Page 477 of 487 FirstFirst ... 377427467475476477478479 ... LastLast
Results 4,761 to 4,770 of 4865

Thread: A theory about the origin of E-V13

  1. #4761
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,467
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Riverman, you are again using Gava even when there isn't any strong evidence for such thing, in order to widen the Thracian sphere.

    Es for the territories you mentioned, it's like claiming that the Goths's core area was between the Black Sea and the Carpathian mountains just because they were living there at some point.
    I was very clear, Vekerzug and Mezőcsát clearly have Thracian influence but that's about it, influence from the south.

    As for toponyms, it's not about survival of toponyms, I'm talking about the ancient sources where most maps are based on.
    There are no such toponyms in the areas you claimed are Thracian.
    There is no evidence whatsoever that the inhabitants of those areas where at any time of the Iron Age anything else but North Thracians/Dacians. Even on the contrary, there is a great deal of regional continuity and then we have historically attested Dacian people in this place, associated with the cultures mentioned above. That is not just an influence, but a deep rooted local Daco-Thracian population element there.
    Again, practically all authors which assigned Kustanovice and Eastern Vekerzug/Sanislau group to an ethnolinguistic group did call it Thracian/Dacian or Thraco-Cimmerian for a reason. The people which disagree just have no alternative explanaton or designation, yet if being forced to assign, they would all agree on the same if considering the known facts.

    The main newcomers in Mezocsat were Cimmerian/Cimmerian related steppe groups, but the local population stayed largely the same and still produced, just somewhat degraded, more simple, Gáva pottery:
    The resettlement and reinforcement measures take place at a time when a complex cultural change can
    be discerned in the Carpathian basin. In the zone of the Great Hungarian plain, the cultural break has
    especially dramatic effects. Thus, the settlements and urnfields of the Csorva, Kyjatice and Gáva groups
    in the middle and upper Tisza basin were in the course of 10th
    –9th century BC replaced by the burial sites
    of the Füzesabony-Mezőcsát group. The metal finds from the graves and depots represent a repertoire of
    forms of Pontic-Caucasian origin. At the same time it can be assumed, especially due to the lack of settle-
    ment remains, that the population groups in the Alföld were of nomadic steppe character 81
    . The presence
    of a nomadic steppe population in the geographically adjacent lowlands is in perfect agreement with the
    resettlement and reinforcement activities of the early Bosut group, for such measures would be expected
    in the case of threat from steppe nomadic attacks.
    On page 29 is a selection of pottery with flutes, from the Early Iron Age, Bosut group. The similarities to Psenichevo are pretty obvious once more. In the Bosut area Channelled Ware reappeared in the latest phase before the Celtic La Tene intrusion.

    On the basis of the pottery, P. Medović has recognised a clear stratigraphic sequence of the Kalakača,
    Basarabi and Fluted Pottery periods (Bosut IIIa–IIIc / IVa–IVc) in Feudvar and defined it with refer-
    ence to the settlement of Gradina on Bosut 92 (Fig. 19). M. Röder in his stratigraphic assessment of the
    house phases Q to S however places a different emphasis. Thus he stresses that high-quality wares and
    the associated surface polishing and fluted decoration were already revived at the transition to the
    Bosut II (resp. Bosut IIIb / IVb) period, without any sharp differentiation from the ceramic repertoire
    of the subsequent Bosut III (resp. Bosut IIIc / IVc) period. The ceremonial bowls of Basarabi style that
    occur irregularly among the pottery finds in houses he considers as no defining element of the Bosut
    pottery (Fig. 20) 93 .
    After the fortified settlement of Feudvar, which formed an isolated island in the steppe landscape, was
    finally destroyed around the 5th / 4th century BC the micro-region of the Titel plateau remained abandoned
    for several centuries. A grave find on the bottom of Feudvar surduk however attests the presence of Celts
    already in the early La Tčne period (Lt 99
    . When the settlement area was extensively reoccupied in the
    2 nd century BC, in the course of colonisation of the Tisza estuary area by population groups of the Celtic
    Scordisci, the focus of settlement had shifted to the southern tip of the plateau.
    https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fi...r_III_2016.pdf

    My interpretation is that Gáva-related groups expanded rapidly and aggressively, either annihilating, assimilating or fusing with local elements. This created one united koine and network, which was however severely damaged and ultimately destroyed by the Cimmerian invasion. After the Cimmerian invasion we see this sphere falling apart, splitting into different branches almost immediately, and in the following period there were many regional groupings which show even stronger earlier local and foreign influences. Like in Basarabi, we see the fusion of Channelled Ware with more local and already syncretistic (like later Babadag) cultures, while at the same time first Cimmerian, later Scythian, influences are regionally very pronounced, like e.g. in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon with its core group around Mezocsat.
    This boom and bust cycle for the Gáva-related expansion and the collapse of its rule and breaking apart in newly defined regions is what causes the confusion.
    Last edited by Riverman; 11-24-2022 at 08:53 PM.

