Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 253

Thread: Is there any difference between Kosovo Albanians and Albanians from Albania?

  1. #226
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    182

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Y133384

    Country: Albania



    Agreed, FGC33625 looks like an interesting branch. Most likely was a minor lineage in the past. So far it looks like it only expanded with Berisha and Sopi from North Albania (Puka), but mostly north-east into Kosove.

    Not the only one however, there are similar cases in other regions but not as successful.

  2. #227
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    21-09-18
    Posts
    1


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    This wiki map... is by no means proof of anything. And if you want to your pov to be considered seriously, dont cite open access platforms. Just FYI.

  3. #228
    Banned
    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    661

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-A24070
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Bædzænæg
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    I took a look at the Asia Minor Greek samples from "The coming of the Greeks to Provence and Corsica Y-chromosome models of archaic Greek colonization", and in Smyrna there were 6 Z2705 (dys393=13) so these ofc look clearly Arvanite having close matches with Albanians. However I noticed also one FGC11450 Cluster A, F20 from Smyrna (dys458=14, dys460=10, GATAH4=10) and 2/32 with closest Albanian. This is interesting because this cluster already has Arvanites, Greek from Euboea (where there was Arvanite presence) is 3/37 with one Albanian.
    So Greek kit 305424 is an Arvanite from Euboea, falls in Albanian cluster A. Lets see about cluster B, Y146086: Greek kits 295944 and IN37597 are both 3/37 with Qendro from Tepelenë in Southern Albania, and 1/37 & 3/37 with Metaj. Qendro and Metaj represent a sub-cluster within Albanian Y146086 with a back mutation on dys447 and obviously considering far greater diversity of this clade among Albanians and him being Tosk both of these Greeks seem to be of certain Arvanite origin. So thus far of four Greek E-FGC11450 with more STR's all of them are of Arvanite origin. Going by this it seems vast majority of Greek FGC11450 are Arvanites as is the case with E-BY4461.

  4. #229
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-01-15
    Posts
    442

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-L283

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    So Greek kit 305424 is an Arvanite from Euboea, falls in Albanian cluster A. Lets see about cluster B, Y146086: Greek kits 295944 and IN37597 are both 3/37 with Qendro from Tepelenë in Southern Albania, and 1/37 & 3/37 with Metaj. Qendro and Metaj represent a sub-cluster within Albanian Y146086 with a back mutation on dys447 and obviously considering far greater diversity of this clade among Albanians and him being Tosk both of these Greeks seem to be of certain Arvanite origin. So thus far of four Greek E-FGC11450 with more STR's all of them are of Arvanite origin. Going by this it seems vast majority of Greek FGC11450 are Arvanites as is the case with E-BY4461.
    Yes, we're finding that E-FGC11450, and especially E-FGC11450>Y146086, is very common among Tosks. Currently, out of 56 E-V13 Tosk Y37+ haplotypes, 24 or 42.8% of Tosk E-V13 is E-FGC11450. Furthermore, 18/24 of them are E-FGC11450>Y146086, 4/24 are E-FGC11450>Cluster A, and the remaining two don't fit into any of these clusters. One of them is SNP tested: FGC11450+ and Z24130- Y146086- BY5004- FGC11446-. YSEQ doesn't test ZS1176/FGC11444, so he should be either E-FGC11450* or E-FGC11450>ZS1176* by current research. Also, both E-FGC11450>Y146086 and E-FGC11450>Cluster A have been observed among Ghegs, though the first one is far more common among Tosks. So yes, those Greeks clustering with Albanians certainly seem Arvanite in origin.
    Y-DNA: J-L283
    Maternal Y-DNA: E-V13

  5. #230
    Banned
    Join Date
    21-09-21
    Posts
    28


    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Apsurdistan View Post
    The Balkans are a very diverse and mixed place and it's the oldest part of Europe, this is a fact. So it's not that strange you have a lot of territorial pissing contests. It's not some genetic hatred we have for one another, it's basically all politics and bickering over history.
    From my experince Balkan people in diaspora get along with each other very well, regardless of ethnicity. Here in the states I've had Albanian friends, Kosovar Albanias, Bosniak, Croats, Serbs. None of them hate each other to the contrary they're always friendly and respectful and get along real well. It's like we know we're from the same region and we share similar cultures and customs and that brings us closer. Even religion doesn't create obstacles. It's a shame we can't get along better in our native lands. I blame politics for that and difficult economic conditions and a lot of propaganda. The current nationalism and racism has spread like a plague in Balkans especially since the late 80's and most of the people got nothing positive from it, only a very small percentage capitalized on it.
    Albanians are mostly in their own cliques, they don't hang out or relate too much with Balkan Slavs from what I've seen. "Balkan culture" is mostly code for Yugoslavia, Albania was separate from them and had a more orthodox form of communism.

