Ancient DNA of Roman Danubian Frontier and Slavic Migrations (Olalde 2021)

[Riverman]

We already know Late Neolithic samples from Bulgaria though, and all of them are G2a. Then R1b appears in Chalcolithic.

That single E-V13 sample which has a lot of Barcin and some Yamnaya makes me think E-V13 really lived in Balkans during Chalcolithic (Either Chalcolithic Croatia/Serbia/Bosnia, somewhere here) then moved up North during EBA to integrate and participate into the formation of latter Middle-Danube Urnfield groups. Some of them more some of them less so.

Just like i mentioned before Cardials moved up in Bosnia, participating in creating Butmir Culture then Butmir participated on forming Vucedol then Vucedol participated on creating Nagyrev and related North-East Hungarian EBA Cultures. Let's see how things work out.

Its such a shame they didn't use the improved yDNA enrichment methods, because these would really help and make things a lot more clear. Like where the Füzesabony samples, two of them, really haplogroup H? Which subclade? Or the exact subclades of E-V13, G2, J2 and I2. Interestingly, the only I2 which seems to be fairly safe seems to be a dead end. Like I wrote in the other thread, looks like E-V13 eliminated those which participated in this Northward migration, began to first dominate in the Tisza basin and then moving out from there, especially East and South. With Kyjatice, there are now already two J2a with a similar profile to the E-V13 Northern one:
Celtic_paper:I17322 0.02893993 (J-Y16464) (closest to Swedish, 3rd is Polish, plots close in the Germanic-Slavic continuum, outside German range)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y16464/

[Hawk]

Its such a shame they didn't use the improved yDNA enrichment methods, because these would really help and make things a lot more clear. Like where the F�zesabony samples, two of them, really haplogroup H? Which subclade? Or the exact subclades of E-V13, G2, J2 and I2. Interestingly, the only I2 which seems to be fairly safe seems to be a dead end. Like I wrote in the other thread, looks like E-V13 eliminated those which participated in this Northward migration, began to first dominate in the Tisza basin and then moving out from there, especially East and South. With Kyjatice, there are now already two J2a with a similar profile to the E-V13 Northern one:
Celtic_paper:I17322 0.02893993 (J-Y16464) (closest to Swedish, 3rd is Polish, plots close in the Germanic-Slavic continuum, outside German range)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y16464/

I concur, it's a mess. I remember the old good days where we time-traveled from Neolithic and Chalcolithic right away in Iron Age when we used to explain Y-DNA presence, completely ignoring the more dynamic Bronze Age and especially Bronze to Iron Age transition lol.

Hugelgraberkultur was my main candidate once since it was a bridge from South Germany (some sub-group descended from Michelsberger?) toward Carpathes and then Balkans. And exactly the same timeline of E-V13 rise to prominence, but probably it was just a false call.

[Hawk]

I wonder where is Huba Buba/Huban, haven't heard of him for a time. Probably he is hiding somewhere refining his theory on Thracians, Illyrians. He will pop up eventually in one of the threads.

Huban prince of E-V13 Daco-Thracians

[MOESAN]

From the distances the J2b2 samples have affinities with Adriatic on the other side, so it makes sense they are from there, Eastern Adriatic, Illyrian tribes from Dalmatia.

It isn't to put upside down the whole argumentation here; just to be precise, it seems that Illyrians were not the same as Liburnians and other N-W Balkan tribes, at least linguistically speaking. At some time, every post East-Urnfield territory was considered under Illyrian control and culture, until the Lusacian C. based on river names in Poland; it appear their linguistic links would be rather with Liburnians and even Sth Veneti so some kind of post-Meta-Italic heritage. I avow I lack recent clues about the allover region concerning Y-haplo's ( I have not had access to all the complete new surveys. My bet todate is that the IA Y-R1b-U152's are rather linked to N-W Balkans and Central Europe rather than to S-W Balkans. If I'm wrong, I would be glad to have the recent data I lack.

