A genetic history of the Balkans from Roman frontier to Slavic migrations

[corrigendum]

So those qpadm results might support that only I15544 and I15546 represent a local profile, while the others have recent admixture from neighbouring areas. But it's off course hard to know for sure if that was the profile of locals, or just very recent admixture in these soldiers.

It depends on the definition of "local". During the EIA, there were definitely Illyrians and Thracians in the region and Celts had appeared by the MIA/LIA. All three (Illyrian, Thracian, Celtic) are local profiles of the IA of the area. In my opinion, a more interesting question is to ask what the local profile of the LBA was like.

Still, in any case,one thing that is definitely missing is any sort of LBA mass movement from a northern direction.

Since when are Celts IA Balkans? They came from further North-West for sure.

The problem i see with you is that you always try to write in puzzles and as void as possible in order to hide your own totally invalid assumptions.

We have gone through this zillions of times, E-V13 will appear during Bronze-Iron age transition as the paper states, and the Gava-Belegis II, Channeled-Ware appears during that time, as does the Stamped-Ware more in the Eastern Balkans where we are seeing dozens of E-V13 already.

I would say that most people who are interested in this subject don't consider Gava to be relevant for E-V13. Belegis II as a local Balkan culture is another topic although the fact that there is Serbia_BA-like cluster of samples in Viminacium, but it's unrelated to the E-V13 grouping is indicative. It is as indicative as the fact that with every new study we get more and more E-V13 diversity within the Balkans, but less and less E-V13 diversity outside of the Balkans. 

E-V13 most likely didn't appear in the Balkans in any Bronze-Iron age transition and the paper doesn't claim such a thing.  It claims (correctly) that in the tested areas/sites it hasn't been found before the EIA and that it experienced a Bronze-to-Iron age expansion in the Balkans. It doesn't claim that it came from somewhere outside the Balkans. This is another topic which at some point I'll discuss extensively at another thread as it isn't the subject of this one. A more interesting discussion is to ask where in the Balkans E-V13 might have been located during the Bronze Age. This is the question which interests me and which I try to explore. If someone doesn't agree with this opinion, they can just move on to subjects which they find more interesting. In any case, we'll eventually get relevant studies and samples which will answer this question and as such it's pointless to go back and forth arguing about something which won't be settled by arguing about it.

As for Celts, I don't see what is puzzling in what I wrote. There were IA Celts in the Balkans and they obviously came from the northwest. The fact that they lived in the Balkans at least since the MIA makes them a local IA group in relation to the succeeding Roman period. As such, finding a Celtic profile in northern or eastern Serbia or in relevant areas of Bosnia or Croatia in the Roman period means that it may derive from a local Celtic group. In Viminacium itself, the local IA group was indeed a Celtic tribe (Scordisci) with considerable Illyrian and Thracian influences.

[Southpaw]

So those qpadm results might support that only I15544 and I15546 represent a local profile, while the others have recent admixture from neighbouring areas. But it's off course hard to know for sure if that was the profile of locals, or just very recent admixture in these soldiers.

It depends on the definition of "local". During the EIA, there were definitely Illyrians and Thracians in the region and Celts had appeared by the MIA/LIA. All three (Illyrian, Thracian, Celtic) are local profiles of the IA of the area. In my opinion, a more interesting question is to ask what the local profile of the LBA was like.

Still, in any case,one thing that is definitely missing is any sort of LBA mass movement from a northern direction.

Since when are Celts IA Balkans? They came from further North-West for sure.

The problem i see with you is that you always try to write in puzzles and as void as possible in order to hide your own totally invalid assumptions.

We have gone through this zillions of times, E-V13 will appear during Bronze-Iron age transition as the paper states, and the Gava-Belegis II, Channeled-Ware appears during that time, as does the Stamped-Ware more in the Eastern Balkans where we are seeing dozens of E-V13 already.

