J2b2-L283 (proto-illyrian)

[mount123]

Although i don't exclude the possibility of E-V13 and some other Y-DNA being found among South Illyrians, we are talking here about core lineage, and material culture and archaeologists say that they were the same people from Slovenia down to South Albania. So i wouldn't be surprised if J2b2-L283 is still core/main lineage in South Illyria albeit with more frequently other lineages present as well, in North/Dalmatia and surroundings they would have been more conservative and patriarchal as was noted for Dalmatians.

E-V13 was found among material cultures clearly classified as being descended from Eastern Hallstatt/Urnfield like Psenichevo-Babadag a subset of so called Channeled-Ware complex(Proto-Thracians confirmed so far), so we cannot jump from material culture to another. There must be connecting dots. A Late Bronze Age influence of so called Kanellure/Channeled-Ware was noted in Albania, so potentially we should expect some E-V13, but the final say has the aDNA.

Exactly. But I have the feeling that even after the 500th sample they will still hold on to the same non sense narrative as they have been doing in the past time.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

Those are mainly Iapodes and other IA Illyrians which is attested by both archeology and genetics. I said North Italian like not literally North Italian. Why are you coming with this modern distribution non sense again. You obviously never ever read a science paper or anything about archaeogenetics. If you choose to refuse scientific data than that is not my problem.

The thread's topic is J2b-L283 if you don't like that go somewhere else.

How can illyrians be north italian like when north italians have near non existant supposedly exclusively illyrian ydna j2b l283. Make your mind up, either illyrians carried other lines which you find in north italians today or autosomnally illyrians should match closest to albanians who have by far the highest frequency of j2b l283 today

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

All of his posts are basically the same, in case you haven’t noticed.
“We should be careful about calling the L283 Z38240 kid from Veliki Vanik an Illyrian because this sample is too old.” Even though the thread mentions proto Illyrians. Fair enough, let’s wait for more samples.
”We really need Messapian samples from Italy, that will settle this.” Daunian paper is released with several L283 guys who are Daunian. Panic sets in. Need another excuse.
“We really need samples from Iron Age west Balkans, that’ll really seal the deal.” Patterson paper hits with tons of Iron Age L283 from western Balkans. That’s when full blown insanity took the wheel. “That’s too far west/too far north.”
It’ll never stop. And this would be one of the things that can be difficult about DNA testing, especially with ancient DNA. Sometimes people are taught something through the generations that turns out not to be the case. Happens all the time. This causes something called expectation bias. As a result, it can sometimes be difficult to come to terms with hard data, even if it’s staring one right in the face. Some people can see things for what they are, others will continue to deny reality no matter what.

It will obviously stop once we get some more ancient dna from the period illyrians were actually called illyrians 500bc onwards. Proto illyrian is speculative as things can change quickly, we cant give a group of people a proto line when we havent yet confirmed what lines they actually carried when they were given the name

 

[mount123]

How can illyrians be north italian like when north italians have near non existant supposedly exclusively illyrian ydna j2b l283. Make your mind up, either illyrians carried other lines which you find in north italians today or autosomnally illyrians should match closest to albanians who have by far the highest frequency of j2b l283 today

North Italian "like" does not mean actually North Italian. We are talking about modeling of autosomal DNA.

Why are you still here? This thread is not for you.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

North Italian "like" does not mean actually North Italian. We are talking about modeling of autosomal DNA.
Why are you still here? This thread is not for you.

North italian like means nothing. If north italy has less than 5% illyrian y dna then they naturally have very little in common with illyrians. Being northern shifted doesnt make someone illyrian, north italians are more northern shifted due to the germanic input centuries later

 

[Papayaseeds]

North italian like means nothing. If north italy has less than 5% illyrian y dna then they naturally have very little in common with illyrians. Being northern shifted doesnt make someone illyrian, north italians are more northern shifted due to the germanic input centuries later

Of course it means, geneticaly pre roman north italians were very similar if not identical to pre roman western balkans. All the migratory movements that hapened later afected those regions but north italy shows greater genetic continuity till present days so they are not too dissimilar genticaly from ancient Illirian, they even have similar levels of farmer(~60%),stepe(~30%) and hunter gatherer(10%) input.
Y dna is the one that doesnt mean much, look at me i am overwelmingly Iberian with 0 known balkan origin, still i am J2b-L283 somehow , am I Illirian or allbanian for that? Of course not , i have much less to do with Illirians then y dna R1b Venetians for example.

 

[torzio]

Those are mainly Iapodes and other IA Illyrians which is attested by both archeology and genetics. I said North Italian like not literally North Italian. Why are you coming with this modern distribution non sense again. You obviously never ever read a science paper or anything about archaeogenetics. If you choose to refuse scientific data than that is not my problem.

The thread's topic is J2b-L283 if you don't like that go somewhere else.

There is no North East Italian marker for admixture tests that I recall ...............let me know if there is

There are the 2 x North italians markers .............one of which represent North-West Italy and the other represents Bergamo ( which is northern lombardy near Tyrol lands )

 

[torzio]

North italian like means nothing. If north italy has less than 5% illyrian y dna then they naturally have very little in common with illyrians. Being northern shifted doesnt make someone illyrian, north italians are more northern shifted due to the germanic input centuries later

it is already settled, discussed and proven, that Illyrians originate in the Northern Balkans ..........whats your issue ?