  6. #231
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-11-18
    Posts
    309


    Country: Albania



    North albanians = least "foreign" input, communist regime probably helped with that

    Kosovar/macedonian albanians = more south slavic input

    South albanians/tosks = more south slavic input (this is puzzling), more greek or maybe more italian input

    Arbereshe = were the tosks of old, similar to current tosks but had even more south slavic/greek input? And obviously more italian input after they settled in italy
    I find it weird that tosks have more south slavic y dna input but then greeks have even more so not sure what happened there. The greek input is less puzzling because it seems like proto albanians moved south into formerly greek areas and especially illyrians prior did, so the +5% greek y dna would likely be from the natives that lived amongst proto albanians when they conquered the region
    Last edited by TaktikatEMalet; 29-11-21 at 14:52.

  7. #232
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by TaktikatEMalet View Post
    North albanians = least "foreign" input, communist regime probably helped with that

    Kosovar/macedonian albanians = more south slavic input

    South albanians/tosks = more south slavic input (this is puzzling), more greek or maybe more italian input

    Arbereshe = were the tosks of old, similar to current tosks but had even more south slavic/greek input? And obviously more italian input

    I find it weird that tosks have more south slavic input but then greeks have even more so not sure what happened there. The greek (or italian) input is less puzzling because it seems like proto albanians moved south into formerly greek areas and especially illyrians prior did, so the +5% greek y dna would likely be from the natives that lived amongst proto albanians when they conquered the region

    Which paternal and maternal haplogroups could be associated with this. Might be interesting but complicated to investigate.

  8. #233
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-11-18
    Posts
    309


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Which paternal and maternal haplogroups could be associated with this. Might be interesting but complicated to investigate.
    I was stricly speaking about y dna, looks like some g2a and j2a in south albania is from greek natives that were assimilated when proto albanians moved south? Looking at some of the lines I ran into these concrete answers, if i had more time i would look into every line but it seems i oversold a greek origin as roman origin could be more prevalent? -

    The DNA of two male Minoan indivuals was tested in 2020 and they belonged to G2a-P303 and J2a1a-L26 > Z6055 > Y7010 > Y13128 > Z36834 (a branch found in Portugal today).
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-P303/
    (3 albanians so far have this, 2 gjirokaster/1 korce)

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z36834/
    (2 albanians so far have this from vlore)

    However, it looks like some j2a in albanians is also from imperial romans. They apparently carried 50% J lines, mostly j2a but also some j2b including m205!
    J2a1a 1-400 CE J-Z6271
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z6271/
    (6 albanians so far have this, 5 tirane/1 gjirokaster)

    This looks roman as well, 2 samples were found in viminacium -
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L497/
    (2 albanians so far have this from gjirokaster)

  9. #234
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by TaktikatEMalet View Post
    I was stricly speaking about y dna, looks like some g2a and j2a in south albania is from greek natives that were assimilated when proto albanians moved south? Looking at some of the lines I ran into these concrete answers, if i had more time i would look into every line but it seems i oversold a greek origin as roman origin could be more prevalent? -
    The DNA of two male Minoan indivuals was tested in 2020 and they belonged to G2a-P303 and J2a1a-L26 > Z6055 > Y7010 > Y13128 > Z36834 (a branch found in Portugal today).
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-P303/
    (3 albanians so far have this, 2 gjirokaster/1 korce)
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z36834/
    (2 albanians so far have this from vlore)
    However, it looks like some j2a in albanians is also from imperial romans. They apparently carried 50% J lines, mostly j2a but also some j2b including m205!
    J2a1a 1-400 CE J-Z6271
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z6271/
    (6 albanians so far have this, 5 tirane/1 gjirokaster)
    This looks roman as well, 2 samples were found in viminacium -
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L497/
    (2 albanians so far have this from gjirokaster)
    Talking about Roman or more generally Northern source regions, I guess a lot of the E-V13 will be shown to have come from Roman times too, especially subclades with "no framework" in Albanians, but rather singular lineages with a later founder effect.

  10. #235
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-11-18
    Posts
    309


    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Talking about Roman or more generally Northern source regions, I guess a lot of the E-V13 will be shown to have come from Roman times too, especially subclades with "no framework" in Albanians, but rather singular lineages with a later founder effect.
    I understand but i was speaking of actual roman natives, the imperials that spoke latin - apparently 50% of them carried J lines, mostly j2a

    It is unlikely they had much to do with v13 internally (maybe a small percentage) but as we know the romans deployed various people from within their empire so of course romanized v13 people would have also moved around with the romans when need be and would have had to settle in far away places for their title/employment reasons

    Reason why i have confidence in suggesting they had little to do with v13 genetically is because we find very little u152 in balkans today, even less than the g2a and obviously j lines they carried, especially j2a. If imperial romans carried 50% j lines, 15-20% g2a and lets also say 15-20% u152 (though it should be more right?), 5-10% T, it leaves very little room for anything else to explain the boom of v13 in balkans

  11. #236
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    Yes, completely agree. I rather spoke about Balkan IA people moving southward as Roman provincials from various tribes especially in the migration period. We know from many regions that they tried to invade the tribal conquerors and moved to areas dominated by Romans and allies. Albania and the more Southern Balkan might have served as sort of a refuge in the early stages of people from the Danubian provinces for example.

