E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

[Riverman]

Balkan genetic substrate just means a more Southern profile related to the Basarabi and Psenichevo colonisation of the area.

[Southpaw]

Some of those E-V13 qrts shared, their EEF for some of them closest more toward Albania Chalcolithic which is interesting, but they have quite some more Yamnaya than Southern Thracians. Their EEF is like mine Alb_Chalcolithic + some minor BG_Chalcolithic, and Yamnaya steppe is approximately like mine as well more or less.

Btw, Southern Thracians from Kapitan Andreevo are a strange bunch, someone keeps mentioning they show some Levantine-Mesopotamian component which is missing in Mycenaeans, i didn't spot that in G25?

[Riverman]

Some of those E-V13 qrts shared, their EEF for some of them closest more toward Albania Chalcolithic which is interesting, but they have quite some more Yamnaya than Southern Thracians. Their EEF is like mine Alb_Chalcolithic + some minor BG_Chalcolithic, and Yamnaya steppe is approximately like mine as well more or less.

Btw, Southern Thracians from Kapitan Andreevo are a strange bunch, someone keeps mentioning they show some Levantine-Mesopotamian component which is missing in Mycenaeans, i didn't spot that in G25?

When it popped up, just for some, in specific models, it was very low AFAIK, like not much more than trace level. I wouldn't wonder about that at all though, because they are likely to have mixed with Anatolians after their trip to Troy and other sites, especially after many of their clans settled in NW Anatolia.

[Southpaw]

Some of those E-V13 qrts shared, their EEF for some of them closest more toward Albania Chalcolithic which is interesting, but they have quite some more Yamnaya than Southern Thracians. Their EEF is like mine Alb_Chalcolithic + some minor BG_Chalcolithic, and Yamnaya steppe is approximately like mine as well more or less.

Btw, Southern Thracians from Kapitan Andreevo are a strange bunch, someone keeps mentioning they show some Levantine-Mesopotamian component which is missing in Mycenaeans, i didn't spot that in G25?

When it popped up, just for some, in specific models, it was very low AFAIK, like not much more than trace level. I wouldn't wonder about that at all though, because they are likely to have mixed with Anatolians after their trip to Troy and other sites, especially after many of their clans settled in NW Anatolia.

That would make sense, the way they spread is interesting, en-route to Anatolia. The trajectory is quite clear.

[Riverman]

What's interesting about the new Avar era paper is, that E-V13 pops up in 3/3 sites with European lineages. No other haplogroup does that. The two J branches which are so numberous belong to just two clans from one site. E-V13 on the other hand is everywhere and pretty diverse. Just worth to be stressed for the context of the Carpathian Basin.

Compare:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/th...ost-680075

[Southpaw]

I am gonna make a prediction or speculation which may or may not be correct.

Since we see splinter groups during Chalcolithic as far north as Ukraince between North/Eastern Carpathians and Podilsky Upland and south to Late Chalcolithic North Balkans Culture but not to their authentic material culture. I predict core E-V13 group was residing in what is called Criș culture deep in Transylvania/Carpathians.

Two specific attributes to them:

1. High altitude herding
2. Metal-working pioneering in Late Chalcolithic

[Riverman]

I am gonna make a prediction or speculation which may or may not be correct.

Since we see splinter groups during Chalcolithic as far north as Ukraince between North/Eastern Carpathians and Podilsky Upland and south to Late Chalcolithic North Balkans Culture but not to their authentic material culture. I predict core E-V13 group was residing in what is called Criș culture deep in Transylvania/Carpathians.

Two specific attributes to them:

1. High altitude herding
2. Metal-working pioneering in Late Chalcolithic

As far as I know the area was rather controlled by Petresti before the steppe invasion and Tripolye-Cucuteni associated, with strong Southern ties. Some scholars even claimed a relationship with https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimini

[targaryen]

There is a possibility that the people we knew as Phrygians used to live in Thrace before being driven out by actual Thracian E-V13-ers.

The Phrygians being most commonly identified with the Brygi in the Balkans. Those are supposed to have around Albania:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryges

It is pretty obvious that Illyrians and Thracians both pushed Brygi and Paeonians. While the Brygi can't possibly be associated with E-V13, the status of Paeonians is less obvious. Oftentimes its not even clear whether a tribe was Thracian, Paeonian or Brygi to begin with. The sources on those people are relatively scarce, yet they don't look to me like being associated with E-V13 generally speaking.

Just a note: These "Bryges" groups are just Greek mythological nonsense, with 0 backing archeologically, historically or linguistically. 

There's a lot "historical" events in ancient sources that were probably bull. A lot of things Herodotus wrote were just nonsense.

[Ushta]

There is a possibility that the people we knew as Phrygians used to live in Thrace before being driven out by actual Thracian E-V13-ers.

The Phrygians being most commonly identified with the Brygi in the Balkans. Those are supposed to have around Albania:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryges

It is pretty obvious that Illyrians and Thracians both pushed Brygi and Paeonians. While the Brygi can't possibly be associated with E-V13, the status of Paeonians is less obvious. Oftentimes its not even clear whether a tribe was Thracian, Paeonian or Brygi to begin with. The sources on those people are relatively scarce, yet they don't look to me like being associated with E-V13 generally speaking.

Just a note: These "Bryges" groups are just Greek mythological nonsense, with 0 backing archeologically, historically or linguistically. 

There's a lot "historical" events in ancient sources that were probably bull. A lot of things Herodotus wrote were just nonsense.

The Brygi appear to have been Phrygians in the Balkans. Their core territory probably was somewhere in Macedonia, Paeonia and western Thrace. The legend of the settlement of the Brygi around Dyrrhachium is documented only by Appian (from Wilkes' The Illyrians):

In a later period the Bryges, returning from Phrygia, seized the city and surrounding territory, then the Taulantii, an lllyrian people, took it from them and the Liburni, another lllyrian people, took it from the Taulantii.

But it is most likely a mythical cliché about populations' displacements from Dyrrhachium, indeed several other traditions stated that instead of the Brygi the Parthinii (an Illyrian tribe) were pushed inland by the Taulantii. There is no evidence of an early presence of the Brygians/Phrygians in central Albania, where the Bronze Age tumuli are apparently associated with cultures that are widely considered to have produced Illyrian tribal groups in the Iron Age, not Phrygians.

The Brygian/Phrygian location in the Balkans is actually supported by linguistic evidence, because Pre-Phrygians most likely arrived in the region with Pre-Greeks, either within the same Pre-Graeco-Phrygian IE group or as two distinct but closely related IE dialectal groups.

[Riverman]

It is general consensus that the Phrygians lived up to the Bronze Age collpase, Transitional Period, when Channelled Ware came down from the Carpatho-Danube sphere, in the Balkans.

The Balkanic ancestors of the Phrygians –named Bryges by Herodotus– moved to Asia Minor during a period of crisis that occurred at the end of the Bronze Age. The archaeological findings indicate that the proto-Phrygians had maintained contacts with the Mycenaean Greeks in the area of the Thermaic Gulf and that they played an important role in the Mediterranean crisis. Small groups of this people settled in central and southern Greece, and a more numerous contingent must have allied with the Mycenaeans around 1200 BC, in order to invade various regions of Anatolia and Syria. The proto-Phrygians used a characteristic style of handmade pottery, which has been found not only in Asia Minor but also in Greece, Cyprus and the Syrian coast.

Their pottery is the Barbarian ware which precedes and is generally related to the Channelled Ware in layers like those of Troy:

The archaeological evidence from Yassihöyük, the ancient site of Gordion, indicates that this Anatolian city was abandoned around 1200 BC, at the time of the eastern Mediterranean crisis, and that its new inhabitants arrived some 100 years later. This population has been identified as the proto-Phrygian immigrants who occupied the stratum 7B. Their handmade and burnished ware is called EIAH (Early Iron Age Handmade) by the excavators, and it is generally considered of Balkanic origin.7 This pottery has been also related to other “barbarian wares” found in Troy and in various sites of central and southern Greece.8 The Handmade Burnished Ware of Troy, also called Coarse Ware, appeared in the phase VIIb1 (dated to the 12th century BC), and the Handmade Burnished Ware of Greece was used in the same period, although there are some examples from Tiryns which are dated a few earlier (13th century BC).

In the Hellenic region of Epirus, which was not included in the Mycenaean world, the pottery was rather similar to the handmade ware found in central and southern Greece, although it was not burnished. Other examples of handmade burnished pottery were used in southern Italy, but this fact can be due to the possible arrival in this region of some Balkanic people from the neighbouring coast of Illyria.10 Yet, the small quantities of HBW found on Cyprus are more interesting for this study, since they are clearly associated with the Mycenaean pottery used by the sea raiders who settled in Enkomi and other Cypriot sites around 1200 BC. Therefore, it seems that the handmade ware that appeared in Mycenaean Greece was also introduced in the island during this period.11 Finally, the most recent findings of HBW are those of Tell Kazel in the Syrian coast.12

The latter hypothesis, however, would be more plausible if the handmade style developed in Greece imitated the Mycenaean pottery, instead of a northern Balkanic ware. In fact, the best parallels have been found in the handmade vessels that were used in eastern Macedonia and western Thrace during the Late Bronze Age, although there are some traits which probably derived from the ceramic style of Noua-Coslogeni, an European culture located at the mouth of the Danube.15 It is also significant that the petrographic 4 analysis undertaken on 21 sherds of HBW from the Spartan Menelaion indicates the presence of grog-tempering, a non-Mycenaean manufacturing technique, in those vessels.16 Furthermore, the foreign origin of the HBW is confirmed by the appearance of other cultural innovations in Greece during the same period. The flange-hilted sword (type IIa), which had been created in the Danubian area, was used in Mycenae as well as in Enkomi, a Cypriot city that was occupied by the Mycenaeans, and a new type of spear was also introduced in the Aegean world from other regions of Europe.17

In the Late Bronze Age, the European Urnfield culture expanded through the Danube Valley and reached the Thracian region of the Rhodope Mountains. The incineration in urns became there very usual, either in flat graves or under stone barrows, but sometimes the Thracians did not use urns and then they practiced the incineration in situ. The pottery made in the Rhodopes was similar to that of north-western Thrace, where both inhumation and incineration burials have been found. The eastern culture of NouaCoslogeni also extended to the Balkans around 1250 BC, and this is why the ceramic style of some handmade burnished vessels was related to that culture. However, the handmade pottery used in Macedonia during the Late Bronze Age had its immediate origin in the valleys of the rivers Morava, Struma and Vardar; and the mouth of the Vardar (the ancient Axius) is located in the Thermaic Gulf, between Chalcidia and the area of Mount Bermion.22 This was precisely the homeland of the proto-Phrygian people, according to Greek tradition.

Also interesting - after the handmade pottery probably associated with Phrygians, the Knobbed Ware proper (IMHO = Early Thracian) followed. We therefore see the successive invasion of first Phrygian and then Thracian people in Troy/Anatolia:

On the other hand, the Homeric Iliad recounts that the Phrygians and the Thracians joined the Trojan army during the legendary siege, but this was probably an anachronism that could have been introduced in Greek tradition from the 10th century BC, when the Phrygians must 9 have been regarded as a significant component of the western Anatolian population. However, the role played by the proto-Phrygian people in the destruction of Troy VIIa is not clear. If they did not participated directly in the attack, as mercenaries or allies of the Mycenaeans, they probably took advantage of the Hellenic victory by seizing some Trojan and Mysian territories.

https://www.academia.edu/44538968/The_Ea..._Phrygians

Summed up this suggests a relationship with other cremating groups of the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, like Gáva, Belegis II-Gáva and Paracin and Brnjica in particular. It could also point to a more distant relationships with Thracians, which pushed them from their sites in Morava-Vardar-Struma areas South East, which is why they ended up in Anatolia.

[corrigendum]

It is general consensus that the Phrygians lived up to the Bronze Age collpase, Transitional Period, when Channelled Ware came down from the Carpatho-Danube sphere, in the Balkans.

The general consensus is indeed that the Phrygians moved to Anatolia during the end of the LBA, but theories about mass migrations of "Channelled Ware" groups aren't part of the consensus and we don't even find evidence for impactful contacts with such groups beyond the northern Balkans along the Danubian routes.

Dietrich, Laura (2015), A new world order: the spread of channelled ware in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Transylvania

Generally an autochthonous origin of channelled ware is presumed (specifically within the area of northeastern Hungary, northwestern Romania and the trans-Carpathian regions of the Ukraine and eastern Slovakia). A chronology based on independent absolute dates is still absent, nevertheless dispersion from these areas into Transylvania and Moldavia is assumed. The exact mode of this dispersion is less intensely discussed. However, diverging lines of interpretation are nonetheless visible. While some researchers equal the spread of the pottery style with the movement of people (Leviţki 1994; Rusu 1963; Smirnova 1974), others prefer explanations which can be summarized under key words like cultural syncretism, acculturation, communication or the spread of a new ‘fashion’ (Hänsel 1976; Pare 1998; Vulpe 1995).

As the first theory cannot account for the great number and the dimensions of the settlements which contained channelled pottery (one would have to imagine mass migration for this to have been the case), the second line of thought gains ground, although the details of the presumed culturally-induced changes have not yet been made clear. Change can only be understood if one is already familiar with the background against which it happened. For channelled ware, this backdrop is formed by the Middle and Late Bronze Age cultures of the Carpathian Basin.

Middle and Late Bronze Age societies of the Carpathian Basin are defined by certain pottery styles (i.e. pottery fine wares) attributed to particular distribution areas. In the area later ‘taken over’ by channelled ware, the so-called ‘Otomani Culture’ (found in northeastern Transylvania, eastern Hungary and southern Slovakia), the ‘Suciu de Sus Culture’ (found in northeastern Hungary, northwestern Transylvania and the adjacent parts of Ukraine), the ‘Wietenberg Culture’ (located in Transylvania) and the ‘Noua Culture’ (found in Moldavia, and some parts of Transylvania) are particularly relevant.

By definition, this means that the formation of Channeled Ware occurred via contacts of strongly divergent groups as Otomani and Noua culture are very different to each other. By definition, CW can't represent a strongly defined population.

None of these two groups (Otomani, Noua) is related to E-V13. SdS and Wietenberg remain unknown but I think that current data suggest that they'll be closely related to each other. We'll get results about them in the study about CA-LBA Transylvania.

[Riverman]

First off, E-V13 is likely centered between Otomani and Wietenberg, in the local population there which survived. The result was first the Eastern Otomani group which cremated and then the emergence of Suciu de Sus culture.
Noua is the result of Sabatinovka herders taking over Wietenberg territory. The open question is how much local population continuity and substrate influence survived into Noua. That is an open debate which can't be answered by archaeology alone, we need ancient DNA results. Fact is, the early samples from Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni point to a nearly pure steppe group with R-Z93, anthropologically and autosomally fully steppe derived, less admixed than say later Scytho-Sarmatians.

Now the artcile specifically writes about Coslogeni. What is Coslogeni? Coslogeni is the Bulgarian variant of the fusion of Sabatinovka wiht locals, presumably from Wietenberg, Monteoru, Verbicoara and Tei, so basically other Carpatho-Danubian groups.

Concerning Knobbed Ware in Bulgaria, it has basically just two possible predecessors, which can be combined, but no others are truly relevant for Knobbed Ware as it starts in early Babadag and spreads across all of Bulgaria and down to Troy:
- Coslogeni, so the very Sabatinovka descendant with local (Wietenberg, Monteoru, Tei, Verbicoara) influences
- Gáva-related Channelled Ware, as it came from Oltenia (Vartop), Moldova (Holigrady-Granicesti) and the North Balkans (Belegis II-Gáva)

There is absolutely no local tradition from Southern Thrace.

On top of that, even the incised and Furchenstich-variants from Southern Thrace are mostly Carpato-Danubian derived, some consider it being the result of migrants from Wietenberg. In the Western Rhodopes the local influences are from the very groups mentioned, especially from Brnjica, which clearly conquers that area.

So we have two Southern Thrace groups, one from Brnjica and one from Wietenberg-Verbicoara-Tei, with Sabatinovka steppe influences coming in, finally Knobbed Ware which clearly, 100 % spreads from the North comes in on top and pushes the others into Greece and Anatolia on the one hand and covers all of Bulgaria on the other.

That is all very clear and not even debatable. The only question is whether limited influences from Gáva on Coslogeni caused the Danubian Fluated Ware horizon, from which early Babadag and Psenichevo emerged, the whole Knobbed Ware horizon, or whether it was a mass migration.
And for the latter are plenty of arguments, since the whole region shifts to the Carpathian traditions in nearly every way (burial rites, goods, weapons, ceramic etc.).

We are dealing with successive waves of people from the Northern-Central Balkans and the Carpathians, as well as the steppe. The whole region was one big sinke for these people and no source in the MBA-EIA. Only when Psenichevo got established, then, only then, were some Northward movements. But Psenichevo itself is the direct results of these South migrations.

There is therefore a clear chronology:
- First Proto-Phrygians with handmade coarse ware (related to Brnjica and other Southern cremating groups)
- Then Proto-Thracians with Knobbed Ware (related to Gáva, Belegis and Vartop)

Vartop from Oltenia-North Western Bulgaria is absolutely crucial, because the later Knobbed Ware and Stamped pottery combined Gáva elements with those from the steppe/old Wietenberg traditions (incisded decorations) and Encrusted Pottery elements. The first fusion of that kind might be seen in areas of Vartop, Gornea-Kalakacza and Insula Banului.

It is not just the ceramic, rites and weapons which connects those cultural groups, but also elements of architecture and subsistence. E.g. the fortifications which were built after the Gáva role model:

A characteristic feature of this period is the
spread of fortified sites, whose number varies
from one culture to another. It was discovered,
from the repertory of fortifications from the Ti-
sa-Dniester space, that most of them (about 121)
were build in the area of the Gáva-Holihrady-
Culture (Horedt 1974; Demeterová 1983; Maleev
1988; Vasiliev 1995; Zanoci, Banaru 2010; Щер-
бей 2010; Завітій 2011; Bălan 2013). In other
cultural-chronological groups the number of for-
tresses is much smaller. Thus, at present for the
cultures Vârtop (Lazăr 2011, 224, 225, 230, 250)
and Cozia-Saharna (Zanoci 2013) are known six
fortifications, for Babadag (Jugănaru 2005, 20-
24; Ailincăi 2013, 226-228) – five, for Chişinău-
Corlăteni (Florescu, Florescu 1983, 74-75) and
Insula Banului (Nica 1990) – by one. In the area
of Tămăoani-Holercani-Hansca-Culture no such
sites are known to date.
Regardless of cultural belonging, early Hallstatt
fortifications have a number of common features:
the location in strategic places, the presence of ar-
tificial defensive elements (“wallum”, ditch, etc.),
the adaptation to the specific land defense system
on which they are located, etc.

Defending gates through bastions or towers in the

area Tisa-Dniester will get a wider spread starting
only with phase HaD. This method of protecting ac-
cess gates was also used in Thraco-Getic fortresses
from Saharna Mare, Saharna Mică (Niculiţă, Za-
noci, Arnăut 2008, 25, 92-99, foto 20) and other
sites from this period (Zanoci 1998, 62-63)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...015_p_7-27

[Riverman]

None of these two groups (Otomani, Noua) is related to E-V13. SdS and Wietenberg remain unknown but I think that current data suggest that they'll be closely related to each other. We'll get results about them in the study about CA-LBA Transylvania.

The samples from Wietenberg will be interesting, as long as they are actual Wietenberg people and no foreigners with body burilas, inhumations, like from the steppe and Monteoru. Among the regularly buried people, foreigners from Monteoru and the steppe make up the majority. So its crucial whether they have used irregular and sacrificial burials for Wietenberg, to really get the local profile.
There are no samples from Suciu de Sus included, and none from Lapus, as far as I can tell. Both groups did strictly cremate their dead.

We might get Pre-Gáva from Romania, which again will be important to know whether they are actual locals or foreigners, like those Pre-Gáva burials you mentioned repeatedly, which were foreign outliers and completely unrelated to Gáva people. This is evident both from the archaeological context of the burial and their autosomal profile.

Therefore the older samples (from the Cotofeni and following groups) are the most interesting, but Wietenberg, Otomani and Pre-Gáva is also great, as long as they are actual locals, which is hard to get from regulars, because all regulars were cremated.

If Wietenberg and Pre-Gáva are no locals, chances are that sampels from the Gomolava mass burial will be better representatives of Gáva-related people than those - if they are indeed foreign outliers.

Very precious might be, just might be, Noua samples, because it will show whether the Sabatinovka herders indeed did assimilate locals from Wietenberg, Monteoru etc. and whether this shows in the Noua samples from Transylvania. That is important also because just like later Cimmerians, Scythians, Celts and Sarmatians, these foreigners, if they assimilated/influenced the locals, made them use inhumations!

Early Otomani-Füzesabony and Noua could both have led to the locals adopting inhumation burials. Which means its possible that even though these are not the classical groups, we might find here the inhumation burials of the locals which otherwise disappear from the record due to their burial rites, with cremation in urns and scattered ashes.

[EV13Gang]

Hi guys,

I am new to the topic and I am positive for E-BY4540 (I am from France but with German roots).

As I see, my forefather must be either from Germanic or Thracian tribes. Although I was told it might be linked to Illyrians, based to what I see in this post it does not make sense.

Best,
Matthieu

[EV13Gang]

Or do anybody know who I can ask for this matter?