E-V13 entered Greece with Illyrians and Dorian invasions

[Rrenjet.]

There is considerable diversity of CTS9320 especially in Southern Albania. Even some people from the North seem to descend from S.Albania. For example Bjelopavlici tribe. Also Kelmendi have a Vlach relative from the South. Ah even E-BY4459 which is also very common in Tosks. Of Dibrri Elsie said they were "mixed with Tosks".

E-Z17107 is common and diverse in the Eastern part of South Albania and in Central & Eastern parts of North Albania. I don't think Dibrri E-Z17107 can be reduced to mixing with Tosks, because the whole surrounding area (Shllak, Kthelle, Cidhen, etc.) has E-Z17107 results.

Kelmend has one Vlach match from the South, and 3-4 other matching results from the North. Their cluster will be branched out on YFull in the next months.

[Hawk]

Well again like I did a year ago, some old views mentioned "Ezero" but the newest views of Steppe element in Ljubljana say surely Yamnaya derived. But interestingly sporting the Corded Ware pottery. As this Yamnaya element is very old, its probably more related to the likes of R-KMS67 than R-CTS11450.

I think it is extremely unlikely V13 is anything other that this Cardial surviving element fusing with these incomers. And only centuries later was Cetina culture formed. Evidence of some EEF's surviving and coexisting with Steppe people is rare or non-existent.

It seems there was some network of related Yamnaya derived peoples roaming around W.Balkan, Bulgaria, Transylvania.. I think this fits into V13 initial spread. Their Corded pottery is interesting, maybe this is some ancient Thracian link with CWC..

Besides, as I've said before the Cardial Neolithic people were somewhat different especially culturally. For them worshipping skulls was the most important thing, and there is some evidence it continued in Cetina culture even. A tell sign E1b1b was there (Natufians, IM's).. Some archeologists mentioned also some Maasai like burial practices. One could imagine these creeps managed to accomplish what other EEF's failed.

Maasai are Nilotic people, who originally belonged to Y-DNA A, any kind of resemblance must be from recent Cushitic males (subclades of E-M35) coming from Nile Valley and mingling with original Maasai.

Anyway, regarding the skull worship, i can barely find any kind of interesting articles on Cetina, can you atleast cite the Serbo-Croatian material (i do understand a bit). PPNA/PPNB where i think E-L618 originated from had this obsession with skull cult.

[Aspar]

You should read more than wikipedia articles. There is no evidence Vučedol has relation to Cetina. There is no evidence Vučedol population of any sort was present in Cetina areas at any time. This is some 50 year old stuff about Cetina-Vučedol..

There are some parallels with Glina, or more precisely Schneckenberg in other aspects. This burial wasn't that widespread.

Bell Beaker had influence on Cetina, though according to anthropological material there is no BB influence.

The crucial element in its formation was the Adriatic type Ljubljana culture. BB and also "Ezero". This Adriatic Ljubljana culture was some fusion of local Cardials with some 100 % Yamnaya people. Most likely unrelated to most common Balkan Z2103 whose close relative was found in Mokrin. It seems this Yamnaya element has clear Transylvanian, and also indirectly again Schneckenberg links. "Ezero" links also seem to point to the same.

You seem to follow this pattern, Greeks = bad => Greeks Yamnaya related => Yamnaya bad => V13 can't have anything to do with Yamnaya...

Currently even Corded Ware is being derived from Yamnaya, all non-Anatolian IE is Yamnaya derived in some way..

Even Wikipedia is a good source for informations especially if it cites academic sources. Unlike you, I've given you some academic sources independent of wiki for Glina III Schneckenberg. For the Cetina Culture, there aren't many materials, however some works of Croatian students can be found on Academia.edu.

https://www.academia.edu/41277238/Ce...?pls=RHCLMobY8

PRVI STUPANJ – ENEOLITIK

"Problem geneze cetinske kulture svodi se u osnovi na pitanje koji su osnovni etnički slojevi i elementi, u kojem omjeru i kakvim mehanizmima sudjelovali u nastanku njenog ranog, početnog oblika ...definiranog kao njen prvi stupanj".5 Iz riječi Marovićevog i Čovićevog rada možemo zaključiti kako se najveći problem u genezicetinske kulture krije upravo u prvoj fazi njenog razvoja. Marijanović u svome radu objašnjava kako se u ranoj fazi cetinske kulture ne može govoriti o njoj kao cjelovitoj i samostalnoj kulturnoj manifestaciji. S obzirom da nalazi iz tog vremena obiluju odlikama eneolitičkog karaktera, te keramike6 skoro pa i nema, problematično jedefinirati ranu fazu cetinske kulture. Istraživači poput Blagoja Govedarice navode kako ta rana faza cetinske kulture je samostalni kulturni horizont, te kao takav zaseban uodnosu na kasniji njen razvoj7. Ono što karakterizira prvi stupanj faze razvoja cetinske kulture su elementi jadranskog kasnog eneolitika koji se javljaju u različitim obilježjima keramike iz tog vremena. Osim tih oblika, također su nađeni i tipični cetinski oblici, ali u znatno manjoj mjeri.

DRUGI I TREĆI STUPANJ – NEOLITIK

Oni oblici i ukrasi koji zapravo karakteriziraju ovu kulturnu skupinu su nastali uneolitiku. Oblici koji su bili zastupljeni u prvom stupnju, oni eneolitički oblici sada suu puno manjoj mjeri nađeni. Sve više ima nalaza oko rijeke Cetine po kojoj onda i ova kulturna skupina i dobiva ime. U grobnim gomilama oko izvora rijeke pronalazi se sve više posuda tipa Kotorac8, te geometrijski motivi izvedeni kombinacijom urezivanja i utiskivanja. S obzirom na količinu nalazišta na različitim lokalitetima uz rijeku Cetinu i na bogatstvo oblika i ornamenata na keramici drugi se stupanj smatra vrhuncem razvoja cetinske kulture. Što se tiče trećeg stupnja, njegov razvoj pripada kraju neolitika, te je sve manje nalaza iz tog razdoblja. Ono što je karakteristično za treći stupanj je vidljiv utjecaj drugih kulturnih skupina, poput indoeuropskih elemenata koje vežemo uz sahranjivanje u tumulima i vrpčastu keramiku, zatim lasinjske kulturne skupine u keramici i ornamentici. Osim tih kultura utjecaj na cetinsku kulturu imala je i vučedolska kultura, pogotovo u ukrašavanju keramike.

ZAKLJUČAK

Iz prikazanog možemo zaključiti kako postoje nejasnoće u genezi cetinske kulturneskupine, te različiti istraživači imaju različita mišljenja. Prvi i treći stupanj razvoja cetinske kulture je definitivno bio pod utjecajima drugih kultura što je vidlji vo iz različitih nalaza, tako da možemo reći, što zbog količine nalaza, što zbograsprostranjenosti, kako je zapravo samo drugi stupanj „čisti“ primjer cetinskog tipa kulture.

So, from the above cited work, the first period of Cetina Culture is directly connected to the older Eneolithic and Neolithic layer of cultures from the region and as such the development of the Cetina Culture can be traced to Eneolithic period. The second period is the period with the least influence from other cultures and the most independent and recognizible in ornaments period of the Cetina Culture. The third period is the period when the steppe element such as tumuli burials and corded-ware ceramics appear and influences on Cetina can be also seen coming from Balaton-Lasinya and Vučedol cultures. Note that the Indo-European element is accompined by Corded-Ware ceramics! In other words, this Glina III Schneckenberg element you was talking about is nowhere to be seen...

From a work of the Croat professor Brunislav Marijanović: https://www.academia.edu/18976013/Br...ard=view-paper

The question also arises of the relationship between Adriatic and Cetina cultures. The author’s view is that the Cetina culture emerged during the Eneolithic. Ivan Marović and Borivoj Čović placed the early Cetina culture at the end of the Eneolithic and at the transition into the Early Bronze Age. In contrast to them, the author believes that the early Cetina culture belongs to the Advanced Eneolithic (pp. 120-121, 131). In a work he wrote subsequently but published before this book, he explained that the Eneolithic phase of the Cetina culture cannot be considered an independent phenomenon; rather is still an integral part of the Advanced Eneolithic on the eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland. In other words, what is characteristic of the Advanced Eneolithic is also characteristic of the Eneolithic phase of the Cetina culture (Marijanović 1998, 6-7)!

From this one can conclude that the Cetina culture nevertheless emerged at the beginning of the Bronze Age, but also that it grew out of a Eneolithic substratum.

Then how did this region become completely Indo-Europeanised? During the Iron Age eastern Herzegovina was settled by the Illyrians, while western Herzegovina was settled by the Delmatae, and it is known for certain that these ethnic groups were Indo-European. When did the massive settlement of new inhabitants on the eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland occur? The answer to this question was provided by B. Čović and Frano Prendi. They provided firm evidences that a major watershed in the cultural development of this region occurred at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, which is confirmed by the appearance and domination of new forms, decorations and even technologies in the production of pottery. This watershed could have been provoked only by the massive immigration of a new, numerous and organizationally superior population. B. Čović tentatively refers to this population as “carriers of coarse-ware ceramics”, thereby designating only one of the archaeologically most easily recognizable elements of the material culture, common to all groups that belonged to this population. This population, undoubtedly livestock herders, spread from the eastern Balkans to other parts of the peninsula during the last centuries of the third millennium BC. The expansion of this population should be viewed as subdued movement of a large number of smaller social groups linked by some distant kinship ties and sometimes, during shorter periods of sedentary existence, in casual mutual contact. Some of these communities halted earlier, others wandered farther. They did not devastate the indigenous inhabitants they came upon, nor did they subjugate them, rather they mingled with them and created new cultural-ethnic communities that were undoubtedly already Indo-European.

In this vein, there is no doubt that the agents of the Posušje culture were Indo-Europeans. As opposed to the Posušje culture, the Cetina culture is genetically tied to the Advanced Eneolithic, which means that its agents were an old Mediterranean population that was certainly partially Indo-Europeanised, but nevertheless not Indo-European.

It seems to me that you yourself interpreted this influx of eastern Balkan migrants Čović and Prendi spoke about as coming from and direct influence from Glina III Schneckenberg however there is nothing of that in these works. In fact, Eastern Balkans is a broad term and it's not clearly defined what they mean by "Eastern Balkans"!

[Aspar]

There are plenty of those. I know of 15-20 clades at least, just most of them haven't done BigY. But even so there are some with BigY. You focus too much on YFull's tree.

Especially can these close links be monitored in Romania/Moldova.

Then it's clear that there aren't any for now! It becomes clear if they are SNP defined because I'm afraid you can not tell much about TMRCA by observing STR markers. I observe the Block Tree as well! What other sources do you know about? And again, there was a major depopulation of the territory of Romania and Moldova during late antiquity and Early Medieval. Even the Goths run away from there, so what makes you think that the previous populations stayed in place? How do you know that many of these Romanians and Moldovans aren't recent migrants from the south?

[rafc]

Even Wikipedia is a good source for informations especially if it cites academic sources. Unlike you, I've given you some academic sources independent of wiki for Glina III Schneckenberg. For the Cetina Culture, there aren't many materials, however some works of Croatian students can be found on Academia.edu.

https://www.academia.edu/41277238/Ce...?pls=RHCLMobY8




So, from the above cited work, the first period of Cetina Culture is directly connected to the older Eneolithic and Neolithic layer of cultures from the region and as such the development of the Cetina Culture can be traced to Eneolithic period. The second period is the period with the least influence from other cultures and the most independent and recognizible in ornaments period of the Cetina Culture. The third period is the period when the steppe element such as tumuli burials and corded-ware ceramics appear and influences on Cetina can be also seen coming from Balaton-Lasinya and Vučedol cultures. Note that the Indo-European element is accompined by Corded-Ware ceramics! In other words, this Glina III Schneckenberg element you was talking about is nowhere to be seen...

Does this article mention anything about the timing of Cetina? From your abstract it seems like the third phase of Cetina is linked to cultures from the fourth and early third millenium BC, while that third phase would be somewhere around 2000BC based on other articles. It seems a bit unlikely they could be a source or influence.

[Aspar]

Does this article mention anything about the timing of Cetina? From your abstract it seems like the third phase of Cetina is linked to cultures from the fourth and early third millenium BC, while that third phase would be somewhere around 2000BC based on other articles. It seems a bit unlikely they could be a source or influence.

The first article speaks about three phases of Cetina. It says that the roots of Cetina Culture can be traced to the older Eneolithic substrate of the region. This is the first phase. However the beginning of Cetina Culture as an independent culture starts in EBA and this is the second phase. The third phase begins in the last centuries of the third millennium when a steppe related influence came upon however didn't Indo-Europianized Cetina. I didn't encountered anything about when this last phase ends and with that Cetina as well tho.

[Hawk]

The first article speaks about three phases of Cetina. It says that the roots of Cetina Culture can be traced to the older Eneolithic substrate of the region. This is the first phase. However the beginning of Cetina Culture as an independent culture starts in EBA and this is the second phase. The third phase begins in the last centuries of the third millennium when a steppe related influence came upon however didn't Indo-Europianized Cetina. I didn't encountered anything about when this last phase ends and with that Cetina as well tho.

Yeah, materials are scarce. What do u think, can Cetina explain E-V13 spread or it's not possible considering older subclades appearing in and around Central Europe?

[Aspar]

Yeah, materials are scarce. What do u think, can Cetina explain E-V13 spread or it's not possible considering older subclades appearing in and around Central Europe?

I was and still am on the conclusion that TMRCA was around and close to the Carpathians before it joined the ranks of some highly mobile groups. From there it spread all over Europe and the West Balkan as well.
I believe the West Balkans and Cetina at that were the home of groups rich in J-L283 and R1b. Of course, there were other haplogroups there very likely such as G2a and even E-L618 however I don't thin this is relevant for the MRCA in EBA.
In fact, from the above materials on Cetina it's evident that the pre-Indo-European element survived better in the Western Balkans. In that regard I have some open suspicions that the Etruscan language has been spoken in the Western Balkans before Etruscan speaking people migrated to Italy. Archaeologically the Etruscans can be linked to proto-Villanovan culture and the proto-Villanovan Culture in turn had some clear Balkan elements in it. Furthermore check these models from Eurogenes blog:

The Proto-Villanovan singleton is also a key part of the models. Dating to the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition, she appears to be of western Balkan origin. Moreover, her steppe ancestry is probably derived directly from the Yamnaya horizon.

ITA_Proto-Villanovan
HRV_Vucedol 0.677±0.031
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.323±0.031
chisq 10.397
tail prob 0.661174
Full output


The cluster made up of four early Italic speakers can be modeled with minor Proto-Villanovan-related ancestry, but, perhaps crucially, it doesn't need to be. Indeed, judging by the qpAdm output below, it's possible that almost all of its steppe ancestry came from the Bell Beaker complex, and, thus, the Corded Ware culture complex before that.

ITA_Italic_IA
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 0.480±0.055
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA 0.411±0.042
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.109±0.084
chisq 10.294
tail prob 0.590205
Full output


Two out of the three available Etruscans look very similar to the Italic speakers in the above PCA plots, and yet they show a lot more Proto-Villanovan-related ancestry in my qpAdm run. The statistical fit is also relatively poor, perhaps suggesting that something important is missing.

ITA_Etruscan
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 0.186±0.081
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA 0.283±0.064
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.531±0.126
chisq 17.175
tail prob 0.143143
Full output

So while the Italics had more of Chalcolithic Italian and Bell Beaker ancestry in addition of a minor proto-Villanovan, the Etruscans were overwhelmingly derived from proto-Villanovans and very little Bell Beaker and Italian Chalcolithic. While proto-Villanovan clearly had western Balkan origin according to Davidski's model.
Leave aside this, J-L283 was found in both HRV_MBA and in an Etruscan. Also among some Nuragics in Sardinia. Both the Etruscans and the Nuragics were non Indo-European speakers.
This trail makes me think that J-L283 spread across Europe from the Western Balkans and can be much better associated with the western Balkans than E-V13!

[Huban]

Then it's clear that there aren't any for now! It becomes clear if they are SNP defined because I'm afraid you can not tell much about TMRCA by observing STR markers. I observe the Block Tree as well! What other sources do you know about? And again, there was a major depopulation of the territory of Romania and Moldova during late antiquity and Early Medieval. Even the Goths run away from there, so what makes you think that the previous populations stayed in place?

You can say when someone is very close (in 500-1000 range) even on short haplotypes, if the clade has various unusual values ofc. The problem is for some conclusions to be drawn, people from the entire region must be well profiled and they are not. The only way to fix this is to correctly classify various FTDNA people and those from studies, or otherwise wait for years. Still majority from the studies cannot be classified. The problem with the Romanian project is that Romanians do not have that many emigrants to USA/West. Actually most of Hungarian CTS9320 results are Americans with Hungarian roots.

Of course studies can be useful. You are alone with a Greek at FTDNA, but we know you closely match many Aromanians from 2006 study. Not only that they match two of your important mutations 385b and 389b, these two at least have the age of the TMRCA between you and Greek.

An example of people who did BigY
E-L241>BY5650 A Serb,
E-L241>BY5650>BY125229 Bulgarian and Hungarian sharing 4 more SNP's

This clade has lower TMRCA, Medieval range, and obviously here the Hungarian seems to be migrant from the South.

How do you know that many of these Romanians and Moldovans aren't recent migrants from the south?

Majority of them are definitely migrants from the South. For a minority a good case for the opposite can be made. But majority (of those with close Balkan links ofc) seem to fall in clusters that do seem Balkan in origin.

[Huban]

Even Wikipedia is a good source for informations especially if it cites academic sources. Unlike you, I've given you some academic sources independent of wiki for Glina III Schneckenberg. For the Cetina Culture, there aren't many materials, however some works of Croatian students can be found on Academia.edu.

And I have alot more material on Glina III. Unlike most of you I speak English, German, French, Russian (all of those wrote about Glina) and I can even read most of Romanian.

So, from the above cited work, the first period of Cetina Culture is directly connected to the older Eneolithic and Neolithic layer of cultures from the region and as such the development of the Cetina Culture can be traced to Eneolithic period. The second period is the period with the least influence from other cultures and the most independent and recognizible in ornaments period of the Cetina Culture. The third period is the period when the steppe element such as tumuli burials and corded-ware ceramics appear and influences on Cetina can be also seen coming from Balaton-Lasinya and Vučedol cultures. Note that the Indo-European element is accompined by Corded-Ware ceramics! In other words, this Glina III Schneckenberg element you was talking about is nowhere to be seen...

I read all of that long ago.. This Corded ware ceramics comes from the East, from Ezero, has nothing to do with Vučedol whatsoever. And actually same kind of ceramics do occur in a Schneckenberg variant.

What he says about Cetina not being IE is contradicted by other (greater) authorities.

It seems to me that you yourself interpreted this influx of eastern Balkan migrants Čović and Prendi spoke about as coming from and direct influence from Glina III Schneckenberg however there is nothing of that in these works. In fact, Eastern Balkans is a broad term and it's not clearly defined what they mean by "Eastern Balkans"!

Part of this influence is this Corded Ware, and it is from Eastern Balkans, yet it does also occur in Glina III groups. When you figure in the view of one authority that Glina III Schneckenberg is mostly of Eastern Balkan origin, things become clearer.