Neolithic Refuge and Continuity in Transylvania

The Romans really did a number on Dalmatians, looks like it wasn't the Slavs that wiped out the illyrians

Yeah, seems to be the case.

Earlier BA and IA samples from Dalmatia have turned out to be J2b-L283>>Z38240>PH1602. The single J2b-L283 should be J-Z631, a completely different branch. So even that one doesn't appear to have local continuity.
 
Yeah, seems to be the case.

Earlier BA and IA samples from Dalmatia have turned out to be J2b-L283>>Z38240>PH1602. The single J2b-L283 should be J-Z631, a completely different branch. So even that one doesn't appear to have local continuity.
The extent was bad but not as brutal as Eglantina's impression on the matter. J2b-L283 clades including Y15058+ are still found in early CE albeit of course not at the same ratios. This burial is quite late though. And I doubt Cosmopolitan sites in islands are good representatives of the overall archaeogenetic picture.

Isn't it safe to bet that given the ancient Gudnja Z1297 anything from Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and southwards was Z638 anyway? Which is certainly a good part of "Dalmatia".
 
Last edited:
The extent was bad but not as brutal as Eglantina's impression on the matter. J2b-L283 clades including Y15058+ are still found in early CE albeit of course not at the same ratios. This burial is quite late though. And I doubt Cosmopolitan sites in islands are good representatives of the overall archaeogenetic picture.

Isn't it safe to bet that given the ancient Gudnja Z1297 anything from Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and southwards was Z638 anyway? Which is certainly a good part of "Dalmatia".

I was referring more to the idea that many (if not all) of the aforementioned lineages were introduced in the Roman period, as so far none of them have shown up in the preceding periods of the region. I certainly do not think all Illyrians were "wiped out" by the Romans.

As far as I see, Gudnja (where we have the northernmost ancient Z638+) falls in between of what would later become Delmatae north of there and Ardiaei south of there.

 
A Greek speaking harbour in Late Roman times is surely not representative of the general Dalmatian population of the same era IMHO.
 
Indeed, this was not an Illyrian settlement to begin with. Island of Pharos was colonized by Greek settlers from Paros Island from Cyclades Islands or nearby there.

Now, during Late Antiquity how much of these people are descended from prior populations is debatable, we have no idea, i didn't check the subclades.
 
I was referring more to the idea that many (if not all) of the aforementioned lineages were introduced in the Roman period, as so far none of them have shown up in the preceding periods of the region. I certainly do not think all Illyrians were "wiped out" by the Romans.

As far as I see, Gudnja (where we have the northernmost ancient Z638+) falls in between of what would later become Delmatae north of there and Ardiaei south of there.


By wipe out I wasn't suggesting every last man but they likely lost their language and identity. We can see there was a huge turnover during Roman period and the illyrians were no longer the majority in their home land, at least not in Hvar
 
Last edited:
Pharos island was only inhabited by Greek from Aegean Greek island of Paros..........so all samples are 100% greek

Issa ( Vis ) island was shared between Liburnians and Greeks from the 6th century BC

Korcula island was majority of Liburnians with a small Greek trade centre form Argos

Brac island was 100% liburnian

You need to go to Italy and Ancona city to find similar Greeks as in Pharos island

And then you have corinthians greeks in Albanian towns and on the island of Corfu

You need to wait for Roman interference in montenegro and Albania to see more Greeks in the adriatic
 
Interesting quote from the Bulgarian forum:
Again, just for the sake of discussion, not because I'm putting anything into the following: After Christiansen's 2 studies on the origin of the Germans, it became clear that Germans and Balto-Slavs descended from one of the Baltic versions of the battleaxe. However, the Germans after the migration in Scandinavia - or even later, experienced a language shift and abandoned their language by adopting a language from the White Beaker culture. The Indo-Iranians are also descended from a battle axe, presumably not from the Baltic but from another branch, but still a battle axe. They are not known to have experienced a language shift. Thracians, or even Mycenaeans, we will leave them aside for now, although according to Christiansen, the Thracians are also from a battle axe, and from a similar or identical one to the Baltic one. In addition to the Baltic battleaxe, we have at least a dozen independent battleaxe sockets. What language did they speak? Something intermediate between Late Indo-European and Pre-Balsto-Slavic-Germanic-Thracian-Iranian? But this is only the Baltic battle ax, and the others? The isolation between the individual branches of the battle ax (relative) provides prerequisites for the existence of language families that have not reached the present day, destroyed and absorbed by the descendants of the surviving branches, some that experienced language shifts, others . This is the reason why I am careful to reduce Imenkovians to "proto-Slavs", there is a "Slavic" component in both the Thracians and the Germans. But, I'm in the minority in my opinion.

This is insider table talk as Kristiansen has not publicly communicated this. Based on internal data, one of the top names thinks Thracian is battle axe derived, ie... corded derived, formed under the guide of R1as.
 
Interesting quote from the Bulgarian forum:


This is insider table talk as Kristiansen has not publicly communicated this. Based on internal data, one of the top names thinks Thracian is battle axe derived, ie... corded derived, formed under the guide of R1as.

Both Mako & Co had earlier Corded Ware contacts, but the main Corded Ware background was definitely Otomani-Füzesabony, because it derived from Kostany and Kostany is a branch from Mierzanowice, with Mierzanowice being both the main Epi-Corded culture of its time and the possible source for Baltoslavs.
Not saying that the idea is right, but that's the most likely path if it would be right IMHO.

Not Corded Ware directly, but later Epi-Corded groups (compare also Nitra, Kostany, Mierzanowice, Füzesabony-Otomani etc.).

In my opinion Füzesabony-Otomani is the second most likely scenario after Cotofeni, the third most likely is Noua-Coslogeni. Everything else doesn't even get close by a long shot.
 
Both Mako & Co had earlier Corded Ware contacts, but the main Corded Ware background was definitely Otomani-Füzesabony, because it derived from Kostany and Kostany is a branch from Mierzanowice, with Mierzanowice being both the main Epi-Corded culture of its time and the possible source for Baltoslavs.
Not saying that the idea is right, but that's the most likely path if it would be right IMHO.

Not Corded Ware directly, but later Epi-Corded groups (compare also Nitra, Kostany, Mierzanowice, Füzesabony-Otomani etc.).

In my opinion Füzesabony-Otomani is the second most likely scenario after Cotofeni, the third most likely is Noua-Coslogeni. Everything else doesn't even get close by a long shot.

We know Thracians were E-V13, so they have to be Cotofeni, the presentation in Hungary did not hint whatsoever to Cotofeni being a dead-end. The question is under whose influence were the successors of Cotofeni eventually Aryanized (to the extend they no longer spoke a neolithic language)? Insiders in DNA table talks are discussing and proposing a Baltic/Baltic-like component. This makes a Thracian homeland within Thrace ever less likely and reinforces the Transylvania urheimat.

In my opinion Füzesabony-Otomani is the second most likely scenario after Cotofeni, the third most likely is Noua-Coslogeni. Everything else doesn't even get close by a long shot.

Repeated R1a exposures to make sure E-V13 did not relapse back to it's neolithic chracter. The process repeated itself with Scythian flash floods all the way to Slavic expansion. E-V13 history has been repetitive in a way.
 
I think that the Cotofeni population was already IE. We know that PIE groups moved into the Carpatho-Danubian sphere and this caused the transition to Cotofeni in the first place. However, their total genetic impact was low, kind of like in Anatolia or later with Magyars in the Carpathian basin.

But its a different question as to whether these Cotofeni people and their successors were already Pre-Thracian or not. Like its possible that they were IE, but of an unknown branch, and got "Thracianised" later by, say Füzesabony-Otomani.

Through all these periods after Cotofeni, the local population remained genetically dominant on the longer run, even if they came under foreign influence for some period of time, like with Füzesabony.
 
Repeated R1a exposures to make sure E-V13 did not relapse back to it's neolithic chracter. The process repeated itself with Scythian flash floods all the way to Slavic expansion. E-V13 history has been repetitive in a way.

IMO, E-V13 was primarily cattle and sheep mountain herder and not farmer.
 
On general yes, they were punished pretty bad for the revolt but this is Pharos Island which was colonized by the Greeks, so the picture is more complex. Otherwise inland Dalmatia you still find Illyrians here and there. There is no chance all of them were decapitated. A good portion were enslaved by Romans, others were left free.
I think the ones that were not enslaved were dispersed throughout the empire. The Romans were pretty brutal like that. They did it to the Carthagenians also.
 
I think the ones that were not enslaved were dispersed throughout the empire. The Romans were pretty brutal like that. They did it to the Carthagenians also.

Also did it to the Jews, don't forget about the crucifixions.
 
Courtesy of Hawk, posted in genarchivist.

49jYQ2n.png


UKR007. Kartal, burial 126. The burial pit has not been traced. The skeleton lay at a depth of 60–
75(80) cm. The skeleton was in a crouched position and lay on the right side, with the head oriented to
SSE. The arms were bent at the elbows, the hands directed to the chin. The artefacts consisted of a small
black-clay vessel located near the skull. Chronology according to archaeology: 9th to 8th c. BCE.
Chronology according to 14C dating 996–831 cal BCE (2767±29 BP).

UKR089. Bіlsk, Skorobir kurgan cemetery, kurgan 6. Excavated in 1979. Supposedly, the buried
individual belonged to the local elite. The kurgan was looted. The height of the kurgan was 1.3 m,
diameters were 46 m and 42 m. The burial was in a grave pit with dimensions of 3.1x2.2 m. The bottom
of the pit was at a depth of 2.3 m from the top of the kurgan. The grave was built as a wooden crypt,
made of birch logs 15–20 cm thick, covered with a wooden roof, which was badly damaged by robbers.
The bottom of the grave was lined with birch bark. The kurgan was robbed twice. The human skeleton
was badly damaged, the bone remains scattered. It was probably oriented along the SW-NE line. The
remains of a skull were found in the southwest corner of the grave, and the tubular bones of the legs lay
near the northern wall. Fragments of narrow bronze plates from a belt, remains of an iron bit and an
iron awl were found. Chronology according to archaeology: 5th–4th c. BCE.

UKR090. Bіlsk, Skorobir kurgan cemetery, kurgan 20. Excavated in 1975. Supposedly, the buried
individual belonged to the local middle-level elite. The kurgan  was looted. The height was 1.2 m,
diameter 28 m. At a depth of 0.85 m a robbery passage was seen. The grave pit had dimensions of
3.5x4.0 m. The pit was stretched out along NW-SE line and covered with logs. The bottom was at a
depth of 2.65 m from the top of the kurgan. The grave had a wooden floor. Most of the human bones
were destroyed or thrown into the robbery passage. Only a fragment of the lower jaw of an adult was
found near the NE wall of the grave. Among the things scattered around the grave were fragments of a
moulded pot, an amphora, a fragment of a bowl and a fragment of a Greek black-glazed vessel of the
4th c. BCE, which determines the chronology according to archaeology: 4th c. BCE.

UKR091. Bіlsk, Pereshchepynе kurgan cemetery, kurgan 3, burial 2. An inlet burial. Excavated in
1980. Supposedly, the buried individual belonged to the local high-level elite. The height of the kurgan
was 0.9 m. The kurgan contained two chronologically close burials, main (1) and additional (2). Burial
2 (UKR091) belonged to a 20–30-year-old man and had rich grave goods. The pit of this burial had the
shape of an irregular rhombus with slightly rounded corners (2.9x3.1x2.55x2.75 m), with a depth of 1.3
m. Along the north-eastern wall, a stretched skeleton was laid on the back, with the head oriented to NNW. The bones were in the correct anatomical order, but almost completely decayed. The remains of
the skull and teeth were better preserved, which made it possible to establish the age at death. The
artefacts included an iron sword with a golden scabbard, two spears with iron pointed tips and iron
shafts. To the northwest of the head of the skeleton there were the remains of a quiver with arrows that
had bronze sleeve tips. A total of 57 bronze arrowheads and 5 of their fragments were found. Also, an
iron knife, lekythos, Greek ceramic jugs were found in the burial. Chronology according to archaeology:
end of 5th until beginning of 4th c. BCE.

UKR152. Oleksandrivskyi necropolis, burial 5. Burial with a grave niche. Partially disturbed by
modern construction activity. The entrance pit and burial chamber were not traceable. The stone
structure at the entrance to the burial chamber was composed of limestone slabs, with one of the slabs
serving as a limestone altar of the 'Olbia type’. To the north, there was a skeleton extended on its back,
with the head oriented to the northeast. The right arm was straight, and the left arm was on the pelvis.
Only the femurs remain from the legs. Chronology according to archaeology: 4th–3rd с. BCE.
Chronology according to 14C dating: 392–206 cal BCE (2253±29 BP).

Most of the Early Iron Age Thracian Hallstatt individuals (900–700 BCE, two 996–830 cal
BCE; UkrEIA_ThracianHallstatt) cluster with Southern Europeans on PCA (Figure 3A, Figure S1)
while previously published Hallstatt individuals from the Czech Republic cluster with Central European
individuals (Figure S2A). A

UKR152
Oleksandrivskyi
necropolis Mykolaiv UkrEIA_Antiquity_Greeks?_1 392–206 cal BCE XY HV1b E1b-V13 0.818
UKR153
Oleksandrivskyi
necropolis Mykolaiv UkrEIA_Antiquity_Greeks?_2 746–401 cal BCE XY W6b R1a-M459 0.573

Though the E-V13 profile autosomal is largely EEF with a bit of Yamnaya, while R1a is largely Yamnaya with a bit of EEF.

Another comment:

UkrEIA_ThracianHallstatt can be put together from some AADR_Ukraine_Yamnaya and mostly
AADR_Ukraine_Trypillia, while UkrEIA_ThracianHallstatt_2 the other way around (19–25% + 75–
81% + 0% and 60–69% + 31–40% + 0%, respectively) (Figure 5A, Table S8).

Though, AADR_Ukraine_Trypillia this EEF can be any other from more South, say from Carpathians.

 
First thing, the earliest E-V13 so far appears under Daco-Thracian cultural group from a Babadag site in the Ukraine-Romanian border, the profile seems to be similar to MJ-12 but with a little less steppe, and I'm 100% confident it will under the zone I proposed as Bassarabi cluster.

The other part not mentioned by anyone, all E-V13 samples have mtDNA H, with the exception one T, all of thee mtDNA are neolithic.

This is interesting. In modern Slavs the only ethnic group that has excessive mtDNA H are the Hutsuls which I have proposed will be an E-V13 enclave. I think they have higher E-V13s ratios than Kosovars.

The Hutsul samples had the highest frequency of haplogroup H (50%) in the region
after the Hungarian Pal?c group of Carpathian highlanders (50.6%; Semino et al.
2000b), who reside in the Inner Western Carpathians and territorially are proximal to
Lemkivschyna and Hutsulschyna. The combined Hungarian-Pal?c haplogroup H
frequency (46.9%) was comparable to that of Hutsuls (Table 1). All five H
subhaplogroups selected for screening in the current study were found in Hutsuls
(Table 2). Of the 19 haplogroup H samples in Hutsuls, 7 (36.8%; 18.4% overall)
were Hl ; H2, H3, and HlO had one representative each (5.3%; 2.6% overall); and 2
samples were H5a (10.5%; 5.3% overall) (Table 2). The overall Hl frequency in
Hutsuls was higher than that of their neighbors, such as Russians (13.5%), Hungarians
(12.3%), Czechs (10.8%), Ukrainians (9.9%), Poles (9.3%), and Slovaks (7.6%)
(Table 2). In fact, the Hl frequency in Hutsuls appears to be the highest of all central
and eastern European populations studied to date. It is almost the same as the Spanish
Hl frequency (18.9%) and is higher than the frequencies in Spanish Galicians
(17.6%) and French Basques (17.5%) (Table 2). The last two groups represent
populations proximal to the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge, where the Hl frequency
is the highest in Europe (Achilli et al. 2004). Hutsuls had the second lowest
frequency (2.6%) of haplogroup T in the region after the Hungarian-Pal?c population
(2%). The Hutsul sample had a haplogroup J frequency similar to the frequency for
the Hungarian-Pal?c sample (13.2% and 12.5%, respectively) (Table 1)
 
I should add the early sample is around 30-31% Yamnaya and not 80% EEF as is being falsely claimed by rrenjet spokesman. Typillia farmers are not pure EEF, but Yamanaya admixed, bad metric and fraudulent behavior by rrenjet.

The sample under the Greek city state is 74% EEF, this sample is almost South Thracian in profile just a tiny bit more Yamanaya than the Thracians. Make what you want out of it, but E-V13 cline is at is appears, most samples fall under 20-40% Yamnaya, this suggests LBA E-V13 population was around 30% Yamanaya, some become more neolithic some became more steppe or EHG through various expansions and mixtures.

E-V13 samples in Ukraine are matching the channel ware groups(culture 4 and 5) distributions.
xZHX6JE.png
 
Would be also interesting how the full ratio of WHG - Yamnaya - EEF looks like. And whether they have some Iranian or Central-East Asian admixture. The first would speak for Greco-Anatolian backflow, the latter or combined for Cimmerian-related admixture.

The issue with Moldova-West Ukraine is that even more than in the West and South, different groups moved almost simultaneously into the region, while older layers still existed. Like we have sites for Late Gáva beside, Belegis II-Gáva, Babadag and Psenichevo related ones. Clearly, the lower the WHG-Yamnaya and the higher the EEF, the closer to the Aegeo-Anatolian sphere is the origin - at least mre likely - to be. Because regardless of how much EEF the original Gáva had, it surely had less than post-Psenichevo samples from BGR_EIA Svilengrad and other sites.
 
This is the best model the prep-print has, rrenjet chose to promote a model of EHG shifted farmers, for fraudulent reasons.

iB6PNHc.png


The early E-V13 has 1-2% east Asian, the "Greek" sample has under 1% of such admixture. If they ran tests for levant admixture I would have to look at the supplemental again(excel docs). But I am certain the early sample will not have any levant/anatolian admixture.
 
Looked at the supplemental discloures. The models were not ran with levant admixture. The EEF model is actually early neolithic LBK(based on excel supplemental), and not pure Barcin, so Yamanya is likely to be higher 32-34% for our early E-V13.

East Asian admixture is only 1% in the Babadag and 0.8% in the Greek sample.

The Babadag sample and the Greek sample have a better fit with EEF(LBK) component, and the Poltava E-V13s have better fit with Gobular Amphora neolithic. The models were ran with three different type of neolithic, Ukranian typillia, early LBK and globular amphora.
 

This thread has been viewed 9411 times.

Back
Top