  12. #237
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,279

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Yes, completely agree. I rather spoke about Balkan IA people moving southward as Roman provincials from various tribes especially in the migration period. We know from many regions that they tried to invade the tribal conquerors and moved to areas dominated by Romans and allies. Albania and the more Southern Balkan might have served as sort of a refuge in the early stages of people from the Danubian provinces for example.
    Self-serving hypothesis are not good buddy, trying to [Balto-Slavicize, Iranicize] E-V13 is absurd, it has nothing to do with those aforementioned or related people(Thraco-Cimmerians, which is a culture that started in North Caucasus => clearly hinting Indo-Iranian core ancestry). It's an attempt which will be dismissed in the papers that will come out sooner or latter.

    Well, even Romanians/Moldovans have failed so far to show any kind of significant E-V13 diversity (we haven't seen any so far, despite this idea being pushed by some). It looks like the core E-V13 was in Central and South Balkans during EIA.

  13. #238
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Self-serving hypothesis are not good buddy, trying to [Balto-Slavicize, Iranicize] E-V13 is absurd, it has nothing to do with those aforementioned or related people(Thraco-Cimmerians, which is a culture that started in North Caucasus => clearly hinting Indo-Iranian core ancestry). It's an attempt which will be dismissed in the papers that will come out sooner or latter.

    Well, even Romanians/Moldovans have failed so far to show any kind of significant E-V13 diversity (we haven't seen any so far, despite this idea being pushed by some). It looks like the core E-V13 was in Central and South Balkans during EIA.
    These two things being actually connected, because the Cimmerians were foreign to the region and pushed and destroyed many of the Daco-Thracian/Channelled Ware groups. There were basically two major surviving nests: In the North, in the mountainous regions, especially Transcarpathia and in the South, from where Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi emerged. But those groups in between, and this is key, didn't completely disappear, and even Bosut-Basarabi became heavily influenced by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. Note the difference:
    - Cimmerians
    - Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and its influence

    The latter soon became completely mixed but was very influential for the developing cultures, especially of the Basarabi-Hallstatt sphere. So in the end, while we already know the earliest Cimmerians were different people, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, as a migration event and cultural horizon, spread Daco-Thracian ancestry wide and far.

    Its similar to the later Thraco-Scythians and Geto-Scythians, of which we already have plenty of samples: They are usually much more Pannonian and Thracian-like respectively than anything else! And its from these mixed groups, of which some even retained Daco-Thracian languages, that there were wider spread and backflow onto the steppe. You might have noticed in papers about Carpathian "Scythians" that their ceramic is fairly conservative and regional at first. The question is just: How much of this was female transmitted, how well did the males? I'd say that E-V13 got in their former core regions heavily reduced, both by Cimmerians and Scythians, but didn't disappear. Whereas in the more Southern centres, in which these Cimmerian and Scythian influences remained primarily culturally, and there never was such a big impact, more of the regional paternal ancestry survived.
    That's at least up to this point my impression, unless they had the biggest founder effects in Psenichevo-Basarabi to begin with. To explore that, we need many samples from the cultural formations in the Northern Carpathians, for the phases in which some of them at least didn't cremate. Then it can be checked probably. Fszesabony-late Otomani might prove to be interesting as well.

    Thraco-Cimmerian influences spread very far and wide, deeply into Central Europe. These weren't all pure Cimmerians, especially in the later stages.

  14. #239
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-11-18
    Posts
    309


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Self-serving hypothesis are not good buddy, trying to [Balto-Slavicize, Iranicize] E-V13 is absurd, it has nothing to do with those aforementioned or related people(Thraco-Cimmerians, which is a culture that started in North Caucasus => clearly hinting Indo-Iranian core ancestry). It's an attempt which will be dismissed in the papers that will come out sooner or latter.
    Well, even Romanians/Moldovans have failed so far to show any kind of significant E-V13 diversity (we haven't seen any so far, despite this idea being pushed by some). It looks like the core E-V13 was in Central and South Balkans during EIA.
    Yes and i do find it funny how people look at autosomnal dna from clearly heavily celtic mixed samples and then say how come modern albanians arent closely related to these, why are they are more "near east shifted". Of course modern albanians would be more near east shifted because the ancient samples we have from western balkans so far are all very north within the tumulus/urnfield network. They were mixed with the italo celtic people maternally
    Last edited by TaktikatEMalet; 29-11-21 at 23:57.