  2. #4762
    Registered Users
    Posts
    199
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V13>Z5017>BY4465
    Y-DNA (M)
    J2b-L283>BY201552

    Albania
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I see no way to completely separate E-Z5017 from E-Z5018, they surely expanded in most instances together. So when branches the Daco-Thracian people moved out, they carried, from the start, many lineages, not just a small number of founders. This is very evident from all the data we got and explains why there is a fairly even (in comparison to other haplogroups) distribution of E-V13 subclades from which we can only conclude when these groups marched out, at best, if the data is sufficient. Also by date, the creation of E-Z5018 and E-Z5017 predates the major expansion of the LBA-EIA, so they definitely lived together in one single population. Only later, younger subclades can be associated with specific people.
    I used Z5017 vs Z5018 as an example to better explain my point, but even in that random example you have 0 proof of everything you stated.

    Every single sentence in your post is pure speculation that stems from wishful thinking.

    Granted that wishful thinking could have a logical basis, but it’s still wishful thinking nonetheless.

    My wishful thinking is that we will find E-V13 in the Western Balkans (including Dardania, Pannonia, and Paeonia). The logical basis is that Roman Era E-V13 in Croatia as well as the fact that the Thracian E-V13 clades are absent in Albanians.

    The difference in my wishful thinking is that I’m not confident at all. Nor do I care that much about the subject in order to spend hours studying pots and belts.

    I’ll just sit and wait since logic in genetics has more losses (and embarrassing ones) than wins. Some of them include R1b originating in Spain, E-V13 being African, I2a being Illyrian and Vinca (lol). Everything has the ability to be logical at a certain time, especially at times of ignorance and lack of information.

    Saying E-V13 is Thracian is 2007ish fora talk.
    Last edited by Zanatis; 11-24-2022 at 10:28 PM.

  3. #4763
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,467
    Sex

    The modern data is sufficient for being sure about some aspects, like that E-V13 must have been united in one, fairly large population, at least the bulk of it, and began to ever more rapidly grow, expand and branch especially in the LBA-EIA transition.

    That's just for sure as a starting point. And we have ancient DNA from many areas and cultural formations in which it can't gave been in significant numbers, let alone the bulk of it.

    Then we need an expansive population, a big one, which wasn't sampled up to this point and spread to the areas were we find E-V13 later.

    Take those facts together and you don't have that many options left if you know the subject.

    The Carpatho-Balkan cremation block with Gáva in its centre can't easily taken out of the equation. Stamped pottery not at all and we already have ancient E-V13 Thracians.
    That's no speculation, that is a proven case.

  4. #4764
    Registered Users
    Posts
    199
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V13>Z5017>BY4465
    Y-DNA (M)
    J2b-L283>BY201552

    Albania
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The modern data is sufficient for being sure about some aspects, like that E-V13 must have been united in one, fairly large population, at least the bulk of it, and began to ever more rapidly grow, expand and branch especially in the LBA-EIA transition.

    That's just for sure as a starting point. And we have ancient DNA from many areas and cultural formations in which it can't gave been in significant numbers, let alone the bulk of it.

    Then we need an expansive population, a big one, which wasn't sampled up to this point and spread to the areas were we find E-V13 later.

    Take those facts together and you don't have that many options left if you know the subject.

    The Carpatho-Balkan cremation block with Gáva in its centre can't easily taken out of the equation. Stamped pottery not at all and we already have ancient E-V13 Thracians.
    That's no speculation, that is a proven case.
    The only proven part is that Thracians and Illyrians both had E-V13, as well as European populations on the other side of the continent such as Galicians (Spain) and Welsh (UK).

    The rest is wishful thinking that awaits confirmation by future studies.

  5. #4765
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,467
    Sex

    Frequency and diversity in the Thracian sample is completely different from those in the Illyrians. That's just a secondary spread associated with the mentioned groups in the LBA-EIA.

