SubgroupE-FT186965

That's a double standard though, J2b2-L283 is not common as well, but that was not the case in ancient times. I think this region was severely depopulated because of the War of the Batos, Illyrian revolt of 6-9 A.D where most of the male population was enslaved and put to work in Italian mines.

You are right that its probably a recent founder effect, but its still remarkable that just across the border to the next cultural formations, the increase is so steep. Yet it might be anachronistic and simply being lost due to Western Celtic groups, Romans, Germanics and Slavs in particular, with recent founder effects.
Vatin is possible as a carrier, but honestly, even if they had it, I think we're talking about something similar like with Sintashta and Yamnaya. They might have been one group once, but more recent founder effects caused the spread. I mean its possible that Vatin-related groups or what people considered as such did contribute to the formation of Pre-Gava, but still the vast majority of E-V13 will come from Channelled Ware. So if such Danubian groups contributed to E-V13, its early, by having an impact on Pre-Gava. And we have not found anything South of the Danube indicated that E1b1b persisted there, especially not in larger numbers.

How Pre-Gava came up is yet another debate, because it seems to have been rather local in the Northern Carpathian zone. Otomani needs to be considered, but also smaller groups I came across about which little is known and researched, sometimes even their mere existence being disputed. But they all lived there, in the same region between Silesia and Western Ukraine, Southern Poland and Northern Hungary-Romania.

Why exactly E-Z5018 should be an earlier branch, being earlier in the Balkans is something I don't understand. There are some other E-V13 branches, especially some of the smaller ones, which could have split earlier. I don't believe they did, but they could have or its more likely for them than for E-Z5018.

One thing is interesting by the way, Scaledinnovation puts most of the main lineages in the same general place for E-V13: http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html

I think that's because of the earlier mentioned, fairly even spread of the lineages. They are so evenly spread, that even though the region pointed out by the tool is not correct, they all land in the same place. You can do it for all major branches up- and downstream. Doesn't matter. It doesn't tell you where they originated, but rather how evenly spread out they are!
If not, its rather because of later shifts, founding and extinction events. The Western European and Southern European groups pull West and the North Eastern is too weakly sampled, and from areas which being so heavily affected by the migration period, that E-V13 was going down there. But with some fantasy, you can easily put it straight, by balancing that issues out. And that puts you rather North of the Danube and possibly in the Eastern sphere. While a local pick up is possibly, the most likely scenario is E-V13 was already strong in pre-Gava. And looking at where this culture came up, you land definitely North and East of the Middle Danube.
 
You are right that its probably a recent founder effect, but its still remarkable that just across the border to the next cultural formations, the increase is so steep. Yet it might be anachronistic and simply being lost due to Western Celtic groups, Romans, Germanics and Slavs in particular, with recent founder effects.
Vatin is possible as a carrier, but honestly, even if they had it, I think we're talking about something similar like with Sintashta and Yamnaya. They might have been one group once, but more recent founder effects caused the spread. I mean its possible that Vatin-related groups or what people considered as such did contribute to the formation of Pre-Gava, but still the vast majority of E-V13 will come from Channelled Ware. So if such Danubian groups contributed to E-V13, its early, by having an impact on Pre-Gava. And we have not found anything South of the Danube indicated that E1b1b persisted there, especially not in larger numbers.

How Pre-Gava came up is yet another debate, because it seems to have been rather local in the Northern Carpathian zone. Otomani needs to be considered, but also smaller groups I came across about which little is known and researched, sometimes even their mere existence being disputed. But they all lived there, in the same region between Silesia and Western Ukraine, Southern Poland and Northern Hungary-Romania.

Why exactly E-Z5018 should be an earlier branch, being earlier in the Balkans is something I don't understand. There are some other E-V13 branches, especially some of the smaller ones, which could have split earlier. I don't believe they did, but they could have or its more likely for them than for E-Z5018.

One thing is interesting by the way, Scaledinnovation puts most of the main lineages in the same general place for E-V13: http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html

I think that's because of the earlier mentioned, fairly even spread of the lineages. They are so evenly spread, that even though the region pointed out by the tool is not correct, they all land in the same place. You can do it for all major branches up- and downstream. Doesn't matter. It doesn't tell you where they originated, but rather how evenly spread out they are!
If not, its rather because of later shifts, founding and extinction events. The Western European and Southern European groups pull West and the North Eastern is too weakly sampled, and from areas which being so heavily affected by the migration period, that E-V13 was going down there. But with some fantasy, you can easily put it straight, by balancing that issues out. And that puts you rather North of the Danube and possibly in the Eastern sphere. While a local pick up is possibly, the most likely scenario is E-V13 was already strong in pre-Gava. And looking at where this culture came up, you land definitely North and East of the Middle Danube.

Not particularly hitting at E-V13 Z5018 though, it might be some non Z5017/Z5018. Why not some earlier offshots before Gava was created, heading south, not at the scale of latter Gava-Belegis II.
 
