E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

[Riverman]

Based on the Y-DNA, I would guess 5-6 out of those 11 in Romania are not from the "Real Sarmatians". That puts V13 at 15-20%, which is indeed much less than south of the Danube. On the other hand, one less or more sample could make the difference between 0% or 30-40% :-) It also seems two of the sites sampled in Romania are really close to the Danube, so will be interesting to see where the non-"Real Sarmatians" were found. The non-"Real Sarmatians" from Romania also look quite EEF-rich, more so than most in Hungary.

For Sarmatian era Hungary I have to look back at the samples from the 2022 study to see what can be derived by elimination.

Hi guys,

I am new to the topic and I am positive for E-BY4540 (I am from France but with German roots).

As I see, my forefather must be either from Germanic or Thracian tribes. Although I was told it might be linked to Illyrians, based to what I see in this post it does not make sense.

Best,
Matthieu

Asking about the ethnicity of your ancestors, the first thing to realise is that over the centuries they might have belonged to different ethnicities in different times.

Like your branch could have been Proto-Thracian in the LBA-EIA, in Ferigile, the Triballi in the Iron Age, became Romanised in the Imperial era, Germanic in Late Antiquity and some Germans moved to Sweden, are now Swedish.

[EV13Gang]

Based on the Y-DNA, I would guess 5-6 out of those 11 in Romania are not from the "Real Sarmatians". That puts V13 at 15-20%, which is indeed much less than south of the Danube. On the other hand, one less or more sample could make the difference between 0% or 30-40% :-) It also seems two of the sites sampled in Romania are really close to the Danube, so will be interesting to see where the non-"Real Sarmatians" were found. The non-"Real Sarmatians" from Romania also look quite EEF-rich, more so than most in Hungary.

For Sarmatian era Hungary I have to look back at the samples from the 2022 study to see what can be derived by elimination.

Hi guys,

I am new to the topic and I am positive for E-BY4540 (I am from France but with German roots).

As I see, my forefather must be either from Germanic or Thracian tribes. Although I was told it might be linked to Illyrians, based to what I see in this post it does not make sense.

Best,
Matthieu

Asking about the ethnicity of your ancestors, the first thing to realise is that over the centuries they might have belonged to different ethnicities in different times.

Like your branch could have been Proto-Thracian in the LBA-EIA, in Ferigile, the Triballi in the Iron Age, became Romanised in the Imperial era, Germanic in Late Antiquity and some Germans moved to Sweden, are now Swedish.

Thanks very much for reply. How do you find their origin?

[Riverman]

Based on the Y-DNA, I would guess 5-6 out of those 11 in Romania are not from the "Real Sarmatians". That puts V13 at 15-20%, which is indeed much less than south of the Danube. On the other hand, one less or more sample could make the difference between 0% or 30-40% :-) It also seems two of the sites sampled in Romania are really close to the Danube, so will be interesting to see where the non-"Real Sarmatians" were found. The non-"Real Sarmatians" from Romania also look quite EEF-rich, more so than most in Hungary.

For Sarmatian era Hungary I have to look back at the samples from the 2022 study to see what can be derived by elimination.

Based on the Y-DNA, I would guess 5-6 out of those 11 in Romania are not from the "Real Sarmatians". That puts V13 at 15-20%, which is indeed much less than south of the Danube. On the other hand, one less or more sample could make the difference between 0% or 30-40% :-) It also seems two of the sites sampled in Romania are really close to the Danube, so will be interesting to see where the non-"Real Sarmatians" were found. The non-"Real Sarmatians" from Romania also look quite EEF-rich, more so than most in Hungary.

For Sarmatian era Hungary I have to look back at the samples from the 2022 study to see what can be derived by elimination.

Hi guys,

I am new to the topic and I am positive for E-BY4540 (I am from France but with German roots).

As I see, my forefather must be either from Germanic or Thracian tribes. Although I was told it might be linked to Illyrians, based to what I see in this post it does not make sense.

Best,
Matthieu

Asking about the ethnicity of your ancestors, the first thing to realise is that over the centuries they might have belonged to different ethnicities in different times.

Like your branch could have been Proto-Thracian in the LBA-EIA, in Ferigile, the Triballi in the Iron Age, became Romanised in the Imperial era, Germanic in Late Antiquity and some Germans moved to Sweden, are now Swedish.

Thanks very much for reply. How do you find their origin?

