Your x1000 Balkan grandfather that came to Italy?Originally Posted by digital_noise
Why so aggressive? I’m E-V13 too and I’m allowed to question theories about my own haplo.
Plus you should like me because your x1000 grandfather was autosomally similar to me.
We Proto-Balkan E-V13s no matter if we’re Gava or Pannonian or something else should stick together and spread love not unnecessary hate.
olive picker (01-20-2023)
Destructive behaviour and misplaced sarcasm doesn't help with spreading love. Making constructive comments, including factual arguments and well-meant criticism, is a completely different matter.
You're right!Destructive behaviour and misplaced sarcasm doesn't help with spreading love. Making constructive comments, including factual arguments and well-meant criticism, is a completely different matter.
So...with which Gava wave did E-L618 reach Catalonia?
So far from your theories I get: Crete -> Greece -> Balkans -> Carpathians -> Northern Balkans -> Central Balkans + South Eastern Balkans + Western Balkans + Greece + Italy + Germany + Spain + Wales + Sweden.
Where does the early Catalonian among a G2 majority fit?
olive picker (01-20-2023)
That's like R1b and R1a BEFORE the steppe formation, before the Lower Don cultural formations and Protoindoeuropeans. These were different people carrying the ancestral lineages, different stages of their development, evolution one could say.
The same applies to the ancestral haplogroup for E-V13, it went through different stages and I made that clear many times.
1) At first it was in a general E1b1b forager environment, either in North East Africa, the Southern Levante or Southern-Eastern Arabia (Pre-Natufian stage).
2) Then it was in the form of E-M78 in an unknown Preneolithic group, my favourite being Natufian
3) From Natufians (or a related group) it moved into the Northern Levantine-Anatolian one, into a Pre-Pottery Neolithic group of the North, from which the Anatolian Neolithic farmers emerged, which were dominated by G2, but with a minority of E1b1b (M78), J2 and H. The point I was making above is, that he recent paper found an Eastern Anatolian group, which was dominated by J1 and E-M34. That is clearly the Eastern group which led to Afro-Asiatic, more concrete Semitic people, and never colonised Europe. Its therefore the "wrong Neolithic" group, not the one playing the decisive role for the European Neolithic. If E-L618 was not found there, its just logical and doesn't matter. If they would sample, on a grande scale, the actual pre-EEF Anatolian farmer group, which carries the other lineages (like G2, J2 and H) and being clearly ancestral to Impresso-Cardial, it would be more interesting for the E-L618/E-V13 debate. So its not, because these are clearly different people.
4) Impresso-Cardial spread E1b1b as a minority group throughout Neolithic Europe
5) In the Middle Neolithic, the main carriers being Michelsberg (Germany-France) and Lengyel (Hungarian Danube), with single samples found in Sopot (Adriatic) and Tripoyle-Cucuteni (around Moldova). Possible additional carriers might have been in groups like Petresti (Romania). From these groups, only one single person or lineage of E-V13 is of importance, all other lineages they got, E-V13 or not, seem to have been drastically reduced in numbers or completely annihilated by the following events, especially the GAC and steppe invasions.
6) The single survivor perseveres and starts in the EBA a series of first foundations, we don't know where exactly, but the most likely culture is definitely the Coţofeni culture culture, which shows a complex mix of Usatovo/Cernavoda-related steppe groups, local Copper Age people and GAC, with a later addition of Yamnaya influences being possible. We will know more once the first samples come out. Coţofeni covered much of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere and being at the root or influencing many important Carpatho-Balkan groups of the Bronze Age.
7) After the invasions of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere by various people like Kostany-Füzesabony, Tumulus culture, Srubna-Sabatinovka, Mycenaean Greek influence in the South etc., the strongest local formation being the Carpathian cremation block, stretching from South Eastern Poland to Northern Serbia and Bulgaria. The strongest formation inside of this Carpathian cremation block became Suciu de Sus/Berkesz-Demecser and its relatives, like Igrita, Cehalut etc. These formed the Pre-Gáva people, which, unlike the more foreign influenced environment (like Piliny-Kyjatice having more Füzesabony and Tumulus culture, Noua-Wietenberg more Sabatinovka influences), being more strictly of local Carpathian origin.
