I wouldn't label all Late Bronze and Early Iron Age populations in the Danubian basin until Hungary, Austria and southern Germany Daco-Thracian.
Surely not. Bosut-Basarabi was Daco-Thracian and it was a formative element of Eastern Hallstatt. But "the hub" Eastern Hallstatt in itself was not Daco-Thracian, but rather Illyrian-Pannonian, at least much of the common populace. The elite might have been more Thraco-Cimmerian shifted, but this is a speculation which needs to be investigated.
In any case, Eastern Hallstatt is how E-V13 into the Western Hallstatt group and therefore Celts, as well as some early groups into Northern Italy (Golasecca, Este etc. might have been infiltrated).
But the point is, ultimately, it all goes back to Daco-Thracians. Just like I1 in much of Europe is from Germanics, even if some of it later spread with Finns, Russians and others. The main spreader and primarily spreading event was the Germanic expansion. And here too, with a have primary spreader (Daco-Thracian) and many secondary once, since the Daco-Thracian sphere on the one hand influenced many other regions (Eastern Hallstatt, Greece etc.) and at the same time they were broken up and oftentimes assimilated later (Celts, Scythians, Sarmatians, Romans, Slavs etc.).
Illyrians may be in the same broader Balkanic IE group.
Only some branches. Originally E-V13 is supposed to have been restricted to the Channelled Ware cremation horizon, afterwards Basarabi, Psenichevo, Babadag etc. Illyrians of course did themselves later conquer and assimilate Daco-Thracian groups in the Central Balkan and they fused in Hallstatt with them. But Illyrian-Pannonian is therefore already a secondary spreader, no primary. The primary is Daco-Thracian alone.
That's why I also listed the Alpine Celts and Proto-Italics as a potential source of E-V13. If it was only Daco-Thracian and Illyrian there is no way that these people would have spread so successfully E-V13 all over Western Europe.
The Channelled Ware Daco-Thracians were the first big scale blacksmiths of Europe. They spread Naue II swords to the Balkans, they made (at least some of) the first iron weapons mass productions in all of Europe, they were among the first in the world. Teleac might serve as a prime example for their technological superiority and importance at that time:
Th e large hillfort of Teleac, commanding the Mureş River valley, the principal East-West connecting axis in
the Carpathian Basin, was likely built in the second half of the 11th century BC and occupied until the end of
the 10th or the early 9th century BC. Th e fortifi cation wall was destroyed around 920 BC, according to recent
investigations. More than 40 iron objects were discovered in the fortifi ed complex. Th ese iron fi nds viewed
together with numerous other iron fi nds from other sites signify that Transylvania was an early centre of
the implementation of iron and presumably iron production. Th ereby, the use of iron for producing weapons
probably stood in the foreground. Th is is indicated by corresponding grave fi nds in Greece that contain a
sword as off ering, but also iron swords found in Slovenia and Romania.
The main branches of E-V13 all split around the transitional period of the LBA-EIA, and here we get:
It is the 11th century BC
that first marks the transition from bronze to iron
technology, with bronze swords replaced by those
made of iron, in Southern Europe and especially
in Greece.
E-V13 carriers came down with Naue II and iron swords, in two waves respectively, and a third with early Hallstatt Bosut-Basarabi. And this influence penetrated down to the Aegean-Anatolian area, as well as to the West, to the Alpine zone all the populations on the way. On the fringes (Austria, Czechia, Northern Italy on the one, Greece and Anatolia on the other hand), it was just an influence, but in the midst of it, it was a full scale paternal replacement event.
The high level Channelled Ware pottery itself, a prestige ware up to Central Germany at that time period, was ideologically loaded, it most likely represented the "black metal", like the blacksmith standing for the new age and the superiority of iron:
Th e technically demanding,
black-polished pottery of the G?va culture
decorated with garland patterns or channels
displays an unmistakable metallic aspect
They had an ideology and probably religion in which iron tools and weapons played an important part.
Changes occurred not only in the production
of pottery and diverse implements, but also in
symbolical and ideological aspects. Th e hoards in
Transylvania, an important medium of communication
with the imaginary supernatural powers,
underwent quite a noticeable change during
this time (Ha A2/Ha B1):21 It is the expression of
changed values in society. Th e characteristic fragment
hoards of the older Urnfi eld culture ceased;
instead hoards containing mostly intact objects
were deposited.22
Once they had conquered and settled down, it became more peaceful:
Yet another
change in hoards came in the 9th century BC, in
which jewellery or elements of dress predominated.
That's when large scale communication and trade within the Hallstatt sphere begins to develop. This included elite migrants from the Basarabi-people, which moved as far as Fr?g in large numbers.
Also in Italy the change from Late Bronze Age
to Iron Age can be dated between 1000 and 950 BC
by radiocarbon dating.46 Th e course of the introduction
of iron in the area of Central Europe was
evidently somewhat delayed. Nevertheless, around
1000 BC a substantial decrease in the number of
swords made of bronze can be observed. One
might then presume that valuable iron weapons
already existed in plenteous number, yet were not
deposited in graves. Th e fact that the fragment
of an iron sword was discovered in Teleac points
once again to the importance of this particular
site
Teleac products, smiths and possibly elites also made it even as far as Czechia.
The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon is also noticeable:
Th e scabbard terminal of the sword from Brno-
Obřany (Fig. 12) leads to the Caucasus, where comparable
?fi n-shaped chapes? (Flossenortb?nder) are
common.56 Although their dating through 14C must
still be determined, their placement in the 10th
century BC seems nonetheless plausible.57
https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_of_Teleac_and_Early_Iron_in_Southern_Europe
When Teleac was finally destroyed, it was by an huge, well-organised army for its time, which is also quite telling for the importance of the region and the military importance it had.
The best way to trace early E-V13 is to follow iron swords and Channelled Ware pottery. Where both is around 1.100, you surely have them. Illyrians will only have carried E-V13 after having either mixed with Daco-Thracians and/or being incorporated into the Eastern Hallstatt sphere, not before. So if early Illyrian groups moved e.g. to Southern Italy, those are unlikely to harbour any significant amount of E-V13, contrary to those in Hungary-Austria-Czechia and once they were part of Eastern Hallstatt.
E-V13 is particularly common in Spain today (except wider Basque country) and as it wasn't found in Iron Age Iberians the best explanation is that the Romans (in this case meaning 'Roman-age Italians', not just those from Rome/Latium) and/or Goths brought E-V13 to the Iberian peninsula.
We need to know which role Greek and Thracian settlers, colonists, migrants and slaves played in Southern Italy to know how it increased in frequency there.
If E-V13 wasn't found among Italic tribes,
The Italics are unlikely to have any E-V13 in larger numbers, because they come from more Western Tumulus and Urnfield groups, which were low in V13 or had none at all. If Italy got it in earlier times, it will be in the North, around the Eastern Hallstatt groups and later Celts.
E-V13 has a frequency of approximately 7% in Castille. So that is potentially 13% of Y-DNA that came with the Visigoths (Balkanic E-V13, Proto-Slavic R1a and Germanic I1, I2a2-L801 and R1b-U106) + surely some G2a and J2b from the Balkans that cannot easily be distinguished from the Roman/Etruscan or Greek ones.
Of course these numbers are only valid if E-V13 was only brought by the Visigoths and not by Roman-age Italians or Hallstatt Celts. But at present no E-V13 has been found among the latter two.
We have almost no Hallstatt samples, but when more come in, there will be E-V13 as a minority element I guess. Otherwise agreed.