I would say that most people who are interested in this subject don't consider Gava to be relevant for E-V13. Belegis II as a local Balkan culture is another topic although the fact that there is Serbia_BA-like cluster of samples in Viminacium, but it's unrelated to the E-V13 grouping is indicative. It is as indicative as the fact that with every new study we get more and more E-V13 diversity within the Balkans, but less and less E-V13 diversity outside of the Balkans. 

E-V13 most likely didn't appear in the Balkans in any Bronze-Iron age transition and the paper doesn't claim such a thing.  It claims (correctly) that in the tested areas/sites it hasn't been found before the EIA and that it experienced a Bronze-to-Iron age expansion in the Balkans. It doesn't claim that it came from somewhere outside the Balkans. This is another topic which at some point I'll discuss extensively at another thread as it isn't the subject of this one. A more interesting discussion is to ask where in the Balkans E-V13 might have been located during the Bronze Age. This is the question which interests me and which I try to explore. If someone doesn't agree with this opinion, they can just move on to subjects which they find more interesting. In any case, we'll eventually get relevant studies and samples which will answer this question and as such it's pointless to go back and forth arguing about something which won't be settled by arguing about it.

As for Celts, I don't see what is puzzling in what I wrote. There were IA Celts in the Balkans and they obviously came from the northwest. The fact that they lived in the Balkans at least since the MIA makes them a local IA group in relation to the succeeding Roman period. As such, finding a Celtic profile in northern or eastern Serbia or in relevant areas of Bosnia or Croatia in the Roman period means that it may derive from a local Celtic group. In Viminacium itself, the local IA group was indeed a Celtic tribe (Scordisci) with considerable Illyrian and Thracian influences.

Again dodging the main point, and no, most of people genuinely interested in the topic don't agree with you.

You might figure out what Bronze-to-Iron Age expansion mean, if you read one two archaeological informations on broader Balkan-Carpathian complex it becomes clearer. You do realize that Gabor Vekony is probably the biggest name in Hungarian archaeology, and this person knows two things about the archaeological picture on the area.

By the end of the Late Bronze Age, the people of the Gáva culture, who buried cremated remains in urns, and related groups had expanded their domain. Their settlements and burial places are found not only in Transylvania, but also in the Banat, in areas east of the Tisza, and, east of the Carpathians, in Galicia and Bessarabia (Holihrad and Kisinyov cultures). Some of their groups travelled across the wooded steppes as far as the Dnieper River. Judging from the material evidence, peoples who lived at this time south of {1-36.} the Carpathians, in Wallachia and northern Bulgaria, spoke a language related to that of the Gáva culture (Babadag and Pšeničevo cultures). This region is roughly contiguous with the subsequent settlement areas of the Dacians, Gaetians, and Mysians.

Between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the first mention of these peoples in ancient sources, there were no migrations significant enough to radically alter the composition of the population. It is therefore likely that the finds from the Gáva culture and related groups are the legacy of ancestors of Dacians, Gaetians and Mysians. Their origins are clear: the indigenous communities of Middle Bronze Age people and conquerors bearing the Tumulus culture had coalesced by the end of the Late Bronze Age into a group of peoples speaking identical or related languages. The stability of this pattern is reinforced by the organizing skills of an equestrian group that arrived from the east in the middle of the Late Bronze Age. To be sure, the latter's rule was short-lived; well before the end of the Late Bronze Age, they were driven to hide their characteristic harness pieces and Caucasian axes — not only in Transylvania, but also in Transdanubia and in the region between the Drava and Sava rivers (Felsőmarosújvár, Ispánlaka, Karánsebes, Kőfarka). The first evidence of iron tools seems to coincide with their appearance in the region (Oláhlápos, Bogda, Babadag). There followed an extended period of peace in Transylvania; storehouses dating from the end of the Late Bronze Age (Mojgrád, Pusztatóti, etc.) reveal that blacksmiths produced mainly axes and sickles. Although such tools could be used in battle, their primary purpose was cultivation.

https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/9.html

Let me rephrase, these people are considered part of Balkan-Carpathian Complex and this complex is not related to Illyrian zone. So, they didn't come from Central Europe or so or from Western-Central Balkans, they were coming from a buffer zone between Balkans and Carpathians. If Channeled-Ware is not attested for the more Western distribution of E-V13, then that happened during EIA/MIA and their origin lies deep in Lower Danube/Eastern Balkans solely with Stamped-Ware. Simple logic as it is.

