Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: E-V13 coming from Hatvan culture ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-04-22
    Posts
    73


    Country: Denmark



    6 members found this post helpful.

    E-V13 coming from Hatvan culture ?

    I have some new information's from the Pannonian basin study.

    There is just one Nyirseg culture sample from Eastern Hungary, I correctly guessed the site (only Nyirseg finds were there).
    It's sex is undetermined, but this study also contains earlier Nagyrev samples and 3 samples also have undetermined sex but they are actually 3 males and 1 female. So the Nyirseg sample could be male or female.

    However there are multiple (7-8) Hatvan culture samples. From at least two sites, maybe 3. At least 2 are male. It seems they are unsure whether they are Fuzesabony or Hatvan from one site with more samples, because this site had an older Hatvan layer followed by the Ottomany/Füzesabony. Looking at their autosomals, as they seem radically different from the Füzesabony, these were the Hatvan people.

    Now I did not classify two autosomal clusters from the study one being Hungary EBA_MBA the other another Hungary_EBA. So this is where the Hatvan, Nyirseg samples should be. The single Hungary_EBA sample is very Steppe heavy, has more Steppe than EBA E1b1b1a sample. If male, probably R1a. MBA/EBA cluster 2 with Steppe influence and way to the South of them are 4 samples with very low Steppe. This is why I believe E1b is not the Nyirseg sample but a Hatvan sample. The location and the number of samples. Nyirseg is alone, Hatvans are many. Also the suspect PCA EBA E1b sample is close to another sample from the same group. That would not be the case if it was a Nyirseg sample.

    Füzesabony has one main cluster, these come from an exclusive Füzesabony site, also on the PCA plot there are two lone Füzesabony samples representing likely two other sites. This group was labelled MBA/EBA Hungary (and not "Fuzesabony") likely because they were unsure of its affinity.

    This Southern cluster has barely any Steppe ancestry, and it seems to fit with an almost stepeless EBA J2a sample well.

    Theoretically E1b sample could be from the Nitra (what Riverman thought originally), but though of the same age it has alot less of Steppe ancestry so that would be very unusual.

    Hatvan culture from Northern Hungary and Southern Slovakia is descended like the Nyirseg from the Vučedol periphery. It can be said it had heavy Neolithic elements. It seems that it came into conflict with the Füzesabony/Ottomany people, R1a dominated, and was generally destroyed and assimilated by this culture.

    It cremated mostly, but it did have also some ritual sacrificial pits, I wonder if they could be related to Kapitan Andreevo/Svilengrad pits.

    Hatvan apparently had some Battle-Axe influences, and also it was overrun by Ottomany/Füzesabony which were R1a, this could the explain the Baltic leanings of the Thracian language group.

    Ottomany/Fuzesabony was a Steppe derived group, as was postulated by Gimbutas, and also the Wietenberg group from Transylvania was very similar to it.

    Apparently there are alot more of Kyjatice/Piliny culture LBA samples. Actually there are 7 male LBA Kyjatice/Piliny samples. they might include the J2a BR2 sample already published. Combined with other sites, that means 12 male LBA samples.

    There is interestingly another low Steppe LBA J2a sample, might also be from this culture. Probably the R-L51 was the most common. If the LBA E1b sample is from here it was in strong minority, which is why I think it wasn't.

    If these E1b1b1a samples are V13 then it means that V13 100 % descends from this area, it will also mean the impossibility of any connection with the likes of Vatin culture etc. A very radical migratory event for the V13. And a sign of equality between anything proto-Daco-Thracian related in SE Europe.

    Also the LBA affinity of V13 must be looked at very very closely. Most of even Eastern Urnfield is likely unrelated to it. But there must be a group which was extremely V13 heavy.

    Also in those areas there was obviously some basin of EEF heavy ancestry. All of this can explain why the Daco-Thracians had more EEF.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Interesting quote:

    East of the middle Danube in eastern Hungary, eastern Slovakia, Transylvania, and Moldavia (fig. 119), we come across the cultural groups known by the names Periam-Pecica (I shall call it Pecica), Nagyrev, Hatvan, Otomani, and Monteoru, not to mention other names used for the same cultural groups, variants, or for individual chronological phases. West and south of the middle Danube in western Yugoslavia and western Hungary there were several other Early Bronze Age groups: the Incrusted Pottery culture in western Yugoslavia and Pannonia (in Hungary called the "Transdanubian culture") and the Vatya group south of Budapest on the Danube. They will not be described here, but their names will be mentioned inasmuch as they were in contact with their eastern neighbors. The Bronze Age of Bulgaria will not be covered since as yet it is insufficiently known. The southern limit is the Belgrade-Bucharest line. The progressing differentiation into many cultural units during the beginning Bronze Age and the variety of ceramic styles and the rapid changes of forms of artifacts were caused by mixtures of people, the growth of metallurgy, and trade. In this region, during the Chalcolithic period in the third millennium B.C., there existed the Tisza culture with its several phases, Tisza, Tisza-Polgär, Bodrogkeresztür; the Baden or Chanelled Ware culture, a rival group to the Tisza culture in northern Hungary and Slovakia, and the Salcu^a and Coto-feni, the latter also called Kostolac, "Linsenkeramik", or "Furchenstichkeramik" in the greater part of Transylvania and Oltenia.

    https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111668147.185/pdf

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Another interesting quote:

    The southern part of central Slovakia was linked to the Hatvan culture. Archaeological evidence suggests that the OFCC replaced the Hatvan culture during and after the BA2 (Bátora 2018: 94). However, some research suggests that transformation might have been linked to regional adaptations, and in fact, local Hatvan communities imitated the OFCC pot-tery style until the BB1 chronological phase (Guba 2009: 134; Fischl 2012: 42; Guba 2016: 84). The common denominator and con-sensus is that in the following chronological stage (phase BB1/BB2) the OFCC transforms gradually into Urnfield decorative style (in the Piliny and Suciu de Sus cultures; Šteiner 2009: 76–119; Olexa/Nováček 2013: 12), and Tumulus – post Otomani style respectively (Przybyła 2009: 120–123). In this study, we focused on radiocarbon dates ranging from the Hatvan to the Piliny culture (fig.2). The ear-liest OFCC radiocarbon date is available from Gánovce (3500±90BP; Barta et al. 2013), the latest from Nižná Myšľa (features 89 and 120a, dated to 3290±100 BP and 3300±70 BP respectively; Olexa/Nováček 2013: 12).




