E-V13 the South-East Urnfielder lineage

[Hawk]

Let's talk about this, we have come to this way as to safely assume E-V13 lineage was spread via the South-East Urnfielder cultures, more specifically Gava Culture and spinoffs as well as brotherly cultures to Gava. Widely it was known as the Channeled-Ware phenomenon: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...e_Transylvania

We have clear archaeological records of people moving from Danube/North Balkans down during the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition bringing with them Naue II swords, flame shaped spearheads, iron working.





So far, from classical civilizations it is the classical Thracians who seem to be quite abundant on E-V13 and as minimal lineage among Scythians and La Tene Celts.

[Riverman]

In case you didn't notice, there is a new paper with Hungarian ancient DNA, this time from the predecessor and Encrusted Pottery itself. Interestingly, they seem to be autosomally similar, but paternally they are quite different from the Jagodniak samples, which were G2a. Now its about I2a and some of the first R-Z2103. Encrusted Pottery therefore is even less of an option for E-V13, but at the same time you can never be sure, since the differences between these sampled groups are big with respect to their yDNA.

What the new study proves however, as do newer archaeological papers, is that the local population of the Carpathians seem to have survived numerous waves of incoming people. Quite interesting for me is this:

This map is quite interesting for the debate: Epi-Corded in the North West, Mako in the East - the new finds largely in between...



The early Yamnaya mentioned in the text being reflected by the samples as well, with the appearance of occasional R-Z2103.

The subsequent material record shows exchange between the local groups and incoming Yamnaya people, seen in
the transmission of a package of innovations (Harrison & Heyd 2007; Heyd 2011). East
of the Tisza River, there seems to be a structured distribution pattern to the Yamnaya
kurgans (Ecsedy 1979; Figure 1). By contrast, there are no settlements of late Baden (IV),
Cot¸ofeni (II/III) or (early)Mak´o type from this core Yamnaya zone, defined by the tumulus
cemeteries at K´etegyh´aza, Hajd´un´an´as and S´arr´etudvari (Sava 2008; Kulcs´ar 2009; Dani
2011;Horv´ath 2011).However, a largerMak´o settlement site 35km away has been excavated
at Beretty´o´ujfalu-Nagy-B´ocs-d˝ul˝o and radiocarbon dated to the twenty-sixth/twenty-fifth
century BC (Dani & Kisjuh´asz in press), contemporary with a later Yamnaya occupation.
This could point plausibly to coexistence of peoples in different settlement areas and activity
zones, possibly practising different economic strategies.

Their credo is "You never know until you look":

On the face of it, S´arr´etudvari-Orhalom is a Yamnaya kurgan, typical for the Great
Hungarian Plain. Its chronology begins, however, before the arrival of the Yamnaya, and
the later graves date to the end of the western Yamnaya occupation. The later group buried
there have metal finds with international parallels, confirming the dating to the first half
of the third millennium BC (Dani 2011; and see below), yet their pottery is related more
regionally to the Romanian Livezile andHungarianMak´o groups (Kulcs´ar 2009; Ciugudean
2011: 29).
[...]
The task of the new research was to identify the communities making use of
the ‘Yamnaya’ kurgan, by determining the provenance of the buried persons through stable
isotope analysis.

The combined isotopic analyses provide two independent data sets, which distinguish two
grave clusters from the Sa´rre´tudvari-O˝ rhalom kurgan: the first is essentially local in origin.
The second group (graves 4, 7, 9 and 11) consists of non-local people who either grew
up in a colder, or more eastern and continental, or higher altitude region. The fact that
both the diet (Sr) and drinking water (O) show similar patterns makes it reasonable to infer
that the clusters came from geographically distinct regions. The Apuseni Mountains, lying
immediately to the east, being partly formed by crystalline basement and Palaeozoic rocks,
and reaching peak heights between 1100 and 1850m, would indeed be a candidate for the
second group. One has to note, however, that some other regions deeper in eastern and
north-eastern Europe may turn out to have similar values.

The migrant group, graves nos. 4, 7, 9 and 11, all occupy late stratigraphic positions
in the mound, and have radiocarbon dates in the second quarter of the third millennium
BC. It is also noteworthy that they are all adult or mature men. The contextual data, their
physical distribution over the space of the whole kurgan, and the variety of burial practices,
indicate several generations of burials. The cultural attributes of this group are summarised
in Figure 5. Overall, their closest match lies in the Livezile group from the eastern and
southern Apuseni Mountains, which is also the likely place of origin of the buried persons.
Aspects of the burial rite, and accompanying pottery vessels such as the vessel in grave 9, are
reflected in the Livezile burial sites at Ampoit¸a, Cheile Aiudului, Telna, Metes¸ and Livezile
itself (Ciugudean 2011: 23–27). The settlement sites of Livezile-‘Baia’ (Ciugudean 1997),
Zlatna and Cetea have produced similar material. Livezile-‘Baia’ lies at an altitude of c. 700m
and probably received drinking water from even higher altitudes, which would agree well
with more depleted δ18O ratios in relation to the Great Hungarian Plain.

Our analysis shows that the burial place denoted as a Yamnaya kurgan had a complex
and continuous use. The earliest burial occurred before the conventional date of Yamnaya
immigration. A group of four men were identified as later migrants, dated to before the
mid-third millennium BC; they probably came from the Apuseni Mountains of western
Transylvania, but their metal artefacts and burial customs indicate wider connections, to
the Pontic Steppes and the Balkans, and Yamnaya social identities. Yet as a group of Livezile
identity, they likely had origins other than the Yamnaya of the steppes, stemming ultimately
from theCot¸ofeni of Transylvania. An economic model, based on the seasonal transhumance
of domestic animals, would account for the observed patterns in both the isotopic data, and
the archaeological data sets.

So similar to later eras, when Cimmerians and Scythians came, in the Eastern Carpathian basin, some Kurgans being actually used by locals or Yamnaya heavily influenced by locals. Mako is particularly important, because the sample we have so far is very rich in WHG ancestry. The lack of samples from Romania, from various regions and times, becomes all the more of a problem at this point.

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

Livezile is, by the way, close to the core region of later Gáva in Romania. Early pre-Gáva sample from Halva had high WHG too, some later samples of Gáva proper had decreased but for a wider context still very high levels. Livezile has a background from Corded decorated Western steppe groups, mixing with locals, including GAC newcomers too, out of Cotofeni:

The decoration of the vessels (mainly jugs, amphorae and bowls) consists of barbotine, simple impressions, applied bands, knobs and furthermore of horizontal bands with diagonal incisions and rhombuses filled likewise.

http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...nglish_version

[Hawk]

That's not a new study. I already posted about these here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post628655

[Riverman]

That's not a new study. I already posted about these here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post628655

I saw it, the results being already published before, but now we got more details from the full paper. The first was kind of a preview and hopefully they release the raw data soon.

And its important for this debate for two reasons:
- regional continuity of pre-Yamnaya/Corded Ware groups in the Carpathian region
- Encrusted Pottery not 100 % out, but even more unlikely with these samples

[Hawk]

Aside from the fact that we have Psenichevo-Babadag samples exclusively E-V13, and they are seen as an offshot of earlier South-East Urnfielder lineages we can safely assume that his lineage was indeed spread with South-East Urnfielders. The La Tene Hallstatt Celts consistently showed E-V13 in all sites, despite being as minor Y-DNA.

Then modern phylogeny as well support this. Mostly Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age spread. Some older EBA subclades might have spread with some earlier waves mixed with other Y-DNA, but the LBA spread was very likely pure E-V13.

The only doubt i have is where was it during Early Bronze Age, was it in Carpathian mountains? There is some very early splits that we encounted in Central-Western Europe. So far, as long as this question comes, it is a mystery.

[Riverman]

Aside from the fact that we have Psenichevo-Babadag samples exclusively E-V13, and they are seen as an offshot of earlier South-East Urnfielder lineages we can safely assume that his lineage was indeed spread with South-East Urnfielders. The La Tene Hallstatt Celts consistently showed E-V13 in all sites, despite being as minor Y-DNA.

Then modern phylogeny as well support this. Mostly Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age spread. Some older EBA subclades might have spread with some earlier waves mixed with other Y-DNA, but the LBA spread was very likely pure E-V13.

The only doubt i have is where was it during Early Bronze Age, was it in Carpathian mountains? There is some very early splits that we encounted in Central-Western Europe. So far, as long as this question comes, it is a mystery.

Some individuals and splinters can always move, but I would be cautious about some old or separate lineages, they might have broken off rather late, in the MBA-LBA too, from groups which experienced less of a founder effects. I think in many regions, specific E-V13 lineages will have replaced other E-V13/E1b1b lineages in the course of the expansion of these main founder groups.