To burn or not to burn: LBA/EIA Balkan case

[Riverman]

Good summary of the current E-V13 sampling:
https://phylogeographer.com/iron-ag...cosm-of-the-geographic-distribution-of-e-v13/

He should have added Eastern/Tisza-Transtisza Carpathian basin, if talking about Pannonia.

 

[mount123]

Good summary of the current E-V13 sampling:
https://phylogeographer.com/iron-ag...cosm-of-the-geographic-distribution-of-e-v13/

He should have added Eastern/Tisza-Transtisza Carpathian basin, if talking about Pannonia.

Well, Hunter is the guy if I may say so. I like his objective and reasonable argumentation. Having said that and I agree with your addition and most of his proposal for E1b-V13, FTDNA data should have been included. This is especially important for samples from Kosovë.

He has made a mistake in the designation of E-BY83158 where he put a J in the beginning instead of E the link however is correct, not that this is that big of an issue.

This statement is wrong: „J2b-L283 has relative maximum in the southern half of Albania peaking in the very southwest while E-V13's relative maximum stretches from north-central Albania to the western half of North Macedonia.“ Again, a problem of missing data inclusion. FTDNA and Rrenjet/Gjenetika data must be included in order to support such a bold statement. True statement would have been that J2b-L283 reaches its highest frequency in North Albania and Eastern/Central Kosovë.

I think it is great that he has pointed out the problem of not being able to put in the Kosovo flag location for us who are affected by this in regards to YFull, of whom I don’t have a positive opinion and don't want to attribute a great importance. Political prejudice and bad ethics of Russian founder Vadim Urasin are very evident here.

Thankfully FTDNA is a more reliable and academic resource. Nevertheless, very wrong and desperate attempt at politicizing in my opinion because we are much more important since being pre-Slavic and our local lineages are very crucial in mapping out the aDNA picture of the native Balkan groups.

 

[Riverman]

Nothing that new, but the Southern Arc papers confirm the clear Thracian connection for E-V13, with all earlier Iron Age samples belonging to the Thracian finds known already from around Kapitan Andreevo. Too bad they haven't sampled Basarabi and Babadag. Great miss.

 

[Hawk]

I am using this model:

Adriatic_Neolithic:HRV_C_Lasinja,0.1245415,0.1786487,0.0203646,-0.0794311,0.0634221,-0.0394165,-0.0040146,-0.0018653,0.0439214,0.0813077,0.006049,0.0116523,-0.0208744,0.0006192,-0.0348462,-0.0067068,0.0184277,0.0031567,0.0110928,-0.0090042,-0.0059999,0.0057088,-0.0089047,-0.009931,-0.0061172
West_Mediterranean:ITA_Sardinia_C,0.1287624,0.1788602,0.0431804,-0.0573325,0.0789762,-0.030922,-0.0024676,-0.0017882,0.0582638,0.10023,0.0009741,0.0158296,-0.0345822,-0.0159125,-0.017389,-0.0007625,0.0133481,0.0034998,0.0070705,-0.0135534,0.000109,0.0013755,-0.0116161,-0.0280762,-0.0012573
Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Peloponnese_N,0.1192866,0.176702,-0.0080704,-0.0965124,0.0409306,-0.0416662,-0.001645,-0.0051228,0.0253202,0.0726758,0.0066578,0.012499,-0.0241424,-0.0007708,-0.0353146,-0.0086448,0.0185666,0.000532,0.0104078,-0.0138568,-0.018193,0.0007172,-0.004289,-0.000699,-0.004766
Aegean_Neolithic:GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA,0.1155305,0.1675625,-0.0194215,-0.0805885,0.018773,-0.0352795,-0.003995,-0.007846,0.00634,0.049386,0.005846,0.014837,-0.0231165,0.006468,-0.026126,-0.0061655,0.0157115,0.003927,0.008485,-0.010192,-0.010107,-0.003462,0.001109,0.0046395,-0.0026345
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LBK_MN,0.123498,0.1807643,0.0126335,-0.0942352,0.0580878,-0.0403695,-0.0029375,-0.003,0.0397798,0.084603,0.008769,0.0125138,-0.02111,0.0004818,-0.042107,-0.0149492,0.01105,-0.0005382,0.012821,-0.0153825,-0.013757,0.0095827,-0.0092128,-0.0026512,-0.002934
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_Lengyel_LN,0.1272922,0.1777177,0.0206787,-0.0799425,0.0635502,-0.040997,-0.0038777,-0.0036153,0.0460522,0.0810342,0.0099055,0.0092667,-0.0207628,0.0022018,-0.0366672,-0.0123087,0.0169498,0.0019425,0.0106215,-0.009442,-0.0118957,0.0040187,-0.006984,-0.0086758,-0.0011178
Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic:HUN_LN_EarlyC_Lengyel,0.124067,0.177718,0.019987,-0.082365,0.05878,-0.034861,0.00141,0.001615,0.051949,0.075081,0.01153,0.009741,-0.016353,0.008808,-0.036237,-0.023999,0.003781,0.005701,0.023757,-0.01063,-0.015722,0.005317,0.002218,-0.005061,-0.007185
East_European_Neolithic:BGR_Middle_C,0.120652,0.171624,0.027153,-0.064923,0.052317,-0.026774,0.001175,0.002308,0.032519,0.062689,0,0.010191,-0.013677,-0.001101,-0.034744,-0.017634,-0.001173,0.005068,0.009804,-0.017008,-0.009733,0.008656,-0.010969,-0.015785,-0.002634
East_European_Neolithic:UKR_Trypillia_En,0.132035,0.165531,0.032809,-0.027778,0.065551,-0.0251,0.00282,0.012923,0.046631,0.057222,0.005684,-0.002248,-0.016353,-0.017065,-0.018322,0.000663,0.02725,0.004054,0.010559,-0.000875,0.010731,0.004451,-0.019596,-0.027835,-0.001437
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_CZE_early,0.1244463,0.1218633,0.0657443,0.0725673,0.013233,0.025658,0.0050917,0.0059997,-0.0139073,-0.0218683,-0.0048177,0.0029473,-0.0109513,-0.01601,0.0245657,0.0061433,-0.0093877,4.23e-05,-0.0027657,0.0030013,0.000416,-0.0009063,-0.0022593,0.002691,-0.0034727
Bell_Beaker:Bell_Beaker_FRA_C,0.132604,0.1340495,0.0605275,0.0385985,0.041854,0.0107375,-0.00047,0.006346,0.008897,0.0126655,-0.00203,0.012889,-0.015089,-0.0157575,0.0143865,0.0117345,-0.007888,0.0023435,-0.0016965,0.001751,-0.0004365,0.0058115,-0.0009245,-0.001265,-0.00467
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_BGR,0.113823,0.123895,0.034318,0.040375,0.003693,0.012829,0.003055,0.001615,-0.02127,-0.014579,0.005846,0.003897,-0.014271,0.00867,0.011401,-0.013524,-0.005998,0.000253,-0.000628,-0.004752,0.004742,0.005441,-0.002588,-0.000482,0.001197
Yamnaya:Yamnaya_UKR,0.119514,0.0873355,0.0452545,0.1106285,-0.028313,0.042531,0.00846,-0.003461,-0.0521535,-0.0707985,0.0002435,0.004421,-0.0043115,-0.0202305,0.0323015,0.0107395,-0.0002605,-0.011529,-0.005531,0.002376,-0.0028075,0.0004325,-0.009367,0.0192795,0.0031135
West_Asian:ARM_Areni_C,0.1115468,0.1327805,-0.0316782,-0.0281818,-0.0278512,-0.005508,0.0022325,-0.0073265,-0.0236735,-0.0068795,0.007064,0.0064068,-0.0066528,-0.0040598,-0.0060735,-0.0100438,-0.0098115,0.0026922,0.0009428,-0.006941,-0.002901,0.0025965,0.0014175,-0.0031932,0.0047898
West_Asian:TUR_Ikiztepe_LC,0.1093966,0.1521039,-0.0491094,-0.078166,-0.0101898,-0.0275171,0.004883,-0.0010769,-0.0284969,0.0206331,0.0077223,0.0062279,-0.0184669,0.0088997,-0.0163318,-0.0136716,0.0115028,0.0030546,0.007402,-0.0093239,-0.0019826,-0.0020198,-0.0019309,-0.00565,0.0034328
Baltic:Baltic_LVA_MN,0.1293028,0.0706808,0.1523568,0.1945116,0.047578,0.0589576,-0.0050764,0.006323,0.0208204,-0.0559464,0.0052288,-0.0185234,0.0298512,-0.0275518,0.027931,0.036197,0.0010952,-0.0001266,-0.0074412,0.03104,0.0268278,0.0172372,-0.0087258,-0.0600808,0.0013894
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL,0.09675,0.12491,0.073539,0.051034,0.033545,0.022311,0.0047,-0.015922,-0.012067,-0.014032,-0.006008,0.006894,0.010109,-0.020368,0.016829,0.002519,-0.022556,0.012289,0.012318,0.007379,-0.001747,0.014715,0.006162,0.013255,-0.000239
Corded_Ware_Horizont:Corded_Ware_CZE_late,0.1243381,0.11519,0.0537665,0.0826572,0.0107711,0.0293367,0.0037937,0.0021098,-0.0216991,-0.0327678,-0.0030621,0.000999,-0.0050616,-0.0141751,0.0261876,0.0048553,-0.0076927,-5.43e-05,0.00249,0.0066758,0.0004218,0.0008183,0.0034568,0.0135073,-0.0004163