    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...odelling_study

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Further context, Piliny Culture seems to have been descended from Hatvan.

    For example, the bi-ritual cemetery at Jánoshida, assigned to the Tumulus culture, revealed a total of 278 burials, whereas the cemetery of Salgótarján-Zagyvapálfalva from the same period, with 607 urn graves, is assigned to the Piliny culture and interpreted as representing the descendants of the autochthonous Middle Bronze Age (Hatvan) community. At Salgótarján, the urn burials contained large pieces of cremated bones with no trace of charcoal, probably due to washing of the bones; several vessels were put in the burials, sometimes covered by large pieces of stone (Guba & Vaday, 2008, 2009; Köhler et al. in press). In comparison, at Jánoshida the number of inhumations (children inhumed in pythoi) and cremations (mainly scattered) is almost equal. A few burials contained bronze and gold grave goods, but the vast majority of inhumations were systematically robbed; cremation burials, by contrast, were left untouched, maybe as a consequence of their original ‘austerity’. Based on determinable cases of inhumations, male and female burials are equal in number, while childhood mortality appears strikingly high (65%; Csányi, 2003, 2017; Hajdu, 2008, 2012). The variability of burial rites suggests a lack of the standard criteria defined as the ‘urnfield package’.
    For example, the bi-ritual cemetery at Jánoshida, assigned to the Tumulus culture, revealed a total of 278 burials, whereas the cemetery of Salgótarján-Zagyvapálfalva from the same period, with 607 urn graves, is assigned to the Piliny culture and interpreted as representing the descendants of the autochthonous Middle Bronze Age (Hatvan) community. At Salgótarján, the urn burials contained large pieces of cremated bones with no trace of charcoal, probably due to washing of the bones; several vessels were put in the burials, sometimes covered by large pieces of stone (Guba & Vaday, 2008, 2009; Köhler et al. in press). In comparison, at Jánoshida the number of inhumations (children inhumed in pythoi) and cremations (mainly scattered) is almost equal. A few burials contained bronze and gold grave goods, but the vast majority of inhumations were systematically robbed; cremation burials, by contrast, were left untouched, maybe as a consequence of their original ‘austerity’. Based on determinable cases of inhumations, male and female burials are equal in number, while childhood mortality appears strikingly high (65%; Csányi, 2003, 2017; Hajdu, 2008, 2012). The variability of burial rites suggests a lack of the standard criteria defined as the ‘urnfield package’.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...63-022-09164-0
    The earliest ‘urnfields’ can be identified in central Hungary, among the tell communities of the late Nagyrév/Vatya Culture, around 2000 BC. From the nineteenth century BC onwards, the urnfield model is documented among communities in northeastern Serbia, south of the Iron Gates. During the subsequent collapse of the tell system, around 1500 BC, the urnfield model spread into some of the neighbouring regions. The adoption, however, appears more radical in the southern Po plain, as well as in the Sava/Drava/Lower Tisza plains, while in Lower Austria, Transdanubia and in the northern Po plain it seems more gradual and appears to have been subject to processes of syncretism/hybridization with traditional rites. Other areas seem to reject the novelty, at least until the latest phases of the Bronze Age. We argue that a possible explanation for these varied responses relates to the degree of interconnectedness and homophily among communities in the previous phases.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,811


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oroku Saki View Post
    I have some new information's from the Pannonian basin study.

    There is just one Nyirseg culture sample from Eastern Hungary, I correctly guessed the site (only Nyirseg finds were there).
    It's sex is undetermined, but this study also contains earlier Nagyrev samples and 3 samples also have undetermined sex but they are actually 3 males and 1 female. So the Nyirseg sample could be male or female.

    However there are multiple (7-8) Hatvan culture samples. From at least two sites, maybe 3. At least 2 are male. It seems they are unsure whether they are Fuzesabony or Hatvan from one site with more samples, because this site had an older Hatvan layer followed by the Ottomany/Füzesabony. Looking at their autosomals, as they seem radically different from the Füzesabony, these were the Hatvan people.

    Now I did not classify two autosomal clusters from the study one being Hungary EBA_MBA the other another Hungary_EBA. So this is where the Hatvan, Nyirseg samples should be. The single Hungary_EBA sample is very Steppe heavy, has more Steppe than EBA E1b1b1a sample. If male, probably R1a. MBA/EBA cluster 2 with Steppe influence and way to the South of them are 4 samples with very low Steppe. This is why I believe E1b is not the Nyirseg sample but a Hatvan sample. The location and the number of samples. Nyirseg is alone, Hatvans are many. Also the suspect PCA EBA E1b sample is close to another sample from the same group. That would not be the case if it was a Nyirseg sample.

    Füzesabony has one main cluster, these come from an exclusive Füzesabony site, also on the PCA plot there are two lone Füzesabony samples representing likely two other sites. This group was labelled MBA/EBA Hungary (and not "Fuzesabony") likely because they were unsure of its affinity.

    This Southern cluster has barely any Steppe ancestry, and it seems to fit with an almost stepeless EBA J2a sample well.

    Theoretically E1b sample could be from the Nitra (what Riverman thought originally), but though of the same age it has alot less of Steppe ancestry so that would be very unusual.

    Hatvan culture from Northern Hungary and Southern Slovakia is descended like the Nyirseg from the Vučedol periphery. It can be said it had heavy Neolithic elements. It seems that it came into conflict with the Füzesabony/Ottomany people, R1a dominated, and was generally destroyed and assimilated by this culture.

    It cremated mostly, but it did have also some ritual sacrificial pits, I wonder if they could be related to Kapitan Andreevo/Svilengrad pits.

    Hatvan apparently had some Battle-Axe influences, and also it was overrun by Ottomany/Füzesabony which were R1a, this could the explain the Baltic leanings of the Thracian language group.

    Ottomany/Fuzesabony was a Steppe derived group, as was postulated by Gimbutas, and also the Wietenberg group from Transylvania was very similar to it.

    Apparently there are alot more of Kyjatice/Piliny culture LBA samples. Actually there are 7 male LBA Kyjatice/Piliny samples. they might include the J2a BR2 sample already published. Combined with other sites, that means 12 male LBA samples.

    There is interestingly another low Steppe LBA J2a sample, might also be from this culture. Probably the R-L51 was the most common. If the LBA E1b sample is from here it was in strong minority, which is why I think it wasn't.

