Note: This post is incomplete and requires more editing,and I haven't read it since I wrote if a few months ago. I probably won't revisit most of what I've written, but I'm posting it in case the information here is of any interest to anyone. Since I've written this more information has been published and I would now not agree with some of what I've wrtten here. The question of whether the E-FT388527 (and E-FGC11450) lineage was Greek or Thracian is for me still an open question. The AI Grok believes it was definitely Thracian but I tend to believe it was more likely Greek, for reasons I'll eplain in a future post. Either way, the line was almost certainly present from at least around 400 BC until 400 AD in the Bosporan Kingdom in Crimea, the northern coast of the Black Sea and the coasts of the Sea of Azov. This is pretty obviously how E-V13 entered Ukraine, Russia and Poland. THe Bosporan Kindom originated with Greek colonies including Olbia, Chersonesos and others, but was also ruled by Thracians and interacted continuously with the Scythians and Sarmatians to the north. Much, probably most, of the E-V13 in Hungary originated with Greeks or Thracians in the North Pontic who had merged into the Scythian culture, which itself was absorbed later into the Sarmatians. THe Iazyges Sarmatians, which included E-V13, migrated around 1 AD to the Tisza river region east of the Danube and west of Dacia, being at times allies and at times enemies of the Romans to the west and ssouth of the Danube. In 175 the Romans quashed a Sarmatian revolt against the Romans and as one of the terms of surrender the Iazyges had to send 8,000 men as recruits in the Roman army. Of these, 5,500 were sent to Britannia, and none of these men were allowed to return home to the Tisza region, even after they'd completed their  20-6ear term of service. This and similar events are likely how much  E-V13 was spread into the British/Irish islands, Germany and elsewhere. The Roman camp at today's Valkenburg near the mouth of the Old Rhine, then the primary arm of the river, was apparently the major transit point across the English channel, so this also introduced E-V13 into Frisia/Holland. However, there are other connections to Holland and Limburg that I'll discuss in future posts (which should be more succinct than this post). Amazingly, there's enough genetic and historical evidence for us to plausibly track E-V13 along a very spedific route from the Danubian Kingdoms of the Heruli, Rugii and THruingi around 500 AD to Brucken in Saxony-Anhalt to, then to Denmark, and then from Denmark to Maastrict/Swalmen in Limburg, probably as Vikings in the late 800's. This is the exact region to which I had earlier tracked the Swaim/den Hertog/Hartog hypothetial ancestor Otto Gerrits van Oist, as I've discussed in previous posts. For those who believe that the Swaim/den Hertog line descends from the van Arkel line, there is a newly-discovered man buried in TEnea near Corinth between 343-31 BC, and the ancient Greeks claimed that Tenea had been built and occupied by the conquered Trojan prisoners who had been allowed to settle there; it's quite a coincidence that Dirck Pauw had claimed that the van Arkel line had been Trojans who had lost the Trojan War and had fled afterward fled to Pannonia. This was part of the Frankish origin myth, which most historians consider pure fantasy, but which I now believe was based on the memories and stories of the Roman soldiers whose deep past had included stories of these events. 

Origin of Haplogroup E-FT388527

an it's Ancestral Haplogroups Including E-FGC11450 and E-V13

Introduction

In this post I'm exploring the origin of E-FGC11450, the most recent large haplogroup to which the Swaim lineages in America and den Hartog/Hertog lineages in Holland belong. E-FGC11450 is a subclade (descendant or downstream haplogroup) of E-V13, a haplogroup today concentrated in southeasternn Europe—the Balkans and Greece—but which is also found in lower concentrations throughout Europe and, to an even lesser extent, in western Asia, particulary in Cyprus, among the Druze of Isral/Lebanon, and around Lake Van in today's Turkey (but which historically was part of Armenia).

A recent paper on the origin of the Albanians described the origin of E-V13 as “enigmatic”. This has been due to the relativy rarity until recently of ancient men in that haplogroup and its ancestral haplogroups, which probably indicates that E-V13 and its ancestral haplogroups had been few in number until around 1100 BC at the earliest, after which it had rapidly expanded in Hungary, the Balkans and Greece. Genetic analysis indicates that it had actually begun expanding earlier, around 2500 BC, but the scarcity of ancient men in E-V13 and its ancestral haplogroups from that time period is puzzling. However, this could be explained if the line had a cultural preference for cremation rather than for inhumation burial, and there's some evidence for this practice in the Brnjica culture (Donja-Brnjica-Gornja-Strazava culture) of the 1300's-900's BC, which was located in Kosovo and souther Serbia, and apparently extended down the Vardar (Axios river through Macedonia and Thessaly, Greece. The reason this may be important to the history of E-V13 is that Kosovo is today appears to have the highest worldwide concentration of E-V13 and thus may be the region in which E-V13 first expanded, probably from as early as 3000 BC, although this is still unclear.

This is along post, so I'll summarize here what I now believe is the likely history of E-FGC11450 and its parent haplogroup E-V13.

The E-V13 ancestral lines likely originated in northeastern Africa in the region of Ethiopia and Sudan with a population ancestral to today's Omotic-speaking peoples of that region. From there it probably migrated around 13,000 BC either to the Levant or to North Africa.

E-V13 itself likely originated in one of these regions, the Levant or North Africa, possibly as early as 9500 BC but more likely around 7000-6000 BC (according to the estimates of YFUll and FTDNA).

If E-V13 originatd in western Asia, it was probably in the Levant. From there at least one branch may have migrated to Anatolia and then to Europe with the Anatolian Neolithic Farmer (ANF) migration of the 6000's BC.

However, there's no proof that this is how E-V13 entered Europe, and I believe that a plausible alternative scenario is that E-V13 originated in North Africa and entered Europe by 6000 BC directly trans-Mediterranean, without ever havling been present in the Levant. This scenario would explain why no ancient E-V13 has been found in western Asia. It could also explain why the earliest-known E-V13 was found in Spain 5000 BC, as Spain is located on the Mediterranean close to North Africa (although it's definitely plausible that E-V13 could have reached Spain by this time if it was part of the ANF migrations).

Either way, there's no sign of E-V13 in Europe or anywhere else in the world between 5000 BC (Spain) and 1100 BC at the earliest (Thrace/Bulgaria).

However, there are a dozen aincient individuals from haplogroups ancestral to E-V13 and from them we can plausibly extrapolate the locations that E-V13 might have been found at at various times. These individuals were buried in 15 fifferent locations and time periods. These, along with the locations/dates of E-V13 men before 1 AD are:

Morocco (6) 12,849-12,097 BC E-M78

Israel (3) 12,000-9500 BC E-M35

Algeria 10,000-7000 BC E-V68

Jordan 7700-7500 BC E-Z1919

Tunisia 6021-5850 BC E-PF2179

Croatia 6005-5814 BC E-L618

Austria 5207-4945 BC E-L618

Spain 5000 BC E-V13

Hungary 4797-4619 BC E-L618

Bulgaria (2) 4581-4354 BC E-CTS1975 & E-L618

Ukraine (2) 3959-3030 BC E-L618 & E-M78

Turkmenistan 3091-2918 BC E-L618

Spain 2132-1946 BC E-L618

Greece (Kirra) 1677-1481 E-L618 CCG022415

Greece (Kydonia) 1275 BC E-CTS1975 XAN014

Bulgaria (8) 1100-500 BC E-V13/E-L68/E-M78

Slovakia 650-500 BC E-V13

Italy (Sicily) (3) 480 BC E-V13

Crimea (2) 450-250 BC E-V13 (E-Z5018/E-BY3880)

Czechia 400-200 BC E-V13

Moldova 400-150 BC E-V13

Croatia 382-206 BC E-V13

China (Xinjian) 336-20 BC E-M35

Hungary (2) 320-200 BC E-V13

Bulgaria 300-200 BC E-V13

From this list we see that the earliest members of this line lived in Morocco but were in haplogroup E-M78, a descendant haplogroup of E-M35, which was pesent a bit later in Israel. These two populations had probably descended from a common population in northeastern Africa, with one population migrating to North Africa and one migrated to the Levant. The two populations had apparently maintained contact and shared genes, probably in a two-way contact.

The most recent haplogroup ancestral to E-V13 in the North African opulation ppulation was E-PF2179 in Tunisia (6000 BC), while in Jordan 7700 BC E-PF2179's immediate descendant line, E-Z1919, was present. The odds are thus slightly in favor of a European migration from the Levant rather than North Africa as being ancestral to European E-V13, but either (or both) is plausible.

There are only 11 men in haplogroups ancestral to E-V13, plust the one E-V13 man from Spain 5000 BC, who had been buried Europe before the earliest appearance of E-V13 in Europe outside of Spain as early as 1100 BC. This is a dozen men in a 5,000-year timespan, which indicates that the E-M78 lines were extremely small in number, or that the core population of E-V13 had not lived in Europe during that time period, but in some reaion in which either environmental conditions were not conducive to the preservation of bones or that has not been studied as thoroughly as Europe has been.

The evidence is frankly too incomplete to determine the location of the core E-V13 population from 6000-1100 BC. It might have been Europe, but I tend to believe it may instead have been located in West or Central Asia, with occasional incursions into southeastern Europe through Anatolia, the north Pontic region, or across the Black Sea. Technically this location could have been in the eastern European steppe region rather than Asia.

The chronologically most recent of the men in haplogroups ancestral to E-V13 were both from the Aegean, the Greek mainland and Crete, from 1700 BC and 1275 BC, the latter in haplogroup E-Cts1975, the parent haplogroup of E-V13.

Cruciani ( Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12 | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic ) analyzed E-V13 microsatellites (STRs) and determined that E-V13 had “expanded into Europe not earlier than” 3.300 BC This coincides with the Yamnaya migrations into Europe beginning around 3000 BC, so it's possible that E-V13 was part of the Yamnaya population. This might actually be evidence for a European origin of E-V13 in the Pontic region at this time, as at least one and probably both individuals from Eurkraine 3900-3000 BC were probably part of the Usatove culture that was comprised of both Farmer and Yamnaya populations, and probably ended as part of the nomadic pastoralist Yamaya population as the climate at this time became drier in this region, which was disfavorable to agriculture. Thus, it's plausible that Ukraine and/or Moldova was the home to the core E-V13 population at this time, rather than Turkmenistan or elewhere in western/central Asia. Or the core E-V13 population may in fact have migratied from Turkmenistan or elsewhere into mayaky

Ukraine/Moldova by the 3000's BC. In any case, it's like this region north and south of the Black Sea is likely the home of the core E-V13 population at this time.

From the Black Sea region it's clear that E-V13 migrated south into the Balkans and Greece, almost certainly as part of one branchthe Yamnaya population. This would have been the branch that spoke the ancestral Paleo-Balkan language that includes Thracian, Illyrian, Albanian and Greek, but also Phrigian, Hittite and Armenian; one branch appears likely to have migrated south into the Balkans while another brach migrated south and east into Anatolia and Armenia, either throughthe Balkans or throught he Caucasus.

Nearly all of the today's European E-V13 population would be descendants of this migration, which of course explains why E-V13 is prevelent in the Balkans and Greece. No ancient E-V13 remains have yet been found in Greece, and it's likely that E-V13 was at this time more prevelant in in the regions just north of Greece than in Greece itself, or at least in the northern parts of Greece.

CCG022415 from Kirra on the Greek mainland lived in the Mycenaean civilizaton (1750-1050 BC), which was destroyed during the Bronze Age Collapse that destroyed or weakened civilizations throughout the easern Mediterranean.This was also the time of the fall of Troy (~1180 BC) and the Dorian invasion of Greece (~1190 BC)

In this post I'm presenting detailed information on the the earliest members of the Y chromosome haplogroup E-V13 with emphasis on its E-FGC11450 subclade, which is the most recent large large subclade to which the Swaim/den Hartog line belongs. The information on E-FGC11450 and it's ancestral lines comes from the buried remains of ancient members of tht line, as well as from the archaeological and historical contexts associated with the burials. This history of E-V13 in general is considered to be enigmatic, but I think that within the last few years enough informaition been uncovered to interpret the probable history of the line. I'm going to present my own interpretation of the evidence and if you're asking yourself why you should give any weight to my hypotheses, your doubts are well-founded because I don't have any training in archaeaology, genetics or history. However, for the last years I've been immersed in this subject to a degree I doubt anyone else has, and although I don't fully understand some of the scientific and mathematic aspects of genetics and a solid understanding of the history of the regions involved, I think I know enough to make intelligent interpretations of the evidence currently available. Most of the information on the ancient E-V13 men comes from papers describing the studies that disinterred and tested the E-V13 men incidental to those studies. None of the studies but one had much interest in the origin of E-V13; rather, the researchers usually ignored any real analysis of tht haplogroup and concidered them peripheral to the primary goals of the sudies. The one paper that spent significant time analyzing the subject of the origin of E-V13 was a study on the origin of the Albanians (Davranoglou et al, ). This study didn't provide any new information on ancient E-V13 individuals but was interesting although in the end didn't really have an answer.

The earliest known E-V13 man is Ave07 from Spain around 5000 BC. The researchers who studied him claimed to have determined tht he did indeed have the E-V13 SNP, which if accurate is conclusive evidence that E-V13 originated at least by that time. Cruciani et al (2007) studied thousands of E-V13 microsatellites (STRs) from western Asia and Europe and determined that E-V13 had formed around 9500 BC and probably in western Asia as that the E-V13 in that regon has the greatest variability, which is an indication of the origin of the haplogroup. If it's true that E-V13 formed in western Asia, then it's likely that the ancestors of Ave07 had migrated to Europe from Anatolia with the Anatolian Neolithic Farmer (ANF) migration of the early 6000's BC. That migration appears to have occurred as one migration, or a series of migrations close in time and from the same general Anatolian population.

In Europe the ANF populatioin is also called the Early European Farmers (EEF) and by other names as well. The EEF first populated the Balkans, after which it split into two groups. One of these groups followed the Danube river and its tributaries from the Black Sea into central, western and northwestern Europe. The other population migrated west along the Mediterranean to Italy, southern France and Iberia, with a later migration from Iberia to the British Isles. Ave07's ancestors were of course likely in this second population as he was found in Spain.

Ave07 is an anomaly because thus far no other E-V13 ancient men have been found between the time of Ave07 (5000 BC) and the time of the Kapitan Andreevo men from Bulgaria 1100-500 BC. Thus, the E-V13 line or lines from the earliest times appear to have been numerically very small, and this is also true for the ancient men in the haplogroups ancestral to E-V13. In determining the history of E-V13 we can also use the men from the haplogroups ancestral to E-V13 based on the assumption that because those haplogroups are closely related it's likely that they had existed as one clan or tribe tht had mostly remained together as one population. Obviously this would never be true of all E-V13 individuals, but in general this is shown to be true for most haplogroups, but with various branchings away from the core population of the haplgroup as well.

As you can see from my list below of ancient men in the E-FGC11450 haplogroup and its ancestral haplogroups, very few ancient men in those haplogroups have been found after the Natufian E-M35 men from today's Israel 12,000-9500 BC and the Kapitan Andrevo men of 1100-500 BC. There's one man from Algeria 10,000-7000 BC and another from Tunisia 6000-5800 BC, and these men do raise the question of whether E-V13 might have populated Europe directly from North Africa, trans-Mediterranean, and this is certainly quite possible. In other words, it's possible that E-V13 and its ancestral haplogorus didn't enter Europe with the ANF migration but rather in an independent migration across the Mediterranean. There's not reason this might not be true, and it might explain why E-V13 didn't expand in the Neolithic as did the Anatolian G2a haplogroup. G2a men were found in North Africa from at 5000's BC, probably crossing the Mediterranean from Spain, and Ave07 was buried among G2a men; thus, I believe there's a real possibility that the ancestor of Ave07 had in fact migrated to Spain directly across the Mediterranean.

There's also the possibility that E-V13 entered Europe from both the Levant and North Africa. It may even have originated in North Africa with one branch migrating into the Levant with men in its ancestral E-M35 line, with the branches remaining in North Africa dying out. But we don't have enough evidence yet to definitely determine any of this.

What we do know is that lines ancestral to E-V13 were found in Europe as early as 6000 BC, but that evidence of their existence there or anywhere else is sparse, with only 12 known members from the 5000-year period between 6000-1100 BC. This is in contract to Neolitchic and Bronze Age men in some of the other ANF haplogrops such as G2a, although other of these haplogroups are also rare in Europe, such as H2, also have relatively few ancient individuals.

The E-V13 mutation originated in a son of a particular man in the E-CTS1975 haplogroup and is a unique mutation that can occur only once. This means that all men men who possess the E-V13 mutation derived from that one son of one man, whom Cruciani estimated was born in 9500 BC. FTDNA estimates that the E-V13 mutation had occurred much later, around 6950 BC. FTDNA's information is based on the 14,000+ E-V13 men that it has tested, and assuming its estimate of time between SNP mutations is correct, is probably closer to the true date of origen than is Cruciani. The actual date really doesn't matter that much as both allow for the presence of E-V13 in the ANF migration from Anatolia into Europe. What's more important is to understand that although E-V13 originated in between 9600-7000 BC, the Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) date of E-V13 is estimated by FTDNA to have been 3150 BC. YFull estimates a similar date of 2800 BC, and both of these dates fall within Cruciani's range for the expansion of E-V13 in Europe, although that would only mean that the European TMRCA date is around 3000 BC, but that it would be earlier for western Asian E-V13. Cruciani's study was early in terms of genetic analysis and FTDNA's dataset sure includes some E-V13 men, so I tended to believe that FTDNA is probably correct and that all E-V13 men worldwide have a single common ancestor who lived somoetime around 3000 BC. New data may prove or disprove this in the future, but as I understand it this is the best estimate based on currently available evidence.

There are currently no known ancient men in E-V13 outside of Europe before 1100 BC at the earliest, and it's possible that that all of the E-V13 men in western Asia are actually descended from European E-V13 men. It seems to be assumed that E-V13 and its ancestral haplogroups had originated in the Levant (because of the E-M35 Natufians) and then migrated into Europe with the ANF or entered Europe later via the Pontic Steppe, but there is actually little evidence for this.

E-M35 is ancestral to E-V13 and was present in the Natuficans, but E-M35 is 7 haplogroups upstream of E-V13 and spawned haplogroups other than E-V13. I1710 from Ain Ghazal in Jordan 7700-7500 BC is was haplogroup E-Z11919, which is closer to E-V13 and is the parent haplogroup of E-L618. E-L618 was found in Europe with the E-V14 Kapitan Andreevo men, and in 7 other men in Europe before 1100 BC. Two men from Europe during this time period were E-CTS1975, the parent haplogroup of E-V13, and this certainly looks as if as if E-V13 might have evolved in Europe from E-CTS1975, which evolved in Europe from E-L618, but this can't be true if E-V13 was formed in 7000 BC.

Here are all the men in haplogroups E-L618, E-CTS1975 and E-V13 the two haplogroups immediately ancestral to E-V13, whole lived before 1100 BC:

Bisko I3948 6005-5814 BC Croatia E-L618

Schletz I27776 5207-4945 BC Austria E-L618

Avellenar AVE07 5000 BC Spain E-V13?

Veszprem I1900 4797-4619 BC Hungary E-L618

Varna VAR009 4581-4368 BC Bulgaria E-CTS1975

Varna VAR018 4531-4354 BC Bulgaria E-L618

Kamyanets I3151 3959-3500 BC Ukraine E-L618

Mayaky I12704 3620-3030 BC Ukraine E-M78

Geoksyur I8525 3091-2918 BC Turkmenistan E-L618

La Bastida BAS025 2132-1946 BC Spain El Argar E-L618

Kirra CGG_2_022415 1677-1481? Greece Phocis E-L618

Kydonia XAN014 1250 BC Greece Crete E-CTS1975

This is only 12 individuals, all but one who had been buried in Europe. The third or possible second oldest was E-V13 (Ave07), so none of the descendants of any of thee men sould have been E-V13 except possibly those of Ave07.

Central Asian Origin of Euroepan E-V13?

The one man not from Europe is I8525 from the Geoksyure oasis in Turkmenistan 3100-2900 BC. He was E-L618, although, interestingly, the exploreyourdna.com website shows him as being E-CTS8814 (E-Z1057), the earliest of the E-V13 subclades. If this is true this would argue for an earlier split in the haplogroup, with a western Asian homeland before 5000 BC and with Ave07's line migrating to Europe with the ANF migration, while I8525's line having moved into Central Asia around 3000 BC. 3000 BC is around the TMRCA date of E-V13, so it's possible that the European E-V13 line had died out in Europe before the present, and all E-V13 men (or at least those in Europe) descended from a population present in Turkmenistan 3000 BC.

If we look at the men in other haplogroups who were present in the Geoksyur oasis we find:

Geoksyur 12481 Turkmenistan 3500-2800 BC J1a

Geoksyur 12487 Turkmenistan 3500-2800 BC J1a

Geoksyur 8524 Turkmenistan 3500-2800 BC J1a

Geoksyur 8504 Turkmenistan 3400-2800 BC J1a

Geoksyur 381 Turkmenistan 3367-3098 BC J2a

Geoksyur I12482 Turkmenistan 3400-2800 BC J2a

Geoksyur I8529 Turkmenistan 3400-2800 BC Q1b-BZ99

Geoksyur 8526 Turkmenistan 3400-2800 BC R2a

There appear to be no ancient R2a men in Europe, and although Q1b-BBZ99 men do appear in Europe Hungary during the Avar period, and in England as a Viking, these men appear to have entered Europe either as Huns or Avars (with Xiongnu/Saka ancestry). R2a is common today in South Asia although it appears to have originally be Iranian, and Q1b was originated as a Siberian haplogroup.

For our purposes the history of the two haplogorups J1a and J2a are more interesting.

J2a

The history of the J2a haplogroup strongly parallels that of the E-V13 ancestral haplogrous (E1b). Here are a few of the J2a ancient men in places and times close to that of the E-V13 ancestral haplogroups:

E-V13 J2a

Austrua Schletz 5500-5000 BC Austria Schletz 5200-4900 BC

Hungary Lengyel 4900-4300 BC Hungary Lengyel 4800-4600 BC

Bulgaria Yunasite 4500-4350 BC Bulgaria Varna 4600-4350 BC

Turkmnistan Geok syur 3400-2800 BC Turkminstan Geoksyur 3100-2900 BC

Greece Kirra 1600-1500 BC Greece Kirra 1700-1500 BC

Crete Kydonia 1700-12oo BC Crete Kydonia 1275 BC

Italy Sicily Himera 480 BC Italy Sicily Himera 480 BC

Kazakhstan Konyrtobe 100-500 AD Kazakhstan Konyrtobe 245-345 AD

Croatia Zadar 81-210 AD Croatia Zadar 22-121 AD

Mongolia Salkhityn 150 BC-120 AD Mongolia Burkhan 150-450 AD

Poland Gdansk 100-300 AD Poland Gdansk 100-300 AD

Viminaciuam 124-228 AD Serbia Viminacium 129-247 AD

Crimea Pantikapaion 255-413 AD Crimea Chersonesos 450-250 BC

Bakhchisaray3 1300-1500 AD

Pannonai Baltonszemes 400-500 AD Pannonia Fonyod/Hacs 433-500 AD

Spain Plaza de l'Horta 500-700 AD Spain Plaza de l'Horta 500-700 AD

Hungary Rakocifalva 600-900 AD Hungary Rakocifalva 600-900 AD

Hungary Dorozsma 660-700 AD Hungary Dorozsma 650-700 AD

Denmark Langeland 900-1000 AD Denmark Langeland 1050 AD

Most of these places are exact matches of locatin and time, but some are offset somewhat in either time or places. This is a remarkable coincience of the two haplogroups over a 6000-year period in various parts of Europe and Asia and undoubtedly indicates a tight connection of the haplogroups. However, a closer analysis of the J2a subclades in the above individuals would be required for a more accurate analysis.

There are far more ancient men from the J2a haplogroup than in the E-V13 and ancestral haplogroups, so the J2a line can be used (with caution) to help reconstruct a plausible migration path for those lines.

We see that both J2a and Elb1b1a1 (E-M78 and downstream) were present together in Austria, Lengyel period Hungary and Bulgaria in the mid 4000's BC. At about the same time as the J2a man (I3930) was in Schletz Austria, another man in that line was located in , Armenia possibly 60 miles south of the Kaps site that's the reference population for the G25 model's “Kura-Araxes Armenia” ancestry (his genome was 51% Kura-Araxes Armena). Before that, around 6200 BC or a bit earlier, another J2a man was part of the Barcin population used as the reference population for northwestern Anatolia. Before that the line was present in Georgia and Iran. We can therefore surmise that this line originated in the Caucasus form Caucasus hunter-gathers, and at least one branch moved south into Armenia and from there at least one branch moved further west through Anatolis to Barcin, where it migrated to the Balkans with the ANF. In Europe the line apears in Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Czechia through 3500 BC, which is very similar the E1b line. One difference is that the one member of the J2a line appears 3500 BC in Kirra, Greece. Another J2a man appeared in Kirra Greece 2,000 years later (1500 BC), so it's possible the J2a line had been in Greece since at least 3500 BC. The E1b1b1a1 line was also in Kirra 1500 BC, so it wouldn't be surprising if in the future E1b1b1a1 was also found in Kirra. This was about 300 years before what's considered the “Helladic” period.

The E1b1b1a1, J2a and J1a lines are found in Geoksyur, Turkmenistan 3400-2800 BC. Since the J2a and E1b1b1a1 lines were already present in Europe, this Turkmenistan lines from these haplogroups had migrated to Central Asia from Europe, but this seems unlikely. I think it's more likely that braches of the lines that had remained in Asia later moved from Geoksyur as the climate dried, and some migrated around the Caspian Sea into to the North Pontic, or directly west from Central Asia, as

From the limited Greek ancient men available it appears that it wasn't until about 2000 BC that significant amounts of Yamnaya ancestry appear in Greece.

Kirra CGG_2_022404 3567-3483 BC Greece J2a1a2b2a2b2a

Tell-Kran I19456 3000-2000 BC Bulgaria Yamnyaya 14%

Koufonisi Kou01 2459-2310 BC Greece Cycladic Islands

Sarakenos G37 2325-2300 BC Greece BA Aegean

The Origin of Haplogroup E-FGC11450

Ancient Men in Haplogroup E-FGC11450 and its Ancestral Haplogroups

Below is my most current list of the ancient men that have been discovered and tenotyped as belonging to E-FGC11450 and its ancestral haplogroups.

Ancient Men in E-FGC11450

and its Ancestral Haplogroups

(Chronologically by Individuals)

Name/ID Estimated Date/Range at Death Haplogroup

Taforalt TAF013 13,200-11,900 BC Morocco E-M78

Taforalt TAF014 13,200-11,900 BC Morocco E-M78

Taforalt TAF015 13,200-11,900 BC Morocco E-M78

Taforalt TAF010 13,137-12,252 BC Morocco E-M78

Taforal TAF011 12,900-12,100 BC Morocco E-M78

Taforalt TAF009 12,849-12,097 BC Morocco E-M78

Natufian I1072 12,000-9500 BC Israel E-M35

Natufian I1069 12,000-9500 BC Israel E-M35

Natufian I0861 12,000-9500 BC Israel E-M35

Afalou Bou I13901 10,000-7000 BC Algeria E-V68

Ain Ghazal I1710 7700-7500 BC Jordan Sk:i-p; Hr:Bl; Ey:Bl E-Z1919

Djebba I20825 6021-5850 BC Tunisia E-PF2179

Bisko I3948 6005-5814 BC Croatia E-L618

Schletz I27776 5207-4945 BC Austria E-L618

Avellenar AVE07 5000 BC Spain E-V13

Veszprem I1900 4797-4619 BC Hungary E-L618

Varna VAR009 4581-4368 BC Bulgaria E-CTS1975

Varna VAR018 4531-4354 BC Bulgaria E-L618

Kamyanets I3151 3959-3500 BC Ukraine E-L618

Mayaky I12704 3620-3030 BC Ukraine E-M78

Geoksyur I8525 3091-2918 BC Turkmenistan E-L618

La Bastida BAS025 2132-1946 BC Spain El Argar E-L618

Kirra CGG_2_022415 1677-1481? Greece Phocis E-L618

Kydonia XAN014 1250 BC Greece Crete E-CTS1975

Svilengrad I18487 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-M78

Kapitan Andreevo19490 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-M78

Kapitan Adreevo19395 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-L618

Kapitan Andreevo19494 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-L618

Kapitan Andreevo I20181 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-CTS1273

Kapitan Andreevo I20180 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-BY3880

Kapitan Andreevo I20183 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-BY3880

Kapitan Andreevo I20185 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-BY3880

Komarno I14465 650-500 BC Slovakia E-V13

Himera I17872 480 BC Sicily E-CTS1273

Himera I10946 480 BC Sicily E-BY3880

Himera I10950 480 BC Sicily E-BY3880

Chersonesus CGG021475 450-250 BC Crimea Greek Colony E-Z5018

Chersonesus CGG021473 450-250 BC Crimea Greek Colony E-BY3880

Prague 16272 400-200 BC Czechia E-Z1057

Scythian scy197 400-150 BC Moldova E-BY3880

Sveti Križ I5724 382-206 BC Croatia E-BY3880

Caishichang C3312 336-20 BC China Xinjjiang E-M35

Széles Földek I18832 320-200 BC Hungary E-BY3880

Győr Kert I18527 320-180 BC Hungary E-BY3880

Rozovo I19500 300-200 BC Bulgaria E-Z1057

Trogir I26702 1-200 AD Croatia E-BY3880

Zadar R3745 22-121 AD Croatia E-Z1057

Valkenburg CGG107765 115 AD Netherlands Roman army CampE-V13

Sitifis R10770 81-210 AD Algeria E-L539

\Pruszcz Gdański PCA0495 100-300 AD Poland E-BY4877

Viminacium I15504 129-247 AD Serbia Balkans IA E-S2979

Viminacium I15507 250-300 AD Serbia Balkans IA E-BY3880

Viminacium I15513 129-247 AD Serbia Anatolian Roman E-BY3880

Viminacium I15518 129-247 AD Serbia Balkans IA E-S2979

Viminacium I15525 129-247 AD Serbia BIA+ N Levant E-CTS1273

Viminacium R6756 130-231 AD E Serbia E-BY3880

Viminacium R3931 130-231 AD Serbia E-Z5018

Viminacium R6756 180 AD Serbia E-BY3880

Derecske 20802 200-300 AD Hungary E-V13

Hvar I35009 200-400 AD Croatia E-L618

Masłomęcz PCA0110 200-400 AD Poland E-S2979

Gerulata CGG021935 216-155 AD Slovakia E-V13

Timacum Minus 15537 242-375 AD Serbia E-BY3880

Timacum Minus 15553 242-375 AD Serbia E-CTS1273

Karatau KNT001 245-343 AD Kazakhstan E-BY3880

Viminacium 15495 246-365 AD Serbia E-BY3880

Viminacium 15490 246-365 AD Serbia Balkans IA E-BY3880

Viminacium I15491 246-365 AD Serbia Balkans IA E-BY3880

Scitarjevo 3659 248-378 AD Croatia E-BY3880

Naissus 6764 255-405 AD Serbia 268 AD Goth-Rm Battle? E-CTS1273

Timacum Minus 15544 261-418 AD Serbia E-BY3880

Madaras CGG021897 100-400 AD Hungary E-V13

Boyanovo I1879 2 300-500 AD Bulgaria E-L618

Hvar I34296 300-500 AD Croatia E-L618

Crypta Balbi R107 400-600 AD Italy E-S2979V

Libiva LIB11 400-500 AD Czechia E-S2979

Inden IND009 400-800 AD Germany E-BY3880

Gardun I26899 432-598 AD Croatia E-L618

Fonyód 536/9 433-467 AD Hungary E-GC11450

Jakovo I27297 440-599 AD Serbia E-BY3880

Hács Hacs_21 450-500 AD Hungary E-S2979

Hács Hacs_2s 450-500 AD Hungary E-Z5018

Mugla I20264 491-717 AD Anatolia Aegean Coast E-V68

Nicaea I8367 500-700 AD Turkey Iznik brother E-Z1057

Nicaea I8366 500-700 AD TurkeyIznik brother E-Z1057

Collegno CL38 580-630 AD Italy E-BY3880

Plaza de l'Horta 12031 500-700 AD Spain E-CTS1272

Kent EAS006 600-700 AD England E-CTS1273

Kupeszer KUP021 609 AD Hungary E-L618

Rakosczifalva RKF200 609 AD Hungary E-L618

Rakosczifalva RKF013 609 AD Hungary E-S2979

Rakosczifalva RKF115 609 AD Hungary E-V13

Szegvár SZOD1-829 620-650 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Kövegy 16750 600-650 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Szeged SZM-259 600-700 AD Hungary E-S2979

Rakoczifalva 115 600-700 AD Hungary E-S2979

Rakoczifalva RKF026 ? AD Hungary E-L618

Rakoczifalva RKF027 ? AD Hungary E-L618

Rakoczifalva RKF223 ? AD Hungary E-L618

Rakoczifalva RKF016 ? AD Hungary E-L618

Rakoczifalva RKC041 761 AD Hungary E-S2979

Rákóczifalva RKF137 600-900 AD Hungary E-S2979

Szeged SZK-83 650-675 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Kiskundorozsma KK1-251 650-700 AD Hungary E-S2979

Kiskundorozsma KK1-252 650-700 AD Hungary E-S2979

Kiskundorozsma KK1-541 650-700 AD Hungary E-S2979

Hajdunanas 025 650-800 AD Hungary E-S2979

Mouchard CCG023656 656-774 AD France 46.943105 5.855322 E-V13

Rakoczifalva RKC003 675 AD Hungary E-V13

Orosháza OBt-51 700-750 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Pitvaros PV-12 700-750 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Koksijde KOS005 675-750 AD Belgium Late Merovignian E-Z1919

Koksijde KOS011 675-750 AD Belgium Late Merovingian E-V13

Sükösd SSD-144 670-710 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Sipar 3664 670-823 AD Croatia E-BY3880

Orosháza OBt-106 700-800 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Tiszafüred TMH-199 700-760 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Székkutas SZKT-311 700-930 AD Hungary E-Z5018

Székkutas SZKT-265 700-800 AD Hungary E-FGC11451

Szeged SZK-130 700-750 AD Hungary E-S2979

Székutas SZKT-70 700-830 AD Hungary E-S2979

Homokmégy HH-10 710-750 AD Hungary E-Z5018

Alattyán ALT-369 710-750 AD Hungary E-Z5018

Nuštar I28388 750-780 AD Croatia E-FGC11450

Derecske I20799 750-800 AD Hungary E-FGC11450

Sheksnovo SHE001 881-988 AD Russia Gavrilovo-Posadsky E-L618

Tiszanána TCS-18 950-1000 AD Hungary Elite E-S2979

Sárrétudvari SH-182 950-1000 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Püspökladány PLE-23 960-1l00 AD Hungary E-FGC11450

Catalonia 10853 989-1153 AD Spain Girona E-CTS1273

Sint Truiden OLV058 1000 AD Belgium E (?)

Viking 362 900-1000 AD Denmark Langeland E-CTS1273

Langeland CGG106782 1050 AD Denmark Bogovej Langeland E-V13

Pac CCG018921 1075 AD Slovakia \E-Z5018

Ibrany 90 1000-1100 AD Hungary E-Z5018

Tjærby 553 1000-1300 AD Denmark E-S2979

Santok 400 1000-1200 AD Poland E-FGC11451

Koński 306 1000-1200 AD Poland E-S2979

Śródka 236 1000-1200 AD Poland E-S2979

Śródka 255 1000-1200 AD Poland E-S2979

Śródka 558 1000-1200 AD Poland E-Z5018

Bolshevo1 1100-1150 AD Russia Zagoryanskiy E-M215

TverdnaDNA28 1100-1300 AD Russia Tver E-V13

TverDNA29 1100-1300 AD Russia Tver E-V13

TverDNA30 1100-1300 AD Tver, Russia E-M35

Granada 7457 1100-1300 AD Spain Muslim E-BY3880

YaroslavOsmomysl 1135-1187 AD Ukraine Halych Rurikid E-V13

Krakauer KRA005 1170-1258 AD Germany Peissen E-BY4877

YaroslavlDNA30 1200-1300 AD Russia, Yaroslavl E-M35

Italy SGBN18 1225-1385 AD Italy E-BY3880

Segesta SGBN10 1225-1385 AD Sicily Italy E-V13

Segesta SGBN20 1225-1385 AD Sicily, Italy E-V13

Burgundy CGG023656 1312 AD France, Franche Comte E-Z5018?

Cancelleria 1219 1421-1469 AD Italy E-FTT49

Szekesfehervar 53 1100-1300 AD Hungary E-FGC11450

Bakhchisaray3 1300-1500 AD Crimea E-M35

Kristof Hunyadi 1505-1505 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Janos Hunyadi 1473-1504 AD Hungary E-BY3880

Ellwangen 18 1486-1627 AD Gemany E-CTS1273

Ples PL-5 Unknown Russia Ivanovo EYDNA E-V13

Ples PL-6 Unknown Russia EYDNA E-V13

Ratchino Ratchino Unknown Russia Ivanovo EYDNA E-V13

Teglitsy Teglitsy1 Unknown Russia Leningrad EYDNA E-V13

Kursk KU-2 Unknown Russia Kursk EYDNA E-V13

The earliest-known appearance of E-FGC11450: Fonyod FVD009

The earliest-known male in the E-FGC11450 clade of the larger E-V13 haplogroup is known by and referred to in the paper resulting from the study he came from as both of the following:

Burial ID:` Fonyod_536

Sequence ID: FVD009

In this post I'll refer to him as FVD009, but in the ancestry graphs in the paper he's listed by his burial ID, so it's necessary to know both “names”.

FVD009's real name is unknown and I referred to him above as a male rather than a man because he'd died as an infant. He was buried in small small graveyard in or near today's community of Fonyod, Hungary, which is located near the southern coast of lake Balaton, which lies well east of the Danube that nearly bisects much of Hungary in a north/south direction, although the general flow of the Danube is from the west to the Black Sea in the east. East of the Danube is the Great Hungarian Plain (aka “the “Alfold” and “the Pannonian Basin”). The region west of the Danube is usually called Transdanubia. By this terminalogy Lake Balaton and the Fonyod communit would be in Transdanubia.

The paper by Vyas et al (2023) that studied the Fonyod community also studied three other communities located nearby, each of which was in existence for only a few decades at most, and at different time periods from each other, although some may have overlapped to some degree. These communities were, in chronological order, Fonyod, Hacs, Balatonszemes and Szolad. The below graphic from Vyas shows their chronological relationship along with relevant historical events that would have affect the communities:

Here's my written summary of this chart with an approximation of the dates:

Community Color Date Range # # Males # E-V13

Fonyod purple 440-460 AD 12 4 1

Hacs red 450-480 AD 14 6 2

Balatonszemes Green 475-500 AD 11 4 0

Szolad Blue 545-568 AD 32 21 0

Total 69 35 3

There's no written account of these communites, so their exact dates of existence are known only through archaeological and radiocarbon dating. The Vyas team did the original research on Fonyod, Hacs and Balatonszemes, but Szolad had been previously studied by another team (Anorim et al).

Because our primary purpose in this post is tro try to determine the origin of E-FGC11450 and of E-V13 as a whole, Szolad is only of secondary importance because by the time of its existence a century had passed from the time of the Fonyod community with the earliest appearnce of E-FGC11450. Balatonszemes, as well, is of secondary importance because E-V13 was not found there (although of course we would like to know why this is true).

Of the three 5^th century communities, E-V13 comprised 21% of the total males (3/16).

FVD001 Female H5p Levant/Caucasus

FVD002 R1b1a1b1a1a1 R-S263 H4a1a1a Anatolia

FVD004 G2a2b2a1a1a1b1 G-L1264 H1, H2 Khvalynsk.Dnipro

FVD005 R1b1a1b1a1a1b R-S263/R-Z381 H4a1a1a Anatolia

FVD006 Female H, H9, H46, H52, H69 An

FVD007 Female T2c1c Anatolia

FVD008 Female K1a, K1a24, K1a30 An

FVD009 E-V13 J2b1c Anatolia

FVD010 Female U5b2a2a1

FVD011 Female J2a1a1a

FVD012 Female U5a2a1 Sweden

FVD013 Female H4a1a1a Anatolia

R1b-Z381/R-S263

Holland Valkenburg 72-207 AD CGG107745

Czechia Old Unetice 2800-2100 BC I7196

Denmark 2290-2141 BC CGG106770

Denmark 2290-2141 BC CGG106C838

N Holland Westwoud 1501-1319 I11972

Czechia Knoviz 1300-800 BC I14788

France Soissons 755-415 BC I22463

Denmark Odense 380-200 BC I10679

Holland Vlaardingen 1421-1216 BC I17019

Denmark Skanderborg 37-206 AD I19215 R-Z301

Denmark Almager 25-123 AD I107641 R-Z301

Mecklengurg Haven 200-400 AD NVN005 R-Z301

Szolad 11 Hungary 412-604 AD SZ11 R-Z301

Hungary Sarmatian 1-450 AD NKT-32 Nemesnadudvar (61mi.Szeged)

Collegno Italy 580-630 AD CL84 Lombard

Collegno Italy 580-630 AD CL69 Lombard

Collegno Italy 580-630 AD CL142 Lombard R-S1688

G-L1264

G2a2b2a1a1a1b1

FTDNA

G-U1>G-FGC31390 (Mugla)>G-L1266>G-L1266>G-FT34>G-L1264 (2200 BC)

TMRCA of Mugla and Fonyod 4 lines is 8600 BC

Schletz Austria 5500-4500 BC I30423

Georgia Atskuri 2000-1700 BC ATK003

Adygea Russia 2624-1519 BC SUS005

Mugla/Mobolla 750-480 BC I20224 Mobolla Greek Colon

Mugla/Mobolla 750-480 BC I20230 Mobolla Greek Colony\Mugla/Mobolla 750-480 BC I20258 Mobolla Greek Colony

Himera Sicily 700-400 BC I20168 Not 480 BC war

Above line is G-U1 with TMRCA 8600 BC

Ukraine Sycthian 400-300 BC AS34 Zaporizhia G-L266 TMRCA

6450 BC

Georgia Khuntsi 690-880 AD kHT003

Below are G-L1264 (2200 BC TMRCA)

Fonyod 4 G-L1264

Russia Scythian 375-350 BC DS36 Kolbino G-S9409

Hungary Sarmatian 100-300 AD RAK-211 Rakoscsaba Alfold

Moedling Austria Avar 600-800 AD MGS145 G-Y142023

Moedling Austria Avar 600-800 AD MGS1018 G-Y142023

Moedling Austria Avar 600-800 AD MGS197 G-Y142023

Moedling Austria Avar 600-800 AD MGS021 G-Y142023

Moedling Austria Avar 600-800 AD MGS303 G-Y142023

Pohasko POH39 600-800 AD POH39 G-Y142023>G-BY109806

Homokmegy 966-1033 AD HMSZ-231 G-Z44222

Homokmegy 966-1033 AD HMSZ-50 G-Z44222

G-U1

G-U1 8750 BC 8600 BC E-Z1919 11000 BC 11000 BC

G-FGC31390 8600 BC 8600 BC E-L618 11000 BC 7300 BC

G-L2166 8600 BC 6450 BC E-CTS1975 7300 BC 6950 BC

G-FT34 6450 BC 2750 BC E-V13 6950 BC 3150 BC

G-L1264 2750 BC 2200 BC E-Z1057 3150 BC 2950 BC

G-Z44222 2200 BC 1900 BC

G-Y142023 2200 BC 2000 BC

Evidence Used to Determine the Cultural Identity of Ancient Individuals

The following are techniques to determine the identifiies of thes communities, whether the indiviudals in them were likely natives to Pannonia or imigrants, and if imigrants where they came from. These techniques are:

-Written evidence from contemporaries or historians

-Skeletal analysis for radiocarbon dating, disease, bone wear, evidence of violence, evicence of purposeful skull modification deformation

-Archaelogical evidence (associated artifacts, construction techniques, vurial patterns)

-Isotope analysis (strontium, oxygen, etc)

-Genetic analysis of Y-haplogroup and mitochrondrial haplogroup

-Autosomal genetic analysis

Archaeological Evidence at the Lake Balaton Communities

Differences in the Lake Balaton communities were discovered in terms of spatial organizationof the graves, with Fonyod in particular being different from the others. However, as none of the patterns was compared to burial patterns elsewhere in the world, this isn't helpful in terms of determining the social identities of the Lake Balaton communties.

One of the graves at the Hacs cemetary contained fragments of an object described by Vyas as “lead sheet fragments—possibly used as an amulet—bearing a text inscribed with the Gothic script...” (Fine-scale sampling uncovers the complexity of migrations in 5th-6th century Pannonia) The Hacs site had been found by a previous team, and in an earlier study had been described as “rare fragments of texts from the Gothic bible, written on lead sheets that were possibly used as an amulet.” (Hakenbeck et al (3017) Practising pastoralism in an agricultural environment: An isotopic analysis of the impact of the Hunnic incursions on Pannonian populations | PLOS One ) This is strong but not conclusive evidence that at least the Hacs site included some Gothic individuals.

Skeletal Analysis of the Lake Balaton Individuals

“Artificaial cranial deformation (ACD) is...observed in all sites, but it is only prevalent in Fonyod (found in 7/11 preserved crania), while the two sites only contain single examples.” (Vyas) ACD is “a tradition that is considered a foreign phenomenon in Pannonia and less prevalent in the later sites.” (ibid)

Vyas was too cautious to commit to an opinon on the likely reason for the ACD found extensively at Fonyod but with only one same each from Hacs and Balatonszemes. The Wikipedia article “Artificial cranial deformation” says: “In the Pontic steppe and the resto of Europe the Huns, including the Proto-Bulgarians, are also [along with the Huns further east] known to have practiced similar cranial deformation, as were the Alanss. In Late Antiquity (300-600 CE), the East Germanic tribes who were ruled by the Huns—the Gepids, Ostrogoths, Heruli, Rugii and Burgundians—also adopted this custom. Among the Lombards, the Burgundians, and the Thuringians, this custom seems to have comprised women only. In western Germanic tribes, artificial skull deformations have rarely been found. Elongated skulls of three women have been discovered among Viking-era burials during the eleventh century at Gotland, Sweden. Researchers have interpreted them as perhaps belonging to womenn who were not native to the isand in a culture characterized as one having extensive trading relationships.”

The Sarmatians also extensively practiced ACD, with “practically 43% of the crania analysed by bioanthropologists were modified” in a population of Sarmatians from Moldova and Romania east of the Carpathians (Grumeza (2024) “Sarmatians with Artificial Cranial Modifications from East of the Carpathians” Grumeza.pdf )

Thus, the ACD at the Lake Balaton communities indicates a strong cultural connection between the Lake Balaton communities and a Hun, Alan or Sarmatian population.

Note: In the quote that says that ACD was practiced by the Proto-Bulgarians, the term “proto-Bulgarians” does not refer to Iron Age individuals present in Thrace, inclluding the Kapitan Andreevo individuals, but rather to the Turkic Bulgars who in the 600's AD migrated into Thrace (more or less coextensive with today's Bulgaria) and from whom the name “Bulgaria” was derived. The Slavs had begun populating Thrace about a hundred years before the arrival of the Bulgars and mixed with the local Thracian population. The Bulgars conquered this Thracian/Slav population, but the South Slavic language prevailed over both the Thracian Paleo-Balkan language and the Bulgar language. Thus, the name Bulgaria derived from the Bulgars, but today's Bulgarian language is Slavic, and genetically Bulgaria appears to have derived ancestrally from about an even mixture of the Slaves and of the Thracian-dominant population present before the Slavic migration. Only about 2.3% of the Bulgarian ancestry appears to have come from the Bulgarians. Bulgarian Y-haplogroups are 18% E-V13, which was definitely presumably present from at least 1100-500 BC as the majority Y-DNA of the the Kapitan Andreevo men.

Note: I included in the Wikipedia quote its mention of ACD in Viking Age Gotland, Sweden because some of the Y-haplggroups preent in Avar-period Hungary were later also found in some men Viking-era Scandinavia, even among haplogroups, including E-V13, that were not present in Scandinavia before that time. Although the origins of these non-Scandinavian haplogroups are not known, it's plausible that come of them may have arrived from Hungary from the 800's, which was which was being pressured by the Franks from the west and the Bugarians from the south, as Avar control of the region crumbled. Thus, this may have been one source of this haplogroup migration into Viking-Age Scandinavia. Another source mighthave been the Pontic region north of the Black Sea, which was developing trade routes into Scandinavia through the Kievan Rus. It's becoming evident that E-V13 was present in Ukraine and Russia from as early as 450 BC, probably from the Greek northern Black Sea colonies such as Chersonesos, so this may the primary route through which at least E-V13 first reached Scandinavia. ACD was introduced into Hungary from this north Pontic region, so the appearance of ACD in Sweden could have come from either Hungary or the north Pontic region, or elsewhere where the Pontic Germanic tribes had dispersed to.

Genetic Analysis of the Lake Balaton Individuals

All of the individuals in the Lake Balaton Communities except for possibly one individual were primarily of European ancestry. However, they Vyas models showed that they were not from one large European population but rather from two populations that can be characterized in a tw0-way model as “Northern European” and “Sourthern European”. The Northern European population can further be characterized as eithe primarily Scandinavian or being primarily Northern Euroepan non-Scandinavian. The Southern Euroepan population can fruther be characterized as either having some Iberian ancestry or not.

Some individuals were modeled as being 100% Northern European and some as being 100% Southern Euroepan, but also many were an admixture between the two. The table below shows a rough estimate of the primary ancestries of the four Lake Balaton communites, based on a visual inspection of Figure 4A from Vyas:

Fonyod

Northern European 2

Southern European 4

Admixed 6

Hacs

:Northern European 9

Southern Eureopan 5

Admixed 0

Balatonszemes

Northern European 6

Southern European 4

Admixed 0

Szolad

Northern Eureopean 14

Southern European 6

Admixed 12

This is based on a strict definition of “admixed”, in which any amount of both ancestries, no matter how small, was counted admixed. This is more imporatnt for Szolad, but as there were no E-V13 men in Szolad and as Szolad existed about 100 years after Fonyod and Hacs, it's of less imporantce to us. With a less strict definition neither Hacs nor Balatonszemes would be changed, but Fonyod would gain one Southern Eruopean and lose one admixed.

Below is Figure 4A from Vyas (Blue color is Northern European ancestry, Red color is southern European ancestr. Tan color is Finnish ancestry and can be considered functionally Blue, while light green Iberian ancestry and can be considered functionally Southern European:

Here's Fonyod and Hacs alone:

s

Here's Figure 4B for Fonyod, Hacs and Balatonszemes, which at the bottom includes the “name” of the ancient individual. It also doesn't distinguish Iberian from generally Southern Euroepan ancestry and the Tan now indicates Scandinavian ancestry rather than specifically Finnish ancestry:

Figure 4A used a different refernce population than did 4B, which accounts for the differences. In 4B we can see that Scandinavian DNA is less common in Fonyod than in Hacs and Balatonszemes.

Differences in Lake Balaton Populations Using Different Reference Populations

It's clear that in many of the Lake Balaton individuals that the model using the modern reference populations (4A) is detecting small amounts of non-European ancestry that the penecontemporary model (4B) is not detecting. Most noticeably on visual inspection the model using the modern reference populations detects in many individuals small amounts of African, South Asian and East Asian DNA that are not detected by the model using the penecontemporary reference populations.

Assuming that model 4A is truly detecting these small amounts of non-European ancestries, why is model 4B not also detecting them? The likely answer is that the 4B (penecontemporary) rerefenrence populations also had these same small amounts on non-European DNA, which over the ~1,500 years between the 4B and 4A individuals substantiall disappeared from the European genome due to chromosomal recombinate at meiosis and the lack of new genetic input rom individuals with that non-European DNA. In other words, that DNA substantially disappeared from the modern European gene pool over the 60 generations between 500 AD and 2000 AD, a period that (until the last few decades) lacked the genetic input of non-European DNA that had occurred during and immediately after the Roman and Migration eras.

This might explain the differences shown in the non-European DNA between the 4A versus the 4B populations, but there is another difference between 4A populations when compared to each other. Which obviously can't be explained by the differences between the two reference populations, since were comparing the Lake Balaton individuals against only the modern rererence population.

The 4A model shows that 11 of the 12 Fonyod individuals has small amounts of sub-Saharan African ancestry (dark green color at the botton of the columns). This occurs in both the northern European and southern European populations, with 11 of the 12 (92%) i ndividual having trace sub-Saharan African DNA. However, Hacs has only 1 of 14 (7%) of individuals with sub-Saharan African DNA, while Balatonszemes has 0 of 11 (0%) indivduals having sub-Saharan African DNA. Szolad lies inbetween Fonyod and Hacs/Balatonszemes in having 24 of 32 (75%) individuals having trace sub-Saharan African ancestry.

The population difference between individuals showing “South Asian” DNA are not as strong, but I won't analyze this because I'm undertain of its relevance to us and I'm also dubious that it's actually detecting South Asian DNA in the sense that the DNA is from South Asia (India/Pakistan), and becaue I also have doubts about the validity of the South Asian samples, most of all of which came from Lake Roopkund (the Lake Roopkund individuals as a whole are an interesting mystery in themselves, but outside the scope of this post).

The East Asian DNA between the populations in the 4A model shows a pattern similar to that of the sub-Saharan African DNA. Sevel of the 12 (58%) of the Fonyod individuals have this DNA, 0 of 14 (0%) for Hacs, 1 of 11 (9%) for Balatonszemes, and 9 of 32 (28%) for Szolad.

With both sub-Saharan and East Asian DNA, Fonyod has the highest amounts, Szolad has intermediate amounts, and Hacs and Balatonszemes has the lowest amounts. Although these amounts of both non-European ancestries is in most cases quite small, it nonetheless indicates that that the Fonyod populaton was in some way different from the Hacs and Balatonszemes population, and that some of the Szolad appears to possibly have shared ancestry with the Fonyod populatio. Furthermore, these differences exist within both the northern European and Mediterranean populations in each community, which would seem to indicate that the Mediterranean populations in the Lake Balaton communities did not represent a “stable local” population already present in the region when the Ostrogoths and Gepids arrived, as Vyas suggests.

The Southern Eureopean (Mediterranean) Population in the Lake Balaton Scommunities

The three E-V13 men—Fonyod FVD009, Hacs_21 and Hacs_22, are all 100% Southern European/Mediterranean (the small amounts of which is equivalent to the name Mediterraneans. Therefore we are more interested in their origin than in the origin of the Northern Europeans, but we are also interested in the Northern Euroepans because we have to determine how they ended up living in the same communities as the presumed Goths and, in the case of Baltonszemes, possible Gepids.

First, notice that based on the Figure 4A models, in Hacs and Balatonszemes there is no admixture between the Northern Europeans and the Mediterraneans. This is not true of Fonyod, but excpet in 2 cases it the admixed individuals all have more Northern Eureopan than Mediterranean, probably indicating a social bias in favor of Northern Europeans. But the main point of this is that of these three 5^th century communities, there was either a definite social barrier between the two populations in each community, or the two different populations in each community were thrown together in this current generation regardless of social barriers. Vyas consideres the Mediterranean populatons in these communities to have been a “local, stable” population probably composed of people who remained in the region after the Romans ceded Pannonia to the Huns.Vyas cited a source claiming that some of the Roman soldiers stationed at fortresses near the Lake Balaton communities had remained in Pannonia after the other Romans had withdrawn, possibly hinting that this was the source of at least some of the Mediterraneans populations at the Lake Balaton communities.

“[T]he presence of individuals with high amounts of MEDEU ]Mediterranean] ancestry is a constant in all four sites, and they show overlap in the PCA, suggesting this may represent a more stable local genomic signature during this entire period.” (Vyas) The “PCA” is “principal component analysis”, a statistical technique for analyzing DNA of groups; “overlap in the PCA” indicates shared ancestry. So Vyas is saying that the Mediterraneans were likely locals with shared ancestry who were found in all the communities, as opposed to more variation in the northern ancestry from one village to another.

As I pointed out in the last section, however, the Mediterranean members of each community were not uniform across the communities in regard to the small amounts of presumed sub-Saharan African and East Asian ancestries. Rather, it appears as, regarding those ancestries, the Fonyod north Europeans and the Fonyod Mediterraneans are more similar to each other than they are to the either the northern Europeans or the Mediterraneas at Hacs and Balatonszemes. But this is puzzling, because what population could the ancestors of the Mediterraneans with small amounts of non-European DNA have admixed with that would have allowed them to retain their otherwise wholly Mediterranean genome?

Vyas Supplementary Figure S3

In the supplementary text to the Vyas paper, Vyas included Figure S3, which is similar to Figure 4A/4B in the main text in that Figure S3 provides the same ancestry models as4A/4B, but also includes a 3^rd model of the model with the Iberian and Italian populations separated. For us this third model isn't highly important, as I've set aside the isue of whether or not some of there was Iberian DNA present in the Lake Balaton commmunities (in large part I'm ignoring it because none of the E-V13 men are modeled as having any Iberian ancestry, and secondarily because it's a potentially complex situation as the models might be erroneously attributing the Morocco Taforalt ancestry from stepped nomad contexts as Iberian if Iberian is modeled as something like Mediterranean+Morocco Taforal DNA; there's also a question of some of the Iberian reference populations being Visigoths, who were very closely related to the Ostroboths, and thus raises the issue of whether reference DNA that was suppsoedly Iberian was actually Gothic.)

For us, muuch more important is that Vyas also included in S3 the identities and ancestry models of the individuals it used in its reference populations as well as of other penecontemporary populations that it didn't use in its reference populations.

On visual inspection of the penecontemporary non-reference (PNR) individuals, the one who most closely resembled the ancestry of Fonyod FVD009 was that of IND009. I had determined this before I'd paid attention to the identity of the PNR individual, IND009, who in fact turned out to be an E-V13 (E-BY3880) mand buried in Inden, Germany, 400-800 AD and thus potentially a contemporary of FVD009. This is unlikely a coincidence, and plausibly IND009 had come from the same population as FVD009 but had ended up in Germany as a member of the Roman army or for some other, less likely, reason. IND015, a G2a man from Inden, is also close to FVD009 but also has some northern European ancestry. Another is the female STR502 from Straubing, Bavaria, 546-640 AD; there is no known E-V13 man among the Straubing population, but it was a population potentially contemporaneous with the Lake Balaton communities and had several individuals with ACD and included haplogroups R1b, I1a and I2b, all present in the Lake Balaton communities. In the reference populations there were several individuals who had been buried in Rome whose DNA resembled that of Fonyod FVD009.

Individuals resembling Hacs_21 and Hacs_22, who lack any trace non-European DNA, are les common in the Penecontemporary, Non-Reference individus, with only two individuals: AEH-1 and STR300, both of whom, quite interestingly, are from the same study as STR_502 whom I'd identified as similar to FVD009. None of the Penecontemporary rerefernce individuals resembled that of Hacs_21 and Hacs_22 in that on 4A they possessed an eitrely red bar without any non-European or light green “Iberian” ancestry. It's remarkable that out of the ~69 primarly Mediterranean Penecontemporary individuals, only 2 resembled the two E-V13 men from Hacs, and that both of those were found within the context of the same Ostrogoth/Hun populations that included ACD as was found in the Lake Balaton communities, one of whom the Veeramah had dtermined was Greek and the other Anatolian. I hesitate to rely on visual inspection of colored bar charts to accurately determine ancestries, but in this caseit seems accurate.

At Fonyod there were two such individuals visually matching Hacs_21 and Hacs_22 (Fonyod_444/FVD006, Fonyod_468/FVD011), at Hacs there were two other than Hacs_21 and Hacs_22 (Hacs_1, Hacs_5), at Balatonszemes there were three (Bal_26, Bal_144, Bal_148), while at Szolad there was only one (SZ_19).

As we'll see later, SZ_19 was determined by another study (Lazaridis) to have had Mycenaean-like DNA, so now we two of the these 100\% red bar individuals from the Vyas study who in other studies were determined to have Greek DNA, and a third to have Anatolian DNA. “Particularly striking are women with artificial skull deformation, the analysis of their collective genomic ancestry suggests and origin in southeastern Europe.” The study associates these individuals with the “Goths, Alamanni, Gepids, and Longobards [Lombards]” , and grave good artifacts are defined culturally as Ostrogothic, Alamannic-Frankish, Nordic and Thuringian (Veeramah, Table S1)

Szolad 19

Szolad 19 and Szolad 40 were both Mediterranean females without northern European admixture.

Szolad 40 is similar to Fonyod FVD009 in that she shows as having some sub-Saharan Arican and southern Asian ancestry, though she lacks the supposed very small amount of Eas Asian ancestry that FVD009 shows in 4A. Hacs_17 shows a small amount of South Asian ancestry.

Szolad 19 is more similar to Hacs_21 and Hacs_22 (as well as Hacs_1, Hacs_5, Balatonszemes 144 and Balatonszemes 148) in that all their 4A bars show only red, with no supposed Iberian, northern European, or non-European ancestries.

The Szolad population in general appears to be more similar that of Fonyod than to Hacs or Balatanszemes, but this isn't true relative to the individuals will fully red bars in 4A. There is only one Szolad individual who has a fully read bar, whereas the earlier Lake Balaton communities, although less than half the size of Szolad, each have more: Fonyod has 2, Hacs has 4, and Balatonszemes has 2. One obvious difference between Szolad and the other Lake Balaton communities is that Szolad existed a few generations later than the other communities, and this probably explains why Szolad has only one apparnt fully Mediterrean individual. The only way for the Mediterranean population to survive as an unadmixed population is if there is a large enough genepool in the communities to preserve that ancestry, and if there is a preference among the Mediterraneans to marry other Mediterraneans. But notice that in Fonyod and Balatonszemes there was in each only one male Mediterranean. In Hacs there were 3, but with only 1 female. If we assume a similar situation among whatever communities were the ancestors of the Szolad community, it appears that the full Mediterreans were dying out in the middle Danube regon through admixture with northern Europeans or partial norther Europeans. This is of course natural and unremarkable, and the only reason I'm focusing on all this so minutely is because we want to try to determine the origins of the Mediterreans at the Lake Balaton communities because E-Z5918+ E-V13 was present at Fonyod and Hacs and determining the origin of the Mediterraneans coud potentially give us clues as to where the core E-Z5018 population had existed before 433 AD.

To better analy the Lake Balaton individuals, we'll reexamine them using a different ancestry model than was used by Vyas, which uses reference populations from further back in time. After I briefly discuss that model, we'll look at what the Eureopean genome looks like in terms of that model, and then what the Lake Balaton individuals looked like in terms of that model and in comparison to other Euroepans at that time.

Baiuvariians 500 AD

( Veeramah et al (2018) “Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaris” ( Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria | PNAS ) )

AEH_1, STR_300 and STR_502 all come from a study by Veeraman et al of 36 individuals from six locations in Bavaria in southern Germany “mostly dating to around 500 AD” who were “predominantly of northern/central European ancestry” but included a “nonlocal genetic provenance that is highly enriched among resident Early Medieval women, demonstrating artifical skull deformation. We infer that the most likely origin of the majjority of these women was southeastern Europe.” (Veeramah)

Thus in Bavarai 500 AD, after Fonyod and Hacs and Balatonszemes had been abandoned by its inhabits, Ostrogoths and women with Greek and Anatolian ancestry are found together in communities with individuals with artificial cranial deformity (none of the Bavarian infants or children had ACD, so it appears that this steppe custom had been abandoned in, possibly because Bavaria was far from Hungary and its large steppe populations of Sarmatians, Alans and Huns). It appears likely that the Ostrogoths and Mediterranean women in these communities had separated from the core Ostrogoth population in the Balkans/Hungary, perhaps due to the arrival of the Lombards and Avars in Pannonia (~500 AD), or some other reason. ese Bavarian communities weer alongside Alamanni and Thuringians (possibly Varini/Warini?). The genomes of the majority of the southeastern women in the Bavarian communities didn't resemble those of Fonyod FVD009, Hacs_21 and Hacs_22, but AEH_1, STR_300 and STR_502 did.

“Bavarians are first mentioned in the mid-6^th century, in the foothills north of the alps, on both sides of the Danube. It is difficult to distinguish the mobile and mixing groups of the Danube in this period archaeologically. The timing comes after the period when the neighbouring Alamanni (to the west) and Thuringians (to the north) had come under Frankis hegemony, and in Italy the kingdoms of Theoderic and Odoacer had come to an end, creating a ndw power vacuumin the Alpine region. They [Bavarians] seem to have been closely related to the Lombards who were developing as a force to the east of them...The Danubian frontier between the Roman empire and Germania had by this time become a region where older populations had been added to significantly by generations of Roman border troops, Germanic clients, and then various “barbarian” people from outside the empire, some of whom had been under the hegemony of Attila the Hun....East Germic groups such as the Goths had entered the Pannonian region east of the Bavarians in the generations leading up to the empire of Attila. These peoples had not only contributed to the Hunnic empire, but also sometiimes benn settled peacefully as Roman foederati...Neighboring the emerging Bavarian peop;le in the 6^th to 7^th centuries were the Alamanni to the west (with the river Lech was boundary...) and Thruingians to the north, both dominated to some extent by the Franks as were the Bavarians.” (Wikipedia “Bavarians”)

Table S1 of the Veeramah paper's supplementary text described the “Cultural label of bow-brooches” found in several of the graves, providing some idea of the cultural identity of some of the Bavarian individuals (to which I've added the Y-haplogroups of the males):

ID Cultural Affiliation Y-Haplogroup ACD

AEH_1 Ostrogothic Female Deformed

STR_220 Ostrogothic Female Intermediate

STR_266 Ostrogothic Female

STR_328 Ostrogothic Female Deformed

STR_300 Alamannic-Frankish Female

STR_355 Alamannic-Frankish Female Intermediate

STR_360 Alamannic-Frankish Female Intermediate

AED_1119 Alamannic-Frankish Female

NW_255 Alamannic-Frankish Female

STR_310 Nordic type Female Intermediate

STR_535 Nordic Type Female Deformed

AED_1108 Thuringian Female Deformed

STR_502 Female Intermediate

STR_241 I1a

STR_393 R1b1a1b1a1a1

STR)316 R1b1a1b1a1a1

STR_393 R1b1a1b1a1a1

STR_486 I1a2a

STR_491 I2a1a2a Intermediate

AED_92 R1b1a1b1a1a1c2b

AED_106 R1b1a1b1a1a1c1a

AED_249 I1a

ALH_1 R1b1a1b1a1a1c1a2b2

BIM_37 G2a2b2a1a1b R1b1a1b1a1a1 R1b1a1b1a1a1

Fonyod Haplogroups

FVD004 G2a2b2a1a1b

FVD002 R1b1a1b1a1a1

FVD005 R1b1a1b1a1a1b

FVD009 E1b1b1a1b1a (E-V13/FGC11450)

Hacs Haplogroups

Hacs_21 E1b1b1a1b1a10a2h (E-V13/S2979

Hacs_22 E1b1b1a1b1a (E-V13/Z5018)

Hacs_5 I2a1a2a2a1

Hacs_24 J2b2a1a1a1a1a1a1

Hacs_15 R1b1a1b1a2a

Balatonszemes Haplogroups

BAL_146 G2a2b2a1a1b1b1c

BAL_051 I1a~

BAL_111 I1a1b1

BAL_003 I2a1a

BAL_143 J2a1a1a2

Szolad Haplogroups

SZ_11 R1b1a1b1a1a1c2b2b1a1a1

SZ_13 I2a1b1a2b1a2a2b1a1~

SZ_18 E-V22 (Hun)

SZ_14 I2a1b1a2

T1aSZ_19 Female (Med)

SZ_36 T1a1a1b2a1 (Med)

SZ_36 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (Med)

Speculation

In this post I don't want to engage in speculation not backed by a good deal of evidence, but regarding the Bavarian matches I want to point out that because there are clear links between the Bavarians and the Lake Balaton populations in terms of connetions to Ostrogoths and some paternal haplogroups, it's plausible that one or more E-FGC11450 men were also present in Bavara, including Straubing, from 500 AD or even earlier. And, as it happens, there is a strong link betwee Bavaria and the Land of Arkel and Holland in general, during the early 1400's, the time fraat the time within which the Swaim/den Hartog progenitor Willen Ottens was born. This link is that the Count of Holland at that time was also the Duke of Bavaria-Straubing..

The namde Den Hartog means....Duke...Bastard? In Gorinchem...

I'm not claiming that I believe that the Swaim/den Hartog line is a bastard branch of the Bayern-Straubing line

Swaam near Straubing

Veeramah et al (2018) “Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaris” ( Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria | PNAS )

STR_300 from Straubing Bajuwarenstrasse was a 40-60 year old female with an undeformed skull who in Table S1 was definied culturally by her “bow-brooch” as “alamannic-frankish” and dated to 510-530 AD.

AEH_1 from Alteglotsheim was a 30-50 year old female with a deformed skull who in Table S1 was defined culturally in her “bow-brooch” as “ostrogothic” and dated to between 370-529 AD.

STR_502 from Straubing Bajuwarenstrasse was a 60+ female with a “not deformed” skull and not culturally defined by a grave good who was dated to 430-647 AD.

The study dtermined the probably eye colors of the studied individuals based ontheir genetic charactristings. It said: “Interestingly, five individuals (AEH_1135, AEH_1, STR_300, STR_438, VIM_2) can be excluded from the blue-eyed haplotypes identified by Eiberg et al, but could not be conclusively assigned to one of the 6 commonly observed brown-eyed haplotypes.” This observation for us isn't important so much for the fact of the eye color of of AEH_1 and STR_300 as that it indicates a possible genetic connecton to between them.

AEH_1 was also unique in another interesting way, regarding a SNP that is associated with the risk for Type 2 Diabestes. “Individua AEH_1 was herterozygous at rs3342232 and rs13342692 which indicates that this individual carried one copy of the ancestral haplotype and one copy of the “2 SNP” haplotype defined by SIGMA, which appears at frequencies of <1% in Europe and is absent in Asia.” Supplement text p. 24). This is interesting not for the fact that she was or wasn't prone to type 2 diabetes, but rather because she had a SNP that was rare in both Europea and Asia, another feature similar to her eye color that sets her apart froom the other Bavarian individuals.

The ancestry of AEH_1 “appear[ed] more central to eastern Europe....”

“STR_300 and STR_502...were of a more southern ancestry associated with present day Greece and Turkey, respectively.” (Veeramah)

“Overall with our sample sizes, we found no evidence for a higher amount of matching to modern East Asian groups in the 10 deformed skull individuals relative to 29 individuals without deformed skulls when analyzing the neutralome.” (a “neutralome” is the total set of neutral loci within a genome; neutral loci being those not significantly affected by natural selection).

Most of the individuals without deformed skulls were of “morphological intermediate status”, but STR_300 and STR_502, along withSTR_310, showed “substantial or complete non-central European ancestry....” (S1 p.18)

“All males and females with normal skulls had estimated origins with north and central Europe, apart from STR_300 and STR_502, with their most likely geographic origins being Greece and Turkey respectively.”

Individuals with fully elongated skulls “demonstrated substantial heterogeneity within southeastern Europe and West Asia. STR_310 was the only non-northern/non central European with an itnermediate skull (deformed but to a lesser extent than those “fully elongated”.

“Some females with ACD could be argue to deThe G25 Genomic Admixture Analysis Tool

The G25 (Global 25) ancestry analysis tool was apparently developed by David Wasolowski (“Davidski”) of the Eurogenes Blog ( Eurogenes Blog: Population genetics is a state of mind ) (which I and appears to have been the co-author of the paper by Davranoglou et al, “Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians” ( Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians | bioRxiv )

The G25 principle components found in various ancient and modern populations essentially compares a genome to that of various ancient reference populations that come from specific archaeological sites and thus from specific determinable geographical locations and times.

I don't pretend to know the technical aspects behind the G25 model, but as applied to the Lake Balaton individuals and other individuals we'll look at, the G25 reference populations are quite different from those used by Vyas. Vyas used two different groups of reference populations, one comprise of current populations and the other of populations who lived as close as possible (given limited ancient samples) to around 500 AD. The G25 models we'll be looking at use reference individuals who lived much further in the past. As we've seen with the Vyas models, different reference populations will provide different resulting models with the same target individuals. Both models shed light on the ancestries of the target individuals, and no one model is necessarily “correct”.

The website exploreyourdna.com has a useful list of ancient individuals that includes the known information about the ancient individuals including for many of them pre-calculated G25 results.

In this post I've simplified the labels for readability. For example, the full label for what I call “Kura-Araxes Armenia” is “Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps”, with Kaps being the location of the Bronze Age site where the reference ancient individuals had been buried. “Kura-Araxies” refers to an archaeological culture that existed in one location circa 4000-2000 BC, that location today being within the country today called Armenia.

Other populations that we'll frequently see include:

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara (Yamnaya) from a population present in the Samara Valley of today's Russia in the late 4000's-mid 2,000”s BC.

TUR_Barcin_N (Anatolia Barcin) from a population that lived during the Neolithic (6,000's BC) in northwestern Anatolia close to southeastern Europe at the site of Barcin.

TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N (Anatolia Tepecik-Ciftlic) from Neolithlic (6,000's BC) population that lived in central Anatolia near the site of Tepecif-Ciftlik.

WHG (WHG) from a“Western Hunter-Gatherer) population from the pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer population living throughout Europe who descended from the Ice Age population of Europe..

IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2 (Iran Shah-i-Sokhta) a population from Bronze Age eastern iran.

IRN_Gnj_Dareh_N (Iran Ganj-Dareh) from of Neolithic population living in western Iran).

Levant_PPNB (Levant PPNB) probably primarily from the Natufian population living in Israel around 10,000 BC.

MAR_Taforalt (Morroco Taforalt) from a population living around 12,000 BC in Morocco, North Africa

ETH_4500BP (Ethiopia) from a population ling in Ethiopia around 2500 BC

Han (Han) from a population living in China

Nganasan (Nganasan) from a population living in Siberia

BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP (Brazil LapadoSanto) from a hunter-gatherer population living in Brazil around 7600 BC. However, when encountered in Eurasians it doesn't mean that the this ancestry came from Brazil, but rather it is aused a a proxy for it's ancestral population that lived in Siberia bfore the population split, with some migrating to the Americas and some remaining in Siberia.

Each of these populations had derived from previous populations. For example, the Neolithic Anatolian populations had primarily derived from the previous hunter-gatherer populations present in Anatolia. This is true of both the Barcin and Tepecif-Ciftlik populations, who are therefore closely related to each other but are nonethless distinguishable from each other primarily due to the Tepcik-Ciftlik population having more geneflow form a hunter-gatherer population from the Caucaus (Caucasus Hunter-Gather or CHG). Both populations also had some CHG ancestry as well as some Levant PPNB ancestry.

Individuals who lived in each of the above populations were grouped together to define the particular population. If an individual from a particular population, for example Anatolia Barcin, shows a 100% Anatolia Barcin, that means that all of his ancestors appear to have been Anatolian hunter-gatherers unadmixed with other populations. However, many individuals also had some admixture with other populations. Below are a few random examples of individuals from the G25 reference populations listed above. For simplicity I will usually round percentages up or down, except for small amounts of ancestries or for clarity, so numbers might not add up exact to 100%

Anatolia Barcin

Barcin BAR8 Anatolia Barcin 6221-6021 BC Female

Anatolia Barcin 100%

Skin: N/A

Hair: Black/Dark Brown

Eye: Brown

Barcin BAR32 Anatolia Barcin 6396-6241 Sex NA

Anatolia Barcin 95%

Han 3%

Morocco Taforalt 2%

Skin: N/A

Hair: Blond/Lightest Brown

Eye: Brown

Barci;n BAR15 Anatolia Barcin 6213-6049 BC Female

Anatolia Barcin 97%

Brazil LapadoSanto 3%

Note: The exploreyourdna.com page for an individual will sometimes include an individuals estimated hair, eye and skin coloring information, based on genetic analysis, if the study from which the ancient individual came included this analysis. I usually won't include this information even when available, but for the first two Barcin individuals I included it just to show that this information is sometimes available, and also because it's surprising to see that BAR8 had blond hair.

Anatolia Tepecik-Ciftlik

Tepecik TEP006 Anatolia 6223-6072 C1a2b

Anatolia Tepecik-Ciftlik 99%

WHG 0.65%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 0.39%

Morocco Taforalt 0.20%

Tepecik TEP003 Anatolia 6570-6422 BC G2a2a

Anatolia Tepecif-Ciftlik 85%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 11%

Levant PPNB 4%

Levant PPNB

Jordan BAJO22 Jorand Baja 7250-6800 BC E1b1b1b2a1a1

Levant PPNB 96%

Morocco Taforalt 4%

Kura-Araxes Armenia

Kaps ARM001 Date Unknown (~3400-2000 BC) Female

Kura-Araxes Armenia 99.18%

Iran Ganj-Dareh 0.82%

Yamnaya

Yamnaya I0357 Russia Samara 3093-2811 BC Female

Yamnaya 92%

Anatolia Barcin 4%

WHG 1.74%

Iran Shah-i-Sokhta 1.34%

Iran Ganj-Dareh 0.67%

Brazil LapadoSanto 0.36%

Nganasan 0.14%

Skin: Intermediate

Hair: Dark Brown/Black

Eye: Brown

Yamnaya I6731 Russia Samara 3083-2916 BC R1b1a1a

Yamnaya 98%

Jarawa 0.97%

Dinka 0.68%

Yoruba 0.21%

The Yamanaya appear to have been a roughly 50/50 admixture of Eastern (European) Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG). The EHG are themslves mostly of Ancient North Eurasian (AND) ancestr from Siberia admixed with a smaller amount of Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry. “EHGs inhabited an area stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Urals and downwards to the Pontic-Caspian steppe....likely during the 4^th millenium BC, EHGs on the Pontic-Caspian steppe mixed with Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) with the resulting population half EHG and half CHG, forming the genetic cluster known as Western Steppe Herder (WSH).” (Wikipedia “Eastern hunter-gatherers”). The Yamnaya are a specific subset of the WSH population. closely related to the people of the Yamnaya culture. The G25 model will often identify Yamnaya ancestry in an individual who lived before the Yamnaya existed, which likely indicates that that previous populations had similary ancestry proportions of EHG and CHG well before the Yamnaya culture existed. This is especially true in Scandinavia; example below:

Norway HUM2 Norway Hummervikholmen 7502-7325 BC I2a2a

WHG 49%

Yamnaya 46%

Brazil LapadoSanto 4%

Nganasan 0.06%

Serbia Iron Gates VLASA7 Serbia Vlasac 7456-7053 BC I2

WHG 80%

Yamnaya 20%

Nganasan 0.23%

Nganasan and Brazil LapadoSanto genomes originated from are Siberian, and it appears that the G25 will often show small amounts of these in association with Yamnaya ancestry.

WHG

France HOE3 France Hoedic 6100-5000 BC I2a1

WHG 100%

Spain 0823 Spain 6015-5789 BC C1a2

WHG 99.21%

Han 0.79%

The Standard European Genome

Europeans are generally modelled as being composed of the three primary ancestries of WHG (original population),EEF (Farmer) and Yamnaya, with different geographic regions having different proportions of these three ancestries.

These three populations were layered upon each other as the EEF population entered Europe as the Anatolian Neolithic Farmer (ANF) population around 7000 BC, followed around 3000 BC by waves of Yamnaay migrations.

The WHG population descended from the earlier Paleolithic populations that began spreading out from Ice Age refugia as the climate warmed.

As the map below shows, by around 6700 BC a population of farmers from northwestern Anatolia migrated across the Aegean into Greece and the Balkans (orange color), and from there spread throughout Europe along two reoutes, one a northwestern route along the Danube (green color) and along the Mediterranean (purple color).

“Spread of farming from southwest Axia between 9600 BC to Europe and Northwest Africa between 9600 and 4000 BC”

Wikipedia “Early Euroepan Farmers”

By Detlef Gronenborn, Barbara Horejs, Börner, Ober - https://www.academia.edu/9424525/Map_Expansion_of_farming_in_western_Eurasia_9600_4000_cal_BC_update_vers_2021_1_, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=104934771

This population of Anatolian Neolithic Farmers (ANF) are also known in Europe as Early European Farmers (EEF). These people genetically resembled the Anatolia Barcin population and were distinct from other Anatolian populations such as the epecif-Ciftlik population. Therefore, throughout most of Europe the present populations have Barcin-like DNA but not (or only trace) Tepecif-Ciftlik-like DNA.

The EEF migration had a roughly equal sex ratio, meaning that they were able to propogate without input from the WHG population. Over time, however, admixture did occur, and although the amounts varied from place to place, by 3000 BC it was likely that most EEF populations were at least 5% WHG.

After 3000 BC the Yamanay began migrating in waves from the Pontic-Caspian steppe into Europe, and these migrations were of a different character than the EEF migrations. “[T]hese two migrations suggest a view of differeing cultural histories in which the Neolithic transition [EEF migration] was driven by mass migration of both males and females in roughly equal numbers, perhaps whole families, whereas the later Bronze Age [Yamnaya] migration and cultural shift were instead driven by male migraion, potentially connected to new technology and conquest.” (Goldberg et al (2017) “Ancient X chromosomes reveal contrasting sex bias in Neolithic and Bronze Age Eurasian migrations” ( Ancient X chromosomes reveal contrasting sex bias in Neolithic and Bronze Age Eurasian migrations - PMC ) The study this quote came from estimated the Yamnaya migration sex ratio at one Yamnaya woman for every 5-14 Yamnaya men, and the migrations were more in the nature military operations than peaceful migrations. The migrations resulted in the wholesale turnover of languages in Europe from the EEF languages to the Indo-European languages, and also to the extinction of many of the EEF Y-chromosome haplogroups, probably due to a combination of mass murder and sexual out-competition.

Because the Yamnaya migrations had such an unbalanced sex ratio, the Yamnaya men extensively admixed with EEF women, such that in regions to which the Yamnaya migrated, in one generation much of the resulting population was half Yamnaya and half EEF (with smaller amounts of WHG from the EEF population).

Thus, after the 2000's BC most European populations had transformed into having as their dominant ancestries varying propertions of WHG, EEF and Yamnaya.

Here are G25 models from a few populations from various regions and times that help illustrate this history:

monstrate grave assemblages associated with an eastern context (STR_328, AEH_1)....” (Veeramah)

Early European Farmers

Lepenskivir LEPE48 Serbia 6064-5919 BC C1a2b

Anatolia Barcin 100%

Schletz I2776 Austria 5000 BC E-L618

Anatolia Barcin 96%

WHG 4%

Czechia I14172 Czech Baalberge 4500-3500 BC Female

Turkey Barcin Neolithic 81%

WHG 19%

Yamnaya I1450 Russia Samara 3333-3028 BC R1b1a1b1b

Yamnaya 95%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 4%

Anatolia Tepecif-Ciftlik 1%

Nganasan 0.11%

Han 0.09%'

Wartberg KH150418 Germany 3500-2800 BC I2a

Anatolia Barcin 59%

WHG 41%

TRM006 Czech Corded Ware 2862-2573 BC R1a1a1

Yamnaya 76%

Anatolia Barcin 16%

WHG %

Yoruba 0.05%

I7251 Czech Bellbeaker 2500-2000 BC R1b

Yamnaya 54%

Anatolia Barcin 33%

WHG 13%

Yoruba 0.13%

I13799 Czech LBA 1300-900 BC Female

Anatolia Barcin 46%

Yamnaya 38%

WHG 16%

Mycenaean-Like Ancestry

“

Mycenaean Greece, also (or the Mycenaean civilization) was the last phase of the Bronze Age in anceint Greece, spanning the period from approximately 1750 to 1050 BC. It represents the first advanced and distinctively Greek civilizaiton in mainland Greece with its palatial states, urban organization, works of art and writing system. The Mycenaeans were mainlaind Greeks who were likely stimulated by their contact with insular Minoan Crete and other Mediterranean cultures to develop a more sophisticated sociopolitical culture of their own.” (Wikipedia “Mycenaean Greece”). Other than in mainland Greece itself, “Mycenaean settlements also appeared in Epirus, Macedonia, on islands in the Aegean Sea, on the southwest coast of Asia Minor [Anatolia], and on Cyprus, while Mycenaean-influenced settlements appeared in the Levant and Italy.” (ibid)

The origin of the Mycenaeans is debated, but it's clear that the genome of the Mycenaeans was similar to that of Minoans of Crete but with the difference that the mainland and Cyladic Island Greeks had additional ancestry from the Yamnaya of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. The Yamnaya ancestry was comprised of roughly equal proprtions of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) ancestry from from eastern Europe and Siberia and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG).

The Neolithic Aegean

“An important question about the initial apread of farming into Europe is whether the first farmers that brought agriculture to norther Europe and southern Europe were derived from a single population or instead represent distrinct migrations.We confirm that Mediterranean populations...are closely related to Danubian populations...from Central Europe and that both are closely related to the Balkan Neolithic population. These three populations form a clade with the NW Anatolian individuals as an outgroup, consistent with a single migration into the Balkan peninsula, which then split into two.” show An outgroup here means a reference population closely related to the target populations] ….In contrast, five southern Greek Neolithic individuals...are not consistent with descending from the same source population as other European farmers. D-statistics [detecting gene flow between populations] show that in fact these “Peloponnese Neolithic”” individuals dated to ~4000 BC are shifted away from WHG and towards CHG, relative to Anatolian and Balkan Neolithic individuals. We see the same pattern in a single Neolithic individual from Krepost in present-day Bulgaria [Io679, dated 5718-5626 BC]. An even more dramatic shift towards CHG has been observed in individuals associated with the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures, suggesting gene flow into the region from populations with CHG-rich ancestry throughout the Neolithiic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. Possible sources are related to the Neolithic population from the central Anatolian site of Tepecif-Ciftlik or the Aegean site of Kumtepe, who are also shifted towards CHG relative to NW Anatolian Neolithic samples, as are later Copper and Bronze Age Anatolians.” (Mathieon (2016) “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe” )

Here are the G25 ancestries for I0679 fromNeolithic Krepost Bulgaria and Kum6 from Copper Age Aegean Anatolia, both mentioned in the Mathieson quote, as well as XAN014 whom Mathieson did not specifically mention but who came from the Bronze Age Minoan culture he mention (and who was also haplogroup E-CTS1975, the parent haplogroup of E-V13”. Percentages are rounded excpt for those <5%.

Krepost I0679 5718-5626 BC Bulgaria Female

Anatolia Barcin 68%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 26%

Iran Shahr-i-Sokhta 5%

Yamnaya 1.46%

Brazil LapaDoSanto 0.19%

WHG 0.0%

Kumtepe KUM6 3773-3533 BC Anatolia (Troy) Female

Anatolia Barcin 50%

Anatolia Tepecik-Ciftlik 32%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 15%

Dinka 1.67%

Morocco Taforalt 1.54%

Iran Shah-i-Sokhta 0.07%

WHG 0.0%

Kydonia XAN014 1275 BC Greece, Crete E-CTS1075

Anatolia Barcin 66%

Anatolia Tepecif-Ciftlik 18%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 14%

Iran Shah-i-Sokhta 1.69%

WHG 0.0%

None of these ancient individuals had any of the WHG ancestry that was native to all of Europe before from around 13,000 BC.

Only the Neolithic Bulgarian Krepost I0679 had any amount of Yamnaya-like ancestry, which in general entered was probably not present in Europe outside west of Ukraine and Russia before around 3000 BC. The Yamnaya as a people is a modern concept for the people present in the nomadic herding culture on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe north of the Black Sea 3300-2600 BC. The Yamnaya as such did not exist during the time of the Krepost individual, but a genetically similar population, probably ancestral to the Yamnaya, probably did and is being reflected the Bulgarian's genome. Interstingly, Krepost is located only 53 miles from Kapitan Andreevo and is about 8 miles south of the Ebros/Maritsa river. And yet, as we'll soon discuss, see, his genome was determined by Lazaridies et al (2022) to have been Mycenaean-like although he'd lived 4000 years before the Mycenaean period and in Bulgaria rather than Greece. The Mycenaean genome included amounts of Yamnaya ancestry, but I don't know whether or not Krepost I0679 was ancestral to the later Mycenaeans. His similar genome may be due to precess similar to that of evolutionary convergence, in that this part of Bulgaria over time produced Mycenaean-like individuals not ancesrally related to each other simply because it stood at a geographical confluence of two metaphorical streams of populations from Aegean Anatolia and the Pontic Steppe. This could produce similar populations at different time spans that were not necessarily ancestral to each other, although all such populations would have of course shared more ancient common ancestors. All people are related to each other (i.e., are cousins); the only questions are how far in the past was the MRCA of any two individuals, and was one individual or population ancestral to the other.

It is useful to distinguish between Anatolian ancestry that is Barcin-like and Anatolian ancestry that is Tepcik-Ciftlik-like because Barcin ancestry in Europe is a marker (though not absolute) for ancestry from the ANF migration out of Anatolia 7000 BC whereas Tepcik-Ciftlik ancestry is not. The tw0 Anatolian ancestries are closely related but distinguishable, with Tepecif-Ciftlik have more CHG ancestral elements (and perhaps a slightly different ratio of Levant ancestry). But in the definition by Lazaridis of Mycenean-like ancestry it appears that no distinction was made betwee the two ancestries, probably because both were present more or less randomly in Greece during the Myceanaean era. Presumably not all the Barcin-like population migrated to Europe in 7000 BC, and thus not all Barcin-like ancestry indicates ancestry from the 7000 BC migration, probably especially in the Aegean and southern Balkans, where waves of migration occurred after 7000 BC that didn't reach as far into Europe as the first large migration.

Because Krepost I0679 had Yamnaya ancestry he's an outlier for the pre-Mycenaean population that had lived in mainland Greece, the Cyclades (islands) and Minoan Crete. Kum6, however, may be ancestral to that pre-Mycenaean population, and XAN014 was actually a part of the Minoan Crete population who lived in the Mycenaean times. If we synthesize a pre-Mycenaean populaton from their genomes, combining the two Anatolian populations, the G25A looks like:

Pre-Mycenaean Populaton

Anatolian 82-84%

Kura-Araxes Armenian 14-15%

Iran Shahr-i-i-Sokhta trace-2%

(Kum6 also also had close to 4% of African DNA similar to that of the Dinka (modern?) population and that of the ancient Morocco Taforatl population. This relatively large amount of African ancestry may have disappeared to some extent over time if it wasn't present to the same degree in the Barcin and Yamnaya populations. This ancestry is often ignored in by the archaeogenetic papers but this amount is not so small that it can be easily discounted as just “noisde” in the statistical models; rather, it probably represents true ancestry and this ancestry is significant to the E-M78 haplogroups incluging E-V13 because it was likely from the E-M78 population component that these Europeans/Anatolians had inherited these ancestries. The Dinka are a Nilotic tribe centered in South Sudan, the region from which the E-M78 haplogroup probably originated (Cruciania 2007). Shriner (2018 Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity - PMC ) determined tha the Natufian ancestry was 6.8% derived from the Omotic-speaking populations nor northeast Africe, located also in South Sudan and Ethiopia, and stated that because the Omotic population was associated with haplogroup E it was a “plausible source” of the Natufian Y-haplogroup. The G25 model doesn't include an Omotic population, and as the Dinka population lives in the same region and probably shares much deep ancestry with the Omotic population, the “Dinka” from Kum6's ancestry model is likely actually Omotic. The relationship between the Natufians of the Levant and the Taforalt (population (Iberomarusian) of North Africa isn't well understood, but the Taforalt were haplogroup E-M78 while the Natufians were from the upstream E-M35 haplogroup. Ancient AE-M78 was apparently rare in the Levant and western Asia, with Ain Ghazal I1710 from Jordan (7700-7500 BC) apparently being the only E-M78 man thus far known (he was apparently in the E-Z1919 subclade, which makes him ancestral to E-V13). It appears to be assumed that the line ancestral to E-V13 intered Europe through the Levant, but it is plausible that E-Z1919 had originated in North Africa (11,000 BC) rather than in the Levant and that the line ancestral to E-V13 had actually entered Europe directly across the Medierranean Sea, perhaps island-hopping first to Sicily, and had never been present in the Levant. This is a much more direct route, and we know that by the early 5000's BC that ANF populations whose ancestors had migrated from Anatiolai 7000 BC had crossed the Mediterranean into North Africa, so there is no reason the reverse might not be true. This could explain the very rare occurrence of the E-V13 ancestral haplogroups in Europe until 1100 BC at the earliest (although this could also be explained by other scenarios, including that the populations that included those haplogroups were located somewhere in western or central Asia for all of the Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Ages, and that only sporadic individuals had ever ventured into Europe, either by land or across the Black Sea). In the end, it appears that the ancestors of the Trojans as well as the Greeks, if Kum6 is such an ancestor, included some African ancestry.)

Mycenaean-like Autosomal DNA

Lazaridis et al defined the Mycenaean genome through professional genetic analysis tools to which I don't have access (and wouldn't know how to use if I did have). However, we do have access to G-25 models for most of the individuals Lazaridis had defined as Mycenaean-like. If we restrict those individuals to the 15 individuals who were actually from Greece only during the Mycenaean perios. we should be able to derive a G25 synthetic model that can describe the “Mycenaean-like”genome.

Ancestry Average Range No. with Ancestry

Anatolia (Barcin+Tepecik Ciftlik) 71% 54-82% 15/15

Yamnaya 11% 2-25% 15/15

Kura-Araxes Armenia 11% 1-24% 15/15

Iran (Ganj-Dareh+Shahr-i-Sokhta) 1.59% 0-4.94% 7/15

WHG 0.7% 0-3.96% 5/15

Trace ancestries in fewer than 5/15 individuals:

Levant PPNB 1.74% 0-7.62 4/15

Ethiopia 1.36% 1/15

Yoruba 1.23% 1/15

Jarawa 0.81% 1/15

Han 0.78% 3/15

Dinka 0.60% 1/15

Brazil LapadoSanto 0.38 3/15

Nganasan 0.15% 1/15

The Trace ancestries can be ignored as they likely represent either “noise” in the model or ancestry from too distant in the past to be relevant to Mycenaean ancestry. The ancestries described as Levant, Ethiopia, Yoruba, and Dinka might have derived from the E-M35 individuals that had accompanied the 7000 BC ANF migration or through later trans-Mediterranean migrations; but in any case these genes weren't fixed in Mcyeanean population and absent continued gene flow possibly later disappeared through culling over several meiotic events.The ancestries described as Han, Brazil LapadoSanto and Nganasan are East Asian/Siberian ancestries that may have come through the EHG (Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer) component of the Yamnaya (the Brazil LapadoSanto ancestry didn't actually come from the Americas, but rather from the parent Siberian population some of whose descendants migrated to the Americas while others of whom remained in Asia (some of who later migrated westward). The ancestry described a Jarawa is South Asian and is likely not actually form South Asia but from a parent population of the Jarawa and some East Asians.

This leaves the following as the approximate G25 for the Mycenaean population (assuming the general accuracy of my calculations):

Mycenaean-like Population from Lazaridis

Anatolia (Barcin+Tepecik Ciftlik) 54-82% Required

Yamnaya 2-25% Required

CHG Source >0% Required

WHG less than 0-3.96% Optional

Kura-Araxes Armenia 0-24% Optional

Iran (Ganj-Dareh+Shahr-i-Sokhta) 0-4.94% Optional

Other ancestries <

CHG sources: Iran (any), Kur-Araxes Aremnia, Tepecif-Ciftlik Anatolia >30%, or

Yamnaya >~20%

Of the 37 of Lazaridis' 45 ancient individuals with Mycenaean-like ancestry, 32 had some degree of Kura-Araxes Armenian ancestry. Lazaridis had rated the Mycenaean-like individuals “from most to least Mycenaean-like” they were, with the most Mycenaean-like individual being ranked “5” and the least-Mycenaean-lie ranked “405”. If we use 203 as the dividing point between the most Mycenaean-like and least Mycenaean-like indiviudals, 4 of the 5 individuals without any Kura-Araxes Armenia ancestry were ranked in the least-mycenaean-like half of the entire group:

Mycenaean-like Ancient Individuals Without Kura-Araxes Armenia-like Ancestry

Personal ID Region Date Mycenaean Rank

Yassatepe (Izmir) I5737 Anatolia 2035-1900 BC 210

Anatolia Barcin 51%

Anatilia Tepecif-Ciftlik 20%

Iran Ganj-Dareh 7%

Yamnaya 4%

Levant PPNB 1%

Delphi I3580 (Doric) Greece 1371-1123 BC 333

Anatolia Barcin 77%

Yamnaya 20%

Iran Shah-i-Sokhta 1.56%

Iran Ganj-Dareh 1.46%

Kapitan Andreevo I20181 Thrace 1100-500 AD 316

Anatolia Barcin 74%

Yamnaya 22%

WHG 1.79%

Iran Shah-i-Sokhta 1.31%

Iran Ganj-Dareh 0.06%

Macedonia I7233 Macedonia 859 BC 277

Anatolia Barcin 62%

Yamnaya 23%

Anatolia Tepcik-Ciftlik 14%

Iran Shah-i-Sokhta 1.13%

Sardinia MSR002 (Punic) Sardinia 796-570 BC 187

Anatolia Tepcik-Ciftlik 80%

Yamnaya 12%

WHG 3.96%

Morocco Taforalt 3.08%

Iran Ganj-Dareh 0.39%

Diamandievo I19481 Thrace 700-500 BC 334

Anatolia Tepecif-Ciftlik 44%

Anatolia Barcin 35%

Yamnaya 20%

Taforalt 0.45%

The only one of the individuals with a Mycenaean-like score below 203 is MSR002, a Phoenician from Sardinia. MSR003 also had the highest WHG of all the 37 Myceanean-like individuals. MSR002 is presumably a Greek who in Sardinia had become culturally Punic (Carthaginian/Phoenician). Or possibly he was a Punic who randomly inherited a more Greek-like than Punic-like genome. By examiing other Punic G25 genomes it's apparent that the Carthaginians had genomes quite like that of the Mycenaeans in terms of their Anatolia Barcin/Tepecik-Ciftlik, Yamnaya and Kura-Araxes ancestries, but averaged 2-5 times higher than the Mycenaean-like individuals in their WHG ancestry when they had WHG ancestry. Th also usually had significant amounts of Morocco Taforalt ancestry as well, no doubt due to Carthage being located in North Africa. From this we can guess that the Phoenicians had originated in the Aegean but moved to the Levant before they began expanding into Mediterranean colonies (a scenario reinforced by their nonexistant-to-low PPNB ancestry). These observations shouldn't be taken too seriously, however, because they come just a brief, casual comparison since the Carthaginians are outside our sphere of interest regarding E-V13.

What is important here though is that in most of the Mycenaean-like individuals, it is often the Kura-Araxes Armenia ancestry that carries the higher CHG that characterizes the Mycenaean-like individuals, and note that in those individuals in which Kura-Araxes Armenian is absent, they contain at least one other source of CHG: either a signficant amount or combination of Iran Ganj Dareh, Iran Shah-i-Sokhta, Tepcik-Ciftlik above 30% (according to an analysis by the LLM AI Grok 3) or even through larger amounts of Yamnaya (also confirmed by Grok 3).

Thus, there are 4 G25 rquiired elements of the Mycenaean-like genome:

Anatolia (Barcin+Tepecik Ciftlik) 54-82%

Yamnaya 2-23%

CHG Source Unknown, but >0%

WHG less than 3.96%

The CHG source can be any one or combination of: Kura-Araxes Armenia, Iran Ganj-Dareh, Iran Shah-i-Sokhta, Tepecif-Ciftlik >30%, (possibly) Yamnay a >19.99%

Diros I3920

An exception to the above is Diros I3920 from the Peloponnese peninusula 3938-3658 BC. I3920 is on Lazaridis' list of Myceanean-like individuals with a ranking of 243—and yet I3920 lacks any Yamnaya ancestry at all according to her G25.

Diros I3920 Pelopennese 3938-3658 BC Female

Anatolia Barcin 71%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 18%

Anatolia Tepecif-Ciftlik 5%

Iran Ganj-Dareh 3.43%

I'm not sure why I3920 is considered to have had Myceanean-like DNA despite the G25 model showing that she lacked lacking any Yamnaya ancestry. Although there are substantial amounts of the required CHG ancestry from the Armenian and Iranian ancestries, there appears to be no source of the EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) ancestry that is also a component of the Yamnaya ancestry and is therefore required in the Mycenaean-like genome. Diros I3920 otherwise fits within the G25 pattern for Mycenaean-like ancestry, and in general is quite similar to Kum6 from Troy in the Hellespont, whose age range overlaps I2920. Neither has Yamnaya ancestry, which generally appears not to have entered the region until about 2500 BC (although Krepost I0679 was 1.46% Yamnaya).

Southern Balkans Mycenaean-like Genomes

In the supplementary text of Lazaridis it said that “By far, the greatest number of Mycenaean-like individuals in our dataset outside Greece itself is found in neihboring Bulgaria where 10 such samples (from several sites) are identified. A Neolithic outlier individual from Krepost [I0679] is the earliest. This individual has no EHG ancestry according to our estimation [i.e., thus no Yamnaya ancestry], but is a mixture of mainly Anatolian Neolithic and CHG-related anestry. Thus, it may somewhat resemble Mycenaeans, but it would difficult to speak of continuity [of genes/descent] since its 6^th millenium BCE date on its basis, especially as this pattern is not supported by other Neolilthic/Chalcolithic era samples from Bulgaria or Greece, some of which post-date

the Krepost individual. More convincing [regarding continuity of genes] are seveal 1^st millenium BCE individuals from Rozovo (I19500), Diamandievo (I19481), Dzhulyunitsa (I5769), and Kapitan Andreevo (about half of the samples here). As these sites are inland, they should not be attributed to maritime contacts and the foundation of colonies in the Thracian coast by Greek settlers, but may better suggest a similarity of population in the southern Balkans with the Aegean. Future studies of intermediate regions between southern Greece, North Macedonia, and Bulgaria will be important in further mapping the extent of the Mycenaean-like population and its relationships to those further north in the Balkans.”

In this passage Lazaridis says that Krepost I0679 had no EHG ancestry, but the G25 did show a small amount of Yamnaya ancestry, which is 50% EHG. Also, the passage says that no later Greeks had a similar genomoe to Krepost I0679, but G25 genome of Diros I3920 is quite similar and with no Yamnaya at all. This might simply show a difference between the genetic tools used by Lazaridis and the G25, but I see no problem with continuity of descent between these two earlierl individuals and the later Mycenaeans, who are quite similar except for some added Yamnaya from a migration either from Anatolia or the Pontic SteppeBelo

Below is a chart showing the G25 Yamnaya ancestry of the Balkans invidivuals north of Greece (for whom we have a G25 model):A

Name Region Yamanay %

Kap Andreevo I20180 Bulgaria 15%'

Kap Andreevo I20184 Bulgaria 15%

Kap Andreevo I20186 Bulgaria 17%

Boyanovo I18792 Bulgaria 19%

Diamandievo I19481 Bulgaria 20%

Rozovo I19500 Bulgaria 21%

Kap Andreevo I201811 Bulgaria 22%

Dzhuyunitsa I5769 Bulgaria 23%

Macedonia I7233 N Macdonia 23%

Average 19%

Thus the individuals with Myceanean-like genomes who lived north of Greece had an average Yamnaya ancestry of 19%, compare to the Mycenaean-like average of 11%. This is obviously signficant, and is plausibly interpreted as indicating that the Yamnaya ancestry in the Mycenaean-like individuals came from the Pontic Steppe to the north of Greece rather than from Armenia via Anatolia.

Mycenaean-like Y-Haplogroups

None of the Mycenaeans studied by Lazaridis was in one of the E-M78 descendant haplogroups. This may be an artifact of chance if the E-M78 men were located in only one region which had not been studied, or it might mean that the E-M78 haplogroup was not located in Myceanaean Greece at all, but further north in Thrace, Macedonia or Epirus (straddling Albania and northwestern Greece). We know that E-V13 is found in Greece today in high conentration, and that it is most concentrated in Kosovo and Albania. Thus, if the E-M78 lines were not part of the Mycenaean Greeks proper, they may have been part of the closely related tribes to the north, most likely the northwest, of Greece, perhaps the peoples called the Molossians (Epirus league) or the Bryges. As i'll discuss later, in the wake of the Bronze Age Collapes and the Trojan War (Greek Dark Ages), the Bryges migrated from their home in northwestern Greece and migrated into Anatolia, although some apparently remained in the Balkans. Likewise, the the Dorian population also migrated from northern Greece further south in what is called the Dorian Invasion, and some scholars believe that they originated from Epirus. I'll discuss this in more detail later, but the point is that during the Mycenaean period it's possible that the E-M78 haplogroups were Greek tribes also, but were located further north during the Mycenaean period and some may have migrated into the south during the turmoil of the Bronze Age Collapse, and became part of classical Greece.

Of the Mycenaean men in Lazaridis' table, the following Y-haplogroups were present:

E1b E-V78-->E-V13 Levant or North Africa

T1a T1a2b1 Levant

J2a J2a1a2b2a2b2a (J2a-Y14434 Caucasus/Iran

G2a G2a2b2b2a1a2, G2a2a1a Anatolia

G2a R1b R1b1a1b Yamnaya

R1a-Z93 Yamnaya

The last column represents the most likely location of the origin of the haplogroup.

The Mygdalia Mycenaean Yamnaya Outliers

Although the 45 individuals identified by Lazaridis as having Mycenaean-like genomes is probably a good general guideline to use, there was at least one population of Myceneans who werer outliers, specifically in regard to having a higher amount of Yamnaya ancestry than the 11% (or perhaps 13%) averaged by Lazaridis' 45 Mycnaean-like individuals.

MYG001 J2b 1534 BC

Anatolia Barcin 42%

Anatolia Tepcik-Ciftlik 32%

Yamnaya 22%

WHG 2.33%

Iran Shahr-i-i-Sokhta 2%

MYG002 Female 1572 BC

Anatolia Barcin 66%

Yamnaya 34%

MYG003 Female 1517 BC

Anatolia Barcin 40%

Anatolia tepecif-ciftlik 30%

Yamnaya 25%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 5%

MYG004 G2a 1528 BC

Anatolia Barcin 72%

Yamnaya 24%T

Anatolia Tepecif-Ciftlik 4%

MYG005 J2b 1465 BC

Anaotlia Barcin 69%

Yamnaya 29%

Iran Shah-i-Sokhta 1.44%

Iran Ganj-Dareh 0.19%

MYG006 J2b 1532 BC

Anatolia Barcin 64%

Yamnaya 28%

Anatolia Tepcik-Ciftlik 7%

WHG 0.75%

MYG008 J2b 1532 BC

Anatolia Barcin 48%

Yamnaya 28%

Anatolia Tepcik-Ciftlik 23%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 2%

Of these 7 individuals, 5 are men. Of the 5 men, 4 are in haplogroup J2b and 1 in haplogrou G2a.

Mygdalia G25

Ancstry Average Range

Anatolia (total) 71% 66-76% Required

Anatolia Barcin 57% 42-72% Requied

Anatolia Tepcik-Ciftlik 14% 0-32% Optional (5/7)

Yamnaya 27% 22-34% Required

Kura-Araxes Armenian 1% 2-5% Optional (2/7 possess)

Iran (total GD+S-i-S) 057% 2% Optional (2/7 possess)

WHG 0.34% 0.75-2.33% Optional (2/7 possess)

CHG ancestry low low Optional (

Mydalia Genome Compared to Lazaridis' Mycenaean-like Genome

Here's a comparison of the core ancestries of the Mycenaean-like population compared to those ancestries in the Mygdalia populations:

Ancestry Mycenaean Mygdalia Kapitan Andre

Anatolia (Barcin+Tepecik Ciftlik) 71% 71%

Yamnaya 11% 27% 19%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 11% 1%

Iran (Ganj-Dareh+Shahr-i-Sokhta) 1.59% 0.57%

WHG 0.7% 0.34%

Here we see that the total Anatolian ancestries in both populations are identical. The WHG ancestry of the Mycenaean-like population is twice that of the Mygdalia population, but both are very low, less than 1%.

The most notable difference between the two populations is in regard to the Yamnaya and the two CHG-heavy populations from Armena and Iran. The Yamnaya ancestry of the Mygdalia populaton is 3.45 times that of the Mycenaean-like population, amounting to 16% of the total ancestries, which primarily at the expense in the Mycenaean-like individuals by their CHG-heavy ancestries, particularly Armenian.

Yet the Mygdalia population was part of the Mycenaean culture. I don't know enough about the Mygdalian population to know if they had differentiated themselves from the other Myceneaean populations based on their different ancestries, but I suspect that they were aware of the difference but were nonetheless fully integrated into the Mycenean culture.

From these ancestral difference between the Mygdalia population and the other Mycenaean population we can determine a plausible historical reason for their ancestral differences.

The ancient Greeks had believed that when their ancestors had arrived in Greece, the region was already populated by the native people the Greeks called the Pelasgians. Various Greek writers described them varously, but in general they were probably the descendnat sof the Neolithic population of Greece. The Mycenaeans (who were the ancestors of the Classical Greeks) are the earliest specifically “Greek” population and were the first population in the Aegean to consistently have Yamnaya ancestry. Since the Greek tradition was that when they had entered Greece it had already been population with Pelasgians, the core Greek identity was that of having been the intruding population, which we know included Yamnaya ancestry. However, the Mycenaean Yamnaya element only amounts to 11% or slightly more of Yamnaya ancestry, and also includes the Kura-Araxes Armenia and Iran and Tepecif-Ciftlik Anatolian ancestries in similar smounts to those of the Neolithic Aegean populations—the Pelasgians. Thus it seems likely that in fact the intruding ancestors of the Mycenaeans had admixed to a considerable degree with the native Pelasgians.

The intruding ancestors of the Mycenaeans were almost certainly already an admixed population of Yamnaya with an Early European Farmer (EEF) population, similar to that of the Usatove population. Thus, when they'd entered Greece they were probably already had 50% or less Yamnaya ancestry, which was further diluted to 11% due to their admixture over the centuries with the Neolithic Pelasgians who had no Yamnaya ancestry.

However, the Mygdalia population is higher in Yamnaya and lower in the Neolithch “Pelasgian” CHG-heavy ancestries, which we can plausibly understand as meaning that they were descendants of the intruding population what had not heavily admixed with the local Pelasgians. Thus, since the ancient Greeks and probably Mycenaeans defined themselvesby their Yamnaya-heavy intrusive ancestries, a population that had brought the Greek language and culture into the Aegean, the Mygdalia population might have considered itself more purely “Greek” than the other populations because they hadn't admixed with the Pelasgians to the same degree as had the other Greeks.

The Mycenaean Mydalia genome differs from that of the broader Mycenaean-like genome identified by Lazaridis in the following ways:

(1) Yamnaya in the Mygdalia genome is significantly higher (27%) than that of the Mycenaean-like genome (11%).

(2) CHG ancestry in excess of EHG ancestry is much less in Mygdalia than in the Myceanean-like genome. I haven't quantified this, but although Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) in general might be similar in both populations, Eastern Hunter-Gatheer (EHG) is higher in Mygdalia genome than in the Mycenean-like genome. This is beause although CHG from Iran, Armenia and Anatolia Tepecic Ciftlik >30% is much less the Mygdalia genome than in the Mycenean-like genome, it is at least partially made up for by the greater Yamnaya ancestry, which is 50% CHG; however, Yamnaya ancestry is also 50% EHG, which is the only source of EHG in the two genomes, and thus the Mygdalian genome has higher EHG than the Mycenean-like population.

The Anatolian ancestryin the Mygdalia genome is similar to that of the Cycenean-like genome, so the Yamnaya ancestry came at the expense not of the Anatolian ancestry, but at the expesne of the Armenian and Iranian ancestries, as well as to a lesser degree the Tepecif-Ciftlik ancestry, all of which were prevalent from the Neolithic in the Aegean region including mainland Greece, even though not every Mycenaea-like individual had each one of those ancestries.

Given the prevalence of the J2b ancestry among the Mygdalian maltes, and the history of the line in the Usatove population of Ukraine/Moldova, which was a combination f Yamnaya and Early European Farmer populations, my hupothesis for the difference in the Mygdalia population and the larger Myceanean population is as follows. The population that brought Yamnaya ancestry into the Balkans and Myceanean Greece from around 2500 BC (but to a much lesser extent in Crete and some of the other islands) was likely the admixed Yamnaay+EEF populations, perhaps in a 2/1 ratio of EEF/Yamnaya. Around 2500 BC this population migrated south into the Balkans and Greece, bringing with it Yamnaya ancestry new to the regin in general. Most of this DNA was absorbed in this region with Yamnaya in the Mycenaeans being about 11-13% Yamnaya and adding to the Anatolian already present in the Aegean in the Pelasgians, the native population of Greece since the Neolithic.

If the Yamnaya ancestry in Mycenaean and later Greece was in fact from the Usatove population or a similar population from the north Pontic region, then in the Mycenaeans there should have been a north-south Yamnaya clin, with more Yamnaya ancestry in northern Balkan populations and less in southern Balkan populatins, with regional variations due to social or geographical factors. This does appear to generally be the case, with less Yamnaya ancestry among the populations of Crete and other islands.

The point of analyzing the Mygdalian G25 was to point out that although the Mygdalians fall outside Lazaridis' model for the Mycenaean-like genome, the Mygdalians were nonetheless Mycenaeans, and that Lazaridis' model of Mycenaean-like ancestry might have to be adjusted to include the Mydalian population. I'm not certain why Mygdalians were omitted, but it's likely that the Mygdalian genomes were unknown to Lazaridis at that time.

The genomes of the Kapitan Andreevo and other individuals from Thrace were higher in Yamnaya ancestry than Lazaridis' Mycenaean-like genomes, but lower in Yamnaya than the Mygdalians.

Fonyod and Hacs Redux

The point of the excursion into the Mycenaean-like genome was of course to compare it to that of the earliest-known E-FGC11450 man, Fonyod FVD009, and to his contempoararies in the neary community of Hacs, Hacs 21 (E-S2979) and Hacs 22 (E-Z5018).

Fonyod FVD009

Fonyod FVD009 (536) E-FGC11450 Mycenaean-like Range

Anatolia (Total) 66% 54-82%

Anat Tepecik Ciftlik 40%

Anat Barcin 26%

Yamnaya Samara 20% 2-23%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 14% 0-24%

WHG 0.26% 0-4%

CHG yes yes

(FVD009 CGH=Kura-Araxes Armenia, Tepecik-Ciftlik >30%)

Clearly Fonyod FVD009 fits comfortably within the definition of Mycenaean-like as determined by Lazaridis and converted to the G25 model. This is true even though FVD009 lived had lived 1,500-1,600 year after the Mycean culture had been destroyed or had destroyed itself. disappeared in the Thus, it appears that Fonyod FVD009 was likely Greek, or if not Greek than like from the Balkans north of Greece and descended from the same population as the Greeks. Thus it's plausible, even likely, that FVD009 was either a Greek, a Thracian, or a or from some other Balkan population that likely spoke a Paleo-Balkan language.

Hacs 21 and Hacs 22

Hacs 21 E-S2979

Turkey Barcin Neolithic 70%

Yamnaya Samara 25%

Iran Ganj Dareh Neolithic 3%

WHG 1.50%

Nganasan 0.23%

Hacs 21 falls sliighly outside of the range of the Mycenaean-like individuals only because his Yamnaya is lightly higher than the upper edge of Lazaridis' range (converted to G25). Otherwises he fits within, and should have enough CHG due to his 3% Iranaian ancestry. Mygdalia population of Mycenaeans.

Hacs 22 E-Z5018

Turkey Barcin Neolithic 55%

Yamnaya Samara 23%

Turkey Tepecif Ciftlik Neolithic 21%

WHG 1.02%

Yoruba 0.32%

Hacs 22 is questinably within the range of range of Mycenaean-like individuals, if his 21% Tepecik Ciftlik Anatolian (perhaps compbined with his higher amount of Yamnaya) had enough CHG to place him as Mycenaean-like according to Lazaridis' estimation.

Both Hacs 21 and 22 are close enough to Lazaridis' Mycenaean-like ancestry that that it's plausible that they are in fact descendants of either the Myceneans or of related ancient Paleo-Balkan speaking populations. Fonyod may be a bit closer due to his Kura-Araxes Armenian ancestry, but that isn't a requirement according to my G25 average of azaridis' Mycenaeans.

Szolad 19

Szolad SZ19 was a female and thus not E-V13, but she Szolad was located close to both Fonyod and Hacs, and although it existed around 100 years later, it's plausible that SZ19 had come from the same population as Fonyod FVD009, Hacs 21 and Hacs 22. It appears likely than none of the Fonyod or Hacs individuals had been yet studied when Lazaridiis searched the ancient DNA database for Mycenaean-like individuals, and that this may be why none of the three had been identified as Mycenaean-like. However, Szolad had been studied by the time of the Lazaridis study, and Lazaridis had identified SZ19 as Mycenaean-like. Here's what the Lazridis supplementary text said about her:

“SZ19 is a Langobard-era sample from Szólád, Hungary from the 5th-6th c. CE. SZ19 was a young female of 17-25 years old who was also a genetic outlier in the group of individuals buried there, had a distinct burial type, and also had a “stylistically distinct (possibly Roman)” artifact associated with her burial. Quite possibly she was related to the population of the Aegean and the southern Balkans given the similarity to Mycenaeans detected here.”

Persistence of the Mycenaean-like Genome through Two millenia

It's possible that certain individuals or even populations might have by chance had a genome similar to that of the Mycenaeans, and Lazaridis refers to this briefly in his supplementary text in regard to some of the individuals identified as having Mycenaean-like DNA. The text refers to I7233 (North Macedonia 900-800 BC) in this regard, saying that “We cannot speak of a general Mycenaean-like population here as the remaining samples from the 1st millennium BCE do not bear this close resemblance to the Mycenaean population.” This would mean that I7233 was simply an outlier with an genome resembling that of the Mycenaeans without actual descent from the Mycenaeans. I don't understand the reluctance of Lazaridis to believe that a population this close to Greece to have had a Mycenaean-like popultion that had suvived a few hundred years after the demise of the Mycenaean civilization. There exists today about two dozen ancient individuals from Macedoni between 1000-1 BC, and although I haven't studied them systematically, I briefly looked at the G25s for most of them, and wy8oe only I17233 falls within the Mycenaean-like range, in fact some appeared to fall within the Mycenaean-like range, others were quite similar to the Mygdalian range and the rest had more Yamnaya at the expence of Anatolian.

Here are a few examples of Macedonians from the 1^st century BC:

Marvinci I10391 Norm Macedonia 500-100 BC Female

Anatolia 69%

Barcin 50%

Tepecif-Ciftlik 19%

WHG 1.21%

Brazil LapadoSanto 0.50%

Marvinci I10390 North Macedonia 410-380 BC G2a

Anatolia 63%

Yamnaya 36%

WHG 0.80%

Plaosnik I10388 North Macedonia 795-567 BC J2a1a1a2b2~

Anatolia Barcin 65%

Yamnaya 34%

WHG 1%

Plosnik I10387 North Macedonia 700-500 BC Female

Anatolian 66%

Yamnaya 33%

Yoruba 0.49%

WHG 0.36%

All of the above fall within the Mydaliarange:

Mygdalia Range

Anatolia (Barcin+Tepecifk 66-76%

Yamnaya 22-34%

WHG 0.75-2.33%

CHG ancestry low

Often with small amounts of Iran Ganj-Dareh or Kura-Araxes Armenia

North Macedonia may well be a region from which the Mygdalia population had originally come, but Lazaridis is probably right that it wasn't later a region to which the other Mycenaean populations had migrated—if the sites there are representative of North Macedonia as a whole.

The Modern Greek Genome

“Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of poplations of the Aegean, before and after the time of the earliest civilizations.” (Lazaridis et al (Nature August 2017) “Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans”)

Thus, we know that the core Mycenaean population remained in Greece during and after the Bronze Age Collapse. The Lazaridis study apparenlty didn't determine when the “additonal dilution” of the Mycenaean genome had occurred, but it was likely after the time of the classical Greeks and after the Romans assumed control of Greece, which was completed by 146 AD. This is just my guess, but it's logical to assume that population movements in the Aegean were more stable before the Romans controlled Greece, and after all the subsequent massive population movements in Europe to the present day.

Thus, it's likely that the classical Greek genome was essentially the same as the earlier Mycenaean genome.

When a paper mentions “Bulgarian Iron Age” or “Balkan Iron Age”, than genotype is largely from the Kapitan Andreevo individuals and is t is essentially talking about the 1100-500 AD Kapitan Andreevo individuals and thus is largely E-V13. However, merely because these individuals were buried in Bulgaria/Thrace at this time doesn't necessarily mean that this was their homeland at that time. At earliest part of their chronological range, around 1100 BC, the entire Mediterranean was in turmoil due to the Bronze Age Collapse. The Mycenaean civilization had collapsed, the Bryges were migrating into Phrygia, the Dorians were migrating into the Peloponnese. Furthermore, at the most recent end of the chronolocial range, this region had been invaded and occupied by the Persian Achaemenid dynasty, who conquered the locals and pursued the Scythians to break their power. Furthermore, thearchaeologists who studied them believed that four of the Kapitan Andreevo E-V13 men may have been murdered, as two appeared to have been buried with their hands tied behind their backs and one had a cracked skull possibly due to having been tossed into his grave pit. Thus, Kapitan Andreevo may not have been the location at which these men had lived, but only at which they had died and been buried. They may have been part of the peoples stirred up by the Bronze Age collapse, or perhas Greek or Thracian soliders fighting the Persians. We don't know, so we can't presume their genomes to have been representative of the inhabitants of Thrace during this time range.

There are 3 ancient individuals from medieval Bulgaria: I2525 (890-990 AD, I10548 (1000-1250 AD) and I17980 (1051-1217 AD). None of these three men has a Mycenean-like genome, as they have Yamnaya at 37-42% and two of them have WHG in excess of 4%. Thus, if Thrace had ever been populated by Mycenean-like individuals, they appear to have disappeared by 900 AD (although a sample of 3 is really too small to be highly sueful).

Greece, on the other hand, appears likely to have retained its Mycenaean-like genome genome through at least the classical period, although this may have changed by later population movements into Greece from Slavs and Albanians (Arvanites). Even this is just a guess based on Lazaridis' determination that the modern Greek genome is still quite similar to that of the Mycenaeans, which I can't quantify into a G25 model.

From what Population did Fonyod DVD009, Hacs 21 and Hacs 22 Come?

MFrom the Lake Balaton coummunities I've identified the following individuals as having Mycenaean-like genomes from their G25 ancestries correlated to the G25 ancestries of the individuals that Lazaridis had identified as Mycenean-like:

Fonyod

FVD009 (536) E-FGC11450

FVD006 (444) Female

FVD011 (468) Female

Hacs

Hacs_21 E-S2979

Hacs_22 E-Z5018

Hacs_5 I

Balatonszemes

BAL_148 Female

Szolad

SZ19 Female

It's notable that none of these Mycenaean-like individuals had artificaially cranial deformation (ACD). At Fonyod 7 of the 13 individuals ahd ACD, and of the 6 who didn't have ACD, 3 (50^) had Mycenaean-like genomes.

Another interesting thing is that the only grave item with writing on it appears to have been from the grave of the Mycenean-like Hacs 5. One description of this object is: “Hács-Béndekpuszta is also notable because one of the disturbed graves (grave 5) contained rare fragments of texts from the Gothic bible, written on lead sheets that were possibly used as an amulet. This is important evidence of Gothic missionary activity in middle Danube region.” (Hakenbeck et al (2017) “Practising pastoralism in an agricultural environment: An isotopic analysis of the impact of the Hunnic incursions on Pannonian populations” Practising pastoralism in an agricultural environment: An isotopic analysis of the impact of the Hunnic incursions on Pannonian populations | PLOS One ) The conclusion that this object was evidence of Gothic missionary activity in the middle Danube region is false and should be restated to be that it is possibly evidence of Gothic missionary evidence in the middle Baltic region because although it may be evidence of Gothic missionary activity, the object very well may have, and probably did, come from somewhere else and is more likely evidence of Gothic missionary activity in that other location rather than (or in addition to) Pannonia. I'm not correcting this statement to be pedantic, but because it might matter in determining where this Mycenaean-like Hacs 5, and the Hacs population as a whole, came from.

In the three 5th-century communities of Fonyod, Hacs and Balatonszemes, 7 of the about 38 individuals (18%) had Myceneaean-like genomes. Of these 7 with Mycenaean-like genomes, 3 were female, one was haplogroup I (probably I2a) and 3 (43% of the toal but 75% of the males) were E-V13. Thus, the Mycenaean-like genomes at the Lake Balaton communites were a minority of the communities' population, but E-V13 was predominant among the Mycenean-like males in the communities.

Most of the Hacs individuals have genomes consistent with the Goths, and haplo R1b, I, and E-V!3 (E-S2979, E-BY4877) were also present in Wielbark-era Poland, the location of the Goths immediatley before they migrated to the North Pontic region.

G25 Analysis of the Lake Balaton Individuals

Wielbark Poland

The Ostrogoths and Gepids originated from Scandinavia, as claimed by the Byzantine historian Jordanes and confirmed by a genetic analysis of the Wielbark culture in what is now Poland. The Wielbark culture in Poland is important to the history of E-V13 because there were two E-V13 men who were buried in Wielbark Poland (Pruszcz Gdanski PCA0495 (E-BY4877, 100-300 AD) and Maslomecz PCA0110 (E-S2979; 124-257 AD).

(the study was by Stolarek et al, which I'll disuss soon). The Goths and Gepids migrated from Scandinavia to Poland, then after a few generations migrated to the nort Pontic (Black Sea) region. Bot Fonyod and Hacs were probably Ostrogoth communities, so their differences are likely explained by the Goth's term in Wielbark Poland, where there was some some admixeture with the local population (which was itself Northern European but not Scandinavian). Thus, the northen Europeans among the Fonyod may represent a populatin of admixed Goths and Poles, while the northern Europeans in Hacs represents a Goth poulation that didn't admix with locatl populations in Poland. The northern European population of Fonyod also appears to have admixed with the Huns, which is not evident in the other populations (Fonyod FVD003/305 had a G25 profile with around 28% Han and 7% Siberian ancestry, which I interpret as likely Hun, and she had died as an infant indicating she'd likely been born in Fonyod from one parent who was Hun or substantially Hun. None of the other Fonyod individuals were “biological kindred”, probably meaning that both the father and mother had survived at least long enough to migrate elsewhere when the Fonyod community abandoned Fonyod. Vyas also says that two Fonyod individuals had “~6% South and/or East Asian ancestry (Fonyod_278 and Fonyod_316) and one individual 12% African ancestry (Fonyod_469)” What's interesting about this is that the G25 model disagrees with the Vyas models on the Asian ancestry of FVD001 (Fonyod_278) and FVD004 (Fonyod_316. The G25 model does show FVD001 as having 0.87% Nganasan, indicating Siberian ancestry, and 0.29% Jarawa, indicating South Asian ancestry, but these amount only represent slighly more than 1% of her total ancestry, which a leval at which it may be from ancient ancestry and is essentially meaningless in terms of recent ancestry. The G25 model for FVD004 shows him (Y haplogroup G2a) as having 1.20% Han ancestry, 0.65% Siverian ancestry (Ngansan/Brazil LapoaDoSanto), which totals almost 2% East Asian ancestry, but again this might be ancient and irrelevant to recent ancestry. Regarding the African ancestry of FVD007 (469), the G25 model does show 12.65% Morocco Taforalt ancestry. This is more than a trace amount and probably came from more recent ancestry. The Morocco Taforal DNA can be broken down into being 63.5% Levantine-related (e.g., Natufian) and 36.5% Sub-Saharan African (Wikipeida “Taforalt”), so we can infer that FVD007 did have about 4% African ancestry. This mighthave come Roman soldiers from Iberia who had been stationed in the Balkans, or it may have come through Anatolians who had migrated to the Balkans. The light green Iberian ancestry in Vyas Figure 4A appears to be associated in the G25 models with Morocco Taforal ancestry, which makes sense if th G25 models Iberian ancestry as being Mediterranean+Morocco Taforalt, but

If unmixed Scandinavian descent conferred a higher social status among the Goth than had mixed descent, then the Fonyod population mighthave had lower They may have even been a population with lower status population of descendants of Wielbark “bastards” from socially disapproved sexually admixing, which could also explain their greater amount of East Asian admixture, presumbably while on the Pontic steppe. This East Asian admixture is greater than it looks in this figure because Vyas for whatever reason didn't include Fonyod FVD003/305, who in a G25 analysis is shown to be 28% Han (Chinese), 7% Nganasan (Siberian) and 2% Brazil LapadoSanto (also Siberian despite the “Brazil”; this ancestry came from a root population part of which migrated in ancient times to the Americas).

Historical Context of the Lake Balaton Communities

From the Vyas paper: “With the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, the 5^th century was a period of great political, culturan and demographic changes in Europe. This was particularly true ofo the Middle Danube region, which had long served as a frontier zone after its division in the Western and Eastern Empires after 395 CE. With the abandonment of the Pannonian provinces by the Roman civil and military administration, most likely in 433 CE, it had already lost its former political and military importance. The region's subsequent development was first determined by the period of Hunnic rule in the middle of the 6^th century, after which it came under the influence of various “barbarian” groups (Goths, Heruls, Langobards, etc.).” (Vyas)

The supplementary text section “Description of archaeological sites” adds to this: “All three sites [Fonyod, Hacs, Balatonszemes] are located on elevated loess ridges close to the southern shore of Lake Balaton, Hungary, an area that became increasingly importantt for the Roman military and civil administration with the foundation of a series of inner fortresses in the 3rd-4^th centuries. These inner fortresses remained in use at least until the middle of the 5^th century, sometimes even after the Roman abandonment of the area. [3 sources cited] These sites represent small, rural communities with similarities in both age and sex distributions and burial customs.”

The Vyas paper doesn't speculate on the probable or possible cultural identities of the Lake Balaton sommunities other than the vague quote about various “barbarian” peoples such as Goths, Heruls and Langobards mentioned above who had “influence” in the region. I included the above quote from the supplementary text mostly because it mentions that some of the Roman soldiers from the forts in the vicinity had remained behind even after the rest of the Romans had withdrawn from Pannonia; I think this was probably a hint at what the team believed was the likely identifty of the sourthern Europeans who comprised a large part of the populations of these communities. In fact I think it might be the presence of these souther Europeans (whichinclude all of the E-V13 men) that was the primary cause of Vyas' cautious approach in associating the communities with historical populations. I'll discuss this in detail in the section on autosomal analysis, but I'll say here that I think the Vyas team likely failed to identify the southern Europeans because it had used ancestry models with too narrow a range of reference or index populations. The team was able to identify the individuals a southern Europeans but not able to identify the specific population because no one from that populatin was included in the reference population dataset.

I think the cultural identifies of the communities of at least Fonyod and Has are pretty clear, nd I have no professional reputation to guard, so I'll go ahead and identify those popualations as being culturally Ostrogothic (Amal-led Greuthungi Goths), although it's clear that not all of the individuals were geenetically Goths. I belive it's likely that the Balatonszemes community was culturally Gepid rather than Gothic, although there was likely very little cultural or genetic differences between Goths and Gpids. Therefore, I'll provide a very brief summary of the history of the Goths and Gepids and how they migrated from Sweden/Denmark to immediate post-Roman Pannonia.

The Goths, Gepids, Heruli, Ruggii and Thuringians/Turcingi

The 6^th century Byzantine historian Jordanes, who claimed that he was himself a descendant of Goths, wrote a history of the Goths that claimed that the Goths and Gepids had migrated on three ships from Scandza to Gothiscandza near the mouth of the Vistula river. What exactly he meant by Scandza is debated, but it could have been the Swedish island of Gotland or simply southern Scandinavia as a whole. The Vistula river is located in what today is Poland, with its mouth just east of Gdansk, so Gothiscandza was essentiall northern Poland. Jordanes says that the Goths were in two of the ships and the Gpids in the third and last ship. Once in Poland, the Goths dominated the region in what was known as the Wielbark culture, which was involved with the amber trade.

Historians have questioned the accuracy of Jordanes' history, but although it will certainlybe wrong in some details, the general accuracy of it is substantially confirmed by recent archaeogenetic studies, particularly that of Stolarek et al ( Genetic history of East-Central Europe in the first millennium CE | Genome Biology | Full Text ) . Stolarek's primary interest in his study was not the Goths but rather of the continuity of Slavs in Poland, but his study confirmed that Scandinavians wree present in the Wielbarck culture of Poland. The problem with studying the genetics of the ancient populations in Poland was complicated by “the lack of representative biological material for archaeogenomic studies, due to the prevalence of cremation among populatons iving in the region from the Bronze Age until the Middle Ages....In the studies presented here, we took advantage of the fact that for a limited period of time, nhumation became the dominant funeral practice in the region of contemporary Poland ith the population associated with the Wielbark culture. This population existed in the basin of the Vistula River between the first and fifth centuries and then disappeared. Some theories link the emergence of the Wielbark culture with the migraton of people commonly referred to as Goths.” (ibid) After the end of the Wielbark culture, “material cultures in this region became more homogenous, and archaeologists ommonly link the them with the Slavs, who practised cremation of the dead until the first Polish dynasty was baptized.” (ibid)

(Although we are here mostly discussing the history of the Goths, this history of cremation in Poland is of importance to the history of E-V13 beyond the history of the Goths, because E-V13 was found in the Wielbark culture, but then apparently not again in Poland until around 950 AD, when it is again encountered. Although this later appearance of E-V13 in Poland seems sudden and could be interpreted as the result of a migration at that time, perhaps from Hungary, the fact that cremation was predominant in the period between the Wielbark culture and the establishment of the the Piast dynasty in the mid-900's may provide a better explanation for the apparently sudden appearance of E-V13 in Poland—i.e., that it had not been sudden but had been there all along, but the evidence of it was lost due its cremation.)

Stolarek's genetic analysis confrmied that the the Iron Age Wielbark Poland had a substantial Scandinavian population, which had substantially disappeared by the time of medieval Poland (once inumation rather than cremation had again prevailed in the region). Stolarek wrote that “IA_X” (the Iron Age Wielbark populations of Pruszcz Gdanski, Kowalewko or Maslomecz. The paper said “According to our expectations, IA_X, compared with MA [Medieval Age], shared signficantly more lleles with with the ancient north (Denmark_IA, Norway_IA, Sweden_IA) northwestern (England_Saxon, Ireland_Viking) Europe populations and with Hungary_Szolad_Migration_Period populations.”

Stolarek assumed that the Wielbark populations (“IA_X) were “mixtures of the north IA immigrants [Goths] and the autochthonous IA populations [local non-Goths]. As a source of the Norse ancestry, we used the earlier identfied Denmark_IA or Norway_IA populations, and as a sourc e of the local ancestry, we used one of the following populations: Poland_EBA_Unetice, Czech_EBA_Unetice, Lithuania_BA, Latvia_BA, or Estonia_IA. These populations are the closest approximations of the local IA genetic ancestry since no samples from the period from the BA until the IA are available for this region. We obtained multiple two-way models showing that IA_X [Goth] populations are mixtures of Norse populations (~90-95%) and local proxies (5-10%). The models with Denmar_IA and Czech_EBA_Unetice were plausible for all three IA_X populations [i.e., Pruszcz Gdanski, Kowalewko andr Maslomecz]. Several valid models were also produced for Denmark_IA +Poland_EBA_Unetice, Lithuania_BA, or Estonia_IA. Both f4 and qpAdm models supprted close genetic affinies between the IA_X populations and the contemporary to them and older norther European populations.” (ibid)

Stolarek also determined that the Wielbark Maslomecz population plus either Poland Unetice or Czech Unetice were valid models for the Wielbark population, with 78-92% of the acnestry deriving from Maslomecz and 8-22% being similar from the Poland or Czech Bronze Age populations, meaning that the local population into which the Goths had arrived were similar to those central European populations. The Wielbark Pruszcz Gdanski local population, however, matched more closely to the Bronze Age Lithuanian population rathe rthan the Bronze Age Czech or Poland populations.

Stolarek also determined that there was a genetic connection between the Poland populations from the Iron Age to the Medeival age. To determine if that genetic continuity came from the local Iron Age population as well as from the Goths, Stolarek reasoned that if there was continuity between the local component of the IA-to-BA Poland populations, then the IA Wielbark population should be able to be modeled as a mixture of the Medieval Poland populaton and the Szolad population (studied by Anorim and Vyas). This was because the Szolad population “were shown to be incomers migrating from north through the region of contemporary Poland to south Europe.” Stolarek did find that “all IA_X [Wielbark] populations could be modelled as mixtures of Hungary_Szolad_Migration_Period with the MA_X populations.” This proved genetic continuity between the Szolad, Wielbark and Medieval Poland populations.

The Vyas study said that “Szolad shows a similar genomic profile to the three 5^th century sites” of Fonyod, Hacs and Balatonszemes. Thus, Fonyod and Hacs wee geentically related to Szolad, which was genetically related to the Iron Age Wielbark population, and this relationship was to both the Goth element and the “local” element of the Wielbark population. This virtually proves that the Lake Balaton individuals were at least part descended from the Wielbark population.

However, the Stolarek description that I quoted that the Szolad population had come from the north through Poland to “south Europe” is odd not only because it describes Hungary as “south Europe”, which is not quite true either geographically or in terms of population gentics, and is also leaves the impression that the Szolad population migrated stright from Poland to Hungary without a detour, rather than first migrating to the Pontic Steppe. Stolarek didn't give a citation for this claim, so it can't be checked I'm not quite certain what it means. The Szolad population is usually described as a “Lombard” or “Lombard Era” population, but to me it looks quite similar genomically to the earlier Lake Balaton communities, which is convirmed by Vyas, although Vyas notes that the earlier Anorim study found that strontium isotope analysis of the Szolad community indicated that they had not been raised locally in the Lake Balaton region despite being genetically similar to the other Lake Balaton communities. I think this is apparent paradox can be easily explained by the fact that the Szolad individuals may have been raised in Italy, where the core Ostrogoth population then lived, but was being destroyed by a long war with the Byzatines. Pannonia appears to have been part of the lands claimed by the Ostrogoth kingdom, so this population may have been war refugees who had fled to the land where there ancestors had once lived. They may have had no connection with the Lombards who were by this time also in the region, and who soon would conquer Italy themselves.

Although the Szolad community disappeared at about the time the Lombards left Hungary and conquered Italy from the Ostrogoths, this doesn't imply that the Szolad popuatioin had left to Italy with the Lombards. There are several IBD connections between Szolad and later Avar-era individuals from the Tisza regions, so it's more likely that the Szolad population moved across the Danube onto the Great Hungarian Plain than moved into Italy. The Lombards had joined with the Avars in destroying the Gepid kingdom in the Great Hungarian Plain, and so we can sepculate that the Szolad population had opted to live with the Avars in Hungary rather than to join the Lombards in Italy. Although no E-V13 man was buried in Szolad, this doesn't necessarily imply no E-V13 was present in Szolad.

In Stolarek's study there were two E-V13 men living in Wielbark Poland. One was Pruszcz Gdanski PCA0495 (100-300 AD) in the subclade E-BY4877. The other was Maslomecz PCA0110 (200-400 AD) in the subclade E-S2979. I don't have G25 ancestries for either of these ancient men, but Stolarek provided a graphic ancestral breakdown of the populations and in it these men can be identified by their Y-haplogroup which Stolarek labels “E1b”. Here's the screenshot for the Pruszcz Gdanski community:

In the Pruszcz Gdanski population the E-V13 man PCA0495 is the individual 3^rd up from the bottom, labelled on the right as “Elb” and on the left as mtDNA haplogroup “H7c”. His profile is similar to the majority in being about half North-Western European (dark blue). This likely indicates recent Goth ancestry, or at least ancestry from some other similar population. He also has about 20% of less of ancestry similar to the populations of southern Europe (“Sardinian”, orange), southern European from Spain (“Basque”, orange), eastern European (yellow), and a small amount of North African (“Bedouin”, teal) and what looks like either “Near Eastern” or possibly “Druze”. The term “Near East” is a vague term encompassing the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt. Druze is more specific as it referst to a specific religious/ethnic population in the Levant that has a high amount of E-V13 ancestry. However, in the Stolark color panel I can't distinguish between the “Near Eastern” and “Druze” colors, so I'm not certain which population is meant (although I'm guessing it's “Nearl Eastern” rather than “Druze”). In any case, it appears that PCA0495 was largely half north-western European and half southern European, with a small amount of North African.

I'll also point out that PCA0495 is also similar to the bottom individual, who was in haplogroup J2a (PCA0499). This J2a man, however, has a small amount of “African” (presumably sub-Saharan) and a somewhat larger amount of what does appear to be “Druze” We can probably understand the “Druze” to mean Levant rather than specifically Druze, but it's probably not worth the effort in trying to determine that. I'm only pointing this J2a man out because the history of the J2a haplogroup in terms of locations of its ancient members, coincides often with that of E-V13, including in Schletz Austria 5500-5000 BC, Bulgaria 4500 BC, Kydonia, Crete Mycenaean period, Kirrha mainland Greece Mycenaean period, Himera Sciily (as mercenaries) 480 BC, Karatau Kazakhstan 100-500 AD, Zadar Croatia 2^nd-/ century, Viminaciuam 2nd-3^rd centuries, the Crimea before 400 AD, Balatonzzemes at Lake Balaton, Iznik Turkey 400-700 AD, Plaza del' Horta in Visigothic Spain 500-700, Rakoczifalva an Kiskundorozsma in Avar-era Hungary, and Langeland in Viking-era Denmark.

It's not likely that all of these coincidences of the two haplogroups are due to random chance, and this is particularly true of their coincidence in northern Poland and later in Denmark. The J2a haplogroup originated in the Caucasus and there's no evidence that eithe rit or E-V13 was found in northern Europe unil the Wielbark period with Pruszcz Gdanski. A much more detailed subclade analysis would be required to be more certain that these coincidences were due to circumstances other than chance, this is probably the haplogroup most associated over time and geography than E-V13 is to any other root haplogroup. I'll discuss this later in more detail.

The Maslomecz Wielbark population is shown below:

s

Maslomecz PCA0110 is 4^th from the bottom, labelled “E1b” on the right, with mtDNA haplogroup H1ba on the left. The ancestry of Maslomecz PCA0110 is different from that of the other E-V13 man from Pruszcz Gdanski, and in fact from every other Wielbark individual, in that it is comprised of about 70% “Sardinian” ancestry with the rest being divided between Eastern European, probably Near Eastern, and only a small amount of northwestern European. This is important in understanding his likely origin, because PCA0110 had more than twice as much southern Euroepan (“Sardinian”) ancestry as any other of the Wielbark individuals, and becaue there was no known population in Wielbark Poland that had such a high amount of southern European (“Sardinian”) ancestry and thus indicates that he must been an immigrant (or that there was in fact a small population of southern Europeans in Wielbark Poland who hadn't admixed with the other populations, as PCA0110 couldn't possibly have such a high amount of southern European unless both parents had high armounts).

The Wielbark Goths Migrate South to the North Pontic Region

“Beginning in the middle of the 2^nd century, the Wielbark culture shifted southeast towards the Black Sea....By 200 AD, Wielbark Goths were probably being recruited by the Roman army. According to Jordanes, the Goths entered Oium, part of Scythia....In the early 3^rd century AD, western Scythia was inhabited by the agriculture Zarubintsy cluture [probably proto-Slavs] and the nomadic Sarmatians....By the mid-3^rd century AD, the Wielbark culture had contributed to the formation of the Chernyakhov ulture in Scythia. This strikingly uniform culture came to stretch from the Danube in the west to the Don in the east [the Don empties into the Sea of Azov, which is connected to the Black Sea through the Strait of Kerch. The ancient Greek colony of Tanais was located at the mouth of the Don]. It is believed to have been dominated by the Goths and other Germanic groups such as the Heruli. It nevertheless also included Iranian, Dacian, Roman, and probably Slavic elements a swell.” (Wikipedia “Goths”)

“On the Pontic steppe the Goths quickly adopted several nomadic customs from the Sarmatians. They excelled in horsemanship, archery and falconry, and were also accomplished agriculturalists and seafarers.” The Goths began raids into the Roman Empire from Scythia by 238 AD, but also “From the 240's at the earliest, the Goths were heavily recruited in the Roman Army to fight the Roman-Persian Wars.” (ibid)

“The first Gothic seaborne raids too place in the 250's. There were several attacks around the Black Sea coasts, and “By the end of the raids, the Goths had seized control over Crimea and the Bosporus and captured several cities on the Euxine coast, including Olbia and Tyrus....” (ibid) Olbia and Tyrus were located on the Black Sea just northwest of Crimea, and were both ancient Greek conlonies of Miletus on the Aegean coast of Anatolia; Mileus had been a Minoan colony, then a Mycenean colony, and then an Ionian colony. In the 260's more attacks were conducted, including “a second and larger seaborne invasin....An enormous coalition consisteing of Goths (Greuthungi and Thervingi) [the core tribes of the future Ostrogoths and Visigoths], Gepids and Peucini [Bastarnae], led again by the Heruli, assembled at the mouth of the river Tyras (Dneister). (ibid) This was a huge expedition with ancient historians claiming 325,000 men in 2,000-6,000 ships. This coalition ravaged the Black Sea, then entered the Aegean, sacking Troy and other regions as far south as Crete.

“By the late 3^rd century, there were at least two groups of Goths, separated by the Deniester: the Thervingi and the Greuthungi. The Gepids...lived northwest of the Goths....” (ibid)

In the 300's Gothic tribes (possibly primarily Thervingi) were occupying various regions north of the Danube, in the former Dacia and “the Thervingi invaded the territory of the Sarmatians [Iazyges] of the Tisza.” (ibid) These Goths also attacked the Hasdingi Vandals, “forcing them to settle in Pannonia under Roman protetion.” The Vandals in the 1^st century AD had lived in Poland south of the Wielbark Goths and had been defeated by the Goths; the Vandals had probably later migrated with the Goths to the Black Sea.

“Both the Greuthungi [Ostrogoths] and Thervingi [Visigoths] became heavily Romanized during the 4^th century. This came through trade with the Romans as well as through Gothic membership of a military covenant, which was based in Byzantium and involved pledges of military assistance. Reportedly, 40,000 Goths were brought by Constantine to defend Constantinople in his later reign, and the Palace Guard was thereafter mostly composed of Germanic warriors, as Roman soldiers by this time had largely lost military value.” (ibid) It was only through virtue of the Goths and other Germans in the Roman army that allowed the Wetern Roman Empire to survive as long as it had.

“Around 375 the Huns overran the Alans, an Iranian people living to the east of the Goths, and then, along with the Alans, invaded the territory of the Goths.” (ibid) The “Greuthungi gradually fell under Hunnic domination.” (ibid) The Thervingi, and other Goths fled the Huns and settled in the Roman Empire.

“[T[he Ostrogoths, led by the Amali dynasty, claimed descendt from the Greuthungi and were subjects of the Hun....A people closely related to the Goths, the Gepids, were lso living under Hunnic domination. A smaller group of Goths werer the Crimean Goths, who remained n Crimea and maintained their Gothic identity into the 18^th century.” (ibid)

The Visigoths under Alaric were settled in the Balkans by the Romans in 382 AD. There was a great deal of animosity between the Goths and Roman citizens, however, and in 408 AD the Roman population massacred “tens of thousands of wives and children of Goths serving in the Roman military”, which led to 30,000 Gothic soldiers to defect to to Alaric's leadership. Alaric then invaded Italy, “liberated tens of thousands of Gothic slaves, and in 410 he sacked the city of Rome.” (ibid) Alaric plundered the city's riches but left the civilians alone. Alaric died and the Romans settled the Visigoths in southern Gaul. In 451 AD the Visigoths fought with the Romans against Attila the Hun and his Ostrogoth and Gpied vasals; this stopped the Huns attacks in western Europe and sent them back to Hungary. The Visigoths then established the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain.

The following map shows the movement of the Goths over time, migrating from Scandinavia (green) to Wielbark Poland (red) to the North Pontic region (Chernyakhov culture):

Wikipedia “Goths”; By en:User:Wiglaf, en:User:Dbachmann - Wiglaf's map, based on Dbachmann's blank map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=612390

Ostrogoths in Pannonia

.

One tribe of the Goths who were vassals of the Huns was led by the Amal dynasty that became known as the Ostrogoths. The most famous member of the Amalings was Theodoric the Great, king of Italy, although he wasn't born until 454 AD and didn't rule the Goths until 471 AD; Theodoric's father Theodimir ruled the Ostrogoths before this, along with his brothers-in-law Valamir and Vidimir. The Wikipedia article “Ostrogoths” ays “These Amal-led Goths apparently first settled in the Pannonian areas of Lake Balaton and Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica), on the Roman Danube frontier.” This statement doesn't have a citation, but if true would of course mean that Fonyod was likely an Ostrogoth community. The same would also be true of Hacs, but not necessarily of Baltonszemes. Thus,it's very likely that all three of the E-V13 men in these communities, Fonyod FVD009, Hacs_21 and Hacs_22, were par of the Ostrogoth polity at this time.

The authors of the Vyas paper avoid characterizing the communities in terms of the names of the various peoples who lived during the time of their study, probably because it's impossible to determine that with exactitude, but at the Hacs cemetary was found “lead sheet fragments—possiblyused as an amulet—bearing a text inscribed with the Gothic script...” (Fine-scale sampling uncovers the complexity of migrations in 5th-6th century Pannonia) This is obviously strong evidence that these cemetaries were in fact Ostrogothic.

All the evidence point to the communities of Fonyod and Hacs being Ostrogothic. The Ostrogoths were ancestrally Scandinavian, but while in Wielbark Poland had also admixed 5-10% with a Central European population there (which also means that the Goth poulaton had included women, or the admixture would be closer to 50%).

However, when Vyas studied the autosomal genetic ancestry of the Lake Balaton communities, it turned out that the communities had included not only orther European individuals that could have been Gothic and definitely included Scandinavian ancestry, but also many individuals with fully or primarily southern European (Mediterranean) ancestry. And for tus tis is important, because all three of the E-V13 men from Fonyod and Hacs had Mediterranean ancestry.

Autosomal Genetics of the Lake Balaton Communities

BeBelow is Figure 4A/4B from the Vyas paper:

screenshot 2746

This figure shows the individual genomes as vertical bars color-coded by ancestry propertions, for the fourt Lake Balaton communities in chronological order from left to right. Figure 4A is the ancestry estimate using as a reference set contemporary individuals from 7 different world populations. Figure 4B is the ancestry estimate using a difference reference set, this time of individuals from 7 different populations of individuals who were “penecontemporary” to the Lake Balaton individuals (meaning the were ancient individuals who lived as closely in time as possible to the Lake Balaton individuals).

The colors represent the various proportions of the reference populations. The colors for the similar reference populations in 4A and 4B are the same; that is, the modern East Asian population (EAS/EASIA) and the penecontemporary Eas Aisan populations are both lavender color. There are, however a few differences between the two reference populations. 4A has the modern Iberiean population (IBS; light green) separated from the related Mediterrnean (TSI, red) population, whereas these populations in 4B are combined into one population (MEDEU; Mediterranean European). The 4a FIN (tan) population mean to represent Scandinavian ancestry is comprise donly of Finns from Finland, while the 4B SCAND population of the same color is cromprised of Scandinavians and Estonians. 4B also includes a North Africa category (NAFRICA; teal) missing from 4A.

For our purposes the most important ancestries are those of the red (Mediterranean), light green (Iberians), blue (northwestern Europeans) and tan (Scandinavians). For purposes of determinnnnng Scandinavian-like ancestr (e.g., Gothic or Gepid), the 4B panels should be used because it is probably much more accurate than the 4A panels that used Finns as a rather poor proxy of Scandinavian ancestry.

Because our focus is on the E-V13 men, who are all Mediterraneans (red), here are the reference populations used in the two different sets of rererence populations:

4A (contemporary)

TSI Red “Tuscans from Italy”

IBS Light green “Iberian populations in Spain”

4b (penecontemporary)

MEDEU Red “Italy and Iberia [Mediterranean Europe]”

Although we're primarily interested in the Mediterrean populations of the Lake Balaton communities, note that in 4B that the Scandinavian component (tan) is very high in Balatonszemes in proportion to blue (northern European in general), high also in Hacs, but relatively low in Fonyod. Non-European ancestry is also more evident in Hacs than at the other communities (best seen in 4A, though difficult to see with this view). This might mean that Hacs actually wasn't Ostrogothic, but I think it rather means that this particular population of Goths was in general more admixed than the other populations, and possibly means that the this population of Goths had admixed more strongly with the Central European-like populations present in Wielbark Poland, and then later also admixed more with the Huns as well. One of the Fonyod females (Fonyod FVD003/305) appears to be has an ancestral mix including 28% Han that I infer was likely half Hun and half Goth.

Here are Fonyod and Hacs (4A):

screenshot 2915

Fonyod FVD009 is the individual farthest to the right in the left-most (Fonyod) group, while Hacs 21 and Hacs 22 are the third-to-the right and second-to-the-right individuals, respectively, in the right-most (Hacs) group. Note that all three are essentialy all red with no blue admixture (although Fonyod FVD009 shows small amounts of African, East Asian and South Asian ancestries, though they are difficult to see in this view (and probably represent ancient DNA rather than recent admixture)).

Note that the Hacs population is actually comprised of two genetically distinct populations, one northern European, the other southern European. This indicates this community represents a conglomeration of two populations two populations whose ancestors had not interbred with each other. The Fonyod population, however, is more admixed between the two European ancestries, with five individuals with substantial (>20%) admixture. However, similar to Hacs, there four of the southern Eu;ropeans are 100% Mediterraneans, with a fifth southern European having about 12.5% northern European ancestry (equivalent to about 1 great-grandparent).

Were the Mediterraneans a “Stable Local” Population?

It's pretty clear that the individuals with predominantly northern European ancestry were likely to have been members of a “barbarian” Germanic tribe (or various tribes), likely Goths, who had been part of the Nunnic confederaton and prior to that part of the Gothic confederation of peoples from the Pontic region.

The presence of the Mediterraneans is more enigmatic, and Vyas had no explanation other than that “the presence of individuals with high amounts of MEDEU ancestry is a constant in all four sites, and they show overlap in the PCA, suggesting this may represent a more stalbe, local genomic signature during this entire period.” Maybe, but if so, which particular population? Vyas has no answer, but because in the supplemental text he cited the claim that Roman soldiers had still manned fortresses in the vicinity into the mid 400's AD, he appears to be hinting those soldiers and their families may be that stable, local population.

There is, however, one problem with Vyas' “stable local” population hypothesis, and Vyas either knew about it and didn't discuss. Vyas did discuss that the previous Anorim study on Szolad had included strontium isotope tests of the bones of the ancient individuals and that this data is “suggesting most adults at the site [Szolad] were non-local, regardless of genomic ancestry. However our data make clear that the major patterns of genetic ancestry observed at Szolad were already established during thesecond half of the 6^th century around the Lake Balaton area. Thus, this community could have formed from the existing diverse regional pool of genetic variattion established ~50 years earlier, rather than just being the result of the arrival of a mew population group, i.e., the Langobards as interpreted by both historical and archaeological research.” (Vyas)

I agree with Vyas that the Szolad population ancestraly looks too much like the other Lake Balaton commmunities to have been Lombard (Langobard), but Vyas didn't resolve the issue of how the Mediterraneans at Lake Balaton could have been a stable, local population yet still have had strontium isotope reults showing they were non-local even Szolad had existed 100+ (not 50) years after Fonyod and Hacs.

Strontium Isotope Testing

Vyas cited but failed to discuss the previous results of strontium testing on some of tHacs individuals. This study by Hakenbeck et al (Practising pastoralism in an agricultural environment: An isotopic analysis of the impact of the Hunnic incursions on Pannonian populations” (2017) Practising pastoralism in an agricultural environment: An isotopic analysis of the impact of the Hunnic incursions on Pannonian populations | PLOS One ) For reasons this study explains, strontium ratios can be used to determine if the an ancient individual had likely spent his childhood in the location he was buried, or if he had likely been forn elsewhere (because his strontium ratios eithe did or didn't matched those of the local environment). This study explains that the Hacs site was discovered in 1934 and excavated in the 1950's. It also says: “Hács-Béndekpuszta is also notable because one of the disturbed graves (grave 5) contained rare fragments of texts from the Gothic bible, written on lead sheets that were possibly used as an amulet. This is important evidence of Gothic missionary activity in middle Danube region.” This conclusion is probably an over-interpretation, but I included this quote to solidfy the idea that the Hacs population, or at least we presume the northern European part of it, was culturally Gothic.

But what's most relevant to us about the Hakenbech study is that strontium isotope analysis showed that Hacs 22 (E-Z5018) was not local to Hacs and probably anywhere else in Lake Balaton. The text actually says: “Only the values of the tooth from grave 12 in Keszthely and of the M2 from grave 20 in Hács fall completely outside of regional values, indicating that they did not grow up in the region.” (Hakenbeck) However, if we look at the actual figure (Fig. 6), we see that Hacs 22 and others also appear to have fallen outside of the local strontium levels:

screenshot 2877

The explanation of the graph says, in part: “Tooth pairs are visualised with lines joining them. The shaded areas indicate local 87Sr/86Sr values. Shading extends from water samples (Balaton, Danube, Tisza), considered to be geological averages, to cover the local environmental variation.” Triangles indicate the second molars (M2), which were fixed in “childhood and early juvenility” and the diamonds indciate the thrid molars (M3) that are fixed in “juvenility and early adulthood”. Thus, if there is a vertical separation of a set of diamond/triangle, this means that there was a change of location from childhood to early adulthood.

What we see for Hacs 22 (E-Z5018) is that he does in fact fall outside the gray shading, even as a child (triangle), and even more so as an adult (diamond).

Here's a closer view:

screenshot 2919

The markings on the left side of the dashed line indicate vertically the strontium levels at various local sites. We see that the strontium levels at the Hacs site (large black circle, roughly level with Hacs 17 (Mediterranean), Hacs 4 (northern European) and Hacs 18 (northern Euroepan). These are also within the shading that indicates the Lake Balaton strontium levels generally (also represented by the large bright blue circle). Hacs 5 (Mediterrean) is also outside of the Hacs and Lake Balaton levels. Therefore, I'm not certain why Hakenbeck says that only Hacs 20 (northern European) falls completely outside the Lake Balaton regional levels.

I understand the Hakenbeck strontium data to support the Anorim strontium data that at least some of the Hacs and Szolad individuals, and perhaps all of them, were not local to the Lake Balaton region. Hacs 22 (E-Z5018) as a young child appears to not have lived in Hacs, and even if it can be interpreted that he had, by the time he was a young adult it's clear that he had moved even further away from the Hacs strontium levels, rather than closer to them. Thus, at least as a young adult he must have been living elsewhere than Hacs, and only later moved to Hacs. “Strontium analysis can...only indicate a non-local upbringing, but it cannot definitely indicate a local upbringing.” (Hakenbeck) Thus, even those individuals who appear to have possibly been born and raised in Hacs might not have been born and raised there, but Hacs 22 was definitely not born and raised there.

The point of this is that what evidence there is indicates that while some of the Mediterraneans (and Goths) might have been from a “stable, local” Lake Balaton population, others were not. The Mediterraneas Hacs 22 and Hacs 5 do not appear to have been born in Hacs or near Lake Balaton (there is no Hakenbeck data for Hacs 21 (E-S2979).

The Missing Mediterranean Population in the Vyas Reference Populatons

The Mediterranean individuals in the Lake Balaton communities studied by Vyas matched the Italian/Iberian reference popuations because they had more genetic affinity with those Italian/Iberian popoulations than to the other reference populations. However, if a modern Greek or Albanian population, or an aencient souther Balkans population, had also been used as a reference population, than its likely that the Mediterranean Lake Balaton individuals would have matched more closely to the Paleo-Balkansspeaking popultions than to the Italian/Iberian populatons. This is because although the Paleo-Balkans-speaking populations do large come from the same Anatolian populations as the other Mediterranean European popultions, they also have additional ancestry from further east in the Caucasus that the other Mediterranean Europeans don't have. Thus, if Vyas had included an Aegean/Paleo-Balkan-speaking population, then Vyas may have been guided to a different conclusion as to the like identifty of those Lake Balaton Mediterraneans.

To understand the population differences between the Aegean/Balkan genome and the other Mediterrean European genomes I'll first briefly discuss the components that make up the modern European genome, then an alternative method for modeling genomes, and then look at the Mediterranean Lake Balaton genomes and try to determine from what population the Lake Balaton individuals had come.

Lazaridis Empuries Study with Implications for the Greek Chersonessus Colony

In Lazaridis' 2022 paper on the gentic history of Southern Europe and West Asia, referenced below, Lazaridis explained the origin of his study of ancient individuals with Mycenaean-like ancestry:

“A recdnt study identified the presence of individuals resembling the Bronze Age Mycenaean population of Greece in a time transect of the Spanish site of Empuries [the study was Lazaridis et al (2017) “Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans”]. The approach adopted there was to identify the outliers in the site and find that they were most similar to the Mycenaean populaton.” (LazridiRets 2002)

The reason that it makes sense for some individuals from Empuries to be genetically similar to Greeks is is because Empuries was a Greek colony in Spain, founded about 575 BC by Greeks from Phocaea. The Lazaridis 2002 team then performed the operation from the other end, starting with a dataset of Mycenaean individuals and then comparing their genomes to hundreds of other ancient individuals to identify those who were Mycenaean-like (as described below). This test did in fact also identify two of the Empuries individuals they had in the previous study identified as having Mycenaean-like ancestry (I8215 (746-415 BC) and I8208 (376-201 BC).

Lazaridis explains that “The strong similarity of these two Classical and Hellenistic individuals (4th-3rd century BCE) to the Mycenaeans of a 1,000 years earlier has interesting implications beyond their local Iberian setting and underscores the importance of “Big Picture” studies to produce a framework through which the analysis of local populations can be better interpreted: The western Mediterranean Greek colonists in this site in Spain were derived from 6th c. BCE Massaliotes (Ancient Μασσαλία, modern Marseilles in France) who themselves were derived from Phocaeans (Ancient Φώκαια, modern Foça in Turkey) who themselves were colonists from Phokis (Φωκίς) in mainland Greece with Ionian kings who traced descent from Codrus (and thus from Attica).1 Whatever the origin of the specific individuals unearthed at Empúries, their genetic similarity to the Mycenaean population suggests that no major admixture had occurred in their ancestry from the Bronze Age to their own time, e.g., in either Asia Minor (during the founding of Phocaea) or western Europe, which would have introduced ancestry more prevalent in either region (e.g., CHG or WHG) compared to mainland Greece. We do not have all the links in this long chain of transmission of the Aegean ancestry into the western Mediterrenan, yet we do have samples of Myceanean age from the site of Kastrouli near Delphi in Phokis, two Archaic sample from Phokis (I17962; 773-544 calBCE, and I17959; 800-500 BCE) closer to the time of the foundation of Phocaea, and Mycenaean samples from Attica and can thus confirm that the population of the putative ancestors of the Western Mediterranean Greeks were indeed similar to that of the Mycenaeans in general on the basis of I17962 which appears to by Mycenaean-like according to our procedure (I17959 is ranked #76 and is not listed in the Table, but we do not ascribe any importance to this as this is a lower coverage sample with only ~15k SNPs covered). From Greece itself there is another post-Mycenaean (Proto-Geometric/Early Iron Age) individual (I19368) from the vicinity of the Palace of Nestor at Pylos which is also confirmed by our procedure to be Mycenaean-like and thus similar to the people that lived in Greece a few centuries

earlier across the LBA to Iron Age transition.”

The Lazaridis study shows that in at least one Greek colony (actually, a Greek colony of a Greek colony), at least some of the Greeks were able for centuries to maintain their Mycenaean genetic lineages without admixing with the local populations. I'm focusingon this specifically because it has strong implications for some of the E-V13 lineages, including some of the the E-FGC11450 lineages, in the Greek colonies on and around the Crimean Peninsula of the Black Sea.

Mycenaean-like Invidivuals

(Lazarides et al (2022) “A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia” Supplementary pdf science.abq0755_sm (15).pdf )

In the 2022 Lazaridis study the team decided to start wih the Mycenaean Greeks rather than with the Empuries population to find other ancient individuals from “our total database” the total dataset that could be drawn from the same population. Such an operation would hopefully identify the known individuals from Empúries but might also disclose other such individuals in either the new data of our paper or the literature at large.” The total dataset of the Lazaridis study was 727 ancient individuals spanning the last 11,000 years.

The team was careful in its identification of Myceanaean-like individuals, estimating the “Mahalanobis distance” of each sample with not just one, but three types of data: ADMIXTURE coefficients, F4admix coefficients, and the first 10 principal components of the West Eurasian PCA. In their list they included only those individuals “that are indistinguishable from Mycenaeans acording to our procedure in all three tests.” And, “this does indeed identify two individuals from Empuries (I8315 and I8208) as “highly similar”1 to the Mycenaean population.

Table S 1 from the Lazridis supplementary pdf lists 45 of the individuals the team had identified as having Mycenean-like genomes. These samples include include 5 of the Kapitan Andreevo individuals as well as 6 other ancient individuals from Bulgaria and 1 from today's North Macedonia:

Mycenaean-like Individuals from the Balkans North of Greece

Kapitan Andreevo I20186 Thrace 1100-500 BC R1a-Z93

Kapitan Andreevo I19493 Thrace 1100-500 BC Female

Kapitan Andreevo I20180 Thrace 1100-500 BC E-BY3880 (E-V13)

Kapitan Andreevo I30284 Thrace 1100-500 BC Female

Kapitan Andreevo I20181 Thrace 1100-500 BC E-CTS1273 (E-V13)

Krepost I0679 Thrace 5723-5623 Female

Dzhulyunitsa I5769 Thrace 771-541 BC Female

Rozovo I19500 Thrace 1100-500 BC E-Z1057 (E-V13)

Diamandievo I19481` Thrace 700-500 BC Female

Boyanovo I18792 Thrace 300-500 AD E-L618

North Macedonia I7233 Macedonia unknown unknown

Note that three of these individuals are men in the E-V13 haplogroup and one is in the E-L618 haplogroup ancestral lto E-V13.

Note also that all of the dates of 8 of these 11 these individuals is from the time period between the Bronze Age Collapse that apparently destroyed the Mycenaean civilization and the era of the Classic Greeks (400's-300's BC). This raises the possibility that some of the Mycenaeans had moved north from Greece into Thrace and were direct descendants of Mycenaeans. Even if this isn't true, the nearness of these Thracians to Greece together with their genetic similarity to the Mycenaean Greeks indicates the likelihood that they had relatively recently been one population.

There were 5 ancient individuals from Anatolia:

Mycenaean-like Invividuals Buried in Anatolia

Smyrna I5737 Anatolia 2035-1900 BC I-P58

Smyrna I20229 Anatolia 750-480 BC Female

Smyrna I20233 Anatolia 750-480 BC Female

Kolophon I20257 Anatolia 750-480 BC Female

Nicaea I8366 Anatolia 500-700 AD E-Z1057 (E-V13)

Nicaea I8368 Anatolia 500-700 AD Female

Lazaridis had this to say about these Anatolian individuals (divided into paragraphs not in the original text):

“I20257 is an ancient adolescent female from Değirmendere in Muğla from the Aegean region of Turkey (750-480 BCE). Her similarity to the Mycenaean population is not surprising given the proximity to Greece and her time postdating the colonization of the coast of Anatolia.

“Two other samples from the same site are more distant (I20229 and I20233). Thus only 3 of 10 samples from this site are similar to Mycenaeans. We cannot speak of a general similarity here, but rather that the “Carian” population at Değirmendere included Mycenaean-like individuals while being generally distinct. Thus, the previously plausible theory that culturally Greek people in the classical period and earlier did not mix with locals—suggested by the patterns at Empúries—is not supported by the data. I5737, a Middle Bronze Age sample from Yassıtepe (Izmir, Ancient Σμύρνα / Smyrna) is also identified, predating the Mycenaean samples (2033-1920 calBCE). Its EHG ancestry is 2.9±2.6% so we cannot be certain that it was present here as in most Mycenaean samples, but its overall genetic makeup appears to be similar. This individual also had Y-chromosome I-P58 linking him to southeastern Europe. We cannot speak of the population in general here, but this sample provides the earliest direct evidence of human migration from the Balkans to Anatolia, a pattern that recurs more than a millennium later at Değirmendere and provides evidence of a long history of genetic interchange across the Aegean.

“Two Roman/Byzantine samples from the Basilica at Nicaea are the remaining Mycenaean-like samples from Anatolia (I8366 and I8368).

“Overall, however, our procedure only identified a very small number of individuals from Anatolia as being genetically similar to Mycenaeans, which is notable given the colonization of Anatolia by Ionian Greeks and the later incorporation of it to the Hellenistic Kingdoms and Roman Empire which used koine Greek as its language in the east. Possible explanations for this are either that our sampling bias—that our dataset has few samples derived from contexts specific to ancient colonists—or that the colonists of Anatolia intermarried with the local population as suggested in ancient times by Herodotus for Ionian colonists from Athens who intermarried with local Carian women (again, different from the pattern seen at Empúries where many in the culturally Greek population retained their genetic affinity to Greece despite a long history of serial colonization.2 The same could be true for individuals sampled from Samsun (Ancient Ἀμισός / Amisos) and Bodrum (Ancient Ἁλικαρνασσός / Halikarnassos) which were certainly places of ancient settlement and were the colonists may have intermarried with locals which would have modified their ancestry in a more “eastern” direction.”

Nicaea I8368 was actually not listed on Table S1, but because the text refers to her as being among the Mycenaean-like individuals I've listed her.

For this post the most relevant individual of the Anatolians is of course Nicaea I8366, as he was E-V13. Not listed was I8367, who had not only the same Y-chromosome haplogroup but also the same mitochondrial DNA haplogroup and was apparently the brother of I8366. The Lazaridis study didn't use the G25 model to dtermine relatedness to the Mycnean individuals, but when using the G25 model I would estimate that I8466 fits marginally, if at all, into the Mycenaean-like category.

Most of the Mycenaean-like individuals identified by Lazaridis were of course Mycenaeans themselves from between 1750-1050 BC, whom I won't list here, but I'll complete the list of Mycenaean-like individuals identified from outside of Greece.

Mycenaean-like Individuals Buried Ouside of Greece/Balkans

Ashkelon ASH068 Israel 1370-1123 BC Female

Empuries I8208 Spain 376-201 BC J2a

Empuries I8215 Spain 746-415 BC Female

Sardinia MSR002 Italy 796-570 BC G2a

Szolad SZ19 Hungary 530-600 AD N/A

Empuries was, as mentioned earlier, a Greek colony, so the Mycenaean-like DNA there is no surprise. The individual from Ashkelon is likely a result of the trade between Greece and the Levant, although the Greeks had no colonies there. The individual from Sardinia was a Phoenician, who were based in the Levant (Lebanon and coastal Syria), so here's another possible connection to the Levant although in this case the Mycenaean-like genome might simply be a random admixture similar to that of the Mycenaeans but without recent descent from the Mycenaeans.

Szolad 19 is more directly relevant to this post than the other 4 individuals here. Szolad was 1 of 4 ephemeral communities studied by archaeogeneticists and located on the southern shore of Lake Balaton in Pannonia (Hungary), dated from period immediaately after Roman withdrawal in 433 AD. The other communities were Fonyod, Hacs and Balatonszemes, and E-V13 was present in both Fonyod and Hacs, although not in Balatonszemes or Szolad. I'll discuss this in detail in the next section, but here I'll provide the brief common from Lazridis on SZ19:

“SZ19 was a young female of 17-25 years old who was also a genetic outlier in the group of individuals buried there, had a distinct burial type, and also had a “stylistically distinct (possibly Roman)” artifact associated with her burial. Quite possibly she was related to the population of the Aegean and the southern Balkans given the similarity to Mycenaeans detected here.” The study of Szolad from which SZ19 came was a separate study from the later study that analyzed genetically the individuals from Fonyod, Hacs and Balatonszeme; this later study was published a year after the Lazaridis paper, and thus it's unlikely that the genetic information the individuals from Fonyod, Hacs and Balatonszemes were unavailable to Lazaridis as part of the 727 genomes that he'd analyzed for Mycenaean-like ancestry. SZ19 was anoutlier in Szolad, but she was likely from the same general population as Fonyod FVD009, Hacs_21 and Hacs_22, all of whom were E-V13. We'll look at this in the next section.

Y-Chromosome Haplogroups in the 5^th Century Lake Balaton Communities

Here are the other haplogroups from the four communities:

Fonyod

FVD009/536 E1b1b1a1b1a10b2 E-FGC11450

FVD002/304 R1b1a1b1a1a1 R-U106 Scandinavia

FVD004/316 G2a2b2a1a1a1b1 G-L1264 Himer 3702 “Greek- Sicialn cultural group” 700-400 BC

FVD005/336 R1b1a1b1a1a1b R-U106 Scandinavia

Hacs

Hacs_21 E1b1b1a1b1a10a2h E-S2979

Hacs_22 E1b1b1a1b1a1 E-Z5018

Hacs_5 I2a1a2a2a1 I-Y13568 Serbia 2000 BC

Hacs_10 J

Hacs_24 J2b2a1a1a1a1a1a1 J-Z1043 Moldova-Balkans

Hacs_15 R1b1a1b1a2a R-DF27 Spain, Scandinavia

Balatonszemes

Bal_146 G2a2b2a1a1b1b1c G-Y2724 Kiskundorozsma 245

Saifi 15 Beirut Hellenistic 170bc-17AD

Bal_149 G2a2b2a1a1b1b1c

Bal_111 I1a1b1 I-Z63 Sweden/Demark, Kowalewko, Maslomecz

Bal_143 J2a1a1a2

J2a1a1a2:

Charalambos I0073 2400-1700 BC Greece Crete J2a1a1a2b1b2

Charalambos I0070 2400-1700 BC Greece Crete J2a1a1a2b1b2

J2a1a1a2b2

Ripa Biance R17 5323-5216 BC Italy Pesaro and Urbino J-S25258

Arslantepe ART017 3357-3102 BC Anatolia J-S25258

Kareli GE0015 3017-2888 BC Georgia J2a1a1a2b2a1a

Tatika I4478 2900-2600 BC Anatolia Dirnak J-Y4036

Kalehoyuk MA2200-01 2500-1200 BC Anatolia Old Hittite J-S2 5258

Sarakenos G37 2476-2300 BC Greece Akraifnion J2a1a1a2b2a2b1

Lasithi HGC006-035 2171 BC Greece Crete J2a1a1a2b2

Lasithi HGC009 1972 BC Greece Crete J2a1a1a2b2a1b1~

TIR010 1370 BC Greece Argolid J2a1a1a2b2

Beniamin R11713 403 BC-545 AD Beniamin Armenia Iron Age J-S25258

Birgi I12665 337-50 BC Sicily Phoenician J-S25258 (Anc. J-PH245

Isola Sacra 55 1-400 AD Isola Sacra Rome Italy J-S25258

Salaria 81 1-100 AD Rome Italy J-S25258

Zadar R3743 81-210 AD Croatia Roman era J2a1a1a2b2a1a1c1a~

Sarrebourg R11550 247-405 AD France Roman Era J-PH245

Kerch Ker1 378 AD Crimea Pantikapaion J2a1a1a2b2a1*

Camp du Chateau CGG023715 598-656 AD France J-PH245

Vienna CSK026 Avar period Austria Csokorgasse J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a3

Vienna CSK013 Avar period Austria Avar Csokorgasse J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a

Vienna CSK012 Avar period Austria Avar J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a3

Moedling MSG011 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2a1a1

Moedling MSG010 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2a1a

Moedling MSG236 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2

Iznik I8370 500-700 AD Turkey Iznik Basilica in Bursa J2a1a1a2b2a3b1

Kaagarden 317 900-1000 AD Langeland Denmark J2a1a1a2b2a2b2b~

Puspokladany 195 960-1000 AD Hungarian Commoner J2a1a1a2b2

\

J2a1a2b

Yunasite YUN026 4537-4373 BC Bulgaria Pazardzhik J2a1a2b2

Yunasite YUN007 4441-4356 BC Bulguaria Pazardzhik J2a1a2b2a2

Kirra CGG_2_022404 3567-3483 BC Greece J2a1a2b2a2b2a

Voudeni CGG_2_023849 3164-2965 BC Greece J2a1a2b2a~

Kirrha CGG022400 1567-1468 BC Greece J2a1a2b

Koufonisi Kou01 2459-2310 BC Greece Cycladic Islands J2a1a2b2a2

Galatas I9041 1400-1200 BC Grece Pelopponese J2a1a2b2~

J2a1a1b

Taldysay I4794 1600-1400 BC Kazakhstan J2a1a1a1b2a1a

Himera 10952 480 BC Himera, Sicily J2a1a1b2a1a

Kyrgyzstan KEN001 356-116 BC Kyrgyzstan Ken-Su J3a1a1b1~

Karatau KNT003 100-500 AD Kazakhstan Otyrar Oasis J2a1a1b2a1a2

Tian Shan 58 334 BC-3 AD Kyrgyzstan Saka J2a1a1b2a1a2

Tian Shan 59 228-58 BC Tian Shian, Kyrgyzstan Saka

Tian Shan 57 202-42 BC Tian Shan Kyrgyzstan Saka

Salkhityn 12 150 BC-120 AD Mongolia Early Xiongnu

Tian Shan 58 334 BC-3 AD Kyrgyzstan Saka J2a1a1b2a1a2

Tian Shan 59 228-58 BC Tian Shian, Kyrgyzstan Saka

Tian Shan 57 202-42 BC Tian Shan Kyrgyzstan Saka

Salkhityn 12 150 BC-120 AD Mongolia Early Xiongnu

Egyptian Mummy Egypt2287 425-538 AD Egypt Byzantine J2a1a1b2a1b1 Viminacium I15517 124-228 AD Viminaciuam Serbia Roman J2a1a1b2a1b1

Plaza de l'Horta 12162 500-700 AD Girona Catalonia Visigoth J2a1a1b2a1b1b2

Kiskoros 14 620-660 AD Kiskoros HungaryJ2a1a1b2a1b1b2

Tian Shan I12117 750-950 AD Kazakhstan Karluk J2a1a1b2a1a2

Tian Shan 2 750-950 AD Kazakhstan Karluk J2a1a1b2a1a2

Tian Shan DA230 750-950 AD Kazakhstan Karluk J2a1a1b2a1a2

Tian Shan I12113 886-979 AD Kazakhstan Karakhan J2a1a1b2a1a2

E-V13

x`

The earliest known ancient male with the Y-chromosome SNP mutation E-FGC11450 was Fonyod FVD009, who died as an infant and was buried just south Lake Balaton in Pannonia between 433-468 AD. Since he died when les than 3 months old, it's likely that he was born in the community in wich he lived, which is in or near today's town of Fonyod, Hungary. It wasn't called Fonyod at that time, as the Magyars didn't migrate to Hungary until the 900's AD, but as we don't know the names used by the ancient individuals for their communities, I'll refer to them as the Vyas paper does, by the current names of their nearest modern towns.

FVD009 was one of 13 individuals buried in the Fonyod cemetary. Nine were females, four were males. Six of any sex died in infancy. Seven of the Fonyod members had ACD (Arifical Cranial Deformity), custom of various steppe peoples including the Huns, Sarmatians and Alans, in which the shape of an infant's skull was permanently deformed by by binding its head with strips of cloth. Some of the Goth and other tribes had adopted this custom afther they had been conquered and assimilated into the Hun to some degree after around 370 AD.

One tribe of the Goths who were vassals of the Huns was led by the Amal dynasty that became known as the Ostrogoths. The most famous member of the Amalings was Theodoric the Great, king of Italy, although he wasn't born until 454 AD and didn't rule the Goths until 471 AD; Theodoric's father Theodimir ruled the Ostrogoths before this, along with his brothers-in-law Valamir and Vidimir. The Wikipedia article “Ostrogoths” ays “These Amal-led Goths apparently first settled in the Pannonian areas of Lake Balaton and Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica), on the Roman Danube frontier.” This statement doesn't have a citation, but if true would of course mean that Fonyod was likely an Ostrogoth community. The same would also be true of Hacs, but not necessarily of Baltonszemes. Thus,it's very likely that all three of the E-V13 men in these communities, Fonyod FVD009, Hacs_21 and Hacs_22, were par of the Ostrogoth polity at this time.

According to the Vyas timeline graphic, Fonyod appears to have been first occupied a few years after 433 AD, close to the time when the Romans ceded Pannonia to the Huns. Fonyod appears to have been abandoned around within a few years after 453 AD, which is the year Attila the Hun, the leader of the Huns in Europe, died. His sons fought each other for control, and in taking advantage of that in 454 AD, a coalition of the vassal tribes, led by the Gepids, defeated the Huns in the Battle of Nedao and freed themselves of Hun rule. The Alans had remained loyal to the Huns, and although Jordanes, and Eastern Roman historian from the mid 550's AD claimed that the Ostrogoths had fought against the Huns in this battle, modern historians believe it's more likely that the Ostrogoths had remained loyal to the Huns. In any case, it appears that the Huns remained in Pannonia, possibly more or less free from the Huns.

However, Fonyod appears to have been abandoned at or short after the time of the Battle of Nedao. This might be coincidence, or if might be an effect of the battle. It's possible that most of the members of Fonyod, themselves being culturally aligned with the Huns, left Pannonia to join the Huns in the Great Hungarian Plain east of the Danube. This wouldn't be surprising because later ancient E-FGC11450 men lived in this region on either side of the Tisza river, including Derecske I20799 (700-800 AD), whose G25 shows him to have been 20% Han (Chinese) and 16% Nganasan (Siberian), so he likely had significant Hun ancestry. Derecske I20799 wasn't in the same descendant branch of E-FGC11450 as was Fonyod FVD009, so he couldn't have been a paternal descendant of the father of Fonyod FVD009—but their two paternal ancestors living at the time of the Battle of Nedao likely knew each other. A later E-FGC11450 man, Puspokladany PLE-23 (950-1000 AD), was in the same descendant line of E-FGC11450 as was Derecske I20799 (E-FGC11444) but his G25 was only 1% Han, the rest being European.

Hacs came into existence as Fonyod disappeared, while the Ostrogoths still ruled Pannonia. The Vyas supplemntary text describes and object found in the Hacs graveyard as having Gothic script written on it, thus supporting Hacs' likely identity as Ostrogothic. Only one of the Hacs individuals had an ACD deformed skull, and no members had signficant Asian ancestry, so this was a less Hun-influenced coummunity than Fonyod.

After the defeat of the Huns in 454 AD the Gepids formed a kingdom east of the Danbue. he Gepids In 468 AD the Huns crossed the Danube and attacked the Ostrogoths. The Huns lost and after that left the Ostrogoths alone. In the same year, a coalition of tribes led by the Gepids also attacked the Ostrogoths and lost.

In 473 or 474 AD Theodemir, father of Theodoric, led the Ostoroghts out of Pannonia and into the Balkans controlled by the Eastern Roman Empire. This coincided with the Vyas timeline's abandonment of Hacs and the establishement of Balatonszemes, we see that the existence of the various Lake Balatonszemes communities fits in well with the history of the various non-Roman peoples in this region and time.

FTDNA refers to E-FGC11450 Fonyod FVD009 as having been “associated with the European Hun cultural group.” However, for all of the Fonyod individuals I think their self-identities were probably more nuanced than that and were layered. The common language at Fonyod was probably Gothic, and for those who were genetically northern European I think that their core identity was Gothic, but layered above that they they might also have considered themselves to some degree as Huns. However, for Fonyod DVD008 I don't think that's true and I doubt that his parents' bith language was Gothic. As I'll show in the next section, the indiviuals at Fonyod, Hacs and the other two communities can be divided genetically into three broad categories: those with primarily northern European ancesthry, those with primarily outher European (Mediterranean) ancestry, and those with a mixture of the two.

The Vyas Genetic Analyis of the Lakes Balaton Individuals

I'll provide a very brief description of the Vyas team's methodology in analyzing the genomes of the Lake Balaton individuals. Vyas used two different reference panels against which each individual was compare. One panel, shown as the upper panel (A) in the below graphics, was comprise of a panel of living individuals from various world regions. The other panel, shown in the graphics as the lower panel (B), was of “penecontemporary” individuals who lived as closely in time as possible to the 6th-6^th centuries.

Sreenshot 2746

The various ancestries are indicated by different colors, the keys of which are on the side of the first graphic showing all four of the Lake Balaton individuals. In both panels the ancestries of greatest interest to us are:

Red Mediterraneans (Tuscans in Italy in upper (A), Italians and Iberians (B))

Blue Northern Europeans (English in Utah, England & Scotland (A), Germany & England (B))

In addition, both panels tried to distinguish the subset of Scandinavians from from the northern European population. This was likely an attempt to distinguish Ostrogoths (Scandinavian origin) from Lombards (German origin), among other reasons. Tan color was used for this in both panels, but the reference populations were differen;

Tan Panel (A): Finnish in Finland

Panel (B): Scandinavia and Estonia

Finns were clearly a poor reference panel to represent Scandinavians, so for purposes of distinguishing Scandinavians from other norther Europeans, panel (B) should be used. This is less true for Fonyod than for the other coummunities, which also has less overall Scandinavian ancestry. In my opinion this doesn't necessarily mean that the northern Euroepans in Fonyod weren't Goths, but more likely that they may have represented a population of Goths who, when their ancestors had lived in Wielbark Poland, had admixed more with the local Eastern Euroepeans than did had the ancestors of the other Lake Balaton communities. Wielbark Poland might also be the origin of the supposed South Asian, East Asian and African and ancestries of many of the Fonyod (and Szolad) individuals in (A) that don't show in (B).

Also, panel (A) tried to distinguish between Iberians and Italians, providing a separate color (light green) for Iberians. In panel (B) both these populations were lumped together.

To determine total Mediterranean and northern Euopean ancestries, we need to combine color codes as follows:

Red + Light green Mediterranean

Blue + Tan Northern Euroepan

Here's a closer view for Fonyod and Hacs only:

screenshot 2747

We can analyze these populations in amny ways, but my primary purpose in showing them here is to illustrate that there were two basic European populations present in all four communities, northern Europeans and southern Europeans, and that except for Fonyod they appear rarely to have mixed, even over time. The top panel (A) represetns this most clearly, probably because the distinction in Europe between southern Europeans and northern Europeans may have grown more distinct rather than more blended over over the last 1,500 years.

We already have a general understanding of the identity of the individuals with primarily northern European ancestry, and how and when they arrived in Pannonia. However, we don't have an understanding of who were the individuals with primarily Mediterranean ancestry, and how they arrived ine Pannonia.

Vyas was cautious and refused to to speculate on the social identities of any of the Lake Balaton populations in terms of historical populations, other than mentioning that during the middle of the 5^th century the region “came under the influence of barious “barbarian” groups (Goths, Heruls, Langobards, etc.) and noting that in the Hacs cemetary was found “the delicate lead sheet fragments...bearing a text inscribed with the Gothic uncial and Gothic cursive script....” Of course merely because an object crafted by a Goth was in the Hacs cemetary doesn't necessarily mean that the Hacs coumunity was Gothic, but it is definitely strong evidence of that. The one statement on identification of a population by a historical label was that of the Szolad community and was negative in that the Szolad population wasn't necessarily Langobard as previously believed (which I believe is correct).

As for the Mediterranean individuals found within each of the Lake Balaton communities, Vyas opined that, based on the fact that Mediterraneans were found within each community and that they “show overlap in the PCA” this suggests that they “may represent a more stable local genomic signature during the entire period.” Overlap in the PCA means they are from a similar population, ane while it's plausible based on the information from the geentic analysis to assume that this Mediterranean population was local, it's equally plausible that the Mediterranean population entered Pannonia with the northern European population within the Lake Balaton communities.

When I first read the Vyas paper a year ago I wasn't as confident as Vyas that at least the E-V13 component of the Mediterranean population was simply a background population. Already it was clear that the E-V13 line had some connecion to the steppe nomadic populations even before 1 AD, because Scythian scy197 (E-BY3880) from Moldova 400-150 BC was a Scythian, and because the two non-E1b1b1a men who were buried at Kapitan Andreevo in Bulgaria 1100-500 BC were in steppe haplogroups R1a and Q1b. Furthermore, some of the Himera soldiers from Sicily 480 BC, which included three E-V13 men, also included men from steppe nomadic populations. Furthermore, Karatau KNT001 from 245-343 AD was from Kakhstan, and I knew that a few living E-V13 men had been found in China. All of this pointed to some kind of relationship with steppe nomadic populations.

Therefore, I believed that somehow E-V13 was in some way associated with steppe nomad populations and were possibly Iazyges Sarmatians because not only from the Avar through the Mgyar times was E-V13 concentrated in the Tisza region of Hungary, but E-V13 Derecske 20802 frommmm the Tisza region 200-300 AD had been buried as a Sarmatian.

However, even though tthe Mediterranean genomes of the three E-V13 did not look what I believed Sarmatian genomes would probably look like, I also knew that some of the Thracian populations living to the north of the Danube could have joined various Scythian populations, which could explain, for example, Scythian scy197.

Exploring the Origin of Y-Chromosome Haplogorup E-V13

E-FGC11450 and its Ancestral Haplogroups

FTDNA YFull

Haplogroup Formed TMRCA Haplogroup Formed TMRCA

A-PR2921 ? 232000 BC

A-L1090 232,000 BC 152000 BC

A-V168 152,000 BC 126000 BC

A-V221 126,000 BC 122000 BC

BT-M42 122,000 BC 8600 BC

CT-M168 86,000 BC 64000 BC

DE-M145 64,000 BC 60,000 BC

E-M96 60,000 BC 49000 BC

E-CTS9083 49,000 BC 49000 BC

E-P147 49,000 BC 48000 BC

E-P177 48,000 BC 47000 BC

E-P2 47,000 BC 40000 BC

E-M215 40,000 BC 33000 BC 39200 BC 32600 BC

E-M35 33,000 BC 23000 BC 32600 BC 21900 BC

E-V68 23,000 BC 19000 BC E-L539 21900 BC 17000 BC

E-M78 19000 BC 13000 BC 17000 BC 11100 BC

E-PF2179 13000 BC 11000 BC ----- -----

E-Z1919 11000 BC 11000 BC 11100 BC 9700 BC

E-L618 11000 BC 7300 BC 9700 BC 6000 BC

E-CTS1975 7300 BC 6950 BC E-CTS10912 6000 BC 6000 BC

E-V13 6950 BC 3150 BC 6000 BC 2800 BC

E-CTS8814 3150 BC 2950 BC` E-Z1057 2800 BC 2800 BC

E-CTS5856 2950 BC 2400 BC E-CTS1273 2800 BC 2400 BC

E-BY4877 2400 BC 2300 BC ----- -----

E-BY3880 2300 BC 2250 BC 2400 BC 2100 BC

E-FTT49 2250 BC 2100 BC ------ ------

E-Z5018 2100 BC 1750 B 2100 BC 1600 BC

E-S2979 1750 BC 1650 BC 1600 BC 1600 BC

E-FGC11457 1650 BC 1500 BC 1600 BC 1500 BC

E-FGC11451 1500 BC 1050 BC 1500 BC 1500 BC

E-FGC11450 1050 BC 950 BC 1500 BC 1500 BC

E-FT389281 950 BC 800 BC E-Y257534 1500 BC 800 BC

E-FT388654 800 BC 1 BC ----- -----

E-FT388527 1 BC 450 AD ----- -----

The chart above shows the lines ancestral to the currently known Swainm/den Hartog terminal haplogroup, E-FT388527. This haplogroup is known to YFull but only as one of several of my “private” SNPs; this is because I'm the only member of this haplogroup to have submitted my DNA to YFull.

The E-M78 line from which the E-V13 line derives is supposed to have left Africa sometime around 15,000 BC, long after the the DE line had left Africa into Europeasia about 70,000-50,000 BC, thereafter in Eurasia spawning all the Eurasian haplogroups such as G2a, H3a, I1a, I2a, J1a, J2a, R1a, R1b) had left Africa around 70,000-50,000 BC. The E haplogroup is supposed to have remained in Africa, with soome members later migrating to Europe diretly trans-Mediterranean or through the Levant and Anatolia by land.

However, there is a hypothesis that the E haplogroups had actually originated in Asia rather than Africa, and then back-migrated into Africa. I don't know enough about this subject to have an informed opinon, but those interested can read the Wikipiedia article “Haplogroup DE”.

The earliest E-M35 ancient men were the Natufians who lived in Israel 12000-9500 BC. E-M35 was the parent line of E-V68 and was the parent of E-M78; the earliest known members of both of these lines lived in North Africa 1000-7000 BC and 13000-12000 BC. Individuals from the aforalt population from Morocco overlapped with the Taforalt individuals, and there appears to have been cultural and genetic communications between the two populations. The haplogroup immediately below E-M78 is E-PF2179, the earliest individual of which was from Tunisia around 6000 BC.

The haplogroup immediately below E-PF2179 in the line leading to E-V13 is E-Z1919, the earliest member of which (I1710) lived in Jordan 7700-7500 BC. Later members of the E-Z1919 haplogroup lived in Hungary as early as 4800 and 4200 BC, indicating that at least one branch of this line had migrated to Europe, no doubt as part of the Anatolian Neolithic Farmer migration that occurred in the 6000's BC.

The Earliest E-V13 Men

AVE07 from Spain 5000 BC

Even if AVE07 was E-V13, it's unlikely that he and his descendants belonged to the sole surving E-V13 haplogroup belonging to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all modern E-V13 haplogroups descend (E-Z1057/E-CTS8814). More likely, the MRCA of E-V13 had belonged to a branch that had remained in southeastern Europe, as that's where we find the potentially earliest E-V13 men after 3000 BC.

Origing of E-V13 and its descendant haplogroup E-FGC11450

Current Distribution of the E-V13 Haplogroup

The following list of the modern distribution of the E-V13 haplogroup is based on a list from the Wikipedia article “Haplogrou E-V68”, which itself had been compiled from a number of studies, primarly from Crucianiaet al (2007),

Percentage of E-V13 Haplogroup in Eurasian and African Populations

Population E-V13 %d)

Kosovo Albanians 44%

Greeks from Lerth/Franchthi (Argolid) 35%

Greeks from Sesklo/Dimini (Thessaly) 35%

Macedonian Albanians 34%

Albanians 32%

Albanians 24%

Serbians 19%

Greeks (continental) 18%

Macedonians 17%

Bulgarians 16%

Greeks from the Aegean Islands 15%

Turkish Cypriots (Cyprus) 11%

Druze (Syria/Lebanon/Israel) 11%

Hungarians 9%

Ukrainians 9%

Southern Italians 9%

Slovaks 8%

Moldovans 8%

Sicilians 7%

Crete 7%

Romanians 7%

Croatians 6%

Greeks from Crete 6% i

Asturians (Spain) 6%

Italians (Central & Northern) 5%

Central Anatolia 5%

Czechs 5%

Huelva Andalusians 5%

Anatolian (Southeastern) 4%

Portugeuse 4%

Estonians 4%

French 4%

Libyan Jews 4%

Russians (Northern) 4%

Germans 4%

Palestinians 3%

Slovenians 3%

Danish 3%

Turkish (Istanbul) 3%

Polish 2.5%

Anatolian (Southwestern) 2.5%

Egypt (Bahari) 2%

Russians (Southern) 2%

Azeri (Azerbaijan) 2%

Moroccan Jews 2%

Bouhria Berbers 1.5%

Egyptians 1.3%

It's clear that the E-V13 haplogroup is primarily located in the southeastern part of Europe, with its highest concentration in Kosovo and Albania, then the rest of the Balkans including Greece, and from there apparently radiating out in all directtions, but less so to the south in Africa, and generally decreasing in concentration with distance, although with some lumpiness (for example, in the Cyprus and Druze populations, which have higher concentrations than elsewhere in western Asia, and in Ukraine and Moldova, which have higher coentrations than some regions less distant).

From the current distribution of E-V13 it appears likely that the E-V13 mutation had occurred in the Balkans, and this may be true, but for reasons I'll discuss later it may have instead occurred in Ukraine or Moldova.

Cruciani in 2007 had determined that E-V13 had likely formed in western Asia (the Levant or Anatolia) around 9500 BC, but his study was early and had based its analysis on microsatellites (STRs) rather than the SNPs that actually define Y-chromosome haplogroups. Of course the correlation between SNPs and STRs will be very high, but the problem with the Cruciania study in determiing the origin of E-V13 is that at the time it was donducted, it appears that Cruciani considered E-V13 to have directly descended from E-M78 without any intermiedary haplogroups, like this:

E-M78>E-V13

However, since the time of that study we've learned that the actual descendt of E-V13 from E-M78 did included intermiediary subclades:

E-M78>E-PF2179>E-Z1919>E-L618>E-CTS1975>E-V13

Therefore, it seems likely that what Cruciani believed was E-V13 was actually E-PF279 and all of its subclades. Thus, Cruciani's estimated date of formation of E-V13 was 9500 BC, which is much closer to the date of formation of E-Z1919 and E-L618, rather than the dates of formation of E-V13 as today estimated by FTDNA (6950 BC) and YFull (6000 BC).

Thus, if this is true, then Cruciani's determination that E-V13 had likely formed in western Asia can be interpreted to mean that E-Z1919 had formed in western Asia, which is likely to be true, but that E-V13 may very well have formed in Europe rather than in western Asia.

Although it's true that the Cypriot (Cyprus) poplation and the Druze population from the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan) could argue for an origin in the Levant, and this is a plausible suppostion as I1710 from Ain Ghazal in Jordan 7700 BC was E-Z1919, and the Natufians from Israel 12,000-9500 BC were E-M35, both of which are ancestral to E-V13. However, Vokarides et al (2016) has determined that Greek Cypriot E-V13 came from the Balkans/Greece after the Neolithic rather than earlier from the Levant.

The proximal source of the E-v13 in the Druze population is less straightforward, but

Marshall et al (2016) used genetic software “to infer the biogeographical affinity of the Druze using all reference populations.” This technique “positioned nearly all 42 Druze along a trajectory going from the Armenian-Turkish border to Syria with 17% of the individuals loclised to the mountainou region surrounding Lake Van.” Marshall attempted to determine the historical event that might have precipitated a pre-Druze exodus from the Lake Van region to the Levant, and stated that “the most significant Turkish migration was the expansion of the Seljuk Turkish Empire into the region in the years following the Battle of Manzikert, north of Lake Van (10671 A.D.). By 1079 A.D., the Seljuqs had reached Syria and Palestine and settled in Iran, Anatolia and Syria. The Druze were first recorded in that region ~150 years later. It is therefore possible that the proto-Druze population was part of this early Seljuk expansion.” It summarized “The biogeographical analysis localised many of the Druze to the Zagros Mountains and the mountains surrounding Lake Van and postulated that their migration path ran along a trajectory from southeast Turkey to southeast Syria.”

The Marshall study thus determined that the core Druze population came from the region of Lake Van, and while it didn't specifically tie that region to the E-V13 sub-population of the Druze, a different study in fact located an E-V13 population present around Lake Van. Herrera et al (2011) studied Y-chromosome haplogroups from living m men four locactions in the Armenian Plateau, including Lake Van, a region historically considered to be Armenia although today much of this region including Lake Van are within the borders of Turkey. Of the E-M35 haplogroups present, the majority were E-M34 (E-M123), which split from E-M78 about 22,000 BC. However, the study found that a “small number” of the men from Lake Van belonged to the E-M78 haplogroups:

E-M78 0.9%

E-V13 1.9%

E-V22 0.9%

The study called these haplogroups “branches that have been implicated as signals of Greek influence.”

This study also said that “We have detected a number of lineages that are prominent in in the Balkans (I2, I2b, J2b1 and J1b2) at low levels throughout Ararat Valley, Gardman and Lake Van, the latter of which also contains haplogroups commonly associated with Bronze Age Greece (i.e., J2a8-M319 (4.9%), and E1b1b1-M78 and its sublineages (3.9%). While this may suggest genetic input from early Greek or Phrygian tribes, it is also possible that these low levels of Balkan lineages arrived in Armenia at a later time, such as during one of the many incursions into the area during the reign of the Macedonian, Roman and Byzantine empires.” (I'll note here that Cruciani (2007) had determinied that the E-V13 and J2b haplogroups had coexpanded in Europe during the Bronze age).

Thus, the Herrera study found E-V13 around Lake Van and only around Lake Van, and stated that it may have come through incursions from Greeks, Phrygians, Macedonians or Romans. I'll add that it may also have come through the Achaemenid Empire of Persia, which occupied parts of Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greeced from 513 AD and recruited some of the locals into its army, who may have later been relocated to Armenia.

The Marshall study independently determined through genetic analysis that specifically some of the proto-Druze population had come from the region around Lake Van, and speculated that it may have dispersed to the Levant around 1071 AD.

Thus, we have a plausible pathway based on genetics and history for the Druze E-V13 to have migrated from to the Levant from Lake Van, and earlier to Lake Van from the sothern Balkans/Greece.

From the Wikipedia article “Armeno-Phrygians”:

There are two conflicting theories regarding the potential origins of the Armeno-Phrygians:

• Ancient Greek historian Herodotus stated that Armenians were colonists from Phrygia ("the Armenians were equipped like Phrygians, being Phrygian colonists" (Ἀρμένιοι δὲ κατά περ Φρύγες ἐσεσάχατο, ἐόντες Φρυγῶν ἄποικοι)(7.73).[2] Phrygia encompassed much of western and central Anatolia during the Iron Age. According to Ancient Greeks, the Phrygians had originated in the Balkans as Bryges. This led some scholars to suggest that Armenians also originated in the Balkans.[3] According to Igor Diakonoff, the Phrygians and the Proto-Armenians migrated eastward during the Bronze Age collapse (at the end of the 13th century and the first half of 12th century). This theory suggests that Proto-Armenians were known by the name of Mushki to the Assyrians and that they blended with the ancient populations of the Armenian Highlands, including speakers of Hurro-Urartian languages, to create Armenians.[4] Assyrian sources identify the Mushki with the Phrygians, but later Greek sources then distinguish between the Phrygians and the Moschoi (commonly thought to be a variation of "Mushki").

• Some modern scholars instead believe that a proto-Armeno-Phrygian population originated in eastern Anatolia and/or the Armenian Highlands, from where the Phrygians later migrated westward.[5]

According to some scholars, there is evidence of language borrowings (Armenisms) from the Proto-Armenian language into Hittite and Urartian,[6] what would prove the presence of Proto-Armenians in the Armenian Highlands, in the lands of ancient Armenia, since at least the end of the 2nd millennium BC.

There are various articles online with titles such as “Herodotus' theoryon Armenian origins debunked by first whole-genome study” by Hovhannisyan et al (Herodotus' theory on Armenian origins debunked by first whole-genome study ). The study itself summarizes its various genetic modelings by saying, “Taken as a whole, our results support the lack of significant genetic input from the Balkans into ancient and modern populations of the Armenian highlands.” However, the study also says this:

“...we carried out a similar set of D-statistic tests, but this time, we examined a clade involving modern and ancient Greek populations in the form D(Ancient_Greek, modern_Greek; X_ancient_populations, Mbuti). The findings pointed to a level of genetic discontinuity in the region following the Later Bronze Age, revealing a genetic connection between Mycenaean, Minoan, and Neolithic Greece samples with those from Anatolia, Armenia, and the Middle East.”

And this:

“We did not observe any significantly positive values for the D-statistics (which are expected under the Balkan theory), thus questioning the presence of the Balkan-related ancestry in modern Armenians. Furthermore, we found that in most of our comparisons ancient and modern samples from the Armenian highlands form a clade (|Z| < 3) to the exclusion of ancient and modern samples from the Balkans. At the same time, we detected a signal indicating that the ancestors of modern Armenians received a genetic influx from an external source presumably after the Late Bronze/Iron Age (Z < −3) (we acknowledge the small sample size for Middle Bronze Age samples). However, we noticed an increased derived allele sharing between modern Armenians and Greeks (Z > 3), which might be a consequence of the shared gene flow between the populations, and this requires further investigation.”

Thus, despite claims of the study “debunking” Herodotus, it in fact gave some support for the possibility of a genetic connection between ancient Greeks and modern western Armenians, which would be consistent with Herodotus' claim, if the Phrygians had a genome similar to that of Greeks, which they likely did and which was also similar to that of the Kapitan Andreevo men who are characterized as being “Bulgarian Iron Age” and “Balkan Iron Age”. The Wikipedia article “Phrygian language” says that the “current consensus...regards Greek as the closest relative of Phrygian.”

The Hovhannisyan study did clarify that there was no large influx of Balkan genes into Armenia, but the study clear did find some evidence of genetic connection between Greece and Armenia “following the Later Bronze Age” and “presumably after the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age”, which is exactly the time period the Phyrgians were said to have left the Balkans and Bryges and entered Anatolia to become the Phrygians. It's possible that these hints of connections between the Greeks/Phrygians and Armenia are the result of a low level of gene flow into Armenia from a smaller number of Phrygians who entered Armenia to become an elite population that impose the influenced Armenia linguistically but was too small to leave a strong genetic trace today, 3,000 years (120 generations) later. Thus, the Armenians may have been considered culturally Phrygian to the Greeks, and the Armenian elite at that time may have in fact been partially Phrygian, but that the large majority of the population was never genetically Phrygian, and that over the millenia most of the few Phrygian genes had disappeared from Armenia.

Another angle on this possibility comes form the Herrera study of Y-chromosome haplogroups in modern Armenia. Herrera says Several authors have proposed that the Indo-European language presently spoken by Armenians arose during the Bronze Age, when Indo-European speaking tribes from the Balkans and Greece invaded Anatolia and Transcaucasia, leading to the subsequent spread of their culture and language. In this study, we have detected a number of lineages that are prominent in the Balkans (I2*, I2b*, J2b1 and J2b2) at low levels throughout Ararat Valley, Gardman and Lake Van, the latter of which also contains haplogroups commonly associated with Bronze Age Greece (ie, J2a8-M319 (4.9%), and E1b1b1-M78 and its sublineages (3.9%)). While this may suggest genetic input from early Greek or Phrygian tribes, it is also possible that these low levels of Balkan lineages arrived in Armenia at a later time, such as during one of the many incursions into the area during the reign of the Macedonian, RomanandByzantineempires. It shouldbenotedthat these results only reflect the paternal history of Armenia and studies on a maternal or gender-neutral system may reveal distinct conclusions.” (Herrera 2011)

The Hovhannisyan study came after the Herrera study and did look at the “gender-neutal system (i.e., autosomal chromosomes) and found only hints of an autosomal relationship between Armenians and ancient Greeks, but didn't study the Y-chromosomes as did the Herrera study. The Herrera study does give some support to the Herodotus' claim of a Phrygian origin of the Armenians, which I've hypothesized could inolved only a smal number of Phrygians who became the Armenian elite. Such an elite would have come from Phrygians males, and as Y-chromosome haplogroups don't disappear through mitotic division as do autosomeal chromosomes, the elite Phrygian Y-cromosomes would have survived in Armenia through 120 generations while the Phrygian autosomal chromosomes would have mostly disappeared without further genetic input from the Balkans. The Y-chromosomes, including E-V13, that Herrera says are common in the Balkans but relatvely rare in Armenia, could have come from the Phrygians but also could have come through later incursions.

The actual evidence of E-V13 in ancient Anatolia is almost nonexistent, and in Armenia is nonexistent, but this is also true of E-V13 in the Balkans before 1100 AD at the earliest. However, a recent study did discover the remains of an E-V13 man from Anatolia, and in fact from the region of central Phrygia in the Phrygian Highlands. This is CCG_2_022162 from Kecicayiri, dated to 775-543 BC. The kingdom of Phrygia lasted between about 1180-675 BC, when it fell to the Cimmerians. Phrygia was then around 630 BC incorporated into the Lydian kingdom, and in the 540's BC became part of the Persian Achaemenid Empire when the Achaemenids conqured Lydia. Thus, the ime range of CCG_2_022162 falls within all of these periods, from the kingdom of Phyrgia to the Achaemenid Empire.

CCG_2_022162 is proof of E-V13 in Phrygia during the time of the Phrygian kingdom or shortly thereafter, but not proof that his ancestors had come from the Balkans. Unfortunately I don't have a G25 model for CCG_2_022162.

Thus, we do have links in a potential chain of E-V13 migration from the southern Balksns to Lake Van in Armenia to the Levant, supported by genetiic, linguistic and historic evidence.

Regardless of the whether the Phrygians had come from the Balkans, and whether an Armenian elite had come form the Phrygians, and wheher the Druze had come from Armenia, CCE_2_022162 is interesting for the fact that he's potentially the 2nd-oldest ancient E-V13 man yet disovered, potentially older than the Kapitan Andreevo men. Furthermore, if he had been alive at the most recent end of his estimated time range, he may have lived during the Achaemenid period and, regardless of when he had lived, it's likely that if he'd had descendants, they would have been part of the Achaemenid Empire.

The Achaemenid Empire

“The Achaemenid Empire...was an Iranian empire founded by Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid dynasty in 550 BC. Based in modern-day Iran, it was the largest empire by that point in history....The empire spanned from the Balkans and Egypt in the west, to most of West Asia, the majority of Central Asia to the northeast, and the Indus Valley of South Asia to the southeast.” (Wikipedia “Achaemenid Empire”) Under Darius the Great the Persians invaded the Balkans in 513 BC. In that year “a huge Achaemenid army invaded the Balkans and tried to defeat the European Scythians roaming to the north of Danube river. Darius' army subjugated several Thrcian people[s], and virtually all other regions that touched the European part of the Black Sea, such as parts of modern Buglaria, Romania, Ukraine and Russia, before it regurned to Asia Minor. Darius left in Europe one of his commanders named Megabazus whose task was to accomplish conquests in the Balkans.[85] The Persian troops subjugated gold-rich Thrace, the coastal Greek cities, and defeated and conquered the powerful Paeonians.[85][87][88] Finally, Megabazus sent envoys to Amyntas, demanding acceptance of Persian domination, which the Macedonians did. The Balkans provided many soldiers for the multi-ethnic Achaemenid army. Many of the Macedonian and Persian elite intermarried, such as the Persian official Bubares who married Amyntas' daughter, Gygaea. Family ties that the Macedonian rulers Amyntas and Alexander enjoyed with Bubares ensured them good relations with the Persian kings Darius and Xerxes I, who was also known as Xerxes the Great. The Persian invasion led indirectly to Macedonia's rise in power and Persia had some common interests in the Balkans; with Persian aid, the Macedonians stood to gain much at the expense of some Balkan tribes such as the Paeonians and Greeks. All in all, the Macedonians were "willing and useful Persian allies. Macedonian soldiers fought against Athens and Sparta in Xerxes I's army.[85] The Persians referred to both Greeks and Macedonians as Yauna ("Ionians", their term for "Greeks"), and to Macedonians specifically as Yaunã Takabara or "Greeks with hats that look like shields", possibly referring to the Macedonian kausia hat. (ibid)

The Wikipedi article “Skudra” says “...in 513 BCE, when the Acheaemenid king Darius I amassed an army and marched from Acahaemenid-rule Anatolia into Thrace, and north from there, he crossed the Arteskos river and then proceeded through the valley-route of the Hebros river.” The Areskos river is also known as the Arda and is a tributary of the Hebros river, originating to the south of the generally west-to-east Hebros in the Rhodope mountains. The Hebros or Evros river is known in Bulgaria as the Martisa. In the east for a few miles it The Maritsa flows to the east but then turns south and forms the border between Greece (Hellas) and Bulgaria, but then turns south to empty into the Thracian Sea, which is the northernmost part of the Aegean Sea. Along this last north-south stretch, the Maritsa forms the border between Greece and the European appendage ofTurkey. The map below shows the course of the Maritsa in blue and the Ardas in red:

screenshot 3046

On the map also shows a white line meandering from the Black Sea southeastward, crossing the Maritsa and then the Ardas, then moving west. This white line doesn't denote a geographical feature, but rather the imaginary border between Bulgaria to the north and European Turkey to the south. Below the Maritsa the white line represents the border between Bulgaria to the northwest and the northeasternmost part of Greece to the southeast.

The point of this discussion of the map is that the location of Kapitan Andreevo is locted about a mile west of the where the white (representing the border of Bulgaria and Turkey) line crosses the blue line (representing the Martisa). Thus, Kapitan Andreevo is located essentially on the north bank of the Maritsa river, just north of Greece, and a mile from the Bulgarian border with Turkey. Of course, when the Kapitan Andreevo individuals were alive 1100-500 AD there was no Bulgaria and no Turkey, and while there was a Greece it didn't extend this far north; all of these region was considered Thrace (probably except for the Thracian Chersonese (Gallipoli peninsula) on the European side of the Hellespont/Dardanelles, which was likely Greek (also, Troy lie on the opposite side of the Hellespont strait across from approximately the tip of the Thracian Chersonese peninsula)).

According to the quote from the “Skudra” article, Darius I led his Persian army up the Arda river to its confluence with the Martisa. The only way this makes sense without knowing more is if the Persians had landed somewhere on the coast of the Thracian Sea/Aegean Sea well west of the the Martisa. . Presumbaly, however, the Persians would likely have crossed the Bosphorus (I remember reading that it had sone so on a kind of bridge of ships), or across the Hellepont, since shipping an entire army across the Aegean would have taken much longer across a much narrower strait. Plausibly Darius I chose to first attack some location the land west of the Maritsa on the coast, and then turned north up the Arda.

The main point of this geographic tour of souteastern Bulgaria is that the confluence of the Arda with the Maritsa rivers is only about 7 miles east of the present-day location of the village/border station of Kapitan Andreevo, which is the location of the potentially earliest of the known E-V13 men (exluding AVE07, who if he was E-V13 was anyway a geographical outlier and unlikely the ancestor of today's E-V13 subclades).

The Kapitan Andreevo E-V13 men were dated archaeologically to 1100-500 BC. They were apparently not radiocarbon dated, possibly because their remains (bones) were in

We see that the highest concentration of E-V13 is found in the Albanian population of Kosovo (44%), followed by two Greek populations from specific regions on mainland Greece, followed by Albanians in Macedonia, Albanians in Albania, Serbians, Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Greeks on the Aegean islands, but then in two populations outside of the Balkans followed by various locations throughout Europe, western Asia and North Africa. To this list we can add a certain low but unknown percentage in the Arabian countries.

Based on this data we could predict that E-V13 had originated in the region today known as Albania, or at least had migrated there at an early date, and then spread from there into the Balkans south and east from there (Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria), but less so to the north. However, this is simply a rebuttable presumption that in fact is not supported by the evidence from the known locations of ancient E-V13 men. In the Roman era and especially for a few centuries thereafter, ancient E-v13 is found in large numbers in the regions that later comprised the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, which was much larger than today's Hungary and included Romania,Slovakia, Croatia, and parts of Serbia. Yet today E-V13 is present in Hungary only at a relatively moderate 9%, higher than western and northwestern Europe, but lower than the southern Balkans and equal to the amount in Ukraine. How did E-V13 end up in such large numbers in Hungary, and where did it go after 800 AD? And why is Ukraine so relatively high in E-V13?

Here are a few other observations.

The two specific Greek populations with higher percentages of E-V13 than anywhere but in Kosovo Albanians, which have more than double the percentage of E-V13 generally in Greece, were specifically selected by the King et al study because these locations were the known Neolithic population centers.

The two populationsthe “Turks” outside of Europe with the highest percentage of E-V13 are the Turks on Cyprus (11%) and the Druze population of todays Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan (11%). The E-V13 on Cyprus can be explained because for millenia it had extensive contacts with Greece. But why is the E-V13 percentage so high among a specific ethnoreligious population in the Levant, when the Levant in general appears to have only 3% (Palestinians)? Did E-V13 originate in the Levant but then migrate into Europe where it was able to expand to a much greater extent than in the Levant? The Natufian population from Israel 12,000-9500 BC included members in the E-M35 haplogroup, which was ancestral to E-V13, so this is certainly possible. Or is the Levant E-V13 also a back-migration from the Balkans?

After spending the last couple years trying to understand the history of E-V13 I still don't know the answers to most of these questions, but there are some very clear trends and likely possibilities to all these issues and questions. Davranoglou et al characterized the orgin of E-V13 as “enigmatic”, and it remains that way, but no archaeogenetic study has yet systematically examined all of the evidence that I have, and I at least have a primary hypothesis and a few secondary hypotheses as the origin of E-V13 (and specifically of E-FGC11450). The evidence is scattered, but various patterns are evident nonetheless, as I'll explain.

I believe that E-V13 did originate in Europe, although there's a strong possibility that it originated in western Asia, in the Levant or Anatolia. The evidence from ancient men in the haplogroup indicate that it was a minor haplogroup, barely hanging onto life until 1100 BC at the earliest, after which it exploded into prominence in Hungary and Ukraine, but oddly not so much in the Balkans. However, although the evidence of ancient men in particular locations at particular times is definite for those locations and times, it's absence from other locations and times cannot be understood as definite because its absence could be a result of archaeogentic study bias and/or the practice of crematian burial rather than inhumation burial. Thus, although the evidence from ancient E-V13 men shows no presence whatsoever in Greece, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, we know it's extremely unlikely that this is true, because these are exactly the locations in which today it exists in its highest concentrations. This is bizarre and appears as if the E-V13 populations had migrated to the Balkans/Greece suddenly in the Middle Ages or thereafter, in one huge migration. To some degree this may actually be true, as Davranoglou believes that E-V13 migrated into Albania around 500 AD from some unknown location in the Balkans (which, if true, I believe was probably actually Hungary/Romania, not technically the Balkans).

However, other evidence contradicts the current archaeogenetic evidence from the Balkans. Ancient E-V13 appears in Greek colonies in times and places (Cyprus, Pontic Chersonessos) that indicates it likely came from Greece. Davranoglou shows how E-V13 haplogroup diversity increased from about 1600 BC, indicating a population explosion from that time, and while it can't indicate the geographic region in which this occurred, the present populations indicate it was likely the Balkans. The dearth of ancient E-V13 in Greece and the Balkans outside of Bulgaria are probably due to a surprising lack of archaeogenetic evidence in general from Greece and Albania, possibly combined with the hypothetical possibility that the cultures dominated by E-V13 had possibly practiced crematian burial, resulting in the destruction of the genetic evidence of their existence. Even so, however, a relatively large number of Mycenaean Greek individuals have been genetically studed, and none thus far have been E-V13, although one has been from haplogroup E-CTS1975, the parent of E-V13, and one has been from haplogroup -L618, the parent of E-CTS1975. This is encouraging, as we can use closely related haplogroups as plausible proxies for E-V13, but still no actual anienct E-V13 men have been found in Greece, Albania or Macedonia.

The earliest ancient man in the haplogroup E-FGC11450 is FVD009 from Fonyod, Hungary, around 450 AD. He'd died as an infant and thus had likely been born in the community in or near the modern town of Fonyod, but it's unlikely that his parents had been born in Fonyod. The community in which he had lived was probably an Ostrogoth community then under domination of the Huns, but FVD009's genome indicates that he was neither an Ostrogoth nor a Hun, but likely a Greek. Without further information this sounds highly unlikely, but is actually consistent with the historic evidence that the Ostrogoths/Huns had migrated to Hungary from the Pontic Steppe centered in today's Ukraine, and that Greek colonies existed in the same region on the Black Sea coast. In fact, two E-V13 men ated to around 350 BC have recently been discovered buried in the ancient Greek colony of Chersonessos in Crimea. One of thee men was in haplogroup E-Z5018, ancestral to and relatively closely related to E-FGC11450, and thus when we combine this with the appearance of FVD009 (E-FGC11450), Hacs 21 (E-S2979) and Hacs 22 (E-Z5018), all from Hungary in Ostrogoth communities, we have to come to the surprising conclusion that the core populations of E-FGC11450 and its ancestral haplogroups E-S2979 and E-Z5018 had probably been dwelled in the Greek colonies of Crimea and nearby for at least 800 years before they had migrated to Hungary with the Ostrogoths and Huns. A recent study by Saag et al (2005) also shows five more E-V13 men from Ukraine in this time period: one a probably Greek from Ukraine 400-200 BC,

The Early Studies

(Cruciani, King, AVE07)

In my amateur opion I consider these early studies to be interesting and useful iin various ways, but to be unreliable in determining the origin of E-V13 because these studies relied on microsatellites (STRs) in in their analyses and apparently existed after the discover of the E-V13 mutation but before the discovery of the four intermediary mutations between E-M78 and E-V13. Today FTDNA understnads the mutations/haplogrou flow to be:

E-M78>E-PF2179>E-Z1919>E-L618>E-CTS1975>E-V13

YFull omits E-PF2179, but FTDNA likely has studied a much larger number of ancient men than has YFull, so FTDNA is probably correct. However, for our purposes this is unimportant either way.

However, the earlier studies from Cruciani and King don't mention and of these itermediary haplogroups and thus appear to have understood E-V13 as including E-CTS1975, E-L618, E-Z1919 and E-PF2179. E-V13 does include these haplogroups, as every E-V13 man has these mutations as well in links to their descent from E-M78, but the actual E-V13 only occurred much later in time than did E-PF2179. Furthermore, FTDNA says at the time I'm writing this that it has tested 19,994 men belonging to E-PF2179 (which includes all its subclades including E-V13). However, FTDNA has tested only 14,220 men in E-V13, and while E-V13 is obviously the dominant subclade of E-PF2179, comprising 71% of today's men tested by FTDNA, it still includes 29% percent of men who are E-PF2179 but not E-V13. Furthermore, E-PF2179 was formed around 13,000 BC whereas E-V13 was formed 6,000 year later, around 6950 BC, and thus the histories of the men who are E-PF2179 might be very different from the history of the men in the haplogroups that are E-PF2179 but not E-V13.

For this reason we can't rely on these early studies in determining the origin of E-V13.

Based on STRs, Cruciani had estimated the E-V13 formation date at around 9500 BC and its expansion in Europe at around 3000 BC. The formation date is close to the FTDNA estimate of the TMRCA date of E-PF2179 and the formation and TMRCA dates of E-Z1919 and the formation date of E-L618, all of which are 11,000 BC. Thus, it seems likely that Cruciani was was conflating E-V13 chromosomes with chromosomes from its ancesttral haplogroups up to E-M78.

FTDNA estimates the fomration and TMRCA dates of E-V13 as 6950 BC and 3150 BC. YFull estimates those dates at 6000 BC and 2800 BC. These TMRCA dates are close to Cruciani's range of aroudn 3000 BC for the expansion of E-V13 in Europe.

The TMRCA date for E-V13 is the date of the most recent man who is the common ancestor of all E-V13 men. Does it make sense that E-V13 was formed around 7000-6000 BC and only after 4000-3000 years had passed began to expand, and at a time that coincides with the TMRCA date?

The Lacan et al study from 2011, which is suspect because it relied primarily on STRs, and although it claimed that AVE07 had the E-V13 SNP, there must be some question as to whether that was SNP was truly the E-V13 SNP rather an E-V13 ancestral SNP, since this study is never cited in the few studies that have even briefly discussed the origin of E-V13. The Lacan data needs to be reexamined with modern techniques and the haplogroup of AVE07 definitely determined. Until that time, Lacan's finding remains suspect, especially when it is so anomalyous, as there is no sign of E-V13 anywhere in the world after the date of AVE07 (5000 BC) until at least 4000 years later with the Kapitan Andreevo men or (,,,,,,,id of Ukr...

Z1919, E-L618 and E-CTS1975 are found in Europe from at least 6000 BC through 1100 BC, the earliest date for a verified E-V13 in Europe and anywhere in the world (if we set aside the issue of AVE07 from Spain 5000 BC, who (and anywhere in the world).

If E-V13 was located in Europe at this time as a result of having been part of the Anatolian Neolitlhic Farmer (ANF) migration into Europe around 7000 BC, it doesn't really make sense because the other ANF haplogroups such as G2a are found much more frequently in Neolithic, Copper/Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Europe than are the ancestral

Cruciani's conclusion the E-V13 probably originated in western Asia is probably best understood today as that E-PF2179 had originated in western Asia and tells us nothing about the origin of E-V13.

King points out that his date estimates for E-V13 in Greece and Crete differ from the estimates of Cruciani and explains that “This discrepancy arises mainly because of differences in the choice of mutation rate used. Our choice of the evolutionary mutation rate is based upon its concordance with other episodes of rapid domographic growth (e.g. the Bantu Iron Age expansion in Africa and the colonization of New Zealand by Polynesians). The expansion of E3b1a2-V13 in Crete provides inconsistent internal control

but if experts don't agree, we can simply pick and choose....

The Kapitan Andreevo Buribals

Below is a list of all of the Kapitan Andreevo individuals, along with two other ancient individuals from Bulgaria—one from Svilengrad, located about 8 miles northeast of Kapitan Andreevo and Diamandovo, located 88 mies southeast of Kapitan Andreevo.

ID Date Y Hg mtDNA Hg AS

Kapitan Andreevo 20182 3000-1300 BC Q1b-BZ1499 J1c+16261

Kapitan Andreevo I20186 1100-500 BC R1a-Z93 U5a1a1 90

Kapitan Andreevo I20185 1100-500 BC E-BY3880 H7c1

Kapitan Andreevo I20183 1100-500 BC E-BY3880 T2+26289

Kapitan Andreevo I20180 1100-500 BC E-BY3880 K1c1 177

Kapitan Andreevo I20181 1100-500 BC E-CTS1273 U8b181 316

Kapitan AndreevoI 19490 1100-500 BC E-M78 H13alal

Kapitan Andreevo I19494 1100-500 BC E-L618 H7c1

Kapitan Andreevo I19495 1100-500 BC E-L618 H55+153

Kapitan Andreevo I20184 1100-500 BC Female H5 236

Kapitan Andreevo I19493 1100-500 BC Female K1a4a1 129

Kapitan Andreevo I19497 1100-500 BC Female U5a2b

Svilengrad I19487 1100-500 BC E-M78 H13B1

Diamandievo I19481 700-500 BC Female J1c 334

This group consists of 14 individuals: 10 males and 4 females. The 10 males com from 2 root haplogroups: Q1b, Rla and E-M78. In a later section I'll return to these individuals to try to fit them into the historical context of the time and within the context of the E-M78 haplogroup as a whole, but for this section I'll look only at their G25 ancestries and on a study by Lazaridis (2002) that places their genomes into a historic context. The last column contains information from the Lazaridis study which i'll discuss after looking at the G25 genomes.

G25 Analysis of the Kapitan Andreevo Individuals

We have G25 ancestry models for 8 of the Kapitan Andreevo individuals, which come from the “Ancient Samples” feature of the exploreyourdna.com website.

Kapitan Andreevo I20182 3000-1300 BC Q1b-BZ1499

Yamnaya Samara 40.19%

Anaolia Barcin Neolithic 26.09%

Anatolia Tepecik Ciftlik Neolithic 24.02%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 9.58%

WHG 0.12%

Kapitan Andreevo I20186 1100-500 BC R1a-Z93

Anatolia Barcin 68.75%

Yamnaya Samara 16.92%

Kura-Araxes aArmenia 7.97%

AnatoliaTepecik Ciftlik Neolithic 5.52%

Han 0.84%

Kapitan Andreevo I20180 1100-500 AD E-BY3880

Anatolia Barcin 41.52%

Anatolia Tepecik Ciftlik 39.31%

Yamnaya Samara 15.17%E-FGC11450 and its Ancestral Haplogroups

FTDNA YFull

Haplogroup Formed TMRCA Haplogroup Formed TMRCA

E-M215 40,000 BC 33000 BC 39200 BC 32600 BC

E-M35 33,000 BC 23000 BC 32600 BC 21900 BC

E-V68 23,000 BC 19000 BC E-L539 21900 BC 17000 BC

E-M78 19000 BC 13000 BC 17000 BC 11100 BC

E-PF2179 13000 BC 11000 BC ----- -----

E-Z1919 11000 BC 11000 BC 11100 BC 9700 BC

E-L618 11000 BC 7300 BC 9700 BC 6000 BC

E-CTS1975 7300 BC 6950 BC E-CTS10912 6000 BC 6000 BC

E-V13 6950 BC 3150 BC 6000 BC 2800 BC

E-CTS8814 3150 BC 2950 BC` E-Z1057 2800 BC 2800 BC

E-CTS5856 2950 BC 2400 BC E-CTS1273 2800 BC 2400 BC

E-BY4877 2400 BC 2300 BC ----- -----

E-BY3880 2300 BC 2250 BC 2400 BC 2100 BC

E-FTT49 2250 BC 2100 BC ------ ------

E-Z5018 2100 BC 1750 B 2100 BC 1600 BC

E-S2979 1750 BC 1650 BC 1600 BC 1600 BC

E-FGC11457 1650 BC 1500 BC 1600 BC 1500 BC

E-FGC11451 1500 BC 1050 BC 1500 BC 1500 BC

E-FGC11450 1050 BC 950 BC 1500 BC 1500 BC

E-FT389281 950 BC 800 BC E-Y257534 1500 BC 800 BC

E-FT388654 800 BC 1 BC ----- -----

E-FT388527 1 BC 450 AD ----- -----

Kura-Araxes Armenia 2.32%

WHG 1.49%

Kapitan Andreevo 20183 1100-500 BC E-BY3880

Anatolia Barcin 75.36%

Yamnaya Samara 23.33%

WHG 1.30%

Kapitan Andreevo 20185 1100-500 BC E-BY3880

Anatolia Barcin 75.50%

Yamnaya Samara 20.01%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 4.23%

Nganasan 0.27%

Kapitan Andreevo 20181 1100-500 BC E-CTS1273

Anatolia Barcin 73.69%

Yamnaya Samara 22.25%

WHG 1.79%

Iran Shahr-i-i-Sokhta BA2 1.31%

Iran Ganj Dareh Neolithic 0.96%

Kapitan Andreevo 20184 1100-500 BC Female

Anatolia Barcin 77.47%

Yamnaya Samara 15.37%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 6.56%

Dinka 0.60%

Diamandovo I19481 1100-500 BC Female

Anatolia Tepecik-Ciftlik 43%

Anatolia Barcin 36%

Yamnaya Samara 19%

WHG 1.29%

Brazil LapaDoSanto 0.14%

Kapitan Andreevo I20182 (haplogroup Q1b-BZ1499)(3000-1300) is an outlier in terms of haplogroup, time period and autosomal DNA. We'll come back to him later, but note that his if we shifted half of his Yamnaya to Anatolian his genome would be quite close to the Iron Age Kapitan Andreevo genome, suggesting that he could be ancestral to the later Iron Age individuals from a population similar to that of the Iron Age individuals but lacking in Yamnaya.

KA I20186 (R1a-Z93) is an outlier in terms of his haplogroup, but autosomally I20186 is very close to the other Kapitan Andreevo individuals. R1a-Z93, like Q1b, was a steppe haplogroup that was foreign to the Balkans. However, because his genome was similar to that of the E-M78 KA men, I20186's paternal ancestors had likely lived in the Balkans for at least several generations.

Average G25 of The 1100-500 BC Kapitan Andreevo Individuals

I had available G25 analyses for 6 of the individuals from the aove list (I20186, I20180, I20181, I20283, I20184, I20135). An average G25 for the 6 individuals is:

Kapitan Andreevo Average Bulgaria Iron Age 1100-500 BC

Ancestry Avg Range # w/Ancestry

Anatolia (Barcin+Tepecik Ciftlik 76% 74-81% 6/6

Anatolia Barcin 69% 42-77% 6/6

Anatolia Tepecif-Ciftlik 7.5% 0-39% 2/6

Yamnaya 19% 15-23% 6/6

Kura-Araxes Armenia 4% 0-8% 4/6

WHG 0.76% 0-1.79% 3/6

Iran (Shah-i-Sokhta+Gnaj-Dareh 0.38% 0-2.27 1/6

Misc: Morocco Taforalt, Nganasan, Dinka

This is too small a sample to genearalize beyond the time and place of this region of Thrace (Bulgaria), but Diamandovo I19481 from this same time period and 100 miles southeast had a similar genome. This genome is similar to the genome that Davranoglou called the “Bulgarian Iron Age” genome, probably in large part because these are most of the ancient individuals that we have for Bulgaria during the Iron Age. Similaryl, this genome is similar to the geonome that Olalde calls “Balkans Iron Age-related”, although Olalde includes ithin this category individuals with a larger amount of Yamnaya (up to at least 37%). Olalde was studying the Roman Age individuals from Viminacium, Timiicum Minus and elsewhere in Moesia (Serbia) before the Goth/Hun invasion of Pannonia.

Next we'll look at a similar genome, from the Greek Bronze Age, which ended around the beginning of the time range of the Kapitan Andreevo and Diamandievo individuals.

Ostrogoths

The branch of the Goths that later became known as the Ostrogoths was called the Greuthungi and were led by the Amal family that later included Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy. The Goths as a whole had originatedprobably from Gotland in southern Sweden, and by at least 100 AD had migrated with the related Gepids from Sweden into what is now Poland, as the dominant force in the Wielbark culture which was involved in the amber trade. Over time the Goths and Gepids moved south onto the Pontic Steppe, and conquered and ruled over all the other peoples that lived there, indlucidnt the Sarmatians and Alans. They also had dome form of interaction with the Bosporan Kingdom, “an ancient Greco-Scythian state located in eastern Crimea and the Taman Peninsula on the shores of the Cimmerian Bosporus, centered in the present-day Strait of Kerch. It was the first truly Hellenistic state, in the sense that a mixed population adopted the Greek language and civiliazation, under aristocratic consolidated leadership.” (Wikipedia “Bosporan Kingdom”) The coe of the kingdom were the ancient Greek colonies that had been there from the 7th-5^th centruies BC. In 63 BC the Bosporan Kngdom became a client state of the Roman Empire, and in 63 AD was regoraanized as part of the Roman province of Moesia Inferiro, which stretched from the western shore of the Black Sea along the southern shore of the Danube to Viminacium in the northeastern part of Moesia Superior. This reorganization of the Bosporan kingdom only lastred until 68 AD, after which it once again became a client kingdom of the Roman Empire (and after the split of the empire, to the Eastern Roman Empire).

Throught the 200's there was friction between the Goths and the Romans, with the Goths making incursions into Dacia (Romania) north of the Danube and Moesia south of the Danube. From 270-275 AD the Romans abandoned Dacia to the Goths, resettling the Roman citizens there to Moesia. In 370 AD the Huns conquered the Alans, whom they vassalized, and the Huns and Alans then conqured the Goths on the Pontic Steppe. Some of the Goths fled the Huns and with Roman permission settled in the Roman Empire south of the Danube. However, other Gepids and Goths, including the Greuthungi, who were led by the Amal family and later bcame known as Ostrogoths, became vassals of the Goths and assimilated into Hun society, adopting various Hun customs such as ACD (skull deformation). However, these Goths still lived as a separate people, though under Hun control.

The Huns and their vassal Germanic and Iranic steppe nomad tribes put pressure on the Roman Empire, which in 433 AD ceded Pannonia to the Huns much as it had earlier ceded Dacia to the Goths. The Huns moved inot the Great Hungarian Plain east of the Danube, in which the Iazyges Sarmatians had lived, and the Ostrogoths moved into Pannonis. “These Amal-led Goths appaently first settled in the Pannonian area of Lake Balaton and Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica), on the Roman Danube frontier. The land that they acquired between Vindobona (Vienna) and Sirmium....” (Wikipedia “Ostrogoths”) “The Pannonian Ostrogoths had fought alongsie both Alans and Huns. Like several other tribal peoples, they became one of the many Hunnic vassals fighting in Europe, as in the Battle of Chalons in 451, where the Huns were defeated by the Roman general Aetius, accompanied by a contingent of Alans and Visigoths.” (ibid) “Valamir, the uncle of Theodoric the Great, is even depicted as Attila's most highly valued leader along with Ardaric of the Gepids.” (ibid)F

Attila died in 453 AD and Attila's sons fought each other for leadership, which the Gepids and other vassals took advantage of to free themselves from Hun control in the Battle of Nedao (454 AD). The Gepids led this insurrection and it isn't clear whether the Huns fought on the side of the Huns or with the rebels. The Gepids then formed a kingdom east of the Danube, while the Ostrogoths remained in Pannonia. The Ostrogoths fought a battle with the Huns in 469 AD , and another battle with the Gepids and allies that same year (Battle of Bolia); the Ostrogoths won both battles. “Theoddemir, father of Theodoric, brought these Goths into East Roman territory in 473/474...Theodemir and Theodoric moved their Goths around the Balkans....” (ibid) Eventually Theodoric led the Goths into Italy, which they conqured and occupied. It appears that Pannonia was remained a part of Theodoric's Kingdom of Italy, and my belief is that the poulaiton of Szolad was not actually Lombard but was probably a mixed popultion that included many of the Ostrogoths (which explains the Mycenaean-like genetic continuity getween Fonyod, Hacs and Szolad (SZ19).

Fonyod and Hacs

Fonhod and Hacs were definitely Ostrogothic communities. It's likely that most or all of the individuals with predominantly northern European as opposed ot southern European, were Goths; these people usually had a genome that was roughly 50% Yamnaya, 35% Anatolia Barcin and 15% WHG, and the males with the R1b haplogroup. The female Fonyod FVD003 was likely a mix of Hun and Goth, with 28% Han and 7% Nganasan (Siberian), and with smaller amounts of a variety of populations that was characteristic of Huns and other steppe nomads. FVD004 was from the EEF G2a haplogroup but a Goth-like genome (with additionally about 2% East Asian ancestry).

The populaiton of Hacs was similar to that of Fonyod in that it had an R1b Goth, but also had a haplogrou I (probably I1a) and a J2b male as well, both with Goth-like genomes.

It's clear that the people in Fonyod and Hacs with northern Europeans genomes were Ostrogothic, but what was the origin of the southern European individuals, including the 3 E-V13 men? The Mycenaean-like genomes point to a Greek or Thracian origin, but to have retained this genome their ancestors would have had to have remained unmixed with other populations for many generations. The genetic identity of the Thracians appears unknown, but if the Kapitan Andreevo individuals can be considered proto-Thracian or Thracian, then the Thracian genome would be ver similary or even the same as the Mycenaean-like genome, or perhaps somewhat closer to that of the Mydalia Mycenaean popultion with its somewhat higher amounts of Yamnaya ancestry.

I think it's more likely that the southern Europeans in the Lake Balaton communities, specificaly FVD009, FVD006, FVD011, Hacs 21, Hacs 22, Hacs 5, Balatonszemes 148, and of course SZ19, were Greeks from Chersonessos, Panticapaeum, Olbia, or elsewhere in the Bosporan Kingdom, who were swept up, willingly or not, into the migration of the Ostrogoths and Huns into Pannonia.

Strontium Isotopes at Hacs

Practising pastoralism in an agricultural environment: An isotopic analysis of the impact of the Hunnic incursions on Pannonian populations | PLOS One

Hakenbeck “Practising pastoralism”

The Hacs

screenshot 2878

Bosporan Kingdom

Greek colonization in the Black sea region dates back into the Greek Dark Ages, from which there is ample evidence of cultural and economic exchange as well as hostility between Greek and local populations, such as the Thracians, Dacians, and later Scythians.

Scythian expansion and unification in the fifth century BC led to many of these settlements being wiped out or turned into Scythian protectorates, as was the case in the city of Olbia. It has been suggested that this pressure allowed the Archeanactid dynasty to create the first Bosporan state, lasting from 480-438 BC, at which point it was overthrown by the Spartocid Dynasty, beginning a period of economic expansion.

The Black Sea Greeks before this period had dealt largely in goods like animals, slaves, furs, and fish, with grain playing a minor role. Stemming from conditions caused by the Peloponnesian War, the city of Athens had acquired a large demand for grain, and the strain on their empire meant they could do little about Spartocids attacking the city of Nymphaeum, on which they relied on for Black Sea trade. The Spartocids were willing to trade their grain with Athens in exchange for mainland goods and silver, which presumably furthered Athenian decline.[12]

“[T]he Bosporan army was said to contain no more than two thousand Greeks, and an equal number of Thracians, fighting as mercenaries.” (Wikipiedia “Bosporan Kingdom”) However, “the vast majority of the army was Scythian, with ten thousand cavalry and more than twenty thousand infantry.” (ibid). This was under the Spartocid dynasty, which which ruled the Bosphoran Kingdom from 548-108 BC (the Spartocids were probably originally Thracian). “The Spartocids were well known as a line of enlightened and wise princes...They maintained close relations with Athens, their best customer for the Bosporan grain export: Leucon I of Bosporus created privileges for Athens ships at Bosporan ports. The attic orators make numerous references to this. In regurn the Athenians granted Leucon Athenian citizenship and made decrees in honour of him and his sons.” (ibid)

From 107-64 BC the Bosporan Kingdom was part of Kindom of Pontus, which covered much of western Anatolia west of Armenia (which was then much larger than today's Armenia, incluidng the Lake Van regions (which has some E-V13). In 63 BC Rome conqured the Kingdom of Pontus and thereafter controlled Anatolia.

The Shepherds of the Romans

One mothod of determiing this is to use historical records to determine where the Goths had come from. The Goth homeland at this time is undisputedly that of the north Pontic region—north of the Black Sea including the Crimean peninsula and around the Sea of Azov. The Goths had arrived in this region in the 200's AD from Wielbark Poland, and had conquered the peoples who had previously lived there, including the Sarmatians and Alans. Before that the region had been occupied by the Scythians and before them the Cimmerians.

But also present in the regions were Thracians and Greeks. another population also lived in this region, which at this time was called the Bosoporan kingdom, also called the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus. This was “an ancient Greco-Scythian state located in eastern Crimea and the Tamann Peninsula on the shores of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, centered in the present-day Strait of Kerch. It was the first truly “Lellenistic” state, in the sense that a mixed population adopted the Greek language and civilization, under aristocratic consolidated leadership.” (Wikipedia “Bosporan Kingdom”)

Screenshot 2859

screenshot 2857

screenshot 2860

The core of the Bosporan Kingdom was the ancient Greek colonies that had been planted there by Milesians (Greeks from the Greek colony of Miletus on the Aegian coast of Anatolia) as early as the 600's AD, and by the Dorians. Thracians later became influential in the Bosporan Kingdom.

The following are locations at which E-M78 men were buried during the Mycenean age through 1 AD, with the Kapitan Andreevo men omitted:

Kirrha CGG_2_022415 1677-1481? Greece Phocis E1b1b1a1ba~E-L618/E-V13

Kydonia XAN014 1700-1200 BC Greece Crete E-CTS1975

Odessa UKR007 996-851 BC Ukraine E-V13

Kecicayiri CGG022162 775-543 BC Turkey Phrygian Highlands E-V13

Komarno I14465 650-500 BC Slovakia E-V13

Himera I17872 480 BC Sicily E-CTS1273

Himera I10946 480 BC Sicily E-BY3880

Himera I10950 480 BC Sicily E-BY3880

Marvintsi I10166 500-100 BC North Macedonia E-L618

Poltava UKR091 500-400 BC Ukraine Dnipro left bank E-L618

Poltava UKR089 500-300 BC Ukraine Dnipro left bank E-L618

Chersonesos CGG021475 450-250 BC Crimea Greek Colony E-Z5018

Chersonesos CGG021473 450-250 BC Crimea Greek Colony E-BY3880

Polatava UKR090 400-300 BC Ukraine Dnipro left bank E-L618

Prague 16272 400-200 BC Czechia E-Z1057

Scythian scy197 400-150 BC Moldova E-BY3880

Mykolaiv UKR152 392-206 BC Ukraine Probably Greek E-V13

Sveti Križ I5724 382-206 BC Croatia E-BY3880

Caishichang C3312 336-20 BC China Xinjiang E-M35

Széles Földek I18832 320-200 BC Hungary E-BY3880

Győr Kert I18527 320-180 BC Hungary E-BY3880

Rozovo I19500 300-200 BC Bulgaria E-Z1057

This list shows an intersting history of the line, which presumably migrated from the KMK culture in Moldova into the Balkans after 2000. By 1700-1500 BC E-M78 is found in Mycenaean Greece (Kirrha, near Delphi) and on Crete. After the collapse of the Mycnaean civilization and the migration of the Phrygians into Anatolia (both arond 1180 AD), we find The Kapitan Andreevo men in Thrace, but also UKR007 in the Ukraine, with a G25 that Mycenaean-like but except for a slight excess of Yamnaya (28% versus the Mycenaean-like maximum of 25%). The Mycenaean-like genome probably evolved in Greece, so UKR007 might be a back-migirant to Ukraine.

A century or two later we find Kecicayiri CGG022162 (775-543 BC), a recently discovered E-V13 man of unknown subclade who apparently was buried in Anatolia in the “Phrygian Highlands” This is very interesting as Herodotus stated that the Phrygians originated in the Balkans: “As the Macedonians say, these Phrygians were called Briges as long as they dwelt in Europe, where they were neighbors of the Macedonians; but when they changed their home to Asia, they changed their name also and were called Phrygians.The Armenians, who are settlers from Phrygia, were armed like the Phrygians. Both these together had as their commander Artochmes, who had married a daughter of Darius.” (Herodotus 7.73, translated by Godley 1920). Herodotus also says that the Armenians were related to the Phrygians and thus also came from the Balkans, which is interesting because Armenian is in fact a Paleo-Balkan language. In the same passage Herodotus also notes that that Phrygians dressed similarly to the Paphlagonians, who lived further north in Anatolia; I mention this because, as I'll briefly discuss later, the people who lived in Hungary before the Avars and Hungarians were said to include Paphlygonians.

Identifying the Ethnicity of Fonyod FVD009, Hacs 21 & Hacs 22

The Kapitan Andreevo individuals were buried in today's Bulgaria, but at the time they had died it was possibly already called Thrace. It's tempting to therefore consider them to have been a part of the population later called by that name, but we don't actually know if that's true. They could have been Greeks, Bryges/Phrygians, Macedonians, Thracians, Paeonians, or members of some other related population. The fact that all these Balkan/Greek populations spoke a variety of Paleo-Balkan, which was furthermore, Indo-European, indicates that they were likely paternally related through descent from the same Yamnaya-derived population that migrated into the Balkans around 2000 BC.

Of the Paleo-Balkan languages, the only ones to have survived to the modern day Greek, Albanian and Armenian. Armenian is more distant from the other Paleo-Balkan languages, and the most likely explanation for the non-Balkan location of Armenian is that the Paleo-Balkan languages originated with one group that lived someone where in the north or west Pontic region, with one group migrating southwest into the Balkans and another group moving east and then south through the Caucaus to Armenia. The Balkan group then diversified, with Greek and Phrygian being more related to each other than the others, including the Albanian/Illyrian branch. “The classification of ancient Macedonian and its relationship to Greek is also under investigation. Sources suggest that Macedonian is in fact a variation of Doric Greek, or alternative a closely related sister language grouped together with Greek in a family called Helenic.” (Wikipedia “Paleo-Balkan languages”) Paeonian is another Paleo-Balkan language spoken in Paeonia “located to the north of Macedon, south of Dardania, west of Thrace, and east of the souternmost Illyrians.” (Wikipedia “Paeonian language”) Too little is known of the Paeonian language to accurately classify it and the hypotheses are all over the place.

Although the Kapitan Andreevo population included the earliest-known E-V13 men, it also included other E-M78 men including two E-L618 men. This appears to indicate that E-V13 in Europe was in fact found with other of their E-M78 ancestral haplogroups (although I can't say whether E-L618 was in fact the terminal haplogroup of these two KA men; it's possible that theywere actually E-V13 but that their hplogroups had only been determined to the E-L618 level).

Ancient E-M78 in Greece

Hacs 22 is a key individual in my hyothesis that the Fonyod and Hacs communities had come from the Crimean (or nearby) Greek communities along with the Goths and Huns, because we have proof that the E-Z5018 haplogroup had been in Chersonesos at least from around 350 BC, or 800 years earlier than the birh of Hacs 22. Here's the G25 for that individual from Chersonesos:

Chersonesos CGG021475 450 BC E-Z5018

Anatolia Barcin 59%

Yamnaya 17%

Kura-Araxes Armeani 17%

Anatolia Tepcik-Ciftlik 5%

Han 1.45%

The small amount of Han ancestry in CCG021475 shouln't be understood as having recently come from the steppe because any admixture of his immediate ancestors with anyone other than Greeks would have destroyed his Mycenaean-like genome (although that could have restored through several later generations of admixture with only Greeks). Several of the Mycenaeans had small amounts of Han ancestry, which had probably come earlier from when the E-V13 lines were presumably in the north Pontic region e in the Usatove and/or Shrubnaya or related cultures, just before their 2500 BC migration into the Balkans/Greece.

likely was a Greek, and given his burial location and the historical context, as well as and analysis of the ancient E-V13 men and those in E-V13 ancestral haplogorups, it's likely that his parents were Greeks from Chersonesos or another Greek colony in Crimea or elsewhere in the north Pontic region who, willingly or unwillingly, migrated with the Goths and Huns to Pannonia. His ancestors may have lived in the north Pontic region from the founding of their colony as early as the 500's BC, or may have later migrated there from Megara, Heraclea Pontica or elsewhere. Alternative, it's possible that he was from his ancestors had left Chersonessos as early as 100 AD and migrated to Poland in the Wielbark culture to pursue the amber trade, and had lived in a small colony of Greeks there, later moving with the Goths back into the North Pontic region.

There's probably no way of knowing how FVD009's line had gotten to the north Pontic region, but only a range of possibilities. But because FVD009's genome looks to be unadmixed Mycenaean-like, it appears highly likely that all of his ancestors for 2,000 years had likely been ethnically and culturally Greek whether or not the more recent lines had lived in Greece.

Fonyod FVD001 (278) Female

Yamnaya Samara 44%

AnatoliaTepecik Ciftlik 35%

WHG 11%

Anatolia Barcin 9%

Nganasan 0.87%

Gambian 0.36%

Jarawa 0,29%

FVD001 does not have a Mycenean-like genome, as it is far too high in both Yamnaya and WHG and far to low in Anatolian. If her trace Nganasan and Jarawa ancestries mean anything at all, they could have come through the EHG component of her Yamnaya ancestry rather than through any more recent East Asian ancestry. Given her Tepecik-Ciftlik, which likely came from Aegean ancestry, her WHG from Europe and her lack of Kura-Araxes from or Iranian, it's likely that her ancestry was mixed Greek and Central European or Gothic.

Ancient Scandinavians were around 50% Yamnaya, 30% Anatolia Barcin and 20% WHG, so given her likely history her gnomes looks to be admixed Goth and Greek, possibly about ¾ Goth and ¼ Greek.

Fonyod FVD 002 (304) R1b

Yamnaya Samara 47.38%

Turkey Barcin Neolithic 41.94%

WHG 10.67%

FVD002, given his Y-chromosome haplogroup and the historical background, was likel a Goth. Compare his genome to that of VK468, an R1b Viking from Gotland (the presumed origin of the Goths) 900-1050 AD:

VK468

Yamnaya 51%

Anatolia Barcin 39%

WHG 10.47%

However, it's not certain that the Goths had retained their typically Scandinavian ancestry after 400 years in Wielbark Poland and the north Pontic region. Whether they did or not would have depended on whether or not female Goths had also migrated with them, although even then many of the Goths, married to Goths or not, would have father children by local women in these regions, including rom the Slavic population whose men were in the R1a haplogroup. I'm not certain if Goth genomes could be distinguished from R1a Polish genomes at that time, so this is all up in the air as the Vyas study didn't examine that question with more sophisticated genetic tools.

Fonyod FVD003 (305) Female

Han 28.26%

Yamnaya Samara 24.97%

Turkey Barcin Neolithic 13.46%

Iran Shahr i Sokhta BA2 8.52%

Nganasan 7.02%

Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic 5.47%

WHG 4.76%

Dinka 4.63%

Brazil LapaDoSanto 9600BP 1.66%

Morocco Taforalt 1.26

FVD003 died as an infant. Her ancestry is consistest with being genetically a Hun, although the somewhat high WHG (for a Hun) might indicate that she was genetically half Hun. The Hun genomoe was highly variable but always included signifcant amounts of East Asian Han and Nganasan ancestries, as well as Yamnaya and smaller amounts of various ancestries from western Asia and Africa as is present here (usually having from 8-11 G25 ancestries, as shown here).

I

Fonyod VVD006 (444) FVD006 Female

Turkey Barcin Neolithic 73.15%

Yamnaya Samara 22.94%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 2.34%

Iran Ganj Dareh Neolithic 1.57%

FVD009 is clearly Mycenaean-like, with her Yamnaya on the highest end of the Mycenaean range (although, as we've seen, the Mycenaean Mydalia population had Yamnaya as high as 34%).

UR_Barcin_N: 69.44 %
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara: 28.93 %
IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728: 1.44 %
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N: 0.19 %

Who Were the Kapitan Andreevo Indiviudals in the Historical Context?

Were the E-V13 Men Murdered?

As it appears that trepanation after the Neolithic may have been more common in Greece than in the rest of the Balkans, the fact that this E-V13 man had been trepanned might be evidence that he and the other E-V13 men were Greek.

At the earlier end (1100 BC) of the estimated time span of the Kapitan Andreevo individuals, the Bronze Age Collapse was well under way if not fully completed. Other than XAN014 from Crete, no E-V13 men or other E-M78 have yet been found in Mycenaean Greece, so the Kapitann Ancreevo individuals may have been from Greek populations (orfrom ancestral Yamnaya/local populations common to Greeks) from regions north of Greece, and may have been moving into Greece as part of populations claimed by Greek writers to have moved into Greece (the Dorians) or Anatolia (Bryges/Phrigians) around this time. I'll discuss this later.

Mixed Populaton of Mycenaean-like and other E-V13 Men

Of the E-V13 Kapitan Andreevo men, 2 had genomes that were Mycean-like and 2 had genomes that were not Mycenaean-like. The two E-L618 and 1 E-M78 man were all non-Mycenaean-like.

Here are the genomes of the 2 E-V13 men with genomes not Mycenaean-like:

Kapitan Andreevo I20183 1100-500 AD Thrace E-BY3880

Anatolia Barcin 75%

Yamnaya 23%

WHG 1.30%

Kapitan Andreevo I20185 1100-500 AD Thrace E-BY3880

Anatolia Barcin 76%

Yamnaya 20%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 4.23%

Nganason 0.27%

I don't know why Lazaridis had determined that I20183 was not Mycenaean-like., as he fits the G25 pattern that appears to match the Mycenatains from Lazaridis. In fact, he's quite close to Boyanovo I8792 quite closely:

Boyaonovao I18792 300-500 AD Bulgaria E-V13

Anatolia Barcin 75%

Yamnaya 19%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 4.74%

Dinkia 0.80%

Morocco Taforalt 0.40%

It's possible that the small difference in Armenian was enough to lower the CHG just below the threshhold in the Lazaridis model, as that seems to be the only significan difference between the two (other than the trace ancestries that are presumaly irrelevant). In most of the few other Mycenaean-like individuals in which the Kura-Araxes was low, there was some other source on non-Yamnaya CHG. However, this was not true of Delphi I13578 from Phokis:

Delphi I13578 1397-1222 BC Greece Female

Anatolia Barcin 73%

Yamnaya 17%

Levant PPNB 7.61%

Kura-Araxes Armenia 1.44%

WHG 1.00%

Here there is even less Armenian ancestry than with Kapitan Andreevo I20185, but a relatively large amount of Levant ancestry. As I understand the G25 model the Levant PPNB ancestry is distinct from PPNB.

On the whole, I don't understand why Kapitan Andreevo I20185 is considered not to be Mycenean-like while the Boyanovo and Dalphi individuals are. Of course the Delphi individual actually was a Mycenaean, so in the cultural sence she was a Mycenaean, but if the G25 model is correct her CHG would be quite small, smaller even than that of the Kapitan Ancreevo non-Mycenean-like individual.

I don't have any G25 models for the other non-Mycenaean-like Kapitan Andreevo individuals, but if we assume they they, likely I20183, lack any of the Kura-Araxes Armenia element, how can we explain this?

Origin of E-V13

Davranglou et al ( ) characterized the origin of E-V13 as “enigmatic”. This due to the paucity of ancient E-V13 remains before those of the Kapitan Andreevo men 1100-500 BC. The only E-V13 man from before that time was AVE07 from Spain 5000 BC. The Lacan study that identified AVE07 as E-V13 was early (2011) by Lacan et al and mostly used microsatellites (STRs) to identify the Y-chromosome haplogroups, but Lacan also identified the E-V13 SNP mutation in AVE07, so that identification should be accurate (Lacan also identifed 16 STRs, which I compared to my own STRs and found a difference of 6 STRs, which the AI Grok 3 stated was within the range is should be for the 7,000 year difference between us, thus further indicating that AVE07 was likely E-V13). Davranoglou, which is the only study I've read that spent any time at all discussing the origin of E-13, didn't cite the Lacan study and probably view it as an outlier due to its distance in time and place from the Balkans, the greatest concentration of E-V13 today.

However, Spain is located just across the Mediterraean from North Africa, which may actually be the place of origin of E-V13 as Morocco is the location of the earliest of the known ancient men in the lines ancestral to E-V13 (the E-M78 Taforalt population of as early as 13,000 BC. It's possible that AVE07 or his ancestros crossed the Mediterranean into Spain, but it's also possible that his ancestors had instead migrated to the Levant and from there joined the Anatolian Neolithic Farmer migration into Europe.

An ancient man in a hapogroup ancestral to E-V13 lived in Algeria 10,000-7000 BC, another lived in Jordan in the Levant 7700-7500 BC. Another lived in Tunisia 6000-5850 BC. After that, the vast majority of the ancient men in haplogroups ancestral to E-V13 men were found buried in Eur ope, an early notable exception being Geoksyur I8525 from Turkmenistan 3100-2900 BC.

However, according to Cruciani the likely origin of E-V13 was in western Asia as early as 9500 BC, as modern E-V13 men from this region have more variable E-V13 chromosomes. Thus, it's likely that E-V13 originated in western Asia, although it's still possible that it had originated in North Africa but had early migrated to west Asia where Ain Ghazal I710 was found in Jordn 7700-7500 BC.

Based on the chromosomes from modern men, FTDNA estimates that E-V13 was formed around 6950 BC but that its TMRCA (Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor) date was 3150 BC. YFull's estimate is similar, with a formation date of 6000 BC and a TMRCA dat of 2800 BC. If accurate, this means that although E-V13 was formed around 6000 BC or earlier, the common ancestor of all E-V13 men dates only to around 3000 BC, which further means that all of the E-V13 lines from 6000 BC had died out except for one surviving line dated to 3000 BC.

Cruciani determined that although E-V13 was formed as early as 9500 BC, it only expanded in Europe beginning around 2500 BC, which is similar to the TMRCA dates from FTDNA and YFull.

Although most ancient individuals in lines ancestral to E-V13 were found in Europe, this doesn't necessarily imply tat E-V13 during this time period was also found in Europe (other than the outlier AVE07). The existence of Geoksyur I8525 in Turkmenistan at the time of the TMRCA age of E-V13 implies the possibility that the ancestors of today's E-V13 entered Europe from Turkmenistan, perhaps joining steppe nomadic groups that moved into the north Pontic region north of the Black Sea. I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened, but rather just saying that it's a possibilit. Geoksyur I8525 was not E-V13, and so whether E-V13 during this time period was in Europe or Central Asia, we're only guessing as to its location by analogizing to the ancient members in its ancestral haplobroups.

The Davranoglous paper published in its supplementary tables a table of IBD (Identical by Descent) ancient matches of Puspokladany 23 (PLE-23), an E-FGC11450 man from Hungary 950-1000 AD. We'll look at a few of those matches soon, but first let's return to the earliest-known E-V13 men, the Kapitan Andreevo men of 1100-500 BC.

We don't know why whether the Kapitan Andreevo (KA) men lived at that location or lived elsewhere. KA I10280, KA I20181 and KA I19494 were buried one atop the other in one pit grave, and although the bones were badly degraded through natural processes, the archaeologists believed that I20181 and I19494 may have had their hands bound behind their backs when they were laid in the pit. I20185, from a different pit, had a crushed skull, the archaeologists suggesting perhaps from being dumped into the pit. Thus, 3 or 4 of the earliest E-V13 men show some evidence of having been murdered and then dumped unceremoniously into pits, which might indicate that they hadn't lieve there.

If the Kapitan Andrevo men lived closer to the earliest part of their time range, 1100 BC, they may have been Mycenaeans displaced during the chos of the Bronze Age Collapse and the subsequent possible Dorian Invasion of Greece, the Bryges/Phrygian migration from the Balkans into Anatolia, and the movment of peoples in Greece mentioned by Herodotus.

If they had lived towards the latter part of their date range, they may have been Greeks fighting the the Persians, as the Persians had invaded the Balkans in 518 BC with the intention of ridding the Black Sea region of Scythians and setting up a location from which to invade Greece, which they did in 480 BC.

Intersection of E-V13, R1a-Z93 and Q1b-BZ1499

At the Kapitan Andrrevo site there were members from three different root haplogroups: E1b1b1a, R1a and Q1b. Although we don't understand the relationship of any of the men in these haplogroups to the Kapitan Andreevo community or to each other, we'll compare what we know of the history of the lines of these three haplogroups to see if they had shared a common culture/geographical location a common at some time before 1100 BC. If they had, then the most parsimionious explanation for this is that they in fact had all been members of the community today located at Kapitan Andreevo.

I have apartial liss of the ancient men in the R1a-Z93 and possibly a complete list of the much smaller haplogroup Q1b-BZ1499. Of course not all, and perhaps none, of the ancient men in those hapogroups would have been the lines that led to KA I20186 (R1a-Z93) or KA

Either way, at Kapitan Andreevo the E-V13 men were found with men in haplogroups ancestral to E-V13. Also potentially contemporary was KA I20186 from haplogroup R1a-Z93. R1a-Z93was a steppe haplogroup that including the following members from earlier pierods:

Ancient Men in Y-haplogroup R1a-Z93

Hliniaia 20086 4000-2500 BC Moldova Chalcolithic Balkans

Sakhtish 189 3766-3541 BC Khavalynsk culture

Glavanesti GLAV_14 3500-3000 BC Cucuteni-Trypillia culture

Samara Valley 42 2925-2491 BC Poltavka (Yamnaya successor) culture

Oblaczkowo 81 2881-2627 BC Poland Corded Ware

Tiefbrunn 434 2880-2629 BC Germany Corded Ware

Ardu 1 2872-2501 BC Harju Estonia Corded Ware

Plotiste 2 PNL002 2869-2573 BC Bohmia Corded Ware

Tiefbrunn 436 2869-2579 BC Germany Corded Ware

Trmice 6 2859-2576 BC Bohemia Corded Ware

Khanevo 2 HAN002 2859-2495 BC Moscow Fatynovo (IBD to PLE 23)

Naumovskoye NAU001 2836-2573 BC Russia Yaroslavl Fatynovo

Khanevo 4 HAN004 2835-2471 BC Moscow Fatynovo

Goluzinovo I12965 2834-2468 Russia Yaroslavl Corded Ware culture

Fatynovo 1 HAN001 2832-2473 BC Yaroslavi Fatynovo

Ivanovo I7359 2524-2470 BC Fatynovo/Corded Ware culture

Bulanovo 386 2335-2041 BC Orenburg Oblast Sintashta

Samara Valley 27 2200-1900 BC Samara River BA Central

Glavanesti 11931 2000-1400 BC Romania Monteoru culture

Glavanesti 11931 2000-1400 BC Romania Monteoru culture

Zevakinsky 3770 2134-1936 BC Shemonaikha Kazakhstan BA Central Asia

Stepnoe 392 2131-1891 BC Chelabinsk Sintashta

Sintashta I1053 1900-18-- BC Chylyabinsk Russia Sintashta

Kamennyi 1064 1900-1700 BC Chelyabinsk BA Steppe

Krasnoyarsk I3389 1900-1400 BC BA Central Asia

Krasnoyarsk I3391 1900-1400 BC BA Central Asia

Maitan 6789 1879-1691 Belagash Kazakhstan BA Centl Asia Alakul

Usmanovo kzb007 1873-1623 BC Russia Shrubnaya-Alakul Kazburun

Kazakhstan AkM 3767 1872-1636 BC Kazakhstan BA Steppe culture I3767

Karagash 4262 1800-1700 BC Kazakhstan BA Steppe culture

Samara Valley 32 1850-1600 BC Russia BA Central Asia

Maitan 6793 1743-1623 BC Belagash Kazakhstan BA Central Asia

Karagash 4778 1728-1666 BC Kazakhstan BA Central Asia

Tangbalesanyi 3 1621-1510 BC Xinjiang China Andronovo

Oy-Dzhaylau 4790 1527-`439 BC Merki Kazakhstan BA Central Asia

Shoendykol 10111 1498-1409 BC Bayanaul Kazakhstan Fedorovo/Andronovo

Arban 495 RISE495 1400-900 BC Khakassia Russia Karasuk

Kapitan Andreevo 20186 1100-500 BC Bulgaria

Hliniaia 20086 Moldova 928-827 BC R1a (maybe not R-Z93?)

Sarmatian 1 800-100 BC Chebotarev Caspian Steppe

Sarmatian 6 DA144 800-100 BC Chebotarev Caspian Steppe

Kyzylasker 129 539-208 BC Tian Shan Kazakhstan nomad

Himera 10951 480 BC Sicily Caucasus K-A Armenia79.55%

Schmakovo 2 200-100 BC Russia Schmakovo cult SMV002 Gnecchi-

Burkhan BUR003 150 BC-120 AD Mongolia Xiongnu (IBD SZK-259 S2979)

Kiskundorozsma CGG021922 76-206 AD Hungary Sarmatian

Cherniy Yar 2 81-236 AD Russia Late Sarmatian

Sarmatian Tem002 83-235 AD Temyaysovo Bashkortostan Late Sarmatia

Viminacium I15533 246-365 AD Serbia (Moesia Superior)

Tesarske 2211 200-600 AD Slovakia Roman Era Bohemia

Basarabya 4531 337=337 AD Samsun Anatolia Roman

Burkhan 3 150 BC-120 AD Mongolia late Xiongnu BUR003

Arpas 3 400-465 AD Hungary Hun culture

Arpas 17 400-500 AD Hungary Hun

Alan DA243 450-900 AD Alania, Caucasus Rla-F11175

Szolad 1 500-568 AD Pannonia Hungary

Rakocifalva F248 600-900 AD Hungary Avar

Rakocifalva O18 600-900 AD Hungary Avar

Rakocifalva O21 600-900 AD Hungary Avar

Kamyshevahsky 142 600-1300 AD Caspian Steppe Russia Central Asia Nomad

Madaras 17 670-710 AD Hungary Middle Avar

Sarmatian DA134 800-100 BC Russia Chebotarev Caspian steppe

Arkus 49 800-840 AD Tisa Hungary Avar

Arkus 14 800-900 AD Hungary Late Avar

Puspokladany 200 960-1100 AD Hungary Medieval

Ladislaus 1 1040-1085 AD Basilica of Gyor Hungary Arpad

Bela III King of Hungary1148-1196 AD Szekesfehervar Basilica Hungary

Andrew Arpad Halych 1210-1234 AD Szekesfehervar Basilica Royal Arpad

An imporant thing to understand about I20186 is that he was one of the individuals identfied by Lazaridis as having Mycenaean-like ancestry. In other words, although his happlogroup had ancestrally been a steppe haplogroup, I20186's particular ancestral line had migrated to the Balkans/Greece where it married into the locals and developed an autosomal genome that was Mycenean-like, meaning that it was from the same general population as the Mycenaean Greeks who were ancestral to the later Classical Greeks and largely to the present day population of Greece.

Kapitan Andreevo I20182 was buried sometime earlier than the other individuals studed at Kapitan Andreevo, estimated at between 3000-1300 BC (propbably based on archaeological artifacts probably made of copper because that time frame was roughly the Copper Age in southeastern Europe). His haplogroup, Q1b-BZ1499, was, like that of R1a-Z93, a steppe haplogroup.

Ancient Men in Y-haplogroup Q1b-BZ1499

Maykop 3 KUG003 3367-3105 BC Russia North Caucasus

Maykop SA6004 ? Russia Sharakhalsun Stavropol krai

Maykop IV3010 3000? Russia Stavropol Late Maykop

Kapitan Andreevo I20182 3000-1300 BC BA Balkans

Rostovka I32369 2200-1900 BC Russia Seima-Turbino

Nepluyevsky Kartaly b2b-1 1895-1706 BC Sourther Urals Shrubnaya-Alakul

Nepluyevskb1-2y b1-2 1881-1699 BC Sourther Urals S411hrubnaya-Alakul

Nepluyevsky B22-1 1880-1694 BC Kartaly Shrubnaya-Alakul

Nepluyevsky B31-1 1881-1593 BC Sourther Urals Shrubnaya-Alakul

Nepluyevsky b13-1 1878-1692 BC Sourther Urals Shrubnaya-Alakul

Nepluyevsky b3a-1 1878-17691 BC Sourther Urals Shrubnaya-Alakul

Nepluyevsky b30-1 1879-1689 BC Sourther Urals Shrubnaya-Alakul

Nepluyevsky b10-2 1875-1688 BC Sourther Urals Shrubnaya-Alakul

Saifi 5 SFI-5 354-56 BC Lebanon

Sarrebourg R11559 131-413 AD France

Vors-Papkert 310 900-1000 AD Hungary Conqueror Elite VPB-310

Shrubnaya-Alakul

The one culture common to both Kapitan Andreeveo I20186 and I20182 is that of the Srubnaya-Alakul culture, which existed around 1900-1200 BC. Two men from R1a-Z93 were in the Shrubnaya-Alakul culture, one in Kazakhstan and one in the southern Urals not too far from the Nepluyevsky site (near Karaly) that had several Q1b-BZ1499 men.

Usmanovo kzb007 1873-1623 BC Russia Shrubnaya-Alakul Kazburun

Nepluyevsky B22-1 1880-1694 BC Kartaly Shrubnaya-Alakul

screenshot 2829

However, there are no known E-M78 men from the Shrubnya-Alakul culture. At first glance this might seem to indicate that in Fact Kapitan Andreevo was a steppe community and the E-V13 and other E-M78 men were murdered by members of this steppe community. However, because the autosome of I20186 (R1a-Z93) was Mycenean-like and similar to those of the E-M78 men, this is unlikely. The Q1b-BZ1499 Kapitan Andreevo man and the R1a-Z93 Kapitan Andreevo man appear to be connected by the intersection of their haplogroup lines in the Shrubnaya-Alakul culture, and the R1a-Z93 man appeare to be connected to the M-78 men by their autosomal similarities. Thus it is plausible to assume that the E-M78 men were in fact part of the Kapitan Andreevo community an that their apparent murders were due to circumstances not understood (perhaps an attack on the community by outsiders and quick burial due to limited time).

The Fatynovo-Balanovo Culture

The R1a-Z93 line was present in the Fatynovo culture, with one of four individuals listed below:

Khanevo 2 HAN002 2859-2495 BC Moscow Fatynovo R1a-Z93

While there are no known E-M78 men from the Fatynovo culture near Moscow, an XLS file from the Davranoglou paper (S21) shows that Puspokladany PLE-23, an E-FGC11450 man from Hungary 900-1000 AD, was an IBD (identical by descent) match to HAN002 from haplogroup R1a-Z93. This means that this E-FGC11450 man was either a descendant of HAN002 or they were both descendants of a common ancestor who lived before HAN002.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the E-FGC11450 or ancestral haplogroups had been present in the Moscow region at that time. The DNA itself came from a woman who had married into PLE-23's line, as all of a male line's autosomal DNA comes though the females that marry into the line. HAN002 could have and probably did have tens of thousands of IBD descendants by the time PLE-23 was born nearly 4,000 years after his death. However, it's unlikely that those descendants would have been spread randomly throughout Europe. The Fatynovo culture was followed by the Abashevo culture and the Sintashta culture, both of which were followed by the Srubnaya culture, so this can explain the R1a-Z93 connections to the Fatynovo, Sintashta and Srubnaya cultures. The Srubnaya culture was followed by the Scythian and Sauromatian cultures, but those were too late to likely have produced an R1a-Z93 line with Mycenaean-like DNA.

The R1a-Z93 line was also present in the Poltavka culture, a Yamnaya offshoot, which was east of the Catacomb culture nad both cultures were in contact with each other. Furthermore, the Q1b-BZ1499 line had a member in the Seima-Turbino culture, and according to Wikipedia “Catacomb culture” “Elena Efimovna Kuzmina suggests that the Seima-Turbino phenomenon emerged as a result of interaction between the Abashevo culture, the Catacomb culture and the early Andronovo culture.”

So now we have another link between the R1a-Z93 and Q1b-BZ1499 lines in the Catacomb culture. Also a more direct connection between the Fatynovo and Catcomb cultures as “Stone battle-axes of the Catacomb culture are similar to those of the Fatynovo-Balanovo culture.” (Wikipedia)

Here is also where these connections begin to come together, because “Similarities between the Catacomb culture and  are particularly striking. These include types of socketed spear-heads, types of cheekpieces for horses, and the custom of making masks for the dead.” (ibid)

The E-FGC11451 man SZKT-265 (680-800 AD) from Szekkutas, Hungary (30 miles NE of Szeged/Kiskundorozsma) was IBD related to I10436 (haplogroup R1b 2020-1780 BC) from Crihana Moldova. I10436 lived in the Multi-corded Ware culure, also known as the Babino (or Babyno) culture and by a few other names (including in romanized Russian Kul'tura mnogovalikovoj Keramiki, or KMK. I'll now refer to it as the KMK culture). The KMK culture existed “approximately from the 22^nd to 18^th centuries BCE. It occupied an area strethcing from the Don river to Moldavia....” (Wikipedia “Multi-corded Ware culture”) (Moldavia was a region lie between the eastern Carpathians and the Dniester river and included parts of today's eastern Romania, Moldova and part of Ukraine.)

“KMK tribes practiced herding and made widespread use of chariots.” (ibid) I10436 from Moldova was haplogroup R1b, a Yamnaya haplogroup, and was his G25 shows him to have had 80% Yamnaya ancestry.

“Circumstantial evidence links KMK to the spread of one or more indo-European languages. Leo Kleijn identifies its bearers with the early Thraciasn. Other scholars suggest that KMK may have been connected to the Byrges and/or Phrygians. Sofia Berezanska, who researched numerous sites of the culture, suggested parallels between it and the later Shaft graves of the Middle Helladic period, thus suggesting that the culture was ancesral to the Greeks. This latter hypothesis does not rule out the relationship to Phrygians, as their language was the closest to Proto-Greek and might have split from the latter shortly before their arrival to the Balkans.” (ibid)

The Wikipedia article also says that the KMK was “increasinly influenced, assimmilated, and eventually replaced by the Timber Grave or Srubnaya culture. In c. 2000-1800 BCE bearers of KMK migrated southwar intot he Balkans.” (ibid)

Thus we have the KMK culture splitting into two groups, one remaining on the steppe and merging into the Srubnaya, the other migrating south into the Balkans and becoming the Greeks, Thracians, Phrigians and related speaker of the Paleo-Balkan languages. One of the proto-Balkan languages include Armenian, which likely spread from one group of KMK/Srubnaya who entered Armenia either from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe south through the Caucasus or south through the Balkans and through Anatolia.

This therefore seems likely to be the origin of E-V13 in the Balkans/Greece, and the creation of the Greek/southern Balkan genome and culture. KMK was essentially a Yamnaya offshoot the migrated into the Balkans with their chariots, culturally dominating the local population, imposing their languages upon it and interbreeding with it. The Aegean population of this region was similar to that of kum6 from Troy or of the Minoans from Crete, and different from that of most of the rest of Europe, in having higher CHG ancestry from Armenia and Iran, with their Anatolian including the more eastern Tepecik-Ciftlik-like ancestry as well as the northwestern Anatolian Barcin ancestry, and low WHG ancestry.

The Yamnaya ancestral element in Mycenaean Greece only averaged around 11-13%, although as we've seen in some places such as Mygdalia it was up to three times as high as that. Since the KMK people arrived from the northeast into the Balkans, there might have been a cline of Yamnaya ancestry from northeast-southwest, from higher to lower Yamnaya, fading to very little in Crete. Since the E-V13 Mycenaean-like genome appears generally higher (double) in Yamnaya ancestry than the Mycenaean average, it seems likely that their core territory was originally located more northerly than the core Greek population. This may be reflected in today's pattern of distribution of E-V13 in the Balkans, with the region around Kosovo as its core. The core populatin may have remained more northerly, while some groups moved south into Greece, probably including the Dorians. The four known ancient E-V13 men from Greece lived in regions that during the classical period were Dorian, which may be evidence of this.

Thus, not all E-V13, or even the core E-V13, had ever lived in Greece. All of the Paleo-Balkan tribes were related and spoke related languages, but beginning in the earliy centuries AD Slavic peoples migrated into the more northerly parts of the Balkans, diluting and admixing with the Paleo-Balkan populations and in most places other than Greece and Albania eventually the Paleo-Balkan languages were replaced by the Slavic languages (itself a Yamnaya-derived Indo-European language), except for Romania, which when it was Roman Dacia must have replaced the Paleo-Balkan languages there with Roman (another Indo-European language).

However, it appears that the E-FGC11450 branchof E-V13, as well as its closest ancestral branches E-FGC11341, E-S2979 and E-Z5018 did in fact migrate into Greece. Not only that, but they may have almost all then migrated to Greek colonies on the northern (Ukrainian) coast of the Black Sea. This explains the presence of E-FGC11450 in Russia, Ukraine and Scandinavia. It also can explain E-FGC11450 in Hungary, Serbia, and elsewhere, as back-migrations from the north Pontic region to the Balkans/Hungary, stimulated by the Goth/Hun migrations in the 400's AD, as well as from through somewhat earlier migrations with Sarmatians into Hungary. Although it's clear that some of the Greeks in the Black Sea colonies did not admix with the local populations and thus retained their Mycenaean-like genomes (e.g., FVD009 and SZ19), others may have admixed with the Scythians, Sarmatians and Goths in the region. Some likely remained in the region, explaining the presence of several undated (to me) E-V13 men in the Yarslav Osmomysl and the other Russian and Ukrainian E-V13 men, and also some E-V13 men from the KMK and preceding cultures (e.g., Usatove) may nevera have left the Pontic region for the Balkans. The various migrations of E-V13 are no doubt very complicated, but the general history seems pretty clear.

Bibliography

Davranoglou et al (2023) “Ancient DNA reveals the orgins of the Albanians” Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians | bioRxiv

Lazarudus (2022) “The genetic history of the Souther Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe” The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe | Science

Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity

Daniel Shriner*

Frontiers | Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854), PHRY´GIA

Saag (2005) “North Pontic crossroads: Mobility in Ukraine from the Bronze Age to the early modern period” North Pontic crossroads: Mobility in Ukraine from the Bronze Age to the early modern period | Science Advances

Ruppenstein “Cremation burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age: continuity or change?”
Brandbest_Kern.pdf

Istros tumulus cremation with human and horse sacrifices:

M.A.Fowler_Istros_Historia_2021.pdf

Vokarides et al (2016) “Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements”

Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements | Investigative Genetics | Full Text

Marshall (2016) “Reconstructing Druze population history” Reconstructing Druze population history | Scientific Reports

Herrera et al (2011) “Neolithic Patralineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists” Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists | European Journal of Human Genetics

Yaroslavl 30 1100-1199 AD Russia E-M35

Bolshevo 1 1100-1150 AD Russia E-M215

Tver 28 1100-1300 AD Russia E-V13

Tver 29 1100-1300 AD Russia E-V13

Tver 30 1100-1300 AD Russia E-M35

Yaroslav Osmomysl 1135-1187 AD Ukraine Halych Rurikid E-V13

Bakhchisaray3 1300-1500 AD Crimea Ukraine E-M35

Ples PL-5 Unknown Russia Ivanovo EYDNA E-V13

Ples PL-6 Unknown Russia EYDNA E-V13

Ratchino Ratchino Unknown Russia Ivanovo EYDNA E-V13

Teglitsy1 Unknown Russia St Petersburg E-V13

Kursk KU-2 Unknown Russia Kursk EYDNA E-V13

It's likely that most if not all of these ancient men were E-V13, but even those identified as E-V13 apparently haven't been identified down to their haplogroups below E-V13. This may have been in part to degraded DNA, or for lack of funding or access to advanced genotyping techniques, perhaps du to issues relating to the current war between Russia and Ukraine. I found most of these ancient individuals from the exploreyourdna.com website; most had no source, but the pages for the Tver individuals had a web reference that led to a DOI Foundaion “NOT A DOI” message referencing an “Oral Presentation'. This likely means that these matches came from an oral presentation, probably from a Russian archaeogeneticist(s), but this is just a guess. In time these individuals will hopefully be discussed in a paper, but for now they remain unconfirmed but likely (what would be the point of a hoax regarding these individuals?).

Assumingn the validity of these matches, it's clear that by 1000 AD some branches of E-V13 had migrated to Ukraine and Russia during the formation periods of those countries, and possibly earlier. The nexus here is likely to have been Crimea, with either descendants from the Greek colonies or men with the Ostrogoths in Pannonia who had declined to follow Theodoric into Italy and had returned to Crimea, or both.

Tver

“Tver is a city...in Tver Oblast, Russia. It is situated at the confluence of the Volga and Tvertsa rivers. Tver is located 180 kilometres (110 miles) northwest of Moscow....Tver's foundation year is officially accepted to be 1135. Originally a minor settlement of Novgorodian traders, it passed to the Grand Prince of Vladimir in 1209.” (Wikipedia “Tver”).

“The Varangians werew Norse wariors, traders and settlers, mostly from present-day Sweden, who settled in the territories of present-day Belarus, Russia and Ukraine froom the 8^th and 9^th centuries and established the state of Kievan Rus'...According to the 12th-century Primary Chronicle, a group of Varangians known as the Rus' settled in Novgorod in 862, under the leadership of Rurik. Before Rurik, the Rus' might have ruled an ealrier hypothetical polity known as the Rus' Khaganate. Rurik's relative Oleg conquered Kiev in 882 and established the state of Kievan Rus'. Which was later ruled by Rurik's descendants....Engaging in trade, piracy, and mercenary service, Varangians roamed the river systems and portages of Gardariki, as the areas north of the Black Sea were known in the Norse sagas. They controlled the Volga trade route (between the Varanagians and the Muslims), connecting the Baltic to the Caspian Sea and the Dnieper [Dnipro] and Dniester trade route (between the Varangians and the Greeks) leading to the Black Sea and Constantinople.” (Wikipedia “Varangians”)

screenshot 2966

Wikipedia; By Briangotts - This map has been uploaded by Electionworld from en.wikipedia.org to enable the Wikimedia Atlas of the World . Original uploader to en.wikipedia.org was Briangotts, known as Briangotts at en.wikipedia.org. Electionworld is not the creator of this map. Licensing information is below.The following source corroborates the Volga route between the Gulf of Finland and Atil, although it gives a different Western route, over Smolensk:Barraclough, Geoffrey , ed. (in Dutch) (1981) Spectrum-Times Atlas van de Wereldgeschiedenis, pp. 114–115, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1578382

screenshot 2959

The purple/blue line in the maps above shows the Dnipro river trade route of the Varnangians from the trading town of Birka in Sweden to Constantinople through the Greek colony of Chersonesos. The map shows the trade route passing through the Khazar Khanate; the Khazars controlled Crimea form 650-950 AD, as well as a large area north of the Black Sea. The Khazars were a Turkic people who “commond[ed] the western marches of the Silk Road and play[ed] a key commercial role as a crossroad between China, the Middle East, and Kievan Rus'....the Khazars dominated the vast region extending from the Volga-Don steppes to the eastern Crimea and the northern Caucasus.” (Wikipedia “Khazars”) The Wikipeida article says that the Khazars “even extended their influence into the Byzantine peninusla of Cherson until it was wrested back in the 10^th century.” Although this may be true, it's unlikely that the Khazars caused much if any destruction to Cherson, as they took a percentage of the Varangian trade to Byzantium, so they had no interest in destroying that trade. In 969 the Kievan Rus' and their allies conqured the Khazars and the region was then controlled by the Kievan Rus'.

E-V13 in Scandinavia

E-V13 is present but not common today in Scandinavia, and was even less common in Scandinavia in the past, with only men discovered to date:

Langeland CGG106782 750-1050 AD Denmark Bogovej E-CTS1273

Viking VK362 900-1000 AD Denmark Langeland E-CTS1273

Tjærby PCA0553 1000-1300 AD Denmark E-S2979

Tnote that one of these men was in the E-S2979 haplogroup, which is a close ancestor to E-FGC11450.

These men were all from Denmark and none is E-FGC11450, but today E-V13 and E-FGC11450 is found in Finland, Sweden and Norway, as shown by the below screenshots from my YFull SNP matches:

screenshot 2967

screenshot 2968

I also know of another E-V13 (E-Z1057) man from Sweden, with whom I share h whom I share 4 DNA segments and who came from the same town (Sunne) as did one of my great-grandfathers. This geographic and genetic closeness to another E-V13 man in Sweden is just a coincidence because my Swedish great-grandfather was through my mother's side, and in any case my E-FGC11450 line split away from his E-Z1057 line in 3150 BC, or about 2,000 years before the E-FGC11450 mutation came into existence.

A 2023 study by Rodriguez-Varela et al studied a “2,000-year transect through Scandinavia spanning the Iron Age to the present” and found non-Scandinavian gene flow into Viking Age Scandinavia from three cources: “the eastern Baltic, the British Isles, and southern Europe.” ( The genetic history of Scandinavia from the Roman Iron Age to the present - ScienceDirect ) I've only scanned the study but it appeared more interested in gene flow into Scandinavia from Ireland and the Baltic than from southern Europe, which was pretty much ignored. However, it did have the following chart

screenshot 2969

screenshot 2971

This chart shows the population genetics for Denmark, Sweden and Norway, for three time periods in each country, and with a regional breakdown for Sweden and Norway (but not Denmark, presumably because it's much smaller in size).

The red color indicates southern European ancestry. Southern European ancestry is absent throughout Scandinavia until the Viking era, after which it is present in small amounts in Denmark in the Viking Age and Late Viking Age, in South Sweden in the Viking Age and Late Viking Age, and in South Norway in the Viking Age. This indicates the presence in Scandinavia of people with southern European ancestry during the Viking Age. This southern European ancestry has largely disappeared in modern Scandinavia, which would be expected dafter several generations if the flow of genes from southern Europe had stopped after the Viking Age. This would be especially true if the southern European immigrants were men rather than men and women in an isolated community that could perpetuate the southern European genome for as long as they didn't admix with the local Scandinavian population.

The study probably didn't discuss the source of the southern European genes because it didn't know that source, unlike the source of Irish and Baltic DNA, which was supported by the history of Scandinavia. I think it's quite possible that this source could have been either from post-Avar era Hungary or from the Greek colonies in and around Crimea, and likely included the E-V13 and E-FGC11450 that was found in Denmark in the Viking era and in each of the Scandinavian countries today excpet Denmark.

In the Greek colonies of Crimea (the former Bosporan Kingdom) and perhaps Gothia we have a known pool of southern Europeans or partial southern Europeans who persisted into the 800's. Furthermore, we see that E-V13 is found in Ukraine and Russia, and existed at the same time as the Viking Age and likely earlier. Varangians were present in Crimea including Cherson, the port from which they set sail to Constantinople, and were also present in Ukraine and Russia in the earliest centuries as Viking traders. This is a plausible pipeline for individuals with southern European ancestry to have migrated to Scandinavia, even if they had never themselves been to southern Europe.

Therefore, I propose that probably all of the E-V13 and E-FGC11450 present in Scandinavia likely entered that region in the Viking era and likely from the Greek colonies of Crimea through the Varangian trade routes in the 700's to 1000 AD. Obviously many other routes to Scandinavia from many other places in southern Europea are possible and even plausible, but this route has a chain of evidence that boots it plausibility above other hypothetical routes.

Hungary or Poland to Denmark Route

Speidel et al

Speidel et al (“High-resolution genomic history of early medieval Europe” Nature 01 January 2025) write that “In EIA [Early Iron Age] Scandinavia (<500 CE) we find evidence for broad genetic homogeniety. Specifically, individuals from Denmark (100 CE-300 CE) were indistinguishable from contemporary people in the Scandinavian Peninsula....However, we observe a clear shift in genetic ancestry already in the eigth century CE (Late Iron Age/early Viking Age) on Zealand (present-day Denmark) for which a 100% EIA ancestry model is rejected....This shift in ancestry persists among later Viking Age groups in Denmark, where all groups are modelled with varying proportions of ancestry related to Iron Age continental groups in Central Europe....These patterns are consistent with northward expansion of ancestry, potentially starting before the Vikin gAge, into the Jutland peninsula and Zealand island, towards southern Sweden. The geographical origin of this ancestry is currently difficult to discern, as the available samples form Iron Age central Europe remain sparse.” (Speidel)

Stated more simply, all the Scandinavians before 500 AD werer genetically similar, but then as early as the 700's AD it appears likely that a population from somewhere in Central Europe migrated into the Jutland peninsula and the island of Zealand and into soutthern Sweden, but not into the rest of Scandinavia.

“Previous studies have suggested that there was a diversity of ancestries in Scandinavia during this period, due to increased maritime mobility, but have not reported per-individual estimates, based on preceding ancestry.” (ibid)

Speidel then more clearly defined the geographic distribution of the individuals with detectable central European ancestry in Scandinavia:

Denmark: 25/53

Sweden: 20 of 62

Norway: 2 of 24

Speidel also said, “When considered collectively, the individual who show evidence of central European-related ancestry are mostly observed in regions historically within the Danish sphere of influence and rule. Currently, no such individuals, for example, are noted in eastern cental Sweden, which was a focus of regional power of the Svear. The difference in distribution could suggest that the central European-related ancestry was more common in regions dominated by the historical Gotar and groups inhabiting the lands on the borders of the Danish kingdom.” (ibid)

This is quite interesting, because “The Gotar...also spelled Gautar in Old Norse...were a North Germanic tribe that inhabited the regions of what is now southern Sweden....They are considered one of the foundational ethnic groups of modern Sweden, alongside the Svear (Swedes proper) from the central Malaren Valley region....The Gotar are believed by some scharls to be the femnants or original form of the ancient Goths (a broader Germanic people who migrated southward in late antiquity, splitting into the Ostrogoths and Visigoths). This connection stems from linguistic and etymological similarities: the name "Gotar" derives from Proto-Germanic *Gutaniz, meaning "the people" or "pourers" (possibly alluding to rivers or fertility). However, medieval sources like the Icelandic sagas and Old English texts distinguish the Gotar/Geats (Gautar) from the continental Goths (Gotar/Gutar), treating them as separate but related groups. The Gotar lived in agricultural heartlands south of the Svear territories, with their society centered on farming, trade, and tribal governance.” (Grok 3 AI, 31/8/2025)

This is quite interesting, because I've noticed that after about 800 AD there was an apparent shift of the E-V13 population, particularly the E-Z5018 haplogroupsl, from Hungary northward, into Poland and Denmark, as well as to the northeast into Ukraine and Russia. Now we have an archaeogenetic study showing that a population with ancestry in central Europe had likely migrated into Denmark and southern Sweden some time after 500 AD, and, more interestingly, not just any part of Scandinavia but specifically into the region from which the Ostrogoths had originated, and in which the ancestral population that had spawned the Ostrogoths had remained.

The Goths that became known as the Ostrogoths had come from the north Pontic region north and south of the Black Sea, including Crimea. The Greuthungi appear to have been the core of what later became called the Ostrogoths, and these Goths had remained in the north Pontic region as vassals of the Huns, although it appears they were also present in Hungary/Romania as well. The E-V13 men who were buried in Fonyod and Hacs were probably Greeks from Crimea or possibly Olbia who were close to the Ostrogoths and had migrated with them to Pannonia. However, other E-V13 men had likely remained in the region, including in Chersonesos and other cities in Crimea, and Goths as welll had remained in Crimea as well: “...in the 5^th century, the Ostrogothic ruler Theodoric the Great failed to rouse the Crimean Goths to support his 488-493 war in Italy.” (Wikipedia “Crimean Goths”) Thus, it's possible, in fact almost certain given the later presence of E-V13 in Ukraine and Russia, that E-V13 men at this time lived among the Goths not only in Hungary but in Crimea.

This connection between at least some of the E-V13 populations and the Goths provides a plausible avenue for E-V13 to have entered Scandinavia, although it's far from proven that E-V13 would have moved with the Goths back to Scandinavia, even if the Goths had kept in contact with their early homeland.

Four of Speidel's “central European” Vikings

Speidel analyzed autosomal DNA and ignored Y-chromosome DNA, but Y-chromosomal DNA can be an important tool in determining the likely origin of a particular male. Most of the men identified as having “Central European” European” ancestry (listed in Supplementary Table 4) belonged to haplogroups that were likely or possibly found in Scandinavia before 500 A (I1a, R1b, Rla, I2a). However, four men were found in haplogroups unlikely to have been found in Scandinavia during this time perios (E-V13, J2a (x2), J2b). Since we have the downstream clades for each of these men, we'll look at the other ancient men in those downsream clades to see if we we can find them together at various geogrphic locations and times that would connect their lines.

VK362 (Langeland Denmark 900-1000 AD)

E-CTS1273/E-CTS5856 (E-V13)

eeedc

Kap Andreevo I20181 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-CTS1273

Himera I17872 480 BC Sicily E-CTS1273

Prague 16272 400-200 BC Czechia E-Z1057

Rozovo I19500 300-200 BC Bulgaria E-Z1057

Zadar R3745 22-121 AD Croatia E-Z1057

Valkenburg CGG107765 115 AD Netherlands Roman army CampE-V13

Viminacium I15525 129-247 AD Serbia BIA+N Levant E-CTS1273

Timacum Minus 15553 242-375 AD Serbia E-CTS1273

Naissus 6764 255-405 AD Serbia 268 AD Goth-Rm Battle? E-CTS1273

Nicaea I8367 500-700 AD Anatolia Bithynia brother E-Z1057

Nicaea I8366 500-700 AD Anatolia Bithynia brother E-Z1057

Plaza de l'Horta 12031 500-700 AD Spain E-CTS1273

Kent EAS006 600-700 AD England E-CTS1273

Langeland CGG106782 750-1050 AD Denmark Bogovej E-CTS1273

Catalonia 10853 989-1153 AD Spain Girona E-CTS1273

Viking VK362 900-1000 AD Denmark Langeland E-CTS1273

Viking VK362 900-1000 AD Denmark Langeland E-CTS1273

Ellwangen 18 1486-1627 AD Gemany E-CTS1273

VK346 (Oland Sweden 700-1100 AD)

J2b2a1a1a1a1a1a1 (J-Z1043)

Cayonu cay007 8500-8300 BC Anatolia Neolithic

Kotias 7940-7599 BC Chiatura Georgia Kotias culture

Tepe Guran 816 7000-6500 BC Iran Luristan Neolithic West Asia

Barcin 6 6224-6074 BC Anatolia Bursa Northwest Anatolia

Hajj Firuz I4241 6021-5891 BC Iran Neolithic Persia J-Z1827

Mentesh23 5900-5600 BC Azerbaijan Bayranty J-Z1827

Mentesh26 5900-5600 BC Azerbaijan Bayranty J-Z1827

Zolotarevka ZO1002 3947-3713 BC Russia Stavropol Pre-Yamnaya J-Z182

Komsomolec KMM023 3400-3100 BC Russia Stavropol Maykop

Georgia A16271_79 3000-2900 BC Georgia Kazreti Kura-Araxes culture

Crihana I10206 2900-2500 BC Moldova l Yamnaya or Cernavoda J-M241

Mokrin MOK145 2100-1800 BC Serbia Maros culture J-Z600

Cetina Valley I11843 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Cetina Valley I18746 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Cetina Valley I18747 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Cetina Valley I19029 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Cetina Valley I19032 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Mygdalia MYG001 1611-1452 BC Greece Mycenaean J-M241

Mygdalia MYG006 1612-1452 BC Greece Mycenaean J-M241

Mygdalia MYG008 1611-1452 BC Greece Mycenaean J-M241

Mygdalia MYG005 1504-1425 BC Greece Mycenaean J-M241

Velika Gruda I13778 1386-1212 BC Montenegro BA

Velika Gruda I14498 1300-1000 BC Montenegro BA Balkans J-Z1296

Velika Gruda I13167 1216-1052 BC Montenegro BA Balkans J-Z1298

Cinamak I17633 750-309 BC Albania J-M102

Cinamak I16253 658-403 BC Albania Kukes District J-M241

Lilybaeum I24671 197-51 BC Sicily Italy J-Z1297

Tunisia I24032 ? BC Tunisia J-M241

Viminacium R9669 130-311 AD Serbia Viminacium J-M241

Osijek I26752 200-300 AD Osijek Croatia J- Y3094 (J-M241)

Doclea Bjelovine 3481 211-321 AD Podgorica Monenegro Roman

Timicum I15548 380-210 AD Serbia Ravna J-Z631 (J-M241)

Timicum I15547 380-410 AD Serbia Ravna J-Z631

Timicum I15546 380-410 AD Serbia Ravna J-Z631 (J-m241)

Hacs 10 450-500 AD Goth culture J-M102

Hacs 24 450-500 AD Goth culture J-M102

Gardun 3544 550-601 AD Croatia

Racoczifalva C30 600-700 AD Avar RKC030

Racoczifalva C31 600-700 AD Avar RKC031

Racoczifalva C33 600-700 AD Avar RKC033

Nustar I34800 700-900 AD Croatia J-Z1043 (J-M241)

Nustar I28397 700-900 AD Croatia J-Z1043 (J-M241)

VK346/Oland 1057 801-1100 AD 951 AD Oland Sweden J-Z1043j2a

VK317 (Denmark Langeland 900-1000 AD)

J2a1a1a2b2a2b2b~ (J-PH245)

Cayonu cay007 8500-8300 BC Anatolia Neolithic

Barcin 6 6224-6074 BC Anatolia Bursa Northwest Anatolia

Ripa Biance R19 5350-5035 BC Italy Neolithic

Adygea I2055 4572-4500 BC Russia Adygea Neolithic Steppe

Sredny Stih I11828 4359-4251 BC Russia Rostov Oblast

Adygea I6268 3766-3382 BC Russia Adygea Novosvobodnaya culture

Sarakenos G37 2476-2300 BC Greece Akraifnion J2a1a1a2b2a2b1

Charalamobs HGC032 2400-1800 BC Greece Crete J-PF5125

Lasithi HGC006-035 2171 BC Greece Crete J2a1a1a2b2

Lasithi HGC009 1972 BC Greece Crete J2a1a1a2b2a1b1~

Kydonia XAN031 1700- 1200 BC Crete Greece Minoan

TIR010 1370 BC Greece Argolid J2a1a1a2b2

Himera I7223 409 BC Sicily Italy J2a1a1a2b2a

Sarrebourg R11550 247-405 AD France Roman Era J-PH245

Iznik I14843 400-700 AD Anatolia Byzantine J-PH245

Vienna CSK026 Avar period Austria Csokorgasse J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a3

Vienna CSK013 Avar period Austria Avar Csokorgasse J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a

Vienna CSK012 Avar period Austria Avar J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a3

Moedling MSG011 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2a1a1

Moedling MSG010 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2a1a

Moedling MSG236 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2

Zalavar AHS05 900-1000 AD Hungary Zalavar Lake Balaton

Viking 317 900-1000 AD Langeland Denmark J2a1a1a2b2a2b2b~

Oylum Hoyuk 14787 950-1050 AD Kilis Turkey

Bugyi-2 950-1000 AD Hungarian Elite

Vors-Papkert 167 950-1000 AD Hungarian Elite

Sarretudvari 81 950-1000 AD Hungarian Commoner

Puspokladany 195 960-1000 AD Hungarian Commoner J2a1a1a2b2

VK43 (Sweden Vastara Gotaland (Gothland 900-1200 AD)

J2a1a1b2a1b1b2c~

Cayonu cay007 8500-8300 BC Anatolia Neolithic

Kotias 7940-7599 BC Chiatura Georgia Kotias culture

Barcin I0708 6224-6074 BC Anatolia NW Bursa

Aknashen I3931 5985-5836 BC Armenia Neolithic Caucasus

Yunasite YUN026 4537-4373 BC Bulgaria Gumelnita culture

Prague I15823 3800-3400 BC Czechia Chalcolithic

Tepe Hissar I2337 3640-3518 BC Iran Semnan Chalcolithic

La Sassa LSC002_005 3500-2500 BC Italy Copper Age

Geoksyur DA381 3367-3098 BC Turkmenistan

Shah-i-Sokhta I8724 305o-2850 BC Iran Seistan BA

Aigyrzhal I11527 2122-1926 BC Kyrgyzstan BA Central Asia

Sappali I7494 2016-1830 BC Uzbekistan

Aktobe I4794 1600-1400 BC Kazakhstan Central Asia culture

Pruszcz Gdanski PCA0499 100-300 AD Poland Wielbark

Halikarnassos I3303 361-166 BC Anatolia Caria J2a1a1b2a1

Kiskoros KPM-14 630-650 AD Hungary Avar era

Kiskundorozsma KDA-485 660-700 AD Hungary

Viminacium I15517 124-228 AD Moesia Superior Serbia Roman

Valkenburg CGG107753 50 BC-250 AD Netherlands Marktveld (Holland) J-L70

Marcellino & Pietro 300-500 AD Rome Italy

Egypt Mummy t2287 425-538 AD Egypt Byzantine J2a1a1b2a1b1 J-L70

Kiskoros KPM-14 620-660 AD Hungary Early Avar era

Kiskoros KPM-23 710-750 AD Hungary

Zalavar AHS19 850-900 AD Hungary Lake Balaton

Co-Expansion of E-V13 and J2b (J-M205)

Coinciding Geographical Locations

Valkenburg CGG107765 115 AD Netherlands E-V13

Valkenburg CGG107753 50 BC-250 AD Netherlands J2a1a2b2a2

Heruli

The Fonyod population was culturally and genetically somewhat different from that of Hacs, and iIt's possible that the population was not actually Ostrogothic but belonged rather to one of the other Germanic populations from the north Pontic region. One of these was the Heruli, whose ultimate origins was probably southern Sweden or Denmark, although scholars disagree on this, according the Wikipedia article “Heruli”. Anothe rpoint of contention is as to whether the Heruli were actually a part of the larger tribe considered to be Goths, as were the Gepids.

The Heruli appear to have been the organizers of the 269-270 AD naval raids into the Roman Balkans and Aegean. “In these raids, Goths, Eluri [Heruli], and other “Scythian” peoples took control of Black Sea Greek cities, and gained a fleet that they used to launch raids starting in the Black Sea itself, and going as far as Greece and Asia Minor.” (Wikipedia “Heruli”) They plundered Byzantium, Troy, Sparta and Athens, along with others. However, near today's border of Greece and Bulgaria they were defeated by the Romans and some of the Heruli probably joined the Roman army.

“The Heruli are believed to have formed part of the Chernyakhov culture, which although dominated by the Goths and other Germanic peoples, also included Bastarnae, Dacians and Carpi. The Heruli thus are archaeologically indistinguishable from the Goths. Jordanes reports that these Heruli of the Azov area in the late 4^th century AD were conquered by Ermanaric, king of the Greuthungi Goths. Ermanaric's realm may also have included Finns, Slavs, Alans and Sarmattians.” (ibid)

The Heruli and the Batavi

As with their neighbors the Goths, Heruli were already seen in western Europe before the empire of Attila, both as raiders and as soldiers working under Roman authority. Already before the time of Attila the Romans established a Heruli auxiliariy unit in the Western Empire.....The Heruli seniores were stationed in northern Italy. This numerus Erulorum was a lightly equipped unit often associated with the Batavian Batavi seniores....In 360, Constantius II ordered the future emporer Julian the Apostate, who then had command of forces in Gaul, to settle some of his best units including the Heruli, Batavi, and others, for fighting the Parthians in the Middle East....In 366 the Batavian and Heruli units fought agains the Alamanni near the Rhine....and then against the Picts and Scotti in Britain. They were subsequentlys ent to fight Parthias in the east....In 405 or 406 a large number of barbarian groups crossed the Rhine, entering Roman Gaul and the Heruli appear on the list of peoples given by the historian Jerome....the list included many of the Middle Danubian peoples from the East, including Roman provincials from Pannonia, and was already in the period where the Huns were cuasing major movements of such peoples....In 435 the Heruli are mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris among the troops which Aetius, who had spent time in exile with the Danubian Huns, used to defend Gallia belgica, a Roman province, from Burgundians....Ellegard argues that the association with the Batavi in this period should be seen not as a connection to the Lower Rhine, the original home of the Batavi unit centuries earlier, but to their quarters in tis period which were at Passau (Castara Batava) on the Danube, not far from where the Heruli would later have their kingdom. Liccardo argues that even though “units were moved around and over time tended to lose any ethnic or geographic homogeneity, they could still give hints about the origins of ethnic groups.....At least two much later mentions of Heruli in southwestern Europe, after the Heruli were established on the Middle Danube, and in parts of Italy, can be connected to the Visigoths who had been granted a kingdom by the Romans in what is now southwestern France, but have also been taken to imply the existence of Heruli based on the North Sea coast, for example near the Lower Rhine. Firstly, two sea raids were made by Heruli around coastal Spain in the 450's, as reported by Hydatius, ius. Secondly, shortly after 475 Sidonius Apollinaris reported the presence of Heruli at the Visigothic court of Euric in Bordeaux.They are listed in a poetic way together with other barbarians, from places as distant as  Parthia, who Sidonius found looking for protection and patronage....” (ibid)

(The reason I included such a long section from the Wikipedia article is of course because it sonnects the Heruli to the Batavi, the Germanic tribe that lived in the region of the land of Arkel (furthermore, if we are speculating that that the Swaim/den Hartog line derived from the Arkel line, the story of the Heruli has some parallels to Pauw's account of the early van Arkel line, including involvement in a battle in Troy, a mention of Constantius, a mention of the Heruli and Batavi fighing in Gaul durin the time when the first van Arkel would have been there in the mid-300's AD. However, in this post I'm not pushing my speculation this far, although I'll still point out the connections I see).

Heruli Kingdom

Given what we know of the Ostrogoth's migration from the north Pontic region to Hungary,

…..and the dissatification of some of the Ostrogoths who migrated back to the north Pontic region rather than invade Italy with Theodoric....

Herulii return to Sweden

(spreadsheet data on VK362...the “Polish” DNA is likely actually “Ukrainian” or “Russian” DNA from

Tver

“Tver is a city...in Tver Oblast, Russia. It is situated at the confluence of the Volga and Tvertsa rivers. Tver is located 180 kilometres (110 miles) northwest of Moscow....Tver's foundation year is officially accepted to be 1135. Originally a minor settlement of Novgorodian traders, it passed to the Grand Prince of Vladimir in 1209.” (Wikipedia “Tver”).

“The Varangians werew Norse wariors, traders and settlers, mostly from present-day Sweden, who settled in the territories of present-day Belarus, Russia and Ukraine froom the 8^th and 9^th centuries and established the state of Kievan Rus'...According to the 12th-century Primary Chronicle, a group of Varangians known as the Rus' settled in Novgorod in 862, under the leadership of Rurik. Before Rurik, the Rus' might have ruled an ealrier hypothetical polity known as the Rus' Khaganate. Rurik's relative Oleg conquered Kiev in 882 and established the state of Kievan Rus'. Which was later ruled by Rurik's descendants....Engaging in trade, piracy, and mercenary service, Varangians roamed the river systems and portages of Gardariki, as the areas north of the Black Sea were known in the Norse sagas. They controlled the Volga trade route (between the Varanagians and the Muslims), connecting the Baltic to the Caspian Sea and the Dnieper [Dnipro] and Dniester trade route (between the Varangians and the Greeks) leading to the Black Sea and Constantinople.” (Wikipedia “Varangians”)

screenshot 2966

Wikipedia; By Briangotts - This map has been uploaded by Electionworld from en.wikipedia.org to enable the Wikimedia Atlas of the World . Original uploader to en.wikipedia.org was Briangotts, known as Briangotts at en.wikipedia.org. Electionworld is not the creator of this map. Licensing information is below.The following source corroborates the Volga route between the Gulf of Finland and Atil, although it gives a different Western route, over Smolensk:Barraclough, Geoffrey , ed. (in Dutch) (1981) Spectrum-Times Atlas van de Wereldgeschiedenis, pp. 114–115, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1578382

screenshot 2959

The purple/blue line in the maps above shows the Dnipro river trade route of the Varnangians from the trading town of Birka in Sweden to Constantinople through the Greek colony of Chersonesos. The map shows the trade route passing through the Khazar Khanate; the Khazars controlled Crimea form 650-950 AD, as well as a large area north of the Black Sea. The Khazars were a Turkic people who “commond[ed] the western marches of the Silk Road and play[ed] a key commercial role as a crossroad between China, the Middle East, and Kievan Rus'....the Khazars dominated the vast region extending from the Volga-Don steppes to the eastern Crimea and the northern Caucasus.” (Wikipedia “Khazars”) The Wikipeida article says that the Khazars “even extended their influence into the Byzantine peninusla of Cherson until it was wrested back in the 10^th century.” Although this may be true, it's unlikely that the Khazars caused much if any destruction to Cherson, as they took a percentage of the Varangian trade to Byzantium, so they had no interest in destroying that trade. In 969 the Kievan Rus' and their allies conqured the Khazars and the region was then controlled by the Kievan Rus'.

E-V13 in Scandinavia

E-V13 is present but not common today in Scandinavia, and was even less common in Scandinavia in the past, with only men discovered to date:

Langeland CGG106782 750-1050 AD Denmark Bogovej E-CTS1273

Viking VK362 900-1000 AD Denmark Langeland E-CTS1273

Tjærby PCA0553 1000-1300 AD Denmark E-S2979

Tnote that one of these men was in the E-S2979 haplogroup, which is a close ancestor to E-FGC11450.

These men were all from Denmark and none is E-FGC11450, but today E-V13 and E-FGC11450 is found in Finland, Sweden and Norway, as shown by the below screenshots from my YFull SNP matches:

screenshot 2967

screenshot 2968

I also know of another E-V13 (E-Z1057) man from Sweden, with whom I share h whom I share 4 DNA segments and who came from the same town (Sunne) as did one of my great-grandfathers. This geographic and genetic closeness to another E-V13 man in Sweden is just a coincidence because my Swedish great-grandfather was through my mother's side, and in any case my E-FGC11450 line split away from his E-Z1057 line in 3150 BC, or about 2,000 years before the E-FGC11450 mutation came into existence.

A 2023 study by Rodriguez-Varela et al studied a “2,000-year transect through Scandinavia spanning the Iron Age to the present” and found non-Scandinavian gene flow into Viking Age Scandinavia from three cources: “the eastern Baltic, the British Isles, and southern Europe.” ( The genetic history of Scandinavia from the Roman Iron Age to the present - ScienceDirect ) I've only scanned the study but it appeared more interested in gene flow into Scandinavia from Ireland and the Baltic than from southern Europe, which was pretty much ignored. However, it did have the following chart

screenshot 2969

screenshot 2971

This chart shows the population genetics for Denmark, Sweden and Norway, for three time periods in each country, and with a regional breakdown for Sweden and Norway (but not Denmark, presumably because it's much smaller in size).

The red color indicates southern European ancestry. Southern European ancestry is absent throughout Scandinavia until the Viking era, after which it is present in small amounts in Denmark in the Viking Age and Late Viking Age, in South Sweden in the Viking Age and Late Viking Age, and in South Norway in the Viking Age. This indicates the presence in Scandinavia of people with southern European ancestry during the Viking Age. This southern European ancestry has largely disappeared in modern Scandinavia, which would be expected dafter several generations if the flow of genes from southern Europe had stopped after the Viking Age. This would be especially true if the southern European immigrants were men rather than men and women in an isolated community that could perpetuate the southern European genome for as long as they didn't admix with the local Scandinavian population.

The study probably didn't discuss the source of the southern European genes because it didn't know that source, unlike the source of Irish and Baltic DNA, which was supported by the history of Scandinavia. I think it's quite possible that this source could have been either from post-Avar era Hungary or from the Greek colonies in and around Crimea, and likely included the E-V13 and E-FGC11450 that was found in Denmark in the Viking era and in each of the Scandinavian countries today excpet Denmark.

In the Greek colonies of Crimea (the former Bosporan Kingdom) and perhaps Gothia we have a known pool of southern Europeans or partial southern Europeans who persisted into the 800's. Furthermore, we see that E-V13 is found in Ukraine and Russia, and existed at the same time as the Viking Age and likely earlier. Varangians were present in Crimea including Cherson, the port from which they set sail to Constantinople, and were also present in Ukraine and Russia in the earliest centuries as Viking traders. This is a plausible pipeline for individuals with southern European ancestry to have migrated to Scandinavia, even if they had never themselves been to southern Europe.

Therefore, I propose that probably all of the E-V13 and E-FGC11450 present in Scandinavia likely entered that region in the Viking era and likely from the Greek colonies of Crimea through the Varangian trade routes in the 700's to 1000 AD. Obviously many other routes to Scandinavia from many other places in southern Europea are possible and even plausible, but this route has a chain of evidence that boots it plausibility above other hypothetical routes.

Hungary or Poland to Denmark Route

Speidel et al

Speidel et al (“High-resolution genomic history of early medieval Europe” Nature 01 January 2025) write that “In EIA [Early Iron Age] Scandinavia (<500 CE) we find evidence for broad genetic homogeniety. Specifically, individuals from Denmark (100 CE-300 CE) were indistinguishable from contemporary people in the Scandinavian Peninsula....However, we observe a clear shift in genetic ancestry already in the eigth century CE (Late Iron Age/early Viking Age) on Zealand (present-day Denmark) for which a 100% EIA ancestry model is rejected....This shift in ancestry persists among later Viking Age groups in Denmark, where all groups are modelled with varying proportions of ancestry related to Iron Age continental groups in Central Europe....These patterns are consistent with northward expansion of ancestry, potentially starting before the Vikin gAge, into the Jutland peninsula and Zealand island, towards southern Sweden. The geographical origin of this ancestry is currently difficult to discern, as the available samples form Iron Age central Europe remain sparse.” (Speidel)

Stated more simply, all the Scandinavians before 500 AD werer genetically similar, but then as early as the 700's AD it appears likely that a population from somewhere in Central Europe migrated into the Jutland peninsula and the island of Zealand and into soutthern Sweden, but not into the rest of Scandinavia.

“Previous studies have suggested that there was a diversity of ancestries in Scandinavia during this period, due to increased maritime mobility, but have not reported per-individual estimates, based on preceding ancestry.” (ibid)

Speidel then more clearly defined the geographic distribution of the individuals with detectable central European ancestry in Scandinavia:

Denmark: 25/53

Sweden: 20 of 62

Norway: 2 of 24

Speidel also said, “When considered collectively, the individual who show evidence of central European-related ancestry are mostly observed in regions historically within the Danish sphere of influence and rule. Currently, no such individuals, for example, are noted in eastern cental Sweden, which was a focus of regional power of the Svear. The difference in distribution could suggest that the central European-related ancestry was more common in regions dominated by the historical Gotar and groups inhabiting the lands on the borders of the Danish kingdom.” (ibid)

This is quite interesting, because “The Gotar...also spelled Gautar in Old Norse...were a North Germanic tribe that inhabited the regions of what is now southern Sweden....They are considered one of the foundational ethnic groups of modern Sweden, alongside the Svear (Swedes proper) from the central Malaren Valley region....The Gotar are believed by some scharls to be the femnants or original form of the ancient Goths (a broader Germanic people who migrated southward in late antiquity, splitting into the Ostrogoths and Visigoths). This connection stems from linguistic and etymological similarities: the name "Gotar" derives from Proto-Germanic *Gutaniz, meaning "the people" or "pourers" (possibly alluding to rivers or fertility). However, medieval sources like the Icelandic sagas and Old English texts distinguish the Gotar/Geats (Gautar) from the continental Goths (Gotar/Gutar), treating them as separate but related groups. The Gotar lived in agricultural heartlands south of the Svear territories, with their society centered on farming, trade, and tribal governance.” (Grok 3 AI, 31/8/2025)

This is quite interesting, because I've noticed that after about 800 AD there was an apparent shift of the E-V13 population, particularly the E-Z5018 haplogroupsl, from Hungary northward, into Poland and Denmark, as well as to the northeast into Ukraine and Russia. Now we have an archaeogenetic study showing that a population with ancestry in central Europe had likely migrated into Denmark and southern Sweden some time after 500 AD, and, more interestingly, not just any part of Scandinavia but specifically into the region from which the Ostrogoths had originated, and in which the ancestral population that had spawned the Ostrogoths had remained.

The Goths that became known as the Ostrogoths had come from the north Pontic region north and south of the Black Sea, including Crimea. The Greuthungi appear to have been the core of what later became called the Ostrogoths, and these Goths had remained in the north Pontic region as vassals of the Huns, although it appears they were also present in Hungary/Romania as well. The E-V13 men who were buried in Fonyod and Hacs were probably Greeks from Crimea or possibly Olbia who were close to the Ostrogoths and had migrated with them to Pannonia. However, other E-V13 men had likely remained in the region, including in Chersonesos and other cities in Crimea, and Goths as welll had remained in Crimea as well: “...in the 5^th century, the Ostrogothic ruler Theodoric the Great failed to rouse the Crimean Goths to support his 488-493 war in Italy.” (Wikipedia “Crimean Goths”) Thus, it's possible, in fact almost certain given the later presence of E-V13 in Ukraine and Russia, that E-V13 men at this time lived among the Goths not only in Hungary but in Crimea.

This connection between at least some of the E-V13 populations and the Goths provides a plausible avenue for E-V13 to have entered Scandinavia, although it's far from proven that E-V13 would have moved with the Goths back to Scandinavia, even if the Goths had kept in contact with their early homeland.

Four of Speidel's “central European” Vikings

Speidel analyzed autosomal DNA and ignored Y-chromosome DNA, but Y-chromosomal DNA can be an important tool in determining the likely origin of a particular male. Most of the men identified as having “Central European” European” ancestry (listed in Supplementary Table 4) belonged to haplogroups that were likely or possibly found in Scandinavia before 500 A (I1a, R1b, Rla, I2a). However, four men were found in haplogroups unlikely to have been found in Scandinavia during this time perios (E-V13, J2a (x2), J2b). Since we have the downstream clades for each of these men, we'll look at the other ancient men in those downsream clades to see if we we can find them together at various geogrphic locations and times that would connect their lines.

VK362 (Langeland Denmark 900-1000 AD)

E-CTS1273/E-CTS5856 (E-V13)

eeedc

Kap Andreevo I20181 1100-500 BC Bulgaria E-CTS1273

Himera I17872 480 BC Sicily E-CTS1273

Prague 16272 400-200 BC Czechia E-Z1057

Rozovo I19500 300-200 BC Bulgaria E-Z1057

Zadar R3745 22-121 AD Croatia E-Z1057

Valkenburg CGG107765 115 AD Netherlands Roman army CampE-V13

Viminacium I15525 129-247 AD Serbia BIA+N Levant E-CTS1273

Timacum Minus 15553 242-375 AD Serbia E-CTS1273

Naissus 6764 255-405 AD Serbia 268 AD Goth-Rm Battle? E-CTS1273

Nicaea I8367 500-700 AD Anatolia Bithynia brother E-Z1057

Nicaea I8366 500-700 AD Anatolia Bithynia brother E-Z1057

Plaza de l'Horta 12031 500-700 AD Spain E-CTS1273

Kent EAS006 600-700 AD England E-CTS1273

Langeland CGG106782 750-1050 AD Denmark Bogovej E-CTS1273

Catalonia 10853 989-1153 AD Spain Girona E-CTS1273

Viking VK362 900-1000 AD Denmark Langeland E-CTS1273

Viking VK362 900-1000 AD Denmark Langeland E-CTS1273

Ellwangen 18 1486-1627 AD Gemany E-CTS1273

VK346 (Oland Sweden 700-1100 AD)

J2b2a1a1a1a1a1a1 (J-Z1043)

Cayonu cay007 8500-8300 BC Anatolia Neolithic

Kotias 7940-7599 BC Chiatura Georgia Kotias culture

Tepe Guran 816 7000-6500 BC Iran Luristan Neolithic West Asia

Barcin 6 6224-6074 BC Anatolia Bursa Northwest Anatolia

Hajj Firuz I4241 6021-5891 BC Iran Neolithic Persia J-Z1827

Mentesh23 5900-5600 BC Azerbaijan Bayranty J-Z1827

Mentesh26 5900-5600 BC Azerbaijan Bayranty J-Z1827

Zolotarevka ZO1002 3947-3713 BC Russia Stavropol Pre-Yamnaya J-Z182

Komsomolec KMM023 3400-3100 BC Russia Stavropol Maykop

Georgia A16271_79 3000-2900 BC Georgia Kazreti Kura-Araxes culture

Crihana I10206 2900-2500 BC Moldova l Yamnaya or Cernavoda J-M241

Mokrin MOK145 2100-1800 BC Serbia Maros culture J-Z600

Cetina Valley I11843 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Cetina Valley I18746 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Cetina Valley I18747 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Cetina Valley I19029 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Cetina Valley I19032 2000-1600 BC Croatia BA Balkans J-Z600

Mygdalia MYG001 1611-1452 BC Greece Mycenaean J-M241

Mygdalia MYG006 1612-1452 BC Greece Mycenaean J-M241

Mygdalia MYG008 1611-1452 BC Greece Mycenaean J-M241

Mygdalia MYG005 1504-1425 BC Greece Mycenaean J-M241

Velika Gruda I13778 1386-1212 BC Montenegro BA

Velika Gruda I14498 1300-1000 BC Montenegro BA Balkans J-Z1296

Velika Gruda I13167 1216-1052 BC Montenegro BA Balkans J-Z1298

Cinamak I17633 750-309 BC Albania J-M102

Cinamak I16253 658-403 BC Albania Kukes District J-M241

Lilybaeum I24671 197-51 BC Sicily Italy J-Z1297

Tunisia I24032 ? BC Tunisia J-M241

Viminacium R9669 130-311 AD Serbia Viminacium J-M241

Osijek I26752 200-300 AD Osijek Croatia J- Y3094 (J-M241)

Doclea Bjelovine 3481 211-321 AD Podgorica Monenegro Roman

Timicum I15548 380-210 AD Serbia Ravna J-Z631 (J-M241)

Timicum I15547 380-410 AD Serbia Ravna J-Z631

Timicum I15546 380-410 AD Serbia Ravna J-Z631 (J-m241)

Hacs 10 450-500 AD Goth culture J-M102

Hacs 24 450-500 AD Goth culture J-M102

Gardun 3544 550-601 AD Croatia

Racoczifalva C30 600-700 AD Avar RKC030

Racoczifalva C31 600-700 AD Avar RKC031

Racoczifalva C33 600-700 AD Avar RKC033

Nustar I34800 700-900 AD Croatia J-Z1043 (J-M241)

Nustar I28397 700-900 AD Croatia J-Z1043 (J-M241)

VK346/Oland 1057 801-1100 AD 951 AD Oland Sweden J-Z1043j2a

VK317 (Denmark Langeland 900-1000 AD)

J2a1a1a2b2a2b2b~ (J-PH245)

Cayonu cay007 8500-8300 BC Anatolia Neolithic

Barcin 6 6224-6074 BC Anatolia Bursa Northwest Anatolia

Ripa Biance R19 5350-5035 BC Italy Neolithic

Adygea I2055 4572-4500 BC Russia Adygea Neolithic Steppe

Sredny Stih I11828 4359-4251 BC Russia Rostov Oblast

Adygea I6268 3766-3382 BC Russia Adygea Novosvobodnaya culture

Sarakenos G37 2476-2300 BC Greece Akraifnion J2a1a1a2b2a2b1

Charalamobs HGC032 2400-1800 BC Greece Crete J-PF5125

Lasithi HGC006-035 2171 BC Greece Crete J2a1a1a2b2

Lasithi HGC009 1972 BC Greece Crete J2a1a1a2b2a1b1~

Kydonia XAN031 1700- 1200 BC Crete Greece Minoan

TIR010 1370 BC Greece Argolid J2a1a1a2b2

Himera I7223 409 BC Sicily Italy J2a1a1a2b2a

Sarrebourg R11550 247-405 AD France Roman Era J-PH245

Iznik I14843 400-700 AD Anatolia Byzantine J-PH245

Vienna CSK026 Avar period Austria Csokorgasse J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a3

Vienna CSK013 Avar period Austria Avar Csokorgasse J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a

Vienna CSK012 Avar period Austria Avar J2a1a1a2b2a1a1a3

Moedling MSG011 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2a1a1

Moedling MSG010 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2a1a

Moedling MSG236 Avar period Austria J2a1a1a2b2

Zalavar AHS05 900-1000 AD Hungary Zalavar Lake Balaton

Viking 317 900-1000 AD Langeland Denmark J2a1a1a2b2a2b2b~

Oylum Hoyuk 14787 950-1050 AD Kilis Turkey

Bugyi-2 950-1000 AD Hungarian Elite

Vors-Papkert 167 950-1000 AD Hungarian Elite

Sarretudvari 81 950-1000 AD Hungarian Commoner

Puspokladany 195 960-1000 AD Hungarian Commoner J2a1a1a2b2

VK43 (Sweden Vastara Gotaland (Gothland 900-1200 AD)

J2a1a1b2a1b1b2c~

Cayonu cay007 8500-8300 BC Anatolia Neolithic

Kotias 7940-7599 BC Chiatura Georgia Kotias culture

Barcin I0708 6224-6074 BC Anatolia NW Bursa

Aknashen I3931 5985-5836 BC Armenia Neolithic Caucasus

Yunasite YUN026 4537-4373 BC Bulgaria Gumelnita culture

Prague I15823 3800-3400 BC Czechia Chalcolithic

Tepe Hissar I2337 3640-3518 BC Iran Semnan Chalcolithic

La Sassa LSC002_005 3500-2500 BC Italy Copper Age

Geoksyur DA381 3367-3098 BC Turkmenistan

Shah-i-Sokhta I8724 305o-2850 BC Iran Seistan BA

Aigyrzhal I11527 2122-1926 BC Kyrgyzstan BA Central Asia

Sappali I7494 2016-1830 BC Uzbekistan

Aktobe I4794 1600-1400 BC Kazakhstan Central Asia culture

Pruszcz Gdanski PCA0499 100-300 AD Poland Wielbark

Halikarnassos I3303 361-166 BC Anatolia Caria J2a1a1b2a1

Kiskoros KPM-14 630-650 AD Hungary Avar era

Kiskundorozsma KDA-485 660-700 AD Hungary

Viminacium I15517 124-228 AD Moesia Superior Serbia Roman

Valkenburg CGG107753 50 BC-250 AD Netherlands Marktveld (Holland) J-L70

Marcellino & Pietro 300-500 AD Rome Italy

Egypt Mummy t2287 425-538 AD Egypt Byzantine J2a1a1b2a1b1 J-L70

Kiskoros KPM-14 620-660 AD Hungary Early Avar era

Kiskoros KPM-23 710-750 AD Hungary

Zalavar AHS19 850-900 AD Hungary Lake Balaton

Co-Expansion of E-V13 and J2b (J-M205)

Coinciding Geographical Locations

Valkenburg CGG107765 115 AD Netherlands E-V13

Valkenburg CGG107753 50 BC-250 AD Netherlands J2a1a2b2a2

Heruli

The Fonyod population was culturally and genetically somewhat different from that of Hacs, and iIt's possible that the population was not actually Ostrogothic but belonged rather to one of the other Germanic populations from the north Pontic region. One of these was the Heruli, whose ultimate origins was probably southern Sweden or Denmark, although scholars disagree on this, according the Wikipedia article “Heruli”. Anothe rpoint of contention is as to whether the Heruli were actually a part of the larger tribe considered to be Goths, as were the Gepids.

The Heruli appear to have been the organizers of the 269-270 AD naval raids into the Roman Balkans and Aegean. “In these raids, Goths, Eluri [Heruli], and other “Scythian” peoples took control of Black Sea Greek cities, and gained a fleet that they used to launch raids starting in the Black Sea itself, and going as far as Greece and Asia Minor.” (Wikipedia “Heruli”) They plundered Byzantium, Troy, Sparta and Athens, along with others. However, near today's border of Greece and Bulgaria they were defeated by the Romans and some of the Heruli probably joined the Roman army.

“The Heruli are believed to have formed part of the Chernyakhov culture, which although dominated by the Goths and other Germanic peoples, also included Bastarnae, Dacians and Carpi. The Heruli thus are archaeologically indistinguishable from the Goths. Jordanes reports that these Heruli of the Azov area in the late 4^th century AD were conquered by Ermanaric, king of the Greuthungi Goths. Ermanaric's realm may also have included Finns, Slavs, Alans and Sarmattians.” (ibid)

The Heruli and the Batavi

As with their neighbors the Goths, Heruli were already seen in western Europe before the empire of Attila, both as raiders and as soldiers working under Roman authority. Already before the time of Attila the Romans established a Heruli auxiliariy unit in the Western Empire.....The Heruli seniores were stationed in northern Italy. This numerus Erulorum was a lightly equipped unit often associated with the Batavian Batavi seniores....In 360, Constantius II ordered the future emporer Julian the Apostate, who then had command of forces in Gaul, to settle some of his best units including the Heruli, Batavi, and others, for fighting the Parthians in the Middle East....In 366 the Batavian and Heruli units fought agains the Alamanni near the Rhine....and then against the Picts and Scotti in Britain. They were subsequentlys ent to fight Parthias in the east....In 405 or 406 a large number of barbarian groups crossed the Rhine, entering Roman Gaul and the Heruli appear on the list of peoples given by the historian Jerome....the list included many of the Middle Danubian peoples from the East, including Roman provincials from Pannonia, and was already in the period where the Huns were cuasing major movements of such peoples....In 435 the Heruli are mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris among the troops which Aetius, who had spent time in exile with the Danubian Huns, used to defend Gallia belgica, a Roman province, from Burgundians....Ellegard argues that the association with the Batavi in this period should be seen not as a connection to the Lower Rhine, the original home of the Batavi unit centuries earlier, but to their quarters in tis period which were at Passau (Castara Batava) on the Danube, not far from where the Heruli would later have their kingdom. Liccardo argues that even though “units were moved around and over time tended to lose any ethnic or geographic homogeneity, they could still give hints about the origins of ethnic groups.....At least two much later mentions of Heruli in southwestern Europe, after the Heruli were established on the Middle Danube, and in parts of Italy, can be connected to the Visigoths who had been granted a kingdom by the Romans in what is now southwestern France, but have also been taken to imply the existence of Heruli based on the North Sea coast, for example near the Lower Rhine. Firstly, two sea raids were made by Heruli around coastal Spain in the 450's, as reported by Hydatius, ius. Secondly, shortly after 475 Sidonius Apollinaris reported the presence of Heruli at the Visigothic court of Euric in Bordeaux.They are listed in a poetic way together with other barbarians, from places as distant as  Parthia, who Sidonius found looking for protection and patronage....” (ibid)

(The reason I included such a long section from the Wikipedia article is of course because it sonnects the Heruli to the Batavi, the Germanic tribe that lived in the region of the land of Arkel (furthermore, if we are speculating that that the Swaim/den Hartog line derived from the Arkel line, the story of the Heruli has some parallels to Pauw's account of the early van Arkel line, including involvement in a battle in Troy, a mention of Constantius, a mention of the Heruli and Batavi fighing in Gaul durin the time when the first van Arkel would have been there in the mid-300's AD. However, in this post I'm not pushing my speculation this far, although I'll still point out the connections I see).

Bibliography

Davranoglou et al (2023) “Ancient DNA reveals the orgins of the Albanians” Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians | bioRxiv

Lazarudus (2022) “The genetic history of the Souther Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe” The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe | Science

Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity

Daniel Shriner*

Frontiers | Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854), PHRY´GIA

Saag (2005) “North Pontic crossroads: Mobility in Ukraine from the Bronze Age to the early modern period” North Pontic crossroads: Mobility in Ukraine from the Bronze Age to the early modern period | Science Advances

Ruppenstein “Cremation burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age: continuity or change?”
Brandbest_Kern.pdf

Istros tumulus cremation with human and horse sacrifices:

M.A.Fowler_Istros_Historia_2021.pdf

Vokarides et al (2016) “Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements”

Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements | Investigative Genetics | Full Text

Marshall (2016) “Reconstructing Druze population history” Reconstructing Druze population history | Scientific Reports

Herrera et al (2011) “Neolithic Patralineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists” Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists | European Journal of Human Genetics

Bibliography

Davranoglou et al (2023) “Ancient DNA reveals the orgins of the Albanians” Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians | bioRxiv

Homepage - Creative Commons

Lazarudus (2022) “The genetic history of the Souther Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe” The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe | Science

Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity

Daniel Shriner*

Frontiers | Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity

Fine-scale sampling uncovers the complexity of migrations in 5th–6th century Pannonia

Author links open overlay panel, , , , , Paolo Francalacci 5, Martina Lari 3, Stefania Vai 3, , , , Tamás Hajdu 8, , , , , , , , David Caramelli 3…

Fine-scale sampling uncovers the complexity of migrations in 5th–6th century Pannonia - ScienceDirect

ctionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854), PHRY´GIA

Saag (2005) “North Pontic crossroads: Mobility in Ukraine from the Bronze Age to the early modern period” North Pontic crossroads: Mobility in Ukraine from the Bronze Age to the early modern period | Science Advances

Ruppenstein “Cremation burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age: continuity or change?”
Brandbest_Kern.pdf

Istros tumulus cremation with human and horse sacrifices:

M.A.Fowler_Istros_Historia_2021.pdf

Vokarides et al (2016) “Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements”

Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements | Investigative Genetics | Full Text

Marshall (2016) “Reconstructing Druze population history” Reconstructing Druze population history | Scientific Reports

Herrera et al (2011) “Neolithic Patralineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists” Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists | European Journal of Human Genetics

Creative Commons: Homepage - Creative Commons