E-V13 coming from Hatvan culture ?

Oroku Saki

Banned
Messages
80
Reaction score
57
Points
18
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.
 
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
 
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/public...in_Slovakia_A_spatio-temporal_modelling_study
 
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/10.1007/s10963-022-09164-0

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.
 
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 F?zesabony clans came.
F?zesabony 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 F?zesabony 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 F?zesabony? 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 F?zesabony 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 (F?zesabony 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-G?va 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-G?va and finally developed G?va.

That's why pinning the origins of G?va 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.
- F?zesabony 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.
 
It is also worth to mention, that the Eastern Channelled Ware groups might have stronger influences from Lapus than from the Western G?va groups, probably the Lapus-Eastern G?va groups were more heavily E-V13 than those to the West, this is possible.

Ich erw?hne nur, dass die Gef??e der Lăpuş Gruppe mit dieser Form ihre besten Entsprechungen in den Entdeckungen der G?va-Kultur
haben, ihre Pr?senz in den beiden Aspekten ist, neben den gegenseitigen Einfl?ssen, der
Suciu de Sus-Grundlage zu verdanken, auf der
sie sich ausgebildet hatten
. Ein diesbez?glicher
Beweis ist die Anwesenheit mancher ?hnlichen
Gef??e 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-V?lceanu 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 kreuzf?rmig, am maximalen Durchmesser des Gef??k?rpers angelegten, hypertrophen
Buckel auf, zum Beispiel das Gef?? aus der Siedlung von Oarţa de Jos-V?lceaua Rusului (Kacs? 2004, Abb.
4: 1), das zun?chst h?chstwahrscheinlich Zier-, dann Symbolcharakter besa? und lange Zeit ?ber einen
ausgedehnten Raum verbreitet war.14

https://www.academia.edu/41435198/C...odul_Hotarului_Festschrift_E_Miroššayová_2019

Nyirseg -> Eastern Otomani -> Suciu de Sus -> Lapus I -> Lapus II-G?va -> Holigrady -> Babadag -> Psenichevo.

That's the path we should test. It has the by far highest chances.
 
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?
 
What the f did I just read ?
 
That's what Bruzmi had to say about the sample:
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...rigin-of-E-V13&p=871394&viewfull=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.
 
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.
 
That's what Bruzmi had to say about the sample:


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...rigin-of-E-V13&p=871394&viewfull=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.
 
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.
 
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.

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:
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.
 
quote_icon.png
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?


quote_icon.png
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.

quote_icon.png
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.
 
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..
 
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..
 
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)?
 
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 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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 10823 times.

Back
Top