New map of mtDNA haplogroup HV

During a transitory phase between Hittites/Leleges to Lydians, thetlydians were known as Moesians.
 
Its absurd to consider the sources of antiquity as accurate. They ( historians) traveled in horseback and individually. How far an individual can travell? They had no responsability for any mistake since, their endevours were voluntary. Especially Greek historians that have been proven of being liers, its absurd conidering their writtings as true.
 
Sardinians are not Southern Europeans; they're genetically unique with a high north-European maternal component and the world's highest frequencies of I-M26 (40%).
 
Well Herodotus ended up being right on the Etruscans and Livy was a excellent historian; not everything historians said was nonsense.
 
Sardinians are not Southern Europeans; they're genetically unique with a high north-European maternal component and the world's highest frequencies of I-M26 (40%).

But what is true then, the near-eastern mtDNA and Y-DNA of the Thracian samples, or their autosomal closenes to Sardinians?
By the way I tend to disagree regarding the Sardinians, they are as mediterranean as one can be. The meaning of haplogroup lineages has its limits I think.
 
Again regarding autosomal comparison of Thracians with Sardinians I think that ancient Thracians might appear closer to Sardinians autosomally if they lack the north-european admixture (from slavs, germanics), because the Sardinians did not undergo bronze-age and later admixtures from north-europeans. That's why I'm sure Sardinians are the less admixted true south-europeans, more preserved from the neolithic. But I believe Thracians had more "Caucasus" admixture than Sardinians have. Also Ötzi had a little bit more of it than Sardinians so Thracians could have had even more.
 
Wait up a second......the Lydians of turkey were once known as Mysians/Moesians....what a minute; the Mysians are similar to Georgian Meshketi/Moscheti, the thracians COULdN'T have been related to Dacians or I2a people's; they were bloody pelasgians as well

That part i posted about on page1/post#16

Strabo - Book VII/III
the Mysi, these also being Thracians and identical with the people who are now called Moesi; from these Mysi sprang also the Mysi who now live between the Lydians and the Phrygians and Trojans. And the Phrygians themselves are Brigians, a Thracian tribe, as are also the Mygdonians, the Bebricians, the Medobithynians, the Bithynians, and the Thynians, and, I think, also the Mariandynians. These peoples, to be sure, have all utterly quitted Europe, but the Mysi have remained there.

Several tribes of the Indo-European Thracians swarmed into Anatolia (from Europe) after the collapse of the Indo-European Hittite Empire; The Getae and Mysi(Moesi) def. remained in Europe (Thrace east of Scordisci and Triballi and beyond the Danube) as recorded by the ancient scholars;
 
Who were they according to you?
 
Again regarding autosomal comparison of Thracians with Sardinians I think that ancient Thracians might appear closer to Sardinians autosomally if they lack the north-european admixture (from slavs, germanics), because the Sardinians did not undergo bronze-age and later admixtures from north-europeans. That's why I'm sure Sardinians are the less admixted true south-europeans, more preserved from the neolithic. But I believe Thracians had more "Caucasus" admixture than Sardinians have. Also Ötzi had a little bit more of it than Sardinians so Thracians could have had even more.

Maybe that individual was of a subjugated remnant population of the pre-Indo-European Gumelnita-Karanovo VI-Varna complex; Which would correspond with its Neolithic Ötzi links and the broader Neolithic expansions into Europe (especially Balkans and Alpine area)

Gök4 was as far north as south Sweden but still with very strong Mediterranid links and her strong related ancestry to modern-day Sardinians - seems that these Neolithic peoples were from a common stock;

With the modern-day Sardinians being still closest to them due to their isolation and modern-day Finns and Estonian closer to hunter-gatherers; And both Sardinians and Finns also cluster in a world of their own (isolated) in comparison to other modern-day European pops - These two aspects show that they are still left behind and of a very Old European stock;
 
Well Herodotus ended up being right on the Etruscans and Livy was a excellent historian; not everything historians said was nonsense.

As I've said before, all we have is mtDNA, and even in that case, it's only HVRI...no yDNA and no autosomal DNA. Plus, we don't know if those samples from elite burials were representative of the majority of the population.

This is the latest paper on the mtDNA.

Origins and Evolution of the Etruscans' MtDNA, Ghirotto et al...
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055519

One interesting finding is that in the areas sampled (all connected to the Etruscans) only in Volterra and Casentino did the authors find a link between the mtDNA of the ancient Etruscans and the modern Tuscans.
 
Because the Tuscan basin was heavily re-populated by several waves of incoming Gauls; and so entire regions of Tuscany that once had much higher Etruscan genetic heritage were replaced by west European lineages. But one must remember that the Etruscans settled territory that was anciently villanovan; who themselves were also celts and possibly the ancestors of the latins.
 
Today only 10-20% of Tuscan males actually descend from Etruscans; I would average it at 15%. Tuscany was heavily re-settled by incoming celts.
 
That part i posted about on page1/post#16

Strabo - Book VII/III
the Mysi, these also being Thracians and identical with the people who are now called Moesi; from these Mysi sprang also the Mysi who now live between the Lydians and the Phrygians and Trojans. And the Phrygians themselves are Brigians, a Thracian tribe, as are also the Mygdonians, the Bebricians, the Medobithynians, the Bithynians, and the Thynians, and, I think, also the Mariandynians. These peoples, to be sure, have all utterly quitted Europe, but the Mysi have remained there.

Several tribes of the Indo-European Thracians swarmed into Anatolia (from Europe) after the collapse of the Indo-European Hittite Empire; The Getae and Mysi(Moesi) def. remained in Europe (Thrace east of Scordisci and Triballi and beyond the Danube) as recorded by the ancient scholars;

thanks

so herodous was correct when he stated that the second most populous people in the world ( his known world) after the indians was the Thracians.

Brigians are in pannonia and tyrol areas in ancient times, bessi in central veneto after conquest of thrace by Rome, and another thracian people where also moved , I cannot remember
 
Maybe that individual was of a subjugated remnant population of the pre-Indo-European Gumelnita-Karanovo VI-Varna complex; Which would correspond with its Neolithic Ötzi links and the broader Neolithic expansions into Europe (especially Balkans and Alpine area)

Gök4 was as far north as south Sweden but still with very strong Mediterranid links and her strong related ancestry to modern-day Sardinians - seems that these Neolithic peoples were from a common stock;

With the modern-day Sardinians being still closest to them due to their isolation and modern-day Finns and Estonian closer to hunter-gatherers; And both Sardinians and Finns also cluster in a world of their own (isolated) in comparison to other modern-day European pops - These two aspects show that they are still left behind and of a very Old European stock;

Yes, that's basically what I'm thinking too. Except that the neolithic individuals differ slightly by their West Asian admixture (Caucasus admix belongs to it), which Gök4 was completely lacking but Ötzi showed up to 22% Caucasus in K12b (I don't think it is truely that much, but the difference consistently shows up in most other calculators). Sardinians also have 20% in K12b. Gök4 had 0% and also Davidski once made a comparison with contemporary populations indicating that the most Gök4 descendants are Iberians who indeed have less West Asian.
Therefore my reasoning is: assuming Thracians had for instance 40% Caucasus and 60% Atlantic_med, then they still would be closer to any 20%/70% population like Sardinians than to contemporary Bulgarians (and others) who later received 34% North-euro from Slavs, Germanics and others. Sardinians and Gök4 have 0% North-Euro. This does not exclude the possibility of paleolithic admixture in them, if it is of late paleolithic near-eastern/north-african origin (mtDNA H1/H3?, Combe-Capelle meds?), but this is very speculative.
The Thracian results are indeed surprising (provided the methods are good), but if he really resembles Sardinians (although not completely), then he really should have much less North-European and Steppic ancestry than expected. So it could be as you said, that this individual is from a subjugated remnant population.
 
Last edited:
I think "Sardinian" has to be read in a wider sense, meaning generic south-european-like. I rather tend to agree here with davidski's comment and also with the reader's comments:
http://polishgenes.blogspot.de/2013/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric-bulgaria.html


Thank you for that link.

I took a look at the European specific PCA's for all five ancient European samples. (four from ancient Bulgaria, and one from ancient Denmark)
They can be found on page six of the Supplementary Data section here:
http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/journals/0002-9297/PIIS000292971300459X.mmc1.pdf

I think they have to be used with caution. In the case of the Danish sample, it rather contradicts the post capture global PCA plot, as in the global plot, the Danish sample is near Finland...here, the Danish sample plots right at the beginning of the "Southern European" section.

In terms of the ancient Bulgarian samples, it's difficult to draw conclusions; I don't see a definitive narrative, either in terms of age or culture or class.

1) Sample P192-1, a Thracian culture sample found in a pit sanctuary, 800-500 B.C. and the mtDNA is U3b

2) Sample T2G2, a Thracian culture sample dated to virtually the same time frame (850-700 B.C.) and found in a tumulous burial. The mtDNA is HV.

3) Sample K8, a slightly younger (450-400 B.C.) Iron Age sample, also found in a tumulous burial. No mtDNA determination could be made.

4) Sample V2, the sample which appears in the global plot, is one thousand years older and dates to the Late Bronze Age (1500-1100 B.C.). It is an inhumation, flat burial. No mtDNA determination could be made.

Looking at the European specific PCA's, the P-192-1 Thracian Iron Age sample lands in the Tuscan plot.

The plot for the T2G2 Thracian Iron Age sample lacks a lot of definition, probably partly because they were unable to extract as many snps as they did from the other remains, but he seems to land right where the Tuscan, GB and CEU samples meet.

V2, which is the much older Bronze Age sample shown in the global PCA plot, is a little further away, but is right next to where the Southern European clusters begin. This would correlate pretty well with the probably more accurate V2 global plot, where, if you increase the size of the image, you can see that he plots right over GB, Iberian and Tuscan samples.

The K8 sample is the only one that doesn't fit the overall Southern European "look" of the other samples. It seems more "Northeastern" and plots in the middle of the GB and CEU samples.

I was expecting the Bronze Age sample to perhaps be more "North-Eastern" in orientation, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If I were going to guess, perhaps the K8 sample is from an intrusive, later Iron Age Culture...there's a difference of about 300 years if we stretch the dates a little.

Or perhaps it's down to geographical sub-structuring and these attempts to pin a specific yDNA and mtDNA to certain specific cultures is not going to be informative at this relatively late date in European history. ( P192-1 and T2g2 are in the south, V2 is in the northwest, and K8 seems to be from the central eastern portion of Bulgaria.)

Also, as I mentioned above, I don't know how seriously to take these European specific PCA's, as the Danish sample is as close to the Tuscan cluster as some of the ancient Bulgarians.

The global PCA plot in the main body of the text (Table 3) is probably more accurate, and that plots the V2 Bronze Age sample right over on top of what looks like the Iberian samples, some Tuscan samples, and some GB samples. I wish they had provided global plots for all of the ancient Bulgarian samples.

See:
http://images.cell.com/images/EdImages/AJHG/ajhg1537.pdf
 
Thank you for that link.

I took a look at the European specific PCA's for all five ancient European samples. (four from ancient Bulgaria, and one from ancient Denmark)
They can be found on page six of the Supplementary Data section here:
http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/journals/0002-9297/PIIS000292971300459X.mmc1.pdf

I think they have to be used with caution. In the case of the Danish sample, it rather contradicts the post capture global PCA plot, as in the global plot, the Danish sample is near Finland...here, the Danish sample plots right at the beginning of the "Southern European" section.

In terms of the ancient Bulgarian samples, it's difficult to draw conclusions; I don't see a definitive narrative, either in terms of age or culture or class.

1) Sample P192-1, a Thracian culture sample found in a pit sanctuary, 800-500 B.C. and the mtDNA is U3b

2) Sample T2G2, a Thracian culture sample dated to virtually the same time frame (850-700 B.C.) and found in a tumulous burial. The mtDNA is HV.

3) Sample K8, a slightly younger (450-400 B.C.) Iron Age sample, also found in a tumulous burial. No mtDNA determination could be made.

4) Sample V2, the sample which appears in the global plot, is one thousand years older and dates to the Late Bronze Age (1500-1100 B.C.). It is an inhumation, flat burial. No mtDNA determination could be made.

Looking at the European specific PCA's, the P-192-1 Thracian Iron Age sample lands in the Tuscan plot.

The plot for the T2G2 Thracian Iron Age sample lacks a lot of definition, probably partly because they were unable to extract as many snps as they did from the other remains, but he seems to land right where the Tuscan, GB and CEU samples meet.

V2, which is the much older Bronze Age sample shown in the global PCA plot, is a little further away, but is right next to where the Southern European clusters begin. This would correlate pretty well with the probably more accurate V2 global plot, where, if you increase the size of the image, you can see that he plots right over GB, Iberian and Tuscan samples.

The K8 sample is the only one that doesn't fit the overall Southern European "look" of the other samples. It seems more "Northeastern" and plots in the middle of the GB and CEU samples.

I was expecting the Bronze Age sample to perhaps be more "North-Eastern" in orientation, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If I were going to guess, perhaps the K8 sample is from an intrusive, later Iron Age Culture...there's a difference of about 300 years if we stretch the dates a little.

Or perhaps it's down to geographical sub-structuring and these attempts to pin a specific yDNA and mtDNA to certain specific cultures is not going to be informative at this relatively late date in European history. ( P192-1 and T2g2 are in the south, V2 is in the northwest, and K8 seems to be from the central eastern portion of Bulgaria.)

Also, as I mentioned above, I don't know how seriously to take these European specific PCA's, as the Danish sample is as close to the Tuscan cluster as some of the ancient Bulgarians.

The global PCA plot in the main body of the text (Table 3) is probably more accurate, and that plots the V2 Bronze Age sample right over on top of what looks like the Iberian samples, some Tuscan samples, and some GB samples. I wish they had provided global plots for all of the ancient Bulgarian samples.

See:
http://images.cell.com/images/EdImages/AJHG/ajhg1537.pdf

Thanks for the explanation of that paper, it is more easy now to understand. I agree it should be taken with A LOT of caution. The Tuscan matches would make a lot of sense imho, but not so much the Iberian and especially not the GB.
 
Ed. Sorry, double post.

Another thought with regard to these results for the Iron Age Bulgarian... if indeed we ever get to see it in a paper...cultural influences don't always have to indicate migration and admixture.

a lot of different genetic markers point to a roughly 'mediterranean' origin for Bulgarians, more on the sardinian side than on the caucasian one, I think - very meager influence of steppic peoples, either I-Eans or Turcs... the classical anthropological surveys (old science) showed some pockets with surely more slav blood around Sofia: cultural and political center of power & diffusion?; the same kinds of pockets are found in S-Romania too, isolated in different general context -
 
a lot of different genetic markers point to a roughly 'mediterranean' origin for Bulgarians, more on the sardinian side than on the caucasian one, I think - very meager influence of steppic peoples, either I-Eans or Turcs... the classical anthropological surveys (old science) showed some pockets with surely more slav blood around Sofia: cultural and political center of power & diffusion?; the same kinds of pockets are found in S-Romania too, isolated in different general context -

these papers which mention "bulgarians" with sardinians, germans, italians etc clearly indicate the people of pre-slav migration......ie thracians/dacians/getae etc.

for me, after most AuDna tests, the initial results indicating either french/north-italian/alpine areas, the next group is mostly bulgarian/romanian ( both old thracian areas).

Clearly the thracians under roman occupation where used in the western part of Europe by the Romans
 

This thread has been viewed 72622 times.

Back
Top