[Hawk]

It isn't to put upside down the whole argumentation here; just to be precise, it seems that Illyrians were not the same as Liburnians and other N-W Balkan tribes, at least linguistically speaking. At some time, every post East-Urnfield territory was considered under Illyrian control and culture, until the Lusacian C. based on river names in Poland; it appear their linguistic links would be rather with Liburnians and even Sth Veneti so some kind of post-Meta-Italic heritage. I avow I lack recent clues about the allover region concerning Y-haplo's ( I have not had access to all the complete new surveys. My bet todate is that the IA Y-R1b-U152's are rather linked to N-W Balkans and Central Europe rather than to S-W Balkans. If I'm wrong, I would be glad to have the recent data I lack.

It's slightly unclear at the moment.

As for Proto-Illyrians, two theories are the most credible:

1. They were Yamnaya derived continuing the Early Bronze Age tradition exclusively, the initial carrier was R1b-Z2103 and latter joined by J2b2-L283 (If we go by Yugoslav and Albanian archeologists this is who the Proto-Illyrians were)

2. They were CWC/Bell Beaker derived, probably Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus grave people who largely influenced the Danubian Urnfield and hence the historical Pannonian, and Illyrization of core Illyrians happened during LBA/EIA when the so called Pannonian-Balkan migration happened and enriched the inner Balkans with iron-working technology (If we go by Austrian archeologists there was Early/Middle Bronze Age continuity but there was strong Danubian Urnfield influence during LBA/EIA (E-V13 involved?)).

Then again we don't know exactly who in specificity was this Danubian Urnfield Culture. We have several of them:

Middle-Danube Urnfield culture


- Velatice-Baierdorf in Moravia and Austria
- Čaka in western Slovakia
- GĂĄva culture
- Piliny culture
- Kyjatice culture
- MakĂł culture

[Riverman]

Piliny is just considered an earlier stage of Kyjatice. And Mako seems to have become rather a substrate to both Kyjatice and Gáva. Out of these only Velatice-Baierdorf is a real member of the Middle Danubian Urnfield group as far as I understood it. They are however very typical for it, so essentially that's it. Those coming down the Danube from the Alpine-Danubian zone would be closely related to Velatice-Baierdorf, not Kyjatice-Gáva, which was more Eastern local, closer connected to Epi-Corded and Uneticians than the former.

Compare:

The expansion of the Early Urnfield Culture and in particular the so-called Baierdorf-Velatice complex between eastern Austria and northern Croatia is the focus of this project. In cooperation with the Institute of Archeology in Zagreb, the finds from this period (13^th and 12^th c. BC) are analysed in terms of typology, fabrics and context.

In March 2018 the Austrian and Croatian team members visited the museums in Zagreb, Križevci and Slatina with collections of the finds assigned to the Baierdorf-Velatice cultural complex (Zagreb, Križevci and Slatina). The goal was to discuss and compare detailed typological and chronological sequence of pottery shapes and decorations related to early phase of the Urnfield Culture. Thanks to the cooperation of the involved museums, the team members were able to study and examine the finds from sites Zagreb-Vrapče (Archaeological Museum Zagreb), Kalnik-Igrišće (City Museum Križevci) and Veliko Polje (Museum Slatina).

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/forsc...uth-connection

The Middle Danubian Tumulus culture was closer connected to the Alpine-Danubian zone, basically Austria-Czechia, while the Channelled Ware group was oriented towards the Carpathians, Eastern Slovakia-North Western Romania. They both split Pannonia/Hungary, largely along the Danube, which later resulted in a mixed zone first and very much later in Eastern Hallstat-Basarabi continuum.

[Hawk]

Well then, let's just split Danubian Urnfield Cultures into Western(more Alpine)/Eastern(more Carpathian) zones, but the core zone inbetween Alps and Carpathian mountains?

[Riverman]

Well then, let's just split Danubian Urnfield Cultures into Western(more Alpine)/Eastern(more Carpathian) zones, but the core zone inbetween Alps and Carpathian mountains?

That's for sure, but a wide range. And they were already split in the Tumulus Culture phase, which is the latest point at which Illyrian and Thracian must gone separate ways. The Middle Danubian TC pushed the ancestors of Kyjatice-Gáva East and annihilated the Füzesabony sibling of the late Otomani complex, the Gyulavarsánd group. Both were intrusive, but from different backgrounds (Bell Beaker vs. Epi-Corded), and the Middle Danubians came in later, actually.
You see it on the PCA too, the Southern Illyrian-West Balkan Illyrian complex with J2b plots with the French, the Füzesabony-Kyjatice-Gáva with French too, but in comparison much more with Balkan, Germanics and Slavs.

Distance to:	HUN_LBA_Gava:I20771
0.03594555	Croatian:Croatia_Cro198
0.04016997	German:German18
0.04102858	Slovakian:Slovakia85
0.04207747	Austrian:Austria16
0.04239893	Hungarian:NA15200
0.04326720	Polish:Polish27
0.04327447	Austrian:Austria17
0.04334110	Austrian:Austria15
0.04368963	German:German4
0.04476262	Polish:Polish28
0.04519971	German:German76
0.04532535	German:German73
0.04546498	German:German59
0.04554725	Slovenian:Slovenian90
0.04578035	German:German75
0.04578825	Slovakian:Slovakia96
0.04591099	Slovakian:Slovakia118
0.04625260	Polish:Polish10
0.04643268	German:German40
0.04673483	Ukrainian:UKR-1283
0.04695328	Moldovan_o:Moldovan_V46055
0.04710677	German:German64
0.04726736	Austrian:Austria7
0.04739816	Polish:Polish26
0.04746757	Croatian:Croatia_Cro141

Distance to:	HUN_LBA_Kyjatice:I1504
0.03716199	French_Alsace:A_31
0.03956820	German_East:German_East3
0.04211835	Slovenian:Slovenian90
0.04255626	German:German47
0.04280057	Austrian:Austria16
0.04387790	Croatian:Croatia_Cro198
0.04393539	French_Alsace:A_69
0.04400297	German:German73
0.04497305	French_Alsace:A_25
0.04521751	French_Auvergne:C_37
0.04526846	Hungarian:NA15200
0.04529478	French_Nord:N_18
0.04549825	German:German41
0.04563996	Austrian:Austria11
0.04573830	Italian_Sappada:GRC14372363
0.04586365	Italian_Sappada:GRC14372308
0.04595099	French_Occitanie:T_65
0.04599167	Slovenian:Slovenian136
0.04611260	German:German29
0.04619197	French_Alsace:A_49
0.04624080	Croatian:Croatia_Cro142
0.04626876	Hungarian:NA15208
0.04631957	French_Occitanie:T_36
0.04652386	French_Alsace:A_15
0.04662286	Croatian:Croatia_Cro43

Compare with some J2b Illyrians, some with possible Veneti or Celtic relations:

Distance to:	J2B:I23995
0.02016571	Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127
0.02154721	Italian_Veneto:KF1800772
0.02245733	Italian_Veneto:KF1800751
0.02272725	French_Corsica:corsica11908
0.02436301	Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01147
0.02526576	Italian_Veneto:Alp401
0.02531035	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200
0.02579578	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395
0.02604619	French_Provencerovance2508
0.02634485	French_Provence:S_33
0.02640638	French_Provencerovance2708
0.02672187	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP259
0.02677038	Italian_Piedmont:Piedmont61
0.02696502	Italian_Northeast:ALP346
0.02703713	Italian_Northeast:KF1800761
0.02709998	Italian_Veneto:ALP022
0.02808118	Italian_Lombardy:ALP288
0.02826900	Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01153
0.02880657	Italian_Veneto:ALP116
0.02883318	Spanish_Penedes:ROB016
0.02884183	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP071
0.02884906	Spanish_Mallorca:MEL022
0.02886690	Spanish_Mallorca:MAY035
0.02890136	Italian_Veneto:ALP250
0.02898031	Italian_Veneto:Alp100

Distance to:	J2B:I26742
0.02262368	Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01155
0.02656272	Italian_Veneto:ALP209
0.02704348	Italian_Lombardy:ALP288
0.02770564	Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01153
0.02795969	French_Corsica:CorsicaS04208
0.02819830	Italian_Carloforte:GRC14339280
0.02854679	Italian_Piedmont:Piedmont61
0.02863547	French_Corsica:Corsica14708
0.02901771	Swiss_Italian:Swiss_Italian3
0.02983226	Italian_Lombardy:BGD28
0.02988361	Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127
0.03018880	Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01147
0.03032490	French_Provencerovance2708
0.03053289	Spanish_Baleares:HG01613
0.03073969	Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont149
0.03080905	Italian_Veneto:KF1800751
0.03094437	Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152
0.03133082	Italian_Veneto:ALP022
0.03170370	Spanish_Mallorca:MEL022
0.03175743	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395
0.03179973	Swiss_Italian:Swiss_Italian2
0.03202325	Italian_Veneto:KF1800772
0.03202815	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP259
0.03223245	French_Corsica:Corsica24508
0.03227046	Italian_Tuscany:NA20502

The Illyrian-related samples have very little Epi-Corded and Mako drift/WHG, which makes the Kyjatice-Gáva, which have it, more "Balto-Slavic" in comparison.

[Archetype0ne]

It's slightly unclear at the moment.

As for Proto-Illyrians, two theories are the most credible:

1. They were Yamnaya derived continuing the Early Bronze Age tradition exclusively, the initial carrier was R1b-Z2103 and latter joined by J2b2-L283 (If we go by Yugoslav and Albanian archeologists this is who the Proto-Illyrians were)

2. They were CWC/Bell Beaker derived, probably Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus grave people who largely influenced the Danubian Urnfield and hence the historical Pannonian, and Illyrization of core Illyrians happened during LBA/EIA when the so called Pannonian-Balkan migration happened and enriched the inner Balkans with iron-working technology (If we go by Austrian archeologists there was Early/Middle Bronze Age continuity but there was strong Danubian Urnfield influence during LBA/EIA (E-V13 involved?)).

Then again we don't know exactly who in specificity was this Danubian Urnfield Culture. We have several of them:

Middle-Danube Urnfield culture


- Velatice-Baierdorf in Moravia and Austria
- Čaka in western Slovakia
- GĂĄva culture
- Piliny culture
- Kyjatice culture
- MakĂł culture

Those hypotheses might be one and the same.

The Yamnaya culture (Russian: Я́мная культу́ра, IPA: [ˈjamnəjə kulʲˈtura], lit. 'culture of pits') also known as the Yamnaya Horizon,^[2] Yamna culture, Pit Grave culture or Ochre Grave culture, was a late Copper Age to early Bronze Age archaeological culture of the region between the Southern Bug, Dniester, and Ural rivers (the Pontic steppe), dating to 3300–2600 BC.^[3] Its name derives from its characteristic burial tradition: Я́мная (romanization: yamnaya) is a Russian adjective that means 'related to pits (yama)', and these people used to bury their dead in tumuli (kurgans) containing simple pit chambers.

[Hawk]

Those hypotheses might be one and the same.

The Yamnaya culture (Russian: Я́мная культу́ра, IPA: [ˈjamnəjə kulʲˈtura], lit. 'culture of pits') also known as the Yamnaya Horizon,^[2] Yamna culture, Pit Grave culture or Ochre Grave culture, was a late Copper Age to early Bronze Age archaeological culture of the region between the Southern Bug, Dniester, and Ural rivers (the Pontic steppe), dating to 3300–2600 BC.^[3] Its name derives from its characteristic burial tradition: Я́мная (romanization: yamnaya) is a Russian adjective that means 'related to pits (yama)', and these people used to bury their dead in tumuli (kurgans) containing simple pit chambers.

Yes, that's true. All IE groups built tumuli. It's just that somehow they decided to name Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus grave Culture for a reason unbeknown, maybe their tumuli were larger than other groups(during their peak in Middle Bronze Age) not that other IE groups didn't built them. Albanian archeologist Frano Prendi thought Illyrian tumuli were descended from Cetina Culture tumuli, that means from EBA.

But Hugelgraberkultur were Bell-Beaker/CWC derived R1b-L51?, while Yamnaya largely R1b-Z2103, and we are yet to find J2b2-L283 in pure Yamnaya context. So far, it was present in IE group post 2000 B.C and mainly Proto-Illyrian/Illyrian related.

[Archetype0ne]

Yes, that's true. All IE groups built tumuli. It's just that somehow they decided to name Hugelgraberkultur/Tumulus grave Culture for a reason unbeknown, maybe their tumuli were larger than other groups(during their peak in Middle Bronze Age) not that other IE groups didn't built them. Albanian archeologist Frano Prendi thought Illyrian tumuli were descended from Cetina Culture tumuli, that means from EBA.

But Hugelgraberkultur were Bell-Beaker/CWC derived R1b-L51?, while Yamnaya largely R1b-Z2103, and we are yet to find J2b2-L283 in pure Yamnaya context. So far, it was present in IE group post 2000 B.C and mainly Proto-Illyrian/Illyrian related.

Yep, went on a google spree right after I posted that reply. It seems there is not much research linking the two together, but given the timeline it is entirely possible. Mainly before making that comment I was referring to the Tumuli/us entry in Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus ). And they seem to be present all over the globe in different unrelated cultures. But who knows maybe Steppe tumuli, Catacomb tumuli, Illyrian tumuli and Tumulus Culture tumuli might have some cultural continuity even if lacking DNA continuity, since it seems the timeline does not necessarily falsify such claims.

This discussion is way out of my depth though.

[Hawk]

Yep, went on a google spree right after I posted that reply. It seems there is not much research linking the two together, but given the timeline it is entirely possible. Mainly before making that comment I was referring to the Tumuli/us entry in Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus ). And they seem to be present all over the globe in different unrelated cultures. But who knows maybe Steppe tumuli, Catacomb tumuli, Illyrian tumuli and Tumulus Culture tumuli might have some cultural continuity even if lacking DNA continuity, since it seems the timeline does not necessarily falsify such claims.

This discussion is way out of my depth though.

Not that i know much btw, but tumuli burials were for sure introduced by Proto Indo-Europeans during Chalcolithic/EBA when they entered Europe and all of them trace this burial practice from them. But then a lot of influences and mixes happened after that. So, decades, centuries later some of the particular cultures developed their own way of building tumuli graves. Some even practiced cremation on a pyre underneath having tumuli, a burial practice which Enchelei used to do.

From my understanding, the Illyrians were the IE group which persisted the most building tumuli way latter during classical age.

[Riverman]

Not that i know much btw, but tumuli burials were for sure introduced by Proto Indo-Europeans during Chalcolithic/EBA when they entered Europe and all of them trace this burial practice from them. But then a lot of influences and mixes happened after that. So, decades, centuries later some of the particular cultures developed their own way of building tumuli graves. Some even practiced cremation on a pyre underneath having tumuli, a burial practice which Enchelei used to do.

From my understanding, the Illyrians were the IE group which persisted the most building tumuli way latter during classical age.

The Illyrian core is particularly conservative, and that starts when the Illyrians, descendents from the Middle Danubian TC, split into those cremating and those sticking to inhumation. The later, the "Illyrian proper" or Illyrian core defined themselves in distinction from incoming Celts, assimilated Pannonian Illyrians and Daco-Thraians, by sticking to "the old ways".

This is also what TC in itself was about. After Unetice had a more proto-state appearance, was more socially stratified, complex and mixed, TC is like "going back to the roots" after its collapse. Note that the Unetician core controlled the mostly Bell Beaker Southern German groups, in wider networks. But this was probably a cultural and even political dominance these Bell Beaker tribes, probably, didn't really appreciate.
The same repeats with Urnfield and then with Hallstatt. In the latter case La Tene being also a revolution against the more Eastern dominance, fusing old and new elements to a new dynamic culture, which was La Tene. Tumulus culture followed a similar trajectory, after the Unetician collapse.
So some of the TC influx and attacks are like La Tene Celts, but they must not be La Tene Celts already, but just similar Bell Beaker related groups. Celts might be from a smaller, more specific nucleus of it.
There was however, as you maybe read out, this competition and dynamic between the Polish-Carpathian and Rhenish-Alpine groups. One of them was usually dominant, for a time, then the pendulum moved once more.
Corded Ware = Eastern dominance
Bell Beaker = Western dominance
Unetice = Eastern dominance
Tumulus Culture = Western dominance
Urnfield = Eastern dominance
Early Hallstatt = Eastern dominance
La Tene = Western dominance

As you can see, the pendulum went forward and backward and in this context, Illyrians are definitely closer to the Western, Daco-Thracians to the Eastern group, but both largely at the border. Just like Bosnians and Albanians were for most of their existence between the West (Catholic) and East (Orthodox) too. Its an age old borderzone.

[Hawk]

It's interesting how Enchelei burial described by Pasco Cuzman is similar to how Homer describes Patroclus burial. Obviously this was not the burial of Acheans, but of some of the Early Iron Age Greek tribes.

[kingjohn]

https://www.nature.com/articles/5201769/figures/2
9 out of 168 is 5.4%

Another study with 193 samples put all E at 8.7%.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...gion-of-origin


Maciamo has a total collection of +500 samples so I am missing something, but it is probably around 5-7%.

cool papers
i wanted to see the haplogroups specific to heraklion city ( the capital) inside the heraklion prefecture

‎

heraklion city:
r1b 3/16


G2 2/16


E-M78 2/16


J1 1/16

R1A 3/16


J2F-M67 2/16

T-M70 1/16


J2-DYS413 2/16


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraklion

[torzio]

The Illyrian core is particularly conservative, and that starts when the Illyrians, descendents from the Middle Danubian TC, split into those cremating and those sticking to inhumation. The later, the "Illyrian proper" or Illyrian core defined themselves in distinction from incoming Celts, assimilated Pannonian Illyrians and Daco-Thraians, by sticking to "the old ways".

This is also what TC in itself was about. After Unetice had a more proto-state appearance, was more socially stratified, complex and mixed, TC is like "going back to the roots" after its collapse. Note that the Unetician core controlled the mostly Bell Beaker Southern German groups, in wider networks. But this was probably a cultural and even political dominance these Bell Beaker tribes, probably, didn't really appreciate.
The same repeats with Urnfield and then with Hallstatt. In the latter case La Tene being also a revolution against the more Eastern dominance, fusing old and new elements to a new dynamic culture, which was La Tene. Tumulus culture followed a similar trajectory, after the Unetician collapse.
So some of the TC influx and attacks are like La Tene Celts, but they must not be La Tene Celts already, but just similar Bell Beaker related groups. Celts might be from a smaller, more specific nucleus of it.
There was however, as you maybe read out, this competition and dynamic between the Polish-Carpathian and Rhenish-Alpine groups. One of them was usually dominant, for a time, then the pendulum moved once more.
Corded Ware = Eastern dominance
Bell Beaker = Western dominance
Unetice = Eastern dominance
Tumulus Culture = Western dominance
Urnfield = Eastern dominance
Early Hallstatt = Eastern dominance
La Tene = Western dominance

As you can see, the pendulum went forward and backward and in this context, Illyrians are definitely closer to the Western, Daco-Thracians to the Eastern group, but both largely at the border. Just like Bosnians and Albanians were for most of their existence between the West (Catholic) and East (Orthodox) too. Its an age old borderzone.

As I have been saying for many many years ...........the celts lived on the north side of the Danube river ...........bavaria , czech lands and a bit of SW Poland ..............north East of the celts up to the baltic sea where the West-balt people.

On the south side of the Danube river ( noricum ) lived the Illyrians.

As the celts pushed into Noricum to create Halstatt culture ............these illyrians became celtinized , slowly but surely ................celts then proceeded further south reaching as far south as modern serbia ( scordisci tribe )...........but on the adriatic sea coast they did not go ( maybe the mountain range was a preventive ) ......this left the Venetic, Histrians, Liburnians , Dalmatians as who they where originally .............although the Venetic adopted Celtic dress sense

[MOESAN]

@Riverman post #833
interesting
From where and when came I23995 and I26742 ?
They could check Liburnians or Sth Veneti in some way, some Italics...

[Riverman]

As I have been saying for many many years ...........the celts lived on the north side of the Danube river ...........bavaria , czech lands and a bit of SW Poland ..............north East of the celts up to the baltic sea where the West-balt people.
On the south side of the Danube river ( noricum ) lived the Illyrians.

We don't really know who they were, but only the core of Western Hallstatt is more likely to be safe for Celts, all the rest, but especially the Eastern Hallstatt groups, are not.

As the celts pushed into Noricum to create Halstatt culture

Its the other way around, Thraco-Cimmerians and Basarabi pushed into Noricum, to create Eastern Hallstatt, with Western Hallstatt (of which at least some where Celtic) adopting the innovations and cultural cannon, probably even some aristocratic elites, from the East. Hallstatt, especially early Hallstatt, was going from the Carpathians to the West, not vice versa.

............these illyrians became celtinized , slowly but surely ................celts then proceeded further south reaching as far south as modern serbia ( scordisci tribe )

At the end and after the collapse of Hallstatt, yes, but saying that Hallstatt was a West -> East spread of cultural formations and just Celtic is imho just wrong.

@Riverman post #833
interesting
From where and when came I23995 and I26742 ?
They could check Liburnians or Sth Veneti in some way, some Italics...

We don't know for sure, but I heard something like Adriatic-Pannonian sphere being confirmed, which is where they plot. Its not just these two, its a whole cluster of J2b's all clustering around the same spot, all with IDs of 22xxx, 23xxx, 24xxx etc., so presumably from related badges from an archaeological group.

Interestingly the more Mako- and Epi-Corded-like E-V13 and R-Z2103 samples are from different series, which got ID's with 18xxx, 15xxx etc.

[torzio]

We don't really know who they were, but only the core of Western Hallstatt is more likely to be safe for Celts, all the rest, but especially the Eastern Hallstatt groups, are not.
Its the other way around, Thraco-Cimmerians and Basarabi pushed into Noricum, to create Eastern Hallstatt, with Western Hallstatt (of which at least some where Celtic) adopting the innovations and cultural cannon, probably even some aristocratic elites, from the East. Hallstatt, especially early Hallstatt, was going from the Carpathians to the West, not vice versa.
At the end and after the collapse of Hallstatt, yes, but saying that Hallstatt was a West -> East spread of cultural formations and just Celtic is imho just wrong.
We don't know for sure, but I heard something like Adriatic-Pannonian sphere being confirmed, which is where they plot. Its not just these two, its a whole cluster of J2b's all clustering around the same spot, all with IDs of 22xxx, 23xxx, 24xxx etc., so presumably from related badges from an archaeological group.
Interestingly the more Mako- and Epi-Corded-like E-V13 and R-Z2103 samples are from different series, which got ID's with 18xxx, 15xxx etc.

I am not saying western celts ( french ) created Halstatt culture ...........I am saying celts from bavaria and czech lands went into making Halstatt

noric steel

[ihype02]

@Riverman, the subclade (it's the same subclade for both, Z-58, and maybe even three of them) of I1 are not popular in modern Serbia. Do you think that I1 in Balkans is mostly or at least a good amount of it of Slavic origin?

[Riverman]

@Riverman, the subclade (it's the same subclade for both, Z-58, and maybe even three of them) of I1 are not popular in modern Serbia. Do you think that I1 in Balkans is mostly or at least a good amount of it of Slavic origin?

I don't really know, but my personal opinion is, that most of the I1 came with Germanics, however, like some E-V13 clades, some might have been brought by Slavs coming down from Slovakia-Ukraine-Romania-Hungary and not been there before. But this needs to be tested, especially in Slovaks its hard to distinguish in every single case whether its more ancient Germanic tribal or more recent German Eastern colonisation.

A Romanian subclade like this one could be both:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y21391/

Or here:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S19185/

Like with all the other haplogroups, we need more samples. I didn't check them on FTDNA, probably they already have closer matches in England or Germany, which would prove the point. Like if having a TMRCA with Germans of around 1.000 BP, you know its recent German. If its older than 1.800 BP, you never know.

This looks like a very old Germanic which might have been spread by Slavs:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3568/

But even in this case, you clearly see on FTDNA that the I-S19185 context is Germanic, with only some subclades, like in I-FT244582 being spread in Slavic speakers. This subclade is however fairly old, so could have entered Slavic groups pretty early.

[ihype02]

I don't really know, but my personal opinion is, that most of the I1 came with Germanics, however, like some E-V13 clades, some might have been brought by Slavs coming down from Slovakia-Ukraine-Romania-Hungary and not been there before. But this needs to be tested, especially in Slovaks its hard to distinguish in every single case whether its more ancient Germanic tribal or more recent German Eastern colonisation.

A Romanian subclade like this one could be both:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y21391/

Or here:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S19185/

Like with all the other haplogroups, we need more samples. I didn't check them on FTDNA, probably they already have closer matches in England or Germany, which would prove the point. Like if having a TMRCA with Germans of around 1.000 BP, you know its recent German. If its older than 1.800 BP, you never know.

This looks like a very old Germanic which might have been spread by Slavs:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3568/

But even in this case, you clearly see on FTDNA that the I-S19185 context is Germanic, with only some subclades, like in I-FT244582 being spread in Slavic speakers. This subclade is however fairly old, so could have entered Slavic groups pretty early.

Why do Tuscans have less I1 than Serbians? Also wasn't the Slavic migration supposed to lower the I1 in Balkans? Italians have not changed much from the Early Middle Ages it seems and they have less I1 than Slavic Balkaners, expect for Veneto.

[Riverman]

Why do Tuscans have less I1 than Serbians? Also wasn't the Slavic migration supposed to lower the I1 in Balkans? Italians have not changed much from the Early Middle Ages it seems and they have less I1 than Slavic Balkaners, expect for Veneto.

I don't have the answer, but just as a hint, Germanics became fairly dominant in some of the mentioned areas for generations, before the Slavs came in, and some seem to have been assimilated even earlier by Romans, or later by Slavs, plus there was a significant influx in various regions from Germany, with German Medieval settlement, reaching very early as far as Southern Serbia and Bulgaria, with many settlements being rather isolated and assimilated by locals on long run, especially after the Ottoman conquest.
Different Germanic tribes carried different ratios of various haplogroups, including I1, I2, R-U106, G2 and E-V13 among others. There seem to have been some early founder effects for remaining I1 lineages in Albanians and Serbs also. Such founder effects being much more rare in the less clan based Italian peninsula.

[Hawk]

I am actually surprised the Goths show E-V13, i mean like let's say they picked in Balkans, but how could they cherry-pick E-V13 that it shows among Iberian Goths and Crimean Goths and again in original Gothic land. It looks like it was a minor lineage among them.

[ihype02]

I don't have the answer, but just as a hint, Germanics became fairly dominant in some of the mentioned areas for generations, before the Slavs came in, and some seem to have been assimilated even earlier by Romans, or later by Slavs, plus there was a significant influx in various regions from Germany, with German Medieval settlement, reaching very early as far as Southern Serbia and Bulgaria, with many settlements being rather isolated and assimilated by locals on long run, especially after the Ottoman conquest.
Different Germanic tribes carried different ratios of various haplogroups, including I1, I2, R-U106, G2 and E-V13 among others. There seem to have been some early founder effects for remaining I1 lineages in Albanians and Serbs also. Such founder effects being much more rare in the less clan based Italian peninsula.

I feel like Medieval Tuscany attracted more Medieval Germans than Medieval Serbia did.
Also G2 in Germanic tribes?

Btw, what haplogroups did Slavs carry in your opinion?
For me it's mostly R1a and I2a with some E-V13 and I1, captured by different tribes. But E-V13 in South Slavs is still mostly native but partly Pagan Slavic, imo.

I think that the Slavs of Bulgaria had some E-V13, while the Slavs of Croatia could have had none of it.
Either way I don't think that any South Slavic country has Slavic y-Dna only from R1a and I2a, surely there were other haplogroups.