Main Y-haplogroups on the territory of Dacia 2000-3000 years ago.

Main Y-haplogroups on the territory of Dacia 2000-3000 years ago?

  • C

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • E

    Votes: 22 42.3%
  • G2

    Votes: 17 32.7%
  • H2

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • I1

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • I2

    Votes: 28 53.8%
  • J2

    Votes: 14 26.9%
  • Q

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • R1a

    Votes: 14 26.9%
  • R1b

    Votes: 29 55.8%
  • T

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • Other. Specify what you think.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Similar to the current proportion in the area.

    Votes: 2 3.8%

  • Total voters
    52
Again what? These studies are available. You can check them out. About your theme, that is very hard to say, as most of the info are low-res studies but you can go from a clade to a clade, if some of these have non-modal values they can be estimated more easily. As I said these J-L84 weren't likely there and J-L264 were. These 9 tested Basarab J-L283>Z631 were most definitely not there 2000 years ago because they match with Albanians, Greeks (of certain Vlach origin) but 5 tested Z631 looking haplotypes from Brasov and Dolj might have been there, hard to say without hi-res tests done.

In my opinion, you fail to consider that the Latinised population of the Balkans was spread all over the territory from North of Greece to the Carpathians. Certainly, that region wasn't densely populated, but they were around there. Then they got assimilated by the Slavs gradually in the South and likewise managed to assimilate the Slavs North of the Danube.
Naturally, you would expect some of those from the South to be attracted by the notion of a Vlach state and migrate into the territory. Heck, it even happens to this day. Ever heard of Gheorghe Hagi and Simona Halep? Those guys descend from recent Aromanian migrants in Romania.

And obviously, just to top it all off, I think I'm the only one who actually presented real archaeological data. I'm still waiting to be illuminated on the so-called colossal migration of Vlachs in the medieval period who somehow managed to take over all of these aforementioned cultures on the territories of Wallachia and Moldavia and subjugate them without much effort (certainly such a sudden movement of people would have made for some interesting writings in the chronicles of our neighbours, wouldn't they?). If you are eager on autosomal data from Romania, as I am too, consider that we don't have anything later than the Chalcolithic. And those Scythians from Moldova certainly look like they took a fair share of local Farmer components, as opposed to those further East. What did you expect to demonstrate with this lack of data then? I wouldn't jump the gun so early.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/v...8&ll=45.47372834118088,25.607709382506982&z=6

So, let's all be civilised. The archaeological data is in favour of the continuation, while the autosomal aspect from ancients was simply not studied past the Chalcolithic yet. Modern Romanians are an almost 50/50 split between Balkan and Eastern European paternal markers and around 60/40 autosomally, when modelled as a combination of Balkans Iron Age and Baltic Iron Age.

Just to liven up the mood a bit here. Here's the fit of the only medieval Hungarian sample from current Eastern Hungary that we have (1224-1264AD):

HqLsagT.png


Definitely a poor Vlach from the bottom of Thessaloniki who somehow managed to infiltrate the pure Carpathian space. Honestly you guys should rely less on theories from a period where everyone was pushing for claims on his neighbours' lands and focus on what we have now. And keep an open mind to everything, unless there is data to prove your point. I just don't understand how people can make claims of what is typical and atypical of the Carpathian space when we literally don't have a thing from here past the Chalcolithic (Y-DNA nor aDNA). And the Chalcolithic thing is almost purely farmer, as opposed to heavily filled with EHG as in Ukraine for example. So naturally, you would expect the descendant population to be heavier farmers than steppe pastoralists, unless some kind of Armageddon happened.

And just for the heck of it, while I have the calculator up and running, here is a fit with the data that we have from Romania (Balkans_CHL:I4089 and Romania HG) plus a sample from the same time period in Southern Balkans (Klei10) and the later Yamnaya from Ukraine, who obviously touched all of the Balkans.

YIlT8Z1.png


What a beautifully tight distance, considering the age of the samples. Stop for a second and think. Are Hungarians somehow composed of anything else apart from WHG, Farmer and Steppe components (EHG+CHG) like the majority of Europeans? Certainly not; then why the larger distance? Because they received some of these components via different populations, not fully present on the ancient territory of Romania.
But hey, this must be a coincidence and certainly a product of Romanian revisionism. "God, I hate Romanians even more now", said everyone who supports the migration theory.
 
Last edited:
Basarabi culture is the local denomination of the Hallstadt culture of the early Dacians? Are there any human remains of the iron age, genetically analyzed from the Basarabi culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarabi_culture ?
p.s.
There are still geographical names that remind us of ancient peoples, such as Hallstatt-Dachstein (Austria) or Galati (Romania). Is like... these are related to the Dacians or Celts - Gauls?

No there are no Basarabi proper aDNA results. But Basarabi seems certain to have been heavy with E-V13>CTS9320, which is a very widespread V13 clade whose TMRCA corresponds with Basarabi culture.
Already one CTS9320* clade occurs in Montana Bulgaria and in Calarasi Romania, not sure where is their "homeland" whatever they correspond well with it.
Another CTS9320* clade in North Bulgaria, Dolj and Piatra Neamt, looks Basarabi regardless of its base.
Also a distant haplotype of Z16988 in Moldavia, in addition to Z16988>A11837 having a more Triballian-like basis. Some other Z16988 look to have been shifted more to the West and part of some Hallstat population.
BY4526 is not well read it seems by FTDNA or YFull, but this SNP actually shows another Basarabi-like link between BY4526>BY4524 in Northwestern Bulgaria and BY4526>S10743 common among Ruthenians (YF15857) who seem certainly descended of some Northern-Dacian tribe, this Montana-Carpathian link seems to date to 800 BC or so.
Basal Z17107 clades all occur way north of Danube, however I'm not convinced they were Dacian. Because my clade certainly came from the North of Danube with Cumans or even some other similar people (there is some evidence for Berendei too), the other clade has also Cuman surname, and two other clades are found in Russians and Ukrainians have likely links with Central Asia and Caucasus. In fact what my ancestors claimed descend from does lead straight to Gelonians, and that is not likely to be accidental in itself. Basarabi culture had also Cimmerian influence and this clade seems to have been one strongly Cimmerianized because these Geloni per archaeological evidence from Belsk were Cimmerian-like population with various Thracian or Thraco-Illyrian influences not "formerly Greeks" per one Heredootus account. In any case the only things I personally can possibly descend from are some Dacians assimilated by Bolgars or Bolgars of distant Gelonian descent.

And this possible Illyrian link might be in form of Z631 which has further home in the Western Balkans but it seems it is the most common Romanian J-L283 clade regardless of Basarabi Z631 cluster arriving from the South in 11-13th centuries, some other Z631 might be this Glasinac people who came there. Because Glasinac people 100 % had J-L283 in their ranks.
 
Most likely R1b-Z2103 among the royals and warriors initially, but dominated by E-V13, J2a, J2b and traces of G2a among the pre-Dacian locals. Eventually, as time went by the locals became Dacians, so all of these haplogroups began to be typical for Dacia.


Well there are some Dacian looking Z2103 clades. R-Y14300 considering its distant cousin R-Y5586 seems proto-Thracian, but it has some presence to suggest possible link with Sarmatians as well. Also some interesting R-PF7580 Puţureni Romanian and his cousins in Cluj, Dolj from studies. On the other hand R1b BY611>Z2705 from Dolj and Wallachia seem certanly migrants from the south.


E-V13 and J-L283 are not really pre-Dacian locals. These hg's spread with IE poulations. Now that there are basal E-V13>CTS1273* clades unique to Ossetians and Kurds, that is they show no connection to others..


I'm used to from Serbian forums etc. to see various "I2 Din guys" dissing E-V13 and J-L283's as ME's (also inspired by frequencies of these among Albanians) and see themselves as real Paleo-Euro "pure whites" etc..


Not sure who were "elites", but both of these hg's were burying themselves in Tumuli since 2000+ BC, and V13's were also practicing lot of cremation.


In fact when one looks at expansive power of various clades of Z2103 or V13 at the time of early Iron Age cultures like Basarabi one sees some V13 clades like CTS9320 and L241 clades that are present in Dacia who both have TMRCA of 2900 years. I wouldn't associate J2b-L283 too much with Dacians, except in the form of these Glasinac people who also were subsequently Dacians, and some of these Z631 might be a trace of that. V13 clades on the other hand seem to have been very instrumental in ethnogenesis of Thracians and Daco-Moesians.


G2a is showing some interesting diversity in Romania and Moldavia, which is logical considering Cucuteni culture.

Also maybe some R1a Z280 clade is Dacian, but one has to be careful there very much, because most are Slavic ofc.


In my opinion, you fail to consider that the Latinised population of the Balkans was spread all over the territory from North of Greece to the Carpathians. Certainly, that region wasn't densely populated, but they were around there. Then they got assimilated by the Slavs gradually in the South and likewise managed to assimilate the Slavs North of the Danube.
Naturally, you would expect some of those from the South to be attracted by the notion of a Vlach state and migrate into the territory. Heck, it even happens to this day. Ever heard of Gheorghe Hagi and Simona Halep? Those guys descend from recent Aromanian migrants in Romania.


And obviously, just to top it all off, I think I'm the only one who actually presented real archaeological data. I'm still waiting to be illuminated on the so-called colossal migration of Vlachs in the medieval period who somehow managed to take over all of these aforementioned cultures on the territories of Wallachia and Moldavia and subjugate them without much effort (certainly such a sudden movement of people would have made for some interesting writings in the chronicles of our neighbours, wouldn't they?). If you are eager on autosomal data from Romania, as I am too, consider that we don't have anything later than the Chalcolithic. And those Scythians from Moldova certainly look like they took a fair share of local Farmer components, as opposed to those further East. What did you expect to demonstrate with this lack of data then? I wouldn't jump the gun so early.


https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/v...8&ll=45.47372834118088,25.607709382506982&z=6


So, let's all be civilised. The archaeological data is in favour of the continuation, while the autosomal aspect from ancients was simply not studied past the Chalcolithic yet. Modern Romanians are an almost 50/50 split between Balkan and Eastern European paternal markers and around 60/40 autosomally, when modelled as a combination of Balkans Iron Age and Baltic Iron Age.


Well Romanian historians defend Daco-Romanian continuity, Hungarian historians the opposite naturally. However does it sound feasible that all of these Dacians embraced Latin and during the short time of Roman occupation? Romans occupied part of Dacia for 168 years.. Of course there are descendants of Dacians among Romanians but did Romanian language originate in Dacia? More likely is Moesia. This would also explain some similarities with Albanian. Though I know some Romanians explained those via Albanians being Dacian (Carpi etc.).


Well about this migration, we have now genetics so we can see which hg's might have migrated North or not. At 800-900 you're looking at close matches for such links so even low-res studies might be of help. Initially it didn't look to me that this was very widespread but I see various haplotypes here and there. Are they enough to make up a "critical mass" of "latinisers of Dacia"? Possibly.

There was a study about Aromanians, generally they don't seem to share lot of genetic links with Romanians looking at haplotypes, there are some links, but more of the links are with Bulgaria. However it seems Romanians have more genetic ties with Bulgaria so I guess modern-day Bulgaria might be instrumental. Because all those Bulgarians who are not of Slavic, Bulgar etc. origins would have also been pred. Vlachs.
The Second Bulgarian Empire was also called Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars because Vlachs were important in its formation.

Well I agree those Scythians of Glinoe, Moldova might be indicative of Geto-Dacian autosomal genetics, also among them were found R-Z2103, R-Z2106 and E-V13>CTS1273.
 
As much as I understand, I think that haplogroups, do not do a good idea of the real proportion of the genetic ancestors of a population, comparing with autosomal ADN. Anyway, it's an exciting exercise.
Human language, as well as written history, has sometimes the role of fooling each other.
 
However does it sound feasible that all of these Dacians embraced Latin and during the short time of Roman occupation? Romans occupied part of Dacia for 168 years.. Of course there are descendants of Dacians among Romanians but did Romanian language originate in Dacia? More likely is Moesia. This would also explain some similarities with Albanian. Though I know some Romanians explained those via Albanians being Dacian (Carpi etc.).

Well, screw me, I wasted 1 hour on a detailed answer, which didn't go through and restored only partially.
Thus, I'll provide a TL;DR and if interested just google it.

Up to 25% of the Dacian population was taken South prior to the Dacian wars, 1st by Aelius Catus (50k) and then by Aelianus (100k).
Dacia was extensively colonised by people from the Balkans and Pannonia, following the Dacian wars. The retreat in 271AD, according to modern non-Romanian and Hungarian researchers (A. Watson, L. Okamura), happened among the upper classes (administration, tradesmen, land owners). The rest stayed behind, but due to lack of elites downgraded to a rural life, as proved by the continuity of life in the former Roman settlements and further out in the region. They were uninterrupted for 100 years, prior to the first wave of barbarian migrations.
By the 4th century, the archaeological data points to the formation of the Santana de Mures-Chernyakov, which is accepted as the continuation of the Geto-Dacians. From there, look into the Ipotesti-Candesti and Dridu cultures.

Also, to get back to your question. The Romanian language didn't originate at the time that you are discussing (Roman retreat), but later only after the appearance and mixing with the Slavs. That's our Dridu culture, which was a shared region on both banks of the Danube.

Anyway, time will tell and there's no need to exhaust ourselves over this. Autosomally at least, the pendulum swings in Romania's favour. Y-DNA wise, there literally isn't anything to work with past the Chalcolithic.
 
Great thread and poll!
I voted I2,J2 and R1B, based on the results of a study about Aromanians from different countries, from South of Danube.
This study included some Y DNA tested also.
E was clearly present South of Danube, but we do not know if it was present as a main paternal lineage at the North Dacians.
This is what I hear, that Dacians were split in two large subgroups, South Dacians and North Dacians.
I voted for North Dacians, only.
 
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/v...8&ll=45.47372834118088,25.607709382506982&z=6

So, let's all be civilised. The archaeological data is in favour of the continuation, while the autosomal aspect from ancients was simply not studied past the Chalcolithic yet. Modern Romanians are an almost 50/50 split between Balkan and Eastern European paternal markers and around 60/40 autosomally, when modelled as a combination of Balkans Iron Age and Baltic Iron Age.

Just to liven up the mood a bit here. Here's the fit of the only medieval Hungarian sample from current Eastern Hungary that we have (1224-1264AD):

HqLsagT.png


Definitely a poor Vlach from the bottom of Thessaloniki who somehow managed to infiltrate the pure Carpathian space. Honestly you guys should rely less on theories from a period where everyone was pushing for claims on his neighbours' lands and focus on what we have now. And keep an open mind to everything, unless there is data to prove your point. I just don't understand how people can make claims of what is typical and atypical of the Carpathian space when we literally don't have a thing from here past the Chalcolithic (Y-DNA nor aDNA). And the Chalcolithic thing is almost purely farmer, as opposed to heavily filled with EHG as in Ukraine for example. So naturally, you would expect the descendant population to be heavier farmers than steppe pastoralists, unless some kind of Armageddon happened.

And just for the heck of it, while I have the calculator up and running, here is a fit with the data that we have from Romania (Balkans_CHL:I4089 and Romania HG) plus a sample from the same time period in Southern Balkans (Klei10) and the later Yamnaya from Ukraine, who obviously touched all of the Balkans.

YIlT8Z1.png

Thank you! Interesting!
I looked now at the map you posted, and found some more recent paternal DNA than 3000 BC, from the edge of the Dacian kingdom. Unfortunately, there is a lack of data from Dacia's center but are some data from the edge of the Dacian kingdom.

In the interest period 1000 - 1 BCE, I found just a few(8) data :
R1b x4 ................. 50%
R1 x1 ..................... 12,5%
N x1 ....................... 12,5%
G2a x1 .............. 12,5%
Q1a1 x1 ................... 12,5%

I think if we interpolate with the older or newer period data, from the same territories, we can get a better idea.

3000-2000 BCE
I2a x5 ............... 38,5%
G2a x2 .............. 15,4%
R1b x5 .............. 38,5%
H2 x1 ................ 7,7%

2000-1000 BC
(little important, being just one)
R1a1a .... 100%

(R1b, I2a and G2a are mostly subclade of R1b1a, I2a2a and G2a2

For the more recent period, I have only found a single location in western Hungary where we notice the prevalence of R1b and I2a, which is also noticeable earlier.
Late Antiquity(300-650 AD)
Longobard, 410-600 AD;
SZ2:
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a1b1a(L130)
SZ3:
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b2a2(S390)
SZ4:
Y-DNA: R1b1a2a1a1b(Z16)
SZ5:
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a2a1b(CTS1595)
SZ7:
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b2a2a2(ZS20)
SZ11
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a1a1(Z351)
SZ12:
Y-DNA: I2a2a1(CTS9183)
SZ13:
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b2a2a2(ZS20)
SZ14:
Y-DNA: I2a2a1(CTS9183)
SZ15:
Y-DNA: R1a1a1b1a3a(S200)
SZ16:
Y-DNA: R1b1a2a1a1c(Z381)
SZ18:
Y-DNA: E1b1b1a1b2(CTS2817)
SZ22:
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b2a2a2(ZS20)
SZ23:
Y-DNA: R1b1a2a1a1c(Z381)
SZ24:
Y-DNA: I2a2a1(CTS9183)
SZ27B:
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a2(S116)
SZ36:
Y-DNA: T1a1a(PF5620)
SZ37:
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a2(S116)
SZ42:
Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a2(S116)
SZ43:
Y-DNA: I2a2a1a2a1a(S391)
SZ45:
Y-DNA: I1a1b1(L22)

With these, I think, R1b followed by I2a and G2a seem to be the most representative of the Dacian population in the Iron Age. Possible, little N or Q, but just traces, having only one example.
 
So for example in Brasov you've got 4 tested J2a-L84 who match with a Macedonian/Bulgarian from Struga, so likely Medieval arrivals with Vlachs. In Cluj and Bihar there are 2 J2a haplotypes RU272 and H46, they don't seem to have any close matches, but they are very likely J-L264, so I guess they should be of Dacian ancestry considering their location, and probably they are some local element since the Neolithic times considering the age and spread of L264.

L84 formed 13k years ago and it doesn't seem that it has a TMRCA on YFull. Why would it be medieval then?



Anyways, I'll keep looking closer at the studies that I have.

I scanned through "Origins, admixture and founder lineages in European Roma" today, since they have 144 Romanians there and managed to extract the following:

R1b1813%
R1a3222%
I23323%
J21913%
E1b1b2517%
J121%
G2a32%
I196%
N1c11%
T11%

R1b18
R-L2317%
R-L2116%
R-L23844%
R-L480 (down from R-L23)16%
R-U106 (down from R-L23)317%
R-U152(down from R-L23)16%
R-U19 (down from R-L23)16%

That's 78% R1b in the Eastern R-L23. Strong candidate for a local old Indo-European pop.

E1b1b25
E-M12314%
E-V132288%
E-V2228%

The majority is in E-V13, which again could point to something local. How they'll arrive in Southeast Europe is still a mystery, if I'm not mistaken.

R1a32
R-M172578%
R-M458722%

Here, the situation is ambiguous, as most results are stuck close to the superclade. But the ones that went downstream are the Slavic M458.

J219
J-M241 (J2b2a)737%
J-M410 (J2a)842%
J-M67 (down from J-M410)316%
J-M92 (down from J-M410)15%

More J2a than J2b, 63/37; considering that J2b dominates in Albanians, I'd expect Southern Vlachs to carry more J2b.
M67, going by the only result that we have here, seems to flow in M92 eventually. Now, M92 could be of Greek origin, since its spread in Greece and Southern Italy.
But if we were to follow M92 downstream on YFull, we'd eventually stumble on the interesting L556, with a TMRCA 1150. It is almost exclusively Eastern and Central European, but its upstream Y20051 split 6100bp in the Middle East apparently (limited data as always obviously). Could be either from Greece, migrations in the Black Sea region for Eastern Europe and general migrations towards the West for Central Europe (remember those Szolad, Collegno and German Medieval samples who looked like insular Greeks; something along those lines perhaps). Alternatively, some of the M67>M92>L556 may also be shared from the Roma migrations IMO.

I233
I-M223412%
I-M438515%
I-P37.22370%
I-P41.213%

Most of it, 88%, probably falls in the Dinaric clade and 12% in I2a2.


So, I'll dig further, because a lot of these are stuck to far up the tree to be able to draw meaningful conclusions, but R-L23, E-V13 and maybe both J2's? (although the situation with J2a still needs further research to at least get a feel of what looks Balkan and what doesn't) are still looking suspiciously local.
 
From archaeological data, E and J are little found in Europe at that time. Today are found everywhere in good proportions. I do not think the Vlachs have invaded Europe and conquered it so much. More possible that some E and J have biological advantage like more newborn boys.
 
From archaeological data, E and J are little found in Europe at that time. Today are found everywhere in good proportions. I do not think the Vlahs have invaded Europe and conquered it so much. More possible that some E and J have biological advantage like more newborn boys.

Time will tell, there are a lot of gaps right now in time periods and data in general.

I can see that scenario being possible if the E's and some of the J's travelled with the R-L23/Z2103 folk and eventually mixed with them. Then they would share the same patriarchal tendencies and explode in numbers, but as Z2103 the focus would be on Southeastern Europe mostly. It kind of makes sense to assume that this "alliance" formed somewhere in Southern Caucasus, due to the presence of the E's, which have more chance to get picked up somewhere in Northern Levant than on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Proto-Armenians perhaps? It certainly explains the Dinaric nose in Southeastern Europe. :LOL:

I mean, why would Indo-Euros travel only via the steppe into Europe. Maybe this Z2103 branch took a detour around Armenia, some of them stopped there, and the rest picked some E's and J's in the North Levantine/Anatolian space before breaking into Europe through the Dardanelles.

By the way, those 3 G's fall in G-P15, which is upstream from your G-P303. Thus, they might as well be 303 too.
 
I can see that scenario being possible if the E's and some of the J's travelled with the R-L23/Z2103 folk and eventually mixed with them. Then they would share the same patriarchal tendencies and explode in numbers, but as Z2103 the focus would be on Southeastern Europe mostly. It kind of makes sense to assume that this "alliance" formed somewhere in Southern Caucasus, due to the presence of the E's, which have more chance to get picked up somewhere in Northern Levant than on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Proto-Armenians perhaps? It certainly explains the Dinaric nose in Southeastern Europe. :LOL:

I mean, why would Indo-Euros travel only via the steppe into Europe. Maybe this Z2103 branch took a detour around Armenia, some of them stopped there, and the rest picked some E's and J's in the North Levantine/Anatolian space before breaking into Europe through the Dardanelles.

By the way, those 3 G's fall in G-P15, which is upstream from your G-P303. Thus, they might as well be 303 too.
Yes. I think it's like you say.
Besides the migrations that I do not think were so massive as we think now, it is possible that some haplogroups have periods of decline and then return to high percentages, with the emergence of new mutations that positively affect fertility or favor the birth of more boys than girls. Maybe also can explain what happened with I2a-Din in the Balkans in the last 2000 years.

G2a after the Neolithic explosion, it maybe was in such disadvantage (newborn male/female<1) in front of I2 or R1, reaching after that small percentages. But it can return to major percentages soon with the emergence of beneficial mutations. Little strange is that on my paternal G2a-P303 line, I have from 4 generations only male descendants...:unsure: So it's not known what's going to be over hundreds of years. :LOL:
 
Yes. I think it's like you say.
Besides the migrations that I do not think were so massive as we think now, it is possible that some haplogroups have periods of decline and then return to high percentages, with the emergence of new mutations that positively affect fertility or favor the birth of more boys than girls. Maybe also can explain what happened with I2a-Din in the Balkans in the last 2000 years.

G2a after the Neolithic explosion, it maybe was in such disadvantage (newborn male/female<1) in front of I2 or R1, reaching after that small percentages. But it can return to major percentages soon with the emergence of beneficial mutations. Little strange is that on my paternal G2a-P303 line, I have from 4 generations only male descendants...:unsure: So it's not known what's going to be over hundreds of years. :LOL:

Well, you've certainly got some work to do.
 
Region/HaplogroupI1
I2aI2bR1a
R1b G
J2J1E1b1bTQNSample size

South Greece1.59110.520.53.5
19.5
127
4.5
00
rate05.gif
Albania2121.59161.519.5227.5100
rate07.gif
Central Greece3.573.51111.56193.529.5500
rate05.gif
Looking on Maciamo's table, today's situation places Albanians from the perspective of YDNA, closest to the South and Central Greeks, with almost identical percentages of E and J.

Among the hundreds of YDNA listed here, https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/v...8&ll=45.49395456132537,24.025325085150826&z=6 there are only 2 or 3 Js and Es from ancient times. This does not prove at all that the Dacians had J or E as an important component.
...Probably E and J exploded very recently from south Balkans, and are now found all over Europe, even in Estonia, Sweden, Norway, Scotland or Latvia.
 
So, over the entire 3000-1 BCE period, I have found around Dacia only these:
9.5x R1b ............ 43.2%
5x I2a ............... 22,7%
3x G2a .............. 13.5%
1.5x R1a ............. 6.8%
1x H2 .................. 4.5%
1x N .................... 4.5%
1x Q1a1 .............. 4.5%
(I split an R1 sample between R1b and R1a because it has no subgroups.)
I think it is the best clue to what was in the center of Dacia, until more discoveries are made.
 
L84 formed 13k years ago and it doesn't seem that it has a TMRCA on YFull. Why would it be medieval then?


Because they share an identical haplotype indicating low TMRCA.


R-L480 (down from R-L23) 1 6%
R-U106 (down from R-L23) 3 17%
R-U152(down from R-L23) 1 6%
R-U19 (down from R-L23) 1 6%


They are indeed under L23 but they are all L51+ and Z2103-! Also all bar one R-U152 are under Germanic U106. And one of those L2's is my supposed distant cousin from maternal line.




That's 78% R1b in the Eastern R-L23. Strong candidate for a local old Indo-European pop.

So it is the opposite in this sample as well as in other Romanian samples R-L51 (Western) totally dominates the R-Z2103 (Eastern). On a sample of 60 ethnic Romanian R1b's from this and other studies only 18 can be classified as Z2103 (though one might be PF7562) and 42/60 (70 %) are safely R-L51.


R1b is robust in ethnic Romanians but Z2103 is not. Higher R-L51 is likely due to Roman, Germanic, earlier (pre-Celtic) Urnfield and Celtic influences.


Two from that sample are R-Z2705 dys392=11 and they have Southern origin, there is another of this cluster from another study.


Of others R-Y14300 is present (TMRCA 1950 ybp of two Romanians). R-FGC14590, including in that sample. And also few likely R-Y4364. These might be trail of an ancient proto-Phrygian/Armenian movement before they reached Asia Minor.


If one goes by Baltic connection maybe Z2103 is not originator of Thracian/Dacian language but finding suitable clades is not easy. Not long ago in a Serb one basal R-S24902* appeared with no relatives closer than 4400 ybp, and this clade doesn't seem Slavic at all.


E1b1b 25
E-M123 1 4%
E-V13 22 88%
E-V22 2 8%


The majority is in E-V13, which again could point to something local. How they'll arrive in Southeast Europe is still a mystery, if I'm not mistaken.

Well it's not too much of a mystery how it got there just how it expanded. In that sample there I got one cousin from Cluj who is among the most distant members of my own cluster and that area looks like my own distant home. Generally Carpathian area is place of great diversity of CTS9320 clades in general. Up to 4 basal clades of Z17107+, Z38456- including my own. Several clades of BY4526. Few Z16988's too. Some S19928's (one BY4518 cluster and one Romanian BY451:cool:, one E-Z17264 Ashkenazi clade from W.Ukraine (but with a match in Spain so not sure where are they from) and also in Romanians from other studies there are two CTS9320* clades (neither is yet on YFull), they both have close matches in Bulgarians. One looks actually Dacian because there is a Szekely and 3 Romanians and only 1 Bulgarian and 1 Macedonian. So CTS9320 with TMRCA of 3000 ybp is almost certainly connected to either Gava or Basarabi (or both) cultures. In Dolj all 6 V13's look likely CTS9320. And one is certainly CTS9320*. That sample includes one Y3183*. One is likely E-Y35953, at least one FGC11450, many are hard to classify on those 19 STR's etc. There is some diversity of Z5018 in Romania too.

Most likely E-V13 ultimately stems from Cetina culture as has been suggested before, interestingly this culture had Corded Ware (so R-Z280) influence and its burial practices included equal amount of cremation and inhumation, unusual in comparison to many contemporary cultures around.

R1a 32
R-M17 25 78%
R-M458 7 22%


Here, the situation is ambiguous, as most results are stuck close to the superclade. But the ones that went downstream are the Slavic M458.


Actually 8 are M458 because one L260+ is identical to one "M17" so that must be a mistake as they are both from Cluj and have a distinct haplotype.
In that sample no less than 6 from Dolj are R-YP611>YP3987 while the two from Cluj are also R-YP611>YP3987 just a different cluster. As you can see on YFull YP3987 is currently entirely populated by Serbs from a numerous cluster from Bosnia and Western Serbia. Also it seems a more distant YP3987 is found in Aromanians and a Greek.

Of M458's 3 seem L260, rest CTS11962+. Generally clades like these are Slavic. For some older "Baltic" connection one has to look at some Z92's or some other Z280's that occur in Lithuanians or Latvians.


More J2a than J2b, 63/37; considering that J2b dominates in Albanians, I'd expect Southern Vlachs to carry more J2b.


There is a Basarabi cluster in that study which is likely of recent Southern origin as it matches Albanians, Greeks etc. Others may have older presence actually.




M67, going by the only result that we have here, seems to flow in M92 eventually. Now, M92 could be of Greek origin, since its spread in Greece and Southern Italy.
But if we were to follow M92 downstream on YFull, we'd eventually stumble on the interesting L556, with a TMRCA 1150. It is almost exclusively Eastern and Central European, but its upstream Y20051 split 6100bp in the Middle East apparently


Whenever you see a cluster dotted with Eastern European flags while being distantly related to various older Middle Eastern clades with a low TMRCA you are likely looking at Jewish cluster. I haven't even checked but I bet it is Jewish.




So, I'll dig further, because a lot of these are stuck to far up the tree to be able to draw meaningful conclusions, but R-L23, E-V13 and maybe both J2's? (although the situation with J2a still needs further research to at least get a feel of what looks Balkan and what doesn't) are still looking suspiciously local.


In terms of some cluster having diversity in Dacia while being younger and expansive CTS9320's come to mind. In Ruthenians for example (sample 200 in a study) if one takes away I2a Din's, R1a's, I1's E-V13 rises to 38 % (and more on their FTDNA project). Doing same in Lvov sample from Ukraine makes E-V13 20 %. Ofc few R1a's are not Slavic. For example Albanians have high V13 but also low Slavic influence, once that is taken into account others catch up as Albanians have lowest Slavic Y-DNA influence. Many J2a/J2b's might be local too. R-L23* and likely few older R-L51's who arrived there in LBA/EIA. Possibly few R1a's with Baltic links too but very hard to identify those for now.
 
Most likely E-V13 ultimately stems from Cetina culture as has been suggested before, interestingly this culture had Corded Ware (so R-Z280) influence and its burial practices included equal amount of cremation and inhumation, unusual in comparison to many contemporary cultures around.




Actually 8 are M458 because one L260+ is identical to one "M17" so that must be a mistake as they are both from Cluj and have a distinct haplotype.
In that sample no less than 6 from Dolj are R-YP611>YP3987 while the two from Cluj are also R-YP611>YP3987 just a different cluster. As you can see on YFull YP3987 is currently entirely populated by Serbs from a numerous cluster from Bosnia and Western Serbia. Also it seems a more distant YP3987 is found in Aromanians and a Greek.

Of M458's 3 seem L260, rest CTS11962+. Generally clades like these are Slavic. For some older "Baltic" connection one has to look at some Z92's or some other Z280's that occur in Lithuanians or Latvians.





There is a Basarabi cluster in that study which is likely of recent Southern origin as it matches Albanians, Greeks etc. Others may have older presence actually.







Whenever you see a cluster dotted with Eastern European flags while being distantly related to various older Middle Eastern clades with a low TMRCA you are likely looking at Jewish cluster. I haven't even checked but I bet it is Jewish.







In terms of some cluster having diversity in Dacia while being younger and expansive CTS9320's come to mind. In Ruthenians for example (sample 200 in a study) if one takes away I2a Din's, R1a's, I1's E-V13 rises to 38 % (and more on their FTDNA project). Doing same in Lvov sample from Ukraine makes E-V13 20 %. Ofc few R1a's are not Slavic. For example Albanians have high V13 but also low Slavic influence, once that is taken into account others catch up as Albanians have lowest Slavic Y-DNA influence. Many J2a/J2b's might be local too. R-L23* and likely few older R-L51's who arrived there in LBA/EIA. Possibly few R1a's with Baltic links too but very hard to identify those for now.

Proto-Cetina/Cetina, in the southern Balkans, appears as a Bell Beaker periphery connecting the West Adriatic coast with the East Adriatic area ca. 2400–2300 BC, under the influence of Central Mediterranean Bell Beakers, whose heartlands are on one hand northern Italy and Tuscany, and on the other hand Sardinia and western Sicily (Heyd 2007).
Wristguards are present in higher quantity than in northern Italy or the Csepel group, and known from the published sites both in some numbers and as single finds, in settlements as in graves. There are also triangular riveted daggers, apart from gold jewellery in a rich grave inventory in Nin–Privlaka. There are many undecorated bowls, jugs, and cups, proper of the Begleitkeramik of the Middle Bell Beaker period, instead of Bell Beakers, of which only two beaker derivates are found, created in contact with the Adriatic variant of Vučedol (Heyd 2007).
Tumuli of several meters in diameter, primarily of stone, can have a kerb of large stones. They contain usually a rectangular cist grave made of stone slabs, with a stone-covering slab. A single person buried in a contracted position on the left or right side is the standard. Cremation is mixed with inhumation, showing local differences in the burial ritual. Tumuli with no remains are common, probably representing cenotaphs (Teržan and Karavanić 2013).
Cetina is therefore a syncretistic culture developed probably in combination with local cultures by migrating Bell Beakers, likely from a region near the Adriatic island of Palagruža, where Bell Beaker elements are predominant: wristguards, comb–stamp decorated pottery sherds with Bell Beaker decoration, and flint-inventory with characteristic arrowheads typical of Mediterranean Bell Beakers (Heyd 2007). Characteristic settlements, especially in the western Balkan hinterland, suggest that Cetina settlers were nomadic herders.
The twenty-five Cetina sites comprise the whole northern and western Adriatic shore, stretching from Trieste in the north to the ‘heel’ of southern Apulia, with concentrations around the Daunia peninsula and the Apulian plain, with related pottery in the Corazzo–Zungri settlement showing extension towards Calabria and further inland, including also a northern site in the province of Trento. Its influence is thus felt along the Adriatic from Istria and the karst hinterland of Trieste to the Peloponnnese and the southern Apennines, but also to the western Balkan hinterland, where no settlements (other than cave shelters) are known (Heyd 2007).
Chronologically, it seems that first maritime beakers appear ca. 2500 BC or shortly after that in south and south-east Italy, impacting native cultures like the Laterza–Cellino San Marco culture. After that, Italian Cetina appears ca. 2500–2300 BC, under the most recent Bell Beaker influence with the stamp and puncture decorated vessels preceding the classic (East Adriatic) Cetina phase (Figure 71) and its typical framed decoration that appeared later (Heyd 2007).


and also
https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3460
 
I would also expect a considerable frequency of R-Z93 in Dacia. There were many tribes of Iranian origin there during late Antiquity (Iazyges, Roxolani, Tharco-Cimmerians etc.) Furthermore R-Z93 has been found to Bronze Age Bulgaria. It is possible that Proto-Thracians were R-Z93.
 

This thread has been viewed 53407 times.

Back
Top