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

     Avraam Kyriakidis (11-25-2022),  digital_noise (11-26-2022)

  7. #4766
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,116

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    There is no evidence whatsoever that the inhabitants of those areas where at any time of the Iron Age anything else but North Thracians/Dacians. Even on the contrary, there is a great deal of regional continuity and then we have historically attested Dacian people in this place, associated with the cultures mentioned above. That is not just an influence, but a deep rooted local Daco-Thracian population element there.
    Again, practically all authors which assigned Kustanovice and Eastern Vekerzug/Sanislau group to an ethnolinguistic group did call it Thracian/Dacian or Thraco-Cimmerian for a reason. The people which disagree just have no alternative explanaton or designation, yet if being forced to assign, they would all agree on the same if considering the known facts.

    The main newcomers in Mezocsat were Cimmerian/Cimmerian related steppe groups, but the local population stayed largely the same and still produced, just somewhat degraded, more simple, Gáva pottery:


    On page 29 is a selection of pottery with flutes, from the Early Iron Age, Bosut group. The similarities to Psenichevo are pretty obvious once more. In the Bosut area Channelled Ware reappeared in the latest phase before the Celtic La Tene intrusion.





    https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fi...r_III_2016.pdf

    My interpretation is that Gáva-related groups expanded rapidly and aggressively, either annihilating, assimilating or fusing with local elements. This created one united koine and network, which was however severely damaged and ultimately destroyed by the Cimmerian invasion. After the Cimmerian invasion we see this sphere falling apart, splitting into different branches almost immediately, and in the following period there were many regional groupings which show even stronger earlier local and foreign influences. Like in Basarabi, we see the fusion of Channelled Ware with more local and already syncretistic (like later Babadag) cultures, while at the same time first Cimmerian, later Scythian, influences are regionally very pronounced, like e.g. in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon with its core group around Mezocsat.
    This boom and bust cycle for the Gáva-related expansion and the collapse of its rule and breaking apart in newly defined regions is what causes the confusion.
    Furst, there really were no Dacian related tribes in the region you describe.
    Neither the Cotini, nor Anarti or Ossi show distinctive Dacian features as opposed to Celtic or Pannonian, nor were they marked as Dacian by the ancient historians.
    Basically whatever Dacian influences are found there are the result of a later expansion of Dacian people.

    Second, Bassarabi Culture is probably the best orientation factor as to where Dacian core was.
    It started in southwest Romania as a descendant of Insula-Banului judging by the first horizon of Bassarabi marked by stamped and incised pottery and spread in Transylvania and some other areas outside:


    Eastern Slovakia and Transcarpathia, a fringe area that by no means van be described core Dacian or Thracian territory seems to have been a Lusatian territory.

    And I believe the marker R-Z93 found among the Thracians is a clear indicator that there is MLBA yDna continuity in Thrace and it didn't came from Slovakia but from the Pontic Steppe Srubna Culture.

  8. #4767
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,467
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Furst, there really were no Dacian related tribes in the region you describe.
    Neither the Cotini, nor Anarti or Ossi show distinctive Dacian features as opposed to Celtic or Pannonian, nor were they marked as Dacian by the ancient historians.
    Basically whatever Dacian influences are found there are the result of a later expansion of Dacian people.

    Second, Bassarabi Culture is probably the best orientation factor as to where Dacian core was.
    It started in southwest Romania as a descendant of Insula-Banului judging by the first horizon of Bassarabi marked by stamped and incised pottery and spread in Transylvania and some other areas outside:


    Eastern Slovakia and Transcarpathia, a fringe area that by no means van be described core Dacian or Thracian territory seems to have been a Lusatian territory.
    Basarabi surely is a key group for the Daco-Thracians, no doubt about that, and it will be the gravity centre of E-V13 in the Iron Age, the safe one. But that you now make that area "Lusatian culture" is kind of a joke, because it was the other way around, with Late Gáva-related groups rather expanding into areas like Poland on top of Lusatians, instead of the opposite. And they had relations to the Basarabi sphere, being connected, but without being overtaken. Another critical issue is that they kept traditions we later see in Dacians, which is why some authors went as far as to describe Kustanovice as Proto-Dacian. Whether you agree with this or not, some did, there is no way you can simply write them off and ignoring this region and archaeological, cultural formations. We just need more data to put them properly into context.

    The mentioned tribes being all described as having significant Dacian influences, even if they were considered to be Celtic dominated and the group of the Costobocci with Lapitsa/Carpathian Tumuli culture was close by and covered parts of that territory. In the paper I quoted before, we can clearly see how Dacian influences expanded from that area into Poland. The outside influences being rather later Celtic and Germanic.

    And I believe the marker R-Z93 found among the Thracians is a clear indicator that there is MLBA yDna continuity in Thrace and it didn't came from Slovakia but from the Pontic Steppe Srubna Culture.
    One doesn't negate the other and R-Z93, basically the same cultural influence from Noua-Sabatinovka will be found in Noua/Noua-Wietenberg in the direct neighbourhood. Wietenberg and related groups influenced the Lower Danube region before, Noua influenced both regions, and Gáva had influences from both. They being connected anyway, from the Hornad valley in Slovakia and Transcarpathia down to the Lower Danube.

    Talking about early Gáva, that area of Slovakia is of particular interest, the Hornad valley:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn%C3%A1d

    The R-Z93 could have been taken up by already developed Proto-Thracians on the way, or in their formation phase either in Transylvania, East Carpathia, Dobruja or just in Bulgaria itself. We don't know until we have more data. The first critical data comes indeed from the mentioned paper on Bronze Age Transylvania, hopefully, because they cover actual candidate cultures. Its not like the Lower Danube area was so completely different. Encrusted Pottery came from Pannonia and shows relatives in Southern Romania (Monteoru) as well as Bulgaria. That's a first clear pattern, that they lived along the Danube from Hungary to Bulgaria, all higher in WHG and dominated by I2 + G2.
    The second is that Carpathian influences, like Wietenberg-related groups came to Bulgaria too and the connection just increased with Noua-Coslogeni and later Gáva-related Channelled Ware. They were never left alone, which is why the Aegean-Neolithic shift makes no sense arguing with locals or earlier newcomers. They must have come from the Aegean sphere imho, in different phases, but seem to be largely unrelated to the E-V13 phenomenon as such.
    One factor for that conclusion of mine is how limited their earlier impact was, because the E-V13 population was much bigger, but this influence shows itself initially primarily in Bulgaria only, and even there fairly late and unrelated to earlier inhabitants of significance.
    It only spread later, with Stamped Pottery, which is however just a next stage, by and large, of Noua-Coslogeni under Gáva influence - plus some Aegean-Anatolian influence, as noted by many researchers. And I associate E-V13 definitely with Gáva and/or Noua-Coslogeni/Noua-Wietenberg, and the Aegean-Anatolian influence with Mycenaean era and later migrants. The male side of them will likely be J2a and related lineages made it into the Carpathian basin in the Otomani and Suciu de Sus era, incluencing the groups preceding Gáva.

  9. #4768
    Registered Users
    Posts
    199
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V13>Z5017>BY4465
    Y-DNA (M)
    J2b-L283>BY201552

    Albania
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Frequency and diversity in the Thracian sample is completely different from those in the Illyrians. That's just a secondary spread associated with the mentioned groups in the LBA-EIA.
    I wonder what you will say if they find E-V13 from 1300 BC in Illyria.

    My guess is you will call it Proto-Thracian that penetrated into Illyria with Gava/Besarabi/Mezocsat.

  10. #4769
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,467
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanatis View Post
    I wonder what you will say if they find E-V13 from 1300 BC in Illyria.

    My guess is you will call it Proto-Thracian that penetrated into Illyria with Gava/Besarabi/Mezocsat.
    Depends on the context. I doubt they will find it, because even if it was there, it likely spread with Urnfielders which cremated their dead, so they would be invisible to the record. They appear only later, when assimilating into the general population and practising inhumation as well.
    That's why we got developed Iron Age E-V13 samples, but the earlier Illyrians being all J-L283 or R-L51.
    Last edited by Riverman; 11-25-2022 at 05:59 PM.

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

     Avraam Kyriakidis (11-25-2022)

  12. #4770
    Registered Users
    Posts
    199
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V13>Z5017>BY4465
    Y-DNA (M)
    J2b-L283>BY201552

    Albania
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Depends on the context. I doubt they will find it, because even if it was there, it likely spread with Urnfielders which cremated their dead, so they would be invisible to the record. They appear only later, when assimilating into the general population and practising inhumation as well.
    That's why we got developed Iron Age E-V13 samples, but the earlier Illyrians being all J-L283 or R-L51.
    You probably mean the earlier Dalmatians (and nearby Montenegro) and Dardanians being all J2b and R1b so far.

    We still need samples from Bosnia, Albania, Serbia, and more from Montenegro.

Page 477 of 487 FirstFirst ... 377427467475476477478479 ... 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
  •