E-V13 Frequencies and New Data

The Amvrakia E-V13( if he is positive to which i expect so) is from 250-200 B.C. Maybe first evidence of E-V13 among Epirotans?!

Well, they specifically tested it for SNP's, he is supposedly negative:

E-M78*(xE-V12,E-V65,E-Y161041,E-V22,E-BY6578,E-Y84931,E-Y126722,E-Y81468,E-A9036,E-BY112334,E-Y132383,E-BY5610,E-BY168279,E-BY5285,E-Y17356,E-ZS1176,E-Y173822,E-Y140828,E-Y227299,E-Y93102,E-Y133119,E-Y61211,E-BY178965,E-BY191636,E-BY5786,E-Z38518,E-Y93022,E-BY4600,E-CTS9320,E-FTA7686) [1.00] / E1b1b1 [4]


If it is low coverage, it could still be E-V13 I guess. I hope FTDNA takes a look at it, because after what they did with the Sarmatian samples... On the other hand, the paper states pretty specific assignments, which makes me wonder whether they could have missed it, gone wrong...
 
I have no objection to such samples being published, I am all for it. I am certain some people feel the opposite despite of what they profess, I am referring to little aimsmall's kids with their endless duplicate accounts.

Comical theatrics in the other forum, a mock Serbian account(one of brumzi sock account) throws softball questions to himself(auditorium/corridor) so brumzi can answer a question he himself posted to his own self, the entire affair/clown show has the personal blessing of the admin of the forum. Even the meanest intellect sees right through the poor acting.

But to given an real response(not a sock account debating himself) to the topic that was raised, if Serbian E-V13s were not assimilated in site with the arrival of the Slavs, then follows the logical question; what chance is there that Illyrians had any E-V13? LOL Such a scenario proves Illyrians were void of any meaningful E-V13 presence.

Who exactly is arguing that E-V13 was on the adriatic coast ? The argument is that E-V13 was more inland of the Balkans where the profiles range from Illyrian-like to Thracian-like, Anatolian-like to somewhere inbetween.
 
Who exactly is arguing that E-V13 was on the adriatic coast ? The argument is that E-V13 was more inland of the Balkans where the profiles range from Illyrian-like to Thracian-like, Anatolian-like to somewhere inbetween.

Well, Bruzmi/corrigendum and the like, mostly from a specific branch of Albanian interpretation of the results, argued for a long time that E-V13 was a minority, subordinated haplogroup of the Illyrians. Even when we got the leaks for Early Iron Age Thracians from Bulgaria, he still denied the Daco-Thracian/Thracian association.

Then, only when the evidence for Thracians having loads of E-V13, early on, he started to argue around with something else. Now the point is, we got a lot of samples from Illyrians and also a couple of samples from the cultures which occupied positions between the Illyrians and the Eastern Carpathian basin to Thrace, the Daco-Thracian zone in historical times. Examples being samples from Encrusted Pottery group in Northern Croatia (LBA), Maros culture (EBA-MBA) from the Banat wider region, but also Vatya and samples/leaks for Serbian territories.
If E-V13 would have been concentrated there, and we know it was concentrated in Thrace and at the Lower Danube IN ANY CASE, by the Iron Age, we would expect to find E-V13 also in one or more of these "in between groups", yet we don't.

Even more, those groups in between, other than Belegis POSSIBLY, were largely dead ends archaeologically. And none of them had a particular success story in the LBA-EIA, when E-V13 kind of exploded. Therefore this "deep in the West Balkan" story - where exactly? - makes no sense.

The real question by now is:
1) Eastern Carpathian basin (Transcarpathia-Transylvania)
2) Danube-Tisza confluence
3) Southern Romania (especially Oltenia, but also Muntenia

In the end, all of this comes down to just three main EBA candidates:
1) Cotofeni
2) Northern/Eastern Vucedol
3) Glina-Schneckenburg

Since these cultural spheres storngly overlapped influenced each other, probably had similar origins to some degree, it is extremely difficult, without more samples, to determine which played the main role for E-V13.

But that, by the LBA-EIA, especially groups like Belegis II-Gáva, Vartop and Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Cerkovna had no E-V13 is, at this point, largely out of question to me. The remaining question is what was with Gáva-Holigrady, who was their main EBA-MBA ancestor.
 
I have no objection to such samples being published, I am all for it. I am certain some people feel the opposite despite of what they profess, I am referring to little aimsmall's kids with their endless duplicate accounts.

Comical theatrics in the other forum, a mock Serbian account(one of brumzi sock account) throws softball questions to himself(auditorium/corridor) so brumzi can answer a question he himself posted to his own self, the entire affair/clown show has the personal blessing of the admin of the forum. Even the meanest intellect sees right through the poor acting.

But to given an real response(not a sock account debating himself) to the topic that was raised, if Serbian E-V13s were not assimilated in site with the arrival of the Slavs, then follows the logical question; what chance is there that Illyrians had any E-V13? LOL Such a scenario proves Illyrians were void of any meaningful E-V13 presence.

He is like a toxic ex-girlfriend who was dicked down too good and she cannot let it go.

Anyway, Viminacium was based on prior Moesi and Triballi territory, there were no Illyrian over there, burial customs point to Daco-Moesian population.

Also, Scordisci are more heavily admixed with Daco-Moesians than Illyrians, their burials, material goods, weaponry is way more similar to Daco-Thracians than Illyrians, but few Illyrians similarities are there but nowhere nearby the Daco-Moesian-Thracian. I bet if we test Scordisci there will be lots of E-V13.
 
He is like a toxic ex-girlfriend who was dicked down too good and she cannot let it go.

Anyway, Viminacium was based on prior Moesi and Triballi territory, there were no Illyrian over there, burial customs point to Daco-Moesian population.

Also, Scordisci are more heavily admixed with Daco-Moesians than Illyrians, their burials, material goods, weaponry is way more similar to Daco-Thracians than Illyrians, but few Illyrians similarities are there but nowhere nearby the Daco-Moesian-Thracian. I bet if we test Scordisci there will be lots of E-V13.

I think the Celto-Dacian/Pannonian cluster I described, which dominates between Danube and Tisza and in the South represents Scordisci and related mixed groups.
If this is correct, they being paternally dominated by E-V13.
 
I think the Celto-Dacian/Pannonian cluster I described, which dominates between Danube and Tisza and in the South represents Scordisci and related mixed groups.
If this is correct, they being paternally dominated by E-V13.

Viminacium was built on top of Kostolac, that was Bosut-Bassarabi territory and later inhabitated by Moesi and Triballi. Even the local burials were strictly dominated with cremation on pits until Scordisci appear a Celtic people with Thracian and Illyrian influences.

 
Last edited:
I quoted that paper multiple times... As if an Illyrian dominated group would have been completely dominated by E-V13. They don't accept reality.
 
Who exactly is arguing that E-V13 was on the adriatic coast ? The argument is that E-V13 was more inland of the Balkans where the profiles range from Illyrian-like to Thracian-like, Anatolian-like to somewhere inbetween.

Serbia is not on the Adriatic. Viminacium as pointed by hawk, and the Olade paper, most of the locals cremated their dead. In fact out of 30-50 or so burials from that paper only one was J-L283. LOL
 
The E-V13 from Tenea was from a rich burial, the person was of high status or belonged to a powerful family since the burial was reused.

-Grave 26 (re-used Hellenistic grave): The porous sarcophagus (Supplementary Figure712 S20), oriented E-W, was excavated on 09/10/2017 in trench 2017/2 in the cemetery of Tenea713 (Palaio Scholeio, Hasikidis plot). The sarcophagus carried a porous lid. The dimensions of the714 grave are 1.91 × 0.53 m. The interior of the sarcophagus contained three burials of three715 adults. The coffin itself, as well as one of the burials (Individual 2), dates to the Hellenistic716 times (323–31 BCE), while the remaining burials were located inside the sarcophagus during717 the Roman period. The sarcophagus contained various offerings, including a glass718 unguentarium, six ceramic unguentaria, two ceramic oinochoe, a bronze oinochoe, a skyphos,719 a glass vessel, a ceramic pedestal, a silver coin, etc. The chronology is based mostly on the720 ceramics.721 Deep-sequenced individual codes: Individual 2, Ten_Pel_Hel_2.
 
If my memory is right here, this is the burial of the E-V13 from Iron Age Croatia.

Sveti Križ Brdovečki (Holy Cross near Brdoveć) is a village on a hill at a height of 310m above sea level, located 30km west of Zagreb, near the Croatian-Slovenian border, directly above the confluence of the Sutla and Sava rivers. In October 2001, Adam Tursan came across a bronze helmet while digging foundations for a garage next to his house in Tursanova Street, which is located at the above site. The foundations dug for the garage by workmen measured 6 × 4 meters. The spot where the helmet was found was in the center. Other grave goods were discovered after cleaning the area. Other than skeletal remains of the deceased, the grave contained the skeleton of a horse, items of horse equipment (a bit, phalerae), several pieces of pottery, a rectangula bronze belt buckle, and several other bronze and iron finds that were removed together with the surrounding earth and that cannot yet be described with certainty. The (possible) weapons, horse equipment, and costume accessoires indicate the prominent social status of the deceased, buried in the Hallstatt D phase. Although it is not possible to fully evaluate the value and richness of the objects found in the grave prior to their final restoration and analysis, it can be statet with certainty that this is a find whose importance and significance will place Sv. Križ among the most prominent Hallstatt sites in Croatia.



It was a horseman burial, burials with horses in Balkans was common only among Thracians and related people. I think it is pretty clear at this point that wherever u see E-V13 appear you see glimpses of Balkan-Carpathian Urnfielders around.

These didn't come from Bosnia haha, rather if we see related people in Bosnia they came from elsewhere likely nearby Danube-Balkan-Carpathian triangle migrating here nearby Zagreb and Bosnia, these cultures affected the peripheries of Western Balkans since the inner Western Balkans was largely Illyrian-like with their known specific tumuli. Maybe Liburni and Histrians are an exceptions but we do not know about them much to make any conclusion. Meaning which there are instances of cremation in urns among Liburni and Histrians, but we have no significant aDNA from them so far.
 
Well, Bruzmi/corrigendum and the like, mostly from a specific branch of Albanian interpretation of the results, argued for a long time that E-V13 was a minority, subordinated haplogroup of the Illyrians. Even when we got the leaks for Early Iron Age Thracians from Bulgaria, he still denied the Daco-Thracian/Thracian association.

Then, only when the evidence for Thracians having loads of E-V13, early on, he started to argue around with something else. Now the point is, we got a lot of samples from Illyrians and also a couple of samples from the cultures which occupied positions between the Illyrians and the Eastern Carpathian basin to Thrace, the Daco-Thracian zone in historical times. Examples being samples from Encrusted Pottery group in Northern Croatia (LBA), Maros culture (EBA-MBA) from the Banat wider region, but also Vatya and samples/leaks for Serbian territories.
If E-V13 would have been concentrated there, and we know it was concentrated in Thrace and at the Lower Danube IN ANY CASE, by the Iron Age, we would expect to find E-V13 also in one or more of these "in between groups", yet we don't.

Even more, those groups in between, other than Belegis POSSIBLY, were largely dead ends archaeologically. And none of them had a particular success story in the LBA-EIA, when E-V13 kind of exploded. Therefore this "deep in the West Balkan" story - where exactly? - makes no sense.

The real question by now is:
1) Eastern Carpathian basin (Transcarpathia-Transylvania)
2) Danube-Tisza confluence
3) Southern Romania (especially Oltenia, but also Muntenia

In the end, all of this comes down to just three main EBA candidates:
1) Cotofeni
2) Northern/Eastern Vucedol
3) Glina-Schneckenburg

Since these cultural spheres storngly overlapped influenced each other, probably had similar origins to some degree, it is extremely difficult, without more samples, to determine which played the main role for E-V13.

But that, by the LBA-EIA, especially groups like Belegis II-Gáva, Vartop and Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Cerkovna had no E-V13 is, at this point, largely out of question to me. The remaining question is what was with Gáva-Holigrady, who was their main EBA-MBA ancestor.
It's pretty obvious that E-V13 did not originate on the Adriatic coast. But there are some lineages in Albanians that did come from there possibly such as J-PH4679 which even by rrenjet is considered to of been a lineage from the Mat region in North-Central Albania, possibly related to the Albanoi tribe. However, the E-V13 in Albanians obviously came from other tribes more inland of the Balkans. I think it's weird to claim that as only Illyrian like they do, it might of gotten mixed with Illyrian however, but even looking at the Albanian language it has also Thracian influence and Dardanian influence. Like 'Besa' , 'Dardha' which seems more in alignment with Thracians and Dardanians. All these meaningless arguments, would of been better if we had more samples of these areas from Bronze Age , Iron Age and all the way to Roman period including areas of Serbia, South-East Serbia, Kosovo and we could settle this whole thing. The Balkans was clearly mixed during Roman era IMO and I believe there will be J-L283, R1b and E-V13 mixed together during those periods.
 
E-V13 from the Timacum Slog, Viminacium and Himera

Vahaduo-Global-25-Views-1.png
 
With the new tools from YFull, its easier to use YFull data for maps and statistics. Unfortuanately, it is, for many regions/people, a much smaller or sometimes skewed data base, but it remains very useful and a great addition to our toolkits in any case.

For the E-V13 debate I used the maps showing the frequency of the main branches in a direct comparison. I think the general trends and modes of expansion for the main branches are pretty obvious on these frequency maps, actually.

First the maps without the routes:

E-V13-branches-map.jpg



Second with the routes for their main expansions:

E-V13-branches-map-w-routes.jpg



It is absolutely apparent that E-Z5017 had the latest/strongest core expansion within E-V13. I think this goes back all the way to the Belegis II-Gáva into Basarabi transition, but being accelerated by the South Dacian expansion in the Late Iron Age and the Vlach expansions in the Early Medieval period.

E-BY5022 being obviously among the first to have its peak expansion, and then being pushed to and distributed rather on the fringes of the East, with some expansions into the North West in the Roman area of secondary order.

Compared to both E-Z5018 and E-BY5022, the E-Z5017 "core strength" is very remarkable. The data on Ukraine and Russia is very bad on YFull, by the way, because of the many minorities and low ethnic Ukrainian testing in particular.
 
Adding to my last post some statistics and numbers from YFull, which main advantage is that E-BY5022 being reported in comparable numbers directly, due to the lack of predictions for other branches, and the higher numbers of testers from some regions, most notably Albania - on the contrary, the representative character of the testers is very bad for Ukraine and Germany, among others. The data base is pretty small, but most of the results are rather consistent and add up.

Anyway, here are some numbers - I always compared the main branch with the E-V13 total, to get a relative share of the specific main branch in the total E-V13 population. This is sometimes more important than the total regional frequency:

E-V13-branches-numbers.jpg



Looking at Romania, it is the only country which is in the top group of all main branches - its E-V13 population practically exists only of main branches (Z5018, Z5017, BY5022). That's remarkable because its not the case for any other country. Interestingly, 1 out of 2 Romanian BY5022 members comes from the Eastern part of the country - BY5022 being also present in Moldova. The data base is super small, but this might point to BY5022 being more common in the East, especially since Z5017 totally dominates South Western ethnic Romanians in particular.

The whole area from Romania-Bulgaria through to the West Balkan is completely dominated by E-Z5017. E-Z5017 cuts through E-Z5018 dominated areas, with Z5018 being still high in most of these areas. But it looks like it expanded "inside-out", on top of E-Z5018, from the South Dacian core (Southern Romania-North Eastern Serbia-Northern Bulgaria) of Basarabi and later Vlachs.

Armenia is interesting because it has so little Z5017, but received both from the North Z5018 and from the South-Greeks E-BY5022 at comparatively high levels. E-BY5022 peaks in Armenia, Syria and Iraq. Armenia with access to steppe influx has a lot of Z5018 as well, whereas otherwise BY5022 is far better represented in the Near East than Z5018 compared to European numbers.

England has a similar situation to Armenia, just being less extreme and more diverse, but still Z5018 and BY5022 being both significantly above average, pointing again to two different routes/origins of the branches.

We therefore have the following situation:
- The earliest expansion was of E-BY5022 which was concentrated in South Thracians. Its main routes of expansion were to the South East (Greece, Cyprus, Near East) and over sea (South Italy, but also Portugal and England).
- The next was that of E-Z5018, which gained a dominant position in much of E-V13 territories, likely due to its association with the Gáva-related Channelled Ware expansion. It had two very big expansion routes, one into the South Balkans (Albanians, Greeks), the other along the Danube Westward into Central Europe and to some degree also into Northern Italy.
- At the same time E-Z5017 made its big appearence, mainly with CTS9320, likely starting from Belegis II-Gáva or Vartop of the Southern Channelled Ware groups. It however did expand signfiicantly on top of the existing Z5018 layers, especially from Basarabi, into the South Dacian, into the Vlach periods, made its biggest impression on the very core zones of the Dacians, and from there into the West Balkans later, especially with the Vlachs.
 
E-M78/E-L618 in the Late Neolithic to pre-steppe Eneolithic period:

A map showing the most relevant groups with multiple samples:

E-L618-Neolithic-Eneolithic.jpg


The Southern Sopot sample is an earlier outlier, the later samples before the Eneolithic/steppe transition are all along the Danube-Tisza Eastwards towards West Ukraine. The highest concentration of E-L618 samples being so far from Late Lengyel at the Danube, over Tiszapolgar-Bodrogkeresztur, into Northern Tripolye-Cucuteni:

E-L618-Neolithic-Eneolithic2.jpg


Source for the map:

From the North Pontic paper:

Such as, Y chromosomal lineage diversity in the Epicardial culture of the Cardial Ware complex of the Neolithic Mediterranean
shows Near Eastern influence and Cardial/Epicardial mtDNA lineage frequencies and diversity
are comparable to those from Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites142. A bearer of the
E1b1b1a1b1 haplogroup belonging to the Cardial Ware archaeological complex was reported
from the Croatian Zemunica Cave in western Balkans 8. Cardial Ware complex is considered to
have influenced the Late Neolithic-Eneolithic Hamangia culture of the west-northwest Pontic
143. Hamangia, in turn, is considered to have influenced the formation of Precucuteni-Trypillia A
144. The presence of the E1b1b1a1b1 lineage in Trypillia and a proto-Usaove individual
strengthens the link between Hamangia and CTAC as well as CTAC and Usatove and connects
the genetic ancestry of CTAC and Usatove with Cardial Ware.


Therefore we have a direct path, leading from early Impresso-Cardial settlements into the Danubian-Carpathian groups. Hamangia culture/Precucuteni:

1920px-Neoliticul_mijlociu_in_Romania.jpg


Tripolye-Cucuteni is also so important, because its the direct link to the Daco-Thracian customs of invisbile burials, cremations and disarticulated bodies. Short AI answer on the issue:

Did Cucuteni–Tripolye cremate or hide burials?
Likely yes — burial customs were mostly invisible, with rare inhumations and some symbolic cremation or body disposal.
Were there precursor groups with similar burial customs?
Yes — Vinča, Pre-Cucuteni, and Karanovo had similarly sparse burial evidence.

We see a direct line of evidence for the continuation of this practise from:
Pre-Cucuteni -> Tripolye-Cucuteni -> Cotofeni/Glina-Schneckenburg-> Makó/Nyirseg -> Eastern Otomani-Gyulavarsand/Wietenberg/Verbicoara-Tei -> Suciu de Sus-Lapus-Igrita -> Gáva-Holigrady, Belegis II-Gáva, Vartop, Insula Banului, Babadag -> Kustanovice, Sanislau-Nir, Bosut-Basarabi, Psenichevo -> Daco-Thracian historical cultures, especially North Thracians/Dacians and Daco-Carpi, even Daco-Romans to some degree before Christianisation/full Romanisation (Viminacium!)
 
RivermanWith the new tools from YFull, its easier to use YFull data for maps and statistics. Unfortuanately, it is, for many regions/people, a much smaller or sometimes skewed data base, but it remains very useful and a great addition to our toolkits in any case.

For the E-V13 debate I used the maps showing the frequency of the main branches in a direct comparison. I think the general trends and modes of expansion for the main branches are pretty obvious on these frequency maps, actually.

First the maps without the routes:

E-V13-branches-map.jpg



Second with the routes for their main expansions:


E-V13-branches-map-w-routes.jpg


It is absolutely apparent that E-Z5017 had the latest/strongest core expansion within E-V13. I think this goes back all the way to the Belegis II-Gáva into Basarabi transition, but being accelerated by the South Dacian expansion in the Late Iron Age and the Vlach expansions in the Early Medieval period.

E-BY5022 being obviously among the first to have its peak expansion, and then being pushed to and distributed rather on the fringes of the East, with some expansions into the North West in the Roman area of secondary order.

Compared to both E-Z5018 and E-BY5022, the E-Z5017 "core strength" is very remarkable. The data on Ukraine and Russia is very bad on YFull, by the way, because of the many minorities and low ethnic Ukrainian testing in particular.

Repost since the images were gone.
Also repost of the statistics from YFull:

E-V13-branches-numbers.jpg


 
I want to bring a very interesting use case by Victor Sava, to which he believes that Channeled-Ware initially started in MBA as part of numerous styles in Balkan-Carpathian complex to which in LBA it became dominant, it is likely that these southern migrants from Southern Carpathia migrated North in former Ottomany-Fuzsezabony territory to form the actual Gava Culture.

The new radiocarbon dates from the Late Bronze Age settlement in Șagu-Site A1_1 offer a new perspective on the emergence and distribution of channelled pottery. The association of radiocarbon dates with pottery coming from clear contexts proves that channelled pottery appeared in significant amounts as early as the 16th century BC. is circumstance also has an impact on the inner chronology of the Cruceni-Belegiš pottery, with the new available data outlining once more the lack of a clear definition regarding the evolution of this pottery style. At the same time, this early dating of the channelled pottery uncovered in Șagu leads to a reassessment of the origin and distribution patterns of this pottery decoration technique within the entire eastern Carpathian Basin.


 
The transition from Füzesabony is a critical event, but the most likely scenario is that local groups, possibly with Wietenberg connections and Nyírség ancestry, survived and from those Suciu de Sus emerged, which is the most important group in the North.
 
Back
Top