    If these E1b1b1a samples are V13 then it means that V13 100 % descends from this area, it will also mean the impossibility of any connection with the likes of Vatin culture etc. A very radical migratory event for the V13. And a sign of equality between anything proto-Daco-Thracian related in SE Europe.

    Also the LBA affinity of V13 must be looked at very very closely. Most of even Eastern Urnfield is likely unrelated to it. But there must be a group which was extremely V13 heavy.

    Also in those areas there was obviously some basin of EEF heavy ancestry. All of this can explain why the Daco-Thracians had more EEF.
    Thank you very much for digging into this, its just a shame this samples haven't been published yet after more than 2 years! If they can't manage to produce a paper or presentation, they should just release the data instead of holding it back...

    Anyway, some corrections to make as how the relations of these groups were:

    Hatvan was a Tell-culture by and large, which means it had significant Southern influences-orientation. Nyirseg was in comparison more pastoralist and elusive, with many cremation burials and some possible scattered ashes sites, which is just what we see in later Channelled Ware and Thracians/Dacians of many groups. I think Nyirseg is also a good candidate because they were quite mobile pastoralists which could retreat to the higher ground when the Fzesabony clans came.
    Fzesabony can be directly derived from Kostany and Kostany is a branch of Mierzanowice, so no wonder they have
    a) more steppe ancestry, being essentially Epi-Corded (just like Nitra) and
    b) being almost exclusively R1a with some I2 and other lineages they picked up.

    Now what happened next, after these Fzesabony clans from Kostany did conquer much of Eastern Pannnonia? There remained local dominated pockets in Eastern Otomani, and that's presumably were J2a and E-V13 was more common. From these Eastern groups, with additional influences from the East and South, Suciu de Sus developed, as an independent branch of the wider Otomani sphere. Their Eastern neighbours, from which they received impulses, being Wietenberg.

    What happened with Fzesabony? They got under massive pressure from the expanding Tumulus culture groups, which formed as a local branch the Carpathian Tumulus culture, with the central Egyek site/group. They were clearly R-L51 dominated, that's where all those R-L51 samples come from. The remains of Fzesabony evaded them by moving across the Tisza river and could hold their ground. But in the end they being affected and mixed or got influenced by the Carpathian Tumulus culture. The resulting fusion of local survivors (Fzesabony and other groups, including elements of Suciu de Sus and Encrusted Pottery possibly) with these Tumulus culture influences created the Piliny culture, which was highly influential in all directions and gave later way to Kyjatice, while in the East they fused with Suciu de Sus and unknown Eastern elements to Berkesz-Demecser. And Berkesz-Demecser, Late Suciu de Sus to Lapus I being THE pre-Gva groups.
    That's just the Western side of things, because to the East the Wietenberg group got largely overrun by Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni steppe people (Cimmerians? Iranians?). That was the next input, plus some early Lusatian related impulses, which created pre-Gva and finally developed Gva.

    That's why pinning the origins of Gva paternal lineages down is so difficult, because they got influenced from all sides. But some things emerge which make sense:
    - J2a and E-V13 might both have been present and fairly common in Hatvan-Nyirseg, which had some exchange.
    - Fzesabony being more R1a dominated, just like expected because of their Northern relationship to Kostany-Mierzanowice, from which their clans came down.
    - Piliny being more R-L51 influenced, because they being more influenced by the Carpathian Tumulus culture than the Eastern groups of Berkezs-Demecser and Suciu de Sus, which were more local, presumably even more Nyirseg derived.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,811


    Country: Austria



    It is also worth to mention, that the Eastern Channelled Ware groups might have stronger influences from Lapus than from the Western Gva groups, probably the Lapus-Eastern Gva groups were more heavily E-V13 than those to the West, this is possible.

    Ich erwhne nur, dass die Gefe der Lăpuş Gruppe mit dieser Form ihre besten Entsprechungen in den Entdeckungen der Gva-Kultur
    haben, ihre Prsenz in den beiden Aspekten ist, neben den gegenseitigen Einflssen, der
    Suciu de Sus-Grundlage zu verdanken, auf der
    sie sich ausgebildet hatten
    . Ein diesbezglicher
    Beweis ist die Anwesenheit mancher hnlichen
    Gefe in mehreren Suciu de Sus-Befunden,
    unter denen auch das Gef aus der Siedlung
    von Lazuri-Lubi-tag (Abb. 22), entdeckt im Zuge
    der Grabungskampagne von 1994,13 sowie die
    fragmentarischen Exemplare aus den Siedlungen
    von Oarţa de Jos-Vlceanu Rusului (Kacs 2004, Abb. 4: 4), Petea-Csengersima-Vamă (Marta 2009, Taf.
    58: 2; 64: 1) und Kvasovo (Kobaľ 2007, Abb. 4: 6). Eine Suciu de Sus-Analogie weist auch das System der
    berwiegend kreuzfrmig, am maximalen Durchmesser des Gefkrpers angelegten, hypertrophen
    Buckel auf, zum Beispiel das Gef aus der Siedlung von Oarţa de Jos-Vlceaua Rusului (Kacs 2004, Abb.
    4: 1), das zunchst hchstwahrscheinlich Zier-, dann Symbolcharakter besa und lange Zeit ber einen
    ausgedehnten Raum verbreitet war.14
    https://www.academia.edu/41435198/C_...yov%C3%A1_2019

    Nyirseg -> Eastern Otomani -> Suciu de Sus -> Lapus I -> Lapus II-Gva -> Holigrady -> Babadag -> Psenichevo.

    That's the path we should test. It has the by far highest chances.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    22-02-22
    Posts
    6


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Oroku Saki View Post
    I have some new information's from the Pannonian basin study.

    There is just one Nyirseg culture sample from Eastern Hungary, I correctly guessed the site (only Nyirseg finds were there).
    It's sex is undetermined, but this study also contains earlier Nagyrev samples and 3 samples also have undetermined sex but they are actually 3 males and 1 female. So the Nyirseg sample could be male or female.

    However there are multiple (7-8) Hatvan culture samples. From at least two sites, maybe 3. At least 2 are male. It seems they are unsure whether they are Fuzesabony or Hatvan from one site with more samples, because this site had an older Hatvan layer followed by the Ottomany/Füzesabony. Looking at their autosomals, as they seem radically different from the Füzesabony, these were the Hatvan people.