 

[Riverman]

The main point about "North Italian like" is that the Northern Illyrians got a lot of Bell Beaker-like influence and this can be explained by thier integration into the Tumulus culture networks and later Middle Danubian Urnfield groups. Basically it looks like they were integrated into the TC networks after the conquest, because at first, with the Tumulus culture invasion/Koszider horizon, we have a steep fall of J-L283, but then, after things calmed down, a strong uptick, especially in early Urnfield, together with R-L2. So whatever happened in between, the J-L283 carriers fused with incoming TC people and kept the upper in some regions, notably those which being later considered Pannonian/Illyrian.

Pannonia-Slovenia was kind of the transitional zone, the other side being the Inner Alpine/Upper Danubian regions (Austria-Bavaria, Czechia) and North Italian region. Illyrians-Pannonians connected these core TC/Urnfield areas with the Balkan-Carpathian region, where yet another group with TC/UF influences ruled, Channelled Ware/G?va, apparently dominated by E-V13.
And we see it for both J-L283 and E-V13 in the branching events: They both have specific timings for the main expansive timings.

 

[torzio]

The main point about "North Italian like" is that the Northern Illyrians got a lot of Bell Beaker-like influence and this can be explained by thier integration into the Tumulus culture networks and later Middle Danubian Urnfield groups. Basically it looks like they were integrated into the TC networks after the conquest, because at first, with the Tumulus culture invasion/Koszider horizon, we have a steep fall of J-L283, but then, after things calmed down, a strong uptick, especially in early Urnfield, together with R-L2. So whatever happened in between, the J-L283 carriers fused with incoming TC people and kept the upper in some regions, notably those which being later considered Pannonian/Illyrian.

Pannonia-Slovenia was kind of the transitional zone, the other side being the Inner Alpine/Upper Danubian regions (Austria-Bavaria, Czechia) and North Italian region. Illyrians-Pannonians connected these core TC/Urnfield areas with the Balkan-Carpathian region, where yet another group with TC/UF influences ruled, Channelled Ware/G�va, apparently dominated by E-V13.
And we see it for both J-L283 and E-V13 in the branching events: They both have specific timings for the main expansive timings.

The only easy path into Italy was through the julian alps .......

even the Umbri went into italy pre 2200BC through this avenue

my line, and my wife's line has always had this Austria, Bavaria, Czechia admixture markers ...............but we have zero slavic markers

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

Of course it means, geneticaly pre roman north italians were very similar if not identical to pre roman western balkans. All the migratory movements that hapened later afected those regions but north italy shows greater genetic continuity till present days so they are not too dissimilar genticaly from ancient Illirian, they even have similar levels of farmer(~60%),stepe(~30%) and hunter gatherer(10%) input.
Y dna is the one that doesnt mean much, look at me i am overwelmingly Iberian with 0 known balkan origin, still i am J2b-L283 somehow , am I Illirian or allbanian for that? Of course not , i have much less to do with Illirians then y dna R1b Venetians for example.

For me y dna is everything, if you carry a y dna line that illyrians carried then you are an illyrian descendent no matter where you live now. Only problem is illyrian is not a country or an ethnicity that is used now

A lot of people in europe have 60% farmer, 30% steppe and 10% hunter gatherer but do not carry an illyrian y dna line - it is just coincidental. Also the j2b l283 that have been found so far were mixed with italo celts which would skew some of the autosomnal results

 

[Riverman]

For me y dna is everything, if you carry a y dna line that illyrians carried then you are an illyrian descendent no matter where you live now. Only problem is illyrian is not a country or an ethnicity that is used now
A lot of people in europe have 60% farmer, 30% steppe and 10% hunter gatherer but do not carry an illyrian y dna line - it is just coincidental. Also the j2b l283 that have been found so far were mixed with italo celts which would skew some of the autosomnal results

I think you can use that argument only for specific subclades. Because what about a haplogroup like E-V13 (same goes for others) which was at one pont Impresso-Cardial (non-IE), then Lengyel (non-IE), then became IE (Satem), later Proto-Thracian (Channelled Ware/Psenichevo-Basarabi), later came to Illyrian, Celtic and Greek also. Which point in time is decisive for the label? By 1.300 BC it surely was completely Indo-European, 3.000 BC it was most likely non-IE. Before 1.300 it was most likely non-Illyrian, after 1.300 BC it might appear in Illyrians.

Rather its always about subclades which can be associated with a specific ethnicity. Like today, there are downstream E-V13 branches which are clearly French, German, North Italian, South Italian, Greek etc. At a different time, the ancestors of this downstream branches might have been exclusively Thracian and Illyrian.

