of that. There was Glasinac related influence which mean these people might have been part of Illyrian group, there is Urnfield indigenous base from LBA, and there are these Basarabi incursions.

I agree that various clades of E-V13 likely fit into this Westwards movement of the Basarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian horizon.

rafc
09-02-2021, 09:14 PM
On the topic of Ukranian V13 I will quote myself:


In Ukraine and Southern Russia V13 rises as high 7-8%. In Moldovia
Cruciani 2007 found 9% in 77 samples and Battaglia 2009 found 7,6% in 99 Ukranian samples.
Kushniarevich 2015 tested for M78 (a good proxy for V13 in Eastern European populations) and
found 6,7% in 759 Ukranians, 2% in 196 Belarussians, 0,2% in 380 northern Russians, 4,6% in
364 Central Russans (generally higher when close to Ukraine) and 1,2% in Southern Russians.
In some cases Russians and Ukranians from the same region were tested, and Ukranians generally
had much higher M78 levels.

And on Romania:


Cruciani 2007 found following percentages: Romanians 7,2% (265 testees).

Riverman
09-02-2021, 09:17 PM
Well, we need to see sources. What dates were those 3 v13 given?

Quick check:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=46.292245041928894%2C21.94037932994746&z=6


Looks like ukraine has a potential of 6.7% v13, it doesnt say if its v13 just the parental clade, 759 results. Download S1 file in the article under supporting information https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820#pone.0135820.s007

No, its higher, but it obviously depends on the region. The 4-5 % are the East and North Slavic average, that's the old Slavic E-V13 percentage in Poles (average), Russians and Eastern Ukrainians. Belorussians approach it too, but they have Baltic admixture, which lowered it. We can say this is the Proto-/early Slavic percentage. West Ukrainians on the other hand are between this old Slavic average and the Moldovans-Romanians, that's why the Ukrainian total average is about 7-8, but some West Ukrainian subpopulations are likely to have a significantly higher percentage. Its the old heritage of Gáva-Holigrady, plus the long lasting gene flow between the Carpathian region and the Western steppe. Obviously Western Ukrainians have way more Daco-Thracian ancestry than the Proto-Slavs had, namely about double the number.


SCY197 is labeled as part of the 'southern cluster' and his ancestry is from the western/central Balkans. The samples from Viminacium showed even more clearly that he is not from anywhere in the eastern Balkans

You mean the Basarabi cluster? Yes, but the Bosut-Basarabi complex was Daco-Thracian. The Serbian Danube was a centre of it, and of its predecessor Belegiš II-Gáva. The problem for your argument is that its not Western Balkan, but it connects the Central Balkan with the Carpathian and Eastern Balkan zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarabi_culture#/media/File:Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png

These E-V13 carriers could have been taken from Belegiš II-Gáva directly or Bosut-Basarabi, because the place in a central place for the culture!

Or do you want to say its closer to Glasinac-Mati culture than Bosut-Basarabi? From the research group of Viminacium:


Numerous Early Iron Age finds, which were obtained after a series of excavation
in the near past, originate from the area of Viminacium. Those finds are primarily represented
by potsherds and metal artifacts, while remains of architecture such as economic or
residential buildings and graves, were recorded to a lesser degree. Finds belonging to the
first phase of the Early Iron Age, i.e. the transition between the 2nd and the 1st millennium
BC, are attributed to the bearers of the Channeled pottery culture (Belegiš II-Gava culture).
The finds originate from the enclosed contexts, the so-called ꞌꞌritual pitsꞌꞌ at the site
of Pećine,1 in which those were recorded together with the pottery of the Dubovac-Žuto
Brdo culture. The finds attributed to the Belegiš II-Gava culture have also been recorded
at the site of Drmno-Lugovi (black-burnished and channeled pottery and one fibula of the
ꞌꞌPeschiera typeꞌꞌ).2 Out of numerous sites in the wider area of Mlava and Danube confluence,
on which the Early Iron Age pottery was recorded, we highlight the site of Selište
on the right bank of the former course of Mlava River, and the site of Rudine, located in
Viminacium itself.3 These sites should be complemented with the sites of Obala Dunavca,
Čair, and Drmno-Lugovi.4 The younger phases of the Early Iron Age are registered at the
sites of Stari Kostolac-Mali Grad, Pećine and Drmno Nad Lugom.5 The collection of finds
which originate from the wider area of the Braničevo District indicate the intensification
of settlement in that area during the 1st millennium BC, and a certain cultural continuity
which is confirmed by finds from all of the phases of the Early Iron Age: the Transitional
period, the penetration of the Channeled pottery culture, early phase of the Bosut culture
(Kalakača, Basarabi), and the Rača-Ljuljaci cultural group, followed by the first settling of
Celtic populations during the 4th century BC.6


In his most important paper on the Early Iron Age periodization in Serbia, R. Vasić
positions the Basarabi culture into Horizon 1,36 while M. Garašanin positions it into Iron
Age II.37 M. Garašanin associates the beginning of this period with the Thraco-Cimmerian
influence in the Carpathian-Southdanubian complex, which is formed at the end of the Ha
B3 phase according to the periodization by Reinecke

Some of the main characteristics of the pottery are among other features, like S shaped decorations:

channeling and the pseudo-corded ornament performed by serrated tools

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338655388_EARLY_IRON_AGE_HORIZON_AT_THE_SITE_OF_NA D_KLEPECKOM

This is as good as direct evidence for Channelled Ware people. These are their descendents, at least on the paternal side. Because according to the records from above, as well as the archaeological context, we know that whereever they went, they took local women as their wives, and they often had more than one per man. Those of their elite were buried in princely graves with at least one of their favoured wive (widow death). In the early phase, just like with Corded Ware or Indo-Aryans, they didn't give women rich burials or no burials at all. In my opinion, this is more common in newly founded ethnicities by male warbands, in which a lot of the women in the community were of foreign descent. This is evident from Austria (Frög Eastern Hallstatt, widow death in elite burials), to Dardanians (suggested widow death).
When they settled down and the differences between males and females were no more and they came under the influence of the Etruscan and Greek world, they started to give women more jewelry, there were hoards with jewelry, and also female rich, elite burials. But this just started about 150-300 years after their expansion in some regions!

After reading that article, I think its done, that's as good as having tested Belegiš II-Gáva and Bosut-Basarabi itself, because these are their direct, paternal descendents.

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 09:32 PM
@[email protected] etc.

There's 7% E-M35 in Ukraine. Most E-M35 in Ukraine belongs under E-M123 as everyone can very easily observe on yfull and it belongs to Jewish lineages. Please don't claim figures about E-V13 which can't be corroborated in any study.

Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820) (2015) (Table K in S1 file)

https://i.ibb.co/Y0Prspm/ukra.jpg


SCY197 clusters in the western/central Balkans. There's nothing about "Basarabi culture" anywhere in any study. This is a 3rd century BCE sample.

https://i.ibb.co/KwZKVh2/interwesteast.jpg

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 09:36 PM
Quick check:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=46.292245041928894%2C21.94037932994746&z=6



No, its higher, but it obviously depends on the region. The 4-5 % are the East and North Slavic average, that's the old Slavic E-V13 percentage in Poles (average), Russians and Eastern Ukrainians. Belorussians approach it too, but they have Baltic admixture, which lowered it. We can say this is the Proto-/early Slavic percentage. West Ukrainians on the other hand are between this old Slavic average and the Moldovans-Romanians, that's why the Ukrainian total average is about 7-8, but some West Ukrainian subpopulations are likely to have a significantly higher percentage. Its the old heritage of Gáva-Holigrady, plus the long lasting gene flow between the Carpathian region and the Western steppe. Obviously Western Ukrainians have way more Daco-Thracian ancestry than the Proto-Slavs had, namely about double the number.



