E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

[corrigendum]

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.

I didn't claim that these results show that E-V13 was "dominant" in any nearby region. I simply replied to this specific claim. Overall, we should obviously wait for more samples.

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

Yes, ther

[quote="Riverman" pid="449" dateline="1696361557"]
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.

There are 2 samples (1/2 is an outlier) from La Tene Hungary, 1 Vekerzug (outlier) and 1 in La Tene Czechia. It's not unusual or indicative of any special relation of these areas to E-V13. 1 E-V13 sample is just one sample.

There are about 60 samples in total from Hungary between 100 BCE to 400 CE outside the Roman areas. E-V13 is low in such regions. Once we move within the Roman borders, E-V13 will increase simply because E-V13 presence in these regions is related to Roman expansion and we know so because we can see what the autosomal profiles of these individuals look like. They came from the Balkans. If they didn't come from the Balkans, they would have roughly the same profiles as all other groups of the Carpathians.

[Riverman]

Its funny you say that because the Western Hungarian areas were completely and far longer under Roman control then the area between the Danube and Tisza, let along the rest of the Dacian territories or even the province of Dacia.
Yet in these Roman areas E-V13 is lower than in the Tisza-Danube zone, which was a Dacian land by and large.

[corrigendum]

Its funny you say that because the Western Hungarian areas were completely and far longer under Roman control then the area between the Danube and Tisza, let along the rest of the Dacian territories or even the province of Dacia.
Yet in these Roman areas E-V13 is lower than in the Tisza-Danube zone, which was a Dacian land by and large.

Yes, we don't have E-V13 samples from Longobard Szolad, but this is not evidence for lack of E-V13 (or any other Balkan haplogroup) but evidence that E-V13 presence was closely tied to Roman control of a region. There is however obvious evidence of Balkan admixture even in Szolad.

The Tisza-Danube area was not Dacian "by and large" because even Transylvania wasn't Dacian before the 3nd/2nd century BCE and even this debate is a bit pointless because E-V13 carriers don't tend to represent any profile which has been found in the Danubian basin area of the Tisza valley in the IA, but typical Balkan profiles with/without East Med admixture:

Target: Hungary_LateAvar:KK1-251.SG
Distance: 2.5207% / 0.02520682
61.4 TUR_Barcin_N
15.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
7.6 GEO_CHG
6.0 Israel_Natufian
5.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

This is not a LIA local of the Tisza-Danube region, but someone from the Balkans who also has some Anatolian ancestry.

We have samples which do represent locals of the Tisza valley in this era and they tend to have high continuity with samples from the IA period:

A181023:
mtDNA: I1a1a
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b (PF6570)

Target: Hungary_Transtisza_LSarmation_EHun:A181023
Distance: 2.8429% / 0.02842924
48.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
33.2 TUR_Barcin_N
14.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
3.2 Israel_Natufian
0.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728
0.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

[Riverman]

If you like it, a single mixed individual can be used to prove your point, even though we have almost a dozen actually Gáva-related and Basarabi-like (Mezocsat, Vekerzug, Himera etc.) samples from the region which have lower steppe and no Levantine admixture at all. Also at least a bit lower WHG on average.
But again, this debate with you is pointless since even if E-V13 pops up consistently, despite the majority of Dacians cremating their dead, in the neighbours, you don't accept it.

What will you make out of samples from Gradiste, Gomolava and Babadag, if they contain E-V13? Or even if samples from Transylvania in the Bronze Age do? I just wonder what excuses you come up with next?

[Riverman]

Some comments on Kustanovice and the Sanislau group of Vekerzug, which many consider Proto-Dacian:

The Kustanovice group area, considered by most specialists to be of Thracian ethnicity, lies north of the Tisa, in a hilly area of Trans-Carpathian Ukraine. Unfortunately, the pottery of that particular group (whose activity lasted from the end of the 7th century/the beginning of the 6th , to the middle of the 3rd century BC) is mostly known from funeral finds, the settlement being too little investigated. At Solotvino-„CETATE”, however, as with Kuătanovice, the wheel-made pots are rarely used. A number of pottery items are to be found in both areas, but the materials, generally speaking, do not coincide. To the west, in the Szentes-Vekerzug environment, and especially in the Sănislău-Nir group area they used wheel-made pottery in large numbers. At least a quarter of the pottery inventory of the settlements is represented by such containers. Some of those were used by the local communities even after the arrival of the Celts, around the middle or the second half of the 4th century BC. This type of pottery is not to be found at Solotvino-„CETATE”.

The group Kustanovice, which territory was part of the very core of Gáva in the LBA-EIA, with the Upper Tisza region and Transcarpathia, being seen as Thracian/Daco-Thracian by the majority of researchers.

The Solotvino-„CETATE” settlement, located in a relatively isolated area, underwent a normal evolution, not being influenced by the „shock” o f the Celts' arrival. That could explain why most of the pottery is similar to those in Daco-Getic settlements of the 4th-3rd centuries BC, south and east o f the Carpathians. In some cases (the bowl with punctured horizontal handles) we can even consider them as imports from that region. The occurrence of some wheel-made items (especially Greek) in the extra-Carpathian settlements and their absence at Solotvino-„CETATE” are natural, considering the closeness (in the first case) or the long distance (in the second) from the Pontic cities. Therefore, the first Dacian settlement from Solotvino could be active between the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. Even though some pottery items inherit First Iron Age features, the absence o f some specific pots (like the bowls with a lobated mouth) indicate a starting date for the settlement towards the end o f the 4th century BC or the beginning o f the next. As for the end of the settlement at Solotvino-„CETATE”, the items discovered suggest it was the end o f the 3r d century BC.

The first Dacian level at Solotvino-”CETATE” reflects the existence of a Dacian community very well structured and organized long before the events happening during the time of Burebista. This fact poses a series o f problems in the interpretation of the ethno-cultural and historical processes that occurred in the upper Tisa area during the second Iron Age. Those aspects will be dealt with after we analyze the finds of the second Dacian habitation.

For the end o f the first Iron Age, small cultural groups have been observed, archaeologically. The most specific phenomenon, the Szentes-Vekerzug culture, occupied an important part of the Pannonian Plain (Alfold). At the limits of its diffusion, east and north-east, a series of local manifestations have been revealed, such as the Sanislau-Nir group (in the area of Satu Mare-Carei in NW Romania), or the SE Slovakian finds. Also, the discoveries o f tum ular graves in the hill-country of Transcarpathian Ukraine (very rarely extended to the plain) have given shape to a peculiuar archaeologic aspect: the Kustanovice group. Finally, recent diggings at Belaja Cerkov’ (Biserica Alba) in Transcarpathian Ukraina, and the older ones at Sarasau seem to suggest the existence of a late Hallstatt horizon specific to the Maramures depression, a relatively secluded area. From an ethnic point of view, all those cultural phenomena were attributed to northern Thracians, although Scythian elements should be taken into account in the case of the Szentes-Vekerzug culture. Those elements, however, are absent from the Sanislau-Nir and KuStanovice, from SE Slovakia and from Maramures, a fact which confirms the attribution of those discoveries to the great Thracian block.

The cultural and ethnic configuration of the area changed after the middle of the 4th c. B.C. At the end of La Tene B l and the beginning of the B2 sub-phase the first groups of Celts penetrated the eastern part o f the Tisa Plain. The first horizon of the Piscolt necropolis (Satu Mare), and certain finds in Crisana belong to that period. The symbiosis of the Sanislau-Nir natives with the newcomers may be detected in certain forms of Hallstatt pottery (bitronconical vessels, or some wheel-made and hand-made pots, etc.) which were perpetuated into the next period, during which they occur together with La Tene artefacts in typical Celtic settlements and necropoles. During the same time, Thracian communities of SE Slovakia, those of Transcarpathian Ukraine and o f Maramures continued their evolution without „contamination” by elements specific to the Celts, who did not reach those regions

The displacement of Celtic communities in the context of the events of 280-277 also caused the expansion o f the area occupied by them . Thus, in the plain area of Transcarpathian Ukraine and in SE Slovakia there appear new Celtic settlements and necropoles. such as the ones at Izkovce and Valaliky-Kostany. During the same period, imported La Tene wares (fibulae, bracelets, pots, etc.) reached the area of Kustanovice and the hilly country, some of those artefacts being dicovered in tumular graves. They mark the last manifestations of the Kustanovice group, which ends its evolution towards the middle of the 3rd c. B.C. As regards Maramures, the existence of well-structured centres o f local power (such as the Dacian fortified settlement of Solotvino, which was already functional during the former half o f the 3rd c. B.C.) prevented the penetration of Celtic groups in the area. In his analysis o f the finds of the second Iron Age in Transcarpathian Ukraine, J. Kobal rightly observed that Celtic settlements never occurred east of the Reka (i.e. in Maramures), that river marking the border between the two ethnic groups.

In the period of the Dacian kingdom, Southern Dacian tribes and those of the Upper Tisza-Transcarpathia region seems to have fused:

The events at the end of the formwer half o f the 1 st c. B.C. had effects o f the upper Tisa area too. Thus, the expansion o f the Dacian kingdom was felt as far as SE Slovakia. It was probably during that time when the Malaja Kopanija fortified settlement was founded, and the Zemplin settlement was integrated in the boundaries of the kingdom. It is significant that the earliest burials of the Zemplin necropolis belong to that period, and their inventories include weapons coming from southern Dacian territories. It was at the same time that artefacts from the south (hemispherical cups with ornaments in relief or undecorated, curved daggers, etc.) also reached Tisa settlements, Malaja Kopanja and Solotvino. Two main opinions have been expressed as regards the ethnic situation of the area under discussion. The former, sustained especially by I.H. Crisan, observes uninterrupted continuity of Dacian communities from late Hallstatt to the time of the Dacian kingdom and even after that. The second hypothesis implies that there are no sufficient arguments to assert cultural continuity from late Hallstatt to the end of the second Iron Age, the „classical” Dacian finds (like those of Zemplin) being regarded as due to the expansion under Burebista. However, the Solotvino-”CETATE” diggings prove, at least for the Maramures depression, a long evolution of local elements, the finds showing specific Dacian features. Also, it is evident that the expansion of „historical” Dacians under Burebista „enriched” the already existing fund of the Dacian ethnic component, thus integrating the space under discussion in the sphere of the kingdom ruled by the dynasts of Sarmizegetusa.

Differentiation of the Western Upper Tisza and East Carpathian Dacians based on burial rites (cremation of course, but flat vs. tumuli):

Another problem under debate in specialized literature is that of a series of archaeologic and cultural facts like the following. Finds from SE Slovakia (especially from Zemplin), Transcarpathian Ukraine and Maramures (Malaja Kopanija, Solotvino, Oncesti, etc.) have been attributed by some specialists to the Lipica culture. Although the materials are similar (both east ans west o f the Carpathians), that aspect should be explained by the common Dacian fund in both areas. Burials are decisive in the interpretation of that aspect: the necropoles and isolated graves specific to the Dacian group of Lipica (concentrated mainly in the upper Dniester basin) are flat, while the funeral complexes so far discovered on the upper Tisa are tumular. That fact indicates different communities.

After the establishment of Dacia as Roman province, the upper Tisa area remained outside the Roman limes. Dacians o f that area, coexisting with various Germanic communities which arrived there one by one, maintained close ties with the Empire.

From: Vasiliev_Rustoiu_Balaguri_Cosma_Solotvino-Cetate_2002 (1)
https://biblioteca-digitala.ro/reviste/c...e_2002.pdf

The most likely conclusion based on this is that we deal with different Daco-Thracian tribal formation in those areas, which were overformed by the Dacian aristocratic expansion, but not replaced, rather united. Therefore we can assume that the different Dacian regions, while likely all being dominated by E-V13, might have had regional differences in minority haplogroups and E-V13 subclades, as well as autosomal make up.

[PopGenist82]

BA Romania is dominated by various Clades of R1 and I2 whilst at the same time being a checkerboard
EV13 remains a bit of a mystery but now I’m toying with a Balkan mountains / eastern Dinaric origin

[Ioas]

BA Romania is dominated by various Clades of R1 and I2 whilst at the same time being a checkerboard
EV13 remains a bit of a mystery but now I’m toying with a Balkan mountains / eastern Dinaric origin

It r1a or r1b more common?

[Riverman]

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.

BA Romania is dominated by various Clades of R1 and I2 whilst at the same time being a checkerboard
EV13 remains a bit of a mystery but now I’m toying with a Balkan mountains / eastern Dinaric origin

Unless there are new samples, the ones we got from Romania are irrelevant, come from unrelated groups and not from the cremation block of the LBA.

[PopGenist82]

BA Romania is dominated by various Clades of R1 and I2 whilst at the same time being a checkerboard
EV13 remains a bit of a mystery but now I’m toying with a Balkan mountains / eastern Dinaric origin

It r1a or r1b more common?

R1b-M269 is most common.

[Qrts]

This may be of interest for folks here - The Syrian DNA project has a good amount of tested E-V13 samples (https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1714078266212897188 & https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1714...239084253/ & https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1712895570824556784):

1) Azzo/Izzo family from Aleppo: E-FGC76600 (being uploaded to Yfull)
2) Mu'arraq family from Aleppo: E-BY3880 (still being further tested)
3) Zayn al-'Abidin family (Shia Muslims) from Fu'ah near Aleppo, originally from Lebanon: E-L618 (still being further tested)
4) Yakhni family from Aleppo: E-FTD42223
5) Araktanji family from Aleppo (Greek Catholics): E-FT350379
6) Chamma family from Latakia: E-BY60519
7) Kabaizoun & Dabbagh families from Aleppo: E-L17
8) Abdul-Haq family from Zabadani near Damascus: E-FT123423

[Capsian20]

This may be of interest for folks here - The Syrian DNA project has a good amount of tested E-V13 samples (https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1714078266212897188 & https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1714...239084253/ & https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1712895570824556784):

1) Azzo/Izzo family from Aleppo: E-FGC76600 (being uploaded to Yfull)
2) Mu'arraq family from Aleppo: E-BY3880 (still being further tested)
3) Zayn al-'Abidin family (Shia Muslims) from Fu'ah near Aleppo, originally from Lebanon: E-L618 (still being further tested)
4) Yakhni family from Aleppo: E-FTD42223
5) Araktanji family from Aleppo (Greek Catholics): E-FT350379
6) Chamma family from Latakia: E-BY60519
7) Kabaizoun & Dabbagh families from Aleppo: E-L17
8) Abdul-Haq family from Zabadani near Damascus:  E-FT123423

Maybe this subclades in Near East back between era sea peoples to Byzantine

[Riverman]

This may be of interest for folks here - The Syrian DNA project has a good amount of tested E-V13 samples (https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1714078266212897188 & https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1714...239084253/ & https://twitter.com/DNASyria/status/1712895570824556784):

1) Azzo/Izzo family from Aleppo: E-FGC76600 (being uploaded to Yfull)
2) Mu'arraq family from Aleppo: E-BY3880 (still being further tested)
3) Zayn al-'Abidin family (Shia Muslims) from Fu'ah near Aleppo, originally from Lebanon: E-L618 (still being further tested)
4) Yakhni family from Aleppo: E-FTD42223
5) Araktanji family from Aleppo (Greek Catholics): E-FT350379
6) Chamma family from Latakia: E-BY60519
7) Kabaizoun & Dabbagh families from Aleppo: E-L17
8) Abdul-Haq family from Zabadani near Damascus:  E-FT123423

Maybe this subclades in Near East back between era sea peoples to Byzantine

Yes, but for some even later (Crusader and Ottoman era) movements are thinkable. Depends on the branch. Some could be as old as the LBA (Sea Peoples and Channelled Ware), whereas others look like fairly recent Ottoman era movements. The latter especially if they have a recent TMRCA with Balkan-Aegean people, Albanians in particular.

[Qrts]

Most of the subclades seem to be consistent with an LBA collapse entry, but some are also clearly later, presumably Byzantine. Ottoman-era movements aren't impossible but such movements were limited in nature and were mostly channeled into the major cities, Aleppo and Damascus. Families of paternal Albanian descent often have the surname 'Arnaout'.

[Riverman]

A bit more about the two main Daco-Thracian groups of the Scythian era in the Carpathian basin, the Sanislau and the Ferigile group, both can be largely derived from Late Gáva and Basarabi respectively:

In the upper Tisza region,
cremation graves
predominate, with the
remains placed in simple
pits or in urns. From the
mid-fifth century BC and in
the following century, flat
cremation cemeteries with
the remains placed in urns
were used almost
exclusively; artefacts of
eastern origin were very
rare. At the periphery of
the Vekerzug culture area,
this phenomenon is known
as the Sanislău-Nir group
(Németi 1982).

Fig. 5:

https://ibb.co/xCyBpkH

it is very likely that the single E-V13 individual from Chotin, Slovakia, from the Western Vekerzug area, was a burial outlier from the Sanislau group, with other Easterners being cremated even in the West (almost 50 % cremations in Chotin).

Link to the paper: https://www.academia.edu/37907806/The_Ca...ubian_area

The paper can be generally recommended and a crucial takeaway is that even the Northern groups like Sanislau and the surviving locals in the La Tene era were all oriented East and South, to the North Balkan, which clearly shows their ethnic affiliation and the connections established since the Channelled Ware horizon from the Upper Tisza-Transcarpathia to the South of Thrace, even Thracian Anatolia.

[Riverman]

There are regional samples from the German FTDNA project. Some regions are less reliable though, because the number of testers is pretty different from region to region, and of course most of the data comes from American emigrants, which can be not perfectly representative as well. But with this limitations in mind, the regional samples from the FTDNA group are among the best data sets I have seen for regional German ancestry.
Here is the link to the Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=...602&type=3

By region from top down, Germans from 1870:


E-V13, E-M35 (sometimes only E-V13 being shown, sometimes both E-M35 and E-V13, depending on the level of testing - most E-M35 will be E-V13, but not all):

Bavarian Franconia (11, 2)
Eifel (11, 1)
North Baden (7, 2)
Hesse South (6, 3)
Alsatia-South Baden (4, 6)
Saarland-Palatinate (6)
Silesia (6)
Tyrol-Salzburg (0, 7)
West Prussia (5)
East Prussia (5)
Wuerttemberg West (5)
Wuerttemberg West-Baden South (5)
East Pommerania (2, 3)
Switzerland (2, 2)
East Frisia-Bremen (3)
Bavaria (1, 1)
Lower Saxony (0)

Larger macro-regions:
Central Germany (5,6; 1,2)
South Germany (4,9; 1,9)
Former East Germany (4,4; 1,4)
North West Germany (3,4; 1,9)

Small numbers can skew  things a bit, like for Lower Austria-Vienna, we are currently about 30,8 % E-V13/E-M35 in the locals, but with a sample size of 13 from the map, that's in no way representative and surely not the actual number of a larger sample. Burgenland same pattern, 10 samples, 3 of them are E-V13 = 30 %. Just like the opposite happened by chance for Upper Austria, with a percentage of 0 (out of a sample of 7). Styria + Carinthia, 1 out of 13.

If we sum those up for all of Eastern Austria (Lower Austria with Vienna, Upper Austria, Burgenland, Styria, Carinthia:
8 of 43 = 18,6 %
Surely still too high.

Still the trend is clear that the East (more Frankish and Slavic) has more E-V13 than the West (more Bavarian). Same pattern like in Germany: Bavarian tribal core zone has a lower percentage of E-V13. Which is all the more astonishing, since Bavarian Franconia has one of the highest numbers and is in the core zone of the higher (7-13 %) E-V13 frequency of 1870 Germans.

Interestingly, this creates a specific pattern for the distribution of E-V13 in Germany, if the trend holds up, for the zone of higher frequencies - in cuts through some federal states, but follows old ethnolinguistic pattern (like Moselfranks, Allemannic, Hessian and Franconian).



It correlates nearly 1:1 with the Frankish and (especilaly Lower) Allemannic dialects.

Frankish:



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...gebied.png

Allemannic:



Especially in the Lower Allemannic zone (Baden-Alsace).

The strongest correlation is definitely with the Frankish dialects, from Eifel over Hesse to Bavarian Franconia. Presumably, since the frequency is lower in core Bavaria and in the Slavic zone, due to Frankish settlement.