• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

E-V13 Frequencies and New Data

More interesting are to me the E-V13 individuals from the Upper Tisza in the Sarmatian era, because they might represent local Vekerzug-Sanislau people derived from Gava-Kyjatice and some Northern Basarabi.

Both exact autosomals and branch could prove to be highly relevant for the general debate. These are the first ones from that time frame from the exact area.

The Crimean samples are from the mixed Eastern periphery, where some central and Southern (BY5022) branches appeared.
 
Does anybody know where Paleorevenge went? I see that his profile is not here anymore, I was reading his posts about the Hutsuls, anyone know where I can find him?
 
Ukraine_Crimea_Chersonesus_IA:CGG021475__BC_400__Cov_74.05%,0.1161,0.149283,-0.003771,-0.057171,0.030159,-0.022869,0.005405,-0.001154,-0.007158,0.032802,0.000812,0.001649,-0.014271,0.00055,-0.016965,-0.004906,0.003781,0.00228,0.011313,-0.006753,-0.011605,0.00643,0.001479,0.004458,-0.00934<br>
Click to expand...

This sample is rather interesting, he has an intermediate profile between the Empurion (Catalonia, Spain) settlers from Phocaea, the Ionian migrants and Kapitan Andreevo, he leans more toward Empurion. Either he is a Thraco-Greek admixed person or a person in origin between Ionia and Thrace. I bet Ancient Macedonian autosomal will be similar to him.


While this sample: https://www.exploreyourdna.com/sample/cgg021473/crimea.htm

To me his profile lacks heavy Aegean, and has only Carpathian basis + Ukrainian Steppe + Aegean-Anatolian. Perhaps, a Crimean Tauri? It is supposed that the Tauri were distantly related to Thracians.

Screenshot 2025-04-16 at 18.16.43.png


edit: LBA Kyjative and Fuzsezabony MBA matches even better than Serbia_LBA, while general Hungary_LBA no.

Screenshot 2025-04-16 at 18.23.37.png


I think that considerable autosomal for this sample, its origin is in Carpathian basin, Serbia-Hungary-Romania triangle, with Ukrainian-Moldovan Steppe admixture and a little bit of Aegean-Anatolian.
 
Last edited:
I find this piece of information quite interesting (I don't neccessarily fully confirm or negate, just leave as an option)

So, Tauri based on this are essentially related to Agathyrsi who were pushed back by Scythians to Carpathians. It looks to me, that Gava-Holigrady/Stamped-Ware managed to conquer Western-Steppe during LBA expansion until the Western Indo-Iranians pushed them back and re-conquered the region. Tauri were pushed south to Crimea and Agathyrsi back to Carpathians, both mixed with Scythians on the process.

Once dominant on the steppe, it would have been the Agathyrsi which commanded the remaining population of West Indo-Europeans who had remained on the steppe (see feature link). But now the Scythians drive out the Agathyrsi to dominate the northern Black Sea region. This would seem to be the point at which the Tauri also become dominated by them, and the process begins of intermixing between the two groups.
6th century BC​
Some Tauri tribes migrate to Crimea's mountains and southern coast, perhaps to escape recent Scythian domination. There they form an economic-cultural group which is connected with transhumance and possibly with piracy. Differences in economy and a degree of territorial separation result in these southern Tauri creating specific features in their material and spiritual culture which differentiates them from other Tauri to their north. It is the southern Tauri who retain their identity.


www.historyfiles.co.uk

Kingdoms of Europe - Tauri (Tauro-Scythians)

Coverage of the various historical cultures, rulers, and states of Europe
www.historyfiles.co.uk www.historyfiles.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
Seuthes III phenomenal bust gives us a glimpse of how South Thracians or Daco-Thracians might have looked like. It is a phenomenal piece of art, it looks so realistic that it gives the impression he is staring you, a real person is standing in front of you. Thracians were master metal-workers.

MS5qcGc.jpg


National_Archaeological_Museum_Sofia_-_Bronze_Head_from_the_Golyama_Kosmatka_Tumulus_near_Shipka.jpg


news20150727_700.jpg


Although from a coin, but yet, King Kotys rough Dinarid traits are visible.


kotys.jpg


Same for this sport jar of a Thracian wrestler.

19100118-7520127-image-a-22_1569835711647.jpg


03dbb7d54111fc134729b6a3bdb3eeb5.jpg


I doubt this should be the predominant look, but Dinarid traits might have been common among Daco-Thracians. They were highlanders primarily, it might have been an adaption.
 
