Page 403 of 514 FirstFirst ... 303353393401402403404405413453503 ... LastLast
Results 4,021 to 4,030 of 5135

Thread: A theory about the origin of E-V13

  1. #4021
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,092
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's the crucial part, because we see no strong expansion from Bulgaria and on the contrary Bulgaria was flooded with different groups of people from the Carpathian Basin, the Central Balkans and the steppe, like Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni. Actually, these Noua people are likely related to Cimmerians or Scythians, but they played a role both in Transylvania (Wietenberg-Noua fusion) and at the Lower Danube (Coslogeni local fusion).

    There is absolutely no indication for any stable growth or expansion from Bulgaria itself in that period. On the contrary, the country was largely depopulated. On the other hand, in the Upper Tisza area, like described in earlier posts, Suciu de Sus experienced a peak growth, which continued into Lapus I + II (Gáva). They even settled areas which were earlier uninhabited, and built large scale settlements in their centre. At the end of the period, when Channelled Ware began to expand, those settlements became deserted or greatly reduced.

    We see nothing like that in Bulgaria, no such growth and stability or later expansion, but constant pushes from the West, North and North East, as well as the South (Mycenaean, Grey Ware Anatolian). All of which being eaten up at the end of the LBA, in the Transitional Period by Channelled Ware.

    There is no viable independent candidate in the region earlier than the LBA imho.



    The quotation is great, but you notice the problem: E-V13 was already really big and significant in the Bronze Age and became a major player in the Iron Age. It didn't start from scratch in the Bronze Age, that's not possible if just looking at the modern E-V13 phylogeny. The most parsimonious explanation is therefore that the region or people being not sampled and there are two reasons for this:
    - Lack of samples from Western-Central-Northern Romania, Eastern Slovakia and Transcarpathia
    - Cremation horizon dominating in these regions and nearby, in all the relevant cultures since the EBA.

    It couldn't have been hidden somewhere in the South East, in a people which got robbed and decimated every generation by newly arriving warlike tribes from all directions. Talking about continuity in Bulgaria from the MBA, there is almost none at all and surely nothing which would explain the rise of a lineage to the numbers needed. Looking at the source of Channelled Ware in the Carpathian region, we see a completely different and ideal context.
    Do we know exactly to which less basal E-V13 lineages those Croatian and Bulgarian samples belong to?

  2. #4022
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,967
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    Do we know exactly to which less basal E-V13 lineages those Croatian and Bulgarian samples belong to?
    We have some results, but not for all because of the coverage. You can always start a quick check here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...0275603746&z=7

    As for the Bulgarian Knobbed/Channelled Ware and its connections:
    Traditionally Troy VII b2 was absolutely dated between 1120 and 950 B.C. In an article on the
    „Buckelware” associated with this phase and its cultural context, Dietrich Koppenhöfer (Koppenhöfer
    1997, 314–315; 334–347) still relies on Bernhard Hänsel’s parameters for the absolute dates of the cultural groups of the Lower Danube region in regard to the chronology of Troy (Hänsel 1976, 229–236
    with older references). Hänsel suggested a possible lifespan of pottery from the Dobrudzha/Dobrogea in
    Romania and the Tundža-Marica region in Bulgaria beginning around 1100 and ending around 800 BC,
    the date when the Basarabi style emerges. $ e absolute chronology of Troy/Troia VII still depends on
    the Aegean pottery based chronology of the LH III C period and the start of the Protogeometric Period.
    $ erefore, the recent higher (14C) dates for the Protogeometric period25, which are still under discussion,
    might also e* ect the absolute chronology for the cultural groups of the Lower Danube and east Balkan
    region. Some 14C-measurements of material from Troia VII b2-contexts associated with Knobbed Ware
    have produced several dates; the most convincing are 938–906 cal. B.C. and 984–961 cal. B.C. (Koppenhöfer 1997, 314)26. $ is makes the „Buckelware” or Knobbed Ware contemporary with the channelled
    horn-like knobs in central Transylvania or even Srem (Kalakača), which are independently dated.
    I would like to stress again what I have tried to show in this article: in central Transylvania
    the presence of channelled pottery with horn-like knobs is dated to a later Gáva horizon (Gáva II) and
    can very likely be regarded as the result of a cultural contact in what so ever form with the areas of the
    Knobbed Ware’s origin, such as the Lăpuş and Suciu Valleys in Northwest Transylvania.
    The similarity of
    the Bulgarian vessels some of which are characterised by channelled knobs (i. e., Hänsel 1976, Pl. 25/15;
    29/13; 69/5 and Fig. 6/3) with the Troy finds is so striking that the question of immigration was raised
    almost immediately after the Knobbed ware horizon Troy VII b2 was discovered (Blegen et al. 1958;
    Pintér 2005). The petrographic as well as geochemical analyses by Farkas Pintér of pottery from Troy VII
    b2 and several Bulgarian and Turkish sites have revealed that the Knobbed Ware in Troy was produced
    locally (Pintér 2005, 144–146; 177 = .). Pintér concludes that their production in Troy must be seen as a
    „transfer of technical solutions”. In my opinion this transfer was done by people who originated in areas
    such as modern Bulgaria or the coastal area south of the mouth of the Danube who were present in Troy
    and produced their pottery in their own style on site with local clay.
    Another aspect mentioned in the article about Basarabi influences along the Danube points to vessel types moving from Nova Zagora to Bavaria in the Hallstatt era! This resulted in completely new influences and motifs in the Hallstatt sphere, which were first used in Psenichevo-Basarabi contexts.
    So the networks once established by Channelled Ware, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Kantharoi-Hallstatt connection were kept alive with trading and migration (low level) throughout the Early Iron Age. Surely resulting in gene flow, even more so in the South Eastern centres among themselves.

    Also worth to stress in this context:
    A well known vessel with a conical neck and white incrusted ornamentation (Fig. 6; Catalogue
    Berlin 1981, * g. 66) from Nova Zagora in Bulgaria clearly shows a special connotation of horned knobs
    since the neck of the vessel is decorated with an exceptional scene of human figures in an adoration pose
    with raised arms. This scene is a further argument for interpreting the horn-like knobs as religiously
    denoted symbols.
    https://www.academia.edu/3195938/Cha...ogical_aspects

    This transition from abstract channels/fluting and knobs (like earlier in Tisza-Danube groups and especially Lapus-Gáva) to more concrete human figures is a crucial transition from the Eastern Urnfield to the Early Hallstatt context and it happened in Psenichevo and Basarabi, spread from there West and North.

    Now the point is, nevertheless: This was a transition, a development, an evolution, probably from local substrate influences, but based on the established forms of the Channelled Ware horizon. Its pretty much a smooth transition.

    There is no way that Channelled Ware had left no genetic mark on the region. Even the Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni and Cimmerian influences, surely much smaller, left their mark, we get the R-Z93 carrier, which, I have to stress this and can't stress it enough: He was as Souhern as the other Thracians, probably only a very minor steppe hint, but basically the same as the E-V13 carriers!
    Would anybody search for the origins of R-Z93 in Bulgaria only (I'm not excluding the possiblity, I just deem it less likely) because of that?

    Same for E-V13, which surely started not as different from the later Bulgarian samples, even if coming from let's say the area of Suciu de Sus/Lapus.

  3. #4023
    Registered Users
    Posts
    447
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Pontus
    Nationality
    Pontic Greek
    aDNA Match (1st)
    0.02936008 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1551
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    0.03887734 TUR_SE_Mardin_PostMdv:I4540
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    0.03897755 TUR_SE_Gaziantep_Byz:I14648
    Y-DNA (P)
    G-Y316412
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-Y140828

    Empire of Trebizond Byzantine Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by takerunder View Post
    Yeah. Central Greece is 30% Thracian, with 0 Thracian words.

    I think it's quite clear that Thracians absorbed Aegean/Anatolian E-V13 people, rather than Thracians spread E-V13 to all of Europe and Anatolia.

    Saying E-V13 spread is down to Thracians is a reach to say the least.



    Like I said, E-V13 correlates with the "East Med" autosomal component that spread all over Europe.
    In Greece EV13 is def mostly Vlach(Thraco-Roman).Like in other parts of the balkans.

  4. #4024
    Quote Originally Posted by Avraam Kyriakidis View Post
    In Greece EV13 is def mostly Vlach(Thraco-Roman).Like in other parts of the balkans.
    There are 2 million Greek men today who are E-V13, and Vlachs were not majority E-V13. I think you need to learn some history. Even today Aromanians number at like 200k.

  5. #4025
    Using G25, here is the more south-eastern shifted G25 Albanian Medieval samples using (1) Illyrian (2) East Med E-V13 from Anatolia



    Look at the low distance. I know this is only medieval, but note E-V13 is on average 27% in Albanians, the same as this sample. (Obviously modern Alb are not 27% East Med).

  6. #4026
    Registered Users
    Posts
    447
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Pontus
    Nationality
    Pontic Greek
    aDNA Match (1st)
    0.02936008 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1551
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    0.03887734 TUR_SE_Mardin_PostMdv:I4540
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    0.03897755 TUR_SE_Gaziantep_Byz:I14648
    Y-DNA (P)
    G-Y316412
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-Y140828

    Empire of Trebizond Byzantine Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by takerunder View Post
    There are 2 million Greek men today who are E-V13, and Vlachs were not majority E-V13. I think you need to learn some history. Even today Aromanians number at like 200k.
    Yeah yeah…It is Dorian or Celtic forgiving me

    Explain how this ydna found in Greece when the BA Mycenae and Minoan’s completely lack it.It is mostly coming from hellenized paleobalkaners(aka Vlachs) and medieval Slavs and Albanians.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Avraam Kyriakidis For This Useful Post:

     Michał (10-03-2022),  rafc (10-03-2022)

  8. #4027
    Registered Users
    Posts
    447
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Pontus
    Nationality
    Pontic Greek
    aDNA Match (1st)
    0.02936008 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1551
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    0.03887734 TUR_SE_Mardin_PostMdv:I4540
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    0.03897755 TUR_SE_Gaziantep_Byz:I14648
    Y-DNA (P)
    G-Y316412
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-Y140828

    Empire of Trebizond Byzantine Empire
    Where in the case of Albanians it is also coming from Daco-Thracian related(Vlach) groups that did not switched to Roman-Latin.

  9. #4028
    Quote Originally Posted by Avraam Kyriakidis View Post
    Where in the case of Albanians it is also coming from Daco-Thracian related(Vlach) groups that did not switched to Roman-Latin.
    Yes, Vlachs who are like 15% E-V13 spread to 20% Greeks and 27% Albanians. Like I said, learn some history.

  10. #4029
    Quote Originally Posted by takerunder View Post
    Using G25, here is the more south-eastern shifted G25 Albanian Medieval samples using (1) Illyrian (2) East Med E-V13 from Anatolia



    Look at the low distance. I know this is only medieval, but note E-V13 is on average 27% in Albanians, the same as this sample. (Obviously modern Alb are not 27% East Med).
    Also, modelling Iron Age E-V13 Thracians as Bronze Age Bulgarian + Byzantine Anatolian E-V13.


  11. #4030
    Quote Originally Posted by Avraam Kyriakidis View Post
    Explain how this ydna found in Greece when the BA Mycenae and Minoan’s completely lack it.It is mostly coming from hellenized paleobalkaners(aka Vlachs) and medieval Slavs and Albanians.
    Iron Age Italians completely lack it. Where did 15% of Italian men today belonging to E-V13 come from? Vlachs? Seriously, what are you even going on about?

Page 403 of 514 FirstFirst ... 303353393401402403404405413453503 ... 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
  •