Page 203 of 208 FirstFirst ... 103153193201202203204205 ... LastLast
Results 2,021 to 2,030 of 2079

Thread: A theory about the origin of E-V13

  1. #2021
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,014
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Lower Thrace was no core region, if there E-V13 reaches a higher percentage, and it was absent before Channelled Ware/cremation groups came in, it tells us a lot about its impact in Upper Thrace and along the Danube.
    If E-V13 is not a major haplogroup of Lower Thrace then by definition it's not Thracian or Proto-Thracian. Most significant Thracian groups were located in lower Thrace, which is Thrace proper. This is what I've been telling you all along. Proto-Thracians didn't come in the EIA in Thrace. They were already there. If E-V13 isn't a major haplogroup in core Thrace, then it wasn't present among Proto-Thracians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    We have samples from the Illyrian region of inhumation in collective tumuli and yes, there are enough out already.
    They're not "enough" because they don't even cover Croatia let alone core Illyrian regions like Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania, western/central Serbia, Kosovo, northwestern Macedonia. It's interesting that you think that 200 samples for Hungary are not enough, but 9 samples for Illyria, 4 of which are from one site, are indeed enough.

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

     Uka (05-14-2022)

  3. #2022
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,710
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    If E-V13 is not a major haplogroup of Lower Thrace then by definition it's not Thracian or Proto-Thracian. Most significant Thracian groups were located in lower Thrace, which is Thrace proper. This is what I've been telling you all along. Proto-Thracians didn't come in the EIA in Thrace. They were already there. If E-V13 isn't a major haplogroup in core Thrace, then it wasn't present among Proto-Thracians.
    It is the same with Celts. The Irish might be very Celtic in history, but going by the prehistorical ancestral Proto-Celts, they being more of an assimilated people.
    But don't bother, in Lower Thrace will be enough E-V13, its just more Northern areas might have even more!

    They're not "enough" because they don't even cover Croatia let alone core Illyrian regions like Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania, western/central Serbia, Kosovo, northwestern Macedonia. It's interesting that you think that 200 samples for Hungary are not enough, but 9 samples for Illyria, 4 of which are from one site, are indeed enough.
    Having 200 samples from irrelevant groups, of which most were just dead ends ethnolinguistically, with lineages which experienced more often collapse than founder effects is obviously not enough.
    They are all from the wrong, more Western groups and foreigners. A couple might fit, but they are irregularly buried females...

    From the Illyrians on the other hand we have samples from an era and cultures which are clearly Illyrian related and cover most of their source and at least indirectly about 2/3 of their early territories.
    Most of the territories you claim open (Central Serbia! Kosovo! Macedonia!) are secondary expansion zones in which they mixed with earlier people and Thracians.
    The Illyrian case is in fact 90 percent closed already.

    Everybody can look at the map:


    https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...8466601885&z=6

    and this one:



    Proto-Illyrians being influenced and pushed by the R-L2 dominated Middle Danubian Tumulus culture groups, which invaded Pannonia. They expanded from the North West, the contact zone with R-L2, downwards. Some mixed groups formed the Middle Danubian Urnfielders, which explains some J-L283 in the Pannonians/West Pannonian inhabitants, West of the Thracian sphere of influence since Channelled Ware. A mixed contact zone between these two sphere was created, as shown in the maps I posted before.

    The Southern Italian Messapians are to be considered just like the more Pannonan-Illyrian influenced groups and the borderzone between the Hallstatt proper and the more Illyrian dominated groups, which is the Unterkrainer group. In all those we have J-L283, which is the defining, primary Illyrian marker.

    Case closed.
    Last edited by Riverman; 05-14-2022 at 03:22 PM.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     mount123 (05-14-2022),  vettor (05-15-2022)

  5. #2023
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,014
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    It is the same with Celts. The Irish might be very Celtic in history, but going by the prehistorical ancestral Proto-Celts, they being more of an assimilated people.
    But don't bother, in Lower Thrace will be enough E-V13, its just more Northern areas might have even more!
    E-V13 can't be Proto-Thracian without being in significant % in core Thrace. Northern Thrace wasn't more Thracian than core Thrace, it was in fact less Thracian, hence by late antiquity it wasn't even considered part of Thrace.