You mean the Basarabi cluster? Yes, but the Bosut-Basarabi complex was Daco-Thracian. The Serbian Danube was a centre of it, and of its predecessor Belegiš II-Gáva. The problem for your argument is that its not Western Balkan, but it connects the Central Balkan with the Carpathian and Eastern Balkan zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarabi_culture#/media/File:Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png

These E-V13 carriers could have been taken from Belegiš II-Gáva directly or Bosut-Basarabi, because the place in a central place for the culture!

Or do you want to say its closer to Glasinac-Mati culture than Bosut-Basarabi? From the research group of Viminacium:



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338655388_EARLY_IRON_AGE_HORIZON_AT_THE_SITE_OF_NA D_KLEPECKOM

This is as good as direct evidence for Channelled Ware people. These are their descendents, at least on the paternal side. Because according to the records from above, as well as the archaeological context, we know that whereever they went, they took local women as their wives, and they often had more than one per man. Those of their elite were buried in princely graves with at least one of their favoured wive (widow death). In the early phase, just like with Corded Ware or Indo-Aryans, they didn't give women rich burials or no burials at all. In my opinion, this is more common in newly founded ethnicities by male warbands, in which a lot of the women in the community were of foreign descent. This is evident from Austria (Frög Eastern Hallstatt, widow death in elite burials), to Dardanians (suggested widow death).
When they settled down and the differences between males and females were no more and they came under the influence of the Etruscan and Greek world, they started to give women more jewelry, there were hoards with jewelry, and also female rich, elite burials. But this just started about 150-300 years after their expansion in some regions!

After reading that article, I think its done, that's as good as having tested Belegiš II-Gáva and Bosut-Basarabi itself, because these are their direct, paternal descendents.

I only see 1 v13 from 500bc bulgaria, wheres the rest?

Except it isnt higher, i just gave you a source with 759 ukranian results - you can make up all the nonsense theories you like but the facts are there. Its also low in romanians, maldovians, super low in turkey and almost non existant in armenians - meanwhile v13 is huge in western balkan populations (albania, kosovo, serbia, greece) - how do you explain this continuity in the west yet not the east?

ShpataEMadhe
09-02-2021, 09:40 PM
On the topic of Ukranian V13 I will quote myself:



And on Romania:

Do you have the deep clade results? I didnt see mention of v13 in the ukranian study just the parental clade - it could be even lower than 6.7%

Huban
09-02-2021, 09:42 PM
@[email protected] etc.

There's 7% E-M35 in Ukraine. Most E-M35 in Ukraine belongs under E-M123. Please don't claim figures which can't be corroborated in any study.

They can be corroborated from many sources. This is just one study out of many. Most of ethnic Ukrainian E-M35 does not belong to E-M123. Obviously these are some Ukrainian Jews here or Ukrainians of recent Jewish/Ashkenazi origin. E-M123 is very rare in ethnic Ukrainian families.. That I know from Ukrainian DNA projects, who offer more data than any study thus far.



SCY197 clusters in the western/central Balkans. There's nothing about "Basarabi culture" anywhere in any study. This is 3rd century BCE sample.


Scy197 is part of a cluster which shows genetic affinity of EIA Babadag culture sample, and which shows archeological affinity to the same site. Archeologically they show affinity to the Moldavian variant of Babadag-Pshenichevo subgroup, the Saharna-Solonceni. These in turn as also related to the Basarabi culture.

The confluence of genetic and archeological evidence is clear in this case and points towards a Getae origin of Moldovan Scythians and EIA presence of their auDNA in the area. This is all aided by the fact that the clade of Scy197 is of heavily Eastern extraction.

And of course let us not forget these are archeologically related to the Bulgarian Pshenichevo culture, heavy with E-V13.. But of course when these facts are brought up Albanians just put their heads in the sand, as if that will save the day for you.. It won't..

Riverman
09-02-2021, 09:47 PM
I only see 1 v13 from 500bc bulgaria, wheres the rest?

Look it up, I'm already annoyed by having to search for the study on Ukranians to prove you guys wrong B)


Except it isnt higher, i just gave you a source with 759 ukranian results - you can make up all the nonsense theories you like but the facts are there. Its also low in romanians, maldovians, super low in turkey and almost non existant in armenians - meanwhile v13 is huge in western balkan populations (albania, kosovo, serbia, greece) - how do you explain this continuity in the west yet not the east?

The general movement of people was in the Balkans from North -> South. The Greeks for example were not the first IE in the Balkans, Proto-Anatolians were first. Thracians followed, on top of them all kind of other steppe and Central European people. So you deal with a layer model, in which those to the South now, were further up in the North once, ethnolinguistically speaking. Both the Illyrians and the Daco-Thracians were from the relative North.
Thrace itself was also influenced, partly conquered, by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and later Scythians and others, but not as much as Romania. That not just Romanians, but also the other people of the region, including the Northern and Eastern Slavs, have still such a relatively high frequency of E-V13 just proves how strong it had been in the past. If you subtract for the more Northern regions the main Germanic and Slavic haplotypes alone, you get an impression of how important E-V13 was, relatively speaking. That's not the case in the Baltic and Finnic region, for example, for a reason. Or in very North Western Europe, where its stronger, because of Celts and historical migrants, but still much lower. If you would subtract the Germanic and more recent haplotypes in Britain, you still don't make E-V13 that big. It remains what it always was there: A minority, even if existing since Iron Age Celts lived there.
But do the same in Serbia, Romania, Hungary, Austria - subtract the more recent haplotypes, and look where you land. And that's what the ancient record will show too, once the aDNA results trickle in. E-V13 had its boom and crash times in some regions. And it crashed the most with Germanics and Slavs expanding on top of their Iron Age distribution - even though they incorporated some clades early on too, but it was still much less than in the preceding people.

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 09:49 PM
No, its higher, but it obviously depends on the region. The 4-5 % are the East and North Slavic average, that's the old Slavic E-V13 percentage in Poles (average), Russians and Eastern Ukrainians. Belorussians approach it too, but they have Baltic admixture, which lowered it. We can say this is the Proto-/early Slavic percentage. West Ukrainians on the other hand are between this old Slavic average and the Moldovans-Romanians, that's why the Ukrainian total average is about 7-8, but some West Ukrainian subpopulations are likely to have a significantly higher percentage. Its the old heritage of Gáva-Holigrady, plus the long lasting gene flow between the Carpathian region and the Western steppe. Obviously Western Ukrainians have way more Daco-Thracian ancestry than the Proto-Slavs had, namely about double the number.


All percentages you've claimed are wrong and there's no Daco-Thracian ancestry in western Ukrainians a)because no Thracians moved to western Ukraine b)"Daco-Thracians" are likely not even a valid grouping.

https://i.ibb.co/P6vF5bt/Thracian.jpg

@Shpataemadhe You'll often read the term "Daco-Moesian" in the thread about E-V13 and even the term "Daco-Thracian-Moesian" or some other variant. The linguist who first applied this grouping didn't even use it (http://www.kroraina.com/vg/vg.html) in the way used in E-V13 internet fora theories:

From this characteristic geographical distribution of the most frequent toponyms in the eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula (see Fig. 1) an important conclusion emerges. If in Thrace and Dacia the same toponymy was not used, then these two countries must have been inhabited in antiquity by peoples who spoke two different languages, i.e. two different ethnic unities dwelt there. Therefore the Daco-Mysian language was different from the Thracian one. This conclusion is certain, since it is not founded on etymologies that might be of a subjective character, but on geographical distribution which is an objective criterion.

Thus we have separated Dacian (or Daco-Mysian) from Thracian as two different IE languages, and all other data and considerations support this conclusion. The study of the phonology of these languages, for example, proves that they are very different from each other.



As for E-V13 among western Ukrainians, it literally comes from Romanians who got there in the early Middle Ages. It's historically, linguistically and archaeologically known that Romanians known as Bolokhovians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolokhovians) moved to western Ukraine and parts of Poland. They didn't do it earlier than late antiquity and the early middle ages because they brought with them 1)Balkan Romance with 2)Proto-Albanian inherited terms.

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 09:59 PM
They can be corroborated from many sources. This is just one study out of many. Most of ethnic Ukrainian E-M35 does not belong to E-M123. Obviously these are some Ukrainian Jews here or Ukrainians of recent Jewish/Ashkenazi origin. E-M123 is very rare in ethnic Ukrainian families.. That I know from Ukrainian DNA projects, who offer more data than any study thus far.



Nope. Most E-M35 in Ukraine belongs to E-M123. It's not going to change. It is what it is, so please don't continue claiming something that can't be corroborated in any study. You can argue about the interpretation of different results, but there can be no debate about percentages which don't show up in the data. Even on yfull, there are 7/46 E-V13 under E-M35, 3/46 E-V22, 1 E-V12 .... and 31/46 E-M123. It's abundantly clear that E-V13 is extremely low in Ukraine.

Riverman
09-02-2021, 09:59 PM
All percentages you've claimed are wrong and there's no Daco-Thracian ancestry in western Ukrainians a)because no Thracians moved to western Ukraine b)"Daco-Thracians" are likely not even a valid grouping.

Like always in linguistics and any form of cladistic categorisation, there are lumpers and splitters. You can find a source for this and a source for that. You know what? It doesn't matter, because they
- stem from the same archaeological cultural horizon (Channelled Ware people)
- they are linguistically closer to one another than to other linguistic groups

Whether you use this term ("Daco-Thracian") or another doesn't matter. And you know what: After the genetic results come in, the aDNA which will prove the connection, this will be a big support for all the linguists which claimed that Dacians, Getae, Moesians, Thracians, Bithyni and Thyni, all were part of one linguistic formation. The genetic record in combination with the archaeological will strengthen that position. That will be the result!
And then we can all laugh about the linguistic splitters and those people which didn't recognise the pattern when it should have been obvious.

Edit: I found the link to the relevant study in Nature. They sampled 92 Ukrainians of which 7,6 % were E-V13. E-M123 was present, but only at 1,1 %. Note also that J2b is much lower, even though it was later spread from the Balkans and Greece to the region.

Georgians had 1,5 %. The Czech results makes no sense, Slovenians had 2,7 %.

The paper is from 2009:
Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2008249.pdf?origin=ppub

Huban
09-02-2021, 10:06 PM
All percentages you've claimed are wrong and there's no Daco-Thracian ancestry in western Ukrainians a)because no Thracians moved to western Ukraine b)"Daco-Thracians" are likely not even a valid grouping.



That's just quote, in another few sentences authors propose that proto-Thracians are related to EBA Ezero culture which is by consensus of most archeologists proto-Anatolian related. So in addition to some little info on Thracian there, authors of that book/article have also written borderline crackpot theories in the same article..

There were differences between the Dacian and Thracian, nevertheless the core was clearly related. And there are even historical sources saying that..

Some differences are due to existence and presence of pre-Thracian stratum in Bulgaria. This pre-Thracian strata obviously brought some clearly non-Thracian elements into the Thracian language. btw this strata is possibly related to the proto-Albanian itself. An in turn to LBA Dardanians, Paeonians.



As for E-V13 among western Ukrainians, it literally comes from Romanians who got there in the early Middle Ages. It's historically, linguistically and archaeologically known that Romanians known as Bolokhovians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolokhovians) moved to western Ukraine and parts of Poland. They didn't do it earlier than late antiquity and the early middle ages because they brought with them 1)Balkan Romance with 2)Proto-Albanian inherited terms.

Another blatant fabrication and lie on your behalf. Why do you speak of things you know nothing about? No, it is not of Romanian origin other than in a minor percentage. Western Ukrainian clades show little relation to Romanians based on data.

There are ethnic Moldovans belonging to clades of clear local origin i.e. these are assimilated Slavs of Daco-Getae origin. There are instances of Romanians having LBA relatives in Western Ukrainians. This points to locals. Again Romanians are not well tested so alot more samples are required but ofc there are plenty of Romanian E-V13 of non-Romanian origin.

Plenty of clades in Western Ukrainians points towards a LBA/EIA presence in the area.

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 10:15 PM
Like always in linguistics and any form of cladistic categorisation, there are lumpers and splitters. You can find a source for this and a source for that. You know what? It doesn't matter, because they
- stem from the same archaeological cultural horizon (Channelled Ware people)
- they are linguistically closer to one another than to other linguistic groups

Whether you use this term ("Daco-Thracian") or another doesn't matter. And you know what: After the genetic results come in, the aDNA which will prove the connection, this will be a big support for all the linguists which claimed that Dacians, Getae, Moesians, Thracians, Bithyni and Thyni, all were part of one linguistic formation. The genetic record in combination with the archaeological will strengthen that position. That will be the result!
And then we can all laugh about the linguistic splitters and those people which didn't recognise the pattern when it should have been obvious.

All labels you are using Riverman are linguistic labels. All of them. When you say Daco-Moesians or any other such term that you frequently use, you are using proposed linguistic groupings. What I tried to show you with the quote is that the label you are using and which you read because another author was quoting Georgiev was used for what the author considered to be a very different population than Thracian. Since the 1960s nobody has been claiming that these groups are the same people.

It is not even clear if all the populations labeled as “Thracian” in the ancient sources spoke the same tongue: in the 1950s appeared the theory of the existence of two paleo-Balkan languages (“Thracian” proper and “Daco-Moesian”) on the territory that was supposed to be “Thracian.” More recent research demonstrates the existence of four onomastic zones (“properly Thracian,” Daco-Moesian, “Western Thracian” and the Bithynian in northwestern Asia Minor)


What the genetic record will strengthen will be seen in the next years. Hopefully, we'll see who were the Bithynians, Bessi, Maedi, Dacians, Carpi and what the relations between them were.


By the way, reading through some comments in the other thread about Poles and E-V13, one might think that there is a substantial E-V13 % among Poles but that really doesn't seem to be the case.

Y-Chromosome Genetic Analysis of Modern Polish Population (2020) (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.567309/full) (very recent study)

The most frequent Y-SNP binary haplogroups in all analyzed samples were found to be R (71.02%), I (15.71%), N (4.29%), E (3.84%), J (3.22%), and G (1.22%). The total contribution of the others, viz. Q, C, T, H, and O, totaled less than 1% (0.70%), and each comprised only individual samples (Table 1).

If E is 3.84%, then E-V13 is either extremely low or very low.

Huban
09-02-2021, 10:17 PM
Nope. Most E-M35 in Ukraine belongs to E-M123. It's not going to change. It is what it is, so please don't continue claiming something that can't be corroborated in any study. You can argue about the interpretation of different results, but there can be no debate about percentages which don't show up in the data. Even on yfull, there are 7/46 E-V13 under E-M35, 3/46 E-V22, 1 E-V12 .... and 31/46 E-M123. It's abundantly clear that E-V13 is extremely low in Ukraine.

There is not a single ethnic Ukrainian who is E-M123. All 31 of those YFull samples are ethnic Jews (maybe some have recent Jewish origins). They are not Ukrainians.

Just to illustrate as they are closer to me than most V13, there are 3 ethnic Ukrainians (one New Worlder of recent Ukrainian origin) at FTDNA forming a cluster roughly 1000 years old, one with BigY, under E-Z17107>FTA44339 having an EIA link with a Hungarian from N.Hungary of an old Hungarian family, this clade is not even at YFull atm. unlike all Albanian NGS results..

Also one scientific sample from W.Ukraine is related to these. So already there are far more ethnic Ukrainians under a basal E-Z17107 clade (4) than under E-M123.

And btw this clade has no Romanians in it, very unlikely to ever have any Romanians in it. And this is clade is an example of those Gava-Holigrady links among the others..

Huban
09-02-2021, 10:23 PM
If E is 3.84%, then E-V13 is either extremely low or very low.

Another lie. Or you are just so fundamentally uninformed. Posting information you have no means to verify is trolling.. Total majority of ethnic Polish E is V13. Ashkenazim on YFull's tree are not ethnic Poles, Belarusians etc..

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 10:38 PM
Another blatant fabrication and lie on your behalf. Why do you speak of things you know nothing about? No, it is not of Romanian origin other than in a minor percentage. Western Ukrainian clades show little relation to Romanians based on data.

There are ethnic Moldovans belonging to clades of clear local origin i.e. these are assimilated Slavs of Daco-Getae origin. There are instances of Romanians having LBA relatives in Western Ukrainians. This points to locals. Again Romanians are not well tested so alot more samples are required but ofc there are plenty of Romanian E-V13 of non-Romanian origin.

Plenty of clades in Western Ukrainians points towards a LBA/EIA presence in the area.

Nope. TMRCA + yfull flags do not mean that a sample always lived there and for western Ukraine, it's pretty well known that Romanians did settle there massively.

Vlachs and Slavs in the Middle Ages and Modern Era (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/235270089.pdf) (2016)

On the one hand, the relations between the Vlachs and Slavs were the result of the expansion of the Southern Slavs in the Balkans and, on the other hand, they resulted from the expansion of Vlachs in a northerly direction, to the northern slopes of the Carpathians, and further, to the lowland areas of southern Poland and Ukraine of today.

The second state created in the Middle Ages by the Vlachs, Moldavia, largely inhabited by Slavs, was established in the territory periodically belonging to the Halych Ruthenia, for which reason it was called a Rosovlachia which means “The Ruthenian Wallachia”. Moldavian state, like the Vlach one, was organized on the model of East and South-Slavic countries, however, it had different social structure than Wallachia.

The development of the settlement of the Vlachs further north to the Ruthenian lands of the Polish Crown, Polish Carpathians and the Subcarpathia led to their fast Slavisation. This process is still almost completely unexplored, the inclusion of the Ruthenian Boykos, Hutsuls and Lemkos to the Vlach ethnic group still remains controversial, but certainly in these ethnic groups Vlach and Slav cultural elements were merged15. In contrast, in Podhale and the Beskidy Mountains occurred a fairly rapid process of
assimilation of Vlachs with the Polish population. Generally, it can be said that in the lands belonging to the Polish state the process of Polonization of the Vlach population occurred if they had adopted Roman Catholicism and Ruthenisation if they had remained Orthodox.


The entire process, particularly with regard to Podhale, is however rather difficult to trace due to the lack of suitable sources. For these relate to permanent colonization, which took place in this territory later than the Polish one, cutting into the already existing Polish settlement. There were very few entirely Wallachian villages in the region of Podhale; the settling of Wallachian families in the villages already inhabited by the Slavic population can be observed more frequently. The settlement of Vlachs was associated with the increase in the level of pastoral culture, in which the Vlachs were champions


This is reality. (Last comment)

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 10:42 PM
Another lie. Or you are just so fundamentally uninformed. Posting information you have no means to verify is trolling.. Total majority of ethnic Polish E is V13. Ashkenazim on YFull's tree are not ethnic Poles, Belarusians etc..

It's literally what the study says. It is what is and we're going to debate only based on real data.

Y-Chromosome Genetic Analysis of Modern Polish Population (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.567309/full)


https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/567309/fgene-11-567309-HTML/image_m/fgene-11-567309-t001.jpg

Riverman
09-02-2021, 10:44 PM
All labels you are using Riverman are linguistic labels. All of them. When you say Daco-Moesians or any other such term that you frequently use, you are using proposed linguistic groupings. What I tried to show you with the quote is that the label you are using and which you read because another author was quoting Georgiev was used for what the author considered to be a very different population than Thracian. Since the 1960s nobody has been claiming that these groups are the same people.

Many idiotic things were claimed since the 1960's and if science still works they will be all proven wrong. But what's the point? I could quote linguists which claim a Daco-Thracian or enlarged Thracian unity. No linguist in his right mind would say that Dacian is not closer to Thracian than to let's say Celtic or Greek! And that alone is quite telling, because the Greeks were the neighbours of the Thracians, but their origin was just a different one.


What the genetic record will strengthen will be seen in the next years. Hopefully, we'll see who were the Bithynians, Bessi, Maedi, Dacians, Carpi and what the relations between them were.

Psenichevo, Babadag, Basarabi, Bosut. These cultural groups all descend from Channelled Ware, they all do. They all spoke related dialects of the people you wrote above. And now we have E-V13 from:
- Getae-Scythians (Moldova)
- Thracians (Psenichevo, Bulgaria)
- Basarabi (Basarabi, Serbia)

I consider this factual evidence and proof for the theory.


By the way, reading through some comments in the other thread about Poles and E-V13, one might think that there is a substantial E-V13 % among Poles but that really doesn't seem to be the case.

Southern Poland, the Carpathian region, the former territory of the cultures and people I'm talking about, has a higher frequency. Also, Poles don't have a much higher frequency than old Slav average (4-5 %), but the distribution gives a hint. I suspect however that Silesia has such relatively low numbers also because of the many resettled Poles from the East and the deported Germans. This population exchange will surely have impacted the local numbers. Just compare Lesser Poland (6 %) with Kuyavian-Pommeranian (2,1 %). This distribution speaks for itself!
As you go down to the Carpathian zone, they come closer to the Czech and Slovak level, like expected, whereas in the Baltic Sea region, its nearly absent or on a level like Ireland and less. It just follows the pattern. Like in Belorussians, which are much below the percentage of regular Slavs, also because of the Baltic influence.

