Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 42 of 42

Thread: E-a24066

  1. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    15-11-19
    Posts
    35


    Country: Romania



    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    These matches are completely in line with the dominant scientific consensus (excluding Romanian scientists, often made in Ceausescu era) based on linguistic, archeological, and now genetic evidence that the proto-Romanians formed South of Danube river, and that in successive migrations they colonized modern day Romania. Prior to that Romania was populated by Slavic speaking populations with some Turkics here and there, (excluding ofc Transylvania). Proto-Romanians likely descend from inhabitants of Roman cities in Balkan provinces who migrated to the mountains to escape the chaos and devastation caused by the Hunnic incursions and inability of Romans to ensure security at the time. There they met proto-Albanians from whom they learned the trade of Transhumance, and they excelled at Transhumance probably even more than the Albanians. With the new Albanian Z17107* result it seems lot more likely Albanian Z38456 is there for a long time, so not Dacian. Other than that there are no numerous clusters that could possibly be of Dacian origin. Besides the Dacian option was never likely because Albanian has huge Latin influence, had Albanian descended of Carpi or Costoboci no way Albanian would have had such strong Latin influence. Because these groups were never under Roman control, and they only had some trade contacts with the Romans.
    Fair enough. Personally I think you're right. But the proto-romanians were in fact the old north Danube (original Dacia area before conquest) latinized dacians who retreated alongside the romans south Danube (Dacia Aureliana, Moesia Superior, Serdica, Bulgaria), which in medieval times formed the so-called vlachs. So, even south of Danube they have north Danube ancestry. Dacia Aurelie was afterward divided into two: Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis. Off course, many wanted and still want for the sake of ideological fixations to force the truth in either ways. In this aspect, the baseline of the romanian historians was and is to confirm (without much consistency imho) the continuity of the romanians inside the former Dacian area. And off course, the basic theorem of the latinization of the dacians, and thus the birth of the romanian peoples.

  2. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    15-11-19
    Posts
    35


    Country: Romania



    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    These matches are completely in line with the dominant scientific consensus (excluding Romanian scientists, often made in Ceausescu era) based on linguistic, archeological, and now genetic evidence that the proto-Romanians formed South of Danube river, and that in successive migrations they colonized modern day Romania. Prior to that Romania was populated by Slavic speaking populations with some Turkics here and there, (excluding ofc Transylvania).
    And what's your opinion on the romanian Transylvania ancestors related to dacians (that area was also inhabited by dacian tribes) ?

  3. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    481

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-A24070
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Bædzænæg
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    6. Čarović (related to the guz above) E-A24066 Raždaginja, Čarovina
    How the hell did I not notice this before!!! Because of Cumans.. LOOOL So there is this old family from Peshter Čarović. "Char/Čar" basis does not exist anywhere in Medieval Serbian documents. It is encountered few times in Bulgaria in 16th century, and today in few surnames there. Origin?? Turkic. Çağrı -"hawk", but this "ğ" is a Voiced velar fricative so for example in Modern Turkish it is not pronounced (Çarı), And so A24066 is Çarović, aaand A24066 is the main family of Pečenjevce, next to it there is Čekmin/Çekmin, Čekmin is certainly connected to Pečenjevce even in terms of sharing genetics because together with 2 small neighboring villages they are mentioned in 1498.

    So in 1167. we have 3 Berendei brothers one of them was Çekman Ça(ğ)rovich.
    These names were sooo rare, and their combination especially. This surname in Serbs does not exist other than in my cousins (their close cousins were tested actually, but they must be the same thing). Having these Russian names on Peshter.. these Chagrovichi worked for some Kievan princes I believe.. A24066 is connected to these, a genetic fact. Honestly Serbs and Albanians are far better tested than Russians, Ukrainians when the population size is taken into account.. Even this basal Russian Z17107>BY4467, clearly Z17107 does have some older Eastern connections too already...This Vojvodina dude, I don't think he's Serb (they did test all ethnicities in the study but they didn't specify who's what), and even he were I cannot find any sense for some Shop area family to be in Vojvodina inhabitant. No such migrations. Plus ofc this clade of Z17107*, I can say of all Z17107 only A24066 and these seem so "mutated", even the Hungarian A24070 is not. And indeed they all get around 2700 years, we get more and so will these, and we mutated on dys438, only in opposite directions, if one of us didn't go from 10 then we are certainly related. So I'll be wanting BigY of these. Also there is some other interesting guy, but needs a Pack..

    There is only one "kopan" in history and that is the Okorsis.. Apparently Pechenegs were a very mixed people. Actually per some authorities Xopon/Kopon tribe is derived of the title "kopan".

    So it seems I am actually the son of Çağr who died in mid 12th century. In any case these names are firmly associated with the Berindei. These places in the region, they could have arrived in early 13th century, for example Berendei are not mentioned as a separate group prior to early 12th century. First Pecheneg main settlement of the Shop was in 1091 after they were defeated. Their remnants then united with these other peoples in a group called the Black Hats.

    I see so many Berindeis in Romania even in Cluj where we have some A24066 (he's just more distant to me, close to Bosnian). Romanians are so poorly tested atm, that even testing various Berindeis would make up a good portion of their project.

    Some legends say we always had lots of horses.. That the Ottomans chased us to take our horses away.. Wasn't like that mostly, we worked with the Ottomans. But because of these I thought my ancestors were possibly some nomadic people years ago..

  4. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    15-11-19
    Posts
    35


    Country: Romania



    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    I see so many Berindeis in Romania even in Cluj where we have some A24066 (he's just more distant to me, close to Bosnian). Romanians are so poorly tested atm, that even testing various Berindeis would make up a good portion of their project.
    Berindei is quite a common name here in Transilvanya. I had once a work mate with this name. Did you read my above posts ?

  5. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    481

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-A24070
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Bædzænæg
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by LeoJ View Post
    Berindei is quite a common name here in Transilvanya. I had once a work mate with this name. Did you read my above posts ?
    I responded to you in another thread dealing with Dacia.
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post602205

    Yes very interesting to see it is common, even some boyars were Berindei. They appear as a group in 1097, they were united with the remnants of Pechenegs, Uz (Torki) and they often served the Russians against the Cumans.

    I was talking about Çağrı loosing ğ but actually there is a hint Çağr proper root retaining the "g" does occur in the Shop area! Village Čagrovac only 10 miles NE from Pečenjevce! Also mentioned in 1498. so no doubt that actually some Berindei Chagrovichi were there in Medieval times! They might have been some local magnates. Pečenjevce, Čekmin, Čagrovac, Berende 1, Berende 2 across the border in Bulgaria.. Chekman Chagrovich a Berendei who were part of federation with the Pechenegs..

    Pečenjevce/Čekmin are A24066 my subcluster, and the only similar surname to Cagrovich with a very minor difference (
    ğ not pronounced in A.Turkish and S.Slavic languages do not like those "h-like" sounds generally so Croats say for themselves often Rvat instead of Hrvat, "I want" - "Ya hoću -> oću" etc.) in existence are also A24066 my subcluster. Those are facts..

    Looking at some of these groups, the Uzi were just like their Oghuz cousins so carrying some N-VL73 common in modern Oghuz Anatolian Turks. Pechenegs were it seems different, 3 of their tribes came from Asia, the Kangar ones, but the rest non-Kangar it seems were locals, and looking from anthropological data they had far less mongoloid influence than the Uzi. I didn't expect to see that but apparently Pechenegs resembled Sarmatians with some mongoloid influence. For Cumans, despite the "Polovtsy"/"blonde" claims usually bit more Asian influence is associated. No wonder as the proto-Cuman was a R-M478 clade. Still it seems one R-Z93 clade literally associated with it, "Shari", might have been spreading the "blonde" genes among them.
    Last edited by Aspurg; 29-04-20 at 23:08.

  6. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    15-11-19
    Posts
    35


    Country: Romania



    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    I responded to you in another thread dealing with Dacia.
    I've read it but still can't point you're opinion about, most are replies to other subjects.

  7. #32
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    481

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-A24070
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Bædzænæg
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    At last I know who the oldest member of my family is. Reliable documents trump anything. My family was (until few days ago, now its older) 400 years old and was of high status, of course I was able to find out more. It was just waiting to be discovered.

    The family I descend of is clear. Prominent member of that family as recently as 500 years ago on Peshter spoke Torlak/Bulgarian or was still heavily influenced by it. He called the "hare" "zajec" or "zajek", not "zec" like Serbo-Croats do. Most importantly the oldest member of the my family born likely around 1420 had a name 100 % foreign to Serbo-Croats. First time mentioned on the Balkans was in a Bulgarian bolyar from early 13th century. Was very rare in Bulgarians in 15th/16th century, but present in crucial core Bulgarian areas around Tarnovo and Razgrad, few more often near fortresses. Only a descendant of Bulgarian bolyar elite could have carried such a name. Its ultimate origin is Khazar and (Black) Bulgar and ultimately it's Sogdian/Saka derived.

    Some of these comments here were bit trollish, but I felt it is "dishonorable" to complain to the mods. You would have done it, in your crying style ofc. So it is obvious we are of different stock as I always thought, and indeed we are.


    @ Aspar you came here to have the back of these trolls. I know where you are from, and I know whom you match. Your Bulgarian cousin who shares one SNP with you is still Bronze Age distance to you. I know since I first got tested that I have a close relative in a Bulgarian from Karachanak study, likely another one from another study. Also I have a N.Macedonian (that is Bulgarian) relative. These people are far closer to me than your Bulgarian cousin.. My clade's current tree doesn't reflect reality. Reality is, from a genetic POV, from the order of mutations, my own family is not native in our native area, and not long ago! Long enough for high Medieval though. The fact is the Western Balkan people have done a far better job of testing people than the Easterners and Greeks..
    And I'll tell you something, my close genetic relatives will pop up in medieval Bulgarian forts far earlier than the relatives of 90 % of ethnic Bulgarians.

    These Bosnians for example have a relative in NW Romania likely 1000 years away (and we have historians claiming founder of the Bosnian state was a Pecheneg like I did), Romanians are practically a non-tested population, but still I found one there and thanks to these Bosnian results I know what defines their clade. And Bosnians from central Bosnia don't have Vlach ancestry, some do have Magyar-like ancestry though. And even I have some basal relative in Vojvodina, whose ethnicity I don't know (in that study over 30 % of tested were not Serbs). But I know he is certainly about or close to 1000 years away from me and all of my relatives bar one, and very unlikely related to him as well. Also there is a Ukrainian (W. Ukraine, one likely SE Poland) cluster of Z17107*, almost certainly Y30991+, finally I got attention there so hopefully I can have their position on the tree. I predict they belong to my clade based on some clear patterns. And if they do so will an Uzbek too. Also our TMRCA is little bit lower due to A24066 higher mutation rate than in other Z17107 clades (one reason why these Ukrainians might split the A24066).

    Where my genetics comes from locally there was a Bulgarian enclave in Medieval times in the core of Serbian medieval state. The huge diversity of Bulgarian toponyms is clear. And my ancestors ruled there as local feudals in Medieval times within the Serbian state ofc, but they obviously had significant cultural autonomy. I think Bulgarians must be better tested, especially those from sub-ethnic groups such as Kapantsi etc. I think currently it is largely people testing their own relatives (mothers father, grandparents, greatgrandparents) from their region, which is good but not anywhere near good enough.
    Last edited by Aspurg; 25-07-20 at 23:52. Reason: addition

  8. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    481

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-A24070
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Bædzænæg
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Y167028 Hungarian's surname seems derived of a Hungarian chief. My ancestors (in any case 100 % of my genetic cluster) name from 15h century certainly related and first attested in another Hungarian Conqueror, leader of a Kabar (Khazar) tribe. Some of these Bulgar traces I found in the region actually point to that tribe. It seems from some data about them that part of Pechenegs were of Bulgar origin.





    Shudikova stone from Šudikova monastery, Berane N.Montenegro, found 20 km SW from the area from where my ancestors initially settled, based on onomastic and genetic evidence. Aleksandar Loma (and most) called them clearly Bulgar, per him possibly related to Pagan uprising of 893. That is a group of pagan Bulgars who migrated to there and were received by the semi-pagan Serbs. We don't know exactly their datation, will look into details.

  9. #34
    Regular Member Aspar's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-07-17
    Posts
    137

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-Y16729
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Macedonian
    Country: Lesotho



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    @ Aspar you came here to have the back of these trolls. I know where you are from, and I know whom you match. Your Bulgarian cousin who shares one SNP with you is still Bronze Age distance to you. I know since I first got tested that I have a close relative in a Bulgarian from Karachanak study, likely another one from another study. Also I have a N.Macedonian (that is Bulgarian) relative. These people are far closer to me than your Bulgarian cousin.. My clade's current tree doesn't reflect reality. Reality is, from a genetic POV, from the order of mutations, my own family is not native in our native area, and not long ago! Long enough for high Medieval though. The fact is the Western Balkan people have done a far better job of testing people than the Easterners and Greeks..
    And I'll tell you something, my close genetic relatives will pop up in medieval Bulgarian forts far earlier than the relatives of 90 % of ethnic Bulgarians.
    Any reason why I was called upon in this post of yours?

    Of course I match Macedonians, both Slavic speaking Macedonians but also speakers of Eastern Romance as evidenced by the cousins in Shtip. Whether we call ourselves Македонци or Machedoni doesn't matter, we are basically the same people, a salad of Romance and Slavic influences. You might want to check Kanchov about this.

    Anyway, I am not sure you can drew conclusions based solely on STR's when it comes to haplogroup such as E-V13. From those SNP tested I can see great diversity of Z17107 in the Carpathian basin and in the Western Balkans. You might have genetic cousins in Bulgaria and Macedonia but nevertheless the center of gravity of Z17107 and the whole CTS9320 I would say is the Carpathian basin so these cousins you have most probably came from that direction. In other words your line is very old in the Central and Western Balkans and you should search your ancient ancestor in the Carpathian basin not in the Steppe I believe. Although assimilation in various incoming peoples from the Steppe is possible nevertheless.

    I had a post in another forum which might be of interest for you and which is ultimately connected with the cremation as a funeral rite and the expansion of E-Z1057 from the Carpathian basin:

    The following EBA cultures such as Usatovo or Vucedol all practiced inhumations. In Pannonia however it seems that the cremation funeral rites survived and even influenced the Bell Beakers who in turn were known to practice both inhumations and cremation. I would even dare to say that the Chalcolithic and EBA people who lived in Pannonia at the time influenced the Beakers genetically, hence the visible dinaricization of the Beaker's skulls. These practices survived in Pannonia even as late as the Kishaposhtag culture which was a Bell Beaker culture and whose primary funeral rite was the cremation.
    What is interesting about the Kishaposhtag culture is that in many ways was a continuation of the culture of Vučedol, especially south of the lake Balaton. Although in Vucedol the inhumations were the norm, an interesting phenomenon was observed in it's latest stage where cremation burials under barrows were observed alongside inhumation. The Serbian archaeologist Nikola Tasic wrote in his "Eneolithic Cultures of Central and West Balkans" that this phenomenon can be interpreted as the beginning of the crisis provoked by the arrival of a new population in the Carpathian basin and the Balkans, a crisis that would eventually bring about the disintegration of the Vucedol culture.
    Nevertheless much of the legacy of the Vucedol culture would continue living in the MBA Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture or the Inlaid Ceramics Culture that would form on the basis of the Kishaposhtag culture with the participation of populations from the Drava and Sava rivers , representing the traditions of the Vučedol-Zok culture.
    The Encrusted Pottery culture influenced to a great extent the cultures of Gyrla Mare, Verbichoara and Tei and there was a migration event from this culture towards the Central Balkans. There is a BA site in North-West Bulgaria dated around 1600-1100 BC with pottery and urns belonging to the Encrusted Pottery culture.
    This Vucedol influence on the Encrusted Pottery culture can be observed in urns in the form of birds that are very similar to the simbol of Vucedol, the Vucedol Dove:




    Urns in the form of birds found in Orsoya, North-West Bulgaria:





    It's worth mentioning also that in Greek Macedonia along the Vardar/Axios river are found artefacts belonging to Gyrla Mare Culture towards the end of phase D of the Bronze Age (about 1200 BC). The population of the Gyrla-Mare culture migrated south, towards Mycenaean Greece , where the Bronze Age civilization was replaced by the period of the Dark Ages ( Heraclides , Dorian invasion ).

    The cremation as was shown already seems that it spread from the Pannonian basin first towards south in the late Vucedol phase(2400-2200 BC) and in the phases BR A1, A2 and B1(1950-1600 BC) according to Reinacke it was already present in Cetina, Vatina and was slowly spreading east towards Transylvania and Dobrugia/Moldova by replacing the previous custom of inhumation practiced by the Ottomány and Wietenberg cultures and possibly a significant shift in population as well causing the disappearance of these cultures and south-east towards Oltenia with Gyrla-Mare or Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group as shown in my previous post.
    At last this custom reached Dobrugia and Eastern Wallachia in the Late Bronze Age with the disappearance of the steppe culture of Coslogeni caused by the appearance of a new style ornaments, those of the Channel pottery style with possible further links to Gava-Holihrady culture which in turn was also in great part derived of elements from the Carpathian basin and whose primary funeral rite was the cremation.

    This a very good map of the hotspots and places where the cremation ritual was practiced between the 14th and 9th century BC:







    As you can see, by the Middle-Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age this custom was widespread in the Balkans, the Carpathian Basin and Northern Italy in particular and the source of spreading was the Carpathian Basin and Pannonia and what was common about all these places and groups is the similarity not only in the funeral rites but also ornaments with the Middle-Danube cultures.
    In particular, for Northern Italy, we can observe a similarity with the Terramare Culture:

    Comb-shaped pendants (Kammanhänger):
    These characteristic ornaments of the Encrusted Pottery culture have a cast, comb-like “body” with
    a loop-shaped hanger as “head” and applied with a curving, arm-like middle part.
    Comb-shaped pendants have been interpreted as stylized male representations.
    All the known pieces of the comb-shaped pendants were recovered to the south of Lake Balaton:
    a stray piece found at Bonyhád–Szöcske szántók (Pl. 63. 14), and the articles in the Zalaszabar hoard
    (Pl. 62. 1–2). One comb-shaped pendant was found outside of Transdanubia alone: Ladislav Hájek
    published a piece from Úherce, Czech Republic, representing a mix of variants a and c. Based on
    this artefact, Hájek originates the comb-shaped pendants from the Aunjetitz culture, dating this
    particular specimen (and its comparative example from Pusztasárkánytó) to the Aunjetitz period,
    while he listed the one of Nagyhangos to the Koszider period.430 Amália Mozsolics – depending
    on the shape of the hanger – distinguished two types of the comb-shaped pendants; relating these
    artefacts closely to the Nagyhangos assemblage assigned to the BIIIb period. Bernhard Hänsel also
    discussed the two types occuring in hoards and placed them to the end of the Danubian Early Bronze
    Age (FD III); he pointed out that the references from Switzerland, quoted by Hájek previously,
    belong to a much later period (Urnfield culture).431 The distribution of the comb-shaped pendants
    and more importantly, the mould found at Lengyel – on the settlement associated with the Encrusted
    Pottery culture – proves that these objects were produced locally
    ; and thus the piece of Úherce must
    be a local replica of the Transdanubian originals.
    Another possible origin for the comb-shaped pendants was the Terramare culture – with
    assumed Italian antecedents of the comb-shaped pendant type. However, a recent detailed study
    of the Terramare settlements called attention to that this assumption is not certain either, as bone
    pendants similar to variants found in the Carpathian Basin appear later, in the 2nd phase of the
    Italian Middle Bronze Age (Bronzo Medio). This correlates approximately with the Koszider period
    in the Carpathian Basin, whereas the bronze versions in this area only become typical from the 3rd
    phase.
    Concerning the original use of the comb-shaped pendants, Tibor Kovács collected their
    representations on vessels and figurines among the material of the (Szeremle–) Dubovác and
    the Cârna culture at the Lower Danube area.

    What's interesting here is that the bearers of the Terramare culture in it's initial phases were practicing the inhumation burial and in it's later phase exactly when this comb-shaped pendants appear the cremation starts to be the norm. More recently, Italian archeologist Andrea Cardarelli has proposed re-evaluations of contemporaneous Greek accounts, such as that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and to link the Terramare culture to the Pelasgians – whom the Greeks generally equated with the Tyrrhenians and specifically, therefore, the Etruscans. This proposal in not without a base and as I've shown earlier, it can be correlated with the archaeological finds along the Vardar/Axios river in Greek Macedonia and who belong to the Trans-Danubian cultures and more specifically, Gyrla-Mare or Dubovac group from the Late Bronze Age. These finds in particular can't be associated with the Doric Greeks who only invaded the area in the 8th century BC, and by historical accounts from the Greeks themselves we know that in Greek Macedonia before the Doric Greeks, the Brygians and the Paeonians lived, especially in the area along the Vardar river.

    Therefore I assume that E-Y30977 played a part mostly in the Cetina culture while E-BY3880 in the cultures of the Carpathian basin who later spread towards the Balkans.

    Anyway, it's interesting about this Bulgarian like toponyms present in Montenegro. There is certainly a migration in question but when and how? I believe it's somewhere between the First and the Second Bulgarian-Vlach Empire. There are some subclades like this one, E-BY5430 that might point to such a migration from the direction of Macedonia and possibly related with the failed uprisings of the Bulgarians.

  10. #35
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    481

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-A24070
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Bædzænæg
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Any reason why I was called upon in this post of yours?

    Of course I match Macedonians, both Slavic speaking Macedonians but also speakers of Eastern Romance as evidenced by the cousins in Shtip. Whether we call ourselves Македонци or Machedoni doesn't matter, we are basically the same people, a salad of Romance and Slavic influences. You might want to check Kanchov about this.
    No particular reason, well I was just so glad I found this info, and there is more of it, I need some unpublished Ottoman defters from 1485, 1489, 1516. I was looking to find some earlier ancestors that could have lived in 15th century but I didn't see this coming..

    I see now there is plenty of argument about this name in Bulgarian and other sources, some say Mongolian origin, then also a loan into Mongolian from Turkic, but it also looks similar to E.Iranic (likely ultimately). It surely came from some nomadic group into Bulgarian language.

    About Kanchov I think Macedonians do have a specific identity which includes Vlach groups, in particular Moglen Vlachs seem interesting. Linguistically and genetically they are clearly related to Bulgarians. Far more than to the Serbs. Serbian influence came later with Nemanjici.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Anyway, I am not sure you can drew conclusions based solely on STR's when it comes to haplogroup such as E-V13.
    I fully agree, for 95 % of clades or more you can't, however for A24066 clade which doesn't even look like a V13 (before SNP tests many were predicting V12) I can. Because what defines our clade are so many weird STR values, including very slow STR's, and basically no other clade has them. Even this Hungarian which turned out to be another CTS9320, while sharing some of our STR's, even from him we can be clearly differentiated, my cluster and the Bosnian. For some of those scientific paper samples from the Shop region I also have an additional very slow STR, triple back mutation we have (outside of Y111) and that just makes it certain.

    And even within our cluster, that is A24066>A24049, we have a string of four specific mutations, and we can see, that the older haplotypes are from Vojvodina and Shop area, and my own branch is youngest.
    So my clade is among the lucky ones, the two subclusters we have. But if your take E-A19247, even with Y111 it is not easy to guess..

    The Balkan E-Z38456>BY4459 is also to a lesser degree such a clade, they have extremely high dys458=19/20.

    The only reason though I have to utilize these more is because some populations aren't well tested yet. I have also a Montenegrin scientific sample of 404 people, but expectedly it showed just 2 people of my own family.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    From those SNP tested I can see great diversity of Z17107 in the Carpathian basin and in the Western Balkans. You might have genetic cousins in Bulgaria and Macedonia but nevertheless the center of gravity of Z17107 and the whole CTS9320 I would say is the Carpathian basin so these cousins you have most probably came from that direction. In other words your line is very old in the Central and Western Balkans and you should search your ancient ancestor in the Carpathian basin not in the Steppe I believe. Although assimilation in various incoming peoples from the Steppe is possible nevertheless.
    Albanians, Serbs and now Bosniaks are atm best tested, Bulgarians are good too, but it seems Bulgarians are genetically more heterogeneous, so it requires a larger sample to find all of these various clades than it does for Serbs or Albanians where you have huge former tribes, comprising huge chunk of the population. TMRCA of 700-1000 years being 3-5 % of the population.. Multiple such cases.

    Regarding the CTS9320, don't forget there is a Western Bulgarian who is CTS9320* (with a bigY), hasn't uploaded to YFull (well he wouldn't gain anything atm). There is another Bulgarian with another haplotype who is CTS9320*, with an SNP Pack. Both of them have matches in Romanians from papers especially the latter (in Szekely too). It's just that as Romanians are so poorly tested we don't see that.

    Ofc even Z17107 are old both in the Western Balkans and Carpathian basin.. Though yes it is possible someone was assimilated long time ago. There is one Z17107* Russian from Rostov, so he's pretty far. And ofc the Ossetian CTS9320* I found (I tested him because he was a candidate for Z17107). That Ossetian result was a surprise, maybe he holds more surprises in store (such as not being positive to all CTS9320 level SNP's)..

    On the topic of Ancient cultures and CTS9320, especially Z16988 seems Illyrian definitely, though again not seen on the tree there is a Moldovan distant from all, and one Bulgarian too.. It should be Eastern Urnfield/Hallstat, the only other alternative is that it's some Western Vatina people assimilated by the Glasinac J-L283 dominated culture. And as these migrated (J-Z631), they did it too, but thats not likely, and CTS9320 is little bit older than the Glasinac boom. Glasinac though was totally inhumation, and no cremation people, just like their archaeological cousins where J-L283 was found.

    On the topic of Dacian vs Pannonian, Danube was the demarcation line. The Tisza-Danube valley which was settled by the Iazyges, but we know from the sources that they pushed out the local Dacians from those areas.. Also when they describe the Dacian funerary ritual I have seen so many authors mentioning "typical Dacian La-Tene funeral".. Dacians are Hallstat descended. So regarding modern Hungary, Western half was Pannonia, Eastern half Dacia. And Danube was a significant demarcation line back in those days.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    I had a post in another forum which might be of interest for you and which is ultimately connected with the cremation as a funeral rite and the expansion of E-Z1057 from the Carpathian basin:
    I already read that actually, though I'm not on that forum. I do agree that E-V13 has an association with cremation practicing cultures. I still strongly believe E-V13 began in Dalmatia in proto-Cetina phase, and even these people practiced 50 % of cremation. And still although we have so many samples from BA Central Europe, no E-V13. I still maintain that E-V13 began with Dalmatian Neolithic, and proto-Cetina people, then CTS1273 literally migrated to the modern day Romania and very soon after, it spread from there. There is clear evidence Yamnaya variant called Glina III Schneckenberg was very involved with the creation of the proto-Cetina culture. And yes I think CTS1273 could have gone so far from Eastern Herzegovina, because Yamnaya people that visited Eastern Herzegovina were 100 % Nomadic. It seems they were hunting proto-Luwians (R-PF7562) around the Balkans.

    Only this is consistent with the spread of V13. BY3880- clades do not seem Balkan in origin, yet great many BY3880's are. And this is especially true for your own clade, where you and this Bulgarian seem to have EBA presence in your regions. Even with TMRCA it coincides with the Glina III EBA assaults.

    Some Yugoslav archaeologists made huge errors decades ago when they said there was Ezero culture in Eastern Herzegovina, there were some Ezero elements because Yamnaya nomads must have destroyed the Ezero culture and took something with them. But in recent times, proto-Cetina links with Glina III were more explored.

    Of Girla-Mare, Verbiciara and some other related Vatin, Mediana (proto-Dardanian) etc. I agree, I think they were E-V13 heavy and especially various Z5018 clades, which is unlike CTS9320, a MBA clade so it must have been much more important in MBA.

    So in general I would say E-V13 is EBA (the initial spread), some clades being MBA, LBA, EIA.

    This forum though seems pretty dead anyway.. Might visit some other places..

  11. #36
    Regular Member Aspar's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-07-17
    Posts
    137

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-Y16729
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Macedonian
    Country: Lesotho



    1 members found this post helpful.
    @Aspurg

    I am not sure about which name you are talking about?

    About the Meglen Vlachs, these are descendants of the Vlach-Bulgarians that lived in the region of Meglen during the Second Vlach-Bulgarian Empire. Of these people is also Dobromir Chrys. The Eastern Romance speakers were much present in the area not only in Meglen, but also Grevena, Doiran, Korca but it seems they were bulgarised or hellenised en mass. What's left of them is a few mountainous villages. These are my own people as I descend from them and whether Eastern Romance or Bulgarian speaking today, the people of south-eastern North Macedonia and those from the triangle of Kukus, Vodena and Enidze Vardar are the same people. They were like border people between Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire. In the past they lived all the way down to Grevena but the border changed overtime. We know this because the Greek clerics, John Apokaukos and George Bardanes, writing around 1220, considered Grevena in western Macedonia a barbaric Bulgarian speaking place. Also there is an account by Demetrios Chomatenos in connection with dances performed by people that lived near the medieval region of Molisc, Μολισκό, near Grevena in Greek Macedonia, exactly where the village of Kontsikon is but also another village with a similar name, that of Koniskos, an account that dates between 1215-1235 AD.The original account is in Greek while the link I posted is a Bulgarian translation of the original account.
    In the account Demetrios Chomatenos gives details to an occurrence in which a murder was committed. Namely, during a festival called Rusalia(Ρουσάλια), in which the dancers performed a warrior dance, one of the actors somehow managed to hit a shepherd with a wooden stick. The shepherd without any remorse pulled a knife and gave a blow to the dancer called Chrisil(Χρύσηλος) straight to the hearth killing him on the spot. Then Chomatenos gives details how the Archbishop of Bulgaria(Archbishopric of Ohrid) condemns these games among whom Bota and Brumalia(Βότα και Βρουμάλια) as well as the aforementioned Rusalia(Ρουσάλια) and calls them pagan debauchery. This unfortunate Chrysil had a name with a Greek origin(Chrys) golden, and a typical Bulgarian suffix(il) which can be witnessed in names such as Boril, Strahil and so on.


    This account is very important for my people because Rusalia is a national festival that was performed by the Slavic and Eastern Romance speakers in the region of Greek Macedonia plus the south-eastern area of today North Macedonia and south-west Bulgaria.



    Similar dances exist among the Albanians and the Romanians as well but not exactly the same and are not know under the name Rusalia.


    And this is important because Rusalia is a legacy directly from the ancient Roman festival called Rosalia. In Imperial-era Macedonia, several inscriptions(both in Latin and Greek) mention the Rosalia as a commemorative festival funded by bequests to groups such as a vicianus, a village or neighborhood association , a legally constituted association, often having a religious character , or symposium, in this sense a drinking and social club. The best account probably comes from an inscription in connection with the Attis myth given by the Christian apologist Arnobius and the happening was in Phrygia:
    The next day the dendrophores laid the tree to rest with noisy music that represented the Corybantes, youths who performed armed dances and in mythology served as guardians for infant gods.
    These warrior dances are in direct connection with what the Greek general Xenophon witnessed during his stay among the Thracians:
    The Greek general and military historian Xenophon during his march within Persia and Thrace in 401-399 BC has added in Anabasis (VI, 1, 4-6): ‘After sacrificing some of the oxen which they have captured and other animals too, they provided a feast which was quite a good one, though they ate reclining on low couches and drunk out of horn cups which they had come across the country. When they had poured the libations and sung the Paean, first of all two Thracians stood up and performed a dance to the flute, wearing full armour. They leapt high into the air with great agility and brandished their swords. In the end one of them, as everybody thought, struck the other one, who fell to the ground, acting all the time. ... Then some more Thracians carried the stripped man out, , as though he was dead, though actually he had not been hurt in the slightest. ...(VII, 4, 4) It was then (in winter) easy to see why the Thracians wear fox skins round their heads and ears, and why they have tunics that cover their legs and not only the upper part of the body, and why, when they are on horseback, they wear long cloaks reaching down to their feet instead of our short coats.’

    What's also important from the Chomatenos account is that we find out that some other festivals performed during Roman times was also performed by my ancestors during the time Chomatenos wrote although forgotten today, most probably under pressure from the Church as witnessed in the account. And that is the festival of Brumalia but also the offering of Vota. The Balkan Sprachbund is also evidence that there was a great mixing and we can speak of Vlach-Bulgarian people. The lexicon is clearly Slavic derived but the grammar which is the backbone of a language it's nothing Slavic. In fact it's direct inheritance from the Romance languages of the Balkans.

    This is a direct evidence of a pre-Slavic connection with the Roman Balkans of my own people and direct legacy in it's folklore. Therefore I as a descendant of these people am certain that my ancient ancestor was a Roman citizen that lived somewhere in the borders of the Roman Empire in the Balkans. Before that we can't speak for certain unless we get more evidences which we don't have atm.

    Anyway, the biggest problem we have thus far is the lack of aDNA from the Balkans. The oldest BY3880 we have thus far is the clearly Scythianised Getae sample scy197 hence we can conclude that BY3880-FGC44169 was indeed present in the IA Lower Danube people. These people were probably absorbed en mass by the Slavs of Candesti-Ipotesti culture hence no surprise of the big diversity of E-FGC44169 clades in Bulgarians. Probably my BA Bulgarian cousin's lineage was part of these same Getae people. In that context my own lineage probably should be traced among related people to Getae who penetrated the Central Balkans instead of the Eastern ones.

    Of course this is speculation until we get aDNA from EBA, MBA cultures of the Balkans which unfortunately we don't have however my own assumption is that most of the E-V13 clades entered the Balkans at the end of EBA and the beginning of MBA from direction of the Carpathian basin and in that context they should be in close relationship with the Bell Beaker people, not the Yamnaya guys. At the end of the day it seems the Bell Beakers were the big winners, not the Yamnaya people who didn't leave much of a legacy outside of the Balkans evidenced by the Z2103 Yamnaya rich y-dna lineage.

  12. #37
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    481

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-A24070
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Bædzænæg
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    1 members found this post helpful.
    @ Aspar

    It's Huban, present in Bulgarian as adjective "hubav", in Macedonian without "h". It is old-Bulgarian, being in a bolyar Huban from 1207-1218, though I see Bulgarian linguists connect this with Mongol Ghobay with the same meaning, ultimately likely Eastern Iranian. My ancestors left the Shop more than 750 years ago so them having this name in 15th century means they had it in 13th century too. Considering the Mongols only started assaulting the Europe after the time of Boril, no way it is from them. But among the so called "Black Hats", where remnants of Pechenegs, Uzi (Torkils), Berendei gathered, there were also some tribes hypothesised to have been of Mongol origin, might be another connection to Berendei (archaeologically they mostly descended of Pechenegs) of my own. These people settled in Bulgaria, not only settled but they must have had some higher status, as evidenced by the fact that Ivan Asen II was ktetor of the church in one Berende village. I definitely want people tested from those villages (there are two). In any case it cannot be Ottoman (from Persian xub), as it is attested from before, was not common in Turkish, plus as one Bulgarian linguist said no Anatolian Turk knows what hub is while every Bulgarian does. And it doesn't seem Bulgar from their names. Magyar Conqueror had a name Huba, so potentially it might be related to Bulgarian form, Hungarian sources say it is of unknown or Turkic origin.
    This personal name was rare in Bulgarians but present especially around Tarnovo, even next to the Beadnos Fortress, so it looks probably through the bolyars it entered the Bulgarian language.
    One Martenitsa legend mentions Huba as daughter of Kubrat, but I read this was made up 100 years ago. And that the celebration of Martenitsa is paleo-Balkan related.


    Thanks for that info about Mogleno-Vlachs. I read about Grevena some time ago, there was one haplotype I was looking into, likely E-CTS9320>BY4404 clade, Greek surname. I saw that mention of Bulgarian speakers there in early 13th century.

    Very interesting about Rosalia, it does seem Thraco-Phrygian related. Apparently linguistically Mogleno-Vlachs are closer to Romanians than to Aromanians. Your result thus far seems like the only Moglen proper result, where you have some Aromanians as matches, so looking at that they have some connection. Of course, your people what used to be a very widespread Eastern Romance group, and especially in the area between Serbia and Bulgaria they were very prominent. Linguists attribute their presence to significant differences between Serbo-Croatian and Bulgaro-Macedonian. They were likely massively assimilated only in Medieval, around 1100-1200. And ofc Vlachs played significant influence in creation of II Bulgarian Empire.
    You also see Slavic influence in early Vlachs with names such as Dobromir, but also I believe in earliest Thessalian Vlachs we have Slavic names. Major Aromanian Y-DNA lineage is R-YP4278 (10 out of 65 tested from Stip), also found in Herzegovina Serbs who descend from 14th century Vlach Kresojevići tribe.

    Of Western Romance speakers, what is left of them is mostly in Dalmatian coastal area (in modern Croats), where they were even a separate group until the Medieval, masters of the sea like the Illyrians/Liburnii. Much of the hinterground was deserted, hence such strong dominance of Slavic DNA today.

    About ancient V13, ofc we lack the aDNA required. It is true that the Yamnaya left little legacy but the fact is people like Greeks were Yamnaya derived, and we also have some E-CTS5856* (probably another BY3880*) in Cyprus. And Bell Beaker influence wasn't as large in the Eastern portion. Also it was these Yamnaya related groups that made various incursions in EBA around the Eastern Balkans, Central Balkans, even modern day Albania. That does correspond to various basal BY3880* clades we see today. Cetina culture was actually directly BB influenced but the funerary ritual (which is very important) was of Glina III, and they were politically aligned with the Yamnaya people. With some BB groups next to them they had no interaction. I think Cetina was just the E-Y37092 clade. So as Raf suggested long ago I agree with Cetina, it's just some of these Eastern Cetina relatives such as Belotic-Bela Crkva etc to which he connected the spread of V13 clades actually were not derived from Cetina but from Schneckenberg culture. Similarity with Cetina was due to GS element in Cetina..

    The only culture having something BB and being active in the area was Cetina (but it wasn't BB proper in any way). And the second seems J-L283 dominated culture with whom Cetina had almost no contacts. I just don't see BB's carrying basal BY3880 lineages around Central/Eastern Balkans. I have somewhere a map of Glina III incursions (can't find it atm), and does mimic the basal BY3880 (not these younger clades such as Z5018 or CTS9320) spread.

    Hopefully there will be aDNA results from there too, but again Romanians lag not only in testing people but in aDNA too, though there are many hundreds or thousands of samples from that timeframe.

  13. #38
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    280

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    How do u explain Sicilians belonging quite a lot under this subclade: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/ => some rare branches under this (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/) which is neither Z5017/Z5018.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Aspar's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-07-17
    Posts
    137

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-Y16729
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Macedonian
    Country: Lesotho



    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    @ Aspar
    It's Huban, present in Bulgarian as adjective "hubav", in Macedonian without "h". It is old-Bulgarian, being in a bolyar Huban from 1207-1218, though I see Bulgarian linguists connect this with Mongol Ghobay with the same meaning, ultimately likely Eastern Iranian. My ancestors left the Shop more than 750 years ago so them having this name in 15th century means they had it in 13th century too. Considering the Mongols only started assaulting the Europe after the time of Boril, no way it is from them. But among the so called "Black Hats", where remnants of Pechenegs, Uzi (Torkils), Berendei gathered, there were also some tribes hypothesised to have been of Mongol origin, might be another connection to Berendei (archaeologically they mostly descended of Pechenegs) of my own. These people settled in Bulgaria, not only settled but they must have had some higher status, as evidenced by the fact that Ivan Asen II was ktetor of the church in one Berende village. I definitely want people tested from those villages (there are two). In any case it cannot be Ottoman (from Persian xub), as it is attested from before, was not common in Turkish, plus as one Bulgarian linguist said no Anatolian Turk knows what hub is while every Bulgarian does. And it doesn't seem Bulgar from their names. Magyar Conqueror had a name Huba, so potentially it might be related to Bulgarian form, Hungarian sources say it is of unknown or Turkic origin.
    This personal name was rare in Bulgarians but present especially around Tarnovo, even next to the Beadnos Fortress, so it looks probably through the bolyars it entered the Bulgarian language.
    One Martenitsa legend mentions Huba as daughter of Kubrat, but I read this was made up 100 years ago. And that the celebration of Martenitsa is paleo-Balkan related.
    Thanks for that info about Mogleno-Vlachs. I read about Grevena some time ago, there was one haplotype I was looking into, likely E-CTS9320>BY4404 clade, Greek surname. I saw that mention of Bulgarian speakers there in early 13th century.
    Very interesting about Rosalia, it does seem Thraco-Phrygian related. Apparently linguistically Mogleno-Vlachs are closer to Romanians than to Aromanians. Your result thus far seems like the only Moglen proper result, where you have some Aromanians as matches, so looking at that they have some connection. Of course, your people what used to be a very widespread Eastern Romance group, and especially in the area between Serbia and Bulgaria they were very prominent. Linguists attribute their presence to significant differences between Serbo-Croatian and Bulgaro-Macedonian. They were likely massively assimilated only in Medieval, around 1100-1200. And ofc Vlachs played significant influence in creation of II Bulgarian Empire.
    You also see Slavic influence in early Vlachs with names such as Dobromir, but also I believe in earliest Thessalian Vlachs we have Slavic names. Major Aromanian Y-DNA lineage is R-YP4278 (10 out of 65 tested from Stip), also found in Herzegovina Serbs who descend from 14th century Vlach Kresojevići tribe.
    Of Western Romance speakers, what is left of them is mostly in Dalmatian coastal area (in modern Croats), where they were even a separate group until the Medieval, masters of the sea like the Illyrians/Liburnii. Much of the hinterground was deserted, hence such strong dominance of Slavic DNA today.
    About ancient V13, ofc we lack the aDNA required. It is true that the Yamnaya left little legacy but the fact is people like Greeks were Yamnaya derived, and we also have some E-CTS5856* (probably another BY3880*) in Cyprus. And Bell Beaker influence wasn't as large in the Eastern portion. Also it was these Yamnaya related groups that made various incursions in EBA around the Eastern Balkans, Central Balkans, even modern day Albania. That does correspond to various basal BY3880* clades we see today. Cetina culture was actually directly BB influenced but the funerary ritual (which is very important) was of Glina III, and they were politically aligned with the Yamnaya people. With some BB groups next to them they had no interaction. I think Cetina was just the E-Y37092 clade. So as Raf suggested long ago I agree with Cetina, it's just some of these Eastern Cetina relatives such as Belotic-Bela Crkva etc to which he connected the spread of V13 clades actually were not derived from Cetina but from Schneckenberg culture. Similarity with Cetina was due to GS element in Cetina..
    The only culture having something BB and being active in the area was Cetina (but it wasn't BB proper in any way). And the second seems J-L283 dominated culture with whom Cetina had almost no contacts. I just don't see BB's carrying basal BY3880 lineages around Central/Eastern Balkans. I have somewhere a map of Glina III incursions (can't find it atm), and does mimic the basal BY3880 (not these younger clades such as Z5018 or CTS9320) spread.
    Hopefully there will be aDNA results from there too, but again Romanians lag not only in testing people but in aDNA too, though there are many hundreds or thousands of samples from that timeframe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
    @ Aspar
    It's Huban, present in Bulgarian as adjective "hubav", in Macedonian without "h". It is old-Bulgarian, being in a bolyar Huban from 1207-1218, though I see Bulgarian linguists connect this with Mongol Ghobay with the same meaning, ultimately likely Eastern Iranian. My ancestors left the Shop more than 750 years ago so them having this name in 15th century means they had it in 13th century too. Considering the Mongols only started assaulting the Europe after the time of Boril, no way it is from them. But among the so called "Black Hats", where remnants of Pechenegs, Uzi (Torkils), Berendei gathered, there were also some tribes hypothesised to have been of Mongol origin, might be another connection to Berendei (archaeologically they mostly descended of Pechenegs) of my own. These people settled in Bulgaria, not only settled but they must have had some higher status, as evidenced by the fact that Ivan Asen II was ktetor of the church in one Berende village. I definitely want people tested from those villages (there are two). In any case it cannot be Ottoman (from Persian xub), as it is attested from before, was not common in Turkish, plus as one Bulgarian linguist said no Anatolian Turk knows what hub is while every Bulgarian does. And it doesn't seem Bulgar from their names. Magyar Conqueror had a name Huba, so potentially it might be related to Bulgarian form, Hungarian sources say it is of unknown or Turkic origin.
    This personal name was rare in Bulgarians but present especially around Tarnovo, even next to the Beadnos Fortress, so it looks probably through the bolyars it entered the Bulgarian language.
    One Martenitsa legend mentions Huba as daughter of Kubrat, but I read this was made up 100 years ago. And that the celebration of Martenitsa is paleo-Balkan related.
    Thanks for that info about Mogleno-Vlachs. I read about Grevena some time ago, there was one haplotype I was looking into, likely E-CTS9320>BY4404 clade, Greek surname. I saw that mention of Bulgarian speakers there in early 13th century.
    Very interesting about Rosalia, it does seem Thraco-Phrygian related. Apparently linguistically Mogleno-Vlachs are closer to Romanians t
    han to Aromanians. Your result thus far seems like the only Moglen proper result, where you have some Aromanians as matches, so looking at that they have some connection. Of course, your people what used to be a very widespread Eastern Romance group, and especially in the area between Serbia and Bulgaria they were very prominent. Linguists attribute their presence to significant differences between Serbo-Croatian and Bulgaro-Macedonian. They were likely massively assimilated only in Medieval, around 1100-1200. And ofc Vlachs played significant influence in creation of II Bulgarian Empire.
    You also see Slavic influence in early Vlachs with names such as Dobromir, but also I believe in earliest Thessalian Vlachs we have Slavic names. Major Aromanian Y-DNA lineage is R-YP4278 (10 out of 65 tested from Stip), also found in Herzegovina Serbs who descend from 14th century Vlach Kresojevići tribe.
    Of Western Romance speakers, what is left of them is mostly in Dalmatian coastal area (in modern Croats), where they were even a separate group until the Medieval, masters of the sea like the Illyrians/Liburnii. Much of the hinterground was deserted, hence such strong dominance of Slavic DNA today.
    About ancient V13, ofc we lack the aDNA required. It is true that the Yamnaya left little legacy but the fact is people like Greeks were Yamnaya derived, and we also have some E-CTS5856* (probably another BY3880*) in Cyprus. And Bell Beaker influence wasn't as large in the Eastern portion. Also it was these Yamnaya related groups that made various incursions in EBA around the Eastern Balkans, Central Balkans, even modern day Albania. That does correspond to various basal BY3880* clades we see today. Cetina culture was actually directly BB influenced but the funerary ritual (which is very important) was of Glina III, and they were politically aligned with the Yamnaya people. With some BB groups next to them they had no interaction. I think Cetina was just the E-Y37092 clade. So as Raf suggested long ago I agree with Cetina, it's just some of these Eastern Cetina relatives such as Belotic-Bela Crkva etc to which he connected the spread of V13 clades actually were not derived from Cetina but from Schneckenberg culture. Similarity with Cetina was due to GS element in Cetina..
    The only culture having something BB and being active in the area was Cetina (but it wasn't BB proper in any way). And the second seems J-L283 dominated culture with whom Cetina had almost no contacts. I just don't see BB's carrying basal BY3880 lineages around Central/Eastern Balkans. I have somewhere a map of Glina III incursions (can't find it atm), and does mimic the basal BY3880 (not these younger clades such as Z5018 or CTS9320) spread.
    Hopefully there will be aDNA results from there too, but again Romanians lag not only in testing people but in aDNA too, though there are many hundreds or thousands of samples from that timeframe.
    Yes 'хубав/убав' is a word in Bulgarian/Macedonian that entered during the last thousand years most probably.
    In the Bulgarian Wiktionary I see that it's assumed that the word entered in the middle ages from the Cuman 'ghub' with the same meaning. In that regard it's for sure not from the Mongols who didn't even had an influence and contacts with the Bulgarians but from the Cumans who indeed played major part in the Second Vlach-Bulgarian Empire. Most probably this Huban was himself mostly of Cuman extraction. So my opinion is that this is not a Bulgar word because it's a late loan but rather Cuman one.
    Up to the end of the 12th century and the beginning of the 13th the Cumans lived in what is now Wallachia and the land was known as Cumania. That pretty much is clear from historical sources. It seems that the onslaught by the Mongols deserted much of the land and the Cumans migrated mostly in Bulgaria and Hungary. It seems also that the Cumans heavily settled in the Shop region where we find concentration of Cuman derived toponyms such as Kumanovo. This might have led proto-Romanians that lived in the Shop region up to that point and who acted as a border between the Serbs and the Bulgarians to start migrating into Wallachia and other parts of today Romania and Moldova. Probably these proto-Romanians were part of a larger chain that stretched from Danube on the border between Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania all the way down to Macedonia and Thessaly therefore that might explain why the Romanian is closer to the Meglenitic Vlach and not the Aromanian who was not part of this chain but likely was isolated in the mountains of South Albania and Epirus or what was known as Upper Vlachia in the historical sources.
    About Martinka it is an ancient tradition that dates to pre-Slavic Balkan as per the most investigators and ethnographers. The relation to the Bulgars is just a modern ethno-romantism who tends to prescribe everything to only one element just because they carry the name of that particular element.
    By the way Meglenitic Vlach is not closer to Romanian. It is actually closer both in grammar and lexicon to Aromanian than Romanian. But the Romanian it's closer to Meglenitic than it is to Aromanian. This was spot on by Weigand but also Theodor Capidan who wrote a lot about Meglenitic and Aromanian. The big difference is that Aromanian was more isolated from Slavic speakers and had more influence from Greek and Albanian while Romanian and Meglenitic had more Slavic influence. In that regard it looks like the proto-Romanians who lived in Shop were actually the border between the Bulgarians and the Serbs. Most of the Meglenitic speakers were probably living in Macedonia even before the Slavic migrations. All three groups proto-Romanians, Meglenites and Aromanians probably lived close to the main Roman roads such as the western halfs of Via Militaris and Via Egnatia plus the connection between these two roads along the Morava-Vardar rivers and acted as border men and guards. That the military and the guards were mostly Latin speakers and under Latin administration is a well known fact so my opinion is that this have something to do with Justinian's efforts with strengthening of the defensive lines and the rise of the Coman culture which many historians think it was a culture of Latin speakers. That probably goes hand in hand with great many Latin derived toponyms in Albania and North Macedonia. Plus we have the famous 'Torna torna Fratre' deep in the Balkans that only confirmes that Latin speakers did live south of the Jirecek line.
    Therefore the Slavic influence is not a surprise among the Meglen Vlachs and the proto-Romanians because the most affected territories by the Bulgarian expansion were the territories exactly where they lived. On the other hand the Aromanians who lived more isolated in Epirus were less affected and some of their recorded names were typically Latin derived such as the name of a Vlach by the name Constantine Aurelian who was accused of raping a Greek girl and attacking her father in the region of Naupaktos, an account dated to 1221 by John Apokaukos, metropolitan of Naupaktos.
    As for basal E-BY3880 clades you might be right and the only way to know this is aDNA from Glina III Schneckenberg. However about Cetina I am sure that I read somewhere that they practiced Cremation as well especially a Cremation cist burial under Tumulus. From the same source I've read that the Dorians who practiced the same Cremation cist burial was inherited directly from Cetina. Plus there are some others elements that point to that direction such as the use of Illyrian spears etc. There is still no official confirmation but I think that Eurogenes/Davidski mentioned on Anthrogenica that in a paper yet to come about the ancient Greeks, there is one Z2103 Mycenaean and other L51 which is the major Bell Beaker line. If these rumors are true than there is also major influence in ancient Greeks that is Bell Beaker in origin and that probably arrived from Cetina culture direction. That was visible even with the existing Mycenaean samples as the youngest of them I9033 dated to 1416-1280 BCE and unlike the other samples unearthed in western Pelloponnese plots northern than the other Mycenaeans in the direction of MBA Croatia. So let's see what the future papers bring.
    Although I agree that E-V13 might have steamed from Neolithic Croatia. In my first post you can see that there was a major Vucedol influence south of the Balaton lake under which influence the later Encrusted Pottery Culture evolved and which also developed on the base of Kisapostag culture which was a BB culture. So even though it steamed from the Vucedol culture it's later subclades were probably dispersed from the direction of the Carpathian Basin with some even migrating to the Steppe.
    Anyways to not kidnap your thread it was enough speculation from me.

  15. #40
    Regular Member Aspar's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-07-17
    Posts
    137

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-Y16729
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Macedonian
    Country: Lesotho



    Also it's interesting what you describe as Bulgarian-like toponymy in the region around Montenegro. Unlike the Greeks the literacy of the medieval Slavic people was on much lower level so we don't have accounts about many such migrations that might given birth to such toponymy.
    As a lineage that might have migrated from Bulgarian speaking area to Montenegro i have one in mind: E-BY5430. Probably there are more such examples.

    It's also interesting that the Serbs have such a low diversity in many lineages. I've read somewhere that during the attacks of the Bulgarians from the First Bulgarian Empire great many Serbs were taken captives and transferred in Bulgaria thus the land of Serbia was greatly deserted. After the collapse of the First Bulgarian Empire and the failed uprisings such as the one of Petar Delyan, probably many Bulgarians and Vlachs did migrated to Serbia and Montenegro under pressure from the Byzantnes thus mixing with the original Serbs there. I always believed that the original Serbs were much like the Croats and Bosnians of today however the mixing with the Bulgarians and Vlachs who migrated there plus mixing with the Torlakian people after the expansion of the Serbian state east of the Morava river made them more Bulgarian-like.

  16. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-03-18
    Posts
    481

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-A24070
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1a

    Ethnic group
    Bædzænæg
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    @ Aspar

    Thanks for that input, I didn't notice this Cuman claim. And it seems quite legit as it refers to Codex Cumanicus. And it seems closer to Bulgarian than Mongol form. Slavicist Wilhelm Tomaschek first made this Mongol connection long time ago. I guess CCum wasn't translated back then. There were many bolyars of Cuman extraction, and alongside this Huban was for ex. certain Chernoglav, this is not the Slavic name that was common, but for example in 1282. the Serbs captured Tatar leader Crna Glava or "black head" so likely direct translation from Karabash. In any case it doesn't look Bulgar as it wasn't attested in Bulgars.

    Pechenegs were too more Kipchak than Oghuz from what I've read, especially the Berendei, who were often confused with the Cumans by many authors (though they were different).
    EDIT: I found this Cuman "ghob/ghub" in Codex Cumanicus, so indeed it must be from such direction. And also the Mongol ghobay is related to it as they all have the same meaning.

    Regarding E-BY5430, ofc for some time it is clear to me their ancestry is from Macedonia. Though they do not quite match this Bulgarian toponym concentration, they are from Pljevlja, according to some claims their ancestor was Sipahi Vojin/his kin, who was ktetor of Holy Trinity monastery in Pljevlja in 1590s. So they seem also like some older family like mine.

    On the other hand this particular Bulgarian concentration is on the Southern Peshter area, indeed the very name Pešter is Bulgarian (Serbs use Pećina for cave), some people of my cluster tested are directly from some of these, for example one from Boroštica. Also for example Raždaginja, you see instantly linguistic difference of Bulgaro-Macedonian sht/zhd vs Serb Ć/Đ (ch/dj), there is indeed in Bulgaria river and village with such name.
    Also to add Bolyare which doesn't need much explanation, these are mostly concentrated around the mountain I mentioned: Žilindar which seems surely Kipchak Turkic, meaning "snake", one peak of Zhilindar is called "snakes head"/zmijska glava. In 1254. Bulgarian ruler wanted to take the Dalmatia, he had a pact with Dubrovnik and Hum ruler Radoslav (also Nemanjić), and Bulgarian army came to Bijelo Polje, but eventually after short conflict things were back to normal, and Ragusans got what they wanted. Radoslav dissapeared as did the independence of Zachumlia. Serb ruler apparently swore oath of allegiance to Hungarian ruler back then.

    I found indication my family were musellems in the early 16th/late 15th century. That was an old Ottoman cavalry order (from the days of Osman), some Christians were recruited, in this instance it should be an indication they were very good with horses (as two traditions of my family claim).

    And it seems my own family weren't even vlach by status. Now when you mention greater Balkan influence in Serbs than in Bosnians/Croats, this is indeed due to many factors. One, Vlach migration from the Central Balkans, then some Slavic Y-DNA locals already in 14th century adopted the Vlach status. most descendants of Herzegovina Medieval Vlach katuns have Slavic Y-DNA, however some do have clearly non-Slavic ancestry. Then the Ottomans came, and basically in late 15th century most of Serbs were Vlachs or they were in such status.
    Actually most of Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia migrated as Vlach groups with the Ottomans (Serbs from Herzegovina are very old there though). These people had privileges, their leaders were officially sipahis etc. So no wonder especially Bosnian Bosniaks always referred to Serbs as "Vlachs". For Serbs under the Ottomans being of vlach status was advantageous in many ways. Also Nemanjic expansion Eastwards caused mingling with various Shop/Central Balkan groups, largely Serb I-Z17855 became part of Serbian ethnos.
    So due to numerous factors Serbs, indeed originally likely similar to Croats became more SE shifted.

    Ofc there were those early Bulgarian incursions, per some Serbia was even totally deserted, but also much of this genetic homogeneity in Serbs is for the same reason as in Albanians, tribal culture and domination of stronger tribes over the weaker tribes. Such culture used to be very common in Montenegro, and in Herzegovina little bit earlier. Still much of Serbs trace their ancestry to Herzegovina and Montenegro. Actually Western half of modern Montenegro is Herzegovina. Montenegro was a small core area of Montenegro 300 years ago..


    Regarding the Meglen, very interesting, I find them puzzling. So they are closer to Aromanians. I know in the past some have hypothesized they have some Steppe input, as in Moglen both Pechenegs and Cumans settled. There are some Greeks under I-Y125026>Y128714 , they are from Theodorakion village not far from you but I guess they aren't of Moglen ancestry. I-Y125026 occurs in some Serbs, Bulgarians too, so should be Slavic, but there is one Bessenyei from Hungary and also one from anonymous Cumanian sample from Hungary so not sure what's their ancestry, especially as in Todorci though most had Slavic names there were few which looked Turkic. This is a clade likely descended of Daco-Celtic Kotini/Anarti and they expanded largely with Slavs, some likely moved with Cumano-Pechenegs.

    Thus far Aromanians seem genetically isolated, even their most common J-L283 clade is still very distant from Albanians.

    Yes Shop might have been the starting point for Proto-Romanians, I don't deny some potential earlier presence of some Latin groups in Romanian areas (like Transylvania), but it seems Balkan incomers had great influence.

    Regarding Cetina, the did practice cremation combined with inhumation. On the other hand their neighbor culture where J-L283 was found practiced exclusively inhumation, as did their direct descendants such as Glasinac culture. Archaeologists say these two were clearly different populations. Thanks to these inhumation burials of Cetina I believe there is enough material to test these eventually. Now regarding their Tumulus burial, both Cetina and Posušje cultures had it. But it's origin is Glina III, almost identical burials. This sort of burial was totally unknown to the BB's. J-L283 were likely originally Bell Beakeroid derived, and you can see in autosomal profile of EBA/LBA Dalmatians that these people are BB derived not Yamnaya. But cyst Tumulus was imposed by the Yamnaya it seems.

    Regarding L51 in Greeks, Dorians could have had the L51 easily, because it was the L51 heavy central European groups who were among the instigators of the LBA collapse. That's no surprise but based on linguistics Greek should be distantly related to Armenian and like Armenians originally Z2103.

    Yes I read about those unofficial finds, it will be interesting to see what was the exact context etc. Again Greeks are not so well tested so thus far few of these clades have been identified.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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