So the label changes over time, and for every time specific subclades being significant. Like a specific subclade was Thracian at 1.300 BC, but one of its subbranches became Celtic 300 BC, of which another branch turned Germanic 50 AD and the next subbranch became French 500 AD. I think its reasonable to call the branch for a specific timing and ethnicity, if at all.
The same applies to any haplogroup. Like an "African" haplogroup A too might have European branches which are several thousands of years old, or at least many centuries. The branching events are the main ethnic label, not the bigger haplogroup.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

I think you can use that argument only for specific subclades. Because what about a haplogroup like E-V13 (same goes for others) which was at one pont Impresso-Cardial (non-IE), then Lengyel (non-IE), then became IE (Satem), later Proto-Thracian (Channelled Ware/Psenichevo-Basarabi), later came to Illyrian, Celtic and Greek also. Which point in time is decisive for the label? By 1.300 BC it surely was completely Indo-European, 3.000 BC it was most likely non-IE. Before 1.300 it was most likely non-Illyrian, after 1.300 BC it might appear in Illyrians.
Rather its always about subclades which can be associated with a specific ethnicity. Like today, there are downstream E-V13 branches which are clearly French, German, North Italian, South Italian, Greek etc. At a different time, the ancestors of this downstream branches might have been exclusively Thracian and Illyrian.
So the label changes over time, and for every time specific subclades being significant. Like a specific subclade was Thracian at 1.300 BC, but one of its subbranches became Celtic 300 BC, of which another branch turned Germanic 50 AD and the next subbranch became French 500 AD. I think its reasonable to call the branch for a specific timing and ethnicity, if at all.
The same applies to any haplogroup. Like an "African" haplogroup A too might have European branches which are several thousands of years old, or at least many centuries. The branching events are the main ethnic label, not the bigger haplogroup.

It depends on what period of time you are interested in or obsessed with. If you like the iron age and carry an exact y dna line that illyrians or thracians or ancient greeks carried then you can say that you are a descendent of one of these ancient people

 

[Riverman]

It depends on what period of time you are interested in or obsessed with. If you like the iron age and carry an exact y dna line that illyrians or thracians or ancient greeks carried then you can say that you are a descendent of one of these ancient people

Absolutely. The reference framework matter, like always.

 

[Trojet]

In J-Y21045>PH4679 news:

A new Big Y-700 result at J-M241 project from a sample with Italian paternal ancestry came out as J-PH4679* (no specific location within Italy is currently known).

This branch contains a significant portion of Albanian J2b-L283, where ~85% of Albanian J-PH4679 falls under the younger J-PH1751 subclade. The TMRCA with the Albanian samples is estimated at ~3300 ybp (it should rise from ~3100 ybp if this sample is uploaded to YFull). This relationship may be explained as a result of Messapian/Iapygian migrations across the Adriatic which are thought to have occurred ~1000 BCE. We also have haplogroup J2b-L283 confirmed among the ancient Daunian samples, however no deeper classification is possible due to low coverage. Other scenarios, such as a later migration with Arbëreshë people is also possible, though I think less likely considering we currently have an isolated ~3300 ybp lineage. In any case, this result increases "Adriatic" diversity for this branch.

 

[Papayaseeds]

They released a new paper with a J2b2 in iron age Xinjiang, i can´t post the link cause eupedia won´t let me, but if i understood correctly the sample is downstream of J2b2-Z2432 >> J2b2-Y958. What do you think ?The paper is at science website and its paid,sadly.
Title of the paper :" Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history"

 

[Archetype0ne]

They released a new paper with a J2b2 in iron age Xinjiang, i can´t post the link cause eupedia won´t let me, but if i understood correctly the sample is downstream of J2b2-Z2432 >> J2b2-Y958. What do you think ?The paper is at science website and its paid,sadly.

Thanks for sharing Papaya.


Edit: Seems its not L283, my bad. Mistook it for another downstream branch.

 

[Papayaseeds]

Thanks for sharing Papaya.


Edit: Seems its not L283, my bad. Mistook it for another downstream branch.

Yes I think its not , when i saw it on facebook it was writen as "J2b2a2b1a" i thought that L283 meant J2b2a but aparently it equals "J2b2a1" , kinda hard to understand the double nomenclature.

 

[Trojet]

They released a new paper with a J2b2 in iron age Xinjiang, i can´t post the link cause eupedia won´t let me, but if i understood correctly the sample is downstream of J2b2-Z2432 >> J2b2-Y958. What do you think ?The paper is at science website and its paid,sadly.
Title of the paper :" Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history"

Nothing really surprising there. This sample is in the "South Asian" branch, J2b-Z2432, so not under J2b-L283. Also, the currently oldest J2b-Z2432 sample comes from Bustan, Uzbekistan (sample I4157; 1600-1300 BC; BMAC).

 

[Trojet]

Yes I think its not , when i saw it on facebook it was writen as "J2b2a2b1a" i thought that L283 meant J2b2a but aparently it equals "J2b2a1" , kinda hard to understand the double nomenclature.

Yeah, and that's why I think people should stop using these nomenclatures ("J2b, J2b2, J2b2a", etc) as I can see it causing confusion, but rather specify the branch defining SNP (i.e. J2b-L283, J2b-Z2432, J2b-Z2453, J2b-M205). The nomenclatures can also change over time as new branches are discovered..