Why a large portion of E-V13 in the Iron Age might have been Dacian

[vasil]

The difference between the models is that we need:
a large, unified population of E-V13 carriers which flourished since the later EBA and gained momentum in the MBA-LBA already. This needs to be visible in the archaeological record, there must be a cultural formation which expanded, which grew in numbers, had a favourable, largely unmolested demographic growth during the MBA - LBA and well into the IA. Again looking at Anatolia, like North West Anatolia in particular, the same applies as to Bulgaria: They got hit time and time again, no local continuity, no local growth, no significant expansion which lasted into Europe in the critical time frame. The E-V13 phylogeny and radiation too is much better to explain from a starting point close to the Tisza river, than from Bulgaria, let along Anatolia, for which it is nearly impossible.

Even more, we have samples of an earlier Anatolian-Levantine migration, and they brought J2a and even E-M34, as we can see in the Greek sample, but no E-V13 at all! Why should they miss the Greeks?

Therefore if just checking some boxes, criteria needed for the E-V13 homeland, we can just kick some theories out of the window, because they don't work out if just considering what we know already.

I am not arguing for an Anatolian origin I am just saying I can be cheeky and with the curent data as random as it may be its roughly as valid as the other teories. Also autosomaly there is obviously an increase in West Asian ancestry from the BA to the IA so something has to explain it and the closest source of it is Anatolia. I personaly think the earliest V13 split being a western branch probably means something but at this point its been such a wild ride that its starting to feel like anything is posible.

[Platonitzsche]

Most of the BA/IA Balkans is now well tested, and V13 wasn't there, or was rare. So there was a "fence", wherever the V13 homeland was. It's not unusal, for example J2b2 is above 90% in LBA Montenegro, and 0% in BA/IA Macedonia.

The J2b2 tree on yfull also has a bunch of old splitting west European and American branches, because they test a lot, but ancient DNA shows that it was a Balkan haplogroup limited to a small area, and these west European branches are really fringe cases.

Ancient dna sadly doesn´t show much in the case of J-L283 so far , it was surely not limited to a small area , rather a bunch of exceptionally mobile clans that , and i believe maybe that is what you meant, acquired semi-hegemony solely over a small coastal territory(cetina culture, sea mobility), you take cetina as the source of all L283 in europe is a fallacy of composition, mainly considering that their clades are almost all under J-Z38240 , some under Y21878, some maybe under a unknown clade of Z615* (if taking the origin of the mycenean clade as cetina, wich is in my opinion the most likely) .
We have to wait and see before going out making assumptions and taking them as the fact, like many in these forum spend their entire time doing, if bored i recommend to those : talk about something you actualy have some humble knowledge and aggregates to the comunity.
There is aparently not much "balkan" about early J-L283 splits such as J-YP91 , J-A28999A(unless you consider hungary balkan, wich most don´t) and upstream J-Z600.
We have a basal Z600 from the Dominican Republic and early splits in YP91 from Puerto rico and Austria(same branch) these places are not known for testing much...
If L283 spread as a minor lineage with indo europeans then these early splits outside of the balkans are not somekind of weird and unlikely multiple migration of upstream clades out of the small hegemonic vaguely "L283" " west balkan" where these subclades were not found so far but rather likely remnants of the late cooper age/ early bronze migrations into a region in and around central europe, from groups wich we have no samples yet, as we have no pre cetina nor pre maros L283 nor bronze age L283 from other parts of europe YET(apart from the sardinian Z600>YP157 and YP91 of course) , that doesnt mean they don´t exist just beacuse we have not found them.
As goes the old say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[Aspar]

Here we go again...

Cite me authors that call Mezocsat people Thracians please?
Calling the locals of the Mezocsat culture Thracians is your invention and has nothing to do with reality because you are projecting the Gava culture as Thracian.

It has the same loose foundation as the shaky term 'Thraco-Cimmerian' no matter what was written in the past about it.
You are relying on the same old material that also considered the Čaka culture Dorian...