  15. #240
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,279

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    These two things being actually connected, because the Cimmerians were foreign to the region and pushed and destroyed many of the Daco-Thracian/Channelled Ware groups. There were basically two major surviving nests: In the North, in the mountainous regions, especially Transcarpathia and in the South, from where Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi emerged. But those groups in between, and this is key, didn't completely disappear, and even Bosut-Basarabi became heavily influenced by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. Note the difference:
    - Cimmerians
    - Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and its influence

    The latter soon became completely mixed but was very influential for the developing cultures, especially of the Basarabi-Hallstatt sphere. So in the end, while we already know the earliest Cimmerians were different people, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, as a migration event and cultural horizon, spread Daco-Thracian ancestry wide and far.

    Its similar to the later Thraco-Scythians and Geto-Scythians, of which we already have plenty of samples: They are usually much more Pannonian and Thracian-like respectively than anything else! And its from these mixed groups, of which some even retained Daco-Thracian languages, that there were wider spread and backflow onto the steppe. You might have noticed in papers about Carpathian "Scythians" that their ceramic is fairly conservative and regional at first. The question is just: How much of this was female transmitted, how well did the males? I'd say that E-V13 got in their former core regions heavily reduced, both by Cimmerians and Scythians, but didn't disappear. Whereas in the more Southern centres, in which these Cimmerian and Scythian influences remained primarily culturally, and there never was such a big impact, more of the regional paternal ancestry survived.
    That's at least up to this point my impression, unless they had the biggest founder effects in Psenichevo-Basarabi to begin with. To explore that, we need many samples from the cultural formations in the Northern Carpathians, for the phases in which some of them at least didn't cremate. Then it can be checked probably. F�szesabony-late Otomani might prove to be interesting as well.

    Thraco-Cimmerian influences spread very far and wide, deeply into Central Europe. These weren't all pure Cimmerians, especially in the later stages.
    They might have played some minimal role, but absolutely nothing significant, at least i am not convinced, sorry.

    We have discussed before, i am of the opinion, in fact, it's very straightforward. Gava/Channeled-Ware along with some other Middle Danube Urnfield, Grla-Mare/Dubovac-Zuto Brdo/Brnjica, Vatin, Paracin/Mediana, Psenicevo-Babadag. All of these had E-V13, some more some less.

    I find the Thraco-Cimmerian label ambigious, we don't know who they were, and where did they come from, what language did they spoke, and who were their descendants. It's all open to interpretations.

  16. #241
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    They might have played some minimal role, but absolutely nothing significant, at least i am not convinced, sorry.
    The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon was culturally influential for generations and connected the Carpathian sphere with the more Upper Danubian and North Italian even more directly than Urnfield before, which was more split into provinces/groups. That's why its important to mention, they pushed and pulled Daco-Thracian elements, which were still concentrated along the Carpathians largely, West and South, both directly and indirectly. Like in the Veneti, Frg, Kalenderberg group in Eastern Hallstatt, they all preserved elements of this Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and being directly connected to Basarabi the same time. The network which came up with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon persisted. The innovations brought by the Cimmerians were spread by the Daco-Thracians, especially Basarabi, too.

    We have discussed before, i am of the opinion, in fact, it's very straightforward. Gava/Channeled-Ware along with some other Middle Danube Urnfield, Grla-Mare/Dubovac-Zuto Brdo/Brnjica, Vatin, Paracin/Mediana, Psenicevo-Babadag. All of these had E-V13, some more some less.
    Probably, but I think Gva/Channelled Ware is the real core and much of the others being derivatives or predecessors anyway. However, Middle Danubian Urnfield in the narrower sense is probably a group apart, because like I said, they are too much Western Bell Beaker derived, unlike Kyjatice-Gva. I largely agree with you anyway, but Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt is not who got it first, but about who spread it West. Actually its these two cultural formations which brought the Daco-Thracian E-V13 West like a Wedge, right through the more Pannonian-Illyrian Middle Danubian and Para-Celtic territory.

    On a large map, you can really see that the Cimmerian and Scythian intrusions into the Carpathians pushed many elements, almost all Daco-Thracian in origin, West, first while fleeing from them, then with them, later by people which copied 1:1 Cimmerian and Scythian styles, but being genetically fully Daco-Thracian and Pannonian. Whether they were E-V13 dominated or not, autosomally that's clear.

    I find the Thraco-Cimmerian label ambigious, we don't know who they were, and where did they come from, what language did they spoke, and who were their descendants. It's all open to interpretations.
    We have some "original Cimmerians" and they are pretty mixed. Like one in Central Europe had haplogroup N and was autosomally quite different from the Kyjatice sample BR2, I wrote about it here:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post633773

    So you see two completely different populations, one being related to Vatya, Mako, Epi-Corded and the other wild mixture from the East. The first are Daco-Thracian related, Pannonian-Carpathian Urnfielders, the second the steppe alliance of the Cimmerians.

    The point is, they introduced and spread iron working techniques, they did introduce new horse gear and tactics, most likely new horse breeds also. And these spread among the elites of all Eastern and Central European groups, throughout most of the Urnfield networks, but not all. Like the Transcarpathian Gva people resisted in fortified areas for a prolonged period of time and got less Thraco-Cimmerian horizon influences than Basarabi!
    But otherwise, you see the whole elite from Southern Germany, Northern Italy, Austria, Hungary, Croatia etc., they all adopted the whole package or many elements of it. And those which adopted the most from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and kept these traits the longest are the groups closer connected to Basarabi too! Like Frg and Kalenderberg for example, vs. the much less influenced Unterkrainische group, which was more in the Illyrian tradition.

    There you see that after the initial impact, Thracian and Cimmerian elements fused to something new, which was fundamental for the final stage of the Bronze Age and the introduction of Hallstatt. But Hallstatt was full of elements from Channelled Ware and Encrusted Ware influences too! That means you see here two main elements at work: Thraco-Cimmerian horizon/Cimmerian influences, Channelled Ware traditions with Encrusted Ware influences.
    "Hallstattisation" is basically Channelled Ware with Cimmerian ideological-religious and material influences from my point of view. That's what really brought it West. Because where Gva Urnfield stopped in Eastern Germany, Bohemia, Austria-West Hungary etc., Hallstatt went right through and Thraco-Cimmerian elites with it.

    We know it from the "Scythian" finds too: In some there were mostly or even pure Daco-Thracian and Pannonian people, but sometimes in complete "Scythian gear". That's just what the elite warriors adopted and the lifestyle the surviving locals embraced. The question is how much paternal replacement the Cimmerians and Scythians caused, but in my opinion not too much, because the haplogroups associated and found so far were much less common afterwards than the rather Thraco-Illyrian ones.

    Like Yamnaya thousands of years before: The initial impact was huge, but the genetic legacy comparatively small. Same for Cimmerians and Scythians, but apparently not the Daco-Thracians which spread the fused culture, they had more of an impact. For the Cimmerians we don't have enough samples, and the rite of cremation among many of the Channelled Ware and Eastern Hallstatt people makes it difficult, but for the Scythian case some generations later, its easy to see:



    https://ibb.co/cCKD3Bj

    There are relatively "pure", "mixed" and "local" individuals within the "Scythian" cultural context. There was also exchange between the Pannonian Thraco-Scythians and the Moldovan Geto-Scythians. There are outliers in the clusters of the respective other group.

    Thraco-Cimmerian elements in the burials, which is the main thing, will be even more "local" or in many Eastern Hallstatt instances Daco-Thracian/Basarabi related than these. The elites in Frg buried as horse warriors are likely to have been very strongly Daco-Thracian/Basarabi influenced. Unfortunately they mostly cremated, but we know from the inventory that both male and female elite individuals moved from Basarabi to Frg, but there is little evidence for a movement in the opposite direction! So the whole Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt based on it created a primary mode of cultural transmission and people moving from East (Carpathians and further) to the West (Danubian-Alpine sphere). That's true for the formative period of early Hallstatt in particular.

    Pre-Scythian Mezcst = Thraco-Cimmerian core. It shows primarily steppe Cimmerian elements on top of local Channelled Ware people. Like I said, the tested individual was East Asian admixed and had yDNA N. Let's see what others might bring. Probably some being in the new British paper, because they didn't cremate...

  17. #242
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,810

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    These two things being actually connected, because the Cimmerians were foreign to the region and pushed and destroyed many of the Daco-Thracian/Channelled Ware groups. There were basically two major surviving nests: In the North, in the mountainous regions, especially Transcarpathia and in the South, from where Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi emerged. But those groups in between, and this is key, didn't completely disappear, and even Bosut-Basarabi became heavily influenced by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. Note the difference:
    - Cimmerians
    - Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and its influence
    The latter soon became completely mixed but was very influential for the developing cultures, especially of the Basarabi-Hallstatt sphere. So in the end, while we already know the earliest Cimmerians were different people, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, as a migration event and cultural horizon, spread Daco-Thracian ancestry wide and far.
    Its similar to the later Thraco-Scythians and Geto-Scythians, of which we already have plenty of samples: They are usually much more Pannonian and Thracian-like respectively than anything else! And its from these mixed groups, of which some even retained Daco-Thracian languages, that there were wider spread and backflow onto the steppe. You might have noticed in papers about Carpathian "Scythians" that their ceramic is fairly conservative and regional at first. The question is just: How much of this was female transmitted, how well did the males? I'd say that E-V13 got in their former core regions heavily reduced, both by Cimmerians and Scythians, but didn't disappear. Whereas in the more Southern centres, in which these Cimmerian and Scythian influences remained primarily culturally, and there never was such a big impact, more of the regional paternal ancestry survived.
    That's at least up to this point my impression, unless they had the biggest founder effects in Psenichevo-Basarabi to begin with. To explore that, we need many samples from the cultural formations in the Northern Carpathians, for the phases in which some of them at least didn't cremate. Then it can be checked probably. F�szesabony-late Otomani might prove to be interesting as well.
    Thraco-Cimmerian influences spread very far and wide, deeply into Central Europe. These weren't all pure Cimmerians, especially in the later stages.
    Not all the cimmerians moved to the south caucasus to kingdom of Urartu (an old name for Armenia).

    The Cimmerians were closely related and are archaeologically almost identical to the Scythians, who may have expelled them from their home country. Archaeologists have identified the Cimmerians with the Novocerkassk culture on the grass plains between the river Prut and the Lower Don (c.900-c.650 BCE).

    are they similar to Circassians ???
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-PF6155

  18. #243
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    Cimmerians seem to have varied, I doubt the people on the move under that label were that homogeneous.
    What sticks out is that at least some of these people on the move had significant East Asian admixture, more than the later Scythians.

  19. #244
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,279

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon was culturally influential for generations and connected the Carpathian sphere with the more Upper Danubian and North Italian even more directly than Urnfield before, which was more split into provinces/groups. That's why its important to mention, they pushed and pulled Daco-Thracian elements, which were still concentrated along the Carpathians largely, West and South, both directly and indirectly. Like in the Veneti, Fr�g, Kalenderberg group in Eastern Hallstatt, they all preserved elements of this Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and being directly connected to Basarabi the same time. The network which came up with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon persisted. The innovations brought by the Cimmerians were spread by the Daco-Thracians, especially Basarabi, too.



    Probably, but I think G�va/Channelled Ware is the real core and much of the others being derivatives or predecessors anyway. However, Middle Danubian Urnfield in the narrower sense is probably a group apart, because like I said, they are too much Western Bell Beaker derived, unlike Kyjatice-G�va. I largely agree with you anyway, but Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt is not who got it first, but about who spread it West. Actually its these two cultural formations which brought the Daco-Thracian E-V13 West like a Wedge, right through the more Pannonian-Illyrian Middle Danubian and Para-Celtic territory.

    On a large map, you can really see that the Cimmerian and Scythian intrusions into the Carpathians pushed many elements, almost all Daco-Thracian in origin, West, first while fleeing from them, then with them, later by people which copied 1:1 Cimmerian and Scythian styles, but being genetically fully Daco-Thracian and Pannonian. Whether they were E-V13 dominated or not, autosomally that's clear.



    We have some "original Cimmerians" and they are pretty mixed. Like one in Central Europe had haplogroup N and was autosomally quite different from the Kyjatice sample BR2, I wrote about it here:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post633773

    So you see two completely different populations, one being related to Vatya, Mako, Epi-Corded and the other wild mixture from the East. The first are Daco-Thracian related, Pannonian-Carpathian Urnfielders, the second the steppe alliance of the Cimmerians.

    The point is, they introduced and spread iron working techniques, they did introduce new horse gear and tactics, most likely new horse breeds also. And these spread among the elites of all Eastern and Central European groups, throughout most of the Urnfield networks, but not all. Like the Transcarpathian G�va people resisted in fortified areas for a prolonged period of time and got less Thraco-Cimmerian horizon influences than Basarabi!
    But otherwise, you see the whole elite from Southern Germany, Northern Italy, Austria, Hungary, Croatia etc., they all adopted the whole package or many elements of it. And those which adopted the most from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and kept these traits the longest are the groups closer connected to Basarabi too! Like Fr�g and Kalenderberg for example, vs. the much less influenced Unterkrainische group, which was more in the Illyrian tradition.

    There you see that after the initial impact, Thracian and Cimmerian elements fused to something new, which was fundamental for the final stage of the Bronze Age and the introduction of Hallstatt. But Hallstatt was full of elements from Channelled Ware and Encrusted Ware influences too! That means you see here two main elements at work: Thraco-Cimmerian horizon/Cimmerian influences, Channelled Ware traditions with Encrusted Ware influences.
    "Hallstattisation" is basically Channelled Ware with Cimmerian ideological-religious and material influences from my point of view. That's what really brought it West. Because where G�va Urnfield stopped in Eastern Germany, Bohemia, Austria-West Hungary etc., Hallstatt went right through and Thraco-Cimmerian elites with it.

    We know it from the "Scythian" finds too: In some there were mostly or even pure Daco-Thracian and Pannonian people, but sometimes in complete "Scythian gear". That's just what the elite warriors adopted and the lifestyle the surviving locals embraced. The question is how much paternal replacement the Cimmerians and Scythians caused, but in my opinion not too much, because the haplogroups associated and found so far were much less common afterwards than the rather Thraco-Illyrian ones.

    Like Yamnaya thousands of years before: The initial impact was huge, but the genetic legacy comparatively small. Same for Cimmerians and Scythians, but apparently not the Daco-Thracians which spread the fused culture, they had more of an impact. For the Cimmerians we don't have enough samples, and the rite of cremation among many of the Channelled Ware and Eastern Hallstatt people makes it difficult, but for the Scythian case some generations later, its easy to see:



    https://ibb.co/cCKD3Bj

    There are relatively "pure", "mixed" and "local" individuals within the "Scythian" cultural context. There was also exchange between the Pannonian Thraco-Scythians and the Moldovan Geto-Scythians. There are outliers in the clusters of the respective other group.

    Thraco-Cimmerian elements in the burials, which is the main thing, will be even more "local" or in many Eastern Hallstatt instances Daco-Thracian/Basarabi related than these. The elites in Fr�g buried as horse warriors are likely to have been very strongly Daco-Thracian/Basarabi influenced. Unfortunately they mostly cremated, but we know from the inventory that both male and female elite individuals moved from Basarabi to Fr�g, but there is little evidence for a movement in the opposite direction! So the whole Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt based on it created a primary mode of cultural transmission and people moving from East (Carpathians and further) to the West (Danubian-Alpine sphere). That's true for the formative period of early Hallstatt in particular.

    Pre-Scythian Mez�cs�t = Thraco-Cimmerian core. It shows primarily steppe Cimmerian elements on top of local Channelled Ware people. Like I said, the tested individual was East Asian admixed and had yDNA N. Let's see what others might bring. Probably some being in the new British paper, because they didn't cremate...
    Not really. Thraco-Cimmerian influence on Italy and Central-Europe is negligible. I don't think some of the very old E-V13 branches in Central Europe are due to Thraco-Cimmerians or Daco-Thracians who are an Iron Age ethnicities.

  20. #245
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Not really. Thraco-Cimmerian influence on Italy and Central-Europe is negligible. I don't think some of the very old E-V13 branches in Central Europe are due to Thraco-Cimmerians or Daco-Thracians who are an Iron Age ethnicities.
    Yes, some branches moved through Urnfield networks earlier, others with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi-Hallstatt later. Both did happen.
    If we identify Channelled Ware with Daco-Thracians, then they already had a significant influence on the Middle Danubian group through infiltration in the border zone, where we have increased Kyjatice-Gava finds.
    Its just I think they started separated, largely, but they had large zones of interaction once Urnfield was established.
    This was however more about clans and individuals, rather than whole tribes marching, with the exception of the very borderzone, where its possible.
    Middle Danubians also reached the Danubian zone, so it was reciprocal.

  21. #246
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,279

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Yes, some branches moved through Urnfield networks earlier, others with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi-Hallstatt later. Both did happen.
    If we identify Channelled Ware with Daco-Thracians, then they already had a significant influence on the Middle Danubian group through infiltration in the border zone, where we have increased Kyjatice-Gava finds.
    Its just I think they started separated, largely, but they had large zones of interaction once Urnfield was established.
    This was however more about clans and individuals, rather than whole tribes marching, with the exception of the very borderzone, where its possible.
    Middle Danubians also reached the Danubian zone, so it was reciprocal.
    In my opinion, Channeled-Ware + Thraco-Cimmerian mix is what made the Daco-Thracians, that would make sense and would give an explanation at why Thracian costumes, horse-breeding and riding attachments were so similar to Scythians and Indo-Iranians. Otherwise their Channeled-Ware ancestors preferred the proto-phalanx-like formation or battle-style.

  22. #247
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    In my opinion, Channeled-Ware + Thraco-Cimmerian mix is what made the Daco-Thracians, that would make sense and would give an explanation at why Thracian costumes, horse-breeding and riding attachments were so similar to Scythians and Indo-Iranians. Otherwise their Channeled-Ware ancestors preferred the proto-phalanx-like formation or battle-style.
    Yes, agree. It was kind of reduction in societal complexity initially, we can also observe the transition to pastoralist economy and transhumance, reduced settlements and population density. Initially it did really hurt the Daco-Thracians massively and I expect a reduction of their patrilineages.
    But like I said before, two independent groups remained, Transcarpathian and Danube, with the latter being more important, leading to Psenichevo-Basarabi and eventually Hallstatt.
    After that, the Scythian influence was minimum as impactful. Note e.g. the Vekerzug group of Thraco-Scythians.

  23. #248
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-11-18
    Posts
    309


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    In my opinion, Channeled-Ware + Thraco-Cimmerian mix is what made the Daco-Thracians, that would make sense and would give an explanation at why Thracian costumes, horse-breeding and riding attachments were so similar to Scythians and Indo-Iranians. Otherwise their Channeled-Ware ancestors preferred the proto-phalanx-like formation or battle-style.
    Which would mean they may have had plenty of r1a and some q-l54 -

    'Järve (2019)[3] studied genetics of various peoples belonging to the Scythian cultures, such as Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Saka. Mostly of the remains in all groups were found to carry various subclades of haplogroup R1a, with a few haplogroup Q samples also found."

