Stable population structure in Europe since the Iron Age

The Iron Age La Tene E-V13, was from a site which Hungarian Archaeologists indentify as Pannonian-Illyrian site. So, we should expect a pattern where Pannonian-Illyrians had E-V13 indeed.
 
Hawk said:
Postedby rafc, R1b-L51:

Eastern Croatia this time, wonder what was his ancestry. Celtic, Tumulus derived Pannonian-Illyrian?
Click to expand...

I guess its a real Celt.

As for the E-V13 from Liburnian territory, this area had cremation and Channelled Ware influences, was an international hub, many Greek settlers too. He is autosomally Illyrian, but that could be achieved in a couple of generations of mixture too. Both the Veneti and Liburnians had closer ties to the Channelled Ware and Thraco-Cimmerian people, Urnfielders in general, than most regular Illyrians. You see it in their burial rites as well.

Actually the second sample from Croatia is even more interesting, because that's in deep Illyrian territory with ?ćitarjevo. Not unaffected by UF, but that's imho the better case for an Illyrian E-V13, however he came up from earlier migrations.
 
Last edited:
I see they are using these github repositories: https://github.com/genid/Clean_tree2

https://github.com/genid/Yleaf

They build this locally using a Linux distro and put the BAM files as arguments in order to deduce the Y-DNA and subclade.

Anyone knows how reliable are them?

They have few stars and to be honest the code and code organization is not ok-ish (but perhaps these guys are geneticists who occasionally write Python).

I can see they do have tests, but keep it locally. Interesting why they did it so.
 
Hawk said:
I see they are using these github repositories: https://github.com/genid/Clean_tree2

https://github.com/genid/Yleaf

They build this locally using a Linux distro and put the BAM files as arguments in order to deduce the Y-DNA and subclade.

Anyone knows how reliable are them?

They have few stars and to be honest the code and code organization is not ok-ish (but perhaps these guys are geneticists who occasionally write Python).

I can see they do have tests, but keep it locally. Interesting why they did it so.
Click to expand...

Many of the Austrian and Viminacium samples seem to be confused or missing. What a pity. First no yDNA assignment, not even a basic one, then this. Obivously its complaining on a high niveau, considering this landslide of interesting samples, but kind of unnecessary and annoying troubles.
 
Riverman said:
I guess its a real Celt.

As for the E-V13 from Liburnian territory, this area had cremation and Channelled Ware influences, was an international hub, many Greek settlers too. He is autosomally Illyrian, but that could be achieved in a couple of generations of mixture too. Both the Veneti and Liburnians had closer ties to the Channelled Ware and Thraco-Cimmerian people, Urnfielders in general, than most regular Illyrians. You see it in their burial rites as well.

Actually the second sample from Croatia is even more interesting, because that's in deep Illyrian territory with �ćitarjevo. Not unaffected by UF, but that's imho the better case for an Illyrian E-V13, however he came up from earlier migrations.
Click to expand...

Who knows, we already have R1b-L51 in Middle Bronze Age Croatia, depending on his terminal subclade i cannot deduce that he is Celtic derived, he seems to have a generic overlap.
 
Hawk said:
Who knows, we already have R1b-L51 in Middle Bronze Age Croatia, depending on his terminal subclade i cannot deduce that he is Celtic derived, he seems to have a generic overlap.
Click to expand...

Wasn't R1b-L51 from MBA Central Bosnia? Vucedol?
 
mount123 said:
Wasn't R1b-L51 from MBA Central Bosnia? Vucedol?
Click to expand...

Not sure, i think it was Croatia somewhere. But need to verify. There was also weird enough one R1b-V88, very likely Mesolithic survivor, but we don't see it anymore in Iron Age and onwards.

edit, he is indeed from MBA Croatia, but R1b-L2, a R1b-L51 variant:

p.s Ignore the last result, everyone agreed it's just a wrongly timed sample.

I4331I4331VV1, Grave 2AMathiesonNature2018Direct: IntCal203519291618-1517 calBCE (3305±20 BP, PSUAMS-2257)Croatia_MBAVeliki VanikCroatia43.19417.3441240K13.141711092Mn/a (no relatives detected)J-Z38240J2b2a1a1a1b~I1a1ds.halfS4331.E1.L2PASS..11111Croatia.SerbiaCroatiaC.EBA00.8140.0120.0052610.0520.5560.3920.0130.0180.02217.80.005261UseIgnore_Croatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPIgnore_Serbia_3900.to.2700BPIgnore_Croatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP_oCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP0.000522
I4332I4332VV3, Grave 2CMathiesonNature2018Direct: IntCal203508321613-1508 calBCE (3290±20 BP, PSUAMS-2258)Croatia_MBAVeliki VanikCroatia43.19417.3441240K13.228729628Fn/a (no relatives detected)n/a (female)n/a (female)W3a1ds.halfS4332.E1.L2PASS..11111Croatia.SerbiaCroatiaC.EBA00.8380.0120.2926240.0390.5840.3770.0130.0180.02118.00.292624UseCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPSerbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP0.465057
[FONT=Calibri (Body)]I26726[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]I26726[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]G1; P9176_Z-C[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]This study[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Direct: IntCal20[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]3411[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]28[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]1507-1415 calBCE (3190±30 BP, Beta-423457)[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Croatia_MBA[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Gudnja cave[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Croatia[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]42.833333[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]17.7[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]1240K[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]1[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]9.93[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]896713[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]M[/FONT]n/a (no relatives detected)[FONT=Calibri (Body)]..[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]..[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]J1c3[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]ds.half[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]S26726.Y1.E1.L1[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]PASS[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]..[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]1[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]1[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]1[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]1[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]1[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Croatia.Serbia[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Croatia[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]MBA[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.813[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.013[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.133441[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.021[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.554[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.425[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.014[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.017[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.022[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]19.3[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.133441[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Use[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Croatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Serbia_3900.to.2700BP[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Croatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]Croatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]0.623172[/FONT]
I24342I24342Tumulus 3, G1; P8545This studyDirect: IntCal203410231501-1421 calBCE (3185±20 BP, UCIAMS-233623)Croatia_MBAVelim-KosaCroatia43.9039115.7023821240K16.288820306Mn/a (no relatives detected)R-L2R1b1a1b1a1a2b1T2b23ds.halfS24342.Y1.E1.L1PASS..11111Croatia.SerbiaCroatiaMBA00.7760.0140.1059530.1090.5170.3740.0140.0190.02217.00.105953UseCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPSerbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP_highWHGCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPNA
I26893I26893Tumulus MS 07; 111/2; P9223This studyContext: Archaeological - Period33251011550-1200 BCECroatia_MBAMušego/Mon SegoCroatia45.06821213.708391240K17.25861181Fn/a (no relatives detected)n/a (female)n/a (female)U8b1b1ds.halfS26893.Y1.E1.L1PASS..11111Croatia.SerbiaCroatiaC.EBA00.7790.0120.2543910.0680.5130.4190.0140.0180.02120.00.254391UseCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPSerbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP0.009832
I26774I26774Tumulus MS 07; lubanja 2, 11; P9211This studyContext: Archaeological - Period33251011550-1200 BCECroatia_MBAMušego/Mon SegoCroatia45.06821213.708391240K13.469827364Fn/a (no relatives detected)n/a (female)n/a (female)J1c2ds.halfS26774.Y1.E1.L1PASS..11111Croatia.SerbiaCroatiaC.EBA00.780.0130.6763280.0770.5220.4010.0140.0180.02119.10.676328UseCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPSerbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP0.238978
I26773I26773Tumulus MS 07; Nebengrab 1, lubanja 1, 9; P9210This studyContext: Archaeological - Period33251011550-1200 BCECroatia_MBAMušego/Mon SegoCroatia45.06821213.708391240K11.967728296Fn/a (no relatives detected)n/a (female)n/a (female)J1c2ds.halfS26773.Y1.E1.L1PASS..11111Croatia.SerbiaCroatiaC.EBA00.8080.0130.1229060.0530.5360.410.0140.0190.02218.60.122906UseCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPSerbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP0.886359
I18719I18719P3779; BzV 10aThis studyContext: Archaeological - Period32001441500-1000 BCECroatia_MBA_LBABezdanjača CaveCroatia44.852005215.41994441240K2[FONT=Calibri (Body)]3.747999[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]825868[/FONT]Mn/a (no relatives detected)[FONT=Calibri (Body)]I-Y3120[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]I2a1a2b1a1[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]HV0a1a[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]ds.half,ds.half[/FONT][FONT=Calibri (Body)]S18719.Y1.E1.L1,S18719.Y1.E2.L1[/FONT]PASS..11111Croatia.SerbiaCroatiaLBA00.7470.0110.2450440.1170.4960.3860.0120.0160.01920.30.245044UseCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BPSerbia_3900.to.2700BPCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP_lowEEFCroatia.Serbia_3900.to.2700BP7E-06
 
Hawk said:
Not sure, i think it was Croatia somewhere. But need to verify. There was also weird enough one R1b-V88, very likely Mesolithic survivor, but we don't see it anymore in Iron Age and onwards.

edit, he is indeed from MBA Croatia, but R1b-L2, a R1b-L51 variant:

p.s Ignore the last result, everyone agreed it's just a wrongly timed sample.
Click to expand...

