E-L142.1 group (also commonly referred to as E-V13) - Hypothesis about the distribution

[Japarthur]

I allow myself to start a new thread as I did not find one that was discussing the following.

Living DNA cites https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#V13_origins. On this page it is said, if I understand well, that, due to the specific distribution of this group in R1a and R1b regions, the assimilation occured before these two groups splitted. From my reading, I gathered that this split occured long before E-V13 splitted from a larger group that is not as much widespread. Besides, most of the discussion I came across is connected to a specific genetic origin. It might be true, but other hypotheses seem also plausible. Among them, an occupational hypothesis could be considered, E-V13 filling a "hole" in both R1A and R1b societies - or doing it better than those performing that occupation. From my reading, I see it as something like hill / mountain herders. In my country (Switzerland), a genetic study shows that EI were less present in such areas, leaving space for the populations who already lived there and possibly for new populations. Remarks are welcome.

 

[Riverman]

First off, E-L142 is an old term, the actual, currently mostly used term is E-V13. Only on the Chinese sites they still use E-L241 as far as I know.

There are long threads about this here on Eupedia and on former Anthrogenica as well as its successor GenArchivist Forum. This is the thread I started there:

E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

The strongest correlation of E-V13 is with the Daco-Thracian ethnolinguistic group and its expansion, influences and migrations in Europe. This being effectively confirmed by both ancient and modern DNA evaluations.

The only open question is how E-V13 became the main lineage of the Daco-Thracians and when and how exactly it spread to other regions since the Urnfield period. That's where the real debate, currently, starts.

My current best theory is that the ancestor of E-L618 entered Europe with the Early European farmer groups LBK and Impresso-Cardial, but primarily with the latter. The current sampling of ancient DNA supports that.

It then looks like E-L618 expanded throughout Europe, especially along the Danube. What happened next is unknown, but it looks like E-V13 survived either directly in or in the vicinity of the Carpathian mountain range.

Next it survived in a mixed steppe-Copper Age context, most likely in the Cotofeni horizon close to the Apuseni mountains. Out of this developed the Carpathian cremating cultures, especially Nyirseg. This local Carpathian cremating people survived within the Eastern Otomani fringe (Gyulavarsand Eastern variant with cremation still dominating) and Wietenberg, later they developed into Gáva and associated groups, which formed the biggest and most influential horizon in the Late Bronze Age of the Carpatho-Balkan macroregion, which is Channelled (also called Fluted Ware, Cannelure style, Knobbed Ware etc.) Ware.
And this is the exact time frame when the expansion of E-V13 shows, going by the modern data and phylogeny, the maximal spike, in the Transitional Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age period (1.300-900 BC).
The succesor of Channelled Ware in the Balkans was, after the Cimmerian invasion caused a wedge in between the North and South, the Stamped Pottery, which included new style elements, did more often use inhumation (from Cimmerians), but also continued with Channelled Ware traditions.
With Stamped Pottery we are leaving theory and entering facts, the Stamped Pottery groups were E-V13 dominated, which is something we already know, because the highest early frequency of E-V13 we know about in ancient DNA came from post-Psenichevo groups in Bulgaria. And Psenichevo was a direct successor of Knobbed Ware/Channelled Ware in the Danubian Fluted Ware group which evolved into this new Stamped Ware formate. This is the most direct evidence we got so far.

You can also check the ancient E-V13 samples so far available:

Ancient samples - Y-DNA DE - Google My Maps

Ancient samples - Y-DNA DE

www.google.com

As you can see, there is a huge zone which is not just undersampled, but practically not sampled at all: Romania.

Yet Romania is at the core of the three most important phenomenons presumably associated with E-V13:
- Gáva-related Channelled Ware and its expansion in the LBA-EIA
- Basarabi-related Early Hallstatt and its expansion in the EIA
- The Dacian tribes and kingdoms and their expansion in the LIA

A very big issue is cremation, since the Daco-Thracians, from start to finish, preferred to cremate their regular dead. But that's no problem which can't solved, because we have some irregular burials, which are not safe to belong to the regular male population, but might be like Bulgaria belong to them nevertheless, and phases of foreign influence, when Daco-Thracian groups used inhumation of some sort more often, like in Babadag, Mezocsat (local Late Gáva population) or Basarabi.

I'm hoping for a big paper on the Transylvanian Bronze Age to shed some new light on the issue of local Copper Age lineages' survival in the Carpathian context.

 

[Japarthur]

First off, E-L142 is an old term, the actual, currently mostly used term is E-V13. Only on the Chinese sites they still use E-L241 as far as I know.

There are long threads about this here on Eupedia and on former Anthrogenica as well as its successor GenArchivist Forum. This is the thread I started there:

E-V13 - Theories on its Origin and New Data

The strongest correlation of E-V13 is with the Daco-Thracian ethnolinguistic group and its expansion, influences and migrations in Europe. This being effectively confirmed by both ancient and modern DNA evaluations.

The only open question is how E-V13 became the main lineage of the Daco-Thracians and when and how exactly it spread to other regions since the Urnfield period. That's where the real debate, currently, starts.

My current best theory is that the ancestor of E-L618 entered Europe with the Early European farmer groups LBK and Impresso-Cardial, but primarily with the latter. The current sampling of ancient DNA supports that.

It then looks like E-L618 expanded throughout Europe, especially along the Danube. What happened next is unknown, but it looks like E-V13 survived either directly in or in the vicinity of the Carpathian mountain range.

Next it survived in a mixed steppe-Copper Age context, most likely in the Cotofeni horizon close to the Apuseni mountains. Out of this developed the Carpathian cremating cultures, especially Nyirseg. This local Carpathian cremating people survived within the Eastern Otomani fringe (Gyulavarsand Eastern variant with cremation still dominating) and Wietenberg, later they developed into Gáva and associated groups, which formed the biggest and most influential horizon in the Late Bronze Age of the Carpatho-Balkan macroregion, which is Channelled (also called Fluted Ware, Cannelure style, Knobbed Ware etc.) Ware.
And this is the exact time frame when the expansion of E-V13 shows, going by the modern data and phylogeny, the maximal spike, in the Transitional Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age period (1.300-900 BC).
The succesor of Channelled Ware in the Balkans was, after the Cimmerian invasion caused a wedge in between the North and South, the Stamped Pottery, which included new style elements, did more often use inhumation (from Cimmerians), but also continued with Channelled Ware traditions.
With Stamped Pottery we are leaving theory and entering facts, the Stamped Pottery groups were E-V13 dominated, which is something we already know, because the highest early frequency of E-V13 we know about in ancient DNA came from post-Psenichevo groups in Bulgaria. And Psenichevo was a direct successor of Knobbed Ware/Channelled Ware in the Danubian Fluted Ware group which evolved into this new Stamped Ware formate. This is the most direct evidence we got so far.

You can also check the ancient E-V13 samples so far available:

Ancient samples - Y-DNA DE - Google My Maps

Ancient samples - Y-DNA DE

www.google.com

As you can see, there is a huge zone which is not just undersampled, but practically not sampled at all: Romania.

Yet Romania is at the core of the three most important phenomenons presumably associated with E-V13:
- Gáva-related Channelled Ware and its expansion in the LBA-EIA
- Basarabi-related Early Hallstatt and its expansion in the EIA
- The Dacian tribes and kingdoms and their expansion in the LIA

A very big issue is cremation, since the Daco-Thracians, from start to finish, preferred to cremate their regular dead. But that's no problem which can't solved, because we have some irregular burials, which are not safe to belong to the regular male population, but might be like Bulgaria belong to them nevertheless, and phases of foreign influence, when Daco-Thracian groups used inhumation of some sort more often, like in Babadag, Mezocsat (local Late Gáva population) or Basarabi.

I'm hoping for a big paper on the Transylvanian Bronze Age to shed some new light on the issue of local Copper Age lineages' survival in the Carpathian context.

Thanks for your quick reply. I will need time to make sense of what you wrote.

 

[Riverman]

Thanks for your quick reply. I will need time to make sense of what you wrote.

Are you E-V13 from Switzerland? If so, you should do a test at FTDNA

 

[Johane Derite]

Well, it seems like it's settled, Illyrians were E-V13, everything is wrapped up nicely

https://twitter.com/x/status/1740416838247543254

 

[Riverman]

Well, it seems like it's settled, Illyrians were E-V13, everything is wrapped up nicely

https://twitter.com/x/status/1740416838247543254

Don't make me frustrated

Well, by the middle to later Iron Age its clear that E-V13 was present in many people, including Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, Paeonians, Macedonians, Northern Greeks, Scythians, Celts etc.
Just like from a certain point onwards, you will find Germanic lineages in Gallo-Romans, Italian Romans, Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Greeks etc.

The big push and expansion being associated with Daco-Thracians, but of course, people always migrated and mixed, so it spread to other people too, That's particularly true for the Illyrians which lived closer to the routes of the Urnfield and Hallstatt sphere, used by E-V13 migrants from the East, along the Danube and its tributaries in particular.

The Danube and its tributaries were kind of the Bronze to Iron Age highway for trade and migrations, along which E-V13 surely spread in all directions, from a presumed homeland along the Tisza, especially Upper Tisza and its tributaries (Somes etc.):

https://pub.mdpi-res.com/water/water-08-00566/article_deploy/html/images/water-08-00566-g001.png?1482835426

 

[Japarthur]

With this thread, I was trying to put - at least temporarily - aside the ethnic interpretation, but I guess it is hard to do when avaiable data is scarce. Can someone confirm - or not - that the diffusion of E-V13 into R1a and R1b areas is much posterior to their split ?

 

[Riverman]

With this thread, I was trying to put - at least temporarily - aside the ethnic interpretation, but I guess it is hard to do when avaiable data is scarce. Can someone confirm - or not - that the diffusion of E-V13 into R1a and R1b areas is much posterior to their split ?

I think you first need to clarify your question, because the main two branches of R1a (R-Z283) and R1b (R-L51) in modern Europeans split from each other before E-V13 was in Europe.
However, when those two branches spread with Corded Ware and Bell Beakers in Europe, the ancestral group of E-V13 (= E-L618) had a massive decline. It was a minority lineage before, but fairly and evenly widespread in Europe it seems, including pre-steppe Hungarian and Bulgarian Copper Age groups.

When R-L51 started to dominate the upcoming Bell Beaker culture, the probably single male survivor (or small clan/mini-tribe) of E-V13 seems to have stabilised and started to expand again, after a fairly long period of about 500 years in which the haplogroup either barely survived or these ancient branches died off later - probably even because of the younger, main modern branches replacing them. We don't know.
However, what we know is that right around the time of the Bell Beakers E-V13 started to grow more rapidly and steadily again, proven by surviving modern branches.

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover

Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!

discover.familytreedna.com

E-V13 YTree

www.yfull.com

Practically all modern E-V13 carriers come from the descendants of the single surviving lineage of the steppe invasion (unless he was brought in from the steppe, which seems momentarily less likely, but can't be excluded with certainty) which started to grow and spread around 2.600-2.400 BC.

That's roughly around the time frame Bell Beaker R-L51 finally split, largely, from R-Z283 Corded Ware/Epi-Corded groups. However, from the distribution we got, we can say with certainty that E-V13 was by and large outside of the R-L51 hegemony. It could have been inside or close to the Epi-Corded hegemony though.

Because one post-Epi-Corded group in particular was later important for the area in which E-V13 might have lived, in the East Carpathian basin, and that's Mierzanowice, from which the groups Nitra, Kostany and Otomani-Füzesabony descended from or being close relatives.

And its possible, just possible, that if the Pre-Thracian IE dialect wasn't transmitted by Cotofeni already (what I think it was), that it was transmitted from Otomani-Füzesabony pastoralist clans. If the latter was the case, it would support a closer ethnolinguistic relationship of Baltoslavic and Proto-Thracian, but that's conjectural and I prefer the Cotofeni into Proto-Thracian solution anyway.

As for the ethnolinguistic perspective: Practically no major haplogroup expanded without being the frontrunner or at least participant in an ethnolingustic demographic and territorial expansion. Worldwide.

If E-V13 wouldn't have been strongly associated with Daco-Thracians and spread with this groups males, it would be as unimportant as other Copper Age survivors which didn't have such a success.

The best comparison can be made with its direct relatives, because there are other E-L618 survivors other than E-V13. But you can look up how common they are. Whereas E-V13 approaches 10 percent in modern European males and has thousands of testers on FTDNA and still many hundreds on YFull, we got about 20 other modern E-L618 testers.
In the ancient DNA record its the opposite. From a time in which E-V13 surely must have already existed we got a couple of ancient DNA E-L618 finds, but no or at best one very basal E-V13 carrier, which is likely not related to moderns. This means the once very small lineage of E-V13, small even within the E-L618 family, now dominates completley the modern distribution and that's just because their ancestor and its descendants became the dominant male patrilineage of an important people of Antiquity, the Daco-Thracian tribes. Without these events and ethnolinguistic association, E-V13 would be dead or as small as the minor surviving E-L618 lineages which still exist.

 

[Japarthur]

I think you first need to clarify your question, because the main two branches of R1a (R-Z283) and R1b (R-L51) in modern Europeans split from each other before E-V13 was in Europe.
However, when those two branches spread with Corded Ware and Bell Beakers in Europe, the ancestral group of E-V13 (= E-L618) had a massive decline. It was a minority lineage before, but fairly and evenly widespread in Europe it seems, including pre-steppe Hungarian and Bulgarian Copper Age groups.

When R-L51 started to dominate the upcoming Bell Beaker culture, the probably single male survivor (or small clan/mini-tribe) of E-V13 seems to have stabilised and started to expand again, after a fairly long period of about 500 years in which the haplogroup either barely survived or these ancient branches died off later - probably even because of the younger, main modern branches replacing them. We don't know.
However, what we know is that right around the time of the Bell Beakers E-V13 started to grow more rapidly and steadily again, proven by surviving modern branches.

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover

Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!

discover.familytreedna.com

E-V13 YTree

www.yfull.com

Practically all modern E-V13 carriers come from the descendants of the single surviving lineage of the steppe invasion (unless he was brought in from the steppe, which seems momentarily less likely, but can't be excluded with certainty) which started to grow and spread around 2.600-2.400 BC.

That's roughly around the time frame Bell Beaker R-L51 finally split, largely, from R-Z283 Corded Ware/Epi-Corded groups. However, from the distribution we got, we can say with certainty that E-V13 was by and large outside of the R-L51 hegemony. It could have been inside or close to the Epi-Corded hegemony though.

Because one post-Epi-Corded group in particular was later important for the area in which E-V13 might have lived, in the East Carpathian basin, and that's Mierzanowice, from which the groups Nitra, Kostany and Otomani-Füzesabony descended from or being close relatives.

And its possible, just possible, that if the Pre-Thracian IE dialect wasn't transmitted by Cotofeni already (what I think it was), that it was transmitted from Otomani-Füzesabony pastoralist clans. If the latter was the case, it would support a closer ethnolinguistic relationship of Baltoslavic and Proto-Thracian, but that's conjectural and I prefer the Cotofeni into Proto-Thracian solution anyway.

As for the ethnolinguistic perspective: Practically no major haplogroup expanded without being the frontrunner or at least participant in an ethnolingustic demographic and territorial expansion. Worldwide.

If E-V13 wouldn't have been strongly associated with Daco-Thracians and spread with this groups males, it would be as unimportant as other Copper Age survivors which didn't have such a success.

The best comparison can be made with its direct relatives, because there are other E-L618 survivors other than E-V13. But you can look up how common they are. Whereas E-V13 approaches 10 percent in modern European males and has thousands of testers on FTDNA and still many hundreds on YFull, we got about 20 other modern E-L618 testers.
In the ancient DNA record its the opposite. From a time in which E-V13 surely must have already existed we got a couple of ancient DNA E-L618 finds, but no or at best one very basal E-V13 carrier, which is likely not related to moderns. This means the once very small lineage of E-V13, small even within the E-L618 family, now dominates completley the modern distribution and that's just because their ancestor and its descendants became the dominant male patrilineage of an important people of Antiquity, the Daco-Thracian tribes. Without these events and ethnolinguistic association, E-V13 would be dead or as small as the minor surviving E-L618 lineages which still exist.

Thank you for your detailed answer to my questions. I also get from your previous posts that cremation could be a major bias in the study of ancient populations.

 

[Riverman]

Thank you for your detailed answer to my questions. I also get from your previous posts that cremation could be a major bias in the study of ancient populations.

Cremation is a general problem of European prehistory, but while its for the Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture a major issue, a large fraction of their ancestors in the Nordic Bronze Age can be tested. The same can be said for Proto-Baltoslavs. Proto-Slavs are elusive because of cremation, but the wider horizon for Proto-Baltoslavs can be tested.

Yet the problem being more pronounced for the Proto-Thracians, since they likely belonged to a circle of groups around the Carpathians which did cremate among the earliest people and spread the custom to others - sticking to their custom, with some exceptional, foreign influenced phases (like Babadag, Mezocsat locals, Basarabi etc.) throughout their existence. This is especially true for the early Thracian groups and the North Thracians, Dacians. They cremated nearly without exception, there are only some irregular burials around, which context is less clearly related to the main cultural formation than the cremated remains.
In fact, Northern groups of the cremating Carpathian people/Thracians didn't just cremate, but they even scattered the remains, the ashes, which means the ratio of burials to settlements is lower than usual.
In other Urnfield groups the ratio of burials to settlements is way higher than that. There are even elite sacrificial tumuli from the Gáva sphere, some of the largest of the LBA, in which no human remains were found. The whole process of disposing the remains being largely unknown, though there are some later descriptions for Dacians sometimes using tents, in which layer after layer of the burnt dead being disposed.
Obviously, such heaps of ashes wouldn't have left a lot of traces behind in the archaeological record.
In that way, the cremation issue is even worse for the early Thracians and Dacians. But on the other hand there are more irregular burials than for Jastorf or the Early Slavs, like the ones already tested in Bulgaria, and these phases of foreign influence with inhumation.

They did use regular urn burials as well, but again, in some times and regions, even that was probably rather the exception than the rule, with the rule being the bodies/ashes being disposed in a way which left no traces. And that's a custom we can find from Nyirseg to the end of the Dacians as a people.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Don't make me frustrated

I was working with qpdam lately and before I called it quits, I tested Scy-192 which similar to the recent paper from Serbia, on G25 it picks up partial Illyrian component though it plots like the new E-V13 from that twitter post.

On qpdam, it' easily modeled one way as either MJ12 or Hungary I18832(E-V13) and fails south Illyrian. It might have a minor Scythian pull but will not waste time checking. Qpdam is time consuming.

 

[Japarthur]

I had a look at the map mentioned above* and noticed the gap between periods, more precisely the absence during the Bronze and Iron ages North of the Mediterranean. I guess it is the result of the cremation bias in sampling mentioned elsewhere. *https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...I&ll=49.96389383029525,15.458445736197461&z=5

 

[Riverman]

I had a look at the map mentioned above* and noticed the gap between periods, more precisely the absence during the Bronze and Iron ages North of the Mediterranean. I guess it is the result of the cremation bias in sampling mentioned elsewhere. *https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=49.96389383029525,15.458445736197461&z=5

Yes, that's correct. The other reason is that the main cultural formations and regions being severely undersampled, even those groups which practised more regularly or occasionally inhumation of some sort, even if it was in an irregular, sacrificial manner. Like those Thracian samples from Bulgaria, from the Early Iron Age, are such too, they are no regular burials.

Mezocsat in Hungary was sampled, and turned out to be, like expected, rather local Late Gáva people with various admixtures, but they only sampled females. Basarabi from Romania-Serbia being not sampled, Babadag from Eastern Romania-Moldova wasn't sampled, no later Thracian samples etc. These are very big gaps which can't be fully filled because of cremation, but partially they could be.

An example is the Gomolava mass grave, from killed civilians from around the Kalakacza horizon, those might show some E-V13 too, possibly.

Of course, regular male burials from Mezocsat locals and Basarabi would be preferable because of a clear context, but for the Transitional time period such irregular burials like those from Gomolava are the best to hope for.