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

[Riverman]

We will get sooner or later aDNA results and i do believe things will get resolved once and for all, they already started to get clearer. I am of the opinion that E-V13 was scattered in Middle Danube Urnfield and some older clades were already present in Balkans via the so called Vatin Cultural complex and Brnjica/Paracin/Dubovac-Zuto Brdo. But, let's see and wait.

I opened a new thread, if you might be interested to give it an eye: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41957-Who-were-the-people-of-Trebeniste-Culture?p=633769

Some ancient DNA finds of related groups are already there, and they show that every province and group could harbour its own diversity:


Possible finds from Kyjatice yielded so far just one sample, it was J2a, the Mez?cs?t individual haplogroup N:

Individual BR2, L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture (1.110-1.270 BC) = Y-Haplogroup J2a1
Individual IR1, Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mez?cs?t Culture (830-980 BC) = Y-Haplogroup N

Our two Bronze Age samples, BR1 (1,980?2,190 cal BC) and BR2 (1,110?1,270 cal BC) fall among modern Central European genotypes. Within this period the trade in commodities across Europe increased and the importance of the investigated region as a node is indicated by the growth of heavily fortified settlements in the vicinities of the Carpathian valleys and passes linking North and South26. These two Bronze Age genomes represent the oldest genomic data sampled to date with clear Central European affinities.

A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcs?t Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830?980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques

BR2 was classified as J2a1. Haplogroup J is currently frequent in the Fertile Crescent
and the Caucasus, showing decreasing frequency patterns to southern Europe and Iran 121. Because of these patterns it has been traditionally associated with the Neolithic
diffusion from the Near East 126,127, but this simplistic interpretation does not
recognize the complexity of both geographic patterns and phylogenetic resolution 128.
Post-Neolithic migration has been suggested to be responsible of the spread of sub-
haplogroup J2a1b1 129,130, probably during the Bronze age, together with the spread of
the Maritime Troy culture 131. This last hypothesis might explain the detection of this
haplogroup only during the Late Bronze Age.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257

Also: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-Ancient-DNA-from-Hungary-Christine-Gamba-et-al

Piliny was part of the same South Eastern Urnfield group block as G?va, but had more influences from F?zesabony and closer contacts to the Middle Danubian groups. Out of Piliny Kyjatice evolved under various influences from neighbouring groups, which was very closely connected to G?va and in foreign contexts, there is often no way to decide which subgroup brought the artefacts. Kyjatice being more centered in Central Slovakia, with G?va to the East and South.
Even though J2a is obviously not the same as E-V13, it could have taken a simlar path north and its interesting that it was present in a Carpathian Central European context. Clearly a Lengyel -> Epi-Corded pathway is probably the most likely for both. Even though later Aegean-Balkan influences are always possible, they must be further back in time, considering the genetic profile of BR2.

There are more samples around, which exact affiliation and background is not always 100 percent. But what they all show, already, is a great range of haplogroups and autosomal profiles. But the basic descendents are quite clear if comparing Viminacium, Timacum Minus, Glinoe and Psenichevo.

 

[Hawk]

Stefan Albrecht, Falko Daim, Michael Herdick (Hrsg.). Die Völker der Krim im Frühmittelalter – Anwendung und Potential der Paläogenetik auf archäologische => https://www.researchgate.net/public...laogenetik_in_Bezug_auf_archaologische_Fragen

The Peoples of the Crimea in the Early Middle Ages – Application and Potential of Paleogenetics to archaeological questions

In the context of a pilot study on the population genetics of early medieval hilltop settlements of Crimea, eleven individuals of the sites Adym Chokrak, Almalyk, Luchistoe, and Eski Kermen were molecular genetically examined.
The tests were used to review the genetic material and included the analysis of uni-parental inherited and relevant population-genetic markers of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome.
The studied samples showed exceptionally good DNA preservation. It was possible to typify 91% of the surveyed individuals in a mitochondrial manner, and 78% of male individuals by Y-chromosome. The collected mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal data suggests a Scandinavian origin of individuals. Moreover, in two cases there are indications of potential kinship. The results of this pilot study and the exceptional preservation justify the extension of paleogenetic investigations. The clearly definable hilltop settlements of Crimea therefore represent a unique opportunity to pursue hypotheses on the population structure and dynamics in the early middle ages based on excellently preserved skeletal material.

Nevgen prediction results:

Ind1: R1b-V4746 (>FGC21047?) => https://yfull.com/tree/R-V4746/
Ind9: E-BY6357 => https://yfull.com/tree/E-BY6357/
IndA: E-FGC11457 => https://yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11457/

We jave 2 E-V13 results from Crimean Goths, these were either E-V13 descendants from Greco-Thracian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom or they were ethnical Goths. If E-V13 was a minor Y-DNA among Goths.

 

[Riverman]

Stefan Albrecht, Falko Daim, Michael Herdick (Hrsg.). Die Völker der Krim im Frühmittelalter – Anwendung und Potential der Paläogenetik auf archäologische => https://www.researchgate.net/public...laogenetik_in_Bezug_auf_archaologische_Fragen

The Peoples of the Crimea in the Early Middle Ages – Application and Potential of Paleogenetics to archaeological questions

In the context of a pilot study on the population genetics of early medieval hilltop settlements of Crimea, eleven individuals of the sites Adym Chokrak, Almalyk, Luchistoe, and Eski Kermen were molecular genetically examined.
The tests were used to review the genetic material and included the analysis of uni-parental inherited and relevant population-genetic markers of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome.
The studied samples showed exceptionally good DNA preservation. It was possible to typify 91% of the surveyed individuals in a mitochondrial manner, and 78% of male individuals by Y-chromosome. The collected mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal data suggests a Scandinavian origin of individuals. Moreover, in two cases there are indications of potential kinship. The results of this pilot study and the exceptional preservation justify the extension of paleogenetic investigations. The clearly definable hilltop settlements of Crimea therefore represent a unique opportunity to pursue hypotheses on the population structure and dynamics in the early middle ages based on excellently preserved skeletal material.

Nevgen prediction results:

Ind1: R1b-V4746 (>FGC21047?) => https://yfull.com/tree/R-V4746/
Ind9: E-BY6357 => https://yfull.com/tree/E-BY6357/
IndA: E-FGC11457 => https://yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11457/

We jave 2 E-V13 results from Crimean Goths, these were either E-V13 descendants from Greco-Thracian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom or they were ethnical Goths. If E-V13 was a minor Y-DNA among Goths.

It could be from local Greeks or Thraco-Scythians, or from the Goths. If from the Goths, I would bet they picked it up in Poland, in areas occupied by Celtic, Lusatian, Kyjatice or G?va descendents, so from the Eastern to South Eastern Urnfield sphere. So they might have been ethnic Goths, at the time of their arrival, but assimilated in the Polish-Carpathian area.

Was the autosomal DNA analysed?

Ethnically, the cemetery was Alanic and Gothic it seems:
https://barbarzynskie-tsunami.muzeum.szczecin.pl/en/exhibition/great-cleanup.html
https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/2495386

 

[Riverman]

Since I mentioned it various times, here the illustration on a map:

https://ibb.co/gJ9VT9V

Its not very accurate in detail, but just there to give a general impression about how from the core area in the Northern Carpathian zone (red), with G?va and neighbouring, related Kyjatice, Channelled Ware spread, especially East and South, in the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition (orange). This expansive wave of the culture and people did infiltrate other areas, which weren't really turned, but just influenced, this is the yellow shade.
And after that, in the developed Iron Age, there were secondary spreads and expansions, while they were thinned out in their former core areas, because of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, the formation of Basarabi-Hallstatt, the expansion of the Hallstatt culture, the settlement of the Greeks and the assimilation of Daco-Getae by the Scythians, which formed the Geto-Scythians in the Western steppe and Thraco-Scythian groups in Pannonia, which influence reached even La Tene Celts.

Don't pin me down on every district and please consider that some districts would be split, if possible - like in Poland for example.

The reason why G?va expanded primarily East and South at first is simple, because to their West was the strong Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture and later Urnfield culture, which formed the base of the Pannonian-Illyrian block. The Urnfield groups in Pannonia being heavily influenced by G?va and Kyjatice, but the real G?va settlement didn't reach much beyond and it went forth and back. So they turned to the easier targets South and East, than to their fellow Urnfielders to the West at first. This changed with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt, when the movements of people from the Channelled Ware territory, went right through Pannonia and into the Upper Danubian, Alpine and North Italian zone.

But to make it clear, I don't expect to find E-V13 before the Late Bronze Age far away from the G?va core and most certainly not outside of the Channelled Ware maximal spread and sphere of influence. But a lot of its Southern territory was already extensively tested, which makes the G?va core region at the Northern Carpathians at least one of the best candidates left.

 

[Hawk]

Just a guess, the core region corresponds to Carpathian region called Beskidy (according to Cabej and Orel deriving from Proto-Albanian bjeshke).

Could it be Pre/Proto-Albanoid (note that i don't necessarily mean directly Albanian here but Albanian and/or Albanian-like) was one of the languages brought by Gava/Channeled-Ware?

 

[Riverman]

Just a guess, the core region corresponds to Carpathian region called Beskidy (according to Cabej and Orel deriving from Proto-Albanian bjeshke).

Could it be Pre/Proto-Albanoid (note that i don't necessarily mean directly Albanian here but Albanian and/or Albanian-like) was one of the languages brought by Gava/Channeled-Ware?

Another question is how closely related Daco-Thracian and Illyrian is and whether modern Albanian clearly descends from one of these or just a related language. I'm no linguist and don't bother too much with linguistic questions, so I don't know, but these are issues some raised. Its certainly possible, to put it that way.

A German etymology is also possible:

Das Wort Beskid/Beskidy ist mit dem mittelniederdeutschen Wort besh?t, beskēt ?Scheide, Wasserscheide? verwandt. Unwahrscheinlich ist die Abstammung vom albanischen Wort bjeshk?.^[1] Historisch gesehen wurden die Begriffe Bieszczad und Beskid jahrhundertelang benutzt, um die Berge zu beschreiben, die das K?nigreich Polen bzw. die Adelsrepublik Polen-Litauen vom K?nigreich Ungarn trennten.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskiden#Etymologie

Its in any case an interesting "coincidence", who knows. If you think about it, it should have persisted for three millenia.

 

[Hawk]

E-CTS1273 I18832 0.0293957 HRV_Pop_CAE-V13 I14465 0.03366259 HUN_MBA_Vatya
E-Y142743 I18527 0.02445165 SRB_Mokrin_EBA
E-Z1057 I16272 0.02587514 CZE_Unetice_EBA

Assuming CA is Chalcolithic we can safely build a chronological story of E-V13, it looks like it really arose in Dalmatia, but left Dalmatia earlier than Early Bronze Age, during Chalcolithic maybe, heading and pushing northward and participating in the Danubian Urnfield Cultures, one part of it probably arose to prominence in Gava, Piliny and related Middle-Danubian Urnfield Culture. But, note that it probably had earlier spinoffs, one of the Mokrin EBA samples was E-V13 L241, so i would expect cultures more in south like Brnjica to have atleast some E-V13.

 

[Hawk]

Another question is how closely related Daco-Thracian and Illyrian is and whether modern Albanian clearly descends from one of these or just a related language. I'm no linguist and don't bother too much with linguistic questions, so I don't know, but these are issues some raised. Its certainly possible, to put it that way.

A German etymology is also possible:


https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskiden#Etymologie

Its in any case an interesting "coincidence", who knows. If you think about it, it should have persisted for three millenia.

That's the lesser known theory though which in German version is being promoted as the first one, Cabej and Orel separately agreed that bjeshket and Beskidy atleast have a common origin. But, who knows.

 

[Riverman]

Assuming CA is Chalcolithic we can safely build a chronological story of E-V13, it looks like it really arose in Dalmatia, but left Dalmatia earlier than Early Bronze Age, during Chalcolithic maybe, heading and pushing northward and participating in the Danubian Urnfield Cultures, one part of it probably arose to prominence in Gava, Piliny and related Middle-Danubian Urnfield Culture. But, note that it probably had earlier spinoffs, one of the Mokrin EBA samples was E-V13 L241, so i would expect cultures more in south like Brnjica to have atleast some E-V13.

No its not. These are just similarities in G25, not the burial context of the finds and the similarities might be mostly based on the people, or better mostly women, the incoming E-V13 males paired up with. I think a survival within Lengyel is really the most likely scenario. The spread to the West happened later, especially with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Basarabi-Hallstatt connection:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...um_und_Mitteleuropa_wahrend_der_Hallstattzeit

There are direct links between Psenichevo, through Basarabi, through Pannonia deep into Southern Germany, Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg, within the Hallstatt sphere. The similarities and quick spread of styles and techniques means that people migrated, at least specialists and small groups.

Going by the similarity maps ph2ter made, one of the assignable is Hallstatt-Illyrian-Pannonian related I14465 (E-BY4643) the other I18527 (E-Y142743) full blown Celtic:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...t-al-in-review&p=813841&viewfull=1#post813841

Interestingly the lineage of the more Hallstatt-Illyrian/Hallstatt-Dacian autosomal profile ended up in Britain early on and autosomally similar are primarily the Slovenia IA finds with a lot of R-U152.

 

[Hawk]

No its not. These are just similarities in G25, not the burial context of the finds and the similarities might be mostly based on the people, or better mostly women, the incoming E-V13 males paired up with. I think a survival within Lengyel is really the most likely scenario. The spread to the West happened later, especially with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the Basarabi-Hallstatt connection:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...um_und_Mitteleuropa_wahrend_der_Hallstattzeit

There are direct links between Psenichevo, through Basarabi, through Pannonia deep into Southern Germany, Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg, within the Hallstatt sphere. The similarities and quick spread of styles and techniques means that people migrated, at least specialists and small groups.

Going by the similarity maps ph2ter made, one of the assignable is Hallstatt-Illyrian-Pannonian related I14465 (E-BY4643) the other I18527 (E-Y142743) full blown Celtic:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...t-al-in-review&p=813841&viewfull=1#post813841

Interestingly the lineage of the more Hallstatt-Illyrian/Hallstatt-Dacian autosomal profile ended up in Britain early on and autosomally similar are primarily the Slovenia IA finds with a lot of R-U152.

My bad, it just looked like the labels were actually the burial context.

 

[Riverman]

In my opinion the E-V13 expansion happened with different modes, to the West rather with elite warriors, specialists, especially artisans like smiths and potters, probably even priests and the retinue this rather higher social ranks had. To the South and East it was more a male dominated conquest. So in both cases, the E-V13 incoming individuals from Channelled Ware did mix early and heavily with local women, which means they quickly became autosomally whatever was typical for the region. Just in their primary domains, they are supposed to have a bigger impact autosomally. This would mean regions like the Banat/Vojvodina in particular, with its Belegis II-G?va centres. Already to their South with groups like Paraćin down to Greece, they became more mixed. Its even visible in the record for areas like Brnjica, that it was no sudden full scale replacement anywhere. This usually means, even if most male lineages got replaced, what doesn't have to be, that they took local women, rather.

