To burn or not to burn: LBA/EIA Balkan case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Besides some good data like the TMRCA graph above, the paper is quite bad. If I were to write something like that I would at least commit to taking a position. Making a claim but at the same time putting insurance policies in every statement, they have no confidence in their work. E-V13 could have come from Serbia but if we are wrong it came further inland. Same tone used for R-BY611.

Very bad choices of data used for modeling. The three post-Mdv samples from Kukes can all be modeled very successfully with IA Moesian profiles. Cimmerian MJ12, MKD I10379, Hun La Tene I18832(E-V13). The entire sequencing of the model is built around Alb mdv(I13839 and I14622_T2a) as the genetic predecessors of Alb post-mdv. They did not even make the consideration there is way better alternatives with way better fits.

Without using fstats, looking at the supplementary, they do not try to model I13839 and I14622_T2a individually but as one, which means they averaged two unrelated samples with the assumption they are related because...... modern borders = ancient borders?, though the author talks about Albanians being restricted to Mat in such early time(insurance policy, having your cake and eating it) they forgot this detail when modeling.


rL4s1xW.png


When you remove proper Slavic proxies, Illyrian/Cinamak ancestry increases.

acyT7Th.png


rRMpDKe.png


The Alb mdv have partial Illyrian admixture, this dual ancestry is even picked up under qpdam models as cited by the authors, but they dismiss the eastern Balkan model because these two Alb mdvs do not plot like IA Thracians, they also do not plot like IA Illyrians, but hey why not pick and choose when to apply metrics.

Take notice the Alb mdvs carry more Slavic admixture and more ME admixture than Kukes post-mdv, yet they are suppose to be the parent population.




This is how they modeled the Kukes post-mdv samples and picked the best fits:

qWFMxWf.png



Imagine going to a restaurant and every menu option is a cheese burger plus some random toppings. No other possibility was considered. I could go on on the Alb mdv tests they did, but it is mute, because Alb mdv are not genetically the ancestors of Albs, just a minor substrate among many. The entire conclusion can be debunked and circumvented by producing a vastly superior model for Kukes-post mdv.
 
That's right, but unlike in core Illyrian regions, in Greece there was a transition toward cremation burials in many occasions, and intrusion of some sort of Eastern Urnfield/Eastern Halstatt culture, now if not E-V13, was there some other lineage? Because we also have archaeological cultures from LBA Greece named Barbarian-Ware precisely after the demise of palatial civilizations.

Regardless, there is still some open questions:

1. How did J2a came to Greece and how did they contribute to Proto-Greek formation.

2. How did J2b2-L283 came and when did they exactly come in Western Balkans.

3. Where was E-V13 during Late Neolithic and Bronze Age.
Well, an addendum to my initial post would be that "I would expect it in said demographic movements but..."

Meaning in the sense that I don't see it being related to the core ethnos but that was rather clear in my initial post. Now if not (just) E1b-V13 it would certainly be interesting to see what other potential parental marker might or might not have established itself in said region to some degree.

The "J2a" in Greece is complicated as most of it is from ancient Crete (Minoan sites) and very diverse with haplogroups under L26 having a most recent common ancestor in the upper paleolithic, Mesolithic etc. If there are omnipresent parental markers in aDNA Greek samples then I would want to emphasize G2a-L91, J2a-Y13128 and R1b-PF7562. The more you move away from Crete/ Aegean, geographically speaking, the more the odds are you will find "Balkan" LN J2a-Y13128 and not first BA Anatolian (recent non-Balkan) wave branches. A very interesting and important pattern to highlight, IMO.

As for J2b-L283, well we're anticipating the Western steppe paper from Harvard scheduled for perhaps later this year. If the Chalcolithic J2b-L283 presence gets finally verified (Moldova-Ukraine) there are a lot of different options as to its pre-Western Balkan LCA-EBA establishment. If e. g. Usatovo or Suvorovo into later maybe Kostolac-Cotofeni or other unique migratory patterns fit better will be seen. Additionally further maybe Ljubljana Culture prior to Cetina etc. Lots of options but not really an enigma.

Same goes for 3.) but a verification by aDNA would certainly be more than welcomed considering E1b-V13 has not been very lucky with sampling. Not to dismiss the importance of BA-IA sampling of it by now.
 
I agree, with most of the nuances mentioned here in regards to the Albanian origin preprint. I certainly also have my opinions on it and suggestions for improvement. Nonetheless, I really need to say that the methodology used is great and something one would want to expect from upcoming aDNA papers on the Balkans. A really nice one, IMO.

Speaking of upcoming papers, the presentation on the Danubian Limes paper yesterday seems to have been a huge dissapointment. Cannot help but worry that the abnormally long delay might have to do with bad ethics of authoritarian institutions in said country. Let's hope for the best.
 
Nonetheless, I really need to say that the methodology used is great and something one would want to expect from upcoming aDNA papers on the Balkans. A really nice one, IMO.

Speaking of upcoming papers, the presentation on the Danubian Limes paper yesterday seems to have been a huge dissapointment. Cannot help but worry that the abnormally long delay might have to do with bad ethics of authoritarian institutions in said country. Let's hope for the best.

I seconded that
 
I agree, with most of the nuances mentioned here in regards to the Albanian origin preprint. I certainly also have my opinions on it and suggestions for improvement. Nonetheless, I really need to say that the methodology used is great and something one would want to expect from upcoming aDNA papers on the Balkans. A really nice one, IMO.

Speaking of upcoming papers, the presentation on the Danubian Limes paper yesterday seems to have been a huge dissapointment. Cannot help but worry that the abnormally long delay might have to do with bad ethics of authoritarian institutions in said country. Let's hope for the best.


Is there a new presentation on the Danubian paper? Someone here who was emailing Carles told me the paper got submitted two months ago, it should be out after peer review. I suspect they added more samples (all Roman and post-Roman).
 
Is there a new presentation on the Danubian paper? Someone here who was emailing Carles told me the paper got submitted two months ago, it should be out after peer review. I suspect they added more samples (all Roman and post-Roman).
Someone who has attended the lecture posted about it on the other forum. I am a bit confused when it comes to which paper one is talking about but I generally meant the Olalde preprint. Is there some sort of merging going on here or are these different from one another?
 
Someone who has attended the lecture posted about it on the other forum. I am a bit confused when it comes to which paper one is talking about but I generally meant the Olalde preprint. Is there some sort of merging going on here or are these different from one another?

I was referring to the Cosmopolitan paper which they submitted than they withdrew it. It also seems like the new samples are known to the people in the know because on the Slavic project someone added a new sample to google maps from Gomolova (post-Roman Slavic), hopefully there are additions other than Gomolova, I prefer to see more samples from eastern Serbia.

It does seem like samples have been taken all over but there is a bottleneck in publishing them.
 
I was referring to the Cosmopolitan paper which they submitted than they withdrew it. It also seems like the new samples are known to the people in the know because on the Slavic project someone added a new sample to google maps from Gomolova (post-Roman Slavic), hopefully there is are additions other than Gomolova, I prefer to see more samples from eastern Serbia.

It does seem like samples have been taken all over but there is a bottleneck in publishing them.

Gomolava is probably very important, but rather the Bronze/Iron Age samples.
 
BTW in this chart R-BY611 is the most dormant of all subclades, nothing happened from 1,100 BCE to 500 AD. If this was among the thriving Dardani that were a constant headache for Macedonians, you would expect more branching. The dormant activity puts them more with the uneventful Paeoni, even there it is likely restricted to a specific region among them.
 
BTW in this chart R-BY611 is the most dormant of all subclades, nothing happened from 1,100 BCE to 500 AD. If this was among the glutinous Dardani that were a constant headache for Macedonians, you would expect more branching. The dormant activity puts them more with the uneventful Paeoni, even there it is likely restricted to a specific region among them.

The alternative is that they were once wider spread, but got decimated and degraded at some point, with just a very small number of survivors. Take E-L618, it surely was much wider spread before the Copper Age/steppe invasion, yet nowadays almost everything modern is E-V13 - and not just E-V13, but just one young branch of E-V13.
If they were highly concentrated in one ethnic group, they could heavily lose if this group was going down.
 
We might as well consider Vatin in-the-game for part of E-V13 subclades. That might work with the model proposed in this paper.

I just don't see how these whole Balkan-Carpathian complexes were totally different Y-DNA's and then suddenly post-Roman times, when cremation stopped E-V13 pops over, to have been totally different populations. Doesn't make sense to me.
 
We might as well consider Vatin in-the-game for part of E-V13 subclades. That might work with the model proposed in this paper.

I just don't see how these whole Balkan-Carpathian complexes were totally different Y-DNA's and then suddenly post-Roman times, when cremation stopped E-V13 pops over, to have been totally different populations. Doesn't make sense to me.

Vatin is a complete unknown, but could have played a role if we assume patrilinear continuity into groups like Belegis I and Verbicoara. The latter are safer bets, Belegis II-G?va is a 90 % bet imho.
 
Vatin is a complete unknown, but could have played a role if we assume patrilinear continuity into groups like Belegis I and Verbicoara. The latter are safer bets, Belegis II-G�va is a 90 % bet imho.

That we will find out, what is important for now is that various E-V13 Z5018 subclades are the most consistent Proto-Albanian haplogroup for now.
 
That we will find out, what is important for now is that various E-V13 Z5018 subclades are the most consistent Proto-Albanian haplogroup for now.

The situation is indeed simlar to R-Z282 for Balto-Slavic vs. I2a-din and R-M458 as early/Proto-Slavic. The first look like forming an early, fairly larger and stable trunk, the others seem to have joined or grow with the trunk only from a certain point onwards. The pattern is not identical but pretty similar for E-V13 and E-Z5018 in particular vs. the other "joiners".
 
The alternative is that they were once wider spread, but got decimated and degraded at some point, with just a very small number of survivors. Take E-L618, it surely was much wider spread before the Copper Age/steppe invasion, yet nowadays almost everything modern is E-V13 - and not just E-V13, but just one young branch of E-V13.
If they were highly concentrated in one ethnic group, they could heavily lose if this group was going down.

Hail mary scenarios can be technically plausible to explain all subclades. But I go by timing and what fits, similar to how you narrowed down E-V13 whereabouts in BA. Even with the mass extinction scenario, R-BY611 was not sharing the same domicile as the other clades, otherwise you would have to argue only R-BY611 was targeted in the hypothetical genocide and everyone else was left alone.

I miss-read the graph, R-BY611 branches out in 1,300 BC. This is in exact time frame eastern Brnjica expands into what is later known as Paeonian territory.

WBwWbtf.png
 
Three important samples ignored in the paper are:

Code:
[TABLE="width: 64"]
  [TR]
   [TD="class: xl63, width: 64"]MKD_Skopje_Anc_I10379,0.129758,0.149283,0.021873,-0.027132,0.027082,-0.012829,0.005875,0.001846,0.002659,0.034989,-0.001461,0.01169,-0.007284,-0.003716,-0.019137,0.008353,0.029206,-0.002154,0.005656,0.001876,-0.018093,0.002349,-0.002095,0.008435,-0.004311
[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
   [TD="class: xl63"]HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast_I18832_E-V13,0.125205,0.148267,0.018102,-0.028101,0.029236,-0.016176,0.00141,-0.003231,0.008999,0.03262,0.005846,0.005095,-0.017691,-0.007844,-0.027551,0.003978,0.027772,0.005448,0.008547,-0.004877,-0.015473,0.004204,0.003328,0.006025,-0.00012
[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
   [TD="class: xl63"]UKR_Cimmerian_o_MJ12,0.135449,0.138112,0.015462,-0.012274,0.020927,-0.008088,0.00235,-0.007384,-0.006545,0.034625,0.000487,0.008542,-0.008325,-0.008533,-0.014522,0.005171,0.025946,-0.000127,0.011439,0.005878,-0.019091,0.007666,0.004067,0.011929,-0.000239[/TD]
  [/TR]
 [/TABLE]

The Hungarian sample is clearly displaced from their home, but in any case if you were to put these related profiles on the map, what possible population is suggested, who do they represent?

pyWcFtl.png



Most likely culture block that binds them culture, babadag is just a related branch.
1RHKT6B.png



And the Roman provinces of Moesia.
RomanEmpire_117_-_Moesia_Superior_and_Moesia_Inferior.svg
 
Three important samples ignored in the paper are:

Code:
[TABLE="width: 64"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"]MKD_Skopje_Anc_I10379,0.129758,0.149283,0.021873,-0.027132,0.027082,-0.012829,0.005875,0.001846,0.002659,0.034989,-0.001461,0.01169,-0.007284,-0.003716,-0.019137,0.008353,0.029206,-0.002154,0.005656,0.001876,-0.018093,0.002349,-0.002095,0.008435,-0.004311[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast_I18832_E-V13,0.125205,0.148267,0.018102,-0.028101,0.029236,-0.016176,0.00141,-0.003231,0.008999,0.03262,0.005846,0.005095,-0.017691,-0.007844,-0.027551,0.003978,0.027772,0.005448,0.008547,-0.004877,-0.015473,0.004204,0.003328,0.006025,-0.00012[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]UKR_Cimmerian_o_MJ12,0.135449,0.138112,0.015462,-0.012274,0.020927,-0.008088,0.00235,-0.007384,-0.006545,0.034625,0.000487,0.008542,-0.008325,-0.008533,-0.014522,0.005171,0.025946,-0.000127,0.011439,0.005878,-0.019091,0.007666,0.004067,0.011929,-0.000239[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The Hungarian sample is clearly displaced from their home, but in any case if you were to put these related profiles on the map, what possible population is suggested, who do they represent?

pyWcFtl.png



Most likely culture block that binds them culture, babadag is just a related branch.
1RHKT6B.png



And the Roman provinces of Moesia.
RomanEmpire_117_-_Moesia_Superior_and_Moesia_Inferior.svg

Bosut is related cultural complex of Basarabi. It's called Bosut-Basarabi Cultural Complex. Bosut is usually seen as having continuum with Belegis- Gava II.

The Gomolava sacrificial burials which is indirectly hinted E-V13 to be found is key to connect the dots.

Triballi should be the Bosut descendands pushing Illyrians more South/West while they themselves being pushed by Scythians in Early Iron Age. Probably somewhere during Middle/Late Iron Age Autariate Illyrians pushed Triballi more east.
 
Excellent posts, @Paleo!


Bosut is related cultural complex of Basarabi. It's called Bosut-Basarabi Cultural Complex. Bosut is usually seen as having continuum with Belegis- Gava II.


The Gomolava sacrificial burials which is indirectly hinted E-V13 to be found is key to connect the dots.


Triballi should be the Bosut descendands pushing Illyrians more South/West while they themselves being pushed by Scythians in Early Iron Age. Probably somewhere during Middle/Late Iron Age Autariate Illyrians pushed Triballi more east.
Indirectly hinted as in by people or just due to archeological affiliations? If I am not mistaken the Gomolava samples are all from the Early Iron Age. We had some interesting samples during the early Roman Era north west of Gomolava though that were of Illyrian and TC Celtic patrilineage. Riverman has posted about Gomolava in the past, would this mean that this particular mass grave is the Hrtkovci-Gomolava II one which is considered to be part of the Kalakaca horizon of the Bosut culture in Syrmia?
 
Excellent posts, @Paleo!



Indirectly hinted as in by people or just due to archeological affiliations? If I am not mistaken the Gomolava samples are all from the Early Iron Age. We had some interesting samples during the early Roman Era north west of Gomolava though that were of Illyrian and TC Celtic patrilineage. Riverman has posted about Gomolava in the past, would this mean that this particular mass grave is the Hrtkovci-Gomolava II one which is considered to be part of the Kalakaca horizon of the Bosut culture in Syrmia?

Indirectly hinted. Gomolava would make sense to be part of Bosut, and we shall see if we have E-V13, J2b2-L283, R1b-Z2103.
 
Indirectly hinted. Gomolava would make sense to be part of Bosut, and we shall see if we have E-V13, J2b2-L283, R1b-Z2103.

Hawk thanks for sharing that. I think Carles Fox included the Golomova samples in his graph because he included it in his Roman sample map, which means his Iron Age graph includes Gomolova samples which have a bizarre I1 in the graph(sacrificed early Germanic).


febiybS.png




I personally do not think Bulgaria is part of his numbers because E-M78 and and E-618 would fall under other not E-V13, and it is not part of his Roman samples. If that's the case the Gomolova samples should be:

Golomova, Iron Age Serbia:
8 E-V13 (0 if Bulgaria are included and the E-L618 in MKD is treated as E-V13), technically E-618 is not E-V13.
0 J2b-L283
2 J2a
1 R-Z2103
3 R-M269
2 R-xM269 (unknown clade)
1 G2a
2 R-L51
1 I1
0-1 R1a-Z93 (1 if Bulgaria is excluded)
1 I2-L621
3 other (0 if Bulgaria E-M78s are included)

So do we have 24-25 haplo samples from Gomolova or 13? I think a paper with only 13 haplos seems like a a lot of bureaucracy to a publish a big nothing burger.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 220913 times.

Back
Top