    Now I did not classify two autosomal clusters from the study one being Hungary EBA_MBA the other another Hungary_EBA. So this is where the Hatvan, Nyirseg samples should be. The single Hungary_EBA sample is very Steppe heavy, has more Steppe than EBA E1b1b1a sample. If male, probably R1a. MBA/EBA cluster 2 with Steppe influence and way to the South of them are 4 samples with very low Steppe. This is why I believe E1b is not the Nyirseg sample but a Hatvan sample. The location and the number of samples. Nyirseg is alone, Hatvans are many. Also the suspect PCA EBA E1b sample is close to another sample from the same group. That would not be the case if it was a Nyirseg sample.

    Füzesabony has one main cluster, these come from an exclusive Füzesabony site, also on the PCA plot there are two lone Füzesabony samples representing likely two other sites. This group was labelled MBA/EBA Hungary (and not "Fuzesabony") likely because they were unsure of its affinity.

    This Southern cluster has barely any Steppe ancestry, and it seems to fit with an almost stepeless EBA J2a sample well.

    Theoretically E1b sample could be from the Nitra (what Riverman thought originally), but though of the same age it has alot less of Steppe ancestry so that would be very unusual.

    Hatvan culture from Northern Hungary and Southern Slovakia is descended like the Nyirseg from the Vučedol periphery. It can be said it had heavy Neolithic elements. It seems that it came into conflict with the Füzesabony/Ottomany people, R1a dominated, and was generally destroyed and assimilated by this culture.

    It cremated mostly, but it did have also some ritual sacrificial pits, I wonder if they could be related to Kapitan Andreevo/Svilengrad pits.

    Hatvan apparently had some Battle-Axe influences, and also it was overrun by Ottomany/Füzesabony which were R1a, this could the explain the Baltic leanings of the Thracian language group.

    Ottomany/Fuzesabony was a Steppe derived group, as was postulated by Gimbutas, and also the Wietenberg group from Transylvania was very similar to it.

    Apparently there are alot more of Kyjatice/Piliny culture LBA samples. Actually there are 7 male LBA Kyjatice/Piliny samples. they might include the J2a BR2 sample already published. Combined with other sites, that means 12 male LBA samples.

    There is interestingly another low Steppe LBA J2a sample, might also be from this culture. Probably the R-L51 was the most common. If the LBA E1b sample is from here it was in strong minority, which is why I think it wasn't.

    If these E1b1b1a samples are V13 then it means that V13 100 % descends from this area, it will also mean the impossibility of any connection with the likes of Vatin culture etc. A very radical migratory event for the V13. And a sign of equality between anything proto-Daco-Thracian related in SE Europe.

    Also the LBA affinity of V13 must be looked at very very closely. Most of even Eastern Urnfield is likely unrelated to it. But there must be a group which was extremely V13 heavy.

    Also in those areas there was obviously some basin of EEF heavy ancestry. All of this can explain why the Daco-Thracians had more EEF.
    Very interesting!....Thank you for the update!

    By chance do you know how many Y-DNA haplogroup J2a samples this upcoming Bronze Age Pannonian paper will have?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-08-22
    Posts
    168

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283

    Country: Switzerland



    What the f did I just read ?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,811


    Country: Austria



    That's what Bruzmi had to say about the sample:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    At first, I thought that most BA samples are from Hungary but there are samples as far west as Austria so the geographical sampling is larger than Hungary-Romania-Slovakia.

    If we are talking about the same study and this sample has not been redated (this is an actual issue, some samples which were expected by many in SA were never published and one of the reasons could be because they were redated), then this sample is from ... Slovakia and it's not actually from eastern Slovakia but from western Slovakia, not far from the modern Austria-Slovakia border.

    There are quite a few "atypical" finds between the Vienna region and the lowland area of western Slovakia in the hinterland of Bratislava. I'm not sure if all them will make/have made it to publication as they might have been redated.

    You don't have to take this as 100% correct information, but I know this from the same dataset which allowed me to say with confidence (beyond my personal theories about Vucedol>Cetina) that Cetina would be J-L283 as it indeed was.
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post871394

    Wouldn't change much, because the bulk of the Unetice-Mierzanowice-Nitra-Kostany into Fzesabony main group (West) being Epi-Corded and R1a. If its from Nitra indeed, it should be an Eastern migrant, rather. E-V13 can't be more Western than Fzesabony for that time frame imho.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    But Nitra is too north, to me it makes sense that they were part of these Tell Cultures residing somewhere in the vicinity of Balkan-Carpathian cultural complex. Don't know, i guess we need more and more samples to deduce, we cannot just make assumptions from 2/3 samples from a country.

  11. #11
    Regular Member mount123's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-12-21
    Posts
    687

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b-L283>Y52453
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c7a

    Country: Kosovo



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's what Bruzmi had to say about the sample:


    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post871394

    Wouldn't change much, because the bulk of the Unetice-Mierzanowice-Nitra-Kostany into F�zesabony main group (West) being Epi-Corded and R1a. If its from Nitra indeed, it should be an Eastern migrant, rather. E-V13 can't be more Western than F�zesabony for that time frame imho.
    Bruzmi is an internet persona with a non academic background and all of his posts are narrative based, he is playing a role. He edits as "Maleschreiber" in Wikipedia absolutely pathetic behavior. And in no way does archaeogenetics support the idea that Vucedol was ancestral to Cetina. "but I know this from the same dataset" yeah sure he of course has insider info "from super secret dataset", we know how that lie fiasco regarding the Thracian samples ended. He is not quote worthy.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,811


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    But Nitra is too north, to me it makes sense that they were part of these Tell Cultures residing somewhere in the vicinity of Balkan-Carpathian cultural complex. Don't know, i guess we need more and more samples to deduce, we cannot just make assumptions from 2/3 samples from a country.
    Don't forget, it is not that important were exactly we find E-V13, which surely cremated most of its dead, if we just find it in a proximate culture with obvious contacts. And the same would be true for Hatvan and later Nitra alike. Because the Transylvanian groups surely being connected with Unetice and Nitra too, to have send some traders, artisans or warriors west.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-04-22
    Posts
    73


    Country: Denmark



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Thank you very much for digging into this, its just a shame this samples haven't been published yet after more than 2 years! If they can't manage to produce a paper or presentation, they should just release the data instead of holding it back...
    They are using the data also for other studies. Surely they will release it. And this study has also hundreds of samples from around 25 different cultures. When it comes to Hungary, literally everything from the BA Hungary has been tested, in addition to Czech, Slovak, Austrian, Croatian, Slovenian sites. There is also one Ottomany proper find, but a female. But still most do use Ottomany/Fuzesabony interchangeably.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    And Berkesz-Demecser, Late Suciu de Sus to Lapus I being THE pre-G�va groups.
    This is something interesting and at play for the LBA E1b sample. There is one Berkesz-Demecser culture male sample, imagine if the E1b guy is this sample..