8) The developed Gáva group formed, on top of the relatives, one single, unified koine of the Eastern Urnfield Channelled Ware people, clearly uniting and fusing different groups at the periphery (like Noua-Coslogeni and Verbicoara-Tei). That's exactly the point in time (1.300-900 BC) when the main peak of E-V13 growth can be deduced from the modern and ancient DNA records phylogeny, tree build. This period and groups being in the Eastern European literature generally referred to as "Thracian Hallstatt".
9) After Channelled Ware, which got broken up by the Cimmerian steppe invasion and influences, the main carrier becomes Stamped Pottery with channelled ware elements, substrate, of all the most important phenomenon being very clearly Basarabi. With Basarabi we have a stage of the Thracian evolution which touches the historically known people, because there is direct continuity from Basarabi to known Thracian people. Like the evolution of Basarabi -> Ferigile (under Scythian-Vekerzug influence) = Triballi people.
Do you think the ancestors of the E-V13 were responsible for the spread of the Anunnaki beliefs in Europe and Greece specifically? You know, An like angelos and Ki (Goddess of Earth) like Greek gi (earth). Lots of Summerian/Akkadian words entered Europe. They then back migrated as Sea People as you mention them often.
I don't evenk now how to answer that, but if talking about any connection to Sumerians/Mesopotamia, I would look at the Minoans first and the Minoans/pre-Greek Aegeans had very little to do with E-V13. They might have had some E-L618 from the earlier ANF/EEF groups of the region, but that's not where this was coming from, since it dates to a later period and connections. Anything which is more specifically Greek, and not generally Indoeuropean, should be first checked for a Minoan/old Aegean connection. And its exactly with these people we find no correlation for E-V13, other than the Bulgarian IA shift in that direction, though its not even as much in that direction, since they had less Iranian ancestry.
We have new ancient DNA evidence, this time from Romanised people in Slovenia - not sure if its E-V13 though, but chances are good - probably someone experienced can check the values for a confirmation?
Some details:Highlights
33 – A familial relationship between skeletons is important for understanding the burial
34 practices of past human populations.
35 – Petrous bones and teeth were used for genetic analysis of four skeletons from a
36 5th- to 6th-century grave of Romanized indigenous people.
37 – Almost full autosomal and Y-STR profiles were obtained from the ancient
38 skeletons.
39 – Kinship analysis confirmed that the skeletons belonged to the same family.
40 – A kinship probability of paternity greater than 99.9% was achieved for all three
41 children.
42 – The E1b1b Y haplogroup was predicted for male skeletons
Could be a non-E-V13 from the E1b1b spectrum as well, of course. Without a better analysis, it remains speculative.amely, four skeletons were
58 excavated from the 5th- to 6th-century Bled–Pristava burial site and, based on
59 stratigraphy, the individuals were considered to be buried simultaneously in one grave. A
60 familial relationship between individuals is important for understanding the burial
61 practices of past populations living in this area. Thus, our aim was to determine whether
62 the individuals were related.
[...]
108 The Bled–Pristava archaeological site is a very intriguing multiperiod necropolis. The
109 necropolis was active from approximately the 3rd to 9th century AD. The individuals
110 buried there are partially indigenous people (3rd to 6th century) and partially Slavs that
111 migrated to the area. The necropolis thus covers this turbulent migration period, which
112 still remains poorly understood in Slovenia. We lack (osteological) material (or thorough
113 analyses of it) from the late 5th to approximately 8th century AD. Thus, there are
114 numerous questions regarding the contact between indigenous and newly arrived people
115 and further evolution of the population that remain unanswered. The four individuals in
116 our study are from the end of the 5th or beginning of the 6th century. Based on the
117 material culture, they represent indigenous people. However, the grave they were buried
118 in is completely different from all the other graves at the site. It is the only one in which
119 more than one individual was buried. Moreover, our four individuals were all placed in
120 one grave, which was on the edge of the necropolis.
