A theory about the origin of E-V13

[Riverman]

That's the opinion of (many but not all, some have critiques) Romanian archaeologists, who see 'Thracians' everywhere, incl southern Poland and central Ukraine.. Obviously nonsense. Others simply use the term loosely
Best to stick to facts , not poor opinions

Not just the Romanian, but also practically all Russian classical scholars, and they have no national reason to extend Daco-Thracians up to Podolia.
Gava-Holigrady was always considered, by many authors, including Kristiansen, as a strong contender for Proto-Thracians.

KMK being, in comparison, not mentioned more often.

[Kunig]

Not just the Romanian, but also practically all Russian classical scholars, and they have no national reason to extend Daco-Thracians up to Podolia.
Gava-Holigrady was always considered, by many authors, including Kristiansen, as a strong contender for Proto-Thracians.

KMK being, in comparison, not mentioned more often.

Most ? Do you have a tally or survey ?
But it doesn't matter what they thought 30 years ago, we need to move with data (some are still slow to assimilate data).

The evidence shows that R1a-Z93 rich people were moving into Bulgaria, in the post-2200 BC shift. Of course, we should not automatically presume that R1-lineages are the only IE-bearing vectors, but in this instance it is the only viable option. of course, many people are going to insist that '''R1a-Z93 is Indo-Iranian'', but that is not the case for these western R1a-Z93 who remained west of the Urals.

The east-Alpine-Carpathian Halstatt, on the other hand, clearly was a reservoir of many pre-IE lineages which survived well into the Iron Age.

[Riverman]

Most ? Do you have a tally or survey ?
But it doesn't matter what they thought 30 years ago, we need to move with data (some are still slow to assimilate data).

Which kind of "data" contradicts the Gáva origin idea? So far there is none.

The evidence shows that R1a-Z93 rich people were moving into Bulgaria, in the post-2200 BC shift. Of course, we should not automatically presume that R1-lineages are the only IE-bearing vectors, but in this instance it is the only viable option. of course, many people are going to insist that '''R1a-Z93 is Indo-Iranian'', but that is not the case for these western R1a-Z93 who remained west of the Urals.

The main thrust of R-Z93 steppe pastoralists happened from Srubna -> Sabatinovka -> forming the regional variants of Noua (-Wietenberg) and Coslogeni. That happened much later than 2.200, around 1.700 BC and it affected the Unetice and presumably the Proto-Greek people as well, since it exerted pressure on those regions with raids and pushes.
Those Noua-Wietenberg people were even the direct neighbours and did influence the Suciu de Sus (pre-Gáva) inhabitants of North Western Romania-Transcarpathia I'm talking about.

However, it is indeed more likely they spoke an Iranian language, and there was a second influence working on those Carpathians, coming from Mierzanowice -> Kostany -> Füzesabony-Otomani. This would also explain why Thracian might be considered closer to Baltoslavic than to other language groups.

Like I wrote before, these are three possible options for Daco-Thracians:
- Cotofeni -> Nyirseg -> Eastern Otomani/Gyulavarsand -> Suciu de Sus(-Wietenberg?) -> Gáva -> Babadag-Psenichevo-Basarabi-Late Gáva
- Mierzanowice -> Kostany -> Füzesabony-Otomani -> Suciu de Sus -> Gáva -> Babadag-Psenichevo-Basarabi-Late Gáva
- Srubna -> Sabatinovka -> Noua-Wietenberg and Coslogeni -> Channelled Ware (East) -> Babadag-Psenichevo-Basarabi(-Late Gáva?)

In all three cases, my assumption is that E-V13 being assimilated. The most likely/safe assimilation is with Cotofeni, how far the influence of the others reached (Füzesabony and Noua-Coslogeni) is much less certain. Post-Cotofeni completely dominated the East Carpathian/Carpatho-Danubian sphere. Füzesabony was stopped at the border of later Suciu de Sus, by and large, so was Noua from the other side, which leaves room for that kind of autochthonous, post-Cotofeni derived model.

The east-Alpine-Carpathian Halstatt, on the other hand, clearly was a reservoir of many pre-IE lineages which survived well into the Iron Age.

I1, I2, E-V13, G2, J-L283 were likely all pre-IE, but they were no longer pre-IE by the Bronze Age. Because you had Yamnaya, Cotofeni and Epi-Corded in the Carpathian basin, highly unlikely they were still non-IE.
On the contrary, E-V13 if living there, would have been IE very early on, the phylogeny and dates point to an assimilation with Cotofeni in my opinion.

[Kunig]

Which kind of "data" contradicts the Gáva origin idea? So far there is none.



The main thrust of R-Z93 steppe pastoralists happened from Srubna -> Sabatinovka -> forming the regional variants of Noua (-Wietenberg) and Coslogeni. That happened much later than 2.200, around 1.700-1.600 and it affected the Unetice and presumably the Proto-Greek people as well, since it exerted pressure on those regions with raids and pushes.

yes, 1700 is 'post-2200bC'

So far, there is no R1a-Z93 in Greece or central European Bronze Age

On the contrary, E-V13 if living there, would have been IE very early on, the phylogeny and dates point to an assimilation with Cotofeni in my opinion.

