E-V13 origins: Candidate cultures and what we can read out of YFull

Here another map, showing the more important archaeological cultures (very roughly, surely not always correct geographically in detail, but its more about their relative positions) for the MBA-LBA which are of importance for the debate:



https://ibb.co/0FKRTHC

Would anyone add another cultural formation as a potentially important group for the E-V13 spread in the LBA-EIA?

Its also worth to mention how often on YFull, which covers at best half of the lineages, specific TMRCAs appear.
5.000 x 0
4.900 x 0
4.800 x 0
4.700 x 0
4.600 x 1
4.500 x 0
4.400 x 5
4.100 x 0
4.200 x 0
4.100 x 5
4.000 x 10
3.900 x 7
3.800 x 14
3.700 x 3
3.600 x 3
3.500 x 2
3.400 x 7
3.300 x 4
3.200 x 5
3.100 x 13
3.000 x 12
2.900 x 10
2.800 x 12
2.700 x 13
2.600 x 4
2.500 x 14
2.400 x 7
2.300 x 12
2.200 x 5
2.100 x 6
2.000 x 1
1.900 x 0
1.800 x 4
1.700 x 2
1.600 x 2
1.500 x 4
1.400 x 7
1.300 x 6
1.200 x 7
1.100 x 9
1.000 x 9
900 x 6
800 x 5
700 x 12
600 x 2
500 x 8

I used that for a graph, to illustrate the pattern better and added the main events of importance:



https://ibb.co/0MrjSBW

I think the pattern is pretty clear and as for the timings, 1-2 centuries up or down won't change the bigger picture in most these instances. I was surprised myself how big the obvious impact of Tumulus Culture and the Celtic-Roman invasions was. These were by far the biggest shocks, major events, against the good run E-V13 had before and after these major negative turning points.
The effect of these two events is obviously as big or bigger than the Avar, Germanic and Slavic tribal migrations, at least if talking about absolute numbers, relative percentage, that's another thing. Obviously the data on YFull is not as good (complete, big, otherwise excellent of course) than on FTDNA, especially for the newer, younger branches, but I think the result is still ok and usable.

Firstly, That sudden rise in Early Iron Age by E-V13 hinted by Viminacium paper, that's something which should be considered as starting point. Secondly, E-V13 dominating one burial of pressumably Psenicevo-Babadag Culture. All of these were connected with Eastern Urnfielders spinoffs.

Let's go backwards and if you read archaeological records it looks like Gava core and all related Channeled-Ware phenomenon had quite a lot of impact in the territory to reflect the current phylogeny of E-V13.

So, i'll go with where the facts point us to. Gava-Holigrady and cultures bordering it, Nyirseg, Kyjatice and perhaps Caka.

I made a second graph, comparing E-V13 directly with J-L283 and there are couple of remarkable differences and similarities:



https://ibb.co/Cs2vFdX

To begin with, I think we see even less of the J-L283 story than from the E-V13 for the earlier stages, because it looks to me as some major strains from Pannonia and the West Balkan didn't survive in big enough numbers to be visible here. So that's a limitation, its primarily about those J-L283 which did survive, and their reduction was probably more drastic in the Iron Age and afterwards than that of E-V13.

The most important thing to notice from this comparison is where E-V13 and J-L283 (with the mentioned limitation, only the survivors) differ:
- In the Early Bronze Age J-L283 had a much smaller expansion than E-V13
- They profited slightly earlier from Late Tumulus culture adoption and early Urnfield expansion, but much more moderately than the massive growth of E-V13
- The massive setback E-V13 experienced when the Cimmerians invaded and the Channelled Ware koine broke up, was used by the J-L283 for expanding at the very same time! So they seem to have make usage of the Channelled Ware/Eastern Urnfield weakness shortly after the steppe Cimmerians invasion, this short uptick ended as soon as the remains of Channelled Ware being reorganised and started to form Psenicevo-Basarabi cultural formations, and into (Eastern) Hallstatt. E-V13 goes up right when they expanded and J-L283 goes down again.
- The Celtic invasion was felt earlier by J-L283, like expected, because their Western groups (Pannonia, Slovenia, Croatia) suffered heavily from the La Tene expansion. But on the longer run they did better, they didn't suffer as much from the Celtic and Roman invasion as the E-V13 populations did. Presumably because of what I did mention earlier, the long and costly, absolutely devastating Roman wars in Macedonia-Eastern Illyria and Thrace, in Pannonia and of course the Dacian Wars. Both E-V13 and J-L283 were in decline in that time, but J-L283 less so, they seem to have survived the Roman era better.
- The opposite is true for the migration period. E-V13 did good, rather massively expand whereas J-L283 was going down significantly, practically immediately.
- The later Medieval time shows especially the Albanian and Southern Vlach expansions, but also the high level of testing for some of these new branches especially from Albania and Britain.

I made another comparison with R-PF7563 and R-CTS9219, like suggested by rafc. Here is the graph:


What I would read out of that:
R-PF7563 has not a lot in common with the dynamic of E-V13, whereas R-CTS9219 has some phases, at least of synchronicity, if not direct common history. Especially in the Early Bronze Age, both the expansion and the downturn when the Pannonian Tell cultures collapsed under the Tumulus culture onslaught is very apparent. R-Z2103 being found now in various Pannonian groups for a reason. That looks more than just pure chance, they both experienced the same, whether they were in one group, or in neighbouring groups.
The Channelled Ware/Urnfield expansion clearly hurt them more than it helped, so they were definitely not part of the same movement as E-V13 was in the LBA-EIA transition.

The next big thing is the Pannonian-Carpathian-Balkan demise when first La Tene Celts and then the Romans invaded. Again, very clear pattern, they both go down, they suffer from the demographic losses caused by these attacks, destruction and replacement. The sheer economical damage alone must have been horrendous, not talking about killed and enslaved people.

And there is one last big synchronous event, which is the Albanian and Southern Vlach expansion in the Medieval era, that's one of the few cases all three, E-V13, J-L283 and R-CTS9219 go up together. Very nice pattern, fairly obvious founder effects from these groups, also due to the excellent Albanian sampling - which other modern European population don't have, and if they would, the timings might be somewhat different.
Interestingly, R-PF7563 look rather different, they seem to have been fairly stable throughout time, no big ups or down, just staying at about the same frequency throughout time.

Since I was quite satisfied with the results and think they are meaningful, by and large, I added some other haplogroups to see how they correlate:



https://ibb.co/sPSSkHN

The sample sizes are not really comparable sometimes, because there are obviously much more I1 samples not just because its a more common haplogroup, but also because of sampling bias. However, the correlations are still largely valid and meaninful.

What we can see, for example, is that I-M253 had just like E-V13 and R-CTS9219 a near collapse point when the steppe expansion took place. It plummeted from amazing 13 branches at 4.500 yBP to 1 at 4.400 yBP. However, it recovered quite quickly and better than other haplogroups.

R-U106 had its first bigger expansion at the same time as did E-V13 and R-CTS9219, with Unetice and Pannonian Tell culture expansions, which seem to have worked together largely, at least economically. What we see next is really interesting, another peak for R-U106 with the Tumulus culture expansion, while I-M253, E-V13 and R-CTS9219 went down really bad.

I always check for synchronicities between haplogroups, and its very clear that it started for I-M253 and R-U106 with Urnfiel. They were not synchronous before, but afterwards, its clear, they both grew with Urnfield/cremation horizon. Especially I-M253 grew with Urnfield really big. Before, E-V13 and R-U106 playe with I-M253 in the same ballpark, but after Urnfield I1 just goes right through the roof and stays at that level ever since. Its really an Urnfield profiteur par excellence, just like E-V13.

With the Cimmerian invasion and the collapse of Urnfield, all three go down, E-V13, I-M253 and R-U106. All three quite evidently suffered from this event. With the re-establishment of the networks, with the evolution of Basarabi and into early Hallstatt, all three go up again, quite massively once more. That's a classical recovery and shows that the Northern European and the Carpathian basin sphere being very closely connected since Urnfield the latest.

The same can be observed yet another time, when first the Scythians and then the La Tene Celtic invasion caused havoc, whole tribes being annihilated, the system collapsed. All three go down once more: E-V13, I-M253 and R-U106, all plummet, but not that extreme, its no collapse, just a depression.

Soon after, there is yet again another recovery and expansion period, for all three E-V13, I-M253 and R-U106. The tribal groups of the Germanics are expanding, the Carpathian basin doing well too, just for the next and this time far bigger downturn with the Roman invasion. Very clear, all three affected the same way once more. For E-V13 the Roman invasion and conquest was the hardest period this haplogroup experienced at least since the steppe invasion. They did better even during the Tumulus culture invasion.

The uptick in the Roman era, note Roman era, not necessarily in the Roman Empire, was again totally in sync with I-M253 and R-U106! It could very well have been the start of a tribal expansion within the Germanic controlled sphere. Interestingly its very obvious which haplogroup exploited the weakness of the Northern European and Carpathian sphere during the Roman onslaught: Whereas E-V13, I-M253 and R-U106 went all down, for the first time and with the biggest growth in their history, I-CTS10936 took the chance and surpasses even I-M253 about 200 AD.

In any case, going through this, the Roman influence on E-V13 was, as far as I can tell, going by this and other data too, a rather decisively negative one for E-V13. They rather expanded with I-M253 and R-U106 for most of the time, being largely synchronous, to some degree even in the Late Antiquity and Early Medieval period, than with anybody else.

The massive pre-Slavic expansion of I-CTS10936 is quite interesting, as it suggests a strong demographic build up right after the first Germanic weakness against the Romans and in the East. The Germanics go down, I-CTS10936 goes up instantly and quite radically.

But what I take with me from this is definitely that both the Cimmerians, Scythians, Celts and the Romans did truly punish E-V13, at least initially. More so than Germanics and Slavs did. After things calmed down, they usually seem to have recovered, but the initial impact of every disturbance of the Carpathian <-> North European connection was felt on both ends. That's really remarkable how synchronous E-V13, I-M253 and R-U106 were for most of the prehistorical time since the later Bronze Age, the Urnfield period which connected them.

The comparison with R-L2 really helped and improved things, therefore I made a version with J-L283 and R-L2 together with E-V13, this is the newest version with comments for the major events:



https://ibb.co/GVSBPRN

It is quite clear that the Tumulus nomadic warriors from Bavaria who were descended from Bell Beakers changed quite a lot of things, they rolled out Central Europe and changed the course of history for good.

If you look at it, the Gava-Holigrady complex (Proto-Thracian) was probably one of the Tell Cultures from Tisza Basin who was merged with Tumulus Culture and Tell Culture tradition.

2.2.2. Lusatian culture and East

Click to expand...

ern Urnfields
The Lusatian culture should be regarded as a northern branch of the Urn
Þ
elds. Thisunit has been known in archaeological literature since the late 19
th
century, and is thetopic of extremely large number of studies. Nevertheless, the discussion on the veryde
Þ
nition of the phenomenon described as “Lusatian culture” is still alive: beginningfrom the adequacy of the name, to the range and status of local groups (see e.g. Gedl1975; Gediga 1980; D
ą
browski 1980; Bukowski 1988; Mierzwi
ń
ski 1994). One of thediscussed topics is the spread of the Lusatian culture. In the early stage of research,according to the then-current tendency, territorial development of the Lusatian culturewas explained in terms of migration (Koz
ł
owski 1928; Kostrzewski 1939), or evenmilitary expansion (cf. Bouzek 1988: 183). At least till mid-20
th
century, the Lusatianculture was recognized as the oldest branch of the Urn
Þ
elds, and was credited with therole of the place of origin for vast migratory movements towards south and west of Eu-rope (compare Miloj
č
i
ć
1952). This approach changed distinctly during the 1970’s and1980’s, when a considerable role of acculturation processes started to be emphasized.Although the idea of migration was never fully rejected, such explanation was usedon a signi
Þ
cantly lesser scale (compare Plesl, Hrala eds. 1987; Bukowski 1988). At present, there are two regions where the initial stage of Lusatian settlement is consid-ered in the context of population movements: western Ma
ł
opolska (Lesser Poland, invicinity of Kraków) in Montelius Period III (BrD) (Górski, in this volume) and the terri-tory of Warmia and Mazury in northern Poland, in Period IV (D
ą
browski 2009: 40, 107--109). Basing on the analyses of inventories from north-western Poland, J. D
ą
browski(1997: 93) claims that Lusatian assemblages appear in that territory relatively late andin a fully developed form, without a so-called transitory stage between the settlementof Trzciniec and Lusatian cultures (which is recorded in many other parts of easternPoland). Moreover, he notices the following tendency: the further to the north, the lateris the chronology of
Þ
rst Lusatian assemblages. The quoted author clearly emphasizesthat the appearance of Lusatian settlement in the region is a complex process, whichmost likely encompasses also the acculturation of communities previously inhabitingthe area (namely the Trzciniec culture). However, he demonstrates a high probability ofmigration to Warmia and Mazury from other territories occupied by the Lusatian culture(D
ą
browski 1997: 99).The issue of migration appeared in the literature also in the context of the Urn
Þ
eldsexpansion to the east. This applies, among others, to the origin and disappearance of the




20so-called Wysocko culture from western Ukraine
2
. This culture was distinguished in the1920’s by Leon Koz
ł
owski (1928). He noticed a considerable similarity in pottery forms between the Lusatian and Wysocko cultures, which gave grounds for de
Þ
ning the latteras the easternmost group of the former. In his subsequent works L. Koz
ł
owski (1939:59 ff.) simply claimed that the appearance of the Wysocko culture resulted from theeastward expansion of the Lusatian culture population, which blended with local com-munities at the transition between the Bronze and Early Iron Ages (the migration was to be caused by climate changes). Similar view was expressed, among others, by TadeuszSulimirski, who in his 1931 work recognized the appearance of Wysocko culture com-munities as a result of mixing local, “Cimmerian” elements with foreign element, name-ly the population from territories occupied by the Lusatian and Thracian cultures (fromthe so-called Brandenburg-Greater Poland group) (Sulimirski 1931: 163-173). The im-migrants were seen as relatively sparse in comparison with the local milieu (in archaeo-logical material, this situation was supposed to be re
ß
ected by isolated cremations oninhumation-dominated cemeteries). Nevertheless, their impact was clearly visible, i.a. inthe domination of Lusatian style in vessel forms and bronze objects. Such interpretationof the Wysocko culture genesis was also shared by J. Kostrzewski (1939: 272). However,T. Sulimirski retreated in his later works from the hypothesis about Lusatian migrationto Podolia (Sulimirski 1948: 155). He assumed that Lusatian colonization stopped on theBug river and that the Wysocko culture was a separate archaeological unit, with Lusatianin
ß
uences. Migratory interpretations of Lusatian materials in the present day WesternUkraine were criticized by W. Hensel (1948: 22 ff.) who did not deny their presence, butemphasized that they most likely resulted from peaceful intercultural relations.As is clearly seen from the above remarks, in the
Þ
rst half of the 20
th
century and inthe 1960’s and 1970’s the alleged Lusatian migrations to Podolia region were discussedmainly by Polish archaeologists. Ukrainian scholars in majority opted for local origin ofthe Wysocko culture (Kanivets 1953; Terenozhkin 1961; Krushel’nits’ka 1976).Second half of the 20
th
century and the beginning of the 21
st
century was the periodof signi
Þ
cant intensi
Þ
cation of studies on the Wysocko culture. At present, most schol-ars regard it as a unit separate from the Lusatian culture, rooted into local Trzciniec--Komarów tradition. Similarities to the Lusatian culture (especially to its eastern groups,the Tarnobrzeg group in particular) are interpreted as resulting from a common cultural background (Trzciniec-Komarów-So
ś
nica complex) and mutual interactions (D
ą
browski1972: 61 ff.; 2009: 65-67; Krushel’nits’ka 1976; Bandrivs’ky
ǐ
, Krushel’nits’ka 1998;Czopek 2005). However, this does not mean that all doubts have been dispelled. The is-sue of genesis and dating of the oldest Wysocko assemblages is still vigorously discussed(e.g. Bandrivs’ky
ǐ
, Krushel’nits’ka 1998; Czopek 2005; Godlewski 2005), although nownobody claims that the appearance of the Wysocko culture was a result of migration
3
.
2
The decline of the Wysocko culture is discussed in this volume in A. Gawlik’s paper, hence the is-sue is only mentioned here.
3
It is worthwhile mentioning here that the attempt to rethink the chronology of early Wysocko assem- blages led M. Bandrivs’ky
ǐ
and L. Krushel’nits’ka to rather controversial hypothesis: they claimed thatearly Wysocko culture in
ß
uences, dated yet to BrD, gave rise to inhumation burials in the early phaseof the Tarnobrzeg group (Bandrivs’ky
ǐ
, Krushel’nits’ka 1998: 207-224). This view, as well as such anearly dating of Wysocko assemblages, was criticized, among others, by P. Godlewski (2005).

21The issue of population movements is discussed also in the case of the eastern borderof the Gáva culture,
Þ
rst of all in the context of the so-called Holihrady culture genesis.Already in the 1930’s the archaeological assemblages from the upper Dnister basin (nowidenti
Þ
ed as the Holihrady culture) started to be regarded as having no connections withlocal archaeological cultures and being rather the re
ß
ection of “Thracian” population mi-gration from Transylvania (Sulimirski 1938: 129). T. Sulimirski dated this episode verylate – as late as the 7
th
century BC, based mainly on the chronology of metal objects. Theview about foreign origin of the Holihrady communities was also accepted by I.K. Sviesh-nikov, although he linked them with representatives of the Urn
Þ
elds groups Vál and Chotín(Svieshnikov 1958). Despite the rejection of the above-presented hypotheses in later stud-ies, the view about foreign origin of the Holihrady culture remains valid, and its appearanceis now connected with migrations from the range of the Gáva culture. In literature, there ex-ists even the term “Gáva-Holihrady complex” (Smirnova 1976; 1993; Bukowski 1969: 448--452; Krushel’nitskaya, Maleev 1990: 132). Similarity between the Holihrady assemblagesand materials from the upper Tisa region was clearly noticed already by A.I. Meljukova(1960: 139). The analysis of materials from the Magala settlement by G.I. Smirnova (1969;1976) only strengthened this hypothesis. It should be emphasized that similarities betweenthe Gáva and Holihrady cultures are not limited to ceramic forms, but are seen in the whole





https://www.academia.edu/41968453/M...arly_Iron_Age_Europe_full_text_?auto=download

Click to expand...

Another set of observations, which may shed light on the processes of cultural changein the Carpathian Basin at the close of the Middle Bronze Age, comes from the Tumulusculture sites from the middle and lower Tisa river. Except for the few excavated settle-ments (e.g. Kállay 1986; Szabó 2007), data acquired during investigation of several large biritual cemeteries still remain the main source for studies on the Tumulus culture in ter-ritories on the Tisa river (see Kalicz 1958; Kovács 1966; 1975; 1981; Trogmayer 1975;Csányi 1980; Hänsel, Kalicz 1986; Kemenczei 1989; Kustár, Wicker 2002). On the sur-face, these sites are characterized by a far going similarity both in burial rite and theinventories, which combine Middle Bronze Age elements with “foreign” Tumulus tradi-tion. However, the more detailed examination reveals considerable differences. Thereis virtually no one attribute present in all known cases. For example, most cemeterieswere newly established, without connection to older settlement complexes. In Tiszafüredthough (Kovács 1975), a Middle Bronze Age necropolis continued to be used in the Tu-mulus period. Moreover, this site yielded the oldest Tumulus culture burials known fromthe area, with Lochham phase (BrB1) pins in the inventories (e.g. Kovács 1975: no 102,188, 354). Other cemeteries produced mainly graves from younger horizon, character-ized by the occurrence of pins with nail- or stamp-like heads (BrC1-BrC2). Almost allcemeteries areß
at (which distinguishes the assemblages on the Tisa among the wholeTumulus complex), but there is an exception in Jánoshida (Csányi 1980), where the presence of barrows was recorded. Biritualism – with cremation/inhumation ratio con-siderably varying between particular sites (Furmánek, Ožd’áni 1989) – could be seen asre
ß
ecting the continuation of Middle Bronze Age tradition. But while the late Otomaniculture sites do not reveal differences in grave equipment between the two burial types(Bátora 2004), in the Tumulus period cemeteries such differentiation can be noticed.Similar inconsequence can be seen in the arrangement of bodies and the orientation of grave pits. The arrangement of a body on its side, with face to the south and the grave pit oriented along E-W axis, which dominates on all sites, follows the tradition of tell cultures. However, the correlation between the sex and body position (on the left or rightside), which was strictly obeyed in Middle Bronze Age communities, was not recordedin the Mez

csát cemetery, for which anthropological analyses are available (Hänsel,Kalicz 1986: 45-46). Most likely, this correlation is lacking also on other sites (com- pare Trogmayer 1975: 148). Tradition of Middle Bronze Age cultures is also represented by a signi
Þ
cant part of pottery discovered on Tumulus culture cemeteries on the Tisa.But once again, its share varies in comparison to vessels typical of Tumulus complex:

Click to expand...

The Tumulus culture was very important, and we see that E-V13 really has a near collapse at that time. One of my favourite groups for quite some time, but now even more so, is Suciu de Sus (Hungarian Felsőszőcs):

Determination of the western border of the Felsőszőcs/Suciu de Sus Culture
represents a basic problem. On the basis of the materials known and published to-date it
seems to us that the region of Ny?regyh?za served as a kind of ?buffer zone? in the Late
Bronze Age. In the region east and northeast of Ny?regyh?za we know find material
characteristic for the Barrow Grave Culture or finds bearing traditions of this culture
(B?NA 1993, 82). South of Ny?regyh?za settlements of the Hajd?bagos/Cehăluţ Group
also including Barrow Grave traditions were found (B?NA 1993, 82; NAGY 2005; NAGY
2007). At the territory east of the Kraszna and Szamos rivers Felsőszőcs/Suciu de Sus sites
are known (KACS? 2004, Abb. 1).

Click to expand...

Szamos = Someș river:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Someș

East of the Someș = Romania.

At the borderzone, the region was mixed, which makes it so difficult:

In the recent decade new parts of settlements belonging to the Felsőszőcs/Suciu
de Sus Culture were unearthed (Panyola, Csengersima), and new sites were localised
during field surveys (Cs?szl?, Csaroda, Gacs?j, T?kos, V?mosatya) both in Hungary and
Romania (fig. 3). So, the problematic, 40-45 km large territory is the one between
Kraszna/Szamos rivers and region of Ny?regyh?za. It is also problematic, because all we
know from here are stray finds including one or two mugs. Istv?n B?na suggested that
these Felsőszőcs/Suciu de Sus type mugs could be widely favourable in the Late Bronze
Age, which is why we frequently find them as imports among the relics of the neighbouring
cultures (B?NA 1993, 82). Judging from this we cannot state that the region between
Ny?regyh?za and the Szamos/Kraszna rivers was populated only by the Felsőszőcs/Suciu
de Sus Culture. This would be contradicted also by the facts of regular appearance of the
Hajd?bagos/Cehăluţ Group materials, sometimes together with finds belonging to the
Felsőszőcs Culture, sometimes together in closed pits (Ny?regyh?za-Morg?, Ny?rmadaV?lyogvető, Őr?Őri-tag). Despite of the few materials, it is also noticeable that at the
territories closer to Ny?regyh?za (Ny?regyh?za-Morg?) the material of the Hajd?bagos/
Cehăluţ Group dominates, while as we approach Kraszna, the Felsőszőcs/Suciu de Sus
finds prevail in the mixed settlements (Ny?rmada-V?lyogvető, Őr?Őri-tag).

Click to expand...

That's really to the East and outside most of the maps for Hungarian Bronze Age groups. Its now part of North Western Romania:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraszna_County

They predominated in the Eastern zone of this already Eastern area of the Carpathian basin.

Research conducted up to-date seems to support the suggestion that population
of both the Hajd?bagos/Cehăluţ Group and the Felsőszőcs/Suciu de Sus Culture,
including the settlement from Őr continued to exist in the RBD period, when the process
of unification leading to the formation of G?va Culture had started.

Click to expand...

https://www.academia.edu/2519901/A_...zőcs-kultúra_települése_Őr_Őri-tag_lelőhelyen

Suciu de Sus being either the basis of E-V13 or their autosomal substrate, but they played a role in any case for the development of G?va. Whether they carried E-V13 or one of the groups with which they merged, that's open to debate. But if they were the carriers, they would have suffered from the TC expansion and needed a recovery period. So this would fit with the data.

Suciu de Sus was part of the Broomstick horizon, from which we got the WHG-rich sample (GB1/M1) probably as well in Romania, and related to Mak?. Suciu de Sus was related/in between Otomani to the West and Wietenberg in the East. We already have beside incised also channelled (Kannelure) decorations on the finer pottery. This custom was however more common in Otomani proper and the later stages of Suciu de Sus, especially in its successor -> Lăpuș.

Basically it looks like Suciu de Sus developed under strong Otomani influences from a local population which adopted these.

The following influences being considered of importance:
- Otomani colonisation
- Wietenberg influences
- Zok-Vucedol
- Nir

This is an interesting read for those which understand German:
https://www.academia.edu/45558347/C...ciu_de_Sus_Kultur_Gedenkschrift_K_Horedt_1999

Three main influences on Suciu de Sus:
- Tumulus culture: This created Egyek and other TC influenced groups, but mostly still cremating, just burying in tumuli. Egyek and the TC had more importance for Kyjatice (Western group) than G?va (Eastern group), which was more local and had less regularity in the burials, probably still more ash scattering for the average people, something which was done in Pannonian at different times.
- Eastern influences from Noua-Wietenberg and Komarov: This created the Berkesz-Demecser subgroup, which however largely dissolved according to some authors and the local elements prevailed.

So basically, talking about G?va, its always Suciu de Sus, but with these Western and Eastern influences coming in. Now the point is, and there support such YFull data one scenario: E-V13 had a big growth within the Unetice-Pannonian networks and then a long depression, a prolonged recovery period. If we consider that, a group like Suciu de Sus would, in my opinion, perfectly fit the bill.
For a TC lineage, this would make no sense. For an Eastern lineage from either Wietenberg, Noua or Komarov, it would make more sense, but still less than for Suciu de Sus with this exact timing. So Suciu de Sus first and Wietenberg second have the best fit from my point of view.

Suciu de Sus would leave open where they were before, could have been Otomani colonists, could have been locals which just adopted elements from Otomani, as many authors recently suggested.

So, let's see what the Viminacium paper concludes and reveals about E-V13:

). A local origin is supported by a high frequency of Ychromosome lineage E-V13, which has been hypothesized to have experienced a Bronze-to-IronAge expansion in the Balkans and is found in its highest frequencies in the present-day Balkans \. We interpret this cluster as the descendants of local Balkan Iron Age populations living atViminacium, where they represented an abundant ancestry group during the Early Imperial andlater periods (~47% of sampled individuals from the 1-550 CE)

Click to expand...

The ~47% is the percentage taking in consideration the vast majority of population cremated their deaths, the real percentage would probably be much more than that.

Now, if we start from this assumption, what does archaeology tell us?

The last example of a close relationship between the Žuto Brdo – Girla Mare and Gavafinds is demonstrated in the necropolis of Pećinein the vicinity of Kostolac (Figure 1, 1).19 The excavator D. Jacanović observed that in all undisturbed contexts (or stratigraphic units) the ŽutoBrdo – Girla Mare, Hügelgräber and Gava typicalceramic forms were found together.20 This particularly applies to the four cremated burials withincrusted and burnished pottery found togetherin same context. A similar mix was documentedin 13 pits, most probably dedicated to ritual atthis site. These instances caused some archaeologists to classify the last phase of the Žuto Brdo– Girla Mare culture in the territory of the IronGates as belonging to the period of Ha A1, whichaccording to chronology of M. Garašanin covers the transitional period between Late Bronze andEarly Iron Ages.


in favour of its end in the late 12th century BC.6Contrary to the situation with the �uto Brdo � Girla Mare culture, the Gava culture complex, identified through the presence of the channelled and burnished pottery, is in the Serbian archae-ology considered as the trigger of the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age.

http://www.anubih.ba/godisnjak/god47/5-Aleksandar Kapuran.pdf

Click to expand...

As a "contact zone" subject to the influences of the Pannonian Plain to the north, the Balkans to the south, the Carpatho-Danubian region to the east and the sub-Alpine region to the west, Vojvodina is exceptionally important for the study of the Bronze Age of these regions. It witnessed the processes of integration of certain cultures only to see them disintegrate again. At times almost the entire territory was dominated by a single culture, while at others completely divergent cultures developed simultaneously in each of its three constituent regions: the Banat, Srem and Bačka. In the latter half of the Early Bronze Age an attempt to establish control over an extensive territory was made by the Vatin culture which, in its westward and southward expansion, covered the central and southern Banat, and most of Srem reaching as far as Šumadija and the Lower Morava Valley. The Vatin population was driven out by the Encrusted Pottery people descending from the central and western Pannonian Plain. They remained there through several developmental phases extending into north-western Bulgaria and part of the Romanian Banat. At the end of the Middle and in the Late Bronze Age, in Srem the Banat and around the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers a new culture emerged, marked by large necropolises containing cremation burials. In its expansion it covered the territory previously inhabited by Encrusted Pottery peoples. At the same time, northern Vojvodina became occupied by the Hügelgräber culture penetrating down the Tisa and Danube rivers. In the final phase of the Bronze Age there appeared black burnished pottery attributable to the widespread eastern Gava complex. In western Vojvodina this complex confronted the central-European, sub-Alpine and west-Pannonian varieties of the Urnenfelder culture. This confrontation, as well as numerous hoards dated to Ha A1-A2 C, mark the end of the Bronze Age in these regions.


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_in_Vojvodina

Click to expand...

So, in Late Bronze Age archeologically we have three different cultures in approximately the same territory where during Iron Age/Roman times E-V13 peaks quite high:

1. Gava/Channeled-Ware
2. Tumulus-grave/Hugelgraberkultur
3. Encrusted Pottery Culture

Logic dictates that one of the three aforementioned cultures were ancestral to E-V13. Can we safely exclude Encrusted Pottery Culture? It looks so.

The bet leaves us to Gava/Channeled-Ware and Tumulus-grave/Hugelgraberkultur. And chances are quite more likely that it is the Gava, especially considering that local Serbian archeology considers this:

in favour of its end in the late 12th century BC.6Contrary to the situation with the �uto Brdo � Girla Mare culture, the Gava culture complex, identified through the presence of the channelled and burnished pottery, is in the Serbian archae-ology considered as the trigger of the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age.

Click to expand...

As a "contact zone" subject to the influences of the Pannonian Plain to the north, the Balkans to the south, the Carpatho-Danubian region to the east and the sub-Alpine region to the west, Vojvodina is exceptionally important for the study of the Bronze Age of these regions. It witnessed the processes of integration of certain cultures only to see them disintegrate again. At times almost the entire territory was dominated by a single culture, while at others completely divergent cultures developed simultaneously in each of its three constituent regions: the Banat, Srem and Bačka. In the latter half of the Early Bronze Age an attempt to establish control over an extensive territory was made by the Vatin culture which, in its westward and southward expansion, covered the central and southern Banat, and most of Srem reaching as far as Šumadija and the Lower Morava Valley. The Vatin population was driven out by the Encrusted Pottery people descending from the central and western Pannonian Plain. They remained there through several developmental phases extending into north-western Bulgaria and part of the Romanian Banat. At the end of the Middle and in the Late Bronze Age, in Srem the Banat and around the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers a new culture emerged, marked by large necropolises containing cremation burials. In its expansion it covered the territory previously inhabited by Encrusted Pottery peoples. At the same time, northern Vojvodina became occupied by the Hügelgräber culture penetrating down the Tisa and Danube rivers. In the final phase of the Bronze Age there appeared black burnished pottery attributable to the widespread eastern Gava complex. In western Vojvodina this complex confronted the central-European, sub-Alpine and west-Pannonian varieties of the Urnenfelder culture. This confrontation, as well as numerous hoards dated to Ha A1-A2 C, mark the end of the Bronze Age in these regions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_in_Vojvodina

Click to expand...

This is how chronology is built, you cannot jump from places to places without any context. So, Gava people confronted and very likely finished them off the Hugelgraberkultur and Encrusted Pottery Culture people.

Do we archaeologically have any massive South to North movement of people? None i am aware of. Feel free to share any such good material so we consider that point, but it's futile.

Can we safely exclude Encrusted Pottery Culture?

Click to expand...

We still can't exclude them having E-V13 as a minority lineage, so far only the Southern groups being sampled and even these yielded widely different results, already with 4 haplogroups (G2a, I2a, R-Z2103, R1a). So its impossible to tell what's behind the next corner, but I think it became for a variety of reasons very unlikely they were the main carriers, to put it that way. The whole distribution and time line doesn't fit and even in the South (Banat to Bulgaria), they were rather dominated by G?va, even though they contributed to it too and later cultures were formed with their contribution.

Tumulus culture was a contributor culturally, but genetically, its even less likely than Komarov, Wietenberg and Noua at this point. The samples we got, the distribution, the time line for the branching events. Nothing in favour of original TC being the carriers.

Because some suggested so, I made a smoothed out version for E-V13 with adding averages for steps in between. The result looks nearly identical for the most part. One version with newest comments for the major events:



https://ibb.co/LZ543f0

One without comments:



https://ibb.co/Yk0sb3L

Probably the most speculative part is the Dacian expansion, but its interesting that its exactly the right time frame, and if it would be Roman related, there would be absolutely no reason for the sudden collapse directly after 0-100 AD (time of the Dacian Wars), especially since J-L283 did rather expand at the same time!

Dacian Wars:

101?102 and 105?106

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan's_Dacian_Wars

Where are those Early Bronze Age clades mostly present/located? Because it looks to me E-V13 actually benefited from Tumulus-led chaos and took the chance and rose up in prominence.

But my question is if it had an increase in Early Bronze Age, how can we track those subclades, where was that increase?

Hawk said:

Where are those Early Bronze Age clades mostly present/located? Because it looks to me E-V13 actually benefited from Tumulus-led chaos and took the chance and rose up in prominence.

But my question is if it had an increase in Early Bronze Age, how can we track those subclades, where was that increase?

Click to expand...

You see they were on top already in the EBA, but then nearly collapsed under Tumulus culture, so no, they didn't profit. Interestingly, the more successful pre-G?va groups, which already start to expand for a time, begin about 1.400 BC!
But the Middle Danubian Urnfielders did hurt them once more from the West, you see the downturn soon afterwards, and then follows the steep increase with G?va/Channelled Ware.

The EBA expansion is the hardest to track, but I wouldn't wonder about it being related to Otomani - Suciu de Sus - Wietenberg. One, two, or all three of them, because that's kind of a cline in Eastern Hungary - Romania. Whether Suciu de Sus was just a subset, a branching event from Otomani in the Northern periphery, that's up to debate.
Komarov is another interesting case, as is the mentioned Wietenberg and later mixed Wietenberg-Noua horizon in East.

Its possible that Otomani just picked local West Romanian groups up, essentially those descending from Cotofeni/Mak?-Ny?rs?g. We need definitely a lot more samples from Romania and very North Eastern Hungary, Eastern Slovakia, Southern Poland and Western Ukraine.

This is not a problem that's going to be solved a priori. We need empirical evidence. Let's not jump the gun with wild theories.

enter_tain said:

This is not a problem that's going to be solved a priori. We need empirical evidence. Let's not jump the gun with wild theories.

Click to expand...

These are no wild theories, but we're dealing with the chronology of large regions important for the debate and the archaeological cultures which emerged, expanded or collapsed with known timings.

Many of the Tell cultures in Pannonia followed a fairly rigid pattern in this respect.

Riverman said:

These are no wild theories, but we're dealing with the chronology of large regions important for the debate and the archaeological cultures which emerged, expanded or collapsed with known timings.

Many of the Tell cultures in Pannonia followed a fairly rigid pattern in this respect.

Click to expand...

What he doesn't like in general (in this case he is a Kosovar-Albanian who despises E-V13 Albanians) he just says like that "wild theories" and that's it, not more than that, because he lacks any further knowledge or insight into the topic.

Hawk said:

What he doesn't like in general (in this case he is a Kosovar-Albanian who despises E-V13 Albanians) he just says like that "wild theories" and that's it, not more than that, because he lacks any further knowledge or insight into the topic.

Click to expand...

That is a bit weird since v13 peaks in kosovo, he must hate a lot of his neighbours?

Hawk said:

What he doesn't like in general (in this case he is a Kosovar-Albanian who despises E-V13 Albanians) he just says like that "wild theories" and that's it, not more than that, because he lacks any further knowledge or insight into the topic.

Click to expand...

He is from Southern Albania. He did not understand what I once wrote in North East Gheg. And at this point I am guessing he is just a troll.

I have grown suspect that Tisza basin is the origin of E-V13, the Late Neolithic from Tisza do not have any E-V13 (although the places are poorly sampled), IMO, it's either from Central Balkans/Northern Greece heading upward during Early Bronze Age (23andme headline for E-V13) or somewhere more in the West than Carpathians which crossed the Danube toward Carpathian Basin during Early/Middle Bronze Age (my initial assumption). One must be. Nevertheless, it will be quite interesting to know.

Hawk said:

I have grown suspect that Tisza basin is the origin of E-V13, the Late Neolithic from Tisza do not have any E-V13 (although the places are poorly sampled), IMO, it's either from Central Balkans/Northern Greece heading upward during Early Bronze Age (23andme headline for E-V13) or somewhere more in the West than Carpathians which crossed the Danube toward Carpathian Basin during Early/Middle Bronze Age (my initial assumption). One must be. Nevertheless, it will be quite interesting to know.

Click to expand...

I think the actual Northern Carpathians and Apuseni mountains are key, those areas should be sampled first, before we can know for sure. The Cotofeni culture will be highly interesting in this respect, as well as the Besenstrich groups, those following Cotofeni like Mak?, Ny?rs?g and Livezile etc.
Its possible that it came from a more Southern position North, but not that likely. In any case, we also need to more about the various Otomani groups, these are also severely undersampled up to this point.