Page 52 of 53 FirstFirst ... 24250515253 LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 530

Thread: A theory about the origin of E-V13

  1. #511
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,065
    Sex

    That makes sense. Interestingly Iranians like Kurds and Persians have a significantly higher frequency of E-V13 than Anatolian Turks going by these and other results. The percentage is pretty much the same as in Russians in all these people with about 4-5 percent on average.
    This should date back to the BA and IA for the most part and Carparthian connections.

  2. #512
    Banned
    Posts
    762
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13>Z5018>FGC33625
    mtDNA (M)
    U1a1a

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Actually, there were various waves of Northerners moving down roughly around that period, both from the Middle Danube and the Carpathian sphere. I personally still favour a connection from Gáva-Holigrady to Belegiš II-Gava as the main vector. One of the reasons is that the Channelled Ware related groups, and especially Belegiš II-Gava, had a huge impact on both sides of the Carpathians, which I think is mandatory for the explanation of the E-V13 phenomenon. If Gáva-Holigrady wasn't the ultimate genetic source itself, it could have been many other things, but most certainly picked up on the Pannonian-Danubian area then. I still favor the Carpathians though, mainly because of the glimpse on the Pannonian study, in which E-V13 only popped up in the very North, around Nitra.
    Yes but this region in Macedonia is particularly interesting. It is impossible they brought a Greek dialect from the Carpathians, so some onomastic study to differentiate what language this group brought would be good. Brygian, Paeonian, Thracian, ? etc.

  3. #513
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,949
    Sex
    Location
    Bay Area
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-BY14160
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c
    mtDNA (P)
    I1a1

    Germany Italy Sweden Netherlands
    any studies to look out for on the near horizon that will hopefully offer any E-V13 data? I seem to recall that there was a Balkan (I don’t recall exact modern countries) in the works?
    distance%=4.6465"
    Barcin_N,47.2
    Yamnaya_Samara,41.4
    WHG,10.6
    Ethiopia_4500BP,0.8

  4. #514
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,065
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by digital_noise View Post
    any studies to look out for on the near horizon that will hopefully offer any E-V13 data? I seem to recall that there was a Balkan (I don’t recall exact modern countries) in the works?
    There is the Pannonian study still in the pipeline, which has at least two E1b1b samples, of which one is likely but not safely E-V13. I hope its a good resolution sample of E-V13, but probably we all get disappointed.

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....archeogenetics

    There are the Bulgarian results, which too might be interesting especially if we can get subclades. But other than that I don't know of any study done on my, currently, favourite potential E-V13 spreader, which is Belegiš II–Gáva or the Gáva core zone. Which is also a problem because like most of the candidates they cremated their deads...

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

     digital_noise (06-28-2021),  vettor (07-19-2021)

  6. #515
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,065
    Sex

    We have proof of Psenicevo in Bulgaria being heavily E-V13, based on the leak we got. So I tried to investigate whether they can be connected with my Channelled Ware horizon theory for E-V13, as for the whole Incised Pottery groups of the region:

    Going deeper, I see the big impact of Fluted Ware (= Channelled Ware, "Cannelure Hallstatt" in this article), as its called for Bulgaria in particular, which is part of the Channelled Ware horizon and related, at least culturally, to the centre of Gava:
    The Zimnicea-Novgrad is considered as “a totally different entity in comparison with the other groups”, i. e. the “Cannelure Hallstatt” community (Gumă 1995: 109), especially for its burial rite. But, the basic type of Zimnicea-Novgrad pottery ornamentation is cannelure, or fluted ornamentation (Alexandrescu 1978: 117-119; Gumă 1995: 131, pl. XIII). According to A. Alexandrescu, “the cannelures are regular décor” of Zimnicea-Novgrad cups (Alexandrescu 1978: 117). Also, these cups (or mugs) are the basic type of Zimnicea-Novgrad pottery; they have the form of truncated cone or hemisphere. M. Guma said that “the cups with higher and flat handles (of Zimnicea-Novgrad – A. R.), decorated by longitudinal flutes are similar with those from Vajuga representing the second stage of the Hinova-Mala Vrbica group” (Gumă 1995: 110).
    So, in spite of presence of some incised ornamentation, it seems more plausible that Zimnicea-Novgrad culture belonged to the "cultures with fluted ornamentation of pottery". The first researcher of Zimnicea cemetery compared its ceramics with such cultures of "cannelure Hallstatt" as Vyrtop, Meri, Suseni (Alexandrescu 1978: 123).
    But there was also this group:
    But, Saharna-Solonceni culture is characterized by almost total absence of fluted ornamentation (Кашуба 2000: 313). Fluted ornamentation is very rare in the Kozia culture also (Laszlo 1972: 214-215; Iconomu 1996). Thus, we cannot suppose that Zimnicea-Novgrad took part in the genesis Saharna-Solonceni or Kozia cultures.
    However:
    The Sboreanovo group is defined usually as part of “Cultures with Stamped ornamentation of Pottery” of Northern Bulgaria. Fluted ornamentation of pottery, however, is also a typical or even dominant feature for Sboreanovo group (Гоцев, Шалганова 2004: 60-61; Czyborra 2005: 173). Besides, the main type of Sboreanovo vessel (Czyborra 2005: 99-101) is the so called ‘cantaros’ (as well as Zimnicea-Plovdiv pottery (Alexandrescu 1973: 77-78, 81)). The ‘cantaros’ is a big vessel with two handles and open mouth; this kind of vessel is found neither in Kozia, nor in Saharna-Solonceni.
    Evidently, it looks more probable that the Vyrbitsa tradition of bronze axes production was brought into the Carpathian-Dniester region by some population belonging to the "cannelure Hallstatt" community. It could be the Hinova-Mala Vrbica group. It seems to be a more preferable idea, as we see some other metalware (bracelets and fibulas) in the Carpathian-Dniester region that seem to be associated with the coming of Hinova-Mala Vrbica population. The Hinova-Mala Vrbica group made a substantial contribution to the origin of Kishinev-Korlateni culture (Guma 1995: 108).

    There is some other argument to this idea. As it follows from the mapping of V. A. Dergachev, the “axes with vertical lines” were spread in three areas chiefly: in central and western parts of Northern Bulgaria, in the Carpathian-Dniester region and in Transylvania – in the area of Gava culture (Dergacev 2002: 167-169, taf.123), The Gava culture is a “culture with fluted ornamentation of pottery” too.
    It is really important that “axes with vertical lines” from the Carpathian-Dniester region and Transylvania have a special ring at the back side. This distinguishes them from the “Bulgarian” variant of “axes with vertical lines”. The “Bulgarian” variant of “axes with vertical lines” has no rings (as V. A. Dergachev points out, “isolated evidences” of axes “with ring” were found in Northern Bulgaria) (Dergacev 2002: 168, taf.123).
    But “axes with vertical lines” from area of Hinova-Mala Vrbica group have this ring as well.
    V. A. Dergachev suggested that these “axes with vertical lines and a special ring” appeared as a result of some synthesis of Transylvania and Northern Bulgaria metalwork traditions (Дергачев 1997: 58; Dergacev 2002: 168).
    Where did this synthesis take place? We can suppose that it was the Hinova-Mala Vrbica area.
    Thus, the “axes with vertical lines and a special ring” were spread in the “cultures with fluted ornamentation of pottery” mainly. And, as it results from the mapping (Dergacev 2002: taf. 123;
    I think that all these facts bring the idea that sickles and axes of Vyrbitsa type spread in the Carpathian-Dniester region simultaneously. It was in the first half of Ha A1, when Noua culture was replaced by Kishinev-Korlateni (see: Дергачев, Бочкарев 2002: 236). And just the Kishinev-Korlateni people brought this tradition.
    It was pointed out that an axe and a piece of casting-form of Vyrbitsa tradition were found in the Radovanu settlement (Uşurelu 2003: 216). The “Radovanu facies” (or “Late Koslogeny culture”, as many researchers refer to it) is supposed to be the ancestor of “Cultures with Incised Ornamentation of Pottery” community in the Lower Danube and Carpathian-Dniester regions (including such early groups as Sihleanu-Rimnicele, Tamaoani, Holerkani-Hanska, Balta). Thus, this is considered as evidence that early groups of “Cultures with Incised Ornamentation of Pottery” community in the Lower Danube region were a main and direct heir of the Vyrbitsa metalwork tradition (Uşurelu 2003: 217).
    But more important is the fact that in Dobruja and Muntenia "the Late Bronze Age tradition of metal production came abruptly to the end simultaneously with the end of Koslogeny culture and with penetration of Pre-Babadag or Babadag I here" (Дергачев 1997: 50).
    So, it looks like the Babadag culture was a newcomer in the Lower Danube area.
    https://www.academia.edu/4338117/Axe...es_Ha_A_Ha_B1_

