| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Exactly right, and something that is consistently ignored by many internet enthusiasts.Originally Posted by bicicleur
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
I'm a lady, so I won't say what I think should be done with Polako's G25.
If it were accurate, do you think my husband (Calabresi and Campanian) would be able to live with the shame of about 20 points more "West Asian" ancestry?
He'd actually say at least I have no...put in the Northern European ancestry of your choice, a version of which he said before when I showed him his 23andme results.
I don't encourage him in these feelings, to be sure, but my attempts to make him less "Southern Italian centric" have been in vain. Indeed, I have to regularly defend myself from teasing that I am part French and German.
This isn't directed at you, to be sure, but it's an amazing thing that so many people just assume everyone shares their precise prejudices.
Impresso-Cardial was most likely the original source, then we know it entered Lengyel and spread from there in different directions. Evidence comes from Michelsberger culture, which got strong ties to Lengyel, especially along the river networks, from which the samples come from (Danube-Rhine) and Tripolye-Cucuteni.
Then it gets foggy, but one of my best bets is still Lengyel/Tiszapolgar. Either late Epi-Lengyel which came under the influence of Epi-Corded groups, or Bodrogkeresztr. Its also noteworthy what Wikipedia has to say about this culture:
The physical type of the Bodrogkeresztr people was of the Mediterranean type, and is contrasted with the "Proto-Europoid" type prevalent on the Eurasian Steppe.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodrog...C3%BAr_culture
- The population of Bodrogkeresztr culture partially survived into the Bronze age, and indirectly to the Iron Age. By utilizing the anthropological Penrose method, Bodrogkeresztr was shown, to have a significant connection with the Bronze age Maros-Perjamos culture, and indirectly through it to the Iron Age Celts of Transdanubia, and the Bosut culture of Vojvodina.[1][2]
- Zoffmann, Zs. K. (1997). "A contribution to the question of the biological continuity of the prehistoric populations in the eastern parts of the carpathian basin". Acta Biologica Szegediensis. 42: 157162 via u-szeged.hu.
- Zoffmann, Zsuzsanna (2000). "Anthropological sketch of the prehistoric population of the Carpathian Basin". Acta Biologica Szegediensis. 44: 7579 via u-szeged.hu.
From there onwards (Epi-Lengyel? Bodrogkeresztr? Tripolye-Cucuteni?), under steppe and GAC influences, the Cotofeni culture developed in the East Carpathian zone.
Cotofeni -> Mak/Livezile -> Nyirseg -> Eastern Otomani (less Epi-Corded/Kostany influences, cremating groups) -> Suciu de Sus/Lapus I, also Berkesz-Demecser (intermediate) and Piliny (pre-Kyjatice group, but also influential on Pre-Gva) -> Kyjatice, Gva, Belegis II-Gva -> Bosut-Basarabi, Psenichevo-Babadag.
That's how I think the spread of E-V13 took place, at the moment.
Gva can be considered Proto-Thracian and being the central group for the Channelled Ware horizon:
The main problem is that most of these groups did cremate, including most of Mak and especially Nyirseg into Gva.
Even the later Thracians and Dacians - not all, but most groups, did cremate.
But yes, we have a continuous line of evidence from Impresso-Cardial onwards in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. With Lengyel E-L618 quite obviously reached the Danube and Carpathians. The samples are there.
Particular J2a branches IMO do have connection to early IE, including in Myceneans(need to re-read that Lazaridis paper, since I might be miss-recalling). Others however could have been of non IE origin. So only autosomal, and wider timeframe studies such as this one can clear that up.
“Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”
― Franz Kafka
The Gva-related Kyjatice sample BR2 was J2a, as you know, and he surely was IE with a fairly high level of steppe ancestry. How he came up there is yet another question, could be earlier or later.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y17946/
There were Southern, even Aegean influences in Otomani and Suciu de Sus. Actually in the EBA-MBA a lot was going South -> North, in the LBA-EIA things turned around, and this was more of a population movement, instead of cultural transfer (Gva, Sea Peoples etc.).
Yeah, but we're talking semantics. Usually by IE lineages we refer to lineages that existed in the early IE sites and that had the typical steppe autosomal profile. EEF languages and "Old European" cultures ceased to exist in much of Europe fairly early so by default every farmer lineage (or, more accurately, Chalcolithic lineage) that didn't go extinct must have expanded also with IE-speakers. It does look like E-V13 had a very big founder effect in the BA and this expansion must have happened in some "Indo-Europeanised" culture in Eastern Europe that experienced demographic growth and moved around.
I've had some similar thoughts about J2a myself but we need a lot more data from Mycenaeans and also pre-Greeks to have a good idea.
I agree. At the most simple thought experiment for this case we see a problem of semantics.
Say if J2a was within some EEF population in the Eastern Balkans / Western Ukraine. We know that the 50-50 CHG/EHG Yamnaya had 10%+ EEF the closer to mainland Europe one got. IIRC this was in the preceding cultures. Thus the semantic problem is, does one call such 45-45-10 EHG-CHG-EEF pre-proto-Yamnaya (Cucuteni-Sredni Stog mix) Yamnaya or not. If one does then particular J2a branches are as Yamnaya as any R1b. If not then, we are splitting hair, since there is little way of knowing which exact split in particular phylogenies gave rise to particular cultures with any certainty.
Personally I lean towards the yes answer. Since if various Y-s can be called Roman irrespective to which one was at a certain location earlier, then why would the standard change, especially when looking at less certain, older cultural scenarios.
I believe this paper will probably enlighten and bring closer to the truth about the E-V13 origin. We already have a piece of puzzle so far, but this one will bring us one step closer. I have absolutely no doubt the Early Neolithic origin is to be sought in Cardium Pottery Culture which shows Natufian/Iberomaurusian-like influences and we already have couple of E-L618 in this culture, and knowing that the 4 E-M78 Michelsberger are Cardium-Pottery migrants from Spain it's a no-brainer. The problem is Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age of already formed E-V13 clade.
But, all in all, it will be beneficial for Balkans overall. We'll get to know core Illyrians, Thracians, Classical Greeks (the mainland ones).
When I read all this, expectations are high.
I hope the paper will be published soon.
i wish for e-v13's in our forum
that e-v13 will finally be found in mycenaean remains
Direct paternal line : mizrahi from damascus
e-fgc7391
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC7391/
Rather post-Mycenaean, especially Doric Greeks and Thracians. The problem of cremation remains, for a time, but with classical Greek and Thracian samples, we will see whether they arrived before the LBA.
Mycenaean Greeks might be more R-Z2103 and J2a probably.
0.002 with g25= 2.000 with k12 so they are all around 3-4.
I do not have an opinion on the creator of g25 coordinates and i don't know how good they are, but it seems that the general consensus on them is favorable.
I just see them as a tool and they seems to give coherent results. Anyway they catch the extra CHG/Iran in modern italians, so why should they fail with ancient samples, if such ancestry is present in them?
I also used proper references for myself and others, with detailed known ancestry, and it works perfectly well, better than most other tools of that kind. There are some limitations, but that's rather about overfitting and alternatives, rather than missing or distorting ancestral components altogether.
This remark of mine is beyond the main point since official studies show higher CHG/Iran_N in modern Italians compared to the ancient ones, but talking of modern Italian samples the problem with G25 is that I am sure the "Italian" (central and south ones) samples are actually mixed Jew-Italian individuals passed off as simply Italian.
Yes but how e-v13 arrived to cyprus ?
(Modern greek cypriot have 10-13% e-v13)
There were mycenaean settlers to cyprus around
1200 bc or something.
Source wikipedia:
During the late Bronze Age, the island experienced two waves of Greek settlement.[54] The first wave consisted of Mycenaean Greek traders who started visiting Cyprus around 1400 BC.[55][56][57] A major wave of Greek settlement is believed to have taken place following the late Bronze Age collapse of Mycenaean Greece from 1100 to 1050 BC, with the island's predominantly Greek character dating from this period.[57][58]
It might not be there dominant lines: like j2a, r1b-z2103
Could e-v13 be present among them just as a minor line ?
I don't think they are all very precise instruments but the results come out similar to yours also by using averages with your model.
Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N decreases Iran/CHG/Natufian to all.
Can someone explain to me whether this Reich's hypothesis is the same as Renfrew's?
G2a is also a big player in Ancient Greece and it's not IE.
^^If my memory serves it's different, as I alluded to above. Renfrew believed that the Anatolian language was brought to Europe by Anatolian farmers who went from western Anatolia to Greece and the Balkans.
From what I can tell, the Reich researchers specifically renounce the idea that the Anatolian parent, perhaps? of the Indo-European languages was born in central or western Anatolia; instead they seem to posit it was "born" in the far eastern portion of the Southern Arc in northern Iran.
The second staging ground for them appears to be the steppe, whereas for Renfrew, if memory serves, it was the Balkans.
They don't say how that language got onto the steppe, the "second staging" ground. My hunch, if that is correct, is that perhaps the route was north along the Caucasus Mountains or the Caspian or even perhaps along the Black Sea, and from there onto the steppe.
This latter part about the Reich Lab hypothesis could be wrong, however. It's just my speculation. We'll have to wait and see.
Ha, I'm 55% EEF, 22% steppe and 23% HG. No idea if it's CHG or any other HG.
Why? Why would it matter to you?
No special reason
I just think it would be cool if some mycenaean
Were E thats all
It depends on which analysis you use.
I still like Haak et al, which is actually mostly Lazaridis et al, imo, because their admixture chart is not based on a simple admixture run.
Yamnaya, of course, is made up of two HGs: EHG and CHG.
As a mixture of Northern Italian and Tuscan like ancestry (eastern Ligurian and northwest Tuscan), I have some additional WHG in there too, along with the WHG within LBK.
There are other analyses too.
Lots of ways of looking at the same thing.
proto-indio-european origin at the eastern end of the southern arc
according to some this is India
the Out-of-India, here we go again
can't we await the publication?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
