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

[mount123]

Another option people on Anthrogenica reminded me on is that he simply was a Thracian-like individual, because he resembles the more Southern specimens from Bulgaria and Moldova too. So it remains open whether he was an actual Mediterranean inhabitant or a Thracian - which we might be better to evaluate once we finally, at some point, get the Psenichevo E-V13 samples and can look at how they score. Because they should represent the Southern fringe of the clearly more "original" Thracians/Daco-Thacians before their even more extensive mixture with more Southern, Greek and possibly even Levantine populations.

If I recall correctly he plots towards Bulgaria_IA so that would make sense. I don't really understand the whole urge of affiliating E1b-V13 in any case with ancient Greeks. Most of it, if even present amongst ancient Greeks, would most likely be the result of close contacts with bordering Thracian tribes.

 

[Riverman]

If I recall correctly he plots towards Bulgaria_IA so that would make sense. I don't really understand the whole urge of affiliating E1b-V13 in any case with ancient Greeks. Most of it, if even present amongst ancient Greeks, would most likely be the result of close contacts with bordering Thracian tribes.

That's true, but it could have been in the Greeks as soon as they were "actual, classical Greeks", because the Sea Peoples and other groups caused in part the collapse of the Mycenaean Greeks. And among these people were Channelled Ware warriors, which introduced a variety of artefacts and patterns, including more widespread cremation with urnfields. Among these might have been E-V13 carriers, and they moved deep into Greece, but then being pushed out by the locals and/or assimilated. This was in the transitional era, when most of the big E-V13 happened (about 1.300-1.000 BC). If the Channelled Ware people which reached Greece carried E-V13 and survived in the Aegean, E-V13 would have been in Greece and among Greece basically from the start, after Mycenaean collapse. We don't know if this was the case, and if it was, which subclades and frequency it included.
We know for sure that later Thracian contacts increased the frequency of E-V13 for sure, but there might have been an appreciable percentage already since the beginning of the Iron Age, like described. That's uncertain at this point, because its possible the Channelled Ware groups which reached Greece had no high E-V13 numbers to begin with, or they were all pushed out and eliminated by the locals. Because in some of the cemeteries they were people apart and later we see them pushed back. Their cultural influence, especially in weaponry and burial rite, remained, so we don't know how much of them survived genetically.

 

[Hawk]

I do agree, there is enough archaeological evidence giving support that E-V13 entered Greece during Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, but that is to be backed up by aDNA of course.


In fact Homer in his Iliad describes the burial rite of Achilles, Patroclus and Hector as very similar to Enchelei, Dacians and further Central Balkans tribes. Probably during Homer's time that burial rite was the norm and he wrongly assumed Achaeans practiced as well.

 

[Hawk]

Likewise if you check this subclade: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/

Though it was theorized the Greek sample from Kilkis is a Bulgarian/Macedonian the new samples from Messina Italy and Herault South France make it equally possible to be from Ancient Greeks. Who knows.

I do agree at this point it's very confusing but it's hard to oppose the Danubian/Tisza Urnfield origin of E-V13. Considering that the highest E-V13 samples in a group and oldest ones are the Psenicevo-Babadag samples who were direct offshot of greater Gava complex according to archaologists.

 

[Riverman]

Likewise if you check this subclade: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/

Though it was theorized the Greek sample from Kilkis is a Bulgarian/Macedonian the new samples from Messina Italy and Herault South France make it equally possible to be from Ancient Greeks. Who knows.

I do agree at this point it's very confusing but it's hard to oppose the Danubian/Tisza Urnfield origin of E-V13. Considering that the highest E-V13 samples in a group and oldest ones are the Psenicevo-Babadag samples who were direct offshot of greater Gava complex according to archaologists.

Also if you follow the current samples with higher rates of E-V13 among the regional population (minus East Asian/steppe and obvious Northern Slavic/Germanic newcomers), you get the Tisza valley into the Danube like pearls on a string. Especially the fairly strong concentraton in South Eastern Hungary and Viminacium is extremely unlikely to have come later than Basarabi. Because who should have had such higher percentage of E-V13 other than Thracians/Dacians? It subtracting the non-local Roman etc. elements, you end up by more than 70 if not more than 90 percent - and a good portion of the locals cremated still, which would add up too!
There is no Roman era movement which can explain that high frequency of E-V13 there. This means it must be pre-Roman. And quite obviously, Pannonian-Illyrians are at this point very unlikely to have anywhere such high numbers. Celts neither. Both had it, but never in this frequency. Cimmerians? No. Scythians? No. Sarmatians? No.
By the rule of exclusion, we end up with Dacians/Thracians and what remained of Gava/Belegis II-Gava and Bosut-Basarabi in the region. Especially since these Tisza-Danubian areas were absolute core regions of the Channelled ware/G?va into Basarabi.