Last edited:
The most notable and common feature among both North Thracians/Dacians and (South) Thracians seems to be that they were fairly tall and robust boned overall. At least that's how Greeks and Romans depicted them, so relative towards their averages.

This being nicely shown in the Roman depictions of the Dacians, like we can find them on the column of Trajan:

This is a bust showing a member of the high class with the signature cap:

Bust in profile:

Commoner without a cap and longer, open hair:
 
Another one is the the father of Constantine the Great who was of Moesian-Thracian origin.


Const.chlorus01_pushkin.jpg

220px-Const.chlorus02_pushkin.jpg


Also Maximinus Thrax.

maksymin-trak.jpg


He might have had acromegaly though, Maximinus Thrax doesn't have the Dinaroid look though.

roman-emperor-maximinus-thrax-u1
 
Last edited:
Today I tried to refine my models in debates with AI/ChatGPT, based on its feedback to some questions. There were no really new insights, but some interesting confirmations I gathered from this interaction.

Basically, if looking at E-V13 and Thracians in the Balkans, the following should be pretty solid:

Southern Bulgaria, the East Rhodope area was primarily settled by Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Cerkovna (ZPC) and this horizon can be largely derived from the Carpatho-Danubian block, with closest connections to Wietenberg, Noua and Verbicoara. This means its being directly connected to Transylvania and Oltenia, core regions of the Carpathian cremation block and closely related to the cultures from which in the later Bronze to early Iron Age period Gáva-related Channelled Ware emerged.

However, when Gáva-related Channelled Ware expanded from the North, its direct, migratory impact was much bigger and more noticeable in the North/North West of Bulgaria, than in the South, in Thrace proper, where ZPC seems to show much more local continuity compared to the Lower Danube sphere.

This pattern again perfectly aligns with the earlier split of Southern E-V13 branches like from E-BY5022, with less of a transitional period expansion, which is huge for the more central to Northern branches of E-V13, most notably E-Z5017 and E-Z5018. The connection to the earlier substrate population and Aegean populations being also there, which might further explain why the (South) Thracian group with Psenichevo and post-Psenichevo (from where the oldest regional Thracian samples are from) are more Southern shifted.

This would imply, as a whole, that the whole North Thracian/Dacian sphere being largely derived from the Gáva-expansion, whereas the South Thracian Psenichevo group had more limited to indirect influences from its Gáva relatives and descends largely from ZPC.

Both the archaeological record and the phylogeny of E-V13 are in line with this interpretation. And the transition in the South could be smoother still, since ZPC is a direct relative, a branching event from a couple of generations earlier, from the Carpathian block. They likely still spoke a closely related language and dialect, they had a lot of traditions in common, there was not the kind of gap we see in the Gáva-related interaction with other groups of the Carpatho-Balkan region.

And what's also highly important, this borderline, with the Danube being by and large still North Thracian/Geto-Dacian and everything South core (South) Thracian, lasted by and large, also based on toponymy:

THR_LANG.gif



This, the dashed line, is the exact border which largely persisted, the borderline between direct Gáva influence vs. larger scale local continuity (with limited Gáva influence) from ZPC, resulting in the South Thracian Psenichevo group.

AI conclusion after explaining the hypothesis:

Yes—Duridanov’s Dacian vs. Thracian toponymic zones on that map largely reflect the archaeological split between:
  • Gáva-related, northern Carpathian influence → Dacian zone, and
  • ZPC–Psenichevo local continuity → Thracian zone.
The linguistic landscape seems to mirror the cultural dynamics of the LBA–EIA transition. It's a valuable macro-level correlation between language, population movement, and material culture.
Click to expand...
 
That all of the Carpathian block cremation groups are highly likely to be very EEF shifted is by now pretty obvious thing, since not just the ancient DNA we already have says so, but all the abstracts on the upcoming samples for Bronze and Iron Age Transylvania. Therefore if Transylvania was Balkan-like and EEF-rich from the Bronze to the Iron Age, so was Gáva.

The only WHG-input seem to have come from the mix of Piliny into Kyjatice with Gáva-related groups in the West, this includes the borderzone early and might have affected Mezocsat and Vekerzug to some degree. This has to be seen.

As for E-BY5022: By now it was present in nearly all the groups associated with ZPC/Psenichevo/South Thracians, also deeper inland. And we also find it further to the West, in the Roman-Avar period. Yet all these samples are from a time when Z5017/Z5018 was already truly huge, therefore if it would have been in E-BY5022/South Balkan territories, it should pop up all around, yet it does not.

