E-V13 Frequencies and New Data

[Robotnick]

I'm guessing this is old news but there's a newly uploaded early Medieval French sample up top.

E-Y3762 YTree

www.yfull.com

 

[Riverman]

I asked ChatGPT to name and list the most prominent historically known resettlements of Dacians:

1. Post-Trajanic Deportations and Resettlements (after AD 106)

• Event: After the Dacian Wars (AD 101–106), Trajan deported large parts of the Dacian population south of the Danube.
• Source: Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book 68.14:
  

  “He [Trajan] removed many Dacians from their homes and settled them in different parts of the Roman Empire.”

• Date: ca. AD 106–110
• Origin: Dacia (modern Romania)
• Destination: Moesia Superior, Moesia Inferior, Thrace, Pannonia, and Italy

? These deportees were used to populate depopulated or militarized zones, especially near the Danube frontier.

2. Carpi Deportations under Aurelian (AD 270s)

• Event: The Carpi (a Dacian-related people from east of the Carpathians) were repeatedly defeated and forcibly resettled south of the Danube.
• Source: Historia Augusta, Vita Aureliani 22.4:
  

  "Aurelian defeated the Carpi and brought many thousands of them into Roman territory."

• Date: AD 273–275
• Origin: Eastern Dacia / Moldavia
• Destination: Dacia Aureliana (centered in Dardania), Moesia

? These settlements likely contributed to the continuity of Daco-Roman culture in Dardania and parts of Moesia after the abandonment of Dacia Traiana.

3. Abandonment of Dacia and Creation of Dacia Aureliana (AD 271–275)

• Event: Aurelian formally evacuated Dacia Traiana and created a new province, Dacia Aureliana, in the Balkans.
• Source: Eutropius, Breviarium ab urbe condita 9.15:
  

  “He [Aurelian] withdrew the Romans from the Dacian province and settled them in Moesia, which he named Dacia.”

• Date: AD 271–275
• Origin: Dacia Traiana (modern Romania)
• Destination: Dacia Aureliana (in today’s Serbia and western Bulgaria, around Naissus and Serdica)

? This resettlement involved Roman citizens, army veterans, and Romanized Dacians. It is a key event in the southward shift of Dacian/Roman populations.

---

4. Resettlements under Diocletian and Constantine (late 3rd–early 4th c.)

• Event: Emperors resettled defeated Dacian-related groups, including Carpi and Bastarnae, in the Balkans.
• Source: Panegyrici Latini, VIII (V), 21.3 (to Constantine, c. AD 310):
  

  “...whole peoples of barbarians, reduced to servitude, now live within Roman boundaries, paying tribute.”

• Date: AD 284–337
• Origin: Northern and northeastern Dacia
• Destination: Moesia Secunda, Dardania, Scythia Minor (Dobruja)

? In this period, many rural and military colonies were founded with such populations.

---

? 5. Late Roman/Byzantine Continuity: Daco-Romans in Moesia and Dardania

• Event: By the 6th century, Procopius and Jordanes mention Latin-speaking populations in the Balkans, many of whom were descendants of Daco-Roman migrants.
• Source:
  • Jordanes, Getica 265:
    

    “[Dacia] was evacuated and its people transferred across the Danube into Moesia.”

  • Procopius, Buildings IV.1.32:
    

    “[In Dardania and Moesia] the cities and countryside are inhabited by Romans.”

• Date: 6th century
• Origin: Originally from Dacia Traiana
• Destination: Permanent settlement in Dardania, Moesia, and Thrace

? These populations maintained Latin speech and rural traditions — the likely ancestors of the Vlachs/Romanians.

I also asked ChatGPT, for what its opinion on Dardanians, and the it suggested a closer relationship with Daco-Thracians. I know its sometimes wrong or needs correction, but these are interesting comments nevertheless and the fairly massive, documented influx of Dacians into the Danubian-Balkan provinces is highly important for the debate and later distribution in any case.

 

[Riverman]

Coordinates of the E-V13 samples from the Sarmatian paper:

E-V13_MDH_444::MDH-444,0.119514,0.128972,0.029415,0.002261,0.007694,0.004183,0.00799,0.011769,0.005318,0.011481,-0.004384,-0.001798,-0.003271,0.004129,-0.013165,-0.018032,-0.019688,0,0.00905,-0.010005,-0.012104,0.003462,0.002588,0.003615,-0.007784
E-V13_MDH-462:MDH-462,0.12862,0.122879,0.041483,0.031008,0.022773,0.011435,0.00094,0.004384,0.002045,0.003827,0.002436,0.006145,-0.009514,0.000963,-0.006243,-0.008353,0.010431,0.009248,0.012067,0.003001,0.006364,-0.000371,-0.005176,0.000964,0
E-V13_MIJ-3:MIJ-3,0.106994,0.048745,0.025267,0.000323,0.004308,-0.006972,0.0094,-0.000692,-0.000818,0.007289,0.000325,-0.003147,-0.014123,-0.005918,-0.0038,-0.005038,-0.002999,-0.002914,0.013324,0.007379,-0.006613,-0.001484,-0.001725,0.00241,0.002515
E-V13_OFU-422:OFU-422,0.125205,0.141159,0.041483,0.023256,0.031698,0.011713,0.007285,0.004154,0.006749,0.003462,-0.006008,-0.001199,0.002973,0.004679,0.004479,0.005436,0,0.010008,0.002891,0.000625,0.009358,-0.008037,0.011462,-0.000964,-0.008263
E-V13_DZS-3ZS-3,0.125205,0.118817,0.048649,0.035853,0.029236,0.016733,0.009635,0.006231,0.009408,0.006743,-0.004547,0.002548,0.001635,-0.000413,-0.014251,-0.003182,0.00691,-0.007981,0.000126,0.003752,-0.009608,0.001113,-0.003821,-0.002289,-0.009221
E-V13_DZS-5ZS-5,0.132035,0.120848,0.041106,0.02261,0.022773,0.012271,-0.000235,0.000462,0.001432,0.007654,-0.002111,0.001499,-0.008028,-0.001376,0.004886,0.001458,-0.000913,0.0019,0.004902,0.006503,-0.000749,0.00136,0.002958,-0.002289,-0.001078
E-V13_TIV-17:TIV-17,0.114961,0.144205,0.035449,0,0.033237,-0.00502,0,-0.000231,0.010635,0.003462,-0.000325,0.000749,-0.01115,-0.007019,-0.008143,0.017104,0.023208,0.006334,0.010182,-0.001626,-0.006613,-0.001855,0.001602,0.003253,-0.005987
E-V13_CSO-502:CSO-502,0.120652,0.142174,0.027907,-0.011628,0.024004,0.001952,0.00423,-0.003461,0.006545,0.027153,0.006983,0.002098,-0.01115,-0.003991,-0.0076,0.007027,0.032205,-0.006841,-0.002263,-0.003377,-0.006364,-0.00272,-0.011709,0.02181,-0.000239
E-V13_Hungary_Transtisza_Roman_Sarmation:I20802,0.122929,0.135065,0.034695,0.014535,0.01908,-0.001673,-0.00188,0.000462,0.001636,0.010023,-0.005034,0.007643,-0.004906,-0.004679,-0.004614,-0.004375,-0.002086,0.002787,0.006411,-0.012006,-0.005865,0.004328,0.0053,-0.00253,-0.00467

Source post: https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=648&pid=54442#pid54442

A big cluster appears to be Celtic to Celto-Dacian, actually a significant part of the E-V13 group. North Thracian/Dacian cline is clearly visible - dominates in Transtisza, one plots right with Thracian Hallstatt (CSO-502). A big outlier is MIJ-3, who has excess East Asian ancestry, unusually high levels even for Sarmatians. Interestingly, he also has the lowest WHG ancestral component, which further cements his complete outlier position in this group of E-V13 carrying Sarmatians.

Most notable, the E-V13 individuals have, compared to the total sample, much less Sarmatian shift, but clear trends towards Celtic-Pannonian and North Thracian primarily.

One sample, OFU-422, is dated to the Hunnic period, but he is not the big outlier.

Edit: Basically we deal with two clusters, one which is Celtic/Celto-Dacian/Celto-Dacian-Pannonian and one which is North Thracian, both have varying degrees of possible small to no Sarmatian admixture.

The North Thracian ones are all rather East of the Tisza, North of the Danube (TIV-17, I20802). But another North Thracian, more Thracian-Hallstatt like, with minimal to no admixture is CSO-502. Now the interesting part is: Three out of 4 are East of the Tisza river, while the opposite pattern can be observed for the Celtic-Pannonian shifted ones, which are all are West Tisza river.
Therefore the trend is not as much North <-> South, but West <-> East, with the Tisza river (!) marking the border.

Only one of the North Thracian shifted individuals is from West of the Tisza - in the South, it is MDH-444. There is a marked decrease, for the averages of WHG ancestry, from West to East of the Tisza river.

The more North Thracian shifted E-V13 individuals are not accompanied by a lot of samples on the plot, but seem to form a minor group in the whole Sarmatian sample compared to more Celtic shifted individuals. There are a lot more in the total sample, but these are all decisively more Sarmatian shifted. I guess these scattered dots represent Sarmatian (male) : Dacian (female) mixtures, which also explains, why only the most North Thracian/Dacian shifted individuals are E-V13. Among those which are 50:50 or so, there is not a single one (presumably all Sarmatian lineages).

What this also shows, is that the Celtic-Pannonian population closer to the Danube, in the Sarmatian era, had received a strong E-V13/Carpatho-Balkan/Dacian input, just like expected for groups like the Scordisci. Autosomally they are rather on the Celtic-Pannonian side of things, but in total there is quite a number of E-V13 among them, compared to the total number of R-U152, which being present at about the same level.

One example of a likely Celtic branch being: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z49/

He is from Kunszentmiklós, South of Budapest.

Interestingly, the more Celtic-Pannonian individuals from the South, from the E-V13 domianted area, have barely any Celtic branches, instead, beside E-V13, they have rare branches like https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2106/ - at the site of Dormánd, pretty much in the North, close to the Tisza river, but still West of it (DZS-3 and DZS-5 are E-V13, and the Western Celtic-Pannonian shift is typical for the site, with the DZS-44 with Sarmatian R1a plotting close, just with more Sarmatian admixture compared to the E-V13 individuals. He might be Sarmatian-Dacian mixed in the making, while DZS-41 again from Dormánd is a pure Sarmatian.

The R-Z2106 (DZS-43) individual is fully with the E-V13 guys, therefore Celto-Dacian-Pannonian! This is quite remarkable, since it points to multiple lineages, not just E-V13, having arrived from the Daco-Thracian sphere and mixing into a still rather Celtic-Pannonian shifted population.

So we have here a mix of local Celto-Dacian/Celto-Pannonian-Dacian people on the one hand, with E-V13 (DZS-3, DZS-5) and other lineages like R-Z2106 (DZS-43), and incoming pure Sarmatians, like DZS-41, and mixed individuals, with a Sarmatian father and local mother, like DZS-44.

Note these are early period samples! So they are right from the time frame when Sarmatians began coming in! And the local population in this area, which is rather Celto-Dacian/Pannonian-Dacian in the wider sense, being dominated by E-V13, plus we got R-Z2106 from these locals.
On top of the cake, also note that the Celto-Dacian/Daco-Pannonian mix predominates in the areas the Romans "gave" to the Iazyges and which were mostly "Celtic"-influenced before - this is the map with all the E-V13 samples, their cluster and affiliation - special attention to the site of Dormánd, with the above described "mixing process" between locals (E-V13, R-Z2106) and incoming Sarmatians:

The trend between more Daco-Thracian East of Tisza vs. Celto-Dacian with Sarmatian admixture West of the Tisza river is in full accordance with the Roman writings and historical records, which tell us that the Iazyges were called in to form a buffer between the Roman provinces and the Dacians:

In their early relationship with Rome, the Iazyges were used as a buffer state between the Romans and the Dacians; this relationship later developed into one of overlord and client state, with the Iazyges being nominally sovereign subjects of Rome. Throughout this relationship, the Iazyges carried out raids on Roman land, which often caused punitive expeditions to be made against them.

Iazyges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PaleoRevenge]

All these samples are likely mixed with Celtic. It is possible the Dacians were just as EEF as the Thracians, the Thracians have some additional Levantine admixture and maybe even extra Yamnaya. It is likely the single Bulgarian Roman sample(E-V13) that happens to the most EEF shifted of all E-V13s, is an actual resettled Dacian.

I think these samples including the Himera's represent intermediary/frontier populations and are highly admixed, in real models QPDAD they always require a Buglaria EIA base and some high steppe population(often also high on whg).

Even in modern samples(upcoming ROUA paper), the PCA graph from Zakarpatia has some very EEF shifted samples(safe bet these are Hutsul samples), so Dacian starting point cannot be the E-V13 samples from the Sarmatian paper, as that would imply the modern samples from Zakarpatia have no Slavic admixture, which is not plausible.

 

[Riverman]

All these samples are likely mixed with Celtic. It is possible the Dacians were just as EEF as the Thracians, the Thracians have some additional Levantine admixture and maybe even extra Yamnaya. It is likely the single Bulgarian Roman sample(E-V13) that happens to the most EEF shifted of all E-V13s, is an actual resettled Dacian.

I think these samples including the Himera's represent intermediary/frontier populations and are highly admixed, in real models QPDAD they always require a Buglaria EIA base and some high steppe population(often also high on whg).

Even in modern samples(upcoming ROUA paper), the PCA graph from Zakarpatia has some very EEF shifted samples(safe bet these are Hutsul samples), so Dacian starting point cannot be the E-V13 samples from the Sarmatian paper, as that would imply the modern samples from Zakarpatia have no Slavic admixture, which is not plausible.

Keep in mind that they not just mixed with Celts, but also with other groups, Kyjatice in particular.
In the end we don't know for sure without the crucial samples from Transylvania.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

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.

 

[Riverman]

RivermanCoordinates of the E-V13 samples:
E-V13_MDH_444::MDH-444,0.119514,0.128972,0.029415,0.002261,0.007694,0.004183,0.00799,0.011769,0.005318,0.011481,-0.004384,-0.001798,-0.003271,0.004129,-0.013165,-0.018032,-0.019688,0,0.00905,-0.010005,-0.012104,0.003462,0.002588,0.003615,-0.007784<br>E-V13_MDH-462:MDH-462,0.12862,0.122879,0.041483,0.031008,0.022773,0.011435,0.00094,0.004384,0.002045,0.003827,0.002436,0.006145,-0.009514,0.000963,-0.006243,-0.008353,0.010431,0.009248,0.012067,0.003001,0.006364,-0.000371,-0.005176,0.000964,0<br>E-V13_MIJ-3:MIJ-3,0.106994,0.048745,0.025267,0.000323,0.004308,-0.006972,0.0094,-0.000692,-0.000818,0.007289,0.000325,-0.003147,-0.014123,-0.005918,-0.0038,-0.005038,-0.002999,-0.002914,0.013324,0.007379,-0.006613,-0.001484,-0.001725,0.00241,0.002515<br>E-V13_OFU-422:OFU-422,0.125205,0.141159,0.041483,0.023256,0.031698,0.011713,0.007285,0.004154,0.006749,0.003462,-0.006008,-0.001199,0.002973,0.004679,0.004479,0.005436,0,0.010008,0.002891,0.000625,0.009358,-0.008037,0.011462,-0.000964,-0.008263<br>E-V13_DZS-3ZS-3,0.125205,0.118817,0.048649,0.035853,0.029236,0.016733,0.009635,0.006231,0.009408,0.006743,-0.004547,0.002548,0.001635,-0.000413,-0.014251,-0.003182,0.00691,-0.007981,0.000126,0.003752,-0.009608,0.001113,-0.003821,-0.002289,-0.009221<br>E-V13_DZS-5ZS-5,0.132035,0.120848,0.041106,0.02261,0.022773,0.012271,-0.000235,0.000462,0.001432,0.007654,-0.002111,0.001499,-0.008028,-0.001376,0.004886,0.001458,-0.000913,0.0019,0.004902,0.006503,-0.000749,0.00136,0.002958,-0.002289,-0.001078<br>E-V13_TIV-17:TIV-17,0.114961,0.144205,0.035449,0,0.033237,-0.00502,0,-0.000231,0.010635,0.003462,-0.000325,0.000749,-0.01115,-0.007019,-0.008143,0.017104,0.023208,0.006334,0.010182,-0.001626,-0.006613,-0.001855,0.001602,0.003253,-0.005987<br>E-V13_CSO-502:CSO-502,0.120652,0.142174,0.027907,-0.011628,0.024004,0.001952,0.00423,-0.003461,0.006545,0.027153,0.006983,0.002098,-0.01115,-0.003991,-0.0076,0.007027,0.032205,-0.006841,-0.002263,-0.003377,-0.006364,-0.00272,-0.011709,0.02181,-0.000239<br>E-V13_Hungary_Transtisza_Roman_Sarmation:I20802,0.122929,0.135065,0.034695,0.014535,0.01908,-0.001673,-0.00188,0.000462,0.001636,0.010023,-0.005034,0.007643,-0.004906,-0.004679,-0.004614,-0.004375,-0.002086,0.002787,0.006411,-0.012006,-0.005865,0.004328,0.0053,-0.00253,-0.00467<br>
Source post: https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=648&pid=54442#pid54442
A big cluster appears to be Celtic to Celto-Dacian, actually a significant part of the E-V13 group. North Thracian/Dacian cline is clearly visible - dominates in Transtisza, one plots right with Thracian Hallstatt (CSO-502). A big outlier is MIJ-3, who has excess East Asian ancestry, unusually high levels even for Sarmatians. Interestingly, he also has the lowest WHG ancestral component, which further cements his complete outlier position in this group of E-V13 carrying Sarmatians.
Most notable, the E-V13 individuals have, compared to the total sample, much less Sarmatian shift, but clear trends towards Celtic-Pannonian and North Thracian primarily.

One sample, OFU-422, is dated to the Hunnic period, but he is not the big outlier.
Edit: Basically we deal with two clusters, one which is Celtic/Celto-Dacian/Celto-Dacian-Pannonian and one which is North Thracian, both have varying degrees of possible small to no Sarmatian admixture.
The North Thracian ones are all rather East of the Tisza, North of the Danube (TIV-17, I20802). But another North Thracian, more Thracian-Hallstatt like, with minimal to no admixture is CSO-502. Now the interesting part is: Three out of 4 are East of the Tisza river, while the opposite pattern can be observed for the Celtic-Pannonian shifted ones, which are all are West Tisza river.
Therefore the trend is not as much North <-> South, but West <-> East, with the Tisza river (!) marking the border.
Only one of the North Thracian shifted individuals is from West of the Tisza - in the South, it is MDH-444. There is a marked decrease, for the averages of WHG ancestry, from West to East of the Tisza river.
The more North Thracian shifted E-V13 individuals are not accompanied by a lot of samples on the plot, but seem to form a minor group in the whole Sarmatian sample compared to more Celtic shifted individuals. There are a lot more in the total sample, but these are all decisively more Sarmatian shifted. I guess these scattered dots represent Sarmatian (male) : Dacian (female) mixtures, which also explains, why only the most North Thracian/Dacian shifted individuals are E-V13. Among those which are 50:50 or so, there is not a single one (presumably all Sarmatian lineages).
What this also shows, is that the Celtic-Pannonian population closer to the Danube, in the Sarmatian era, had received a strong E-V13/Carpatho-Balkan/Dacian input, just like expected for groups like the Scordisci. Autosomally they are rather on the Celtic-Pannonian side of things, but in total there is quite a number of E-V13 among them, compared to the total number of R-U152, which being present at about the same level.

One example of a likely Celtic branch being: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z49/
He is from Kunszentmiklós, South of Budapest.
Interestingly, the more Celtic-Pannonian individuals from the South, from thje E-V13 dominated sites, have barely any Celtic branches, instead, beside E-V13, they have rare branches like https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2106/ - at the site of Dormánd, pretty much in the North, close to the Tisza river, but still West of it (DZS-3 and DZS-5 are E-V13, and the Western Celtic-Pannonian shift is typical for the site, with the DZS-44 with Sarmatian R1a plotting close, just with more Sarmatian admixture compared to the E-V13 individuals. He might be Sarmatian-Dacian mixed in the making, while DZS-41 again from Dormánd is a pure Sarmatian.
The R-Z2106 (DZS-43) individual is fully with the E-V13 guys, therefore Celto-Dacian-Pannonian! This is quite remarkable, since it points to multiple lineages, not just E-V13, having arrived from the Daco-Thracian sphere and mixing into a still rather Celtic-Pannonian shifted population.
So we have here a mix of local Celto-Dacian/Celto-Pannonian-Dacian people on the one hand, with E-V13 (DZS-3, DZS-5) and other lineages like R-Z2106 (DZS-43), and incoming pure Sarmatians, like DZS-41, and mixed individuals, with a Sarmatian father and local mother, like DZS-44.
Note these are early period samples! So they are right from the time frame when Sarmatians began coming in! And the local population in this area, which is rather Celto-Dacian/Pannonian-Dacian in the wider sense, being dominated by E-V13, plus we got R-Z2106 from these locals.

Keep in mind where they plot when looking at the FTDNA assignments for their haplogroups.
1) OFU-422 E-PRX43 (900 BCE) = https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-PRX43/tree - His branch has now 3 (!) ancient DNA samples from the Avar period! His line was clearly thriving in the Pannonia from the Sarmatian period onwards. He is deep in the Celto-Dacian cluster. Apparently, there are so far no modern descendants of this branch, which might have died or being degraded with the demise of the Avars.





2) MIJ-3 E-Y243696 (50 CE) = https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-Y243696/tree - He was the outlier with excess East Asian ancestry. The TMRCA with moderns is extremely close to his time of existence. Modern descendants in Trentino and Poland.

3) MDH-462 E-FTA14355 (would split 650 BCE-1700 CE) = https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-FTA14355/tree - He is deep in the Celto-Dacian/Pannonian cluster, but with possible slight Sarmatian admixture. Remarkably, the descendants of his branch being found in England, while a parallel branch ended up in France and Scotland. This could suggest, that it was present in a Pannonian-Celtic context for longer and this opens up a possibility for a Celtic dispersal - not just a Roman one. Again, he comes from the cluster which clearly intermixed with Celtic-Pannonian people for a prolonged period of time.

4) DZS-3 E-BY188464 (750 BCE)
DZS-5 E-BY188464 (750 BCE)
= https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY188464/tree - These are the Dormand samples, which are from the early Sarmatian period, were found together with R-Z2106 for the locals, and which females began to mix with incoming pure Sarmatians - I wrote about it. They too are part of the Celto-Dacian cluster. The branch is pretty old, modern descendants live in Czechia.
Interestingly, the upstream branch has 2 Sarmatian samples, two different branches of E-BY152493 being found among the Sarmatians. Both from the South of Hungary.


5) CSO-502 and TIV-17 E-BY6283 (1150 BCE) = https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY6283/tree
Again two (!) Sarmatian lineages from this site, one being from Transtisza and approaching North Thracian mix, the other Thracian Hallstatt from South Hungary. So we are left with a North Thracian mix and one being a perfect match for Thracian Hallstatt type profile. Both are clearly Daco-Thracian for the most part, and clearly distinct from the Celtic-Pannonian-Dacian cluster we find West of the Tisza. This suggests that the individual in South Hungary (CSO-502) is a recent migrant to the region - that's why he looks more Eastern - he presumably comes indeed from a region deeper in Daco-Thracian territory - like e.g. Transtisza, Oltenia, Moldova etc.
It is such a good luck that we have the double evidence of not just his autosomal profile, but a second branch member being from a sample from Transtisza!

The modern descendants of this older branch are a wild bunch, including Northern European and Near Eastern samples. It is yet another Transtisza lineage which likely spread with steppe backflow and groups also, I guess.


MDH-444 E-BY14150 (900 BCE) = https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY14150/tree
He is mixed, but he's shifted mostly in the direction of the previous Thracian Hallstatt-type ancestry. And interestingly, he too has a branch which has Near Eastern members. So we kind of get a pattern here!

The most parsimonious explanation for this pattern, right now, at the moment, appears to me that these Thracian Hallstatt-like ancestry being indeed connected to lineages which had a stronger impact on the steppe and ending up areas far apart because of this. Something like Vekerzug, Ferigile, or even Eastern Thracians come to mind.

Both branches are fairly old, like in the founding period of Sanislau-Nir, Basarabi-Soldanesti or just a couple of generations after Cozia-Saharna in the East etc. They could therefore have split in very different directions early on, still I wanted to point out the obvious similarity of these two individuals with both having Thracian Hallstatt-type main ancestry, upstream branches of high age going back to roughly the same time period, and both having a spread into the Near East. I won't exclude a South Thracian origin for one of these, by the way, considering their age and distribution, there are lot of possibilities.

In any case: It is great to have, finally, good coverage samples which brought us a very concrete, very specific autosomal AND haplogroup assignment.
We now see clearer that in Pannonia, there was a large scale influx of E-V13 already in Pre-Sarmatian times, associated mostly with a Celto-Dacian/Celto-Pannonian-Thracian profile in one cluster, and a rather North Thracian/Thracian Hallstatt one in the other, more Eastern one, which dominates in Transtisza territory.

Also interesting: We now have two of the big 4 being represented: CTS9320 and Y3183. But no L241 and FGC11451. Note, this points to rarer branches and South Dacian ones. The South Dacians are expected, especially for South Hungary (CTS9320, Y3183), that's fully in line.
For L241, FGC11451, I expect them to be even more (North-) East, deeper in areas like Transylvania, Transcarpathia etc. They are extremely likely to pop up in the samples from Ciumbrud I guess.

 

[Riverman]

After the assignment by FTDNA for the Sarmatian era samples, we have more good news to share, since we got the first E-V13 samples from Greece:

FR9CZ6Genetic affinities between an ancient Greek colony and its metropolis: the case of Amvrakia in western Greece
During the Ancient Greek colonization, Corinth established a stable network of economic and political ties, by founding colonies connecting southern Greece with the mainland of Epirus and reaching as far as the east Adriatic coast. Amvrakia, one of the main Corinthian colonies founded during the 7th century BCE, was characterized by its strong dependence on its metropolis. Here, we aim to investigate the genetic relationships between the Corinthian metropolis and the Amvrakia colony, the contribution of the local population to the founding genetic pool, as well as the demography of Amvrakia in subsequent periods. During its foundation in the Archaic period, Amvrakia appears to have been shaped by genetic influences from at least two different sources. The first source migrated from the Corinth territory, represented by the Archaic Tenea population and is supported via an Identity By Descent (IBD) analysis. The second source shows a direct ancestry from Late Bronze Age (LBA)/Iron Age Greece, including a local LBA population represented by the Ammotopos site located in close proximity to Amvrakia, as shown by a plethora of independent population genomics analyses. During the subsequent Classical and Hellenistic periods, the population of Amvrakia appears to have slightly differentiated, yet evidence of genetic continuity over time is observed. The migration of Corinthians to Amvrakia contributed to the initial genetic pool of the colony along with the local genetic pool, indicating that the Corinthian colonization included both genetic and cultural transmission between the metropolis and its colony.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.01.662689v1

Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA (TITLES/ABSTRACTS)

QrtsGenetic affinities between an ancient Greek colony and its metropolis: the case of Amvrakia in western Greece
Two new E samples from Greece, both from the Hellenistic period:
Amv_Epi_Hel_2<br>J2b1a / J2b1a (J2b1)<br>0.98 / 0.33 (1.00)<br>E [14] / E [10]<br>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&nbsp;<br>Ten_Pel_Hel_2<br>T2n / T2n<br>0.90 / 1.00<br>E [125] / E [60]<br>E-CTS9320*(xE-Z17107,E-Y84585,E-Y41959,E-Y20805,E-Y160090,E-Y21947,E-FTA55988,E-BY4342,E-Y38934,E-BY20074,E-Y208589,E-FT79653,E-BY66796,E-BY34282,E-Z38664,E-BY4231) [1.00] / E1b1b1a1b1 [2]<br>

Map of ancient DE samples

The mtDNA of the CTS9320 individual from Tenea is https://discover.familytreedna.com/mtdna/T2n/tree
Rather rare and more Near Eastern - Levantine in moderns, including Jewish. Not a haplogroup which I would say is common in any Daco-Thracians (North or South) I guess, but could be Aegean-Anatolian.

From the paper:

...the Y-chromosome (G major haplogroup198
in LBA Ammotopos; J and T in Classical Amvrakia; E in Hellenistic Amvrakia; T in Archaic199
Tenea; E in Hellenistic Tenea; R and J in Roman Tenea). We further discovered a few cases200
of close genetic relatedness (see details in Additional file 7, Section 3.1).

The male LBA Ammotopos sample was assigned to G2a2b2a1a1c1a, the male1094
Amvrakia samples were assigned to J2 and T1a2 (Classical period) and E1b1b1 (Hellenistic1095
period), and the male Tenea samples were assigned to T1a2 (Archaic period), E1b1b1a1b11096
(Hellenistic period), and R1b1a2a2a and J2a1b1 (Roman period). The Allen Ancient DNA1097
Resource (Version 8; aadr_v.54.1.p1_1240K_public; [79]) does not include entries from1098
prehistoric or historical Greece for any of the aforementioned haplogroups.

So we see an increase of E, presumably with Thracian ancestry, in multiple sites in the Hellenistic period, while there was an increae of J in the Roman period. This might suggest, that the Thraco-Greek E-branches went somewhat down again, in the Roman period. Just a possible scenario. But with such small samples, it might be all chance anyway.

In any case, the Tenea sample is CTS9320 (?). This might point to a South Dacian origin. The E-M78 might be E-V13 or belong to another branch, including E-L618 branches already found in Mycenaean samples. I hope deeper assignment is possible to clarify this.

Tenea is pretty South in the Peleponnes:

Tenea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On the trends in Hellenistic Tenea, from the paper:

Finally, Hellenistic Tenea is inferred to be in rotating qpAdm using its “Most_proximate” set524
of sources: a direct descendant of either Archaic Amvrakia, or Classical Amvrakia, or LBA525
.CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseavailable under a
was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made
The copyright holder for this preprint (whichthis version posted July 5, 2025.;https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.01.662689doi:bioRxiv preprint
24
Ammotopos, or Hellenistic Amvrakia, or Archaic Tenea or as a two-way admixture between526
the aforementioned populations; in three-way and four-way admixture models, several other527
sources with lower contribution appear, such as IA Italy, IA Balkans, IA Greece, Classical
North Macedonia, etc (Additional file 7, Supplementary Figure S40F).

In the Roman period, there is a noticeable shift towards Anatolians-Levantines, as in other urbanised Roman areas and Imperial Rome in general. But the E-V13 appearance was earlier, Hellenistic the latest - could be still earlier.

 

[Southpaw]

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?!

 

[Riverman]

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...

 

[dubsteroaks]

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.

 

[Riverman]

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.

 

[Southpaw]

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.

 

[Riverman]

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.

 

[Southpaw]

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338655388_EARLY_IRON_AGE_HORIZON_AT_THE_SITE_OF_NAD_KLEPECKOM

 

[Riverman]

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.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

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

 

[Southpaw]

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.

 

[Southpaw]

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297359166_The_find_of_an_equestrian_grave_of_iron_age_at_sv_Kriz_Brdovecki_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.

 

[dubsteroaks]

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.