[...]
When estimating the frequency of the Y-STR haplotype from skeletons 2 and 4 and the
374 composite Y haplotype constructed from skeletons 2 and 4 using the YHRD database, no
375 match was found in the worldwide database (the expected frequency was estimated to be
376 9.6 × 10−6).
377
378 When Whit Athey’s and Nevgen software were used for Y haplogroup prediction, the
379 E1b1b haplogroup was predicted for all haplotypes (haplotype from skeletons 2 and 4,
380 and the composite Y-STR haplotype) using both Y-DNA haplogroup predictors, with
381 prediction accuracy estimated to be higher than 99%.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4331032
I don't why see why they can't be E-V13 since we already have E-V13 in Croatia in the IA and 3 different clades in late antiquity and the early medieval era.
The problem lies elsewhere. This is another study in a long series of studies from ex Yugoslav academia which almost exclusively cite each other in a circular manner because they can't find any support for their claims outside their own academic group.
The E1b1b Y haplogroup was predicted for male skeletons. Sublineage E1b1b is the most 484 frequent “Neolithic haplogroup” for men in the Balkan region (Primorac et al. 2011). In a study performed on the Slovenian population, E1b1b was detected with a frequency of 7.3% (Zupan et al. 2013). According to recently published results, this haplogroup is slightly less frequent in Slovenia than in the closest neighboring population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Babić et al. 2021) and Croatia (Primorac et al. 2011). Outside Europe, E1b1b is found at frequencies higher than 80% in Morocco and Somalia, with a frequency from 40 to 80% in Ethiopia, 60 to 70% in Algeria and Tunisia, 40% in Egypt, and 17.5 to 25% in Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan. In Europe, the highest concentration is found in Kosovo (over 45%), followed by Albania and Montenegro (both 27%), Bulgaria (23%), North Macedonia and Greece (both 21%), and Cyprus and Sicily (both 20%), and then southern Italy (18.5%), Serbia (18%), and Romania (15%). The phylogenetic tree for the E1b1b Y haplogroup starts in the Paleolithic Red Sea region. The haplogroup E1b1b (previously known as E3b) signifies the last significant direct migration from Africa to Europe. It is estimated that it first appeared in the Horn of Africa around 26,000 years ago and that it then dispersed to the Near East and North Africa during the late Paleolithic and the Mesolithic (eupedia.com). This ancient European haplogroup shows a possible double origin from two distinct source populations, associated with the recolonization of Europe from Iberia as well as from western Asia (Primorac et al. 2011; Peričić et al. 2005).
No comment.
olive picker (01-28-2023), Riverman (01-28-2023)
Worth to note, the local population belonged originally to the Eastern Hallstat cremating groups, probably associated with the Frög group, but often seen independent, as an independen Ljubljana group:
https://www.iron-age-danube.eu/archiv/site/detail/11149The town of Bled lies on the shore of lake Bled - an Alpine lake with glacial and tectonic origin. Lake is located in the Blejski kot that is most northern and highest part of the Savska ravan. To the west and south, Blejski kot is surrounded with high Alpine plateaus of Pokljuka and Jelovica where altitudes reach over 1000 m. A deep river bed of Sava that has cut numerous terraces is separating Blejski kot from the lowland areas towards east. With the island that is located in the middle of the lake, Lake Bled has become a prominent tourist destination from the 19th century onwards. But Lake Bled has attracted continuous human settlement at least from the Neolithic period. Majority of the discovered remains indicate that 4 locations on the shores were most suitable for earlier activities. The most dominant position in the microregion belongs to the ridge that is extending along the northern shore of the lake with the peak on which stands the Medieval castle. Large scale excavations that were conducted on Pristava - the northern and lower part of the ridge - have revealed a large necropolis with burials characteristic for Prehistory, Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, more than 70 cremation graves were atributed to the Early Iron Age. Remains of the Early Iron Age settlement were discovered on the northern slopes of Castle hill, layers with high concentration of Early Iron age pottery fragments indicate that the settlment was also on the elevated part of Pristava. Prehistoric graves that were discovered at the end of 19th century on the northern edge of town Bled indicate that another area was used as necropolis. Excavations were also conducted on the Bled Island where terrain was vastly modified due to construction of a church. Among older phases of the church the remains of a Prehistoric hearth is mentioned. The context was atributed to Hallstatt period and also to Neolithic, so the dating remains questionable. Numerous finds of Prehistoric metal objects that were discovered submerged, near the Lake outflow Jezernica, indicate that ritual activities were practiced there. Earliest objects belong to Middle Bronze Age, an iron one-sided winged axe suggest that tradition was practiced in Younger Hallstatt also.
