E-V13 men as carriers of "Roman Imperial" Admixture

[enter_tain]

The evidence is pretty straightforward, there are only a few scholars which cast doubt.

Mate, what are you talking about? Phrygians aren't Thracians. There is nothing to argue there.

Clearly, Herotodus on that one specific example was talking out of his ass. Phrygians are not Armenians, and they're not Thracians.

 

[enter_tain]

There surely were different populations within Greece. Yet I for one doubt that E-V13 was completely absent early on in the Greek peninsula. But I can't discard that it was more dominant in the Northern part. I wouldn't call it Thracian, because these carriers may simply have swept over the Balkans and mixed with early Thracian and early Greek as well as Illyrian speakers. The fact that Crete only has 10% is an indication that, it came from the mainland. It must have come early, because no large migration is documented on the island. Only some 800.000 are believed to have inhabited mainland Greece during the Bronze Age. While there were 4 million people in Greece during the late Iron Age and Classical Age. Crete on the other hand has been known to be the island of 80 cities during the Bronze Age. The island was far more densely populated than mainland Greece during that time. E-V13 spread through Greece before the mainlands population explosion in the Iron Age.

There was an "Aegean" hotzone of E-V13. That includes Greece, Bulgaria, West Turkey.

 

[Riverman]

Mate, what are you talking about? Phrygians aren't Thracians. There is nothing to argue there.

Clearly, Herotodus on that one specific example was talking out of his ass. Phrygians are not Armenians, and they're not Thracians.

The Bosporan and Bithynian Thracians were no Phrygians.

 

[Riverman]

E-V13 was likely at home in the Eastern Carpathian basin, among the cremating descendants of the Cotofeni group.

The most likely path it took was:
Cotofeni -> Soimus -> Nyirseg -> Suciu de Sus-Lapus/Berkesz-Demcser/Susani and related Pre-Gáva groups -> Gáva-Holgrady/Belegis II-Gáva and related Channelled Ware groups

After the Cimmerian invasion, this Daco-Thracian/Carpatho-Balkan cremation block was split in 3:
- Northern Late Gáva into Kustanovice
- Mezocsat into Eastern Vekerzug-Sanislau group
- Southern main block of Stamped Pottery groups, from Insula Banului into Psenichevo and Basarabi.

Basarabi being the main group of the Northern Thracians/Dacians and likely completely dominated by E-V13. Since Basarabi had intense contacts to other Hallstatt period groups, it likely influenced Eastern Hallstatt groups, most notably the Frög group in Austria, which had similar customs and proven Basarabi migrants.

Dardanians did have a Daco-Thracian/Channelled Ware substrate in their Eastern expansion zone, plus intense contacts to other Daco-Thracian neighbours, like the Triballi (post-Basarabi Ferigile group, Southern pendant to Eastern Vekerzug-Sanislau group).

Therefore I do expect Dardanians to have signficant E-V13, as might have other groups of the Southern and Central Balkans from the Channelled Ware expansion in the LBA-EIA tarnsition or later Daco-Thracian contacts with groups related to Psenichevo and Basarabi in particular, but the bulk of E-V13 should have lived in the Transtisza-Danube zone, with the Dacian tribes.

Many Dacians were resettled at the end of the Roman empire, including major Daco-Roman and Free Dacian tribal resettlements throughout the Balkans, especially into Moesia, the new Dacian province. Most of the biggest resettlements happened at the end of the Roman Empire, e.g. after the defeat of the major Dacian formation of the Carpi. These Daco-Romans from the province and tribal Dacians were resettled into a Northern-Central Balkan zone which was practically almost depopulated at that time, which should have multiplied thier genetic impact.

Therefore a lot of E-V13 might have been spread in the Roman and migration era, but mostly at the end of the Empire, with Dacians and with tribals which picked up Dacian remnants, like the Goths did. Especially in the Sântana de Mureș phase in the Carpathian basin, the Dacian contribution to the Goths is apparent. That's one of the main reason so many E-V13 samples popped up among Goths in Iberia imho.

The most common feature of the E-V13 core is a "Balkan Iron Age" profile (compare with the Viminacium paper) and/or a very high proportion of EEF (Early European Farmer) ancestry. Most notably, this high EEF being not combined with increased CHG/Iranian/Levantine admixture, which is so typical for the classical "Imperial Roman" admixture. Therefore if E-V13 individuals have such an Iranian-Levantine shift, its not because that's the original E-V13 ancestry, but that's what some populations acquired in the Imperial Roman period throughout the Empire.

 

[Riverman]

I think the Southern Thracians from Bulgaria South of the Danube (post-Psenichevo) were highly important in Antiquity and spread in the Hellenistic period, but also before and afterwards far and wide, including into the Near East.

However, ggey didn't fare that well overall from the Roman period onwards and were the smaller group by comparison even before.

Especially most of the dominant E-Z5018 and E-Z5017 branches I would rather associate with Northern Thracians/Geto-Dacians and not the Southern Thracians ("Thracians proper").

This means the great majority of modern E-V13, if I'm right, comes from the Northern Geto-Dacians, not the Southern

And it came to the Central, but especially the Southern Balkans fairly late.

That might be wrong, but that's my current interpretation from the currently available data.

 

[Riverman]

Some E-V13 could of arrived with refugees from the north and into the central Balkans during the Slavic incursions, and also during Roman period ...

Yes, I think there was a Vlach-Romance to Proto-Albanian contact zone because of this mix also, with the resettled Daco-Romans with additonal Dacian influence (Carpi etc.) forming the core for the (Southern) Vlachs, whereas Dardanian remnants formed the core for the Albanians. With gene flow and reciprocal influence working on both.

Concerning Brnjica, its a borderline group which was pushed by the actual carriers I meant, especially by Belegis II-Gáva. Brnjica was however related to Belegis I and even Gáva in some ways, so its very hard to pin them down genetically. In any case, Brnjica didn't fare too well, and what remained being largely incorporated in the later Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon of the Gáva-related expansions.

 

[ioas]

Yes, I think there was a Vlach-Romance to Proto-Albanian contact zone because of this mix also, with the resettled Daco-Romans with additonal Dacian influence (Carpi etc.) forming the core for the (Southern) Vlachs, whereas Dardanian remnants formed the core for the Albanians. With gene flow and reciprocal influence working on both.

Concerning Brnjica, its a borderline group which was pushed by the actual carriers I meant, especially by Belegis II-Gáva. Brnjica was however related to Belegis I and even Gáva in some ways, so its very hard to pin them down genetically. In any case, Brnjica didn't fare too well, and what remained being largely incorporated in the later Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon of the Gáva-related expansions.

What do mean by southern vlachs ?

 

[Friesday]

My northern french cousin is E-V13

 

[Riverman]

What do mean by southern vlachs ?

The Vlachs South of the Danube before mixing with more Northern groups.

 

[Hawk]

Yes, I think there was a Vlach-Romance to Proto-Albanian contact zone because of this mix also, with the resettled Daco-Romans with additonal Dacian influence (Carpi etc.) forming the core for the (Southern) Vlachs, whereas Dardanian remnants formed the core for the Albanians. With gene flow and reciprocal influence working on both.

Concerning Brnjica, its a borderline group which was pushed by the actual carriers I meant, especially by Belegis II-Gáva. Brnjica was however related to Belegis I and even Gáva in some ways, so its very hard to pin them down genetically. In any case, Brnjica didn't fare too well, and what remained being largely incorporated in the later Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon of the Gáva-related expansions.

Yeah, and the Vlachs have less than 10-15% E-V13, good logic there. Look, you cannot make one thing convincing by repeating yourself 100 times over and over again.

 

[Riverman]

Yeah, and the Vlachs have less than 10-15% E-V13, good logic there. Look, you cannot make one thing convincing by repeating yourself 100 times over and over again.

The question is why the Vlachs have a lower percentage. In my opinion that's exactly because they have more a of a "trans-Balkan" Romance origin, in the South, while some Albanian groups had a more tribal-clan origin.

