Thread: E-V13 Frequency Maps and Data

Enforcing engineering principles on the premise of yfull subclades listing is like doing Turkish Coffee Fortune Telling.

Bulgaria not being in E-V13 Z5018 means that E-V13 Z5018 had more of a Central Balkan spread in antiquity perhaps. Z5018 has a spread in Central-Western Europe where no Slavic presence was recorded, you could give various explanations, assimilated natives to Celts when they ran away from Dacian massacre and expulsion from Balkans, Roman military, earlier Hallstatt presence etc, etc. Various and more complex explanation can be in the game.

E-Z5018 is everywhere, the ratio just means that E-Z5018 is more dominant in some areas, whereas in other areas different E-V13 subclades survived better. If we go further down the road, a fairly high portion of E-Z5018 is under E-S2979 and the largest portion of it comes from two main groups:
1. E-Z16659

2. E-FGC11457

Incidently, these are also the lineages which were strongly represented in the ancient DNA record of Hungary and are known to be dominant in East Asia, which supports a North Carpathian-steppe proximity. This suggests to me that in a centre of E-V13, dominated by E-S2979, clearly more Northerly positioned, these lineages grew and largely replaced or reduced the proportion of other branches. We might associate this with specific tribes and people, in my opinion Northern Thracians/Dacians.

Interestingly, they expanded later to the West than some older E-V13 branches. It simply suggests that in a core zone specific lineages got dominant over time and its this core zone the early Slavs had contact with the most. The Carpi and related Northern Dacian tribes come to mind primarily. I have little doubt that these two main branches were Dacian in origin.
 
E-Z5018 is everywhere, the ratio just means that E-Z5018 is more dominant in some areas, whereas in other areas different E-V13 subclades survived better. If we go further down the road, a fairly high portion of E-Z5018 is under E-S2979 and the largest portion of it comes from two main groups:
1. E-Z16659

2. E-FGC11457

Incidently, these are also the lineages which were strongly represented in the ancient DNA record of Hungary and are known to be dominant in East Asia, which supports a North Carpathian-steppe proximity. This suggests to me that in a centre of E-V13, dominated by E-S2979, clearly more Northerly positioned, these lineages grew and largely replaced or reduced the proportion of other branches. We might associate this with specific tribes and people, in my opinion Northern Thracians/Dacians.

Interestingly, they expanded later to the West than some older E-V13 branches. It simply suggests that in a core zone specific lineages got dominant over time and its this core zone the early Slavs had contact with the most. The Carpi and related Northern Dacian tribes come to mind primarily. I have little doubt that these two main branches were Dacian in origin.

When you say dominant in East Asia is like what, 0.0001%. They are most likely Venetian traders, Roman soldiers, Macedonian soldiers as those from Bukhara whose subclade fit with subclades found in Thessaly, Greek Macedonia and North Macedonia.
 
When you say dominant in East Asia is like what, 0.0001%. They are most likely Venetian traders, Roman soldiers, Macedonian soldiers as those from Bukhara whose subclade fit with subclades found in Thessaly, Greek Macedonia and North Macedonia.

They are there at a significantly higher percentage than most other West Eurasian lineages with the exception of those from the Iranians (R-Z93). There is no indication for such a sea route scenario and the frequency and diversity, while pretty low indeed, is still significant enough to make it a sort of ethnic minority migration within the Iranian-Turkic networks.

But that's just an additional evidence, the main one is in Europe and the ancient DNA.
 
future paper:
21 samples from- Apulum
will e-v13 appear ?

1709224937852.png
 
Unless they were all foreign settlers and soldiers, there surely will. In my opinion the majority of modern E-V13 comes from Northern Thracians/Dacians (Danube area and North of it).
 
Unless they were all foreign settlers and soldiers, there surely will. In my opinion the majority of modern E-V13 comes from Northern Thracians/Dacians (Danube area and North of it).

and another one that should be cool
future paper :
122 remains from cologne area germany from
migration period;)

p.s
from the abstract
maybe the individuals they observed with south eastern european ancestery will be e-v13

1709228133430.png
 
Last edited:
The Rhineland region has some of the highest frequencies of E-V13 in all of Central Europe. Therefore regardless of whether they were fresh migrants or older inhabitants, or both, E-V13 should pop up there too, especially in a larger sample. If they write about South Eastern European ancestry, then its even more likely.
Because in fact, all other South Eastern lineages are far less frequent in the Rhineland than E-V13, which points to the migration bringing E-V13 from the East-South East somewhere between the LBA and Medieval period being very E-V13 dominated in the incoming males. The ratio of E-V13 vs. J-L283 is very much in favour of E-V13 in the Rhineland. For every J-L283 in a Rhenish region you get multiple E-V13 carriers statistically.
 
I like the SNP Tracker, but especially for E-V13, but probably in general, for all haplogroups with a strong Eastern presence, there is a strong Western bias due to the large number of English and the much lower number of Slovakian, Romanian, Moldovan, Ukrainian testers.