You concluded that by browsing on Y-Full ?

[Riverman]

yes, 1700 is 'post-2200bC'

So far, there is no R1a-Z93 in Greece or central European Bronze Age

Yup, it came first in larger numbers with those Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni groups to more continental Europe West of the steppe, followed by Scythians and Sarmatians, obviously. But it is also quite clear that it was NOT dominant in the Thracians, and might even have been present primarily in the more mixed South Eastern group, from Coslogeni. Whether it was present and strong in e.g. Gáva, Basarabi etc. is up in the air.
If E-V13 appears, and it likely will, in multiple Daco-Thracian groups, but R-Z93 not, you know who spread this ethnolinguistic group. Going by the later distribution and the much too low presence of R-Z93, I think that's being already answered, though we can't be 100 % sure, since such odd cases like the Greek one might appear, in which the potential original carriers largely evaporated. But for the reasons mentioned above and the better alternative scenarios, I doubt that for the Thracian case.

You concluded that by browsing on Y-Full ?

I went through YFULL data, but also through FTDNA and multiple papers. The usual assumption expressed is always (in the newer/better ones, there are not that many dealing with that subject) that E-V13 expanded primarily in the Bronze Age and the dates mentioned correspond very clearly to the first steppe contact - like Cotofeni for the region in question. You know the usual TMRCA for E-V13? Its not just one source, there are multiple ones. We likely deal with a very small group, possibly even a single individual, picked up by an early Western steppe group in the Carpatho-Danubian sphere.

Talking about YFULL, that's the data from May 2022:


The first sign of life for E-V13 comes from shortly after the steppe impact, about 5.000-4.600 yBP. That's something FTDNA largely confirms as well:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree

By 2.400 BC, E-V13 was already growing significantly and in the LBA-EIA transition, there is a clear peak for the E-V13 growth with new surviving branches. And I would remind everybody on the fact, that likely many E-V13 lineages being annihilated in the subsequent period and its still undertested in comparison to Western European lineages. Therefore relatively speaking, its share in the Bronze Age should be rather higher than lower. We know the territory roughly covered by J-L283 and R-L2, E-V13 can't be hidden in small, restricted area of the Eastern Balkans.

[rafc]

At that point Dacians being formed, in part from Kustanovice. You can read it up here, they being related to the groups from from the Dniestr, West Podolian group, all considered largely Gáva derived and Dacian usually. The author and the quoted authors made clear, that Kustanovice being largely Gáva derived:
https://www.academia.edu/15675832/IR...OVICE_CULTURE_

Only Scythian influences on top of a local origin from Gáva first and Noua second. The author made also clear, that in and around the Kustanovice group and its relatives cremation predominated for three millenia.

That's an article from 1960. It would make sense to use some more up to date info. Again, all points to Eastern-Hungary having a pretty uniform La Tène culture in LIA. Culture and genes are not the same, but the samples we have also perfectly fit the La Tène mould, so in this case there must have been mostly migration. If you look at the samples, what comes before these La Tène LIA's is very WHG. So if high ANF V13 had been there, it was long gone by LIA.

The interesting question is more how and when the current V13 arrived.

[Kunig]

Yup, it came first in larger numbers with those Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni groups to more continental Europe West of the steppe, followed by Scythians and Sarmatians, obviously. But it is also quite clear that it was NOT dominant in the Thracians, and might even have been present primarily in the more mixed South Eastern group, from Coslogeni. Whether it was present and strong in e.g. Gáva, Basarabi etc. is up in the air.
If E-V13 appears, and it likely will, in multiple Daco-Thracian groups, but R-Z93 not, you know who spread this ethnolinguistic group. Going by the later distribution and the much too low presence of R-Z93, I think that's being already answered, though we can't be 100 % sure, since such odd cases like the Greek one might appear, in which the potential original carriers largely evaporated. But for the reasons mentioned above and the better alternative scenarios, I doubt that for the Thracian case.

If Dacians are E-V13 rich, it could be similar to the case with i1 in Nordic/ Germanics

I went through YFULL data, but also through FTDNA and multiple papers. The usual assumption expressed is always (in the newer/better ones, there are not that many dealing with that subject) that E-V13 expanded primarily in the Bronze Age and the dates mentioned correspond very clearly to the first steppe contact - like Cotofeni for the region in question. You know the usual TMRCA for E-V13? Its not just one source, there are multiple ones. We likely deal with a very small group, possibly even a single individual, picked up by an early Western steppe group in the Carpatho-Danubian sphere.

Talking about YFULL, that's the data from May 2022:


The first sign of life for E-V13 comes from shortly after the steppe impact, about 5.000-4.600 yBP. That's something FTDNA largely confirms as well:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree

By 2.400 BC, E-V13 was already growing significantly and in the LBA-EIA transition, there is a clear peak for the E-V13 growth with new surviving branches. And I would remind everybody on the fact, that likely many E-V13 lineages being annihilated in the subsequent period and its still undertested in comparison to Western European lineages. Therefore relatively speaking, its share in the Bronze Age should be rather higher than lower. We know the territory roughly covered by J-L283 and R-L2, E-V13 can't be hidden in small, restricted area of the Eastern Balkans.

Ok. Im happy to defer to you guys for the nitty-gritty on E-V13, although I havent managed to read all 500 + pages
It's very interesting how it appears to be 'missing' for so long in southeastern Europe.

[Riverman]

That's an article from 1960. It would make sense to use some more up to date info. Again, all points to Eastern-Hungary having a pretty uniform La Tène culture in LIA. Culture and genes are not the same, but the samples we have also perfectly fit the La Tène mould, so in this case there must have been mostly migration. If you look at the samples, what comes before these La Tène LIA's is very WHG. So if high ANF V13 had been there, it was long gone by LIA.

The interesting question is more how and when the current V13 arrived.

Eastern Hungary was indeed mostly La Tene, but there is evidence in the close by regions for locals being assimilated or living side by side. Like mentioned before, it varies by region.
Shortly afterwards came the big Dacian push, which conquered these territories from the Celts. But again, there is evidence for the Dacians to have assimilated Celts.
So the natural outcome would be a predominantly E-V13 plus R-L51 mix for the local Tisza-Transtisza population and that's exactly what we find in the Avar period if subtracting the obvious steppe, Germanic and Slavic newcomers. We did those stats before.

As for the age of the article: There are not that many dealing with Eastern Vekerzug, Sanislau group and Kustanovice. Even less which touch the ethnic Interpretation. I quoted some more before in this thread though and the facts mentioned are clear:
The pottery and burial rite is in the Gava tradition and commonly interpreted as North Thracian/Dacian.
Note that the North Thracians/Dacians did continously cremated, with much less exceptions than in the South!
It is their defining feature.
The main exception are really La Tene elite burials and Mezocsat under Cimmerian influence before.

[rafc]

Eastern Hungary was indeed mostly La Tene, but there is evidence in the close by regions for locals being assimilated or living side by side. Like mentioned before, it varies by region.
Shortly afterwards came the big Dacian push, which conquered these territories from the Celts. But again, there is evidence for the Dacians to have assimilated Celts.
So the natural outcome would be a predominantly E-V13 plus R-L51 mix for the local Tisza-Transtisza population and that's exactly what we find in the Avar period if subtracting the obvious steppe, Germanic and Slavic newcomers. We did those stats before.

As for the age of the article: There are not that many dealing with Eastern Vekerzug, Sanislau group and Kustanovice. Even less which touch the ethnic Interpretation. I quoted some more before in this thread though and the facts mentioned are clear:
The pottery and burial rite is in the Gava tradition and commonly interpreted as North Thracian/Dacian.
Note that the North Thracians/Dacians did continously cremated, with much less exceptions than in the South!
It is their defining feature.
The main exception are really La Tene elite burials and Mezocsat under Cimmerian influence before.

Archeologically there is no proof for any big Dacian push in Eastern Hungary. Dacian pottery starts to show up with the arrival of the Sarmatians (Iazyges) there, at the start of the first century AD. I think this is also the period much V13 was introduced (let's not forget that the sole Sarmatian era sample we have is V13).
The question remains where that V13 came from. An obvious guess would be Transylvania, but if the arrival had something to do with the Iazyges, maybe the V13 also came from further away, maybe driven on by these Nomadic intrusions.

Transylvania obviously did have a big shift from La Tène to Dacians in the 2nd century BC, althought there the population was also more clearly mixed during the La Tène period, with Dacian cemeteries, even if they were a large minority compared to the Celtic one. Interestingly enough the Dacian resurgence in Transylvania appears to orginate in the east (East side of the Carpaths and Moldavia), which is not what I would guess as being the core of V13 in that period. Probably movements in this period were already very complex.

[Riverman]

Archeologically there is no proof for any big Dacian push in Eastern Hungary. Dacian pottery starts to show up with the arrival of the Sarmatians (Iazyges) there, at the start of the first century AD. I think this is also the period much V13 was introduced (let's not forget that the sole Sarmatian era sample we have is V13).
The question remains where that V13 came from. An obvious guess would be Transylvania, but if the arrival had something to do with the Iazyges, maybe the V13 also came from further away, maybe driven on by these Nomadic intrusions.

Transylvania obviously did have a big shift from La Tène to Dacians in the 2nd century BC, althought there the population was also more clearly mixed during the La Tène period, with Dacian cemeteries, even if they were a large minority compared to the Celtic one. Interestingly enough the Dacian resurgence in Transylvania appears to orginate in the east (East side of the Carpaths and Moldavia), which is not what I would guess as being the core of V13 in that period. Probably movements in this period were already very complex.

There is evidence for Dacians moving at least up to the Tisza river with smaller scale beyond though.
For the rest I agree with, with the exception of the East being not E-V13 dominated, which I think it was since Gava-Holigrady and latest the Psenichevo-Basarabi expanded into Moldova as well.