Thanls exine, very informative.

PS: Does anyone know where z2103 falls in this?
L283 and z2103 were found together with a roughly 50% Yamnaya/Steppe component in Maros. While z2103 and V13 were found somewhere else together cant recall where (Scythian (MD?) where inhumation was practiced as opposed to incineration). So the one constant so far between L283 and V13 is that z2103 was accompanying both at various points/locations. Also high Yamnaya component.

Now I do believe both Illyrians and Thracians, even Panonians were on the same autosomal continuum for the most part, as well as heterogeneous. Meaning I do believe by the time we hear about Illyrians around 700BC (Hellenistic Classical Times) they were already quite mixed, and likely their ethnogenesis was a symbiosis of various predecessor cultures mingling. Meaning I do not believe any haplogroup/snp can be attributed purely to Illyrians, Thracians or Pannonians. Yet I think without some sort of R1b, likely z2103 but even others there is no way we can define Illyrians.
So yeah, I understand why some members feel there is double standards when it comes to L283 and Illyrians in oposition to V13. But I do not think it is an agenda on L283 members part, rather just a side effect of L283 using tumuli/inhumation, and being more represented in research papers/corresponding cultures, while V13 likely practiced cremation. So I do understand the frustration in such cases, where all these cultures seem so elusive lacking ancient DNA to better connect the dots.
Hopefully upcoming papers, from Italy, Albania and Bulgaria as well as the wider Balkans can provide some more V13 samples, and the discussion turns into more analytical rather than theoretical.
 
Slovenia, which was also Illyrian in burial custom, with the Unterkrainer group of Hallstatt, has one of the lowest E-V13 numbers in the region. If you say the Central Balkan, I might agree. But the Central Balkan was only secondary Illyrian territory, with the exception of Albania itself, and not even that fully so. People moved around a lot, they weren't sitting where they are now necessarily.
It might be proven that people like the Ligurians and the Norics had more E-V13 than Illyrians proper in the Iron Age. Eastern Hallstatt had different provinces, heavily influenced by Basarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian burials are especially coming from the Fr�g group:
https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Rudolfinum_2002_0035-0064.pdf

And compare with the map:
5cad6ed61f85a266a11f31803e40686d.png


If they could ever sample a larger group from Fr�g, which is almost impossible, since the largely cremated, they surely would find at least some E-V13.


basarabia and thraco-cimmerian are all on the north side of the black sea
 
Illyrii proprie dicti is a term used for those Illyrians who lived in the region the Illyrian Kingdom. It's not that other Illyrians weren't "real Illyrians". There are several closely linked Illyrian regions
"Ancient Roman writers Pliny the Elder and Pomponius Mela used the term Illyrii proprie dicti ('properly called Illyrians') to designate a people that was located in the coast of modern Albania and Montenegro.[27] Many modern scholars view the 'properly called Illyrians' as a trace of the Illyrian kingdom known in the sources from the 4th century BC until 167 BC, which was ruled in Roman times by the Ardiaei and Labeatae when it was centered in the Bay of Kotor and Lake Skadar. According to other modern scholars, the term Illyrii may have originally referred only to a small ethnos in the area between Epidaurum and Lissus, and Pliny and Mela may have followed a literary tradition that dates back as early as Hecataeus of Miletus.[8][27] Placed in central Albania, the Illyrii proprie dicti also might have been Rome's first contact with lllyrian peoples. In that case, it did not indicate an original area from which the Illyrians expanded.[28] The area of the Illyrii proprie dicti is largely included in the southern Illyrian onomastic province in modern linguistics.[29]"
"Modern studies about Illyrian onomastics, the main field via which the Illyrians have been linguistically investigated as no written records have been found, began in the 1920s and sought to more accurately define Illyrian tribes, the commonalities, relations and differences between each other as they were conditioned by specific local cultural, ecological and economic factors, which further subdivided them into different groupings.[30][114] This approach has led in contemporary research in the definition of three main onomastic provinces in which Illyrian personal names appear near exclusively in the archaeological material of each province. The southern Illyrian or south-eastern Dalmatian province was the area of the proper Illyrians (the core of which was the territory of Illyrii proprie dicti of the classical authors, located in modern Albania) and includes most of Albania, Montenegro and their hinterlands. This area extended along the Adriatic coast from the Aous valley[29] in the south, up to and beyond the Neretva valley in the north.[29][115]"
"The second onomastic province, the central Illyrian or middle Dalmatian-Pannonian province began to its north and covered a larger area than the southern province. It extended along the Adriatic coast between the Krka and Cetina rivers, covered much of Bosnia (except for its northern regions), central Dalmatia (Lika) and its hinterland in the central Balkans included western Serbia and Sandžak. The third onomastic province further to the north defined as North Adriatic area includes Liburnia and the region of modern Ljubljana in Slovenia. It is part of a larger linguistic area different from Illyrian that also comprises Venetic and its Istrian variety. These areas are not strictly defined geographically as there was some overlap between them.[116][117][115] The region of the Dardani (modern Kosovo, parts of northern North Macedonia, parts of eastern Serbia) saw the overlap of the southern Illyrian and Dalmatian onomastic provinces. Local Illyrian anthroponymy is also found in the area.[118]"
All of them were Illyrians. The western Balkans have both high diversity and the highest frequency of E-V13. What follows is that groups with high E-V13 were Illyrians and not anything else.

while I agree with half of what you presented ......you failed to present the roman province of praevalitana which covers modern Montengro and north albania ...........its capital was Doclea , and it was stated as the most southern town of the illyrians ............the city around 45AD became the capital of what you state Illyrii Proprie , the date fits Pliny first comment of Illyrii Proprie
3 km north from present-day Podgorica, Montenegro's capital. The Illyrian Docleatae, which were later Romanized, inhabiting the area derived their name from the city.[3] Doclea was the largest settlement of the Docleatae,

These Illyrians ( under Narona zone ) where not part of the great Illyrian revolt as per Pliny


 
All of them were Illyrians. The western Balkans have both high diversity and the highest frequency of E-V13. What follows is that groups with high E-V13 were Illyrians and not anything else.


If we follow your logic then I-Y3120 is far better candidate for being Illyrian.
 
Not particularly hitting at E-V13 Z5018 though, it might be some non Z5017/Z5018. Why not some earlier offshots before Gava was created, heading south, not at the scale of latter Gava-Belegis II.

That's of course always possible, but we have no proof for it and the main clades all branch around the same time and seem to have marched like described, with members from every major clan adding especially males to the warbands and settler groups sent out in a specific direction. That way they wanted to keep up the social cohesion, which might have worked for some time.

basarabia and thraco-cimmerian are all on the north side of the black sea

The area of Viminacium was a settlement zone for Basarabia and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon came even down to Italy and up the Alps...

If we follow your logic then I-Y3120 is far better candidate for being Illyrian.

Indeed, we're talking about the ancient distribution. As far as I can tell, E-V13 was surely much, much higher in areas like Vojvodina in the Late Bronze Age, than anywhere South of it. That changed over time, however, because the Channelled Ware people expanded South, also mixed with Illyrians and Greeks, and the Danubian area was regularly devastated and much harder hit by steppe people like the Avars and Magyars, and more densely settled by Slavs. The area around Viminacium most likely had even in Roman times a higher percentage of E-V13 than any modern people or regions of greater size. Including Kosovo, Macedonia, Northern Greece etc. Significantly above 50 percent. In the Early Iron Age, after the Belegis II-Gava expansion and in Basarabi, they might even have had more than 70, up to 100 percent in some Northern areas.
Just like Yamnaya made some regions nearly 100 % R-Z2103 - for a time.
 
If we follow your logic then I-Y3120 is far better candidate for being Illyrian.

Viminacium's inhabitants are not local; they come from all over the Balkans. They should be compared to inhabitants of other Balkan countries to ascertain their backgrounds.

I-Y3120 is significantly younger than E-V13 and so cannot be compared to it. Its parent clade I-L621 is comparable to E-V13 in terms of diversity, with very high diversity around southern Poland. Nobody can argue that I-Y3120 originated and spread in the Balkans. On the evidence of diversity, one might argue that it expanded in the Balkans and that a significant portion of its massive growth throughout the Middle Ages happened there. I reduced the intensity of all graphics to highlight the diversity variations.

E-V13 clearly represents a lineage from the western Balkans. From western to eastern Balkans, there is a noticeable gap in diversity. Moving upstream to E-L618 reveals an even greater divide in diversity between west and east. Only Albanians and Sardinians exhibit diversity in two-thirds of their major "clades" E-BY6578, E-Y182141, and E-V13 among Europeans.


https : //i.imgur. com/ PxszWVa .png

https :// i.imgur. com /uxS3AeP . png

https :// i.imgur. com/ J6zoHMD . png
 
Viminacium's inhabitants are not local; they come from all over the Balkans. They should be compared to inhabitants of other Balkan countries to ascertain their backgrounds.

I-Y3120 is significantly younger than E-V13 and so cannot be compared to it. Its parent clade I-L621 is comparable to E-V13 in terms of diversity, with very high diversity around southern Poland. Nobody can argue that I-Y3120 originated and spread in the Balkans. On the evidence of diversity, one might argue that it expanded in the Balkans and that a significant portion of its massive growth throughout the Middle Ages happened there. I reduced the intensity of all graphics to highlight the diversity variations.

E-V13 clearly represents a lineage from the western Balkans. From western to eastern Balkans, there is a noticeable gap in diversity. Moving upstream to E-L618 reveals an even greater divide in diversity between west and east. Only Albanians and Sardinians exhibit diversity in two-thirds of their major "clades" E-BY6578, E-Y182141, and E-V13 among Europeans.