Huban
09-02-2021, 10:45 PM
My older analysis from another forum.


no. 3 is certainly E-PH1173 connected to Bulgarian YF16967, very common in Greeks.
no. 6 seems to match very well Russian Z17107>BY4467, Z38456- (not on YFull)
no. 8 is certainly Z17107, Z38456- another different clade certainly related to Ukrainian from FTDNA around there. About these if Russian BY4467 is Y30991- then this Ukrainian is most likely Y30991+ (but confirmed Z38456-).
no. 9 is certainly related to E-BY4518>BY4507 YF10535 Pole at YFull
no. 10 actually resembles the E-CTS6377* subclade, second option is some relation to no.9
no. 11 is certainly E-BY4518 and related to YF10675 Slovak
no. 12 is certainly related to YF01613, E-(BY4526)>Y41959
no. 14 seems likely E-BY4404, has some important STRs like 456=18 + 456=17 and matches one BY4404 well.
no. 13 seems possibly CTS9320 but not sure which subclade.

No. 2 and 5 I couldn't classify. Of the 154 tested Ukrainians from Lviv, 11 are E-V13 (7.1 %). One is E-V22. And zero are E-M123..

Bar E-PH1173 who today I can say is E-Y164554, there is no suggestion others have recent Balkan origin. E-Y164554 is generally Greek and Bulgarian and Albanians carrying it are of recent non-Albanian origin. no. 8 is this FTA44339, and there another basal Z17107 related to a Russian of that clade (again not on YFull's tree).

Another likely Vlach input is a single R-Y140899 sample.

As you can see CTS9320 is heavy and vast majority has nothing to do with Balkans in any recent terms, just showing very Early Iron Age links.. And in general bar E-Y164554 (which can be found in 4 Romanians from studies and one tested at FTDNA) they have nothing to do with Romanians either.. Based on some distinct STR's, very unlikely to find it in Romania.

Then again, even going by immigrationist theory of Romanian origin, not all Romanian V13 is of such Balkan origin, though such clades can be found ofc as well.

Which brings me to yet another nonsensical sentence of Bruzmi..


All percentages you've claimed are wrong and there's no Daco-Thracian ancestry in western Ukrainians a)because no Thracians moved to western Ukraine b)"Daco-Thracians" are likely not even a valid grouping.


Have you heard of Costoboci? They were totally from Ukraine.. The analysis of Lviv haplotypes I posted in my old thesis of Costoboci - V13/CTS9320 relation. And this thesis is correct by all available evidence (and we see somewhat elevated local V13 in that area where Costoboci lived).

Far cry from a idiotic, ludicrous, nonsensical notion of some Albanians here (whose exponent are you) "all E-V13 is Albanian or Romanian of Albanian speakers who picked up Latin".

Huban
09-02-2021, 10:58 PM
It's literally what the study says. It is what is and we're going to debate only based on real data.


That is not real data showing no clades under "E". There are far more tested Poles at FTDNA. And Polish admin, I know him for quite a while.. I assure you your statement that those E are in minor % V13 is nothing but a nonsensical lie, or another spurious statement with no basis in facts. And you think you can create some diversion by flooding nonsense. No. You are 100 % wrong, and it really not much of an effort to debunk you.. And I happen to be a very patient and relentless individual.. You will get tired of this, I wont. My word will always be the last.. :P

Bruzmi
09-02-2021, 11:05 PM
My older analysis from another forum.

It contradicts all actual data.

I'll continue citing real peer-reviewed publications which consistently show that E-V13 in Ukraine and Poland is extremely low.

One last time:

Y-Chromosome Genetic Analysis of Modern Polish Population (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.567309/full)

The most frequent Y-SNP binary haplogroups in all analyzed samples were found to be R (71.02%), I (15.71%), N (4.29%), E (3.84%), J (3.22%), and G (1.22%). The total contribution of the others, viz. Q, C, T, H, and O, totaled less than 1% (0.70%), and each comprised only individual samples (Table 1).

I really hope that in the future you rely on actual studies. Trying to make the data fit your theory will only lead to many errors. Have a good day. :)

Huban
09-02-2021, 11:25 PM
It contradicts all actual data.

If you take that sample of yours, it does and so be it then. It is not my fault that your knowledge of haplogroups is so low that you cannot even predict haplotypes of some basic subclades. There is heavy E-V13 in Lvov. And 154 on a city or region is a better indication than 100 from the whole Ukraine.



I'll continue citing real peer-reviewed publications

Lvov sample is also from another peer-reviewed publication.. STR's are there, basic SNP's are there. And I know alot about haplogroups in general..


which consistently show that E-V13 in Ukraine and Poland is extremely low.

One last time:

Y-Chromosome Genetic Analysis of Modern Polish Population (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.567309/full)

The most frequent Y-SNP binary haplogroups in all analyzed samples were found to be R (71.02%), I (15.71%), N (4.29%), E (3.84%), J (3.22%), and G (1.22%). The total contribution of the others, viz. Q, C, T, H, and O, totaled less than 1% (0.70%), and each comprised only individual samples (Table 1).

I really hope that in the future you rely on actual studies. Trying to make the data fit your theory will only lead to many errors. Have a good day. :)

3.84 % of E in Poland is not that low, and there is nowhere information regarding SNP's under. As far more ethnic Poles are tested at FTDNA, that sample is authoritative. And I can show you other samples of Poles supporting this. I will post another relevant sample from a peer-reviewed study with SNP information containing E-V13..

btw. Bunch of those people writing and reviewing publications believe I2a Din is Illyrian, V13 is Greek, J-L283 are Anatolian Neolithic migrants.. Mainstream scientists talking nonsense, and in this instance internet fora people talking sense.. But samples they have are useful nevertheless..

PS. there is nothing to hope here. aDNA suggests E-V13 expanded from outside of the Balkan peninsula and all IA relevant samples fit into these older expected samples. Rather it is the modern distribution of V13 which is not of so much relevance. But the Carpathian area has seen actually alot more invaders, alot more replacements by Slavs than the Balkan.. However one sees some extra E-V13 there. For example a sample of NE Hungarians also show more V13 (or more M78 deepest clade they tested, but STR's are available to check for V22's, V12's). This area of Hungary has seen far less migration and population there is considered generally local, that is why this area was tested.

Bane
09-02-2021, 11:26 PM
https://i.imgur.com/hyo7Kkq.png


source: Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820)

Huban
09-03-2021, 12:01 AM
If E is 3.84%, then E-V13 is either extremely low or very low.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2012190

A total of 1156 individuals were analysed in the present study, including 520
unrelated males descending directly from pre-WWII native inhabitants of three
distinct ethnolinguistic regions of Poland: Kaszuby (Kashubian-speaking
region, n = 204), Kociewie (Greater Polish-speaking region, n = 158) and
Kurpie (Masovian-speaking region, n = 158). Inhabitants of the Kurpie region
trace their origin to Masovian peasants who since the 16th century colonised
forests between Masovia and Prussia, and were subjected to some degree of
geographic and cultural isolation.9

y. In
addition, a sample set from Germany comprised Sorbs from Lusatia (Upper
Sorbian speakers, n ¼ 123) and Germans from Mecklenburg (northeastern
Germany, n ¼ 131) and western Bavaria (southwestern Germany, n ¼ 218).
Finally, DNA samples from western Slovakia (n ¼ 164), used previously in a
comprehensive analysis of Y-STR variation in the Slavic populations

Kaszuby (n = 204) E-V13+ 6/204 2.94 %, E-M123 1/204 0.49 % , other E 0
Kociewie (n = 158) E-V13+ 5/158 3.16 % E-M123 1/158 0.63 %, other E 0
Kurpie (n = 158) E-V13+ 2/158 1.27 % , other E 0

Lusatia (n = 123) E-V13+ 6/123 4.88 %, other E 0

So here we see how correct is your statement that V13 represents the miniscule % of Polish E. Rather the non-V13 do..

In addition there are samples of

Slovaks from Western Slovakia (n = 164) E-V13 6, 3.66 %, E-M123 1 , 0.61 %
Germans from Mecklenburg (n = 131) E-V13 5 3.81 %, E-M78* 1, 0.76 %, E-M81 1, 0.76 %
Germans from Western Bavaria (n = 218) E-V13 15 6.88 %, E-M35* 0.46 % , E-M78* 2 0.92 %

Several Kaszuby, Sorb samples here are E-L540. Clade which has nothing to do with Balkans, even though you tried to find some "Balkan" auDNA in one L540 sample to indicate he too is a recent Balkan migrant. .:crazy: In fact there are few Serbs belonging to two downstream E-L540 clades, and some of their closest genetic relatives from the migration period are Lusatian Sorbs! So these E-L540 Serbs are among the "original" Serbs..

Riverman
09-03-2021, 12:15 AM
Thanks Huban, like always a great contribution!

Do you know, by chance, from which exact region the Western Bavarian sample was taken from:

Germans from Western Bavaria[/COLOR] (n = 218) E-V13 15 6.88 %, E-M35* 0.46 % , E-M78* 2 0.92 %


Because my impression was that the core Bavarian tribal settlement regions have less E-V13 than all surrounding groups. As soon as you leave the Bavarian core region, E-V13 pops up in much higher frequency, like in Saxony, Bohemia, Eastern Austria and so on.

The number is therefore rather high, but the Bavarian country being split into three regions, of which one has a high E-V13 frequency Franconia, another a higher one still, namely Swabia. Was this probably a sample largely taken from Swabian Bavaria? Because that's "Western Bavaria"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swabia_(Bavaria)

Ethnolinguistically, Swabian Bavaria is not actually Bavarian.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Oberdeutsche_Mundarten.png

In the Allemannic zone E-V13 is significantly higher than in the Bavarian from my personal observation. This just shows how important tribal-ethnic differences of later times could have been for the spread or annihilation of haplogroups. That's why such a high number from "real Bavarians" (ethnolinguistically) would be rather suprising, while the same frequency from Allemannic speakers would just meet my expectation.

Huban
09-03-2021, 12:38 AM
Thanks Huban, like always a great contribution!

Do you know, by chance, from which exact region the Western Bavarian sample was taken from:


Because my impression was that the core Bavarian tribal settlement regions have less E-V13 than all surrounding groups. As soon as you leave the Bavarian core region, E-V13 pops up in much higher frequency, like in Saxony, Bohemia, Eastern Austria and so on.

The number is therefore rather high, but the Bavarian country being split into three regions, of which one has a high E-V13 frequency Franconia, another a higher one still, namely Swabia. Was this probably a sample largely taken from Swabian Bavaria? Because that's "Western Bavaria"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swabia_(Bavaria)

Ethnolinguistically, Swabian Bavaria is not actually Bavarian.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Oberdeutsche_Mundarten.png

In the Allemannic zone E-V13 is significantly higher than in the Bavarian from my personal observation. This just shows how important tribal-ethnic differences of later times could have been for the spread or annihilation of haplogroups. That's why such a high number from "real Bavarians" (ethnolinguistically) would be rather suprising, while the same frequency from Allemannic speakers would just meet my expectation.

No, but we can see German institutions involved in this, both from Munich.
Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum Munchen,
German Research Centre for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany;

I think I saw a Munich sample somewhere and it had less V13 than this sample. Interestingly at YFull one does not see many Bavarian samples in general it seems in comparison to other German regons. No idea what does Western Bavaria here constitutes, but its better than having just a label of "Bavarian"..

Riverman
09-03-2021, 01:03 AM
No idea what does Western Bavaria here constitutes, but its better than having just a label of "Bavarian"..

Indeed. I think most samples were taken from Swabians. Swabians and Franconians have a significant level of E-V13 in Bavaria, core Bavarians not. The same applies to Austria, in which the situation is more complicated though, because not all Germanic ancestry in Austria is just Bavarian. So even if subtracting Slavic and Provincial Roman or later migrant elements, the core Bavarian contribution is somewhat lower, especially from the Inn westward. Many villages were founded by Frankish settlers also. Only the earliest, tribal settlement was exclusively Bavarian. The areas later conquered from the Avars and Slavs not as much. Still mostly, but not exclusively.

I also found the connection and archaeological description of Scythians with the Central Balkan, which explains the Geto-Scythian profile, since they were descendents from Gava-/Basarabi with Scythian influences too. They had nothing to do with Illyrians:


In the meantime, it was
stratigraphically confi rmed that at Židovar existed the later settlement of the
Basarabi culture (Basarabi III), in which few elements of classical Basarabi
decoration were preserved while polished pottery decorated with fl uting and
facets was predominating. Besides prevalent fl uted pottery (Pl. 9/3) and other
characteristics of the Bosut group – moulded (Pl. 10/4) and incised decoration
(Pl. 10/1), typical shapes of conical or calottal single-handled cups (Pl. 15/3),
larger conical bowls (Pl. 9/4), biconical beakers (Pl. 10/2) – there are certain
elements indicating influence from the Late Hallstatt Ferigile cultural circle in
the same horizon. The most significant are: small conical bowls with protuberances on the shoulder, bowls of coarse or fi ne texture decorated with small tongue-shaped extensions
modelled slantingly or vertically on the rim, or decorated with short vertical ribs surpassing the rim.
Th ere are also stylized bird protomes on the rims or on the top of ribbon-like handles (Jevtić–Sladić
1999, Pl. I/8). Smaller pots with massive tongue shaped lugs on the shoulder (Pl. 9/1) and pots with
horseshoe-shaped handles also indicate the influence from the north Thracian areas (Jevtić–Sladić
1999, 96). In the ceramic inventory one can also identify: profiled pots with rims slanting outwards
(Pl. 9/2), pots with massive ribbon-shaped handles (Pl. 10/6) and larger biconical amphora-type vessels
with incised decoration (Pl. 10/1). On the basis of the pottery characteristics, cultural continuity between
the latest Basarabi settlement (characteristics of Basarabi culture are clearly distinguishable in the early
Ferigile horizon) and the Bosut III settlement can be claimed. Presence of the conical single-handled
beaker of Rača–Ljuljaci type (Fig. 3) confirms existence of relations with the Morava valley. The find of
an arrowhead of Scythian type – a three-edged one with hidden socket (Fig. 6) – is more a confirmation
that the rest of the portable material should be dated to the period 6th–5th centuries BC.


The Late Hallstatt communities settling the eastern part of the Serbian Danube basin were under
great infl uence from the north-Thracian cultural circle (Ferigile group, etc.). It seems that the cultural
heritage from the previous period, when the great Basarabi complex flourished, continued to exist.

Like in the West, the main reason for the collapse of Hallstatt was kind of a social revolution against the rule and accumulated wealth of the princes:


It is important to notice that the
time of the emergence of the Srem group coincides with the collapse of the model of princely tombs of
the Central Balkans. One of the possible solutions of the character of the Srem group graves is that less
pronounced social diff erences and more even dispersion of material wealth – as expressed in the funerary practice of the Srem group – may be the result of the changes caused by the collapse of the princely
tombs model.

https://www.academia.edu/2250668/THE_LATE_HALLSTATT_COMMUNITIES_IN_THE_SERBIAN_PART _OF_THE_DANUBE_BASIN

Ferigile culture is just the result of the Daco-Thracian + Scythian fusion after the Scythian intrusion. At first, the Scythian intrusion led to a near collapse of the population, the economy went down, many settlements were burned. But the remaining Daco-Thracians built belts of fortresses and on the longer run they came to terms with the newcomers. Just like many centuries before in the Baden culture the local Neolithics and the incoming Yamnaya formed a new culture in which the Neolithic element was dominant and mainly adopted cultural innovations from the newcomers.

Same here. Ferigile is roughly speaking "Basarabi people which turned into steppe nomad-like people". Therefore many authors call such influences and groups, "Scythoid" in the archaeological horizon. That's why there are E-V13 carrying "Scythians" with a more Balkan genetic profile. And that's also why some E-V13 made it to the steppe and even to the Caucasus, Northern India, Central Asia and Northern China, occasionally. Because they became, culturally, like Scythians and even competed with "real Scythian" tribes to the East later or intensified contacts to those.

More about the Ferigile culture, the "Thracian Scythians":

In addition, another original component of the weaponry used by Ferigile warriors is
the iron arrowhead, flat and displaying mounting holes. Archers from Ferigile group are
totally reticent to any other type of arrows that could penetrate from the outside2
.
It is to be mentioned the funeral ritual element of bending iron arms before putting
them inside the tomb as grave good. The few examples found in the necropolis from Ferigile
but also in the necropolis at Eșalnița-Mala precede by more than two centuries the emergence
of this phenomenon in Central European Celtic world

Celts started to use heavy cavalry, they began to wear trousers and adopted the animal style in art and ideology, as well as a horse cult. Quite likely, the Vekerzug and Ferigile groups of Scythians and Thracians spread these innovations to the Central and Western Hallstatt groups, from which the La Tene Celtic world emerged. The rite of bending weapons for the burial just adds to the known.

While there were also trade contacts to Illyrians and of course Eastern Hallstatt, its important to stress:


Regarding Ferigile group's specific pottery, its reference to the Basarabi cultural
background is certain. From the Basarabi ceramic are taken not only some basic forms and
manners of treatment of the vessel's surface with a quality dark-gray slip (in the case of fine
ceramics) but also some decorative motifs like the grooves (fig. 4).
In the graves belonging to the final evolutionary phase of the Ferigile group is
pointed out a kind of ceramic taken after the pattern yielded in the Thracian Balkans area
south of the Danube: over-raised handle cups or drinking vessels with two handles, wide
open bowls with knob-grips etc., for instance, in the Getian necropolises from the right bank
of the Danube as it was noticed by Profesor Iširkovo (Georgieva and Bačvarov 1994, 13-18)
or Canlia (Boroffka and Trohani 2003, 139-198).

https://www.academia.edu/9120609/Early_Iron_Age_Cultural_synthesis_in_the_Ferigile_ archaeological_group

Bruzmi
09-03-2021, 09:31 AM
Several Kaszuby, Sorb samples here are E-L540. Clade which has nothing to do with Balkans, even though you tried to find some "Balkan" auDNA in one L540 sample to indicate he too is a recent Balkan migrant. .:crazy: In fact there are few Serbs belonging to two downstream E-L540 clades, and some of their closest genetic relatives from the migration period are Lusatian Sorbs! So these E-L540 Serbs are among the "original" Serbs..

Those samples are from Lusatia. How they got there is another matter, but the fact that E-V13 is higher in German-speaking areas and not Western Slavic-speaking ones is a good indication. Assigning them to Sorbs is speculation.


[url]
Kaszuby (n = 204) E-V13+ 6/204 2.94 %, E-M123 1/204 0.49 % , other E 0
Kociewie (n = 158) E-V13+ 5/158 3.16 % E-M123 1/158 0.63 %, other E 0
Kurpie (n = 158) E-V13+ 2/158 1.27 % , other E 0

So here we see how correct is your statement that V13 represents the miniscule % of Polish E. Rather the non-V13 do..


My claim is that if E is 3.84%, then E-V13 is very low in Poland because indeed it can't be any higher than 3.84% and it can't represent all of E.

Using just the samples taken from areas (excluding Lusatia) which are found only in Poland (which don't include important areas and are skewed towards areas bordering Germany, but let's set that aside):

13/520 E-V13: 2.5%

That's what you proved. Thanks for using a study to provide information consistent with other studies. :)

EDIT:

Areas close to the German border have had historically the lowest percentage of Jewish populations in Poland. It means that E-V13/E-M123 ratio will be skewed towards E-V13 there and vice-versa in other areas.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Number_of_Jews_in_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_per_voivodeship_in_1764.PN G/800px-Number_of_Jews_in_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_per_voivodeship_in_1764.PN G

On yfull, there are 25-26 E-V13, 25-26 E-M123, 5 E-V22 in Poland. Not that it changes anything for the generally very low percentage of E-V13 in Poland, if it's 1.8% or 2.5%. For comparison purposes, J-M241 (almost entirely J-L283 according to yfull stats) is 1.15% according to the same study in these 3 areas.

Riverman
09-03-2021, 09:52 AM
My claim is that if E is 3.84%, then E-V13 is very low in Poland because indeed it can't be any higher than 3.84% and it can't represent all of E.

You completely ignore the distribution. Poland is a big country, with its regions having different ancestral backgrounds and histories. Some of the Northern regions with the very low E-V13 percentage have Baltic influences and being founded by specific Slavic tribes in combination. They don't represent the areas more important for our debate, namely the North Carpathian region. In the North Carpathian region, the frequency, according to the study you posted, rises to 6-7 %! This means the Carpathian region, in which there was Gava and later Daco-Thracian influences, approach the level as some other formerly Daco-Thracian influenced, later Germanic and Slavic settled areas. It fits into the scheme. Of course we need to know the subclades, but many of the Polish subclades are old and Slavic, in any case no recent newcomers.

Some examples from YFull:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4526/

They have an overlap with the Balkan, like so often, but no more recent than the transitional period (about 1.100 BC). Yet they have two independent branches in Poland, the larger with Ukrainian samples as well.

