Scythian Borat Sagdiyev on a horseback.
| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
| Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Scythian Borat Sagdiyev on a horseback.
Your interpretations can be paralleled with that of Bruzmi, completely impossible for that sample to be modelled as Scythian-like and MJ12 Thraco-Cimmerian-like. I mean 0% possibility, i checked his autosomal and did quite balanced regional Chalcolithic/EBA components, and he doesn't score anything related to that area, he looks a recent immigrant from Southern Balkans within the context of Late Iron Age.Originally Posted by Aspurg
That degenerate seems to suffer from a pronounced cognitive dissonance disorder. Don't follow in his footsteps..
Who cares about Chalcolithic type auDNA which didn't exist in IA anymore?? Those should be used only when here are no IA samples..
Our V13, with more than 5200 samples on G25, MJ12 comes as 3rd closest to him. J2b2 La Tene 2nd, V13 Geto-Scythian 5th, Vekerzug sample 4th. IA Bulgarian 5th...
Distance to: HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832 0.02942434 HRV_Pop_CA:POP39 0.03473345 HUN_IA_La_Tene_o:I4998 0.03718422 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12 0.04051750 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11721 0.04070183 Scythian_MDA:scy192 0.04072761 BGR_IA:I5769 0.04078411 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43 0.04116147 HUN_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup:I18259 0.04208370 ITA_Daunian:ORD009 0.04227834 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111 0.04265769 HUN_La_Tene:I18493 0.04369392 SRB_BA_Maros:I23209 0.04392344 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101 0.04411479 SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:I23208 0.04424152 HRV_MBA:I4331 0.04424772 HRV_EIA:I26742 0.04430839 GRC_Logkas_MBA:Log02 0.04442846 HRV_EIA:I23904 0.04459924 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b 0.04462277 ITA_Tarquinia_EMA:TAQ022 0.04476954 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979 0.04499078 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11722 0.04534405 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ40 0.04568674 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36 0.04606025 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR969
Him with some Balkan samples, Myceneans are rather far.. Also clearly Proto-Illyrians/Delmatians etc also not as close.
Distance to: HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832 0.03718422 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12 0.04051750 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11721 0.04070183 Scythian_MDA:scy192 0.04072761 BGR_IA:I5769 0.04116147 HUN_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup:I18259 0.04442846 HRV_EIA:I23904 0.04770942 Scythian_MDA:scy300 0.04918639 Scythian_MDA:scy197 0.05042316 Scythian_HUN A198
0.05482127 HRV_IA:I3313 0.05523634 HRV_EIA:I23995 0.05619440 Scythian_MDA:scy305 0.06167173 HRV_EIA:I23996 0.06182606 HRV_EIA:I23911 0.06667336 HRV_EIA:I24638 0.07131512 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033 0.07647551 GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
His modelling with these:
Target: HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832
Distance: 2.1463% / 0.02146333
39.4 UKR_Cimmerian_o
18.2 BGR_IA
17.8 HRV_EIA
15.4 GRC_Mycenaean
9.2 HUN_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup
This to you means he has "nothing to do with MJ12"???
He is not as Southern as you are portraying him to be. He carries an ultra Scythian mtDNA, most likely he is a recent migrant from Hungarian Scythian areas. Such profiles were alot more common in those areas also.
The point still stands, it looks to me that E-V13 intruded into Carpathian mountain during MBA from somewhere else. I still stand to my original opinion that it came from further west than Carpathians.
Do not want to chip in on the analysis part. But I do believe the _o on G25 means outlier. So that should be telling. Only chipping in since I18832 is among my closest matches.That degenerate seems to suffer from a pronounced cognitive dissonance disorder. Don't follow in his footsteps..
Who cares about Chalcolithic type auDNA which didn't exist in IA anymore?? Those should be used only when here are no IA samples..
Our V13, with more than 5200 samples on G25, MJ12 comes as 3rd closest to him. J2b2 La Tene 2nd, V13 Geto-Scythian 5th, Vekerzug sample 4th. IA Bulgarian 5th...
Distance to: HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832 0.02942434 HRV_Pop_CA:POP39 0.03473345 HUN_IA_La_Tene_o:I4998 0.03718422 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12 0.04051750 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11721 0.04070183 Scythian_MDA:scy192 0.04072761 BGR_IA:I5769 0.04078411 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43 0.04116147 HUN_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup:I18259 0.04208370 ITA_Daunian:ORD009 0.04227834 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111 0.04265769 HUN_La_Tene:I18493 0.04369392 SRB_BA_Maros:I23209 0.04392344 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:PRU001.A0101 0.04411479 SRB_Mokrin_EBA_Maros:I23208 0.04424152 HRV_MBA:I4331 0.04424772 HRV_EIA:I26742 0.04430839 GRC_Logkas_MBA:Log02 0.04442846 HRV_EIA:I23904 0.04459924 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b 0.04462277 ITA_Tarquinia_EMA:TAQ022 0.04476954 Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979 0.04499078 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11722 0.04534405 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ40 0.04568674 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36 0.04606025 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR969
Him with some Balkan samples, Myceneans are rather far.. Also clearly Proto-Illyrians/Delmatians etc also not as close.
Distance to: HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832 0.03718422 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12 0.04051750 SVK_IA_Vekerzug:I11721 0.04070183 Scythian_MDA:scy192 0.04072761 BGR_IA:I5769 0.04116147 HUN_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup:I18259 0.04442846 HRV_EIA:I23904 0.04770942 Scythian_MDA:scy300 0.04918639 Scythian_MDA:scy197 0.05042316 Scythian_HUN 0.05482127 HRV_IA:I3313 0.05523634 HRV_EIA:I23995 0.05619440 Scythian_MDA:scy305 0.06167173 HRV_EIA:I23996 0.06182606 HRV_EIA:I23911 0.06667336 HRV_EIA:I24638 0.07131512 GRC_Mycenaean:I9033 0.07647551 GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
His modelling with these:
Target: HUN_IA_La_Tene_oEast:I18832
Distance: 2.1463% / 0.02146333
39.4 UKR_Cimmerian_o
18.2 BGR_IA
17.8 HRV_EIA
15.4 GRC_Mycenaean
9.2 HUN_IA_Syrmian_SremGroup
This to you means he has "nothing to do with MJ12"???
He is not as Southern as you are portraying him to be. He carries an ultra Scythian mtDNA, most likely he is a recent migrant from Hungarian Scythian areas. Such profiles were alot more common in those areas also.
Edit: For reference:
This is why basing analyses on outliers can be tricky. Without knowing the naming convention for G25 one could make a point of Cimmerians being Illyrian/Roman.
“Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”
― Franz Kafka
Hi Aspurg!
May I ask where did you find that I14465 Vekerzug sample from Hetény belongs to Y196687?
I revisited the MKD samples since they are all over the place and to see if there needs to be some consideration in understanding them. It does look like the southeast MKD group has more Thracian ancestery than realized, much of it being in the form of early Thracian, before the south Thracians got shifted to Aegean like profile.
The MKD samples can be divided as follows.
1) I8112 and I10383 are west Dardanian like, they have Skopje I10379 ancestry with Illyrian, one even has partial Celtic ancestry.
2) MKD I10390, I10391 and Skopje I10381 have a strong north Thracian ancestry (Vekerzug Balkan and Mezocsat), the other secondary components are local (MKD Ohrid and MKD Dardanian). I10390 and I10391 are my MKD Southeastern average and it looks like they are merely unaltered Thracian(no Aegean mixture) with some local MKD mixture.
3) MKD I10379 is the most complete Dardanian R1b-Z2103 profile to date. She shows a little Thracian mixture, but maybe it could be that the south Thracians themselves might carry a portion of this I10379 ancestry.
4) Alb Mdv I13834 and MKD I10384 are very much the same, even their tag number are similar as fate would have it. Both belong to the MKD Ohrid group, but with Illyrian BA mixture. Alb I13834 is clearly miss-dated.
5) The rest of MKD Ohrid are their own unique local.
It looks like some unaltered Thracian profile survived in eastern Macedonia.
Last edited by PaleoRevenge; 05-11-22 at 22:20.
I do think that the Central Balkan Thracian groups won't be as much Aegean as the Southern ones, but probably in between - with the Dacians having also some Aegean, but how much is completely unknown.
I've come to the conclusion the Vekerzug and the two MKD southeast individuals are highly mixed and don't represent a particular tribe/people. The Vekerzug are a prelude of the Hun-Avar-Maygar samples from Hungary, of the highly mixed individuals that were clearly abducted by the steppe nomadic tribes from different unrelated regions and planted in the Hungarian plain. These individual samples are only valuable for modeling if their profile is unmixed, which does not appear to be the case, we can't determine what they represent.
Vekerzug is not even a unified culture, but more of a horizon. The more Thracian locals being concentrated in the Eastern cremating group. The type site is Sanislau in todays Romania:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisl%C4%83u
That's the same core zone which was home for Cotofeni, Mak-Livezile-Soimus, Nyrsg-Sanislau, Gyulavarsnd-Eastern Otomani, Suciu de Sus, Lăpuș, Gva, Eastern Vekerzug (Sanislau)-Kustanovice, Early Dacians. Note that most of the type sites being in Western Romania, not within the borders of (modern) Hungary.
I still think that Eastern Vekerzug (Sanislau group) were part of the West-migrating Thraco-Scythians, and that's what we see. Also interesting that the type site of Sanislau was very important throughout the ages, like EBA Nyrsg-Sanislau and EIA Vekerzug-Sanislau, same type site, same place!
Nyrsg-Sanislău:
http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/dok...nglish_version
The centre for this local element was always the Upper Tisza-Transtisza/East Carpathian zone.
My grandfather was born in Szaniszló/Sanislau and I also live 10 km west of this village. Although it is actually located in Romania, it is inhabited by a population of Hungarian nationality. Among the settlements you listed, there are at least as many in Hungary (Makó, Gyula, Nyírség, Gáva) as in Romania. The border marked in 1920 divides the region that connected the Körös valley with the Szamos and the Upper Tisza valleys since the Körös culture. And this is the Ér valley, where human settlement dates back to the Neolithic and is continuous.
I completely agree that Vekerzug was formed from the mixing of local Gáva elements with Scythian elements from the east, and is the basis of the later Dacian population. I studied Neolithic and Bronze Age Carpathian archeology at the University of Miskolc, and I also came to the conclusion that the Nyírség culture (which, by the way, is not related to the Thracians but to the Vucedol, i.e. the proto-Illyrian group) is continuous to the Gává, and the Upper Tisza region has preserved a specific archaeological its face, neither the Tumulus, nor the Urnfield, nor the eastern (Yamnaya, Mezőcsát and then Pre-Scythian) elements left any archaeological traces. There are no Yamnaya kurgans in this area, while the Great Plain is full of them.
In the spring, based on my WGS results, I prepared a PCA analysis and a clustering at the University of Szeged with the help of Tibor Török and Endre Neparáczki with 3,750 archaic and modern samples from David Reich's database. The results require a long interpretation, based on them I cluster near the samples from the Carpathian Basin that have been here since the beginning of the Bronze Age. close to the samples identified as Scythian DA194, DA197 and scy009. At the same time, surprisingly, a lot of Bell Beaker samples also belong here and the Celtic and Germanic population is not far from this cluster either, as 17 Longobards also fall here (11 from Szólád, 6 from Collegno).
I show you the map on which you can find the 78 archaic samples that form a cluster out of the 3750 based on the first 1000 branches on the main axes of the PCA. It suggests an interesting relationship.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/ed...5558639815&z=4
I would add that all my ancestors in the last 300 years came from the region of the Upper Tisza. From the territory of present-day northeastern Hungary, eastern Slovakia and Zakarpattia of Ukraine. KB. where the EV13 comes from, I think.
Of course, even the Romanian sites had often a Hungarian population and place name too. Like e.g. Suciu de Sus which in Hungarian being often named by its Hungarian place name Felsőszőcs. The sites don't always represent the centre anyway, but type sites can be in fringe areas too. However, it is clear that only the Nyirseg region of Hungary, its very North Eastern tip, being fully in this sphere throughout the ages.
As for modern similitary, this can be sometimes quite misleading because many mixtures can create similar profiles. It is quite interesting, nevertheless, that the basic ratio didn't change that much on the long term, even if its because of many recent admixture events.
Of course, each PCA is determined by the samples it is composed of, and the same mix can be mixed from several sources. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see where and in how many clusters the samples belonging to each archaic population "cluster". Among the Scythians, e.g. the Celto-Germanic, Jamnaic and the rest. Among the Longobards are the Carpathian basins, Celtic, Celto-scythian, Germanic clusters. They show their way from the Weser valley to the Po valley. If you think so, I will be happy to send you the PCA analysis and the clustering as well. I can't show it here, its size is too big.
Your upstream branch E-Z17107 is quite interesting because it has in all major subclades Hungarian members. Could be really Hungarian plus neighbourhood in origin. On FTDNA are some additional Hungarian branch members to those on YFull.
Since 2017, I have been researching the Z17107 subspecies and contacted everyone who appeared in the databases.Based on these, I would link the ancestor of Z17107 to the Gáva culture with the following reasoning.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17107/
I'm id:YF011315 on Yfull, inside E-A19238 hpg. id:YF013045 is another Küzmös family with whom our last common ancestor lived between 1770-1831 according to the registers. We are descended from his son György born in 1811, and the other Küzmös family from his another son Mihály, born in 1804.
Yfull guesses TMRCA at 225 years, which is particularly accurate. The Küzmös are Hungarian today, but our first known ancestor lived in Bárdháza south of Munkács (today Barbovo, south of Mukacheve, Ukraine Zakarpattia territory) in 1715 and was probably a Ruthenian, as he was a Greek Catholic priest there.
On the next level, we found the Szinetár/Senetar family. id:YF016494 on yfull.
Today they are also Hungarians, but their first ancestor also lived south of Munkács, in Drágabártfalva (now Dorobatovo, Ukraine, Zakarpattia) in 1720 and was also a Ruthenian.
Drágabártfalva and Bárdháza are 10 km from each other!!! The Küzmös and Szinetárs together are the sub E-Y81971, TMRCA according to yfull 550 ybp (1470CE). According to FtDNA, 1639CE is the median value.
The next level is E-A19239, which is not on yfull but on Ftdna and gives a mid 12BCE TMRCA with the English Austin/Auston families. The Austins and Austons have an English paternal line until the 1600s, no earlier ones are known.
The next level is the E-FT27670, where according the Yfull 2400 ybp TMRCA, and according the FtDNA 148 BCE TMRCA we have a common ancestor with a N.N. albanian family from Tirana. (they were the only Albanians who did not give their family name.Maybe the Kastrioti family?)
The next level is the E-A19247, which TMRCA is 2500 ybp (yfull) and where we found a russian family from Vladivostok, Russia (the sample donor's grandfather grew up in an orphanage in Vladivostok, so he does not know his family's name or where they come from. From somewhere in Russia or Ukraine, that's all he knows).
The next level is E-Y196687 where we found 2 new families. In other words, there are 3 subgroups here: the first is E-A19247, the second is the Russian Schepak family whose first known ancestor comes from Baranya/Baranovo near Ungvár/Uzhorod in Zakarpattia, Ukraine, 50 km northwest of where the Küzmös/Szinetár ancestors lived . The third is the English Hansard/Hansford families. We are 2600 years deep.
And now we have reached the ancestor of Z17107, 2900 ybp according to Yfull, 795 BCE according to FtDNA. This is the time of the Gáva culture. This is when the family splits into several branches. My own E-Y196687 is the first. The second, and the most populous is the E-Y30991, where there are families from all the countries of the Balkans. In addition to 17 Albanians and 15 Bulgarians, there are also Serbian, Greek, Turkish, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Bosnian, Croatian and Romanian. But also Hungarian, Ukrainian, Swedish, French, English and 3 Sicilians. But they are all on the same subgroup.
But we also have less populous subgroups on line Z17107 which are neither Y196687 nor Y30991.
+1 subgroup: the Fedushka family from Dobromyl (the Polish-Ukraina border, at the northern foot of the Norteastern Carpathians)
+2 subgroup: The Forgách family, from Szirák, Nógrad county, north Hungary and a N.N family from Canada
+3 subgroup: The Johnson family, Dublin Ireland
+4 subgroup: The Elmore family from North Carolina - originally from Gloucestershire, England
+5 subgroup The Smith family from Indiana and the Anderson from Ohio, no deeper root is known.
In summary, I think I vote for the Gáva culture because of the age and the many families from the North-East Carpathians. In the Balkans, although there are many more present-day Z17107s and they are more widespread, they are all from a single younger branch, (dacian? balkanic celts - scordiscii, tylis?)the others, British Isles and Ruthenian lines are older. In other words, I think that after the Gáva age, our ancestor merged into the Vekerzug culture, then among the eastern Celts who arrived 2400 years ago, and when the Dacians broke the 300-year Celtic rule in the Carpathian basin around 60 BCE, then the ancestors of today's Z17107 Britons could have gone west with the Celts fleeing from here.
Excellent summary for your branch. There are many others which, even though sampling is low, have found old branch members around Transcarpathia, which was a central region for Suciu de Sus -> Lapus -> Gva -> Vekerzug-Kustanovice -> Dacians. If the Transcarpathian population would have been tested like the English or Albanians, we would get way more results to work with.
Thank you very much! And in the next step is the E-CTS9320.
We have a Hungarian FB group called DNA and Family Tree Research, with more than 1,900 members. Knowing 650 Hungarian paternal lines, we know that 3% of Hungarians today are CTS9320. The Hunyadi/Corvin house is CTS9320 too, but there are conquering Hungarians, Avars and Gepids among the ancient samples from Hungary.
I read somewhere that one of the Vekerzug culture samples is Hetény (Chotin) from today's Slovakia, which is also 2,600 years old. That's why I came back here after a 2-year absence. But unfortunately I couldn't find any relevant data.
By the way, according to our research, 8% of today's Hungarians are V13. (3% CTS9320, 3% Z5018, 2% all other subgroups within V13.
I tried to break down the data by county, but it is not ready yet. In any case, the CTS9320 seems to be stronger in the east and north.
The Chotin sample was being discussed more than once here and on Anthrogenica. It belongs to the rather Southern group (some associate it with Illyrian or Thracian respectively) in the Vekerzug sample, but others are even more Southern. I think that the Eastern Vekerzug group I wrote about (Sanislau group) before which cremated a true hotspot of E-V13 was kept alive. Those Western Vekerzug context burials being from a mixed bunch, but probably some of the groups from the East (Tisza) or South (Illyrians, Thracians) did make it there.
Thank you. I'm actually interested in the paternal lines at the moment, not the autosomal results. This is how I try to geographically find the origin of each subgroup.Do we know the exact Y chr hpg for the I14465 sample?
Also could you help me, identify the known CTS9320 archaic samples?
I guess you know the time tree from FTDNA, it has 2 ancient DNA samples listed:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-CTS9320/tree
Also worth to note is that this branch has a lot of Sardinian samples, mostly from Cagliari, so again a Western route expansion which reached Northern Italy - at which point in time exactly is conjecture, but I think some branches split off fairly early and moved west, but that's not your lineage's story I guess.
Another ancient DNA is from Hungary:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY4573/
Notice in this archaeological picture of Western Romania the inter-related cultures, so called Balkan-Carpathian, Stamped and Grooved (meaning channeled) or Channeled-Ware. Trying to avoid to be repetitive but this cultural complex is perfect for the origin of E-V13, from Vatin in South-West to Gava (Suciu de Sus and Lapus) in North-East, now we also need Noua-Sabatinovska-Coslogeni to form the East/South-East Thracians.
If not this, then very likely from Danube Delta, extreme Eastern Balkans.
I don't think E-V13 could grow, as it did, in the Bronze Age in an area which was depopulated, repopulated and overrun multiple times. The Eastern Carpathian basin was the only protected zone, by and large, with a significant local survival, plus a large scale expansion from this core zone. All the other areas being either already tested, rather overrun themselves than expanding, or seem to have been simply too small and isolated. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. Coslogeni is in part a mystery, because it is definitely Noua-Sabatinovka plus local Carpatho-Balkan elements, but how exactly is hard to pin down. I rather think it was closest related to Noua-Wietenberg groups, which brings us in the neighbourhood of Suciu de Sus/Lapus anyway.
I am just reading some interesting paper from Romanian scholars regarding South-East Bulgarian EIA, Psenicevo and surroundings where E-V13 was found. They make it quite clear it's an intrusive culture during Late Bronze Age, but they think they came from North-Western Thracian regions, Southern Carpathians. Insula Banului is to be considered related to those cultures, Gava influences are indeed mentioned but authors are not really sure about this whole Balkan-Carpathian complex specifities, who influenced whom. It's hard to pinpoint the exact culture.
Psenicevo contains the three elements:
1. stamped
2. incised
3. fluted with knobs
Follow this as well:
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
https://www.phil.uni-wuerzburg.de/fi...r_III_2016.pdfTh 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 stampedornaments78.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 style84I think it's hard to pinpoint the exact group, or even whether they were different groups or just related cousin cultures both bearing E-V13.4.4.2 Middle to Late Bosut Group
The 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)9
My interpretation is that Gva-related groups expanded rapidly and aggressively, either annihilating, assimilating or fusing with local elements. This created one united koine and network, which was however severely damaged and ultimately destroyed by the Cimmerian invasion. After the Cimmerian invasion we see this sphere falling apart, splitting into different branches almost immediately, and in the following period there were many regional groupings which show even stronger earlier local and foreign influences. Like in Basarabi, we see the fusion of Channelled Ware with more local and already syncretistic (like later Babadag) cultures, while at the same time first Cimmerian, later Scythian, influences are regionally very pronounced, like e.g. in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon with its core group around Mezocsat.
This boom and bust cycle for the Gva-related expansion and the collapse of its rule and breaking apart in newly defined regions is what causes the confusion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