    Please post this to Anthro/Aspar

    I forgot to add "EBA" to the Hungary_EBA/MBA_1 autosomal cluster in that sentence.

    There are "Hungary EBA" and "Hungary_EBA/MBA_1" clusters. The only autosomal clusters that I do not know exactly what they are. But I do know they DO NOT represent 20+ other cultures in the study bar the two. For example there is "Hungary_EBA/MBA_2" cluster which is radically different being WHG heavy at it certainly includes Kisapostag and early proto-Encrusted culture finds from Western Hungary.

    And now I actually I will speak more bluntly and with more authority. There are only two autosomal clusters left and there are only two EBA/MBA cultures left. Nyirseg and Hatvan-Hatvan/Fuzesabony (or "fuzesabonysed Hatvan").

    Nyirseg is only one sample - Hungary EBA is only one sample
    Hatvan has 7-8 samples - Hungary_EBA/MBA_1 has 6 samples on the PCA plot. (Note, not all samples are on the PCA plot but majority is)

    Now why "EBA/MBA" presumably because it includes both EBA and MBA samples. And why not "Hatvan" because 6 of them are from Hatvan/Fuzesabony site or actually are from MBA/Fuzesabony time. And what of these Hatvan samples?
    1. 6 are actually MBA samples from a site in Northern Hungary, they are actually Fuzesabony in terms of timeline, this site had an early Hatvan layer, but all Hatvan culture samples were cremations. Inhumations started in MBA with Fuzesabony and it seems these are classified differently in the study as they are very different in autosomal DNA from the "pure" Fuzesabony sites (there are 3). It seems they are mostly EEF.

    2. there is one male sample from N.Hungarian EBA Hatvan proper site.

    3. there should be additional samples from an Eastern Hungarian site dated to EBA, 2000 BC, which like the site no.1 had Early Hatvan layer followed by the Fuzesabony. But due to the age, this site should contain Hatvan proper sample(s).

    So as you can see there are both MBA and EBA sites for this cluster at play. Now, having learned of these multiple Hatvan finds, I am certain this cluster is mostly or exclusively composed of them, because there are no other options.
    E1b sample due to its age should be from EBA Hatvan proper site, same goes for low Steppe J2a sample. There is one extremely low Steppe I2a MBA sample which might fit into these MBA Hatvan samples.

    This also does mean that the Nyirseg sample is Hungary EBA. And as I have said autosomally it doesn't fit with the EBA E1b sample, being more Steppe heavy.
    What does match its 39 % of Steppe ancestry is precisely Hungary_EBA/MBA_1 Steppe influenced subcluster of two. Very low Steppe Hungary_EBA/MBA_1 subcluster has four samples. And incidentally close to them are some Maros samples, which may the the "Aegean Maros" samples the user bce mentioned. Maros samples here are from the earlier published study.

    Nitra may be downright excluded from the E1b story, as although the E1b sample is of the same age as Nitra samples, it has alot less of Steppe ancestry, and we can see on the PCA plot that there are no Nitra samples with such a low Steppe-EFF ratio.

    There are some other culture samples in the vicinity of Hungary_EBA/MBA_1 Steppe influenced cluster, these are

    A) EBA Unterwoblinger culture samples from Austria, according to my information the Unterwölblinger site is dated to 2200 BC, which should be older than 2000 BC for the EBA E1b. Unterwölblinger is dated 2300-1800 BC but his should be an early site.

    B) Southern cluster of Czech Veterov culture, Veterov is dated to 1850 BC, so slightly younger, but actually as Veterov is dated to 1800 BC-1500 BC, this must be a very early Veterov site, so there is a mismatch. Veterov isn't 2000 BC.

    C) few Gata-Wieselburger culture Southern samples from Hungarian/Austrian border area, but this culture is MBA being dated to 1650 BC, at least the sites are so dated. This cluster is dated 2000-1600 BC but it seems this site is younger.

    As some of these are actually Austrian, I'm sure Riverman can comment on them. All of these seem to have a few R1b-L51 samples fitting nicely in auDNA and age for each of them.

    - Maros is of same age. And Maros samples are also autosomally in the vicinity of suspected E1b sample, but Maros has been extensively tested already.

    Anything else, should be excluded from any talk about containing the EBA E1b sample due to age and autosomal makeup.

    With regards to E1b being "rare" in BA Hungary. In the best case scenario there are 4 Y-DNA EBA samples from Eastern Hungary. At the same time from a single Encrusted Pottery culture site from the lake Balaton there are 15 Y-DNA finds, 12 I2a, 2 R1b and one R1a.
    E1b being 1/4, 1/3 in its area is not insignificant. You cannot take these oversampled regions with completely different cultures and use them to show E1b was rare in EBA East Hungary.

    Hatvan and many of these cultures mostly cremated so finding anything is good actually.

    When it comes to LBA, let us wait and see where the E1b sample is from.
    Single Felsődobsza sample is I2a so that site is out of equation.

    Pácin has 3 male samples, one published is R-Z2103, 2 remain
    Oszlár-Nyárfaszög has also just one sample. This is apparently sole Berkesz culture sample, E1b being here could have big implications
    Numerous Piliny/Kyjatice male samples from the Ludas-Varju-Dulo site, BR2 may be one of them. Bur unlike BR2 more Steppe heavy, there is a J2a LBA sample with low Steppe. So LBA Urnfielders had low Steppe people as well. One I2a sample is also low Steppe.

    Meanwhile the E1b LBA sample has most Steppe ancestry, 47 % of Samara and should plot somewhere between the published R-Z2103 LBA sample and the Steppe Cimmerian IR1 sample (which is also present in this study).

    It appears that this sample on the PCA plot clusters around Czech Bell Beakers, and away from the standard LBA Gava auDNA makeup which was similar to Fuzesabony, which we have seen already in LBA samples and in Hungarian Scythians. Chief distinguishing factor seems to be lower WHG ancestry, so it seems to be positioned mostly on the EEF-Steppe axis. The low Steppe LBA Hungarian sample also is on this axis. This is why i believe they marked this cluster as Hungary LBA outlier. Note: someone uploaded edited picture having this group being represented by the MBA Encrusted pottery samples, blue hexagonal. These are blue circles.