I didn't find it, but it's a possible guess. Your upstream branch of E-CTS9320 is a main branch of E-V13, which in turn is downstream of E-Z5017.
However, of these main branches under E-Z5018/E-Z5017 it is one with a relatively more Southern modern and ancient distribution.
This could be interpreted in my opinion that this branch of E-CTS9320 was at the Danube and South of it earlier than some of the other big Western/Northern branches.

The best fit could be Channelled Ware -> Bosut-Basarabi-> Ferigile culture -> Triballi people

That's just a possible guess based on the currently available data, it could be wrong.

That your upstream branch was present at the Danube in Late Antiquity being proven by a couple of ancient DNA samples.

[EV13Gang]

Based on the Y-DNA, I would guess 5-6 out of those 11 in Romania are not from the "Real Sarmatians". That puts V13 at 15-20%, which is indeed much less than south of the Danube. On the other hand, one less or more sample could make the difference between 0% or 30-40% :-) It also seems two of the sites sampled in Romania are really close to the Danube, so will be interesting to see where the non-"Real Sarmatians" were found. The non-"Real Sarmatians" from Romania also look quite EEF-rich, more so than most in Hungary.

For Sarmatian era Hungary I have to look back at the samples from the 2022 study to see what can be derived by elimination.

Asking about the ethnicity of your ancestors, the first thing to realise is that over the centuries they might have belonged to different ethnicities in different times.

Like your branch could have been Proto-Thracian in the LBA-EIA, in Ferigile, the Triballi in the Iron Age, became Romanised in the Imperial era, Germanic in Late Antiquity and some Germans moved to Sweden, are now Swedish.

Thanks very much for reply. How do you find their origin?

I didn't find it, but it's a possible guess. Your upstream branch of E-CTS9320 is a main branch of E-V13, which in turn is downstream of E-Z5017.
However, of these main branches under E-Z5018/E-Z5017 it is one with a relatively more Southern modern and ancient distribution.
This could be interpreted in my opinion that this branch of E-CTS9320 was at the Danube and South of it earlier than some of the other big Western/Northern branches.

The best fit could be Channelled Ware -> Bosut-Basarabi-> Ferigile culture -> Triballi people

That's just a possible guess based on the currently available data, it could be wrong.

It a good starting point for me. Thank you very much.

[Riverman]

I have taken another look at the map for ancient (mostly Medieval) Slavic samples found so far:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...641138&z=7

Currently, E-V13 is still way more widespread and frequent North of the Carpathians than I-Y3120, which in itself is quite remarkable. Its still the second most common haplogroup after R-Z283 derived lineages. This proves unambiguously that within the Slavic speaking sphere, E-V13 was spread by early Slavs, regardless of where they have picked it up first.

[corrigendum]

This proves unambiguously that within the Slavic speaking sphere, E-V13 was spread by early Slavs, regardless of where they have picked it up first.

No, it wasn't. I don't even understand how you can write such a claim. This has been debunked by all studies. There is no E-V13 among Proto-Slavs or early Slavs because E-V13 didn't spread from the north Carpathian region northwards.

There are no E-V13 samples in a such a context before the early medieval era and the vast majority of them date to the post-900 period. This has nothing to do with "early Slavs".

This is what the earliest E-V13 in Poland looks like:



As such, posting that "unambiguously within the Slavic speaking sphere, E-V13 was spread by early Slavs" is in itself highly inaccurate because it's clear that E-V13 moved with non-Slavs to areas which during the medieval period became Slavic. The fact that later like all other haplogroups which were found in medieval Slavic regions, some E-V13 subclades became part of medieval Slavic populations doesn't mean at all  that E-V13 spread with early Slavs because it is clear that it didn't.

[Riverman]

This proves unambiguously that within the Slavic speaking sphere, E-V13 was spread by early Slavs, regardless of where they have picked it up first.

No, it wasn't. I don't even understand how you can write such a claim. This has been debunked by all studies. There is no E-V13 among Proto-Slavs or early Slavs because E-V13 didn't spread from the north Carpathian region northwards.

There are no E-V13 samples in a such a context before the early medieval era and the vast majority of them date to the post-900 period. This has nothing to do with "early Slavs".

This is what the earliest E-V13 in Poland looks like:



As such, posting that "unambiguously within the Slavic speaking sphere, E-V13 was spread by early Slavs" is in itself highly inaccurate because it's clear that E-V13 moved with non-Slavs to areas which during the medieval period became Slavic. The fact that later like all other haplogroups which were found in medieval Slavic regions, some E-V13 subclades became part of medieval Slavic populations doesn't mean at all  that E-V13 spread with early Slavs because it is clear that it didn't.

The Southern shifted samples are from the Pre- to Proto-Slavic stage, in the Proto-/Early Slavic stage, E-V13 was in the Slavic root groups already. As I said, regardless of how it ended up there, even if it came from some Southerners. However, those from Poland, from the earlier stage, are not the same as the later ones. Because the Germanic lineages which surround those early Polish samples disappear, its, by and large, a population replacement.
Therefore there might be have been multiple sources of E-V13 in the early Slavic world.

But again, even if they were Roman-derived by 100 BC-500 AD, they were in early Slavs between 100-600 AD already. We can tell that from a couple of branches which TMRCA is around 0 AD or the following centuries and they are fully Slavic.

[corrigendum]

The Southern shifted samples are from the Pre- to Proto-Slavic stage, in the Proto-/Early Slavic stage, E-V13 was in the Slavic root groups already.

He didn't live in the "Pre-Slavic" of the Slavic languages. This is an individual who lived in 200-400 CE.

But again, even if they were Roman-derived by 100 BC-500 AD, they were in early Slavs between 100-600 AD already. We can tell that from a couple of branches which TMRCA is around 0 AD or the following centuries and they are fully Slavic.

Modern TMRCAs don't mean much without aDNA in such discussions and it's not a coincidence that the vast majority of such samples in the aDNA record come from the post-900 CE period.

Therefore there might be have been multiple sources of E-V13 in the early Slavic world.

There definitely were multiple sources for E-V13 in the Slavic world, but so far nothing suggests that these sources predate the early medieval Slavic expansion period. Some of them definitely postdate it by hundreds of years e.g. it's clear that some E-V13 lineages moved eastwards with medieval Germans (Ostsiedlung)

[Riverman]

Modern TMRCAs don't mean much without aDNA in such discussions and it's not a coincidence that the vast majority of such samples in the aDNA record come from the post-900 CE period.

900 AD is just about 300 years after the end of the Proto-Slavic stage and within the time frame for the expansion of Slavs in various regions. Also, the lack of earlier samples is not restricted to E-V13 Slavic lineages, since the Slavs did largely cremate their dead and there simply are not that many earlier samples left which have been tested yet.

And seeing founder events of E-V13 branches in areas like the Balticum, Poland, White Russia and Russia surely means something, because they are surely not better tested than say Albanians, Serbs and Western Germans are if combining FTDNA and YFull data bases.

[Capsian20]

Modern TMRCAs don't mean much without aDNA in such discussions and it's not a coincidence that the vast majority of such samples in the aDNA record come from the post-900 CE period.

900 AD is just about 300 years after the end of the Proto-Slavic stage and within the time frame for the expansion of Slavs in various regions. Also, the lack of earlier samples is not restricted to E-V13 Slavic lineages, since the Slavs did largely cremate their dead and there simply are not that many earlier samples left which have been tested yet.

And seeing founder events of E-V13 branches in areas like the Balticum, Poland, White Russia and Russia surely means something, because they are surely not better tested than say Albanians, Serbs and Western Germans are if combining FTDNA and YFull data bases.

This subclade (E-S3003) in Germany its seems to me source this subclade they are slavic
This sample ancient KRA005  it back a medieval germany cultural had cluster SNA Slavic

[corrigendum]

This subclade (E-S3003) in Germany its seems to me source this subclade they are slavic
This sample ancient KRA005  it back a medieval germany cultural had cluster SNA Slavic

He's not ancient as he dates to 1170-1258 CE.

[Riverman]

This subclade (E-S3003) in Germany its seems to me source this subclade they are slavic
This sample ancient KRA005  it back a medieval germany cultural had cluster SNA Slavic

He's not ancient as he dates to 1170-1258 CE.

But you know that its a Slavic-Germanic founder event. That's absolutely evident from the distribution of E-S3003/E-L540.
Also, there are earlier Slavic E-V13 samples, some of the earliest Slavic samples we got. That they are not from 500-600 AD is solely because we have no sufficient sampling from that period. Even though, one of the earlier ones with predominantely Slavic ancestry is indeed E-V13, coming from South Moravia (LIB11). He is one of the earliest samples with a clearly, predominantely Slavic profile.

[Southpaw]

I am gonna make a prediction or speculation which may or may not be correct.

Since we see splinter groups during Chalcolithic as far north as Ukraince between North/Eastern Carpathians and Podilsky Upland and south to Late Chalcolithic North Balkans Culture but not to their authentic material culture. I predict core E-V13 group was residing in what is called Criș culture deep in Transylvania/Carpathians.

Two specific attributes to them:

1. High altitude herding
2. Metal-working pioneering in Late Chalcolithic

Why am i speculating this?

It looks like these guys have leaks, the culture which expanded on Eastern Carpathians and brought to the pre PIE people cattle herding and some wanderwords like number 7/seven and the etymology of cow and tauros/tawros (Rasmus Bjorn hypothesis) was the Criș Culture. David Anthony specifically mention this in his The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World about the Criș Culture.

Moreover Criș Culture connects both these Eastern Carpathian Neolithic herders and Chalcolithic Balkan Cultures.

[corrigendum]

This subclade (E-S3003) in Germany its seems to me source this subclade they are slavic
This sample ancient KRA005  it back a medieval germany cultural had cluster SNA Slavic

He's not ancient as he dates to 1170-1258 CE.

But you know that its a Slavic-Germanic founder event. That's absolutely evident from the distribution of E-S3003/E-L540.
Also, there are earlier Slavic E-V13 samples, some of the earliest Slavic samples we got. That they are not from 500-600 AD is solely because we have no sufficient sampling from that period. Even though, one of the earlier ones with predominantely Slavic ancestry is indeed E-V13, coming from South Moravia (LIB11). He is one of the earliest samples with a clearly, predominantely Slavic profile.

LIB11 could date to the 6th century CE and he would be the earliest sample with such a profile, but he's mixed hence he plots like a modern Croat. Another individual from the same site has a Paleo-Balkan profile. Other samples from his upstream clade suggest a movement during the Roman era northwards. As such, this doesn't contradict the general consensus.

E-L540 represents a founder effect somewhere in central Europe from 100 BCE to 100 CE. Central Europe wasn't Slavic during this period. Later (medieval) introduction in Slavic societies doesn't make the original founder effect Slavic or even Germanic, although I think that it's much more likely than not that E-L540 was introduced among Czechs, Poles and even Scandinavians by medieval Germans because as a whole L540 is more diverse among Germans than all other groups.

[Riverman]

LIB11 could date to the 6th century CE and he would be the earliest sample with such a profile, but he's mixed hence he plots like a modern Croat. Another individual from the same site has a Paleo-Balkan profile. Other samples from his upstream clade suggest a movement during the Roman era northwards. As such, this doesn't contradict the general consensus.

We don't know from which side of his ancestry he got his paternal lineage. But even if it was the E-V13 lineage which came from a more Central European to Balkan shifted ancestor in his pedigree, he is so early that he actually predates the main expansions of Slavs in many regions and being associated with a Slavic archaeological and ancestral context. It proves that very early Slavs assimilated and spread E-V13 carriers in Central Europe. His usual dating is 400-500 AD!

Also, what do you mean with upstream clade? He is E-L241, and E-L241 dates to the LBA-EIA transitional period, its an main E-V13 expansion lineage from that era. At FTDNA his new assignment is E-MF657677, which looks currently, since there are no modern testers, like a dead end. His branch is directly downstream of E-FGC76265, which being dated to the EIA and might be considered a likely branch within Basarabi.

That his branch haven't had a founder event within the early Slavic population, similar to E-S3003/E-L540 might be attributed to pure chance.

E-L540 represents a founder effect somewhere in central Europe from 100 BCE to 100 CE. Central Europe wasn't Slavic during this period. Later (medieval) introduction in Slavic societies doesn't make the original founder effect Slavic or even Germanic, although I think that it's much more likely than not that E-L540 was introduced among Czechs, Poles and even Scandinavians by medieval Germans because as a whole L540 is more diverse among Germans than all other groups.

If anything, E-L540 possibly had a Germanic and a Slavic founder event, but more likely it spread with Slavs, because within Germans, it nearly exclusively pops up in German regions with a Slavic substrate, while having a strong Slavic presence throughout various Western and Eastern Slavic groups. Too much of a coincidence and similar German branches look different, usually, like having a nest in Western or Southern Germany and a secondary spread in other areas, especially Czechia, Slovakia and Poland.

Also, while Germans are badly tested, White Russians and Russians are not better tested at all. Additionally, the ancient DNA sample from Krakauer Berg is fully Slavic AFAIK and this in a period when the German Ostsiedlung in that area has just begun. Also, the founder event seems to align better with Early Slavs. The widespread distribution among Slavs, from German Medieval settler lineage, is rather unlikely. That would make E-L540 more widespread as a German colonisation marker than many major Germanic branches of R-U106 and I-M253 which participated in the Ostsiedlung.
Not impossible, but rather unlikely based on the currently available evidence IMHO.

Besides, E-L540/S3003 is not the only E-V13 founder lineage among Slavs, its just the most prominent and successful one.