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Everybody can look at the map:
    I don't think that you realize that in your version of how the Illyrian area looked like you've excluded half of Illyria including both main sites of the

    From Wilkes (1992), The Illyrians (*Liburnia and Histria should be excluded)




    What we think about any area of antiquity doesn't matter in the end. What matters is that we will get samples which will determine the answers.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bruzmi For This Useful Post:

     olive picker (05-15-2022),  Uka (05-14-2022)

  7. #2024
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,710
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    E-V13 can't be Proto-Thracian without being in significant % in core Thrace. Northern Thrace wasn't more Thracian than core Thrace, it was in fact less Thracian, hence by late antiquity it wasn't even considered part of Thrace.
    You talking about later historical periods, Proto-Thracians came with the cremating Channelled Ware people, which had a stronger impact on Upper Thrace. Doesn't matter, Lower Thrace will have E-V13 as well, its just that Upper Thrace and the Serbian Danubian region will have even more possibly. I think you don't know what I have meant with Upper Thrace, here is a map, Upper Thrace is blue, Lower Thrace is yellow:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...thinThrace.png

    Kapitan Andreevo is at the border between Upper-Lower Thrace/Bulgaria-Turkey.

    I don't think that you realize that in your version of how the Illyrian area looked like you've excluded half of Illyria including both main sites of the
    That was done deliberately, because as you can see:


    Glasinac Mati encompasses later territories along the Morava. But these were conquered and inhabited by older people and Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gáva. The Illyrians expanded into these areas, which means they could have picked other lineages up in situ, not having brought them.
    Glasinac Mati had some other influences, just like Bosut-Basarabi had some in the fringe areas. That was a period in which some exchange already has taken place. The original core areas lie to the West for the Proto-Illyrians.

    From Wilkes (1992), The Illyrians (*Liburnia and Histria should be excluded)
    Up to North Eastern Italy and Slovenia, the Illyrian rites and customs being noticeable, as is J-L283, like in the Unterkrainer group, Novo mesto. This is no coincidence:

    The text is more specific:
    In contrast, urn cremations seem completely absent in other areas, including Friuli Venezia Giulia, northern Veneto, along the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatia. Despite their proximity to urnfield adopters, the coastal Adriatic and the inner Alpine regions seem to be totally excluded from the phenomenon, at least during the Middle Bronze Age.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0

    Compare with this paper:

    The Veneti were still able to maintain their independence both when the Celts invaded the Po plain in the 4th century BC and when the Romans began their expansion in northern Italy at the end of the 3rd. Roman politics in Veneto became more aggressive in the 2nd century BC and the region was definitively annexed to the Roman State in the 1st century BC. Cremation was the most common funerary ritual during the Iron Age. (Bondini 2005; Chieco Bianchi and Calzavara Capuis 1985; 2006; Ruta Serafini 1990). Inhumation was also practised, possibly for low-ranking people only. The structure of cremation graves could vary from stone and wooden rectangular containers (cassette) to pit graves and depositions within large ceramic pots (dolia) (fig. 3). Cremated human bones were usually placed in an urn. Grave goods and offerings such as ornaments, tools, vessels, food and weapons were placed in the tomb container with the urn. Multiple graves were common. This may imply the deposition of more than one urn in a tomb and/or the placing of more than one individual in an urn. The wealth of the grave assemblage, the location of the tomb in the cemetery and the structure of the tomb container probably depended on the rank, age, gender and social affiliation of the deceased. Inhumation graves were usually very simple, with scanty or no grave goods at all. Cremation tombs were generally covered with a small earth mound and a layer of pyre debris.
    The present work is based on the analysis of a database of around 1,000 graves dating between c.900 and 50 BC (a full dataset and bibliography in my PhD thesis, in preparation; a preliminary analysis of magic in Iron Age Veneto in my MA dissertation: Perego 2007). This material has been excavated over a period of around 135 years (1876 - present) in several Venetic localities, such as Este, Montagnana and Padua in central Veneto, Altino near Venice, Lovara and Gazzo Veronese in the Verona countryside, and Montebelluna in the Piave Valley. Due to the brevity of this paper, my main focus is on well-studied grave assemblages from the Benvenuti, Ricovero, Muletti Prosdocimi, Alfonsi and Via Versori cemeteries at Este (Bondini 2005; Bianchin Citton et. al. 1998; Chieco Bianchi and Calzavara Capuis 1985; 2006) and the Via Tiepolo cemetery at Padua (Ruta Serafini 1990). This restricted dataset includes a total of c. 345 graves, mainly cremations (c. 320). A table which summarises findings from Este Benvenuti is at the end of the present article.
    https://student-journals.ucl.ac.uk/pia/article/id/278/

    About the Illyrians we can read in the Cambridge Ancient History:


    From:
    https://books.google.de/books?id=vXl...page&q&f=false

    That's why we have way more J-L283, even though their population was smaler: Inhumation burials prevailed among those following the Tumulus culture/Illyrian rite. This is something which goes up to Friaul and Carinthia.

