E-V13 entered Greece with Illyrians and Dorian invasions

[Korabi]

We do have some interesting points/leaks so far.

Total lack of E-V13 from Late Neolithic Bulgaria, Early Bronze Age and then every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age.

It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age. So, in turn there is no better candidate to explain this changes than E-V13. Otherwise, do us a favor and tell us which Y-DNA do you propose as a factor in this migrations and changes?

Is it really logical to link whole migration events of a culture/cultures with one haplogroup?

I highly doubt any ancient nigration from the Danube was that homogeneous. Not disagreeing with your underlying statement. I'm just sure there's more than one haplogroup involved in that process.

[Hawk]

Is it really logical to link whole migration events of a culture/cultures with one haplogroup?

I highly doubt any ancient nigration from the Danube was that homogeneous. Not disagreeing with your underlying statement. I'm just sure there's more than one haplogroup involved in that process.

No, that's not possible for sure. But maybe around ~50-60% E-V13 (just a guess).

[mikulic33]

The influence was so large that various Southern Illyrian tribes were bilingual. And even this Southern Albanian Illyrian culture is hypothesized to have had Greek input.

There is also a Serb with a tradition of descend from Montenegro. He has an unusual haplotype and fully matches one Macedonain Greek. He is E-A7135*, A8555-. So if that Macedonian is E-A7136, there are five separate Y3183 clades in Greeks, although you only see those from Laconia at YFull due to their poor level of testing.

E-Y3183 overall has no less than nine separate branches in the Southeastern Europe whose distance to one another is at least the Early Iron Age.

Is there a source for this Macedonian Greek “fully matching” the Montenegrin sample under A7136?

[Korabi]

No, that's not possible for sure. But maybe around ~50-60% E-V13 (just a guess).

I suppose time will tell. Definitely need quite a bit of ancient DNA at all intervals of antiquity to get a pretty nice picture of things.

[Hawk]

I suppose time will tell. Definitely need quite a bit of ancient DNA at all intervals of antiquity to get a pretty nice picture of things.

Well, we are still in a way doing guess games, but even if we are wrong it still doesn't matter as long as we don't get blindfolded by facts. aDNA has never ceased to amaze us every time.

[Bruzmi]

We do have some interesting points/leaks so far.

Total lack of E-V13 from Late Neolithic Bulgaria, Early Bronze Age and then every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age.

It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age. So, in turn there is no better candidate to explain this changes than E-V13. Otherwise, do us a favor and tell us which Y-DNA do you propose as a factor in this migrations and changes?

"every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age." A couple of points here. There are very few samples which have been recovered and we would have to check the context of each site before we place the label "Thracian" (or any label). We have (almost?) no samples from the western Balkans. When the sample size is so small, I think that conclusions should be very limited.

"It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age." Is it?

The third edition of The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. by Robert Drews was published in 2020 (Princeton University Press):

Even in the earlier excavations the quantity of this "barbarian ware" at any site was minute (at Korakou, for example, sixteen sherds). And now, as Podzuweit points out, the excavations at Tiryns not only confirm that "barbarian ware" was a negligible commodity in the LH IIIC period, but also that its use began before the Catastrophe rather than after it. Nor do the new metal artifacts (which point as much to Italy as to the central Balkans) indicate a migration. The best explanation for the fibulae seems to be, as Desborough argued, that they were first brought from the Balkans (or Italy) to Greece over trade routes, or by individuals and small groups and eventually were copied and produced by Mycenaean artisans.

The Naue Type II sword, we shall see in chapter 13, is undoubtedly a central European and northern Italian type, but the specimens found in Greece in LH IIIC contexts came from "Greek" tombs and were accompanied by "Greek" pottery. One would therefore suppose that Greek-speakers had acquired the swords and learned how to use them. Or as Herctor Catling suggested, one might imagine these Naue Type II swords in the hands of mercenaries who had joined the service of Helladic kingdoms or communities. In short, there may have been movement of people from the Balkans into Greece and western Asia Minor during and shortly after the Catastrophe, just as there had always been but what movement there was must have been limited to individuals, families, and small groups of families. There is no evidence for a general migration, to say nothing of a migration responsible for the destruction of the IIIB sites.


We should keep things simple until we do have results. What would be great is if there was some crowdfunding effort under the project of an archaeological institute in the Balkans in order to produce aDNA recovery for remains of individuals which have been "assigned" with high probability to a particular Iron Age culture.

[Hawk]

It's the same leftist archeologists who will be proven wrong again and again just as they were with Kurgan theory.

[Riverman]

"every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age." A couple of points here. There are very few samples which have been recovered and we would have to check the context of each site before we place the label "Thracian" (or any label). We have (almost?) no samples from the western Balkans. When the sample size is so small, I think that conclusions should be very limited.

"It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age." Is it?

The third edition of The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. by Robert Drews was published in 2020 (Princeton University Press):

Even in the earlier excavations the quantity of this "barbarian ware" at any site was minute (at Korakou, for example, sixteen sherds). And now, as Podzuweit points out, the excavations at Tiryns not only confirm that "barbarian ware" was a negligible commodity in the LH IIIC period, but also that its use began before the Catastrophe rather than after it. Nor do the new metal artifacts (which point as much to Italy as to the central Balkans) indicate a migration. The best explanation for the fibulae seems to be, as Desborough argued, that they were first brought from the Balkans (or Italy) to Greece over trade routes, or by individuals and small groups and eventually were copied and produced by Mycenaean artisans.

The Naue Type II sword, we shall see in chapter 13, is undoubtedly a central European and northern Italian type, but the specimens found in Greece in LH IIIC contexts came from "Greek" tombs and were accompanied by "Greek" pottery. One would therefore suppose that Greek-speakers had acquired the swords and learned how to use them. Or as Herctor Catling suggested, one might imagine these Naue Type II swords in the hands of mercenaries who had joined the service of Helladic kingdoms or communities. In short, there may have been movement of people from the Balkans into Greece and western Asia Minor during and shortly after the Catastrophe, just as there had always been but what movement there was must have been limited to individuals, families, and small groups of families. There is no evidence for a general migration, to say nothing of a migration responsible for the destruction of the IIIB sites.


We should keep things simple until we do have results. What would be great is if there was some crowdfunding effort under the project of an archaeological institute in the Balkans in order to produce aDNA recovery for remains of individuals which have been "assigned" with high probability to a particular Iron Age culture.

There is this general tendency in post-1960's archaeology to prefer, if everything else is equal, a local origin, oftentimes even arguing for a regional scenario if all the evidence stands against it, like searching for a way out of any invasion scenario. Yet it is very clear, that what happened can only be explained by massive movements of people. There is the evidence, and they play it down. Its ridiculous from my point of view, but you are still right: We need the actual data to close the case, because once people have to accept that whole male clans being eliminated in the course of events and replaced, like in Iberia, they can't argue for a regional origin any more.
However, even in the Iberian case they still argue for a slower pace and possible spread by dominant males over many generations, which too is ridiculous. Because it was, at that time, primarily about clans and tribes, not individuals.

What's correct however is, that in a lot of cases there seems to have been something like a trickling of smaller groups of migrants first, as workers, mercenaries and so on, and then an overtake of the migrants and their relatives. Actually quite similar to what happened with the steppe invasion of Tripolye-Cucuteni before or the Roman end in the migraiton period many centuries later. The story is oftentimes the same: First contacts, transfer of goods and ideas, small scale migration, they learn of each other, at some point the demographically and militarily stronger side, probably in a favourable moment, takes over and a large portion of the indigenous population, especially its male part, being annihilated and replaced, the material culture shifts, sometimes its a near total societal collapse. That's a common theme, it happened again and again, since the Upper Palaeolithic period we have evidence for this, most likely it dates back even longer, even to pre-Homo sapiens times.

The reason for the massive influx and high frequency of E-V13 is simple: You need a scenario which explains the outcome. If there would have been a slow but steady increase over time in the crucial regions, other scenarios might be plausible. But since there was none, pretty much like in Iberia or Britain with Bell Beakers, it was a massive, grand scale invasion and replacement. And the best timing for it is the crucial LBA-EIA transition and ethnically a focus on the Daco-Thracian expansion primarily, the Illyrian, Celtic and Dorian secondarily. That's also good to explain, because of the networks established and at work during Urnfield and Hallstatt respectively, which connected these people and regions.

[Bruzmi]

It's the same leftist archeologists who will be proven wrong again and again just as they were with Kurgan theory.

Em...Robert Drews is the author of The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East and for many years has been opposed to the Anatolian hypothesis so I'm not sure how your comment about "leftist archaeologists" and the Kurgan theory is related to his work. Not that it's about what one author has to say or not. It's about the data. They don't confirm the theories about mass migrations/invasions of single groups which caused radical changes.

Speaking of which (The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, p.39):
Among specialists there is now a rough consensus that Aeolic developed in eastern Thessaly, which was - as John Chadwick proposed in an important article in 1956 - a "buffer zone" between North and South Greek. (..) It also appears (although on this point there is more debate) that ca. 1200 BC Aeolic and Doric were not yet - or not much -differentiated. Finally, there is considerable agreement that 1200 BC North and South Greek were linguistically not very far apart: speakers of North and South Greek were more readily intelligible (..)

[Huban]

So only one of this group is tested Y3183 for now? I do not exclude they form a subclade together, but it's also not that obvious from the data.

I believe it is very much obvious. The Austrian is quite obviously distantly related to the Bulgarian, at least chance is enormous as they are both SNP tested. The majority of samples is related to Bulgarian, the statistical probability has to be 99 % or more. Because not only that their GD indicates relation, but these very mutations they share clearly indicate a cluster in the Balkans. You have a set of mutations on slower/very slow STR's, you have the GD closeness, there is the factor of geographic proximity in the area. Only little doubtful can be the Greek Corinthia samples who lack dys385. Have you even taken a proper look at these? For example their dys456=15/16 alone logically is an indication of being Z16659+, that aids in classification. I believe from the context it is very much clear this is a cluster and saying that it isn't is setting a bar high, extremely high and in this case I find it very much irrational, because there are clusters precited as belonging to various clades at FTDNA who have Y67 or even more but who have far less case for such a thing than these, due to "lucky" set of circumstances in this clusters case.