Worth noting that cremation bias during Bronze-Iron Age sampling is totally skewing reality, that's why during Christian period we start seeing more E-V13, as we saw during the irregular burial pits in Psenicevo. The Southern Thracian/Stamped-Ware descended were biritual cremation and inhumation users while the more northern ones like Dacians/Mysi and Triballi used cremation burials more extensively.

[Riverman]

So those qpadm results might support that only I15544 and I15546 represent a local profile, while the others have recent admixture from neighbouring areas. But it's off course hard to know for sure if that was the profile of locals, or just very recent admixture in these soldiers.

It depends on the definition of "local". During the EIA, there were definitely Illyrians and Thracians in the region and Celts had appeared by the MIA/LIA. All three (Illyrian, Thracian, Celtic) are local profiles of the IA of the area. In my opinion, a more interesting question is to ask what the local profile of the LBA was like.

Still, in any case,one thing that is definitely missing is any sort of LBA mass movement from a northern direction.

There is no "in any case", as we have a general lack of data for the cremating populations of the area between the MBA to the EIA. That's a huge problem, this cremation gap, but the main group which can be tested and should be tested is, quite obviously, Basarabi, because Basarabi represents by and large Channelled-Stamped Pottery traditions and its carriers did in some regions transition to inhumation under Cimmerian influence, before switching back to cremation and an even stronger dominance of Channelled Pottery in its later phase, shortly before the Celtic arrival in the region. 

The closest thing to that will be Gomolava samples which might be Channelled Ware to Bosut-Basarabi in their time frame, so in any case relevant to the topic. The next big thing will be the samples from the Transylvanian Bronze Age. Even if those samples from Romania won't bring up E-V13, it will be possible to assess the autosomal composition of the cultures between Cotofeni and Gáva in the Transtisza zone. Then we can model properly which kind of migrations might have taken place.
For now we are still in the dark up to the Roman period in the Danubian region and for longer in the sphere of Dacians to its North for longer - until they stopped to exist.

Talking about Upper-Transtisza as a source without having samples from that zone makes no sense from the genetic perspective. From the archaeological-cultural perspective, there are plenty of indications for migrations from that zone East and South, that's why I'm focussing on it. The archaeological trend is pretty obvious, we just need the genetic confirmation for larger demic diffusions during the Transitional Period into the Balkans.

[ph2ter]

Here are G25 samples according to their ancestry (the output from my custom calculator).
(Not all samples are visible because many of them are positioned at the same geographic location, but the general trends are obvious):

1 - 500 CE:


500 - 700 CE:


700 - 1300 CE:

[Riverman]

It depends on the definition of "local". During the EIA, there were definitely Illyrians and Thracians in the region and Celts had appeared by the MIA/LIA. All three (Illyrian, Thracian, Celtic) are local profiles of the IA of the area. In my opinion, a more interesting question is to ask what the local profile of the LBA was like.

By local I mean the local population from which those soldiers were potentially recruited, so c. 200-500AD. I think it's likely this is the area where Vlachs and proto-Albanian speakers were in contact. Probably the local profile was then close to current day Albanians . It also makes it likely that V13 would have been a major haplogroup, given it's apparent lack in IA Albanian samples.
Basically what was also written in the Davidski paper:

Based on the above, it is possible that currently unsampled populations from the Central-West Balkan interior that were characterised by high frequencies of E-V13 may have entered the region of modern Albania around 500 CE, where they merged and co-expanded with local groups.

Not sure if the frequency we see at Timacum Minus is high enough, but it's just a small sample.

Still, in any case,one thing that is definitely missing is any sort of LBA mass movement from a northern direction.

I don't think these late Roman samples say a lot on LBA movements. From archeological perspective it seems likely people moved from northern Serbia to southern Serbia in the LBA. I think that movement is unlikely to be the source of V13 here. Probably it's due to IA processes we don't understand yet.
The Macedonian IA samples for example, tend to have more HG than the BA Macedonian (which is only one sample, so not sure how representative, but it's what we have). This fits input from the north, and I would expect EIA Southern Serbia to also show this, probably a bit more than Macedonia even (and vice versa LBA Southern Serbia should have increased HG versus BA Macedonia). The HG level would then have gradually decreased by input from the east (and west?). From that point of view a local late Roman profile with little HG like I15544 and I15546 for the local population makes sense to me.

The reason for this contradition from the autosomal perspective is that there were different movements, of which the first was going North to South in the LBA, and the second was going rather South to North from the later EIA to the Roman period.
But  it was both the same people from the paternal side things, because the second movement came from Stamped Pottery groups which developed South and along the Danube, with huge influence from the Channelled Ware horizon.
The reason they are more Aegean like is that they mixed with Aegean like locals and new immigrants throughout their migration and from there onwards. Like the Channelled-Knobbed Ware spearheads moved deep into what is now Greece and Anatolia, created networks of Thracian speakers in close contacts and interaction with the Greeks since they landed there.

That's why in the Central Balkans the first samples will be more like the original Channelled Ware groups shifted, the later ones getting ever more Southern. But E-V13 was introduced by these groups which were the Proto-Thracians (Gáva-related Channelled Ware).

The expansion of Gáva-related Channelled Ware will be proven to be highly sex biased, basically the further South one goes, the more skewed towards male genetic contribution.

They can only sample outliers, irregulars etc., but like I said, there are groups which could be sampled like early Babadag, Kalakacza, Bosut-Basarabi and Mezocsat-locals, which are largely derived from these people.

[Riverman]

Here are G25 samples according to their ancestry (the output from my custom calculator).
(Not all samples are visible because many of them are positioned at the same geographic location, but the general trends are obvious):

1 - 500 CE:


500 - 700 CE:


700 - 1300 CE:

A lot of the models might change once we better understand what Central and North Thracian-Dacian was like. So far the best we got is still the Vekerzug E-V13 from Chotin and especially the two Himeran samples, plus as a primary source (post-Gáva) the Mezocsat locals.

[ph2ter]

In this version the diagrams are more visible:

[Orentil]

Super interesting! Just a small recommendation. The year 600 AD might fit even better reflecting the migration events from 568, Langobards, Gepids, Avars, Slavs.

[Bukva_]

@ph2ter Could you please show results for Bal_148 sample?

[lukpl]

In this version the diagrams are more visible:

What is Ioughoria (light green) ???

[ph2ter]

Super interesting! Just a small recommendation. The year 600 AD might fit even better reflecting the migration events from 568, Langobards, Gepids, Avars, Slavs.

[ph2ter]

In this version the diagrams are more visible:

What is Ioughoria (light green) ???

Uyelgi samples. Supposed proto-Ugric.

[ph2ter]

@ph2ter Could you please show results for Bal_148 sample?

[ph2ter]

[corrigendum]

Between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the first mention of these peoples in ancient sources, there were no migrations significant enough to radically alter the composition of the population. It is therefore likely that the finds from the Gáva culture and related groups are the legacy of ancestors of Dacians, Gaetians and Mysians. Their origins are clear: the indigenous communities of Middle Bronze Age people and conquerors bearing the Tumulus culture had coalesced by the end of the Late Bronze Age into a group of peoples speaking identical or related languages.
[/u][/b]
https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/9.html

I have underlined the key argument of the paper you cited. I can cite many others which argue for the opposite, but it's best to focus on each individual argument. The author you cited claims that Dacians/Gaetians/Mysians originate from MBA groups of Transylvania and conquerors bearing the Tumulus culture who had coalesced with them. We have no samples from Transylvania, but there are plenty of Tumulus culture samples in general. They are predominantly R1b-P312. If Dacians/Gaetians/Mysians were descendants of a fusion which included Tumulus culture then we should expect lots of R1b-P312 not just in Romania, but also in northern Bulgaria and of course if E-V13 is linked to such groups we should see E-V13 in populations with quite high R1b-P312 %. This isn't the case at all.

It doesn't mean that his argument is not correct about Gava culture. I consider it unlikely, but we don't know if Gava had R1b-P312 because there are no samples. It may indeed have a Tumulus Culture component, but if that is so then by definition Gava can't be connected to E-V13 - unless someone wants to argue that we should expect to find R1b-P312 in Bulgaria, which doesn't seem like a likely scenario at all.

As such, this is a cautionary tale: there are countless theories proposed by archaeologists about population movements. Their validity is determined by the archaeogenetic record.

A lot of the models might change once we better understand what Central and North Thracian-Dacian was like. So far the best we got is still the Vekerzug E-V13 from Chotin and especially the two Himeran samples, plus as a primary source (post-Gáva) the Mezocsat locals.

I don't find it interesting to recycle old discussions but the Vekerzug E-V13 outlier looks just like someone with Balkan + other ancestries. There's no "north Dacian" or any other such profile with which we can compare the Vekerzug profile.

For Gava, I've said all I had to say here and by that I mean that I consider it more likely that Gava was probably another group not far away from Maros culture (R-Z2103, I-M223 and other haplogroups) and all we have to do is wait to see what the relevant studies will show.

From the upper Transtisza valley itself there are two samples:

I11665; 1500-800 BC; Felsődobsza-2. lelőhely, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; I2-Y3721>Y3670>L1229 (xS20743,Y6512,Z2069)

I11695; 1500-800 BC; Pácin-Alsókenderszer, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; R1b-Z2103>M12149 (xY4362,Z2110)

Both haplogroups existed in Hungary in the previous period. We've had the rest of the discussion in many formats on anthrogenica so there's no reason to have it again. We can just wait for relevant studies.

Just in the next 2-3 (+/- 1) years we'll get:

a)a big study about LBA-EIA Bulgaria.
b)an even bigger study about EMA Albania (Komani-Kruja culture).
c)another big study about BA-EIA Transylvania.


Everyone's questions will be answered.

By local I mean the local population from which those soldiers were potentially recruited, so c. 200-500AD. I think it's likely this is the area where Vlachs and proto-Albanian speakers were in contact. Probably the local profile was then close to current day Albanians . It also makes it likely that V13 would have been a major haplogroup, given it's apparent lack in IA Albanian samples.

I think that this is an area where definitely Romanization would have taken place at a faster pace because it was a multiethnic/multicultural region where Latin would have functioned as the language of communication between many different groups. The fact that there are a few Albanian-like profiles in the area indicates that Albanian was spoken somewhere nearby in the area to the west. Before the study's publication, I would argue that Vlachs definitely formed in this area but I'm not so certain now as I can't see how the Vlach profile could have formed in this region. Perhaps Vlachs formed within Dardania itself + others from northern Bulgaria and then just moved eastwards and only small groups from Dardania which were present in this area as well played a part in this group's formation.

Not sure if the frequency we see at Timacum Minus is high enough, but it's just a small sample.

It's not high but I don't think that it's a coincidence that E-V13 is ~30% just like in Viminacium.

I don't think these late Roman samples say a lot on LBA movements. From archeological perspective it seems likely people moved from northern Serbia to southern Serbia in the LBA. I think that movement is unlikely to be the source of V13 here. Probably it's due to IA processes we don't understand yet.

No, the current samples can't tell us much about the LBA profile. This is the important question for me.

Archaeological attestation of a movement doesn't necessarily tell us much about its impact. We still haven't seen any samples which might be linked to northern Serbia or beyond from this period and I consider it very unlikely for E-V13 to be linked to any such movements.

In Viminacium what is important to note is that there are individuals who definitely have the local Serbia BA profile and one of them is R-Z2103 which means that there is at least some continuity in northern Serbia from the era of Maros culture and that these individuals did indeed form a distinct group which maintained a separate profile from the rest.