    The Morava valley and much of Albania on the other hand experienced more inflow from the Middle Danubian Urnfielders and Gáva related cremating groups. E-V13 being 100 percent - in its early phase - associated with the cremation funerary rite, actually even the spread of this rite to other people from the Carpathian basin.
    Last edited by Riverman; 05-14-2022 at 05:36 PM.

  8. #2025
    Registered Users
    Posts
    415
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Z16988+BY99620+
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-CTS3402+YP237+

    Serbia
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    E-V13 can't be Proto-Thracian without being in significant % in core Thrace.
    Based on what?
    Here is an example of scholar opinion which suggests otherwise:
    Circumstantial evidence links KMK to the spread of one or more Indo-European languages. Leo Klejn identifies its bearers with the early Thracians. Other scholars suggest that KMK may have been connected to the Bryges and/or Phrygians.
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-...d_ware_culture

    I'm not behind this view but it is a legitimate possibility.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bane For This Useful Post:

     rafc (05-14-2022),  Riverman (05-14-2022)

  10. #2026
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,710
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bane View Post
    Based on what?
    Here is an example of scholar opinion which suggests otherwise:

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-...d_ware_culture

    I'm not behind this view but it is a legitimate possibility.
    I think that Multi-cordoned ware was the ancestor of Proto-Greeks and possibly Proto-Phrygians, but like other opinions on that matter, that's conjecture. However, Proto-Thracian can be easier associated with Channelled Ware, because that complex did basically overturn all areas which later appeared to be Thracian/Daco-Thracian.
    At this point I'm pretty sure about this evolution of the Thracian language group:
    Eastern Makó (cremation) -> Nyírség (cremation) -> Hatvan-Early Otomani (cremation) -> Suciu de Sus/Berkes-Demecser (cremation) -> Lăpuș/Csorva/Susani into Gáva generalised horizon (cremation) -> Belegis II-Gáva (cremation)

    And I'm also pretty sure E-V13 participated in it, being even the main haplogroup of the culture bearers involved. The question is just whether there was a continuous line from Nyírség to Belegis II-Gáva or did they join on the way. The latest possible date for joining is with Psenichevo-Babadag and Bosut-Basarabi, which connection to E-V13 is without doubt at this point, considering the leaks and the density of E-V13 in the Roman and Avar era samples from the core areas (Viminacium, Timacum minus, Szeged, Tisza-Transtisza Hungary).

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Bane (05-14-2022),  mount123 (05-15-2022)

  12. #2027
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,014
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The latest possible date for joining is with Psenichevo-Babadag and Bosut-Basarabi, which connection to E-V13 is without doubt at this point, considering the leaks and the density of E-V13 in the Roman and Avar era samples from the core areas (Viminacium, Timacum minus, Szeged, Tisza-Transtisza Hungary).
    E-V13 published samples from the Roman era and the early Middle Ages are irrelevant to what happened to 1500 years earlier. E-V13 in Timacum Minus is most likely Dardanian and this may have nothing at all to do with what happened in Babadag or Basarabi or Psenichevo. The Psenichevo samples date to 550 BCE and even if their dating doesn't change and they are at some point confirmed, they post-date the EIA.

    If E-V13 was a significant hg of Thracians, it should be found in core Thrace.


    The idea that Thracians cremated almost exclusively is so false that it's equivalent to saying that Thracians didn't exist because only a part of Thrace cremated.

    Material cultural regionalisms in Early Iron Age Thrace
    https://archaeologyandconservationca...on-age-thrace/

    The topic of cultural regionalism in Iron Age Thrace (1100-300 B.C.) is a subject which is often overlooked within English speaking academia. Academics often assume that Thrace, or the area which encompasses northern Greece and south Bulgaria consisted of one single cultural entity, often label as the ‘Thracians’. Yet, as I have shown as part of my PhD research, Early Iron Age Thrace was anything but a single and homogenous cultural zone. Instead, what I have found is that what we call ‘Thrace’ was actually inhabited by a number of materially distinct communities which expressed their own regional identities through the objects they used in their daily life and the different ways that they buried members of their community.


    Within the writings of contemporary ancient Greek historians we are told that Thrace was inhabited by numerous tribal groups. Herodotus gives us one such account during the 5th century B.C. in his description of the Persian king Xerxes’ route to Greece via Thrace: “Xerxes marched past these Greek cities of the coast, keeping them on his left. The Thracian tribes through whose lands he journeyed were the Paeti, Cicones, Bistones, Sapaei, Dersaei, Edoni, and Satrae.” (Hdt. 7.110). Unfortunately, beyond this account we know little about these tribes and what made them distinct from one another beyond their names. Yet more critically, we do not know if the tribes within the region thought of themselves as different, past what the ancient Greek authors wrote about them. It was, therefore, the purpose of my research to look behind what the ancient Greek authors wrote about Thrace, to look to the archaeology, in order to assess whether or not it offered something different. One of the ways through which I attempted to analyse this was through a typological and spatial analysis of tomb types around different parts of Thrace.



    For my analysis, I plotted the distribution of six different types of graves that I identified around Thrace that occurred during the Early Iron Age II period-Late Iron Age (8th-4th centuries B.C.) around Thrace. The results from my analysis stood in direct contrast to what many people assume of Thrace during this time, specifically that it was a culturally similar region. What a rudimentary analysis into the distribution of tomb types around Thrace showed, however, was that Thrace was anything but homogenous, and in fact even from the perspective of tomb architecture, Thrace exhibits large levels of regional cultural diversity. Of course, some tomb types did not reveal anything in particular and seemed to be spread randomly throughout Thrace due to the existing excavation bias.

    Nevertheless, the most notable results from the spatial analysis of tomb types, however, was the concentration of dolmens and rock-cut graves in east Thrace, cairn inhumations in central Thrace, and the concentration of pithoi inhumations on the Aegean Thrace coast. The regional specificity of several of these tomb types stands to show, that Thrace was a materially diverse and dynamic place.


    From the perspective of typology, clear distinctions could now be made between largely contemporaneous architectural forms which, along with the regional extent of these forms, underpin significant evidence for cultural diversity during the Iron Age in Thrace, contrary to much of the information that we are told from English speaking academia. What has been highlighted is on one level clear heterogeneity in terms of funerary architecture with regions opting for funerary forms which seem almost isolated within their respected regions, and on another level strong levels of architectural regionalism which hint at reflecting the wider social and ideological similarities and differences between communities in these areas. Typology and spatial distribution, therefore, have served to complement one another in an attempt to better understand the potential nuances of architectural forms and levels of regional cultural diversity around Iron Age Thrace.

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

     olive picker (05-15-2022)

  14. #2028
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,014
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bane View Post
    Based on what?
    Here is an example of scholar opinion which suggests otherwise:

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-...d_ware_culture

    I'm not behind this view but it is a legitimate possibility.
    Henry M. Shephard supports a similar theory at least in terms of geography. We'll see how it plays out in the Southern Arc papers.

    About haplogroups and populations: if a haplogroup doesn't consistently appear in a population, then it can only represent a regional development in some part of that population.

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

     olive picker (05-15-2022)

  16. #2029
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,560
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T1a2 - SK1480
    mtDNA (M)
    H95a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-S8172
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b17

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Italy Ladinia Republic of Venice
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    E-V13 can't be Proto-Thracian without being in significant % in core Thrace. Northern Thrace wasn't more Thracian than core Thrace, it was in fact less Thracian, hence by late antiquity it wasn't even considered part of Thrace.





    I don't think that you realize that in your version of how the Illyrian area looked like you've excluded half of Illyria including both main sites of the

    From Wilkes (1992), The Illyrians (*Liburnia and Histria should be excluded)




    What we think about any area of antiquity doesn't matter in the end. What matters is that we will get samples which will determine the answers.
    Roman Illyricum ..before the great revolt of 6AD



    percentages of fighting men / population

    4th Conventus...ie...southern Illyrian ( proper illyrians as stated by some ) = 14.6%

    Narona Conventus = 26.0%

    Salona Conventus = 44.8%

    Scardona conventus = 14.6%


    I did not include any Pannonians


    Pliny mentioned that the Liburnian and Iapodian peregrine communities belonged to this conventus Liburnian communities constituted civitates


    After the quelling of the revolt in Illyricum in 9 AD and the division of this province, very likely into Illyricum Superior and Inferior initially, the imperial cult was introduced at the regional level in Illyricum Superior, later Dalmatia. This level implied worship of the cult of a living emperor by the peregrine communities gathered around a single religious hub in each of the conventus in order to more rapidly implement acceptance of the newly-established Roman rule among the indigenous population.
    This was still a time when the imperial cult was not yet divided into the central (Roman), provincial and municipal cults at the state level.
    The best testimony to the regional imperial cult in Dalmatia was found on Liburnian soil, where the epigraphic monuments inform us that this cult was practiced on the altar of the Liburni (ara Augusti Liburnorum) that was located in Scardona.



    4th Conventus capital was modern day Risan in Montenegro
    Last edited by vettor; 05-14-2022 at 10:18 PM.


    My Path = ( K-M9+, LT-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS3767+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, BY143483+ )


    Grandfather via paternal grandmother = I1-CTS6397 yDna
    Great grandmother paternal side = T1a1e mtDna
    Son's mtDna = K1a4p

  17. #2030
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,710
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    E-V13 published samples from the Roman era and the early Middle Ages are irrelevant to what happened to 1500 years earlier. E-V13 in Timacum Minus is most likely Dardanian and this may have nothing at all to do with what happened in Babadag or Basarabi or Psenichevo. The Psenichevo samples date to 550 BCE and even if their dating doesn't change and they are at some point confirmed, they post-date the EIA.
    We have to look at where E-V13 reaches a critical mass. Its not about single stray finds, eventually there must be, I repeat MUST BE completely E-V13 dominated populations in the LBA-EIA. Otherwise these results like in Viminacium and the modern phylogeny and distribution would be impossible. But these are facts, they are there, so there must be a fully E-V13 dominated source population between the North Carpathians, the Central Balkans and the Lower Danube in the LBA-EIA. You don't get such results like in Viminacium. These are not random migrants from all over Rome. There were many Roman provinces, but only in those Thracian dominated areas you get such numbers.

    If E-V13 was a significant hg of Thracians, it should be found in core Thrace.
    It will be found, no doubt about that. But this doesn't mean the highest frequencies must be there, simply because the Thracians migrated from other areas into later Thrace, while massive migrations from what is now considered Thrace, as a geographical region, are likely too but kind of more doubtful, less impactful in comparison. It's like Celtic Britain: It existed because Celts migrated into Britain, not because all continental Celts came from Britain...
    Thrace was more of a source, specifically with Psenichevo and Babadag, important Early Iron Age cultures, but nevertheless, this is no precondition as you make it appear to be.

    The idea that Thracians cremated almost exclusively is so false that it's equivalent to saying that Thracians didn't exist because only a part of Thrace cremated.
    Early Thracians did exclusively cremate, later ones adopted different rites, especially under influence of the Cimmerians and Scythians, the steppe people which used inhumation. Later because of contacts to other people using inhumation and having different religious beliefs. But Dacians cremated up to the 4th-5th century AD (!!!) the least.

    Material cultural regionalisms in Early Iron Age Thrace
    https://archaeologyandconservationca...on-age-thrace/

    The topic of cultural regionalism in Iron Age Thrace (1100-300 B.C.) is a subject which is often overlooked within English speaking academia. Academics often assume that Thrace, or the area which encompasses northern Greece and south Bulgaria consisted of one single cultural entity, often label as the ‘Thracians’. Yet, as I have shown as part of my PhD research, Early Iron Age Thrace was anything but a single and homogenous cultural zone. Instead, what I have found is that what we call ‘Thrace’ was actually inhabited by a number of materially distinct communities which expressed their own regional identities through the objects they used in their daily life and the different ways that they buried members of their community.
    Channelled Ware split up, broke up into different tribal groups and unities. Nothing surprising about it. The starting point is 1.100 BC, after the unified Fluted/Channelled Ware/Knobbed horizon of mostly Gáva origin. So yes, after this initial spread, and the formation of the later cultures, more regional entities emerged, based on isolation, foreign influences and tribal differentitations. Nothing suprising or contradictory to what I said.
    We can also expect them to have different haplogroup frequencies, exactly because of how many locals they assimilated, how many foreigners they assimilated etc. But E-V13 will be what connects them, just like I-M253 and R-U106 are defining markers for Germanics and J-L283 for Illyrians. Others will be present too, but that's the lineage which connects them all.
    Last edited by Riverman; 05-15-2022 at 10:21 AM.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     mount123 (05-15-2022)

Page 203 of 208 FirstFirst ... 103153193201202203204205 ... 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
  •