[slavomir]

Ancient dna sadly doesn´t show much in the case of J-L283 so far , it was surely not limited to a small area , rather a bunch of exceptionally mobile clans that , and i believe maybe that is what you meant, acquired semi-hegemony solely over a small coastal territory(cetina culture, sea mobility), you take cetina as the source of all L283 in europe is a fallacy of composition, mainly considering that their clades are almost all under J-Z38240 , some under Y21878.
We have to wait and see before going out making assumptions and taking them as the fact, like many in these forum spend their entire time doing if bored i recommend to those talk about something you actualy have some knowledge and aggregates to the comunity. There is aparently not much "balkan" about early J-L283 splits such as J-YP91 , J-A28999A(unless you consider hungary balkan, wich most don´t, it is a region where population has away been on the move by the way) and upstream J-Z600.
We have a basal Z600 from the Dominican Republic and early splits in YP91 from Puerto rico and Austria(same branch) these places are not known for testing much...
If L283 spread as a minor lineage with indo europeans then these early splits outside of the balkans are not somekind of weird and unlikely multiple migration of upstream clades out of the small hegemonic vaguely "L283" balkan where these subclades were not found so far but rather likely remnants of the late cooper age/ early bronze migrations into a region in and around central europe, from groups wich we have no samples yet, as we have no pre cetina nor pre maros L283 nor bronze age L283 from other parts of europe YET(apart from the sardinian Z600>YP157 and YP91 of course) , that doesnt mean they don´t exist just beacuse we have not found them.
As goes the old say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

You are right, I should've said J-Z615, that's the subclade found in Mokrin, Mygdalia and all the Illyrians. And what I wrote applies to it.
It was at 90% in Illyrian areas, and drops to 0-5% outside of them. From the yfull tree one would guess it was a pan-European haplogroup which had an important role in Slavic, Celtic, etc. ethnogenesis., some are making the same mistake with E-V13.

[Riverman]

Here some quotes on the Thracian character of Mezocsat and Eastern Vekerzug, we had that debate before:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post878588

Its also important to keep geography in mind, we have a North Western Thracian group (North of the Danube, West of the Carpathians, presumably the original core group), a North East Thracian group (beyond the Carpathians, into Moldova and the forest steppe), a South Western or Central Balkan one (West of the Rhodopes, South of the Danube) and a South Eastern Thracian one (East of the Rhodopes, South of the Danube, extending into Anatolia - which could allow backflow from Anatolia within Thracian speakking networks).


(Much of the area drawn in grey and labelled as "Scythian" was still largely or at least partly Thracian at that time, like along the Prut etc)

For now we just have samples from the South Eastern group, but from a period when all the others were either still in existence or already in existence, depending on how someone wants to explain the Daco-Thracian people as whole.

The Himeran (Central Balkan and Caucasian) and Vekerzug (unknown Balkan-like) profiles which are not much younger already point to a widespread presence of E-V13 within an autosomally varied context. We can't deduce the autosomal profile of the bulk of E-V13 carriers from these later samples, but we can only associate them with Thracians in general.
Yet how the other Thracian provinces scored exactly is something we don't know. We also don't know why, because we have no references for the Carpatho-Balkan cremation block, from groups like Piliny, Suciu de Sus, Lapus, Berkesz-Demecser, Igrita, Wietenberg, Verbicoara, Belegis, Paracin or Brnjica - of which most expanded at some point into the Lower Danube-Bulgarian area, by the way.

[Kunig]

There is Kostany-Füzesabony and Makó had Epi-Corded influences also, in an earlier period. So its not correct that there is just one solution to the problem, in case one assumes Baltoslavic and Thracian being closer on the IE tree.

So you're once again appealing to imaginary evidence ?

R-Z93 from Srubna is indeed more likely Iranian,

IMo there’s a difference between Andronovo which moved toward Turan & Inner Asia & the late Srubnaja circle in the west

[Aspar]

Here some quotes on the Thracian character of Mezocsat and Eastern Vekerzug, we had that debate before:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post878588

Its also important to keep geography in mind, we have a North Western Thracian group (North of the Danube, West of the Carpathians, presumably the original core group), a North East Thracian group (beyond the Carpathians, into Moldova and the forest steppe), a South Western or Central Balkan one (West of the Rhodopes, South of the Danube) and a South Eastern Thracian one (East of the Rhodopes, South of the Danube, extending into Anatolia - which could allow backflow from Anatolia within Thracian speakking networks).


(Much of the area drawn in grey and labelled as "Scythian" was still largely or at least partly Thracian at that time, like along the Prut etc)

For now we just have samples from the South Eastern group, but from a period when all the others were either still in existence or already in existence, depending on how someone wants to explain the Daco-Thracian people as whole.

The Himeran (Central Balkan and Caucasian) and Vekerzug (unknown Balkan-like) profiles which are not much younger already point to a widespread presence of E-V13 within an autosomally varied context. We can't deduce the autosomal profile of the bulk of E-V13 carriers from these later samples, but we can only associate them with Thracians in general.
Yet how the other Thracian provinces scored exactly is something we don't know. We also don't know why, because we have no references for the Carpatho-Balkan cremation block, from groups like Piliny, Suciu de Sus, Lapus, Berkesz-Demecser, Igrita, Wietenberg, Verbicoara, Belegis, Paracin or Brnjica - of which most expanded at some point into the Lower Danube-Bulgarian area, by the way.

I'm afraid I can't find nowhere in that quote anything relating to the supposedly Thracian nature of Mezocsat.
The author just made a quote which you specifically bolded about the "Thraco-Scythian" culture of Vekerzug.
Then again, we do have Scythian Vekerzug samples and most of these were some sort of R-L51 and perhaps some I2a I believe.
There was one E-V13 and one R-Z2103 I believe although I'm not entirely sure about R-Z2103.
If anything looking by the aDna evidence so far and making parallels with the Scythians from Moldova I would say that actually R-L51 and the I2a ones are the locals there, not the E-V13 one which was suspiciously pulling towards the Balkans and the local Moldovan Scythians.

Also about your previous post about the absence or the very low amounts of E-V13 in post-Gava Eastern Hungary and Vekerzug, the cremation isn't very good argument because by then E-V13 was obviously widespread and assimilated into different cultures judging by the finds in Croatia, western Hungary, western Sovakia, Czechia and Moldova.
Your argument doesn't hold water and doesn't top my argument about the superior frequency in IA Thrace.

[Riverman]

Here we go again...

Cite me authors that call Mezocsat people Thracians please?
Calling the locals of the Mezocsat culture Thracians is your invention and has nothing to do with reality because you are projecting the Gava culture as Thracian.

It has the same loose foundation as the shaky term 'Thraco-Cimmerian' no matter what was written in the past about it.
You are relying on the same old material that also considered the Čaka culture Dorian...

Kristian Kristiansen is not that old and like I wrote before, most recent authors which don't do are doing so not because they now know better, but because "ethnic labels went out of fashion" for ideological reasons primarily and scientific scrutiny on the other. But if being asked, if they have to give an ethnic designation and label, most would still end up with Thracian, because anything else makes much less sense for both Gáva and even more so Mezocsat.

The connection is clear for the Mezocsat locals which are Gáva derived:

To the genesis of the Gáva culture in addition to the preceding
local cultures in the area of formation: the Otomani, Berkesz, Suciu de Sus,
Piliny, plus also the contribution of the Igriţa and Cehăluţ groups of Crişana and
of the Lăpuş group from Maramureş. In Crişana and the Eastern Hungary the
sudden end of the Gáva culture evolution, attributed by the most of the experts
to the Thracian nations, was connected with the occurrence of the Mezőcsát
group during the 9th century B.C. The researchers have noticed in this group
also some Eastern elements from parts of the Caucasus and Northern Black
Sea.

https://www.anale-istorie-oradea.ro/...radea_2011.pdf

Since the local Late Gáva element persisted as the main population element in Mezocsat, it must be considered Thracian and was named "Thraco-Cimmerian" for a reason.

We have a regional evolution from Late Gáva into Mezocsat and Late Gáva survivors, into Eastern Vekerzug-Sanislau group and Kustanovice. And about the Sanislau group in the Scythian period - they of course did cremate their dead for the most part and practically all inhumation burials are either outsiders or irregular:

Other discoveries with close characteristics to the Sanislau-Nir group came form the Livada de Bihor,k or from settlements like Biharea or Oradea "Salca". These facts suggest that Oradea's area marked a zone of contact between the Cris-Mures Scythian group and probably the Thracian group of Sanislau-Nir type.

p. 103
https://issuu.com/muzeuljudeteandeis...r_amp_35__2013

The samples from Kenderföld are of course outside of this local burial tradition. That's just the problem with newly arriving Celts and Scythians, they don't represent the locals which existed, but cremated their dead for the most part.

And unlike in Bulgaria they are no phantom population, because we have plenty of evidence for their existence and population density throughout all eras - in some areas up to the Germanic or even Slavic period, which was the real end of the story. Therefore if we get samples from those Scythians: Nice to have, but not representative, unless they show a completely local autosomal profile and might represent locals which were just assimilated into the Scythian community, like most of the Mezocsat locals in the Cimmerian dominated era. Local Gáva people persisted into the Scythian period:

The position of the middlemen in contacts between the Scythians and communities
from central Europe was held by local populations of the so-called Thracian Hallstatt, from the
area between the Pruth and the Dnestr Rivers. The two cultural groups from Transylvania and
Alföld related strongly to the Scythian traditions. In the area of these groups graves of the
Scythian tradition were identified. All pottery from the sites belonging to this cultural group
was made in the local tradition deriving from the late phase of the Gáva culture13, bronze and
iron products, from the basin of the Mureş River, provide clear evidence of intensive contacts
between local populations and the Scythian culture14.

https://www.academia.edu/6176834/The..._millennium_BC

Compare also:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post878588

On the Cimmerian/Asian steppe sample IR1 among the Mezocsat samples, a clear non-local outlier:

A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830–980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques26.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257

Connecting the dots, the ritual pits and channelled decorated pottery in Bulgaria, associated with the sampled individuals and Psenichevo culture:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post868163

Also about your previous post about the absence or the very low amounts of E-V13 in post-Gava Eastern Hungary and Vekerzug, the cremation isn't very good argument because by then E-V13 was obviously widespread and assimilated into different cultures judging by the finds in Croatia, western Hungary, western Sovakia, Czechia and Moldova.
Your argument doesn't hold water and doesn't top my argument about the superior frequency in IA Thrace.

We only have singular samples so far, because where they lived as group, they were still cremating. That's exactly what the excavations in Eastern Hungary and Romania show: Where they settled in groups, even if being close to Scythians and Celts, they always cremated and were people apart. If there would be large scale sampling in Western Vekerzug areas, there would surely be more E-V13, no doubt about that, but even there you have whole areas covered by cremation burials of people associated with the Eastern group. It was their religion and according to their religion they burnt their dead and either buried them in an urn or scattered the ashes.
You can only expect converts or mixed individuals which weren't raised according to the religion of their father to be buried with an intact body, all the others, even in the Western Vekerzug zone, where there is still a sizeable minority of cremations, were cremated.

That doesn't prove it either way, but if we see a people which were that strict about their ritual, you need to consider that fact. Like Parsi have a different ritual whereever they go, so do cremating Hindus etc. And we see here the same thing in prehistory.

Again, it doesn't prove me right, but you can't prove me wrong with burials which don't belong to these people. That you find ANY E-V13 nearby, in a mixed context, is already a success in such a case, because the majority is expected to be cremated.

That's also what's making Mezocsat so special and some of the Basarabi groups, because they did use inhumation, because of the strong Cimmerian influence, even though most of their ancestors, relatives or even descendants didn't.

[Aspar]

Your again interpreting things as you wish.
Just because you found a quote out of nowhere about Gava being considered one of the Thracian nations doesn't automatically make Mezocsat or Vekerzug Thracian cultures.
By all means you can find really extent material on the Iranian or Scythian nature of these two than anything else.
But again, you are talking too much about cultures and potteries when it's clear no matter how much you educate yourself with online material you are clearly misinterpreting.
As for Gava being one of the Thracian nations, that's a nebuloses steaming from the fact that most of the authors have no idea what people lived there.
It's the same with the Lusatian culture, were these Balto-Slavs, Germanics or something entirely different we are totally clueless.
So that's why aDna is here to help us understand a bit more.

One thing we should keep in mind though is that EV13 isn't originally an IE marker and we don't know when and if was assimilated by the IE or mostly his descendants were.
Therefore when discussing the Thracian ethnos doesn't necessarily mean certain haplogroup found among the IA Thracians was among them since the EBA.

And as I said, you have to acknowledge the fact that we do have IA samples from Eastern Hungary and none of it is E-V13.
That's a fact.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't there at all ,but it does mean it was nowhere on the same level as in Thrace which is really strange if Eastern Hungary was it's core region.

[Riverman]

Your again interpreting things as you wish.
Just because you found a quote out of nowhere about Gava being considered one of the Thracian nations doesn't automatically make Mezocsat or Vekerzug Thracian cultures.

Gáva being considered by many authors Thracian, the local population of Mezocsat is Gáva derived and at the core of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, with later Eastern Vekerzug, for which I just quoted people describing their Thracian character, being considered Thracian too. So you have a continuous line of groups many authors consider Thracian from Gáva to Mezocsat, to Eastern Vekerzug and Kustanovice. Ergo...
I even had quotations about Mezocsat being actually Thracian in character, but unfortunately I didn't found them ad hoc, but you know they exist and I remember you being kind of annoyed about the usage of "North Thracian".

By all means you can find really extent material on the Iranian or Scythian nature of these two than anything else.

Only influences, not nature. Never. Because they continued to use Gáva pottery and had contacts to Stamped pottery groups too.

But again, you are talking too much about cultures and potteries when it's clear no matter how much you educate yourself with online material you are clearly misinterpreting.
As for Gava being one of the Thracian nations, that's a nebuloses steaming from the fact that most of the authors have no idea what people lived there.
It's the same with the Lusatian culture, were these Balto-Slavs, Germanics or something entirely different we are totally clueless.
So that's why aDna is here to help us understand a bit more.

There was never a clear continuation of Lusatians, in the case of Gáva we have the direct continuation in various areas and Channelled Ware derived cultures which were closely related to it - at least.

One thing we should keep in mind though is that EV13 isn't originally an IE marker and we don't know when and if was assimilated by the IE or mostly his descendants were.
Therefore when discussing the Thracian ethnos doesn't necessarily mean certain haplogroup found among the IA Thracians was among them since the EBA.

I proposed different alternative models for how Thracian might have came up, but the most likely is indeed the early assimilation of E-V13 carriers within the Cotofeni horizon and then a continuous development from there. This is also so likely because we see the constant growth of E-V13 since the EBA. Just short periods of "recession", to put it that way, but overall a fairly stable growth, especially since 2.000 BC.

And as I said, you have to acknowledge the fact that we do have IA samples from Eastern Hungary and none of it is E-V13.
That's a fact.

Like a Levantine trader in Germanic territory would be a fact as well, just none related to the local peope's ancestral profile, because he wasn't one of them. The same applies here and you know, by the way, that there might be E-V13 samples in Hungary, earlier than elsewhere tested so far, but these Carpathian basin samples being not released yet, that's all!
But we got the sneak preview and it showed E1b1b already in the Bronze Age. Its just chance and sheer bad luck that they released, of all samples, burial outliers with a deviating autosomal profile. Just compare them with even HUN_LBA, they are foreign non-locals.

Which doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't there at all ,but it does mean it was nowhere on the same level as in Thrace which is really strange if Eastern Hungary was it's core region.

Iits not strange, because we have many samples from the region, from different groups with different rites, having completely different ancestral profiles and haplogroups. Like Nitra will come out almost completely R-Z282, so will be Füzesabony in its core region, Encrusted Pottery was in one place almost completely I2, in the other almost completely G2 and so on. So we see the patrilinear clans occupying specific regions, practising specific burials and producing specific pottery. The same applies to Pre-Gáva group, which just happened to burn their dead.
Just because they did so, you can't just take the next best foreign burial with an inhumation, already outside their core territory as well, and claim "that's how they looked like." This is just no option and therefore all these samples are worthless for the debate, being as good as having nothing.

For Wietenberg too you can read up on the inhumation burials: Sabatinovka and Monteoru foreigners were clearly the majority, then you have a couple of irregular graves, which might be foreigners or not, we don't know. But the regular locals don't appear in regular inhumation burials, they just don't, because such burials don't exist in the Carpatho-Balkan cremation block.
Its the same for the more Southern groups too, so the problem is the same for them as well. There is just one dubious foreigner/irregular early Verbicoara burial, otherwise its practically the same for them as for Suciu de Sus into Gáva.

But these are the real candidate groups, they all cremated.