E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

[Kelmendasi]

Messapii (Μεσσάπιοι) was an exonym given to the Iapygians by the Greeks. It is derived from messos ('middle') + -apia ('water') and similar toponyms are found in mainland Greece itself such as the oronym Messapio.

[Southpaw]

That's also possible but not conclusive. Pausanias lived like ~500 years after Aristotle. Also the etymology is not conclusive, they are hypothesis.

Messapi even if it's an exonym was given to Messapi not to Daunians and Peuceti as an umbrella to all of them.

[pelop]

From the recent aDNA paper regarding E1b1ba1b sample in Proto-Usatovo Kurgan

Among the specimens in our selection, a CTAC individual from Verteba Cave and a
proto-Usatove individual from Mayaky carried E1b1b1a1b* Y chromosomal lineages. The protoUsatove designation of the Mayaky individual is based on the 14C date that predates Usatove
even after adjusting for reservoir effect5 (Section 1.2.1). The E1b1b1a1b lineage is not
associated with the Balkan-Danubian route of farming expansion from Anatolia to central
Europe in the Neolithic137. 

On the other hand, the E1b1b1a1b~ expansion in the
Mediterranean, which is timed to the late Mesolithic in southeast Europe 137, raises a possibility
that it coincided with the spread of agriculture out of the Fertile Crescent into southern Europe
via the Mediterranean coast beginning ca. 9000 years ago 141. Such as, Y chromosomal lineage
diversity in the Epicardial culture of the Cardial Ware complex of the Neolithic Mediterranean
shows Near Eastern influence and Cardial/Epicardial mtDNA lineage frequencies and diversity
are comparable to those from Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites142. A bearer of the
E1b1b1a1b1 haplogroup belonging to the Cardial Ware archaeological complex was reported
from the Croatian Zemunica Cave in western Balkans 8. Cardial Ware complex is considered to
have influenced the Late Neolithic-Eneolithic Hamangia culture of the west-northwest Pontic
143. Hamangia, in turn, is considered to have influenced the formation of Precucuteni-Trypillia A
144. The presence of the E1b1b1a1b1 lineage in Trypillia and a proto-Usaove individual
strengthens the link between Hamangia and CTAC as well as CTAC and Usatove and connects
the genetic ancestry of CTAC and Usatove with Cardial Ware.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...y-material

We have 1 E-L618 from Lengyel and 2 from Varna so we already knew it was present in Balkan-Danubian Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures. It's unfortunate that aDNA authors still devote so little time into researching already published Y DNA results and rely on old interpretations.

[corrigendum]

Messapii (Μεσσάπιοι) was an exonym given to the Iapygians by the Greeks. It is derived from messos ('middle') + -apia ('water') and similar toponyms are found in mainland Greece itself such as the oronym Messapio.

Yes, Messapi is the Greek exonym for two Iapygian groups: the Calabri and Salentini.

[Kelmendasi]

Yes, Messapi is the Greek exonym for two Iapygian groups: the Calabri and Salentini.

Indeed, as is stated by Strabo: 

Now that I have traversed the regions of Old Italy as far as Metapontium, I must speak of those that border on them. And Iapygia borders on them. The Greeks call it Messapia, also, but the natives, dividing it into two parts, call one part (that about the Iapygian Cape) the country of the Salentini, and the other the country of the Calabri. 

Another toponym in Greece bearing this name: Messapia (derived from the hydronym Messapios).

[Southpaw]

apa doesn't mean water in Ancient Greek though. The Metapontium to Messapian transform in Greek looks more credible though, i read it myself through another source.

Those modern hydronyms you quote from Wikipedia not credible.

[Riverman]

So we now have a confirmed E-L618 sample from Trypolye-Cucuteni and one from Usatovo, from their central cemetary Mayaky, from a kurgan burial, a massive built young man, part of the Usatovo-Gorodsk elite.

Additionally, like I saw on Eupedia, the position of another potentially steppe derived E-L618 individual being possible, much further to the East:
Geoksyur 8535 - E-L618 on FTDNA Discovery and now being confirmed by a rerun of the fastq file by theytree.

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%

https://www.theytree.com/sample/f2de70d3...a5269.html

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:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/

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 (1–3, 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.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6748862/

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



Interestingly, the additional WHG and EEF ancestry is pretty low, which suggests direct Yamnaya-like (Yamnaya or related without or with only very little additional admixture) into the region.

[rafc]

The sample is L618. Unless you can show he is at least a partial V13, there really is no link with V13. They would have diverged at 6350BC, maybe not even in Europe.

[Ushta]

The sample is L618. Unless you can show he is at least a partial V13, there really is no link with V13. They would have diverged at 6350BC, maybe not even in Europe.

I was just about to ask for this clarification, thanks.

[Capsian20]

So we now have a confirmed E-L618 sample from Trypolye-Cucuteni and one from Usatovo, from their central cemetary Mayaky, from a kurgan burial, a massive built young man, part of the Usatovo-Gorodsk elite.

Additionally, like I saw on Eupedia, the position of another potentially steppe derived E-L618 individual being possible, much further to the East:
Geoksyur 8535 - E-L618 on FTDNA Discovery and now being confirmed by a rerun of the fastq file by theytree.

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%

https://www.theytree.com/sample/f2de70d3...a5269.html

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:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/

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 (1–3, 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.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6748862/

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



Interestingly, the additional WHG and EEF ancestry is pretty low, which suggests direct Yamnaya-like (Yamnaya or related without or with only very little additional admixture) into the region.

What ID this sample?

[Riverman]

The sample is L618. Unless you can show he is at least a partial V13, there really is no link with V13. They would have diverged at 6350BC, maybe not even in Europe.

That's true, but it proves that E-L618 was close to the steppe and moved onto the steppe fairly early (before 3.200 BC).
All samples from Impresso-Cardial, LBK, Lengyel, Sopot, Tripolye-Cucuteni, Varna, Usatovo etc. are E-L618 only so far. That he was not from Europe is quite unlikely though, because his maternal side is local and his paternal came with steppe groups in all likelihood.

The Usatovo is the most interesting because he is not assigned much further, having a rather low coverage. Would be great if some experts and FTDNA-theytree could take a look at the sample to check for clues.

[Riverman]

What ID this sample?

The ID is I8525

Geschlecht
Männlich
Qualität
Abdeckung: 1.29％ Durchschnittliche Tiefe: 1
Wissenschaftliche Einrichtung
Land
Turkmenistan
Heimatort
Geoksyur
Antike Kultur
BMAC_o2
Antike Periode
3090-2920 calBCE
Datenquelle
The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia

Because of the low coverage, it might not be sure he is not E-V13. IDK

[Capsian20]

What ID this sample?

The ID is I8525

Geschlecht
Männlich
Qualität
Abdeckung: 1.29％ Durchschnittliche Tiefe: 1
Wissenschaftliche Einrichtung
Land
Turkmenistan
Heimatort
Geoksyur
Antike Kultur
BMAC_o2
Antike Periode
3090-2920 calBCE
Datenquelle
The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia

Because of the low coverage, it might not be sure he is not E-V13. IDK

Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_contam:I8525_simulation,0.09281,0.108771,-0.026281,0.004803,-0.013982,0.012804,0.002228,0.002911,-0.020557,-0.012328,-0.00925,-0.001785,-0.003743,0.00595,0.012544,4e-06,-0.001189,-0.000744,-0.002982,0.008089,6.6e-05,-0.005633,0.004182,0.005148,0.001006

https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...ight=I8525

[Riverman]

What ID this sample?

The ID is I8525

Geschlecht
Männlich
Qualität
Abdeckung: 1.29％ Durchschnittliche Tiefe: 1
Wissenschaftliche Einrichtung
Land
Turkmenistan
Heimatort
Geoksyur
Antike Kultur
BMAC_o2
Antike Periode
3090-2920 calBCE
Datenquelle
The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia

Because of the low coverage, it might not be sure he is not E-V13. IDK

Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_contam:I8525_simulation,0.09281,0.108771,-0.026281,0.004803,-0.013982,0.012804,0.002228,0.002911,-0.020557,-0.012328,-0.00925,-0.001785,-0.003743,0.00595,0.012544,4e-06,-0.001189,-0.000744,-0.002982,0.008089,6.6e-05,-0.005633,0.004182,0.005148,0.001006

https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...ight=I8525

Too bad, its contaminated and the autosomal result deviates strongly from the other samples from that site. Overall the result looks more modern probably. I try to discuss that in the thread you opened about it. Doesn't look too good. What a shame, since both FTDNA and theytree used it.

[Southpaw]

theytree doesn't seem to care too much about samples, whether it has low coverage, is not negative for downstream for sure.

I mean perhaps they want to include as much as samples as possible.