We see the same traditions being kept, metallurgy was keeping them alive, Ada Tepe as brother culture of Psenicevo should be fully V13 as well.
North Carpathian groups were completely broken by Yamnaya and latter Tumulus groups. But not the people from Central-Eastern Balkans, the pioneers of metallurgy, some of their groups were still giving a fight.
There is a reason why you see both in Central Europe and South it is the EEF which connects V13, with less CHG. No better place than East-Serbia/West-Bulgaria and South Carpathian triangle to explain this phenomenon.
Belegis I and G?va are part of the same block. The problem with the Danubian zone and even more the areas to their South is that we already have samples, know the dominant cultures, and they were essentially related to Monteoru (I2), Encrusted Pottery (I2+G2) and Sabatinovka-Noua-Coslogeni (R-Z93).
I also think it is very characteristic, that among the Southern mixed Thracians we later find R-Z93 they picked up from these Eastern steppe groups, this being, at this point, the only non-E-V13 from that group. Very typical.
But considering the MBA-LBA, there is not even enough space South of the Danube for keeping the significant, huge E-V13 of the MBA-LBA alive.
If we think about groups like Verbicoara and Vartop from closer to Bulgaria, they too have a clear relationship to the Tisza-K?r?s zone, the later centre of G?va and Channelled Ware, the centre of the cremation block.
Considering the Slavic E-V13, we have multiple branches with a very clear branching pattern within the Slavic core population, so there can be little doubt, at this point, that some E-V13 lineages participated in the Proto-Slavic formation or were at least assimilated very early, before the main expansion. E-V13 must have been still pretty strong in the Dacian groups and here again I want to point to the Carpi and Costobocci in particular, with more mixed groups to their North still existing, but these are the better known Dacian tribes we know from the historical accounts.
The Carpathian Tumulus culture group of cremating Dacians was a reality in the North Carpathians and it was a fairly big group. I think that their role will be very significant for the dispersal of E-V13, because its in this group that a tribal, patrilinear ethnicity, presumably dominated by E-V13, survived for so long. And for the Roman demography, it is always those coming in latest having the biggest advantage, because the Roman way of life and reproductive practise was just a biological failure (comparable to the modern Western family policy). Which means the longer a people lived under "Roman conditions", the worse their growth and survival rate. This also means that people resettled and incoming from a tribal, traditional living group, had by far the best chances and bigger impact. And this is why the impact of the Dacian resettlement, which included people from the Carpi and Costobocci, at the end of the Roman rule in the Balkans, was so important, especially in areas which were known to be largely depopulated before, like Moesia.
I'm pretty confident that a signifcant portion of the Late Antiquity/Early migration period E-V13 in the Balkans, especially from those with a distinctive "Balkan Iron Age" profile without significant "Imperial Roman" admixture will be resettled Dacians.
This would also explain a couple of Balkan lineages which were not brought by Slavs to the Balkans and not by Balkan people to the Slavs, but basically came from an intermediate group, which donored lineages in both directions at roughtly the same time, but with no later overlap. An impression of how big the resettlement first from the province of Dacia, in which still many half-Romanised Dacians lived, and from the Carpi and other tribes later, can be estimated by reading this. The impact was even lower because the Southern provinces, to which they were resettled, being largely depopulated after the hostile incursions into Roman territory:
Sources are consistent regarding the evacuation and surrender of Dacia. In Eutropius' representative account, 'the province of Dacia, established by Trajan on the far side of the Danube, was evacuated and abandoned by Aurelianus after the devastation of Illyria and Moesia. The Romans were resettled from the towns and land of Dacia to the middle of Moesia, which he renamed Dacia. It separates the two Moesiae, and after standing on the left of the Danube, it now stands on the right'.[63] Is it conceivable that despite Eutropius' testimony, a sizeable number of Latin-speaking citizens remained in the province abandoned by Rome, survived the era of great migrations, and became the ancestors of a neo-Latin people?
That's important also for the debate about the "Romans" which Germanics and Slavs assimilated or subjugated, because those two will have been, for the greater part, Daco-Romans, descendants of the remaining rural populations, which were more often locals even than those from the towns and cities.
To test the credibility of Eutropius, one can also ask whether Dacia's population welcomed the prospect of resettlement. To be {1-126.} sure, they were in no position to block execution of the policy. Soldiers and their families, who made up a significant part of the population, had no choice; the former left with their units, and the latter followed. The empire, suffering from depopulation, was hungry for people, but the evacuation of Dacia was not accomplished by force. The province's inhabitants, and particularly its Latin-speaking Roman citizens, had no interest in remaining in an undefended territory, exposed to the depredations of the Barbarians and doomed to sink to the level of their conquerors. At the beginning of the 5th century, when the empire was already disintegrating, people in the other provinces spontaneously fled southward, although they had little expectation of finding security and new homes. For Dacia's Roman citizens, who spoke Latin, Greek, and perhaps Syrian, staying put was hardly an attractive alternative when they could move a short distance across the Danube to a secure and civilized new home. The sources indicate a pattern of behaviour that is the very opposite. The free Dacians asked to settle in the empire on two occasions at the end of the 2nd century, and following the Marcomanni wars, two groups, one of unknown number, the other 12,000-strong, received the necessary permission. Although they could not have been Romanized in the mere 50?60 years that had elapsed since their settlement in the empire, now, with the Goths nearby, they were not likely to insist on remaining in the abandoned province. Ever since the 2nd century, the peoples on the periphery had regarded the empire as a prosperous and well-guarded haven, and one tribe after the other begged for permission to settle there. Nor was the empire's attractiveness diminished by wars and anarchy in the middle of the 3rd century; the Marcomanni were resettled under Gallienus, and so were the Dacianized Carpi in 295, despite the fact that they had earlier raided Dacia.[65]
The resettlement even changed the Greek-Latin border to some degree:
From the 250s onward, epigraphs raised by citizens grow scarce, and remain so for a long time. There is, however, one indication that resettlement could be traced through epigraphic finds. The new Dacian capital, Serdica, was in a previously Greek-language region, yet a large proportion of the epigraphs found there, and dated from the 4th century, are in Latin. A plausible explanation is the influence of Latin-speaking people who had been resettled from Dacia.
https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/20.html
The map for the language border, Serdica being mentioned (modern Sofia), and especially in the bilingual zone and the neighbouring areas the Dacian resettlement was particularly intensive:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...fluence_border_between_Latin_and_Hellenic.png
The reorganised provinces in the Late Roman period with the new, Southern Dacian provinces on the area of former Moesia:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PC6XHJ/36...-dacia-moesia-pannonia-and-thracia-PC6XHJ.jpg
