E-V13 coming from Hatvan culture ?

Well, you know i am favorable of this theory as well Riverman, i just want to look options, but Vatin at least partially is my other option as well, because nothing is too conclusive yet.

You know, we need a big punch for the LBA-EIA, that's just Vatin, it was rather going KO, to put it that way. But like so often, it could be that the descendant culture overruled the parent one, kind of. That's something I also don't really believe, but its something I wouldn't exclude completely.
But like Oraku was pointing out, we rather have to look East/North East.
 
You know, we need a big punch for the LBA-EIA, that's just Vatin, it was rather going KO, to put it that way. But like so often, it could be that the descendant culture overruled the parent one, kind of. That's something I also don't really believe, but its something I wouldn't exclude completely.
But like Oraku was pointing out, we rather have to look East/North East.

Riverman, Vatin is not considered in its core as related to Encrusted Pottery People or Hugelgraber or whatever, these two last people actually tried to invade them, Vatin is considered as part of Balkan-Carpathian complex which further can reach up to Gava in North. Somewhere along the line, i don't know which culture in specific E-V13 was in huge number and exploded in LBA. But in one of them very likely, this was certainly the cremation horizon.

Perhaps, E-V13 story might be a bit more complex than a simple explanation of LBA dispersal with one too specific culture, perhaps we need to explain within cultural complex, and Balkan-Carpathian complex makes quite a lot of sense to me.
 
Riverman, Vatin is not considered in its core as related to Encrusted Pottery People or Hugelgraber or whatever, these two last people actually tried to invade them, Vatin is considered as part of Balkan-Carpathian complex which further can reach up to Gava in North. Somewhere along the line, i don't know which culture in specific E-V13 was in huge number and exploded in LBA. But in one of them very likely, this was certainly the cremation horizon.

That's what I was saying too. They could have a generational relationship, I don't see that, but I wouldn't completley exclude it. But even if so, it would have ended up in a patricide. Because in most Vatin regions we have a combination of hiatus and/or overtake by G?va, mainly Belegis II-G?va.

Perhaps, E-V13 story might be a bit more complex than a simple explanation of LBA dispersal with one too specific culture, perhaps we need to explain within cultural complex, and Balkan-Carpathian complex makes quite a lot of sense to me.

That's what I was writing on Anthrogenica too, there are some boundaries set by the modern data. And the main conclusion from the modern data is:
E-V13 lineages
- lived together up to about 1.300-1.000 BC in their great majority, in one population or closely related neighbouring ones.
- mixed groups of different E-V13 branches (like representatives of all major clans, or specific generations like in the ver sacrum or the like) moved out in all directions around 1.300-1.000 BC in a geographically differentiated manner. There was little criss-crossing and exchange between the emerging geographical main branches afterwards.

Like to put it simple, there would have been one original population, and then there would have been a North West, North, North East, South East, very South East (Near Eastern), Southern etc. branch. And the only significant exchange, if at all, was then happening between the direction neighbours, but little to nothing between the next but one, so to say. Like South East could have some exchange with South, but those too had practically no exchange with North West or North East. After Hallstatt, the network was further differentiated and being largely finalised by Late Iron Age.

So for whatever you are looking, you have look for one big population in the MBA-LBA, which constantly grew, until they branched in different directions right in the Transitional Period. And that's exactly what we see in Suciu de Sus-Lapus for example. They were growing and growing, reaching a population density which was never as big again up to the Medieval Era - and then it dropped. To almost nothing:

The middle and late Bronze age witnessed the highest density of settlements in the maramureş
depression, a pattern which was only surpassed at the beginning of the middle age.
a total number
of 40 sites were identified, with an average number of four sites per century. Culturally, the discoveries
belong to the first and second phases of the suciu de sus culture. similarly to other historical periods, the
settlements were located in the sighet region, on both banks of the tisza and on the lateral valleys to the
south and the north of the river. Others were identified along the Iza valley and on some of its tributaries,
as well as on the Vişeu valley (Fig. 3). topographically, the settlements were located on river banks or
terraces, in floodless places that also had access to fertile agricultural lands. r. Popa noted that a series
of early medieval settlements superposed the Bronze age ones (Popa 1970). this fact indicates a similar
pattern of organizing the habitat and its agricultural surroundings. Lastly, the sudden demographic
increasing in comparison with the previous periods may indicate the migration of suciu de sus com-
munities from the nearby regions to the maramureş depression.

Location-of-the-maramures-depression.png


at the beginning of the Iron age, in the Hallstatt a?B phases, the total number of settlements was
again drastically reduced in maramureş. still, the period was also marked by the appearance of new
social features. Four settlements were identified around sighet and along the Iza valley, leading to an
average number of 1.14 sites per century. all of them were ascribed to the g?va culture. Large areas in
maramureş, like the Vişeu valley or the valleys to the right side of the tisza river, seem to be unin-
habited during this period (Fig. 4: 1).

Note they being abandoned right when the major fortificaton and settlements in the Balkan appear and G?va-related groups expand there! That's roughly the same pattern as with e.g. whole Germanic tribes leaving a region and only a fraction of the former population remains in place. It's the exact same pattern.

But even though large portions of the population seems to have left, there was large scale continuity since G?va - which is also true for other areas in which Channelled Ware expanded - not later impact was as big up to the Later Iron Age, even the Slavic period:

he middle and late phases of the early
Iron age (Hallstatt C?D) are marked by a
slight demographic increasing. this pattern
could indicate a natural demographic devel-
opment and a continuity of the communities
from the previous period. moreover, this
continuity is also suggested by the perpetu-
ation of certain ceramic forms and types of
sets of vessels which appeared in the previous
period.

there are no major changes during the following period at the end of the Late Iron age (Fig. 4:
3). this is largely covering the 2nd century BC?1st century aD, corresponding to the existence of the
Dacian kingdom. the settlements belonging to this period include archaeological layers and complexes
superposing the earlier-dated habitations at solotvino (slatina) and Belaja Cerkov?
(Biserica albă).

The Romans destroyed a lot of the settlements, but who came in afterwards? Goths and more Northern free Dacians:

However the roman period, largely
covering the 2nd?3rd centuries aD, wit-
nessed a series of both demographic and
ethno-cultural changes. A single rural
settlement is known during this period
at Călineşti-rogoaze, on the Cosău valley,
being probably dated to the 3rd century
aD. During the same period, a series
of tumulus cremation burials appeared
on the northern bank of the tisza river
between Belaja Cerkov? (Biserica albă)
and the Iza river, near Hust, pointing
to the arrival of new populations in the
region (Fig. 4: 4). these cemeteries were
ascribed to the so-called culture of the
Carpathian tumuli.

Which cremated their dead, as we know from the Maslomecz Goths and historical descriptions.

In the early Medieval period, almost nothing of the former local population remained:

Later during the 1st millennium aD,
the demographic density was drastically
reduced, with the average number of sites
per century falling to 0.42. During this period the maramureş depression was basically uninhabited. the
few settlements identified at Crăciuneşti-mohelca, sarasău-Zăpodie and tisa-Lazuri/Certeze belong to
the 4th?7th centuries aD. they are located on the southern bank of the tisza river or on the nearby lateral
valleys, in the same areas where other settlements functioned during the previous periods, indicating a
preference for a particular environment which was more favourable for habitation (Fig. 4: 4).

That's why there was only limited population continuity in that area, because of the Migration period destruction and migrations. But before that, the region of the Upper Tisza-Mararmures had a continuity largely from Suciu de Sus-G?va to the Later Iron Age.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Neolithic_to_the_early_Middle_Age_An_Overview

Suciu de Sus is where the actual locals survived, not the F?zesabony-Kostany or Carpathian Tumulus clans. These were different people.

Suciu de Sus being often shown as having Aegean connections too, by the way, something which was discussed since Kossina. Compare with this newer publication:
https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf
 
I see rafc and Aspar are leaning more toward Chalcolithic Bulgaria origin for E-V13, at this stage that may be true, as weird as it sounds. But i think if we get Chalcolithic samples from Serbia or Serbia/Bulgaria border we might get a bit of different leaning. I still think slightly south of Danube would be adequate, but you never know.

As for the Hatvan E-V13, i might consider as some sort of influence from more South, something in the line of Vatin or Vatya. To me slightly south of Danube or Balkan-Carpathian complex is the connecting dot, far eastern Balkans or North-East Carpathia was just the expansion not the source.

The truth sits somewhere in the middle i guess.
 
I see rafc and Aspar are leaning more toward Chalcolithic Bulgaria origin for E-V13, at this stage that may be true, as weird as it sounds. But i think if we get Chalcolithic samples from Serbia or Serbia/Bulgaria border we might get a bit of different leaning. I still think slightly south of Danube would be adequate, but you never know.

As for the Hatvan E-V13, i might consider as some sort of influence from more South, something in the line of Vatin or Vatya. To me slightly south of Danube or Balkan-Carpathian complex is the connecting dot, far eastern Balkans or North-East Carpathia was just the expansion not the source.

The truth sits somewhere in the middle i guess.

I think there is no way around Suciu de Sus-Lapus I and Berkesz-Demecser. These were so crucial in the spread of Channelled Ware, they expanded on top of the others.

As for rafc, he correctly points to nearby regions as well, which means Romania. And there we go, because that's the homeland of the mentioned groups, especially Suciu de Sus-Lapus I.
 
I see rafc and Aspar are leaning more toward Chalcolithic Bulgaria origin for E-V13, at this stage that may be true, as weird as it sounds. But i think if we get Chalcolithic samples from Serbia or Serbia/Bulgaria border we might get a bit of different leaning. I still think slightly south of Danube would be adequate, but you never know.

As for the Hatvan E-V13, i might consider as some sort of influence from more South, something in the line of Vatin or Vatya. To me slightly south of Danube or Balkan-Carpathian complex is the connecting dot, far eastern Balkans or North-East Carpathia was just the expansion not the source.

The truth sits somewhere in the middle i guess.

Rafc had an interesting post. Its interesting to see the discussion change with this new info, lets see where it goes.

Im still with Riverman on the absence of another candidate for tmrca of ev13s expansion having no other better candidate than chanelled ware, but rafc and aspar do make good points, so something has to give.

Also funny to see Bruzmi doing damage control, now hes saying Ev13 is from central balkans, before he was arguing western balkans and that every ev13 in thrace was a revent migrant from illyria.

The L's just keep adding up for them 🤣
 
As I have stated Vatin is a culture with strong links to other MBA cultures of the Danubian-Carpathian complex. This includes origins. For ex. it is practically identical to Verbicioara culture from SW Romania. Samples from this complex indicate I2a and R-Z2103 and more Northern auDNA.

If this sample is from Hatvan, that is game over for any talk about the origins of this hg. Hatvan has nothing to do with Vatin or Bulgaria. But it is based on an earlier EEF substrate that is Nagyrev related (which also had more EEF).

No offense, but neither Aspar, rafc, is anywhere near as knowledgeable or capable in linguistics to debate with me, and there are very good linguistic reasons to presume Thracian has absolutely no links with the Yamnaya group. That it must be related to Corded Ware. That it even has no origin links with the Iranic group (there are influences which appear later). That its origin should be sought in R-Z280. And then you can only go in two directions, the R1a heavy Ottomani or the some CWC influences on Hatvan.

As I have stated there were some extremely EEF heavy Hungarian samples. This is not speculation but fact based on leaked data. And if V13 is found in that context, that is it.

All evidence suggests All of Balkans was alot more Northern than EIA Thracians in MBA bar Greece.

If anyone wishes to propose some long term Balkan continuity you should find some sort of archeologically meaningful chain of related cultures.

As LBA expansion from channeled ware is backed up by archeology and in a number of ways already genetics as well, especially in the case of EBA V13 sample belonging to some of these EBA low EEF cultures (though having some Steppe itself).

People arguing Bulgarian EIA auDNA profile cannot be derived from any Pannonian group are dead wrong. Aspar and rafc speculating about EEF heavy continuity have to explain the MBA/LBA Bulgarian samples which indicate that the EBA Bulgarian population has been replaced by a quite Northern population in MBA. They are maybe few, but how many samples point towards continuity? None. And then this population was been obviously replaced by an almost Mycenean like population.

Succession of replacements and no continuity..

Plus it seems atm, there is no V13 on Balkans in BA, there is in Hungary. Show up Balkan V13 BA samples before launching any wild theories.

Before forming wild speculative theories on explaining how these BA samples "accidentally" ended up there please explain how come they "accidentally" didn't appear on the Balkans?? Maybe because neither of those are "accidental" but causative?

Aspar/Bruzmi have tried to downplay them by using the % card, but as explained the sampling bias debunks this card.
 
I am curious, what made you disqualify Vatin completely from equation (you know Vatin influenced Gava to a degree, then again in South down to Brnjica)?

Mainly the relation of Vatin to some neighbor cultures. It's practically the same culture AND same people as Verbicioara in SW Romania for example. And it has other ties to other cultures. In fact I will seek for ties of Monteoru and other cultures as there are it seems Monteoru samples.
 
The baltic connection of thracian is overstated imo, in big part because a lot of early baltic nationalist authors were contributing to linguistic theories on thracian.

Matzingers and Ackermanns theory of the thracian group being a later group that left after the half satem.may also explain partially more satem affiliations with baltic as longer contact, but archaeologist have speculated in the past about catacomb affiliations of thracian, likewise there are interesting linguistic phenomena like Thracian. Diazenus compared to Greek. Diogenes.

Also, one of the earliest possible speculated Thracian names comes from mycenean source as o-du-ru-we and therefore places it as possibly contemporaenous with myceneaen.



FJFzRYwXoAYJnlK
 
As I have stated Vatin is a culture with strong links to other MBA cultures of the Danubian-Carpathian complex. This includes origins. For ex. it is practically identical to Verbicioara culture from SW Romania. Samples from this complex indicate I2a and R-Z2103 and more Northern auDNA.

If this sample is from Hatvan, that is game over for any talk about the origins of this hg. Hatvan has nothing to do with Vatin or Bulgaria. But it is based on an earlier EEF substrate that is Nagyrev related (which also had more EEF).

No offense, but neither Aspar, rafc, is anywhere near as knowledgeable or capable in linguistics to debate with me, and there are very good linguistic reasons to presume Thracian has absolutely no links with the Yamnaya group. That it must be related to Corded Ware. That it even has no origin links with the Iranic group (there are influences which appear later). That its origin should be sought in R-Z280. And then you can only go in two directions, the R1a heavy Ottomani or the some CWC influences on Hatvan.

As I have stated there were some extremely EEF heavy Hungarian samples. This is not speculation but fact based on leaked data. And if V13 is found in that context, that is it.

All evidence suggests All of Balkans was alot more Northern than EIA Thracians in MBA bar Greece.

If anyone wishes to propose some long term Balkan continuity you should find some sort of archeologically meaningful chain of related cultures.

As LBA expansion from channeled ware is backed up by archeology and in a number of ways already genetics as well, especially in the case of EBA V13 sample belonging to some of these EBA low EEF cultures (though having some Steppe itself).

People arguing Bulgarian EIA auDNA profile cannot be derived from any Pannonian group are dead wrong. Aspar and rafc speculating about EEF heavy continuity have to explain the MBA/LBA Bulgarian samples which indicate that the EBA Bulgarian population has been replaced by a quite Northern population in MBA. They are maybe few, but how many samples point towards continuity? None. And then this population was been obviously replaced by an almost Mycenean like population.

Succession of replacements and no continuity..

Plus it seems atm, there is no V13 on Balkans in BA, there is in Hungary. Show up Balkan V13 BA samples before launching any wild theories.

Before forming wild speculative theories on explaining how these BA samples "accidentally" ended up there please explain how come they "accidentally" didn't appear on the Balkans?? Maybe because neither of those are "accidental" but causative?

Aspar/Bruzmi have tried to downplay them by using the % card, but as explained the sampling bias debunks this card.

I think what some people still don't understand or underestimate is the diversity we find in the Eastern Carpathian Basin. The basic components of WHG, Neolithic and steppe can drastically vary. We see that time and time again in all periods samples so far. And the sample density is still pretty low for that area and its importance in the Bronze Age.
 
Damn Johane, never get sick of making sock accounts on AG everyday? I swear it's like you're so persistent in lurking the fora :LOL:
 
Damn Johane, never get sick of making sock accounts on AG everyday? I swear it's like you're so persistent in lurking the fora :LOL:

Seriously. No one gives a shit about your crazy theories Johane, you have your contagion zone here on Eupedia, please stay here.
 
Armour of a Thracian warrior. The snake motive on top of the helmet is interesting.

KaJEqzz.jpg


pHb09Ji.jpg


JNeW2mQ.jpg


t5ztDsE.jpg


qU3MyzU.jpg


The famous Thraco-Phrygian type of helmet.

nqJHsKv.jpg


And the Thracian treasure of Panagyurishte. Masterpiece of Thracian craftsmanship.

9OCBZ28.jpg


CzxlXi3.jpg
 
EV13 won't be associated with any major movements in Europe just like J1, non-J2B2 J2s, etc. The only abundant site we had so far were all cousins from 1 time/place. Not every haplogroup has some major historical impact.

I still find it funny that some still refuse to accept the fact that founder effects and bottlenecks exist. How many RL51s and J2B2s are there in Yamnaya? Only difference is EV13 expanded post-Middle Ages.
 
EV13 won't be associated with any major movements in Europe just like J1, non-J2B2 J2s, etc. The only abundant site we had so far were all cousins from 1 time/place. Not every haplogroup has some major historical impact.

I still find it funny that some still refuse to accept the fact that founder effects and bottlenecks exist. How many RL51s and J2B2s are there in Yamnaya? Only difference is EV13 expanded post-Middle Ages.

See, that's the problem you don't seem to grasp, the data is glass clear about the major founder effects happening all in the LBA-MIA in a geographically differentiated manner. E-V13 was in one population before 1.300-1.000 BC and it was broken up into significant - most likely primarily Daco-Thracian - diversified branches afterwards. Before 1.000 BC, there was a lot of overlap between all regions of Europe, between 1.000 BC and 300 BC, there was some overlap, but comparably much, much less. After 300 BC, there is little to no overlap between the macroregions.

So forget about Middle Age founder effects, these happened primarily in Albanians, most of the other people have far older regional lineages.

The problem for the regional concentration is simply that Thracians/Dacians as a people ceased to exist and some of their core regions being nearly depopulated by the Early Medieval era. So the exact opposite is true, E-V13 was drastically shrinking and lost major concentration points in the Late Antiquity to Early Medieval era. Albanians in particular are simply the big exception, because some of the surviving Southern lineages became so dominant in Albanians which in turn, because of their clan system, demography and settlement pattern, expanded in a significant manner.

Don't confuse E-V13 as a whole with the Albanian lineage history.
 
See, that's the problem you don't seem to grasp, the data is glass clear about the major founder effects happening all in the LBA-MIA in a geographically differentiated manner. E-V13 was in one population before 1.300-1.000 BC and it was broken up into significant - most likely primarily Daco-Thracian - diversified branches afterwards. Before 1.000 BC, there was a lot of overlap between all regions of Europe, between 1.000 BC and 300 BC, there was some overlap, but comparably much, much less. After 300 BC, there is little to no overlap between the macroregions.

So forget about Middle Age founder effects, these happened primarily in Albanians, most of the other people have far older regional lineages.

The problem for the regional concentration is simply that Thracians/Dacians as a people ceased to exist and some of their core regions being nearly depopulated by the Early Medieval era. So the exact opposite is true, E-V13 was drastically shrinking and lost major concentration points in the Late Antiquity to Early Medieval era. Albanians in particular are simply the big exception, because some of the surviving Southern lineages became so dominant in Albanians which in turn, because of their clan system, demography and settlement pattern, expanded in a significant manner.

Don't confuse E-V13 as a whole with the Albanian lineage history.

As we have discussed Riverman, this is the collective/strategical propaganda that this specific group has put, it has nothing to do with entertain personally, he is just an adoloscent who follows what he has been taught to. To fit their narrative, that's why they are so noisy, that's why you see them so opposing to any connection to any ancient Balkan group.
 
As we have discussed Riverman, this is the collective/strategical propaganda that this specific group has put, it has nothing to do with entertain personally, he is just an adoloscent who follows what he has been taught to. To fit their narrative, that's why they are so noisy, that's why you see them so opposing to any connection to any ancient Balkan group.
They essentially want to apply their modern ethnic identity to one ancient group and want, for all those part of that modern ethnic identity, to stem from that one particular ancient group. It is about the wish of continuity for all. It is what they see on TV, read on pseudo-scientific sites etc. It is what they are fed with and comfortably consume every day. It is about applying national emotions to scientific research and it hurts them where it doesn't fit that narrative in particular.

And honestly, it is just embarrassing and non sensical.
 
See, that's the problem you don't seem to grasp, the data is glass clear about the major founder effects happening all in the LBA-MIA in a geographically differentiated manner. E-V13 was in one population before 1.300-1.000 BC and it was broken up into significant - most likely primarily Daco-Thracian - diversified branches afterwards. Before 1.000 BC, there was a lot of overlap between all regions of Europe, between 1.000 BC and 300 BC, there was some overlap, but comparably much, much less. After 300 BC, there is little to no overlap between the macroregions.

So forget about Middle Age founder effects, these happened primarily in Albanians, most of the other people have far older regional lineages.

The problem for the regional concentration is simply that Thracians/Dacians as a people ceased to exist and some of their core regions being nearly depopulated by the Early Medieval era. So the exact opposite is true, E-V13 was drastically shrinking and lost major concentration points in the Late Antiquity to Early Medieval era. Albanians in particular are simply the big exception, because some of the surviving Southern lineages became so dominant in Albanians which in turn, because of their clan system, demography and settlement pattern, expanded in a significant manner.

Don't confuse E-V13 as a whole with the Albanian lineage history.

Dude, you've spent months/years saying the homeland is Hungary, and the only place with a lot of EV13 was one site in eastern Bulgaria. Romania/Serbia had 0 EV13 during the Iron Age.

What is "glass clear" is your pathetic attempt to turn half of Europe into "Daco-Samartian-Thracians".
 
They essentially want to apply their modern ethnic identity to one ancient group and want, for all those part of that modern ethnic identity, to stem from that one particular ancient group. It is about the wish of continuity for all. It is what they see on TV, read on pseudo-scientific sites etc. It is what they are fed with and comfortably consume every day. It is about applying national emotions to scientific research and it hurts them where it doesn't fit that narrative in particular.

And honestly, it is just embarrassing and non sensical.

:LOL::LOL::LOL: You pathetic troll. You just had a major publication grouping Albanian, Illyrian, Messapic together under "Illyric" by western authors, but I'm doing nationalistic "propaganda".

Classification_of_Albanian.png


You have 4 Illyrians with EV13 right now. You're just butthurt that Kosovo's #1 Y-DNA was irrelevant until Ottoman times.
 
Dude, you've spent months/years saying the homeland is Hungary, and the only place with a lot of EV13 was one site in eastern Bulgaria. Romania/Serbia had 0 EV13 during the Iron Age.

What is "glass clear" is your pathetic attempt to turn half of Europe into "Daco-Samartian-Thracians".

Only a small part of Hungary is really relevant for the earliest period, that's the Nyirseg region, mostly in what is now Szabolcs-Szatm?r-Bereg. The rest of Hungary largely not as much.

Even later the main distribution area was always the Tisza and Transtisza area. How many samples are from locals of the Transtisza region? That's like sampling Slavs and Romans in Albania, you can do that, probably, but that tells you little about the locals, even in case they mixed with them, they are not identical. Same here. We have no locals from the Eastern region of the cremating groups.

To understand how E-V13 came to Bulgaria, just follow the rivers Tisza-Danube and Tisza-Pruth-Danube:
map-of-the-tisza-river-and-the-southern-part-of-the-danube.jpg


Western route (Tisza-Danube): G?va -> Belegis II-G?va
Eastern route (Tisza-Prut-Danube): Lapus II-G?va -> Babadag
Both ended at the Lower Danube and spread from there through the rest of Bulgaria.

I always said that Thrace should have a lot of E-V13. Why is as of yet not fully clear, but it can't be unrelated to Channelled Ware and (Daco-) Thracians.

As for your sarcastic comment, Thracians of the South East and the other Thracians being one koine, you also see it with Channelled and stamped pottery, the related groups of G?va (late), Babadag, Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo. We got now one tested, Psenichevo, there are just three to go to get the full circle. Simple as that.
Channelled Ware did move along the rivers, they were adapted to more wet zones for specialised agriculture and animal husbandry.
 

This thread has been viewed 10826 times.

Back
Top