Here met Urnfield with Illyrian-related influences:Die Gegend von Gorenjsko, die zwischen den
beiden stärksten Gruppen, der Unterkrain- und der
Sv. Lucija-Gruppe, liegt, haben wir als Ljubljana-
Gruppe bezeichnet. Dazu veranlaßte uns die
Urnenfeldnekropole in Ljubljana, womit wir die
eigenständige urnenfelderzeitliche Ljubljana-Gruppe
begründet haben (Gabrovec 1973). Diese setzt
sich noch in der Hallstattzeit fort und behält die
alte Bestattungsweise bis zum Certosa-Horizont
bei. Das gilt vor allem für die Nekropole von
Ljubljana im Hof der Slowenischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften und Künste (SAZU). Flache
Brandgräber gibt es auch auf dem Molnik (Puš
1984, 1991), in Bled (Gabrovec 1960a), Kranj -
Prah-Villa (Gabrovec 1960c) und Mengeš (Gabro-
vec 1965) - diese Nekropolen beginnen später als
die von Ljubljana - mit der Stufe Podzemelj.
http://av.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/50/AV_50_Gabrovec.pdfDiese Bestattungsvielfalt ist nur ein Beweis
dafür, daß Gorenjsko keinen einheitlichen Kul-
turraum darstellt, wie es in Dolenjsko oder im
Soča-Gebiet der Fall ist, und daß wir nicht von
einer Kulturgruppe im selben Sinne wie in den
beiden anderen Gruppen sprechen können. Nach
dem heutigen Forschungsstand handelt es sich
um eine intensivere Besiedlung zur Zeit der Ur-
nenfelderkultur von Ljubljana, die noch in der
Hallstattzeit weiterlebt, die materielle Kultur dieser
Zeit übernimmt, aber die alte Bestattungsweise
beibehält. Der Bereich fügte sich in der jüngeren
Zeit der Sv. Lucija-Gruppe, so im Bohinj-Tal
(Gabrovec 1974b), oder der Unterkrain-Gruppe,
so auf dem Molnik. Auf diese Weise können wir
heute Gorenjsko eher als Durchgangsgebiet denn
als Kulturgruppe im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes
bezeichnen.
Since these relevant Eastern Hallstatt groups, of which some had Thraco-Cimmerian and Basarabi connections, later Vekerzug ones, did all cremate before the Roman era, we might deal with a similar situation as in Viminacium, with these Roman era samples being the first to appear after the cremation rite stopped in late Roman and early Christian times. The Basarabi-related hotspot of Frög is nearby and did influence this group, which did bury its dead in flat urn cremation graves.
Frög with its strong Thraco-Cimmerian and Basarabi connections, is one of these Eastern Hallstatt groups for which I always did bet on an E-V13 presence. These samples might, just might, be the first harder evidence for this. There are also connections to the Este culture (Veneti), Northern Italy and the West Balkan in general.
Would be great to get E-V13 confirmed, even a subclade and their autosomal profile.
Last edited by Riverman; 01-29-2023 at 07:49 PM.
How does this match up with the theory of an eef EV13 nclave in bulgaria? Are there any indications of movements from Bulgaria into iron age slovenia?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote