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

[Riverman]

If Dacians were I2a1b I'm sure we would have countless Thracians from Bulgaria and Roman era Serbia as I2a1b but we don't as majority are E-V13.

Indeed, its simply impossible that the Daco-Thracians, the largest ethnolinguistic groups of the whole Carpatho-Balkan sphere before the Slavs, left no traces behind. If not for E-V13, what else?
Same applies to their earlier cultural horizons, like Channelled Ware and Stamped Pottery-Basarabi. These were huge phenomenons which dominated whole modern countries and influenced many others, even the Hallstatt phenomenon as such. That haplogroups of much smaller groups still being around, but the dominant, central group of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere left nothing behind on the paternal side of things is just no feasible theory.

The only reason people can still doubt that E-V13 was the main Thracian lineage from the beginning of this ethnolinguistic group are two issues:
- that they preferred throughout time, during most of their existence, cremation as their main burial rite, which destroys the genetic evidence
- plus that Romania, the central region of the Daco-Thracians, is still one of the worst sampled countries (both ancient and modern) of Europe.

The latter is particularly annoying because I now crucial samples were taken and processed already, but the associated papers were first delayed and now I'm just crossing fingers they get published at all...

 

[Riverman]

The only Illyrian groups so far that are majority J-L283 were mostly tribes in Croatia and Montenegro. And in Croatia you also had R-L2 non-Illyrian tribes. We'll see eventually what samples in Bosnia and Western Serbia looked like . But going in general by lineages there must of been a huge replacement or bottle neck when compared with most Balkan populations. I mean imagine all the J-L283, R1b and E-V13 clades these Balkan groups carried that do not even exist today.

I think the elimination was not that big, if looking at things from the Bronze Age perspective, because of the truly massive growth of both the Daco-Thracian and Illyrian ethnolinguistic groups from the MBA to the EIA. Because of that massive growth, and widespread presence, not that many Bronze Age lineages got really annihilated, but some of their Iron Age descendants only. This results in a lack of growth if looking at the data, because these later lineages were lost or couldn't grow, but not too many of the LBA Bronze Age lineages seem to have been completely lost, because of their widespread presence in the Iron Age.

We already know that J-L283 was also in Albania and Serbia, so there is little reason to assume that a lot of other Illyrian diversity was in Bosnia. And Northern Croatia is already a different sphere, there could have been R-L2 in the West and E-V13 in the East, in the LBA-EIA transition, because that was Urnfield territory in the LBA. Actually in the LBA Urnfielders made incursions into Illyrian territory and only the EIA the Illyrian expansion in some of the Croatian-Serbian-Macedonian areas started to gain some momentum.

 

[Hawk]

Honestly I think that's a testing bias. I heard that its fairly common especially in Eastern Germany, in areas which got secondarily Germanised. The Krakauer sample was no exception. There are also some German branches with upstream Eastern European positioning.

So while I would myself call it Germano-Slavic at the moment, it is pretty obvious that it grew and peaked from a Slavic expansion around Poland-North Carpathians. And again, its just one of the most prominent examples, particularly important because of its isolated position, just like what I would expect from a very Northern E-V13 population, close to the zone I expect I2a-din to have come from too (South Eastern Poland).

This is your problem, and where you fell short, when it comes to Albanians you immediately poop and say it's blatantly founder-effect, but when it comes to Slavs you imagine some sort of widespread diversity of clades. It's pretty obvious that clade was a Gothic lineage assimilated, it just makes so much sense, wait and see in aDNA when it pops among Goths. It's present in Baden-Wuttenberg(no Slavs over there), Spain, Sweden, Poland Zakarpatska region, that's a pattern over there.

 

[epirus1000]

I see some high interest on Dacians now. So Dacians can be every haplogroup
Probably some very interesting paper on Dacians is on the way

 

[Denxz]

Indeed, its simply impossible that the Daco-Thracians, the largest ethnolinguistic groups of the whole Carpatho-Balkan sphere before the Slavs, left no traces behind. If not for E-V13, what else?
Same applies to their earlier cultural horizons, like Channelled Ware and Stamped Pottery-Basarabi. These were huge phenomenons which dominated whole modern countries and influenced many others, even the Hallstatt phenomenon as such. That haplogroups of much smaller groups still being around, but the dominant, central group of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere left nothing behind on the paternal side of things is just no feasible theory.

The only reason people can still doubt that E-V13 was the main Thracian lineage from the beginning of this ethnolinguistic group are two issues:
- that they preferred throughout time, during most of their existence, cremation as their main burial rite, which destroys the genetic evidence
- plus that Romania, the central region of the Daco-Thracians, is still one of the worst sampled countries (both ancient and modern) of Europe.

The latter is particularly annoying because I now crucial samples were taken and processed already, but the associated papers were first delayed and now I'm just crossing fingers they get published at all...

E-V13 is definitely Daco-Thracian related. Should of seen it from the start.

 

[Riverman]

I see some high interest on Dacians now. So Dacians can be every haplogroup
Probably some very interesting paper on Dacians is on the way

Unfortunately no, AFAIK. There are just some dozens or so irregular burials which could be used, almost all from Romania, they being mentioned by Sirbu in his works already, but it seems there is no undergoing testing and the teams looking overlooked them or the material is not appropriate or whatever.

Of course, I would prefer some of the few regular elite warrior burials with horses and stuff too, to be sure its a Dacian, but they were all cremated or just scattered, to leave no trace at all. Which is why we should take what we got, which is these irregular burials from the time and sphere of the Dacians.

There are practically no regular elite burials for almost 3.000 years in the Daco-Thracian core zone, from Cotofeni to the Christian Slavic period. All we can get is when they got under foreign influence (like Cimmerian = Mezocsat and Basarabi) or these irregular burials about which we don't know for sure whether they were actual Dacians or some sacrificed foreigners or slaves etc. However, since some of the Romanian researchers mentioned dozens of those, there should be some actual Dacians among them.

 

[Riverman]

This is your problem, and where you fell short, when it comes to Albanians you immediately poop and say it's blatantly founder-effect, but when it comes to Slavs you imagine some sort of widespread diversity of clades. It's pretty obvious that clade was a Gothic lineage assimilated, it just makes so much sense, wait and see in aDNA when it pops among Goths. It's present in Baden-Wuttenberg(no Slavs over there), Spain, Sweden, Poland Zakarpatska region, that's a pattern over there.

You do realise that the E-V13 branches in Albanians start to diversify usually about 500 years (!) or more later than in Slavs? That means among Albanians, many of the branches had by 400-900 AD only one single founder, whereas some of the Slavic branches had multiple surviving ones. And that's despite the worse testing frequency. If e.g. Slovaks and Ukrainians would be tested like Albanians, how do you think things which shift then?

With Albanians its like it is with I2a-din and E-L540, we don't know what their base was before the founding event. We don't know whether they were Pre-/Proto-Albanian, we don't know whether they had many side branches which got lost during the Late Antiquity bottleneck, we just see fairly late (no earlier than Late Antiquity, many Slavic era) founders.

I'm rather agnostic on their past at the moment, I'm just sure about their presence, and that is they had indeed a fairly recent founder event.

E-L540 might very well have been Germanic, but it was taken up by Slavs, fairly early on. We don't have such late, huge founder events for most Germanic branches, that looks odd. And again, we have the data-rumours for Eastern Germany and the area, it seems Western Slavic tribes had higher frequencies of E-L540 which moved into nowadays Germany.

And its not just E-L540, but e.g. branches like https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-FT256723/tree (or https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y255338/ ) and parallel ones to it. They start to diversify within the Slavs (exclusively Slavic testers) in the 1st century the latest, just like E-L540.

You know there are some Albanian branches to compare with, much better tested than these Slavs, but while they are nowadays very widespread, their TMRCA is 600 years later:

E-Y173822 YTree

www.yfull.com

That doesn't tell us how long they lived in or around Albania, could have been much earlier, but it proves a recent founder event after a potential bottleneck in Late Antiquity.

And you know that E-S2979 is the central group I associate with the Dacians, it is totally dominant in the Avar era samples and we find it as far as China on the steppe highway.

Also, we need to define "Proto-stages" for both Slavs and Albanians, because for both we deal with a Late Antiquity Proto-stage still. Therefore if say both in Slavs and Albanians some Dacian E-V13 branches entered the population in Antiquity (say 300 AD, with the Dacian resettlement), they became part of the Proto-stage for both.

That would be the best explanation for Slavs also, why they consistently and constantly have E-V13 at a low rate in all early samples we got, in the Medieval period, from Northern Germany, Eastern Germany, Poland, Russia etc. If they entered the Slavic population before 500 AD, they were part of the Proto-stage, regardless of where they were before. Same goes for Albanians, by the way, because just like with Slavs, it lasted well into Late Antiquity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Albanian_language vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_language
Both began to split and leave the Proto-stage around the same time, which is 600 AD. Note the Albanian branches diversify usually not much earlier, but some Slavic do, which just means they recovered, grew earlier, not that they had to be absent from Proto-Alb.

In both cases we don't know at which stage E-V13 became part of the Pre-Albanian/Pre-Slavic people or just later. For Slavs we can say the Pre-Slavic stage is still Baltoslavic and E-V13 is not Baltoslavic, even if some Balts got E-V13, it seems to be mostly transmitted by non-Balts later. Therefore for Slavs we can say no earlier than the Proto-Slavic stage, for Albanians/Albania we don't know. Could be earlier (even LBA) or as late as the first proven diversifications.

 

[Siegmund]

My prediction -
R-pf7562 - Mycenaean elite (it's almost confirmed already)
R-z2103 - Yamnaya > Proto Armenian, Dorian/Proto Epirote > Proto Albanian
E-v13 - Urnfield, Thracian, Dacian, Dardanian (Trojan), maybe Dorian/Proto Epirote
J-l283 - Cetina > Illyrian
I-cts10228 - Suevi > I-y3120 - Bastarnae, Dacian

This I-cts10228 - Suevi > I-y3120 - Bastarnae, Dacian. Mind to share some evidence for it? In PM works as well. Thanks!

 

[Hawk]

You do realise that the E-V13 branches in Albanians start to diversify usually about 500 years (!) or more later than in Slavs? That means among Albanians, many of the branches had by 400-900 AD only one single founder, whereas some of the Slavic branches had multiple surviving ones. And that's despite the worse testing frequency. If e.g. Slovaks and Ukrainians would be tested like Albanians, how do you think things which shift then?

With Albanians its like it is with I2a-din and E-L540, we don't know what their base was before the founding event. We don't know whether they were Pre-/Proto-Albanian, we don't know whether they had many side branches which got lost during the Late Antiquity bottleneck, we just see fairly late (no earlier than Late Antiquity, many Slavic era) founders.

I'm rather agnostic on their past at the moment, I'm just sure about their presence, and that is they had indeed a fairly recent founder event.

E-L540 might very well have been Germanic, but it was taken up by Slavs, fairly early on. We don't have such late, huge founder events for most Germanic branches, that looks odd. And again, we have the data-rumours for Eastern Germany and the area, it seems Western Slavic tribes had higher frequencies of E-L540 which moved into nowadays Germany.

And its not just E-L540, but e.g. branches like https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-FT256723/tree (or https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y255338/ ) and parallel ones to it. They start to diversify within the Slavs (exclusively Slavic testers) in the 1st century the latest, just like E-L540.

You know there are some Albanian branches to compare with, much better tested than these Slavs, but while they are nowadays very widespread, their TMRCA is 600 years later:

E-Y173822 YTree

www.yfull.com

That doesn't tell us how long they lived in or around Albania, could have been much earlier, but it proves a recent founder event after a potential bottleneck in Late Antiquity.

And you know that E-S2979 is the central group I associate with the Dacians, it is totally dominant in the Avar era samples and we find it as far as China on the steppe highway.

Also, we need to define "Proto-stages" for both Slavs and Albanians, because for both we deal with a Late Antiquity Proto-stage still. Therefore if say both in Slavs and Albanians some Dacian E-V13 branches entered the population in Antiquity (say 300 AD, with the Dacian resettlement), they became part of the Proto-stage for both.

That would be the best explanation for Slavs also, why they consistently and constantly have E-V13 at a low rate in all early samples we got, in the Medieval period, from Northern Germany, Eastern Germany, Poland, Russia etc. If they entered the Slavic population before 500 AD, they were part of the Proto-stage, regardless of where they were before. Same goes for Albanians, by the way, because just like with Slavs, it lasted well into Late Antiquity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Albanian_language vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_language
Both began to split and leave the Proto-stage around the same time, which is 600 AD. Note the Albanian branches diversify usually not much earlier, but some Slavic do, which just means they recovered, grew earlier, not that they had to be absent from Proto-Alb.

In both cases we don't know at which stage E-V13 became part of the Pre-Albanian/Pre-Slavic people or just later. For Slavs we can say the Pre-Slavic stage is still Baltoslavic and E-V13 is not Baltoslavic, even if some Balts got E-V13, it seems to be mostly transmitted by non-Balts later. Therefore for Slavs we can say no earlier than the Proto-Slavic stage, for Albanians/Albania we don't know. Could be earlier (even LBA) or as late as the first proven diversifications.

Anyway, i think that you have become delusional honestly. Albanians have the highest percentage of E-V13, it's like ~200-300% more than Ukrainians do or Poles or Russians per ratio and we are arguing here. You should wait and see when Albanians from Albania test and rare E-V13 clades appear, because so far we had results only from more tribal areas.

Also, the same argument with malicious content, Albanians being the most tested and others under-tested. Not true at all. We have seen various academic studies on overall populations which is far more consistent and random sampling and it's obvious where the facts are.

The paper about Albanians stated obviously that E-V13 Z5018 is the most diverse Y-DNA subclade among Albanians, and you find wide variety of it. Bringing China into the argument is laughable. Let's argue about 0.0000000000000001% Y-DNA in a 1 billion population. All kind of possible scenarios ending up there: merchant, Roman warrior, Hellenistic period from Seleucid etc, etc, etc.

 

[Riverman]

Anyway, i think that you have become delusional honestly. Albanians have the highest percentage of E-V13, it's like ~200-300% more than Ukrainians do or Poles or Russians per ratio and we are arguing here. You should wait and see when Albanians from Albania test and rare E-V13 clades appear, because so far we had results only from more tribal areas.

The paper about Albanians stated obviously that E-V13 Z5018 is the most diverse Y-DNA subclade among Albanians, and you find wide variety of it. Bringing China into the argument is laughable. Let's argue about 0.0000000000000001% Y-DNA in a 1 billion population. All kind of possible scenarios ending up there: merchant, Roman warrior, Hellenistic period from Seleucid etc, etc, etc.

What I forgot to mention is that, intriguingly, the percentage of E-V13 in Northern Slavs is just a bit lower than in Southern Poland. It mainly decreases in areas with presumed higher Finnic-Ugric and Baltic substrate. Like more N less E-V13, to make it simple.
Therefore we deal with a fairly stable E-V13 percentage (baseline about 3 %) throughout all Slavic territories. While that's not particularly high, its higher than most non-Baltoslavic lineages other than I2a-din. There is no clear correlation with other non-Baltoslavic lineages, so it had to spread fairly early and with little associated other lineages.

As for the Albanian testers, especially on YFull Albanians are among the top tested people in Europe. No people from Central, Eastern or South Eastern Europe get even remotely close, and they get primarily surpassed by Gulf Arabs, in Europe probably by the Irish and Sardinians (both have a disproportionate representation in the E-V13 tree compared to their regional frequency).

And the main, very well tested Albanian lineages of E-V13, all go back to a recent (Late Antiquity) founder. It is extremely rare, to the point of looking like an anomaly, that there are older branches and diversifications. What's even more striking is that they all go back to roughly the same date (400-700 AD) or later (Medieval to Early Modern even).

Some of the older Levantine branches, I would put into the Sea Peoples category, have a much, much older and very clear diversifcation point with just a handful of testers. In Central Europe there are branches with just a handful of testers, of which all end up in different subbranches going back to the early prehistorical (Bronze and Iron Age) periods.

For these reasons (very high testing frequency, very shallow roots and young diversification) we can't say anything about the age of E-V13 in Albania. But it really looks like a rather recent migration of more Northern groups which brought the existing diversity at once down and then experienced a series of founder events in the Proto-Albanian community.
I really have no strong opinion or agenda on the issue, but just following the traces and facts, I doubt we will find these main branches in or very close to Albania before Late Antiquity in any significant numbers.

Because if that would be the case, why should worse tested people with a much lower frequency have a higher or similar diversity with earlier diversification points?

My current opinion is that the Dacian resettlement projects at the end of the Roman Empire had a huge impact on the Central-Southern Balkans and the ethnogenesis of the Albanians and Southern Vlachs alike.

On the Slavs the Dacian assimilation had a huge impact too, but since the clearly dominant side was the Slavic, in a clan based, tribal society, the paternal impact will be lower than the total autosomal-female one once the models get more detailed. Therefore the about 3 % Dacian E-V13 in Early Slavs likely stands for a much higher gene flow from Dacians to Slavs. In the Albanian case we might deal with the opposite pattern: Relatively higher paternal (~ 1/3), but not as big autosomal impact from the Dacian side. How that fits into ethnolinguistic models others have to decide.

 

[Hawk]

What I forgot to mention is that, intriguingly, the percentage of E-V13 in Northern Slavs is just a bit lower than in Southern Poland. It mainly decreases in areas with presumed higher Finnic-Ugric and Baltic substrate. Like more N less E-V13, to make it simple.
Therefore we deal with a fairly stable E-V13 percentage (baseline about 3 %) throughout all Slavic territories. While that's not particularly high, its higher than most non-Baltoslavic lineages other than I2a-din. There is no clear correlation with other non-Baltoslavic lineages, so it had to spread fairly early and with little associated other lineages.

As for the Albanian testers, especially on YFull Albanians are among the top tested people in Europe. No people from Central, Eastern or South Eastern Europe get even remotely close, and they get primarily surpassed by Gulf Arabs, in Europe probably by the Irish and Sardinians (both have a disproportionate representation in the E-V13 tree compared to their regional frequency).

And the main, very well tested Albanian lineages of E-V13, all go back to a recent (Late Antiquity) founder. It is extremely rare, to the point of looking like an anomaly, that there are older branches and diversifications. What's even more striking is that they all go back to roughly the same date (400-700 AD) or later (Medieval to Early Modern even).

Some of the older Levantine branches, I would put into the Sea Peoples category, have a much, much older and very clear diversifcation point with just a handful of testers. In Central Europe there are branches with just a handful of testers, of which all end up in different subbranches going back to the early prehistorical (Bronze and Iron Age) periods.

For these reasons (very high testing frequency, very shallow roots and young diversification) we can't say anything about the age of E-V13 in Albania. But it really looks like a rather recent migration of more Northern groups which brought the existing diversity at once down and then experienced a series of founder events in the Proto-Albanian community.
I really have no strong opinion or agenda on the issue, but just following the traces and facts, I doubt we will find these main branches in or very close to Albania before Late Antiquity in any significant numbers.

Because if that would be the case, why should worse tested people with a much lower frequency have a higher or similar diversity with earlier diversification points?

My current opinion is that the Dacian resettlement projects at the end of the Roman Empire had a huge impact on the Central-Southern Balkans and the ethnogenesis of the Albanians and Southern Vlachs alike.

On the Slavs the Dacian assimilation had a huge impact too, but since the clearly dominant side was the Slavic, in a clan based, tribal society, the paternal impact will be lower than the total autosomal-female one once the models get more detailed. Therefore the about 3 % Dacian E-V13 in Early Slavs likely stands for a much higher gene flow from Dacians to Slavs. In the Albanian case we might deal with the opposite pattern: Relatively higher paternal (~ 1/3), but not as big autosomal impact from the Dacian side. How that fits into ethnolinguistic models others have to decide.

I didn't mention Albania as a territory, i mentioned Albanians as a population. Two different things. Proto-Albanians were not from Albania or Western-Balkans by the chances we see, rather Dardania-Moesia. What other place to look for E-V13.

 

[Riverman]

I didn't mention Albania as a territory, i mentioned Albanians as a population. Two different things. Proto-Albanians were not from Albania or Western-Balkans by the chances we see, rather Dardania-Moesia. What other place to look for E-V13.

Yep, then I concur. I just think that that the largely depopulated Moesia was heavily affected by the Dacian resettlement from the Daco-Romans and tribals, both lived North of the Danube, by and large, before. The historical records are pretty clear about that, the massive impact the Dacian/Daco-Roman resettlements had.
This would also explain why some branches split between Slavs and Albanians, even those which probably didn't move later in either direction, because some were moving into the Roman Empire, took place in the formation of Vlachs and Albanians respectively, while others stayed behind and were assimilated by the Slavs or taken by Germanic tribals before.

 

[Denxz]

Can you post some evidence of the depopulation of Moesia or Dardania ? I haven't seen any evidence that supports Dardania was depopulated or massively settled.

In the rrenjet project there are barely 1622 Albanians tested and many areas such as Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro etc are under tested pretty much.

 

[Denxz]

https://rrenjet.com/statistikat/ you can see here that these areas are under tested , same thing for former projects and there are only few genetic peer reviewed studies

 

[Riverman]

Can you post some evidence of the depopulation of Moesia or Dardania ? I haven't seen any evidence that supports Dardania was depopulated or massively settled.

In the rrenjet project there are barely 1622 Albanians tested and many areas such as Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro etc are under tested pretty much.

I made a post about the YFull numbers and ethnic-regional testing frequencies, Albanians are truly on top worldwide. Only Gulf Arabs are significantly better tested. You can check for yourself:

YFull World Sampling Rate Map – Mygrations

phylogeographer.com

On FTDNA the situation is more balanced, but there Albanians are not as dominant. Keep in mind that single samples might be fairly recent migrants which are of no importance for the Proto-Albanian or founder lineages. Just like nobody would say that the Sardinian samples tell us a lot about the origin of these subclades. Obviously most of the Sardinian ones come from North Western Italy, Liguria-Genua, yet we get much less data from Liguria-Genua simply because of the lack of testing there.

Obviously, you can always test more, and there are individual Albanian testers popping up here and there, but the real numerous, important, main Albanian branches follow all the same pattern.

As for the Dacian settlement in Moesia, there are many historical and archaeological sources, here is just one:

Cassius, Sabianus, the governor of Dacia in 180 A.D., "has also subdued 12,000 Dacians living in the vicinity [of Dacia], who have been driven away from their ancient homeland, and was ready to help the others, promising them land in our Dacia." [144] Although this record suggests a colonization of free Dacians, it offers no proof of it, since it is not known whether Sabianus kept his promise. It must be pointed out that the immigration of free Dacians from the areas northwest and west of the territory of the former province after the Roman withdrawal is well established and unquestioned. Archaeological remains show that free Dacians settled after 275 A.D. at Cipău (Maroscsapó, Mureş County), at Archiud, and most probably also at Soporu de Cîmpie.

E. Illyés, Ethnic Continuity in the Carpatho-Danubian Area - Archaeology

Sources are consistent regarding the evacuation and surrender of Dacia. In Eutropius' representative account, 'the province of Dacia, established by Trajan on the far side of the Danube, was evacuated and abandoned by Aurelianus after the devastation of Illyria and Moesia. The Romans were resettled from the towns and land of Dacia to the middle of Moesia,

The impact of the resettled Daco-Romans and tribal Dacians was all the bigger, since the provinces South of the Danube were devastated before:

Rome effected an organized withdrawal from the province at a time when she had brought the Goths' long advance to a halt in the northern Balkans; there a safe haven awaited Dacia's people. The curtailment of anarchy at the end of the 3rd century and greater domestic stability may not have impressed the peoples of the far-flung empire, but the end of Goth attacks on Moesia was a palpable success and indicated the possibility of effective defence. Battles south of the Danube had decimated the population, creating ample room for large-scale resettlement. Eutropius recorded that Dacia was evacuated not only because it was no longer possible to defend it, but also because Illyria and Moesia had been devastated. At least in Illyria, war was not the sole cause of depopulation in the 250s; Zosimus[64] records that 'a terrible epidemic of pestilence broke out in the town, such as never before witnessed: it surpassed the devastation wrought by the Barbarians, to the point that towns occupied and sacked by them felt fortunate to have escaped the fate of those infected by the plague.' The population losses were so great that in neighbouring Thrace, the Romans were actively promoting new settlement as late as the 4th century. Thus the relocation of Dacia's reduced population was not only feasible but also coincided with the need to repopulate the Balkans. Rome must have been pleased that for once it could resettle its own citizens, and not Barbarians.

The Fate of the Population after the Withdrawal

More, including maps, in earlier posts of this thread:

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

Snipsa with two read minimum: PCA0121: Total SNPs: 38420 Result (66.3% 308 -11 +107): I-S17250 PCA0122: Total SNPs: 48430 Result (63.5% 365 -2 +200): R-A7970 PCA0124: Total SNPs: 936 Result (29.4% 8 -1 +9): R-CTS1863 PCA0127: Total SNPs: 44289 Result (63.9% 341 -2 +183): I-Y4882 PCA0130...

www.eupedia.com

The Daco-Roman and Dacian-Carpi resettlement is historically and archaeologically a proven case. Their genetic impact is debatable, but the E-V13 phylogeny and the numerous ancient DNA samples from the Tisza-Danube zone speak for a big impact in my opinion.

 

[TetaEglantina]

This is your problem, and where you fell short, when it comes to Albanians you immediately poop and say it's blatantly founder-effect, but when it comes to Slavs you imagine some sort of widespread diversity of clades. It's pretty obvious that clade was a Gothic lineage assimilated, it just makes so much sense, wait and see in aDNA when it pops among Goths. It's present in Baden-Wuttenberg(no Slavs over there), Spain, Sweden, Poland Zakarpatska region, that's a pattern over there.

For similar reason we cannot say cts10228 was originally Slavic as it's presence is in Baden, France etc

It was Germanic but I don't think Gothic, Suevi or whoever was ancestral to the Bastarnae

 

[Riverman]

Expanding on the Slavic-Dacian relationship, some of the new papers argued for Scytho-Sarmatian admixture to create the Proto-Slavs, but that doesn't pan out, because the Scytho-Sarmatians had Central-East Asian admixture and uniparentals which are practically absent in the core Slav population.
Therefore the only kind of people they could mean would be the mixed populations of the forest steppe-Western steppe-North Carpathians, which were heavily mixed between Lusatians and Dacian groups.

We know from autosomal models that already the early Slavs need a bit of Carpatho-Balkan admixture the earlier inhabitants and unmixed Balts didn't have. Very clearly, the primary candidate for that kind of admixture, on the paternal side of things, is again E-V13 from this mixed Sarmato-Dacian context.

I predict we will get even more E-V13 from future Sarmatian and Gepid samples from the Tisza zone, yet those weren't even as local Carpatho-Balkan shifted as the groups of agro-pastoralists the Slavs encountered in the mixed groups from Chernoles.

Therefore I see many contact points, but the main ones are Chernoles, which was in itself a mixed culture, and the second for a later period beign the Carpathian Tumulus culture, which can be largely identified with the remains of the Carpi and related Northern Dacian groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Tumuli_culture

The autosomal Carpatho-Balkan shift, already in Proto-Slavs, before they moved South, compared to the earlier North Eastern groups and Balts, is evident and needs to be explained. The most likely explanation is they soaked people up in the North Carpathian sphere, which were either Dacian or had Dacian elements and that's how the earliest E-V13 entered the Slavic gene pool.

In the Suceava County, as compared to its eastern neighbour, rnade up mostly
by mountainous areas and plateaus, no Sarmatian tombs werc found. whereas
the north of the studied region allowed for the research of severa! such
monuments, maybe connected with the presence of the Sarmatian lazyges,
who eventual ly crossed the mountains on their way to Pannonia. We then
analysed the Getic-Dacian habitation from the first AD centuries - both the
Carpi, w i th their area of demographic density in the central region of
Moldavia, and the Costoboci, with their Lipita culture, spread deep into
Ukraine, almost as far as to Lviv, both populations undertaking fierce attacks
against the Roman borders on the Lower Danube

Link

That means Northern Dacian tribes lived in the direct neighbourhood of the Southern groups of the presumed Proto-Slavic homeland. Yet its these same tribes, especially the Carpi, which were resettled throughout the Empire and especially into the territories of the Central and Southern Balkans as well.

That's why I think that some of these typical Dacian E-V13 branches were not brought to the Slavs from the Balkans or to the Balkans by the Slavs - at least not all of it, but a lot came from the same source in the middle, the Dacian tribes.

 

[Hawk]

Yep, then I concur. I just think that that the largely depopulated Moesia was heavily affected by the Dacian resettlement from the Daco-Romans and tribals, both lived North of the Danube, by and large, before. The historical records are pretty clear about that, the massive impact the Dacian/Daco-Roman resettlements had.
This would also explain why some branches split between Slavs and Albanians, even those which probably didn't move later in either direction, because some were moving into the Roman Empire, took place in the formation of Vlachs and Albanians respectively, while others stayed behind and were assimilated by the Slavs or taken by Germanic tribals before.

You know, i am really not going to argue anymore, i just think it's pointless. You make it sound like E-V13 was a founding father of all Slavs, when among South Slavs it's just a Paleo-Balkan lineage.

Next time when you plan your vacations, go visit Valona County in Albania, a lot of Labs with your E-V13 subclade.

 

[Riverman]

You know, i am really not going to argue anymore, i just think it's pointless. You make it sound like E-V13 was a founding father of all Slavs, when among South Slavs it's just a Paleo-Balkan lineage.

Next time when you plan your vacations, go visit Valona County in Albania, a lot of Labs with your E-V13 subclade.

My point is that by the Roman era, and even more in Antiquity, even the specifically Dacian branches weren't as unified any more. They got broken up especially during the Roman conquest and destruction of the Dacian kingdom. The great majority moved into the Balkans subsequently, in multiple waves of migrations and resettlements, but some remnants were picked up by the Early Slavs, that's all.

 

[Hawk]

My point is that by the Roman era, and even more in Antiquity, even the specifically Dacian branches weren't as unified any more. They got broken up especially during the Roman conquest and destruction of the Dacian kingdom. The great majority moved into the Balkans subsequently, in multiple waves of migrations and resettlements, but some remnants were picked up by the Early Slavs, that's all.

Nah, that's not all, that's just a propaganda by Balkan Slavs, to make their identity more compact lol. Look, i sniff from a miles away this kind of stuff.

They started accusing Albanians of trying to Albanize E-V13, then hoop, they reversed the role. Captain Obvious.

Let's view it from a neutral point of view. There is no escape from it, sooner or latter results are coming.