(03-13-2024, 06:33 AM)GHurier Wrote: In fact, what we see from the phylogeny is that the "Roman mediated" do exists for J-L283, it affects some clades ... but it is not heavily dominant.
In fact, subclades like J-Z1043 and J-Y27522 are clearly dominated by ~IA dispersions.
Z1043 (TMRCA ~800 BCE) may have an IA dispersion, but this dispersion most probably happened from the Balkans and was largely localized within the Balkans before the Roman era. It's not a coincidence that the oldest Z1043 samples are from the Roman Balkans with local profiles or that Z1043 found outside of the Balkans postdate them. I don't exclude some Z1043 moving northwards a bit earlier in areas like Hungary or Italy, but this doesn't change the overall picture. The same argument can be supported about Y27522. The oldest Y27522+ comes from the Roman Balkans.
We got many samples from western Europe during this week. There are maybe ~80 Y-DNA samples in total from IA France in all existing studies. Not a single one is J-L283 or E-V13 or another haplogroup which is commonly found in southeastern Europe and beyond (like J-L24), even though J-L283 (~3%), E-V13 (~3%), J-L24 (~2%) are about 8% of Y-DNA lineages of modern France.
Does this mean that we won't find any IA J-L283 or E-V13 in France? No. As we're getting close to 100 samples, maybe 1-2 could have been found already.
Does it mean that all J-L283 and E-V13 in France got there during Roman or post-Roman periods? No, but it does strongly suggest that many them did because the difference between modern and ancient Y-DNA % is clear.
As is the difference in the Balkans clear, where I1 simply isn't there before the Roman era but during this period as Germanic foederati and mercenaries settled in the region, it increased.
(03-13-2024, 04:50 PM)Villanovan Wrote: Proto-Celts were important vectors for G-L497, but not only G-L497 TMRCA predates proto-Celts substantially as its first important expansion, represented by the G-Z727 (G-Z1816) subclade, also predates them well. This more relevant expansion must have happened just slightly after R-U152's, which is the one that G-Z727 seems to best mirror, as usually assumed.
Bottom line, G-L497 must have been related to several different groups along its evolution, as you know. For example, from the data available, it looks like it could have been the most frequent G subclade among early Etruscans. Perhaps it was frequent among Tyrsenian speakers (?).
Definitely, one group (Proto-Celts) doesn't exclude other scenarios like Tyrsenian-speakers or even a Proto-Italic-Celtic affiliation.
(03-13-2024, 06:33 AM)GHurier Wrote: In fact, what we see from the phylogeny is that the "Roman mediated" do exists for J-L283, it affects some clades ... but it is not heavily dominant.
In fact, subclades like J-Z1043 and J-Y27522 are clearly dominated by ~IA dispersions.
Z1043 (TMRCA ~800 BCE) may have an IA dispersion, but this dispersion most probably happened from the Balkans and was largely localized within the Balkans before the Roman era. It's not a coincidence that the oldest Z1043 samples are from the Roman Balkans with local profiles or that Z1043 found outside of the Balkans postdate them. I don't exclude some Z1043 moving northwards a bit earlier in areas like Hungary or Italy, but this doesn't change the overall picture. The same argument can be supported about Y27522. The oldest Y27522+ comes from the Roman Balkans.
We got many samples from western Europe during this week. There are maybe ~80 Y-DNA samples in total from IA France in all existing studies. Not a single one is J-L283 or E-V13 or another haplogroup which is commonly found in southeastern Europe and beyond (like J-L24), even though J-L283 (~3%), E-V13 (~3%), J-L24 (~2%) are about 8% of Y-DNA lineages of modern France.
Does this mean that we won't find any IA J-L283 or E-V13 in France? No. As we're getting close to 100 samples, maybe 1-2 could have been found already.
Does it mean that all J-L283 and E-V13 in France got there during Roman or post-Roman periods? No, but it does strongly suggest that many them did because the difference between modern and ancient Y-DNA % is clear.
As is the difference in the Balkans clear, where I1 simply isn't there before the Roman era but during this period as Germanic foederati and mercenaries settled in the region, it increased.
Many non-sensical claims in this post.
I'll reply only once, as I did many time on other fora or other topics and there is no point to have this discussion again here, as clearly, you apply some "weird methodological standards".
1. Z1043 is the direct descendent of Z631 with a TMRCA difference of ~100 years. Oldest known Z631 sample is from Roma, ~100 CE and is typically Hallsatt in adgmixture. Note that reasoning by the "oldest found sample" makes absolutely 0 logic by the way (particularly when the earlier samples are 1000+ years after the MRCA).
2. These clades most likely got absorbed by cremating Urnfield/Eastern-Hallstatt populations around ~1000 BCE ... which also explain most of the sampling bias.
3. You can also get as many sample as you want from IA-France ... you don't expect them in France by IA ... presence in France is mostly due to later movement by Germans. Again, the area where you expect them is along the Danubian corridor north of the Alps (very poorly sampled), with an overall "faint" relative presence. But that's how you produce long lasting diversity. When keeping the population "compact", newer diversity erase most of the older one within a short timescale.
4. Lack of diversity history correlation with Balkanic attested clades also speaks volume. Neighbors clades are facing correlated diversification events.
5. You speek of coincidence ? I consider such consideration as very un-scientific, but to me you invocate a coincidense, when you claim that L283 samples need to have been displaced by Romans exactly where they have been attested by ancient DNA (south-western Germany). The lack of samples is other Roman-dominated regions (Anatolia/North Africa) also speaks volume about the intensity of this mecanism.
6. There is no point at counting % of haplogroup, particularly considering ancient DNA coverage. As we see from most archeological sites, each sites is often very biased toward one or two particular lineages. And here, you forget that Romans are not the only ones who moved in Europe. No one claims that J-L283 is frozen since IA ... you have many subsequent movement involving Germans or Slavic population. Some sub-clades got clearly injected in the Balkans by Slavic populations (particularly for Y27522).
Basically, the mecanism you propose should produce a big amount of clade coupling around Roman times. We don't observe that.
The coupling is too weak for this mechanism to be dominant.
For clades like Y27522 there is just no Balkans-Westen/Central Europe coupling during Roman times.
The amount of clades you need to displace and the European scaled mass-extinction of these clades you need to have to achieve such results is not realistic.
Some roman displacement occured, but as a very minor mecanism. We see this coupling for Y15058 ... we don't see it for Z1043 and Y27522, clades not attested in the Balkans during EIA (even if Z1043 was clearly present in the Balkans pre-Roman, it is a different story for Y27522).
Many over-simplications in your posts, many "weird" claims that are clearly not relevant for the topic.
The "mass roman-mediated" about many clades is just failing to pass minimal demographic and statistical test to be feasible.
Apparently, proponents are now relying on "luck" to explain why a 500 BCE sample have been found exactly where we expected it from analysis of the phylogeny and diversity.
Using French-IA samples to prove that L283 weren't in south-Germany IA ... definitely, bad times for mass-Roman displacement proponents.
PS: same roughly apply to E-V13. Even if E-V13 got more affected by Romans, the Romans are not the main dispersion mecanism.
Interesting, MBG006 is very "northern" with these coordinates ... the clades have been within the Hallstatt sphere likely for few generations at least !
It might even be related to Urnfield movements.
Interesting, MBG006 is very "northern" with these coordinates ... the clades have been within the Hallstatt sphere likely for few generations at least !
It might even be related to Urnfield movements.
(03-15-2024, 06:07 AM)GHurier Wrote: Some roman displacement occured, but as a very minor mecanism. We see this coupling for Y15058 ... we don't see it for Z1043 and Y27522, clades not attested in the Balkans during EIA (even if Z1043 was clearly present in the Balkans pre-Roman, it is a different story for Y27522).
Many over-simplications in your posts, many "weird" claims that are clearly not relevant for the topic.
The "mass roman-mediated" about many clades is just failing to pass minimal demographic and statistical test to be feasible.
There's no displacement or replacement, there's only "addition" in the Roman era in most regions, which is why after the Roman era most local lineages were still there.
The fundamental test for all theories is aDNA. We're slowly getting to having 100 samples from IA France and three haplogroups which make up 8% (E-V13 3%, J-L283 3%, J-L24 2%) of total Y-DNA today in France haven't been found even as single samples during the pre-Roman era.
In contrast, G-L497 which is 2-4% in modern France, has been found throughout the region in multiple clades ( = high diversity) and it's clear that during the IA it represented a higher percentage than today.
(03-15-2024, 01:23 PM)corrigendum Wrote: There's no displacement or replacement, there's only "addition" in the Roman era in most regions, which is why after the Roman era most local lineages were still there.
The fundamental test for all theories is aDNA. We're slowly getting to having 100 samples from IA France and three haplogroups which make up 8% (E-V13 3%, J-L283 3%, J-L24 2%) of total Y-DNA today in France haven't been found even as single samples during the pre-Roman era.
In contrast, G-L497 which is 2-4% in modern France, has been found throughout the region in multiple clades ( = high diversity) and it's clear that during the IA it represented a higher percentage than today.
1. No displacement ? This is basically the opposite of what you claim ... To bring some haplogroups, Romans have to bring them from "somewhere" ... which is the meaning of "displacement".
But if you now claim that Roman didn't significantly displace them, in that case we agree (but you keep saying otherwise in the rest of your post).
2. J-L283 is about ~1% of modern French ... If we consider J-Z631 alone it is less than ~1%.
It starts to smell "bad" when "pack" of haplogroups are made for analyses, each lineage have to be considered alone when it comes to migrations (or at worst lineages with very close TMRCA might be considered together).
You keep speaking about IA-France, who claimed that many samples need to be found in IA-France ? You are responding to a position that no-one is defending !
As said before such sample are not expected in IA-France. For ~Z631 what you expect during IA is:
--> Main core in Eastern-Alps creamating populations (prabably absorbed there at the begining of EIA.)
--> Part of them in the Western-Balkans (by 300 BCE for sure, and maybe as early as 500-600 BCE)
--> Part of them in The northern-Alps Danubian corridor, and myabe a little bit in the Rhenan bassin by the end of IA (last time I checked, Danude didn't made it to France).
--> One/two isolated lineages long travelling and making it to ~Spain by ~500/400 BCE.
While some might have been established in Gaul during IA, they left no trace in modern time, we don't need such clades to explain current data. Not sure why they sould be heavily represented in samples from Aisne and Bourgogne French regions (to my knowledge these regions have not provided a single sample of J-L283 among modern peoples) ...
If any during IA, some might be around the Italian border (which is not significantly sampled during IA).
Most of French J-L283 (North-eastern ones in particular) are likely later arrival related to Germanic tribes.
3. You make pack of clades like E-V13, J-L283, and J-L24 ... let look the TMRCAs : 2800 BCE, 3500 BCE, and 11900 BCE ... and you analyse them as compact populations by EIA ? Hum.
Note that when adding numbers from FTDNA, J-L24 (1%), E-V13 (2%), J-L283 (1%) its add-up to 4-5% ... not 8%. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna.../frequency https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna.../frequency https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna.../frequency
Fraction of haplogroup, particularly "rare" ones can face major fluctuations due du founder effects and/or local sucessful/unsuccessful histories.
You have a gigantic spot of J-Z631 in Russia ... with a local clump reaching ~20% of presence.
Fraction in modern france for J-L283 is ~1% ... and most of it is likely inherrited from Germans movement (that postdate Romans).
Of course you won't find them during EIA among ~80 samples localised in Northern and Eastern France !
Whereas, you have one in Southern Germany among ~10-20ish male samples ... going there, you have a ~5-10% presence !!! Whereas modern Germany also have ~1% of J-L283 today, with regional clump around Stuttgart (how strange ...) peaking at ~4%.
What do you think it demonstrates ? To me, it shows nothing but a bad usage of data.
What is seen however is that there is a clump of J-Z597 diversity in modern Southern Germany, where a sample have been found from ~500 BCE.
4. Keep in mind that neither J-Z631 nor J-Y27522 have been found in the Balkans pre-Roman times aswell (note that J-Z631 will clearly have some clades around Balkans during pre-Romans times). You apply adaptative standards, depending on the region.
J-Y15058 provided some in Croatia, because this is the clade that is at the edge.
To make the long story short about J-Z597 :
-->J-Z638s expanded first.
-->J-Y15058 expanded later from a southern-ish location among J-Z597s.
-->This Y15058 expansion splitted J-Z638 children into two regions, northerners (J-Z631, J-Y27522) and southerners (J-Y21878, J-Y21045)
--> To provide the north-south hierarchy (diversity-based) : J-Y27522, J-Z631, J-Y15058, J-Y21878, J-Y21045
Note that J-Y27522 have more "pre-Roman" (=only considering clades defined by ~0 CE) diversity among modern peoples in France than in the Balkans. Whereas France is severely under-sampled with YFULL data.
5. RMPR116 (a J-Z631 Roman sample from ~100 CE in Roma) is showing a G25 distance of ~0.019 with LBW003 (and fall in the middle of the ~30ish sampled individuals in southern-Germany EIA) ... showing that it is "possible" for this sample to also originate from this region or nearby (as expected from its admixture since few years now).
The data are screaming, diversity, phylogeny, clade spatial cross-correlation, ancient DNA ... everything tell one and the same story.
Whereas up to now nothing support a mass-Roman-mediated displacement of clades from the Balkans. Particularly not for J-Z1043 and J-Y27522. For Y15058 we have a little bit of signal, as expected from this type of clade migration mecanism, which is consistent with Y15058 geographical location.
Thus, we have clearly big issues here :
A - You are not adressing the claims that you reply too. You speak about France-IA, when we are speaking of northern Alps Danubian bassin during IA.
B - You are using unsourced numbers, whereas the compagny with the biggest amount of data for France provide significantly lower numbers.
C- You are ignoring some data on purpuse (like the ~100 CE Hallsatt-like sample found in Roma).
D- You apply double standards depending on what you want to conclude, the conclusion is placed before looking at the data.
E- You conflates many things which prevent you to analyse the complexity of each clade "path".
(03-15-2024, 01:23 PM)corrigendum Wrote: There's no displacement or replacement, there's only "addition" in the Roman era in most regions, which is why after the Roman era most local lineages were still there.
The fundamental test for all theories is aDNA. We're slowly getting to having 100 samples from IA France and three haplogroups which make up 8% (E-V13 3%, J-L283 3%, J-L24 2%) of total Y-DNA today in France haven't been found even as single samples during the pre-Roman era.
In contrast, G-L497 which is 2-4% in modern France, has been found throughout the region in multiple clades ( = high diversity) and it's clear that during the IA it represented a higher percentage than today.
1. No displacement ? This is basically the opposite of what you claim ... To bring some haplogroups, Romans have to bring them from "somewhere" ... which is the meaning of "displacement".
But if you now claim that Roman didn't significantly displace them, in that case we agree (but you keep saying otherwise in the rest of your post).
2. J-L283 is about ~1% of modern French ... If we consider J-Z631 alone it is less than ~1%.
3. You make pack of clades like E-V13, J-L283, and J-L24 ... let look the TMRCAs : 2800 BCE, 3500 BCE, and 11900 BCE ... and you analyse them as compact populations by EIA ? Hum.
4. Keep in mind that neither J-Z631 nor J-Y27522 have been found in the Balkans pre-Roman times aswell (note that J-Z631 will clearly have some clades around Balkans during pre-Romans times). You apply adaptative standards, depending on the region.
I'll just repeat quickly some points.
1.Displacement means forced mobility, the evidence we have for western Europe has to do with movement in the context of the Roman army and urbanization. Just check a list of Balkan legions which were stationed in western Europe throughout the Roman era.
2. I added all J-L26 haplogroups in one grouping because none of them have been found in IA France. I use yfull's database where J-L283 is 2.7% (n=405). We can combine both datasets to be more accurate, but the main point would remain the same: 4-8% of Y-DNA in modern France comes from lineages which haven't been found there during the IA, but which are typically found southeast of France.
It's Y12000 which has an early medieval founder effect among Mishar Tatars and today makes up 16-20% of the total lineages of this ethnic group. The lineage may be a "back migration" towards the east of some local Pannonian lineage which had joined the Avar elite as in the case of Hungary.
4. Neither has yet been found in the pre-Roman Balkans as most of the BA/IA Balkans are unsampled, but in itself the fact that they have been found with local Roman Balkan profiles and they are the earliest samples from their subclades is highly suggestive.
![[Image: 9vgkiMQ.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9vgkiMQ.png)
![[Image: 1-111111111111111111111111111111115.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/zDh27gwM/1-111111111111111111111111111111115.png)