    A new period in Thrace, referred to as the Early Iron Age, started with general changes in many aspects of the local Late Bronze Age culture: pottery style, burial rites, and metal types. At the same time, all of the features of this period bear similarities to the previous period, supporting the theory of a gradual, though short transition between the two ages. The first phase of the Early Iron Age, called Fluted ware horizon, started with the LH IIIC period and continued through the Protogeometric period, according to Aegean periodisation. The LH IIIC is still the Late Bronze Age in the Aegean, and following the direction of the spread of iron technology from south to north, it would be more correct to consider this phase a transitional period than a real Iron Age. ‘The horizon of the fluted ware’ is characterised by decreased contacts with the Aegean region. Simultaneously Thrace became strongly dependent on the Carpatho-Danubian region because of its potential to provide metal sources. This development is most visible in the new pottery style that appeared throughout Thrace. At this time, limited traces of migration are visible in the archaeological records, both within Thrace (the cremation burial at Manole) and from Thrace (the site of Troia), with movement in the direction northwest to southeast. The real Iron Age starts with the next phase, called Psenicevo, when contacts with the Aegean were restored and became more evident than ever before. Thrace became part of the geometric koine, recalling the situation during the Late Bronze Age.
    On the other hand, Psenicevo is very similar to the Ostrov, Basarabi and Babadag groups to the north and should be contemporary with them. In general, the first stage of Psenicevo should be synchronised with Ostrov and Babadag II, and the second stage with Basarabi and Babadag III. These pottery styles mark the geometric koine during the Early Iron Age, a result of restored contacts between the Balkans and the Aegean region, as well as the return of Greece and Anatolia to a leading role during this period.
    https://www.academia.edu/7794465/Thr...ures_in_Thrace

    The issue is, that the Channelled Ware horizon encompassed practically all areas which later appear E-V13 heavy and gave birth to Incised Ware groups or at least heavily influenced them. Psenicova, with its proven presence of high levels of E-V13, just proves that "it happened" at that time already, which was a given, because the Fluted Ware horizon rolled over the country before. But this doesn't answer the question as to whether E-V13 was part of a Gava subgroup, a Belegis subgroup, or another one taking part in the Channelled Ware horizon. It just proves that after the Channelled Ware horizon, unlike before, E-V13 was present and strong in areas like Svilengrad, in groups like Psenicevo. That's like looking at post-Bell Beaker cultures and stating that R1b was now in Western Europe. My guess is that for most of the regions involved the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon and early Hallstatt were for E-V13 similar to Bell Beakers for R1b in Western Europe.