samples:

Q1a_351:I20182,0.125205,0.144205,0.003017,-0.001292,0.00677,0,-0.00376,-0.006923,-0.011249,0.001093,0.002761,0.005695,-0.012636,-0.003165,0.000679,-0.005967,0.005998,0.00114,-0.004777,0.004377,-0.001373,0.010881,0.008011,0.003735,-0.003233
E-V13_361:I20185,0.126344,0.158423,0.008674,-0.053295,0.040315,-0.034582,0.003995,-0.000231,0.005318,0.049204,0.004547,0.012889,-0.015015,-0.005367,-0.028366,-0.010342,0.013821,0.004307,0.010936,-0.01038,-0.009109,0.002349,0,0.000361,0.000239
E-V13_359:I20183,0.120652,0.160454,0.010559,-0.041344,0.030775,-0.02259,0.00282,-0.003,0.017794,0.047017,0.003085,0.013488,-0.008771,-0.004954,-0.029587,0.005171,0.024903,0.003674,0.008673,-0.001,-0.004866,-0.00371,0.000739,0.005784,-0.011017
R1a_362:I20186,0.122929,0.155376,0.007542,-0.059755,0.031698,-0.025937,0.0047,-0.005077,0.009408,0.049204,-0.001624,0.009292,-0.020069,0.007432,-0.028637,-0.016706,-0.001043,0.000633,0.01433,-0.010505,-0.009733,0.001855,-0.005669,0.003976,-0.002515
E-V13_358:I20181,0.119514,0.157407,0.007165,-0.039083,0.028621,-0.023985,-0.003995,-0.003923,0.014726,0.04319,0.002923,0.008692,-0.0278,0.003165,-0.016422,0.003315,0.032074,0.008108,0.018603,-0.004252,-0.00836,-0.000742,-0.010106,0.002289,-0.016885
E-V13_357:I20180,0.119514,0.167562,0.009051,-0.064923,0.03693,-0.022311,0.002115,-0.006,0.009204,0.047199,0.003248,0.004646,-0.013082,0.004542,-0.021444,-0.018695,-0.004172,0.003801,0.005405,-0.011881,-0.011605,0.002473,-0.000863,-0.006266,-0.012334
E-V13_Rozovo_320:I19500,0.117238,0.1635,0.003394,-0.056202,0.022466,-0.012829,-0.002115,-0.002308,0.000409,0.03426,0.001137,0.009292,-0.018137,0.001927,-0.018865,-0.020286,0.00339,0.006714,0.012821,-0.008754,-0.004492,0.01051,-0.004683,0.005422,-0.010777
E-V13_Boyanovo_383:I18792,0.114961,0.180764,0.000754,-0.055556,0.023081,-0.02008,-0.00611,0.000462,0.017998,0.043737,-0.008607,0.001649,-0.024678,-0.017616,-0.021444,-0.00716,0.020079,-0.013302,-0.006913,-0.004752,-0.013227,0.016075,-0.006655,0.023377,-0.008981

Target: Q1a_351:I20182 Distance: 2.2479% / 0.02247869
35.8	Corded_Ware_Horizont
33.2	Aegean_Neolithic
27.0	West_Asian
1.8	Baltic
1.4	Bell_Beaker
0.8	East_European_Neolithic

Target: E-V13_361:I20185 Distance: 2.0335% / 0.02033488
38.8	Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic
26.6	Aegean_Neolithic
16.4	Corded_Ware_Horizont
15.2	West_Asian
2.2	Yamnaya
0.8	East_European_Neolithic

Target: E-V13_359:I20183 Distance: 2.5687% / 0.02568665
55.4	Aegean_Neolithic
25.0	Adriatic_Neolithic
7.4	Yamnaya
6.6	Baltic
4.0	East_European_Neolithic
1.6	Corded_Ware_Horizont

Target: R1a_362:I20186 Distance: 1.9219% / 0.01921902
49.0	Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic
19.8	West_Asian
13.4	Yamnaya
8.0	East_European_Neolithic
7.0	Aegean_Neolithic
2.8	Corded_Ware_Horizont

Target: E-V13_358:I20181 Distance: 2.9965% / 0.02996531
48.4	Aegean_Neolithic
21.8	East_European_Neolithic
16.6	Adriatic_Neolithic
13.2	Yamnaya

Target: E-V13_357:I20180 Distance: 1.9807% / 0.01980741
37.0	East_European_Neolithic
26.0	West_Asian
19.4	Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic
10.2	Corded_Ware_Horizont
7.4	Aegean_Neolithic

Target: E-V13_Rozovo_320:I19500 Distance: 2.1880% / 0.02188031
34.6	Pannonian_Carpathian_Neolithic
33.6	West_Asian
13.6	Corded_Ware_Horizont
9.4	Yamnaya
5.4	Aegean_Neolithic
3.4	East_European_Neolithic

Target: E-V13_Boyanovo_383:I18792 Distance: 4.7003% / 0.04700340
80.2	Aegean_Neolithic
15.4	Yamnaya
4.4	Corded_Ware_Horizont

 

[Riverman]

I played a bit with the available samples and two of them show consistently increased affinity to HUN_LBA, its I20181 and I20183. They have slightly more WHG than the others and pick up HUN_LBA if being offered. The pattern is all the more striking in comparison to the rest of the samples. A bit of the WHG might be eaten up, in all of them, by the additional Iranian ancestry they got, which fuses it into Yamnaya sometimes.

Here the more regionalised approach:

Note the R1a carrier gets almost no HUN_LBA, but increased Noua/steppe ancestry!

The pattern with only Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni as recent steppe source:

The R1a carrier gets more of it, but shows less affinity to the HUN_LBA/Carpathian Basin samples. But what's the takeaway is, if, just if, any of the E-V13 samples show closer Carpathian Basin affinities, its I20181 and I20183. So I checked those, first individual 2 from:

Pit 28
Bone remains from three skeletons were recorded. The anatomical position of skeletons is
disturbed through natural decomposition and post-depositional natural stratification. Bones are
fragmented and some parts missing as a result of taphonomical changes. Reconstruction of the
skeletal remains reveals that there were three bodies placed one over another: on the top is
individual 1 recorded as a 16-18 years old juvenile in supine position. The underling skeleton
(individual 2) is on its right side in flexed position. Arm bones suggest that hands were tied
behind the back. The individual is anthropologically identified as a male of 30-40 years at death.
On the left parietal bone of the skull, near to the sagittal suture a trepanation survived by this
man is noted. The styloid process of the left ulna is affected by a healed fracture. The lowest
skeleton (individual 3) is on its left side considering the bones of pectoral girdle and lower limbs,
while the vertebral column and rib cage are on the back. Remains from the arm bones also raises
the hypothesis that the arms could have been tied behind the back. The individual is identified as
a 20 to 30 year old male.

That looks like an execution of a warrior (ulna fracture is pretty typical, so are head injuries which might have needed trepanation) from the Early Iron Age.

Second one:

Pit 91.1
A relatively complete skeleton is found in the south sector of the pit. The body is on the
back, the extremely contracted limbs are slightly twisted to the right and the skull is pointing
North-Northeast. This position suggests that the body was wrapped up in a sack. Anthropological
investigation indicates a male individual of 18 to 20-25 years at death

Nothing specific, could have been an execution too, or he was brought home from a battlefield - but rather not.

It is a real pity that the Svilengrad sample (I19487) seems to be insufficient for both the exact haplogroup determination and the coordinates. Was just an infant, but from another site, other context. Stambolovo being females and too low coverage. Too bad so many interesting samples have a too low coverage it seems.

HUN_LBA is the closest sample group we got for the G?va-related/Channelled Ware people. Some samples fall into the Kyjatice context (brother group of G?va), others are females from a G?va related context. There is an outlier included, which plots closer to the Illyrians (HRV_MBA, HRV_IA), but the others while not ideal and probably not really representative are the closest thing we got. E.g. I don't know how much Encrusted Pottery and other Pannonian ancestry the females got. All are from irregular burials (for G?va) and its Western fringe. Second closest come the Mezocsat locals from the Thraco-Cimmerian era. Again all females.

I made various runs and two things are for certain: The sample I20183, the adult male which might have been an executed warrior from the EIA, has the closest affinity to the Carpathian Basin/G?va-related samples from all of those from Thrace which made it into the G25 coordinates.

The second thing is, the later samples (Rozovo and the Byzantine) show much less of a need for something like HUN_LBA in their composition. So the I20183 sample from the early period has something, potentially, in the direction of G?va, which got further diluted with time. Its in all early samples, more so than in the LIA and the Byzantine one.

Rozovo (Central Bulgaria, Stara Zagora, Kazanlak; Late Iron Age) - still E-V13, but less affinity, less need for an Carpathian ancestry. That's some centuries/generations after the Kapitan Andreevo finds!

If we would have samples from about 1.000-900 BC, when the Proto-Thracian Channelled Ware people conquered the Lower Danube area, I'm pretty sure the result would be more clear. I also checked whether Illyrians could be the source: They can't, at least not without Encrusted Pottery. HRV_Jag (Encrusted Pottery) plus HRV_MBA (Illyrian) in combination could, because the hybrid is close to G?va in a specific ratio. But HRV_MBA on its own is not such a good fit.
In any case, after playing with those samples, it seems that the EIA E-V13 Thracians had some Carpathian and/or North Balkan ancestry which got diluted over time. That's my first impression, even though the sample size is a bit too small to be sure, of course.

But look how the Pannonian, G?va-related ancestry (or at least something similar) drops from the Early Iron Age to the later Iron Age and the Byzantine sample:

Also remarkable: In most runs the R1a carrier is in the early phase almost always the lowest scoring for the Pannonian-related ancestry. I20183 on the other hand always highest. And the drop in Rozovo is also remarkable, because its a more Northern region. But probably less affected by Channelled Ware on a broader scale or later diluted. More samples might help to clear that up.

 

[Hawk]

Insula Banului, Psenicevo, Babadag, Zimnicea-Plovdiv all the inter-related stamped/groomped pottery cultures also known as Thracian Hallstatt or Proto-Thracian is confirmed E-V13.

Now what's left is to confirm Gava/Belegis-Gava who was closely related with stamped/groomped culture Eastern Hallstatt, very likely we will end up with cultures like Mysians, some of the Middle Danubian Urnfielders, Triballi, Dardanii and potentially the progenitor of Proto-Albanian.

Probably from Bronze to Iron Age some Pre/Proto-Albanoid came down with Balkano-Carpathian/Balkano-Danubian Cultures. Potential candidates.

 

[Hawk]

One thing i want to add, Serbian archaeologist Draga Garasanin explained in very simple words the chronology of Psenicevo Culture (E-V13).

In the above survey, we have tried to offer, on the basis of the available archaeological material, a picture of the Bronze Age and its cultural and chronological development during the centuries that this important period in prehistory belongs to. The distinction between cultural areas, depends to a great deal on the geographic and topographic character of the land, and indicates the basis for finer distinctions of the written sources that pertain to the Paleobalkan peoples. It is very important, that during the whole Bronze Age a continuity can be followed that extends to the period of transition into the Iron Age. This is characteristic of all the cultural groups of this area, including the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo, which in Oltenia is followed by the Insula Banului group and later the Bassarabi group in these parts and Transylvania (compare also some of the finds from Saraorci near Smederevo). In Thrace at this time we have the appearance of the new group, the so called Psenicevo which kept close contacts with the peoples of the Morava Lands area as can be seen from the finds in the Mediana group. It can also be noticed that the people, who during this period lived in the Morava Lands area took part if only partially in the movements attributed to the so called Aegean Migration. In this manner, the Bronze Age evolves as a very important stage in the process of formation of the Paleobalkan peoples, their ethnogenesis, and the historical events that have left their imprint, in a sense on the historical evolution of the old Balkans. Until now, enough attention has not been paid to this very important period in the ancient history of southeastern Europe except among the small circle of interested specialists. It is the purpose of this exhibition, to try and fulfill this gap, and offer a more understanding picture of this, not too well known period. We shall be very pleased if this exhibition and this short accompanying survey helped in any way to achieve this aim.
https://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/dgarasanin-the_bronze.htm

Psenicevo is ultimately derived from Dubovac Zuto Brdo from Southern Pannonia. And it's closely related to Vatin Culture which falls within the Balkan-Carpathian Complex, pretty sure that many E-V13 subclades were more up North with Gava/Ottomani.

The region of Vojvodina, just like the Morava Lands area, is for the most part related to the Balkano-Carpathian complex. However, on the other hand there are certain factors which are more closely related to the region of Pannonia. Today, in general, in this region we can distinguish two cultural groups: the Vatin group named after the type site at Vatin near Vrsac and the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group after the types sites of Dubovac near Kovin and Zuto Brdo in the village of Vinci near Golubac in Serbia. It must be immediately noted that the characteristics of these groups can be traced in the Serbian region of the Danube Lands, in the same form as in Vojvodina, however they don't extend more south than Central Serbia and the Morava Lands area. The events in Western Serbia, on the basis of the material culture are closely related to Vojvodina, even though the burial rite is different and connected to the west Balkan complex, and shall be treated later in this survey.
The Vatin group has been known in archaeology ever since the beginning of this century. Its typical forms and the extent of its culture are throughout the whole of the Vojvodina, although the main center is however in the Banat, the area nearest to the Carpathians. In question is a typical Middle Bronze Age culture, which has been investigated in settlements such as Vatin and Zidovar. In these settlements the remains of rectangular prehistoric houses have been found built on the surface of the ground. Their shape and form in general, corresponds to similar features that have been noticed in other areas of the Balkano-Carpathian complex. Here, although there are differences in the shapes as well as the ornamentation of objects we can also put the Paracin group. The burial rite consisted of the cremated remains of the deceased being placed in an urn, along with the grave gifts which were arranged around the urn and other different vases, while the metal objects were placed in the urn. However, skeletal burials in an extended position certainly existed. But until now we still have no definite evidence of this, that burial under a tumulus was practised as it was in the west Balkan area. It is evident that what we have here are flat graves, that formed small groups, which on the basis of the available information would lead us to believe that they were the graves of families or small clans.
As is the case with other culture groups of the Bronze Age, the basis for following culture patterns and changes, is the detailed study of the pottery of each group. Very often in the pottery we have the imitation of metallic vessels, a characteristic example of this would be the double handled vase whose handles surpass the rim from Omoljica near Pancevo. Aside from this, characteristic are the single handled vases that surpass the rim, a footed jug, lids with crossed handles, and urns, often with cylindrical necks and curved shoulders and strap handles and lugs on the belly, arranged in a definite order similar to the Paracin Grave 1962-2. There is also a rich variety of handle shapes: the so called ansa lunata, homed and volute types. The decoration on these vases as relatively poor. Of the ornaments present we have sometimes wide flutes, ribbed channels which are arranged horizontally and diagonally. More often we have incised ornaments in the shape of a gar land with spiral terminations. Sometimes on the urns these decorations are done with the aid of a cord. In any case the main esthetic value of this pottery are its proportions, the sharply profiled shapes that certainly imitate original metal shapes. Other art forms such as sculpture and the plastic arts which were so common in the Neolithic period, and which do not exist in the Bronze Age groups of the Morava valley, are somewhat better represented here, especially the animal shaped vases from Vatin, and the well known bird vase from Starcevo, where we also have the remains of a late Vatin phase grave. Today, chronologically it is possible to divide the Vatin group into three phases. This has been accomplished mainly on the basis of the differences of the material from different sites and closed assemblages from graves. At the well known site of Zidovar near Vrsac there exists well differed levels that belong to the Vatin group and other groups of the Metal Age. When this material is published in it entirety it shall no doubt offer us a clearer picture of the situation. The oldest phase of the Vatin group is the so called Pancevo-Omoljica phase named after the type sites in Pancevo and Omoljica. They can be placed at the very beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (according to Reinecke A2/B1) and are characterized generally by the vases that have one or two ansa lunata handles, rarely they are of a developed form. In Pancevo, a small vase with three feet was found, it has been related to the so called Madarovce group of Central Europe, which also belongs to this period. The next phase, the Vatin-Vrsac phase, is actually the classical stage of the Vatin group. During this phase we have many different typical ceramic forms as well as the ones from the previous phase. The inventory of the metal finds from one of the graves from Vatin itself furnishes us with the data necessary to date this phase. The material in question is a characteristic bronze axe and a disc-like shaped headed pin. Finally, we have the large urnfield necropolises, where the urns are decorated by the use of a cord, e.g. Belegis, Surcin, Islands as well as Rospi Cuprija in Belgrade, which all belong to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Also of importance for dating, is the bronze pin with a grooved head from one of the graves from Islands, which is typical of the Bronze C period according to Reinecke. This phase in any case lasts into the next period, and we can therefore count on an uninterrupted evolution till the next phase of transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Although the rite of burial in an urn remained, the decoration of the urns is much different now, especially the use of flutings such as we have in the Grave 1962/2 from Paracin or in Grave 13 from Rospi Cuprija. Here the urn had a somewhat higher neck, a curved fluted shoulder and handles that were covered by bowl. The closest analogy to this type of bowl comes from the graves in Debark near Kragujevac which also belongs to the Late Bronze Age and transition to the Iron Age. The territory where we find the Vatin group, aside from the already mentioned Banat and Serbian Danube Lands area, is Srem, but in a separate variant. The datation of these finds was made possible by the use of the metal objects from the hoards of Lovas and Vukovar, which belong to the Middle Bronze Age. We shall return later in this survey to the West Serbian variant. According to its character the Vatin group, is no doubt to be related to the Balkano-Carpathian complex, characterized by a series of groups that are similar to it chronologically as well as in burial rite and grave goods that are to be found. Such groups would be to Otomani, Verbicioara or Tie in Oltenia, Transylvania, and Wallachia. It is especially interesting to note the position of the west Serbian variant in relation to the Vatin group, which must be given a somewhat different ethnic interpretation.
The Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group is to be found in the Banat and the Serbian Danube Lands area, extending to the east in the Oltenian Danube Lands area and in northwestern Bulgaria - the region of Vidin. Culturally this groups is related to other groups that have a characteristic pottery where the incised ornaments and decoration are filled with a white paste, the so called incrusted ware. This type of pottery is to be found in south and west Pannonia. In essence we can say that we are dealing with the same culture complex within which we have different groups and variants, of which the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo is the richest. On the other hand even here we have local differences, which cannot unfortunately always be evaluated. This group is mainly known from grave finds, while our knowledge of its settlements is very scarce. The best investigated necropolis in Korbovo, indicates that the burial rite was similar to that if the Vatin group and other Urnfield groups of the Bronze Age in the Pannonian and Carpathian regions. Among the ceramic shapes that are current we have urns with high necks, sometimes with a steeped profile, the so called two-storied urns, vases with one or two handles very often with a sharp profile, similar to the Vatin ones. We also have different shaped bowls that were often used as urn lids or covers, and double cups similar to those of the Paracin and Vatin groups. Of special interest is the rich variety of decorations, especially the so called Greek meander which was so often later used in Greek art. We must also mention the bird rattles as well as the rich repertory of figurines and plastic arts which separates the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group from the other groups of the Bronze Age. The typical statuette is one where the figure wears a long wide bell shaped skirt. The appearance of the human figures is very simple although the rich decoration series of sites such as: Vrsac, Korbovo, different sites along the Danube in Serbia incates the use metal jewelry. This type of statuette is well known from a Cirna in Oltenia, Novo Selo in Bulgaria et alibi. The best known and by far the pretties shown example was the so called Idol of Klicevac; it was found in a grave in Klicevac near Pozarevac, unfortunately it was destroyed during World War I. Also important are the two terracotta cult chariots from Dupljaja near Vrsac. On the chariot that is being drawn by some sort of water birds we have a human figure in an upright position dressed in a characteristic skirt common to these groups. On the existing example in the National Museum in Belgrade, we have a male figure dressed in a female's dress. This scene, is definitely connected to the myth of Apollo from Delphi, who lived six months of the year in the land of the Hyperboreans, far to the north and in a fog covered area, which can be related to Pannonia and the Lower Danube area, while the other six months were spent in the sunny Greek world, at the temple in Delphi. If we take, however the information from the ancient myth and that offered by archaeology, and then combine it with the historical information that we have about the earliest period in Greek history on the basis of the archaeological material, we see that just at the time of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age or otherwise known in Greek mythology as the Epoch of the Trojan War, we have a series of events in the material culture (the meander ornament) and in religious conceptions (the Delphic Apollo cult) and other areas that show close connections to the more northern Balkan region. It must be noted here, that in some of the graves from the Kerameikos in Athens, during the period when the material culture of the Greek world- the Protogeometric and Geometric periods - was at its height, we have shapes and objects whose form and method of decoration indicate a close relationship with the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group. On the basis of the above stated it would seem possible to say that the carriers of this culture group from Pannonia a the Carpathians and Danube Lands area played an important role m the Aegean Migration.
The chronological position of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group within the framework of the development of the Bronze Age in southeastern Europe is not open to any doubt. It is certain that it lasts from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age (according to Reinecke's Phases A2/B1 to Phase D). It is very interesting to note that certain Dubovac-Zuto Brdo type objects have been found in urn graves that are typical of the transition period to the Iron Age. One such example is the grave from Paracin or grave 13 from Rospi Cuprija. We also have another example in grave 32 from Cruceni in Romanian Banat. In a historical sense this means that certain elements of this culture group which evolved during the Bronze Age went on to exist after the end of this period, and can be so traced. It is still not clear what the relationship is to the earlier Vatin group. Culturally and historically it is difficult to believe, that these two groups no matter how similar they are to each other (some of the sites are only a few kilometers of each other) could have developed on the same territory next to each other and still retain their own distinct characteristics. Archaeology today, with its recent investigation has offered us definite answers, on the other hand historically these features are difficult to explain. It is evident that this is due to a lack of investigation and that future systematic excavations shall offer us a solution to this problem.

The famous Dupljalja chariot with water birds from Dubovac-Zuto Brdo.

 

[Riverman]

I think this group really contributed to the development of Psenichevo, but I think the other component from the Channelled Ware people was definitely dominant. This is a key quote from the article you posted:

The Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group is to be found in the Banat and the Serbian Danube Lands area, extending to the east in the Oltenian Danube Lands area and in northwestern Bulgaria - the region of Vidin. Culturally this groups is related to other groups that have a characteristic pottery where the incised ornaments and decoration are filled with a white paste, the so called incrusted ware. This type of pottery is to be found in south and west Pannonia. In essence we can say that we are dealing with the same culture complex within which we have different groups and variants, of which the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo is the richest.

Encrusted Pottery being predominantely G2 and I2, and interestingly, the Monteoru samples which are very close to those Encrusted Pottery samples autosomally, and which being mentioned as being part of the wider circle, were G2 and I2 too!

So I really don't see E-V13 being primarily spread from this source, nor Psenichevo being primarily formed by these people. The Channelled Ware influence was crucial and might be even more so genetically, imho.

The new results kind of confirm this. Interestingly, the EIA Thracian samples can be better modelled with HUN_LBA without outliers as a component to the Minoan ancestry than the Monteoru (more Encrusted Pottery-like) or the Mycenaeans (having more Noua-MCW steppe pastoralist ancestry).

 

[Hawk]

There is two ways to explain this, the Gava males butchered the Encrusted Pottery Culture and Hugelgraberkultur down the Danube, the meeting of the three cultures is precisely noted and in Serbian archaeology Gava is considered the responsible culture for the transition from bronze to iron age.

Secondly, E-V13 spread somewhere from Southern Balkan, North-Eastern Greece/Thessaly and mixed with Noua-Sabatinovska/Coslogeni to form Thracians. But, this is quite problematic, extremely problematic to explain. But you never know.

But, i think Vatin, Dubovac Zuto Brdo and Gava/Ottomany were related cultures, sibling ones. They are part of Balkano-Carpathian/Balkano-Danubian complex. Let's see what the final outcome is.

And, i also disagree with Aspar, it's impossible to explain E-V13 as Eastern Balkans Neolithic lineage. First, by modern phylogeny and secondly ancient DNA. Bulgarian Neolithic was rich in G2a. I also saw that Eastern_Balkans Neolithic is consistent but in addition to Pannonian_Carpathian Neolithic.

 

[Oroku Saki]

There is two ways to explain this, the Gava males butchered the Encrusted Pottery Culture and Hugelgraberkultur down the Danube, the meeting of the three cultures is precisely noted and in Serbian archaeology Gava is considered the responsible culture for the transition from bronze to iron age.

Secondly, E-V13 spread somewhere from Southern Balkan, North-Eastern Greece/Thessaly and mixed with Noua-Sabatinovska/Coslogeni to form Thracians. But, this is quite problematic, extremely problematic to explain. But you never know.

But, i think Vatin, Dubovac Zuto Brdo and Gava/Ottomany were related cultures, sibling ones. They are part of Balkano-Carpathian/Balkano-Danubian complex. Let's see what the final outcome is.

Zuto Brdo has nothing to do with V13. Zuto Brdo were just Encrusted Pottery people from Central Hungary who moved to the SE. They were heavily tested and they were not V13.

Vatin also were MBA locals who got erased by the LBA/EIA waves. Vatin is distantly related to both Monteoru and Ulanci group that is with I2a and R1b..

It appears V13 spread this very Southern Minoan like influenced autosomal profile in its Balkan expansion, it is impossible to imagine Enctrusted Pottery WHG heavy profile having any meaningful input to it. So it seems V13 males erased the Enctrusted Pottery people.

it is also impossible to imagine most of Gava samples having contributed to this profile. Except of course the E-L539 LBA Gava sample from NE Hungary which has very low WHG. But V13 in EBA and LBA had a lot more Steppe, but some of their J2a neighbors had extremely low Steppe, they must have mixed with them heavily and crated this EIA profile.

Also Zimnicea-Plovdiv has nothing to do with V13. All of these cultures were related to each other, Vatin, Paracin, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Brnjica, Verbicioara, Monteoru, they were likely all I2a and R1b, and more Northern autosomally.

In fact old low res P192.1 E sample from Svilengrad albeit low res was also like IA Thracians, that old study also had one Zimnicea-Plovdiv sample also more Northern autosomally. Back then authors assumed Northern people invaded and lived in apartheid ruling the E people, but thats not what happened. E invaded and erased the MBA/LBA locals.

East Hungary as also some Maros outliers show and as Pannonian study shows had some very Minoan-like people, carrying J2a in both EBA and LBA.
Their descendant must be also that older J2a Gava sample which had a standard Gava auDNA profile.

 

[Hawk]

Zuto Brdo has nothing to do with V13. Zuto Brdo were just Encrusted Pottery people from Central Hungary who moved to the SE. They were heavily tested and they were not V13.

Vatin also were MBA locals who got erased by the LBA/EIA waves. Vatin is distantly related to both Monteoru and Ulanci group that is with I2a and R1b..

It appears V13 spread this very Southern Minoan like influenced autosomal profile in its Balkan expansion, it is impossible to imagine Enctrusted Pottery WHG heavy profile having any meaningful input to it. So it seems V13 males erased the Enctrusted Pottery people.

it is also impossible to imagine most of Gava samples having contributed to this profile. Except of course the E-L539 LBA Gava sample from NE Hungary which has very low WHG. But V13 in EBA and LBA had a lot more Steppe, but some of their J2a neighbors had extremely low Steppe, they must have mixed with them heavily and crated this EIA profile.

Also Zimnicea-Plovdiv has nothing to do with V13. All of these cultures were related to each other, Vatin, Paracin, Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Brnjica, Verbicioara, Monteoru, they were likely all I2a and R1b, and more Northern autosomally.

In fact old low res P192.1 E sample from Svilengrad albeit low res was also like IA Thracians, that old study also had one Zimnicea-Plovdiv sample also more Northern autosomally. Back then authors assumed Northern people invaded and lived in apartheid ruling the E people, but thats not what happened. E invaded and erased the MBA/LBA locals.

East Hungary as also some Maros outliers show and as Pannonian study shows had some very Minoan-like people, carrying J2a in both EBA and LBA.
Their descendant must be also that older J2a Gava sample which had a standard Gava auDNA profile.

Aspar is proposing Bulgarian/Eastern Balkans Neolithic, i am not trying to dismiss it, but it looks quite hard to believe. What movement can explain the E-V13 in Central Balkans among Moesi among Dacians, there was not such a thing from South to North. Archaeological records are clear. It might be the explanation you are giving.

 

[Hawk]

Also, it's not entirely true that Vatin, Dubovac Zuto Brdo are entirely Encrusted Pottery descended, they received an influx of migrants from Transdanubia from Encrusted Pottery people Esztergom group when they ran away from Hugelgraber warriors, but they mixed with native elements and Vatin along with Verbicoara is considered native, and this native element was usually part of Balkan-Carpathian Complex which Gava/Ottomany is Northern variant of.

 

[1337_]

Insula Banului, Psenicevo, Babadag, Zimnicea-Plovdiv all the inter-related stamped/groomped pottery cultures also known as Thracian Hallstatt or Proto-Thracian is confirmed E-V13.

Now what's left is to confirm Gava/Belegis-Gava who was closely related with stamped/groomped culture Eastern Hallstatt, very likely we will end up with cultures like Mysians, some of the Middle Danubian Urnfielders, Triballi, Dardanii and potentially the progenitor of Proto-Albanian.

Probably from Bronze to Iron Age some Pre/Proto-Albanoid came down with Balkano-Carpathian/Balkano-Danubian Cultures. Potential candidates.

What makes you neccessarily think that EV-13 is Proto-Albanian ? What about R1b and J2b2 ?

Also that first map is kind of nonsense as there is nothing to suggest Eastern Serbia or Western Bulgaria was any kind of homeland yet it's funny it has left out Western parts of Kosovo 'Rrafshi i Dukagjinit' which is exactly where Albanians appear

If anything, I like Noel Malcolm's explanation better for this:

[FONT=&quot]The main area of the Balkan interior where a Latin-speaking population may have continued, in both towns and country, after the Slav invasion, has already been mentioned: it included the upper Morava valley, northern Macedonia, and the whole of Kosovo. It is, therefore, in the uplands of the Kosovo area (particularly, but not only, on the western side, including parts of Montenegro) that this Albanian-Vlach symbiosis probably developed. [71] All the evidence comes together at this point. What it suggests is that the Kosovo region, together with at least part of northern Albania, was the crucial focus of two distinct but interlinked ethnic histories: the survival of the Albanians, and the emergence of the Romanians and Vlachs. One large group of Vlachs seems to have broken away and moved southwards by the ninth or tenth century; the proto-Romanians stayed in contact with Albanians significantly longer, before drifting north-eastwards, and crossing the Danube in the twelfth century. [72][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Having reached these conclusions, it may be possible, finally, to draw some further implications from them that point back to a much earlier period of Kosovo's history. The point is a very simple one. If Albanian-speakers were able to live in this area without losing their language during the period from the sixth century to the twelfth, is there any reason to think that they could not have been there in the previous six centuries or more? The Roman province of Dardania contained some Roman towns and several large estates, but it was far from being utterly and homogeneously Romanized: frequent Roman references to Dardanian bandits and robbers, and the presence of many forts and watch-towers, suggest that it was never completely under control. [73] References to Dardanian cheese, a famous and widely exported product, also testify to a large shepherding population. [74] And if the shepherds in the hills were speaking proto-Albanian, then perhaps that is what the ordinary Dardanians had spoken in the valleys too, before the Romans came. This is more a speculation than a conclusion; and it is not meant to exclude other areas in the Albanian (or Montenegrin) mountains further to the west, given that 'Dardania' was, essentially, a tribal division, not a linguistic one. Once again it must be emphasized that such ancient history can have no implications for modern politics. Nevertheless, the idea that the Illyrian Dardanians were ancestors of the Albanians may be of some sentimental interest to Kosovo Albanians today.[/FONT]

 

[mount123]

What makes you neccessarily think that EV-13 is Proto-Albanian ? What about R1b and J2b2 ?

Also that first map is kind of nonsense as there is nothing to suggest Eastern Serbia or Western Bulgaria was any kind of homeland yet it's funny it has left out Western parts of Kosovo 'Rrafshi i Dukagjinit' which is exactly where Albanians appear

If anything, I like Noel Malcolm's explanation better for this:

J2b-L283 is Proto-Illyrian. The Albanian genome is made up of different sorts of people mainly a fusion of Thracians, Central Balkanites and Illyrians. It is delusional to assume that Albanians who in general, neglecting regional differences here, are dominated by E1b-V13 and claim that these folks and/or R1b-Z2103 Bryges/Paeonians did not leave their mark on our autosomal DNA, 1337/xz1333.

 

[1337_]

J2b-L283 is Proto-Illyrian. The Albanian genome is made up of different sorts of people mainly a fusion of Thracians, Central Balkanites and Illyrians. It is delusional to assume that Albanians who in general, neglecting regional differences here, are dominated by E1b-V13 and claim that these folks and/or R1b-Z2103 Bryges/Paeonians did not leave their mark on our autosomal DNA, 1337/xz1333.

We are not talking about different groups that were assimilated here but Proto-Albanians would be the ones that carried the Albanian language, irrelevant how many foreigners were assimilated. Where is the evidence it was EV-13 that was proto-Albanian ?

Since we are talking about mark on Autosomal DNA, samples from Western Balkans match many Albanians pretty well actually. EV-13 could simply be the result of a bottle neck effect or some Latin refugees that were assimilated during the Slavic incursion. The author I quoted above, Noel Malcolm, claims many Vlachs were assimilated and some Slavs too into the Albanian ethnicity.

EV-13 bottleneck effect has occurred all across the Balkans where it the most dominant pre-Slavic Y-DNA today. There seems to of been a bottle neck effect in autosomal clustering too unless there was a lot of movement during the Roman/Byzantine Period within the Balkans that replaced former populations.

EV-13 is barely the most dominant, by few % . I am not sure what makes you think R1b-Z2103 was Bryges or Paeonian specifically. Wasn't it also found in Croatia and Northern Albania ?

 

[Riverman]

Also, it's not entirely true that Vatin, Dubovac Zuto Brdo are entirely Encrusted Pottery descended, they received an influx of migrants from Transdanubia from Encrusted Pottery people Esztergom group when they ran away from Hugelgraber warriors, but they mixed with native elements and Vatin along with Verbicoara is considered native, and this native element was usually part of Balkan-Carpathian Complex which Gava/Ottomany is Northern variant of.

But we see this block emerging, directly North of the Cetina/Posusje-Dinaric Illyrians which expanded East also, from Central Hungary East towards Monteoru, they are practically one big Encrusted Pottery block. It makes little sense that a culturally very close formation, living in between, would be all so different.

More likely is that there was a third block, directly to their North, which is basically Suciu de Sus and possibly to some degree also Wietenberg, from which E-V13 descended down.

As for the proposed South Eastern origin: Critical is the Psenichevo - Basarabi connection, which is real. But even more important is how earlier Iron Age Thracians looked like and smaples from Babadag. And even more what exact profile Basarabi had and which exact profile a larger number of G?va would yield to us.

However, that Basarabi and Psenichevo being among the most important E-V13 cultures at hand is without doubt. Basarabi in particular did infiltrate-influence with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon predecessors and itself early (Eastern) Hallstatt. Take Fr?g as an example, which shows so many Thracian features. That would allow a more Northern spread of E-V13 from Basarabi, but at a fairly later date. I still prefer G?va obviously, but Psenichevo and Basarabi are proven key cultures.

 

[mount123]

We are not talking about different groups that were assimilated here but Proto-Albanians would be the ones that carried the Albanian language, irrelevant how many foreigners were assimilated. Where is the evidence it was EV-13 that was proto-Albanian ?

Since we are talking about mark on Autosomal DNA, samples from Western Balkans match many Albanians pretty well actually. EV-13 could simply be the result of a bottle neck effect or some Latin refugees that were assimilated during the Slavic incursion. EV-13 bottleneck effect has occurred all across the Balkans where it the most dominant pre-Slavic Y-DNA today. There seems to of been a bottle neck effect in autosomal clustering too unless there was a lot of movement during the Roman/Byzantine Period within the Balkans that replaced former populations.

EV-13 is barely the most dominant, by few % . I am not sure what makes you think R1b-Z2103 was Bryges or Paeonian specifically. Wasn't it also found in Croatia and Northern Albania ?

They don't. Some Albanians clearly have more auDNA from Illyrians some less, it varies greatly. I too am part of those with a slightly more "Western" auDNA profile, but still also have other components as do all of us. There clearly is Illyrian patrilineage (J2b-L283) and autosomal survival in Albanians, I am not arguing that. But that is just one puzzle piece of the greater picture.

Your theories regarding E1b-V13 have no scientific basis, better stick to the scientific data in this regard.

No, R1b-Z2103 wasn't found in East Adriatic Croatia or Montenegro but in the North West of Albania bordering Paeonian territory (also in East Slavonia, bordering Hungary and Serbia too but that is a completely different culture). North Macedonian IA results are rich in R1b-Z2103.

 

[Hawk]

But we see this block emerging, directly North of the Cetina/Posusje-Dinaric Illyrians which expanded East also, from Central Hungary East towards Monteoru, they are practically one big Encrusted Pottery block. It makes little sense that a culturally very close formation, living in between, would be all so different.

More likely is that there was a third block, directly to their North, which is basically Suciu de Sus and possibly to some degree also Wietenberg, from which E-V13 descended down.

As for the proposed South Eastern origin: Critical is the Psenichevo - Basarabi connection, which is real. But even more important is how earlier Iron Age Thracians looked like and smaples from Babadag. And even more what exact profile Basarabi had and which exact profile a larger number of G�va would yield to us.

However, that Basarabi and Psenichevo being among the most important E-V13 cultures at hand is without doubt. Basarabi in particular did infiltrate-influence with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon predecessors and itself early (Eastern) Hallstatt. Take Fr�g as an example, which shows so many Thracian features. That would allow a more Northern spread of E-V13 from Basarabi, but at a fairly later date. I still prefer G�va obviously, but Psenichevo and Basarabi are proven key cultures.

The Cruceni-Belegiš culture was considered to be, initially, the result of a long life together and cultural interpenetration of Periam-Pecica, Otomani and Gârla Mare type, on the Vatina culture background13. The recent investigations have brought significant contributions concerning the origin of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture and its début moment. The Cruceni-Belegiš culture was formed on the basis of a mixture of elements of Litzenkeramik type belonging to the Gumtransdorf-Drassburg group14 and inlayed ceramics of Szeremle type, dislocated by the pressure of the communities of the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from Central Europe. That mixture was grafted on the local background of Vatina type

Partly contemporary to the new Cruceni-Belegiš culture with which it was contiguous in south, the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from the Pannonian Plain would contribute to the completion of this culture. Beside the tumular influences, we have to remind those that come from the Urnfield area with which the Cruceni-Belegiš culture got contemporary. The contacts with the Zagreb23 and Csorva24 groups - considered also the southern vanguard of the Gava25 culture - followed after the first contact with Virovitica group.
Partly contemporary to the new Cruceni-Belegiš culture with which it
was contiguous in south, the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from the
Pannonian Plain would contribute to the completion of this culture. Beside
the tumular influences, we have to remind those that come from the
Urnfield area with which the Cruceni-Belegiš culture got contemporary.
The contacts with the Zagreb23 and Csorva24 groups - considered also the
southern vanguard of the Gava25 culture - followed after the first contact
with Virovitica group.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Culture_with_the_Zuto_Brdo-Garla_Mare_Culture

Not trying to insist, but Vatin is considered native South Pannonian, and it's quite clear that these Transdanubian newcomers came and seeked refugee among them, running away from Tumulus warriors, the Vatin northern cousin Gava came on top of all of them latter: Tumulus, Vatin, Encrusted Pottery Culture. It was a real mess.

 

[Oroku Saki]

Aspar is proposing Bulgarian/Eastern Balkans Neolithic, i am not trying to dismiss it, but it looks quite hard to believe. What movement can explain the E-V13 in Central Balkans among Moesi among Dacians, there was not such a thing from South to North. Archaeological records are clear. It might be the explanation you are giving.

Bulgarian/Eastern Balkans Neolithic is bit silly. MBA Bulgaria had R-Z93, 100 % CWC/Andronovo but cultural cousin to Zimnicea-Plovdiv actually. Old LBA sample was more northern too as I said. Only if the Pannonian study samples are E-V22 or E-V12, which they won't be. And plus EBA V13 has 39 % of Yamnaya while LBA has 47 % of Yamnaya. Yet Kapitan Andreevo has much less. That is very unusual, hence various explanations and questions. But the true explanation is the EBA J2a from E.Hungary with 13 % of Yamnaya and 87 % of EEF and a LBA J2a from NE Hungary with 18 % of Steppe and 82 % of EEF (+CHG).

Very Southern populations existed in EBA-LBA E.Hungary, and likely more to the East. Gava J2a with just 18 % of Yamnaya..

 

[Hawk]

Bulgarian/Eastern Balkans Neolithic is bit silly. MBA Bulgaria had R-Z93, 100 % CWC/Andronovo but cultural cousin to Zimnicea-Plovdiv actually. Old LBA sample was more northern too as I said. Only if the Pannonian study samples are E-V22 or E-V12, which they won't be. And plus EBA V13 has 39 % of Yamnaya while LBA has 47 % of Yamnaya. Yet Kapitan Andreevo has much less. That is very unusual, hence various explanations and questions. But the true explanation is the EBA J2a from E.Hungary with 13 % of Yamnaya and 87 % of EEF and a LBA J2a from NE Hungary with 18 % of Steppe and 82 % of EEF.

Very Southern populations in existed in EBA-LBA E.Hungary, and likely more to the East.

I agree, one must not forget the various Tell Cultures in Pannonian_Carpathian basin were the last Neolithic people of Europe still resisting the IE newcomers, even the original Etruscans are believed to come from Urnfield cultures of these varieties. One of Tell Cultures or some West-Carpathian/East Alpine spinoff.