E-L618 might have been very widespread along the Rhine and the Danube thanks to Lengyel, secondarily the Michelsberger - and in Bohemia and Bavaria because of the Lengyel colonists from Jordanow/Jordansm?hler and M?nchsh?fener culture. It means little for the main expansion of E-V13 which happened in the LBA-EIA transition and the Hallstatt Iron Age period.

You claim that the Viminacium samples are not local, the paper says otherwise and the local archaeological team speaks of continuity in the region as well. There might have been people from other Balkan groups too, but you won't be able to prove they were coming exclusively from Illyrian territory, that would be a ridiculous claim.

I-Y3120 and E-V13 might have experienced a very, very similar expansive period, probably even starting from nearby source regions, the main difference is: E-V13 came first, I-Y3120 second. Since E-V13 lineages, while present, were much weaker in Slavs than in pre-Slavic Iron and Roman Age Carpatho-Balkan people, the frequencies and diversity was reduced from North to South, with Roman era inhabitants being pushed into the mountains, to the South and on the islands. We have archaeological records for that pattern, from Austria, Dalmatia, Romania. A large fraction of the inhabitants moved into less accessible terrain, similar to the story about the foundation of Venice.
That's why you can impossibly say where many modern lineages lived, exactly, in the Balkans, before Slavs, let alone the Romans - and Celts and Scythians. In the Early Iron Age, things might have been quite different. And its not like we have no samples, we have Psenichevo and the Viminacium samples are as good as having Basarabi samples itself, because like the local archaeological teams said, there is large scale continuity in the whole region, not just the town itself, from the Iron Age/Basarabi. It was a central hub for Basarabi people, with their settlements along the river.
 
E-L618 might have been very widespread along the Rhine and the Danube thanks to Lengyel, secondarily the Michelsberger - and in Bohemia and Bavaria because of the Lengyel colonists from Jordanow/Jordansm�hler and M�nchsh�fener culture. It means little for the main expansion of E-V13 which happened in the LBA-EIA transition and the Hallstatt Iron Age period.

You claim that the Viminacium samples are not local, the paper says otherwise and the local archaeological team speaks of continuity in the region as well. There might have been people from other Balkan groups too, but you won't be able to prove they were coming exclusively from Illyrian territory, that would be a ridiculous claim.

I-Y3120 and E-V13 might have experienced a very, very similar expansive period, probably even starting from nearby source regions, the main difference is: E-V13 came first, I-Y3120 second. Since E-V13 lineages, while present, were much weaker in Slavs than in pre-Slavic Iron and Roman Age Carpatho-Balkan people, the frequencies and diversity was reduced from North to South, with Roman era inhabitants being pushed into the mountains, to the South and on the islands. We have archaeological records for that pattern, from Austria, Dalmatia, Romania. A large fraction of the inhabitants moved into less accessible terrain, similar to the story about the foundation of Venice.
That's why you can impossibly say where many modern lineages lived, exactly, in the Balkans, before Slavs, let alone the Romans - and Celts and Scythians. In the Early Iron Age, things might have been quite different. And its not like we have no samples, we have Psenichevo and the Viminacium samples are as good as having Basarabi samples itself, because like the local archaeological teams said, there is large scale continuity in the whole region, not just the town itself, from the Iron Age/Basarabi. It was a central hub for Basarabi people, with their settlements along the river.


Viminacium was an imperial colony. Nobody there was a local in the sense that someone whose ancestors were in that area. Certain individuals were locals in the sense that they were Balkan locals. Others have shown you several times on the other forum where the inhabitants of Viminacium came from.

The Carpathians and central Europe do not have high E-L618 diversity. The diversity of E-V13 is not Carpatho-Balkan. It is situated in the western Balkans. You cannot argue with something that is self-evident.

The diversity of E-V13 is not concentrated to historical Dacian or Thracian regions. You reiterate that E-V13 is Daco-Thracian, but it lacks the diversity found in Illyria in either Dacia or Thracia. Likewise, beyond the Danube, E-V13 diversity is very low. Your theories are in contradiction with data.

h ttps: // epigraphy.packhum.org/ text/174440?hs=1006-1012%2C1048-1054%2C1267-1273%2C1516-1522%2C1760-1766%2C2020-2026%2C2108-2114%2C2151-2157%2C2194-2200%2C2237-2243%2C2551-2557%2C2594-2600%2C2653-2659%2C2765-2771%2C2810-2816%2C2901-2907%2C3416-3422%2C4191-4197%2C4462-4468%2C5200-5206%2C5450-5456%2C5492-5498%2C6253-6259%2C7480-7486%2C7720-7726%2C7864-7870%2C8120-8126%2C8160-8166%2C8639-8645%2C8850-8856%2C9289-9295
 
Viminacium was an imperial colony. Nobody there was a local in the sense that someone whose ancestors were in that area. Certain individuals were locals in the sense that they were Balkan locals. Others have shown you several times on the other forum where the inhabitants of Viminacium came from.

The Carpathians and central Europe do not have high E-L618 diversity. The diversity of E-V13 is not Carpatho-Balkan. It is situated in the western Balkans. You cannot argue with something that is self-evident.

The diversity of E-V13 is not concentrated to historical Dacian or Thracian regions. You reiterate that E-V13 is Daco-Thracian, but it lacks the diversity found in Illyria in either Dacia or Thracia. Likewise, beyond the Danube, E-V13 diversity is very low. Your theories are in contradiction with data.

The only E1b1b couples and more samples in close proximity come from Danubian Lengyel-Sopot and Rhenish Michelsberger in the whole Neolithic of Europe. Nowhere else so far and especially no relevant clades.

It is Daco-Thracian, because the whole region of Viminacium and the largest portion of the Balkan IA inhabitants came from regions of the Channelled Ware-Basarabi environment. People with a strong Daco-Thracian base in the region like Moesian, Triballi, Dardanians etc.

Read up on the papers about the regional population in and around Viminacium. Add to that the clearly Thracian Psenichevo finds. But if you don't like it, just wait for more samples, they will prove it anyway.
 
The only E1b1b couples and more samples in close proximity come from Danubian Lengyel-Sopot and Rhenish Michelsberger in the whole Neolithic of Europe. Nowhere else so far and especially no relevant clades.

It is Daco-Thracian, because the whole region of Viminacium and the largest portion of the Balkan IA inhabitants came from regions of the Channelled Ware-Basarabi environment. People with a strong Daco-Thracian base in the region like Moesian, Triballi, Dardanians etc.

Read up on the papers about the regional population in and around Viminacium. Add to that the clearly Thracian Psenichevo finds. But if you don't like it, just wait for more samples, they will prove it anyway.

Viminacium's imperial citizens came from all throughout the Balkans. Their diversity is reflected in the inscription. Dacians were a historical people who lived in the historical region of Dacia, whereas Thracians were another historical people who lived in the historical region of Thrace. If E-V13 does not exhibit a high level of diversity in either Dacia or Thrace, it is self-evident that regardless of the ancestral area assigned to Thracians and Dacians, E-V13 is unrelated to either. If E-V13 diversity in the Balkans is localized mostly south of the Danube and west of the Balkan mountains, it can't be that E-V13 was a frequent or characteristic haplogroup among Dacians or Thracians.
 
E-V13 clearly represents a lineage from the western Balkans. From western to eastern Balkans, there is a noticeable gap in diversity. Moving upstream to E-L618 reveals an even greater divide in diversity between west and east. Only Albanians and Sardinians exhibit diversity in two-thirds of their major "clades" E-BY6578, E-Y182141, and E-V13 among Europeans.


Since you write about what is clear.
To me it is clear what you wrote is not true, and, I can only conclude that you are clearly blindly biased.
 
Viminacium's inhabitants are not local; they come from all over the Balkans. They should be compared to inhabitants of other Balkan countries to ascertain their backgrounds.

I-Y3120 is significantly younger than E-V13 and so cannot be compared to it. Its parent clade I-L621 is comparable to E-V13 in terms of diversity, with very high diversity around southern Poland. Nobody can argue that I-Y3120 originated and spread in the Balkans. On the evidence of diversity, one might argue that it expanded in the Balkans and that a significant portion of its massive growth throughout the Middle Ages happened there. I reduced the intensity of all graphics to highlight the diversity variations.

E-V13 clearly represents a lineage from the western Balkans. From western to eastern Balkans, there is a noticeable gap in diversity. Moving upstream to E-L618 reveals an even greater divide in diversity between west and east. Only Albanians and Sardinians exhibit diversity in two-thirds of their major "clades" E-BY6578, E-Y182141, and E-V13 among Europeans.


https : //i.imgur. com/ PxszWVa .png

https :// i.imgur. com /uxS3AeP . png

https :// i.imgur. com/ J6zoHMD . png

Nope, E-V13 spread point was not Western Balkan at all, just check the tree and it's quite clear that it's Southern Central Europe instead, the buffer zone between the Alps and Carpathian Mountains.

Where i predict it entered the Western Balkans if at all, is during Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.

The likes of Ardiaei, Taulantii, Pirustii, Encheleii, Dardanii are the likely candidates to carry some E-V13 with Enchelei/Sesarethi probably being dominant E-V13 judging by material culture.
 
Viminacium's imperial citizens came from all throughout the Balkans. Their diversity is reflected in the inscription. Dacians were a historical people who lived in the historical region of Dacia, whereas Thracians were another historical people who lived in the historical region of Thrace. If E-V13 does not exhibit a high level of diversity in either Dacia or Thrace, it is self-evident that regardless of the ancestral area assigned to Thracians and Dacians, E-V13 is unrelated to either. If E-V13 diversity in the Balkans is localized mostly south of the Danube and west of the Balkan mountains, it can't be that E-V13 was a frequent or characteristic haplogroup among Dacians or Thracians.

You just talk semantics, not content. You don't have the individual inscriptions for the samples and the archaeological studies prove that they were overwhelmingly from the area and related regions which all had a strong Daco-Thracian base. Daco-Thracian is a linguistic formation, but also based on the archaeological commonalities, especially in succession Belegis II-Gava/Channelled Ware, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Iron Age cultures which descend from those, especially Psenichevo+Bosut-Basarabi.
You can now argue that not all linguists agree on such a language group, but who cares, many do, and they are definitely closer related to each other than to other languages and language groups, being also proven by all of them having the same archaeolical culture, the same background story in the LBA-EIA transition!

Here is a list of people from this language group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Daco-Thracian_peoples_and_tribes

The Dardanians, while being rather Illyrian, still had a very strong Daco-Thracian substrate, with the Illyrian element coming in later, after the transitional period.

Also of special interest for the Albanian story might be the Triballi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi

Note how far their influence was going:
Triballi_territory.jpg


If you say all the E-V13 carriers are non-locals, which is such a ridiculous claim, than prove it or write the authors. You can try to annoy them with their theories and tell us what they wrote you back.
The archaeological excavation group of Viminacium is absolutely clear:

Note what the researchers write about the nearby finds from relevant archaeological layers for the region:
The collection of finds
which originate from the wider area of the Braničevo District indicate the intensification
of settlement in that area during the 1st millennium BC, and a certain cultural continuity
which is confirmed by finds from all of the phases of the Early Iron Age: the Transitional
period, the penetration of the Channeled pottery culture, early phase of the Bosut culture
(Kalakača, Basarabi), and the Rača-Ljuljaci cultural group
, followed by the first settling of
Celtic populations during the 4th century BC.

In order to perceive the development of the Early Iron Age cultures in the area of
Viminacium
, the results of the rescue excavations at the site of Drmno-Lugovi should be
highlighted. The excavations covered an area of about 1100 m2, on the former bank of the
Mlava River, near the confluence with the Danube River. On that occasion, most likely, the
peripheral part of an Early Iron Age settlement was excavated.7 M. Jevtić and D. ?ljivar,
the authors, attributed the Early Iron Age finds to the Kalakača-Gornea horizon and the
early Basarabi phase of the Bosut culture
since those horizons could not be distinguished
one from the other in terms of stratigraphy.8

https://www.researchgate.net/public...IRON_AGE_HORIZON_AT_THE_SITE_OF_NAD_KLEPECKOM

This is an underestimating map for Basarabi, because its maximal extent and sphere of influence was way larger:
Basarabi_culture.png


You just live in denial. There can be no doubt that the local finds of E-Z5017 being from Bosut-Basarabi inhabitants from the Iron Age, for the most part. What do you want to tell me, that they came all up from where exactly? From places probably outside of the stronger Daco-Thracian sphere of influence, like Durr?s? Try to prove that and please write it to the authors of the paper, what they have to say about that, that the up to three quarter local E-V13 population were coming from a wide range of people outside of the Daco-Thracian sphere, while staying in the midst of it, being surrounded by it.
And the paper still underestimates the numbers for E-V13, because a large portion of the locals did cremate, only a certain portion did transition to inhumation. This in all likelihood means that among the locals, E-V13 was even more dominant than the numbers by removing outliers would suggest. The authors of the paper worked together with the Viminacium resarch centre and group. They should know!

From the paper itself:
Individuals from the first cluster fall on an area of the PCA delimited by the ?Balkan Iron Age cline? (Figure 1A). Consistent with this, we model the ancestry of this Balkans Iron Age Cluster as predominantly deriving from Iron Age (IA) groups from nearby areas in the Balkans, with 67% Aegean Bronze Age-related ancestry and the remainder Slovenia Iron Age-related ancestry (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.1). A local origin is supported by a high frequency of Y- chromosome lineage E-V13, which has been hypothesized to have experienced a Bronze-to-Iron Age expansion in the Balkans and is found in its highest frequencies in the present-day Balkans 17. We interpret this cluster as the descendants of local Balkan Iron Age populations living at Viminacium, where they represented an abundant ancestry group during the Early Imperial and later periods (~47% of sampled individuals from the 1-550 CE). Excavations of Iron Age Balkans prior to the Roman rule showed the dead where predominantly cremated 18, but this changed in Viminacium where inhumation became common suggesting a high degree of Romanization of the local society. Viminacium necropoli followed a bi-ritual mortuary rite where some dead were buried, and some were cremated.
During the 1st century until the first half of the 3rd century cremations where more common, however this changed from the 3rd onwards when inhumations prevailed 19. We caution that if there was a systematic ancestry difference between the population that buried and the one that burnt its dead, we would of course be obtaining a biased representation of ancestry through ancient DNA analysis.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1.full.pdf

There is absolutely no indication that the vast majority of individuals tested, falling within the Balkan IA cluster and having E-V13, being non-locals to the sites. Surely, there were people from other Balkan groups present than those which were local, but to deny that this paper proves the local IA population was E-V13 heavy is beyond absurd.
 