  7. #516
    Registered Users
    Posts
    45
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    EDIT. there is no archeological evidence to suggest Thracians descend from the Western Balkans!! Those were J-L283 packed cultures very different to what MBA, LBA, EIA Bulgarian and C.Balkan cultures were. Evidence exists for Carpathian, Upper Danubian people coming in. No Thracians came to Bulgaria from the Western Balkans.
    Yes, I second that. My strong tough is that EV-13 started with Gava-Holigrady culture then expanded radially into the S of Balkans being the latter called 'thracians'.

  8. #517
    Registered Users
    Posts
    45
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    One could argue this expansion has Thracianized the entire region in LBA/EIA.
    I'm one of them. This is what was happened mostly.

  9. #518
    Registered Users
    Posts
    217
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by leonardus View Post
    Yes, I second that. My strong tough is that EV-13 started with Gava-Holigrady culture then expanded radially into the S of Balkans being the latter called 'thracians'.
    The few E-V13 samples found in Thrace in the IA can't be called Thracian. Thracians were the northern neighbours of ancient Greeks. They were in the region since the Bronze Age. Any theory which proposes that Thracians were E-V13 heavy has to explain how the Thracian population was basically wiped out and replaced by E-V13 migrations but somehow the language remained the same. All E-V13 internet theories have the same problem, not just the "Thracian" one. E-V13 in all of them is just a label with no real cultural attributes except for some archaeological markers.

    More interestingly, the Thracian identity throughout antiquity was further reduced to the east and even there I don't know to what extent we can speak about the existence of a Thracian people in late antiquity.



    In both Moesias, between 130-170 AD there's only one auxiliary unit which is identified as Thracian and even that is composed of Syriac settlers.

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

     leonardus (07-19-2021)

  11. #519
    Registered Users
    Posts
    257
    Sex
    Location
    Alta California
    Ethnicity
    Mostly French + Italian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604
    Y-DNA (M)
    most likely J-L210
    mtDNA (P)
    K1b2b

    Canada Quebec Italy California Republic United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by Pribislav View Post
    So you're saying all this time you were talking about L618 SNP, and not about the L618 clade/level? Why would you talk about formation and TMRCA dates of a single SNP, in a clade with 40 more SNPs at the same level? Since they are all currently at the same level, by definition we can't know their chronological order. And it's beyond me why are you singling out L618, it is just one randomly picked SNP to name a subclade, it could've very well been any of the other 40 SNPs.
    Funnily enough, there has been a new E-L618* sample on YFull, which is positive for only 36 out of the 41 SNPs which currently define that clade. This means that the rest of E-L618 will now fall under a new subclade, E-CTS10912. The sample comes from Minnesota in the United States
    MDKA: Robert Boulay, b. 1631, Réveillon, Orne, France
    Y-DNA: R1b-U152 > L2 > Z367 > Z34 > Z33 > BY164497> BY3604

    Maternal Y-DNA: J2a-M67 > Z1847 > Y4036 > Z467 > Z447> L210

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to alchemist223 For This Useful Post:

     Pribislav (07-19-2021),  rafc (07-17-2021),  Riverman (07-17-2021)

  13. #520
    Registered Users
    Posts
    317
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by alchemist223 View Post
    Funnily enough, there has been a new E-L618* sample on YFull, which is positive for only 36 out of the 41 SNPs which currently define that clade. This means that the rest of E-L618 will now fall under a new subclade, E-CTS10912. The sample comes from Minnesota in the United States
    The old Genographic data I could consult a few years ago suggested this split should exist, and I was amazed it never showed up in the many Big Y's we have. In the Genographic project there is also a Frenchman from Normandy, someone with German roots, an Italian from the Abruzzi and someone from Liechtenstein in the group that is L618+, CTS10912- (I noted it down as CTS1975-, but comes down to the same).

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to rafc For This Useful Post:

     Riverman (07-17-2021)

Page 52 of 53 FirstFirst ... 24250515253 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Arabic Q-m25 cluster origin theory
    By Afshar in forum Q
    Replies: 33
    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
  •