Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Check for new replies
E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data
(04-17-2024, 08:45 PM)Riverman Wrote: If we assume, what many "Thracologists" stated, that Gáva, Belegis and Coslogeni, as well as other regional groups in Bulgaria were all Thracian related, we have a big problem with the modern phylogeny and dates, which clearly point to a singular point of a population concentration, a unified, bigger E-V13 population, from which the bulk of the modern E-V13 carriers descends from.

These are all very old and debunked theories. Even before we learned that E-V13 was already present in the BA Balkans before the LBA-EIA, everything pointed to E-V13 having no relation to Gava or any such groups because the aDNA record showed continuity between BA and IA populations in eastern Hungary, in terms both of Y-DNA and autosomal ancestry. (Belegis II as a local Balkan formation is a totally different matter) 

The argument about a more "northern" origin for E-V13 was originally linked to the false notion that E-V13 would be found throughout most of Europe during the IA, but this isn't the case as now know. Much of E-V13 in much of Europe today spread from the Balkans during the Roman era.

We don't need to subscribe to any theory about any "unified E-V13 population". Different Balkan Neolithic groups became part of different Paleo-Balkan peoples. A more interesting scenario would be if a non-IE language survived until late, but we won't be able to examine such a scenario via aDNA.

There are many unsampled Balkan Neolithic groups which could yield E-L618/V13 and all unsampled areas from the inner west-central Balkans to southwestern and south-central Bulgaria cover more than enough space for groups which might have carried E-V13.

Finding E-V13 in southern Bulgaria as early as the Chalcolithic means that we might find E-V13 throughout the rest of the inner Balkans during the same period. More importantly, it means that the discussion needs to shift away from the LBA-EIA and areas north of the Balkans and focus on Eneolithic/Chalcolithic/EBA non-IE groups within the Balkans.

(Yesterday, 08:11 PM)Rage Wrote: Compare the samples from BA Bulgaria with the EIA Bulgaria E-V13 and you will see steppe ancestry decreases significantly overall during the EIA period. It would of been the opposite if another IE migration supposedly occurred in the LBA - EIA, which is actually very unlikely that such a thing ever occurred.

It's clear that E-V13 represents a Balkan Neolithic lineage which resurfaced alongside ANF ancestry in the aftermath of the Yamnaya migrations and a resurgence of ANF ancestry is actually required to explain Paleo-Balkan autosomal ancestry. Even Illyrians who had the most steppe ancestry, both autosomally and in terms of Y-DNA, had over 50% ANF ancestry.

EDIT:

LBA-EIA migrations theories need to stop. We know that E-V13 didn't come to the Balkans in the LBA-EIA and its central area during the BA was not outside the Balkans.
timaeus likes this post
Reply
Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria, all three received pulse migration from the mixed Tripolye-Cucuteni + Usatovo + GAC context. From these mixtures various important groups emerged, including Cernavoda and Cotofeni.

If E-V13 was among these people, which became even more likely because the kurgan from Mayako is exactly from that context, and it yielded an E1b1b individual, just like we got an E-L618 (!) from earlier TCC layers kind of nearby, they surely could have reached Bulgaria in the Copper Age-EBA transitonal period.
However, that's not even the main question, because we also know that the surviving E-V13 trunk descends at that time from just one single lineage! Therefore if we would find all E-V13 carriers from that period, only 1-3 of those lineages did survive going by the current modern testing status. All the others, regardless of how many there were, either went extinct or played no significant role afterwards.

The vast majority of modern E-V13 carriers descends from an even later ancestor. The crucial question is therefore where they survived. And here the author said something interesting: E-V13 came to Bulgaria multiple times. It wasn't just one initial migration and continuity ever since, but more to it. And that's the really interesting part, since the very same context which brought people down to Bulgaria (mixed Usatovo-Cernavoda steppe influenced people), moved also to Romania and Serbia, created the more important and lasting Cotofeni horizon or Glina-Schneckenburg etc.

We don't know whether, even if E-V13 was there, in Bulgaria, in the Chalcolithic, that's where they stayed and survived, because other people moved into Bulgaria and put everything updside down. The real continuity to known Thracian people doesn't start earlier than with the EIA, with Psenichevo. Everything before is a mess and cries for multiple replacements in the Upper Thrace region.

The samples we got so far, from Bulgaria and its direct neighbours, point to that as well.

We need to find the nest, the trunk of E-V13 in the MBA. Finding from a related (e.g. Cernavoda) context E1b1b in both Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Moldova would be no surprise as such. But did they stay in flourish - where? That's second biggest question after how it survived initially.

The "how it survived initially" got much closer to an answer, by becoming part of the Usatovo-related mixed horizon, probably from the Gorodsk subgroup, which had adopted some new way of life from GAC people already and mixed with Usatovo people. That's a feasible scenario and it would bring them into a context of importance for both Romania and Bulgaria in particular, which is where they moved when new steppe elements started to exert pressure on them the latest - unless they moved out first and opened the space on their own terms, which is an option too.
Dreneu likes this post
Reply
(Yesterday, 11:04 PM)Riverman Wrote: Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria, all three received pulse migration from the mixed Tripolye-Cucuteni + Usatovo + GAC context. From these mixtures various important groups emerged, including Cernavoda and Cotofeni.

Cernavoda represents the Anatolian languages and it's likely they are represented by I-L702 as a key lineage.

Cotofeni is irrelevant in relation to the current discussion.

(Yesterday, 11:04 PM)Riverman Wrote: The vast majority of modern E-V13 carriers descends from an even later ancestor. The crucial question is therefore where they survived. And here the author said something interesting: E-V13 came to Bulgaria multiple times. It wasn't just one initial migration and continuity ever since, but more to it.

Of course, it did. And a good part of modern E-V13 in Bulgaria actually descends from the west-central Balkans of the Roman era. But if E-V13 has a pre-BA presence in the southernmost Balkans, then it's reasonable to consider more likely than not that the rest of it was somewhere nearby within the Balkans.

(Yesterday, 11:04 PM)Riverman Wrote: We don't know whether, even if E-V13 was there, in Bulgaria, in the Chalcolithic, that's where they stayed and survived, because other people moved into Bulgaria and put everything updside down.

(Yesterday, 11:04 PM)Riverman Wrote: We need to find the nest, the trunk of E-V13 in the MBA.

If E-V13 was continuously present in southern Bulgaria from CA to LBA, then this is a starting point.

The full geographical spread might range from a more northern Balkan position (corresponding to a region as northwest as western Serbia) to southern Bulgaria.
timaeus likes this post
Reply
Cernavoda was a more complex horizon, with many different groups and layers. Cotofeni is highly important for the debate, quite obviously. As a reminder, the distribution of Cotofeni finds:

[Image: The-sites-of-Cotofeni-culture-in-Romania...rbia-1.ppm]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-..._322482176

Its the phenomenon in which the mixed Western steppe groups not just survived, but started with the cremation traditon, which lasted, with relatively short interruptions, from the EBA to the Roman into Medieval period.
I highly, highly doubt that they have evidence of continuous inhabitation of E-V13 carriers in Bulgaria. Rather its like he wrote, that E-V13 came into Bulgaria multiple times, not just at one occasion, from more Northern areas, primarily the Carpathian zone.

It is absolutely clear that there must have been interruptions, which includes the Yamnaya invasion, Sabatinovka or Encrusted Pottery, among others.
Reply
(Yesterday, 11:49 PM)Riverman Wrote: It is absolutely clear that there must have been interruptions, which includes the Yamnaya invasion, Sabatinovka or Encrusted Pottery, among others.

Most of these movements occurred in the northern and eastern parts of Bulgaria and they don't contradict continuity of certain E-V13 clades from the BA to the IA in southern Bulgaria.
Reply
(Yesterday, 11:55 PM)corrigendum Wrote:
(Yesterday, 11:49 PM)Riverman Wrote: It is absolutely clear that there must have been interruptions, which includes the Yamnaya invasion, Sabatinovka or Encrusted Pottery, among others.

Most of these movements occurred in the northern and eastern parts of Bulgaria and they don't contradict continuity of certain E-V13 clades from the BA to the IA in southern Bulgaria.

They do, because Brnjica did take the West Rhodopes and Wietenberg-Coslogeni related the Eastern ones. On top of that came Channelled Ware, which took all those regions, but especially Upper Thrace with the centres of Knobbed Ware, from which Psenichevo developed, which leads us directly to the samples from Svilengrad and other clearly early Thracian sites in the region.

Also, Psenichevo while important is no such central group as that it could have overrun all the others to spread E-V13 or Thracian culture. The evidence for such a movement from Upper Thrace, which was shrunken to a very weak and small populaton before the Carpathian-steppe invasions anyway, is much weaker than for the Gáva-related Channelled Ware invasions. Much, much weaker.

The continuity from Channelled Ware onwards is much greater than from any other cultural layer in the macro-region.

Therefore regardless of E-V13 living in some Southern regions earlier, we highly likely deal with a big wave of E-V13 carriers coming with Channelled Ware. The evidence for both continuity in Upper Thrace and a massive, grande scale expansion into all other relevant territories is meagre.

And there can be no doubt that especially Basarabi must have been E-V13 dominated. It was the crucial hub for E-V13 in multiple directions. A restricted position of E-V13 to Southern Thrace is absolutely not feasible. Not in the MBA-LBA, even less so in the EIA.
And its also no option to see E-V13 highly dispersed without a trunk popuilation. The development and branching events deducible from the modern phylogeny don't allow that. We need a central, trunk population which covered especially those branches rafc called "Western" and I usually refer to as Northern.
Those must have lived together and growing in size continuously since the LBA.

To "explain it away" with E-V13 being here and there and everywhere, not connected to specific ethnic groups and growing populations, doesn't suffice. There is no synchronicity with any other of the other known Balkan haplogroups. On the contrary, the strongest correlation is with R-L2.
Reply
Random observation that will probably amount to nothing, but David Anthony in '07 mentioned that pre-Germanic languages have their roots in Usatove. Quote:

"If I had to hazard a guess I would say that this was how the Proto-IndoEuropean dialects that would ultimately form the root of Pre-Germanic first became established in central Europe: they spread up the Dniester from the Usatovo culture through a nested series of patrons and clients, and eventually were spoken in some of the late TRB communities between the Dniester and the Vistula. These late TRB communities later evolved into early Corded Ware communities, and it was the Corded Ware horizon (see below) that provided the medium through which the PreGermanic dialects spread over a wider area."

Reason why I bring this up, is that I noticed one of the most basal E-V13s is a German man.
Reply
(Today, 04:21 AM)targaryen Wrote: Random observation that will probably amount to nothing, but David Anthony in '07 mentioned that pre-Germanic languages have their roots in Usatove. Quote:

"If I had to hazard a guess I would say that this was how the Proto-IndoEuropean dialects that would ultimately form the root of Pre-Germanic first became established in central Europe: they spread up the Dniester from the Usatovo culture through a nested series of patrons and clients, and eventually were spoken in some of the late TRB communities between the Dniester and the Vistula. These late TRB communities later evolved into early Corded Ware communities, and it was the Corded Ware horizon (see below) that provided the medium through which the PreGermanic dialects spread over a wider area."

Reason why I bring this up, is that I noticed one of the most basal E-V13s is a German man.

Not that I have objections to the idea of E-V13 participating in Pre-Germanic ethnogenesis in principle, but I consider that being too far fetched.

What's true is that Usatovo did mix with GAC/TRB groups and Trypolye-Cucuteni (TCC), basically that's how Usatovo as a phenomenon, especially the intermediate Gorodsk group, came up in the first place. But I don't see that being relatd to either Corded Ware or Pre-Germanic in any other way than the ancestral steppe group of Usatovo-Cernavoda and Corded Ware being possibly closer related to each other than to Yamna.
However, after they split, after the Usatovo emerged and became a mixed group with GAC-TCC ancestry, they were separated.

The only way Usatovo could have played any role for Pre-Germanic is, if Unetice was Pre-Germanic, because Unetice had strong Carpathian influences and GAC lineages (I2a). But even that doesn't look as likely any more, even though its still more likely than a direct Usatovo-TRB mix becoming Pre-Germanic - IMHO.

There could have been always early splinters of E-V13, from as far as Scandinavia as to Iran. That's always possible. But members of the main trunk groups are unlikely to have arrived in the North before Urnfield-Hallstatt, with the bulk no earlier than the Late Iron Age, with Celtic backflow from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere.
targaryen and Dreneu like this post
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)