If this is correct:

I14465 E1b1b1a1b1a20~ E-BY4643
I16272 E1b1b1a1b1~ E-FGC11422*(xZ36787,BY5793,BY6349,FGC14093,L250,Y164 02,Z36882,S20250,A11798,Z36778)
I18527 E1b1b1a1b1~ E-FGC11422*(xL17,A2192,L252,Y17722,A783,S20250,Z2135 5,Z36778)
I18832 E1b1b1a1b1a E-PF2211*(xL17,BY4642,BY5791,BY6349,FGC14100,L250,Y1 6402,SK888,Z37880,Z21355,Z42778)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6496-Map-of-ancient-E-samples&p=812508&viewfull=1#post812508

It is quite interesting that I14465 is where I'd say Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt should plot. This would be really like "E-V13 on the move", considering that his closest relatives yDNA wise ended up in Scandinavian Vikings and British Celts.

The J2b's largely plot where expected, in the Pannonian-Illyrian and Eastern Hallstatt variation.

Modern variation:

Looks older, probably a Corded Ware - Neolithic mix?
Target: Celtic_paper:I14465
Distance: 2.6253% / 0.02625307 | R5P
50.6 Sardinian
37.2 Lithuanian_VA
12.2 Abkhasian

Definitely Celtic-like:
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 2.1904% / 0.02190421 | R5P
40.4 Orcadian
37.8 Lithuanian_PZ
20.0 Spanish_Soria
1.8 Australian

Target: Celtic_paper:I18527
Distance: 1.8709% / 0.01870861 | R5P
33.6 Basque_French
24.0 Spanish_Menorca
21.4 Lithuanian_SZ
17.6 Bulgarian
3.4 Roma_Balkans

Clear Balkan affinity:
Target: Celtic_paper:I18832
Distance: 2.7806% / 0.02780560 | R5P
55.6 Albanian
19.2 Greek_Laconia
18.8 Sardinian
6.4 Spanish_Soria

I also did my classic basic run for the Antiquity, and again, this is a clear Hallstatt/Celtic-like individual:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I18527
0.03613966 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.05726453 DEU_MA
0.06119596 CZE_Early_Slav
0.07741727 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
0.12529365 ITA_Rome_Imperial

This one is quite close to Germanics:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.03721365 DEU_MA
0.04632402 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.05023861 CZE_Early_Slav
0.12162772 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA

Not close to anyone - the sample with the subclade which ended up in the North, but probably very old (Epi-Corded - Neolithic?):
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I14465
0.06022000 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
0.06463709 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
0.08812298 CZE_Early_Slav
0.09048243 DEU_MA

In detail, we have two highly mixed more Balkan like, one probably more ancient, the other more recent, one Hallstatt/Celtic and one Germanic with Slavo-Celtic admixture probably:

Old sample (?), probably from the Carpatho-Balkan sphere:
Target: Celtic_paper:I14465
Distance: 3.5719% / 0.03571851
36.2 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
28.6 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
17.6 CZE_Early_Slav
17.6 ITA_Rome_Imperial

Germanic:
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 3.1456% / 0.03145579
46.2 DEU_MA
28.6 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
25.2 CZE_Early_Slav

Hallstatt/Celtic:
Target: Celtic_paper:I18527
Distance: 2.2138% / 0.02213783
51.2 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
24.8 CZE_Early_Slav
14.4 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
8.6 ITA_Rome_Imperial
0.8 Berber_Tunisia_Chen
0.2 Yoruba

Newer Balkan:
Target: Celtic_paper:I18832
Distance: 3.4567% / 0.03456743
46.8 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
38.0 ITA_Rome_Imperial
15.2 CZE_Early_Slav

I know that the North European PCA is not always ideal, but I prefer it for making some comparisons, even with more Southern shifted groups. Note where they plot:

https://ibb.co/XFqs5P0

I think its quite likely that they being separated by a lot in space and time. The oldest might be I14465, which, if his assignment is correct, lineage ended up quite early in the Centre and North of Europe, with relatives moving on to British Celts.

 

[Riverman]

The fits with moderns are quite telling, because I14465 is very likely indeed to have been EBA-MBA. The others might be significantly younger. Note he is the only one which gets a good regional composition from the regional elements, even with something surely involved in or picked up by G?va, like Mako.

I18527 and I18832 are more difficult to place, they could be older (LBA) or younger (historical era). I made my bet (Hallstatt/Daco-Pannonian and provincial Roman, but could as well be Daco-Thracian).

Its very obvious, even from these few results, that the E-V13 males bred within different groups, like expected, after their initial dispersal and took local women. That means they will shift in whatever direction the region was before. The question is which is their true, original core component, but that might be quite tricky from the start, since G?va and the region they expanded was fairly mixed from the start.

If I16272 is more recent, then he is just Germanic with Celtic and Slavic drift and that's where he plots, close to modern Central-Eastern Germans. But if he is from the Bronze Age instead, this would be a bomb:
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 1.5592% / 0.01559189 | R4P
38.0 CZE_Unetice_EBA
33.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
15.8 DNK_MN_B
13.2 Baltic_LVA_BA

But if he is ancient, the closest matches are similar to what Kyjatice got, so very Northern, his top matches are astonishing and highly important:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.02587514 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA
0.03152717 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA
0.03196382 VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA
0.03197782 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA
0.03221041 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
0.03254794 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA
0.03268734 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA
0.03319641 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA
0.03365558 DEU_Tollense_BA
0.03409277 VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA
0.03418643 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA
0.03432919 CZE_Unetice_C
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA
0.03486488 DEU_Unetice_EBA
0.03508099 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA
0.03531730 Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale
0.03604838 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA
0.03642078 VK2020_IRL_Dublin_VA
0.03648861 SWE_Ollsjo_BA
0.03665115 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA
0.03698556 VK2020_RUS_Gnezdovo_VA
0.03721365 DEU_MA_Baiuvaric

Because F?zesabony being an Epi-Corded/Unetice influenced group which lived in Pannonia, was replacing older layers of Otomani culture and were among the first to introduce typical ceramical elements of the Channelled Ware groups. They were later pushed to the Upper Tisza by the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture, and were probably very influential in the formation of Piliny, out of which Kyjatice and G?va were in part formed, first with the very South Eastern Tumulus groups, later the starting of the Urnfield.
So if this unusual sample is old, it would be from the very Northern G?va core and similar, but not the same, to BR2.

His closest matches individually:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.02790839 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.02882703 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
0.03163005 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK279
0.03163068 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036
0.03166446 VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK98
0.03174322 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK296
0.03179878 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531
0.03202261 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK443
0.03212158 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ22
0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA:I7949
0.03272543 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ12
0.03352056 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512
0.03373542 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK301
0.03373685 CZE_Unetice_EBA:I5044
0.03418326 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK275
0.03469065 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK433
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA:VK170
0.03501533 CZE_Unetice_preC:KNE003
0.03511269 VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK547
0.03519606 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK290
0.03520666 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK145
0.03526154 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK508
0.03547614 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK294

So he can be just Germanic with Celto-Slavic admixture or if he is older, if he is really dating to the Bronze Age, he would be from the G?va core or even up North, most likely from Uneticians and F?zesabony(-Otomani). So his age is really, really crucial.
Thanks for pointing that out, because I missed before that he is THAT CLOSE to Uneticians and F?zesabony-Otomani, that would be huge if he is older.

Distribution of F?zesabony, right at the later core zone of Kyjatice-G?va at the Upper Tisza basin:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...usted-Ware-Vatya-and-Fuezesabony-Cultures.png

The landscape of the north-
eastern part of Hungary and south-east Slovakia, the setting for the F?zesabony
Culture, is again quite different. The highest mountains of Hungary are found
here in the foothills of the Carpathians along the Slovakian border. In the early
stages of the F?zesabony Culture, the valley of the river Hern?d, north of the
Tisza-Bodrog confluence, seems to be an important centre. Later, the F?zesabony
Culture expanded south along the Tisza to the K?r?s, remaining mainly on the
left bank of the Tisza. In Middle Bronze Age II, the F?zesabony Culture almost
reached the Danube near Budapest and became a neighbour of the Vatya
Culture (B?na 1975:146)

F?zesabony probably developed as a
successor to the Ko?tany Culture with influences from Hatvan and Otomani.

Bronze industry
flourished and is well documented by finds of moulds from sites such as Tiszaf?red,
T?szeg and F?zesabony, including several moulds for heart-shaped pendants and
pins (Meier-Arendt 1992:198?199). In this region, a large quantity of decorative
bronzes has been found as hoards and in graves; these bronzes include objects to dec-
orate the person, such as pendants, small plates, and arm and leg spirals. The spiral
dominates the shape of the objects themselves and they can be highly decorative, at
the same time the surfaces of objects such as weapons are richly engraved with the
same spiral motifs. This motif is mirrored in the pottery, which is of a high quality,
well burnished and of elaborate shape.

They produced Channelled Ware (among the first in the Bronze Age!) and had a focus on metal working:

https://ibb.co/27bkyxn

There are clear lines of tradition directly from them to G?va.

It had on some sites a smooth transition from inhumation to cremation:

Cremation and inhumation burials share a number of common characteristics.
Addressing them merely as an opposing set of concepts therefore misses potentially
important similarities in the wide range of practices involving the body. For example,
the placing, orientation, and composition of objects as well as the body in graves 24
and 35 from Streda nad Bodrogom (F?zesabony Culture) are almost identical (Fig. 4).
Grave 35 is an inhumation with the body placed on the left side with the head to the
west. The rectangular pit of grave 24 is oriented the same way, but it contained a cre-
mation, which was similarly placed to the west of the pottery. In both cases the pot-
tery was placed at the ?feet?. In addition, the set of pottery was organized similarly in
both graves, with a jug placed inside the bowl and a small cup, completing the set,
placed with the body (Polla 1960:311, 314, 353)

But overall inhumation prevailed, as well as this custom:

. A remarkable feature of the F?zesabony cemeter-
ies is the presence of so-called ?symbolic graves? (e.g. Streda nad Bodrogom: 9; Gelej:
16). They are usually grave pits similar in size and orientation to the rest of the
graves, and they frequently contain pottery sets, but there are no traces of a body.

https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/a...ications-1/Sorensen Rebay 2009 Landscapes.pdf

F?zesabony was in any case close to the G?va core and had gene flow with it, whether it was the origin itself or not.

Of course, this makes him similar to Germanics, because they too are very similar and partly descend from Uneticians, but that he is that close is really big if he is from the right context.
Because like described above, F?zesabony is among the top candidates for carrying E-V13 or being at least a direct neighbour to the main group. They occupied the Upper Tisza region, from which Kyjatice and G?va were descending from, the river downwards.

Run with Hungarian samples only:
Distance to: Celtic_paper:I16272
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.04836276 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I4178
0.05063912 HUN_LBA:I20771
0.05320501 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2365
0.05355098 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3529
0.05444726 HUN_LBA:I1504
0.06067116 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2786
0.06395714 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE484
0.06938301 HUN_Mako_EBA:I1502
0.07092779 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3528
0.08941707 HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
0.08962666 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE480
0.09037461 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2787
0.09684574 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE483
0.09698558 HUN_BA:I7043
0.09943624 HUN_Avar_Period:SZ1
0.10079216 HUN_BA:I7040
0.11279229 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE247
0.11493525 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I5015
0.12223336 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364
0.12948504 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7045
0.13020760 HUN_MBA_Vatya_o:RISE479
0.13180524 Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044
0.13974116 HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA:I2788

Admixture without La Tene:
Target: Celtic_paper:I16272
Distance: 2.3272% / 0.02327212
38.8 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
34.8 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA
13.6 HUN_Mako_EBA
11.4 HUN_LBA
0.8 HUN_MBA_Vatya
0.6 HUN_Koros_N_HG

So he could be that ancient, he could be from F?zesabony, Piliny, Kyjatice or Northern G?va. The fit is good and the composition would make sense. Doesn't have to be, could be younger, but its definitely possible.
Very noteworthy is the great distance of this sample and F?zesabony to Mako and Vatya. They have way more Epi-Corded/Unetician admixture, just like BR2 from Kyjatice had too.
If this sample is older, it could be the breakthrough. If not, its not that exciting of course, especially since the subclade couldn't be determined like in the others.

 

[Hawk]

Riverman, i found this facebook page to be informative on Central Balkans Bronze/Iron Age: https://www.facebook.com/archeoserbia/

I thought, you might be interested on reading some of the posts.

 

[Riverman]

Riverman, i found this facebook page to be informative on Central Balkans Bronze/Iron Age: https://www.facebook.com/archeoserbia/

I thought, you might be interested on reading some of the posts.

Thank you, I will take a look.

The interesting part is that R1b overlaps with E-V13, but J2b does not, while we actually have J2a samples which do (Kyjatice):

https://ibb.co/NyvT09d

R1B-Z2103 started as pure steppe, became admixed over time, E-V13 started in the middle, between about 75 % Unetice and 25 % Vatya/Mako, going down towards the Balkan on. The starting point could have been F?zesabony-like.

This is even more evident if going by North European PCA:

https://ibb.co/v1J9KH5

This means R-ZZ2103 started as pure steppe in the Bronze Age, E-V13 most likely intermediate (F?zesabony-like) and J2b was picked up in the Pannonian-Carpathian sphere. Note that some E-V13 end up more "Southern" or South Eastern than J2b, because they most likely mixed with Aegean elements early and their starting point is more Eastern, more "Balto-Slavic" like, just like F?zesabony and Kyjatice (BR2) was, because of the more Unetician and Epi-Corded, rather than Bell Beaker heritage.
The more Southern Bell Beaker trend being more pronounced in J2b, the earliest cluster with French (Auvergne, Swiss French).

Scythian_HUN and Scythian_UKR repeat the same variation as does E-V13 and R-Z2103. They completely overlap, they just have some outliers (in the direction of Mako and more exotic) and never reach the Balkan extreme. Scythian_MDA is the same variation, again, but they reach the Southern extreme. Why and how exactly is unknown, could be achieved in multiple ways.

The most interesting part is therefore the possible Northern Pannonian-Carpathian cluster from the Tisza, with F?zesabony. Now what's really interesting about this cluster is that it has ONLY Neolithic and rather exotic lineages:
I2, E-V13, H, G2, J.
This is absolutely striking. Its like a local Lengyel-Baden group, probably even with more Southern influences (Maritime Troy being suggested for J2a in Kyjatice, Aegean) picked up Epi-Corded/Unetice women. Then, from all those lineages, primarily E-V13 survived in the environment of the Tisza basin, within Channelled Ware groups, developed G?va and expanded in all directions, first at the expense of the other Neolithic-Copper Age lineages.

I checked what BGR_IA is, and its simply an unmixed continuation of BGR_EBA on the same PCA - I know its not well-arranged, but the main point is were all the other Carpatho-Pannonian-Balkan plot and where BGR_IA is:

https://ibb.co/vv70cqD

Its easy to note the extreme position, even in comparison to Vatya and Mako, of BGR_IA. If even just a large portion of the Bulgarian/Lower Danube Fluted Ware groups descended from BGR_IA, let's say the majority of the women and a minority of men, they would already pull the whole Thracians much further South than the Illyrians, which being more influenced by a mix of Southern Bell Beaker-like plus Vatya-like probably. That's also why even the Central Balkan Daco-Thracians will be more Northern, than the Bulgarian Thracians.
The substrate was different!

But I absolutely don't expect the Thracian E-V13 carriers from Psenichevo/Svilengrad to cluster where BGR_IA, but rather where the more "Southern" E-V13 being positioned. Clearly, even if people which were F?zesabony-like would mix with BGR_EBA, they would plot much more South Eastern than all the Daco-Moesians, Illyrians and Pannonians. Even if this would have been a 50 : 50 mix. Just imagine where that would end up between F?zesabony and BGR_EBA.
Thracians are more South Eastern not because of E-V13, but because of the pre-E-V13 substrate effect. The cline in the Iron Age comes therefore more from the old substrate, than from the expanding Daco-Thracians and Pannonian-Illyrians, or Celts. Because as one can see, Vatya and Mako are just very different from the Bulgarian Bronze Age individuals. The only BGR_EBA which plot closer are those with heavy Yamnaya admixture, which existed too (like I2165).

I want to repeat that what the Svilengrad/Psenichevo just have to show, to prove the movement, is that the E-V13 carriers come closer to the Central Balkan samples than the EBA and the singular BGR_IA sample, and that's very likely, in my opinion. Because for being pulled there, they need additional steppe, just like F?zesabony got it.

 

[Hawk]

Belegis/Szeremle to Bosut-Basarabi...

Th e ceramic fi nds from the settlements and cemeteries of the Titel Plateau and the adjacent part ofŠajkaška show characteristics of two diff erent pottery stiles. Th us, ornamented ceramic shapes of thedeveloped early Belegiš group (Belegiš Ib) and the late Szeremle group appear side by side. Th e incrustedlate Szeremle pottery according to the studies of Ch. Reich represents the most recent occurrence ofMiddle Bronze Age Incrusted Pottery along the Danube. Besides the Drava estuary and the Iron Gatesregion, a micro-regional agglomeration of settlements and cemeteries with Incrusted Pottery is evidentalso in the area at the confl uence of the Tisza and Danube69. In addition, anthropomorphic clay fi gurineswith incrusted ornamentations that are also characteristic of the Late Szeremle group were frequently

encountered70. Thus, a discontinuity of the Vatin-Moriš culture of the early Middle Bronze Age at Feudvarcan be observed both in the settlement pattern and in the development of the pottery, and on this basis itis possible to postulate a population change in the micro-region at about 1500 BC71.

https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/04080200/Falkenstein_Feudvar_III_2016.pdf

4.3 The Late Bronze Age4.3.1 Late Belegiš GroupThe settlement pattern that was installed in a short time and perhaps in the course of systematic colonisationby population groups from the Danube-Sava region (Belegiš group) and from the confluence of the Danubeand Drava (Szeremle group) remains virtually unchanged from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age (15th–13thcentury BC) (horizon 14–15).

Only at local level can be observed that individual buildings were moved fromone place to another, whereby the built-up areas of the open hamlet-like sites tended to increase72.The time of the greatest possible continuity of settlement is however characterised by a drastic change inpottery decoration from the incised, stamped and incrusted pottery of Middle Bronze Age type (BelegišIb, Late Szeremle) to a black-polished and fluted ware of the Late Bronze Age Belegiš group (Belegiš IIa),whilst the shapes of the vessels continued without a break73.The subsequent settlement phase (horizon 16) of the latest Belegiš group (Belegiš IIb) of the 12th–11thcentury BC is a transitional phase that shows signs of disintegration of the traditional settlement structure.Thus, at the beginning of the phase all earlier sites were abandoned, and new settlements were built atdistances of a few hundred meters to two kilometers.

Also, in the urn grave cemetery of Stubarlija which isunfortunately only partly excavated the burial activities seem to cease at the beginning of Belegiš IIb phase.As the area of exploited agricultural land and the settlement density remained virtually the same, it wouldbe expected that the restructuring was caused by socio-political rather than economic or demographicfactors. However, the former even distribution of hamlets in the landscape was replaced by a less regularsettlement pattern comprising sites of very different sizes. Thus, farmsteads and hamlets now alternatedwith large settlements of village-like character74.

Whilst the shapes of the pottery gradually changed, the black polished surfaces and the fluted decoration of the later Belegiš group continued. In addition, coarsely made vessels with incised and stampeddecoration appear in a still small, but already regular proportion and thus mark the beginnings of theEarly Iron Age Bosut group75.From the characteristic finds in Feudvar it appears that, in the course of the reorganisation of the settlement pattern on the Titel plateau in the 12th / 11th century BC, also the Bronze Age settlement moundof Feudvar was occupied again. The transition from the Middle Bronze Age settlement to the Late BronzeAge habitation, with the intervening hiatus, seems to correspond stratigraphically with level I after Röderin excavation trenches D and E76. The apparent decline in the settlement structure and in the potteryproduction support the view of a period of cultural transition and reorientation between the Late Bronzeand Early Iron Age in the middle Danube region77.

Th e beginning of the Early Iron Age in the Tisza estuary area and throughout the Serbian Danube region is characterised by the appearance of the early Bosut group (Kalakača horizon). Compared withthe black-polished fi ne ware of the Late Bronze Age there is now a prevalent trend towards coarserceramic wares, as well as a sharp decline of fl uted decorations in favour of incised, stitched and stampedornaments


In the settlement phase of the early Bosut group (horizon 17) either a signifi cant increase nor a reduction of settled area can be observed in relation to the immediately preceding period, thus the populationsize in the micro-region of the Titel plateau was presumably fairly stable. However, the settlement patternhad been radically regulated through resettlement measures that aff ected about two thirds of the existingsites (Fig. 15). Along the edge of the plateau towards the Tisza the mostly village-like sites were situated atregular distances of 2.5–4 km and within sight of each other. Especially striking is the complete depopulation of the lower terraces, for all settlements originally located at the foot of the plateau or in the plain weremoved to the shelter of a nearby spur of the plateau. In addition, the settlements on the promontories atthe natural access routes to the micro-region were protected by earthworks

Th e earliest Iron Age settlement of Feudvar on the central northern edge of the plateau was likewisefortifi ed by a ditch approximately 10 m wide and up to 4.5 m deep (Fig. 16). Two passageways fl anked bythe inwardly receding ditch give reason to expect pincer gates. Th e excavated earth from the ditch wasused to level the area in front of the fortifi ed settlement, and therefore the remains of the Bronze Age ditch were also completely levelled. Immediately on this levelled loess layer the suburbium of the Kalakačaperiod was built, which extended over an area of approximately 6 ha (Fig. 16)80

The beginnings of the Bosut group are therefore marked by strategic measures that were carried out withconsiderable effort. As a result, the settlement activities were shifted from the lower terraces to naturallyprotected locations on the Titel plateau and the settlement area was safeguarded at the neuralgic pointsagainst military attacks from the outside The resettlement and reinforcement measures take place at a time when a complex cultural change canbe discerned in the Carpathian basin. In the zone of the Great Hungarian plain, the cultural break hasespecially dramatic effects. Thus, the settlements and urnfields of the Csorva, Kyjatice and Gáva groupsin the middle and upper Tisza basin were in the course of 10th–9th century BC replaced by the burial sitesof the Füzesabony-Mezőcsát group. The metal finds from the graves and depots represent a repertoire offorms of Pontic-Caucasian origin. At the same time it can be assumed, especially due to the lack of settlement remains, that the population groups in the Alföld were of nomadic steppe character81. The presenceof a nomadic steppe population in the geographically adjacent lowlands is in perfect agreement with theresettlement and reinforcement activities of the early Bosut group, for such measures would be expectedin the case of threat from steppe nomadic attacks.

By the time of the Kalakača period at the latest, the settlement complex of Feudvar due to its heavilyfortified settlement and large suburbium could once more have functioned as a political centre in themicro-region of the Titel plateau. However, another large settlement in a strategic position now existedon the southeastern tip of the Titel plateau in the Titel-Kalvarija area82.

The settlement stratum of the early Bosut group in Feudvar was identified stratigraphically as layerII by M. Röder and described by P. Medović. The characteristic layout at this time is defined by looselyarranged irregular groups of freestanding small buildings that were used only for a short time and aresurrounded by alleys and open spaces (Fig. 17). The preserved parts of the buildings are often clay floors,hearths, post holes and burnt clay of the walls that were constructed of wattle and daub. The constructionand dimensions of the houses remained the same throughout the Early Iron Age building phases (Fig.18). The residential areas include storage facilities consisting of clay-lined pits, the pits being accessible,roofed over and arranged individually or in groups beside the residential buildings83.Building level P (houses 5 and 6) in excavation areas D and E corresponds to two stratigraphically earliesthouse contexts that were analysed by M. Röder and according to the ceramic finds date back to the veryend of the Kalakača phase. Here, the first occurrence of incrusted stamped S-motifs marks the beginningof the Basarabi decorative style84

The range of species represented by the Early Iron Age animal bones from Feudvar points to gradualchanges in subsistence strategies in comparison to the Early Bronze Age. As before, the floodplain forestsof the Tisza lowland yielded large quantities of wild game, so that in the Early Iron Age the proportion of game meat could still rise. Regarding the role of the river as food resource there is, however, ashift in that the fish consumption declined noticeably, whilst the consumption of mussels doubled85. Inthe case of domestic animals, a change in food selection towards specialised meat consumption witha preference for horse meat can be determined. Whilst beef retained its importance, pig and sheep /goat was eaten significantly less. Of special importance is the doubling of the proportion of horse meat (31.6 %) compared to the Early Bronze Age. Half of the consumed horses were slaughtered alreadyat juvenile to subadult age, before they could be of use as riding and work horses. This is remarkablebecause horse keeping for the purpose of meat production is, for species-specific reasons, extremelyunprofitable and can only be imagined when the economy generates a surplus86. The preference of thepopulation of Feudvar for horse meat must therefore be seen in the context of the cultural fabric of thelowlands of the Carpathian basin at the time of the Early Iron Age, which is characterised by steppenomadic traits. Thus, it would be conceivable that goods were exchanged between sedentary farmersand pastoral horse breeders, for example at the occasion of regularly held livestock markets. Anotherpossible explanation could be the adaptation of horse keeping in large transhumant herds, because onthe plateau or on the sandy islands of the alluvial lowland herds of horses would have found ideal grazinggrounds. Also, the botanical macro remains demonstrate a trend towards anthropogenic desertificationof the hinterland by the time of the Iron Age at Feudvar, and this could have been another favourablefactor for specialised horse keeping87.

4.4.2 Middle to Late Bosut GroupThe settlement phase of the early Bosut group (Kalakača horizon) on the Titel plateau, in the area oftension between farmers and nomadic horsemen, thus saw a well-organised settlement pattern withthe highest population density ever reached in prehistoric times (Fig. 15). However, the prosperingsettlement region came to an abrupt end. Notwithstanding the earlier reinforcement measures, almostall settlements were abandoned at the transition to the middle Bosut group (horizon 18), and the landscape was depopulated. This resulted in a decreased number of settlement sites on the Titel plateau ofabout one-tenth88.On the basis of the pottery, the far-reaching events that caused the irreparable breakdown of the EarlyIron Age settlement pattern can be assigned quite precisely to the transition from an early Basarabistyle marked by stamped S-motifs to a developed Basarabi style characterised by incised and incrusted two-dimensional ornaments. In terms of absolute chronology, we are thus likely near the transition fromthe 9th to 8th century BC89

Depopulation phenomena with such dramatic effects are noticeable throughout almost the entire areaof the Bosut group at the end of the Kalakača period, and they are probably the reflection of a crisis periodwhich finds visible expression in, among other aspects, the mass grave II in the settlement of the Kalakačaperiod of Gomolava in Srem90

After the depopulation of the hinterland at the beginning of the 8th century BC only the fortified centralsettlement of Feudvar continued to be inhabited (horizon 18). The rapid shrinking of the population toprobably less than one-tenth of the original population size is, at that point, observable not only on thesmall-scale regional but also at the local level, as a drastic reduction in built-up area is visible also in thesuburbium. Thus the extensive suburbium of the Kalakača period (approximately 6 ha) was followed bya settlement of the middle and late Bosut group (horizons 18 and 19) with a very confined area of onlyabout 0.5 ha (Fig. 16). In the characteristic settlement zones immediately outside the gate complex a rowof buildings can be discerned that are aligned with the axis of the gateway. This ‚gateway settlement’ provides indirect proof that the Iron Age earthwork was still functioning91

On the basis of the pottery, P. Medović has recognised a clear stratigraphic sequence of the Kalakača,Basarabi and Fluted Pottery periods (Bosut IIIa–IIIc / IVa–IVc) in Feudvar and defined it with reference to the settlement of Gradina on Bosut92 (Fig. 19). M. Röder in his stratigraphic assessment of thehouse phases Q to S however places a different emphasis. Thus he stresses that high-quality wares andthe associated surface polishing and fluted decoration were already revived at the transition to theBosut II (resp. Bosut IIIb / IVb) period, without any sharp differentiation from the ceramic repertoireof the subsequent Bosut III (resp. Bosut IIIc / IVc) period. The ceremonial bowls of Basarabi style thatoccur irregularly among the pottery finds in houses he considers as no defining element of the Bosutpottery (Fig. 20)93.

Due to the patchy nature of the settlement findings of the middle to late Bosut group in Feudvar, noreliable statements can be made with regard to continuities or breaks in the settlement sequence. The loose arrangement of groups of freestanding rectangular buildings was retained, whereas in excavation trenchesD and E the houses of the individual levels seem to have been uniformly aligned (Fig. 17). Between phasesP, Q and R the orientation of the houses shift s by approximately 45° respectively, without however implying further-reaching conclusions. As layers of burnt debris show clearly, house fi res continued to occurfrequently throughout all Iron Age settlement phases94. Due to the presence of large numbers of storagevessels, cooking pots and animal bones in the area of house 1 of the Basarabi period and further, thefi nd of a spiral decorated hearth nearby (Fig. 21), Röder identifi es this fi nding as the remains of a specialbuilding to which he assigns a sacred character95

Th e uppermost Iron Age settlement deposits of the late Bosut group (Fluted Pottery period) are heavilyweathered due to the millennia-long root activity of the surface vegetation, and we consequently knowvery little about the latest settlement phase of Feudvar. However, a striking number of in situ inventoriesof intact vessels were found in buildings that had collapsed in the fi re and only a few decimeters belowthe recent surface. Th ey are interpreted by the excavators in that the latest settlement was suddenly abandoned in a catastrophe and with the belongings of the inhabitants being left behind96. Th e time whenFeudvar was abandoned has so far been only vaguely determined. Whereas M. Röder, though with certainreservations, assigns the fi nds from the most recent level S to the Ha D period P. Medović, on the basisof the single fi nd of a small three-nozzled oil lamp, associates the end of the settlement in Feudvar withthe so-called Syrmian group of the Western Balkan Complex of the 5th / 4th century BC97. Medović also connects five graves of the Syrmian group in the cemetery area of Stubarlija surduk with the occupationlevel of the late Bosut group in Feudvar98.After the fortified settlement of Feudvar, which formed an isolated island in the steppe landscape, wasfinally destroyed around the 5th / 4th century BC the micro-region of the Titel plateau remained abandonedfor several centuries. A grave find on the bottom of Feudvar surduk however attests the presence of Celtsalready in the early La Tène period (Lt B)99. When the settlement area was extensively reoccupied in the2nd century BC, in the course of colonisation of the Tisza estuary area by population groups of the CelticScordisci, the focus of settlement had shifted to the southern tip of the plateau. Thus, at that time a largeCeltic fortified settlement existed at the important geostrategic location of Titel-Kalvarija on the mouthof the river Tisza100. Thereafter, the prehistoric settlement mound of Feudvar has remained unaffected bythe settlement activities of historical times on the Titel plateau.

https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/04080200/Falkenstein_Feudvar_III_2016.pdf

Is the so called Szeremle group (North Carpathian + local Vatin) the origin of E-V13?

The origin of the ornamentation of the ceramics, used initially within a narrow area, respectively in Transdanubia, are difficult to be explained. The archaeological investigations in Hungary in the second half of the 20th century revealed the existence, within this huge complex of inlayed ceramics, of two large areas: the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics where the Esztergom and Veszprém cultural groups developped, and, respectively, the southern-Pannonian ceramics of which the Szekszárd and Pécs1 groups were characteristic. As a consequence of the pressure exercised by the communities of the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur), warrior populations coming from Central Europe, to which the hiding of the bronze hoards from Koszider2 horizon are hypothetically related, communities of the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics culture (Esztergom group) leave Transdanubia and they withdraw to the south along the valley of the Sió river, occupying the area between the Danube and the Tisza3.


The movement to the south of the communities of the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics stimulated, but at a reduced extent, elements from the southern area of Transdanubia, too. The grafting of the elements of civilization typical of the communities of the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics with local ones (Gerjen, Vatina and Verbicioara) determined the appearance of a new ethnical-cultural manifestation known especially as „Szeremle group”4, and recently as „Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo group”5 in the archaeological literature.


Generally, it is admitted that the formation of the Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo group took place during the Middle Bronze, in the period of transition from Bz. A2 to Bz. B1. The evolution of these communities was considered as being extremely short, respectively to the end of the Bz. B1 phase in P. Reinecke’s modified chronological system6. But, the presence of certain ceramic materials typical of the Szeremle group in the region controlled by the Cruceni-Belegiš culture suggests a little bit longer evolution of the communities of Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo type. Their end took place in the period in which the first phase of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture was developping, respectively at the beginning of the so-called „Reinecke” Bz. B2 phase7.


The discoveries typical of the Szeremle group are concentrated along the Danube, between the river mouth of the Sió and that of the Tisza. The eastern limit was the last narrow path of the Danube, at least to Liubcova, unless even to Ostrovu Corbului8. The short evolution of this cultural group played a very important role in the genesis of some new ethnical-cultuUDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQV 2QH RI WKHP ZDV WKH æXWR %UGR-Gârla Mare culture, which developped from the Szeremle communities, that were coming down to the neighbouring of the western side of the Carpathians9. The Szeremle cultural group is considered, in the same time, one of the elements that actively participated to the formation of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...CULTURE_WITH_THE_ZUTO_BRDO-GARLA_MARE_CULTURE

 

[Riverman]

The reason for the "resettlement" and defensive measures were the Cimmerian and later Scythian raids.

Thus, the settlements and urnfields of the Csorva, Kyjatice and Gáva groupsin the middle and upper Tisza basin were in the course of 10th–9th century BC replaced by the burial sitesof the Füzesabony-Mezőcsát group. The metal finds from the graves and depots represent a repertoire offorms of Pontic-Caucasian origin

This group is "Thraco-Cimmerian", a sample showed exotic Eastern haplogroups, but I expect a large portion, either at the beginning or over time, to be largely "Gva" like, at least autosomally.

Culturally, Pannonia was "steppified", "yurtified", the population collapsed, culturally there was a massive demise - the Cimmerian intrusion really ended the Channelled Ware network and rule in every respect, it was a real caesura of historic proportions - if it wouldn't have been prehistory. With Hallstatt everything got more settled down and things built up again, in a different way, then came the Scythians, and the same happened once more. Pannonia was a very deadly environment throughout the ages.

Very important is this - because Belegis II-Gva was an intrusive break in the record, while then there was continuity along the Danube:

On the basis of the pottery, P. Medović has recognised a clear stratigraphic sequence of the Kalakača,Basarabi and Fluted Pottery periods (Bosut IIIa–IIIc / IVa–IVc) in Feudvar and defined it with reference to the settlement of Gradina on Bosut92 (Fig. 19). M. Röder in his stratigraphic assessment of thehouse phases Q to S however places a different emphasis. Thus he stresses that high-quality wares andthe associated surface polishing and fluted decoration were already revived at the transition to theBosut II (resp. Bosut IIIb / IVb) period, without any sharp differentiation from the ceramic repertoireof the subsequent Bosut III (resp. Bosut IIIc / IVc) period. The ceremonial bowls of Basarabi style thatoccur irregularly among the pottery finds in houses he considers as no defining element of the Bosutpottery (Fig. 20)93.

Is the so called Szeremle group (North Carpathian + local Vatin) the origin of E-V13?

No, I don't think so. They were rather short lived, not very successful and didn't connect that well with the Channelled Ware horizon, which was at least the main vehicle of E-V13, regardless of its exact origins.

I think it was either within Otomani or just Fzesabony (later stage), or a group nearby. From one of these Upper Tisza elements, they made it into Piliny - Kyjatice and especially Gva, the South Eastern Urnfield group of the Channelled Ware horizon. There is, however the possibility that they didn't start, but just hopped on the train. Like being one of the other Vatya related Pannonian-Danubian elements, being incorporated, or adopted the package, and then expanded from a more southward position of Belegis II-Gva. However, that would, in my opinion, make the whole dispersion process on both sides of the Carpathians only more complicated, but its surely possible.
Its even thinkable, though probably the least likely, that a Lower Danubian/Bulgarian group was it, and then it spread from within Channelled Ware later, with Psenichevo-Basarabi primarily. But that is, from the currently available evidence, much less likely than a spread already from the Upper Tisza, from Gva.

A lot depends on the date and context of the samples in the upcoming British paper, because some more experiments:

it's the Vahaduo custom PCA: https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/

Thank you. I did play around with that too, but it turns out its really all about the age of the two Central European shifted samples, and the one in the Southern Balkan cluster - as well as their subclades, which we might never know, because they could be dead ends or without relevance for the majority of the modern carriers of these haplogroups.

In any case, the WHG shift some of the samples is interesting and if they are ancient, that would be a typical feature of the Pannonian sphere. Even in a very global, primary setting, the majority of J2b end up in their own cluster, with the funny part being the only E-V13 is not just in it, but goes beyond, presumably because he got a lot of BGR_EBA admixture. The R-Z2103 samples being clearly split in the original Yamnaya-like and the Balkan-admixed category, which just shows how misleading autosomal DNA couid be, without knowing the context.
The potential Fzesabony cluster overlaps mostly with modern Central Europeans on most PCA, so in theory they could be more modern, but going after their haplogroups, they are rather not. Which leads us back to the question of how old I16272 and I14465 are and from which context. In this PCA there are J2b in the same cluster, largely, as the E-V13 which are close to Fzesabony, but the bulk is still elsewhere, but all could have been admixed in this or that direction, but J2b, which position is fairly solid closer towards to the Neolithic reference:

https://ibb.co/hcZFt1Y

On that PCA, the J2b sample which is close to the Unetician/Fzesabony cluster is I24882. Still to the left of the main two E-V13 which are more Central European. Again a comparison of these three more Northern shifted J2b and E-V13 samples, only the relevant BCE samples taken:
Distance to: J2B:I24882
0.02553878 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.02777536 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03101111 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR109
0.03189288 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK10B
0.03203852 Bell_Beaker_CZE_lateRU001.A0101
0.03237255 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.03306335 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK29A
0.03345776 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09538
0.03392020 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK26A
0.03431842 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.03435462 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.03455291 DEU_Lech_BBC:UNTA58_68Sk1
0.03462611 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR108
0.03488047 HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03541587 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03550127 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94
0.03602340 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK14
0.03622285 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4885
0.03662921 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5520
0.03697531 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK27
0.03703984 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ27
0.03713174 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.03779579 HUN_BA:I7040
0.03783558 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03790343 ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1221


Note how close he is to Southern Bell Beakers and HRV_MBA (Middle Danubian Tumulus-related)

Now the two E-V13ers to his right, first the one closer to the Fzesabony/Uneticians, for comparison:
Distance to: EV13:I16272
0.02790839 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509
0.02882703 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352
0.03078742 HUN_Fuzesabony_MBA:I20772
0.03163005 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK279
0.03163068 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036
0.03166446 VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK98
0.03174322 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK296
0.03179878 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531
0.03202261 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK443
0.03212158 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ22
0.03217649 CZE_Bilina_BA:I7949
0.03272543 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ12
0.03352056 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512
0.03373542 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK301
0.03373685 CZE_Unetice_EBA:I5044
0.03418326 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK275
0.03469065 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK433
0.03484867 HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
0.03486095 VK2020_Isle_Of_Man_VA:VK170
0.03501533 CZE_Unetice_preC:KNE003
0.03511269 VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK547
0.03519606 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK290
0.03520666 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK145
0.03526154 VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK508
0.03547614 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK294

Second the less clear one, which oscillates between Mokrin and the Hungarian Bronze Age:
Distance to: EV13::I14465
0.03548909 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK12
0.03594579 HUN_BA:I7043
0.03985902 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.03985922 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.04024971 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK13
0.04064740 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK25A
0.04111966 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE480
0.04129588 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK27
0.04142847 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5524
0.04189682 BGR_EBA:I2165
0.04198434 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:HOP004.A0101
0.04213984 DEU_Lech_MBA:OTTM_151ind2_d
0.04300076 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK29A
0.04300706 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR105
0.04304478 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR110
0.04344422 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK33
0.04419069 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK10B
0.04438459 HUN_BA:I7040
0.04468141 CHE_IA:SX18
0.04499030 DEU_Roman:FN_2
0.04510409 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK9B
0.04554125 HUN_MBA_Vatya:RISE483
0.04597888 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR61
0.04606241 Bell_Beaker_CZE_lateRU001.A0101
0.04612385 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94

So even between these three, there is still a marked difference in the direction of the West Balkan-Upper Danube vs. Pannonia-Carpathians, though these are close and are very interesting.

 

[Riverman]

To be sure, I did run many moderns and ancient candidates against F?zesabony and only one single German from my chosen candidate groups reached a distance below 0,032:
German:German76 0.03191012
Finnish:HG00350 0.03205930
German:German13 0.03386772
Czech:NA15724 0.03428785

I also checked, from all ancients, which are closest to F?zesabony:
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531 0.02876167
CZE_Unetice_C:MIS002.merged 0.03025527
Scythian_UKR:scy009 0.03147418
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK352 0.03278466
VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK509 0.03279856

Note one of the closest is among the "Southern shifted" individuals assigned to (Thraco-) "Scythians" once more!

There is currently no sample in the whole data base which is as close to F?zesabony as some of the new samples from the British study:
FuzesabonyCluster:I25525 0.02440513
FuzesabonyCluster:I12106 0.02489549
FuzesabonyCluster:I17322 0.02893993
FuzesabonyCluster:I16272 0.03078742
EV13:I16272 0.03078742
FuzesabonyCluster:I7964 0.03253927
FuzesabonyCluster:I11719 0.03283871

This means the F?zesabony cluster is very real. The individuals with Neolithic-Copper age haplogroups and a Unetician : Vatya/Mako mix seem to be a reasonable assumption. The EV13:I16272 has a slightly increased Vatya/Mako ancestry probably, but is still solidly within as one can see.

All the other ancients and moderns got a much worse fit. On the PCA, modern Polish, German and Swedish are closest to the F?zesabony cluster, but their distances are all worse, as you can see. Going by that, a close relationship of E-V13 carrier I16272 to a F?zesabony-like population from Pannonia are quite likely, from my point of view.

In a reduced custom PCA, the arrangement of the samples from the different haplogroups reproduces a very clear pattern, once more:

https://ibb.co/Zzn4qnK

Two E-V13 are in the Balkan cluster, two outside, with one being intermediate between F?zesabony/North Pannonian and Balkan. There is no single J2b outside of the Balkan cluster, but only E-V13 and R-Z2103. This means, in any case, that they are not part of the same cultural formation, because such a large sample of J2b with so few E-V13 means a lot. Its the final proof for the Illyrian : Daco-Thracian division in this respect. Its however possible, that a majority of E-V13 samples with a Balkan profile existed, but these were not tested, probably because they are from cultures using cremation, like expected, if they spread with Channelled Ware.

Single outliers of E-V13 in a Mokrin-like population could mean many things, we'll see how this ends up, but in any case, the important sample I16272 does look like belonging in the Bronze or Early Iron Age, rather and clusters with North Pannonians with a lot of Unetician-related ancestry like F?zesabony.

 

[Hawk]

Albania's transition to iron age was enriched by the Pannono-Balkan Urnfield group which didn't have a great impact or ethnical change in Early Iron Age Albania.

https://books.google.de/books?id=vX...#v=onepage&q=mediana group bronze age&f=false

 

[Riverman]

Especially the flame-shaped spearheads seem to be a tell-tale for G?va. I found out, also thanks to other users on Anthrogenica, that the burial used for G25 HUN_LBA is considered G?va but its an irregular burial of a female. Interestingly, both the irregular Kyjatice and G?va sample in G25 (HUN_LBA) have a strong tendency towards WHG and are in between F?zesabony and the J2b-cluster of Pannonian-Illyrians. So they are more Northern, but not as Northern (any more?) as F?zsesabony, presumably because they mixed with local older Otomani, Vatya and Mako elements. Mako being the strongest shifted towards WHG.
So G?va is definitely in the game, going by that and I really want to know the context of the samples in the British paper. Hope there is something provided.

 

[Hawk]

I would put forward and say that Glasinac-Mat (more influenced by Hugelgraberkultur) + Trebeniste Culture (either mainly or influenced by Gava/Channeled-Ware) is what made the historical Illyrians.