The biggest exception remaining are the Z5017 samples from Southern Italy, from Himera. We therefore have still primarily these earlier samples of relevance:
- Post-Psenichevo from South Thrace (Aegean-like)
- Thracian Hallstatt from the lower Danube (already more Northern, but a mixed group probably)
- Vekerzug sample from Chotin (mostly Balkan-like/mixed itself and likely associated with a couple of Balkan-like females of the site, so no rare outlier)
- Himera mercenaries (2 are central-North Balkan-like, one is Caucasian like with a Z-93 individual of the same kind)

And these very early individuals are crucial, to evaluate from which genetic background they all came from. First off, all of them are essentially Balkan-like, so this holds up from Slovakia to South Italy, from the Black Sea to Hungary.
But they are not Balkan-like in the same way, which implies there was regional diversity within the Daco-Thracian, E-V13 dominated populations early on.

And again, especially for the early samples, the main split is along the lines of Psenichevo-related groups (most Aegean) vs. Tisza groups (most Northern shifted). This might, in the end, turn out to be a cline within the Daco-Thracians, which resulted from varying degrees of admixture with a variety of neighbouring people.

The most likely Basarabi-profile is what we see in the Himera-individuals, that to me is likely to represent the core/standard. If looking, once more, at who the two Himera individuals are closest to in the current ancient DNA record, some samples stick out:


Distance to: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_2:I10946
0.02422597 Czech_IA_LaTene:I17139
0.03170353 Hungary_EarlyAvar:MS-43.SG
0.03179566 Montenegro_MLBA:I13172
0.03196842 Croatia_Scitarjevo_Roman.SG:R3659.SG
0.03372487 Italy_Tuscany_Grosseto_Etruscan:CSN006
0.03390332 Macedonia_IA:I10385
0.03404008 Germany_EarlyMedieval_o1.SG:NW54_noUDG.SG
0.03406660 Serbia_BA_Maros:I17912
0.03420823 Hungary_LaTene:I18493
0.03430493 Slovenia_EIA:I22940
0.03461423 Croatia_MBA_Cetina:I18745
0.03480842 Hungary_EarlyAvar:MS-45.SG
0.03488240 Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I11683
0.03504911 Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean.SG:MOK31.SG
0.03535030 Croatia_MBA:I5074
0.03554595 Montenegro_MLBA:I13169
0.03578483 Croatia_EIA:I23996
0.03598303 Croatia_EIA:I24639
0.03627502 Hungary_LaTene:I18491
0.03638531 Hungary_EarlyAvar:MM-131.SG
0.03673441 Italy_IA_Republic_o.SG:R1.SG
0.03689841 Croatia_MLBA:I18737
0.03733387 Croatia_Zadar_Roman.SG:R3745.SG
0.03750394 Macedonia_Classical_Hellenistic:I10390
0.03753030 Croatia_MLBA:I18415
0.03769702 Croatia_MBA_Cetina:I18746
0.03805035 Germany_EMedieval_Alemanic_SEurope:NIEcap3b
0.03815768 Croatia_BA:I18712
0.03816215 Italy_TarquiniaMonterozzi_IA.SG:R10359.SG
0.03822128 Croatia_MBA:I4331
Click to expand...


Distance to: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_2:I10950
0.02762275 Hungary_LaTene:I18493
0.02919892 Serbia_BA_Maros:I23209
0.03016022 Croatia_Popova_CA.SG:POP39_noUDG.SG
0.03074397 Serbia_BA_Maros:I17912
0.03099153 Slovenia_Emona_Roman.SG:R10467.SG
0.03126834 Hungary_LateAvar:SZKT-265.SG
0.03132543 Hungary_EBA_Protonagyrev:I7043
0.03153367 Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug:I11721
0.03189381 Hungary_IA_LaTene:I18528
0.03206470 Hungary_MidAvar:SZM-38.SG
0.03211442 Czech_LBA_Knoviz_o3:I13794
0.03219674 Croatia_MBA:I5080
0.03225646 Montenegro_MLBA:I13169
0.03228628 Hungary_LateAvar:ARK-38.SG
0.03239793 Croatia_BA:I18748
0.03249283 Czech_BellBeaker_oAnatolia1:PRU001
0.03257974 Hungary_IA_LaTene:I18834
0.03261968 Hungary_IA_LaTene:I18529
0.03266257 Albania_BA_IA:I14690
0.03272750 Hungary_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup:I18259
0.03288711 Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:I16803
0.03299303 Hungary_Langobard_o2:SZ28
0.03319737 Croatia_MBA_Cetina:I11843
0.03323676 Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean.SG:MOK31.SG
0.03389971 Hungary_LaTene:I18491
0.03405202 Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros.SG:MOK13.SG
0.03408197 Croatia_MBA:I4331
0.03409156 Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros.SG:MOK27.SG
0.03458858 Montenegro_MLBA:I13168
0.03468831 Montenegro_MLBA:I13775
Click to expand...
They are obviously more West-Central Balkan by autosomals, but what I find most interesting to highlight is that they can be put close to groups which could work as a proxy for Gáva/Belegis II-Gáva, or their mixed descendents in the Central Balkans. Especially one sample pops for both of them, and that is
Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean.SG:MOK31.SG
Therefore an outlier in the Aegean direction from Maros/Mokrin. We discussed that before. I made a PCA to show were they plot together with the samples which are most important for the debate - currently:

PCA-Mokrin-Aegean-outlier.jpg



Note that these Mokrin "Aegean outliers" form a big main cluster for the Thracian/E-V13 group which includes Vekerzug East, Himera mercenaries and one individual from Mezocsat, presumably an unmixed Gáva female.

Note also, that a Thracian Hallstatt individual too is fully in this cluster.

The only group outside of it are the South Thracian/post-Psenichevo individuals and two South shifted individuals from Vekerzug.

Both the South shifted Vekerzug females (2) and the Thracian Hallstatt group form kind of a bridge towards this main North Thracian cluster.

What's amazing about this, is, that the "Aegean outlier" represent the locals in the East Carpathian region, and its shows that this exact profile persisted through the age from the time of Maros well into the Roman era.
Here we have it, the local East Carpathian element right in front of our eyes and it kind of seeped into the Maros group with two outliers.

All the other samples from LBA Hungary, Vekerzug etc. which might be considered relevant for the North Thracian/Gáva debate are best explained by being shifted towards Kyjatice. And we know that Kyjatice was pushed East/North East and mixed with Gáva people in the West, in Mezocsat and some groups of Vekerzug.

The Mezocsat females can be fully explained by Gáva (similar to Himera, simalar to Aegean Mokrin outliers) mixing with incoming Kyjatice people, which had more ancestry from the Encrusted Pottery-related block and Füzesabony.

The Mezocsat individuals are no big mystery if looking at it from this perspective, there is no other admixture needed to explain them - note all regulars from Mezocsat can be roughly modelled as half Himera/Mokrin "Aegean" plus Kyjatice:

Mezocsat-as-Himera-Kyjatice-mix.jpg



There is only one exception here, plus one outlier. And that's because these outliers have more exotic/high WHG/high steppe ancestries. They are completely out of the range of the HUN_LBA/Mezocsat/Vekerzug main groups range.

But you can clearly see, that Mezocsat is what we can expect: A mix of Gáva (like Mokrin "Aegean"/Himera) plus Kyjatice. And that's exactly what the archaeological record tells us! This is 100 % meeting the expectations, because the Mezocsat people, which were locals under Cimmerian rule, were mixed up Gáva-Kyjatice people.

And just like on the PCA, individual I11683 sticks out as having no Kyjatice admixture, but being kind of "pure" Mokrin/Aegean/Himera. So this is, highly likely, an unmixed Gáva individual.

These are the closest matches for this Gáva-survivor in Mezocsat:

Distance to: Hungary_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat:I11683
0.02462053 Croatia_MBA:I5074
0.02539891 Montenegro_MLBA:I13169
0.02589414 Hungary_LaTene:I18493
0.02652514 France_Sarrebourg_LateAntiquity_oLevant.SG:R11556.SG
0.02670600 Montenegro_MLBA:I13172
0.02696041 Italy_TarquiniaMonterozzi_IA.SG:R10343.SG
0.02740538 Croatia_MBA_Cetina:I18747
0.02766263 Hungary_LaTene:I18491
0.02793518 Croatia_EIA:I23996
0.02811813 Hungary_Conqueror_Commoner:HMSZ-5.SG
0.02831321 Croatia_MBA:I5080
0.02833138 Macedonia_Classical_Hellenistic:I10390
0.02862336 Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean.SG:MOK31.SG
0.02910041 Slovenia_Emona_Roman.SG:R10467.SG
0.02927427 Croatia_SisakPogorelec_Roman.SG:R2040.SG
0.02934523 Albania_BA_IA:I14690
0.02945680 Italy_IA_Republic_o.SG:R1.SG
0.02952031 Italy_LA_o1CentralEuropean.SG:R33.SG
0.03004827 Greece_Logkas_MBA.SG:Log02.SG
0.03006793 Croatia_EIA:I24639
0.03036862 Slovenia_EIA:I22940
0.03071195 Hungary_EarlyAvar:MS-45.SG
0.03074283 Hungary_LateAvar:HH-10.SG
0.03092527 Croatia_MBA_Cetina:I18746
0.03101655 Croatia_BA:I18712
0.03113671 Croatia_MBA_Cetina:I18745
0.03142192 Italy_IA_Republic.SG:R474.SG
0.03146378 Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean.SG:MOK17A.SG
0.03155335 Croatia_Zadar_Roman.SG:R3747.SG
0.03159369 Croatia_EIA:I23904
Click to expand...

It has both Mokrin "Aegean" samples as its top 30 distance samples! That is to say vs. all the available samples in the current ancient DNA record. This is very, very telling.
And it also shows that there was no fundamental difference between the East Carpathian cremation group and the West Balkan Illyrians autosomally, they both descend from Vucedol-Cotofeni, this is what I excect them to look like.

I think that Cotofeni/Wietenberg/Suciu de Sus/Gáva are all likely to plot, if unmixed, close to these "Aegean outlier" from Mokrin. It is very remarkable that this Gáva female from Mezocsat doesn't have close distances to other Maros/Mokrin samples. She is more Southern than those, more "Balkan-like", just like all the abstracts tell us about the Transylvanian Bronze Age into Iron Age populations.
 
The clusters/blocks are pretty obvious and recognisable both in Thracian Hallsttatt, Mezocsat and Vekerzug:
Basic-Comparison-North-Thracian-Kyjatice-sorted.jpg


What we also see is, that there was exchange between the blocks, let's call them from North to South Lusatian, Kyjatice, Gáva and South Thracian.

It is very obvious who belongs to which group or being a mix of those. Note again that the Mokrin "Aegean" outliers are practically identical (!) to the Himera samples and so is the Gáva survivor from Mezocsat (not included here, see above).


The sample Mokrin "Aegean", Himera, Mezocsat Gáva survivor and majority of Vekerzug East plot very, very closely together and are nearly identical. A very stable profile.

The same can be said about the two Kyjatice samples and those related ones from Hungary, they too have a pretty stable ratio of ancestral components. The increased WHG from their ancestries from Encrusted Pottery/Vatya/Füzesabony is also very, very obvious.

Now the question is now these Gáva-like individuals, which carried E-V13 too, as we can see in Vekerzug Chotin and Himera, can be connected with the South Thracian cluster. And the answer is lies again in the Thracian Hallstatt samples and Southern outliers.

There are just two viable options:
1) Gáva-like individuals from the Carpatho-Danube moved South and East, mixing with (even more!) Aegean-like people on the way, creating the South Thracian profile.
2) South Thracian-like individuals from the Rhodopes moved North, mixing with these Carpathian locals on the way, creating the North Thracian profile.

Essentially, these are the two only viable options.

The problem with scenario 2 is obvious: Even Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Cerkovna moved from the North to the South, and being highly likely most closely related to the people from Wietenberg, Verbicoara and Suciu de Sus etc., from which Gáva emerged. Therefore it would be most logical to assume, that they were closer the Gáva-cluster.

However, here I may come up with a third scenario: The WHG/steppe ancestry did decrease even in the East Carpathian sphere from West to East, from North to South. Therefore the main ancestral group of Verbicoara, for ZPC, might have already been even more EEF and less WHG/steppe than Western Wietenberg/Eastern local Otomani was.
Still closer to the Gáva cluster would be my guess, but just closer to the Aegean already, which means a more limited local Aegean-Anatolian/Greek admixture could have resulted in the South Thracian profile.

I guess there was a West to East/North to South cline already in the MBA, even in the later Gáva sphere. Verbicoara-Tei are likely to have been the closest relatives, but at the Southern (EEF-like) end of this Carpatho-Danubian cremation block spectrum.

More crucial than that is, that the distance between the Western neighbouring Kyjatice and the Gáva-people is as big, as the one between Gáva-like and South Thracian.
And those were direct neighbours! Yet we see how they differentiated, in samples ranging from the MBA to the La Tene-Dacian period. The Tisza river served as the primary borderzone in this respect up to the Celtic/Dacian expansions, which seem to have largely eliminated the Kyjatice element from the Carpathian basin, with only/primarily Celts and Dacians remaining.


Another interesting observation is that, similar to the mixed Kyjatice-Gáva people from Mezocsat, the Thracian Hallstatt individuals too represent nearly the full range of this mixed variation. UKR000 could very well have been from West of the Tisza-North of the Carpathians Kyjatice-Lusatian people. Just like two females from Chotin-Vekerzug show admixture from Psenichevo/South Thracian like people.
This shows that there was actual exchange and gene flow between these groups within the wider Thracian Hallstatt/Daco-Thracian sphere of interaction.
 
3 E1b1ba1b likely E-L618 in Tiszapolgar Culture and nearby Tisza. 1 another seems E‑L546 from Bodrogkeresztúr culture not deep tested further? I rather think he is E-L618.

It is interesting how the Neolithic component of Thracians seem to much prefer this one from Bodrogkeresztur
Code: 
Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur_o1:I15623,0.117238,0.168578,0.004148,-0.068476,0.040315,-0.024542,-0.002115,-0.002769,0.022702,0.056129,0.016564,0.013638,-0.022745,-0.008257,-0.026873,-0.002917,0.012647,0.006714,0.007793,-0.006378,-0.010357,0.005812,-0.008751,-0.003615,-0.00455

He seems to have been an outlier maybe in the culture? Coming from somewhere else?

www.biorxiv.org

Ancient DNA reveals diverse community organizations in the 5th millennium BCE Carpathian Basin

We present a comprehensive genetic investigation of Late Neolithic (LN) and Early Copper Age (ECA) populations living in the Carpathian Basin, leveraging whole genome data from 125 previously unreported individuals. Using population genetics, kinship analyses and the study of networks of...
www.biorxiv.org www.biorxiv.org

Chalcolithic Carpathians is definitely dominated by G2a and I2a. Some H2, C1a and E-L618 seem to appear here and there.
 
Last edited:
They have no samples from Petresti and the local variant of Tripolye-Cucuteni, the so called Ariuszd group IIRC.
I think that Tripolye-Cucuteni was the main population group for E-L618. We already got two L618, plus one from the steppified successor Usatovo-Gorodsk.
Also, Tripolye-Cucuteni shows cultural and especially burial customs somewhat similar to the later Bronze Age Carpatho-Danubian cremation block.
Which is one of the reasons most samples of Tripolye-Cucuteni come from this cave, and the culture as a whole being completely undertested.
But yes, coming closer to the Tisza zone and E1b increases.

Keep in mind they tested specific clans with multiple members and still E is about 6 %.
Autosomally the differences are non-existent.
 
Riverman said:
They have no samples from Petresti and the local variant of Tripolye-Cucuteni, the so called Ariuszd group IIRC.
I think that Tripolye-Cucuteni was the main population group for E-L618. We already got two L618, plus one from the steppified successor Usatovo-Gorodsk.
Also, Tripolye-Cucuteni shows cultural and especially burial customs somewhat similar to the later Bronze Age Carpatho-Danubian cremation block.
Which is one of the reasons most samples of Tripolye-Cucuteni come from this cave, and the culture as a whole being completely undertested.
But yes, coming closer to the Tisza zone and E1b increases.

Keep in mind they tested specific clans with multiple members and still E is about 6 %.
Autosomally the differences are non-existent.
Click to expand...
Riverman, you should avoid the albanian discussion thread on genarchivist as kelmendasi and corrigendum/bruzmi and the rest of them have a group chat and collude together to mass report posts and comment in unison to create a pretext for banning you. They are running the script on you already if you havent noticed.

Kelmendasi has a power trip and will abuse his moderator status on that thread. Best to ignore it entirely and let that thread degenerate even further into the cesspool its becoming.

They are more or less identical to those desparate indians that supress steppe invasion of india evidence.

If they make a bogus claim and you correct them on it they will pop out in droves to call it derailing. I.e. anything that doesn't conform to their fantasy (in this case the truth) is "derailing or spamming"
 
Last edited:
And the linguistic verdict won't change the fact that about 1/3 of Albanians descend from North Thracians/Dacians/Geto-Dacians. That fact will stay regardless of how the linguistic debate will end and is an important factor for the Albanian ethnogenesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top