    The auDNA make up of this E1b sample might explain its origin. It is not possible to derive the Dacian-Thracian auDNA profile from these WHG heavy samples but it is from low WHG samples. E1b sample might be an intruder, with Eastern cultural links, and one of these sites does have Lapus culture links.

    Also check the MBA Tumulus culture samples. Most are lower Steppe along the EEF-Steppe line, with low WHG ancestry.

    So the higher EEF auDNA profile does have continuity in EBA, MBA and LBA mostly Eastern Hungary.

    These samples are marked as E1b1b1a i.e. E-L539, for J2 they stopped at J2b/J2a distinction, R1b was more interesting so they did bother to distinguish L51 from Z2103. And this is just on these basic leaked diagrams, of course in the study they will identify the lowest possible SNP.

    I find it unlikely these samples are V12, V22 or M78* especially not if they fit into a perfect chain of E-V13 descent starting from Hatvan - Otomany - Lapus - Insula Banului - Babadag/Psenicevo.

    The old Svilendgrad P192.2 E-Z1919 sample had low coverage but even with such coverage it looks similar to Kapitan Andreevo samples. Now let us mention the LBA Bulgarian sample from that study, belonging to the dominant MBA/LBA Bulgarian culture Zimnicea-Plovdiv. This sample was alot more Northern in autosomal DNA. Let us mention the Merichleri R-Z93 whose sole archeological link is to a precursor of Zimnicea Plovdiv in MBA. This indicated MBA/LBA Bulgaria was alot more Northern like the whole Balkan was at the time, or the most Northern Balkan area, except for the Greek areas. EBA Bulgarian samples (multiple cultures) were also more Northern. There was a MBA hiatus in Bulgaria, mostly one culture dominated, the Zimnicea-Plovdiv, which was linked to the entire Carpatho-Danubian complex of Paracin, Brnjica, Tei, Verbicioara, Monteoru, Vatin etc.

    Monteoru has samples, but for example Babadag culture has foreign origins and all archeologists say it could not have developed locally. So why the fuss because E-V13 wasn't found in Monteoru.. Once I abandoned the Carpatho-Danubian complex as being related to V13, I abandoned all of these cultures having any links with V13. I abandoned them from the moment I saw the Kapitan Andreevo leaks, as Kapitan Andreevo represent the people who replaced them. And also from the moment I saw these Hungarian E1b samples.

    Why should V13 derive from an area which has many Neolithic Y-DNA finds without E1b/V13. Actually in such a scenario E-V13 must have arrived from Anatolia in EIA..
    Bottom line, the origin of E-V13 for the moment is 100 % dependent on these two Hungarian BA samples. If they are V13 or even L618, the origin is N.Hungary, if not, somewhere in extreme East Balkans.

    I give 85 % of chances EBA E1b is Hatvan, 10 % for Nyirseg, and 5 % or less for anything else. In any case 95 % of chance of this single E1b representing at least 25 % of the poorly tested Eastern Hungarian EBA.
    Last edited by Oroku Saki; 06-09-22 at 00:46.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Oroku Saki, i want to hear from you or Riverman, during Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age was there E-V13 present in modern Serbia/Macedonia? Or you think they explicitly expanded on Eastern Balkans?

    I will find it weird, that whole package of movements to not be reflected on aDNA.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-04-22
    Posts
    73


    Country: Denmark



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Originally Posted by Aspar
    Much of that quote sounds confusing.

    ??

    He says the single Hungarian EBA has more steppe than EBA E1b sample.

    So, should I interpret this as the EBA E1b sample isn't from Hungary?

    If so, where is it from?


    Originally Posted by Bruzmi
    If we're talking about the second E1b sample from the Pannonian study, then this sample isn't from Hungary. It is E-V13 and it dates to 2300-1500 BCE in the provisional dataset.

    The LBA sample dates to 1300-700 BCE.
    So as Aspar didn't understand fully my point he speculated that the EBA sample is not from Hungary

    Then Bruzmi says as the EBA Hungary has more Steppe than E1b sample it is not from Hungary?? Well reread the part about Hungary_EBA/MBA 1 matching autosomally the E1b sample..

    But Bruzmi added "it is E-V13+". That's what we want. So we can stop the nonsense about M78*, V22 etc.

    It seems Bruzmi doesn't know the locations but sees the SNP's.

    So no, I think EBA E1b should be from Hungary by all means. It does match Hungary_EBA/MBA 1 autosomally. Also there are few samples from Croatian EBA from Slavonia, might be the already tested Vinkovci samples, but autosomally they do not fit the E1b.

    Originally Posted by Aspar
    These aren't radio-carbon dated?

    So in other words, the EBA sample isn't EBA at all but MBA?
    While the 'LBA' might not be LBA at all but IA as per the large time interval?

    And if that graph is true and there are 145 yDna samples in the Pannonian study that would make V13 being present at 'staggering' 1.38%.

    And these 1.38% somehow migrated to Thrace in the EIA and had a super duper multiplication rates making V13 the single greatest yDna of the Thracians.

    And the very EEF profile?
    Or the diversity?
    All are dated that way as in most studies. Hungarian LBA samples are 1500-800 BC, standard procedure. But 1300-700 for E1b does mean it should be slightly younger than most, as it is on the chart. Which might have implications.
    NO, LBA E1b sample is part of the Bronze Age group, if it wasn't from the BA it would not have been part of the Bronze Age group as this study also includes the IA samples. It is Urnfield 100 %. All of their LBA samples are from Urnfield..

    So the EBA sample is V13+ if Bruzmi is correct.. Debate on V13 origins pretty much being over as there is no Balkan V13 in BA.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-04-22
    Posts
    73


    Country: Denmark



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Oroku Saki, i want to hear from you or Riverman, during Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age was there E-V13 present in modern Serbia/Macedonia? Or you think they explicitly expanded on Eastern Balkans?

    I will find it weird, that whole package of movements to not be reflected on aDNA.
    Well surely IA movements did bring V13 to Central Balkan areas. There were also isolated Gava groups movements in LBA, but I am not sure these groups were V13. Especially as V13 might be tied to a very specific LBA group, as many samples are not V13..

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-04-22
    Posts
    73


    Country: Denmark



    Fuzesabony in dataset are also labelled as "2300-1600 BCE"

    Hmm, E1b is 1300-700 not 1500-800 like the Pacin and Felsődobsza. On Y-DNA chart you can see it appears younger. Does this mean the E1b is not from Pacin..

