Page 80 of 490 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290130180 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 4891

Thread: A theory about the origin of E-V13

  1. #791
    Registered Users
    Posts
    620
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-L283

    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    Btw there looks to be also an EBA 2000 BC J2b sample in Pannonian study and I don't think this is the old Maros sample.. I believe this sample "seals it" in favor of IE expansion of J-L283..
    Since the dating is the same, it might be the Maros sample (MOK15). Sometimes they use samples from other studies for reference/comparisons.

    What other details can you share about it (PM would be fine if you can't share here) and what makes you think it "seals it"? Given the location and dating, I don't see it having any more significance than MOK15 in this regard. While evidence points it was very likely incorporated into I-E expansions as some of us have been saying for years, to really "seal it", I think we'd need an EBA or older J-L283 sample from one of the Steppe or Steppe derived cultures (ex. the rumored Chalcolithic sample from Moldova).

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Trojet For This Useful Post:

     Huban (08-23-2021),  olive picker (08-24-2021),  Polska (08-24-2021)

  3. #792
    Banned
    Posts
    369
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Trojet View Post
    Since the dating is the same, it might be the Maros sample (MOK15). Sometimes they use samples from other studies for reference/comparisons.

    What other details can you share about it (PM would be fine if you can't share here) and what makes you think it "seals it"? Given the location and dating, I don't see it having any more significance than MOK15 in this regard. While evidence points it was very likely incorporated into I-E expansions as some of us have been saying for years, to really "seal it", I think we'd need an EBA or older J-L283 sample from one of the Steppe or Steppe derived cultures (ex. the rumored Chalcolithic sample from Moldova).
    Actually they do utilize no less than 5 old Maros samples from Serbia. But this site is not from Serbia. I assumed it is the site is from where old RISE373 and RISE374 Maros samples are (few km SE of Szeged) as on first glance they look very similar, but it seems I was wrong to assume that, by closer inspection this site is few km's NE of Szeged or about 7-8 km north from the old site..

    Another clue is that per diagram this sample has 36.0 % of Yamnaya Samara derived ancestry, I don't think the old sample has that much, just tried G25 Barcin-Yamnaya comparison he gets 31.0, but ofc these cannot be translated literally if you take WHG in, G25 will prefer 30.6 of WHG and no Yamnaya ancestry for MOK15.. Also looking at the PCA plot with Serbian Mokrin samples, it doesn't look they get 36 % of Samara derived there.. Also there are no numerous R-Z2103 samples with him of the same age and auDNA and they dominated Mokrin.. Why did they choose just this one J2b sample of them all? It seems this is a new Maros culture site from Hungary.. So I guess likely scenario is that the J2b sample is from there (or it is MOK15) so nothing exceptionally new.. On their diagram where J2b sample is there I instantly recognize one IA sample from the older study and a lot of Neolithic samples so some older samples are there..

    My dating seems generally correct, the old site has it at 2136-1619 BC avg. being 1877 BC, while mine is 1902 BC. About Early Maros outlier with a female of 100 % Yamnaya ancestry I have it at 2043 BC.

    About "sealing" I thought he might be from some other area like maybe Czech republic or maybe NE Hungary at first glance, so my "seals it" has most to do with that.. But I guess that is not likely at all..

    Btw. remember the Ljubljana culture that we used to talk about as being maybe related to J-L283? They even tested the Ljubljana culture from Slovenia here! My dating 2380 BC, not 100 % sure yet but it seems they carry R-Z2103 (logical as it is supposed to derive from Vučedol in big part), and with definitely a quite reduced Steppe level and more EEF admixture.. Ljubljana site is much older than J2b find so I guess any possibility of Ljubljana - J-L283 relation is out of the window..
    Last edited by Huban; 08-24-2021 at 01:29 AM.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Huban For This Useful Post:

     Polska (08-24-2021),  Riverman (08-24-2021),  Trojet (08-24-2021)

  5. #793
    Banned
    Posts
    369
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    Another clue is that per diagram this sample has 36.0 % of Yamnaya Samara derived ancestry, I don't think the old sample has that much, just tried G25 Barcin-Yamnaya comparison he gets 31.0, but ofc these cannot be translated literally if you take WHG in, G25 will prefer 30.6 of WHG and no Yamnaya ancestry for MOK15.. Also looking at the PCA plot with Serbian Mokrin samples, it doesn't look they get 36 % of Samara derived there.. Also there are no numerous R-Z2103 samples with him of the same age and auDNA and they dominated Mokrin.. Why did they choose just this one J2b sample of them all? It seems this is a new Maros culture site from Hungary.. So I guess likely scenario is that the J2b sample is from there (or it is MOK15) so nothing exceptionally new.. On their diagram where J2b sample is there I instantly recognize one IA sample from the older study and a lot of Neolithic samples so some older samples are there..
    Sorry used the wrong Barcin G25, C which is not purely EEf instead of Barcin N...

    Older EIA sample present in this study is IR1, Cimmerian, in diagram he has 56.0 % of Samara derived ancestry.

    His G25 on BarcinN-Samara

    Target: HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
    Distance: 5.8323% / 0.05832273
    64.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
    35.8 TUR_Barcin_N


    In this study the bar is higher for Samara ancestry.. 8.2 % more in G25

    now MOK15

    Target: SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK15
    Distance: 6.8521% / 0.06852106
    57.0 TUR_Barcin_N
    43.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara


    So similar to this J2b adjusted for differences as per IR1.. Many Mokrin samples get similar figures. So still it could be MOK15, on PCA plot Mokrin samples are there but also near them some unidentified "Hungary EBA_MBA" are there, so these could be from the new Maros site, as although Mokrin isn't marked, I find it hard to believe they wrongly marked other site instead of Mokrin, all other locations seem perfect..

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Huban For This Useful Post:

     Riverman (08-24-2021)

  7. #794
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,974
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Polska View Post
    These Sardinian studies tied L283 specifically to the Nuragic culture there. And itís true: to have their autosomal profiles, they were very likely there in Sardinia north of 200 years, which places them well within the Nuragic era.
    They all lived in the Nuragic era, but what I was replying to is the theory that they could have been Proto-Nuragic. Even if they arrived in the 13th-14th century BC in Sardinia, they found the Nuragic culture in its booming phase. Su Nuraxi was already standing since the 17th century BC.

    Economic development in my opinion is what caused the arrival of their ancestors in the first place. All samples which have non-Sardinian ancestry have roughly the same levels of non-local ancestry as the J2b-L283 ones(5-20%), which suggests that their ancestors arrived in Sardinia in the same era.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    When it comes to these newer samples that include V13, many of them are migrants indeed. This Viking sample already in a study when it came on their calculator had 34.6 % of Balkan ancestry and around 36.3 % of Polish ancestry and just 12.3 % of Danish component. And indeed choosing the most realistic approximates for him shows this, which is not what Bruzmi did here - it is methodologically wrong to go for very old EBA samples when there are samples much closer in time, who are actually indicative of various Iron Age-Late Antiquity populations even if it may show better "fit", because you are trying to guess his origins generations ago, not 5000 years ago..

    It's a step-by-step backtracking process. I cross-referenced an EBA model with a contemporaneous model for each case and then I compared the EBA model with a Neolithic model. Available EBA sampling allow us to have to a model which covers the entire western Eurasian sphere in this era. Sampling from later eras doesn't cover such a large geographical region. By doing so, we can see which contemporaneous groups a sample most resembles and by checking their relation to EBA sampling we can get a much clearer picture about its ancestry and migrational routes in each era.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    So all samples should be analyzed on a case by case basis.
    Fully agreed. For modern individual samples, it means that we should rely more on searching for their historical background and less on their flag position on yfull.

  8. #795
    Why is no one talking about j2b in the correct section? Can we leave this discussion to v13 and go populate the j2b forum as it looks untouched

  9. #796
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,475
    Sex

    Here some numbers from the Turkish study for E-V13 by region:
    Balkan: 3/35 = 8,57 %
    West Anatolia: 3/45 = 6,67 %
    North Anatolia: 3/92 = 3,26 %
    South Anatolia: 1/40 = 2,5 %
    Eastern Anatolia: 2/110 = 1,82 %
    Central Anatolia: = 0 %

    Thread about the study and links to the paper:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....ture-of-Turkey

    Balkan and Western Anatolia being pretty close, the small sample size considered. There is in any case a clear trend from West to East, from areas settled by Greeks to the rest. And that's without the Anatolian Greeks, which were expelled, but appear on YFull occosionally as private testers, in which the frequency is supposed to have been still higher! Also don't forget the not that big, but still significant, especially in Western Anatolia, Turkic settlement. This leaves us with the conclusion that in pre-Turkic times Western Anatolia was most likely significantly more E-V13 than it is today.
    Last edited by Riverman; 08-25-2021 at 02:22 PM.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Aspar (08-25-2021),  digital_noise (08-25-2021),  Michał (08-26-2021),  rafc (08-25-2021)

  11. #797
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,119

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Here some numbers from the Turkish study for E-V13 by region:
    Balkan: 3/35 = 8,57 %
    West Anatolia: 3/45 = 6,67 %
    North Anatolia: 3/92 = 3,26 %
    South Anatolia: 1/40 = 2,5 %
    Eastern Anatolia: 2/110 = 1,82 %
    Central Anatolia: = 0 %

    Thread about the study and links to the paper:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....ture-of-Turkey

    Balkan and Western Anatolia being pretty close, the small sample size considered. There is in any case a clear trend from West to East, from areas settled by Greeks to the rest. And that's without the Anatolian Greeks, which were expelled, but appear on YFull occosionally as private testers, in which the frequency is supposed to have been still higher! Also don't forget the not that big, but still significant, especially in Western Anatolia, Turkic settlement. This leaves us with the conclusion that in pre-Turkic times Western Anatolia was most likely significantly more E-V13 than it is today.
    And this is the detailed yDNA picture of the Armenians, thanks to the Armenian DNA Project administrator who shared it with me a while ago:



    Of course, the Armenians aren't an Anatolian population but a South Caucasian one, however this gives a good insight of the yDNA picture in the Near Eastern region and goes to show the way E-V13 progressively lessens as you go more and more to the East.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aspar For This Useful Post:

     Michał (08-26-2021),  Riverman (08-25-2021),  vettor (08-25-2021)

  13. #798
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,974
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Here some numbers from the Turkish study for E-V13 by region:
    Balkan: 3/35 = 8,57 %
    West Anatolia: 3/45 = 6,67 %
    North Anatolia: 3/92 = 3,26 %
    South Anatolia: 1/40 = 2,5 %
    Eastern Anatolia: 2/110 = 1,82 %
    Central Anatolia: = 0 %

    Thread about the study and links to the paper:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....ture-of-Turkey

    Balkan and Western Anatolia being pretty close, the small sample size considered. There is in any case a clear trend from West to East, from areas settled by Greeks to the rest. And that's without the Anatolian Greeks, which were expelled, but appear on YFull occosionally as private testers, in which the frequency is supposed to have been still higher! Also don't forget the not that big, but still significant, especially in Western Anatolia, Turkic settlement. This leaves us with the conclusion that in pre-Turkic times Western Anatolia was most likely significantly more E-V13 than it is today.
    First of all, it's wrong to group individuals into subgroups which aren't used by the study itself because it can create a narrative which isn't supported by the data. Secondly, it's arbitrary to propose that E-V13 presence was higher in antiquity or that it was spread by ancient Greeks based on these results.

    In fact, E-V13 presence is so low (even lower than I-Y3120 presence in some areas) that it most certainly didn't expand with any mass population movement in antiquity.

    Actual figures by the study spreadsheet as they are being updated:

    Eastern Black Sea:
    E-M123: 2
    E-V22:0
    E-V13:0

    Anatolia:
    E-M123: 4
    E-V22: 1
    E-V13: 2

    Eastern/Transcaucasian:
    E-M123/V22/V13:0

    Azerbaijan:
    E-M123/V22/V13:0

    Balkans:
    E-M123:1
    E-V22:0
    E-V13:4

    Albanians:
    E-V13: 1

    Kurds:
    E-M123:6
    E-V22:1
    E-V13:3

    Mixed:
    E-V13:2 (one close to Azeris, the other has Balkan ancestry)

    In other words, 50% of the samples which have been added so far (n=~450) are of recent Balkan ancestry. At this point, this % is not going to change, nor is the very low % of E-V13 in all regions going to increase.

    I think that it's time to abandon any idea that E-V13 was brought to Anatolia by ancient Greek migrations. In fact, it never really reached Anatolia in antiquity as part of any mass movement.
    Last edited by Bruzmi; 08-25-2021 at 04:46 PM.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Bruzmi For This Useful Post:

     ShpataEMadhe (08-26-2021)

  15. #799
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,475
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    First of all, it's wrong to group individuals into subgroups which aren't used by the study itself because it can create a narrative which isn't supported by the data.
    What are you talking about? The spreadsheet you constantly refer to is being created by amateurs (which is great!), including the ethnic admixture estimates, while the spreadsheet I'm using comes from the actual study:
    https://www.pnas.org/highwire/filest...6118.sd01.xlsx

    The spreadsheet and the map (look into the thread) are from the study:

    https://anthrogenica.com/attachment....9&d=1629753457

    Did you even care to take a look into the actual paper? The assignment by admixture results is done by great amateurs, the data I'm using, including the number and region for the samples, are all from the study's spreadsheet.

    Secondly, it's arbitrary to propose that E-V13 presence was higher in antiquity or that it was spread by ancient Greeks based on these results.
    In the other thread I wrote that I don't know how it spread for sure (I might add here, probably not the same for all subclades), but that it spread in Antiquity, in the Greek settlement regions and not much beyond. Now you can guess around how that did happen, but its a fact. Another fact is that E-V13 must have been higher, because the samples from Anatolian Greeks suggest so and the Turkic replaced a portion of the total population, while introducing no E-V13. So by logical conclusion, its quite likely, unless there was a big migration of Balkan high E-V13 people into Anatolia, but only to those areas which were Greek before in bigger numbers, that V13 was higher before, in Antiquity.

    In fact, E-V13 presence is so low (even lower than I-Y3120 presence in some areas) that it most certainly didn't expand with any mass population movement in antiquity.
    The percentages are done from the numbers of the study and by the regions of the study.

    Actual figures by the study spreadsheet as they are updated:
    See above, the real numbers are those I'm using, take a look into the study's spreadsheet: https://www.pnas.org/highwire/filest...6118.sd01.xlsx

    And check it for yourself.
    Last edited by Riverman; 08-25-2021 at 04:49 PM.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Aspar (08-25-2021),  digital_noise (08-25-2021),  Michał (08-26-2021),  vettor (08-25-2021)

  17. #800
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,974
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post


    In the other thread I wrote that I don't know how it spread for sure (I might add here, probably not the same for all subclades), but that it spread in Antiquity, in the Greek settlement regions and not much beyond. Now you can guess around how that did happen, but its a fact. Another fact is that E-V13 must have been higher, because the samples from Anatolian Greeks suggest so and the Turkic replaced a portion of the total population, while introducing no E-V13. So by logical conclusion, its quite likely, unless there was a big migration of Balkan high E-V13 people into Anatolia, but only to those areas which were Greek before in bigger numbers, that V13 was higher before, in Antiquity.
    It's arbitrary to propose any of the above. There's no reason why we should assume that E-V13 "must have been higher in antiquity".

    @Riverman we're using the same figures. The difference is that the spreadsheet I'm using is actually classifying them according to their ancestry and also includes their yfull id.

    It means that we can see who is of Albanian, Pomak, Torbesh, Bulgarian, Bosnian etc ancestry. The spreadsheet you're using has no such information and that's a problem because it may lead anyone to believe that an Albanian/Torbesh/Pomak whose ancestor migrated to Anatolia is the descendant of an ancient Greek.

    For example:

    This individual is an Albanian. Not knowing his ancestry might lead to arbitrary conclusions just based on his geographical location.

Page 80 of 490 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290130180 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Arabic Q-m25 cluster origin theory
    By Afshar in forum Q
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-17-2020, 07:45 PM
  2. Mycenaean South Caucausian Origin theory
    By Johane Derite in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-24-2019, 04:03 PM
  3. Out of Africa: a theory in crisis
    By firemonkey in forum Human Evolution
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-29-2018, 11:46 AM
  4. Ancestral origin and Haplogroup origin
    By Smilelover in forum FTDNA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 10:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •