Where did E-V13 originate ?

It's precisely why they are into full-mode attack against E-M78. They can't wrap their heads how they speak an Afro-Asiatic language.
 
Per paper, Mota is 71 % descended from admixture which split with the Eurasians. Mota had E1b1b. Dominant Yoruba descended admixture separated before that split. Strictly speaking this Yoruba's dominant autosomal admixture would have to be then some CT*, DE-, CF-, negative to various SNP's at CT level. In any case the time between their split isn't that great (8). Mota autosomally was 71 % parallel to Eurasian and again 29 % of Shum-Laka like ancestry. So even Mota isn't that "SSA" actually as almost 1/3 of its ancestry is 236 k years old.

Shum-Laka paper was crucial, almost the entire Subsaharan Africa is loaded with this autosomal admixture which diverged 236 k years ago.

I think this "ghost" pre-Neanderthal admixture might be related to some ancient hominins present in Africa. Haven't read if there are any studies which dealt with their autosomal DNA.
 
Shum Laka samples also had some Y-DNA A clade i think.
 
Last edited:
Shum Laka samples also had some Y-DNA A clade i think.

I see. Well actually autosomally Shum Laka itself was pred. Yoruba-like 63.36 %, and 35.64 % of A00 admixture. Also 1 % Eurasian. So there were some other influences there. This archaic admixture of A00 is far from being Shum Laka-like, it must be alot more divergent due to later Yoruba element. And ofc Bantus picked this up combined with hg A00000 (Denisovan was A0000) admixture. If A00 is so divergent the A00000 (might be Homo-Erectus like) admixture could be over 5 times more divergent than A00. At the very least 3 times. So just 3 % of such admixture does wonders to the PCA plot. And ofc none of this has got to do with the hg A, let alone E. They say SSA's are so different from Eurasians. Now we can see why..
 
I see. Well actually autosomally Shum Laka itself was pred. Yoruba-like 63.36 %, and 35.64 % of A00 admixture. Also 1 % Eurasian. So there were some other influences there. This archaic admixture of A00 is far from being Shum Laka-like, it must be alot more divergent due to later Yoruba element. And ofc Bantus picked this up combined with hg A00000 (Denisovan was A0000) admixture. If A00 is so divergent the A00000 (might be Homo-Erectus like) admixture could be over 5 times more divergent than A00. At the very least 3 times. So just 3 % of such admixture does wonders to the PCA plot. And ofc none of this has got to do with the hg A, let alone E.

hahaha, let's stick to E-M35/E-M78 and ANA admixture, that's when the game intensifies.

I know you like to read about these stuffs, take a look at this: https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum/reader/download/202/202-30-76688-1-10-20170119.pdf
 
hahaha, let's stick to E-M35/E-M78 and ANA admixture, that's when the game intensifies.

I know you like to read about these stuffs, take a look at this: https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum/reader/download/202/202-30-76688-1-10-20170119.pdf

Interesting, will read that. To add about J1's saying this and that. I don't deny they are proto-Semitics. They are like I-Y3120 is proto-Slavic. J-P58 mostly spread Semitic languages but obviously J1 has little to do with the other Afro-Asiatics.

Insofar E-M78 is concerned. Someone made this table based on Shum Laka paper but with the E-M78 Taforalt counted in. It shows even more A00 admixture for Bantus.

See Taforalt is here 54 % ANA + 46 % Eurasian. 0 % A00 and 0 % A00000 which E1b1a's picked up later. And they say Taforalt was "SSA" admixed. No, DE couldn't have been so much divergent from CF autosomally. "SSA" is defined by having A00 and A00000 admixture, (and Khoisans are very isolated themselves from all of others, they are "pure" A's). E-M35's are the true E's. Not Bantus. Taforalt got some Eurasian but had pure ANA. Bantu's are far from pure ANA's. Mota too got 29 % of A00.

3QJrsXP.png


Also regarding A00 and B. Take a look how Mbuti here derive just 6 % of ancestry of B, but 59 % from A00. Aka's also Pygmies derive 0 % from B and 42 % from A00. (you see B branched off from CT just to the right of South Africa HG). B is common in both Nilotics and Pygmies, Agaw Cushitic people derive much more ancestry from B. B could be proto-Nilotic and proto-Pygmy A00. Though A00 is very rare it's still present in their areas. Or A00 had some influence on Pygmy language considering how strong the autosomal imprint is. Though some say Nilotic languages are not a "real language" group but "mixture".

And also you can see Mota was almost identical to early Basal Eurasians when it received the A00 admixture. As was the ANA ancestor of Taforalt... ANA was close to basal Eurasians.. But ofc if you add A00 and A00000 to ANA it's going to appear "SSA", as would have Basal Eurasians with the same adxmiture..

So Shum-Laka study debunks what these trolls have been saying. E1b1a is an outlier not E1b1b.
 
Interesting, will read that. To add about J1's saying this and that. I don't deny they are proto-Semitics. They are like I-Y3120 is proto-Slavic. J-P58 mostly spread Semitic languages but obviously J1 has little to do with the other Afro-Asiatics.

Insofar E-M78 is concerned. Someone made this table based on Shum Laka paper but with the E-M78 Taforalt counted in. It shows even more A00 admixture for Bantus.

See Taforalt is here 54 % ANA + 46 % Eurasian. 0 % A00 and 0 % A00000 which E1b1a's picked up later. And they say Taforalt was "SSA" admixed. No, DE couldn't have been so much divergent from CF autosomally. "SSA" is defined by having A00 and A00000 admixture, (and Khoisans are very isolated themselves from all of others, they are "pure" A's). E-M35's are the true E's. Not Bantus. Taforalt got some Eurasian but had pure ANA. Bantu's are far from pure ANA's. Mota too got 29 % of A00.

3QJrsXP.png


Also regarding A00 and B. Take a look how Mbuti here derive just 6 % of ancestry of B, but 59 % from A00. Aka's also Pygmies derive 0 % from B and 42 % from A00. (you see B branched off from CT just to the right of South Africa HG). B is common in both Nilotics and Pygmies, Agaw Cushitic people derive much more ancestry from B. B could be proto-Nilotic and proto-Pygmy A00. Though A00 is very rare it's still present in their areas. Or A00 had some influence on Pygmy language considering how strong the autosomal imprint is. Though some say Nilotic languages are not a "real language" group but "mixture".

And also you can see Mota was almost identical to early Basal Eurasians when it received the A00 admixture. As was the ANA ancestor of Taforalt... ANA was close to basal Eurasians.. But ofc if you add A00 and A00000 to ANA it's going to appear "SSA", as would have Basal Eurasians with the same adxmiture..

So Shum-Laka study debunks what these trolls have been saying. E1b1a is an outlier not E1b1b.

This makes sense. The new argument of these losers is ANA is African like which you showed is not really true.
 
This makes sense. The new argument of these losers is ANA is African like which you showed is not really true.

Yes and from a logical POV: DE separated from CT 68500 ybp, D separated from E 65200 ybp. C separated from F 65900 ybp. Assuming D left to Asia with others just after that, we know C was basal Eurasian yet it also separated from F quite a while ago, per YFull prior to DE split. E couldn't have been anything other than a basal Eurasian regardless whether it stayed or left Africa.

Obviously already 200 000 ybp several A00 groups diverged, and separately influenced various groups. One of these met A00000.. And only they got picked up by E1b1a's.

That diagram is also from the paper itself, Taforalt has zero of this archaic admixture so it is zero SSA, SSA is simply defined by archaic and ultra-archaic admixture.

Btw in K13 Croatian Neanderthal comes out as 90 % SSA, though result ofc can't be taken for granted due to divergence it just illustrates SSA autosomal is packed with this archaic admixture.
 
Yes and from a logical POV: DE separated from CT 68500 ybp, D separated from E 65200 ybp. C separated from F 65900 ybp. Assuming D left to Asia with others just after that, we know C was basal Eurasian yet it also separated from F quite a while ago, per YFull prior to DE split. E couldn't have been anything other than a basal Eurasian regardless whether it stayed or left Africa.

Obviously already 200 000 ybp several A00 groups diverged, and separately influenced various groups. One of these met A00000.. And only they got picked up by E1b1a's.

That diagram is also from the paper itself, Taforalt has zero of this archaic admixture so it is zero SSA, SSA is simply defined by archaic and ultra-archaic admixture.

Btw in K13 Croatian Neanderthal comes out as 90 % SSA, though result ofc can't be taken for granted due to divergence it just illustrates SSA autosomal is packed with this archaic admixture.

I don't think it was a Basal Eurasian lineage, whatever this admixture was or if it was real, it's clearly linked to ANA autosomal. Heavily admixed ANA populations by craniometry were being wrongly assumed to be European HG mixed because of marginal similarities which was probably due to convergent evolution. But on average ANA's were taller and more robust than the Eurasian HG's.
 
[h=2]DEATH AND BURIAL BETWEEN THE AEGEAN AND THE BALKANS[/h][h=3][/h]CULTURAL VARIABILITY AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION IN THE EARLY IRON AGE



Towards the beginning of the early Iron Age several transformations in the material culture of Greece are striking. Particularly the appearance of cremation and individual inhumation burials was long held as the main argument for numerous historical reconstruction of early Greek history, however, this phase has only rarely been viewed from a cultural anthropological angle.



Prothesis on an Attic krater, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (photo: OeAW-OeAI/S. Gimatzidis)




Some changes in Greek culture dating to the 12th and 11th centuries BCE have been traditionally perceived as evidence for an invasion of people from the north to Greece. These transformations are particularly perceptible in the burial rites of southern Greece, e.g. the change from multiple burials in champer tombs to single inhumations in cist tombs and shortly afterwards the widespread practice of cremation. This change was often identified as the legendary >Dorian invasion< mentioned by some historiographers of the classical period. These tales developed into historical facts and formed the departure point for many reconstructions of the past in Greece and the Balkans.



[h=4][/h]THE GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS

The aim of this project is not to search for Dorians in the Greek and Balkan prehistory but instead to reanalyze the archaeological data that fully addresses the already mentioned changes in an up-to-date interpretation. The area of interest comprises Serbia, Kosovo, FYR of Macedonia, and northern Greece (especially Macedonia and Chalkidike, and Thessaly). In the past scholarly debate and exchange of knowledge was difficult for political reasons but the time has come to overcome national and ideological barriers and begin an international scientific discussion.



[h=4][/h]THE METHOD

In this project new archaeological data from recent excavations will be analyzed and presented. Recently published finds and contexts from the northern Aegean and the geographical ›hinterland‹, mainly the central Balkan, allow for comparative studies. Modern scientific methods will be used in order to define the biological sex as well as family and other kin relationships of individuals from selected necropoleis. Strontium isotope analyses aid in acquiring information about mobility and exogamy or migration of people (groups). Radiocarbon analyses, statistical, and additional historical analyses of the burial rites, individual finds, and contexts permit the reconstruction of the social organization of the local communities. Lead isotope analyses of the burial gifts made of lead will provide information on the exchange networks and trade relations.



[h=4]THE AIM[/h]


The research is focused on the socio-cultural aspects of every necropolis and its micro-regions that function as case studies. In this way it is the foundation for a new narrative of the interregional interaction in the area of ideology and ritual. Finally, new archaeological data and modern bioarcharchaeological analyses will lead to a modernized reconstruction of the regional social relationships in Greece and the Balkan.

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/rese...h-and-burial-between-aegaean-and-the-balkans/

Ly21E6Y.png
 
Yes and from a logical POV: DE separated from CT 68500 ybp, D separated from E 65200 ybp. C separated from F 65900 ybp. Assuming D left to Asia with others just after that, we know C was basal Eurasian yet it also separated from F quite a while ago, per YFull prior to DE split. E couldn't have been anything other than a basal Eurasian regardless whether it stayed or left Africa.

Obviously already 200 000 ybp several A00 groups diverged, and separately influenced various groups. One of these met A00000.. And only they got picked up by E1b1a's.

That diagram is also from the paper itself, Taforalt has zero of this archaic admixture so it is zero SSA, SSA is simply defined by archaic and ultra-archaic admixture.

Btw in K13 Croatian Neanderthal comes out as 90 % SSA, though result ofc can't be taken for granted due to divergence it just illustrates SSA autosomal is packed with this archaic admixture.

Isn't E more likely associated with ANA?

I've never heard of C being basal Eurasian. Aren't most clades of C associated with West Eurasians (C1a) or East Eurasians (C2) or ambiguous (C1b being found in Kosenteki and also common in South Asia(AASI?)).

Couldn't G and/or H be basal eurasian too?
 
Thanks for the very informative link re Cypriot dna. There defiantly are some interesting points observed in regards to E-V13 and luckily has been dealt with extensively too. We seem to be drifting further and further away from an E-V13 crossing (island hopping) directly from North Africa as it has been suggested.

quote - In Europe, certain sub-haplogroups of G and specifically E-V13 were detected in ancient DNA, including Linear Band Keramik (LBK) remains from Central Europe (ca. 8000 y BP), Epicardial skeletons from Iberia (7000 y BP), South of France Late Neolithic (5000 y BP), and a Tyrol specimen (5300 y BP) [77, 78, 79, 80].- end quote

https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8

Maleth buddy long time no catch, I was quite off for some time but I see that your post with EV13 has been progressing

My interest jumped on R1b, well since i tested out to be R1b Z2705 on 2016 lol, I do also believe that EV13 crossed directly from far north Africa very very long time ago, since from history read that pre ancient greek time there were people living on those surraoundings called Pelazgian, at that time since 2014 were I was still a rookie, and I still am https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...their-DNA-be-E-V13/page20?p=610287#post610287 and from this old post, tried to maybe these so called Pelazgic people mostly caried EV13.

I still believe in it, of course since there are only few anciant samples we can suppose and speculate I guess, I think we also find quite high EV13 on VINCA culture, i think read a post on this from Maciamo, so surely after north Africa it spread all over Europe, and why not some to Spain, Italy, balkan region and Grece also, however how about they have found a best and most convinient place for them in Vinca Culture 7000 ybp? then to more southern Balkans like current Albania North Macedonia and Greece around 6000 ybp? Then came Minoans and Myceneans, we do have reseach Lasaridis I believe that says Minoans and Myceneans look the most likely with current modern people of Greece, north Macedonia and Albania, than ancient Greece etc, which still does not have to be formed all from this group of course but they could have been the majority ....And people always move right, so they could have moved as mentioned above as well, who knows only time will tell

Well only some very interesting supositions, we need so many more of the ancient samples
 
I don't think it was a Basal Eurasian lineage, whatever this admixture was or if it was real, it's clearly linked to ANA autosomal. Heavily admixed ANA populations by craniometry were being wrongly assumed to be European HG mixed because of marginal similarities which was probably due to convergent evolution. But on average ANA's were taller and more robust than the Eurasian HG's.

The point is ANA wasn't anywhere near divergent from the basal Eurasian as these idiots claimed prior to Shum-Laka paper.
We have data from Iberomaurusians, they indeed were judged to be related to Euro HG's based on craniometry etc. They were robust, among the most robust populations.
Iberomaurusians were not pure ANA, rather half half. 54 % ANA.
And that "38% SSA" related from earlier Taforalt paper is nothing other than their anceint ANA connection with the proto-Bantu's etc.. Already here in discrepancy between the two papers, you see part of earlier "Eurasian" in Taforalt is actually ANA, because formerly 62 % Eurasian is now 46 % Eurasian.

And ofc E-M35 ANA which separated from the proto-Bantu ANA over 40 k years ago had its own evolutionary path for a long time without taking archaic admixture in Bantus in consideration.

Mota who was E1b1a, sister clade to Bantu's E-M2, was 71 % ANA, 29 % archaic, yet Bantus like Yoruba are still light years away from Mota.


Isn't E more likely associated with ANA?


I've never heard of C being basal Eurasian. Aren't most clades of C associated with West Eurasians (C1a) or East Eurasians (C2) or ambiguous (C1b being found in Kosenteki and also common in South Asia(AASI?)).


Couldn't G and/or H be basal eurasian too?

E is ANA for sure. The point is: for many many years it was claimed this 20000 year gap between the TMRCA of CT and F was the factor which caused the huge Bantu divergence on PCA plots.. It wasn't..

That never made sense as C separated from F just after CF separated from DE.. Obviously we know C was Eurasian..
 
Maleth buddy long time no catch, I was quite off for some time but I see that your post with EV13 has been progressing

My interest jumped on R1b, well since i tested out to be R1b Z2705 on 2016 lol, I do also believe that EV13 crossed directly from far north Africa very very long time ago, since from history read that pre ancient greek time there were people living on those surraoundings called Pelazgian, at that time since 2014 were I was still a rookie, and I still am https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...their-DNA-be-E-V13/page20?p=610287#post610287 and from this old post, tried to maybe these so called Pelazgic people mostly caried EV13.

This E-V13 = Pre-Greeks garbage was postulated 15 years ago, when it was thought E-V13 was the main carrier of Neolithic revolution which it wasn't. Going by current data most Greek V13's are LBA/EIA arrivals so they can't be pre-Greek.

The reason many believed in it and still believe was because openly or subconsciously for them "E-V13 are all SSA's so we'll find some slave-like role for them". Well no E is ultimately SSA, so I'm glad we sorted that one out..

Also E-V13 spread with Cardial EEF's.


I still believe in it, of course since there are only few anciant samples we can suppose and speculate I guess, I think we also find quite high EV13 on VINCA culture,

E-V13 has nothing to do with Vinca culture. Vinca had no links to Cardial. Only later some Vinca people migrated to Cardial areas (such as Dalmatia). Vincans were all G2a, as demonstrated by aDNA.
 
Cetina thing looks interesting: https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/mak/mam/content/poster_schaff_abm_cetina.pdf

Studies and overviews beginning in the 1980s have shown that the distribution of pottery characterised by Cetina features takes in several Mediterranean regions, from the western Balkans (Adriatic Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Albania) to the Peloponnese, peninsular Italy, eastern Sicily, Malta and the Ae-olian Islands during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC (Della Casa 1995; Maran 1998, 2007; Cazzella 1999; KaIser, ForenBhaer 1999; raMBaCh 2004, 2007). It is now widely recognised that the spread of these pottery types across the central Mediterranean is evidence of intertwined interconnections, possibly reflecting the movement of small groups of seafarers

https://www.researchgate.net/public...lennium_BC_new_data_and_research_perspectives

But, i think the origin was still more North and slightly more West than Cetina. I cannot explain those older E-V13 clades around Germany/Poland.
 
Cetina thing looks interesting: https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/mak/mam/content/poster_schaff_abm_cetina.pdf


But, i think the origin was still more North and slightly more West than Cetina. I cannot explain those older E-V13 clades around Germany/Poland.

I would have thought that too had I not seen evidence that Glina III culture significantly influenced Cetina (this is usually in newer material), because Cetina in itself cannot possibly explain the V13, it is too small/confined. When Raf wrote about the spread of some V13 clades towards the Central Balkans, such as Bubanj Hum III, even Maliq you mentioned, newer results actually show all of these to be the Glina III culture, similar to Cetina (because it is part Glina) but stemming from Glina III. There are NW clades but for example, there are also some Z2103 clades very diverse in those areas as well. Including those below CTS1450 where most of Balkan Z2103's are. So just as these moved bit Westwards so could have some V13's..

There are skeletal remains of Cetina, so eventually there should be Y-DNA results. Apparently they were very robust, far more than EEF's so clearly some Steppe admixture there.

E-Y37092 looks like Cetina proper, it has all necessary elements, Western Balkan clades separated 4200 years ago, a Greek clade (there was Cetina "invasion" of Greece, and there is another Greek from Peloponnese unrelated to this one), South Italian (there were Cetina outposts there), and all of these are over 4000 years away from each other within Cetina timeframe. Also rather weak in Eastern/Central Balkans. The exception is Macedonian E-BY14150 (there are few BY14150's around Carpathians distant from him). So for Cetina proper it has necessary elements. But vast majority of V13 clearly is not Cetina proper related... But it can be very important because there is clear evidence Cardial EEF element played part in its creation. And I'm not sure such thing can be found for any other Balkan (even broader) BA culture (there is ofc plenty of evidence of a completely new layer - that is Steppe invaders killing the EEF's).
 
Would be interesting to find out, whatever the results are. If the Cetina spread is related to Bronze Age E-V13 boom would be quiet interesting. I am also interested on E-L618 origin (though i do believe it was always a minority among EEF's), also of particular interest to me is the origin of our subclade FGC33621/FGC33625.
 
This E-V13 = Pre-Greeks garbage was postulated 15 years ago, when it was thought E-V13 was the main carrier of Neolithic revolution which it wasn't. Going by current data most Greek V13's are LBA/EIA arrivals so they can't be pre-Greek.
The reason many believed in it and still believe was because openly or subconsciously for them "E-V13 are all SSA's so we'll find some slave-like role for them". Well no E is ultimately SSA, so I'm glad we sorted that one out..

Also E-V13 spread with Cardial EEF's.

Well you might have not read all of my post, I never said E-V13 was the main carrier of the neolithic revolution, was talking about a later time or in smaller numbers, so in one word they came from far north Africa through Iberia Itali Greece, in around 6000 BC, gathered more in around Vinca, of course not as majority but with other G2, H2, then after 5000 BC it spread more in south Balkans, so this is pre ancient Greece as we know it started from 3000 BC, so by that time the so called Pelasgic people could have carried around 40% of this area of south east Balkans including central north Balkans, thats why maybe this region still have the highest % of E-V13, of course this is all supposition, and we need more ancient samples in this region.

Fregel et al. 2018 estimated that examined individuals at the Late Neolithic site of Kelif el Boroud, Morocco, dated c. 3000 BC, carried about 50% EEF ancestry and 50% North African ancestry, were genetically predisposed to have light skin and light eyes, and entirely carried paternal and maternal lineages associated with EEFs.[20] It was suggested that EEF ancestry had entered North Africa through Cardial Ware colonists from Iberia sometime between 5000-3000 BC.[21]

So you think that EEF went north Africa 5000 BC and then brought couple of slaves into Cardial Ware? anything can happen, but it would be very unlikely as at that time populations were not huge, maybe just groups of people, also slave no slave wording on this I think is not relevant, it is like saying all R1b in Europe were brought as slaves to Europe from G2? lol. also if they have been brought as slaves then how come G2 today is gone and we have so much E-V13 in Europe, or wait, slaves might have eate all their owners lol.

So I think my suposition might have some relevance, that Pelasgic people might have migrated from Vinca to more south eastern Balkans around 5000 BC, before ancient Greece, at this time yes we might have had some G2 and H2, maybe very very few R1b and J2, then maybe with Ancient Greece there was a flood of migration, and maybe some more soffisticated individuals like R1b who came from Yamnaya, I really dont see at 5000 BC as a majority in this area with R1b or J2, I think majority was G2, H2 and E-V13, only with the flood of Ancient Greece at 3000 BC we see a lot of R1b and maybe some J2.
"Pelasgian" has come to mean more broadly all the indigenous inhabitants of the Aegean Sea region and their cultures, "a hold-all term for any ancient, primitive and presumably indigenous people in the Greek world".[3] Populations identified as "Pelasgian" spoke a language or languages that at the time Greeks identified as "barbaric", though some ancient writers nonetheless described the Pelasgians as Greeks. A tradition also survived that large parts of Greece had once been Pelasgian before being Hellenized.

[/QUOTE] E-V13 has nothing to do with Vinca culture. Vinca had no links to Cardial. Only later some Vinca people migrated to Cardial areas (such as Dalmatia). Vincans were all G2a, as demonstrated by aDNA.[/QUOTE]

In a 2017 genetic study published in Nature, the remains of six individuals ascribed to the Vinča culture was analyzed. Of the three samples of Y-DNA extracted, one belonged to G2a2b2a1a, one belonged to G2a2a, and one belonged to H2.

You can never conclude or generalize that all Vincas were G2a from only 2 samples found, also Vinca seemed quite huge, how can they be only G2 were now it is almost vanished. You also have a post of Maciamo i think where he manetioned that E-V13 might have been pretty high in numbers in Vinca.
 
Well you might have not read all of my post, I never said E-V13 was the main carrier of the neolithic revolution, was talking about a later time or in smaller numbers, so in one word they came from far north Africa through Iberia Itali Greece, in around 6000 BC, gathered more in around Vinca,

I read it, E-L618 was a Cardial lineage it arrived from the Levant most likely, from PPNB, there is no evidence it arrived from North Africa directly.

E-V13 is a Bronze age haplogroup, it is irrelevant where it was in Vinca times. E-L618 was found multiple times in Cardial context, or exclusively to be exact, even those Northern finds were from the cultures with Cardial connections. If you knew anything about the archaeology you would have known that Vinca was part of the same EEF complex as various other EEF cultures. I and some other people knew in advance they will not show E-V13 and ofc they didn't.


So you think that EEF went north Africa 5000 BC and then brought couple of slaves into Cardial Ware?


No, there is no evidence for that, plus E-L618 was in Dalmatia before 5000 BC. That expansion did bring some EEF ancestry to Berbers that they still show today.


G2 today is gone and we have so much E-V13 in Europe, or wait, slaves might have eate all their owners lol.

E-V13 has nothing to do with G2a. G2a receded at the same time E-V13 exploded. There is so much R1a in India.. So R1a must originate in India too..


You can never conclude or generalize that all Vincas were G2a from only 2 samples found,


Some cognitive issues? You quote citation where it says there are three tested and you mention two tested. By the same "logic" we require thousands of samples from a single site. You you the same logic as Serbian autochtonists who claim that Iron Gates require sample of thousands of tested to be sure I2a Din is not there.. For the start there aren't that many skeletons..


also Vinca seemed quite huge, how can they be only G2 were now it is almost vanished.


You clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about. E-V13 expansion happened in Early Bronze Age. Vinca culture ended in 4200 BC.. That's a 1300 year gap. How dumb you have to be not to comprehend that??


You also have a post of Maciamo i think where he manetioned that E-V13 might have been pretty high in numbers in Vinca.

Does not E-V13 article here explain E-V13 boom is most likely due to elite dominance?

Instead you choose to take this old path of "E-V13 SSA slaves", well I explained it to you it's no SSA and it's no slaves either. E-V13 used tumulii burial from early on, and it doesn't matter what was the exact cultural affinity.

You clearly don't understand the concept of mutation age, diversity. By your "logic" R1a originated in India. So either educate yourself, or you're clearly smarter when you don't talk...

Get off your high horse "I'm R1b look at me I'm so special lol", so you seem to have problem with V13 being part of some "dominator" group. Well, continue having this problem..


So I think my suposition might have some relevance, that Pelasgic people might have migrated from Vinca to more south eastern Balkans around 5000 BC, before ancient Greece, at this time yes we might have had some G2 and H2, maybe very very few R1b and J2, then maybe with Ancient Greece there was a flood of migration, and maybe some more soffisticated individuals like R1b who came from Yamnaya


How were R1b's more sophisticated in any way compared to EEF's??


Their culture is considered by the archaeologists to have been at the lower level than the Neolithic Europe..

As explained above you clearly suffer from some "my hg is so special condition", I mean hg's have their paths etc. but these guys who only name SNP's that are 6000, 10000, 20 k years old have some weird ideas, probably because they have no recent history of their own. Like that dude Rethel, when you're a son of a turf who is son of a turf, you have to go 5000 years back. :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 

This thread has been viewed 236145 times.

Back
Top