As for the old clades in modern samples: Unless there are real concentrations and related groups anywhere, I don't really trust it. If we find somewhere real clusters of specific clades and subclades, that might mean something. Single samples can always be misleading, because its hard to tell when they came to the place.

 

[Hawk]

The material culture of the communities living in the Middle Tisza Region during the 14th–13th centuries BC was formed by multiple cultural effects of diverse origin. The archaeological record of the settlement in Tiszabura, dated to the pre-Gáva period, is marked by an influence of the early Urnfield culture, maintaining strong con-nections with Transdanubia and the Eastern Alpine region, as well as by the local ceramic style having Belegiš II-type elements of Bánság origin blended in.The thousands of ceramic sherds yielded by a large-scale excavation of the site made it possible for one to create a network based on ceramic styles and surface treatment. The topology and resource distribution model of the constructed graph describe the direction and intensity of the Tiszabura community’s strongest connections and define its position in the interaction network of contemporary communities.

The rural settlement unearthed in the outskirts of Tiszabura is positioned by the left bank of the river Tisza, stretching on top of a NE–SW directed, dou-ble elevation of 5–6 meters. Based on the results of field walking investigations and excavation its maximum extent is about 2.5–3 hectares (Fig. 1, 1). The settlement features are grouped in a large and a smaller cluster divided by a lower polder zone. The two-hectare-large excavated part of the settle-ment comprises 92 pits, the remains of altogether 19 complete or partial post-framed buildings, and a timber-framed well; its southern perimeter is be-girded by a deep ditch. The pits seem to have served diverse purposes: regular, round storage pits, and large, irregular clay extraction pits are also present. The majority of both types contain ceramic, bone, and lithic objects and waste in large quantities. Almost 200 bronze objects were collected from the infills of the pits and the area of the buildings. These are mostly broken jewellery items, chipped edge fragments of tools, and nuggets of various sizes, the byproducts of bronze casting. Based on the finds the settlement can be dated to the pre-Gáva horizon preceding the emergence of the Gáva culture, i.e., to the Br D–Ha A1 transitional period between the second half of the 14th century and the first decades of the 13th century BC (V. Szabó 2017, 242–247).

http://ojs.elte.hu/comarchhung/article/view/3570/3263

 

[Hawk]

Due to its hardness and elasticity iron was far superior to bronze for the production of weaponry and implements.16 In addition, iron occurs on the Earth’s surface more frequently than the two com-ponents of bronze: copper and tin.  e introduc-tion of iron technology has still not been su ciently elucidated; yet, without doubt Anatolia was an early centre. Iron is  rst mentioned only sporadically in Hittite texts of the 18th century BC, whereas in texts of the 14th and 13th centuries BC weapons made of iron are named ever more frequently.17  e oldest object made of iron found in Europe – a knife or sickle – comes from Ganovce, district of Poprad, Slovakia, in a forti ed settlement of the Otomani culture.18 Nevertheless, this episode seems to have remained sporadic as such. It is the 11th century BC that  rst 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 introduction of iron technology in various regions of western Asia and Europe cannot be assessed in detail yet. Nonetheless, the catalogu-ing and critical discussion of iron  nds have made great progress.19 It was indeed a time of change in many di erent spheres of society, a change that can also be observed in other material remains.  ere proved to be di erences in the production of the broad commodity of pottery:  e technically de-manding, black-polished pottery of the Gáva cul-ture decorated with garland patterns or channels displays an unmistakable metallic aspect (Fig. 5).20 Changes occurred not only in the production of pottery and diverse implements, but also in symbolical and ideological aspects.  e hoards in Transylvania, an important medium of commu-nication with the imaginary supernatural pow-ers, underwent quite a noticeable change during this time (HaA2/HaB1):21 It is the expression of changed values in society.  e characteristic frag-ment hoards of the older Urn eld culture ceased; instead hoards containing mostly intact objects were deposited.22 On the one hand, the latter in-

cluded preferably vessels and defensive arms made of sheet metal, while on the other hand large  bu-lae and spiral ornaments became characteristic elements of a hoard. Weaponry by contrast with-drew somewhat into the background. Yet another change in hoards came in the 9th century BC, in which jewellery or elements of dress predomi-nated.23 One characteristic feature in the hoards is their content of horse gear, a presence that in turn emphasises the importance of driving and riding.  e density of hoards in the closer surroundings of Teleac is particular conspicuous.

The early use of iron in southern Europe

A.Snodgrass distinguished three stages in the in-troduction of iron technology in the Mediterra-nean area, a distinction that is of fundamental im-portance.25 Accordingly, during the Late Bronze Age iron was used to a limited extent for ceremo-nial purposes and prestigious objects (phase 1),


whereas in the Early Iron Age objects of daily use were produced in iron for the  rst time, although still far fewer in number than those made of bronze (phase 2).  en, as of the 10th century BC iron became the prevailing metal in use (phase 3).  is scheme illustrates the situation of  nds; how-ever, it does not take any possibly limiting factors into account. Funerary customs, for instance, are a decisive factor in the tradition of iron objects.26 Particu-larly during the early times of iron technology the ritual use of this valuable raw material in fu-nerary activities stood in contradiction to very practical considerations, namely, that the objects were to be re-forged in order to make new tools or weapons. Only when a stable supply was pres-ent could o erings – especially of weapons – be placed in graves and in sanctuaries. Phase 2 ac-cording to Snodgrass, thus, represents a subject of debate. Namely, the actual extent of the use of iron is not ‘precisely’ denoted anywhere. Its em-ployment could have been far greater than it seems in archaeological  ndings. Iron could have been re-forged at any time and made into new objects, a way of re-cycling like today.27  e technical know-how for this was certainly not limited to speci c centres, but instead was wider spread.28 One cen-tre of iron extraction was on the island of  asos in northern Greece.29 However, the  nds and  nd contexts there do not allow a precise description of the knowledge at that time concerning carburiza-tion or other hardening processes. e transition to iron technology in Greece, foremost in Athens and Attica, can be best drawn in great detail from the funerary practice of of-fering weapons.30  erefore, the replacement of bronze by iron in Greece is highly relevant, not in the least with regard to armed con icts. Unfor-tunately, attempts at absolute chronology for the phases of ceramic styles in Greece are not at all securely con rmed and at present vary strongly.31 Since Submycenaean times (c. 1080–1020 BC)


a profound transition in the handling of the de-ceased took place: the transition from inhumation burial to cremation. Further, bronze weapons were not deposited with the deceased either. Hence, it cannot be determined whether iron weapons were indeed already used extensively in Submycenaean times, but not given as funerary o erings.32 As of Protogeometric times, traditionally dated between 1020/1000 and 900 BC, but which surely began earlier in the 11th century BC, almost all swords and most lanceheads known in Greece were made of iron.33 B.Weninger and R.Jung have sug-gested the years around 1070 BC for the beginning of the Protogeometric period.34 An early burial – grave 6 – containing a sword as grave gi was re-vealed in the cemetery of Kerameikos in Athens.  e amphoriskos in grave 6 was associated with a  ange-hilted sword made of iron (Fig. 6). Allegedly the 43.8-cm long sword was laid around the vessel.35 Grave 28 in Kerameikos also held a bent  ange-hilted sword made of iron (Fig. 7,6) and in addition also a bent iron knife (Fig. 7,4).36  e ritual bending of a sword has been attested in several  ndings in Athens.37 An iron arrowhead found in the cremated remains might have caused the death of the male in grave 28 (Fig. 7,5).  e pottery comprises two amphorae, two spheri-cal pyxides with a lid, and a pitcher with trefoil-shaped mouth.  e representations of horses on the neck of an amphora are indeed noteworthy, because they express the high esteem of the horse in society in Geometric times (Fig. 7,2). Grave 40 contained a larger set of clay vessels, composed of two skyphoi, two pitchers with trefoil-shaped mouth, eight lekythoi and two amphorae (Fig. 8).  e metal objects in this grave consisted of a large bronze phalera and the fragment of a  bula; the accompanying trunnion axe (Ärmchenbeil) and a chisel are made of iron.38 Grave E in Kerameikos contained a cup together with a 46-cm long iron sword that was broken in several pieces (Fig. 9).39 In the present state of research these four graves cannot be dated precisely within the time span of the late 11th to late 10th century BC.40 A continuity can be observed then in weaponry of the Early Geometric period (probably earlier than 900–850 BC) and the Middle Geometric pe-riod (850–750 BC), whereas a de nite decrease in the number of weapons in graves is noticeable at least in Attica during the Late Geometric period of the 8th century BC.41It should be emphasised that initially iron played a decisive role in the production of weapons, because this new material had superior proper-ties, which – quite signi cantly – were immedi-ately used for military purposes.  is con rms once again the technological basis of Christian Jürgensen  omsen’s three-period time sequence. It is indeed the “cutting tools” with which the Bronze and Iron ages should be de ned.42 With emerging iron technology, the dynamics in exchange processes between the East and the West changed. In this regard, the expansion of the Phoenicians as far as the west of the Iberian Pen-insula is obviously of great signi cance.43 H. Schu-bart emphasised iron production in Phoenician establishments. He interpreted the precolonial  nd of bronze swords from Ría de Huelva in the con-text of early trade in iron.44 As early as in the pre-colonial phase, the search for iron ore and also for silver was an important mission for Phoenicians on


Also in Italy the change from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age can be dated between 1000 and 950 BC by radiocarbon dating.46  e course of the intro-duction 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.  e fact that the fragment of an iron sword was discovered in Teleac points once again to the importance of this particular site.47 And in this regard special note should be made of the iron sword among the votive o er-ings found in the Mušja jama near Škocjan (the Fly Cave near St. Kanzian).48  e sword, 59 cm in length, had been bent with great force prior to its deposition (Fig. 10).  e blade has a sim-ple form: rhombic in cross-section.  e outline of the tongue bulges slightly and ends in a  sh-tail shape.  e hilt is likewise slightly bulged and has two rivets; two rivets are also in the tongue. Com-parable swords made of bronze were summarised as the “Dalmatinian-Pannonian type” and dated to the 11th century BC.49 Included in this type is a bronze sword of the same form found in Cell-dömölk-Sághegy, Kom. Vas, in Transdanubia. It should be dated to the Ha B1 period.50  e form of the tongue as well as the scheme of the rivets are likewise present in a number of swords de-posited in Early Iron Age graves in Vergina and also sporadically on Euboea and in Athens.51 Most probably the iron sword found in Mušja jama can be assigned to phase HaB1 too, as the majority of votive o erings found in the cave date to that time.

Yet, the Hallstatt-period group of  nds iden-ti ed by the authors cannot be considered a possi-ble date for the production of the iron sword. For this issue the sword  nd from Alsenborn may be brought forth (Fig. 11), whose iron blade F. Spra-ter had already earlier compared to the sword from Mušja jama.52

Yet another extraordinary  nd should be men-tioned here: the sword found in grave 169 in the cemetery at Brno-Obřany, Moravia (Fig. 12–13).  e sword has a length of 56.6cm and a similar form with two rivets in the hilt and presumably originally two rivets on the since broken-o tongue.53  e hilltop settlement that used the cemetery was an important crossroads between the Lusatian and the Podol cultures, ever since the 11th century BC. Covering an area of 42 ha it has an unusually large expanse.54 Moreover, grave 169 in the cemetery at Brno-Obřany contained a remarkably long iron lancehead (L. 48.4 cm), two fragments of an iron knife, and a bow-shaped iron object as well as an iron socketed axe.  e last-named object belongs to a group of socketed axes with a slit in the socket, whose production – according to B. Teržan – may be presupposed as early as the 9th century BC, if not since the 10th century BC. Further, implied with that would be the dissemination of technical know-how.55 Socketed axes such as these are also known from Teleac and surroundings (VinĠu de Jos). e scabbard terminal of the sword from Brno-Obřany (Fig. 12) leads to the Caucasus, where com-parable “ n-shaped chapes” (Flossenortbänder) are common.56 Although their dating through 14C must still be determined, their placement in the 10th century BC seems nonetheless plausible.57  e  n-shaped chape might have stimulated the production of semi-circular chapes of the late Urn eld period in the West.58 Further grave goods comprise a golden spiral, a so-called whetstone and  ve clay vessels.59Iron lanceheads are known from the Mušja jama as well (Fig. 14). Concerned here are ten ex-amples with – as far as recognisable – a narrow

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

 

[Riverman]

I would really like to have ancient DNA, especially yDNA results from around Teleac, because its one of the biggest and most important G?va centres of that time. If E-V13 was central in G?va and spread a lot with iron working, it should have been there. If it joined later, then only on a lower level or not and all the more in Belegis II-G?va. With ancient DNA, it would be easy to test. But unfortunately they cremated and there are practically no results from Romania from any period.

 

[Hawk]

It's hard to pinpoint the exact location and the exact specific culture, but all in all generally i am quite sure that within the Middle to Early Iron Age it was one of the Eastern Urnfield groups which gave rise to E-V13.

But prior to that who was the E-V13 rich group, that's something i don't know, Ottomany-Füzesabony, Hatvan, Nagyrev, Piliny, Caka with Hugelgraber from the West and the Eastern Steppe represented by Noua and related cultures? How are actual LBA Gava related to them? Looks like archaeologists prefer to remain silent on exact relationships.

 

[Riverman]

It's hard to pinpoint the exact location and the exact specific culture, but all in all generally i am quite sure that within the Middle to Early Iron Age it was one of the Eastern Urnfield groups which gave rise to E-V13.

But prior to that who was the E-V13 rich group, that's something i don't know, Ottomany-Füzesabony, Hatvan, Nagyrev, Piliny, Caka with Hugelgraber from the West and the Eastern Steppe represented by Noua and related cultures? How are actual LBA Gava related to them? Looks like archaeologists prefer to remain silent on exact relationships.

Basically you have in G?va primarily local and Eastern (North Carpathian-Trzciniec/Komarov and Noua-steppe) related influences dominating. Piliny-Kyjatice on the other hand is basically the same, but it had more Tumulus culture influences along the lines of Egyek & Co. Otomani and related groups were quite diverse and complex, but I think we have to look at the post-Otomani North Eastern Hungarian and Western Romanian cultures, especially those associated with the sites Berkesz-Demecser in Hungary and Suciu de Sus-Lăpuș Romania. These are key cultures/type sites for the formation of G?va and I think E-V13 was already at a high frequency in it.
You can type the sites into Google maps and you see a clearly defined area for the type sites of importance between very North Eastern Hungary and North Western Romania. Whether new patrilineages being introduced later, I don't know, but their influence on the later cultures and layers was still big enough, at least as a substrate, that I don't think G?va will have a very different make up, nor that E-V13 could have been absent.

 

[Hawk]

Basically you have in G�va primarily local and Eastern (North Carpathian-Trzciniec/Komarov and Noua-steppe) related influences dominating. Piliny-Kyjatice on the other hand is basically the same, but it had more Tumulus culture influences along the lines of Egyek & Co. Otomani and related groups were quite diverse and complex, but I think we have to look at the post-Otomani North Eastern Hungarian and Western Romanian cultures, especially those associated with the sites Berkesz-Demecser in Hungary and Suciu de Sus-Lăpuș Romania. These are key cultures/type sites for the formation of G�va and I think E-V13 was already at a high frequency in it.
You can type the sites into Google maps and you see a clearly defined area for the type sites of importance between very North Eastern Hungary and North Western Romania. Whether new patrilineages being introduced later, I don't know, but their influence on the later cultures and layers was still big enough, at least as a substrate, that I don't think G�va will have a very different make up, nor that E-V13 could have been absent.

The general picture is clear, we just want more details which regions were affected during LBA to EIA, particularly interested in Greece and Illyrian Albania.

 

[Oroku Saki]

So there is LBA Pannonian study E1b1b1a, with 48 % of Steppe/Yamnaya per diagram.

These are the tested LBA locations in the study:
Pácin - 3 male samples , Gava culture
Oszlár-Nyárfaszög - 1 male , Berkesz culture
Felsődobsza - 1 male
Mezőkeresztes - undetermined
Köröm-Kápolnadomb - 1 female
Méra - unknown number

- On autosomal plot, there are 3 LBA samples in different autosomal positions. One of them seems to correspond to the E1b1b1a's autosomal position. Another one with low Steppe.
- On another diagram indicating age and autosomal makeup, there are at least two samples that are youngest (1000 BC), one with high Steppe, one with low Steppe. This matches the autosomal plot.
- And also E1b1b1a and another R1b low steppe sample are slightly younger than other LBA samples, that indicates the youngest LBA site, Pácin.

It seems that the E1b1b1a is from Pácin. Which is the site of Gava culture. And this site is connected to the Lăpuș group in Romania.

So this should be the most important find for V13 of all so far. More important than even Bulgarian EIA samples.

Regarding the older find, explaining would take a long time, I can guarantee 100 % it does not belong to almost all other cultures tested, it should be of Nyirseg or Ottomany origin. So basically from similar area as Gava in LBA. I'd say Nyirseg is more likely. And that too would be the most important V13 find so far.

 

[Riverman]

The general picture is clear, we just want more details which regions were affected during LBA to EIA, particularly interested in Greece and Illyrian Albania.

I think we can say with high probability that those regions were affected, because of the modern distribution and branching events. Like in the past months, my main uncertainty is when E-V13 reached the critical mass for the replacement in the Central and Eastern Balkans, could be already in the North, in the region described before (between Berkesz and Suciu de Sus) with G?va, or in a secondary founder series event in Belegis II-G?va. Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon is, from my point of view, already too late.
We know how big the impact of Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi was, on areas like Albania and Greece.
I'd guess the main thing we will find out is the exent, like which frequency it reached when, between the MBA-LBA trickling, over to the main spreading event for E-V13 with Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi horizon, well into the Hellenistic period and Roman, up to the migration period.
But just going by the current data of moderns, I think E-V13 should have been in Albania and Greece, at least at low frequency and some areas, by about 1.300-1.000 BC the latest. They did arrive in the Transitional Period, no doubt about that.

I think its also possible that E-V13 was in some regions, but being replaced later, just to come back from a neighbouring region and so on...

 

[Hawk]

So there is LBA Pannonian study E1b1b1a, with 48 % of Steppe/Yamnaya per diagram.

These are the tested LBA locations in the study:
Pácin - 3 male samples , Gava culture
Oszlár-Nyárfaszög - 1 male , Berkesz culture
Felsődobsza - 1 male
Mezőkeresztes - undetermined
Köröm-Kápolnadomb - 1 female
Méra - unknown number

- On autosomal plot, there are 3 LBA samples in different autosomal positions. One of them seems to correspond to the E1b1b1a's autosomal position. Another one with low Steppe.
- On another diagram indicating age and autosomal makeup, there are at least two samples that are youngest (1000 BC), one with high Steppe, one with low Steppe. This matches the autosomal plot.
- And also E1b1b1a and another R1b low steppe sample are slightly younger than other LBA samples, that indicates the youngest LBA site, Pácin.

It seems that the E1b1b1a is from Pácin. Which is the site of Gava culture. And this site is connected to the Lăpuș group in Romania.

So this should be the most important find for V13 of all so far. More important than even Bulgarian EIA samples.

Regarding the older find, explaining would take a long time, I can guarantee 100 % it does not belong to almost all other cultures tested, it should be of Nyirseg or Ottomany origin. So basically from similar area as Gava in LBA. I'd say Nyirseg is more likely. And that too would be the most important V13 find so far.

It's interesting that there is not a clear line on separation between all of these cultures, but no doubt it's North-East-Hungary-North-West Romania-South-East Slovakia.

Since the Sanislău group is strongly involved in the genesis of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture (cf. below) and coincides with the spread of inhumation burials, we must not forget to mention that there are some very early inhumation burials that can by all means be attributed to the Sanislău group, if we want to view it as a local group of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture (Thomas in prep.). Here, we can attribute grave 52 from Sanislău as well as a collective burial from Andrid (Németi 1996).

Exactly this lack of chronological fixed points is the main problem when we deal with all finds related to the Makó-Nyírség-Sanislău-Ottomány/Otomani sequence. We are also in dire need of a clear nomenclature, with especially the term “Ottomány” needing a new definition. It becomes more and more evident that finds are attributed to the name of a culture which cannot be placed homogeneously in terms of time and space and and therefore should be classified anew.Since there are no radiocarbon dates, the Nyírség culture can only be dated using extern dates and therefore be placed roughly in the second half of the third millenium BC. The Sanislău group survives accordingly longer and, being a part of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture, certainly reaches the second millenium BC.

http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/doku.php/kulturen/nyirseg_english_version

So: Makó-Nyírség-Sanislău-Ottomány/Otomani sequence, probably Middle-Danube Caka Culture as well. All of these are ancestral to Eastern/Carpathian Urnfielders.

 

[Oroku Saki]

It's interesting that there is not a clear line on separation between all of these cultures, but no doubt it's North-East-Hungary-North-West Romania-South-East Slovakia.


So: Makó-Nyírség-Sanislău-Ottomány/Otomani sequence, probably Middle-Danube Caka Culture as well. All of these are ancestral to Eastern/Carpathian Urnfielders.

Most of these are related to each other, Sanislau a subtype of Nyirseg. And Makó too part of broader Vucedol. However Mako had this strong WHG autosomal element, it doesn't seem Nyirseg had it, so these cultures though similar might have had quite different ancestries. Otomany too it seems shared this low WHG profile common East of Danube, and uncommon West of Danube.

partial information about Pannonian study was leaked in a study about paleodietary reconstruction from aDNA NE Hungary. All LBA, MBA, EBA sites from there were named.
here is info

HUNG137 S62 Felsődobsza-2.lelőhely LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 34–42 Adult-Mature M M P,G
HUNG144 1010 Oszlár-Nyárfaszög (M3-32. lelőhely) LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 20–39 Adult – M P,G
HUNG177 154. objektum Mezőkeresztes-Cethalom (M3-10.lelőhely) LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 6–10 Infant I–Infant II U – P √
HUNG863 S67 Köröm-Kápolnadomb LBA Gáva culture 20–39 Adult – F P,G BM
HUNG967 S64A Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 1–6 Infant I M –
HUNG968 S64B Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 15–39 Juvenile–Adult M M P,G √
HUNG969 S100 Pácin-Alsókenderszer LBA pre-Gáva Period, R BD—Ha A1 30–60 Adult–Mature M M P,G

First codes, bolded are grave numbers. Only LBA site of Méra is missing (thats where I locate it based on the map).

For most here it says pre-Gava, I am pretty sure those graves from Pacin are Gava classic/proper.


Hg Yamnaya ancestry % Age
E1b1b1a 47.7 1096 BC
R-Z2103 39 1202 BC
R1a 36.3 1154 BC
I2a 34 1154 BC
I2a 32.7 1048 BC
R-L51 21 1096 BC
J2a 18.3 1202 BC

It is likely these with the same age are found together. I bet E1b1b1a is together with the R-L51 and possibly I2a.


Autosomal Plot Yamnaya - Mbuti - Iron Gates
Blue circle Hungary LBA outlier
1. Clusters near Czech Bell Beakers (likely E1b1b1a)
2. Clusters close to Füzesabony, likely near Kyjatice LBA, most Hungarian Scythians
3. Clusters near Maros samples


Purple Hexagonal Hungary LBA
1. Clusters close to Füzesabony, likely near Kyjatice LBA, most Hungarian Scythians
2. Clusters close to Füzesabony, likely near Kyjatice LBA, most Hungarian Scythians
maybe one or few more.


Yellow circle Hungary LBA
1. Clusters close to Füzesabony, likely near Kyjatice LBA, most Hungarian Scythians


So there are 3 Hungarian LBA clusters, one is marked as an outlier likely as it oscillates wildly. Someone who posted before about this cluster on Eurogenes mistakenly presented the Encrusted pottery cluster as this LBA cluster. Encrusted pottery cluster is blue Hexagonal, not blue circle. It has one typical member, one higher Steppe (but it seems low WHG) sample that looks to be E1b1b1a, and also one additional low Steppe, low WHG sample.


So I strongly suspect this Blue circle is from Pacin. It seems most of Hungarian LBA is similar to the samples we already have, Kyjatice, most of those Hungarian Scythians, these are defined by stronger WHG admixture. Such admixture was even stronger West of Danube in a whole range of Encrusted pottery cultures, dominated by I2a. These usual LBA samples also bear strong resemblance to Füzesabony autosomal samples. there is already one Füzesabony R1a sample, and this study has many of them, and it seems most of them are again R1a. Also one Hungarian Scythian with such profile is R1a.

This might be the explanation why V13 didn't pop out in these typical Hungarian LBA (that have been tested) areas. V13 belongs to the low WHG area to the very East. And among Balkan samples, especially Thracian samples, it doesn't look like this heavy WHG ancestry left any imprint on the Balkans, nor did the Y-DNA associated with it (I2a, R1a).

Of the leaked samples there are 5 male samples, 7 are overall in LBA, does that mean that Méra has also two Y-DNA samples. Likely.

Pácin-Alsókenderszer is definitely the youngest of all, it seems to have most samples, 3, and you see E1b1b1a is among the youngest. LBA outlier cluster has high Steppe and low Steppe samples, E1b1b1a is higher steppe, R-L51 is lower steppe sample, and they are of identical age.
It seems obvious E1b1b1a and R-L51 are from there, and that they are these outliers seen on the autosomal plot. But even if it somehow isn't, it is from some of these other sites.

It is possible to derive Moldovan Scythians/Getae and Iron Age Bulgarian/Thracian from such samples. It is not possible to derive them from these "usual" LBA higher WHG admixed samples, that seem to be derived mostly of Füzesabony-like people.

 

[Excine]

From anthrogenica about https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2106743119 :
I10349; 5600-5000 BC; Füzesabony-Gubakút, Hungary; Alföld Linear Pottery Culture_MN; I2-L701 (xP78,Y5606)

I7127; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; R1b-V2219>V88>Y127541

I14163; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; I2-Y3721>pre-Y3670

I15623; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; G2a2b-CTS342* (xY36001,PF4202,Z724,FGC12126)

I11665; 1500-800 BC; Felsődobsza-2. lelőhely, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; I2-Y3721>Y3670>L1229 (xS20743,Y6512,Z2069)

I11695; 1500-800 BC; Pácin-Alsókenderszer, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; R1b-Z2103>M12149 (xY4362,Z2110)

I11670; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; I2-L596>Y14158>S6635>S6724>pre-PF3885

I11674; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; R1b-U152>L2>Z49>BY96884* (xBY55682)

I11676; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; R1b-L51>L52>FT123498>BY44535* (xY289225)

What's the count? 1 BA E-V13 in 150-160 BA samples from Hungary? The BA/IA samples are from northeastern Hungary. Some theories about E-V13 in Hungary are getting fringe-y.

 

[Riverman]

F?zesabony had strong influences from the Epi-Corded Ware groups, even more than the other Otomani related groups. It was even suggest that warlike Epi-Corded males took over. The second push comes from the East (Noua) and a third from the West (Tumulus culture). But the Tumulus culture never fully penetrated the Transtisza-Transylvanian area, it did mix into it a bit, mainly at the fringe. The influence being stronger for Kyjatice than G?va, because in the Piliny core region, from which Kyjatice emerged, the TC influence was stronger than East of the Tisza.
However, I still think that one of the main problems is that the groups mostly cremated.

As for some "cultures", they might have been just tribes and some of them were even the same people, but there is this peculiar thing that Hungarian and Romanian scholars in particular always give different names to basically the same culture. Most prominent is Felsőszőcs in Hungarian vs. Suciu de Sus in Romanian. Its even the same place, just the name in the respective Hungarian and Romanian tongue. But even the Slovakian and Serbian scholars oftentimes do the same, and with the splitters all around, it gets even worse. Yet for some groups we can't say for sure how much of a continuity there was, without having tested the population. Because there surely was continuity, but it could have been more female mediated, whereas the male population could be more replaced in the process of a new people moving in. That's unknown without testing it.

I think its possible that E-V13 was in the Eastern Carpathian basin since the time of Cotofeni, probably even earlier. So far the G?va and Kyjatice plot close, but not exactly the same, especially not with F?zesabony. They are all close, but not the same, which could mean something. I would love to get a lot of samples from groups like Suciu de Sus, but doesn't look like it.

 

[Oroku Saki]

I10349; 5600-5000 BC; Füzesabony-Gubakút, Hungary; Alföld Linear Pottery Culture_MN; I2-L701 (xP78,Y5606)

I7127; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; R1b-V2219>V88>Y127541

I14163; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; I2-Y3721>pre-Y3670

I15623; 4300-4000 BC; Urziceni, Romania; Romania_CA; G2a2b-CTS342* (xY36001,PF4202,Z724,FGC12126)

I11665; 1500-800 BC; Felsődobsza-2. lelőhely, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; I2-Y3721>Y3670>L1229 (xS20743,Y6512,Z2069)

I11695; 1500-800 BC; Pácin-Alsókenderszer, Hungary; Late Bronze Age; R1b-Z2103>M12149 (xY4362,Z2110)

I11670; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; I2-L596>Y14158>S6635>S6724>pre-PF3885

I11674; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; R1b-U152>L2>Z49>BY96884* (xBY55682)

I11676; 400 BC-100 AD; Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary; Iron Age_Scythian; R1b-L51>L52>FT123498>BY44535* (xY289225)

It seems these are two of these seven LBA samples that I mentioned! Just they have the new codes, more typical for studies instead of HUNG. If I can find grave numbers that would be a clear clue. One LBA sample from Pannonian study is indeed R-Z2103, and two are I2a.. Too bad the E1b1b1a sample is not among them yet.
This sample has moderate to high Steppe, so he could be one Pacin sample with the usual LBA Hungary profile.

What's the count? 1 BA E-V13 in 150-160 BA samples from Hungary? The BA/IA samples are from northeastern Hungary. Some theories about E-V13 in Hungary are getting fringe-y.

Actually there are two, there is one EBA sample. V13 in both EBA and LBA East/NE Hungary is very significant. The issue is not the number here, but the sites. Some areas of Hungary are overtested, Western Hungary, West of Danube, Kisapostag, Encrusted pottery, Füzesabony. These have a huge number of samples, and they are useless for modern DNA. As they are mostly dead I2a, R1a clades. There is only one such I2a clade surviving found in Bulgaria. The numbers would have been better had they tested more the Eastern areas.

Only east Hungary is interesting for V13, or far East. And this area has much less samples. Nevertheless crucial is the autosomal situation which points V13 not to be associated with the WHG admixed autosomal profile present in most of Hungary, but with the profile on the EEF-Steppe cline present only in Eastern (or extremely E/NE ) areas of Hungary.

 

[Riverman]

Look at where Urziceni is, not even close:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urziceni

From the Danubian-Tisza area we have some of the earliest E1b1b in Central Europe from Lengyel-Sopot.

Since the crucial Bronze Age cultures largely cremated, every find is key. If its really from a pre-G?va Upper Tisza group, that's decisive. There are now two very interesting samples from the region, I11665 and I11695, those are interesting indeed. But just two samples and completely different haplogroups. Exact timing and context would be interesting to know. Needs to be checked in detail if possible.

 

[Oroku Saki]

Look at how many Füzesabony finds there are in the Pannonian study. And most of these 8 male samples should be R1a, looking at the hg age and autosomal profile.

HUNG127 4/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 20–39 Adult F F √ OM
HUNG128 3/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 10–13 Infant II M – √
HUNG129 2/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 35–44 Adult–Mature – M √
HUNG130 16/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 20–39 Adult F F √ BM
HUNG131 41/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 34–42 Adult–Mature – M √
HUNG132 6/2000 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 5–7 Infant I–Infant II F – √
HUNG133 31/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 20–39 Adult – M √
HUNG134 10/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 5–10 Infant I–Infant II M – √
HUNG135 56/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 35–50 Adult-Mature – M √
HUNG136 57/2001 Mezőzombor-Községi temető MBA Füzesabony 33–46 Adult–Mature F F √
HUNG147 1 Mezőkeresztes-Csincse-tanya MBA Füzesabony 12–14 Infant II – – P √
HUNG163 S296 Nagyrozvágy-Papdomb MBA Füzesabony 35–45 Adult–Mature – M P,G BM
HUNG933 S109 Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony 8–13 Infant II F – √ √
HUNG934 S257/II Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony 20–39 Adult – ? S,P BM
HUNG935 S169 Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony Adult Adult F ? √
HUNG936 S279 Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony 40–59 Mature U M √
HUNG937 S257/I Vatta-Dobogó MBA Füzesabony 20–30 Adult U ? √

MBA is much better tested than LBA.