A theory about the origin of E-V13

[Riverman]

Except that not a single one of these groups settled in Greece.

Channelled Ware groups settled in Greece, coming down from Belegis II-Gáva, after having crossed the Morava-Vardar route.



He is just more outspoken, other publications have the same results, they just try to explain it by nonsense theories which don't work if packages migrate - because in this case, pots being brought by people:

Spearheads found in this Transitional period
between the Belegiš II-Gava and late Brnjica cultures,
and which do not appear any earlier, have character-
istic narrow and elongated blades. Of particular inter-
est are pieces with so-called flamed blades,31 which
are undoubtedly of Central European origin, and can
probably be attributed to the Gava complex. A casting
mould for this type of spearhead was identified at the
Kokino site, 32 together with indigenous pottery of the
Brnjica culture. Flame-bladed spearheads and swords
of the Reutlingen type seem to penetrate the Morava
river valley from north to south during the Transitional
period. In a broader context, flame-bladed spearheads
are found in Poland,33 Moravia,34 Bosnia and Herzego-
vina,35 Bulgaria36 and even – albeit rarely – in Greece.37

During the Late Bronze Age, the Morava valley was one
of the main routes for communication in the Balkans.
Settlement patterns changed during this time; hilltops
appeared which in several cases had man-made fortifi-
cations which eventually burned down. In the follow-
ing Transitional period, both the ornamental style and
shapes of pottery changed significantly, with direct
parallels to the Belegiš II culture. Older pottery types
that had been found in the Morava valley in the Late
Bronze Age now disappear. During the Transitional pe-
riod, almost all lowland settlements of the LBA were
resettled, and many new settlements arose. Some of
the large Late Bronze Age hilltops which occupied stra-
tegic positions were also resettled (sites 1, 2, 6 and 12),
without the building of new hilltops. At the same time,
new hilltops appeared in the hinterland of the Morava
valley (especially the South Morava valley), where set-
tlers used older pottery shapes and ornaments, and
rare finds of Belegiš II type Fluted Ware occur along
with bronze objects of Central European origin.
Similar changes were documented in the Vardar val-
ley in Macedonia and northern Greece, with finds of
Fluted Ware, metal objects of Central European origin,
and cremation as a new funerary ritual. Maybe the best
example is the Kastanas settlement, located on the
Vardar river in northern Greece. Here, Fluted Ware was
documented in a layer (12 th layer) which has an abso-
lute date (Ha A2–B1)38 approximately concurrent with
the changes taking place in the Morava valley.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...terial_culture

Gava wasn't a main E-V13 group and it's not really open to debate.

That's your opinion, not a fact. I beg to differ.

I'm not sure from where exactly you infer that E-V13 became on the main lineages of Europe in the Iron Age.

By counting new branches in that time frame and comparing it with other haplogroups. E-V13 was larger than all the Proto-Baltoslavic branches in the Bronze Age. I'm not talking about where it was, every region, but I'm talking about relative proportions, relative to other European haplogroups at that time. If E-V13 would have kept growing like in the Iron Age, well, that's not possible, because then it would require a much larger European population or Europe being dominated by E-V13...

In hundreds of central, western, eastern European Iron Age samples, so far ~5 samples are E-V13.

How many do we have from the Balkans? From regions further away from the Danube? Cremation is a real issue and if having 5 samples from a site, even if 10 % of the locals were E-V13, what would be the chances?

E-V13 was a main lineage of the Balkans, but it definitely wasn't a main hg or at least a statistically significant lineage anywhere outside of the Balkans.

It was in the Carpathians (too) and we will see how it performed elsewhere. If a group dominated two major regions (Carpathians and Central-Eastern Balkans), plus being widespread across the board, in many regions having probably 10 and more percent in the past - in some even in the present, it is of course one of the main lineages.

The current E-V13 percentage in Greece in my opinion will be explained via slow and natural human mobility networks from the Balkans to the Aegean. In this context, I don't think that finding E-V13 in northern Greece even in the LBA would be that suprising and it certainly doesn't require some massive migration/invasion from the Carpathians which never happened.

It requires such movements if there were no E-V13 frequencies of significance North of Greece before, but it appeared after the LBA-EIA in larger numbers. If that's the case, its good evidence for the North -> South migration. Especially if being found in specific places and groups, contexts and probably even with different autosomal profiles. There were specific regions of Greece which being either more influenced by Channelled Ware or had closer ties to Thrace later.

[Bruzmi]

Channelled Ware groups settled in Greece, coming down from Belegis II-Gáva, after having crossed the Morava-Vardar route.

Gava groups didn't properly settle even south of the Danube, let alone Greece.


Introduction: People, Cultures, Interactions
October 2020
In book: Spheres of Interaction Contacts and Relationships between the Balkans and Adjacent Regions in the Late Bronze / Iron Age (13th–5th Centuries BCE) (pp.11-21)
Publisher: VML
Project: Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in western Balkans

Mario Gavranovic
Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW)
Daniela Heilmann
Marek Vercik
Charles University in Prague

As a further consequence, these events are thought to have led to a disruption of the cultural development, thus heralding the beginning of a transitional period that would end the Late Bronze Age. Stringent archaeological analyses of channelled ceramic of the Gava complex pointed to the region of upper Tisza River or northeastern part of Carpathian Basin as a most probable area of origin.21 Moreover, distribution maps of specific pottery types and decorations of original Gava style have clearly demonstrated that only certain elements and by far not the “whole package” spread toward the south.22 In this respect, certain migrations on smaller, individual scale cannot be excluded but assumed mass movements of “people with channelled ware” are still without valid evidence.

The evidence that this never happened is already visible in many ways. There is no Gava-related R1b or I2a lineage found in massive numbers nowhere in the Roman Balkans and there won't be any massive R1b/I2a settlement in Greece/Greek Macedonia.

[Riverman]

Gava groups didn't properly settle even south of the Danube, let alone Greece.


Introduction: People, Cultures, Interactions
October 2020
In book: Spheres of Interaction Contacts and Relationships between the Balkans and Adjacent Regions in the Late Bronze / Iron Age (13th–5th Centuries BCE) (pp.11-21)
Publisher: VML
Project: Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in western Balkans

Mario Gavranovic
Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW)
Daniela Heilmann
Marek Vercik
Charles University in Prague



The evidence that this never happened is already visible in many ways. There is no Gava-related R1b or I2a lineage found in massive numbers nowhere in the Roman Balkans and there won't be any massive R1b/I2a settlement in Greece/Greek Macedonia.

The author is clearly an anti-migrationist and in the same book, which I have at home, other authors point to the evidence in favour of migration.
If a whole archaeological package moved and replaced completely different complexes, its, as a rule, a migration of people.

Just compare with the maps I posted before. Casted types of spearheads, Reutlingen type swords (more generally "Naue II"), cremation cemeteries with typical urns, black burnished pottery with channeling and knobs, ritual pits, metal deposits and hoards, sun and fire symbolism, early ironworking etc.
There are much worse documented archaeological formations which turned out to be ethnic migrations.

And even this anti-migrationist accepts at least limited migrations being necessary to explain that pattern.

Here another detailled map on the North -> South migration of associated artefacts:


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...terial_culture

Its clear that the centre was in the Carpathians and they settled mainly along the Danube, with groups of moving further down into the Aegean and even with the Sea Peoples.

And this is from the same book from which you quoted the anti-migrationist comment:

I was reading in this book: Perspectives on Balkan Archaeology 1, Spheres of Interaction, 2020.
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/oeai/publikat...an-archaeology

From the chapter: Similarities and Differences between Material Culture of the Belegis-Gava Group from the Southern Pannonian Plain and the Morava River Basin, Aleksandar Kapuran, Aleksandar Bulatovic (p. 37 ff)

It confirms, just like the Albanian papers on the issue, two things:
First, Belegis II-Gáva has some characteristics of its own, which point to influences in Southern Pannonian-Banat areas changing it from classical Gáva. I think this is merely a substrate and branching effect, but this is debatable.
Secondly, it also proves that even core elements and groups of Belegis II-Gáva penetrated much deeper into the South than some authors and comments seem to have suggested before.

Especially the Preševo valley which connects Southern Serbia and the Kosovo was a stronghold of Channelled Ware people (p. 43):

Recent research conducted by M. Stojic and A. Bulatovic in the basins of Leskovac, Vranje-Bujanovac and Presevo led to discoveries of new sites with Belegis II-Gava cultural characteristics. Excavations of the largest extent were conducted at the hillfort site of Hisar in Leskovac. The site was divided in two sectors: the upper plateau with dwelling structures of a dugaout type, which mostly belonged to Brnjica I horizon (Sector II), and a sector comprising the plateau and the southeastern slope of the hill with dwelling structures, which contained channelled pottery decorated in the Gava manner (Sector I).

[...]

A. Bulatovic has suggested that the channelled vessel belongs to the period between the 11th and the 10th cenutry BCE, which would represent a terminus ante quem for the emergence of the settlement in this sector. Numerous finds of channelled pottery here also confirm their prominence over the earlier Brnjica pottery culture, which clearly was in an intrusive deposit because of the erosion from the upper plateau. Comparable rectangular houses are rare during the Belegis II-Gava period both in the Pannonian-Danubian region and in the central Balkans. The surveys and test excavations in the surroundings of Hisar brought to light one lowland settlement at the site of Sastanci in the village Bobiste near Leskovac and hillfort Kale in Grdelica at the very entrance to the Gredelica Gorge. The pottery found in both sites corresponds to the Belegis II-Gava cultural complex.

On the local pre-Channelled Ware (pre-Gáva/Belegis II/Mediana II) population (p. 44):

...although certain Brnjica-like forms have been noticed, thus indicating that indigenous populations were still present, though not as an own ethno-cultural group but rather as an assimilated minority.

The spread happened in some areas with a destruction horizon:

The most important results have been achieved at the hillfort of Gradiste in Konculj, positioned at strategically important place at the entrance to the Konculj gorge. the hillfort is enclosed by a rampart. In the layer above the destroyed and burnt Brnjica-period settlement, pottery of poorer quality appears together with channelled ware that can be attributed to Ha A1 to Ha A2 or to time of 12th and 11th century BCE.

Illustration for the expansion of Belegis II-Gáva:

Figure 2, page 40.

The earlier population survived in isolated areas if not being subjugated, or they turned South:

In short, we can assume that Brnjica societies were pushed from north into regions to the southeast of the Juzna Morava, into the Bujanovacko-Presevski Basin, due to the invasion of populations that used channelled pottery. The large number of settlements on the riverbanks of the Juzna Morava with finds of the Belegis II-Gava culture predominating indicates assimilation of earlier population, in contrast to the situation in settlements in mountainous areas an perimeters of these basins.

The situation was therefore very, very similar to later Germanic and especially Slavic tribal migrations into the area: The river basins and lowlands were under full control of Channelled Ware, whereas in the mountainous areas and highlands some local populations survived and kept their independence in part.

Cenotaphs and ritual pits were also found in the Belegis II-Gava context, reaching both Southern Serbia and Western Bulgaria.

in the conclusions (p. 49):

This insufficiently documented and most probably turbulent period seems, according to settlement stratigraphy, to have been characterised by activities of people who used channelled pottery, which, after a longer period of existence in southern Pannonia, started to move into the southern Balkans. The influence of the channelled pottery had started to spread along the Velika Morava River and into the hinterland of the Iron Gates even before this presupposed movement. The lack of cemeteries of the Belegis II-Gava group in the Juzna Morava and the Nisana River basins points to the swift advancement of population groups. Unstratified chance finds of symbolic nature, namely burials with cenotaphs, might support this assumption. There also seems to be an urgent need for weaponry during these aggressive migraitons towards the south, perhaps related to the absence of bronze hoards with deposited metal objects. The advancement from the north into the territory of the Brnjica culture in the Juzna Morava Basin is evidenced by a sudden cessation of habitation at the settlements of Konculj and Vranjski Priboj. These developments and the evidence from the recently excavated cemetery near Mali Dol-Negotino, as well as other burial sites mentioned here, in addition to the settlements in the Vardar River basin, point to certain contacts or movements between the central Balkans and the Vardar River basin. In a certain way, what has been described as the Aegean migration should not be completely ruled out, but which certainly shold not be exclusively linked to the "Sea peoples" thesis.

That's the current status. Now we need ancient DNA to compare the genetic make up of the populations before and after Channelled Ware expansion to prove how much of a genetic impact the migration had. We already see in Psenichevo that there was no E-V13 of significance in Bulgaria before the Channelled Ware expansion, but afterwards it was there in apparently significant numbers.

[Riverman]

A growing number of archaeologists recognise the importance of Gáva into Channelled Ware and connect them with Proto-Thracians. Among this is also Kristian Kristiansen, Europe before History (1998).

Some maps from this source, first Gáva as the Proto-Thracian culture:


Its no new theory, but it will be proven once we have more ancient DNA finds. E-V13 will be the key signature marker for the expansion.

Another map showing the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, with which Thracian elements spread far to the West:



Note that the core Illyrian territories being practically not affected by this. They being more affected by earlier migrations from Channelled Ware people, including those which fled the Cimmerians, than by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. This might correspond with many of the few E-V13 finds which will pop up belonging not to the main clades, but being fairly old side branches, dating back to the Late Bronze Age.

The younger clades appear to have been in situ, within the Thracian core regions and among mixed steppe groups (e.g. Mezocsat, Vekerzug, Ferigile).

Source link to Kristiansen book: https://books.google.de/books?id=zAY4we4LKQMC

The new research by German, Romanian, Bulgarian and Serbian archaeologists largely confirms the great importance of Channelled Ware for the tranditional period from the Bronze to the Iron Age in the Balkans.

[Bruzmi]

A growing number of archaeologists recognise the importance of Gáva into Channelled Ware and connect them with Proto-Thracians. Among this is also Kristian Kristiansen, Europe before History (1998).

The new research by German, Romanian, Bulgarian and Serbian archaeologists largely confirms the great importance of Channelled Ware for the tranditional period from the Bronze to the Iron Age in the Balkans.

This isn't any new research. It's a book published in 1998 with archaeological data from the 1960s-1980s. And single finds of items from any culture are never seen as signs of any sort of huge migration/invasion. This idea is what has been thoroughly abandoned in modern research. Mass migrations/invasions are much more than that.

Modern archaeology discusses what Gavranovic (2020) is saying because it is what the data show. I'm not even trying to convince you about it, I'm literally telling you that there's not going to be any archaeogenetic study which will show that Gava had a huge impact on the Balkans or that Gava was E-V13. It's better for you to research theories which are plausible.

[Riverman]

This isn't any new research. It's a book published in 1998 with archaeological data from the 1960s-1980s. And single finds of items from any culture are never seen as signs of any sort of huge migration/invasion. This idea is what has been thoroughly abandoned in modern research. Mass migrations/invasions are much more than that.

Modern archaeology discusses what Gavranovic (2020) is saying because it is what the data show. I'm not even trying to convince you about it, I'm literally telling you that there's not going to be any archaeogenetic study which will show that Gava had a huge impact on the Balkans or that Gava was E-V13. It's better for you to research theories which are plausible.

There are new papers after 2020 leading to the same conclusion. They just don't connect it with linguistic groups any more, because of the pressure to avoid such theories in general, regardless of how well documented in the record.

There were and still are various proponents of the equation of Gáva with Proto-Thracian:

Almost synchronously, in
the beginning of the 1 st millennium, there appeared strong influences on
autochthonous Bronze Age cultures in the Serbian Danube valley that arrived
from two directions. On the one hand these are influences coming from
the area of the final phase of the Gava culture, from the south Carpathian
zone (Gava-Holihrady or the final phase of Gava culture, Gava-Medias as
it was identified by M. Guma) and on the other hand these are influences
from the central Europe, western regions of the Pannonian plain, that via
some variants of Early Urnfield culture reached Baranja, north Bačka and
western Srem. The eastern influences are associated with occurrence of
black burnished channeled pottery, which covered, in the period of Bronze-
Iron Age transition, rather large area from the middle Tisa basin over large
areas of the Carpathian basin (Laszlo 1994, Smirnova 1990) and across
the Carpathians reached Moldavia and even further to the Prut river. This
pottery is known in archaeological literature under many different names:
Graniceşti or Corlateni-Chisinaŭ and so on. Of particular interest for the
ethnic identification of its bearers is the opinion expressed by G. Smirnova
in the end of the 20 th century. She thinks that early Gava culture (Mahala III)
is of Thracian origin. She also pointed to stylistic connections of Belegiš II
and Chisinaŭ-Corlateni culture already in her works published in 1990. Our
experiences and so far published works indicate that significant changes in
the material culture of the Belegiš group had happened at Bronze-Iron Age
transition. They are conspicuous in the appearance of channels as leading
fashion of urn decoration first of all in necropoles (Vojlovica, Belegiš etc) but
also in settlements of this culture: in Srem (Ekonomija Sava) in south Banat
(Dubovac – Kudeljište) and in south Bačka (Feudvar). For Srem, Banat and
Serbian Danube basin this was an important phenomenon, which could be
considered as characteristic of the beginning of the Early Iron Age.

https://www.balkaninstitut.com/pdf/i...01%20Tasic.pdf

What's even more, there is no plausible alternative theory, because the impact of Gáva-related Channelled Ware being so huge, in the whole Central and Eastern Balkans, that there can hardly be any sort of earlier continuity. Even worse, the resulting main Southern Thracian culture of Psenichevo being primarily derived from Gáva-Channelled Ware and secondarily from Brnjica and Encrusted Pottery influences. All being clearly related to recent migrations from the Pannonian-Danubian sphere.

There are just critics, but those have no better explanation or theory, they just refuse to accept the Eastern Urnfield expansion and replacement event. Local continuity from earlier periods is no option, if concerning the spread of Thacian languages. The cultures were in origin and character, before Channelled Ware, also much to diverse to be part of one single koine and ethnolinguistic formation. After Channelled Ware, in all regions in which it prevailed, we find Thracians and Dacians later.

Without the "cremation problem", the evidence would be truly abundant. As things stand, we have to wait for "workarounds" and samples from those Thracian groups which didn't practise cremation. Especially irregular burials from Gáva and related formations, inhumation burials from Thraco-Cimmerians, Basarabi and Babadag, as well as irregular burials from Psenichevo, from which we already have the evidence of E-V13 in a Channelled Ware related group in the Early to Middle Iron Age.
Psenichevo is a direct continuation of the Channelled Ware people which moved into Thrace, by and large. Mixed, but still. We don't need all areas of Thrace sampled, we need primarily Channelled Ware related groups and that's Psenichevo and to its North Badadag, to its West Basarabi.

Also interesting: Candidate cultures for the Late Neolithic-Eneolithic periods:


The only one missing being Epi-Lengyel to the West of Tiszapolgar. But Lengyel/Epi-Lengyel, Tiszapolgar/Bodrogkeresztúr and Tripolye-Cucuteni - all three had E1b1b ancient DNA finds:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...5736197461&z=5

Those three being the main groups for the pre-steppe impact culture which carried (among others) E-V13.

After steppe contacts, it transitioned into Cotofeni in all likelihood. Cotofeni -> Makó-Livezile -> Nyirseg -> Otomani early/East -> Suciu de Sus -> Berkesz-Demecser/Lapus I -> Gáva.

Interestingly, for many of these Carpatho-Balkan cultures we have anthropological remains, because most used inhumation as their main burial ritual. E-V13 must have been fairly low at that period, because the first big expansion started after the steppe contact, presumably from Cotofeni onwards, especially in Nyirseg-Early Otomani.

However, there are many anthropological remains which being gathered by Romanian scientists, of which a a couple are of great interest:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ication_detail

The samples are also of great importance for the PIE debate, because it includes Cernavoda and Usatovo. Unfortunately the paper doesn't include anything about ancient DNA testing. I can just hope that the labs get those samples at some point.

[bce]

some very interesting leaked data:


unfortunately the sampling area is very vague ( "Balkan")

[Bruzmi]

some very interesting leaked data:


unfortunately the sampling area is very vague ( "Balkan")

I might have an idea about which study this might refer to, can you provide a bit more context about the screenshot?

[bce]

I might have an idea about which study this might refer to, can you provide a bit more context about the screenshot?

It's taken from a lecture by Carles Lalueza-Fox

[Archetype0ne]

some very interesting leaked data:


unfortunately the sampling area is very vague ( "Balkan")

Thank you for sharing this.
As expected from reliable historical sources, Illyrian linked Y really suffered post Two Batos revolts.

Also Riverman, I think you might better grasp what I meant when I called out your graph interpretation earlier on in the thread. You can see the relative gainers and losers in this sample set across periods. I think you can agree now, that your earlier POV was flawed.