AnotherNorthern group, with Slavic branches in Poland and Russia, as well as a potentially Germanic one in Sweden and Scotland:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11447/

And the higher frequency of E-V13 can mostly be attributed to Hallstatt and the Celts, as well as some Roman era Daco-Thracian migrants for the most part. Doesn't help your theories.

rafc
09-03-2021, 10:46 AM
Areas close to the German border have had historically the lowest percentage of Jewish populations in Poland. It means that E-V13/E-M123 ratio will be skewed towards E-V13 there and vice-versa in other areas.

On yfull, there are 25-26 E-V13, 25-26 E-M123, 5 E-V22 in Poland. Not that it changes anything for the generally very low percentage of E-V13 in Poland, if it's 1.8% or 2.5%. For comparison purposes, J-M241 (almost entirely J-L283 according to yfull stats) is 1.15% according to the same study in these 3 areas.

Evidently those people with E-M123 and a Polish flag are almost all Ashkenazi with Polish roots, who don't live in Poland anymore and cannot be detected by a study on current Poles. So taking a study that only tests on M35 and applying that proportion on it is pure nonsense.
Cruciani 2007 found 2.5% of V13 and Battaglia 2009 4%, those are the numbers. I don't really care if it is 1% higher or lower, I just see it's there and I'm interested to know how it got there. I don't understand why for some people it's so important to minimize the amount of V13 everywhere in Europe. Just stick to the scientific numbers, and explain those (+ the type of branches). I'm also pretty sure that V13 in Poland would be higher close to the German border because of the wide distribution of L540 there.

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 11:35 AM
They can be corroborated from many sources. This is just one study out of many. Most of ethnic Ukrainian E-M35 does not belong to E-M123. Obviously these are some Ukrainian Jews here or Ukrainians of recent Jewish/Ashkenazi origin. E-M123 is very rare in ethnic Ukrainian families.. That I know from Ukrainian DNA projects, who offer more data than any study thus far.



Scy197 is part of a cluster which shows genetic affinity of EIA Babadag culture sample, and which shows archeological affinity to the same site. Archeologically they show affinity to the Moldavian variant of Babadag-Pshenichevo subgroup, the Saharna-Solonceni. These in turn as also related to the Basarabi culture.

The confluence of genetic and archeological evidence is clear in this case and points towards a Getae origin of Moldovan Scythians and EIA presence of their auDNA in the area. This is all aided by the fact that the clade of Scy197 is of heavily Eastern extraction.

And of course let us not forget these are archeologically related to the Bulgarian Pshenichevo culture, heavy with E-V13.. But of course when these facts are brought up Albanians just put their heads in the sand, as if that will save the day for you.. It won't..

Why would albanians put their heads in the sand when they have a lot more v13 than eastern europeans?? I dont get your logic or your agenda, where are you from exactly?

I have still yet to see this proof of heavy v13 in iron age bulgaria, only 1 sample and with history telling us that illyrians pushed thracians east we dont have any basis to decide who the v13 belonged to. We need more ancient dna to determine

Bruzmi
09-03-2021, 12:08 PM
I'm also pretty sure that V13 in Poland would be higher close to the German border because of the wide distribution of L540 there.

E-V13 in those regions is 2.5% per the published study in a sample size of n = 520 (excluding cross-border Lusatia).

I don't mind if it's 1,5% or 2.5% or even 3.5% but the reason why some users have to regularly correct E-V13 figures and "downsize" them is because they are regularly exaggerated in the E-V13 threads in order to draw particular conclusions. That's all.

This debate reminds the one about E-V13 in Greece and this particular comment:


The trend I see in this and other threads:

"Greeks have E1b>E-V13 as their highest marker", moving to "Greeks have at least 15-20% E-V13", moving to "Greeks have around 10% E-V13", which was exactly the point 23abc and I were making.


Just replace Greeks with Poles and use more relevant percentages and it's still the same scenario of overexaggerated figures and bizzarre speculations about E-V13.

rafc
09-03-2021, 12:27 PM
E-V13 in those regions is 2.5% per the published study in a sample size of n = 520 (excluding cross-border Lusatia).

I don't mind if it's 1,5% or 2.5% or even 3.5% but the reason why some users have to regularly correct E-V13 figures and "downsize" them is because they are regularly exaggerated in the E-V13 threads in order to draw particular conclusions. That's all.

This debate reminds the one about E-V13 in Greece and this particular comment:



Just replace Greeks with Poles and use more relevant percentages and it's still the same scenario of overexaggerated figures and bizzarre speculations about E-V13.

The irony is that you arrive at 10% V13 in Greece by misunderstanding FTDNA numbers, just like you misunderstood the Yfull numbers on Poland.

peloponnesian
09-03-2021, 01:54 PM
The general movement of people was in the Balkans from North -> South. The Greeks for example were not the first IE in the Balkans, Proto-Anatolians were first. Thracians followed, on top of them all kind of other steppe and Central European people. So you deal with a layer model, in which those to the South now, were further up in the North once, ethnolinguistically speaking. Both the Illyrians and the Daco-Thracians were from the relative North.


But how did the Balkan autosomal profile end up the way it has if it's only been northern group on top of northern group migrating?

Bruzmi
09-03-2021, 02:02 PM
The irony is that you arrive at 10% V13 in Greece by misunderstanding FTDNA numbers, just like you misunderstood the Yfull numbers on Poland.

We've been over this before. E-V13 in Greece is ≤15% for the country as a whole. It's lower than the claims in the E-V13 thread, just like E-V13 is much lower everywhere else except for certain areas in the Balkans.

Riverman
09-03-2021, 02:06 PM
But how did the Balkan autosomal profile end up the way it has if it's only been northern group on top of northern group migrating?

Most of the Northern groups had not as much impact on the local population as the Channelled Ware and Slavs. The steppe groups like Scythians, Sarmatians and Avars were largely swallowed. Celts too had not as much of an impact and Germanics moved on.
Even for Channelled Ware different stages from North to South will be proven, with every step increasing the local ancestry.
Additionally, in the Roman era, thrre were the more Individual migrants, colonists, soldiers, merchants, magistrates, workers and slaves.
These too had significant impact.
The expansions into the Balkan rarely had as much lasting effects as Channelled Ware. Additionally, E-V13 is similar to R1a, because its a back-migrant. R1a came from the steppe, moved into Central Europe and came back again. E-V13 came from the Balkan, moved up to the Carpathians and came back again. They did descend, in all likelihood, from a group of Lengyel-Sopot or Triopolye-Cucuteni which became incorporated into Epi-Corded networks. So far we don't even have good samples from their neighbouring and preceding groups, like Otomani. Therefore its hard to tell how they exactly looked like, at the start of Pre-Gava around 1.600-1.400 BC probably. They might already have been more Balkan shifted than neighbouring R1a groups, like those from Nitra, and even those were already more Neolithic and no longer like LN Corded Ware in every case.
Even the Slavs, as one of the most North Eastern shifted groups in all of Europe, and coming in great numbers, with a great deal of regional replacement, didn't really shift the whole population completely out of the old Balkan zone. And Channelled Ware had paternally in many regions a bigger impact, but they seem to have been organised around elite leaders and a retinue of warriors, so kind of hierarchical, conquering, taking women and assimilating locals on the way. This means their impact at the end of the effective spread in Anatolia might have been way smaller than in North Eastern Hungary or the Carpathian basin in general, even in the West Ukraine.