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

[mount123]

Quite dope. So Kamenica was packed with R1b. Time and time again, the region looks very patriarchal in nature. It is interesting that in Maros both Z2103 and L283 are found together, yet a couple of kilometers apart in Montenegro/Albania we have exclusive R1b or exclusive L283 burials.

Maros has yielded solely one J2b-L283 and not just any clade but Z615. One sample doesn't make an archaeogenetic spring. The majority of the paternal distribution is made of Yamnayan R1b-Z2103 and Neolithic I lineages. The chronology and links you are seeing to Matt-Painted Ware, Kuc a. Zi culture are where exactly backed up by archeologists? Leaving aside the connection through Balkan Post-Yamnayan dispersal of course. Cultural exchange and population mobility between neighbouring populations is far from being a rarity so lineages of xyz culture will be found in neighbouring xyz culture throught different time spans. In one more often than in another time frame.

The aDNA territory of EBA-MBA-EIA-IA-CE for J2b-L283 is well defined and not just the result of "only because they were patriarchal otherwise there would be also a lot more other stuff" "they shouldn't be above the percentage observed in Cinamak (the southeastern most extension etc. etc.)"

The reason why MBA Ulanci, Matt-Painted Ware, Brnjica, Paracin have a different homogenous patrilineage is because they are a different cultural horizon. There are intermediary regions and Albania is not home to just one cultural complex.

 

[Riverman]

history states that the Scordisci-celts subjugated the thracian Triballi neighbours ..............I though I already linked the article

That's what I meant, but the point is we know they took local allies and the locals did persist in many places in the archaeological record. So unlike in some other regions, the Scordisci were more of a tribal alliance with a core of Celtic warriors, but many locals might have been involved later and their territory is unlikely to have been very Celtic dominated genetically - or at least that is what it looks like now. It will depend on the cemetery and those which cremated with local pottery influences are more likely to have been E-V13 Daco-Thracians obviously.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Iron Age Serbia:

7 E-V13 (0 if Bulgaria is included)
0 J2b-L283
2 J2a
2 R-Z2103
2-3 R-M269
2 R-xM269
1 G2a
3 R-L51 (one in southern Arc, 2 new)
1 I1
1-2 R1a-Z93 (2 if Bulgaria is excluded)
1 I2-L621
3 other (0 if Bulgaria E-M78s are included)

Bronze Age Serbia:

1 E-V13
1 J2b-L283 (Mokrin/Maros, 0 new)
13 R-Z2103 (includes 5 from Mokrin/Maros, 8 new)
11 R-M269
0 R1b(xM269)
1 R-L51 (Mokrin/Maros, 0 new)
9 J2a
0 G2a
2 I-L621
2 R1a-Z283
2 R1a-Z93
2 I2-M436 (Mokrin/Maros and Iron Gates, 0 new)
1 R1b (xM269)

and about 13 other, 4 of these are I2(M423) from Mokrin, and 2 of these are BT, also from Mokrin. That leaves 7 unknown haplogroups.

G2a tally looks out of wack, but they are excluding the Vucedol ones, considering them neolithic, including BA Greece, but excluding Minoan. It's the only way the math works.

From this I conclude that Z-2103 was mixed in Mokrin with haplogroup I2, and mixed in Bubanj with J2a, while in-between was a more purer reservoir for Z-2103.

The E-V13 is probably LBA, Belegis II, hard to know without any context given for the samples. We will just have to wait for the data.

An important update: Through some inside knowledge relayed to me, my Serbia numbers will not work. And through the help of a arrogant mole I know why.

How - but we'll also find more than a few R-PF7562+ samples in the Lalueza-Fox study in the BA Balkans to the north of Albania. translates only to BA Serbia in the minds of some people is mind-boggling.

Fox is working on a separate paper that deals with BA samples throughout the Balkans. His presentation graph contains data from this other unknown study which includes more than just Serbia. I suspect it is the following countries based on the numbers I backed into Montenegro-Serbia-MKD. The coming Serbian paper will not have aDNA from this period, it looks like the BA data will be part of a separate paper.

 

[Southpaw]

There is something which interests me, Thracian dolmens are quite unique in Balkans not attested by others.

The period for dolmen construction coincides with theend of the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, fromc. 1200 BC to c. 500 BC, when we can properly talkof Thracian tribes. We do not have written Thraciansources, and must rely on the written accounts byGreek historians (notably Herodotus), who by the endof this period describes the Persian Campaigns and thepeoples they encountered in their conquest (the Thracians among them).After the foundation of Greek colonies on the coasts ofthe Black Sea and the retreat of the Persian forces, theOdrisian Kingdom appears as a true Thracian kingdomclosely interacting with the Greek world, with mutualbeneficial influences. By the middle of the first century BC the Thracian kingdom was incorporated intothe Roman Empire (Velkov et al. 1985; Fol and Fol2005).

This Turkish Professor says they are cult to mother godesses.

“It is a type of monument that is connected with the mother goddess cult,” he said.
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/s...dolmens-show-similarity-professor-says-149813

Dolmens, grave pits, cremation on tumuli, inhumation on Thracian tumuli. These are variants of Thracian material culture.

 

[Riverman]

Dolmens, grave pits, cremation on tumuli, inhumation on Thracian tumuli. These are variants of Thracian material culture.

The Southern Thracians in particular are culturally clearly the result of a fusion of different groups and influences, no doubt about that. Do you know how far to the North the dolmens spread?

 

[Southpaw]

The Southern Thracians in particular are culturally clearly the result of a fusion of different groups and influences, no doubt about that. Do you know how far to the North the dolmens spread?

One rare case in Eastern Carpathians (very dubious source), and closest regionally to Balkans would be Apuglian/Messapian Dolmens, they appear there at the same time 1200-1000 B.C as well but IDK if they are connected with Thracian dolmens somehow.

Looks like it was concentrated heavily among Thracians bordering Bulgaria/Turkey/Greece modern borders.

 

[Southpaw]

More about this:

The Thracians built structures such as dolmens and false cupola tombs possibly related to their cults and funerary rites. The orientations of the Thracian dolmens fulfill two conditions: First, they point toward mountaintops, where there are often rock sanctuaries; second, the prevailing orientation of the dolmens is toward southwest. In that direction, at the time of construction (ca. 1000 BC), one could observe the setting of the Southern Cross and Pointers (α and β Cen). These stars formed part of the Centaurus constellation in antiquity. An important motif of Thracian art, often linked to the Thracian religion, is the figure of the Horse Rider as an alter ego of the king or the Sun god. Thus, the dolmen entrance would be facing the setting of Centaurus (perhaps the Horse Rider) behind a mountain (perhaps the Goddess).

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015hae..book.1395G/abstract

 

[Riverman]

One rare case in Eastern Carpathians (very dubious source), and closest regionally to Balkans would be Apuglian/Messapian Dolmens, they appear there at the same time 1200-1000 B.C as well but IDK if they are connected with Thracian dolmens somehow.

Looks like it was concentrated heavily among Thracians bordering Bulgaria/Turkey/Greece modern borders.

Ok, because if so, it might be considered a very regionalised phenomenon and not a Daco-Thracian/Thracian group one. If it would have reached or even crossed the Danube, that would be significant.

 

[Southpaw]

Ok, because if so, it might be considered a very regionalised phenomenon and not a Daco-Thracian/Thracian group one. If it would have reached or even crossed the Danube, that would be significant.

It's quite restricted to Eastern Rhodope. Somehow i even suspect they might be even remnants of previous Phrygian-like people who mixed with Daco-Thracian groups.

 

[mount123]

Not really much to do with Bronze and Iron Age Balkans but nonetheless might entail some Balkan descent patrilineal samples, unless these Roman legionary camps are made of solely Western/Central European or MENA males. They talk about two different ancestral backgrounds but that most of the ones tested from each location share the same ancestry. Shared on blogger.

Demographic transitions?
- Archaeogenetic analyses of late antique and early medieval cemeteries from the Rhineland -

The transition from late antiquity to the early medieval period in central Europe has long been a research focus in historical and archaeological sciences. Particularly, whether the observed political and cultural changes are accompanied by demographic changes, remains elusive. Here, we study ancient DNA from multiple cemeteries in the Rhineland spanning the period from 300 to 800 AD, including the transition point at 450 AD. We analyse burials from late Roman military contexts, Bonn and Jülich, and those from local population cemeteries, especially Alt-Inden. We benefit from precise archaeological dating to correlate our genetic results and view them as a high-resolution time-series in the time span before and after 450 AD.
First, we find evidence of different ancestry backgrounds between the legionary camps, suggesting that the camps were comprised of people from a similar region, but this origin was different between the two sites. Second we observe signals of ancestry shifts through time in both the legionary burials as well as the local cemeteries, which we interpret as the result of migration into the region. Last, we find haplotype sharing indicative of close familial relationships between Jülich and Alt-Inden, whereas the individuals from Bonn show no relatedness to any other site that we studied. In conclusion, our study provides a new high resolution temporal and spatial insight into the demographic patterns of the transition time between late antiquity and early middle ages in the Rhine region.

Also rather interesting is the three upcoming papers on Avars. Not really sure why these people seem to be of particular interest when there is so much more interesting missing dots in actual ancient BCE (CA, BA, IA) Balkans, Carpathians, North West Black Sea adjacent Pontic Caspian steppe regions.

 

[Riverman]

Also rather interesting is the three upcoming papers on Avars. Not really sure why these people seem to be of particular interest when there is so much more interesting missing dots in actual ancient BCE (CA, BA, IA) Balkans, Carpathians, North West Black Sea adjacent Pontic Caspian steppe regions.

There are really a lot, a lot of easy to detect and well preserved Avar cemeteries around. If you compare that with the situation with the e.g. Dacians, its incomparable. You barely get any strictly regular, well preserved Dacian local burial. A lot depends on the burial rites.
Another issue is the "Avar mystery" and their obviously mixed and multi-ethnic composition.
So even if the very active Hungarian teams would search desperately for Daco-Thracian burials, they would have a much harder time than with Avars. And the good cooperation and ancient DNA friendly attitude of the Hungarians needs to be considered as well.

Anyway, that the E1b1b from the Bronze Age and Nitra samples being still not released is a real shame, since they were done and its now years ago, YEARS that it was done.

 

[Southpaw]

It's interesting how La Tene Hallstatt/Eastern Hallstatt is almost used as synonym for Stamped Pottery Culture.

[COLOR=var(--nova-color-grey-800)]In the focus of this paper stands a characteristic decorative element of the Late Iron Age, associated with the La Tène material culture of Central and Eastern Europe, the stamped motif in shape of the so-called lyre. Its important role − both in form of a simple or double ‘S’ − on the development of early Celtic art was already underlined by several authors, reflecting on the correlation between the motifs of the early La Tène metal works and the one discovered on ceramics as well. Lately, a comprehensive work concerning the lyre stamps discovered on pottery was published, highlighting its distribution mostly in the eastern and central part of Europe. Their supposed prevalence in funerary contexts has been slightly changed since recent finds have turned up exclusively in settlement-related features.[/COLOR]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329802045_Late_Iron_Age_Double-Lyre_Stamped_Pottery_from_the_Mures_Valley_Transylvania_IN_Berecki_S_et_al_eds_Iron_Age_Connectivity_in_the_Carpathian_Basin_BMM_sa_XVI_Mega_2018_197-241

One of defining ritual burial for them is cremation on pits with instances of inhumation on pits, the latter became more common for Stamped Pottery Southern spinoffs during EIA like Psenicevo where we found E-V13.

Grave no. 17

The rite is cremation, with the remains placed into a pit. The inventory consists of the panoply of weapons (sword, spear head and shield-boss, all made of iron), two iron knives and four ceramic vessels. Two of them have a stamped decoration. The grave is dated to the LT C1.

Grave no. 28


The rite is cremation, with the remains placed into a pit. The inventory consists of the panoply of weapons (sword, spear head and shield-boss, all made of iron), a bronze brooch

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Carpathian_Basin_BMM_sa_XVI_Mega_2018_197-241

 

[mount123]

There are really a lot, a lot of easy to detect and well preserved Avar cemeteries around. If you compare that with the situation with the e.g. Dacians, its incomparable. You barely get any strictly regular, well preserved Dacian local burial. A lot depends on the burial rites.
Another issue is the "Avar mystery" and their obviously mixed and multi-ethnic composition.
So even if the very active Hungarian teams would search desperately for Daco-Thracian burials, they would have a much harder time than with Avars. And the good cooperation and ancient DNA friendly attitude of the Hungarians needs to be considered as well.

Anyway, that the E1b1b from the Bronze Age and Nitra samples being still not released is a real shame, since they were done and its now years ago, YEARS that it was done.

I mean that bolded part definitely plays a very important role in the presence/absence of active archaeogenetic research in certain areas of the Carpatho-Balkans.

The difference regarding the situation of the burial context between Avar burials and that of Daco-Thracians surely looks better for the former. The same, however, cannot be said when it comes to many other pre-Slavic Carpathian or Balkan people who are just as good to sample.

If I am not mistaken the abstract of an upcoming paper on Nitra was also shared, so perhaps this year is the year.

 

[Southpaw]

So, i have been a bit curious on Bronze Age situation in Bulgaria and according to this paper it is divided by 4 archaeological sites, NW Bulgaria inhabited by Magura-Cotofeni culture, NE-Bulgaria Cernavoda III-II/Ezerovo, Upper Thrace with Ezero/Yunatsite and South-West Bulgaria.

It is of my opinion that E-V13 originates among Magura-Cotofeni Culture because NW-Bulgaria and nearby is from where the Hallstattian Psenicevo-Insula Banului-Babadag originated from, they pushed their boundaries during LBA-EIA, during Bronze Age E-V13 was missing in Upper Thrace. The so called Thracian pits during Early Iron Age are owerhelming E-V13, the pits were one of the signature of material culture of these Eastern Hallstattian Cultures. It is also in this region (Magura-Cotofeni) where we see the trademark Dacian burial ritual cremation on tumuli where it was practiced.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3495

I also think Noua-Sabatinovaska-Coslogeni was a contributor to E-V13 spread, the LBA ritual pits in Crnavoda/Constanca are usually attributed to Coslogeni communities. It would be certainly interesting to infer the relationship between Bronze to these Eastern Hallstattian Cultures usually also divided into Channeled-Ware in the north and Stamped Pottery in South.

D.Kushtan in this abstract hints that Eastern Hallstattt or Hallstattisation process should be connected with Proto-Thracians, or Thracianization of this part of South-East Europe.

The most intensive cultural links between the Crimean population,represented with Belozerka culture sites, and population of the Carpathian andDanube region, represented with the Early Hallstatt cultures, are indicated forthe final stage of the Late Bronze Age (XII-X cent. BC). These cultural links areindicated by the Early Hallstatt table pottery in the Crimean ceramic complexes:Burun-Eli, Bay-Kiyat, Lugovoe, Fontany. Ceramics of the Eastern Hallstatt cultures (Gava-Holigrady, Chişinǎu-Corlǎteni, Pre-Babadag) is represented withbowls, goblets, scoops decorated with incised lines, flutes, traces of the stamp,reliefs. Ceramics of the Gava-Holigrady and Babadag cutlers that was found inthe oldest period of the Kizil-Koba cultures at the Western Crimea represents thetransition from Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age: Druzhnoe-2, Uch-Bash,Martynovskaya Balka, Sakharnaya Golovka.

The “Hallstattisation” process wasfollowed by the spreading of the ground burials in Crimea as well as in all theEastern Europe.Cultural links between the inhabitants of Carpathian and Danube regionand Crimea were possible because of the North Pontic tribes. We could notexclude direct connections through the Black Sea as well. The Black Searegression is indicated for this time period. The lower sea level at the bank of theBlack Sea, including Karkinit Bay, made possible the overland and sea ways inthe shortest direction, straight out.

http://www.uispp30commission.net4u.ro/images/stories/2013/12th Congress of Thracology_2013.pdf

 

[Riverman]

About Sabatinovka, they were essentially Iranian-like and clearly of a different physical and genetic type originally, we have the remaines analysed genetically and physically, and both points to nearly "pure steppe" pastoralist people, dominated by R-Z93. However, they mixed with locals, like Wietenberg and Monteoru in particular, and its from the first, from Wietenberg and other cremating Carpatho-Balkan groups nearby from which they might got some E-V13 too over time. Their role was rather to eliminate the older layer of areas like South Eastern Romania and Bulgaria. They rather degraded the region, like other pastoralist groups did.
When Channelled Ware groups came, they kind of regrouped and resettled many regions they controlled before, picking locals up on the way.

 

[Southpaw]

About Sabatinovka, they were essentially Iranian-like and clearly of a different physical and genetic type originally, we have the remaines analysed genetically and physically, and both points to nearly "pure steppe" pastoralist people, dominated by R-Z93. However, they mixed with locals, like Wietenberg and Monteoru in particular, and its from the first, from Wietenberg and other cremating Carpatho-Balkan groups nearby from which they might got some E-V13 too over time. Their role was rather to eliminate the older layer of areas like South Eastern Romania and Bulgaria. They rather degraded the region, like other pastoralist groups did.
When Channelled Ware groups came, they kind of regrouped and resettled many regions they controlled before, picking locals up on the way.

Beyond Late Bronze Age Cultures, it becomes a bit blurry regarding relationships.

 

[Riverman]

Beyond Late Bronze Age Cultures, it becomes a bit blurry regarding relationships.

The main reason for this is that everything got eaten up and unified by Channelled Ware, all the older layers transform into Channelled Ware, G?va-related groups. The question is just how much genetic regional continuity was there vs. replacement events. But considering that E-V13 grew that large exactly in that time frame, even if we can't be sure from which exact region it started, we have to associate it with this phenomenon of cremating and channelled pottery using, Urnfield-related groups in any case. All of the G?va-sphere or a specific subgroup, which led to post-Psenichevo and Basarabi, that's the main open question.

 

[Southpaw]

I came across this image of what rafc is proposing for LBA/EIA E-V13 spread. I think he reasons well based on the data we have, it's a valid reasoning,

I still think that taking Maros or some WHG-rich folks as the norm on Balkan-Carpathian sphere is not valid, there were various different people and most of those folks were Encrusted Pottery people who were pushed by Tumulus warriors further East.

Nevertheless, i think that E-V13 surviving in Haemus-Rhodope mountains (these mountain chains have the highest mountain peak in whole Balkans like Rila, so we are talking about quite a mountainous area) and spreading during LBA-EIA wouldn't surprise me, perhaps they adopted some Eastern Urnfield ways and hence the confusion why these cultures Psenicevo-Babadag are considered as Early/Eastern Hallstattian.

But, i just realize that he is probably basing his model not only on autosomal aDNA but also because of this:

The recent publication of the 14C from Thrace indicates quite clearly an earlier chronological interval,
from the end of the 12th century BC, for the appearance of the stamped pottery in the Eastern Rhodopes
(Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2018). Based on archaeological research in this area, a certain model of the
appearance of the stamped pottery in South-Eastern Thrace can be proposed, based on the decorative
motifs specific to the Late Bronze Age (Nikov 2016; Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2018). Starting from these
new arguments, at present we can sketch a spreading model from south to north, along the Black Sea
coastline or through the Balkan mountain passes, towards the Danube and then the Prut and the Dniestr,
the imports being registered in the archaeological record as far as the Dniepr and even beyond (Гершкович
2016).

As could be noticed, in less than a century this pottery decoration fashion spread all over the area
studied, this situation showing the speed with which this ceramic tradition covered a vast territory. If at
Troy the coarse ware is associated with the arrival of a new population of Balkan origin, a fact attested to
by chemical analyses (Guzowska et al. 2002; Pintér 2005; Aslan and Hnila 2015; Hnila 2012), in the
Carpathian-Balkan space this style seems to have spread quite rapidly through several communication
routes, following the Black Sea coast or the passes of the Balkan Mountains – Danube – Prut – Dniestr –
Dniepr, as the mapping of the finds indicates (Fig. 1).

The existence of this horizon with incised and stamped pottery contrasts to a certain degree with the
horizon with channelled pottery, with which it co-exists and interferes during the 10th-9th centuries BC.
The interesting fact is that this contrast is preserved also in many other domains of material and spiritual
manifestation, in the funerary rites and rituals, settlement types, metallurgy, clay objects, metal deposition
etc. These observations make us believe that the choices of those communities were not random, but
based on a series of shared values and beliefs facilitating an increased interaction. In our opinion, this
increased interaction contributed to the creation of such homogenous pottery styles (Plog 1980) over such
vast areas, as well as to the circulation of ideas, techniques and objects in the entire Carpathian-Balkan
space. Proof of this are the numerous existing contacts both with the Aegean and Western Anatolia, and
the intra-Carpathian and North-Pontic areas. This tendency to adopting and level a ceramic style over such
a large space is preserved and even amplified later, with the appearance of the Basarabi phenomenon, which
coincides both with the creation of a new symbolism and the generalisation of iron metallurgy in the
Carpathian-Balkan area.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342282046_Early_Iron_Age_Stamped_Pottery_in_Southeastern_Europe_Analysis_Chronology_and_Interpretation

At this stage, i must admit his model is more convincing. My other choice is that the Western E-V13 clades he thinks need an explanation, is that channeled-ware actually represent a distant cousin of stamped. By the end of the day incised, stamped and channeled are considered part of ornamented technique which was more or less spread over. This is hard to tackle so, let's see when we have more data...

A newer paper shared from the same author of the above research , 2023...

The 14C data obtained from the settlement
from Babadag sustain in a certain degree some
theories regarding the apparition of the stam-
ped pottery in the Lower Danube region. First,
it should be emphasised that there are enough
indicia on a possible existence of the Coslogeni
culture during the 11th century BC, based both
on the chronological data from Durankulak and
on the dating of certain metal objects, such as
the brooch with one spring from Coslogeni.27
Secondly, as we mentioned in previous occasi-
ons, the sites belonging to the Babadag culture
were preceded, at least for the eastern part of
Muntenia, by sites with channelled pottery, of
Gáva tradition.28 These observations are further
sustained by the settlement from Vlădeşti–Popi-
na Lată (found in the area of the Babadag cul-
ture, but without containing stamped pottery),
the stratigraphy of the settlement from Cândeşti,
the stratigraphy of the necropolis from Sborya-
novo, and other nds from Bulgaria. In the same
time, in the southern part of Moldova, between

the end of the Noua culture and the apparition in
this area of the Babadag culture, there are inter-
posed other cultural manifestations. In this situ-
ation are both the Corlăteni group (the stratigra-
phy from Cândeşti), present in the area from the
12th century BC, and a horizon characterised by
incised pottery, represented until now by the
settlement from Tămăoani and the necropolis
from Folteşti (possibly dated to the 11th century
BC – the Belozerka culture). In these conditions
there are still some question marks regarding the
duration, spatial evolution and succession of se-
veral pottery styles from the Lower Danube in
the interval preceding the Babadag style.

As the 14C data known so far and other ele-
ments of absolute chronology indicate, we can
date the Babadag culture to the 10th-9th century
BC, a chronological frame to which are also at-
tributed in general the other groups with stam-
ped pottery. The presence of the stamped and
incised decorations at the beginning of the Ear-
ly Iron Age in SE Europe should be linked in
particular to the Protogeometric. This connec-
tion is sustained by the associations with pot-
tery decorated in this style from Troy VIIb3
and Kastanas (levels 10-4), as well as by some
analogies already brought forward by Bernhard
Hänsel and others among the nds from Ba-
badag, Ljubenkova, Ovčarovo or Rogozinovo
and Protogeometric sites in Greece.29

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368779670_Once_again_on_the_Early_Iron_Age_Chronology_at_the_Lower_Danube_New_radiocarbon_data_from_Babadag

 

[Riverman]

It doesn't even matter if Psenichevo made an expansion and contributed to the spread of Stamped Pottery/formation of Basarabi for the core of the debate.

The real issue is that before Psenichevo nothing of significance was there and Psenichevo can largely be derived from groups to the North, Channelled/Knobbed Ware in particular. There is simply no way to attribute Knobbed/Channelled Ware in the region to a regional evolutionary scheme, it clearly came from the Danube and Carpathian basin.

So if anything, you might observe a back migration.

But again, keep in mind that E-V13 formed a huge, demographically important population in Central-South Eastern Europe already before, there is no other way if looking at the modern data. And then we see this massive spread of Carpathian groups marching into the Balkans. Take both together and you don't get Psenichevo from locals, you don't have a local predecessor, even less one which could account for the pattern we know. It is no option and simply impossible.
We don't observe a miniscule population which exploded that late with Psenichevo, we observe an earlier, steady growth, which corresponds perfectly with the Carpathian cremation block and Channelled Ware.

 

[Southpaw]

The archaeologist Sorin, is of the opinion that Stamped-Pottery was characterized with inhumations in pits (pit burials are very controversial for this cultural horizon, for instance Insula Banului is very contested since the few burials that were attested are actually cremations), mound burials and so called Thracian dolmens while Channeled-Ware was characterized by cremation in urns, he thinks Stamped-Pottery and Channeled-Pottery mingled together so latter in Early Iron Age to form a unified culture. I think that considering the recorded biritual burials of Thracians by Herodotus this amalgamation makes sense.

Stamped-Pottery covered a bigger area than Channeled-Ware. I wouldn't be surprised if E-V13 was there in Balkan mountain chains or so called Haemus-Rhodope mountains and expanding only in LBA/EIA up North meeting the expanding Channeled-Ware groups, and this amalgamation formed the historical Geto-Dacians and Thracians. Or call it Thracians in general.

Now the question is, how different or whether the Channeled-Ware were different from Stamped-Ware by Y-DNA, or was E-V13 present there? I don't know.