Interesting in Patterson/ Reich et. al. there is a J2b-L283 sample from Velim Kosa I24345, ~950 BCE, Croatia_MBA_LBA_EIA, Velim-Kosa, J-L283

Unfortunately he is low coverage.
 
Rafc anlaysis anthrogenica:(y)
Last one I managed to get:
R3742 (Zadar_Relja, Croatia, 1772.75bp):
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y16161/
It would seem likely this is one of those Near Eastern profiles.

P.s
Nice e-m123> z-841> e-L791;)
Would be interesting were this individual
Fall autosomally speaking
Zadar was a roman colony from 48bc
He could be :
A)Roman auxilary soldier of near eastern background
B)or he could be antolian trader or administrator
Who fall on the near eastern cluster
The same cluster of the 2 e-m123 individuals
From viminicium serbia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1
 
Hawk said:
The problem with Liburnian sample is that it was a site with people from all over Roman republic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306134397_Buried_far_away_Easterners_in_Roman_Liburnia

But the E-V13 autosomal point to a local origin instead. There was no Dacian or Thracian soldiers positioned here. I am outside so i cannot check this paper fully. Someone can go through it in detail, i saw a graph with people with foreign origin.
Click to expand...


Liburnians controlled much of Dalmatia in late bronze-age to early iron-age ...............we only see Dalmatia come up very strong, basically after the decline of the Liburnians ( around 733BC when they lost Corfu to the Corinthians ) .................Liburnians where left with only their homeland and the colony in Picene italy until circa 400BC
 
Hawk said:
The problem with Liburnian sample is that it was a site with people from all over Roman republic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306134397_Buried_far_away_Easterners_in_Roman_Liburnia

But the E-V13 autosomal point to a local origin instead. There was no Dacian or Thracian soldiers positioned here. I am outside so i cannot check this paper fully. Someone can go through it in detail, i saw a graph with people with foreign origin.
Click to expand...

I went through the paper and they mention explicitly one soldier which might have been from the Balkans, people from Italy, many from Greece (majority of foreigners) and the Levante. There are so many options and any foreign admixture would be lost, largely, latest after 4-5 generations for most tools to detect, unless it was Subsaharan or East Asian etc. involved.
Wouldn't wonder whether its a local from earlier times, but its impossible to tell unless we get more lineages of E-V13 from Liburnians.
 
Hawk said:
The problem with Liburnian sample is that it was a site with people from all over Roman republic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306134397_Buried_far_away_Easterners_in_Roman_Liburnia

But the E-V13 autosomal point to a local origin instead. There was no Dacian or Thracian soldiers positioned here. I am outside so i cannot check this paper fully. Someone can go through it in detail, i saw a graph with people with foreign origin.
Click to expand...


Iader wasn't Liburnian though and the Iadasenoi are called Illyrians not Liburnians in ancient sources. The E-V13 is most likely from the 1st century CE (22-121 CE)

‘Illyrians’ in ancient ethnographic discourse
Danijel Dzino

Diodorus provides very valuable details of the Greek colonisation of the central Adriatic islands Vis (Issa) and Hvar (Pharos) in the early fourth century BC, corresponding with the expansion of Syracusan ambitions in the Adriatic under Dionysius I. He recorded the Greek conflict at Pharos with the indigenous population from the mainland in 385/4 BC, whom he calls ‘Illyrians’ . These Illyrians might well be the Iadasinoi from the Liburnian city of Iader (modern Zadar), mentioned on the inscription found on the island of Hvar, which celebrates the triumph of the Pharians over the ‘Iadasinoi and their allies’. There is also an inscription from the central Adriatic island of Vis dated to the fourth century BC, showing that the indigenous population from the mainland were seen as ‘Illyrians’ by the Greek colonists. The inscription celebrates one Kalias, who died fighting the indigenous population. The term ‘Illyrians’ is used twice, once as ‘Illyrian ship’ (or land) and the second time as ‘Illyrian land’ (Ἰλλυριον γῆς)

In Müller’s edition of Pseudo-Scylax from GGM, the inhabitants of the coast between the Liburni and Chaonia are called ‘Illyrians’: the Hierastamnoi (Iadasinoi), Boullinoi, Hyllaei, Nestoi, Manioi, Autariatas Enkheleis, Taulantioi.
 
Hawk said:
Actually, kudos to Riverman for initiating a very concise clarification on archaeological situation of Bronze to Iron Age Balkans, we didn't progress our understandings before that. You are simply 100 levels below him on understandings and you should admit it and progress your understandings. What you do is, you just throw one-liners and out of context ramblings.

Also despite having so much of trolling tendencies and narcissistic nature Huban/Oroku-Saki is quite knowledgeable as well.
Click to expand...

I'm 100 levels below you too, and who got proven right? Go back to collecting pots and pans.

You guys are completely delusional thinking you're going to find some "urheimat" of EV-13 dominance. There is nothing scientifically saying that there should be an EV-13 dominant population anymore. Only the original E population tens of thousands of years back.
 
Imagine being such an emotional child that you're hoping to glorify your Y-DNA haplogroup with random stories and fake populations/migrations.
 
Excine said:
Iader wasn't Liburnian though and the Iadasenoi are called Illyrians not Liburnians in ancient sources. The E-V13 is most likely from the 1st century CE (22-121 CE)

‘Illyrians’ in ancient ethnographic discourse
Danijel Dzino

Diodorus provides very valuable details of the Greek colonisation of the central Adriatic islands Vis (Issa) and Hvar (Pharos) in the early fourth century BC, corresponding with the expansion of Syracusan ambitions in the Adriatic under Dionysius I. He recorded the Greek conflict at Pharos with the indigenous population from the mainland in 385/4 BC, whom he calls ‘Illyrians’ . These Illyrians might well be the Iadasinoi from the Liburnian city of Iader (modern Zadar), mentioned on the inscription found on the island of Hvar, which celebrates the triumph of the Pharians over the ‘Iadasinoi and their allies’. There is also an inscription from the central Adriatic island of Vis dated to the fourth century BC, showing that the indigenous population from the mainland were seen as ‘Illyrians’ by the Greek colonists. The inscription celebrates one Kalias, who died fighting the indigenous population. The term ‘Illyrians’ is used twice, once as ‘Illyrian ship’ (or land) and the second time as ‘Illyrian land’ (Ἰλλυριον γῆς)

In Müller’s edition of Pseudo-Scylax from GGM, the inhabitants of the coast between the Liburni and Chaonia are called ‘Illyrians’: the Hierastamnoi (Iadasinoi), Boullinoi, Hyllaei, Nestoi, Manioi, Autariatas Enkheleis, Taulantioi.
Click to expand...

Are you saying Liburnians are not Illyrians ?
 
Liburni, an Illyrian people on the NE coast of the Adriatic, once dominated a large part of the coast of *Illyricum (Strabo 6. 2. 4) but by the Roman period they were confined to the sector between the river Arsia (mod. Raša) on the west side of Istria (2) and the Titius (Krka), where the Delmatae began. The Liburni were famous as seafarers
 
Excine said:
Iader wasn't Liburnian though and the Iadasenoi are called Illyrians not Liburnians in ancient sources. The E-V13 is most likely from the 1st century CE (22-121 CE)

‘Illyrians’ in ancient ethnographic discourse
Danijel Dzino

Diodorus provides very valuable details of the Greek colonisation of the central Adriatic islands Vis (Issa) and Hvar (Pharos) in the early fourth century BC, corresponding with the expansion of Syracusan ambitions in the Adriatic under Dionysius I. He recorded the Greek conflict at Pharos with the indigenous population from the mainland in 385/4 BC, whom he calls ‘Illyrians’ . These Illyrians might well be the Iadasinoi from the Liburnian city of Iader (modern Zadar), mentioned on the inscription found on the island of Hvar, which celebrates the triumph of the Pharians over the ‘Iadasinoi and their allies’. There is also an inscription from the central Adriatic island of Vis dated to the fourth century BC, showing that the indigenous population from the mainland were seen as ‘Illyrians’ by the Greek colonists. The inscription celebrates one Kalias, who died fighting the indigenous population. The term ‘Illyrians’ is used twice, once as ‘Illyrian ship’ (or land) and the second time as ‘Illyrian land’ (Ἰλλυριον γῆς)

In Müller’s edition of Pseudo-Scylax from GGM, the inhabitants of the coast between the Liburni and Chaonia are called ‘Illyrians’: the Hierastamnoi (Iadasinoi), Boullinoi, Hyllaei, Nestoi, Manioi, Autariatas Enkheleis, Taulantioi.
Click to expand...

You copied that text from your cousin Bruzmi. He has a brain, I'll grant him that.

There doesn't seem to be archeological evidence that the population of Iader was anything other than Liburnian. Iader was a major Liburnian archeological site. It wasn't Delmatae or something else.

The V13 find in question is Roman, nothing Liburnian/Illyrian about it. Iader was settled by Romans already in the time of Octavian (40-30 BC), so there were real Roman settlers there in significant numbers.
 
enter_tain said:
I'm 100 levels below you too, and who got proven right? Go back to collecting pots and pans.

You guys are completely delusional thinking you're going to find some "urheimat" of EV-13 dominance. There is nothing scientifically saying that there should be an EV-13 dominant population anymore. Only the original E population tens of thousands of years back.
Click to expand...

Lol, it's just you being pissed off the things not turning as you expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 58445 times.

Back
Top