    Eastern scythians -

    "Mary (2019)[18] studied the genetics of remains from the Aldy-Bel culture in and around Tuva in central Asia, adjacent to western Mongolia; the Aldy-Bel culture is considered one of the Scythian cultures. The majority of the samples (9 out of 17) were found to be carriers of haplogroup R1a, including two carriers of haplogroup R1a1a1b2‑Z93. East Asian admixture was also detected, as 6 haplogroup Q-L54 (including 5 in Sagly culture) and 1 haplogroup N-M231 were excavated. The haplogroup of the remaining 1 sample was uncertain (probably group R)."

    There is a complete lack of these lines in western balkans though a bit more frequent in the east. Serbs, Poles and Turks seem to have a fair amount of N but they likely come from different sources -
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/n/

    Srubnaya can also be ruled out for v13 -

    "In 2018, a genetic study of the earlier Srubnaya culture, and later peoples of the Scythian cultures, including the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, was published in Science Advances. Six males from two sites ascribed to the Srubnaya culture were analysed, and were all found to possess haplogroup R1a1a1. Cimmerian, Sarmatian and Scythian males were however found have mostly haplogroup R1b1a1a2, although one Sarmatian male carried haplogroup R1a1a1."

    We have yet to find any v13 in urnfield either. The lack of ancient dna from south europe and the fact that v13 has yet to be found in central european cultures, is that not a coincidence? If we want to solve v13, maybe more effort should be put into finding ancient dna in south europe

  24. #249
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,378


    Country: Austria



    The samples from 3 upcoming studies are promising. British replacement paper with Central European and Balkan samples, Thracians from the Bulgarian Iron Age, the Pannonian study.
    All three seem to have E-V13, from different times and contexts.
    We need some lucky strikes also, because the supposed E-V13 core groups, almost all potential ones, used cremation over prolonged periods of time.
    They were among the earliest and latest in Europe to burn their dead.
    Similar problems arise with early Hittites, Germanics and Slavs.
    Its very clear that for early E-V13 are only specific time windows and special, irregular burials key.
    But I am confident that both Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi will have plenty of it, yet that doesn't answer which exact path it took before and the lack of subclades hurts.

  25. #250
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,279

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by TaktikatEMalet View Post
    Which would mean they may have had plenty of r1a and some q-l54 -
    'Järve (2019)[3] studied genetics of various peoples belonging to the Scythian cultures, such as Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Saka. Mostly of the remains in all groups were found to carry various subclades of haplogroup R1a, with a few haplogroup Q samples also found."
    Eastern scythians -
    "Mary (2019)[18] studied the genetics of remains from the Aldy-Bel culture in and around Tuva in central Asia, adjacent to western Mongolia; the Aldy-Bel culture is considered one of the Scythian cultures. The majority of the samples (9 out of 17) were found to be carriers of haplogroup R1a, including two carriers of haplogroup R1a1a1b2‑Z93. East Asian admixture was also detected, as 6 haplogroup Q-L54 (including 5 in Sagly culture) and 1 haplogroup N-M231 were excavated. The haplogroup of the remaining 1 sample was uncertain (probably group R)."
    There is a complete lack of these lines in western balkans though a bit more frequent in the east. Serbs, Poles and Turks seem to have a fair amount of N but they likely come from different sources -
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/n/
    Srubnaya can also be ruled out for v13 -
    "In 2018, a genetic study of the earlier Srubnaya culture, and later peoples of the Scythian cultures, including the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, was published in Science Advances. Six males from two sites ascribed to the Srubnaya culture were analysed, and were all found to possess haplogroup R1a1a1. Cimmerian, Sarmatian and Scythian males were however found have mostly haplogroup R1b1a1a2, although one Sarmatian male carried haplogroup R1a1a1."
    We have yet to find any v13 in urnfield either. The lack of ancient dna from south europe and the fact that v13 has yet to be found in central european cultures, is that not a coincidence? If we want to solve v13, maybe more effort should be put into finding ancient dna in south europe
    We already have Late Neolithic samples from Bulgaria and there is a lack of E-V13, and we have Early Bronze Age samples from Albania and E-V13 lacks, E-V13 lacks in Croatia as well also Trypillian Ukraine and very likely it wa abset in Romania. So what's left? Greece and Central Europe (Eastern Austria, Northern Hungary, South-Eastern Slovakia/Czech)? Considering the earlier split of E-V13 maps and corresponds more Southern Central Europe then chances are way higher it's the latter. I mean, you should check the Czech archeologist Jan Bouzek, he argues that the South-East Urnfielders massively migrated into Balkans, and a specific group of them after mixing with Achaeans formed the classical Greeks. That was his opinion.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Who were and are the Albanians and their DNA
    By DejaVu in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 1325
    Last Post: 10-05-22, 15:17
  2. Haplogroups in Albanians
    By Dale Cooper in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-02-18, 10:51
  3. Albanians (OFFTOPIC Macedonians)
    By Besir Bajrami in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 04-09-14, 23:07
  4. Do they look albanians/montenegrins/bosnians etc.. ?
    By julia90 in forum Guess the Ethnicity
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 23-09-13, 13:43

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •