E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

[PopGenist82]

@ Riverman

Which study/ sample was the E-V13 “Scythian” ? krzewinska et al?

Link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aat4457

The "Scythian" label in this case simply refers to the archaeological context. The sample itself is not Scythian and there were multiple issues with RC dating, so we don't even know when exactly he lived (For all but two samples (scy192 and scy197), reliable results were obtained).

The study placed him and a few other samples in a "southern" cluster:
(ii) A group of four individuals (scy192, scy197, scy300, and scy305) showed genetic similarities to southern European populations, hereafter referred to as a south European (SE) cluster.

Distance to: Moldova_Glinoe_Scythian.SGcy197_noUDG.SG
0.02884961 Italy_PalazzoDellaCancelleria_Roman_Medieval_possible.SG
0.03118163 Germany_EMedieval_Alemanic_SEurope
0.03182568 Serbia_SvilosKrussevlje_Roman.SG
0.03246806 Italy_IA_Republic_o.SG
0.03247004 Croatia_BA
0.03250434 Croatia_Tilurium_Roman.SG
0.03281447 Slovenia_Emona_Roman.SG
0.03474736 Hungary_MidAvar
0.03489719 Italy_Lazio_Viterbo_EarlyMedieval
0.03512358 Albania_BA_IA
0.03536560 Croatia_Sipar_Roman.SG
0.03554611 Serbia_Mokrin_EBA_Maros_oAegean.SG
0.03557437 Hungary_Langobard_o1.SG
0.03602107 Montenegro_Doclea_Roman_oAegean.SG
0.03620621 Hungary_Langobard_o1
0.03692352 Greece_Logkas_MBA.SG
0.03730183 Croatia_Zadar_Roman.SG
0.03732477 Italy_Tuscany_Siena_EarlyMedieval
0.03746211 Italy_Tuscany_Grosseto_EarlyMedieval
0.03801110 Croatia_MBA_Cetina
0.03832946 Croatia_SisakPogorelec_Roman.SG
0.03842270 Hungary_EarlyMidAvar
0.03858635 Macedonia_IA
0.03908070 Germany_EarlyMedieval_o1.SG
0.03949223 Montenegro_MLBA

That was the point of my enquiry, I had a recollection it was not dated. And that study turned up a Hun thought to be a Scythian. In these re-used barrows, C14 is a must

[corrigendum]

and it's certainly not related to any Celtic-like profile. 

Just out of curiosity, What does a (proto) Celtic-like profile look like in your opinion?

Central European Bell-Beakers with a profile within the range of Hungarian/Bavarian/France BB


There are 3 Noua-Sabatinovka samples:

Code:

Moldova_LBA_Sabatinovka:I10438,0.127482,0.109677,0.062225,0.086564,-0.003693,0.034861,0.009165,0.007384,-0.027406,-0.044648,0.003735,-0.003747,-0.003865,-0.015414,0.024837,0.011933,-0.009257,-0.002407,0.003897,-0.000125,-0.000374,0.00136,-0.002218,0.015424,-0.000359
Moldova_BA:I10420,0.122929,0.101553,0.056191,0.093347,-0.00677,0.037092,0.00047,-0.000231,-0.03211,-0.045012,0.00065,0.001798,-0.001041,-0.022432,0.027008,0.023203,0.013821,-0.003167,0.000754,0.003752,0,0.000618,0.015899,0.012652,-0.001078
Moldova_BA:I10421,0.125205,0.111708,0.056568,0.093993,-0.008001,0.034025,0.00047,-0.005077,-0.030883,-0.041185,-0.002273,-0.001948,0.000743,-0.012524,0.029044,-0.008221,-0.024121,-0.003674,0.001257,0.007754,0.001747,0.007914,0.006286,-0.001084,0.003712

Target: Moldova_BA:I10421
Distance: 4.0808% / 0.04080777
76.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.6 TUR_Barcin_N
9.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
1.4 Israel_Natufian
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

Target: Moldova_BA:I10420
Distance: 2.4408% / 0.02440830
79.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.2 TUR_Barcin_N
7.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
0.4 MAR_Taforalt
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.2 Nganassan

Target: Moldova_LBA_Sabatinovka:I10438
Distance: 3.0542% / 0.03054188
75.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.2 TUR_Barcin_N
9.2 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
There are 6 Monteoru samples:

Almost all of them carried I2a subclades. One could be determined as I-L702>>Y92973 (same subclade as the Theopetra I2a) and another was actually I-CTS4002 . This indicates very high diversity of I2a clades near the Carpathians and high WHG ancestry in the populations of the region. This is why I can't see E-V13 as originating from any population which lived in the vicinity of the Carpathians during the BA.

[Riverman]

and it's certainly not related to any Celtic-like profile. 

Just out of curiosity, What does a (proto) Celtic-like profile look like in your opinion?

Central European Bell-Beakers with a profile within the range of Hungarian/Bavarian/France BB


There are 3 Noua-Sabatinovka samples:

Code:

Moldova_LBA_Sabatinovka:I10438,0.127482,0.109677,0.062225,0.086564,-0.003693,0.034861,0.009165,0.007384,-0.027406,-0.044648,0.003735,-0.003747,-0.003865,-0.015414,0.024837,0.011933,-0.009257,-0.002407,0.003897,-0.000125,-0.000374,0.00136,-0.002218,0.015424,-0.000359
Moldova_BA:I10420,0.122929,0.101553,0.056191,0.093347,-0.00677,0.037092,0.00047,-0.000231,-0.03211,-0.045012,0.00065,0.001798,-0.001041,-0.022432,0.027008,0.023203,0.013821,-0.003167,0.000754,0.003752,0,0.000618,0.015899,0.012652,-0.001078
Moldova_BA:I10421,0.125205,0.111708,0.056568,0.093993,-0.008001,0.034025,0.00047,-0.005077,-0.030883,-0.041185,-0.002273,-0.001948,0.000743,-0.012524,0.029044,-0.008221,-0.024121,-0.003674,0.001257,0.007754,0.001747,0.007914,0.006286,-0.001084,0.003712

Target: Moldova_BA:I10421
Distance: 4.0808% / 0.04080777
76.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.6 TUR_Barcin_N
9.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
1.4 Israel_Natufian
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

Target: Moldova_BA:I10420
Distance: 2.4408% / 0.02440830
79.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.2 TUR_Barcin_N
7.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
0.4 MAR_Taforalt
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.2 Nganassan

Target: Moldova_LBA_Sabatinovka:I10438
Distance: 3.0542% / 0.03054188
75.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.2 TUR_Barcin_N
9.2 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
There are 6 Monteoru samples:

Almost all of them carried I2a subclades. One could be determined as I-L702>>Y92973 (same subclade as the Theopetra I2a) and another was actually I-CTS4002 . This indicates very high diversity of I2a clades near the Carpathians and high WHG ancestry in the populations of the region. This is why I can't see E-V13 as originating from any population which lived in the vicinity of the Carpathians during the BA.

Monteoru was a completely different group, not part of the Carpatho-Balkan cremation block.
Wietenberg would be more interesting, Suciu de Sus, even Belegis.

The most important take away in all this papers up to now is how different the groups were, sorten by traditional archaeological groupings.

Encrusted Pottery, Garla Mare, Monteoru is the Danubian block.
Füzesabony belongs to the Kostany-Mierzanowice block.
Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni is a steppe pastoralist group.

All very different.

The group in the middle, the strictly cremating groups with channeled pottery is the key.

[corrigendum]

and it's certainly not related to any Celtic-like profile. 

Just out of curiosity, What does a (proto) Celtic-like profile look like in your opinion?

Central European Bell-Beakers with a profile within the range of Hungarian/Bavarian/France BB


There are 3 Noua-Sabatinovka samples:

Code:

Moldova_LBA_Sabatinovka:I10438,0.127482,0.109677,0.062225,0.086564,-0.003693,0.034861,0.009165,0.007384,-0.027406,-0.044648,0.003735,-0.003747,-0.003865,-0.015414,0.024837,0.011933,-0.009257,-0.002407,0.003897,-0.000125,-0.000374,0.00136,-0.002218,0.015424,-0.000359
Moldova_BA:I10420,0.122929,0.101553,0.056191,0.093347,-0.00677,0.037092,0.00047,-0.000231,-0.03211,-0.045012,0.00065,0.001798,-0.001041,-0.022432,0.027008,0.023203,0.013821,-0.003167,0.000754,0.003752,0,0.000618,0.015899,0.012652,-0.001078
Moldova_BA:I10421,0.125205,0.111708,0.056568,0.093993,-0.008001,0.034025,0.00047,-0.005077,-0.030883,-0.041185,-0.002273,-0.001948,0.000743,-0.012524,0.029044,-0.008221,-0.024121,-0.003674,0.001257,0.007754,0.001747,0.007914,0.006286,-0.001084,0.003712

Target: Moldova_BA:I10421
Distance: 4.0808% / 0.04080777
76.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.6 TUR_Barcin_N
9.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
1.4 Israel_Natufian
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

Target: Moldova_BA:I10420
Distance: 2.4408% / 0.02440830
79.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.2 TUR_Barcin_N
7.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
0.4 MAR_Taforalt
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.2 Nganassan

Target: Moldova_LBA_Sabatinovka:I10438
Distance: 3.0542% / 0.03054188
75.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.2 TUR_Barcin_N
9.2 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
There are 6 Monteoru samples:

Almost all of them carried I2a subclades. One could be determined as I-L702>>Y92973 (same subclade as the Theopetra I2a) and another was actually I-CTS4002 . This indicates very high diversity of I2a clades near the Carpathians and high WHG ancestry in the populations of the region. This is why I can't see E-V13 as originating from any population which lived in the vicinity of the Carpathians during the BA.

Monteoru was a completely different group, not part of the Carpatho-Balkan cremation block.
Wietenberg would be more interesting, Suciu de Sus, even Belegis.

The most important take away in all this papers up to now is how different the groups were, sorten by traditional archaeological groupings.

Encrusted Pottery, Garla Mare, Monteoru is the Danubian block.
Füzesabony belongs to the Kostany-Mierzanowice block.
Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni is a steppe pastoralist group.

All very different.

The group in the middle, the strictly cremating groups with channeled pottery is the key.

In the Carpathian area, there's a rapid increase of WHG ancestry and groups like Monteoru represent exactly this sort of grouping and there is real clinality between them. The point is not that they're different, but that you can actually derive one from the other by increasing/decreasing steppe/ANF ancestry without the need of other admixtures. Balkan groups are unrelated (discussed on the first page of the thread) because the underlying EEF populations are very different from Carpathian EEFs which had substantially higher WHG ancestry.

Füzesabony:

Target: Hungary_MBA_Fuzesabony
Distance: 3.2295% / 0.03229523
47.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
30.2 TUR_Barcin_N
21.2 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
1.2 Israel_Natufian
0.2 MAR_Taforalt

Monteoru:

Target: Romania_BA_Arman
Distance: 1.4631% / 0.01463105
57.4 TUR_Barcin_N
22.4 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
19.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728
0.4 GEO_CHG
Target: Hunga
The difference between these two groups is related to their overall steppe/ANF ancestry ratio, while WHG ancestry is a constant. 

All of these BA groups have a different steppe/ANF ratio, but WHG ancestry stays within the same range.

Kyjatice:
Target: Hungary_LBA_Kyjatice
Distance: 3.7081% / 0.03708137
48.2 TUR_Barcin_N
28.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
23.2 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG

I can't see how a population which had E-V13 as a key haplogroup lived somewhere between all of these groups with a profile which had very little WHG ancestry, but ~75% ANF ancestry.

[corrigendum]

Most other samples (including E-V13) have been already published, but Sarmatian-era (100 BCE- 400 CE) samples from Romania area are all new samples. 
1/11 E-L618  

We already know this because most of these samples have been published but it's clear that throughout the Pannonian-Carpathian area beyond the Roman borders E-V13 wasn't demographically significant. E-V13 diffused from the Balkans northwards but not from the Pannonian-Carpathian area southwards.

[Riverman]

Most other samples (including E-V13) have been already published, but Sarmatian-era (100 BCE- 400 CE) samples from Romania area are all new samples. 
1/11 E-L618  

We already know this because most of these samples have been published but it's clear that throughout the Pannonian-Carpathian area beyond the Roman borders E-V13 wasn't demographically significant. E-V13 diffused from the Balkans northwards but not from the Pannonian-Carpathian area southwards.

You can claim that, but it doesn't make it true.

[rafc]

Based on the Y-DNA, I would guess 5-6 out of those 11 in Romania are not from the "Real Sarmatians". That puts V13 at 15-20%, which is indeed much less than south of the Danube. On the other hand, one less or more sample could make the difference between 0% or 30-40% :-) It also seems two of the sites sampled in Romania are really close to the Danube, so will be interesting to see where the non-"Real Sarmatians" were found. The non-"Real Sarmatians" from Romania also look quite EEF-rich, more so than most in Hungary.

For Sarmatian era Hungary I have to look back at the samples from the 2022 study to see what can be derived by elimination.

[Riverman]

By the way, Scythian samples from Hungary are clearly distinct from Vekerzug locals, this must be stressed. There can be little doubt that Eastern Sanislau-Vekerzug would have lots of E-V13 as well.
Clearly, the La Tene samples got it from Vekerzug and Basarabi.

[rafc]

I checked The 2022 study had 17 samples, with 1/9 male samples V13, being the one middle period Sarmatian.

[Riverman]

I checked The 2022 study had 17 samples, with 1/9 male samples V13, being the one middle period Sarmatian.

His coordinates:
Hungary_Transtisza_Roman_Sarmation:I20802,0.122929,0.135065,0.034695,0.014535,0.01908,-0.001673,-0.00188,0.000462,0.001636,0.010023,-0.005034,0.007643,-0.004906,-0.004679,-0.004614,-0.004375,-0.002086,0.002787,0.006411,-0.012006,-0.005865,0.004328,0.0053,-0.00253,-0.00467

That's how he fits into the bigger picture:

Target: Hungary_Transtisza_Roman_Sarmation:I20802
Distance: 2.8580% / 0.02857968

49.8 TUR_Barcin_N
44.8Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.4 WHG


Distance to:
Hungary_Transtisza_Roman_Sarmation:I20802
0.02563519
Hungary_MidLateAvar:ALT-442.SG
0.02642791
Hungary_MidAvar:MT-17.SG
0.02822147
Italy_Medieval_o1.SG:VK538_noUDG.SG
0.02829018
Austria_Klosterneuburg_Roman_oLevant.SG:R10660.SG
0.02945343
Hungary_Transtisza_LSarmation_EHun:A181022
0.02971774
Hungary_LateAvar:ALT-596.SG
0.03041313
Croatia_MBA_Cetina:I18752
0.03119696
Austria_Ovilava_Roman.SG:R10665.SG
0.03135848
Hungary_Transtisza_LSarmation_EHun:A181025
0.03150679
Hungary_Transtisza_LSarmation_EHun:A181024
0.03169661
Hungary_DanubeTisza_LSarmation_EHun:A181019
0.03216964
Hungary_DanubeTisza_LSarmation_EHun:A181014
0.03226981
Hungary_MidAvar:KD-29.SG
0.03229787
Czech_BellBeaker:I4885
0.03230604
Hungary_Tiszaregion_EAvar:I18184
0.03276145
Hungary_LateAvar:OBH-52.SG
0.03290818
Hungary_Conqueror_Commoner:IBE-176.SG
0.03295788
Germany_EMedieval_Alemanic_SEurope:NIEcap3b
0.03322408
Slovakia_LIA:I11710
0.03358733
Greece_Logkas_MBA.SG:Log04.SG
0.03368985
Hungary_MidAvar:MS-50.SG
0.03373585
Hungary_MidAvar:SSD-151.SG
0.03378213
Germany_EarlyMedieval_o1.SG:STR310_noUDG.SG
0.03388460
Hungary_EarlyAvar:MS-43.SG
0.03406311
Hungary_Conqueror_Elite:AGY-87.SG
0.03424003
Serbia_LBA:I16814
0.03453834
Slovakia_Mikusovce_LaTene_Roman.SG:R2202.SG
0.03459862
Hungary_Conqueror_Commoner:NTH-19.SG
0.03475731
Hungary_LateAvar:ALT-414.SG
0.03477686
Hungary_Hun:SEI-5.SG
0.03483107
Hungary_Langobard_o2:SZ18
0.03497992
Croatia_EIA:I24639
0.03498222
Hungary_EarlyArpadian:IBE-107.SG
0.03512877
Hungary_Langobard_o2:SZ27
0.03556994
Hungary_LaTene:I18489
0.03557322
Czech_LBA_Knoviz:I13795
0.03573623
Croatia_MLBA:I18739
0.03583258
Hungary_MidAvar:TMH-388.SG
0.03600378
Slovenia_Emona_Roman.SG:R10477.SG
0.03600718
Croatia_Metz_GalloRoman.SG:R2057.SG

Most of the closer distance matches are from Eastern Hungary-Tisza region. There seems to have been large scale continuity up to the Avar period.

I20802 P7226; O:54, S:54 Derecske-Karakas dűlő 54./54. Hungary Transtisza region 3rd century AD Sarmatian Sarmatian Roman/Sarmatian period Sarmatian cemetery Roman bronze coin, bronze arm ring, iron sickle (?), iron object. (average) Zolt?n Farkas (Salisbury Ltd.) + D?ri Museum, Debrecen Tam?s Hajdu, Antonia Marcsik and Tam?s Szeniczey male, 25-34 years old pars petrosa l.d male H41a E1b1b1a1b1a (Page102, L142.1) 47.370104 21.527122

I20802 - Feature 55/Str. 55
Grave of a 25-34 years old male. The grave pit is rectangular (265cm x 110cm x 88cm).
Orientation SE-NW. In the northeast corner of the shaft, at a depth of 55 cm, the long bones of
an adult were found, in a secondary position. The tomb, however, belonged to a child. The
burial was disturbed; the child's bones were partially found in a secondary position.
Grave goods: 1. Bronze bracelet. 2. Fragment of an iron sickle(?). 3. Bronze coin. 4. Iron object.
The genomic profile of this individual matches the one of the later Sarmatian period individuals from the same region, Transtisza (LS_P_Transtisza_4−5c) that overall matches also the ancestry of the Szolad_others_6c group and was therefore included in the LS_P_Transtisza_4−5c group for the group-based analyses (Fig xvii).

https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.cell....0/mmc5.pdf

Back then, when we first discussed this individual, some played it down and remarked its isolated poition. But back then I noted that in the Avar sample the local lineages, which are not clearly new arrivals (East Asia, Steppe, Germanics, Slavs, Levante etc.) being primarily R-L2 (Tumulus culture and La Tene Celts) and E-V13 (Channelled-Stamped Ware, Daco-Thracians).

I wonder what people will say when actual Dacians get 75 % plus E-V13? Like when they ever sample early soldiers in Birdoswald:
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visi...irdsowald/

We have the strange situation that we get a minority of E-V13 in the neighbours, because some E-V13 carriers got assimilated, while the bulk remains hidden in the cremation zone groups.

The La Tene percentage is already significant and adds to the bigger picture. The Celts assimilated Daco-Thracians from different regions, having different profiles (like Northern and Southern, with the Southern having more EEF).

But we knew that from the modern DNA already, because the spread of some E-V13 branches to the West seems to have been, in some regions, especially Alpine region-Northern Italy, fall into the La Tene Celtic period.

[Riverman]

It should be noted that nowhere a big Roman push took place, on the contrary, at the end of the Roman rule in Dacia, most of the Daco-Romans moved South of the Danube, while most of the former province was settled by incoming Dacian tribals, primarily from the Carpi in the wider sense:

Cassius, Sabianus, the governor of Dacia in 180 A.D., "has also subdued 12,000 Dacians living in the vicinity [of Dacia], who have been driven away from their ancient homeland, and was ready to help the others, promising them land in our Dacia." [144] Although this record suggests a colonization of free Dacians, it offers no proof of it, since it is not known whether Sabianus kept his promise. It must be pointed out that the immigration of free Dacians from the areas northwest and west of the territory of the former province after the Roman withdrawal is well established and unquestioned. Archaeological remains show that free Dacians settled after 275 A.D. at Cipău (Maroscsapó, Mureş County), at Archiud, and most probably also at Soporu de Cîmpie.

Černjachov culture. The single-rowed combs with a special worked middle handle appear in the Černjachov culture but not among the remains of the Dacians or the Carps. Because of the many elements from the Sîntana de Mureş culture, these 22 settlements in the southeast have been thought to belong to that culture. They show, however, a pronounced Dacian influence; and their funeral rite was cremation, while the Sîntana de Mureş people predominantly used inhumation. [211] Whether the differences really are decisive is difficult to tell.

Therefore up to the Chernyakov culture, the majority of the locals did cremate. If, therefore, we find E-V13 in Chernyakov, its just the tip of the iceberg!

Free (non-Romanized.) Dacians from the west settled in the former province. The earthenware in three tombs of the cremation type at Cipău (Maroscsapó, Mureş County) reveals Sarmatian influences; and only the funeral rite of cremation indicates that it was left by Dacians, because the Sarmatians used only inhumation.

We can therefore multiply the Sarmatian era samples of E-V13 in the Tisza region.

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/ei/ei_2.htm#1_5

The very idea of E-V13  spreading with "Romans" just falls apart if looking at the facts. On the contrary, the Romans soaked up a lot of Dacians and redistributed them in the Roman Balkan and beyond, like up to Britain, e.g. in Birdoswald.

There are other Dacian remains in Britain as well.

[corrigendum]

The very idea of E-V13  spreading with "Romans" just falls apart if looking at the facts. On the contrary, the Romans soaked up a lot of Dacians and redistributed them in the Roman Balkan and beyond, like up to Britain, e.g. in Birdoswald.

The facts are that most E-V13 everywhere north of the Balkans have profiles which came from the southern Balkans and they are unrelated to any Carpathian region. We keep getting more and more samples which validate this observation as we keep getting more and more samples from Pannonian-Carpathian areas and it's clear that E-V13 wasn't demographically significant in any of these regions.

We have the strange situation that we get a minority of E-V13 in the neighbours, because some E-V13 carriers got assimilated, while the bulk remains hidden in the cremation zone groups.

It's not a "strange situation". It just isn't there and these supposed "neighbouring" areas are the same regions which you've thought that they carried a lot of E-V13. I think that we have 5-6 different studies all of which have consistently yielded a low percentage of E-V13 in such areas.

There's nothing unexpected or strange if one just follows that data.

[Riverman]

The percentage among the locals is high, even in these neighbouring mixed zones.
It is for certain that Dacians must be in these samples and we consistently see a high relative frequency in the Tisza zone.

Of course, the Scytho-Sarmatian lineages, just like later the core Avar and Magyar lineages must be subtracted, because they don't represent Carpatho-Balkan people.

The only other large haplogroup is R-L2 from Celts, therefore it is for certain that E-V13 represents the local Dacians.

[corrigendum]

The percentage among the locals is high, even in these neighbouring mixed zones.

It's literally one sample in the dataset from Romania and E-V13 shows a consistently low percentage in Hungary already since the IA.

[Riverman]

The percentage among the locals is high, even in these neighbouring mixed zones.

It's literally one sample in the dataset from Romania and E-V13 shows a consistently low percentage in Hungary already since the IA.

The samples from Romania were taken from clearly Sarmatian contexts. And the same size is very small. Therefore, if you want to play it down, we should agree upon the fact, that with more samples, and from locals of Moldova, it could, theoretically, go either way.

E-V13 was already present in La Tene Celts and in Vekerzug before. that's both before "the Romans".

The Sarmatian sample from Hungary means that among the locals, E-V13 was, despite the vast majority of Dacians cremating their dead, with its inhumation burials already the second most common lineage of the non-steppe Sarmatian newcomers. That's significant in and by itself. That's consistently being shown, from Sarmatians, over Avars, to Hungarians. The locals (if subtracting newcomers) being consistently dominated by E-V13 and R-L2.