You just talk semantics, not content. You don't have the individual inscriptions for the samples and the archaeological studies prove that they were overwhelmingly from the area and related regions which all had a strong Daco-Thracian base. Daco-Thracian is a linguistic formation, but also based on the archaeological commonalities, especially in succession Belegis II-Gava/Channelled Ware, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Iron Age cultures which descend from those, especially Psenichevo+Bosut-Basarabi.
You can now argue that not all linguists agree on such a language group, but who cares, many do, and they are definitely closer related to each other than to other languages and language groups, being also proven by all of them having the same archaeolical culture, the same background story in the LBA-EIA transition!

Here is a list of people from this language group:


The Dardanians, while being rather Illyrian, still had a very strong Daco-Thracian substrate, with the Illyrian element coming in later, after the transitional period.

Also of special interest for the Albanian story might be the Triballi:


Note how far their influence was going:


If you say all the E-V13 carriers are non-locals, which is such a ridiculous claim, than prove it or write the authors. You can try to annoy them with their theories and tell us what they wrote you back.
The archaeological excavation group of Viminacium is absolutely clear:

Note what the researchers write about the nearby finds from relevant archaeological layers for the region:



This is an underestimating map for Basarabi, because its maximal extent and sphere of influence was way larger:


You just live in denial. There can be no doubt that the local finds of E-Z5017 being from Bosut-Basarabi inhabitants from the Iron Age, for the most part. What do you want to tell me, that they came all up from where exactly? From places probably outside of the stronger Daco-Thracian sphere of influence, like Durr�s? Try to prove that and please write it to the authors of the paper, what they have to say about that, that the up to three quarter local E-V13 population were coming from a wide range of people outside of the Daco-Thracian sphere, while staying in the midst of it, being surrounded by it.
And the paper still underestimates the numbers for E-V13, because a large portion of the locals did cremate, only a certain portion did transition to inhumation. This in all likelihood means that among the locals, E-V13 was even more dominant than the numbers by removing outliers would suggest. The authors of the paper worked together with the Viminacium resarch centre and group. They should know!

From the paper itself:




There is absolutely no indication that the vast majority of individuals tested, falling within the Balkan IA cluster and having E-V13, being non-locals to the sites. Surely, there were people from other Balkan groups present than those which were local, but to deny that this paper proves the local IA population was E-V13 heavy is beyond absurd.


Per the inscription, they came from the colony of Ratiaria, as well as Scupi, Salona, Nicopolis, and a number of other cities. Some of the people who lived in Ratiaria were colonists from other parts of the Balkans, while others were locals of the area. It's a matter of historical reality. If you consider that at least half of the people of Viminacium were not even from Balkan populations, but rather from Aegean and Anatolian groups, how can you possibly claim that "all E-V13 in Viminacium was local"? Half of Viminacium is close to Albanians and the other half close to Aegeans and Cretans. Daco-Thracians are a moot topic of discussion at the moment since no one in the modern Balkans clusters with what may be Daco-Thracian like the Bulgarian IA sample. Albanians aren't close to BGR_IA, but neither are Bulgarians and Serbs who are left of the Kuline samples, which are in between Albanians and Serbs.

If the diversity of E-V13 is not concentrated in the eastern Balkans, and the frequency is likewise not concentrated in the eastern Balkans, then it is not Dacian or Thracian. Simply said, it is the basic fact that is being complicated with illogical ideas that do not take into consideration diversity, frequency, or subclade migration.

Dardanians didn't have a Daco-Thracian substrate rather the opposite happened. Some areas had some " thracianization" which was reversed later in the Roman Empire. '' The meaning of this state of affairs has been variously interpreted, ranging from notions of Thracianization' (in part) of an existing Illyrian population to the precise opposite. In favour of the latter may be the close correspondence of Illyrian names in Dardania with those of the southern 'real' lllyrians to their west, including the names of Dardanian rulers, Longarus, Bato, Monunius and Etuta, and those on later epitaphs, Epicadus, Scerviaedus, Tuta, Times and Cinna.'' in Wilkes, The Illyrians.






 
Nope, E-V13 spread point was not Western Balkan at all, just check the tree and it's quite clear that it's Southern Central Europe instead, the buffer zone between the Alps and Carpathian Mountains.

Where i predict it entered the Western Balkans if at all, is during Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition.

The likes of Ardiaei, Taulantii, Pirustii, Encheleii, Dardanii are the likely candidates to carry some E-V13 with Enchelei/Sesarethi probably being dominant E-V13 judging by material culture.

IMO, whether E-V13 "entered" the Balkans from Pannonia or the Middle Danube is not very relevant because it won't change where its diversity is. E-Z1057 is not an eastern Balkan group, but a western one. This is where its primary spread and diversification was and from where its later outwards expansion began.

https: //i.i mgur.com/ NfXHmpk .png
 
?The first legion attested at Viminacium was the VII Claudia that came from Dalmatia in 52 AD.?

??when
Legio IV Scythica was transferred from Moesia to Syria between AD 55 and 62, Legio VII Claudia was moved to Moesia to replace it.?

?In Viminacium, Roman legion VII Claudia was stationed, and a nearby civilian settlement emerged from the military camp. In 117 during the reign of Hadrian it received city status. In the camp, 6,000 soldiers were stationed, and 30-40,000 people lived nearby.?

With this information we can?t be sure that E-Z5017 was specifically Daco-Thracian or Dalmatian for that matter.

Besides, I?m not in favour of the Daco-Thracian nomenclature because the clade could have been Daco-Pannonian for all we know.


 
?The first legion attested at Viminacium was the VII Claudia that came from Dalmatia in 52 AD.?

??when
Legio IV Scythica was transferred from Moesia to Syria between AD 55 and 62, Legio VII Claudia was moved to Moesia to replace it.?

?In Viminacium, Roman legion VII Claudia was stationed, and a nearby civilian settlement emerged from the military camp. In 117 during the reign of Hadrian it received city status. In the camp, 6,000 soldiers were stationed, and 30-40,000 people lived nearby.?

With this information we can?t be sure that E-Z5017 was specifically Daco-Thracian or Dalmatian for that matter.

Besides, I?m not in favour of the Daco-Thracian nomenclature because the clade could have been Daco-Pannonian for all we know.



Yes, it spread to Pannonians, but from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi. That means at the time of the Roman Empire, there surely was E-V13 in Pannonians, Illyrians, Greeks, Celts etc. But the point is, its original association is with the Channelled Ware which was Proto-Thracian/-Dacian. E-Z5017 was therefore, like all the other major clades, Daco-Thracian around 1.300 BC, but much more diverse and widespread 300 AD. At 300 AD, the main clades of E-V13 were present at least in half of Europe already, including E-Z5017, no doubt about that looking at its subclades. But chances are high that CTS9320 was a Bosut-Basarabi, Daco-Thracian clade, with many subclades in the region.
The Illyrian pressure and movement into areas like Macedonia, which were inhabited by Channelled Ware descendents before, is a proven fact: "Tribes from Glasinac entered North and Central Albania..."
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=584076255311798&id=348602958859130

These pushes forced other groups from the Albanian territory East, which caused the disruptions and them entering Daco-Thracian areas, which created various adstrate and substrate effects, mixture of the two main groups of Illyrians and Daco-Thracians in the region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasinac-Mati_culture

The Illyrian core comes from the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture, with influenced from the later incoming Middle Danubian Urnfield group, which might be associated with Pannonians. The Daco-Thracians are Gava/Channelled Ware, the South Eastern Urnfield group. That is clear as day, that we deal with two different cultural provinces. And its simply not true that Daco-Thracians and Channelled Ware being confined to the Eastern Balkans. They had a major centre in the Central Balkan, from Vojvodina to the Aegean Belegis II-Gava elements spread and later Psenichevo and Basarabi were connected.

The list and position of the various Daco-Thracian known tribes speaks for itself.
 
@Riverman I did not intend to say that E-V13 was Daco-Pannonian, I just used it as an example that it could have been Dacian while not Thracian and Pannonian while not Central and South Illyrian.

Regarding the language of E-V13, I don?t have an opinion at all since I?m not well versed in the topic and I?ll simply sit and wait for more data to confirm.

As for the association of E-V13 with Gava and Channelled Ware culture, your analysis and conclusion is very interesting and it seems some knowledgeable members agree with your train of thought, resulting in me looking at it as very possible and adopting the hypothesis myself until further evidence.

All I can say is that with the little information we have, Dacian and Illyrian seem as close as Dacian and Thracian.

Take the Dacian etymology of Axiopus for example, with axi meaning black and opa meaning water (blackwater), where axi is very similar to Albanian zi (black) and opa is very similar to Illyrian apa (water), as well as the hundreds of words shared between Romanian and Albanian (since Albanian is more closely related to Illyrian according to the evidence at hand as of now).

Thus, my skepticism on considering E-V13 solely Daco-Thracian especially since I don?t even believe Dacian and Thracian were the same thing. If they were indeed dialects of the same language, then I lean towards the idea that Illyrian might have been a dialect of this big group as well.
 

This thread has been viewed 23312 times.

Back
Top