I have no strong opinion on the issue anyway. I have a strong opinion on some of the major E-V13 in the Balkans today though, and those are highly likely to have arrived fairly late with resettled Daco-Romans and resettled Dacian tribals, regardless of how the exact percentages were achived in different say Vlach and Albanian groups.
The time line and phylogeny is pretty straightforward and this also explains why some branches were found far and wide, early on, beyond the Roman borders. Because the Dacians split into different groups, especially after their demise as an indepenent unity (picked up and redistributed by Romans, Germanics and Slavs after the split).

That's not the story for all E-V13 branches, but for some of the major ones, especially some of the major ones under E-Z5018 and E-Z5017.

 

[Hawk]

The question is why the Vlachs have a lower percentage. In my opinion that's exactly because they have more a of a "trans-Balkan" Romance origin, in the South, while some Albanian groups had a more tribal-clan origin.

I have no strong opinion on the issue anyway. I have a strong opinion on some of the major E-V13 in the Balkans today though, and those are highly likely to have arrived fairly late with resettled Daco-Romans and resettled Dacian tribals, regardless of how the exact percentages were achived in different say Vlach and Albanian groups.
The time line and phylogeny is pretty straightforward and this also explains why some branches were found far and wide, early on, beyond the Roman borders. Because the Dacians split into different groups, especially after their demise as an indepenent unity (picked up and redistributed by Romans, Germanics and Slavs after the split).

That's not the story for all E-V13 branches, but for some of the major ones, especially some of the major ones under E-Z5018 and E-Z5017.

Still not convincing, it's plain simple. Z5018 among Albanians is quite diverse, and you don't have to look in Poland and Ukraine or North Carpathians to give an explanation.

 

[Riverman]

Still not convincing, it's plain simple. Z5018 among Albanians is quite diverse, and you don't have to look in Poland and Ukraine or North Carpathians to give an explanation.

You know, I did count separate branches for various very widespread E-V13 branches and one of the main reasons Albanians have a good diversity, is the testing bias. Albanians are among the top tested European people, especially on YFull.

The worse tested Germans, for comparison, have however significantly more independent branches.

Now that pattern could have different causes, it might be, that these major E-V13 branches were more diverse in Albanians, but the diversity got reduced for different reasons (bottlenecks, population collapse, founder events of Albanian clans etc.), yet it is intriguing that for the high level of testing, some of the main branches are not that much more diverse than other well-tested people like Sardinians and English, and below the level of very bad and insufficiently tested Germans. Even the French are not that bad represented.

There could be a variety of reasons for this, but fact is, the diversity in Albanians for these major E-Z5018 and E-Z5017 is not that big of an argument, since a lot of it is due to testing bias and there is a way more hidden diversity in Central Europe still.

Just compare various ethnicities on FTDNA and YFull, and how many separate branches (I'm mainly looking for Iron Age to Early Roman branching events) each have.

Particularly noteworthy is the Sardinian sample. Nobody would ever claim that Sardinia is a candidate for the origin of E-V13 in the Bronze Age. There population is very small, and the vast majority of E-V13 samples come from one province of Sardinia even, which makes it an even smaller population. Yet this miniscule group of people has such a diversity of E-V13, due to the high level of testing.


From my post at Genarchivist on the issue:

I recently came across the sampling ratio for different countries based on YFull. It is noteworthy that the sampling in some countries is so high, that big surprises become less likely, while in other countries there are truly huge gaps. Here is the map:

phylogeographer.com/yfull-world-sampling-rate-map/?fbclid=IwAR19ab58aKPPbbnJUbCOZkaXgcNiX17aHgpn0fM58yUHv6q2WEIl8ldFDRs

For Europe and the Near East, some of the highest ratios are from the Southern Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia which tops nearly everybody else. In Europe the best sampling on YFull being achieved in Ireland, Albania, Montenegro, Armenia, Sweden and Finland. On the other end of the spectrum are Moldova, Romania and France primarily, but also Austria, Germany, Ukraine and Spain.

The ratios get even worse if considering that a large fraction of the testers from Romania, Moldova and Ukraine are Ashkenazi Jewish or other ethnic minorities, with the main ethnic group of these states being even more severely underrepresented. The higher testing frequency of Ashkenazi (which is per se a good thing!) is also an issue for Austria and Germany, because it further lowers the local ethnic ratios.

Especially if talking the results from YFull at face value, these ratios put things into perspective. The chances for big surprises in some areas (like Ireland and Finland) are way smaller than in other areas (like Romania and France).

Some countries have significantly higher or lower ratios at FTDNA, but some basic gaps remain.

The current level of diversity is therefore no real argument. There are branches for which Gulf Arabs have a higher diversity and better representation on YFull, even though they are way more common and diverse in say Hungary or Bulgaria.

We need other forms of evidence to solve this.

 

[Hawk]

You know, I did count separate branches for various very widespread E-V13 branches and one of the main reasons Albanians have a good diversity, is the testing bias. Albanians are among the top tested European people, especially on YFull.

The worse tested Germans, for comparison, have however significantly more independent branches.

Now that pattern could have different causes, it might be, that these major E-V13 branches were more diverse in Albanians, but the diversity got reduced for different reasons (bottlenecks, population collapse, founder events of Albanian clans etc.), yet it is intriguing that for the high level of testing, some of the main branches are not that much more diverse than other well-tested people like Sardinians and English, and below the level of very bad and insufficiently tested Germans. Even the French are not that bad represented.

There could be a variety of reasons for this, but fact is, the diversity in Albanians for these major E-Z5018 and E-Z5017 is not that big of an argument, since a lot of it is due to testing bias and there is a way more hidden diversity in Central Europe still.

Just compare various ethnicities on FTDNA and YFull, and how many separate branches (I'm mainly looking for Iron Age to Early Roman branching events) each have.

Particularly noteworthy is the Sardinian sample. Nobody would ever claim that Sardinia is a candidate for the origin of E-V13 in the Bronze Age. There population is very small, and the vast majority of E-V13 samples come from one province of Sardinia even, which makes it an even smaller population. Yet this miniscule group of people has such a diversity of E-V13, due to the high level of testing.


From my post at Genarchivist on the issue:

I recently came across the sampling ratio for different countries based on YFull. It is noteworthy that the sampling in some countries is so high, that big surprises become less likely, while in other countries there are truly huge gaps. Here is the map:

phylogeographer.com/yfull-world-sampling-rate-map/?fbclid=IwAR19ab58aKPPbbnJUbCOZkaXgcNiX17aHgpn0fM58yUHv6q2WEIl8ldFDRs

For Europe and the Near East, some of the highest ratios are from the Southern Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia which tops nearly everybody else. In Europe the best sampling on YFull being achieved in Ireland, Albania, Montenegro, Armenia, Sweden and Finland. On the other end of the spectrum are Moldova, Romania and France primarily, but also Austria, Germany, Ukraine and Spain.

The ratios get even worse if considering that a large fraction of the testers from Romania, Moldova and Ukraine are Ashkenazi Jewish or other ethnic minorities, with the main ethnic group of these states being even more severely underrepresented. The higher testing frequency of Ashkenazi (which is per se a good thing!) is also an issue for Austria and Germany, because it further lowers the local ethnic ratios.

Especially if talking the results from YFull at face value, these ratios put things into perspective. The chances for big surprises in some areas (like Ireland and Finland) are way smaller than in other areas (like Romania and France).

Some countries have significantly higher or lower ratios at FTDNA, but some basic gaps remain.

The current level of diversity is therefore no real argument. There are branches for which Gulf Arabs have a higher diversity and better representation on YFull, even though they are way more common and diverse in say Hungary or Bulgaria.

We need other forms of evidence to solve this.

I realized, that Albanians not only have high E-V13 S2979 diversity, but also good E-V13 Z5018* diversity as well, and it's absolutely not a good argument that Albanians are one of the best tested people. Just because your subclade is shared with Lab Albanians (one of the purest Albanians), you don't make up your arguments to push us in China lol.

Percentage, diversity, archaeology everything should be taken in consideration as part of arguments, all of these make up the whole. Sardinia and England is absolutely insignificant, Central Europe is insignificant for E-V13 which keeps showing up in aDNA, it's the bridge between Balkans and Carpathians which is the central point. By Bronze Age, it will be the South-Eastern Urnfielders, by Iron Age it will be Central Balkans, Eastern Balkans and Carpathians. It's up yet to see how much or even if there was something in Greece.

 

[Denxz]

I cannot possibly see how two of the most numerous Albanian E-V13 supposedly came from there considering we already got E-V13 and even J-L283 and R1b in historically Albanian inhabited territories. Only thing one would need is the exact same subclade or a closer branch. I noticed there were Albanians as far up in Serbia https://mapcarta.com/14050682 - Arnautski Potok .

Germans are like 80 million people (less if you exclude immigrants but still numerous), you cannot compare them to Albanians. They didn't experience invasions, diseases, bottle necks like the Balkans or population loss to this type of degree. E-V13 is insigificant in that part of Europe in many aspects.

 

[Denxz]

Matzinger also says it's a languge related to Messapic and Illyrian.

 

[Riverman]

I realized, that Albanians not only have high E-V13 S2979 diversity, but also good E-V13 Z5018* diversity as well, and it's absolutely not a good argument that Albanians are one of the best tested people. Just because your subclade is shared with Lab Albanians (one of the purest Albanians), you don't make up your arguments to push us in China lol.

Percentage, diversity, archaeology everything should be taken in consideration as part of arguments, all of these make up the whole. Sardinia and England is absolutely insignificant, Central Europe is insignificant for E-V13 which keeps showing up in aDNA, it's the bridge between Balkans and Carpathians which is the central point. By Bronze Age, it will be the South-Eastern Urnfielders, by Iron Age it will be Central Balkans, Eastern Balkans and Carpathians. It's up yet to see how much or even if there was something in Greece.

My point wasn't that E-V13 is more important in Germany or Sardinia than in 'Albania, but that, going by the data, they play in the same league and e.g. Germany would likely exceed Albanian diversity if having the same level of testing.

My argument was, that both (Germany, Albania, Sardinia) are the result of later expansions and not part of the core zone. The core zone stretches from Transcarpathia to Central Serbia, from Nyirseg to Moldova in the LBA-EIA transition. From there they moved further down into the Balkans and in all other directions, even down to Greece and Troy - at least for a moment, with Channelled Ware.

But some of the core branches seem to have sticked together up to at least the later Iron Age. Just look at the TMRCA's in those main branches of E-Z5018 and E-Z5017. Some might have branched off and ended up in the Southern Balkans earlier, but the bulk looks like he wasn't much further South than the Danubian zone as the Southernmost point.

Since some of the Albanian branches have a TMRCA's in the Middle to Later Iron Age with Northern parallel branches of mentioned E-Z5018 and E-Z5017 in particular, and there is absolutely no indication that these branches were so far in the South before, and yes they even spread over the stepp to the Caucasus and Armenia, actually up to China, and at the same time to the West, to Central Europe, we have to assume they ended up in the vicinity of Albania fairly late. Most likely with resettled Daco-Romans and Dacian tribals.

Obviously we will see where we find the branches first, but as of yet, the E-V13 found in the Balkans were not the core branches (E-Z5018 and E-Z5017) which experienced the greatest continuous growth and seem to have formed the bulk of the E-V13 core population.

We will see where we find them, not just individuals, but many individuals side by side, with some diversity. But my best guess is not far from the Danube, definitely not South of Basarabi, most likely in the Dacians.

I predict, not with high confidence, but that's my best prediction right now, that we will find E-V13 in the Balkans South fo the Danube, South of Basarabi and the Dacians, but not a lot of the core branches, but older, more distinct ones. Like the ones we also find more often in the Near East and what we have found in in the ancient DNA record of the Southern and Eastern (Thracian) Balkans.

Those samples from Iron Age Bulgaria which could be assigned downstream both ended up in more remote branches. The single view which concentrates on non-E-Z5018/Z5017 branches of E-V13 covers most of the Balkan samples retrieved so far:

If one looks at E-Z5017/Z5018 in Discovery, the graph being dotted with Central European, mainly Hungarian, but not just, samples. The one from Viminacium looks like he's being Scytho-Sarmatian associated, going by the extreme distribution and presence in the Caucasus.

So even with the few ancient DNA samples, there is a clear trend towards the main branches being relatively more Northern (along the Danube and further North) rather than in the Southern or Eastern Balkans.

If you just think about the ratio, the number of samples, its astonishing that the Balkan samples dominate these branches, while even though we got many times more samples from other regions, they are not that common. Just three Hungarian samples! E-Z5018 has 19 samples from Hungary alone! E-Z5017: 9 samples from Hungary, again, not that bad and 3 times as much as for the ones common in the Iron Age Balkans.

These ratios just don't add up. What adds to this is that the only Iron Age sample from further South which falls into one of these branches, namely E-Z5017, is one of the Himerans!
And these were autosomally different too and might have been from a more Northern and/or Basarabi related context.

Indeed, there is a lack of Balkan samples so far, but why this odd ratio, especially in comparison to the Central European samples? Just compare: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree

Therefore we can say with fairly high probability that the bulk (not necessarily all) of E-Z5018 and E-Z5017 likely lived either close to or North of the Danube even in the Iron Age. Most likely candidates are Basarabi and possibly other North Thracian/Dacian formations (Late Northern Gáva, Mezocsat-Vekerzug, Kustanovice etc.).

 

[Hawk]

My point wasn't that E-V13 is more important in Germany or Sardinia than in 'Albania, but that, going by the data, they play in the same league and e.g. Germany would likely exceed Albanian diversity if having the same level of testing.

My argument was, that both (Germany, Albania, Sardinia) are the result of later expansions and not part of the core zone. The core zone stretches from Transcarpathia to Central Serbia, from Nyirseg to Moldova in the LBA-EIA transition. From there they moved further down into the Balkans and in all other directions, even down to Greece and Troy - at least for a moment, with Channelled Ware.

But some of the core branches seem to have sticked together up to at least the later Iron Age. Just look at the TMRCA's in those main branches of E-Z5018 and E-Z5017. Some might have branched off and ended up in the Southern Balkans earlier, but the bulk looks like he wasn't much further South than the Danubian zone as the Southernmost point.

Since some of the Albanian branches have a TMRCA's in the Middle to Later Iron Age with Northern parallel branches of mentioned E-Z5018 and E-Z5017 in particular, and there is absolutely no indication that these branches were so far in the South before, and yes they even spread over the stepp to the Caucasus and Armenia, actually up to China, and at the same time to the West, to Central Europe, we have to assume they ended up in the vicinity of Albania fairly late. Most likely with resettled Daco-Romans and Dacian tribals.

Obviously we will see where we find the branches first, but as of yet, the E-V13 found in the Balkans were not the core branches (E-Z5018 and E-Z5017) which experienced the greatest continuous growth and seem to have formed the bulk of the E-V13 core population.

We will see where we find them, not just individuals, but many individuals side by side, with some diversity. But my best guess is not far from the Danube, definitely not South of Basarabi, most likely in the Dacians.

I predict, not with high confidence, but that's my best prediction right now, that we will find E-V13 in the Balkans South fo the Danube, South of Basarabi and the Dacians, but not a lot of the core branches, but older, more distinct ones. Like the ones we also find more often in the Near East and what we have found in in the ancient DNA record of the Southern and Eastern (Thracian) Balkans.

Those samples from Iron Age Bulgaria which could be assigned downstream both ended up in more remote branches. The single view which concentrates on non-E-Z5018/Z5017 branches of E-V13 covers most of the Balkan samples retrieved so far:

If one looks at E-Z5017/Z5018 in Discovery, the graph being dotted with Central European, mainly Hungarian, but not just, samples. The one from Viminacium looks like he's being Scytho-Sarmatian associated, going by the extreme distribution and presence in the Caucasus.

So even with the few ancient DNA samples, there is a clear trend towards the main branches being relatively more Northern (along the Danube and further North) rather than in the Southern or Eastern Balkans.

If you just think about the ratio, the number of samples, its astonishing that the Balkan samples dominate these branches, while even though we got many times more samples from other regions, they are not that common. Just three Hungarian samples! E-Z5018 has 19 samples from Hungary alone! E-Z5017: 9 samples from Hungary, again, not that bad and 3 times as much as for the ones common in the Iron Age Balkans.

These ratios just don't add up. What adds to this is that the only Iron Age sample from further South which falls into one of these branches, namely E-Z5017, is one of the Himerans!
And these were autosomally different too and might have been from a more Northern and/or Basarabi related context.

Indeed, there is a lack of Balkan samples so far, but why this odd ratio, especially in comparison to the Central European samples? Just compare: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree

Therefore we can say with fairly high probability that the bulk (not necessarily all) of E-Z5018 and E-Z5017 likely lived either close to or North of the Danube even in the Iron Age. Most likely candidates are Basarabi and possibly other North Thracian/Dacian formations (Late Northern Gáva, Mezocsat-Vekerzug, Kustanovice etc.).

You know the problem with you is that you keep writing long and loosing the context, so E-V13 arrived in China in Early Iron Age and in Albania fairly late. You are the the Boolean negation of Brumi, just on the opposite side.

I am not talking about modern borders, i am talking about realistic probabilities, and the most likely probability is that Stamped-Ware the complex which E-V13 spread with is not a culture which came from Southern Poland or Northern Carpathians, but rather Northern Balkans and Southern Carpathians. These cultures spread way south than Central Serbia in Kosovo like Mediana Culture which many Yugoslav archaeologists considered as Proto-Dardanian and in many ways related to Psenicevo. Not that i hold a strict view on this, we might be totally wrong. But, cards are open as far as i know. New results keep coming, and almost all the time we get surprised.

 

[Riverman]

You know the problem with you is that you keep writing long and loosing the context, so E-V13 arrived in China in Early Iron Age and in Albania fairly late. You are the the Boolean negation of Brumi, just on the opposite side.

E-V13 was close to Albania, to put it that way, earlier than in China - of course

But that's not the point, there are specific branches of E-V13, coincidently mostly E-Z5018 main branches, which spread to China, likely across the steppe. Its more important that they are in China, and on which path they got there, then when. They could have come as early as late Yamnaya or as late as Turkic and Mongol era forth and back migrations. But they came from steppe people which picked it up in the Western Pontic steppe, close to the Carpathians.

They weren't Portuguese sailors or the like. And it proves that these branches lived closer to steppe, were part of the Scytho-Sarmatian networks, like Dacians/North Thracians were more likely to have been than Southern Thracian - and even less likely Central or Southern Balkan ones. It tells us something about the positioning.

E-V13 might have been in Albania as early as with cannelure ceramics in the LBA-EIA transition. But the question is:
- which branches
- did it persist

These two questions are crucial, because the much later TMRCA for many Albanian branches, with more Northern positioned parallel and upstream branches, suggest it was not the main core branches (E-Z5017+Z5018) and they didn't persist into modernity in high percentages.

I am not talking about modern borders, i am talking about realistic probabilities, and the most likely probability is that Stamped-Ware the complex which E-V13 spread with is not a culture which came from Southern Poland or Northern Carpathians, but rather Northern Balkans and Southern Carpathians. These cultures spread way south than Central Serbia in Kosovo like Mediana Culture which many Yugoslav archaeologists considered as Proto-Dardanian and in many ways related to Psenicevo. Not that i hold a strict view on this, we might be totally wrong. But, cards are open as far as i know. New results keep coming, and almost all the time we get surprised.

You know that I say that for years, I even quoted papers on how Channelled Ware reached especially Kosovo, come on, that's not what we're talking about.

Now I'm not talking about the first contact of populations in Albania with E-V13, which likely happened in the LBA or latest in the LBA-EIA transition, but about specific branches.

Mediana is a late Gáva culture, so surely I'm thinking it got E-V13, that's my hypothesis all along.

But people sometimes ignore what we already know, namely the phylogeny and branches of E-V13, based on modern sampling. That's not debatable, its factual.

And what I pointed out in the longer text above is the very different ratio of current Balkan samples vs. Central European samples. The Central European samples being totally dominated by the main-core branches (Z5017+Z5018), which weren't found in the Balkans up to now at all, especially not in the Iron Age Thracians.
Its even rare at the Danube and looks like having arrived late, even rare in the West Balkans, even though we know that Dacian-related groups did penetrate it. All of this points to a more Northern centre of gravity, to put it that way, of the main E-V13 core and its branches.

I'm even thinking that the massive movement of Daco-Romans and Dacians Southward might in some cases have replaced not just other haplogroups, but also older layers of E-V13 in the region as well. Like the E-V13 dominance might have been more diluted before, in the Roman era, but E-V13 got kind of massive reinforcments from the Dacian kinsmen. And its this complete resettlement which brought up the frequency of this main branches. That's my current hypothesis.

Apparently, quite a lot seem to have ended up in areas like Italy in particular as well. Presumably first after the defeat of the Dacians, then a second wave with the resettlements within the Empire and Daco-Romans spreading out, a third time with free Dacian resettlements, including whole military units which ended up as far as Britain, a 4th time with provincial resettlements from the Danube-Alpine provinces to Italia and a third one going with Germanic tribes in the migration period - the 5th is no longer related to Romans, but associated with Greeks, Slavs and Albanians.

I'm pretty sure if they would analyse the early Dacian soldiers from Birdoswald, that those would be packed with E-V13:

The People of Birdoswald

Learn about the people who lived and worked Birdoswald Roman Fort on Hadrian's Wall.

www.english-heritage.org.uk

 

[Riverman]

Here are the numbers:

Samples from Hungary (ca.):
E-Z5018: 19
E-Z5017: 9
Branches common in current Balkan/Thracian samples as shown in the screenshot above: 3

That's a staggering 28 : 3 or simplified about 9 : 1 ratio for Hungary.

For the South Thracians and Medieval Greeks ("East Balkans") combined its 0 : 4
For Viminacium+Naissus (a more mixed bag) it is 1 : 2, with the E-Z5018 sample looking like its coming from a Scytho-Sarmatian branch.
Croatia/West Balkan (Sipar, Sveti Križ, Scitarjevo, Hypo Banka it is 1 : 3

Therefore we have a clear pattern for Central Europe (Hungary, Poland, Czechia) vs. Balkans (Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria) up to the Roman period.

The only other sample group with a dominance of E-Z5017+5018 are the Himerans with 1:0, and again, their autosomal profile puts them into a more Northern spot and relatively closer to Mezocsat-Gáva. They won't have been from a population all too South of the Danube, in the Central-East Balkans, which fits into the whole pattern.

I made this map for showing where - in moderns, E-Z5018 is dominant:

Thread: E-V13 Frequency Maps and Data

Where you can plz send link thanks This post: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?27193-Paleogenomics-of-Upper-Paleolithic-to-Neolithic-European-hunter-gatherers&p=902236&viewfull=1#post902236

www.eupedia.com

I interpreted it as the Daco-Thracian, especially Dacian core pushing other lineages out and being completely dominated by E-Z5018+Z5017 over time. So earlier tribes and clans moving away from the core were dominated by other branches, the core was dominated by Z5018+Z5017 and kept growing in its initial centre.

The West Balkan being clearly lower in E-Z5018, the East Balkan is indecisive. Most of the high E-Z5018 ratio is in the East.

There is one odd exception around Kosovo-Montenegro-Macedonia. The question is now: Why is that spot different? Either it was the centre of gravity for E-V13 early on, with Z5018+Z5017 growing out of this region (but why the gaps to the North and East?), or a group very heavy in Z5017+Z5018 moved there and replaced other lineages which lived there before.

We have data points from West (Croatia), North (Serbia) and East (Bulgaria-Greece) which point to the Balkans being not the centre of gravity, but we would need more samples from the area in question. However, we got some leaks and it definitely doesn't look like that area was dominated by Z5017+Z5018, especially not in a way that it could have spread from there, to all the other regions in question.

The most parsiminious conclusion is therefore these branches came in fairly late, with a people from the Danubian zone or even North of it. In the Roman era, the incursions and resettlements of Daco-Romans and Dacian tribals, especially into the new province of Dacia and Moesia, should have been instrumental:

Ancient DNA will prove or disprove this hypothesis, but I think that we will find a migration from the provinces of Moesia-Dacia to the South in Late Antiquity-migration period. And this will be the main spreading event for many of the main branches downstream of Z5017+Z5018.