To give a perspective: It will be just very relevant when and with which cultural formations both J-L283 and E-V13 appear in which region.
Like did appear J-L283 in larger numbers in the MBA-LBA transition, with groups related to expansions from around Croatia? Same for E-V13, exact sites and context for the samples will matter a lot. Especially if there are for either multiple finds sites with diversity. Probably there aren't any or the samples are once more low coverage, who knows. But if there are multiple finds sites which allow us to reconstruct a pattern, that would really help. A reconstruction of the migration paths is what we need.
Greeks too, yet we know they received more Central-Eastern admixture as well in the MBA-LBA transition. The comparison has to be made with actual Thracian related cultures, not just people sampled from the region, and it has to be made by comparing the preceding with the Early-Middle Iron Age population. Like was there a shift. Doesn't matter if they still score Aegean, that's no problem if assuming that it was mostly male-mediated and limited autosomal inflow. There needs to be just enough to recognise it clearly. The Bulgarian Iron Age cluster looks very diverse, rather too diverse. And it seems they have just a handful of samples, so probably they covered just one region or group of the Thracian sphere.Originally Posted by excine
There are cultural ties running from Apennine Italian -> Castellieri -> Posusje-Dinaric. Whether these translate to any sort of migrations on an individual or group level, any sort of signficant gene flow, I don't know. That's really a strictly cultural observation. They were West oriented, culturally, that much can be said.Illyrians aren't "Appenine Italian"-oriented. They are very different from Italic populations.
That's part of the problem. No J-L283 yet and not exactly the same profile. This might be irrelevant, but such a potential (not proven) shift in uniparentals and autosomal make up can be important. It might point to an influx or change after the EBA. Actually, this is quite likely, because J-L283 was totally dominant in the later groups and Bell Beaker/TC ancestry constantly rising.HRV_EBA the closest profile to Proto-Illyrians is R-Z2103.
Psenichevo is THE Thracian Early Iron Age cultural formation, derived in large from Channelled Ware people. And they got E-V13, it's a proven case. Thrace was big, it likely harboured different stocks of people, even after the Channelled Ware people came in - there came other people afterwards too, like Cimmerians, Scythians, Greeks.Do you realize that of all the pre-Roman E-V13 found, several had Illyrian profiles, but none even faintly resemble the EEF/CHG of Thrace? None of them were native to Thrace. I'm not saying that we won't find E-V13 in Thrace, but based on the E-V13 profiles we have, it's clear that it wasn't the Proto-Thracian haplogroup.
Anyway. We have E-V13 from Thracians already, not just any, but from the most important group for the debate, which is Psenichevo. Not some later mixed and regionalised group, but Psenichevo!
The question now is just was that kind of a lucky strike, and with much larger sampling it will remain low, or not. But with a handful of samples, we won't know that, especially not if looking at a diverse and mixed landscape like Thrace. We rather need samples from Babadag, Basarabi and Mezocsat/Thraco-Cimmerians, Ferigile etc., from the Thracian groups which used inhumation. And the more from Thrace and Greece the better - more samples are always good.
I really hope they have some Basarabi samples in the paper, fingers crossed. And not just one. Because one can always be a lucky strike or bad luck...
That's like looking at Proto-Illyrians and Proto-Thracians and saying modern Albanians are impossible. Or looking at Early Germanics and saying that modern Bavarians, Austrians, Alsatians etc. are "impossible". No they are not, you just need the right amount of admixture, of other ancestral components to come to the same spot. Once again, a North <-> South cline of Proto-Illyrians and Proto-Thracians will meet, inevitably, at some point. Funnily, its on some PCAs Italian Abruzzo, as an example:You're saying that Proto-Thracians were like IA Hungary, but nobody in IA Bulgaria is even remotely close to this profile. It is virtually impossible for Proto-Thracians to have this from Hungary or Romania with this autosomal ancestry in the EIA
The main difference is, that you need from Channelled Ware related profiles more South Eastern ancestry to reach the same point. Like 3/4 Southern ancestry. But that's perfectly plausible if assuming for example that the Channelled Ware people mixed in two steps:
Gáva -> Belegis II-Gáva/Eastern Gáva-Babadag -> Psenichevo/Southern Thracians.
So already in Belegis II-Gáva and Eastern Gáva, we see a lot of local admixture. Already when coming in, they no longer had the HUN_LBA profile. If they ever had exactly that profile majority wise, because these are very Western samples, of which some have Encrusted Pottery admixture possibly, of which we don't know actual Gáva had the same. We have no samples from the core group yet.
The already mixed Mezocsat, again not ideal, being already less extreme in Pannonia, so we can assume the Belegis II-Gáva surely was more Southern, and so will be Psenichevo, the later mixed Thracians, with additional Aegean, even more so.
Reply With Quote