Because of that I made once more a "correction" to the East for the estimates of the SNP tracker, based on two assumptions:
- Eastern Otomani-Wietenberg into Suciu de Sus-Lapus-Berkesz-Demecser into Gáva-Holigrady is the old core of E-V13 in the Bronze Age
- The bias observable is currently primarily a Western-Southern one, due to two factors:
1) Slavic expansion on top of local Daco-Thracian people
2) Southward shift in the Roman era due to this replacement in the North and major groups of people fleeing towards the Mediterranean coast.

Therefore I used some of the more important SNP's form E-V13, for which we have sufficient data, and placed them RELATIVELY to each other just North Eastward of where SNP tracker is putting them, because one thing is for sure: Where SNP Tracker puts them, they were not.

The result is quite interesting:

Europe-EU-laea-location-map-E-V13-branches.jpg




It is probably debatable whether my positioning is too much Northern, but the West - East axis seems to be largely correct for sure. Because this puts all later E-V13 branches deeply into the "Carpatho-Balkan cremation gap", from which we have no samples in the crucial periods so far, whereas all around being sufficiently tested to exclude the presence of the then, by the MBA-LBA, fairly massive E-V13 population.

Also interesting that this way all SNP's end up in the East Balkan and Eastern Carpathian basin. We know for sure that the West Balkan, the area the regular SNP Tracker puts them, was not the E-V13 home, because the very area covered by the E-V13 branches was the Illyrian J-L283 core. There can be absolutely no doubt that the E-V13 population must have lived to the North East of this Illyrian block, which became known as being largely inhabited by Daco-Thracian people in the Iron Age.

Based on the modern data we could assume a migration of E-V13 from North Eastern Bulgaria into Transylvania - a bit more Northern or Southern doesn't chance the fundamentals. But more Western is excluded, which makes us end up all in the natural borders of Tisza - Danube - Carpathians.

If one would shift the whole network down, towards the South, one would end up in Southern Romania for the E-V13 Bronze Age network and the E-V13 ancestor coming from around Turkish Thrace. E-Z5018 would still be in the Suciu de Sus territory by the MBA.
 
Last edited:
Nearly all Caucasian people have E-V13. I think most of it came there due to backflow to the steppe and then down to the Caucasus. Concerning Ossetians, it would be really interesting to know whether they got more E-V13 and more diversity of E-V13 than e.g. Armenians and Azeri, which are both known to have a stable low level presence of E-V13 as well.
 
The Ossetian branch might be very old and specific by the way:

They split most recently from a Brazilian (unknown), Tajik from Uzbekistan, Ladino from Turkey and a Libyan. Its a very old side branch of E-V13 and it could have taken a unique route unrelated to the steppe backflow which seems to have played a role in many Armenians and Azeri (a lot are under E-Z5018).
 
The Ossetian branch might be very old and specific by the way:

They split most recently from a Brazilian (unknown), Tajik from Uzbekistan, Ladino from Turkey and a Libyan. Its a very old side branch of E-V13 and it could have taken a unique route unrelated to the steppe backflow which seems to have played a role in many Armenians and Azeri (a lot are under E-Z5018).
future paper :
10 individuals ( established by greek colonists)
e-v13 ?

1713201881883.png
1713201646130.png
 
Last edited:
2 e-L618
(I know this thread is about e-v13
still e-L618 is the upstream of e-v13 worth mention)

I3151 ( e-L618) verteba cave: 3644-3527 bc

I12704 ( i think this e-m78 ) mayaky : 3620 -3030 bc

1713528864989.png


Source:

 
Last edited:
i wanted to be sure about the location in the y tree
of individual I8525 he is an old dude from turkmenistan geokysur 3090-2920 bc
source:
he was realy e-m78>L618
( like ftdna discover tool claim it is now also confirmed by theytree site i sent them the link and they rerun him)(y)
pretty amazing how it arrived there maybe through the steppe after all ;)
1713703263826.png



 
Last edited:
i wanted to be sure about the location in the y tree
of individual I8525 he is an old dude from turkmenistan geokysur 3090-2920 bc
source:
he was realy e-m78>L618
( like ftdna discover tool claim it is now also confirmed by theytree site i sent them the link and they rerun him)(y)
pretty amazing how it arrived there maybe through the steppe after all ;)
View attachment 16050



I wanted to say he can be some Chalcolithic farmer, but he looks to have North East European influence, so North Pontic seems reasonable. At the dawn of Chalcolithic and beginning of Early Bronze Age. There will be some surprises regarding E-V13. Upcoming...
 
Great catch kingjohn!



This means its double proven and safe. If you go to their site, they also ran an ancestral analysis on him:



AncientNearEast13
新石器时代伊朗 Iran-Neolithic: 29.19%
高加索狩猎采集者-早期欧洲农人 CHG-EEF: 28.39%
欧洲狩猎采集者 EHG: 14.76%
纳吐夫 Natufian: 12.52%
原始印度人 Ancestral-Indian: 5.97%
斯堪的纳维亚-西欧狩猎采集者 SHG-WHG: 5.94%
新石器时代安纳托利亚 Anatolia Neolithic: 3.23%





He is about half steppe derived, Yamnaya-like. His mtDNA is R0 which points to his matenral side being local derived.



This proves that E-L618 and presumably E-V13 lived not just at the border of the steppe, but on the steppe fairly early, at the time of Yamnaya and during the formation of Corded Ware.



The sample comes from this paper:




This could also explain some fairly old E-V13 finds in the Near East, since Yamnay-related steppe groups moved South over the Caucasus as well. Therefore we now have evidence of E-L618/V13 participating in the spread of IE into Central-South Asia:



PSUAMS-3987 I8510 Geoksyur Turkmenistan petrous -3217 Cal BCE


Earlier work recorded massive population movement from the Steppe into Europe early in the 3rd millennium BCE, likely spreading Indo-European languages. We reveal a parallel series of events leading to the spread of Steppe ancestry to South Asia, thereby documenting movements of people that were likely conduits for the spread of Indo-European languages.




Actually he looks like a first generation steppe : local mixed individual, which is expected from Namazga III layer, from which he is from:



We characterized a set of 4 south Turkmenistan samples from Namazga period III (~3300 BCE). In our PCA analysis, the Namazga_CA individuals were placed in an intermediate position between Iran Neolithic and Western Steppe clusters (Fig. 2). Consistent with this, we find that the Namazga_CA individuals carry a significantly larger fraction of EHG-related ancestry than Neolithic skeletal material from Iran (D(EHG, Mbuti; Namazga_CA, Iran_N) Z = 4.49), and we are not able to reject a two-population qpAdm model in which Namazga_CA ancestry was derived from a mixture of Neolithic Iranians and EHG (~21%; p = 0.49).


Interestingly he the earliest layers of steppe influence might be largely EHG with little CHG, so probably before Yamnaya-llike proper:



Although CHG contributed both to Copper Age steppe individuals (e.g., Khvalynsk ~5150–3950 BCE) and substantially to Early Bronze Age (~3000–2500 BCE) steppe Yamnaya and Afanasievo (1, 2, 7, 47), we do not find evidence of CHG-specific ancestry in Namazga. Despite the adjacent placement of CHG and Namazga_CA on the PCA plot, D(CHG, Mbuti; Namazga_CA, Iran_N) does not deviate significantly from 0 (Z = 1.65), in agreement with ADMIXTURE results (Fig. 3; Fig. S14). Moreover, a three-population qpAdm model using Iran Neolithic, EHG, and CHG as sources yields a negative admixture coefficient for CHG. This suggests that while we cannot totally reject a minor presence of CHG ancestry, steppe-related admixture most likely arrived in the Namazga population prior to the Copper Age or from unadmixed sources related to EHG. This is consistent with the upper temporal boundary provided by the date of the Namazga_CA samples (~3300 BCE). In contrast, the Iron Age (~900–200 BCE) individual from the same region as Namazga (sample DA382, labelled Turkmenistan_IA) is closer to the steppe cluster in the PCA plot and does have CHG-specific ancestry. However, it also has European farmer-related ancestry typical of Late Bronze Age (~2300–1200 BCE) steppe populations (13, 47) (D(Neolithic European, Mbuti; Namazga_CA, Turkmenistan_IA) Z = -4.04), suggesting that it received admixture from Late (~2300–1200 BCE) rather than Early Bronze Age (~3000–2500 BCE) steppe populations.



Anyway, this increases the number of North Pontic related E-L618 samples to 2 individuals, plus the presence of E-L618 in Tripolye-Cucuteni.


Unfortunately that sample is not in the G25 list, but here are other samples from the site:

Geoksyur-samples.jpg
 
Last edited:
The sample is contaminatd and therefore its placement might be dubious. Also its autosomal results deviate strongly from the other CA samples from that site, and look, generally speaking, more modern. Too bad since both FTDNA and theytree used and analysed it.
 
The sample is contaminatd and therefore its placement might be dubious. Also its autosomal results deviate strongly from the other CA samples from that site, and look, generally speaking, more modern. Too bad since both FTDNA and theytree used and analysed it.

it might be indeed problematic sample
sorry for bringing him up :unsure:
i truly thought I8525 was under e-m78

p.s
i asked theytree if it is indeed contaminated?
hope they will answere
 
Last edited:
Is the raw data available?

FTDNA is getting careless too. For example they have the Ravna I15552 sample under Z2110 (FTA27460). But he is negative upstream at the CTS699 node (BY221375-).
 
Is the raw data available?

FTDNA is getting careless too. For example they have the Ravna I15552 sample under Z2110 (FTA27460). But he is negative upstream at the CTS699 node (BY221375-).

Raw data is available, since theytree just used it and David has used some samples for his G25 data base. The paper is here:
 

This thread has been viewed 49508 times.

Back
Top