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

[Riverman]

I think this also shows the limits of using such graphs. In the end the broad picture of V13 will reflect trends over a much wider area. It's initial expansion happened in the EBA when there was population expansion and increasing societal complexity over a wide area. The MBA saw a general downturn with depopulation almost everywhere, while the LBA was a period of renewed growth and expansion. So it's quite likely the peaks and lows of V13 would repeat in a haplogroup that was geographically completely separate from V13.

Only if they were in the same complex. If you compare E-V13 with e.g. R-L2 and J-L283, you get completely different patterns for those. Like R-L2 was growing very rapidly and drastically with the Koszider horizon, when they laid waste as Tumulus culture people to much of Pannonia up to the Tisza river. You really see all the local lineags drop, going massively down, just look at 1.600 BC on the graph I posted before. But R-L2 goes up the same time, because the conquered resources, plundered settlements, grabbed women and gained new pastures. For the R-L2 Tumulus culture people, it was the luckiest of times, whereas Encrusted Pottery people just ran for their lives down the Danube and were massacred en masse - with the rest being "assimilated", especially the women.

Just contrast R-L2 with the "native" Carpatho-Balkan lineages:


Its patterns like these which really convinced me this method is highly valuable and fairly reliable. No comments, just contrast R-L2 (Tumulus culture) with the pattern for the local Carpatho-Balkan lineages.
Many I2 and G2 Carpatho-Balkan lineages never recovered from this by the way.

About 1.600 BC is the date when the Tumulus culture just crashed into the Carpathian basin and massacred and burnt large swaths of land and people.

R-L2 grew a second time rapidly with early Urnfield, the Middle Danubian Urnfield group. They didn't grow as much with Celts, apparently - or at least those Celtic lineages didn't do as well later. We see it in the ancient DNA already, R-L2 was much wider spread in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere in the past, but got replaced themselves later to a large degree.

[rafc]

Only if they were in the same complex. If you compare E-V13 with e.g. R-L2 and J-L283, you get completely different patterns for those. Like R-L2 was growing very rapidly and drastically with the Koszider horizon, when they laid waste as Tumulus culture people to much of Pannonia up to the Tisza river. You really see all the local lineags drop, going massively down, just look at 1.600 BC on the graph I posted before. But R-L2 goes up the same time, because the conquered resources, plundered settlements, grabbed women and gained new pastures. For the R-L2 Tumulus culture people, it was the luckiest of times, whereas Encrusted Pottery people just ran for their lives down the Danube and were massacred en masse - with the rest being "assimilated", especially the women.

Just contrast R-L2 with the "native" Carpatho-Balkan lineages:


Its patterns like these which really convinced me this method is highly valuable and fairly reliable. No comments, just contrast R-L2 (Tumulus culture) with the pattern for the local Carpatho-Balkan lineages.
Many I2 and G2 Carpatho-Balkan lineages never recovered from this by the way.

About 1.600 BC is the date when the Tumulus culture just crashed into the Carpathian basin and massacred and burnt large swaths of land and people.

R-L2 grew a second time rapidly with early Urnfield, the Middle Danubian Urnfield group. They didn't grow as much with Celts, apparently - or at least those Celtic lineages didn't do as well later. We see it in the ancient DNA already, R-L2 was much wider spread in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere in the past, but got replaced themselves later to a large degree.

Assuming the scenario you give is correct, it would only be reflected in a graph of TMRCAs if L2 was mainly Tumulus culture. I have to admit I'm no specialist in R&b, but it seems to me based on current data that that is not necessarily the case. If L2 was also in many other parts of Europe at the time (say Italy for example), patterns on such a graph could have different explanations. As I said, the LBA was a period of expansion and growth anywhere, and an expansion of L2 in that period could just be that, without being correlated to a more local event. What you say will certainly be a possibility, but not the only one.

[Riverman]

Assuming the scenario you give is correct, it would only be reflected in a graph of TMRCAs if L2 was mainly Tumulus culture. I have to admit I'm no specialist in R&b, but it seems to me based on current data that that is not necessarily the case. If L2 was also in many other parts of Europe at the time (say Italy for example), patterns on such a graph could have different explanations. As I said, the LBA was a period of expansion and growth anywhere, and an expansion of L2 in that period could just be that, without being correlated to a more local event. What you say will certainly be a possibility, but not the only one.

The recent ancient DNA has proven it to be the most likely scenario as well, because the Encrusted Pottery people had a different autosomal and uniparental profile (I2 and G2 dominated, rich in WHG, lower in steppe). The following population, spread by the Tumulus culture, at the expense of this Encrusted Pottery people, was very rich in R-L2. You see it now popping up consistently, whereever Tumulus culture had spread.

In fact, the data I'm showing severely underestimates the impact of R-L2 in the Carpatho-Balkans with Tumulus culture, because it primarily shows the surviving lineages. But we know that R-L2 was much more frequent in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, but got later replaced on a grande scale by other people. The association of R-L2 with the Tumulus culture and the early Urnfield period is however, by now, without a doubt, in my opinion.

But you are right they expanded, with the same phenomenon, in other directions as well.

The key argument I was making was that these kind of "contradictory trends" are absolutely safe data points. They almost always point to people being not in the same population, sharing not the same fate and usually its one group expanding at the expense of another.

The Tumulus culture expansion with the Koszider horizon being known in archaeology for quite some time and being one of those events in which only the most lunatic "pots no people" scholars go on about "no migration happened". Because in the record, it just such a clear case. And here you see the Carpatho-Balkan native lineages just drop, they barely survive, while R-L2 goes straight up with TC. Its by now one of the best documented cases for a replacement migration pattern in the Middle to Late Bronze Age. And R-L2 pops up consistenly in all those Carpatho-Balkan samples which got affected by this for the very same reason.

[Archetype0ne]

ArchetypeOne, I don't doubt your mathematical and statistical skills.

But the picture is really simple when we have a tone of aDna J-L283 found especially in Italy and the West Balkans and then little to none E-V13 in those places.
Then again, E-V13 popped up in the aDna record in an IA context further east in Moldova(no J-L283 there) and Slovakia(not sure if there was J-L283 among the Vekerzug samples).

Why do you need complex formulas when you have aDna which clearly speaks against shared history of J-L283 and E-V13?

First let me say I would doubt everything I read on fora. I am not a statistics guy, outside of needing it for some research papers...

But I really think you missed my point. Since others might have as well, let me rephrase.

I think there was correlation, rather than there being no correlation. But I think this was due to other factors, such as boom and bust cycles in economies and ecosystems, which implies that at least in the Balkans / Danubian basin area, societies in some way where interconnected, where the success of one to the other was not a zero sum game (in regards to V13-L283). That's how I interpret this data. Whether they shared a living region/culture I am not sure, but I am willing to bet that in Pannonia it was the case.

My point more so is that going at it like Ghurier did or Riverman does with the graphs, and even misinterpreting the graphs, really is not ideal. Can give a rough picture, but even that is not what the current thread states. The conclusion feels misconstrued at best, wishful fulfillment at worst.
In principle Ghurier likely is the stats guy here, still did not mean that he did not fall for basic inference mistakes, which the last batch of samples proved in regards to some of his Celtic theories, no matter how well he presented them in colorful graphs.

That's why I feel, lets drop this game, and either go at it with pure stats, and test out the various hypotheses (which I think we have no data to, yet), or at least not pretend that even if our hypothesis are true, be it mine or Rivermans, colorful graphs can epistemologically prove anything.

[Riverman]

First let me say I would doubt everything I read on fora. I am not a statistics guy, outside of needing it for some research papers...

But I really think you missed my point. Since others might have as well, let me rephrase.

I think there was correlation, rather than there being no correlation. But I think this was due to other factors, such as boom and bust cycles in economies and ecosystems, which implies that at least in the Balkans / Danubian basin area, societies in some way where interconnected, where the success of one to the other was not a zero sum game (in regards to V13-L283). That's how I interpret this data. Whether they shared a living region/culture I am not sure, but I am willing to bet that in Pannonia it was the case.

My point more so is that going at it like Ghurier did or Riverman does with the graphs, and even misinterpreting the graphs, really is not ideal. Can give a rough picture, but even that is not what the current thread states. The conclusion feels misconstrued at best, wishful fulfillment at worst.
In principle Ghurier likely is the stats guy here, still did not mean that he did not fall for basic inference mistakes, which the last batch of samples proved in regards to some of his Celtic theories, no matter how well he presented them in colorful graphs.

That's why I feel, lets drop this game, and either go at it with pure stats, and test out the various hypotheses (which I think we have no data to, yet), or at least not pretend that even if our hypothesis are true, be it mine or Rivermans, colorful graphs can epistemologically prove anything.

You can go through YFull and FTDNA data manually, if keeping dates and splits of the branches in mind, you will get the same impression, come to the same dates for major founder effects. And these being in prehistory and history almost all the time related to a people expanding, while loss of growth or even loss of lineages means contractions, means catastrophies and defeats.

If you follow the trail, you can instantly see that there are rare events which affected almost all populations of a major regions negatively, like e.g. the plague did. All people had heavy losses, little growth, at that time, because of this epidemies. However, in most other instances, e.g. if an economy collapsed or the climate worsened, what you usually see is that some people suffer more, being weakened, but the main reason for their demise is that another people which are better adapted exploit the situation and replace them.
Especially in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, this was a regular occurence, it happened time and time again, which is, by the way, why many of the people we know about, from historical accounts, no longer exist. Some don't exist ethnolinguistically no longer, but there are weaker or stronger genetic traces, others being nearly completely wiped out. Take for example the R-Z93 and some R-L2 lineages, once so widespread and fairly dominant in some areas of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. Or even J-L283 itself, in some regions.

And its not mere speculation, we know that people invaded the countries and then they disappeared, not vice versa.

[Archetype0ne]

You can go through YFull and FTDNA data manually, if keeping dates and splits of the branches in mind, you will get the same impression, come to the same dates for major founder effects. And these being in prehistory and history almost all the time related to a people expanding, while loss of growth or even loss of lineages means contractions, means catastrophies and defeats.

If you follow the trail, you can instantly see that there are rare events which affected almost all populations of a major regions negatively, like e.g. the plague did. All people had heavy losses, little growth, at that time, because of this epidemies. However, in most other instances, e.g. if an economy collapsed or the climate worsened, what you usually see is that some people suffer more, being weakened, but the main reason for their demise is that another people which are better adapted exploit the situation and replace them.
Especially in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, this was a regular occurence, it happened time and time again, which is, by the way, why many of the people we know about, from historical accounts, no longer exist. Some don't exist ethnolinguistically no longer, but there are weaker or stronger genetic traces, others being nearly completely wiped out. Take for example the R-Z93 and some R-L2 lineages, once so widespread and fairly dominant in some areas of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere. Or even J-L283 itself, in some regions.

And its not mere speculation, we know that people invaded the countries and then they disappeared, not vice versa.

Ok, agree with most points.

Now lets look at a hypothetical scenario.

What if L283 was as common in the Danubian basin? (not % wise, in general)
What if L283 can be found in MBA-LBA-IA Romania/Moldova/Hungary? And in the MBA-IA they share common history with E-V13?
How will your hypothesis change? Will your worldview change?
Just some food for thought.

[Riverman]

Ok, agree with most points.

Now lets look at a hypothetical scenario.

What if L283 was as common in the Danubian basin? (not % wise, in general)
What if L283 can be found in MBA-LBA-IA Romania/Moldova/Hungary? And in the MBA-IA they share common history with E-V13?
How will your hypothesis change? Will your worldview change?
Just some food for thought.

Its something I expect, because the R-L2 and J-L283 connection runs deep, from the transitional zone in the East Alps, around Slovenia. I do expect it to extend northward, to some degree, as well. The Pannonians surely had more J-L283, originally, than the Eastern Thracian sphere.
Like I said, the borderzone in Panonnia was between the Danube bent and the Tisza river. South West of the Danube bent was Illyrian, East of the Tisza was Thracian, everything in between was "contact zone". At some point the R-L2 and J-L283 pushed more (like Tumulus culture, early Urnfield etc.) and in other times the pressure came from the Eastern Carpathian basin, spread more E-V13 (Channelled Ware/Late Urnfield, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, Basarabi-early Hallstatt, Scythianised groups etc.).

The problem of this zone was, that it was under more pressure from the West (later Urnfield, later Hallstatt, La Tene Celts) and usually the Eastern Carpathians had better ties to the Eastern steppe groups, like they adopted quicker and more successfully from the Cimmerians, the Scythians and the Sarmatians - even the Avars, Slavs and Hungarians. They made the first contact, adopted, then spread it West and South.
Because of this, much of the J-L283 was dispersed, even picked up by those Eastern groups, but overall got reduced.

There was no strict barrier and a lot of intermixture, but highly unlikely on a larger scale before the LBA-EIA transition, because both started as source groups, which expanded from their source regions to the South. They met because of their expansion, not before.

I mean they even could have been together in Maros and associated groups, but they departed from then on, taking very different paths, J-L283 to the South West, E-V13 to the East. Then they came back together and on their way, while they expanded, they reduced and replaced all those other Balkan lineages which were nearly omnipresent before. Just look at how common other I2 and G2 lineages are in the Balkans! They were big and important before, you find them in almost all EBA samples. They being squeezed to death by J-L283 and E-V13 both moving forward. Just like you see, people which more than 50, 70, probably in some areas even more than 90 percent J-L283 and E-V13 will eventually pop up, I guarantee you that. And it won't matter if you increase the sampling size, they will be that dominant. Because these were groups around patrilinear clans, which expanded rapidly from the MBA to the MIA.
In that sense, they share a common history, but not the same origin.

[Bruzmi]

I plotted all BCE J-L283 and E-V13 samples. Some imply migrations in divergent regions, but the core area and autosomal profile for both haplogroups is the same. This strongly implies that these individuals and the groups they represent were present in large numbers in the same populations, subgroups of which migrated in different areas.

I didn't mark HRV_EIA/HRV_MBA J-L283 separately from the HRV_EIA/MBA clusters and I've added two E-V13 CE samples (Zadar 72 CE and Sipar 751 CE) as they come from the same region.



Close view of the main autosomal profiles:



What are the odds of J-L283 and E-V13 BCE samples belonging to the same autosomal clusters without them being the same population? The closeness of this cluster of profiles is much higher than many other clusters in Europe (compare with the Sardiniaan. The distance between these samples is the distance between subgroups of the same people, it is not the distance between different groups which don't have shared history and migration routes.

[Riverman]

We also have E-V13 which plots more La Tene Celtic. Apparently they plot like their environment, most likely after generations of intermarriage. The question is how the bulk, the E-V13 dominated groups will plot. Not the small scale migrations, sometimes even just individuals which migrated too.
Besides, you just see, even on your plot, and I don't really trust your plots too muc, but still, how diverse the E-V13 carriers were. More diverse than J-L283. What this tells you first and foremost, is that they were fairly mobile and spread with different movements into different areas, fairly early on. Which is what I'm constantly saying.

But then again, key is where the bulk, the E-V13 dominated groups will plot, and for those we need a lot of samples from East of the Tisza and along the Danube. The earlier the better. As long as we don't have those, especially from the Bronze Age, we're primarily talking about the small arrows which expanded from the source and core region of E-V13. We're not talking about the source and main group.

About the Thraco-Cimmerians:

The three adjacent groups differ in terms of their burial rituals. The Upper Tisza
group cremated their dead. A typical set of weapons includes an axe plus one or
two spearheads, sometimes a dagger and a bow and arrow as well as horse gear.
The Alföld group used both cremation and inhumation in their burial rites and
included a bow and arrows, sometimes an axe and one or two lances. Horse buri-
als are common, as well as the deposition of horse gear in graves. The famous
cemetery of Szentes-Vekerzug included fourteen horse burials amongst the 151
graves (Kemenczei 2003). The Transylvanian group inhumes their dead. Aki-
nakes – a particular form of dagger – are the primary piece of warrior equipment,
along with the bow and arrow; sometimes axes and horse gear are included in the
graves as well.
Contacts between the Hallstatt area and groups farther east were perhaps not
always the most peaceful. Earlier research has imagined two waves of large-scale
invasion triggering major social changes in the eighth and sixth centuries bc: the
‘Thraco-Cimmerian’ and ‘Scythian’ invasions (Kromer 1986), but it is perhaps
more fruitful to picture small-scale warfare and raids as well as political alliances
with winners and losers.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ication_detail

Obviously, the group with the best correlation to and tradition from Gáva was cremating in the Thraco-Cimmerian zone. Just like they did up to the Scythian era Vekerzug and beyond. But, even though they might be mixed or even not Thracian at all, it would be worth to look at the inhumation burials especially in the Eastern Carpathian areas. Probably we would be lucky, if both the Cimmerian intruders and the locals did switch to inhumation together, with many local lineages surviving.
But its obviously no safe bet, if those which kept up the old traditions lived on their own and cremated...

[Bruzmi]

We also have E-V13 which plots more La Tene Celtic. Apparently they plot like their environment, most likely after generations of intermarriage. The question is how the bulk, the E-V13 dominated groups will plot. Not the small scale migrations, sometimes even just individuals which migrated too.

I've plotted them too. There are two such samples, but they're not that divergent. Their positions won't change and you can plot them yourself.

What are the odds of a person from 225 BCE Moldova (E-V13), a person from 550 BCE Croatia (J-L283), a person from Iron Age Daunia (J-L283), and a person from 72 CE Zadar-Croatia (E-V13) sharing the same profile without being part of the same people? In my opinion: none. It would be one of the most extreme coincidences to have ever existed.