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Oroku Saki View Post
    Well surely IA movements did bring V13 to Central Balkan areas. There were also isolated Gava groups movements in LBA, but I am not sure these groups were V13. Especially as V13 might be tied to a very specific LBA group, as many samples are not V13..
    Fair enough, to be clear with Psenicevo, old Bulgarian archaeologists considered as directly descended from Gava, some others think it came from nearby Dubovac Zuto Brdo, they are classified as Stamped Pottery Cultures, or Early Hallstattian. No matter what, they are not considered as native there in South-East Bulgaria, it's not logical to think natives will appear in that cultural complex. Hungarian archaeologist Gabor Vekony consider Psenicevo and Babadag related to Gava.

    I am curious, what made you disqualify Vatin completely from equation (you know Vatin influenced Gava to a degree, then again in South down to Brnjica)?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,811


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Fair enough, to be clear with Psenicevo, old Bulgarian archaeologists considered as directly descended from Gava, some others think it came from nearby Dubovac Zuto Brdo, they are classified as Stamped Pottery Cultures, or Early Hallstattian. No matter what, they are not considered as native there in South-East Bulgaria, it's not logical to think natives will appear in that cultural complex. Hungarian archaeologist Gabor Vekony consider Psenicevo and Babadag related to Gava.

    I am curious, what made you disqualify Vatin completely from equation (you know Vatin influenced Gava to a degree, then again in South down to Brnjica)?
    It's simple, Babadag and Psenichevo are basically just Channelled Ware groups which adopted local influences and new innovations and being interconnected especially with the other main Channelled Ware block, which is Basarabi and influenced heavily by the Aegean-Anatolian neighbours, presumably also genetically.

    As for Vatin: We know many sites being abandoned before or later conquered by Gva, so whether they got some E-V13 as well or not, even whether they had spread it in the first place, we can't say, but they played no big role in the main events of the LBA-EIA transition, which is absolutely decisive for the E-V13 story.

    The Central Balkans is a difficult territory, but quite obviously a lot depends on Belegis II-Gva first and foremost, plus whether or not Basarabi coming more from the East rather than the local Belegis II-Gva groups, which is all debatable. Just like the relationship of Psenichevo to the Western or Eastern block of Channelled Ware. I think rather the Eastern block, based on their clearly more Babadag and Lapus II-Gva relations in style and pottery, but that's debatable.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    It's simple, Babadag and Psenichevo are basically just Channelled Ware groups which adopted local influences and new innovations and being interconnected especially with the other main Channelled Ware block, which is Basarabi and influenced heavily by the Aegean-Anatolian neighbours, presumably also genetically.

    As for Vatin: We know many sites being abandoned before or later conquered by G�va, so whether they got some E-V13 as well or not, even whether they had spread it in the first place, we can't say, but they played no big role in the main events of the LBA-EIA transition, which is absolutely decisive for the E-V13 story.

    The Central Balkans is a difficult territory, but quite obviously a lot depends on Belegis II-G�va first and foremost, plus whether or not Basarabi coming more from the East rather than the local Belegis II-G�va groups, which is all debatable. Just like the relationship of Psenichevo to the Western or Eastern block of Channelled Ware. I think rather the Eastern block, based on their clearly more Babadag and Lapus II-G�va relations in style and pottery, but that's debatable.
    Well, you know i am favorable of this theory as well Riverman, i just want to look options, but Vatin at least partially is my other option as well, because nothing is too conclusive yet.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,811


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Well, you know i am favorable of this theory as well Riverman, i just want to look options, but Vatin at least partially is my other option as well, because nothing is too conclusive yet.
    You know, we need a big punch for the LBA-EIA, that's just Vatin, it was rather going KO, to put it that way. But like so often, it could be that the descendant culture overruled the parent one, kind of. That's something I also don't really believe, but its something I wouldn't exclude completely.
    But like Oraku was pointing out, we rather have to look East/North East.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    You know, we need a big punch for the LBA-EIA, that's just Vatin, it was rather going KO, to put it that way. But like so often, it could be that the descendant culture overruled the parent one, kind of. That's something I also don't really believe, but its something I wouldn't exclude completely.
    But like Oraku was pointing out, we rather have to look East/North East.
    Riverman, Vatin is not considered in its core as related to Encrusted Pottery People or Hugelgraber or whatever, these two last people actually tried to invade them, Vatin is considered as part of Balkan-Carpathian complex which further can reach up to Gava in North. Somewhere along the line, i don't know which culture in specific E-V13 was in huge number and exploded in LBA. But in one of them very likely, this was certainly the cremation horizon.

    Perhaps, E-V13 story might be a bit more complex than a simple explanation of LBA dispersal with one too specific culture, perhaps we need to explain within cultural complex, and Balkan-Carpathian complex makes quite a lot of sense to me.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,811


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Riverman, Vatin is not considered in its core as related to Encrusted Pottery People or Hugelgraber or whatever, these two last people actually tried to invade them, Vatin is considered as part of Balkan-Carpathian complex which further can reach up to Gava in North. Somewhere along the line, i don't know which culture in specific E-V13 was in huge number and exploded in LBA. But in one of them very likely, this was certainly the cremation horizon.
    That's what I was saying too. They could have a generational relationship, I don't see that, but I wouldn't completley exclude it. But even if so, it would have ended up in a patricide. Because in most Vatin regions we have a combination of hiatus and/or overtake by Gva, mainly Belegis II-Gva.

    Perhaps, E-V13 story might be a bit more complex than a simple explanation of LBA dispersal with one too specific culture, perhaps we need to explain within cultural complex, and Balkan-Carpathian complex makes quite a lot of sense to me.
    That's what I was writing on Anthrogenica too, there are some boundaries set by the modern data. And the main conclusion from the modern data is:
    E-V13 lineages
    - lived together up to about 1.300-1.000 BC in their great majority, in one population or closely related neighbouring ones.
    - mixed groups of different E-V13 branches (like representatives of all major clans, or specific generations like in the ver sacrum or the like) moved out in all directions around 1.300-1.000 BC in a geographically differentiated manner. There was little criss-crossing and exchange between the emerging geographical main branches afterwards.

    Like to put it simple, there would have been one original population, and then there would have been a North West, North, North East, South East, very South East (Near Eastern), Southern etc. branch. And the only significant exchange, if at all, was then happening between the direction neighbours, but little to nothing between the next but one, so to say. Like South East could have some exchange with South, but those too had practically no exchange with North West or North East. After Hallstatt, the network was further differentiated and being largely finalised by Late Iron Age.

    So for whatever you are looking, you have look for one big population in the MBA-LBA, which constantly grew, until they branched in different directions right in the Transitional Period. And that's exactly what we see in Suciu de Sus-Lapus for example. They were growing and growing, reaching a population density which was never as big again up to the Medieval Era - and then it dropped. To almost nothing:

    The middle and late Bronze age witnessed the highest density of settlements in the maramureş
    depression, a pattern which was only surpassed at the beginning of the middle age.
    a total number
    of 40 sites were identified, with an average number of four sites per century. Culturally, the discoveries
    belong to the first and second phases of the suciu de sus culture. similarly to other historical periods, the
    settlements were located in the sighet region, on both banks of the tisza and on the lateral valleys to the
    south and the north of the river. Others were identified along the Iza valley and on some of its tributaries,
    as well as on the Vişeu valley (Fig. 3). topographically, the settlements were located on river banks or
    terraces, in floodless places that also had access to fertile agricultural lands. r. Popa noted that a series
    of early medieval settlements superposed the Bronze age ones (Popa 1970). this fact indicates a similar
    pattern of organizing the habitat and its agricultural surroundings. Lastly, the sudden demographic
    increasing in comparison with the previous periods may indicate the migration of suciu de sus com-
    munities from the nearby regions to the maramureş depression.


    at the beginning of the Iron age, in the Hallstatt aB phases, the total number of settlements was
    again drastically reduced in maramureş. still, the period was also marked by the appearance of new
    social features. Four settlements were identified around sighet and along the Iza valley, leading to an
    average number of 1.14 sites per century. all of them were ascribed to the gva culture. Large areas in
    maramureş, like the Vişeu valley or the valleys to the right side of the tisza river, seem to be unin-
    habited during this period (Fig. 4: 1).
    Note they being abandoned right when the major fortificaton and settlements in the Balkan appear and Gva-related groups expand there! That's roughly the same pattern as with e.g. whole Germanic tribes leaving a region and only a fraction of the former population remains in place. It's the exact same pattern.

    But even though large portions of the population seems to have left, there was large scale continuity since Gva - which is also true for other areas in which Channelled Ware expanded - not later impact was as big up to the Later Iron Age, even the Slavic period:

    he middle and late phases of the early
    Iron age (Hallstatt CD) are marked by a
    slight demographic increasing. this pattern
    could indicate a natural demographic devel-
    opment and a continuity of the communities
    from the previous period. moreover, this
    continuity is also suggested by the perpetu-
    ation of certain ceramic forms and types of
    sets of vessels which appeared in the previous
    period.
    there are no major changes during the following period at the end of the Late Iron age (Fig. 4:
    3). this is largely covering the 2nd century BC1st century aD, corresponding to the existence of the
    Dacian kingdom. the settlements belonging to this period include archaeological layers and complexes
    superposing the earlier-dated habitations at solotvino (slatina) and Belaja Cerkov
    (Biserica albă).
    The Romans destroyed a lot of the settlements, but who came in afterwards? Goths and more Northern free Dacians:

    However the roman period, largely
    covering the 2nd3rd centuries aD, wit-
    nessed a series of both demographic and
    ethno-cultural changes. A single rural
    settlement is known during this period
    at Călineşti-rogoaze, on the Cosău valley,
    being probably dated to the 3rd century
    aD. During the same period, a series
    of tumulus cremation burials appeared
    on the northern bank of the tisza river
    between Belaja Cerkov (Biserica albă)
    and the Iza river, near Hust, pointing
    to the arrival of new populations in the
    region (Fig. 4: 4). these cemeteries were
    ascribed to the so-called culture of the
    Carpathian tumuli.
    Which cremated their dead, as we know from the Maslomecz Goths and historical descriptions.

    In the early Medieval period, almost nothing of the former local population remained:

    Later during the 1st millennium aD,
    the demographic density was drastically
    reduced, with the average number of sites
    per century falling to 0.42. During this period the maramureş depression was basically uninhabited. the
    few settlements identified at Crăciuneşti-mohelca, sarasău-Zăpodie and tisa-Lazuri/Certeze belong to
    the 4th7th centuries aD. they are located on the southern bank of the tisza river or on the nearby lateral
    valleys, in the same areas where other settlements functioned during the previous periods, indicating a
    preference for a particular environment which was more favourable for habitation (Fig. 4: 4).
    That's why there was only limited population continuity in that area, because of the Migration period destruction and migrations. But before that, the region of the Upper Tisza-Mararmures had a continuity largely from Suciu de Sus-Gva to the Later Iron Age.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ge_An_Overview

    Suciu de Sus is where the actual locals survived, not the Fzesabony-Kostany or Carpathian Tumulus clans. These were different people.

    Suciu de Sus being often shown as having Aegean connections too, by the way, something which was discussed since Kossina. Compare with this newer publication:
    https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,853

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I see rafc and Aspar are leaning more toward Chalcolithic Bulgaria origin for E-V13, at this stage that may be true, as weird as it sounds. But i think if we get Chalcolithic samples from Serbia or Serbia/Bulgaria border we might get a bit of different leaning. I still think slightly south of Danube would be adequate, but you never know.

    As for the Hatvan E-V13, i might consider as some sort of influence from more South, something in the line of Vatin or Vatya. To me slightly south of Danube or Balkan-Carpathian complex is the connecting dot, far eastern Balkans or North-East Carpathia was just the expansion not the source.

    The truth sits somewhere in the middle i guess.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,811


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I see rafc and Aspar are leaning more toward Chalcolithic Bulgaria origin for E-V13, at this stage that may be true, as weird as it sounds. But i think if we get Chalcolithic samples from Serbia or Serbia/Bulgaria border we might get a bit of different leaning. I still think slightly south of Danube would be adequate, but you never know.

    As for the Hatvan E-V13, i might consider as some sort of influence from more South, something in the line of Vatin or Vatya. To me slightly south of Danube or Balkan-Carpathian complex is the connecting dot, far eastern Balkans or North-East Carpathia was just the expansion not the source.

    The truth sits somewhere in the middle i guess.
    I think there is no way around Suciu de Sus-Lapus I and Berkesz-Demecser. These were so crucial in the spread of Channelled Ware, they expanded on top of the others.

    As for rafc, he correctly points to nearby regions as well, which means Romania. And there we go, because that's the homeland of the mentioned groups, especially Suciu de Sus-Lapus I.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •